U.N. peacekeepers in Lebanon are permitted to use force in several circumstances, including self-defense and prevention of hostile action in its area of deployment, writes Joe Lauria.
UNIFIL logistical convoy departed Naqoura to visit the Nepalese, Indian and Serbian positions crossing entire UNIFIL area of operations. South Lebanon, July 2, 2024. (Pasqual Gorrizz/UN Photo)
By Joe Lauria
Special to Consortium News
United Nations peacekeepers who have been fired upon by Israel can fire back at them according to a 2006 U.N. Security Council resolution.
Paragraph 12 of Resolution 1701, which helped bring about an end of fighting in the 33-day Israel-Hezbollah conflict in 2006, says that the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL):
“Acting in support of a request from the Government of Lebanon to deploy an international force to assist it to exercise its authority throughout the territory, authorizes UNIFIL to take all necessary action in areas of deployment of its forces and as it deems within its capabilities, to ensure that its area of operations is not utilized for hostile activities of any kind, to resist attempts by forceful means to prevent it from discharging its duties under the mandate of the Security Council, and to protect United Nations personnel, facilities, installations and equipment … ” [Emphasis added.]
Repeated attacks by Israel Defense Force (IDF) beginning last week and continuing until at least Sunday, accurately fit the description of “hostile activities” in UNIFIL’s “areas of deployment.”
While the unanimous resolution was not passed under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter allowing U.N. troops to use force to impose its mandate — including in this case to disarm combatants, including Hezbollah — all U.N. peacekeeping operations retain the right to use force in self-defense.
“UNIFIL commanders have sufficient authority to act forcefully when confronted with hostile activity of any kind,” UNIFIL said in a statement at the time of Resolution 1701’s adoption.
IDF Begins Attacks
A French U.N. peacekeeper with UNIFIL. (Pasqual Gorrizz/UN Photo)
After IDF troops threatened Irish U.N. peacekeepers last week Irish President Michael D. Higgins stood up to Israel and the Israelis backed down. However there were more incidents later in the week, with the Israelis injuring U.N. soldiers from Indonesia and Sri Lanka.
Neither UNIFIL nor U.N. Headquarters in New York have publicly reiterated that the peacekeepers can shoot back at the Israelis if they are attacked.
At the daily noon briefing in New York on Friday, a U.N. spokesman was only asked if the U.N. was considering withdrawing peacekeepers given the danger Israel is putting them in.
On Sunday, the secretary-general’s spokesman put out this statement:
“Against the backdrop of the ongoing hostilities in southern Lebanon and despite attacks that have hit United Nations positions, injuring a number of peacekeepers in the past several days, UNIFIL peacekeepers remain in all positions and the UN flag continues to fly. The Secretary-General pays tribute to the dedicated personnel of UNIFIL.
The Secretary-General reiterates that the safety and security of UN personnel and property must be guaranteed and that the inviolability of UN premises must be respected at all times without qualification. In a deeply worrying incident that occurred today, the entrance door of a UN position was deliberately breached by IDF armored vehicles.
UNIFIL continuously assesses and reviews all factors to determine its posture and presence. The mission is taking all possible measures to ensure the protection of its peacekeepers. UNIFIL’s role and its presence in southern Lebanon is mandated by the UN Security Council. In this context, UNIFIL is committed to preserving its capacity to support a diplomatic solution based on resolution 1701, which is the only possible way forward.
The Secretary-General reiterates that UNIFIL personnel and its premises must never be targeted. Attacks against peacekeepers are in breach of international law, including international humanitarian law. They may constitute a war crime.
He calls on all parties, including the IDF, to refrain from any and all actions that put our peacekeepers at risk. The Secretary-General takes the opportunity to reiterate the call for a cessation of hostilities and the full implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701.
Stéphane Dujarric, Spokesman for the Secretary-General.”
The statement says “UNIFIL is committed to preserving its capacity to support a diplomatic solution based on resolution 1701, which is the only possible way forward.”
