Flying to Lebanon has always been an exciting experience, whether it is due to the people I meet along the way, or the feeling I get when I approach the beautiful landscape. However, this time, I had to be sure to remember what Lebanon I had left. To not get caught up in the romantic version that has become imprinted in my mind from my last two years. I had to approach it in a more realistic manner; it had just suffered from a horrific and destructive war.
To begin however, this time was nothing less than eventful, as I feel it was the most horrific time to fly in the US. As I was leaving, I was reading about aircrafts that were grounded because of threats, one that actually had a stick of dynamite onboard, and going through the toughest restrictions we have seen. The prohibiting of all liquids might even have helped soft drink companies as I was forced to buy more drinks than I ever have and throw them out because I had to board the next leg. JFK and I seem to have a relationship of tragedy, as I arrived to find out that the amount of carry-ons allowed was changed and I had over-packed. As a word of advice to anyone planning on traveling, check the latest rules and guidelines from the airlines because they don't have a shread of sympathy when you show up unprepared.
Moving on to the actual flight, I took Virgin Atlantic to London (another security chaos zone) to jump on a Middle East Airlines flight that was restricted from landing in its own country. (MEA is the national carrier of Lebanon). The flight was forced to land in Amman, Jordan as it is the only established route. This means every flight with Beirut as the destination, must land and refuel (while unknown individuals in Peugots drive up to the plane and conduct some sort of security procedure). Rumor has it that they acquire the roster of passengers and can pull anyone off of their choosing. I'm not one for rumors but I did land this bit of information from an inside source. After leaving Amman, we were forced to go around Lebanon, steering clear of the Israeli airspace (for the better!) by going over Syria and back North of Lebanon to approach the airport from the Mediterranean Sea. Going directly to Beirut from Amman would only take 20 minutes, however, our flight took 45 minutes. Sounds petty, but it's the principle.
After getting settled in, I found the city of Beirut exactly as I had left it, the areas of which I frequented often were intact and back to the normal feel (minus the enormous number of tourists seen during this part of the season). I have to keep reminding myself that there has been such horrible atrocities and that I must be aware of anyone who may want to show me what they think about America, afterall I am a walking advertisement. As much as I would like to believe I fit in, I feel that there are too many awkward mannerisms inscribed in me that makes this obvious. However, the only encounters I have had to this point have been extremely pleasant and positive. I was walking back to my apartment when I passed a man whom I greeted normally on my way to work every day for the past year. He stopped me with a shocking look on his face, and spoke in broken English asking me where I have been for the last month. He expressed that he was happy I had returned and that he was wondering where I had went. My neighborhood afterall has observed me for a long time. It is part of the culture, they are aware of who is around, who fits, who doesn't, so at some points they look at some of my friends who visit me, and may be thinking "who's that foreigner?" and not referring to me :)
Returning to work was almost like a class reunion, while many of my co-workers have not returned; the others who had, wanted to exchange stories of tragedy and their efforts to take in the refugees. One co-worker was extremely active as she spent most of her time in the South trying to find places for the fleeing families. I told her that I was proud of what she had did, and it was nice to know that such caring people do exist in this world. I tried on my own to be "the hero" as someone once put it, but failed miserably because of my skin and mannerism, no one wanted to be associated with an American, or at least not in the time of war. It is understandable, however, it does sting you when you have good intentions. Especially when you are trying to save lives and help people located shelters in such a time of chaos and destruction.
There are moments that I walk to my apartment and expect to hear loud blasts coming from the direction of Dahiya, but they never come.. It's a silence that I am thankful for, but it feels as if it is only temporary. I say this, not because I feel that future conflict is inevitable, rather it is the result of the eerie nature of war, and the effects it has on someone, traumatizing all of the people stuck within its wrath.
While there is much joy in my return, I face the sadness and the reality of which Lebanon has been left.
8/29/2006
8/25/2006
Inquiry Opened Into Israeli Use of U.S. Bombs
August 25, 2006
By DAVID S. CLOUD
WASHINGTON, Aug. 24 — The State Department is investigating whether Israel’s use of American-made cluster bombs in southern Lebanon violated secret agreements with the United States that restrict when it can employ such weapons, two officials said.
The investigation by the department’s Office of Defense Trade Controls began this week, after reports that three types of American cluster munitions, anti-personnel weapons that spray bomblets over a wide area, have been found in many areas of southern Lebanon and were responsible for civilian casualties.
Gonzalo Gallegos, a State Department spokesman, said, “We have heard the allegations that these munitions were used, and we are seeking more information.” He declined to comment further.
