VorZakone
What would Kenny G do?
- Joined
- May 9, 2013
- Messages
- 33,990
This is where the UN could make themselves useful, but putting in peacekeeping troops to oversee the area, which would also allow other UN agencies to help. Not sure if the Israelis would go for it though, since they would want to keep security control of the strip until they receive guarantees leaving wouldn't allow another group to step in.
This is what should've happened in the first place, an outside entity needs to govern and maintain the west bank and gaza.PA Prime Minister on alleged Israeli plans for post-Hamas Gaza:
The Palestinian Authority will not return to governing Gaza after the Israel-Hamas conflict without a comprehensive agreement that includes the West Bank in a Palestinian state, the authority’s prime minister has said.Israeli civilian and military officials have said their plan for the end of the Gaza war is to have some form of transitional authority rule the territory, perhaps involving Arab states, leading to the restoration of the Palestinian Authority (PA), which was ousted from Gaza in a 2007 Hamas coup.But Mohammad Shtayyeh, who has been prime minister since 2019, said the PA would not cooperate without a return to a genuine peace process resulting in two sovereign states……Shtayyeh argued that the Israeli need for someone else to run the territory in place of Hamas gives the international community a rare degree of leverage to return to a two-state solution that Netanyahu has systematically dismantled during his time in office.“The question for us – the Israelis, the Americans, the Europeans, everybody – is, how can we make out of this disaster an opportunity for peace?” he said.https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...l-not-run-gaza-without-solution-for-west-bank
I guess that's an encouraging statement?!
The West has to understand that Israel can hurt the West's interests while being an ally. The West wants a rules-based international order based on international agreements. But there is no point in lecturing others on all that if their own ally is blatantly violating it.It's one thing for Western states to prioritize "Israel's right to defend itself", while the war is still ongoing. But I think, or at least I hope, that after the war Israel's allies will look back at all the blood that has been spilled and push for a solution that at least promises the chance of peace and handing Gaza to more moderate institutions, and giving them some security guarantees/Israeli concessions, so that they can sell it to their people, sounds logical.
This is the crux of basically everything.The West has to understand that Israel can hurt the West's interests while being an ally. The West wants a rules-based international order based on international agreements. But there is no point in lecturing others on all that if their own ally is blatantly violating it.
It does make me wonder what conversations are going on between Arab leaders behind the scenes, and if it might have been possible to forestall Israel’s current path in some way in the immediate aftermath of 7th October.
The West has to understand that Israel can hurt the West's interests while being an ally. The West wants a rules-based international order based on international agreements. But there is no point in lecturing others on all that if their own ally is blatantly violating it.
It does make me wonder what conversations are going on between Arab leaders behind the scenes, and if it might have been possible to forestall Israel’s current path in some way in the immediate aftermath of 7th October.
The West has to understand that Israel can hurt the West's interests while being an ally. The West wants a rules-based international order based on international agreements. But there is no point in lecturing others on all that if their own ally is blatantly violating it.
I think you'd want to a bit of depth to that analysis of yours.I don't think there was any way around Israel invading Gaza after the attack. There's just no way countries would tell their ally to just suck it up and tolerate a terrorist organization in charge of 2 million people. It was always about managing civilian casualties - and as we all know that doesn't seem to go to well.
See my answer above, that's precisely the dilemma for Western countries. To put it into very simple terms: the rules say that Israel has the right to invade Gaza and that their Western allies have to support them in fighting Hamas. On the other hand Israel are breaking the rules when it comes to civilian suffering. The Western states can't abandon an ally right after it has been attacked (or Israel in general, if we're being honest), but I think/hope that afterwards they will want to make sure that they won't be put into such a situation again.
I don't think there was any way around Israel invading Gaza after the attack. There's just no way countries would tell their ally to just suck it up and tolerate a terrorist organization in charge of 2 million people. It was always about managing civilian casualties - and as we all know that doesn't seem to go to well.
