Well said Ron Huldai...

[Humanity]

The international force would have the power to forcibly take control of Gaza, overthrow Hamas and 'govern' Gaza until such time elections were carried out...

Do you think an international force would have the chutzpah to oust a government?

The more involvement that Israel had, the more the chance that Israel would likely come under 'condemnation' from various international communities, resulting in the danger of coming under attack from other 'organisations'...

Interesting. So you (and apparently the international community) don't necessarily have an issue with military action in Gaza, even to the extent of physically and militarily forcing a change of government, but condemn Israel for doing the same.

I think that it has been proven in recent years that there is the ability to oust governments by force, powerful governments, why not Hamas?

No absolutely not... I have NO issue with military action in Gaza IF this type of agreement actually went ahead and Hamas decided to continue with attacks against Israel...

Israel attacking Gaza is, in my opinion, not the right way to go about things... It simply leads to more hatred against Israel... Something that doesn't need to happen! I would think that you would agree with that?

Having a force within Gaza, able to respond quickly, efficiently and accurately, would be the better option...

But don't you find it conceptually problematic that if Israel militarily defends itself its "bad" and "hated" but if an international force does the EXACT SAME THING its acceptable?

Yes of course I find it problematic!

As I said earlier, I did not, still don't support the recent overthrowing of governments by allied forces...

That was for nothing more than oil and money...

This is something VERY different, it's about the protection of Israel against a terrorist organisation, Hamas...

It is not the same thing if 'allied forces' attack the Hamas government as if Israel does it... You know that if Israel does it they are going to be the "bad, evil ones" and Hamas are going to be the "poor innocents"...

Nobody called Saddam Hussein and his party "poor innocents" did they... Yet, in my opinion, they were hardly the "bad, evil ones" either... the lies that HAD to be told to the public in the US and UK to gain support for the attacks still need to be dealt with, legally... Unfortunately, I don't think that will ever happen...

But, do you see how it really DOES make a difference to how the 'situation' would be viewed by the rest of the world if it WASN'T Israel attacking Hamas but it was 'allied forces' responding to ANY attack against Israel?

 

[Shusha]

But, do you see how it really DOES make a difference to how the 'situation' would be viewed by the rest of the world if it WASN'T Israel attacking Hamas but it was 'allied forces' responding to ANY attack against Israel?

Why is that, do you think? Why is it perceived to be "evil" and "hated" when Israel does it, but acceptable when someone else does the exact same thing?

 

[Humanity]

But, do you see how it really DOES make a difference to how the 'situation' would be viewed by the rest of the world if it WASN'T Israel attacking Hamas but it was 'allied forces' responding to ANY attack against Israel?

Why is that, do you think? Why is it perceived to be "evil" and "hated" when Israel does it, but acceptable when someone else does the exact same thing?

I believe that, as Israel is classified as an 'occupier' by most of the world, any attack against those are 'occupied' is seen as simply wrong...

Occupier and attacker combined is not a good combination...

Now, you can argue that Israel does not occupy Gaza, you can argue that attacks against Israel are 'freedom fighters'.... But factually or conceptually, if you like, it remains that Israel does control air, land and sea of Gaza and attacks are carried out against Israel under the 'premise' of this fact...

You could say that Turkey attacking Kurds is "evil" yet the Kurds are attacking Turkey!

As I said previously, I really don't find any 'attacks' acceptable, however, IF it became necessary, I do believe that an 'allied force', on the ground, within Gaza, would be the better option...

 

[P F Tinmore]

Shusha, et al,

In an ideal world, there would be ways to make this work

I want Gaza to have the freedom to grow...

What I don't want is Gaza to have the ability to grow its military arsenal, just its ability to grow socially...

We want the same thing. What specific differences would this international force put it to place than what is in place now? What consequences might those differences have? If those consequences involve attacks on Israel -- would Israel have the right to respond or will she turn over the defense of her citizens to this international force?

The difference would be have feet on the ground, in Gaza... The force could easily monitor imports/exports into Gaza plus monitor activities of Hamas and, perhaps, encourage new, free elections?

I would hope that the consequences would NOT result in attacks on Israel...

I believe that Israel should retain its right to defend itself... However, there should be 'options'....

Work WITH the international force

Have limited involvement in 'defense'... That is not to say that an international force would maintain a presence in Israel... Israel would STILL have total defense within its borders.

In the current circumstances its just too easy to 'criticize/demonize' Israel... If Israel took a 'backseat' then certain folks would have nothing to bitch about...

Alright. I see what you are getting at.

Essentially, Israel controls its own border with Gaza, in terms of entry to Israel, but an international force monitors sea and land ports for entry of material. Said international force would also monitor the use of material imported? And one assumes, would also enforce only proper use? Any attacks on Israel would still be responded to by Israel? Would the international force be neutral during a response operation?

I can't find fault with the concept. Its a creative solution.

I'm not convinced it will work, but that's a different thing.

(COMMENT)

But the reality is, no International warship contribution is going to risk using force on a blockade runner. It would leak like a sifter.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco

I think you are missing the point...

I am NOT talking exclusively about maritime blockade, I am talking about land monitoring...

