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: