Israel suggests NATO as peacekeeping force

updated 1:59 p.m. ET July 25, 2006

BRUSSELS, Belgium - As world leaders scramble to secure a cease-fire in Lebanon, a crucial question arises: Who will ensure the peace?

Israel has suggested it prefers a NATO-led coalition — not the traditional U.N. peacekeeping force that has tried but failed to bring peace to Lebanon the last three decades.

But the alliance’s member states are already stretched in missions elsewhere, including full-scale combat in Afghanistan. Precedents in Kosovo and Bosnia also raise questions about the ability of a NATO-led force to impose its will.

And cobbling together a coalition would be difficult, especially considering the traumatic history of peacekeeping in Lebanon: American and French troops stepped into a bloody quagmire when they joined a multinational force there in 1982.

There are also competing initiatives, including a proposal Tuesday by European Union security and foreign affairs chief Javier Solana for a new kind of international force that would include troops from Europe, Turkey and Arab states.

NATO officials insist it’s premature to discuss a NATO role — an idea first aired by Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz on Saturday and which Washington has indicated it would support — until the current round of diplomacy runs its course.

“No request has been made to NATO,” alliance spokesman James Appathurai said Tuesday. “The international community is still discussing ... the possibility of a force, its mandate, and the duration of the mission. All these issues remain open.”

Turkey may have major role
Still, momentum is building to end the fighting, and there is broad sympathy for Israel’s demand that Hezbollah not be allowed to return to its border. But few believe the weak Lebanese government can achieve this as Israel demands, and the U.N. force that has been in Lebanon since 1978 is discredited. That leaves many turning to NATO.

One NATO country that may have troops available for a mission in Lebanon is Turkey. As the only Muslim member of the alliance, Turkey might have considerable clout if it were persuaded to lead a multinational force — helping to deflect the perception that troops are being sent in solely to defend Israel’s interests against Hezbollah.

Turkey enjoys close ties with both Israel and Arab countries and has wide-ranging experience in international peacekeeping, bolstering its credentials. Its colonial rule during the Ottoman Empire, however, may make some Arabs bridle at the thought of a Turkish presence.

On Tuesday, a Turkish Foreign Ministry official said the country would consider playing a major role in peacekeeping — but only if it had a strong U.N. mandate that would define its role and the rules of engagement.

That appears to be the crux of the problem: Any international force without the power to react to renewed outbursts of violence or to strike back if it found itself under threat would be as impotent as the current U.N. peacekeepers and unlikely to succeed at keeping Hezbollah away from the Israeli border.

MORE FROM MIDEAST & N. AFRICA

Mideast & N. Africa Section Front

Iran hardliners turn on critical cleric NYT: 'Law and order' in the West Bank Powerful cleric says Iran in crisis Diplomats: Iran advancing nuke program Jerusalem fears ultra-Orthodox riots Mideast & N. Africa Section Front   Add Mideast & N. Africa headlines to your news reader: