You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Lebanon’ tag.
Martin Chulov’s July 12th article marking five years since the outbreak of the second Lebanon war is so anodyne in its omissions that it is positively soporific. Yes, the reader may be briefly awakened from Chulov’s Pravda-style descriptions of Lebanese construction work by the erroneous reference to Qana as a “biblical site” where Jesus “purportedly turned water into wine”, but apart from that the article tiptoes so cautiously around the issues at hand that it fails to inform its readers of anything remotely newsworthy or relevant.
“Summer has often been fighting season in the south. And in the densely wooded lands around the Litani, preparations have been made for the next war ever since the guns fell silent last time.”
That is all Churlov has to say about Hizbollah’s flagrant violation of UN SC resolution 1701 and the UN’s turning of a blind eye to the process of its rearmament. No mention of an almost four-fold increase in the number of rockets and missiles held by Hizbollah since 2006 and the doubling of its forces. No reference to the known arms stores constructed in the heart of some 270 south Lebanese villages, turning the local population into automatic human shields or the extensive system of bunkers and other military facilities.
And above all, no reminder whatsoever of from where and how Hizbollah manages to rearm right under the noses of UNIFIL: Churlov’s only reference to Hizbollah’s connection to Iranian patronage is to state that via that organisation and Amal Iran has “dispense[d] hundreds of millions in cash to Lebanese who were caught up in the war” as though the Iranian regime were some sort of benevolent charitable organization.
Hizbollah positions in Lebanon, March 2011
We may not know precisely when a third Lebanon war will break out, or what will be the incident which lights the touch paper, but we know that it will happen and that primarily it will be a war against Israel’s civilians, with Hizbollah now capable of firing several hundred rockets a day upon Israeli cities, towns and villages.
When it does commence, the next Lebanon war will come as a complete surprise to the somnambulistic Guardian reader who, thanks to articles such as this one by Chulov together with the Guardian’s disproportionate focus on the joys of the ‘Arab Spring’, remain safely and securely in the dark as regards the details of the complex internal Lebanese political situation, the rearmament of Hizbollah and the failure of yet another UN resolution to curb Iranian expansionism in the Middle East, as well as the true nature of Hizbollah itself.
Tehran itself could hardly have done a better job.
Related articles
This review of Michael Totten’s new book, “The Road to Fatima Gate: The Beirut Spring, the rise of Hezbollah, and the Iranian War against Israel”, was written by Hadar Sela, and published in The Propagandist.
The current political and social upheaval throughout the Middle East and North Africa has highlighted something that those of us living in the region have known for a long time; just how rare accurate reporting and analysis of events in this area is.
Too much of the commentary produced by foreign correspondents and Middle East ‘experts’ is one-dimensional and it is the result of both the inability of writers to set aside their own cultural straight-jackets which have little or no relevance in this region, together with the commercial pressures to compete for headlines in a digital age in which speed and volume of content trump accuracy and quality reporting.
I often think of this prevalent sort of Middle East journalism in terms of mass-produced, flat-pack chipboard furniture. It’s not meant to last, it all looks pretty much the same, it doesn’t aspire to quality in terms of the materials used, and it comes in a one-size- fits- all form of presentation designed to appeal to the broadest possible consensus.
By contrast, Michael Totten is a master carpenter. His work is a long, slow process using only carefully selected quality materials, often acquired with difficulty. In terms of volume, he comes nowhere near the output of many of his colleagues, but what he does produce will stand the test of time because Totten does not seek to tell his readers (or himself) what they want to know – he informs them of what they need to know.
Over five years of research went into “The Road to Fatima Gate”, which begins with the ‘Beirut Spring’ of 2005 which followed the political murder of the former Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafik Hariri. The book documents the subsequent seismic shifts in Lebanese politics over the next half-decade and the related events in the broader region, including the 2006 summer war between Hezbollah and Israel.
