Daily Archives: January 30, 2008

by

Should The Lebanese Care About The Winograd Report?

Israel didn’t win the July war. But does that mean that Hezbollah did? Should we care?

The much awaited Winograd report on the July war finally came about. Since most of us humans won’t bother reading 600 pages, all we really need to know about the report’s conclusions is that the Israeli establishment failed to achieve its objectives in Lebanon –Uprooting Hezbollah & Getting back their kidnapped soldiers– because of serious structural failures.

Of course, Hezbollah immediately rushed to celebrate the report as “proof” that Hezbollah Won:

In reality, we have to tell the Israeli public at the end – with or without the Winograd report – that Hezbollah won the battles against the strongest army in the region in July 2006.

But here’s a question that I don’t hear a lot of Lebanese asking Hezbollah: If Hezbollah had really won that war, would the Israelis have published 600 pages describing in detail all of their political and military failures for the entire world to read? As in, no concern whatsoever for the “victorious” Hezbollah exploiting those weaknesses to kick their ass one more time?

But forget about that. The Lebanese don’t really care about the report and would rather pretend it never existed, for the simple reason that it was adding insult to injury. You see, not only did Israel kill thousands of Lebanese and smashed Lebanon’s infrastructural backbone throwing its economies years behind, but it also got a bunch of old men deliberate for an entire year to tell us, in 600 pages, that it was all one big failure.

by

An Investigation Like No Other

The unexpected consequence of Sunday’s drama could be Lebanon’s first ever “transparent investigation”.

The pressure is intense and the scrutiny is painful. But that investigation had better deliver a credible outcome soon. Mr. Sleiman is pressured by both sides to find the perpetrators of Sunday’s incident because the outcome of his presidency is at stakes.

In times like these, one is tempted to be cynical. One could say for instance that Mr. Sleiman will characteristically fudge the matter and sacrifice the truth in the altar of “unity”. Some might even say that he will find scapegoats in the Army and move on.

Not so fast. This investigation is different because both sides really do care about the outcome and both sides say that they won’t settle for anything less than the truth. Both sides have their own convictions on who did it, both sides can be loud and both sides are pressing hard.

Since an inconvenient truth is bound to be found (A Hezbollah member shot first? An LF member sniped from roofs? The army was too trigger-happy?), Mr. Sleiman has to soften the investigation’s political blow as much as he can to keep everyone happy. In my opinion, that can only happen if he provides an air-tight account of what happened backed up by credible evidence that is available to the public. In other words, a transparent investigation with a credible outcome.

Of course, the investigation might end up evenly distributing the blame 10-10-10 style. In that case everyone will be happy. If that was the real truth, then be it. But if it’s just political compromise, then God help us with Mr. Sleiman’s presidency.