Category Archives: Lebanon

Tree that sparked deadly border clash on Israeli side, says UN

My reference yesterday to an Israeli soldier having been on the Lebanese side of the Israel-Lebanon border turns out to have been incorrect.

The Guardian reports:

The tree that sparked a deadly confrontation between Israeli and Lebanese troops along the tense border between the two countries was on Israeli territory, the UN has said.

Five people died in the most serious clash between the two countries since the war of 2006.

Unifil, the UN force that has monitored the border since the ceasefire that ended that conflict, said that investigations had established that the tree, which Israeli troops were cutting down when Lebanese forces fired on them, was south of the “blue line” which marks the border.

“Following the exchange of fire between the Lebanese army and the Israeli army across the blue line in El Adeisse, the Unifil investigators were on the ground and commenced investigations,” it said. “The investigations are still ongoing and the findings will be intimated on [their] conclusion.

“Unifil established, however, that the trees being cut by the Israeli army are located south of the blue line on the Israeli side.”

Unifil confirmed that Israel had notified it of its intention to carry out routine maintenance work on trees along the border, and that Unifil passed the information on to the Lebanese army.

The Lebanese army admitted that its soldiers opened fire on troops from the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) in the confrontation.

In a statement issued to the news agency AFP, a spokesman said: “The Lebanese army opened fire first at Israeli soldiers who entered Lebanese territory… This constituted defence of our sovereignty and is an absolute right.”

An Israeli battalion commander was shot dead and another officer seriously wounded. In Israeli shelling that followed, three Lebanese soldiers and a Lebanese journalist were killed.

The IDF claimed that its forces were the subject of a planned ambush, citing the presence of Lebanese media close to the border. “We have reason to believe this was planned in advance,” an IDF spokeswoman, Avital Leibovich, said. She added that the initiative could have come from Lebanese army units under the influence of the Islamist militant organisation Hezbollah.

Most analysts agreed that the incident was likely to be contained rather than flaring into an ongoing conflict along the tense border.

The dead Israeli soldier, Lieutenant Colonel Dov Harari, a 45-year-old father of four, was to be buried in the coastal city of Netanya later today.

Meanwhile, a Palestinian militant was killed in an air strike in Gaza early today. Sharif Abdel Hadi Abbey, 22, died and two others were injured in the strike close to Khan Younis, according to Palestinian souces. The IDF said aircraft had fired at Palestinians approaching the Gaza border fence.

Facebooktwittermail

Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah’s speech delivered in Lebanon today

The following speech by the Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah was delivered today via video feed in front of a large crowd in Beirut. The translation provided below came in tweets (hence the format below) from Roqayah at iRevolt who did instant translating and tweeting while watching the broadcast.

We are celebrating our victory over the biggest terrorist army in the Middle East (i.e. Israeli Army).

I was going to begin my words with the words covering the July War but what happened today on the Land of Heroes (South Lebanon)

On the border with the Palestinians and the fight with our heroic Lebanese army;

[The Sayyed is now dividing his speech; 1st he will speak about the war, 2nd the tribunal and lastly what shall happen after.]

Since the war stopped there have 14,000 incidents wherein the Israeli’s have broken resolution 1701

The Israeli’s are always accusing Hezb’Allah of breaking the rules but we are telling the UN that the Israeli’s should respect 1701

What we saw today is another example of the Israeli’s breaking resolution 1701 (i.e. Lebanese Army border incident)

One of the Lebanese Press Personnel was killed today but this is not new to the Israeli’s as they have been killing people from the media

Since the start of this incident today, all of Hezb’Allah’s personnel have been put on high alert.

We put all Hezb’Allah personnel and fighters under the order of the Lebanese Army; Whatever you need,we are next to you & where you want us

Anything the Army Command needs from us, everything is under their disposal. We have also called Nebih Berri,Hariri and Sleiman

After we watched how the Lebanese army is suffering, we just stood by because anything done must use wisdom.

All of Lebanon will not forgive or forget any invasion or rule-breaking. We are not afraid of you (talking to Israelis) or your threats

The Lebanese Army fought with dignity & high spirits (in regards to the incident today).The Israeli’s accused the Leb. Gov’t of instigation

The Resistance is next to the army, ready at any time; staying in our country and our cities.

All the Lebanese citizens in the South are not afraid, unlike the people in Northern Israel who began to flee.

Today,we salute the Lebanese Army. We salute the Army Commander, especially after it was recently Army Day (3eid el Jesh)

Today we are watching; There are martyrs from the Lebanese Army and civilian martyrs.

Hezb’Allah is very patient today but we are ready. This is because we must be ready in case the Army needs our help.

If the Army,the Resistance and the people face the Israeli’s then we will be able to stop them.

Thank God that the issue finished right away (in regards to the incident today).

Sayyed Hassan said that if Hezb’Allah intervened they would accuse the Resistance of stepping in because of the STL [the United Nations’ Special Tribunal for Lebanon].

I will say this before all the politicians, all the Arabs and all the world – we cannot get away from our tradition, morals .

Any place which the Israeli enemy hits the army from now on the Resistance will not stand

We might be patient now but I will be straight forward; Any hand which will extend to the Lebanese army to harm it,we will cut!

Every good person will take this decision. The Resistance has the honor to protect the country the same way.

What happened today occurred before all of the world. This has been transpiring for four years; 316 Lebanese injured in 4 years.

The Resistance has destroyed 4M cluster-bombs. Until now we have millions of cluster-bombs still in the ground (planted by Israel)

We need to have the Lebanese Gov’t pressure the UN in order to get the maps from Israel as to where they’ve planted cluster-bombs

Israel has been working to get into all facets and workings of Lebanese via spy’s. The most dangerous being that of our communication system

This is much bigger than what people know as of now (spy cells).

What this means is that we have found more than 100 spy’s, many of whom have high positions. Who have worked long w/ Israel

Many of these individuals are well respected in our society. By finding these 100+ spies it is a big hit ag. the Israeli’s

The Resistance will stay under the control of the Leb.Army,those of whom found these spies.We’ll continue to find out more ab. the spies

We should not stop or remain silent if we find a spy. We should not cover anyone because of his status. We should not wait to execute them

This is another war; Many of these spies helped Israel during the 2006 – they slaughtered the Lebanese people by aiding Israel.

Whomever wants to stop another war in Lebanon must not allow Israel to recruit spies.

We have to work on a strategy to free the Kfar Sheba and all other lands occupied by Israel.

We must face the Israeli’s in order to free our last occupied land (Kfar Sheba/Shebaa Farms)

The Army, the Resistance and the people create the victory. Everyday Lebanon faces Israel in dif. ways

For the last week we have been hearing Askenazi stating that Hezb’Allah assassinated Hezb’Allah. As you know and I know, he is no journalist

Ashkenazi is the Commander of the Israeli Army; We hear the Israel media, how they are talking about the Int’l Court and Lebanon

The Israeli media were speaking happily in terms of how Hezb’Allah will be indicted; They spoke about how the Lebanese will fight together

We spoke,weeks ago,and told everyone – including friends of Lebanon – about the dangerous plan Israel is preparing for Lebanon.

[iRevolt: Damn it. My feed is out. Bear with me folks, I apologize for the inconvenience!
Back up]

We have clear accusations that Israel assassinated Rafik Hariri

Now because some may consider talking about the STL and the indicted – some may consider this increases tension.

