Lebanon - Proxy Battleground

Hezb'allah's "victory" is an illusion

2006-09-15T10:28:00.000+04:00

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?

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

2006-09-10T12:22:00.000+04:00

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.

Hezb'allah's coup d'etat

2006-09-08T10:35:00.000+04:00

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.

Lifting of the blockade?

2006-09-07T10:32:00.000+04:00

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.

Hush Money (with strings attached)

2006-08-28T08:50:00.000+04:00

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.

Exploring Scenic South Beirut, The Hezb'allah Way

2006-08-26T15:14:00.000+04:00

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?

2006-08-26T15:08:00.000+04:00

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.

Point / Counterpoint

2006-08-24T10:07:00.000+04:00

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"?

2006-08-24T08:56:00.000+04:00

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.

Hush Money

2006-08-23T10:05:00.000+04:00

President Bush has announced that US reconstruction aid to Lebanon would be boosted to 230 million dollars. "Today, I'm announcing that America will send more aid to support humanitarian and reconstruction work in Lebanon for a total of more than 230 million dollars," Bush told a news conference at the White House.

Yeah, nice try, George.

According to the UN Development Program (UNDP), Lebanon's 15-year economic and social recovery from the Civil War was wiped out in the recent Israeli offensive against Hizbullah. "Fifteen years of work have been wiped out in a month."

Acc0rding to the UNDP, overall economic losses for Lebanon from the month-long conflict between Israel and Hizbullah totaled "at least $15 billion, if not more". Within this figure is direct structural damage, estimated at $3.6 billion. Some facts and fugures:

15,000 housing units, 80 bridges and 94 roads destroyed or damaged;
About 35,000 homes and businesses were destroyed;
25% of the country's road bridges or overpasses were shattered.

I see how it works. You give Israel the green light to get rid of Hezb'allah on your behalf, smash Lebanon, then write a cheque for a sum that is less than 10% of the direct damage inflicted.

The arrogance of this astounds me. But does anyone actually expect anything more?

Where are the peacekeepers?

2006-08-21T22:37:00.000+04:00

Having taken over a month to come up with a ceasefire plan, the international community is unwilling to send troops to ensure the guns remain silent. The UN wants 15,000 international troops to complement the 15,000 Lebanese troops sent in days ago. France, supposedly one of Lebanon's best friends internationally, comes up with 200 engineers. Italy, finally, has come up with an offer of 3,000 troops. We need more!

It's clear that the fragile peace could come unravelled at any moment. Clandestine incursions into the Bekaa by Israel in clear violation of the SCR 1701 make a mockery of the whole ceasefire arrangement.

The problem doesn't go away at the first silencing of the guns. Having sat idly by for a month before 1701, yet more international prevarication is testament to the appalling indifference being shown to little Lebanon - once again, a side-show to a possibly regional Main Event.

Cause and effect?

2006-08-20T09:55:00.000+04:00

It's almost comical now. Bush taking two seemingly unrelated events and tenuously linking them together. Shortly following the news of British police exposing the plans to detonate explosives on board US flights between the UK and the US, naturally the confident claim comes that Hezb'allah was linked to this plot. Reminds me of the sideshow when Colin Powell presented American "evidence" of Saddam's WMD to the Security Council. Wow, that was convincing.

Who knows, perhaps Hezb'allah was involved. But then, of course, so might any terrorist organisation. It's the way that Bush speaks with such absolute certainty that he's right that really gets to me. And in any event, "those of us who love freedom" should agree with George, right? Wonderful to see Freedom On The March. Over people's heads. But, hey ho, that's collateral damage and as long as they get rid of the nasty men from Hezb'allahstan and other Islamic Fascists, those of us who Love Freedom will be OK, right?

Or not. The best description I've heard of Hassan Nasrallah, post-ceasefire, is that he's now "the rock star of the Arab street". It's he, and Hezb'allah, that have come out of this conflict looking decisive and confident (not the Israeli army, or the Lebanese government). Hezb'allah has already begun the clean-up in Southern Beirut, and is handing out (Iranian-sourced) bundles of US dollars to people (average USD 10,000 each) to pay for 1 year's rent while Hezb'allah rebuilds their houses.

Some things to think about: take a look at this from David Ignatius of the Washington Post:

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/17/AR2006081701193.html

On rebuiling Southern Beirut, see:

www.news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5262832.stm

Human Rights Watch Report - Indiscriminate Attacks on Lebanese Civilians

2006-08-20T09:51:00.000+04:00

Lengthy but comprehensive report on the cost in human terms of the Israeli attacks on Lebanon.

www.hrw.org/reports/2006/lebanon0806/

Seymour Hersh article - Washington's role

2006-08-20T09:42:00.000+04:00

This is a very interesting piece from Seymour Hersh, the American investigative journalist whose first big piece was reporting the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, and more recently the Abu Ghraib atrocities. It sets out in some detail Washington's role in the Lebanon war. My only real criticism of the piece is the lack of detail about the sources for many of the statements attributed to various American and Israeli officials (which were presumably given off the record). Plenty to think about, anyhow. See:

www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact

At long last ... Resolution 1701

2006-08-13T11:02:00.000+04:00

Here it is, in all its glory. Ceasefire due to come into effect at 8.00 a.m. Beirut time tomorrow. I note Kofi Annan's disgust with the Security Council for taking a month to come up with this.

Comments in bold and italics are mine.

"The text of Resolution 1701, passed unanimously by the UN Security Council aimed at ending the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous resolutions on Lebanon, in particular resolutions 425 (1978), 426 (1978), 520 (1982), 1559 (2004), 1655 (2006), 1680 (2006) and 1697 (2006), as well as the statements of its president on the situation in Lebanon, in particular the statements of 18 June, 2000, of 19 October, 2004, of 4 May 2005, of 23 January 2006 and of 30 July 2006;

Expressing its utmost concern at the continuing escalation of hostilities in Lebanon and in Israel since Hezbollah's attack on Israel on 12 July 2006, which has already caused hundreds of deaths and injuries on both sides, extensive damage to civilian infrastructure and hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons;

n.b still does not indicate that most of the deaths, injuries, damage and displacement are Lebanese

Emphasising the need for an end of violence, but at the same time emphasising the need to address urgently the causes that have given rise to the current crisis, including by the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers;

Mindful of the sensitivity of the issue of prisoners and encouraging the efforts aimed at urgently settling the issue of the Lebanese prisoners detained in Israel;

Welcoming the efforts of the Lebanese prime minister and the commitment of the government of Lebanon, in its seven-point plan, to extend its authority over its territory, through its own legitimate armed forces, such that there will be no weapons without the consent of the government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the government of Lebanon, welcoming also its commitment to a UN force that is supplemented and enhanced in numbers, equipment, mandate and scope of operation, and bearing in mind its request in this plan for an immediate withdrawal of the Israeli forces from southern Lebanon;

n.b. the request for an immediate Israeli withdrawal will be "borne in mind". non-committal and even then is only part of the preamble of the Resolution so not binding in any event.

Determined to act for this withdrawal to happen at the earliest;

n.b. again, not binding and worse still, vague.

