Not sure what you are saying here. Are you claiming I am “prejudiced” by describing Egyptian army in Yemen as “massacring”?
If so, I would say that this is in fact an accurate description. Egypt being one of the few countries who have ever, post-WW1, used poision gas on civilians.
http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/egypt/
Use of “phosgene and mustard” gas on civilians = massacre.
Are you claiming Major General Indar Jit Rikhye, head of the UN deployment in Sinai, and authour of The Sinai Blunder, is an Israeli? 
Okay … 
It is news to me that we in the arab world have this opinion or analysis. But perhaps americans knows better than us our own opinions.
Being more knowledgeable.
I am saying that making the bald statement about the Egyptian army in ymen the way you did is grossly prejudiced.
It is like me writing that “and the americans were distracted in torturing the Irakis in irak” in some comment about the Afghanistan.
The Yemani civil war was very nasty it is sure and not side was very nice. Your comments show deep bias.
No you are making biased presentations of opinions.
I have no comment about a book I have not read. I do have comment about a pretension of a non arab who I doubt speaks any arabic making opinions about what the arab world thinks about the UN peacekeeping, in the region or not in the region. Or using a book published in 1978 by someone outside the region to make broad and sweeping statements about the view of the Un for the region. the spin on UN reputation does match very well a kind of israeli view that americans often adopt.
But maybe you know better than we in the arab world what we think.
I must add that I am not a defender of the egyptian government or of the Nasser interventions. I dislike both greatly and i think of nasser as one of the greatest disasters to hit the arab world.
Have I ever noted how fascinating it seems to me that every single event in my country’s history seems to be open to debate? I wonder if it’s that way everywhere.
Yes, it is. you just are higher profile. Lucky you, yes?
Never happens to Americans.
Yes.
Oh, c’mon it’s not like the only cinematic depiction of Pakistan’s founder that anyone’s ever seen was in an Oscar winning film by Richard Attenborough that portrayed him some rich a-hole responsible for creating a rift between Muslims and Hindus and who thwarted the nice guy Ghandi’s plans for a united, independent India.
Edit: For the record, for anyone who got the reference, no, I’m slamming Ghandi or a big fan of Jinnah or even qualified to make judgements on the man, just pointing out that frankly Israel is hardly alone when it comes to what Allessan was legitimately complaining about.
If it is the argument presented by some that the arab world holds the UN in high regard, I’m a bit flummoxed.
It’s not always pedantic to simply tell the truth.
Interesting that you assume I’m American. I’m not.
I’d like some sort of source as to Arab world approval for UN peacekeeping.
It’s “prejudiced” even though it is factually true?
May I keep being “prejudiced” in that manner.
Again, what I said happened to be factually true. Nassar’s intervention in the Yemen Civil War was pretty well universally panned, including by his fellow-Arabs - not so much purely for his motives, but for the brutality of its execution - including, as pointed out, massacring of civilians using poision gas.
The “opinions” are not my own; they are those of the UN Commander in the field. Neither he, nor I, are Israeli or American.
Maybe you speak for all Arabs and Arab governments - but I doubt it. So far, I’m the only one actually providing sources.
How about another one, and some questions to stop the kneejerking train of ‘everyone is prejudiced against us poor Arabs’ and ‘you don’t know what Arabs think!’ - if UN Peacekeeping is so highly valued in the Arab World following the UN’s failure in 1967, why did the Arab League provide its own peacekeeping force in Lebanon in 1976? Why did the Arab League propose Arab peacekeepers for Syria as a ‘joint force’ with the UN in 2012?
In short, if UN Peacekeepers were so valued and well-thought-of in the Arab world, why do Arab countries not, in fact, rely on them to keep the peace?
Could it possibly be that, just like the Israelis (and everyone else), Arab nations have found them difficult to obtain, reluctant to take any risks once obtained, possibly more concerned with the political imperatives of the nations ponying up the troops, and in short, unreliable in the face of actual dangers? No, that’s unpossible.
it is an american dominated message board. it is not “interesting” it is a reasonable assumption.
You have asserted that there is arab disapproval, it is for you to give specific evidence.
But if there was in fact arab disapproval for the UN it is expected that the arab countries would not be asking for Un missions in the Lebanon, for the Syria, in the Sahara… and they are in fact and have over other of the crises. Or they would not be participating and actively in the UN peace keeping missions, and they are, and several arab nations are frequent participators in the UN peace keeping missions. Indeed if this bald assertion was correct it would not be part of the Palestinian and their supporters would not also be going to the UN for further support.
