English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Then a ceasefire could be called between warring factions, civil liberties could be restored, an interim government could be appointed and peacekeeping forces could be sent in? This might allow for aid to be restored and help prevent a civil war that could be damaging to Palestine, Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Greece, Syria and Lebanon

2006-12-19 04:40:46 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

14 answers

I think the Israelis should be allowed to overrule the Hamas controlled Govt of the Palestinian Authority.

2006-12-19 04:53:35 · answer #1 · answered by MrCool1978 6 · 0 0

The fighting there is not just Palestinian against Israeli now but also Palestinian against Palestinian. The UN has never fixed a problem they just tend to get certain countries involved and leave them holding the bag. I think the UN should be disband. They like most governments are for sale to the highest bidder. Did the UN enforce the sanctions against Iraq before the war? I did not see UN troops there when I went over to enforce the oil embargo. Oil for food paid the UN big wigs good so they let Saddam do what ever he wanted without doing a thing. Saddam violated the sanctions something like 13 times with no punishment.

2006-12-19 04:55:36 · answer #2 · answered by joevette 6 · 0 0

Are you kidding? The U.N. peacekeeping forces are thoroughly ineffectual all over they cross. They are frequently corrupt as good, which might now not paintings good, within the palestinian territory that's absolutely rife with corruption from best to backside. The final factor the UN desires is to get within the center of an apprehension conflict. They had been in Iraq and bugged out as quickly as a couple of UN employees obtained killed. What you advocate might be best if it would truthfully occur, however it's absolutely unrealistic, and bordering on myth.

2016-09-03 12:59:43 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The UN is totally ineffectual and impotent. They talk a big game but in the end they vote to send 30 troops from the Ivory Coast or some other military powerhouse...

American troops have enough dealing with Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea and wherever American interests are threatened.

2006-12-19 04:47:42 · answer #4 · answered by iwasnotanazipolka 7 · 1 0

History shows us the UN is very unsuccessful at resolving anything. The only thing that will stop fighting is strength. Saddam was a SOB but his strength stopped the fighting. Don't get me wrong. I'm glad he's gone and I think he had to go. He was a meglomaniac and he would have struck out at anyone who opposed him. It's going to take a long time to resolve the issues in the middle east.

And someone very powerful.

2006-12-19 04:48:13 · answer #5 · answered by Bill G 6 · 0 0

Please look for a place called Palestine in your atlas, or the World Almanac. You will be surprised to find that there is only one place with that name, and it is in Texas.

Until 1950, the name of the Jerusalem Post was THE PALESTINE POST; the journal of the Zionist Organization of America was NEW PALESTINE; Bank Leumi was the ANGLO-PALESTINE BANK; the Israel Electric Company was the PALESTINE ELECTRIC COMPANY; there was the PALESTINE FOUNDATION FUND and the PALESTINE PHILHARMONIC. All these were Jewish organizations. In America, Zionist youngsters sang "PALESTINE, MY PALESTINE", "PALESTINE SCOUT SONG" and "PALESTINE SPRING SONG." In general, the terms Palestine and Palestinian referred to the region of Palestine as it was. Thus, "Palestinian Jew" and "Palestinian Arab" are straightforward expressions. "Palestine Post" and "Palestine Philharmonic" refer to these bodies as they existed in a place then known as Palestine. The adoption of a Palestinian identity by the Arabs of Palestine is a recent phenomenon. Until the establishment of the State of Israel, and for another decade or so, the term Palestinian applied almost exclusively to the Jews.

2006-12-21 04:13:25 · answer #6 · answered by Mashtin Baqir 4 · 0 0

No.

It would be nice if that would work, but there are two problems.

1) The UN is ineffective
2) You can't just go "stabilize the situation" in Palestine. Hamas refuses to recognize Fatah, renounce violence, or respect Israel as a nation.

2006-12-19 04:43:30 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4 0

The UN is too inept to do anything constructive--- its just a band of anti-American countries who want Americas money and then they line up to insult us.

2006-12-19 05:01:07 · answer #8 · answered by slodana2003 4 · 0 0

The U.N. would go in and cause more destruction. The U.N. is EVIL!! They ahve a history of destruction, deception and genocide.

2006-12-19 04:57:51 · answer #9 · answered by Ron T 1 · 0 0

i think the US should force Israel out of the Occupied Territories and allow the people of Gaza the right to freedom of movement that they are denied. the democratically elected govt should be recognised and funds which have been held back should be returned to the people they belong to.

the UN should force israel out and Palestine would at last be free.

2006-12-19 04:44:35 · answer #10 · answered by Boring 5 · 1 4

fedest.com, questions and answers