LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
April 18/2012

Bible Quotation for today/God's Mercy on Israel
Romans 11/01-11/:  I ask, then: Did God reject his own people? Certainly not! I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people, whom he chose from the beginning. You know what the scripture says in the passage where Elijah pleads with God against Israel: Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me. What answer did God give him? I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not worshiped the false god Baal. It is the same way now: there is a small number left of those whom God has chosen because of his grace. His choice is based on his grace, not on what they have done. For if God's choice were based on what people do, then his grace would not be real grace. What then? The people of Israel did not find what they were looking for. It was only the small group that God chose who found it; the rest grew deaf to God's call. As the scripture says, God made their minds and hearts dull; to this very day they cannot see or hear. And David says, May they be caught and trapped at their feasts; may they fall, may they be punished! May their eyes be blinded so that they cannot see; and make them bend under their troubles at all times. I ask, then: When the Jews stumbled, did they fall to their ruin? By no means! Because they sinned, salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make the Jews jealous of them. The sin of the Jews brought rich blessings to the world, and their spiritual poverty brought rich blessings to the Gentiles. Then, how much greater the blessings will be when the complete number of Jews is included!

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
Dr. Gegea: Weapons, sovereignty and the economy/Now Lebanon/April 17/12
The worn argument/Hazem Saghiyeh/Now Lebanon/ April 17/12
Hezbollah and the Arab Revolutions: The Contradictions Made Apparent/By: Jonathan Spyer/Gloria Centre/April 17/12
Lebanon: In the Shadow of the Syrian Storm/By James Denselow/Asharq Alawsat/April 17/12
Al-Assad will drown you with the details/By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat/April 17/12
Stubbornness is a close friend of stupidity/By Emad El Din Adeeb/Asharq Alawsat/April 17/12
Swing Low Sweet Sharia/by Nidra Poller/New English Review/April 17/12
Gay Marriage Has Islamists Eyeing Polygamy/by David J. Rusin/National Review/April 17/12

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for April 17/12
STL Sets Deadline for Challenging Tribunal's Jurisdiction
Israel: Obama’s secret dealings with Iran conflict with US-Israeli understandings
Netanyahu fears victory over Iran's nuclear program
Meridor. Israeli' Deputy PM admits : Iran never called to wipe out Israel
Netanyahu dismissive of Iran nuclear talks
Russia Warns against Further Iran Sanctions
Iranian nuclear scientists were present at failed North Korean missile launch, says source
Ahmadinejad: Iran won't surrender atomic rights‎
Iran media see nuclear 'rights' endorsed by Saturday Istanboul talks
Mustafa Jeha after assassination attempt blames militias with non-state arms for attack
Israel touts new weapon against Hezbollah
Hezbollah belittles Hariri election comments
President Michel Sleiman warns Syria turmoil might spread
Sleiman urges Arab states to help end Syria crisis peacefully
March 14 to grill Cabinet, confidence vote unlikely
Explore the host of hidden treasures Beirut has on offer
Lebanon: Shining a light on the women in Baabda prison
Suspicious suitcase opened, Lebanese man inside
Rapprochement sought between Hariri, Mikati
Jumblatt: Allowing Assad to remain in power would be disastrous
Lebanese Druze clergyman freed after arrest sparks fury
AP/Analysis: Syria's Assad unbowed by Annan plan
CNN/Fresh surge in violence in Syria despite international efforts, 'fragile' cease-fire
Shelling in Syria as UN monitors begin mission
UN's Ban: Syria must allow observers full access
Fierce Clashes Kill 45 as U.N. Observers Begin Work in Syria
U.S. Says Syria Violence Threatens U.N. Observer Force
Qatar Says Syria Peace Plan Has '3%' Chance of Success
German Ship Firm Says No Arms on Syria-Bound Vessel
Shaky truce tests monitors in Syria
Jordan to open fresh holding facilities for Syrian refugees
Iran Summons Saudi Envoy over Jail Treatment
Sudan parliament brands South an enemy
Israeli officer suspended for striking protester
Jordanian parliament moves to ban Muslim Brotherhood party
Suleiman, Muslim Brotherhood candidate appeal ban from Egypt's presidential race

STL Sets Deadline for Challenging Tribunal's Jurisdiction
Naharnet/16 April 2012/ Special Tribunal for Lebanon Pre-Trial Judge Daniel Fransen has set a timeline for the submission of preliminary motions challenging the jurisdiction of the tribunal, announced the STL in a statement on Monday. “In order to ensure the preparation of a fair and expeditious trial, Fransen convened a status conference on April 12, 2012,” it said. “He decided that any preliminary motions challenging the tribunal's jurisdiction must be filed by May 4, 2012,” added the statement The deadline to submit other preliminary motions will be decided in due course.
The tribunal is probing the 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. In an indictment unsealed in August 2011, it accused four Hizbullah members of being involved in the crime, calling on Lebanese authorities to apprehend them. Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has said he doubted the four indictees will ever be found and has branded the tribunal a U.S.-Israeli conspiracy aimed at bringing down the party. Salim Ayyash, Mustafa Badreddine, Hussein Oneissi, and Assad Sabra are wanted for the February 2005 suicide car bomb attack in Beirut that killed Hariri and 22 others, including the suicide bomber. Ayyash and Badreddine face five charges including that of "committing a terrorist act by means of an explosive device" and homicide, while Oneissi and Sabra faced charges of conspiring to commit the same acts.

Israel: Obama’s secret dealings with Iran conflict with US-Israeli understandings
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report April 16, 2012/, 3:07 PM (GMT+02:00) Tags: Barack Obama Binyamin Netanyahu nuclear negotiations US-Iran Barack Obama and his double diplomatic track The fundamental rift on Iran between US President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu burst into the open Monday, April 16 when high-ranking Israeli officials close to Netanyahu directly accused the president of reneging on the US-Israeli understandings reached ahead of the Istanbul talks between the six powers and Iran on April 14.
Behind the show biz of Istanbul, they charged, the US and Iran had reached secret agreements in clandestine bilateral contacts channeled through Paris and Vienna.
The row surfaced Sunday when Netanyahu said the US and world powers by agreeing to hold more talks in Baghdad next month had given Tehran a "freebie" of five more weeks to continue enriching uranium without restrictions. By singling out the US, the prime minister aimed his comment directly at the president.
Obama’s response was fast. At a news conference ending the Western Hemisphere summit in Cartagenia, Colombia, he commented sharply: "The notion that somehow we've given something away or a `freebie' would indicate Iran has gotten something. In fact, they've got some of the toughest sanctions that they're going to be facing coming up in just a few months if they don't take advantage of these talks."
That is the very point on which Israel accuses the US president of playing false: time. As disclosed by debkafile on April 9, American and Israeli officials preceded the Istanbul talks with an understanding for the US to put before Iran agreed demands/concessions: Iran would be allowed to keep 1,000 centrifuges for the low-level enrichment of uranium up to 3.5 percent purity, the first time Israel had accepted the principle of Iran enriching uranium at any grade at all.
It was also agreed between Washington and Jerusalem that Iran would not be permitted to keep 20 percent enriched uranium, which is a short step before weapons-grade, in any quantity.
These understandings, known as the “1,000 principle,” were meant to represent the final upshot of the formal negotiations with Iran, a consensus to which US diplomats would aspire in as short a time possible.In the event, the US delegation did not present any of the agreed demands – or any other - to the Iranians attending the first round of talks in Turkey.
The belated sense of being misled prompted the prime minister’s exceptionally sharp reaction.
Israeli official sources now suspect that in their secret contacts, the US has granted Iran far-reaching concessions on its nuclear program - more than Israel would find acceptable. The formal talks in Istanbul and in Baghdad on May 23 are seen as nothing but a device to screen the real business the US and Iran have already contracted on the quiet.

Netanyahu fears victory over Iran's nuclear program
By Akiva Eldar/Haaretz
It appears that the sanctions campaign and/or the fear of a military assault are liable to push the Iranian nuclear issue off the Israeli and international agenda.
A recent skit on the sketch comedy "Eretz Nehederet" featured a "debate" about the Iranian nuclear program between U.S. and Israeli leaders.
After some discussion, U.S. President Barack Obama accedes to the position of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, and he urges them to attack Iran. Netanyahu and Barak exchange frightened glances and plead with Obama to stop them. Here's an idea for a different version of a sketch on the same subject: After the talks that began on Saturday between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany, Obama tells Netanyahu and Barak that Iran has agreed to restrict its uranium enrichment and open its nuclear facilities to International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors. Bibi looks at his defense minister with a crestfallen expression and mutters angrily: "What are we going to do without the Hitler of Tehran? Who will we say is threatening us with a second Holocaust?"
It has recently come to seem increasingly likely that this scenario could become more than just satire. Take the ruling by Iran's supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, banning the production, storage and use of nuclear weapons. Or the Washington Post opinion piece by Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi, in which he said Iran has already expressed its opposition to weapons of mass destruction. Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has promised "good news" at the end of the talks between Iran and the six powers. It appears that the sanctions campaign and/or the fear of a military assault are liable to push the Iranian nuclear issue off the Israeli and international agenda.
From Netanyahu's perspective, the suspension of the Iranian nuclear threat could become a Pyrrhic victory: The world powers will turn toward other crises in the Middle East - including, of course, the Israeli occupation and its injustices. Without having to fear an Iranian nuclear bomb, Israelis are liable to get involved in the demographic and democratic issues in their own country. If the prime minister doesn't cut down on settlements and accept the June 1967 lines as the basis for a two-state solution, he will go down in history as the leader who contributed to the isolation of Iran while simultaneously intensifying Israel's isolation. For how long will Israel be able to close its doors to peace activists or hide behind the childish argument that the human rights situation in Syria is much worse than in the territories occupied by "the only democracy in the Middle East"?
An agreement with Iran on uranium enrichment and IAEA inspectors monitoring the Fordo underground nuclear facility near Qom could turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory from the perspective of Israeli deterrence as well.
The (justified ) Israeli argument that attempting to contain an existing Iranian nuclear bomb would be the signal for a nuclear arms race in the Middle East has been heard. Former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, and Sam Nunn, a former U.S. senator who now heads the Nuclear Threat Initiative - which is aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons - are calling on the United States, Europe, Russia and NATO to promote the vision of "a nuclear-weapon-free world," as they wrote in a New York Times op-ed Friday. In so doing, Schmidt and Nunn are joining their voices to those of former U.S. secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, and former U.S. Defense Secretary William Perry.
He who seeks to part his neighbor from nuclear weapons must expect that he will be asked to open his home to nuclear inspectors. What will Israel do if Iran follows through on its "threat" to participate in a conference, scheduled to be held in Helsinki late this year or early next year, focused on turning the Middle East into a nuclear-free zone? After 45 years of occupation, it's tough to hold on to that victim pose and get a pass on certain things because of that victimhood. It could be that this year's Holocaust Remembrance Day will be Netanyahu's last chance to say Auschwitz and Fordo in the same breath without raising the question "And what about Dimona?"
What would happen if Obama were to tell Netanyahu and Barak that the Iranians are willing to give up, totally and finally, not just on their nuclear program, but also on their incitement against the Zionist entity? In return, Israel would have to give up, totally and finally, on its plans for more settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and support the establishment of a Palestinian state. "Essentially," Obama will remind Netanyahu and Barak, "you yourselves say that if you don't get out of the territories, we'll have to say Kaddish for the Zionist entity."

Meridor. Israeli' Deputy PM admits : Iran never called to wipe out Israel
Dudi Cohen/ 04.17.12/ / Israel News /Ynetnews
Speaking to Al Jazeera, deputy PM admits Ahmadinejad was misquoted, never said Israel must be wiped off the map. US: Iran caving under paralyzing sanctions
Minister of Intelligence and Atomic Energy Dan Meridor told Al Jazeera that Iran never vowed to "wipe Israel off the map," as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly claimed. Speaking to the Arab network, Meridor, who also serves as deputy PM, said Iran's leaders "all come basically ideologically, religiously with the statement that Israel is an unnatural creature, it will not survive." However, he added, "They didn't say 'we'll wipe it out,' but (rather) 'it will not survive, it is a cancerous tumor, it should be removed'. They repeatedly said 'Israel is not legitimate, it should not exist'."
In 2005 Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying that Israel should be "wiped off the map," but it was later revealed that the translation of his remarks, published by media outlets around the world, was incorrect. Ahmadinejad was actually quoting the leader of the 1979 Islamic revolution: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."
Asked by Al Jazeera about the possibility of a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities and the outbreak of war in the Middle East, Meridor said Israel does not want a war, but added that Iran must abandon its nuclear ambitions."
Meanwhile, the United States on Monday dismissed Iran's call for a lifting of sanctions, saying that the Islamic republic must first address concerns over its nuclear program in "concrete" ways.
US State Department spokesman Mark Toner called the recent round of talks between Iran and the major world powers in Istanbul a "positive first step." The talks came in the wake of a 15-month halt in negotiations over Iran's nuclear development.
However, Toner clarified the talks were the first step in the right direction and there is more work to be done. "No one's talking about any sanctions being reversed or canceled at all," he said.
In response to Netanyahu's claim that Iran now has five additional weeks to continue enrichment without any limitation, Toner said "We've got the strongest sanctions in history against Iran right now, and they're going to get stronger as we move into the summer." "Iran is caving under the paralyzing sanctions and has further incentive to come to the negotiation table with practical proposals," he added.
Toner said that the United States, echoing a statement by EU foreign policy Chief Catherine Ashton, was ready to look at incentives in return for progress from Iran.
"We want to see Iran come up with some concrete proposals moving forward and that if that were to happen, we would look at ways -- Cathy Ashton's statement said as much -- to reciprocate," Toner said.
Earlier Monday, Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said that the entire dispute could be quickly resolved if the West shows goodwill by easing sanctions.
Salehi further hinted that Iran could make concessions on its higher-grade uranium enrichment, a key concern of Western powers.
Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said during a meeting with National Security Advisor Yaakov Amidror that increasing pressure on Iran following the initial round of nuclear talks with the world powers would be "dangerous."
Yitzhak Benhorin contributed to the report

Jeha blames militias with non-state arms for attack
April 17, 2012/By Atallah al-Salim/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Two days after barely escaping an attempt on his life, journalist Mustafa Jeha accused “factions and militias” that have non-state arms of being behind the shooting. “All factions and militias that possess weapons that are not under national sovereignty [are responsible],” Jeha told The Daily Star Monday. Jeha, who works for the Kataeb (Phalange) Party’s news website and has also written for the websites of the Lebanese Forces and the March 14 coalition, was driving on the Damour-Jiyyeh highway Saturday when he came under fire. Six bullets struck his car but Jeha was not injured.
His father, also named Mustafa, was a journalist and was killed by unknown gunmen while driving his car in an east Beirut suburb in January 1992.
The late Jeha was an outspoken opponent of fundamentalism and had published works critical of the leader of the 1979 Iranian Revolution Ayatollah Khomeini.
Jeha, who is from the Tyre village of Jibbayn, said the attack over the weekend could have been motivated by a number of factors.
“Recently, I worked on republishing my father’s controversial book, ‘Khomeini kills Zarathustra.’ This book received much criticism on its publication. In addition, I recently activated my father’s case, which was never dealt with seriously by the national courts,” said Jeha.
He said that following the book’s publication, the Jaafari Court, a Shiite religious court, issued a religious edict that portrayed his father as an unbeliever and accused him of apostasy.
“Authorities should have at least detained the sheikh who issued such a statement since he instigated my father’s killing and this act is punishable according to the Penal Code,” Jeha added.
Another possible motive behind the weekend attack, according to Jeha, is his role in launching the “Lebanese Sovereignty Movement,” which he described as a newly established political forum that includes liberal academicians and activists. The movement’s manifesto calls for the state to maintain sovereignty over all its territories.
Speaking on the circumstances surrounding the assassination attempt, Jeha said that there was at least one person in addition to the driver in the black Mercedes that was pursuing him on the Damour-Jiyyeh Saturday evening. It was after 11 p.m. that he noticed he was being followed. Shortly thereafter, one of its occupants fired shots. “The person sitting beside the driver was the one who fired shots from a gun,” Jeha said.
He added that authorities are investigating the incident, but he will also file a lawsuit Tuesday. “From now on, I will be taking [security] measures following what happened on Saturday,” he added.
The SKeyes Center for Media and Cultural Freedom has condemned the “attempted assassination” of Jeha, saying: “This is evidence of the perpetrators’ intent to silence him and to prevent any serious investigation into the death of his father who was assassinated over 20 years ago.” Jeha said his latest writings focused on the Syrian crisis and the brutality of the Syrian regime, which he described as a “killing machine.” The journalist has also recently written on domestic affairs, stressing the need to disarm all non-state actors whether they are Lebanese or Palestinian.

