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.