.
Commentary;
By his endorsing NATO involvement, is Avigdor Leiberman not stepping back into the mistakes of the past, as seen here, here and here? MB
No to NATO Deployment as an Anti-Palestinian Terror Force, by Dr. Aaron Lerner (IMRA)
Excerpts;
“To the extent that the Palestinians find it difficult to establish an effective security apparatus to end the terror activity, NATO will fill the vacuum created.” Principles of Permanent Agreement – Yisrael Beiteinu party Chairman and Minister of Strategic Affairs Avigdor Lieberman
Would it really serve Israel’s interests to inject NATO forces into the equation?
Hardly.
Lieberman sees the mandate of such a NATO deployment as an anti-Palestinian terror force, but the NATO members aren’t from Mars. They are nations with their own international (and for that matter domestic) interests and concerns. As such, this force would be careful to avoid the “Israel’s Policeman” label.
Deployment of such a force would be predicated on significant and substantial Israeli concessions that contributing countries could point to in order to justify their participation to the Arab world.
The force would also not tolerate any Israeli security activity in areas under its supervision.
Not only is it a tremendous concession to make in a working paper rather than after prolonged negotiations, it ignores the fundamental truth so often ignored in Israeli policy discussions: that once a sovereign Palestinian state is established, its sovereign status is not conditioned on continued compliance with, or the functioning of, the agreement under which it was created.
Simply put: a sovereign Palestinian state can send Mr. Lieberman’s proposed NATO force packing.
It might be appealing to suggest that someone else bear Israel’s security burden – but it won’t work.
Raising such phantom solutions only serves to further confuse the policy debate.