Dr. Gegea: Weapons, sovereignty and the economy
April 16, 2012 /Now Lebanon
Like him or loathe him—and no one is pretending that Lebanese Forces head is a saint, even though there are many who would quite happily canonize him—but there is no denying that Samir Geagea has been the only Lebanese politician who had constantly reiterated that the role of the state is paramount. He is also the only leader who has consistently focused on the key challenges that face Lebanon today: notably the ongoing crisis of Hezbollah’s weapons, the worrying coziness of the current Lebanese government and the Syrian regime, and, last but definitely not least, the grim state of the economy.
On Friday evening, at a dinner held at his headquarters in Maarab in honor of the members of the Jbeil municipal council, Geagea once again reminded the Shia community that their position in Lebanese society can neither be sustained nor defined by Hezbollah’s weapons. He correctly pointed out that no political party over the past 40 years has achieved permanent supremacy by being armed to the teeth—a reference to the Sunni-backed PLO and the various Christian militias of the Lebanese civil war. Instead, he pointed out that the Shia were already a force in Lebanon through their dynamic economic activity at home and abroad.
Geagea is not the first politician to make this point, but it is one that was well-made at a time when the shifting of the region’s tectonic plates are forcing many to reevaluate old stances. It is surely time for Lebanon’s Shia to abandon the tired and cobweb-ridden narrative of dignity through martial purity. It may have had a place over a decade ago, but Lebanon, and recently the region, has moved on. Biffing Israel is no longer a national priority, while recent attempts to show just how mighty the Party of God can be have ended in disaster for Lebanon.
Surely, it would be much better if the Shia were known for their enterprise and prosperity than for being Hezbollah’s bloc vote. Their marginalization has made them arguably Lebanon’s wealthiest sect, and their determination to achieve prosperity across the globe has been one of the factors that has kept a fragile economy afloat, and it is this that should be celebrated above all.
Arguably, a more immediate concern is the worrying perception (or is it reality?) that the strings of Lebanon’s foreign policy are being pulled by Syria. Adnan Mansour is apparently referred to in Arab League circles as Syria’s foreign minister. Whether this is true or not, Lebanon’s position on the Syrian uprising has nonetheless left many wondering if the government is blind to the bloodshed and multiple violations of Lebanese sovereignty over the previous year, or complicit by its support. The government has hardly covered itself in glory since it toppled the democratically elected cabinet of Saad Hariri in January 2010, and its main priority appears to be holding the fort for a Syrian regime whose days are numbered at the expense of the people it is meant to serve.
In doing so, the government has blatantly ignored fundamental national priorities, one of which is the handling of the economy. There have been pathetic attempts to show that it can deliver on the basics, but almost all have been built on straw. The faster Internet pledge was a joke, while the debate surrounding the 20-year electricity shortage has been a shambles. The management of the offshore oil and gas fields has been allowed to be drawn into the narrative of conflict with Israel, and all the while prices of basic commodities, including fuel and petrol, skyrocket.
The government then takes credit for the so-called triumphs of the private sector, especially those that highlight a glamorous veneer and paper over the cracks, and yet it remains unaware that these too have come at a cost to what is left of Lebanon’s integrity and do not reflect the true state of a pitiful economic situation propped up by a ramshackle infrastructure.
Weapons, sovereignty and the economy. These are the priorities.

Hezbollah belittles Hariri election comments
April 16, 2012/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Hezbollah criticized over the weekend comments by former Prime Minister Saad Hariri in which he said there could be no discussion of a new electoral law in the shadow of the resistance group’s weapons, and added that a strong, unified and stable Syria also strengthened Lebanon. “Are we to conclude that he who opposes dialogue between the Lebanese in the presence of the weapons opposes the elections taking place in the presence of the weapons? Or is it just the case of talk for talk's sake that is being put forward to provoke and incite, particularly as the elections bazaar has begun?” asked Hezbollah MP Mohammad Raad Sunday, in an apparent response to comments by Hariri published in a local daily earlier in the day. In a wide-ranging interview with Al-Mustaqbal, Hariri, commenting on a draft electoral law based on proportional representation, said: “No talk or discussion of proportional representation in the presence of arms. This should be well understood by the president and prime minister.” Hariri said Syria was intent on imposing a law aimed at crippling his Future Movement. “It is no longer a secret that orders from the head of the regime in Syria [Syrian President Bashar Assad] have been issued to leaders and officials in the Lebanese government to impose an electoral law aimed at breaking the Future Movement, its allies and everyone who stands in the face of the killing machine inside Syria and its tutelage over Lebanon,” Hariri said.He held both Prime Minister Najib Mikati and President Michel Sleiman responsible for any endeavor that would “smuggle” such a law into Lebanon’s political system. Raad, the head of the Loyalty to Resistance parliamentary bloc, also said Lebanon needed a strong, unified and stable Syria. “The unity, strength and stability of Syria acts to strengthen Lebanon’s unity and stability,” Raad said. On the subject of Israel, Raad said the resistance group was always prepared for confrontation but said the Jewish state was reticent to launch any kind of operation under the present circumstances. “We no longer wait for the enemy to attack. We estimate that at this time the enemy has a million considerations before it proceeds with any stupid move because it knows that its fate will be at stake and that there would be a change to the face of the region and the equations that dictate it in favor of the people of this [Arab and Islamic] nation, its spirit of resistance and its resistance youth.”

Israel touts new weapon against Hezbollah
JERUSALEM, April 16 (UPI) -- The Israeli military acquired new artillery shells that it says can target Hezbollah militants hiding in civilian infrastructure. The Jerusalem Post reports that Israeli forces are set to acquire a new 120-millimeter artillery shell that has the ability to penetrate civilian infrastructure. "Such a capability is believed to be crucial for the (Israeli military) as it faces future conflicts with Hezbollah and Hamas, both terrorist groups which embed themselves within civilian infrastructure, according to the military," the report states. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701 secured a cease-fire in a 2006 war between Hezbollah and Israel. The measure calls on Hezbollah to disarm while reminding Israel of its obligation to respect Lebanon's sovereignty. Israel maintains a defensive posture given the presence of Hezbollah along Lebanon's southern border. Beirut has complained repeatedly to the United Nations that the Israeli military was violating its airspace with frequent overflights. In February, three people were sentenced to death by a military court in Lebanon for allegedly spying on Hezbollah for the Israelis.

The worn argument
Hazem Saghiyeh/Now Lebanon/ April 16, 2012
The attempt to assassinate Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea went by with little fuss. Protests were expressed within the Lebanese Forces and the circles close to it, while expressions of sympathy abounded within the wider March 14 environment. However, let us imagine for a minute that Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah or Speaker Nabih Berri had been the target of such an attempt. Would anyone have dared question that it occurred, as was the case with many newspapers, TV channels and commentators? Would anyone have dared to laugh this “fabricated event” off, as many foes of Geagea and March 14 forces did? Wide swaths of Lebanon, including the capital, would probably have been shut off, some willingly and others out of fear. Random bullets would have scorched our ears for days and nights, sparking terror and displacement. Edgy militants would have quite likely launched revenge attacks against those whom they hate, even if the latter were wholly unconnected to the assassination attempt. This comparison reveals the extent of the imbalance characterizing the situation in Lebanon today and, at the same time, how unhealthy this situation is. Since there is no way to deny the sectarian reality, the sectarian character of this imbalance makes matters worse than anyone can imagine. This explains some aspects of why certain parties are armed to the exclusion of others. Indeed, it grants those who wish to carry weapons pretexts, which – under such an imbalance – seem legitimate. When the state does not have the monopoly over weapons and, accordingly, over reassuring its citizens and communities, it is only normal for these individuals and groups to seek the possession of weapons as the only means to reassure them. Some will, for the umpteenth time, remind us that this distinction is dictated by the resistance against Israel. Some might argue that light weapons are available for everyone. However, Hezbollah exercises a monopoly over missiles. And we will say in response, for the umpteenth time as well, that it is a worn argument and that not a single incident occurred between Hezbollah and Israel since the signing of Resolution 1701 following the 2006 July War! As for light weapons, even though it may be true that everyone has access to them, light weapons backed by missiles and a communications system are different from those backed by light weapons alone.This article is a translation of the original, which appeared on the NOW Arabic site on Monday, April 16, 2012

President Michel Sleiman warns Syria turmoil might spread
April 17, 2012/By Hussein Dakroub The Daily Star
BEIRUT: President Michel Sleiman warned Monday that the turmoil in Syria might spill over into Lebanon and urged Arab states to help put out the fire rather than inflaming it in the neighboring country torn by 13 months of popular upheaval against the regime of President Bashar Assad.“The fire in Syria could spill over into Lebanon. Therefore, Arab countries should shoulder their responsibilities in putting out this fire or at least in not inflaming it,” said Sleiman, who is currently on a week-long official visit to Australia.
“Everyone in Syria wants democracy. But it is important to reach democracy away from violence while accepting the states’ positive, not negative, intervention,” he added.
Referring to an attempt earlier this month to assassinate Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea at his residence in Maarab, Sleiman told reporters Sunday that he ruled out a return of political assassinations in Lebanon. He said he would not go into the details of the “ugly” incident before an investigation is completed.
Sleiman’s comments on the crisis in Syria came during a meeting with Arab diplomats in the Australian capital, Canberra, on the second day of his visit to Australia.
Also Monday, Sleiman said he will not allow Lebanon to be used as a launching pad for attacks on any Arab country, particularly Syria. “Lebanon is not an arena for settling accounts or a struggle between anyone. Rather, it is an arena to bring together all Arab brothers,” Sleiman said in a speech addressing the Lebanese community in Canberra. “Lebanon will not be a platform or a base for subversion or an attack on any Arab state, namely on Syria. This is totally forbidden.”
Sleiman’s comments came as an advance team of U.N. observers arrived in Damascus Monday to work out with Syrian officials the ground rules for monitoring a U.N.-brokered five-day-old cease-fire, which appeared to be rapidly unraveling as regime forces pounded the opposition stronghold of Homs with artillery shells and mortars, activists said.
Referring to the wave of popular uprisings roiling the Arab world, Sleiman underlined the significance of ensuring social justice, which he said would make the people demand democracy away from violence. “The West must reconsider its approach toward democracy,” he said.
Sleiman called on Arab regimes to ponder seriously preserving pluralistic structures “because Arab civilization is the cradle of religions.”
“We are currently facing the proliferation of globalization and its risks which might eliminate some social structures. We cannot face [globalization] alone. Therefore, we should proceed with an economic integration project and invest inside our Arab states,” Sleiman said.
He expressed regret that pro-democracy uprisings have made Arab leaders forget the Palestinian issue. Sleiman pointed out that he was the only Arab leader who spoke about the Palestinian cause at the Arab League. “It seems that the Arabs have forgotten about Palestine,” he said.
“Will the [Palestinian] identity be given to the owners of the land? Will democracy not allow the Palestinians to return [to their homes] and to settle them permanently in Lebanon for example?” Sleiman asked.
“Will [democracy] allow occupation in Lebanon and Syria? Will it allow the Judaization of Jerusalem and the elimination of all cultural and historic features?” he added.
Earlier Monday, during a luncheon hosted by Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, Sleiman urged a solution to the Middle East conflict.
“At a time when the Arab world is still seeking to make its way toward reform and democracy which is open to modernity and committed to freedoms and human rights away from the danger of divisions, disintegration and violence, there is an urgent need to find a just and comprehensive solution for all aspects of the Middle East conflict in order to safeguard international security and peace,” Sleiman said.
He stressed that such a solution requires not only a political decision, but an actual international determination that would ensure the commitment of the parties to the principles and foundations of the solution as stipulated in U.N. resolutions. Sleiman held talks with Gillard at Parliament House in Canberra centering on ways of expanding bilateral ties in various fields.
According to a statement released by Sleiman’s media office, the talks touched on the substantial contribution by Australians of Lebanese origin toward all aspects of political, economic, social and cultural life in Australia, the statement said. During the talks, Gillard affirmed support for Lebanon’s sovereignty, stability, unity, independence and territorial integrity, and supporting the mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon and the implementation of U.N. Resolution 1701 which ended the 34-day war with Israel in the summer of 2006, the statement added.
At the luncheon, Sleiman said he was proud of making the first official visit to Australia by a Lebanese president. Sleiman lauded Lebanese-Australian ties, attributing them to a shared outlook on ethical issues.On Sunday, Sleiman, speaking to reporters, said the 2013 parliamentary polls would be held according to the Constitution, regardless of which election law is adopted. He added that he was convinced that “proportional representation needed to be adopted because it is the sole way to avoid religious and sectarian alignments.” The president’s trip will focus in part on encouraging the Lebanese community in Australia to participate in the 2013 parliamentary elections. The 2013 polls will mark the first time that Lebanese expatriates will be able to cast their ballots abroad. Sleiman, who is in Canberra, will also travel to Sydney and Melbourne, where he is scheduled to meet with Victorian Premier Ted Baillieu. He is accompanied by Deputy Prime Minister Samir Mokbel, Foreign Minister Adnan Mansour and Public Works Minister Ghazi Aridi.

March 14 to grill Cabinet, confidence vote unlikely
April 17, 2012/By Hasan Lakkis The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Although the opposition March 14 lawmakers are gearing up to launch blistering verbal attacks on the government over its poor performance during this week’s three-day parliamentary session, there are no signs yet that the minority MPs will seek a vote of confidence in Prime Minister Najib Mikati’s Cabinet.Speaker Nabih Berri has called Parliament for a three-day general session beginning Tuesday to debate what March 14 lawmakers say is the government’s failure at the political, security and economic levels.
A number of March 14 MPs have threatened to seek a vote of confidence in Energy Minister Gebran Bassil over the issue of severe electricity cuts and Telecommunications Minister Nicolas Sehnaoui for refusing to provide security services with telephone communications information. The two ministers belong to MP Michel Aoun’s parliamentary Change and Reform bloc, which is at odds with Mikati over many key issues, particularly civil service appointments.
The Daily Star has learned that Bassil and Sehnaoui have met with senior advisers ahead of Tuesday’s parliamentary session to draw up a comprehensive plan to respond to March 14 MPs’ expected diatribes. During the Cabinet’s last session earlier this month, Mikati exhorted the ministers to prepare the required documents in order to answer questions by opposition MPs. Mikati’s 30-member Cabinet has been the target of vehement campaigns by the Future Movement and allied March 14 parties since it was formed in June.
Although the Cabinet is expected to come under scathing attacks by the minority MPs, it will not be brought down in Parliament because all parties admit that the government is essential for the country’s stability amid the dramatic changes in the Arab region.
Commenting on March 14 threats to seek a vote of confidence in some ministers, Beirut Future MP Jean Hogassapian told The Daily Star: “Confirmed information so far indicates that the opposition is not inclined toward seeking a confidence [vote]. But I don’t know if last-minute contacts within this bloc will lead to a change in its position.”
“The opposition will show no mercy in its criticism of this disintegrating government and its ministers,” Hogassapian said.
Beirut Future MP Ghazi Youssef, who had insisted on seeking a vote of confidence in Sehnaoui for refusing to provide security services with telecoms data, told The Daily Star: “It is not clear so far what will we do. We will see how things will go during [parliamentary] sessions and then we will decide.”
Jbeil MP Simon Abi Ramia from Aoun’s Free Patriotic Movement said the opposition had declared that it would not seek a vote of confidence in the Cabinet or in any minister. “But if the opposition changes its stance, we are ready for all eventualities permitted under democratic systems,” Abi Ramia told The Daily Star.Baabda MP Alain Aoun from the FPM called on the government to be more productive. “So far, no one is ready to bear the responsibility for toppling the Cabinet, including parties in the majority,” he said. “Either the entire Cabinet stays in office or all of its members are brought down.”
However, this does not prevent a number of MPs from saying that this government is more likely to collapse that any other government Lebanon has known since independence in 1943. In addition to being beset by differences among its members, the Cabinet has failed to act on any issue that concerns Lebanese citizens, including food safety, electricity, administrative appointments and the policy to dissociate Lebanon from the unrest in Syria.
The Cabinet lacks a minimum of solidarity among its members, as evidenced when Finance Minister Mohammad Safadi accused his ally, the prime minister, of working covertly with the opposition to topple this Cabinet and return to the premiership with a technocrat Cabinet.
Similarly, Aoun’s ministers are constantly at loggerheads with Mikati, whom they accuse of covering up violations and corruption, and obstructing reform projects.
Also, full accord is lacking between Mikati and the three ministers of Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblatt over a draft election law based on proportional representation.
Although Hezbollah has maintained that the presence of this government is essential for the country’s stability, the party is at odds with Mikati over the financing and renewal of the mandate of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. For his part, Mikati does not trust some ministers. Sources close to Mikati said that the prime minister has many things to say about the performance of some ministers when the time comes. The opposition will concentrate its attacks over the Cabinet’s disassociation policy on the crisis in Syria, the issue of Hezbollah’s arms, the attempt to assassinate Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea, the electricity and telecommunications issues, the security situation, corruption deals and the ministers’ performance.
Meanwhile, Hezbollah and the Amal Movement urged the government to stop dithering and shoulder its responsibilities. “We call on the government to [address] pressing social issues and the people’s living conditions in a more productive manner, and to abandon the policy of marking time and shirking responsibilities,” said a statement issued following a joint meeting of Hezbollah and Amal in the southern town of Nabatieh. The two groups also expressed their belief that Lebanon should give priority to exploiting its oil sector. “We call on the government to give priority to exploiting its oil wealth both on land and in the sea,” the statement added.

Druze clergyman freed after arrest sparks fury
April 17, 2012/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: A Druze clergyman whose arrest over the weekend sparked fury in his mountain town of Aley was released Monday afternoon, a security source told The Daily Star. The Lebanese Army had raided the house of Sheikh Ayman Adib al-Shattoub in Aley upon a tip that he was storing weapons in his residence. Residents of Aley condemned the manner with which the Army conducted the raid with no prior notice while the wife and children of Shattoub were present, the source said. The security source added that the Army found a Kalashnikov in the possession of the religious figure. Residents of Aley had distributed fliers Sunday condemning Shattoub’s arrest by Lebanese security forces. “Aley residents and the Druze in general condemn the raid on the house of clergyman Ayman Adib al-Shattoub at 5 a.m. [Sunday] and his arrest by the Lebanese Army,” the flier read.

Fresh surge in violence in Syria despite international efforts, 'fragile' cease-fire
April 16, 2012 /- (CNN) -- After a relative dropoff in deaths in recent days, violence in Syria ratcheted up again Monday -- including a fierce military offensive in Idlib reported by opposition activists -- just as U.N. observers began monitoring a tenuous cease-fire. The Local Coordination Committees of Syria, an opposition network, reported 55 deaths across the embattled Middle Eastern nation on Monday, a notable uptick from the at least 13, 30 and 28 deaths it counted on Friday, Saturday and Sunday respectively. "The news has not been good," U.S. State Department spokesman Mark Toner told reporters Monday. "It appears that the fragile cease-fire is eroding."
Until Monday, the recent numbers were below the norm that had been reported earlier this month, when opposition groups regularly claimed regime forces were killing 50 or more people a day. On four days, more than 100 people were purported to have died.
Homs, Syria, under a shaky cease-fire
U.N. approves observer mission in Syria
Cease-fire in Syria to be monitored CNN cannot independently verify reports of violence and deaths, as the government has severely restricted access by international media.
The death toll for Monday threatened to spike further, as opposition activists reported Syrian forces had launched a fierce military offensive in the city of Idlib.
Fighters with the rebel Free Syrian Army told activists in neighboring Binnish that Idlib residents were trapped in their homes as the sound of sniper fire and explosions rang out in the streets. The activists said helicopter gunfire and mortar shells were pounding the city
Opposition fighters said bodies littered the streets, though it was difficult to confirm the number of dead amid the ongoing violence, the activists said. While the LCC reported at least 26 deaths Monday in that northern Syrian city, one activist estimated at least 100 people had been killed.
The state-run Syrian Arab News Agency quoted an unnamed military source Monday as saying that "armed terrorists" were behind the violence, a claim made repeatedly over the past year by the Syrian regime.
The news agency reported that aggression by the groups had "hysterically escalated" since the start of the cease-fire, which was to begin by Thursday morning.
That agreement was brokered by Kofi Annan, a former U.N. secretary-general who is serving as an envoy from the United Nations and the Arab League trying to curb the bloodshed.
Annan will be in Qatar on Tuesday to participate in an Arab League meeting and hold talks with top officials from the league, said his spokesman, Ahmad Fawzi.
Six U.N. observers who are part of the international effort arrived in Syria on Sunday, a day after the U.N. Security Council voted unanimously to authorize such a monitoring mission.
They will be "liaising with the Syrian government, security forces and the opposition members to establish the monitoring process across the country," said Kieran Dwyer, a spokesman for peacekeeping missions at the United Nations.
As many as 250 more observers, who will be unarmed, could join them later. Such a larger deployment, though, is contingent on how the cease-fire holds and if discussions between Syria and Annan make progress.
"It is the Syrian government's responsibility to guarantee freedom of access, freedom of movement within the country," U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Monday. "They should be allowed to freely move to any places where they will be able to observe this cessation of violence."
Meanwhile, a U.N. human rights panel tasked with investigating the situation in Syria said Monday it is "seriously concerned" about accounts of government forces shelling neighborhoods and using heavy weaponry since Thursday.
The Commission of Inquiry on Syria also said it had received "reports of human rights abuses committed by anti-government armed groups engaged in fighting against the Syrian army during and after the cease-fire, including extra-judicial killings of soldiers captured during armed confrontations."
Armed opposition fighters said Monday that they aren't waiting to see how the cease-fire holds. They are gathering more weapons to fight the regime just in case the agreement falls apart. Syrian expats debate cease-fire deal
Syrian refugees too scared to return "We are preparing ourselves for the next stage if the Annan mission fails," Capt. Amar Wawi, leader of the Ababil Battalion of opposition fighters based in Aleppo, said from the Syria-Turkey border. "We will then use this equipment against the Assad thugs."
He is part of the Free Syrian Army, which consists mostly of Syrian military defectors with members fighting in separate groups or battalions operating in different towns.
Lt. Abdullah Oda, an opposition fighter in Istanbul, said he was in Iraq last week brokering a deal to send weapons, including anti-tank missiles, to the Free Syrian Army.
"They got this equipment from rebel supporters in the Iraqi-Syrian border," Oda said. "Now the Free Syrian Army are going to get more weapons, more new things which we need strategically on the ground against tanks and against armor. We accept the cease-fire, but that doesn't mean we are not preparing ourselves. Because we don't trust the regime. The regime is going to kill people."
If the cease-fire fails, he said, "We will answer back with huge operations all over the place."
Many world leaders have said the Syrian government is targeting dissidents seeking democracy and the ouster of al-Assad, whose family has ruled Syria for 42 years.
The United States is "gravely concerned" about continuing violence, Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said Monday. If the cease-fire does not hold, she said, that "will call into question the wisdom and viability of sending in the full monitoring presence."
The United Nations estimates at least 9,000 people have died since the protests began, while others put the death toll at more than 11,000.
CNN's Saad Abedine, Yousuf Basil, Salma Abdelaziz, Ivan Watson, Kareem Khadder and Richard Roth contributed to this report.

Analysis: Syria's Assad unbowed by Annan plan
Published April 16, 2012
Associated Press/BEIRUT – The U.N. insists a fragile truce it brokered in Syria is holding, even though regime forces have been hammering the rebellious city of Homs with artillery for days.
It's a sign of the leeway the international community seems willing to give President Bashar Assad in hopes of forcing him into the next stage of special envoy Kofi Annan's peace plan — talks with opponents who demand his removal.
Assad has made it brutally clear that he won't step aside, trying to snuff out a 13-month uprising with tank fire and mass arrests. Even though he ostensibly accepted Annan's plan, he's likely to wriggle out of it since he seems largely insulated from pressure.
He does not face a threat of Western military intervention. Poorly armed rebel fighters don't pose a danger to his rule. And Assad has the backing of Russia, China and Iran, along with key groups at home.
Some even argue the Annan plan has actually allowed Assad to strengthen his hold on the country of 22 million.
"There is nothing to suggest that there is light at the end of the tunnel here," said Shadi Hamid of the Brookings Doha Center, a Gulf-based think tank. "If the end game is the fall of the Assad regime, I don't think we are any closer to the end game."
From the time the April 12 cease-fire deadline was announced, the regime escalated blanket shelling attacks on rebel-held neighborhoods, killing dozens every day in what the opposition described as a frenzied last-minute rush to crush the uprising.
Yet the plan by Annan, the joint U.N.-Arab League emissary, is the only one a deadlocked international community could rally behind and is seen as the only practical way forward.
The West is "half-heartedly supporting the Annan plan although it expects it to fail, because it is even more hesitant at the idea of getting sucked into an armed confrontation," said Peter Harling of the International Crisis Group think tank.
Syria's allies, meanwhile, back the initiative because, unlike an Arab League plan earlier this year, it does not require Assad to step down ahead of transition talks.
Still, even Annan demands that Assad eventually "address the legitimate aspirations and concerns of the Syrian people" in talks with the opposition.
The behavior of the regime in the past few days suggests the plan is likely to unravel well before any political talks could begin.
Since a truce formally took effect Thursday, Syria has violated key provisions. Tanks, troops and widely feared plainclothes security agents continue to patrol the streets to deter anti-regime protests, despite Annan's demand that the army pull back to its bases.
And while there's been a sharp drop in violence since last week, the regime resumed its assault on rebellious Homs, Syria's third-largest city, over the weekend, after only a brief lull. U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon hinted Monday he's ready to overlook Assad's transgressions for now. He said the truce is "very fragile" but essential for getting to political negotiations, suggesting Ban is willing to stretch the definition of a cease-fire to salvage Annan's plan. It's not clear if Ban will call out Assad on truce violations once a full contingent of up to 250 U.N. monitors has been deployed. So far, only an advance team of six is on the ground.
Annan has been intentionally vague about the terms of political talks since gaps are vast and neither side even recognizes the other. The regime portrays its opponents as thugs and terrorists, while the Syrian National Council, the main opposition group, says there's no point talking to Assad.
Political leaders of the opposition say they're willing to let Annan's plan play out even though they believe Assad has no intention of heeding it.
If Assad keeps violating the truce, it will sharpen the message that he can't be reasoned with and that the world needs to take more forceful action, said Louay Safi, the Syrian National Council's chief strategist in exile.
But if, against all odds, the regime were to scale back violence, it could quickly lose control as peaceful protesters flood the streets, Safi said.
"Popular pressure, the atmosphere, will bring down the regime and probably those in control now will have to negotiate their way out," he said.
Others say it's unlikely Assad will let things get this far.
During last Friday's anti-regime marches, the first since the truce, troops opened fire on demonstrators in some areas, killing at least six, but stood by in others. Activists reported a much larger turnout than in previous months, when an intense clampdown reduced the crowd sizes, but said an intimidating troop presence still kept many Assad opponents off the streets.
Analysts say that in the end, only two things can force Assad's hand — a real military threat from abroad or at home, or a change in Russia's position, neither of them likely to happen soon.
Economic sanctions have started to bite, but experts say regimes can survive them for months or years, and Syria's allies, including oil-rich Venezuela, can try to soften the blow.
Russia and fellow U.N. Security Council member China have effectively shielded Assad from international condemnation so far. Moscow's nudging was key to getting Assad to accept the Annan plan, but it's not clear how far Russia would go in demanding compliance.
While Russian leaders may be uneasy about the regime's brutality — more than 9,000 people are said to have been killed since March 2011 — they do not have compelling reasons yet to dump Assad, said Asli Bali, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles.
Russia and Iran will only pressure Syria if they get something in return, Bali said. Russia would likely seek guaranteed access to Syria's Mediterranean ports, while Iran could demand an easing of sanctions imposed to halt its suspected nuclear weapons program, she said.
"Absent some kind of grand bargain to enable negotiations to move toward a political transition, there is no reason to expect the cease-fire to hold for long or for a transition to follow," Bali said.
Expectations should be kept low, cautioned Harling, the Crisis Group analyst.
The Annan plan "will definitely not bring all violence to an end. It won't topple the regime," he said. "The immediate, the urgent aim should be to de-escalate the violence which has crossed very dangerous thresholds."
EDITOR'S NOTE — Karin Laub is chief correspondent for the Palestinian territories and has covered the Middle East since 1987.

UN's Ban: Syria must allow observers full access
Published April 16, 2012
Associated Press
BEIRUT – U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Monday the Syrian government is responsible for guaranteeing U.N. observers full freedom of movement to monitor the country's tenuous cease-fire, which appeared to be unraveling as regime forces pounded the opposition stronghold of Homs, activists said.
Even though overall violence in Syria has dropped significantly since the truce took effect Thursday, the government's shelling of the central city of Homs over the past four days has raised doubts about President Bashar Assad's commitment to special envoy Kofi Annan's plan to end 13 months of violence and launch talks on the country's political future.
An advance team of six observers arrived in Damascus late Sunday to negotiate the mission's ground rules with Syrian authorities.
Ban, speaking to reporters in Brussels, called on Assad to ensure the observers' work is not hindered.
"It is the Syrian government's responsibility to guarantee freedom of access, freedom of movement within the country," he said.
He called the cease-fire "very fragile," but said it was essential that it hold so that an "inclusive political dialogue can continue." He said opposition forces "should also fully cooperate."
The U.N. plans to increase the advance team to 30 people, all of them unarmed, Ban said, adding that the Security Council is expected to authorize a formal monitoring team of about 250 people later this week.The advance team, led by Moroccan Col. Ahmed Himiche, met Monday with Syrian Foreign Ministry officials to discuss ground rules, according to Annan's spokesman, Ahmad Fawzi.
Assad's regime could try to create obstacles for the U.N. team. The failure of an Arab League observer mission earlier this year was blamed in part on regime restrictions imposed on the monitors, including having to travel with government minders.Fawzi said in a statement issued in Geneva that the mission "will start with setting up operating headquarters, and reaching out to the Syrian government and the opposition forces so that both sides fully understand the role of the U.N. observers."
"We will start our mission as soon as possible and we hope it will be a success," Himiche told The Associated Press in Damascus.
A spokesman for the U.N. peacekeeping department, Kieran Dwyer, said an important priority for the observers in the coming days "will be to get out of Damascus and visit other centers, begin to decide where other operational bases will be established, and make contact with all side in those cities and towns."
He emphasized the need for the observers to be able to move freely and speak to anyone they wish "...without that person suffering negative consequences."
The international community hopes U.N. observers will be able to stabilize the cease-fire, which formally took effect Thursday. Annan will travel to Doha, Qatar, on Tuesday to take part in an Arab League meeting to discuss Syria.
But violence has continued in pockets throughout the country, fueling doubts about Assad's intentions.
U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, said ongoing violence contradicts the Syrian government's commitments and said its continuation "would call into question the wisdom and the viability of sending in the whole monitoring presence."Activists reported government attacks in a number of places Monday. Tarek Badrakhan, an activist from the battered Homs district of Khaldiyeh, said the regime resumed its intense bombardment of the neighborhood."The shelling hasn't stopped for one minute since this morning. There are buildings on fire right now," he said via Skype. Badrakhan and other activists said the army appeared to be pushing to take control of the last rebel-held districts in Homs and was pounding Khaldiyeh from three sides. He said half of the nearby district of Bayada fell under the army's control Sunday night. Troops were trying to storm Qarabees and Jouret al-Shayah but the Free Syrian Army is repelling them, he said, referring to the army defectors fighting the government. In activist videos posted online, shells could be heard whizzing through the air before smashing into residential areas in at least two Homs neighborhoods.
"We hope that the observers would come to Homs as soon as possible because if things go on like this, there won't be anything left called Homs," Badrakhan said.
Two activist groups, the Local Coordination Committees and the British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, said at least four people were killed in shelling in Homs and in the nearby town of Qusair. Six people were killed in gunfire in the central city of Hama and four in the northern city of Idlib. The Syrian leader accepted the truce deal at the prodding of his main ally, Russia, but his compliance has been limited. Assad apparently fears losing control of a country his family has ruled for four decades. Rebel fighters have also kept up attacks, including shooting ambushes.
The U.N. Security Council approved the observer mission unanimously on Saturday. It's the first peace initiative to enjoy broad backing, including from Russia and China, who shielded the Syrian regime from Security Council censure in the past.
Associated Press writers Albert Aji in Damascus, John Heilprin in Geneva, Don Melvin in Brussels, Ibrahim Barzak in Gaza City, Gaza Strip, and Edith M. Lederer from the United Nations contributed to this report.

