The Seven Villages

Most of us following Middle East news or Lebanon news know a few things about Hezbollah: it emerged in the early 1980’s during the heyday of the Lebanese civil war; its external allies are Iran and Syria; it is likely the strongest and best-trained armed group in Lebanon right now, on par or surpassing the Lebanese army itself; and because of this, it claims to be Lebanon’s stalwart and necessary defender against Israeli aggressions. Many of us are also aware that Hezbollah has established several conditions in order for it to voluntarily disarm its military wing.   Briefly, until 2000, the main condition for its military existence was the occupation of southern Lebanon by Israel.   Following Israel’s redeployment outside of southern Lebanon, Hezbollah emphasized the fact that it had to maintain its military character as the Shebaa Farms, a fertile parcel of land of about 22 km² (8 sq mi) remained occupied by Israel.  (For the sake of a more complete picture, I should also add that Hezbollah cites the regular violations of Lebanon’s airspace by Israeli fighter jets as  another reason for it to keep its arms). 

In the past few months, Hezbollah officials have begun citing if not an entirely new demand, then certainly a less frequently-branded one.  I’m talking about the territorial claim over “The Seven Villages”.  Heard about it? I hadn’t.  It seems that there are seven villages and twenty farms lying just within Israel’s northern border, and which Lebanon has historically claimed as Lebanese, albeit with much less fanfare than its other grievances against Israel.   Nicholas Blanford, a Beirut-based journalist and author of a book on the Hariri assassination that I haven’t quite finished_reading_yet , has a 17-page  study posted on the Now Lebanon website in which he explains the “Seven Villages” demand.

The study is quite an intriguing historical review of the events, negotiations, communications and most crucially, cartography, done by the British and French in the early 1920’s, along with a description of the Zionists’ involvement in these interactions. I highly recommend reading Blanford’s paper, but for those who are eager for the punch line of the story, Blanford concludes that the Seven Villages should have been included in the Lebanese state created by the French.  However, he predicts that raising this issue of re-drawing the borders of northern Israel/southern Lebanon might open the door for Israel to make demands of its own regarding territory it thinks should be part of Israel.   Although Blanford does not expressly say it, his implicit suggestion here seems to be that Lebanon should drop any claims it might have on the Seven Villages because this would complicate any peace talks with Israel.  He specifies that because Lebanon’s past behaviour suggests that it has tacitly accepted its present borders, Israel is unlikely to concede the concerned territories. 

I might be incorrect in interpreting Blanford’s last paragraphs as I have, however, I cannot help but think of two of the most elementary rules of any negotiation:  1)  if you don’t ask for something, you’re no likely to get it; and 2) always ask for more than what you think you will or can get.  In this vein, although I recognize that the idea of incorporating the Seven Villages into Lebanon is quite illusory,  I would never recommend that a party relinquish some of its demands before negotiations even begin simply because it might complicate the bargaining, or because the other party might retaliate with its own demands.  Why not keep the Seven Villages on the list of items to be negotiated with Israel, and use them as bargaining chips for obtaining something that might be more of a priority to Lebanon, like the Shebaa Farms?   For the time being though, it’s safest to say that the Seven Villages are just an added element to what Blanford aptly calls the “psychological warfare” between Hezbollah and Israel.

4 Responses

  1. Interesting. You raise an issue I’ve never heard of and provide sound negotiating advice. Reading it though, I couldn’t help but think that advise to Hezbollah (as though Hezbollah policy wonks are sitting here reading this) is not
    constructive. I would have found an assessment of how valid their claim is to be interesting. Perhaps an international law analysis of the standing of such a caim and how it ought to be resolved could have been interesting.
    As a cynic, I see this as perhaps just a chip Hezbollah is using to ensure that it never ends hostilities as they can always claim there was another village or a single home not given back to them. Borders can be argued down to the last foot ad nauseum and groups like Hezbollah do not commit political suicide by relinquishing their claims.
    It would be interesting to have the Lebanese governments view of this and the Israeli position as well.
    Your advice is good negotiating advice, but is it
    politically expedient and truly in the interest of Lebanon? I’m not convinced.

  2. IRN BRU,

    The Blanford article I was commenting on traces and analyzes the merits of this claim. But Blanford does this from a historical perspective, not an international law one. Essentially, his conclusion is that when the Brits and the French were drawing the map of the Middle East, at one point, those villages got redrawn within British Mandate Palestine, whereas they were supposed to have been included in French Mandate Greater Lebanon. I don’t think it’s really useful for me to repeat Blanford’s entire study, so for the full reasons behind his conclusion I would recommend you read the article. It’s very well explained.

    Secondly, Hezbollah’s claim on the villages is not new. It’s part of the list of things Lebanon demands of Israel. Hezbollah just “borrowed” it. In that sense, the Lebanese government and Hezbollah’s views on this are essentially the same.

    As to the political expediency, you lean to Blanford’s side on this. He seems to think that it would be more improtant to focus on the more pressing claims, possibly like the Shebaa Farms, the village of Ghajar, etc. instead of this one. I do agree that it wouldn’t facilitate negotiations. But negotiations would be long and complex in any event. Why relinquish any parts of your claim before even starting talks?

  3. The seven villages does exist and my father was born there in a town called hunin.

    • Ofc ali chahrour , the seven villages was always part of Jabal/amel the land that dominates shia islam in Lebanon( and hunin was a very famous village part(of jabal 3amel) Ali The seven villages are without any doubt lebanese, and has always been part of south Lebanon( untill the zionist movement asked the british to push the line a few km north, so the village will become part of Palestine( who the zionist movement will later occuppie. At the end these villages will return to Lebanon( and yes we are lebanese without any doubt) a fellow guy also from one of villages ( salha) ( although i have relatives from bintjbeil) my father is from salha.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: