|
|
| Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| FEATURED EDITORIALS |
|
|
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
|
|
| Out with the old, in with the new? By Marianne Stigset The assassination of former Premier Rafik Hariri on February 14 unleashed a political and social upheaval which touched Lebanon in its entirety. Dubbed a revolution by some, a mere crisis by others, one of its noteworthy features was the pivotal role played by the country's youth. Paving the way for their future entry into a political system they consider in desperate need of reform, the new generation became the revolution's foot soldiers, organizing mass demonstrations, sit-ins, vigils and debates, while keeping a firm eye on their political leaders. The Daily Star invited eight young representatives of different political parties and movements for a round table discussion on the current upheaval and the major issues facing a country free from war and occupation for the first time in three decades. Armed with years of political activism under their belt and united by a common passion for each their cause, the participants engaged in the debate with remarkable candor. They expressed their beliefs, their fears, their frustrations, their hopes. Some admitted finding it challenging to discuss openly issues of sensitivity with opponents they hitherto had had little interaction with. Others left the table hungry for more - all too many stones remained unturned. Their priorities for the country diverged, as did their viewpoints on some of the unresolved questions lingering over Lebanon since its formation: the country's identity, the confessionalist system, consensual democracy. Issues such as the disarmament of Hizbullah provoked intense discord. Discussions on the Taif Accord saw unusual bedfellows form. But all were united in their commitment to further dialogue, promote national reconciliation and never to allow the country to fall into war again. This is the first of a two-part series on the debate. How do you view the so-called revolution which has taken place over the course of the past two months? Is it one that will fundamentally change the political and social landscape of this country? Has it unified the people of Lebanon? Tarek Yehya: The independency revolution didn't begin two months ago, it began seven years ago, in 1998, when you had a general from the army become president of the Lebanese republic. All the concepts of the Lebanese regime which had been adopted since the country first gained its independence in 1943, implementing a democratic regime, were bypassed and ignored when this happened. So this revolution did not start two months ago, but six to seven years ago. Bachir Haddad: Because of the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, it was impossible for the Lebanese to come together and have direct dialogue, direct negotiations to settle all the problems which came up during 15 years of war. And we can see that this is true, because ever since the Syrian Army began withdrawing from Lebanon, we have the seen the Lebanese coming together for the first time, and this is what you are seeing in Martyrs' Square. It's very important, people from different religions, from different parties and from different ideologies are starting to talk to each other. People are sleeping in the same camp, in the same tents in the Square. But the problem has not been solved yet, there still remains a lot to do. We have to elaborate a new national contract between all the Lebanese, to discuss what kind of Lebanon we want, what kind of political system. I think our objective for the coming years will be to answer those questions through democracy, freedom and respect of different opinions. Bassam Moussa: I studied anthropology and I view what is happening right now as a struggle over identity, in all its forms - what economic system we want, what political system we want ... Is this a revolution? In the technical sense of the term, yes - any change is a revolution. It's not a revolution in the strictest sense because it was not bloody. But for many, it was a revolution because it brought change. The Lebanese identity is one prone to questioning. The Lebanese system is very prone to change, and very influenced by its external environment, and yet there are so many internal factors at play. Truth be told, I am not too optimistic about what is happening, but I am not pessimistic either. I am viewing it as an anthropologist: change is happening, now what remains to be seen is how the system copes and adapts to it. The image given by politicians for political purposes - mainly with the elections in mind - or the media, is that of a unified national identity. I don't believe much in that. What you see in day-to-day life goes contrary to this. In the grand political discourse, all these categories and labels are being used, which were acquired even prior to the war, and I am not sure how much we are trying to reverse them in a system that is confessional, that doesn't base itself on a unified identity. Dima Younes: It is a revolution, because a revolution is something that brings about change, and some change is already occurring through the withdrawal of the Syrian troops. Regardless of the outcome of all of this, I think you had such a mass mobilization of people because people, from both camps, originally came down to protest against unemployment, call for more transparency, and other issues they were unhappy with. Then you had one side which wanted to protect its leaders who were somehow benefiting from the Syrian presence. On the other side, people didn't just mobilize because the political parties told them to do so. There were many people who came out because they had demands that went beyond finding out the truth about Hariri's killing. This country has economic and social