Not only does Totten manage to unravel for his reader the intricacies of the various factions at work in Lebanon, he succeeds in mapping their changing alliances and connections to the broader regional picture, whilst at the same time deconstructing the often one-dimensional impressions which many Westerners hold of the players at work in the entire Middle East.
Read the rest of the essay, here.
A guest post by AKUS
That old axiom of Abba Eban’s – “The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity” – may once again be the best description of the latest misfortune to befall the Palestinians. Obsessed with the new idea of demanding recognition of a Palestinian state they missed the chance to reach a negotiated settlement with Israel in 2008 with Olmert and 2010 under US pressure with Netanyahu and have been swept aside by a tidal wave of events in January.
While far away in Latin America countries are rushing to recognize a non-existent Palestinian state on the non-existent 1967 “borders” (the 1949 armistice lines), closer to home all attention has shifted to greater issues. Had the Palestinians seized their opportunity to engage in negotiations with Israel as Obama requested during the 9 month building freeze, and better yet, signed an agreement, they would be looking at a real state rather than one that exists only in the blogosphere. Better yet, had they accepted Olmert’s map and offers, they would be two years down the road to developing whatever that little patch of land on the West Bank would look like as the Palestinian state (Gaza, of course, would still be under Hamas control and no-one knows what its future will be). Now they can only sit on the sidelines and watch greater events capture the world’s attention.
In January, the roof caved in on the Palestinian Authority – a second “nakba” again of their own making, once again, as internal quarrels opened the lid on an ugly reality so reminiscent of the Arab politics of 1948. The Pallypapers destroyed what little credibility the leadership had. The Arabs and the rest of the world saw the leadership saying one thing in public in English, another in Arabic to their people, and a third to Israel and the US in negotiations – the last being, by and large, acceptance of many of the positions that Israel and the US had presented for years of not decades since there really are no logical alternatives if one wishes to create a Palestinian state in the West Bank.
Even worse from the Palestinian perspective, the EU countries’ obsession with “Palestine” was marginalized as the revolt in Tunisia occurred, followed by the huge demonstrations in Egypt which may yet bring the Mubarak regime to an end. Suddenly, it was clear that the Palestinian issue is not the most important issue in the Middle East, nor would settling it lead to a new reality in the Middle East. Far from it – the issues in the Arab world are internal sociopolitical issues that play on the Palestinian issue as a distraction from real and serious problems the dinosaurs leading their father–son dynasties face.
Less noted are similar events in Yemen, and, most importantly for the West Bank Arabs, Jordan. The global stock markets took a serious hit on Friday 28th as traders wondered what the effect on oil supplies from the Middle East would be – a matter of far greater concern than the Palestinian issue. The fact that Egypt controls the Suez Canal, through which a huge proportion of Europe’s oil supplies and commerce with the Far East pass, with Yemen in turmoil at the entrance to the Red Sea leading to Suez, only adds to the anxiety. Will Europe consider a repeat of the 1956 effort, perhaps this time with American support, to take over the Suez Canal by force?
News from Jordan has not been prominently displayed – perhaps because there is not enough blood in the streets yet to satisfy the ghouls running the international news organizations – but clips showing the demonstrations for food and jobs indicate that all is far from well in the Kingdom. What is particularly interesting is that the demonstrators were waving large green flags – the flag of Hamas. Approximately seventy percent of Jordan’s population is generally described as “Palestinian” and King Abdullah holds on to power by virtue of an iron Bedouin fist in a velvet glove. The glove came off during “Black September” in 1970.
Should the demonstrations gather force and Abdullah react as his father did to preserve himself, the issues of the West Bank Palestinians will once again be made trivial by comparison. If, on the other hand, the Jordanian Hamas supporters manage to topple Abdullah, where then will the PA go, trapped between Hamas in Gaza and Hamas in Jordan? Will Jordan then become a Hamas-controlled Palestinian state, and, if so, what will the future of the West Bank be? Israel will not agree to a second Gaza right next to the Green Line. Better the current situation than kassams flying into Tel Aviv, Netanya, and Jerusalem.
A guest post by AKUS
In all the excitement over the Pallypapers, the events in Lebanon are getting less attention than they deserve, even though vastly more significant.
The state of play at the moment is that results of the UN Hariri assassination investigation have not yet been released. In the meantime, Hezbollah has managed to depose Hariri as Prime Minister through a parliamentary coup and the incomprehensible support of Druze leader Walid Jumblatt. One can only assume that Jumblatt hopes avoid conflict by siding with Hezbollah – a vain hope at best as the country falls further and further into the hands of these theocratic thugs. A new Prime Minister – yet another Lebanese billionaire – Najib Mikati, has been selected by Hezbollah to put a moderate face on things, but clearly will be no more than a puppet in a Hezbollah dominated government.
The pro-Western elements in Lebanon are now urging sit-ins against Hezbollah, something that no doubt amuses that heavily armed group. The Sunnis have rioted futilely because Hezbollah are Shiites (standard operating procedure for Islamic factions). The Saudis are backing their Sunni Muslims against Iran’s Shiite Hezbollah. According to the Washington Post article, “Hariri has insisted he will not join a government led by a Hezbollah pick”. The US has rather feebly said it would “reconsider” its aid to Lebanon if Mikati forms of a government dominated by Hezbollah. But that, of course, is exactly what is about to happen. One can only wonder, in retrospect, why America ever provided any aid to Lebanon rather than joining with Israel to destroy Hezbollah.
So we now have what amounts to the world’s first terrorist state – a country headed by the selected puppet of a terrorist group. At the next session of the United Nations, will we have the edifying spectacle of Ahmadinajad once more representing Iran and a person representing its terrorist client state, Lebanon, denouncing Israel and the United States? Will Hezbollah be asked, perhaps, to provide one of its thugs to chair the UN Human Rights Council?
Fascinating stuff, and a testament to the increasing wimpish nature of the West.
Dramatic developments took place last week in Lebanon as Hizbollah brought down the government whilst the Prime Minister was out-of-town: just the latest in its continued attempts to prevent the conclusions of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon from being implemented.
It is, of course, too early to predict and foolish to speculate what will happen in long- beleaguered Lebanon, but there is one scenario which can be placed right at the bottom of a list of possible outcomes, and that is the likelihood of a war between Israel and Lebanon. Unless Hizbollah deliberately leaves Israel no choice – for example if Israeli civilians are targeted as was the case in 2006 – there is no reason that these latest internal Lebanese developments should lead to cross-border conflict
It therefore seemed rather strange that CiF should choose to publish an article by Nicholas Noe on January 14th which totally ignores the internal aspects of the current crisis in favour of an elaborate hypothesis detailing why, if conflict does break out, it will be anyone and everyone’s fault except that of Hizbollah.
This isn’t the first time that Noe has predicted similar doom and gloom on the pages of CiF; in fact lately he appears to get wheeled out whenever there is some sort of crisis in Lebanon in order to promote the anti-American and anti-Israeli line. Noe’s impressive ability to ignore the objective facts at hand in favour of almost superstitious speculations may be somewhat easier to comprehend if one takes into account that he’s the founder and editor-in-chief of ‘Mideastwire’, and also runs Arabic language courses for foreign students in Beirut, the highlight of which are visits to Hamas and Hizbollah HQs.
“When Amtissal signed up to learn Arabic in Beirut, she was in for a bonus: class trips to the offices of Hezbollah and Hamas, both classified as terrorist organizations by her native America.
“It was an amazing experience,” the U.S. media studies graduate told AFP. “We saw the difference between television and reality.”
For 21-year-old Andrew Waller, the Beirut Exchange was a golden opportunity to hear the voices of groups he had only read about.
“Meeting Hezbollah was an experience I really treasure,” said Waller, an economics student at the University of Exeter in Britain.”
Ahmed Moor
As anyone who has spent time in or seriously studied the Middle East and the Arab world knows, the default option for many a political leader or struggling dictator in that region when the going gets tough is to kick the Zionist cat.
Rising opposition from within? The Zionists must be behind it. Economy going off the rails? The Israelis are of course to blame. Indeed more or less anything can be attributed to the Jews, often in a manner which would not seem out-of-place in a Monty Python sketch, because the conspiracy theories about them have been cultivated for so long that they have become part of the region’s folklore and mindset.
So when self-declared anti-Zionist, one-stater, promoter of apartheid analogies and would-be dismantler of the Palestinian Authority Ahmed Moor appears on the pages of CiF America promoting Jewish/Zionist conspiracy theories, we can be sure that here is one American who has well and truly imbibed the culture surrounding him in his chosen new home in Beirut.
According to Moor, both the Israeli government and pro-Israel American Jewish organisations are leaning heavily on the US administration to confront Iran, if not directly then by way of its proxy in Lebanon, Hizbollah.
“Josh Block – a former spokesman for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) – recently argued that President Obama ought to confront Hezbollah in Lebanon in order to confront Iran.”
“Only last week, Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu flew across the Atlantic to ask Vice President Joseph Biden to launch a war against Iran on Israel’s behalf.”
“The pro-Israel lobby is aware that America is too over-committed to attack Iran. But America is evidently capable of taking on Hezbollah, an Iranian ally”
In actual fact Josh Block seemed to be arguing in favor of strengthening and supporting the Lebanese people who do not want their country taken over by proxies of a theocratic dictatorship – the link in Moor’s article is broken – see here. The Lebanese are of course not the only ones in the region concerned about Iran’s growing influence on the area and the possibility of its gaining an upper hand in the Middle East power struggle; there are several Arab countries who have no less interest than either Lebanon or Israel in containing the neighborhood bully before it is too late to prevent yet more violence. Moor completely ignores the bigger regional picture, however, in favor of a trite kick to the local cat; Israel.
Alexander Henly’s CiF piece, oddly placed in the “Belief” section, from Nov. 17, titled “Omar Bakri trial is about politics, not Islamism or justice” (about Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed’s decision to hire a Hezbollah affiliated attorney for his upcoming trial in Lebanon) produced some really amusing and creative apologetics for the Shiite terrorist group.
First up, is rayuk.
Hmmm…Nasrallah is a modern day Churchill? I wonder if I can find another commenter to out due rayuk in the morally perverse analogy awards? Unfortunately, Harriet Sherwood was busy suggesting that Israel may be erecting a “Berlin Wall” in Ghajar, and it appears as if not even she is capable of two such moral inversions in the same day.
Oh, wait I found one, by a commenter who’s entertained us in the past: Ellis.
A modern day Christ. Thanks Ellis, you win!
Chicago-born Matthew Cassel – assistant editor for the Hamas groupie site ‘electronic Intifada’, and enthusiastic supporter of BDS against Israel - complained, in a CiF article on October 18th, that “[Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad deserves fair reporting.”
He’s right of course. The world should be made aware exactly what Ahmadinejad stands for and what he believes in. The readers of ‘Comment is Free’ should not have the Iranian president’s views censored or distorted by coy journalists.
So why does Cassel continue in the same vacuous vein as the rest of CiF’s coverage of the Iranian President’s recent visit to Lebanon which completely glossed over the content of both his major speeches?
Contrary to Cassel’s claims, some of the Western media were doing their jobs last week in Beirut and Bint Jbeil. Take this report from the Washington Post, for example.
