Israel managed to terminate Jihad (Mughniyeh)

Last Monday (January 19, 2015) Israel executed an airstrike on a convoy inside Syrian territory. So far we know of six Hezbollah members that were killed, additionally to six senior commanders of the IRGC. A lot has been said about this attack and the on-going war between Israel and Hezbollah, yet not many asked out loud why Israel decided to attack Hezbollah’s convoy at this particular date.

Israel’s ‘targeted killing’ policy is deeply rooted in Hezbollah’s mind, as well as other organizations in the Levant, such as Hamas. Israel declared many times that it follows terrorists and every member of an organization defined as a ‘terrorist organization’ – Israel would use its entire means to assure the termination of these organizations’ members. That being said, it is important to understand that this airstrike was not a part of the mentioned above policy, but clearly a moderate response to recent events. It seems the attack resulted out of various reasons, which raises many important issues, and mainly the Ego-power-war between two leaders in the region.

Let me start with a very interesting coincidence, and not even close to the Middle East, when Alberto Nisman was found dead in his locked apartment in Buenos Aires, Argentina, the night after Israel’s attack. Nisman was investigating the 1994 bombing of a Jewish center in Buenos Aires in which 85 people died - a bombing, which supposedly Hezbollah and Iran were responsible for. Last Wednesday (January 14, 2015) Nisman accused the Argentinian President, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, of involvement in a plot to cover up Iran's alleged role in the bombing.

A day after Nisman accusation, and three days prior to the Israeli attack, Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah gave an interview to Lebanese TV network Al-Mayadeen. Nasrallah said many things during this interview, amongst threatening Israel (not for the first time, of course), but mainly announced to the world that Hezbollah is still trained, active and ready for action. This interview was inevitable (and predictable) in light of recent events in Europe and the growing presence of Al-Qaeda and ISIS all over the world.

All possible media coverage was given to these organizations and suddenly Hezbollah appeared to be… irrelevant. The Western world was worried about radical Islam, and Hezbollah was not mentioned. Needless to say that ISIS is fighting Hezbollah in Syria, and in some cases, in Lebanon. In many eyes, ISIS has replaced Hezbollah and is taking more effective actions on the way to Islamic Caliphate, as Hezbollah originally promised in its ‘Open Letter’ (1985). Even Israeli news coverage, which Hezbollah follows carefully, ignored Hezbollah and referred to ISIS as the new enemy, as did Israeli Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu in his recent speeches.

PM Netanyahu wishes to join forces with all other Western countries in their war against terrorism. He has been trying for a long time to join the war against ISIS, yet with no actual success. The terrorist attack against the Jewish community in France gave him a chance to re-unite with his old goal: to return to his ‘natural’ spot as ‘Mr. Security’ of the world, and most importantly, of Israeli public. He needs to prove he (and the State of Israel) fights terrorism within the country’s borders, and every place on the globe, if the Coalition only allows it.

 Nasrallah watched PM Netanyahu the last few months (after the organization did not join Hamas in a Northern front to the last July 2014 war) and obviously could not accept this ‘superior’ attitude. Not only that the world had forgotten about him and his organization, but also the Israeli Prime Minister ignores them in public? Since Nasrallah is not really ready to open a new front in the Lebanese-Israeli border, he granted this interview in this specific time. This was his ‘moderate response.’

Yet, Nasrallah’s interview, which was broadly covered by the Israeli media, gave a golden opportunity to PM Netanyahu, who stands on the edge of a pre-elections time, and needs to show the Israeli public he is still in control. After taking Hamas out of the equation, at least for a while, and Iran is too busy with its own problems, PM Netanyahu was left with no real existential security danger to Israel and its citizens, while he has no other achievements to present. He is fighting for his political survival and therefore grasped the opportunity with both hands, and used it well.

And then, in another very interesting coincidence, only two days after Israel attacked the convoy, it was announced that PM Netanyahu was invited by the Speaker (R, Ohio), John A. Boehner, to speak in front of the House about Iran and the danger of radical Islam. ‘Mr. Security’ is back.

Was it deliberately that Jihad Mughniyeh was killed in the airstrike? It might be, but I guess we will never know. It surely was the cherry on the top for the Israeli Prime Minister. Jihad’s late (and a well-known terrorist) father, Imad, was the symbol of the organization. Many Israelis just waited for its destruction. Now they could have the cherry.

In this ego-power-war between the two leaders and as everyone is waiting for more attacks in Israel and Lebanon - both leaders have won, for now. Both have achieved their current goal: they are relevant more than ever. Now they just have to keep their promise and continue the war. Nonetheless, they are not paying the price of this war. We all do.

 Recommended open sources:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/19/argentinian-prosecutor-buenos-aires-bomb-alberto-nisman-iran

http://www.almayadeen.net/ar/news/lebanon-nTCX90g_DkKC0aQhATmO3A/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%AF-%D9%86%D8%B5%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%87-%D9%84%D9%84%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%8A%D9%86--%D8%B5%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%AE--%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%AA%D8%AD-110--%D8%B7%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B2-%D9%82%D8%AF%D9%8A%D9%85-%D9%85%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%86%D8%A9-%D8%A8%D9%85

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/israel-vs.-hezbollah-spy-vs.-spy

Third Time is a Charm!

Israelis and Arabs kill each other since 1948. Actually, even before the State of Israel was established (and was used as an excuse for the attacks of the Arab side of the conflict) they killed each other, whether it was in British Palestine, Europe or any other spot on the planet. Nothing is new under the sun, as we all know.

However, current Intifada, third by now, did not start in Jerusalem in the last month, and has more resemblance to the first Intifada (1987-1993) than the last (10/2000-02/2005), yet it is unique in many ways. Both first and current Intifadas are folk/informal Intifadas. Both were not funded by any organization, government or financial institutes, such as the second Intifada. Most, if not all incidents were and are private initiatives of private people, or, in the case of the kidnapping of the three Jewish boys last July in the territories, local initiatives of organizations, which their higher commanders apparently were not informed, nor ordered, to execute such incidents at that time.

Moreover, most of the incidents in the current Intifada were executed by Israeli-Arabs, living in Israel, as opposed to the first Intifada, when the activists were mostly citizens of the occupied territories, under Israeli military regime. Today, Israel is no longer the official ruler in the territories and there is a legitimate Palestinian government, both in Gaza and the PA. Nevertheless, since the attacks are been executed by Arab citizens of Israel, it can be considered as some kind of a similarity.

The last war in July-August 2014, between Hamas in Gaza strip and Israel, has blown up the already burning surface. It wasn’t only a war between two official figures. It was a war within Israel as well, and the hatred against Israeli-Arabs was at its pick. Many Israeli-Arabs were not hesitate to publically show their support in Hamas, and gloated when IDF soldiers were killed or injured in Gaza, or when a missile killed or injured Israeli-Jews. Even Israeli-Arabs who work(ed) for the Israeli official authorities were not afraid to show their gloat. This ugly gloat led to a massive public attack on the Arab sector in Israel, and every Israeli-Arab that posted his or her support in Hamas and/or gloating for Israeli-Jews’ death, was fired on the spot.

Many Israeli-Jews demanded to fire Israeli-Arabs from official positions, or actually any position that requires any access with Israeli-Jews. They wanted total segregation, which could not be fully executed by law, until the last few days, when the Israeli government passed the “Nationality Law,” calling for a Jewish State, implying that the Jews in Israel are a superior race. Of course, this law just stabilizes and makes the current reality in Israel legal. This law, along with the mentality that is now so widespread in Israel, teaches the world that the Jews have not learned anything from the holocaust and acting as the Nazis acted in Germany during the 1930s of the last century. Signs with “Here we do not serve Arabs” or “Here we do not employ Arabs” are common in various cities in Israel.  

The current Intifada is a result of the rising hostility between Israeli-Arabs and Israeli-Jews, hostility that has been promoted by Israeli officials from both parties. i.e. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and a few of his right-wing cabinet members, as well as Parliament members from the right-wing and the Arab wing, who have a lot to benefit from the situation. As the attacks continue from both sides, their electoral profit is growing. Their supporters call for an immediate action against “the enemy.” Two Israeli-Arabs kill five Israeli-Jews in a Synagogue, and a couple of days later, a famous Israeli-Jewish singer does not hesitate to incite against the Arab sector with hatred songs.

Unfortunately, the truth is that both sides cannot live with each other, not to mention their neighbors from the south-east border. There is no chance for reconciliation in the existing environment nowadays, when there are obvious parties, which fuels the fire for their own good. They just don’t want peace.

A New Government in Lebanon – Queries We Must Ask

   After almost a year, designated Prime Minister Tammam Salam has finally managed to form a 24-member Cabinet, prior to the upcoming presidential elections in May. The efforts of Salam and his mediator, MP Walid Jumblatt, deserve applause due to the major challenges and differences between the March 14 and the March 8 alliances. However, this government, in its current formation, raises a few queries.

   The first core issue of disagreement between the two sides was the portfolio given to Ashraf Rifi, who was Salam’s nominee for Minister of Interior. Hezbollah refused for months to this nomination, and eventually accepted Rifi as the Minister of Justice. Since Salam noted his government adopted the principle of rotating ministerial portfolios based on party and sect, it is hard to tell what is planned for Rifi in the future, and when.

   Secondly, the government is based on 8-8-8 lineup in which eight ministers are allotted to the March 8 and March 14 coalitions each. The rest of the ministers were chosen by the president, the prime minister-designate and Jumblatt. Moreover, this formula effectively grants both camps veto power, which establishes another core challenge for the new Cabinet. Both camps can put spokes in the Cabinet’s wheels as they wish and the options are countless, yet the most important are right around the corner - the presidential elections are in May, and the electoral law, the apple of Hezbollah’s eye, is waiting for another round in the public eye. Hezbollah was under a lot of pressure lately, and allowing this compromise of giving March 14 alliance a veto power as well, only means that Salam’s government’s days are numbered.

   The spill-over of the Syrian civil war into Lebanon, as well as the suicide bombings inside Hezbollah’s territories, have made the situation of the new government even more challenging. Its open involvement in the Syrian civil war led Hezbollah into a trap within the coalition’s negotiation. Additionally, the compromise that Hezbollah has made to get into this Cabinet is enormous, since the organization required exclusive veto power for a long time. Moreover, Hezbollah’s willingness to negotiate for this exclusiveness proves of their distress due to recent events, and maybe of their need of some stability in Lebanon, as much as possible.

   One should remember that Hezbollah, who for the common Western observer may be viewed as a terrorist group – is a hybrid organization – with a responsibility to its reputation and its people. It is not only a resistance group, or a terrorist organization, but a very powerful political party in Lebanon and a social movement as well, with a wide and deeply rooted infrastructure all around Lebanon, who Hassan Nasrallah cares for it. Furthermore, Hezbollah has always been considered as a proxy army of Iran, but it is first and foremost a Lebanese organization, and as such, it is obliged to the Lebanese people and the Shiite community in particular.    

   All parties in Lebanon are interested in one thing, more than anything, regardless of their sectarian belonging: avoiding another Lebanese civil war. When will one of the parties lose its patience? Only time will tell. How far will Salam’s government reach? In the end, it is all in Nasrallah’s hands.

  

Hezbollah’s Survival

   Hezbollah has lost more than 300 of its people since the organization has gotten involved in the Syrian civil war. It currently operates in three main sites, after its successful assistance of the Al-Qusayr campaign: the eastern rural area of Damascus (Al-Ghouta al-Sharqiyya), the Al-Qalamoun mountain range, north of Damascus, which runs along the Syrian-Lebanese border (the Homs – Damascus route), and the grave of Al-Set Zaynab, south of Damascus.

