How should Israel defend itself?

conorh91

kikidelvin wrote: »

How about the U.N.or N.A.T.O. protecting them if such a thing could happen

There is currently no clear framework for that to arise. After a promising beginning, the principle of R2P is still a vague, declaratory statement.

Peacekeeping, which is a different issue, would effectively require Hamas and the Arab World to recognize Israel before peacekeeping could commence. That's just not going to happen.

Like it or not, Israel does need protection.

The USA is the only thing keeping Israel from mass destruction.

It is probably the only entity capable and willing in this regard.

AbusesToilets

conorh91 wrote: »

There is currently no clear framework for that to arise. After a promising beginning, the principle of R2P is still a vague, declaratory statement.

Peacekeeping, which is a different issue, would effectively require Hamas and the Arab World to recognize Israel before peacekeeping could commence. That's just not going to happen.

Like it or not, Israel does need protection.

The USA is the only thing keeping Israel from mass destruction.

It is probably the only entity capable and willing in this regard.

Pretty sure Israel's robust military, strong economy and most importantly, it's proven nuclear capacity are keeping it from mass destruction.

johnnyskeleton

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Pretty sure Israel's robust military, strong economy and most importantly, it's proven nuclear capacity are keeping it from mass destruction.

Together with the fact that Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon etc are no longer trying to drive them into the sea and are seeking peace in the middle east, while Iraq and Syria are stifled by civil war. The idea of Israel beif attacked on all sides is no longer the reality, although obviously Iran is still an uncertainty.

obplayer

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Together with the fact that Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon etc are no longer trying to drive them into the sea and are seeking peace in the middle east, while Iraq and Syria are stifled by civil war. The idea of Israel beif attacked on all sides is no longer the reality, although obviously Iran is still an uncertainty.

I agree but you have to take psychology into account. Israel was set up as a safe haven for a people who had been harried, often brutally by such things as pogroms, from pillar to post for many centuries and then ultimately slaughtered in their millions. Such things would induce a siege mentality in any group. Paranoids have enemies too.

irishpancake

conorh91 wrote: »

There is currently no clear framework for that to arise. After a promising beginning, the principle of R2P is still a vague, declaratory statement.

Peacekeeping, which is a different issue, would effectively require Hamas and the Arab World to recognize Israel before peacekeeping could commence. That's just not going to happen.

Like it or not, Israel does need protection.

The USA is the only thing keeping Israel from mass destruction.

It is probably the only entity capable and willing in this regard.

What do you mean by "recognize Israel".

If you mean that Hamas, Fatah and the PA should recognize the reality of a State of Israel, based on it's Internationally recognized borders, the pre-67 borders, and a two-State reality , including Palestine and State of Israel, then that is already the situation. With the commencement of the Hamas/Fatah reconciliation and the formation of the Unity Government, under the PA, there is no question but that there is a recognition of the existance of a State of Israel.

Of course, if you mean that Palestinians, the Arab World and the International Community must recognize the Occupation and virtual Annexation [almost 50 years of occupation and settlements] of Palestinian Territories, against all International law, then you are asking the impossible.

What you would want then is the formalisation of the current situation, which will never be acceptable to the Palestinian people.

conorh91

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Pretty sure Israel's robust military, strong economy and most importantly, it's proven nuclear capacity are keeping it from mass destruction.

So then, you're claiming the US support for israel is of no consequence?

Which is it, does America's support matter or not?

irishpancake wrote: »

What do you mean by "recognize Israel".

Of course, if you mean that Palestinians, the Arab World and the International Community must recognize the Occupation and virtual Annexation [almost 50 years of occupation and settlements] of Palestinian Territories, against all International law, then you are asking the impossible.

What you would want then is the formalisation of the current situation, which will never be acceptable to the Palestinian people.

OK… lets change the wording.

UN peacekeeping is, in effect, a non-runner until, or unless Israel and the Palestinian People can agree on where the borders lie.

Until then, we're back to an obligation to protect Israeli civilians by means other than UN peacekeeping. In my opinion, this necessitates US military support for Israeli defence.

Lets not forget that the UN is ultimately responsible for the Paliestinian Territory, including welfare and defence, having 'inherited' the 1922 British mandate. You can't blame Israel or the USA if the UN refuses to do its job properly.

Nodin

conorh91 wrote: »

So then, you're claiming the US support for israel is of no consequence?

Which is it, does America's support matter or not?

OK… lets change the wording.

UN peacekeeping is, in effect, a non-runner until, or unless Israel and the Palestinian People can agree on where the borders lie.

Until then, we're back to an obligation to protect Israeli civilians by means other than UN peacekeeping. In my opinion, this necessitates US military support for Israeli defence.

Lets not forget that the UN is ultimately responsible for the Paliestinian Territory, including welfare and defence, having 'inherited' the 1922 British mandate. You can't blame Israel or the USA if the UN refuses to do its job properly.

Given that Israel is the one expanding into Palestinian territory and building colonies therein, I'm not getting its Israeli civillians that are in such need of protection or that its Israel in need of defence.

conorh91

Nodin wrote: »

Given that Israel is the one expanding into Palestinian territory and building colonies therein, I'm not getting its Israeli civillians that are in such need of protection or that its Israel in need of defence.

You're conflating two different issues.

There is no doubt that Palestinians need enhanced defences. Blame the UN for that. It's the UN who is responsible for defending Palestine under the 1922 mandate.

Now, although the Israeli government is in breach of international law, civilians are always tangental to conflicts in law. The legitimate targets for retaliation in response to Israeli aggression are thus specific members IDF security forces.

So whilst on the one hand there is a legitimacy in principle to Palestinian rockets being fired on Israel, the firing of those rockets on Israeli civilians is in breach of international law. It is necessary for civilians to be protected from such attacks, even in circumstances where their government is an aggressor.

In other words, just because the Israeli government and the Palestinian "government" are belligerents, that fact alone does not downplay the civilians' needs for protection.

It just so happens that nobody in the international community will help defend Palestine. But that misfortune doesn't logically detract from the legitimacy of protecting Israeli civilians, e.g. by use of the Iron Dome.

Yes, Israeli civilians do need and deserve military protection from mass, indiscriminate warfare .

Accepting that is the an important step forwards.

irishpancake

conorh91 wrote: »

So then, you're claiming the US support for israel is of no consequence?

Which is it, does America's support matter or not?

OK… lets change the wording.

UN peacekeeping is, in effect, a non-runner until, or unless Israel and the Palestinian People can agree on where the borders lie.

Until then, we're back to an obligation to protect Israeli civilians by means other than UN peacekeeping. In my opinion, this necessitates US military support for Israeli defence.

Lets not forget that the UN is ultimately responsible for the Paliestinian Territory, including welfare and defence, having 'inherited' the 1922 British mandate. You can't blame Israel or the USA if the UN refuses to do its job properly.

But again, what is this "Israeli defence" defending??

What right do those Israeli Citizen Settlers, living illegally on Annexed Palestinian Territories, have to a defence?? They are on Palestinian lands, therefore Palestinian forces have every right, under International Law, to try to eject them, forcibly if necessary. These Settlers are not citizens of the lands they occupy by force and conquest.

In my opinion, this "Israeli defence" you cite is defending the Occupation/Annexed Borders of territories garnered by conquest and expelling of native populations, and imprisoning them in high security and closely guarded and blockaded open-air prisons.

The UN responsibility for the Palestinian Non-State is completely negated by the US's flagrant support for Israel's present position, it's "borders", it's "right to self-defence" within those occupied/annexed Palestinian lands, it's settler policy, it's support of Israel's denial of a right to return for Palestinians, it's equation of the threat from so-called "rockets" with the gigantic hardware given to Israel by the US/UK and Europe.

Nodin

conorh91 wrote: »

You're conflating two different issues.

There is no doubt that Palestinians need enhanced defences. Blame the UN for that. It's the UN who is responsible for defending Palestine under the 1922 mandate. .

The UN can do nothing without a UNSC vote. As the US has a permanent seat and a veto on the UNSC, there can be no UN intervention.

