The UN and the Mid-East peace process. Can they save each other?

Great Debates
1

There have been three UNSC reolutions regarding the settlement of peace in the middle-east. Resolution 242 (1967), Resolution 338 (1973), and
Resolution 1397 (2002). Out of over 50 years if global instability, is that he best they can do? And I am not talking about the reolutions vetoed, or signed by the US that condemns Israel against their actions against terrorism. Those are situational resolutions that does not acknowledge the problems facing both sides.
Their willingness to let the problem, and lack of resolution, be dictated by US president’s, or special interest organizations and countries, only enhances the views that they are just a debating society with delusions of grandeur. And their failures, and even lack of initiative in such a global issue, makes them unworthy of the reputations they do have as peace-makers/keepers.

I think there should be a US initiated offer by the UN to take control of the OT’s. With a demonstrable promise to station UN, with a heavy helping of US, troops there. In the negotiations Israel should abdicate all retaliation to the UN on the basis that any attack by terrorists should be ated upon by UN troops or whatever. There should also be an abdication on the Palestinians on their soveriegn right to police inside of their territory. So that UN/US special forces can acitively work against terrists groups inside of the territories. And instead of stand-off missile strikes, they could do low impact raids and hold these terrorists, if they are able to bring them in alive, and try them on crimes against humanity and international peace.

This could be the basis of starting the peace plan and working to realise the Palestinian state and the security of Israel. Once the UN takes responsibility and attempt to control the violence, only then should they mandate what each side can or cannot do. I am a very big skeptic of the UN, mainly because it hs never realised it’s potential due to in-fighting and politics. But, if the UN can settle this, (and they should be the ones doing things like this in the world, not the US) then their being would be justified in my eyes. As of now they seem to be a waste of time except for the aid they give to ailing countries.

2

Neither Israel nor the PA would agree to your proposal.

What does the US have to gain by giving up the lead on this issue to the UN?

Any proposal would have to go thru the UNSC, in which the US has veto power.

3

It’s possible that they wouldn’t, but besides the possibility, what is the basis of your assertion about never?

How about peace in the region. The US is rightly loath to send in troops there because of the animosity and volatility of the region. The UN could help legitimize any military efforts the US deems reasonable, in the eyes of many of the Palestinians and those who see nothing but bias and such from the US.

Why would the US veto something they proposed? Or at least had a major lead in. They want peace there. If the UN offers such a proposal to where the UN would take an active role, and a special circumstance where the US could give reassurances to Israel about security and military matters.

By all means, punch holes in my proposal. But justify your general statements, or actual question if that is what they were, please.