If Nikki Haley doesn’t drop her nonsensical pro-israeli propaganda line at the UN, she could cause real problems for Lebanon

If Nikki Haley doesn’t drop her nonsensical pro-Israeli propaganda line at the UN, she could cause real problems for Lebanon

Robert Fisk — The Independent

Under a broiling hot midday sun on the south Lebanese-Israeli border this summer, an extraordinary and very angry meeting took place between two major generals: the 60-year-old Irish UN force commander in Lebanon and the 54-year-old deputy chief of staff of the Israeli army. Listening to them was the ambitious, pro-Israeli – but very inexperienced – US ambassador to the United Nations. The row between the two men appears to have been pre-planned by the Israelis to impress the highly impressionable Nikki Haley. It worked.

Nikki Haley speaks to the UNHaley had been helicoptered up to the border from Jerusalem on 8 June by Israeli General Aviv Kochavi for a tour regularly laid on for visiting – and gullible – US officials: a walk to the Lebanese frontier wire with many a fearful warning from the Israelis about Hezbollah “terrorists”, “secret” Hezbollah missile bunkers in UN-controlled territory and the failure of UN troops to “disarm” the “terrorists” in Lebanon. This is a familiar horror story, trotted out for American and other Western diplomats and politicians over more than 30 years.

All seemed bright sunshine and optimism when the UN force commander, General Mick Beary – one of Ireland’s most experienced UN peacekeepers with three tours of duty in Lebanon and postings to Iraq, Bosnia and Afghanistan behind him – explained to Haley that the situation on the Lebanese-Israeli border was stable, did not require further intervention and that the frontier was currently experiencing one of the most peaceful periods in its modern history. All true.

But not according to Kochavi – former Gaza divisional commander and Israeli ex-military intelligence director – who angrily told Beary that the UN was not doing its job and was frightened of entering Shiite villages in southern Lebanon for fear of confronting the pro-Iranian Hezbollah. Kochavi, say the Israelis, told Haley that the UN’s mandate should be changed to ensure its soldiers “disarmed” Hezbollah.

Beary stood his ground. He had heard this kind of stuff before. The UN is supposed to operate alongside the sovereign Lebanese army to ensure Lebanese government control (and peace) in a narrow sector along the Lebanese border – not battle with Hezbollah on behalf of the Israelis as part of their proxy war against Iran.

A wiser person might have checked all this out. Haley might have reminded herself, for example, how often the Israelis have cried wolf before, how frequently their claims of hidden rockets had turned out to be untrue – not many years ago, they showed drone-taken photo images of “missiles” being taken from a bombed garage in southern Lebanon under the eyes of the UN. One of the UN soldiers, however, had taken a snapshot of the “missiles” from a few feet away – in which the “rockets” were clearly no more than the damaged roll-up corrugated front doors of the bombed garages. Haley might even have read a few books about Lebanon – in which every Israeli incursion has ended in utter disaster.

But no. Within 11 weeks, Haley was sounding off in the UN about Major General Beary’s “embarrassing lack of understanding about what is going on” in southern Lebanon, of how “blind” he was to the spread of illegal arms. Beary responded to this attack on his competence as an officer – which, needless to say, went down very badly in the general’s native Ireland – by repeating that there was no evidence of any increase in weaponry. “If there was a large cache of weapons,” he said, “we would know about it.”

Now for the Department of Home Truths. Beary is right. But he also knows – as we all do who reside in Lebanon – that Hezbollah fighters live in the Shiite villages inside the UN zone. Of course, they do. They are Shiites. These are their homes. And we also know that they have weapons. Hezbollah made this embarrassingly clear last April when they bussed a bunch of journalists down to the border – where reporters saw around a dozen Hezbollah men armed with rifles, machine guns and rocket launchers not far from the UN headquarters.

The UN were apparently unaware of the trip in advance and the Lebanese government was outraged afterwards, while Hezbollah preened themselves for showing to the reporters some new Israeli frontline listening devices on the other side of the border.

This was farce. But there are other, more disturbing elements to the story. There are indeed certain Shiite villages in southern Lebanon in which UN soldiers do not linger. And there is a small hilltop plateau – known locally as “the Iranian gardens” – inside which the UN do not stray. But it lies within their area of operations.

UNIFIL, the United Nations Interim Force in Southern Lebanon, has been around for almost 40 years, its 250 fatalities killed by an assortment of armed groups including Hezbollah, the Israelis and Palestinians. Its 15,000-strong force now monitors a cease-fire drawn up after the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah war; their mandate also tasks them to ensure “the immediate cessation of all offensive military operations” by Israel. Israel’s constant overflights of Lebanon, going on for nigh on 40 years, are themselves in contravention of UN resolutions.

None of this, however, justified Haley’s ignorance of southern Lebanon. Beary, she said, “seems to be the only person in south Lebanon who is blind to what Hezbollah is doing”. Alas, Haley seems to be the only diplomat in the UN who is blind to just how dangerous the situation in south Lebanon would be if it wasn’t for older fellers like Beary.

Kochavi, a shrewd lad if ever there was one in the Israeli higher command, is the one man who does not want another war along the border. Which is why, every time there is the remotest sniff of violence on the frontier, the Israelis are on to UN headquarters in Naqqoura to ask for help.

The Lebanese still fear that – having failed to engineer the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad in Syria and thus Iran’s Arab ally in the Middle East – the Israelis will kick off another war in Lebanon to get rid of Hezbollah, something they hopelessly failed to do in 2006 during a war which Hezbollah may not have won but which Israel certainly lost.

