The “deal of shame”/Why did the prisoner saw between the Lebanese state and Jabhat al-Nusra enrage some Lebanese citizens?
Myra Abdallah/Now Lebanon/04 December/15
Why did the prisoner saw between the Lebanese state and Jabhat al-Nusra enrage some Lebanese citizens?
After being detained by Nusra Front for almost 16 months, the Lebanese servicemen kidnapped in Arsal in August last year were finally released and returned to Lebanon on Monday this week after a deal was made between Jabhat al-Nusra and the Lebanese state, facilitated by Qatar. Prior to this date, a number of negotiations had taken place but to no avail. The majority of Lebanese people were certainly happy about the return of the servicemen, congratulating the Lebanese state and the negotiators for their victory. The servicemen themselves not only thanked Lebanese authorities and Qatar, but also Jabhat al-Nusra militants for treating them decently. These statements, in addition to the deal itself and the number of Nusra demands the state had to agree to enraged a number of Lebanese citizens — particularly Hezbollah supporters — who disagreed with the terms of the deal. Head of Parliament Nabih Berri described as “a sovereignty scandal” what Hezbollah supporters consider a “deal of shame.”
“Hezbollah’s supporters objected on the first day, before knowing that Hezbollah was involved in the deal, too,” analyst Ali al-Amin told NOW. “When it became public that Hassan Nasrallah also played a role in setting the deal, some of Hezbollah’s supporters changed their position and started praising Nasrallah’s role in preserving the dignity of the servicemen and of Lebanon.” The day the servicemen were released, a large number of Lebanese citizens — mainly Hezbollah supporters — objected to it, circulating on social media the video that was circulated shortly after the servicemen were detained. In the video, the kidnapped, crying, call on their colleagues in the security services to split from the Lebanese Army and on their parents to come together and go to Tripoli to fight the LAF. In parallel, another video is being circulated of the ceremony at the Grand Serail during which one of the released ISF officers thanks the Nusra Front militants for treating them well. “It was a spontaneous social media reaction,” said analyst Qassem Kassir. “It was not organized and does not represent Hezbollah’s position, especially that the party officially stated their agreement on the deal and General Abbas Ibrahim announced that Nasrallah was following up on the deal minute by minute.”
“When the Maaloula nuns were released, the same thing happened,” said lawyer Nabil al-Halabi, who was delegated by the State to negotiate with Nusra. “The Nusra Front considered the detained servicemen to be prisoners of war since the Lebanese Army and Nusra are fighting against each other in Arsal. The media said that the servicemen were kidnapped. However, on a humanitarian and legal level, they were war prisoners. Consequently, Nusra dealt with them according to this reality. They did not torture them; they took care of them and did not let them want for anything. This resulted in creating a bond between them, which is perfectly normal and has happened many times in history.”
Recognizing Nusra’s respectful treatment might have been a way of differentiating itself from ISIS, which does not respect prisoners or civilians. But some Hezbollah supporters worry that if this is so, the international community could remove Nusra’s name from the list of terrorist organizations, which Nusra may be currently trying to do. According to analysts NOW spoke to, the demands of both the Nusra Front and the Lebanese state were rational, and that the deal would have fallen through had they not been. Lebanon had to offer compromises in order to save the servicemen’s lives. “There was a price to be paid. The price the Lebanese state paid in order to bring back the kidnapped servicemen was relatively acceptable, although misunderstood,” said Al-Amin. For example, some Lebanese objected to the fact that the state accepted considering Wadi Hmayed a secured area. “Considering Wadi Hmayyed a secured area angered them because they thought that this would be securing armed men. However, the Lebanese state affirmed that it will only be for civilian Syrian refugees who are living in the Wadi Hmayed camp and not for armed militants; that means taking back the area of Wadi Hmayed to the situation it was in before the servicemen were detained,” Halabi told NOW.
The majority of Lebanese authorities supported the deal, especially Hezbollah, which played a big role in helping Lebanon answer Nusra’s demands. Al-Amin told NOW that since this had been going on for almost a year and a half, the deal was equally important for both Lebanon and Hezbollah, especially that the latter is fighting in Syria, which could be one of the reasons the servicemen were held in the first place. In his statement following the release of the men, General Abbas Ibrahim thanked Hezbollah. “Hezbollah was thanked because it did not object to the release of Joumana Hmayed, who was accused of transporting explosives.
It also contributed in the deal due to its good relations with the Assad regime, which resulted in releasing some of the detained women and children who were in Syrian prisons,” said Halabi. Nusra continues to hold three Hezbollah fighters. Halabi told NOW that Hezbollah supporters might have been angry because these men were not included in the deal. “The Lebanese state can’t possibly negotiate for militia members. It is illegal,” he said. “I am not sure Hezbollah wanted to include its militants in the deal. Previously, the party was able to release one of its fighters without the intervention of the Lebanese state. In addition, if Hezbollah wanted to stop the deal, it would have had unrealistic demands,” Kassir told NOW. “The exchange does not mean that Nusra Front is not an enemy anymore, and did not kill army officers before,” Kassir added . “Also, as Ibrahim confirmed, the Lebanese state did not release anyone whose case relates to violating the Lebanese Constitution or whose hands are bloodstained, and this is the most important part of the deal.”
