The UN is renowned for clunky acronyms but one is especially apt: Unifil. This is the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, which provides the vanishingly thin sandwich of a buffer between Lebanon and Israel. It is newsworthy because it is now in the way of Israel’s cross-border operations into southern Lebanon and Hezbollah’s shelling of Israel.
Both protagonists have long found Unifil’s presence awkward because they do not want it to discover what they do along the 120km Blue Line separating them. Yet, that is Unifil’s job – observing and informing on each side – to avoid lethal misunderstandings or resolve them through negotiation.
That is useful in peaceful times but inconvenient during war. So, it is not surprising that the Israeli military have over the past week been shooting at Unifil observation towers, cameras and communications. They don’t want their movements monitored, which Unifil is obliged to do under its rules of transparent engagement.
Hezbollah also does not want information on operations from its bases and tunnels in southern Lebanon to be leaked. Strictly speaking, Unifil liaises not with Hezbollah but with the Lebanese Armed Forces. But the two communicate.
Israel’s distrust of Unifil is compounded by the nationalities of its 1,100 personnel. The largest contributors are Indonesia, Italy, India, Nepal, Malaysia, Spain and China, and the rest span another 43 countries. The great majority of contributing nations are critical of Israel.
In theory, that should not matter as donning the blue helmet commits the wearer to neutrality and impartiality, the bedrock principles of UN peacekeeping. In practice, UN mission commanders often complain that contingents have parallel lines to their home countries and get influenced accordingly.
Already widely shunned, Israel is also anxious that peacekeepers harmed by crossfire create unhelpful diplomatic vibrations. Hence, it advised Unifil to get out of the way of its determined campaign to secure southern Lebanon by clearing away Hezbollah.
That is quietly welcomed by several nations, especially the US, even as they criticise Israeli tactics and do not want Lebanon to suffer like Gaza. They perceive a greater security threat from Iran-backed Hezbollah, which has been declared a terrorist group by several states.
Such mixed political signals form the backdrop to Israel’s assertive advisory to Unifil to withdraw from frontline positions. That has evoked an unusually defiant and contentious UN response.
It is unusually defiant because UN peacekeepers are traditionally not known to stand their ground. Their notorious withdrawals from Srebrenica in 1995 and Rwanda in 1996 preceded, and some claim perhaps precipitated, genocides. In 2018, peacekeepers in the Central African Republic abandoned posts while civilians were slaughtered.
And it is contentious because the UN can do little but bluster in the face of Israel’s pugnacious attitude towards numerous rebukes in the General Assembly, Security Council, Human Rights Council and International Court of Justice. There is no love either for UN aid agencies as Israel obstructs their work and appears determined to dismantle the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). Even the UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, was insulted by Israel declaring him persona non grata.
A further twist comes from the Irish, whose peacekeepers have tragically suffered the most casualties over past years. They are strident because their contingent at Unifil was warned specifically by the Israeli military. But Ireland also leads a European movement to recognise Palestinian statehood, having joined the South African genocide case against Israel, too.
There is also a French angle. Lebanon was administered by France until 1944 and Paris is now the “penholder” for Lebanese issues at the Security Council. French troops used to be a significant part of Unifil and were criticised in ways that echo more recent criticisms of “meddling” in Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger, all of which have asked UN peacekeeping missions to leave.
With diverse interests at play, keeping the tattered UN flag flying on the bunkers sheltering Unifil soldiers while Hezbollah and Israel exchange fire overhead is political gesturing rather than substantive. And it is a dangerous gesture, as 326 peacekeepers have been killed over the years. Neither adversary is deterred by Unifil, which has suffered further casualties in recent days.
The UN will have decided to take a stand only after consulting troop contributors, who tend to be risk averse as soldiers returning in body bags makes for bad domestic optics.
But that is trumped by international optics, especially for Israel’s detractors, whose political spin is that Israel is widening the conflict by attacking the UN, having already engaged aggressively on multiple fronts.
The courage of peacekeepers is not disputed. But in the heat of the moment, a cooler appreciation of Unifil’s 46 years is warranted.
Unifil’s mandate comes from Security Council resolutions in 1978, expanded by Resolution 1701 in 2006 and renewed annually, most recently in August. Its authority comes from Chapter 6 of the UN Charter, which does not allow Unifil to use force except in self-defence. That is sensible, as it is outgunned by Hezbollah and Israel. But it means that Unifil cannot enforce its mandate.
So, it is unsurprising that Unifil is always disregarded or disparaged by the warring sides, depending on the prevalent cycle of tranquility or trouble in its operating zone between the Litani River and the Blue Line.
Unifil is criticised for passively reporting frequent violations of Resolution 1701 by both sides but not doing more to help the official Lebanese army secure the border areas while helplessly watching Hezbollah entrench itself there.
Instead, Unifil keeps busy with non-controversial work such as clearing landmines, running clinics, conducting education and cultural activities, and installing water supplies and solar panels. This is worthwhile, but whether it wins local hearts and minds is disputed, as the mission cannot provide the stability and security that people crave. In any case, these are insufficient outcomes from $500 million annually that sustains Unifil.
Where do we go from here? UN peacekeeping aims to create space for peace making. The cardinal requirement for that is consent of the conflicting parties who must genuinely seek peace. Those conditions do not currently prevail across the Israel-Lebanon border because of the mutually exclusionary aims of Hezbollah and Israel to destroy each other.
But all is not hopeless. Intense pressure on Hezbollah from Israeli military ferocity, Iranian reluctance to get sucked in further and perhaps rising unpopularity within Lebanon could persuade the group to accept Resolution 1701 and exit the border zone below the Litani River.
There is indication that Hezbollah may accept that once it realises that linking its strategy to Gaza hinders the cause of an independent Palestine which already enjoys considerable global support.
Israel must then respond wisely to that opportunity to pacify its northern border, allow its displaced citizens to go home and find the emotional bandwidth to consider the wider Palestine question including the day-after challenge of Gaza.
However, we have been there before in earlier cycles of violence. To be different this time requires trust. This is where Unifil comes in – not the current mission but a stronger one with a more robust enforcement posture under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter and in which both Israel and Lebanon have confidence.
To allow for that possibility is the key reason for Unifil to remain while keeping safely bunkered, not as a symbolic instrument of defiance against uncaring protagonists but to provide the foundation for genuine peace enforcement when the current fighting is over.
That requires a new Security Council Resolution, as 1701 is insufficient. This is the polarised world’s real test – much bigger than Unifil’s current challenges.