Taking due note of the proposals made in the seven-point plan regarding the Shebaa farms area;

Welcoming the unanimous decision by the government of Lebanon on 7 August 2006 to deploy a Lebanese armed force of 15,000 troops in south Lebanon as the Israeli army withdraws behind the Blue Line and to request the assistance of additional forces from Unifil as needed, to facilitate the entry of the Lebanese armed forces into the region and to restate its intention to strengthen the Lebanese armed forces with material as needed to enable it to perform its duties;

Aware of its responsibilities to help secure a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution to the conflict;

Determining that the situation in Lebanon constitutes a threat to international peace and security;

1. Calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hezbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations;

n.b. the same fundamental problem remains - Israel is still free to conduct military operations and claim they are "defensive". how will a "full cessation of hostilities be determined? for how many days must no shots be fired in order for this to come into effect? will a truce be signed?

2. Upon full cessation of hostilities, calls upon the government of Lebanon and Unifil as authorised by paragraph 11 to deploy their forces together throughout the South and calls upon the government of Israel, as that deployment begins, to withdraw all of its forces from southern Lebanon in parallel;

n.b a phased withdrawal is contemplated, which is sound in theory, but how will this be monitored and implemented?

3. Emphasises the importance of the extension of the control of the government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory in accordance with the provisions of resolution 1559 (2004) and resolution 1680 (2006), and of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, for it to exercise its full sovereignty, so that there will be no weapons without the consent of the government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the government of Lebanon;

4. Reiterates its strong support for full respect for the Blue Line;

5. Also reiterates its strong support, as recalled in all its previous relevant resolutions, for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized borders, as contemplated by the Israeli-Lebanese General Armistice Agreement of 23 March 1949;

6. Calls on the international community to take immediate steps to extend its financial and humanitarian assistance to the Lebanese people, including through facilitating the safe return of displaced persons and, under the authority of the government of Lebanon, reopening airports and harbours, consistent with paragraphs 14 and 15, and calls on it also to consider further assistance in the future to contribute to the reconstruction and development of Lebanon;

n.b. at least the nonsense from the first draft regarding only re-opening the ports and airports if it could be proved they are purely for civilian purposes has been deleted (but note that this para 6 is subject to paras 14 and 15 below).

7. Affirms that all parties are responsible for ensuring that no action is taken contrary to paragraph 1 that might adversely affect the search for a long-term solution, humanitarian access to civilian populations, including safe passage for humanitarian convoys, or the voluntary and safe return of displaced persons, and calls on all parties to comply with this responsibility and to cooperate with the Security Council;

n.b. Israel must bear responsibility for the humanitarian crisis it has created, including bombing civilian convoys after ordering civilians out of villages and cutting supply lines for humanitarian aid.

8. Calls for Israel and Lebanon to support a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution based on the following principles and elements:

Full respect for the Blue Line by both parties;

security arrangements to prevent the resumption of hostilities, including the establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river of an area free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL as authorised in paragraph 11, deployed in this area;

n.b. this must be the cordon sanitaire Israel was so keen on. interesting to see how long Israel insist on remaining there ...

Full implementation of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and of resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), that require the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that, pursuant to the Lebanese cabinet decision of July 27, 2006, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese state;

n.b. interesting to see how Hezb'allah will be disarmed. i doubt the Lebanese army can do it, and the multinational force certainly won't be capable of doing it.

No foreign forces in Lebanon without the consent of its government;

n.b Israel is a "foreign force". Lebanon wants it out as soon as possible.

No sales or supply of arms and related materiel to Lebanon except as authorized by its government;

Provision to the United Nations of all remaining maps of land mines in Lebanon in Israel's possession;

9. Invites the secretary general to support efforts to secure as soon as possible agreements in principle from the government of Lebanon and the government of Israel to the principles and elements for a long-term solution as set forth in paragraph 8, and expresses its intention to be actively involved;

10. Requests the secretary general to develop, in liaison with relevant international actors and the concerned parties, proposals to implement the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), including disarmament, and for delineation of the international borders of Lebanon, especially in those areas where the border is disputed or uncertain, including by dealing with the Shebaa farms area, and to present to the Security Council those proposals within 30 days;

n.b. unless and until the Sheb'aa Farms area is properly delineated Hezb'allah retains a pretext for remaining armed. it is crucial to resolve this issue, and to remove Hezb'allah's raison d'etre.

11. Decides, in order to supplement and enhance the force in numbers, equipment, mandate and scope of operations, to authorize an increase in the force strength of Unifil to a maximum of 15,000 troops, and that the force shall, in addition to carrying out its mandate under resolutions 425 and 426 (1978):

a. Monitor the cessation of hostilities;

b. Accompany and support the Lebanese armed forces as they deploy throughout the South, including along the Blue Line, as Israel withdraws its armed forces from Lebanon as provided in paragraph 2;

c. Coordinate its activities related to paragraph 11 (b) with the government of Lebanon and the government of Israel;

d. Extend its assistance to help ensure humanitarian access to civilian populations and the voluntary and safe return of displaced persons;

e. Assist the Lebanese armed forces in taking steps towards the establishment of the area as referred to in paragraph 8;

f. Assist the government of Lebanon, at its request, to implement paragraph 14;

12. Acting in support of a request from the government of Lebanon to deploy an international force to assist it to exercise its authority throughout the territory, authorizes Unifil to take all necessary action in areas of deployment of its forces and as it deems within its capabilities, to ensure that its area of operations is not utilised for hostile activities of any kind, to resist attempts by forceful means to prevent it from discharging its duties under the mandate of the Security Council, and to protect United Nations personnel, facilities, installations and equipment, ensure the security and freedom of movement of United Nations personnel, humanitarian workers, and, without prejudice to the responsibility of the government of Lebanon, to protect civilians under imminent threat of physical violence;

13. Requests the secretary general urgently to put in place measures to ensure Unifil is able to carry out the functions envisaged in this resolution, urges member states to consider making appropriate contributions to Unifil and to respond positively to requests for assistance from the Force, and expresses its strong appreciation to those who have contributed to Unifil in the past;

14. Calls upon the government of Lebanon to secure its borders and other entry points to prevent the entry in Lebanon without its consent of arms or related materiel and requests Unifil as authorised in paragraph 11 to assist the government of Lebanon at its request;

15. Decides further that all states shall take the necessary measures to prevent, by their nationals or from their territories or using their flag vessels or aircraft;

a. the sale or supply to any entity or individual in Lebanon of arms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts for the aforementioned, whether or not originating in their territories, and;

b. the provision to any entity or individual in Lebanon of any technical training or assistance related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance or use of the items listed in subparagraph (a) above, except that these prohibitions shall not apply to arms, related material, training or assistance authorised by the government of Lebanon or by Unifil as authorised in paragraph 11;

n.b. clearly aimed at Syria and Iran.

16. Decides to extend the mandate of Unifil until 31 August 2007, and expresses its intention to consider in a later resolution further enhancements to the mandate and other steps to contribute to the implementation of a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution;

17. Requests the secretary general to report to the Council within one week on the implementation of this resolution and subsequently on a regular basis;

18. Stresses the importance of, and the need to achieve, a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, based on all its relevant resolutions including its resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 and 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973;

19. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.

The Book of Ehud

2006-08-10T09:21:00.000+04:00

Courtesy of Private Eye, Issue 1164:

The Smighty Warriors go forth

1. And lo, it came to pass that Ehud sent the mighty warriors of Israel, the sons and even the daughters of Israel, indeed all the children of Israel who could carry a sword or ride in an chariot of iron, into the land of Leb-a-non.

2. And Ehud spake unto the children of Israel in this wise: O children of Israel, the time hath come for the smiting that will end all smiting.

