LCCC
ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
November 28/09
Bible Reading of the day
John 6/35-51: "Jesus said to
them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will not be hungry, and he who
believes in me will never be thirsty. 6:36 But I told you that you have seen me,
and yet you don’t believe. 6:37 All those whom the Father gives me will come to
me. He who comes to me I will in no way throw out. 6:38 For I have come down
from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me. 6:39 This
is the will of my Father who sent me, that of all he has given to me I should
lose nothing, but should raise him up at the last day. 6:40 This is the will of
the one who sent me, that everyone who sees the Son, and believes in him, should
have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” 6:41 The Jews
therefore murmured concerning him, because he said, “I am the bread which came
down out of heaven.” 6:42 They said, “Isn’t this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose
father and mother we know? How then does he say, ‘I have come down out of
heaven?’” 6:43 Therefore Jesus answered them, “Don’t murmur among yourselves.
6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will
raise him up in the last day. 6:45 It is written in the prophets, ‘They will all
be taught by God.’* Therefore everyone who hears from the Father, and has
learned, comes to me. 6:46 Not that anyone has seen the Father, except he who is
from God. He has seen the Father. 6:47 Most certainly, I tell you, he who
believes in me has eternal life. 6:48 I am the bread of life. 6:49 Your fathers
ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 6:50 This is the bread which
comes down out of heaven, that anyone may eat of it and not die. 6:51 I am the
living bread which came down out of heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he
will live forever. Yes, the bread which I will give for the life of the world is
my flesh.”
Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special
Reports
Permanent government,
Lebanese style/By: Michael Young/November 27/09
Lebanon accepts Hezbollah’s weapons and Congress prepares its
reply/By:
Franklin Lamb/November 27/09
Chasing Ghosts/By: Lee
Smith/November 27/09
Corruption: the deadly 'joke'/The
Daily Star/November 27/09
Latest
News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for November 27/09
Hariri: The Resistance has
its Weight in Lebanon/Naharnet
Ministerial Policy Statement Committee Adopts Final Draft Amid Harb, Al-Sayegh
Reservations/Naharnet
Qabbani Warns from Leap into Unknown, Qabalan for Abolishing Confessionalism in
Politics/Naharnet
Rifi: Qaida Not Real Threat to
Lebanon, Terror Groups Get Local or Gulf Funding/Naharnet
Report: UAE Not to Deport Siddiq/Naharnet
Four Lebanese Hajj
Pilgrims Die/Naharnet
Israel Denies Ghajar
Withdrawal/Naharnet
Statement grants state monopoly
on political policy/Daily Star
Palestinian-rights boss resigns
to make way for government/Daily
Star
State Shura Council announces
'positive' year of 'respectable decisions'/Daily
Star
UNIFIL: No formal communication
on Ghajar withdrawal/Daily
Star
A(H1N1) can be contained, says
Health Ministry as flu season arrives/Daily
Star
Minister proposes hotline for
environment complaints/Daily
Star
Jumblatt grants land for Balamand
University campus/Daily
Star
Unknown arsonists set fire to three cars in Bekaa/Daily
Star
Fadlallah urges peace during Eid al-Adha address/Daily
Star
Kahwaji calls for boost in army
combat capabilities/Daily
Star
LAU discussions explore Darwin's
theory of evolution/Daily
Star
Rights restrictions hamstring
refugees' 'right of return'/Daily
Star
Workshop preps Palestinians to
report their story/Daily
Star
Gunpoint taxi muggings on rise in
Beirut/Daily Star
Statement grants state monopoly on political policy
Qassem: Hizbullah’s arms not negotiable in any framework
By Elias Sakr and Nafez Qawas
/Daily Star staff
Friday, November 27, 2009
BEIRUT: The ministerial committee tasked with formulating the Cabinet’s policy
statement concluded on Thursday its discussions with another compromise granting
the state monopoly over matters which relate to the country’s political policy
while also highlighting Lebanon’s right to liberate its occupied territories
“by means of its army, resistance and people.”
The statement was finalized after March 14 Christian ministers pushed for two
additions regarding the monopoly of the state’s authority over all matters
relating to the country’s political policy and to schedule discussions on a
defense strategy during national dialogue sessions.
“The government underscores the monopoly of the state’s authority over all
matters relating to the country’s political policy in a way that preserves
Lebanon, its unity and sovereignty,” Article two of the statement said. Another
addition to the statement also proposed by March 14 Christian ministers stressed
the “Cabinet’s work to unite the Lebanese stance by agreeing on a national
defense strategy to be ratified during national dialogue.”
Nevertheless, the statement similarly to that of the previous cabinet mentioned
the debated clause between March 14 Christian parties and the opposition
regarding Lebanon’s right to resistance in order to liberate its occupied
territories.
“Based on the Cabinet’s responsibility to preserve Lebanon’s sovereignty, its
independence, unity and the safety of its land, the government underscores
Lebanon’s right through its people, army and resistance to liberate or regain
[authority] of Shebaa Farms, Kfarshouba hills and the occupied part of Ghajar
village and defend the country against any aggression,” article six of the
statement said.
The ministerial statement also underlined Lebanon’s full commitment to Security
Council Resolution 1701 and to the implementation of the Taif Accord.
The Cabinet is expected to convene next week to approve the statement after
which Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri would hold a parliamentary session in order
to grant the government the vote of confidence.
“The committee tasked with formulating the ministerial statement held its last
meeting presided over by Premier Saad Hariri and finalized the statement’s draft
which is 22 pages; thus Hariri would contact the president to inform him on its
content and agree with the latter on a date for a Cabinet,” Information Minister
Tarik Mitri said. Despite the additions, Labor Minister Butros Harb and Phalange
Party official and Social Affairs Minister Selim Sayegh both expressed their
reservations on the statement saying the resistance clause was subject to debate
among the Lebanese. “The article in the ministerial statement concerning the
authority of the state, the resistance weapons and the defense strategy is not
the same as in the previous statement but essential amendments stressed the
state’s monopoly over the country’s political policy,” Harb said.
Sayegh said reservations were not a rejection to Lebanon’s right to resist but
rather an objection to restricting resistance to Hizbullah as a parallel force
to the Lebanese Army and state institutions. “Based on that principle and
despite all the amendments to the document we conveyed [through reservations]
the schism among the Lebanese regarding the issue as we demanded to include the
topic on the agenda of national dialogue,” Sayegh said.
He said his party would object to the article of the resistance in the next
Cabinet meeting to be held to approve the statement. Meanwhile, Hizbullah’s
number two Sheikh Naim Qassem stressed Thursday Hizbullah’s weapons were not
subject to discussions neither in Cabinet nor during national dialogue sessions.
“What is subject to discussion is the defense strategy and what the strategy
necessitates,” Qassem added.
Also, outside of the Cabinet, Lebanese Forces (LF) leader Samir Geagea said
Thursday Hizbullah’s weapons were illegitimate while stressing that the Taef
Accord did not mention the resistance. “Illegitimate arms contradict the
national pact of coexistence and Hizbullah’s possession of weapons in its
current form is not legitimate,” Geagea said, adding that Hizbullah is the party
with the most similarities to the LF on the popular organizational level but
with different ideologies and positions.
