ABSTRACT
Controversy over how to measure effectiveness, and contradictory expectations among the parties to a conflict, are apparent in many peacekeeping operations. An international force is under pressure from both sides to interpret the mandate in a manner that benefits one side or the other and is hard put to maintain impartiality. The United States, however, would have none of the Begin proposal, and within a very short time Israel cooled to the idea and soon expressed open hostility to any third-party force in the security zone. On Arab-Israeli fronts, particularly where a third-party force operates in an Israeli security zone, two considerations apply. One is that any third force can realistically be assigned only minimal functions, mainly as a symbolic presence and to carry out ancillary tasks, such as protecting the refugee camps in southern Lebanon. The other—and more surprising, an autonomous multinational force with an anchoring US presence involves political costs that may make a UN force preferable.
