Since the start of its ground invasion of Lebanon on October 1st, Israel has repeatedly attacked the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). Israeli fire has injured several peacekeepers, destroyed UN structures and equipment, and forced some peacekeepers to withdraw. The attacks have been widely condemned, including by the countries that contribute troops to UNIFIL, which reaffirmed their support for the mission. Meanwhile, the Israeli invasion of south Lebanon and unremitting attacks across the country have taken a massive toll on Lebanese civilians, displacing more than 1.2 million, killing more than 2,000, flattening entire towns and villages, and destroying parts of Beirut.
Karim Makdisi, Associate Professor of International Politics at the American University of Beirut, has written extensively about UNIFIL and the role of the UN in the Middle East. In this interview, he discusses the role of UNIFIL—both historically and today—including its mandate to protect civilians.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
The UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) has come into the spotlight following the recent Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon and attacks on UNIFIL peacekeepers. Could you give some background as to why UN peacekeepers are present in Lebanon?
UNIFIL was deployed in 1978 at the insistence of the United States (US) under Resolutions 425 and 426 following the first major Israeli invasion of Lebanon. The mission’s main task was to confirm the withdrawal of the Israeli forces occupying south Lebanon. The second task was to restore international peace and security in general. The third task was to assist the Lebanese government in restoring its authority in south Lebanon. However, this was in the middle of the Lebanese civil war, so the Lebanese government was weak and divided, and the Lebanese army had split along sectarian and regional lines. The Israelis withdrew but didn’t fully comply with Resolution 425, leaving control of part of southern Lebanon to their Lebanese proxy militia. This militia quickly shelled UNIFIL headquarters in the border town of Naqura, wounding eight UN soldiers, to establish its presence and forbid the Lebanese army from deploying per UNIFIL’s mandate. UNIFIL was left on its own as the Security Council lost interest in south Lebanon.
Then in 1982, the Israelis launched a much bigger invasion into Lebanon—by land, sea, and air—ostensibly to destroy Palestinian forces operating from there and install a “friendly” Lebanese government. They went right through all the UNIFIL positions and marched to Beirut in a matter of days. They laid siege to Beirut, where I was living, for the entire summer of 1982. There were around 20,000 killed during that invasion and siege, mostly civilians, including up to 3,500 Palestinian refugees during the infamous massacres in Sabra and Shatila camps. By 1985, Lebanese resistance groups forced the Israelis to retreat to south Lebanon, which they occupied with much brutality until 2000, when they finally withdrew under fire from the resistance, which at that point was led by an increasingly effective Hezbollah. This means that UNIFIL, unique among peacekeeping missions, spent 18 years in an occupation zone and was unable to fulfill its mandate, though it remained steadfast and kept good relations with the local population throughout this period.
During this period, UNIFIL had more of its members killed than any other UN peacekeeping mission. In a major 1996 incursion, Israel, without warning, shelled a UN compound near the village of Qana, killing over 100 civilians who had taken shelter there and wounding hundreds more, including Fijian UNIFIL soldiers. In 2000, the UN certified that the Israelis had fully withdrawn to what the UN called the “Blue Line” (the line of withdrawal, not the border), though the Lebanese officially rejected this certification, listing various reservations and remaining occupation points. At that point, UNIFIL began to ramp down. By 2002, they were down to about 2,000 troops.
In the context of the United States’ 2003 invasion of Iraq and broader plan to impose a “new Middle East” by force, the Israelis launched another massive invasion in 2006, ostensibly to destroy Hezbollah. They destroyed border towns and main towns in south Lebanon, as well as parts of Beirut. That war lasted for 34 days. UNIFIL was unable to do much beyond basic efforts to rescue and support the civilian population. Their areas were overrun very quickly by the Israelis. Some of their troops were killed by Israeli shelling of a clearly marked UN observation position.
After the 2006 war, some thought it would be the end of UNIFIL, but instead the Security Council passed Resolution 1701, which strengthened the mission. Could you talk about how Resolution 1701 changed UNIFIL?
The initial draft that the Americans and the French put together at the Security Council but never formally presented was meant to be a Chapter VII resolution—some NATO-type force with an enforcement mandate to disarm what they assumed would be a defeated Hezbollah. Eventually, because the Israelis were failing to achieve their stated objectives and instead killing civilians with greater intensity, they had to scale down their demands and give the Israelis an exit plan. Resolution 1701 ended up being a Chapter VI resolution, albeit with some Chapter VII language leftover from the earlier draft. So, 1701 has no enforcement mechanism, and this is crucial.
To implement Resolution 1701, UNIFIL was to be more “robust” and expanded from about 2,000 to up to 15,000 troops. For the first time, there was a major European component, including large Spanish, Italian, and French units, all with more serious firepower and surveillance equipment. A maritime task force was also deployed, the first of its kind in UN peacekeeping history, as a way for the Europeans to get the Israelis to end their siege of Lebanon by ensuring that no weapons came in via the Mediterranean Sea.
Under Resolution 1701, UNIFIL’s immediate task was to monitor the cessation of hostilities and assist civilians and internally displaced people. The mission’s main objectives were to oversee the Israeli withdrawal from all occupied Lebanese land; support Lebanon’s assertion of full sovereignty in the south, including working with the Lebanese army as a full partner; and oversee, with the army, the establishment of an area between the Blue Line and the Litani River free of armed personnel, military assets, and weapons other than those of the Lebanese government and UNIFIL. The resolution does not specifically mention Hezbollah, which officially was then considered by the Lebanese government a legitimate resistance force, not a “militia.”
The section of 1701 ensuring no unauthorized weapons is the one most frequently mentioned in Western commentaries; the section referring to the full Israeli withdrawal and ensuring that Israel stops their violation of Lebanon’s sovereignty is largely ignored in the West, which appears to interpret 1701 as a one-way resolution solely meant to serve Israel. This is not what 1701 is, but in the absence of a clear military victory, the text allows for multiple interpretations, which I have written about in detail.
The idea was for UNIFIL to get both sides to agree on each point across the Blue Line that would become a border if and when a peace treaty would be signed. Meanwhile, 1701 put in place dispute-resolution and de-escalation mechanisms, including regular “tripartite” meetings held at UNIFIL headquarters in Naqoura. For 17 years, until October 8, 2023, UNIFIL oversaw relative calm along the Blue Line.
Still, during this time, Israel routinely violated with impunity Lebanese territory, airspace, and sea space, sometimes a dozen times in a single day. From Lebanon’s side, cross-border violations were mostly shepherds sometimes crossing the Blue Line. While UNIFIL generally enjoyed a good relationship with the locals, they sometimes reported more serious violations such as locals impeding access, sometimes aggressively, leading to UNIFIL patrols searching for unauthorized weapons. All of these details are documented in UNIFIL’s quarterly reports.
So, the narrative that everything was fine until October 7th is not entirely accurate. Israel’s violations of Lebanese sovereignty and threats never stopped, nor did Hezbollah’s stockpiling of weapons, which, given their concealment, UNIFIL could rarely verify. But certainly the relative calm, stability, and containment of disputes were UNIFIL’s main claim for its success and value.
UNIFIL’s mandate is renewed every August, though the US, always on behalf of Israel, has in recent years insisted that UNIFIL make their patrols more intrusive and not wait for the Lebanese army to accompany it. But that’s just not how UNIFIL operates, nor what 1701 allows for. After October 8th, 2023, it is clear that both sides have violated 1701, with UNIFIL issuing a number of statements urging a cease-fire and a diplomatic solution.
UNIFIL’s style of operating—as a peacekeeping mission rather than a more aggressive peace enforcement operation—has long been criticized by Israel. Now we’re seeing Israel’s long-standing distrust of UNIFIL manifest itself in direct attacks on the mission. Could you talk about Israel’s history of hostility toward UNIFIL and how that’s playing out on the ground?
Israel has long seen UNIFIL as a constraint to its being able to impose its preferred solution in south Lebanon: occupation or an enforced demilitarized zone that it effectively controls, which is what Israel wants today. Various pro-Israeli politicians, think tanks, and media have attacked UNIFIL, typified by the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board recently accusing UNIFIL of being “Hezbollah’s best friend.” They want a UNIFIL that is more of a Chapter VII enforcement force to forcibly disarm Hezbollah. Given their frustration, as I mentioned earlier, the Israelis (or their proxy militia during occupation) have targeted UNIFIL since its initial deployment nearly five decades ago.
Most recently, Israeli forces launched over a dozen targeted attacks on personnel and bases since the start of Israel’s invasion in late September. In one attack, UNIFIL confirmed that Israeli bulldozers “deliberately demolished an observation tower and perimeter fence of a UN position” in the village of Marwahin. A leaked confidential UNIFIL report seen by the Financial Times describes another incident where Israel’s military “forcibly entered a clearly marked UN base and is suspected of using the incendiary chemical white phosphorus,” injuring 15 peacekeepers. Indonesian personnel also suffered injuries inside UNIFIL’s headquarters.
The Irish contingent, close to the Blue Line, has been particularly courageous, refusing to budge even when Israelis shelled their area then set up a position near them, baiting Hezbollah to attack (which they didn’t out of respect for the Irish with whom the local population has a long, warm relationship and shared anti-colonial history). Other UNIFIL contingents have also been steadfast, and this steadfastness has led to wide-ranging international condemnation of—though no action against—Israeli action, as I mentioned earlier.
Israel’s pretext for these attacks is that Hezbollah stores weapons near UNIFIL areas, the same pretext it has used to justify attacks on hospitals, first responders, and entire buildings in Lebanon and Gaza. In reality, Israel aims to force UNIFIL’s withdrawal from strategic locations from which it wants to extend its invasion and destroy surveillance equipment and observation points. It wants to create, by force, new facts on the ground, one without a pesky UNIFIL.
How should UNIFIL respond? And what response is required from member states on the Security Council and from UNIFIL’s troop contributors? Is there a risk of countries pulling their troops from UNIFIL, particularly if any troops are killed in the coming days?
Despite all these Israeli attacks, the Security Council, under US pressure, has done little beyond issuing a weak, anodyne statement calling for “all parties” to “respect the safety and security of UNIFIL personnel and premises.” Over 40 countries, including many troop-contributing countries, issued a statement “strongly condemning” the attacks against UNIFIL, as did the EU, which at least named Israel and made clear that such attacks against UN peacekeepers “constitute a grave violation of international law and are totally unacceptable.”
For its part, UNIFIL—as it did during Israel’s long occupation period—is doing what it can under these extraordinary circumstances, namely reporting violations, calling for an immediate cease-fire, trying to help civilians in danger, and remaining steadfast in the face of Israeli threats against them and their calls to withdraw. UNIFIL’s troop-contributing countries also issued a statement confirming they would remain in their positions and called for implementing 1701.
Unless there is some dramatic change on the ground, I don’t see UNIFIL leaving their positions, even though Israel will most likely continue their attacks since they face no accountability. Look at how Israel has killed over 200 staff of UNRWA (the UN agency caring for Palestinian refugees) in Gaza, at will and with no consequences. To be blunt, unlike the “brown” UNRWA staff—who are Palestinians and don’t count as far as the West is concerned, it is clear—the presence of some “white” contingents and international UN staff in UNIIFL is its greatest protection.
Is UNIFIL going to stand in the way if the Israeli army, with all its capabilities, finds a way past the Hezbollah forces that have so fiercely resisted their advance? It didn’t in 1982 or 2006. This time UNIFIL has more capability to do so, and it has stood its ground so far, and it should continue doing so in the weeks to come.
The threat to UNIFIL peacekeepers is serious, but it pales in comparison to the threats facing Lebanese civilians. One of the least-discussed elements of UNIFIL’s mandate is its mandate to protect civilians. Is there anything UNIFIL is or could be doing to protect civilians in Lebanon?
The damage over the past month in Lebanon is massive. Israelis are attacking all parts of Lebanon without mercy. There is systematic Gaza-style destruction of Lebanese civilian infrastructure, towns, and parts of main cities, including Beirut. Israelis are targeting first responders and hospitals. They are terrorizing the entire population—particularly Lebanon’s Shia population, which is being subjected to the same collective punishment that Gazans have been—and have killed over 2,500 civilians and wounded many thousands. International humanitarian law forbids this, but such laws are simply dismissed by Israel and its backers in the West, setting a dangerous precedent for wars to come. The numbers of displaced Lebanese has reached 1.2 million, which comes on top of the nearly 1.5 million Syrian and Palestinian refugees who were already in Lebanon, the highest per capita refugee population globally.
UNIFIL’s area of operation in south Lebanon has been absolutely pulverized. It’s important to be clear about what its mandate is under Resolution 1701. UNIFIL personnel have at a basic level the inherent right of self-defense. Moreover, and it’s worth quoting paragraph 12, UNIFIL may “take all necessary action in areas of deployment of its forces to ensure that its area of operations is not utilized for hostile activities of any kind, to resist attempts by forceful means to prevent it from discharging its duties… and to protect United Nations personnel, facilities, installations and equipment… and, to protect civilians under imminent threat of physical violence.”
This gives UNIFIL plenty of latitude. UNIFIL has 10,000 well-trained, professional military personnel with advanced military equipment, as well as high political visibility and support from its 48 troop-contributing countries that include many European contingents. I think it needs to take the civilian protection part of its mandate very seriously during these catastrophic days in its area of operation in south Lebanon.
UNIFIL has a duty to protect civilians under imminent threat of physical violence as per its mandate. It did not do much during the first wave of Israeli attacks. After that, they did allow some civilians under imminent threat into its compounds for protection and helped evacuate civilians, as a Ghanaian contingent recently did with two trapped elderly women, mainly by coordinating with Israel to allow safe passage. Recently, in the village of Yarin, two UNIFIL medevac teams transferring a patient came under fire. That same day, a UNIFIL medical facility was hit by a shell or rocket. In Lebanon, we know how the Israelis operate. I think these actions to protect civilians should be a lot more forceful. The force commander could have, for example, early on personally accompanied an ambulance that Israel regularly prohibits from rescuing civilians. This would have been a statement of intent that would make meaningful the very concept of protection of civilians.
UNIFIL has recently been much more vocal about what’s going on, with their Spokesperson Andrea Tenenti doing an excellent job and giving nonstop interviews detailing the attacks. They recently produced a short video with testimonials from various peacekeepers. UNIFIL is excellent at meticulous documentation, and you can look at the regular UNIFIL reports to better understand the context on the ground, for example that two-thirds of all cross-border projectiles came from the Israeli side, only one-third from the Lebanese side in early 2024.
But there also needs to be more pressure on Israel from the higher political levels of the UN. Where is the secretary-general? Why are the highest levels of the UN not approving more forceful wording? UNIFIL put out a statement on October 1st that said, “Civilians must be protected, civilian infrastructure must not be targeted and international law must be respected.” That’s it? Must be protected from whom? How?
UNIFIL’s most important tasks now are the protection of civilians—by any means necessary—documenting all the violations, and remaining steadfast in their positions.
The truth is that during Israel’s onslaught in Lebanon, the international community, including the Security Council, have abandoned the people of Lebanon. The secretary-general has only issued words of condemnation but not initiated meaningful action he can invoke. Why didn’t he come to Lebanon, or to Gaza, for that matter? With the US blocking all meaningful action, the Security Council has issued no resolutions or even a nonbinding presidential statement—nothing but general expressions of concern from individual member states.
UNIFIL, in the end, will be OK, whatever the next steps are. Lebanon, and the Lebanese, will not be for a long while. The most important thing now is to secure an immediate cease-fire.