So far the U.N. is standing its ground and refusing Israeli demands to redeploy, despite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday essentially ordering the peacekeepers to evacuate the region “immediately.” Netanyahu told UNIFIL in a video to get its soldiers “out of harm’s way,” calling them “hostages of Hezbollah.”
UNIFIL convoy passes damaged buildings in South Lebanon. (Pasqual Gorrizz/UN Photo)
While saying the Israeli attacks might constitute war crimes, so far the U.N. has not issued a warning to Israel that the U.N. is within its rights to shoot back.
What would happen if U.N. troops fired back at Israel? One possibility, depending on the circumstances, is that the IDF would back off. But another is that they would engage the peacekeepers in a firefight.
Would anyone be surprised if Israel brought heavier arms to bear and killed U.N. soldiers given what it has gotten away with so far in the past year, namely a “plausible” case of genocide in Gaza, according to the International Court of Justice, as well as expanding attacks on the West Bank and invading and bombing Lebanon?
International Alarm
A UNIFIL peacekeeper from Italy in April 2024. (Pasqual Gorriz/UN Photo)
So far, Israel’s actions against UNIFIL have brought some measure of international condemnation. Sri Lanka “strongly condemned” the attack by Israel that wounded two of its peacekeeper on Friday. This followed an Israeli attack on a U.N. observation tower on Thursday, injuring two Indonesian peacekeepers.
“An observer tower with a round from a tank directly into it, which is a very small target, has to be very deliberate,” Lt. Gen. Seán Clancy, chief of staff of the Irish Defence Forces, told Irish broadcaster RTÉ.
“So from a military perspective, this is not an accidental act. It’s a direct act,” he said. “Whether its indiscipline or directed, either way it is not conscionable or allowable.”
The BBC reported that, “The leaders of France, Italy, and Spain have also condemned Israel’s actions, saying in a joint statement that they were unjustifiable and should immediately end.”
China expressed “grave concern and strong condemnation,” as India did about the “deteriorating security situation along the Blue Line.”
India’s Ministry of External Affairs said: “Inviolability of UN premises must be respected by all and appropriate measures taken to ensure the safety of UN peacekeepers and the sanctity of their mandate.”
President Joe Biden said Friday he was “absolutely, positively” urging Israel to stop targeting U.N. peacekeepers, Politico reported, as he has called for a ceasefire in Gaza without cutting off aid or munitions.
Forty of the 50 nations whose soldiers make up UNIFIL also issued a joint statement condemning Israel’s attacks.
Dire Scenarios
If the U.N. publicly warned Israel it had the mandate to return fire and then did nothing when attacked, or if it withdrew, it would bring humiliation on the U.N.
If UNIFIL continues to stand its ground and returns fire, inviting a severe Israeli response leading to the deaths of U.N. peacekeepers, would Israel get away with it after an initial outcry?
There have been zero red lines drawn by Western nations in exchange for supporting Israel with arms, money and political cover.
If a plausible case of genocide won’t stop them from backing Israel, would dead U.N. peacekeepers? Is the inviolability of U.N. troops as expendable as scores of thousands of Palestinian lives?
Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former 25-year U.N. correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, and other newspapers, including The Montreal Gazette, the London Daily Mail and The Star of Johannesburg. He was an investigative reporter for the Sunday Times of London, a financial reporter for Bloomberg News and began his professional work as a 19-year old stringer for The New York Times. He is the author of two books, A Political Odyssey, with Sen. Mike Gravel, foreword by Daniel Ellsberg; and How I Lost By Hillary Clinton, foreword by Julian Assange.
Please Donate Today to CN’s Fall Fund Drive
Thank You Joe
“If a plausible case of genocide won’t stop them (being the Western nations) from backing Israel, would dead U.N. peacekeepers?”
We already know that for pariah Israel any non-Jews, either for or against them, are expendable. Even their own people are under certain conditions.
Certainly it is but one Western nation whose withdrawal of support could serve to stop the carnage at a moment’s notice that has gone all-in to back apartheid Israel’s crimes against humanity.
So no, I think the answer is still no.
I am tired of the media merely calling Israels atrocities in Gaza a “presumed genocide”. I would call it a halocaust, which is now being perpetrated by Israel ,a land without a conscience,a force for evil.(as is the US govt.)
I’m a pretty smart guy and pretty well informed, but I am increasingly unable to find political/geopolitical models to understand the behaviors of Israeli leaders, Jewish Israeli citizens and the political actors, especially in the US, supporting the atrocities being committed against the Palestinians. I feel that I am being forced more and more every day away from political models that have characterized conflicts over the last many decades toward models that have no controlling designs over any actions, models of pure barbarism— worse than barbarism since that is an understandable model! History isn’t rhyming, but rather moving to utter cacophony.
James, I’m an under educated layman when it comes to most things, I have though managed to acquire a rather large base of historical facts, which can be useful to my interests in the topic of Israel and the behaviors which can be witnessed from the government of the country and many of it’s inhabitants.
I’m older now and have observed Israel and Israelis since my early twenties, over fifty years.
My observations over the years has developed into a mosaic, which is still incomplete. It does not form a pretty picture to be sure. I like that last line, though it is somewhat of an understatement.
I’m no dummy, though many here might firmly disagree, haters are gonna hate.
The world of instantaneous satellite communications have made subterfuge and deceit more difficult to effect, notorious plots are often revealed and the result is groups and individuals are often caught being ‘bad actors’.
Enter Israel. The reason for my contempt for our government’s activities associated with Israels actions is ‘We the People’ never get a straight answer from our government as a reply to the question “Why is this country allowed total latitude in their mistreatment of ‘the other’. Instead it’s all lies and misinformation, which I might remind you is a hallmark of the CIA and Israel’s modus operandi!
It is my belief the mystery starts in earnest with the creation of the CIA. The bad guys hijacked the creation of the agency, something I believe three presidents feared, Ike, Truman and JFK. These men’s statements speak for themselves.
Our government as with Israel has fallen victim to ‘crying wolf’ after killing the entire pack. Never trust a liar, they will drag you down to their level (see the current ‘fix’ Israel has drawn our government into.), and beat you with experience. In my strongly held opinion we are witnessing just such an occurrence.
Time for D.C. to cut the B.S. and come clean with just exactly what it is they fear from these ‘jack booted thugs’.
There does exist an explanation but the U.S. Government has voluntarily gagged itself on Israeli lies. So it is failing ‘We the People” again this time with committing two different mistakes occurring at the same time.
Just as with Ukraine, models, in my very strongly held opinion, for the current U.S. behavior do not exist.
My apologies to Eric Foor, I reconsidered and canceled my appointment with my vet. Then learned comments were closed on Caitlin Johnstone’s piece of Oct 11, 2024.
Thanks CN
I apologize for that “Thanks CN” at the time I did intend to be flippant!
I missed the timing of the cut I guess. It happens.
To Eric I say get a copy of Mattson’s Stealing the Atomic Bomb, especially note the page after the copy right page, WHAT READERS SAID ABOUT STEALING THE ATOMIC BOMB! and those last two paragraphs.
Lots and lots of dots Eric.
What about Bloody Bibi’s Israel an the lie of them defending themselves, that “Right of Self Defense” lie!
Suppose the UN troops do fire on Israeli IDF forces, to defend themselves. What the hell do you suppose would happen?
An Israeli air attack would certainly follow. I say the U.S. should be willing to give UN troops air support. This would likely go over like a lead balloon.
Joey and his cohorts need to be pressed to come up with a solution.
The U.S. must start playing hardball with Israel. What is it they fear?
The ‘U.S’ is ‘israel’. The ‘U.S.’ is a wholly captured operation, fully controlled by zionists throughout the government, the media, the entertainment industry and society at large by this false ‘Judeo-Christian’ equivalency. The vast majority of the US population is under the spell of a ‘book’ written by Hellenized Jews to deceive the gentiles.
@robert:
“what is it they fear?”
i am no expert on this but i do think
they fear losing their crude hegemony
and the crude oil that fuels it. [while
many now covet the gaza strip gas.]
Unfortunately the manner in which the Western propaganda machine operates means that UN peacekeepers will get the brunt of the blame if they make the decision to fire on God’s Chosen Lunatics.
