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