 |
Al-Ahram Weekly On-line 23 - 29 November 2000 Issue No.509 
| ||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly On-line 23 - 29 November 2000 Issue No.509
| ||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Focus Travel Living Sports Profile People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Upping the ante
By Dalal SaoudWhile bloody confrontations continue unabated in the occupied Palestinian territories, Lebanon's militant Islamic resistance movement Hizbullah has again put tough words into deeds. Last week, a squad of guerrillas attacked Israeli soldiers at Shabaa Farms, the Lebanese border village still occupied by Israel, rattling the nerves of United Nations officials still bearing the weight of the area's controversial status. It was the first such military attack by Hizbullah since humbled Israeli forces pulled out of south Lebanon in May, ending 22 years of occupation.
But Shabaa Farms was left behind by the liberation as a sticking point for international arbiters. From the first days of the Israeli withdrawal, Hizbullah has made it clear that it will continue fighting until Israel relinquishes Shabaa Farms and releases Lebanese prisoners being held in Israeli jails. But the attack last Thursday has resurrected the Shabaa Farms question and raised speculation over how Israel will react to this kind of development on its border.
Since Hizbullah captured three Israeli soldiers last month in a well-executed operation, Israeli officials have been threatening harsh retaliation, not only against Lebanon, but Syria as well. Various scenarios have been leaked, ranging from swift and intensive air bombardment of electricity installations and other vital sites in both Arab countries, to a new land invasion of south Lebanon. But so far, Israel has refrained from making any move -- probably because it has been dealing with a far more urgent issue: fiercely quelling the new Intifada raging in Palestinian territories.
While many analysts believe that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak would be reluctant to reopen the south Lebanon front at a time when he is trying to force the Palestinians into submission, others have suggested that it would be hard for the Israeli leader to absorb Hizbullah's repeated defiance without a response.
"I don't think that Israel is planning a military operation (against Lebanon) -- unless Hizbullah continues its attacks, or carries out a particularly devastating one," suggested a political analyst in Beirut. "Then, Barak would inevitably be under pressure from his military commanders to implement already prepared scenarios, and this time it would be a big operation."
But unlike the days before the Israeli pullout, when it was carrying out operations in south Lebanon almost daily, Hizbullah has only been launching sporadic attacks against Israeli forces -- as if to prove that it is still there, and that its demands should not be ignored. So it is unlikely that Hizbullah will proceed with continued attacks on the border, or stage a big operation, which would in all likelihood torpedo a possible prisoner swap with Israel. The group has proposed exchanging the four recently-captured Israelis for 19 Lebanese detainees and a number of Palestinian and other Arab prisoners who remain in Israeli jails.
On the other hand, there is little to stop Israel from staging air attacks against Lebanese, or even Syrian targets. When Barak decided to pull Israeli forces out of south Lebanon, he wanted to avoid such costly face-to-face confrontations with Hizbullah. "He had in mind a US army-style bombardment, like in Iraq and Kosovo," remarked a military analyst. "He can do the same in Lebanon by only using his warplanes."
Hizbullah supporters pelting Israeli soldiers with stones at the border crossing-point of Fatima's Gate during a demonstration earlier this week. Protests along the border by Lebanese and Palestinians have been taking place regularly in support of the Al-Aqsa Intifada
(photo: AFP)
The Lebanese government was quick to back Hizbullah in the Shabaa Farms incident, saying the attack was justified, as it occurred on occupied Lebanese land. But the United Nations doesn't agree, claiming that the attack was a "serious violation" of the so-called Blue Line -- the line drawn by the international organisation to "confirm" the Israeli withdrawal -- and warned that the confrontation will renew violence in the region.
Rolf Knutsson, personal representative of the United Nations secretary-general for southern Lebanon, said he was "very much concerned" about the Shabaa Farms incident, as it "constitutes a serious violation of the withdrawal line identified by the United Nations, which both parties have undertaken to respect." Knutsson gave an ominous assessment, saying in a statement released in Beirut: "Such breaches of international peace and security in the south threaten to ignite a new spiral of violence with tragic consequences for the civilian population still trying to rebuild their lives after many years of occupation."
Knutsson's condemnation was echoed by US Ambassador to Lebanon David Satterfield, who warned of a new military escalation that Lebanon and other parties "will pay the price for." Satterfield was widely criticised by Hizbullah and government officials, who reiterated that Israel's withdrawal from south Lebanon was incomplete and any action to recover Shabaa Farms and Lebanese detainees was legitimate.
The ambiguity over Shabaa Farms started with Israel's hurried pullout, which left the UN with the hard mission of confirming its withdrawal, in line with UN Security Council Resolution 425. The resolution called on Israel to immediately pull out from the Lebanese territory it occupied in 1982. After long negotiations and discussions, the UN adopted the Blue Line, for the "practical purpose of confirming the Israeli withdrawal." But Shabaa Farms was not included, as it was an area occupied since 1967, when Israel defeated Arab armies and occupied Syria's Golan Heights. The UN reasoned that, for this reason, Shabaa Farms fell under Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, issued in 1967, and not Resolution 425.
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has explained that the Blue Line is without prejudice to any internationally-recognised border agreement that Lebanon and Syria may wish to conclude in the future. This week, Syria presented a document to the UN effectively stating that Shabaa Farms was Lebanese territory. Were such a claim to be confirmed, Israel would be left with no excuse to maintain its presence there and a possible return to violence would be avoided. But Israel, it seems, has never felt that it needed an excuse to remain in occupied territory or to embark on a new military adventure.
Related stories:
Bad timing for taboo battering? 9 -15 November 2000
Destination Palestine 2 - 8 November 2000
Back in business 2 - 8 November 2000
Stirring sectarian sensitivities 28 Sep. - 4 Oct. 2000
Handling the Lebanese file 15 - 21 June 2000
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
