Sending the UN++ or NATO-EU Troops to Gaza???

metro

New Member
They're continuing asking from inside and out of Gaza and the West Bank for UNIFIL or NATO-EU troops; they're asking Israel to not "Veto" (Israel hasn't said that it sees a problem in Gaza), Clinton, many from the EU, and others?

I'm from the US, and this request (which would require more US troops) is the first time thatt from my perspective, we're happy to answer a question by saying, "sorry we're tied up in Iraq."

Just wanted to get some other NATO (UNIFIL, Israel would almost definitely say not again to that) country opinions. Can NATO-EU do the job? IMO, they can, but it would be a request that DOA even I were the decision maker. Those are a lot of people to (most dense population on earth) take pot shots at NEW NATO targets. And Hamas is well armned!
The US wants the Okay to send in APC's, Body Armor, more Guns/ammo, RPGS, and Anti-Tank weapons (for what? I don't know!) into the west Bank. All the arms, money, smuggling, that were given to the PA in Gaza, now belong to Hamas.

Jordan has said no (up to now) regading securing the West Bank, and Israel has said it hasn't decided about giving them those weapons (IMO, an APC would last 1 hour vs. 1 IED.)

Anyway taking into account that Gaza has streets that make any Armor difficult, one can use Helicopters-- but if they are landed in Israel, Israel is attacking them... and so on...

What are your thoughts?
 
Last edited:

swerve

Super Moderator
The Israeli prime minister said today that an international force to guard the Gaza-Egypt border should be seriously considered. Olmert also said the Israelis also considered allowing arms shipments to Fatah forces in Gaza, to strengthen them against Hamas, but have decided against it for now.

Other Israeli politicians, including government ministers, have said an international force with a more general peacekeeping (or peace enforcing) role in Gaza could be a good idea.

Why do you think Israel would attack helicopters used by an international force if they landed in Israel? Odd thing to say.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Thanks God we decided to stay at sea when it came to the Lebanon operation.
So I am optimistic that we don't walk into the middle of this mess.

Just think of the ROEs. The horror, the horror...
 

contedicavour

New Member
Our (Italian) PM already proposed this a month ago. It is completely irresponsible to think European peacekeepers could maintain peace unless the request comes directly from all parts involved in today's palestinian civil war.
We could have intervened a few years ago to strengthen the Fatah government but nowadays we would be automatically considered enemies by Hamas and fired upon.
Last but not least, peacekeepers would be stuck inside barracks and be unable to manoeuvre in the Gaza urban environment.
Peacekeepers can only intervene once there is a peace agreement in place...

cheers
 

RubiconNZ

The Wanderer
Peacekeepers can only intervene once there is a peace agreement in place...
Goodness knows nobody would send forces in to be peacemakers, the carnage mainly civilian would be intense. Not to mention who would send the forces everyone bar a few countries have the quality of troops/equipment to spare for such a operation.
 

metro

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #6
The Israeli prime minister said today that an international force to guard the Gaza-Egypt border should be seriously considered. Olmert also said the Israelis also considered allowing arms shipments to Fatah forces in Gaza, to strengthen them against Hamas, but have decided against it for now. Other Israeli politicians, including government ministers, have said an international force with a more general peacekeeping (or peace enforcing) role in Gaza could be a good idea.
Yeah, thes have pretty much been the standard answers.
Olmert: "If you want to go into Gaza as a 'Peace Enforcing' force (no qusaam birages), go right ahead. Kidnappings used to go for a couple million, now they're just killing the people."
Other Israeli politicians, including government ministers, have said an international force with a more general peacekeeping (or peace enforcing) role in Gaza could be a good idea."

The idea to give PA/Fatah more and bigger weapons, has usually ended in blowback. I believe the PA have up to 80,000 on their police force list. They aren't carrying just clubs either (to say the least). I think this is why the idea is being held off. People figure it's over for PA/Fatah in Gaza. They don't want to provide the ammunition for the same thing to happen in the West Bank, which is even more sensitive because it can spill into Jordan and/or Israel.

The Egypt-Gaza boarder crossing is a huge problem. Egypt was there in name only. Smuggling became unbelievable, as you can now see.


Why do you think Israel would attack helicopters used by an international force if they landed in Israel? Odd thing to say.
I apologize. Poor grammer on my part. I meant to say that Helicopter's and drones to some extent work the best because of the "impossible terrain." However, if an international force uses anything based in Israel (i.e. helicopter files back and forth), Hamas will blame the Israel for, "using an internatioanl force to fight a war it can't win..etc..."

LOL, wow.. I didn't mean to suggest that Israel would attack an international force at all. They'd support any int'l force that does something. But in the end, they'd take the blame and the (IF) would take losses. So it's a lose, lose for everyone.

Again, my fault for the confusion!
 

contedicavour

New Member
One suggestion I'd make is to retrain and equip the remaining Fatah forces real fast before Hamas ends up taking control of the rest of the Palestinian territories. It's better to spend some money now than to start daydreaming about UN interventions as some politicians are doing...
Morale is key and the Fatah troops are at lowest ever on that item... Seeing they are supported and equipped could help them recover the morale to fight back.

cheers
 

swerve

Super Moderator
...
I apologize. Poor grammer on my part. I meant to say that Helicopter's and drones to some extent work the best because of the "impossible terrain." However, if an international force uses anything based in Israel (i.e. helicopter files back and forth), Hamas will blame the Israel for, "using an internatioanl force to fight a war it can't win..etc..."

LOL, wow.. I didn't mean to suggest that Israel would attack an international force at all. They'd support any int'l force that does something. But in the end, they'd take the blame and the (IF) would take losses. So it's a lose, lose for everyone.

Again, my fault for the confusion!
Sorry for the misunderstanding.

A hypothetical international force would probably be better off based in Egypt than Israel, for the reasons you state.
 
Any mission to send UN/Nato troops in Gaza would make the Unifil mission in Lebanon look like a day in the park. Hamas wouldn't want foreign troops roaming its turf when they are in complete control of Gaza now.
 

metro

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #10
One suggestion I'd make is to retrain and equip the remaining Fatah forces real fast before Hamas ends up taking control of the rest of the Palestinian territories. It's better to spend some money now than to start daydreaming about UN interventions as some politicians are doing...
In terms of International Forces (IF), I thik you're very right it that no matter who talks about that being a solton, no matter "who's talking about it," is doing much more than "daydreaming.

One problem we had is that my CIA was all too eager to supply and train the "Police Forces" in Gaza and the West Bank. Traing was done for those in the West Bank, in Jordan, and those in Gaza in Egypt. We had no idea who we were supplying and training as the mission has not been to understand the ME, it's been to just, somehow, "bring about Peace." Like Iraq.

Dr. Rice was going to come to the region and give a big speech on her two State solution as fighting was getting worse in Gaza. Olmert is going to meet Bush soon, and Bush, after meeting with both Abbas and Olmert was (maybe still is ) going to make a major new Peace Process Speech. This was on the calander before Gaza (fightin). I'm just sorry to say that almost our entire Gov't doesn't have a clue when it comes to the ME. The same goes for the EU. There is a cynacle view too (I won't touch it).

Mohammed Dahalyn, who "is/was" the head of the PA/Fatah Security Services, and resided in Gaza, has been MIA for 2 months (During the fighting). He's probably in Egpyt. But he's been "seen" like Elvis in places all over, having an operation on (name a part of the Body). He has been the CIA's point man with the Palestinians in terms of foreign military spplies, training men, and so on... While he had almost absolute authority, especially in Gaza, the weapons smuggling coming through the Philidelphia Coridor "Rafah Crossing," which was finally agreed upon that the Egyptians would send their "Special Forces, etc" to monitor and prevent, became an open joke. People warned that Gaza was becoming a time bomb that has the similar weapons as Hizbollah did last yerar.

