Israeli escalation against the Lebanese military establishment: The “Alma” Center questions the loyalty of the officers on sectarian grounds
The Israeli “Alma” Center went beyond the limits of political commentary on the recent field friction that occurred between the Lebanese and Israeli armies in the town of Deir Mimas, moving, in an analytical article prepared by researcher Tal Be’eri, to target the sectarian structure of the Lebanese army, raising questions about the standards of military service in the south of the country.
The article raised questions based on sectarian affiliation, asking whether the incident could have been avoided if the Lebanese force officer had not been Shiite. The researcher made accusations of cooperation with Hezbollah against a number of Shiite officers and military personnel, which also included Army Commander Rudolph Heikal and the Commander of the Southern Region, Nicolas Tabet, without providing conclusive evidence to prove these allegations or link sectarian affiliation to military violations.
This proposal targets one of the most prominent pillars of the Lebanese Army’s strength, which is its merging of the various Lebanese components under the banner of one leadership. National approaches confirm that if it is proven that any soldier was involved in cooperation with parties outside the authority of the state, accountability remains a legal duty, regardless of rank or affiliation. However, spreading suspicions on a sectarian basis affecting individuals and leaders affects the essence of the comprehensive military doctrine.
In light of the delicate situation on the ground in the south, the strength of the army lies in its representation of the entire state, not in excluding any of its components, as the soldier is subject to evaluation based on his adherence to laws and orders, not his sectarian identity, and turning identity into a material for accusation threatens to undermine the confidence necessary to perform security tasks in this sensitive region.
While the ALMA Center article warned of the repercussions of field incidents on the diplomatic track, it went further to demand the dismissal of the army officers and commander based on accusations that lacked evidence. The irony appears clear in the author’s acknowledgment of the vital role of the army in implementing any future settlement, while simultaneously launching attacks aimed at undermining the cohesion of the institution concerned with implementing this role.
In conclusion, the right of the Lebanese to hold their military institution accountable and to demand the necessary investigations remains protected, while attempts at sectarian separation coming from outside the borders are seen as not serving the path of accountability and not enhancing the prestige of the state, but rather undermining the stability of the unified institution at a critical stage in which Lebanon needs a unified army capable of protecting its borders and representing all its people.
