Lebanon - Proxy Battleground

Following the bombing by Israel of Beirut Airport on 13 July 2006, I began e-mailing my friends with news from Beirut. My wife, daughter and I were evacuated from Beirut on 20 July 2006, but my wife's family and our friends remain there. I created this blog to post my original e-mails, and express my anger and frustration at what is happening in Lebanon - once again, a proxy battleground. I hope you find something to think about in the posts below. I welcome your comments.

Friday, September 15, 2006

Hezb'allah's "victory" is an illusion

I'm finally hearing some words that make sense.

The Daily Star reports the leader of the Lebanese Forces, Samir Geagea, dismissing any claims of a Hizbullah victory over Israel as "imaginary," saying Lebanon had paid a heavy price during the recent war. "It is true that the Israelis walked out from the war in a terrible situation," the Lebanese Forces leader said in an interview with an Egyptian television station aired Thursday. "It is also true that the performance of the Hizbullah militants was very good, but Lebanon paid a high price for nothing." "The feeling of victory is an illusion," he added.

Asked his opinion on international and domestic calls for Hizbullah to be disarmed, Geagea said: "Hizbullah agreed to UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which said that Israel and Lebanon should abide by the truce agreement and respect the Blue Line. So why would Hizbullah use its weapons again?"

These sentiments are echoed by the Maronite Patriarch, Nasrallah Butros Sfeir. The Patriarch was quoted by Journalists' Union President Melhem Karam as saying "a war was imposed on us and our country was used as a battlefield for others". "The war was launched in mediation between Israel and the US from one side and Iran and Syria through a Lebanese group from the other side."

Unsurprisingly, a senior Shiite cleric, Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah, accused the US of "working to raise one Lebanese group over another." "The US administration is still looking to implement strife through its ambassador here, or by promoting internal divisions that were caused by the Israeli aggression against the country," the cleric said Thursday.

Is Hezb'allah unable to accept any responsibility at all for its actions? Should the Lebanese be grateful for their ruined country?

Sunday, September 10, 2006

What sort of a society do the Lebanese want to live in?

The BBC website is publishing correspondence between a Lebanese man in Beirut and an Israeli living in the border town of Shlomi, which deal with the prospects for peace after the ceasefire. One point the Israeli correspondent made that leapt out at me was the following:

"Israel is a democracy. If we feel that the government was wrong, it will pay the price at the next election. But in Lebanon, when Hezbollah feel they have sufficient strength, they may not wait for elections. They may take over the government by force of the arms that they are refusing to relinquish. And if they do, the fault will be that of the Lebanese, not of Israel.

Who will you complain to then, when the country is ruled by Muslim law, and your wife is forced to wear a burkha?".

While this correspondence ignores the fact that Lebanon is also a democracy, the point about Hezb'allah possibly seizing power by force in the future is a threat that Lebanon cannot ignore (and which I alluded to in my previous "coup d'etat" posting).

To view Hezb'allah as a benign liberator of Lebanon is foolish, given their initial aim in 1982 of replicating Iran's Islamic Republic and imposing Shari'ah law on all citizens, irrespective of their religious affiliation. A healthy society allows all of its citizens to believe what they want to believe, rather than having a faith imposed on them.

Friday, September 08, 2006

Hezb'allah's coup d'etat

Who is in control in Lebanon?

If the last few weeks have shown us anything, it's that Hezb'allah has moved the quickest to begin the rebuilding process, to compensate civilians for their destroyed homes, and gaining the confidence of the majority of the population in Lebanon - all while the government looks bewildered and impotent. Hassan Nasrallah is a rock star, and his group is at No.1.

Hassan Nasrallah appears on television speaking as if he is the President, while the pro-Syrian President, Emile Lahoud, seems to be invisible and mute. The Prime Minister, Fouad Siniora, had the unenviable task of pleading for the bombing to stop at the comical Rome Conference, those pleas falling on deaf ears. He was more successful in Sweden obtaining pledges for reconstruction aid - powerless to stop the bombing, and successful only to a degree and after the bombing had stopped.

In its first meeting since the end of the war, the "March 14 Forces" (represented by key anti-Syrian leaders) stated that "we refuse to turn Lebanon into a battleground used by Iran to improve its negotiating conditions with the international community about its regional role and by the Syrian regime to exercise its hegemony over Lebanon".

In response, Senior Shiite cleric Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah accused politicians of "throwing stones at the resistance and accusing it of instigating the war", and continued "what saddens us is that the political class in general and many of those who are in contact with religious figures are not aware of the Israeli threat". He went on to say that "the resistance did not launch this war, but retaliated against a premeditated US-Israeli plan. The resistance did not monopolize the decision of war, but took charge of the defense of its people when the government washed its hands of it," he added.

Hassan Nasrallah has made similar statements recently, even going so far as to say that had they realised that Israel would attack Lebanon so savagely, they would never have kidnapped the two Israeli soldiers.

This is false. The whole world saw Israel's response when the Palestinians kidnapped the Israeli soldier in June, a month prior to the Hezb'allah kidnappings. Ehud Olmert, as a new President , needed to appear strong and didn't disappoint by smashing the Occupied Territories. Do Hezb'allah really think the Lebanese are so naive as to believe that Hezb'allah "wasn't expecting" a reaction from Israel?

Listen: Hezb'allah have been extremely clever. I've said previously that I agree that Israel and the US had a ready-made plan to launch an offensive aimed at rooting out Hezb'allah once and for all, and were waiting for a trigger event to justify it. But for Hezb'allah to claim that it "didn't expect" war is an affront to anyone's intelligence. Hezb'allah has been training for and arming itself for war since the Israeli withdrawal in 2000.

No-one won the war. The Israeli army was humiliated. Hezb'allah have retreated north of the Litani, but still have their weapons. Hezb'allah still holds the two soldiers it kidnapped. Israeli soldiers and citizens are dead, as are Lebanese citizens and Hezb'allah fighters (outweighing the Israeli dead by a factor of 10). Almost a million Lebanese citizens were displaced from their homes, entire villages have been destroyed, as have roads, bridges, factories, farmland and crops, and infrastructure. The economy is shattered, and Lebanons already USD 40 billion debt has been added to by at least another USD 3 billion. Hezb'allah have appeared the most prepared in its military responses and its aid (sourced from Iran) to rebuild and compensate, while the Prime Minister has had to resort to begging from other countries. If you had had your home destroyed by Israeli planes and needed financial assistance,, who would you admire the most?

Sure, Israel pressed the trigger on the bombs that caused all this destruction, and that is unforgiveable. (I will leave to one side Israel's blockade of the ports and airports for 3 weeks after the ceasefire, and its crippling effect on the economy, for discussion in another post). But for any Lebanese to hail "The Resistance" as heroes when that same resistance knowingly bought war to Lebanon to serve its own agenda (and the agenda of its Iranian and Syrian masters) is not just unbelieveable, it's treasonable.

The Lebanese politicians are now scrambling to restore order, and to make up the political ground they have lost to Hezb'allah. There's a race to see who will replace the current President when he eventually leaves his post. Certain politicians who are eligible for the Presidency under the Consitition will say anything and support anyone they can in order to secure the Presidency for themselves, and those who have supported Hezb'allah prior to the war may well find their support rewarded.

These are dangerous times for Lebanon. Everyone should be concerned with such widespread support for Hezb'allah, and for a new President who may well owe them a favour.

Thursday, September 07, 2006

Lifting of the blockade?

Israel has said it will lift its air and sea blockade of Lebanon on Thursday, at 1800 Beirut time.

How kind. Three weeks after the ceasefire.

The blockade was ostensibly in place to ensure no more arms reach Hezbollah, and all flights coming into and out of Beirut International Airport had to seek Israeli permission to do so first. Only Middle East Airlines and Royal Jordanian, received permission from Israel to resume commercial flights, on condition they stopped at Amman. Why? Jordan (along with Egypt) has signed a peace agreement with Israel, and Jordanian and Israeli authorities and quasi-authorities (if you know what I mean) search the planes and passengers on the ground in Amman. A friend of mine flew to Istanbul from Beirut on Monday on Royal Jordanian and told me the seach in Amman took 5 hours.

Why? If the rationale for the searches is to stop weapons coming INTO Lebanon, why detain a passenger flight OUT of Lebanon? The search procedure and the blockade generally seems to me to be designed to humiliate. The blockade is just one of many spiteful exercises by Israel following its failure to achieve its objectives on the ground in Lebanon.

Monday, August 28, 2006

Hush Money (with strings attached)

From today's Daily Star of Beirut: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=75066

The latest in this comedy. Have Israel smash Lebanon to smithereens for you, offer less than 10% of the total damage as "aid" and THEN say, by the way, you won't get it unless we do what we tell you. Nothing new in this approach, "aid with strings" is a tried and tested behaviour modification process.

But to call this pitiful amount of money "aid" at all is to miss the point. Lebanon should be seeking reparations from Israel and the US in the appropriate legal venue. The cynic in me doesn't hold much hope for this though, given the sorry record of enforcing ICJ judgements against the US, and the US' veto of any resolution that might potentially harm Irael, and the cost and time involved in bringing proceedings.

Saturday, August 26, 2006

Exploring Scenic South Beirut, The Hezb'allah Way

From "The New Republic" (www.tnr.com) by Anna Ciezadlo.

Who says Lebanon's tourism industry is dead? Come to Beirut these days and you can take a guided tour of Hell, with Hezbollah as your escort. Every day, the Party of God welcomes visitors to Haret Hreik, in the heart of the city's mostly Shia southern suburbs. Once home to Hezbollah's headquarters and Beirut's most densely populated neighborhood, Haret Hreik is now a smoking swath of wreckage. For the thousands of families who used to live here, the devastation is almost unimaginable. But, for Hezbollah, the ruins of this once-bustling neighborhood have become a tourist attraction--and an invaluable propaganda tool.

Hezbollah began offering tours of Haret Hreik during the war, assembling every morning at eleven o'clock. I went on the first of these excursions on July 20, along with the bulk of the international press corps--about 100 correspondents, from well-known TV anchors to grubby freelancers. Longtime Hezbollah spokesman Hussein Naboulsi showed up with his entourage and delivered a running patter of outrage. "On a daily basis, they come here and turn buildings into rubble, as you see," he shouted, in his frantic, high-pitched voice. "This is where we live! If the Israelis dare to confront us face to face, let them do it on the border, not come with jet fighters from high above in the sky, and just hit civilian targets!" He strode off into the wreckage, still shouting, and we scrambled to keep up.

Every once in a while, as we marched through the rubble, a man (never a woman) would pop out of a destroyed building to shout with carefully rehearsed rage. All of these appearances were orchestrated by Hezbollah for our benefit. Al Arabiya, a Saudi-funded satellite channel that many Lebanese view as U.S.-backed propaganda, even merited its own personal heckler. "Where is Al Arabiya?" demanded a short, angry man, flailing his arms in the middle of the street. "I have something to tell them." When a microphone with the station's logo appeared in front of him, he shouted, "The Saudis want this to happen! These missiles were made in USA, made in Saudi Arabia, made in Jordan, made in Egypt!"
A telling omission from this litany of oppressors was the country that had actually fired the missiles: Israel. (The Saudis don't make missiles, after all.) You can always rely on Hezbollah leaders for anti-Israel rhetoric. But, ever since the war ended, they've been less fixated than usual on their neighbor to the south. Instead, they're cultivating hatred for a larger, more world-historic enemy: the United States. By focusing on the Great Satan, Hezbollah can avoid the delicate subject of who, exactly, started this particular war--and promote itself instead as a defender of the Muslim world against U.S. aggression and the West generally.

Today, the sea of mangled concrete that was once Haret Hreik is a surreal fairground, complete with souvenir stands and parades. Backhoes and cranes are busily clearing the roads, dumping detritus onto the mountains of rubble that mark where buildings used to be. Hezbollah has adorned most of these mounds with giant, red-and-white banners bearing English-language slogans like new middle beast, the divine victory, and made in usa (below which, in smaller letters, it says trademark). Of the hundreds of signs in the shattered neighborhood, only a few mention Israel.

