I can't find a link on it right now (I'm not looking too hard, but I'll look later), but if you're really interested in tracking it down you might search for anyone who says that we should send in peacekeepers before both sides have agreed to it (that was the apparent proposition in this thread). If even one side does not agree to their presence then they are invaders, not peacekeepers. I am not willing to support an invasion of Palestine - or Israel, for that matter. The real issue here is not whether a peacekeeping force should be deployed, it's under what circumstances. As I have said, I'd support peacekeepers if both sides accepted them, and I think most analysts would agree with that idea. But if only one side accepts them, or worse no one, then sending them in would be an extremely bad idea. I have not personally heard any serious analysts disagree with that assumption, because peacekeeping missions by definition cannot succeed unless there is a certain level of acceptance in the host country. They cannot succeed in their mission unless they are welcome in the country they are to oversee. It's simply common sense that a peacekeeping force would restrain the IDF - they are a conventional military force that peacekeepers could deter, after all - but do nothing to limit the activities of Hamas, PFLP, Fatah, etc. That is why the Israelis are opposed, and the Palestinians would accept them right now (but they would prefer an Arab force, which would clearly be out of the question for the Israelis). If such a force were to be employed, it would have to include American forces in order for the Israelis to even consider it. Such a force would surely come under attack from both sides, even if their governments accepted it. I think we should be very careful about the circumstances under which such a hypothetical force was deployed; if they were seen by invaders by enough people then it could turn out to be a three-way war, and I fail to see how that would help anyone.
It was not my intent to insinuate we should send peacekeeping forces in before both sides agree to it. Obviously, that would definitely not work and would be more like a foreign invasion than anything else. You need the commitment to such a force first from both sides. I was simply pointing out that if both sides agreed to it, then I don't see why it would be assumed to be a failure. In my opinion, everything else up until now has been a failure and everyone is looking for ways to get beyond the violence. Just telling each side to hold back their anger and restrain your forces is getting them nowhere. If anything, it has been detrimental to the peace effort to leave it all on them to figure it out. They need some sort of intervention and not just a peace delegation to talk to both sides at different moments in time. If Arafat and the PA agree AND Israel agrees, only then should we do it. If Hamas and/or Islamic Jihad don't want the peacekeeping force there, then that is just tough sh#t because they are terrorists branded by their actions and are malignant in their intentions.
I don't mind a Chomsky-esque Jewish peace keeping force. A peacekeeping force would be much more effective in keeping out Palestinian Resistence out of Israel. It could check who wants to get in and since it wouldn't stop actual workers from getting inside it would be more efficient. It would also be able to stop the rockthrowing vs. tanks clashes because it would block them. Of course it could do nothing to F-16s chasing little kids and dropping bombs on them. I think a contingency of non-American/British peacekeepers would work just fine. Turkey could play a role given that it has Kurds to kill so it is an ally of Israel yet still Muslim. Plus most of the Palestinian anger is at those fanatical settlers anyway. Stop that and you solve a lot of the problems. Stop sending bastards like Sharon into the Dome of the Rock and you stop another chunk. Those would be nice starts at the Peace process if Israel is serious about anything. Of course once it has peace it really can't ask America for more weapons can it?
Surfguy: I apparently misunderstood your post; I apologize. We actually agree... The problem is getting both sides to agree on an acceptable peacekeeping force. Get over that hurdle and it would likely be a positive development. Actually, probably a necessary development, because neither side can be fully trusted to stick to their word in the event a cease fire or peace agreement is reached. boy: What the hell does that mean? An Arab force? I knew you were a Noam Chomsky fan... Actually, I agree with much of your post. I think Turkey would be an Ideal member of a peacekeeping force because they are both islamic and have strong ties to Israel. I would still say, however, that the Israelis would absolutely refuse unless Americans were a significant part of the force. We are one of the only countries that they do not see as anti-Israeli/pro-Palestinian. They would regard any force that didn't include Americans (or possibly Brits, but more likely Americans) as a hostile force. I also agree that the settlements must go. I think you're correct that they are a large part of the problem (along with Jerusalem, probably 80% of the problem). If the Palestinians kept sending suicide bombers after the settlements were eliminated, then that would be a clear message that they truly would settle for nothing less than the destruction of Israel... It would be a fair test. BTW, Israel makes most of its weapons itself now.