3. For too many years the Hez-boll-ites have been an thorn in our flesh, like unto the scorpion that creepeth up in the night and stingeth a man in his foot, yea, even before he can lay his hand upon the flip-flop beneath his bed in order to smite it dead.

4. Talking of which, Ehud concluded, it is time for some serious smiting, even the final day of reckoning with the Hez-boll-ites.

5. "Ye are to go into the land of the cedars in Lib-anus and smite all that moveth - not just the Hez-boll-ites but also the Leb-an-ites (who may be no friends to the Hez-boll-ites but that is just the luck that is called tough) and indeed anyone else who getteth in our way".

6. And the children of Israel saith unto themselves, yea, it will all be over in seven days.

7. And it will be like unto an piece of cake.

8. So the warriors of Israel went forth into the land of Leb-a-non to do as they had been commanded by Ehud, the son of Sharon.

9. But, lo, it was not as had been foretold by Ehud.

10. For the Hez-boll-ites had hidden themselves privily, in caves and holes in the ground, like unto the cunning fox which concealeth itself by day and, when the night comes, jumpeth out and fireth a rocket at Haifa.

11. And so it was with the Hez-boll-ites. And the children of Israel found themselves on the receiving end of a smiting, for an change.

12. And in the streets of Haifa there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

13. For many had been slain, even men, women and children.

14. Though not as many as the Leb-a-nites, men, women and children, who had been slain by the children of Israel.

15. So it continueth for six days, And on the seventh day Ehud looked upon what he had done and said "This is not good".

16. And he cried aloud cursing the Hez-boll-ites with an mighty curse, saying "This goeth not according to plan".

17. "So it is time for the plan that is called B - that is to say, more smiting".

18. And where Ehud had smote an hundred-fold, he now smote an thousand-fold, even the cities of Tyre and Sidon, and many others too numerous to mention (but they are all named in the Bible).

19. And among those who were smitten were the sons of Un, who are called the makers of peace.

20. But, lo, the Hez-boll-ites were still there, like unto the nettle of the desert which, the more it is cut down, the more it groweth up to sting again.

21. And the children of Israel muttereth among themselves, saying, "Verily this Ehud has been put to the test and hath been found sorely wanting".

22. "For even Sharon, who sleepeth like unto one who is dead, would make a better fist of it".

23. And Ehud took counsel of himself, asking what he should now do.

24. And what, he asketh, who Sharon have done if he were standing in my shoes?

25. And the answer cameth to him as follows: "I know - all that is needed is more smiting".

Chapter 95: The Miracle at Qana

1. And lo, it came to pass that in the town of Qana which is in Galilee then were many Leb-a-nites, women and children, gathered together in one dwelling, for they had taken refuge there and they were sore afraid.

2. And they had good reason.

3. For Ehud had sent out his flying weapons by night and smote them all, even as they slept.

4. And all the children of Israel were amazed and cried out "Verily, this is the Miracle of Qana. Ehud hath turned living people into dead ones".

7-point plan v draft UNSC Resolution / Nasrallah speech

2006-08-10T08:21:00.000+04:00

Compare and contrast - Lebanon's 7-point plan and the draft UNSC Resolution

From the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5256936.stm

(n.b. the bold and italics for emphasis are mine, as are the bold and italicised comments).

"Representatives of the Arab League are pressing the UN Security Council for changes to the draft resolution aimed at resolving the Middle East conflict. They are backing Lebanon's seven-point plan, first put forward at the international conference on the crisis in Rome on 26 July.
Lebanon's seven-point proposal calls for an immediate and comprehensive ceasefire and a declaration of agreement on the following issues:

1. An undertaking to release the Lebanese and Israeli prisoners and detainees through the ICRC [International Committee of the Red Cross].

Israel unlikely to agree. Three Israeli prisoners exchanged for far more Lebanese (i.e. Hezb'allah) prisoners? I don't think so.

2. The withdrawal of the Israeli army behind the Blue Line, and the return of the displaced to their villages.

Israel unlikely to agree. They can't root out Hezb'allah remotely. This means the displaced will remain displaced for longer.

3. A commitment from the UN Security Council to place the Shebaa Farms area and the Kfarshouba Hills under UN jurisdiction until border delineation and Lebanese sovereignty over them are fully settled. While in UN custody, the area will be accessible to Lebanese property owners there. Further, Israel surrenders all remaining landmine maps in South Lebanon to the UN.

Sensible idea to make the Shebaa area neutral. This removes part of Hezb'allah's raison d'etre. Israel likely to argue that accessibility to the area by "Lebanese property owners" would be used by Hezb'allah to re-infiltrate the area.

4. The Lebanese government extends its authority over its territory through its own legitimate armed forces, such that there will be no weapons or authority other than that of the Lebanese state as stipulated in the Taef national reconciliation document.

Good. Again, removes part of Hezb'allah's raison d'etre.

5. The UN international force operation in South Lebanon is supplemented and enhanced in numbers, equipment, mandate and scope of operation, as needed, in order to undertake urgent humanitarian and relief work and guarantee stability and security in the south so that those who fled their homes can return.

Good. But difficult to implement now that Israel has declared "any moving vehicle" to be a "legitimate target".

6. The UN, in co-operation with the relevant parties, undertakes the necessary measures to once again put into effect the Armistice Agreement signed by Lebanon and Israel in 1949, and to ensure adherence to the provisions of that agreement, as well as to explore possible amendments to or development of said provisions, as necessary.

7. The international community commits to support Lebanon on all levels, and to assist it in facing the tremendous burden resulting from the human, social and economic tragedy which has afflicted the country, especially in the areas of relief, reconstruction and rebuilding of the national economy".

Who will pay for Lebanon's reconstruction? As mentioned in a previous post, four invoices should be prepared and sent to the US, Israel, Iran and Syria.

Reading the US/UK/French draft against Lebanon's 7-point plan, you can see how far apart the two are.

Nasrallah speech last night (with quotes from today's Daily Star: (www.dailystar.com.lb)

Nasrallah's speech was a combination of observation and threats (threats to both Israel and the Lebanese people themselves).

1. Israel has been "deliberately attacking civilians and infrastructure to exert more pressure on the government and Lebanese citizens."

Civilians - obviously not every civilian death is deliberate. But, following leaflet drops on villages telling the inhabitants to move or be bombed, many convoys of fleeing civilians are hit by missiles and the occupants of those vehicles have been killed.

Hezb'allah must take responsibility for many of the civilian deaths, as they use civilian neighbourhoods as bases from which to fire rockets, and then retreat to garages / basements for cover. However, I've seen the Israeli military footage which shows bombing of these mobile rocket launchers. In each case, Israel waited until the mobile unit left its launching position from a road and drove into the basement or garage of a house, and then bombed it. Conclusions:

(a) Israel was 100% confident that the houses they bombed contained only Hezb'allah militants; or

(b) Israel was wilfully blind, and viewed any civilian deaths as acceptable collateral damage.

The cynic in me prefers (b) as the better answer.

Infrastructure - true. See previous posts on this issue.

2. Hizbullah is determined to "preserve unity on both the popular and political levels and to strengthen the Lebanese state's position on the negotiations table".

Disingenuous. Hezb'allah's version of "unity" is sinister, and means "agreeing with what we say". Lebanon is only "united" in the sense that the Lebanese don't like their country being smashed and their people killed by Israel. As I've said before, and will say again: most Lebanese are not Shi'a, do not care about the Sheb'aa Farms, do not want Lebanon to become a Shi'a muslim state and are quite happy for Israel to exist.