For this reason I will delay this part; For now we will focus on our accusations ag. Israel.

During the last few months we did our utmost to do the following: 1st, it is clear where we are headed.

We have appointed a team/committee which will study and look at all details. On Monday I will present to you clear evidence

I will prove that Israel,via its spies,since 1993 has been using the political situations in Lebanon to its advantage.

Today,on the anniversary of your victory in the 2006 war,we have a right to accuse Israel of assassinating Rafik Hariri.

My accusations will be based on evidence. I say to you today – We accuse the Israeli enemy of assassinating Rafik Hariri in 2005.

On Monday I will provide evidence. I will answer all those people who say ‘you are accusing Israel,why don’t you provide evidence?’

After this press conference the Lebanese Gov’t cannot say ‘ I do not want to know the truth’.

We are ready to cooperate with the Lebanese Gov’t. If we cooperate with one another then we will save Lebanon from a division

We in Lebanon, have called for putting together a governmental committee or any committee and find out who created false witnesses.

What is the problem in forming a committee to question the false witnesses? Don’t we have a right to call on a committee?

I would like to tell you that Hezb’Allah will stand ready and committed to contribute

Regarding the issue of war and the current situation,we all realize the aims of the 2006 war were. The main aim to crush the Resistance

Crushing the Resistance is part of many steps to be taken to “draw a new Middle East” – All related to Palestine,Iran and Syria etc

We were part of the scheme to create a “new Middle East”.

A journalist had told Sayyed Hassan that there is a plan to “crush Hezb’Allah”, a simple decision.

One of the Arab officials,I will not mention names,who was part of the Arab Delegation which traveled to NY

This Arab figure told me that when they arrived to NY they were welcomed by John Bolton. He asked the Arab figure “what are you here for?”

Bolton stated “This war will only stop once Hezb’Allah is crushed or once Hezb’Allah announces it will surrender” – This is a quote

This war was about crushing the Resistance. So,here comes the miscalculations – I would like to speak to the Israeli Enemy

You will continue to make miscalculations and mistakes. You,the enemy,are a mistake.

Noam Chomsky stated that all Israeli wars on Lebanon were Israeli decisions with American approval, all but he 2006 war.

The 2006 war was an American decision with Israeli implementation.

In the 2006 war they waited for the Resistance to collapse or run away but they found that the fighters were like high mountains.

They waited to see the Lebanese Army dismantled but the witnessed them uphold honor, dignity and sacrifice.

They wanted to the Lebanese to surrender but they found out that you are honorable and shall stay like this.

They thought ghat other religious sects besides those in the South or East may abandon the Resistance. However they were also proven wrong

The Mosques, Churches and Synagogues opened their doors for the Lebanese.

Yes,we stood and we confronted and we all achieved victory. I will now continue with the story between Bolton.

After 10 days, 13 days, 14 days passed – the situation changed in South Lebanon. The rockets continued to be launched ag. Israel

The humans fought; this is to see how small the Israeli minds are. They waged battle in Bint Jbeil for what?

In 2000 we celebrated the victory in Bint Jbeil so Israel waged an attack on Bint Jbeil because I said:

The Israeli enemy is easier to penetrate than a spiders web.

Back to the story – The Arab member of the delegation exited the meeting held in NY and was approached by Bolton.

Bolton told the official that they wish to end the war. Bolton stated that The Israeli’s said they are incapable of continuing the war

The official said “No one can say that the security council stopped the war.The Israeli’s were crushed,they wanted the war to end.”

On the 25th of May,2000 – people in Syria and Iran helped us, but no one can say that they ended the war for us.

We achieved our territory. God only helped us, God only. No one else helped us. Our people, our martyrs, our solidarity.

When the whole world was against you, you were the ones who imposed on Israel to end the war so it will not end in a catastrophe for Israel

We used a new equation which protect our country; The possibility of war always exists because Israel is hostile in nature.

Normally, those who have experience have a right to be cautious and be afraid for Lebanon. But,does this mean a war is knocking on the door?

This is not clear yet.The Israeli enemy does not need an excuse when they want to wage war.Our responsibility for our country is to be ready

Today the Israeli’s initiated the confrontation yet THEY file a complaint.If no one vetoes then we may witness a res. which condemns Lebanon

When Israel commits massacres they are not condemned.

I want to end by saying that we must raise a new equation which protects the country. The Israeli’s believe what I say

For many reasons the Israeli’s have the information and they believe what I say.

I will not say anything new; land for land, navy for navy (the same equation). We will not reveal our capabilities in terms of the air force

We will use “constructive ambiguity” for the sake of protecting the country. We may put Lebanon in danger if we reveal certain issues.

I want to say that you will send the message to the Israeli’s. We found that the Israeli’s are focusing on the people of Lebanon

The Israeli’s are responding to our targeting of the Israeli front – we were able, based on facts and truth.

The Israeli’s wanted to wage a psychological war on the Lebanese front, to create an atmosphere of fear.

When the Israeli’s targeting the Imam Hassan (AS) compound,did it contain ammunition or weapons? or a civilian apt. building?

More than 100 Lebanese,Palestinian and Syrian labor workers were targeted. The Israeli’s do not need an excuse. They target civilians

After the 2006 war the Israeli’s will abandon the Resistance,that they are sick. Does any person become sick of preserving his dignity?

August 14th, the Lebanese returned to their destroyed homes. Our message to the enemy tonight and to those who make miscalculations:

The most honorable people cannot abandon the path of the Resistance!

Facebooktwittermail

Israeli provocation on Lebanese border could trigger new war

An Israeli soldier being dangled like bait on the Lebanese side of the Israel-Lebanon border today.

Update below

Border clashes between Israeli and Lebanese troops have left three Lebanese soldiers and a journalist dead. Lebanon’s Hezbollah TV, Al Manar, reports one high-ranking Israeli officer has been killed but this has not been confirmed by the Lebanese army or UN troops stationed in southern Lebanon.

As the photo above makes clear, this was a blatant act of provocation by Israeli forces — no one accidentally strayed over the border. This is more like kids tossing matches to find out whether a brush fire will start.

Tony Karon writes:

Should a new war break out, Israel is determined to strike a more devastating blow more quickly than it did during the last conflict, in which it failed in its objective of destroying Hizballah. It has publicly warned that it would destroy Lebanese civilian infrastructure, and that Syria, as Hizballah’s armorer, would not be off-limits. But Hizballah believes its capacity to fire missiles into Tel Aviv is key to restraining Israel from returning to finish off the Shi’ite militia. And, of course, amid regional tensions over Iran’s nuclear program, members of the self-styled “axis of resistance” — Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hizballah — have deepened their alliance, raising the possibility of any one of those groups joining the fray should any of the others come under attack from Israel or the U.S.

Although all of the main players have good reason to avoid initiating another war right now, the Crisis Group warns that “tensions are mounting with no obvious safety valve.” At some point, Hizballah’s growing deterrent could cross Israel’s red line. And the Western diplomatic boycott of the resistance camp is cause for alarm because there are no effective channels through which the various antagonists can be made to understand how their actions could produce unintended consequences — in the tragic tradition of Middle Eastern wars that erupted in part because the adversaries failed to understand one another’s intentions. Indeed, after proclaiming his movement’s “divine victory” in standing up to Israel’s 2006 offensive, a feat that made him a hero on the streets of the Arab world, Hizballah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah did admit that had he known Israel would respond with a full-blown invasion, he would have avoided the provocation of snatching the Israeli troops that started the showdown.

