May 25 Liberation Day: Soul is what fights

May 25, 2022

Source: Al Mayadeen

By Ali Jezzini 

With the blood and sweat of thousands of its sons and daughters, Lebanon was liberated on May 25, 2000.

During the celebration that followed Liberation Day, the leader of the resistance Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah described the Israeli occupation regime as “frailer than a spider’s web”

Twenty-two years have passed since the Israelis were forced, for the first time, to withdraw from an occupied Arab land unconditionally. The event that took place on May 25th of the year 2000 is seen widely as a turning point in the greater Arab struggle against the Israeli occupation and colonization of Arab lands. 

The day the occupation completed its forced withdrawal from Lebanese territories came to be known as the Liberation and Resistance Day in Lebanon, a day that is commemorated and celebrated all over the country annually. It became a founding element in the story of the Arab and Lebanese people’s struggle in general, and for the people of Southern Lebanon in particular. Memories of the occupation that brought death and destruction to the lives of many are still vivid to this day, as not only were the horrors of such a period carved in the collective memory of the Lebanese people but also the idea that the cost of resistance will always be more bearable than that of submission.

So how did the people, historically described as poor peasants, manage to inflict such a strategic defeat on the Israeli war machine?

Building the momentum

As the occupation began in 1978 and then expanded in 1982, the Lebanese resistance factions took up their arms and dealt heavy blows to the Israeli occupation troops present on the Lebanese soil via various military actions. New resistance factions were formed as well. They followed a wide array of ideological doctrines that ranged from communism and nationalism to Islamic ideology. This piece will be focusing on the actions, operations, and plans of the resistance party that played a major role in the military defeat of the Israelis and their expulsion from Lebanon – except for the Shebaa Farms and the Kfar Chouba Hills – the Islamic resistance in Lebanon, i.e. Hezbollah.

The resistance project was launched in Beirut in 1982 by only a few men who were frustrated by how the people under Israeli occupation were left to meet their fate by everyone as the country was engulfed in civil war. Not with words, but with solid actions, iron, and lead, these men decided to stand their ground and fight. The oldest of these men hadn’t reached his thirties, these “young and crazy” men ended up changing the fate of Lebanon and the region for good.

Numbering from a few dozens to hundreds in the nineties, the resistance had employed multiple tactics, from ambushes to anti-tank guided missile (ATGM) strikes or mining the roads taken by Israeli patrols. Their foe was not only the Israeli occupation forces; there was also a collaborator militia under the name of the South Lebanon Army (SLA), whom the Israelis used as cannon fodder to man the front outposts with the hope of mitigating their losses.

The Islamic Resistance’s ability to adapt to shifting conditions was proved by Hezbollah’s military operations in the 1990s. Hezbollah attacked with direct assaults when the Israeli forces and SLA-established permanent outposts. The resistance moved to use indirect fire using mortars and rocket fire when the occupation and its collaborators bolstered their outposts. The resistance resorted to ambushes, improvised explosive devices (IEDs), and mines as the IOF changed tactics and became a more mobile force with more patrols.

As for the use of ATGMs, the Lebanese resistance deployed even more complex armament systems, ranging from the older Sagger ATGMs to the more modern American-made TOWs and Soviet-made Konkurs. Between September and October 1997, using TOW systems, the resistance, for instance, managed to destroy a Magach and three Merkava tanks, dealing a serious blow to the IOF’s morale. The Islamic resistance’s adaptability earned it admiration from its enemies. The head of the Golani brigade, Moshe Kaplinsky, remarked that “Hezbollah was a learning organization.” 

The War was characterized by an intellectual clash between the resistance and the IOF. For instance, in the 1990s, when the IOF started utilizing sniffer dogs to find wire-triggered IEDs, the resistance started hiding its mines under fiberglass boulders as camouflage, then resorted to using radio control to set off the mines. The IOF, in turn, tried countering this tactic by jamming the radio signals, the resistance responded by using cellphone-triggered devices. The Israelis countered this tactic by jamming cellphone signals. The resistance finally employed infrared signals to detonate the explosive devices and continued inflicting tremendous damage to the Israeli occupying forces.

Culminating the effects

The resistance’s professional use of IEDs and mines culminated in the killing of Erez Gerstein in 1999; the top Israeli commander in Lebanon at that time. It was a huge calamity for the occupation and its already crumbling morale as a result of the attrition war it was suffering at the hands of the resistance. The SLA was not spared either, as its second-in-command, Aql Hashim, was killed the following year using similar tactics.

One of the most significant victories for the resistance, both on the intelligence and tactical levels, was the 1997 ambush of sixteen navy commandos from the elite Shayetet 13 unit near the coastal town of Ansariyah, which resulted in the death of 12 Israeli soldiers. It was revealed by the secretary-general of the resistance later on that the ambush was made possible by the resistance’s hacking of Israeli drones earlier that year, which allowed them to acquire intel that helped identify the imminent incursion.

Operations continued as the occupation of Lebanon was withering, with their number increasing substantially. 4,928 of the total 6,058 operations occurred between 1996 and 2000, and 1999 alone saw the resistance carrying out 1,528 operations. The war was long and consuming for the Israelis, and not only the military was suffering. The Israeli society as a whole was crumbling underneath the weight of losses in Lebanon.

The resistance using rockets to establish a deterrence equation, which prevented the Israelis from targeting civilians in Lebanon, played a major role in cutting the Israeli society’s appetite for war. The Israelis felt that their government, even after the wars of 1993 and 1996, was unable to stop the rocket retaliation against settlements. Despite the numerous violations committed by the IOF against the rules of such proclaimed and explicit equation, the Israelis did reduce their attacks against civilians in Lebanon.

The victory

The last Israeli soldier left Lebanese soil (except for Shebaa farms and Kfarshoba hills) at 6:48 am on May 24 of the year 2000, and the long-awaited relief of the Lebanese people from their suffering ended. The SLA was breaking up in the days leading up to the 24th of May, culminating in its complete disintegration following that date. The members of the collaborator army were divided into 2 groups, the first surrendered to the resistance, while the second left with the Israelis to occupied Palestine. One of the SLA officers said during his last seconds on Lebanese soil: “We expected to be expelled, but [not like this] with honor.” A scene that was engrained in the Lebanese memory, besides the scenes of the prisoners of Al-Khiam detention camp breaking their chains and breathing in the fresh breeze of freedom.

During the celebration that followed Liberation Day, the leader of the resistance, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, described the Israeli occupation regime as “frailer than a spider’s web.” These words echoed within the heads of the Israelis for the better half of a decade, so much so that Israeli generals labeled their bid to occupy Bint Jbeil (where Sayyed Nasrallah made the speech in which he said the occupation was frailer than a spider’s web) “Operation Webs of Steel”. The operation took place during the Israeli 2006 war on Lebanon. “Tel Aviv” failed miserably in its endeavor again, but that is a story for another day.

The Israeli occupation regime’s existential concerns became much more vivid following its defeat and humiliation in 2000 and 2006. The mighty “Israel” that always bragged about its operational military art and competency and created an illusion of invincibility became powerless, frail, and paranoid. The resistance and its people not only liberated their land with their blood and sweat but proved to all the Arabs and the oppressed of this world that, with a clear mind, a strong will, and a passionate soul, no occupation shall last.

Related Videos

Related Articles

Eleven Years in the Dark Corridors of the Khiam Detention Center: An Unbreakable Will to Resist

May 25, 2022

By Zeinab Abdallah

South Lebanon – It has been a couple of decades since Lebanon was liberated from the ‘Israeli’ occupation. It is a 20-year old achievement that is being strengthened at every turning point.

Only children didn’t know, at the time, the true stories of pain behind the joy this event has brought to their lives, the ones who were used not to have a single place where they could spend their summer vacations.

What will be narrated below is just the story of one person. A southerner who decided to stand up against the occupation of his country. This person ended up spending 11 years behind ‘Israeli’ bars from November, 1985 until July, 1996.

Liberated detainee Hajj Ali Khsheish, who has the scars of those 11 years on his body and soul, told al-Ahed News about how he was detained, torture inside the prison, and the inhumane treatment of ‘Israeli’ collaborators.

Eleven Years in the Dark Corridors of the Khiam Detention Center: An Unbreakable Will to Resist
Liberated Detainee Hajj Ali Khsheish at the Khiam Detention Center – Al-Ahed News, May, 2020

“In the beginning, we had a resistance activity inside an occupied area where the ‘Israeli’ was very comfortable to practice whatever he wants. It was a group of youngsters who decided to resist the occupier and hence we founded a small group that was known the Islamic Resistance.”

The early resistance men, he added, were under the ‘Israeli’ agents’ sight. For them, it was both difficult and dangerous to transfer a weapon inside the occupied territories. That’s why at the time, many arrests were made in the village of Khiam and other villages in the region. Members of different political organizations were also detained.

On November 11, 1985, Hajj Ali, as well as many other members of the Islamic Resistance were detained and taken to the Khiam Prison, better known as the Khiam Detention Center, which was located in Hajj Ali’s own homeland, and run by Antoine Lahd’s militia under the ‘Israeli’ administration.

Interrogation and torture

Interrogation was as harsh as all forms of torture practiced inside the place. The enemy, according to Hajj Ali, doesn’t spare an area in the human body un-tortured to obtain the information he wants. ‘Israel’ was dying to learn all information related to the resistance activities and how it is transferring weapons and exchanging information.

According to his own experience, Hajj Ali says he had been interrogated for four months in a raw. “During the same period, many arrests from Bint Jbeil, Markaba and Taybeh were made, so the enemy assumed that there is a common link between those groups, although every group was indeed operating separately.”

In the painful memories of his years behind the ‘Israeli’ bars, the man repeats that torture was very harsh. ‘Israel’ mastered its means of torture in that place, which were numeral and inhumane at every level. Electric shocks, electric cables, electric pole hangers, deprivation of sleep, food and restrooms, head covers and handcuffs, solitary cells, the ‘Chicken Coop’, insults, intimidations and torturing relatives… and the list goes on.

“We used to sleep in corridors before being transferred to cells. At the time, the prison’s area wasn’t fit to contain the huge number of detainees. While sleeping there, the jailer walks into the corridor and kicks us. Even when we are hanged on the electric poles we were also beaten…” the man said, adding that “they used to rub our wounds with salt, or warm up an iron rod to burn parts of our bodies… all of their methods were barbaric, they didn’t use any humane action when dealing with the detainees.”

Many detainees were martyred while hanged naked, in cold and hot weathers, and without food or water, for three days on the electric poles.

Such innovated methods were both directed and supervised by Amer al-Fakhoury, the ‘Israeli’ collaborator who in a couple of months ago fled Lebanon after being discharged by the Lebanese Military Tribunal on the crimes he has committed due to the ‘passage of time’.

Torture was not limited to the period of interrogation, it would rather accompany the detainee all over his time at the prison. This depends on how moody the jailer is.

Interrogators were focused on obtaining any piece of information about Hezbollah, and the activity of the Islamic Resistance. They focused on detainees affiliated with Hezbollah, their bitterest enemy who caused them a lot of pain. Even when the Islamic Resistance carries out a successful operation, they used to retaliate by torturing the detainees.

“They didn’t treat us as humans, they didn’t take into account any health condition the detainee could be suffering from. Even for those whose hands or legs were amputated, they used to beat them on that areas.”

The post-interrogation period

After the minimum of two months interrogation period and solitary confinement, detainees were transferred to 2-meter wide and 2.5-meter long cells. They were designed for five detainees at the same time. The cells were neither equipped with light, nor with toilets. “At night, we sleep in line, everyone’s head is opposite to the other’s legs…”

The room didn’t even have a restroom inside it, detainees couldn’t but use a bucket to have their essential need met. They were not allowed to speak inside their cell, nor anywhere else. Their voice mustn’t be heard, otherwise the jailer knows what he would do. Detainees were even denied the right to sun exposure. They were only allowed for 5 minutes every month or less in a small yard that they crowd inside it 10 to 15 detainees.

“It was barely one tour inside the yard before we are taken back to our cells. Speaking was not allowed there, neither was smiling at each other.”

Food, water and medication

Every portion of food served to one detainee per day wasn’t meant to fill the stomach of a baby. Two small toasts for breakfast, with three olives and jam. Then comes the lunch, an entire dish of unsalted stew to serve the five detainees inside each cell. And finally the dinner, also two small toasts with a boiled egg and a potato.

“We considered that we are living only because the angel of death was busy somewhere else. Everything inside the Khiam Detention Center was driving us to death, and this is why when a new colleague entered the prison, he told me that my family learned that I was dead, and that they held a memorial service for me,” Hajj Ali Khsheish recalled.

The place doesn’t resemble any of the world’s prisons. The maximum period of interrogation in any jail in the world is 72 hours, then the prisoner would be moved to a cell that fits for a human use. In this case, however, there didn’t exist even the least of elements of the human survival.

Minding the portions of food prisoners were served inside the place, it was subsequently understandable that they would be dined drinking water as well.

The jailers would deprive detainees from drinking water for three consecutive days under the pretext that the water service is cut off. “We used to demand drinking, even from the water heater, which was already rust, only to quench our thirst.”

‘Miscol’ was the multifunctional drug we were given, Hajj Ali said. It was an ‘Israeli’ drug, most of the times we discover it was expired when given to us, but the jailers used to give to the detainees every time they feel a pain, no matter what kind of pain or in which body organ. Detainees, in best cases, were injected with water instead of medicine.

Freedom of religious rituals

Detainees used to recite the holy Quran according to the memorizations, they didn’t actually have access to any hard copy, although they managed once to obtain a very small part of the holy book, which they secretly shared by turn.

In Ashura, for example, when the jailer hears that they are making any activity, he used to open the cell suddenly and start beating them.

Even in the holy month of fasting, jailers turn generous and force fasting detainees to drink and eat. Indeed, they pour water inside their mouths. Once, a detainee thought he would escape a forced breakfast, so when the jailer asked him if he is fasting, the detainee said no. The jailer, however, started beating and scolding him because he is a Muslim but was not fasting!

Tyranny anytime, anywhere

“Sometimes, jailers order detainees to cover their heads, it was up to their mood if they don’t want to see our faces. The prison’s regime was arbitrary. Everybody should be awake at 6, with the components of their cell be organized. Sometimes, they storm the cell at midnight, or even after, they force detainees to stand up facing the wall, raising their hands up, for an hour or two,” Hajj Ali added.

Other times, when the wrestling team a jailer likes loses, he takes a group of detainees to the yard and starts beating them!

As a result, detainees used to organize hunger strikes to raise their voice high…

The Khiam Detention Center Uprising

“One time, the detainees rejected food for three times because a jailer dragged one of us while he was preforming prayers and took him out. Detainees started knocking the doors. How would they do such thing during the prayers?”

