Foreign Ministry Legal Department: International force in Gaza could be precedent for Judea and Samaria
A paper prepared by Israel's notoriously Leftist foreign ministry says that the presence of an international force to keep the 'peace' in Gaza could act as a
precedent for a similar force in Judea and Samaria.
The seven-page paper, written by the ministry’s legal department, presents alternative models for the establishment of an international presence or mechanism in the Gaza Strip for the “day after” the fighting ends.
The idea of a multinational force in the West Bank has been raised over the years by the Palestinians and others as a possible solution to Israel’s security concerns if it withdraws from the area. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has consistently opposed the proposals.
The ministry drew up the paper following Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman’s call in the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Monday to bring a “UN mandate” to Gaza.
...
One option would be a binding Security Council resolution under Chapter VII of the UN Charter that would give an international force enforcement authority and the ability to use force beyond just self-defense purposes to carry out its designated mission. In the case of Gaza, this would necessitate the agreement of the Palestinian Authority, Egypt and Israel and the tacit approval of Hamas.
...
Another model would be under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, where a force would be established that would not have enforcement authority, and would be primarily concerned with supervisory or reportorial roles.
The duties of this type of force would include reporting on ceasefire violations, efforts at demilitarization, supervising rehabilitation of Gaza, reporting on terrorist activity, overseeing humanitarian assistance and institution building.
There are a number of examples of this type of force in the region, such as UNIFIL, the UN Interim Force in Lebanon; UNDOF, the UN Disengagement Observer Force on the Golan: and UNFICYP, the UN Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus.
Another option is creating a framework outside the UN and agreed upon by the parties. The two examples of this type of arrangement are also taken from the region, the Multinational Force and Observers in Sinai established as part of the 1979 Israel-Egypt peace agreement, and TIPH, the Temporary International Presence in Hebron.
Before deciding which model would be preferable, the paper said that in addition to concern about the precedent such a force would set regarding the West Bank, several other factors needed to be considered.
There are many reasons not to agree to this force.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: EUBAM Rafah, Gaza, Hamas, Israel, Palestinian Authority, UN peacekeeping forces, UNIFIL, use of force
Use of force never acceptable, even in self-defense?
Evelyn Gordon has some prescient observations regarding the Palmer Commission's conclusion that the
use of force by the IDF on the Mavi Marmara was 'excessive.'
This begs an obvious question: How were the soldiers supposed to subdue this much larger group of heavily armed opponents, whom the report itself admits posed a threat to their own lives, without causing any injuries or deaths? The report provides no answer, because in reality, it’s simply not possible.
Moreover, as any soldier knows, a wounded opponent can still kill. Shoot a man in the leg, for instance, and he can still kill you with his iron bar, stave, chain, knife or gun. The Israelis also had no way of knowing what other weaponry passengers might have – whether, for instance, some might have wired themselves with explosives, as Islamic fanatics (which by this point the soldiers knew they were facing) often do. Under such circumstances, no soldier worth his salt shoots once and hopes for the best; he keeps shooting until he’s sure his opponent is out of action. In a fight of this kind, the unpleasant truth is shooting someone multiple times is often a necessary precaution to make sure your opponent doesn’t kill you first.
Granted, the soldiers might never have been in this situation had the raid not been so poorly planned and executed. But once they were attacked in a way that required them “to use force for their own protection,” nothing they did was “excessive and unreasonable”; they did what was necessary under the circumstances to protect themselves.
Thus the report’s implication is that injuring or killing another is never acceptable, even in self-defense; it’s always “excessive and unreasonable.” But if soldiers on a legitimate mission – which the report says enforcing the Gaza blockade was – can’t use lethal force even to save their own lives, then something is badly wrong with the West’s attitude toward the use of military force.
The problem isn't with the West's attitude toward the use of military force. The problem is that there is something badly wrong with the West's attitude toward the use of military force
by Jews. If any other country had used force the way the IDF did on the Marmara and came under investigation by a Palmer Commission, they would have gotten off scot free. Of course, no country other than Israel would ever have come under investigation for the use of force as on the Marmara in the first place.
Labels: excessive force, Mavi Marmara, Palmer Commission, use of force
Palin: 'Fight to win with overwhelming force with the objective to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible'
Sarah Palin has dumped her foreign policy advisers from the McCain days and has enunciated a doctrine of use of force that is
music to my ears: "Fight to win with overwhelming force with the objective to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible."
On Sunday, Sarah Palin was the Keynote Speaker in Denver at an event to honour America’s military families. Here’s a transcript of the Palin Doctrine which she articulated there.A lesson here then for effective use of force, as opposed to sending our troops on missions that are ill-defined. And it can be argued that our involvement elsewhere, say, in Libya, is an example of a lack of clarity.
See, these are deadly serious questions that we must ask ourselves when we contemplate sending Americans into harm’s way. Our men and women in uniform deserve a clear understanding of U.S. positions on such a crucial decision.
I believe our criteria before we send our young men and women, America’s finest, into harm’s way, I believe that our criteria should be spelled out clearly when it comes to the use of our military force. I can tell you what I believe that criteria should be. I can tell you what it should be in five points:
First, we should only commit our forces when clear and vital American interests are at stake, period.
Second, if we have to fight, we fight to win. To do that we use overwhelming force. We only send our troops into war with the objective to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible. We do not send our military and stretch out the mission with an open-ended and ill-defined mission. Nation-building, a nice idea in theory, but it’s not the main purpose of our armed forces. We use our military to win wars.
And third, we must have clearly defined goals and objectives before sending our troops into harm’s way. If you can’t explain the mission to the American people clearly, concisely, then our sons and daughters should not be sent to battle. Period.
Fourth, American soldiers must never be put under foreign command. We will fight side by side by our allies, but American soldiers must remain under the care and command of the American officers.
And fifth, sending our armed forces should be the last resort. We don’t go looking for dragons to slay. However, we will encourage the forces of freedom around the world who are sincerely fighting for the empowerment of the individual.
Read it all.
Labels: Sarah Palin, use of force
Obama administration sought UN cover for military action in Libya
Over the weekend at the United Nations, the United States sought cover for
military action in Libya, to deliver humanitarian aid to the local population and to rescue its own nationals there. It succeeded in part, but at a price: Gadhafi's African mercenaries will not be hauled in front of the International Criminal Court.
The U.S. amendment called for authorizing member states, working with the cooperation of the United Nations, to use "all means necessary to protect civilians and key installations." In the diplomatic terminology of U.N. resolutions, the phrase "all means necessary" has traditionally served as a code for military action.
The debate over the use of force unfolded behind closed doors last week as the Obama administration began exploring options for ensuring the delivery of humanitarian assistance to Libya. U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon will arrive in Washington on Monday to discuss international plans to address the worsening violence in Libya. Over the weekend, the U.S. held talks with Europe and other countries to explore the possibility of establishing a no-fly zone over Libya, according to a report in the New York Times.
One U.S. official, while declining to comment on confidential negotiations over the Security Council resolution, cautioned that the U.S. diplomatic effort in New York was purely humanitarian. "Our intention on any of the language that had to deal with this particular issue was humanitarian in nature. None of this has to do with putting U.S. boots on the ground."
The United States had hoped its amendment would be included in the resolution that was eventually unanimously adopted on Saturday by the U.N. Security Council resolution, which imposed a range of financial and military sanctions on the Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi and his closest associates, and authorized an investigation into crimes against humanity. The U.S. had conditioned its support for the sanctions resolution on the inclusion of another provision that ensured that no foreign nationals inside Libya would be subject to prosecution by the International Criminal Court, according to France's U.N. ambassador, Gerard Araud.
The provision provoked criticism of the United States because it shields large numbers of foreign mercenaries operating on behalf of Qaddafi from possible prosecution by the Hague-based court. But the provision would also immunize American and allied forces from possible prosecution if they enter Libya to help protect civilians or protect humanitarian relief efforts.
The provision was included in the final resolution at the insistence of "one country," Araud said Saturday night. "It was absolutely necessary for one country to have that, considering its parliamentary constrains. It was a red line for the United States, it was a deal breaker. This is the reason why we accepted this unanimously."
The U.S. provision allowing for the use of force, however, was shelved.
Honestly, I am truly shocked that the US tried to get that into the Security Council resolution - it's so unlike this administration. Unfortunately, since it failed, you can bet that the US will not take any military action no matter what happens there.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Libya, UN Security Council, use of force
