They've pushed it too far

[TrailblazingScot]

No...I said very clearly that it was better the palestinians kill people that hate them instead of random people at a pizza place...

The reaction by Sharon to make such a big deal is simpply to justify the renewal of the assassination policy that Israel used to have...it was nothing like an 11th of September but business as usual in the Middle-east.

The dude that died also like to keep a lion in a cage outside his office...that is reason enough for his death to be justified

 

[joespaniel]

G-Man - What do you think of the Mitchell plan?

 

[G-Man]

kittenOFchaos - This IS a turning point. Israel didn't say the last word yet. We gave Arafat one week to turn in the assasinators and the leaders of the terror orgenizations. If he won't do so, and I don't think he will, Israel is going to capture these terrorists without his help.
This is a much more serious situation then in the pizza restaurant, because this man is a democratic leader, and killing democratic leaders because of their opinions destroyes democracy. If anyone that has right wing ideas would be killed it wouldn't be a democracy, now would it?
Also I really don't understand what you said about a lion...

joespaniel - I support the Mitchell plan very strongly. The only problem is that whenever there's a cease fire the Palestinians take it that they shouldn't do anything, not even to arrest terrorists, and so there are terror attacks in Israel and the cease fire can't last even a day, not to mention the week of quiet Israel wants before starting to fully implement the Mitchell plan. Even though, we did start implementing it. The day before Ze'evi's murder Israel withdrew from Abu snaina (A nehibourhood the Palestinians used as an army post. They shot on Israelis soming to pray in the Mahpela cave, where according to trudition the founders of Jewdism are buried) and lifted closures in a lot of places. The Palestinians used the freedom we gave them to go to Jerusalem and kill Ze'evi.

 

[joespaniel]

Should the UN or the US send 'peacekeeping' troops?

Or would that make things worse? I think so. What about neutral third party countries? Like Belgium or France?

What do you think should be done now?

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

Should the UN or the US send 'peacekeeping' troops?

Or would that make things worse? I think so. What about neutral third party countries? Like Belgium or France?

France should send UN troops and Belgium schould do the diplomacy.It would be great but America would never allow it.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by joespaniel
Should the UN or the US send 'peacekeeping' troops?

What do you think should be done now?

Well, first of all, the UN is constantly condemning Isreal.

Second, nobody really pays attention to the UN anyhow, except for quasi-socialist nations like Sweden and Finland.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

"Second, nobody really pays attention to the UN anyhow, except for quasi-socialist nations like Sweden and Finland."

I think it's only the US that doesn't pay attention to the UN. Russia and China certainly do cos they got veto power, along with Britain and France. Useful as a foreign policy tool. Third World countries (incl Arab ones) also do cos it gives them the forum to voice their concerns; also each country got one common vote or something. Japan certainly does cos otherwise it got a crippled foreign presence (except economic). The only country that didn't pay up their UN dues is the US I think. Amazing how quickly realpolitik (spur support for its war on terrorism fr nations of the world) can spur the US to settle its dues.

 

[amadeus]

Well, the UN expects the U.S. to do what, bail those little third world nations out every year?

If they're going to condemn us for being a prosperous while other countries are poor, why would you want anything to do with them?

Also, the "Human Rights" board on the UN...geez, even Libya and CUBA is on that board. CUBA! Honestly...

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by joespaniel
Should the UN or the US send 'peacekeeping' troops?

Or would that make things worse? I think so. What about neutral third party countries? Like Belgium or France?

What do you think should be done now?

What will those soldiers do? The Palestinians won't agree to put a military zone between them and Israel, and Israel won't agree unless there's something like that - the UN gave us enough problems in Lebanon.
All you guys debating about the UN - Israel doesn't listens to them as well. We can't. The muslim countries (and countries with a large muslim minority) almost always vote against us, but we have only one vote. That's fair...

 

[joespaniel]

There are still UN troops in the Sinai, but thats a different horse.

I imagine any foriegn troops in the West Bank would have to fight terrorists everyday. So, thats not going to work.

I'm out of ideas. Its a huge quagmire, and I'm thinking Arafat has lost control of the extremists too.

 

[G-Man]

That fighting terrorists is the main problem. When Israel kills a terrorist other countries always condemn it... But without killing them or without getting into Palestinian terrirory there's no way to stop them...
Now there are news that Arafat arrested a some terrorists... But Israli intelligence says these are the guys that rally in the streets and inflame people, not the commanders and those who plan and execute the attacks.

 

[Ashoka]

This is one of those situations where a neutral 3rd party would be a great help.

Too bad Japan has had such a non-involvement policy (though I understand it.) Peacekeepers from a nation that has no roots in any of the bickering religious/political/national factions would be a big help.

Taiwan would be a second choice - but it would piss off PRC.

PRC has too many issues with Islamic terrorists of its own.

I think any European nations would cause too much friction...

Ashoka

 

[joespaniel]

What about Egypt? Are Isreal and Egypt getting along these days? I hate to say it, but arab peacekeepers are whats needed, to stop violence.

I cant think of any other arab countries that would do it. Jordan?

What about Turkey, Tunisia, Morrocco... These countries had troops in Somolia with the UN. Even Pakistan.

Just a thought.

 

[amadeus]

There won't be peace in the Middle East until people like Saddam Hussein, Ayatollah Khameini, and Yasir Arafat are dead.

 

[joespaniel]

Saddam may not be around much longer...

 

[Mikoyan]

Not to surprise you or anything, rmsharpe, but Ayatollah Khomeini has been dead since the 80's.........
And the best peacekeepers would be Moroccans, they are one of the few arab nations that does'nt hate Israel.

 

[Juize]

Originally posted by rmsharpe


Well, first of all, the UN is constantly condemning Isreal.

Second, nobody really pays attention to the UN anyhow, except for quasi-socialist nations like Sweden and Finland.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by Mikoyan
Not to surprise you or anything, rmsharpe, but Ayatollah Khomeini has been dead since the 80's.........
And the best peacekeepers would be Moroccans, they are one of the few arab nations that does'nt hate Israel.

Yes, Ayatollah Khomeini (1900-1989) died in 1989.

Ayatollah Khameini (1939-20xx) has been the Supreme Leader of Iran since 1989. He was a close friend of Ayatollah Khomeini, and carries on the traditions of Ayatollah Khomeini since the Iranian Revolution of 1979.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by joespaniel
What about Egypt? Are Isreal and Egypt getting along these days? I hate to say it, but arab peacekeepers are whats needed, to stop violence.

I cant think of any other arab countries that would do it. Jordan?

What about Turkey, Tunisia, Morrocco... These countries had troops in Somolia with the UN. Even Pakistan.

Just a thought.

Israel can't agree to that. The fact is that all muslim countries are either fully supporting the Palestinians or are afraid of fanatic muslim terrorism. Countries like Turkey and Egytp are too afraid of what will happen if they won't support the Palestinians. Remember what happened to the last Egyptian leader that was friendly to Israel? (hint: )

 

[joespaniel]

He was a courageous man. Its sad that so many men that championed peace have been assassinated for it.

Its always harder to sell peace than war. Untill all sides have suffered enough, and are sick of conflict.

It does'nt even have to be a UN operation, and I think it should'nt anyway. Too biased. I just thought that an arab third party would work better, but the terrorists would probably just kill them too.

What is the current situation politicaly?

Is war imminent? Or should I say a large military operation against terrorists?