Did Hezbollah Thwart an Attack on Beirut?

The most striking thing about Hezbollah's brief offensive on West Beirut was that they were READY. You don't DO something like that on the spur of the moment. People have to be assembled, put in place, given directions. The second thing is that their opponents were NOT READY. I assume this is the basis for the idea that Israeli communications were hacked again.

This week Israel’s military intelligence chief, Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin complained to the Israeli daily Haaretz that “Hezbollah proved that it was the strongest power in Lebanon... stronger than the Lebanese Army and if it had wanted to take the government it could have done it.” He said Hezbollah, continued to pose a “significant” threat to Israel “as its rockets could reach a large part of Israeli territory.”

---

What he did not reveal to the Israeli public was just how “significant” but also “immediate” the Hezbollah threat was on May 11. Nor was Yadlin willing to divulge the fact if the planned Israeli attack on Lebanon’s capital went forward, Tel Aviv would be subject, in the view of the US intelligence community, to “approximately 600 Hezbollah rockets in the first 24 hours in retaliation and at least that number on the following day”.

---

Also presumably disturbing to Israel was the report it received that Hezbollah “had once again in all probability hacked its secure military intelligence communications and the fear that the information would be shared with others”.

The Hezbollah rout of the militias in West Beirut plus the fear of retaliation on Tel Aviv, ruining the 60th anniversary celebrations, forced cancellation of the supportive attack.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=110029&d=19&m=5&y=2008

I was against Israel's decision to launch a massive incursion into Lebanon to attack Hezbollah in the first place precisely because it energized Hezbollah by painting it as a heroic organization resisting the big and powerful Israeli war machine. People prior to that were either on the fence or wanted Hezbollah to surrender its weapons like all other major militias did at the end of the last civil war, but when Israel began its recent war, it polarized public attitudes there to the point where Hezbollah was able to justify its existence to many in Lebanese society, not all but a good few of them.

Now, Beirut is a war zone like it was in the 1980s complete with apartment buildings that are covered with bullet holes and shell blasts. And the US government deserves strong condemnation for essentially egging on Olmert in his stupid adventure.

As far as Hezbollah being able to hack Israeli military communications, I can't speak to that. I would assume the IDF is using either equipment Americans made or their own home-grown technology or both.

I find the idea of Hezbollah hacking Israeli comms suspect, and tend to favor HUMINT as where they might have an edge. Otherwise, I can agree with what you say.

the amount of Secret Squirrel-wannabeism...ie "tend to favour HUMINT as where they might have an edge". Jesus.

This man was a research associate for "ifamericansknew" and writes extensively for "counterpunch".

He also accused Human Rights Watch of caving to the Israel lobby in terms that were so repellent that someone from HRW issued a response asserting that Lamb's comments were not anti-Zionist, but rather anti-semitic.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/10/10/lebano17059.htm

It's clear he has a bias, and also a vivid imagination, and I'd like him better if he attributed more of his quotations. It's true I usually don't post his stuff. But here he addresses something about the recent events in Beirut that struck me and that I have seen nobody else discuss, i.e. that Hezbollah, while at first seeming to be taken by surprise by the propaganda attacks of Hariri and friends, then immediately stuffed them, a demonstration of force, and then backed off, point made with a minimum of violence. As Nasrallah said, if he wanted them dead, they would be dead, and they know it. It all speaks of a level of organization and control that is extraordinary, and it requires explanation, and I don't really have any. Mr Lamb, with all his flaws, at least offers a theory.

Ifamericaknew reads like David Duke.

It's all a Jewish conspiracy,according to people like Franklin Lamb.

Beware.

sources? Surely they can find less antisemitic critics.

Ifamericaknew reads like David Duke.

I rather thought all those Arab-loving bastards read live David Duke, according to you.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

---

He was basically saying that this was not a coup launched by Hezbollah against Prime Minister Fouad al-Siniora. Rather than take power, Hezbollah restored authority to the Lebanese army after overpowering March 14 in more than six hours of fighting. Rumor had it that in a show of muscle, they were going to cross off Rafik Hariri's name and rename the international airport after Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. At one point, the al-Manar TV anchor stood by Starbucks Coffee on Hamra Street and a friend watching the report muttered, "What are they going to next? Rename it Shah-bucks?"

