Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem

The Military Escalation in Lebanon

After two rounds of Syrian-Israeli negotiations at the end of last year and the beginning of this year, and despite the atmospheres of optimism expressed by all the parties involved in the peace process, as well as the statements made by all parties that 80% of the outstanding issues had been resolved, and that it would be possible to reach an agreement within few months, the negotiations between Syria and Israel stopped, and each side started to accuse its counterpart of causing the stop of the negotiations and to lay down their conditions for the resumption of the talks. What is clear is that the parties concerned are in agreement over the nature of the solution ever since the days f Rabin. However, Ehud Barak needs to persuade the Jews that it would be necessary to sign an agreement that would end the Israeli occupation of South Lebanon and the Golan Heights. The tool of persuasion must be reflected in making the Jews, -especially the settlers in the Golan and the occupied Northern Palestine- feel that they would be not be safe unless they reach a peace treaty with both Syria and Lebanon.
 
Hence, the military escalation started by the Syrian tool in Lebanon, that is the fighters of Hizbollah, who launched a series of military attacks that resulted in the killing of seven of Israeli occupying forces. The Hizbollah fighters managed to assassinate the second in command in the Israeli allied militia of the South Lebanese Army. They filmed this operation and broadcast it on television. The Israeli television has also for the first time broadcast images of dead and injured soldiers, thus sending a clear message to the Jewish settlers.

One the evening of Monday 17th February 2000, the Israeli warplanes launched a series of fierce raids against the electricity generators near Beirut, Ba’abda and Tripoli, which led to plunging most of Lebanon in total darkness. On the same day the Israeli army called upon the residents of northern Palestinian towns and villages adjacent to the Lebanese border, who number about 300,000 settlers, to descend to the bunkers, for a Katyoushka attack was probable. The Israeli television did also show those settlers hiding in the bunkers, thus sending another clear message to the Jews, namely that failure to withdraw from South Lebanon and the Golan Heights will lead to more deaths and injuries and more descents to the bunkers.
 
In order to lend the aggravation an international and Arab dimension, the United States held Hizbollah responsible for the recent military escalation. This prompted the demonstrations in Lebanon demanding the expulsion of the American ambassador to Beirut, who was surprised during his visit to the American University in Beirut by the students demonstrating against him and calling for his expulsion from Lebanon; this forced him to leave the hall from a back door and under heavy guard. Then the Lebanese prime minister summoned the American ambassador and demanded that his administration should put pressure on Israel to prevent her from perpetrating any further attacks.

As for the Secretary General of the Arab League, reacted after a long silence to the Israeli foreign minister’s threats to burn down Lebanon, by saying that it would Israel who would be burnt down. Then the Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak visited Lebanon on 19 February, and this first visit by an Egyptian president was aimed to demonstrate to the Jews that Lebanon is not alone and that even the Arab countries who had already signed peace treaties with Israel would stand behind Lebanon and Syria in their confrontation against Israel. It was from Beirut that Mubarak endorsed the right of the Lebanese resistance to confront the Israeli occupation until liberation is achieved, stressing that the resistance was the outcome of the occupation and not the cause of the occupation. The Lebanese president, Amil Lahud, for his part, warned that if Israel infringed the immunity of the citizens and the civilian installations, she would also infringe the immunity of her own citizens, and that the Lebanese strikes would be in this case more painful. As for the king of Jordan, Abdullah, he cancelled a visit to “Israel” to an indefinite time. Finally, it was announced that the conference of the Arab foreign ministers would take place in the middle of March in Beirut in order to express Arab solidarity with Lebanon.
 
Faced with these Arab reactions, which emanated from the strongholds of American influence in the region, namely the American University and the Arab League, and from the main American agent of the region, Hosni Mubarak, the American Administration made a U-turn with regard to its earlier statements. James Ruben, the State Department spokesman said that everything possible must be done to prevent civilian casualties. He added: “We do not think that the Israeli raids on the civilian infrastructure and the residential areas would solve the problem.” Commenting on the statements made by Albright, which provoked public opinion in Lebanon and the Arab world, her spokesman said that “Albright was merely reiterating what the Israelis were saying, but she did not say whether this was good or bad, and she did not say that we either support or condemn this. She was not in fact commenting on the issue.” He added: “A visit by Albright to the region in an attempt to kick-start the Syrian-Israeli talks has been under review ever since the latest clashes in Lebanon, however no date has been decided for that trip.”

Meanwhile the statements of the Jewish officials intensified with regard to the possibility of a unilateral withdrawal from South Lebanon. However, Ehud Barak stated that a withdrawal within the framework of a peace agreement would be better for all parties concerned. He demonstrated to the Jews that even if the Israeli army were to withdraw from South Lebanon without reaching a peace agreement with Syria and Lebanon, this would lead to the loss of lives and the problems will continue for at least one year after the withdrawal; also that the threat of Hizbollah against the villages of Al-Jalil will continue as long as a peace agreement with Syria is not concluded. Furthermore, a withdrawal with reaching an agreement would seem as if the Israeli army had retreated under military pressure, which denotes a victory for the Hizbollah fighters against Israel.
 
All these events and their reactions indicate that they were aimed at exerting pressure upon the Jews and making them feel that the alternative to a withdrawal from Lebanon and the Golans would be war, Arab boycott and the unification of the Arab stance against them, and that the Israeli stubbornness constitutes a provocation to the people of the region which may lead to undermining the influence of America, their ally in the region. Therefore, it is expected that Madeleine Albright will visit the region in order to kick-start the peace process quickly, leading to the return of Syria and Israel to the negotiating table in order to arrive at an agreement of principles, thus enabling Israel to withdraw from South Lebanon.

Denis Ross is also endeavouring to remove all the obstacles displayed by both parties on the Palestinian-Israeli track, in order to achieve an agreement on a framework that was supposed to have been signed in the middle of this month. It is likely that the American administration will be contented with achieving agreements on declarations of principles with regard to Syrian and the Palestinian tracks. As for the final agreements, they are expected to be left for the coming American administration, be it Democrat or Republican, because the local people and the Jewish occupiers upon whom the agreements will be implemented, will need more pressure and taming before they accept the outcomes of these agreements, which will formulate the region according to the viewpoint and the plans of America.
 
The Media Forum of Hizb ut-Tahrir

20 Thul-Qi’dah 1420h
25th February 2000

www.hizbuttahrir.org