Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Senators Challenge Obama on Foreign Policy on Israel


by Elad Benari

Several U.S. senators have decided to challenge President Barack Obama’s policy towards Israel by introducing a resolution that opposes any Israeli withdrawal to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines.

The resolution was introduced last Thursday by Republican Senator Orrin Hatch from Utah and independent Senator Joe Lieberman from Connecticut.

“It is contrary to United States policy and our national security to have the borders of Israel return to the armistice lines that existed on June 4, 1967,” the resolution states.

It calls Israel “a liberal democratic ally of the United States” and notes that it has been “repeatedly attacked by authoritarian regimes and terrorist organizations that denied its right to exist.” It then acknowledges that the United States Government “remains steadfastly committed to the security of Israel, especially its ability to maintain secure, recognized, and defensible borders; Whereas the United States Government is resolutely bound to its policy of preserving and strengthening the capability of Israel to deter enemies and defend itself against any threat.”

The resolution then mentions the United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967 which recognized Israel’s “right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force,” and acknowledges that “the United States has long recognized that a return to the 1967 lines would create a strategic military vulnerability for Israel and greatly impede its sovereign right to defend its borders.”

In his policy speech at the State Department on May 19, President Obama said, “We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”

Republican Party members were quick to criticize Obama for his statements, with former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (a friend of Israel who recently declared his candidacy for president in 2012) saying Obama had “thrown Israel under the bus” and “disrespected Israel and undermined its ability to negotiate peace. He has also violated a first principle of American foreign policy, which is to stand firm by our friends.”

After Obama’s speech, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu gave his own speech to Congress on May 24, in which he said that Judea and Samaria are part of the ancient Jewish homeland that our forefathers walked in and that the 650,000 Jews living there "are not ‘occupying’ the region.”

Netanyahu also stressed in his speech that Israel “will not return to the indefensible borders of 1967.”

In a statement he released after he submitted the resolution, Senator Hatch said, “Boundaries that existed on June 4, 1967 placed Israel in a precarious military situation that threatened regional stability. This resolution reaffirms that it is the policy of the United States to support and facilitate Israel in maintaining secure, recognized and defensible borders.”

In addition to Senator Lieberman, 29 other lawmakers have signed on as co-sponsors, including Democratic Sens. Ron Wyden (Oregon) and Ben Nelson (Nebraska).

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/144942

Elad Benari

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Abbas Has No Mandate


by Khaled Abu Toameh

It is time that someone in Washington started asking Abbas whether he has a clear mandate from his people to make historic decisions, including signing a peace agreement with Israel.

As the Palestinian Authority continues to threaten to ask the United Nations in September to recognize a Palestinian state along the pre-1967 lines, someone needs to ask President Mahmoud Abbas whether he really has a mandate from his people to embark on such a step.

Today, there is no Palestinian leader who has a mandate to make any concessions to Israel in return for peace – especially when it comes to explosive issues such as the future of Jerusalem or the "right of return" for Palestinian refugees.

The US Administration needs to ask Abbas whether he is also speaking on behalf of millions of Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip and around the world. It is not even clear these days if Abbas speaks on behalf of a majority in the PLO and Fatah.

Abbas's term in office expired in early 2009 and since then Palestinians haven't been given a chance to choose a new president through free and democratic elections.

Abbas has used Hamas's violent takeover of the Gaza Strip [in 2007] as an excuse for not holding parliamentary or presidential elections in the Palestinian territories. This sounds like a reasonable excuse in light of the split between the West Bank and Gaza Strip and Hamas's refusal to allow Palestinians to go to the ballot boxes.

The Hamas-Fatah power struggle has also paralyzed parliamentary life in the Palestinian territories. The Palestinian parliament, which is known as the Palestinian Legislative Council, has ceased to function since Hamas's takeover of the Gaza Strip.

In the absence of parliament and elections, the international community needs to ask Abbas about the decision-making process in the Palestinian territories and whether he represents a majority of Palestinians.

Abbas and the Palestinian Authority leadership in the West Bank believe that they have a monopoly over the decision-making process. Important and historic decisions, such as seeking UN recognition of a Palestinian state, are being taken without an open debate in parliament and in the Fatah-controlled media.

Abbas consults only with a few PLO and Fatah officials, most of whom happen to be his loyalists.

PLO or Fatah representatives who dare to question his policies or decisions often find themselves ostracized or facing allegations of corruption and mismanagement. The case of former Fatah security commander Mohammed Dahlan is a good example.

Dahlan, a prominent member of the Fatah Central Committee, has been removed from the party for daring to criticize Abbas's performance in public. The Palestinian president has surrounded himself with officials who only agree with everything he says or does.

PLO and Fatah officials who have come out against Abbas's decision to go to the UN in September are being accused by Fatah-run newspapers and web sites of being part of an "outside conspiracy" to undermine the Palestinian Authority. Last week Abbas went a step further by blocking five news web sites under the pretext that they are run by Dahlan loyalists.

As far as the Palestinian Authority is concerned, it is a crime to be not only a collaborator with Israel, but also to support a top Fatah operative like Dahlan, who founded and headed one of the most powerful Palestinian security forces in the Gaza Strip after the signing of the Oslo Accords.

Source: http://www.hudson-ny.org/2198/abbas-has-no-mandate

Khaled Abu Toameh

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Monday, June 13, 2011

Muslim Brotherhood: Anti-Americanism Linked to Anti-Semitism


by IPT

Anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism go hand-in-hand in the Muslim Brotherhood's ideology, as demonstrated in a recent speech by the group's leader Mohamed Badie. To Badie, the current problems in the Middle East have historical roots in a Jewish conspiracy, coupled with Masonic and American/Western elements.

"Allah has warned us the tricks of the Jews, and their role in igniting the fire of wars," Badie said in a speech posted to the Brotherhood's Arabic-language website on June 2 and translated by the Investigative Project on Terrorism. "The Almighty said: 'Every time they light the fires of war, Allah extinguishes them; and they labor hard to spread corruption on earth: and Allah does not love the spreaders of corruption."

According to Badie, "such was their [the Jewish] plot by night and by day to divide the Muslims, old and new." Their intentions could be traced from Napoleon to the founder of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, and on to the strife in Arab nations like Sudan. "We will only gain their land by feeding the fire of animosity between them, to facilitate their destruction by our hands," Badie claimed that Herzl said at a 1903 Masonic Conference.

As a part of this conspiracy, Badie argues that the West is in collaboration with the Jews. "O Muslims: I do not think that the West wants well for Muslims good," Badie said. "I do not imagine the Americo-Zionist alliance wants our blessed revolution to reach its objectives, in the forefront of which are: that we enjoy freedom in our land, that we be independent in our decision and that we have sovereignty over our homelands."

The speech underlines assertions that the Brotherhood has not reformed its ideology, despite public pronouncements on their website and in English-language comments to the media. The organization recently generated controversy by condemning the killing of Osama bin Laden, and for its support for terrorism and a shaky commitment to democratic principles.

Source: http://www.investigativeproject.org/2968/muslim-brotherhood-anti-americanism-linked-to

IPT -The Investigative Project on Terrorism

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

British Official Accuses Iran of Aiding Syrian Crackdown


by IPT

British Foreign Secretary William Hague has condemned Iran for its role in helping Syria quell the anti-government protests sweeping the country, according to the Daily Telegraph. More specifically, Hague has accused Iran of providing "equipment" and logistical support to Syria and demonstrating "hypocrisy in world affairs."

Hague's remarks are not the first British accusation leveled against Iranian-Syrian cooperation in suppressing recent protests. The top British diplomat in Iran was summoned to Tehran last Thursday to recant earlier British statements on the issue.

The most recent criticism is in response to the discovery of a mass grave containing the bodies of at least 10 Syrian soldiers outside military police headquarters in the northern town of Jisr al-Shaghur, the Telegraph reports. This town made headlines earlier last week when Syrian forces launched a tank-led crackdown on protesters, causing thousands to flee to Turkey.

A Syrian military defector also told Al-Arabiya that he had been forced to fire on several soldiers last week in Jisr al-Shaghur for ignoring orders not to shoot unarmed civilians and using women and children as human shields. The government has claimed, however, that the soldiers and up to 120 others were killed by "armed gangs" in the area, and used this as a pretext for the violent operation against the town.

Despite the prolonged chaos and strong British, French, and American support for a United Nations resolution condemning the violence in Syria, efforts to initiate an international-military intervention have been thwarted by China and Russia who oppose UN condemnation of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

In light of this opposition, Hague asserted that there is "no prospect" of passing a resolution authorizing a no-fly zone over Syria. Drawing a comparison to the conflict in Libya, Hague also said the Arab League has made "no such call" for intervention in Syria similar to its support for action in Libya.

The ongoing protests in Syria to put an end to President Assad's 11-year reign have claimed the lives of at least 1,100 civilians so far.

Source: http://www.investigativeproject.org/2967/british-official-accuses-iran-of-aiding-syrian

IPT - The Investigative Project on Terrorism

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Iran Test-Fires Air Defense System Successfully


by IMRA

Top Iranian air defense commanders announced that the country has "successfully " test-fired a new home-made air defense system, called Mersad.

Commander of Khatam-ol-Anbia Air Base Brigadier General Farzad Esmayeeli said that Mersad air defense system and Shahin missiles - fired by Mersad systems - have been successfully test-fired and supplied to the country's air defense unit.

The ground-to-air Shahin missile is able to hit enemy jet fighters and helicopters at supersonic speed. The Mersad system is equipped with sophisticated radar signal processing technology, an advanced launcher, and electronic targeting and guidance systems.

Esmayeeli also said that Iran's radar network has been optimized and is currently in a "very suitable" condition.

In April, 2011, Iran successfully test-fired two mid-range Hawk missiles named 'Shahin' capable of tracing and targeting aggressive aircraft at low and medium altitudes.

The two Shahin missiles were launched from the home-made Mersad air defense system.

The Mersad air defense shield is a completely indigenized system developed by the Iranian experts and technicians to promote the country's combat power. The system was deployed in all Army air-defense units on Sunday to boost the country's air-defense power.

The Mersad system equipped with Shahin missiles is capable of tracing and targeting any enemy aircrafts at 70 to 150km altitude and is considered as a mid-altitude system among the country's missile defense shields.

Source: http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9003230430

IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Hezbollah Dominates New Lebanon Govt


by IMRA

Nearly five months after his appointment, Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati on Monday announced the formation of a 30-member cabinet in which Hezbollah and its allies hold a majority.