Tackling Berri’s call to abolish political sectarianism, Geagea said such a step
would first require the spread of the full authority of the state over all its
territories, adding that when the issue is tackled seriously, Hizbullah would be
the first to reject it. “Abolishing political sectarianism means abolishing
sectarianism as a whole,” Geagea said.
Geagea also praised the reconciliatory meetings being held under the sponsorship
of President Michel Sleiman at Baabda Palace as he expressed his readiness to
meet with Marada Movement leader Suleiman Franjieh anytime. Commenting on MP
Michel Aoun and MP Walid Jumblatt’s meeting Wednesday, Geagea said the talks
only took place after Jumblatt changed his political stance toward Syria. In
response to Geagea, Berri’s top political aide, MP Ali Hassan Khalil said that
the article concerning the resistance in the ministerial statement was one the
national principles. “The issue [resistance] approved by all the Lebanese people
reflects Lebanese consensus as we are keen on preserving the constitution and
the national pact,” Khalil said. Khalil added that Berri’s call to form a
committee tasked with abolishing political sectarianism was part of his efforts
to fully implement the Taif Accord similarly to the speaker’s suggestion to
instigate discussions regarding a national defense strategy.
Ministerial Policy Statement Committee Adopts Final Draft Amid
Harb, Al-Sayegh Reservations
Naharnet/The committee tasked with drafting the ministerial Policy Statement on
Thursday adopted the final draft amid reservations by Ministers Boutros Harb and
Salim al-Sayegh on the resistance article. After the tenth and last session,
Information Minister Tarek Mitri said that PM Saad Hariri will contact President
Michel Suleiman to inform him of the statement's draft content and to agree on a
date for the government session that will endorse the statement. Labor Minister
Boutros Harb said that the new formulation is not an identical copy of its
predecessor, stressing that the State's authority is highlighted in a way that
was not present in the previous statement. On his part, Social Affairs Minister
Salim al-Sayegh said: "We managed to improve the statement a lot regarding the
State's sovereignty and we do not accept that Hizbullah be mentioned in a
similar description as the Lebanese Army." Earlier Wednesday, the committee
concluded the platform after more than seven hours of discussions. The committee
agreed to adopt the same clause approved by the previous cabinet over the
resistance's arms.
The Phalange Party and Lebanese Forces argue that Hizbullah's arsenal undermines
state authority and runs counter to U.N. resolutions.
An Nahar daily said Thursday that the conferees introduced a new section on the
government's priorities under the headline of "The priorities of the People …
The Priorities of the Cabinet."
An Nahar quoted ministerial sources as saying that for the first time, the
committee discussed 13-14 priorities, a sign that the cabinet "will put all
conflicting issues aside and focus on the people's concerns such as electricity
and water." Beirut, 26 Nov 09, 17:09
Hariri: The Resistance has its Weight in Lebanon
Naharnet/Prime Minister Saad Hariri has reportedly expressed relief at the
results achieved by the ministerial committee tasked with drafting the policy
statement.
As Safir daily on Friday quoted Hariri's visitors as stressing on the need to
keep the atmosphere of consensus in the country. Hariri also said that he would
become the prime minister of all Lebanese. The Mustaqbal movement leader has
stressed on the importance of setting up brotherly ties between Lebanon and
Syria based on historic links and common interests. Hariri, according to his
visitors, has said that the resistance is a fact that we cannot ignore and has
its weight in Lebanese society. The prime minister also reportedly told his
visitors that the latest results of the parliamentary polls showed that people
renewed their trust in the resistance and the people's choice should be
respected. He rejected turning the issue of the resistance into a source of
Sunni-Shiite tension. "We were in disagreement with the resistance at a certain
stage but we have turned the page." The resistance clause in the policy
statement states the right of "Lebanon, its government, its people, its army and
its resistance" to liberate all Lebanese territory. Meanwhile, Hariri met with
Hizbullah chief's political assistant Hussein Khalil in Center House on Thursday
night in the presence of Nader Hariri and Mustafa Nasser. The two men discussed
the latest political developments, according to a statement issued by Hariri's
press office. Beirut, 27 Nov 09, 09:12
Rifi: Qaida Not Real Threat to Lebanon, Terror Groups Get Local or Gulf Funding
Naharnet/Internal Security Forces chief Maj. Gen. Ashraf Rifi has said al-Qaida
network does not constitute a real threat to Lebanon adding that local criminal
or Gulf sources are funding terrorist groups in the country. Al-Qaida "hasn't
been entrenched in Lebanon. It seems that al-Qaida does not consider our land a
land of Jihad," Rifi told France's Defense magazine.
"We could sometimes find in Lebanon groupings that adopt al-Qaida's ideas but
without any ties with it," the ISF chief said, adding the reason behind it was
the openness of Sunni Lebanese on the west, a move that prevents planting the
terror network's ideology in Lebanon. About the financial support of terrorist
groups in Lebanon, Rifi told the magazine that the funding was from "local
criminal or Gulf sources." "Some groups fund themselves through criminal
activities such as bank robberies and human trafficking," he said. "However, as
a big number of reports indicate, other groups get funding from Arab Gulf
countries." "When I say the Gulf I don't necessarily mean the governments. I
mean private parties that sponsor their networks," The ISF chief said. Beirut,
27 Nov 09, 08:11
Report: UAE Not to Deport Siddiq
Naharnet/The UAE will not extradite a former Syrian spy accused of misleading
the U.N. probe into the murder of former Lebanese Premier Rafik Hariri, Gulf
News reported on Friday, citing an official source. There is no case for
extraditing Mohammed Zuhair Siddiq as he is not wanted by the court in Syria,
the source said. Siddiq was initially seen as a leading witness in the U.N.
probe but was discredited later for giving false testimony. In October, a state
security court in Abu Dhabi sentenced him to six months in jail and deportation
for entering the United Arab Emirates on a forged Czech passport. A defense
lawyer said the sentence would end in mid-October because of time Siddiq had
already spent in custody but it was uncertain whether he would be deported.
However, the official source said Siddiq remains in prison pending the decision
on his possible deportation. In initial reports of the U.N. inquiry commission
into Hariri's February 2005 assassination, Siddiq was described as a key
witness. He claimed that former President Emile Lahoud and Syrian President
Bashar Assad gave the order to kill Hariri, who opposed Damascus' grip over
Lebanon. However, Siddiq, a one-time member of Syria's intelligence services,
later recanted, and Lebanese and Syrian judicial authorities accused him of
lying. In May, the prosecutor at the tribunal charged with bringing Hariri's
killers to justice said Siddiq was no longer a credible witness and was of no
interest to the inquiry.(AFP)Beirut, 27 Nov 09, 14:25
Qabbani Warns from Leap into Unknown, Qabalan for Abolishing Confessionalism in
Politics
Naharnet/The Lebanese celebrated Eid al-Adha on Friday as speeches of Sunni and
Shiite clerics focused on the need to launch the work of the new national unity
government on the basis of coexistence. Mufti Mohammed Rashid Qabbani warned
from a leap into the unknown and called for a government for all Lebanese. He
said during prayers at al-Amine mosque that the government should work as a
single and harmonious team that reflects the slogan of national unity. Following
prayers, Qabbani, PM Saad Hariri and other senior officials and religious
figures prayed at the grave of ex-Premier Rafik Hariri. Saad Hariri is traveling
to Saudi Arabia on Friday to spend the Eid with his family. Speaker Nabih Berri,
in his turn, has traveled to Greece on a private visit that will last several
days. Also Friday, Deputy Head of the Higher Islamic Shiite Council Sheikh Abdul
Amir Qabalan expressed his support for the setting up of the national committee
for the abolishment of confessionalism in politics "so that all Lebanese enjoy
the same rights." As for Druze spiritual leader Sheikh Naim Hassan, he said in
his Eid message that he looks forward for the next stage which should be free of
tension and based on national consensus and willingness to coexist. On Thursday,
senior Shiite cleric Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah called for peace and
warned against conflicts. He urged the Lebanese to unite and form a united
government that will work for the country's economic and political stability.
