The Failure of UNIFIL Forces in Lebanon: A Shield for Hezbollah? (My opinion, including some hardly talked about history of Hezbollah’s use of UN positions as shields)

The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) was established in 1978 with the aim of confirming Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, restoring international peace and security, and assisting the Lebanese government in regaining its authority in the area. Over the years, however, the role and effectiveness of UNIFIL have come under scrutiny, particularly in relation to its ability—or lack thereof—to enforce peace between Israel and Lebanon, especially given the rise of Hezbollah as a dominant force in southern Lebanon.

UNIFIL's Mandate: A Broad Scope with Limited Action

Under UN Security Council Resolution 1701, adopted in the aftermath of the 2006 Lebanon War, UNIFIL's mandate was significantly expanded. According to the resolution, UNIFIL was tasked with a wide range of responsibilities, including:

• Monitoring the cessation of hostilities.
• Supporting the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) as they deploy throughout southern Lebanon, including along the Blue Line, as Israel withdraws its forces.
• Assisting the LAF in establishing an area free of armed personnel, assets, and weapons between the Blue Line and the Litani River, except for those of the Lebanese government and UNIFIL itself.
• Securing Lebanon's borders to prevent the unauthorized entry of arms.
• Taking "all necessary action" to ensure that its area of operations is not used for hostile activities and to protect civilians under imminent threat of violence.

Despite these broad responsibilities, there is overwhelming evidence and concern that UNIFIL has been ineffective in fulfilling its mandate, particularly regarding Hezbollah's activities in southern Lebanon.

Hezbollah's Use of UNIFIL as a Shield

During the 2006 Lebanon War, the IDF reported numerous instances where Hezbollah utilized UNIFIL positions as shields for launching attacks on Israel. Specifically, Hezbollah fired rockets from close proximity to UN positions on at least 62 occasions, placing UN personnel directly in harm's way due to Israel's responsive bombing tactics. In addition, Hezbollah forces allegedly targeted UNIFIL positions six times during the conflict.

These incidents highlight a critical failure in UNIFIL's mission. Rather than deterring Hezbollah from engaging in hostile actions, the presence of UNIFIL forces seems to have provided Hezbollah with a form of protection, knowing that any Israeli retaliation results in international condemnation due to the proximity of UN forces. This situation raises serious questions about the efficacy of UNIFIL's peacekeeping efforts and whether their presence is inadvertently enabling Hezbollah's military operations.

UNIFIL's Current Role: A Force in Name Only

In the years since the 2006 conflict, Hezbollah has only grown stronger, amassing a significant arsenal of rockets and other weapons in southern Lebanon. Despite UNIFIL's mandate to assist the LAF in keeping the area between the Blue Line and the Litani River free of unauthorized armed personnel, Hezbollah continues to operate openly in this region, effectively controlling large swathes of territory.

Today, UNIFIL forces are stationed in Lebanon, but their impact on preventing Hezbollah's aggressive actions against Israel appears minimal. Thousands of rockets and anti-tank weapons have been fired by Hezbollah towards Israeli civilians, causing deaths, injuries, and massive displacement. Yet, there is little evidence to suggest that UNIFIL is taking meaningful steps to curb these attacks or to dismantle Hezbollah's military infrastructure in southern Lebanon.

The International Community's Silence: A Question of Accountability

The apparent failure of UNIFIL to carry out its mandate has largely gone unchallenged by the international community. Despite the clear violations of Resolution 1701 by Hezbollah, there has been little outcry or demand for accountability from the UN or its member states. This raises troubling questions about the role of the United Nations in conflict zones and whether it is truly committed to upholding peace and security or is simply content to maintain a presence without effecting real change.

Moreover, the continued funding and support of UNIFIL by Western powers, despite its shortcomings, suggest a troubling complacency. Taxpayer money from these nations is being used to fund a force that appears to be more of a passive observer than an active peacekeeper. This situation not only undermines the credibility of the United Nations but also emboldens groups like Hezbollah to continue their actions without fear of significant repercussions.

Why Is Israel Not Demanding UNIFIL's Withdrawal?

Given the ongoing conflict and the apparent ineffectiveness of UNIFIL, it is worth asking why Israel has not demanded the immediate withdrawal of UNIFIL forces from Lebanon. The continued presence of UNIFIL during a protracted and complex war could lead to more casualties among its ranks, which, as history has shown, will be used against Israel in the international arena rather than as a deterrent to Hezbollah's actions.

Israel's restraint in this regard may be driven by a desire to avoid further international criticism or to maintain some semblance of international oversight in southern Lebanon. However, as the situation stands, UNIFIL's presence does little to change the reality on the ground, where Hezbollah continues to operate with impunity.

Conclusion: A Force in Need of Reassessment

The situation in southern Lebanon calls for a serious reassessment of UNIFIL's role and effectiveness. The failure of UNIFIL to enforce its mandate under Resolution 1701 has not only allowed Hezbollah to grow stronger but has also contributed to the ongoing suffering of civilians on both sides of the conflict. Unless the international community is willing to hold UNIFIL accountable and demand more robust action, the current situation is unlikely to change, and UNIFIL risks becoming little more than a symbolic presence in a region in desperate need of real peacekeeping.

The time has come for a frank discussion about the future of UNIFIL and whether it can still play a meaningful role in maintaining peace between Israel and Lebanon. If not, its continued presence may do more harm than good, both for the people of the region and for the credibility of the United Nations itself.