Several current and former officials said that they doubted the investigation would lead to sanctions against Israel but that the decision to proceed with it might be intended to help the Bush administration ease criticism from Arab governments and commentators over its support of Israel’s military operations. The investigation has not been publicly announced; the State Department confirmed it in response to questions.
In addition to investigating use of the weapons in southern Lebanon, the State Department has held up a shipment of M-26 artillery rockets, a cluster weapon, that Israel sought during the conflict, the officials said.
The inquiry is likely to focus on whether Israel properly informed the United States about its use of the weapons and whether targets were strictly military. So far, the State Department is relying on reports from United Nations personnel and nongovernmental organizations in southern Lebanon, the officials said.
David Siegel, a spokesman for the Israeli Embassy, said, “We have not been informed about any such inquiry, and when we are we would be happy to respond.”
Officials were granted anonymity to discuss the investigation because it involves sensitive diplomatic issues and agreements that have been kept secret for years.
The agreements that govern Israel’s use of American cluster munitions go back to the 1970’s, when the first sales of the weapons occurred, but the details of them have never been publicly confirmed. The first one was signed in 1976 and later reaffirmed in 1978 after an Israeli incursion into Lebanon. News accounts over the years have said that they require that the munitions be used only against organized Arab armies and clearly defined military targets under conditions similar to the Arab-Israeli wars of 1967 and 1973.
A Congressional investigation after Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon found that Israel had used the weapons against civilian areas in violation of the agreements. In response, the Reagan administration imposed a six-year ban on further sales of cluster weapons to Israel.
Israeli officials acknowledged soon after their offensive began last month that they were using cluster munitions against rocket sites and other military targets. While Hezbollah positions were frequently hidden in civilian areas, Israeli officials said their intention was to use cluster bombs in open terrain.
Bush administration officials warned Israel to avoid civilian casualties, but they have lodged no public protests against its use of cluster weapons. American officials say it has not been not clear whether the weapons, which are also employed by the United States military, were being used against civilian areas and had been supplied by the United States. Israel also makes its own types of cluster weapons.
But a report released Wednesday by the United Nations Mine Action Coordination Center, which has personnel in Lebanon searching for unexploded ordnance, said it had found unexploded bomblets, including hundreds of American types, in 249 locations south of the Litani River.
The report said American munitions found included 559 M-42’s, an anti-personnel bomblet used in 105-millimeter artillery shells; 663 M-77’s, a submunition found in M-26 rockets; and 5 BLU-63’s, a bomblet found in the CBU-26 cluster bomb. Also found were 608 M-85’s, an Israeli-made submunition.
The unexploded submunitions being found in Lebanon are probably only a fraction of the total number dropped. Cluster munitions can contain dozens or even hundreds of submunitions designed to explode as they scatter around a wide area. They are very effective against rocket-launcher units or ground troops.
The Lebanese government has reported that the conflict killed 1,183 people and wounded 4,054, most of them civilians. The United Nations reported this week that the number of civilian casualties in Lebanon from cluster munitions, land mines and unexploded bombs stood at 30 injured and eight killed.
Dozen of Israelis were killed and hundreds wounded in attacks by Hezbollah rockets, some of which were loaded with ball bearings to maximize their lethality.
Officials say it is unlikely that Israel will be found to have violated a separate agreement, the Arms Export Control Act, which requires foreign governments that receive American weapons to use them for legitimate self-defense. Proving that Israel’s campaign against Hezbollah did not constitute self-defense would be difficult, especially in view of President Bush’s publicly announced support for Israel’s action after Hezbollah fighters attacked across the border, the officials said.
Even if Israel is found to have violated the classified agreement covering cluster bombs, it is not clear what actions the United States might take.
In 1982, delivery of cluster-bomb shells to Israel was suspended a month after Israel invaded Lebanon after the Reagan administration determined that Israel “may” have used them against civilian areas.
But the decision to impose what amounted to a indefinite moratorium was made under pressure from Congress, which conducted a long investigation of the issue. Israel and the United States reaffirmed restrictions on the use of cluster munitions in 1988, and the Reagan administration lifted the moratorium.
The New York Times Company
By DAVID S. CLOUD
WASHINGTON, Aug. 24 — The State Department is investigating whether Israel’s use of American-made cluster bombs in southern Lebanon violated secret agreements with the United States that restrict when it can employ such weapons, two officials said.