The UN did not exist in 1922.

conorh91 wrote: »

Now, although the Israeli government is in breach of international law, civilians are always tangental to conflicts in law. The legitimate targets for retaliation in response to Israeli aggression are thus specific members IDF security forces. .

I'm not arguing as to their validity as targets, I'm pointing out that the odds of them being victims are very remote, whilst its Palestinians who have to live in genuine risk.

conorh91

irishpancake wrote: »

But again, what is this "Israeli defence" defending??

Thousands of rockets.

What right do those Israeli Citizen Settlers, living illegally on Annexed Palestinian Territories, have to a defence??

They are civilians. Even if they are living in an occupied territory, targeting them by way of military strikes, or targeting the area in which they live without taking reasonable steps to ensure their safety, is a war crime by the Palestinians.

The UN responsibility for the Palestinian Non-State is completely negated by the US's flagrant support for Israel's present position...

No it isn't. The UN responsibility for Palestinians is not negated by anything you mention. They have a responsibility to protect the Palestinians. They have absolutely no intention of coming to its assistance.

So blame the UN. They're the people with a piece of paper that gives them a mandate.

Funnily enough, the international community doesn't tend to have a problem criticizing the UN in this regard. Only in ireland, in my experience, is there an almost unquestioned support for everything to do with the UN, as though Irish people still think of the UN as some great international crusader for human rights. Hello??

I find that hard to understand or explain.

irishpancake

conorh91 wrote: »

You're conflating two different issues.

There is no doubt that Palestinians need enhanced defences. Blame the UN for that. It's the UN who is responsible for defending Palestine under the 1922 mandate.

Now, although the Israeli government is in breach of international law, civilians are always tangental to conflicts in law. The legitimate targets for retaliation in response to Israeli aggression are thus specific members IDF security forces.

So whilst on the one hand there is a legitimacy in principle to Palestinian rockets being fired on Israel, the firing of those rockets on Israeli civilians is in breach of international law. It is necessary for civilians to be protected from such attacks, even in circumstances where their government is an aggressor.

In other words, just because the Israeli government and the Palestinian "government" are belligerents, that fact alone does not downplay the civilians' needs for protection.

It just so happens that nobody in the international community will help defend Palestine. But that misfortune doesn't logically detract from the legitimacy of protecting Israeli civilians, e.g. by use of the Iron Dome.

Yes, Israeli civilians do need and deserve military protection from mass, indiscriminate warfare .

Accepting that is the an important step forwards.

And yet, the only "mass indiscriminate warfare" is coming from Israel and directed at Palestinians, in constant cycles of "mowing the lawn", as the Israeli's so quaintly refer to the mass killing of over 1900 innocent Palestinian Gazan's in the past month, and similar numbers in 2009, and before that.

And this on the fraudulent pretext, by Netanyahu, of the murder by Hamas of the Israeli teenagers, now admitted, and the refusal to let it be known that those boys were dead within hours of their being taken captive, so as to stoke up anger and a call for revenge.

Of course, the real reason is that Netanyahu was horrified by the new United Palestinian Government, including Hamas and Fatah, and the fact that they were, and probably will now, fully engage with the ICC in bringing Israel to the bar of International Justice.

conorh91

Nodin wrote: »

The UN did not exist in 1922.

Thanks for the history lesson. Jeez i had no idea.

Like I have said earlier, the UN inherited the 1922 British mandate.

I'm not arguing as to their validity as targets, I'm pointing out that the odds of them being victims are very remote, whilst its Palestinians who have to live in genuine risk.

The remoteness of the threat to Israelis is not seriously up for debate. You cannot seriously believe that Israel could abandon its defenses and Israelis would be in no danger.

Well, you can I suppose. People believe all sorts of rubbish they find online.

Nodin

conorh91 wrote: »

.........................

So blame the UN. They're the people with a piece of paper that gives them a mandate.

/...........

For the second and hopefully last time - the UN cannot take action without a UNSC vote. As the US has a veto, the UN cannot act.

conorh91

irishpancake wrote: »

And yet, the only "mass indiscriminate warfare" is coming from Israel

Sorry I stopped reading here.

