FDD

Lebanon's Officers Under Terror Attack? (WP)

On December 12, a top Lebanese Army commander, Brigadier General Francois Hajj, was killed in a Terrorist bombing in the suburb of Baabda southeast of Beirut.  Hajj, 54, who was close to army commander Michel Sleiman and tipped to be his successor, was killed along with his bodyguard in a rush-hour blast. This was the first assassination of a high ranking officer of the Lebanese Armed Forces in decades. The first set of questions is: Why was he murdered, who may have perpetrated this terror attack and what could be the consequences of this dramatic development?

1) General Francois Hajj was born in the Christian town of Rmeish in southern Lebanon. His home village had a history of resistance against Terror forces since the late 1960s. Many of its inhabitants enrolled in the Lebanese Army over the past decades. A number of them were involved in opposition to the Syrian occupation and Hezbollah. Hajj joined the Lebanese army Academy in 1972 and graduated in 1975. He also commanded the Special Forces brigades (Maghawir) before he was promoted to LAF operation chief. According to many sources in Lebanon, he was selected to become the next commander of the Lebanese Army. Hence, the assassination aimed at preventing Francois Hajj from being appointed by the next President, yet to be elected, as the top military man in Lebanon. General Michel Soleiman, who has been nominated by the majority coalition in Parliament for the Presidency was grooming Hajj to become his successor. In addition the slain commander had in past months and years refused to accept Hezbollah’s exclusive areas of control in south Lebanon and in the Bekaa valley. Moreover he was credited for coordinating the Lebanese Army offensive against the Fatah Islam Terror group in Nahr al Bared camp in north Lebanon over the summer. The strike can be understood as a message to the Lebanese Army not to attempt to confront terror groups in the future, including Hezbollah.

Lebanon and the Cedars Revolution under attack (WP)

Walid Phares discusses the latest on Lebanon's Presidential Elections and the Cedar's Revolution. Listen to his interview on the Right Balance Radio Show [ Link .mp3 ]

Cedars Revolution set for defeat (WP)

The Cedars Revolution is on the verge of a crushing political defeat over the next few days, and at the hands of its own politicians.

Instead of electing a strong anti-terror president, the Lebanese members of parliament are trying to cut deals with Hezbollah, Syria and Iran to select a candidate who:

a) would not commit to disarming the terrorist organization, and

b) would not side with the world campaign against terrorism.

Some of these MPs are telling Lebanon's friends in Washington and Paris that "the pressure from Syria and Iran is too great and the counter-pressure from the U.S. and France is too low."

The Lebanese March 14 coalition, which was elected to parliament in 2005 after the Cedars Revolution, seems to have abandoned the policy of withstanding Syro-Iranian pressure and is now considering names of individuals who have never marched in the Cedars Revolution and who will not express the aspirations of the majority of the Lebanese people.

Syro-Iranian Massacre of Politicians in Lebanon (WP)

With the assassination of Lebanese MP Jebran Tueni in December 2006, months after the murder of political leaders George Hawi and Samir Qassir during the summer, the Syro-Iranian terror war room had opened a bloody hunt against the democratically elected Lebanese Parliament. After the withdrawal of regular Syrian forces from Lebanon in April 2005, Bashar Assad and his allies in Tehran designed a counter offensive (which we described then and later) aiming at crumbling the Cedars Revolution. One of the main components of this strategy was (and remain) to use all intelligence and security assets of Syria and Iran in Lebanon in order to “reduce” the number of deputies who form the anti-Syrian majority in the Parliament. As simple as that: assassinate as many members as needed to flip the quantitative majority in the Legislative Assembly. And when that is done, the Seniora Government collapses and a Hezbollah-led cabinet forms. In addition, if the Terror war kills about 8 legislators, the remnant of the Parliament can elect a new President of the Republic who will move the country under the tutelage of the Assad regime.

Badran on Killing of Walid Eido

An attack in Beirut today killed Walid Eido, a member of the anti-Syria block in the parliament. Eido — the seventh opponent of Damascus to be killed in two years — was a vocal opponent of Syrian influence in Lebanon. According to FDD Research Fellow Tony Badran, Eido’s death threatens the future of Lebanon’s democracy movement:

This is a continuing pattern by the terrorist Assad of targeting the majority's MPs.

