The problem that the Lebanese authorities face in dealing with the Israeli offer to withdraw from the village of Ghajar is merely a model of what these authorities might face in the form of road-bumps and problems in the event that Israel, whether voluntarily, as a ruse, or as a result of international pressure, withdraws from the rest of the territory that Lebanon considers occupied, such as the Shebaa Farms and the Kfar Shuba hills. It might appear, to those unfamiliar with the geography of this region, that Lebanon's problem with the village of Ghajar is the problem of the other side, or Israel alone. But upon a closer look, it appears that it is a Lebanese-Syrian problem as much as it is a problem with the other side of the border of this village. And in the first place, it is a problem with the village's residents themselves. The residents of Ghajar are Syrians initially, as Israel occupied the village along with the Golan Heights in 1967. After the Golan was annexed to Israel in 1981, Israeli citizenship was forced on the residents of these areas. Today, we are faced with a Lebanese territory, at least in the northern part of the village, according to the United Nations-drawn Blue Line, which it recognizes as the Lebanese-Israeli border. However, the approximately 3,000 residents of both northern and southern Ghajar have Israeli citizenship, and this seems to be no problem for them, judging by the protests they have carried out to object to the possibility of Lebanon taking over the northern part of their village. They also wanted to stress their determination to retain medical, education and development-related services that Israel provides them. Lebanon cannot offer them these services, even if it wanted to, because most of the service centers are in the southern part of the village, which remains under Israeli occupation. As for Syria's ownership of the village's land, and its keenness to return Syrian citizenship to its people, Damascus has openly expressed its desire to retain Ghajar. Indeed, Syria sent a letter to the United Nations in May 2006 (when the village was still completely under Israeli occupation) asking that the village not be divided, so that its people would not be separated, as it was a Syrian village. Instead of confronting this complicated situation and trying to search for a solution for the people of Ghajar, in the hope they retain their Arab identity, whether Lebanese or Syrian, the Lebanese are now mired in a Byzantine argument over Israel's objectives in expressing its desire to withdraw. They are also arguing over how this will affect the situation of the resistance and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Simply put, the question is this: is the Israeli message behind this withdrawal that there are ways to liberate land other than the method used by the resistance? To what extent will the likely withdrawal from Ghajar affect the legitimacy that the resistance uses to justify its actions in Lebanon? Also… does the presence of international troops in the part of Ghajar being offered for withdrawal represent a recovery of Lebanese sovereignty, or merely a trade of the Israeli occupation for an international mandate, as a Hezbollah official put it? Lebanese Speaker Nabih Berri moved quickly to head off the possible interpretations of the Israeli step, affirming that “we will continue to repeat, and from the gate of Ghajar this time, that the resistance remains a national and pan-Arab need in confronting Israeli aggression. Period.” Hezbollah MP Mohammed Raad, meanwhile, warned against an “Israeli maneuver and deception,” to portray the withdrawal from the northern part of the village as the implementation of UN Security Council Resolutions, particularly Resolution 1701. Lebanon is in a difficult position on Ghajar. It seems that dealing with continued occupation is easier than dealing with a withdrawal, which raises questions and creates problems, while the occupation renders everyone comfortable in confronting these complications.
