Thus, the monitors would have to concern themselves with the incidents of violence. Perhaps they could station themselves in flash point places like Hebron or Beit Jalla and run to investigate whenever they heard explosions and gunshots, which would keep them busy, if not productive. It is not clear to whom these international observers would report what they saw nor how their accounts might differ from the ones provided by news reporters. Even assuming the monitors did an accurate job, documenting, for example, the Palestinian mortars shelling of Israeli neighborhoods or disproving the charge that Israel is using depleted uranium artillery shells, it might not be very helpful. The people who can stop the violence are those who are causing it, and the Palestinian media aren't likely to broadcast the findings of international observers when they contradict the propaganda lines.
Monitors can serve a useful purpose if the time and place are right.
They have, for example, been an accepted and a valuable part of peacekeeping in the Golan Heights and Sinai for decades. But the failure of the UN observers in southern Lebanon to help Israel capture the Hezbollah guerrillas who kidnapped three IDF soldiers has made it plain that Israel should only agree to U.S. monitors, such as those currently working in Hebron, and then only after a sustained period of nonviolence. Nor should the world expect monitors to achieve miracles. If the two sides aren't ready to reach a peace accord and to observe it, all the monitoring in the world isn't going stop the violence. The incident was eerily reminiscent of so many of the confrontations that have taken place since the intifada began, where Palestinian demonstrators threatened the armed Israelis positioned against them and paid the price.