The U.N. Secretary-General's special envoy to Lebanon for implementation of Security Council Resolution 1701 announced today, after meeting (for the third time) with Hezbollah representatives, "We are pleased with the commitment of Hezbollah to Resolution 1701. Pop quiz: Who or what is "we" in that sentence?
Find an interview with Dr Walid Phares by Pan Arab al Muharer weekly on HizbAllah's current strategies. "This organization, founded, funded and trained by the Pasdarans (Islamic Revolutionary Guards) is controlled directly from Iran. HizbAllah wages wars at the orders of the Mullahs regime. Unlike any other group in Lebanon it claims openely that it is an extension of the Iranian Khomeinist regime." Interview in Arabic here: Download p18-19-11-01-07.pdf
Continue reading "Interview with al Muharer: HizbAllah is under direct control fom Iran (WP)" »
Hezbollah is recovering nicely from this summer's jihad on Israel with the help of its sponsors in Iran and Syria. (Thanks for the heads-up to Dan McKivergan of the Weekly Standard's blog.)
The AP reports (via the NYTimes) that Iran has increased its funding of the terror group that serves as its forward militia by about 100 percent (i.e., up to about $200M per annum); meantime, the porous 233-mile border between Syria and Lebanon provides abundant opportunity for replenishing Hezbollah's supply of arms. Not only is the terror group consolidating its position in Lebanon and moving to bring down the weak U.S.-backed government in a transparent Syrian coup; it is also using its Bekaa Valley and Beirut camps to provide paramilitary training for Shiite militias from Iraq — who kill U.S. forces and contribute mightily to the sectarian warfare there. (As I mentioned in this piece, such training mirrors the instruction Hezbollah has been providing for al Qaeda since the early 1990s.)
In this morning's National Review online, I have an article with Howard Anglin, Esq. on a recent judicial decision out of California authored by Judge Audrey Collins that seriously hampers the government's efforts to restrict terrorist financing. Read the article.
To be fair to Judge Collins, her opinion is nothing like the hatchet job performed by Judge Anna Diggs Taylor on the NSA’s terrorist-surveillance program earlier this year. Judge Taylor’s opinion was roundly — and rightly — condemned as poorly reasoned and unworthy of the legal craft by lawyers from across the political spectrum. Judge Collins’s decision, by contrast, is neither overtly partisan nor irrational. With one exception it is a workmanlike application of precedent to fact. Unfortunately, that one exception has catastrophic potential.
...
There is, however, a compelling basis for a government ban on any assistance — even self-described humanitarian aid — to terrorists. Because terrorist organizations are not known as models of corporate transparency, there is no way of knowing whether a terrorist entity’s humanitarian arm is funneling money to its militant one. What is more, the fungible nature of money means that donations to the peaceful arm free up money to be spent by the militant arm.
I was awakened this morning by a call from a friend informing me that Jeane Kirkpatrick had died. Ambassador Kirkpatrick, until fairly recently, was a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, where I interned last year, and her office was only a few steps away from my bay on the 11th floor. She later went on to help found the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
Jeane would make a point of stopping for a chat every time she passed my bay at AEI, and we had many fascinating conversations about foreign policy, and I was constantly struck by her powerful mind, on which, mercifully, age was not taking its toll.
Being a somewhat bumptious sort, I would try to tease out her views on the issues facing us today—at the time, it was the floundering Iraq mission—and it was clear that her contributions deserved a more public airing. Fortunately, prior to her death, Jeane had finished writing a new book on foreign policy. Though I have not yet had the pleasure to read it (it will be published shortly), I am told by those whose judgment I trust that it is excellent.
I remember one particular conversation with Jeane during which, and this
was the Tory in me speaking, I quizzed her about her role in the Falklands crisis, which had received unfavorable reviews
in Margaret Thatcher's memoirs Downing Street Years. Jeane displayed her
characteristic graciousness, explaining the basis for her skepticism at being
too supportive of
Jeane explained that she was worried that an embarrassment of the Argentinean government over the Falklands might lead to its replacement by a communist one. Jeane's thinking flowed from the powerful, and powerfully American traditions of the Monroe Doctrine, as well as her own thesis in Dictatorships and Double Standards, which foreign policy thinkers today, especially those specializing in the Middle East, are I think admonished to read. (A link to the original essay is here, and its book form here).
In vivid detail, Jeane explained that hindsight had vindicated Lady Thatcher's decision, not her own. Yet, in this concession, Jeane's graciousness and honor came through, and I came to see that any sensible policymaker in her place would have had the same fears as her, and would probably have come to the same decision: I, with all my sympathies for the Anglosphere and the old order, certainly would have.
Jeane then spoke to me about the profound ambiguity of foreign policy idealism that animated her Dictatorships and Double Standards thesis, subtly calling attention to a particular weakness in my own foreign policy thinking. I would say that if there is one essay that those who are called neoconservatives should read, it is Dictatorships and Double Standards.
Ultimately, difficult policy decisions cannot be entirely based on ex ante normative ideals, but prudential concerns, animated by history. Fortunately, this underscores the need for powerfully smart, and idealistic, statesmen, of which Jeane Kirkpatrick surely was one. Withal, Jeane's contribution to U.S. foreign policy was very significant, and her death is serious and in many ways sad, but she leaves behind many friends, a goodly number of acolytes, and a very, very significant legacy. May she rest in peace.
On the third day of HizbAllah’s campaign to takeover the Lebanese Government, more sectors from civil society began to rise. But they weren’t rising with the pro-Iranian militia in as much as they were rising to oppose its move. However on the other hand, it was further noticed that a number of Western media increased their support to Nasrallah’s organization.
From Saturday late night into the early hours of the morning, more incursions by HizbAllah’s elements were signaled inside the traditional Sunni West Beirut. A battle with rocks took place in many streets leaving a number of wounded and one HizbAllah militiaman dead. The Iranian-backed militants staged their “thrusts” into Sunni areas from their launching pad in the “protest” areas in downtown, commonly described as the “coup d’Etat” basis.
Continue reading "HizbAllah’s Offensive in Lebanon: Day Three (WP)" »
In its second day, HizbAllah’s offensive in Lebanon against the democratically elected Government has maintained pressures on various levels. Following are the main axis of activities:
HizbAllah’s deployment
By mid week end, several thousands of HizbAllah’s members, cadres and officers have settled inside downtown Beirut, surrounding the Prime Minister’s office. The militia erected dozens of tents in a military fashion, with 30 fighters in each tent. Sources from the Lebanese Army described the “deployment” of the tents as a bivouac-maneuvering of about three brigades, “clearly following the Iranian military code,” said the sources. By late Saturday evening early Sunday morning, the Lebanese Army was able to move a number of these tents to the sides opening a path to the Government building.
Continue reading "HizbAllah’s Offensive in Lebanon: Day Two (WP)" »
In the Front Page Magazine Walid Phares writes about the terrorist assassination of Pierre Gemayel. "The assassination of Lebanese Christian politician Pierre Gemayel this Tuesday has revealed that the Tehran-Damascus axis remains busy with terror activities across the Fertile Crescent." In Washington Times he states: "Al Qaeda and its advisers around the world want to provoke an "American Madrid." Portraying the United States as a bleeding bull in disarray, the war room projects its wish to see America's will crippled." In HS Today November Issue Walid Phares has a cover story "Education Versus Jihad". In the San Francisco Chronicle Phares was quoted on U.N. investigation of the last year murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and Bashar al-Assad regime in Damascus ."Any indictment of any Syrian official ... any implication of any Syrian intelligence officer will basically lead to indicting morally and politically the regime," Phares said".
Commenting on the speech by Hezbollah's leader I made the following remarks to Mashreq Radio and the Kuwaiti daily as Siyassa on November 20,2006.
First: M Nasrallah asked the Lebanese Government to either form a so-called "national unity government" or to resign and organize early legislative elections. Otherwise, M Nasrallah will wage a campaign of streets protests to bring down the Seniora cabinet. In fact, if Hezbollah's leader wishes to make a massive change in the democratic political process in Lebanon, he will have to call for an all out halting to this process as is, and go back to square one. For if Hezbollah has accepted the process back in May 2005, and obtained seats in the Parliament and the Government, then withdrew, it means that he has been using this process. If they believe the process must stop, then Hezbollah should hold an emergency congress and declare the following:
Continue reading "Phares to Hezbollah: Disarm to join the democratic process (WP)" »
Recent quotation from CNSNews article by Julie Stahl reads:
The recent Democratic takeover of the U.S. Congress emboldened Syria, Iran and Hizballah (Iran's proxy) because they view it as the defeat of President Bush, said Walid Phares, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. The rest is here
Published in World Defense Review
According to sources and contacts – as well as statements made in Lebanon over the past few weeks – all analysis indicates that Hezbollah is on the verge of an all out offensive in Lebanon to crumble the "March 14" Seniora Government and to seize strategic control in the country.
Following are few points deserving attention (a more comprehensive analysis will follow later):
1. As predicted since July 12, (and posted on the Counterterrorism Blog), the aim of Hezbollah's summer war with Israel, was to provoke a "strike-back" at the Lebanese Government and reshape the balance of power in Lebanon to the advantage of the Teheran-Damascus axis. Nasrallah and his allies across the sectarian divide aimed at shifting the issue of disarming Hezbollah and militias (according to UNSCR 1559) to crumbling the government, which is supposed to implement this disarming process.
2. By mid-October, Hezbollah and its pro-Syrian allies had begun a political counter offensive aiming at "enlarging" the Seniora cabinet, as a way to paralyzing it further from the inside. The political discussions took longer than anticipated by Hezbollah. Hence, a decision was made in Tehran (and subsequently in Damascus ) to move forward.
Continue reading "Hezbollah's Offensive in Lebanon Has Begun (WP)" »
War Stories with Oliver North, Fox News Sun., October 15, 2006
FDD Senior Fellow Walid Phares joins Vice President Cheney, Former Director of the CIA and FDD Distinguished Advisor James Woolsey, Bernard Lewis and other experts in the field. In this special report Oliver North explores what every person should know about jihad. In proven "War Stories" tradition, this episode brings historical context to today's events.
To watch the video click on: Part one, Part two, Part three, Part four.
Walid Phares on VOA about the worldwide hunt for terrorists. In New York Post comments on Iran and Syria; Ahmadinejad in United Nations; State of affairs in Iraq and other issues. In Family Security Matters, on U.S. homeland security:is it penetrated and threatened? In the American Chronicle Phares is quoted on the conflict in Darfur. On CTV Canada Phares, talks about the video obtained by Britain's Sunday Times newspaper showing two of the terrorists responsible for the Sept. 11 terror attack laughing and joking together more than 18 months before the attacks. For video click here
Walid Phares in San Francisco Chronicle on whether no Iraq war would mean easier war on terror? In Canadian Global National report examines the french report that Osama Bin Laden died last month in Pakistan and what this means for al-Qaeda. In other media he also discusses the role of Hezbollah in the Middle East, Bin Laden and U.S. strategies.
Charles Krauthammer writes:
Hezbollah is in no position, either militarily or politically, for another round. Nasrallah's admission that the war was a mistake is an implicit pledge not to repeat it, lest he be completely finished as a Lebanese political figure. …
With Nasrallah weakened, the other major factions are closing in around him. … The March 14 democratic movement has regained the upper hand and, with outside help, could marginalize Hezbollah. …
A strong European presence in the south, serious U.S. training and equipment for the Lebanese army, and relentless pressure at the United Nations can tip the balance. We should be especially aggressive at the United Nations in pursuing the investigation of Syria for the murder of Rafiq Hariri and in implementing resolutions mandating the disarmament of Hezbollah.
More here.
This week's Notes & Comments are now online. Cliff May comments on how the kidnapping and intimidation of journalists influences media coverage of the Palestinian issue He also reports on support for the war on terrorism in Hollywood, the latest news from the Israel-Hezbollah conflict, and the progress of liberal democracy in the Middle East.
Over at TechCentralStation, J. Peter Pham & Michael I. Krauss discuss Europe's Munich moment.
Steve Sailer, from the American Conservative, has joined the ongoing effort to wish the United States' Iran problem away. Sailer writes:
That Iran's GDP is about 1/20th of ours, that their installed base of post-1978 aircraft and tanks is paltry, that they have virtually no offensive capability to seize territory where the local population doesn't support them, and that they have been spending a no higher percentage of their limited GDP on their military than we spend (and possibly less), suggests Iran is not a major threat to conquer the Middle East. This is as if bored New York sportswriters, following, say, a collapse by the large market Boston Red Sox, got into a frenzy over the long term threat to Yankee dominance posed by the small-market Kansas City Royals. Well, it wouldn't happen on the sports pages, because baseball fans know the numbers and the pundits would get laughed at by their own readers.
There's a lot to disagree with in this; let's begin with his baseball analogy.
Forget about the KC Royals. Iran is more like the Oakland Athletics. As Michael Lewis explained in Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game, Oakland's GM Billy Beane manages a minuscule budget compared to, say, the Yankees. Yet, he has succeeded in creating a winning franchise. Sure, Oakland poses no long-term threat to the Steinbrenner empire, but they certainly pose problems in the short term, partly because of shrewd decisions by management but also because they're in a weak division.
On to Iran: That Iran is no match for the United States in a conventional war does not mean that the threat they pose is being overblown. With their piffling military budget, Iran funds Hezbollah, a terrorist organ that, prior to 9/11, had killed more Americans than any other terrorist group on the planet. Iran also funds Shiite death squads in Iraq and their regional policy consists of encouraging destabilization and sectarian warfare. Iran is proof that it is a lot easier (and cheaper) to create a mess than to clean it up.
Second, that Iran's GDP is insignificant compared to the United States shouldn't obscure us from the fact that a nuclear bomb is the great equalizer, and that Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology greatly magnifies the threat that their military budget would otherwise pose if restricted to conventional weapons.
Cliff May asks whether Americans are up to the challenge of seeing this war through to the end.
Michael I. Krauss and J. Peter Pham highlight the absurdity of the UN ceasefire to the Israel/Hezbollah conflict.
J. Peter Pham discusses the uncomfortable truth that China is currently building alliances with despots the world over to balance against American power.
Kofi Annan has blamed Israel for violating the ceasefire after it launched a raid against an arms shipment to the Bekka Valley. But Annan's position is not - nor can it be - supported by the actual ceasefire resolution, UNSCR 1701 (2006).
Structurally, UNSCR 1701 does two things: first, it forces an immediate and temporary ceasefire based upon the cessation of actual hostilities; second, it calls for an international presence in southern Lebanon to help Lebanon maintain the ceasefire. Right now, we are somewhere between Stage 1 and Stage 2. So a resort to force is justified if it derives sanction from the actual text of UNSCR 1701 or a right enshrined in the UN Charter or in international law generally. With this as the standard, there is a case to be made that Israel's commando raid against an arms shipment in the Bekaa Valley is lawful.
Israel is pointing out (correctly) that the resolution bans offensive military operations; this is a truism since a Security Council resolution cannot ban defensive operations. Israel is claiming its actions are justified by the right of self-defense, which is given partial expression in Article 51 of the UN Charter. The key requirement here is that Israel's response be necessary and proportional.
It is certainly proportional, since a commando raid that results in little collateral damage is proportional to the threat posed by an arms shipment to Hezbollah, and the proximate relationship between that shipment and an attack on Israel's territorial integrity. But was it necessary? This is a more difficult question, but there is a strong case to be made that the answer is yes.
Operative Clause 8 of UNSCR 1701 calls upon Israel and Lebanon " to support a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution based on the following principles." It then goes on to define these principles, the support of which is necessary, by the resolution's own language, for a permanent ceasefire: subclauses 2,3 and 5 list those that I think are most relevant: removing armed personnel, assets and weapons unless those authorized by the government of Lebanon from south of the Litani; the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon; no sale or supply of arms and related material to Lebanon except as authorized by its government.
Before we reach Stage 2 of the ceasefire, the only parties capable of enforcing the terms of UNSCR 1701 are the governments of Israel and Lebanon, and nothing in the resolution precludes Israel from enforcing its terms, especially if this strengthens Israel's right of self defense. We should note that if the UN Security Council wanted Israel to remain uninvolved in the enforcement of the technical terms of the resolution, it could have done so. For example, when the Security Council authorized a coalition to use force against Iraq to remove it from Kuwait, the resolution was worded such that Israel could not be part of that coalition. Here, in the absence of such wording, Israel is fully justified in enforcing the resolution.
I eagerly await a press release from Kofi Annan criticizing the country that sent that shipment, which assuredly is in violation of UNSCR 1701. It is up to Israel and her allies to rebut the perfidious Kofi Annan when he tries to pin the blame for the collapse of his UN mission on Israel.
There is an excellent editorial on NRO rubbishing Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's decision to strike down the NSA surveillance program.
Judge Taylor's opinion is funny rather than sad, because there is a 0% chance that its rationale will be endorsed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Taylor, surveying the NSA program, found violations of the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Separation of Powers, and two federal statutes. If she looked harder, she may very well have found a violation of Roe v Wade, too.
Senator Specter's bill before Congress to, as it were, normalize the NSA wiretap program, will if it is passed, moot the question of whether the program violates FISA, but leave open the question of whether it violates the Constitution. Suffice it to say, for now, that even fierce critics of the NSA program are unwilling to sign up to Judge Taylor's take on that bold claim.
Judge Taylor's opinion is a damp squib; already, her permanent injunction against the NSA program's continued operation has been stayed, so it will, at least for the time being, continue to yield actionable intelligence.
Pham & Krauss argue that the ceasefire in the conflict in Lebanon "is really the intermission after the first act of an ongoing drama."
FDD Student Fellow Ilya Bourtman studies the Israel-Azerbaijan relationship.
Walid Phares and Claudia Rosett discuss the implications of a UN ceasefire here and here.
In an interview NewsMax, FDD Senior Fellow Walid Phares, the author of the bestselling book Future Jihad, warns that Iran's influence will continue to grow in Lebanon and Hezbollah may turn its weapons against the Cedar Revolution in order to build a "‘Khumeinist Republic' on the Eastern shores of the Mediterranean."
Read it here.
First Reuters, now the Associated Press...
How is Israel faring in its war against Hezbollah? Pretty badly, if the Associated Press is to be believed:
Sunday's deaths brought to 93 the number of Israelis killed, including 45 soldiers, the 12 reservists and 36 civilians. Israel's attacks on Lebanon have killed at least 591 people, including 509 civilians, 29 Lebanese soldiers and 53 Hezbollah guerrillas.
Israeli has suffered greater casualties than Hezbollah? Right...
Frankly, many of those whom the AP calls Lebanese civilians are in fact Hezbollah members; unless, that is, you believe Nasrallah's press releases that Israel is being slaughtered on the battlefield.
Dore Gold, Israel's former Ambassador to the United Nations, makes a terrifyingly good point about the proposed ceasefire to the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah that has been embraced by France and the United States. As the New York Sun's Eli Lake reports,
"[T]he draft U.N. resolution sponsored by France and America calls on the establishment of a multinational force under Chapter 7 of the U.N. charter, which deals with grave threats to international peace and security.
As such, the second resolution authorizing the peacekeepers could lead to sanctions or military strikes against Israel should Jerusalem take pre-emptive military action against a Hezbollah militia that the Israel Defense Force is unlikely to be able to disarm by the time the armistice kicks in."
The draft resolution calls for the "immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations." What will happen if the proposed ceasefire fails, the international force sent in is a paper tiger, and Hezbollah begins launching attacks against Israel?
Israel can - again - launch an attack against Hezbollah based on principles of self-defence, but Israel's antagonists will be able to say that Israel is explicitly violating the terms of a UN Security Council resolution. Nothing new there...
What will however be different is that, this time, the resolution will have been passed under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which means, in practice, an escalation of the charges against Israel.
Furthermore, since Kofi Annan will be charged with implementing the resolution, and will have an important say in determining whether it is being followed, this proposed resolution may turn out to be yet another cudgel the world uses to bash Israel. A cudgel, I might add, that offers no guarantee of increasing Israel's security.
Professor Eugene Kontorovich has a controversial op/ed in the New York Sun explaining why the latest proposals for a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah violate international law. He writes:
The most surprising aspect of international proposals for a ceasefire in the Israel-Lebanon conflict is their endorsement of Hezbollah's demand that Israel give it territory, known as the Sheba Farms, in exchange for a end to rocket attacks on Israeli cities...What is certain — and yet entirely neglected in the discussion of the issue — is that the proposal violates bedrock norms of international law. Nations cannot enlarge their borders through the use of aggressive force. There are no exceptions to this non-acquisition principle.
Let's leave to one side the wisdom of ceding territory to a terrorist organization like Hezbollah and deal instead with Kontorovich's seductive claim that it violates international law.
It is certainly true that the UN Charter permits no exceptions to the non-acquisitive principle (this is the practical effect of Article 2(4) and Article 51 of the Charter). Still, Kontorovich is overstating his case with regard to international law generally - unless, that is, he is laboring under the mistaken view that international law is whatever the United Nations and Kofi Annan say it is. It isn't, mercifully.
The truth is, although there is a general presumption against the acquisition of territory as a result of aggression, this is a neoteric doctrine - emerging as it did in the 20th century. In the past, conquest was a legitimate way to acquire territory. Of course, during the 20th century we have understandably moved away from this extreme position, but there is no absolute rule of non-acquisition when aggression is involved.
For example, the rule of uti possidetis - the principle that territory vests to the victorious party - has essentially kept the fragile peace in many African conflicts after initial disputes over post-colonial border. The International Court of Justice recognized something approaching this in its deliberations on the land and maritime border dispute between Nigeria and Cameroon. Recently, this led to a truce and subsequently an agreement between these two countries. International law is better discerned from the way states act and their reasons for so acting rather than universalist-abstractions in the UN Charter.
