Palestinian Leader Wants American-led NATO Force in Future State Indefinitely

[Frodo]

An interesting offer to say the least:

Palestinian Leader Seeks NATO Force in Future State

By JODI RUDOREN
FEB. 2, 2014

RAMALLAH, West Bank — Six months into peace talks dominated by discussion about security, President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority has proposed to Secretary of State John Kerry that an American-led NATO force patrol a future Palestinian state indefinitely, with troops positioned throughout the territory, at all crossings, and within Jerusalem.

Mr. Abbas said in an interview with The New York Times at his headquarters here over the weekend that Israeli soldiers could remain in the West Bank for up to five years — not three, as he previously stated — and that Jewish settlements should be phased out of the new Palestinian state along a similar timetable. Palestine, he said, would not have its own army, only a police force, so the NATO mission would be responsible for preventing the weapons smuggling and terrorism that Israel fears.

“For a long time, and wherever they want, not only on the eastern borders, but also on the western borders, everywhere,” Mr. Abbas said of the imagined NATO mission. “The third party can stay. They can stay to reassure the Israelis, and to protect us.

“We will be demilitarized,” he added. “Do you think we have any illusion that we can have any security if the Israelis do not feel they have security?”

[Famous Mortimer]

Good. Very reasonable and pragmatic.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Likely to protect him from Hamas as much as anything else. Smart move.

[Zioneer]

Well that's certainly different.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Certainly Israel is not going to accept an officially armed Palestinian state.  Given Israel's past actions, the Palestinians naturally enough are going to want reassurance that Israel won't unilaterally adjust the borders in their favor, invade Palestine whenever the hell they feel like it, or lob some shells or bombs into it.  A US-led NATO force would provide that reassurance.  The problem of course is the awful temptation to take sides in any intra-Palestinian conflict.  Also, if the NATO force actually does defend the Palestinians, it certainly will come under occasional attacks by not only Hamas, but also some of the ultra-Zionists.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Meanwhile, Israel is calling Kerry, whose paternal grandparents were Jewish, an anti-semite. Palestine has certainly established themselves as the more reasonable side here.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Meanwhile, Israel is calling Kerry, whose paternal grandparents were Jewish, an anti-semite. Palestine has certainly established themselves as the more reasonable side here.

Lol, "Israel". One Knesset member from a right-wing party said that. When Steve Stockman opens his mouth, does he stand for "America"?

[dead0man]

Given Israel's past actions, the Palestinians naturally enough are going to want reassurance that Israel won't unilaterally adjust the borders in their favor, invade Palestine whenever the hell they feel like it, or lob some shells or bombs into it.

What?  Ok, I get the border adjustment thing, but the other two?  Makes no sense.

[Silent Hunter]

Certainly Israel is not going to accept an officially armed Palestinian state.  Given Israel's past actions, the Palestinians naturally enough are going to want reassurance that Israel won't unilaterally adjust the borders in their favor, invade Palestine whenever the hell they feel like it, or lob some shells or bombs into it.

Given the past actions of the Arab states, I think Israel will want reassurance that such a state (whose borders would be less than 20 miles from Tel Aviv) won't be used for another invasion attempt.

[ag]

Given Israel's past actions, the Palestinians naturally enough are going to want reassurance that Israel won't unilaterally adjust the borders in their favor, invade Palestine whenever the hell they feel like it, or lob some shells or bombs into it.

What?  Ok, I get the border adjustment thing, but the other two?  Makes no sense.

To you - may be. To the rest of the world, I am afraid, it makes a lot of sense, indeed. Starting little wars for electoral reasons would not seem at all out of character, for instance.

[Cory]

Good. Very reasonable and pragmatic.

[Sec. of State Superique]

I have two important ideas about this:

• Instead of Nato, a the International Quartet of UN, US, Europe and Russia peacekeeping forces would be the best. Russians insures less bias against Palestinians.
• Those important forces should be helped in the long run by a Regional Quartet: Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt and Jordan. This could help on bringing more confidence on the Arab world and it gives strong reasons for Israel not stepping in and re-drawing the borders the way they want.

[Indy Texas]

As I recall, Israel had no problem defending itself from the Ee-vil Ay-rabs in 1948 or in 1967, so I don't understand the logic behind their argument that borders based on the Green Line would somehow be "indefensible" for them.

Half-witted Hamas paramilitary shooting mortars over the Gaza border into what is basically sparsely populated desert isn't a threat to their national security; it's a nuisance.

It is absurd to suggest that the United States or NATO have an indefinite obligation to keep Israel or Palestine safe. I'd imagine that would be the job of...Israel and Palestine.

[ag]

I have two important ideas about this:

• Instead of Nato, a the International Quartet of UN, US, Europe and Russia peacekeeping forces would be the best. Russians insures less bias against Palestinians.
• Those important forces should be helped in the long run by a Regional Quartet: Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt and Jordan. This could help on bringing more confidence on the Arab world and it gives strong reasons for Israel not stepping in and re-drawing the borders the way they want.

Russia ensures nothing of the kind: it does ensure, though, lack of coordination and reliability. Palestinians, obviously, are not asking for it either - I am pretty sure, for a reason. Turks are in NATO - that should be enough, as long as the US is in command and control.

[ag]

As I recall, Israel had no problem defending itself from the Ee-vil Ay-rabs in 1948 or in 1967, so I don't understand the logic behind their argument that borders based on the Green Line would somehow be "indefensible" for them.

Half-witted Hamas paramilitary shooting mortars over the Gaza border into what is basically sparsely populated desert isn't a threat to their national security; it's a nuisance.

It is absurd to suggest that the United States or NATO have an indefinite obligation to keep Israel or Palestine safe. I'd imagine that would be the job of...Israel and Palestine.

They did have quite a bit of a problem. That is the reason they are so paranoid, of course.

Without the US committing to be a guarantor on the ground, it is not likely any agreement will be reached, unfortunately. Whether US should care or not - that is, of course, for US political system to figure out.

[Indy Texas]

As I recall, Israel had no problem defending itself from the Ee-vil Ay-rabs in 1948 or in 1967, so I don't understand the logic behind their argument that borders based on the Green Line would somehow be "indefensible" for them.

Half-witted Hamas paramilitary shooting mortars over the Gaza border into what is basically sparsely populated desert isn't a threat to their national security; it's a nuisance.

It is absurd to suggest that the United States or NATO have an indefinite obligation to keep Israel or Palestine safe. I'd imagine that would be the job of...Israel and Palestine.

They did have quite a bit of a problem. That is the reason they are so paranoid, of course.

Without the US committing to be a guarantor on the ground, it is not likely any agreement will be reached, unfortunately. Whether US should care or not - that is, of course, for US political system to figure out.

They didn't have a problem. They've won every war they've been in. Where is the problem?

[Silent Hunter]

As I recall, Israel had no problem defending itself from the Ee-vil Ay-rabs in 1948 or in 1967, so I don't understand the logic behind their argument that borders based on the Green Line would somehow be "indefensible" for them.

Half-witted Hamas paramilitary shooting mortars over the Gaza border into what is basically sparsely populated desert isn't a threat to their national security; it's a nuisance.

It is absurd to suggest that the United States or NATO have an indefinite obligation to keep Israel or Palestine safe. I'd imagine that would be the job of...Israel and Palestine.

They did have quite a bit of a problem. That is the reason they are so paranoid, of course.

Without the US committing to be a guarantor on the ground, it is not likely any agreement will be reached, unfortunately. Whether US should care or not - that is, of course, for US political system to figure out.

In 1973, they needed US assistance to win... and without that, could have ended up using nukes.

[Mordecai]

Obama should accept it right away. This is a big f[Inks]ing deal!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Given Israel's past actions, the Palestinians naturally enough are going to want reassurance that Israel won't unilaterally adjust the borders in their favor, invade Palestine whenever the hell they feel like it, or lob some shells or bombs into it.

What?  Ok, I get the border adjustment thing, but the other two?  Makes no sense.

Makes perfect sense.  Do you truly think that any Palestinian government will be able to maintain perfect control and keep every single idiot from launching pinprick terrorist actions against Israel  from its territory once the internal lock down on the West Bank is ended by the Palestinian government?  Israel has a tendency to at times bomb first and ask questions later.  Partly, that's because they often feel they already know the answer, but to a large extent it's because they can and not doing so causes domestic political problems.

[Famous Mortimer]

As I recall, Israel had no problem defending itself from the Ee-vil Ay-rabs in 1948 or in 1967, so I don't understand the logic behind their argument that borders based on the Green Line would somehow be "indefensible" for them.

Half-witted Hamas paramilitary shooting mortars over the Gaza border into what is basically sparsely populated desert isn't a threat to their national security; it's a nuisance.

It is absurd to suggest that the United States or NATO have an indefinite obligation to keep Israel or Palestine safe. I'd imagine that would be the job of...Israel and Palestine.

They did have quite a bit of a problem. That is the reason they are so paranoid, of course.

Without the US committing to be a guarantor on the ground, it is not likely any agreement will be reached, unfortunately. Whether US should care or not - that is, of course, for US political system to figure out.

They didn't have a problem. They've won every war they've been in. Where is the problem?

Whether or not they could defend themselves from an invasion, they still want to make it strategically harder to launch an invasion in the first place.

Duh.

Hey. If I punched you in the face, you would probably recover from the pain. So why don't you want to get hit in the face?

[dead0man]

Given Israel's past actions, the Palestinians naturally enough are going to want reassurance that Israel won't unilaterally adjust the borders in their favor, invade Palestine whenever the hell they feel like it, or lob some shells or bombs into it.

What?  Ok, I get the border adjustment thing, but the other two?  Makes no sense.

Makes perfect sense.  Do you truly think that any Palestinian government will be able to maintain perfect control and keep every single idiot from launching pinprick terrorist actions against Israel  from its territory once the internal lock down on the West Bank is ended by the Palestinian government?

No, the death cult is well entrenched in Palestinian life.  But they have to try, with vigor and integrity...just like any govt that has asshats picking fights from inside it's territory.  They have not done that up until now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But mostly because they should and they know nobody else will.  They don't invade or drop bombs on their neighbors if they feel like it.  Hell, they don't even invade or drop bombs on their neighbors every time their neighbors invade or drop bombs on them.  They often show remarkable restraint.  Restraint doesn't sell papers, especially to people that only want to read anti-Zionist news.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Given Israel's past actions, the Palestinians naturally enough are going to want reassurance that Israel won't unilaterally adjust the borders in their favor, invade Palestine whenever the hell they feel like it, or lob some shells or bombs into it.

What?  Ok, I get the border adjustment thing, but the other two?  Makes no sense.

Makes perfect sense.  Do you truly think that any Palestinian government will be able to maintain perfect control and keep every single idiot from launching pinprick terrorist actions against Israel  from its territory once the internal lock down on the West Bank is ended by the Palestinian government?

No, the death cult is well entrenched in Palestinian life.  But they have to try, with vigor and integrity...just like any govt that has asshats picking fights from inside it's territory.  They have not done that up until now.

The PA has done a reasonably good job on the West Bank, tho in part that's because the asshats have found it easier to operate from Gaza.  But any Palestinian state will need to involve both the West Bank and Gaza.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But mostly because they should and they know nobody else will.  They don't invade or drop bombs on their neighbors if they feel like it.  Hell, they don't even invade or drop bombs on their neighbors every time their neighbors invade or drop bombs on them.  They often show remarkable restraint.  Restraint doesn't sell papers, especially to people that only want to read anti-Zionist news.
[/quote]
And what exactly do you think the Palestinians are reading?  Under the circumstances, why is it at all nonsensical that the Palestinians are paranoid about Israeli intentions, even if some outside observers find Israeli reactions reasonable?

[dead0man]

Given Israel's past actions, the Palestinians naturally enough are going to want reassurance that Israel won't unilaterally adjust the borders in their favor, invade Palestine whenever the hell they feel like it, or lob some shells or bombs into it.

What?  Ok, I get the border adjustment thing, but the other two?  Makes no sense.

Makes perfect sense.  Do you truly think that any Palestinian government will be able to maintain perfect control and keep every single idiot from launching pinprick terrorist actions against Israel  from its territory once the internal lock down on the West Bank is ended by the Palestinian government?

No, the death cult is well entrenched in Palestinian life.  But they have to try, with vigor and integrity...just like any govt that has asshats picking fights from inside it's territory.  They have not done that up until now.

The PA has done a reasonably good job on the West Bank, tho in part that's because the asshats have found it easier to operate from Gaza.  But any Palestinian state will need to involve both the West Bank and Gaza.

Indeed, the wall has helped a lot.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But mostly because they should and they know nobody else will.  They don't invade or drop bombs on their neighbors if they feel like it.  Hell, they don't even invade or drop bombs on their neighbors every time their neighbors invade or drop bombs on them.  They often show remarkable restraint.  Restraint doesn't sell papers, especially to people that only want to read anti-Zionist news.
[/quote]
And what exactly do you think the Palestinians are reading?  Under the circumstances, why is it at all nonsensical that the Palestinians are paranoid about Israeli intentions, even if some outside observers find Israeli reactions reasonable?
[/quote]It's not nonsensical at all for them.  They have been taught that the Jew is a monster.  They have been taught how to be racist.  From a disturbingly young age.  It doesn't matter to them who attacked first or second, it doesn't matter who is right or wrong.

But how they feel didn't seem to be what you were talking about in your previous post.  You seemed to be saying that it's a fact that Israel invades and drops bombs whenever they feel like it and they do it for political reasons at home.  And that's just silly.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

But how they feel didn't seem to be what you were talking about in your previous post.  You seemed to be saying that it's a fact that Israel invades and drops bombs whenever they feel like it and they do it for political reasons at home.  And that's just silly.

Well they don't do it willy-nilly but when there is an incident they could reply to. And while a decision to retaliate is not taken in every case, domestic politics certainly has an influence as to whether they do.  They'd be inhuman robots if politics didn't influence their decisions and despite the warm welcome the Mittbot received there during the 2012 campaign, they aren't robots or inhuman.