Steven Sahiounie, journalist and political commentator
Lebanon has rejected any extension of the Israeli occupation of its territory. On Thursday, President Joseph Aoun reaffirmed that “Lebanon is intensifying diplomatic efforts to ensure Israel’s withdrawal by February 18.”
Aoun said that the country was actively engaging with influential global powers, particularly the US and France, to secure a sustainable resolution.
On Thursday, Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer announced that Israel would retain control over five strategic high points inside Lebanon following the expiry of the ceasefire next Tuesday, and added “The army will not withdraw in the near future.”
Steven Sahiounie of MidEastDiscourse interviewed Karim Bitar, an Associate Research Fellow at the Institute for International and Strategic Affairs in Paris (IRIS) and Editor of French monthly public affairs magazine L’ENA hors les murs.
1. Steven Sahiounie (SS): Recently, the US deputy presidential special envoy to the Middle East, Morgan Ortagus, delivered a message to Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam that US President Donald Trump will not tolerate any Hezbollah or Amal member in the government. However, after she left Salam appointed five Shiites. In your opinion will his affect the relationship with US?
Karim Bitar (KB): Regarding the US envoy’s visit to Lebanon, it is rather significant to notice that even some of the staunchest US allies in Lebanon were offended by her statements. I’m thinking in particular of former Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, who is very close to the United States and to the West and who is one of Hezbollah’s major opponents in Lebanon. Even Fouad Siniora said that these statements were way out of line and that they created a new obstacle that Lebanon did not need at this stage.
So, Mrs. Ortega is discovering the world of Middle East politics. She has strong opinions and has often expressed strong support for Israel, and this was to be expected. But, to come to the Lebanese Presidential Palace and decide who should or should not be a member of the Lebanese government, and say she was grateful for what Israel did at a time when many Lebanese lost family members and are still grieving, it was poorly received by an overwhelming majority of the Lebanese. The President of the Republic distanced himself from her statements, saying that she only represented her own point of view, and that they were not going to be influenced by it.
Now, to a certain extent, these new hawkish US positions might have played a role in government formation. But both the President and Prime Minister did not agree to completely exclude a significant part of the population from the government.
So, they proceeded. They indeed appointed five Shiites, four of them being very close to Hezbollah or Amal, while not being officially card-carrying members.
So the United States today is coming back to this power politics, Machtpolitik, as the Germans say. They are not even paying lip service to democracy promotion, human rights, or international law. They are trying to show who’s the boss.
2. SS: The Israeli occupation continues to violate the Lebanese ceasefire daily. In your opinion, will Hezbollah take military action against Israel?
KB: If the US does not take into consideration the Lebanese realities, it might indeed lead the Israeli government, and the Israeli extremists currently in office, to think that they can continue occupying parts of Lebanon and violating the cease-fire. So, both the Lebanese President and the Lebanese Prime Minister also insisted that Israel should withdraw from Lebanon.
But, it appears that PM Benjamin Netanyahu and President Trump have basically decided that it’s okay not to respect this deadline. As to the second part of your second question, I do not think that this will lead Hezbollah to take military action against Israel at this stage.
Hezbollah has been severely weakened militarily. Any military action against Israel will lead to overwhelming reprisals. Hezbollah is still in a state of shock. Hassan Nasrallah’s funeral has not been organized yet. However, Hezbollah still can count on the support of a significant number of Lebanese Shiites. So, they are weakened militarily, but politically they still have significant leverage within Lebanon.
3. SS: The Lebanese army has been tasked with keeping the southern border safe, keeping Hezbollah north the Litani river, and keeping the border with Syria safe. In your point of view, does the Lebanese army have the resources and funding to be able to carry out their duty?
KB: The Lebanese army is one of the rare institutions in Lebanon that is non-sectarian; that brings together people of all parts of the nation, of all walks of life, of all communities. It enjoys a very strong support from most Lebanese.
However, it is facing severe challenges, a situation of overstretch. It has to make sure the cease-fire is implemented. It has to protect the Lebanese borders, to handle the upheavals in Syria, the rise of crime within Lebanon. So, it was supposed to have received additional resources after the international donors conference that was held in Paris a couple of months ago. But, it appears that the United States is not yet willing to allow the Lebanese army to obtain weapons that could potentially defend Lebanon against Israel. And, this would give a pretext to Hezbollah if Hezbollah does not intend to respect the clauses of the cease-fire.
The Lebanese army is a strong institution; however, in the past few years, it has suffered from a lack of resources, a lack of funding. And, when there is funding, it often comes from foreign countries, whether the United States or Arab Gulf countries, which is also quite problematic if we think in terms of Lebanese sovereignty. So, one of the main objectives of the incoming government should be to strengthen the Lebanese army and to make sure it has the resources necessary to defend Lebanon against foreign aggressions wherever they come from.
4. SS: The IMF offered help to Lebanon, but they had certain conditions to receive that help. In your opinion, have those conditions Been met?
KB: The IMF offered to help to Lebanon, but indeed the conditions have not yet been met because the Lebanese political and financial establishments are very reluctant to accept transparency, to accept clear criteria and lift banking secrecy, because this would reveal an awful lot of about the financial crimes and misdemeanors that took place in the past 15 years. And, the irony is that while the IMF is very often criticized in the Global South, in Latin America and elsewhere, because it is perceived as imposing austerity, imposing neoliberal solutions, and it is opposed by the left in most of these countries. In Lebanon, it is those who are objecting to an IMF program are mostly members of the political and financial oligarchy, because they feel that the IMF will force them to respect the so-called ‘hierarchy of claims’: meaning that after a country’s banks go bankrupt, they have to hold their shareholders accountable before proceeding. So, many members of the Lebanese Parliament, particularly the finance committee, which is very close to private interest groups, and very close to shareholders of the major banks, have been trying to torpedo an IMF deal for the past few years.
And, so far they were successful. They procrastinated, they refused to respect the conditions. And most reformers in Lebanon tend on the other side to express perhaps certain criticism of the IMF program, but to be supportive of an IMF deal because they know it is sort of a visa that they need to get support from other countries and it would allow to put some order in a system that has been completely bankrupt. So it is a typical Lebanese paradox where you see that the IMF solutions are perceived as much more progressive, as much fairer to the weakest segments of the Lebanese population. And, the Lebanese ‘kleptocracy’ went so far in its arrogance and its unwillingness to share the losses in an equitable way, that the IMF today appears as a lesser evil to many Lebanese.
5. SS: Recently, there have been military clashes on the Syrian Lebanese border between the Lebanese tribes and the HTS forces from Syria. In your point of view, why did the new Syrian administration in Damascus promote an attack on Lebanon?
KB: I think it expresses local tensions between tribes, and the fact that HTS has yet to completely control Syria. It’s not easy to take the idyllic model and replicate it at a national level. So, I do not think it was premeditated.
It is nonetheless quite worrying. It is creating a certain sense of insecurity among certain segments of the Lebanese population who live near the borders. So, one should hope that the new Lebanese and Syrian authorities will very rapidly meet and establish a solid framework to make sure that these clashes end, and that Lebanese sovereignty is protected, and to find a solution to the issue of Syrian refugees who have been in Lebanon for the past several years.
Steven Sahiounie is a two-time award-winning journalist
