Hezbollah-Israel Collusion: The Big Lie of the "Liberation" of South Lebanon

Perfidious Israel Gave South Lebanon to Hezbollah 

Contrary to Iranian and Syrian propaganda, Hezbollah did not liberate South Lebanon from the Israeli occupation in 2000. As it did in 1985 while evacuating the Shouf Mountains, Israel in 2000 betrayed its allies of the South Lebanon Army (SLA), withdrew without coordinating with them, and made a deal with Hezbollah behind the back of its allies. The deal consisted of the terror organization Hezbollah - not the legitimate Lebanese Army - protecting the Israeli border in exchange for Israel's withdrawal. All the bragging by Hezbollah about having "liberated" the south is one big lie that Lebanese imbeciles, mostly the Lebanese Shiite herd and the FPM fascists of Bassil and Aoun, have believed stock-and-barrel. Hezbollah and Israel - avowedly enemies - seemed to agree then, as they still do today, on keeping the Lebanese Army and State out of the southern border. The Lebanese government has been denied, with the "charitable" assistance of the US and the UN, any role in recovering sovereign territory lost since the 1969 Cairo Accord when the Arabs and then-US National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger forced Lebanon to grant free movement and action to Yasser Arafat's thugs in the south of Lebanon along the border with Israel. The torment of the country has not ceased since.

In the piece below, Colonel Charbel Barakat, a former Lebanese Army officer who became a SLA leader, details the events behind the perfidious alliance between Israel and Hezbollah with the blessing of the US, and the resulting backstabbing of the Lebanese government. No one, especially the Christians of Lebanon, should trust the US: It has been undermining the stability of Lebanon ever since 1969 when Henry Kissinger thought he could give the Palestinian refugees a substitute homeland in Lebanon at the expense of the country's Christians, thus freeing the "conscience" of Israel of the guilt and of the burdensome Right of Return.

To read the original Arabic, please go to:

https://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/108382/باللغتين-العربية-والإنكليزية-دراسة-ت/

______________________________________________________________

Hezbollah and the Liberation of South Lebanon 

Colonel Charbel Barakat – April 30, 2022 

 

It has been 22 years since the withdrawal of Israel from the border region. Then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak, a proponent of the view of leaving Lebanon and its problems in 1982, took the decision of a quick withdrawal. This idea was proposed at the time by senior Israeli officers to their command after the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) successfully fulfilled their mission in “Operation Peace in Galilee” in which they uprooted Yasser Arafat and his organization from Lebanon and sent them off first to Yemen, then to Tunisia. Since that time, General Barak has held on to his view of Israel withdrawing from what he called the “Lebanese swamp” and leaving Lebanon to flounder in its own problems. 

 

In 1999, Barak decided to run for the Knesset as a candidate of the Labor Party, which he headed, on the basis of a program that boiled down to withdrawing from Lebanon before June 2000, should he succeed in the elections. His victory in those elections triggered a countdown for the Israeli Army withdrawal, in a fulfillment of the promise made by now Prime Minister-elect Barak. Thus, an agreement was reached, with the blessing of the Americans, to ensure a smooth withdrawal of the IDF from Lebanon without major incidents. Meanwhile, the Syrian occupation army wanted the Israelis to remain in Lebanon in order to ward off any demands by the Lebanese for a similar Syrian army withdrawal, and so Damascus was maneuvering to convince everyone that Israel will not withdraw, and that Barak was merely sloganeering in an election campaign. 

 

In practice, the Israelis were seeking an agreement with the Iranians in which South Lebanon would be handed over to the pro-Iranian Hezbollah group on condition that the latter would control the border and interdict any military operations across that border. Several contacts and meetings were held through Swedish and German emissaries, a démarche that was amply covered by international news outlets, and Der Spiegel was not the only one to do so. The Americans, as far as is known, were aware of all the details of these negotiations, and of course the Syrians as well. Yet, the Lebanese government was not allowed to participate in any of these negotiations or to even express an opinion on what was going on, just as was the case when the “April Understanding” was reached in the aftermath of the 1996 “Operation Grapes of Wrath”, even though the matter concerned Lebanese territories and the fate of Lebanese citizens. As a result, the Lebanese State and its institutions, including the Army, were excluded from any effective participation in the matter, as if the operation was to be carried out in some remote place in the middle of nowhere. 

 

In the border zone, several intelligence operations were conducted with the objective of striking the infrastructure of the South Lebanon Army (SLA), in an attempt to present it as weak before Israeli and international public opinions. The movement led by Riyad Abdallah, an Amal Movement operative from Khiam village, might have taken the form of a coup, though it was not supported by SLA troops or the ordinary citizens of the border strip. This prompted the Israeli Director of the Lebanon Bureau, Uri Lubrani, and the Deputy Defense Minister, General Sneh, to pay a visit to Major General Lahad, and together contain this rebellion. At the same time, however, assassination attempts were initiated against security officials operating in the area, which climaxed in the killing of the Western District Commander, Colonel Akel Hashem, who also headed the Intelligence Service. The objective was to weaken the morale of the people of the area, and perhaps also to silence those who may disclose the names of people meeting with the Israelis. Some of the targeted individuals were slated to take up important posts in the armed organization at a later time. This was followed by an increased recruitment of informers working for Hezbollah and the Lebanese Army, some of whom had previously worked for the Israelis, in order to protect them and improve their image. The Lebanese Army at the time pretended to be blind to the unfolding events, ever since the Lebanese South was handed over to Hezbollah which would be the sole exclusive “Resistance”. 

 

The Lebanese citizens of the border strip and members of the SLA were aware of what was being prepared, and everyone knew of the Israeli government’s intention to withdraw. However, the discussions were about an agreement in which the United Nations forces would assume responsibility for security in the area, and SLA members would be incorporated into the Lebanese government troops who be entering the area under UN command. That agreement also stipulated the resolution of all pending issues, including a clean slate to erase the residues of the conflict between Hezbollah and the SLA and reconcile the Lebanese residents separated by the conflict, leading to stability under the umbrella of the UN and the Lebanese State. All of this was included in a memorandum drafted by representatives of the civilian committees of the border strip and submitted to the French and British ambassadors and to an attaché at the US Embassy in Tel Aviv. The UN representative, Mr. Larsen, lacked even the courage to receive a copy of the memorandum when he visited the area, although a copy was delivered to the UN Command in Naqoura, while a second copy was directly forwarded to the relevant UN authorities in New York. 

 

But the Iranians were not interested in such a solution because it would deprive them of control on the ground and of their claims of victory. The Iranians pledged to the Israelis that not a single shot would be fired across the border if Hezbollah were to control security in the area. But if the Lebanese Army were to enter the area, followed by the Lebanese State’s official institutions, the Iranians would not bear any responsibility for transgressions that might ensue. The US ambassador to Lebanon, David Satterfield, agreed to the plan as it offered the fastest solution to reducing tensions and stop the attacks. 

 

As for the Lebanese side, the Taef Agreement had granted Syria complete control on the ground. President Assad had secured his grip on security in Lebanon, and therefore on the Lebanese government as well. He believed that keeping Hezbollah in south Lebanon served his interests, because Hezbollah was an integral part of his Iranian ally’s forces and gave Iran space to persevere despite its defeat in its war with Iraq. Iraq’s victory gave President Saddam Hussein a surplus of force that drove him to invade Kuwait and face an international coalition to liberate it, a coalition that included Syria. 

 

Details were being worked out on an agreement over border issues between Israel and Lebanon, using the officially recognized Lebanese and Israeli maps of the 1948 Truce Agreement to delineate the Blue Line under the auspices of the UN forces. The Lebanese State consented to the full implementation of UNSCR 425 as soon as Israel withdraws from Lebanese territory, on the basis of the Blue Line as the border between the two countries. 

 

In the Border Strip, Major General Lahad had instructed his staff that the agreement included ceasing hostilities, coordinating the entry of the UN forces following the Israeli withdrawal, oversight of heavy weapons, and the integration of SLA members wishing to continue to serve into State security institutions.  In exchange, Hezbollah was to surrender its weapons to the Lebanese government, as had previously happened with the other militias after the Taef Agreement. 

 

But the Iranian expansionist plan for the Middle East was still in its early phases, especially after the downsizing of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. As a result, these Iranian plans increasingly relied on creating local armed Shiite organizations that were brainwashed to blindly follow the directives of the Iranian theocracy and implement its expansionist projects. To appear as a victor that vanquished Israel was a very critical narrative in Iran’s future outlook for the region, something that Ehud Barak did not understand. He committed himself to a specific timetable for withdrawing from South Lebanon, which made him lose the prime ministership less than a year later and ushered Israel into many years of a cycle of violence inspired by the "success" of the radical "terrorist" movement in Lebanon, and sounded the death knell of all understandings to bring stability. 

 

Hence the Iranian attempts to score mediatic victories on the ground, with Hassan Nasrallah volunteering to issue brazen and depraved threats to enter into the bedrooms of the southern Lebanese residents and kill them in their sleep. Afterwards, no sooner had the Israelis withdrawn from the Bayyada site overlooking the sea that Hezbollah tried to seize the SLA position at Hamra Bridge, but it was ambushed by the SLA and lost more than 15 of its members whose bodies were left by the roadside near the Hamra crossing until the full Israeli withdrawal, not to mention the wounded, and despite the participation of the Lebanese Army artillery in the attack. Following that debacle, Hezbollah did not dare to use its own forces, and instead pushed waves of civilians into entering the area through the Shoumariyeh – Deir Seryan crossing point. 

 

Meanwhile, the Israelis had convinced Major General Lahad to visit his family in France before the scheduled withdrawal, so that he could be present and supervise the implementation of the agreed-upon provisions pertaining to the SLA on his return. But Ehud Barak, seemingly fearing an unraveling of the agreement with the Iranians, took the decision to withdraw precipitously one month before schedule, in the absence of the SLA Commander, and without a clear plan or instructions for the rank and file. The people of the southern border strip were left confounded, with no orders to fight or coordinate the withdrawal. In the absence of the Israelis and General Lahad, it appeared certain that there was an agreement to hand over the area to Hezbollah. Having no interest in fighting the Lebanese State or the UN, some of them preferred to enter Israel to avoid a gratuitous bloodshed, now that the Israeli “ally” had left and the Lebanese government and/or the UN forces were not allowed to negotiate with the Israelis. There seemed to be a will to transform the war in the south into a war between the Lebanese owners of the land on one hand, and the Iranian Hezbollah on the other, under the watch of the Lebanese government and the UN. The people of the south could not comprehend these events, for they had defended their homes and coordinated this defense with the Israelis, pending a return of the Lebanese government to assume its responsibilities. Their objective was to prevent a cross-border war and not engage in a war against their own people, even though their Lebanese opponents were under orders of a foreign country.   

 

The SLA was capable of resisting and controlling the area, and of compelling others to coordinate and negotiate with it over future arrangements. But the absence of General Lahad – some say he was sent away or excluded himself on purpose in order to implement the agreement signed in Sweden between the Iranians and the Israelis, which stipulated that Hezbollah will supplant the SLA in protecting the border and preventing any attacks across it – and Barak’s hurried withdrawal, with the blessing of Satterfield, had undermined any attempt at a successful normal process that would have rehabilitated the Truce Accords, the deployment of the Lebanese Army with the assistance of the SLA and the UN along the entire border, the surrender by Hezbollah of its weapons to the government, and the integration of willing Hezbollah and SLA fighters into the Lebanese Army.  

 

But the insistence on such a hasty withdrawal will remain a shameful scar on Barak’s character and career inside Israel. Many believe that his political leadership had betrayed the people of the border strip and walked away from the sacrifices made for the sake of peace across the border. As a result, the treasonous Israeli withdrawal was the principal driver for all subsequent terrorist attacks inside Israel, which were directly encouraged by the apparent victory of Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.  

 

Today, 22 years after the Israeli withdrawal, we can understand that Barak’s haste in making the decision, his disrespect and lack of protection of his southern ally, and the elimination of the SLA’s role as an element of balance in the Lebanese equation, constituted a grave “misstep” that contributed greatly to boost Hezbollah and assist the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in presenting themselves as victorious. It also led to the 2006 War that cost both Lebanon and Israel much pain. Thus, and even if it sowed the seeds for dismantling the Lebanese State (Israel’s enemies actually say that dismantling the Lebanese entity was one of Israel’s undeclared goals), the withdrawal lessened Israel's halo while leading without war to undermining the organized armies of neighboring Arab countries that have no peace treaty with Israel. Indeed, it favored the ongoing rapprochement between Israel and the Gulf Arabs who fear Iranian domination, and whose mixed sectarian demographics were exploited by the Iranians to sow terror in their prosperous societies and jeopardize their stability as a prelude to controlling their resources and capabilities, using organizations like Hezbollah to carry out their dirty deeds. 

 

As for the internal Lebanese situation, the Syrian occupation had tamed the forces opposed to it after the defeat of General Aoun and the entry of the Syrians into the Defense Ministry and the Presidential Palace in Baabda. The Syrian regime had imposed the Taef Agreement that legitimized its occupation of the entire country, followed by the defeat of the Lebanese Forces, their dissolution and the imprisonment of their leader Samir Geagea, the takeover of the Kataeb Party and the exclusion of President Gemayel from the political scene, the killing of Danny Chamoun and his family in a murder operation reminiscent of the assassination of Tony Frangiyeh and his family, leaving Syria's fingerprints over all of this, even in the assassination of Prime Minister Rachid Karameh. The Syrians now controlled the “pacified” country, with their tight grip on both its political and economic life. 

 

Everyone was led to concede that Hezbollah, backed by Syria and its Iranian ally, had "liberated" the Lebanese south and saved Lebanon from the Israeli “enemy”. None of the active political actors at the time realized that inflating the role of Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards will eventually turn against Lebanon and prevent it from recovering its sovereignty, and will wipe out the hopes of the Lebanese for an end to wars and for a closure of the open wound in the South that had brought much destruction to them and their children. 

 

Everyone applauded the withdrawal of the Israelis from all Lebanese territory, but no one inquired about those brave SLA soldiers who had protected the South with their bodies and prevented the establishment of Israeli colonies in it, as had happened in the Golan, the Sinai, the West Bank and Gaza. It was them who protected people’s rights and properties, as well as the diversity of their communities, and even their political affiliations. The Druze citizen of Hasbaya, even as a member of the Socialist Party, was proud of his friendship with the Head of the Civilian Administration and may have had a child of his serving as a soldier or officer in the SLA. Similarly, the Shiite citizen who was affiliated with the Amal Movement, the Sunni Bedouin in the West or hailing from the Arqoub region, were also proud of their good relations with the SLA and even with the Israeli officers. The Christians were no different, they who defended the region since the occupation by the Palestinian Fatah and others, and who later prevented the Jezzine residents from being forcibly evicted and displaced like the fate suffered by the people of East Sidon and the Iqleem. They improved relations with the Mount-Lebanon Druze, allowing movement between Hasbaya and the Shouf, Bint Jbayl and Tibneen, Marjeyoun and Nabatiyeh. They had linked their region by sea with East Beirut before it fell to the Syrians, cooperating with the Lebanese Forces militia in its defense. However, after the fall of East Beirut to the Syrians as a result of the fratricidal war between its leaders, one of whom was exiled and the other jailed, all hope for salvation had evaporated, and there was no reason to connect with a Lebanon under the Syrian yoke. When Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak decided to withdraw unilaterally, there was no one in Lebanon who cared for the citizens of the South who had kept the Lebanese flag flying high until the Israeli withdrawal, only to be replaced by the Iranian flag and the yellow flag that have nothing to do with Lebanon and are rather symbols of Iran’s domination over Lebanon. 