issues that need to be addressed, and people are seriously asking for change. Will we see change happening? I am not so sure. In the case of the Democratic Left for instance, we had an agenda before the Syrian withdrawal, but we never expected this to actually happen, so now we have to rewrite everything with regards to what we want for the future. It is difficult to say what kind of change we really want next, because we have to prepare for it first and make sure of what we want. With regards to the unity, some factions of the Lebanese society did become unified, but not everyone was represented at Martyrs' Square. But we do have one common factor which unites all of the Lebanese youth, and that is that we don't want war to break out again. And that is very important. It enables me to sit down and discuss in a group like this for instance, without being afraid, and that is a new thing. Samer Sabbagh: The country is changing, but I don't think these demonstrations, this so-called revolution, is bringing about the change. There are other reasons for this change: international pressure and interference is having a big effect. And what has happened has shown the real divisions among the Lebanese, it has not revealed any clear unity. The so-called revolution was boosted by Hariri's killing - that is the only reason why people came out in such high numbers at the two big demonstrations, it wasn't for Resolution 1559 or to end Syrian interference or to protest against the resistance groups. These demonstrations started with high numbers, but now they are dwindling - if you go down to Martyrs' Square today, you will find only a few people. It's all the same faces. The Lebanese people are united around one idea, and that is that everybody wants change, but I think the Lebanese are not unified in knowing how to change and where to go. Nassim Zeineddine: It's the first time in Lebanon that you see two big groups of people of different religions fighting for an idea. Before, everybody wanted his religion to be the most important. Today, we see demonstrations with people from all religions, which is paving the way for a good future for Lebanon. Is there a sense of marginalization among youth groups which are not part of the opposition movement? What have they been doing since the Riad al-Solh demonstration? Samer Sabbagh: Our party is mainly constituted of youth, which basically owns it, and we have been organizing a series of demonstrations in Awkar over the course of the last few weeks, so we are not sidelined at all, on the contrary, we are hyperactive. Tarek Yehya: The reference to external interference is a bit confusing. It's paradoxical to have protesters going to Awkar to protest against American intervention in our domestic affairs, when we know that the Americans were intervening for 30 years to keep the Syrian Army on our territory. So this protesting for the Syrians, but against the Americans is a bit of a paradox. Nassim Zeineddine: Our youth groups stopped going down to the street because we believe that the change is coming now, the Syrians are out, so why don't we Lebanese get together at the negotiation table and discuss among ourselves, to see what kind of an agenda we can work out. Once that is done, everyone can go back to his party. But right now, the country needs its people to be united, so we can have proper talks and clarify things. Bassam Moussa: I see other parties' youth participating, but it depends on the system of the political party which you are in. Before the sit-in happened, the youth in the SSNP were not marginalized, they conducted several campaigns which required that they ally themselves with youth from other parties - Amal, Hizbullah, the FPM, the Communists ... But with the recent events, we had a shock. Some people were put aside and struck with labels. In the case of the SSNP, it was that we should get out of the country along with the Syrians, despite the fact that this party existed prior to the Syrians entering Lebanon. We weren't marginalized though - we did participate in demonstrations, but in terms of active political work, that varies according to each party's individual system. What has the outcome of the revolution been? Are we seeing any tangible changes? Have your expectations been met? Bassam Moussa: There is an absence of a political agenda, something tangible that could satisfy everybody. We are still stuck in slogans - pro or against Syria for example. But what one could hope would bring about change is not there yet, and one can't really expect it to be ready because all of this was very spontaneous. Politicians who were previously part of the system are all of a sudden against it. Things aren't clear enough right now to produce tangible agendas. Bachir Haddad: We have until the elections to see what the results of this revolution have been. The main purpose of it was to motivate people to free the country from Syrian occupation, a situation that had lasted for about 30 years, it wasn't easy. Now we must give people a new political system and new political figures. And then we will see the results. Tarek Yehya: Change in general was forbidden over the last years in Lebanon because of the Syrian presence and its secret services. Communication and dialogue as it is taking place between politicians in every region today was forbidden before. Now we are united, we are united on several issues: we are united on determining that Israel is the enemy of Lebanon; we are determined to have a national consensus which is the Taif agreement. Sami Gemayel: I don't quite understand this argument about how the democratic regime collapsed in 1998. Why 1998? On the 13th October 1990, Lebanon was occupied by the Syrian forces, and from then on, all the country's political decisions were made in Syria or in Anjar by General Rustom Ghazale. I think we should start from here. Between 1990 and 2005, we were under occupation - Lebanon was not free to make any decisions on internal or external issues. Regarding the future of Lebanon, we should read our history and learn from it. We should learn to respect each other's ideas and form a new political system which provides all the Lebanese with a country which respects every religion, every culture, every identity, every view. That is what we should talk about and think about over the course of the next 2 years. We don't have 10 years to do it, we must do it now. Do you believe the Taif Accord ought to be fully implemented or does the country need a new constitution? Which components, if any, of Taif do you disagree with? Is the country ready to abolish political sectarianism? Sami Gemayel: We should think about a new constitution. Taif only modified the existing 1943 National Pact with regards to the role of the president, but more importantly, it decided all of a sudden that Lebanon's identity was Arab. I don't know how a country's identity can be changed through some agreement made in a Syrian barrack. So we should think of a new constitution, which is different from that of 1943 and Taif, something radically new. And we should think about the Lebanese identity on a scientific basis. Bassam Moussa: Taif's only merit is that it stopped the fighting in Lebanon, but it did not bring about any change. Most of the changes it was supposed to bring were postponed. Any real change in the political system that would provide the people who felt deprived during the war and lessen the reasons for the different factions and sects to fight did not occur. The change that should happen now is reconsidering the political system. But I don't think secularism should be imposed directly. I agree with Sami that we should reconsider the system. That being said, I don't know how you can be scientific with regards to identity. Identity is a construct, how can you evaluate it? Sami Gemayel: You have elements which constitute an identity: history, religion, language ... several elements which are scientific elements and compose a nation. Bassam Moussa: So we should renegotiate how we perceive ourselves as Lebanese? Sami Gemayel: Yes, Lebanon is not a nation. It's a haven for refugees. Each part of the Lebanese population has its own culture, its own history, its own values, its own identity. So we should base our debate on the fact that Lebanon is a multicultural country, it's not a homogenous country. Bassam Moussa: It's only been marketed as a haven for refugees, this is part of the old slogans which led to the war. Samer Sabbagh: I think that Taif ended the war and set up a new constitution for the country. And as has been said, we should learn from the past. The war started because of these kinds of discussions about our identity, and so I think that these discussions should be held in closed rooms, not in open forums. For now, we should stick to Taif, unless everybody agrees that there is a need for something new. But everybody agreed on Taif, and there is no viable alternative to it. And there is still a lot of work to be done related to Taif. Sami Gemayel: Who agreed on Taif? We had 49 out of 99 deputies who agreed on it. It wasn't even the majority of the Parliament which voted in favor of it. And these 49 deputies had been elected to power 20 years prior. You can't use this compromise to build a country! When Taif was voted for in Lebanon, the population was kept out of the political process. Tarek Yehya: Taif wasn't a compromise, it was a decision taken by the majority of the Lebanese. The Socialists favored it, the Lebanese Forces, the Patriarch Sfeir, all the Shiites, all the Sunnis, it was most of the Lebanese. And it determined the identity of Lebanon. But Taif today is considered a provisory agreement. We have to implement it entirely. Once we do so, we will see that secularism will not be forced upon society. It will be implemented in several phases. And we will have an electoral law, which will not be based on confessionalism. Once all of this has been implemented and elections have been held, then we can have a discussion on constitutional reform. Bachir Haddad: We can discuss how Taif came about but the bottom line is that it is something real and we have to deal with it. We have elections coming up. After that, once we have new representatives, we can start discussing whether to change Taif and the Constitution. No constitution is perfect, but if people have problems with it, it should be discussed in Parliament. With regards to whether Lebanon is an Arab country or not: nobody has a true definition of what is Arabism. Sami Gemayel: We're talking about identity, not Arabism. Identity is something very precise. Bachir Haddad: Regardless, that is something we can talk about later. Right now, we have more important issues to deal with. Sami Gemayel: More important than this? You can't build a country without talking about your identity and defining it. Bachir Haddad: Today we should talk about reforms and we should talk about emancipation. With regards to reforms, we need to look at the legal system. The legal system should be used to protect civil rights, not to be used as a tool for repression. We should reform the security services, the Lebanese Army should be deployed to all of the borders, and we should establish democracy, so as to have a real political system. With regards to emancipation, we need to fight feudalism, confessionalism and try to establish a secular political system in the long-run. That is my vision for Lebanon. The Constitution is not a priority for now. Nassim Zeineddine: I agree with Bachir on many points. I believe that the Lebanese population needs to acquire a certain political maturity. People don't even know where they are going. So now is not the time to talk about Taif and issues of identity. In this period of time, we should stick to Taif. Once the elections have been held, depending on the Parliament, we can have an agenda that is clear, where we can discuss these issues. But first we need to help the people gain political maturity by explaining the issues to them and how it works. Dima Younes: I don't have a problem with the content of Taif, but I am in favor of instating a third republic. We are in 2005 and many new issues have come up. There was no real reconciliation that took place after the civil war, so now is a good opportunity to sit down and have people discuss what their vision of Lebanon is, and accordingly, write a new constitution. The reforms I would like to see are institutional reforms, making them transparent, accountable, and eliminated of clientalism. I would like to see a representative and democratic electoral law, based on proportionalism for example, so as to ensure that everybody, including minorities, can have a say. And I am in favor of a modern state using technology in the administrative institutions to create more transparency and efficiency. We need to give equal opportunities to everyone, regardless of sex, sect or age, and promote social policies, so as to alleviate poverty. Samer Sabbagh: We can start taking out confessionalism. Confessionalism has existed in Lebanon for a very long time, but we are ready for a change and it has started to happen. But I would like to point out that some say we will hold elections first and then discuss it, and that is what democracy is about. Others talk about consensual democracy, that we should all agree. We need to decide which way we are going - consensual democracy or real democracy? Sami Gemayel: From 1943 to 1975, the political system of the Lebanese state was dominated mostly by rightwing Christians, and that is a big element which contributed to the outbreak of the war. A lot of Lebanese resented this situation and felt animosity toward the government because of it. Then the same thing happened, in reverse, from 1990 on, and the other part of the population became resentful. Consensual democracy is a big lie. It provoked the war in 1975, and it led to divisions in the 1990s, under the pressure of the Syrians who had an interest in the Lebanese remaining divided. Today, the Sunni, Christian and Druze communities have united, and you have a predominantly Shiite population that has been isolated. In 1975, it was the Christians who were isolated. We have to stop this circle. When you talk of consensual democracy, you leave the Lebanese population to its religious groups. Sometimes they go into alliances, other times they are isolated. We have to find a new way of dealing each other, which gives each group the liberty to be represented in the state and to live their way of life. It can't be based on majority vs. minority, we have to find a way for each community to have his cultural rights, his educational rights, his religious rights respected and protected. You can't impose secularism on Hizbullah - they will never accept it. Nor can you impose an Islamic state on the Christians. Dima Younes: The main reason why we have confessionalism in Lebanon is because the religious communities, or the religious leaders, are offering what the state should be offering. If the government were to take back its role and started offering good health services for instance, I don't see why people should stick to their religious factions. Bassam Moussa: If you have a non-confessional system, that doesn't entail that political parties based on religious groups cannot exist. People in Lebanon often don't understand this. In Germany you have a secular state but you also have Christian Democratic party. Secularisation calls for a unification of the legal system in this country, so that people can be truly equal in their rights and duties. Today, the political system allows the religious patrons and the sectarian leaders to substitute the state. People are not instinctively sectarian as they say in the political discourse. But up until now, they have had no other option. Give them another option which is fair, and they will abide by it. Sami Gemayel: You can't use the example of Germany, it's a Christian, homogenous society. It's not a multi-cultural country. That's why it works there. Bassam Moussa: Correct me if I am wrong, but Hizbullah doesn't want an Islamic state any more. Sami Gemayel: Don't say that on his behalf. Ask Samer what he thinks. We need an answer to this question - we never get a serious answer to it when it is asked. Samer Sabbagh: First, regarding consensual democracy: Hizbullah wants democracy, whereas some members of the opposition movement have rejected this. Hizbullah said it was ready to hold a referendum on the question of the resistance, but the opposition refused to do so. Some deputies used to say they only wanted consensual democracy. Now that they think they have the support of the majority of the population, they are rejecting consensual democracy. Concerning the question of an Islamic state: we have been trying to clarify this question for the past 20 years, but nobody is listening to us. Our dream is to have an Islamic state - every member of Hizbullah dreams of this. The dream of the SSNP is to have a country that encompasses Syria, Israel or Palestine and Cyprus. The communists want a communist state. Everyone has a dream, but this dream cannot be imposed on people. Should an Islamic state be instated, it would be done spontaneously, through the will of the entire people. If all the people don't want an Islamic state then it will remain a dream. Right now the latter is the case, so it won't happen. Sami Gemayel: What you are saying is very dangerous. You are using democracy to impose on all the Lebanese an Islamic state. You don't have