๐ณ๐ฑ
The UN **caused** the problem, while I expect them to be responsible for fixing it in reality they wont.
@freemo @freepeoplesfreepress @kravietz If international law was violated, it should be up to an international governing body to bring down the punishment.
Agreed, which is why the fact that Israel has been called to international court multiple times on war crimes, human rights violations, and terrorism is so damning. More so since they refuse to defend themselves in court.
So in that regard I wish the UN would act.
But they wont because there is no international law, there is no enforcement, they cant act, they arent a government. It is up to the individual countries to choose to act or not when the UN decrees a thing.
I am not sure you did explain it... in fact im rather confused how you can disagree at all.. like they dont even pass laws or decrees, they talk, and then some small set (or large) number of countries may sign a thing.There are no rules on votes needed or anything like that that would even resemble a law. When they vote it is basically "who wants to sign this thing" and sometimes the condition for signing may be a threshold number of votes, but its decided on a per-discussion basis and non-signing countries are never obligated, explicitly so.
Also its very od you support international law and are ont he side of ISrael, one of the biggest violators.
Hell the UN just ordered a ceasefire with 2/3 vote on october 17 due to both sides attackign civilians and ISraels response was to have a tantrum about the UN and then ban any UN representatives from ever entering ISrael.
Not to mention their history of attrocities they refuse to go to court for.
By the way, they already had a ceasefire on 6 October. Guess who broke it ๐ And after the current ceasefire started at 07:00, Hamas fired rockets at Israel at 07:15. So good luck.
Thats highly inaccurate. As someone who was not only living in israel at that time but working closely with a famous top-level israeli general and advisor who deals closely with the conflict I am well informed on the situation, I mean I should be bombs were going off all around me too.
They werent firing at eachother at that moment, shortly after ISrael had initiated an attack where they had retaliated and then stopped.
But two parties not firing on eachother is not the same as a cease fire agreement.
The first paragraph displays an amount of ego that entirely justifies all fringe logic that follows ๐
The fact that you think being directly connected and informed by the generals involved, and physically there when it happened equates to "ego" has totally destroyed any chance that I could take you seriously.
Well, that train has been long gone on my side since you postulated removal of 10 million people from Israel and dissolution of the country ๐
Thats some selective memory you had... you asked me what Id do if I was god, and pointed out on several occasions what I'd do as a god is very different than what is practical or a real solution.
But you care more about appearing smart than actually having an honest conversation it seems. No surprise given your last comment.
No, I did not ask about your god-like fantasies. I asked what would you do differently if you were Israel on 7 October. Here it is, verbatim:
No you said “If I was israel” not “in control” and in my response I made very clear I was answering as someone who had complete ability to do anythign regardless of if it is practical. In my response to your question (As you can see in that link) says that very disclaimer, as I knew you’d try and cheat like you are now:
My exact words:
Now in all reality neither me nor anyone has complete control to decide the situation. So in any practical sense that will never happen, nor am I expecting it to. But youa sked what I would do if i had control and that would be it.
Can you quote a comment where I used the phrase โin controlโ?
The very first words of my last response were:
> No you said โIf I was israelโ not โin controlโ
So take a guess...
Meh, I guess I wonโt as itโs not taking us anywhere.
Look we started out pretty respectful, and both of us are going off the wrong end here.... lets take a step back. I got no issue with you, obviously there was a miscommunication, its not a big deal, now its clarified so regardless of what you wanted me to mean or what you thought I meant we both know what we meant to say now, no big deal.
I am respectful. And clearly was a miscommunication.
My original question was: what would you do differently on the position of Israel on 7 October.
And I meant a practical scenario, not a fantasy one, which is where the misunderstanding clearly was.
@freepeoplesfreepress @realcaseyrollins
The practical one is the same one I told casey rollins… If i were in charge of israel the first thing I probably would do is
1) give back significant land that is more disputed as a apology
2) invade pallestine completely with the intent of taking over the government. I would however do so with extra care not to kill civilians even if that meant taking a reaasonably higher risk for my troops, again in a gesture
3) Install a temporary transitional government, perhapse ask the UN to oversee it for neutrality reasons. The intent would be to get democracy in place, and get rid of the hammas population or those who are violent in general. This may take several years
4) During the transitional government you slowly remove the fences and form formal relationships with palestine
5) and this is most important, once things have stabalized in a decade (and you promise this upfront) they get full autonomy of bother their land and the land given in #1 (which would transition to them pro rata anyway)
6) At the end of the process once the radicalized element is removed you promise them a choice, and its completely up to them, a) they can dissolve their country and become full citizens of israel or b) you can continue as your own country and go your own way.
I think #6 is also important because since it was their country first they should get the choice of a one state or two state solution.
But the other points are important to understand that these solutions need to ensure the safety of everyone, so it has to be a process.
Ok, so in parts 2-3 that sounds very much like the hypothetical plan for Gaza reportedly discussed by Israel with Arab countries. That clearly is possible and reasonable way for permanent peace.
Item 1 kind of happened in 2005 during Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, and was punished for that by Hamas, but let's assume with UN peacekeeping mission that would work.
Now, the hard part. You postulated this:
> would however do so with extra care not to kill civilians
Sounds great in general, but what *exactly* that "extra care" would mean in practice, granted Hamas turned Gaza into one huge fortress with military infrastructure embedded into civilian objects, specifically with the intent of maximizing civilian losses during any Israel operation.
@freepeoplesfreepress @realcaseyrollins
All I know is I havent seen that extra care so far, and dont expect to... at a minimum.
Now if you actually want to talk abotu breaking a cease fire **agreement** then you just need to look at the current one. Israel agreed, it was UN forced, and not only did throw a fit and block all UN delegates froim ever entering Israel, they also literally broke the cease fire terms on every term.
1) they violated Palestinian air space during the cease fire despite the terms
2) After they got some of their hostages back they refused to release the palestianian prisoners agreed upon
3) They only allowed 3 out of nearly 100 humanitarian aid convoys into Gaza
4) Murdered two palestinians in an area they were allowed to be
@freemo @freepeoplesfreepress @kravietz Well to be fair if I ran #Israel and this point and the #UN had ordered a ceasefire, I'd ignore them too ๐
I dont mind them ignoring the UN. I do mind them not presenting their case in international court far more so
@freemo @freepeoplesfreepress @kravietz On a more serious note I agree to some extent. If I'm running #Israel, a main goal is to survive. However, the rule of law must also be followed.
If decrees such as a ceasefire must be violated in order to destroy #Hamas, so be it, but if the state will do the crime, it must also be willing to do the time if it hopes to deserve any benefits from being under the jurisdiction of a body such as the #UN. So you're right in that they should be appearing in front of #UN councils when accused of war crimes, and I'd submit that after they beat #Hamas, #Israel should be answering for everything they've done to do so (I believe this is ground we have tread before).
@freemo @freepeoplesfreepress @kravietz
> It is up to the individual countries to choose to act or not when the UN decrees a thing.
I disagree, although I have already explained why.