by MEMRI
Stating that many Lebanese secretly long for peace with Israel, the journalist concluded that "Beirut’s refusal to readjust its policy toward Israel is neither smart nor constructive, and claiming neutrality while actually serving as a pawn in Iran’s regional strategy is a losing game."
In two recent articles on Saudi media, Lebanese journalists urged their country to follow the example of the UAE and Bahrain and advance towards peace with Israel. Shi'ite Lebanese journalist Nadim Koteich addressed this issue in a column titled "When Will There Be Peace between Israel and Lebanon"? in the London-based Saudi daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat. In the column, published on September 15, the day of the signing of the peace agreement between Israel, the UAE and Bahrain, he wrote that the only thing preventing peace between Lebanon and Israel is Hizbullah, which has taken over Lebanon's decision-making, and whose survival depends on perpetuating the conflict with Israel. He then reviewed the alleged points of contention between Israel and Lebanon, and argued that none of them are real problems that cannot be resolved. This includes, for example, the issue of the Shab'a Farms, a small disputed area on the Israel-Lebanon border. Koteich stated that this issue once served as a pretext for preserving Syria's military presence in Lebanon, and today it serves as a pretext for preserving Hizbullah's weapons. He concluded by saying that "attaining peace today is better than attaining it later."[1]
Writing on the English-language website of the Saudi Al-Arabiya network, Lebanese journalist and researcher Makram Rabah focused on the economic losses that may be inflicted on Lebanon by Israel's peace agreement with the UAE. He wrote that Israel's rapprochement with the Gulf allows it to fill an economic position previously held by Lebanon and the Lebanese: While the Gulf states previously hired Lebanese experts to provide various services, such as help build schools, hospitals and firms, now they may turn to Israelis instead. Hence, he said, it is in Lebanon's interest to rethink its position vis-à-vis Israel and adapt itself to the regional trends. Stating that many Lebanese secretly long for peace with Israel, he concluded that "Beirut’s refusal to readjust its policy toward Israel is neither smart nor constructive, and claiming neutrality while actually serving as a pawn in Iran’s regional strategy is a losing game."
Similar arguments were made by Lebanese politicians and journalists in televised interviews. Former interior minister Sejaan 'Azzi, for example, said that Israel does not pose a threat to Lebanon and that it has never had ambitions to occupy Lebanese territories, and journalist Rami Na'im said that the upcoming negotiations for demarcating the land and maritime borders between the two countries will no doubt lead to eventual normalization between them.
The following are excerpts from Nadim Koteich's and Makram Rabah's articles, and from the interviews by Sejaan 'Azzi and Rami Nai'm.
Journalist Nadim Koteich: "There Are No Real Problems Between Israel And Lebanon"
Shi'ite Lebanese journalist Nadim Koteich wrote in Al-Sharq Al-Awsat: "After the UAE's and Bahrain's peace [agreement] with Israel, it seems that, from the perspective of interests, Lebanon should most logically be [the next] country to advance towards a peace agreement [with Israel]. The only thing that prevents this is the takeover of Lebanon's sovereign decision-making by an ideological group [i.e., Hizbullah] that cannot exist unless the hostility between the two countries continues, and which, without any justification, has undertaken the task of liberating Jerusalem and ending Israel's [existence]!
"What is the problem between Lebanon and Israel? No Lebanese politician can provide a clear and practical answer to this [question], except by sowing fear about the naturalization [of the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, an issue] I will return to below. When, following the agreement between the UAE and Israel, the President of the [Lebanese] Republic, Michel 'Aoun, was asked about the prospects of peace between Lebanon and Israel, he gave a general answer, mentioning 'problems' between the two countries that had to be resolved before peace could be contemplated. His [general] answer does not reflect any lack of patriotism on his part… The reason for it is that there are no real problems between Israel and Lebanon, [at least not] the kind of problems that are recognized by the world, in foreign relations or in international law.
"After all, the [Israeli] occupation [of South Lebanon] ended in 2000 and could have ended much earlier, had Lebanon been better able to pursue its interests without considering the Syrian, and later the Iranian, agendas. More than that, the occupation may never have happened at all if Lebanon had maintained its neutrality towards the armed struggle against Israel, as it did in 1967, thanks to the brilliant maneuvering of its late foreign minister Fouad Boutrus and the pragmatic national [approach] of its president [at the time], Charles Helou.
"As for the ideologists -- whether they be the old leftist groups that helped destroy Beirut in order to defend Jerusalem and handed Beirut over to Yasser Arafat… or the Iranian Hizbullah militia -- their answers [to the question about] the problem between Lebanon and Israel veer between the ideological [level] and the hidden one. You will hear them [talking about] the 'Israeli ambitions,' and ask yourself what yardstick can be used to measure these ambitions and monitor their ebb and flow, so as to help the decision-maker choose between escalation [vis-à-vis Israel] and a settlement [with it]. The term 'ambitions' is only a pretext for perpetuating the conflict [with Israel] that benefits these groups – either ideologically, by [allowing them] to expand their presence and the presence of the regional forces that represent them, or practically, by bolstering their status and influence within the Lebanese political arena and beyond it.
