Would UN Peacekeepers be Useful in Gaza?

The UN Security Council resolution passed last night calling for a cease fire in Gaza was predictably rejected out of hand by both Israel and Hamas, since it was really nothing more than a bit of political theater and did nothing to address the concerns of either party. But in the long run no doubt the UN will push to put UN “peacekeepers” into Gaza. Will that do anything useful?

Well, it was UN “peacekeepers” who stood aside in Rwanda in 1994 while Hutu tribesmen slaughtered some 800,000 Tutsi. It was UN “peacekeepers” who stood aside in Bosnia in 1995 while Serbs slaughtered about 8000 Muslim men in the UN-declared “safe areas” of Srebrenica (in fact, the Serbs used the UN peacekeepers as hostages to deter a military response from the West). It’s UN “peacekeepers” in Lebanon right now who have allowed Hezbollah to rearm, and fire rockets into Israel yesterday.

In general, the record of UN peacekeeping is pretty dismal, and it’s not likely to be any more effective in Gaza. The problem is that the UN peacekeepers are never given either enough force nor adequate rules of engagement to be effective against determined opponents. If the UN were willing to put 10,000 or 20,000 heavily-armed troops into Gaza, and allow them to search buildings and detain suspects and destroy tunnels and shoot militants, it might (possibly) be effective. But of course they wouldn’t do that – they would put in a small, lightly-armed “show” force with a sharply limited brief which will do nothing to deter Hamas from rearming and resuming rocket and suicide bomber attacks, but will make it difficult for Israel to respond.

Putting UN “peacekeepers” into Gaza would just be a publicity move for the UN. It wouldn’t do anything to solve the underlying problems. It would just give all sides time to rearm and prepare for the next phase of the war, as is happening in Lebanon right now.