Speech before the Los Angeles World Affairs Council on June 28, 1999:
His Excellency Farid Abboud
Ambassador of the Republic of Lebanon to the United States
Thank you for this welcome. It’s good to be back, especially on this side of the podium. My past assignment in Los Angeles was pleasant, truthfully, and I still have memories of the warmth and support I have enjoyed from the Lebanese-American community here. Some faces here present are still familiar, which clearly tells us that the bonds that tie resist well the attrition of time and of distance. As for the glowing presentation given by Dr. Irani, it is just a reminder that he is a good friend. He has always been a good friend and a good supporter, but don’t believe everything he says, I’m not that nice. Many thanks to the World Affairs Council for giving me the opportunity tonight to speak here. The timing could not have been better in view of the recent events which have occurred in Lebanon. Curtis Mack and Mary Morris are, of course, old hands with whom I have worked for many years, Curtis with L.A. World Affairs, and Mary with RAND. Cooperating with them is still as productive and as pleasant as it was.
Distinguished guests, the situation in Lebanon is still fraught with dangers, as recent events have shown us. The Israeli onslaught on Lebanese civilian targets, which took place a few days ago, has jeopardized the prospects for peace in the area and has dealt a serious blow to Lebanon’s reconstruction effort. On both counts, the damage is substantial, but not irreversible. As far as the peace process is concerned, the road towards a negotiated settlement can still be taken provided Israel alters its approach to the Lebanon issue. As for the reconstruction of Lebanon, we will bounce back as we have done in the past, albeit with more pain and more sacrifices. But before dwelling on what lies ahead, let me give you briefly an update on these recent events.
During the week which preceded this escalation, Israeli units and their Lebanese proxies had shelled several villages close to the occupied zone in Southern Lebanon. The shelling resulted in injuring six civilians, one woman and a child. Before and during that period, the Israelis had shelled several UNIFIL positions, manned by the Irish contingent in the area, inflicting some casualties as well. UNIFIL is the United Nations troops which are deployed in Southern Lebanon. The Israeli shelling was not the collateral of an ongoing military clash. It was aimed at altering the balance of deterrence, which prevails in the area. That balance consists of respecting the lives and the property of civilians on both sides. It can prevail only if it applies on both sides. In response to that breach the resistance responded by firing a salvo of missiles across the fence. While the action has little military significance and resulted in minor injuries for Israelis, the Israelis decided to respond in a disproportionate fashion and they launched a series of air raids against civilian targets in Lebanon which resulted in nine people killed--all of them civilians--62 wounded--all of them civilians--the destruction of two electricity plants, three bridges, one cellular phone relay station, and damaging 34 houses. In response, the resistance launched an additional number of missiles across the border fence. Two Israelis were killed, and several buildings were damaged. As you note, the sequence of events is really tragic. There was some escalation, it was started by the Israelis, and not by the resistance, but the results are the same. Civilians have paid the price for this escalation.
Whatever motivated it, the Israeli action was costly to Lebanon. Rebuilding what was destroyed would involve substantial resources, and prolonged efforts. But as I mentioned at the start of the address I am giving you, we will not be put down, and we have already resumed our ascent. We have been hit hard by the Israelis in the past and by the civil war which we have endured for many years. We will rebuild what has been destroyed and our efforts will be benefiting from several assets we have now.
One, we are still tough cookies, as we say. We are a resilient and resourceful people. We have our problems, but being weak at heart is not one of them. If we are hit, we push back and we move on and we rebuild. We have done this in the past, and Dr. Irani has referred to the reconstruction effort which has already been achieved, and recovery will continue.
Two, we are enjoying solidarity and support from many friends, Kuwaitis, as Dr. Irani has mentioned, and other friends India, France, the Arab world, and elsewhere. Many of those participating in the effort are not only states but private citizens. Many are Americans of Lebanese descent, and I’m confident that the contribution of many of those present here will be forthcoming. There are many ways to assist and all input is welcome.
Three, the Lebanese are more united than ever. There were past divisions, true, we had our problems, and there was a very long war between different factions of the country. But now we are united around one goal: that is to rebuild our nation and a democratic society and a prosperous country. We are enjoying, luckily, good leadership, honest and efficient, which will help us weather the storms which we face from time to time. The new government in place, since the assumption of the new president, President Lahoud, is implementing a program of reform and reconstruction aimed at recreating a state system which is fair and rational and an economy which is growing in efficiency. The main features of the program, briefly, are the stamping out of corruption, streamlining public expenses, reducing public deficit, repaying the national debt, expanding the tax base, rebuilding the infrastructure, including what was destroyed. All these look like a very tough and tall agenda, but we are confident that with proper management and motivation, we can achieve it. Do not underestimate the capacity of a resilient people who have seen it all, truly, especially at a time when it is enjoying a strong and honest leadership. Difficulties are great, and so is our determination.
What has been achieved so far in the reconstruction of Beirut, and in the infrastructure, is living proof that we are and will always be vibrant, dynamic, and forward-looking people, and that Lebanon will return as a prosperous, democratic and stable society. While we are confident about our ability to rebuild our country, we are aware of the impact of the last Israeli attack. There is no doubt that it has delayed Lebanon’s resurgence as a fully functioning state and as a manageable economy. Since a Lebanon which is too weak or too poor cannot be a safe neighbor and a reliable partner, the Israeli escalation was detrimental to the declared Israeli goals of achieving peace and security along the Northern Israeli border. In other words, the more Israel hits Lebanon, the less it can get a safe and peaceful border. As such, Israel’s last initiative against Lebanon was a mistake, even from Israel’s own perspective.
The reconstruction of Lebanon is inevitable and necessary. A viable and well-managed Lebanon is the only peace partner and the only neighbor the Israelis can afford. In order to allow us to emerge as such, the Israelis will have to review and alter their approach to Lebanon. The present approach has proved its failure. It has resulted in untold suffering and destruction. If not abandoned, it could become a serious obstacle to any peace negotiation.
Let me review with you the main element of Israel’s approach to Lebanon and the way we expect it to change. The basis of Israel’s policy towards Lebanon is the concept of a "security zone." For some reason, the Israelis have convinced themselves that occupying their neighbor was a good solution to the security problems they are confronting in northern Israel. For any outsider, it was obvious that occupation is itself the source of grave security problems and is never a solution to any such problem. Why should plain truths like that escape the sharp and analytical minds of experienced political operators and military planners in Israel? [This] is difficult to fathom. Israeli decision-makers should simply adjust the security arrangements, to the internationally-recognized borders of Lebanon, rather than attempting to create artificial lines through occupation. Israel will have no peace with a neighbor whose land is occupied, whose property is destroyed, whose civilians are forced to flee their homes or are targeted.
The second aspect of this ill-conceived policy is that it is slightly self-centered. Since it presupposes that Israel’s inhabitants are entitled to enjoy peace and security at the expense of their neighbors living a few hundred meters away from them, the status quo which Israel has tried to create and to maintain on the Lebanese and Israeli border zone is one in which thousands of Lebanese civilians are facing death, displacement, and destruction of property on a permanent basis, and on an immense scale, while the neighbors in northern Israel would enjoy near normal lives and are threatened by dangers or losses on a far lesser scale. Israeli insistence on the right of the inhabitants of Kiryat Shemona to live a normal life, and safe life, ignores the simple fact that their Lebanese neighbors have exactly the same rights. The status quo which the occupation of Lebanon aims at creating is unmanageable and unbalanced. The so-called "security zone" is probably one of the most insecure areas of the world and the concept should be abandoned. Such a situation, of course, is unacceptable to Lebanon, and we have been doing our best to render it also unbearable to Israel. At a very high cost, we will continue to do so.
The third aspect of Israel’s Lebanon policy [involves] the instruments used to impose and perpetuate it, which are themselves quite unacceptable. Mainly, they consist in a policy of retaliation, against civilians and of disproportionate response to any attack, such as what happened recently. Lebanese are confronted with a government whose members and leaders tell them in advance that Lebanese civilians will be targeted, and Lebanese civilian infrastructure will be destroyed, if Lebanon does not do certain things or does not behave in a certain manner. Targeting civilians is wrong. It is illegal. A government which resorts openly to it is putting itself beyond the norms within which it is supposed to live and to act. It is actually stepping down from the moral high ground on which it has placed itself. The concept of retaliation against civilians is something not to be defended from a podium as it is frequently done in Israel. It should be abandoned publicly and negotiations should replace it.