The uprising started in 1993, and what was remarkable is that all detainees, even the women in their separate building, united with each other, without learning the reason ahead, they just heard the knocking and understood that some major thing was going wrong.

The jailers, however, threw gas bombs and fired some shots inside the already narrow and closed prison cells. Many detainees suffocated, so the others calmed down to save the lives of their fellows. After that, the jailers took around 70 detainees outside and started beating them until the strike ended.

The prisoners’ demands were access to sufficient food as well as sun exposure and restrooms, the basic needs provided in the rights of detainees according to the Geneva Conference. The prison’s administration responded to the demands. However, it was very soon that they backtracked this policy. The ‘Israeli’ policy was keen to keep the detainees’ only concern is to have food, sun exposure and toilets. Otherwise, if things remained comfortable, detainees would demand additional things the prison’s administration didn’t want to meet.

Hajj Ali no more behind bars

As part of a swap deal between the Islamic Resistance, that detained bodies of two ‘Israeli’ soldiers, and the Zionist regime, Hajj Ali Khsheish was released with the group of 40 detainees and bodies of 124 martyrs on July 21st, 1996.

Eleven Years in the Dark Corridors of the Khiam Detention Center: An Unbreakable Will to Resist
Liberated Detainee Hajj Ali Khsheish at the Khiam Detention Center – Al-Ahed News, May, 2020

As free as before, he decided to continue the next period in Beirut, firstly to save himself and his relatives from any possible future detention, and secondly, which was more important to him, to resume his resistance activity.

Turning his back to the years of pain, Hajj Ali walked out of the place where he spent the harshest 11 years of his life… He returned, however, to the same place, after it was liberated during the liberation of south Lebanon and the withdrawal of ‘Israeli’ occupation in May, 2000.

Since then, he and several colleagues, dedicated themselves to explain to every visitor of the Khiam Detention Center how ‘Israel’ and its Lebanese collaborators have been involved in war crimes against all detainees.

This is How ’Israel’ Gave In to Hezbollah: The Liberation of the Year 2000

May 25, 2022 

Jihad Haidar

The liberation of Lebanese occupied territories in 2000 was just a culmination of an ascending path of victories Hezbollah recorded in confronting various types of wars waged by the “Israeli” enemy. During this period “Israeli” positions and the positions of the army of Antoine Lahad stretched along what was known as the “security belt”.

This is How ’Israel’ Gave In to Hezbollah: The Liberation of the Year 2000

What distinguishes the act of resistance from regular warfare is that it is a cumulative effort that aims to drain the occupation on all levels. It pushes the occupier to a point where its leadership and audience force upon it the decision to withdraw.

Thus, the continuation of a serious and effective resistance was a pivotal challenge and critical to achieving victory. However, since the resistance was cumulative, it was natural that there would be repercussions on the “Israeli” [domestic] arena. It was only when all of the [“Israeli”] army’s efforts to stop the bloody killings of its forces in the occupied areas failed that “Israeli” public opinion demanded and pressured its political leadership to withdraw from Lebanon and restore stability to the settlements in the north that were targeted by the resistance’s missiles in response to “Israeli” attacks against civilian areas in Lebanon.

Stages and the bets of the enemy

In glancing at the years leading up to the liberation, we notice that the “Israeli” gambles went through phases, correlating with political and security developments. But the gamble that persisted throughout all of these stages during the confrontation, revolved around the possibility that the resistance may age over time, while despair takes over its supporters as sacrifices grow.

Despite all that, every stage had its own gambles. At times the gambles centered on the regional and internal Lebanese developments. At other times, the “Israeli” gamble focused on the effects of the [Arab-“Israeli”] “peace process”, which was launched in Madrid and achieved breakthroughs on the Palestinian and Jordanian fronts.

Initially the “Israeli” hopes were pinned on the production of a regional political reality that would lead to the demise of the resistance as an option of glory in confronting threats. Meanwhile the various stages of the negotiations were accompanied by psychological and political warfare aimed at presenting the resistance as an absurd option and curbing the motivation of the resistance fighters while exhausting the patience of its followers.

At the operational level, “Israel” feared a repetition of the consequences of the military incursion option to settle scores with Hezbollah. So the military leadership at the time tried to create alternative operational options that Hezbollah aborted through its steadfastness, tactics, firmness, and determination to continue the path of resistance.

“Israel” adopted several options, one of which was to launch massive attacks that targeted civilian areas, in order to turn the public against the resistance.

The July 1993 aggression (Operation Accountability), the April 1996 aggression (Operation Grapes of Wrath), and other operations focused on targeting the leaders as well as the Jihadi and Mujahidin staff of the resistance, including His Eminence the Secretary-General of Hezbollah martyr Sayyed Abbas Musawi (RA).

Instead, Hezbollah was able to counter these Israeli efforts, securing an internal [Israeli] consensus, which took into account the mounting human cost within “Israeli” army ranks.

The theory (or the equation) is as follows: “Israel” needs to continue occupying Lebanese territory regarding it as a «security belt» aimed at protecting its northern border. But Hezbollah transformed the “Israeli” presence on Lebanese territory to a wounded occupation and costly to the “Israeli” society to the extent that forced the army chief of staff at the time, Amnon Shahak, to admit that his soldiers were like sitting ducks for Hezbollah fighters.

The missile strategy adopted by the resistance turned the occupation into the reason behind the deterioration of security in the northern [“Israeli”] settlements. Rockets were fired in response to any aggression against Lebanese civilian areas.

The missile strategy also transformed the settlements in northern [“Israel”] to a handicap for the movement of the occupation forces, which now had to take into account the possibility of the settlements being targeted when studying their options in expanding their aggression. This reality turned into an additional burden for the occupying entity that deepened its losses and drained it.

That is how Hezbollah excelled in imposing the equation of expanding the response in confronting the policy of expanding aggression. The current “Israeli” chief of staff of the enemy’s army, Gadi Eizenkot, was one of the prominent figures to admit this equation when he explained in a lecture – back when he was in command of the northern region- saying: “Hezbollah was very keen on not targeting “Israeli” towns with rockets unless it was in response to “Israeli” operations…. And if memory serves me right, targeting “Israeli” towns with rockets, as we said above, was in response to operations by the “Israeli” army that Hezbollah considered crossing a line”.

Based on the above and after a series of failed gambles and evidence of the futility of operational options adopted by the army of the enemy, the decision-makers in Tel Aviv found that the Jewish entity had but two realistic options:

Either to withdraw back to its borders or to continue the human attrition in the security belt and the security attrition in the north of “Israel”.

So that is how the “Israeli” leadership, represented by Prime Minister Ehud Barak at the time, found that the only way to get rid of the Lebanese quagmire is to get out of it, even unilaterally and without any agreements or security or political preparations. That is what happened.

Source: al-Ahed News, Translated and Edited by website team

The April War Saga: Sayyed Zulfiqar’s Evaluation of The War’s Outcome, Strategies of Both Sides

April 14, 2022 

April 1996 Aggression 

one year ago

Sayyid Zulfikar’s take on the April 1996 victory: the Islamic resistance resolved the war and imposed the missile deterrence formula

By Mohammad A. Al-Husseini

Al-Ahed is releasing a series of special accounts including one from the great jihadi leader Mustafa Badreddine aka Sayyed Zulfiqar. The content unveils the role he played in the fight against the “Israeli” enemy in 1996, which became known as the April war. The enemy called it the Grapes of Wrath Operation. But the grapes quickly soured.

On one spring day that year, a group of leaders from the Islamic Resistance gathered in a small room around an old-fashioned diesel-fueled space heater. The walls were covered with maps and a board. The leaders leaned on one another. There wasn’t enough room for everyone so some stood in the doorway, listening intensely. All eyes and ears were on one man – a young leader explaining the course of the confrontation and summing up the achievements. That leader was Sayyed Zulfiqar.

He sat behind a small desk. In front of him were a set of printed handbooks detailing the April victory. He looked like someone reciting chapters of literature as he read from the pages. At times he seemed happy. In other instances he was deeply moved. However, at all times he glanced through the room as if painting a portrait of pride. Every once in a while he would acknowledge and commend the men of God who wrote the saga of victory.

Sayyed Zulfiqar set out to review the course of the war over a period of 16 days. He was clear in his assertion that Hezbollah was expecting a confrontation. The war was a certainty and resulted from the Sharm El-Sheikh conference, which implied that the main objective of the hostilities would involve striking the uprising in Palestine and the resistance in Lebanon. Sayyed states the bullet points of the meeting as follows:

1. Why did the enemy initiate the war?

2. The Resistance’s missile launching tactics

3. The supplies

4. Psychological warfare

5. The outcome of the military and political wars

“Israeli” Prime Minister Shimon Peres thought that within a few days the matter would be settled. He would be re-elected as head of the government for another term and succeed in achieving the objectives of the Grapes of Wrath aggression. The objectives can be summarized as follows:

1- To hit Hezbollah’s organizational structure, dismantle its institutions, and eliminate its main figures

2- To destroy the resistance’s military structure, strike its bases, liquidate the first rank of its military commanders at the very least, and destroy its logistical centers and Katyusha missile platforms or at least push them more than 20 km away from the Lebanese-Palestinian border

3- To dismantle the July understanding reached after the Seven-Day War or Operation Accountability in 1993 and to impose the Kiryat Shmona-Beirut equation

4- To separate Lebanon’s course from Syria’s in order to isolate Lebanon and force it to sign a political-security agreement with the enemy along the lines of the May 17 agreement

5- To create a rift between the Lebanese resistance and the country’s government and people and fragment the Lebanon’s national fabric by reviving sectarian strife in favor of strengthening the role of the internal parties linked to “Israel”

6- To strike economic and human components in Lebanon and to empty the southern villages of its inhabitants in order to create an internal humanitarian crisis during the war that would pit public opinion against Hezbollah and the resistance

The lessons learned from the first strike

The enemy laid out its agenda and started the war on April 11. Its warplanes carried out 34 raids on the first day.

“We benefited greatly from the first strike,” Sayyed said as he sat up in his chair. “We made a decision that all officers, specialists, or sector officials must have a backup headquarters. When the enemy carried out its first strike, it knew that the headquarters were also the telecommunications headquarters. Consequently, we replaced all the military and security centers, and all of them became secret centers. We left only two centers, which the enemy targeted later. But it did not achieve any of its objectives from these strikes.”

What is the lesson? What is the result of this procedure?

“We did not fall into a state of confusion and turmoil. Everything was prepared and transferred to another place. And within only half an hour, the backup plan was ready. The communications department was present through a secret communications center connected to all the vital centers as well as all the major authorities, centers, and officials in the leadership and on the battlefield.”

The enemy escalated its aggression and committed a series of massacres, including the Sohmor massacre. The Islamic Resistance responded by bombing the settlements. The massacre involving the Al-Mansouri ambulance took place under intense raids that resulted in dozens of martyrs and wounded civilians. The general manager of “Israel’s” Ministry of Foreign Affairs Uri Savir stated that “the raids on Lebanon have American and Western support. They aim not only to defend the security of ‘Israel’ but to prevent Lebanon from supporting the Hezbollah.” – this was a green light to raise the ceiling of the war.

The Islamic Resistance did not stand idly by. Rather it carried out attacks on “Israeli” and Lahad positions and launched rockets on the settlements. It became a tit-for-tat confrontation, and psychological warfare played a role. The enemy was highly cautious hindering the Mujahideen from carrying out operations in the “Israeli” depth. On the fourth day, the Lebanese capital was under attack for a third time. The objective was to establish the Beirut-Kiryat Shmona equation – an equation that the Islamic Resistance vanquished on the sixth day during which it also bombed 19 settlements. Its Mujahideen launched a large-scale attack on enemy positions in Sujud, Bir Kallab, al-Tohra, al-Burj, Haddatha, Beit Yahoun, and Ali al-Taher. The artillery barrage targeted the Al-Suwayda site. On that day, the first Islamic Resistance fighter was martyred.

The missile deterrence equation

How was the military performance rated along the front? The enemy ferociously tried to strike all the Katyusha launchers. “Israeli” missiles and rockets poured onto the launch sites just a few minutes after the first missiles were launched.

“But the Mujahideen resumed the shelling every time, relying on the movement tactic and not staying in one location. That is why we only had one martyr on the sixth day despite the hundreds of raids and shells.”

Here, Sayyed Zulfiqar breathes deeply and pauses for a second as if conjuring a scene. Then, he shifts his gaze between the brothers and says, “can you imagine, some of the brothers were subjected to more than ten consecutive raids. They were bombarded with rockets weighing a thousand pounds, but they continued to fire without tiring. A cave collapsed on some of them. Others were buried under the rubble of a building that was bombed by warplanes. Suddenly, they find a large hammer next to them and use it to make their way out of the rubble and come out alive. Where did this hammer come from? Is this not divine kindness!?”

Sayyed Zulfiqar pauses once more and then resumes firmly, “There was no safe place in the southern regions during the war, especially along the confrontation areas. And the resistance tactic of launching rockets was aimed to deter. The issue was no longer just about firing rockets, but it turned into a balance of real terror equation imposed by the missile deterrence the Islamic Resistance adopted.”

On the seventh day, the enemy began implementing the third stage of its objectives by a helicopter and land bombing. Meanwhile, the resistance’s missiles rained down on 14 settlements. It also attacked the Baracheet and Dasbha positions as well as gatherings of the enemy east of Marjayoun.

Here, Sayyed speaks about one aspect of the divine guidance. On the eighth day, “the brothers discovered a big gathering of ‘Israeli’ forces in Yater. They located the position and opened fire. The shells hit the gathering directly.”

On that day, too, the enemy committed two massacres. The first was Qana where 118 civilians were martyred after taking refuge in a United Nations compound. The second massacre was in Nabatiyeh. The “Israelis” cut off the road between the south and Beirut to prevent supply routes. 18 resistance fighters were martyred.

“The enemy stabbed itself in the heart by committing the Qana massacre,” Sayyed Zulfiqar says. Amnon Shahak, the chief of staff of the occupation army, apologized for the massacre. And the military and political institutions began to contradict each other about the war and its consequences.

On the battlefield, the resistance foiled an infiltration operation by the enemy on the west Bekaa axis. Sayyed Zulfiqar explains “Israel’s” intentions: “They did not want to occupy the axis, but secure control by being able to survey the movement of the Mujahideen and missile launch sites.”

Early signs of defeat and retreat

On the tenth day, the enemy began the last step of the third stage. It targeted the main roads between the villages and sought to cut nearly 60 roads between 117 villages as well as snipe cars on all roads. On the other hand, the resistance bombed 16 settlements and attacked the Sujud, Sidoun, and al-Burj positions. It also destroyed a 155 mm artillery launcher. On the eleventh day, the “Israeli” retreat began.

Uri Orr, the enemy’s deputy minister of war, said, “We know that Hezbollah has many missiles, but none of us believed that it would continue to bomb at this pace.”

