Iran’s Hezbollahistan

Lebanon swore into office a new president and the Toronto Star swoons:

BEIRUT–Backed by most of Lebanon's major communities and their international patrons, former army chief of staff Michel Suleiman ascended to the presidency of this volatile Mediterranean country yesterday.

The 60-year-old Maronite Christian general took the oath of office amid high hopes that he would help heal the country's festering political rift between the U.S. and Saudi-backed government and the opposition, led by Hezbollah, the Iranian- and
Syrian-backed Shiite militant and political movement.

Suleiman's election by lawmakers, viewed as a temporary fix to a months-long political crisis, came days after Hezbollah gunmen stormed West Beirut and subsequently won an agreement that it remain armed and have enough cabinet seats to veto major government decisions. Many people hope, however, that Suleiman, with strong ties both to Hezbollah and the support of Western-leaning groups, will be able to pull the country together.

AFP carries this report on Nasrallah’s speech:

BEIRUT (AFP) — Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah vowed on Monday that his powerful militant movement was not seeking control of Lebanon, in a fiery speech on new President Michel Sleiman's first full day in office.

"Hezbollah does not want power over Lebanon, nor does it want to control Lebanon or govern the country," Nasrallah told tens of thousands of flag-waving supporters massed in his stronghold in southern Beirut.

Nasrallah pledged that his Shiite Muslim group would not use its weapons to achieve political gains, in a speech marking the eighth anniversary of Israel's pullout from south Lebanon following a two-decade occupation. "For we believe that Lebanon is a special, pluralistic country. The existence of this country only comes about through coexistence, and this is what we are demanding," he said via a video link.

The end result – The Jerusalem Post:

Security officials say at least nine people have been wounded, two seriously, in a gunfight in downtown Beirut between Hizbullah Shiite supporters and pro-government Sunni loyalists. Officials said the two sides traded insults before the shooting Monday night as Hizbullah supporters drove by waving flags and saluting leader Hassan Nasrallah shortly after he finished giving a speech.

I believe pluralism in this instance refers to both sides firing back…..

Lost in Translation

In a follow-up to my previous post, Ynet News carries this little real life dittie:

Hizbullah's television station rushed to warn its viewers about the close ties between Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and Israel, following a flawed interpretation of an article written by Yedioth Ahronoth columnist Nahum Barnea.

In his article, Barnea was aiming to criticize Israel's domestic political scene and used the situation in Lebanon as a metaphor. The essence of his argument was that the process undergone by Israel in recent years could lead to a situation whereby the government would not be able to exercise its power, as is the case in Lebanon.

"One day we will wake up and discover that our prime minister is Fouad Siniora," Barnea wrote, but then quickly clarified: "Maybe not Siniora himself, but rather, a Siniora-twin: Someone who orders the army to operate, but the army chief ignores him and the troops remain in their barracks…someone who needs to resort to tears, to outside help, or alternately to the mercy of God in order to exercise State authority."

Several Lebanese websites proceeded to translate a summary of the article, and used the first sentence about Siniora as the headline. This was apparently enough for the editor on shift at al-Manar, Hizbullah's television station, who rushed to post a breaking news bulletin at the bottom of the screen implying that Yedioth's story was an Israeli admission of the close ties between Jerusalem and Siniora.

Generally, in Mid-East politics, one just slanders a political opponent with the Israeli 'slur', so you can imagine how excited Hezbollah was to have a real life Israeli allegedly acknowledging an association and jumped the gun.

Is there nothing the Jews cannot do?

One learns early watching Middle East Politics that literally, anything and everything, can be blamed on Israel – and there will be no exceptions. I suppose the surprise factor is only logical due to how much of the anti-Semitic ravings/absurdities our press automatically filters out for our consumption in the West.

A great case in point is the speech given by Lebanese pro-government, Future Movement leader Saad Hariri yesterday. I quote from Naharnet online because you will not find any references to any of the allegations raised against Israel in any European or North American newspaper - although most international papers did touch on other aspects of his speech.

"We were expecting open war on Israel, but the open war was launched on Beirut," Hariri said.

"Did Beirut assassinate Imad Mughniyeh?" he asked.

Hariri said Hizbullah launched its attack upon instructions from Iran and Syria.

He charged that the Sunni-Shiite confrontation has started and called for containing it before it explodes into all out civil war.

The citizens, according to Hariri, "protected the army unity."

Hariri accused Hizbullah and its allies of "committing a crime under the pretext of defending the resistance and now they are using resistance weapons against the people."

"History would not have mercy on champions of the Sunni-Shiite confrontation," Hariri declared.

