Understanding the ME conflict

Canadian with a hyphen · Jul 20, 2006

By Daniel Drezner
A few short months ago, representatives of every Lebanese faction gathered in central Beirut and discussed many of the issues that divide them - including how and when to disarm the Hezbollah militia. ( and a liar I am...)

In Lebanon, [Hezbollah leader Hasan] Nasrallah tried to make clear during his own press conference on Wednesday that Hezbollah was only acting to free Lebanese prisoners and to liberate a disputed piece of land called Shabba Farms. Hezbollah has always maintained that its mandate is to fight for Lebanon - not to pursue anyone else's agenda, not even the Palestinians. No one doubts that the recent events served Hezbollah's interests, at least in the short term.
In the Washington Post, Anthony Shadid takes a different position:
The radical Shiite movement Hezbollah and its leader, Hasan Nasrallah, hold an effective veto in Lebanese politics, and the group's military prowess has heartened its supporters at home and abroad in the Arab world. But that same force of arms has begun to endanger Hezbollah's long-term standing in a country where critics accuse it of dragging Lebanon into an unwinnable conflict the government neither chose nor wants to fight.

"To a certain Arab audience and Arab elite, Nasrallah is a champion, but the price is high," said Walid Jumblatt, a member of parliament and leader of Lebanon's Druze community. "We are paying a high price."....

Since the fighting with Israel started Wednesday, calls for Hezbollah to relinquish its weapons have gathered urgency. The violence began when Hezbollah fighters captured two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border incursion, followed by an Israeli attack on roads, bridges, power stations and airports.

Lebanese critics as well as allies of Hezbollah insist that the Israeli response was disproportionate. But at the same time, in meetings Thursday, Lebanese officials began to lay the groundwork for an extension of government control to southern Lebanon. Hezbollah largely controls southern Lebanon, where it has built up a network of schools, hospitals and charities.

"To declare war and to make military action must be a decision made by the state and not by a party," said Nabil de Freige, a parliament member. He belongs to the bloc headed by Saad Hariri, whose father, Rafiq, a former prime minister and wealthy businessman, was assassinated in 2005, setting off a sequence of events that forced the Syrian withdrawal. "It's a very simple equation: You have to be a state."

After a cabinet meeting Thursday, the government said it had a right and duty to extend its control over all Lebanese territory. Interior Minister Ahmed Fatfat said the statement marked a step toward the government reasserting itself.

Other government officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, went further, calling it a first move in possibly sending the Lebanese army to the border, a U.N.-endorsed proposal that Hezbollah has rejected. The officials described the meeting as stormy and contentious but said both sides -- Hezbollah and its government critics -- were especially wary of public divisions at a time of crisis.

"It is becoming very clear that the state alone must bear responsibility for the country's foreign policy," said Samir Franjieh, a parliament member who is close to the Hariri bloc. "But our problem now is that Israel is taking things so far that if there is no help from the international community, the situation could get out of hand."

Canadian with a hyphen · Jul 20, 2006

Disarming Hizbullah: not now, later maybe

From Beirut to the Beltway

A near consensus is emerging among "March 14" leaders that Hizbullah’s July 13 operation should be its last. On Thursday, the "March 14" alliance issued a statement condemning the disproportionate Israeli attack and loss of lives, but also criticized Hizbullah’s unilateralism in making war decisions. More recently, on Friday, Walid Jumblatt, who at some point was the only politician calling Hizbullah a militia implementing a Syrian-Iranian agenda, questioned the hidden motives of Israel in its over the top response but also said this:

Asked whether he thought there was a hidden agenda behind Hizbullah's continued rocket attacks on Israel, Jumblatt replied: "One must not forget that Hizbullah works according to a Syrian-Iranian plan in one way or another."

"But I hope that Sayyed Hassan [Nasrallah] has a margin of freedom allowing him to put the interest of Lebanon above the Syrian and Iranian interests," he added, in reference to the Hizbullah secretary general.

Concerning the likelihood of a solution to the crisis, Jumblatt said: "We must sit down with Hizbullah and discuss the means to integrate its forces into the Lebanese Army."

Integrating Hizbullah into the army effectively means its disarmament, and that it would be following orders from the Lebanese military.

The Egyptian ambassador in Lebanon, whose country joined Saudi Arabia in criticizing Hizbullah’s actions, held talks with the Lebanese prime minister and said afterwards that Siniora "emphasized the necessity that the government exert its sovereignty and control over all Lebanese territory…the government will put into effect the decisions made during the Cabinet session; the situation is dangerous and Cabinet decisions are not just words."

