Interview with Timur Goksel: I think "Israel" was behind the assassination of Moghnieh
Source: Al-Manar, 22-02-2008
Timur Goksel has a BA in Finance and a BA in Public Administration. He studied two years of doctorate studies in international trade and marketing. Prof. Goksel joined the UN in 1968. He started as Information Assistant then became the officer-in-charge of the newly opened UN information center in Ankara. In 1979, he was assigned as Press Information Officer/Spokesman to UNIFIL at Naqoura and later became a Senior Adviser of UNIFIL in 1995. He lectured in seminars and workshops for diplomats and military officials in New York, Oslo and Helsinki on public information, communication policies in peacekeeping, theory and practice of peacekeeping and international organizations in Middle East environment. He also lectured on regular basis to officers arriving in UNIFIL on Lebanese politics, the Middle East and techniques of peacekeeping as well as to military workshops on liaison and information collection operations. Prof. Goksel currently teaches at Notre Dame University and the American University of Beirut. Al Manar's internet site interviewed Mr. Goksel on Friday February 22, 2008 on recent development in Lebanon and the region.
Interviewed by Mohamad Shmaysani
Q: Mr. Goksel, first of all what's it like to be a political analyst after being a spokesperson for the UNIFIL?
A: There is freedom involved in this. I can speak more freely now and I mention names. We had to be careful in the past because we were the United Nations. Every body remembers that I had to be careful in order to be correct. I'm also comfortable that everybody knows I'm neutral. I love the country and I like the people here, so I think I'm in a very comfortable position, I know the country, I'm a good student of Lebanon and I don't take sides. But this is causing me to work too much although I'm not a spokesman; it's not my work anymore. I'm retired and I teach at the American University of Beirut and I'm enjoying having very good classes. But because I'm talking freely and as a neutral party, I get too much demand especially from foreign media and foreign officials who come to Lebanon. They all ask for my opinion because they know that I'm neutral. So actually I'm keeping myself busy, I didn't think that I will get this busy. I thought that after my retirement I would spend my time on the corniche (coast road) smoking argileh (hubble-bubble) but now I don't have much time for that.
Q: Are you still in contact with decision makers from both the loyalty and opposition camps?
A: No, not officially. But we meet each other on social occasions. But officially I'm not in touch with anybody and I try not to be in touch with anybody. But I know most of them as friends and we talk when we meet but I have no official contact with them.
Q: Do you really believe that there are decision makers in Lebanon or are decision ready made for them?
A: It is sad really that in many ways, it looks like the Lebanese politicians or leaders don't want to be the decision makers. They had so many opportunities to impose their name on this country and let Lebanon be truly independent. I don't really believe too much in the sectarian conflict in Lebanon; it's about politics, economy, prestige and power. But since no group can impose itself on other groups they look for outside help. And when that happens, everybody looks for outside help and this is the situation that we ended up with: we left the decision of this country in the hands of outsiders. So we are all waiting for a miracle from the important parties in the outside to tell us how to live in Lebanon, but this is not fair. I know the people in the streets are not happy with this, but the Lebanese people don't protest too much the just let things pass and let us continue with our lives. So I think that the politicians have given up the privilege of becoming decision makers in Lebanon. It is uncomfortable and it makes me sad to see this.
Q: Do you think that the essentials for an internal conflict are existent?
A: No, I don't think so. Internal strife, small internal incidents or security problems yes, but if you are talking about a civil war, no I don't think so. I don't think that the Lebanese are that naïve and unrealistic to repeat the same thing. I've lived the civil war here and I know what I'm talking about. However, the youngsters now that are excited in the streets don't know what civil war is; it is not standing on the corner and throwing stones at each other. Civil war is a big thing and it almost destroyed the country. I think that there is a lot of polarization, a lot of overheated and escalatory rhetoric against each other and there are people, especially the youngsters in all parties, who don't understand the political meaning of this escalation from both sides. There are people who take it seriously and some of them think that they are expected to do something.
