Israel / Palestine

[Pblakeney]

Wondering about Hamas laying down their arms and my thoughts (without considering rights and wrongs committed by different parties) is that were Hamas to lay down their arms today they'd be dead as the clans & militias move in and take their vengeance (noting that some of those "clans & militias" are funded, armed and supported by Israel).

If Hamas are to lay down their arms seems to me there has to be some independent security force prepared to enter firefights as well as those different clans & militias laying down their arms as well.

Telling a Hamas fighter to give up their arms today would mean imminent death so they'd be less likely to agree to it.

Yet another reason why the "deal" is doomed to failure.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

Wondering about Hamas laying down their arms and my thoughts (without considering rights and wrongs committed by different parties) is that were Hamas to lay down their arms today they'd be dead as the clans & militias move in and take their vengeance (noting that some of those "clans & militias" are funded, armed and supported by Israel).

If Hamas are to lay down their arms seems to me there has to be some independent security force prepared to enter firefights as well as those different clans & militias laying down their arms as well.

Telling a Hamas fighter to give up their arms today would mean imminent death so they'd be less likely to agree to it.

There is some more context here, and that i that it might have been implied multiple times that Hamas needed to put down their weapons, and they claimed to have agreed to do so, but they have recently publicly said that despite earlier agreeing to disarm, they will not do so. Leading to Trump saying they will be forced military if needed.

Extra context is that it was not only ''Hamas shall disarm(and some other fraction) that was reportedly agreed upon, there is also some new to be formed ''security forces'' with an interim government where Blair all of the sudden would have popped up(thankfully it's widely reported he is out of the picture), the agreement was these forces where to replace Hamas, and Hamas agreed to dismantle their terror tunnels, lay down their arms etc.
And thus the idea that Hamas would disarm and then other clans/dynasty's/etc. can attack now unarmed Hamas is wrong, at least according to what we heard from the media is in the agreed peace plan. We heard from Hamas directly they don't intend to keep their part of the deal that says they would be disarming.

But other than that, it's still very vague about timescales who these forces would be whom supplies them etc. etc.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

Yet another reason why the "deal" is doomed to failure.

It seems to me slowness is an key issue, that, and if you suggest ''security forces'' better have them ready, so that Isreal would just pull all his troops build a giant ass wall and leave them the F*ck alone.
And Hamas wouldn't have had the change to regroup but would just be forced to disarm and not been allowed time to say ''nah, we where only kidding''

But that's all in the past opportunities gone..

 

[Psamathe]

Extra context is that it was not only ''Hamas shall disarm(and some other fraction) that was reportedly agreed upon, there is also some new to be formed ''security forces'' with an interim government where Blair all of the sudden would have popped up(thankfully it's widely reported he is out of the picture), the agreement was these forces where to replace Hamas, and Hamas agreed to dismantle their terror tunnels, lay down their arms etc.

The Peacekeeping Force and Governance is taking time (it never is a quick process) and faces particular challenges in this situation.

There needs to be a legal basis. 3rd party countries are never going to send in troops without some legal authorisation and rules of engagement. That means the UN who Israel reject (and UN would need UNWRA which Israel rejects).

Rules of Engagement become crucial eg would these Peacekeepers fire on IDF troups when they start killing civillians trying to get to the ruins of their houses? or would the Peacekeepers only be allowed to fire on Palestinians (effectively taking the role filled by the IDF in the West Bank)?

And then you've got to coordinate loads of troops from different countries who use different kit and don't speak a common language as well as feed and equip them when Israel is blockading the area.

Israel is already getting fussy rejecting offers eg Turkey has offered but Israel is rejecting them as Erdogan has been critical of their behaviour.

And the Governance again needs a legal basis, Trump & Blair cannot unilatterally appoint themselves to govern the region and command these 3rd country troops. Needs the UN and US/Israel at best despise the UN.

Given Israel has no intention to pay anything towards all the civilian damage they have caused, no other country is going to start contributing for rebuilding unless there is a solid legal basis for a stable long term governance. They'll need a lot more than a vague uncertain ceasefire document without timescales. And they'll need confidence Natanyahu won't just ignore Trump tomorrow or that Trump won't completely U-turn after watching Fox News this evening.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

The Peacekeeping Force and Governance is taking time (it never is a quick process) and faces particular challenges in this situation.

There needs to be a legal basis. 3rd party countries are never going to send in troops without some legal authorisation and rules of engagement. That means the UN who Israel reject (and UN would need UNWRA which Israel rejects).

Agreed, however i also think it is al mistake to let Hamas patrol the streets as if everything is back to normal, they should have searched for a temporarily solution

Regarding Israel's stance on UN/UNRWA maybe we need to take a few steps back, Isreal rejects them because time and time again they turn out to be more off a Hamas ally then anything else. I don't think that's entirely their fault, although they did cover it up for years.

But moving into the UN's shoes they are simply not build for purpose in situations like this because the inconvenient reality it, if you can't have boots on the ground that can resist armed clans, drugslords, terrorist etc. you get the situation like the UN and other NGO's have in many other countries where they negotiate/deal/allow part of their aid to be taken/stolen etc. by the clans/terrorist/druglords that rule that particular part. It has been pointed out during this war that i think it was only 10 out of 30 aid trucks that reached their destination, what they did not mention is how this compares to a ''normal'' none war situation given the bombings exposed huge stockpiles of aid supplies in many Hamas or it's proxies buildings that indicates it's not a new thing. And Hamas this deliberately starves it's population.
Yet UN's reports don't mention this.

And therefore i can understand Isreal's position, although it clearly are not all honest motives, considering it's still the nethanyahu government who has no problems propping up hamas a year or 10 back.

Rules of Engagement become crucial eg would these Peacekeepers fire on IDF troups when they start killing civillians trying to get to the ruins of their houses? or would the Peacekeepers only be allowed to fire on Palestinians (effectively taking the role filled by the IDF in the West Bank)?

Agreed

And then you've got to coordinate loads of troops from different countries who use different kit and don't speak a common language as well as feed and equip them when Israel is blockading the area.

I think the biggest challenge might be the cultural differences and or for example clashes between Shia and Sunni muslims and their clans and potential alleged bias of peace forces.

Israel is already getting fussy rejecting offers eg Turkey has offered but Israel is rejecting them as Erdogan has been critical of their behaviour.

Part of politics, isreal needs to shut up and listen at times. But the flip side is Nethanyahu knows he is free to be impeached or procecuted as soon as he lifts the ''war law'' as soon as the country isn't officially at war anymore.

And the Governance again needs a legal basis, Trump & Blair cannot unilatterally appoint themselves to govern the region and command these 3rd country troops. Needs the UN and US/Israel at best despise the UN.

Also agreed, it has all the drawings of a trump plan, lot off blah little substance sadly.

Given Israel has no intention to pay anything towards all the civilian damage they have caused, no other country is going to start contributing for rebuilding unless there is a solid legal basis for a stable long term governance. They'll need a lot more than a vague uncertain ceasefire document without timescales. And they'll need confidence Natanyahu won't just ignore Trump tomorrow or that Trump won't completely U-turn after watching Fox News this evening.

Agreed, they need to show that agreement so that we dont need to talk about what in it based on what media X Y or Z says but that everyone can read it. And then it needs to indeed be very clear, but to be honest i don't see either happening sadly.

 

[Psamathe]

Regarding Israel's stance on UN/UNRWA maybe we need to take a few steps back, Isreal rejects them because time and time again they turn out to be more off a Hamas ally then anything else.

ICJ finding

The court dismissed Israel’s main argument for its legislation blocking UNRWA’s operations — that the organization is no longer impartial or neutral due to its “infiltration” by the Hamas terror group — stating that there was no evidence UNRWA breached the impartiality requirements under Article 59 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which it said related to discrimination in the provision of humanitarian aid and services. (from https://www.timesofisrael.com/icj-s...unrwa-jerusalem-categorically-rejects-notion/)

 

[Pblakeney]

Entirely predictable, as it was predicted. Where is Donnie's peace plan now?

"Israel has launched strikes on Gaza, news agencies report, after PM Benjamin Netanyahu ordered his military to immediately carry out "powerful" attacks."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c891ex72nj7t

 

[glasgowcyclist]

As I've said before, the Israelis don't want peace, they want the land.

 

[Pblakeney]

As I've said before, the Israelis don't want peace, they want the land.

Yes. Which is why tonight was predicted in advance.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

ICJ finding

Does not take away that Isreal still sees them in the way they see them, for the reasons outlined in my post.

Entirely predictable, as it was predicted. Where is Donnie's peace plan now?

"Israel has launched strikes on Gaza, news agencies report, after PM Benjamin Netanyahu ordered his military to immediately carry out "powerful" attacks."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c891ex72nj7t

and after that they said the peace still stands or something.