It seems like the only chance there will ever be peace between Israel and the Palestinians is if there is a sustained time with no attacks by either side. Why not put some of those guys with blue helmets in the Palestinian areas, along the border, and in Israeli cities? It is obvious each side doesn't trust the other. Could a UN enforced peace give them enough time to compromise?
UN peacekeepers in Israel/Palestine?
- Thread starter TheBDB
- Start date
Only problem Sharon will come and go, Arafat is not going away till he is dead. Arafat as been a problem for decades.
UN would not crack down on the terrorism in the west bank nor would they be able to prevent terrorists from entering israel. The terrorists would simply operate with impunity from the west bank.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,098
- 5,639
- 126
Sems to me that this idea has been suggested in the past. It wouldn't be the first such UN Peace Mission either, Cyprus was a similar situation where UN Peace Keepers maintained a No-mans land between 2 fighting parties. I think 1 of the main problems with the current Israel/Palestinian situation is that the West Bank doesn't have a developed enough economy(in Cyprus each side had access to trade routes and other necessities), so it is difficult to keep the 2 sides separate for people need to cross the Israel/Westbank border for their livelihood. This would give Terrorists the opportunity to still cross the border.
The only way to accomplish such a thing would be to just close the border. Before this could be done though some Economic developement would have to occur in the West Bank.
Then there is the problem of the Jewish Settlements. With no access to Israel, the Terrorists would likely attack the Settlements. That would inevitably lead to either Israeli retaliation using Air forces or possibly Ground forces crossing "illegaly". In short, unless the Jewish Settlements were abandoned, the UN Forces would likely be ineffective and just end up in the middle of a neverending conflict.
I also suspect that any such UN Resolution would be vetoed, by the US.
The only way to accomplish such a thing would be to just close the border. Before this could be done though some Economic developement would have to occur in the West Bank.
Then there is the problem of the Jewish Settlements. With no access to Israel, the Terrorists would likely attack the Settlements. That would inevitably lead to either Israeli retaliation using Air forces or possibly Ground forces crossing "illegaly". In short, unless the Jewish Settlements were abandoned, the UN Forces would likely be ineffective and just end up in the middle of a neverending conflict.
I also suspect that any such UN Resolution would be vetoed, by the US.
Such a resolution has been proposed to the UN on multiple occassions, all of them have been veto'ed by the United States. Frankly, its a good thing that it was veto'ed. Although it probably is on good faith, UN peacekeeping in Isreal would be more dangerous than Somalia. If I were part of that task force, I'd bail out ASAP. On one hand you have erratic Palestinian radicals that blend in perfectly with the population. On the other hand, you have right wing IDF soldiers who would probably shoot you on sight and get away because it was deemed an "accident". A lose lose situation, unless you get some real muscle.
dont forget that the UN technically runs all of the refugee camps in the west bank. palestinians have been known to shoot from inside them so i dont know that UN would be very adept at sustaining peace.
ThePresence
Elite Member
- Nov 19, 2001
- 27,730
- 16
- 81
I have no idea how the UN soldiers would be stopping the terrorists. Israel has a pretty damn good military, and they stop many attacks, however some still get through. The UN soldiers would just make it worse. There would be an increase in terrorist attacks.
Many would say Sharon has been an antagonist for decades as well. The only hope for peace is for both sides to respect Israel's pre-1967 war border and for a legitimate peace broker to take the reigns. The US under Clinton played favorites . . . under Bush our policy is malignant.
why does everyone choose "pre-1967" as the border everyone should respect? the arab countries started and lost two major wars and the terretory that went with them. that would be like japan asking for everyone to return to pre-1942 boundaries. if the arabs had won those wars and wiped israel off the map, would they ever let a jew back in the area?
the problem is that the palestinians have to live with all of the mistakes that the arab countries around them have made.
I must have missed the day in Sunday School where the teacher covered "war spoils".
