Can NATO Patrol Palestine?

The Washington Post ^ | Apr. 18, 2002 | Robert Kagan

[beckett]

When Pulitzer-Prize winning New York Times columnist Tom Friedman talks, people listen. Now one of Friedman's most radical ideas -- to put a NATO peacekeeping force on the ground between the Israelis and Palestinians as a key part of an overall peace settlement -- is actually starting to pick up steam around the world. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan has endorsed the idea of an international force as part of a settlement that would be imposed on Israel and the Palestinians. So has German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer. More important, Secretary of State Colin Powell is believed to be mulling such a plan. He has publicly talked about putting American observers on the ground. Even some Israelis have warmed to the idea, provided of course that any force includes American troops. After Europe's lynching of Israel these past few weeks, that's the only army they trust. continue...

[beckett]

It's great when a pundit can bring to light factors and contingencies that you may not have thought of before, like Kagan does for me in this column.

[dts32041]

The Peace Keepers should be composed of american forces, but not from the USA, it should be composed of forces from all other North and South American country, each country throws in two BN's and equipment, paid for by the EU.

To make it a truly international peace foorce, must alos include Viet Nam and Cambodians.

What you say they can't get along and serve together, then I guess there isn't going to be any peace keepers.

Second thought maybe the Israeli's should just put up a fence and make the palis good neighbors.

[Libloather]

The writer, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace...

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is a private, nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing cooperation between nations and promoting active international engagement by the United States. Founded in 1910, its work is nonpartisan and dedicated to achieving practical results.

Through research, publishing, convening, and on occasion, creating new institutions and international networks, Endowment associates shape fresh policy approaches. Their interests span geographic regions and the relations among governments, business, international organizations and civil society, focusing on the economic, political, and technological forces driving global change.

Through its Carnegie Moscow Center, the Endowment helps develop a tradition of public policy analysis in the states of the former Soviet Union and improve relations between Russia and the United States.

The Endowment publishes Foreign Policy, one of the world's leading magazines of international politics and economics which reaches readers in more than 120 countries and several languages.

For some reason, I don't trust these folks...

[MissAmericanPie]

Very bad idea, the only reason NATO would be there would be to stop Israel from retaliating against terrorists.

[beckett]

Kagan has solid conservative bona fides as a strategic thinker on international relations. His Carnegie affiliation is no doubt a marriage more of convenience than ideological conformity.

They love him at National Review, if that's worth anything to you. I linked to this column through them, in fact.

[beckett]

Very bad idea, the only reason NATO would be there would be to stop Israel from retaliating against terrorists.

This is one of several questions that Kagan explores quite brilliantly in his column, and in fact he takes it a few steps ahead into scenarios I hadn't considered before.

[mathurine]

Simply take the United Nations Headquarters out of New York and move it to Jerusalem. The presence of all these peace-loving sons-of-bees would certainly insure that the folks there in the cauldron would just love one another and would spare a bunch of soldiers a lot of time away from home. It would also give the fighters in that region some sort of service sector employment, which might be a better alternative to whatever it is they do. And best of all, it would get the United Nations out of here before it is thrown out.

[Diogenez]

The US needs to disengage from our triple role as fair broker, guarantor of and supplier of weapons for Israel's security. and keeper of the peace. Perhaps these tasks could be taken on by a panel of nations (with Israel and The Palestinians having veto power). Example, Norway, Ireland, Turkey, Afghanistan, Brazil, Turkestan, etc.

[gaelwolf]

NATO is European, apart from the USA and Canada. Europe is rife with anti-Semitism now, and most NATO nations are openly siding with the Palestinians. 79% of Canadians, according to a CTV poll, believe that Canada should not choose sides.

Sorry, but I don't see NATO as being either ready or the most appropriate force available to stand between the Israeli government and the Palestinians. The USA is too busy with the War Against Terrorism. (The initial phase of WWIII is abbreviated WAT???) Canada appears to be just about the only NATO member that could conceivably be called attitudinally neutral (or is that indecisive) at this point, and just about all of the other NATO nations are either expressing anti-Semitic attitudes or actively took part in the Holocaust.

Anyone still think this is the best group of nations to do Middle East "peace"-keeping?

[American in Israel]

Same story, different face. Israel is under attack by terrorism, so lets invade Israel. Since the UN is doing so well keeping terrorism from happening on the northern border...

Oh don't forget that we need a border to patrol, so lets divide what is left of Israel in half and assign half to the attackers so that they are paid well for mass murder. That will teach Islamics to never attack Spain, Washington, Britain, France. You only get trillions in land for killing people, not anything like justice.

grrr... How many times, in how many ways can they say the same thing, pretending it is a fresh new idea. I don't care how you package it, a turd is a turd.

[mvpel]

I wonder what the NATO peace-faeries would do when the bombers turned their attention to the NATO troops instead of the Israelis, just for a change of pace?

[MissAmericanPie]

I am very sympathetic to Israel, so I would hate to stick Saudi Arabia with the U.N. Given the U.N. holds so many terrorist sympathizers, the Saudi's have probably bought an paid for everyone there anyway, so they should take them home. =o)

[Enemy Of The State]

I think since the palestinians like sending homicide bombers into Israel to kill innocent people, the Israelis should do the same to the palestinians.....of course the Israelis should strap their bombs onto F-16's.

[R. Scott]

I believe UN "peacekeepers" were tried before the 1973 Arab-Israeli war.
A whole lot of good it did, as usual.

[R. Scott]

Re: post #7
It would save the City of New York a bundle on unpaid traffic tickets too.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

The PLO et al may be growing weary of the pressure from it's citizens of using children as human bombs and shields. The UN and or NATO would be a welcome change to some, I am sure.

If they went back to where they were kicked out of, it would solve everything.

[MissAmericanPie]

Did you mean this for me? Cuz I didn't post that remark. I agree with you only if you mean that they should go to Saudi Arabia and inflict themselves on the population that gave birth to their insanity.

[R. Scott]

Yep.