Hezbollah and the Arab Revolutions: The Contradictions Made Apparent
http://www.gloria-center.org/2012/04/hizballah-and-the-arab-revolutions-the-contradiction-made-apparent/
BY JONATHAN SPYER APRIL 15, 2012
Since the 1990s, Hizballah has defined itself along a number of parallel lines, each of which prior to 2011 appeared to support the other. The movement was simultaneously a sectarian representative of the Lebanese Shi’a, a regional ally of Iran and Syria, a defender of the Lebanese against the supposed aggressive intentions of Israel, and a leader of a more generically defined Arab and Muslim “resistance” against Israel and the West. As a result of the events of 2011, most important the revolt against the Asad regime in Syria, these various lines, which seemed mutually supportive, began to contradict one another. This has diminished Hizballah’s position, though it remains physically unassailable for as long as the Asad regime in Syria survives.
The year 2011 witnessed a series of upheavals and revolutions, which launched a long-awaited process of change in some of the stagnant polities of the Arab-speaking world. It is too soon to draw any definitive conclusions regarding where these changes may lead or what the Arab world will look like when the storm has passed. Nevertheless, the transformations that have already taken place are presenting established political players across the Middle East with new and unfamiliar questions and dilemmas.
Prominent among those existing political forces facing new challenges as a result of regional changes is the Lebanese Shi’i Islamist Hizballah movement. Since the early 2000s, the Middle East has been dominated by a competition between the U.S.-led regional dispensation and a challenge to this hegemony undertaken by Iran and its allies.[1] Hizballah was and remains a key component of the Iran-led alliance, also constituting a central sectarian player in the Lebanese context and a champion of the idea of “resistance” against Israel and the United States. The emerging nature of the regional upheavals are posing difficulties for Hizballah on all three levels of its identity–as an Iran-aligned force, a Shi’i political player in the Lebanese context, and as the self-proclaimed champion of regional “resistance.” This article will consider the origin and emergence of these difficulties and their likely implications for Hizballah’s future.
The most urgent and central issues facing Hizballah of course relate to the uprising in Syria. Prior to the outbreak of the revolt against the Bashar al-Asad regime, Hizballah was able to adopt a stance of vociferous support for the uprisings. This was because in their initial phase, the revolts all took place in states aligned with the United States and the West–Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain and Yemen.
In mid-March 2011, however, a revolt broke out in the southern Syrian town of Dar’a.[2] Many analysts initially expected that the Syrian regime’s near matchless capacity for brutality would enable it to crush the uprising swiftly. This has not proven to be the case, which has placed Hizballah in a difficult situation.
This article discusses Hizballah’s position immediately prior to the Arab Spring. It traces the trajectory of the movement’s response to the events of 2011, seeking the logic behind Hizballah’s stance on Syria, Bahrain, and other pivotal locations. It concludes by asking what implications the events of 2011 and the broader changes under way in the Middle East are likely to have on Hizballah’s future. It is argued that among its many other effects, the Arab Spring has served to tease out the contradictions apparent in the various components of Hizballah’s identity. In particular, the uprising in Syria has made apparent the central contradiction between Hizballah’s claim to represent and support the will of the peoples of the Arab world against tyranny and oppression. It has also made clear the movement’s status as a component of a regional strategic alliance centered on the Islamic Republic of Iran and including Asad’s Syria.
HIZBALLAH ON THE EVE OF THE ARAB SPRING
On the eve of the Arab Spring, Hizballah’s position appeared relatively secure. The issue of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) investigating the 2005 murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri was the main dark cloud on the movement’s horizon. Evidence had emerged implicating senior Hizballah members in the killing.[3] In late 2010, Hizballah broke up the governing coalition in order to secure the establishment of a government that the movement believed would take a firm stance against the STL.[4] A pro-Syrian prime minister, Najib Mikati, replaced the March 14 leader Sa’ad Hariri as prime minister.
Yet the STL notwithstanding, Hizballah’s position appeared secure. With Iranian help, the movement had rebuilt much of the damage inflicted by Israel on its South Lebanese and south Beirut heartland in the 2006 Lebanon War. The movement’s military infrastructure had also been repaired, replenished, and significantly expanded.[5]
In the May 2008 events, Hizballah had proved that no other political force in Lebanon was capable of mounting a physical challenge to its extensive, independent military and communications infrastructure. Thus, on the eve of the Arab Spring, Hizballah’s position looked secure–indeed virtually unassailable–from the point of view of its physical power within Lebanon. Regarding the possibility of renewed conflict with Israel, considerable evidence emerged suggesting the war-weariness of the Shi’i population of Southern Lebanon–Hizballah’s core base of support–and their fear of renewed conflict.[6] The movement would doubtless need to take this into account when considering the option of renewed aggression against Israel.
Hizballah is an ideological movement deeply committed to the strategic goal of the destruction of Israel.[7] It also discovered a new casus belli for its war against Israel in the Shab’a Farms area, after the Israel Defense Forces’ (IDF) withdrawal from Southern Lebanon in May 2000. The movement claims that this area, captured from Syria by Israel in 1967, in fact constitutes Lebanese territory.[8]
Yet while the long war against Israel is the central focus for Hizballah, there was no immediate or urgent reason for Hizballah to seek renewed conflict with the Jewish state in 2011. The 2006 war erupted as a result of an operation to kidnap IDF soldiers in order to secure the return of a number of Lebanese held in Israeli jails. These individuals, along with Hizballah prisoners captured in the war, were released by Israel in 2008, in exchange for the corpses of two kidnapped IDF soldiers. Since the 2006 war, Hizballah had endeavored to keep the border with Israel quiet.[9] The movement portrayed the war of 2006 as a “divine victory” for itself. Its propaganda continued to focus on the long strategic contest with Israel. Its cadres, according to reports, believed that the next war between the movement and the Jewish state would result in the latter’s destruction.[10] In the meantime, however, Hizballah preferred to keep the border in a state of unaccustomed quiet.
Thus Hizballah’s internal enemies had been intimidated militarily in May 2008. It had appeared also to have reached a tense but stable equilibrium with its main external enemy. In terms of hard power and coercive ability, then, Hizballah’s position seemed secure on the eve of the Arab Spring. In political terms, however, and in terms of the movement’s perceived legitimacy within Lebanon, the situation was less positive for the movement. First, the decision to turn its weapons on fellow Lebanese in May 2008 had deeply tarnished Hizballah’s image as a pan-Lebanese “resistance” group that carried weaponry only for use against Israel.
Many Lebanese commentators consider that the political system in Lebanon has a built-in regulating mechanism, which acts to prevent any single confessional grouping from amassing too much political power at the expense of other groups.[11] By the end of 2010, Hizballah, with the help of Iran, appeared to have transcended this process. It had done so, however, without the consent of its rivals, but rather by coercion. This meant that it was able to maintain its position only through the implicit threat of its arms, and in the face of the resentment of other parts of the population. This was a tenable position–for as long as the superior strength was there. This superior strength, in turn, was dependent on the continued support of Iran and Syria.
In addition, by 2011, considerable evidence had emerged to suggest that Hizballah was losing the image of Shi’i Islamist purity and integrity that had characterized it in the past. A widely-noted financial scandal erupted in 2010, featuring Salah Ezz al-Din of the South Lebanese village of M’aroub.[12] Ezz al-Din, a Lebanese Shi’a in his fifties, was accused of embezzlement and defrauding investors of hundreds of millions of dollars. He had promised quick returns on investments in what he claimed were construction, oil, and gas projects outside of Lebanon. Ezz al-Din guaranteed investors 20 to 25 percent profits within 100 days on certain investments. Yet Ezz al-Din was running a Ponzi scheme–paying clients with funds gleaned from newer investors. He is believed to have defrauded investors of around $500 million.
Ezz al-Din was no ordinary financier. He enjoyed close links to Hizballah. He ran a variety of enterprises associated with the group. Most important was the Dar al-Hadi Publishing House, named after Hadi Nasrallah. Hadi Nasrallah was Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah’s son, who was killed fighting the IDF in Southern Lebanon and is somewhere near the top of the movement’s pantheon of “martyrs.” The publishing house that bore his name was responsible for the publication of a number of books by senior Hizballah officials.
The perception of Hizballah patronage was a major factor in encouraging investors to place their trust in Ezz al-Din. As one disappointed client put it, “People put money with him because he was wearing the Hizbullah cloak.”[13] The affair, additional revelations concerning the alleged personal wealth of Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah,[14] and the alleged activities of the sons of a number of prominent movement figures[15] all served to detract from Hizballah’s stern, carefully cultivated image.
The result was that on the eve of the Arab upheavals of 2011, Hizballah found itself in a curious position. On the one hand, its strength seemed unassailable–it had emerged honorably from a war with its most powerful foe; it had brushed aside the threat of its internal enemies; and it was allied with powerful anti-Western, anti-Israel countries (Iran and Syria). On the other hand, its position was maintained because its internal enemies had been intimidated, not because they had given their consent. The image that the movement had built of a Shi’i Islamist group with integrity acting in the defense of all Lebanese, meanwhile, was also looking somewhat frayed.
HIZBALLAH’S RESPONSE TO THE “ARAB SPRING”
The series of upheavals given the collective name of the “Arab Spring” erupted in a region already in a state of acute political tension. A “cold war” was dividing the Middle East, pitting the United States and its allies in the region against a challenge from Iran and its clients, including Hizballah. The upheavals did not end this cold war-style standoff, though they succeeded to divert Western media attention from it for most of 2011. From Hizballah’s point of view, as a leading member of the pro-Iranian alliance, the question of the relative power of the two blocs is the key to understanding its response.
The first two leaders to fall in 2011 were President Zine al-Abidine Bin Ali of Tunisia and President Husni Mubarak of Egypt. Both, in addition to being authoritarian rulers, were important clients of the United States in the Middle East. Hizballah thus enthusiastically supported the uprising that brought these rulers down. Mubarak in particular was hated by the movement because of his strong opposition to Iran and the arrest by the Egyptian authorities of a Hizballah-led paramilitary network operating in the country in 2009. (Sami Shihab, a Hizballah operative who led the cell, was reported to have escaped from jail in the chaotic period that followed the fall of Mubarak.)[16]
Thus, Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah spoke to a festival in Beirut backing the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt. Nasrallah described the revolution in Egypt as the “product of the people’s will and determination… a complete revolution for the poor, the free, the students, and freedom. It is a political humanitarian revolution against everything, especially the regime’s policies towards the Arab-Israeli conflict.”[17]
Nasrallah placed his praise for the revolutions in a very specific context–namely, what he portrayed as their anti-American and anti-Israeli nature. In this regard, he likened the revolts to the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran:
Ayatollah Khomeini was loyal to the aspirations of the nation and not an American ally and this is the case of the Tunisian and Egyptian people. The Americans tried to contain the revolution to improve their image in the Arab world. The U.S. does not care if an Islamist or a secularist assumes power. Its only concern is the substitute’s political approach and whether it will be in its and Israeli interests.[18]
This understanding of the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia resembled the analysis emerging from Iran, Hizballah’s patron. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamene’i described the Arab upheavals as an “Islamic Awakening”[19] (a description widely derided at the time, which in retrospect, given subsequent events, appears to have been far more prescient than much Western analysis.)
In this first phase of the Arab upheavals, Syrian President Bashar Asad expressed himself in a similar way. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Asad predicted that the unrest would not reach Syria, because of the regime’s support for the Palestinian cause and for “resistance” across the region.[20] This was the shared view of the self-proclaimed “Resistance Axis” in the region, led by Iran, of which Hizballah is a senior member. This axis was expecting in the first months of 2011 to see members of the rival bloc falling to popular unrest, while themselves remaining immune.
The outbreak of a revolt in Bahrain in February 2011 provided further cause for enthusiasm on the part of Hizballah. This seemed a situation tailor-made for the propagandists of Iran and its allies. A Shi’i majority population, situated in the vicinity of Iran (in an area often referred to by Iran as its “fourteenth province”)[21] and its archrival Saudi Arabia were in revolt against its Sunni, Western, and Saudi-aligned ruler.
Hizballah offered vocal condemnations of the Bahraini authorities. In particular, it spoke out against the “repression” of the Peninsular Shield Force, which intervened to crush the revolt on behalf of the monarchy. Nasrallah, in a speech, called the events in Bahrain a “special injustice.”[22] According to the Bahraini monarchy, the support also went beyond the merely verbal. In a document exposed by Wikileaks preceding the 2011 revolt, Bahraini King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa claimed that opposition groups were receiving training from Hizballah in Lebanon. U.S. officials concluded, however, that no clear evidence had emerged to support these claims.[23]
Hizballah’s verbal and possibly additional support for uprisings against Arab rulers made sense in the cold-war context through which the movement sees the region, and, in a more nebulous way, in terms of the resistance image in which the movement likes to clothe itself. Yet the outbreak of an uprising in Syria on March 15, 2011, disturbed the picture. Syria forms a vital link in the Iran-led regional alliance of which Hizballah is a part, and also a vital ally for Hizballah itself.
In terms of the former, Syria is the only significant Arab state ally that Iran possesses. With the emergence to power of a Shi’i government in Iraq, the Iranians had hoped to achieve a contiguous line of pro-Iranian states stretching across Iraq and Syria to Hizballah-dominated Lebanon.[24] Hence, the survival of the Asad regime has been a matter of central importance to the Iranians, who have been actively involved in the defense of the Asad regime since the outset of the uprising.
For Hizballah specifically, the survival of Asad was no less vital. Syria formed a key conduit for the transfer of weapons to the movement from Iran. Syria’s support for Hizballah was also a vital element in the political balance of power within Lebanon itself, which underlay Hizballah’s intimidation of its enemies and domination of the country. Were Asad to fall and be replaced by a regime dominated by Syria’s Sunni-Arab majority, this could portend a strategic shift in favor of the Sunni-dominated bloc opposing Hizballah in Lebanon.
Hizballah thus began to offer verbal support to the Asad regime, in stark contrast to its support for uprisings elsewhere. It is worth noting that there was a lull of two months between the outbreak of the uprising in Syria and the first public statements by Hassan Nasrallah in support of the regime. This lull may be attributed to Hizballah’s awareness of the obvious dissonance between its previous support for the uprisings and its pro-Asad position. Clearly, the movement had hoped that Asad would rapidly crush the opposition to him, in line with the expectations of many analysts.
By May 2011, it was clear that this was not going to happen. Hence, on May 25, Nasrallah issued his first clear comments in support of the Asad regime. Nasrallah’s remarks again sought to locate the logic of his movement’s position within the broader conflict against the United States and Israel. In a speech given to mark the eleventh anniversary of the Israeli withdrawal from Southern Lebanon, Nasrallah told his audience, “Overthrowing the regime in Syria is in the American and Israeli interest.”[25]
In the same speech, Nasrallah praised the overthrow of the regimes in Tunisia, while claiming that Asad in Syria wanted to implement reforms, but in a “calm and responsible” manner.[26] Hizballah has not substantively deviated from this line in any further public statements by its leaders and activists on the crisis in Syria. Significant evidence has also emerged that the movement’s support for the Asad regime has not been limited to declarations alone.
Syrian opposition sources tended to dismiss early claims that Hizballah men were taking an active part in repressing the demonstrations. They argued that Asad had no shortage of thugs able and willing to kill, and therefore the regime was unlikely to need Hizballah’s help in this regard. However, a number of analysts have since suggested that Hizballah personnel were playing an active role in the effort to suppress the uprising–specifically in efforts to infiltrate and subvert opposition circles. There have also been allegations of direct involvement of Hizballah fighters in the suppression of protests.[27]
More tangibly, Hizballah activists alongside Lebanese state security personnel took part in the harassment of Syrian (mainly Sunni) oppositionists who sought refuge in Lebanon. In November 2011, for example, an attempt by Hizballah to arrest a Syrian (who was either a dissident or a smuggler) in the Sunni border town of Arsal resulted in a pitched battle between armed local residents and Hizballah operatives. The latter had to be evacuated by Lebanese Armed Forces troops.[28]
Hizballah operatives themselves have admitted that this activity on behalf of the Syrians is taking place, though they claim that they are looking only for “weapons dealers, al Qaeda members, and those who would destabilize Lebanon.”[29] Thus, Hizballah is both actively and verbally engaged in the efforts to keep the Asad regime in power in Syria. This is an unambiguous position, from which the movement has not deviated in any detail.
EXPLAINING HIZBALLAH’S RESPONSES: THE CONTRADICTION MADE APPARENT?
It is not difficult to understand the contradictory position adopted by Hizballah vis-à-vis the Arab upheavals, once the movement’s priorities and key loyalties are understood. At the outset, this article noted four aspects of Hizballah’s identity: It is an Iran-aligned force, a representative of the Lebanese Shi’a, a regional Shi’i Arab force, and a representative of a self-proclaimed “resistance” trend in the wider Arab and Muslim worlds. The movement’s response to the Arab upheavals, however, indicates the order of importance of these aspects. The alignment with Iran, and the movement’s dominant position in Lebanon predictably, over-rode any other considerations.
When a dilemma emerged, Hizballah did not hesitate to adopt a position in obvious contradiction to its earlier claims to support the rights and demands of the peoples of the region, in order to line up alongside its patron–Iran–and fellow client–the Asad regime. Of course, it would be naïve to be surprised by this. History is replete with examples of the truism that power politics trumps ideology. Yet in Hizballah’s case, the contradiction between its early support for the uprisings and its defense of Asad was particularly pronounced. It hinged, of course, on the primary loyalty to the alliance of which the movement is part.
Hizballah was established under the auspices of the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps. It receives between $100 million and $200 million per year from Iran.[30] Iran and Syria supply the weaponry that has enabled the movement to outgrow its early context as a Lebanese sectarian militia. Hizballah is in no position to turn against any of this, even if it had the desire to do so–of which there is no evidence. Its response in 2011 has been that of a loyal component of a regional bloc.
Hizballah has sought to justify its stances in terms of anti-Western and anti-Israeli power politics, entirely ignoring the will of the Syrian people, as demonstrated by the ongoing demonstrations and rallies against the Asad dictatorship. In so doing, Hizballah has paid a significant price in terms of its popularity and legitimacy across the region. This is of less importance to it than the preservation of the vital strategic asset of the Asad regime. Yet its importance, as well as the larger negative significance of the Arab upheavals of 2011 for Hizballah and the bloc of which it is a part, should not be underestimated.
CONCLUSION: HIZBALLAH, THE RESISTANCE BLOC AND THE EVENTS OF 2011
The “resistance ideology,” and indeed the Iran-led bloc have emerged as significant losers as a result of the 2011 Arab upheavals.[31] This is so for two central reasons. First, the earlier, rights-based language emerging from the protest movements in Tunisia focused on issues about which the movement and its Iranian patrons have little or nothing to say. Iran and Hizballah locate the central problems facing the Arab and Muslim worlds as external–above all, the threat supposedly represented by the existence of Israel and the designs of the United States.
The early protest movements were noted for the absence or minor presence of anti-Israeli and anti-American rhetoric. Rather, the demonstrators sought to focus attention on the glaring political and social problems affecting their countries. Unlike anti-Israeli and anti-American anger, this kind of sentiment is not available for exploitation by the “resistance bloc,” because this bloc itself pursues authoritarian and non-democratic politics, and it has signally failed to develop successful economies or civil societies wherever it has held power. It has nothing to say regarding an Arab politics turned toward internal development and reform. Thus, as noted above, the “resistance bloc” avoided any reference to these aspects. Instead, Ayatollah Khamene’i referred to the uprisings as an “Islamic Awakening,” and Iran and Hizballah supported or opposed them based on the power political interests of the Iran-led bloc.
Yet a potentially more significant setback has been suffered by the Iran-led bloc, as the nature of the changes under way has become more apparent. The beneficiaries of the 2011 toppling of long-standing dictatorial regimes in the Arab world have been Sunni Islamist movements. Hizballah in its language has often claimed to represent a general Muslim or Arab interest. However, it is a Shi’i organization. It is also part of a regional power bloc led by Iran. This bloc, while it too sometimes speaks a pan-Islamic language, overwhelmingly consists of Shi’i (or at least non-Sunni) elements. The key members of the bloc are Iran itself, the Alawi-dominated regime in Syria, Hizballah, and the Sadrist movement in Iraq.
This fact may on occasion have been overlooked by non-Shi’i parts of the region–in particular when Hizballah was engaged in combat with Israel, which is an object of hatred for Sunni and Shi’i Arabs alike. Yet the main tangible effect of the Arab upheavals so far has been to raise the real possibility of Sunni Islamist regimes in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, and–most worryingly from Hizballah’s point of view–Syria.
Should such regimes emerge, they are likely to align either with each other or with existing Sunni powers in the region. They are highly unlikely to ally with the Iran-led bloc. Hizballah, for a while, was the emblem and symbol of Iran’s resistance project in the Arab world. Should the Asad regime in Syria fall, this would constitute a very significant blow to Hizballah, and to its patron. Yet the larger and more profound challenge to Hizballah and its allies set in motion by the events of 2011 may well be the emergence of Sunni Islamism as a contender for or holder of political power in a number of different Arab countries. This is likely to introduce a more openly sectarian tone to intra-Arab power politics, which will constitute a potentially deadly blow to attempts by Hizballah and their Iranian allies to present themselves as representing the general Arab or Muslim interest.
Should Sunni-Arab Islamists in the future wish to point to evidence regarding the hollowness of claims by Hizballah and its allies to represent interests outside of that of the Shi’a, meanwhile, a central item of evidence they are likely to present will be the stance of Hizballah vis-à-vis the Syrian uprising of 2011 and the uprisings that preceded it. They will note, accurately, that in its response to the threat to the Asad dictatorship, Hizballah elected to shed any ecumenical pretenses, preferring to offer its full support to efforts to keep the dictatorship in place. This may well have included direct Hizballah violence against Syrian civilians. This took place at a time when the Asad dictatorship was engaged in a frontal struggle against a largely Sunni uprising against its rule. By doing so, Hizballah demonstrated its status as above all a client of the Iran-led regional bloc, and on a secondary level a Lebanese Shi’i sectarian force–with pretensions toward leading a general regional “resistance” relegated to a distant, rhetorical third place.
* Dr. Jonathan Spyer is a senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya. His first book, The Transforming Fire: The Rise of the Israel-Islamist Conflict, was published in 2010.
NOTES
[1] Daniel Pipes, “The Middle Eastern Cold War,” Jerusalem Post, June 17, 2009, http://www.danielpipes.org.
[2] Lina Sinjab, “Silence Broken in Syria,” BBC Online, March 19, 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk.
[3] “Tribunal Publishes Hizballah Murder Indictments,” Investigative Project on Terrorism, August 17, 2011, http://www.investigativeproject.org.
[4] “Hezbollah and Allies Topple Lebanese Unity Government,” BBC Online, January 12, 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk.
[5] Michael Eisenstadt, “Potential Iranian Responses to NATO’s Missile Defense Shield,” Policywatch, No. 1772, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, November 19, 2010, http://www.washingtoninstitute.org.
[6] Hanin Ghaddar, “The Shia, Between Dignity and Survival,” Now Lebanon, February 22, 2008, http://www.nowlebanon.com. See also Mona Yacoubian, “Hezbollah After Assad,” Foreign Affairs, December 1, 2011, http://www.foreignaffairs.com.
[7] Amal Saad-Ghorayeb, Hizbullah: Politics and Religion (London: Pluto Press, 2002), pp. 142-51.
[8] “In Focus: Shabaa Farms,” BBC Online, May 25, 2000, http://news.bbc.co.uk.
[9] “Quiet Holds Five Years After Israel-Hizballah War,” Agence France Presse, July 12, 2011, http://www.khaleejtimes.com.
[10] Bilal Y. Saab and Nicholas Blandford, “The Next War: How Another Conflict Between Hizballah and Israel Could Look and How Both Sides Are Preparing for It,” Analysis Paper, No. 24, The Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings, August, 2011, http://www.brookings.edu, p. 33.
[11] Michael Young, “Is Hizballah Losing Control?” Now Lebanon, January 6, 2012, http://www.nowlebanon.com.
[12] Yara Bayoumy, “Trust in Lebanese Financier Shakes Hezbollah’s Image,” Reuters, September 21, 2009, http://blogs.reuters.com.
[13] Jonathan Spyer, “Hizballah’s Brand Is Tarnished,” Jerusalem Post, September 26, 2009, http://www.jpost.com.
[14] Doron Peskin, “Hezbollah’s Nasrallah Worth $250 Million?” Ynet News, December 29, 2011, http://www.ynetnews.com.
[15] Jonathan Schanzer, “Pious Coke Dealers?” New York Post, January 3, 2012, http://www.nypost.com.
[16] “Sami Shihab, a Hezbollah Operative Who Escaped from an Egyptian Prison, Participated in a Hezbollah Rally in Beirut,” The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism
Information Center, February 20, 2011, http://www.terrorism-info.org.il.
[17] “Hezbollah Chief Praises Tunisian, Egyptian Protests, Attacks US,” Ya Libnan, February 7, 2011, http://www.yalibnan.com.
[18] Ibid.
[19] “Islamic Awakening Conference Inaugurated, Imam Khamenei Speaks,” al-Manar News, September 17, 2011, http://www.almanar.com.lb.
[20] “Interview with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad,” Wall Street Journal, January 31, 2012, http://online.wsj.com.
[21] Mitchell A. Belfer, “Iran’s Bahraini Ambitions,” October 6, 2011, http://online.wsj.com.
[22] “Nasrallah Salutes Arab Uprisings, Dismisses March 14 Anti-Arms Campaign,” Now Lebanon, March 19, 2011, http://www.nowlebanon.com.
[23] “Wikileaks: Bahrain King Claims Opposition Trained by Hezbollah,” Haaretz, February 19, 2011, http://www.haaretz.com.
[24] Edward Luttwak, “Revenge of the Sunnis,” Foreign Policy, December 7, 2011, http://www.foreignpolicy.com.
[25] “Hizballah Leader Stands Firm Behind Syria,” Associated Press, May 25, 2011, http://www.dawn.com.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Conversations with Syrian opposition activists, January 2012.
[28] “Mustaqbal MPs: Army Intelligence: Hizbullah Tried to Nab Syrian from Arsal,” Naharnet, November 22, 2011, http://www.naharnet.com.
[29] Mitchell Prothero, “Assad’s Lebanese Invasion,” Foreign Policy, December 22, 2011, http://www.foreignpolicy.com.
[30] “Report: CIA Forced to Curb Spying in Lebanon, Iran,” Associated Press, November 21, 2011, http://www.ynetnews.com.
[31] Luttwak, “Revenge of the Sunnis.”
47
FILED UNDER: LEBANON, MERIA JOURNAL VOLUME 16, NUMBER 01 (MARCH 2012), MIDDLE EAST POLITICS , RADICAL MOVEMENTS, REGIONAL , REGIONAL SECURITY, SYRIA
About Jonathan Spyer
Jonathan Spyer is a senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs Center in Herzliya, Israel, the author of The Transforming Fire: The Rise of the Israel-Islamist Conflict (Continuum, 2010) and a columnist at the Jerusalem Post newspaper. Spyer holds a PhD in International Relations from the London School of Economics and a Masters' Degree in Middle East Politics from the School of Oriental and African Studies in London. He served in a front-line unit of the Israel Defense Forces in 1992-3, and fought in the war in Lebanon in summer 2006. Between 1996 and 2000, Spyer was an employee of the Israel Prime Minister's Office.
Lebanon: In the Shadow of the Syrian Storm
By James Denselow/Asharq Alawsat
Beirut, Asharq Al-Awsat- There is an often said phrase that any political earthquake in the Middle East will lead to tremors in Lebanon. The country is a geopolitical chessboard that plays host to struggles ranging from the Arab-Israeli conflict to the Arab-Iranian Cold War. Yet despite a deepening and increasingly bloody conflict in Syria, Lebanon has remained largely calm over the past 14 months. While there have been both pro and anti-Syrian regime protests there has been no large-scale breakdown in order.
Nadim Shehadi, from the Chatham House think tank, described the situation in Lebanon as “immune to flaring up”. Shehadi explained to Asharq Al-Awsat: “It is un-inflammable…in the last seven years since the assassination of Hariri there have been many torches thrown at it and it has shown immunity.” In March, Western diplomats stated that “Lebanon has managed to maintain stability, thanks to an international decision to isolate the country from the turbulence in the region”.
Yet with violence in Syria worsening by the day, and deep scepticism over the durability of ceasefires, can Lebanon remain hermetically sealed from the chaos in its eastern neighbour?
Bordering on Chaos
The reality of the danger emanating from Syria was brutally highlighted by the cross-border fire that killed cameraman Ali Shaaban in April, as he reported from the north of the country [Lebanon]. Damascus offered "warm condolences", with the Syrian government news agency claiming he was shot during a firefight with "an armed terrorist group" that was trying to infiltrate the country.
The 200-mile long border, dismissed in the past by Syrian leaders as a colonial imposition dividing al-Sham (Greater Syria), has suddenly become a contested zone in a similar way that Syria's border with Iraq did following the 2003 US invasion. Syria only fully withdrew its forces from Lebanon in 2005 after the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. The regime in Damascus then proceeded to close official crossings on several occasions over the next two years as a means of applying political pressure on a divided Lebanese government. In November of last year, concerned by reports of the nascent 'Free Syria Army' (FSA) transiting the border, the Syrian army took the drastic step to start demarcating the border with security forces and landmines. According to Human Rights Watch many people fleeing the violence have been seriously wounded.
Khaled Daher, a member of Lebanon's parliament from the border region, has accused the Lebanese army of colluding with Syria to extend al-Assad's crackdown into Lebanon. Indeed after several truckloads of smuggled weapons were seized the Lebanese government vowed to boost security measures along the border.
At a safe house in Northern Lebanon in late March a smuggler complained to Asharq Al-Awsat that “the Lebanese army is cooperating with the Syrian army to control the border.” Joining the smuggler was a Syrian businessman visiting from Saudi Arabia, to where he was exiled in the crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood in 1981. He claimed they had already sent $800,000 to arm the FSA explaining, “They are selling [the arms] within Lebanon. Some steal from the Lebanese army and others are importing weapons to Lebanon.” In early April the Lebanese daily al-Akhbar reported that a Lebanese army intelligence officer in charge of an arms depot had been arrested on suspicion of stealing and selling arms and ammunitions.
Lebanese economists estimate that cross-border traffic between the two states has dropped by almost 75 percent since the protests began. Lebanon is dependent on Syria for its trade with most of the world with transit through the country representing 60 percent of Lebanon’s trade. While the legitimate traffic of goods between the two countries has plummeted, smugglers have continued to take advantage of the notoriously porous border to transport supplies and weapons into Syria as refugees and injured fighters pass in the opposite direction. The routes have remained relatively open for the duration of the uprising but in recent weeks the Syrian army has clamped down.
Wael Khaldy, assistant CEO of refugees for the ‘High Commission for Syrian Relief’ (HCFSR), is one of the chief coordinators finding safe passages for supplies and refugees. “It was much easier than now, before we had nearly 250 roads going into Syria. We specialize in medicine and food. Almost 80 percent of needed supplies come from Lebanon, and around 20 percent come from Turkey,” he says. According to Khaldy the vulnerability of the Syrian soldiers near the border and the exposure of their own supply routes means that under the table deals can be negotiated whereby “they let us get our supplies and we let them get theirs.”
However, as the Syrian forces have struggled to quash the armed insurrection in Homs and the surrounding regions they have taken a tougher line in cutting supply routes to and from neighboring Lebanon. This month, reports emerged of Syrian regime forces planting new landmines along the border in a bid to replace landmines washed by the winter floods or removed by activists and refugees. The HCFSR’s Khaldy says over the past two months alone he has lost three workers to land mines and seven more have lost legs. The mines prevent movement in both ways as the Syrian government has looked to reduce the number of refugees fleeing the country in order to avoid the impression of state breakdown. Refugees in northern Lebanon spoke of snipers, shelling and landmines killing people as they fled across the illegal routes.
The acceptance of Syrian refugees into Lebanon remains a highly sensitive issue. The Lebanese government's unwillingness to set up formal facilities in the same way as the Turkish government means most Syrians who cross have largely been assimilated into urban areas. According to the UNHCR , the majority of the refugees reside with "host families" rather than in camps - a welcome development, since refugee camps are often characterized by overcrowding and permanent slum-like conditions. If larger numbers start making the move, as reports from Turkey suggest in early April, then more formal structures will need to be constructed. Interestingly the head of a coalition of Islamic charities in Lebanon has said they would establish refugee camps for the Syrians if the Lebanese government didn’t step up to provide for those in need. The Daily Star reported on a coalition consisting of around 30 Islamic charities with a multimillion dollar budget that is a primary provider for thousands of Syrian refugees in the country.
International agencies have recognised an uptick in the number of refugees fleeing Syria, with some estimating that there are 27,000 refugees now in Lebanon, several times more than the official UNHCR figures of just over 10,000. Arsal is a small town ensconced among the mountains of north Lebanon less than ten miles from Syria. It is a Sunni stronghold with close familial and societal links with the Sunni communities at the forefront of the uprising across the border. According to the UNHCR it now hosts over 350 refugee families who are sheltered in the homes of local families as well as in mosques and community centers.
Officials from the anti-Assad ‘Future’ party help coordinate the process of finding accommodation for the refugees. At a center where whole families share individual rooms, often with little more than foam mattresses and the clothes on their backs, Um Ali has found sanctuary. An elderly woman from a village near Idlib, she fled her home at the end of February. “The blast ripped her chest wide open,” she said whilst showing pictures of her sister who was killed in an artillery strike. Compelled by this violent loss and the continued fighting she decided to make the perilous journey to join her son in Lebanon. She can claim relative security in Arsal but like many other refugees there she is fearful of venturing further afield. Abou Ahmad, a refugee from Homs, explains “If it is not to go home I will not leave Arsal. There is no safety.” This trepidation is indicative of the divergent reactions among the Lebanese to the influx of Syrian refugees, with many of the villages surrounding Arsal dominated by the pro-Assad Hezbollah movement.
A Political Tightrope
Underpinning the Lebanese government's decisions regarding the border, refugees and international sanctions on Syria is its desperate desire not to be the battlefield where pro and anti-Assad forces slug it out. The country's politics have been largely defined over the past seven years by a pro or anti-Syrian divide, with the UN Special Tribunal looking into the killing of Hariri and the Syrian-Iranian supplied weapons of Hezbollah causing the government to fall and the streets of Beirut to be filled once again, if only briefly, with militiamen. In January, Lebanon criticized the Arab League's call for President Bashar al-Assad to step down, saying Arab ministers had taken an "unbalanced" approach to the crisis in Syria. In February, Lebanon’s “policy of dissociation” was highlighted when they abstained in the United Nations General Assembly’s condemnation of the violence, choosing not to vote ‘no’ alongside traditional Syrian allies like Iran and Russia.
While the government has avoided taking sides Beirut has become a safe haven for Syrian activists and journalists who have fled the country to avoid arrest. However tensions between pro and anti-regime groups have spilled over into bouts of violence. On the 5th of April Syrian workers opposed to President Bashar al-Assad exchanged fire in Beirut’s southern suburbs with compatriots who support the Syrian government. Members of al-Jamaa al-Islamiya and those of the Baath Party in Lebanon have also clashed, with one incident in Sidon sparked after the Baathists vandalized anti-President Bashar al-Assad billboards erected by the Jamaa. Meanwhile there are rumours that Lebanon's overcrowded Palestinian camps are becoming what AUB Professor Sari Hanafi described to the New York Times as “more and more of a battlefield” between those who are for or against the Assad regime in Syria.
Syria Street in the northern city of Tripoli is aptly named as it perhaps best represents the political fault line running throughout Lebanon and the country’s vulnerability to any tremors from next door. The road is flanked with two bitterly dived communities. On one side in Bab el Tebbaneh giant flags of the revolution are hoisted across streets and the Syrian uprising enjoys strong support from the local Sunni residents. Facing them on the neighboring hill of Jebel Mohesen there is a district of Alawis who remain staunchly loyal to the al-Assad regime.
“This is an old conflict but these recent events are because of Syria,” said Assad al-Hayek while gazing over the burnt out remnants of his home in Bab el-Tebbaneh. His apartment had been struck during a two-day fire fight in February that left three people dead and dragged the army into the affray with around a dozen soldiers injured.
The animosity between the two communities has turned violent numerous times in the past and almost always during periods of political crisis. The most recent bout of fighting coincided with particularly brutal fighting in the Syrian city of Homs and a series of anti-Assad rallies throughout Lebanon. Rifaat Ali Eid, head of the Arab Democratic Party and leader of the Alawi community in Tripoli, told Asharq Al-Awsat that “If anything happens to Syria there is no Lebanon… I can’t tell you if this regime will fall or not but I tell you if it does it will be very painful for all of the people, whether they are with Syria or against Syria.”
The Alawis in Lebanon only number around 50,000 and their battle with the impoverished Sunnis of Babel Tabbeneh will not in itself destabilize Lebanon. However, the fear is that this flashpoint could become a microcosm for a much wider conflict that rips open the sectarian wounds that ravaged the country during its own 15 year civil war.
Meanwhile concerns remain over Hezbollah, the Shia militia-cum-political party that has risen from being a clandestine resistance movement to the Israeli occupation in southern Lebanon to become the predominant military force in the country. This ascendancy of ‘the resistance’ has been predicated on an umbilical relationship with the Syrian regime. AUB Professor, Hilal Khashan, recently told the Voice of America; “Hezbollah's heart and mind are in Iran. Hezbollah's lung is in Syria, because Syria is Hezbollah's lifeline.”
The strength, both military and political, of the Shia party has elicited bitter enmity from much of the Lebanese opposition. With the Syrian regime weakened, the opposition March 14 alliance has ratcheted up the pressure on Hezbollah. Amal Ghorayeb, assistant professor of political sciences at the Lebanese American University, explains, “The weaker the regime is the easier it is to hit Hezbollah and Iran… If the regime is weak then their allies will become weaker in turn.”
Hezbollah’s detractors have been escalating their calls on the party to disarm and to hand over its four suspected members indicted in the Special Tribunal for Lebanon – the investigation into the 2005 assassination of former prime minister Rafiq Hariri. The leader of the opposition Phalange Party, Amin Gemayel, said at a rally in February, “Is it logical to support the Arab peoples’ bid to end the domination of their regimes’ arms while we keep Lebanon’s people under the authority of [Hezbollah’s] arms?”
Hezbollah has remained steadfast in its support of the Syrian regime with the party’s leader proclaiming in a televised speech in early February, “Nobody could deny that there is an American-Israeli plan for regime change in Syria.” While the party remains the most powerful player within Lebanon cracks have started to appear in their political alliances. What is more, a recent assassination attempt on Samir Geagea, by unknown assailants, has revived a menacing specter all too familiar within the Lebanese political arena.
The key question is; will Lebanon be able to protect its neutrality if the conflict in Syria consolidates into a protracted civil war? Of particular concern to the tightrope-walking Lebanese elites will be statements from the opposition body, The Syrian National Council, that they have received international pledges of $176m in humanitarian assistance and $100m in salaries for the fighters inside Syria. These resources will need to get into Syria somehow and smuggling networks through Lebanon are an obvious route. The Syrian regime has shown a willingness to strike across the border in the past and will likely use both conventional and unconventional tactics to strike against any strategic threats both perceived and real. As Mark Malloch-Brown, former UN Deputy Secretary-General wrote recently “Qatari and Saudi Arabian support for the rebels will lead regime allies, including Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, to step up their trouble-making”.
Kahlil Gibran wrote in the Mirrors of the Soul that “your Lebanon is an arena for men from the West and men from the East. My Lebanon is a flock of birds fluttering in the early morning as shepherds lead their sheep into the meadow”. While Lebanese politicians of all stripes have to date taken a largely passive approach to keeping their traditional pro or anti-Syrian positions, the government has striven to remain neutral despite these internal differences and distance itself from events in Syria. In the shadow of escalating violence, a more pro-active approach to deny space for both pro and anti-regime elements may be the only recipe to protect the stability that Gibran once imagined.

