Golan Heights peacekeeper crisis: Filipinos escape, Fijians taken hostage
If these peacekeepers have a hard time keeping themselves out of troubles against bands of insurgents, how could they be expected to keep the peace should war break out between Israel and a fully functional Syria?
Peace keepers don’t “keep peace” during wartime. They come in AFTER the war is over to, you know, keep the peace. They KEEP peace, they don’t MAKE peace.
I expect it was a political decision not to fight.
Why? Because the UN doesn’t want to offend a terrorist group who attacked them?
Because the U.N. doesn’t want to get into the middle of a war?
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of U.N. peacekeepers. They are not there to physically/militarily stop an invasion. That would require shitloads more troops. They are there more as a moral buffer. Eta: the Syrian government and Israel accepted that moral buffer, Syrian rebels clearly do not.
Yup. UNDOF has been there since 1974, and in all that time the ceasefire has held, despite Israel’s de facto annexation of the area, and Syria’s continuing claim to it. This is in marked contrast to the states of affairs in the West Bank and Gaza, where there are similar disputes over territories but no peacekeeping forces. Obviously there are more differences between the various situations than just the presence or absence of UN peacekeepers, but cleary the strategy and tactics pursued by UNDOF since 1974 have supported the goal of their mission.
Yeah and I got this rock that keeps lions away. There were U.N. outposts on the Lebanese-Israel border during both Lebanese Wars.
Your own post #5 in this thread suggests that you accept the utility and effectiveness of the UNDOF presence in Golan. Have I misunderstood you?
Yes. I was merely saying that they weren’t there to physically stop the military of either side. Their presence merely makes opening hostilities more condemnable. How well that works is always up to the individuals involved. You compared Gaza vs Syrian Israeli hostilities. I thought it would be wise to remember the Lebanese example(s).
Peacekeepers do a good job at separating sovereign states, but are largely useless in the face of non-state actors.
Isn’t that abit of a self selection problem though? States generally agree to the U.N.'s presence while non-state actors don’t get much voice.
Well, yeah. What’s the UN if not a members-only club?
And Golan had until recently been solely a dispute between states.
I am amazed that the force in Golan seems to be operating under the old ROE’s rather than the much more aggressive and proactive ones that came out after the debacles in the 1990’s.
I suppose but that steps over my point. The U.N. keeps the peace between sovereign states because they agreed to let the U.N. keep the peace. Non-state get less voice so are less likely to accept the peacekeeping role.