There’s a long history of international troops successfully stepping in after a conflict to help stabilize the peace. But in Gaza, there’s very little reason to think this force will actually deploy anytime soon — if ever.

More here --> www.globaldispatches.org/p/why-an-int...

Second: Without clarity about what larger political project this force would be supporting, it is hard to imagine that many Arab or Muslim-majority countries are going to sign up. None of them want their troops to look like occupation forces!

First: there is no peace to keep in Gaza. The situation on the ground today suggests that international troops would be with fighting Hamas while avoided being targeted or harassed by the IDF -- not a situation to which countries would be willing to send their troops.

The thing is: Even if a resolution passes, it is really hard to imagine countries actually deploying their soldiers to Gaza as part of a mission. The concept has two fundamental flaws that the resolution does not attempt to address.

There's a communication blackout in El Fasher, Sudan. But we know what is happening there because a genocidal militia is gleefully publishing snuff videos on social media and bragging about their body counts as they rampage through a major city

This limited number of tests since 1996 stands in stark contrast to the more than 2,000 nuclear tests conducted in the preceding five decades, highlighting the CTBT's significant role in establishing a global norm against nuclear testing

www.globaldispatches.org/p/when-treat...