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

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.

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