Recently conflict intensified in Lebanon after the Lebanese government moved to shut down Hezbollah’s telecommunications network and remove the chief of security at Beirut’s airport for sympathizing with Syrian and Iranian backed Hezbollah. Lebanon has been locked in political stalemate between the ruling coalition and Hezbollah-led opposition for the past sixteen months and has not had a president since November, when Emile Lahoud stepped down.

 

As violence escalates an Arab League delegation was welcomed into Lebanon today with the stated purpose of mediation.  As we grapple to understand the interplay of political forces including Syrian and Iranian influence in the Middle East, it is important to examine the plight of Lebanon and consider its ramifications in our day.

Prior to the 1975 civil war, Lebanon was the most developed Arab state—a major center for trade, finance and tourism; a thriving democracy that valued and practiced freedom of speech, religion and political diversity. Lebanon was termed the “Switzerland of the East” and offered an example of freedom and democracy in the region.  In 1926 the constitution of the first Lebanese  Republic (inspired by the Third French Republic) was created and in 1943, Lebanon gained their independence from the French mandate, becoming a democratic sovereign nation.

Soon after independence, Lebanon’s multicultural society found itself in the midst of the East-West conflict.  This tension was exacerbated in 1948 when Israel declared statehood and large numbers of Palestianians fled Israel and settled in southern Lebanon. When the PLO wore out its welcome in Jordan in the early 1970s, Yasser Arafat moved his military infrastructure and the PLO headquarters to Southern Lebanon.  He then began carrying out raids on Israel from inside of Lebanon. The Christian-dominated Lebanese government tried to curb the actions of the PLO and as the internal conflict between Lebanese Christians and Muslims grew, the PLO joined forces with Lebanonese Muslims.  By 1975 this internal conflict sparked a civil war.

In 1976, the Arab League endorsed the Syrian invasion of Lebanon under the guise of an Arab Deterrence Force.  The Force was sent into Lebanon with the stated purpose of halting the war between the Palestinian organizations and the militant Muslim factions on one hand, and the Lebanese army and allied grassroots organizations on the other. The Arab Deterrence Force was comprised of troops from various Arab states with the majority being from Syria. Almost immediately upon entry, Syria began carrying out massacres, political assassinations, shelling residential areas, bombing embassies, and imposing censorship on the media.  The non-Syrian members of the Arab Deterrence Force departed Lebanon shortly after its “peace keeping mission”, thus strengthening Syria’s control of Lebanon. 

With Syrian influence and PLO opperations, Lebanon quickly became a breeding ground for international terrorist groups and gave birth to one of the most notorious terrorist organizations still active today—The Hezbollah.  The Hezbollah, comprised of young Lebanese Shiites was largly formed with the aid of the Ayatollah Khomeini’s followers in the 1980’s in an effort to bolster Shiite strength and spread the Islamic Revolution which was emerging in Iran.

The Hezbollah declared its existence in 1985.  In their founding document “An open Letter: The Hizbollah Program” they identified themselves as the “sons of the umma” (Muslim community) – the “party of God”(Hizb Allah) and the “vanguard of which was made victorious by God in Iran”—where the vanguard “succeeded to lay down the bases of a Muslim state which was to play a central role in the world.” 

With Syrian backing and Iranian support, the Hezbollah launched a guerrilla war against Israel in Southern Lebanon. After the continued shelling of northern Israel by these forces, Israel invaded Lebanon in 1978 and again in 1982.  In their 1982 invasion Israel threw Arafat out and then stuck around to fight Iran’s Shiite proxy force, the Hezbollah. Israel remained in Lebanon fighting alongside the Southern Lebanon Army (SLA) until  May 22, 2000 when, at the orders of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, the IDF began to withdraw. 

When the IDF withdrew, the members of the SLA and their families were forced to flee to Israel; the Hezbollah forces chased them over the boarder with threats of torture or death. The withdrawal was so sudden that there were hundreds of abandoned cars on parts of the northern border.  Cars wereleft behind as traffic jams slowed the traffic, forcing members of the SLA to leave their cars and flee to Israel on foot.  During a trip to Israel in April of 2001 I visited the Northern boarder village of Ghajar and one of the Lebanese refuge camps.  As I talked with the Lebanese refugees, many expressed a longing to return home yet feared the worst upon their return.

In the mind of the Arab world, the withdrawal of Israel from Lebanon in 2000 is herald as the first Arab victory against the “Jewish State”; a victory that served to embolden their already growing resolve to “obliterate” the Zionist entity (Israel) and fight US influence in the Middle East.