   The reasons for Hezbollah’s involvement in the Syrian crisis look very obvious to the common outsider, as the organization has a strong strategic alliance with the Syrian regime since Hezbollah was formed in 1982. Yet, senior officers of Hezbollah said to the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Rai that Hezbollah is fighting in Syria for other reasons, and not necessarily to protect the Syrian regime and President Bashar al-Assad. Hezbollah, they said, protects Lebanon and seeks to gain control over the area bordering on the Syrian-Lebanese border (the Al-Qalamoun mountain range), out of which organizations affiliated with Al-Qaeda (such as Al-Nusra Front) operate. It also has a sectarian-religious aspect, as Hezbollah is committed to continue defending the grave of Al-Set Zaynab, which is under constant attack by the rebels, who are aware of the site’s religious significance.

   Nonetheless, Hezbollah’s involvement in Syria, regardless its reasons, causes a few challenges to the organization in Lebanon. First and foremost, the Al-Nusra Front in Lebanon, which is the local franchise of Syria's Al-Nusra Front, a jihadist rebel movement, has conducted six major suicide bombing at the heart of  Hezbollah’s territory – the Dahiyeh in Beirut. The rebels had recently warned Hezbollah that attacks on their controlled areas will continue until Lebanon releases Sunni Islamist prisoners and the organization withdraws from Syria, which means a declaration of war.

   Second, the March 14 alliance members keep calling Hezbollah to leave Syria, since its involvement causes a blood-bath inside Lebanon as well, between supporters and opponents of Hezbollah and the Syrian regime, mostly in, but not limited to, the Tripoli area,. The protests have reached all over Lebanon, and their end is nowhere in sight.

   Politically, however, Hezbollah’s situation remains complicated as it was before. Hezbollah’s party, Loyalty to the Resistance Bloc, is still the most influential party in Lebanon. The inability of Tammam Salam, the designated Prime Minister, to form a government, was essentially, Hezbollah’s fault, as the organization insisted on participating in a government based on 8-8-8 formula, with a veto power on vital issues. Their demands were refused by the March 14 alliance until recently, when the parties reached a possible agreement, which is yet to be signed due to recent events in Lebanon.

   Loyalty is appreciated and strategic alliances even more so. Hezbollah had done for Syria more than any other would have. However, the organization has paid too high a price for its involvement and should understand its place in Lebanon is far more important than the war in Syria. In Syria, the organization is not fighting for its survival, but that of President Assad. In Lebanon, it is a matter of the organization’s survival. In Lebanon, it is more than a resistance organization, or a terrorist group – it's both a political party as well as a welfare organization, with a wide infrastructure that might fall apart if Al-Nusra keeps hunting Hezbollah as it does today.

   Should Hezbollah fall on its sward for the Syrian regime? Should the organization commit suicide for a strategic alliance? Hassan Nasrallah needs to understand that Hezbollah must survive, and survival is nowhere near the Syrian civil war.

All data was taken from Lebanese press and http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/

Freedom and Democracy in Egypt – Was It Just A Dream?

   Egypt’s temporary government announced its intention to designate the Muslim Brotherhood movement due to last riots, as well as their “risky” opinions of the State of Egypt. Have this government and the army learned nothing from past experience? Do they want to move forward and bring Egypt into a better era or to go back to the dark days of President Mubarak?

   Let us first be clear about the will of the young revolutionaries that took down former President Mubarak: they wanted freedom – not necessarily democracy. The reality has been a mixture of their idealism with rule of the majority resulting from democracy.

   The Egyptians have always lived under a dictatorship of some kind – a King, a President that was appointed after a military coup, or a President that was repeatedly re-elected in non-democratic elections for many years. They have not lived under a system chosen by the free will of the people, until recently, when they had their first chance to choose between two mediocre presidential candidates.