There were warnings about the resumption of assassinations by the terrorist Syrian regime. They were apparently right.

For more on how Syria is targeting the pro-democracy parliamentarians and Syrian President Assad’s ruthless math, please click here.

The War for Lebanon (CM)

Is Syria using a Palestinian front group to start a war inside Lebanon? Barry Rubin says it is. More here.

Lebanon Update (ML)

The Lebanese army hit the Palestinian area at Nahr al-Bared outside Tripoli again yesterday. In my piece on this Wednesday, I wondered whether operations against the Fatah al-Islam militia in the camp would have much effect on the sleeper cells outside the camps. In my conversations with Lebanese friends today, the relation between the two — and the Lebanese army's strategy against them both — became clearer.

For the terrorist sleeper cells (al Qaeda, etc.) now implanted throughout Lebanon, the headquarter of the Fatah al-Islam militia and similar groups inside the Palestinian camps are critical bases of support. Hit those bases, and the sleeper cells are rendered less effective militarily, and more vulnerable to intelligence. In this connection, there are signs that the Bush administration has taken a high-level decision to buttress the Siniora government in the current crisis, and in keeping with the policy of strengthening the Lebanese army's capabilities in general, will be flying several large shipments of ammo and other supplies to it between today and tomorrow. This indicates a certain level of coordination and strategy, because American supplies would not be airlifted without some rational and convincing explanation of what they will be used for — i.e., something a lot more convincing than "we're going to pound those camps until they're sorry."

The picture on the ground in the camps also became clearer today. The head of the Paletinian Fatah organization in Lebanon (the real one, I mean) today released a statement pledging to whipe out the Fatah al Islam terrorist group, and claiming to have mustered some 300 heavily-armed fighters for an operation inside the camp at Nahr al-Bared. The statement, which was translated and read to me over the phone by a friend in Beirut, said that Palestinian civilians in the camp had been warned to leave because the battle against Fatah al Islam inside the camp is going to start tomorrow. Most appear to have left.

Beirut remains a ghost town, with little traffic or other activity on the streets. Since Sunday night, there has been a car-bombing every night except Tuesday — and on that day, security forces nabbed two car bombers on their way to targets. Expectations are high for another car-bombing any minute, although having stuck in Christian, Sunni, and Druze areas — the three pillars of the anti-Syrian and anti-Hezbollah government majority — the terrorists have already made their statement.

Loyola on Lebanon

Last summer the world watched in shock as Hezbollah initiated a deadly war with Israel. With the aftershocks of that conflict still rippling throughout the region, it appears Lebanon could be in for another bloody summer.

In an article today on National Review Online, FDD Visiting Fellow Mario Loyola argues that:

The Lebanese army is overburdened and understaffed, and must re-focus its efforts on routing out Hezbollah with the help of the international community.

Most of the suicide bombers — including those from Fatah al-Islam — belong to al-Qaeda sleeper cells operating outside of the refugee camps.

If approved by the U.N. Security Council, an expanded UNIFIL force would stop the flow of foreign fighters coming in from Syria.

Fatah al-Islam

Lebanese troops continued their siege of a Palestinian refugee camp today, as new signs emerged that their target — Fatah al-Islam, a militant group that follows al-Qaeda ideology — has been training fighters inside the camp for attacks in Europe, Iraq, and elsewhere. The fighting marks the bloodiest internal conflict since Lebanon's civil war ended in 1990.

Two experts from FDD, both natives of Lebanon, argue that Fatah al-Islam, a Sunni Muslim group which emerged late last year, receives financial support from the Syrian regime and is a direct threat to the democratically elected government in Lebanon.

Senior Fellow Walid Phares:

Fatah al-Islam aims at creating an ‘Emirate’ (Islamist principality as in the Taliban model) in the Sunni areas of Lebanon, and is planning on conducting operations similar to the ones in the Sunni Triangle of Iraq. But according to the Lebanese government and terrorism experts the group is being secretly supported by the Syrian regime of Bashar Assad.

