Hey, I can do conspiracy theories too
I'm a little bit skeptical about France's motives for involvement in the UN force in Lebanon. There is a fairly well-established pattern of France maintaining its former empire by proxy through cultural and economic means and, when local Francophile regimes need propping up, through sending in a battalion or two of paras. Hence the French military presence in their former colonies of Ivory Coast (4,000 troops), Djibouti (2,900), Senegal (1,200), Chad (1,000), CAR (220) and Gabon (800) (http://www.ambafrance-us.org/atoz/defense9.asp) . Lebanon is of course a country that used to be run by ... France.
Of course, only the perfidious Anglo-Saxons are guilty of "colonialism" and "imperialism" whereas La France acts out of the highest Gallic values of solidarity, fraternity and generosity. And never, ever out of self-interest.
Meanwhile, a number of countries noted for their even-handed approach to the Israel/Palestine question have stuck their hands up to offer to send troops: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5262490.stm
Question for the day: If the Lebanese army can go into South Lebanon now (and looks pretty well tooled up - according to this http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/lebanon/army.htm they have 60,000 troops , 305 tanks and the best part of 1,000 armoured vehicles) what was stopping them from going in and disarming Hizbollah back two months ago and thereby saving the lives of over a 1,000 Lebanese and Israeli casualties?