The UNIFIL Mandate Must End

The problem with UNIFIL does not lie in the mandate granted to the organization, but rather in the capability and willingness of the force and UN institutions to bring about change in Lebanon, or to alter the traditional pattern of activity.

Resolution 1701 (2006) assigned UNIFIL and the Lebanese Army the responsibility of supervising southern Lebanon and preventing Hezbollah activity south of the Litani River. However, for 18 years, UNIFIL has clearly failed in its mission. Thus, prior to the 2023 war, UNIFIL did not prevent Hezbollah’s entrenchment in southern Lebanon, including in open areas where, according to the resolution, UNIFIL has freedom of movement.

UNIFIL turned a blind eye and did not act against the military preparations for an invasion of the Galilee in open areas by Hezbollah forces. These preparations included staging and access tunnels, anti-tank positions, drones, recoilless rifles, rockets, uniforms, bags, motorcycles, weapons depots, and launch systems, all of which were found in open terrain. These included dozens of positions in open areas opposite every Israeli community (Watch video). Twenty-eight Hezbollah positions were built in open areas along the fence; these positions were used either for Radwan unit intelligence gathering or served as cover for tunnel digging in preparation for an invasion. Hezbollah prevented UNIFIL from approaching, and UNIFIL did not insist.

Additionally, there are examples of Hezbollah tunnels (Watch video) that were constructed near UNIFIL observation posts without any action being taken by UNIFIL. In April 2023, Hezbollah conducted training for a plan to capture the Galilee and abduct Israelis (Watch video) near a UNIFIL position overlooking the western Galilee.

The UN has consistently refrained from explicitly mentioning Hezbollah in its reports (the organization’s operatives are repeatedly described as individuals in civilian clothing). UNIFIL has failed even at the most basic level of interpreting Resolution 1701—monitoring the implementation of the resolution—and has not reported Hezbollah’s military activity within the force’s area of operation. The limited activity that was documented in UNIFIL’s reports included references to firing ranges, tunnel openings, and restrictions on the force’s freedom of movement. However, it refrained from identifying Hezbollah as the actor responsible, despite the presence of identifying signs such as flags and other symbols.

Even more troubling, there is evidence of active collaboration between UNIFIL soldiers and Hezbollah. Hezbollah operatives captured during IDF maneuvers in Lebanon testified that Hezbollah paid UNIFIL in order to use the UN force’s cameras positioned near the Israeli border. The cameras, which were supposed to document Hezbollah’s military activity, were instead diverted to serve its terror operations against the IDF.

During the war, UNIFIL interfered with IDF operations against Hezbollah. Despite requests from the IDF, UNIFIL refused to evacuate maneuver zones. UNIFIL soldiers proactively appeared in combat areas and obstructed maneuvers and efforts to disarm Hezbollah. Hezbollah used the UNIFIL force as a human shield and launched fire, including sniper and rocket attacks, from positions near UNIFIL posts. In one incident involving the evacuation of wounded IDF soldiers, IDF forces had to approach a UN post and broke through the gate at its entrance. Instead of assisting the wounded soldiers, UNIFIL filed a complaint against the IDF.

Following the ceasefire, UNIFIL’s ineffectiveness on the ground continued. About half of the IDF’s strikes against Hezbollah during the ceasefire period were directed at areas under UNIFIL’s operational jurisdiction. Despite Hezbollah’s relative weakening in Lebanon today, it has not abandoned the path of resistance and continues its rehabilitation efforts, attempting to redeploy military capabilities in southern Lebanon, unafraid to confront UNIFIL along the way.

UNIFIL soldiers have been expelled from villages and attacked. In recent months, violent incidents between UNIFIL and Hezbollah have occurred on an almost daily basis, highlighting the complete ineffectiveness of the force. Hezbollah does not allow UNIFIL to patrol villages independently (Watch video) in direct violation of UN resolutions. UNIFIL soldiers are blocked, beaten, and repeatedly back down under threats from Hezbollah operatives. More than 25 such incidents have been recorded since the spring.

UNIFIL does not act against Hezbollah’s rehabilitation efforts and does not disarm Hezbollah, neither in the past nor now. UNIFIL claims to have dismantled 270 weapons caches but has provided no evidence at all. In our assessment, these were likely merely remnants of unexploded ordnance and weapons debris from areas bombed by Israel. However, during its maneuver, Israel only advanced a maximum of about 7 kilometers from the border. The operational area extends up to 27 kilometers from the border—so the question remains: who is disarming Hezbollah, for example, in the Jabal Amel region?

UNIFIL harms Israel in the international arena by contributing to the narrative that Israel is the aggressor and responsible for the destruction in southern Lebanon, while omitting Hezbollah’s responsibility in all of this. This forms part of a self-promotion campaign aimed at justifying its continued presence in southern Lebanon. UNIFIL condemns Israel for strikes and its presence in Lebanon, but does not mention Hezbollah by name, even when Hezbollah fires rockets at UNIFIL positions.

As of today, there is a new mechanism that has effectively replaced UNIFIL, comprised of the United States, France, the Lebanese Army, and UNIFIL. Communication between Israel and Lebanon now passes through the U.S., rather than through UNIFIL. The IDF’s coordination with the Lebanese Army via the Americans has proven to be more effective, and the Lebanese Army has (partially) improved its activity in the south.

The path to engaging with the Lebanese Army and the Lebanese government does not run through the UN, which—much like in the Gaza arena—preserves outdated patterns and narratives that paradoxically prevent the Lebanese state from asserting its sovereignty in southern Lebanon. Just as UNRWA in Gaza perpetuates the existing reality for the sake of UN prestige, so too does UNIFIL in southern Lebanon, focusing on preserving the status quo rather than changing it. This is out of step with the developments currently unfolding in the region.

UNIFIL includes over 10,000 soldiers and has a budget of more than half a billion dollars per year. UNIFIL claims that its role is limited to monitoring, assisting, and coordinating, not military action. This is false. Resolution 1701 grants UNIFIL the authority to use all of its capabilities to prevent hostile activity within its area of operations. If one nonetheless accepts UNIFIL’s position, there is no justification for its continued existence as a peacekeeping force. Humanitarian aid to the Lebanese people can be provided through specialized organizations. Moreover, as noted, UNIFIL has never fulfilled its role as a monitoring body.

In conclusion, UNIFIL is not only ineffective—it is harmful. The problem is not the mandate—it is the lack of willingness to act. Since its establishment, UNIFIL has had many opportunities to change, but no effort has been made to alter the organization’s behavior. There is no reason to believe that renewing or updating the mandate will change reality. It is not in the DNA of peacekeeping forces to disarm a terrorist organization.

Final Recommendation: UNIFIL’s mandate should be terminated immediately, and the new mechanism should be strengthened, alongside continued maximum pressure on the Lebanese government and close oversight of foreign funds entering Lebanon.