| Submit your comments on this article |
| Israel-Palestine-Jordan |
| UNSecurityCounsel close to a binding resolution |
| 2009-01-08 |
| The United Nations Security Council is expected to approve a newly revised resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza that calls for an international force to prevent arms smuggling. The resolution also for the first time mentions Hamas by name, which along with the smuggling clause is a key United States demand.... The Egyptian-French proposal regarding the Rafah area- we don['t know the details of the proposal aims to achieve a lasting halt to both rocket fire into Israel and to arms-trafficking for Hamas and a pullout of Israeli troops, French Foreign Ministry spokesman Eric Chevallier said Thursday. |
| Posted by:mhw |
| #19 Resolution was just passed. Don't have language yet. |
| Posted by: mhw 2009-01-08 21:56 |
| #18 Great, UN observers, cuz UNIFIL worked oh-so-well. Bush is in a tight spot here. If he vetoes anything that comes along, that leaves the resolution to Barry. If he doesn't trust Barry, he has no choice but to ink up on the best thing he can. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2009-01-08 19:54 |
| #17 It seems the latest draft calls for an immediate Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, which has to be a deal-breaker for Israel, even if it's passed. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2009-01-08 19:42 |
| #16 Binding on who? Like the 14 or so that were 'binding' on Saddam? |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2009-01-08 18:27 |
| #15 If the Israelis are smart they will demand lots of UN observers at Sederot and the other southern cities and towns Excellent idea!! However, either it won't happen, or the UN will pull them out after the first rocket attack. |
| Posted by: DMFD 2009-01-08 18:27 |
| #14 You go to war with the army you have not the army you want. You deal with the UN you have not the UN you want. Yes the UN sucks and is probably a net negative to human civilization but then again lots of things are like that. If the Israelis are smart they will demand lots of UN observers at Sederot and the other southern cities and towns. They should also make sure, if possible, that the UN international force has some anti Arab muslims, like Turks and Kurds. The time between this resolution and the immediate cease fire resolution can be used for that. |
| Posted by: mhw 2009-01-08 18:22 |
| #13 that calls for an international force to prevent arms smuggling An international "force" that comes complete with magic blue helmets to put the fear of Allan in Hamass? It's all pointless. Unless, of course, the "binding" UN resolution includes a sunset clause that goes into effect the instant: 1) The first rocket gets fired from the area the "Palestinians" are squatting in; 2) the "Palestinians" try to rearm, build another missile, or get involved with any other terror weapons including bombs, militants or terrorists (and no, they don't need an army or anything like it); 3) The "Palestinians" break ground on another one of their tunnelling projects; 4) The incitement starts up, including that fuc&ing rabbit or anything like it; 5) Anything else happens that would make the "Palestians" a useful tool for Iran; 7) Nasrallah's spittle hits the camera lens; 8) Try to engage in any activities whose main purpose is to subvert a peace process. Actually, I don't know why I went past condition number one. Just venting, I guess. |
| Posted by: gorb 2009-01-08 18:08 |
| #12 Veto. |
| Posted by: mojo 2009-01-08 17:20 |
| #11 actually UN binding resolutions DO matter, they were factors in the timing of the end of the '67 and '73 wars and the 2006 Lebanon op. Israel can laugh off a GA resolution, but not a UNSC res backed by the US. Egypt too. Now Hamas wont follow a res necessarily, but its not clear how much Hamas is even going to be a player diplomatically. More important is the extent to which res puts pressure on the Euros and Arabs to supply peacekeeping/bordercrossing forces for Gaza. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2009-01-08 17:19 |
| #10 Binding underpants have more effect than a binding UN resolution. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2009-01-08 17:13 |
| #9 "So, the United Nothing is proposing putting another screen door on a submarine." Well, it does keep the fish out, GBUSMC. :-D /Miss van Horn |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2009-01-08 16:59 |
| #8 No, they want to make sure the end state is one where there is an international force backstopping the egyptians, maybe even Fatah back at the Rafah crossing, and they want to use the Israeli ops continuation as leverage to get that. The "Islamic World" doesnt exist wrt to this issue. There is the Anti-Iran block (PA, Egypt, KSA,Jordan) Iran, Syria, and the spectators all other muslim countries. The first three players all have different agendas, and the latter group is saying just enought to assuage their street. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2009-01-08 16:20 |
| #7 BINDING ROTFLMAO |
| Posted by: Darrell 2009-01-08 16:19 |
| #6 Hmmm. Maybe they want to see what the Islamic world does before passing another resolution. |
| Posted by: mhw 2009-01-08 16:15 |
| #5 update Haaretz says res will NOT call for Immediate ceasefire, but for a DURABLE ceasefire. Draft proposed by US, UK, and France. Final version not settled. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2009-01-08 16:10 |
| #4 Binding resolution opn who and how? |
| Posted by: Richard of Oregon 2009-01-08 16:03 |
| #3 "using Iraqi troops to "stabilize" Gaza would be the best solution" Not a bad idea. I would suggest a more "international" approach. Maybe Iraq, Jordan, and Turkey. |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2009-01-08 15:22 |
| #2 I still think that using Iraqi troops to "stabilize" Gaza would be the best solution. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2009-01-08 15:16 |
| #1 So, the United Nothing is proposing putting another screen door on a submarine. Wow, they actually mention Hamas by name. I'll bet the puts the fear of Allan in them. UN resolutions are like killing pile drivers with a fly. |
| Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC 2009-01-08 14:49 |