By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:

The thing is some kind of military force is essentially required for a sovereign state. Israels conditions basically would give Palestine faux-sovereignity but leave Israel still holding de facto control. It'd basically be the status quo with a different veneer.


Tell that to Lichtenstein, Costa Rica, Microneisa, Grenada, Iceland...


Well Costa Rica, Grenada and Iceland all have paramilitary forces of some kind, even without a proper military. Lichtenstien as a microstate is a bit different.

Micronesia is a good example though, with their security carried out by the USA. However there is a different in having your security carried out by a ally in a mutually beneficial arrangement and having your security carried out by a historic enemy by their demands. The second one is essentially occupation.

And Palestine has a paramilitary force as it is right now.  Being demilitarized doesn't mean you can't have a particularly strong police force.  It just suggests you probably shouldn't have big missles, when your basic MO has been to fire small ones at will into your neighbors territory.


Israel however wants to have troops in any newly formed Palestine...

Not that i've read.  I have read however that they want the right to send troops in to take out various groups that continue to fire rockets and the like.

Which i'd say is totally reasonable... considering they're firing rockets and everything and you can't much trust the Palestinians to do anything about it... since they aren't now.