At the same time as the CIA has been training "Palestinians," Iran broke down the "Palestinians" into Fatah and Hamas. Iran took Hamas, on for further training both in Lebanon and Iran. They were taught how to take and gve orders to just Hamas affiliates. How to convince those neighbors who'd Palestinians had lived next to for years (in Gaza; one family being associated with Hamas and the other with Fatah), that "The PA was useless and a pawn of America, Israel, and the EU. Nothing would ever change until 'the corrupt PA' was overthrown and Pure Islam, represented by Hamas (and the Divine, who wins in the end) eliminates Fatah." They were given the same cources on "fighting" as Hizbollah has recieved, just to use right now against fellow Palestinians. They were also getting all the funding in the world and weapons through smuggling.

My problem is that the we turned our heads knowing all tis was going on (America, State Dept, CIA, EU, UN, Israel, Egypt), "Fightinig for Peace," "Establishing a "True and lating Peace," the "need for a two state solution" no matter the circumstances on the ground. IMO, each slogan is/was qute, but was not based in reality (whether we undestoodreality in the ME or not).

Despite what is reported, the PLO/PA/Fatah/etc... have all been receiving large funds for more than a decade, and weapons up until Fatah fell in Gaza. All of that is now in Hamas' Hands. Not as thoughthey nedded it as funds/weapons were coming in anyway. Many say "we" should have given more to Fatah in Gaza... Well, all that's been given is in Hamas' hands. Some say we should have funded Hamas, after the election (despite diplomatic rhetoric, "we did," hoping to reform them, and giving weapons for their security as "the only way they could 'reform' is if they could show absolute authority to change the "extemeists." On the other hand Hamas used the "democratic card" that they won the democratic election, and weren't receiving international support (which they were; money and weapons... just quietly by the west and Iran).


Morale is key and the Fatah troops are at lowest ever on that item... Seeing they are supported and equipped could help them recover the morale to fight back.
cheers
Also very true. One of the options that had been suggested was to have Jordainian troops "take control" of security until Fatah can handle it on their own. Jordan, originally rejected it as PLO/PA/Fatah hasn't had the best relationship back to the Arafat days (Arafat went for the coup against King Hussein). Arafat and Palestinians supported King Husseins overthrow when Syria strted moving into Jordan. It was Israel who continuealy buzzed Haffez al-Assad's House, which changed his mind... Many say this helped lead to the "best peace" in the ME.
But, Jordan is talking about it now, which means that first, Hamas in the West Bank has to be weeded out (hopefully not the way it was done to Fatah in Gaza).
Also, the CIA and Israel will be taining their forces too. But it begs the question, if Jordan, and Israel will watch over things in the West Bank, is it a great idea to train and arm them like crazy (again)? :unknown

I agree, that Morale is extremely important, but they have enough weapons in the WB to do what ever they need. When somethig is not done, it's not becase they don't have a tank, it's because they don't want to (Hence, Israel having to go in and make arrests).

They have to start vetting the "Police Forces," and make the decision if they want to be a State, or a "Resistance" movement. Without this, any weapons will end up being turned against them just as in Gaza. Also, corruption needs to be ended right away. A step that was made by the appointing of the new Palestinian PM (Abbas becoming President). The Palestinian peope won't prosper as long as the money is held among a few. But there's no doubt that the US, Israel, EU, etc... will support Abbas to build him up. "A Palestinaian Leader vs. Maked Men in Gaza lead by Iran."

Gaza is/was competely Palestinian (no Israelis, check points and all the rest) and a test, if there are really Palestinians who want a two state solution or what Hamas wants, the destruction of Israel (innitially). Hamas made there statements and ended up by showing "their" colors. The West Bank will be the last test, and its Gov't will be supported by all "improtant western" sides. If the Palestinian people decide, "The Hamas' option is the best for them," I'm afraid (I know) we won't see a "Two State Solution."

I hope thw Palestinians in the West Bank, make the best decision for themselves.

As for Gaza, money will get in. If Rockets are launched into Israel, huge problems will be created. Instead of making the first option a total invasion, I'd spport truning off elcetricity and water, as well as targeting the leaders of Hamas.

I suggested this a long time ago (learning from Israel's "Targeted Assasinations"), that to fight the "insurgeny in Iraq" using constant pressure is the only way to fight it. Playing defense and then chasing the threat and going back to defense, does nothing. We must play constant offense in Iraq, day and night. Insurgents intent on hiding, cannot spend time planning. I was happy to hear a US general say this very thing a couple days ago--and it as been the most succssful tactic we're now using.

JMO
Peace
 

metro

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #11
Sorry for the misunderstanding.

A hypothetical international force would probably be better off based in Egypt than Israel, for the reasons you state.
It would work well if the international force (IF) could get complete Egyptian support in that the IF can hve complete control over an area such as the crossing, and any suspected "houses" on the Egyptian side being used for smuggling (It can't to be presented as such to the public, but that's the 'agreement' that would be needed). Also, Egypt would need to send some of its most trusted troops to help.

Mubarak in Egypt is in real trouble, especially with succession. "Al-Queda" has exerted its influence and made the Egyptian Gov't less than stable (One of the reasons the US is looking to move "Africom," from Germany to somewhere real close in Afirca-some stabilty.

If an IF is successfull working from Egypt, there's no doubt, Iran and "Al-Queda" would both raise hell in their own way. Both attacking Egypt and the IF for proof of a war on Islam supported by Mubrarak.

Hamas has had many firefights (to say the least) with the Egyptians. Hamas will do anything to turn things into the West vs. muslims. Forcing the use of IF military equipment will do this.
Just remember, the only pictures we've seen or will see coming out of Gaza is picturs from their camera men. News agencies hire cameramen from Gaza to film what's going on. It's expensive and good business for them. No more otside competition, and they can show the picture they want. Ever since a FOX reporter was kidnapped there and the BBC reporter who remains in Gaza, news agencies won't send their own crews in (for good reason). As we've heard, Hamas is doing "everyhing possible to get Alan Johnston (spl?) released." Please!:rolleyes: They just took over Gaza, now Hamas is negotiating with a family? More like Iran will decide and most likely want some quid-pro-quo.
This is, yet, another situation though.

Regardless, the Egyption boarder crossing needs to be seriously secured. An IF might be the best for this, if the IF is serious.
But as I think about it, any military action inside Gaza that needs to be taken on behalf of the IF or Israel, should be done by Israel. That's where the blame will go, and unfortunately, they're used to it. But when fired at (assuming the IF is in place), where the boarder crossing is, overwhelming fire must come back from the IF. Tunnels must be found and collapsed. In other words it can't be UNIFIL in Lebanon.

Peace
 

metro

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #12
Any mission to send UN/Nato troops in Gaza would make the Unifil mission in Lebanon look like a day in the park. Hamas wouldn't want foreign troops roaming its turf when they are in complete control of Gaza now.
That's for sure, and it's not going to happen. The only reason Hamas would want an IF in Gaza is for target practice and as Human Shields so it makes things even tougher on the Israelis.
Again, you're right.
 

cheetah

New Member
Iam kind of confused here hamas was voted in by the Palestinians.they have peoples complete support i see it cause of there win in west bank.
fatah was suppose to be on Palestinians side and was fighting for a Palestinians state.
but from what it shows now they were in bed with Israel and USA from the start.
till yesterday Americans and Israelis didn't want no arms in Palestinians hands.
but now Americans are thinking of arming the fatah.
could some one please explain this to me please. :unknown
 

Rich

Member
Iam kind of confused here hamas was voted in by the Palestinians.they have peoples complete support i see it cause of there win in west bank.
fatah was suppose to be on Palestinians side and was fighting for a Palestinians state.
but from what it shows now they were in bed with Israel and USA from the start.
till yesterday Americans and Israelis didn't want no arms in Palestinians hands.
but now Americans are thinking of arming the fatah.
could some one please explain this to me please. :unknown
Yeah I suppose if wanting to live in peace together could be called "being in bed" together. Most Islamic countries, and their residents, would probably call it that. Its not their children living in squalor and hopelessness after all. Its the Palestinian ones.

All Hamas is going to deliver to its people is more death and misery. They are nothing but puppets of the Iranians, who have their own agenda. And starving Palestinian children aren't on it.

The real funny thing is it was America that pressed them hardest for free elections. Isn't that funny? None of the countries that backed the Palestinians have free elections but we almost forced them to have them, and only to end up back where we started at.

We are backing Fatah because they have a moderate leader that wants to nring peace and prosperity to the region. Unlike Hamas, whom are nothing but Iranian pawns, and threaten to embroil the entire region in war. Their stated goal is the destruction of Israel, as is Irans.
 

metro

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #15
Iam kind of confused here hamas was voted in by the Palestinians.they have peoples complete support i see it cause of there win in west bank.
fatah was suppose to be on Palestinians side and was fighting for a Palestinians state.
but from what it shows now they were in bed with Israel and USA from the start.
till yesterday Americans and Israelis didn't want no arms in Palestinians hands.
but now Americans are thinking of arming the fatah.
could some one please explain this to me please. :unknown
Hamas is on the US list of terrorist groups, meaning, US funds/weapons/support, can't go to them, as it's against the law. It would be difficult for me to believe that Israel would provide any of those things to a Gov't that is founded on the "destruction of Israel."
If the US and Israel were strictly supporting Fatah, then where in the world did Hamas get the money and all the arms it has, to take over Gaza? For example, Eqypt has/had its SFs guarding the boarder crossing and making sure "nothing is smuggled in." So where did all those weapons come from?
That's in the past already, so it doesn't matter that much I guess.

But we're not just arming Fatah, we're rearming Fatah. IMO, I just don't see Hamas sending the weapons Fatah left behind, to the West Bank. Hamas, despite promises, still hasn't freed a kidnapped BBC reporter. So if I had to bet, weapons and/or vehicles aren't going to be sent from Hamas to Fatah.
There was a unity Gov't that Abbas headed. When Hamas tore apart his offices and the people loyal to him in Gaza, that could petty much be considered a coup. I don't think Hamas doing that, was going to win over much support.

I think saying that Hamas has the Palestinians 'complete support' is a bit of an overstatement. If that were true, nobody would belong to Fatah and its affiliated groups, right?:rolleyes:
 
, It would be difficult for me to believe that Israel would provide any of those things to a Gov't that is founded on the "destruction of Israel."
See Iran contra affair. There is a lot of back channel goings-on that the public is not aware of. There are reports of Israeli intelligence agencies supporting Hamas as a counterbalance to the PLO (Fatah) before the creation of the military wing.
 
Last edited:

metro

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #17
See Iran contra affair. There is a lot of back channel goings-on that the public is not aware of.
Very True.
However, there's a bit of a different situation today, especially with respect to the influence of Iran in the region and the location/growth of Hamas (proximity to Israel).

A lot of seemingly crazy stuff goes on in the ME, mostly because of politics. And regardless, most people wouldn't believe things that are true, even if someone showed them a video, just because it doesn't fit into the "story" everyone has heard over and over.

With respect to Iran-contra, one of the bigger things that the majority of the public doesn't know about, is a person who was very much involved in the whole thing and somehow was able to almost completely escape all attention. Of coarse the person is a "very well respected" american, who has served in very high positions, one of them quite recently.

There are reports of Israeli intelligence agencies supporting Hamas as a counterbalance to the PLO (Fatah) before the creation of the military wing.
I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to? Many years ago, Israel tried talking to people who were indigenous to the area--go around Arafat and those who are "basically" not from the area. But unless someone in Hamas would turn, Israel didn't have much to do with them, especially when suicide bombings started. Hamas, on it's own was a counterbalance to Arafat. Arafat always believed someone in Hamas would kill him if he ever accepted "a peace agreement" with Israel. Hamas, never had a powerful enough backing where they could come out of "the shadows," and take Arafat on. As they did in Gaza in the last week. Hamas knew it would have to be done through force, and the int'l community wouldn't have had any of it.

During the Clinton years, Arafat was Clinton's "Peace man" and Iran was trying to get sanctions dropped. So, Hamas didn't have the green light to do anything that could have hurt Iran. Arafat was one of two or 3 people who supported Hussein in GWI--Playing the friend of the enemy of Iran... the relationship gets too complicated...

I don't know if ur talking about something(s) specific?
 
Last edited:

contedicavour

New Member
Somebody just exploded a bomb against a UNIFIL convoy killing 5 Spanish peacekeepers. The nightmare (Iraq or Afghanistan style) risks to be materializing in Lebanon :(
Never mind Gaza and let's start focusing on what UNIFIL is supposed to do in Lebanon while it is being bombed...
 

metro

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #19
Somebody just exploded a bomb against a UNIFIL convoy killing 5 Spanish peacekeepers. The nightmare (Iraq or Afghanistan style) risks to be materializing in Lebanon :(
Never mind Gaza and let's start focusing on what UNIFIL is supposed to do in Lebanon while it is being bombed...
Yeah, it's really sad, and totally crazy!
As I said a while ago in other threads, with the UN giving directions to your soldiers (i.e. ROE), UNIFIL on the ground in Lebanon are basically sitting ducks for Hizbollah, Syrian (groups), and can only get in the way of if/when (unfortunately) a war breaks out. UNIFIL hasn't been allowed to do anything but receive the instructions to report back to their higher-ups (same people), "see no evil, hear no evil."

UNIFIL has pretty much been surrounded by Hizbollah. They're the ones on patrol in thee south. UNIFIL had to ask permission to remove new and more Hizbollah and PLO Flags (both groups were to be disarmed and dismantled) from the boarder line--some actually being in front of UNIFIL positions. However, the permission to remove those flags was denied. That doesn't show much will/strength from the UN Commanders.

Unfortunately, the actual UN (not troops, who have a lot to lose) don't have much to fear. Who's going to remove the large funds for "peacekeeping"?
The EU countries have to be able to act, if not under the UN's permission, then the UN has truly become irrelevant in every way. If their Idea of "peacekeeping" is getting those who represent the UN to have their kids killed because they can only fight back with "peace," just call it a suicide mission--which it is--until the country's with troops say "this is crazy, we're leaving." Thus, the UN excuse is that the force sent wasn't sufficient or well enough equipped... so we need more money.

I still feel the same way, if "The UN" doesn't let UNIFIL do its job, UNIFIL troops should leave, and all further UN peacekeeping missions should end and the relevance of the UN today, should be highly debated. It's difficult/impossible to even get something as simple as real sanctions put in place--even after years (i'd get fired if I worked so slow).

Again, I wish all the best to the family's and friend's of those who were lost.
 
I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to? Many years ago, Israel tried talking to people who were indigenous to the area--go around Arafat and those who are "basically" not from the area. But unless someone in Hamas would turn, Israel didn't have much to do with them, especially when suicide bombings started. Hamas, on it's own was a counterbalance to Arafat. Arafat always believed someone in Hamas would kill him if he ever accepted "a peace agreement" with Israel. Hamas, never had a powerful enough backing where they could come out of "the shadows," and take Arafat on. As they did in Gaza in the last week. Hamas knew it would have to be done through force, and the int'l community wouldn't have had any of it.

During the Clinton years, Arafat was Clinton's "Peace man" and Iran was trying to get sanctions dropped. So, Hamas didn't have the green light to do anything that could have hurt Iran. Arafat was one of two or 3 people who supported Hussein in GWI--Playing the friend of the enemy of Iran... the relationship gets too complicated...

I don't know if ur talking about something(s) specific?
The links to the article mentioned is at the bottom of the page.

However, various sources, among them United Press International,[86] Le Canard enchaîné, Bill Baar, Gérard Chaliand[87] and L'Humanité[88] have highlighted that Hamas' early growth — before its official founding and the creation of the military branch — had been supported by the Mossad as a "counterbalance to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)". Furthermore, the French investigative newspaper Le Canard enchaîné stated that Shin Bet had also supported Hamas as a counterweight to the PLO and Fatah, in an attempt to give "a religious slant to the conflict, in order to make the West believe that the conflict was between Jews and Muslims", thus supporting the controversial thesis of a "clash of civilizations".[89]
......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas
 
Top