The leadership of the occupation army accuses the military intelligence service of not being accurate in determining Hezbollah’s missile capabilities, which led to the failure of the military operation.

Until the twelfth day, the enemy was unable to achieve any of its objectives amid an absence of a political solution. The enemy acknowledged that things are heading for the worse from a military standpoint. And the battle began to sway in favor of the resistance. It attacked sites, blew up enemy communication channels between the settlements and the occupied strip, ambushed “Israeli” forces along the Beit Yahoun-Baracheet road, and attacked Ali al-Taher and Dibbin positions as well as the enemy’s shelter in al-Shraifi.

The enemy began gradually reducing its aggression. Yossi Beilin, the man tasked with the settlement process, declared, “The operation has no objectives but to break the restrictions of the July 1993 understanding.”

By doing so, he demolished the objective the enemy had previously declared which was to eliminate Hezbollah and dismantle its military and field system.

The decisive field tactic

The Islamic Resistance mastered the use of the formula of bombing the settlements with the aim of imposing the balance of terror equation.

“This was not a decision made by the tactical leaders on the battlefield during the war. It was an order by the commander in chief of the Resistance, His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah,” Sayyed Zulfiqar said as he evaluated the special tactics the resistance adopted in launching missile.

“The launchers were not fixed in a clear and drawn line so that the enemy could not grasp the manner in which the launching platforms were distributed. This depleted the capabilities of the air force and its leadership, which was forced to conduct nonstop flights along the southern regions. It also prevented the enemy from drawing a geographical map of the distribution of the platforms over the area of confrontation.”

Sayyed Zulfiqar asserted that “the enemy did not dare to expand the circle of aggression. During the war, it did not see the resistance retreat. Rather, the resistance escalated the momentum of its operations, its bombings, and its attacks every time the enemy escalated its aggression. All its attempts did not succeed in stopping rockets from being launched at the settlements or cut off the resistance’s supply routes. Meanwhile, the general mobilization formations played an important role in supporting the resistance’s field operations as it was considered the largest army in case a war broke out.”

The final strike

The Israeli aggression stopped at four o’clock in the morning, at dawn on the sixteenth day. The rockets of the Islamic Resistance “wanted to have the last say. The settlers woke up to a final barrage of missiles to always remind them of the nightmare of the terror and the balance of the Arabs that Hezbollah consecrated.”

This was the lesson that Sayyed Zulfiqar affirmed with pride. But the surprise was not only the outcome of the war in favor of Lebanon and the resistance but also in the numbers. For 16 days, the enemy launched 833 air strikes, 881 land bombings, and 65 naval strikes.

The resistance responded by bombing 47 settlements and launching 696 barrages of missiles (each barrage ranges between 3 to 12 missiles), meaning a total of 1,000 to 1,100 rockets. It also conducted 54 military operations, including attacking and repelling an infiltration, an ambush, and an artillery bombardment.

146 people were martyred. 300 civilians were wounded. Four Lebanese soldiers were martyred and eight wounded. Two Syrian soldiers were martyred and five wounded. 14 resistance fighters were martyred, among them eight who were on military duty. The rest were martyred in strikes.

What other tactics did the Islamic resistance adopt in the April war? What are the results of the confrontation? What did the April victory establish? This will be revealed in the second part.

Diary of the ’Israeli’ April 1996 Aggression

April 13 2022

By Al-Ahed News

In April, 1996, the “Israeli” entity waged a 16-day aggression on Lebanon. The “Israelis” called it “Operation Grapes of Wrath”, to us it is known as the April War. 146 people were martyred. 300 civilians were wounded. Four Lebanese soldiers were martyred and eight wounded. Two Syrian soldiers were martyred and five wounded. 14 Resistance fighters were martyred, among them eight who were on military duty. The rest were martyred in strikes.

Below is the series of events detailing every day of those 16 days of aggression.

Diary of the ’Israeli’ April 1996 Aggression

Day one of the April 1996 Aggression: April 11

It was at this time of year, back in 1996, that the “Israeli” enemy launched its military operation “Grapes of Wrath” against Lebanon, committing massacres, killing children and displacing many families.

The aggression was faced by the Resistance which was prepared to respond and confront; this Resistance overturned existing equations placing “Israel” in a tough position, forcing it to reconsider its calculations and, for the first time, take into account the existence of this “Resistance and its Mujahideen.”

All along, the United States backed “Israel” in its April aggression, on all levels.

US President Bill Clinton wanted Sharm al-Sheikh Conference of March 1996 held under the title of “Anti-terrorism”, to undermine resistance in occupied Palestine and Lebanon, to pressure the opponents of any negotiated settlement, and to give a lift to his ally, “Israeli” Prime Minister Shimon Peres’ tumbling ratings in the “Israeli” entity.

Shimon Peres, at the time, was eyeing the military option as the only way out of his domestic predicament.

And so, on April 11, 1996, “Israeli” Occupation Forces [IOF] began to evacuate the settlers’ population from occupation settlements in north occupied Palestine, as a prelude to its “Grapes of Wrath”, which the enemy began with an air raid on a hill west of Baalbek City, followed by constant shelling of Sujud and Rihan Heights, and Rafi’a Mountain.

Zionist shelling also targeted a Lebanese army checkpoint, wounding two of its personnel. And for the first time since the “Israeli” invasion in 1982, occupation forces shelled Beirut’s southern suburbs wounding a number of civilians.

With persistent Zionist shelling of the villages in the South and Western Bekaa, and Beirut’s southern suburbs, better known as Dahiyeh, the Islamic Resistance retaliated by bombing “Israeli” posts and those of its collaborators.

That evening, Hezbollah Secretary General announced that the Resistance would respond harshly to that attack, stressing that the “Beirut – Kiryat Shmona” balance of terror is unacceptable.

As the days of aggression unfolded, “Israeli” bombing pace, harshness and intensity increased, and with it the Resistance response as well.

Diary of the ’Israeli’ April 1996 Aggression

Day two of the April 1996 Aggression: April 12

The Zionist war machine continued its aggression using its artillery to systematically bombard villages and towns in the south and western Bekaa.

Shelling of Dahiyeh continued for the second day, and a Syrian officer was martyred when a Syrian army post came under attack in Raml al-Aali area, near airport road.

The first brutal mass crimes committed under the title of “Grapes of Wrath” were on this day when the southern town of Suhmur was targeted, and consequently, a massacre occurred.

People had been out stocking up on goods between curfew warnings, when without warning the “Israeli” occupation army – always thirsty for blood – did not honor the lifted curfew it had declared itself, and started shelling the town killing nine martyrs, including a child and three girls, and wounding another nine.

The Islamic Resistance in Lebanon responded to the aggression by raining down Katyusha rockets on enemy occupation settlements, in particular the settlements of Kiryat Shmona and Metula.

With the commencement of the rocket retaliations, a political message was also delivered to “Israeli” leaders connotatively stating that Hezbollah will continue to respond and confront the aggression, and maintain the vigor, pride and dignity of the Lebanese people and nation.

Zionist brutal actions and their targeting of unarmed civilians drew Lebanese, regional and international reactions of condemnation of the military operation.

Meanwhile, the steadfastness of the Islamic Resistance and its successful response to the aggression rallied wider popular support, and with that began the first steps toward over turning the existing equation in the confrontation, which, in the absence of deterrents or confrontation in Lebanon called “resistance”, had, until that moment, always been in “Israel’s” favor.

Diary of the ’Israeli’ April 1996 Aggression

Day three of the April 1996 Aggression: April 13

After the Suhmur massacre on the second day of the April aggression, al-Mansouri massacre followed on the third day.

Six people were martyred and seven wounded when the ambulance they were riding in, believing it would be exempted from “Israeli” shelling, was a bombing target for enemy helicopters.

The six martyrs were two women aged between 28 and 50; the remaining were children aged between 2 and a half months and 10 years old.

“Israel” continued to shell the villages and towns of Adsheet, Jibsheet, Haruf and Mayfadun. It also attacked a Lebanese army position in Habbush and carried out attacks on the districts of Tyre and Nabatiyeh.

In parallel, the Mujahedeen resistance shot down an Apache helicopter on the verge of bombing civilian homes, and a resistance rocket hit a Merkava tank in al-Dabshah enemy post, killing and wounding all its crew.

In the meantime, Katyusha rockets rained down on “Israeli” occupation settlements, Nahariya, Gideon and Kiryat Shmona in particular.

The Resistance response prompted “Israeli” Foreign Minister Ehud Barak to admit that “Hezbollah, despite ‘Israel’s’ military operations, is still capable of launching Katyusha rockets at any moment into the Galilee.”

With the aggression and targeting of civilians continuing, it was high time to mobilize the Resistance forces. The Secretary General of Hezbollah His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, addresses the Mujahideen in a speech, saying, “Let us rise up to lift humiliation from our nation, killing from our people, and occupation from our land, and let’s be ready to meet God and His Prophet and the Imams [PBUT].”

Diary of the ’Israeli’ April 1996 Aggression

Day Four of the April 1996 Aggression: April 14

As the “Israeli” aggression on Lebanon ran on, April 14 witnessed the commencement of diplomatic talks, especially after the Mansoury massacre which revealed to the world the cruelty of those who caused it.

Bombardment continued on villages in south Lebanon and the western Bekaa. Meanwhile, the resistance kept the pressure on the enemy’s outposts.

Diplomatic calls between Egypt, Syria, France, Iran, US, the Zionist regime, Russia, and Lebanon were taking place in order to try and achieve an immediate cease-fire.

On the fourth day of the aggression, Lebanon’s former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, made his way towards Arab countries and France. Meanwhile, Lebanon’s representative to the UN filed a complaint regarding the “Israeli” aggressions on Lebanon.

Although supportive to the “Israeli” entity, after Lebanon’s complaints, the US suggested an initiative that was more of a basket of “Israeli” demands.

In the meantime, the US initiative was faced with a French initiative which was tipped more to the endorsement of Lebanese’s expectations, despite requiring a few amendments.

As diplomatic talks were taking place, Lebanon preferred neither to accept nor reject any of the two initiatives.

The Islamic Republic of Iran had a prominent role in diplomatic talks, where it considered the Lebanese’s resistance truly countered the dark face of the “Israeli” enemy. Iran also sent aid and medical relief to Lebanon.

On the battlefront, “Israeli” bombardment continued, and the resistance’s response continued, marking it as the day with the greatest amount of Katyusha rockets, fired towards “Israeli” settlements. An “Israeli” officer stated, “The Katyusha rockets fired were so many we didn’t even count them”.

The major event of the fourth day of April aggression was the scene of 70 Islamic Resistance fighters broadcasted by al-Manar Channel, showing their sacrifice and will to take revenge from the “Israeli” enemy.

Diary of the ’Israeli’ April 1996 Aggression

Day Five of the April 1996 Aggression: April 15

Day five of the 1996 April Aggression was momentous due to the heavy bombing of the cities of Tyre and Nabatiyeh in South Lebanon in an “Israeli” bid to force the civilians who had remained in those areas to migrate north.

Some four hundred 155- and 175-mm caliber bombs of were fired on Nabatiyeh that day.

Military analysts in “Israeli” Haaretz daily revealed at the time that the “Israeli” army failed to force the migration of the people of Tyre, saying, “It’s not that easy that people leave this city”.

In an escalation of aggressions, the “Israeli” army broadcasted a statement via the enemy agents’ radio station [“Israel’s” collaborating army, the then Lahd army, had a radio station at the time which used to broadcast the “Israeli” army’s threats to Lebanon’s citizens], saying that they considered the expanding their assaults, including the evacuation of Zahraneh area, as well as the southern city of Saida.

In the afternoon, the Zionist artillery fired villages in the western Bekaa as “Israeli” warplanes executed nine raids with more than forty 500,000-pound bombs, in addition to vacuum missiles.

Three citizens were killed and scores were wounded in the raids.

Warplanes repeatedly targeted vital civilian facilities and buildings. A partial blackout occurred after abolishing the Bsalim electricity plant which provides electricity to Beirut, Mount Lebanon, North Lebanon, and the Bekaa.

“Israeli” raids also hit a two-story house in Mrayjeh in Beirut’s southern suburb, wounding eight. In addition, night raids took place on Soghbin in western Bekaa, abolishing a house and killing one civilian and wounded his wife and children.

Diary of the ’Israeli’ April 1996 Aggression

Day Six of the April 1996 Aggression: April 16

The “Israeli” aggressions went on.

Hostilities started at 4 a.m. when two planes struck the Palestinian official Mounir Makdah’s house in Ein al-Helwe refugee camp in southern Lebanon. The raids targeted the house directly. Makdah’s eight-month-old son was the victim.

Between 6 a.m. and 2 p.m., 700 bombs and rockets of different calibers were fired on southern and Bekaa areas.

The enemy agent’s radio station continued broadcasting statements and warnings; and on this day, it warned, “‘Israeli’ troops will prohibit any movement on the way South, will consider any vehicle on that road as hostile, and will immediately strike.”

A Zionist warplane hovered over a civilian car with two Lebanese army soldiers in Bazouriyeh, South Lebanon. The soldiers, taking notice of the chopper, hid in a deserted house, but the plane bombed the house, killing the soldiers.

At noon, warplanes struck consecutive raids on Jmayjmeh village, destroying two houses and a shelter with forty citizens; Ayda Obadi, Fatima Ali Hamza [25 years old], Fadel Atwi [25 years old], and wounded ten other civilians.

At 2 p.m., “Israeli” warplanes struck Beirut’s southern suburb, firing fourteen rockets at the airport and Hay el-Sellom, where four-year-old Israa Lakies was the victim.

In Bekaa’s Temnine Tahta village, an air raid killed a woman, Sanaa Khatib, and destroyed several cars.

At 5 p.m., “Israeli” warplanes raided over Borj Kalaway twice, killing a civilian, and wounded others.

Diary of the ’Israeli’ April 1996 Aggression

Day Seven of the April 1996 Aggression: April 17

The seventh day of the April 1996 aggression witnessed a clash on the diplomatic front between the American and French initiatives. Meanwhile, the operational situation remained unchanged with the occupying forces continuing to bomb villages and towns, leaving a number of martyrs and wounded among the civilians.

The Islamic Resistance countered this bombardment by pounding enemy positions and occupation settlements with Katyusha rockets, which continued to pour down on settlements in the North [of occupied Palestine] to the extent that conflicting reports on the number of missiles started to circulate inside the Zionist entity.

That day, “Israeli” warplanes bombed the cities of Tyre and Nabatiyeh, as well as surrounding towns. Two houses were bombed in Shakra town, where about 50 people were sheltering. Divine providence saved another blood bath from occurring, which would have been added to the “Israeli” enemy’s rich record of massacres, especially those of the April 1996 aggression.

In parallel, “Israeli” helicopters resumed bombing of ambulances in what appeared to be a daily habit of the occupation. Crew members of an Islamic Health Society vehicle were injured when their vehicle was bombed.