Mikati, a billionaire Sunni businessman, announced his line-up following arduous negotiations over key portfolios including the justice and telecommunications ministries, now controlled by the Syrian- and Iranian-backed Hezbollah alliance.

"This government is a government for all Lebanese, no matter what party they support, be it the majority or the opposition," 56-year-old Mikati told a news conference at the presidential palace.

But Lebanon's pro-Western opposition bloc, led by former premier Saad Hariri, has boycotted the new cabinet which it has slammed as a "Hezbollah government."

Mikati's cabinet -- which does not include any women -- has 19 ministers representing the Shiite militant group Hezbollah and its allies.

The remaining 11 were chosen by Mikati, President Michel Sleiman and Druze leader Walid Jumblatt.

The government must now be approved by at least half of the members of Lebanon's 128-seat parliament, in which the Hezbollah-led alliance has a small majority.

In a sign of simmering discord between Mikati and the Hezbollah alliance, Druze MP Talal Arslan immediately resigned from his post as state minister in the new cabinet, accusing the premier of being a "liar" and of seeking to deprive the minority Druze of key cabinet posts.

One of the main challenges facing the new cabinet will be how to deal with a UN-backed investigation into the 2005 assassination of ex-premier Rafiq Hariri.

Hezbollah forced the collapse of the previous government headed by Hariri's son after he refused to disavow the Special Tribunal for Lebanon.

The Netherlands-based court is widely expected to indict Hezbollah operatives in the killing, a move the militant group has repeatedly warned against.

Since his appointment in January with Hezbollah's blessing, Mikati has declined to spell out whether his government will cease all cooperation with the court.

In a clear sign that he does not expect a smooth road ahead, Mikati on Monday urged the Lebanese people to judge his government by its actions and not its individual members or the parties they represent.

"This government is fully aware that the future is not all rosy and that it will face obstacles, challenges and traps," he said.

A major point of contention in the negotiations over the new line-up was the interior ministry, which will now be headed by retired army general Marwan Charbel, considered close to the president.

The new foreign minister, Adnan Mansour, is a former ambassador to Iran which along with Syria is a major backer of Hezbollah.

The defense ministry is now in the hands of Hezbollah's Christian allies.

Mikati's appointment in January sparked the ire of Lebanon's Sunnis, who are largely loyal to Hariri and saw the move as a bid by Hezbollah to sideline their community.

But Mikati has endeavored to portray himself as an independent politician and not a Hezbollah puppet.

Under Lebanon's complex power-sharing system, the prime minister must be a Sunni Muslim, the president a Maronite Christian and the speaker of parliament a Shiite Muslim.

The first head of state to congratulate Lebanon on the new government's formation was Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad.

Damascus was forced to pull its troops out of its smaller neighbor after Hariri's assassination, ending 29 years of military and political domination.

The UN special coordinator for Lebanon, Michael Williams, congratulated Mikati on the new government and said he hoped it uphold "its... commitment to Lebanon's international obligations" in a statement released by Williams' office.

The United States, a major donor to the Lebanese army which blacklists Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, has warned that the formation of a government led by the militant group is likely to affect ties.

Source: http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=52775; http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=396381

IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Turkey's Ironic Electoral System


by Daniel Pipes

To keep Kurds out of parliament, the military authors of the 1982 Turkish constitution instituted the unheard-of threshold of 10 percent, meaning that a political party that won less than that proportion of the total vote did not gain any seats. This rule has had a huge impact on Turkish political life, especially in 2002, when it transformed the AK Party's third of the votes into two thirds of the seats. It has also caused the ruling AKP party, despite its increasing popular vote, to control a steadily smaller number of the 550 seats. Note in particular the bolded numbers:

Year Votes % votes % change Seats % seats change
2002 10,800,000 34% +34% 363 66% +363
2007 16,300,000 46% +12% 341 62% -22
2011 21,400,000 50% + 4% 326 59% -15

Comments:

(1) In 2002 the AKP was just shy of the 367 seats needed for a 2/3s majority that would let it unilaterally change the constitution; and in 2011, it is just short of the 330 seats needed to pass a new constitution on its own in parliament, after which it would be submitted to voters in a referendum (as happened in September 2010). Still, this small shortfall is not likely to stop the AKP from writing its own constitution. Then, watch out.

(2) Ironically, the Kurds found a way around the 10-percent threshold, by running as independents and then forming a voting bloc on arrival in parliament. Their number, by the way, rose from 20 in 2007 to 36 today.

(3) Also ironically, as the AKP strengthens on the ground – receiving twice the number of votes yesterday than it did in 2002 – it weakens in parliament. Put differently, the 10-percent ruling that doubled AKP power in 2002 has since then worked against it. Voters have wised up and are not throwing their votes away as once they did. As Jürgen Gottschlich of Der Spiegel notes, this AKP victory "almost seems like a defeat." (June 13, 2011)

The Turkish Grand National Assembly.


Source: http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2011/06/turkey-ironic-electoral-system

Daniel Pipes

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Gates' Choice: His Damage to the All-Volunteer Force


by Frank Gaffney, Jr.

[Robert Gates] has spent the past month warning about where the U.S. security posture is headed if President Obama has his way on further budget cuts, if forces are withdrawn from Afghanistan prematurely and if many of the NATO allies continue to shirk their responsibilities towards the common defense. "Headed south" would be a charitable characterization of his assessment of that direction.