There is one specific country in the region that has the fundamental and consistent hostility to the UN, it is the Israel. They have their reasons of course and nothing I write intends to say they are bad for this, but you are asserting opinions that are held more by the Israeli than by the arabs generally.
Yes, it is prejudiced and obviously intended for a certain Pov spin.
Just as if I was writing about the Americans in the Afghanistan and my description was only “and the americans were distracted in torturing Irakis in Irak…”
Factually true, but it is not a real description, it is a prejudiced spin.
First, I am no fan of Nasser nor of the Egyptians.
Second, no in the beginning the Nasser intervention was not ‘universally panned’ “even among the Arabs” - not at all. Later the failures turned against him. Please do not pretend to tell us about ourselves.
And again, your rhetoric was intended for a prejudiced effect - whatever the incidents - the reason the troops of the Egyptians were in the Yemen was for the intervention in the civil war. Not to massarce (just like the reason the americans troops were in the Irak was not to commit the torture and commit the other crimes as with the blackwater, but it was incidents coming from their mission).
It is the prejudiced author who does not see a difference.
Your opinions are not supported by observable facts of the arab states behavior, or the arab populations claims, and making a mere global reference to the book from 1978, which tells us nothing about what he said specifically on the subject of the reputation of the UN with anyone, nor why we would say that one commanders view tells us anything about the reputation of the UN globally among the arabs, and to this day. I am sure the commander had his criticisms, but without any quotes of specifics, you have only made hand waiving.
I note you did not respond to the actual evidence of Arab League peacekeepers. Now why would that be, I wonder.
Note again I never claimed that the Arab world disapproved of the UN as a source of “support”. Nice goalposts moving, there.
I made one claim: that the Arabs involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict, as well as the Israelis involved, have learned that they cannot expect much from UN peacekeeping - that it has lost credibility as a serious deterrent to war.
This claim strikes me as true, and to date I have provided several sources for it - no less than the book written by the general in charge of UN peacekeeping in 1967, and the fact that the Arab League soon thereafter took up “peacekeeping” of its own initative.
In response, you have incorrectly made an ad hom argument, and refused to provide any sources. How is that intended to be convincing?
But once again, the question is not “hostility to the UN”, about which I said absolutely nothing. It is about “assessment of the effectiveness of UN peacekeeping”.
The “spin” being that Nasser is a bad guy? You apparently don’t disagree with this (and moreover, he was a ‘bad guy’ who ordered ‘massacres’ - is a provable fact).
Exactly what “prejudice” are you accusing me of? Hating Nassar? Well, I think he was a two-bit dictator and a disaster for the Arab world, that his “Arab Socialism” was nonsense that caused his own people considerable harm, and that as a military leader he was useless - and that he ordered (or at least presided over) massacres in Yemen. To my mind, that’s an objective assessment.
Is that “prejudice”?
Huh? I gave specific quotes and a link to the text of the book! Read it for yourself. It is you who have failed to provide anything like quotes or specifics. Nor do you even appear to know what it is I’m arguing.
?? I cliped your irrelevant ranting.
Very simple, I clipped your ending as I found it irrelevant in proving … I have no idea what you think it proves. The arab parties asked for and got the UNIFIL in 1978 and asked for and got the expansions in the mandate several times since including in the 2006. The arab league contributions to a UN force is of course impossible in the neighboring countries when parties to the conflict.
No moving of goal posts it illustrates the falseness of your assesment
This is false.
Not only is there the UNIFIL (1978, 1980, 2000, 2006) requested and expanded many times subsequent but there is the MINURSO (1991) requested by intra-arab participants and extended and expanded many times. And there is the UNDOF (1974) which they have supported.
these are not the actions of an arab nations that think that these UN missions do not deter the Israel (or other parties in a conflict) or have no value. In fact these are the actions of an arab community that see the value. The solicitation by the arab states for the UN for the Irak after the American invasion (on several occasions, also shows the arab states attitude to the UN is not as you claim.
You have provided no evidence at all, only vague claims and references that are not clear.
Whereas we have a reality of the Arabs actually continuously calling on the UN peace keeping forces (and where they are not parties to a conflict, themselves engaging in providing troops). The actual evidence of behavior subsequent to the 1967 says opposite of your claims (the arab leaque small demarche is not contradictory to a UN support at all).
