Libya, MENA thread 9

[Rane]

End of the line for Gbagbo. Let's hope things start getting back to normal soon.

[KAH]

Here's some links:

A New Strategy for Libya?

This guy thinks that this situation would be very, very bad. What do you guys think? Would a North/South Korean situation be appropriate? Also, would a DMZ necessitate UN peacekeepers on the DMZ? That's a situation where I could see various Western troops getting involved.

I'll say one thing for a split Libya; it would give the rebels time and incentive to get their shit together. If the west simply overthrew Gaddafi and pulled out the red carpet into Tripoli for the rebels, they would have no particular incentive not to go haywire into some tribal shitfest afterwards. Gaddafi serves as a bugbear for the rebels only when he is still alive and in Tripoli.

The guy goes on to say that several Arab countries, including Morocco, Egypt and Jordan, should be the ones to help create a liberation army of around 20,000 troops to end Gaddafi's regime. The guy's article falls apart when he says this:

The West would never support Iranian intervention. Ever.

Excepting Egypt, who has the good fortune (?) of sitting right next to Libya, does any of the aforementioned countries (Iran included) have the necessary infrastructure to prop up such an army? It's not just about getting people all fired up, you have to get them from here to there and supply them as well, quite possibly for a protracted period of time.

[Crazydog7]

End of the line for Gbagbo. Let's hope things start getting back to normal soon.

What is normal for the Ivory Coast?

[Rane]

What is normal for the Ivory Coast?

Well, until 1999 Ivory Coast was a stable (though undemocratic), economically strong country. I hope Ouattara can go back to those times while keeping democracy.

[Yoadm]

It seems incredibly funny that suddenly Israel has become the least important thing in the middle-east. Who woulda'thunk-ut?

Anyway, here are the updates of the last two weeks:

- Massive exchanges of fire between Israel and Hamas. Beer-Sheeba and Ashkelon were targetted by grad missiles. Close to 170 rockets and missiles were fired from the Gaza strip.

- An anti-tank missile was fired at an Israeli bus. Luckily, most of the 50 children were outside when it hit. One boy is still in critical condition.

- Israel hit hard several Hamas and IJ positions. I seem to recall 30 dead, out of this 2-4 civilians. Not 100% sure on the numbers though.

- Iron-Dome anti-missile system developed by Israel since the 2006 Lebanon war brought to the southern communities. Batteries positioned in Beer-Sheeba and Ashkelon. Stunningly, 100% of missiles fired on those cities were intercepted since the batteries were positioned. 6 more batteries needed to cover southern Israel, which will take two more years, but when that happens, the whole balance of power might change.

On the political front:

- Bibi is trying to come out with a plan to counter the PA's attempt to declare independence in september. One option is a massive pullout of the west bank and handing more land to the PA, in return for Europe and the US vetoing statehood. By pulling out he means handing out areas administered by the IDF to the PA, but not the evacuation of more settlements.

- Labour is finally coming out of the Shadow of Barak. It is in tatters but at least there's a chance it could resurrect itself. There are a number of promising candidates, so let's hope for the best.

That's all for now.

[Yoadm]

Yoadam, if the UN recognizes a Palestinian state, what happens to the latest settlements and East Jerusalem?

Well, if it is recognized unilaterally, then I expect Likud would chose to make its own unilateral steps. Probably annexing the largest settlement blocks north of E.Jerusalem, like Ariel. Nothing new in E.Jerusalem since it is already annexed.

[ljkeane]

I don't know what I think of the chances of the independent state. I have a feeling the US will block something like that pretty quickly.

If you mean recognising a Palestinian state at the UN it's a General Assembly thing so the US can't veto it. Most articles I've seen on the subject seem to think it probably has more than enough support to pass. I doubt that will lead to an independent state in reality though, at least in the immediate future.

[Yoadm]

Gotcha.

I don't know what I think of the chances of the independent state. I have a feeling the US will block something like that pretty quickly.

If its the US versus the world, the US might back down with a veto if it reaches the GA. Btw, I in no way would support any annexation of the settlements. It's a unilateral step just as bad as the Palestinian plans for september.

[ljkeane]

Yeah, that's what I meant. I knew they can't veto something like that, but as I'm sure you'll agree, my country can stonewall, threaten and stab people in the back when it wants to. There will either be a serious shakeup in US foreign relations or the UN will end up voting not to recognize the state.

Hmm, I don't know. Off the top of my head I can only think of two countries that would be likely to vote against the measure without external pressure, the US and Israel. That means that the US would have to find 60 odd more votes from somewhere. It seems like a bit of a tall order to me, the US rarely has enough support on Israeli issues to not have to use the veto in the Security Council let alone the General Assembly. How much political capital are they really willing to use up on this?

ETA: I suppose they might be able to pressure the Palestinians into not asking for it, but once it gets to the UN I think they'd have difficulty blocking it. :dunno:

[Fez]

Hmm, I don't know. Off the top of my head I can only think of two countries that would be likely to vote against the measure without external pressure, the US and Israel. That means that the US would have to find 60 odd more votes from somewhere. It seems like a bit of a tall order to me, the US rarely has enough support on Israeli issues to not have to use the veto in the Security Council let alone the General Assembly. How much political capital are they really willing to use up on this?

I would actually suspect that most countries with somewhat autonomous regions that are trying, peacefully or violently, to become independent would vote against this as well; they don't want the precedent. I know this situation is a bit unique, since territories are not part of Israel (well except for the parts they've illegally settled), but I think the similarities are too close to comfort for some. Granted I don't know exactly how many countries are in this situation, but there's certainly some. China for instance. They wouldn't be happy if the GA just up and decided to recognize Tibet as an independent country, so I could see them working to stop this as well.

[ljkeane]

I would actually suspect that most countries with somewhat autonomous regions that are trying, peacefully or violently, to become independent would vote against this as well; they don't the precedent.

Yeah but you can rule out any Muslim countries from that list and despite their own somewhat dubious records China and Russia have never been shy about voting against Israel in the Security Council so I'm not sure expecting them to oppose the measure is particularly likely. You might be right that there's a few countries that might vote with that in mind but I can't think of many once you rule out Muslim states.

[Samalander]

... I know this situation is a bit unique, since territories are not part of Israel (well except for the parts they've illegally settled), but I think the similarities are too close to comfort for some.

Even the settled parts which are under dispute have not, to date, been annexed by Israel (other than east Jerusalem).

[Ser Reptitious]

Samalander,

the settled parts which are under dispute

Huh?

[SauronsBigThornyClock]

Yeah but you can rule out any Muslim countries from that list and despite their own somewhat dubious records China and Russia have never been shy about voting against Israel in the Security Council so I'm not sure expecting them to oppose the measure is particularly likely. You might be right that there's a few countries that might vote with that in mind but I can't think of many once you rule out Muslim states.

Different situations. Annoying the USA and forcing them to spend political capital on the protection of an unreliable proxy state is one thing. Considering the power distribution, it's rather unlikely to actually do something.

Encouraging seperatists, however indirectly ... that might make some reconsider.

[Samalander]

Samalander,

Huh?

Well, he said illegal. We are (unlike so very many of our neighbours) a law abiding nation, and our Supreme Court says they are not illegal.

[Yoadm]

Well, he said illegal. We are (unlike so very many of our neighbours) a law abiding nation, and our Supreme Court says they are not illegal.

They? If you mean the settlements, then the SC was careful not to make any ruling on them regarding legality.

[Samalander]

They? If you mean the settlements, then the SC was careful not to make any ruling on them regarding legality.

Well, I'm not that into legal stuff like you, but this is from Wikipedia:

-During the 1970s, Israel's Supreme Court regularly ruled that the establishment of civilian settlements by military commanders was legal on the basis that they formed part of the territorial defense network and were considered temporary measures needed for military and security purposes

-The Israeli government has further argued that the Geneva Convention prohibits a transfer of civilians into an occupied territory, while the Palestinian territories are considered disputed territories under international law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements#Legal_arguments

[Yoadm]

Well, I'm not that into legal stuff like you, but this is from Wikipedia:

-During the 1970s, Israel's Supreme Court regularly ruled that the establishment of civilian settlements by military commanders was legal on the basis that they formed part of the territorial defense network and were considered temporary measures needed for military and security purposes

-The Israeli government has further argued that the Geneva Convention prohibits a transfer of civilians into an occupied territory, while the Palestinian territories are considered disputed territories under international law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements#Legal_arguments

In other words, they avoided making a definitive ruling on the legality of settlements. At least, this is how I see it.

[Rane]

Well, he said illegal. We are (unlike so very many of our neighbours) a law abiding nation, and our Supreme Court says they are not illegal.

You seriously believe this?

So, if my country invaded say... Uruguay (which was a province of ours like... 200 years ago), started building settlements and our judiciary said it was OK, then... it's OK? Really? No consideration at all about well, the people who were there in the first place?

[Yoadm]

You seriously believe this?

So, if my country invaded say... Uruguay (which was a province of ours like... 200 years ago), started building settlements and our judiciary said it was OK, then... it's OK? Really? No consideration at all about well, the people who were there in the first place?

Thing is that the examples are different. There are a number of arguments in favour of the legality of the settlements that, though I do not agree with the premise of settlements themselves, they may make some sense from a purely legal point of view:

1: The west bank was never independent, or autonomus. Jordan occupied it and renounced its claims to it in the 80's.

2: The 1967 borders were never actual 'borders'. After 1948, Israel wanted to reach an agreement on them with the Arab nations, but they, thinking they could, in the future, eliminate Israel, demanded they be termed 'cease fire lines'. In other words, Israel did not legally breach any borders when it crossed them in the six day war.

3: UN resolution 242 speaks of a 'land for peace' formula, but it in no way states that Israel has to leave 'all the territories' captured in 1967. In fact, it implies that the amount has to be negotiated upon. In other words, the west bank is not technically 'occupied' territory, but rather 'contested' territory to be negotiated upon. There is no resolution barring settlement in 'contested' territory.

4: Even in occupied territory, it is illegal to forcefully move a population into it. The settlers were, let us say, more than willing to settle there.