| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Israel/Lebanon : the « Farms of Cheeba », false excuse for the Hezbollah, bad record for Lebanon |
| 2006-07-27 |
| The « Farms of Cheeba » comprise a little territory of 25km2 that Hezbollah uses as pretext to continue the fight – despite the Israeli retreat of May 24, 2000 – and which continues to be claimed by Beirut. This zone consists of two large villages : Cheeba and Kfar-Chouba. These two villages – with a population of about 4000 inhabitants (Sunnite Moslems and some Christians) who live essentially of harvesting agricultural products – were conquered by Israel at the same time as the Golan Heights during the Six-day war in 1967. It is nevertheless necessary to go back to a much earlier date to understand how difficult it is to define the sovereignty of this territory. Indeed, this zone was badly defined from the start of the Franco-British mandate, between the two wars. During the second world war the French and British administrations decided, nevertheless, to grant the area of the farms of Cheeba to Syria. In 1949, the day after the start of the first Israeli-Arab war, the official border between Lebanon and Israel was fixed on the base of that which had been defined between “Palestine”, Syria and Lebanon by Great-Britain and France in 1923, and didn’t therefore include the Farms of Sheba in the Lebanese territory. In 1964, a mix Lebanese-Syrian Commission decided to allot the said sector to Lebanon but it is Syria that, de facto, controls it administratively. We must note that when the third Israeli-Arab war broke out in 1967 the Territory was truly under the thump of Damascus. When the Israeli forces invaded South Lebanon in 1978, the UN Security Council adopted resolution 425 which called for the withdrawal of the Hebrew State from all the Lebanese territory to the border that prevailed before the invasion. Clearly, the demarcation line of 1949. The position of the Lebanese government regarding these borders with Israel was until 1999 based on that of the United Nations. It is only when Israel began to prepare its withdrawal from south Lebanon that the authorities in Beirut – under Syrian pressure – changed their minds and began to claim sovereignty over the territory of the Farms of Cheeba. The Israel position is clear. The farms of Cheeba are part of the Golan Heights – annexed by Israel in 1981 (this annexation was condemned by Security Council resolution 497) and should, in case of need, return to Syria. Indeed, for the Hebrew State, their eventual retrocession will only be done in terms of a bilateral agreement with the authorities in Damascus. This interpretation is confirmed by the official reports of the United Nations. Beirut claims since 1999 sovereignty over this territory that would have been ceded to it by Syria. A United Nations report explains that “the Lebanese government has informed the UN of its new position concerning the demarcation of its territory”. For the Lebanese authorities the hypothetical withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Farms of Cheeba follows resolution 242 – relating to the territories occupied in 1967 – and no longer resolution 425. Before 1999, not a single official statement of the Lebanese government had taken into account any claim to this territory. Damascus, which has very little interest in this small territory – except as a means of pressure to support the attacks of Hezbollah – maintains that it belongs to Lebanon. On the other hand Syria claims that Hezbollah is an independent unit that receives no instructions from anyone. For the Syrian authorities the conditions to relaunch negotiations with the Jewish State are clear : "the negotiations must pickup where they were stopped that is to say with the commitment of Israel to withdraw from the entire Syrian territory occupied in 1967 (also including the territory of the Farms of Cheeba)”. The position of the United Nations is, also, extremely clear. After the retreat of the Tsahal from South Lebanon in May 2000, the United Nations sent land-surveyors to establish clearly the borders of the territory of the Farms of Cheeba and to avoid any further dispute. The conclusions of the United Nations are clear : the retreat of Israel from South-Lebanon is completed (in accordance to resolution 425) and the area of the Farms of Cheeba is Syrian. Consequently, the Lebanese claims over this territory are illegitimate, it is up to Israel and Syria to negotiate the future status of this territory. Finally, Hezbollah claims to pursue its combat to get back the Farms of Cheeba, which, according to Hezbollah, belong to Lebanon. Besides, it is the main justification of this organisation to continue its attacks as explained by Hassan Nasrallah: “We will take back, by blood, by the djihad (holy war) and the resistance the Farms of Cheeba” (declaration published by AFP, June 10, 2001). In conclusion, the plan to end the crisis – presented by Condoleeza Rice these last few days – foresees in the first phase the transfer of the zone to Lebanon after having placed it under the responsibility of the United Nations. This option will deprive Beirut of the eternal excuse of the occupation of the Farms of Cheeba by the Israeli army to justify its inability to recover its authority over south-Lebanon. As a result this alternative will also deprive Hezbollah of “its cause”. |
| Posted by:anonymous5089 |
| #5 Still not sure I get it...seems like it's not merely an objection but an obstacle. But thanks for reply. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2006-07-27 23:00 |
| #4 So the theory is that without the farms of cheeba issue, Hezbolla would be a bunch of happy campers holding picnics with their Israeli buddies? |
| Posted by: Oldcat 2006-07-27 22:49 |
| #3 DepotGuy: Can someone explain the why Israel feels the need to hang onto this 25k of scrub land? Can someone explain why the US feels the need to hang on to New Jersey? It's only 0.08% of American territory. Whereas the Shebaa farms are 0.3% of Israeli territory. It's 1.5% of the part of Israel that isn't a desert. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2006-07-27 21:02 |
| #2 Can someone explain why a country who doesn't condemn the kidnapping of two soldiers and the killing of 8 soldiers should be entitled to anything other than their annihilation? |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-07-27 17:30 |
| #1 Can someone explain the why Israel feels the need to hang onto this 25k of scrub land? |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2006-07-27 16:08 |