Ha'aretz's (Poor?) Coverage of Lebanon

Walid Jumblatt, Leader of the PSP (Photo: Wikipedia)

Like most of the Western media, Ha'aretz has done a very poor job of covering the events that transpired in Lebanon last week. With Hizbullah having imposed a de facto blackout early on in its coup attempt, few people inside or outside the country were in a position to gain a sense of what was happening on the ground. Hizbullah's own media war has added to the confusion, so that it is not at all clear who won, if anyone. Thus, I was more than a little annoyed by the coverage of Zvi Barel, who seems to have bought the line that Hizbullah scored a major victory:

Sad and tired, wearing shabby clothes and with tears in his eyes, Druze leader Walid Jumblatt stood on the veranda of his luxurious home in Beirut's Clemenceau neighborhood and explained his decision to television viewers. A few hours before the interview, he had called his political rival, Talal Arsalan, and asked him to coordinate with Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah the cessation of the fighting in Mount Lebanon, Aley, Chouf and the Maten region, the power centers of the Druze. In return, Jumblatt ordered his people to lay down their arms and hand them over to the Lebanese Army. Within the framework of the well-planned battle Hezbollah is conducting with the aim of changing the balance of power in Lebanon, the Mount Lebanon struggle, involving rival Druze families, might constitute Nasrallah's most important victory.

Contrast this with Tony Badran's (fiery) analysis over at Across the Bay:

Hezbollah had another thing coming. For three days of intensive fighting in the Shouf, and contrary to the lying info ops and disinformation of Hezbollah water carriers like this clueless Hezbollah willful tool (on whose propaganda for Hezbollah I've written in the past and will soon be ripping to shreds once again), not a single village in the Shouf fell to Hezbollah. Not Niha, like that Hezbollah watercarrier MacLeod wrote, not anything.

Quite the contrary. According to the PSP and other local sources, more than three dozen Hezbollah fighters were killed and a number of their vehicles were destroyed. The fact that they had to introduce artillery and vehicles (mounted with heavy machine guns, like so, and recoilless rifles, like so) only showed that they could not make advances into the villages.

Not just that, but Hezbollah's attack has led Talal Arslan's fighters to switch and fight alongside the PSP against Hezbollah, undermining Hezbollah's tiny Druze ally -- which is precisely why Jumblat put him in the forefront from the get go (it was not, as shrill commentators and dishonest flacks read it, a sign of "weakness." It was a shrewed move by a master tactician.).

At the end of the day, the PSP maintained control of the strategic hills of the Barouk to the east and Ras al-Jabal west of Aley, overlooking the Dahiyeh.

Hizbullah is not Hamas; Beirut is not Gaza

The reports from Beirut look eerily similar not only to scenes from the annals of Lebanese civil war but also to what we saw in Gaza before Hamas's takeover. Again, it looks like well-equipped but unmotivated US-backed militias are surrendering to their disciplined anti-American counterparts. At least this is the impression that one would get from the coverage in Ha'aretz and the Western media. The following description is rather typical:

Hezbollah took control of Muslim west Beirut on Friday, tightening its grip on the city in a major blow to the U.S.-backed government. Shi'ite opposition gunmen seized control of several Beirut neighborhoods from Sunni foes loyal to the United States-backed government, street battles that left 11 dead and 30 wounded, security officials said (Ha'aretz).

In reality, however, the situation in Beirut is quite unlike what transpired in Gaza; furthermore, various factions' pro- or anti-American orientations are less relevant than this kind of reporting assumes.

First, the military "victory" that Hizbullah and co. are now celebrating will not automatically give the party political power. Whereas in Gaza, one entity, Hamas, basically faced another, Fatah, the Lebanese political landscape is far more fractured. Hizbullah and its allies will not be able to impose their will on the Lebanese population. In fact, while Hamas could make claims about having public opinion behind it, the sectarian politics of Lebanon make this impossible for Hizbullah. The humiliations endured by Future Movement fighters and by Sunni civilians will only stiffen their resolve against Hizbullah. The latter's claims to representing all of Lebanon and its (quickly-forgotten) promises to use its weapons only against Lebanon's enemies have been unmasked once and for all.

