No Script

Please Wait...

Ramadan Kareem...

July-War Secrets: Exposed by Nabih Berri and Retold by Ali Hassan Khalil (Episode 18)

July-War Secrets: Exposed by Nabih Berri and Retold by Ali Hassan Khalil (Episode 18)
folder_openLebanon access_time12 years ago
starAdd to favorites

TRANSLATED from Lebanese Daily As-Safir- Local Editor

Sayyed Nasrallah Reserves Some Resolution 1701 Standards; Hariri Replies: What Outcome Will Exist If Arms Remain?

Governmental Session on August 12, 2006: ‘Striking Force' Led by Siniora, Fatfat, Hamada against Arms

Interior stances of anger and fears are made on our prospect of the stage following the issuance of the international resolution, and now the government seeks to settle completely the issue of the Resistance, intending to fulfill practically what Resolution 1701 hasn't mentioned very distinctively and to prevent us, thus, from merely reserving standards that are unjust to Lebanon.
Not only are some international sides unjust, but also Lebanese ones are; whereby they're afraid of a virtual line separating the Litany River's northern bank from the southern one.

The presence of arms in the northern one ‘never brings about any harm'; whereas their presence in the southern one ‘is ultimately dangerous' for the "Israeli" will and security... And here is the whole story.


The Lebanese Ministerial Council is ready to appear as if it were more caring than the United Nations Security Council itself (UNSC); also than several states that have supported us, seen Resolution 1701 is "unbalanced", and been understanding in regard to our political choices. Probably the letter of the Qatari Minister of Foreign Affairs Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber bin Muhammad Al Thani, which he sends to MP Berri, manifests this fact best; whereby the letter includes our remarks on the resolution that "has not involved the afflictions of the innocent Lebanese civilians and the demolition of the Lebanese infrastructure. Neither has the resolution pointed out clearly from human and legal perspectives "Israel's" responsibility for that. Furthermore, the resolution hasn't made a balanced treatment for the issue of the Lebanese captives, detainees, and abductees imprisoned in the "Israeli" prisons."

The Qatari minister recognizes how to lead a formulation which can endure the blazing standards, so he refers to "The April Understanding" ("The Grapes of Wrath Understandings) in cases of violations. As well, he sees it is the government's responsibility to deal with the apparent armament in the South. But Premier Siniora searches for "a knife" to confiscate after ‘having a memorial photograph while holding it' to present to the world ‘a certificate of good conduct as respects disarmament'.

MP Berri puts it, "He's a premier exploiting the moment" so as to express that he is upset because of Siniora's stances and that he feels the bitterness of having words put in his mouth by Siniora. MP Berri now recognizes that the dangers are elsewhere... So he's almost having seclusion.

Fouad Siniora and Saad Hariri take turns to perform the same mission: barely has the prime minister expressed his ‘fears' when Saad Hariri ‘strikes' us with his ‘fears' of international reactions: "Your stance will obstruct the cease-fire... No state will approve of this...What outcome will exist if arms remain in that region?" And Hariri continues making his expressions of ‘fears'...

But Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah sees the arms issue is of major importance, and he sends a message as significant as the dangers and challenges are. Although the exact terms of the message cannot be published, the people concerned hear some of these terms: "Let Siniora try to disarm the Resistance - like he has been proposing. Then we'll see what stance the Lebanese people will make and whether they will cover up Siniora's government or overthrow it."

Saturday, the twelfth of August was a long day; here below are more details of that day, which was different from the days before; whereby the features of a new image of Lebanon began to appear upon the Resistance's achievements on earth even though some local sides sought to shatter that image.

Shocked, Haj Hussein and I returned from the Governmental Palace to Ain el Tineh; even if Premier Fouad Siniora had the background reflected through his talk in the meeting, he could have taken into consideration the current circumstances and left the doors open, especially when "Israel" hadn't yet commented on Resolution 1701 or made a stance on it.

We rested for a while as MP Berri was home. Haj Hussein and I decided that a letter wouldn't reflect to Sayyed Hassan the actual stance Siniora had made, and we agreed to meet with each other to keep up with the developments.
When MP Berri arrived in office, I explained to him what had happened in the meeting with Siniora; hence, he was shattered because Siniora had put words in his mouth. We, however, had witnessed the hot debate that had involved the issue of arms in the South Litany Region.

Then, MP Berri gave Siniora an example on the armament of the settlers of the "Israeli" settlements facing the Lebanese villages on the borders (with occupied Palestine). MP Berri saw that Siniora's talk regarding the issue of arms aimed at exploiting the time to fulfill what Siniora had proposed and thought about since the very beginning. Besides, MP Berri saw that now Siniora was propagating among some Lebanese and foreign media that it was the right time to settle certain political calculations.

 Otherwise, what could Siniora's insistence and challenge have meant by the time many states of the world had supported the Lebanese stance and become more understanding for our choices? Also, by the time Siniora made his stance, we had defined many positive points of the resolution, whereas the remaining resolution parts only required the belief of some Lebanese sides regarding how to fulfill the resolution. That way, the resolution would harmonize with our national interests.

In this context, MP Berri informed me of the content of the letter he had received from the First Qatari Deputy Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber bin Muhammad Al Thani. The letter confirmed the role which MP Berri had played for the sake of ratifying basic adjustments to the draft of Resolution 1701, as well as reserving some standards.

Here below is the full text of the Qatari letter:

Your Revered Excellency Nabih Berri
Speaker of the Parliament
Republic of Lebanon
Beirut


Best Salutations,

I am glad to send Your Excellency the explanation of the voting for the delegation of the State of Qatar, which we made in the official meeting of the United Nations Security Council in New York on August 11, 2006 so as to debate the situation of Lebanon and "Israel" in the Middle East.

In accordance with the agreements we had reached on the phone, I made proposals to the delegations of the United States of America and France, informing them that such explanations were upon your wish; also that I was going to read these explanations to the Security Council members before the voting for the special resolution to be issued for the situation of Lebanon and "Israel" in the Middle East. Afterwards, I read these explanations before the voting was made positively for the aforementioned resolution - as we had previously agreed.

Your Excellency, Kindly accept Reverence and Appreciation

Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber bin Al Thani,
First Deputy Prime Minister,
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Here below is the text of "the explanation for the voting for the State of Qatar's delegation" in the Security Council's official meeting on August 11, 2006:

"In the Name of the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate

Mr. Speaker of the Parliament,

First I'd like to thank the delegations of France and the United States for the efforts they've made lately to work out the formula of the draft resolution they've presented to the Security Council concerning the situation in the Middle East.
And as I thank them for considering some important points which we had aroused regarding the draft resolution's content, I'd like to iterate our stance: The Security Council should have accredited a resolution stating an immediate cease-fire since the first day the current struggle broke out so as to prevent the bloodshed of innocent civilians. As for the other issues, they should have been treated afterwards.

Yet, this belief doesn't necessarily mean that we're content with the issuance of a resolution which lacks balance and ignores the complicated geopolitical, social, and historic factors that have accumulated to produce the current situation in the Middle East Region; whereby the resolution hasn't considered quite enough Lebanon's interests, unity, stability, and regional safety. Hence, we still have some remarks on this resolution.

For instance, the resolution has not involved clearly and frankly the afflictions of the innocent Lebanese civilians and the demolition of the Lebanese infrastructure. Neither has the resolution pointed out clearly from humanitarian and legal perspectives "Israel's" responsibility for that. Furthermore, the resolution hasn't made a balanced treatment for the issue of the Lebanese captives, detainees, and abductees imprisoned in the "Israeli" prisons; whereby their exchange would have been the logical and realistic mean to settle this issue.

Still, we accepted the resolution in its current formula so as to prevent more bloodshed of innocent people and prevent further demolition and afflictions in Lebanon and the surrounding region.

In fact, we understand that the mere issuance of this resolution obliges both sides to cease their military acts and forces the "Israeli" forces to withdraw immediately from southern Lebanon. As for any violations during the period between the cessation of the aggressive acts and the achievement of the withdrawal and cease-fire, they are to be judged by "The April Understanding (1996)". As well, right when this resolution is issued, the Lebanese airports and ports are to be opened, and migrants are to return to their homes.
Furthermore, we understand that this resolution states that it is the responsibility of the Lebanese government solely to deal with the apparent armament in the South; also that only the Lebanese government dominates the region between "The Blue Line" and the Litany River.

We welcome the resolution's statement regarding the reinforcement of the United Nations Interim Forces in Lebanon (UNIFIL), whereby the UNIFIL's patronage is to continue under the Sixth Chapter of the UN Convention. Also, any sign of international forces in the draft resolution means "the UNIFIL" - the draft resolution presenters have confirmed to me. Hereupon, we call the contributing states and those willing to contribute to the UNIFIL to send their forces as soon as possible..."

Nasrallah Reserves Some Resolution 1701 Standards

By now MP Saad Hariri had called MP Berri more than once, finding it was ‘odd' to make the debate we had made while in the meeting with Siniora and adopting Siniora's point of view; whereby Hariri saw that we couldn't make any remarks on the resolution. However, MP Berri repeated that we had the right to reserve certain points regarding some issues, and he reminded Hariri of the states that made reservations; also that there were issues we needed to settle together. Then, MP Berri explained to Hariri what words Siniora had put in his mouth, specifically in regard to Siniora's confusion of "the apparent armament" and "the region emptied of arms".

