The Lebanese Winograd

Two senior Lebanese editorialists have opposing takes on what a “Lebanese Winograd Report” would conclude.
 
The first editorialist, Walid Shokeir, writes in the pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat that a “scientific” report on what happened in the war would end up consolidating the strong resistance that the Lebanese undertook during the war, then it will end up blaming Syria and Iran.
 
The Lebanese resistance, according to Shokeir, has three components: The first is Hezbollah’s resistance, the second is the failure of Israel and its leadership, and the third, which he sees as very important, is the unity of the Lebanese people and its government, which thanks to its links to the Arab world and the international community, managed to considerably limit the scope and targets of the Israeli aggression.
 
Mr. Shokeir stresses that this third component could be the most important finding of a would-be Lebanese Winograd investigation, which would naturally end up revealing the divisive role that the Syrians and Iranians have played to erase that element from the collective memory of the current anti-government forces.
 
In “Aren’t The Lebanese Ashamed of Winogard?” in Annahar (an otherwise pro-government newspaper), Edmond Saab sees things differently.
 
Saab, a Aoun sympathizer, suggested that a revision of the “government’s behavior in the war” would have led to the resignation of the government and mended fences in the country.
 
Mr. Saab wants the Lebanese Winograd to inquire into the wildly-held belief among the Lebanese Shi’as that the Lebanese government and some March 14 leaders have encouraged the Israeli attacks and asked them not to stop until Hezbollah was eliminated.
 
 Had that inquiry taken place as Sayyed Nassrallah had suggested, laments Saab, Lebanon would be a much more unified country today.
 
From what I can see, It seems the Lebanese are even divided on what an “independent” commission would achieve. Perhaps the word “independent” just doesn’t belong to this country.