Mr. Gates could not be more right, of course. It is deeply regrettable that all those in the executive branch, the Congress and the press who have, over the years, professed such admiration for him now seem so indifferent to his alarms. That is especially true of the Washington hands who so heartily welcomed the retention of the Bush administration's secretary of defense on the grounds that he was a "centrist," "non-partisan" and technocrat-turned-statesman. Bob Gates, we were assured, would serve as a brake on an untested new president with a record of problematic leftist proclivities. His own words now suggest that the brake was insufficient to the task.

Indeed, like the legendary Dutch boy - whose digits were insufficient for the leaks sprouting in the dike upon which his homeland's survival depended, Bob Gates is clearly frustrated by the lack to date of positive responses to his appeals for corrective action. His anger in a NATO ministerial and subsequent public remarks was palpable, a stark contrast to the stoical, if not flaccid, demeanor that has been his trademark.

Under present circumstances, however, there is not much the lame duck in the Pentagon E-Ring can do. Except that is in one area, one that just happens to bear directly on the future readiness of the U.S. military to fight the nation's wars. It may even prove decisive to the viability of the All Volunteer Force. That viability may, in turn, determine our ability to avoid in the years ahead, as we have for the past four decades, a return to conscription to meet our requirements for warriors in those conflicts.

The issue has arisen thanks to a shameful abuse of power perpetrated in the lame duck session late last year. President Obama rammed through a Congress repudiated at the polls legislation repealing the law that had since 1993 prohibited avowed homosexuals from serving in the armed services. Robert Gates and the also-soon-to-depart Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, played decisive roles in allaying concerns about and otherwise justifying this step. The repeal was conditioned, however, on the defense secretary, the JCS chairman and the president all certifying to Congress that the military was prepared for this change.

An honest certification to that effect would not be possible at this time in light of much evidence that the military is not ready for the adverse effects that would flow from such a repeal. Of principal concern is the intractable nature of many of the problems with accommodating not just homosexuals but the radical Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) agenda in an institution like the U.S. military in which mutual trust, unit cohesion and the effects of protracted forced intimacy may determine esprit de corps and combat readiness.

Irony of ironies, a considerable amount of such evidence was buried in a lengthy report prepared by the Pentagon's own Comprehensive Review Working Group (CRWG) in order to justify the President's fulfillment of his promise to his LGBT political base. Predictably, hardly anybody on or off Capitol Hill actually read this massive tome. Most relied instead on the Obama administration's cherry-picked findings that were leaked pre-publication to friendly journalists in an acknowledged effort to obscure the myriad other conclusions that contradicted the party line.

One person who did read the whole Pentagon opus, though, was the inimitable Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness. Her organization's comprehensive analysis of the CRWG report shows that there will be serious and adverse repercussions for the readiness and good order and discipline of the U.S. military if the ban on service by open homosexuals is repealed. Hard questions developed by Ms. Donnelly and like-minded members of the House Armed Services Committee have yet to receive satisfactory answers.

The need for such answers and for Secretary Gates to decline to give his certification during his last few days in office have been made all the more compelling by the problems now becoming palpable: direction (subsequently countermanded) to Navy chaplains to perform gay marriages; LGBT militants using secretly recorded audiotapes to harass, and perhaps bring legal action against, military personnel given the unenviable task of providing sensitivity training to the troops to prepare for open homosexuals in the ranks; and service members' open appeals to Mr. Gates and the Congress not to take that step.

If Robert Gates is as serious as he seems to be regarding the future of the U.S. military, he has one last opportunity to prove it: By allowing his successor to make the decision about whether or not to certify that avowed gays can be imposed on the military without breaking it, a decision that will hopefully be approached only after a fresh, independent and rigorous appraisal of the true costs and real risks such a social experiment entail for America's armed forces.

Source: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p18743.xml

Frank Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy, a columnist for the Washington Times.

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Lebanon's Islamist Stronghold


by Hilal Khashan

Syrian president Bashar al-Assad has apparently retained the hope of a military return to Lebanon from where he summarily withdrew in 2005 following the Rafiq Hariri assassination. In a 2008 interview with a Lebanese newspaper, he accused the northern city of Tripoli of becoming a base for Islamists who posed a direct threat to Syria's security.[1] More recently, Rifat Eid, head of Tripoli's Alawite Arab Democratic Party, described the city as the "Lebanese Kandahar."[2]

The destruction of the Islamist group, Fatah al-Islam, by the Lebanese army in the Nahr al-Barid Palestinian refugee camp in May to September 2007 delivered a crippling blow to the radical Salafi movement in the Tripoli area.

These charges could not be further from the truth. Far from posing a threat to its immediate neighborhood, let alone to Syrian security, Tripoli's hopelessly fragmented Salafi movement is primarily non-combative, its more militant groups having long been defeated and pacified. Its devout and conservative nature notwithstanding, this movement is very much a cathartic reaction to the city's prolonged political marginalization and economic deprivation. To exaggerate the threat of Tripoli's Salafis is tantamount to fattening the sheep before the slaughter.

Historical Background

From its founding by the Phoenician seafarers in the eighth century BCE to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1918, Tripoli maintained its status as one of the foremost cities in the eastern Mediterranean. During the Arab-Islamic era, its port was second only to Alexandria's, serving at different periods as the economic lifeline of Aleppo, Damascus, and Baghdad.

This privileged status came to an abrupt end in the wake of World War I when Tripoli's inclusion in Lebanon—against the will of its Muslim population, which would rather have been included in Syria—instantly marginalized the city. In its place, Beirut rose to prominence as the capital of the new political entity and the major site of its economy. Likewise, for some Maronite nationalists, Tripoli's inclusion in Lebanon threatened the slight Christian majority reported by the 1932 population census. The leader of the National Bloc, Emile Edde, for example, demanded the incorporation of Tripoli and its environs into Syria in order to preserve Maronite political predominance.[3]

For their part, the French, who created modern Lebanon as an essentially Christian state, had little interest in maintaining the leading political, social, and commercial standing of predominantly Sunni Tripoli, and the city's economic suppression during the French mandate (1920-43) became a tacit policy of the Lebanese state after independence. Still, Tripoli managed to reemerge as a provincial hub, unencumbered by the stress of the country's Beirut-based divisive confessional politics, serving the economic, educational, medical, and commercial needs of northern Lebanon and northwestern Syria. This, however, was not due to government policy but rather to private investments by northern Lebanese and the influx of Syrian capital after the introduction of nationalization measures in that country.

From Religious and Cultural Tolerance to Jihadism

Tripoli is often referred to as the seat of Lebanon's multifaceted Salafi trend, whose genesis coincides with the withdrawal of the last French mandate troops from the country in 1946. Home to the first Salafi reformer Rashid Rida (1865-1935), this profoundly conservative and devout city remained a rare oasis of religious and cultural diversity until the mid-1970s. This was a place where, despite infrequent social, interfaith interaction, Christian missionary schools proliferated and central roads and boulevards bore decidedly Christian names such as Nuns Street, Churches Street, Archbishop Street, and Saint Elias Street.[4] In Tripoli, Islamic religiosity tolerated the existence of Lebanon's only gambling club (known as Cheval Blanc Casino) long before the opening of Casino du Liban in 1959. Taverns and cabarets stood alongside mosques and religious institutes without a hitch.

The advent of religious organizations on a considerable scale during the 1950s and 1960s did not radicalize Tripoli or reduce its toleration of religious and cultural diversity. Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood launched its activities in the city in 1956 under the name of Ibadurrahman (Servants of God). In 1964, Fathi Yakan transformed the group into al-Jama'a al-Islamiya (Islamic Group), which operated as a non-dissident and charitable movement. However, the repercussions of the 1967 Six-Day War with Israel altered the city's collective psyche and swayed it toward Islamism. This coincided with the militarization of the Lebanese Maronites, who were heartened by Israel's stunning victory as they sought to stem the growing tide of armed Palestinian groups. Lebanon was now on the fast track to civil war.

Civil War and Religious Mobilization

Tripoli had its share of the civil war, which raged in Lebanon from 1975 to 1989. Initial setbacks at the hands of the Syrian-supported Maronite Mirada militia of then-president Suleiman Franjiyye and the inability of Tripoli's small pan-Arab and leftist parties successfully to confront them on the battlefield, encouraged the rise of jihadist movements. Sheikh Salim ash-Shahhal, who in 1947 had founded the country's first Salafi movement al-Jama'a Muslimun (literally meaning "the group is Muslim"), transformed it into a modest military force in 1976 under the name of Nuwwat al-Jaysh al-Islami (Nucleus of the Islamic Army). Other small groups such as al-Muqawama ash-Shaabiya (Popular Resistance), Harakat Lubnan al-Arabi (Movement for Arab Lebanon) and Jundullah (Warriors of God) splintered from al-Jama'a al-Islamiya and joined Tripoli's burgeoning Harakat at-Tawhid al-Islami (Islamic Unity Movement) under the leadership of Sheikh Said Shaaban, who eventually transformed the city into an Islamic emirate between 1983 and 1985.[5] Outward manifestations of modernity disappeared with the imposition of a total ban on the sale of alcoholic beverages as well as the shuttering of movie theaters, European-style roadside cafes, and tennis and golf courts.

Shaaban took advantage of the rising pan-Islamist sentiment among Tripoli's religious and conservative population. He received a major boost from the success of the Islamic revolution in Iran, with which he identified, and from whose financial largesse he benefitted. He also relied heavily on the financial and military support of Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement, which maintained a strong military presence in Tripoli, especially in nearby Nahr al-Barid and al-Baddawi Palestinian refugee camps. During Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon, Yakan created two guerrilla movements to combat the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF): al-Mujahideen (The Jihadists) in Tripoli and al-Fajr (Dawn) in Sidon.

The Israeli eviction of the Palestine Liberation Organization from southern Lebanon and Beirut in 1982 and the Syrian expulsion of Fatah guerrillas from Tripoli in 1983 were followed in 1985 by a withering assault by Syrian allies against at-Tawhid forces, which ended in destroying the movement's military machine. The anti-at-Tawhid coalition included the Baath Party, the Communist Party, the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, and the Alawite Arab Democratic Party. Syrian intelligence operatives and Lebanese Alawites raided at-Tawhid's stronghold in Bab at-Tibbane and massacred some six hundred Sunnis.[6] This singular incident caused an enduring schism between Tripoli and the Syrian regime and served as an impetus for the subsequent emergence of extremely radical jihadist groups, especially Usbat an-Nur (Partisans of the Divine Light) of Sheikh Hisham ash-Sharidi, assassinated by Fatah operatives in 1991.[7] The more lethal Islamist Abdulkarim as-Saadi took over the group and reintroduced it as Usbat al-Ansar (The Partisans League).