In response at this time, the Resistance Mujahideen continued to pound “Israeli” artillery positions that were bombarding our villages and towns. They Resistance also attacked “Israeli” occupation soldiers positions, inflicting their ranks with casualties.

On the diplomatic front, debate evolved on the French and American initiatives to the point of a clash between Washington and Paris. Moves made by former French Foreign Minister Ervé de Charette between Tel Aviv and Cairo, Damascus and Beirut, raised ire in the United States, especially with the Islamic Republic of Iran putting its full weight, in these consultations with the French.

The pace of the seventh day of the aggression was similar to the two preceding days – the 15th and 16th of April, 1996 – except for a most horrific scene ever witnessed by the Lebanese and the world. Thursday, April 18, was turned black when the Zionist forces committed a massacre in Nabatiyeh Fawka suburb and another massacre in Qana.

Diary of the ’Israeli’ April 1996 Aggression

Day Eight of the April 1996 Aggression: April 18

On Thursday morning on April 18, 1996, the Zionist enemy dropped its loads of bombs and hatred on Nabatiyeh town, to wipe out the entire al-Abed family, as they slept in their house. Zionist fighter jets turned the 3-story home to rubble, mixed with the flesh of a mother and her seven children, who were sleeping on the first floor; without a single utterance by the United Nations…

Successive massacres… Qana washes its children with blood…

At about 2 p.m. on Thursday April 18, 1996, southern families taking shelter from “Israeli” shelling, packed the Fijian contingent’s center, which was operating within the United Nations Interim Forces [UNIFIL] in the southern Lebanese village of Qana.

They came from all the surrounding villages of Jibal al-Butm, Qana, Rishkaniyeh, Seddiqine and many other villages in the Tyre district.

An estimated of 500 civilians were taking shelter in two sheds, only tens of meters apart, at the UN center when the massacre took place.

At 2:05 p.m., a bomb landed near one of the sheds… then a second, at which time everyone in the sheds tried to leave, when a third bomb landed on the first shed… and the massacre began.

Then artillery shells rained down on the center, specifically in blocks where dozens of refugees were sheltering.

The source of the shelling was determined, enemy sites of “Hamid” and “Rchaf” recorded the highest number of shells fired. “Spy planes” flew overhead, correcting the shelling target to wipe out all who took refuge in the two sheds.

More than one hundred martyrs fell in five minutes and before the eyes and ears… while the UN, and the Fijian contingent radio operator “howling” for this mad bombing to stop…But all fell on deaf ears.

At the end of April, the number of martyrs of the Qana Massacre reached 106. The remains of 18 martyrs were not identified. Among the martyrs, were two Christian females, who were buried with the rest of the Qana martyrs at the request of Christian religious reference authorities… by that making Qana the candle of national unity.

Diary of the ’Israeli’ April 1996 Aggression

Day Nine of the April 1996 Aggression: April 19

On the 9th day of the aggression, pictures of the bloody Qana Massacre – committed by the criminal bloody hands of Zionism – laid a heavy shadow over the world, generating waves of international reactions of condemnation and sympathy.

On the following day, after the Qana massacre, Leader of the Islamic Revolution His Eminence Guardian Sayyed Ali Khamenei sent Hezbollah Secretary General His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah a telegram of denunciations and condemnation of the US-backed bloody events perpetrated by the “Israeli” enemy.

Since denunciations and condemnations did not deter the “Israeli” enemy, or put a limit to its aggressiveness, the Resistance and its Mujahideen avenged the martyrs of Qana and Nabatiyeh with a barrage of Katyusha rockets on occupation settlements, lasting from the eve of April 18 until morning of April 19.

Avenging the Nabatiyeh and Qana Massacres, Resistance groups bombed occupation settlements of Kiryat Shmona, Kafarborom, and others. The “Israeli” occupation authorities banned any transmission of the information describing the state of these settlements that were scorched du to the impact of the Katyusha rockets.

On the diplomatic front, Qana Massacre opened the door wide for international parties to escape embarrassment by the US, since the massacre proved that “Operation Grapes of Wrath” without a doubt was an operation against civilians.

Parallel to these reactions, Damascus was crammed with diplomats and foreign ministers at the time, all using the common phrase “cease-fire”.

Hezbollah’s presence in Damascus with a delegation headed by Party Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah was akin to his continuous presence in the confrontation fields of the south and western Bekaa, with the same objective in mind, to make sure “Israel” is deprived the opportunity of politically exploiting its aggression.

The French initiative was welcomed and supported, while that of the United States was met with a blocked wall, especially, given that the Lebanese diplomatic movement – coordinated with Syria – did not spare efforts to give the Europeans an important role, while turning their back to US initiative.

With continued “Israeli” bombardment of villages and towns, the Resistance continued its retaliatory response.

Day after day and little by little, the scene was becoming clearer, the Resistance had overturned the balance of “Israeli” equations to impose a new equation based on the “balance of terror”.

Diary of the ’Israeli’ April 1996 Aggression

Day Ten of the April 1996 Aggression: April 20

After a marked decline of hostilities on April 19, renewed Zionist shelling and intensification of bombardment by battleships at sea was witnessed on April 20. Shelling continued at the average of two shells every five minutes throughout the entire day, leaving three civilians wounded, one car scorched and 4 cars careered out of control.

At dawn, 4:30 a.m. saw intermittent bombing from Jibchit to Adsheet on to Harouf and Shakra, one home was destroyed on the head of its occupants – the Abu Jaafar Murrah family.

At 7:30 a.m. “Israeli” warplanes and helicopters launched three raids on the villages of Ma’liyeh, Haniyeh, and Qlaiah in Tyre, leaving four martyrs and several others wounded.

Zionist warplanes intensified their attacks on villages and major highways, preventing International Emergency Forces food aid convoys from reaching villages where civilians refused to leave their homes despite Zionism’s brutality.

On this day, no village was spared from the raids of hate, which also targeted a Lebanese army check point in the Mansouri town, causing the martyrdom of Sergeant Ali Diab of Bourj Shimali and soldier Hussein Remmo of Baalbek, and wounding Sergeant Munir Hayek from North Lebanon, Sergeant Abdullah Mohsen of Aitit, and a third soldier. A civilian car near the checkpoint was also scorched.

Diary of the ’Israeli’ April 1996 Aggression

Day Eleven of the April 1996 Aggression: April 21

Failing to curb the firing of Katyusha rockets into its occupation settlements, the “Israeli” enemy continued to carry out raids of hatred on civilians and destructive shelling on villages and houses.

Its heavy machine gun firing on Habbush wounded army conscript Abbas Haidar Jaber, while a Zionist battleship hit a passing car on the coastal road, and the crew of an ambulance tending the hit car was scorched.

Warplanes and helicopters raided the town of Shakra, targeting Abu Reda Saleh’s house where a number of elderly people were taking shelter. Two citizens were wounded in the attack, Hadi Saleh [90 years] and his daughter Alawiyeh [65 years]; others survived and were rescued from the rubble.

At 3:00 p.m., enemy war planes attacked a civilian car on the road to Adsheet, wounding its five passengers Ali Khodr, Abbas Dhia, Najeeb Akhdar, Youseph Diab and Rabah Yassin.

Diary of the ’Israeli’ April 1996 Aggression

Day Twelve of the April 1996 Aggression: April 22

Today, April 22, Lebanon was in mourning for the souls of the martyrs who perished in the “Israeli” massacres.

Meanwhile, enemy attacks were stepped up at dawn by seven raids on the town of Sultanieh. Warplanes struck the town’s drinking water supply tank, which feeds dozens of villages in both the East and West regional sectors.

Fawwar Bridge, linking Halousiyah and Bediyas was hit by four raids that completely destroyed it.

Off the Zahrani shores, enemy battleships resumed heavy shelling of the Awali area coastal road wounding six people. A civilian vehicle was directly hit in the shelling of al-Zahrani-Adloun Road, its owner was martyred and an army recruit was wounded.

A UNIFIL Force convoy delivering food to the people of Kafra and surrounding villages was surrounded with “Israeli” firepower of raids and artillery shelling and prevented from moving for several hours.

At 3:00 p.m., warplanes conducted raids lasting for an hour and a half, at a rate of 1 raid every 7 minutes.

These raids targeted humanitarian centers of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command in the Na’ameh Hills, dropping nearly 30 rockets in the assault.

Diary of the ’Israeli’ April 1996 Aggression

Day Thirteen of the April 1996 Aggression: April 23

Heavy Zionist artillery resumed heavy bombardment of villages in the south and western Bekaa, while warships continued targeting passing cars on the coastal road. One car was hit at the Awali Bridge; the three passengers onboard injured in the attack were Muwafak Sayyed, Omar Dali, and a third from al-Baba family.

“Israeli” warships focused their attacks on the Zahrani area, particularly the stretch between Khayzaran, Adloun and Abu al-Aswad towns, bringing traffic to a complete halt.

Meanwhile, a hostile helicopter raid on Samma’aiyeh town injured Hassan Khalil. Elsewhere, Mahmoud Qna’a was wounded during bombardment of the towns of Khirbet Silim and Yatar and the area between Mahrounah and Jwayya.

Shortly after mid-night, hostile aircraft launched three raids on the town of Maaroub, and cut the road leading to the villages of Bint Jbeil in the central sector.

Diary of the ’Israeli’ April 1996 Aggression

Day Fourteen of the April 1996 Aggression: April 24

The pace of the conflict remaining the same, the 14th day of the April Aggression witnessed diplomatic steps that were noticeably determined on seeking an understanding.

New York city and Lebanese town of Shtura were the center of diplomatic efforts between Lebanese President Elias Hrawi and US President Bill Clinton met in NY, and the Secretary of State Warren Christopher and Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri and Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, in Shtura.

A unified Lebanese stand in both places stressed the need to stop the aggression and for the “Israeli” enemy to implement resolution 425 and withdraw from all Lebanese territory.

In the meantime, the situation remained unchanged in the field with continued “Israeli” bombardment on one side and Resistance Katyusha retaliation on the other.

A three-year-old child was martyred on this 14th day of this aggression, when he fell from a building due to pressure caused by “Israeli” warplanes breaking the sound barrier. Two other citizens were also injured in bombardment of the vicinity of Nabatiyeh city, and the vicinity of Tyre city.

In a new aggression policy, hostile warplanes began to cut road-links between villages. Meanwhile, with the aggression persisting, occupation settlements of Kiryat Shmona, Sasa, Rishon and others continued to be pounded by resistance Katyushas, and its artillery, which targeted the occupation’s outposts in Izziyah and Barasheet. A Lahd military vehicle was destroyed in the process, wounding and killing its crew.

Diary of the ’Israeli’ April 1996 Aggression

Day Fifteen of the April 1996 Aggression: April 25

In its campaign to isolate villages, the occupying forces hit primary and secondary roads between towns and villages with large rockets leaving huge craters along the road networks.

Roads linking the following areas were cut off: But’m Mountains-Kafra, Siddinkin – Cana, Sultanieh-Tibnin, Der Antar- Bir Salasel, Hannoweih-Ain Baal, and Musharraf farm- Mahrounah.

Resumed Zionist air strikes wounded 4 civilians in Yatar town, they were transferred by an armored Nepalese UNIFIL forces carrier to Tibnin Hospital, and another citizen was injured on the Awali Bridge, when a shell fired from a warship exploded.

Helicopters returned to targeting Yatar town in the afternoon again, to hit a house that belonged to Ibrahim Amin Kurani, destroying it completely and wounding nine civilians that were sheltering inside. Among the wounded were 2 children Amin and Hussein Kurani.

Failing to curb rocket attacks, the enemy carried out an air strike on a Popular Front-General Command outpost in the Bekaa Valley. The raid hit a military vehicle, a bulldozer, fuel cargo trucks and three Bedouin shepherds’ tents, five hundred hives and a water tank transporter were also destroyed.

Diary of the ’Israeli’ April 1996 Aggression

Day Sixteen  the End of the April 1996 Aggression: April 26

The April aggression reached its sixteenth day with the enemy immersed in defeat… At dawn of Friday, 26 April 1996, the enemy bombed the vicinity of Markaba town using its artillery power, with the early morning hours the shelling, under “Israeli” Air Force cover, reached Jabour Hills, Abu-Rashid, Qatrani Forest and the Litani River.

This was followed by two air raids along the road linking Jibsheet-Harouf and areas along the Litani River… In the meantime, the Islamic Resistance bombarded Kiryat Shmona occupation settlement leaving destruction and devastation that shocked the occupier. Later Haaretz quoted senior officers of the so-called northern front that military intelligence erred in its evaluation of Hezbollah’s rocket firing capabilities…

The Islamic Resistance response rate increased as the Zionist aggression continued, particularly the resistance Katyusha rocket bursts, which reached a level that the last volley of Katyusha rockets was falling on settlements in the occupied Galilee only minutes before the April understanding was declared, marking the victory of the eighth war – when the “Grapes of Wrath” was undone by the hands of the Mujahideen.

A Brief History of Israeli Interventionism in Lebanon

Source

in World — by Yanis Iqbal — April 30, 2021

Israel has a long-standing interest in Lebanon. These interests have periodically manifested themselves in bloody attacks against the small Arab state. Two important sources on the Zionist plans for Lebanon are the diary of Moshe Sharett, who was the Prime Minster of Israel in 1954-1955 and who was considered a “soft Zionist”, and Livia Rokach’s “Israel’s Sacred Terrorism: A study based on Moshe Sharett’s Personal Diary, and other documents”. In the latter we find some very important information, and it is worth quoting at length:

“Then he [Ben Gurion] passed on to another issue. This is the time, he said, to push Lebanon, that is, the Maronites in that country, to proclaim a Christian State. I said that this was nonsense. The Maronites are divided. The partisans of Christian separatism are weak and will dare do nothing. A Christian Lebanon would mean their giving up Tyre, Tripoli, and the Beka’a. There is no force that could bring Lebanon back to its pre-World War I dimensions, and all the more so because in that case it would lose its economic raison-d’etre. Ben Gurion reacted furiously. He began to enumerate the historical justification for a restricted Christian Lebanon. If such a development were to take place, the Christian Powers would not dare oppose it. I claimed that there was no factor ready to create such a situation, and that if we were to push and encourage it on our own we would get ourselves into an adventure that will place shame on us. Here came a wave of insults regarding my lack of daring and my narrow-mindedness. We ought to send envoys and spend money. I said there was no money. The answer was that there is no such thing. The money must be found, if not in the Treasury then at the Jewish Agency! For such a project it is worthwhile throwing away one hundred thousand, half a million, a million dollars. When this happens a decisive change will take place in the Middle East, a new era will start. I got tired of struggling against a whirlwind.”

