Should UN/AU troops be sent to Palestine instead of NATO?

Question

Did you know that Mohammed Abdel-Raouf Arafat As Qudwa al-Hussaeini was better known as Yasser Arafat

Answer 1

The end result would be the same.

If they didn't have a mandate to go after terrorists.. the "Palestinians" would use them as cover to continue their aggression against Israel.

If they did have a mandate.. the "Palestinians" would start attacking them.

It really doesn't matter if it's NATO, UN, Arab League or Israeli.. the "Palestinians" will still behave like bloodthirsty psychopaths.

Answer 2

NATO troops actually have no business in Palestine as neither Palestine or The Occupied Terrritories are Nato member nor does the chaos and violence directly affect a NATO member state. Furthermore, any further incursion into the Middle East by only Western countries will not be met with cheering crowds and flowers.

The United Nations in the form of a Peacekeeping Mission stands a much better chance of stopping the violence as long as 1) The UN let's the commanding officer of such a mission put forward a clear mandate for any forces there
2) The UN let's the commanding officer and his subordinates respond to any force with an equal or greater measure of force

The reason that the previous two UN Peacekeeping Missions have failed (Rawanda and Somalia) is that neither force was allowed to respond with force or deploy in an agressive manner to deter violence. If the UN allows this then the violence between the different Palestinian factions can be quelled.

Answer 3

No to the first question and No to the second, I thought Arafat is dead? What does Yasser mean? Is that a nick name because I don't see it in his given name? Just curious?

Answer 4

UN troops and not that coming from NATO should be sent to Palestine so that there will be neutrality on the part of the troops in relation to the Arabs.

Answer 5

OKay your point?
and NO