   Egyptian people, one should remember, wanted freedom from dictatorship and were given democracy. They did not know what to do with this new system and they are like a baby who is taking his first steps. As we know, the army recently wrested control, took President Morsi (now former President) into custody, and appointed a temporary government to try and put things into order. These are steps in the right direction for the country and the people. Designating and hunting of the Muslim Brothers are steps in the wrong direction. The ruling side must learn how to live with the opposition and talk to them. Nevertheless, besides this ‘mild’ point, it seems that the army is making massive efforts to keep the situation under control and not to let it escalate further.   

   We, Westerners, have inherited democracy in our home countries, and should watch and learn how this form of government is being built in a country that has no history of civil freedoms for its citizens. This is a process of learning by blood, sweat and tears and the Egyptians have to go through it by themselves. We can only hope for them that the process will end with the fewest casualties as possible.

Who Wants War?

   The last few weeks were tense in the Levant - all of Syria’s neighbors have been waiting for the US Congress to approve, or reject, President Obama’s decision to strike Syria. A lot has been said about the war in Syria and the American decision to interfere in this stage in the conflict, following President Assad’s use of chemical weapons. Unfortunately, the conventional massacre of more than 110,000 people was not enough for the world to interfere in the escalating violence.

   Let’s play a little game and call it “Who Wants War.” It is common belief that no country wants to live in a state of war. War brings economic and social damages and often political damage to governments that want to be elected again. However, the Levant countries are special. Let’s consider the interests of the international and regional players in the Syrian crisis.

   The main international players are the US, Russia, UK, France, Germany, the Arab League and the UN. Who is gunning for a fight? Germany is last in line, just behind the UN and the Arab League, which made strong declarations against President Assad, yet took no action to stop the killing. All called for political solutions to the “situation in Syria,” but it is rather ridiculous to ask a President who is fighting for his life to find a “political solution.” France is trying to be more practical due to its past influence in the area and the large Syrian community in the country. However, it cannot act by itself, like it did in Mali, for example. Therefore, it leaves us with the US, Russia and UK. The British Parliament voted against joining the US on the attack, so no war for Britain. It’s a head-to-head war for the US and Russia, when Russia is, important to say, pro-Assad.

   President Obama doesn’t want this involvement in Syria more than President Putin wants it. Both are there just because they made stupid promises in the media. They believed in none of these declarations. They don’t want to start World War III, especially over such a country as Syria, which has nothing to offer to the world and to them. They need to attack each other in order to prove to the world that they are men of their word. Great game, isn’t it?

   Well, if the international players don’t really want to start a war with Syria, how do the regional players want to play? The main players are Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Turkey, Israel and Hezbollah.

   Syria (President Assad) doesn’t want a war with anyone but his own citizens, of course. Please do not interrupt him while killing everyone who is against his government. You can come back later if you want and bring some baklava for the hungry army spreading Sarin gas on the poor citizens.   

   Lebanon is terrified of war. It is already experiencing the spill-over of the Syrian civil war and the ramifications of the Hezbollah warriors fighting in Syria along with Assad’s soldiers. A regional war is the last thing they need.

   Iran is a big supporter of President Assad, but when the day comes, it will probably send Hezbollah and the Shiite groups in Iraq to attack American and Israeli targets rather than its own army.

   On the other side we have Turkey, Israel and Hezbollah that just can’t wait for the war to start– each for its own reasons. Turkey and Syria are old rivals and Prime Minister Arduan has been itching to pick a fight with Syria for more than a year. The Syrian civil war has spilled-over into Turkey as well, and refugees are filling the camps along the Turkish border. Nonetheless, Turkey will not start an attack alone and until now just fired a few warning rockets into Syria.