Are you one of these people who believes that the rockets being fired by Hamas, admitted by Hamas, are an international conspiracy?

Nodin

conorh91 wrote: »

Thanks for the history lesson. Jeez i had no idea.

Like I have said earlier, the UN inherited the 1922 British mandate.

The remoteness of the threat to Israelis is not seriously up for debate. You cannot seriously believe that Israel could abandon its defenses and Israelis would be in no danger.

Well, you can I suppose. People believe all sorts of rubbish they find online.

Where did I suggest that Israel abandon it's defences?

bumper234

conorh91 wrote: »

Sorry I stopped reading here.

Are you one of these people who believes that the rockets being fired by Hamas, admitted by Hamas, are an international conspiracy?

If Hamas fire a rocket at Tel Aviv would you consider this a war crime?

conorh91

Nodin wrote: »

For the second and hopefully last time - the UN cannot take action without a UNSC vote. As the US has a veto, the UN cannot act.

The US has never actually had to veto a R2P vote on intervening in Palestine, because there has never been any serious attempt to implement this vague and really meaningless "tool" at the UN's disposal in Palestine.

It's not that the USA doesn't want to intervene, it's that the UN doesn't want to intervene in accordance with its responsibilities.

FWIW, the USA does actually send hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to Palestine, but don't expect to read that on the Huffington Post or whatever is shrieking the loudest these days.

conorh91

bumper234 wrote: »

If Hamas fire a rocket at Tel Aviv would you consider this a war crime?

If it isn't targeted at a specific and legitimate target, then of course it is a war crime.

Ditto for Israel targeting a school in Palestine, before you ask.

Nodin

conorh91 wrote: »

The US has never actually had to veto a R2P vote on intervening in Palestine, because there has never been any serious attempt to implement this vague and really meaningless "tool" at the UN's disposal in Palestine.

It's not that the USA doesn't want to intervene, it's that the UN doesn't want to intervene in accordance with its responsibilities.

The UN has been comprehensively blocked by the US at every turn over many many years.

conorh91

Nodin wrote: »

The UN has been comprehensively blocked by the US at every turn over many many years.

Sure, but lets stay specific shall we.

When has the USA ever vetoed an R2P invocation in respect of the UN executing its mandate to protect Palestinian civilians, by whatever means are necessary and available?

Although the US has vetoed a number of resolutions, it cannot be guaranteed that they would veto an R2P resolution, which would initially be diplomatic and humanitarian.

And this notion of "oh well they would anyway, so lets not try" doesn't hold any water.

Such an application would put the USA on the defensive, and subject to international scrutiny. It would bring particular pressure on the USA to explain why Palestinians don't deserve protection.

But no. Nobody is interested in criticizing the UN for not invoking R2P.

Lets instead act like R2P doesn't exist. After all, if we continue to abandon it, it might just disappear and then we can all go portraying the United nations as the helpless good Samaritan.

Nodin

conorh91 wrote: »

Sure, but lets stay specific shall we.

When has the USA ever vetoed an R2P invocation in respect of the UN executing its mandate to protect Palestinian civilians, by whatever means are necessary and available?

............

The responsibility to protect as worded makes no mention of intervention. Any action by the UN requires a UNSC vote.

irishpancake

conorh91 wrote: »

Sorry I stopped reading here.

Are you one of these people who believes that the rockets being fired by Hamas, admitted by Hamas, are an international conspiracy?

That's a pity, because that is not my position at all, and it is convenient of you to ascribe motivations which "force you" to withdraw from a real debate.

With regard to these Hamas rockets:

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists....Israel’s Iron Dome: a misplaced debate

What’s more, the incoming rockets are, technologically speaking, just a few steps above homemade fireworks in terms of their guidance systems, despite their payload’s potential to cause grave harm.

The rockets follow a simple trajectory that is easily determined by the position and angle of the launcher and propellant.