But Israel’s own threats against Lebanon long ago lost their sting. In my own files, I have repeated warnings from Israel that civilian villages would be attacked in the “next” war, that Lebanon will be smashed back 400 years with the utter destruction of its infrastructure. But the Israelis destroyed much of Lebanon’s civilian infrastructure in 1982 and 1996 and again in 2006. And Lebanon simply rebuilt itself with Saudi, Qatari and Kuwaiti money.

A wounded Syrian Islamic militant receives urgent medical treatment from Israeli troops at the Syrian border. The commandos are seen administering 'tracheal intubation' by forcing a tube down the man's throat to prevent asphyxiation. Click to enlarge

A wounded Syrian Islamic militant receives urgent medical treatment from Israeli troops at the Syrian border. The commandos are seen administering ‘tracheal intubation’ by forcing a tube down the man’s throat to prevent asphyxiation. Click to enlarge

Israel has spent millions of dollars bombing Syrian, Iranian and Hezbollah forces inside Syria over the past five years. Throughout the entire Syrian war, it hasn’t fired a shot at Isis and has even allowed Islamist fighters to go to Haifa hospitals for medical treatment. But the folk Israel didn’t shoot at appear to be losing and the Shiite forces it did bomb appear to be winning. Which is why Israel is wondering just what Hezbollah now has in store for them.

Unfortunately – as Kochavi is well aware – Hezbollah keeps its missiles well north of the UN lines. After all, with a range stretching as far as the Negev desert in southern Israel, why should Hassan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah leader – who admittedly sometimes talks as if he’s the President of Lebanon – bunker his rockets inside the UN zone which is right on the border?

In Washington, Donald Trump, who knows even less about Lebanon than Nikki Haley, talked to the Lebanese Prime Minister recently about the latter’s battle with Hezbollah – apparently unaware that Hezbollah has ministers in the Lebanese government and that Michel Aoun (the real President of Lebanon) supports the militia.

Under sane leadership, the US usually managed to broker ceasefires in past Lebanon wars. But the current problem is that the US President is mad. Nikki Haley is thus reduced to using a string of clichés in the UN worthy of Theresa May.

“Enough is enough,” she said of North Korea’s missile pirouetting. North Korea is “begging for war”. America would not go on “kicking the can down the road”. This kind of codswallop may have gone down well when she was governor of South Carolina, but it’s pretty sorry stuff to hear from a UN ambassador who tells a senior UN officer in Lebanon that he’s “blind” to his duties.

The French, with around 1,000 UN troops in Lebanon, have quietly told the UN they are more than happy with Beary’s leadership. The UN says the same. But how do you persuade Haley to do her homework, drop the pro-Israeli propaganda line and keep her mouth shut unless she knows what she’s talking about? Words, words, words…

Source

 

 

Advertisements

Glory to the Martyrs of September 1993

Mohammad Nazzal

We no longer read

“Hezbollah marks the anniversary of the September 13 massacre.”
For more than a decade, it has ceased to do so. This was a day when the country almost exploded in a sectarian conflict. That demonstration, which ended in a massacre, had nothing to do with sectarian differences, but it is Lebanon where everything is turned into sectarianism, even the air. It was “to defend the land, sovereignty, nation, and the fate of generations.”
 
Martyrs of September 13

This was how Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah spoke that day. He barely completed his second year as the party’s Secretary General. The party barely completed its second month devoted to the principle of “A Katyusha for a civilian”. He emerged as the resistance, with his head raised up before “Israel’s” “reckoning operation” (the seven-day aggression).

This happened in 1993. Yitzhak Rabin, like his predecessor, Shamir, understood that he was facing “Arabs of another kind”. The other Arabs had a different opinion. The Lebanese government, for example, has decided to reward the resistance. The Lebanese army opened fire on a popular demonstration organized by Hezbollah in [Beirut’s] al-Ghubairi area – just like that “without a reason”. It was a political decision par excellence. It was not an armed demonstration. They were all civilians. It resulted in nine martyrs and dozens of wounded.

Women and men took to the streets to protest the Oslo Accords. They were just chanting. They were a rare group that was still raising its voice, at the time, against the “‘Israeli’ entity”. They wanted Palestine, all of Palestine. They were strangers in an area whose rulers had decided to adopt the “Madrid decisions” (for peace). Their land was occupied – southern Lebanon was occupied – and they resisted but out of sight. There was something about this group that always made them look ahead.

The shooting was not a warning. Fire was directed towards heads and chests, meant to kill. It was a ‘harvest-style’ shooting. Hezbollah did not know a wound deeper than that massacre. In the ensuing years, songs were composed about it:

“We Shall Not Forget September”.
Annual commemorations took place for more than ten years. Its vocabulary entered into the memory of the people of that environment. Those who lived in the [Beirut] suburb remember the annual signs along with the eternal pictures of the martyrs. Fate wanted Nasrallah’s son, Hadi, be martyred one day before the fourth anniversary of the massacre. The party had already made the necessary preparations the for the commemoration in the center of the “Shura Square” in Haret Hreik. Then, the second event came. That night, Sayyed began his speech with the massacre before talking about his son’s martyrdom:
“Shooting unarmed people at the airport road was aimed at igniting an internal war. They know how it begins but do not know how it ends.”