"The attack couldn't have happened without an Israeli cover," Hariri charged and asked: "how did thousands of fighters move from the south to Beirut?"

"This is the first indication to a Syrian-Israeli rapprochement," he added.

Righhhhhhhhhht. The Israelis gave Hezbollah cover at the Syrian's request. If you believe that I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale too.

Bombs trump Business

Must read column by Barry Rubin in the Jerusalem Post on the innate danger to the moderate Arab leadership under the guise of dialogue with the extremists:

Iran and Syria back their friends with weapons and help; the West responds with words backed by nothing. Who can blame Hizbullah and Damascus and Teheran for laughing in contempt? Why should the Lebanese Sunni, Druze, and Christian majority risk their lives when the West doesn't help them? Every Israeli speaking nonsense about Syria making peace, every American claiming Damascus might split from Teheran, and every European preaching appeasement is engaging in confidence-breaking measures.

At present, Hizbullah and its sponsors seek not the full conquest of Lebanon but to control the government by violence and intimidation. Unable to gain full victory themselves, they hope to win by the other side's surrender. They want veto power over the government to ensure it does nothing they dislike: no strong relations with the West, no ability to stop war against Israel, no disarming Hizbullah militias or challenging its control over much of the country, and certainly no investigation of Syrian involvement in internal terrorism there.

NOW THEY have a new, albeit unwitting, ally: Senator Barack Obama, who does not understand the damage he does. His May 10 statement on Lebanon tried to sound tough, talking of "Hizbullah's power grab in Beirut... This effort to undermine Lebanon's elected government needs to stop, and all those who have influence with Hizbullah must press them to stand down immediately." Obama said he supports the Lebanese government, wants to "strengthen the Lebanese army," and "insist[s] on disarming Hizbullah."

How? By "working with the international community and the private sector to rebuild Lebanon and get its economy back on its feet." According to the Obama world view, it's a development problem. But he doesn't understand that bombs trump business. Prime Minister Rafik Hariri followed that economic strategy; the Syrians blew him up. The only way to gain social peace is to appease Hizbullah, Syria and Iran, whose disruption blocks prosperity.

The statement continues: "We must support the implementation of UN Security Council Resolutions that reinforce Lebanon's sovereignty, especially resolution 1701 banning the provision of arms to Hizbullah, which is violated by Iran and Syria."
Great. But 1701 has already failed. Will you fight on this issue? Mobilize the passive "international community" for action? Threaten Iran, Syria, and Hizbullah with credible, tough action? There's no hint of that. As for Lebanon's army, its commander is Syria's presidential candidate, its soldiers are mostly pro-Hizbullah, and its US-supplied equipment stood idle as Hizbullah seized more territory.

BUT HERE'S the worst part that few in America but all in Lebanon understand:

Obama writes: "It's time to engage in diplomatic efforts to help build a new Lebanese consensus that focuses on electoral reform, an end to the current corrupt patronage system, and the development of the economy that provides for a fair distribution of services, opportunities and employment."

This is Hizbullah program: a new Lebanese consensus based on 51% of power for itself and its pro-Syrian allies. What's needed isn't consensus (equivalent to getting Fatah-Hamas cooperation or an Iraq coordinated with Iran and Syria) but winning a conflict. Instead, Obama is - whether he knows it or not - backing a Syrian-Iranian- and Hizbullah-dominated Lebanon. Such talk makes moderate Arabs despair.

When Obama says he'll make Syria and Iran partners in setting Iraq's future, he is signaling every Persian Gulf regime to cut its own deal with Iran. His stances convince Hamas that he's the guy for them, with Iran and Syria concluding they merely need stand defiant and wait a few months until existing pressure vanishes. This is how the US position in the Middle East is being systematically destroyed.
This does not mean that Obama is the candidate favored by Arabs in general; he is favored only by the radicals. Egyptians, Jordanians, Gulf Arabs, and the majorities in Lebanon and Iraq are very worried. This is not just an Israel problem. It is one for all non-extremists in the region.

Indeed.

Round 1 to Hezbollah

A great deal has been made over the alleged neutrality of the Lebanese Army in the last few days by sitting out the confrontation while an armed milita took over the streets of Beirut. But when a sitting and duly elected Prime Minister of Lebanon demands the army chief of staff send in the Lebanese Army to confront an armed milita taking over the streets of Beirut and refuses…well, that is called taking a side and its not the duly elected government’s.

The Lebanon Daily Star is reporting the Lebanese Army has now overturned one decision undertaken by the duly elected government of Lebanon and taken the other decision under advisement.

