Talk:South Lebanon Army

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some of the edits in this article are not factual and the writer is not being neutral. Israeli support for the SLA was not conditional on their control of Al-Khiam prison.

Contents 1 Collapse of SLA 2 Collaborationist 3 Toward a better description of the collapse of the SLA 4 SLA and Lebanese Government pay 5 Government of Free Lebanon/SLA

[edit] Collapse of SLA

Guy, you've inserted "Many in Israel believed that Ehud Barak's decision to withdraw without consulting his SLA allies led to the SLA's collapse."

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Did anyone really believe (as this suggests) that the SLA could have continued without Israeli backing, or do you mean they thought it might have been able to fold up in a more orderly way? Perhaps you could clarify. Palmiro 18:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I meant that Ehud Barak, as many of his critics have noted, "left in the middle of the night" leaving equipment and war material behind, surprising the SLA and Israeli public to the nature of the withdrawal. He didn't notify Israel's allies or coordinate the withdrawal with the SLA, leaving them to fend on their own.

Guy Montag 00:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've tried to reflect this as welll as giving more detail on a couple of issues. Palmiro | Talk 17:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm puzzled how this could be a surprise, as the dismantling of the SLA was a requrement for the Israeli agreed compliance with UN resolution 425; see para 21 of [1]. This must have been discussed/agreed with Israel well in advance, and it is hard to see this not being told/leaking to the SLA. Certainly Isreal's allies such as the U.S. would have known in advance via the UN. The former deputy commander of the SLA says "It is very important to understand that the SLA did not fall apart last month; it was dismantled by the Israelis. Our soldiers were told that the border with Israel would be permanently shut - and that they had a choice to remain isolated in South Lebanon or take refuge in Israel. At that point, given this choice, they had no choice but to flee." [2] Rwendland 23:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Ehud Barak was elected prime minister due to his campaign promise that Israel will withdraw from Lebanon within a year. Claiming that SLA was caught by surprise is neither factually correct nor NPOV. --Telecart 15:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The real question for the purpose of this article isn't whether the SLA was surprised, but whether we're correct in reporting that some Israeli critics accused Barak of abandoning the SLA. If so, we should say so and cite them. --Delirium 12:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, though, again, Israeli papers can accuse and then refute their accusation 3 weeks later in a small note at the back of the paper, I wouldn't take these charges too seriously.. But either way, the current phrasing should be changed. Worth noting that the Hebrew Wikipedia entry for the Israeli withdrawal depicts the collapse / withdrawal thing was the other way around - SLA slowly crumbled due to civilian protests that HizbAllah arranged, and because of the imminent withdrawal, until it collapsed, and so Israel withdrew earlier than planned. --Telecart 18:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collaborationist

I don't understand your argument. Syria had 40,000 troops stationed in Lebanon, and treated it as an extension of Syria. The lebanese government acted as lapdogs for the Syrian forces and were forced to obey Demascus by violating the cease-fire treaty and not deploying Lebanese troops in Southern Lebanon.

Guy Montag 00:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

agree --equitor 20:39, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Glad we understood each other so easily. :)

Guy Montag 07:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

In my POV, I would qualify it as collaborationist. Here are some reasons

• -Prior to 1990, Syria could not legally justify its presence in Lebanon. President Amine Gemayel asked Syria to withdraw its troops several times in the 80's and Syria did not. This makes Syria an occupying force under international law.
• -The elections were held through gerrymandering, voter intimidations and gross manipulation.
• -It is widely acknowleged that Syria secrete services abducted a large number of Lebanese opponents and illegaly exfiltrated them to Syria, even after 1990. Any Lebanese will tell you that syrian forces were not just a 'presence' like the US in germany but was operating freely on Lebanese territory and did not have to justify theirs acts to any Lebanese authority, even formally. The inverse would be more accurate: Lebanese authorities had to report to Syria secret services.
• -Syria amended the Lebanese constitution through a mix of threats and political pressure (in what free country can this happen)
• -Syria is widely considered to be behnind a number of political assassinations and to have supported armed/terrorist groups since the late 60's. The Damour Massacre for example was carried by a PLO organization (the Saika) that was mainly funded and armed by Syria.
• -If, in a few weeks, the Detlev Mehlis report that Syria is behind Hariri's assassination, the whole discussion will become irrelevant. If you consider that a foreign country blowing Lebanese politicians is not an occupying force, than nothing is.

