Peace Talks - Will Israel Really Withdraw?

Your posts seem to have trouble demonstrating an understanding of war.

 

You are angry,
but I am not done.
Answer my question,
and we'll have some fun.

 

Your post seems to have trouble demonstrating an understanding of what my post said..

 

You are done..you just fail to recognise it..

 

Let's try to fix that appearance.

 

Is it more important than Islam recognizing Israel?

 

Yawn.....so you have nothing to add..same ole same ole..as I said you are done as usual..bye bye..

 

Are we not going to have a conversation due to your fear?

 

Really... how can you explain this from the comfort of your armchair in the UK?
How do you dare come with such vacuous statements... I suspect you are one of the seven Million Muslims that have invaded England without shooting even one bullet, quoting Muamar Gadafi of Libya...

Well friend Judea, Samaria and Gaza where liberated from 19 years of Muslim yoke by the father of the present dwarf Abdullah the II supposedly reporting from an Opera bouffe country that is 77% of Palestine... Gaza during that time was under the military Egyptian rule.

Notwithstanding all the so called UN resolutions Judea and Samaria are two Jewish names that illustrate the heart of the Jewish Patrimony, Jordan is 77% of Palestine and 79% of its inhabitants are of Palestinian stock... thanks to the duplicitous UK... go figure...

Many of you are totally alien to that region and some of you who are so dedicated to the demise of Israel are already anticipating that its Lands would be distributed between the present terrorists in Judea, Samaria and Gaza... do not even know that Kurdistan is an autonomous Region (Kurdish: Herêmî Kurdistanî, Arabic: إقليم كردستان, Iqlīm Kurdistān)...

Please go open a book...

Please download a power point presentation "The Danger of the United Nations." from
http://www.mideasttruth.com/UNdanger.pps and upgrade your knowledge

Or go there and download it... very interesting
http://search.aol.com/aol/search?s_...llover&q="The+Danger+of+the+United+Nations."+

 

It wasn't about kindness, it was about our own best interests.

 

Well, Japan is still waiting on Russia to give some back.

 

Yes the Kuril Islands since world II!

 

Most people know that libertarians oppose wars because they violate the unalienable Rights of the Individual. The imposition of government over a territory though acts of tyranny is most severe of all violations of the unalienable Rigths of the individuals that comprise the resident population. Tyranny by any government is unacceptable.

 

Kindness and self-interests are not mutually exclusive or prioritative.

 

Most libertarians oppose wars because at some level their viewpoint is myopic and unheroic, and in addition they become confused when they have to apply a strongly domestic and economic belief system to foreign policy and war, forgetting that bad people are not left alone but instead handled as initiators of force. I conjecture that at least part of the reason this disconnect occurs is to psychosociologically protect themselves from the idea that libertarianism, at the far right in simple terms, undergoes the same struggles as communism at the far left, with their Bolshevism and their Menshivism, and they react violently at the idea that they can be anything like the communists who they think are evil.

Your conclusion is illogical. If tyranny is unacceptable, why do you accept tyranny and refuse to fight against it and build governments in their place that respect the rights of the individual?

 

Will an IDF Withdrawal from the West Bank Mean a Safe Haven for Extremist
Groups?

Col. Richard Kemp
Jerusalem Issues Brief Vol. 10, No. 8 22 August 2010


* To stand any real chance of success, every insurgent or terrorist
movement needs a safe haven to operate from. Israel has had more than a
flavor of what it can mean to leave hostile groups in control of lands
adjacent to its own borders in southern Lebanon and in Gaza. Any similar
move to totally cede control to the Palestinians of the West Bank or a part
of Jerusalem would carry immense risk.

* Some might argue that a modern high-tech state can monitor hostile
activities outside its borders. But surveillance and intelligence collection
against a deeply embedded, secretive, extremist network operating within a
dense civilian population is the most difficult target, and no national
intelligence organization can be confident that it will have a high success
rate against such a target.

* It has been suggested that an international force, perhaps a NATO
force, should replace the IDF presence in the West Bank, an idea that raises
a number of very serious questions. Where are the NATO troops going to come
from and how long are they going to stay? Some nations are simply not
prepared to put their troops into undue danger.

* What would happen to those who were prepared to take part in such a
force when the going got tough, as it inevitably would? Think of Lebanon in
1983 when suicide bomb attacks killed 300 troops and led to the withdrawal
of the French and American peacekeeping forces, or al-Qaeda's attack in
Madrid which led to the withdrawal of Spanish forces from the Iraq campaign.
Just how sure could we be that the electorates in contributing countries
would allow their militaries to remain deployed in the West Bank under these
kinds of pressures.

* To what extent would a NATO mission get in the way of a vital Israeli
effort to protect their own people? Finally, a failed NATO mission and a
West Bank under extremist control, flourishing under a security vacuum
there, would encourage and strengthen violent jihadists everywhere in the
world.



The Implications for Asymmetrical Activity by Extremist Groups

To stand any real chance of success, every insurgent or terrorist movement
needs a safe haven to operate from - one that is outside the control of the
state being targeted and preferably in a land that is free from interference
by the target state or its allies, whether due to geography, the protection
of a friendly regime, or operating within a failed state. The Vietnam
conflict was a classic example of the use of a safe haven. More recently, in
the Iraq campaign, Sunni extremists had a safe haven in Syria which was
their main logistic support base and a pipeline for suicide bombers flowing
into Iraq. They also used extensive support networks in Iran, which also
provided a safe haven for Shi'ite insurgents attacking coalition forces, as
well as through the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Hizbullah, which
provided training, organization, munitions, and direction.

Today the Afghan Taliban's safe haven and support base is in Pakistan,
although the second largest extremist group engaged in Afghanistan,
Hizb-i-Islami, has its main base in Iran itself. In March, General Petraeus,
the Head of U.S. Central Command, in testimony to the U.S. Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, revealed that Tehran is letting al-Qaeda leaders travel
freely between Pakistan and Afghanistan, effectively using Iranian territory
as a safe haven, while permitting them also to hold meetings in Iran to plan
terrorist attacks against U.S. and other Western targets.

Israel has had more than a flavor of what it can mean to leave hostile
groups in control of lands adjacent to its own borders in southern Lebanon
and in Gaza. Any similar move to totally cede control to the Palestinians of
the West Bank or a part of Jerusalem may have considerable attraction for
any peace process, and that is certainly the view of many in the
international community. But both prospects would carry immense risk from
the perspective of asymmetrical activities against Israel.

Some might argue that a modern high-tech state can monitor hostile
activities outside its borders. Yet we've seen many failures of intelligence
in relation to offensive activities by conventional forces and war plans by
nation-states which are generally relatively easy to identify and monitor.
But surveillance and intelligence collection against a deeply embedded,
secretive, extremist network operating within a dense civilian population is
the most difficult target, and no national intelligence organization can be
confident that it will have a high success rate against such a target.

Despite many spectacular successes, including the killing in Pakistan of
al-Qaeda's number three, Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, the unrivalled technological
supremacy of the U.S. military has failed to effectively dent the Taliban's
ability to smuggle munitions and infiltrate large groups of fighters across
the Afghan border. I do not for a moment underestimate the difficulties this
entails. Jordan's support or effectiveness in countering extremist activity
directed at Israel from the West Bank could not be counted upon, and
extremists would also seek to destabilize Jordan, an important stepping
stone to the destruction of Israel.

We can look again at Pakistan and Afghanistan to get an insight here. NATO
puts in a significant effort to coordinate cross-border security measures
with the government of Pakistan. Some of this is successful some of the
time. Some elements of the Pakistan government have different agendas,
supporting the Taliban when it suits them or at least turning a blind eye,
but Pakistan itself is suffering a very serious, dangerous, and worsening
insurgency from its own Taliban. Despite the contrary views of some, its own
Taliban, closely linked to the Afghanistan Taliban, is intent on bringing
down Pakistan's government, a goal shared by al-Qaeda leaders in Pakistan,
and despite efforts on both sides of the border, insurgents operate with
relative freedom. The importance of safe havens to extremists is well
understood by the Pakistan military. One of their greatest fears is that
NATO forces will withdraw precipitously from Afghanistan, leaving a vacuum
from which their own insurgency could be supported and strengthened. That,
of course, leaves a prospect of a nuclear-armed state falling into the hands
of extremists.

--------------------------------------------
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis
Website: www.imra.org.il

To be continued

 

continued from previous

Questions Surrounding a Prospective NATO Peacekeeping Deployment

It has been suggested that an international force, perhaps a NATO force
should replace the IDF presence in the West Bank. While I would not exclude
that idea in principle, it raises a number of very serious questions. First
of all, where are the NATO troops going to come from and how long are they
going to stay? Let us not forget the difficulties that NATO has had for
years and still has in mustering forces for the war in Afghanistan - and
this is for a campaign that is NATO's declared main effort and its only
real, current, live operation. Many of the troops that are there are
restricted by significant national caveats, including restricting
deployments to the safest areas. Some nations are simply not prepared to put
their troops into undue danger. Unfortunately, undue danger goes hand in
glove with war and with the toughest peacekeeping operations, and the West
Bank would fall clearly into that category. Some NATO nations can't operate
after dark and they leave the insurgents to control the night, with all the
implications that this has.

There is a significant risk that in trying to develop and maintain good
relations with all parties, the peacekeepers would instead become the enemy
of both sides. Potential contributors to the international forces would know
that. What would happen to those who were prepared to take part when the
going got tough, as it inevitably would? Think of Lebanon in 1983 when
suicide bomb attacks killed 300 troops and led to the withdrawal of the
French and American peacekeeping forces. An extremist with global reach will
not have forgotten al-Qaeda's attack in Madrid twenty years later which led
to the withdrawal of Spanish forces from the Iraq campaign. And let us not
for a moment assume that sinister, yet powerful, hands would not turn their
attention onto the peacekeeping forces in the West Bank, especially if they
showed signs of succeeding in their mission to bring lasting peace into the
region. Iran has a track record of stiffening the resolve of insurgent
groups that show any sign of faltering in their aggression against Israel,
and a track record of attacking Western forces using their proxies.

Just how sure could we be that the electorates in contributing countries
would allow their militaries to remain deployed in the West Bank under these
kinds of pressures, and how effective would NATO be as a peacekeeping force
in the demanding circumstances that we are considering? The only previous
success that NATO is able to claim in this field, and it is by no means
uncontroversial, was in Kosovo, which also in practice was a far less
complex situation.

NATO is, of course, not peacekeeping in Afghanistan, but we can get some
insight from its activities there. I've already mentioned the national
caveats. Similar difficulties apply to differing national rules of
engagement and tactical procedures, including a very wide variety of
constraints on air support. Would a NATO mission be ready and able to take
on insurgents, and if not, to what extent would they then get in the way of
a vital Israeli effort to do so to protect their own people?

After seven years in Afghanistan, how effectively has NATO taken control of
the insurgency there? In the six-month period up to March 2010 the number of
attacks against NATO forces increased by over 80 percent over the same
period in the previous year, and in the same time frame, attacks on the
civilian population in Afghanistan were up by over 70 percent. And how
assiduous has NATO been in its civilian reconstruction and governance
efforts, a critical element of its role in Afghanistan? Reconstruction has
been notable by its relative inability to gain traction and provide
essential depth for the military element of the counter-insurgency campaign.

In many ways peacekeeping is far tougher and more challenging than fighting
as combatants. It is one thing to act robustly against people that are
attacking you and your comrades. It is quite another to put your troops'
lives on the line when it is not them but others who are in danger. Dutch
forces have fought gallantly and effectively in Afghanistan. They've been
brave and they've taken many casualties, but Srebrenica cannot be forgotten.
More than 8,000 civilians were massacred there in 1995 under the eyes of
Dutch UN peacekeepers.

To conclude, I would neither exclude the possibility of an IDF withdrawal
from the West Bank nor their replacement with a NATO force, but before
either can be seriously contemplated there are some fundamental questions to
be resolved. These issues are critical to NATO, the West as a whole, and the
entire Middle East because a failed NATO mission and a West Bank under
extremist control, flourishing under a security vacuum there, would
encourage and strengthen violent jihadists everywhere in the world.



* * *Col. Richard Kemp is former Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan. This Jerusalem Issue Brief is based on his presentation at a conference on "Israel's Critical Security Needs for a Viable Peace," held in Jerusalem on
June 2, 2010.

 

It is the Right and the Duty of those subjected to the tyranny of government to determine if such tyranny is unacceptable and then it is their Right and their Duty to overthrow such tyranny.

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

Tyranny is not something that a third party can determine as it is subjective to those living under it nor does a third party have any authority to violate the sovereign Rights of the People living under possible tyranny through unilateral interventionism.

With regard to this principle established in the US Declaration of Independence the Palestinian People are fully within their Rights to oppose the military occupation of their territories by Israel with force. That does not convey the Right to carry out terrorist attacks against civilian populations but Palestinian attacks against the Israeli military are fully justifiable as they are fighting agianst the tyranny of Israel and they have a Right and a Duty to do so.

 

UN Security Council Resolutions 1368 and 1373 which were issued in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks and subsequent UN Resolutions expressly prohibit providing financials assistance or safe haven to terrorists. Compliance with these resolutions and any future UN Security Council Resolutions by a Palestinian State would, of course, be expected.

The compliance with UN Security Council Resolutions by all member nations of the United Nations is mandatory under the UN Charter. Israel needs to comply with such UN Resolutions as well as a Palestinian state. When Israel complies then it has a Right to demand other nations comply.

Until Israel meets it's treaty obligations to other member states of the United Nations by complying with UN Security Council Resolutions it really doesn't have any basis for complaining about the actions of other political states.

 

Your reliance on U.N is ridiculous Shiva. U.N is one of the most impotent and corrupt organizations in the world. Why would you trust a bunch of Muslim and third world countries or a group of 5 random powers to make policies is beyond me.

 

No nation is required to be a member of the United Nations but when they join they have a treaty obligation with all member states of the United Nations to comply with the UN Charter.

People like to condemn the United Nations when in fact they should be condemning those nations that are member states of the United Nations and are failing to fulfill their treaty obligations with the other member states. It is the responsibility of each nation to comply with it's treaty obligations with other nations.

The United Nations is not responsible for the failure of the member states to comply with Security Council Resolutions which is a treaty obligation that they voluntarily agreed to. If a nation doesn't want to comply then their treaty obligations should withdraw from the UN. It's really that simple. Of course in doing so they also give up their voice in international affairs but that is their choice.

 

I think the whole idea of a body whose legislative branch is based on a majority vote of non western countries, and that has no executive branch is absurd.

I agree with you, Israel should withdraw, and so should every western nation. This charade of irrelevant countries and clown dictators should not interfere with the interests of developed nations and the promotion of human rights anymore.

 

Myth Alert!! Myth Alert!! This 'defensive war' justification is a stale old Zionist fabrication. Firstly, no international law makes a distinction between being able to acquire territory by one type of war (e.g. 'defensive') and not by another (what? Offensive? LOL). Why? Simple - because there is no way to prove to the satisfaction of all, which is which. That is shown by this very case (see below). Zionist have been maintaining for decades that the 1967 war was 'defensive' and via very astute propaganda, convinced millions the world over of this.

But then along came the internet, plus the declassification of old files, plus the willingness of relatives of key Israelis from 1967 to open up their family archives. Tom Segev spent 4 years studying these (and much more) and in his book '1967' he annihilates the 'defensive' war myth, because the Israeli top brass knew dashed well that Nasser would not attack. Many Israeli leaders admitted this before - to wit Begin, Dayan and Rabin - but the Zionists went "burrah-warrah-can't-hear-you" in the past. The Sabra generals had other REAL motives. They saw the IDF's 'prestige' being at risk - I am not kidding. They hatched plans to make it appear that Egypt had in fact attacked. In fact at first they tried to sell this lie but recanted a few days later.

But above all, this war started in 1966 when Israel was suffering from the 'Syria syndrome' and, on Dayans own admission and UN observer Colonel Mühren's personal observations, Israel prodded and prodded the Syrians until they got a response. Then they attacked. Egypt had a defence pact with Syria. What this critically means is that there was no possibility of Israeli traffic in the Straits of Tiran having 'innocent passage' through Egyptian territorial water. The famous (?) Israeli 'Causus belli' for the launching of a 'defensive' first strike was nonsense. Israel had already started the war months before the June 1967 attack on Egypt.

