The Palestine thread

[Mike Sheehy]

UN Peacekeepers, and a signed agreement that if Israel is attacked by outside agencies, without provocation, that there would be a combined military response and war declared against the other countries.

You would need USA, Russia and China on board, or at least neutral.

The other side of that agreement is that if Israel re-engages its illegal occupation, the same force would declare war on Israel.

I fully agree with that proposal.

Lets try and get the two boyos on board

[Mike Sheehy]

Dixie, you are fond of posting articles on the event, yet in the last three days or so youve havent come out and condemned  the killing of the three young men ? 
If it was other way about you would be foaming at the mouth, articles, youtube clips, pictures etc.
Rather you prefer post pictures of fecking graffiti ?


You're no better than the bigot from the west from the province that is on the Nolan show every morning continually stirring the pot !

Bensars, as I have said continually before, I condemn all murders whether they are here, there or anywhere else. I have said so on many many occasions.

Of course I condemn the killings of the 3 Israelis, and the 10 Palestinians who have been killed in the same time.

As for posting on the events surrounding their deaths, and those of the Palestinians, I think you will find that I have posted plenty about all the deaths.

As for the graffitti, this has been springing up all across the West Bank in the past few days. It doesn't make great reading now does it?

You obviously don't know too much about me to compare me to some bigot on the Nolan show. Have a scroll through any of my posts and see if you can back up that comparison.

Bensars, if you really, truly want to get GHD to prove he is not a bigot ask him why he posts reviews from www.barnesreview.org

I'd really like to hear his answer...I've been waiting two months for it.

[AZOffaly]

I clicked on that link from work, and the internet content filter blocked it. Reason - Discrimination Not sure against whom.

[seafoid]

UN Peacekeepers, and a signed agreement that if Israel is attacked by outside agencies, without provocation, that there would be a combined military response and war declared against the other countries.

You would need USA, Russia and China on board, or at least neutral.

The other side of that agreement is that if Israel re-engages its illegal occupation, the same force would declare war on Israel.

Israel would have to retreat to the Green Line and throw up a wall on it.
After that let them use their own diplomatic skills to sort things out .
Running apartheid is going to destroy Israel long term anyway.
The problem about "Israel being attacked without provocation" is that it takes 2 to tango. Israel has invaded Lebanon 7 times since 1948 and Egypt twice, without provocation.
Israel would have to be kept under a tight leash too.   

[give her dixie]

Sinn Féin MEP Martina Anderson has today called for an international inquiry into the abduction and killing of three Israeli settlers.

Indeed. Not only did she issue a statement condemning the killing of the 3 boys, but Sean Crowe did as well. They both stopped short in condemning Israel, and Martina didn't even bother to mention the Palestinians killed in Gaza.

They have to go easy now on the Palestinian solidarity as they as don't want to upset the flow of major cash from New York, and their pro Israeli friends.

[Mike Sheehy]

I clicked on that link from work, and the internet content filter blocked it. Reason - Discrimination Not sure against whom.

yeah, sorry. I should have warned you.

Its really bad. Full on hitler was misunderstood, holocaust denial, anti-Semitic bile.

GHD has been completely silent for the last couple of months on this subject despite repeated requests that he clarify his position.

Anybody on gaaboard that takes him at his word on anything is a fool.

[AZOffaly]

UN Peacekeepers, and a signed agreement that if Israel is attacked by outside agencies, without provocation, that there would be a combined military response and war declared against the other countries.

You would need USA, Russia and China on board, or at least neutral.

The other side of that agreement is that if Israel re-engages its illegal occupation, the same force would declare war on Israel.

Israel would have to retreat to the Green Line and throw up a wall on it.
After that let them use their own diplomatic skills to sort things out .
Running apartheid is going to destroy Israel long term anyway.
The problem about "Israel being attacked without provocation" is that it takes 2 to tango. Israel has invaded Lebanon 7 times since 1948 and Egypt twice, without provocation.
Israel would have to be kept under a tight leash too.

That's what I meant in my last line. Israel and the neighbouring states would all have to be on exactly the same leash. And I don't trust Israel (or its neighbour's) diplomatic skills. I think a long term peacekeeping force is needed to make sure the various lines are respected, and that force could only be removed when all sides have reached a point where they realise they can co-exist.

[seafoid]

Henry Kissinger said he said he wished that the Bible had been written in Uganda.

[AZOffaly]

We'd probably have the same situation there then. Actually some of the massacres in Africa make even the middle east problems pale in comparison.

[seafoid]

UN Peacekeepers, and a signed agreement that if Israel is attacked by outside agencies, without provocation, that there would be a combined military response and war declared against the other countries.

You would need USA, Russia and China on board, or at least neutral.

The other side of that agreement is that if Israel re-engages its illegal occupation, the same force would declare war on Israel.

Israel would have to retreat to the Green Line and throw up a wall on it.
After that let them use their own diplomatic skills to sort things out .
Running apartheid is going to destroy Israel long term anyway.
The problem about "Israel being attacked without provocation" is that it takes 2 to tango. Israel has invaded Lebanon 7 times since 1948 and Egypt twice, without provocation.
Israel would have to be kept under a tight leash too.

That's what I meant in my last line. Israel and the neighbouring states would all have to be on exactly the same leash. And I don't trust Israel (or its neighbour's) diplomatic skills. I think a long term peacekeeping force is needed to make sure the various lines are respected, and that force could only be removed when all sides have reached a point where they realise they can co-exist.

A solution would have to be based on international law. Israel is beyond the law and has built up a massive risk on the back of it.
The notion that Israel can run the place militarily is nuts.  They risk going the same way as the Crusaders.


http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/brzezinski-the-syria-crisis-8636

"But in the long run, a hostile region like that cannot be policed, even by a nuclear-armed Israel. It will simply do to Israel what some of the wars have done to us on a smaller scale. Attrite it, tire it, fatigue it, demoralize it, cause emigration of the best and the first, and then some sort of cataclysm at the end which cannot be predicted at this stage because we don't know who will have what by when. And after all, Iran is next door. It might have some nuclear capability. Suppose the Israelis knock it off. What about Pakistan and others? The notion that one can control a region from a very strong and motivated country, but of only six million people, is simply a wild dream."

[AZOffaly]

You seem to be in agreement with what I'm saying. I'm not sure why you are posting as if you are disagreeing with me.

[Mike Sheehy]

You seem to be in agreement with what I'm saying. I'm not sure why you are posting as if you are disagreeing with me.

what he says on one day versus another day is different. What he says on here and what he says elsewhere is different. What he says and what he really believes in are different.

You'd have to go into a lot more detail and nail him down on specifics before you can truly say you are in agreement.

[seafoid]

You seem to be in agreement with what I'm saying. I'm not sure why you are posting as if you are disagreeing with me.

I just think the risks of Israel's current policies are much bigger than they understand. Running the occupation on the law of the jungle is actually really dangerous long term. And it matters how they treat the neighbours. 

[AZOffaly]

Agreement in principle then.

Israel should be made stay behind the borders set in 1967, under threat of force from the UN.
Palestine and other Arab states should not be allowed attack or threaten Israel, under threat of force from the UN.
We need peacekeepers in there to make sure this happens, because we can't trust Israel, Palestine, or any of the other states not to be opportunistic.

I know the devil is in the detail, but it seems to me most people on here agree with those 3 points?

[AZOffaly]

You seem to be in agreement with what I'm saying. I'm not sure why you are posting as if you are disagreeing with me.

I just think the risks of Israel's current policies are much bigger than they understand. Running the occupation on the law of the jungle is actually really dangerous long term. And it matters how they treat the neighbours.

True, but tangential, and not relevant to the scenario I painted above. In that scenario, Israel's current policies are irrelevant because they would be forced (emphasis on force) to adhere to the UN mandated boundaries.