Will Robert Fisk tell us the whole story?
By Jonathan Cook
Electronic Lebanon, 5 September 2006
More than a little uncomfortably, I find myself with a bone to
pick with one of our finest champions of humanitarian values and
opponents of war. During Israel's attack on Lebanon this summer, the
distinguished British journalist Robert Fisk did sterling work -- as
might have been expected -- debunking some of the main myths that
littered the battlefield almost as dangerously as the tens of
thousands of US-made cluster bombs that Israel dropped in the last
days of the fighting.
He documented the violations of international law by Israel in
Lebanon, offering a personal record of the nature and scale of war
crimes as more than 1,000 Lebanese civilians died in Israel's aerial
bombardment of the country, hundreds of thousands more were made
refugees, and most of the country's infrastructure -- its roads,
bridges, power stations, oil refineries and factories -- went up in
flames. For this he deserves our thanks and praise.
But possibly in an attempt at even-handedness, Fisk has also muddied
the picture in relation to the actions of Hizbullah and thereby
contributed towards the very mythical narratives he seeks to
undermine.
This was done -- in a predictable hiatus in each of his stories that
over time developed into a writer's tic -- by repeatedly accusing
the Shiite militia of both provoking the war with Israel and
intending Lebanon's destruction. Uncharacteristically, Fisk failed
to offer us the evidence on which these conclusions were based.
I take this failing -- maybe small compared to the far grosser
distortions presented by other mainstream commentators -- seriously
because of Fisk's past achievements in countering the distortions in
almost all Western reporting on the Middle East and the "war on
terror".
Hizbullah and its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, deserve the fairest
hearing we can give them, especially as their voices are
systematically excluded from a Western press that identifies with
Israel.
I am in no position to challenge Fisk's expertise and familiarity
with Lebanese society and politics. If the Independent's
reporter tells us Hizbullah is no simple puppet of Tehran while
noting that its weapons are supplied by Iran (and observing that
Israel's are supplied by the US) I assume he is right. I also accept
his reports that on occasion he saw Hizbullah fighters taking
shelter behind buildings in south Lebanon's towns and villages, and
his parallel observations that Israeli soldiers did the same as they
struggled to invade the border areas.
Fisk repeatedly adds a series of further insinuations: that
Hizbullah wanted Israel to attack, that it planned the war (not just
that it planned for the war), that it knew precisely the scale of
destruction Israel would unleash, that it was following Syria's
orders, and that by implication Syria -- and possibly Hizbullah --
wanted Lebanon's destruction
The problem is in his constantly aired statement that "Hizbollah
provoked this war by capturing two Israeli soldiers and killing
three others on 12 July" (16 Aug 2006). Left as a simple statement
of fact, it could be allowed to pass without comment. But Fisk
repeatedly adds a series of further insinuations: that Hizbullah
wanted Israel to attack, that it planned the war (not just that it
planned for the war), that it knew precisely the scale of
destruction Israel would unleash, that it was following Syria's
orders, and that by implication Syria -- and possibly Hizbullah --
wanted Lebanon's destruction.
Here is a small selection of these regular interjections in his
stories:
"No, let us not forget that the Hizbollah broke international law,
crossed the Israeli border, killed three Israeli soldiers, captured
two others and dragged them back through the border fence. It was an
act of calculated ruthlessness that should never allow Hizbollah
leader, Hassan Nasrallah, to grin so broadly at his press conference.
It has brought unparalleled tragedy to countless innocents in
Lebanon ... So Syria -- which Israel rightly believes to be behind
Wednesday's Hizbollah attack -- is not going to be bombed. It is
Lebanon which must be punished" (July 15, 2006).
"It now appears clear that the Hizbollah leadership -- Nasrallah
used to be the organisation's military commander in southern Lebanon
-- thought carefully through the effects of their border crossing,
relying on the cruelty of Israel's response to quell any criticism
of their action within Lebanon. They were right in their planning.
The Israeli retaliation was even crueller than some Hizbollah
leaders imagined, and the Lebanese quickly silenced all criticism of
the guerrilla movement ... Then came [Hizbullah's] Haifa missiles
and the attack on the [Israeli] gunboat. It is now clear that this
successful military operation -- so contemptuous of their enemy were
the Israelis that although their warship was equipped with cannon
and a Vulcan machine gun, they didn't even provide the vessel with
an anti-missile capability -- was also planned months ago" (July 16,
2006).
"Now to the Department of Home Truths. Mr Siniora [Lebanon's
prime minister] did not mention the Hizbollah. He did not say he had
been powerless to stop its reckless attack on Israel last week. He
didn't want to criticise this powerful guerrilla army in his midst
which had proved that Syria still controls events in this beautiful,
damaged country" (July 21, 2006).
"Of course, the Hizbollah have brought catastrophe to their
coreligionists" (July 26, 2006).
"The Hizbollah has been waiting and training and dreaming of this
new war for years, however ruthless we may regard the actions" (July
27, 2006).
"So fierce has been Hizbollah's resistance -- and so determined
its attacks on Israeli ground troops in Lebanon -- that many people
here no longer recall that it was Hizbollah which provoked this
latest war by crossing the border on 12 July, killing three Israeli
soldiers and capturing two others ... And do the Israelis realise
that they are legitimising Hizbollah, that a rag-tag army of
guerrillas is winning its spurs against an Israeli army" (Aug 5,
2006).