Research Fellow Tony Badran:

The group Fateh al-Islam, while made up of jihadists of different nationalities, is a group that has been smuggled through Syria, and which was born out of a Syrian-controlled proxy Fateh al-Intifada. The Syrian regime has long sent the message to the West that only it could control Islamists in Lebanon (which it has cultivated and sent there), if the West acquiesces to its renewed control over Lebanon. It is a classic case of the arsonist playing fireman.

Security Council Resolution Calling for Tribunal in Hariri Assassination (ML)

The United States, Britain and France on Thursday formally introduced a resolution in the U.N. Security Council that calls for the establishment of an international tribunal to try suspects in the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. The resolution mandates the creation of a tribunal outside Lebanon with international judges and an international prosecutor under Chapter 7 of the U.N. charter, which addresses threats to international peace and security. I've attached the full text of the draft resolution below.

FDD Expert Reporting from Lebanon

FDD Visiting Fellow Mario Loyola is in Lebanon to report on the pro-democracy movement, Hezbollah and Iran’s ambitions, and the current political crisis. He issued his first dispatch from Beirut yesterday on National Review Online.

The article explains how Hezbollah and its allies have crippled the central government for weeks. Hezbollah’s campaign of disobedience, Loyola argues, reflects its ambitious goal: the establishment of “an alternative state — one that wants to create exclusive dependence among its supporters, and whose supreme political leader is not Lebanese but rather the Iranian religious leader Ali Khamenei.”

Lebanon on the Brink (ML)

Lebanon's Daily Star today reports bad news:

The Hizbullah-led opposition in Lebanon announced the details of "Phase two" of its anti-government campaign on Monday, promising a "progressive escalation" of protests at ministries and public institutions until its demands are met. During a news conference held at the residence of MP Michel Aoun in Rabieh, north of Beirut, ex-Minister Talal Arslan read the statement agreed upon by leading representatives of the opposition.

"The opposition will launch daily protests that will begin on Tuesday and in a progressive manner will extend to all the ministries and public institutions until all our demands are met," the statement said. [...] The opposition had been demanding a national unity government, but on Monday, its leaders called for early parliamentary elections monitored by a "trustworthy national unity government."

"The government has lost its legitimacy," said Arslan. "Just refer back to Article 95 of the Constitution," he said, adding that "toppling the government has become a legitimate [goal]."

Article 95 states that "confessional groups are to be represented in a just and equitable fashion in the formation of the Cabinet." All Shiite ministers have resigned from the Cabinet.

ME: The basic argument of the Hezbollah opposition is that without its participation, the government must fall due to the requirement of Article 95.  But Hezbollah has no constitutional or political monopoly in the representation of Shiites, and in any case they were duly represented "in the formation of the Cabinet."  The critical issue here is that the Hezbollah opposition is pursuing an unconstitutional--indeed anti-constitutional--course on the basis of a dubious interpretation of a constitutional provision that for some reason has not been passed upon by any supreme tribunal in Lebanon. The Siniora government has rejected the opposition's Article 95 theory out of hand. 

Ironically, the opposition conference took place at the house of Michel Aoun, who not twenty years ago fought ferociously (with the support of France) against the Syrians and their Lebanese clients in the last phase of Lebanon's civil war.  The defection of Aoun from the Ceder Revolution forces to the side of Hezbollah is particularly disheartening, for two reasons: First, it is an example of how little stock many moderates and even Christians in that part of the world put in the the rule of law and peaceful democratic process.  Second, his base is small but could put Hezbollah over the top in terms of critical mass.  It certainly makes the embattled government of Prime Minister Siniora seem increasingly isolated and doomed. 

The only thing that is certain in Lebanon now is that things stand to go from bad to a great deal worse. 

The law and terrorist charities (AV)

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.

A tribute to Jeane Kirkpatrick (AV)

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 11^th 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 Britain's pursuit of its territorial claim, while conceding that hindsight showed her fears were too severe.