After all of the explanation, however, MP Hariri was not convinced, so MP Berri asked me to go meet with him after setting an appointment for that.

Sayyed Hassan had spoken on Al-Manar TV; whereby he considered that Resolution 1701 was unjust and unfair in holding the Resistance responsible for "the July Aggression" and not even mentioning the crimes "Israel" had committed. As well, Sayyed Nasrallah pointed out that His Eminence reserved some resolution standards, the details of which would be discussed by the government and the National Dialogue Conference after the cease-fire.

 Yet, Sayyed Nasrallah said that the Resistance would cooperate with the Lebanese Army and the United Nations Emergency Forces (UNEF) and facilitate their deployment. Then, Sayyed Nasrallah made a detailed explanation of the important results achieved upon the great steadfastness of the Lebanese people of different confessions. Also, His Eminence emphasized that the Resistance would cease its military acts as soon as "Israel" ceased its, adding, "This has been our stance since the beginning."


Hariri: Sayyed's Talk ‘Worries' Me

As I reached MP Saad Hariri's home in Qreitem, he informed me of his ‘fears', whereby our stance on the international resolution was going to ‘obstruct' cease-fire and the formation of the UNEF; for ‘no state' would agree to allow its forces to participate when ‘uncertainty' and ‘no clear commitment to the resolution' existed.

Ali Hassan Khalil: "Why are you making such approaches?! There is a two-sided issue: We have said that we would deal positively with the resolution and facilitate the deployment of the Lebanese Army and the UNEF. As for our reservations, most of them aren't going to affect the states' participation since these reservations require the government's explanation. Besides, they're the government's responsibility - not other states'. I attended the debate with Siniora, and the obstruction of the fulfillment of the resolution wasn't even mentioned. Instead, the focus was the explanation of "emptying the South Litany Region of arms" or "emptying it of apparent armament"."

Hariri: "And this is the main problem. What outcome will exist if arms remain in that region? All eyes are watching us, and I don't think that any of the states approves of such talk. Does any?"

Khalil: "Well, the world has said this is the responsibility of the Lebanese State, and we and you make the governmental resolution. So let's agree on what we want, and the whole world will accept it."

Hariri: "But after Sayyed Hassan's talk on his reservation, I feel worried and cautious because his talk will outrage many states, and I don't know what is going to happen. I have fears, and I can't understand how you can even think of keeping arms in the South Litany region!"

Khalil: "Then what difference is there between the north of the Litany River and its south? It is only that this virtual line has been drawn by "Israel"!"
Now MP Hariri was not convinced, and he kept the same stance, asking me to emphasize what he had just said to MP Berri. And when I went back to Ain el Tineh and informed MP Berri of the talk with Hariri, he was annoyed and angry, and he said, "Inform Haj Hussein Khalil that I no longer intend to sustain my communications, for I can no longer tolerate such illogical debate!"

I phoned Haj Hussein, and he arrived fast in Ain el Tineh. MP Berri spoke bitterly about how Premier Siniora had modified Berri's talk in the Governmental Palace; also about Siniora's Senior Aide Muhammad Shatah's background and Saad Hariri's talk; whereby now other (internal) sides had become dangerous.

Siniora: Army to Confiscate Even "Knives"

The Ministerial Council held it exceptional session for discussing Resolution 1701 and making a stance on it. Our ministers had received clear instructions in regard to recording their reservations on the points we had mentioned earlier. As long as voters made their reservations in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), why couldn't we? We were the ones enduring danger, and this was our final decision, even if things were going to ‘go wrong'. Among the attendees of the session were the Lebanese Army Commander General Michele Suleiman, the Head of the Lebanese Intelligence Brigadier General Georges Khouri, and the Director of the Internal Security Forces Major General Ashraf Rifi. A long and complicated debate took place, and contrasting approaches to the resolution standards were made to the extent of disagreement; even though the ones insisting on the full adoption of the Resolution 1701 admitted that certain points were quite unjust for Lebanon, Siniora insisted on refusing any reservation. And he insisted on such refusal even if Resolution 1701 was accepted that way.

In accordance with the special proceedings for the Ministerial Council's session, here below is the summary of the debate:
Siniora: "We need to reflect on clear instructions to give to the Lebanese Army so as to enable it to perform its missions; this way we can maintain our credibility, for we'll be dealing with the UNIFIL that will no longer remain a purpose, but it will be claimed for us."

Haj Muhammad Fneish (Minister of Energy): "We're not going to make lesser expressions than the United Nations Secretary General (Kofi Annan's) regarding the lack of the world's confidence in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) upon its intended slackening and long silence in spite of "the July Aggression". Neither are we going to make lesser expressions than the Qatari deputy's regarding the lack of balance of Resolution 1701. So I add it has been unfair and unjust as it has not convicted "Israeli" for its demolition. Your Excellency... The UNSC has welcomed the government's commitment (to the Resolution); yet, it hasn't been committed to what a part of the seven points stated concerning the immediate withdrawal. Therefore, the separating period gives us - the Resistance - the right to act, and we're not going to waste this (chance). Besides, the future of the Shebaa Farms is not clear, and the points regarding the arms are related to the constant solution for the issue of the Shebaa Farms - the solution which isn't present in Resolution 1701."

Ahmad Fatfat: "How can the Lebanese Army get deployed in the South Litany Region when there are still arms there? The Minister of Defense (Elias Al-Morr) has said that this won't happen as long as arms still exist there."
Haj Muhammad Fneish: "No disarmament is to take place! And this is not to be decided by the Lebanese Army or the minister of defense; the whole government is responsible."

Fatfat: "Even in the South Litany Region?! Is that the way you think?"
Haj Muhammad Fneish: "Certainly."

Marwan Hamedeh (Minister of Telecommunications): "But the issue of arms is a part of the bargain that will make "Israel" retreat; then we can discuss the issue of the Shebaa Farms and the captives. This issue is not about outsmarting the international community. If the ministers make reservations, which will be known, then this will seem like we're giving "Israel" the green light to continue bombarding all of Lebanon."

Now Minister Trad Hamedeh (Minister of Labor and Hizbullah's representative in the government) spoke, iterating what Minister Muhammad Fneish had said and explaining the remarks made in details.

Afterwards, Minister Muhammad Jawad Khalifeh spoke, showing the stance of the group of ministers (Fneish, Trad, and Khalifeh); whereby the stance was to refuse any talk of disarmament and to record opposition for it. As well, Khalifeh requested that Minister Elias Al-Morr determine the Lebanese Army's opinion in regard to this issue.

Still, Minister Michele Faroun (Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs) spoke, insisting on the commitment to the statement of (OP8), without which the government ‘could not be committed to anything' the international community requested.

Siniora: "Now the problem does not lie in making reservations or not. Eventually, it is required that we see how to deal with the issue of arms in the South Litany Region and what instructions to give to the Lebanese Army after the debate we've had."
Haj Muhammad Fneish: "Then let's sustain the debate along with the Army."
Siniora: "Nope. Pay attention, and let me be clear. I don't mean that arms can be kept. The whole thing is about keeping no arms but the arms of the Lebanese Army."

Fneish: "You mean no apparent arms."
Siniora: "The apparent and the hidden ones."
The long debate went on like that until Siniora said: "If the Army and the UNIFIL discover the presence of a knife, then they shall confiscate it!"
Now the debate extended, and Marwan Hamedeh said, "If the international powers find out that arms are still present in the South Litany Region, then "Israel" will not withdraw."

Now Joseph Sarkis (Minister of Tourism; also the representative of "the Lebanese Forces Party" in the government) spoke positively about the Resistance men, yet he said afterwards, "The text is clear, so why should we embarrass ourselves and the Army? How can we let the arm keepers make reservations?! We must facilitate this thing and hand over the arms to the Army."

Following were several responses and clarifications until the Ministerial Council finally issued a resolution as reservations were made.
In the end of the meeting, the Ministerial Council agreed to hold another session the other day (Sunday, August 13, 2006) so as to discuss the issue of the Lebanese Army's deployment in the South and the final stance on the issue of arms in the South Litany Region. The Ministerial Council insisted that the session be held the following morning, but then it agreed to hold it in the afternoon upon the insistence of a number of ministers, who wanted to find out what the "Israeli" stance on Resolution 1701 was.

Now, Minister Muhammad Fneish informed His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah of the Ministerial Council's debate, and Haj Hussein Khalil reported MP Berri's talk to His Eminence. Then Haj Hussein delivered Sayyed Nasrallah's message to us; whereby His Eminence was not going to accept the proposals of Premier Siniora and his assistants in regard to (the Resistance's) arms. His Eminence challenged Siniora to disarm the Resistance - like Siniora had been proposing. "Then we'll see what stance the Lebanese people will make and whether they will cover up Siniora's government or overthrow it," continued the message.

Episode 19:

- Berri Out of Sight, Doesn't Reply to Siniora and Hariri

- Nasrallah Prepares to Inform Government of Firm Stance on Arms

- Syria Adopts Government's Stance on Resolution 1701

- More Resistance Heroism versus Continuous "Israeli" Massacres before Combat Cessation
 

Source: As-Safir newspaper, Translated and edited by moqawama.org

Comments