---

What Hezbollah did was an invasion, said the Saudi minister, who has long feared Iranian power in the Muslim world, adding, "Iran is backing what happened in Lebanon, a coup, and supports it." He then added, "This will affect Iran's relations with all Arab countries, if not Islamic states as well." These hard words were echoed in different fashion by US President George W Bush, who was visiting Israel on the 60th anniversary of its creation, saying, "A lot of my trip is to get people to focus not only on Lebanon, to remember Lebanon, but also to remember that Iran causes a lot of the problems. I view Iran as a serious threat to peace."

His National Security Advisor, Stephen Hadley, added, "Iran and Syria ... are what is behind this." Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad snapped back on the same day, "Iran is the only country not interfering in Lebanon. Who are those that call, support, encourage ? Whose ambassador is running away?" That was in reference to the Saudi ambassador who reportedly fled Beirut when fighting broke out on May 7. The Iranian daily Kayhan, a mouthpiece for Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, trumpeted, "In the power struggle in the Middle East, there are only two sides: Iran and the United States."

That probably is true. The Israelis have a long-term vision for the Middle East. So do the Turks. So do the Americans, and the Iranians. The only ones who have no clue where they are heading, and who are being shoved around as pawns, are the Arabs.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JE17Ak04.html

---

In sum, the Bush administration has no Plan B on Lebanon, either. The Arab League mediation coolly ignored Washington's keenness to open a Lebanon file in the United Nations Security Council and to pillory Syria and Iran. All that the US officials could do was to keep mumbling skepticism concerning the prospects of the intra-Lebanese talks in Doha under the Arab League.

However, the US's failure in rolling back Syrian and Iranian influence in Lebanon pales in comparison with the withering away of the US-sponsored Arab-Israeli "peace process". The latter hung like an albatross's cross on Bush's Middle East tour. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' credibility has greatly suffered; Fatah has been eliminated from Gaza; Hamas is significantly gaining ground in the West Bank after its consolidation in Gaza. Thus, there were no takers when Bush told the Arab audience in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, on Friday, "All nations in the region must stand together in confronting Hamas, which is attempting to undermine efforts at peace with continued acts of terror and violence."

---

In a brilliant article recently, former German foreign minister Joschka Fischer underlined that the center of gravity of the regional power and politics in the wake of the Iraq war has shifted to the Persian Gulf. To quote Fischer, "Indeed, it is now virtually impossible to implement any solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without Iran and its local allies - Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine."

The point is, the historic failure of the Iraq war is yet to be fully grasped. On a regional plane, as the Iraq war interminably rolls on, the situation is fraught with the immense consequence of the unraveling of the entire system of states that was created in the Anglo-French settlement after the fall of Ottoman Empire in 1918. The Iraq war has triggered Shi'ite empowerment and unleashed historical forces that lay chained for centuries. Its geopolitical significance is yet to sink in as winds of change sweep across the entire region.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JE21Ak02.html

DOHA, Qatar (AFP)--Lebanon's Hezbollah-led opposition would get a blocking minority in a future unity government under two alternate proposals put forward by Arab mediators as solutions to the country's political crisis, a delegate in ruling majority said Tuesday.

The two proposals would also entail the immediate election of army chief General Michel Sleiman as president, the delegate told AFP in Doha, where crisis talks were going on.

---

Both proposals would give the opposition, backed by Syria and Iran, a blocking minority of 11 ministers in a unity government - more than a third of cabinet seats - as it has long demanded.

The U.S.-backed majority would get 16 ministers, while three neutral ministers would be named by the president.

NASDAQ

(and that's pretty much how it's reported in the Arab world), this is a huge shift!

It's clear the "majority" got handed it's ass, it's clear it's all about the upcoming elections, it's clear that Hezbollah is not interested in pushing it's luck, at least for the moment, but nobody trusts anybody and the "majority" needs to get something to cover it's ass, so I would not be surprised to see them get some "concessions" from the "opposition" at this point, as long as the future elections are not compromised from a Hezbollah POV. As in all such negotiating situations a great deal of hot air is being expended. I have some optimism that things will work out since the willingness and ability of non-Lebanese (Iran, Syria, Israel, USA, France, etc.) to meddle is reduced and the only Lebanese party that is in a position to force things in an unreasonable way (the "opposition") has already shown it doesn't want to go there.