The next day Gurion sent Sharett a letter which contained the following argument:

“It is clear that Lebanon is the weakest link in the Arab League. The other minorities in the Arab States are all Muslim, except for the Copts. But Egypt is the most compact and solid of the Arab States and the majority there consists of one solid block, of one race, religion and language, and the Christian minority does not seriously affect their political and national unity. Not so the Christians in Lebanon. They are a majority in the historical Lebanon and this majority has a tradition and a culture different from those of the other components of the League. Also within the wider borders (this was the worst mistake made by France when it extended the borders of Lebanon), the Muslims are not free to do as they wish, even if they are a majority there (and I don’t know if they are, indeed, a majority) for fear of the Christians. The creation of a Christian State is therefore a natural act; it has historical roots and it will find support in wide circles in the Christian world, both Catholic and Protestant”.

Sharett responded a few weeks later:

“As far as I know, in Lebanon today exists no movement aiming at transforming the country into a Christian State governed by the Maronite community…This is not surprising. The transformation of Lebanon into a Christian State as a result of an outside initiative is unfeasible today… I don’t exclude the possibility of accomplishing this goal in the wake of a wave of shocks that will sweep the Middle East… will destroy the present constellations and will form others. But in the present Lebanon, with its present territorial and demographic dimensions and its international relations, no serious initiative of the kind is imaginable.

 [I should add that] I would not have objected, and on the contrary I would have certainly been favorable to the idea, of actively aiding any manifestation of agitation in the Maronite community tending to strengthen its isolationist tendencies, even if there were no real chances of achieving the goals; I would have considered positive the very existence of such an agitation and the destabilization it could bring about, the trouble it would have caused the League, the diversion of attention from the Arab-Israeli complications that it would have caused, and the very kindling of a fire made up of impulses toward Christian independence. But what can I do when such an agitation is nonexistent?…In the present condition, I am afraid that any attempt on our part would be considered as lightheartedness and superficiality or worse-as an adventurous speculation upon the well being and existence of others and a readiness to sacrifice their basic good for the benefit of a temporary tactical advantage for Israel…Moreover, if this plan is not kept a secret but becomes known a danger which cannot be underestimated in the Middle Eastern circumstances-the damage which we shall suffer… would not be compensated even by an eventual success of the operation itself”.

Civil War

The opportune moment for Israeli machinations arrived when a civil war broke out in Lebanon, involving a sectarian battle between Christians, who had monopolized politico-economic power, and Muslims, who lived in poverty and deprivation. These internal imbalances were exacerbated by the large presence of Palestinian refugees who – fearing a repeat of the September 1970 massacre in Jordan at the hands of Christians – were compelled to ally with the Muslims and their allies, namely Baathists, Communists, Nasserites and others. On April 9, 1976, the Syrian military intervened to fight against the National Movement (NM) and Palestinians. Kamal Jumblatt – the leader of the NM – was too radical for the liking of Damascus. With his anti-Zionist leanings, he could easily provoke Israel into invading Lebanon – increasing the strategic vulnerability of Syria. Thus, Hafez al-Assad proceeded to thwart any possibility of a leftist regime coming to power in Beirut.

Israel interposed itself in this cauldron of conflicts in early 1976 to begin a policy of open borders with some of the small Maronite villages in the far south that wished to have contact with the few Maronites still living along the border in northern Israel. Israel also armed and trained Christian militias who were driving their Muslim (mostly Palestinian) opponents from the towns along a strip between Tyre and Marjayoun. The Syrians, while issuing a statement refusing to bow to Israeli pressure, withdrew their troops from the posts they held furthest south, including those they held near the Greek Orthodox center of Marjayoun. These Israeli initiatives were just one step in a strategy of supporting those dissidents in south Lebanon who would eventually cooperate with the Israelis in the creation of a buffer jurisdiction. Major Sa’ad Haddad (followed by Colonel Antoine Lahoud) established the South Lebanese Army (SLA), allying himself with Israel.

Even before Menachem Begin became Prime Minister in May 1977, the Israelis had begun transporting Maronite militiamen from Junieh harbor to Haifa for training so that they could fight with Haddad’s forces in the southern enclave. After Begin-headed Likud government came to power in 1977, Israel’s troops provided sustained and overt assistance to the SLA, often crossing over into Lebanese territory to conduct their own operations. A massacre of 37 Israelis by a Fatah armed group that crossed into Israel for the purpose set the stage for the first large-scale Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) entry into Lebanon. The Litani Operation of 1978 was launched on March 14 and saw IDF forces advancing across southern Lebanon to the Litani River, occupying this area for a week-long period.

The operation involved 25,000 troops. It was intended to dislodge the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) from the border area, destroy the PLO bases in southern Lebanon from where the attacks on northern Israel were emanating, and to extend the area of territory under the control of Haddad’s militia. In the course of the operation, the PLO was pushed back north of the Litani River, and a number of refugees headed for the north. 22,000 shells killed 2000, destroyed hundreds of homes and forced 250,000 to flee their homes. Israeli forces withdrew after the passing of United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSC) 425. The resolution called for immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon and established a UN military presence in southern Lebanon. IDF forces departed southern Lebanon in the following weeks, handing over positions to the SLA of Major Haddad. The entry of United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) did not usher in a period of quiet.

Operation Peace for Galilee

Barely ten months later, on June 6, 1982, Israel launched a massive land, sea and air invasion of Lebanon code-named “Operation Peace for Galilee”. It was given covert consent by the US. In a speech given before the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations on May 28, 1982, then Secretary of State Alexander M. Haig Jr. said: “Lebanon today is a focal point of danger…and the stability of the region hangs in the balance…The Arab deterrent force [instituted in 1976 to end Syrian killings of Palestinians and Muslim forces], now consisting entirely of Syrian troops, with its mission to protect the integrity of Lebanon, has not stabilized the situation…The time has come to take concerted action in support of both Lebanon’s territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders and a strong central government capable of promoting a free, open, democratic and traditionally pluralistic society.” With the ostensible goal of destroying Palestinian infrastructure, Israel invaded Lebanon with 60,000 troops, 800 tanks, attack helicopters, bombers and fighter planes, supported by missile boats, and spread pure terror in Muslim-inhabited areas. Over 15,000 Lebanese perished in the invasion, mostly civilians. Israel claimed portions of Lebanese territory and placed militias within Lebanon.

Upon reaching Beirut, the IDF began a nine-week siege, including saturation bombing and intermittent blockades of food, fuel, and water. On June 26, the US vetoed a UNSC resolution for an end to hostilities (saying it was “a transparent attempt to preserve the PLO as a viable political force.”) But sensing the siege’s impact on public opinion, former US President Ronald Reagan had Philip Habib begin talks for a cease-fire. Habib demanded that the PLO leave Lebanon. Even after this was agreed to, the IDF continued bombing, killing 300 on August 12, 1982. Reagan then told Begin to halt the “unfathomable and senseless” raids. Even the Israeli Cabinet was taken aback and stripped Sharon of the right to activate forces without higher approval.

Importantly, Israel used the invasion to place its own stooge Bashir Jumayil – a major leader of pro-Zionist Christian forces – at the presidential palace. Jumayil’s elevation was accomplished in the Fiyadiya barracks, just outside Beirut, where Phalangist militiamen formed an inner cordon, with Israeli soldiers just behind them. It had not been an entirely foregone conclusion; Ariel Sharon and his company had been obliged to exert themselves on his behalf with pressure, threats, cash – and even the helicoptering of one elderly parliamentarian from an isolated village in the Beqa’a before the Syrians could get at him. With its foremost ally elected to the highest office in Lebanon, Israel was basking in the glory of its military muscles. However, this period of grandeur proved to be fleeting. On September 14, 1982, he and 26 others died when a remote-controlled bomb went off in the Phalange party headquarters. This event precipitated an extremely murderous bloodbath of innocent Lebanese civilians.

On September 16, 1982, the day after Israeli forces had taken up positions overlooking the Palestinian camps, Phalangists entered the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps and carried out a revenge massacre. This pogrom was carried out by members of Bashir’s own militia, reportedly led by Elie Hobeika and joined by members of Haddad’s SLA militia. Although the IDF officials seemed to have taken responsibility for security in the area, they did nothing to stop the slaughter. Entire families were indiscriminately slaughtered. People were killed with grenades hung around their necks, others raped and disemboweled. Infants were trampled with spiked shoes. Throughout, high-ranking Israeli officers listened on radios to Phalangists discussing the carnage. After 3 days of butchery, the news began to leak out. Nearly 2,000-3,000 people were killed, mostly women, children, and the elderly.  The massacre created fractures in the intra-Israeli consensus over the war, leading to a rally of 400,000. Sharon’s only punishment, however, was to be shuffled to another cabinet post.

Increasing Resistance

With its main Maronite ally dead, Israel attempted to work with Bashar’s brother Amin Jumayil and to move forward toward a peace agreement under US mediation. Amin proved not strong enough to play the role envisioned for him according to this idea. Instead, Israel became increasingly concerned with protecting the lives of its own soldiers amid angry calls for the withdrawal of IDF forces. In August 1983, the slow process of withdrawal began, with Israel removing its forces unilaterally from the area of the Shuf mountains where it had been seeking to mediate between the Phalange and Druze forces loyal to Walid Jumblatt. Jumblatt at the time was allied to Syria and his forces were the clearest threat to Amin’s attempt to consolidate control over the country. When Souk al-Grarb – a town commanding the road from the mountains to the Presidential Palace, Defense Ministry and East Beirut – was nearly captured by Jumblatt’s militia, Amin appealed to the US for help, which had to withdraw in late 1983 due to growing resistance from Lebanese Muslims.

Meanwhile, an anti-Jumayil, anti-Israel and anti-American alignment was now emerging as the key political force in Lebanon. Among the various elements involved in this alignment, little noticed at first, were pro-Iranian Shia militants who had organized under the auspices of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards (IRG) in the Biqa. Israel’s withdrawal to the Awali river line removed the IDF from Beirut. But it left Israel entrenched as an occupying force in the Shia-dominated south of Lebanon. The result was that in the next period, Israel found itself the unexpected target of Shia attacks. A number of incidents deriving from Israel’s mistreatment of Shia Muslims contributed to the deterioration of the situation. The Shia violence against the Israeli forces was carried out by two organizations – the Amal militia, which had constituted the main political force among the Lebanese Shia since its establishment in the 1970s, and the smaller, pro-Iranian Hezbollah that would eventually eclipse Amal.

The IDF remained deployed along these lines for the next two years, in the course of which Hezbollah grew in popularity as a force combining opposition to Israeli occupation with a wider Shia Islamist ideology totally opposed to Israel’s existence and to the West. Israel’s peace treaty with Lebanon – signed in May 1983 – was abrogated in 1984. Israeli forces remained deployed along the Awali river line, under increasing attack from Hezbollah and Amal. In June 1985, the IDF again redeployed further south – leaving all of Lebanon save a 12-milewide “security zone” close to the Israeli border, which was maintained in cooperation with the SLA. In 1993, and again in 1996, the IDF undertook major operations beyond the security zone and deeper into southern Lebanon. Both operations – Accountability in 1993 and Grapes of Wrath in 1996 – were undertaken in order to weaken Hezbollah.

The maintenance of the security zone exacted a cost from IDF personnel. Israeli public discontent with the seemingly endless conflict in southern Lebanon began to increase after a helicopter accident claimed the lives of 73 soldiers in the security zone in 1997. An incident on September 5, 1997, in which 12 members of the IDF’s naval commando unit were killed, further helped to erode the Israeli public’s willingness to see the IDF stay in southern Lebanon. Ehud Barak was elected prime minister in 1999 with a clear promise to withdraw Israeli forces to the international border. Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from the security zone began on May 22, 2000. In its final phase, it turned into a humiliating rush for the border as the SLA collapsed. A considerable amount of military equipment, including armored vehicles, was left behind and fell into Hezbollah hands. Some of this equipment may still be seen in southern Lebanon, where Hezbollah has converted it into monuments for its victory. At the entrance to Bint Jbayl, for example, an ancient SLA tank may be seen, with a cardboard statue of Ayatollah Khomeini standing on it. By 2000, Hezbollah had claimed its first victory as Israel withdrew from Lebanon, although it insisted on occupying two areas, the Seven Villages and the Shebaa Farms.

Hezbollah’s victory solidified its legitimacy among a sizeable section of the Lebanese populace who had suffered greatly under the Israeli occupation. Prior to the Israeli withdrawal, Lebanese prisoners continued to be detained outside any legal framework in the Khiam detention centre where conditions were cruel, inhuman and degrading, and torture was systematic. After the Israeli withdrawal, the residents of Khiam village stormed the detention centre and released all the remaining 144 detainees. The horrendous treatment of these detainees is evident, for example in the case of Suleiman Ramadan who was arrested in September 1985. One of his legs was amputated as a result of lack of medical care after his arrest. During his interrogation he was beaten and given electric shocks. He was detained without charge or trial until his release in May 2000.

2006 Attack

In 2006, Israel launched another attack on Lebanon; the central goal of the onslaught was to destroy Hezbollah. The campaign aimed at cutting Hezbollah’s road of supplies, destroying much of its military infrastructure (stocks of rockets, rocket launchers, etc.), eliminating a large number of its fighters, and decapitating it by assassinating Hassan Nasrallah and other key party leaders. The Israeli generals opted for an offensive that was intended to be both rapid and powerful. Their idea was to sweep away all that they found in their path, clean up any remaining pockets of resistance and then pull back. To facilitate the ground offensive they subjected Lebanon to an air and sea blockade, while aircraft bombarded bridges and roads to isolate the enemy, sowing death and destruction in the towns and villages of South Lebanon, and devastating the southern suburbs of the Capital.

The aerial campaign massacred hundreds of Lebanese civilians. But it did not seriously reduce the operational capacity of the Hezbollah fighters. Not only did they continue to fire rockets into Israel, but the rocket campaign increased in intensity up to the final day. At the same time, the land incursions of Israeli units met with a resistance of ferocity and efficiency not expected by the Israeli commanders, incurring unusually heavy losses among the Israeli troops. Israel was not able to secure a significant part of Lebanese territory, even within the narrow strip of territory separating the Litani River from the Israeli-Lebanese border. Shaken by their lack of success, the military chiefs and the Israeli government hesitated between prolonging the phase of the aerial campaign and limited incursions, with the risk of further losses for little gain, and the option of staging a large scale ground offensive. A large scale offensive would mean moving into the Beka’a Valley – where the resistance of Hezbollah would be even more stronger than in the frontier zone – and then on to Beirut. The “grand” offensive was finally ordered. It turned out to be a face-saving operation. Its scope and duration were very limited. The attack did not reach any further than various points along the Litani River and its launch coincided with the declaration of a cease-fire within 48 hours. In the final analysis, while the Israeli attack caused heavy destruction – the death of more than 1,100 people, the displacement of over a quarter of the population, and an estimated $2.8 billion in direct costs with more than 60% of the damage affecting the housing sector – it failed to make a political impact upon Lebanon. Hezbollah shattered the invincibility of Israel and put an end to its interventionism in Lebanon.

