How should Israel defend itself?

Nodin

conorh91 wrote: »

Why so vague? Tell me why.

I've already told you. You might explain why no major organisation is running around with this notion. Is everybody thick?

Pawn

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

How best is Israel to deal with the rockets that are fired at it, for the sake of peace?

Ah poor Israel... Nuke everyone. Just to be sure.

conorh91

Nodin wrote: »

I've already told you.

Where?

You keep on repeating yourself with regard to the UNSC P5 veto, but I am asking why no resolution has ever been tabled to this effect, so as to hold the USA to account on this very specific UN responsibility.

This matter is widely discussed in academic literature. So no, people are not "thick". It's a topic of ongoing academic discussion

Nodin

conorh91 wrote: »

............

This matter is widely discussed in academic literature. So no, people are not "thick". It's a topic of ongoing academic discussion

Excellent. You've a few links? (specifically pertaining to the Palestinian question, I presume).

conorh91

Nodin wrote: »

Excellent. You've a few links? (specifically pertaining to the Palestinian question, I presume).

No, any academic debate that I have in mind is more vague than honing in particularly on Palestine.

Nodin. Hold your horses there. Are you avoiding my question? Why are you not answering it?

Nodin wrote: »

I've already told you.

Go on….

Nodin

conorh91 wrote: »

No, any academic debate that I have in mind is more vague than honing in particularly on Palestine. ….

I WONDER WHY. According to you, this notion specifically applies to the Palestinian question. Yet these supposed academic debates are "more vague than honing in particularily on Palestine?

I'm beginning to wonder if you're trying to wind me up.

conorh91 wrote: »

Go on….

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91732662&postcount=230

conorh91

Nodin wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91732662&postcount=230

This is ridiculous

conorh91 wrote: »

You keep on repeating yourself with regard to the UNSC P5 veto, but I am asking why no resolution has ever been tabled to this effect, so as to hold the USA to account on this very specific UN responsibility.

and

conorh91 wrote: »

The US has never actually had to veto a R2P vote on intervening in Palestine, because there has never been any serious attempt to implement this vague and really meaningless "tool" at the UN's disposal in Palestine.

and

conorh91 wrote: »

Sure, but lets stay specific shall we.

When has the USA ever vetoed an R2P invocation in respect of the UN executing its mandate to protect Palestinian civilians, by whatever means are necessary and available?

Although the US has vetoed a number of resolutions, it cannot be guaranteed that they would veto an R2P resolution, which would initially be diplomatic and humanitarian.

And this notion of "oh well they would anyway, so lets not try" doesn't hold any water.

Such an application would put the USA on the defensive, and subject to international scrutiny. It would bring particular pressure on the USA to explain why Palestinians don't deserve protection.

But no. Nobody is interested in criticizing the UN for not invoking R2P.
.

If you have no answer, just say so.

Nodin

conorh91 wrote: »

This is ridiculous


and

and

If you have no answer, just say so.

I've given the answer. Big hint - Article 39.


You might explain to me why you can't link to the discussion of this issue in relation to Palestinians. Also why seemingly none of the pro-Palestinian groups (at least in the English speaking world, or those that translate their material into English) go on about this.

conorh91

Nodin wrote: »

I've given the answer. Big hint -

No just give the answer.

I've asked you multiple times to explain why nobody has ever tabled such a resolution.

No more "hints", no more "I've already explained", you either have an answer, or you don't.

Nodin

conorh91 wrote: »

No just give the answer.

I've asked you multiple times to explain why nobody has ever tabled such a resolution.

No more "hints", no more "I've already explained", you either have an answer, or you don't.

I've explained this already -

"The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity"

Stating that the responsibility to protect should apply to the Palestinians requires a UNSC vote. Stating that the conditions are, or are such that the responsibility applies, requires a UNSC vote. Condemnation of the condition of the Palestinian people, specific or general, and the continued settlement building and violence requires a UNSC vote, and as these have already been vetoed by the US, previous resolutions have not been passed which allow the responsibility to be invoked with reference to them.

Brian Shanahan

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

However, how best is Israel to defend itself against huge numbers of rockets that have been fired at it from Gaza (13,000 since 2001, which amounts to about $10.4 million US)?

It already is. It's missile defence system is so sophisticated that almost all Palestinian rockets are shot down, and the few that land do so in the desert. The odds of a rocket actually doing damage to Israel are about as high as you being hit by lightning while being attacked by a shark.

To look at the larger picture; Israel should
a) Remove the settlers from all Palestinian lands, including East Jerusalem.
b) Stop stealing vital natural resources from Palestinian lands, including oil and water.
c) End the blockade on Gaza.
d) Stop the periodic invasions of Gaza.
e) Properly compensate and return the stolen land to the descendants of the c.700,000 people it ethnically cleansed from it's territory in 1948-1949.
f) Compensate all Palestinians for the war crimes it's army has committed since 1967.
g) Recognise the state of Palestine along at least the 1967 borders, but preferrably the 1948 ones.
h) Remove the exclusively jewish nature from all areas of itself, i.e. allow muslim and christian Israelis the same rights as jewish Israelis.
i) Get rid of the right to return. Allowing people into a country because, maybe, their ancestors lived there 2,000 years ago and they are the "right" religion is bad policy, especially if you are turfing out the people who already do live in the country.