Shusha's post is clear enough... Is it 'perfect'? No! But it is a solid solution that could work...

The Palestinians have already offered to have all shipments to Gaza to be inspected by international bodies at Cypress or Greece before proceeding to Gaza.

That looks like a perfect solution.

 

[Humanity]

Shusha, et al,

In an ideal world, there would be ways to make this work

We want the same thing. What specific differences would this international force put it to place than what is in place now? What consequences might those differences have? If those consequences involve attacks on Israel -- would Israel have the right to respond or will she turn over the defense of her citizens to this international force?

The difference would be have feet on the ground, in Gaza... The force could easily monitor imports/exports into Gaza plus monitor activities of Hamas and, perhaps, encourage new, free elections?

I would hope that the consequences would NOT result in attacks on Israel...

I believe that Israel should retain its right to defend itself... However, there should be 'options'....

Work WITH the international force

Have limited involvement in 'defense'... That is not to say that an international force would maintain a presence in Israel... Israel would STILL have total defense within its borders.

In the current circumstances its just too easy to 'criticize/demonize' Israel... If Israel took a 'backseat' then certain folks would have nothing to bitch about...

Alright. I see what you are getting at.

Essentially, Israel controls its own border with Gaza, in terms of entry to Israel, but an international force monitors sea and land ports for entry of material. Said international force would also monitor the use of material imported? And one assumes, would also enforce only proper use? Any attacks on Israel would still be responded to by Israel? Would the international force be neutral during a response operation?

I can't find fault with the concept. Its a creative solution.

I'm not convinced it will work, but that's a different thing.

(COMMENT)

But the reality is, no International warship contribution is going to risk using force on a blockade runner. It would leak like a sifter.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco

I think you are missing the point...

I am NOT talking exclusively about maritime blockade, I am talking about land monitoring...

Shusha's post is clear enough... Is it 'perfect'? No! But it is a solid solution that could work...

The Palestinians have already offered to have all shipments to Gaza to be inspected by international bodies at Cypress or Greece before proceeding to Gaza.

That looks like a perfect solution.

That is a nice offer...

However, it wouldn't stop illicit shipments into Gaza... Hence the need for an allied force to monitor ALL land and sea ports in Gaza...

 

[P F Tinmore]

So the likely result is increased capability of Hamas terrorists, increased terrorist activity both in number and in scope and an escalated Israeli response.(Which will, of course, still provide ample opportunities for Israel to be perceived on the international stage as the "evil" ones, again and still.)

That is eactly what will NOT happen...

See my earlier post...

The whole idea is to not ALLOW Hamas to increase capability to attack Israel and ANY attack will result in action by the international force and NT Israel, thus reducing any possibility of portraying Israel as "evil"...

Of course none of this will really work unless Israel stops its blockade and attacks on the West Bank too.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The international force would have the power to forcibly take control of Gaza, overthrow Hamas and 'govern' Gaza until such time elections were carried out...

Do you think an international force would have the chutzpah to oust a government?

The more involvement that Israel had, the more the chance that Israel would likely come under 'condemnation' from various international communities, resulting in the danger of coming under attack from other 'organisations'...

Interesting. So you (and apparently the international community) don't necessarily have an issue with military action in Gaza, even to the extent of physically and militarily forcing a change of government, but condemn Israel for doing the same.

I think that it has been proven in recent years that there is the ability to oust governments by force, powerful governments, why not Hamas?

No absolutely not... I have NO issue with military action in Gaza IF this type of agreement actually went ahead and Hamas decided to continue with attacks against Israel...

Israel attacking Gaza is, in my opinion, not the right way to go about things... It simply leads to more hatred against Israel... Something that doesn't need to happen! I would think that you would agree with that?

Having a force within Gaza, able to respond quickly, efficiently and accurately, would be the better option...

But don't you find it conceptually problematic that if Israel militarily defends itself its "bad" and "hated" but if an international force does the EXACT SAME THING its acceptable?

Yes of course I find it problematic!

As I said earlier, I did not, still don't support the recent overthrowing of governments by allied forces...

That was for nothing more than oil and money...

This is something VERY different, it's about the protection of Israel against a terrorist organisation, Hamas...

It is not the same thing if 'allied forces' attack the Hamas government as if Israel does it... You know that if Israel does it they are going to be the "bad, evil ones" and Hamas are going to be the "poor innocents"...

Nobody called Saddam Hussein and his party "poor innocents" did they... Yet, in my opinion, they were hardly the "bad, evil ones" either... the lies that HAD to be told to the public in the US and UK to gain support for the attacks still need to be dealt with, legally... Unfortunately, I don't think that will ever happen...

But, do you see how it really DOES make a difference to how the 'situation' would be viewed by the rest of the world if it WASN'T Israel attacking Hamas but it was 'allied forces' responding to ANY attack against Israel?

Who would respond to attacks by Israel like shooting farmers and fisherman. Israel also enters Gaza regularly to bulldoze crops.

Would "allied forces" then attack Israel for its aggression?

 

[Challenger]

Challenger, et al,

No, it is me (obviously) not being clear to you. (I was assigned to SHAPE (Mons BE) for 4 years; and the EUSA/USF-K (Seoul, KR) for 4 four years. What is obvious to me is not always obvious to others.) I've also had the opportunity to support ISAF (Kabul, AF).

