Hizbullah building bridges; Israel’s command authorities fracturing

I just read this Yahoo/AP news report about Lebanese Army units deploying to south Lebanon today, and I clicked onto the slideshow accompanying it. In a number of slides you can see the Army convoys crossing vital bridges across waterways that the Israelis three weeks ago pulverized with their air assault against the country’s infrastructure– and these crossing points had already been rebuilt with temporary but very serviceable-looking replacement structures.
E.g. here, you can see a rather nice-looking emergency bridge that has been put up over the Litani south of Tyr– at the point where just last week we saw desperate aid volunteers handing medical supplies to each across a raging torrent. (Look at the pic before that one, too.) Or this one, which shows the Army convoy crossing what is, I think, the strategically vital Jisr al-Khardali (Mustard Bridge), an area beneath Marjayoun that I know well.
So who do we suppose it was who built these emergency structures? I am almost certain it would have been engineers from Hizbullah’s long-practiced “Jihad al-Buna” (The Jihad of Building) organization.
Hizbullah builds many kinds of bridges, of course– political as well as physical. For example, Juan Cole links to an Arabic-language news report saying that Hizbullah leader Sayed Hasan Nasrullah has defended Lebanon’s “March 14” bloc against Bashar al-Asad’s accusation that they are all just Israeli and American tools.
Right now, Hizbullah’s need to keep good relations with the rest of the Lebanese government evidently outweighs its need to keep good relations with Bashar. Bashar, after all, is not about to cut them off at the knees. Indeed, his support for them will have to (in his own interest) continue and perhaps even grow over the weeks ahead, regardless of what Nasrullah says about him in public. But Nasrullah does need to keep a good working relationship with the March 14 bloc as he shoe-horns Hizbullah into the position he wants it to be in, in south Lebanon and the rest of the country, over the vital days and weeks ahead.
It’s probably worth reiterating that Nasrullah is an extremely astute and experienced political operator within intra-Lebanese politics. ( You can see some description of that in my Boston Review piece.)
Al-Hayat is only one of many newspapers that is reporting [Arabic] today on the deal between Hizbullah and the rest of the Lebanese government that has allowed the Lebanese Army’s rapid deployment to the south and a Hizbullah agreement to keep its weapons south of the Litani hidden (for now).
A future stage of this relationship might indeed involve– as often discussed previously– the incorporation of most or all Hizbullah units into the national army, perhaps in the form of a territorially based reserve or auxiliary force. At a minimum, such a force should have a single, unified command which comes under truly national Lebanese control.
(Interesting, in this context, to see this AP report of the Lebanese authorities having arrested a Lebanese general, Brig. Adnan Daoud, after he was seen on Israeli and Lebanese television last week, schmoozing and jovially drinking tea with Israeli occupation force officers who had just captured his barracks in Marjayoun. Lebanon has, of course, remained in a state of unresolved war with Israel since 1948, and has suffered horrendous damage from repeated Israeli attacks and incursions since 1968.)
Politicians in the west have been so happy in the past to see Lebanon gain its national independence from all foreign tutelage. So if the Lebanese government chooses to establish a territorial or auxiliary force in the way outlined above, then no foreign government would want to interfere with that nationally made decision, I assume?
… Gosh, the news just keeps pouring in, doesn’t it? Here, we learn that those fearsome French who were expected to “lead” or “be the backbone of” the beefed-up UN force are now reported by Le Monde as being prepared to contribute to it a princely “10 officers and 200 military engineers.”
This definitely looks more and more like Round One to Hizbullah. And of course, while Hizbullah’s leadership has been extremely carefully to do what it can to keep its version of “Lebanese national unity” flourishing, and while Hamas and Abu Mazen have also taken a significant new step toward Palestinian national unity, in Israel the highest levels of strategic and military decisionmaking seem to be falling into increasing discord amidst hails of cross-cutting accusations about responsibility for the failure of the 34-day war against Lebanon. (E.g., here and here.)
I do note, however, that the disunity in Israel’s national command authorities could allow some devastating military adventurism to arise there. This, in a country with (by conservative estimates) some 100 to 200 nuclear warheads…
Please, will the adults in the international community pay attention to this risk and exert all possible efforts to end the long-festering irresolution of three vital strands of the Israeli-Arab conflict before things get even worse?

16 thoughts on “Hizbullah building bridges; Israel’s command authorities fracturing”

  1. Two articles in the Los Angeles Times this morning about the re-building of war-ravaged Lebanon: one about the role of Hizbullah, the other about how the U.S. wants to make a name for itself in the re-building efforts….

  2. Vadim, these sources refer to only one single bridge as rebuilt by the Lebanese Army. I am very glad they’ve been able to contribute in this way even if they weren’t able to contribute anything, earlier, to defending the country from this destructive onslaught.
    Patrick, I’d love to see URLs for the pieces you mention. As I understand it, Lebanon’s total rebuilding costs are estimated anywhere between $2.1 billion and $3.7 billion, and the US has so far pledged, what, $50 million or so? (That, after rushing probably considerably more than that’s-worth of munitions to Israel to enable them to undertake that destruction… Will Condi rebrand this whole war as, “the birth pangs of new urban redevelopment in Lebanon,”, I wonder?)
    Another even thornier problem, in addition to the pure cash aspect of rebuilding the shattered infrastructure is the implementation aspect of it. Who has capacity to do this? Anyone who says “the Lebanese government” deeply misunderstands something very basic about the role the government has historically played in Lebanese life, and would have most Lebanese citizens falling off their chairs with derisive laughter. The traditional Lebanese view of government has been a quintessentially neoconservative one (“the less the better– and please don’t ask ME to pay any taxes!”)
    That was why, after the Taef Accord, the “government” essentially had to turn to Rafiq Hariri’s privately owned and Saudi financed “Solidere” company to supervise and do all the significant rebuilding projects.
    Among all the Lebanese parties, only Hizbullah has a responsible view of and commitment to the role of non-corrupt, service-delivering good governance in society… Along with considerable capacity of its own in service delivery in many fields. It would be truly great if all Lebanese parties emulated Hizbullah in these ways.

  3. Among all the Lebanese parties, only Hizbullah has a responsible view of and commitment to the role of non-corrupt, service-delivering good governance in society…
    I think we got supporter of Nasralah here to promote Hezbollah victory…
    Come on Helena, Nasralah in the first week he talking about unity of Lebanon and government and then after ceasefire he run his “non-corrupt” Hezbollah to compensate the civilians and now he build the bridges?
    Is there a prove for the “”non-corrupt” Helena?
    Bur who caused all the distraction of start by his madness and adventures?
    Did you read this Helens it’s written by Lebanon writher Sana’a Al-Jack talking about Assayed State may help.
    I don’t know why this close and insistence by you to bring those Militias “Iranian” supported body to the front and you ignoring the rest of Lebanon?
    There are 4 millions Lebanon whom very motivated and smart some have very good business and they cane do very nice job not just Nasralah or Asistantni in Iraq.

  4. The Lebanese Army deployment is a swift positive outcome of the conflict. The French committment to lead the international force is now down to 400 people. The Euro cowards strike again, by next week it will be downgraded to sending one French cook and three whores as their part of the international troops.

  5. Salah:
    Your comments on Lebanon are inavariably at fault for 2 reasons:
    1-You project from the Iraqi scene onto the Lebanese one without considering the significant differences between the two. Neither is the role of Hizballah a mirror image of the Badr brigades is nor the Sunni-Shiaa divide in Lebanon as malignant as it is in Iraq. In fact, many Sunnis support Hizballah.
    2- You are not in sufficient command of the events and facts pertinent to the Lebanese scene. I strongly urge you to read Helena’s writings on Hizballah. They would be very informative without necessarily forcing you to change you political stance.

