Kosovo Redux?

One of the most pathetic wars of the 1990's was NATO's attack on Serbia to liberate Kosovo from the clutches of Slobodan Milosevic.  It was a conflict that made no sense in that no one's national interests were being helped or harmed by the ongoing civil war in Kosovo.  It was illegal in that NATO's charter allows for the alliance to use force against an enemy after one of its members has been attacked, the famous "An attack on one of us is an attack on all of us" rule.  It led to nothing constructive as Kosovo remains a thug and drug infested backwater to this day while Serbia has yet to reecover from the pounding it took.  Finally it led to deterioration in the state of relations between the West and Russia.  Serbia, after all, is a Russian ally and NATO's unopposed pounding emphasized the former Soviet Union's impotence to protect its traditional friends.
However, at the time I noted to anyone who would listen (both of them) that there was another purpose to the Kosovo raid.  Simply put, NATO was seeing if they could get away with attacking a state which was of no threat to them in defiance of their own charter and international law.  Why would they want to determine if they could?
Consider:
1) The Kosovans are ethnic Albanians who moved to the area while it was under Turkish rule, displacing the Serbs who had previously lived there.
2) Despite enjoying a certain level of autonomy, their leadership, composed of terrorists and drug lords, started demanding independence in the wake of the breakup of Yugoslavia.
3) Their cause was quickly taken up by the West even though there is no record of an independent Kosovo in history while the Serbs do have an established connection to the province.
Does this sound familiar?  Let me spell it out:
1) The so-called Palestinians are ethnic Arabs who moved to the area while it was under Muslim rule, displacing the Jews who had previously lived there.
2) Despite enjoying a certain level of autonomy, their leadership, composed of terrorists and drug lords, started demanding independence in the wake of the Oslo Discord.
3) Their cause was quickly taken up by the West even though there is no record of an independent Palestine in history while the Jews do have an established connection to Yehudah, Shomron and 'Aza.
At the time my concerns were scoffed at.  America, in particular, would never allow NATO to attack Israel.  The thought that the alliance would invade a country with which many of its members have important military and economic ties was thought to be too far fetched.
And now Haaretz has this small piece which made the hairs on the back of my neck (unlike followers, I have plenty o' those) stand on end:
 NATO will play an integral role in enforcing a Middle East peace deal, but will not play a direct role in reaching that agreement, the alliance's secretary general told Haaretz this weekend. "If a Middle East peace agreement is reached, an international military force will be needed to monitor and implement it," Anders Fogh Rasmussen said.
At a press briefing in the Portuguese capital, the secretary general said that unlike its member states, NATO as an organization is not involved in the peace process, but expressed support for the efforts of the United States and the other members of the so-called Quartet of Mideast peace negotiators to reach a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
NATO has no business showing interest in MiddleEastern affairs.  Israel is not a threat to any NATO member, including Turkey, although the Turks seem to wish otherwise nowadays.  So why the sudden interest in enforcing the peace?
NATO has not managed to subdue the Taliban despite trying for almost 10 years.  They have never successfully fought a war anywhere except against Serbia which was outmatched by any one of the member states, never mind their combined might.  The UN maintains peacekeeping forces.  Why would NATO suddenly show an interest?
But imagine the possible scenario.  The Arabs have already threatened to go to the UN Security Council and get authorization to unilaterally declare statehood in Yehuda and Shomron.  The current negotiations between Israel and the United States of Obama regarding an extension of the construction freeze have raised the issue of the US vetoing any such move for 1 year.  Is it so crazy to imagine that after that time period Obama will support an unilateral declaration of independence?
And when Mahmood Abbas announces that he is inviting NATO troops to remove Israeli "aggressors" from his land, what happens next?  When the Turks announce their willingness to help their Arab brethren out under the banner of NATO and demand Israel let them come ashore, what happens in NATO headquarters?  Would a pushback against the Turks be considered an attack on NATO?