UNIFIL spokesman in Lebanon: ‘Israel cannot dictate the fate of a mission that has the will of the international community’

Andrea Tenenti, spokesman for the UN peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon (UNIFIL), welcomes EL PAÍS in a small office located — in a quirk of history — next to the Ukrainian Embassy, the scene of the other invasion marking the current geopolitical agenda. The location of the interview (Baabda, a town southeast of Beirut, far from where the blue helmets are deployed) is evidence of the delicate situation that UNIFIL finds itself in: the Israeli army, which invaded southern Lebanon two weeks ago, has repeatedly attacked the UN mission in recent days and Benjamin Netanyahu has demanded its “immediate” withdrawal, with a thinly veiled threat: it would be “the simplest way” to prevent UNIFIL from suffering further damage.

Under normal circumstances, Tenenti would be at the UNIFIL headquarters in Naqoura, close to the Blue Line, the delineation — not a formal border — between Israel and Lebanon that the UN force is tasked with guarding. But even that has been attacked by Israel so the mission’s civilian staff of around 800, including him, have been evacuated from southern Lebanon. Those who remain are the 10,500 soldiers from some 50 countries, commanded by Spanish General Aroldo Lázaro Sáenz, whose present and future are the focus of the interview.

The mission is in its most delicate situation since the previous war between Israel and Hezbollah in 2006, when the UN troops remained in their positions. Tenenti argues that they should do so now, among other reasons because Israel “cannot dictate the fate” of a mission that the UN Security Council renews every year, while suggesting that Israeli troops and not Hezbollah — as Netanyahu claims — have used UNIFIL positions as human shields. He also calls for a “serious dialogue” on how to implement the unfulfilled UN resolution 1701 because the alternative, he warns, could be an open regional conflict.

Question. Israel has formally requested the withdrawal of UNIFIL. What would have to happen for the troops to abandon their positions?

Answer. We were very clear a few days ago, and on Sunday the Secretary-General [of the UN, António Guterres] responded in a certain way to Netanyahu’s request. Also when the Israeli army asked us to move from some positions close to the Blue Line, there was a clear message that we decided to stay. It was a unanimous decision of the 50 countries that are contributing troops at the moment: that it was important to maintain an international presence in the south. We are here at the request of the Security Council and the Lebanese authorities. We decided to stay not only because it is part of the mandate, but because there is a need for an international presence to monitor what is happening in this region.

At the moment, our monitoring capabilities are very limited because, with the ongoing shelling, going outside can be dangerous for the troops and ensuring their safety and security is paramount. But it is also the obligation of the parties to ensure the security of our troops. And in recent weeks and days there have been several attacks against our troops, some by the IDF (Israel Defense Forces), in which peacekeepers were injured in Naqoura, which is the headquarters of the mission, where a tower was hit by a Merkava tank. Another position was hit and they targeted the cameras of the camp and at another one the ignition system. A drone passed very close to where the soldiers were sheltering. And on Sunday two tanks entered a position and remained there for 45 minutes, breaking the walls of the perimeter of the base…

These are all serious incidents that constitute a clear violation of international humanitarian law, as well as [resolution] 1701. And they make it difficult for the mission to assist the population. UNIFIL is not a humanitarian mission, but we have been helping the population for a long time.

Q. If the ability to monitor and assist the population is so limited, is there a symbolic element in staying?

A. It’s important because we cannot have one member state dictating the fate of a mission that has the will of international community. If Lebanon decided ‘UNIFIL, you are out,’ then we would be out, because we are here at the request of the Lebanese government. But we are not here at the request of the Israeli authorities. That’s very clear. And monitoring is important because, even if we have a very limited capability, we still have 10,000 troops in 50 locations along the Blue Line and inside the area of operations. We can see what is happening and we have radars that report on the shelling. So it is still a relevant mission and we will be there until, of course, the conditions for safety and security are no longer there. And then the Security Council will need to decide.

Q. What would those conditions be?

A. A risk assessment would be needed to determine if it would be impossible for the mission to operate at all, if we could not monitor anything and were constantly attacked. At that point, the Security Council would need to decide. It doesn’t mean we would leave. It might decide on other options. In 2006, the conflict between Hezbollah and Israel went on for 34 days and we never left, even though Israel entered Lebanese territory.

