Well said Ron Huldai...

[RoccoR]

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

 

[Challenger]

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 authorise 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(!)

"Adopting a unanimous resolution, the 15-member body highlighted the important role played by ships from regional organizations such as the European Union Naval Force (EUNAVFOR) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Operation (NATO) Ocean Shield, but noted that the primary responsibility lies with the Somalia, a country torn apart by 25 years of strife.

“While noting improvements in Somalia, [the Council] recognizes that piracy exacerbates instability in Somalia by introducing large amounts of illicit cash that fuels additional crime and corruption,” the resolution declared, stressing "the need for a comprehensive response to prevent and suppress piracy and tackle its underlying causes by the international community.”

It called on States and regional organizations to deploy naval vessels, arms, and military aircraft, and provide logistical support for counter-piracy forces. UN News - Somalia: Security Council reauthorizes international naval forces to fight piracy off East Africa

It therefore follows the UN SC can call upon regional organizations to deploy naval vessels, arms, and military aircraft, and provide logistical support for counter-smuggling forces in Gazan waters as part of a peace keeping force.

 

[Shusha]

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.

 

[Shusha]

Peace is not the absence of conflict. It is the presence of justice. ~ MLK

With all of the so called generous offers made to the Palestinians, none of them included justice.

Because your sense of justice applies to only one peoples. That's not justice. Where's the justice, in your world, for the Jewish people?

 

[RoccoR]

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

 

[RoccoR]

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

 

[RoccoR]

Shusha, et al,

There is no intention on the part of the greater Arab League or the Palestinians to protect and preserve the Jewish National Home.

Peace is not the absence of conflict. It is the presence of justice. ~ MLK

With all of the so called generous offers made to the Palestinians, none of them included justice.

Because your sense of justice applies to only one peoples. That's not justice. Where's the justice, in your world, for the Jewish people?

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians don't preceive Israel to have any justice coming to them.

Remember the Khartoum Resolution: The "Three Nos" articulated in the third paragraph:

• No peace with Israel,
• No recognition of Israel, and
• No negotiations with Israel.
​

The Threats are what they are.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

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

Indeed. We agree.

While the concept is interesting and creative, it is unlikely to be effective. For exactly the reason you suggest -- an international force will not have the incentive to employ force as a means of enforcement of concept, and indeed will have very strong counter-incentives. In fact, I believe Humanity has stated that the intent of his suggestion is to reduce the use of force (Israel's 'excessive' force, as he labels it).

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.)

 

[Shusha]

Shusha, et al,

There is no intention on the part of the greater Arab League or the Palestinians to protect and preserve the Jewish National Home.

Peace is not the absence of conflict. It is the presence of justice. ~ MLK

With all of the so called generous offers made to the Palestinians, none of them included justice.

Because your sense of justice applies to only one peoples. That's not justice. Where's the justice, in your world, for the Jewish people?

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians don't preceive Israel to have any justice coming to them.

Remember the Khartoum Resolution: The "Three Nos" articulated in the third paragraph:

• No peace with Israel,
• No recognition of Israel, and
• No negotiations with Israel.​

The Threats are what they are.

Most Respectfully,
R

Preaching to the choir.

 

[Humanity]

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.

Yes, that's pretty much the concept...

In relation to any attacks on Israel... Yes, Israel COULD still respond against Hamas...

However, as I mentioned in my earlier post, I would suggest that any 'response' be carried out EITHER exclusively by the international force (removing any chance of criticism of Israel) OR in collaboration of the international force...

Do I think it would work? Who knows... No crystal ball here, sorry...

I do think though, it's important to understand the consequences, in my opinion, of any attack by Hamas on Israel after the international force is in place...

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...

No, I do not like the 'solutions' that took place in Iraq or Afghanistan, for example, but Gaza is a different situation...

And this option to be able to take control of Gaza is a reason why having minimal assistance from Israel within Gaza is necessary... 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'...

Contrary to the uneducated belief of one member here, I am proposing this as a solution that will secure Israel, along with the 'safeguards' of having an international force capable of overthrowing Hamas if necessary...

 

[Humanity]

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...

 

[Humanity]

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"...

 

[Phoenall]

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...

Could if the arab muslims agreed to every aspect and were prepared to rip up all their agreements that incite violence on the Jews. Then rip up all their charters and start with new ones that don't attack Israel. ONE MASSIVE LEAP OF FAITH THAT COULD NEVER HAPPEN

 

[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"...

HOW ? when now if Israel responds to attacks you are one of the first to demonise them for it. How will it differ if their is an international force in place and Israel responds to an attack by the Palestinians. Wont it be just the same with you cheerleading the attacks on Israel

 

[Humanity]

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"...

HOW ? when now if Israel responds to attacks you are one of the first to demonise them for it. How will it differ if their is an international force in place and Israel responds to an attack by the Palestinians. Wont it be just the same with you cheerleading the attacks on Israel

Read my earlier post dummy!

And to be quite frank Phoney, if all you are going to do is troll this board... You may as well bugger off!

No one even bothers reading your posts anymore...

Always full of the same troll hatred and BS of an 11 year old...

Participate like a grown up or go elsewhere!

 

[Shusha]

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.

 

[Shusha]

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"...

So essentially, you are proposing that we force the issue and then respond in spades -- but we do so as an international community and not just Israel. Essentially, lending "legitimacy" to an overwhelming military action.

 

[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...

 

[Humanity]

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"...

So essentially, you are proposing that we force the issue and then respond in spades -- but we do so as an international community and not just Israel. Essentially, lending "legitimacy" to an overwhelming military action.

Well... I would like to hope that the "legitimacy" would not be required ;-)

But yes, lift the blockade on the understanding that there will be a significant, independent international force on the ground, and that Hamas are made very aware of the consequences of breaking a 'ceasefire'...

It not only lends "legitimacy" but it also removes any potential "blame/hate" that Israel would face should she do it alone!

 

[Shusha]

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?