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.