The danger posed by the lack of communication channels between the resistance camp and the Israelis explains why British Prime Minister David Cameron, a recent guest at the White House, last week went to Ankara to urge Turkey to maintain its ties with Israel and use its ties to the likes of Syria to facilitate communication that could mitigate an outbreak. Turkey has been pilloried in some quarters in the West — and certainly in Israel — for its diplomatic rapprochement with the likes of Syria, Iran and Hamas, but Cameron’s appeal was a tacit admission that the continuing Bush-era policy of refusing to engage with the region’s designated “radicals” has sharply diminished the ability of the U.S. and the European Union to influence events in the Middle East. Peace talks between Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and the Israelis are all very well, but Abbas is not at war with Israel, nor would he be even if a new round of fighting broke out in Gaza.

While it is widely assumed that Hezbollah would have a critical role to play in the event that Israel launches or instigates an attack on Iran, it likewise follows that the IDF will be tempted to decisively neutralize this threat preemptively. The problem, for Israel, is this: what happens if a preemptive attack fails, meaning, Israel comes under even heavier rocket attack than it did in 2006 and that Hezbollah survives an even more brutal onslaught than it suffered in that war? In such an outcome, the idea of subsequent military action against Iran becomes even more implausible than it already is.

Update: Ynet reports:

IDF Lieutenant Colonel Dov Harari, 45, was killed in the border skirmish with the Lebanese army Tuesday.

Harari was an IDF reservist who served as a battalion commander in the sector where the clash took place. Another Israeli commander sustained serious wounds in the skirmish, the army said.

The fact that Al Manar reported this fatality hours before it was confirmed by the IDF, suggests that Hezbollah continues to effectively monitor Israeli communications.

Haaretz provides the quaint explanation that the violence was triggered “over a move by Israeli soldiers to trim some hedges along the border,” though the Jerusalem Post said: “Other reports said the Israeli soldiers were attempting to plant cameras.”

Facebooktwittermail

Drums of war: Israel and the “axis of resistance”

In a new report, the International Crisis Group warns that the situation in the Levant, four years after the last war between Israel and Hezbollah, is exceptionally quiet and uniquely dangerous.

Of all the explanations why calm has prevailed in the Israeli-Lebanese arena since the end of the 2006 war, the principal one also should be cause for greatest concern: fear among the parties that the next confrontation would be far more devastating and broader in scope. None of the most directly relevant actors — Israel, Hizbollah, Syria and Iran — relishes this prospect, so all, for now, are intent on keeping their powder dry. But the political roots of the crisis remain unaddressed, the underlying dynamics are still explosive, and miscalculations cannot be ruled out. The only truly effective approach is one that would seek to resume — and conclude — meaningful Israeli-Syrian and Israeli-Lebanese peace talks. There is no other answer to the Hizbollah dilemma and, for now, few better ways to affect Tehran’s calculations. Short of such an initiative, deeper political involvement by the international community is needed to enhance communications between the parties, defuse tensions and avoid costly missteps.

Four years after the last war, the situation in the Levant is paradoxical. It is exceptionally quiet and uniquely dangerous, both for the same reason. The build-up in military forces and threats of an all-out war that would spare neither civilians nor civilian infrastructure, together with the worrisome prospect of its regionalisation, are effectively deterring all sides. Today, none of the parties can soberly contemplate the prospect of a conflict that would be uncontrolled, unprecedented and unscripted.

Should hostilities break out, Israel will want to hit hard and fast to avoid duplicating the 2006 scenario. It will be less likely than in the past to distinguish between Hizbollah and a Lebanese government of which the Shiite movement is an integral part and more likely to take aim at Syria — both because it is the more vulnerable target and because it is Hizbollah’s principal supplier of military and logistical support. Meanwhile, as tensions have risen, the so-called “axis of resistance” — Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hizbollah — has been busy intensifying security ties. Involvement by one in the event of attack against another no longer can be dismissed as idle speculation.

Reporting from Beirut, Borzou Daragahi adds:

a clandestine intelligence war between the Jewish state and the Iranian-backed militant group continues unabated, officials and security experts say.

Now, a strengthening Lebanese government is helping Hezbollah bust alleged spy cells, sometimes using tools and tradecraft acquired from Western nations eager to build up Lebanon’s security forces as a counterweight to the Shiite group, which since a 2008 power-sharing agreement has been a member of the governing coalition.

Although security officials here say they’re using newfound tools to ferret out spies watching Hezbollah, just like they would against anyone attempting to infiltrate the country, Western observers express concern.

“There are deep Israeli worries that anything the West gives the Lebanese armed forces and the Internal Security Forces could be used against them,” said Mara Karlin, a former Lebanon specialist at the U.S. Defense Department, now a researcher at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.

The United States and its Western allies play a delicate balancing game in Lebanon. Since 2006, Washington has given nearly $500 million in military aid to Lebanese security forces and has allocated $100 million for 2011, making Lebanon the second-largest recipient of American military aid per capita after Israel.

U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense Alexander Vershbow met officials in Lebanon on Monday, emphasizing that continuing U.S. aid and training would allow the army to “prevent militias and other nongovernment organizations” from undermining the government.

Patrick Seale describes an initiative by Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah:

King Abdallah bin Abdulaziz’s four-nation tour this week must be seen as a bold attempt to defuse a dangerous regional situation and assert the autonomy of Arab decision-making free from external interference.

According to Arab and Western diplomatic sources, the Saudi monarch’s visits to Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan have had several ambitious aims: to head off the threat of renewed civil war in Lebanon; to consolidate Syrian-Lebanese relations; to encourage Fatah-Hamas reconciliation at a decisive moment in Palestinian fortunes; and to signal to Washington the Arabs’ disillusion with President Barack Obama’s Middle East policy, still grossly biased towards Israel.

The volatile Lebanese situation seems to have been the immediate trigger for the King’s wide-ranging diplomatic initiative. Hezbollah and its local opponents, notably diehard Christians and hard-line Sunni members of Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s Forward Movement, have engaged in a war of words — which seemed in imminent danger of degenerating into violence. At issue were their different attitudes towards the UN Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL).

According to some alarmist reports, the STL is preparing to indict a number of Hezbollah members for the murder of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri on 14 February 2005. Pointing to the recent uncovering of several Israeli spy rings in Lebanon — notably in the sensitive communications sector — Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s secretary-general, denounced the STL as an Israeli plot and vowed pugnaciously never to surrender any of his members to its jurisdiction. Hezbollah’s opponents, on the other hand, claim that unless the STL brings Rafik Hariri’s murderers to justice — whoever they may be — there can be no internal peace.

The issue extends far beyond Lebanon because Hezbollah clearly sees the reports as a sinister bid to blacken the resistance movement, spark internal fighting, and provide Israel with an opportunity to attack Lebanon, as it did in 2006, in a further attempt to destroy Hezbollah.

A tripartite summit in Beirut of King Abdallah, Syria’s President Bashar al-Asad and Lebanon’s President Michel Suleiman — together with numerous side meetings — has somewhat reduced tensions and calmed fears of war. Among the implicit consequences of these contacts are Saudi Arabia’s recognition of the legitimacy of Syria’s involvement in Lebanon, as well as a warning to Israel that any further aggression would face a united Arab front.