The actual emperical evidence of real arabs and real arab states behavior in soliciting the UN peacekeeping missions and requesting multiple extensions over the decades, across the several different geographic areas in the arab region says your assertions only hand waving supported are false.
Perhaps you do not read very well.
Nasser was an idiot and a disaster. He probably did order or permit massacres (I have not read this directly but I do not doubt it).
What is spin and prejudice is rather than saying in the context (which had no thing to do with the Yemen) the egyptian forces were intervening in the Yemen civil war
Or to illustrate again, if I wrote as an aside “the israelis were distracted from the Lebanese border by their intervention in the gaza strip” there is no spin. If I write, without any context, “the israelis were distracted from the Lebanese border by their war crimes and bombing the schools and the churches and the hospitals” Iam engaging in the biases spin.
Or similarly writing the same thing about hte Americans in the Iraq.
Of taking the spin and shots at the egyptians and not actually even giving the useful context.
Possibly you do not understand the point I am making - even though I have very clearly pointied it out above. For your benefit, I will repeat it.
Where UN peacekeeping is useless, is where state actors are in conflict or potential conflict - as in the Arab/Israeli wars.
Where UN peacekeepers can be useful, is where state actors aren’t actually involved - where a single government (or no government) requires someone to keep order.
Your own cite proves the point I am making very nicely. How has the UN peacekeepers “kept the peace” in Lebanon since 1978? Has Lebanon been known as an example of peace and order since their arrival?
No - on the contrary, it was involved in a disasterous series of wars, civil wars and invasions, as your own cite points out. Though it manages somehow to blame most of this on Israel alone.
Yet, remarkably, you are using the presence of UN peacekeepers in Lebanon since 1978 as an example of why Arabs respect the effectiveness of UN peacekeepers - depite the fact that, by any objective measure, they have comprehensively failed to keep the peace.
I myself do not think Arabs are too dumb to notice this basic fact: that the presence of UN peacekeepers does not work to actually keep peace.
You don’t know what “moving the goalposts” means. How about “making a straw-man argument”?
In short, refuting something I haven’t argued is not a “win”.
In fact, your evidence demostrates the opposite of your claims. When was the US or Israel deterred from attacks by UN peacekeepers?
Did their precese in Lebanon deter the PLO or Hezbollah from attacking Israel, or Israel from invading Lebanon perchance? Well, that would be a big fat “no”.
Did the Disengagement Force actually keep the peace between Israel and Syria? Again, that would be a big fat “no”. Syrian self-interest prevented Syria from attacking Israel; Israel attacked Syria on occasion (such as by blowing up its nuke plant).
Naturally, the UN’s own website trumpets their success - but it doesn’t take much reading between the lines to realize that all their entries are of the flavour ‘if we weren’t here, things would be worse’. Does anyone in the region seriously think the UN can keep the peace in the countries in the area don’t feel liker keeping the peace?
Again, that would be a “no”. And the source of that “no” was the Six-Day War. Before that failed test, people seriously thought it could. Now, people know it can’t.
I guess you didn’t actually read it, then.
Again, you simply misunderstand the argument being advanced. Of course Arab states call on the UN - why would they not? It could give them political and displomatic advantages to do so. That doesn’t mean the UN peacekeepers are actually effective in keeping the peace between nations.
I have no aminus against Egypt or Egyptians. I do have an animus against Nassar and his idiot Chief of Staff, Amir. But so what? So do you, by your own admission!
If you are claiming I’m prejudiced against Arabs because I made a crack about Nassar’s massacres in Yemen - well, keep beating that drum, it only makes you look foolish.
As an aside, this quote from the last link is a perfect example of UN mendatiousness masking almost complete helplessness (and uselessness) of the sort I am talking about:
In short, both sides are simply ignoring UN peacekeepers - Israel takes fire from the Syrian side, and outright tells the UNDOF that they will return it, according to the UN’s own account - yet, somehow, the UN takes credit because “Thanks in part to UNDOF’s efforts, however, the situation along the Syrian-Israeli border has not escalated to greater violence” [emphasis added]
And yet, this is presented in all seriousness as an example of UN peacekeeping success.
What did the UN do to keep people from killing each other in Kosovo? N.B. NATO isn’t part of the UN.
Regards,
Shodan