   Israel feels the spill-over much less than all other countries. Yet, it is anxious to fight in a “real war” – it already attacked the Syrian reactor and other tactical targets during the last two years, and President Assad did not respond in any way. Israel “needs” this war - the economic state in Israel is not good and a war is a good solution to distract people’s minds and to unite them against an external enemy, instead the government they hate right now. The army needs to check new weapons systems and get rid of the old ones, and a war with Syria and Hezbollah would be a great opportunity to do that. It is also a chance to close the “open check” with Hezbollah, who is happy to “jump” into the war for more or less the same reasons.

   Hezbollah, who is fighting right now in Syria, will not hesitate to attack Israel if the US attacks Syria. It will not miss the chance. Not even the fragile political situation in Lebanon can stop it right now.

   Unfortunately, real life is not a game. And it seems that no one cares for the Syrian people since the country has no minerals or oil to offer. Please open your eyes and watch the holocaust that President Assad is conducting in Syria. How can you see the pictures and say this is not your countries’ business? Let’s not stand aside and let another nation disappear. Why to repeat the mistake the world had done in 1930’s? Let’s not be silent. Never again. 

Banning Hezbollah’s Military Wing: Was it worth it?

   European Union’s decision on Monday, July 22^nd to ban Hezbollah’s military wing proved no more than Europe’s readiness to the move forward with the war on terrorism and cooperation with the U.S.

   Though the Israeli government is inclined to take credit for the above decision, the main provider of pressure on Union members was the Obama administration and as such, it deserves most of the credit for this development. Over the past few years, the administration has increased its efforts to convince the EU to sanction Hezbollah. The result of this massive pressure has been the banning of merely the military wing, and not the organization itself. As John Brennan, President Obama’s Chief Homeland Security and Counter-Terrorism Advisor, called on October 26, 2012, for the EU to recognize that Hezbollah continues to pose a real and growing terrorist threat to Europe, the United States, and the world.

  The EU has now taken a huge step by formally asserting that Hezbollah is involved with terrorist activity and this has several implications. Sanctions will be enacted that will include travel restrictions for Hezbollah’s military officials and the freezing of European-held assets of the military wing. Both of these constraints mean that Hezbollah will no longer be able to conduct fundraising for its military activities within the EU, nor will it be able to transfer monies through European banks to Lebanon for the same purposes. However, the organization has not held open European fundraising events to benefit its military wing in Europe for years. Hezbollah’s main base of activity used to be in the UK, but after that country banned the military wing several years ago, it had to adapt and adjust its policies accordingly.

   Hezbollah is a hybrid organization, meaning that though it has many coordinated and cooperative branches, in the end, it is a unified organization. Though the EU differentiates Hezbollah’s military wing from its political and social wings – the organization is still one entity. And that is what makes the EU’s decision an empty shell.

   Let’s take Hassan Nasrallah as the first example. Nasrallah is a political figure in European eyes. He is not a military man and not subject to banning, in the EU list. However, since Imad Mughniyah was assassinated in 2008, the leader of the military wing remains unknown, and therefore cannot be designated, nor can be identified by official authorities.

   As for collecting funds, Hezbollah’s current European fundraising is focused almost entirely on collecting funds from local Shia communities through donations to Lebanese social organizations, such as al-Shahid Foundation, or Jihad al-Bina. This Zakat (charity) money is sent to Lebanon and Hezbollah’s use of those funds is not supervised so it is impossible to know whether they are building schools or buying more guns for its fighters. Moreover, Hezbollah’s assets are probably not listed under its military wing’s name, but rather in the name of the political or social wings. As such, the financial damage to the organization would be pretty minor.

   Was the EU’s decision worth all the efforts that the US, Britain, and Israel have made over recent years? Make no mistake – it is a big step for the EU, but it makes no sense to designate only one part of the organization. You either decide to ban the organization as a whole, or not at all. A hybrid Hezbollah is a complicated creature, and the EU should have known better.

For further reading:

http://www.uspolicy.be/headline/white-house-adviser-brennan-us-european-security-cooperation

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/europes-moment-of-decision-on-hezbollah