Israel did not object to peacekeepers from Muslim countries - its only and very reasonable demand was that they be from countries that recognize Israel. How could one expect Israel to agree to members of the force that come from outspoken doubters of Israel’s right to exist? Such as in the case of Malaysia whose leader emeritus Mahattir was an outspoken enemy? And Malaysia was in the first line of volunteers to send troops to Lebanon - one could assume in order to save the Lebanese from the Israelis’ anger. I raised the question of Malaysias participation before UN luminairies, as well as UN military leaders like the French head of UNIFIL. They said that UN forces are a right of the UN, so Israel has no right to exclude any states from participation. The hot-heads had it, and I never wrote about it out of respect for the organization.

So what now? What other Muslim countries could join? I know of Kazakhstan that has relations with all countries involved. They are ready to send a small number of special forces, but I understand were told by UN luminairies that they were not needed. This is the same UN folks that were throwing around names like Malaysia, Bangladesh, and Indonesia - all countries that do not recognize Israel but like the income from being part of UN peace-keeping forces. Here Mr. Ban Ki-moon, this is also an area that needs your attention, and here there is no place for harmonization. What one needs is a clear-cut decision that peace-keepers can not be political enemies. It always ended up this way anyway - but only after a lot of bad blood caused unneedingly by the luminairies - the UN should really send home some of them.

AP reports October 20, 2006, “Turkish peacekeepers arrive in Beirut.”

Turkish soldiers and civilians arrived in Beirut on Friday to join the U.N. peacekeeping force in South Lebanon, making Turkey the first Muslim country to contribute troops to the mission.
Two military ships docked in Beirut’s harbor at 9 a.m. local time. Officials said the ships were carrying some 95 soldiers and civilian engineers, as well as 46 trucks, four armored personnel carriers and several bulldozers and other machinery.

More soldiers were scheduled to arrive later in the day, bringing the number of Turkish soldiers and civilian engineers in Lebanon to 261. The troops were expected to deploy near the southern port city of Tyre to help rebuild bridges and roads damaged in last summer’s 34-day war between Hezbollah and Israel.

The conflict ended Aug. 14 after a U.N.-brokered cease-fire resolution that calls for an expanded international peacekeeping force to create a weapons-free zone in the south.

A Turkish government spokesman said earlier this month that the total number of Turkish personnel in Lebanon would ultimately reach 681, including sailors and engineers. A vanguard of seven Turkish military officers arrived in Beirut earlier this week, and a Turkish frigate is already helping patrol Lebanese waters.

Turkey is NATO’s only predominantly Muslim member, and the country has close ties to both Israel and Arab states. Its contribution to the peacekeeping force was met with opposition in the Turkish parliament, where some lawmakers feared Turkish troops would be drawn into fighting against fellow Muslims to protect Israel.

Armenians in Lebanon also protested Turkish participation in the peacekeeping force, known as UNIFIL, because they blame Turkey’s Ottoman rulers for the mass killing of Armenians in the early 20th century.

Thousands of people from Lebanon’s 80,000-100,000 strong Armenian community rallied in downtown Beirut on Oct. 12 to protest Turkey’s planned participation. Many of Lebanon’s Armenian residents fled Turkey and are haunted by memories of what they considered an Armenian genocide there.

Turkish peacekeeping troops have served in Bosnia and Kosovo and have led operations in Somalia and Afghanistan.

———————————————————-

Further on the Lebanon crisis, Reuters’ Irwin Arieff reports: “U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan urged the Lebanese authorities on Thursday to take a lesson from the recent war between Israel and Hezbollah and quickly agree on a plan for disarming Hezbollah. Hezbollah’s transformation into a purely political party “is a key element in ensuring a permanent end of hostilities and in the full restoration of Lebanon’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence,” Annan said in a report to the U.N. Security Council.

“It is my deep hope that the opportunities borne from conflict will be seized upon and that Lebanon may once again rise from the ashes of destruction and war,” he said.

Annan’s report also renewed pleas that Lebanon and Syria establish full diplomatic relations with each other and work together to mark out their shared border.
He was reporting on progress in implementing a September 2004 council resolution that called on Syria to withdraw from Lebanon and for Lebanon to disarm all militias on its territory so the Beirut government could control all its territory.
There has been “considerable progress” over the past two years in fulfilling the resolution, Annan said.
But the 34-day war that ended in an Aug. 14 cease-fire has left Lebanon tense and facing huge challenges to rebuild itself and its shaken economy and political system, he said.
Damascus, which entered Lebanon in 1976 to put down a civil war, pulled its troops out in April 2005 after the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri, which triggered mass anti-Syrian demonstrations. Many Lebanese blamed the killing on Syria but Damascus has denied any role and a U.N. investigation is continuing.
Hezbollah’s armed presence in southern Lebanon is linked directly to a controversy over the border between Lebanon and the Israeli-occupied Syrian Golan Heights.
The Lebanese remain deeply divided over its disarmament. The guerrilla group, which also holds seats in parliament and cabinet posts, maintains it provides resistance in a strip of the Golan Heights known as the Shebaa farms. The United Nations says Shebaa is part of Syria but Syria and Lebanon say it belongs to Lebanon. Annan has urged the two to work out a change if they wish, which they have not done.
“Syria and Lebanon have not had full diplomatic ties since Western powers carved the two states out of the remnants of the Ottoman empire in 1920. Annan said he is working to expedite the matter.”

Regarding this last item, SustainabiliTank.info sees in it the French Colonial Reason for the present warfare that has roots that pre-date the establishment of the State of Israel. It is thus illogical to look upon France as the outside power to lead any effort to stabilize the region.

Why did Kofi Annan not do anything in this respect during his ten years in office? We know it is difficult to talk sense within the confines of the Glass Building with views of the East River. Will quiet diplomat Ban Ki-moon be able to take the tough decision to replace General Pellgrini with the Italian General who already, for one month is part of this UN Glass House. What could actually Muslim peace-keepers contribute to helping find the internal peace among the Arab Nations Lebanon and Syria? We think that distant Kazakhstan rather could perhaps be of help here.