Why Hezbollah Stopped at West Beirut

Earlier this month, the Lebanese government finally decided to crack down on the independently run Hezbollah telecommunications network. This in turn led Hezbollah militants to take control of the Muslim-dominated district of West Beirut. Although this telecommunications network may be crude, it is the only way that Hezbollah guerillas can communicate without the Israelis eavesdropping. Why would their powerful militia stop there?

Remember back two summers ago when Hezbollah fought Israel to a virtual stalemate. Many were surprised that there wasn’t an overwhelming victory for Israel, like in the Six-Day War. But just because Arab states and Israel have lost their zeal for battle doesn’t mean that all grudges have been settled. A new resistance with a new strategy has been birthed.

Today much of Hezbollah’s “success” can be attributed to the protection by concept of “Lebanese sovereignty.” This means Hezbollah functions technically inside Lebanon’s territory and thus is not worthy of an “axis of evil” or “rogue state” brand by the Bush administration. Furthermore, Hezbollah needs this weak pro-western government in Beirut to dodge a potential Gulf War style intervention. The US reacted when Saddam invaded Kuwait, but that’s two different countries. And that’s the point; Hezbollah stays protected under Lebanese sovereignty, but can run operations and attack Israel like they own the place.

Originally published in the Santa Barbara Independent
http://www.independent.com/news/2008/may/29/why-hezbollah/

The Lessons of Winograd

Hezbollah’s Zionist Playbook

February 28, 2008

Within the first days of the 1973 October War, the Jews of the Holy Land faced the possibility of being pushed into the sea. As Egyptian and Syrian armies hastily moved towards Jerusalem, the potential for another Jewish holocaust was approaching. From the Auschwitz gas chambers to the Czarist pogroms to the Roman legions and the Pharaohs, the Jews had known all too well what defeat would bring. The children of the ancient Hebrews were able to harness their most painful nightmares to halt these Arabs' armies with the horrors of their past.

This has always been a telling story for Jews. Too often we downplay a people’s profoundly tragic past that might instead be the very inspiration for their revival. History gives people a choice to either disappear between the pages of time or unleash a thunderous roar that unites the coming generation. This is a powerful theme -- no, it’s mythic. But like most tales you hear in the Middle East, it is not entirely unique.

The recently published Winograd Report, released on Jan. 30 by the Israeli government, condemned the recent war in Lebanon as “a great and dangerous missed opportunity.” This report scrutinized the failures by the Israeli Defense Forces, but for a change, not all eyes were on Israel. Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shia group, had accomplished what Sunni Arab states have historically failed to do; humble Israel.

So who are these Shia, and what is Hezbollah? The Shia are a minority in Orthodox Islam that make up approximately 10 percent of the Muslim world. They became the underdogs when they lost influence over the sixth century Islamic Umayyad caliphate, and for the most part have stayed this way ever since. Throughout the history of Islam, from Cairo to Islamabad, Shia oppression has kept this minority mostly out of the spotlight, but certainly not out of the picture.

I personally became aware of the possibility of a Shia awakening last May when I traveled to Lebanon. I observed that Hezbollah’s message of populism filled a void that was long overdue. Since the 1930s, the Lebanese Shia have endured an existence as second-class citizens, a fact of life invented by a constitution imposed on them by French occupation. So for many Lebanese Shia, Hezbollah has become more than simply a political party, but a provider of social services as well as a guardian for their general welfare. All this, however, has been vastly understated since Hezbollah launched a surprisingly effective guerilla campaign against Israel just two summers ago.

But the question remains, “How was Hezbollah so effective?” Dr. Vali Nasr, Middle East scholar and author of “The Shia Revival” suggests that we are witnessing a regional awakening of an oppressed people. If so, this could explain how Hezbollah’s leadership was able to so profoundly capture the livid morale of its militants. It is not overly brash to suggest that Hezbollah stole a page out of the old Zionist playbook — that is, by using the fuel of their past.

By the way, when I first heard the romanticized account of the October War, I was 22 years old and in Tel Aviv. It turns out that this tale is a classic, often told to young Jews in hopes that they never forget the suffering turned strength of their Jewish people. I sure haven’t, which is why I dare make the Shia connection.

There are many other factors that led to Hezbollah’s surprisingly “successful” campaign against Israel, but I offer just one more. What the world witnessed that summer was the Shia, unlike their ruling Sunni neighbors, making the inevitable choice of the oppressed. What the Winograd Report overlooked is that not all Arab ideologies are categorically the same. For example, Egypt and Syria were Sunni dominated armies sanctioned by their nation states, whereas Hezbollah is a Shia guerilla group with no national identity. I offer that what Israel witnessed two summers ago wasn’t just another Arab clash, but the remaking of the Lebanese Shia, who effectively were able to harness the suffering of their past.

Militant Gaza Gone Bankrupt

Kicking the Legs Out of Martyrdom by Boosting the Palestinian Economy
Thursday, February 7, 2008

It didn’t matter when you opened the paper last month; it was always the same story. “Gaza rockets terrorize Israel.” You saw it, right? Well, if you didn’t, you should know that these attacks have been a daily threat to Israeli homes near Gaza. In fact, recent reports claim that these rockets have been able to strike from up to 10 miles away. With tensions on the rise, more Israelis are pushing for a major military operation to neutralize the source of these homemade Qassam rockets.

To be clear, a major military operation in Gaza would result in many dead Palestinians. Unfortunately, this is exactly what Hamas and Islamic Jihad need, to further radicalize the people of Gaza into militancy. In addition, a major confrontation in Gaza would force moderate Palestinians and Arab states alike to abandon any Annapolis Summit goals that would have exceeded a photo op.

The Israeli policy to date for Gaza has been one of special operations backed by attrition. To the Israelis’ despair, this policy has not stopped the rockets, nor has it helped pave the way for any kind of reconciliation in this conflict. On December 19, Israeli air forces took out a car containing high-ranking Islamic Jihad members. This was immediately followed by a statement by Abu Hamza al-Masri, a main media voice for Islamic Jihad, who said, “All methods are open, not only rockets but also martyrdom operations [suicide bombers] in the territory of 1948.” If the majority of Israelis and Palestinians can agree on anything, it’s that this is no solution.

But it is more than “no solution” — it is a catastrophe. It is only the latest “I told you so” that is the fundamental message of militant groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad. For the people of Gaza, it is the loss of face: the timeless desperation that has come to rationalize such acts as rocket fire and suicide bombing. Above all, it’s the bequeathal of rage to the next generation. It’s like a young Israeli crouched in a rocket shelter, or a teen in Gaza watching air strikes in the neighborhood of his youth. Is it not yet clear that the inhumanity of the occupation takes no sides? Let’s at least hope that no one on either side listens to al-Masri — “all methods are open.”

So what should be done? Bankruptcy. I will say it again: utter and complete ideological bankruptcy of the “solutions” that are able to take root in the ghetto-like land of Gaza. It would be in the best interest and long-term security for Israel to adopt policies that are designed to kick the legs out of these so-called militant solutions. This means convincing the people of Gaza that rocket fire and martyrdom only prolong the disastrous stalemate of the occupation. Can you think of a better time to lure the people of Gaza away from extremism? What about the recent 87-country pledge of $4.7 billion to “all Palestinians”? Surely something could come of this. What if the people of Gaza were offered a deal they couldn’t refuse — like a path toward a viable state? But let’s not get carried away; how about something small?

On the economic front, the World Bank has predicted that during the next five years, the GDP in the occupied territories could increase by 2 percent; 5 percent if the Palestinians can do it right. And let me tell you, after spending time in refugee camps in the West Bank, this is quite the statement. But the report cautions, “the Palestinian economy will continue to suffer unless Israel eases its blockage of the Gaza Strip and removes crucial internal checkpoints to allow Palestinians to move freely in the West Bank.” With Israeli safety in mind, a policy that bears fruit of up to 5 percent for the Palestinians could severely damage the all-or-nothing vendetta sold in Gaza.

It seems everyone has felt the political earthquake of the Iraq War. But how many noticed its aftershocks? Between the collapse of the former Iraqi government and the rise of Persian theocracy, secular Arab autocrats are now coming together. It is surprising that Saudi Arabia and Syria came to last November’s Annapolis Summit. Isn’t this the farthest-spanning, non-violent Arab commitment toward a “final status” solution yet? Despite its illusive modesty, the “commitment” made in Annapolis is in fact progress. It’s as Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in a letter to President Bush before the conference: “Just don’t fail.” Because every time there is political success, people question the tenets of rocket fire and martyrdom.

In the face of mounting pressure for a major Gaza incursion, Israelis must be wary of its inevitable consequences. In addition, they must continue to work with President Mahmoud Abbas and the moderate Palestinian movement to capture projected economic growth in the occupied territories. However, it is imperative to recall the World Bank’s caution that generous international aid will not change life on the ground unless Israel makes the necessary political reforms. Between the prospect of a bolstered Palestinian economy and the recent commitment by Arab states, a plan to undermine the militant ideology in Gaza is coming into realization. But now is not the time to stop. Show the people of Gaza progress, and tomorrow’s paper will read “Militant Gaza Gone Bankrupt.”

Originally published in the Santa Barbara Independent
http://www.independent.com/news/2008/feb/07/kicking-legs-out-martyrdom-boosting-palestinian-ec/

Moderates & Musharraf

Thursday, November 15, 2007

With arsenals of nuclear weapons and a largely tribal region loaded with radical extremists, Pakistan is by far the most difficult and dangerous country the United States deals with. As the hawkish drumbeat continues to divert American unease toward Iran, the real regional threat is the alienation of the moderate majority in Pakistan.

Upon recent crisis, General Pervez Musharraf had declared in his state of emergency a suspension of the constitution along with a brash campaign to crack down on political opposition by imprisoning thousands of moderate Pakistanis.

The United States needs to re-examine history from the late 1970s in Iran and not abandon the Pakistani moderate populace that is so vital to regional stability. If Musharraf continues with martial law he will only further isolate himself and undermine the country’s critical anti-extremist bloc. There is no need for General Musharraf to repeat the same mistakes once made by Mohammed Reza Shah of Iran.

Senator Joe Biden, a presidential hopeful, has said we should move from a “Musharraf policy to a Pakistan policy.” There needs to be a comprehensive plan to engage the Pakistani people. A good start would be to restore the constitution that calls for democratic institutions that allow moderate Pakistanis to secure their own future.

It must be made clear that the United States will not turn away from moderate Pakistan and together we will continue to fight radicalism and promote stability and prosperity throughout the region. It's time to get real with Pakistan.

Whistle Blower Needed

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Even after last week's intelligence report that said, “Iran halted [its] Nuclear weapon program in 2003," President Bush still paints Iran as an undeterred evil that must be stopped. It was only last month that Bush used “Iran” and “World War III” in the same sentence, fueling a frenzy of speculation on international crude.

So why dose this matter? Since the blackout years of the late Russian President Boris Yeltsin, “Czar Putin” has bolstered the Russian economy, making it dependent on an inflated market for their oil. Russia sells arms to Syria, thus to Hamas/Hezbollah. Iran taunts its nuclear program and threatens to “erase Israel from the pages of time.” The Middle East sounds like a pretty volatile place.

What about the Iranian President, Akmadinajad? Wasn’t he elected to fix a disastrous economy? He has no constitutional power to “erase Israel from the pages of time,” so what is he doing? My Farsi’s a little rusty but I think he’s saying, “I'm fixing the economy.” That’s right! Experts agree that approximately 30 percent of today’s pump cost is based on fear and speculation. Iran and Russia share this vital strategic interest. To inflate price directly feeds these regimes.

It’s difficult to image a more backward policy for the United States, a superpower dependent on cheap fuel. It must be clear that Russian resurgence, Iran’s desperation, our gas prices, and the illicit moral cue not to eradicate humanity are all connected. Its time for a whistle blower!

Enforced Silence

Reexamining Israel and Palestine from the Ground
Thursday, July 26, 2007



Last month, I returned from traveling through Israel and working at a Palestinian refugee camp in the West Bank. Being 22 years old and of German-Jewish descent, I am well aware of the enforced silence in the United States and across the Western world regarding the Israel/Palestine calamity. As former president Jimmy Carter has observed, we continue to witness an American hush in the face of the brutal apartheid in the West Bank, and those who speak out often become discredited as being anti-Israeli.

Palestine today is a country that has endured a lifetime of humiliation. In the West Bank city of Hebron, I saw male Israeli soldiers provocatively search Muslim women as they entered their mosque to pay homage to the tomb of Abraham. I heard military fighter jets randomly shred the sound barrier over the city of Nablus, instilling terror in its people. And I felt desert thirst when the Israelis bombed a central Palestinian water main on the eve of a 100-plus-degree heat wave. These experiences are only the beginning of the unofficial Israeli deterrence package that goes virtually unreported to the Western world. The reality is that the Israeli government is doing everything it can to make life for Palestinians miserable, furthering their unspoken doctrine of global dilution of the Palestinian people and culture.

Exposed to the hurt of the Palestinians, yet sympathetic to a people who share my ancestors’ German-Jewish horror stories, I have come out of these travels certain only that the reality on the ground is a blatant atrocity to the human experience. Clearly, the Palestinian track record with terror and Israel’s policy of self-governed apartheid are unacceptable, but we must ask: Does this conflict promote a victory for anyone?

Dennis Ross, author of Statecraft and chief peace negotiator for the Middle East under the Bush senior and Clinton administrations, has a compelling proposal that clearly lacks direct experience of the situation on the ground. Last week, President George W. Bush revived aspects of the Ross doctrine in laying out his proposal to sponsor a peace conference this fall, in hopes of directly addressing the long-floundering prospect of a two-state solution. Although Bush has yet to unveil the details of his peace talks proposal, one can assume it will closely resemble Ross’s recommendations.

Ross advocates holding a hard line with Hamas, forcing the group to understand that only when it relinquishes terror as a political instrument will the international community support a Palestinian state. To this end, Ross recommends directly aiding the moderate Fatah government by giving international funds to the office of President Mahmoud Abbas. (Indeed, Bush promised Abbas $80 million last week.) Ross also proposes that NGOs be empowered for immediate and relevant assistance to the Palestinian people, while allowing time for the government to make its incremental progress. Since Hamas, which now controls the Gaza Strip, finances more than 30 Islamic schools, Ross also advocates support for secular schooling with a larger package of social programs that promote Western interests.

As reasonable as this approach may sound, aspects of this proposed policy are idealistic and naïve. Unquestionably, if these two peoples are to coexist, it is imperative that the sovereignty of statehood be recognized without interference. When Ross advocates the United States acting as chief negotiator, he forgets that our credibility among the Palestinians as an “honest broker” promoting fair solutions is dreadfully tarnished. In fact, Hamas has already rejected Bush’s most recent proposal as “false promises” that would succeed only in widening the rift between the Palestinian people. In a region where the pinnacle of pride is “face,” the Palestinians have long ago been pushed to the point of desperation. Hamas, the party that was democratically elected on pledges of anticorruption and militant nationalism, will not give up terror as one of its few available tools of power. Therefore, assuming President Abbas can preserve political legitimacy, it is crucial he offers a viable political solution to all Palestinians — not only the so-called moderates — while engaging the global community.

Abbas’s task, daunting yet necessary, is to rid Fatah of its notorious corruption, while working to promote Palestinian unity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip. It is imperative Hamas not be alienated in Gaza because of its power to sanction a peace-breaking terrorist attack against Israel. When and only when the Palestinian people and government are in a workable accord will Bush’s proposal of advancing peace talks have any chance of resulting in a lasting political solution.

As for the prospect of utilizing existing NGOs for aid on the ground, this would require major reform on the part of the Israelis. In the West Bank, Israeli Defense Force checkpoints are abundant, and the insidious harassment and potential for deportation make it virtually impossible for anyone but the most determined foreigner to enter. The Israeli government understands, as history has forced it to, that during an occupation, take no chances.

For most Americans, secularism represents moderateness and democracy, but how it has been implemented in the Middle East is quite different. The Middle Eastern experience of secularism evokes autocratic Baathist regimes, such as those of Saddam Hussein, Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, and both Western-backed “secular” shahs of Iran. The undeniable truth is that Middle Easterners, particularly Arabs and Persians, have come to equate “secular” with “Western puppets.”

Even though the voices of the Palestinian and Israeli people must ring loudest in any lasting two-state agreement, such a political solution must also be facilitated by global powers — which necessarily includes the U.S. — and honest brokers. This means the U.S. must relinquish its long-salivated prospect of having the Jewish state function as a Near East outpost for its interests. In reality, it is not in anyone’s interest to have this ignominy of humankind continue. Oftentimes, when the long oppressed becomes the oppressor, they find themselves transformed by a thirst for revenge, which in this case is directed at the Palestinians. The American people hold the power to change this deafening silence in the face of 40-plus years of inhumane occupation.

Such a reexamination of American foreign policy vis-à-vis the Middle Eastern and Muslim world is all the more imperative given the American-led catastrophe in Iraq and the rise of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, coupled with open-ended taunts by President Ahmadinejad to “wipe Israel off the map.” If there is any hope of undoing a conflict so deeply entrenched in a place that it has been socialized into the psyche of its citizens, the United States must support honest negotiations that will result in the internationally recognized sovereign states of Israel and Palestine. This fall’s peace conference will only progress if the U.S. ends its doctrine of enforced silence about the inhumanity of the Israeli occupation.

Originally published in the Santa Barbara Independent
http://www.independent.com/news/2007/jul/26/reexamining-israel-and-palestine-ground/