There are probably more things they should do, but these are the biggest issues facing Israel if it is serious about peace. Unfortunately the leaders of Israel don't want peace, well not until they achieve Eretz Ysrael, and probably a master vassal relation over all the muslim nations it will border.

conorh91

Nodin wrote: »

Stating that the responsibility to protect should apply to the Palestinians requires a UNSC vote.

FFS. Again.

conorh91 wrote: »

Although the US has vetoed a number of resolutions, it cannot be guaranteed that they would veto an R2P resolution, which would initially be diplomatic and humanitarian.

And this notion of "oh well they would anyway, so lets not try" doesn't hold any water.

Such an application would put the USA on the defensive, and subject to international scrutiny. It would bring particular pressure on the USA to explain why Palestinians don't deserve protection.

But no. Nobody is interested in criticizing the UN for not invoking R2P.

Lets instead act like R2P doesn't exist. After all, if we continue to abandon it, it might just disappear and then we can all go portraying the United nations as the helpless good Samaritan.

Nodin

conorh91 wrote: »

FFS. Again.

It requires a UNSC vote to determine if "R2P" applies. They have vetoed every such resolution that would lay out such grounds for 40 years or more.

conorh91

Nodin wrote: »

They have vetoed every such resolution that would lay out such grounds for 40 years or more.

What do you mean "every such resolution".

No such proposal has ever been drafted in respect of Palestine… as previously stated, and presumably ignored.

Or are you going to quite predictably say 'there's no point"?… which of course, has already been answered.

For the benefit of disinterested observers, this is the length some people will go to in order to deny that *anyone* bar Israel is culpable for Palestinian civilian deaths.

conorh91

Nodin wrote: »

It requires a UNSC vote to determine if "R2P" applies.

This has to be some sort of bot.

The above point has been answered. Numerous times.

Nodin

conorh91 wrote: »

What do you mean "every such resolution".

No such proposal has ever been drafted in respect of Palestine… as previously stated, and presumably ignored.

Or are you going to quite predictably say 'there's no point"?… which of course, has already been answered.

For the benefit of disinterested observers, this is the length some people will go to in order to deny that *anyone* bar Israel is culpable for Palestinian civilian deaths.

The fact is that "R2P" does not mean what you think it means. That's why nobody goes on about it.

conorh91

Nodin wrote: »

The fact is that "R2P" does not mean what you think it means. That's why nobody goes on about it.

This is like arguing with a wall.

You keep saying I'm wrong, but refuse to say why.

You blatantly erred earlier, in claiming that the UN was not permitted to use military intervention. You have ignored any post pulling you up on that, trying to shift the blame elsewhere.

Stay vague and evasive. You're sure to convince people that way.

Nodin

conorh91 wrote: »

This is like arguing with a wall.

You keep saying I'm wrong, but refuse to say why.

You blatantly erred earlier, in claiming that the UN was not permitted to use military intervention. You have ignored any post pulling you up on that, trying to shift the blame elsewhere.

Stay vague and evasive. You're sure to convince people that way.

......without a UNSC vote.

conorh91

This has to be a wind-up. I give up.

Brian Shanahan

conorh91 wrote: »

This has to be a wind-up. I give up.

Good, because when you continuously refuse to understand basic concepts like how the UN decides on substantive matters, it's not like you're bring much to the table in reagards to the debate.

conorh91

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Good, because when you continuously refuse to understand basic concepts like how the UN decides on substantive matters, it's not like you're bring much to the table in reagards to the debate.

What did I misunderstand?

I seriously doubt you have been reading properly.

Playboy

conorh91 wrote: »

What did I misunderstand?

I seriously doubt you have been reading properly.

Seriously how many times do you have to beaten over the head with a point before it sinks in?

Do you honestly think the US gives two stuffs what the rest of the world thinks in relation to Israel. They veto everything not in Israeli interest, something like 40 vetos over the years on a range of issues. Israel dont want the UN anywhere near Gaza, think of the implications?

Palmach

conorh91 wrote: »

This has to be a wind-up. I give up.

Nodin is tough going. He just keeps throwing out one liners and questions. He wears people down.

To answer the OP. Israel should eradicate Hamas. A full on ground offensive until every hamas fighter is dead or fled.

Black Swan

MOD: How about if we focus more on the thread topic, rather than each other?

bumper234

Palmach wrote: »

Nodin is tough going. He just keeps throwing out one liners and questions. He wears people down.

To answer the OP. Israel should eradicate Hamas. A full on ground offensive until every hamas fighter is dead or fled.