So, once fired, they are quickly tracked by Israeli radar.

and

In fact, Bulletin authors such as MIT physicist Ted Postol argue that by analyzing images of contrails, he’s found that the rocket-defense system’s success rate is as low as 5 percent or less.

It is hard to confirm or rebut this idea because so far, Israel has not exhibited any parts of the rockets that it downed, nor displayed those duds that fell harmlessly to the ground without exploding.

Press reports indicate that Hamas has launched Iranian-made Fajr-5 rockets, but no evidence of their presence has been forthcoming. (It is possible that Hamas may have cut back on the size of the explosive payload to increase the rockets’ range and show that they can threaten important, far-away Israeli cities like Tel Aviv or Haifa.)

Interestingly, no rocket casings have been shown that contain markings of Iranian origin, which would make a good propaganda coup for Israel. This absence is worth noting.

Media reports have largely focused on the growing capabilities of Hamas’ rockets, noting that the Fajr-5 has a range between 45 km and 75 km.

This factoid makes for good press because it shows Iran is continuing to help Hamas.

But the reality of this is unlikely, because Hamas had a falling-out with Iran’s ally Syria, which resulted in Hamas leaders being expelled from Damascus.

Another indication of the improbability of Hamas using Iranian rockets comes from a BBC News analysis which pointed out that there are huge logistical problems to using the Fajr-5.

At 6 meters (some 20 feet) tall, it is heavy and fairly large, requiring mechanical handling. The Fajr-5 needs to be pre-positioned in hidden launch sites and camouflaged from the prying eyes of Israeli drones.

Similar arguments can be made against Hamas using the Syrian-made M-302, a large rocket with a reported range of 160 km, or long enough to reach Haifa.

Meanwhile, the Gaza-made, homegrown, short-range, unguided rockets keep coming.

In theory, Iron Dome could possibly intercept these shorter-range rockets, due to the Gaza rockets’ low speeds.

Much like the Patriot interceptor, Iron Dome is essentially an upgraded air defense system, designed to shoot down both aircraft and missiles. The maximum speed of an F-16 fighter, for example, is 1,500 mph, at which it is easily overtaken by a 3,500 mph Patriot missile, as was the case in two friendly fire incidents during the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Meanwhile, the flight time of a Gaza rocket with a range of about 15 miles is about 1,350 mph.

So, if Iron Dome is even close to a Patriot missile interceptor in speed, its ability to at least catch up with low-speed Gaza rockets may have some credibility. (Iron Dome’s ability to counter longer-range rockets that have a higher speed is yet to be tested. The Scud missiles launched by Iraq under Saddam Hussein traveled at 4,000 miles per hour; the Patriot system did not perform well against them.)

Regardless, the aura of Iron Dome invincibility was unmistakably undermined on July 22, when a Hamas rocket landed near Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion Airport, causing chaos.

US and European airlines temporarily stopped flying to Israel due to safety concerns.

The rockets continue.

Israel has been countering the rocket threat from Gaza since 2006.

Back then, Hamas launched rockets, shorter in range than those used now, that occasionally caused damage to Israeli towns close to the border with Gaza.

In response, Israel targeted Gaza’s makeshift rocket factories, launcher sites, and fighters.

In 2008, Israel launched Operation Cast Lead, a massive ground invasion to clean out Gaza; it caused more than 1,300 Palestinian deaths and led to the capture of numerous Hamas fighters.

While this brought temporary quiet, it didn’t last.

In 2012, Israel again launched a brutal air campaign in response to rocket fire from Gaza, Operation Pillar of Defense, in which Palestinian casualties numbered well over 1,000—many of them children.

Perhaps, if you get time, listen to Finkelstein tell it as it is.....

but please don't stop listening just because he may say things which you might fine a bit disconcerting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvBZhe7nU2M

conorh91

Nodin wrote: »

The responsibility to protect as worded makes no mention of intervention.

Yes it does. Para. 139 of the 2005 World Summit outcome document in respect of R2P states:

139. The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity....

The initial focus is on humanitarian and diplomatic efforts, followed by non-consensual force in circumstances where peaceful means are inadequate to protect a vulnerable population.

