Current Affairs Israel is an apartheid state

Status
Not open for further replies.
tsubaki said:
You are saying that the reaction to the threats and intimidation from the IDF should be to leave, in accordance with their wishes.
Click to expand...
To be fair, my take is that this isn't the message he's trying to get across. The uncomfortable truth here is that UNIFIL is not fit for purpose to meet the growing crisis.

Worsley, the acts of flagrant aggression shown by the IDF towards UNIFIL positions have been met by no more than a metaphorical cursory shrug by the UN.

So if the UNIFIL isn't able to fulfil its mandate, either due to lack of resources or a lack of political will (well, a combination of the both), what's the point?

My take is that unless the UNIFIL mission had a large contingent of troops from more influential nations from within the UN, there's unlikely to be any response.

And those nations are not going to commit troops for that very reason, so we're really in another one of these situations where the UN is shown to be meek.

I would reinforce the UN garrison and allow a more robust defence of their positions and mandate, so to not let Israel roll them over, but that ain't going to happen.

It's not far from Catch 22 from those currently stationed there, which is what I suspect @Mutzo Nutzo was alluding to. They can't respond.

Sadly, the UN will accept some UNIFIL troops being injured, and I suspect even a few dead troops too.
 
PhilM said:
To be fair, my take is that this isn't the message he's trying to get across. The uncomfortable truth here is that UNIFIL is not fit for purpose to meet the growing crisis.

Worsley, the acts of flagrant aggression shown by the IDF towards UNIFIL positions have been met by no more than a metaphorical cursory shrug by the UN.

So if the UNIFIL isn't able to fulfil its mandate, either due to lack of resources or a lack of political will (well, a combination of the both), what's the point?

My take is that unless the UNIFIL mission had a large contingent of troops from more influential nations from within the UN, there's unlikely to be any response.

And those nations are not going to commit troops for that very reason, so we're really in another one of these situations where the UN is shown to be meek.

I would reinforce the UN garrison and allow a more robust defence of their positions and mandate, so to not let Israel roll them over, but that ain't going to happen.

It's not far from Catch 22 from those currently stationed there, which is what I suspect @Mutzo Nutzo was alluding to. They can't respond.

Sadly, the UN will accept some UNIFtroops being injured, and I suspect even a few dead troops too.
Click to expand...
Absolutely this ❤️
 
tsubaki said:
You are saying that the reaction to the threats and intimidation from the IDF should be to leave, in accordance with their wishes.
Click to expand...
Absolutely not - just read the response by @PhilM where he put my position across more eloquently than I could and needs no more input from myself.

Sometimes words on the internet can be misconstrued.

Peace and love bruh!
 
PhilM said:
To be fair, my take is that this isn't the message he's trying to get across. The uncomfortable truth here is that UNIFIL is not fit for purpose to meet the growing crisis.

Worsley, the acts of flagrant aggression shown by the IDF towards UNIFIL positions have been met by no more than a metaphorical cursory shrug by the UN.

So if the UNIFIL isn't able to fulfil its mandate, either due to lack of resources or a lack of political will (well, a combination of the both), what's the point?

My take is that unless the UNIFIL mission had a large contingent of troops from more influential nations from within the UN, there's unlikely to be any response.

And those nations are not going to commit troops for that very reason, so we're really in another one of these situations where the UN is shown to be meek.

I would reinforce the UN garrison and allow a more robust defence of their positions and mandate, so to not let Israel roll them over, but that ain't going to happen.

It's not far from Catch 22 from those currently stationed there, which is what I suspect @Mutzo Nutzo was alluding to. They can't respond.

Sadly, the UN will accept some UNIFIL troops being injured, and I suspect even a few dead troops too.
Click to expand...

UNFIL has representatives from most of the EU and two of the five permanent SC members; it isn't lacking influential nations backing it. Also it isnt there to (and wasnt set up to) defend Lebanon or dissuade Israel from invading, just to help the Lebanese government restore order to the south of the country. I agree that it should be stronger and that there is no way that it would ever be allowed to.

In these circumstances though its pretty clear from the statements of the regime's ministers, military logic and the stated goal of the operation that the Israelis intend to occupy, possibly permanently, a strip of land that UNFIL currently sits on. Not moving puts the lives of the UNFIL troops there at greater risk (from an "ally" of ours!) but it also creates the probability of severe consequences for the Israeli government if they try to force them out.

Moving them under this pressure removes the probability of those consequences as well as leaving those Lebanese civilians who remain in the area at real risk of real harm in the Srebrenica sense of the word.

If they force them out, especially if there are casualties and they go on to kick the civilian population out, then I cannot see relations between the EU (as a whole at least, Hungary may be an exception) and Israel continuing at all; no amount of lobby pressure would be able to turn that around. I would also imagine that the rest of the Arab world would realise they have to look to their own defences and act accordingly.
 
tsubaki said:
Moving them under this pressure removes the probability of those consequences as well as leaving those Lebanese civilians who remain in the area at real risk of real harm in the Srebrenica sense of the word.
Click to expand...

It’s interesting that you use the example of Srebrenica here. Going back to the example. I used last night ref the stance taken by the British UN force in Gorazde. It was their decision and actions to fight back that saved the Bosnian Muslim population of Gorazde and so th Serb force gave up the assault and moved off. Only this time they rocked up in Srebrenica where a Dutch UN force were based.

The Dutch followed the UN mandate to observe and report, whilst the Serbs set about the ethnic cleansing of the area resulting the execution of 6000 Muslim men and boys.

Having a lightly equipped UN force, with no clear ROE and a civilian chain of command is not the answer, in fact it’s a major problem. The UN stood by there and watched the slaughter take place and did nothing.