Fadlallah also voiced a call to all Arabs to let go of sectarian differences and
work together to fight Zionist threats. Beirut, 27 Nov 09, 09:53
Four Lebanese Hajj Pilgrims Die
Naharnet/Four Lebanese hajj pilgrims have died from natural causes, Lebanon's
Consul in Jeddah Ghassan Ahmed al-Muallem told As Safir newspaper. The pilgrims
were not the victims of torrential rains, which marred the first day of the
hajj, or of swine flu, according to al-Muallem. The consul did not reveal the
names of the victims. Beirut, 27 Nov 09, 07:47
Israel Denies Ghajar Withdrawal
Naharnet/Israeli security sources have denied that the government has any
intention to withdraw its troops from the northern part of the border village of
Ghajar for the time being, al-Akhbar daily reported Friday. It said Israel radio
quoted the sources as saying that several suggestions are being studied but no
final agreement has been reached yet over the pullout from Ghajar.
On Thursday, al-Akhbar quoted U.N. sources as saying that an Israeli withdrawal
from the Lebanese part of Ghajar was imminent, perhaps within "hours, not days."
"The step aims at decreasing the international criticism targeting Israel, after
the European Union's patience has expired concerning the issue of settlements,"
the official said. Beirut, 27 Nov 09, 09:31
Corruption: the deadly 'joke'
By The Daily Star
Friday, November 27, 2009
Editorial
There’s the old joke about the bureaucrat from our part of the world and a
bureaucrat from a Western country, who meet at a conference, form a friendship
and visit each other’s homes over the coming years. Our bureaucrat is greatly
impressed by the Westerner’s villa, and asks how he could have possibly afforded
it on a civil servant’s salary. The Westerner points out of the window to a
tunnel and says that he was responsible for supervision of the construction
project – without having to add that this meant a hefty commission.
When the Westerner finally visits our bureaucrat, he also encounters a villa and
is surprised, asking how it was possible. Our bureaucrat points out the window,
and asks, “Do you see that bridge?”“No,” is the response; without having to add
that here, the commission might end up being everything, with no project even
completed.
The fatal rainstorm on Saudi Arabia’s western coast reminds us of a real version
of this “joke,” which took place several years ago in Jeddah. A big firm
exploited its ties to local political officials to build a drainage system for
the city. When Riyadh realized something was amiss, it sent inspectors, who
discovered that no such infrastructure had actually been built. Locals in Jeddah
are still complaining about state of the sewer and drainage system, as this
flooding claims dozens of lives. This kind of institutional corruption might not
seem evil when it first takes place, but it certainly becomes evil when the
consequences take people’s lives.
While the government can’t do everything, and mistakes happen, our region is no
stranger to the depressing list of such disasters, which result from
institutional corruption. Here in Lebanon strong rainstorms cause havoc, due to
official negligence and a lack of decent infrastructure. Egypt suffers collapsed
buildings and ferry disasters. In all cases, institutional corruption is at the
root of the problem, and society pays a heavy price.The unpredictability of
weather adds another dangerous element to such tales, whether it’s tsunamis or
simply waves of heat, cold or rain. It’s not enough to trot out the record books
to show that huge sums of money have been spent on infrastructure. The money
must be spent efficiently, with proper oversight. Ending corruption will cause
pain to those who illegally benefit from connections to build things badly or
not at all, but that’s nothing compared to the possibility of being killed by
the consequences of such malfeasance.Earthquakes measuring 7 points on the
Richter scale struck Yerevan in 1988 and San Francisco in 1989. It wasn’t too
difficult to figure out why 25,000 people died in the former disaster, but only
around 50 in the latter.
Lebanon gives Hezbollah right to attack Israel
(On the other hand, Lebanon gives Israel the right to attack Lebanon)
AlArabiya.net/26 November 09
BEIRUT (AFP)
Lebanon's new cabinet has agreed on a policy statement that acknowledges
Hezbollah's right to use its weapons against Israel, despite disagreement by
some members of the ruling majority.
Information Minister Tarek Mitri said late Wednesday after a cabinet committee
set up to draft the statement met for the ninth time that an agreement had been
reached.
He said the new statement will retain the same clause approved by the previous
cabinet as concerns the arsenal of Hezbollah, which fought a devastating war
with Israel in 2006 and is considered a terrorist organization by Washington.
The clause states the right of "Lebanon, its government, its people, its army
and its resistance" to liberate all Lebanese territory.
Hezbollah is commonly referred to as the resistance in Lebanon. Mitri said that
reservations concerning the clause by members of the Western-backed majority
would be noted in the government program. Christian
members of the majority, including the Phalange Party and Lebanese Forces, argue
that Hezbollah's arsenal undermines state authority and runs counter to U.N.
resolutions. However the Shiite party, which has two
ministers in the 30-member unity cabinet, has made it clear that its weapons are
not open to discussion. The party argues its arms are necessary to protect the
country against any future aggression by Israel, which withdrew from southern
Lebanon in 2000 after a 22-year occupation.
Lebanon's new cabinet is headed by Prime Minister Saad Hariri, whose U.S.- and
Western-backed alliance defeated a Hezbollah-led opposition supported by Syria
and Iran in a June vote.
New Lebanese Government to Endorse Hizbullah
Attacks
by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz
Follow Israel news on and .
(IsraelNN.com) The new Lebanese government formed by Prime Minister Saad Hariri
will officially endorse the Hizbullah terror militia and grant legitimacy to its
attacks on Israel.
Hariri's national unity cabinet, including two members of Hizbullah, has been
attempting to hammer out government guidelines ever since its formation earlier
this month. A central sticking point has been Hizbullah's insistence that its
independent arsenal of weapons be officially endorsed by the state. According to
the Iranian-backed organization, its arms are non-negotiable. Cabinet members of
the Phalangist Party and the Lebanese Forces insist that Hizbullah weapons
undermine government authority and are in direct violation of U.N. Security
Council resolutions. The two parties initially said they would refuse to sign
off on any government guidelines that left Hizbullah free to use its arsenal
freely.
After nine attempts, according to Lebanese Information Minister Tarik Mitri, a
draft agreement was reached on Wednesday that grants the Hizbullah demand.
According to Mitri, the government guidelines will recognize the right "of
Lebanon, its government, its people, its army and its resistance" to liberate
Lebanese territory. The "resistance", in this case, refers directly to Hizbullah.