The fourth element of Israel’s mishandling of the Lebanese situation resides in the peculiar view that the Israelis still hold, regarding their security problems. These are treated by the Israelis simply as police matters that can be divorced from the political and economic realities which have created them in the first place. Security issues are not an isolated item. They are the components of the conflicts of political situations. They have to be dealt with comprehensively and constructively. In the real world, there is no such thing as a "security zone." Lebanon is not the security zone. Lebanon is a country, and the issues to be solved between us and the Israelis are not police matters. They are complex political grievances of historical proportions and they have grave and long-lasting consequences. It’s not only a matter of security arrangements. True, security is an important element to be addressed in any future negotiations, and we will address it, but it should never be considered as an exclusive or isolated item on any agenda. In addition to security arrangements, a stable and manageable settlement with Lebanon would require addressing many other issues of mutual concern, such as the future of the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, compensations for attacks on civilian targets, management of cross-border water resources, liberation of Lebanese detainees, and the delineation of boundaries among others. There are many issues to be discussed apart from security.
Moving towards an acceptable solution to these problems would enhance the prospect of a secure and permanent relationship between the two countries. Failure to do so would jeopardize it. In brief, security is political, not technical, it can only come as an element of a comprehensive and just settlement of the historical conflict between the Arabs and the Israelis. We are ready for such a settlement, and to negotiate to reach such a settlement. Negotiations should be on the basis of the terms of reference defined by the Madrid Conference which took place in 1991 and which started the peace process. It would necessarily lead to return of the Occupied Territories to their rightful owners. This concept is summarized in two words: land for peace. Negotiations toward this settlement will be conducted, as far as Lebanon is concerned, in close coordination with Syria, which remains faithful to these same principles. The road to a separate deal with the Israelis has already been tried by Lebanon in 1983, with catastrophic consequences for Lebanon and for Israel, and we will not take it again.
The United States will have to play an active and evenhanded role in the process. It is vital that the United States acts decisively as far as the negotiations are concerned. The Madrid Conference stipulated that the United States is "a sponsor, a fair mediator, and a driving force of the entire process." This is what the U.S. role should be again, a driving force in the peace process. A laid-back approach will not be productive and will not be congruent with the Madrid terms of reference. In view of our friendship with the U.S., we look forward to such an active role and to such a supportive role.
For Lebanon to be manageable and viable, the peace settlement should address the needs and the concerns of all the parties involved. It should be perceived by the majority of the Lebanese and all the parties as fair and rewarding. A peace agreement is not simply the codification on a piece of paper of the prevailing balance of power. If that was the case, there would be no need for a peace agreement. Israelis have nuclear weapons, we don’t have them. They are stronger; there is no need to codify that. A peace agreement is simply something else. It is a translation of a genuine and reciprocal will to address historical grievances and to allow those who suffered from them to reap the rewards of peace. As I said, we are ready to engage in such a process in spite of what has recently happened. Recent events have rendered negotiations more difficult. It is difficult to trust the government who deliberately attacks civilians and civilian targets, even with appropriate explanations. It is difficult to deal with a government which has attempted to perpetrate the status quo in which citizens would live in peace while the neighbors are dispossessed or endangered. It is difficult to deal with a government which still denies that the problem of the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon was created, at the end of the day, by Israel, and that Israel will have to solve it. A painful change in attitude is necessary. It is possible. We have achieved it up to a point. Israel is also achieving it slowly, incrementally, but surely. The sense of peace, we are aware of that now, is a balanced compromise, acceptable, but not totally satisfactory for anybody, but acceptable to everybody, manageable and rewarding for all parties, especially for the weaker parties.
We have come a long way along this path leading to this conclusion. Ours was a painful and very costly journey. Our past ordeal helped us adopt a principled, yet pragmatic approach, which could well open the door for a just and comprehensive settlement. The Israelis have tried a different path. Let us hope it has led them to the same door.
Thank you.