Lebanon’s New Dilemma: A European Force or Business as Usual?

The United Nations peacekeeping mandate in southern Lebanon, established nearly five decades ago, is set to expire at the end of 2026. This will leave a power vacuum with significant regional implications. The European Union is considering a proposal for a three-year military and civilian mission to advise and train the Lebanese armed forces and internal security forces.

The proposed EU mission would not replace UNIFIL entirely but rather strengthen the Lebanese state. However, critics argue that this could be a case of replacing one problem with another. They point out that any new European force would face similar limitations as its predecessor. The UN’s peacekeeping mandate has been repeatedly expanded over the years, yet it has never been given the power to enforce compliance from Israel or disarm Hezbollah.

Israel’s continued bombardment of Lebanon and its occupation of a fifth of the country have raised concerns about the EU’s proposed mission. The timing is also suspicious, as the UN’s own succession planning has been underway, with proposals ranging from handing over a residual role to the Truce Supervision Organisation to deploying up to 3,000 troops.

Analyst Imad Salamey warns that without an international force, Israel could pursue a more permanent arrangement. This would shift the focus from internationally supervised monitoring to bilateral coordination between Israeli and Lebanese forces, effectively legitimizing Israel’s occupation of Lebanese territory and undermining any hopes for a lasting peace agreement.

The US has been mediating talks between Israel and Lebanon for months, but these efforts have yielded little in terms of tangible progress. A European force would likely not change Israel’s position or lead to the withdrawal of its forces. In fact, Israeli officials might even create a new “Blue Line,” effectively dividing the country once more.

The issue is not with the proposed mission itself but rather with the framework within which it would operate. Without a comprehensive political agreement and a mandate acceptable to both sides, any new force risks facing similar limitations as UNIFIL. This could lead to European personnel being questioned for their neutrality by one side or the other.

Lebanon needs more than just a change in peacekeepers; it requires a fundamental shift in the regional dynamics at play. A new EU mission would need to be accompanied by reciprocal commitments from Israel and Hezbollah, agreed rules, and a realistic enforcement mechanism. Without these, swapping UNIFIL for a European force may simply reproduce its difficulties under a different name.

The international community must consider what this means for Lebanon’s future, both in the short term and the long run. Is it prepared to continue down a path that ultimately reinforces Israel’s occupation and undermines any hope of lasting peace? Or will we see a genuine effort to address the root causes of conflict and create a more sustainable solution? The clock is ticking, and Lebanon cannot afford another missed opportunity.