"The Hizbollah have, for years, prayed and longed and waited for
the moment when they could attack the Israeli army on the ground
(Aug 14, 2006).
"It was Nasrallah's men who crossed the Israeli border on 12 July,
captured two Israeli soldiers, killed three others and thus
unleashed the entirely predictable savagery of the Israeli air force
and army against the largely civilian population of Lebanon" (Sept
2, 2006).
The implications of these comments are serious, and deserve to be
set out clearly and transparently by a reporter who consistently
makes them. And yet Fisk has not produced any evidence, let alone
reasoned argument, to suggest that Syria, through Hizbullah, planned
a war that would offer Israel the chance to destroy Lebanon. I am
not saying Fisk is wrong, but I would like to know the basis for his
grave claims.
What makes his comments all the more strange is that Fisk seems to
be at least aware that, quite unrelated to the capture of the two
Israeli soldiers, Israel had planned its assault on Lebanon for some
time:
"Israel itself, according to reports from Washington and New York,
had long planned its current campaign against Lebanon -- provoked by
Hizbollah's crossing of the Israeli frontier, its killing of three
soldiers and seizure of two others on 12 July" (Aug 14, 2006).
"According to Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker, Israel's
attack had also been carefully planned -- and given the 'green
light' by the Bush administration as part of its campaign to humble
Iran. I think Hersh is right" ( Sept 2, 2006).
So who then is really to blame for "starting" this war?
After hearing an address by Nasrallah on Lebanese TV, Fisk is
particularly incensed by Nasrallah's "hypocritical" comments that he
would never have launched his operation to capture the Israeli
soldiers had he predicted Israel's brutal reponse. Fisk's outrage
seems overstated -- and stands in opposition to his observation (cited
above) that Israel's attack "was even crueller than some Hizbollah
leaders imagined".
The reason for Nasrallah's comments are not difficult to divine.
After the destruction inflicted by Israel, doubtless he feels under
pressure to distance himself from the catastrophe that has befallen
his nation. Isn't that what politicians -- everywhere and at all
times -- do?
But Fisk is equally enraged by Nasrallah's other, more serious (and
partially inconsistent) claim about the war: that Hizbullah knew
Israel and the US were looking for an excuse to attack Lebanon and
believed it was better to catch them off guard so that Hizbullah
could fight at a time of its own choosing.
Even though, as we saw above, Fisk appears to agree with this
interpretation of events, he again lambasts the Hizbullah leader for
hypocrisy: "I think both sides planned this, and a hint came in
another part of Nasrallah's breathtakingly hypocritical address. 'In
any case,' he said, 'Israel was going to launch a war at the start
of this autumn and the degree of destruction then would have been
even greater.' Well, thanks for telling me, Hassan" (Sept 2, 2006).
Surely, after the apparent inconsistencies in Fisk's own
commentaries over more than a month of reporting, his readers
deserve a profounder summation of his views than this. How and why
did two hostile sides -- Syria, and Israel and the US -- both plan a
war, much at the same time, whose outcome was the certain
destruction of Lebanon?
We can speculate about Israel's interests in doing this. It may have
hoped to provoke a civil war in Lebanon, much as it is trying to do
in Gaza, to weaken its neighbor. It may have believed that by
terrifying the general Lebanese population from the south, it could
permanently reoccupy the area. It may also have hoped that, if it
were winning such a war, it could drag in Syria and Iran.
But why would Syria want Lebanon destroyed? A fit of pique at being
expelled from Lebanon last year according to US designs for a Cedar
Revolution? Is that Fisk's conclusion?
Is Fisk telling us that Hizbullah is the simple puppet of Syria --
much as pro-war commentators say Hizbullah is controlled by Iran?
And how does Hizbullah fit into this picture? Is Fisk telling us
that Hizbullah is the simple puppet of Syria -- much as pro-war
commentators say Hizbullah is controlled by Iran? Did Hizbullah will
the destruction of Lebanon too?
Most noticeable is that, in constantly castigating Hizbullah for
"starting" the war, Fisk entirely ignores the background to the
confrontation: that Israeli war planes and spy drones were almost
daily violating Lebanese air space and sovereignty, as well, of
course, as the issues of Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails,
Israel's refusal to hand over the maps of the minefields it laid
during its two-decade occupation, and its continuing refusal to
negotiate over the land corridor known as the Shebaa Farms.
These central issues -- taken together with the persuasive accounts
that Israel and the Pentagon had been planning an attack on Lebanon
for at least a year -- make Fisk's implied claims that Syria and
Hizbullah started the war to provoke Israel into destroying Lebanon
look misleading at best.
A separate factor may help to explain how Fisk's judgment may have
been clouded. He often mentions in passing his close relations with
the family of the late Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri, who was
killed by a car bomb more than a year ago that was widely blamed on
Syria. Hariri, a millionaire Sunni businessman, was responsible for
much of the private investment in Lebanon that led to its
reconstruction and which Israel has now destroyed.
Fisk, rightly, lays the main blame for the damage to Lebanon's
national infrastructure -- and the deaths of more than 1,000
civilians -- at Israel's door. But he owes it to his readers to be
much clearer about how and why he thinks Syria and Hizbullah
conspired to offer Israel the chance to wreak such destruction. It's
time for Fisk to tell us the whole story.
Jonathan Cook
is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His book,
Blood and Religion: The
Unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State,
is published by Pluto Press.
