Home Care In Lebanon, IN

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously on Thursday to terminate the U.N. peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon at the end of next year after nearly five decades, bowing to demands from the United States and its close ally Israel.

The United States, which initially demanded the force be ended in six months and later sought a one-year final extension, voted in favor of a final 16-month mandate to continue its activities near Lebanon’s U.N.-drawn border with Israel until Dec. 31, 2026.

U.S. envoy discusses long-term Israel-Lebanon ceasefire after Beirut commits to disarming Hezbollah

The multinational peacekeeping force has played a significant role in monitoring the security situation in southern Lebanon for decades, including during the Israel-Hezbollah war last year. But it has drawn criticism from both sides and officials in President Donald Trump’s administration, which has moved to slash U.S. funding for the operation as Trump remakes America’s approach to foreign policy.

“The security environment in Lebanon is radically different than just one year ago, creating the space for Lebanon to assume greater responsibility,” said the acting U.S. ambassador, Dorothy Shea.

The peacekeeping force, known as UNIFIL, was created to oversee the withdrawal of Israeli troops from southern Lebanon after Israel’s 1978 invasion. Its mission was expanded following the monthlong 2006 war between Israel and the militant group Hezbollah.

Following last fall’s Israel-Hezbollah war, Lebanese officials have called for UNIFIL to remain, saying the country’s cash-strapped and overstretched army is unable to patrol the full area on its own.

In a statement, Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam welcomed the decision to extend UNIFIL’s mandate through 2026 and thanked “all friendly countries in this Council that expressed their understanding of Lebanon’s concerns.”

Israel’s U.N. ambassador, Danny Danon, told the Security Council that “we are at a decisive moment for Lebanon, Israel and the region, on what comes next.”

The U.N. resolution, sponsored by France, gives the force a year starting on Dec. 31, 2026, to withdraw its 10,800 military and civilian personnel and all U.N. equipment. During this period, UNIFIL was authorized to carry out a few limited activities.

The resolution says the aim is to make the Lebanese government “the sole provider of security” in southern Lebanon north of the U.N.-drawn border with Israel known as the Blue Line. It calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from north of the Blue Line. Danon made no mention of a pullout in his remarks.

Trump administration political appointees had sought to shut down UNIFIL as soon as possible and secured major cuts in U.S. funding. They regard the operation as a waste of money that is merely delaying the goal of eliminating Hezbollah’s influence and restoring full security control to the Lebanese armed forces.

European nations, notably France and Italy, objected to winding down UNIFIL too quickly. They argued that ending the peacekeeping mission before the Lebanese army was able to fully secure the border area would create a vacuum Hezbollah could easily exploit.

France’s deputy U.N. ambassador, Jay Dharmadhikari, welcomed the unanimous vote, saying last November’s cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah placed Lebanon on a path to regain sovereignty over its entire territory and toward regional stability.

He said UNIFIL’s ongoing operations are still vital, stressing that its mandate until the end of 2026 will give the force “precious time … to work alongside the mounting capabilities of the Lebanese army so that sovereignty can be extended throughout Lebanese territory.”

Dharmadhikari warned that “any premature withdrawal could undermine or even weaken” that effort.

The U.S. commended the progress of deployment of Lebanese forces, Shea said, and will keep working with it “to expand its capabilities as Lebanon carries out its critical work in disarming Hezbollah.”

She urged the international community to use the coming year to bolster the Lebanese armed forces and “set Lebanon up for success.”

Algeria’s U.N. Ambassador Amar Bendjama, the Arab representative on the Security Council, stressed that UNIFIL “remains indispensable to stability in Lebanon and in the region” by playing a key role in deescalating tensions, supporting a ceasefire and enabling Lebanese forces to deploy in the south.

Saying Israeli forces are still in Lebanon in violation of past agreements, Bendjama warned that “without ending Israel’s occupation of Arab lands, peace and stability in the region will remain elusive.”

Israel’s Danon accused UNIFIL of consistently overlooking Hezbollah’s “vast military buildup,” providing the militant group “with cover to entrench itself.”

Strengthening the Lebanese armed forces “is essential if Lebanon is ever to reclaim full sovereignty” from Hezbollah, Danon said.

Israel is prepared to advance talks with Lebanon on enforcing the border if the country moves toward disarming Hezbollah.

During the one-year withdrawal period, the U.N. resolution says, UNIFIL is authorized to provide security and assistance to U.N. personnel, “to maintain situational awareness in the vicinity of UNIFIL locations,” and to contribute to the protection of civilians and the safe delivery of humanitarian aid “within the limits of its capacities.”

The resolution urges the international community “to intensify its support, including equipment, material and finance” to the Lebanese armed forces.

Associated Press writer Abby Sewell in Beirut contributed to this report.

Stand up for truly independent, trusted news that you can count on!

Following a devastating 15-month conflict between Israel and Hezbollah militants focused on southern Lebanon, the November 2024 cessation of hostilities created a fragile calm along the Blue Line separating the two countries.

As members of the UN Security Council negotiate the renewal of the UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) ahead of a 31 August deadline, the mission’s future role and capacity are under intense debate.

UNIFIL has long been a stabilising presence in southern Lebanon, working alongside the Lebanese armed forces, mediating between parties, and supporting local communities.

A key part of its mandate is to implement Security Council resolution 1701, which brought an end to the 2006 hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah militants.

Yet challenges remain, from Israeli military positions inside Lebanon to Hezbollah’s arsenal and the broader question of how resolution 1701 – which calls for a complete end to hostilities – can be fully implemented.

According to media reports, last-ditch negotiations are underway over the mission’s future, with some diplomats warning of risks to border stability and others voicing tepid support or pressing for full withdrawal.

Earlier this week, Andrea Tenenti, spokesperson for UNIFIL, sat down with UN News’s Nancy Sarkis to discuss the mission’s effectiveness, the risks of a non-renewal, and what is at stake for Lebanon, Israel, and regional stability.

© UNIFIL

UNIFIL peacekeepers on patrol (file)

This interview has been edited for clarity

UN News: UNIFIL’s mandate, which expires at the end of August, needs to be renewed by the UN Security Council. Why is this renewal important, and how do you assess UNIFIL’s effectiveness so far?

Andrea Tenenti: The renewal comes after a long crisis that has devastated the region and destroyed most of the areas close to the Blue Line. It would show the importance of maintaining an international peacekeeping operation to assist the Lebanese army [Lebanese Armed Forces, or LAF] in their full deployment.

That's what we have been doing from the very beginning, and in the last several months since November, after the cessation of hostilities, the LAF has brought more troops to the south, and we have been working with them in being deployed in all these positions, although the real challenge at the moment is that we still have Israeli Defense Forces [IDF] positions present in the south of the country.

UN News: To what extent are the Lebanese armed forces ready to assume full responsibility in southern Lebanon without the support of peacekeepers, and what challenges do they face in doing so?

Andrea Tenenti: Right now, the Lebanese army don't have the capacities and capabilities to be fully deployed. There is a financial crisis in the country, and they need capacity and capability support from UNIFIL, and the financial support of the international community to have a sustainable presence and to bring State authority to the south.

The Lebanese army and authorities have demonstrated their full commitment to resolution 1701. However, they cannot be fully deployed if the IDF are still present; the presence of the IDF in the south is a violation of Lebanese sovereignty and resolution 1701. There needs to be commitment from both sides.

UN News: If the UNIFIL mandate is not renewed, what are the potential consequences for regional stability?

Andrea Tenenti: The situation is much better than before, but very, very fragile. Anything could jeopardise the situation in the south. A lack of renewal would create a real vacuum for stability of the region. It would create a very dangerous precedent and situation for the stability of the country, and it would make impartial monitoring very difficult.

UN News: UNIFIL has faced criticism from Lebanon, Israel, and internationally. How do you respond to these criticisms, and what step can be taken to strengthen trust and credibility?

Andrea Tenenti: Criticism goes with the job of any peacekeeping mission. In order to be impartial, staying in the middle and trying to assist the parties in the implementation of the mission’s mandate, you will be criticised by both sides.

Sometimes, the criticism is driven by a misconception of the mission’s mandate. For example, resolution 1701 does not call for UNIFIL to disarm Hezbollah. This is not our mandate. We are to support the Lebanese army to do it, and that's what we are doing right now.

On the Lebanese side, we have been criticised for patrolling without the Lebanese army, but as part of 1701 we are tasked to operate either with the Lebanese army or independently.

This is something that the Lebanese army and Lebanese authorities know very well. Sometimes it's a matter of disinformation and misinformation about the role of the mission, and we are trying to counter that as much as we can.

UN News: What is your vision for UNIFIL's role in the coming years, and do you see it as a short-term necessity or as a part of a long-term regional security framework?

Andrea Tenenti: At the moment, UNIFIL is very much needed to support the stability of the region, bring back the Lebanese army to the south – and return State authority that has been not present for a very long time. But it has to be a south free from occupation – that’s the only way to move forward.