The massacre was engraved deep in the consciousness of the party to the extent that it was placed first in the address, before the second event – the martyrdom of the son of the resistance commander. It was not just any sign. Sayyed Nasrallah continued, “It was an attempt to create an internal rift and we have overcome it with wisdom and patience. We took the most courageous positions in the history of the party, because the easiest thing was to give orders to respond, but we declined and instead agreed to bear the wounds.” The day of the massacre came no more than three years since the end of Lebanon’s civil war. The anger that swept through the skies of the suburb that day – within the party specifically – was enough to serve as the initial fuel to turn the table on everyone. It was an adventure. The party understood that if that happened, the bate would have been swallowed and liberation would not have taken place seven years later. It would not have been a “rock” in 2006. It would not be creating new equations in the region today. It was a pivotal moment in the whole sense of history. On the night of the massacre, the masses chanted to Nasrallah with words that would be repeated for years to come:
“O Shura, O the best, we want to fight”.

It was later reported that the Coca-Cola company in Lebanon expelled some of its employees because they participated in the funeral of the martyrs. It was also said that the late Sayyed Mohamed Hussein Fadlallah issued a fatwa to boycott that company. Fadlullah prayed on the bodies of the martyrs in Al-Rida Mosque in Bir Al-Abed and behind him was Nasrallah as well as a lot of angry people.

Twenty-four years have passed since that massacre, which left nine martyrs. These are their names: Sokna Shams al-Din, Hassan Bazzi, Samir Wahab, Abboud Abboud, Sabah Ali Haider, Ali Tawil, Mohammed Abdul Karim, Mustapha Shamas and Nizar Qansouh. There are those who witnessed one of them running towards a lady who was hit in the head, wanting to help her. She was killed instantly. His concern was to cover parts of her body that were revealed. So he was hit. A martyr laying next to a martyr. That massacre has not yet been made into a movie. Nasrallah said that day, angrily: “This happens in a country that is said to be a country of freedoms!”

Generations grew up to the song “Glory to the Martyrs of September”.

It is the song that Imad Mughniyah was said to have participated in with his voice. It was a hymn for the departed, to the broken pride, to the sorrow of those who do not accept oppression. “Glory to the martyrs of September, they rejected Zionism. They chanted: we will fight Zionism. Glory to the martyrs of September, with their blood and without humiliation, they washed the shame of the Arab peace.”

Source: Al-Akhbar Newspaper, Translated by website team

15-09-2017 | 08:00

Related Videos

More whining from israel “Russia supports Hizbullah” but then again israel supports ISIS

Israel: Russia supports Hizbullah

With the defeat of ISIS terrorists in Syria, Israel’s obsession with Iran has turned into a nightmare. Netanyahu has cried WOLF so many years that during his recent meetings with Russian president Vladimir Putin and US president Donald Trump, he failed to scare his hosts of Iranian threat to either Russia or United States.

Last year, Times of Israel had claimed that Lebanese Islamic Resistance Hizbullah was receiving long-range missiles, laser-guided rockets and other sophisticated weaponry directly from Russia in Syria, and is free to use that weaponry against Israel if it so chooses.

On September 6, 2017, Barak Ravid claimed at Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz that “days after Putin-Netanyahu meeting in Sochi last month, Russia threatened to veto anti-Hizbullah move led by Israel and the US at United Nations.”

The so-called Russian threat came during the extension of the United Nations peacekeepers in Southern Lebanon (UNIFIL) mission for another year. Both the US and Israel asked more powers for UNIFIL to check Hizbullah activities along the Sheba’a Farms, Lebanese territory occupied by the Zionist entity since 1967. Lebanon rejects any mention of Hizbullah in its military activities along Lebanon-Israel-Syria border.

On June 16, 2016, Israeli propaganda website Algemeiner reported that Putin had promised Netanyahu during their meeting in Moscow that if Barack Obama didn’t veto anti-Israel resolution at the UNSC – he would do it. Washington has used 37 times its veto power to protect the Zionist entity at the UNSC.

The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) was created on the behest of United States in 1978 to help Jew army to withdraw from Southern Lebanon and replaced by the US-funded UNIFIL force. The Israeli invasion and occupation of Lebanon forced Shi’ite majority in South Lebanon to establish Hizbullah humanitarian organization – later turned into armed resistance against Jew occupation force and its local Christian proxy Phalangist militia – the butcher of Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camps in 1982. Since its armed resistance in mid 1980s, Hizbullah fighters have defeated Jewish army three times – 2000, 2006 and 2017.

Sharmine Narwani, a renowned commentary writer and political analyst on Middle East conflicts, posted an article at American Conservative (September 6, 2017), a publication of Jew millionaire Ron Unz. She blogs here.

Events on Israel’s western, northern and eastern borders have suddenly – in a few short weeks – scuttled the geopolitical balance that once favored Tel Aviv. Just a few years ago, Syria was disintegrating, Iraq was fragmenting, Lebanon was over-extended, and Gaza struggled alone,” she said.

Today, the likelihood of Iran enjoying a contiguous land corridor between its borders and the occupied Golan territory is greater than ever before. The Resistance Axis has gained tremendous military experience in the past six years in Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon—and most importantly, has done so by coordinating troops, intelligence and battle plans from a single command center, for the first time in its history as an alliance. Furthermore, this axis now enjoys international political cover from two permanent UN Security Council members, Russia and China. The Russians now have significant military experience alongside three members of this axis, and the Chinese are eager to expand their economic vision into those West Asian states, with Iran as a key hub for oil and gas pipelines,” she adds.