Al-Assad will drown you with the details!
By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat
The al-Assad regime continues to manipulate the international community, and with it of course the Security Council, in the same manner it previously manipulated the Arab League. Before every deadline and initiative, it empties the proposals of their content, and continues its murder and destruction. Now we see al-Assad continuing to shell Homs, while negotiating the details for international observers to be sent to Syria. All al-Assad will do with the Security Council’s decision to send observers is overwhelm the international community with the details, from the number of observers to their nationalities, their movements, their safety and so on. All al-Assad wants to do is buy time for his regime, and continue to kill in the hope of quelling the revolution, which in reality has proven to be far from coming to an end, as evidenced by the number of Syrians who came out to demonstrate last Friday. These demonstrations themselves were a message to the al-Assad regime and its inner circle rather than to the outside, the message being that there is no hope for al-Assad as the Syrian people are determined to end his harmful era, despite all the violence. This was the message given on the Friday dubbed “Our revolution is for all Syrians”, and everyone around al-Assad, or his remaining loyalists, received the message, especially as we saw over 800 demonstration points last Friday. These protests indicate that the Syrians are determined to eradicate the tyrannical regime from its roots.
The idea of sending international observers is not a bad one, but the number of observers is ill conceived. What can 30 observers, or even 250 do in Syria? At least 3,000 international observers ought to be sent in order to ensure greater protection for the Syrians, and then the international community may be able to turn the tables on al-Assad and his tricks, most prominently his attempts to drown everyone in the details. If the international community, and specifically the states active in the Syrian issue, are unwilling to intervene militarily, then they must now seek at the first opportunity to address the issue of al-Assad, rather than leaving him to preoccupy everyone with endless details while he continues to kill. This is especially as there is a belief in Washington and some Western capitals that al-Assad only accepted Kofi Annan’s ceasefire proposal in order to give his troops a rest, and to increase pressure on Russia. Thus, the question is: Why give al-Assad one chance after another without trying to clamp down on him, especially as his forces are relentless in their bombing of cities and killing of civilians? As I said before al-Assad accepted Annan’s ceasefire proposal, the plan was “we’ll be back after these messages”. Today, the plan is for the regime to catch its breath and submerge everyone in the details, and therefore the duty of the international community, and specifically the states concerned, is to accelerate the process of arming the Syrian rebels, and to develop international resolutions with teeth and claws, so that they don’t merely grant al-Assad more opportunities, when his forces have not stopped killing for one moment. Of course, al-Assad’s trick of drowning everyone in the details is not a sign of strength or success, but it is evidence that al-Assad is in a hole and continues to dig. He is in a dilemma given his inevitable fall, but the only problem everyone else should be concerned with today is the Syrian bloodbath that shows no signs of abating, and therefore there must be genuine steps to stop this killing machine. The first step is not to provide al-Assad with any more opportunities to drown everyone in the details.

