Israel is seeking to alter the post-ceasefire coordination mechanism along the Lebanese border by establishing direct contact with the Lebanese army, bypassing the United Nations peacekeeping force deployed in the south, said Israeli media.
The proposal has reignited debate in Beirut over the future of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 and the role of international oversight in southern Lebanon, with Lebanese officials insisting that any modification must remain strictly within the United Nations framework.
Reports attributed to Israel’s security establishment say the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) has recently adopted what Israeli officials describe as a “confrontational stance” toward the Israeli military.
Israeli media quoted officials as telling American counterparts that direct coordination between the Israeli military and the Lebanese army would be preferable to the current arrangement, which operates through UNIFIL. Some officials reportedly argued that the peacekeeping force now causes “more harm than benefit.”
The Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation said Israel’s security establishment believes UNIFIL has grown increasingly “hostile” in recent weeks.
The force’s mandate in southern Lebanon is due to expire at the end of this year.
Lebanese officials have responded by underscoring that the country’s position remains anchored in international legality and UN authority.
Fadi Alame, head of the Foreign Affairs and Immigrants Committee in Lebanon’s parliament, said Israeli media discussions “do not bind Lebanon,” stressing that “Lebanon’s sole reference remains the international resolutions issued by the United Nations.”
Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat, Alame reiterated Lebanon’s commitment to Resolution 1701 and expressed support for UNIFIL.
He said the force monitors implementation of the resolution and safeguards Lebanon’s rights and sovereignty within the UN framework.
“As long as there is a UN resolution in force, any amendment or termination must occur through the United Nations itself,” he stated. “International law requires an international monitoring body as long as the resolution remains in effect.”
Addressing speculation about replacing UNIFIL or shifting to direct coordination with the Lebanese army, Alame said Beirut’s official stance remains unchanged.
“Lebanon is committed to Resolution 1701 under a clear government decision,” he underlined. “For us, Resolution 1701 and other UN resolutions remain the foundation.”
He added that Lebanon is awaiting a report from the UN secretary-general in June that is expected to outline potential options. These could range from maintaining the current international force to introducing a European-led presence or increasing the number of international observers.
Any proposal, he stressed, would remain subject to UN approval.
Meanwhile, a Lebanese ministerial source told Asharq Al-Awsat that Israel’s proposal for direct coordination without UNIFIL “raises questions,” noting that the peacekeeping force is already embedded in the existing tripartite coordination mechanism.
Communication with Israel is conducted through UNIFIL under an established framework, the source explained, adding that Lebanon insists on maintaining an international sponsor and monitoring body as long as Resolution 1701 has not been fully implemented.
European proposals remain under discussion, including the possibility of a European-led force under French supervision or a mission focused on training and equipping the Lebanese army to assume expanded responsibilities. However, these ideas have yet to crystallize and remain tied to future political and security developments.
The debate follows a UN Security Council decision in August 2025 to extend UNIFIL’s mandate until December 31, 2026, with a coordinated drawdown planned to begin the following year.
UNIFIL has been deployed in southern Lebanon since 1978. It serves as a monitoring and buffer force, overseeing implementation of Resolution 1701 and supporting the Lebanese army’s deployment south of the Litani River.
