How about UN Peacekeepers in Israel?

[Tmy]

Isnt that the common practice when dealing with tribal civil war (which is what is happening in the mideast).

What would be the pros and cons?

[Graham]

Originally posted by Tmy
Isnt that the common practice when dealing with tribal civil war (which is what is happening in the mideast).

What would be the pros and cons?

*bump*

This is something I've often wondered myself.

Is there a historical reason why the UN could not take possession of the areas "occupied" by the Israelis?

Graham

[a_unique_person]

because Israel expansionists didn't want the UN getting in the way of their plans.

[crackmonkey]

Or rather that they didn't trust the UN folks to not stand idly by as Palestinians attacked. Judging from events in the Balkans, I'd say that the Israelis were pretty shrewd judges of character.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Or rather that they didn't trust the UN folks to not stand idly by as Palestinians attacked. Judging from events in the Balkans, I'd say that the Israelis were pretty shrewd judges of character.

that's the excuse they give. however, you can also have them in just as observers. After the Jenin operation, there was much speculation as to whether a massacre had indeed occurred. Needless to say, the UN was not allowed in to see for itself. When the report was published saying that they had found no evidence for a massacre, based on the fact they couldn't get in and look, Israel then paraded this as proof that there was no massacre.

The masters of having their cake and eating it too.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


that's the excuse they give. however, you can also have them in just as observers. After the Jenin operation, there was much speculation as to whether a massacre had indeed occurred. Needless to say, the UN was not allowed in to see for itself. When the report was published saying that they had found no evidence for a massacre, based on the fact they couldn't get in and look, Israel then paraded this as proof that there was no massacre.



Sorry, but the Palestinians themselves ended up agreeing (more or less) with the initial Israeli counts for the number of casulties (in the 50-60 range). But thanks for playing anyways.

Unless of course you think the Palestinians are UNDERESTIMATING the number of casulties.

Also, isn't Jenin supposed to be a UN-run refugee camp, and isn't the UN supposed to ensure that their camps are NOT used as the base of operations for terrorism? The fact that terrorists WERE found there indicates that the UN isn't as interested in enforcing 'no terrorist' rules as they should be.

[Frostbite]

Why don't they just build a big wall between the two states?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Frostbite
Why don't they just build a big wall between the two states?

There are over 1 million Arab-Israelis (Palestinians) that are full citizens of Israel.

Which side of the wall do you propose they be put on? Will you let them cross the wall to visit their families on the other side?

MattJ

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Frostbite
Why don't they just build a big wall between the two states?

Great idea. Can you draw on a map where to build it?

Zee

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Tmy
Isnt that the common practice when dealing with tribal civil war (which is what is happening in the mideast).

What would be the pros and cons?

Personally, I would like to see such a thing myself, however the problem is that such a plan would have to be approved by the UN Security Council, and the council would not approve it.

Countries like Syria would probably like the idea.
However, the USA and UK would probably oppose it.

[Number Six]

Originally posted by Frostbite
Why don't they just build a big wall between the two states?

I've got a better idea. Why don't they just build a big wall around both those states.

[Tony]

The UN exacerbates and prolongs the problem. The solution is to let them fight it out see who emerges the winner.

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Tony
The UN exacerbates and prolongs the problem. The solution is to let them fight it out see who emerges the winner.

You are aware that you are actually calling for the extinction of all Palestinians and - on that way - the death of many many Israelis, don't you?

Zee

[Tony]

Originally posted by ZeeGerman


You are aware that you are actually calling for the extinction of all Palestinians and - on that way - the death of many many Israelis, don't you?

Zee


Yes, sadly that is what it has come to. The palestinians have shown they are unwilling or unable to compromise.

In the long run, more good than bad would come from it.

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Tony


In the long run, more good than bad would come from it.

When did you become psychic?

In the long run the sun will turn into a red giant. Then will be peace.

Zee

[Tony]

Originally posted by ZeeGerman


When did you become psychic?



If you believe other-wise, why?

[Segnosaur]

As the song goes...

Lets Pave Palestine, and put in a parking lot.

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Tony


If you believe other-wise, why?

When it comes to the Israel-Palestine conflict I don't believe anything anymore. But I'd say that the notion "Kill a couple of million people and in the long run more good than bad would come from it" is more of the bizarre kind. Perhaps you can name an incident in the world's history that supports your view?

Zee

[Tmy]

Yeah but if you just kill all the Palis the other arabs will be pissed and then Israel will be fighting with them too.

So theres one solution. NUKE ISRAEL AND PALISTINE. They both cant fight if theyre both dead. Bonus: The other arabs wont bother fighting over the now barren holy land cause it'll be a sea of radiation!

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tmy
Yeah but if you just kill all the Palis the other arabs will be pissed and then Israel will be fighting with them too.



Israel would still win.

So theres one solution. NUKE ISRAEL AND PALISTINE. They both cant fight if theyre both dead. Bonus: The other arabs wont bother fighting over the now barren holy land cause it'll be a sea of radiation!

So you advocating nuking a free country? Id rather nuke mecca.

[Tony]

Originally posted by ZeeGerman


Perhaps you can name an incident in the world's history that supports your view?



Most wars have resulted in peace.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Tmy
Yeah but if you just kill all the Palis the other arabs will be pissed and then Israel will be fighting with them too.


The other Arabs have tried several times to "drive the jews into the sea" each time they ended up only being saved from total defeat by superpower/UN intervention and in 1948, 1967 and 1973 they LOST land to the Isrealis (In spite of the fact that they outnumbered them 50:1).

The Arabs had all the aces. They pissed them away because they have been boastfull, wastefull, arrogant and ludicrously incompetent.

The Arabs have learned the hard way not to try their hand at a game of war with the Israelis.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Tmy
Isnt that the common practice when dealing with tribal civil war (which is what is happening in the mideast).

What would be the pros and cons?

Since nobody else has really talked about the pros and cons, I thought I'd take a crack at it:

Pro:
- may serve as 'impartial observers' to give a accurate accounting of what has happened there

Con:
- May require a large expense (who would provide the troops) for little or no benefit (Look at the failures in the Congo for example)
- Peace keepers may become 'targets' themselves (especially if Americans are involved)
- Peace keepers may end up becoming unwitting 'human sheilds'. (The Palestinian terrorists have had no reservations running their operations in civilian areas; peacekeepers would provide one more thing to hid behind, perhaps something even more valuable than fellow palestinians)
- they may give a 'skewed' view to what is happening there

The main problem is the way the conflict is played out. Terrorist acts happen anywhere in Israel. Such acts would probably not be preventable by peacekeepers, and would not be 'observed' by them. (And it is unlikely the peacekeepers would try to arrest the terrorists in the occupied territories before they carried out their plans.) On the other hand, Israeli attempts to 'crack down' on terrorists WOULD occur in areas under the jurisdiction of the peace keepers. So, the Israeli reprisals would be seen, but not the initial acts that started them.

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Tony


Most wars have resulted in peace.

Did you perform the count to reach this conclusion within 65 minutes? Impressive...

Since we have reached the state of pulling unsubstantiated statements out of our arses, how about this one:

Most wars have resulted in just another war.

Zee

[Richard G]

I vote for dropping a MOAB in the middle of the Hammas.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Frostbite
Why don't they just build a big wall between the two states?

That is being built right now, except that instead of just dividing the two sides, it will completely encircle the palestinians.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


Sorry, but the Palestinians themselves ended up agreeing (more or less) with the initial Israeli counts for the number of casulties (in the 50-60 range). But thanks for playing anyways.

Unless of course you think the Palestinians are UNDERESTIMATING the number of casulties.

Also, isn't Jenin supposed to be a UN-run refugee camp, and isn't the UN supposed to ensure that their camps are NOT used as the base of operations for terrorism? The fact that terrorists WERE found there indicates that the UN isn't as interested in enforcing 'no terrorist' rules as they should be.

