- Striking UNIFIL means elevating Israel's self-referential position above the international community which until now has pleased a criminal state
- The author is an Italian academic expert on Political Science and International Relations. She is the scientific director of the Observatory in Türkiye by CeSPI
ISTANBUL
On Oct. 10 and 11, the Israeli army attacked the bases of the United Nations Interim Force (UNIFIL) in Lebanon, sparking outrage among the international community, including the United Nations (UN), the top European Union (EU) figures, and many states.
Italy, which under Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s tenure has been supporting Israel by stepping away from the traditional equidistant stance regarding Israel and Palestine, has extraordinarily raised its voice against Israel. Together with Spain and France, it signed a joint statement stating that "the attacks mark a serious violation of the obligation of Israel under humanitarian international law." Actually, it is the first time since the eruption of the Israeli war on Gaza that the representatives of the current Italian government have reacted by expressing vocal disappointment over Israeli actions.
How did Italian government react to Israeli attack on UNIFIL?
In Lebanon within UNIFIL, there are over 1,000 Italian peacekeepers, whose role has been of crucial importance over the years. Italian Minister for Defense Guido Crosetto was very harsh in defining the attack as "unacceptable" while stating that "Italy and the United Nations do not take orders from Israel." Crosetto's assertion was echoed by Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Antonio Tajani, who called for an investigation "given the unequivocal evidence that Israeli soldiers fired on the UNIFIL bases." He warned that "if it continues, it means it was a voluntary choice, not an accident." Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni was also very clear in saying: "Israel has repeatedly recommended to the Italian soldiers of the UNIFIL to withdraw some of their forces from the area for security reasons, but unfortunately the request was rejected."
Actually, the Italians are the second biggest presence in UNIFIL, and the soldiers are located in the western sector of the mission, namely near the Lebanese border with Israel on the bases of Shama and Mayoun. Moreover, Italy contributes to the Maritime Task Force, which is responsible for maritime security operations, and to the International Support Group for Lebanon (ISG), as well as to the air force through the Italair Task Force, a helicopter unit of the Italian army.
Israeli attack was no accident
According to the official statements, in the past weeks, the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) notified its intention to conduct limited incursions into Lebanon; thus, it constantly asked UNIFIL to relocate by moving out from the outpost along the Blue Line, on the border between Israel and Lebanon, but the UN firmly refused. In this frame, Italy has been warning Israel that the UN bases must be kept out of hostilities as they serve to avoid further escalation and to guarantee peace. On top of this, the blue helmets have been repeatedly subjected to Israeli and Lebanese crossfire, risking their involvement in the violence. Thus, it seems that there is enough evidence proving that Israel premeditated the attack and that it was not just an accident.
Indeed, UNIFIL has a long experience in the field, as its establishment dates back to 1978. At that time, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions 425 and 426 legitimized the mission, whose scope was subsequently strengthened in 2006 along the resolution 1701. In this framework, UNIFIL was entitled to act as an interposition force along the border between Lebanon and Israel, known as the "Blue Line."
Although this line served to assist the official Lebanese armed forces in controlling the territory of the southern area of Lebanon, where Hezbollah is quite strong, it has never been formalized under any international treaty or agreement. Therefore, UNIFIL was born as a peacekeeping mission made up of over 10,000 soldiers from 46 different countries, whose mandate has been regularly renewed for the last 46 years. In light of the most recent attacks on UNIFIL, the UN declared that it was a "deliberate" act. Targeting the peacekeeping mission marks a clear violation of international humanitarian law and, in this case, of the UNSC resolutions aiming at ending the hostilities between Hezbollah and Israel. Despite this, the Israeli government is not willing to backtrack, but eventually, it will further escalate in order to accomplish its expansionist goals.
Israel has been hostile to UN
Unfortunately, there are margins to think that Israel sees the blue helmets as the main obstacle for its self-proclaimed revenge in carrying out the regional offensive by targeting Hezbollah and any other opponent. In the past year, it has arrogantly shown strong opposition and animosity against the UN and its related agencies, which are depicted as "hostile." The regular accusation and request of shutting down the UNRWA, portrayed as a “terrorist shelter,” in addition to the most recent ban on UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, labeled as "persona non grata" for his accusation of international violation, proves its bullying behavior.
Hence, the international frames are obstacles for the Israeli government, which is determined to enlarge strategically, as it is designed to eliminate any threat and risk factor from the bordering territories. Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu is focusing on reaching the military and political goals at any cost, regardless of international law and human morality.
Striking UNIFIL means elevating Israel's self-referential position above the international community, which until now has pleased a criminal state. However, touching upon the direct interests of the states may reverse and act as a game-changer. Certainly, nothing but a decisive action of condemnation and effective sanctions can stop Netanyahu, especially if internationally joint structured stances arise.
The attacks on UNIFIL could mark a turning point, in one sense or another, but what is certain is that international law cannot be a waste of paper at the discretion of a single state. If what happened is a wake-up call for more assertive states, responses will be clear in the medium term, not before the United States (US) elections, as the West looks unanimously flattened on American dictate, hence hostage to the dystopic interpretation of the "right to exist" and the much-proclaimed self-defense of just one.
*Opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Anadolu's editorial policy.