I am not saying that the government had zero public support. Anyway this is not a criteria since collaborationist governments always have some public support. Plus Lebanese politics are complicated. Some politicans were pure puppets, others were not puppets but had to collaborate with Syria without being happy to do so. What we can do is agree on a methodology: define 'collaborationist' and we'll see if this definition applies to the Lebanese government--equitor 18:21, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

But as you say that's your POV, and it's widely disputed. What's not at all widely disputed is that the SLA was a collaborationist organisation backing up a generally detested military occupation. If we don't use the term for the SLA itself (and I don't think we should) it's ludicrous to use it for the Lebanese government.Palmiro | Talk 18:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I have concerns about the funds of SLA. Please see [3]

What do you mean, exactly? Can you explain what your concern about the article is, and why you put the POV tag on it? Thanks. Palmiro | Talk 18:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"SLA members received their salary from the Lebanese army until 1990", I do not find this statement true because SLA was formed by Israel.[4] Although its name is SLA, it was just a militia like any other militia and has no affiliations with the Lebanese government. There was, however, some Lebanese retired officers that joined SLA and their pension payment was not cancelled. SLA has always received its finances from Israel and the Lebanese government did not fund any militia as far as I know. Cheers --A rihani 20:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added a request for a source for this claim; if one isn't provided in a few days we can take it out. In the meantime, if you have a source that specifically disproves this, then we can of course use that - but it would have to clearly support the information that you want to put into the article, of course. سلامات, Palmiro | Talk 09:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

See Operation Litani section on The Civil War web page published by The Lebanese-American Association. I think this supports my argument. Cheers --A rihani 10:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

But it doesn't actually say that the Lebanese army stopped paying the salaries of the collaborationists, which is what we need. Also, I'm afraid that it isn't really up to our standards for reliable sources. What we really need is some reputable newspaper or published book on the history or politics of the time. I'm not trying to be obstructive, just to make sure that whatever we have in the article is beyond reproach - sorry... Palmiro | Talk 11:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing to be sorry for! The article claims that the Lebanese government was paying salaries for a militia and this what needs a reference. When SLA was founded, many of its members were ex-soldiers and by 1990 the SLA comprised of muslims and christians equally and only few of them served in the Lebanese Army before. Cheers --A rihani 12:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, please see my latest changes. Is the material about the salaries accurate now, as far as you know? Of course, we still need a proper source in any case. Palmiro | Talk 13:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toward a better description of the collapse of the SLA

There is lots of detail missing in the account of the collapse of the SLA.

The IDF, according to its plan of withdrawal, started handing major positions in Lebanon over to the SLA in the middle of May 2000. The collapse started on May 22, 2000. Around a dozen villages and eight SLA posts in the center of the front surrendered to Hezbollah. The posts were mostly manned by Shiite muslims who were put under heavy pressure by Hezbollah. Hezbollah had made pubic threats against those involved with the SLA in April 2000. The threats were most effective against the Shites in the SLA.

Antoine Lahad, the leader of the SLA was in Paris while all of this was going on. Lahad's departure for France at such a critical time was a source of demoralization within the SLA. Lahad has claimed that he was taking an extended family vacation in advance of the July departure of the IDF. He claims to not have been aware of the handover of IDF positions to the SLA in May.

By the end of the day, the SLA front line had been cut in two with the flanks of the SLA positions in both the east and the west totally exposed to attack. On the morning of May 23, 2000, the western (Druze) sector of the front collapsed. There were (in 2000) reports of a secret deal between Walid Jumblatt and Hezbollah that led to the collapse.

This triggered off a general retreat of what remained of the SLA. Shortly after, both Israelis and some elements of the SLA were moving south. The retreat was finished by the early hours of May 24.

Israeli initially announced that it would give labor visas good for one year to soldiers of the SLA.

The controversy in all this is what the Israelis really intended to do in May. Many senior figures in the SLA claim that Israel announced the July departure date while actually planning a full withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2000. These SLA people claim that Israel deliberately did not tell them the depature date because of fears the Lebanese could not be trusted with the information. I dont tend to believe these sorts of stories.

My view is that the SLA collapsed out of its own internal weakness. The SLA was really multiple religious militias with no effective unified command to speak of. Hezbollah worked on breaking off the Shite and Druze elements of the SLA. The Shite portion cut a deal first. The Druze portion, seeing that the game was up closed their own deal after. Lahad probably knew what was going to happen and stayed far away.

I think most of what I've wrote can be sourced with newspaper articles from the time (May 2000). I've put this on the discussion page for informational purposes rather than the article itself because all of this would be very controversial. Maybe someday someone can rewrite the section of the article on the SLA collapse. 205.188.117.70 05:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Most of what you say about the events of the period certainly corresponds with what I've read about it. Feel free to include it - with reliable sources of course. But beware of unsourced speculation about the reasons for the collapse! Palmiro | Talk 19:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Is "collapse" the right word as Israel was required to "dismantle" the SLA for the Israeli agreed compliance with UN resolution 425; see para 21 & 40 of [5]? This was published 22 May 2000 so must have been discussed/agreed with Israel earlier: "It is the responsibility of the Government of Israel to ensure that the de facto force, known as the South Lebanon Army, ceases to exist ... The command structure of SLA must be dismantled ... Heavy weapons in the possession of SLA, including tanks, artillery and mortars, must be removed or destroyed ..." The former deputy commander of the SLA says "It is very important to understand that the SLA did not fall apart last month; it was dismantled by the Israelis." [6] Rwendland 12:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

First, you are misreading what your first source is. The document you reference is a UN interum report on Resolution 425. 425 dates back to 1978. That document (the report) does not reflect any agreement between the UN and Israel. 425 calls for many things, but there had been no public pledge from Israel on dismantling the SLA. In fact, Israel in public had been saying the opposite. They were not planning to leave until early July. The report being issued on the 22nd isn't very meaningful. Its coincidence. There was a whole series of meetings between the SLA (see later material) and UN/various countries that was a whole lot more damaging than the interium erport on 425.

Second, I think its better to deal with Charbel Barakat's fuller and more accurate version of what happened in May from his congressional testimony in June 2000:

"During the month of May 2000 our people remitted a memorandum to the office of the United Nations in Nakura in south Lebanon offering suggestions to avoid bloodshed and exodus. During the same month delegations representing our community met with diplomats of the US, UK, and French embassies in Israel and at the United Nations. And on May 18, our representatives met with the office of the Secretary General of the United Nations in New York ... Instead of taking our demands for protection on our land seriously, the United Nations declined to assist us ... The United States, UK and France dismissed our fears and insisted on guarantees which were allegedly granted by the Beirut regime ... The State of Israel only prepared for our potential exodus, ruling out our determination to remain on our land and defend ourselves."

"Despite the abandonment by the international community and against all odds, our people decided to remain and fight for their land and rights while calling endlessly on the UN to deploy its units around our villages. On May 22, 2000, and as Israeli units were implementing their own withdrawal and the commander of the SLA was absent in France, the mostly Shiite sector of the security zone collapsed. It appeared that Shiite officers were told by the Israelis that they must leave before the borders closed. Even after the invasion of Hizbollah of this area, the mostly Christian-Druse eastern enclave and the Christian western enclave, decided to defend themselves and protect their citizens after Israel’s withdrawal. On May 23, 2000, at 8 PM, SLA officers in the western sector received orders from the Israelis to leave their posts as Hizbollah was advancing towards their villages. Thus the SLA was imploded from the inside and was dismantled without any battle. The main reason why the SLA did not remain and fight was the fact that the border was closed behind its back. Without access to medical and logistical supplies, our people was condemned either to surrender to its enemy or flee across the border." (from [7] )

The SLA did collapse. What Charbel Barakat is talking about in the MEF comments is that the remainder of the SLA (Christian) in the west did not collapse and was dismanted by Israel. But it was only dismanted after most of the SLA had collapsed. Charbel Barakat and other dead-enders may have wanted (in theory anyway) to fight on in the west, but Israel wasn't going to make any commitment to keep a miniture version of the SLA going in a tiny pocket on the west end of the border. The caution I would give about Barakat and a couple others from the SLA is that sometimes they think of their Christian portion of the SLA as if it were the entire SLA. And from that point of view, the SLA did not collapse and was dismantled by Israel.

The biggest claim made by Barakat is in weasel-words: "It appeared that Shiite officers were told by the Israelis that they must leave". 'It appeared that" means he is guessing. Nobody on either side of the border has outright claimed that the Shites were told to leave and that is why they collapsed on the 22nd. Even Barakat is unwilling to make that claim.

Now lots of other things may have happened that the public doesn't know about with regard to the SLA collapse. But the only people who would know the truth are a handful of people at the top of the Israeli government and army. Nobody in the SLA knows much of anything because if Israel was going to collapse them, they would hardly tell them their plan. People (including me) can make lots of hunches and theories about what might have happened, but there are no facts to back any of those theories up. 205.188.117.70 23:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

My source is pertinent to the 2000 withdrawl, it says: "On 17 April 2000, I received formal notification from the Government of Israel that it would withdraw its forces from Lebanon by July 2000 in full accordance with Security Council resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978)." [8] Israel did agree to do it the UN way, Foreign Minister writing on 17 April 2000: "The Government of Israel intends to cooperate fully with the United Nations in the implementation of its decision. The Government of Israel will do its utmost to assist the United Nations and cooperate in performing its other tasks as encompassed in the above-mentioned resolutions, including the restoration of international peace and security". As I understand it the UN considered dismantling the SLA essential for Israel to comply with "restoration of international peace and security". [9] Maybe Israel didn't make a big thing about this in public, but they do seem to have agreed to do as required by the 22 May 2000 UN document, including dismantling the SLA - which they effectively forced on the SLA. Rwendland 00:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont agree that Israel "effectively" or in any other way forced dismantling on the SLA. The SLA collapsed on the central front and then on the eastern front. What was left of the SLA was not large enough to continue fighting. There are no sources that say that Israel caused the collapse on the battlefield. To prove what you want to prove, you would need to go beyond the UN documents and make a case based on specific actions the IDF took in South Lebannon before the SLA collapse that show they were dismantling the SLA. 168.127.0.51 15:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying Colonel Charbel Barakat, former deputy commander of the SLA, was wrong when he said the SLA "was dismantled by the Israelis" [10] on June 15, 2000? Rwendland 22:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The source you are using [11] for Barakat's views is a set of summary notes taken by a third party at an event where he spoke. There are far better sources such as [12] which is an actual transcript from June 2000 giving Barakat's full acount of events. The relivant quote from Barakat is:

"On May 23, 2000, at 8 PM, SLA officers in the western sector received orders from the Israelis to leave their posts as Hizbollah was advancing towards their villages. Thus the SLA was imploded from the inside and was dismantled without any battle."

By May 23 at 8PM, all the other sectors of the SLA front had collapsed. The central sector had collapsed on May 22 and the Druze (eastern) sector had collapsed that morning. By the time Barakat says he received his orders from the Israelis, all that was left of the SLA was the western sector where Barakat was. It was only at this point, after the majority of the SLA had disintigrated, that the SLA could be said to have been "dismantled". But what was being dismantled at 8PM on May 23rd was a small force in posession of a very small area that would have been impossible to defend. While the Israelis were probably willing to continue to supply an SLA in posession of the entire security zone, it would have been impossible to support and supply an SLA reduced to a few villages, a few hundred men and facing Hezbollah on two sides.

One strange note in *favor* of a conspiracy to self-destruct the SLA. Pat Robertson relocated the broadcast facilities for his "middle east TV" out of South Lebanon right at the start of May 2000. The timing was strange to say the least. Robertson had kept the operation going in Lebanon for 18 years through multiple car bombings and one incident where the station was overrun. And then he suddenly pulls out a couple weeks before everything falls apart. The timing and Robertson's access to the top levels of the Israeli government make the move look very suspicious.168.127.0.51 16:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This paper [13] in the Middle East Quarterly presents 5 possible explanations that have been advanced for Israel not supporting the SLA in the pullout. It strikes me this article should present them all (unless a more recent paper discounts some of them). The author also notes "From Reserve General Menachem Einan ... I learned in March that there was no Israeli inclination to strengthen the SLA as the sole and credible military alternative to the IDF in south Lebanon." Rwendland 23:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That paper presents problems. The first I noticed is that it claims that the SLA/FLA was organized by Israel. Not supported, but directly organized: "In 1975, as part of Israel's security policy against the Palestinians, a young IDF intelligence officer named Ya'ir Ravid organized a militia force that was first called the Free Lebanese Army, then renamed the South Lebanon Army (SLA) in 1984."

I hope you understand that if that paper is accepted as a source for matters of the widthdrawal, it opens the door to a drastic change in the article as far as the SLA's relationship with Israel goes. It is not possible to accept part of it as valid, but not other parts.

The paper has some interesting information on the withdrawal. Some claims are sourced, some are not. I think the claims that can be directly attributed to individuals can be used in the article. But there are other statements in the article that are not attributed and I dont think should be used.

I'm going to try and figure out a way to present the views of both sides on what happened in May and highlight any events that are in dispute. 64.12.116.10 02:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SLA and Lebanese Government pay

I think there have been some questions in the past about when Lebanese Army pay for the members of the FLA/SLA ended. What I've found is that the the Haddad's forces (the pre-SLA) were on the government payroll up until Haddad declared his state of Free Lebannon in 1979. He decared his "independence" on April 18th of that year and the government essentially fired everyone involved the next day (cutting off their pay). Sources for this include [14] (this one gets the facts right - the cutoff of funds but is wrong on the timing in that the government cut the pre-SLA off the day after rather than before their independence). [15] which gets the timing of events right. I can't find any evidence that anyone in the SLA received any money from the Lebanese Army after 1979. 168.127.0.51 21:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Government of Free Lebanon/SLA

I've changed the article slightly to include references to the Government of Free Lebanon. The SLA was in reality the army of "Free Lebanon" which had declared itself to be a seperate government (or the true government depending on point of view) from Lebanon in 1979.

The government of Free Lebanon (strangely) still exists and is hosted by Israel with offices in Jerusalem. I have not found anything to suggest that Israel recognizes (or has ever recognized) it as a government.

The government of Free Lebanon deserves its own article (I dont think it has one). I'll probably create it eventually but if someone else has the time, it would be a useful thing to do. 64.12.116.10 23:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)