Challenger, et al,

NO. ----

I never said they were, but NATO naval forces can be deployed in a peacekeeping role under a U.N. mandate, can they not?

(COMMENT)

There is no UN influence over SHAPE.

V/R
R

Either I'm not making myself clear or you are being particularly obtuse. I'll try again. The U.N. can authorize the military forces of designated U.N. members to perform a set mission under UN auspices. Such assets can include ground, air or naval elements; i.e. fighting piracy in Somalia, or the Korean war(!)

(COMMENT)

The UN can say or do anything it wants; or authorize anything is wants. The North Atlantic Council (NAC) is the principal political decision-making body within NATO. Any individual nation may independently offer assistance to the UN. But no UN decision can compel the Chairman of the NATO Military Committee's (CMC) to take any action. The CMC's authority stems from the NATO Military Committee the the NATO Ruling body NAC (under Article 9).

You may not understand the controversy with the UN association in the Korean War. There are four principle Article VII Security Council resolutions relative to the Korean War:

• SC 82 (V)-S/1501 on June 25 1950

• SC 83 (V)-S/1511 on June 27 1950

• SC 84 (V)-S/1588 on July 7, 1950

• SC 85 (V)-S/1657 July 31, 1950
​

(CLARIFICATIONS)

The UN SC Resolutions 84/85 establish the entity known as “Unified Command” (which General of the Army Douglas MacArthur took Command). A "unified Command" is a command composed of combatant forces from two or more allied nations. The language of the resolution says that the Security Council, “Recommends that all members providing forces and other assistance pursuant to the aforesaid Security Council resolution make such forces and other assistance available to a Unified Command under the United States of America.” Any Allied Force contribution was actually under the US Unified Command. The USFK was not established until 1 July 1957. There is an argument if the UN actually had a UN Command there.

The UN Operations Somalia (UNOSOM) is not quite the same thing as Combatant Commands Forces. On 24 April 1992, the Security Council adopted resolution 751(1992), establishing UNOSOM I; a 50 unarmed but uniformed United Nations military observers. USSOM II was an incomplete mission under United Nations Security Council Resolution 794, terminated by the US. While UNOSOM II was a combatant Unified Command; it was a force by contribution. "By October 1993 UNOSOM II consisted of over 16,000 peacekeepers from 21 nations. This number would jump to 29,732 soldiers from 29 nations by mid-November with the arrival of over 17,000 additional U.S. personnel as part of a U.S. joint task force." --- "It was the first attempt by the international community to deal with a new post-Cold War phenomenon referred to as the “failed nation state.” It was also the first attempt by the United Nations to execute a Chapter VII peace enforcement operation to execute the parameters of Security Council mandates. However, the “failed state” appears not to be a phenomenon but a trend for the near future." (Source: United States Forces, Somalia After Action Report)

The EU Contribution you see pictured are NOT under a UN Command. They are operating under their national authority.

Most Respectfully,
R

So what? My point was that there is nothing to stop member countries of the U.N. contributing naval assets to an anti-smuggling operation; the mechanics of how that's done is frankly irrelevant to the point.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Challenger, et al,

No, it is me (obviously) not being clear to you. (I was assigned to SHAPE (Mons BE) for 4 years; and the EUSA/USF-K (Seoul, KR) for 4 four years. What is obvious to me is not always obvious to others.) I've also had the opportunity to support ISAF (Kabul, AF).

Challenger, et al,

NO. ----

I never said they were, but NATO naval forces can be deployed in a peacekeeping role under a U.N. mandate, can they not?

(COMMENT)

There is no UN influence over SHAPE.

V/R
R

Either I'm not making myself clear or you are being particularly obtuse. I'll try again. The U.N. can authorize the military forces of designated U.N. members to perform a set mission under UN auspices. Such assets can include ground, air or naval elements; i.e. fighting piracy in Somalia, or the Korean war(!)

(COMMENT)

The UN can say or do anything it wants; or authorize anything is wants. The North Atlantic Council (NAC) is the principal political decision-making body within NATO. Any individual nation may independently offer assistance to the UN. But no UN decision can compel the Chairman of the NATO Military Committee's (CMC) to take any action. The CMC's authority stems from the NATO Military Committee the the NATO Ruling body NAC (under Article 9).

You may not understand the controversy with the UN association in the Korean War. There are four principle Article VII Security Council resolutions relative to the Korean War:

• SC 82 (V)-S/1501 on June 25 1950

• SC 83 (V)-S/1511 on June 27 1950

• SC 84 (V)-S/1588 on July 7, 1950

• SC 85 (V)-S/1657 July 31, 1950
​

(CLARIFICATIONS)

The UN SC Resolutions 84/85 establish the entity known as “Unified Command” (which General of the Army Douglas MacArthur took Command). A "unified Command" is a command composed of combatant forces from two or more allied nations. The language of the resolution says that the Security Council, “Recommends that all members providing forces and other assistance pursuant to the aforesaid Security Council resolution make such forces and other assistance available to a Unified Command under the United States of America.” Any Allied Force contribution was actually under the US Unified Command. The USFK was not established until 1 July 1957. There is an argument if the UN actually had a UN Command there.