What then can Hizbullah gain from its victories on the ground? No one doubted that Hizbullah had the most formidable military force in Lebanon, so a demonstration of its power is not a real gain. Did the party hope to showcase the impotence of the Lebanese Army and security forces? What purpose did forcing Hariri's TV station off the air serve? All of these actions look like bullying without a clear plan. Furthermore, the longer Hariri and Jumblatt as well as Beirut's pro-government Sunni, Christian, and Druze populations stay under siege, the more restive their coreligionists in northern Lebanon, Beqaa, and the Chouf will grow. These frustrations can hardly bode well for the Shiite population, which despite the patronage of Hizbullah and Iran, is hardly economically self-sufficient.

Seeing that it cannot gain much from a military victory, Hizbullah may, as Jeha writes, very well be "looking for surrender."

For coverage see Jeha's blog (with the usual awesome graphics), Blacksmiths of Lebanon, and Charles Malik.

Solidarity with the Palestinians

International media would have had a field day with this, if someone had found a similar quotation from an Israeli citizen (NYT):

Many residents of Tripoli welcomed the Lebanese Army into town, and onlookers clapped whenever tanks fired shells into the camp, bringing to surface longstanding tensions between Lebanese and Palestinians, who are blamed for setting off the civil war in 1975.

“This should have happened from the start,” said one man, who stood in a crowd of onlookers as the tanks fired into the camp. The crowd shouted, “God is great, and God Protect the army,” with each shell fired.

“We wish the government would destroy the whole camp and the rest of the camps,” said Ahmad al-Marooq, who stood with the crowd. “Nothing good comes out of the Palestinians.”

Lebanese Reactions

Screenshot of the Website of a Lebanese-Canadian Organization Opposed to Hizbullah
I've been reading various Lebanese blogs for months now, and I was especially curious what their views would be about the events unfolding in their country. Many Lebanese bloggers are quite opposed to Hizbullah and of course deeply critical of Lebanese and Iranian interference in their country's internal affairs. On the other hand, as is to be expected, few people are "understanding" of Israel. One prominent ex-patriate Lebanese blogger, Abu Kais, author of From Beirut to the Beltway and a Shi'i who is deeply critical of Hizbullah, argues that America, by not reining in Israel, has lost the support of many Lebanese. Abu Kais is voicing the anger of a person caught in the middle of a fight that he did not pick. America, on the other hand, sees Hizbullah as an agent doing Syria and Iran's bidding to frustrate American aims to impose a pax Americana on the Middle East. That might explain why it allowed the Israeli pounding of Hizbullah to continue. Another reason is that America knows that the Israelis believe that their long-term deterrence and security was at stake unless they reacted with the current campaign. So, it would have been hard to stop Israel without some very serious threats. And that just isn't worth it at this stage, especially since Israel is taking on a group with which America has a long score to settle.

As I said, there is a real diversity of opinion among Lebanese on this matter. My impression is that most Lebanese living in North America are angry at Hizbullah. The difference is in whom they blame most for ongoing crisis. Here's part of a statement that I received recently from a Montreal-based mainly Maronite Christian Lebanese umbrella group called the Lebanese-Canadian Coordinating Council (Arabic: al-mansaqiya al-'ama lil-mu'assisat al-lubnaniyya al-kanadiyya). The full statement is available at http://www.10452lccc.com/fpm.canada/diaspora17.7.06.htm":

We, the undersigned activists in the countries of the Lebanese Diaspora, and on behalf of ‎the organizations and clubs we represent, express our deepest regrets for the mounting ‎human losses among civilians that our homeland Lebanon is suffering as a result of the ‎destructive military confrontations that are ongoing on its soil between Israel and the ‎fundamentalist Hezbollah group. Those confrontations were imposed on the country ‎against the will of all segments of the Lebanese people [...] We affirm the necessity for an immediate intervention by the United Nations and the Free ‎World in order to secure a ceasefire [...] We reject the military and terrorist hegemony that is imposed on the Lebanese people by ‎the Hezbollah group and its sponsors in Iran and Damascus ...

Lebanese Political Dysfunctionality is to Blame

Lebanese Political Leaders during the "National Dialogue"
The damage done by the Israeli Air Force, Naval and artillery strikes against Lebanon appears to be formidable. Targets struck include numerous bridges, a power station and the runways of the Beirut International Airport. Civilians have also been hit. I've surveyed some of the Lebanese blogs that I read frequently, and many people were venting their anger at Hizbullah and Nasrallah, especially for the timing. It is not only Maronite Christians who are upset. The tourist season in Lebanon is in full swing and many Lebanese have been expecting to reap the dividends of the recovering tourist industry, which has been buoyed by Arab tourists from the Gulf and Saudi Arabia as well as westerners. Of course, the strikes are not endearing Israel to the Lebanese public, either. On his blog From Beirut to the Beltway, Abu Kais, a Lebanese American, who is, incidentally, a Shi'a, expresses his frustration with Hizbullah and Israel. His biggest complaint against Israel is that it is cowardly to beat up on Lebanon instead of attacking Syria or Iran.

From the perspective of Israeli decision-makers, however, the raids against Lebanon make perfect sense. Israel is sick of having to deal with non-state actors that are not beholden to the limits and types of calculations that usually restrain states. The Lebanese government has to be held responsible for its dilly-dallying on Hizbullah. Lebanese politicians have been engaged in a "National Dialogue" for months now and many hoped that this talk-shop would somehow result in the disbandment of Hizbullah. Nothing of that sort has happened. Instead, Lebanon's domestic political scene seemed totally paralyzed. Nothing was done to capitalize on the Syrian withdrawal in order to pressure Hizbullah, in the same way that nothing has been done since the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000. Lebanese politicians have to wake up and start acting like leaders. The big fear among Lebanese was that provoking or cracking down on Hizbullah would result in renewal of a civil war. But is that an excuse for wasting time and not addressing the continued operation of a foreign-backed militia on your sovereign territory?! Is it better to allow Hizbullah to continue operating with impunity, to bring more missiles to southern Lebanon and to continue arming itself? The longer Lebanon waits, the more difficult it will become to pressure Hizbullah to do anything. Nasrallah knows this very well. The attack on Israel and the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers was a move to make his movement more popular among Lebanese Shi'a and perhaps among the Palestinians. Every time Hizbullah succeeds, its position vis-a-vis the state of Lebanon is strengthened.

Perhaps the Lebanese military and its leaders lack the material wherewithal and the political will to take on Hizbullah. In that case, they do not really deserve to be in charge of their country. If you cannot maintain a monopoly of force, if you cannot exercise your sovereign control over your territory, then you're not really a state and you need someone else to take care of business on your own territory, and that really sucks.

What is most unfortunate about all of this is that the Middle East has been through it all. Israel went to war against Egypt in 1956 partly because of the support that Egypt provided to Palestinian "fedayeen" irregulars who attacked civilians in Israel from the Gaza Strip. Israeli retaliations against Egyptian targets arguably led Egyptian leader Gamal 'abd al-Nasir to rein in the Palestinian militias. In Jordan, the Palestinians acted with more impunity and Israel also retaliated against Jordanian targets in the West Bank and not just the Palestinian guerillas. King Hussein also had to juggle his fears of domestic unrest (from Jordan's Palestinian population) and fear of Fatah with the need to forestall Israeli retaliation attacks. Hussein, to his credit, acted in September 1970 to save the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan from overthrow at the hands of Fatah/the PLO. The comparison only goes so far, because Hizbullah is Lebanese and is therefore not considered an outside force, but the fact that it is backed by Syria and Lebanon makes it no less of a foreign agent.

Hizbullah and other Militias Obstinate in Face of Domestic Pressure

"Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah repeated on Tuesday his warning
that the resistance had 'thousands' of rockets capable of hitting Israel at any time"

Lebanon is in the midst of a lot of political change. The withdrawal of Syrian troops and the increased confidence of anti-Syrian forces are finally allowing for open debate on Hizbullah's continued existence as an armed militia. Sayyed Nasrallah, leader of the "resistance" movement, is of course feeling the heat and is busy dodging accusations of being an Iranian and Syrian stooge. For now, however, he is still firmly rejecting calls for the dismantlement of Hizbullah or its "absorption" into the regular Lebanese military forces. His argument for maintaining the "resistance" (i.e. Hizbullah) as an armed militia is that, contrary to

Some political leaders [who] do not agree that Israel is the enemy [and] others [who] believe we can rely on international protection [...] We believe Israel is still the enemy and our resistance proved that Israel can be defeated, while all other options have proven wrong for as long as Israel has existed.

Nasrallah makes it clear that he believes that the only way to deter Israel is by preserving his terrorist organization as a militia that is not controlled by the conventional Lebanese army or by the Lebanese state. This way, Hizbullah can continue attacking Israel while the Lebanese government and army will be able to cry foul if Israel tries to hold them accountable through retaliation. Nasrallah wants to continue maintaining a terrorist militia in a sovereign country that finally wants to become a normal player in world stage. Speaking at a recent "Resistance Culture" Conference in Beirut, Nasrallah responded to calls in Lebanon for absorbing Hizbullah with the following argument:

To merge the resistance into the classical Lebanese Army is not a realistic option because this will weaken the Lebanese position in facing the much superior Israeli Army. Our army can never match the Israeli Army equipment or its experience.

So basically, Nasrallah is saying that he wants to continue operating independently so as to "resist" Israel for Lebanon even though Lebanon doesn't want him to "resist" and in order to protect Lebanon from the Israeli reactions to the "resistance" that Lebanon doesn't want.

Well, maybe I'm a little too optimistic about Lebanon not wanting Hizbullah. After all, there are probably many Shi'is that are still behind it. But if one looks at statements made by other Lebanese politicians in the wake of the Syrian withdrawal, it is clear that they are carefully upping the pressure on Nasrallah, probably in response to public opinion.

Other militias which in my view would not stand a chance in Lebanon if it weren't for continued veiled Syrian threats are all the Palestinian militias operating there from their autonomous camps. Recently, a Lebanese army soldier was actually killed during a clash between a Lebanese unit and a convoy of Palestinians bringing weapons to their terrorist base from Syria. Of course, the Lebanese tried to cover it up at first, because, dammit, it's embarassing for groups to operate with such impunity on your sovereign territory, but in the end they had to speak frankly about who was carrying weapons and where they were coming from.

Source:
Adnan el-Ghoul, "Nasrallah: 'thousands' of rockets still at the ready," Lebanon Daily Star (May 24, 2006), Online Edition

Fuad Siniora Moving in the Right Direction

See my earlier post on this below. Reuters reports that Lebanese PM Siniora is asking Secretary General Kofi Annan to "confirm the specific steps required by the UN to recognize Lebanese sovereignty over the territory of the Shaba Farms." The farms are currently occupied by Israel, which, like the rest of the world, recognizes their status as SYRIAN territory. Syria has (not surprisingly) declared that negotiations over the territory should be conducted only after an Israeli withdrawal. Typical prevarication on their part. How should Israel react? I think it would be a good move to announce Israel's willingness to return the territory to Lebanon as part of a peace settlement. By the way, I read an article in Ha'aretz a long time ago by someone who studied all the old maps, and it appears as if the farms should actually be Lebanese territory.

Fuad Siniora on Hezbollah

Just saw Lebanese PM Siniora on CSPAN. A lot of waffling. Obviously he couldn't really say anything substantive about questions like Iranian and Syrian influence. But one thing I found interesting. Someone asked a question about Hezbollah. At first, he gave the usual garbage about Hezbollah's important contributions to Lebanon, ending the occupation by the Izraeeli army. But then he said: Hezbollah is a Lebanese party, and all its objectives are to further the interests of Lebanon. Then, later, the Sheba farms issue came up, and he said that he'd talked to American officials and there had been progress. So: this stuff about Hezbollah could be interpreted as praise for the organization, but at the same time, it is also an effort to limit its activities. I interpret this as follows: as long as Hezbollah fights for the "liberation" of the farms, its operations will be deemed legitimate. But after that, it's raison d'etre is up. By focusing on LEBANESE interests, Siniora is denying Hezbollah the right to link their cause with the Palestinians. It might be worth it for Israel to show some openness toward a deal, a real settlement that would involve the farms. Of course, Lebanon and Syria have to make the first moves (according to int'l law, the farms are Syrian not Lebanese territory). This could be a very good opportunity to force Syria into doing something that it doesn't really want to do.