|
|
| By Amir Mizroch March 16, 2001 |
|
| |
Foreign Minister Shimon Peres strongly argued Israel's objections to an international peacekeeping force at the UN Security Council this week. The diplomatic offensive came amidst urgent calls from the Arab world and much of the European Union to accede to Palestinian demands for a UN Peacekeeping force to be sent to Gaza and the West Bank.
The Palestinians insist that a UN force is desperately needed to help protect Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Palestinian UN envoy Nasser al-Kidwa insisted a UN force was needed to help protect Palestinians from "Israeli repression." Al-Kidwa said "the situation remains very dangerous, and we believe that the council remains obligated to act."
Israel's position regarding the lack of need for an international force was summed up in Peres's remarks at a press conference following the Security Council debate: "They don't need a protection force. The minute they will stop shooting, there won't be any need for protection. Israel has never initiated any act of violence, only reacted to it."
The Security Council voted down a resolution to authorize an international force last December, thanks to the intervention against the initiative by the Clinton Administration. Israeli officials have said that, if push comes to shove, the Bush Administration will also veto power the current resolution, which reportedly has the support of a large majority of Council members.
Successive Israeli governments have objected to UN involvement in the Administered Territories. There is a fear that a UN presence would create facts on the ground that would define borders and lead to internationally imposed solutions that do not take Israeli interests into account.
Moreover, such forces have proven impotent to prevent terrorist attacks in Lebanon and along Israel's northern border. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) was often used as a shield by Hizballah and other anti-Israel forces. The devastating consequences of its presence between the warring forces was brought home during the Israeli Grapes of Wrath operation in 1996, when a stray Israeli shell hit a UNIFIL encampment, causing scores of deaths and diplomatic disaster.
The UN can also provide an opportunity for camouflage and subterfuge. The three Israeli soldiers kidnapped in October along the northern border were reportedly taken by surprise by Hizballah gunmen dressed in UN uniforms and driving a UN jeep.
The Israeli government also believes that a UN observer force in the Territories would constitute a reward for the Palestinian uprising. Israel may also fear that its counter-terrorist actions will come under closer daily scrutiny that ever before, attention the Palestinians and their Allies would exploit this situation to its maximum effect in the crucible of world opinion. Israel may also feel that a UN presence would be limited in what it would be able to achieve, and would not provide sufficient protection for Israeli citizens. The presence of "peacekeepers" in Hebron, agreed to by the Netanyahu government in the Wye River Accords, have not prevented bloody clashes on an almost daily basis between Israelis and Palestinians there.
Still, there are multiple examples of UN intervention that Israel has accepted, without catastrophic consequences. UN forces in the Sinai and the Golan Heights have gone about their peacekeeping duties for decades without serious security incidents. But the current shooting gallery in the West Bank and Gaza differs radically from the post-war buffer zone that has long prevailed as a UN-patrolled domain on Israel's frontiers with Syria and Egypt.
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
Click on the blue headline to read a Talkback comment and respond to it. Click on the  icon to send a private email to the talkback writer. The icon appears only if the writer has decided to be contacted. If no popup window appears, please make sure your popup blocker allows israelinsider.com.
|
|
| |
|
|