The investigation by the department’s Office of Defense Trade Controls began this week, after reports that three types of American cluster munitions, anti-personnel weapons that spray bomblets over a wide area, have been found in many areas of southern Lebanon and were responsible for civilian casualties.
Gonzalo Gallegos, a State Department spokesman, said, “We have heard the allegations that these munitions were used, and we are seeking more information.” He declined to comment further.
Several current and former officials said that they doubted the investigation would lead to sanctions against Israel but that the decision to proceed with it might be intended to help the Bush administration ease criticism from Arab governments and commentators over its support of Israel’s military operations. The investigation has not been publicly announced; the State Department confirmed it in response to questions.
In addition to investigating use of the weapons in southern Lebanon, the State Department has held up a shipment of M-26 artillery rockets, a cluster weapon, that Israel sought during the conflict, the officials said.
The inquiry is likely to focus on whether Israel properly informed the United States about its use of the weapons and whether targets were strictly military. So far, the State Department is relying on reports from United Nations personnel and nongovernmental organizations in southern Lebanon, the officials said.
David Siegel, a spokesman for the Israeli Embassy, said, “We have not been informed about any such inquiry, and when we are we would be happy to respond.”
Officials were granted anonymity to discuss the investigation because it involves sensitive diplomatic issues and agreements that have been kept secret for years.
The agreements that govern Israel’s use of American cluster munitions go back to the 1970’s, when the first sales of the weapons occurred, but the details of them have never been publicly confirmed. The first one was signed in 1976 and later reaffirmed in 1978 after an Israeli incursion into Lebanon. News accounts over the years have said that they require that the munitions be used only against organized Arab armies and clearly defined military targets under conditions similar to the Arab-Israeli wars of 1967 and 1973.
A Congressional investigation after Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon found that Israel had used the weapons against civilian areas in violation of the agreements. In response, the Reagan administration imposed a six-year ban on further sales of cluster weapons to Israel.
Israeli officials acknowledged soon after their offensive began last month that they were using cluster munitions against rocket sites and other military targets. While Hezbollah positions were frequently hidden in civilian areas, Israeli officials said their intention was to use cluster bombs in open terrain.
Bush administration officials warned Israel to avoid civilian casualties, but they have lodged no public protests against its use of cluster weapons. American officials say it has not been not clear whether the weapons, which are also employed by the United States military, were being used against civilian areas and had been supplied by the United States. Israel also makes its own types of cluster weapons.
But a report released Wednesday by the United Nations Mine Action Coordination Center, which has personnel in Lebanon searching for unexploded ordnance, said it had found unexploded bomblets, including hundreds of American types, in 249 locations south of the Litani River.
The report said American munitions found included 559 M-42’s, an anti-personnel bomblet used in 105-millimeter artillery shells; 663 M-77’s, a submunition found in M-26 rockets; and 5 BLU-63’s, a bomblet found in the CBU-26 cluster bomb. Also found were 608 M-85’s, an Israeli-made submunition.
The unexploded submunitions being found in Lebanon are probably only a fraction of the total number dropped. Cluster munitions can contain dozens or even hundreds of submunitions designed to explode as they scatter around a wide area. They are very effective against rocket-launcher units or ground troops.
The Lebanese government has reported that the conflict killed 1,183 people and wounded 4,054, most of them civilians. The United Nations reported this week that the number of civilian casualties in Lebanon from cluster munitions, land mines and unexploded bombs stood at 30 injured and eight killed.
Dozen of Israelis were killed and hundreds wounded in attacks by Hezbollah rockets, some of which were loaded with ball bearings to maximize their lethality.
Officials say it is unlikely that Israel will be found to have violated a separate agreement, the Arms Export Control Act, which requires foreign governments that receive American weapons to use them for legitimate self-defense. Proving that Israel’s campaign against Hezbollah did not constitute self-defense would be difficult, especially in view of President Bush’s publicly announced support for Israel’s action after Hezbollah fighters attacked across the border, the officials said.
Even if Israel is found to have violated the classified agreement covering cluster bombs, it is not clear what actions the United States might take.
In 1982, delivery of cluster-bomb shells to Israel was suspended a month after Israel invaded Lebanon after the Reagan administration determined that Israel “may” have used them against civilian areas.
But the decision to impose what amounted to a indefinite moratorium was made under pressure from Congress, which conducted a long investigation of the issue. Israel and the United States reaffirmed restrictions on the use of cluster munitions in 1988, and the Reagan administration lifted the moratorium.