The IDF have no consideration for international law and respect no-one, same as the Serbs. The UN needs to take a long look at itself and totally overhaul its approach to “peacekeeping”.
 
tsubaki said:
UNFIL has representatives from most of the EU and two of the five permanent SC members; it isn't lacking influential nations backing it. Also it isnt there to (and wasnt set up to) defend Lebanon or dissuade Israel from invading, just to help the Lebanese government restore order to the south of the country. I agree that it should be stronger and that there is no way that it would ever be allowed to.

In these circumstances though its pretty clear from the statements of the regime's ministers, military logic and the stated goal of the operation that the Israelis intend to occupy, possibly permanently, a strip of land that UNFIL currently sits on. Not moving puts the lives of the UNFIL troops there at greater risk (from an "ally" of ours!) but it also creates the probability of severe consequences for the Israeli government if they try to force them out.

Moving them under this pressure removes the probability of those consequences as well as leaving those Lebanese civilians who remain in the area at real risk of real harm in the Srebrenica sense of the word.

If they force them out, especially if there are casualties and they go on to kick the civilian population out, then I cannot see relations between the EU (as a whole at least, Hungary may be an exception) and Israel continuing at all; no amount of lobby pressure would be able to turn that around. I would also imagine that the rest of the Arab world would realise they have to look to their own defences and act accordingly.
Click to expand...
I’d have to disagree here. The only truly influential nations, in terms of world military and political power, in UNIFIL are China and France.

The French, to their credit, have deployed decent combat infantry, whereas China’s contingent is primarily made up of logistical and EOD troopers.

Unsurprisingly, they aren’t the ones getting popped at, and I doubt if that’s purely coincidental. The sizeable troop numbers come with far less influence.

Those being injured or killed are from member states who have little clout within the UN, and even less so in terms of being able to defend against IDF aggression.

I’m not advocating moving the troops out (nor is Mutzo), yet rather identifying the thankless task they have, with their hands tied politically and militarily.

It wreaks of the League of Nations.
 
PhilM said:
I’d have to disagree here. The only truly influential nations, in terms of world military and political power, in UNIFIL are China and France.

The French, to their credit, have deployed decent combat infantry, whereas China’s contingent is primarily made up of logistical and EOD troopers.

Unsurprisingly, they aren’t the ones getting popped at, and I doubt if that’s purely coincidental. The sizeable troop numbers come with far less influence.

Those being injured or killed are from member states who have little clout within the UN, and even less so in terms of being able to defend against IDF aggression.

I’m not advocating moving the troops out (nor is Mutzo), yet rather identifying the thankless task they have, with their hands tied politically and militarily.

It wreaks of the League of Nations.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the implication of you two effectively saying that there’s no point to it surely means withdrawal of the force? We both agree there’s no way that UNFIL would ever get the strength or the mandate it needs so what are the alternatives if the cause is meaningless?

I agree about the League of Nations bit, and hopefully the world remembers that. Lord knows this cannot continue as it is, with that state continually setting precedents for other bad faith actors whilst putting ever wider gaps between its backers in the West and the populations that the backers purport to represent.
 
Eidean said:
Not quite what he said was it.
Click to expand...

The choice was between equipping it properly or not bothering; since there’s no chance of it being equipped properly the implication (that it should leave) seemed clear.

UNFIL is in a vulnerable position but that was intended all along, otherwise it would never have been established. Now that the Israeli state’s forces are threatening it and have started to attack it we (the rest of the world) need to determine what to do with the state responsible.

This should have happened years ago with all the other breaches of international law, and certainly with the way they’ve behaved since October 7th, but it didn’t and so here we are on the edge of the abyss.
 
tsubaki said:
Sorry, but the implication of you two effectively saying that there’s no point to it surely means withdrawal of the force? We both agree there’s no way that UNFIL would ever get the strength or the mandate it needs so what are the alternatives if the cause is meaningless?

I agree about the League of Nations bit, and hopefully the world remembers that. Lord knows this cannot continue as it is, with that state continually setting precedents for other bad faith actors whilst putting ever wider gaps between its backers in the West and the populations that the backers purport to represent.
Click to expand...
I've not advocated this in any of my posts because...

a) it is important there's a UN presence there in the long-term to monitor Israel and Lebanon, and b) it's what Israel wants, especially in the short term.

Yet, today, another UN solider has been injured with gunfire (not confirmed to be caused by the IDF), yet the response has once again been merely words.

We've had multiple members of the UN force injured, infrastructure deliberately attacked and from what I've heard, they're mainly hunkered down in shelters.

Because the UN will likely not consider enlargement of the force's resources and improved ROE, I am saying that we will see them squeezed and more injured.

This will be accepted by the UN and it's member states, because put simply, it's the better of two evils. Withdrawal would be another nail in the UN's coffin.

If the US committed troops to the UNIFIL mission and put troops on the front-line, I think the IDF aggression against them would end very, very quickly.

However, we know they would bypass them and get one with doing the rest of their business with little to no chance of being stopped any time soon.
 
tsubaki said:
Now that the Israeli state’s forces are threatening it and have started to attack it we (the rest of the world) need to determine what to do with the state responsible.
Click to expand...
As has been stated in here by other posters, the IDF have been attacking UNIFIL intermittently for years. I don’t recall seeing you or others protesting then?

Let’s have a bit of consistency here. As for the rest of the world doing their bit, I think you’ll end up disappointed. Israel has levelled Gaza and killed tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians, yet the world (for the most part) has stayed distant, shook its head, wagged its finger and imposed limited sanctions on Israel. So if you think they’ll do anything major in relation to the attacks on UNIFIL then I’d say you’re living in la-la land.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top