Perhaps many people would not agree with me, but so far I don't think that what happened recently in the streets was planned by anybody. It's what I call "the street dynamics" when the young people get together. Today we have this big problem of cellular telephones that make mobilization much easier. You know, during the civil war, we would know the Za'eem (boss) he was always holding a small radio in his hand, but he was the only one who could mobilize. However today, if you get angry with me for something political maybe, the first thing I do is I take my telephone and I call the shabab (the guys) and then you call the shabab and then we have a war going on. Messages go and calls go and this is what I mean by street dynamics, that it becomes very difficult even for the strongest and most disciplined political parties in Lebanon to control the situation. When excitement starts, especially when you are young and hot-blooded, it takes time to die down. The sad story is, as we saw in Mar Mekhayel, that people get killed then it can escalate to something even worse. But to answer your question, yes everybody has guns because everybody have always had guns and I still don't understand why everybody is talking about it in the newspapers because in Lebanon everybody always have guns but the difference now is that they are buying new ones; like if someone has an old Kalashnikov and now wants a fresh M-4 from Iraq...well this is prestige. I have lived the war, and they said at the end of it every militia surrendered its weapons, but nobody told me who surrendered how many weapons. Hizbullah was allowed to keep its weapons for resistance, but what about other weapons. I agree that tanks and artillery were surrendered but what about small arms, where are they? I didn't see a list that said this militia surrendered this and that, so the weapons are somewhere out there. So guns are out there, but having guns in Lebanon is not the same as I call militarization, that is being prepared and organized to use those weapons as in combat units with tactics and command structure; they haven't come to this sort of militarization yet. So small incidents will happen but the big advantage we have today is that the army is still standing up and this makes a big difference. This is why I'm a big defender of this Lebanese army because we need them so badly.
Q: In case of a regional or internal conflict, how do you thing the conduct of the UNIFIL should be like?
A: It should not change. The original UNIFIL that I was part of were in the middle of a very strong and violent civil war when everybody was fighting each other in south Lebanon and in Beirut. When I came here, there was a war between the Palestinians and the "Israelis". The "Israelis" then invaded Lebanon and the resistance emerged and Hizbullah came to being. The UNIFIL stayed during all these times. It was not a strong military force, but they believed in what they were doing and they stayed. It's not that easy for a UN force to leave whenever a fight breaks out, unless it became a serious target and not just an accidental one. We were attacked on some occasions but then we talked to the people involved and we calmed things down. Most of the attacks were accidental. The UNIFIL force didn't come here for tourism. Some Ignorant Lebanese journalists and officials say that the UNIFIL is leaving. They are not because they are accredited by the UN Security Council and these countries have volunteered to come here. They were not forced to do so; therefore they will stay unless they become a direct target. It's not that easy to close down the UN force. Look at the 2006 war ("Israeli" war against Lebanon in June 2006); there were only two small units: the Ghanese and the Indians. But they stayed right in the middle of the war. There were casualties, there were people hurt, they did not have food, they ran out of gasoline but they stayed, why? These people have come for the service of the Lebanese, so you don't just close down the place and leave because there is shooting in the area. When you come to Lebanon with a peacekeeping force, you expect risks, but again, you don't want to be a target but you accept the risk. They are a military force not boy scouts.
Q: What about the Qatari contingent?
A: I don't understand why there is noise about it. The Qataris announced that they were leaving some months ago. I think that maybe the UN made a mistake; perhaps they should have announced that this unit will leave in a few months. In the original UNIFIL, everybody came and left. When I came here, there were the Iranians who left during the revolution in Iran, then the French came and left, the Nigerians and the Dutch also came and left. It's a process of rotation, sometimes they tell you that they would leave in two years, some other times they just have concerns. But in this case, the Qatari unit was small and symbolic. They did not have an important security role, but they made many humanitarian contributions. I don't think Qatar left because it was afraid of something. I don't agree with that.
Q: Do you see any exit to the political crisis in Lebanon?
A: This takes me back to your question earlier about who makes decisions in the country. I understand now that it's so complicated and it's so hard to follow. Everybody's confused, but I think that most of concerned people I have talked to are waiting for some sort of decision between Saudi Arabia and Syria. They have said that if these two countries reach agreement, then the Lebanese problem will be solved. But this does not make sense to me. If they agree, we know what they will agree on, so why don't the Lebanese agree on it themselves and finish this problem. Apart from being a politician in Lebanon, there's always this cultural background of being a Za'eem (boss) and you (Lebanese) still have this system of za'eems. For a good za'eem, it's very difficult to give anything because this is the "za'eem style", so they look for a good excuse: If strong outside powers intervene and tell them to give something, then za'eems will say "I did not give, they made me give." Unfortunately this is the way it works here.
Q: how do you see Lebanon after the assassination of martyr Imad Moghniyeh?
A: I don't think it's going to affect Lebanon too much. Hizbullah is a mature party and I don't think it will take advantage from the killing of Moghniyeh to influence the situation in Lebanon. I think that they are going to keep the matter outside Lebanon, at least this is what I understand. People expected Hizbullah to do something in south Lebanon but I said no, it will not happen there.
As I said, Hizbullah has shown maturity and they don't do what everybody expect them to do. I think that Hizbullah's response, until now, indicates that we are not going to have any big effect in Lebanon itself. But what could happen? There are many scenarios: If the investigation finished and, God forbid, somebody proved that there was a Lebanese party involved, then this time we have a problem, but I don't think so.
Q: What if Hizbullah retaliated inside "Israel"?
A: It depends on what you do and the scope of the operation and how much you can deny it. Any operation of this kind could lead "Israel", this military country, to destroy Lebanon easily. Then we have the international public opinion involved, so what you try to do is to run an operation that cannot be traced back to you. It's very complicated.
Q: Do you think that Hizbullah could launch an operation and not claim responsibility for it?
A: Like most of people, I think "Israel" was behind the operation (assassination of Moghniyeh, but it's not based on facts but on historic experience. But they did not claim responsibility at a time everyone knew that "Israel" did it. So in certain cases, you don't claim responsibility, because this is something tactical. I'm sure that Hizbullah will be thinking of doing something like this also, but mind you, everybody will accuse Hizbullah. There are things that we can't control, but as a party I think that Hizbullah is mature and they will know how to handle it.
Q: Do you believe that "Israel" has the intention to engage in a war with Syria and perhaps Iran? A: With Syria, I don't think so. Iran is a very complicated case because Iran can retaliate. "Israel" cannot do anything like this without the full consent of the US. There are 160 thousand American soldiers next door to Iran, so "Israel" cannot do this on its own, although they might do it technically.
Q: In one of its November editions, the Times magazine said that "Israel" believes Iran will become a nuclear state by 2009 so they "Israeli" air force intensified exercises on how to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities with mini-nukes, the Times even named the areas where the "Israeli" war planes that will presumably launch the attack are stationed, how do you explain this?
A: I think the "Israelis" will like to do this and they are indeed afraid of a nuclear Iran but they are not alone in this world. They have a strong American ally and I think the Americans know that if something like this happens, Iran will hold both countries responsible and this means that they can target the Americans who have to think very carefully about this. I mean Iran can target the US army next door. It's true that they are strong, but you cannot underestimate the Iranians especially when they are angry and they unite. So I think it's a very complex question. Technically, they can do it, but to use nuclear bombs means that they will be introducing such weapons in the Middle East. Once you cross that bridge, who's going to stop the other countries? Then we will really have a nuclear race in the Middle East.
As for Syria, I don't see the "Israelis" attacking Syria at all. Their border with Syria has always been calm and quiet and every once in a while, they run operations and they bomb something just to send a message to the Syrians. I don't think that they consider Syria as a security threat. They're much more concerned about the Iranians.
Interviewed by Mohamad Shmaysani
Q: Mr. Goksel, first of all what's it like to be a political analyst after being a spokesperson for the UNIFIL?
A: There is freedom involved in this. I can speak more freely now and I mention names. We had to be careful in the past because we were the United Nations. Every body remembers that I had to be careful in order to be correct. I'm also comfortable that everybody knows I'm neutral. I love the country and I like the people here, so I think I'm in a very comfortable position, I know the country, I'm a good student of Lebanon and I don't take sides. But this is causing me to work too much although I'm not a spokesman; it's not my work anymore. I'm retired and I teach at the American University of Beirut and I'm enjoying having very good classes. But because I'm talking freely and as a neutral party, I get too much demand especially from foreign media and foreign officials who come to Lebanon. They all ask for my opinion because they know that I'm neutral. So actually I'm keeping myself busy, I didn't think that I will get this busy. I thought that after my retirement I would spend my time on the corniche (coast road) smoking argileh (hubble-bubble) but now I don't have much time for that.
Q: Are you still in contact with decision makers from both the loyalty and opposition camps?
A: No, not officially. But we meet each other on social occasions. But officially I'm not in touch with anybody and I try not to be in touch with anybody. But I know most of them as friends and we talk when we meet but I have no official contact with them.
Q: Do you really believe that there are decision makers in Lebanon or are decision ready made for them?