The Israeli withdrawal was due to both international and domestic pressure.  The expectation was that such a withdrawal would be part of an agreement with Syria and Lebanon, but negotiations with Syria broke down and Syrian President Assad’s refused to continue talks with Israel.  According to UN Resolution 425, the Government of Lebanon was to bear the responsibility for preventing terrorist attacks against Israel from within its borders. In addition, UN Resolution 426 called for the creation of the United Nations Interim Forces in Lebanon (UNIFIL). Through this international force, the UN would fill the vacuum that was created following the withdrawal of the IDF. The UN agreed to deploy appropriate armed forces to restore effective authority in this region.

After the withdrawal of the IDF and the SLA, the Hezbollah, with the aid of Syria and Iran, strengthened their grip of Lebanon and prepared for additional attacks against Israel by initiating a massive arms build up.  The increased strength of the Hezbollah became evident in July 2006 as they killed eight Israeli soldiers, knapped two more and began lauching attacks further into Israel. By 2006, the Hezbollah and other extremist factions had infiltrated  so much of Lebanese society that even the international community seemed to forget that the Hezbollah was a terriorist group, not a government entity to be negoiated with. As Israel retailiated for the Hezbollah attacks, the international community increasingly called for a cease-fire between the two parties. U.N Secretary-General Kofi Annan called for an “immediate cessation of hostilities”, accused Israel of purposely targeting civilians and criticized Israel for what the U.N. termed the “disproportionate use of force”.  During this conflict, the international community seemed to forget that this attack against Israel was an unprovoked act of aggression by a terrorist organization who had defied all resolutions to disarm. Instead of disarming, the Hezbollah continued to work with Syria and Iran to strengthen their resolve and weapons. One telling report came on August 21^st , 2006 when Turkish authorities released a statement saying that they had intercepted five cargo aircraft and one Syrian aircraft carrying missiles to Hezbollah.

Since the Hezbollah openly defied resolutions calling for their disarmament, the “disproportionate use of force” (that the international community accused Israel of), was rather a necessary strategy by Israel to do what Lebanon and the international community seemed powerless or unwilling to do–to destroy the infrastructure and weapons of the Hezbollah..  If Israel did not uses this opportunity to dismantle the infrastructure and military might of the Hezbollah, they would have to live with the continued and growing security threat along their Northern boarder.

Yet with increasing international pressure, Israel agreed to a cease-fire after 33 days of active conflict and the UN passing of resolution 1701.  This resolution called for a full cessation of hostilities; called on Israel to withdraw all of its forces from Lebanon as Lebanese and UNIFIL soldiers were deployed throughout Southern Lebanon; stated that no paramilitary forces, including Hezbollah would be allowed south of the Litani River in Lebanon; and once again, UN resolution 1701 called for the full implementation of the relevant provisions of the Tair Accords and of resolution 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006) that required the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon so that there would be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese State. 

Soon after the passage of 1701 and the ceasefire, both the UN and UNIFIL contributing nations disclaimed responsibility for disarming the Hezbollah.  They stated that it was not a direct mandate of the UN and was instead the responsibility of the Lebanese government. A senior advisor to the Lebanese Prime Minister, Siniora, also said that the Hezbollah would not be forced to leave the south stating that the“Hezbollah individuals are people who live in the south and they will not leave their homes and villages”. 

Currently Iran and Syria continue to replenish Hezbollah’s arms supply. Hezbollah leader, Sheik Nasrallah, has said that the Hezbollah has the ability to launch between, “1,000 and 3,000 rockets against Israeli daily” and Hezbollah reportedly continues to receive hundreds of millions of dollars from Iran every year.

In retrospect, we see what that what began as an internal struggle escalated into a civil war and quickly became the battle ground where state-sponsored terrorism cloaked as a “stabilizing force” systematically and decidedly destroyed the infrastructure of Lebanese society, terriorized Lebaneses citizens, created a market for a massive drug operation, and essentially swallowed up a free democratic society.

Today it is easy to forget that Lebanon was once a thriving sovereign democratic nation. Syria has accomplished a remarkable feat in its ability to market itself to the international community as a “stabilizing force” while destroying any semblance of a “thriving democratic Lebanon”. However, most disturbing is the roll that the international community continues to play in aiding and supporting terrorist regimes by legitimizing them rather than holding them accountable for terrorist activity.

As a delegation from the Arab League prepares to enter Lebanon to mediate, let us remember that the demise of a free Lebanon and the current political instability in that nation have far-reaching implications.  Lebanon now serves as a frightening reminder of the destabilizing forces that are gaining power daily in the Middle East. Forces that seek the  “Lebanonization” of all nations in the MiddleEast were Western influence made its mark.