Facebooktwittermail

Tension mounts in Lebanon

Nicholas Noe (co-founder of Mideastwire.com) writes at Foreign Policy:

With the announcement from Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah this week that Hizbullah members may be indicted for the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Raifk Hariri, one thing is now (publicly) clear, no matter what one may think about the integrity of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL): the militant Shiite party is both angry and concerned. Of course, this isn’t a wholly new development: the party has apparently been preparing for just such an eventuality at least since the summer of 2006 when the first media reports began circulating in this regard (interestingly, in Hizbullah’s analysis, these reports came just after Israel found itself unable to smash its bitter enemy in open battle during the July War).

At that time, and over the intervening years, the party was genuinely fearful that an STL indictment against it — for the murder of the leading Sunni in the country — might be added to an already formidable, though not insurmountable, “Cedar Revolution” cocktail of threats and weaknesses pressed by its many domestic, regional and international opponents. Indeed, more than the danger of another Israeli assault, it can be said that Hizbullah felt existentially threatened at the time by the prospect of an open civil war, aided and abetted by outside powers and fought along sectarian lines (mainly Sunni-Druze vs. Shiite). Hizbullah had learned, and painfully so, that its ultimate fight against Israel could not be properly conducted in times of internal bloodshed — such as during the Amal-Hizbullah engagements of the late 1980s — and that an STL indictment during a period of already high sectarian tension could tip the balance.

Now, however, the party has reached a fundamentally different — and more secure — position of political, diplomatic and military power, not to mention ideological coherence. Which is precisely why one should not over-emphasize Hizbullah’s concern vis-à-vis the STL’s current (purported) track — unless you are a partisan and/or polemicist and have a stake in shaping the course of the fight.

Facebooktwittermail

A source of emulation

Jimmy Carter meeting Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah in Hezbollah-controlled Dahiyeh, South Beirut, June 9, 2009

Consider this: When Jimmy Carter visited Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah in Beirut just over a year ago, protection for the former US president was provided not only by the Secret Service but also Hezbollah’s own security personnel, both of whom feared that Carter might be assassinated by Israel’s Mossad!

Fourteen years earlier Fadlallah escaped an assassination attempt — that time it was a CIA covert operation in which 83 people died and 283 were injured.

The two incidents highlight the subjective nature of “terrorism” — a term used in the contemporary era to refer almost exclusively to violence carried out by non-government entities, yet a term that could just as reasonably be used to describe actions by the two governments that most loudly trumpet the threat from terrorism: Israel and the United States.

With that in mind, let’s consider once more the life of a man who the US government still designates as a “terrorist”: Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah.

Rami G Khouri (who in confessionally fragmented Lebanon, it should be noted, is a Palestinian Arab Christian) writes:

Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, Lebanon’s most influential Shiite Muslim leader who died in Beirut this past weekend, was a marja, or a source of emulation for Shiites, during his lifetime — just about the highest achievement a human being can attain in this world.

It would be doing Fadlallah a disservice only or mainly to see him as a gifted Shiite religious figure. His great achievement, I believe, was to provide a living example of the combination of the best qualities that any Arab or Muslim could aspire to in this era of great mediocrity, corruption, materialism, mindless violence and abuse of power throughout much of the Arab world.

Fadlallah was — as Americans are fond of saying of sports figures who are talented, smart, humble, generous and personable — “the complete package.” He stood head and shoulders above his contemporaries in Lebanon and most of the region because he combined several qualities noteworthy each on its own: profound theological and academic learning; an analytical and active mind; extensive social activism to assist the needy; nationalist politics to protect one’s sovereignty and support Arab causes, like Palestine; a commitment to resisting and fighting foreign aggression and occupation; political modernism that appreciated pluralistic and accountable governance; a rejection of one-man rule in favor of collective leadership based on consultation and consensus; a deep commitment to dialogue and solidarity with those of different faiths, ideologies or ethnicities; a progressive sense of the rights of women and youth; humility of spirit that prevented him from assuming public or official positions; and — I suspect from reading some of his writings, as I never met him — a twinkle in his eye and generosity in his heart that accepted the need to enjoy life, without hurting others or blaspheming core religious dictates.

It is no surprise, therefore, that Fadlallah had followers in many parts of the world, far beyond his native Lebanon or Iraq where he grew up. A key reason for his charisma and a source of emulation was his philosophy of the obligation of the weak and oppressed to struggle and if necessary to fight for their humanity, liberation, dignity and rights. By the examples he set in his own life and behavior — education, contemplation, self-assertion, honesty, generosity toward the needy — he showed others how they could aspire to achieve their full potential as human beings, individually and collectively.

His was a very Shiite life story, given that the Shiites of Lebanon in just two generations — from the 1960s to the 2000s — transformed themselves from the abused and subjugated downtrodden of Lebanese society into the single most powerful group in the country. His rise to prominence coincided with and partly inspired this epic transformation, that now sees Hizbullah as the dominant Shiite organization in the political, social and military fields. This change in status is also controversial for many other Lebanese who distrust Hizbullah and see it as an Iranian- and Syrian-manipulated menace to Lebanon’s collective sovereignty, identity and stability.

Fadlallah’s life story is so noteworthy because it transcends the Hizbullah-dominated dimensions of Lebanese Shiism. There was a convergence of sentiments and struggle between the man and the nascent movement and its forerunners, for a while, in the 1970s and 1980s. Yet he went beyond Hizbullah’s focus on resistance, to embrace and develop the totality of human, communal and national dimensions that he believed was the obligation of any Muslim and any human being.

His recipe was simple but effective, for those who could apply it: Read. Study. Discuss. Debate. Question. Learn. Work hard. Be generous. Respect others, especially those who are different from you. Stand up for your rights. Use your power to defend your people and country. And, always, remain humble.

Perhaps his greatest feat — as is the case with others of his ilk who joined God’s world with ours, like Martin Luther King, Jr., Pope John Paul II, or Bishop Desmond Tutu — was his ability to make Islamic religious ethics a springboard for personal and collective human betterment, rather than an isolated obsession or source of autocratic fanaticism.

The learned man moved back and forth from his books to his neighborhood, from lofty divine inspirations to mundane social, economic and political problems that needed resolution — in this lifetime, not the one to come. Faith, in his view and life practice, gave you the power and confidence to fix the flaws and injustices of our world, rather than only to bemoan and endure them. That, in the end, was not just a holy man, but a very modern man — a model Lebanese, Arab and Muslim who was rightly respected and emulated by many in his lifetime, because he showed us what we could become if we put our mind to it.

Facebooktwittermail

When honesty gets dangerous, liars succeed

No, Ariel Sharon has not just died. But when he does, will Wolf Blitzer lose his job if he writes a tweet like the one above (a fake of course, created by yours truly)?

Certainly not, because as Glenn Greenwald correctly noted yesterday: “The speech prohibitions and thought crimes on the Middle East all run in one direction: to enforce ‘pro-Israel’ orthodoxies.”

Then again, Blitzer (who was at AIPAC and the Jerusalem Post before moving to CNN) will have no need to let his Zionist colors fly within the confines of a tweet. He’ll be content to report gushing praise for the former Israeli prime minister from President Obama or President Whoever, the day Sharon dies — a day when little if anything with be said in the Washington political/media establishment about Sharon’s personal responsibility in the slaughter of as many as 2,000 Palestinians killed in the Sabra and Shátila massacre in Beirut in 1982.

CNN’s Octavia Nasr, on the other hand, has been found guilty of praising Sayyid Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, a man whose stature Sharon could never match — and for that offense, as has now been widely reported, the Lebanese-born journalist lost her job.

As Frances Guy, Britain’s ambassador to Lebanon, wrote in a blog post soon after Fadlallah’s death (a post she later removed “after mature consideration” according to the British Foreign Office):

When you visited him you could be sure of a real debate, a respectful argument and you knew you would leave his presence feeling a better person. That for me is the real effect of a true man of religion; leaving an impact on everyone he meets, no matter what their faith. Sheikh Fadlallah passed away yesterday. Lebanon is a lesser place the day after but his absence will be felt well beyond Lebanon’s shores. I remember well when I was nominated ambassador to Beirut, a muslim acquaintance sought me out to tell me how lucky I was because I would get a chance to meet Sheikh Fadlallah. Truly he was right. If I was sad to hear the news I know other peoples’ lives will be truly blighted. The world needs more men like him willing to reach out across faiths, acknowledging the reality of the modern world and daring to confront old constraints. May he rest in peace.

So why did CNN’s Nasr lose her job for expressing sadness at Fadlallah’s death? After all, his name is not a household word outside the Middle East.

Nasr’s mistake may well not have been that she expressed appreciation for this particular eminent Shia cleric but that she referred to him as one of “Hezbollah’s giants.”

So here’s one of the many ironies in this incident: while the Israel lobby controls the mainstream media with a well-oiled censorship machine that would be the envy of Joseph Goebbels, freedoms that journalists are being terrorized to abandon are nevertheless being exercised inside the US military. At CNN Hezbollah cannot be mentioned without also being demonized, yet at CENTCOM there are those calling for the powerful militia to be brought in from the cold. As Mark Perry revealed last month, a recent Red Team report called for the integration of Hezbollah into the Lebanese Armed Forces.

As for Sayyid Fadlallah himself, Lebanon’s prime minister, Saad Hariri — an Arab leader of the variety much-loved in the West — praised the cleric as “a voice of moderation and an advocate of unity.”

One of the reasons Fadlallah has been condemned by successive US governments is because of his alleged connections to the 1983 bombing in Beirut that killed 241 American servicemen, yet Robert Baer, who was himself a CIA field officer in Beirut, says: “there never has been a shred of evidence that Fadlallah was responsible for the Marine bombing, other than his preaching against foreign occupation.”

Opposing foreign occupation — this indeed was Fadlallah’s principal offense.

In his New York Times obituary, Fadlallah’s “extremism” was supposedly evident when in 2002 he told the Daily Telegraph:

[The Palestinians] have had their land stolen, their families killed, their homes destroyed, and the Israelis are using weapons, such as the F16 aircraft, which are meant only for major wars. There is no other way for the Palestinians to push back those mountains, apart from martyrdom operations.

Which reminds me of a line I came across on Facebook recently: a terrorist is someone with a bomb but no air force.

Fadlallah was also guilty of questioning the Holocaust — a commonplace attitude in the Middle East that must surely perplex many in the West. Even so, that attitude is, I suspect, much more one of sentiment than historical perspective. The Holocaust, as a justification for the dispossession and slaughter of Palestinians, has as much relevance as do the childhood traumas of a murderer when recounted to the murder victim’s family. This is context that does nothing to color the crime. Indeed, Holocaust doubt, thus provoked, can be seen as a direct effect of Holocaust exploitation.

Perhaps Sayyid Fadlallah is best remembered not through a tweet or a State department classification but in his own words:

Throughout my life, I have always supported the human being in his humanism and [I have supported] the oppressed… I think it is the person’s right to live his freedom… and [it is his right] to face the injustice imposed on him by revolting against it, using his practical, realistic and available means to end the oppressor’s injustice toward him, whether it is an individual, a community, a nation, or a state; whether male or female. God created the people free; thus no one has the right to enslave people and no one has the right to enslave himself for others. Imam Ali said “do not be a slave of others, as God created you free.”

Facebooktwittermail

Mainstreaming realism

It was widely assumed that George Bush’s departure from Washington would coincide with a revival of strength for the reality-based community — the people the neocons swept aside for the sake of empire. But though the neocon dream was quick to perish, the reality-based community is still struggling to assert itself — at least inside the nation’s capital.

It turns out that Tampa, Florida, where CENTCOM is headquartered (and where General David Petraeus was in charge before being sent to Kabul), is more amenable to the expression of realism.

Since its publication in Foreign Policy yesterday, a report by Mark Perry has been causing a stir. In “Red Team — CENTCOM thinks outside the box on Hamas and Hezbollah,” Perry writes:

While it is anathema to broach the subject of engaging militant groups like Hizballah and Hamas in official Washington circles (to say nothing of Israel), that is exactly what a team of senior intelligence officers at U.S. Central Command — CENTCOM — has been doing. In a “Red Team” report issued on May 7 and entitled “Managing Hizballah and Hamas,” senior CENTCOM intelligence officers question the current U.S. policy of isolating and marginalizing the two movements. Instead, the Red Team recommends a mix of strategies that would integrate the two organizations into their respective political mainstreams. While a Red Team exercise is deliberately designed to provide senior commanders with briefings and assumptions that challenge accepted strategies, the report is at once provocative, controversial — and at odds with current U.S. policy.

Among its other findings, the five-page report calls for the integration of Hizballah into the Lebanese Armed Forces, and Hamas into the Palestinian security forces led by Fatah, the party of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. The Red Team’s conclusion, expressed in the final sentence of the executive summary, is perhaps its most controversial finding: “The U.S. role of assistance to an integrated Lebanese defense force that includes Hizballah; and the continued training of Palestinian security forces in a Palestinian entity that includes Hamas in its government, would be more effective than providing assistance to entities — the government of Lebanon and Fatah — that represent only a part of the Lebanese and Palestinian populace respectively” (emphasis in the original). The report goes on to note that while Hizballah and Hamas “embrace staunch anti-Israel rejectionist policies,” the two groups are “pragmatic and opportunistic.”

To call the Red Team report a “deliberately provocative piece” — as Spencer Ackerman describes it — is to misinterpret the intelligence team’s brief in providing what they do call “unorthodox analysis.”

A Red Team’s approach merely attempts to look at an issue from a broader perspective than the one that military culture engenders. The goal, nevertheless, is objectivity. This isn’t simply an exercise in creative thinking.

Consider, for instance, this uncontroversial observation in the report (written before the recent international outcry demanding a swift end to the siege of Gaza):

The hardships in Gaza may be radicalizing more people, especially the young, and increasing the number of potential recruits for HAMAS. This is the opposite effect Israel thought the blockade would have in Gaza, hoping instead that people would see HAMAS as the cause of their suffering and turn against it.

Yet even today while it is clear to rest of the world that Israel’s divide-and-rule strategy in Gaza has failed, Israel’s deputy foreign minister Danny Ayalon wrote on Twitter: “Our position is to differentiate between Hamas, the occupiers of Gaza, and the civilian population.”

Gaza under occupation — by Hamas!

Ayalon might imagine he’s cleverly modifying the concept of “occupation” but the twist will persuade no one in Gaza, which — an ease to the restrictions on the flow of goods notwithstanding — remains the world’s largest prison.

