What Happens to South Lebanon After UNIFIL's Mandate Ends? What Do MPs Say?

MPs hold different views on the security situation in South Lebanon after the mandate of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) ends. They also differ on what should happen if it is not renewed and no replacement is found. Several approaches have emerged on whether the force is useful and what its role on the ground should be.

MP Waddah Sadek believes UNIFIL’s practical role is “symbolic and theoretical.” In his view, it has failed to stop Israeli incursions and attacks. Nor has it prevented other parties from operating there or digging tunnels.

MP Ghassan Hasbani expects little to change, especially as ideas and discussions about alternatives with different tasks are under way. At the same time, he stressed that the mandate must be renewed. He also mentioned a petition calling for UNIFIL’s extension.

MP Tony Frangieh asked why UNIFIL’s efforts are criticized so often. He urged critics to aim their criticism at Israeli occupation practices first. According to him, Israel is the one blocking any international force, or even a European replacement. It wants to remain the only dominant party in the region.

MP Ali Mikdad likewise said Israel flatly rejects any international or European force. He argued that it wants to be the only controlling power, with no oversight or international presence.

MP Bilal Abdallah noted that the security situation in the South is heading toward the unknown, as Israel continues its policy of total destruction and killing. He stressed that Lebanon is the “weakest link.” For that reason, an international force, whether UNIFIL or another, is essential to act as a mediator.

Finally, MP Alain Aoun stressed the need for an international mediator. Matters, he said, should not be left open to direct friction and full confrontation between Lebanon and Israel.