the right to do this. Samer Sabbagh: We don't want to impose anything. As long as Lebanon is a multi-cultural country that doesn't want an Islamic state, there won't be one. When everyone will want an Islamic state, we will have one. Sami Gemayel: So you are working on achieving this in the long term, by demographic means. Let's talk frankly here. I am a Maronite Christian, I have my fears and I have my way of thinking and you should respect this. In the long-term, your dream, and Bassam's dream of uniting with Syria ... Samer Sabbagh: You have a dream too. Sami Gemayel: My dream is Lebanese! I don't have another dream. I am talking about Lebanon and the Lebanese identity, and everything I want is for Lebanon. Do you find a party in France that is pushing for unification with Germany? Tarek Yehya: In Lebanon, we have had to face the failure of the 1943 Constitution, the war, and we had a temporary solution imposed on us to fix our constitutional problems. What we need to do today is to implement Taif fully and adopt the principle of co-existence between all the religious groups. Should there be a discussion around Taif and constitutional reforms in the future, we will come up with a document carrying a different name, but with the same content as that in Taif. It is the only viable option. Is Lebanon ready to disarm Hizbullah? By Marianne Stigset This is the second of the two-part series on a debate organized by The Daily Star between eight young representatives of different political parties and movements on Lebanon's current upheaval, and the major issues facing a country free from war and occupation for the first time in three decades. Continuing on our discussion on the implementation of Taif: the agreement also calls for the disarmament of all armed groups on Lebanese territory. Should we proceed with the disarmament of Hizbullah now? Bassam Moussa: So many things have to be settled first. The resistance group is armed for a reason. (UN Envoy) Terje Roed-Larsen said the Shebaa Farms were Syrian. The Lebanese government says it is Lebanese territory. Once this is solved through the help of the international community, then disarmament will happen. Alternatives for the armed groups have been put forth, compromise solutions, such as Hizbullah integrating into the Lebanese Army. Hizbullah has reservations to this suggestion, because they feel Lebanon would then be vulnerable to an attack from Israel. We are not living on an isolated island. For many people here, the question of Palestine is not over. So we are not ready to disarm the groups now. Other issues have to be resolved first. Sami Gemayel: A civilized country is one that has one army. It does not have militias and armed groups when it's at peace. Lebanon is no longer occupied - Israel withdrew its troops because of UN Resolution 425. And now we should let the Lebanese build their country in peace and let them for once live a life of peace. Why do we always need to live in a state of war when we are no longer at war? If our goal is to liberate Palestine, then that is another issue. Personally I don't think this small country and some 10,000 armed Hizbullah men can liberate the Palestinians from occupation while 450 million Arabs are signing peace accords with Israel. I am not saying we need to sign a peace agreement with Israel, but I don't see why we should remain in a state of war while all the other Arab states are making peace and normalizing their lives. This situation, these armed groups and militias, are preventing us from building the country. Samer Sabbagh: How is the resistance group preventing you from building a country? Sami Gemayel: You can't build a country while harboring armed militia groups. You can't build a country when you have a region as big as the South, which is not under the authority of the Lebanese Army. We can't build a civilized country when you have militia groups that are not under the authority of the Lebanese Army, and can go off and send a drone over Israel whenever it wants and create trouble between the two countries, without the Lebanese government's approval. They don't have the right to pull Lebanon into a war with Israel without the consensus of all the Lebanese, and that is what they doing. Dima Younes: I do agree that the question of the Shebaa Farms should be resolved by the UN. This is essential. Once the Lebanese ownership has been determined, it should be decided by a vote in Parliament whether we should go to war or not. Anything else is unconstitutional. The Lebanese people have the right to decide how they want to deal with the resistance group. But today you have other means of resisting: you can do it over the internet, through the media, you can give lectures abroad and in the UN, so as to convince people to exert pressure. We should move in this direction. Finally, I do not agree that someone should go and disarm Hizbullah. We should have a dialogue and once Hizbullah is convinced they will give up their arms and enter the Lebanese political life. Should Lebanon sign a peace accord with Israel? Tarek Yehya: Firstly, we do not have militias anymore. We had militias during the war, but today, we have a resistance group and it is called Hizbullah. Secondly, we should distinguish between resistance and disarmament. If Shebaa is still occupied by the Israelis, then we still need the resistance. Once Shebaa is no longer occupied, we should have a discussion on whether or not disarm Hizbullah. But we shouldn't forget that we have other armed groups on the Lebanese territory: the Palestinian groups. And this needs to be taken into account as well. If we want to disarm the Palestinians, we need to give them civil rights, work permits, education and health services. With regards to having peace with Israel, we are still in a state of war with Israel. Just look at the daily