Lebanon and "Paying the Bills" of Peace between Israel and Others
It is difficult for the Lebanese to separate between the history of their civil wars and the various stages of Arab-Israeli peace negotiations. The latter constitute a fundamental factor, and accompany other local (religious and sectarian) elements, and regional elements linked to the desire for geopolitical influence by Lebanon”s neighbors. The situation has been enshrined by the expression that Lebanon is an arena rather than a nation with fenced borders and which enjoys a minimum level of sovereignty that has remained lost for the past four decades.
The problems of Palestinian arms in the 1970s and 1980s, then the Syrian arms in the 1980s and 1990s, then the arms of militias with foreign connections in the 1970s and 1980s, and Hezbollah”s arms at the beginning of this century have all accompanied the process of searching for the state”s lost sovereignty. The issue of lost sovereignty has also been tied to the search for peace and "its understandings," whenever "agreements" were possible.
Hence, civil war erupted after the two disengagement agreements between Egypt and Syria, on one side and Israel on the other, following the October 1973 Arab-Israeli War. Hence the war broke out again after the truce following the 1975-1976 phase of civil strife, in the wake of the Camp David Treaty between Cairo and Tel Aviv. It was followed by the war in the 1980s after the 17 May 1983 peace agreement between Lebanon and Israel, giving birth to more wars that were concluded only with Arab and international sponsorship of the Taif Agreement at the end of the decade. The Madrid round of peace negotiations, meanwhile, did not launch any civil wars because these wars were deterred by the Israeli occupation and the need to confront it which concurred with Lebanon being under Syrian mandate.
There is no need to make a hasty return to the details. The goal is to examine the reemergence of the elements of the Lebanese civil war in light of the requirements of a Syrian-Israeli peace. This time, we can add the complications of the Syrian-Iranian alliance and Tehran”s role in the region.
In fact, Israel and Syria have always been regional players in Lebanon”s civil wars, despite the changes in their respective alliances and their understandings with international players.
The short civil war in Lebanon from 7-15 May of this year, a rehearsal for a wider civil conflict, was not far from the developing stages of the Syrian-Israeli negotiations that have been under way for two years at first under Swiss auspices and recently through Turkish mediation. Since the end of 2007, international circles have expected that the negotiations would produce tangible results in the spring. The first repercussion on this front would involve the urgent need to see something precede the completion of the negotiation process starting with a payoff to Hezbollah in the Lebanese political framework, that is, by securing for the party a "blocking third" in the government. This would be in preparation for the requirements of the next stage of negotiations, bringing the Lebanese front in the confrontation with Israel under control.
For anyone who had doubted these international predictions, recent events have provided the proof. In fact, some people saw the recent events in Lebanon as a cover for the ongoing negotiations; Hezbollah was dragged into these events, which some saw as an Iranian preventative move against the negotiations. While such conclusions require further verification, they do link the issue to the peace negotiations.
However, Syrian-Israeli negotiations still require several further stages, raising the question of the "need" for further Lebanese civil wars.
The fear of future incidents is not limited to the ongoing mobilization on the ground or the failure to treat the effects of the invasion launched against Beirut and Mount Lebanon. The fear goes farther if we recall the calls by Israel and Syria, "encouraging" Lebanon to engage in direct negotiations with Israel that followed the official announcement of Syrian-Israeli negotiations.
No observer can forget that the parties to a Syrian-Israeli peace must pay the price of the agreement; one of the most important elements of this price is Hezbollah”s arms. "Encouraging" Lebanon to enter negotiations only implies that Lebanon is being asked to share in "paying the bill" while Syria evades the liabilities of peace, namely its ties to Hezbollah and the steps needed to diminish its military role, which it nourished in cooperation with Iran. Is it logical to involve Lebanon in paying another”s bill while ongoing talks are about the Golan Heights?
Israel on its part seeks to make Lebanon pay an additional bill for the Israeli occupation of Lebanese territories and its blind aggression against the country in July 2006; it wants to negotiate with Lebanon in return for withdrawing from the Shebaa Farms.
Is this double encouragement not a bad omen for Lebanese civil peace? Does it not prompt the Lebanese to reject being caught up any negotiation with Israel?
Is it Lebanon”s fate to pay the peace bill twice on behalf of others in wars that are waged by proxy against Israel, and in peace between the Jewish state and others?