The New York Times Company
8/20/2006
Doing More Harm Than Good in Lebanon
Thursday, July 27, 2006; A24
I have lived in Lebanon for two years. I celebrated the withdrawal of the Syrian army and, before being evacuated recently with other Americans, I suffered the city's destruction by the Israeli army. I'm not interested in the politics of pro-Israeli policy, but I will say: To me and residents around me, it felt undeniably as though Israel was targeting civilian areas without heeding humanitarian guidelines.
This conflict will have lasting effects because, in the minds of the Lebanese, the United States' name is attached to all Israeli military action. Anti-American sentiment is rising in a country that has tended to be pro-American. People are convinced that the United States wants to see Lebanon destroyed, and they feel deceived by the empty pledges of support the United States has made in the past. We need American diplomatic intervention.
I spent more than a week bracing myself amid constant air raids, which have driven civilian casualty levels to 20 times those in Israel. Death and destruction will breed only more radicalism and hate, defeating the Israeli goal of disarming Hezbollah.
I can't help wondering: What makes the Israeli government so sure it will not create another dynamic, breeding more terrorism for years to come?
Winning over the hearts and minds of people is necessary to finding a sustainable solution to the conflicts in the Middle East. Military might cannot achieve this.
JOHN ORAK
Washington
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
Arab-Americans upset by U.S. handling of Lebanon evacuation
By Brian Knowlton International Herald Tribune
Published: July 31, 2006
WASHINGTON In a borrowed cubicle in the offices of the Arab American Institute, barely back from an exhausting 58-hour evacuation from Beirut, Radney Wood and a friend, John Orak, were working the phones and sending out e-mails to spread the word about the trials of Lebanon. Wood, a 26-year-old New Yorker of Lebanese descent, had been working for a United Nations development program when hostilities erupted. Orak, 25, a South Carolina native with Slovak roots, was teaching English in a State Department program for poor youth who Washington feared would otherwise embrace Hezbollah. Like many Lebanese-Americans and friends of Lebanon, they are deeply worried by the fighting, and fearful of a growing backlash among Arab-Americans and people in the region over the U.S. role there. They are also upset about the way the U.S. government handled the evacuation of Americans, viewed as slow and disorganized, and about the State Department's original intent to charge them for it. "I've never been so disappointed, never felt so abandoned by my government," Orak said. Among Lebanese-Americans and others there is a widespread sense that the U.S. government would have reacted differently if, say, there had been 25,000 Americans under attack in Israel instead of Lebanon. "Even if the government claims that they didn't deliberately evacuate American citizens at a slower rate," said Dawud Walid, executive director of the Michigan branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, "then the best construct that can be placed on it is that the process for evacuating Americans from a foreign land is a broken system." "Ridiculous" was how Samar Saad of Dearborn, Michigan, reacted to the government's original plan to charge people for their passage to Cyprus while other governments were bringing their nationals home without fees. "Our taxes are going to pay for bombs getting dropped on us," Saad said, "and now we have to pay for our own way out?" The U.S. government ultimately waived payment, but only after days of uncertainty. "A lot of people came back with the feeling the country doesn't care about them," Saad said. The State Department insists that it has done everything possible in harrowing circumstances - beefing up embassy staffing and sending in navy ships and marines. "Before the crisis," said Juliet Werr, an embassy spokeswoman, "we had two phone operators and an antiquated system." Once the crisis erupted, she said, "We were getting 500 calls an hour. We made everyone answer phones. We set up a call center staffed 24/7." Amid widespread outrage over the law requiring people to pay for evacuation, Representative John Dingell of Michigan introduced legislation to overturn it, but he said that congressional support for the bill had evaporated once the State Department waived repayment. And the State Department itself said it had no plan to push for change in a law, which, to the surprise of many Americans, has long required evacuation repayment. As far back as World War II, when 80,000 American civilians were evacuated from Europe in 1940, "individuals were responsible for paying the passenger rates for this transportation," said Vijay Padmanabhan, a State Department legal adviser. Legislation passed in 2002 at the Bush administration's request essentially codified that practice, requiring reimbursement by evacuees "to the maximum extent practicable." The requirement is rarely enforced. But asked whether the State Department would favor permanently ending reimbursements, a spokeswoman, Janelle Hironimus, said "No," and added that people who left Lebanon on their own would not be reimbursed for their travel expenses. Rita Stephan, a University of Texas doctoral student, who was in Beirut with two young children, does not know what else she could have done. "I thought, 'I'm sure the embassy knows what's going on and has a plan,'" she said, "but I kept calling and the phone seemed to be off the hook." E-mail messages from the embassy advised staying put, she said, but Israeli jets were "hitting targets we could hear." She said she told her children it was fireworks, then told them the truth. Stephan, who has dual citizenship and a Syrian passport as well as an American one, called the embassy again and again until, after midnight, a duty officer answered and said, "If you have another passport, just go to Syria." She and her children made it to Damascus on a road bombed two hours later. James Zogby said that his nephew managed to leave Lebanon on the third day of hostilities. But Lebanese-Americans, said Zogby, executive director of the Arab American Institute, are feeling that "because they are of Arab descent that they're kind of second-class citizens."
Published: July 31, 2006
WASHINGTON In a borrowed cubicle in the offices of the Arab American Institute, barely back from an exhausting 58-hour evacuation from Beirut, Radney Wood and a friend, John Orak, were working the phones and sending out e-mails to spread the word about the trials of Lebanon. Wood, a 26-year-old New Yorker of Lebanese descent, had been working for a United Nations development program when hostilities erupted. Orak, 25, a South Carolina native with Slovak roots, was teaching English in a State Department program for poor youth who Washington feared would otherwise embrace Hezbollah. Like many Lebanese-Americans and friends of Lebanon, they are deeply worried by the fighting, and fearful of a growing backlash among Arab-Americans and people in the region over the U.S. role there. They are also upset about the way the U.S. government handled the evacuation of Americans, viewed as slow and disorganized, and about the State Department's original intent to charge them for it. "I've never been so disappointed, never felt so abandoned by my government," Orak said. Among Lebanese-Americans and others there is a widespread sense that the U.S. government would have reacted differently if, say, there had been 25,000 Americans under attack in Israel instead of Lebanon. "Even if the government claims that they didn't deliberately evacuate American citizens at a slower rate," said Dawud Walid, executive director of the Michigan branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, "then the best construct that can be placed on it is that the process for evacuating Americans from a foreign land is a broken system." "Ridiculous" was how Samar Saad of Dearborn, Michigan, reacted to the government's original plan to charge people for their passage to Cyprus while other governments were bringing their nationals home without fees. "Our taxes are going to pay for bombs getting dropped on us," Saad said, "and now we have to pay for our own way out?" The U.S. government ultimately waived payment, but only after days of uncertainty. "A lot of people came back with the feeling the country doesn't care about them," Saad said. The State Department insists that it has done everything possible in harrowing circumstances - beefing up embassy staffing and sending in navy ships and marines. "Before the crisis," said Juliet Werr, an embassy spokeswoman, "we had two phone operators and an antiquated system." Once the crisis erupted, she said, "We were getting 500 calls an hour. We made everyone answer phones. We set up a call center staffed 24/7." Amid widespread outrage over the law requiring people to pay for evacuation, Representative John Dingell of Michigan introduced legislation to overturn it, but he said that congressional support for the bill had evaporated once the State Department waived repayment. And the State Department itself said it had no plan to push for change in a law, which, to the surprise of many Americans, has long required evacuation repayment. As far back as World War II, when 80,000 American civilians were evacuated from Europe in 1940, "individuals were responsible for paying the passenger rates for this transportation," said Vijay Padmanabhan, a State Department legal adviser. Legislation passed in 2002 at the Bush administration's request essentially codified that practice, requiring reimbursement by evacuees "to the maximum extent practicable." The requirement is rarely enforced. But asked whether the State Department would favor permanently ending reimbursements, a spokeswoman, Janelle Hironimus, said "No," and added that people who left Lebanon on their own would not be reimbursed for their travel expenses. Rita Stephan, a University of Texas doctoral student, who was in Beirut with two young children, does not know what else she could have done. "I thought, 'I'm sure the embassy knows what's going on and has a plan,'" she said, "but I kept calling and the phone seemed to be off the hook." E-mail messages from the embassy advised staying put, she said, but Israeli jets were "hitting targets we could hear." She said she told her children it was fireworks, then told them the truth. Stephan, who has dual citizenship and a Syrian passport as well as an American one, called the embassy again and again until, after midnight, a duty officer answered and said, "If you have another passport, just go to Syria." She and her children made it to Damascus on a road bombed two hours later. James Zogby said that his nephew managed to leave Lebanon on the third day of hostilities. But Lebanese-Americans, said Zogby, executive director of the Arab American Institute, are feeling that "because they are of Arab descent that they're kind of second-class citizens."
8/16/2006
8/01/2006
History Will Judge Us All On Our Actions
July 31, 2006
Michel Aoun- Wall Street Journal
RABIEH, Lebanon -- While aircraft, sea-craft, and artillery pound our beloved Lebanon, we Lebanese are left, as usual, to watch helplessly and pay a heavy price for a war foisted upon us due to circumstances beyond our control. Considering that this crisis could have been avoided, and considering that there is -- and has been -- a solution almost begging to be made, one cannot but conclude that all of this death, destruction and human agony will, in retrospect, be adjudged as having been in vain.No matter how much longer this fight goes on, the truth of the matter is that political negotiations will be the endgame. The solution that will present itself a week, a month or a year from now will be, in essence, the same solution as the one available today, and which, tragically, was available before a single shot was fired or a single child killed. Given this reality, a more concerted effort is required sooner rather than later to stop the death and destruction on both sides of the border.
From the outset, this dispute has been viewed through the differing prisms of differing worldviews. As one who led my people during a time when they defended themselves against aggression, I recognize, personally, that other countries have the right to defend themselves, just as Lebanon does; this is an inalienable right possessed by all countries and peoples.For some, analysis as to this conflict's sources and resolutions begins and ends with the right to self-defense; for others, Israel's claimed self-defensive actions are perceived as barbaric and offensive acts aimed at destroying a country and liquidating a people. Likewise, some view Hezbollah's capture of two Israeli soldiers as fair military game to pressure Israel to return Lebanese prisoners; yet others perceive it as a terrorist act aimed at undermining Israel's sovereignty and security.These divergences, and the world's failure to adopt different paradigms by which Middle East problems can be fairly analyzed and solved, have produced, and will continue to produce, a vicious cycle of continuing conflict. If the approach remains the same in the current conflict, I anticipate that the result will be the same. This, therefore, is a mandate to change the basis upon which problems are judged and measured from the present dead-end cycle to one which is based on universal, unarguable principles and which has at least a fighting chance to produce a lasting positive result.My own personal belief is that all human life is equal and priceless -- I look upon Israeli life as the same as Lebanese life. This belief stems not from my Catholic religion, but rather, from basic human values which have their historic home in Lebanon. It is no coincidence that a leading figure in the drafting and adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was Charles Malek, a Lebanese citizen.I ask, will other Arab countries and leaders have the courage to acknowledge that Israeli life is equal to Arab life? Will Israel have the courage as well to acknowledge that Lebanese life is equal to Israeli life, and that all life is priceless? I believe that most Israeli and Arab citizens would answer in the affirmative. Can we get their governments and their leaders to do the same?Acknowledgement of equality between the value of the Lebanese and the Israeli people can be a starting point and a catalyst. The universal, unarguable concept of the equality of peoples and of human life should be the basis upon which we measure and judge events, and should provide the common human prism through which the current conflict, and old seemingly everlasting conflicts, are viewed and resolved. This is the only way to peace, prosperity and security, which is, after all, what all human beings desire, regardless of their origin.The ideological, political and religious differences between the party that I lead, the Free Patriotic Movement, and Hezbollah, could have been addressed either through confrontation, or through internal dialogue. Recognizing the value of human life, the obvious choice was the second option. We sat down with Hezbollah to discuss our differences.After many months of extensive negotiations, we came up with an understanding that included 10 key items which laid down a roadmap to resolve 10 of the most contentious points of disagreement. For example, Hezbollah agreed for the first time that Lebanese who collaborated with Israel during Israel's occupation of south Lebanon should return peacefully to Lebanon without fear of retribution. We also agreed to work together to achieve a civil society to replace the present confessional system which distributes power on the basis of religious affiliation. Additionally, Hezbollah, which is accused of being staunchly pro-Syrian, agreed for the first time that the border between Lebanon and Syria should be finally delineated, and that diplomatic relations between the two countries should be established.We also agreed that Palestinian refugees in Lebanon should be disarmed, that security and political decision-making should be centralized with the Lebanese government, and that all Lebanese political groups should disengage themselves from regional conflicts and influences.Last but not least, our extensive negotiations with Hezbollah resulted in an articulation of the three main roadblocks regarding resolution of the Hezbollah arms issue: First, the return of Lebanese prisoners in Israeli prisons. Second, the return of the Shebaa farms, a tiny piece of Lebanese territory still occupied by Israel. And third, the formulation of a comprehensive strategy to provide for Lebanon's defense, centered upon a strong national army and central state decision-making authority in which all political groups are assured a fair opportunity to participate.This structure, if joined together with international guarantees which forbid the nationalization of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon and which protect