"The term 'ambitions' is tragicomical, especially the obsolete talk about Israel's ambitions regarding the waters of the Litani [river], which have turned into sewage under the oversight of the municipalities [loyal to] the resistance [i.e., Hizbullah], especially in the Beqa Valley…
"As for [Israel's] ambitions regarding gas and oil in Lebanon's territorial waters, these are 'standard' ambitions [that can arise] between any two neighboring countries, and can be handled according to international law, by the private companies that wish to drill, dig and produce [oil and gas]. In the case of the Lebanese and Israeli governments, [this issue can be brokered] by the UN, France, or by some other third party. Not to mention the fact that the area disputed between Lebanon and Israel is the result of a technical mapping error on Lebanon's part!!
"Two objective issues remain, namely the occupation of the Shab'a Farms, which were 'discovered' after the Israeli withdrawal in 2000, and the issue of [naturalizing] the Palestinian [refugees in Lebanon], whose number does not exceed 174,000, according to the General Census of [Refugee] Camp Residents And Palestinian Population Centers [in Lebanon], conducted in 2017 by the Lebanese-Palestinian Dialogue Committee in collaboration with the Lebanese Central Administration of Statistics and the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics.[2]
"A close look at the outcomes of the campaign against the naturalization [of these refugees] will alarm you, for the [Lebanese] Christians' historical demographic fears [i.e., their concern that naturalizing the Palestinian refugees, most of whom are Sunni Muslims, will tip the demographic balance in favor of the Muslims at the expense of the Christians], drove the Christian parties to enter into wars that caused the emigration of hundreds of thousands of Christians. [These wars thus] caused the very demographic imbalance that [the Christians] feared, and even perpetuated this imbalance by precipitating the latest wave of Christian emigration to Canada, Australia, America, France and elsewhere. Later, the Shi'ite sector inherited this fear, and now its members are completing the self-destruction policy of the state, the regime, the resources and the [state] institutions – so much so that all the Lebanese are [now] talking about emigrating [from Lebanon], at least as much as the Palestinians are talking about it, especially after the explosion in Beirut [port]. Why should the Palestinians [in Lebanon] agree to receive [Lebanese] citizenship when the Lebanese themselves are looking for alternatives[?]!!
"The issue of the Shab'a Farms can be summarized by saying that their status is uncertain, [in terms of who has] sovereignty over them… The reason for this uncertainty is Syria's persistent refusal to present any documents proving Lebanon's ownership of the Shab'a Farms, which were under Syrian management from the time of Syria's independence until 1967. [Moreover,] Syria forcibly prevented Lebanon from establishing any sign of sovereignty over them, for instance by setting up guard posts or a customs station on the border. The farms then served as a pretext for keeping the Syrian army in Lebanon after Israel's withdrawal, [and after this withdrawal] prompted the Lebanese to demand the similar withdrawal of Assad's army [from Lebanon]… Later, the farms became a pretext for preserving Hizbullah's weapons. They were also the only area where Hizbullah could still wage armed action [against Israel], albeit sporadically, after [the UN passed] Resolution 1701 and after the Lebanese army and increased UNIFIL forces deployed along the border against Hizbullah's wishes at the time!
"The farms, whose area is no more than 24 square kilometers, have since become a junction… that encapsulates many of the geopolitical struggles in the region!... The Lebanese must capitalize on the momentum of the new peace [agreements] in the region by demanding that the issue of the [Shab'a] Farms be included in the agendas of the Emirati and Bahraini governments, as part of the price of peace in the region, just as the suspension of the annexation of the Jordan Valley was one of the prices exacted [from Israel] by the UAE.
"The leaders of the Gulf peace plan want the outcomes of this plan to transcend the borders of the UAE and Bahrain, so as to promote a new Arab awareness and thinking that sees the problems and proposes solutions, transcending the old mechanisms and the phony Iranian monopoly over the issue of liberation and restoration of land… Attaining peace today is better than attaining it later. As for those who wish to frighten the Lebanese by saying that Israel wants to destroy Lebanon, they should pause for a moment and ask [themselves]: What Israeli war and what Israeli gear can destroy Beirut within seconds, like the great explosion at the port did[?]"[3]
Former Minister Sejaan 'Azzi: Israel No Longer Represents A Threat To Lebanon
Former Lebanese minister Sejaan 'Azzi spoke in a similar vein in a September 3, 2020 interview on the Lebanese NBN channel. He said that Israel no longer presents an imminent threat to Lebanon and has, in fact, never had any intention of occupying or annexing Lebanese land, and that it only invaded Lebanon because of the Palestinians. He added that Israel's peace agreement with the UAE is an indication that it must also want to make peace with its neighbors Lebanon and Syria, and that Lebanon cannot not live in a state of constant war.
For excerpts from the interview, click here or below:
MEMRI
Source: https://www.memri.org/reports/lebanese-journalists-lebanon-must-advance-towards-peace-israel
Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter
No comments:
Post a Comment