The goal of the mission has always been to leave and hand over all our capabilities and tasks to the Lebanese authorities, but a lot needs to be done. To ensure stability in the region, we have to be pragmatic on the timetable.

While the Trump administration has failed so far to end the war in Gaza, it has found slow but steady success in two other war-ravaged Middle Eastern countries.

Why it matters: The administration's diplomatic efforts in Syria and Lebanon have generated scant attention in Washington and in the news cycle. But they hold the potential for truly historic developments.

The big picture: They're part of a string of low-profile diplomatic breakthroughs, such as the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace deal signed in Washington three weeks ago, even as Trump struggles to get a deal in Ukraine and Gaza.

Zoom in: Trump's team decided to give strong backing to two new leaders: Syria's militant-turned-president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, and Lebanon's president and former army chief, Joseph Aoun.

Friction point: Adding to the difficulty, Israel bombed Damascus in July and clashed with Syria's armed forces near the southern Syrian city of Suwayda.

What they're saying: "Israel and Syria are both discussing in good faith a potential security agreement. They have mutual intent and desire but at the moment, there is still more work to do. Constructive dialogue between these nation states is the on ramp to a long-lasting understanding that will be the preface to stability and prosperity in the region," Barrack told Axios.

Behind the scenes: During that meeting, the Israeli and Syrian ministers discussed the establishment of a humanitarian corridor to Suwayda to deliver aid from Israel to the Druze community there.

Barrack was also handed the Lebanon file two months ago. The assignment was to strengthen the new Lebanese government, push it towards disarming Hezbollah and build foundations for future normalization with Israel.

The latest: Barrack and U.S. diplomat Morgan Ortagus are now asking the Israeli government to reciprocate by scaling down its strikes in Lebanon, and starting a gradual withdrawal of its remaining forces from southern Lebanon.

On Monday, Barrack and Ortagus traveled on to Beirut to meet Lebanese officials.

The bottom line: Both processes are a long way from fruition. But while the early progress has flown under the international radar, it's also demonstrated Trump's sway among officials in the region.

The Lebanese government’s plan to disarm a militarily weakened Hezbollah revives the spectre of civil conflict. The stage is set for a battle between competing visions of Lebanon's future.

On 5 August, the Lebanese government of President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam tasked the Lebanese Armed Forces with devising a plan for the disarmament of Hezbollah and other militias. The plan is due to be presented in early September. It has received strong support and input from the United States, whose envoy Tom Barrack was in Beirut last week. This is a bold political move that both President Aoun, a former head of the Lebanese Armed Forces, and Prime Minister Salam have pledged to see through. Hezbollah, supported by Iran, has been defiant and rejected the idea of disarming. Protesters supporting Hezbollah have taken to the streets. The stakes in this long-delayed show-down – between the legitimate government of Lebanon on the one hand, and an over-mighty militia and their backer, Iran, on the other – are now high for all sides.

Hezbollah is nothing without its weapons; indeed, without them, it is arguably no longer ‘Hezbollah’, a concept that entails commitment to armed struggle. With so much to lose, it is seeking to deter through rhetoric and public actions, but has nothing to gain by firing first. It may hope to wear the Lebanese government down to a negotiated compromise. In its characteristic blend of nationalist and religious rhetoric, it claims that it is ‘sinful’ for the Lebanese state to leave Lebanon unprotected against Israel. In Hezbollah’s view, only when Israel withdraws from Lebanese territory and stops attacking Lebanon would it be possible even to consider integration. For good measure, its new leader, Naim Qasim, is claiming that Hezbollah is fine and in good order to confront Israel. But Qasim leads a very different, and much weaker, Hezbollah to the one that his predecessor Hasan Nasrallah led for three decades. The degradation of its military capabilities inflicted by the IDF was severe and the Shia arc from Iran through Iraq and Syria that supported it, has collapsed.

More importantly, Hezbollah’s strategic priority now is less to avoid losing battles with Israel and more to avoid losing its license to operate, however grudgingly given, in Lebanon. That license is under direct threat. It has depended upon a combination of three factors: its military might, making it too strong for the Lebanese Armed Forces to dismantle; the support and guidance of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and of Assad’s Syria, which have previously stood watch over the Lebanese government; and the unwillingness or inability of successive governments of Lebanon to call it to heel.

All of these factors have now changed materially: Iran is a much reduced power in the region. In Syria, meanwhile, regime change has cost Hezbollah its strategic ally and brought them instead a government that is an ideological opponent. It is no coincidence that, after four decades of resenting and fearing the power of Hezbollah and Iran, the government of Lebanon now feels able to make its move.