Yanis Iqbal is an independent researcher and freelance writer based in Aligarh, India and can be contacted at yanisiqbal@gmail.com.

Their Horror is A Reflection of Our Safety

Their Horror is A Reflection of Our Safety

By Laila Amasha

The balconies of the houses in South Lebanon were crowded until Tuesday’s night. The night was disturbed by the sound of “Israeli” artillery coupled with the voices of locals on the roads overlooking the borders of occupied Palestine.

The people of the resistance joked about the horrified “Israelis”. The jokes advanced the portrayal of the enemy’s humiliation and terror. And then, eyes slept filled with pride and hearts were able to witness an overflow of tranquility between each beat. The scene seemed magical, especially when looking at the state the Zionists were in – the settlers were forced to stay in their homes, in safe rooms close to shelters, while their defeated soldiers were flopping in a funny, hysterical act of terror, throwing all their flares accompanied by screams of panic.

Without delving into the course of events that transpired on Tuesday night, we pause at the people’s reaction to what happened. It takes us back to the days of the occupation. A comparison forces itself on us. The deeper meaning of the phrase “the time of victory is here” is translated on the ground.

During those days, the enemy’s army and its tools, the Lahad Army, mastered the art of spreading terror and anxiety among the steadfast residents of the border villages and towns on a daily basis. The setting of the sun was a sign for people to go home and not go out at night except when absolutely necessary.

At some point, lights in houses were turned off early so as not to arouse the curiosity of a patrol of Lahad militias or Zionists. The voices of people during evening gatherings were so low they were not heard in nearby homes. The oppression and the feeling of insecurity were like daily bread and a lifestyle that people were forced to adopt to. It was enough for the Zionist to throw a single flare bomb in order to plant anxiety in the hearts of the people. The scene was full of sadness. Even the moments of joy after operations by the resistance against the occupation positions and its agents were shrouded in silence in order not to provoke the anger of the occupier and the resentment of the traitors.

Quickly, the heart moves from this scene and the one we saw on Tuesday. There was joy accompanied by security and the eagerness of people to watch the Zionists’ panic attacks, especially with the news that the Zionists hid in their homes. Through their fear of moving around and their horror, people saw the fragility of the spider’s web and its inability to have a single moment of safety.

A common denominator in these two scenes is an army of passionate resistance fighters who created freedom through the qualitative accumulation of resistance and organized military action and are certain of the inevitable victory.

This sacred crowd of the men of the sun, the martyrs and those awaiting martyrdom, was there on Tuesday night in the sky of the south and in the hearts. All the pure hearts were praising God for their chance to be living in a time when the eye broke the spear and horrified it. Others were thanking every resistance fighter.

The people of Jabal Amel [Mountain] and the supporters of the resistance stayed up all night adorned with their pure instinct. This instinct shows only dignity and honor. The resistance excelled in fortifying this instinct in a way that prevents it from falling into the swamps of “neutrality.”

What happened last night was clear evidence of the resistance’s role in enhancing the security of the people; they are no longer frightened by the army that considers itself and is regarded by those who are delusional and traitors as one of the strongest and most equipped armies on earth.

It also forms an evidence that people support those that got them dignity and freedom, liberated their land from the abomination of occupation, and freed their souls from the chains of anxiety.

Here, the square embroidered with the emeralds of resistance becomes a small part of the change that it has made. The most prominent field was carrying people’s souls from the darkness of fear to the dawn of victories, from the daily tension over what the enemy has committed or might commit to comfortably watching what the terrified enemy is doing.

In short, the resistance that liberated the land, preserved homes, and protected livelihoods, fortified the instinct of people and crowned their souls with an abundance of glory and freedom. Is there free action that resembles this – possessing this strength and love?

On Tuesday night, we witnessed a panic attack during which the Zionists floundered. We exchanged developments with overwhelming joy while repeating the phrase of the resistance’s secretary general: “The ‘Israelis’ are standing on a leg and a half!”

With our eyes, armed with certainty and safety, we saw Mughniyeh’s specter that came with an army of men of God repeating with one roaring voice: The time of defeat is over.

The Humiliation of ’Israel’ in the Eyes of Imad Mughniyeh

The Humiliation of ’Israel’ in the Eyes of Imad Mughniyeh

By Latifa Al-Husseiny

Beirut – You never run out of stories about the time of liberation. It is like a spring of fresh water on a high mountain pouring on the ground. Twenty full years of Imad Mughniyeh and his comrades in jihad. There was planning, implementation, and then achieving an Arab victory that was only difficult in the dictionary of the weak.

It is May 18, 2000. The beginning of the “Israeli” withdrawal from southern Lebanon begins to unfold. The resistance and its mujahideen are prepared and aware of what is going on. Its military leadership and its cadres are meeting in a village.

The goal is to continuously assess the situation to develop hypothetical scenarios in the event of any major retreat by the enemy. Hajj Imad is heading the meeting. He, along with his cohorts of resistance officers, are providing estimates while examining hypotheticals and sny potential plans the Zionists might adopt. Before those in attendance, he repeats one chorus: the “Israeli” enemy must leave humiliated and under fire.

For this purpose, numerous meetings with the command of military operations and mobilization forces were held. Various sources of fire including the artillery and launchers were stationed in the south. Reconnaissance of the enemy’s movements and soldiers was carried out a week before the liberation of the south, especially in light of the evacuations that were taking place along some of the posts. All this was overseen by Hajj Imad personally.

The enemy’s retreat rolled on. Qantara, Al-Qoussair, Deir Siriane, and Tayibe were liberated from the occupation under the strikes of the Mujahideen, while the locals headed to the occupied gate and removed it.

The resistance leadership drew up alternative plans on how to pounce the Lahad army at the time. It also deployed military police to the southern border villages to prevent any disturbances during the “Israeli” escape.

Indeed, some Lahad forces surrendered in Adaisseh, while others fled under fire from the resistance. Bint Jbeil and the towns in that district were liberated. The liberation rumbled from Tayibe to Hula to Beit Yahoun until the miniature security belt drawn up by the then “Israeli” War Minister Ehud Barak to protect the northern settlements collapsed.

A leader in the Islamic Resistance tells al-Ahed about those days.

“We stayed in the south, watching closely how the “Israelis” fled. Hajj Imad managed the military missions and distributed tasks. When the operations began, he was at the helm of those checking the situation. He went to the Palestinian border without escort.”

On May 23 and May 24, “Israeli” soldiers continued their withdrawal. From Ainatha to Kfar Tibnit to the Khiam detention center, the Zionists withdrew defeated. Hajj Imad was waiting, while the resistance men spread around and targeted them.

On the final day of throwing out the occupiers, the battle ended at the Fatima Gate at the border. Through it, the last “Israeli” soldier fled. That moment was historic.

While Benny Gantz, the commander of the so-called Lebanon Liaison Unit in the “Israeli” army, closed the gate and put the key under one of the rocks, Hajj Imad was a few meters away looking at how the “Israelis” were humiliated.

He stood in front of the Fatima Gate, while the resistance apparatus deployed and secured all the villages. Inhaling the breath of freedom and the fragrance of Palestine, he did not care about the people who had been trailing him for years. Those people were fleeing broken, looking for a refuge to hide their failures and surrender. On the other hand, Hajj Imad was defying everything to take a look at the Galilee and beyond. He had accomplished the first step of the inevitable liberation.

Six years after the 2000 liberation of the south, the July War came. Hajj Imad led 33 days of confrontations with the enemy. He thwarted the Zionists’ promise. It was another divine victory on the road to Palestine. Angered by the defeat, “Israel” decided to take revenge. For this purpose, it utilized its tools and agents. The meeting was in Syria.

Away from the commotion of the world, a group of leaders of the resistance axis gathered in one of the party’s centers in the Kafr Souseh area in Damascus.

On the evening of February 12, 2008, a group of leaders of the Revolutionary Guards headed by the commander of the Quds Force, Hajj Qassem Soleimani, met leaders of the Islamic Resistance, headed by Hajj Imad Mughniyeh.

It was a military summit that lasted for about an hour. One of the leaders who attended the meeting explained that the main reason for the meeting was to conduct an evaluation of the general situation at the level of the resistance factions. However, the special relationship between Hajj Imad and Hajj Qassem set the tone of the meeting.

There was laughter and smiles as if they felt that this would be a farewell. Hajj Qassem told our interlocutor, “What Hajj Imad says, I implement. I am a soldier of Hajj Imad Mughniyeh.” When the latter heard that sentence, he quickly said, “No, we are brothers.”

The evaluation session was over, and it was time to depart. Hajj Qassem Soleimani stood at the elevator and embraced Hajj Imad with great affection. That moment was engraved in the memory of the people present. It was proof that the relationship between the two men surpassed the cause. It was a relationship of spirit and sacrifice similar to the relationship between al-Hussayn and al-Abbas (PBUT). They shared redemption, responsibility, and a high jihadist spirit.

Five minutes later, Hajj Imad left to carry out an important mission. When he got to his car, he was martyred.

Hajj Qassem never knew Hajj Imad’s destination. He heard a loud explosion and was informed of the news. He went back to find his companion dead.

What was the nature of the meeting they agreed on minutes earlier? It was a painful separation. However, 12 years later that conclusion was repeated with Hajj Qassem’s spirit rising to the supreme kingdom. Both men’s blood was spilt on the road to Palestine for the sake of Al-Quds.

20 YEARS AFTER THE UNCONDITIONAL ISRAELI WITHDRAWAL FROM LEBANON: WHAT HAS BEEN ACHIEVED? (1)

Posted on  by Elijah J Magnier

A woman mocking an Israeli tank left behind when withdrawing from south of Lebanon in the year 2000, using its cannon as a hanger to dry cloths. Photo by @YounesZaatari

By Elijah J. Magnier: @ejmalrai

We were Hezbollah trainers. It is an organisation that learns quickly. The Hezbollah we met at the beginning (1982) is different from the one we left behind in 2000”. This is what the former Chief of Staff and former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Gabi Ashkenazi, said twenty years after the Israeli unconditional withdrawal from Lebanon.

For the first time we met a non-conventional army, but also an ideological organisation with deep faith: and this faith triumphed over us. We were more powerful, more technologically advanced and better armed but not possessing the fighting spirit …They were stronger than us”. This is what Brigadier General Effi Eitam, Commander of the 91st Division in counter-guerrilla operation in south Lebanon said. 

Alon Ben-David, senior defence correspondent for Israel’s Channel 13, specialised in defence and military issues, said: “Hezbollah stood up and defeated the powerful Israeli Army”.

Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, the architect of the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, said: “The withdrawal didn’t go as planned. The deterrence of Hezbollah and its capability increased greatly. We withdrew from a nightmare”. Barak meant he had planned to leave behind him a buffer zone under the control of his Israeli proxies led by the “South Lebanon Army” (SLA) commander Antoine Lahad. However, his plans were dismantled and the resistance forced Lahad’s men to run towards the borders, freeing the occupied buffer zone. As they left Lebanon, the Israeli soldiers said: “Thank God we are leaving: no one in Israel wants to return”.

Israeli soldiers are happy to leave Lebanon in the year 2000.

In 1982, Israel believed the time had come to invade Lebanon and force it to sign a peace agreement after eliminating the various Palestinian organisations. These groups had deviated from the Palestinian compass and had become embroiled in sectarian conflict with the Lebanese Phalange, believing that “the road to Jerusalem passed through Jounieh” (the Maronite stronghold on Mt. Lebanon, northwest of Beirut, a slogan used by Abu Iyad). Israel intended Lebanon to become the domicile of its Palestinian conflict. It failed to realise that in so doing it was letting the Shiite genie out of the bottle. Signs of this genie began to appear after the arrival of Sayyed Musa al-Sadr in Lebanon and the return of students of Sayyed Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr from Najaf to their home country and residency in the Lebanese Bekaa. Also, the victory of Imam Khomeini and the “Islamic revolution” in Iran in 1979 was not taken into consideration by Israel, and the potential consequences for the Lebanese Shia were overlooked.

The 1982 Israeli invasion triggered the emergence of the “Islamic resistance in Lebanon”, which later became known as “Hezbollah”, and it forced Israel to leave Lebanon unconditionally in 2000. This made Lebanon the first country to humiliate the Israeli army. Following their victory over the Arabs in 1949, 1956, 1967 and 1973, Israeli officials had come to believe they could occupy any Arab country “with a brass band”.

Israeli soldiers exited through the “Fatima Gate” (on the Lebanese border, also known as Good Fence, HaGader HaTova) under the watchful eyes of Suzanne Goldenberg on the other side of the border. She wrote: “After two decades and the loss of more than 1000 men, the chaotic Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon leaves its northern flank dangerously exposed, with Hezbollah guerrillas sitting directly on its border. The scale of the Israeli fiasco was beginning to unfold… After the Israelis pulled out of Bint Jubayl in the middle of the night, their SLA allies, already in a state of collapse in the centre of the strip, simply gave up. Branded collaborators, they and their families headed for exile. Behind them, they left tanks and other heavy equipment donated by their patrons. Shlomo Hayun, an Israeli farmer who lives on Shaar Yeshuv farm, said of the withdrawal, “This was the first time I have been ashamed to be Israeli. It was chaotic and disorganised.”

Israeli withdrawal (2000) crossing Fatima Gate.

What did Israel and its allies in the Middle East achieve?

In 1978, Israel occupied a part of southern Lebanon and in 1982, for the first time, it occupied an Arab capital, Beirut. During its presence as an occupation force, Israel was responsible for several massacres amounting to war crimes. In 1992, Israel thought that it could strike a death blow to Hezbollah by assassinating its leader, Sayyed Abbas Al-Mousawi. He was replaced by his student, the charismatic leader, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. Nasrallah has proved to be more truthful than the Israeli leaders, and thus capable of affecting the Israeli public through his speeches, as Israeli colonel Ronen, chief Intelligence officer for the Central Command of Israel Defence Forces, has said.

The new Hezbollah leader showed his potential for standing up to and confronting Israel through TV appearances. He mastered the psychological aspects of warfare, just as he mastered the art of guerrilla war. He leads a non-conventional but organised army of militants “stronger than several armies in the Middle East,” according to Lieutenant General Gadi Eisenkot, the former Israeli Chief of Staff. 

The Israeli doctrine relies on the principle of pre-emptively striking what is considered as a potential threat, in order to extinguish it in its cradle. Israel first annexed Jerusalem by declaring it in 1980 an integral part of the so-called “capital of the state of Israel”. In June 1981, it attacked and destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor that France had helped build. In 2007, Israel struck a building in Deir Ezzor, Syria, before it was completed, claiming that the government had been building a nuclear reactor.

6 years after its withdrawal, Israel declared war on Lebanon in 2006, with the aim of eradicating Hezbollah from the south and destroying its military capacity. Avi Kober, a member of the department of political studies at Bar Ilan University and researcher at the Israeli BESA centre said: “The war was conducted under unprecedented and favourable conditions the like which Israel has never enjoyed – internal consensus, broad international support (including tacit support on the part of moderate Arab States), and a sense of having almost unlimited time to achieve the war objectives. The IDF’s performance during this war was unsatisfactory, reflecting flawed military conceptions and poor professionalism and generalship. Not only the IDF fail in achieving battlefield decision against Hezbollah, that is, denying the enemy’s ability to carry on the fight, despite some tactical achievements, throughout the war, it played into Hizballah’s hands.”

“Soon we shall pray in Jerusalem” (Portray Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah).

Israel withdrew from the battle without achieving its goals: it was surprised by Hezbollah’s military equipment and fighting capabilities. Hezbollah had managed to hide its advanced weapons from the eyes of Israeli intelligence and its allies, who are present in every country including Lebanon. The result was 121 Israeli soldiers killed, 2,000 wounded, and the pride of the Israeli army and industry destroyed in the Merkava Cemetery in southern Lebanon where the Israeli advance into Wadi al-Hujeir was thwarted. 

Hezbollah hit the most advanced class Israeli destroyer, the INS Spear saar-5, opposite the Lebanese coast. In the last 72 hours of the war, Israel fired 2.7 million bomblets, or cluster bombs, to cause long-term pain for Lebanon’s population, either through impeding their return or disrupting cultivation and harvest once they did return. “An unjustified degree of vindictiveness and an effort to punish the population as a whole”, said the report of the UN commission of inquiry conducted in November 2006 (Arkin M. W. (2007), Divining Victory: Airpower in the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War, Air University Press, Alabama, pp 67-71).

The battle ended, Israel withdrew again, closed the doors behind its army, raised a fence on the Lebanese borders, and installed electronic devices and cameras to prevent any possible Hezbollah crossing into Palestine.

When Israel’s chief of staff Gabi Ashkenazi said “Israel instructed Hezbollah in the art of war”, he was right. Hezbollah has learned from the wars that Israel has waged over the years. In every war, Hezbollah saw the necessity of developing its weapons and training to match and overcome the Israeli army (which is outnumbered) and which enjoys the tacit support of Middle Eastern regimes and the most powerful western countries. Hezbollah developed its special forces’ training and armed itself with precision missiles to impose new rules of engagement, posing a real threat to the continuity of the permanent Israeli violations of Lebanon’s sovereignty.

Today, Hezbollah has sophisticated weapons, including the armed drones that it used in Syria in its war against the Takfirists, and precision missiles that can reach every region, city and airport in Israel. It has anti-ship missiles to neutralize the Israeli navy in any future attack or war on Lebanon and to hit any harbour or oil platform. It is also equipped with missiles that prevent helicopters from being involved in any future battle. The balance of deterrence has been achieved. Hezbollah can take Israel back to the Stone Age just as easily as Israel envisages returning Lebanon to the Stone Age.

Hezbollah is Israel’s worse nightmare, and it was largely created by the Israeli attempt to overthrow the regime in Lebanon, occupy Lebanon, and impose an agreement that Israel could then mould to its own liking. But the tables were turned: a very small force emerged in Lebanon to become a regional power whose powerful support was then extended to the neighbouring countries of Syria and Iraq. The harvest journey has begun.

Proofread by:  Maurice Brasher and C.G.B.

This article is translated free to many languages by volunteers so readers can enjoy the content. It shall not be masked by Paywall. I’d like to thank my followers and readers for their confidence and support. If you liked it, please don’t feel embarrassed to contribute and help fund it, for as little as 1 Euro. Your contribution, however small, will help ensure its continuity. Thank you.

Copyright © https://ejmagnier.com   2020 

Lebanon: Military Investigative Sentences Collaborator with Zionist Enemy Amer Fakhoury to Death

February 4, 2020

Criminal Amer al-FakhouryIsraeli Wars On LebanonLahad militiaLebanon’s National ResistanceTerrorismTortureZionist entity

Military Investigative Judge, Najat Abu Chakra, has issued an indictment against Israeli enemy collaborator Amer Fakhoury, and accused him of murder, attempted murder, torture and abduction of inmates in the former Khiam detention center, National News Agency correspondent reported on Tuesday.

If found guilty as charged, Fakhoury could face death penalty. His dossier has been referred to the Permanent Military Court.

Source: NNA

Related Articles

قسد وأردوغان توأمان يتقاتلان

 

أكتوبر 11, 2019

ناصر قنديل


– يعتقد الرئيس التركي أنه يملك قوة راكمها خلال سنوات الحرب على سورية يجب أن تحجز له مكاناً في مستقبلها، وهي مجموعة من عشرات آلاف الأخوان المسلمين المنظمين في جيش عميل لتركيا/ وهو يباهي بذلك ويرفع العلم التركي ويقاتل تحت قيادة الجيش التركي، بما يعيد للذاكرة صورة جيش العميل أنطوان لحد الذي كان يمسك بالشريط الحدودي المحتل في جنوب لبنان قبل تحريره. ويرغب أردوغان ببناء شريط مثله يعيد إليه أعداداً من النازحين ويستولي على نفطه، كما طمحت إسرائيل بالاستيلاء على مياه نهر الليطاني في جنوب لبنان، وقوة الارتكاز التركية من السوريين تشبه الجماعات التي تستند إليها قسد الذين كانوا يرفعون الأعلام الأميركية ويباهون بتبعيتهم لواشنطن، ويقدمون هوية الكانتون الذي قاموا ببنائه على هويتهم الوطنية السورية. وبالمناسبة فعشرات الآلاف هنا وعشرات الآلاف هناك يختصرون عملياً ما سُمّي بـ الثورة السورية ذات يوم على ألسنة الأميركيين والأتراك، وهو الآن يتكشف عن مجموعة عملاء سوريين للأميركيين والأتراك يدفعون ثمن عمالتهم الغبية، أو يؤدون مترتبات عمالتهم الأشد غباءً.

– رغم أصوات القذائف وغارات الطيران، تبدو الأصوات الأعلى هي لتحذيرات متشابهة يطلقها أردوغان وقيادة قسد، ووجهة التحذير هي أوروبا، فالفريقان لا يراهنان على كسب الحرب عسكرياً، وقد أظهرت المواجهات الأولى فراراً متبادلاً من الميدان للجيش الأخواني الذي زجّ به أردوغان، ولجيش قسد، فقد أعمت العيون حياة الترف التي عاشها جيش الأخوان في فنادق تركيا، وفي ترف عائدات البلطجة التي أتاحها لهم أردوغان في مناطق تركية متعدّدة أدت إلى انتفاضات استهدفت النازحين السوريين في اسطمبول وغيرها. وبالمقابل وفي حياة لا تقل ترفاً عاشت جماعة قسد وفرضت الخوات على العرب والأكراد، ويزجّون في المعارك بالذين قاموا بتجنيدهم بالقوة خلال السنة الماضية، وليس خافياً أن عشرات الآبار المحاذية للحدود حفرتها جماعة قسد وجماعة أردوغان مقابل بعضهما البعض تربطها أنابيب تحت خط الحدود، يفرغ فيها جماعة قسد بالصهاريج نفط سورية المنهوب، ويعيد تحميله جماعة أردوغان من الجهة المقابلة لبيعه وتقاسم عائداته مع القسديين، والبنية الرئيسية في الفريقين لا تريد أن تحارب.

– الرهان على وصول الأصوات إلى اوروبا، ومَن يسبق يكسب الحرب، بقدر من القصف والصمود، والأصوات متشابهة. القسديون يلوّحون بخطر عودة داعش، وانهيار معسكر الهول وفرار السجناء إذا تواصل الهجوم التركي، وأردوغان يلوّح بدفع مئات آلاف النازحين السوريين نحو أوروبا، إذا بقيت تضغط وتهدّد بالعقوبات الموجّهة لتركيا دفاعاً عن قسد، وأوروبا الواقعة بين شاقوفي الابتزاز بتدفق النازحين وانفلات إرهابيي داعش، هي ما سيقرّر مستقبل الحرب، والفريقان متشابهان في لعبة الابتزاز، توأم من نصفين برأسين وجسد واحد.

لن يُسمح لأردوغان بالتوغل عميقاً، كي يبقى كابوس داعش نائماً، ولن يسمح لقسد بالحفاظ على الإمارة المستقلة كي لا يتدفق النازحون نحو أوروبا، وستبقى المبادرة للدولة السورية التي ستقرر ساعة صفر وحدها تكون فيها قد قلبت الطاولة فوق رأس الفريقين حماية للسوريين عرباً وأكراداً وأشوريين، وحماية للثروة السورية، التي يتقاسمها اللصوص عبر الحدود، وهي ساعة ليست بعيدة.

Related Videos

 

Related Articles

 

معادلة السيد أوقفوا حروبكم… أو «تخبزوا بالفراح»

سبتمبر 21, 2019

ناصر قنديل

– بعد توضيحات لا بد منها في ملفات شهدت بعض الاجتهادات والتساؤلات، انطلق السيد حسن نصرالله إلى رسم معادلاته الجديدة، كناطق بلسان محور المقاومة، الذي قال في وصفه أنه محور قوي وشجاع، منذ أن حسم معادلة انتهاء مرحلة التصرف كفرقاء مقاومين كل في ساحته إلى قرار التعامل كمحور موحّد في مواجهة كل حرب على أطراف المحور. والمحور الشجاع هو المحور الذي اتخذ قرار المواجهة متحسباً لمخاطر نشوب حرب، من إسقاط الطائرة الأميركية التجسسية العملاقة في الخليج، إلى عملية أفيفيم النوعية في فلسطين المحتلة، إلى عملية أرامكو التي هزت السعودية والاقتصاد العالمي. وهو المحور القوي لأنه نجح في تحقيق الأهداف وفي ردع العدو وإفهامه أن لا جدوى من مجرد التفكير بالردّ، فرسم معادلاته وقواعد اشتباكه ورسخ قانون حربه.

– في التوضيحات تناول السيد قضيتين راهنتين، الأولى مفردة المبعَدين بالتوازي مع قضية العملاء، ففكّكها مؤكداً أنها مفردة لا تعبر عن واقع، فما هو أمامنا الفارون أو الهاربون للاحتماء بكيان الاحتلال، هم عائلات العملاء، ولا خلط بين ملف العملاء وعائلاتهم، لكن كل شيء وفقاً للقانون، وكل مَن يعود يجب أن يخضع للتحقيق، ومن يثبت تورّطه بالعمالة على أي مستوى يجب أن يلقى عقاباً يتناسب مع أفعاله، ولا يجوز أن تكون الأحكام هزيلة ولا أن تسقط بمرور الزمن. وربّ ضارة نافعة أن حدث ما حدث حتى تنبّه الجميع لخطورة هذا الخلط والتهاون والتراخي. أما التوضيح الثاني فطال انتخابات كيان الاحتلال، حيث جرى تصوير كلام المقاومة عن صلة مساعي رئيس حكومة الاحتلال بنيامين نتنياهو للتصعيد بمطامعه السلطوية والانتخابية، كأنه انحياز من المقاومة لمنافسيه واعتبار إسقاطه أولوية، ودعوة غير مباشرة للناخبين العرب للمشاركة في الانتخابات تحقيقاً لهدف عنوانه، إسقاط نتنياهو. فقال السيد، الانتخابات لا تعنينا، فكلهم قتلة وكلهم صهاينة وكلهم عنصريون، وكلهم في معسكر العدو.

– انطلق السيد لرسم معادلاته، وهو يرسمها باسم قيادة محور المقاومة، من طهران إلى بغداد إلى دمشق وبيروت وغزة وصنعاء، والمعادلات الجديدة تطال كل منهج التهديد بالعقوبات والتلويح بالحرب، وعنوانها أن العقوبات لن تغيّر شيئاً في موازين القوى مهما اشتدت وزادت قسوة، وأن الرد عليها سيكون مزيداً من التصعيد في الميدان، أسوة بعمليات إسقاط الطائرة الأميركية، وعملية أفيفيم، وعملية أرامكو، لكن الواضح أن الأولوية في قراءة المحور، ليست باعتبار الساحة الأشد زجاجية التي تشكل الخاصرة الرخوة لمحور واشنطن هي ساحة الخليج، بل أكثر لأن محور المقاومة ليس معنياً بتسويات تحفظ ماء الوجه لكل من واشنطن وتل أبيب، بينما هو مستعدّ لمنح هذه الفرصة لحكومات الخليج التي تتلقى التحذير من العواقب الكارثية لاستخدامها أكياس رمل في الحرب الأميركية الصهيونية بوجه محور المقاومة وشعب اليمن، لكنها تتلقى سلّماً للنزول عن الشجرة عنوانه، وقف الحرب على اليمن، لتتفادى البقاء كيس ملاكمة يتلقى الضربات بالنيابة عن واشنطن وتل أبيب. لكن المعادلة شاملة كل الجبهات، ولكل المتورطين في الحروب الأميركية الصهيونية في واشنطن وتل أبيب كما في الخليج، أوقفوا حروبكم قبل أن تخبزوا بالفراح .

Related Videos

Related News

العميل الفاخوري و«أمريكانه»: إلى استجواب جديد

الأخبار

الأربعاء 18 أيلول 2019

العميل الفاخوري و«أمريكانه»: إلى استجواب جديد

(هيثم الموسوي)

مشهد تلك السيّدة الرافعة بيدها حبل المشنقة، أمام المحكمة العسكرية أمس، كان يلخص مطلب الذين اعتصموا هناك بالتزامن مع جلسة استجواب العميل عامر الفاخوري. هو اعتصام باسم الأسرى المحررين من السجون والمعتقلات الإسرائيلية. منهم مَن كان ينفرد بصحافي ليخبره عن تجربته مع التعذيب في المعتقل، ومنهم من كان يتكلم أمام الجميع، أمام وسائل النقل المباشر، فيما هناك من تعمّد رفع صوته بقوة ليصل إلى داخل أروقة المحكمة. يُريدون لصوتهم أن يصل.

ارتفع الصوت أكثر عندما عرفوا بمجيء وفد أميركي، يضمّ محامية أميركية، بغية الترافع عن العميل. قاضية التحقيق نجاة أبو شقرا لم تسمح بذلك. لا بدّ مِن موافقة نقابة المحامين في لبنان أولاً. مجرّد فكرة أن يأتي أحدهم إلى المحكمة، بنيّة الدفاع عن العميل، أمر استفزّ المعتصمين، فكيف إذا كان أميركيّاً؟ كل من احتشد أمام المحكمة كان متشائماً، إذ سرت شائعة عن نية بعدم توقيف العميل، خاصّة في ظلّ ما صرّح به وكيل الأسرى المحررين المحامي معن الأسعد من هناك:

«الإخبارات لم تصل من قبل النيابة العامة التمييزية إلى قاضية التحقيق، لكن أرى أن الطوق ضاق على رقبة العميل… التحقيق سيستمر وسيكون هناك جلسات أخرى».

وبعد نحو ساعتين، قررت القاضية إصدار مذكرة توقيف بحق الفاخوري، عارضة ما طلبه على النيابة العامة العسكرية لإبداء الرأي، على أن يحدَّد موعد جديد لاستجوابه. كان طلب العميل محدداً: حضور المحامية الأميركية. لا يصدر عنه أي شيء آخر. انتهى الاعتصام على خير، تنفس الحاضرون الصعداء، على أن يتابع الحراك بحسب موعد الاستجواب الذي سيُحدد لاحقاً.

إلى ذلك، صرّح رئيس كتلة الوفاء للمقاومة النائب محمد رعد، أمس، قائلاً:

«إن الخيانة ليست وجهة نظر كما يرى البعض، ونحن نملك من القانون والأحكام والإجراءات ما يمكننا من التصدي لهؤلاء».

بدوره، صرّح النائب الجديد في الكتلة نفسها، حسن عز الدين، معرباً عن أسفه «لوجود من يريد أن يشرّع أمن البلد الوطني للمخاطر مجدداً». من جهته، نوّه المؤتمر الشعبي اللبناني بتوقيف الفاخوري، مطالباً بـ

«كشف كل المتدخلين والمتورطين بتسهيل عودة العملاء الفارين ومعاقبتهم كشركاء لهؤلاء في خياناتهم الوطنية».

Image result for ‫عضو تكتل «لبنان القوي»، زياد أسود‬‎

زياد أسود: توقيف الفاخوري سياسيّ لأن «سجلّه نظيف» بمرور الزمن

وخارج «الاجماع» السياسي على ضرورة أن ينال الفاخوري جزاءه، غرّد عضو تكتل «لبنان القوي»، زياد أسود، قائلاً إن توقيف الفاخوري سياسيّ، لأن «سجلّه نظيف» بمرور الزمن.

Related Videos

Related Posts

جنون أميركي لحذف لبنان من معادلة الإقليم

سبتمبر 16, 2019

د. وفيق إبراهيم

يضغط الأميركيون منذ عشرة أيام تقريباً على لبنان بوسائل مختلفة اقتصادية وسياسية، وأخيراً عسكرية تتفرّع الى آليّتين: تهديدات إسرائيلية تقليدية والعودة الى دبلوماسية التهديد بالأساطيل على الطريقة البريطانيّة القديمة.

لماذا هذا الاستهداف؟ الأميركيون يسيطرون على جزء كبير جداً من السياسة اللبنانية منذ وراثتهم للنفوذ الفرنسي الكبير في لبنان، متصاعداً الى حدود الإمساك الكامل بالدولة اللبنانية وتوزيع آلياتها على قوى الإقليم المنصاعة لهم كالسعودية او المتمردة عليهم كسورية.

لكنهم ابتدأوا بالتراجع مع تصاعد دور حزب الله في مجابهات تحرير الجنوب اللبناني بين 1982 و2000 مروراً بضرب القوات الغربية المتعددة الجنسيات في ثمانينيات القرن الماضي وصولاً إلى وقف الاستباحة الإسرائيلية للبنان في 2006 واحتواء بعض التمرّد الداخلي بالقوة 2006 .

تؤرّخ هذه المراحل الاستثنائيّة لصعود سياسي كبير لحزب الله في السياسة اللبنانية، لم يستثمرها لبناء نفوذ سياسي له في مؤسسات الدولة، بقدر ما استعملها لمنع الاستسلام للنفوذ الأميركي ـ الإسرائيلي وتوفير بناء سياسي داخلي لمبدأ الدفاع عن لبنان في وجه «إسرائيل» والإرهاب. ونجح في مراميه بالتحالف العميق مع التيار الوطني الحر وحركة أمل والمردة والأحزاب القومية والوطنية وبعض الاتجاهات الداخلية التقليدية مؤمّناً غالبية نيابية ووزارية تدافع عن هذه الوجهة.

لم يستحسن الأميركيون هذا التحوّل، ساعين الى تفجيره بأساليب سياسية وأخرى بنشر الفوضى والضغط الاقتصادي، وتوتير صراعات الطوائف بنقلها الى مستوى احتراب فعلي، لكنها آلت الى فشل ذريع، ما أتاح لحزب الله الى جانب دوره الجهادي ضدّ «إسرائيل» في الالتحاق بمعركة حلف المقاومة ضدّ الإرهاب العالمي في سورية، لذا بذل الحزب جهوداً تاريخية في ميادين سورية لمجابهة أعنف محاولة أميركية لتفكيك سورية والعراق وبالتالي إعادة الإمساك بلبنان واليمن وتفجير إيران.

يكفي أنّ الرئيس المصري السيسي اعترف للمرة الأولى باستخدام دولي للإرهاب لتفجير سورية بهدف تفكيك المنطقة، مؤكداً أن لا دور لهذا المشرق من دون سورية، وكاشفاً بأنّ جهات دولية وإقليمية استجلبت هذا الإرهاب ودرّبته وموّلته في قواعد محيطة بسورية لتأمين أهدافها التفجيريّة. وهذا تصريح صاعق من حليف للأميركيين يتهم فيه السعودية وتركيا وقطر بأشكال مباشرة وغير مباشرة بمحاولة تفجير الإقليم، وهذا غير ممكن بالطبع من دون الإذن والرعاية الأميركيين.

هؤلاء لم يكونوا يتوقّعون سحق الإرهاب في ميادين سورية والدور الطليعي لحزب الله في هذه المهمة، بالإضافة الى نجاحه في دحر الإرهاب الداخلي في شرقي لبنان وبيئته الشماليّة والمخيمات ومناطق أخرى، ما أدّى الى تزايد نفوذ حزب الله السياسي بشكل مغاير لصعود القوى اللبنانية على طريقة الاستثمار الاقتصادي والطائفي.

كان الحزب مهتمّاً بتأمين نصاب راجح لفكرة الدفاع عن لبنان، متمكّناً عسكرياً وسياسياً في ما ذهب إليه، وهذا ما أصاب الأميركيين بجنون، فحلفاؤهم مترنّحون من الضعف والإعياء لسقوط ذرائعهم السياسية، والدليل انهم أميركيّو السياسة في مرحلة لم يعد لدى أميركا من مكان إلا «إسرائيل» فقط.

هذه النتائج اللبنانية ـ السورية ازدادت قوة من صمود إيران في وجه أعنف حصار تاريخي تتعرّض له دولة في بقاع العالم، فيما كان المعتقد أنّ هذا الحصار يؤدي الى تدميرها وبالتالي الإمساك بالإقليم بكامله.

هذا التدهور الأميركي المتفاقم دفع بالبيت الأبيض الى معاودة سياسات الاستحواذ على لبنان، لذلك أيّدت هجمات إسرائيلية على الضاحية، لكن ردّ الحزب بقصف أهداف عسكرية في «أفيفيم» الإسرائيلية صعقها ودفعها الى وقف التصعيد، فعاودت أساليب الضغوط الاقتصادية، وأرسلت معاون وزير خارجيتها شينكر الذي ربط أمام مسؤولين لبنانيين بين مفاوضات إسرائيلية لبنانية مباشرة وبين السماح باستثمار الغاز إلى جانب تقليص دور حزب الله في لبنان والإقليم، وتسوية الخلافات الحدودية.

لكنه لم يلقَ تجاوباً، فانكفأ ساخطاً معلناً أنّ حزب الله إرهابي ويجب على الدولة اللبنانية ان تحاربه بكلّ الطرق الممكنة.

أما مساعد وزير الخزانة لتمويل شؤون الإرهاب مارشال بيلينغسلي فقصف لبنان بأسوأ الأوصاف عندما قال انّ مصرف لبنان وحاكمه منزعجان من هيمنة حزب الله على النظام المصرفي، زاعماً انّ إدارته تدقّق في أوضاع كامل المصارف والمؤسسات المالية لكشف مدى توغل حزب الله واستفادته من تفاعلاتها في الأسواق، مهدّداً بأنّ أسماء كثيرة من سياسيين واقتصاديين لبنانيين من طوائف وأعراق مختلفة قد تشملها العقوبات.

بدوره معاون وزير الدفاع الأميركي اتهم إيران وحزب الله بتعطيل الديمقراطية في العالم العربي وهي تهمة مثيرة للضحك والاستهزاء من دول عربية ديكتاتورية تحظى بحماية أميركية لاستبدادها.

وفي إطار استكمال الضغوط، سعى الأميركيون لضخ عشرات اللبنانيين الذين كانوا يتعاملون مع «إسرائيل» في مراحل احتلالها بين 1982 و 2000، وذلك في إطار خطة لإنعاش التراجع السياسي للقوى المحسوبة عليها في السياسة والجيش، ومنهم بالطبع العميل الفاخوري والعشرات الذين دخلوا خلسة ويعملون على تشكيل خلايا في معظم المناطق اللبنانية.

إلا أنّ هذا التصعيد لم يكفِ الأميركيين فعادوا الى أساليب الإقناع بالبوارج الحربية، الطريقة القديمة التي كان يستعملها الأسطول البريطاني للسيطرة على الدول الضعيفة.

فالبارجة الأميركية من الأسطول الخامس التي استقبلت في مرفأ لبناني سياسيين لبنانيين على طريقة الانصياع التاريخية للمستعمر، حاولت أن تضخّ معنويات لحلفاء أميركا في لبنان، ألم يكن أوْلى لها لو ذهبت لنشر معنويات لدى السعوديين بعد قصف مصفاتهم في بقيق وضريح التابعة لشركة أرامكو؟

أما المثير أكثر للهراء فهو التعهّد الهاتفي الذي قال فيه الرئيس الأميركي ترامب لنتنياهو إنه عازم على عقد اتفاقية دفاع مشترك بين بلاده و»إسرائيل»! وذلك لضرب حزب الله مباشرة بواسطة الجيش الأميركي!

تكشف هذه الضغوط المستوى المتفاقم للتراجع الأميركي مقابل الصعود الكبير لحزب الله عسكرياً وسياسياً في الداخل والإقليم بما يكشف صعوبة أيّ استهداف له في أيّ مكان. وهذا مؤشر على استمرار المناعة اللبنانية في وجه مشاريع التفجير الأميركية والإسرائيلية وربما الخليجية أيضاً.

Related Videos

Related Articles

Hezbollah MP: Fakhoury’s Crimes Mothers of All Crimes

September 14, 2019

Ibrahim_mousawi

Hezbollah MP Ibrahim Mousawi on Saturday condemned the ease with which the former commander of al-Khiyam’s Israeli prison was able to enter Lebanon without arrest.

Amer al-Fakhoury, a member of the Israeli proxy militia in Lebanon, who oversaw the Khiam prison in south Lebanon that detained and tortured thousands of Lebanese, arrived at Rafik Hariri International Airport last week.

He was able to leave the airport without arrest, despite having been sentenced to 15 years in jail and having several arrest warrants against him.

“The crimes of high treason do not become obsolete over time,” Mousawi tweeted Saturday. “And Fakhoury’s crimes are the mothers of all crimes: collaboration with ‘Israel’, murder, torture, kidnap and rape,” he added. The Hezbollah MP called for the court to ensure Fakhoury was brought to justice “to protect Lebanon, preserve the blood of the martyrs and … even national dignity.”

Fakhoury was referred to the Military Tribunal Friday, having been arrested a day earlier. A statement released by General Security Friday morning said he had, during interrogations, confessed to working with the Zionist entity.

Related Videos

 

Government Bestows an Honor to the Butcher of Al Khiyam: Al-Akhbar الدولة تكرّم جزّار الخيام

Fakhoury2

Al-Akhbar Newspaper

September 14, 2019

Few days ago, Amer Elias Al Fakhoury, the former military commander of Al Khiyam detention center, arrived in Beirut through its airport.
Al Fakhoury was responsible for a battalion of Antoine Lahad militia agents who guarded Al Khiyam detention center, suppressed the detainees and tortured them brutally.

Al Fakhoury, 56, is from southern Lebanon. He claimed that after a dispute with his bosses, he left Lebanon to the United States in 1998 through Palestine. He was known for his abduction, incarceration and torturing at the Center. Al Fakhoury was the head of the Center with the Chief of Security and Investigation Jean Al Homsi (Abo Nabil) who were directly supervised by the Israeli Intelligence.

Last week, the General Security Commander, checking Beirut arrivals’ passports at Beirut-Rafic Hariri International Airport, observed that the American passport holder Amer Elias Al Fakhoury has been wanted for arrest. However, audits showed that the detention order was withdrawn. In a default judgment, Al Fakhoury was sentenced to 15 years in jail with hard labor, in addition to the arrest warrants in abduction and rape crimes and non-judicial arrest warrants issued by the Lebanese Army (in the cable no. 303). All the aforementioned provisions were withdrawn, which means that the General Security is unable to arrest Al Fakhoury since there’s no judicial decision. What should be done? The General Security chief has the power of anyone’s papers. Al Fakhoury was allowed to enter the country after keeping his passport.

Who mended Al Fakhoury’s status whom Al Khiyam detention center freed detainees say he’s responsible for all the torture they were subjected to at the center, not to mention their arrest. Who is the secret authority who allowed the withdrawal of all the arrest warrants issued against him? “Al Akhbar” newspaper was told yesterday that due to the passage of 20 years on issuing them, the verdicts against him had been dropped.

Well, what about the arrest warrants the Army issues? Who ordered annulling them? The answer may carry a scandal. Yesterday, Al Fakhoury was escorted with a Brigadier wearing his military uniform to the General Security office in Beirut!

Did the Brigadier volunteer by himself to help Al Fakhoury without the knowledge of his commanders? Why is they dealing with leniency with such security, humanitarian and legal dangerous issue? Despite of the inability to be issued by judicial decision, the cable number 303 forms an “above-legal” protection of national security in the issues of dealing with the Israeli enemy. So, why is the wavering when dealing with this case particularly?
Many questions are raised with no specific answers. An enough evidence that indicates the significance of Al Fakhoury is that when asking about the facts of his return to Beirut, a security official wanted to know his place to detain him, then discovered that the former agent returned legally by a ‘superior’ decision.

The law in Lebanon doesn’t allow the detention of Al Fakhoury 20 years after his sentence was issued. But, why couldn’t he been prevented from returning to the country he betrayed? Why wasn’t he expelled? This should be the least thing to be done in honor of his victims instead of the ‘honor’ he bestowed.

Source: Al-Akhbar Newspaper (Translated and edited by Al-Manar English Website Staff)

Related Videos

Related Articles

%d bloggers like this: