This past week, Israeli military operations targeted United Nations peacekeeping installations in southern Lebanon, igniting significant worries about the safety of international personnel in the region. According to the UN, while their troops would scale back operations, they weren’t intending to withdraw entirely.
The decision of Irish soldiers to stay put at UN post 6-52, even as nearby Israeli forces established a firing position, has been characterized by many Lebanese as a display of “grit and resolve,” as noted by David Wood, a senior analyst with the International Crisis Group. His remarks underscore a sentiment of solidarity prevailing in the face of such threats.
After Israeli tanks vacated the vicinity around UN post 6-52, the Israeli Defense Forces quickly redirected their fire to other UN installations, raising alarms about the conflicts spiraling further out of control.
Nick Birnback, head of strategic communications for UN Peacekeeping, did not mince words: “The safety and security of our peacekeepers is now increasingly in jeopardy.” The reality is stark, and these words reflect a chilling truth.
He elaborated that UNIFIL plays a vital role in fostering stability and serving as a “solid channel for communication and deconfliction” between the Israeli and Lebanese militaries. The gravity of the situation is compounded by the UN’s assertion that its troops are indispensable for protecting humanitarian convoys heading to civilians caught in the turmoil. Thus, they will not abandon their posts.
On Thursday, the United Nations condemned the “repeated” and “deliberate” strikes on UNIFIL sites, categorizing them as a “serious breach of international humanitarian law.” This declaration echoed loudly, reverberating throughout the international community.
In response, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has demanded an end to arms sales to Israel, adding fuel to the fire in a growing chorus of criticism against the violence.
The backlash was swift. France and Italy took the diplomatic high ground and summoned the Israeli ambassadors to voice their discontent. Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto even asserted that the recent attacks, which have injured troops from Indonesia and Sri Lanka, “might amount to a war crime.” This sentiment underscores a rising tide of international indignation.
Meanwhile, the United States, Israel’s closest ally, took notice of the escalating situation. During a recent call between U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and his Israeli counterpart Yoav Gallant, Austin emphasized the necessity of ensuring the safety of UNIFIL personnel. He encouraged a shift from armed conflict toward a diplomatic solution as rapidly as possible. His statement on X encapsulated the growing concern about the safety of peacekeepers.
Faced with mounting global pressure, the Israeli military announced plans to conduct an “in-depth review at the highest levels” while expressing “deep concerns” about the ongoing incidents. However, military operations in southern Lebanon continued unabated.
Israel’s objective remains clear: to push Hezbollah fighters away from the border and facilitate the return of approximately 60,000 displaced Israelis to their homes in the northern part of the country. This strategy follows the violent Hamas-led attacks on Israel on October 7, 2023, which incited a furious Israeli bombardment of Gaza. In solidarity with the Palestinians, Hezbollah escalated rocket strikes on Israeli territory.
The Israeli response has been multifaceted, encompassing airstrikes on Lebanon, targeting Hezbollah operatives with explosive pager attacks, and recently, launching ground incursions that have resulted in hundreds of Lebanese fatalities and the displacement of over a million people.
Israeli authorities have repeatedly criticized UNIFIL for its apparent ineffectiveness in curbing Hezbollah’s operations along the border. They maintain that these threats compel Israel to take action into its own hands. David Mencer, a spokesman for the Israeli government, stated bluntly, “UNIFIL has been a blatant failure,” referencing the over 10,000 rockets fired into Israel from the Hezbollah forces.
Yet, Ian Johnstone, a professor of international law at Tufts University’s Fletcher School, notes that it isn’t the responsibility of UNIFIL to disarm militant groups through force. “UNIFIL was not created to directly resolve the hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah,” he pointed out, emphasizing that the mission aims to provide security in the hope that a political resolution might emerge over time.
Established under Security Council Resolution 1701 in 2006, following the Israel-Lebanon conflict, UNIFIL’s mandate is to monitor the ceasefire and assist the Lebanese army in building a buffer zone. The resolution specifically calls for creating a “zone free of armed personnel, assets, and weapons, except those belonging to the Government of Lebanon and UNIFIL.”
UNIFIL does not possess the authority to unilaterally wield force, as highlighted by David Wood from the International Crisis Group. He pointed out that both Hezbollah and Israel have violated this resolution over the years. For instance, Hezbollah has stationed armed fighters south of the Litani River, while Israel has conducted repeated flyovers in Lebanese airspace.
While UNIFIL can monitor and report violations, any deployment of force would require an entirely different mandate from the Security Council—an unlikely scenario, according to Ian Johnstone. He stressed that troop-contributing nations never intended for UNIFIL to enforce disarmament or to counteract Israeli air operations.
If the parties involved in this protracted conflict fail to comply with the terms of the resolution, UNIFIL finds itself limited in its actions, as UN officials clarify. Nonetheless, even if it cannot resolve the underlying conflict, experts like Johnstone argue that UNIFIL plays a crucial role in preventing the escalation of violence. “It acts as the eyes and ears of the global community, working as a sort of tripwire,” he noted. “The presence of peacekeepers can help foster an environment conducive to contemplating a reduction in hostilities,” he concluded.
Edited by: Ali Musa
Axadle international–Monitoring