 

These days, we hear some politicians proclaiming their conviction that Hezbollah had liberated the South, while they're fully aware that Hezbollah did nothing but prevent the withdrawal of Israel for 15 years in order to complete its takeover of the Shiite community and isolate it into backwardness and the fear of cooperating with others. It then proceeded to complete its effective takeover of the country with its Syrian and Iranian masters’ help, and transform it into a failed state whose population can be easily forced into migration, as it did in Syria; it impoverished the country and destroyed the State institutions, beginning with the electricity sector; it forbade its followers from paying their bills to the ministries since 1982, and has filled the country's administrations with its own men who do not even go to work; it tainted the value of the country's universities, its banks whose trust and confidence it undermined, and even its social and medical security network and other institutions that managed people’s lives and contributed to the advancement of the country. They then attacked all the friends of the country and sowed division and conflict with them, they empowered the corrupt, the drug smugglers, and the theft gangs to erode all that the State’s infrastructure and projects, thus shattering the hopes of the Lebanese people of keeping up with the world. 

 

Those politicians who say that Hezbollah liberated the south from the Israelis are fooling either the Lebanese or themselves, in order to adapt and be part of this new system of subordination to the Persian theocracy that can only drag the country into backwardness, oppression, and isolation. By instilling fear between the various constituents of the nation, it makes them cease cooperating with each other, which puts Hezbollah as the arbiter of potential conflicts. These same politicians will marvel after the elections that they imposed a “defense strategy” in which Hezbollah, rather that dissolving itself and surrendering its weapons to the government, will control the Lebanese Army and the legitimate security forces. Lebanon will suffer the same fate as Iraq which is controlled by the Popular Mobilization Movement (Al-Hashd Al-Shaabi) and is preventing the rise of the Iraqi State. 

 

This domination by Hezbollah was made possible by the Israeli handover of the Lebanese South to it, which allowed the Iranian proxy to enter the political arena by means of the quadripartite alliance and later by its invention of the nonsensical “Blocking Third”.  The latter gimmick was used ad libitum to undermine the government until the pro-Iranian militia was able to impose a new electoral law by which it managed to take control of Parliament and subdue all three top offices in the land. Here is Hezbollah today having decided to run for parliamentary elections expected to increase the number of MPs under Hezbollah’s control to over 70, a number that Qassem Sulaymani, the assassinated Iranian leader of Al-Quds Force, bragged about reaching the previous time. 

 

Was it in Ehud Barak’s design to crush the surrounding Arab countries, including Lebanon, by means of Hezbollah's weapons and hostile ideology, under the control of the descendants of Qurush and Khosrow Anushirvan? Or is it pragmatism used by military people who cannot see beyond the immediate operation assigned to them in their mission, even if this were at the cost of other losses whose legacies could be much graver.  

 

The project of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards entails the destruction of all that surrounds it in order to build its new empire governed by the Jurisprudent Ruler. Iran has so far destroyed Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, after failing to destroy Bahrain. It is directly attacking Saudi Arabia and the Emirates, and prodding Palestinian extremism on a daily basis to undermine Israeli production centers with the objective of destroying them, as it did in Lebanon and elsewhere in the region. Will the Abraham Accords between Arabs and Israel prevent the metastasis of this cancer and put an end to it? Or will these accords be more successful than those accords stained with the blood of the southern Lebanese and the Israelis, and lead to a new era of peaceful relations between the two countries? Those relations were ended by the conduct of a “pragmatic” short-sighted Prime Minister General Barak, much as the conduct of an “indecisive” President Amin Gemayel who obliterated all hope in the aftermath of Israel’s entry into Lebanon in 1982 that put an end to the legend of Arafat and his organization and to all of Syria’s military capabilities in Lebanon.

 

In conclusion, and 22 years after the Israeli withdrawal from south Lebanon, we ask: Isn’t it time to remove the “liberator” label off Hezbollah and show its true nature as the “occupier” on behalf of its Iranian masters? Or is hatred still controlling the Lebanese to the point where they've become blind to the hurtful truth and no longer know where their interests lie?

 

Translated from Arabic by Joseph Hitti.