Now that the war is over, Haret Hreik is a popular day trip. If Hezbollah's wartime press tours were all about obtaining sympathy from the outside world, the current carnival is about stoking domestic outrage. As the United States wades back into Lebanon, promising $230 million in aid, Hezbollah offers Haret Hreik up as a graphic reminder of how the United States helped destroy their country--and of how Hezbollah is rebuilding it. Hundreds of Lebanese walk through the rubble, some with cameras and video recorders, many of them families with kids. Most have come to inspect the ruins of their homes and businesses. Others, including a few Christian families, are simply here to sightsee.

The main attraction is the headquarters of Al Manar, Hezbollah's satellite TV station. To get to it, you pass through a little tent Hezbollah has set up, with flyers directing people to eight registration centers where the party will reimburse them for their lost homes and possessions. There's even a bouquet of flowers on a little table. Outside the tent, dozens of sightseers--all Lebanese, many wearing dust masks--press up against a metal railing, pointing and taking pictures. The mood is weirdly festive, with some people holding up their children and others snapping photos with the latest cell phones. Between the souvenir stands, the dust masks, the earth-moving equipment, and the solemn air of commemoration, it's a bit like Ground Zero in the year after September 11. The smell is the same, too: chalky and toxic, utterly inescapable. It's the smell of the insides of things--pulverized concrete, plaster, asbestos, burnt plastic, cordite, and acrid chemicals. A few veiled women hold headscarves over their mouths to keep out the dust.

The spot where Al Manar used to be is a mountain of charred cement, topped with the remains of people's lives: children's books, pillows, pieces of chairs, an ancient manual typewriter. The apartment buildings from which all this flotsam fell loom above the rubble, ringing the site of the station. Some were destroyed, but others only had their outer walls sheared away so that you can see into the individual apartments: In one, a TV set totters on the edge of the void, its back facing what used to be a wall; in another, an old lady fills a plastic can with oil.

Jutting rakishly from the wreckage, a billboard-sized banner touts the staying power of Hezbollah's radio station--which, like Al Manar, never went off the air despite numerous Israeli bombings of its offices and transmitters. Al nour radio, it proclaims, a voice stronger than the aggressor. "We've been broadcasting live from here all day, from ten in the morning until three," says Ahmed Naeem, the Hezbollah functionary in charge, with pride. "We had everyone! NGOs, ambassadors, even the Turkish foreign minister." According to Naeem, Abdullah Gul, the foreign minister, said the damage was worse than that from the Turkish earthquake of 1999.

"We prepared for this," explains Naeem. "We never kept a lot of people in the main building, even before the soldiers were kidnapped. We were always prepared for attack without provocation. We have a couple of different studios, and we evacuated all of them."

A handful of middle-age men in spotless suits clamber up the mountain: It's the Beirut Chamber of Commerce, coming for a photo-op. Two days later, Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora would visit the bomb site as well. Standing in the ruins, flanked by Shia politicians, he denounced Israel's "barbaric acts against Lebanon." As usual, Siniora was in a tight political spot: As a member of the U.S.-backed Future bloc in parliament, he couldn't very well criticize the United States.

Curious to see where all the colorful bunting comes from, I go in search of Hezbollah's graphics unit. I find the army of artists relaxing under a tent, sitting in plastic chairs, while a team of young men pass out posters. These are the guys in charge of the banners and signs that hang everywhere. They've also designed the bright-red trucker hats that many Hezbollah employees are wearing. In Arabic script, the hats declare: nasr min allah--literally, "Victory from God," but also a play on the name of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. They've been cranking out the Hezbollabilia the whole time, even while the bombs were falling, preparing for their divine victory ever since the war began.
"
The slogans--we've been getting them from the war itself," says Ghassan Darwish, one of the graphic designers. "They're the slogans that the Americans and Israelis are using." In his hands, for example, Condoleezza Rice's "New Middle East" becomes the new middle beast, with the word beast splattered across the poster like blood. I ask Darwish why so many of the signs are in English. "It's normal for them to be in several different languages, because there are foreign journalists here, asking questions," he replies.

I ask him how people are reacting to the giant signs. "People knew during the war that these were American bombs falling on us, in Israeli hands," he says. "People were receptive to it--especially made in USA."

Anna Ciezadlo is a Beirut-based writer.

Nasr min Allah aw la?

Aug 17th 2006 BEIRUT From The Economist print edition

After The Ceasefire: Divided Lebanon

“Victory” for Hizbullah is not quite the same as victory for Lebanon, whatever its divided politicians feel they have to say.

“DIVINE Victory—No Trespassing.” So says the message, in English and Arabic, printed on the yellow crime-scene tape that cordons off bomb sites in Haret Hreik, the Beirut suburb that is Hizbullah's firmest stronghold. The speed with which the Shia party, emerging bruised but triumphant in spirit after a month-long war, produced its own jaunty tape for this particular purpose says much about its efficiency. As the shaky ceasefire that started on August 14th took hold, party workers stole a march on the Lebanese government, fanning out across the country to give away victory sweets, clear debris, pull bodies from the rubble, and process claims for compensation from the estimated 15,000 householders who lost their homes to Israel's bombing.

Impressive in peace as in war, Hizbullah's tenacity carries heavy costs, however. The main one is that it is preventing the government of Lebanon from implementing the terms of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, which it gratefully accepted in order to bring the fighting to an end. The core of this resolution is that Hizbullah should no longer operate as a military force in southern Lebanon, of which it was undisputed master before the war erupted. In its place, under the resolution and in the imagination at least of Fouad Siniora, Lebanon's prime minister, the official Lebanese army is supposed now to hold sway—assisted by a new international force that will give some bite to the toothless UNIFIL force that has been deployed ineffectually in the south for years.

As part of the government, Hizbullah too has notionally accepted 1701. But now that the guns are silent and it has declared itself the victor, the organisation is in no hurry to implement its part of the deal. Hassan Nasrallah, the leader who evaded Israel's bombs for a month, is riding high on a region-wide wave of enthusiasm. In a typically soft-spoken but caustic television address, he called his Lebanese critics “immoral” in their haste to see Hizbullah defanged. “At this emotionally difficult and fateful time, some individuals speaking with wooden tongues sit behind desks in their air-conditioned offices and talk about these issues,” he said. One could virtually feel Lebanon's other politicians and grandees, none of whom now rivals him in popular standing, squirm.

If Mr Nasrallah refuses to disarm, even in the south, who can make him? He has the support of Iran, his chief armourer, which denounced 1701 as “a Zionist document”. He also has the support of Syria. Its president, Bashar Assad, made this clear in a speech celebrating Hizbullah's “victory”. Those Lebanese who were demanding that the group lay down its arms were “Israeli creations” who wished to provoke civil war, he said in a fire-breathing peroration. The ramshackle Lebanese army is no match for Hizbullah, and the parts of the army recruited from the Shias of south Lebanon would probably refuse to fire on Hizbullah even if they were ordered to. The new international force may have robust rules of engagement, but it will not try to finish Israel's job for it.

That leaves Israel. Since the fighting ended, it has withdrawn many of its soldiers from Lebanon. But many remain—and may stay on for months, according to Israel's top general, if Lebanon's government fails to disarm Hizbullah or assert its authority in the south. Israel may also keep up the air and sea blockade that has throttled Lebanon's import-dependent economy. However, beyond its strenuous insistence that the Lebanese government has a duty to honour the agreement it signed, Israel does not seem eager to resume the war. For the present, its soldiers and Hizbullah's remain edgily intermingled in the south. There have been some lethal skirmishes. But neither army seems to relish another round just yet.

The man who is in the toughest predicament of all is Mr Siniora. Lebanon's prime minister is in a fix. Lebanese patriotism obliges him to celebrate Mr Nasrallah's great victory. But most of the coalition government over which he presides wants to seize the opportunity, enshrined in 1701 (and made possible by Israel's deplorable bombs), to turn Lebanon into a normal country, not one in which Iran and Syria maintain the Hizbullah fief. Behind the victory talk, many non-Shia Lebanese are appalled by the cost to Lebanon of Mr Nasrallah's war. They would love to use 1701 as a tool to strip Hizbullah of its arms and power.

Which is precisely why Mr Nasrallah is unlikely to oblige. In the eyes of many Shias, who were until recently Lebanon's most downtrodden sect, military strength is a guarantor of influence against the historically dominant and wealthier Christians and Sunni Muslims. Hizbullah's own leaders hold an even more paranoid worldview, regarding their fighting strength as a buffer that protects not just Lebanese Shias, but Arabs and Muslims at large, from American hegemony.

On paper, Mr Siniora's coalition of Sunni, Druze and right-wing Christian parties commands a strong parliamentary majority. His government, a product of the “cedar revolution” that resulted last year in the eviction of Syria's army and looked set to recapture Lebanon for the West, enjoys the backing of the oil-rich Arab Gulf states, the United States and Lebanon's former colonial master, France. Yet its street-level power is hardly a match for Hizbullah's. Though pro-government businessmen have pledged to pay for rebuilding bridges across the country, their efforts are likely to be eclipsed by the door-to-door thoroughness of Hizbullah charities, augmented by the deep pockets of Iran.

At best, it seems, Mr Nasrallah will allow the Lebanese army to deploy to the south, aided later perhaps by the new international force. But his consent will be based on an agreement to conceal Hizbullah's weapons, not actually to remove or hand them over. He will pretend to comply with 1701, and the world may pretend to believe him. This fictitious construct may give Israel the cover it needs to withdraw its own army. But all the conditions will exist for a resumption of the war.

Thursday, August 24, 2006

Point / Counterpoint

I'm very pleased to report two comments from someone called "What Is Occupation" that diverge strongly from my own views. You can see these comments in reponse to my posts "Hush Money" and the "Book of Ehud".
In the interests of spirited debate, I welcome opposing views. However, it is more useful if those views are expressed coherently and provide some sources to back up arguments, rather than simply asserting one's prejudices.

However, in particular I do not appreciate comments that seek to diminish the loss of civilian life in Lebanon (see "What is Occupation"'s comment in "The Book of Ehud" along the lines that "Israel kills 500 [in Lebanon] and you act like it's Darfur". Comments like this indicate to me that the writer is horribly prejudiced, or mildly retarded (or both, they're not mutually exclusive).

So, thank you, "What Is Occupation", for clarifying your prejudices. I am now forewarned that your comments are to be taken only for their comedy value. Perhaps when you graduate from primary school and have read some big-boy books you can contribute usefully to a grown-up debate.

Amnesty International Report - Deliberate Destruction or "Collateral Damage"?

Amnesty International has said both Hezb'allah and Israel should be investigated for "grave violations" of human rights law, but singled out Israel for committing what AI described as "deliberate war crimes".

The BBC link attached http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5276626.stm , shows a "before" and "after" shot of the Dahyieh area of Southern Beirut - this gives you an indication of the scale of the bombing by Israel.

However, I think you'll find some video visuals more telling: check
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/lbn-230806-feature-eng
and click "Play" on the video link on the right-hand side. You'll see Amnesty's reportage on the destruction in Lebanon.

AI concludes that Israel has deliberately destroyed Lebanese civilian infrastructure while claiming it was only targeting the resistance group.

"Israel's assertion that the attacks on the infrastructure were lawful is manifestly wrong," Amnesty's executive deputy secretary general, Kate Gilmore said. "Many of the violations identified in our report are war crimes, including indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks. The evidence strongly suggests that the extensive destruction of power and water plants, as well as the transport infrastructure vital for food and other humanitarian relief, was deliberate and an integral part of a military strategy."

In response to AI's report, a senior Israeli government official told the Haaretz newspaper that "Israel conformed to every international law. We had attorneys in every meeting, everything we did along the way we fully explored international law."

You decide for yourself.