I'm sure I could too if I got some 80 plus billion dollars in 40 years. I agree that the Palestinian bombings don't help however I don't believe if the Palestinians stopped Israel would truly desire and work for a truely viable solution to the problem. Everything else Israel has tried didn't work. They've bombed cities what else do they have left? Killing Arafat sure won't make any situation better. Let a peacekeeping force in...if it still doesn't work, Israel can say to those 100 or so nations 'we told you so'. And I meant Jews who think like Chomsky are great from my viewpoint. Turkey needs to be condemend about its treatment of Kurds. Saddam treats the Kurds in the same way Turkey does. However Saddam is evil and Turkey is a nice friendly NATO ally.
interesting article... 'My own disaffection started when anti-Arab "settlers" began to invade Palestinian territory' 07 December 2001 Dr Giora Goodman, a brilliant young Israeli academic, gave a lecture in London this week in which he attempted to explain why the liberal British media, once the greatest supporters of the Jewish state, are now perceived by the Jewish community as implacably anti-Israel and pro-Arab. It is a fascinating topic. I remember when I was an enthusiastic young Zionist in South Africa in the early 1960s, and when I lived in Israel for two years in 1963 and 1964, the Jewish state was the darling of the world's liberal and left-wing press. It was the brave new nation state defending itself against numerous hostile neighbours, casting off the mantle of the Holocaust, and engaged in an exciting process of democratic socialism that might indeed have become a light unto the nations. Even in the 1940s, when Jews were killing British soldiers in Palestine, there were British newspapers that reflected an understanding of and even sympathy for the desire and need for a Jewish homeland. Support for Israel in the British press was boosted by the Six-Day War in 1967 and the more desperate and difficult war of 1973, as well as by spectacular actions such as the rescue of hostages at Entebbe airport. The image was still of the brave David triumphant against impossible odds. At the same time there was little, if any, understanding of the plight and aspirations of the Palestinians. When, for example, in 1967 the Israelis bulldozed scores of Arab houses in Jerusalem to create the existing open space alongside the Western Wall (or Wailing Wall, as it used to be called), it was certainly not widely depicted as something outrageous. So what happened in the last 25 years that turned some of Israel's natural supporters – including me – into critics, and caused the liberal press to change its attitude? Dr Goodman put forward some elegant explanations in his lecture, including the argument that the Jewish community, once predominantly inclined to support Labour, is now much more evenly spread across the left/right spectrum and has therefore shifted its allegiance to right-wing papers (which, ironically, were hostile to Zionism in the early days). The liberal newspapers, the argument goes, simultaneously discovered that there were millions of Labour-supporting British Muslims out there who were potential new readers and supporters. Then there were the political changes in Israel – the sudden arrival of tough, right-wing governments, on and off from the late Seventies, which has reinvigorated the semi-dormant conviction in hard-left circles that Israel is just another arm of Western imperialism. The trouble is that these explanations – which rummage around in the general washing basket of shifting allegiances, historical change, political tendencies and commercial imperatives facing the press – just do not confront the brutal realities and activities to which growing numbers of people in the modern world will no longer turn a blind eye. My own disaffection with Israel started when rabidly anti-Arab "settlers" began to invade Palestinian territory; when Israel seemed to have abandoned its former preparedness to seek peace from within the pre-1967 borders; when aggression began to replace patience and diplomacy; when the concept of the "pre-emptive strike" was invented; and appalling suffering and loss of life followed the ill-conceived invasion of Lebanon in 1982. Then there were the intifadas: children being shot down in the streets, Israeli murder squads working with full state approval, the destruction of civilian homes. I watched in despair as Israel formed itself into another South Africa, trying to defend the indefensible, accusing anyone who disagreed of being ignorant and biased. I have been accused, much like The Independent's correspondent Robert Fisk, of being biased in favour of the Arabs. In fact, I hold no brief for the impotent, incompetent and corrupt leadership of the Palestinians, and I detest the Palestinian extremists who murder and maim Israelis in order to kill any possibility of the peace process resuming. I particularly resent being described as a "self-hating Jew" who cravenly worries about how Israel's behaviour will embarrass me and reflect on me as a member of the Jewish community in Britain. Actually, I am perfectly at peace with my Jewishness, and I am not embarrassed by Israel any more than I was embarrassed by the apartheid regime I rejected earlier in my life. What I object to strongly is any suggestion that Israel has the right to claim me as one of its natural supporters, just because I am Jewish, and irrespective of the way it behaves. And I will not be told that criticism of Israel is just a matter of politics, bias, commercial allegiances and anti-Semitism. matthewlewin@compuserve.com The writer is a former editor of the 'Hampstead & Highgate Express'
boy: Chomsky is a communist idiot whose sole purpose in life is to knock the US out of its position as a superpower. Mentioning that idiot's name to me is not likely to bring a positive response... I have a feeling that we're never going to agree on this. Every aggressive move the Israelis have made in the past few years has been in response to suicide bombings (with the exception of the settlements, which we agree on). Every time the IDF has moved back into the occupied territories it has been in reaction to a spate of terrorist attacks. I personally believe that were the terrorist attacks to stop for a while the Israelis would pull out and the peace process could resume (that is how it has worked in the past). You obviously feel that the Israelis are the initial agressors, and I just don't think there's any way we'll see eye to eye on that. I also agree that killing Arafat will make the situation worse, but I think the Israelis will do it anyway. They are simply out of patience with him, and he is a terrorist after all... But I'm not in control of the IDF or Mossad, in case you haven't noticed. That other fanatic in the ME is... Only time and a break in the fighting will tell who is right. Turkey - yes, they are a nice NATO ally. They are also a vital NATO ally - as the lynchpin of the Southern Theatre and the bridge between the West and the Arabic world - and perhaps in the end might turn out to be our best ally in the "War on Terror". They are also secular and have the only functioning Islamic democracy in the world (and don't bring up Algeria again, lest I have to explain to you how a fundamentalist democracy is a threat to the West and we will protect our interests), thanks to Ataturk. Yes, they treat the Kurds like sh*t, and I personally feel that that issue is tied intimately with Iraq. Ultimately, an independent Kurdistan needs to be created, and while the Turks might feel threatened by that idea, there may be ways to persuade them that it would be a good idea...