Can you argue the point please. The point was, the UN was not allowed in there to verify anything. The UN can act purely as observers, and have performed such missions in the past. Israel is not interested in this. Independent verification is as much a part of truth as anything else, please refer to the scientific method.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


That is being built right now, except that instead of just dividing the two sides, it will completely encircle the palestinians.

Uhm how can they completly encircle the Palestinians with a wall when the Palestinian territories border Jordan, Egypt, and the Mediterranean?

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Richard G
I vote for dropping a MOAB in the middle of the Hammas.

Hamas has no "middle". Trying to hit Hamas with a MOAB would mean using a weapon of mass destrution in a populated area. You are actually demanding for a war crime to be commited.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Can you argue the point please. The point was, the UN was not allowed in there to verify anything. The UN can act purely as observers, and have performed such missions in the past. Israel is not interested in this. Independent verification is as much a part of truth as anything else, please refer to the scientific method.

The question is, could the UN really be "independent observers".

Going back to the list of pro and con points, any UN observers would only be witnessing the Israeli actions; they would not likely be able to witness the terrorist acts which caused the Israeli retaliation. This would give a very skewed view of the conflict there.

Secondly, those UN observers may end up being used by the terrorists as human shields. Why would Israel want to give the terrorists more things to hide behind?

Lastely, the UN has shown in the past to be more critical of the Israelis than the Palestinians. When Jenin happened, they jumped on the side of the Palestinians with their claim of thousands dead, when a much more reasonable decision would be to say "We don't know the situation, but we will condem those responsible when everything has been settled." Given that hostility, why would Israel allow "observers" to get involved who would (at least for a short time) give an incorrect assesment, when Israel tends to give a relatively honest assesment itself?

My posts about casulty counts and the suposed UN responsibility of running Jenin relates very closely to the last point.

Edited to ad: Oh, and my point was on topic... UN observation would not have mattered in Jenin because eventually the Palistinians agreed with Israeli counts.

[Baker]

How about the UN try to encouraging Arab nations to stop supporting Hamas and other terrorist groups.

Saudi Arabia has acknowledged that it sends funds to Hamas.

The top Saudi spokesman in the United States told a Washington press conference the kingdom has relayed funds that finance what he termed Hamas's political wing. He said the money arrives via governments and non-governmental organizations.

Western intelligence sources say that Saudi Arabia provides Hamas with about $30 million a year, raised through foundations and donations from members of the royal family.
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_8.html

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Frostbite
Why don't they just build a big wall between the two states?

In a recent question time for the PM, a Labor MP asked Tony Blair about the wall being built and how it was no better than the Berlin Wall.

Wouldn't though a wall between Israel and a Palestinian State be infinitly better than what is going on now, even if it is not ideal?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mike B.


In a recent question time for the PM, a Labor MP asked Tony Blair about the wall being built and how it was no better than the Berlin Wall.

Wouldn't though a wall between Israel and a Palestinian State be infinitly better than what is going on now, even if it is not ideal?

Except that the wall that is planned will completely encircle Palestine, even the common border between the west bank and Jordan.

[Baker]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Except that the wall that is planned will completely encircle Palestine, even the common border between the west bank and Jordan.

You still haven’t answered ssibal question on this matter.

Originally posted by ssibal


Uhm how can they completly encircle the Palestinians with a wall when the Palestinian territories border Jordan, Egypt, and the Mediterranean?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Baker


You still haven’t answered ssibal question on this matter.



I said, the West Bank, the wall will be put down the common border between the West Bank and Jordan.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I said, the West Bank, the wall will be put down the common border between the West Bank and Jordan.

Where did you hear this? And what about the Dead Sea?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by ssibal


Where did you hear this? And what about the Dead Sea?

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15896

Apart from that, the wall is being used to take land. As it winds around, people are being separated from their traditional farming land, it is quite wide, taking more land, and houses are being demolished to make way for it.