Israel to arm illegal settlers with ear gas and stun grenades.

dlofnep

The IDF has conducted detailed work to determine a “red line” for each settlement in the West Bank, which will determine when soldiers will be ordered to shoot at the feet of Palestinian protesters if the line is crossed. It is also planning to provide settlers with tear gas and stun grenades as part of the defense operation.

The IDF is currently in the process of finalizing its preparations for Operation Summer Seeds, whose purpose is to ready the army for September and the possibility of confrontations with Palestinians following the expected vote in favor of Palestinian statehood at the UN General Assembly.

Israel clearly fears an inevitable UN vote for Palestinian Statehood, so they now are planning on defending illegal settlements with gunfire, and providing the illegal settlers arms. If this happens after the vote, it will be a declaration of war on the Palestinian state and surely would merit UN intervention.

Roll on September. It will be interesting to see how the vote pans out.

Nodin

A state would have to be recognised by the UNSC where, alas, its all down to the Americans, and there's been no sea change
there...

dlofnep

Well yes - but it's very unlikely that they will go through the security council. So it will be in some sort of limbo half-official status - but it will be recognition. So it's a start.

blahfckingblah

so what way does this UN vote happen? do individual countries vote to recognise/not recognise the palestinian state or will it be the UN as a federation of sorts?

dlofnep

blahfckingblah wrote: »

so what way does this UN vote happen? do individual countries vote to recognise/not recognise the palestinian state or will it be the UN as a federation of sorts?

There are two routes.

The first is through the UNSC, which the US has the power to, and ultimately would veto. The second is largely a symbolic vote through the UN, which the US does not have the power to veto. It would amount to non-member observer status in the UN. It would give some further weight to the Palestinian state, based on the pre-67 lines with East-Jerusalem as it's capital.

It's perfectly clear for everyone to see at this point that there will never be an agreement reached with Israel, and the longer Palestinians delay - the larger Israel's illegal settlements will become.

blahfckingblah

wow thats an interesting position to be in. Its mad the amount of power the americans have over the situation.

Nodin

blahfckingblah wrote: »

wow thats an interesting position to be in. Its mad the amount of power the americans have over the situation.

Like China with Burma/North Korea, Russia with (currently) Syria. They all protect their allies/customers. Depressing, really.

Son Of A Vidic

dlofnep wrote: »

If this happens after the vote, it will be a declaration of war on the Palestinian state

They more or less have been waging war against them since 1967, so it would be nothing new.

dlofnep wrote: »

and surely would merit UN intervention.

UN intervention will never happen, because they lack the political will and the balls to stand up to them. Israel lest we forget, has consistently given the UN and Human Rights the 'two fingers'.

Scofflaw

"ear gas"? What new and dreadful tool of oppression is this?

cordially,
Scofflaw

KeithAFC

I for one support this decision by Israel. It is important these people do have the proper equipment to defend themselves from potential terrorist attacks.

vellocet

KeithAFC wrote: »

I for one support this decision by Israel. It is important these people do have the proper equipment to defend themselves from potential terrorist attacks.

Supporting apartheid south africa and now apartheid Israel

Have you loyalists ever been on the right side of history?

end a eknny

only in their own tiny minds (everybodys out of step except our johnny.......adair)

dlofnep

Scofflaw wrote: »

"ear gas"? What new and dreadful tool of oppression is this?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Blast you Scofflaw, blast you and your keen eye.

irishh_bob

vellocet wrote: »

Supporting apartheid south africa and now apartheid Israel

Have you loyalists ever been on the right side of history?

our kieth is so predictable in all the boxes he ticks

KeithAFC

vellocet wrote: »

Supporting apartheid south africa and now apartheid Israel

Have you loyalists ever been on the right side of history?

Nope. I just hope they can defend themselves. We will wait and see what happens but lets hope nothing happens.

Pete M.

dlofnep wrote: »

It's perfectly clear for everyone to see at this point that there will never be an agreement reached with Israel, and the longer the Israelis delay - the more desperate the Palestinian's plight will become.

FYP

But it doesn't really bother the Israelis that much does it


The settlers are pretty well armed anyway.

KeithAFC wrote: »

I for one support this decision by Israel.

You and the Yanks mate. :cool:

irishh_bob

vellocet wrote: »

Supporting apartheid south africa and now apartheid Israel

Have you loyalists ever been on the right side of history?

more like the right side of morality

blahfckingblah

funny you should worry about the israeli's defending themselves when the article deals with shooting the feet of protesters who cross the "red line"

vellocet

KeithAFC wrote: »

Nope. I just hope they can defend themselves. We will wait and see what happens but lets hope nothing happens.

thats the point. any regieme based on racial superiority and supressing the natives gets your thumbs up. shooting protestors is right from the Stormont playbook. Its tediously predictible

vellocet

irishh_bob wrote: »

more like the right side of morality

Its morally right to arm illegal settlers to the teeth and allow them shoot at the indiginious population to pre-empt the world finally giving them statehood they deserve?

more brutal desperation from a bully boy apartheid state.

