Why deploy a peace-keeping force if you're going to leave at the first sign of opposition!?

Austria to the mideast: 'Now that the Golan has actually become a security issue, and our soldiers might have to do their job (and a Filipino soldier has been 'injured'), we are withdrawing them from the peacekeeping force there. It's unacceptable to us to keep soldiers deployed if they might face danger.'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/israel-angry-austria-golan-heights

"If our peacekeeping missions ever become bothersome to the regional ambitions of any of your actors, just make enough noise and 'chaos' so it looks like we might actually have to fight someone, and we'll just withdraw. We are completely useless."

- Austria

"PS: Remember how the UN had 30,000+ troops in Cambodia in the 90s to safeguard democratic elections and enforce a transition to peaceful governance...but we didn't actually support the democratic winners in implementing the results of those elections after militias threatened violence--because holding the line on our mandate would have disturbed the peace--and let the loser, Hun Sen, formerly of the Khmer Rouge, take power as part of a coalition, and then execute a coup to become sole dictator of the country? This is sort of like that. If you're confused about the point of deploying troops to enforce a UN mandate without the will to even keep them there when ancillary conflicts suggest potential danger, we share your confusion, but we're leaving anyway."

</end rant>

From the article:

'In Israel, the troop withdrawal was read as a betrayal of the United Nation's commitment to regional security, pledged during Israeli disengagement from Syria in 1974. Austria, along with troops from India and the Philippines, has provided a critical portion of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (Undof) charged with ensuring quiet on this sensitive border for the past 40 years.

"The only reason you want anyone there in the first place is in time of trouble," one senior Israeli official told the Guardian. "For the first time in 40 years, it's not easy so the presence ends? That sends a very problematic message to the Israeli public.

"This means that in any future deal with the Palestinians, we won't accept any disengagement forces from the United Nations because at the first sign of trouble, they'll disappear." '