In many ways, Kontorovich reveals the poverty of international law as a dispute resolution mechanism. Its boundaries are unclear, far too many people make authoritative statements when nuanced ones would be more appropriate, and by focusing too much on ex ante rules, it does not concern itself with creating lasting peace.
So, to answer the question posed in the title - International law isn't standing in the way of a ceasefire, the UN Charter is.
A few hours after a Franco-American draft for a UN Security Council resolution was released, pro-Hezbollah lobbies and allies launched a campaign to hijack the response of Lebanon to the United Nations. As noted by seasoned observers, the campaign started at the top with an alert release by News Agency Reuters written by Lin Noueihed. The article, put out early Sunday has reached the four corners of the Globe and its title has framed the position of the Lebanese people in a "no" to the UN expected resolution. Amazingly enough, Lin Noueihid titles her release "Lebanon rejects draft UN resolution." But when you read the release you realize that the "representative" of all of Lebanon in the eyes of the Reuters reporter is no one other than pro-Syrian, Hezbollah ally, Nabih Berri, the leader of Shiite Movement Amal.
Noueihid wrote that "Lebanon rejects a draft U.N. Security Council resolution to end 26 days of fighting because it would allow Israeli forces to remain on Lebanese soil, Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri said on Sunday." Basing her entire report on one of the most powerful supporters of the Syrian occupation and who heads a militia allied to Hezbollah, Noueihid gives Berri the full power of the credibility of Reuters. This title will find itself printed from Yahoo to the last local newsletter in the Fidji islands. Evidently, local editors around the world trust Reuters as they trust the Red Cross, and will conclude that indeed "Lebanon" has rejected a UN resolution, while in reality, it is Tehran-Damascus-Hezbollah axis that rejected it, and unfortunately a Reuters writer framed it otherwise.
Continue reading "Is Reuter's Hijacking Lebanon's Answer to the UN? (WP)" »
Lots of talk about Hezbollah these days and some mention of the lethal attacks they have made on Americans in the past:
What seldom, if ever, gets mentioned though are some of the other atrocities against Americans committed by Hezbollah –all of which have gone unpunished. Let me refresh the record with mention of a few of them.
Continue reading "Dispatches from the Danger Zone: Lest we Forget" »
The current consensus within the United Nations Security Council on the resolution to address the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah is the result of a review of four positions and the selection of the middle way between all the latter:
Hezbollah: Yes to a cease fire, and only cease fire, leaving open the question of disengagement. Hezbollah, Iran and Syria wants to stop the Israeli campaign, rearm and reorganize; but also concentrate their pressure on the Lebanese Government to crumble it and replace it with a pro-Hezbollah cabinet.
Seniora Lebanese Government: (The so-called 7 points plan). Yes to a cease fire with measures on the ground that would be considered as a disengagement. Yes in principle to the idea of a multinational role without many details nor a discussion of Hezbollah's arms.
The French position Yes to a cease fire, a disengagement plan and the principle of a multinational force to be discussed in details later.
The American position Yes to a disengagement plan based on the formation of a multinational force which would secure a cease fire, and remove Hezbollah's weapons.
The Israeli position Yes to a resolution that would call for disarming Hezbollah, forming a powerful multinational force and as a result of it a long term cease fire.
Continue reading "The UN Security Council Resolution Regarding Israel-Hezbollah Conflict (WP)" »
In today's Philadelphia Inquirer, Omar Fadhil of the indespensible blog Iraq the Model has what should be required reading for anyone interested in the much larger game that Iran is playing in the battle between Hezbollah and Israel. He argues we are witnessing the start of an Iranian-Israeli conflict (as opposed to previous Arab-Israeli wars) -- and that it has an apocalyptic theological component with implications that stretch throughout the region:
It's common wisdom to say that the war between Hezbollah and Israel is a regional struggle that also includes Iran and Syria, who have supported and supplied Hezbollah. What seems to be less understood is that this is the first war between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Israel, via Iran's proxy Hezbollah, and that its overarching purpose is to advance Iran's ambitions to export the Islamic revolution throughout the Middle East.
Thus, while religion has always played an important role in prior Arab-Israeli wars, this time it has moved to center stage. It is the theological aspect of this conflict that makes it so explosive and could lead to its expansion.
As an observer of the conflict from Iraq, I see the signs that Iran may be starting to launch the mullahs' version of an Armageddon, exploiting the religious beliefs of devout Shiites in the region. While this may sound more the stuff of prophecies than international relations, it is important to understand - especially in countries such as Lebanon and Iraq that have large Shiite populations.
Read the entire article here.
A cacophony of calls for a ceasefire confirms the apotheosis of hope over experience in the conflict between Hezbollah and Israel.
Any ceasefire must address the factual predicate for the latest hostilities, namely, the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers and the constant rocket attacks against Israel from southern Lebanon.
Without the disarmament (and disbandment?) of Hezbollah, or some sort of military presence, whether led by the Lebanese government or the international community, along the Lebanon-Israel border, is it realistic to believe that any ceasefire is durable?
Almost certainly not; which is why fetishizing a ceasefire does nothing to address the reason why this war is being fought in the first place.
In his latest column, Cliff argues that Hezbollah is a master of psychological operations, and, if not defeated, they will become the dominant player in Lebanon, destroying hope for democracy and opening the door for Syrian occupation again.
J. Peter Pham argues that Ameica has an interest in the politics of West Africa.
NRO's Kathryn Lopez interviews Walid on the crisis in the Middle East.
Peter Bouckaert, the Emergencies Director at Human Rights Watch, claims in the Guardian newspaper that "our investigations have not found evidence to support Israeli allegations that Hizbullah are intentionally endangering Lebanese civilians by systematically fighting from civilian positions."
Really?
I found this image telling.
As well as this video of Hezbollah launching Katyusha rockets from civilian areas.
Also, it's worth pointing out that, by Human Rights Watch's own definition, "Hezbollah is an organized political Islamist group based in Lebanon, with a military arm and a civilian arm, and is represented in the Lebanese parliament and government." Since Hezbollah is not the same thing as the Lebanese army, any area the group operates out of is by definition a civilian area.
Human Rights Watch has issues a scathing attack on Israel's conduct in its war with Hezbollah. The tragedy of this report is that, because it is selective, disingenuous and biased, it undermines Human Rights Watch's credibility, and threatens the organization's noble vision of strengthening the international protection of human rights.
The report's executive summary criticizes Israel for its attacks on Lebanese homes. Human Rights Watch calls them "civilian targets." Tragically, this is only half the story, as many of the homes are also used to store missiles. They are, properly understood, dual-use - and are therefore similar to bridges and roads. That does not per se make them lawful targets, but it does mean that in determining whether Israel is committing war crimes by bombing them one needs to look at the totality of the circumstances, including the likelihood that the area as a whole is dual-use. The Human Rights Watch summary gives only a passing treatment to what is, frankly, the heart of the issue.
More problematically, the Human Rights Watch report, at least in its executive summary, does not adequately consider Hezbollah's obligation to to protect civilians from dangers, and that using civilian shields to protect military assets, as Hezbollah does, is itself a war crime. In fact, a previous Human Rights Watch report - one that was far more fair and balanced - does make this point explicitly.
It is truly worrying that from its previous report (which was good) to its current report (which is bad), Human Rights Watch seems to have abandoned the idea that Hezbollah also has obligations to minimize Lebanese civilian casualties, and that because it is a non-state party to the conflict, Hezbollah is also bound by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.
Rich Lowry writes:
Hezbollah wants a weakened Lebanese state so that the terrorist organization will have more freedom to work its will in the country, while it is Israel that needs strong Lebanese institutions that can squeeze Hezbollah’s private army out of existence.
It is easier, however, to destabilize a weak government than it is to bolster one, which is one reason the Bush administration’s Middle Eastern ambitions are being ground into sand at the moment. Bush wants to create something new, but the act of creation is tricky and onerous. Destroying is not. Pro-Iraq-war hawks used to say that the insurgency there was of limited appeal because it has no positive political program. Well, so what? It needs no agenda besides promoting a civil war. Mindless bloodletting in Iraq will block the creation of anything new, and that’s enough.
More here.
Charles Krauthammer writes:
In perhaps the most blatant terror campaign from the air since the London Blitz, Hezbollah is raining rockets on Israeli cities and villages. These rockets are packed with ball bearings that can penetrate automobiles and shred human flesh. They are meant to kill and maim. And they do.
But it is a dual campaign. Israeli innocents must die in order for Israel to be terrorized. But Lebanese innocents must also die in order for Israel to be demonized, which is why Hezbollah hides its fighters, its rockets, its launchers, its entire infrastructure among civilians. Creating human shields is a war crime. It is also a Hezbollah specialty.
More here.
Over at Across the Bay, I discuss the folly of the calls to "engage" Syria over the Lebanon crisis.
I particularly note the positions of people who have dealt with Bashar Assad in the past and went away with a bitter taste in their mouth, and a decision never to trust him or work with him again. One such person is French President Chirac, who talked to Le Monde about this issue. He said that he "realized that nothing would come out of it [dialogue with Assad]. [I realized] that the regime embodied by Bashar al-Assad appeared to me hardly compatible with security and peace." Chirac also thinks, as I have argued before, that Syria is actually a secondary player in this case. The real player is Iran. Syria is just trying to get as many scraps off Iran's table as it can. We should not fall for its bluff.
Martin Indyk, another person who has dealt with Bashar and regretted it, is also against talking to Syria about the current crisis. He also had a similar reaction to Chirac's: Bashar is unreliable. Furthermore, Indyk added, "[t]he idea that Syria or Iran should become the arbiters of Lebanon's fate is basically to reward the arsonists by giving them control of the place where the fire's burning." That would also be a betrayal of the hundreds of thousands of Lebanese who took to the street in order to rid themselves of Syrian hegemony, Indyk said.
Finally, Indyk noted that the Bashar Assad's relationship with Hezbollah is very different from the one his father had: "[Bashar] is dependent on Hezbollah to maintain Syrian influence in Lebanon because he no longer has the troop presence that gave him control of Lebanon. He is dependent on Hezbollah to defend against an Israeli ground attack through Lebanon's Bekaa Valley into Syria. And therefore, his ability to curb Hezbollah is much more limited, if it's there at all."
Michael Young also wonders whether the people peddling the Syrian option have any memory at all: "it was under Syria that Hezbollah became a military power, and what the Syrians will demand, or maneuver to achieve, in exchange for "helping" would be onerous. They will want the international investigation of Rafiq Hariri's murder to be dropped, to save their regime that ordered the crime; and they will want oversight power over Lebanese affairs, which, with an armed Hezbollah as Praetorian Guard, would effectively mean they would again rule the country."
Finally, with regards to the rather laughable notion of "weaning Syria away from Iran and back into the Sunni Arab fold" -- a baseless, historically malinformed notion -- I translate the remarks of a dissident Syrian analyst, Fayez Sarah, who correctly reminds everyone that the entire last year was wasted on Arab states trying to convince Syria to drop its relations with Iran. They failed miserably. And we're being asked to try that failed effort once more, because, in the words of Tom Friedman, it's "worth a shot." That's called folly.
From an analysis of the observation of Israel's air campaign in Lebanon and its limited incursions in the south at this stage, and based on reporting from Lebanon's military and security sources and analysts, it appears that the strategic targets of Israel's action are as follows:
1. Shelling and bombarding Hezbollah's positions and infrastructures in southern Beirut, the south and the Bekaa, so that the entire Hezbollah-land in Lebanon would be under pressure and no area of re-gathering or stability can serve as a strategic depth. (See map, zones in orange)
2. Concentrating on the Dahiya, Beirut's southern suburb aim at dismantling the so-called murabba'a amni (security square) which comprises the main headquarters, communications systems, bunkers and tunnels of Hezbollah. If the Israeli air strikes continue with no cease fire to interrupt them, the "square" will be non-operational for Hezbollah's leadership, which would lead to one of the following options: 1) moving the Hezbollah's leadership structure deeper in greater Beirut or into the Lebanese army perimeter. Which would lead to engage the Army in the conflict. or 2) moving the leadership to the Bekaa, knowing that the south of the country is insecure for such resettlement. According to experts in Lebanon, the Bekaa option seems to be the most logical for Hezbollah, but according to other analysts, Hezbollah cannot afford leaving Beirut for political reasons.
3. Hence, Nasrallah's organization may recourse to dramatic measures to deter Israeli air raids over Beirut's so that the southern suburb remains a basis for the group. The nature of the "new" measures is unknown: Nasrallah has promised "surprises" a week ago.
4. This Israeli process will shape up the essence of Syro-Iranian, Arab, international and even Lebanese responses to the solution. The location of Hezbollah's leadership and infrastructure will be one of the influential elements in the outcome of negotiations There is a difference as to where is this leadership, inside or outside the capital. Both Israel and Hezbollah knows it.
Claudia Rosett discusses the U.N.'s reaction to the crisis in the Middle East.
Andy McCarthy argues that Israel's war is part of America's 'war on terror.'
Krauss & Pham argue that the current U.N. peacekeeping mission in Lebanon,Tte U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNFIL), has turned into a very convenient and high-profile human shield for terrorists.
Cliff's weekly notes & comments are in this week's e-newsletter.
Lebanese Druze MP Walid Jumblatt strongly criticized Hezbollah's chief Hassan Nasrallah in an interview published on Sunday in the pan-Arab Asharq al-Awsat. Here's a translation of what he said:
"The priority now is to stop the offensive, and then we gather the state together and go back to where we stopped at the national dialogue to discuss the subject of the defense strategy [i.e., Hezbollah's weapons]. At the same time we are saying that there should be no weapons outside the control of the state. We must send the Army to the south, and the decision to go to war should be in the hands of the state, not in the hands of one party, who, in the name of the umma or what have you, throws Lebanon into the unknown." He added, "what took place throws Lebanon into the struggle between two axes: Iranian-Syrian on one side and American-Israeli on the other."
Commenting on Nasrallah's recent interview on al-Jazeera, Jumblatt said:
"I could not find a Lebanese element anywhere in his talk. He reminds me of Arafat's experience in the siege of Beirut in 1982. In the end, Arafat left Beirut, but things are different here."
He added, "Iran has decided to fight the US by launching a war against Israel, which is an American [client] state of sorts, in response to the conflict over the nuclear issue. As for Syria, it wants to escape the international tribunal [for its role in the Hariri assassination.]" He asked, "Does Hassan Nasrallah have any Lebanese part when he talks about having friends in Damascus and Tehran? This insults our intelligence. As for his saying that whoever supports me deserves praise and whoever does not will be held accountable, that is a message. We received the message."
Jumblatt warned of a project "to reconsider the Taef Accord and the political direction, the reconstruction and the reconciliation [efforts] of Rafik Hariri."
As for what could be done to end the crisis, he said, "the matter is out of our hands. The decision is his in the end. He is mistaken when he says that he is relying on the cabinet statement, because no one commissioned him to fight in order to restore the Shebaa Farms and the prisoners. The Farms are liberated through [border] delineation [with Syria], and then through a request at the UN. The prisoners' case is solved through finding the body of Ron Arad." He warned, "the Lebanese public opinion is not convinced of the method and the price we are paying to bring back the prisoners, Hassan Nasrallah's way."
The solution in Jumblatt's opinion is for Hezbollah to "hand over its decision and its arms to the Lebanese state according to the mechanism of the [national] dialogue." He mentioned that "PM Fouad Seniora said in the last session of the dialogue that the summer was promising tourism-wise, and that one and a half million tourists were expected in Lebanon. Nasrallah replied then, 'you see Mr. Prime Minister, the weapons of the resistance do not scare off tourists.' But what happened did scare them off and has turned thousands of Lebanese into refugees."
He then asked Nasrallah, "where do you stand with respect to Lebanon and the Lebanese state? If you are a target, then now the entire country is a target." He denied having any contacts with Hezbollah in order to find a solution to the crisis, saying, "we have commissioned PM Seniora to negotiate in order to find solutions." He added, "there is great hope pinned on Speaker Nabih Berri, who was one of the pillars of the Taef Accord, along with [former] PM Hariri, for the sake of the future of the Shiite community in Lebanon, for a large community and a partner in the country should not feel as if it was dealt a blow after this storm passes."
Yesterday, Andy posted on a piece in the Sunday Times about Iran's strategic goals in the region and quoted this passage:
Why has Tehran decided to play its Lebanese card now? Part of the answer lies in Washington’s decision last May to reverse its policy towards Iran by offering large concessions on its nuclear programme. Tehran interpreted that as a sign of weakness. Ahmadinejad believes that his strategy to drive the “infidel” out of the Islamic heartland cannot succeed unless Arabs accept Iran’s leadership. The problem is that since the Iranian regime is Shi’ite it would not be easy to sell it to most Arabs, who are Sunni. To overcome that hurdle, it is necessary to persuade the Arabs that only Iran is sincere in its desire and capacity to wipe Israel off the map. Once that claim is sold to the Arabs, so Ahmadinejad hopes, they would rally behind his vision of the Middle East instead of the “American vision.”
Following up on that, here's a quote by Hezbollah's representative in Tehran, Hossein Safieddin, that appeared in a piece in the Washington Post today:
"We are going to make Israel not safe for Israelis. There will be no place they are safe," Safiadeen told a conference that included the Tehran-based representative of the Palestinian group Hamas and the ambassadors from Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinian Authority.
"You will see a new Middle East in the way of Hezbollah and Islam, not in the way of Rice and Israel," he said, according to AP.
The original AP story is here.
If this is not a threat, I don't know what is:
One Syrian official issued a strong warning against a proposal that was gaining momentum on Sunday for an international force to guard the Lebanon-Israel border. Deploying such a force without the cooperation of Syrian and Hezbollah, the official said, will risk repeating 1983. That was a pointed reference to the 241 United States service members and 58 French soldiers killed in attacks on military installations by suicide bombers. It has long been considered likely that Hezbollah sent the bombers with Syria’s blessing.
When Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, secretary general of Hezbollah held his press conference to declare his new victory over his enemy, Israel, he was triggering –probably without knowing- a new era in the history of Lebanon and the region. “We will continue in faithfulness to our line,” he declared, in legitimizing his cross border attack on an Israeli patrol, killing soldiers and kidnapping two. But the real “fidelity” Nasrallah was referring to wasn’t to his captured men in Israeli jails, but to the regimes decision-makers in Tehran and Damascus. The “operation of July” came as a tipping point in a larger conflict, which superseded Hezbollah’s detainee, the Shebaa farms, borders skirmishes and Israeli tactical responses. Beyond and above the events of that day, Hezbollah was triggering the first Iranian war on Lebanon’s soil: A Syrian-supported offensive, even at the height of the Assad II regime. Bringing fire and smoke to the Lebanese-Israeli borders, and week before to the Gaza-Israel demarcation lines, is not simply two local disputes, one over unilateral Israeli withdrawal in Gaza and the other over real estate on the western slopes of Mount Hermon. Nasrallah (as well as his counterpart of Hamas) has calculated perfectly how to conduct a hit and run with the Israelis ordered by regional regime who have miscalculated their strategies. Pressured by the new regional realities and world concerns about nuclear threats and Terrorism, Iran and Syria wanted to throw their allies into the greatest uncertainties of survival.
Continue reading "Hezbollah's Iranian War in Lebanon (WP)" »
LBCI News quoted Lebanese Druze leader Walid Jumblatt as calling on Egyptian TV for a ceasefire "within the framework of a resolution that protects Lebanon and does not come at the expense of the state." He stressed that the need is to safeguard the Taef Accord and the armistice agreement with Israel, so that war does not erupt again under whatever pretext.
He was also quoted in AKI as saying, "southern Lebanon needs international protection and not a [Hezbollah-Israeli] ceasefire at the country's expense."
Jumblatt rejected the latest address by Hezbollah's Hassan Nasrallah, especially the part where Nasrallah said that Lebanon was in a war "whether it wants to or not." Jumblatt said nobody can singlehandedly hijack the decision of war and peace, and the solution is for the Lebanese state to exert its control over all its territories, adding: "no one can play around with the security of the south and the security of Lebanon."
The Druze leader also criticized the bombastic rhetoric of the Iranian president who "does not care for the Lebanese people," and who has bigger non-Lebanese calculations, as well as the talk of the Syrian regime and of presidents Bashar Assad and Emile Lahoud, who hold a "vengeful hatred towards the state of independence in Lebanon."
Jumblatt called for a passageway for humanitarian purposes, but said that it should not be via Damascus, "whose regime is assassinating [former PM] Rafik Hariri for a second time." He added, "we say to this regime that our patience is long, and one day the truth will be revealed." He pointed out that since the war broke out, the Syrian regime has been trying to escalate in order to escape the international tribunal, as it is the only court that could hold it accountable. He assured that "no matter how many bombs fall on us, we must not forget the issue of the international tribunal, no matter the price."
Youssef Ibrahim (once my colleague at The New York Times) writing in the New York Sun:
Yes, world, there is a silent Arab majority that believes that seventh-century Islam is not fit for 21st-century challenges. That women do not have to look like walking black tents. That men do not have to wear beards and robes, act like lunatics, and run around blowing themselves up in order to enjoy 72 virgins in paradise. And that secular laws, not Islamic Sharia, should rule our day-to-day lives. We, the silent Arab majority, do not believe that writers should be killed or banned for expressing their views. Or that the rest of our creative elite - from moviemakers to playwrights, actors, painters, sculptors, and fashion models - should be vetted by Neanderthal Muslim imams who have never read a book in their dim, miserable lives.
The leader of Hizballah, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, received a resounding "no" to pulling 350 million Arabs into a war with Israel at the Arab League's meeting of 22 foreign ministers in Cairo on Saturday, and from pundits and ordinary people across the Arab world. All in all, it seems that when Isra