The UN Operations Somalia (UNOSOM) is not quite the same thing as Combatant Commands Forces. On 24 April 1992, the Security Council adopted resolution 751(1992), establishing UNOSOM I; a 50 unarmed but uniformed United Nations military observers. USSOM II was an incomplete mission under United Nations Security Council Resolution 794, terminated by the US. While UNOSOM II was a combatant Unified Command; it was a force by contribution. "By October 1993 UNOSOM II consisted of over 16,000 peacekeepers from 21 nations. This number would jump to 29,732 soldiers from 29 nations by mid-November with the arrival of over 17,000 additional U.S. personnel as part of a U.S. joint task force." --- "It was the first attempt by the international community to deal with a new post-Cold War phenomenon referred to as the “failed nation state.” It was also the first attempt by the United Nations to execute a Chapter VII peace enforcement operation to execute the parameters of Security Council mandates. However, the “failed state” appears not to be a phenomenon but a trend for the near future." (Source: United States Forces, Somalia After Action Report)

The EU Contribution you see pictured are NOT under a UN Command. They are operating under their national authority.

Most Respectfully,
R

So what? My point was that there is nothing to stop member countries of the U.N. contributing naval assets to an anti-smuggling operation; the mechanics of how that's done is frankly irrelevant to the point.

Smuggling?

What laws are the Palestinians violating by importing weapons?

 

[Phoenall]

But, do you see how it really DOES make a difference to how the 'situation' would be viewed by the rest of the world if it WASN'T Israel attacking Hamas but it was 'allied forces' responding to ANY attack against Israel?

Why is that, do you think? Why is it perceived to be "evil" and "hated" when Israel does it, but acceptable when someone else does the exact same thing?

I believe that, as Israel is classified as an 'occupier' by most of the world, any attack against those are 'occupied' is seen as simply wrong...

Occupier and attacker combined is not a good combination...

Now, you can argue that Israel does not occupy Gaza, you can argue that attacks against Israel are 'freedom fighters'.... But factually or conceptually, if you like, it remains that Israel does control air, land and sea of Gaza and attacks are carried out against Israel under the 'premise' of this fact...

You could say that Turkey attacking Kurds is "evil" yet the Kurds are attacking Turkey!

As I said previously, I really don't find any 'attacks' acceptable, however, IF it became necessary, I do believe that an 'allied force', on the ground, within Gaza, would be the better option...

Right up until hamas demand the UN remove the troops under the terms of the UN charter, and then we are back to illegal weapons being destroyed by concerted attacks.

 

[Phoenall]

So the likely result is increased capability of Hamas terrorists, increased terrorist activity both in number and in scope and an escalated Israeli response.(Which will, of course, still provide ample opportunities for Israel to be perceived on the international stage as the "evil" ones, again and still.)

That is eactly what will NOT happen...

See my earlier post...

The whole idea is to not ALLOW Hamas to increase capability to attack Israel and ANY attack will result in action by the international force and NT Israel, thus reducing any possibility of portraying Israel as "evil"...

Of course none of this will really work unless Israel stops its blockade and attacks on the West Bank too.

What about the attacks on Israeli children living in Israeli owned settlements that brought about the occupation in the first place. Telegraph your intent to wipe out a people and you have to live with your stupidity for a thousand lifetimes.

 

[Phoenall]

Shusha, et al,

In an ideal world, there would be ways to make this work

We want the same thing. What specific differences would this international force put it to place than what is in place now? What consequences might those differences have? If those consequences involve attacks on Israel -- would Israel have the right to respond or will she turn over the defense of her citizens to this international force?

The difference would be have feet on the ground, in Gaza... The force could easily monitor imports/exports into Gaza plus monitor activities of Hamas and, perhaps, encourage new, free elections?

I would hope that the consequences would NOT result in attacks on Israel...

I believe that Israel should retain its right to defend itself... However, there should be 'options'....

Work WITH the international force

Have limited involvement in 'defense'... That is not to say that an international force would maintain a presence in Israel... Israel would STILL have total defense within its borders.

In the current circumstances its just too easy to 'criticize/demonize' Israel... If Israel took a 'backseat' then certain folks would have nothing to bitch about...

Alright. I see what you are getting at.

Essentially, Israel controls its own border with Gaza, in terms of entry to Israel, but an international force monitors sea and land ports for entry of material. Said international force would also monitor the use of material imported? And one assumes, would also enforce only proper use? Any attacks on Israel would still be responded to by Israel? Would the international force be neutral during a response operation?

I can't find fault with the concept. Its a creative solution.

I'm not convinced it will work, but that's a different thing.

(COMMENT)

But the reality is, no International warship contribution is going to risk using force on a blockade runner. It would leak like a sifter.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco

I think you are missing the point...

I am NOT talking exclusively about maritime blockade, I am talking about land monitoring...

Shusha's post is clear enough... Is it 'perfect'? No! But it is a solid solution that could work...

