Israel alarm at UN force members

[dipsydoodle]

Israel says it would be "difficult if not inconceivable" to accept nations which do not recognise its right to exist as part of a UN force in Lebanon.

see : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5262490.stm

[Waya]

1. Geeeez....but Israel will always find someting to whine about............

:eyes:

[nine30]

45. Any thug that doesn't recognize Israel..

.. has no right to be a part of the peacekeeping force.

[mom cat]

65. Any thug that does not recognize the right of return for Palistinians

and refuses to honor UN Resolution 242 does not deserve a say about who will constitute the peace keeping force.

[LostinVA]

73. What you said, Mom Cat

[cali]

2. I can understand

their trepidation over that.

[dipsydoodle]

3. So can I

but given that the UN Force will be on Lebanese territory it will interesting to see how much Israel is able to influence the situation.

[Lerkfish]

5. but politically it is unsound.

IMHO. UN forces are supposed to be neutral, enforcing UN resolutions.
If they are not, that's a problem to be resolved later.
At the moment, though, Israel is the one occupying another soveriegn nation with superior weaponry, after destroying its infrastructure. For them to be feeling trepidation is a little too late.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. Gee too bad.

It is Lebanon, not Israel, where these troops are going to be deployed. It would be best if the force was largely muslim, as Lebanon is a majority muslim nation. Israel will just have to go along, or not, as they choose.

[lumpy]

44. Israel's Gillerman seems to believe

the UN force will be there to "guard Israel's safety". They are there to guard the peace, Gillerman.

[Jacobin]

6. These beggars are quite choosey.

I notice Germany declined to send troops, which seems appropriate enough.

[saigon68]

34. ASSCLOWNS

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

40. I wonder what would be Israel's reaction if Germany DID send troops?

In all seriousness, I can't see them declaring the current state of Germany an enemy and throwing a hissy fit over it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Jacobin]

52. Hmm.

I'm not Jewish, so I may not be able to respond on an emotional level to that question.

[Stockholm]

7. I have no problem with Israels objections

n/t

[stepnw1f]

8. Should Have Thought About That Before Invading Lebanon

and killing thousands of civilians.

[cali]

9. Oh, for pity's sake

What we want is a ceasefire that will hold. Putting troops from countries that oppose Israel's right to exist, on the border, is just not smart.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. Putting only non muslim forces in Lebanon is unacceptable.

The peace keeping force will be in Lebanon, not Israel, and it is of primary importance that this force is viewed favorably by the Lebanese. You know full well that finding a muslim force that also officially recognizes Israel would be nearly impossible. This latest objection is just an attempt to throw another monkeywrench in the path of a peaceful resolution.

[cali]

14. From the same article:

He said they would be "very happy" to accept troops from Muslim countries they have friendly relations with.

"But to expect countries who don't even recognise Israel to guard Israel's safety I think would be a bit naive," he said.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

24. I wasn't aware that Israel was friendly with any Muslim countries n/t

[daleo]

37. They have relations with Egypt and Jordan, I think

Maybe Turkey too. I am not sure about Pakistan or Bangladesh.

[Warren Stupidity]

42. Turkey is sending troops.

Egypt and Jordan have not volunteered. This is idiotic whining on the part of some Israeli politicians and nothing more. They should shut up and mind their own business.

[xxqqqzme]

47. agree - I'm beginning 2 see why idiot son

gets along so well - they both throw tantrums when they don't get their way.

[Warren Stupidity]

26. Is their charter to 'guard Israel's safety'?

I do not believe it is. The guardian's of Israel's safety would be the IDF. The peacekeeping force is there to separate Hezbollah and the IDF and they are doing so on Lebanese soil, not Israeli soil and must be foremost amenable to the population of southern Lebanon. Perhaps another Christian Crusader army should once again occupy the Levant? I don't think so, and the Europeans, remembering just how this worked out in the 80's, are not exactly hopping to get going on this either.

It is a short list of muslim forces that recognize Israel that would be willing to serve here, a very short list. The non-recognition of Israel is a fact - it is part of the entire problem - and this sudden discovery that Zoot Alors! the muslim world doesn't like us - is posturing to say the least. Get over it.

[VegasWolf]

36. The set of Muslim countries favorable to Israel would be the empty set. nt

[zreosumgame]

43. Is that why they killed the UN observers?

Did they profile them from 30,000 feet? Once more a cry of "WOLF" from Israel...

[The Stranger]

39. Israel is STILL in someone else's country and making demands about who

should be a peacekeeper.

[rmgarrette64]

48. An effective force will not be viewed favorably

If the UNIFIL force is viewed favorably in Lebanon, then they are almost certainly a failure. One of their jobs is, according to the resolution, to disarm Hezbollah. Doing that in a country where Hezbollah is, especially now, popular, will make them highly unpopular in the country. If they want to be viewed favorably, they must disregard their mission.

That, in turn, will be used in the future as reason for Israel (or anyone else, for that matter) to disregard UN overtures.

Of course, all that said, this is exactly what I expect to happen.

R. Garrett

[CollegeDUer]

12. It wouldn't make any difference

It's just ideology; they call Israel "zionist state" but know very much it exists. It's rhetoric. It's no more substantial than Bush saying he loves peace, which he does all the time, but doesn't bear any truth to reality. They know Israel exists and is powerful but don't put it into their rhetoric.

[Igel]

18. Let's try to imagine the following situation.

Somebody threatened you and your family; you get an injunction, such that the person can't be in certain places that you need to frequent. The court is clear, and you carry a copy of the injunction.

You see the guy who made the threat at a store covered by the injunction. He sees you, and he grins, and draws his finger across his throat. He vanishes, but when you leave the store you notice that he's right outside the entrance, waiting. It's dark. A handy police officer is nearby, so you go over to him and show him your injunction. You explain that the parking lot is dark and you have to walk to the bus stop to get home.

He says, "I'm sorry, but I don't recognize your right to exist."

Well, he spoke to you. He obviously recognized that you exist.

The police officer resumes doing whatever it was he was doing. You grab your bag of groceries and realize that as you head to the bus stop you'll be followed.

What's the problem?

If you have no right to exist, you have no right to protection. In fact, you have no rights.

[CollegeDUer]

20. Israel is not being denied rights

You might ask the Arabs who live under their guns who is being denied rights.

[Warren Stupidity]

27. I must have missed the part where Israel was pronounced

the aggreived party. This is a ceasefire between two warring armies and the peacekeeping force will be in Lebanon, in a muslim region, not in Israel. The force must foremost get along with the population of southern Lebanon. It's role is to separate the IDF and Hezbollah, not to enforce an Isreali court order against Hezbollah.

[Igel]

49. If the people doing the protecting--

keeping the two sides apart--believe there's only really one side, how can they defend? What's the logic? "We're defending the Lebanese from usurpers"--I can see that.

"We're defending the usurpers in Tel Aviv from having meaningless borders violated"? That I have trouble with. UNIFIL is already in bed with Nasrallah, to a large extent: if they see something bad about to happen, they stay silent in order to be safe and neutral (but they can only see bad things happening on the Lebanon side of the border). It's a problem.

[Warren Stupidity]

56. Strawman argument unsubstantiated.

""We're defending the usurpers in Tel Aviv from having meaningless borders violated"? That I have trouble with. "

Did you pull that quote from some other article? It certainly was not in the article cited by the OP. We are talking about Indonesia and Malaysia and perhaps Turkey. These are not nations known for their hostility to Israel. Not that this matters much. If Israel would like a force composed of Israeli-friendly forces I suggest that the peace keeping force be renamed UNIFII and be deployed approximately 20 miles south from its current location.

"UNIFIL is already in bed with Nasrallah, to a large extent" - another PFTA assertion. What does this mean? My interpretation is that you and others are upset that UNIFIL is not simply an extension of heavy handed one sided US-Israel policy. Oh well, gee this peace stuff takes compromise.

[Baselinereality]

68. Your Metaphor Is Faulty.

While you have correctly identified the three actors in your little example, Hezbollah, Israel & the UN force, you have given them incorrect behaviors. "Walking across a parking lot in the dark?" Where, exactly, would Israel be "walking" to? Israel should be staying at home, not roaming the surrounding neighborhood looking for new territory to occupy or invade. So, for your metaphor to be correct, there would be no grocery shopping. You'd have a man who wants to harm you (Hezbollah) standing across the street from your house, staring at you.

Secondly, this injunction, this cease-fire. That has been accomplished. Hezbollah has agreed to stop fighting against you. However, Israel approaches the UN force and begs for assistance because...why, again? Because Hezbollah is still looking at you? Wouldn't that ratchet up your request? It sounds like you don't really want Hezbollah to stop committing violence against Israel but rather that you want to kill anyone who is a member of or a supporter of Hezbollah. Since Hezbollah is so deeply ingrained into the fabric of Lebanon, that's akin to suggesting that every member or supporter of the Republican Party in this country be killed. It simply can't be done, so it would be easier if you just accepted that and moved on.

Thirdly, you automatically assume that the UN force is as deeply resentful of Israel as Hezbollah is. That is unfair. Our own president, George W. Bush, has blithely discussed "destroying" Hezbollah. Those are real people, with real families and real grievances that he is talking about "destroying." And yet he also claims to be a proponent of democracy and a supporter of Lebanon. Like it or not, Hezbollah is a part of the Lebanese government. So, our own president is talking about supporting democracy while suggesting that it be destroyed. If you are going to hold peacekeeping forces to Israel's impossibly high standard of having "always" accepted their right to exist, are you going to at least hold America's own president's violent rhetoric to the same standard? You shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways, especially when you're trying to make a point about victimhood.

Fourthly, you suggest that a UN force wouldn't be able to sustain the peace. There is no evidence as of yet that they won't be able to do that. Diplomatic mutterings are already being made to ensure that the UN force never arrives, anyway.

And then, lastly, your final comment "If you have no right to exist, you have no right to protection. In fact, you have no rights," is completely misleading. No valid government has truly embraced the "Israel doesn't have a right to exist" line. The Iranian president, spouting the words and rhetoric of the Ayatollah Khomeni is not a foreign policy. The leader of Hezbollah saying back in the 1990's that Israel doesn't deserve to exist is not a foreign policy--the leader of Hezbollah is not the leader of a government, anyway. Sam Brownback, a US Senator, suggested that abortion doctors should be given the death penalty? Is there any context to that statement, or does the extreme nature of that comment outweigh every other aspect of debate on the subject? Not only that, but you're trying to establish the difficult position Israel is in by simply accepting, carte blanche, the assumption that Israel doesn't have the right to exist. And, as I said before, that hasn't been established yet. Just because a Muslim country, when faced with a previous conflagration between Israel and another Muslim nation, sided with their Muslim brothers, that doesn't mean that that country thinks that Israel doesn't have a right to exist. You are trying to establish that as truth, though, and that is unfair.

I hope that I have effectively shown why your metaphor is nonsensical. I would also like to add that I am so very tired of America and Israel continually portraying Israel as the innocent victim throughout all of this. If we cannot at least agree that Israel has taken certain lands that has pissed off 1)Palestinians, 2)Lebanese, and 3)Syrians, then we're never going to get anywhere. The level of denial from America and Israel is absolutely infuriating. Probably 95%, if not more, of Americans probably don't even realize that the original borders of Israel as drawn up in 1948 have been expanded by them through invasion and occupation. I haven't heard any legit argument maker suggest that Israel doesn't have a right to exist. But, I have heard several people suggest that Israel needs to concede some things to their neighbors. And Israel and America do not make concessions. Which is partially contributing to the mythically insane world that we find ourselves living in today.

I cannot talk to anyone who thinks that Israel hasn't done anything wrong. I find that these are generally the same people that don't think America did anything wrong by invading Iraq, though, so they're not that difficult to pick out of a crowd.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

13. You are laboring under a potentially false assumption that

a cease fire is what is really wanted here. It maybe what the people want, but not necessarily want the government powers involved here want.

[Robbien]

15. Then lets put the demilartized zone on Israeli land

Lets move Israelis out of their homes so that the military force can set up a good wide zone between Israeli citizens and Lebanon. Israel is the one asking for the zone and making demands on who should be allowed to patrol, so lets take some of that Israeli land and set up the demilitarized zone.

[cali]

16. As that's never going to happen

it's just silly to bring it up. H'zbollah put militia members all over the Southern border, usurping the role of the Lebanese Government. Now, I think it's naive to simply characterize H'zbollah as a bunch of terrorist thugs, but they don't have the weight of any government behind their military activities. In real world politics, such things count.

[Robbien]

17. Of course it will never happen

Israel is all about going after more land not less.

[Igel]

51. You're right.

They're building upon the withdrawal in 2000, and have already withdrawn so far south that they're nearing Moscow.

The MSM is covering it up. But al-Maliki is Jewish, and so's Erdogan. All will be revealed.

Stay tuned for the news blip.

[Igel]

19. Nobody's saying Lebanese can't live

within 20 miles of the border. Just that the katyushas and cross-border raids by Hezb should stop.

Only a few are saying Israelis can't live within 20 miles of the border. Perhaps Israel should just cede 20 miles off their northern perimeter every few days. In a a month, no problem.

[Robbien]

22. What Lebanon citizen would want to live in a place

full of armed men friendly to the country which just bombed it to rubble?

The article says Israel wants to lay conditions on who can make up the armed guard which will occupy Lebanon land and that those armed men must be friends of Israel and respect its "Right TO Exist".

If Israel wants to lay down those conditions, then Israel should be the one to give up the land to the armed guard.

[Igel]

50. Ah, you confuse "friendly"

with "hostile" and believe that when attacked, it's a moral duty to be punished for it.

I see.

Ciao.

[stepnw1f]

21. You Know What Isn't Smart?

Invading and killing Lebanese civilians. Then crying about the UN. "For pity's sake"? Exactly how much pity did they have when they killed all those civilians? All I hear is regret that they didn't destroy Hezbollah.

And as for worrying about the UN... give me a break. Too late for that now. Besides... are they worried UN peacekeepers are going.... what exactly? Destroy Israel? Come on...

[cali]

23. Er, "oh for pity's sake"

is simply an expression. As far as Israel's bombing and invasion of Lebanon, I unequivocally condemned it repeatedly. My point remains, that I want to see the ceasefire hold, and anything that makes that less likely, is not a good thing.

[Warren Stupidity]

28. If the peacekeeping force is viewed as a hostile occupying army

of non-muslim, aka christian europeans, by the population of south Lebanon it will be a disaster. The only hope is exactly what you are opposing - that the force is accepted by the population of south Lebanon and can actually function on the border. It is not at all a threat to Israel and you know it.

[cali]

29. Actually,

I'm not entirely opposed to any member state being part of the U.N. force in Lebanon. I started out by simply stating that I understand Israel's concern, and I further suggest that countries that are acceptable to both Israel and Lebanon would be the best solution. BTW, you seem to ignore the fact that a substantial number of Lebanese ARE Christians, and though that isn't as true in the South, your fixation of evil European Christians is a bit odd. Most European countries are not particularly supportive of Israel, and certainly not in the current context- and you know it.

[Warren Stupidity]

31. I am not fixated on it at all.

I am merely pointing out the historical context. You do understand that the history of european christian forces occupying precisely this region goes back 1000 years or so, right? And that the UN force that was sent in back in the 80's composed of French and American units, was a total disaster. Perhaps 'being acceptable to the Israelis' is not the primary concern?

Your own phrase here: "you seem to ignore the fact that a substantial number of Lebanese ARE Christians, and though that isn't as true in the South" is something you should reflect on. The peacekeeping force is going into the border region of south Lebanon, shiite dominated Hezbollah heartland south Lebanon. I ain't ignoring anything. It would be best if this force was accepted by the population of south Lebanon. If the Israelis wish to have the force over on their side of the border then by all means it should be acceptable to the predominately jewish population of that area. I haven't seen the Israelis making that proposal.

[scarletwoman]

33. "countries that oppose Israel's right to exist..."

The article states that Indonesia and Malaysia "do not recognize Israel", which in world political terms means that they do not have diplomatic relations -- such as embassies. Reframing that as being opposed to "Israel's right to exist" is just inflammatory rhetoric.

They're NOT sending in troops to attack Israel -- for pity's sake.

sw

[CollegeDUer]

11. They have their troops in Palestine that they don't recognize

And much other Arab land that isn't theirs by international law.

Talk about hypocrisy.

[Solo_in_MD]

25. Its irrelevant

UNIFIL is not going to get 1500 more troop, let alone 15,000 end strength. Even France, who is in it to recapture some of its lost stature, will only pony up 400 right now. The ceasefire is just a temporary R&R for both sides. When it breakdown and the IDF goes in hot again, they wont be nearly as *nice*.

The UN is rapidly welshing on what was agreed to in 1701. While I dearly love the concepts on which is was founded, the UN needs to execute much more effectively if it is ever going to come close to meeting its goals and vision.

[scarletwoman]

30. Malaysia Foreign Minister: "We're going to be on Lebanese territory..."

From the article:

"We're going to be on Lebanese territory ... We're not going to be on Israeli territory," Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar said.

Really, that's all there is to it. It is Lebanon that is being asked to allow foreign soldiers on its soil. These foreign forces had BETTER have the good will of the Lebanese citizens in that area in order to minimize tensions. The Hizbullah fighters will go to back to being shopkeepers and farmers and tend to the rebuilding effort in their villages, and no rockets will be fired into Israel unless Israel initiates new hostilities.

sw

[Warren Stupidity]

32. Exactly.

If the Israelis would like a more acceptable force, it should be located 20 miles south.

[msmcghee]

53. No, it is Lebanon that has . .

. . already agreed to such forces being on her soil. in fact, it is Lebanon requesting them.

"The Hizbullah fighters will go to back to being shopkeepers and farmers and tend to the rebuilding effort in their villages, and no rockets will be fired into Israel unless Israel initiates new hostilities."

And so why were the Hizbullah "shopkeepers and farmers" crossing into Israel to kidnap and kill Isreali soldiers patrolling their border - and starting a conflict that killed hundreds of civilians on both sides?

Why were rockets being fired into Israel by these Hizbullah "shopkeepers and farmers" when Israel was not "initiating hostilities" with lebanon the last time?

What's different now?

[Warren Stupidity]

57. rockets were not being fired into Israel

until Israel started widespread bombing of Lebanon. Why do you have to invent recent history to justify your position?

[msmcghee]

59. Why do you have to rewrite recent history . .

. . to justify your position?

UN Report:

3. The crisis started when, around 9 a.m. local time, Hizbollah launched several rockets from Lebanese territory across the withdrawal line (the so-called Blue Line) towards Israel Defense Forces (IDF) positions near the coast and in the area of the Israeli town of Zarit. In parallel, Hizbollah fighters crossed the Blue Line into Israel and attacked an IDF patrol. Hizbollah captured two IDF soldiers, killed three others and wounded two more. The captured soldiers were taken into Lebanon. Subsequent to the attack on the patrol, a heavy exchange of fire ensued across the Blue Line between Hizbollah and IDF. While the exchange of fire stretched over the entire length of the Line, it was heaviest in the areas west of Bint Jubayl and in the Shab'a farms area. Hizbollah targeted IDF positions and Israeli towns south of the Blue Line. Israel retaliated by ground, air and sea attacks. In addition to airstrikes on Hizbollah positions, IDF targeted numerous roads and bridges in southern Lebanon within and outside the UNIFIL area of operations. IDF has stated that those attacks were to "prevent Hizbollah from transferring the abducted soldiers". At least one IDF tank and an IDF platoon crossed into Lebanon in the area of the Hizbollah attack in an attempt to rescue the captured soldiers. An explosive device detonated under the tank, killing four more IDF soldiers. An eighth IDF soldier was reportedly killed in fighting that ensued during an attempt to retrieve the four bodies. That night, the IDF issued a warning to UNIFIL that any person — including United Nations personnel — moving close to the Blue Line would be shot at.

Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (For the period from 21 January 2006 to 18 July 2006)

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[anotherdrew]

35. so how about Egypt then? n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

41. They have not volunteered.

This whole thing is a non-issue. UNIFIL is there to assist the government of Lebanon, not to please Israeli politicians. The force operates on Lebanese, not Israeli soil and its primary mission is:

"According to Security Council resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978) of 19 March 1978, UNIFIL was established to:

Confirm the withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon;
Restore international peace and security;
Assist the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area.

According to Security Council resolution 1701 (2006) of 11 August 2006, UNIFIL, in addition to carrying out its mandate under resolutions 425 and 426, shall:

Monitor the cessation of hostilities;
Accompany and support the Lebanese armed forces as they deploy throughout the South, including along the Blue Line, as Israel withdraws its armed forces from Lebanon;
Coordinate its activities referred to in the preceding paragraph (above) with the Government of Lebanon and the Government of Israel;
Extend its assistance to help ensure humanitarian access to civilian populations and the voluntary and safe return of displaced persons;
Assist the Lebanese armed forces in taking steps towards the establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river of an free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the Government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL deployed in this area;
Assist the Government of Lebanon, at its request, in securing its borders and other entry points to prevent the entry in Lebanon without its consent of arms or related materiel."
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/mandate.html

I do not see anything in that mandate about the force being there to protect Israel or please Israeli requirements about its composition. Its sole responsibility to Israel is to 'coordinate its activities with the Government of Israel'.

[HuffleClaw]

38. it is absolutely none of their damn business who the UN puts on foreign

soil. what a bunch of whiners.

[olddad56]

46. I guess that about narrows it down to the US.

[4dsc]

54. When will Israel recognize UN resolutions??

Not to mention borders?? I say go fuck off Israel!!

[Rex]

55. So how are they allowed to be in the UN?

So you can be in the UN even if you don't recognize a country the UN established? How bout we do a trade - Israel has the right to exist and hezbollah ain't a terrorist organization? Sounds like a fair trade.

[breakaleg]

58. I was thinking they need to protect Lebanon from Israel, in which case

what does it matter if they have diplomatic relations with Israel or not?

[eagler]

60. There are alot of DUers who seem to question

Israel's right to exist.Just an observation.

[SoCalDem]

61. You know, I really don't think that's it..

I just think that a lot of DUers "saw behind the curtain", and were stunned to see the inequlity of it all. They saw up-to-the-minute technology used relentlessly as it laid waste to a country, while claiming that it was because of their failure to "control" a group of people.

Perhaps people would feel the same if LA was flattened because someone was going to "handle the gang violience" that exists here.

Pretty much everyone who settled in Israel 'knew' they were in for a mighty struggle, but they decided it was worth it. They have rarely lived 'in peace', since they are there against the wishes of all their neighbors.

They are really in a bind too, because if they allow 'foreigners' to live inside Israel, they face being overrun demographically, and if they shut (wall) them out, they automatically make them angrier.

They are in a lose-lose situation, unless they plan to use force and it's kind of always been there.

[Ghost Dog]

62. No comment

:cry:

[eccles12]

64. I think a number of people posting question Israel's right

to exist as a nation above all laws, sponsoring terrorism of its own, and the beneficiary of a most distressing and ill-conceived double standard of international law compliance among nations. A nation that balks at every UN resolution except those that require something of its enemies and a nation that announces assassination as a state policy, and a nation that treats it neighbors as though they do not belong on the earth and that carries out some of the most atrocious acts against relatively helpless Palestinians is one that deserves at least some questioning of its government.

[Nevernose]

66. Syria, right?

But seriously, folks.

Israel's not perfect. Neither are Israel's enemies. I see your point about Israel, truly, and I can only hope that you understand Israel's position about it's neighbors. In fact, it's the exact same point.

[Nevernose]

67. Agreed. But that's not the tragedy.

The tragedy lies in the fact that both sides are right, and both sides are wrong. And not enough people who support them -- Syria, Iran, the United States -- truly want peace in the Middle East. We most enjoy accusing each other.

And many DUers, sadly, seem to see the world only in black and white. No grey, no in-between. Might as well vote Republican.

[Sherman A1]

71. I disagree

I have no problem with Israel's right to exist or any other country. I just prefer not to have to pay for it with my tax dollars.

[LostinVA]

74. No, there are no DUers that say this

Nice stirring the pot, though.

This also might be braeking the new rules.

[Spinoza]

63. Those fucking

Zionists. Actually having the chutzpah to object to armed soldiers on their borders, whose job is to impartially keep the peace without bias to either side, not accepting Israel's right to exist as a nation-state.

What the fuck is wrong with Israeli's?

[Baselinereality]

69. Sarcasm Duly Noted, But I Think The General Argument From The

other side is that Israel is automatically assuming that Muslim countries who haven't "always" supported their right to exist are not going to be able to keep the peace.

[4dsc]

72. Israel should recognize the UN 1948 aggreement

and return to those borders. OOPS, Israel doesn't recognize any international borders either..