As these countries move forward to extinguish regional terrorism and reconstruct their infrastructure and societies, the Israelis will be left out in the cold. But while Israel’s options dwindle, its military plans seem to keep getting more attention. It’s the one option – the stick – that the Israelis gravitate to most easily, and a war of aggression against Lebanon and Gaza, or strikes against Syria, are not out of the question,” she said

What is this campaign for? لماذا هذه الحملة؟

 What is this campaign for?

سبتمبر 7, 2017

Written by Nasser Kandil,

The organized campaign against Hezbollah due to paving the way for the withdrawal of ISIS’s defeated fighters from Qalamoun is astonishing.

ISIS and Al Nusra according to the UN, Arab, and Lebanese classification is the same and the classification of the terrorist organizations does not sort them between good terrorism and bad terrorism or first class terrorism and third class one. During the past years there were many Syrian areas that were purged from Al Nusra under the pressure of the fighting of the Syrian army and Hezbollah, and led to the withdrawal of its fighters to Idlib as the same withdrawal of ISIS from Qalamaoun, but we have not heard any international or regional or Lebanese negative comments that considered that a concession with terrorism.

A few weeks ago, Hezbollah ended his battles victorious in Juroud Arsal and this victory has been culminated with a similar withdrawal of Al Nusra to Idlib, but no one said anything.

The attempt of linking this campaign with the fact that the fate of the kidnapped solders has been revealed as martyrs and the talk about leaving the army to complete its victory means simply that the Lebanese army without a coordination with the Syrian army and Hezbollah has to liberate the Lebanese remaining part, thus ISIS’s militants will withdraw under pressure to the Syrian parts from Qalamoun, thus the Syrian army along with the resistance will fight them there till they subdue to withdrawal. but what would change in the fate of the kidnapped soldiers or in the fate of ISIS’s withdrawal, but only if the intention was that the Lebanese army in coordination with the Syrian army and the resistance will wage a battle to crush the remaining groups in the Lebanese and the Syrian parts, but surely the objectors will find that the ISIS’s withdrawal is easier than the bitterness of coordination, knowing that the crushing was about to lose the opportunities of knowing the fate of the soldiers, and maybe the secret of their fate would die with their leaders, so did the objectors know the fate or know that they will bear the responsibility of the loss of the soldiers’ life because they prevented the army three years ago from freeing its soldiers by force, as the commander of the Commando Regiment the General Shamel Rouqez said at that time, Maybe this explains the anger of some Lebanese but the campaign is bigger and wider so who is behind it?

The source of the campaign reveals its goals, the political and the media escalation is not related to the military pressure till imposing the withdrawal with the individual weapons but to the point to which the militants went. This is clarified by the criticisms on Al-Hurra channel, Radio Sawa and Al Arabiya channel and other media means which are directed by Adam Early in favor of the US intelligence and the campaign of the accompanying declarations under the title of the danger on Iraq. The simple examination reveals that we are talking about countable hundreds that will not change the total balance of ISIS capacities in Deir- Al Zour and Al Mayadeen near the borders of Iraq and which the Americans estimated with more than ten thousands.

The Americans were originally the callers of the war on ISIS, but the withdrawal of ISIS which they sought from Mosul and Raqqa was by keeping the western of Mosul open towards Syria and its southern is open towards Al-Anbar, while leaving the eastern of Raqqa open towards Deir Al Zour and its southern open towards Badia. This was prevented by the Popular Crowd, the Syrian army, and Hezbollah and was supported by Russia and Iran. It is the withdrawal which will grant ISIS an opportunity to perpetuate its battles and will grant the Americans the opportunity of directing it, while the withdrawal which aims to gather Al-Nusra and ISIS in a confined geographical part which will be the resolving battle in the battlefield is a step towards the final resolving not a way to keep ISIS alive as was desired by the Americans if they were given the opportunities to impose their agenda of the war on ISIS in Syria and Iraq.

Why are the Americans so upset to this extent? And why do they provoke their groups to open fire?

The checking leads us to the direct and the indirect US focus by the public declaration and the implicit acquiescence on Boukamal which the Americans were surprised due to the negotiating secrecy that it will be the destination of the withdrawal which they thought that it will be to Deir Al Zour. The Americans recognize that Deir Al Zour is the title of the next battle of the Syrian army and that they have no problem that the militants of ISIS will gather there to be killed. The Americans aspire that the groups which they head can have control on Boukamal before the arrival of the Iraqi army and the popular Crowd to Qaem from the Iraqi side, and thus they will achieve their strategic dream by having control on the Syrian -Iraqi borders. Moreover, the supply lines between Boukamal and Deir Al Zour are difficult and complicated thus ISIS cannot enhance them. The withdrawal has changed their considerations and the military effort which is necessary to liberate Boukamal from ISISI needs the capabilities of the Syrian army and the resistance, but the dream of the borders has fallen.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

لماذا هذه الحملة؟

ناصر قنديل

أغسطس 30, 2017

– الحملة المنظمة على حزب الله بداعي فتح الباب لانسحاب عناصر داعش المهزومين في القلمون لافتة.

