From a slap to one of its soldiers in Deir Qanoun al-Nahr, to Hezbollah flags hoisted on its vehicles, stone-throwing in Aitit, and the killing of a peacekeeper in past confrontations — the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) is facing unprecedented challenges on the ground.
These tensions are rising just as the UN Security Council is due to renew the force’s mandate this August. The question now is: Has UNIFIL shifted from a peacekeeping mission to an unwanted foreign presence? Has the force reached the end of its role in a volatile southern Lebanon?
Barrack’s Visit and Pressure on UNIFIL
The escalating clashes between locals and UNIFIL patrols — along with renewed debate over the mission’s future — coincided with a visit to Beirut by U.S. envoy Thomas Barrack. Notably, Barrack did not address the American “veto” reportedly looming over the future of the peacekeeping force.
During his visit, Barrack received Lebanon’s official response to a recent U.S. proposal, which included commitments to restrict arms to state authorities, assert full sovereignty across Lebanese territory, and implement UN Security Council Resolution 1701 in full, a resolution that positions UNIFIL as one of its primary pillars.
Yet, scenes in Hezbollah strongholds in the South revealed a sharp disconnect between international diplomatic discourse and local realities. Satirical slogans printed on sweets and fruit boxes distributed during Ashoura ceremonies declared: “No disarmament. Come eat custard,” and “No arms handover. Come grab some watermelon, cake, and juice.” These sarcastic statements reflect the gap between global proposals and the local climate Hezbollah seeks to shape.
Mandate in Question
Public resistance to disarming Hezbollah has been accompanied by repeated rejection of UNIFIL’s operations, with implementation of Resolution 1701 itself becoming increasingly contested. While Israel accuses the peacekeepers of serving as a “shield for Hezbollah,” demanding their withdrawal from several posts during the latest war, popular objections to UNIFIL patrols are increasingly frequent, and it has become clear that they are taking place with the encouragement and coordination of Hezbollah, amid a growing discourse accusing the international forces of bias.
Simultaneously, UNIFIL and other UN agencies have faced sustained attacks from Israel and the U.S. UNIFIL’s bases were repeatedly targeted during the recent war, leaving several peacekeepers injured.
Those who highlight civilian objections to UNIFIL patrols often point out that these forces are conducting patrols independently, without accompaniment by the Lebanese Army. However, such actions fall within the powers granted to the international force by UN Security Council Resolution 2695 (2023), which amended its mandate to allow it to carry out field operations without prior authorization or support from the army.
In an interview with Daraj, retired Brigadier General Hassan Jouni explained: “UNIFIL now believes the time is right to activate the authority it had not previously used, especially after the recent war, Hezbollah’s retreat from the south, and the growing calls for full implementation of Resolution 1701.” He added, “After being accused of failure, the force seems determined to show more seriousness in its mission by conducting surprise and independent patrols.” Jouni further noted that “the repeated obstruction of UNIFIL patrols, their spread across many villages, and the boldness and enthusiasm of the civilians all suggest there are instructions being given to residents to prevent the force from exercising the authority granted to it.”
Commenting on the Aita al-Shaab incident, UNIFIL spokesperson Andrea Tenenti stated: “As clarified by the Lebanese government and army, UN peacekeepers can move independently in southern Lebanon to carry out their duties in restoring security and stability under Resolution 1701, and they do not need to be accompanied by Lebanese soldiers.” In an earlier statement, UNIFIL affirmed that “freedom of movement is essential for implementing its mandate. This includes the ability to operate independently and impartially, as stated in Security Council Resolution 1701. Any restriction of this freedom, during operational activities, whether with or without Lebanese army accompaniment, is a violation of Resolution 1701.”
Meanwhile, lawyer Najib Farhat explained to Daraj that “Article 12 of the agreement establishing the UN Forces Headquarters in Lebanon, ratified by the Lebanese Parliament through Law No. 584/1996, guarantees UN forces the right to free movement within the country.” He added that “renewal resolutions for UNIFIL’s mandate, particularly Resolution 2695 of 2023, reaffirm this authority,” pointing out that UNIFIL “used to conduct independent patrols and set up checkpoints before the Lebanese Army deployed in the south in 2006.” He also emphasized that “any attack on UNIFIL forces is considered, under Article 45 of the Agreement on the Status of UN Peacekeeping Forces in Lebanon, a direct attack on the Lebanese armed forces.”
A Force at a Crossroads
While local media reports praise UNIFIL’s development and humanitarian contributions in the South, Israel is intensifying its efforts to redraw the region’s security landscape.
In an analysis published by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, former Israeli military strategist Assaf Orion wrote: “It’s time for UNIFIL to adapt or go.” He argued that Hezbollah has outmaneuvered the security arrangement established after the 2006 war, which relied on a partnership between the Lebanese government, army, and UNIFIL to prevent new conflict.
He pointed out that “the recent war resulted in a new security framework that once again places the Lebanese Army at the center, supported by UNIFIL — but this time bolstered by decisive American oversight and strict Israeli military enforcement in response to Hezbollah violations.” He added that “Beirut and the United Nations have lacked the political will to confront Hezbollah’s widespread military presence south of the Litani River.”
