UNIFIL peacekeepers in southern Lebanon, illustration by Jaimee Lee Haddad.
You might’ve seen the headlines: rumors that the U.N.’s peacekeeping force in Lebanon - aka UNIFIL - might pack up and leave this August (the date for its yearly mandate’s renewal).
It all started when Israeli media reported Sunday that the U.S. and Israel might block the renewal of UNIFIL’s mission in Lebanon this August. That caused a stir.
Israel says they're useless, claiming they’ve failed to disarm Hezbollah and that coordination with the Lebanese Army is enough. Meanwhile, Hezbollah claims to support UNIFIL’s mission, yet its supporters accuse them of interference and often attack them, alleging collaboration.
In short: UNIFIL is seen as too soft by one side, and too aggressive by the other. Lose-lose.
And somewhere in the middle? The Lebanese state is trying not to get crushed, as not renewing the UNIFIL’s mandate could risk plunging Lebanon into yet another conflict.
Let’s break it down.
1. When did UNIFIL show up in Lebanon in the first place?
UNIFIL has been around since 1978. Yes, that long.
In 1978, Israel invaded Lebanon after a Palestinian militant attack near Tel Aviv, claiming the attackers were based in Lebanon. The UN Security Council responded with resolutions 425 and 426, creating UNIFIL to stop Israeli attacks, ensure withdrawal, restore peace, and support the Lebanese government.
Resolution 427 authorized deploying 6,000 troops, mostly from France, the UK, the US, China, and the Soviet Union, with others contributing smaller forces. UNIFIL troops arrived on March 23, 1978, but could only act in self-defense, unable to enforce full Israeli withdrawal or lasting peace.
In 1982, Israel launched a second invasion to destroy the PLO and halt cross-border attacks. UNIFIL’s movement was then restricted by militias and the Israeli army, with their mandate adjusted through several resolutions.
Flash forward to 2006: another war with Israel breaks out after Hezbollah killed three of its soldiers and kidnapped two in hopes of a prisoner swap. To end it, the U.N. passed Resolution 1701 — increasing UNIFIL to 10,000+ troops, with France, Germany, India, Turkey and Ghana making up the bulk, respectively.
The new mandate? Oversee the cease-fire while coordinating with Lebanon and Israel, aid the Lebanese Army deploy in southern Lebanon and help it demilitarize the area south of the Litani (aka disarm Hezbollah there), as well as assist with border control if asked.
2. How are the different players lining up?
The Lebanese government is very loud about keeping the UNIFIL around — MPs from all sides chiming in to support.
Hezbollah publicly supports UNIFIL’s mission, but some within the party — and its base — think it’s overstepping. Since the November cease-fire, UNIFIL has begun finding weapons for the first time in years, triggering backlash. Harassment of patrols has escalated, with viral videos of confrontations — including one showing a man slapping a UNIFIL soldier.
Israel accuses UNIFIL of ineffectiveness, claiming it ignores Hezbollah’s weapons caches, tunnels, and cease-fire violations. Each year, it pushes to expand the force’s powers — even threatening to place it under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which allows the use of force. Lebanon consistently pushes back.
Israeli reports say the U.S. is siding with Israel, calling UNIFIL ineffective. And, with Trump slashing the U.N. budget, why keep funding it? After all, the U.S. covers 40 percent of the U.N.’s bills. But for now, U.S. officials say these reports are not true.
France, the EU and other foreign powers are dead set against ending the UNIFIL’s mission. They say it’s key to keeping the peace — and calling it ineffective while Israel violates the truce, is plain ‘cynical.’
The Arab side? So far, they've been quiet. Still, the Gulf knows that scrapping UNIFIL now would be too risky. Back in 2023, the UAE — then on the UNSC — pushed for a stronger, more independent version of the mission. And Egypt, seems to agree that ending it now could backfire.
3. So, what happens if UNIFIL really leaves?
This is the big question, and the big risk.
Without UNIFIL, according to observers, there’s a real fear that:
- Israel will feel free to act militarily in Lebanon, possibly reoccupying parts of southern Lebanon (like it did in 1982)
- The Lebanese army will struggle to maintain any control in the area and might find itself clashing with Hezbollah.
- Small skirmishes between Hezbollah and Israel could spiral into full-blown war
Diplomats are scrambling to find a compromise before the Security Council vote in August.
But the clock’s ticking.