“A crowd of thousands waving flags of Iran and Hezbollah greeted Ahmadinejad in the stadium in Bint Jbeil, where he said that the local people had given Israel ‘the taste of bitter defeat.’ ’You proved that your resistance, your patience, your steadfastness, were stronger than all the tanks and warplanes of the enemy’, “Ahmadinejad told the throng.” ’The entire world should know that the Zionists will disappear,’ Ahmadinejad said as a pair of Israeli helicopters flew along the border within sight of the stadium. ‘Today the Zionist occupiers have no choice but to surrender to reality and return to their homes and countries of origin.‘” “‘Rest assured that occupied Palestine will be liberated from the filth of the occupation by the power of the resistance and through the faith of the resistance,’ the Iranian leader said, bringing a roar from the crowd.”
Or this report by the Daily Telegraph:
“Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, has declared that the people who built Israel were “mortal”, in remarks that revived his charge the Jewish state should be wiped out.”
Heck, even the BBC managed to get this one reasonably right for a change:
“But Lebanon’s other Muslim sect, the Sunnis, and many of the country’s Christians, are not at all happy about the Iranian president’s visit. “Hezbollah, already the most powerful single group in Lebanon, has been given an extra swagger by the famous visitor. “Sectarian tension is high at the moment. “It is widely believed that the UN-led tribunal which has spent five years investigating the assassination of the former prime minister Rafik Hariri and others, will soon issue indictments. “The talk is that members of Hezbollah, a Shia movement, might be accused of the killing of Mr Hariri, who was a Sunni. That is political high explosive in Lebanon.”
But, alas, Mr. Cassel boldly comes to the defense of the beleaguered Iranian backed terrorist movement.
“In Lebanon…Hezbollah was born. At a time when the predominantly Shia south of the country was under attack and occupation by Israel (the US’s “special friend” in the region) those same Lebanese Shias organised and armed themselves with the aiding of the nascent Iranian regime to liberate their land.”
Yes, that’s right. A contributor for the “world’s leading liberal voice” seems to genuinely see Hezbollah as a righteous national liberation movement.
As long as the Guardian continues to rely upon “journalists” such as Matthew Cassel, its reports will continue to resemble those of a radical chic undergraduate student rag.
Here’s the Guardian’s celebratory depiction of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s welcome in Lebanon recently.
This is from another publication:
Such photos, of tyrants who incite genocide against the Jews and yet receive a hero-like welcome by masses of citizens, really takes you back…
Hitler welcomed in Austria upon annexing the sate in 1938
This is cross posted from the blog, IsraeliGirl (A site for News and Views from Israel and about Israel from one of the founders of Giyus.org)
Lebanon is ripe with tension these days. With the planned visit of Iranian president Ahmadinejad and the UN’s tribunal expected to implicate Hezbollah in the murder of former Prime Minister Hariri, the fractioned state of Lebanon is very tense. With these events in the background, Giyus.org sat down for a fascinating discussion with Dr. Omri Nir, an expert on Hezbollah and Lebanese politics. Dr. Nir is a lecturer at Tel Aviv University, the Hebrew Universtiy and Ben Gurion University.
Giyus.org: How would you describe Hezbollah’s relations with Iran and Syria?
Dr. Nir: Let’s start with some historic background. Hezbollah was created by Iran in 1982 to export the Islamic revolution to Lebanon. Why Lebanon? Iraq, which was the obvious choice, was off limits since Iran and Iraq were at war. In Lebanon, the Shia is the largest minority group, so Iran created Hezbollah there. From the start Hezbollah had a clear strategic goal of turning Lebanon into an Islamic regime like Iran. Hezbollah’s charter from 1985 even includes a full chapter on how the Islamic state would treat the Christians which are a large minority group in Lebanon.
At the end of the civil war in Lebanon in 1990, Hezbollah remained the only armed Lebanese militia. Syria, which was the landlord in Lebanon these days, agreed to allow Hezbollah to keep its arms and in return Hezbollah agreed to help Syria keep its control of Lebanon and to fight the IDF in South Lebanon. Yet, despite being the largest minority group and the strongest military wise, the Shia remained deprived of political rights and social benefits, creating a growth opportunity for Hezbollah.