KeithAFC

vellocet wrote: »

thats the point. any regieme based on racial superiority and supressing the natives gets your thumbs up. shooting protestors is right from the Stormont playbook. Its tediously predictible

Well we could debate that in regards to Israel and the Jews in the region but this thread isn't about that.

vellocet

KeithAFC wrote: »

Well we could debate that in regards to Israel and the Jews in the region but this thread isn't about that.

Yes it is...

do you support Israel because you believe in it or because the feenians support the other side?

maddragon

The "ear gas" is to treat the ears after letting off the stun grenades.

cookies221

vellocet wrote: »

Yes it is...

do you support Israel because you believe in it or because the feenians support the other side?

What's a feenian? I'm Irish and I fully support Israel and its right to defend itself.

dlofnep

cookies221 wrote: »

What's a feenian? I'm Irish and I fully support Israel and its right to defend itself.

It's not defending itself. This territory is not a part of Israel.

cookies221

The Shinners always assume that just because you are Irish Catholic that you support a united Ireland, and that this wish goes hand in hand with support for a Palestinian state. It's this arrogance that annoys me. I'm glad that a recent poll has dispelled this myth. The majority of Catholics in Northern Ireland are in favour of remaining in the UK (wise decision imo).

Not surprising that terrorists support terrorists though. Funny that Sinn Féin fail to come to the rescue of their old buddy Gadaffi now that he is in trouble in Libya.

Scofflaw

cookies221 wrote: »

The Shinners always assume that just because you are Irish Catholic that you support a united Ireland, and that this wish goes hand in hand with support for a Palestinian state. It's this arrogance that annoys me. I'm glad that a recent poll has dispelled this myth. The majority of Catholics in Northern Ireland are in favour of remaining in the UK (wise decision imo).

Not surprising that terrorists support terrorists though. Funny that Sinn Féin fail to come to the rescue of their old buddy Gadaffi now that he is in trouble in Libya.

That's a nice trench you're digging there - but, you know, if we wanted trench warfare on these threads, we could do it ourselves. So how about you stop with the irrelevant "terrorist" guff and the general flame bait, and in return I don't ban you.

Same goes for anyone else who fancies digging their trench here. Also, Pete M, don't do FYP. It gets people's backs up, so we treat it as trolling.

moderately irritated,
Scofflaw

cyberhog

KeithAFC wrote: »

I for one support this decision by Israel. It is important these people do have the proper equipment to defend themselves from potential terrorist attacks.

Should Palestinians also have the "proper equipment" to defend themselves when violent assaults are perpetrated by Jewish settlers?

BlaasForRafa

Scofflaw wrote: »

"ear gas"? What new and dreadful tool of oppression is this?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Secret weapon developed in the Negev, didn't you get the memo?

BlaasForRafa

dlofnep wrote: »

Israel clearly fears an inevitable UN vote for Palestinian Statehood, so they now are planning on defending illegal settlements with gunfire, and providing the illegal settlers arms. If this happens after the vote, it will be a declaration of war on the Palestinian state and surely would merit UN intervention.

Roll on September. It will be interesting to see how the vote pans out.

A lot of the settlements are armed with rifles already, providing non-lethal weapons may actually save lives in the long run.

And to pre-empt the usual retorts, I've stated before I'm completely against settlement of the west bank so I'm not going to be "the opposition" on this thread, just pointing out a salient observation.

blahfckingblah

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/column-is-a-palestinian-unilateral-declaration-of-statehood-really-a-road-to-peace/ from the journal this morning, the israeli point of view. A regular journalist said that they have contacted the palestinian delegation for their point of view. Makes for an interesting read dispite the obvious allegiances, i hope the palestinians take them up on it.

dlofnep

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

A lot of the settlements are armed with rifles already, providing non-lethal weapons may actually save lives in the long run.

And to pre-empt the usual retorts, I've stated before I'm completely against settlement of the west bank so I'm not going to be "the opposition" on this thread, just pointing out a salient observation.