– داعش والنصرة وفقاً للتصنيف الأممي والعربي واللبناني واحد، والتصنيف للتنظيمات الإرهابية لا يعترف بإرهاب حميد وإرهاب خبيث، ولا بإرهاب درجة أولى وإرهاب درجة ثانية، وخلال سنوات يجري حسم مناطق سورية وتنظيفها من النصرة تحت ضغط قتال الجيش السوري وحزب الله وتنتهي بانسحاب عناصرها إلى إدلب مشابه لانسحاب داعش من القلمون الحالي ولم نسمع لا دولياً ولا إقليمياً ولا لبنانياً تعليقات سلبية تعتبر ذلك تهاوناً مع الإرهاب.

– قبل أسابيع قليلة أنهى حزب الله معاركه بنصر في جرود عرسال وتوّج بانسحاب مشابه للنصرة إلى إدلب ولم ينبس أحد ببنت شفة.

– محاولة ربط الحملة بكون كشف مصير العسكريين أظهر أنهم شهداء والحديث عن ترك الجيش يكمل نصره عليهم يعني ببساطة أن يحرّر الجيش اللبناني بالقوة وبدون تنسيق مع سورية وحزب الله الجزء اللبناني المتبقي، فينسحب مسلحو داعش تحت الضغط إلى الجزء السوري من القلمون فيقاتلهم الجيش السوري والمقاومة حتى يرضخوا للانسحاب، فماذا كان سيتغيّر في مصير العسكريين أو في مصير انسحاب داعش، إلا إذا كان القصد قيام الجيش اللبناني بالتنسيق مع الجيش السوري والمقاومة خوض معركة إطباق لسحق الجماعات المتبقية في الجزءين اللبناني والسوري. وبالتأكيد عند المعترضين يبقى انسحاب داعش أهون من مرارة التنسيق، خصوصاً أنّ الإطباق كان سيضيّع فرص كشف مصير العسكريين، وربما يموت مع قادتهم سرّ مصيرهم، فهل كان المعترضون يعرفون المصير ويعرفون أنهم سيحملون مسؤولية ضياع حياة العسكريين لأنهم منعوا الجيش قبل ثلاث سنوات من تخليص جنوده بالقوة، كما قال قائد فوج المغاوير آنذاك العميد شامل روكز، فيكون السرّ المدفون مع العسكريين وخاطفيهم أهون الشرور؟ ربما يفسّر هذا غضب بعض اللبنانيين، لكن الحملة أكبر وأوسع، فماذا ومَن وراءها؟

– مصدر الحملة يكشف أهدافها، فالتصعيد السياسي والإعلامي لا يرتبط بالمبدأ، وهو الضغط العسكري حتى فرض الانسحاب بالسلاح الفردي، بل بالنقطة التي توجّه إليها المسلحون، وهذا ما توضحه الانتقادات على قناة «الحرة» وراديو «سوا» وقناة «العربية»، وسائر الأدوات الإعلامية التي يديرها آدم إيرلي لحساب المخابرات الأميركية، وحملة الاستصراحات التي ترافقها، تحت عنوان الخطر على العراق، والتدقيق البسيط في الأمر يكشف أننا نتحدّث عن مئات معدودة لن تغيّر التوازن الإجمالي لقدرات داعش في دير الزور والميادين قرب حدود العراق والتي يقدّرها الأميركيون أنفسهم بأكثر من عشرة آلاف.

– الأميركيون كانوا بالأصل دعاة حرب على داعش تدار بطريقة فتح باب الانسحاب، ولكن بطريقة يختلف منطقها وتأثيرها. فالانسحاب الذي سعى له الأميركيون من الموصل والرقة لداعش كان بإبقاء غرب الموصل مفتوحاً نحو سورية وجنوبها مفتوحاً نحو الأنبار وترك شرق الرقة مفتوحاً نحو دير الزور وجنوبها نحو البادية. وهذا ما منعه الحشد الشعبي والجيش السوري وحزب الله وساندتهم فيه روسيا وإيران. وهو الانسحاب الذي يعني أنه لو تحقق منح داعش فرصة إدامة معاركها ويمنح الأميركيين فرصة إدارتها، بينما الانسحاب الهادف لتجميع داعش والنصرة كلّ في كتلة جغرافية محصورة تكون هي ميدان معركة الفصل، فهو خطوة على طريق الحسم النهائي، وليس طريقاً لإبقاء داعش على قيد الحياة، كما كان يرغب الأميركيون لو أتيح لهم فرض أجندتهم للحرب على داعش في سورية والعراق.

لماذا ينزعج الأميركيون إلى هذه الدرجة إذن؟ ولماذا يستنهضون جماعاتهم كافة لفتح النار؟

– التدقيق يوصلنا إلى التركيز الأميركي المباشر وغير المباشر، بالتصريح العلني والاستصراح الضمني، على البوكمال التي فوجئ الأميركيون بسبب التكتم التفاوضي على أنها ستكون وجهة الانسحاب التي كانوا يظنّونها إلى دير الزور، فدير الزور يسلّم الأميركيون بأنها عنوان معركة قادمة للجيش السوري، ولا مشكلة لديهم بأن يتجمّع فيها مسلحو داعش للقضاء عليهم هناك، لكن قبل ذلك يطمح الأميركيون لقيام الجماعات التي يديرونها بإمساك البوكمال، قبل أن يصل الجيش العراقي والحشد الشعبي إلى القائم من الجهة العراقية، وهكذا يحققون حلمهم الاستراتيجي بالجلوس على الحدود السورية العراقية، وخطوط الإمداد بين البوكمال ودير الزور صعبة ومعقدة ليقوم داعش بتعزيزها، وقد خرّب الانسحاب حساباتهم، وصار الجهد العسكري اللازم لتحرير البوكمال من داعش يحتاج قدرات الجيش السوري والمقاومة، وسقط حلم الحدود.

– وما رميت إذ رميت، ولكن الله رمى…

Related Videos

Lebanon Pays Tribute for Slain Soldiers in Official, Popular Funeral

Local Editor

08-09-2017 | 14:35

Lebanon

Lebanon held a state funeral for 10 of its soldiers captured and killed by Takfiri terrorists in the border area of Arsal between 2014 and 2017.

A large crowd of Lebanese people paid tribute to the bodies of the 10 soldiers at a Friday ceremony at the Defense Ministry near the capital city of Beirut.

The ceremony was also attended by Prime Minister Saad Hariri, President Michel Aoun, Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, army commanders and political figures.

Lebanon declared Friday a national day of mourning with government organizations, banks, schools and businesses closed as a sign of respect.

“Our joy in the victory over terrorism remains sorrowful for we were hoping that we manage to free you unharmed from the hands of the terrorism so that you may return to your Army and families in order to participate with us in this historic achievement,” President Aoun said during his speech at the funeral ceremony.

Daesh [the Arabic acronym for the Takfiri terrorist ‘ISIS/ISIL’ group] and other terror outfits broke into Lebanon in 2014, taking over the border town of Arsal.

They were ousted from the town, but started taking positions close to Ras Baalbeck, another border town, which has been the focus of the recent counterterrorism operations.

The soldiers were kidnapped by Takfiri militants during the border raid in 2014. Two of them were killed the same year, while the fate of the remaining eight was unknown until late July when the militants agreed to reveal their burial place as part of a ceasefire deal with Lebanon and its Hezbollah resistance movement.

Under the deal, a convoy of Daesh militants and their families left areas on the Lebanon-Syria border.

The deal came after the Lebanese army, backed by Hezbollah, conducted successful military operations on the border areas.

Source: News Agencies, Edited by website team


Lebanon Holds State Funeral in Honor of Martyred Soldiers

September 8, 2017

soldiers funeral

Lebanon bids farewell to soldiers who were killed by ISIL Takfiri group in a state funeral at Defense Ministry in Yarze.

Lebanese officials including top three leaders attended the funeral to pay tribute to 10 slain soldiers, whose remains were discovered following “Fajr Al-Joroud” operation which was launched by the Lebanese army earlier in August in a bid to liberate Ras Baalbek and Qaa outskirts from ISIL Takfiri group.

The ten soldiers were abducted in 2014 as the army engaged in a battle against ISIL and Nusra Front in the eastern border town of Arsal.

As the coffins of the soldiers arrived at the Defense Ministry, 21-gun salute was fired in honor of the martyrs. The army commander, General Joseph Aoun then gave military awards to the families of soldiers.

General Aoun hailed the victory of “Fajr Al-Joroud” operation, stressing the military’s determination to wipe out terror from the country.

He noted that the battle against ISIL took place in Ras Baalbek and Qaa outskirt because of sovereign decision taken by the government. On the other hand, the army commander stressed high readiness of the military in face of Israeli threats.

For his part, President Michel Aoun promised families of the slain soldiers to go ahead with a probe into the abduction operation and the killing of their sons.

President Aoun praised the soldiers sacrifices, vowing to confront terrorism.

Source: Al-Manar

 

Related Videos

 

Related Articles

 

Identities of Slain Soldiers Confirmed: Lebanese Army Commander

September 6, 2017

Army Commander General Joseph Aoun

Lebanese Army Commander, General Joseph Aoun, informed the families of servicemen held hostage by ISIL Takfiri group that the DNA tests confirmed the identities of their sons.

During a closed-door meeting held at the Defense Ministry in Yarze, General Aoun officially announced the results of the DNA tests that proved that the bodies discovered earlier on the border with Syria belonged to their sons.

The announcement had been made in presence of the government commissioner to the military court, Judge Sakr Sakr, and the doctor who supervised the tests, National News Agency reported.

“The funeral will take place on Friday 8 September at the Ministry of Defense in Yarze,” NNA added.

Source: NNA

Related Articles

 

Al Sayyed Nasrollah and the two equations of victory and negotiation السيد نصرالله ومعادلتا النصر والتفاوض

Al Sayyed Nasrollah and the two equations of victory and negotiation

سبتمبر 6, 2017

Written by Nasser Kandil,

During the past week, it was clear the turning of the image in Lebanon at the level of the political and media positions of the parties which supported the military operation of the resistance in Juroud Arsal against Al Nusra front and their return to the hostile rhetoric against the resistance whatever the expressions changed in this turning, including the return to arouse suspicions around the credibility of the process of Juroud Arsal and showing it as a theatrical deal, ignoring the magnitude of pain which they cause and the insult which they address to their partners in the homeland. In this battle there are many Lebanese martyrs, they have rushed to protect their homeland and condoned the Lebanese positions which facilitated the positioning of terrorism and justified its presence, dealt with it, and disabled any national decision to confront it throughout the years under different pleas. Among the changing of positions after the awakening of the conscience they hid behind the slogan of supporting the army to get rid of the resistance and to question the patriotism of its premises towards ignoring half of the battle which is being waged in parallel with the battle of the Lebanese army in Juroud and which completes its goals and integrates with it, where its field is the Syrian side from the borders.

