US Diplomacy and Tensions in Lebanon
As U.S. diplomacy strives to find last-minute solutions for a ceasefire in Lebanon ahead of the presidential elections, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have intensified their operations against suspected Hezbollah hideouts in southern Lebanon and Beirut. This escalation has raised concerns among the international community, particularly with the United Nations peacekeeping forces (UNIFIL) stationed in the region.
On Sunday, an IDF bulldozer destroyed a UNIFIL watchtower in Marwahin, prompting the defense ministers of the G7 nations to voice their “concern for all the threats” to UNIFIL’s security, while reiterating their commitment to the mission “to ensure the stability of Lebanon.” Enzo Moavero Milanesi, former Italian foreign minister and professor of EU law at LUISS University in Rome, expressed that “The IDF is likely trying to force a withdrawal of the UN forces. The withdrawal of the Blue Helmets would create a vacuum, allowing for a potential reoccupation of the territory without the oversight of UN forces.”
Among European countries, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain are the largest contributors to the Blue Helmets. Recently, a German corvette successfully shot down a drone that had entered too close to its position, highlighting the heightened tensions. This is why UNIFIL remains a critical — if not essential — element of Europe’s presence in the Middle East, and European capitals are bracing for increased pressure based on UNIFIL’s fate. Milanesi warned, “The collapse of UNIFIL could represent a significant failure for the United Nations, and it would signal a troubling escalation of conflict in proximity to Europe’s borders.”
Rules of Engagement: A Political Firewall
UNIFIL’s operations have been primarily focused on monitoring the ceasefire and ensuring the disarmament of Hezbollah since its establishment in 1978, with a significant increase in troops following the 2006 conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. Their mandate has included overseeing the Israeli withdrawal and coordinating with the Lebanese Armed Forces to disarm Hezbollah within the area stretching from the Blue Line — the border between Israel and Lebanon — to the Litani River.
Israel has accused UNIFIL of failing to fulfill its responsibilities over the past 18 years, particularly in preventing Hezbollah from building its missile arsenal. The peacekeepers have also come under fire from Hezbollah on multiple occasions while attempting to curb their military activities in southern Lebanon. While Israeli claims have some basis in fact, the question arises whether firing upon UNIFIL forces is justified, and how peacekeepers should respond in the event of military aggression.
French General Olivier Passot, a former UNIFIL officer, noted that the rules of engagement dictate a significant limitation on the use of force. “UNIFIL is not a combat force, and it has not engaged in combat since its inception in 1978. In this context, any return fire has been largely incidental,” Passot explained.
He elaborated that a stronger reaction could lead to direct military confrontation with the IDF. “For UNIFIL soldiers, this scenario would necessitate engaging in actual combat operations against a formidable opponent like the IDF, which is not feasible given their limited artillery,” he stated, pointing out that UNIFIL’s soldiers are equipped primarily with light weapons, making it impossible to effectively counter the heavy armament of the Israeli military.
Despite these restrictions, peacekeepers can exercise a degree of legitimate self-defense. Passot emphasized that “legitimate defense is an inherent aspect of the rules of engagement, allowing for immediate response to attacks. However, these decisions are made at the local platoon leader level, which often leads to hesitation as commanders fear provoking political backlash.”
UNIFIL is a multinational force comprising soldiers from 50 countries worldwide. Yet, operational command remains national, with military activities typically conducted at the battalion level. “In complex situations, the battalion commander must report to higher authorities, which can delay responses and limit the initiative of local commanders,” Passot noted.
All EU countries involved in UNIFIL maintain cordial, if not robust, relations with Israel, complicating the decision to engage militarily against the IDF. In some instances, UNIFIL positions could be perceived by Israel as providing cover for Hezbollah operations. According to IDF officials, Hezbollah has constructed tunnels and missile launch sites in close proximity to UNIFIL outposts, raising further tensions.
Milanesi added, “Attacking UNIFIL is contrary to both the spirit and the letter of UN provisions. If sufficient evidence is gathered to demonstrate these attacks, the UN can refer the matter to the International Court of Justice.”
A Dead-in-the-Water UN Resolution?
Accusations between UNIFIL and the IDF have escalated beyond immediate military confrontations. Israel contends that Resolution 1701 has failed to provide adequate security against Hezbollah’s military activities, rendering it a “dead-in-the-water” document that strips UNIFIL of any legal legitimacy to operate effectively in southern Lebanon.
However, experts maintain that the situation should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Milanesi stated, “The concrete actions on the ground should be assessed individually, considering the specific rules of engagement and the objectives of the peacekeepers. Only an impartial third party can make such assessments.”
He further clarified, “UN resolutions are binding, regardless of their level of implementation. The continued mission of UNIFIL is justified as an interposition force, and only the UN or national governments can decide on troop withdrawals.”
The role of peacekeepers extends beyond direct conflict avoidance; they also serve as vital sources of information for the international community and the UN secretary-general, thus contributing to the broader diplomatic landscape. “While not explicitly stated in Resolution 1701, some degree of local informational activity is inherently implied,” noted Javier Gonzalo Vega, a professor of international law at the University of Oviedo.
Vega added, “Although Resolution 1701 has not been fully executed, Israel cites this as justification for its interventions. The Lebanese government must gain complete control over its territory to fulfill its commitments, a situation that has yet to materialize, allowing Hezbollah to maintain its presence.”
The Discreet Role of the Liaison Branch
Another crucial yet often overlooked function of UNIFIL is its liaison branch, which facilitates communication between the Lebanese and Israeli sides. “They do not interact directly, and this role is vital during low-intensity conflict phases, as it has prevented unintentional escalations countless times,” Passot emphasized.
He illustrated this by explaining that small patrols from both sides occasionally stray across the Blue Line, and civilians frequently wander near the contact line. “UNIFIL soldiers intervene to prevent potential conflicts and communicate with their counterparts to ensure that no immediate threats exist,” he stated.
This is not the first instance where UN military missions have faced criticism for perceived ineffectiveness. During the 1992-1995 Bosnian War, for example, the UNPROFOR contingent, which included French, Spanish, and British troops, endured various assaults without the capacity to retaliate due to restrictive engagement rules. Passot recalled, “They aimed to mislead us by making us believe that it was their opponents targeting us. They infiltrated enemy lines to attack us. French troops at the Sarajevo airport faced consistent fire.”
“Identifying the source of these attacks was challenging, as they could originate from snipers, heavy automatic guns, or small rocket launchers,” he concluded, highlighting the complexities faced by peacekeeping forces in volatile regions.