For background information on Hezb'allah, you can find a good summary on the Council for Foreign Relations' website: http://www.cfr.org/publication/9155/hezbollah_aka_hizbollah_hizbullah.html?breadcrumb=default

A profile of Hassan Nasrallah is available on http://www.cfr.org/publication/11132/

Ms Rice's response to Arab criticism of one-sided UNSC Resolution

2006-08-06T17:23:00.000+04:00

"We'll see who is for peace, and who is against peace". Meaning "if you criticise this draft, you are "against peace"". Once again, the Bush Administration cast the debate in terms of "you're either for us or against us".

Unacceptable US/UK/French Draft UN Resolution

2006-08-06T14:29:00.000+04:00

From yesterday's Guardian (www.guardian.co.uk). The italics and square-bracketed comments are mine. Key point - this is drafted heavily in Israel's favour, and does not call for a withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanon.

This is the draft concluded between the US, France and Britain on resolving the Lebanon crisis which has yet to be agreed by the Security Council Sunday August 6, 2006.

The Security Council,

PP1. Recalling all its previous resolutions on Lebanon, in particular resolutions 425 (1978), 426 (1978), 520 (1982), 1559 (2004), 1655 (2006) and 1680 (2006), as well as the statements of its President on the situation in Lebanon, in particular the statements of 18 June 2000 (S/PRST/2000/21), of 19 October 2004 (S/PRST/2004/36), of 4 May 2005 (S/PRST/2005/17) of 23 January 2006 (S/PRST/2006/3) and of 30 July 2006 (S/PRST/2006/35),

PP2. Expressing its utmost concern at the continuing escalation of hostilities in Lebanon and in Israel since Hizbollah's attack on Israel on 12 July 2006, which has already caused hundreds of deaths and injuries on both sides, extensive damage to civilian infrastructure and hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons,

[Disingenuous. There is no mention of the fact that the deaths and injuries in Lebanon outweigh those of Israel by more than 10 to 1, that most infrastructure damaged is Lebanese and most internally displaced persons are Lebanese].

PP3. Emphasizing the need for an end of violence, but at the same time emphasizing the need to address urgently the causes that have given rise to the current crisis, including by the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers,

PP4: Mindful of the sensitivity of the issue of prisoners and encouraging the efforts aimed at settling the issue of the Lebanese prisoners detained in Israel,

OP1. Calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hizbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations;

[Look at the disparity in the use of language. Apparently Israel does not "attack" anyone. Note that by asking Israel only to cease "offensive military operations", there is room later for Israel to argue that any action it takes was "defensive". Crucially, no mention of requirement for Israeli troops to leave Lebanon].

OP2. Reiterates its strong support for full respect for the Blue Line;

OP3. Also reiterates its strong support for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized borders, as contemplated by the Israeli-Lebanese General Armistice Agreement of 23 March 1949;

[The "political independence" point is aimed squarely at Syria. Also refers to Iran's support hor Hezb'allah. In addition, in relation to the border issues, Hezb'allah will continue pointing to the Shebaa Farms and use them as its pretext for remaining in the South of Lebanon].

OP4. Calls on the international community to take immediate steps to extend its financial and humanitarian assistance to the Lebanese people, including through facilitating the safe return of displaced persons and, under the authority of the Government of Lebanon, reopening airports and harbours for verifiably and purely civilian purposes, and calls on it also to consider further assistance in the future to contribute to the reconstruction and development of Lebanon;

[There is plenty of latitude for Israel and the US to argue that ports and airports should remain closed, due to the impossible task of "verifying" that they are used "purely" for civilian purposes. Associated issues: (a) Who will undertake the verification required? (b) Who will be willing to make contributions for reconstruction and development? In my view, it is clear who should have invoices sent to them: Tel Aviv, Washington, Tehran and Damascus].

OP5. Emphasizes the importance of the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory in accordance with the provisions of resolution 1559 (2004) and resolution 1680 (2006), and of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, for it to exercise its full sovereignty and authority;

[Again, the point that Syria and Iran should keep out of Lebanese affairs. Does anyone else find it ironic that US or Israeli demands of Lebanon are not "foreign interference"]?

OP6. Calls for Israel and Lebanon to support a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution based on the following principles and elements:

· strict respect by all parties for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Israel and Lebanon;

[Who are "all parties"? Surely not just Lebanon and Israel? Syria, Iran, the US ...]

· full respect for the Blue Line by both parties;

· delineation of the international borders of Lebanon, especially in those areas where the border is disputed or uncertain, including in the Shebaa farms area;

[Who will undertake this task? In what timeframe? At whose cost]?

· security arrangements to prevent the resumption of hostilities, including the establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river of an area free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the Lebanese armed and security forces and of UN mandated international forces deployed in this area;

[Meaning, presumably, no Israeli or Hezb'allah military presence. Note red flag raised in an earlier post about possible designs on the Litani by Israel].

· full implementation of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords and of resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006) that require the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that, pursuant to the Lebanese cabinet decision of July 27, 2006, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese state;

[Disarming of Hezb'allah].

· deployment of an international force in Lebanon, consistent with paragraph 10 below;

· establishment of an international embargo on the sale or supply of arms and related material to Lebanon except as authorized by its government;

[But OK for arms to be supplied directly to Israel by the US].

· elimination of foreign forces in Lebanon without the consent of its government;

[Aimed at Iran, should apply to Israel and Syria too].

· provision to the United Nations of remaining maps of land mines in Lebanon in Israel's possession;

OP7. Invites the Secretary General to support efforts to secure agreements in principle from the Government of Lebanon and the Government of Israel to the principles and elements for a long-term solution as set forth in paragraph 6 above;

OP8. Requests the Secretary General to develop, in liaison with key international actors and the concerned parties, proposals to implement the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and of resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), including disarmament, and for delineation of the international borders of Lebanon, especially in those areas where the border is disputed or uncertain, including by dealing with the Shebaa farms, and to present those proposals to the Security Council within thirty days;

OP9. Calls on all parties to cooperate during this period with the Security Council and to refrain from any action contrary to paragraph 1 above that might adversely affect the search for a long-term solution, humanitarian access to civilian populations, or the safe return of displaced persons, and requests the Secretary General to keep the Council informed in this regard;

[Note my post yesterday, with Israel bombing the bridges in Jounieh, Byblos and Tripoli. Main access route for humanitarian aid. Israel's action clearly in breach of this draft OP9].

OP10. Expresses its intention, upon confirmation to the Security Council that the Government of Lebanon and the Government of Israel have agreed in principle to the principles and elements for a long-term solution as set forth in paragraph 6 above, and subject to their approval, to authorize in a further resolution under Chapter VII of the Charter the deployment of a UN mandated international force to support the Lebanese armed forces and government in providing a secure environment and contribute to the implementation of a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution;

OP11. Requests UNIFIL, upon cessation of hostilities, to monitor its implementation and to extend its assistance to help ensure humanitarian access to civilian populations and the safe return of displaced persons;

OP12. Calls upon the Government of Lebanon to ensure arms or related materiel are not imported into Lebanon without its consent and requests UNIFIL, conditions permitting, to assist the Government of Lebanon at its request;

OP13. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council within one week on the implementation of this resolution and to provide any relevant information in light of the Council's intention to adopt, consistent with paragraph 10 above, a further resolution;

OP14. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.

Attacks on the Christian heartland / Some history

2006-08-05T08:30:00.000+04:00

From today's Daily Star (www.dailystar.com.lb) - Beirut's English-language daily, a supplement inside the International Herald Tribune. An excellent source of local news, analysis and pictures for those who are interested. The final two paragraphs of the article quoted below are particularly telling.

Background: Cardinal Sfeir is the Patriarch of the Maronite Catholic Church, who wields enormous political power (he is invited to the White House from time to time). Remember, only a Maronite can be President. Michel Aoun is a former General in the Lebanese Army, which fought the Syrians in order to remove them from Lebanon, and in the last few years of the civil war fought Dr Samir Geagea's Lebanese Forces in a fruitless Maronite: Maronite conflict. He returned to Lebanon from exile in France in 2005. Dr Geagea was imprisoned for 11 years in Lebanon on what many believe were trumped-up charges, and was also released in 2005. Both Aoun and Geagea are now politicians with enormous popular support among the Maronites of Lebanon. Of the two, it is Aoun who has made his objective of becoming President clear, and his Future Progressive Movement has signed an understanding with Hezb'allah in order to advance that objective, alienating much of his grassroots support in the process. Aoun is also supportive of Syria, noticably absent from public demonstrations organised to remove Syria and Syrian influence from Lebanon.

"BEIRUT: Israeli warplanes destroyed five bridges along the main North-South coastal highway Friday, killing five people, wounding 19 others and completely isolating the capital from the North of the country. At dawn, Israeli jets struck the Ghazir bridge, the Maameltein bridge near the Casino du Liban, the Halat/Fidar bridge near Jbeil, and the Madfoun bridge linking Northern Lebanon with Mount Lebanon, and the Afqa bridge connecting Mount Lebanon with the Bekaa Valley.
The strikes destroyed the only remaining land outlet via Syria after the bombardment of other border crossing points.
"They have struck every major bridge in Lebanon, cutting the country into pieces," Public Works and Transport Minister Mohammad Safadi told The Daily Star.
Besides the 71 bridges destroyed so far, Israeli warplanes also again struck the main Masnaa border crossing in eastern Lebanon and the Faraya-Ouyoun al-Simane road linking the Mount Lebanon range with the inland Bekaa Valley.
"They have pushed Lebanon back 20 years, with only the narrow, twisted old roads available for transportation, limiting traffic across the country," said Safadi, who estimated the cost of reconstruction to be more than $2 billion.
Safadi also advised drivers to be "cautious, and avoid tunnels" as he predicted that they would be the next targets.
Five civilians were killed in the strikes, Omar al-Shami, Zyad Damaa, Qassim al-Baaryni, Joseph Bassil, and army officer, Nazeh Khaled Mohammad, said security sources.
The strikes against the Northern highway also hindered means of bringing fuel and relief supplies into Lebanon, said Safadi, echoing criticism by international aid agencies.
"We had international assurances that the road from Aridya to Beirut would remain open and safe for humanitarian transportation, but it seems that even international assurances don't mean much now," he added.
The UN's World Food Program called the road struck "Lebanon's umbilical cord," and it was reported that an eight-truck convoy carrying food, shelter material and other aid to the estimated 900,000 Lebanese displaced by the three-week-old war had been halted there.
"This [road] has been the only way for us to bring in aid," said Christiane Berthiaume of WFP to the media.
Along with the Israeli naval blockade, the repeated strikes against the road to the eastern border and on other roads to Syria, along with attacks on the capital's Rafik Hariri International Airport, all access points to the outside world have been closed off.
The European Commission also expressed concern after the cutting of the Northern highway, and urged both sides to keep aid corridors open.
"The humanitarian situation in Lebanon is deteriorating and now more than ever it is essential that we continue to have access to the people that urgently need our help," said EU External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner.
"Both parties have a responsibility to ensure corridors for the safe provision of aid to the needy Lebanese are open and respected," she said in a statement.
Since these count as the worst attacks yet on the country's Christian heartland, the strikes targeted more than just the infrastructure and transport, according to political analyst Helal Khashan.
"By striking the North and the road between, Israel is trying to create a wedge between Lebanese people, with Shiites on the one side and the other sects on the other side," Khashan told The Daily Star.
Khashan said this move is also a military tactic, where by hitting the Northern areas and around Beirut, is creating "a diversion."
"The painful slow progress in the South is causing Israel to adopt new tactics of crippling this country, and making sure it will be difficult for Lebanon to rebuild," said Khashan.
Khashan predicted that Israel might avoid hitting central Beirut, and will continue bombing around the capital, as a reaction to a threat by Hizbullah's leader, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, to rocket Tel Aviv if Israel strikes the heart of Beirut.
"Israel won't quit until it teaches Lebanon that no one is allowed to challenge the state of Israel," he said, adding the military offenses should be "dwindling" within the next few days as the cease-fire approaches.
Some observers went further and said that Israel was sending a clear political message to the Christians of Lebanon, warning them they should have remained neutral.
Recently Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Butros Sfeir condemned Israeli attacks, and Israeli strikes on the Kesrouan and Byblos road which could be seen as a clear message to Hizbullah's ally, MP Michel Aoun".

Who started the war, and why?

2006-08-04T23:03:00.000+04:00

There are many stakeholders in the region, with differing objectives. Here are some possibilities for your consideration and comments. If you have others, do let me know:

(1) Israel and the US acting jointly- The US has supported the Israeli attacks on Lebanon and continues to arm Israel (most recently by weapons shipments via the UK). Israel acts for its own benefit and as the US' proxy. Two possibilities:

(a) The current war was pre-planned by the US and Israel, and they were simply waiting for a pretext or trigger to implement the plan; or

(b) It was simply a coincidence that following the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by Hezb'allah (the pretext or trigger mentioned above), the IDF acted swiftly and precisely to hit key targets.

I think (a) is more likely than (b). (Update: 8.8.06 - George Monbiot of the Guardian writes an article supporting this point - see http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1839281,00.html.

I don't consider the possibility of Israel acting without US support as I think that is as unlikely as Hezb'allah acting without Iranian / Syrian support. In my view, both Israel and Hezb'allah are proxies acting for foreign masters.

Why?

(a) Hezb'allah has been on the US' list of "most wanted" terrorist organisations since the bombings of marine barracks and embassies in Beirut in the early 1980's, so the US wants Hezb'allah gone as much as Israel does;

(b) There is historical support: the US backed the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 (uncoincidentally the year in which Hezb'allah wsa formed - with one if its key objectives being to resist the Israeli occupation);

(c) The implementation of UNSC Resolution 1559 (disarming of the last armed militia in Lebanon, Hezb'allah) by force, as the Lebanese state was unable to do it themselves;

(d) Hezb'allah acts as the proxy army on Lebanese soil of both Syria and Iran. Why? Because Syria, among other things, wants the Golan Heights back; and Iran wants to destroy Israel. Lebanon shares a more convenient border with Israel than Syria does (and Iran has no border with Israel).

(e) Land-grab. The proposed "buffer zone"/"security zone"/"cordon sanitaire" will extend well into Southern Lebanon and include the Litani River, which will be diverted to Israel to feed its parched land.

(2) Iran - Iran provides Hezb'allah with financial, military and ideological support, and Hezb'allah receives and implements orders from Iran, and does not act without first receiving approval from Iran. It's no coincidence that both Iran and Hezb'allah are committed to the destruction of Israel. In this analysis, the kidnapping of the two soldiers was intended to spark a heavy-handed response from Israel, and Iran and Hezb'allah were delighted with it.

Why?

(a) Israel's heavy-handed response in hitting Shi'a and non-Shi'a areas without distinction will demonstrate to all Lebanese that Israel is not simply targeting Hezb'allah, but rather has designs on the whole of Lebanon. This will generate support for Hezb'allah even among moderate Shi'a and non-Shia who will fete Hezb'allah as the heroic resistance;

(b) To divert the attention of the international community from its nuclear ambitions;

(c) To garner pan-Arab support for its goal of eliminating Israel.

In response to (a), there is a noticeable hardening of opinion among the Lebanese I have spoken with. However, support of Hezb'allah is not wide-spread. I'll reiterate the point again - the majority of Lebanon is not Shi'a - they are Christian, Sunni and Druze. Many Lebanese deplore Hezb'allah's actions for bringing war and destruction to their country.

In addition, given Lebanon's multi-confessional demographics, many are suspicious of Hezb'allah's long-term objectives. (Brief historical point: one of Hezb'allah's primary policy objectives when it was established in 1982 was the conversion of Lebanon into a (Shi'a) Islamic state governed by Shari'ah law - unpalatable to the non-Shi'a. Apparently this has now been "removed" from Hezb'allah's agenda (or more likely put on the back-burner). In any event, it is extremely unlikely that non-Shi'a Lebanese gratitude to the "resistance" would extend to allowing Hezb'allah to create an Islamic state.

In relation to (b) - no such luck for Iran. They have until the end of August to cease nuclear activities or faced unspecified consequences.

(c) What pan-Arab support? That has been as slow coming as has international condemnation of Israeli aggression. The most that has been done to date is fund-raising. Embarrassing Arab military defeats at the hands of Israel are still fresh in the Arab memory. Most have international economic interests that they wish to preserve. The most the moderate Arab states will offer is their wallets.

(3) Iran and Syria acting jointly - As in (2) above, but with the gloss that Syria wants to regain the foothold it lost in Lebanon following the forced withdrawal of its troops in 2005. Let's look at history. Geographical Lebanon was part of Syria prior to 1920, and Syria has resented its loss ever since.

Ask yourself this question: of Hezb'allah's two masters, who is the US more likely to speak with? If Syria can be seen to mediate / broker a peace with Hezb'allah in order to cease hostilities it could extract a price from the US for doing so - namely, to return to influence Lebanese affairs in some fashion.

Your thoughts?

Breaking News - Jounieh highways and bridges bombed

2006-08-04T09:24:00.000+04:00

Literally minutes after my last post (Targeting Infrastructure) we received telephone calls from family in Jounieh. Israel has bombed the Jounieh highway, cutting Jounieh off from Byblos. The highway is the one my family and we used daily and is 10 minutes from their house.

As mentioned in earlier posts, Jounieh is a Christian area of Lebanon. There are no Hezb'allah targets there, and indeed no Shi'a living in the area.

On the one hand, it could be said that Israel's bombing is becoming more indiscriminate (in the sense that non-Hezb'allah areas are now being targeted). Or rather more worryingly, it seems to be the case that Israel knows exactly what it is doing before there is finally a red light from the international community.

Today's Guardian described it this way: "Lebanon was today further cut off from the rest of the world when Israel destroyed four key bridges north of Beirut, blocking a vital aid supply route, while more than two dozen farm workers were killed in an attack near the border with Syria. The strikes were the Israeli air force's first bombing missions against bridges along the main north-south coastal road in the Christian heartland north of capital that links Beirut to Syria.

"This is Lebanon's umbilical cord," Christiane Berthiaume of the World Food Programme said. "This [road] has been the only way for us to bring in aid."
The bridge at Maameltein, just north of Beirut, was split along its centre by a huge crater that partially engulfed the crushed shell of a minivan. Further north, another bridge lay stretched out in the valley it once spanned.

"The whole road is gone," said Astrid van Genderen Stort, senior information officer for the UNHCR refugee agency. "It's really a major setback because we used this highway to move staff and supplies into the country."

WFP said a convoy carrying supplies and emergency personnel to Beirut today was stuck: UN trucks might be able to take secondary roads, but this would slow down aid shipments. UN teams have so far been refused permission to assess the damage caused by the bombing, Ms Berthiaume said".

Targeting Infrastructure

2006-08-04T08:55:00.000+04:00

In a piece from today's BBC news website, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah said "if you bomb our capital Beirut, we will bomb ... Tel Aviv." Israel replied by telling a BBC correspondent that "if Tel Aviv was hit by Hezbollah rockets, Israel would target infrastructure in Lebanon".

Wait a minute. The last statement implies that, until now, no infrastructure has been targeted in Lebanon. Untrue. What about the airport on 13 July? What about the highways and bridges all over Lebanon? What about the LBC television transmitters and mobile transmitters in Adma? What about private sector industries, such as the LibanLait factory?

Perhaps Israel defines "infrastructure" differently to me?

Axis of Evil becomes Arc of Extremism becomes ...

2006-08-02T21:10:00.000+04:00

Tony Blair has identified an Arc of Extremism in the Middle East. Don't confuse it with the Axis of Evil.

It seems that groups of bad guys become more bad-ass if you give them a sinister name (by metaphorically making them wear black hats).

It seems only fair that the Good Guys have a cool collective name too. At present, there's only really the Quartet, which isn't remotely cool. On the contrary, it's rather "band camp" and geeky. Any thoughts on a cool name for the Good Guys?

"Disproportionality"

2006-08-02T21:07:00.000+04:00

Today BBC News reports that, according to Lebanese figures, more than 900 people have died in the current conflict, most of them civilians. Israel has lost 27 civilians and 40 soldiers - yet the UK and US have yet to condemn Israel's response to Hezb'allah's provocation as disproportionate.

Let's look at those figures again:

Israel's human casualties: 67
Lebanon's human casualties: 900.

(Bearing in mind of course that these figures do not take into account other factors such as destroyed infrastructure or citizens displaced or evacuated).

In what sense are these figures not to be decried as disproportionate?

Qana 2 / Use of graphic images on TV

2006-08-02T19:50:00.000+04:00

It's 1996 all over again. More than 40 people, including many children and elderly people were killed when Israeli bombed an apartment building in Qana, in Southern Lebanon, on Sunday.

Many of you will have only seen images on your own news services, such as CNN and BBC World. Many of you would have seen only flattened buildings and rubble. While watching Al Jazeera and LBC's Arabic-language services I saw dead children, their mouths and eyes filled with dust, and limbs missing.

Is it "right" or "wrong" to broadcast (whether on television or in the print media) graphic images of the dead and dying, or the parts that remain of them?

Argument 1: No. It is distasteful, and disrespectful to the dead.
Argument 2: Yes. The images show the realities of war.

Give me Argument 2 any day. I prefer to know what's going on, rather than being served sanitised coverage which doesn't show the consequences of war (on either side of the conflict).

"Freedom", "Democracy" and The George and Tony Show

2006-08-02T19:46:00.000+04:00

Am I the only one who winced every time George Bush used the words "freedom" and "democracy" in the Bush/Blair press conference last week?

Let's recap: apparently the phoenix of "freedom" will rise from the smoking ashes of Lebanon. Look, no-one disputes that Syria has influenced certain Lebanese political appointments. However, the point is that Lebanon is already a constitutional democracy. The concept of the ballot box is not a novel idea for Lebanon. What do George and Tony think - that the Lebanese are uneducated peasants who need lessons in civilisation? That they will mark their ballot papers with a thumb-print because they are unable to write their names?

The US has said that it wants "more democracy" in the Middle East. In the Occupied Territories, Hamas was elected. In Lebanon, Hezb'allah gets a few MPs and a minister. The voters voted, and their canditates were elected.

It seems to me that the US needs to be a little more honest about what they want (although it cannot, as what they really appear to want is itself "undemocratic"). In the case of the Occupied Territories and Lebanon, it seems to me that what the US really intends to say is not that they dislike the "lack of democracy", but rather they dislike the choice that the voters have made. Therein lies the paradox: how can one champion "democracy" in one breath while saying "but be democratic in a manner acceptable to us" with another?

20 July 2006 - Evacuation

2006-08-02T11:00:00.000+04:00

We have left Lebanon, reluctantly. I made this decision for my wife and infant daughter. I only wish my wife's family could have come with us.

Thursday 20 July:

5.00am Wake and finalise packing.
9.00am Arrive marshalling point
11.30am Complete registration procedures.
12.30pm Board coach to port
1.00pm Board warship, along with over 1,000 others.
7.00pm Depart Beirut.

Friday 21 July:
9.00am Arrive Limmasol
12.00pm Disembark.
1.00pm Complete Cypriot passport control formalities.
3.00pm Arrive Larnaca.

Arrive home a couple of days later. Pretty exhausting, but nothing compared to what most are going through in Lebanon at the moment.

Thank you to the British Embassy, for arranging passage to Cyprus and to the crew of the warship, whose professionalism and generosity we will not forget. They gave up their cabins, fed us from their own rations and provided medical assistance where required.

I was very disappointed at many of our fellow passengers who saw fit to complain about "the conditions". After wolfing down the stew and potatoes that one of the crew had to go without, one belched resonantly and declared that "them potaters was crap" (then asked for more). She then launched into a tirade to the effect that she was uncomfortable, and bored, and why was it taking so long to get to Cyprus? Did she pay for her berth? No. I suggested that maybe she'd have preferred to stay in Beirut, or perhaps she could have given her berth to someone who appreciated it.

There has been plenty more bombing in non-Hezb'allah areas. For instance, the suburb of Adma was hit by a massive bomb which knocked out the (Christian) LBC television station and one of the mobile networks. Bye-bye to more infrastructure.

Israel appears to be using the US' tacit approval of their actions as a kind of "Summer Special": one week only, everything must go. What do you expect Israel to do when they are told only to use "restraint", rather than being told cease entirely? Add to that Condoleeza Rice declaring the current crisis to represent the "birth pangs" of a new Middle East. So it's acceptable for the Lebanese to suffer for a vague and perhaps far-off goal? How much suffering is acceptable? Whose goal will be achieved?

19 July 2006

2006-08-02T10:45:00.000+04:00

Apologies for my tardiness over the last few days – we've been making arrangements to leave Beirut, (initially to Cyprus). We're very upset that we have to leave family here, but they live in an area which, relative to other areas, is calm and remote. We are all in good spirits, considering.
It's just a waiting game to secure a berth on one of the ships. Hopefully tomorrow.

Israel is making excellent use of the time made available to them by international prevarication. It seems their approach is this: "inflict maximum damage while we have the time". Over the last couple of days dozens of factories have been flattened and there are now more than 200 dead. Example: the LibanLait factory (which makes dairy products such as yoghurt). A tissue-manufacturing plant. What threats. Another example: Israeli aircraft drop leaflets on villages in the South and advise the inhabitants to leave prior to bombardment. There have been plenty of reports that the fleeing villagers are then bombed in their cars. For those of you unfamiliar with the Middle East media, they don't pull any punches when it comes to airing or printing images of death and destruction. And the pictures I've seen in the papers and on TV make my stomach turn. But I would rather see images that show the realities of war, rather than having the coverage sanitised for those with delicate stomachs or their heads in the sand.

Lebanon is being crippled with the ostensible aim of rooting out and destroying Hezb'allah. But Israel / the US (yes, in the same breath) don't seem to grasp the fact that you can't do this simply by aiming in the centre of a Shi'a neighbourhood, or where mortars were fired from in the past. Hezb'allah is a highly mobile guerrilla force – they don't have uniforms, don't live in barracks and don't play fair.

Rather worrying is the Israeli rhetoric regarding the creation of a "buffer zone" in Southern Lebanon. A cynic wouldn't be surprised if this "buffer zone" extended well into Lebanese territory and then miliarised and colonised. Just a cynic's view (with an historical eye cast toward Gaza and the West Bank).

Interesting to see how this pans out, particularly for Hezb'allah's parents. Syria is already distancing itself from its past support of Hezb'allah, perhaps anticipating that Israel/the US (yes, again in the same breath) will turn its/their attention in their direction. Will Iran be so cowardly? Or will they steadfastly support the "exporters of the revolution" they've nurtured for so long? In any event, it will be too late for Lebanon's economy, infrastructure and the people who have died so far, and continue to die.

God help Lebanon.

16 July 2006 - Food, electricity and water shortages

2006-08-02T10:32:00.000+04:00

More of the same today, and based on pictures from BBC, CNN, LBC and Al Jazeera, the Dahyeh area of Beirut looks frighteningly reminiscent of Beirut 20 years ago. (Remember the IDF's promise to "turn Lebanon's clock back 20 years)? Reports from friends and family in Achrafieh (much closer to the main action than we are) is that the bombardment is constant.

Baalbek and Tripoli are also being targeted now. It's a cloudy and foggy day here so we can't see much from our balcony.

Update on yesterday's missile attack of the Jounieh marina: extent of damage is not certain but from the noise and plumes of smoke I saw, it looked pretty bad. We are concerned that there are three additional targets in our area which, if hit, would confine the Jounieh population to an area approximately 10km in length, with only the sea to the West and the mountains behind us, which lead to the largely Hezb'allah-controlled Bekaa.

Of most immediate concern with roads and shipping being cut off is a general lack of supplies. The supermarket shelves are getting pretty bare but hopefully more stocks will come from somewhere. In addition, the electricity, which is already rationed, is being cut off more often and the internet connection is also sporadic. Difficult also to make telephone calls as the network is overloaded. We're also having to be very careful to ration the amount of water we use.

According to embassies and the press, a couple of British aircraft carriers are en route to Lebanon but their ability to dock and take evacuees will depend on the goodwill of the Israelis and Hezb'allah. We will see what transpires.

I was furious at a recent piece on CNN in which a reporter was interviewing evacuees from Lebanon at the Syrian border, in which he said something to the effect that "if the Lebanese didn't support Hezb'allah before, they all do now". This is nonsense. I've been speaking to a lot of people in recent days, all of whom deplore Israel's heavy-handed response to the Hezb'allah provocation, but all of whom blame Hezb'allah for bringing the current crisis to Lebanon. A cynic would argue that Hezb'allah wanted this war, and expected a ferocious response, which would provide Iran and Syria with a pretext to fan the flames of a broader, regional conflict.

More to follow.

15 July 2006 - Missile Attack in Jounieh from Israeli Helicopters

2006-08-02T10:23:00.000+04:00

Short report today. Israeli helicopters launched five missiles at the ATCL marina in Jounieh in just as dusk arrived. I know this because I heard a boom followed by anti-aircraft fire, went to our balcony and saw smoke rising from the marina area. We then saw four other missiles hit, followed by anti-aircraft fire. The whole episode took about 5 minutes.

Just to be clear: there are no Hezb'allah in this area. Jounieh is a quiet coastal town, about 20 minutes north of Beirut. The vast majority of the population are Maronite Christian or Catholic. The port at Tripoli (30 minutes north of Jounieh) has also been hit, and Beirut itself continues to be pounded.

We are now feeling more vulnerable. It seems like it's time to leave, although there is no obvious way to do it. It's too dangerous to drive anywhere, and as the ports are being targeted in earnest now, the boat to Cyprus (our plan) seems to be out of the question.

Will keep you posted.

14 July 2006 - Who Are The Hostages?

2006-08-02T10:10:00.000+04:00

Israel has been very busy Defending Itself since yesterday's report. Beirut International Airport has been pounded from the air and shelled by the Israeli Navy, igniting a fuel reservoir which has burned most of the night.

Two smaller regional airports (Qleyaat, north of Tripoli, and Riyaq, in the Bekaa Valley halfway between Beirut and Damascus) have also been hit. Eighteen bridges and highways have been destroyed or damaged. The Shi'a Dahyeh district, near the airport, has been bombed (although the Israeli military was polite enough first to drop warning leaflets). Taking a drive around Jounieh today, we saw supermarkets and gas stations doing brisk business. The impression is that the current conflict will last longer than a few days. This is backed up by statements from the IDF, who have made it clear that they are taking this opportunity to remove Hezb'allah, root and branch. This won't happen overnight.

So, who are the hostages here?

(a) Two Israeli soldiers.
(b) The Lebanese population. You can't fly, as the airport is closed. You can't sail to Cyprus, as the Israeli Navy has blockaded the sea. You can't drive, as the Beirut-Damascus highway through the Bekaa Valley has been bombed.
(c) The Lebanese State itself. Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, who represents a fraction of Lebanon's Shia, expects all Lebanese to praise Hezb'allah for their resistance efforts, and condemns those who don't as traitors and Zionist symphathisers.

Remember, in this equation, that the Shi'a population of Lebanon, while significant, is less than 50 percent, and those aligned to Hezb'allah are fewer than that. Hezb'allah does not speak for the whole of Lebanon. But listen: Hezb'allah is more than a militia with political representation. It's an autonomous entity – a state within a state which provides its constituents with facilities that the Lebanese State cannot – electricity, water, hospitals and schools. And it provides them courtesy of funding from its friends – Syria and Iran. In return, Hezb'allah acts as a proxy for Syria and Iran along the border with Israel. If you understand these points you will understand why it is almost impossible for Lebanon to disarm Hezb'allah (without international support) without sparking a civil war. Which is why Israel is now focused on doing Lebanon the "favour" of disarming Hezb'allah. But it's doing it without any sense of perspective or proportion, and by punishing all of Lebanon.

13 July 2006 - Beirut Airport Bombed

2006-08-01T18:57:00.000+04:00

We woke this morning to find that Israeli planes had bombed Beirut International Airport (which, according to Israel, was a "legitimate target" as apparently weapons destined for Hezb'allah occasionally pass through it). The airport is now closed, with significant damage to all three runways. While the most recent reports say that they can be repaired and become operational again in 48 hours, we are appalled, but not surprised, that Israel feels free to smash Beirut's airport in response to the kidnappings of two soldiers in Southern Lebanon.

Hezb'allah kidnapped the soldiers with the ostensible objective of using them as a bargaining chip to secure the release of various Lebanese (i.e. Hezb'allah) prisoners from Israeli prisons. (Note: this approach has worked in the past, but with recent events in Gaza, Israeli is obviously less enthusiastic with it). Israel responded by saying they don't negotiate with terrorists. However, Israel then said that the kidnappings were not an act of terror but rather an "act of war" by Lebanon , and that if the soldiers weren't returned alive they would "turn Lebanon's clock back 20 years". Hezb'allah's response? "If they decide to confront us, then they should prepare themselves for a surprise ... today's Lebanon is different than the Lebanon of 20 years ago." Israel's response: bomb Beirut International Airport.

Israel could have destroyed Beirut's airport terminal, and aircraft on the runway. And, for that matter, it could have bombed Downtown Beirut, which has been so carefully reconstructed over the last decade. It didn't, but it doesn't take a genius to work out the message that's being sent to the Lebanese parliament – keep Hezb'allah under control, or there will be worse to come.

Has the Lebanese state committed an "act of war" against Israel? And is the bombing of Beirut International Airport a legitimate response to losses suffered by Israel?

Background: Hezb'allah is both a political party with seats in the Lebanese parliament, and an armed militia. It receives money, weapons and ideological inspiration from Iran. It also receives money, weapons and logistical support from Syria - weapons are transported overland into Lebanon from Syria in Syrian trucks to the Bekaa Valley and are then taken south. One of Hezb'allah's key policy platforms, when established in 1982 (uncoincidentally, the year in which Ariel Sharon ordered the IDF to invade Lebanon) was to convert Lebanon into an Islamic state – exporting the revolution from Iran, if you will – which was, and is, unpalatable to Lebanon's non-Shi'a majority. Hezb'allah is the only "militia" that retains its weapons after the end of the civil war, despite efforts to disarm it following UNSC Resolution 1559. The Lebanese Parliament cannot control Hezb'allah, or their actions, without external support. Hezb'allah also has a political wing (like the IRA's Sinn Fein) and now has a minister in the Lebanese Cabinet.

Did Lebanon commit an "act of war" against Israel? In the conventional sense (State:State), no. Parliament did not endorse any action against Israel. While Hezballah has a Cabinet minister, no Cabinet decision was taken to kidnap soldiers or fire rockets at Israel. Hezb'allah acted unilaterally.

Is the unilateral act by a paramilitary group who happens to have a Cabinet minister enough to warrant the actions of the paramilitary group to be attributed to the state? There is a concept of "state responsibility" under international law, and there are associated concepts regarding the obligation of a State to undertake all reasonable measures to control terrorist organisations operating from its soil. Disregarding some obvious semantic issues between "resistance" and "terrorism" for the time being, it appears that in the post-September 2001 climate, there is now a higher burden on states to be constantly vigilant in this task, or face the consequences. So this issue seems to turn on what steps Lebanon has taken to disarm Hezb'allah, and whether they have been sufficient. Assuming Lebanon has not sat idly by and allowed Hezb'allah to do what it wishes and, despite its best endeavours, could not disarm or otherwise control it, then Hezb'allah's acts cannot be attributed to the Lebanese state. It follows that Lebanon, as a state, is not responsibile for those actions, and Israel's responses are illegitimate.

Israel cannot justify the bombing of Beirut Airport as legitimate. While it would be naive not to expect reprisals from Israel, one would expect them to be proportionate to any harm inflicted on it, and targeted at the primary source of attacks against it. To any reasonable person the bombing is an unacceptable escalation of the current situation, and amounts to collective punishment. Israel's stated reason for bombing the airport was because it has been used as a conduit for weapons destined for Hezb'allah. While undoubtedly some weapons arrive at the airport, the majority come to Lebanon from Iran via Syria and the Bekaa. The bombing of the airport serves as a show of strength, a message to the Lebanese Parliament to rein in Hezb'allah, or expect worse.

Let's consider a recent example of an Israeli response to an attack on its soil. After suicide bombings in Haifa in 2003, Israeli airstrikes hit an alleged terrorist training camp in Syria - the alleged origin of those suicide bombers. They didn't bomb Damascus International Airport.

No doubt the UN will be busy from now on. I don't hold my breath for any condemnation of the bombing of the airport. What is certain is that the nascent economic recovery in Beirut is over.