re: #419 Joo-LiZ

I’d say where the hair-splitting begins with the question why?
1) is it incompetence?
2) is it collusion for some sort of gain (money/good relations/who knows)?
3) is it outright hostility towards Israel akin to that of Hamas and Hizballah?

I haven’t followed the whole argument, but I think Windsagio and McSpiff would argue towards possibility 1, and they feel everyone else thinks possibility 3, which they think is conspiracy theory territory.

Is that a fair assessment?

Let me quote wiki:

Peacekeepers monitor and observe peace processes in post-conflict areas and assist ex-combatants in implementing the peace agreements they may have signed. Such assistance comes in many forms, including confidence-building measures, power-sharing arrangements, electoral support, strengthening the rule of law, and economic and social development. Accordingly UN peacekeepers (often referred to as Blue Beret because of their light blue berets or helmets) can include soldiers, police officers, and civilian personnel.

“Monitor”, “observe”, “assist”, etc. None of these things include “force”. If Hezbollah says “No, we will not disarm” even privately…well, that’s the end of it. That’s how the system works. This is the only way the UN can gain entry to many conflict zones is by agreeing to these standards. And I think most people would agree here. No one wants to see Blue Berets firing on the IDF, or arresting IDF personnel.

So you can argue the system is poorly thought out, or that’s undermanned (not sure about UNIFL) but unfortunately doing things like screaming “EVERYONE STOP” is really one of the few tools they have.

I think acknowledging that peacekeeping is a flawed idea in many situations is closer to the truth than saying the troops on the ground are incompetent/ in collusion with one side or another/etc.