Al Sayyed Hassan Nasrollah did not hide any of the information gathered by the leadership of the resistance about the presence of direct US intervention behind this turning and the presence of separate operations order to ignore the battles of Qalamoun and to get involved in campaigns of questioning the resistance and besieging its rhetoric and the attempt to dismantle the state of sympathy around it popularly, politically, and in media during the battle of Juroud, so the best cover is to hide behind the plea of supporting the Lebanese army to say that the ability of the army has been proven, so there is no need for the resistance, or to say that the army has proven that it is capable alone to resolve, so why to coordinate with the Syrian army, or to say that the equation of army, people, and resistance has ended after the battle of Juroud, towards saying that the justification of the weapons of the resistance has fallen and the fight of Hezbollah in Syria was a Lebanese deadlock, or that Lebanon is a part of the international coalition against ISIS and every move from outside this coalition is rejected, or it is a coalition that has not granted for Lebanon any air cover or armament or logistical support that commensurate with the size of the battle. Some have threatened those who did not listen, by the prosecution of the US financial sanctions whether parties, figures and media.

Al Sayyed did not waste his time in useless debates, he talked in a language of irresistible facts, he asked first whether they were those themselves who opposed the fact that the Lebanese army is confronting the terrorism, and those themselves who were so delayed to recognize that the terrorism exists and they remained calling the terrorists revolutionaries. He said we will neglect the matter and will say that you accept that there is terrorism and that the army should be authorized to wage the battle, so is it possible to talk about security and stability if the Lebanese side has been liberated from the borders, and if we consider what was achieved by the resistance as the liberation of the Lebanese territories was by the army, so how would be the situation if he Syrian part which was occupied by the terrorism on the borders with Lebanon has not been liberated, will it be lines of contention or a war of attrition or Lebanon is concerned with liberating the Syrian part to ensure its stability and security, If it was concerned as said by any simple logic as long as the stability cannot be achieved but only by liberating the opposite sites of borders, so does that mean that Lebanon is concerned from this position to consider positively what is achieved by the Syrian army and the resistance even from the position of interest in obtaining  security and stability. The reassurance by some people stems from their saying: as long as the Syrian army and the resistance are achieving what is needed so let us go to opportunism and hypocrisy by turning the back and behaving indifferently.

The question becomes if the battles continue for a military resolving which seems likely according to the words of Al Sayyed, so who will liberate Malihet Qara which is the point of borders and how?  Can it be liberated without coordination between those who fight on the both sides of borders? if the negotiation was the solution and its title is deporting the militants and the solving of the issue of the kidnapped soldiers so is there a third choice in front of Lebanon other than accepting that the resistance will bear the responsibility of negotiation in order to ensure for Lebanon and the Lebanese the fate of the kidnapped soldiers and return them, because from its national position it bears this responsibility and by virtue of its fighting in Syria with the Syrian army it can coordinate to ensure implementation of any agreement that includes the withdrawal of the militants, or it can send an official request to coordinate with Syria to ensure the implementation of the withdrawal of the militants, in order to ensure the ability to negotiate to ensure the future of the fate of its kidnapped soldiers.

According to the speech of Al Sayyed, all the ways lead to the recognition that the relationship between the Lebanese army, the resistance, and the Syrian army and that the achievement which its resolving approaches militarily or by negotiation according to the facts that say were it not for what is achieved by the Lebanese army, the Lebanese people, the Syrian army, and the Syrian people along with the resistance the victory would not been achieved. If the achievement was out of this participation and its completion depended on coordination, then there is no place for virtual discussion about whether dispensing with the resistance or the relationship with Syria will achieve protection and stability to Lebanon but only in battles such as waged by the owners of this logic.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

السيد نصرالله ومعادلتا النصر والتفاوض

ناصر قنديل
أغسطس 25, 2017

– بدا واضحاً خلال أسبوع مضى انقلاب الصورة في لبنان على مستوى المواقف السياسية والإعلامية للأطراف التي تصالحت مع عملية المقاومة في جرود عرسال ضدّ جبهة النصرة، وعودة إلى الخطاب العدائي للمقاومة، مهما اختلفت تعبيرات هذا الانقلاب، بما في ذلك العودة لدى البعض للتشكيك في صدقية عملية جرود عرسال وتصويرها كصفقة مسرحية، متجاهلين حجم الألم الذي يستبّبون به، والإهانة التي يوجّهونها لشركائهم في الوطن، وقد سقط في هذه المعركة شهداء لبنانيون اندفعوا لحماية وطنهم وتغاضوا هم عن مواقف لبنانية سهّلت تموضع الإرهاب وبرّرت وجوده وتعاملت معه، وعطلت أيّ قرار وطني لمواجهته طيلة سنوات تحت ذرائع مختلفة، ومن ضمن سيمفونية الانقلاب على صحوة الضمير وتلاوة فعل الندم، التلطي وراء شعار دعم الجيش للنيل من المقاومة، والتصويب عليها، والتشكيك في وطنية منطلقاتها، وصولاً لتجاهل نصف المعركة التي تخاض بالتوازي مع معركة الجيش اللبناني في الجرود وتستكمل أهدافها وتتكامل معها، وميدانها الجانب السوري من الحدود.