A: It is sad really that in many ways, it looks like the Lebanese politicians or leaders don't want to be the decision makers. They had so many opportunities to impose their name on this country and let Lebanon be truly independent. I don't really believe too much in the sectarian conflict in Lebanon; it's about politics, economy, prestige and power. But since no group can impose itself on other groups they look for outside help. And when that happens, everybody looks for outside help and this is the situation that we ended up with: we left the decision of this country in the hands of outsiders. So we are all waiting for a miracle from the important parties in the outside to tell us how to live in Lebanon, but this is not fair. I know the people in the streets are not happy with this, but the Lebanese people don't protest too much the just let things pass and let us continue with our lives. So I think that the politicians have given up the privilege of becoming decision makers in Lebanon. It is uncomfortable and it makes me sad to see this.
Q: Do you think that the essentials for an internal conflict are existent?
A: No, I don't think so. Internal strife, small internal incidents or security problems yes, but if you are talking about a civil war, no I don't think so. I don't think that the Lebanese are that naïve and unrealistic to repeat the same thing. I've lived the civil war here and I know what I'm talking about. However, the youngsters now that are excited in the streets don't know what civil war is; it is not standing on the corner and throwing stones at each other. Civil war is a big thing and it almost destroyed the country. I think that there is a lot of polarization, a lot of overheated and escalatory rhetoric against each other and there are people, especially the youngsters in all parties, who don't understand the political meaning of this escalation from both sides. There are people who take it seriously and some of them think that they are expected to do something.
Perhaps many people would not agree with me, but so far I don't think that what happened recently in the streets was planned by anybody. It's what I call "the street dynamics" when the young people get together. Today we have this big problem of cellular telephones that make mobilization much easier. You know, during the civil war, we would know the Za'eem (boss) he was always holding a small radio in his hand, but he was the only one who could mobilize. However today, if you get angry with me for something political maybe, the first thing I do is I take my telephone and I call the shabab (the guys) and then you call the shabab and then we have a war going on. Messages go and calls go and this is what I mean by street dynamics, that it becomes very difficult even for the strongest and most disciplined political parties in Lebanon to control the situation. When excitement starts, especially when you are young and hot-blooded, it takes time to die down. The sad story is, as we saw in Mar Mekhayel, that people get killed then it can escalate to something even worse. But to answer your question, yes everybody has guns because everybody have always had guns and I still don't understand why everybody is talking about it in the newspapers because in Lebanon everybody always have guns but the difference now is that they are buying new ones; like if someone has an old Kalashnikov and now wants a fresh M-4 from Iraq...well this is prestige. I have lived the war, and they said at the end of it every militia surrendered its weapons, but nobody told me who surrendered how many weapons. Hizbullah was allowed to keep its weapons for resistance, but what about other weapons. I agree that tanks and artillery were surrendered but what about small arms, where are they? I didn't see a list that said this militia surrendered this and that, so the weapons are somewhere out there. So guns are out there, but having guns in Lebanon is not the same as I call militarization, that is being prepared and organized to use those weapons as in combat units with tactics and command structure; they haven't come to this sort of militarization yet. So small incidents will happen but the big advantage we have today is that the army is still standing up and this makes a big difference. This is why I'm a big defender of this Lebanese army because we need them so badly.
Q: In case of a regional or internal conflict, how do you thing the conduct of the UNIFIL should be like?
A: It should not change. The original UNIFIL that I was part of were in the middle of a very strong and violent civil war when everybody was fighting each other in south Lebanon and in Beirut. When I came here, there was a war between the Palestinians and the "Israelis". The "Israelis" then invaded Lebanon and the resistance emerged and Hizbullah came to being. The UNIFIL stayed during all these times. It was not a strong military force, but they believed in what they were doing and they stayed. It's not that easy for a UN force to leave whenever a fight breaks out, unless it became a serious target and not just an accidental one. We were attacked on some occasions but then we talked to the people involved and we calmed things down. Most of the attacks were accidental. The UNIFIL force didn't come here for tourism. Some Ignorant Lebanese journalists and officials say that the UNIFIL is leaving. They are not because they are accredited by the UN Security Council and these countries have volunteered to come here. They were not forced to do so; therefore they will stay unless they become a direct target. It's not that easy to close down the UN force. Look at the 2006 war ("Israeli" war against Lebanon in June 2006); there were only two small units: the Ghanese and the Indians. But they stayed right in the middle of the war. There were casualties, there were people hurt, they did not have food, they ran out of gasoline but they stayed, why? These people have come for the service of the Lebanese, so you don't just close down the place and leave because there is shooting in the area. When you come to Lebanon with a peacekeeping force, you expect risks, but again, you don't want to be a target but you accept the risk. They are a military force not boy scouts.
Q: What about the Qatari contingent?