As Begin put it (paraphrased): "We have to admit it. We decided to attack him first". As General Aharon Yariv put it "Nasser's move is a result of Syrian pressure". As Israel Lior stated "...the process was started with the air battle near Damascus on April 7 (1967)." As Brigadier-General Uzi Narkis is recorded as saying in a Defence Council meeting: "I don't believe Nasser is about to strike".

Israel wanted to cripple Egypt. The Sabra generals needed another session of blood-letting and IDF glorification. The age-old capitulation of the Israeli politicians to the demands of the Sabra military once again unfolded. Read Segev's book. It is a tsunami of direct quotes from these key players sweeping away the 'defensive war' myth. As General Yigal Allon said from a military perspective "There was no existential danger to the state (of Israel) ... The only crisis was psychological."

So can we trash this myth of 'defensive war' once and for all?

[I will revert later re comments on the lesson of Gaza - another example of false logic.]

 

That's ridiculous Klipkap. All Israelis in 1967 were in panic, the IDF chief of staff had a nervous breakdown. The Egyptians expelled U.N peacekeepers from Sinay, moved huge forces to Sinay, closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships, all the Arab leaders exclaimed that they are going to attack and massacre all the Jewish population.

A myth? Your credibility as poster on this site has dropped to zero.

 

Myth Alert!! Myth Alert!! HBendor, you know by now how this works, don’t you? You put up the myth and I get to critique it, in this case the sloppy CBN News video that you posted.

Let’s start with Tomas Sandal’s statement: “You can say the Israeli state was born the 25th of April 1920 in San Remo.” He had to put in the “you can say” bit, because this is not at all what happened. None of the 1920-1922 events ever mention an Israeli State. Zionists on this forum keep on repeating the creation of the Jewish State to try to help make it come true. But it will never true; ever. San Remo (in fact the Mandate for Palestine resolution of the League of Nations) granted The Jews were a Homeland, which as Shiva so carefully explained, they were meant to share with the inhabitants of Palestine, in one country, with one nationality .. Palestinian.

The CBN News anchorman, Chris Mitchell, makes a real schoolboy howler when he states “Exclusive legal and political rights in Palestine went to the Jews, while those same rights, in the rest of the Middle East, went to the Arabs.” This is absolute unadulterated nonsense. San Remo delivered nothing of the sort. All formal documentation reveals that he has sucked this crap out of his thumb, either that, or he got it straight from some Zionist web site. There was nothing of the sort like “same rights” given elsewhere to the Arabs. The Arabs were granted clear sovereignty in Syria and Iraq. The way Mitchell phrased it is designed to make it appear that the Jews got these rights in Palestine. This is pure crap. As I have previously written, the Zionist propaganda is very subtle and extremely well thought out. But, as Frodo’s signature says, “You cannot polish a turd, but you can roll it in glitter.” The Zionists are very good at this kind of rolling.” Mitchell tries a roll but he is caught out.

Grieff (?) says: “San Remo supercedes later UN resolutions.” What he really means but cannot say, it that it in fact only PRECEEDS them, the rest is inference. He then spins his web further: “The UN didn’t have the power to divide the country.” He is absolutely correct!! But he stops there, leaving us with the impression that the partition of Mandate Palestine was illegal, and we therefore have to fall back on the Mandate for Palestine and its predecessor for the answer. This is a fraud by Grieff.

As a legal expert on the foundation of Israel, he would be familiar with the prelude to UNGA resolution 181 in 1947. He would know full well that the plan was for UNSCOP to examine the ‘Palestine problem’ on site and to make recommendations; for the UN General Assembly to debate and modify those recommendations; and then to vote on the consensus. And the legality to the whole process was provided by the fact that the Mandate Holder, Great Britain, who did indeed have the legal right to divide Palestine, had previously agreed to be bound by the decision of the General Assembly.

I said that the Zionist propaganda was subtle. It is also dishonest, deliberately misleading, and tries to undermine international law.