~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Raelian Movement
for those who are not afraid of the future : http://www.rael.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-bring-in-
the-peacekeepers-its-not-as-easy-as-it-sounds-1228137.html

Robert Fisk: Bring in the peacekeepers? It's not as easy as it sounds

Tuesday, 6 January 2009

Do I hear the braying of the UN donkey in Gaza? On his Middle East tour, the
French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, may well be mentioning that well-known
Eeyore figure on the East River, always so willing to send its peacekeepers
on Mission Impossible. The Palestinians have been trying to internationalise
their conflict with the Israelis ever since Yasser Arafat pleaded for UN
forces to protect the Palestinians after the failure of the Oslo agreement.

Always the Israelis have refused. The very odd observer force which the EU
installed in Hebron after Baruch Golstein had massacred Palestinians at the
mosque – its patrols regularly interrupted by the Jewish settlers of this
very odd city – simply faded away. And the United Nations Relief and Works
Agency has been throwing tents and food and school classes at the slums of
Palestinian refugee camps for generations. Can it be that yet another
Israeli failure in Gaza will change the dynamics of "peacekeeping" in the
Middle East, that at last the ghost of Arafat will watch the
"internationalisation" of the Israeli-Palestinian war?

The clichι, in both senses of the word – both the tired phrase and the
matrix for any future UN force – is, of course, UNIFIL, the so-called United
Nations Interim Force in Lebanon. It arrived in southern Lebanon in 1978
after Israel's hopeless "Operation Litani", which was supposed to "destroy"
the Palestinian guerrilla forces north of the Israeli border. The UN mandate
insisted that the Israelis retreat to their international frontier – which
they refused to do – eventually leaving the UN with an Israeli occupation
force to the south of them and Palestinian units with bases inside the UN
force and to the north of them.

When Israel staged another hopeless invasion in 1982 – like its unrealistic
Hamas operation in Gaza as well as the 1978 Lebanon invasion, it was
supposed to "destroy" their Palestinian enemies – the UN found itself
operating entirely within an Israeli occupation zone, even allowing Israel's
intelligence officers to travel through UN checkpoints to arrest or
assassinate members of the latest Lebanese militia to oppose the occupation
in the south.

Only when Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000, 22 years after the UN's
first arrival, did the peacekeeping force – now largely from poorer African
and Asian countries – operate independently, albeit with Hizbollah now
installed in their midst. The 2006 Israeli-Hizbollah war ended with a larger
UN force in southern Lebanon, this time commanded by Nato generals who
patrolled an area free of Hizbollah weapons – but only because Hizballah's
newer long-range rockets could be fired from north of the UN's area of
operations.

The UN force, it should be added, was constantly abused by Israel. It was
accused of being "pro-Palestinian" (whatever that is), in league with
"terrorists" (it was never explained how), weak, anti-Israeli and – of
course – anti-Semitic. Israelis even accused a local UN Fijian commander of
spreading Aids. So could there be yet another UN force in the region?
Originally, there was a UN observer force on the Lebanese-Israeli border.

It arrived in 1948 and still exists – unarmed, on the frontier to this day,
within the UNIFIL zone – and this, in reality, could be the framework of a
new UN force in Palestine. In other words, an unarmed observer group rather
than a peacekeeping force, which could add an international voice to
ceasefire violations between Israel and Hamas. But be sure, the Palestinians
would then ask for the same institution to be placed on the West
Bank-Israeli border – and therein lies the problem for both Israel and the
UN.

For which "frontier" would the UN then patrol? The UN border of the 1940s,
the pre-1967 ceasefire lines – in which a pre-annexed East Jerusalem
belonged to the Arabs – or the post-1967 border in which Israel claimed
"annexed" Jerusalem, or the massive walled "frontier" which now bites deeply
into yet more Palestinian territory – illegally in international law? And
would the UN also have to "observe" the equally illegal Jewish settlements
built on Arab land within the West Bank?

Gaza sounds an easy option. The UN could place some international troops
around Gaza. But it would only be a matter of time before they would be
required around the West Bank. That would be a Palestinian dream – and, for
those Israelis who wish to continue their expansion into Palestinian land –
a nightmare.