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

What is behind Mikati’s resignation?

   Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati resigned on behalf of his government on Friday, March 22, 2013. In the announcement, he cited the Cabinet’s failure to pass a proposal to extend the term of the country’s police chief, who will retire on April 1, as well as the blocking of a decision to form a supervisory committee for the 2013 elections. Free Patriotic Movement Leader MP Michel Aoun described the motives behind Mikati’s decision to throw in the towel as “silly.” Prime Minister Mikati said that he informed anyone of his decision in order to avoid pressure from all sides, and that his decision was personal.

   Nevertheless, one has to admit that Aoun has a solid point. Mikati survived many political crises since he formed the government in June 2011, making these reasons for resignation seem out of character and a little bit peculiar. Could there be other reasons for Mikati’s resignation?

   First and foremost, there are the Syrian civil war and the ensuing political pressure from its spill-over into Lebanon. Last year’s clashes in Tripoli are just one example, but more important is the tension between the Sunni and the Shi’a groups in Lebanon, over the matter of which side the Lebanese should support: Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, or the Syrian rebels. The tension now is in its highest level and maybe Mikati feels he cannot control the country anymore, preferring to step aside and let another person deal with the expected clashes.

   A second option might be his relations with Hassan Nasrallah. It is well known that Nasrallah was responsible for bringing Mikati to premiership, and while they had their differences, mostly over the STL issue, they have cooperated well most of the time. However, STL’s proceedings still ongoing and Hezbollah is in a very delicate position in Europe due to the Burgas bombing and the Hezbollah’s activist’s conviction in Cyprus. It is certainly possible that Mikati feels that the time has come for him to step down from office since he cannot protect Hezbollah from the STL, the United States, the U.N. and the people of Lebanon.

   A third option might be that though Prime Minister Mikati claims that he consulted no one and his decision to resign was his own, Nasrallah demanded the resignation because he thought Mikati could not handle future events “properly” i.e. to Nasrallah’s satisfaction, and perhaps has found a better, as of yet, unknown candidate. The future candidate would probably be more subjugated to Nasrallah’s will and turn a cold shoulder to the world’s demands on Syrian rebels, the STL issue and many more.

   What future holds for Lebanon? Only time will tell. One thing is obvious: the reasons that Prime Minister Mikati stated as the reasons for his resignation are probably just a smokescreen.

Sources: Lebanese daily press

The Fear Factor

   On Wednesday, January 30, 2013, Israel attacked an armed convoy close to the Lebanese-Syrian border, which might have been carrying SA-17 missiles to Hezbollah. The next day, Syria admitted that Israel attacked a Syrian military research facility that might have produced chemical weapons. The week before these strikes, Lebanon filed several complaints to the U.N. claiming that Israel violated its air space numerous times.

   This post was originally intended to address the ongoing crisis in Syria, the issue of the Syrian chemical weapons arsenal, and most importantly - whether Hezbollah will try seize that arsenal if President Bashar al-Assad steps down from office. It was supposed to examine the political, military, and financial implications on the domestic, regional, and global stage of Hezbollah’s possession of a chemical weapons arsenal.

   However, in the last few days I realized that though this issue is important to discuss, there is a far more important issue that has not yet been discussed - an everyday issue that could lead to another war in the Levant region. It is the fear factor, i.e. how the regional and domestic leaders are playing with our minds for their own interests.

   One might say that it is inevitable that the citizens of Israel, surrounded with enemies, will feel threatened. Since the State of Israel was founded in 1948, it has had to fight for its continued survival against its neighbors and terrorist organizations that did and do not accept the legitimacy of its existence. Some of the wars can be defined as “do or die” for Israel and some are for the purpose of deterrence – I will leave it to my readers to decide which is which.

   On the other hand, the reality has changed over the years. The State of Israel has changed from a new and weak state to become one of the strongest players in the region, and its conflicts have become asymmetric wars against hybrid organizations, and not against states. The 2006 elections in Gaza and the ‘Arab Spring’ have led to seismic shifts in leadership of Israel’s neighbors.

   Yet, one thing has remained the same in every entity in the region - the psychological warfare against its own citizens and its enemies. The hatred and fear in the militaristic societies are powerful and guide the governments and hybrid organizations (Hezbollah, Hamas) in every aspect of everyday life.

   Thus, if one listens to the Israeli Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, it seems that Israel is on the edge of a regional war with Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas and Egypt. The national media in the Levant countries adds to the fear atmosphere by either showing Hassan Nasrallah’s hate speeches to the public (Israel, Lebanon) or producing hateful programs (Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Gaza) that serve to brainwash the public.

  In Gaze, the young generation is educated in this legacy in summer terror camps of Hamas, taught how to use guns and brainwashed with hatred of the Zionist state. Hezbollah educates its youth in the same method. Israel does it in a more subtle way, and invites families to visit military museums and bases. Since every person in Israel is required to serve the military, everything surrounds military life – slang, customs, work and many more.  

   The fear factor - we are ready for a war in any given time - government, Hezbollah and Hamas will tell their people, maybe hoping to deter the other side, but mostly

affecting the public. And I ask – let us rest a little. The public is tired of the war games they are playing. I am not asking for peace, or even a peace process, because peace cannot be achieved in the Levant in the next few years, and definitely not with the current rulers. But some rest from the war games, and more importantly – the mind games. That, they can give.