Israel decides to go to Lebanon.

[SuAside]

The use of peacekeepers is probably a bad idea. Peacekeepers have been deployed between the Israelis and their neighbors before and it hasn't stopped much.

yeah, with another meaningless mandate... the usual

Remember a peacekeeper is not the same as a peacemaker.

bullshit, by keeping it, you're making it happen too

but seriously, current peace-'keeping' is little more than nonsense. UN peacekeepers aren't keeping anything. they're there, acting as if they have something to say, but when the shit hits the fan, they arent allowed to act, only to try & protect a select few foreign refugees and maybe bring some supplies to local refugees. and sometimes not even that, the brass pisses their pants & just pulls them all back with or without UN approval. remember Rwanda & Burundi? how are these soldiers supposed to be peacekeeping anyway if they cant even open fire, unless they're under direct fire? do you know the french soldiers evacuating the french & belgian citizens had more freedom of action than the fucking 'peacekeepers'? random civilians were executed right in front of peacekeepers, for no other reason than ethnicity, yet, they could do nothing.

how do you expect this kind of nonsense to keep any peace? are you shocked when you hear that UN peacekeepers in Israel have had no effect whatsoever? fuck no, they cant do shit. they're just there for the UN to say "look, we tried". peacekeeping by photo opportunity. how nice.

 

[Bradylama]

You can't really keep a peace, though, unless you take sides. Generally, the side to be taken would be against the aggressor, but then when you do take sides, you only involve the UN as a third party in a conflict.

If you don't take sides, but still act, then both sides in the war will turn on UN forces.

If the UN intervenes to protect civilians and enforce international law, then they're only keeping hostilities from escalating so far, and not a real peace.

It's a doozy.

 

[SuAside]

it's pretty useless mostly. the UN is potentially the most powerful military power in the world, if they unleashed it.

it could be much simpler. do in your country what you like, but if you go to war (or commit genocide) be ready to be judged by the (reformed) UN & face the consequences. while it's pretty evil in the way that others decide over 'your' country, it's probably a lot better than prolongued useless genocidal conflicts.

it's also not just about "taking sides". i'd like to think that the UN sides with the civilians. not a power, not a country, not an army, but the people.

(yes, i'm aware it'll never happen, but one can dream, no?)

 

[aegis]

well, i'm glad that you guyz see it that way too.

personally, as an israeli, i would rather have nato forces and UN supervise south lebanon and cutting off hizbullah by it, but only if nato or some other force beside UN is intervening-because of the incident of the 3 soldiers which UN gave thier wagn to hizbulla resulting in the kidanpping and killing of 3 of IDF soldiers...

i really hope that this stops, and this cannot be achieved just by cease fire as you've all gathered so well.

 

[Lord 342]

The entire concept of deploying an army to keep peace is bullshit. The millitary doesn't keep peace, they make it; by killing peopel and breaking shit. That is their job. If it doesn't fall under those two categories, you don't want to send your soldiers to another guy's country unless he is your ally and specifically asked you to put them there (as in a mutual agreement to have a base in his land for mutual benefit).
Israel doesn't care if people hate it. Everyone there already does. The people in charge of it maybe need to lay back a little bit, but they really don't give a fuck that people hate them. I have no great respect for them, but no hatred especially for Israel as a nation either. (As a clarification, I should state that when I speak of "Isael" or any other country I speak of its government and those who control it, not average-joe citizen who, I'm sure, like the average joe in Lebanon, Iraq, or anywhere, just wants to drive to work and back without worrying about getting blown up) Some of its neighbors cannot get over the fact that it was created illegitmately and for bogus reasons. Oh well. Guess what: So where a bunch of other nations in the middle east -Surprise! It's there, it's not going away, and it's clearly as pissy as the next nation in the region which means don't poke it with a stick if you know what's good for you.

 

[victor]

The entire concept of deploying an army to keep peace is bullshit. The millitary doesn't keep peace, they make it; by killing peopel and breaking shit. That is their job.

My point exactly. An army is a sledgehammer, and you rarely use sledgehammers to fix stuff.


There's a very good reason Israel was created there though, and it's not really the whole "Our ancestors lived there 2000 years ago" argument that the Western countries listened to, they had other motives.

 

[aegis]

israel was created to concentrate all the jews in one place because they were haunted in other places, plus the holocast etc.

i disagree there about deploying an army there-what is creating all the havoc is the hizbullah forces in south lebanon-which the independant lebanon goverment either supported that-or was too weak to stop them. if some force would clear them out of there and get some temporary forces guarding that area, it may help alot for a cease fire.

 

[victor]

Israel was also very much created because the US and other powers wanted a stable ally in that region after WW2. I know it sounds cynical, but there's no such thing as charity in politics. Everything is decided with a motive for personal or national gain.

 

[SuAside]

The entire concept of deploying an army to keep peace is bullshit.

just like the concept of Nukes for Peace was bullshit? MAD has proven rather efficient up til now though.

anyhow, what do you propose then Lord 342 & Overseer? more endless negociations while the violence simply continues? more civilians hurt along the way? more hate brewing?
nothing short of a strong military presence and/or MASSIVE re-eductation programs are going to stop the violence, who has roots in decades of mutual hatred.

when are we going to stop pretending everything is fine? "sure, it's far from home. let them fight it out, i dont care."

do you believe endless blabbering & negociations are going to prevent the next guy who's kid brother just became a red stain on the front lawn from becoming a guerilla or suicide bomber? Israel doesnt want to give away more than a few token patches of soil. Palestine doesn't want to settle for bullshit from a nation that has stolen their entire country. it's pointless.

do it my way: act now, act hard. send in "the sledgehammer" as you like to call it. make it crystal fucking clear you're not going to take shit from either side. force peace & hit both parties where it hurts, if needed.

or do it your way: endless conflicts with endless streams of casualties, both military & civilian. sure, it's not your problem. hooray for the status quo.

 

[Lord 342]

Unfortunately we're not going to send in an Army to do an Army's job. Americans are at risk from Israel's rash actions now, they are being evacuated. Both sides need to back down. I'd have no problem if we or anyone else wanted to send soldiers to put a boot in the face of both sides and say "Back the fuck down, we don't need any more of this" because for better or worse, Israel AND Lebanon are BOTH the allies of the Americans, and right now they're at each other's throats and risking the lives of my countrymen in the region! This is not how Civilized nations conduct themselves!

MAD is effective because it is a notion that the other guy has Nukes enough to match yours and you don't want to fight with him. But his nukes staid in his lands in his silos. Completely different than if you put a nuke in his land with the detonator in yours and said "This is insurance that you don't attack us". The end effect is arguably the same, but the psychological impact is VASTLY different.

I honestly am not sure of the best solution for the problem. Part of the problem is that religion is involved and religion seems to be the root of many of the world's evils. Yet on the same note those who actively restrict religion are often perpetrators of great evil themselves. If it had been up to me I'd have encorporated Israel elsewhere, cleared the people off the "Holy Land" and nuked it 'till it glowed. The religious importance of such a site is dangerous and it's IMHO better that nobody have it, although I have to say Israel is probably a better steward for it than your choice of other nations in the region... Israel is not trying to win Hearts & Minds but their enemies do not offer their Hearts & Minds as prizes; so there is equal blame in this situation. The Israeli Government is happy to wage a perpetual war; this is good for them politically but may not be good for their people (whom as I stated earlier probably just want to drive to work without getting blown up). The problem is a complex one that cannot be dealt with easily.

 

[aegis]

no. its actually very simple-if israel would stop being attacked the processes of evacuating "palestinans" area(there is no such thing as a nation palestine-it was tagged for the refugees in the undeclared territories), would have been much quicker-even after evacuating gazza, palestians dont stop attacking israel from there. even after leaving lebanon hizbullah is provoking israel. and everyone is still blaming israel. never mind the blame-look at the aggressors side, how can YOUR country take a beating without any promise that its ever going to stop. what most people dont get is, that the extremists which lead those unprovoked attacks, dont care jack shit about peace, and because of thier extremists opinion-no one can really TALK to them. did you ever really heard of someone who managed to convince an extremists to the other way?
what is way of communication extremists understand?

just force, if you can figure out a better way please tell me, i will inform my goverment gladly.

If it had been up to me I'd have encorporated Israel elsewhere, cleared the people off the "Holy Land" and nuked it 'till it glowed.

what i still dont understand is how can people in this world say that israel has no right to exist? how would they feel if i'd say thier country dont have this right? this is pretty harsh even for the aggerssive fallout fans. i agree that its place is very explosive religously-but where would jews go? to lebanon? exactly for that reason israel exists there and only there, hell its in everybody's bible-the christians, the muslims, everyone knows it. there isn't a country on the face of this planet which hasn't been conquered and its current inhabitants are descendants of the last conquerers, so no moral support here for any of you patriots.

 

[victor]

By that reasoning, maybe I should create a country in Germany or somewhere else in Gaul or Northern Italy, you know, because all of my ancestors came from that general region.

Really, they lived there 2000 years ago. I know it sucks because they have a lot of relics there, but might as well create a gypsy nation in Iran or western India.

Again, Israel wasn't founded there uniquely for sentimental causes, there was a much more strategic reason.

Israel has the right to exist, but the same could be said about the Arab state of Palestine.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

By that reasoning, maybe I should create a country in Germany or somewhere else in Gaul or Northern Italy, you know, because all of my ancestors came from that general region.

The difference is that your people already occupy a portion of the geographic entity Scandinavia, whereas Jews were scattered throughout the entire world. The difference is also that Palestine as the ancestral homeland of Jews is an important part of their culture and religion, and no Jewish community anywhere in the world ever gave up their millennium-old dream of returning there one day.

 

[victor]

I'm sure the same can and will be said about the Palestinians today. They pretty much moved in after the Romans chased the Jews away.

 

[John Uskglass]

I'm sure the same can and will be said about the Palestinians today. They pretty much moved in after the Romans chased the Jews away.

No, they moved in when the Zionists brought in Capital.

 

[victor]

Well, somebody must've moved in. Look, the place is holy to everyone, might as well share it.

 

[welsh]

Suaside- You are missing the point and difference for the reasons Bradylama points out.

You can't really keep a peace, though, unless you take sides. Generally, the side to be taken would be against the aggressor, but then when you do take sides, you only involve the UN as a third party in a conflict.

If you don't take sides, but still act, then both sides in the war will turn on UN forces.

Equals the UN in the Congo. UNOC, a deployment that went bad in many ways and in which the UN was caught between sides.

The UN's mission is not to take sides but to allow those in a conflict to find peace.

If the UN intervenes to protect civilians and enforce international law, then they're only keeping hostilities from escalating so far, and not a real peace.

It's a doozy.

Yet sometimes (actually most of the time) it actually works. Countries might hesitate before shooting at peacekeepers least they bring about more active response.

Suaside- the difference between a peacemaker and a peacekeeper is this-

A peacekeeper is the guy who gets between two guys who are bent on beating the crap out of each other, in the hope that a brief respite might make these two guys calm down and try to resolve their conflict without violence.

This is more Chapter VI action- more peaceful means to resolving conflict.

A peacemaker resolves the conflict by beating the crap out of one or both parties until they are beaten into submission.

Generally speaking the UN doesn't do peacemaking- The Korean War, the 1991 Persian Gulf War- were exceptional events. Those operations had robust mandates to find peace under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/faq/q12.htm

Usually if someone is to do peacemaking, they are called in national troops, not national troops on loan to the UN (the bluehelmets).

As for the most powerful military- under the Charter there is a system for a military command structure- but it was never implemented. Technically the UN has no army or other military- only those called to its service by the member states. Militaries are a tool of sovereign powers. Technically the UN is not a sovereign entity but an organization of sovereign states.

It has no teeth but those that are given it.

The main purpose of the UN was not to solve the post-colonial wars of the developing world nor even to resolve all the wars of the world. Its most important function was to try to get major powers from blowing the crap out of each other and doing another World War.

The post colonial problems only happened after the UN was created, and since then its been caught with the job in part because-
(1) the principle of sovereignty means all nations - no matter how big or small- are equal
(2) the Mandate system got passed over to the UN.

 

[Bradylama]

Personal identity is constantly called into question over the course of one's life. Who am I? What am I doing? Is this who I really want to be?

As individuals change, so do people.

There was never a Palestinian people before the founding of Israel, true. However, the advent of Palestinian nationalism was a result of the 6 Day War. Before, when Jordan and Egypt occupied the West Bank and Gaza, respectively, they told the Arabs there that they were citizens of their respective occupiers. As the Israelis occupied those regions, however, they weren't intent on having the native Arabs be Israeli citizens. This lack of a national identity, and the commonality found between Gaza and the West Bank concerning Israeli occupation is what gave rise to popular Palestinian nationalist movements.

There was no Palestinian people before 1967, true, but there are now, so you'll have to deal with it.

 

[GhostOfCassidy]

Hey maybe... The fighting in the middle east will escalate to an extreme level of hatred that will pour out over all the surrounding countries, and eventually the world. Things will get so intense, that some silly government leader will use his itchy trigger finger to launch a nuke. Then someone retalliates, but it goes the wrong direction, and there is soon a full scale global nuclear war. The world gets reduced to nothing but a desolate wasteland.
The only people who will survive will be those who sought refuge in large underground vaults......

 

[aegis]

There was no Palestinian people before 1967, true, but there are now, so you'll have to deal with it.

this thing always reminds me of what's going on in iraq now.
there is no one occuping lebanon before this, there was no one occuping gazza after may 05, and the palestians community turn thier hatred toward israel instead of building themselves a country. even after we want to give them the west bank.
this is because of the same reason, these regions are controled by extremists which educate thier people to hate. the same is in iraq, the conflict there is very deep and also controled by the extremists, which really turns off the possibility for any stability.

you'll have to deal with muslims in your country as well, the demographic problem is everywhere, and it all depends on how balanced is the population inside the country.