Lebanon from Israeli incursions, and if tied on the internal level to a new, fair and uniform electoral law, is the best hope for peacefully resolving the Hezbollah weapons issue.This is the essence of the comprehensive solution we seek. Because it embodies a shift from a policy based on military force to one founded upon human values and reconciling the rights of parties, it would stand the test of time. If rights are respected, and if parties are treated with the deference that they implicitly deserve as human beings, then the long-term result will be not only physical disarmament, but also a disarmament of minds on both sides.Our party presented this solution internally to all Lebanese political groups, the Lebanese government, and the international community -- including the U.S. administration -- repeatedly, for an entire year before this crisis began.Rather than help us to resolve the weapons issue peacefully and avoid the current agony our country is now enduring, the international community and Lebanese government flatly ignored the proposed solution. Many of Lebanon's main political players cast us aside as "pro-Syrian" "allies" of Hezbollah. No matter. These are the same individuals who -- only a year before -- branded me a "Zionist agent" and brought treason charges against me when I dared to testify before a Congressional subcommittee that Syria should end its occupation of my country.You see, after Lebanon was liberated from Syrian occupation, the international community (apparently enamored by the quixotic images of the Cedar Revolution) demanded that the Lebanese elections take place immediately and "on time"; it brushed off our grave concerns about the electoral law in force, which had been carefully crafted by Syria and imposed upon Lebanon in the year 2000 to ensure re-election of Syria's favorite legislators.This flawed electoral law -- initially imposed upon us by Syria and then reimposed upon us by the international community -- has had disastrous results. It brought to power a Lebanese government with absolute two-thirds majority powers, but which was elected by only one-third of the populace. With a legislative and executive majority on one side, and a popular majority on the other side, the result was absolute gridlock. Currently in Lebanon, there is no confluence of popular will with government will, and therefore the government cannot deal effectively with this or any other problem.History will judge us all on our actions, and especially on the unnecessary death and destruction that we leave behind. The destruction currently being wrought upon Lebanon is in no way measured or proportional -- ambulances, milk factories, power stations, television crews and stations, U.N. observers and civilian infrastructure have been destroyed.Let us proceed from the standpoint that all human life is equal, and that if there is a chance to save lives and to achieve the same ultimate result as may be achieved without the senseless killings, then let us by all means take that chance.
Michel Aoun- Wall Street Journal
RABIEH, Lebanon -- While aircraft, sea-craft, and artillery pound our beloved Lebanon, we Lebanese are left, as usual, to watch helplessly and pay a heavy price for a war foisted upon us due to circumstances beyond our control. Considering that this crisis could have been avoided, and considering that there is -- and has been -- a solution almost begging to be made, one cannot but conclude that all of this death, destruction and human agony will, in retrospect, be adjudged as having been in vain.No matter how much longer this fight goes on, the truth of the matter is that political negotiations will be the endgame. The solution that will present itself a week, a month or a year from now will be, in essence, the same solution as the one available today, and which, tragically, was available before a single shot was fired or a single child killed. Given this reality, a more concerted effort is required sooner rather than later to stop the death and destruction on both sides of the border.
From the outset, this dispute has been viewed through the differing prisms of differing worldviews. As one who led my people during a time when they defended themselves against aggression, I recognize, personally, that other countries have the right to defend themselves, just as Lebanon does; this is an inalienable right possessed by all countries and peoples.For some, analysis as to this conflict's sources and resolutions begins and ends with the right to self-defense; for others, Israel's claimed self-defensive actions are perceived as barbaric and offensive acts aimed at destroying a country and liquidating a people. Likewise, some view Hezbollah's capture of two Israeli soldiers as fair military game to pressure Israel to return Lebanese prisoners; yet others perceive it as a terrorist act aimed at undermining Israel's sovereignty and security.These divergences, and the world's failure to adopt different paradigms by which Middle East problems can be fairly analyzed and solved, have produced, and will continue to produce, a vicious cycle of continuing conflict. If the approach remains the same in the current conflict, I anticipate that the result will be the same. This, therefore, is a mandate to change the basis upon which problems are judged and measured from the present dead-end cycle to one which is based on universal, unarguable principles and which has at least a fighting chance to produce a lasting positive result.My own personal belief is that all human life is equal and priceless -- I look upon Israeli life as the same as Lebanese life. This belief stems not from my Catholic religion, but rather, from basic human values which have their historic home in Lebanon. It is no coincidence that a leading figure in the drafting and adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was Charles Malek, a Lebanese citizen.I ask, will other Arab countries and leaders have the courage to acknowledge that Israeli life is equal to Arab life? Will Israel have the courage as well to acknowledge that Lebanese life is equal to Israeli life, and that all life is priceless? I believe that most Israeli and Arab citizens would answer in the affirmative. Can we get their governments and their leaders to do the same?Acknowledgement of equality between the value of the Lebanese and the Israeli people can be a starting point and a catalyst. The universal, unarguable concept of the equality of peoples and of human life should be the basis upon which we measure and judge events, and should provide the common human prism through which the current conflict, and old seemingly everlasting conflicts, are viewed and resolved. This is the only way to peace, prosperity and security, which is, after all, what all human beings desire, regardless of their origin.The ideological, political and religious differences between the party that I lead, the Free Patriotic Movement, and Hezbollah, could have been addressed either through confrontation, or through internal dialogue. Recognizing the value of human life, the obvious choice was the second option. We sat down with Hezbollah to discuss our differences.After many months of extensive negotiations, we came up with an understanding that included 10 key items which laid down a roadmap to resolve 10 of the most contentious points of disagreement. For example, Hezbollah agreed for the first time that Lebanese who collaborated with Israel during Israel's occupation of south Lebanon should return peacefully to Lebanon without fear of retribution. We also agreed to work together to achieve a civil society to replace the present confessional system which distributes power on the basis of religious affiliation. Additionally, Hezbollah, which is accused of being staunchly pro-Syrian, agreed for the first time that the border between Lebanon and Syria should be finally delineated, and that diplomatic relations between the two countries should be established.We also agreed that Palestinian refugees in Lebanon should be disarmed, that security and political decision-making should be centralized with the Lebanese government, and that all Lebanese political groups should disengage themselves from regional conflicts and influences.Last but not least, our extensive negotiations with Hezbollah resulted in an articulation of the three main roadblocks regarding resolution of the Hezbollah arms issue: First, the return of Lebanese prisoners in Israeli prisons. Second, the return of the Shebaa farms, a tiny piece of Lebanese territory still occupied by Israel. And third, the formulation of a comprehensive strategy to provide for Lebanon's defense, centered upon a strong national army and central state decision-making authority in which all political groups are assured a fair opportunity to participate.This structure, if joined together with international guarantees which forbid the nationalization of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon and which protect Lebanon from Israeli incursions, and if tied on the internal level to a new, fair and uniform electoral law, is the best hope for peacefully resolving the Hezbollah weapons issue.This is the essence of the comprehensive solution we seek. Because it embodies a shift from a policy based on military force to one founded upon human values and reconciling the rights of parties, it would stand the test of time. If rights are respected, and if parties are treated with the deference that they implicitly deserve as human beings, then the long-term result will be not only physical disarmament, but also a disarmament of minds on both sides.Our party presented this solution internally to all Lebanese political groups, the Lebanese government, and the international community -- including the U.S. administration -- repeatedly, for an entire year before this crisis began.Rather than help us to resolve the weapons issue peacefully and avoid the current agony our country is now enduring, the international community and Lebanese government flatly ignored the proposed solution. Many of Lebanon's main political players cast us aside as "pro-Syrian" "allies" of Hezbollah. No matter. These are the same individuals who -- only a year before -- branded me a "Zionist agent" and brought treason charges against me when I dared to testify before a Congressional subcommittee that Syria should end its occupation of my country.You see, after Lebanon was liberated from Syrian occupation, the international community (apparently enamored by the quixotic images of the Cedar Revolution) demanded that the Lebanese elections take place immediately and "on time"; it brushed off our grave concerns about the electoral law in force, which had been carefully crafted by Syria and imposed upon Lebanon in the year 2000 to ensure re-election of Syria's favorite legislators.This flawed electoral law -- initially imposed upon us by Syria and then reimposed upon us by the international community -- has had disastrous results. It brought to power a Lebanese government with absolute two-thirds majority powers, but which was elected by only one-third of the populace. With a legislative and executive majority on one side, and a popular majority on the other side, the result was absolute gridlock. Currently in Lebanon, there is no confluence of popular will with government will, and therefore the government cannot deal effectively with this or any other problem.History will judge us all on our actions, and especially on the unnecessary death and destruction that we leave behind. The destruction currently being wrought upon Lebanon is in no way measured or proportional -- ambulances, milk factories, power stations, television crews and stations, U.N. observers and civilian infrastructure have been destroyed.Let us proceed from the standpoint that all human life is equal, and that if there is a chance to save lives and to achieve the same ultimate result as may be achieved without the senseless killings, then let us by all means take that chance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)