Fair enough - but the point remains - they are arming settlers in illegal settlements, and have stated that they will create red lines which they will defend with gun-fire. Lines that a part of Palestinian territory. It's unacceptable, and provocative.

paddyandy

A COUNTRY like ours telling a country in the middle east how it should do things?????HOW MANY SUICIDES IN IRELAND IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS?????HOW MANY MURDERS?MAIMINGS OF PEOPLE.ROBBERIES?AND MANY OTHER THINGS.EVILS WE DONT EVEN DISCUSS.

BlaasForRafa

dlofnep wrote: »

Fair enough - but the point remains - they are arming settlers in illegal settlements, and have stated that they will create red lines which they will defend with gun-fire. Lines that a part of Palestinian territory. It's unacceptable, and provocative.

I'd prefer the settlements were dismantled but that would be a battle of a whole different nature.

Settlements are already defended by the IDF to an extent, this sounds like its a formalising of current ad-hoc arrangements. I recall an incident a few months ago where several palestinians encroached at night on a settlement and one was shot dead by an IDF soldier and the others were driven off. It sounds like the IDF anticipates a vast increase in this type of incident and is making preparations for it, it may be that it sees this approach as the lesser of two evils.

dlofnep

paddyandy wrote: »

A COUNTRY like ours telling a country in the middle east how it should do things?????HOW MANY SUICIDES IN IRELAND IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS?????HOW MANY MURDERS?MAIMINGS OF PEOPLE.ROBBERIES?AND MANY OTHER THINGS.EVILS WE DONT EVEN DISCUSS.

Yes, we are allowed to comment on worldly affairs.

dlofnep

anymore wrote: »

So in view of this post and the further evidence that Adams was a member of the IRA, is it not time for Sinn Fein to officially confirm this as truth - after all it is fairly presumptuous of SF to be commenting on foreign matters when it is still censoring facts at home in Ireland ?

Sorry, I was under the impression that this thread was a discussion on Israel arming illegal settlers with weapons. Did you miss the memo?

If you have a problem with a post please report it and do not clutter up the thread

anymore

dlofnep wrote: »

Israel clearly fears an inevitable UN vote for Palestinian Statehood, so they now are planning on defending illegal settlements with gunfire, and providing the illegal settlers arms. If this happens after the vote, it will be a declaration of war on the Palestinian state and surely would merit UN intervention.

Roll on September. It will be interesting to see how the vote pans out.

Whatever one thinks of the settlements, the only thing Israel appears to be doing here, or proposing, is to provide the means to allow the settlers to defend themselves against attack ! tear gas can hardly be regarded as an ' offensive weapon'. As it stands anyway, surely most settlers have guns already, so what is new - apart from starting yet one more anti Israel' thread ?

vellocet

anymore wrote: »

Whatever one thinks of the settlements, the only thing Israel appears to be doing here, or proposing, is to provide the means to allow the settlers to defend themselves against attack ! tear gas can hardly be regarded as an ' offensive weapon'. As it stands anyway, surely most settlers have guns already, so what is new - apart from starting yet one more anti Israel' thread ?

You have spectacularly missed the point.

When the world formally recognises the Palestine as a nation state, the settlers are living in Palestine. So Israel has no right whatsoever to arm people living in another country specifically to allow them shoot bullets and gas at things like policemen.

And that is before the apartheid line that you can shoot people of a certain ethnicity if they walk down the street.

Nodin

vellocet wrote: »

You have spectacularly missed the point.

When the world formally recognises the Palestine as a nation state, the settlers are living in Palestine. So Israel has no right whatsoever to arm people living in another country specifically to allow them shoot bullets and gas at things like policemen.

And that is before the apartheid line that you can shoot people of a certain ethnicity if they walk down the street.

And of course, even before such recognition, the settlements are illegal.

vellocet

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I'd prefer the settlements were dismantled but that would be a battle of a whole different nature.

Settlements are already defended by the IDF to an extent, this sounds like its a formalising of current ad-hoc arrangements. I recall an incident a few months ago where several palestinians encroached at night on a settlement and one was shot dead by an IDF soldier and the others were driven off. It sounds like the IDF anticipates a vast increase in this type of incident and is making preparations for it, it may be that it sees this approach as the lesser of two evils.

I read it that when the vote happens that the state of Palestine exists and will be materially supported. That means the settlers will be under pressure to conform to the laws of the country they are in. So they are being armed in advance to make it more awkward for the new state to enforce its laws.

vellocet

Nodin wrote: »

And of course, even before such recognition, the settlements are illegal.

Of course. But this makes them even more illegal, if that is possible.

If the vote goes the expected way and establishes a full nation state in Palestine, the dynamic shifts. Airstrikes into Gaza become full scale acts of war etc. We could very easily see peacekeepers enforcing the 67 borders. Arming them even further is not only a provocation and illegal, its a very, very bad idea.

Imagine a settler decides to ping tear gas at the French Foreign Legion....

Nodin

vellocet wrote: »

Of course. But this makes them even more illegal, if that is possible.

If the vote goes the expected way and establishes a full nation state in Palestine, the dynamic shifts. Airstrikes into Gaza become full scale acts of war etc. We could very easily see peacekeepers enforcing the 67 borders. Arming them even further is not only a provocation and illegal, its a very, very bad idea.

Imagine a settler decides to ping tear gas at the French Foreign Legion....

Chance would be a fine thing, unfortunately.

As regards the vote, I think you're wrong, in that something passed by the assembly is non-binding, and it would take the UNSC to recognise a new state. It's important to do it nonetheless, but I doubt it will carry the implications you state.

vellocet

Nodin wrote: »

Chance would be a fine thing, unfortunately.

As regards the vote, I think you're wrong, in that something passed by the assembly is non-binding, and it would take the UNSC to recognise a new state. It's important to do it nonetheless, but I doubt it will carry the implications you state.

Probably not, but the point remains, the Israeli's are reacting with their usual crude militarism.

How anyone can argue they are not an apartheid state is beyond me

anymore

vellocet wrote: »

You have spectacularly missed the point.

When the world formally recognises the Palestine as a nation state, the settlers are living in Palestine. So Israel has no right whatsoever to arm people living in another country specifically to allow them shoot bullets and gas at things like policemen.

And that is before the apartheid line that you can shoot people of a certain ethnicity if they walk down the street.

I am confused here ! Dlofnet thanks this post which refers to Israel having no rights to arm settlers but he is is on the South Africa Gerry Adams thread apparently supporting the IRA's military interventions and military operations in South Africa ?
So what is it ? Do external countries/ organisations have the right to get involved in military issues outside of thier own country ?

BlaasForRafa

vellocet wrote: »

Probably not, but the point remains, the Israeli's are reacting with their usual crude militarism.

How anyone can argue they are not an apartheid state is beyond me

As I said previously "Settlements are already defended by the IDF to an extent, this sounds like its a formalising of current ad-hoc arrangements."

They are anticipating trouble and making provision for it, if palestinians don't attack the settlements then there will be no need for defensive measures. This seems like one of those ol "we'll slag Israel for every little thing" threads.

BlaasForRafa

vellocet wrote: »

If the vote goes the expected way and establishes a full nation state in Palestine, the dynamic shifts. Airstrikes into Gaza become full scale acts of war etc.

Lets turn that around...if rockets are fired into Israel from Gaza that would be an act of war in your definition no?

And countries have the right to defend themselves from people sending rockets into their territory?

blahfckingblah

anymore wrote: »

I am confused here ! Dlofnet thanks this post which refers to Israel having no rights to arm settlers but he is is on the South Africa Gerry Adams thread apparently supporting the IRA's military interventions and military operations in South Africa ?
So what is it ? Do external countries/ organisations have the right to get involved in military issues outside of thier own country ?

i suppose the difference would be what their trying to achieve, south africa was a human rights issue whereas this appears to be anti-palestine for the sake of anti palestine

Nodin

anymore wrote: »

I am confused here ! Dlofnet thanks this post which refers to Israel having no rights to arm settlers but he is is on the South Africa Gerry Adams thread apparently supporting the IRA's military interventions and military operations in South Africa ?
So what is it ? Do external countries/ organisations have the right to get involved in military issues outside of thier own country ?

You don't see the difference between arming illegal colonists and fighting a racist regime?

dlofnep

anymore wrote: »

I am confused here ! Dlofnet thanks this post which refers to Israel having no rights to arm settlers but he is is on the South Africa Gerry Adams thread apparently supporting the IRA's military interventions and military operations in South Africa ?

Actually, I haven't posted once in that thread regarding the IRA's support for Mandela - But of course I would have supported the IRA's assistance in over-throwing an oppressive, racist regime.

anymore wrote: »

So what is it ? Do external countries/ organisations have the right to get involved in military issues outside of thier own country ?

You really don't understand what's going on, do you?

There is absolutely no comparison between assisting in an attempt to overthrow a racist Government, and arming 'illegal settlers' so that they can continue to illegally control the territory of another nation, with intent of annexing it.

dlofnep

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

if palestinians don't attack the settlements then there will be no need for defensive measures.

Why shouldn't Palestinians attack illegal settlements? Do they not have the same right to defend their territory as Israel?

This seems like one of those ol "we'll slag Israel for every little thing" threads.

That's easily resolved - Israel stops acting like Neanderthals, we stop criticising it. Surely even you see that expanding settlements through military force is unequivocally wrong and merits intervention.