لم يُخْفِ سماحة السيد حسن نصرالله بعضاً من المعلومات المتجمّعة لدى قيادة المقاومة عن وجود تدخل أميركي مباشر وراء هذا الانقلاب، ووجود أمر عمليات مفصّل لتجاهل معارك القلمون، والانخراط في حملات طعن بالمقاومة ومحاصرة خطابها ومحاولة تفكيك حالة التعاطف التي حازتها شعبياً وسياسياً وإعلامياً خلال معركة الجرود، وخير غطاء هو التلطي وراء دعم الجيش اللبناني، للقول ثبتت قدرة الجيش فلا حاجة للمقاومة، أو أثبت الجيش أنه قادر وحده على الحسم فلماذا التنسيق مع الجيش السوري، أو القول انتهت معادلة الجيش والشعب والمقاومة بعد معركة الجرود، وصولاً للقول إنّ مبرّر سلاح المقاومة قد سقط، وإنّ قتال حزب الله في سورية كان ورطة لبنانية، أو أنّ لبنان جزء من التحالف الدولي ضدّ داعش، وكلّ تحرك من خارج التحالف مرفوض، وهو تحالف لم يقدّم للبنان لا غطاء جوياً ولا دعماً تسليحياً ولوجستياً يتناسب مع حجم المعركة، بل وصل البعض لتهديد الذين لا يستجيبون بالوقوع في خطر الملاحقة بالعقوبات الأميركية المالية، أحزاباً وشخصيات ووسائل إعلام.

– لم يُضِع السيد وقته في مساجلات النظريات الفلكية الخرافية لهؤلاء جميعاً، فتحدّث بلغة الوقائع العنيدة التي لا تقاوَم. فسأل أولاً، هل هؤلاء هم أنفسهم الذين كانوا يقفون ضدّ قيام الجيش اللبناني بمواجهة الإرهاب، وهم أنفسهم الذين تأخّروا طويلاً للاعتراف بأنّ الإرهاب موجود وبقوا يسمّون الإرهابيين ثواراً حتى الأمس؟ ثم قال سنتخطّى الأمر، ونقول حسناً قبلتم أنّ هناك إرهاباً وأنّ الجيش يجب أن يُمنح تفويض خوض المعركة، فهل يمكن الحديث عن أمن واستقرار إذا تحرّر كلّ الجانب اللبناني من الحدود، ولو احتسبنا ما أنجزته المقاومة من تحرير للأراضي اللبنانية رصيداً للجيش، فكيف سيكون الوضع ما لم يتحرّر الجزء السوري من الأراضي التي احتلها الإرهاب على الحدود مع لبنان، خطوط تماس أم حرب استنزاف، أم أنّ لبنان معنيّ بتحرير الجزء السوري ليضمن استقراره وأمنه، وإذا كان معنياً كما يقول أيّ منطق بسيط طالما الاستقرار لا يتحقّق إلا بتحرير الجانبين المتقابلين من الحدود، فهل يعني هذا أنّ لبنان معنيّ من هذا الموقع بالنظر إيجاباً، على الأقلّ، لما يفعله الجيش السوري وما تفعله المقاومة على هذا الصعيد، ولو من موقع المصلحة بالحصول على الأمن والاستقرار، والاطمئنان الذي يُظهره البعض ناجم عن قولهم، ما دام الجيش السوري والمقاومة يفعلان ما يفعلانه فلنذهب للانتهازية والنفاق بإدارة الظهر واللامبالاة.

– السؤال إذا تواصلت المعارك لحسم عسكري يبدو مرجّحاً، وفقاً لقول السيد، فقمة مليحة قارة هي نقطة الحدود، مَن سيُحرّرها وكيف؟ وهل يمكن تحريرها بدون تنسيق بين الذي يقاتلون على طرفي الحدود، وإذا سلك الحلّ التفاوضي طريقه، وعنوانه الثنائي، ترحيل المسلحين وحلّ قضية العسكريين المخطوفين، فهل يمكن أن يكون أمام لبنان خيار ثالث، غير ارتضاء تولي المقاومة التفاوض لكي تضمن للبنان واللبنانيين كشف مصير العسكريين المختطفين وإعادتهم، لأنها من موقعها الوطني تحمل هذه المسؤولية ولأنها بحكم قتالها في سورية مع الجيش السوري تستطيع التنسيق لضمان تنفيذ أيّ اتفاق يتضمّن انسحاب المسلحين، أو ارتضاء التوجه بطلب رسمي للتنسيق مع سورية ليضمن قدرة التنفيذ لأي اتفاق سيتضمّن انسحاب المسلحين، كي يضمن القدرة على القيام بالتفاوض لضمان مستقبل قضية عسكرييه المخطوفين؟

– إنّ كلّ الطرق، وفقاً لخطاب السيد، تؤدّي إلى طاحونة الإقرار بأنّ العلاقة بين الجيش اللبناني والمقاومة والجيش السوري، وأنّ الإنجاز الذي يقترب عسكرياً أو تفاوضياً، بلغة الوقائع عن اليوم والأمس والغد، يقول إنه لولا قيام الجيش اللبناني والشعب اللبناني والجيش السوري والشعب السوري ومعهم المقاومة بما قاموا به لما كان النصر أو يكون، فإذا كان الإنجاز مديناً لهذا التشارك واستكماله وقفاً على التنسيق، فلا مكان لنقاش افتراضي حول ما إذا كان الاستغناء عن المقاومة أو عن العلاقة مع سورية سيحقق الحماية والاستقرار للبنان إلا في معارك بهلوانية كتلك التي يخوضها أصحاب هذا المنطق.

Related Videos

Related Articles

%d bloggers like this: