We support you, but really… who cares…

   In the days following the assassination of Ahmad Jaabari, the fighting between Hamas and Israel raised an interesting question: why does Hezbollah stand aside and does nothing to support its brothers in Gaza?

   On Wednesday, November 14, 2012, Israel assassinated Ahmed Jaabari, the head of Hamas’s military wing, as a response to the increasingly massive rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip in the last few months. Shortly after the assassination, Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) retaliated by intensifying the rocket attacks and extending the range of fire to include Tel Aviv – more than 75 kilometers (46 miles) from Gaza. The two sides are still at war, sirens are currently heard in many Israeli cities and unfortunately, and there seems to be no end to the current conflict.

   A day after the assassination Hezbollah condemned the “barbaric Zionist Aggression on Gaza” and called it “a desperate attempt to break the will of the resistance.” The organization also urged the Arab League to carry their responsibilities and stop the 'genocide' imposed on Gaza through 'Israel's' siege, shelling, killing and destruction.” Hezbollah’s official websites in Arabic and English (http://www.moqawama.org/) and its television station, Al-Manar, provide information on the fighting almost on a daily basis. It has been confirmed that Hezbollah transferred a large amount of long-range rockets to Hamas after Israel destroyed most of Hamas’s reserves over the last few days. However, what is more important is what Hezbollah did not do.

   Hezbollah did not send fighters to Gaza to assist Hamas in fighting against Israel. The organization indeed declared its support for Hamas, as expected, but called on the Arab world to take action rather than taking action by itself. Hezbollah’s most effective assistance to Hamas would be to fire rockets across Israel’s northern border - diverting Israel’s attention from the southern to the northern border, dividing its military force, and weakening Hezbollah and Hamas’s shared enemy. Hezbollah did none. Why?

   Since the assassination of Brig. Gen. Wissam al-Hassan mid-October, Hezbollah is fighting for political survival in Lebanon. Its political enemies from the March 14 coalition claim that Hezbollah and its representative, Prime Minister Najib Mikati, are responsible for the assassination and should resign. A few weeks after the assassination, Prime Minister Mikati is still in office and President Michel Suleiman is trying to convince all parties to agree to national dialogue in order to establish a unity government with the opposition.

  Moreover, Hassan Nasrallah, as he has proved in the past, prefers to be the initiator of his own wars rather than a second front in another conflict. The time isn't right for Hezbollah to open a front with Israel, and Hezbollah must preserve its arsenal for the right time, even though solidarity with Hamas is important.     

   In addition, the Lebanese Army (LAF), which has taken more responsibility after the assassination, and U.N. peacekeeping force UNIFIL, have been patrolling the areas near the border with Israel to maintain security and prevent Hezbollah or radical Palestinian groups from exploiting the Gaza fighting to fire rockets into northern Israel to trigger Israeli retaliation.

   In the end, Hamas, PIJ and other cooperating terrorist organizations in the Gaza strip stand alone. The Arab world, including Hezbollah, Egypt and the Palestinian Authority, condemn the Israeli retaliations and support Gaza morally, but doing nothing more at this point, each country and entity for its own reasons. They don't want a part in the war with Israel – it's Hamas's war – not theirs.

Sources: Lebanese and Israeli press

The Genie is Out of the Bottle – Lebanon is on Fire

   After the assassination of Brig. Gen. Wissam al-Hassan in Beirut last week (10/19/12) all political parties, including Hezbollah, released immediate statements calling for national unity and a close investigation of the assassination. The immediate statements of Saad al-Hariri and Samir Geagea from the March 14 coalition blamed Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as the responsible for the assassination. Geagea went further and charged Najib Mikati’s government because "it created the environment for assassinations." All parties tried to appear restrained because of their constant fear of returning to the days of the civil war. Only one small flame is needed to set fire to the powder-keg called Lebanon.  

   Surprisingly, it took Geagea five days to accuse Hezbollah of involvement in the assassination, in an interview to the Saudi newspaper Al-Watan. Five days is a long time considering the fact that the March 14 politicians don’t miss an opening to remind the Lebanese people the connection between Hezbollah, Syria and Iran, the participation of Hezbollah's fighters in the systematic killing of the Syrian people, and the organization’s connection to the 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

   The mob demonstrating right after al-Hassan's funeral carried signs with Hassan Nasrallah's picture and blamed him for the assassination. They have no fear. They know who cooperates with the Syrians all along, but rage brings flames.

   The question of the identity of the person or entity responsible for the assassination itself is not as significant as the question who desires a return to the violence and chaos of civil war.  Such a reoccurrence is not an unreasonable scenario at this time, as the tension between the Sunnis and Shiite community is very high. The immediate suspect, like in 2005, is indeed the Syrian regime. Is it likely that Hezbollah is involved this time? I find it hard to believe that Hezbollah was enmeshed in the assassination, but as past experience has proven, we should never say never.

   Firstly, Hezbollah is in a different political position than it was in 2005. It is the biggest political party in Lebanon, and most powerful, as Prime Minister Mikati was appointed under Nasrallah’s influence. The Shiite community in Lebanon is more that 60% of the population, and lately Hezbollah has played with the idea of passing laws that would give an advantage to the Shiite community.

   Secondly, Hezbollah would be wise to save its resources for operating abroad. A large number of the organization’s fighters are currently in Syria, fighting next to the Syrian army. In addition, Hezbollah invests many resources in drills and preparations for its next war against Israel, e.g. the UAV that was recently shot down in Israel. The organization cannot afford a renewed civil war in Lebanon, which would force it to spread its attentions to three battlefronts – Syria, Lebanon and Israel. The organization would be more exposed than ever and its strategic partners might not assist because of strict economic sanctions and civil war, in Iran and Syria respectively.

   Thirdly, Hezbollah has been occupied lately with internal matters, as well as public failures, such as the arrest of former Interior minister Michel Samaha, one of President Assad’s closest Lebanese associates, who was caught red-handed in an attempt to smuggle explosives from Syria into Lebanon. Other examples of organization-specific issues include revealed spy networks inside the organization, embezzlement of millions of dollars, and disagreements within the organization’s leadership. Nasrallah is trying to ensure his own seat while hiding in a bunker, and his latest public appearances are probably an attempt to demonstrate his control of the organization.

   This is also the moment of truth for the Lebanese army (LAF). LAF and other security forces functioned well in the first few days, but can they hold for a few months or years? Can they stop an emerging civil war? LAF called on politicians after the assassination to "exert caution while expressing stances and views and mobilizing people because the fate of the nation is at stake," and urged citizens to "exert the highest levels of national responsibility during this stressful period and not to allow emotions to overtake the situation." They are trying to prove that they should be taken seriously and they are in control. Let’s hope they are able to.

Sources: Lebanese press

Can Tunisia Serve as a Model of the Future of the Arab Spring Countries?

   On December 17, 2010 Mohamed Bouazizi immolated himself in the city of Sidi Bouzid in Tunisia and died from burn injuries a few weeks later. His call has galvanized his countrymen and the public in most of the Arab countries in the Middle East, until this very day. In some countries, the revolutionaries have gained their freedom from tyranny, but in other countries these movements have failed. Some, like the Syrian revolutionaries, are still fighting for their freedom and their lives.

   It is often asked whether Islam and democracy can co-exist in Arab Muslim countries. Unfortunately, there is no clear answer and circumstances differ from country to country due to cultural, social, economic and other factors. Tunisia started the revolutionary trend and, like Egypt, was considered to be a secular state. The revolutions in both of these countries brought some sense of freedom and hope of a better future for the people, but the public soon learned the true meaning of free elections: you can’t always get what you want.

   As we approach the first anniversary of the Ennahda party’s victory in the first elections in Tunisia, the above question, whether Islam and democracy can co-exist, is being raised repeatedly. However, Ennahda has made tremendous efforts to ensure the people of Tunisia that they will not turn the country into a Sharia State and that their primary interest is national unity. Not long ago, I had the pleasure of listening to a lecture of Sheikh Abdelfattah Mourou, who currently serves as the Vice President of the Ennahda party. He emphasized that the new government wants to prove to the world that Islam can co-exist with democracy.

   Sheikh Mourou argued that the work that the government is facing is more challenging than initially thought due to the simple fact that Tunisia has no democratic foundation. The foundation of democracy in the eyes of Ennahda, he says, is education for each citizen in the country – something that was inaccessible before the revolution. The educational infrastructure in Tunisia is the first of many challenges the new government faces, along with a failing economy and domestic national security issues. The party wants to build a new culture based on equal rights for all, including women and religious minorities.

   A country like Tunisia requires profound reforms in every aspect of life, reforms that take time, but this year, the government had to confront religious extremists and violence instead of focusing in enacting major reforms.    

   We must remember that democracies are not established overnight. The citizens of these Arab countries are not used to choosing their own rulers or controlling their own faith. Democracy does not consist of free elections alone, but also includes a legacy of free speech, free press and the right to choose. It is a way of life.

   Westerners expect citizens of these Arab countries, who lived most of their lives under strict tyranny, rules and repression, to become a model of shiny Western democracy immediately. Some complain that we have not seen 'appropriate' results of the uprising and that the democratization process has failed. I disagree. I believe that the revolution is still in progress, though the violent phase has passed in most countries. The truth is that Islamist parties used the democratization process properly and won the hearts of the people. The revolution is on the right track, and perhaps the ‘pro-Western’ factions will organize themselves better for the fight against the Islamists.

Humanitarianism and Counter Terrorism

   This time I’m happy to introduce a guest writer, my colleague Yael Shuval. Yael holds an M.A. in Counter-Terrorism and Homeland Security Studies from the IDC Herzliya, and her interest and research areas include anti-money laundering policy, financial and information security, and public and corporate resilience.

 “If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom.”

-Dwight D. Eisenhower

   There are few forces that are stronger than the human need for security. Our individual and collective drive to feel safe drives us to work for a more just, peaceful, and secure world. A lack of safety and security in everyday life can rob us of our ability to process and build our future. As we well know, terrorist organizations harness our deepest fears of insecurity as their most powerful weapon. In our on-going efforts to counter these organizations, we should maneuver creatively to protect our societies and, moreover, make the public feel this safety.

   The current geo-political environment is bound by a series of ever-escalating conflicts that run along major social, cultural, and economic cleavages. As we well know, terrorist and other radical groups routinely instill their ideology and dogmatic framing through the use of a great many tools – new and traditional media; educational and welfare programs; healthcare and services; and through providing protection from other violent and criminal groups. These methods and techniques can be coincidentally related to a social goal of the organization or carefully orchestrated choices by these groups to spread their influence. Whatever the source of this motivation, the result is a perilous pattern of the disaffected ranks of society affiliating with violent non-state actors.

   However, terrorist organizations also use the positive human need for security to gain power and expand their influence among supporters. Many of these groups have a social service facet that is turned toward their constituency, i.e. Hezbollah’s extensive social services network and Hamas’s educational facilities. These hybrid terrorist organizations win supporters and recruit troops by giving them security. The groups in turn use these newly-won human resources to deprive targeted communities of their security (as referenced in the previous paragraph). This cycle is a manipulation of basic psychological needs in the name of power, violence, and domination.

   Many observers, myself included, support humanitarian intervention as an essential piece of a toolkit for countering terrorism and radicalization. This is not to discount the importance of military or economic intervention in the name of securing our countries, but the smart power of humanitarianism has been neglected for too long. The results of such investment will be harder to quantify than other action, but I do believe that it is one of the most likely to succeed.

   This approach is particularly essential as military intervention becomes less palatable to the Western public and domestic battles rage around the world. The example of Syria is especially pertinent as the government and opposition continue to clash, killing thousands and decimating infrastructure. One of the most important factors in deciding Syria’s future will be who offers help to those multitudes of needy people. It is a rare chance to influence change with food and medicine rather than arms and munitions. Let’s not miss this chance.

Thoughts about Religious and Cultural Sensitivity

   Last week’s events have shown us that religious and cultural sensitivity should be our foremost concern when selecting a way of approaching our world. Our motto for today should be “Think before you write/talk/film/draw/publish.”

   The First Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights justly prohibits any governmental limitation of freedoms of speech or the press. However, freedom of speech should have its limitations – if not by the government, then by people themselves. In both recent and historic instances, this freedom has been cynically exploited in order to arouse regional and global rioting. Did the producer of the film Innocence of Muslims expect to cause of the death of innocent people? I believe not. Should he have taken this under consideration? Yes. Nevertheless, like many others who lack religious and cultural sensitivity, and who see Muslims as people with no sense of humor – he didn’t care, and people lost their lives due to his indifference.    

   This indifference, and worse, the malicious joy of too many people seeing the Muslims’ rage against the American film and the French cartoons make me sad. Have we lost our compassion? What have we become? What is the point of making these films and publishing these cartoons? I find it impossible to understand. If we want to earn the respect of others, let us start by respecting them. Enough is enough.

   Indifference to religious and cultural sensitivity goes beyond silly pictures or amateur movies and might cultivate fertile ground for new terrorists. With the right words, this apathy might be wrongly used by a militant Imam or a terrorist recruiter to influence a young man or a woman. Because that is the strongest weapon of all – words. True, one might say that a terrorist would become a terrorist regardless of a silly movie or cartoons, but we must not add fuel to the fire.

   Another outcome is the political gain for Muslim leaders that results from these riots, whether or not the leaders endorse such behavior. Professor Jytte Klausen of Brandeis University argues that today, Egypt's president, Mohammed Morsi, and his government, are playing the same role that his predecessor Hosni Mubarak played in the past: provoking protest to consolidate power. In their public condemnation of the deathly attack on the U.S. embassy in Libya, the Muslim Brotherhood “urge[d] restraint as people peacefully protest and express their anger.” As Professor Klausen puts it, even while condemning the attacks, the Brotherhood called for mass protests at mosques across Egypt on Friday prayers, virtually guaranteeing that the unrest will spread, as a means of gaining and consolidating power.

     I agree with Professor Klausen. President Morsi made a mistake. However, he is still making his first moves as a president and learning how to maneuver between the powder-keg called the Middle East, his fragile relations with the U.S., and his domestic political needs. On the other hand, we should not hand any leader ammunition for making easy political gains. 

  

For further reading:

Jytte Klausen, “Egypt Fans the Flames - Why Morsi Exploited the Muhammad Film -- and Why that Was a Bad Move,” Foreign Affairs, September 13, 2012

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138118/jytte-klausen/egypt-fans-the-flames

“Wouldn’t It Be Great If…”

   My last two posts made a lot of my readers angry, but first and foremost, I want to thank all of the readers who sent their comments to me. Some were supportive, some… less supportive – but this is the beauty of our academic world. Recent years have proven that no one can predict what will happen. No one predicted that Bashar al-Assad would kill hundreds of Syrians every day for more than a year and a half, and that no one would stop him. No one predicted the Arab Spring and its outcome in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt. We can express and exchange opinions. You are more than welcome to post your comments here and have a fertile discussion.

   Thinking about Hezbollah as a separate entity and not as a proxy army of Iran, and consequently forming a unique strategy to combat it, seems to be a new concept that is hard to seize, but apparently this concept is not mine alone. It seems that American intelligence agencies decided to change their approach and refer the relationship between Iran and Hezbollah as “strategic relationship” instead of labeling Hezbollah a “proxy army.” They too understand that Hezbollah has grown into a full independent creature with which the world has to cope individually.

    Additionally, the international community’s distrust of and discomfort with President Mohammed Morsi is perfectly understandable. He is a man of Islam, and a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, a religious movement that was repressed for many years by Hosni Mubarak. Now, he and that movement are in power thanks to the first democratic elections in Egypt whether we like it or not. To Western eyes it looks that President Morsi poses a threat and it only seems natural that his next ally will be Iran due to their common enemy: Israel. Though I greatly appreciate concerns for Israel’s well being in the case of an Iranian-Egyptians alliance, I believe that the odds of this kind of alliance are pretty slim.

   The world of terrorism and counter-terrorism researchers tends to be pessimistic by nature. We search for the reasons for the destruction of humanity, and unfortunately the majority of these reasons currently invoke the name of Allah. Researchers are no different from the world they live in, and the world in general has lost its faith in strong and clear-intentioned Arab leaders. One should add that this lack of faith is not without reason. And yet President Morsi, though Muslim, draws himself as a different type of leader. Maybe we should give him a chance and leave our fears aside. Maybe something good will happen – to Egypt and the region.

   “Wouldn’t it be great if Hezbollah didn’t have a huge arsenal of weapons;” “wouldn’t it be great if Hezbollah didn’t declare of its intentions to attack Israel,” said a distinguished researcher in a conference this week. He’s a pessimist too. I’m trying not to be.

Egypt and Iran – the Beginning of a Beautiful Friendship?

   When Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi was invited to the Non-Aligned Summit in Tehran last week, the Iranians were probably dreaming that it would be the a beginning of beautiful friendship. Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, no Egyptian leader has visited Iran. They hoped that since President Morsi was the Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate for the presidency, the relationships between the two states would change for the better. And the Iranians were heartened when President Morsi accepted their invitation.

   However, President Morsi disappointed the Iranians by again proving himself to be a man who politically fearless. Previously President Morsi has shown his assertiveness when he dismissed Defense Minister Mohammed Tantawi and SCAF (Supreme Council of the Armed Forces) seniors following the terrorist attack in Sinai a few weeks ago. Similarly, he demanded his constitutional rights back with no early warning, when all others thought he gave in to the rule of SCAF. Building on these past actions, his speech in the opening meeting of the Summit was not the warm declaration of solidarity that his hosts had hoped for.

   Iran expected President Morsi to show support with its cause and more hatred against their ‘Zionist’ enemy. Instead, the new Egyptian leader spent the majority of his time speaking passionately about the bloodshed in Syria and the moral obligation of Arab and Muslim nations to stop it as soon as possible. He hardly mentioned Israel.

   After his speech, president Morsi met with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Tehran was the first to publish a statement after the meeting, congratulating the “new strategic partnership.” Egyptian officials dismissed the Iranian statement and said that President Morsi discussed only Syrian and Palestinian issues in his meeting with President Ahmadinejad. They asserted that no negotiation regarding a “new strategic partnership” occurred during the meeting.

   Iran was not alone in misinterpreting President Morsi’s intentions. The whole world was watching the new president of Egypt taking his first steps as an independent leader, without SCAF’s direction. President Morsi was given the opportunity to distance himself from SCAF following their unforgivable intelligence failure that led to the terrorist attack in the Sinai desert on August 5, 2012, when 16 Egyptian soldiers were killed while eating their holy Ramadan meal.

   Though taken aback by President Morsi’s actions, Iran needs an ally in these rough times, and Egypt is a good candidate. The Iranian attempt to use the invitation to the Summit as a test for potential allies turned out to be a tremendous failure. The regime cannot acknowledge this failure and tried to paint a rosy picture in their announcement of a strategic partnership. Nonetheless, Iran will not give up on an alliance with Islamic Egypt. The civil war in Syria is just one issue, and Iran’s plans to be the regional leader are ambitious enough that they will not risk it all on Syria. Islamist Morsi, though Sunni and not Shiite, who is the leader of the largest Arab nation in the region, could be a great ally and Iran cannot afford to lose him.

   President Morsi only attended the opening meeting but will be remembered as the man of the Summit. He came to Iran as the leader of Egypt and left as the hope of the region. In central Tehran he called for fierce action against Iran’s closest ally, the Syrian regime, and for support for the Syrian people’s struggle for their freedom.  

   President Morsi doesn’t need Iran as an ally and would do well by his people and country by avoiding a partnership with declining Iran. President Morsi was elected by the people of the revolution, the same people who watch him now trying to convince the Arab nations to stop the bloodbath in Syria. His joining with Iran would send the wrong message to his people.

   President Morsi can flourish and prove himself as a man of deeds for the people of Egypt. Concentrating on Egypt’s economy and internal affairs would be a better use of his time than wading into foreign affairs with Iranian intrigues. With a strong Egypt behind him he might be the leader of the region in the coming years, and determine his own path. Whether it will be good or bad for the Middle East – we have to wait and see.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/30/egyptian-leader-iran-syrian-rebels

http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/morsy-s-iran-visit-sparks-controversy

Iran and Hezbollah - Together as One?

   Should we examine Hezbollah separately from Iran, its sponsor state, or should we treat the organization as a strategically integral part of the Shiite state? In order to resolve this dilemma, it is essential to bear in mind Hezbollah’s establishment in the 1980's as both a social services organization and resistance movement.

   From the social standpoint, Iran saw in Hezbollah an opportunity to export the values of its Islamic revolution of 1979 to Lebanon. The Shiite community, which resides predominantly in southern Lebanon, was easy to influence during and following the chaotic civil war. The war left the Shiite community neglected, lacking in social services and impoverished, and the Iranian regime provided spiritual and material inspiration to the nascent Shiite groups. In 1983 the newly formed Hezbollah (“Party of God”) introduced an extensive network of social services funded by Iran, including health services, water distribution, electricity, and even garbage removal. The Lebanese government was unable to provide these services and Hezbollah used these services to build a support base in the Shiite community.

   Today, Hezbollah’s social institutions serve the Shiite community and Lebanese citizens from all religions. Unlike its initial reliance on Iranian funding, Hezbollah has developed diverse global chains of charities, mostly in the U.S. and the U.K., to support their social services in Lebanon.

   Hassan Nasrallah and Naim Qassem often refer to the “resistance society” in their public speeches. Resistance, they say, is a mission and a responsibility for every Shi’a believer in his or her everyday life. According to this outlook, resistance is part militant action, but is also political and social: it is a choice in everyday life.

   From the resistance/militaristic standpoint, Hezbollah was originally made up of recruits from the secular Shiite Amal resistance movement and other revolutionary Shiite groups that were active during the Lebanese civil war (1975-1989). These recruits were gathered by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps to create a more radical religious, Shiite, pro-Iranian militia that would safeguard Iran’s interests in the region. Hezbollah adheres to Iran's ideology of the velayat-e faqih (rule by the Islamic jurist) and Tehran had provided approximately $100-$200 million to the organization annually from the organization’s founding until recent economic sanctions.

   Many Western terrorism experts, from Matthew Levitt of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy to Daniel Byman of Georgetown University agree that for Iran, Hezbollah acting as its proxy army enables to strike Israel and other targets without risking direct confrontation. The organization is also Iran’s proxy in increasing its influence in the Levant.

   Politicians from Israel and the U.S. also jump on this wagon, because it is politically expedient to link these two threats. After all, Hezbollah was created by Iran, and is expected to follow its orders and function without free will. In this approach, the counter-strategy should be focused on the major threat – Iran. Conventional wisdom states that if you cut the head of the monster, the body will cease its activities; a clear-cut solution.

   However, there is another view of Hezbollah, as a creation that has taken on a life, identity and autonomy of its own, albeit with Iran's continued funding and support. The basis of this view, as argued by Lina Khatib of Stanford University, is Hezbollah’s political evolution into a democratically elected party. As a result of the Lebanonization process undergone by the organization over recent years, Hezbollah has eliminated some of its original Iranian influences and Nasrallah has had to repeatedly, publicly state his loyalty to Lebanese leadership.

   Hezbollah of 2012 is not the Hezbollah of the 1980’s. It has a strong political facet in Lebanon and has been in the governing coalition since June 2011. They have been participating in Lebanese national dialogue the last few months to bridge disagreements between political factions to try and stabilize Lebanon. As a pure resistance movement, Hezbollah would not have taken part in such national reconciliation.

   Hezbollah has also strengthened its network of social institutions within Lebanon and established branches all over the world. It has also improved its well-established group of charitable organizations for raising funds, with deep awareness that Iranian funding will not be dependable for long.

   The organization makes its own decisions, but needs to show loyalty to the concept of velayat-e faqih. That is the nature of a religious movement. Middle East politics is what makes everything so complicated. Hezbollah wants to pay respect, but wants to prove its power and strength. For instance, it is convenient for both Hezbollah and Israel, to neglect to mention that much of Hezbollah's weapons arsenal comes from Hezbollah’s wide-ranging arm smuggling network in Africa and not from Syria or Iran. Why? Israel does not want to distract the world's awareness from the Iranian problem, and Hezbollah obviously wants the world to overlook its activities in this part of the world, so this weird collaboration works for both sides.

   I believe that contrary to Nasrallah’s statements, and with the current situation in Lebanon and Syria, Hezbollah is first and foremost dedicated to maintaining its position in Lebanon rather than backing Iran. Nonetheless, Hezbollah might attack Israel following an Israeli strike on Iran, but this would not differ from the response of any ally in any military conflict. With no Israeli attack on Iran, Lebanon remains the important part of the equation.        

   The questions we should ask ourselves are as follows, and I open it to discussion with my readers:

- Is the threat posed by Hezbollah sufficiently small to justify attaching it to Iran’s greater threat?

- Has the concrete attachment that Israeli and American security agencies and politicians have created through the years failed us in the war against Hezbollah?

- If so – do we need a shift in strategy to better deal with these two different threats?

For further reading see: Lina Khatib, “Hezbollah's Political Strategy,” Survival 53, no. 2 (April-May 2011)

Hezbollah - Stay Out of Trouble!! (Part 3)

   Let me start by saying: Hezbollah cannot afford for the "powder-keg" of Lebanon to explode into full-scale civil war. Moreover, Hezbollah cannot afford a war with Israel due to the severe consequences for the organization itself, its supporters, Lebanon and the region.

   Given Hezbollah’s sensitivity to local and regional conflicts, it would be risky for it to try to revive the terrorism myth by perpetrating terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians. Over the past two decades, the organization has carried the labels of pragmatism and Lebanonization, and acts of extremist violence do nothing but undo this hard work. Of all of Hezbollah’s labels, ’resistance’ was meant to be the most aggressive. The label of ’terrorist group’ shouldn’t have been carried by an organization wanting to be recognized as a legitimized player in national, regional and global games.

   Hezbollah does indeed want to be a part of the Lebanese political system. Nasrallah realizes, and emphasizes that "the alternative to dialogue among rival political leaders is chaos." The dialogue Nasrallah is referring to stands at the same point, more or less, for months – disagreement between the rival March 14 coalition and the March 8 alliance whether Hezbollah should be disarmed. Nasrallah refuses to disarm Hezbollah, but agrees to continue the dialogue in order to find another solution that might satisfy his political rivals.

   Aside from the "white aspect," there is the criminal aspect of the organization. By renewing its terrorist activity, Hezbollah is also risking its global criminal networks. The execution of terrorist activities requires financial resources that Hezbollah does not have at the moment. Currently, Western governments hunt terrorists more aggressively than they do criminals. Hezbollah’s smuggling cell in the Canada., for example, could be charged with terrorism, incapacitating that part of their criminal enterprise.

   Contrary to Hassan Nasrallah’s radical and hateful public statements, he is, in fact, a pragmatic leader of a multi-faced international organization. Although Israeli and American security agencies consider Hezbollah to be as a terrorist organization, it is important to remember that every coin has another side, and in the case of Hezbollah, the coin has four sides. Nasrallah’s every statement has a rationalization, but they all have the same goal – gaining points in Lebanese public opinion and frightening the Israeli public. But Nasrallah is not aiming for war.

   The Middle East, one should note, is a militaristic region, with militaristic countries. Hezbollah is a natural player in the region, and exists primarily to resist the State of Israel.

   Nasrallah's statements are just empty threats. Nasrallah knows it, Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati knows it, and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu knows it. And yet, none of these kings and bishops tells the pawns in Israel and Lebanon, who expect another imminent, deadly war. What a shame.     

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Politics/2012/Aug-07/183700-nasrallah-alternative-to-dialogue-is-chaos.ashx#ixzz22qmdcLLj 

Hezbollah – Back to Terrorism: Reviving the Myth (Part 2)

   It seems that Hezbollah is at its lowest point in years: networks of senior officials spying for the Mossad and CIA, its telecom devices destroyed by the IDF, millions of dollars of embezzled funds discovered a few months ago by one of the organization’s seniors, and internal disagreements in the organization's leadership – all with wide coverage in the Lebanese and global media.

   Hassan Nasrallah is witness to all and cannot believe this is the same organization he took over in 1992. The powerful, unharmed, secretive and uncorrupt resistance/terrorist organization with fearless, dedicated and disciplined fighters has degenerated to become the opposite – weak, disorganized and permeable. Now Nasrallah has to prove to the world and to his people that he is still in control. For this purpose, militant statements work, but militant actions are even more effective.

   For the sake of this post, the author assumes that Hezbollah was behind the attack on Israeli tourists in Bulgaria. Nasrallah openly declared after Imad Mughniyah's assassination in 2008 that revenge to the 'Zionists' will come. Since then, American and Israeli security intelligence sources have argued that Hezbollah keeps trying to execute terrorist activities against Israeli targets, but until now, has failed.

