Over the past week, Israeli tanks have directly attacked positions of the UN peacekeeping mission in Lebanon, known as UNIFIL. Several peacekeepers have been injured; none have been killed so far. UN peacekeepers are not only distinct and easy to recognise, they wear blue helmets and drive white vehicles to symbolise their neutrality, but they are also never legitimate military targets. Peacekeepers are international military staff tasked with upholding an agreed peace between states or within a state. Any state which has signed the UN Charter, has undertaken to recognise the inviolability of peacekeepers, as Israel formally has. So why is it attacking UNIFIL and what does this mean for the wars in the Middle East and for the institution of peacekeeping?
UNIFIL is a UN Security Council mandated, multinational peacekeeping force which has been stationed in Lebanon since 1978, and whose mandate was strengthened in 2006 following the war between Israel and Hezbollah. Unusually, UNIFIL peacekeepers are mainly Europeans – a rarity in a time where most peacekeepers are Asian or African – but an explicit request from Israel in 2006. This explains why it was Irish peacekeepers who posted the first pictures showing Israeli tanks using UNIFIL positions as effective shelter and then attacking the installations outright. The Irish Taoiseach Mr Harris has condemned the attacks as ‘egregious’ violations of international law.
The Israeli attacks against infrastructure and manned positions, come after an official request by Israel for UNIFIL to move its personnel away from the zone of fighting. This raises a number of concerns. First, UNIFIL was provided a stronger mandate in 2006 precisely to act as a buffer and a political go-between Israel and Hezbollah. If Israel not only requests their removal (which they cannot legally do since they are stationed in Lebanon), but also proceeds to attack them, it suggests UNIFIL is in the way of Israeli strategy in southern Lebanon. UNIFIL does not have a mandate to take military action against Israel in Lebanon, but they do act as the international community’s eyes and ears. Trying to move them away from the fighting raises concerns about how Israel plans to conduct their campaign. Second, not only do direct attacks against peacekeepers constitute a breach of international obligations, but they also send a very concerning signal – if peacekeepers can be attacked without consequence what does that mean for other current operations and the future of peacekeeping?
Finally, states have argued UNIFIL has an important role to play in mediating and potentially ending the hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, as they did in 2006. Attacking UNIFIL not only undermines their ability to play that role but also calls into question Israel’s interest in ending the hostilities. Since many have questioned the possibility of the spreading Middle Eastern wars to be ended militarily, short of the silence of the graveyard, shortcutting possibilities for mediation spells trouble for the civilians caught in the cross-fire.
Learn more about our undergraduate degree in International Relations
Learn more about our International Relations and Security MA