Stubbornness is a close friend of stupidity
By Emad El Din Adeeb/Asharq Alawsat
There is a misconception related to the principle of being "consistent in one’s positions and ideas". Some politicians and elite figures in our Arab World take pride in the fact that over a span of half a century they did not change their minds about some situations. Former President of the World Psychiatric Association and highly prominent Arab psychiatrist, Dr. Ahmed Okasha, says that: "A person who does not change their ideas is – I am sorry to say– stupid. Meanwhile, a person who interacts with the changes in the real world is intelligent." We confuse principles with ideas. For example, some among us might believe in human truth, goodness, beauty and tolerance. At one point in their life, they may also support socialism or capitalism. The first attributes constitute moral and humanistic principles, whereas socialism and capitalism are political ideologies. Principles are the foundations or pillars upon which we build our lives. As for political ideologies, they are changeable molds and hypotheses that might prove over time and practical experience to be corrupt, or incapable of transforming humanistic principles into a tangible reality. A few days ago, supporters of the Baath party in Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Yemen and Sudan marked its 65th anniversary. Amazingly, the party, up until this date, is yet to put any of its ideas about unification, socialism or freedom into practice. Over a span of six decades, its attempts to achieve happiness, welfare and security for the Arab population in several countries have not succeeded.  Astonishingly, the Baathist worship of "pagan ideas", and the circumambulation of the group’s “Kaaba” in Damascus and Baghdad, still takes place despite all the catastrophes that Baathist principles have led to. It was the concepts of revision and self-criticism that made the former Soviet Union under Gorbachev ultimately rebuild the state, the regime and society on completely different grounds. Moreover, it was this ideology that led to the birth of progressive regimes in Brazil, Ghana, Turkey, Hungary, The Czech Republic, Poland, Romania and Peru. Through revisions and lessons learned from the past, the great leader Nelson Mandela promoted the principle of transitional justice, in order to avoid a society based on revenge between blacks and whites in South Africa. Everything is open to revision and criticism except the Holy Book. Only such scriptures have eternal sanctity.
 

Swing Low Sweet Sharia
by Nidra Poller/New English Review
April 2012
http://www.meforum.org/3213/swing-low-sweet-sharia
The play within the play
In October 2011 an extraordinary opportunity to apprehend the ill-defined "Middle East" conflict was offered in the form of a play within the play. Discourse was disabled by flesh and blood images acting out the drama with exquisite unity and perfect casting. Playing the role of Israel, Gilad Shalit, courageous survivor of five years of unspeakable deprivation, emerged frail, pale but gloriously resistant. The little that we know of the conditions of his imprisonment is already too much. Kidnapped at the age of 19 near the Kerem Shalom crossing in Israel (two IDF soldiers were killed in the cross-border attack), held in some sort of dungeon, starved of human company, starved of daylight, undernourished, not even given eyeglasses with which to see the ugly contours of his constricted world, Gilad stood before us, a miraculous survivor. The celestial light of dignity suffused his flesh and bones with metaphysical force.
What decent human being would not have misgivings about the release, in exchange for Shalit, of 1027 murderers, thieves, and thugs determined to use their liberation as a license to renew the persecution of Israeli Jews? And who could not feel, seeing the first images of Gilad roughly handled by Hamas and Egyptian intermediaries, that no price was too dear for the release of one single human being from the tomb in which he was jailed and left to slowly extinguish like a flame without oxygen.
On one side of the border husky men were welcomed triumphantly with bear hugs and slaps on the back, while Gilad Shalit, still wearing the ugly shirt imposed by his jailers, had to endure one last act of torture: an Egyptian TV interview conducted in violation of the swap deal. Freelance journalist Shahira Amin, bare headed and ostensibly modern, prodded the dazed young Israeli with insolent questions.
Every detail counts in the play within the play, every detail speaks volumes. Compounding her lack of journalistic integrity and disregard for the elementary rules of decency, Shahira Amin later complained to a BBC newscaster that she often had to repeat questions because Gilad Shalit seemed to have difficulty understanding her. Elsewhere, defending herself against critics, she is quoted as saying: "I know that he was very eager to go home and see his family, but it only took a few minutes and it was important to let the world know that he was all right."[i] Exquisitely feminine refinement of cruelty! Amin's sham humanity is revealed to be corrosive acid in the light of a photo posted on the Israel Matzav site, showing the interview from the journalist's viewpoint: masked Hamas operatives are standing behind Gilad, breathing down his neck.[ii]
Gilad Shalit, finally dressed in uniform and wearing his glasses, stood straight and tall, saluted Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, was reunited with his parents, returned to his village in Galilee where he was welcomed with flowers, Israeli flags, blue and white balloons, and humane discretion. Shalom. The quiet voice of peace and peacefulness. The released hostage enters the family abode in a gesture so light it is almost weightless, so strong that it effaces any image of the Israeli as victim.
20 October, two days after the release of Gilad Shalit, Mouamar Gaddafi is dragged out of a rat hole culvert, sodomized with a knife,[iii] delivered up to the murderous mob, beaten bloody, shot or bludgeoned to death or both. His putrefying body covered with a flashy blanket is exposed for days in the (no-longer) cold storage room of a supermarket in Misrata. Families stand in line to view the body with contempt and take pictures with their cell phones. Fathers holding toddlers in their arms wait patiently in the hot sunshine for the joy of showing the dead dictator to their kids. The stench is almost visible on our TV screens while in the foreground honey-voiced newsreaders describe the scene to the music of Arab springtime. Declarations by NTC leaders who swear that the Libyan dictator was shot in a crossfire as rebel fighters were bringing him to the hospital alternate with footage of the gory death of Gaddafi at the hands of a savage mob.
Weaving a path through confused statements from the NTC, NATO, and European and American officials, one could reasonably assume that Gaddafi was delivered into the hands of Libyan fighters by a NATO bombardment of his convoy as he tried to escape from the bastion in Sirte where he had made his last stand.
Scenes of rejoicing in Libya, smug satisfaction in Europe, and retroactive scolding of George W. Bush, were orchestrated with unashamed media complicity. The story went like this: unlike the heavy handed unilateral [sic] invasion of Iraq by big bad gun-slinging Bush, this multilateral NATO intervention--that included Qatar, was approved by the Arab League, and piloted by a UN resolution--was accomplished with consummate skill. We the enlightened, instead of forcing democracy on a reluctant population, deftly assisted courageous fighters who have now liberated their country comme il faut. Mustafa Abduljalil, the cross-eyed rabbit-faced soon to be ex-president of the NTC, was already announcing that Libya will be governed hereafter by sharia law; it didn't spoil the celebration.
The media hated the Iraq "war." They loved the Libyan "liberation." Allahu akhbar (mistranslated as "God is great") became an advertising jingle. Creepy scraggly fighters shooting into the air and making the V for victory were loveable mascots. Nothing was gruesome enough to seep through and spoil the icing on the cake. Destruction of lives and property were barely a blip on the screen. NATO's mission was not regime change it was protection of the civilian population. So what if there were 25 to 30,000 dead?[iv] There was no equivalent of the Iraqbodycount to tally and deplore.
The self-satisfied declarations of British Foreign Minister William Hague and his French counterpart Alain Juppé were televisually juxtaposed with the gruesome spectacle of the dead dictator exposed as a war trophy. Hip hip hurrah for NATO and hats off to the UN. This is state of the art… state of the art what exactly? Rubble in Sirte and Misrata, lawless gunmen everywhere, checkpoints, summary executions, roundups of blacks, all visible to the naked eye.
Curtain!
It was a real life Shakespearian drama. Issues that have been front and center since the dawn of the 21st century suddenly crystallized in flesh and blood, with dramatic unity, suspense, intense emotions, poetic exaggerations, orations, the fickle crowd... nothing was missing. International opinion was convened to watch the play within the play, a masterpiece of popular theater; the villains looked like villains, their deeds bloodied the stage, the good guys spoke softly and cherished life. Was the crime exposed? Did the criminal betray himself? Was international opinion enlightened?
Hope and change
Terms like "disproportionate force," systematically applied to Israel and occasionally to the United States, vanished without a trace. The professional NGO wailers who cry over the victims of Israeli or American soldiers had no tears to shed. The UN was not accusing NATO and its local handymen of war crimes[v] and wanton destruction of property and infrastructure. What does the chaos in Libya have to do with the chaos in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein? Why was public exposure of the open mouth of a Saddam Hussein pulled out of his rat hole more shocking than the knife-sodomy of Mouamar Gaddafi pulled out if his? Why was Israel the bad guy for allegedly encouraging the "invasion" of Iraq and now the bad guy for not adoring the Arab Spring in Libya and wherever else it blossomed?
In the last scene of a Shakespearian tragedy the stage is littered with dead bodies. In this neo-Shakespearian reality play the stage is littered with the coming victims of sharia law. Crudella, who interviewed Gilad Shalit with rapier questions and a stone heart, may eventually be veiled and muzzled, unless she flees to the UK in time. Alex Crawford (SkyNews), Lyse Ducet (BBC), and other cheerleaders of Arab Spring jihadis were lucky to escape the fate of their colleagues Lara Logan and, more recently, Caroline Sinz of state-owned France 3 TV, beaten, stripped, and finger-raped in a 45-minute ordeal in Tahrir Square on the eve of Egypt's first free elections.[vi]
Free elections in Tunisia yield, o surprise, a 40% victory for Nahda, with the same score from dual citizens who voted in France. The king of Morocco, having cleverly sidestepped an Arab Spring uprising, held democratic elections and, fair play, appointed Abdelilah Benkirane of the sharia-ambitious Justice and Development Party as Prime Minister. The crowd that shouted "Islamists, what Islamists?" one year ago--flaying the likes of Tunisia's Izzedine ben Ali, accused of oppressing freedom-loving citizens under the pretext of holding the Islamists at bay—is now singing the praises of "moderate Islamists." The artificial distinction between Islam and Islamists isn't good enough for these new developments. Democratically elected moderate Islamists will now govern by the law of moderate sharia, engage in moderate jihad, perform moderate beheadings, commit moderate mass murder and moderately relegate women to moderate niqab cages.
Working hand in hand, media, government officials, commentators, and experts adopted a Hope and Change attitude to popular uprisings in Muslim countries. Their observations, analyses, and predictions were not only faulty, they were hollow, shallow, and thrown together without any attempt at rational thinking. As evidence piled up, it was rejected with a hope-for–the-best shrug. No matter how ominous the signs for the immediate future, they were disregarded on the pretext that anything would be better than those terrible dictators who just a short while ago were fine enough for most purposes and especially appreciated when they focused their ire on Israel.
Utterly inappropriate schemas were plastered onto a Muslim world that was playing out a recognizable cycle in a distinctly Islamic historical process.[vii] Here in France, our cherished Revolution was offered like a pair of quaint pince-nez glasses: popular revolt, people's government, the Terror, Restoration, etc. all the way to true democracy, and laïcité (1905). Elsewhere, the fall of the Soviet Union looked appetizing. And of course the American Revolution could be appropriated. Allahu akhbar (Allah is the greatest) would be the equivalent of "Give me liberty or give me death!"
While the balance of power in the Middle East and, consequently, worldwide was undergoing radical change that could seriously endanger our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, public discourse prattled at an incomparable level of inanity. The belief that the foreign policy of Western governments should protect the interests of their citizens has already been scuttled; now, the idea that we should actually think about what is happening has dissolved in treacly sentiments. This is a fatal error. Idle commentary has dominated the collective mind with regard to the current transformation of the Muslim world, which, lest we forget, includes Muslim communities in Europe, the United States, and other lands.
It has often seemed in the past year that political leaders are taking their cues from the media. France's Foreign Secretary Michèle Alliot-Marie was forced to resign after spending a family vacation in Tunisia last Christmas with an old friend who was a bit cozy with Ben Ali. Worse, she was accused of offering crowd control material to the Tunisian government in the first days of the uprising that morphed into the Jasmine Revolution. Months later the deputies that virtually skinned Alliot-Marie alive for her willingness to collude in tactics that might touch a hair on the head of Tunisian demonstrators would bask in the gory glory of the Libyan operation without batting an eyelash over collateral damage. Another scuttled expression.
Occupy Wall Street
Three savvy New York Blacks interviewed by CNN in Zuccotti Park proclaim: the Occupy Wall Streeters are "demanding democracy like our comrades in Tahrir Square." This is not only ridiculous, it is scathing evidence of a dhimmitude current that is wending its way through our free societies. Here the benighted Muslim world becomes the role model for a disgruntled fringe in the United States. When the media focuses its doe eyes on the Occupiers, the tiny minority (not even a millionth of one percent) is magnified into the Voice of the People. Another link between OWS and the Arab Spring was forged by Indignez-vous, the little grey book by the world class impostor Stéphane Hessel. The doddering Ambassador Hessel is not really Jewish, was not interned in a concentration camp, is not co-author of the Declaration of Human Rights, but his mega bestseller can be credited with sparking indignés from the Plaza del Sol in Madrid to Zuccotti Park and onward. It is no surprise to find a virulent strain of anti-Zionism/Semitism in the movement inspired by his sharp thin book seasoned with a strong dose of indignation against Israel. But Hessel is just riding a wave. He is not the driving force of the upheaval.
Whatever one might have imagined about the OWS movement, the video of Occupy Atlanta robots "discussing" whether Congressman James Lewis should be allowed to speak to the group, was stunning.[viii] Mindless voices echoing simplistic phrases--"No individual is more important than any other / No individual is more important than any other"—took fifteen minutes to dismiss the civil rights hero who walked away, visibly perplexed. When, where, and how had these people been lobotomized? Were they trained in Pakistan?
Branded as a popular outcry for economic and social justice, the OWS movement bears telltale signs of the Islamization of the western world--a Muslim Brotherhood rally in the heart of Occupy Wall Street, [ix] a surprising encounter with a CAIR-associated lawyer running the Occupy Orlando movement.[x] More dramatically, this fringe movement claiming to speak for the 99% operated as if it were revolting against an absolute tyrant while inchoate Islamic masses in Muslim countries were glorified with democratic values that were nowhere to be seen. Though the Occupy movement was short-lived in the United States-- Americans are sticklers for hygiene and expect the police to protect property-- it may turn up in other shapes in the near future.
Kill or be killed
How do protest movements operate in tyrannical Muslim countries? Television coverage gives us an opportunity to compare discourse to reality. Dramatic images with a strong emotional charge-- an aerial view of a public square filled to the gills-- give an impression of "everyone" when in fact we are seeing a tiny minority of the population. What and who does this minority represent? The excited voice of the newscaster, most often female, makes it seem that the collective mind of the assembled mass can be scrutinized and communicated. The reporter dips into the crowd and scoops up some goodies: calls for freedom, democracy, and justice mouthed indifferently by women in niqab or naked faces, bearded true believers and youthful tweeters, wild Libyan fighters shooting anti-aircraft guns into "enemy" residences and earnest lawyers turned soldiers. The dictator is ousted with the magical word Dégage! (scram). Images of "incredible courage" smuggled out of Syria show men-- and sometimes women and children—marching through the streets, clapping their hands, chanting allahu akhbar. A few dozen are killed, several dozen are wounded, the rest will be out again the next day.
Without demeaning the last acts of the desperate, one must still ask what do they want, where are they going, how are they doing it. The articulation of aims, purposes, values and strategy is lost in the flash of dramatic footage. Or is it deliberately hidden? Because no sooner does the tyrant scram, dead or alive, than the victor arrives, and his name is sharia.
Apologetics automatically kick in. It's because the Islamists are the only ones who were well-organized, took care of the needy, were persecuted by the tyrant. Not to worry, the true democrats will act as a counter-force and the Islamists will by necessity become pragmatists when faced with everyday administrative chores.
Jihad, sharia, dhimmitude
The unalterable goal of Islam is to impose sharia, the law of Allah, on all human beings everywhere in the world. How? By jihad. Jihad is not holy war and it is not self-improvement; it is jihad as defined in the original texts, upheld by generations of Islamic scholars, and practiced throughout the history of Islam. Constricting or distorting the meaning of jihad cripples our defenses. Jihad is not some "thing" it is the heart and soul of Islam, its guiding light, its fuel and its wings. Tens of millions of Muslims, acting on what they think to be their own free will, march in the armies of jihad. Muslims who do yearn to be free are swallowed in the quicksand of jihad.
And suddenly it's spring! Arab spring. What is blooming in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Morocco? What is budding in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain…? Why should it be difficult to demonstrate that the goal of the Arab spring was the imposition of sharia and that is why, in one country after another, the sharia-imposing party won the biggest share of the votes and will lead the government? After all, jihadis have been promising for years to topple the corrupt leaders that collaborate with the West. While the majority of western media were in ecstasy over an imagined surge of democracy and all that goes with it, astute observers accurately described the movement and predicted the outcome. A sprinkling of true freedom lovers in the crowd had been used as an alibi to cover the real thrust of the movement, in the same way that sharia-imposing leaders season their declarations with a sprinkling of cost-free promises of democracy, justice, tolerance, freedom, progress.
This sheds light on another aspect of Occupy Wall Street: Jihad = convert the infidels, make them act as if they are already living in an Islamic society where there is no political structure through which to express demands. Politics is reduced to gathering in a public square, setting up tents, living in anarchy, mouthing slogans and, ultimately, kill or be killed. Where does the 99% really live? In Egypt, not in the United States. The dhimmified pawns of the Occupy movement literally shit on their own land, pour contempt on the financial system that brings prosperity to the masses, invite Muslim Brotherhood thugs into their midst, glorify the illiterate masses of Tahrir Square and espouse their values.
In one more cruel twist, Israel is scolded for its apparent lack of enthusiasm for this darling Spring, and accused of wanting to keep Muslims under the heel of dictators whose saving grace was to maintain peaceful, or at least unwarlike relations with Israel. In other words, Israel is expected to acquiesce in its own destruction. Many a journalist gleefully warned that power to the Muslim people would mean a tough & true policy. Israel would have to answer for its mistreatment of Palestinians now that their liberated brothers and sisters were running the show. Today this is translated into "Kill the Jews." As could have been expected.[xi]
The merits of replacing "Arab Spring" with "jihad" to name what is happening in front of our eyes is that it accurately accounts for events as they occur and correctly predicts successive developments. The widespread inability to recognize jihad in action is, furthermore, induced by contemporary jihad strategy. Terror-stricken peoples were conquered by the sword in the medieval past. Today, the overwhelming military superiority of western nations dictates methods that behead rational thought. From the al Dura hoax to the Arab Spring hoax, the same technique has been used: a blinding emotional flash, a magical mystical narrative channeled through Western media that present it as their own; stubborn belief in the commentary that contradicts the image, leading to further erosion of rational thought and an inability to integrate new evidence and relinquish the first impression…
The Arab Spring lethal narrative plays on our culture's good wishes for one and all. It seems so much more decent to hope that a long-oppressed people will finally breathe free than to recognize that they are simply exasperated by a ruling caliph that they will soon replace with a new caliph. Instead of combating the mentality that imprisons them in this repressed condition, the narrative renews and reinforces it. It would be truly more humane to acknowledge the extent of their enslavement. Islam is submission. Power is transmitted from Allah to the Prophet to a single individual who rules as long as he can hold power. Power cannot be transmitted to groups that function democratically, but it can be seized by groups that reproduce the one-man rule on a smaller scale.[xii] This pattern has been repeated since the earliest times. The Sunna-Shia split is the first of an endless series of divisions, clashes, assassinations. Doesn't this explain why the so-called Islamist—but truly Islamic—party is always the most well organized? Because it is the only way an Islamic society can be organized.
French connection
Eight years after the Chirac government had basked in opposition to the "war in Iraq," President Sarkozy benefited from enthusiastic bipartisan support for his leading role in the NATO operation in Libya. He is credited with convincing a reluctant President Obama and hesitant Europeans to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya with the unique objective of saving civilian lives in the expectation that courageous freedom fighters would liberate their country in a few short weeks. As the mission creeped, the term "mission creep" fell into oblivion. When regime change became the inescapable endpoint of the operation, "regime change" surreptitiously entered public discourse as if it had been there from the start. French media, which are notoriously hostile to the "upstart" president, had only kind words for the Libyan operation. It was the right thing to do, the right way, at the right time. Glowing TV reports from the decks of our aircraft carrier actually glorified fighter pilots. Grisly Libyan gunmen shooting into the air and making the V for victory were media darlings.
Hours after the fall of Baghdad in April 2003 French media were still reporting that American troops were bogged down and likely to remain outside the city for another three months. This time around, exploits of the Libyan rebels were hastily celebrated though no evidence of their victorious battles was never produced and glowing reports from their own ranks were usually contradicted within 48 hours by facts on the ground.
The value system that had prevailed since September 11, 2001 no longer applied. The solution, we were told then, must be political, not military. Two days into the 2006 Hizbullah war, France called for an immediate ceasefire and the opening of humanitarian corridors. Israel was ordered to back off and trust in a UN resolution and a beefed-up UNIFIL to restore peace on the border. Candidate Barack Obama was idolized by the French as the president who would end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and close the torture chambers of Guantanamo. The 2009 Cast Lead operation in Gaza found no favor whatsoever in France's pacifist eyes. Nicolas Sarkozy, who succeeded Jacques Chirac in 2007, was slammed for his friendship with the warmonger G.W. Bush. What explains the sudden enthusiasm for war in the days of this Arab Springtime? Is it too far-fetched to conclude that defensive war against jihad is bad but waging war on the side of jihad is good?
As Mouamar Gaddafi rotted on a concrete floor in Misrata, the French president held a triumphant press conference in the company of the NTC Prime Minister and president, British Prime Minister David Cameron, and the emir of Qatar. It could be compared to the "Mission Accomplished" speech of George W. Bush after the fall of Saddam Hussein. But it wasn't. It was swallowed whole. Again, the Libyan operation was given as the counter-example to the Iraq war. This is how you should liberate a Muslim country. This is why we won't have the ugly aftermath that beset the invasion of Iraq.
Four-star globe-trotting philosopher Bernard Henri-Levy is credited with convincing president Sarkozy to act forcefully in Libya. It was BHL's dream come true. The philosopher-activist is sincerely convinced that he achieved the perfect union of the philosophical quest for the good the true and the beautiful with the ideal of the virtuous man of action. What's more, he performed this feat as a Jew! And dared to say so in front of a mass of revolting Libyans. Invited, in tandem with Chief Rabbi Gilles Bernheim, to give the closing address at the CRIF Convention on November 20th, BHL gave an embarrassing account of his adventure, the excitement of running from meetings with the rebels to rendez-vous with French government officials, helping plan strategy, weapons procurement, public relations and the political future. The philosopher seemed to think that because the Libyans knew he was Jewish, Zionist, and unstintingly devoted to their cause they will now look kindly on the Jewish people. He described an all-night conversation with a rebel leader, said to be connected to al Qaeda, in a remote farmhouse whose location was kept secret from him. The farmhouse was surrounded by pickups mounted with heavy weapons, the warrior was surrounded by body guards, and the slim graying philosopher arrived, armed only with his brilliant mind and honest heart. "We talked all night, no holds barred, each said what he had on his mind, and I know he was changed, tomorrow he will not blame Israel for all his people's ills."[xiii]
The theme of that session of the CRIF Convention was "Tomorrow, the Jews of France." A better brighter future because our man stepped up to the plate, took action, intervened in contemporary history, gave muscle to tikkun olam, and stamped his action "Jewish"? Or is it the height of self-aggrandizing delusion?
What should a woman wear in the Arab Spring?
The media modestly lowers its gaze when the supposedly liberated nations start choking on the aftermath of these highly questionable revolutions. They did go running back to Tahrir Square as it filled once more with protestors reportedly demanding that the army hand over power immediately. To whom exactly? Isn't that what elections are for?
Caroline Sinz, covering the events for state-owned France 3 TV, was brutally assaulted.[xiv] The circumstances of what she describes as "finger rape" are worthy of note. Working with cameraman Salah Agrabi on Mohamed Mahmoud Street, she did an item on teenage demonstrators. The boys seemed to be operating under the wing of a man identified as a 33 year-old tour guide who had quit his job to join the Tahrir Square nation. He boasted about the courage of these callow youths. "If they get hit in the head with a projectile, they get it bandaged, and go right back into the fray." As usual in Arab Spring reports the journalist stood with and for the interested parties, more of a spokesperson than an observer. As the report drew to a close, I noticed the men and boys clustering behind the blond journalist, pressing against her back. Back to the studio. Before going on to the next item, the newscaster laconically mentioned that Sinz and her cameraman were assaulted after filming the youths. But a detailed account of the attack was already available on the site of the Figaro daily:[xv] the journalist and cameraman were grabbed and dragged into Tahrir Square where they were separated. He was roughed up. She was beaten, stripped, and raped. Her ordeal lasted 45 minutes. "I thought I was going to die," she declared with unusual candor for a French journalist…unless the designated culprits are Israeli.
Feeble attempts to attribute the assault to army or police thugs—vaguely described as plainclothes men—were dropped as it became obvious that it could be any man in the Square. The journalist is pressing charges against X. An initial, rather sensible statement from Reporters without Borders, advising media to be more careful about sending female journalists into this kind of dangerous situation, provoked an outburst of indignation from the interested parties and was immediately withdrawn.
Is this an affirmation of female courage and right to "equality," or a continued denial of reality? Israel HaYom editor and former ambassador Boaz Bismuth, interviewed on Radio J, was asked if he entered Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt with his Israeli passport. He replied that a European journalist can get a visa at the Egyptian border with no delay and a big welcome. With an Israeli passport it might take hours. But that's the least of the problem. At the entry to Tahrir Square he was stopped at a checkpoint set up by the protestors. Asked why they checked passports, he was told "So that no Israeli journalists can come and report on what is happening here."
Why do Israeli journalists accept and adapt to reality when female journalists insist on flying in its face? Will they use bodyguards? It would take a dozen armed men to protect a woman in that mob. Would they disguise themselves as men? Will they, with typical media hypocrisy, slip out of the slot without ever admitting that in fact it's no place for a woman?
What strikes me is that, in the case of Caroline Sinz, a clear warning of imminent assault was visible on camera. The subjects of the report, seen with tender sympathy, were moving into place to become actors of the assault. Did the cameraman recognize it? Did he warn his colleague? Did it happen too fast or did it happen because neither of them had any street smarts. Their personal ordeal fits right into the play within the play. The curtain of the lethal narrative of Arab Spring is ripped away to reveal with raw brutality the place of women under the sharia rule. The flesh and blood truth.
The West is epitomized in the female journalist gushing over an illusory democratic revolution and, minutes later, reduced to a piece of meat in Tahrir Square. In everyday life a woman who can't tell a killer from a cad from a decent guy pays a heavy price. These female journalists who have been selling the Arab Spring like it was a snazzy automobile are enticing the citizens of the free world to dance for their own demise.
Now who's winning the war of images?
Every word of criticism thrown at Israel since the beginning of the jihad-intifada in September 2000 is invalidated today. Modern antisemites refusing to wear the label claimed to be criticizing the Israeli government. "We have nothing against Israel and nothing against Jews. We disagree with the policies of Ariel Sharon. In fact, many Israelis share our gripes." Then it was the government of Ehud Olmert, and now of Benjamin Netanyahu. The criticism was supposedly based on immutable rules of behavior for civilized nations.
Well, that's washed away in the Libyan mudslide. The only rules that are truly respected are: we do what we can get away with and deny what is too shameful to admit. Nothing is too brutal to be given the spin. There is no lack of willing accomplices… as if valor and virtue were decided from day to day by a show of hands.
When the Arab street was chanting "Death to the Jews" in Paris, London, and Berlin, when Jews were insulted, bashed, and sometimes slaughtered in European cities, it was said to be regrettable payback for crimes against humanity committed by Israeli soldiers in "Palestine." The sight of bloodied Palestinian civilians was too horrible to bear. Israel, it was said, was losing the war of images.
Indeed! International opinion was so distraught, for example, by the approval of housing construction in Gilo in October that it could hardly be distracted by shaky cell phone images of Syrian protestors mowed down by tanks or snipers and sharp professional footage of Egyptian Copts burned alive in churches, crushed under the wheels of military vehicles.
Now we know how to win the war of images. Not by improving hasbara, retelling the history of the "holy land" from Abraham to last week, replacing pictures of soldiers in tanks with shots of pinups in bikinis, publishing weekly lists of Israel's high-tech exploits along with the medical records of Arabs and Muslims treated at Hadassah hospital. The way to win the war of images is—don't be Jewish.
How about a Jewish Springtime?
Genocidal persecution is bad for Jews and it is about time we put an end to it. But it is not only bad for the Jews. It is bad for humanity. Why can't we get that message across?
This is the puzzle that has been constantly jiggling in my head since the end of September 2000 when the al Dura blood libel inaugurated an international wave of neo-pogroms that persists, expands, and worsens, reaching terrifying proportions and, simultaneously, becoming so commonplace that an accurate appraisal sounds like a hysterical false alarm.
I have sought to use the advantages of an intuitive literary approach here to seize events in their just proportions and build a hopefully compelling narrative that can counter the lethal narrative of jihad. Breaking through the stylistic limitations of intellectual discourse opens the way to a multitude of singular approaches that can reveal deep truths in a great variety of ways, some of which might be surprisingly effective. The prudent skepticism about the Arab Spring which is accepted as serious analysis unfortunately reinforces the illusion that the "springtime" narrative bears some resemblance to reality.
We need a rich arsenal of anti-jihad strategies that would bring about a real spring, an authentic liberation for Jews and free people everywhere, based on noble values. How do we do it? What is holding us back? We don't need to topple any caliphs or overturn any tyrannical order. We don't need to gather by the millions in any public square. One by one and each one alone we could find the idea that springs this latch.
The simple facts are in. Yes, we are the bad guys… in terms of what we expect of ourselves. But in this Great Big Nasty Reality Show, we are the good guys! Why can't we make this operational?
Ms Poller is an Associate Fellow of the Middle East Forum. Her most recent book is Karimi Hotel.
[i] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15368819
[ii] http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2011/10/shahira-amin-lied-about-abusive-shalit.html
[iii] http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/middle-east/111024/gaddafi-sodomized-video-gaddafi-sodomy
[iv] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/27/libya-death-toll-could-be_n_854582.html
[v] Reportedly Gaddafi family survivors want to take the case to the ICC.
[vi] http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/39174
[vii] Bat Ye'or, Bostom Andrew, The Legacy of Jihad; Fenton, Paul and Littman, David, Exil au Maghreb
[viii] http://www.theblaze.com/stories/john-lewis-is-not-better-than-anyone-occupy-atlanta-refuses-to-allow-civil-rights-icon-to-speak-at-protest/
[ix] http://www.investigativeproject.org/3304/conspiracies-terrorist-defense-at-anti-nypd-rally
[x] (VIDEO) www.TheUnitedWest.org October 17, 2011
[xi] http://www.crif.org/index.php?page=articles_display/detail&aid=27823&returnto=search/search&artyd=5
[xii] Bostom, Andrew, Sharia Versus Freedom—The Legacy of Islamic Totalitarianism, with a Foreword by Andrew C. McCarthy, forthcoming September 2012. Indeed, Qaradawi's triumphant February 18th "khutbah", or sermon to the adoring Muslim throngs that day was symbolic of an Islamic revival begun by the so-called "Al-Manar modernists"—Jamal Al-Din Afghani, Muhammad Abduh, and Muhammad Rashid Rida–more than a century before he took the stage at Tahrir Square.
[xiii] Details cannot be verified because the CRIF has deleted BHL's contribution
[xiv] http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/39174
[xv] Figaro newspaper
 

Gay Marriage Has Islamists Eyeing Polygamy
by David J. Rusin/National Review
April 16, 2012
http://www.meforum.org/3214/gay-marriage-polygamy
[NOTE: The National Review title is "Polygamy, Too: Muslims have started seeking their own redefinition of marriage"; the following text includes some material cut from the published version.]
Presidential candidate Rick Santorum got jeered for comparing the legalization of same-sex marriage to that of polygamy, but, whether or not the comparison is rationally sound, thoughts of the former's facilitating the latter bring a smile to many Islamists. If the definition of marriage can evolve in terms of gender, some Muslims ask, why not in terms of number?
Islam sanctions polygamy — more specifically, polygyny — allowing Muslim men to keep up to four wives at once. Though marrying a second woman while remaining married to the first is prohibited across the Western world, including all 50 U.S. states, a Muslim can circumvent the law by wedding one woman in a government-recognized marriage and joining with others in unlicensed religious unions devoid of legal standing.
As Muslims have grown more numerous in the West, so too have Muslim polygamists. France, home to the largest Islamic population in Western Europe, was estimated in 2006 to host 16,000 to 20,000 polygamous families — almost all Muslim — containing 180,000 total people, including children. In the United States, such Muslims may have already reached numerical parity with their fundamentalist Mormon counterparts; as many as 100,000 Muslims reside in multi-wife families, and the phenomenon has gained particular traction among black Muslims.
The increasingly prominent profile of Islamic polygamy in the West has inspired a range of accommodations. Several governments now recognize plural marriages contracted lawfully in immigrants' countries of origin. In the United Kingdom, these polygamous men are eligible to receive extra welfare benefits — an arrangement that some government ministers hope to kill — and a Scottish court once permitted a Muslim who had been cited for speeding to retain his driver's license because he had to commute between his wives.
The ultimate accommodation would involve placing polygamous and monogamous marriages on the same legal footing, but Islamists have been relatively quiet on this front, a silence that some attribute to satisfaction with the status quo or a desire to avoid drawing negative publicity. There have, of course, been exceptions. The Muslim Parliament of Great Britain made waves in 2000 about challenging the UK's ban on polygamy, but little came of it. In addition, two of Australia's most influential Islamic figures called for recognition of polygamous unions several years ago.
With the legal definition of marriage expanding in various U.S. states, as it has in other nations, should we anticipate rising demands that we recognize polygamous marriages? Debra Majeed, an academic apologist for Islamic polygamy, has tried to downplay such concerns, claiming that "opponents of same-sex unions, rather than proponents of polygyny as practiced by Muslims, are the usual sources of arguments that a door open to one would encourage a more visible practice of the other." Yet some American Muslims apparently did not get the memo.
Because off-the-cuff remarks can be the most revealing, consider a tweet by Moein Khawaja, executive director of the Philadelphia branch of the radical Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). After New York legalized same-sex marriage last June, Khawaja expressed what many Islamists must have been thinking: "Easy to support gay marriage today bc it's mainstream. Lets see same people go to bat for polygamy, its the same argument. *crickets*"
The "same argument" theme is fleshed out in an October 2011 piece titled "Polygamy: Tis the Season?" in the Muslim Link, a newspaper serving the Washington and Baltimore areas. "There are murmurs among the polygamist community as the country moves toward the legalization of gay marriage," it explains. "As citizens of the United States, they argue, they should have the right to legally marry whoever they please, or however many they please." The story quotes several Muslim advocates of polygamy. "As far as legalization, I think they should," says Hassan Amin, a Baltimore imam who performs polygamous religious unions. "We should strive to have it legalized because Allah has already legalized it."
Again and again the article connects the normalization of same-sex marriage and Islamic polygamy. "As states move toward legalizing gay marriage, the criminalization of polygamy is a seemingly striking inconsistency in constitutional law," it asserts. "Be it gay marriage or polygamous marriage, the rights of the people should not be based on their popularity but rather on the constitutional laws that are meant to protect them."
According to a survey carried out by the Link, polygamy suffers from no lack of popularity among American Muslims. Thirty-nine percent reported their intention to enter polygamous marriages if it becomes legal to do so, and "nearly 70 percent said they believe that the U.S. should legalize polygamy now that it is beginning to legalize gay marriage." Unfortunately, no details about the methodology or sample size are provided, and in general quality data on Western Muslims' views of polygamy are scarce and often contradictory. Results from a recent poll of SingleMuslim.com users, many of whom live in the West, show significant support for the religious institution of polygamy, while findings from a more professional-looking survey of French Muslims indicate little desire for legalization.
Nevertheless, the number of polygamous Muslims and the opportunity presented by the redefining of marriage make it very likely that direct appeals for official recognition will ramp up over the next decade, as more Muslims join vocal non-Muslims already laying out the case that polygamists deserve no fewer rights than gays. In the meantime, watch for Islamists and their allies to prepare for ideological battle.
For starters, one hears a lot about the alleged social necessity of recognizing Islamic polygamy. The hardships encountered by second, third, and fourth wives who lack legal protections are regularly highlighted, while polygamy is promoted as a solution to the loss of marriageable black men in America to drugs, violence, and prison. Because polygamists who are not legally married are known to abuse welfare systems — for instance, Muslim women in polygamous marriages often claim benefits as single mothers — it would not be shocking to see legalization pushed even as a means of curbing fraud.
These practical arguments are supplemented with heavy-handed attempts to extol the supposed virtues of Islamic polygamy, as in a Georgia middle school assignment featuring a Shari'a-lauding Muslim who tells students that "if our marriage has problems, my husband can take another wife rather than divorce me, and I would still be cared for." Leftist academics such as Miriam Cooke, who has peddled the fiction that polygamy frees married Muslim women to pursue lovers, will have a role to play as well.
Further, as more Muslims come to view same-sex marriage as a springboard to polygamy, we can expect to find more Muslims voicing support — sincere or not — for gay rights. Case in point: "A Muslim American's Thoughts on Gay Marriage," the saccharine essay by author and environmentalist Ibrahim Abdul-Matin celebrating New York's legalization of such unions as a "victory" for all minorities. (One can only speculate about his true motives, but Abdul-Matin's emcee gig at a regional CAIR banquet last December and his continuing ties to a mosque headed by Siraj Wahhaj, a radical imam who champions polygamy, cast doubt on his moderate self-portrait.) In addition, could the springboard hypothesis help explain a 2011 poll that recorded stunning sympathy for gay rights among British Muslims, despite their documented abhorrence of homosexual acts?
The good news for opponents of polygamy is that eventual legalization remains far from certain in the U.S. or elsewhere. State representatives will not be rushing to introduce pro-polygamy bills when, according to a Gallup survey from last year, almost nine in ten Americans still see the practice as morally wrong. Opinions can change, of course, as they have regarding same-sex marriage. Unfortunately for polygamy's backers, however, the equality arguments employed to great effect by gay marriage advocates may ring hollow, in that recognizing polygamy — which almost always takes the form of polygyny — would essentially endorse inequality between the genders.
Convincing American judges to overturn restrictions will be an uphill battle as well — and not just because of the U.S. Supreme Court's 1879 rejection of the "religious duty" defense of marrying multiple partners in Reynolds v. United States. More recently, state supreme courts have explicitly held the line against polygamy in their rulings to extend marriage rights to same-sex pairs. See Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (Massachusetts, 2003) and In re Marriage Cases (California, 2008); the latter decision describes both polygamous and incestuous unions as "inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships promoted by the constitutional right to marry."
Judicial criticism of polygamy is not unique to the U.S. In a case concerning self-proclaimed Mormon fundamentalists, the Supreme Court of British Columbia upheld Canada's ban on plural marriage last November after the chief justice, in the words of the New York Times, "found that women in polygamous relationships faced higher rates of domestic, physical and sexual abuse, died younger and were more prone to mental illnesses. Children from those marriages, he said, were more likely to be abused and neglected, less likely to perform well at school and often suffered from emotional and behavioral problems."
Focusing on polygamy in the Islamic world does not yield a happier image. Based on her experiences in Afghanistan, feminist university professor Phyllis Chesler has called the practice "humiliating, cruel, [and] unfair to the wives," and noted that it "sets up fearful rivalries among the half-brothers of different mothers who have lifelong quarrels over their inheritances." Likewise, Egyptian-born human rights activist Nonie Darwish has elucidated polygamy's "devastating impact on the healthy function and the structure of loyalties" within Muslim families.
Recent studies have bolstered these accounts. According to new research, Israeli Arab women in polygamous marriages are worse off than those in monogamous ones. A separate investigation uncovered similar negative effects on Malaysian Muslims. In addition, an academic paper released this year concludes that polygamous societies in general lag behind their monogamous counterparts and explores the reasons for this, including the increased tension and criminal activity that result from creating a surplus of single, low-status men.
There are many other arguments against polygamy that supporters of legalization will have to defeat, such as that expanding marriage to three or more people would require massive alterations of Western family law. However, neither bureaucratic obstacles nor public exposure of the social ills accompanying polygamy will deter polygamous Muslims from seeking what they desire.
Recognition of polygamous marriages would be a major win for stealth jihadists — and the time is nearly optimal for them to make their move. How ironic that laws benefiting gay couples may aid Islamists — followers of an ideology that despises homosexuals — in their campaign to establish Shari'a in the Western world.
David J. Rusin is a research fellow at Islamist Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.