Taken in line with the UN's inherited responsibility for Palestinians, why is nobody putting this to a vote?

Don't blame Israel for the fact that no advanced society wants to help the Palestinians.

Israel is using its resources to protect its own citizens, as is its obligation.

If it is unable or unwilling to protect Palestinians, then the UN must step in. It never, ever, will.

conorh91

irishpancake wrote: »

That's a pity, because that is not my position at all, and it is convenient of you to ascribe motivations which "force you" to withdraw from a real debate.

No offence but I'm not going to put any effort to replying to someone whose idea of a reply is using google to do a minimal-effort cut and paste, breach of copyright job. Or pasting youtube videos.

Nodin

conorh91 wrote: »

Yes it does. Para. 139 of the 2005 World Summit outcome document in respect of R2P states:

139. The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity....

The initial focus is on humanitarian and diplomatic efforts, followed by non-..........................

It might help if you read the chapters mentioned.

conorh91

Nodin wrote: »

It might help if you read the chapters mentioned.

Nodin this is common knowledge.

What, specifically, are you taking issue with in the relevant chapters?

irishpancake

conorh91 wrote: »

No offence but I'm not going to put any effort to replying to someone whose idea of a reply is using google to do a minimal-effort cut and paste, breach of copyright job. Or pasting youtube videos.

And your idea of a reply to my previous post was:

Sorry I stopped reading here.

This was in reply to this post, with no quotes, cut 'n paste, Google, etc, etc

or oh dear me

breach of copyright

this post

And yet, the only "mass indiscriminate warfare" is coming from Israel and directed at Palestinians, in constant cycles of "mowing the lawn", as the Israeli's so quaintly refer to the mass killing of over 1900 innocent Palestinian Gazan's in the past month, and similar numbers in 2009, and before that.

And this on the fraudulent pretext, by Netanyahu, of the murder by Hamas of the Israeli teenagers, now admitted, and the refusal to let it be known that those boys were dead within hours of their being taken captive, so as to stoke up anger and a call for revenge.

Of course, the real reason is that Netanyahu was horrified by the new United Palestinian Government, including Hamas and Fatah, and the fact that they were, and probably will now, fully engage with the ICC in bringing Israel to the bar of International Justice.

So, you stop reading in one case....

and say

I'm not going to put any effort to replying

in another case....

and of course, you never use Google, or paste something from Wikipedia.....

Hah!!

Nodin

conorh91 wrote: »

Nodin this is common knowledge.

What, specifically, are you taking issue with in the relevant chapters?

The Security Council

is specifically referenced. Eg Article 36, VI

1. The Security Council may, at any stage of a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 or of a situation of like nature, recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment.

VII -

Article 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security



Article 41

"The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations. "
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml

As stated earlier, UN action requires a vote by the UNSC. The US has a veto on the UNSC.

conorh91

Nodin wrote: »

As stated earlier, UN action requires a vote by the UNSC. The US has a veto on the UNSC.

That was never in dispute. Of course the USA retains a P5 veto.

I'm going to repost what I wrote earlier, which part of this is unclear?

conorh91 wrote: »

Although the US has vetoed a number of resolutions, it cannot be guaranteed that they would veto an R2P resolution, which would initially be diplomatic and humanitarian.

And this notion of "oh well they would anyway, so lets not try" doesn't hold any water.

Such an application would put the USA on the defensive, and subject to international scrutiny. It would bring particular pressure on the USA to explain why Palestinians don't deserve protection.

But no. Nobody is interested in criticizing the UN for not invoking R2P.

I am assuming that you are now withdrawing your claim that…

Nodin wrote: »

The responsibility to protect as worded makes no mention of intervention.

?

And you now admit that the UN does have the capacity to invoke R2P in respect of Palestine, and it has never tabled a draft resolution to this effect?

Nobody is interested in protecting Palestinians.

Why are you trying to deny this anyway?

Nodin

conorh91 wrote: »

That was never in(.......) this anyway?

I suggest that having come across "R2P" recently, your newfound enthusiasm for its laudable notion has led you to overestimate what it actually means. The UN cannot intervene without a UNSC vote.