Things have come full circle in the Middle East with Turkish troops being suggested as a part of the peacekeeping force. Lets examine a scenario with Turkey, US and Poland? providing the peacekeeping force (buffer). Would those troops be under a <i>monitor</i> mode or <i>active</i> mode? <i> A Hamas member goes on a suicide mission and kills 241 US peacekeeping Marines in their barracks.</i> What would/could the US do? Would it be acceptable for the US to violate the territorial integrity of Palestine to root the rest of the Hamas infrastructure out? Mango
The United Nations Human Rights Commissioner, Mary Robinson, called on Israel to stop bombing the West Bank and Gaza Strip, saying that they were "terrorising and terrifying the civilian population". here
Not that her statement that you quoted is wrong, but didn't she also want the US to halt bombing in Afghanistan? Since we didn't, aid will be able to enter unfettered by the Taliban.
Man....Israel shouldn't have bombed those 4 story buildings today leveling them....especially when they said they would allow Arafat time to round up terrorists. I don't agree one bit with our government's unbridled support for Israel. Israel is definitely causing more terrorism than it is deterring. They are nothing but state sponsored terrorists themselves. If their not terrorizing the Palestinian people, then what are they doing? Now....Arafat just came out in a TV interview and said who cares what America thinks....they are biased and pro-Israeli. Of course, this is true. America and Israel are not doing what it takes to solve the problems. They are making it worse. I hate being associated with Israel right now. If they want a freaking war like 7 out of 10 of them do in the latest poll(a massive military strike), then leave us the hell out of it. I want us to cut back our support to. Israel is trying to do all the talking with their military and I'm sick of it. I'm sick of our government turning a blind eye to what Israel is doing. This is not the same as battling Osama, Al Queda, and the Taliban. They attacked us for reasons other than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict although they later tried to associate their war against us with that conflict. They had been suicide bombing our embassies and other US property for years under Osama's network. This was done because of our presence alone in the East. It is obvious our government is completely biased in favor of Israel. In order to play the mediator, you have to be unbiased and work for both sides. We are not the right country to do it. The fact that Sharon told a Turkey govt official that he wanted Arafat killed and the latest bombings where it appears they are still retaliating even though security people from both sides are supposed to be talking truce is wrong. The fact we are saying nothing while Israel continues to lay down destruction when they should be past retaliatory strikes shows our government's bias. How long will Israel keep retaliating? They just do what they want...they should suffer the consequences of their actions alone just like our govt has told them. I don't agree with Israel at all. I wish the president would open his eyes to what is going on. It's clear that the blame is two fold. If Sharon thinks they can go at it alone(and he even said as much when the president scolded them for attacks before), then let them. Fine. But, we are the scapegoat here....hatred for Israel is already widespread....it's getting worse for us. The terror attacks against us are only going to get worse as more Arabs turn against us because of our unbridled support for Israel. It's like we are puppets of Israel. Why should we be? Damn.
Jews (some Poles, presumably), Americans, and muslims would probably work, although I'm sure accusations would be raised concerning any peacekeeping force comprised entirely of NATO members. It would serve as a powerful propaganda tool for the anti-Israel/US side, even though in reality Israel-NATO ties are quite limited... They would have to be in both "active" and "monitor" mode in order for anyone (us) to even consider sending them in there. They would have to have free movement within the occupied territories, as well as movement unfettered by the IDF (free movement throughout Israel upon notification), and they would have to have clear rules of engagement (the unambiguous right to shoot back). We would not send them in otherwise, and they would fail if we did. They must have the ability to raid/preempt terrorist safehouses and break up known cells. They would presumably already deter the IDF by virtue of their conventional and nonhostile nature, but unless they have the ability to preempt Hamas, Islamic Jihad, PFLP, Fatah, etc by raiding them, they would have no deterrant effect upon the Palestinians. If Palestinian terrorists could not be deterred, then there would be no point in their being there, and they would just eventually come under IDF attack. This answers your question on Palestinian territorial integrity... In order for them to be effective, they must have a deterrance effect upon both sides, and in order for that to happen they must have freedom of movement and action, as well as unambiguous rules of engagement.