  6. فجأة غادر أحد أطراف الحوار لأسباب، سواء كانت خاصة او لامتدادات علاقته بمحاور تعنيه أو لاستباقه لما يعتقده نيات اجرامية لدى اسرائيل. غادر منفردا من دون شركائه ومن دون حكومة يشكل أحد مكوناتها. ومارست البربرية الاسرائيلية كل احقادها مدعومة من الاميركيين. هذا صحيح. ولكن كان على الشريك أن يكون أكثر حذرا وأكثر تشاركا، وأكثر حرصا في عدم تخطي المؤسسات الشرعية.
    لم يحصل هذا الامر. تجاوزناه. وها نحن اليوم مع القرار 1701. ويفترض أن اللبنانيين جمعيهم يعرفون ان هذا القرار شهد ولادة متعثرة، فكك ألغامها لبنان، حكومة وبرلمانا وقوى سياسية، وتمكن من تغيير المشروع الفرنسي الاميركي جذريا، وبالتواصل مع «حزب الله» عبر رئيس المجلس النيابي نبيه بري وعبر ممثلين ومنتدبين عن الحزب. وأي قارئ محايد يرى أن القرار 1701 يميل الى المصلحة اللبنانية بنسبة عالية، من دون أن نغفل أن كل تفاوض يتضمن تسويات.
    http://www.asharqalawsat.com/leader.asp?section=3&article=378597&issue=10125
    tc,
    With due respect of your advice my point is, if there is a State and a Central Government should all parties support the Central government.
    What Hezbollah doing is acting out of the State power domain which is same as in Iraq for many generations and years, that downgraded during Saddam regime, who was Al-kuae followed by Asistani they just hided and shut up there in Najaf.
    I don’t agree there are no similarities between both, surrounded themselves by some like Hussein Fathlallah in Lebanon and Alhakim, Almudarssy and others in Iraq.
    Keep in mind both they got paid by Iranians, the mount some report saying they got paid $US200Millions/Mounth. so what this paid for and how you justifying some one taking money from the outsider knowingly they are influencing on you and your social/politic working domain, Helena just stated which she is right in here assessment about Rafiq Hariri’s and Saudi financed “Solidere” (Saudi’s father, Lebanon’s mother) what make Irania’s financed “Solidere” Nasralah different from Saudi financed “Solidere” Rafiq Hariri’s.
    without necessarily forcing you to change you political stance,/i>
    Is this a threat to me or what? Is it free speech space here or we got Hezbollah Militias here?

  7. This story I heard in Iraq/Hilla about sayed (I hate to say this word) Muhammad Alhakim the grand father of Abdul Majid Alhakim.
    Usually Shiites is doing those inhuman acts in Ashora’a in Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan but surprisingly not in Iran the home grown Shiites and the bigger one.
    During or after 1967 Arab/Israeli war due to demands for bloods and blood donors for the injured Iraqi Solders and other Arab brothers from the war, the government in Iraq asked Mohammad Alhakim if he can give a fatwa call for the people to donate blood who participating in Ashora’a ceremony instead of cuting there top heads with knives and swards, he refused to give that fatwa!!!?
    Those type of leaders what Helena call them “commitment to the role of non-corrupt, service-delivering good governance in society… “.

  8. Salah:
    When I say “without forcing you to change your political stance”, I meant the exact opposite of what you concluded. It means that you can read the information for its worth without necessarily changing your political views. It would simply inform your position regardless of what it is. Of course you are absolutely entitled to your views and I will gladly defend your right to air them.
    Your idea of a central government in Lebanon and an out of bound hizballah, a center-periphery sort of tension, ignores some facts about the Lebanese state. We have a very weak government that historically has reflected the regional tensions. When there is tugging from different regional players, Lebanon is invariably plunged into crisis. There has not been and there is not now (and I suspect there will never be) an independent Lebanese government in the sense of it being primarily responsive to its citizenry. Far from it, all parties in the government including the prime minister are responsive to both external as well as internal forces.
    You make much of Hizballah being on the pay for Iran. But would care to note that the other Lebanese parties are also on the pay to outside powers? The very same people who are against Syria today were rabidly pro-Syria barely a year ago. Do you realize the amount of cash that comes in from Arab and Foreign capitals to those that today clamour for Lebanese sovereignty? For those in Lebanon who warn of an Iran-Syria-hizballah axis, do they bother to explain their position on the American-Israeli-Lebanese (yes Lebanese) axis they are working for? One has to be balanced when assessing a compelx situation like that of Lebanon.
    You mention Moh’d Hussein Fadelallah. Do you realize that he has been in opposition to the Iranian religous leadership because of his political and theolgoical stance, including his rejection of Valayet-El Faqih? This has made his relationship with Hizballah rather strained until the recent events united them. The Lebanese Shiaa have a very strong sense of Arab belonging. There is no reason to antagonize them with claims of treachery and being fifth columnists for Iran.

  9. tc,
    Apology for misunderstanding. I agree with the fact of poorly Lebanon central power, you need to realise that the difference between Arab aid, finance and support and Iranian support.
    Don’t take me wrong here I believe we as “Arab” we are one nation those borders were created by Colonial necessities in the end (if you are Arab I don’t know) we have one feeling about each other, it’s so sad to us other brothers suffering because of those boarders and those regimes who enforce the isolation of the courtiers.
    This is not meaning I value “Arab” more than “Muslims” of course we are one nation also in faith, but as I am from area much interesting to Iran, with a deep history tilling us about the aggressive neighbour from the East caused a lot of damage to our land along that history.
    This history telling there is a problem then from that neighbour; I am very conscious and hesitate to accept less goods things coming from them than bad things.
    I might I am wrong but there is nothing to make me changing my mind till now reading our history and living my life from the day I borne till now, unless I do not see the bright side of our neighbour.
    I am glade if some one guides me to that brightness.

  10. One thing to add the strength of central government comes from all parties and elements of that society obey and support that government otherwise the central government is a myth and in chaos…

  11. Charles Krauthammer (link below) is dismayed that the war failed to achieve his fascist objectives, which would have included ethnic cleansing and totalitarian rule: “[H]ad Israel succeeded militarily . . . Israel would have unilaterally cleaned out south Lebanon and would be dictating terms.” We wouldn’t have needed any of this sissy diplomacy. He claims that Israel would have won what he calls the “first Israel-Hezbollah war” (apparently the previous war didn’t count) had it been “permitted to proceed.” Instead, he pouts, it was “called off” by “Israel’s patron, the United States.” He appears to view the relationship between Israel and the US as akin to that of a dog and its master.
    For now, we are stuck with that condition most abhorred by Krauthammer and his neoconservative pals: a cease fire. But don’t worry, the “forces of democracy and moderation” are getting ready for “Round Two” (Round Three for the rest of us). All Israel needs in order to achieve total victory are “new leadership, new tactics and new equipment.” How about some new friends?
    Instead of the “Cedar Revolution,” Krauthammer refers to the “Beirut Spring,” presumably to point out all the striking similarities between the Soviet Army crushing Czechoslovakia’s Prague Spring and Hezbollah gaining influence in Lebanese politics. See the logic? Hezbollah is sneaky, just like the Commies. It has “insinuated itself into the government” (by getting its representatives elected to parliament) and has to be disarmed by a “robust international force.” Some good Republican should remind Krauthammer of this bedrock principle of American-style democracy, as embodied in our Constitution: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
    Krauthammer worries that we are letting a “moment of maximum weakness” pass, because “resupply and rebuilding have already begun.” So while Hezbollah is working to rebuild people’s homes, Krauthammer and the neocons are “working frantically behind the scenes” to get the war started again before Lebanon is back on its feet. Who loves you, baby?
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/17/AR2006081701190.htm

Comments are closed.