See my answer above, that's precisely the dilemma for Western countries. To put it into very simple terms: the rules say that Israel has the right to invade Gaza and that their Western allies have to support them in fighting Hamas. On the other hand Israel are breaking the rules when it comes to civilian suffering. The Western states can't abandon an ally right after it has been attacked (or Israel in general, if we're being honest), but I think/hope that afterwards they will want to make sure that they won't be put into such a situation again.
I don't think there was any way around Israel invading Gaza after the attack. There's just no way countries would tell their ally to just suck it up and tolerate a terrorist organization in charge of 2 million people. It was always about managing civilian casualties - and as we all know that doesn't seem to go to well.
This isn't the historic sticking point when it comes to rule breaking though, the rule breaking that everyone is pissed off about is an occupying power placing settlers on occupied land. Israel killing civilians is something that's been happening for decades, they unfortunately have carte Blanche.To put it into very simple terms: the rules say that Israel has the right to invade Gaza and that their Western allies have to support them in fighting Hamas. On the other hand Israel are breaking the rules when it comes to civilian suffering
I don't think hypocrisy has ever been a problem for the West, for like ever. The West pretty much defines the world order. So they can talk about peace, human rights etc etc., while actively supporting countries that turn cities to dust.The West has to understand that Israel can hurt the West's interests while being an ally. The West wants a rules-based international order based on international agreements. But there is no point in lecturing others on all that if their own ally is blatantly violating it.
Maybe they should tell them to suck it up and not occupy 3 million people in the West Bank, take their land and murder them, along with not putting up a blockade on another 2 million people. Maybe they should also look in the mirror to see where 'terrorist leadership' problem really is.
This isn't the historic sticking point when it comes to rule breaking though, the rule breaking that everyone is pissed off about is an occupying power placing settlers on occupied land. Israel killing civilians is something that's been happening for decades, they unfortunately have carte Blanche.
First comes the military response, only then comes reflection. I don't think that's always the smartest order, but that's how states operate, isn't it?
Never got over this stuff tbh. Your mind has to be broken to act in this way.
Never got over this stuff tbh. Your mind has to be broken to act in this way.
And you still get the benefits of dual citizenship.I would be running like this if I would have a free house. Specially if encouraged by my lovely government and it doesn't cost a dime to the tax payers
https://m.jpost.com/israel-news/article-770790?utm_source=jpost.app.apple&utm_medium=shareWhen discussing the call for a ceasefire, Clinton stated: “People who are calling for a ceasefire now, don’t understand Hamas... It would be such a gift to Hamas because they would spend whatever time [that] there was a ceasefire in effect rebuilding their armaments... to be able to fend off an eventual assault by the Israelis.”
All they want is peace.
Hillary Clinton: 'People who call for ceasefire do not understand Hamas'
https://m.jpost.com/israel-news/article-770790?utm_source=jpost.app.apple&utm_medium=share
About what you'd expect from a hawk like her, but still, it's nice that she keeps reminding everyone how much she fecking sucks.Hillary Clinton: 'People who call for ceasefire do not understand Hamas'
https://m.jpost.com/israel-news/article-770790?utm_source=jpost.app.apple&utm_medium=share
Iran?Out of interest where would they procure these armaments and get them into Gaza?
Ethnic cleansing, maybe yes. War crimes? Maybe, I will let the lawyers at the ICC decide that. Holocaust- I think that is just wrong and actually slightly repellent to use that word in this context.
Genocide - well you wouldn’t classify the bombing of Dresden or the firebombing of Tokyo as genocides, and as horrific as this is, it looks more to me like those things than genocide. I just don’t think genocide is a word to use lightly.
Bill Clinton: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”About what you'd expect from a hawk like her, but still, it's nice that she keeps reminding everyone how much she fecking sucks.
Iran?
Never got over this stuff tbh. Your mind has to be broken to act in this way.