Saudi vs. Hezbollah Radicalizing

Embittered by the 1985 events, Tripoli's Salafi movement gathered momentum with the end of the civil war, which prompted many northern Lebanese clerics to return from Saudi Arabia where they had been schooled in radical Wahhabi-type religious training. In 1995, these Islamists killed Nizar Halabi, head of the pro-Syrian and Sufi-inspired Jam'iyat al-Mashari al-Khayriya al-Islamiya (Association of Islamic Charitable Projects, known as the Ahbash), triggering a harsh government response. Many Islamists fled to the Dinniye Mountain east of Tripoli and regrouped into a 300-man strong radical movement.[8] Their excommunicatory ideology toward moderate Muslims and rejection of non-Muslims in line with the religious edicts of Ibn Taymiyah, the famously radical medieval scholar, outraged the government and invited its wrath. In January 2000, the Lebanese army routed the group, killed its leader Bassam al-Kanj and apprehended dozens of combatants. Others sought refuge in Ein al-Hilwa Palestinian refugee camp near Sidon.[9]

The Lebanese authorities pardoned jailed Salafis shortly after the assassination of former prime minister Rafiq Hariri in 2005. In fact, Saad Hariri, who succeeded his slain father as leader of the Future Trend movement, opened up to radical Sunni movements with the prodding of Riyadh, which wanted to ensure that Sunnis were capable of standing up to the Iranian-backed Shiite Hezbollah.[10] Salafi movements sprang up in Tripoli's poor neighborhoods such as Bab at-Tibbane, as-Suwayqa, Abi Samra, and at-Tal. The sight of heavily bearded, armed young men and turbaned Salafis striding in alleys made the once bustling city austere and unwelcoming.[11]

The Hariri assassination amounted to a coup that blunted the Saudis' thrust into Lebanon and reaffirmed the preeminence of the Syrian-Hezbollah entente. Riyadh's response came in the form of arming Tripoli's Salafis so as to allow them to stand up to Hezbollah. As noted by the Lebanese daily al-Akhbar, "the regional underpinnings of Tripoli's surging jihadist Salafists are directly linked to the conflict between Damascus and Riyadh over controlling Lebanon." Indeed, while being bankrolled by Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates, "every single activity by any Salafi movement is doomed to failure if it doesn't receive Saudi support."[12] Saudi aid is presently funneled through the ministry of religious endowments and a number of private associations whose activities are closely monitored by the government.[13] Philanthropic associations promoting jihad, such as al-Haramain, have been discontinued after the 9/11 attacks.

The ease with which Hezbollah managed to defeat Hariri's al-Mustaqbal militia in Beirut in 2008 convinced the Saudi leadership that they could not rely on northern Lebanese Salafis, who formed the backbone of the prime minister's militia, to serve as a countervailing military force to Hezbollah.[14] They have thus curtailed most of their military assistance and contented themselves with promoting as-Salafiya al-Ilmiya, or official Salafi, that eschews involvement in politics. So did the other Gulf Cooperation Council states, which support Tripoli's as-Salafiya al-Irja'iya,[15] the Salafi preaching group that separates belief and action and limits itself to the former.

The destruction of Fatah al-Islam by the Lebanese army in the Nahr al-Barid Palestinian refugee camp in May to September 2007 delivered a crippling blow to as-Salafiya al-Jihadiya (Jihadist Salafi), whose remnants had gone underground into sleeper cells. Having made its debut in the refugee camp in 2006, Fatah al-Islam doubled its initial strength of 150 fighters within less than a year as the army intelligence's persecution of young, northern Lebanese Sunnis, who asked for weapons to counter the Shiite power surge, drove them into the arms of the newly-established militant group. The growth, however, of this millennial movement was preventable. Fatah al-Islam's rise attests to the clumsiness of Lebanese army intelligence and the heavy army and civilian toll during the Nahr al-Barid fighting.

Lebanese Salafis lay the blame on Hezbollah for refusing to involve them in confronting the IDF and its South Lebanon Army surrogate, accusing Hezbollah of pretentiously labeling itself "al-Muqawama al-Islamiya" (Islamic Resistance).[16] In response to the denial of their access to the anti-Israel military campaign, the Salafis directed their energies against the national government.

In support of Hezbollah during the 2006 summer war against Israel, Yakan, the leader of the Tripoli-based Islamic Group, established the Islamic Action Front that included five pro-Syrian Sunni Islamic groups: the two factions of Tripoli's at-Tawhid movement of Hashem Minqara and Bilal Shaaban, al-Fajr forces of Abdullah at-Tiryaqi, Abdel Nasser Jabri's Islamic group in Beirut, and Zuhair Jaid in the Shuf Mountains. The front disintegrated shortly after Yakan's death when cofounder Hashem Minqara deemed it no longer viable because some of its leaders were simply using it for political and financial gain.[17]

When the fighting raged in Tripoli in May 2008 between Sunnis and Alawites, the founder of the Salafi movement, Dai al-Islam ash-Shahhal, exhorted "all committed Lebanese Muslim young men to prepare psychologically and logistically to embark upon a new period [of armed resistance]." He made it clear that he was not looking for volunteers from abroad but "direly needed financial assistance."[18] Later, as the final showdown loomed large in connection with the Hariri assassination indictments, Shahhal warned Hezbollah against "inciting Sunni fratricide in order to render the sect politically irrelevant."[19] Yet for all his exertions, he failed to persuade the Saudis to resume their financial support for rebuilding the Salafis' military machine.

