MEDIA REACTION: LEBANON

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 ABU DHABI 003342

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

STATE FOR NEA/ARP; NEA/PPD; NEA/RA; INR/R/MR; PA; INR/NESA; INR/B;
RRU-NEA
IIP/G/NEA-SA
WHITE HOUSE FOR PRESS OFFICE; NSC
SECDEF FOR OASD/PA
USCINCCENT FOR POLAD
LONDON FOR MCKUNE

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: OIIP KMDR TC
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: LEBANON


1. Summary: One UAE columnist in "Al-Ittihad" wondered why some
Arab TV channels during war in Lebanon accused Gulf governments of
being traitors and agents to the West and concluded that this will
not help restore any occupied land. Al-Khaleej" wondered when Arabs
will ever live with dignity and stop complying with U.S. plans. A
columnist in "Al-Khaleej" emphasized that the gauge of victory or
defeat is not the amount of destruction but the strategic change in
the political balance of power against the opponent and concluded
that Lebanon had won the war. Another columnist in "Al-Khaleej"
warned Arabs from getting overly satisfied with the cease-fire
because Israel's history is full of betrayals and the U.S. cannot be
trusted. A Lebanese columnist in "Al-Khaleej" thought that Israel
would not resume its war against Lebanon; rather that it would wait
for internal strife to tear Lebanon apart. End Summary.


2. On 08/16, Emirati columnist Abdullah Rasheed wrote the following
in his daily column in the Abu Dhabi-based semi-official
Arabic-language daily "Al-Ittihad" (circulation 65,000):

"... It is strange that some Arab TV satellite channels target the
Gulf countries and open their doors for anyone wishing to assail
them, as if these governments were responsible for all what is going
on in the world. It will not help to restore any occupied land or
lost Arab right. Not one Gulf government has ever neglected to
support its brothers. They don't support other countries just to
show off, but because it is a responsibility that falls on their
shoulders and any retreat from this responsibility means failure.
But what more could any Gulf government have done beyond providing
financial support and exercising pressure on its Western friends to
end the war?"


3. On 08/16, columnist Dr. Hasan Madan wrote the following in a
column in the Sharjah-based Arabic-language daily "Al-Khaleej"
(circulation 90,000):

"There continue to be some voices that see declarations of victory
in Lebanon as too much. These voices ignore the fact that the
criterion for victory or defeat in a war is not the scale of
devastation caused but the strategic change in the political balance
of power with the adversary. This is the goal of any war, and
Israel launched its aggression in this case against Lebanon in
pursuit of two significant goals, namely to disarm Hezbollah and
rescue the two abducted men. Ultimately, these goals were reduced
to just putting Hezbollah at a distance beyond the Litani river."


4. On 08/15 the Sharjah-based Arabic-language daily "Al-Khaleej"
published the following in a lead editorial:

"When will the debate in Lebanon, at the Arab level, ever counter
the U.S. policy of imposition through iron, fire, Zionist terrorism,
invasion, and wars of liquidation. Do all of these efforts reduce
policy choices to two basic options: submit or be killed? No. Is
there not a third option: to live with dignity, with the ability to
defend oneself, and with the will and power to confront the
terrorism that is put forth by the enemy?"


5. On 08/16, Lebanese columnist Dr. Saad Mehio wrote the following
in a column in the Sharjah-based Arabic-language daily
"Al-Khaleej":

"...It seems that Israel may not resume its war against Lebanon for
some years... But Tel Aviv can do something more critical: wait for
the outcome of internal Lebanese affairs and bet on the emergence of
the sectarian civil war that the military war failed to achieve.
Portents of such a war have unfortunately begun to appear, and are
centered on the fate of Hezbollah and its disarmament, as laid out
in resolution 1701."


6. On 08/16, columnist Jaafar Mohamed Ahmed wrote the following in
an op-ed in the Sharjah-based Arabic-language daily "Al-Khaleej":

"The overwhelming satisfaction that dominates the Arabs on the
cessation of Israeli hostilities against Lebanon is a temporary (or
to be more precise) a cautious one. The Zionist enemy cannot be
trusted. Nor can America, whom everyone fears will have a political
reaction capable of yielding more Israeli aggression... Even with
the cease-fire, analysis and reports indicate that Israeli perfidy

ABU DHABI 00003342 002 OF 002


must be taken into account by everyone. The enemy is known for its
treachery. Such a situation is easily conceivable. What is not
conceivable is that the Israelis would actually respect the
international resolution, and abide by the latest mandate of the
Security Council..."

QUINN