BEIRUT, May 10, 2008 (AFP) - The Lebanese army said on Saturday it had frozen measures taken by the government against the Shiite Hezbollah movement, and called for all armed militants to withdraw from the streets.

"The army command calls on all parties to (help restore calm) by ending armed protests and withdrawing gunmen from the streets and opening the roads," the military said in a statement. It said that the head of airport security, who had been reassigned from his job, would remain in his post pending an investigation and that the army would look into a communications network set up by the militant group.
"The head of airport security, Brigadier General Wafiq Shqeir, will remain in his post until appropriate procedural measures have been taken after a probe," the statement said.

"As for the telecommunications network, the army will look into the issue in a manner that is not harmful to the public interest or the security of the resistance" against Israel, it said.

The military said it had taken these decisions in the light of a government wish that it rule on these matters. The army statement came shortly after Prime Minister Fuad Siniora made a televised address to the nation.

Of course, it did not take long for the EU weanies to find a spin to blame the Israelis for Lebanon’s political instability. Ha’aretz

European diplomats familiar with the events in Lebanon claim that in the past year the United States has refused to provide the Lebanese army with advanced weapons that would have helped against Hezbollah and other militant groups. They said this was because of Israeli requests.

Since the 2006 Second Lebanon War and the deployment of the army in South Lebanon that followed, the international community has tried to rehabilitate the national armed forces. The European diplomats told Haaretz that although Lebanon asked the U.S. to provide heavy weapons such as antitank missiles and assault helicopters, the U.S. aid has concentrated on training Lebanese army units and supplying light arms and ammunition. They say the U.S. refused the requests because of Israel's fears that heavy arms could be used against it in the future or even fall into Hezbollah hands.

In light of current events, the decision not to equip the Lebanese army with advanced weaponry is rather prudent given the army’s alleged neutrality and indifference to an armed milita taking over the streets of Beirut.

Hezbollah gambled and won this current round of what passes for politics in Lebanon but at what price and for how long? Any gains made under the The Taef Agreement to shore up support for peaceful resolution between confessional divides has been lost. Only the naïve will think the various confessional divides will look to Hezbollah’s conduct and figure now is not the time to build up its forces.

Hezbollah has been at great pains to show it is a ‘national’ rather than secretarian movement and needed its arms to protect the nation from the “Zionist enemy”, and yet, the events of the last few days (beginning with the military takeover of West Beirut and resulting in the deaths of Lebanese citizens at their hands) has effectively put an end to that lie.

Even now Hezbollah’s spin masters are attempting to show it was necessary to take over West Beirut with a show of arms to end the political stalemate caused by the Lebanese government. Of course, Hezbollah conveniently ignores the role its own demands played in creating that political stalemate. Nonetheless, Hezbollah does not seek a ‘true’ takeover of Lebanese politics, and has no interest per say in the running of a large scale administration but it does seek to be a power over and above the state - an entity which has no responsibilities but the implementation of its own agenda.

If Hezbollah’s aim was the total control of the state it would not have been so careful to avoid attacking Christian neighborhoods and strongholds. Besides, the party of god needs someone else to blame for the price of bread or the cost of living.

Just talk nicely!!!

If ever there was a reason for not electing Obama president of the United States he provided it with this utterly clueless and asinine statement:

Hezbollah's power grab in Beirut has once more plunged that city into violence and chaos. This effort to undermine Lebanon's elected government needs to stop, and all those who have influence with Hezbollah must press them to stand down immediately. It's time to engage in diplomatic efforts to help build a new Lebanese consensus that focuses on electoral reform, an end to the current corrupt patronage system, and the development of the economy that provides for a fair distribution of services, opportunities and employment.

We must support the implementation of UN Security Council Resolutions that reinforce Lebanon's sovereignty, especially resolution 1701 banning the provision of arms to Hezbollah, which is violated by Iran and Syria. As we push for this national consensus, we should continue to support the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Siniora, strengthen the Lebanese army, and insist on the disarming of Hezbollah before it drags Lebanon into another unnecessary war. As we do this, it is vital that the United States continues to work with the international community and the private sector to rebuild Lebanon and get its economy back on its feet.

Do not get me wrong. No one will save the Lebanese but themselves. Nor am I arguing for an American invasion but when the duly elected government of Lebanon tried to do those very things diplomatically - Hezbollah sent armed men to take over the streets of West Beirut. But sure, go ahead, tell yourself it is because the Siniora government failed to talk nicely to Hezbollah.

Yalla Ya Nasrallah

And because I am definitely in anti-Hezbollah frame of mind I thought I would resurrect this video and share this Israeli song. It is in Hebrew but there are English sub-titles…besides it is so catchy you will be singing fluently in no time at all.