The political situation in Lebanon is such that anyone seen as being too belligerent will lose support. They may not all like each other, but they like war even less. Plenty of cluster bombs still laying around to remind them if they get forgetful.

I don't place much credence in Mr Lamb as such, usually, though he can be an interesting read. He tends to hyperventilate more than I like, very partisan, but in this case as I noted above, he was addressing something that struck me about what happened.

Heck no, they are perfect just the way they are, you just want to get more of the political power you see as your democratic due. And Hezbollah can wait, time is on their side.

Do you see a time in the future as Hezbollah gains power, a time when they might see their current benefactors as becoming "cumbersome" perhaps even interfering?

Also you read much about Hezbollahs being a rightwing Shiite group, do you think they will ever try to implement Sharia law at least in the southern Lebanon if not all of Lebanon depending on how much power they gain?

Do you see a time in the future as Hezbollah gains power, a time when they might see their current benefactors as becoming "cumbersome" perhaps even interfering?

I have read such things. There was a comment in a piece I posted here a while back about how Hezbollah could be relied upon to deal with Iran and Syria (in Lebanon), for example. I don't know how much to believe. There are perfectly ordinary realpolitik reasons for Iran/Syria to support Hezbollah so as to keep Israel "busy". It's right out of Machiavelli; in the same way Israel would want to use the Lebanese "majority" to annoy Syria or the Balochi resistance to annoy Iran or the Kurds to keep the Shiia Iraqi government occupied. Hezbollah is a national resistance movement, so it would make sense that they could have disagreements with Syria and Iran both, especially if there is real peace on the Israeli front. There is a piece I posted above (here) that suggests that Iran might sell out Hezbollah.

Also you read much about Hezbollahs being a rightwing Shiite group, do you think they will ever try to implement Sharia law at least in the southern Lebanon if not all of Lebanon depending on how much power they gain?

There are certainly factions in Hezbollah that would want to do that, but given the fragmented confessional politics of Lebanon and Hezbollah's apparent lack of interest in domination, it seems unlikely as things stand. As I said, the Lebanese have no interest in more civil war, and that would be a recipe for civil war. I would think it unlikely until such time as there is peace with Israel, then they could get back to squabbling about such things among themselves, if they wanted to.

Hezbollah will not expand out of the South for the same reason Israel could not take the Litani river in the 2006 war. Its simply too difficult to hold onto territory where the population is overwhelmingly hostile towards you.

Hezbollah, having won the 2006 war against Israel, understands that better than anybody. Sure, they could probably wipe out every other militia in Lebanon, but then they'd have to occupy the territory to make it worthwhile. Bit hard to do if the Christians and Druze despise you and unite to throw you out (which they show every promise of doing).

HA did try and take the Chouf mountains in the latter stages of skirmishes last week, but gave up after the Druze offered stiff resistance. The only benefit that HA reaped from that battle was that the PSP agreed to give up their artillery (most of which is clapped out World War 2 stuff anyway).

I also very much doubt that HA could achieve anything like what the Alawites achieved in Syria by establishing hegemony above all the other competing sects. It requires a subservient streak that the Lebanese people simply dont have.

---

The resignation of pro-Hizballah ministers in December 2006 stemmed from their indignation at the decision of Siniora and his March 14 cohort to overrule their dissent in enacting certain legislation. To do so ignored Lebanon’s tradition of cabinet consensus, which demands that major acts of legislation be tabled if a sizable number of ministers object. This cumbersome convention -- often blamed for endless delays in the process of government -- was deemed necessary to secure nationwide representation in the sectarian mechanisms of the state after the 1975-1990 civil war. The Siniora government is dishonest when it terms the opposition’s demand for more equitable representation “a cabinet veto,” because, excepting the odd “technocratic” cabinet, all post-civil war cabinets have been assembled, and acted, on this consensus basis. One of the many ironies of the present crisis is that -- though it is consistently represented as a force dedicated to overthrowing the state -- Hizballah’s argument since December 2006 has been that the government play by the rules.

If the Siniora rump cabinet has somehow forgotten the customs of local governance, the Hizballah-led action in West Beirut does not fit the strictest definition of the term “coup” -- as government and Western media representations would have it. Terrifying as early May was for those citizens caught in the crossfire, militants neither tried to change the government by force of arms nor to occupy government or state offices. Rather, they demanded that Siniora’s rump cabinet withdraw a controversial decision. The cabinet did this late on May 13 and the opposition welcomed the move with rounds of ecstatic automatic weapons fire (after which the death toll from the conflict remained steady at 65, though the number of dead in ‘Alay has yet to be properly confirmed). An Arab League delegation arrived in Beirut on May 14 and proposed that the rivals meet to renew dialogue in Doha, capital of Qatar. The government agreed and Beirut’s airport road opened immediately. Lebanon’s politicians have flown to Doha, purportedly seeking a solution to the stalemate that dates from December 2006. One of the first substantive issues they took up was the election law for the next round of parliamentary polls.

Whither the Peacekeepers?

During his first televised appearance of the crisis, Siniora called on the army to restore law and order, “to live up to its national responsibilities without hesitation or delay. This has not happened up to now.” His call echoed the feelings of amateur Lebanon watchers and government loyalists, who were perturbed by the way Lebanon’s security services responded to the opposition “coup.” To this point, the army has been singled out for opprobrium, though the gendarmerie, or Internal Security Forces (ISF), also failed to behave in a manner that citizens of North American or Western European countries would expect. The reasons are sectarian and political.

ISF units practically disappeared from West Beirut streets on May 7, and residents of some West Beirut neighborhoods say they did not see another ISF patrol until May 14. Though the rank and file hails from most all of the 18 Lebanese confessions, the ISF is perceived to be a Sunni Muslim domain. A phenomenon of Lebanon’s post-1990 reconstruction regime, this “confessionalization” of the security apparatus began as a counterpoise to demographic changes in the army -- as did the practice of equipping it with army-style materiel. Confessionalization has been carried to an extreme under the Siniora government, which created a blue-uniformed section of the (usually gray-camouflaged) ISF, the Panthers, reported to be overwhelmingly Sunni. Amidst the sectarian tensions of the post-2006 war period, this confessional identification has had curious practical consequences. The southern precincts of downtown Beirut, where the opposition has squatted for 18 months, are guarded by the Lebanese army, which the opposition trusts. North of the government’s razor wire barricades, one is far more likely to see the uniforms of the ISF, which the opposition does not trust. Under these circumstances, it was deemed wise to remove the gendarmes from West Beirut streets when one might imagine residents most needed them.

http://www.merip.org/mero/mero052008.html

Rival Lebanese leaders reached a deal on Wednesday to end 18 months of political conflict that had pushed their country to the brink of a new civil war.

---

"The deal is done. The text has been written," an opposition delegate told Reuters. A ruling coalition delegate also confirmed the deal, which will meet the opposition's long-standing demand for veto power in cabinet.

---

A deal paves the way for parliament to elect army chief General Michel Suleiman as president, a post that has been vacant since November because of the political deadlock. The vote in parliament could take place as soon as Thursday, delegates said.

---

The deal will include a pledge by both sides not to use violence in political disputes, echoing a paragraph in the agreement that ended the fighting.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/985647.html

The Doha agreement states that:



Who wins now in Beirut politics? By virtue of avoiding another civil war, all sides win, topped with the Lebanese people. Certainly, Hezbollah came out victorious. So did the Syrians and Iran. The Syrians in particular seemed to be on cloud nine, since shortly after the agreement was announced in Doha another declaration came out, this time from Damascus, Tel Aviv and Ankara, saying that indirect talks had started between Syria and Israel, under auspices of the Turks.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JE23Ak03.html

Lebanon's ex-army chief, has been sworn in as the country's president in a step towards defusing an 18-month standoff between rival factions.

Michel Sleiman was elected on Sunday in a parliamentary session attended by foreign dignitaries including Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani, the emir of Qatar, who helped broker a deal to end the dispute.

"Let us unite ... and work towards a solid reconciliation," Sleiman said in his inaugural speech.

"I call upon all of you, politicians and citizens, to start a new phase called Lebanon and the Lebanese ... in order to achieve the interests of the nation."

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/2C5AA975-2148-4A72-84B6-9657143CE073.htm