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.

Walid Phares: HizbAllah's offensive in Lebanon has begun

After serious warnings delivered by HezbAllah secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah since early November, the generalized offensive to bring down the Cedars Revolution-backed Government has begun. As of the early hours of Friday December 1, 2006, thousands of HizbAllah members and pro-Syrian militants took the streets of Beirut, hurdling from all Lebanese areas. The demonstrators started a series of sit-ins around the offices of Prime Minister Fuad Seniora and in other surrounding neighborhoods and public places to “suffocate the cabinet into resignation or collapse” as Lebanese sources said. Following are bullet points to be updated as events will develop:

Walid Phares Media Roundup

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".

Walid Phares: Crushing a flower of the Cedars Revolution

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.

When UN Security Council resolution 1559 passed in 2004, reaffirming Lebanon's political independence and calling for the withdrawal of the Syrian occupation army and the disarming of Hezbollah, Syria's Ba'athist regime pledged heavy retribution against those Lebanese who would dare join the international campaign for freedom triggered by the U.S.-led War on Terror.

Damascus has kept its promise. In the fall of 2004, a former minister from the Druze community, Marwan Hamade, was targeted with a car bomb. While Hamade survived, Rafiq Hariri, the former Sunni Prime Minister of Lebanon, was not so fortunate. On February 14, 2005, he was killed in an explosion orchestrated by highly trained terrorists.

Hezbollah's Offensive in Lebanon Has Begun (WP)

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.

Walid Phares on Robert Rabil's new book

The following is the foreword I wrote for the book Syria, the United States, And the War on Terror in the Middle East By Robert Rabil

THE AMERICAN-SYRIAN COLD WAR

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war, US-Syrian relations went through different stages and underwent sharply edged changes, in an amazing race between cold but stable relations and rapidly deteriorating ties. The Washington-Damascus web of diplomacy, public policy, and intelligence challenges crossed deserts and jungles: At times, American Foreign policy and Syria’s strategies overlapped, at other times, especially since 9/11, they diverged radically. Since September 2004, the day a US-French sponsored UN Security Council resolution was voted as UNSCR 1559, calling for Syria’s withdrawal from Lebanon and the disarming of its local allies in its neighbor, a new cold war started between the two parties: Washington is tightening the pressures on Syria’s Baath, while Damascus is playing its powerful cards on all available battlefields, from Iraq to Lebanon. The questions at hand in 2006 are these: Are we witnessing a renewal of a cold war between a US-led coalition and a Syrian-led axis in the region? How far can the US go in pressuring the Syrian regime and its allies into submitting to a reform in its policies and domestic institutions? And on the other hand, how far can the Syrian regime go in its regional and international involvements, putting itself in the face of US-led policies towards democracy and political change? Which capital will let go of its ongoing agendas and policies first? Is there any chance for a return to the years of accommodations? These and other questions are and will be affecting the present and futures of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, but also America’s foreign policy in the region, let alone the Arab world.

Walid Phares Media Roundup (WP)

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.

Iran, Vanuatu with a frown? (AV)

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.

Did Israel violate the ceasefire? (AV)

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.

Baghdad Bob in Beirut (AV)

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.

What Do Most Lebanese Think? (CM)

Michael Béhé writes in The New Republic:

The Security Council's Resolution 1559--that demanded that our government deploy our army on our sovereign territory, along our international border with Israel and that it disarm all the militia on our land--was voted on September 2, 2004.We had two years to implement this resolution and thus guarantee a peaceful future to our children, but we did absolutely nothing. Our greatest crime--which was not the only one!--was not that we did not succeed, but that we did not attempt or undertake anything. And that was the fault of none else than the pathetic Lebanese politicians. …

All those who assume public and communicational responsibilities in this country are responsible for this catastrophe. Except those of my colleagues, journalists, and editors, who are dead, assassinated by the Syrian thugs, because they were clearly less cowardly than those who survived. …

And when I speak of a catastrophe, I do not mean the action accomplished by Israel in response to the aggression against its civilians and its army, which was produced from our soil and that we did strictly nothing to avoid, and for which we are consequently responsible. Any avoiding of this responsibility--some people here do not have the minimal notions of international law necessary to understand!--means that Lebanon, as a state, does not exist. …

Each Irano-Syrian fort that Jerusalem destroys, each Islamic fighter they eliminate, and Lebanon proportionally starts to live again! Once again, the soldiers of Israel are doing our work. Once again, like in 1982, we are watching--cowardly, lying low, despicable, and insulting them to boot--their heroic sacrifice that allows us to keep hoping. To not be swallowed up in the bowels of the earth. …

Like the overwhelming majority of Lebanese, I pray that no one puts an end to the Israeli attack before it finishes shattering the terrorists. I pray that the Hebrew soldiers will penetrate all the hidden recesses of southern Lebanon and will hunt out, in our stead, the vermin that has taken root there. Like the overwhelming majority of Lebanese, I have put the champagne ready in the refrigerator to celebrate the Israeli victory …

[The Israelis] are also fighting for our liberty …And in the name of my people, I wish to express my infinite gratitude to the relatives of the Israeli victims--civilian and military--whose loved ones have fallen so that I can live standing upright in my identity. They should know that I weep with them.”

More here.

More notes & comments are available in this week's e-newsletter.

Walid Phares: Lebanon's Government is hostage to Hezbollah

In an interview with Neil Cavuto on Fox News I argued that Hezbollah will continue to receive supplies and support from Iran via Syria through the Lebanese-Syrian borders, which do not exist. Hezbollah's deadliest and long range weapons are most likely redeployed in the central and northern Bekaa. On the other hand, answering a question, I stated that the only player in this whole equation which is supposed to call on the international community to intervene and would order the Lebanese Army to deploy, is obviously the Lebanese Government. Unfortunately the Seniora cabinet has a gun aimed at its head, and that is Hezbollah. If it had the courage to act, the Government would have ordered all these measures. The concern is, if no multinational force deploys fast, that Hezbollah would crumble this Government and form a Government of its own. See link Fox News   

Ceasefire proposal - the devil's in the detail (AV)

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.

 

Is international law standing in the way of a ceasefire? (AV)

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.

The UN Security Council Resolution Regarding Israel-Hezbollah Conflict (WP)

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.

A Chance to Curb Iran in Lebanon (CM)

Charles Krauthammer writes:

Unlike many of the other terrorist groups in the Middle East, Hezbollah is a serious enemy of the United States. In 1983 it massacred 241 American servicemen. Except for al-Qaeda, it has killed more Americans than any other terror organization.

More important, it is today the leading edge of an aggressive,nuclear-hungry Iran. Hezbollah is a wholly owned Iranian subsidiary. Its mission is to extend the Islamic Revolution's influence into Lebanon and Palestine, destabilize any Arab-Israeli peace, and advance an Islamist Shiite ascendancy, led and controlled by Iran, throughout the Levant.

America finds itself at war with radical Islam, a two-churched  monster: Sunni al-Qaeda is now being challenged by Shiite Iran for primacy in its epic confrontation with the infidel West. With al-Qaeda  in decline, Iran is on the march. It is intervening through proxies throughout the Arab world -- Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine, Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army in Iraq -- to subvert modernizing, Western-oriented Arab governments and bring these territories under Iranian hegemony. Its nuclear ambitions would secure these advances and give it an overwhelming preponderance of power over the Arabs and an absolute deterrent against serious counteractions by the United States, Israel or any other rival. ...

The defeat of Hezbollah would be a huge loss for Iran, both psychologically and strategically. Iran would lose its foothold in Lebanon. It would lose its major means to destabilize and inject  itself into the heart of the Middle East. It would be shown to have vastly overreached in trying to establish itself as the regional superpower.

The United States has gone far out on a limb to allow Israel to win and for all this to happen. It has counted on Israel's ability to do the job. It has been disappointed. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has  provided unsteady and uncertain leadership. Foolishly relying on air power alone, he denied his generals the ground offensive they wanted, only to reverse himself later. He has allowed his war cabinet meetings  to become fully public through the kind of leaks no serious wartime leadership would ever countenance. Divisive cabinet debates are broadcast to the world, as was Olmert's own complaint that "I'm tired.  I didn't sleep at all last night" (Haaretz, July 28). Hardly the stuff to instill Churchillian confidence.

More here.

Article in La Razon of Spain on the Lebanon Evacuation (WP)

La Razon daily in Spain has published an article by Walid Phares on the Evacuation dangers in Lebanon.Download la_evacuation_larazon.pdf

Fetishizing ceasefires [AV]

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.

Media Roundup

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.

War crimes through the looking glass [AV]

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, a study in bias [AV]

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.

Youssef Ibrahim on Lebanon (CM)

We should view the events now unfolding not as a local battle for Lebanon but as a larger fight for the future of the entire Arab nation. For two decades, this nation of 350 million has been hijacked by a bizarre collection of Neanderthals, pseudo-revolutionaries, illiterate imams, and "Mad Max"-style Palestinian Arab terrorists of every hue, all united only in their desire to pillage in the name of a religion they expropriated.

Their manifest failure, which we hope will be delivered in resounding military terms, should come as a hard knock on the head of any Arab drifters. Cynics and cowards are already shouting "Enough!" but we know it will only be enough when the madman of Hezbollah, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, and all the other turbaned, bearded bats of the night are found, nailed down, and killed, and the whole Hezbollah movement in Lebanon — as well as Hamas and the other freelance Palestinian Arab factions — is convincingly discredited.

More here.

More notes & comments are in this week's e-newsletter.

The Folly of Talking to Syria [TB]

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.

Walid Jumblatt Criticizes Nasrallah [TB]

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."

Iran's Vision for the Middle East [TB]

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.

Syria Threatens to Attack International Force in Lebanon [TB]

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.

The Lebanon Evacuation Window (WP)

As I have witnessed previous evacuations in Lebanon for about two decades, and as I am monitoring the ongoing evacuations of Western and American citizens by US and European military, I was able to establish a security map through which the evacuation is taking place. In short it is happening in a very dangerous geopolitical context, more than many believed it would be.

South of Beirut and Bekaa

As shown on the map, evacuating persons from Hizbollah-controlled areas faces significant dangers. The confrontations between the Israeli Air Force and Hizbollah's militia can impede transportation in these areas and would endanger the ships coming closer to the shores just south of Beirut. Hence, the entire coastal area south of the capital is off any landing zone. In addition all areas shown in yellow, under Hizbollah control, are also off staging areas for helicopter evacuations. In addition, helicopter landings in the south and the Bekaa plateau are not possible on security grounds.

The North

Areas in the extreme north including in Tripoli's port and the districts surrounding are also dangerous for evacuation operations as pro-Syrian elements are omnipresent.

Al Qaida Factor

In addition to Hizbollah's risk, which most likely won't develop at this stage because of the need of the organization to appear as legitimate worldwide, another high danger is potential: al Qaida. Surfacing from underneath Hizbollah, al Qaida allied cells are present in the Palestinian bases along the southern coast and in the far north as of Tripoli. Even against the will of Hizbollah, al Qaida operatives can -if they decide so- launch attacks against US and other Western units coming close to the shores in these areas. These targets would be ideal to al Qaida as they fulfill their desire to attack US military and citizens.

Ceasefire Should Not Be at the Expense of the State [TB]

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."

Required Reading (CM)

Andy McCarthy:

“Israel's war against Hezbollah is a watershed in the war on terror. As long as we understand that it's not just Israel's war.”

His column is here.

Charles Krauthammer:

“The road to a solution is therefore clear: Israel liberates south Lebanon and gives it back to the Lebanese.”

His column is here.   

Alan Dershowitz:

“While Israel does everything reasonable to minimize civilian casualties -- not always with success -- Hezbollah and Hamas want to maximize civilian casualties on both sides. Islamic terrorists, a diplomat commented years ago, ‘have mastered the harsh arithmetic of pain. . . . Palestinian casualties play in their favor and Israeli casualties play in their favor.’"

His oped is