The Palestinians have already offered to have all shipments to Gaza to be inspected by international bodies at Cypress or Greece before proceeding to Gaza.

That looks like a perfect solution.

Because they could swap shipments on the high seas, and get more illegal weapons for killing children with. It has to be at the point of entry or nothing gets in at all. No dual purpose goods allowed as listed on the International agreements.

The perfect solution is for the UN to bomb gaza every time they fire an illegal weapon, and deny the Palestinians the means of rebuilding until they agree to negotiate peace and mutual borders

 

[Phoenall]

Challenger, et al,

No, it is me (obviously) not being clear to you. (I was assigned to SHAPE (Mons BE) for 4 years; and the EUSA/USF-K (Seoul, KR) for 4 four years. What is obvious to me is not always obvious to others.) I've also had the opportunity to support ISAF (Kabul, AF).

Challenger, et al,

NO. ----

I never said they were, but NATO naval forces can be deployed in a peacekeeping role under a U.N. mandate, can they not?

(COMMENT)

There is no UN influence over SHAPE.

V/R
R

Either I'm not making myself clear or you are being particularly obtuse. I'll try again. The U.N. can authorize the military forces of designated U.N. members to perform a set mission under UN auspices. Such assets can include ground, air or naval elements; i.e. fighting piracy in Somalia, or the Korean war(!)

(COMMENT)

The UN can say or do anything it wants; or authorize anything is wants. The North Atlantic Council (NAC) is the principal political decision-making body within NATO. Any individual nation may independently offer assistance to the UN. But no UN decision can compel the Chairman of the NATO Military Committee's (CMC) to take any action. The CMC's authority stems from the NATO Military Committee the the NATO Ruling body NAC (under Article 9).

You may not understand the controversy with the UN association in the Korean War. There are four principle Article VII Security Council resolutions relative to the Korean War:

• SC 82 (V)-S/1501 on June 25 1950

• SC 83 (V)-S/1511 on June 27 1950

• SC 84 (V)-S/1588 on July 7, 1950

• SC 85 (V)-S/1657 July 31, 1950
​

(CLARIFICATIONS)

The UN SC Resolutions 84/85 establish the entity known as “Unified Command” (which General of the Army Douglas MacArthur took Command). A "unified Command" is a command composed of combatant forces from two or more allied nations. The language of the resolution says that the Security Council, “Recommends that all members providing forces and other assistance pursuant to the aforesaid Security Council resolution make such forces and other assistance available to a Unified Command under the United States of America.” Any Allied Force contribution was actually under the US Unified Command. The USFK was not established until 1 July 1957. There is an argument if the UN actually had a UN Command there.

The UN Operations Somalia (UNOSOM) is not quite the same thing as Combatant Commands Forces. On 24 April 1992, the Security Council adopted resolution 751(1992), establishing UNOSOM I; a 50 unarmed but uniformed United Nations military observers. USSOM II was an incomplete mission under United Nations Security Council Resolution 794, terminated by the US. While UNOSOM II was a combatant Unified Command; it was a force by contribution. "By October 1993 UNOSOM II consisted of over 16,000 peacekeepers from 21 nations. This number would jump to 29,732 soldiers from 29 nations by mid-November with the arrival of over 17,000 additional U.S. personnel as part of a U.S. joint task force." --- "It was the first attempt by the international community to deal with a new post-Cold War phenomenon referred to as the “failed nation state.” It was also the first attempt by the United Nations to execute a Chapter VII peace enforcement operation to execute the parameters of Security Council mandates. However, the “failed state” appears not to be a phenomenon but a trend for the near future." (Source: United States Forces, Somalia After Action Report)

The EU Contribution you see pictured are NOT under a UN Command. They are operating under their national authority.

Most Respectfully,
R

So what? My point was that there is nothing to stop member countries of the U.N. contributing naval assets to an anti-smuggling operation; the mechanics of how that's done is frankly irrelevant to the point.

Smuggling?

What laws are the Palestinians violating by importing weapons?

The UN charter for 10 or so, as that spells it out. Then the Geneva conventions and IHL. All detailed in full previously and you ignored them then as you will now because they destroy your POV

 

[Humanity]

But, do you see how it really DOES make a difference to how the 'situation' would be viewed by the rest of the world if it WASN'T Israel attacking Hamas but it was 'allied forces' responding to ANY attack against Israel?

Why is that, do you think? Why is it perceived to be "evil" and "hated" when Israel does it, but acceptable when someone else does the exact same thing?

I believe that, as Israel is classified as an 'occupier' by most of the world, any attack against those are 'occupied' is seen as simply wrong...

Occupier and attacker combined is not a good combination...

Now, you can argue that Israel does not occupy Gaza, you can argue that attacks against Israel are 'freedom fighters'.... But factually or conceptually, if you like, it remains that Israel does control air, land and sea of Gaza and attacks are carried out against Israel under the 'premise' of this fact...

You could say that Turkey attacking Kurds is "evil" yet the Kurds are attacking Turkey!

As I said previously, I really don't find any 'attacks' acceptable, however, IF it became necessary, I do believe that an 'allied force', on the ground, within Gaza, would be the better option...