A: I don't understand why there is noise about it. The Qataris announced that they were leaving some months ago. I think that maybe the UN made a mistake; perhaps they should have announced that this unit will leave in a few months. In the original UNIFIL, everybody came and left. When I came here, there were the Iranians who left during the revolution in Iran, then the French came and left, the Nigerians and the Dutch also came and left. It's a process of rotation, sometimes they tell you that they would leave in two years, some other times they just have concerns. But in this case, the Qatari unit was small and symbolic. They did not have an important security role, but they made many humanitarian contributions. I don't think Qatar left because it was afraid of something. I don't agree with that.
Q: Do you see any exit to the political crisis in Lebanon?
A: This takes me back to your question earlier about who makes decisions in the country. I understand now that it's so complicated and it's so hard to follow. Everybody's confused, but I think that most of concerned people I have talked to are waiting for some sort of decision between Saudi Arabia and Syria. They have said that if these two countries reach agreement, then the Lebanese problem will be solved. But this does not make sense to me. If they agree, we know what they will agree on, so why don't the Lebanese agree on it themselves and finish this problem. Apart from being a politician in Lebanon, there's always this cultural background of being a Za'eem (boss) and you (Lebanese) still have this system of za'eems. For a good za'eem, it's very difficult to give anything because this is the "za'eem style", so they look for a good excuse: If strong outside powers intervene and tell them to give something, then za'eems will say "I did not give, they made me give." Unfortunately this is the way it works here.
Q: how do you see Lebanon after the assassination of martyr Imad Moghniyeh?
A: I don't think it's going to affect Lebanon too much. Hizbullah is a mature party and I don't think it will take advantage from the killing of Moghniyeh to influence the situation in Lebanon. I think that they are going to keep the matter outside Lebanon, at least this is what I understand. People expected Hizbullah to do something in south Lebanon but I said no, it will not happen there.
As I said, Hizbullah has shown maturity and they don't do what everybody expect them to do. I think that Hizbullah's response, until now, indicates that we are not going to have any big effect in Lebanon itself. But what could happen? There are many scenarios: If the investigation finished and, God forbid, somebody proved that there was a Lebanese party involved, then this time we have a problem, but I don't think so.
Q: What if Hizbullah retaliated inside "Israel"?
A: It depends on what you do and the scope of the operation and how much you can deny it. Any operation of this kind could lead "Israel", this military country, to destroy Lebanon easily. Then we have the international public opinion involved, so what you try to do is to run an operation that cannot be traced back to you. It's very complicated.
Q: Do you think that Hizbullah could launch an operation and not claim responsibility for it?
A: Like most of people, I think "Israel" was behind the operation (assassination of Moghniyeh, but it's not based on facts but on historic experience. But they did not claim responsibility at a time everyone knew that "Israel" did it. So in certain cases, you don't claim responsibility, because this is something tactical. I'm sure that Hizbullah will be thinking of doing something like this also, but mind you, everybody will accuse Hizbullah. There are things that we can't control, but as a party I think that Hizbullah is mature and they will know how to handle it.
Q: Do you believe that "Israel" has the intention to engage in a war with Syria and perhaps Iran? A: With Syria, I don't think so. Iran is a very complicated case because Iran can retaliate. "Israel" cannot do anything like this without the full consent of the US. There are 160 thousand American soldiers next door to Iran, so "Israel" cannot do this on its own, although they might do it technically.
Q: In one of its November editions, the Times magazine said that "Israel" believes Iran will become a nuclear state by 2009 so they "Israeli" air force intensified exercises on how to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities with mini-nukes, the Times even named the areas where the "Israeli" war planes that will presumably launch the attack are stationed, how do you explain this?
A: I think the "Israelis" will like to do this and they are indeed afraid of a nuclear Iran but they are not alone in this world. They have a strong American ally and I think the Americans know that if something like this happens, Iran will hold both countries responsible and this means that they can target the Americans who have to think very carefully about this. I mean Iran can target the US army next door. It's true that they are strong, but you cannot underestimate the Iranians especially when they are angry and they unite. So I think it's a very complex question. Technically, they can do it, but to use nuclear bombs means that they will be introducing such weapons in the Middle East. Once you cross that bridge, who's going to stop the other countries? Then we will really have a nuclear race in the Middle East.
As for Syria, I don't see the "Israelis" attacking Syria at all. Their border with Syria has always been calm and quiet and every once in a while, they run operations and they bomb something just to send a message to the Syrians. I don't think that they consider Syria as a security threat. They're much more concerned about the Iranians.