You know that UN observers were vetoed by the US in the 90's? True story.

conorh91

Nodin wrote: »

I suggest that having come across "R2P" recently, your newfound enthusiasm for its laudable notion has led you to overestimate what it actually means. The UN cannot intervene without a UNSC vote.

You know that UN observers were vetoed by the US in the 90's? True story.

Nodin you just told me there was no scope for non-consensual force/ military intervention in R2P.

How can you *possibly* be now attempting to claim that others don't know what they're talking about… this is common knowledge.

My only mistake has been assuming you weren't BSing.

Nodin

conorh91 wrote: »

Nodin you just told me there was no scope for non-consensual force/ military intervention in R2P.

How can you *possibly* be now attempting to claim that others don't know what they're talking about… this is common knowledge.

My only mistake has been assuming you weren't BSing.

No idea what you're on about at this stage. The UN is notoriously hamstrung by the UNSC, and on far more issues than just the Palestinians.

conorh91

Nodin wrote: »

No idea what you're on about at this stage.

This:

Nodin wrote: »

The responsibility to protect as worded makes no mention of intervention.

The above is incorrect. That's what I have been telling you.

The UN is notoriously hamstrung by the UNSC,

I'm not sure why you keep returning to this as though it's a new point. I have already addressed it twice.

Nobody has ever given the US the opportunity to veto this particular resolution on Palestine.

Nodin

conorh91 wrote: »

This:

The above is incorrect. That's what I have been telling you.

I'm not sure why you keep returning to this as though it's a new point. I have already addressed it twice.

Nobody has ever given the US the opportunity to veto this particular resolution on Palestine.

You seem to have half an understanding of the situation.

What "resolution" specifically?

conorh91

Nodin wrote: »

What "resolution" specifically?

There is no resolution. That's my whole point.

R2P began within our lifetimes as a grand declaration of UN willingness to intervene so as to vindicate fundamental human rights, using whatever means necessary.

Nowhere in the world is R2P more relevant than where an entire population is effectively stateless, and where the UN effectively has a mandate to administer their territory, and where that population is being occupied by a power who is unable or unwilling to vindicate the population's human rights. I assume we are agreed so far.

An alien landing on Earth from Mars would look at Palestine and he would read R2P, and he would draw the following conclusions.

He would say, either (a) somebody is blocking the United Nations from vindicating the rights of the Palestinians or (b) nobody is willing to try.

Now, we know (a) cannot be true because there has never been a draft R2P resolution tabled by anyone in the UN. This only leaves option (b).

Option (b) tells us something crucial: the United Nations does not care about Palestinians.

What annoys me most about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that my sympathies lie with the Palestinians. Yet others whose sympathies are claimed to lie with the Palestinians are more focussed on attacking israel than they are interested in criticizing the people who are actually tasked with protecting the Palestinians and are not even attempting to do so.

The UN and the international community is getting away with it. Why?

Nodin

conorh91 wrote: »

.............
What annoys me most about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that my sympathies lie with the Palestinians. Yet others whose sympathies are claimed to lie with the Palestinians are more focussed on attacking israel than they are interested in criticizing the people who are actually tasked with protecting the Palestinians and are not even attempting to do so.

The UN and the international community is getting away with it. Why?

That is because of your flawed understanding of "R2P".

conorh91

Nodin wrote: »

That is because of your flawed understanding of "R2P".

Nodin, you can retract your cat claws.

I am making a valid point. If you want to disagree, work away. Not interested in personalized quips between strangers online.

Nodin

conorh91 wrote: »

Nodin, you can retract your cat claws.

I am making a valid point. If you want to disagree, work away. Not interested in personalized quips between strangers online.

Nothing personal about it. The reason you don't get people going on about it - and there are many far more educated on international law than myself on the pro-Palestinian side - is because it doesn't work in the fashion you believe it to.

conorh91

Nodin wrote: »

Nothing personal about it. The reason you don't get people going on about it - and there are many far more educated on international law than myself on the pro-Palestinian side - is because it doesn't work in the fashion you believe it to.

Why so vague? Tell me why.

Nodin

conorh91 wrote: »

Why so vague? Tell me why.

I've already told you. You might explain why no major organisation is running around with this notion. Is everybody thick?

Pawn

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

How best is Israel to deal with the rockets that are fired at it, for the sake of peace?

Ah poor Israel... Nuke everyone. Just to be sure.

conorh91

Nodin wrote: »

I've already told you.

Where?

You keep on repeating yourself with regard to the UNSC P5 veto, but I am asking why no resolution has ever been tabled to this effect, so as to hold the USA to account on this very specific UN responsibility.

This matter is widely discussed in academic literature. So no, people are not "thick". It's a topic of ongoing academic discussion

Nodin

conorh91 wrote: »

............

This matter is widely discussed in academic literature. So no, people are not "thick". It's a topic of ongoing academic discussion

Excellent. You've a few links? (specifically pertaining to the Palestinian question, I presume).

conorh91

Nodin wrote: »

Excellent. You've a few links? (specifically pertaining to the Palestinian question, I presume).

No, any academic debate that I have in mind is more vague than honing in particularly on Palestine.

Nodin. Hold your horses there. Are you avoiding my question? Why are you not answering it?

Nodin wrote: »

I've already told you.

Go on….

Nodin

conorh91 wrote: »

No, any academic debate that I have in mind is more vague than honing in particularly on Palestine. ….

I WONDER WHY. According to you, this notion specifically applies to the Palestinian question. Yet these supposed academic debates are "more vague than honing in particularily on Palestine?

I'm beginning to wonder if you're trying to wind me up.

conorh91 wrote: »

Go on….

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91732662&postcount=230

conorh91

Nodin wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91732662&postcount=230

This is ridiculous

conorh91 wrote: »

You keep on repeating yourself with regard to the UNSC P5 veto, but I am asking why no resolution has ever been tabled to this effect, so as to hold the USA to account on this very specific UN responsibility.

and

conorh91 wrote: »

The US has never actually had to veto a R2P vote on intervening in Palestine, because there has never been any serious attempt to implement this vague and really meaningless "tool" at the UN's disposal in Palestine.

and

conorh91 wrote: »

Sure, but lets stay specific shall we.

When has the USA ever vetoed an R2P invocation in respect of the UN executing its mandate to protect Palestinian civilians, by whatever means are necessary and available?

Although the US has vetoed a number of resolutions, it cannot be guaranteed that they would veto an R2P resolution, which would initially be diplomatic and humanitarian.

And this notion of "oh well they would anyway, so lets not try" doesn't hold any water.

Such an application would put the USA on the defensive, and subject to international scrutiny. It would bring particular pressure on the USA to explain why Palestinians don't deserve protection.

But no. Nobody is interested in criticizing the UN for not invoking R2P.
.

If you have no answer, just say so.

Nodin

conorh91 wrote: »

This is ridiculous


and

and

If you have no answer, just say so.

I've given the answer. Big hint - Article 39.


You might explain to me why you can't link to the discussion of this issue in relation to Palestinians. Also why seemingly none of the pro-Palestinian groups (at least in the English speaking world, or those that translate their material into English) go on about this.

conorh91

Nodin wrote: »

I've given the answer. Big hint -

No just give the answer.

I've asked you multiple times to explain why nobody has ever tabled such a resolution.

No more "hints", no more "I've already explained", you either have an answer, or you don't.

Nodin

conorh91 wrote: »

No just give the answer.

I've asked you multiple times to explain why nobody has ever tabled such a resolution.

No more "hints", no more "I've already explained", you either have an answer, or you don't.

I've explained this already -

"The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity"

Stating that the responsibility to protect should apply to the Palestinians requires a UNSC vote. Stating that the conditions are, or are such that the responsibility applies, requires a UNSC vote. Condemnation of the condition of the Palestinian people, specific or general, and the continued settlement building and violence requires a UNSC vote, and as these have already been vetoed by the US, previous resolutions have not been passed which allow the responsibility to be invoked with reference to them.