What’s happening in Lebanon: interview with former British Ambassador Craig Murray 11 December 2024 – 19:00

The current situation in Lebanon is more delicate than ever. Despite the entry into force of the fragile cease-fire between Hezbollah and Israel, the Jewish state continues to violate the terms of the agreement, claiming that it is only conducting defensive operations. At the same time, in Syria, the opposition front to Assad has conquered Damascus, bringing down a dynasty that lasted over half a century without its ally Hezbollah being able to do anything. Against this backdrop of uncertainty, Craig Murray travelled to Beirut to report on what is happening from the ground.

Craig Murray is a former British diplomat, writer and human rights activist. He served as UK ambassador to Uzbekistan from 2002 to 2004, exposing human rights abuses in that country, and dedicated his post-diplomatic career to global justice issues. At the top of the list was the Palestinian cause, for which – in the current climate of repression in the UK – he was detained by the police, as has happened to other journalists.

I know you are currently in Lebanon: where exactly are you and what is the current situation in the country?

Right now I am in the capital, Beirut. The city is relatively quiet, but there are Israeli drones flying overhead all the time. They have not bombed Beirut since the agreement came into force, but there have been many violations by Israel in the south of the country. I have been there three or four times since the agreement was signed, and the situation is still very tense. A few days ago, Israel killed about six people, including a shepherd, while other shepherds have disappeared. As these small-scale violations continue, so does the bombing. The problem I think lies in the fact that the ceasefire agreement is extremely onesided. It stipulates that all Lebanese groups must cease all operations against Israel, while Israel must cease only offensive operations against Lebanon: the qualification ‘offensive operation’ applies to only one party to the agreement.

In southern Lebanon, the Israeli army is advancing and conquering more territory?

Yes. And, again, this is a problem with the agreement. The ceasefire establishes a demilitarised zone extending from the Litani river southwards: both sides have to leave the area completely. During the conflict, Israel had not managed to take any territory in the demilitarised zone. It only got as far as the Litani river once, helicoptering troops there to take a few photo-ops and bringing them quickly back. In short, Israel is exploiting the ceasefire agreement to claim the right to operate as far as the Litani river, despite never having arrived there during the fighting. In addition, Israel is claiming that all its current violations are only defensive in nature. Even when they shoot shepherds and kill people at funerals. The fact is that Hezbollah is designated by the US and Israel as a terrorist organisation; for them, the Israeli attacks therefore do not count as violations of the agreement because they are considered anti-terrorist operations.

At present, what role does the United States play in this picture?

The United States is in charge of the ‘mechanism’ – as it is called – for monitoring compliance with the agreement. The document introduces a distinction I have never seen in any agreement – something extraordinary, indeed. It says that the UN will ‘host’ the monitoring committee, although that the US will ‘chair’ it. However, ‘hosting’ has no meaning in diplomatic or practical terms. What that comes down to is this: the UN will be allowed to provide tea and biscuits, while the US will actually run the show, although – and this is indeed extraordinary – they are one of the parties in the conflict, not an arbiter! The bombs that fall in Lebanon are supplied and paid for by the US.

What about the rest of the Western powers? What interests of theirs are at stake?

UNIFIL, which is the only Western force on the ground, is to have a role in monitoring the ceasefire agreement. France, the former colonial power, will also work with the US in monitoring the cease-fire. Paris is very anxious to maintain its role here in Lebanon, and its status as the former colonial power is very important to Macron. So much so that, in exchange for being included in the committee, Paris agreed to reverse its position on the ICC and Netanyahu and announced that the Israeli prime minister could visit the country without fear of being handed over to the ICC. Given the composition of the monitoring committee and the continuous violations that we mentioned earlier, what do you think is Israel’s ultimate goal?

I have no doubt that Israel’s ultimate goal is the annexation of southern Lebanon, which is part of the expansion plan for Greater Israel. The Jewish state has a long history of Zionist propagandists claiming the Litani river as its northern border, which would mean moving the country’s current border some 25 miles further north. And there are Zionists who believe it should go even further north. An interesting story to better understand this point concerns one of the Israeli soldiers killed during the invasion. He was a man wearing a full military uniform and carrying a weapon, but who turned out to be a 72-year-old archaeologist: the Israeli army takes archaeologists along to look for signs of ancient Jewish settlements and thus come up with an excuse for annexation. Moreover, it would seem that these objectives have been coordinated with the rebel forces in Syria, supported by Israel and the US. It is no coincidence that the rebel attack started on the day the ceasefire in Lebanon came into effect.

Speaking of Syria, how is the front line in Lebanon changing now that Damascus has fallen?

Hezbollah now finds itself caught in the middle. These Syrian rebels are the same people who were in alQaeda and ISIS, and ISIS previously occupied the mountains above the Beqaa valley. They were defeated by Hezbollah in the past, but they still want to regain the Beqaa Valley and northern Lebanon. Thus, what Hezbollah is likely to face in the near future, is a simultaneous attack from the north and south, Israel attacking Hezbollah’s southern flank. And Hezbolloah is not that big in size, so I don’t know if it would be able to deal with such a double threat. Moreover, it is by no means certain that the Lebanese army would fight against the Syrian rebels if they entered the Beqaa valley, because the Americans also support the Syrian rebels – the Americans pay about 50 per cent of each soldier’s salary.

What about Palestine?

Obviously the situation for the Palestinians is already disastrous, but what is happening in Syria makes it even worse, because it removes the corridor connecting Iran to Lebanon and Hezbollah and eliminates the possibility of opening a northern front against Israel. Now the Israelis will no longer have to fear an attack by Hezbollah when they decide to proceed with their ethnic cleansing and annexation of the West Bank – because, you see, I believe that the ethnic cleansing and annexation of Gaza have effectively already been accomplished. The Israelis still have some extermination to do, they will kill many more people, but their plans for annexation are now quite public. The West Bank, on the other hand, is still under the control of a subservient Palestinian authority. The Israelis have yet to complete this process, because what remains of the Palestinian population is still hanging on: but the plan is extermination, ethnic cleansing, or expulsion The regime change in Syria saves Israel from the risk of a northern front while they are at it.

In a recent article, you raised the prospect of a final solution in the Middle East, which would consist of the creation of two blocs: Greater Israel and, to all effects, a Sunni caliphate. Wouldn’t this go against what has been US policy so far, namely to preserve and play on the Sunni-Shia conflict? Eliminating the Shias would eliminate the conflict, and there would no longer be any leverage to counter a future Sunni rebel government in Syria or parts of Lebanon.

I agree. In the Sunni-Shia divide, the balance would end up tilting decisively in favour of the Sunnis, potentially eliminating the Shia minorities in Lebanon and Syria. I now believe that the US is prioritising the elimination of that threat to Israel, at the expense of maintaining the divisions, thus taking a short-term view. I think this is an example of the fact that, when it comes to formulating its Middle East policy, the US cares more about Israel than they do about themselves. For example, when they eliminated Saddam, they probably did not fully realise that the consequence would be a Shia-majority regime in Iraq, and therefore an Iraq close to Iran. For now the US thinks the balance is too much in favour of Iran and Russia and that, to a certain extent, it should be rebalanced by helping the Israelis. However, this is terribly short-sighted; indeed, I believe it is a disastrous miscalculation: true, these groups are subordinate to the US but only for the time being; as happened with Al-Qaeda, as well as with the Taliban, and with all these organisations that the US supports in the short term, there will be a backlash. Before long, once they have consolidated their power, these groups will attack the US. A final question, perhaps the most trivial and at the same time due to be asked in this turbulent context. What is the future of the Middle East? Can there be a peaceful future for the region?

Right now, the future of the Middle East looks very bleak. Syria looks like it will regress into a failed state, as happened with Libya. Should the Turks increase their repression of the Kurds and deprive them of their territories, it will be the US and Turkey who will run the oil fields there, exactly as happened in Iraq. The rest of Syria will see a continued attempt by the Salafists to impose very strict legislation, which will increase in intensity in this culturally diverse country. All I see with the fall of the Assad dictatorship is the lack of control from the centre, and this could lead to massacres and repression. For the Palestinians, of course, the situation at the moment is just as bleak.

However, I do not think that Israel can survive for long. I think Israel has now proven itself to be essentially a fascist, racial supremacist, and genocidal entity. People around the world are forming an ever stronger idea of what is Israel is: a pariah state, an illegitimate entity. Eventually, through moral suasion, Israel will disappear because people will want to have nothing to do with it, and a large part of the world will promote an enormous economic boycott.

What are the possible repercussions in the Western world?

Senior politicians in Western countries, if they do not change, will share a similar fate, because people will, at last, find a way to get rid of them. Indeed, it is interesting to note that the situation in the Middle East has made the people around the world realise that politicians do not serve the interests of their electorates and do not respond to their needs. One way or another, the Middle East scenario will help trigger a revolutionary change in the West. The consequences of what the Israeli genocide will have brought about, should be fascinating for future historians. Its effects will be seen in the decades to come. The probable end result will be the abolition of the State of Israel, leading to a radical political change in our so-called ‘democratic systems’ here in the West.

[by Dario Lucisano translation Patrick Boylan].