Poverty-Stricken Salafis

Tripoli has no place on the Lebanese economic, developmental, and tourist map as its name "has become synonymous with poverty, misery, and deprivation."[20] With free medical services virtually nonexistent, and minimum monthly wages often as low as $170, compared to the average Lebanese wage of $335; with a youth unemployment rate of 45 percent and a truancy rate that exceeds 20 percent, it is not difficult to understand why Tripoli is such an ideal breeding ground for Salafis. Whereas 28 percent of the Lebanese population is below the poverty line, in Tripoli, it is 57 percent.[21] Annual per capita expenditure in Lebanon averages $2,700, but in Tripoli it is $1,700—compared to $4,300 in Beirut. With 9,700 persons per square kilometer, it is overcrowded.[22]

Tripoli's economic decline dates back to the 1970s when the city suffered a number of severe blows: Iraq's construction of the Basra offshore oil terminal and the Kirkuk pipeline terminal in Turkey's Ceyhan rendered Tripoli's terminal useless. The city's decaying oil refinery, which previously provided about 40 percent of Lebanon's annual refined oil needs, was permanently shut down in 1993. Its full rehabilitation at an estimated cost of $300 million can save the country up to $ 1.2 billion from the importation of refined oil derivatives.[23] Nevertheless, there is a long-standing Lebanese policy against government investment in the city. In addition, Beirut receives 83 percent of Lebanon's total banking credit compared to Tripoli's 2 percent.[24]

Since 1975, Tripoli has lost 80 percent of its economy. Forty percent was lost in 1989 alone as a result of the Assad government's decision to allow the Syrian private sector to import from the international market. While the civil war cut off Tripoli from its traditional northern Lebanese, Christian market, the Syrians severed all economic and social ties between the city and the cities of Homs, Hama, and Tartus. The scarcity of employment opportunities has negatively shaped the worldview of many of Tripoli's young men and motivated them to seek salvation in religious extremism.

Glimmer of Hope

Representatives from six moderate, northern Lebanese Salafi movements disapproved of Fatah al-Islam's militancy that culminated in the May 2007 all-out confrontation with the Lebanese army. The joint statement they issued underlined that Shari'a (Islamic law) stresses, among other things, the preservation of the pillars of dignified human living that include religion, family honor, personal safety, and pecuniary assets. The unequivocal statement called for an immediate end to the fighting, eviction of the radicals from the Nahr al-Barid refugee camp, and promotion of allegiance to state authority.[25] Combating jihadists remind many Tripoli residents, including benign Salafis, of the three dark years of terror when at-Tawhid reigned supreme in the city. Their religiosity notwithstanding, most Tripoli residents are averse to the imposition of Shari'a rule in the city.[26]

People in Tripoli's depressed areas have little faith in the government and exhibit unmistakable disenchantment with the willingness of the Lebanese political system to redeem them.[27] The city may be a bastion of the Salafi movement, but its roots are essentially non-belligerent. Militancy is not entrenched as in some Shiite neighborhoods in Lebanon or in Islamist societies like Yemen or Somalia. Deconstructing the phenomenon of Tripoli's Islamic radicalism is clearly a function of integrating it economically and culturally in the Lebanese political system. It is quite remarkable that the city has not turned far worse after more than ninety years of deliberate marginalization.

[1] Al-Bayraq (Beirut), Sept. 30, 2008.
[2] Asharq al-Awsat (London), Oct. 7, 2010.
[3] Meir Zamir, Lebanon's Quest: The Road to Statehood 1926-1939 (London: I. B. Tauris, 1997), p. 107.
[4] Ash-Shiraa (Beirut), Nov. 7, 2010.
[5] Asharq al-Awsat, May 25, 2007.
[6] Al-Mustaqbal (Beirut), Dec. 5, 2007.
[7] Asharq al-Awsat, May 25, 2007.
[8] Now Lebanon (Beirut), accessed Feb. 7, 2011.
[9] Al-Markazia (Beirut), accessed Dec. 2, 2010.
[10] Al-Akhbar (Beirut), June 8, 2010.
[11] Author interview with Rashid Jamali, former head of the Tripoli municipality, Tripoli, Dec. 18, 2010.
[12] Al-Akhbar, Sept. 5, Oct. 21, 2010.
[13] King Abdulaziz Foundation for Research and Archives, Riyadh, accessed Feb. 5, 2011.
[14] Al-Akhbar, Oct. 21, 2010.
[15] Hana Ulayan, "At-Tayyarat al-Wahabiyya fish Shamal: bayna an-Nahj ad-Dini wal Maghnatis as-Sisyasi," Harakat at-Tawhid al-Islami-Majlis al-Qiyada website, Dec. 16, 2010.
[16] In March 1978, Israel invaded southern Lebanon, established a narrow security zone, and created the Southern Lebanese Army (SLA). It dismantled the SLA and unilaterally withdrew from the security zone in May 2000.
[17] Al-Akhbar, Dec. 1, 2009.
[18] Asharq al-Awsat, May 13, 2008.
[19] As-Safir (Beirut), Jan. 2, 2010.
[20] Talal Khuja, "Tarablus bayna al-Qal'a al-Mughlaqa wa-l-Madina al-Maftuha," Middle East Transparent website, Oct. 27, 2010.
[21] Ash-Shiraa, Nov. 1, 2010.
[22] Author interview with Jamali.
[23] Al-Liwaa (Beirut), Jan. 10, 2011.
[24] Makram Sader, "Tatawur al-Qita al-Masrifi 1990-2010," Association of Banks in Lebanon, Beirut, Dec. 2010.
[25] Now Lebanon, May 22, 2007.
[26] Lebanese prime minister Najib Mikati's website, accessed Feb. 7, 2011.
[27] Author interview with Jamali.

