 Israeli attacks on UN peacekeepers in Lebanon On October 1O, 2024 UNIFIL (the United Nations Interim Force In Lebanon) reported that a Merkava tank belonging to IDF (Israel Defense Forces) had fired at a UNIFIL observation tower at its headquarters in Naqoura, thereby injuring two UNIFIL peacekeepers. On October 13 UNIFIL reported that two IDF Merkava tanks had forced the main gate and entered UNIFIL’s position in Ramyah near Lebanon’s border with Israel. After UNIFIL protests the tanks left the position 45 minutes later, without injuring anyone. Later the UNIFIL position reported that several rounds had been fired 100 meters from the position, that smoke from the gun rounds had drifted into the UNIFIL position, causing fifteen peacekeepers to suffer skin irritation and gastrointestinal reactions (whatever that means). Elsewhere IDF soldiers also stopped a critical UNIFIL logistical movement, meaning that the critical movement could not be completed. International condemnation of the IDF “attacks” This seems to have been the most serious IDF attacks on UNIFIL peacekeepers in the past days. Does not really sound very serious, does it? But the incidents lead to a barrage of condemnations from the UN and many countries, presumably including those countries having soldiers among the multinational UNIFIL peacekeepers. In a statement UN General Secretary Guterres said: “UNIFIL personnel and its premises must never be targeted, … Attacks against peacekeepers are in breach of international law...(and) may constitute a war crime." Condemnation also followed from EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell: “Such attacks against UN peacekeepers constitute a grave violation of international law and are totally unacceptable. These attacks must stop immediately.” In a statement 40 countries "strongly condemn recent attacks on UNIFIL peacekeepers,"… Such actions must stop immediately and should be adequately investigated” Arguing that “UNIFIL's role as particularly crucial in light of the escalating situation in the region.” Prime Minister Netanyahu’s reacted to the widespread condemnation in a video, arguing that Israel had asked UNIFIL several times to leave, arguing that their presence provided the Hezbollah with human shields. “Your refusal to evacuate the UNIFIL soldiers makes them hostages of Hezbollah. This endangers both them and the lives of our soldiers.” He then addressed Guterres directly in English: “Mr Secretary General, get the UNIFIL forces out of harm's way. It should be done right now, immediately," (France 24, October 13, 2024). Soon after Guterres rejected Netanyahu’s call to evacuate UNIFIL from Southern Lebanon. His spokesperson saying “Peacekeepers remain in all positions and the UN flag continues to fly.” (Jerusalem Post, October 13, 2024). Is UNIFIL shielding Hezbollah? Netanyahu may have a point when he argued that UNIFIL by their physical presence has provided Hezbollah with a kind of human shield. Sunday, October 13, the IDF took some journalists on a tour near the UNIFIL outposts, showing that them that Hezbollah had built military infrastructure in the vicinity of the outposts, thereby using them as a kind of cover. Wall Street journalist, Dov Lieber, in a video showed a Hezbollah tunnel entrance in visible range of UNIFIL outpost. Here a clip from the video showing the tunnel entrance with a UNIFIL observation tower in the background.  Source WSJ October 13 , 2024 This raises important questions! Why is there a UNIFIL mission in Southern Lebanon? What is UNIFIL’s mission as peacekeepers in Lebanon? What are UNIFIL actually doing to fulfil its mission? And finally: Is UNIFIL unable to fulfil its purpose and ought to be withdrawn? UNIFIL Background We have to go back to 1978 to understand the background for the UNIFIL mission. On March 11, 1978, a terrorist group consisting of 11 members of Fatah (a Palestinian nationalist party) came ashore in Northern Israel from a base in Lebanon. The captured an Israeli civilian bus, murdered 35 civilians and wounded around 70. The attack is known as the “Coastal Road Massacre.” “Three days after the” Massacre of the Coastal Road, on the night of March 14th, 1978, the IDF decided to retaliate, and launched a vast operation in southern Lebanon” (idf.il).” Operation Litani had the objective of destroying PLO bases south of the Litani river in Lebanon in order to restore security for Northern Israel. Just like todays Lebanon invasion. The day after the IDF invasion, Lebanon called for intervention from the UN Security Council. Just days later the Security Council adopted resolutions 425 and 426 calling upon Israel to cease its military invasion in Lebanon and withdraw its forces from Lebanon.The Security Council also decided to create a peacekeeping force for Lebanon. This became the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, known as UNIFIL. The first elements of UNIFIL arrived as early as March 23, 1978 in Lebanon. The UNIFIL first mission: Confirming the withdrawal of IDF. Restoring international peace and security. Assisting the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of effective authority. Looking back, one has to conclude that UNIFIL did not succeed in restoring peace and security or ensure the effective authority of the Lebanon government in Southern Lebanon. There may have been periods of relative peace, but they were always broken by renewed border conflict. No wonder that the Security Council had to extend the UNIFIL mandate again and again. The 1982 invasion and the rise of Hezbollah In 1982 Israel again invaded Lebanon, following renewed conflict, this time involving PLO- guerrillas. The invasion that was to last until 2000 forced the PLO to leave Lebanon. Defence minister Ariel Sharon, the architect of the 1982 invasion exclaimed “The PLO has lost its kingdom of terrorism, from which it carried out the cruelest, most atrocious terrorist actions against Israel and throughout the world,” (The Washington Post. August 21, 1982). Alas, the invasion in 1982 gave rise to another terrorist group in Lebanon, Hezbollah (known as the party of God). The IDF invasion this time lasted for 18 years until 2000. During this time the UNIFIL was of cause unable to fulfil its full mission. “Instead, the Force used its best efforts to limit the conflict, contribute to stability in the region and protect the population of the area from the worst effects of the violence.” (https://unifil.unmissions.org/unifil-background). On April 17 2000, Israel formally announced withdrawal of its forces from Lebanon by July 2000, “in full accordance with Security Council resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978).” In order to determine that Israeli forces had been redrawn fully from Lebanon the so-called blue demarcation line was established by the UN in July 2000. The withdrawal led to a period of calm, although there were numerous minor violations of the blue Line. 34 days of war in 2006 The relative calm was not to last. After several incidents where a strengthened and armed Hezbollah exchanged fire with IDF, a serious crises erupted on July 12, 2006, when Hezbollah launched a barrage of rockets at Israel. Hezbollah members also crossed the blue line attacking an IDF patrol, killing 8 soldiers and abducting two IDF soldiers. In response Israel immediately launched a massive bombing operation against Hezbollah and infrastructure targets, almost like today’s air operations against Hezbollah. With the UNIFIL mandate expiring on July 31, 2006, the UN Secretary General recommended a one month’s extension, while other options were considered. During this time UNIFIL peacekeepers were again limited to military observations, humanitarian efforts and medical assistance. On August 14, 2006 a ceasefire was established, that formally ended 34 days of war. A resolution indirectly calling for disbandment of an armed Hezbollah Before the ceasefire August 11, 2006, the Security Council unanimously adapted resolution 1701. The 19 articles of the resolution not only call for a permanent ceasefire, they also call for a long-term solution based on the following principles and elements: "Full implementation of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords and of resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), requiring the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so there will be no weapons or authority in country other than that of the Lebanese State no foreign forces in Lebanon without the Government’s consent no sales or supply of arms and related materiel to Lebanon except as authorised by its Government provision to the UN of all remaining maps of landmines in Lebanon in Israel’s possession full respect by both parties for the Blue Line and security arrangements to prevent the resumption of hostilities, including an area free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the Lebanese authorities and UNIFIL between the Blue Line and the Litani River" With resolution 1701 it was also decided to authorize an increase in the strength of UNIFIL up to a maximum of 15,000 troops, in order to supplement and enhance the force in numbers, equipment, mandate and scope of operations. In addition to carrying out its original mandate under resolutions 425 and 42, the enlarged UNIFIL should also: Accompany and support the Lebanese armed forces as they deploy throughout the South, including along the Blue Line, Help ensure humanitarian access to civilian populations and the voluntary and safe return of displaced persons. Assist the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) in taking steps towards the establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river of an area free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the Government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL deployed in this area. Assist the Government of Lebanon, at its request, in securing its borders and other entry points to prevent the entry in Lebanon without its consent of arms or related materiel. (Emphasis added). Later Security Council resolutions like 1773 (2007), 2373 (2017), 2433 (2018) 2485 (2019) and 2695 (2023) called for deployment of Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) in Southern Lebanon and increased UNIFIL support of and coordination with LAF. Here a map of the area south of the Litani river where the present multinational UNIFiL force of consisting of 10,058 peacekeepers (as of September 2, 2024) is stationed.  UNIFIL has never able to fulfil its mission
A recent UN report on the implementation of Security Council Resolution 1701, dated March 8, 2024, reveal how little UNIFIL has been able to achieve in relation to its overall mission, especially of cause in relation to the calls for “disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon.” The Report makes this abundantly clear: “No progress was achieved with respect to the disarmament of armed groups. Since 8 October 2023, Hizbullah and other non-State armed groups have repeatedly demonstrated their military capabilities in strikes from southern Lebanon into Israel (see para. 3). Anti-tank guided missiles, artillery, offensive drones, mortars, rockets and surface-to-air missiles have been used in such strikes. The maintenance of arms outside the control of the State by Hizbullah and other groups in violation of resolution 1701 (2006) continues to restrict the State’s ability to exercise full sovereignty and authority over its territory.” (Emphasis added). Neither has UNIFIL been able to fulfill its mission in relation to border control and the arms embargo. The careful worded report explains: “Allegations of arms transfers to non-State armed actors continued and remain of serious concern. If confirmed, such transfers would constitute a violation of resolution 1701 (2006) … While it takes allegations of arms transfers seriously, the United Nations is not in a position to substantiate them independently.” One would think that the enormous number of rockets and missiles that Hezbollah possesses and uses would not has escaped the watchful eyes of UNIFIL, if they had dared to look for them. Instead Hezbollah’s Nasrallah boasted of the military support from Iran: “If the resistance in Lebanon or in Palestine or other resistance movements are strong, this is primarily due to the material, military and financial support, in addition to political and moral support, from Iran” Thus, indicating that UNIFIL had never been able to “prevent the entry in Lebanon without its consent of arms or related materiel. Further evidence of the presence of armed forces and weapons not belonging to LAF is found in exchange of fire between Lebanon and Israel: “On several occasions, individuals carried out attacks against Israel from the vicinity of UNIFIL positions, drawing return fire by the Israel Defense Forces. UNIFIL protested these actions endangering peacekeepers and UNIFIL premises in letters to the Lebanese Armed Forces and Israel Defense Forces, and initiated patrols around UNIFIL positions to prevent hostile activity.” What this force of around 10,000 has been able to do is thus fairly limited as evidenced from the UN report. UNIFIL activity therefore seems to have been limited to activities like these: Registration transgressions of the blue line, counting fire exchanges between armed non-LAF forces from Lebanon and from Israel. They state that they have carried out security and liaison activities. For instance, stating: “UNIFIL facilitated or coordinated 366 events in support of civilian and humanitarian activities in areas close to the Blue Line, including to facilitate agricultural harvests, funerals, repair of civilian electricity and communications infrastructure, and movement of civilians, including journalists.” UNIFIL also helped to deal with mines and unexploded ordnance in the area. Apart from helping population in the areas UNIFIL have also been busy protecting its own forces and civilian personnel. In several case UNIFIL has been hindered in carrying out some of its tasks by threats and attacks from individuals and groups clad as civilians, but suspected of belonging to Hezbollah or one of the other armed groups. Here just a few examples from 2022/2023: In December 2022, an Irish peacekeeper from the UNIFIL was killed southern Lebanon by people suspected of belonging to Hezbollah. Hezbollah later brought one of the suspected killers to LAF. “On 28 October, two Observer Group Lebanon patrols faced incidents in Sector West. In the first incident, three men with a pickup truck on the road west of Jumaymah asked what the patrol was doing and asked it to leave the village. The patrol left the village and continued its itinerary. In the second incident, six men with scooters on the road south-east of Tayr Falsay asked a patrol to leave the area. The patrol left the village and continued its itinerary.” “On 1 November, eight individuals in civilian clothes stopped a UNIFIL patrol in the vicinity of Tiri (Sector West) and told peacekeepers that they were not allowed to proceed without the Lebanese Armed Forces. Upon arrival of the Lebanese Armed Forces, the peacekeepers returned to a United Nations position and then resumed the patrol.” “U.N. reports tell a harrowing story of a spike in the pattern of harassment and assaults on the force. These threats and violence, typically perpetrated by men in “civilian clothes,” effectively deny UNIFIL access to Hezbollah’s military sites in south Lebanon.” (washingtoninstitute.org). Lebanon’s Armed Forces (LAF) is supposed to assist UNIFIL in its mission. Instead, it seems to have done what it could to hinder UNIFIL in carrying out important parts of its mission. For instance, by preventing UNIFIL from entering certain areas, where Hezbollah may be operating, using the excuse that these areas were private property or exclusive LAF areas. According to UNIFIL’s own statements and the revelations in the WSJ video referred to in the beginning, it has not even been able to prevent armed individuals from Hezbollah other armed groups from operating in the vicinity of UNIFIL posts. This means that UNIFIL involuntarily has acted as a shield for armed groups and their activities, thus actually confirming Israeli accusations, and explaining why IDF has to carry out operations that may have endanger UNIFIL personnel. Making the condemnations of IDF’s so-called attacks on UNIFIL post rather hypocritical. It must be concluded that UNIFIL has been completely impotent to fulfil the most important parts of its mission, and that it has met resistance in carrying even mundane patrol tasks. Examples also indicate that the cooperation with LAF has been limited and in some cases rather precarious. For what it is worth the impression is supported by statement from an unnamed member of the Finish contingent to UNIFIL in 2023-2024: “In my own personal opinion, I think UNIFIL is a failure. A lot of the forces are composed of 3rd world countries who are there merely because the UN pays them. They drive around in MRAPS or other armored vehicles with bad visibility, foot patrols were no longer allowed after the conflict started so they cant see shit on their patrols. Some countries were also not performing their patrols, they would drive somewhere and wait for a few hours, then drive back to base and say the completed the patrol. We were tasked on a few occasions to patrol the sectors of other countries and report how many patrols we saw because the higher ups in Naqoura HQ didnt trust them. The Lebanese army is incapable of stopping Hezbollah. They drive in humvees that break down uphill or cant drive too slowly because the car will die otherwise. Some guys were actually competent, but there were guys that seemed to not want to work with us. They would refuse to drive certain paths claiming it was dangerous, they would take wrong turns, they got mad when we took photos of weapons we found. Also all patrol paths are sent to the Lebanese army, they know which route and which time well drive it. This information is almost certainly relayed to Hezbollah, so they know to avoid us or hide their stuff. To my understanding Israel is also informed about our patrols as to avoid them shooting at us. The most UNIFIL has done is stimulate the local economy. Also the CIMIC guys are able to help out local villages with infrastructure and projects. The whole operation is a taxpayer funded holiday.” (Reddit October 2024). (https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/1g1ze2p/what_falls_under_unifils_responsibility_why_is_it/). UNIFIL has lost its purpose and ought to be withdrawn From what we have seen it is evident that UNIFIL has never been able to fulfil its mission, especially the most important parts of the mission called for in resolution 1701. One may thus conclude that although UNIFIL’s mission ought to have been extremely important to help preserve the peace in the area, they have never had the wherewithal and the ROE’s (Rules of Engagement to fulfil this mission) to fulfil their mission as peacekeepers. This also seems to be the view of Italy’s Defence Chief of Staff, General Luciano Portolan: “The mandate issued for UNIFIL is adequate. What is not adequate, and what has often created frustration for me, including with the local population, are the rules of engagement, which are not proportional to the tasks assigned to the force, including the capacity and the need to disarm armed groups in Lebanon, in this case Hezbollah," (Interview Rai's 'In Mezzora' program, on Sunday October 13, 2024). Still, the presence UNIFIL and its interaction with the warring parties and Lebanese authorities, may have acted as damper on the ongoing conflict between armed groups in Lebanon and Israeli forces. Although this effect clearly has clearly been inadequate, as evidenced by the flare up of the conflicts time after time. In fact, the main dampening effect on the conflict, may not have been UNIFIL, but the existence of a kind of scary balance between Israel, wanting to prevent a constant Hezbollah barrage of rockets raining down over Israel’s north, and on the other hand a Hezbollah and their main supporter Iran, being scared of all-out war with Israel, as it might mean their loss of power in Lebanon or even their destruction. As perhaps evidenced in the fights going on today. So, in a possible future after the existing conflict, the Security Council would either have to think and plan for a much more forceful UN force in Lebanon, able to carry out its mission to much larger degree than the present UNIFIL force. Or alternatively pull out impotent UNIFIL force, leaving perhaps just a group able to continue humanitarian assistance to people in Southern Lebanon. Is the IDF operation providing UNIFIL with a chance to fulfil its mission? In fact, if IDF forces during the ongoing conflict succeeds in rooting out vital parts of Hezbollah’s armed forces in Southern Lebanon (like the PLO in 1978), it might actually provide the Security Council with the possibility of establishing a UNIFIL force with a strong ROE, and a much greater chance upholding peace in Southern Lebanon after Israel’s withdrawal. Perhaps this might actually be what Israel wants to achieve with the present operation. Removing the essential threat from Hezbollah’s armed wing, and providing a new UNIFIL with the possibility of establishing a real peacekeeping UNIFIL mission, instead of having it acting as an impotent replica of real peacekeepers. Perhaps this is exactly the intention behind Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz’s October 16 Tweet on X: “The State of Israel places great importance on the activities of @UNIFIL_ and has no intention of harming the organization or its personnel. Furthermore, Israel views UNIFIL as playing an important role in the "day after" following the war against Hezbollah. It is the Hezbollah terrorist organization that uses UNIFIL personnel as "human shields," deliberately firing at IDF soldiers from locations near UNIFIL positions in order to create friction So, instead of hypocritically condemning Israel’s present actions and stubbornly attempting to keep in place an impotent UNIFIL force, that has to hide in protective bunkers during the conflict, one could argue that UNIFIL should be pulled back, and not be used to obstruct the present IDF operation in Lebanon. |
