In a situation of general helplessness, such as the current state of affairs in Lebanon, it can happen that people seize upon ideas and plans whose ineffectiveness has long been proven.

The suggestion now making the rounds is that an international UN force is necessary to stabilize the southern Lebanese region and prevent further attacks across the border. But no one can say what kind of a mandate such troops could and should have, how large the force should be or how it will be put together. All we know for certain is that the warring parties Israel and Hezbollah don't agree with it -- at least not at present.

Of course, a similar force has actually existed for years in the region: UNIFIL, the UN Interim Force in Lebanon. Ever since its establishment in March 1978, it has shown how permanent such "interim solutions" can sometimes be -- and also, how little it can really achieve.

UNIFIL watched idly from the sidelines

UNIFIL's task was to enable the Israeli withdrawal from the region, create international peace and security, as well as aid the Lebanese government in re-establishing its authority in the entire country.

An initial 4,500 troops -- today totaling 2,000 soldiers -- from countries such as France, Fiji, China, Poland or India set up roadblocks and searched cars for weapons and explosives.

The force however couldn't prevent larger conflicts, but rather had to watch idly when the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) launched attacks on Israel and Israeli troops marched into southern Lebanon -- and later when the the war in Lebanon broke out.

All the same, 22 years after UNIFIL was stationed in the region, Israel did withdraw from Lebanon in 2000. But the force can't take credit for that. The PLO is no longer a factor in the region anymore. It has long since been replaced by Hezbollah. And the central Lebanese government still doesn't control southern Lebanon.

Peacekeeping is only possible if all agree to it

Normally, all parties in a conflict have to agree to the deployment of such an international force. In Israel's case, it's apparent who has to endorse such a force. But that isn't the case with Lebanon. Does the central Lebanese government have to agree to it or Hezbollah? And what if Hezbollah disagrees?

Promoting peace against the will of those involved is impossible, though maybe a ceasefire could work at the very least. But that would presume that such an international force would aim for its goal with military power if need be and would have to stand up against Hezbollah and Israel. That's certainly no task for 2,000 lightly armed UNIFIL soldiers.

UNIFIL has over the years suffered some 250 casualties. And a force that's thrust into action is exposed to far greater dangers. Those calling for one should consider this. They know that those who yell the loudest will be called on first.

In the case of Germany, its special relation to Israel can't be an excuse, but rather an obligation. That is if peace and security can really be secured by a strong international force in the first place.