    “PEACEKEEPERS” TO THE RESCUE

    By Tom Mysiewicz

    The calculated madness of the Israeli incursion into Lebanon, the
    attacks on ambulances, columns of civilians, bridges, power plants,
    Shiites, Sunnis, Druze, Christians and just about everything that
    moves—and now the horrendous "bunker buster" attack on a building in
    Qana filled mostly with child refugees--may simply be a gambit to create
    a humanitarian crisis of such a degree in Lebanon that the world will
    rush to allow a strong UN, NATO or other “peacekeeping” force to enter
    the country. Such an eventuality, while in the interest of Israeli
    planners and of great benefit in a future war against Iran and Syria,
    would be a serious error for the participants as well as the victims.
    For a "peacekeeping" force is no substitute for strict international
    sanctions on Israel (including an embargo on WMDs and weapons capable of
    being used on civilian populations).

    For starters, the UN (and Israel's proxy, the U.S., through John Bolton)
    has demonstrated that the UN cannot and will not be a force for peace in
    the region, rather, it will be a cynical partisan force masquerading as
    "peacekeepers"--sent into the region only to take the heat off the
    Israelis and disarm Hezbollah. It will merely embroil the
    participants--who will in no way be able to fight the Israelis--in the
    Mid East conflict. (No more than the current lightly-armed UN border
    guards!)

    After the deliberate targeting of a UN observer outpost, in which four
    (4) unarmed UN observers were essentially murdered, the UN could not
    even generate a Security Council resolution critical of Israel. As with
    Qana, the UN will allow Israel to "investigate itself" on this matter.
    Ignoring Qana, at the same time, the UN Security Council had no problem
    generating a resolution demanding Iran abandon its nuclear program under
    threat of sanctions. (And, watching the current Israeli and U.S.
    actions, would YOU abandon your nuclear program under these conditions?)

    Why a "peacekeeping" force? Stationing a “peacekeeping” force in Lebanon
    would be an effective buffer against an Iranian/Syrian counterattack in
    the probable event of an Israeli air/missile/nuclear strike on Iran. An
    infantry counterattack by Iran would be blocked by the “peacekeepers”
    who, in the meantime, would “mop up” Hezbollah—another threat to Israel
    in the event it attacks Iran. Remember that this idea was first floated
    after the VERY suspicious assassination of Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri, and
    the expulsion of the Syrians (who were real peacekeepers) from Lebanon
    by the contrived "Cedar Revolution". As I pointed out in my article at
    the time, “La Brea in Lebanon” (Media Monitors, March 11, 2005) such
    forces would be for the participants the equivalent of the tar pits of
    La Brea for prehistoric animals.

    From the "get go" a UN force would not be backed up should it interfere
    in Israel in any meaningful way. And if it got into trouble, John Bolton
    would block any resolution by the UN Security Council. (Predicted more
    than a year ago by me in "A Time for Bolton?" Media Monitors, June 7th,
    2005). If, through some miracle, any resolution was forced on the U.S.,
    President Bush could simply cut off payment of U.S. dues to the UN,
    effectively shutting down that world body.

    Thus, a NATO, UN or any other force would ONLY be there to disarm
    Hezbollah and buffer against a potential Iranian/Syrian land attack.
    They would be perceived as occupiers, NOT “peacekeepers”, for this very
    reason, just as U.S. Marines were in Lebanon in 1983. Initially, the
    Marines were well received and protected Lebanese from Israeli soldiers
    on numerous occasions (reportedly earning them taunts from IDF
    soldiers). On orders from Washington, however, U.S. Naval gunfire was
    directed on Hezbollah positions to assist the Israeli-backed
    paramilitary forces in a skirmish. Once the Marines were no longer seen
    as neutral, their aura of protection seemed to vanish and the inevitable
    happened. They were blown to “kingdom come”.

    It has been said that exactly repeating the same action but expecting a
    different result is the classic definition of insanity. Following the
    insane Bush-Blair-Olmert course of “peacekeeping” can only lead to
    attacks on “peacekeepers”—both from Lebanese partisans and Mossad agent
    provocateurs—that will draw the participants and the world community
    deeper into the Mid East morass, reluctantly, but on the side of the
    Israelis.

    The Israeli attack on Lebanon has served to unify the people of that
    country. Given a chance to rebuild, incorporate Hezbollah military units
    as part of the regular Lebanese army, and get on with their lives, I
    think the Lebanese will do so.