This is a perilous passage for Hezbollah. If they lose the right they have arrogated to themselves to carry arms, at the scale of a sovereign state, they will lose more than just their attractiveness to recruits; they will also lose the means by which they control the population and economy of large areas of Lebanon, as well as the instrument with which they protect themselves, in the long Lebanese tradition, from sectarian rivals. In short, the organisation will lose its distinctive feature, while the leadership will lose the source of their political power at home and in the region. While it is likely that popular support for a Hezbollah-like group in some form will remain solid within its key geographic constituencies, disarmament combined with reduced funding from Iran could imperil longer-term recruitment and reduce its influence at the national level.

For Iran, losing Hezbollah as a fighting force would be the coup de grâce to its already battered strategy of fighting through third parties. It would be a spiritual blow, too, to the religious leadership in Tehran, whose authority and status has rested in part on their ability to mobilise and militarise Shia communities across the Arab world and Asia. The messaging from Iran has been firmly behind Hezbollah, pledging to support whatever Hezbollah decide and dismissing disarmament as unfeasible. It has also boasted that it will use its ‘new missiles’ if Israel attacks Hezbollah or Iran again, but this is likely to be more bravado, which doesn’t translate to deterrence.

As ever, Iranian rhetoric may be misleading. There has to be a question over the appetite in Tehran both for further conflict with Israel, as it tries to rebuild its own heavily damaged military infrastructure, and for Hezbollah plunging into a potentially deadly endgame with the Lebanese Armed Forces, Israel and the US. Iran’s current priorities are not in the Levant but in rebuilding relationships in the Gulf, where there is little sympathy for Hezbollah. A calculation for Hezbollah should they decide to fight is what, if anything, Iran can or will do for them.

For the Lebanese government, the important issue is sovereignty. President Joseph Aoun has something larger at stake than the taming of Hezbollah: preserving the government’s monopoly on the use of force. Aoun has repeatedly stressed this phrase since his election, seeking to cast the challenge of disarming Hezbollah as constitutional rather than sectarian. Ministers have gone so far as to state that force will have to be used if Hezbollah do not comply with the disarmament plan, an option no-one wants to pursue but, with US backing, one that the government may this time feel sufficiently emboldened to pursue. Aoun’s message has wide resonance within Lebanon, where the existence of sectarian armed forces serves only as a reminder of the dangers and damage of civil war, as well as leaving the door open for gangsterism and political intimidation. A recurring additional message is that Hezbollah, far from protecting the state from Israel as they claim, have brought war to Lebanon and are threatening to do so again.

Israel has, under Benjamin Netanyahu, committed itself to operations of unprecedented scale and tempo against Hezbollah, including deployments inside the southern Lebanon. The IDF chief, Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir, visited the south of the country on 13 August. Critics of the operation have pointed to previous Israeli experiences here, which show that the financial and political costs involved in an extended occupation of Lebanese territory are too high. But Israel can only credibly withdraw if it has ended Hezbollah in the same way as it seeks to end Hamas – that is, destroying the group as a fighting force that has the ability to grow back.

For the Lebanese government finally to close down Hezbollah’s military capabilities would offer Netanyahu the pivot he needs to scale back IDF operations and would present a concrete outcome to his northern war that he can leverage politically. Since the Israeli government allowed the return of the residents of the northern settlements on 1 March, displaced Israelis have begun to return. But the real test will be when the displaced residents of southern Lebanese villages return. Netanyahu needs strong active measures on the part of the Lebanese government to be in place for this not to hazard a return of Hezbollah and a renewal of the threat to Israel’s north.

There is a regional context for the disarmament and integration of militias. Lebanon, Israel, the US and many Arab countries want to see the disarmament of Hezbollah succeed, but precedents are mixed. In Iraq and in Assad’s Syria, this was possible because militias, overwhelmingly backed by Iran, were partly reintegrated into the government forces, but in both cases the militias shared strategic alignment with the state. Even so, in the Iraqi case, Iran insisted on maintaining a direct line to its re-badged militias. On the other hand, there is no strategic alignment between the Lebanese government and Hezbollah. Quite the reverse: Christian and Sunni politicians in Lebanon have made clear that they hold Hezbollah responsible for bringing war to Lebanon and for letting in a foreign power, Iran.

What is at stake is a vision of Lebanon. For Aoun, the US and the current government, the time has come to close a long and damaging chapter of Iranian interference in Lebanon and the deep compromise this has entailed of the government’s monopoly on force. Hezbollah would prefer to continue their asymmetric, armed struggle against Israel and to maintain the status quo of their disproportionate power within Lebanon. To many, that flies in the face of the new realities of the region, including Israel’s military dominance, Iran’s reduced status and, above all, US policy. Cornered and isolated, but still enjoying broad support in their constituency, there is a risk that Hezbollah may be prepared, as they have done before, to fight Lebanon as well as Israel.

Yet while there is potential for the two irreconcilable positions to lead Lebanon back into the bloody maze of sectarian conflict, there is also the potential for negotiated compromise if both parties are sufficiently prepared to take concessions: but for Hezbollah this would have to be on key matters touching on the group’s identity and, possibly, survival.

“Boone County is growing quickly, and the availability of high-quality healthcare is essential to supporting its long-term growth,” said Dr. Greg Johnson, chief physician executive of growth markets, Parkview Health. “By investing here, we want to ensure that families in Lebanon and surrounding communities can receive advanced care close to home, delivered by providers who are committed to their neighbors for generations to come.”

The 108,000-square-foot hospital will feature a 24/7 emergency department and inpatient medical, surgical and specialty care. The 30,000-square-foot medical office building will house primary care and specialty care, outpatient diagnostics and a shared employer clinic.

The facility is expected to create more than 200 healthcare jobs in Lebanon.

Lebanon Mayor Matt Gentry shared, “We are excited to welcome Parkview Health to Lebanon; this investment will bring expanded healthcare access, high-quality services, and new healthcare options to Lebanon and Boone County. Parkview’s commitment to Lebanon reflects the strength of our community, and we are eager to build a lasting partnership that benefits our residents for years to come.”

Card & Associates announced the development of Hickory Junction in 2021, setting in place a 10-year plan to develop a multi-sport, entertainment and residential destination in Lebanon. Hickory Junction is envisioned as a 350-acre development that would attract visitors and provide first-in-class experiences for Lebanon residents, and aligns with the city’s life sciences, high-tech and university expansive growth.

The Farmers Bank Fieldhouse at Hickory Junction debuted in 2022 and Parkview Sports Medicine has also committed to providing sports performance services in the fieldhouse beginning in 2026.

“Parkview Health’s leadership team and providers will bring innovative and convenient care access,” said Andy Card, CEO and founder, Card & Associates. “Hickory Junction, like most major developments, is at its mid-point, and we look forward to what’s yet to come.”

Dr. Johnson added, “Parkview is focusing on the I-65 corridor to provide healthcare services aligned with the state’s growth initiatives, including the 9,000+ acre LEAP Lebanon Innovation District, which will be home to Eli Lilly and Company and Meta, which are also making substantial new investments in Boone County.”

The Lebanon hospital is the latest in Parkview Health’s growth throughout northern Indiana. The nonprofit health system announced plans in May to open two new facilities in Marion, and in July, welcomed Parkview Logansport Hospital and committed to building a hospital in West Lafayette.

“As we grow and create greater access to care, we remain focused on reducing healthcare costs for our patients,” added John Bowen, chief growth markets officer, Parkview Health. “A shared employer clinic is one way we can do that for businesses in Lebanon. We’re also expanding access to innovative direct-to-employer health plans, virtual visits and lower-cost outpatient care options — delivered in settings that are more convenient and affordable for families. Together, these efforts ensure patients have both greater choice and greater value.”

In addition to direct-to-employer partnerships, since 2020, Parkview has renegotiated contracts with major health insurance companies to yield more than $1.1 billion in total rate reductions through 2025. Last month, they announced a new long-term contract with Anthem, further reducing their hospital rates through 2029. The health system has also grown its virtual care options and launched numerous low cost, non-hospital ambulatory care sites.

Construction on the Lebanon hospital is expected to begin in 2026, with a targeted opening in the summer of 2028.

About Parkview Health

Parkview Health is a not-for-profit, community-based health system serving a northern Indiana and northwest Ohio population of more than 1.3 million. Parkview Health’s mission is to improve health and inspire well-being in the communities it serves. With approximately 17,500 co-workers, it is the region’s largest employer.

Parkview Health includes 15 hospitals and an extensive network of primary care and specialty care physicians. Parkview annually earns multiple "A" Hospital Safety Grades from The Leapfrog Group, is ranked among the Best Hospitals in Indiana by U.S. News & World Report, has been recognized by The Chartis Center for Rural Health for excellent hospital quality and outcomes for rural care in northern Indiana, and received the NRC Health No. 1 overall Excellence in Patient Experience Award for medium-sized systems as the system with the highest patient net promoter score nationally.