Orion outlined three possible scenarios for the upcoming UN Security Council discussions on UNIFIL in August:
1. Extend its mandate without amendments;
2. Launch “UNIFIL 3.0” — reducing the force to 2,500 personnel and redirecting some resources to support the Lebanese Army;
3. Terminate the “temporary” mission and replace it with observers and coordination mechanisms from the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) — a scenario favored by Israel.
Amid these analyses, Israel Hayom reported last month that “the United States and Israel agreed to end UNIFIL’s mission in southern Lebanon.” In an interview with Daraj, Brigadier General Hassan Jouni noted that “the question of ending UNIFIL’s mission has been raised prominently, based on the Israeli perspective that its presence is no longer effective.” He added, “According to a U.S. State Department official, this claim is false,” suggesting that “the narrative is deliberately being circulated to pressure the Lebanese state into amending UNIFIL’s mandate and granting it more operational authority.”
Speaking to Euronews, UNIFIL spokesperson Andrea Tenenti confirmed that “there are no discussions within the United Nations about ending UNIFIL’s mission,” adding that “the Security Council is the only body authorized to make such a decision.” The future of the international force in southern Lebanon may hinge on the use of veto power by any of the five permanent Security Council members during the upcoming August session.
As a permanent member of the Security Council, the U.S. plays a leading role in shaping UNIFIL’s future. It has previously expressed dissatisfaction with the mission’s performance and threatened to use its veto unless a revised mandate better reflects its demands. Conversely, Russia and China have voiced support for the mission’s continuation. France has reaffirmed its commitment to UNIFIL, viewing it as a key mechanism for preventing renewed clashes between Hezbollah and Israel. France has opposed changes to its mandate, except those aligned with ground realities. The UK has also condemned attacks on the international force and supports the continuation of its current mission, strongly rejecting any proposal to end it. Meanwhile, the non-permanent Security Council members participating in the mission support renewing the mandate in a way that safeguards stability and grants UNIFIL effective operational authority.
According to retired General Abdel Rahman al-Shheitli, a former representative of the Lebanese government, “Israel’s call to end UNIFIL’s mission is part of a systematic effort to strip the UN presence in the south of its international legitimacy,” adding that “Israel does not want observers. It seeks a security vacuum to allow it unrestricted freedom of movement in the south.”
Lawyer Najib Farhat explained that “legally ending UNIFIL’s work would effectively nullify Resolution 1701, since it is built on a partnership between the Lebanese Army and UNIFIL. Removing one side of this equation renders the resolution ineffective, opening the door for Israel to act without international constraints.” In the same vein, Brig. Gen. Jouni added, “It is not in Lebanon’s national interest — especially not in the interest of southerners — to terminate UNIFIL’s mission. This force is the international community’s eye on the south, documenting Israeli violations and assaults.”
UNIFIL’s History
In 1978, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 425, calling on Israel to cease hostilities and withdraw its forces from Lebanese territory. To maintain peace and security and protect civilians in southern Lebanon, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) was established under Resolution 426 and deployed to southern Lebanon on March 23, 1978. Since then, its mandate has been renewed at the request of the Lebanese government.
UNIFIL’s presence extends beyond its military mission; it plays an active role in maintaining the fragile stability in the south. Locally, the force has contributed to demining areas impacted by Israeli incursions and played a central role after recent conflicts in securing damaged areas and facilitating the safe return of residents to their villages. In addition to its security mandate, UNIFIL plays important humanitarian, logistical, social, and economic roles, supporting development projects in villages and providing direct aid to local communities.
For instance, in 2023, a water purification station for drinking water was built with UNIFIL’s support in cooperation with the municipality of Bedyas. In 2017, the municipality of Blat implemented a solar lighting project in collaboration with the Spanish battalion. UNIFIL missions have contributed to street lighting projects powered by solar energy in line with Resolution 1701, which emphasizes support for local communities through social and economic initiatives.
With most development projects previously implemented by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) now suspended — many of which were concentrated in the south — UNIFIL has more space to expand its role in the coming phase, particularly in rehabilitating infrastructure and delivering humanitarian aid to the local population.
Is UNIFIL’s Exit a Prelude to Normalization?
Israel has long sought to restrict the presence of UN peacekeeping forces in southern Lebanon. During the latest war, it deliberately targeted UNIFIL sites — a violation of international law, including international humanitarian law — which could rise to the level of war crimes. Despite UNIFIL’s role in preventing renewed conflict along the Blue Line, Tel Aviv has promoted the idea that direct coordination with the Lebanese Army is a sufficient alternative, paving the way for sidelining UNIFIL and laying the groundwork for negotiations between the two armies.
A senior Israeli official recently stated that Israel plans to launch a new round of talks with Lebanon aimed at achieving “progress toward full normalization” in the coming months, noting U.S. support for the initiative. According to Israel Hayom, “Israel believes coordination with the Lebanese Army is effective enough to render UNIFIL’s presence unnecessary.”
In response to this proposal, Brigadier General Hassan Jouni described Israel’s characterization of the Lebanese Army as more effective in the south as disingenuous. “It paints the army as a friendly and allied force — which is not the case. If the Israelis truly trusted the Lebanese Army, they would coordinate with the Monitoring Committee, which in turn refers matters to the army concerning any suspected targets. Instead, they continue to act unilaterally.”