SS Teacher: So class what would Jesus do when someone hit him?
Class: Turn the other cheek.
SS Teacher: So what should you do when someone hits you?
Class: Kick his butt and then take his lunch money.
SS Teacher: So class what would Jesus do when someone hit him?
Class: Turn the other cheek.
SS Teacher: So what should you do when someone hits you?
Class: Kick his butt and then take his lunch money.
Damn are you really that dense . . . look up analogy in the dictionary and see if your examples still make sense.
Native Americans . . . ring a bell.
Philipplines . . . try a history book.
Falklands . . . try our ally.
We gave several Carribbean islands back b/c . . . well they were filled with black people.
The Bible or in this case the Torah . . . is a religious document that happens to contain some historically-valid segments. The maps consistent with Judea for example . . . didn't exactly come with GPS border markers.
ok, lets clear something up.
the five arab states that were at war with israel were not trying to "hit them" they were trying to wipe israel off the map. the israeli's themselves began digging graves before the war began because they thought it was going to be a massacre. even after the war was suspended by a UN armistice, the arab countries maintained their stance of not recognizing the state of israel. if israel had "turned the other cheek" as you suggest, they would cease to exist.
edit: we are no longer engaged in hostilities with any of the groups that you mentioned above. the last time we fought with native americans was almost 100 years ago. i am sure if the palestinians would stop blowing people up, israel would be more open to giving them land. hell, they would have given them over 90% of the land in 1998 if arafat hadn't rejected it!
Actually the Jews do believe in Jesus they just don't consider him their personal Lord and Savior. Considering Israel's primary benefactor (US) is ruled by an ardent (allegedly) follower of Jesus Christ . . . they better be prepared to follow our (read JC) rules.
Even if your blurb encapsulated the etiology of the Arab-Israeli conflict over borders (which it does not) it would not explain Israel's occupation of territory in the West Bank and Gaza. The Arab nations you cite scarcely claim the Palestinians . . . and even if they did . . . these countries have an extensive history of NOT acting in the best interests of the Palestinians.
I will have to stop here b/c you need a serious date with American history before I bother with you again. The "major" Native American tribes occupy small swaths of territory compared to their former "homelands". Despite the fact they are taking the white man's money hand over fist in their casinos, American corporations/government continue to cheat them on the royalties from extracted natural resources on the western reservations.
As recently as 1970 it was illegal for Hawaiians to speak . . . Hawaiian.
You cannot offer something to someone that does not belong to you. The US government practiced such BS throughout the 19th and early 20th century. Israel has learned well hence they have spent billions since the 1970s to settle the West Bank and Gaza. I, too wish the Palestinians would stop blowing people up. I also wish Israel would stop blowing people up . . . particularly since Israeli missiles/bombs are only marginally less indiscriminate than suicide bombers.
-jews dont 'believe' in jesus. he is just the same as any other historical figure, no more, no less.
- i wasnt trying to summarize the feelings of the conflict, i was trying to differentiate between the hypothetical situation you proposed involding jesus and the actual situation in real life. it is not a personal argument and much more dangerous stuff is flying through the air than fists.
-i wasnt directly comparing the situation of any of those groups to that of israel. i was stating one major fact about every one of those groups that does not apply to israel.
- i wasnt trying to summarize the feelings of the conflict, i was trying to differentiate between the hypothetical situation you proposed involding jesus and the actual situation in real life. it is not a personal argument and much more dangerous stuff is flying through the air than fists.
-i wasnt directly comparing the situation of any of those groups to that of israel. i was stating one major fact about every one of those groups that does not apply to israel.
i think it would cause more problems then it would solve(if any) especially if americans are involved in the peacekeeping, which i see no way around since the UN is basically inept without us on anything of this nature. the peacekeepers would simply be targets thenselves as it has been before.
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/terror.htm
http://www.terrorismvictims.org/terrorists/beirut-marine-barracks.html
i say let france and germany do it.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter