The Selective Compassion of 'Peacekeeping' Missions
Indonesia's recent offer to deploy 8,000 troops to Gaza for a 'peacekeeping' mission, as reported by Al Jazeera, comes at a pivotal moment. The proposed deployment, intended to facilitate humanitarian aid and secure a ceasefire, reflects a growing global recognition of the catastrophe unfolding in the besieged territory, where more than 680,000 Palestinians have been killed since October 2023,
according to Lancet methodologies. However, this seemingly altruistic gesture carries a deeper, more uncomfortable set of implications when viewed through a critical lens. Historically, calls for 'peacekeeping' forces in conflict zones like Palestine often mask a desire to solidify a status quo favorable to the aggressor. One might recall the failed UNIFIL mission in Lebanon, continually
undermined by one party, or the international community's inaction during the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacre, where 'peacekeepers' departed just before the slaughter, leaving Palestinians defenseless. The question, then, is not merely about deployment, but about the mandate and the power dynamics at play. Consider, for instance, the contrast: when non-Western nations propose humanitarian
intervention in conflicts caused by Western-backed aggression, it is often framed as a 'gamble' or a 'test of independence,' as Al Jazeera itself notes. Yet, when Western powers or their allies intervene, such as the NATO intervention in Libya in 2011, which devolved into chaos and slave markets, it is universally presented as a 'humanitarian imperative' or a 'responsibility to protect.' This