Analyst: It is 'not in Hezbollah's interest' to exacerbate tensions with UNIFIL

The United Nations Security Security Council voted Thursday to extend the mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) for another year, until Aug. 31, 2024.

Lebanon and Hezbollah had pushed to amend Article 16 of the mandate to limit peacekeepers' ability to move freely in South Lebanon without the permission of the Lebanese Army — but no such amendment was made in the final text.

This year’s renewal of the UN's peacekeeping force comes amid rising tensions along the Lebanese-Israeli border.

L'Orient-Le Jour asked Joe Macaron, a Wilson Center fellow focusing on the Middle East, three key questions on the subject.

1. Could the absence of amendments to the final text exacerbate tensions between UNIFIL and Hezbollah?

It is not in Hezbollah's interest to exacerbate tensions with UNIFIL, given the Irish UN peacekeeper killed last December. All parties involved are invested in the stability in South Lebanon, which requires an acceptable compromise that was reflected in the latest annual renewal of the UNIFIL mandate.

Read more

UNIFIL Lebanon mandate renewed: 5 key things you need to know

2. Why were the Emirates so vehement in demanding complete freedom of movement for UNIFIL? And at the same time, why did they condemn the annexation of Ghajar?

UAE diplomacy has been active on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and their views of Hezbollah have been clear.

However, on the UNIFIL mandate renewal, the UAE publicly sought to strike a balance between condemning both Hezbollah activities and Israel's occupation of Ghajar.

3. Why did China and Russia abstain this year when they had voted in favor last year? 

China and Russia are not interested in a diplomatic battle around a routine UNSC measure, most notably that there is no solid Lebanese position.

The compromise that was reached between the US and France maintained the status quo, which is fine for both Russia and China.