Right up until hamas demand the UN remove the troops under the terms of the UN charter, and then we are back to illegal weapons being destroyed by concerted attacks.

WRONG...

In any 'agreement' on these terms there would be NO possibility of Hamas demanding the removal of allied forces...

 

[Phoenall]

But, do you see how it really DOES make a difference to how the 'situation' would be viewed by the rest of the world if it WASN'T Israel attacking Hamas but it was 'allied forces' responding to ANY attack against Israel?

Why is that, do you think? Why is it perceived to be "evil" and "hated" when Israel does it, but acceptable when someone else does the exact same thing?

I believe that, as Israel is classified as an 'occupier' by most of the world, any attack against those are 'occupied' is seen as simply wrong...

Occupier and attacker combined is not a good combination...

Now, you can argue that Israel does not occupy Gaza, you can argue that attacks against Israel are 'freedom fighters'.... But factually or conceptually, if you like, it remains that Israel does control air, land and sea of Gaza and attacks are carried out against Israel under the 'premise' of this fact...

You could say that Turkey attacking Kurds is "evil" yet the Kurds are attacking Turkey!

As I said previously, I really don't find any 'attacks' acceptable, however, IF it became necessary, I do believe that an 'allied force', on the ground, within Gaza, would be the better option...

Right up until hamas demand the UN remove the troops under the terms of the UN charter, and then we are back to illegal weapons being destroyed by concerted attacks.

WRONG...

In any 'agreement' on these terms there would be NO possibility of Hamas demanding the removal of allied forces...

Not even without re-writing the UN charter and many thousands of UN resolutions that says this is a right for all people

 

[Humanity]

But, do you see how it really DOES make a difference to how the 'situation' would be viewed by the rest of the world if it WASN'T Israel attacking Hamas but it was 'allied forces' responding to ANY attack against Israel?

Why is that, do you think? Why is it perceived to be "evil" and "hated" when Israel does it, but acceptable when someone else does the exact same thing?

I believe that, as Israel is classified as an 'occupier' by most of the world, any attack against those are 'occupied' is seen as simply wrong...

Occupier and attacker combined is not a good combination...

Now, you can argue that Israel does not occupy Gaza, you can argue that attacks against Israel are 'freedom fighters'.... But factually or conceptually, if you like, it remains that Israel does control air, land and sea of Gaza and attacks are carried out against Israel under the 'premise' of this fact...

You could say that Turkey attacking Kurds is "evil" yet the Kurds are attacking Turkey!

As I said previously, I really don't find any 'attacks' acceptable, however, IF it became necessary, I do believe that an 'allied force', on the ground, within Gaza, would be the better option...

Right up until hamas demand the UN remove the troops under the terms of the UN charter, and then we are back to illegal weapons being destroyed by concerted attacks.

WRONG...

In any 'agreement' on these terms there would be NO possibility of Hamas demanding the removal of allied forces...

Not even without re-writing the UN charter and many thousands of UN resolutions that says this is a right for all people

Wrong Phoney...

There is NOTHING to stop Israel and Gaza drawing up an agreement that works for everyone...

 

[Challenger]

Challenger, et al,

No, it is me (obviously) not being clear to you. (I was assigned to SHAPE (Mons BE) for 4 years; and the EUSA/USF-K (Seoul, KR) for 4 four years. What is obvious to me is not always obvious to others.) I've also had the opportunity to support ISAF (Kabul, AF).

Challenger, et al,

NO. ----

I never said they were, but NATO naval forces can be deployed in a peacekeeping role under a U.N. mandate, can they not?

(COMMENT)

There is no UN influence over SHAPE.

V/R
R

Either I'm not making myself clear or you are being particularly obtuse. I'll try again. The U.N. can authorize the military forces of designated U.N. members to perform a set mission under UN auspices. Such assets can include ground, air or naval elements; i.e. fighting piracy in Somalia, or the Korean war(!)

(COMMENT)

The UN can say or do anything it wants; or authorize anything is wants. The North Atlantic Council (NAC) is the principal political decision-making body within NATO. Any individual nation may independently offer assistance to the UN. But no UN decision can compel the Chairman of the NATO Military Committee's (CMC) to take any action. The CMC's authority stems from the NATO Military Committee the the NATO Ruling body NAC (under Article 9).

You may not understand the controversy with the UN association in the Korean War. There are four principle Article VII Security Council resolutions relative to the Korean War:

• SC 82 (V)-S/1501 on June 25 1950

• SC 83 (V)-S/1511 on June 27 1950

• SC 84 (V)-S/1588 on July 7, 1950

• SC 85 (V)-S/1657 July 31, 1950
​

(CLARIFICATIONS)

The UN SC Resolutions 84/85 establish the entity known as “Unified Command” (which General of the Army Douglas MacArthur took Command). A "unified Command" is a command composed of combatant forces from two or more allied nations. The language of the resolution says that the Security Council, “Recommends that all members providing forces and other assistance pursuant to the aforesaid Security Council resolution make such forces and other assistance available to a Unified Command under the United States of America.” Any Allied Force contribution was actually under the US Unified Command. The USFK was not established until 1 July 1957. There is an argument if the UN actually had a UN Command there.