UN forces are there by request of the government of Lebanon. A peace keeping group should not be standing in the way of armed forces of an attacked country. Once Lebanon attacked Israel with rockets, the protection of the peace keeping forces should have been immediately withdrawn.
Lauria’s “Dire Scenarios” are certainly bone-chilling. However, as to the first:
“If the U.N. publicly warned Israel it had the mandate to return fire and then did nothing when attacked, or if it withdrew, it would bring humiliation on the U.N. ”
…our current brink of nuclear annihilation and ongoing genocide have already brought humiliation on the UN.
israel’s shamelessness knows no END!!! Time to teach them a lesson!!!
Well Mr. Joe Lauria, in respect to some of the above comments, you really stuck your finger up somebody’s nose with your 33 paragraph article.
You must be doing something right…
If the peacekeepers were doing what they’re there for – preventing hostile actions (e.g. by Hizballah) from their area of deployment, Israel wouldn’t have needed to attack anyone. So now that Israel is attacking hizballah, to stop their hostile activities, now you say the peacekeepers should shoot at Israel? Why aren’t they shooting at hizballah launching rockets and suicide drones at Israel?
Because they only have a mandate to use force in self-defense and Hezbollah is not firing on the peacekeepers, Israel is.
But Hezbollah is firing at Israel. They can’t wage a war and expect protection from the UN. The UN forces should withdraw completely from the area. Firing at Israel forces would amount to choosing to fight for Hezbollah. They cannot choose sides when both are fighting. That would no longer be attempting to keep the peace.
You are missing that Israel has invaded a sovereign nation. It doesn’t get to order U.N. peacekeepers what to do in a country they have invaded.
At least someone in europe wants to stand up to the cowardly, bully IDF:
“Pedro Sanchez has said there will be “no withdrawal” of the UN peacekeeping force from southern Lebanon following repeated Israeli attacks on UNIFIL.”
“The prime minister condemned Israel’s call for the mission to leave after urging EU member states to pull the plug on free trade with Israel.”
Aljazeera 14th oct.
Wouldn’t that be something, if Israel becomes the first country to go to war against the UN? I jest, but only just.
I would appreciate some kind of article explaining what exactly UN Peacekeepers even do, because it’s never been entirely clear to me. Where did they come from? How did they get invited and deployed to Lebanon? Who made the decisions and under whose authority do they perform their task?
As the article says, UNIFIL was set up unanimously by the 15-member U.N. Security Council in 2006 under resolution 1701 (there is a link for you to read the resolution that sets out the full mandate in detail) to separate Israel and Hezbollah after the end of their 33-day war in 2006 and to try to keep the peace. That is what peacekeepers under the UN flag. Soldiers are sent from many nation to a peacekeeping operation.
Why not?
They’re a rogue invading armed militia that take the UN with disdain!
UN Peacekeepers are about useless as teats on a bull. Have they ever fired on anyone? Has any belligerent in any conflict zone ever shown them any respect? How much use were they in stopping Hezbollah from setting up shop south of the Litani river after the 2006 UN resolution banning their presence? Cardboard cutouts of Deputy Dog and Quickdraw McGraw would be equally effective.
Your comment is equally useless. At least some efforts are made to stop Israel, and this needs to be expanded not denigrated. After all, the USA is a democracy!!!!!!!!!!
Clearly you haven’t heard of the Medak pocket incident during the Serbian/Croatian war in the 90s. The U.N /Canada totally hammered Croatian troops for doing the exact same thing Isreal is doing. I know in most cases it does seem that the U.N does nothing but their presence alone does a lot more then you think.
Yes, UN Peacekeepers have “fired on someone”. The Canadians are well known for just that, whether Cyprus or the former Yugoslavia, they shot to kill. I met troops who had been to Cyprus who had no problem acknowledging they may have shot innocent people who were in the direction of the incoming fire. Neighbours were immigrants from Yugoslavia that attested to the surprise the Bosnians and occasionally Croats got when UN troops shot back. It needs to happen more frequently.