Share this comment
Here’s legal analysis from the time from a Harvard University lawyer specializing in international law: timesmachine.nytimes.co…
His take away is that the legal case for Egypt’s right to the blockade was stronger than Israel’s legal case to the contrary.
As an aside, I’d keep in mind the implications calling a blockade casus belli for war has for Gaza prior to October 7th.
Here’s legal analysis from the time from a Harvard University lawyer specializing in international law: https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1967/06/11/issue.html
His take away is that the legal case for Egypt’s right to the blockade was stronger than Israel’s legal case to the contrary.
As an aside, I’d keep in mind the implications calling a blockade casus belli for war has for Gaza prior to October 7th.
Everyone already understands that Israel and Hamas were in a state of war before October 7. Hence people say there was a “ceasefire” on October 6. Just like with Russia and Ukraine.
I don’t think the side that fires the first shot is necessarily wrong. Or necessarily right.
It doesn’t load for me. And this is one guy. I don’t know who he is or anything else. Dersh is also from Harvard law and agrees with me.
I don’t know what implications you would mean. Hamas and Israel were already in a state of war before October 7, yes. There was a ceasefire but still a state of war, yes. October 7 was a genocidal terroristic war crime. Russia and Ukraine were already in a state of war before February 22. It’s not like they signed a peace treaty before February 22.