The UN Operations Somalia (UNOSOM) is not quite the same thing as Combatant Commands Forces. On 24 April 1992, the Security Council adopted resolution 751(1992), establishing UNOSOM I; a 50 unarmed but uniformed United Nations military observers. USSOM II was an incomplete mission under United Nations Security Council Resolution 794, terminated by the US. While UNOSOM II was a combatant Unified Command; it was a force by contribution. "By October 1993 UNOSOM II consisted of over 16,000 peacekeepers from 21 nations. This number would jump to 29,732 soldiers from 29 nations by mid-November with the arrival of over 17,000 additional U.S. personnel as part of a U.S. joint task force." --- "It was the first attempt by the international community to deal with a new post-Cold War phenomenon referred to as the “failed nation state.” It was also the first attempt by the United Nations to execute a Chapter VII peace enforcement operation to execute the parameters of Security Council mandates. However, the “failed state” appears not to be a phenomenon but a trend for the near future." (Source: United States Forces, Somalia After Action Report)

The EU Contribution you see pictured are NOT under a UN Command. They are operating under their national authority.

Most Respectfully,
R

So what? My point was that there is nothing to stop member countries of the U.N. contributing naval assets to an anti-smuggling operation; the mechanics of how that's done is frankly irrelevant to the point.

Smuggling?

What laws are the Palestinians violating by importing weapons?

Actually that's a fair point, if the Zionists do not control Gaza,as they claim, the Gazans should be able to purchase arms and equipment openly for self defence such as AA missiles or guidance equipment so they can actually target military sites without threatening civilians and import them likewise, it all depends on who wants to sell them the weapons.

 

[Roudy]

Challenger, et al,

No, it is me (obviously) not being clear to you. (I was assigned to SHAPE (Mons BE) for 4 years; and the EUSA/USF-K (Seoul, KR) for 4 four years. What is obvious to me is not always obvious to others.) I've also had the opportunity to support ISAF (Kabul, AF).

Challenger, et al,

NO. ----

I never said they were, but NATO naval forces can be deployed in a peacekeeping role under a U.N. mandate, can they not?

(COMMENT)

There is no UN influence over SHAPE.

V/R
R

Either I'm not making myself clear or you are being particularly obtuse. I'll try again. The U.N. can authorize the military forces of designated U.N. members to perform a set mission under UN auspices. Such assets can include ground, air or naval elements; i.e. fighting piracy in Somalia, or the Korean war(!)

(COMMENT)

The UN can say or do anything it wants; or authorize anything is wants. The North Atlantic Council (NAC) is the principal political decision-making body within NATO. Any individual nation may independently offer assistance to the UN. But no UN decision can compel the Chairman of the NATO Military Committee's (CMC) to take any action. The CMC's authority stems from the NATO Military Committee the the NATO Ruling body NAC (under Article 9).

You may not understand the controversy with the UN association in the Korean War. There are four principle Article VII Security Council resolutions relative to the Korean War:

• SC 82 (V)-S/1501 on June 25 1950

• SC 83 (V)-S/1511 on June 27 1950

• SC 84 (V)-S/1588 on July 7, 1950

• SC 85 (V)-S/1657 July 31, 1950
​

(CLARIFICATIONS)

The UN SC Resolutions 84/85 establish the entity known as “Unified Command” (which General of the Army Douglas MacArthur took Command). A "unified Command" is a command composed of combatant forces from two or more allied nations. The language of the resolution says that the Security Council, “Recommends that all members providing forces and other assistance pursuant to the aforesaid Security Council resolution make such forces and other assistance available to a Unified Command under the United States of America.” Any Allied Force contribution was actually under the US Unified Command. The USFK was not established until 1 July 1957. There is an argument if the UN actually had a UN Command there.

The UN Operations Somalia (UNOSOM) is not quite the same thing as Combatant Commands Forces. On 24 April 1992, the Security Council adopted resolution 751(1992), establishing UNOSOM I; a 50 unarmed but uniformed United Nations military observers. USSOM II was an incomplete mission under United Nations Security Council Resolution 794, terminated by the US. While UNOSOM II was a combatant Unified Command; it was a force by contribution. "By October 1993 UNOSOM II consisted of over 16,000 peacekeepers from 21 nations. This number would jump to 29,732 soldiers from 29 nations by mid-November with the arrival of over 17,000 additional U.S. personnel as part of a U.S. joint task force." --- "It was the first attempt by the international community to deal with a new post-Cold War phenomenon referred to as the “failed nation state.” It was also the first attempt by the United Nations to execute a Chapter VII peace enforcement operation to execute the parameters of Security Council mandates. However, the “failed state” appears not to be a phenomenon but a trend for the near future." (Source: United States Forces, Somalia After Action Report)

The EU Contribution you see pictured are NOT under a UN Command. They are operating under their national authority.

Most Respectfully,
R

So what? My point was that there is nothing to stop member countries of the U.N. contributing naval assets to an anti-smuggling operation; the mechanics of how that's done is frankly irrelevant to the point.

Oh so you want the UN to step in and fix yet another group of violent terroristic Muslims that cannot coexist. How unusual.

 

[Roudy]

But, do you see how it really DOES make a difference to how the 'situation' would be viewed by the rest of the world if it WASN'T Israel attacking Hamas but it was 'allied forces' responding to ANY attack against Israel?

Why is that, do you think? Why is it perceived to be "evil" and "hated" when Israel does it, but acceptable when someone else does the exact same thing?

I believe that, as Israel is classified as an 'occupier' by most of the world, any attack against those are 'occupied' is seen as simply wrong...

Occupier and attacker combined is not a good combination...

Now, you can argue that Israel does not occupy Gaza, you can argue that attacks against Israel are 'freedom fighters'.... But factually or conceptually, if you like, it remains that Israel does control air, land and sea of Gaza and attacks are carried out against Israel under the 'premise' of this fact...

You could say that Turkey attacking Kurds is "evil" yet the Kurds are attacking Turkey!

As I said previously, I really don't find any 'attacks' acceptable, however, IF it became necessary, I do believe that an 'allied force', on the ground, within Gaza, would be the better option...

Ha ha ha. Who should give give this "occupied" land back to?

Again, the land was Ottoman territory for the last 700 years, then British for a short period of time, and then for 20 years it was "occupied" by the Jordanians and the Egyptians after they failed attempt to destroy Israel, which at no time during these 20 years did ANYBODY speak of this mythical invented Palestine or Palestinian people. Instead the Arabs who never recognized a "Palestine" used this land they "occupied" for 20 years to attack Israel once again, only this time they got their butts kicked once more and lost the land as well.

So who exactly does Israel give this land back to? The Turks or the British? I don't think the Jordanians and Egyptians even want the land back. They prefer to point fingers at Israel for a problem they created.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Challenger, et al,

No, it is me (obviously) not being clear to you. (I was assigned to SHAPE (Mons BE) for 4 years; and the EUSA/USF-K (Seoul, KR) for 4 four years. What is obvious to me is not always obvious to others.) I've also had the opportunity to support ISAF (Kabul, AF).

Challenger, et al,

NO. ----

(COMMENT)

There is no UN influence over SHAPE.

V/R
R

Either I'm not making myself clear or you are being particularly obtuse. I'll try again. The U.N. can authorize the military forces of designated U.N. members to perform a set mission under UN auspices. Such assets can include ground, air or naval elements; i.e. fighting piracy in Somalia, or the Korean war(!)

(COMMENT)

The UN can say or do anything it wants; or authorize anything is wants. The North Atlantic Council (NAC) is the principal political decision-making body within NATO. Any individual nation may independently offer assistance to the UN. But no UN decision can compel the Chairman of the NATO Military Committee's (CMC) to take any action. The CMC's authority stems from the NATO Military Committee the the NATO Ruling body NAC (under Article 9).

You may not understand the controversy with the UN association in the Korean War. There are four principle Article VII Security Council resolutions relative to the Korean War:

• SC 82 (V)-S/1501 on June 25 1950

• SC 83 (V)-S/1511 on June 27 1950

• SC 84 (V)-S/1588 on July 7, 1950

• SC 85 (V)-S/1657 July 31, 1950
​

(CLARIFICATIONS)

The UN SC Resolutions 84/85 establish the entity known as “Unified Command” (which General of the Army Douglas MacArthur took Command). A "unified Command" is a command composed of combatant forces from two or more allied nations. The language of the resolution says that the Security Council, “Recommends that all members providing forces and other assistance pursuant to the aforesaid Security Council resolution make such forces and other assistance available to a Unified Command under the United States of America.” Any Allied Force contribution was actually under the US Unified Command. The USFK was not established until 1 July 1957. There is an argument if the UN actually had a UN Command there.

The UN Operations Somalia (UNOSOM) is not quite the same thing as Combatant Commands Forces. On 24 April 1992, the Security Council adopted resolution 751(1992), establishing UNOSOM I; a 50 unarmed but uniformed United Nations military observers. USSOM II was an incomplete mission under United Nations Security Council Resolution 794, terminated by the US. While UNOSOM II was a combatant Unified Command; it was a force by contribution. "By October 1993 UNOSOM II consisted of over 16,000 peacekeepers from 21 nations. This number would jump to 29,732 soldiers from 29 nations by mid-November with the arrival of over 17,000 additional U.S. personnel as part of a U.S. joint task force." --- "It was the first attempt by the international community to deal with a new post-Cold War phenomenon referred to as the “failed nation state.” It was also the first attempt by the United Nations to execute a Chapter VII peace enforcement operation to execute the parameters of Security Council mandates. However, the “failed state” appears not to be a phenomenon but a trend for the near future." (Source: United States Forces, Somalia After Action Report)

The EU Contribution you see pictured are NOT under a UN Command. They are operating under their national authority.

Most Respectfully,
R

So what? My point was that there is nothing to stop member countries of the U.N. contributing naval assets to an anti-smuggling operation; the mechanics of how that's done is frankly irrelevant to the point.

Smuggling?

What laws are the Palestinians violating by importing weapons?

The UN charter for 10 or so, as that spells it out. Then the Geneva conventions and IHL. All detailed in full previously and you ignored them then as you will now because they destroy your POV

Where?

Links?