Indeed, the seeming intransigence of Hamas has been in response to this very fact: that the reward for the moderation that the Palestinian Authority has already exhibited and in whose footsteps Hamas is being implored to follow is not self determination but an occupation with no end in sight. In this respect, Hamas, far from representing the extreme position it is claimed to hold, exhibits a sober realism, which is to say, it sees little evidence that concessions by Palestinians are matched with concessions by Israel.

CENTCOM’s Red Team may have concerned themselves only with the issue of “mainstreaming” Hamas and Hezbollah yet the possibility of that happening may depend less on the internal workings of each Islamist organization and more on the extent to which realism can be mainstreamed inside Washington.

The Obama administration’s support for the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in favor of a ridiculously broad interpretation of the meaning of “material support” (as applied to so-called Foreign Terrorist Organizations and thus both Hamas and Hezbollah) is not a promising sign.

Facebooktwittermail

The shifting sands of state power in the Middle East

In The Washington Quarterly, Alastair Crooke writes:

In his commendably candid interview with Time in January 2010, President Barack Obama noted that managing politics in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict “is just really hard.” The president, however, might well have been speaking about the Middle East as a whole. It is not just the Israeli-Palestinian track that has been difficult, so too have the Iranian and Syrian tracks, where engagement has not taken traction. Iran, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Syria—nothing has been exactly easy for US policymakers this past year. To be fair to the president, he has taken office at a time when the whole region is journeying into a new era. In a sense, the president is facing the consequences of three key events that took place in the region more than 20 years ago.

That the dynamics for change arising from this triumvirate of events should have culminated at the outset of Obama’s term is unfortunate. But the reality is that the strategic balance within the Middle East was already tipping. Change on several planes—at conventional state politics, economics, and within Islam—were already underway. The consequence of this is that the United States’ old allies in the ‘‘southern tier’’—namely Egypt and Saudi Arabia—are likely to wield less influence in the future. The ‘‘northern tier’’—which includes Turkey along with Iran, Qatar, Syria, and possibly Iraq and Lebanon—represents the nascent “axis of influence” for the coming regional era, barring war.

The prospective bitter struggle—already begun—over the future of the region, and over the shaping of Islam closely interconnected to the balance of power, will not see a region that becomes any “easier” for the United States to deal with. The question is whether or not the United States can accommodate some of the unfolding changes. As it remains obsessed with dissections of Israeli politics and bilateral relations, can it even recognize the broader regional changes? Will it adjust to them, or will the United States seek to inoculate itself by clinging to nation-state structures from the 1920s?

Download the complete article in PDF format here.

Facebooktwittermail

Let the flotillas through

In the Jerusalem Post, Larry Derfner writes:

The Iranians say the ship Infants of Gaza is due to sail on Sunday, carrying humanitarian aid and 10 pro- Palestinian activists to the Gazan shore.

The Lebanese say two more relief ships, one of them carrying just women passengers, will leave soon for Cyprus and go on from there to Gaza.

Israel has sworn to stop the ships, saying Gaza cannot become an “Iranian port.”

Navy commandos are preparing to face suicide bombers.

I feel another fiasco in the making, only this time we’re in much worse shape because we’re still reeling from the one with the Mavi Marmara. So if these Iranian and Lebanese ships come sailing toward Gaza, I say we let them through.

It’ll be a victory for Iran, Lebanon and Hamas and a humiliation for Israel, as well as for the moderate West Bank Palestinians. The problem is that if we forcibly stop the ships, especially if there’s bloodshed, which there well may be, it’ll be an even greater victory for the Islamists and an even worse humiliation for Israel and the West Bankers. There’s a clear downside to ending the blockade, but there’s no future at all in maintaining it.

The folks on the flotillas have discovered our weak spot. They’re attacking us at our least defensible point – our control over the Palestinians and their coast in Gaza, which the world opposes. These flotillas are turning our own military power against us. There are more relief ships getting ready to go to Gaza than there are captains to steer them – and the passengers will be not only Islamists, but also many decent, reasonable people, including Jews, who believe they’re doing what’s best for Palestinians and Israelis both.

“The experience of the Free Gaza Movement over the past few years, which sent half a dozen boat expeditions to deliver humanitarian aid to Gazans, suggests to many that in-your-face confrontation is the most effective way to challenge Israel and force it to change its policies,” Rami Khouri, the liberal editor-at-large of Lebanon’s Daily Star, wrote on Wednesday. “I suspect that the Free Gaza Movement’s siege-breaking ships will go down in modern history as critical elements in the struggle for justice in Palestine, aiming for conditions that allow Jews, Christians and Muslims… to live in this land with equal rights.”

Khouri suggests:

Jews, Christians and Muslims may well remember the challenge and collapse of the Israeli siege of Gaza as that pivotal moment in the struggle between Zionism and Arabism in Palestine. The ships to come will clarify this in due course, because they do not challenge Israel’s existence or security, but only its inhumanity towards the Palestinians.

If this does indeed turn out to have been such a pivotal moment it will in large measure be because the world’s attention was drawn not by the siege-challengers themselves but by Israel’s irrational and unconscionable use of violence — and the Jewish state’s proclivity to make self-defense, self-destructive.

The Western media’s lack of interest in the Freedom Flotilla was perfectly evident from the fact that there were only two mainstream media journalists aboard — Paul McGeough and Kate Geraghty from the Sydney Morning Herald who secured berths at the last minute. Had the IDF not attacked the Mavi Marmara and killed civilians, this particular challenge to the siege would have been nothing more than a one day story in much of the global press — and a rather minor one at that. The Netanyahu government can take full “credit” for having given this act of civil disobedience its lasting importance. If the Israelis still fail to recognize that fact, the depth of their stupidity is staggering.

Larry Derfner is no doubt very well-intentioned in his appeal that Israel’s leaders now come to their senses, but he’s clearly realistic and without optimism when he says: “I’d feel safer if this government, as a matter of principle, tried to take as little action as possible. On everything, even the little things, but certainly on something with as much potential for catastrophe as a confrontation at sea with ships from Iran and Lebanon.”

Meanwhile, DPA reports:

Council of Europe parliamentarians Thursday called on Israel to completely lift its siege of the Gaza Strip, days after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered an ease of the land blockade.

“Without prejudice to its own security,” Israel should allow goods to be delivered to the coastal enclave by land and sea, so Palestinians can enjoy “normal living conditions,” a resolution adopted by a large majority of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) said.

PACE, consisting of parliamentarians from the 47 members of the Council of Europe, meets four times a year to debate topical issues and give policy advice to the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The parliamentarians also criticized the Israeli raid of a Gaza- bound aid flotilla last month as a breach of international law, calling it “manifestly disproportionate.”

Facebooktwittermail

Hezbollah’s coalition partner meets Obama

At the pro-Israeli Washington Institute for Near East Policy, David Schenker writes:

On Monday, Lebanese prime minister Saad Hariri will visit Washington for a meeting with President Obama. In announcing the meeting, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs called it “a symbol of the close and historic relationship between Lebanon and the United States.” Indeed, between 2005 and 2009, bilateral ties were never closer or more consequential, with the Cedar Revolution ending nearly three decades of Syrian suzerainty in the country. Over the past year, however, Hariri has had to govern in coalition with Hizballah. The Iranian-Syrian backed Shiite militia will be the elephant in the Oval Office during Monday’s meeting.

Prior to becoming prime minister, Hariri was a frequent visitor to the Bush White House as head of Lebanon’s ruling March 14 coalition. This will be his first visit as premier, his first meeting with Obama, and his first trip to the White House since last year’s seeming reversal of the Cedar Revolution. Although Syria no longer has troops stationed across the border, President Bashar al-Asad’s allies in Lebanon have retrenched in recent months and once again wield preponderant political influence. Meanwhile, the March 14 coalition has been dramatically weakened by attrition and defections at home and abroad that have led the movement to moderate its pro-Western stance and embrace — at least rhetorically — Hizballah’s “resistance” doctrine.

Phil Sands, at The National, adds:

Syria and Lebanon have agreed they will present a united front of opposition to Israel and support for Hizbollah, when the Lebanese prime minister, Saad Hariri, travels to Washington next week.

Syria’s president, Bashar Assad, held talks with the Lebanese leader in Damascus on Tuesday. In contrast to Mr Hariri’s first prime ministerial visit to Syria in December, when he was joined by a large government delegation, this time only senior aides accompanied the two.

Bussaina Shaaban, a Syrian presidential adviser, said the meeting was designed to “co-ordinate policy” ahead of Mr Hariri’s trip to the United States, expected to take place on Monday.

There’s little question that like all other Lebanese politicians, Saad Hariri depends for his survival on a good measure of expediency and pragmatism, but even so, are we really to believe that he is tightening his bonds with the people who killed his father? Or is it time to acknowledge that whoever was benefited by the assassination of Rafic Hariri, it wasn’t Syria.

As Bill Van Auken wrote in 2005:

If one asks the question, “Who benefits?” the answer is clear. The destabilization of Lebanon, the mobilization of the US-backed opposition to the pro-Syrian government in Beirut, and the vilification of Damascus all serve to advance US and Israeli strategic plans long in the making.

It is not just a question of motive, however. Israel has a long history of utilizing assassination as an instrument of state policy. The Israeli regime has not infrequently carried out acts of terror and blamed them on its enemies.

And that was written before the assassinations of the Hezbollah commander Imad Mughniyah in Damascus in 2008 and of the Hamas commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai in January this year, both of which killings were attributed to Mossad.

Facebooktwittermail

American hypocrisy on weapons in the Middle East

Haaretz reports:

The U.S. administration has asked Syrian President Bashar Assad to immediately stop transferring arms to Hezbollah. American officials made the request during a meeting Friday with the Syrian ambassador to Washington.

Al-Hayat reports Hillary Clinton sent a message to Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri on the need to curtail arms smuggling to Hezbollah. “Not a problem” said Berri, but that the US must also stop arming Israel with weapons and equipment.

Facebooktwittermail

At what point will the West dump Israel?

For those of us who view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as being an issue of injustice, there’s plenty of reason to believe no resolution is in sight simply because justice is one of the weakest among the principles governing world affairs. To this extent, Israeli leaders can feel confident in their sense of impunity.

But there is another line Israel crosses at its peril: where its actions conflict with the commercial interests of its allies. Israel can be a moral liability but it cannot be a financial liability.

US taxpayers have every reason to feel that Israel, as the largest single recipient of US foreign aid, is already a massive financial liability. Even so, since most of those tax dollars get plowed straight back into the US defense industry, Washington is unlikely to become more attentive to the concerns of ordinary American citizens than it is to the interests of its corporate sponsors.

Nevertheless, there is now reason to think that with the murder of Mahmoud al Mabhouh in Dubai, Israel crossed a line that strains the limits of Western tolerance. Western governments would have paid scant attention to this event were it not for one egregious error by Mossad: its flagrant disregard for the integrity of foreign passports.

For many international travelers from Western countries, a passport might seem like nothing more than an obligatory document of no extraordinary value, yet in many ways these carefully bound and embossed permits are the lubricants of globalization. Swift passage through immigration control is one of the things that keeps the wheels of business turning smoothly.

But anyone traveling to the Middle East on an EU or Australian passport will now face a new level of scrutiny from immigration officers intent on blocking the passage of Israeli assassins.

Dubai’s police chief Lt Gen Dahi Khalfan Tamim announced on Monday that any travelers suspected of being Israeli, even if they hold passports from another country, will now be barred from entry into the UAE.

Asharq Al-Awsat reports that any foreign traveler visiting Lebanon who has a Jewish name will now be placed under surveillance.

Major General Wafiq Jizzini, director general of the Lebanese Public Security, said: “When someone comes to Lebanon on a foreign passport and the name of his family indicates that he is of Jewish origin, the border center sends the information to the central information office at the General Directorate of the Public Security. Afterward, the directorate observes this person who would have already registered his address in Lebanon. Both the visiting person and the one who receives him at the airport are observed.”

Israeli leaders such as Israel’s minister of industry, trade and labor, Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, who still regard the Dubai murder as a victory for Israel, have further reason to question that conclusion as fallout from the operation has now reached the United Nations General Assembly.

On Friday, the only countries willing to side with Israel in opposing a resolution that makes a renewed call for the investigation of war crimes committed during Israel’s war on Gaza, were the United States, Canada, Micronesia, Nauru, Panama, and Macedonia.

Australian government sources informed the Sydney Morning Herald that there was a direct connection between the UN vote and the Dubai affair:

Britain, France and Germany have all recently expressed anger at Israel after their passports were caught up in the Dubai plot.

One Department of Foreign Affairs source told the Herald there was no doubt the decision to abstain was intended as a sign to Israel not to take Australian support for granted.

“A number of things made it easier for us to switch our vote,” the source said.

“Firstly, the Americans helped the Palestinians to soften the wording of this resolution compared to the last one. Secondly, a number of other countries had indicated that they were toughening their own positions on Goldstone. But there is no question that the debacle surrounding our passports being used in Dubai helped to make up the government’s mind to abstain. The final decision was taken late on Friday, Australian time, just a few hours before the vote.

“Our pattern in the past has been to vote with the US when it comes to Israel, to show as much support for Israel as possible.

“We were also aware that the UK’s decision to vote in favour of the resolution was influenced by the fact that so many of their citizens had been caught up in the Dubai assassination.”

Israelis would do well to remember that even among their most effusive supporters, an allegiance to business invariably trumps all others.

Facebooktwittermail

Lebanon’s AK-47 index may be pointing to war

From The National:

[Abu Mahdi, an arms dealer in southern Beirut] says the high point for the price of the AK-47 was in the period of major Sunni and Shiite sectarian tension that preceded the May 2008 clashes between Hizbollah and its allies against groups of Sunnis loyal to the government.

“In the days before the action, I knew that something was going to happen because prices jumped to $1,300 per AK,” he said. “It’s come down just a little but business is too much for this peace to last. Everyone is walking the streets acting all good, but they’re lying.”

This prediction is based on several factors, according to Mr Mahdi. The first is a widespread concern by Hizbollah that al Qa’eda-style groups, who cannot resist having their biggest enemies – the Shiite and Israel – in such close proximity, will target Lebanon. The second problem is a lack of faith in Lebanon’s government.

“There is no government, those people are useless,” says Mr Mahdi. “No one trusts them to keep the peace, so everyone buys weapons to protect their homes and families. Normally I sell about 30 to 40 machine guns a month but right now, it’s double that. And the price is $1,200 for a gun in good condition, almost as high as May 2008.”

“But I know there is a real problem on the streets right now not just because of the machine guns but because I am selling so many RPG (rocket-propelled grenade) launchers. People only buy grenades when they think war is coming. An RPG isn’t really a weapon you use to protect your house, but everyone is buying them anyway. Not good.”

