Israel/Palestine. Peacekeepers. Why Not?

I'm getting really tired of the "wash, rinse, repeat" that is going on over there. 2 at loggerheads. Why not send in Peacekeepers? We've done it damn near everywhere on the globe. It's usually helped. I'll give you the Rwanda. That was a debacle and Dallaire should have been tried and shot as a traitor. Aside from that though it's helped as a rule. Why not have a 3rd party there to mediate and intervene?

Or, "we" should stop interfering, because everywhere "we" go it just gets a lot worst than it actually was? Nothing ever comes good from US/NATO interventions.

Personally I believe if funding to both sides of the conflict ceased from ALL outside entities they would be at the peace table in a heartbeat.I know the States sends alot of money to both sides.

a reply to: intrepid

A very legitimate suggestion IMO.

I don't think the UN is really all that interested though. The Palestinians did ask for UN protection................crickets.

Kind Regards
Myselfaswell

a reply to: intrepid

I've thought the same many times. It would certainly settle a lot of things and back both sides into a corner.

That idea has history behind it.

The first United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) was established by United Nations General Assembly to secure an end to the 1956 Suez Crisis with resolution 1001 (ES-I) on November 7, 1956. The force was developed in large measure as a result of efforts by UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld and a proposal from Canadian Minister of External Affairs Lester B. Pearson. The General Assembly had approved a plan[1] submitted by the Secretary-General which envisaged the deployment of UNEF on both sides of the armistice line.

The Second United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF II) deployed from October 1973 to July 1979.

Peacekeepers are only effective when both sides agree to peace. In this case nobody would put up the manpower. It is hard enough for the UN to get troops to enforce peace in small african conflicts. In this case you would have Hamas suicide bombing peace keepers on a regular basis and the IDF who would literly sweep them aside when they felt provoked enough from the otherside.

This was tried once in Lebanon when the US/UK/France/and Italy got to ceasefire in place in place and put in peacekeepers to enforce it. It started ok as these forces were able to keep Israelis forces from being attacked thus avoiding Isaeli counter attacks. So other side simply made the peacekeepers the target instead. After several attacks a suicide bombers blew up a barracks kill 241 Americans and 58 French. The French realiated by bombing Iranian troops in the region while the US did nothing because it was not sure until later if Iran was resposible. Fighting got worse and the US pulled followed by the others. Any peace keepers that try to enforce peace will end up the same way unless both side honestly want peace and Hamas and the others are some how removed.

a reply to: intrepid

The 'peacekeepers' end up being an enforcer. Another stick in the fire to add to the flame.

At best it just delays the end result. Cyprus is a perfect example of "no result". Korea was a U.N. "Peacekeeping" effort, what did that get us? Afghanistan is a NATO operation...cough, cough.

In all three, dead Canadians, et al, and no result.

a reply to: MrSpad

Eew. Yeah. I remember Lebanon. Different time now though. The digital age. You've got a 3rd party there no one cna pull massive BS media attacks. No false flags. What you do is what you get nailed doing. And I'm talking about BOTH. If peace is desired this can happen.

originally posted by: intrepid
If peace is desired this can happen.

That's an awfully big if, when discussing Israeli and Palestinian leadership.
2nd.

a reply to: intrepid

As in Canadian peace keepers or the UN blue hats?

I have to admit it's not something I had thought of.

Obviously the international community needs to get involved, but I doubt it will happen because of everybody's allegiance to Israeli sovereignty in it's affairs regarding Palestinians.

~Tenth

They like their conflict because for the most part it is mired in centuries old religious turmoil

It's a self sustaining prophecy

One side wants the other completely gone and will play the long game to allow the chips to fall where they may

originally posted by: Nikola014
Or, "we" should stop interfering, because everywhere "we" go it just gets a lot worst than it actually was? Nothing ever comes good from US/NATO interventions.

I agree with you!
However, and it is a huge however, I would cut ALL foreign aid.
In time, "god's chosen people" AKA "Ze master race" will eventually run out of resources and end up fighting an evenly matched battle.
I'm guessing the terrorists will find out killing armed soldiers is much harder than bombing children from a hundred miles away.
Then and only then will the eternal victims cry for peacekeepers.
I say we butt out, along with our cash and resources.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: intrepid

As in Canadian peace keepers or the UN blue hats?~Tenth

Either works for me but Israeli forces have worked with Canadian forces and have a mutual respect. THAT could help.

a reply to: intrepid

Either works for me but Israeli forces have worked with Canadian forces and have a mutual respect.

Although that's true, I just wonder if it would be considered 'meddling' unless asked directly by Israel to come intervene. It could be seen as the international community not trusting them with their own affairs.

Which, is fine if you ask me. They've proven incapable of solving the problem, it's only gotten worse over the last decade. Mind you that's both side's fault, but a third party, that isn't Egypt is much needed.

~Tenth

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: intrepid

Either works for me but Israeli forces have worked with Canadian forces and have a mutual respect.

Although that's true, I just wonder if it would be considered 'meddling' unless asked directly by Israel to come intervene. It could be seen as the international community not trusting them with their own affairs.
~Tenth

Hasn't Palestine, recognized by the UN, asked for intervention?

It seems to me that the main roadblock would be dealing with Hamas. Who has their ear other than perhaps Iran? What would they have to gain? Peace would kind of negate their reason for being and I'm not sure how that would play out, even if they played along? Would they just disband, lay down their weapons and rejoin normal life?

Sadly this may be to complex for anything other than a brief pause to be gained from it?

a reply to: intrepid

Hasn't Palestine, recognized by the UN, asked for intervention?

That's never counted for anything. The UN have about as much real 'power' in the area as my left arm.

I don't think the UN recognizes HAMAS as being a political party either, so I don't think they can request aid from them without a boat load of conditions they will never be willing to meet.

~Tenth

Only if there are enough of them. Too few, and they become targets for which ever side decides it's to their advantage.

Question: What are the Rules of Engagement for the peacekeepers? Are they allowed to use force, as oxymoronic as it may sound, to enforce the peace? Teach a harsh lesson, as it were...

Which nations would you have send troops? That's going to be the tough sell, 'trep.

It's not a bad idea, not a bad idea, at all. A DMZ, of sorts. Enforced by international edict. Whether the Israelis, or Palestinians like it or not. Velvet glove where ever possible, but never allowing them to forget the iron fist inside it.

If your idea is to work, both sides must fear the results of breaking the truce. Not hold it in contempt.

It's an idea worth considering.

originally posted by: seagull
If your idea is to work, both sides must fear the results of breaking the truce. Not hold it in contempt.

Canada would help, that's a given BUT, as to your post there, the "iron" in the glove would have to be the US. Maybe not troops directly but letting Tel Aviv know that what this endeavor does has the backing of Washington. That would be enough imo.

In my opinion you have 2 options for that particular fracas..

#1: do nothing... let nature take its course.

#2: You take the soviet way of dealing with cultural strife... put enough guns and armor into the area and tell everybody step out of line we kill a city block every man ,woman, child, dog, cat, or bird of course that means you have to do it at least once..

otherwise all you are doing is adding more targets to the mix with the added bonus of they don't know the culture so an incident is guaranteed.