Source: http://www.meforum.org/2948/lebanon-islamist-stronghold

Hilal Khashan is a professor of political science at the American University of Beirut and the author of many books and articles on Arab politics including Arabs at the Crossroads: Political Identity and Nationalism (University Press of Florida, 2000).

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Saudi Arabia: Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied


by Irfan Al-Alawi

As Saudi Arabia has been spared the upheavals seen in other Arab lands – Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Yemen – the Saudi authorities were so confident of their popular support and the legitimacy it confers that they led the occupation of Bahrain, where a mainly Shia protest movement disturbed the sleep of the Sunni rulers.

Saudi Arabia is also committed to social reform, under King Abdullah, who ascended the throne in 2005. But the country's progress has been insecure and inconsistent.

The success of transformation in the Saudi kingdom must be measured in the context of women's rights, the biggest source of discontent with the Wahhabi sect and its official support by the state.

In this critical area, Saudi actions during the beginning of June revealed the well-defined internal contradictions of the ruling family, within the order it created and maintains.

The authoritative Arab News reported on June 7 that the Saudi Justice Ministry has set a target of 1,000 women working in the courts and notary offices next year. Commentator Abdullah Bajubair noted, "Judges, lawyers and women graduates of law colleges who could not find jobs in their fields received the news with joy and satisfaction."

Bajubair, however, indicated that Saudi female legal personnel would likely be assigned only to cases involving women. The journalist wrote, "the establishment of special women sections in courts to assist women, support them and provide them with legal counseling in cases of inheritance, divorce cases and representation is a welcome move."

The effect would therefore be to preserve gender segregation by providing separate services for women.

On the same day, the same newspaper stated that the Shoura Council, the closest institution to a legislature in Saudi Arabia, opined that women should be granted the vote in local elections… in the future. Women have organized protest networks, under the umbrella label "Baladi," or "our country," demanding the right to run as candidates and cast ballots in the municipal elections scheduled for September. In April, women flocked to voting registration centers in Dammam, in the Eastern Province, in Jeddah, in the more enlightened Hejaz region in the West, and in the capital, Riyadh. But they were turned away.

Prohibiting women from voting immediately while promising them a concession in the future – justice delayed and therefore denied – is so obvious in its deceit that it would seem to require no further comment. Mohammed Almuhanna, media spokesman for the Shoura Council, said, "This was a general recommendation… It has nothing to do with the current elections but is rather a recommendation for future elections." The Shoura Council expressed its contempt for women's calls to be treated equally by relegating its discussion of female suffrage to a meeting of its committee on housing, water and public services.

Meanwhile, King Abdullah has called for 70,000 new jobs for women, at a meeting of his cabinet. But the Wahhabi clerics trumped the debate by issuing a fatwa upholding gender segregation. Even the all-powerful monarch downgraded the issue by restricting himself to a brief comment during a session addressing "desalination plants along the Kingdom's coasts to meet the country's water and electricity needs," the arrival in the country of unpopular Yemeni ruler Ali Abdullah Saleh, and other details of state policy.

In the Wahhabi discourse, the permanent fatwa committee headed by Grand Mufti Sheikh Abd Al-Aziz Al-Sheikh, a descendent of the founder of the eponymous sect, Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab, asserted, "Women are not allowed to work with men. For example, they cannot work as secretaries for men or at receptions, production lines or accounting sections in a commercial center, pharmacy or restaurant where men are also present." The fatwa stated "Women's work and education should be done without mingling with men. They should work in women-only workplaces."

The Wahhabi body has called for women to pray at home and stay away from mosques, notwithstanding a hadith (oral commentary) by Muhammad advising against preventing women from entering mosques. The Arab News pointed out, "Last year, the committee issued a similar edict banning women from working as cashiers at supermarkets."

Such primitivism would be amusing were it not devastating for the condition of Saudi women, the image of Saudi Arabia, and discussions of Muslim women's rights all over the world. But we may discern in this crossfire of opinions that the country is increasingly polarized, with the Wahhabi clerics and other institutions defending an iniquitous status quo, and the king as well as the overwhelming mass of citizens on the other side, favoring modernization. The possessors of power, both royal and clerical, are trying to keep their balance in a historical stream that has sped up, with ever-louder calls for change. Sooner or later, sanity must prevail in Saudi Arabia, but in the meantime the expansion of freedom is uncertain, and conscientious Muslims throughout the world should press the kingdom's authorities to cease degrading Islam by their denial of women's equality.

Source: http://www.hudson-ny.org/2196/saudi-arabia-reform

Irfan Al-Alawi

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.