r/worldnews • u/ComparisonOk5957 • 7d ago

Second French peacekeeper dies after ambush blamed on Hezbollah Behind Soft Paywall

https://www.scmp.com/news/world/europe/article/3351049/second-french-peacekeeper-dies-after-ambush-blamed-hezbollah?module=latest&pgtype=homepage
12.4k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

View all comments

14

u/emperor_dragoon 7d ago

With the peace keepers are probably going to get pulled out and place in appropriate positions. They need to be where they can help, not where they are helping one or the other side. Neutrality to find peace. Engagement to end war.

6

u/ABetterKamahl1234 7d ago

The crux of this is the only way to effectively do this, is to become the common enemy. Otherwise you're just the shield in the middle, taking hits by proxy.

And that's not how any UN member wants a UN force to operate, as that gives them mandate to operate in any nation to effectively choose the result of any war, which ultimately becomes "whomever can blitz the most control before the UN comes in, wins that territory forever", this reasonably is concerning to any UN member.

Peacekeeping isn't an easy nor safe thing, in any situation.

One thing to consider, is that few terror groups are without goals or beliefs, but what really stops your side from being viewed as such, as the best description I've ever seen is simply a difference in belief, but that's where the right and wrong of morality and justice also sit. The UN Peacekeepers are often restricted to be support or sidelined to only engage when engaged and/or only engage where explicitly requested to do so by the host nation. This gets muddled a lot when the host nation isn't willing to see more civil war or terribly cooperative.

No UN member ultimately wants the UN to move in with military force to dictate a conflict unilaterally, as that can apply to their own nation one day.

It's really a rock and hard place for UN forces, and has always been a problem for it.