Michel Aoun, who in the past accused the parliament’s majority of inciting civil strife by “provoking” Hizbullah and the Assad regime, is now breaking his unusual silence of the past few days.

In an interview with Al Ousbouh Al-Arabi magazine to be published on Saturday, the former general said: "No one supports Hizbullah's weapons forever. The resistance was born in specific circumstances and we are discussing today whether it should remain and how it should cooperate with the army and assume responsibility with the government."

This is a far cry from previous statements by Aoun, whose presidential aspirations propelled him into the Hizbullah-Syria camp, much to the disappointment of many who thought the General would at least refuse to disown his own past.

Despite this Arab-backed consensus about Hizbullah’s weapons and role in Lebanon, it is unlikely that it will translate into immediate disarmament of Hizbullah or deploying the Lebanese army.

In an interview with Voice of Lebanon on Friday, Telecommunications Minister Marwan Hamade said the Cabinet had three objectives: "Reaching an immediate and comprehensive cease-fire through the Security Council; resolving the problems ... that led to the Israeli aggression through negotiations; and asserting Lebanon's sovereignty over all Lebanese territory."

"This does not mean that we will deploy forces in the South or [instantly] withdraw the militants there; but it means that the government will assume its responsibilities toward Lebanese society and the international community," Hamade said.

Many are saying that such a decision cannot be taken at a time of “chaotic and unjustified Israeli attack,” to quote Jumblatt in an interview with L’orient le jour. Jumblatt even said that disarming Hizbullah should not be discussed now. Nearly all are calling for national unity at this point in time. This, of course, did not stop pro-Assad politicians from accusing the leaders mentioned above of “meeting the Israelis half way.”

Despite this pragmatic unwillingness to hand over Hizbullah to Israel at a time many massacres are being committed and infrastructure destroyed, the Lebanese media is not postponing this discussion. The number one question being asked: “How could Hizbullah ignore the Lebanese government and take the unilateral decision to go to war?” LBC and Future TV are leading this questioning. In 1993 and 1996, the last two major Israeli operations, no Lebanese media would have dared to question the motives of Hizbullah.

Al-Mustaqbal in an editorial today continued to criticize Hizbullah’s “miscalculated adventure… carried out to serve strategic interests beyond Lebanon… and with catastrophic consequences.” Two hundred thousand workers in the tourism sector have lost their jobs, and the government will now have to beg for money from donor countries to rebuild the destroyed infrastructure, the daily said.

Al-Mustaqbal accused Hizbullah of widening an already existing sectarian crack in the country, hinting that Sunnis and Christians are not happy with the apparent Shia hijacking of decision making in the country. It should be noted that al-Mustaqbal, owned by Saad Hariri, is going the path of Saudi Arabia in its criticism of Hizbullah.

On another note, it seems that even Hizbullah’s allies were surprised and felt betrayed by the “ill-timed” July 13 operation. Elaph quoted pro-Assad Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri as saying there was an agreement at the last national dialogue session to keep the Shebaa front calm at least until the end of the summer season. For that, perhaps, the dialogue participants were more than willing to take their time discussing Hizbullah’s weapons and its “defense strategy”, which many opposed. It seems that Hizbullah managed to fool everyone, including the editor of the Assad regime Lebanese mouthpiece Al-Diyar, Charles Ayoub, who told Marcel Ghanem yesterday that he did not support “the timing of the operation.” Berri and Ayoub, however, wouldn’t be caught dead questioning Hizbullah’s actions.

Meanwhile, Speaker Nabih Berri's Development and Liberation parliamentary bloc said that the Jewish state was "trying to settle its accounts with Lebanon, which proves the presence of an intention to wage a war that goes beyond the capture of the two soldiers."

In a statement, the bloc said the war was taking "dangerous political and economic dimensions" and was aimed at "undermining national unity and creating a rift in internal Lebanese relations and between confessions, and at disfiguring Lebanon by seizing the opportunity to destroy its infrastructure." The bloc added that the "strongest weapon facing the Israeli attacks" was Lebanese unity, but called on the government to announce a state of alert and to begin to prepare for the repair of infrastructure.

Meanwhile, over in Damascus, Bashar Assad feels important again. As Jumblatt perceptively noted, "the hidden [Israeli] agenda prods Syria to brag about Lebanon's weakness without Damascus's help and gives Syria a motive to draw attention away from the international court [being formed to try former Premier Rafik Hariri's assassins]."

