United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan caused a considerable stir recently when he unveiled a proposal to send a multinational force into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
He went way beyond previous suggestions for a small, unarmed observer group: this coalition of troops from different armies would have what Mr Annan calls a "robust" mandate and "credible strength".
The rationale behind a sizeable armed intervention force is that, if left to their own devices, the Israelis and Palestinians are not capable of bringing peace.
One of Mr Annan's top officials, UN Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs Danilo Tⁿrk says the force would be aimed at creating conditions on the ground to "allow for peace negotiations to move - and to move in the right direction".
The qualification is important: "It is one thing to talk, it is another thing to have a genuine peace process towards the objectives defined in Security Council Resolution 1397, which is two states. Establishing an additional state is a very tall order and has to be underpinned by serious and credible support such as only a multinational force can provide."
Mr Tⁿrk is a native of Slovenia and served as his country's UN ambassador for most of the 1990s. A former professor of law, his present duties include supervising the UN's Division for Palestinian Rights. Last month, Ireland and 13 other members of the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1397 on the Middle East, "affirming a vision of a region where two states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side within secure and recognised borders".
It is this vision which clearly underpins the proposal for a multinational force, but I make the point that securing Israel's consent to the force is decidedly problematic.
"The secretary-general speaks about the need to manage the process in a manner which would expand co-operation of the parties," Mr Tⁿrk says. "Of course he understands full well that, at present, consent is not there."
He continues: "The other word which I think comes in as a very important ingredient, and it's not the secretary-general's word, is acquiescence. Although at present we cannot speak about consent or agreement, I think we should speak about the need to manage the process in a manner which would generate acquiescence for such a force by the parties."
He is not surprised that Israel is adopting a negative attitude at present: "We know that Israel has reservations about this kind of idea, it is not new, but this is precisely why I think the choice of words is so important.
"What we are talking about is really to strengthen and expand co-operation from the point of talking to the point of progress towards real peace and to manage the process in a manner which would lead to acquiescence."
Acquiescence could be developed over time: "One doesn't wait for consent to emerge miraculously, one has to work in order to make acquiescence happen. The secretary-general's proposal is intended to stimulate or perhaps to start serious discussion in this process."
I point out that Mr Annan seemed to be suggesting that the international community act as a persuader with the Israelis and Palestinians.
"Yes, absolutely! But isn't persuasion what is needed if we want to have movement towards durable peace and the establishment of a Palestinian state. A lot of persuasion has to happen and a large part of that persuasion is precisely about: how does one ensure peace with security?
"Security is accepted as a basic condition for peace but the secretary-general also noted that security without peace will not be possible, so that these are two sides of the same coin really. You can't have security and war at the same time. You must have security and peace. In order to get there, you need to develop mechanisms and a military presence which would make this project realistic."
But what guarantee could Israel have that such a force would prevent suicide bombings?
"A credible, real force would have two effects which are relevant in this context. First, it would diminish freedom of movement of people who are involved in terrorist activity and I think that that's an important contribution and of course it has to be discussed in detail and further and over a period of time. Secondly, it can reduce and eventually eliminate support for such individuals and groups. This is not unrealistic, this can be done."
He adds: "The objective of the secretary-general is peace. This is the declared objective of everybody else including Israel. The question is how do we get to the point of peace? The secretary-general's proposal is a very pertinent and realistic one. I don't see how, without an arrangement like this, one can reach a state of peace."