Hizbullah and the May 2000 liberation of South Lebanon
Last Wednesday, May 25, was the fifth anniversary of the intriguing victory that lebanon's Hizbullah won when all the positions of the Israeli-puppet "South Lebanon Army" strung along the (in-)security zone that Israel maintained inside south Lebanon collapsed within a period of a few short hours.
The collapse of the SLA threw the Israeli forces that were still in the zone into a big tizzy, and as a result the withdrawal the IDF undertook back to their own country was much more hurried and much, much less dignified than they had planned for.
The "bloodbath" that the Israelis had long openly warned might befall the Christians of south Lebanon after an IDFwithdrawal never occurred. Most of those Lebanese-- Christians and Shiites-- who had worked with the SLA turned themselves in to Hizbullah and the Lebanese army and received two- to three-year sentences for treason in the Lebanese military courts. Some had fled to Israel; but over the months that followed most of them returned to Lebanon.
The most amazing thing about Liberation Day was that it nearly all happened because of a largely unarmed mass demonstration by Hizbullah-organized Lebanese villagers.
Here is an account of that day given in an interview last week by Timur Goksel, the longtime spokesman for (and political advisor to) the UN's long-running Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL. It appeared in the "Liberation Day supplement" published last week by the Lebanese daily As-Safir. The translation is by a friend.
[Headline:] Events prior to and after the liberation...
Goksel: UN resolution 1559 is unrealistic and nobody knows who will “disarm” Hizballah
As-Safir by Elie Haydamous and Riyad Qbaisi, in its special supplement on the 5th anniversary of the liberation of the South today:
- Perhaps the Lebanese see him as one of the “heroes” of the liberation of the South which was achieved on 25 May, 2000. His incredible popularity penetrates all sects and areas. It would have ensured him the record number of votes in the coming elections. He is Timur Goksel, former UNIFIL Spokesman and the key witness to a historical period in the South full of events and transformations, tragedies and massacres, concluding with the defeat of the occupation and its pullout…
- [Safir description, contd.]
Goksel retired around two years ago. He is still in Lebanon, in Beirut, where he is teaching senior students ‘conflict resolution’ in the AUB and NDU Louizeh University. On that he explains, “I’m not an academic, and I’m not a person of theories. Most of my time was spent in the South. I tell the students true stories. I like to share my experience with them. My students, whom I have taught in the past two years, are aware of what is happening in the South more than the majority of the Lebanese do. This is because although there are many brave journalists in the South, yet the real stories have not been accurately told. There were some reports, but not real stories.”
“I love the country. I’m used to it, and I’m in harmony with it, “says Goksel, adding, “I don’t feel I’m a stranger. I feel at home, where I have spent most of my life.”
Goksel who came to the South “only for six months” in February 1979, 36 years old then, is now 62. He has spent 26 years in Lebanon, his country “by adoption”. He is surrounded by feelings of love and appreciation wherever he goes. He witnesses with embarrassment the eagerness to serve and welcome him. This is a proof that he has done his work well.
Goksel has one son and one daughter. They are studying at ACS in Beirut. They have taken part in the demonstrations over the entire Lebanese lands. He says, “I hope that will finish their studies in Beirut”, and “as for the university studies, we will see about that in the future.”
On the 5th anniversary of the liberation of the South, As-Safir met Goksel who talked about politics considering that 425 “did not mean anything is Israel”, adding that none of the Lebanese officials believed him when he told them that the Israelis were packing to leave.
Goksel tells us that Hizballah’s Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah told him one day, “you are luckier than me, because you know Hizballah more than I do.” He describes Hizballah as ‘a realistic and smart organization” and considers that “the only means” to guarantee that it will be fully transformed to politics and disarming it “is in assuring it and ensuring its interests.”
Goskel says that the assassination of former PM Hariri was “a political disaster and a great loss.” He thinks that there are “superior economical interests” behind this assassination. He adds that ‘whoever killed him did not care about the political repercussions.”
================================
The liberation of the South
Goksel recalls many unknown details on the last two days before the liberation of the South. He points to the march which included men, women, children and elderly on 23 May 2000 towards Qantara, where the Israeli forces withdrew from followed by the SLA. Not a single bullet was fired.
The people walked on to Taibi where there were three positions for the SLA, mostly Shiites. The Israelis had hoped to keep their positions for few more days and were preparing for a ‘dignified” exit for the occupation but the elements inside the position ran away as soon as the people started to arrive. Goksel said that there was hardly any Hizballah armed presence in the march, may be ten elements were there in civilian clothes but not a single bullet was fired.
After controlling Taibi, the march advanced to Adaisseh, where there was a strong SLA position. But as soon as the march arrived, the SLA elements evaporated.
On the next day, the march headed to Houleh and Markaba, while another march went to Shaqra and to the borders. That day witnessed the end of SLA as a unified force.
The area of Bint Jbeil was the only area which remained under the control of the Israeli occupation, where there were three or four strategic positions in Hadatha and Baarachite, which the occupation had hoped to temporarily keep.
Asked whether Hizballah was the party which organized those marches, Goksel said, “I don’t know who organized it, there must have been somebody who organized those people, who were all from Qanatra, but whoever it was he did a great job. I mean the occupation left without a single bullet fired. They were walking and the SLA was disappearing. The people were the ones who drove the Israelis and the SLA out.”
He added, “The demonstration of those people was behind everything. I have some photos of them, and so does Al Manar TV. It is an incredible story which was not even noticed, because simply there was no TV to cover this except Al-Manar.” He wondered, “How many Lebanese are really aware of those last days of the SLA when the Israelis left?”
The same night, the Israeli occupation shelled the liberated area in a provocative way but the resistance did not retaliate. Goskel said Sheikh Nabil Kaouk called him that same night through UNIFIL when Goksel was in Haifa, and set a one-hour deadline for the shelling to end, otherwise, Hizballah will be compelled to retaliate along the Northern Galilee.
Goksel said, “I was like a mailman. I was able to call an official in the Israeli defense ministry, and relay him to the message of Kaouk. I told him that his army has 45 more minutes to stop the shelling, otherwise…” He added that the officer thanked him for his call, said it came at the right time, because he was in a meeting with the PM Barak at the moment.
Goksel added, “Then I told him: as you wish, I’m comfortable, I’m in Haifa. I’m not in danger. Then he asked me: are we really the party who is shelling. I told him yes, you are shelling and the Lebanese side is not retaliating. UNIFIL confirmed. Half an hour later, he called me back. We have stopped firing. I checked with UNIFIL and it was confirmed. I also checked with Kaouk, who thanked me.”
As soon as the shelling stopped, the SLA men left Baarchite position, two other positions in Beit Yahoun and another one in Hadatha, ‘because SLA knew then that just as the Israelis stopped the shelling, the game was over. They were on their own. End of the story.”
Later, half of the SLA surrendered to the Lebanese Army, while the second half took hiding in their houses. “This was how the occupation ended on 23 May.”
Goksel told us that one year after the liberation, Kaouk told him that the mediation he undertook with the Israelis that night had contributed in making the pullout possible, “because our fingers were on the trigger to shell all the Northern Galilee, and the whole equation was going to change.”
Goksel said that those who controlled the security situation in the South post liberation were around 30 veteran Lebanese army intelligence men in civilian, who significantly hailed from the South.
He added, “Two hours after the liberation, we sent UNIFIL elements to the area, which we were not familiar with then. Hizballah sent representatives to the Christian villages to assure its population and they told them if anybody bothers you, contact us.”
Goksel stressed that the situation in the liberated areas was fully “under control”. He added, “the resistance targeted the Israelis, not the Lebanese, which is why there was no massacre.”
SLA
Goksel considered that the majority of the SLA were good people, adding that around 400 to 500 elements could not stay in Lebanon. Those are divided into two groups: the old timers who joined in when SLA was first set up by Saad Hadad, and those have lost their Lebanese roots”, as Goksel said. Most of them were officers. The second group - the most important - was the Intelligence in SLA, most of them were Shiites.
Around 100 persons in SLA surrendered to the army in Tyre. He said, “Well, 6000 persons escaped after the pullout fearing operations of sectarian cleansing.” But he stressed that he did not have any such concerns at that time. “I went to New York twice in two weeks prior to the liberation, and many were talking about a blood bath in the South. I asked them: are we talking about the same country?”. I assured them, “that not a single drop of blood will be shed if the collaborators left, particularly the Moslems.”
Goksel mocks that some “friendly’ countries (insinuating France) “were willing to send their navy to the Lebanese coast fearing sectarian bloody battles.”
Goksel added that he asserted to the UN officials that his concern was that Moslems would kill Moslems and not Christians. “I told them I know the country. Moslems will not kill Christians.” He added, “some were angry with me. I told them I will return to Lebanon. The result was that not a single person was killed because he was a collaborator.”
Goskel asserted that many SLA elements were forced to join Lahad’s army, adding that they informed Lebanese army, Hizballah and Amal of this through their relatives. He said, “Hizballah used to shell the surroundings of the SLA positions, not the position itself, because no one in Lebanon wanted the southern villages to be empty from its own people.”
He added, “What I’m saying is that if Hizballah wanted to kill them, it could have done it. It could have liberated Jezzine in one hour. It was a disciplined resistance. The Christians in the SLA positions were easy targets for Hizballah. But in most cases, Hizballah’s aim was not to kill Lebanese, but Israelis if it could find them.”
He added, “I have seen several resistance operations. I’m an expert on these operations, and everybody knows it. Even Sayyed Hassan (Nasrallah) agreed.”
The border
As for the refusal of the Lebanese government to send the Army to the South and deploy it to the borders, Goksel said that the Lebanese officials consider their army "weak, unable to confront any Israeli military operation.” He added that the Lebanese officers wished to go to the South but feared “what would happen if the Israelis attacked the army?”
Goksel ruled out an Israeli voluntary withdrawal from the Shebaa Farms and without any return from the Syrians. He underlined that the liberation of the Farms will not trigger a border-dispute between Lebanon and Syria, but resolving the matter once and for all needs time, through negotiations between both countries.
He added, “There is a real problem on the ground; there are no clear borders, the two borders intermingle; One family is divided into two parts, one lives on the Lebanese side and the other on the Syrian side.”
He stressed that, “Not a single day did the UN said that the Farms are not occupied, but it said there is a Blue Line. One has to acknowledge that the Lebanese army had objected to the Blue Line, but there was a time-problem, which speeded up the delineation of the Blue Line. Any delay then could have pushed the Israelis to stay another 20 years.”
Goksel explained that, “Personally, I was against the declaration of the Blue Line on that day and I was hoping that some kind of settlement would have been reached, but the UNSG Kofi Annan was under the pressure of the UNSC on this matter, and so it had to be declared.” He added that the “UN is not the party that says this is the borders. It says that according to the available information, it looks like this is the border. We needed a line to verify the Israeli withdrawal, and so they came up with this physical line. The Blue Line is the borders of 425.”
Goksel pointed out that, “Even in 2000, no one asked me why (UNIFIL) is not in the Farms. Then suddenly they woke up, so I said, 'Thanks for letting us know. But how are we supposed to solve this issue now?'”
Resolution 425
Asked if Israel has fully complied with 425, or was it because of the resistance attacks, Goksel said, “They did not mention 425 for 20 years.” He added that the story of the implementation of the UN resolution started under the effect of Hizballah’s military pressures on the occupation and the SLA.
He added, “One year before the liberation, I told everybody in Beirut from President Lahoud to Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, the Israelis are preparing to go, but no one believed me.”
Goksel explained that he had reached this conclusion from the Mothers’ Movement in Israel, who wanted their sons, who were IDF soldiers, to return home. This was a key point which speeded up the pullout and the implementation of 425. He added that Barak, the PM then, pledged to pullout within one year, and that if he had reneged on this pledge, that would have been the end of his political career. He could not break his pledge to the mothers in Israel.
Goksel said: “ Two months before the liberation, I told everybody in Lebanon I was no longer guessing, because the Israelis were vacating their positions. It was the same story like the Jezzine pullout, no on in Beirut believed it.” He said, “The Israelis were under tremendous pressure, and of course it was not me who was applying this pressure, it was the resistance. The Israelis were looking for a way out of the Lebanese gutter.”
The former UNIFIL Spokesman said that he made a famous interview with Jerusalem Post, in which “I said: 425 is the solution.” He said he was amazed that 425 “did not mean a thing in Israel.’
He added that Israel Minister of defense then, Mordechai, underestimated the significance of 425, adding that he met with the Israeli politician Yossi Beilin, and “explained 425 to him.” He continued: "We started a media campaign and the Israeli press started to talk about the UN resolution as one possible exit” from Lebanon. It was as if they were 'discovering' 425 for the first time.”
Goksel said that 425 “was a number only in Lebanon. Even they made cigarettes which carried the same number. Only in Lebanon, such things happen.”
Hizballah
Goksel insinuated that he knows a lot about Hizballah but he keeps a lot to himself and would say only this much. He said, “No one can deny the role which the resistance played” in the liberation. He added, “It was not costly in terms of money to the Israelis. There were Lahad’s forces which covered those positions. They felt comfortable. They were fighting in Lebanon and not in Israel. They were also waiting for someone to strike a deal with them in Lebanon or in Syria or with anyone. If they were not under pressure, they would not have left.”
Goksel said that Nasrallah told him when he bid him farewell, "My brother, you are luckier than me, because you know Hizballah more than me. Because you are watching them, while I’m here in Beirut. “ This is considered a compliment by Goksel in military terms, "but on the political level, I don’t know many things” about Hizballah.
Goksel said Hizballah was “a realistic, brilliant and clever organization” and ”an organized and disciplined force.” He said, "they know that the resistance has entered its final stages, and that the end is coming closer. Here are only the Farms left; the day will come when Hizballah will assume its role in the political life in Lebanon.”
Goksel said, “The Shiites have amazingly changed in the past 30 years.” Many Shiites view Hizballah as “the military and political protector of the sect.”
Hizballah senses that it “is under danger”, Goksel said. He added, "If you ask Hizballah: why do you keep your weapons? They will say because of the Israeli and American threats. If those attacked, who will confront them?”
Goksel said that Hizballah does not pose a threat to the Lebanese domestic stage. He said, “If anyone wanted to enter politics, he needs experience. Hizballah needs time. It knows that it possesses a popular base and cadres.”
Goksel said that he was told by Hizballah that half of Amal had joined Hizballah after the militias were disbanded, “So what will happen if we close our doors?” He added that Hizballah thinks that there are some who are waiting for this to happen to inherit it politically . He said: “For Hizballah, you have to provide the motive for keeping the youth with you”.
Goksel considered that the “only way to guarantee that Hizballah will be transformed into a political party and disarmed is through assuring it and providing a guarantee for its interests, and perhaps through boosting its presence in the parliament, and granting it a high profile political power. Then you could open a dialogue with it on the issue of its weapons.” He added, “We have to take out the pretext of the Farms, to start this dialogue.”
1559
Goksel considered that resolution 1559 was a product of the intersecting American and French interests, "which will not recur.” This formed the momentum for the events which shook Lebanon in the recent period.
Goksel added that 1559, "is political and unrealistic. It is a resolution meant for pressure.” But the “assassination of Hariri helped its implementation.” He said, “I can’t agree that the resolution covers Syria and Hizballah together.” He added, "who would disarm Hizballah? No one can do that by force. I don’t think that anyone from outside will volunteer to do the job?”
Goksel is nopt embarrassed to say that, “Some stupid persons in Lebanon are saying that the government has to do this, but Jumblat, the Christians and Cardinal Sfeir are aware of the dangers of this.”
Goksel said that 1559, "is another Taef which provides the international pressures to implement Taef after long period of delay. But Taef has not solved the problem, it managed it. The question which remains is: Does Taef want Lebanon to be under Syrian custody or to stand on its own feet?”
He added, “The pressures on Lebanon to implement the domestic part of the UN resolution will not do any good, but might backfire. Dialogue is the solution. I don’t think that Hizballah will continue to carry weapons. This would only lead to provoking the rest of the Lebanese groups.”
Goksel added that the Lebanese regime will “continue to be weak”, and , “while one group of the Lebanese feels threatened, it will seek its protection by itself.”
The UN
Goksel said that there are two organizations in the UN. He explained, “there is the UN, the institution, people like me and Kofi Annan, the UN Secretariat on one hand, and there are the member countries on the other hand, which use the UN for their own interests.”
Hariri
Goksel said that the assassination of Hariri "is a political disaster and a great loss. We have lost a valuable person. You will not be able to get someone like him against in the near future."
Goksel said that Hariri invested vast amounts of money in Lebanon, and he enjoyed high "credibility" on the international stage, which attracted great investments in Lebanon. He added that the former PM "was interested in the South."
He said, "There could not be only political reasons for his assassination. There must be other motives. It is most probably about big business. Whoever killed him did not really care about the political repercussions, but it is more about higher economical reasons." We ask him “like what?, He says, "You are Lebanese, you tell me" trying to escape from the question.
He added, "regardless of the identity of the assassins; I cannot believe that whoever planned it was not aware of the repercussions and the consequences."
Goksel told us that he took 30 of his students, mostly Americans, to meet the former PM in Grand Saray. They asked very embarrassing questions on his personal deals, but he was not embarrassed and answered all the questions. He was very comfortable in that encounter which lasted one and a half hours, when the original appointment was set for only 15 minutes.
Goksel laughed when he remembered how Hariri's staff panicked, telling him that there others with appointments waiting , but he told them to wait. He also asked Goksel later to bring his students again to meet him, but this time
At home not in the office. Hariri insisted, and Goksel told him "maybe next semester” But look want happened.
Goksel said that Hariri did not play around with the ones he met, if he could not do something, he did not make any promises.
The demonstrations
Asked what would he have done if he were Lebanese with regards to the demonstrations of 8 and 14 March, Goksel comfortably said that he would have taken part in it, and that his son and daughter took part.
He added, "I was excited with the change in the country. The Lebanese discovered their national flag, their national identity and anthem. After years of silence, they spoke up, and they started talking about the apparatuses."
Asked if he felt dismay with the outcome of the demonstrations, he said, "Today, I'm more realistic."
He spoke about another event in the period since the assassination of Hariri, when Nasrallah stood and made a speech addressing the demonstrators under the Lebanese flag. "It was then, that I was aware that a change happened."
Goksel underlined that Nasrallah did not demand the Syrians to stay in his speech, but his demand was that they exit in a dignified way.
Asked if the recent developments have isolated the Shiites from the rest of the sects, Goksel said, "if you look closely to the Shiites, you will have to be a professor in politics top maintain the situation as it currently is. There were many angry Shiites because of Nasrallah's silence at the opposition demonstrations, and they asked, what about us, the Shiites, don't we have a say on all of this? It was because of this, that 8 March demonstrations took place, and it was a natural reaction to keep the Shiite community united."
He added, "the Shiites, today, are acting in wisely and they are open to all."
Goksel concluded that a golden chance for reform was made available to Lebanon given all the international factors and the unfortunate assassination of Hariri.