After the ceasefire, Resolution 1701 was adopted, which brings me to the issue that 1701 was the resolution to stop the conflict in 2006, and it can still be the resolution that can stop the conflict now, because all the elements of 1701 are still valid. They have not been implemented, true. Most of it has been difficult to implement. But we are still here to ensure it. In order to do that, you need the commitment of the parties. Implementation depends on them, not on us. Bringing at least 15,000 Lebanese troops to southern Lebanon, ensuring that there are no weapons in the south, that there are no more violations of Lebanese territory…

Another relevant part is that the Blue Line is not a border. We have been working for many years to make it visible. There are still many outstanding issues, such as both sides claiming certain territories. This is something that was done from 2006 until October of last year [before the Hamas attacks on Israel]. There were issues, but also some kind of stability. We need to go back to that. And at the moment that is the most serious concern. Not only for us, but for the international community. This is a potential regional conflict. The international community has to step in in a more serious and robust manner. There is the need for a negotiation and a solution.

Q. The Israeli narrative is that UNIFIL has been completely ineffective and now, with the invasion, it has released videos of Hezbollah tunnels near its bases.

A. First of all, we cannot independently verify these videos or these tunnels, but we have always been clear. We have been reporting to the Security Council on all the events and things that we monitor. There are certain areas that we could not access. Private property was off the table for us. The mission would not allow peacekeepers to go inside houses to search them. We are here to support the Lebanese army to do that.

At the same time, the issue of weapons is real. There was a long-term negotiation and mediation with the parties and for the last 18 years we have been trying to work on that. And then, of course, October 2023 came and we were not able to carry on with our work. But the implementation is not a failure of UNIFIL. We recognize that a lot of things were not been done because we did not have the capabilities.

Also, during these 18 years we had tripartite meetings, which was the most important confidence-building mechanism, where the IDF and the Lebanese armies were sitting in the same room every month. It was a real success for two countries that are at war, that were not talking to each other. It was very useful because we were able to deconflict situations that could have triggered something bigger.

Q. Chapter 6 [of the UN Charter], which currently covers the mission, allows for self-defense. Don’t the attacks against UNIFIL fall into that category? Why haven’t you resorted to it?

A. It is something that can be used when there is a serious, intentional threat against our peacekeepers. The commander on the ground has to decide whether it is appropriate to respond, if they see that responding would just trigger more violence and more people being killed or injured. You have to be very pragmatic about how to use self-defense. We don’t want to become part of the conflict. Triggering more violence is not the role of the peacekeeping force. The policy is there, it can be used, but we have to look at it on a case-by-case basis.

Q. Do you feel supported by the international community?

A. Absolutely. The support has been very strong. There was a letter of support from the EU and from the member states in support of the peacekeepers. [US President Joe] Biden himself said that the peacekeepers should not be targeted. The Pope also. Of course, these are words, but it shows that everyone agrees that what is happening is not the way a country should act against the peacekeepers in this region, because attacking peacekeepers is not only attacking the 50 countries, it is a serious attack against the international community.

Q. Netanyahu has said that Hezbollah is using UNIFIL troops as a human shield.

A. What we have seen these days is that IDF troops have entered our base. Is it very dangerous for peacekeepers to have one of the fighting parties inside your area? They can be attacked. Why? Because there are IDF troops inside. When they were just a few meters away from the Irish and the Polish, that endangered our positions. So let’s look at the facts. I’m not going to judge, I’m not going to analyze it, because it’s not my role. But I would simply ask people to look at what is happening these days and if the arguments of the Israelis actually make sense or not.

Q. And have you identified any situation where Hezbollah militants were firing from close proximity to UNIFIL troops?

A. Not in recent days. At the moment we have the situation where the IDF is inside Lebanese territory. Before, Hezbollah was firing at Israel. Now, it’s firing at the IDF inside Lebanon, where we are. So, of course, it has become more difficult and more dangerous.

Q. Do you see a clear intention to attack UNIFIL troops as a message for the troops to leave?

A. Well, they told us to leave, so the message was clear...

Q. But it’s different to say to the UN “we would like you to leave” than to target the troops.

A. The words were: “You should leave.” The actions were that there were attacks on our troops by them. The [Israeli army] spokesman said yesterday [this Sunday] that they were investigating these incidents to see what happened. Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt, that some IDF troops didn’t know what they were doing. But I don’t know… Is not having anyone there better for anyone?

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition