Britain still doesn't get Lebanon

The UK ambassador's latest foray shows just how little Britain understands the Lebanese people's relationship with Hezbollah.

Matthew Cassel

One would think that the British government, considering its history in the Middle East of colonizing and partitioning the land and overthrowing governments and its support of undemocratic and dictatorial regimes, would be wary of sending its representatives to offer advice to Arab nations on how best to achieve their right to self-determination. But apparently the British ambassador to Lebanon didn't get the memo.

Last month Frances Guy told the Lebanese daily an-Nahar that "the [Lebanese] state cannot enjoy sovereignty if there was one group from within the state that has more weapons than the army". Of course, the group she was referring to was Hezbollah – the shia Islamic political and resistance movement in Lebanon.

While the UK ambassador's formula might work in some countries, it cannot be applied to Lebanon. The Lebanese army has never been considered capable of defending the country against an Israeli attack. Not only has it always had to struggle with a weak and divided leadership, but its aid packages and arms shipments from the US look like pennies and toy guns when compared to those received by Israel. Hence the popular support in Lebanon for a non-state resistance movement capable of facing off with Israel and protecting Lebanon's sovereignty.

When referring to Hezbollah in the context of Israel, many Lebanese – including the government – refer to it as "the resistance" (al-muqawama in Arabic), and not by name. Hezbollah is not the first organization formed in Lebanon to resist Israeli attacks on the country. It was born under Israeli occupation and filled the resistance void after its predecessors, the Palestine Liberation Organization and its Lebanese allies, were defeated in 1982 when Israel was able to invade Beirut after several years of civil war ravaged the country.

For whatever reason, Hezbollah has been the most effective resistance movement in Lebanon's history of conflict with Israel to date. In 2000, when Israel withdrew its troops from nearly all of the Lebanese territory it had occupied for 22 years, the resistance was celebrated as the victor.

In 2006, when Israel waged an all-out war on Lebanon, ostensibly in response to a Hezbollah cross-border raid during which two Israeli soldiers were captured, and retreated 34 days later, the resistance was again celebrated as the victor.

At the height of the 2006 war, a poll conducted by the Beirut Center for Research & Information found 87% of Lebanese supported "the confrontations carried out by the resistance against the Israeli aggression against Lebanon". Support for the resistance, especially during times of war and occupation, is one of the few issues that most can agree on in a politically divided country like Lebanon.

Days after the British ambassador's comments, on the eve of the Mawlid holiday when Muslims celebrate the prophet Mohammed's birthday, many in Beirut lay awake in bed, unable to sleep as Israeli warplanes flew back and forth across the skies above the Lebanese capital. These overflights – a clear violation of Lebanon's sovereignty and of UN security council resolution 1701 – are not rare occurrences.

In recent years Israeli aircraft can often be heard above southern Lebanon. Not to mention the landmines and cluster bombs that Israel generously left scattered all over the south after each of its withdrawals and which continue to threaten farmers and children playing in the fields. Yet oddly enough the UK, along with the US and other governments that have "special relationships" with Israel, have remained silent about these clear violations of Lebanese sovereignty.

The British ambassador's comments of course reflect a larger feeling of desperation among some western countries that consider Hezbollah a "terrorist" organization and have supported any and all attacks against it, whether by Israel or other Lebanese groups.

One week before Guy's comments, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said to Israel in a televised speech: "If you strike Rafiq al-Hariri International Airport in Beirut, we will strike Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv."

In 2006, after Israel bombed Beirut airport in the first hours of the war, Hezbollah did not have the ability to strike back at more significant Israeli targets. But now, all sides agree that Hezbollah is better trained and better equipped, making it an even more formidable military force than it was four years ago.

Therefore, the question that many have been asking – whether or not Israel will attack Lebanon again – is no longer relevant. How can Israel attack Lebanon again? is now the question. After being handed defeats by a weaker Hezbollah in 2000 and 2006, Israel seems to have few options left.

Another poll conducted recently shows that 84% of Lebanese "trust the resistance's capabilities facing any Israeli attack". This overwhelming confidence in Hezbollah – the resistance – indicates that the Lebanese have a good idea of how to be able to enjoy their sovereignty. But the UK, the US and Israel must also accept that the resistance is real, and abandon the language of bombs if they wish to communicate with the people of Lebanon.

Source: The Guardian.
Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/15/britain-middle-east-policy-lebanon.