   The successful attack in Bulgaria came just in time for Hezbollah, and particularly for Nasrallah. The attack was perpetrated a few hours before Nasrallah's intended speech marking the sixth anniversary of the July 2006 war with Israel. Unfortunately for Nasrallah, another attack occurred earlier that day – the suicide attack in the Syrian Cabinet meeting, which killed Bashar al-Assad's Defense and Interior ministers. In his evening speech, Nasrallah eulogized the dead Syrian ministers and ignored the attack in Bulgaria.

   By simply ignoring the terrorist attack in Bulgaria and Hezbollah's alleged responsibility for it, Nasrallah elevated his position as a leader, and eliminated, at least for the coming period, internal disagreements. In doing so he replaced the failed terrorist/resistance organization label with Hezbollah’s natural label - the terrorism myth. Hezbollah is back to being the fierce organization it used to be.

   Less than a month following the attack, Hezbollah decided to demonstrate its power and terrorist mystique once more. Last Friday night (July 27), when most Israeli families were sitting around the Shabbat dinner table and watching the news, Hezbollah released a short video showing the kidnapping of the two Israeli soldiers on July 12, 2006. This video gives Hezbollah major credit with its global and domestic supporters and raises its prestige as a resistance movement.

   At this point, Hezbollah needs to gain strength and improve its reputation, so we can assume that the terrorist attack in Bulgaria and the kidnapping film are just the tip of the iceberg. Hezbollah must have determined that these steps would not start a war with Israel at this point in time, as Israel is distracted by bigger concerns, such as nuclear Iran. On the other hand, the organization came to the same conclusion about potential Israeli response before the kidnapping of the two soldiers in July 2006. And we all know how that ended up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMDDr1IMXh0&oref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fresults%3Fsearch_query%3Dhezbollah%2Bkidnapped%2Bisraeli%2Bsoldiers%2B2006%26oq%3Dhezbollah%2Bki%26gs_l%3Dyoutube-reduced.1.1.0l2.66276.72550.0.74674.12.9.0.3.3.1.348.1899.1j3j2j3.9.0...0.0...1ac.BbTj6mekFOw&has_verified=1

Hezbollah – Back to Terrorism? (Part 1)

   The horrendous attack on Israeli tourists in Bulgaria a few days ago (July 18^th, 2012) has yet again raised the discussion of whether Hezbollah is in fact a terrorist organization. The State of Israel and American security agencies argue that it is, and Hezbollah asserts that its connection to terrorism is a myth.

   The attack in Bulgaria can only be classified as a terrorist attack, as it targeted civilians and was conducted in a civilian place. Hezbollah might argue that the attack should be classified as an act of resistance, but this argument would be entirely unreasonable. The common definition of a resistance act is that it must be executed against an occupying force on occupied soil, or on that occupier's soil. To the best of the author’s knowledge, even if the first section of the definition was left open to discussion, Bulgaria has yet to be occupied by Israel.

   A few hours after the attack, Matthew Levitt from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy stated that “Hezbollah is the leading suspect, and for good reason… this attack is much alike as the AMIA building attack in Argentina in 1994.” This is what the Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu declared minutes after the attack occurred – Hezbollah and Iran were natural and evident suspects because they have repeatedly declared that Israel is their mortal enemy.

   Hezbollah does not have a long history of terrorist attacks like Hamas, but the organization was held responsible (and never claimed responsibility) for some of the deadliest attacks on Americans during the 1980's, such as the bombings of the U.S. embassy and Marine barracks, both in Lebanon in 1983. The U.S. Government blacklisted Hezbollah as a foreign terrorist organization in 1997, after the Khobar Towers attack in Saudi Arabia in 1996, and gave it Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) status in October 2001.

   The Khobar Towers attack, one should note, was the last apparent terrorist attack Hezbollah executed against Western targets. All other attacks were executed against Israeli targets, on Israeli or Lebanese soil. The last terrorist attack Hezbollah executed against Israeli targets, i.e. was held responsible for, was the AMIA building attack in Argentina in 1994, the 18^th anniversary of which was only a few days ago.

   It seemed as the organization had changed through the years and the terrorism tag was left only in the Western beholder's mind, most noticeably in Israelis and Americans. Hezbollah’s leadership called it the terrorist myth. Judith Palmer Harik referred the American approach as “settling old scores with Hezbollah” and the Israeli approach “calling Hezbollah terrorists in order to halt the war of attrition being waged against them.”

   The organization became a legitimate part of the Lebanese municipal and national political system and a provider of wide social institutions to the Shiite community. However, with the generous funding of Iran, Hezbollah concentrated its military efforts in resistance-defined actions against Israel. The party occasionally used a limited amount of political violence against domestic political enemies. It seemed as though Hezbollah's leadership was determined to prove to the world that its terrorism was not more than the myth its enemies created.

   The attack in Bulgaria has blown up all efforts Hezbollah made to be a legitimate organization in the eyes of the world, and proved that the terrorist is not a myth anymore. It is the reality.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/did-hezbollah-do-it

Judith Palmer Harik, The Changing Face of Terrorism

The New Face of Egypt?

It has been a difficult week for Egyptians, concluded by Mohammed Morsi being officially declared as their next President. However, the identity of the president and his future plans for the country seem to be irrelevant after the events of the past week.

For the first time in the country's history, Egyptians experienced true democratic elections. Indeed, one must admit, the last two candidates for the presidency were not what the revolutionaries had dreamed of, but this is Democracy and the country gets what the majority votes for. If the citizens don't like the result, it can be changed in the next elections.

To Western eyes, voting for Mohammed Morsi is tantamount to choosing Islam, but this is not necessarily true. Egyptians suffered for decades under the dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak – they are poor, unemployed and tired. The Muslim Brotherhood movement symbolizes the opposite of that mentality– they are socially active, they are ‘pure’ from corruption and they are considered to be non-violent and moderate.

The chaos started two days before the elections (June 14^th). The Egyptian Constitutional Supreme Court ordered the dissolution of the lower House of Parliament due to the illegality of its elections six months ago, as the Muslim Brotherhood candidates were elected for seats saved for Independent candidates.

A few days later the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), which ruled the country after the fall of Mubarak, revealed that it will not hand over full authorities to the next president. President Morsi, therefore, will not be the supreme commander of the armed forces nor the police force. He will not have the authority to control the country’s budget nor to confirm appointment of the Constitutional Court’s new Head Judge. Furthermore, SCAF granted itself the right to dissolve and form another assembly if the parliament-appointed assembly fails to draft a constitution within six months of its formation.

Therefore, President Morsi might change the face of the cabinet, but has little other significance because all meaningful power remains in the hands of SCAF. Moreover, after the Supreme Court dissolved the parliament, Morsi lost his expected political advantage and must start from scratch. With no supportive parliament on his side, a hostile SCAF tying his hands and an angry movement at his back, he begins the first post-Mubarak presidency with high hopes and no tools to fulfill them.

For now, Egypt is celebrating its freedom of speech and democracy. The country is in transition and SCAF’s declaration, though it disturbingly bring to mind the dark days of Mubarak, is understandable due to the current situation in Egypt.

          SCAF, one should not forget, been considered the stabilizing factor in the country following the fall of Mubarak. Unlike other countries that were drawn into civil war after the fall of their dictator, SCAF safeguarded the country from deterioration until the implementation of the democratic elections. Indeed, as SCAF predicted that the choice between these two candidates would lead to enormous popular dissatisfaction; it must have felt the need to act. Is this action temporary or permanent? No one knows. Not even SCAF.

Sources: Egyptian press

The Devil I Know

Is the devil I know better than the devil I don't know? It is with this question in mind that Egyptians will vote this weekend (June 16-17) for their future president. They will choose between Mohammed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood candidate, and Ahmed Shafiq, the former Prime Minister who served under former President Hosni Mubarak.

The term “nightmare scenario” has been heard frequently over the last few weeks in the international media’s reporting of the upcoming Egyptian elections. But is it a really a “nightmare scenario?” Or is the current reality that the Egyptian public was used to the previous regime but dreamed of another, and now cannot handle the results?

If Ahmed Shafiq, a secular candidate, wins, he might return the country to the old dictatorship which presided over more than 30 years of injustice and corruption. After sacrificing hundreds of lives in the name of freedom from dictatorship, Egyptians expect to have control over their country. However, having Shafiq back in the saddle might not be a bad idea.

It should be noted, that though Ahmed Shafiq was Prime Minister during Hosni Mubarak's presidency, not one of his actions was taken freely. If he is elected for premiership, his voters hope that he will act differently. He might act for the Egyptian people. On the other hand, as old habits die hard, Shafiq might not change his ways. In essence, Shafiq could leave the people of Egypt behind, just as they had been before the revolution began. This is the devil they know.

 Mohammed Morsi, the "religious" candidate, stands in a different, more politically influential starting point in the election because his party, the "Freedom and Justice Party," is the majority party in the parliament (235 seats out of 508). Egypt has never been a theocracy, but does have a deeply-rooted religious-social network of the Muslim Brotherhood movement. This network could be used as infrastructure for religious governmental institutions if Morsi wins the elections.

The Muslim Brotherhood is not considered the most radical Islamist movement in Egypt today. That distinction belongs to the Al-Nour Salafist party, which holds 123 seats in the parliament. The young Egyptians who led the revolution wanted a government without corruption, and increased economic opportunity and welfare for the common citizen. The Muslim Brotherhood shares these goals in addition to their interest in promoting Islam as the cornerstone of society. But the revolutionaries want secular country. They want choice. And they are afraid that if Morsi is the one that is chosen, they would have no choice. This is the devil they don’t know.

Many of the revolutionaries claim they will not vote in this Presidential elections due to lack of revolutionary choices. They are desperate and confused. Their friends gave their lives to make the country they love a better place and they cannot complete their joint mission. Their desperation is understandable.

Yet, these young people have not taken into consideration that the country's wounds are too deep to heal quickly. The country and its citizens need years to recover from these wounds and build a brave democracy free from corruption. A Democracy that will be for the Egyptian people and by the Egyptian people. Maybe then will be the day that the common Egyptian could say that he knows his voice counts.

I'm Here, I'm Here!!

On Friday, May 11^th, Hassan Nasrallah publically referred to Hezbollah’s ability to launch long-range missiles at Tel Aviv. This announcement took place during a ceremony that celebrated the completion of the 5-year “Waad” project to rebuild the Beirut Southern Suburbs. The project was launched by the Jihad al-Binaa Organization after the July 2006 war between Hezbollah and Israel, and has been funded by Iran. For Nasrallah, these types of statements are neither surprising, nor new. Nasrallah feels left out.

Governments in the region and around the world are currently facing a variety of challenges: bloodshed in Syria, economic sanctions on Iran, a potential Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities and economic crises in Europe. No one remembers Hezbollah, once a powerful and influential figure, who threatened and destabilized the Levant.

Indeed, in the last few months Nasrallah announced that in the case of an Israeli attack on Iran, Hezbollah will reciprocally attack Israel. Also, Nasrallah has lately stated that his organization will stand next to President Bashar al-Assad if there is a Western attack on Syria. However, as Nasrallah has done nothing to execute his threats, these statements seem to be an empty shell.

Unfortunately for Nasrallah, it seems that just as governments ignore Hezbollah, so does the Israeli media. Historically the media has terrified the Israeli public with reports of the organization, but it seems that those same outlets have forgotten Hezbollah and what it is capable of. The Israeli media is fixated on the Iranian threat, and barely mentions Hezbollah. No one looks to the Northern border and not all remember the 2006 damages Hezbollah had caused.

It is in this context Nasrallah stressed that

“Lebanon is still in the circle of the “Israeli” threat.” “The resistance that they wanted to destroy increased in its strength and capabilities,” he said, “assuring that “the hand that reconstructed remains on weapons to impose new equations.”

In the Lebanese domestic arena, however, Hezbollah is more relevant than ever. It is one of the most influential parties in Lebanon. Lately, in addition to concern over the spill-over of the Syrian crisis to Tripoli, the hot topic on the table is the electoral law. Brought by the Lebanese Interior Minister, Marwan Charbel, the new electoral law is based on proportional representation and will take effect in the 2013 parliamentary polls. The proposition had sparked controversy among the rival political parties, as the March 14 alliance rejected the proposal, while the March 8 bloc have voiced support for it.

Hezbollah reiterated that proportional representation is the most adequate option, as it reveals and represents the real weight of each party in the country. The Shiite community in Lebanon is estimated to be around 2,500,000 inhabitants, i.e. 60.7% of the population. Passing the proposal in the next few months would assured the victory of Hezbollah and its allies in the next elections.

   

        As always, Hezbollah wants to stay pertinent in the Lebanese arena as well as in regional and international arenas. The path Nasrallah is choosing is one of tempestuous statements against its standard enemies: Israel and the United States. However, these statements have not made the organization seem as fierce as it once was. Hezbollah increasingly looks to be the backup force of Syria and Iran rather than a powerful ethnic militant group.

   

     Nasrallah feels left out. Maybe no one cares anymore. He wants to draw the world's attention and he chooses a childish way of doing so – he shouts the loudest, hoping to get attention. And if that doesn't work, he can always pick a fight. He has the ability to launch long-range missiles at Tel Aviv, you know.

Citation from Hezbollah’s official website:

 http://www.english.moqawama.org/essaydetails.php?eid=19893&cid=313

http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/40486-nasrallah-s-political-aide-urges-govt-to-assume-responsibility-throughout-lebanon

See also: “Lebanon Demographics Profile 2012,” Index Mundi, n.d. available at: http://www.indexmundi.com/lebanon/demographics_profile.html; “Mapping the Global Muslim Population – a Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Muslim Population,” PEW Research Center, October 2009, available at:

http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedfiles/Orphan_Migrated_Content/Muslimpopulation.pdf

Hezbollah's Disarmament and Syrian Spring

   Hezbollah’s disarmament became, and has remained, one of the most controversial topics in Lebanon following the Taif Accords of 1989. The Accord affixed Hezbollah’s status as a “resistance organization,” officially approving its arming and leaving all other militias (e.g. the Christian Falanges) disarmed. From that day on, Hezbollah's disarmament has been a very contentious issue in Lebanon, and has been recently mentioned in speeches by members of the March 14 alliance "support the Syrian resistance”.

   Earlier this week, Lebanese president Michel Sleiman said that in light of the possibility of the Syrian crisis spilling over into Lebanon "we need to discuss ways to benefit from Hezbollah's arms, when to use them and for what purpose." With this statement he clearly supports Hezbollah’s position, which rejects demands for their disarmament as aimed by Israel, and claim they are protecting Lebanon from Israeli aggression. Perhaps this time of upheaval is the opportunity to re-examine whether the Lebanese government should accept Hezbollah’s position and take disarmament off the table.   

   Several scenarios exist regarding Hezbollah keeping its arms, but all hinge upon whether the organization stays with its decision to back President Assad or change its stance by supporting the Syrian revolt. Today, Hezbollah firmly insists that it will continue to support President Assad, although there is no evidence that the organization’s members are currently fighting alongside Syrian soldiers. Recently, Druze leader Walid Jumblatt has been encouraging Nasrallah to publicly support the Syrian people, due to claims that President Assad’s days are numbered.

   It is possible that if the fighting in Syria escalates and spills over into Lebanon, Hezbollah would decide to take control of Lebanon violently. The organization’s weapons arsenal is large and the addition of the Syrian army’s weapons arsenal would pave the way to defeat the Lebanese army (LAF) and conquer Lebanon. This scenario, however, seems unlikely to materialize under the present circumstances.

   On the other hand, should Hezbollah decide to support the Syrian people, it is not unlikely that it would cooperate with LAF to keep the Syrian army from breaching Lebanon's borders. Nasrallah has previously stated that Hezbollah and LAF can be merged, and although his intent was to fight against the Zionist State and not Syrian army, it is not an unfeasible option. Nevertheless, it should be noted that though uniting Hezbollah’s and LAF’s arsenals might lead to a substantial military force, it may not be enough to stand against Assad's army.

   Hezbollah stood by and watched the two-day clashes in Tripoli last week between supporters and opponents of Assad's regime. This might symbolize the organization's actual standpoint - staying neutral. As the fighting would spills over into Lebanon, the organization could earn more time to consider its moves. It is possible that Hezbollah would allow blood to be shed by Assad's supporters until it reaches a decision.

   Hezbollah's disarmament would bring significant change into Lebanese political system as well as to the Middle Eastern balance of terror. Hezbollah would lose its deterrent power, and the very necessity of the organization would be in question. Its internal enemies would celebrate their victory on this long-standing controversial issue and its external enemies (Israel and the West) would face a less threatening new reality.

   Though it sounds ridiculous, Hezbollah is a stabilizing factor in the explosive Middle East. The organization preserves the balance of terror between itself and Israel and the West, and has not executed terrorist attacks in these uneasy times (the most recent attacks against Israeli targets were executed by Iranian activists, without Hezbollah's involvement). Today, Hezbollah does no more than paying a lip service to President Assad, and with Nasrallah as a leader, Hezbollah has more pragmatic considerations than fanatic ones.

   Hezbollah's disarmament would lead to a new era in Lebanese history, but would not be a smart move under the present conditions. In the eyes of Lebanese people and their politicians, Lebanon is an easy target to Assad's army and might fall if LAF was left alone to protect its borders.


Sources: Lebanese press