Facebooktwittermail

Report: Turkey warns Lebanon that Israel may be planning attack

Report: Turkey warns Lebanon that Israel may be planning attack
Haaretz, January 14, 2010

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan this week warned Lebanese leaders that Israel may be planning an attack on its northern neighbor, Lebanese sources told the London-based Arabic language daily A-Sharq al-Awsat on Thursday.

At a meeting in Ankara with Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri and President Michel Suleiman on Monday, Erdogan declared that Israel was endangering world peace by using exaggerated force against the Palestinians, breaching Lebanon’s air space and waters and for not revealing the details of its nuclear program.

Erdogan called on the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council to pressure Israel over its nuclear program in the same way that the international community has been dealing with Iran. “Israel never denied that it has nuclear weapons,” said Erdogan. “In fact, it has admitted to such.” [continued…]

Turkish-Israeli tension on the axis of the ‘Damascus Province’
By Cengiz Candar, Hurriyet Daily News, January 13, 2010

As Turkish-Israeli relations turn sour, Turkey has lifted the visas to all Arab countries neighboring Israel and a political-economic integration is being pursued.

This means being a “center of power” in the region.

But if you pay attention to Erdoğan’s remark on Israel the other day in the press conference with Hariri, you realize that Turkish Prime Minister said: “Israel says ‘I am the power of the region’ because there is an imbalance of opportunities. We never approve of this picture. We will continue to be with the aggrieved.”

Against a state that declares itself to be the power of the region just because of having more opportunities than the others, Turkey gathers the “aggrieved” around it, lifts visas, engages in serious economic ties and does all these by applying “soft power” only.

We should expect more reactions to come because Turkey and its prime minister have made serious moves against Israel and have caused debates both at in the region and outside it. [continued…]

Danny Ayalon should resign for provoking shameful crisis vis-à-vis Turkey
By Adi Dvir, Ynet, January 14, 2010

Diplomatic crises are a dime a dozen these days, but the most recent one, orchestrated by Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, has delivered a gut-wrenching blow to Israel’s dignity.

The Turkish television show that enraged the Foreign Ministry is indeed insulting, and somewhat reminiscent of an earlier crisis involving Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet. In that case too, the Foreign Ministry came out with guns blazing. A silly and wholly unsubstantiated tabloid article that could have gone totally unnoticed was turned into a battle with the Swedish government.

Like the Swedish tabloid article, the Turkish television show was given more credibility by Israel’s vehement response to it. However, the crisis with Turkey had far more devastating results, as it ended with an official apology to a state now widely viewed as biased against Israel – a state which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu believes is inching closer to Iran every day. [continued…]

Ayalon apologizes following Turkish deadline
By Amnon Meranda, Ynet, January 13, 2010

Ayalon’s office said later Wednesday that “now, following President Peres’ appeal and with respect to his request, a letter has been sent from the deputy foreign minister to the Turkish ambassador to Israel.”

The deputy foreign minister addressed the Knesset on Wednesday evening and said that “Israel will eventually benefit, and I believe that the relations between Israel and Turkey will also benefit” from the diplomatic incident.

The deputy minister was asked by Knesset Member Carmel Shama (Likud), “Was everything that happened preplanned?” Ayalon responded, “I think we should leave an element of surprise for our rivals and enemies… Let’s leave it, let them decide.” [continued…]

Facebooktwittermail

Lebanon drama adds act with leader’s trip to Syria

Lebanon drama adds act with leader’s trip to Syria
By Robert F Worth, New York Times, December 21, 2009

In any other part of the world, a new prime minister’s visit to a neighboring country would be a fairly routine event. But Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s trip to Syria over the weekend has been treated here as a kind of Lebanese national drama, the subject of almost endless commentary in newspapers and television shows.

It is not that anything really happened. Mr. Hariri and President Bashar al-Assad of Syria exchanged some thoroughly forgettable diplomatic banter and posed for photographs.

Instead, the trip epitomized a national story with anguished, almost operatic dimensions: a young leader forced to shake hands with the man who he believes killed his father. And it served as a reminder of this region’s deep attachment to political symbolism.

For many Lebanese, the visit was a measure of Syria’s renewed influence over Lebanon after years of bitterness and struggle since the Syrian military’s withdrawal in 2005. That withdrawal came after Mr. Hariri’s father, former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, was killed in a car bombing that many here believe to have been ordered by Syria.

The withdrawal was a blow to Syrian prestige, and afterward Saad Hariri seemed to have the entire Western world at his back as he built a movement for greater Lebanese independence and pushed for an international tribunal to try his father’s killers.

But since then, the United States and the West have chosen to engage with Syria, not isolate it. And Saudi Arabia, which has long backed Mr. Hariri and competed with Syria for influence here, reconciled with the Syrians earlier this year, leaving them a freer hand to guide politics in Lebanon as they once did. [continued…]

Facebooktwittermail

Hezbollah gears up for new war

Hezbollah gears up for new war
By Mitchell Prothero and Peter Beaumont, The Observer, November 8, 2009

Hezbollah is rapidly rearming in preparation for a new conflict with Israel, fearing that Benjamin Netanyahu’s government will attack Lebanon again prior to any assault on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Last week, Israeli commandos seized a ship in the Mediterranean loaded with almost 400 tonnes of rockets and small arms – which Israel claimed was being sent from Iran to its Hezbollah allies. In dramatic further evidence of growing tensions, the Observer has learned that Hezbollah fighters have been busy reinforcing fixed defence positions north of the Litani river.

Having lost many of its bunkers in the south, Hezbollah is preparing a new strategy to defend villages there.

Although the organisation denied last week that the weapons were intended for its use, senior commanders have done little to disguise the scale of rearmament. “Sure, we are rearming, we have even said that we have far more rockets and missiles than we did in 2006,” said a Hezbollah commander, speaking on condition of anonymity. [continued…]

Editor’s Comment — “We expect the Israelis to come soon, if not this winter, then they will wait until spring, when the ground isn’t too soft for their tanks,” says a Hezbollah commander.

Israel’s readiness to launch an attack on Iran may hinge on its readiness to send tanks back into Lebanon.

The war on Gaza, even to the extent that it may have served as a training exercise in preparation for another round of fighting with Hezbollah, probably did little to dispel the haunting memories of 2006. The Merkava tank, previously one of the IDF’s most potent symbols of invincibility, ended up exposing Israel’s military vulnerability.

Facebooktwittermail

Eavesdropping sparks fresh border tension between Lebanon and Israel

Eavesdropping sparks fresh border tension
By Mitchell Prothero, The National, October 20, 2009

Hizbollah’s discovery of at least three eavesdropping devices planted in southern Lebanon by the Israeli military last weekend has inflamed an already tense border situation as the Lebanese armed forces fired anti-aircraft weapons at unmanned Israeli drones sent to survey the situation.

The situation began in the border village of Houla, a Hizbollah stronghold, on Sunday night, when, according to a statement by Hizbollah’s military wing, the Islamic Resistance discovered devices planted underground by Israel to spy on the group’s internal communications. One of those devices exploded on Sunday night.

“The Islamic Resistance has discovered a spying device installed by the Israeli enemy on a cable between the villages of Mays and Jebel after the 2006 war,” the Lebanese militant faction said in a statement. [continued…]

Facebooktwittermail