Bashar is now being included on regional tours and phone calls by leaders to “put pressure on Hizbullah.” Assad had long argued that he was the only one capable of imposing order and reining in militias in Lebanon--militias that his regime funded and helped arm during the Syrian occupation of the country. I find it mind boggling that even Bush is now asking Bashar to “exert influence on Hizbullah to halt attacks on Israel”, when most Lebanese want the Assad regime to not have “influence” on anyone in the country. The Bush administration, mind you, also wants Syria to implement UNSC resolutions that the US sponsored and that called for end of Syrian interference in the country and its arming of militias such as Hizbullah and the PFLP-GC.

The Bush administration appears unable and unwilling to make Syria and Iran pay directly for their disruptive role in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. This is irreconcilable with their stated desire to see democracy in Lebanon thrive, for, and as many of us said before, a democratic Lebanon cannot exist with a dictator such as Assad acting with impunity and supporting illegal militias. This war is not targeting Syria or Iran, it’s killing civilians and destroying Lebanese infrastructure. It may be satisfying some Israeli security objective, though it’s doubtful, but it is not helping the Bush administration’s alleged democratization drive.

In short, this attack may have given Hizbullah’s opponents impetus, but Hizbullah will not be destroyed or disarmed easily when their backers are still allowed to play the same role. Nasrallah’s men will regroup, and Assad will again mobilize his allies to sabotage any attempt to extend state control over all Lebanese territories.

Canadian with a hyphen · Jul 20, 2006

Can you prove those trucks were carrying milk and medicine? Hezbollah probably saw one of their missile trucks blown to pieces and decided to claim it was a milk/medicine truck. This is war on another front dear little girl It is called the Propaganda War. I am more inclined to believe the Israelis.

http://www.tayyar.org/tayyar/articles.php?article_id=15651&type=news
while checking the details of hizbolla's mental disorder and Israel's hysteria ...you also might wanna check if Israel had used the banned internationally phosphoric bombs...

If lebanon must die to ensure the survival of Israel then so be it...Let it die.

Fascism = elimination game by SL...could this world get any freakier?

gopher · Jul 20, 2006

A great many Yanks have a difficult time understanding events in the ME. And all too often they rely on the pro war reich wing media for info and they get a very distorted view of the facts.

The best source for info on the ME is from the USA's foremost authority on the subject. And that's Juan Cole.

http://www.juancole.com

The truth is just so different from the reich wing lies.

Canadian with a hyphen · Jul 20, 2006

gopher said:
A great many Yanks have a difficult time understanding events in the ME. And all too often they rely on the pro war reich wing media for info and they get a very distorted view of the facts.

The best source for info on the ME is from the USA's foremost authority on the subject. And that's Juan Cole.

http://www.juancole.com

The truth is just so different from the reich wing lies.

yeah the juancole site is much better than many other sources reporting on the ME.
I posted those articles as they explain best the situation at the moment...I have been called a liar by SaintLucifier for saying that the lebanese government was on it way to disarm hezbollah...I was also called a liar because the convoy parked with food and medicine was bombarded in Hadath-Beirut ...I was ignored was I said that Israel used the phosphoric bombs that are banned internationally against the lebanese people...
I was called a liar when despite my personal presence at the "cedar revolution 2005" that kicked the syrians out last year and I know how much effort was made by the people to get the UN to pay attention to Lebanon's occupation by the syrians ...there are many UN resolutions sitting in books collecting dust in the offices of the UN...If it wasn't to the people; 1559 would have been still sitting on kofi Anan's desk.

Gopher just for the record, I'm not pro-israel or pro-hezbollah ...I'm pro-democracy and freedom...I just take it very personal when I defend my country of Birth (lebanon), trying to deal with poorly educated people who think lebanon should die for israel's stability and who don't waste the chance to remind me that there are airports in this country that I should use them to go back. I bet u anything if you look into the descent of many people here they are everything but first nation people with all due respect to everyone.

Colpy · Jul 20, 2006

CWAH......I don't think Lebanon should die for Israel's existence, I think Israel (in the long run, admittedly a painful one) may be offering Lebanon proper a chance at rebirth.......

A nation can not exist without the ability to control its own territory, make decisions on its foreign policy, and decide when and where it goes to war.

Hezbollah has prevented Lebanon from doing so. They are outside rule by proxy, and for Lebanon to re-establish themselves as a cohesive nation, Hezbollah must be destroyed.......which Israel is doing.

I just watched the Israeli ambassador to the UN express his delight at the idea that the Lebanese Army occupy southern Lebanon........they haven't for 30 years.

Canadian with a hyphen · Jul 20, 2006