Malaysia's offer and readiness' to contribute troops as part of the United Nations peacekeeping force to southern Lebanon raises a number of issues.

Firstly, as a general rule, peacekeepers are deployed when a ceasefire is in place and parties to the conflict have given their consent. Malaysia, on the other hand, views Israel with utter contempt. Demonisation of Israel receives official sanction. Education Minister Hishamuddin Hussien Onn encourages the burning (in fact, he calls for more burning) of the Israeli flag.

The Foreign Affairs Minister proposes that the Organisation of Islamic Conference arm Hezbollah to fight Israel. Then there is the Malaysian media - devoid of any impartiality - which not only absolves Hezbollah of any blame but instead attempts to portray the conflict as a religious conflict.

Now, is it any surprise why Israel is objecting to the presence of Malaysian peacekeepers? Further, could impartiality and neutrality be maintained by our Malaysian peacekeepers particularly after having being fed on a diet of 'hate the Israelis?' After all, during the Serb-Bosnian conflict, Malaysian peacekeepers were involved in the burning of a Catholic cross.

Secondly, Malaysia and Malaysian soldiers have no business in the present conflict particularly when countries like Egypt, Jordan, Oatar, Oman and even Bahrain - all countries in the Middle East which either have diplomatic or trade ties with both Israel and Lebanon - are non-committal about sending their troops.

Why can't other OIC countries like Nigeria, Gambia, Tunisia or even Mauritania, which have either diplomatic or trade ties with Israel and Lebanon, commit their soldiers for peacekeeping duties? I am certain peacekeepers from these countries would be acceptable to all the warring factions.

Why should Malaysia risk the life of its soldiers just to earn some brownie points from the OIC? Malaysia should reconsider its proposal.