The language of the controversial clause is identical to the official position
of the previous administration of Fouad Siniora. The only difference in Hariri's
government is that the representatives of the Phalangists and Lebanese Forces
will officially note their reservations on the article in question.
While Hizbullah claims its weapons are strictly to defend Lebanon against
"Zionist aggression", in practice the Islamist militia has wantonly attacked the
Jewish state of its own initiative. It has also used its men and guns to impose
its will on the Lebanese state. In May 2008, following armed clashes in the
streets, the government agreed to grant Hizbullah veto power in the national
parliament.
Nonetheless, in response to Saad Hariri's inclusion of Hizbullah representatives
in his new government, United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
announced that the Americans now distinguish between the military and political
branches of Hizbullah.
Lebanon for the Lebanese, what the U.S. can do to help
November 26, 2009
This article by Peter Berkowitz in the Weekly Standard brings us up to date on
the situation in Lebanon, where an election was held in June, but a new
government is only now being formed. In the election, a moderate, pro-Western,
pro-democracy coalition -- led by Saad Hariri, son of the linfluential
anti-Syria eader whose death by car bombing in 2005 sparked the "Cedar
Revolution" -- exceeded expectations and obtained a small parliamentary
majority. The overriding issue, according to Peter, was "whether Lebanon would
submit to Hezbollah and the political authority of Syria and Iran, or build a
free and democratic state."
Although the voters opted for the latter alternative, the winning coalition was
unable to form a government for five months because Hezbollah blocked it --
formally, by means of the powers it obtained through the Doha Agreement (a deal
reached after Hezbollah forces took over Beirut in 2008), and informally,
through threats and intimidation. But the stalemate has finally been broken, at
least for now, by the formation of a "national unity government" in which 2 of
the 30 ministerial portfolios will go to Hezbollah politicians.
Conventional wisdom holds that Israel is the key to undermining Hezbollah's
influence. The idea is that if the Israelis would only abandon the small strip
of land they control in Southern Lebanon (Shebaa Farms) and negotiate the
creation of a Palestinian state, Hezbollah would lose its status as the heroic
resistance.
It's a convenient analysis inasmuch as it relieves the Lebanese of
responsibility for their own fate, but Peter rejects it. In his view,
"resistance does not refer merely to armed struggle against Israel's occupation
of this or that piece of land, or even the battle against Israel's very
existence, but a fight to the death against the claims of liberty and democracy
in Lebanon and throughout the region in the name of Islamic law as dictated by
the Iranian mullahs." What should the United States do?
First, the Obama administration can stop encouraging the widespread view, rooted
in decades of pan-Arab rhetoric, that the key to Middle East peace is solving
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Peace between Israel and the Palestinians
should be assiduously pursued, but to suppose that the absence of a final
agreement between them is what stands in the way of security and stability in
the Middle East is to play into the hands of Arab governments that cynically use
the conflict to shift their people's attention from their own countries'
internal failings and destabilizing ambitions. Second, the United States can
expand programs to support civil society in Lebanon, particularly K-12
education, and also economic development, particularly in the south, since one
way to loosen Hezbollah's grip is to enable the Lebanese government to better
provide the social services and financial support that, thanks to Iranian
financing, Hezbollah now delivers.
Third, the administration can redouble efforts to degrade Iran's ability to
deliver cash and transfer funds electronically to Hezbollah.
Fourth, it can place at the heart of engagement with Syria an insistence on
cutting off the enormous flow of ammunition, machine guns, bombs, rockets, and
missiles that Iran pumps through Damascus to southern Lebanon.
But ultimately, the future of Lebanon depends "most of all on crafting
strategies to thwart Tehran's export of Islamic revolution" which, in the near
term "depends most of all on thwarting Iran's drive to acquire nuclear weapons
2nd local arms indictment this week accuses 4 men
By DAVID GAMBACORTA
Philadelphia Daily News
gambacd@phillynews.com 215-854-5994
Federal authorities in Philadelphia announced charges yesterday against four men
for their alleged participation in a two-year plot to funnel money and weapons
to the terrorist group Hezbollah, the second local weapons indictment unsealed
this week.
According to an indictment filed yesterday by the U.S. Attorney's Office, two of
the men - Hassan Hodroj and Dib Hani Harb, both of Beirut, Lebanon - agreed in
June to buy 1,200 Colt M4 carbine assault rifles from a government informant in
Philadelphia. The weapons were intended to be shipped to Syria.
Authorities also charged six other men in connection with the plot. They played
lesser roles that centered on buying and transporting stolen cell phones,
sneakers and phony Mitchell & Ness jerseys, according to the indictment.
On Monday authorities charged 12 men in connection with a similar investigation
involving an undercover agent selling scores of stolen goods to men who directed
the items overseas.
The earlier indictments had one notable twist - a Slovakain man, Dani Nemr
Tarraf, had allegedly sought to have anti-aircraft missiles and 10,000 Colt M4
carbines shipped to Iran or Syria.
Tarraf was arrested in Philadelphia on Saturday, after, authorities said, he
arrived to inspect the missiles and machine guns, for which he allegedly had
paid a $20,000 down payment during the summer.
Federal officials declined to specify for whom the weapons were intended,
although Tarraf was quoted in an affidavit as saying that they were to be used
by "the Resistance."
Authorities said there was no question that the men at the center of this latest
investigation have ties to Hezbollah, the notorious resistance group based in
Lebanon.
According to the indictment, Harb arranged a meeting between the government
informant and a Hezbollah official on June 20, when the men discussed selling
weapons to Hezbollah.
A few days later, Harb and Hodroj agreed to pay the informant more than $2
million for 1,200 machine guns. Hodroj told the informant to send the weapons in
small shipments to the port of Latakia in Syria, the indictment shows.
Authorities allege that the men also sought to provide financial support to
Hezbollah through a variety of means.
In September, Harb allegedly mailed about $9,200 of counterfeit money to the
informant in Philadelphia.
According to the indictment, Harb previously claimed that the government of Iran
produced high-quality fake U.S. currency that was sold to benefit Hezbollah.
Harb and Hodroj face the most serious charges, including conspiracy to provide
materiel support to a designated foreign terrorist organization and conspiracy
to transport weapons in interstate commerce.
Also facing the serious charge of providing material support to a terrorist
organization are Moussa Ali Hamdan of Brooklyn and Hasan Antar Karaki of Beirut,
authorities said.
All four men are still on the loose and could face decades in prison.
Five men linked to the plot are in federal custody: Michael Katz of Plainsboro,
N.J.; Maodo Kane of the Bronx; Alaa Allia Ahmed Mohamed and Hassan el-Najjar,
both of Brooklyn; and Moustafa Habib Kassem of Staten Island, authorities said.
They face charges that include conspiracy to traffic in counterfeit goods and
conspiracy to transport stolen goods.
Hamdan allegedly made numerous purchases from the informant in Philadelphia.
Among his purchases, which were often shipped overseas: 334 counterfeit
Mitchell&Ness vintage sports jerseys, thousands of supposedly stolen cell phones
and fake Nike sneakers, and even a pair of Honda CR-Vs, according to the
indictment.
"The allegations contained in this complaint demonstrate how terrorist
organizations rely on a variety of underlying criminal activities to fund and
arm themselves," said David Kris, assistant attorney general for national
security.
Lebanon accepts Hezbollah’s weapons and Congress prepares its reply, 52 words
that shook Washington and may light up the region
November 27th, 2009
Franklin Lamb, Beirut
“It is the right of the Lebanese people, Army and the (Hezbollah led—ed.)Resistance
to liberate the Shebaa Farms, the Kfar Shuba Hills and the northern part of the
village of Ghajar as well as to defend Lebanon and its territorial waters in the
face of any enemy by all available and legal means.”
So reads the Policy Declaration of the new Government of the Republic of
Lebanon, issued on 11/26/09, four days after the celebration of Lebanon’s 66
years of independence from the French colonial power, achieved in 1943.
Legally, constitutionally, and politically, Lebanon’s new National Unity
Government policy legitimizes, embraces, and incorporates by reference,
according to some Pentagon and State Department analysts, the National Lebanese
Resistance.
For the US-Israel axis, the 52 words signal that Hezbollah- which since 2006 has
enjoyed majority popular support- and the State of Lebanon are inseparable and
indivisible with respect to defending this country from foreign interference and
occupation. It affixes the Governmental imprimatur for liberating Lebanese lands
still occupied by Israeli forces. According to some international lawyers, it
also fulfills UN Security Council Resolution 1559 regarding disarming militias
because Lebanon has in effect declared that the arms of the Hezbollah led
Resistance are part of the defense of Lebanon itself and not a particular
movement or political party. This Policy statement satisfies UNSCR 1701 for the
same reason.
Apart from the Phalange (Kataeb) Party and the Lebanese forces, and their
spokesmen Samir Geagea and Amin Gemeyal, who will continue to condemn the policy
declaration, the issue of Hezbollah’s arms has been essentially settled.
Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri stressed that “Hezbollah’s arms belong to all
Lebanese and their existence is linked to Israel’s withdrawal from all Lebanese
territory.”
Tawhid (Unifying) Party and Druze leader Wiam Wahhab went further and advised
the media following the Policy Statement approval, the same wording as was
reached at the 2008 Doha conference:
“Hezbollah’s arms will remain as long as there is conflict between the Arabs and
Israel. When the world tells us how the naturalization of Palestinians issue
will be resolved, then we will give details on how to deal with the arms of our
national resistance. They now belong to all of Lebanon.”
The message from Lebanon’s new government to the US administration is clear
according to Lebanese Human Rights Ambassador Ali Khalil:
“You can have very friendly relations with Lebanon but that means dealing with
Lebanon and our new government as a whole, not cherry picking certain ministries
or parties in Parliament. Aid, defensive arms and equipment, economy, trade,
should be negotiated with equality- not the US Embassy’s color coded push pin
political affiliation map used previously. Hezbollah is Lebanon and Lebanon is
Hezbollah. Try to understand and get used to it. You might be pleased if both
the US and Lebanon work for our own interests but dialogue with mutual respect.”
Many people in Lebanon and the region who support Hezbollah do so not because
they know all about or even very much care about the pillars of Shia Islam or
the role of the Wali al Faque but because they have experienced six decades of
Israeli aggression and six wars funded and armed by a US Congress that puts
Israel before its own country and way before any Arab country including Lebanon.
They realize that 18 years of a fake ‘peace process’ has brought nothing but
misery to the Palestinians and Lebanon whereas 18 years of Resistance has freed
most of Israel occupied Lebanese territory. And they realize that there is more
yet to be done.
UNIFIL sources reported this week that they expected Israel to withdraw from the
Lebanese village of Ghajar before the 12 member Cabinet committee voted to
legitimize Hezbollah’s arms, in order to upstage the Lebanese government
decision. The Israeli government, under US and EU pressure agreed, knowing that
its army could not hold the village during its next attack on Lebanon and
realizing that holding Ghajar meanwhile is not worth the political and military
price.
Actual Israeli troop withdrawal is expected at any moment against the backdrop
of more “cry wolf” threats such as yesterdays from Israeli defense minister Ehud
Barack that “all of Lebanon will pay the huge price for giving Hezbollah its
Government.” More than ever Lebanon’s population believes that Israel will also
pay a huge price if it launches a 7th war against Lebanon or attacks Iran or
Syria.
A conference call
In Washington and Beirut the response to Lebanon seems legitimization of
Hezbollah’s arms was publicly subdued. The US Embassy, for the second year in a
row mistakenly sent Eid al Fitr greetings to Lebanon’s President Michel
Suleiman, whereas this week’s holiday, which commemorates the annual Hajj
Pilgrimage and the 1,400 year old Muslim tradition of giving of meat to the
poor, is called Eid al Adha. Eid al Fitr actually follows Ramadan which ended
this year on September 19th. Anyhow, for sure it’s the thought that counts and
the White House did promptly correct the Beirut’s Embassy error and sent
President Obama’s and the American peoples Eid al Adha greetings yesterday at
2:15 p.m. Beirut time.
If Lebanon wants Hezbollah’s arms watch what we give Israel
Privately, the reaction to legitimizing Hezbollah’s deterrence to Israeli
aggressions is causing a strong reaction on Capitol Hill. AIPAC has another
Congressional Resolution ready to condemn Lebanon for capitulating to
‘terrorism’. Hard to believe as it is, some members of Congress are actually
tiring of all the Israel Lobby’s resolutions and the pressure tactics AIPAC uses
to get them passed irrespective of what they say or whether they are read.
Before the Thanksgiving break, AIPAC organized an urgent conference call among
11 Chairman, all Jewish or ardent Zionist, of key US Congressional committees,
including Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, Appropriations, Banking, Homeland
Security, Environment, and Aging, and Rules held a conference call arranged by
AIPAC.
Together, the group forms what AIPAC calls “Israel’s Firewall” which it and the
Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations conceived of and
formalized in late September 2001 “ to assure consultation and dialogue with
respect to how best to launch Congressional initiatives that will preserve the
special and unbreakable US-Israel relationship.”
In addition to the above members, others who have been approached to form the
‘firewall’ in the 111th Congress include all 13 Jewish members of the US Senate
and the 28 Jewish House Members as well as a couple of dozen trusted evangelical
Christian Zionist members.
According to a Zionist Organizations of America (ZOA) source, the group has not
been very active until recently. Decisions, if any that were taken the past
eight years by what is referred to by some on Capitol Hill as the “Israel Synod”
is not currently known.
One recent decision that has been taken was revealed by ZOA. The ‘fire wall’
project is to ‘fast track’ a dramatic increase in US military aid to Israel to
deal with perceived Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria, and Iranian threats to Israel.
“These people see an urgent need to clean house and restore Israel’s military
dominance and credibility”, claimed the ZOA source.
According to a staff member of the US Senate Armed Services Committee, the ‘
fire wall’ group plans to expedite US Congressional approval for more subsidies
for all or part of the funds needed by Israel to purchase U.S. weapons. This
will be in addition to Israel receiving over the past 24 months $ 2,070.1
billion from US taxpayers earmarked for this purpose.
AIPAC’s new ‘fire wall’ group will work for the 2010 deployment of the so called
“Iron Dome” that can unleash a metallic cloud to bring down incoming rockets in
the skies over Gaza or Lebanon as well as funding for a new generation of
Israel’s Arrow defense system designed to shoot down Iran's long-range missiles
at high altitudes.
In addition, Israel l will receive US funding for more German-made Dolphin
submarines that can be equipped with nuclear-tipped missiles for positioning off
the coast of Iran.
AIPAC’s problem is to get Congress to overrule Pentagon skepticism of much of
Israel’s ‘new weapons’ projects which some view as more psychological warfare
than reliable or usable effectively in future conflicts. AIPAC appears confident
and with good reason.
The Congressional Israel lobby has already achieved a commitment from the Obama
administration to add Israeli systems and munitions to a new U.S.-built F-35
Joint Strike Fighter and deliver 25 to Israel by 2015 with another 50 delivered
by 2018. The Obama administration will also integrate bombs that use an Israeli
precision guidance kit called Spice along with Python 5 air-to-air missiles made
by Israel's Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd. The ‘fire wall’ group is to
assure that Israel will also get a relatively inexpensive path for hardware and
software upgrades to add future weapons.
This seasons ‘mother of all bombs’
Another major Congressional weapons project for Israel is the Boeing
Corporations new 30,000 pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bomb.
The MOP carries more than 5,300 pounds of explosives and delivers more than 10
times the explosive power of its predecessor, the 2,000-pound BLU-109, according
to the Pentagon's Defense Threat Reduction Agency, which has funded and managed
the seed program. It is also about one-third heavier than the 21,000-pound
GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb – last season’s "mother of all bombs"
-- that was dropped twice in tests at a Florida range in 2003.
The 20-foot-long (6-metre) MOP is built to be dropped from either the B-52 or
the B-2 "stealth" bomber and is designed to penetrate up to 200 feet underground
before exploding, according to the U.S. Air Force. The Pentagons Central
Command, which is preparing for war with Iran- just in case- is backing a
acceleration request according to Kenneth Katzman, an expert on Iran at the
Congressional Research Service, the research arm of Congress. Israel wants them
to attack Hezbollah’s deep bunkers in South Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley.
If AIPAC can get Congress to shift enough funds to the program, Northrop Grumman
Corp (NOC.N)’s radar-evading B-2 bomber "would be capable of carrying the bomb
by July 2010. This claim has been verified by Andy Bourland, an Air Force
spokesman, who added, “There have been discussions with the four congressional
committees with oversight responsibilities. Officially no final decision has
been made."
In fact the decision has been made according to AIPAC and Congressional sources
and its “all systems go”.
-###-
Franklin Lamb is doing research in Lebanon and can be reached at fplamb@gmail.com
The Militarization of Sex
http://www.tajaddod-youth.com/in-the-media-page/1169/
Hanin GHADDAR
Foreign Policy
25.11.2009
Mohammad, a 40-year old Lebanese Shiite who lives in Hezbollah’s stronghold in
Beirut’s southern suburbs, was holding forth on the virtues of resistance,
loyalty, and sex. “You could create the most loyal army by providing political
power, social services and fulfilling the desires of your men — namely, sexual
ones,” he declared.
“And Hezbollah has been very successful in this regard,” Mohammad continued. It
is hard to disagree. Hezbollah liberated South Lebanon from Israeli occupation,
expanded the Shiite community’s political power within the country, and has
provided social services, such as health care and education, to its constituency
since the 1980s. Today, it is also working to fulfill the sexual needs of its
supporters, though a practice known as mutaa marriage.
Mutaa is a form of “temporary marriage” only acceptable within Shiite
communities, one that allows couples to have religiously sanctioned sex for a
limited period of time, without any commitments, and without the obligatory
involvement of religious figures. In conservative Muslim societies known for
their strict sense of propriety, mutaa offers an escape clause. The contract is
very simple. The woman says: “I marry myself to you for [a specific period of
time] and for [a specified dowry]” and the man says: “I accept.” The period can
range between one hour and a year, and is subject to renewal. A Muslim woman can
only marry a Muslim man, but a Muslim man can temporarily marry a Muslim,
Christian, or Jewish woman, as long as she is a divorcée or a widow. However,
those interviewed for this article confirmed that Hezbollah-the “Party of
God”-has allowed the practice to spread to virgins or girls who have never
married before, as long as the permission of her guardian (father or paternal
grandfather) is obtained.
Temporary marriage has long been practiced by Shiites around the world. However,
it has recently become more commonplace in Lebanon, notably within Hezbollah
strongholds in Beirut’s southern suburbs and in southern Lebanon after the 2006
war with Israel,
Hezbollah’s recent encouragement of this phenomenon highlights the compromises
it had been required to make in order to remain the preeminent force among its
domestic Shiite constituency. As the party gained strength due to its
effectiveness in fighting Israel, it was forced to cope with the reality that
many Lebanese Shiites did not share the Iranian-inspired religious beliefs of
Hezbollah’s leaders. They came to dominate a community that was shaped by the
secular leftist trends of the 1970s and 1980s, and the cosmopolitan culture
embodied by Beirut. Today, Lebanese Shiites are exposed to pop icons such as
sexpot singer Haifa Wehbe, countless Western advertisements and programs, and
technological innovations such as online dating. Allowing these Shia to balance
their sexual desires with their support for the “Resistance” against the
“Zionist entity” is a vital ingredient to Hezbollah’s staying power.
According to Shiite writer and activist Lokman Slim, Hezbollah party members are
not allowed to practice temporary marriage for security reasons, unless assigned
by the party to do so. “We should make a clear distinction between Hezbollah as
an organization and Hezbollah as it runs the community’s culture and social
affairs,” Slim said.
But for everyone else, Hezbollah apparently decided to expand its support for
this practice after the 2006 war, to maintain its support base and keep the
Shiites in Lebanon under its control. “After the 2006 war, Iranian money came to
Lebanon in abundance, and money opened the door to sexual luxury that could not
be ignored or controlled,” noted Slim. “Therefore, Hezbollah decided it is
easier to allow sex under certain religious titles in order to keep the control
over the community.”
The havoc wreaked by the 2006 war and a more difficult domestic political
situation also encouraged Hezbollah to shift its position in order to
consolidate support. Sheikh Mohammad Ali Hajj, imam of the Imam Ali Mosque in
the Sad Bouchrieh district of Beirut, remarked that after 2006, Hezbollah had to
strengthen its support among its communities. “They created a military group,
The Resistance Saraya, which took in anyone ready to join, religiously and
ideologically committed or not,” he said. “They had to contain the Shiite
community around it with all its aspects, the good and the bad, and found
measures to control it, including the temporary marriage,” he added.
Hezbollah is in charge of enforcing resolution in the event unpleasant scenarios
arise, such as pregnancy or disagreements between couples. “It is only a matter
of more control rather than being tolerant,” Slim explained.
There is no doubt that Hezbollah’s legitimization of mutaa has created
semi-official channels that Lebanese Shiites use to hook up. Hassan, a 30-year
old Shiite from Beirut’s southern suburbs, is a high school teacher. He
graduated from the Lebanese University with a bachelor’s degree in mathematics,
and considers himself secular but supports the resistance as a political, not a
religious, movement. He is enthusiastic about the initiative taken by a number
of Hezbollah party members and supporters to act as matchmakers between couples,
and sometimes turn their shops, bookstores and workplaces into meeting places
for young men and women.
“My cousin, a hard-core Hezbollah supporter, finds pleasure in using his
mini-market as a hub where both men and women refer to him to hook them up in a
temporary marriage. He even has Excel sheets to help him organize and control
the contacts, and of course he practices temporary marriage himself,” he added
with a smile.
Nevertheless, Hassan remains very critical of those in the community who use
this kind of marriage as a cover for prostitution networks functioning inside
the suburbs. “Some made it a trade and Hezbollah usually turns the blind eye to
these networks because they do not want the Lebanese Internal Security to
interfere in its stronghold.”
However, once the sex trade got out of control, Hezbollah finally requested the
ISF to enter the southern suburbs to help control some of the community’s
illegal practices, such as traffic, drugs, and prostitution. This month, The ISF
began coordinating with Hezbollah and the heads of local municipalities in the
southern suburbs under the slogan “Order comes from Faith,” initiated by
Hezbollah, to control these crimes.
There is also no shortage of ways that Shiite men and women make contact to form
a temporary marriage; sometimes, the experience ends up bringing them closer to
Hezbollah. Ali, for example, is a 26-year old man from southern Lebanon who has
“temporarily married” a number of girls in the last two years. “I usually meet
them in Hezbollah’s public library or the center, where young men and women
gather to attend religious and political preaching,” he explained.
The men and women are put in separate rooms, but he finds a way to communicate.
“If I want to approach a girl, I ask her for her number and call her later, but
mostly I get approached by girls who directly ask me if I am interested in
temporary marriage,” Ali said. “Although they are veiled from top to bottom, you
can always guess how she looks like from her face and eyes,” he added with a
wink.
With his designer jeans, trendy haircut, and sharp sense of humor, Ali seems to
be an unlikely Hezbollah supporter. He has always supported the resistance and
what Hezbollah has achieved in this regard; however, in the last couple of
years, he has developed a strong support for Hezbollah on issues he was
previously critical of, such as its affiliation with Iran, involvement in
domestic politics, and its religious rhetoric.
Coincidently or not, these developments took place as he was drawn to practice
temporary marriage. In his southern village, it is difficult to meet girls and
have normal relationships with them, and he acknowledges that getting closer to
the party’s social network has helped him meet more girls who were open to this
kind of marriage. Gradually, Ali stopped drinking alcoholic beverages, took up
praying and fasting, and never skipped a Hezbollah’s rally or village events,
where he also meets potential “wives.” However, it is obvious that the slickly
dressed Ali never gave up his love of fashion.
It is, of course, not only men who take advantage of mutaa. Zahra, a fully
veiled 25 year-old Shiite woman who is completing her master’s degree in English
literature, comes from a family of Hezbollah supporters and party members, and
has been a lifelong Hezbollah member herself. She explained that she practices
temporary marriage because it is a religious duty.
“I take good care of myself, and make sure I look perfect every time I go into a
mutaa marriage because I should please my husband, temporary or not,” she said.
“It is my religious duty to do so. God allowed this kind of marriage for a
reason, and I never question God’s wishes.”
Zahra is divorced and believes that Islam has acknowledged sexual desires for
both males and females, which is why temporary marriage is permissible. “It is
also a religious duty to fulfill your sexual desires,” she insisted, noting that
temporary marriages with women whose husbands had been killed fighting Israel
were especially encouraged. “[T]hose who satisfy widows of martyrs have more
reward in heaven,” she said.
While the practice of mutaa may sound exceedingly strange to those outside of
these communities, it is an important outlet for many Lebanese Shiites. As the
community is increasingly defined by Hezbollah’s conservative ideology and
isolated by the increasing sectarian divisions in Lebanon, it is more and more
difficult to form relationships with people from different backgrounds. In this
sense, mutaa marriage has become a convenient and practical solution. However,
it comes with a cost: Hezbollah has increasingly been able to harness the appeal
of mutaa to bolster its support within its constituency. And there should be no
doubt that Hezbollah’s increased control over Lebanese Shiites comes with
consequences that are anything but temporary.
Hanin GHADDAR
Foreign Policy
25.11.2009
Permanent government, Lebanese style
Michael Young ,
November 27, 2009
The new Lebanese cabinet, formed with the input of a constellation of countries.
(AFP/Joseph Barrak)
The most amusing thing that happened last week was the doubt surrounding the
future of the interior minister, Ziad Baroud, following his dispute with the
director general of the Internal Security Forces, Ashraf Rifi. Some gullible
souls actually worried that Baroud might resign.
The amusement came not from that fact that Baroud, competent and ambitious, was
never likely to engage in such a career-ending move, but that even if he had
decided to resign, it would have taken about half a dozen foreign governments to
approve it.
That’s because our government “made in Lebanon” was really the child of a
thousand fathers. There were, of course, the Americans and the French, but also
the Saudis, the Syrians, the Iranians, the Turks, and to a lesser extent the
Egyptians and the Qataris. So for Baroud, or anyone else, to walk out on his or
her colleagues would reopen the infernal bazaar to new bargaining, until the
international constellation of forces again aligns.
When in doubt, listen to Walid Jumblatt. The Druze leader recently remarked on
Al-Manar television that he expected the current government to remain in place
until the next parliamentary elections, in 2013. That seems an awful long time,
particularly for so uninspiring a crew, but what Jumblatt was really saying was
that the regional agreement over Lebanon would impose such stalemate.
In light of this, we’re entitled to reflect for a moment what the Independence
Intifada of 2005 really brought us. It certainly didn’t provoke an intifada; or
rather while it did force Syria to withdraw its soldiers, it failed to change
the old order or push Lebanon into a durable phase of emancipation and
sovereignty. On the contrary, instead of being tossed around by one state,
Syria, the country’s future is now being decided by several states, few of which
much care for each other.
However, as disappointing as this situation may appear when placed against the
backdrop of the high ambitions almost five years ago, it does provide
advantages. In the end, many fathers are better than one, particularly when that
one father happened to be Bashar al-Assad.
Between 2004 and 2006, Lebanon benefited from a series of United Nations
decisions that effectively placed the country under a form of international
trusteeship. Security Council Resolution 1559 set the stage for the Syrian
withdrawal and the disarming of Hezbollah; Resolution 1595 initiated an
international investigation of Rafik al-Hariri’s assassination; and Resolution
1701 created a mechanism for the pacification of southern Lebanon after the 2006
July War.
That framework has been gradually eroded over the years. Hezbollah has resisted
disarming, while the Lebanese political class, including leading members of the
majority, has covered that refusal. The Hariri investigation has now become a
tribunal, but there continue to be doubts about its outcome, given indications
that the investigation stalled under the second commissioner, Serge Brammertz.
As for Resolution 1701, it has been violated repeatedly by Hezbollah and Israel,
but also Syria and Iran, with no penalties imposed on any of the parties.
Since Lebanon is a regional concern, and who can doubt that it is one, the
country would benefit greatly from finding a complementary political framework
to that of the United Nations, without abandoning the latter. The main
objectives of this new form of trusteeship would be to guard as much as possible
against a new war between Hezbollah and Israel, which would be especially
devastating; to ensure that Syria does not return militarily to Lebanon, which
the Assad regime would do in an instant if the conditions allowed it; and to
gradually strengthen the authority of the state at the expense of domestic armed
militias, particularly Hezbollah.
Syria and Iran would resist such measures, and in many cases they would do so
successfully. However, the upshot of this give-and-take over Lebanon might often
be compromises – between what the Saudis, Turks and Egyptians, with American and
French support, seek, and what the Syrians and Iranians are willing to give up.
These compromises, even if they perpetuate the status quo, might also, in
certain ways, limit the ability of the Syrians and the Iranians, with Hezbollah,
to bend the system their way, as they have continually tried doing in the past
four years.
The reality is that far more states have an interest in stabilizing Lebanon than
in destabilizing it, when it is mainly through instability that Syria and Iran
sought to impose their preferences on the country in recent years. But Assad
will always want more, exclusive control. To resist this, those Lebanese
concerned with reinforcing their national sovereignty must think creatively of
how to turn to their advantage the regional and international yearning to
preserve a peaceful Lebanon.
Once more, Lebanon is the fruit of a convoluted compromise. That doesn’t say
much about our ability to shape our own future, but it’s better than being
solely a Syrian protectorate. It buys us some time, although it’s up to us,
Lebanese, to determine what we do with that time.
*Michael Young is opinion editor of the Daily Star newspaper in Beirut.
Chasing Ghosts
Lee Smith
November 26, 2009
Now Lebanon
The American strategist and military historian Edward Luttwak just published a
book that is attracting some attention in US policy-making circles. Even as The
Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire is dense with detail – from early
Christian theology to the equestrian genius of the Huns –Luttwak contends that
the general shape of Byzantine policy in war and peace might well serve as a
useful model for the Americans.
For instance: “Strive to end wars successfully,” writes Luttwak, “by recruiting
allies to change the balance of power.” Sound advice, but counsel to which
American reality is impervious. Recall that one of the reasons US forces are
fighting in Afghanistan is to secure the Pakistani government and its nuclear
program against hostile members of Islamabad’s own security services. In other
words, the Americans are fighting the Taliban in order to simultaneously deter
and support an ally that cannot sustain the balance of power within its own
borders. There is no pattern for such a scenario in the Byzantine playbook
because they could not have imagined a great power so incapable of matching
means to ends.
Middle Easterners, like those who reside within the one-time borders of the
Byzantine Empire, find it difficult to believe that the Americans are not as
clever as their power would seem to warrant. But it’s true – with Washington,
what you see is what you get. Still, it’s hard for many Arabs, and their Israeli
neighbors, to understand why an Iranian nuclear program that stands to affect US
regional interests now seems less important to Washington than Afghanistan, a
landlocked country without oil.
So why does Afghanistan figure so prominently in the American debate right now?
Never mind the fact that some of President Obama’s opponents see Afghanistan as
a chance to score points off of a man who called this the good war (and Iraq the
bad one) and now can’t decide what to do about it. In addition to the convoluted
rationale for securing Pakistan noted above, there are two main reasons.
The first, as the influential American counterinsurgency strategist Jon Nagl
writes, is “[p]reventing Afghanistan from again serving as a sanctuary for
terrorists.” That is, the Americans believe that failed states are incubators
for terrorism committed by non-state actors. Of course the reality is that
terror is less the upshot of failed states than it is the manufacture of
functional regimes determined to export terror.
Consider, for example, that there are no failed states on Iraq’s borders, but
only hard security regimes; so who could possibly be responsible for terrorism
in Baghdad? To put it another way: what will keep Iraqis safe – a stable
government in a faraway place like Afghanistan, or, deterring their neighbors by
sending a car bomb to, say, Damascus in exchange for every explosive detonated
in the Iraqi capital? Unfortunately for the Iraqis, the latter option will
become available to them only after the Americans leave.
And that brings us to the troubled heart of American strategic thinking. The
Americans are leaving Iraq because they say they have won. However, many of
those same policymakers, analysts and journalists argue that we must stay in
Afghanistan lest withdrawal encourages America’s enemies. So, who are America’s
adversaries? The American consensus, left and right, believes the US’ strategic
enemy is not the states and their regional assets that have waged war against
the US in Iraq, among other places, but is rather what we have come to call
“radical Islam.” Despite the fact that the bulk of the Iraqi insurgency has been
borne by Baathists of the Iraqi and the Syrian variety – that is, secular Arab
nationalists – the Americans are worried about an amorphous and abstract entity
that is as likely to strike them in Fallujah and Kabul as it is in Fort Hood,
Texas. Therefore, they fear that withdrawing from Afghanistan will give a boost
to “radical Islam.”
And so perhaps the most important reason why Afghanistan is important to the
Americans is to show that the US does not cut and run.
Osama Bin Laden, it will be recalled, contended the US was a paper tiger and
pointed to numerous examples to make his case. Let’s look at one in particular,
Lebanon. After the Marine barracks bombing in 1983, President Reagan withdrew
the remaining US peacekeeping forces from Beirut, an exit that Bin Laden and
others count as an American defeat.
The most obvious lesson that the Americans should have drawn from the experience
is that by signaling neutrality (i.e., sending peace-keepers), you are declaring
that you have no vital interests at stake, and hence targeting your troops will
easily dissuade you from pursuing interests that are not vital in any case, or
else you would not be neutral. The Americans did not learn this lesson or else
they would have taken clear sides in both Iraq and Afghanistan, but instead they
signaled neutrality in their decision to do nation building. Why? Because they
fear the specter of failed states and the sanctuary it gives to “radical Islam.”
It was in Lebanon that the Americans habituated themselves to ignoring the role
of states in supporting terror. It was one thing to leave Beirut after Hezbollah
killed 241 Marines, but it was quite another in the wake of the withdrawal for
Washington to contract Lebanon policy out to Syria, or one of Hezbollah’s
sponsors, for twenty years. Because the US has chosen to ignore the role of
states, the one lesson they learned in Lebanon is absolutely disastrous for
American strategy. That is, if you believe that you must never withdraw when
under fire by a group of non-state actors – Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, the Taliban,
etc. – then you are letting your adversaries define your war aims.
Think of it like this: if the Americans are obliged to stay and fight in
Afghanistan because if they don’t Osama Bin Laden will call them cowards, then
where else will America’s enemies draw the battle lines? Yemen? Somalia?
Venezuela? Instead of focusing its energies on strategically important venues,
like Iran for instance, the US will spread its forces thin and get dragged into
battles of someone else’s design.
If all of the US’s enemies were to join together and plot for a year they could
not dictate a disinformation campaign as destructive as the one the Americans
have forced upon themselves: your enemy is not the Middle Eastern regimes and
their regional assets that war against you openly, but is rather bearded men in
dark caves who embody “radical Islam.” Keep chasing ghosts, you infidel dogs,
while we fight for real strategic interests, like oil, ports and states.
The Byzantines wouldn’t know what to make of the Americans; nor is there any
need to consult them for the kind of sobriety that ought to determine American
strategy.