Have past UN peacekeeping deployments had the neutral/buffer force in an <i>active</i> mode? Would all parties signoff on a deal with the peacekeepers in an <i>active</i> mode? Mango
Mango: Historically, all successful peacekeeping missions are conducted in an "active" mode. One failure in which peacekeepers were restricted in movement and ROE (rules of engagement) that comes to mind is the Bosnia mission during the 1994-1996 span. Peacekeepers were not allowed to shoot back at aggressors except for certain circumstances, and they were not allowed to interfere with actions taken by combatants (mainly Serbs). That situation came to a head when NATO started bombing the Serbs, which prompted the Dayton Accords, which changed the ROE and their ability to move freely. If the peacekeepers cannot interfere - move freely and deter fighting - then how can they do their job? As a rule, they are always "active". Personally, I don't even like that word to describe their predicament; they're there, and it's a matter of the ROE and their ability to move freely. Both are preconditions for deploying a peacekeeping force with any hope for success. Would all parties sign off on it? It is far more in the interests of the Palestinians to sign off on it than the Israelis, as a peacekeeping force with NATO troops is about the only thing right now that could deter the IDF. The Israelis would only sign off on it if the force had both a mandate and legal ground to go after the Palestinian terrorist groups. If both sides could be accommodated in that manner, then such a force could and should (IMO) deploy.
Why is Sharon basically trying to destroy Arafat? This started right after 911 when Sharon thought he could use the terrorism tie in argument and the focus of world opinion on Afghanistan to "end the era of Arafat" as he stated it. The first reaction of myself and some on this board is that this is crazy as who would he negotiate peace with after the collapse of the Palestinian Authority and Arafat. I heard a commentary on NPR that basically suggested that Sharon hopes to use the resulting post Arafat chaos as an excuse to completely reoccupy the West Bank and all of the territory now controlled by the Palestinian Authority. Hard to say, but it seems like a reasonable possibity.
I read an interesting article on Palestian question by E.J. Dionne who characterizes the current majority Israeli view on the Palestinian issue. He said Arafat's strategy has always been negotiate, get concessions, than unleash more terrorism to extract concessions and repeat the cycle. That Arafat misread Israeli opinion by rejecting the last round of proposals that were the absolute limit of Israeli concessions. When he rejected this, Arafat virtually destroyed any internal support for peace in Israeli politics. There is a certain amount of truth , reasonableness and logic to this view. The reason why this view imho has led the Israeli left and peace movement to a wrong conclusion is that the proposal, though additional movement, was horrible if viewed as anything close to a reasonable final position. The map that was shown on the bbs of the proposed Palestian state completely honey combed with Jewish settlements, with their water rights, air space and other aspects of sovereignity. (I think boy provided this). Another good site for those seeking info on the conflict from a Jewish peace perspective is:http://www.peacenow.org/shalomachshav/settlements1001.html
A tremendous list of questions and anwers from Peace Now. Many of these questions have been dealt with on this bbs.http://www.peacenow.org/shalomachshav/settlements1001.html
arrest the terrorists but we're going to bomb all your buildings and vehicles and kill all your guards. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=109215
re: boy's article Why were the Palestinian police trying to "get away"? None of the people in the village were killed. Only the people who tried to run and may or may not have opened fire were shot. I would say the same thing in this situation that I said when the police killed a fleeing suspect in Cincy, don't run away from authorities.
boy: Yeah, the Israelis kill four guys using an "infants home" as cover. You know as well as I do that PNA police aren't "police" in Western terms - they are militia. These are not law enforcement officers who dole out speeding tickets, these guys are goons who shoot at people when Yassir Arafat tells them to. There's a reason that the Israelis are attacking these guys - they're terrorists. The Israelis will stop killing these "innocent" people when they stop blowing up Israeli school buses. As I have said many times before, until the Palestinians stop sending suicide bombers the Israelis will continue to attack. If Yassir Arafat wants Palestinians to stop dying, then he has do do more than arrest 17 of 33 terrorists on the US list (Israeli list really, but we handed him the list). He knows where these people are, and he can arrest them if he wants to. As usual, he is trying to walk the highwire, but this time there's no safety net. The Israelis really will kill him if he doesn't come through this time. Sharon has always wanted to, and Arafat is just giving him more domestic political legroom... One of these days Sharon is going to wake up in an especially bad mood and decide that he doesn't want there to be any Palestinians anymore. Arafat's time is running out.