And if a couple of hundred innocent children have to die sure we will just say it was an accident :rolleyes:

Justin1982

I suppose it would be a bad idea to suggest that the way for Israel to protect itself is the way it has been doing it so far?

It essentially built the curtain walls to prevent the suicide bombers getting in, the missile dome to prevent the missiles getting in, the blockade to prevent Hamas getting heavy equipment in from Iran and the military rolls into Gaza every time Hamas build up their strength to a level where it is getting to dangerous levels.

I'm not sure they are doing anything wrong from a self preservation point of view. Israeli's know that the only body they can rely on is themselves. If it was left to anyone else they would be left for dead. They have quiet a strong and stable country so I guess the proof is in the pudding. They **** up the odd time and they will probably put their hands up to admit it but when surrounded by a bunch of loopers that want to kill them and having to go to the lengths they go to defend themselves well I don't think they do a worse job than anyone else would in their situation.

And if the Palestinians and the Arab world wanted "real" peace, I'm pretty sure the Israeli's would bite their hand off to get it and probably make a lot of sacrifices to achieve it.

Nodin

Justin1982 wrote: »

..........................

And if the Palestinians and the Arab world wanted "real" peace, I'm pretty sure the Israeli's would bite their hand off to get it and probably make a lot of sacrifices to achieve it.

You might read these two articles and get back to me on that point

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jan/23/palestine-papers-expose-peace-concession

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4515821,00.html

Busted Flat.

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Much has been written in the past few weeks on the deaths of Palestinians by Israeli forces. I find it extremely distressing to see the footage of children being treated after Israeli strikes.

Nevertheless, I consider myself pro-Israel in that I am pro the continued existence of Israel as a democratic state in the Middle East, with much better treatment of LGBT people and woman than they would have in the Palestinian territories.

I do think the response of Israel has been excessive and calamitous for their international reputation.

However, how best is Israel to defend itself against huge numbers of rockets that have been fired at it from Gaza (13,000 since 2001, which amounts to about $10.4 million US)?

I ask this sincerely. How best is Israel to deal with the rockets that are fired at it, for the sake of peace?

Before being accused of being a troll, this is the first I have seen of this thread.

My tuppance worth is, Israel will have to look to be accepted back into the human race, for at this moment they have excluded themselves to be outside with their genocidal actions in Gaza, and the murder of its own citizens. Ie three young jewish men to kick start the carnage.

Justin1982

Nodin wrote: »

You might read these two articles and get back to me on that point

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jan/23/palestine-papers-expose-peace-concession

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4515821,00.html

They kind of read like biased conspiracy theories to be honest. There probably is quiet a bit of political posturing behind some of the decisions made by Israeli governments from time to time but generally Israeli's want peace. Anything I've read about Israeli-Palestinian peace talks (of which there was many since the foundation of Israel) suggests that the Israeli's were willing to make sacrifices. Just that the Palestinians never accepted anything that was offered to them.

If you really believe that Israel enjoys regularly rolling its expensive military into Palestine, killing Palestinians, fighting wars of survival with its neighbors, plotting conspiracies and generally gaining more enemies then your deluded.
Israeli's are probably the same as the Irish or any other modern European nation. They want peace and prosperity and to live secure in the knowledge that some bunch of mad idiots up the road are not prepping their children to grow up to be jihadists, more interested in killing Israel than getting their own state.

From what I've read, it seems that Israel feels peace will never be accepted by the Palestinian's no matter how good it looks. So their current policy is one of active containment. It kind of sounds stupid but there is a large contingent of the Palestinian population that will never accept peace with Israel and are prepared to fight to the bitter end. This is obviously not good for the average Palestinian who wants peace themselves but they are as much at threat from Hamas as the average Israeli.

Busted Flat.

Justin1982 wrote: »

They kind of read like biased conspiracy theories to be honest. There probably is quiet a bit of political posturing behind some of the decisions made by Israeli governments from time to time but generally Israeli's want peace. Anything I've read about Israeli-Palestinian peace talks (of which there was many since the foundation of Israel) suggests that the Israeli's were willing to make sacrifices. Just that the Palestinians never accepted anything that was offered to them.

If you really believe that Israel enjoys regularly rolling its expensive military into Palestine, killing Palestinians, fighting wars of survival with its neighbors, plotting conspiracies and generally gaining more enemies then your deluded.
Israeli's are probably the same as the Irish or any other modern European nation. They want peace and prosperity and to live secure in the knowledge that some bunch of mad idiots up the road are not prepping their children to grow up to be jihadists, more interested in killing Israel than getting their own state.

From what I've read, it seems that Israel feels peace will never be accepted by the Palestinian's no matter how good it looks. So their current policy is one of active containment. It kind of sounds stupid but there is a large contingent of the Palestinian population that will never accept peace with Israel and are prepared to fight to the bitter end. This is obviously not good for the average Palestinian who wants peace themselves but they are as much at threat from Hamas as the average Israeli.

Have you heard of the bull dozing of Palestinians homes and farms, to make way for the new settlers homes. just asking it is immaterial really, after reading your post