aggressions we see perpetrated on the Palestinian territory against the Arab people, the aggressions committed in southern Lebanon, in Iraq, through the intermediary of the Americans. What we can have is a truce based on the 1949 truce between Israel and other Arab countries, but not a peace treaty. Finally, the question of Hizbullah is an internal issue, which should be resolved through dialogue and it should not be internationalized. Nassim Zeineddine: Hizbullah has never been a threat to the Lebanese, nor have its weapons. Israel will think twice before it goes and bombs Lebanon, precisely because of the weapons of Hizbullah. Secondly, the issue with Israel is not over. We still have Lebanese citizens being held in Israeli prisons for instance. If we force Hizbullah to disarm, we are surrendering to Israel. Finally, I want to point out that Hassan Nasrallah has said he is ready to discuss disarmament, he is not someone who won't negotiate, but he also has some conditions pertaining to the Israeli withdrawal from all Lebanese territory and the Lebanese prisoners. The question of whom the Shebaa Farms belongs to should be decided by the UN. But for the time being, I do not think Hizbullah should have to disarm, because that would be giving up our strong card at the negotiation table, which has revealed itself to be effective several times. And I don't think Lebanon should sign a peace treaty with Israel - Israel is an enemy to the Lebanese. Samer Sabbagh: Firstly, we believe that Shebaa is Lebanese. We don't believe that the UN can solve this problem. It took them 23 years to implement Resolution 425. The UN is useless when it comes to dealing with Israel. Secondly, since 2000 up until today, we have seen over 8000 violations of Lebanese air space, waters and land committed by the Israelis. Hizbullah has documented every one of these and presented them to the UN, which has condemned Israel for it. All Hizbullah has done since 2000 is to fight these intrusions. You brought up the drone incident. Let me point out that that drone was sent at 5 p.m. That same day, at 8 a.m., Israel had sent a plane that went from the South, up to Tripoli and across the Bekaa. The drone was a response to this violation. In the future, if there are no more intrusions, we still think our weapons should stay with us, but purely for defensive purposes. We have asked for alternatives to this, but we haven't received any, with the exception of the 1559 Resolution. To this, we reply that there has been no implementation of the resolutions pertaining to the other occupied territories. Do you think Hizbullah has the right to decide on its own whether the entire country should be at war with Israel? Samer Sabbagh: The people in the South also have the right to live peacefully, and up until now, the weapons of the resistance are the only means by which they have been able to do so. If we are offered a better option, we will consider it. We believe that the formula of having Hizbullah working with the Lebanese Army, side by side, has been working very well. To live peacefully, you need to have security. What if a peace accord was signed with Israel, like the other Arab states are doing, thereby ensuring the cessation of Israeli intrusions into Lebanon? Samer Sabbagh: The Arab nations are always telling us about democracy, but these nations are not democratic themselves. We think that what they are doing with Israel right now is not legal. Furthermore, the weapons of Hizbullah are not creating a state of war. Israel's actions against us are creating a state of war. This country is a country at war. But since we are all talking about uniting the country and providing equal rights to everyone, is it not unfair to allow only one faction of the Lebanese society to keep its arms? Would the others not be justified in feeling threatened? Samer Sabbagh: Hizbullah has not used its arms in any internal issues, it has not fought in any sectarian conflicts, even in the civil war. We only fought Amal, and so that was within the Shiite community. It was not a threat to other Lebanese than the Shiites. This was a political issue within the resistance. Bassam Moussa: I think it needs to be pointed out that during the civil war, Hizbullah was different. Its leadership had a different strategy, different convictions. He mentioned the dream of an Islamic state: they know that this is not feasible now, precisely because of the experience of the civil war, and how they clashed with others, like the SSNP and Amal. We need to take into account that the political stage was different at the time, the agendas were different, and the discourses were different. Granted, Hizbullah fought Amal during the war, but the war was a messy period. Bachir Haddad: If we are to implement the Taif agreement, we need to implement all of it, including the paragraphs which talk about the disarmament of militias and the problem of the Lebanese Army in the South. There is a contradiction between what is being said by the head of Hizbullah and what is in the Taif agreement, which is very clear on this issue. I don't know why we should rewrite every clause of this accord according to everybody's individual interests. Secondly, you talk about Israeli planes violating Lebanese air space. Let me ask you this: Do you see any Israeli planes flying over Syria, over Jordan or Egypt? No. Israel is using the excuse of the presence of uncontrolled armed groups in Lebanon - which are Hizbullah and the Palestinian groups - to justify their aggressions against Lebanon. Samer Sabbagh: But why are they flying over Tripoli? There are no militias in Tripoli. Bachir Haddad: Come on! There are Palestinian camps with armed people. Anyway, I don't know why Hizbullah doesn't want to fully implement Taif, when we read statements every day in the press from its leadership about how the accord should be implemented. Samer Sabbagh: We do want to implement the Taif. Bachir Haddad: So why not do it now? Why should the Lebanese Forces, the Kataeb, the Socialists have to give up their weapons and not you? Samer Sabbagh: Because these groups were all fighting against each other. We were fighting Israel. Bachir Haddad: What is dangerous, and I am saying this based on information I have from inside Hizbullah, is that in this organization, you have hard-liners, and you have soft-liners. What is dangerous is that tomorrow, we might wake up to find the hard-liners in power, and they can decide to start using their weapons against the Lebanese. You have people with radical ways of thinking in Hizbullah. Dima Younes: What if we have a return of the ones that led the organization during the war? Bachir Haddad: Exactly. Those people are still in the party, no matter how much Hizbullah has changed. Samer Sabbagh: But you don't know how we come to our decisions, how we function. We have a lot of councils, of committees, and they come to decisions together. And with regards to the leadership, it won't be changed. Bachir Haddad: It could happen, the same way as we had a change in 1990, we could have a change in 2005 or 2006. Samer Sabbagh: The resistance only participated in the civil war to defend itself. Other groups were attacking each other, but we were defending the resistance. Bachir Haddad: What are you talking about? You participated in attacks! You entered Baabda, you participated in the October 13, 1990, attack! Samer Sabbagh: Do you really think the Syrian Army needs Hizbullah to attack General Aoun? Shadi Dirany: When talking about disarming Hizbullah, we should be tackling it from a different angle. We should be talking about the problem of the Shebaa Farms. We believe this is Lebanese land, but Syria refuses to give us the official papers and the official maps, to fight our cause in the UN. Sami Gemayel: Shebaa was occupied in 1967, in the war between Syria and Israel. Israel occupied Shebaa as Syrian territory. Between 1967 until 1978, no Lebanese asked for Shebaa. The government never reclaimed Shebaa - no one cared about it. Now all of a sudden it is being claimed so as to justify the existence of Hizbullah and the Islamic resistance. The problem is that Syria is not giving us the legal rights, under international law, to ask for Shebaa. When (Israeli Prime Minister) Ehud Barak retired from Lebanon, he told the Lebanese government that Shebaa was considered Syrian territory, but if the UN declared that it was a Lebanese land then the Israelis would return it. Finally, let me point out that when Larsen talked about Shebaa during his negotiations in Damascus with (Syrian Foreign Minister Farouq) al-Sharaa and (Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Walid) Moallem, he referred to it as Syrian territory, and nobody corrected him. The problem is with Syria, not Lebanon. Samer Sabbagh: I don't think Syria should give us any papers. Our land is our land, no matter what Syria says. Why should we have to wait for Syria to give us the rights to our land? Sami Gemayel: You cooperate with Syria on every other matter, why can't you discuss a matter of Lebanese land with them? Samer Sabbagh: As I have already said: we don't believe the UN is capable of giving us back our land. And regardless, Shebaa isn't the main point. If Shebaa was returned to us, we would still need to keep our weapons, so that the resistance can keep defending our country. Sami Gemayel: Should we also arm ourselves and prepare to resist in case Syria decides to re-occupy Lebanon? Samer Sabbagh: I don't think Syria will re-occupy Lebanon. Sami Gemayel: So why would Israel do it if Syria wouldn't? The Syrians were here for 30 years. Samer Sabbagh: We will not let the Syrians do this. Sami Gemayel: Oh really? Are you going to fight Syria? Where were you for the last 30 years? Shadi Dirany: We are not saying that the Shebaa Farms is not Lebanese because the Syrians are saying so. All we are saying is: if it is Lebanese, why can't they give us the official maps, if it is our right? That is what we should work for. We are willing to help you fight to get our land back. We are all Lebanese, we are ready to do this together. Samer Sabbagh: Fine, but the issue of the resistance cannot be tied to the issue of land. The UN can't give us the security we need. Bachir Haddad: What we are looking for is to do this together, through the international system. If the Lebanese unanimously support the fight to regain the Lebanese sovereignty over the Shebaa Farms, why wouldn't we do it? We have to free the Farms from Syria, before freeing them from the Israelis - it's one of many points of border disagreements between Syria and Lebanon. So let's go to the UN and ask for the return of the land under resolution 425, and give credit to the resistance for it. When the South was occupied, the Lebanese unanimously supported the resistance against Israel. But today, there is no consensus between the Lebanese on the matter of the weapons of the resistance. Let's wrap up this session by taking a step back. In light of recent events and the discussion we had today, what are the main issues which need to be tackled first, so as to build the ideal of Lebanon which you are respectively fighting for? Shadi Dirany: We want a free, sovereign, liberated and democratic country. We want to know the truth about who killed former Prime Minister Hariri, who killed all the other Lebanese leaders, who is orchestrating bomb attacks against us. We want a country which is based on the respect for one another. We don't want a country with loyalists fighting opposition members. General Michel Aoun is still in exile, Samir Geagea is still prison. This is not normal for a country which talks about dialogue and freedom. We can't go on like this. Everybody has the right to say what he wants, but we need to come up with a regime which provides guarantees for each party, each religion so that we don't fight each other any more due to a lack of balance of power between us. Bassam Moussa: We should have real national reconciliation. We have to demystify everything that we have accumulated during the war and after the war. We have to bring all of the active bodies together - the political parties, the independents, civil society, anyone who can help - to develop clear programs and agendas. And we need to come up with mechanisms to establish a more appropriate political system for Lebanon. But national reconciliation comes first - that really is what is most important. Bachir Haddad: I think we all agree that we have to improve dialogue between us. Tarek, I want to assure you that all matters that concern Lebanon will be discussed inside Lebanon, between the Lebanese and only the Lebanese. We have to agree on what future we want for the generations to come in Lebanon. We have to agree on Lebanon as a final country for now, we have to think as Lebanese, and concentrate on our own interests first, before thinking of liberating Palestine or anything else. We have to start building a country with a solid democratic system and a solid social system that will immunize us against any foreign intervention. Dima Younis: I also want reconciliation among the Lebanese, and so I want the return of General Aoun and the liberation of Samir Geagea, so as to have a true reconciliation. We can't have national reconciliation with some parties being excluded from it. And I think that this will lead to some agreement on what we think the identity of the Lebanese people should be. We need to build institutions that function well, in the sense that they are democratic, transparent and accountable. We need to set up a constitution which clearly defines what are the rights of the citizens and what are their duties. We want a political system that includes minorities. And we want political life to run as a real political system, which is not based on clientalism. Beyond this, everything else can be resolved democratically. Sami Gemayel: I don't think there has been any real reconciliation among the Lebanese, so I think we need to work on this and engage in some self-criticism. We should think of a third republic for Lebanon based on respect for the differences which exist between us. We don't have to say there are no differences between us, that we are all the same, and all the other big slogans that we hear in this country. We need to go further, think more deeply, looking at our history and take lessons from what the country has gone through. In doing this, we will help build a country that can't fall into conflict again. And we need a renewal of the political class and accountability for all the political personalities that have ruled this country. Tarek Yehya: We should learn from our past, as we have plenty of lessons to learn from. And we have to elaborate on the process of national reconciliation. We wouldn't be starting from scratch, as it did begin 2001 with the meeting in the Chouf between (Druze leader) Walid Jumblatt and Patriarch (Nasrallah Butros) Sfeir, which put an end to a big Lebanese division. We should follow up on this by drafting an amnesty law for Geagea, by promoting dialogue, as we are doing with Aoun and Nasrallah, between all the Lebanese factions. This will ensure the pursuit of reform and change. If the collective Lebanese conscience is ready to have a real reform of the political regime, then we should go ahead with it. It should be a reform pushing for equality of political rights, civil rights, economic and cultural rights on all the Lebanese territory. Basically, we should work on establishing a modern state in a modern country for all the Lebanese. Samer Sabbagh: I think the country has a lot of things it needs to do, but I will focus on two points. Firstly, American intervention in the Lebanese affairs has been disastrous, every time it has happened. America allowed Israel to enter Lebanon. Then, it is said that it gave Lebanon to Syria. Now it is coming to take Syria out of Lebanon. Maybe in the future it will give Lebanon to some other country. These interventions should be put to an end. We fear each other because we don't know each other. Some think that America is our ally, others think that America is our enemy. We should keep America out of Lebanon and not ally with them because we have seen what has happened in the past. Secondly, we should start listening to each other. In this debate, I found myself explaining points that Hizbullah has been repeating for years. I am shocked every time I discover that people still don't know what our stance is on issues we keep clarifying. It's all in our newsletters, in the papers, on television. We should listen to each other and we should read each other. On our side, we are hearing everything. We watch LBC, we watch Future, we read An-Nahar. But on the other side, only a minority is watching Al-Manar, and a minority is reading Al-Ahed, and a minority is watching all the interviews and speeches Hassan Nasrallah gives. Nassim Zeineddine: I am glad that we have reached a point where we can all sit together and talk about our problems, and I think that this is the only solution to our problems. We have to learn from our mistakes, we have to keep looking for the truth about Hariri, we have to work all together now to put our problems aside - nobody wants to hear about them anymore. Now everybody is looking for a solution. We have to work so that we have something good to tell our children and not let them correct our mistakes, like we are doing for the previous generations now. Source: Daily Star, on 20 April 2005 http://www.loubnanouna.org/News.asp?Code=348 |