So this complicated triangle of Hezbollah, Syria and Iran has a delicate balance in which Iran finance Hezbollah and impacts strategic directions and Syria has allowed Hezbollah to grow in strength.
Giyus.org: Is Hezbollah a “puppet organization” serving as Iran’s front with Israel?
Dr. Nir: Iran is the main financer of Hezbollah – so do they call the shots? It appears they set the directions but are less involved on a day to day basis. Hezbollah has a general secretary in Lebanon which controls the daily agenda of the movement. In November 2009, when Hezbollah came out with a new charter, the Iranian religious authority, al-Wali Faqih, who in the 1980s was defined as Hezbollah’s supreme leader, was not mentioned. So the relationship is not simple – if Iran would be attacked, Hezbollah would stand by it. However, Hezbollah has the freedom to take its own initiatives like they did in 2006 with the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers.
Giyus.org: Since Israel has withdrawn from South Lebanon what’s fueling Hezbollah’s hatred towards Israel?
Dr. Nir: In the Israeli context, Hezbollah views itself as an armed militia fighting for the people of Lebanon, covering the military weakness of the Lebanese state. Israel’s withdrawal from South Lebanon in 2000 was claimed by Nassralah as an achievement of Hezbollah for the people of Lebanon.
After Israel withdrew from South Lebanon, Hezbollah claimed the region of Shebaa farm is Lebanese territory. If and when that issue will be resolved Hezbollah will find another claim to hold on to against Israel, probably seven villages in the eastern Galilee that were part of mandatory Lebanon before 1948. According to their charter, Hezbollah cannot live with the Jewish state – Nassrallah has recently said that even if Israel will sign peace agreements with all Arab nations Hezbollah will never acknowledge Israel’s right to exist. Hezbollah’s religious agenda views the Jewish state’s territory as Islamic land where Palestine should be build.
Nassrallah views his hatred towards Israel as the means to win support among the Lebanese people and to gain popularity around the Arab world. This hate is his wave to ride all the way to the top. In addition, Hezbollah cannot afford to lose its weapons for inner Lebanese politics and if Israel is no longer a threat, Hezbollah has less reason to hold on to its arms.
As I noted in yesterday’s post, CiF columnist Matthew Cassel (who has praised Hezbollah spiritual leader Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah) wrote a piece which framed Lebanese Palestinians’ refusal to give up their arms solely as a reaction to the Sabra and Shatila attacks 28 years ago – citing merely, as proof, the testimony of two Palestinians. He also largely ignored 62 years of systemic oppression by the Lebanese government (as well as other well-documented massacres against Palestinians during the Lebanese Civil War). Well, Cassel’s piece had the desired effect of eliciting reading comments which largely focused on Israeli crimes and all but ignored the larger issue of institutionalized discrimination against Palestinian by Lebanon.
Here’s a sampling of comments, but see the complete comments section here:
Israeli supporters’ [i.e., Jews'] “murderous hatred”
Lament that there isn’t a wider perception that Israel has “blood on their hands.”
No Christians [presumably, as opposed to Jews] he knows have never committed mass murder”
Zionists zeal to disrupt peace in the region:
A recent CiF essay, by Matthew Cassel, regarding Lebanese Palestinians’ unwillingness to disarm, reduces the sum of all Lebanese Palestinian fears to the attack, by Christian militias, on Sabra and Shatila in 1982 – an attack, it should be noted, that occurred in the context of a Civil War which raged for 15 years and claimed up to 250,000 lives. Of course, missing in Cassel’s piece is any context about the Lebanese Civil War:
Lebanese Civil War
The war lasted from 1975 to 1990 and resulted in an estimated 130,000 to 250,000 civilian fatalities. Another one million people (one-fourth of the population) were wounded,and today approximately 350,000 people remain displaced, the majority of them Christian Lebanese. There was also a mass exodus of almost one million people form Lebanon, mostly of Christian descent. The Post-war occupation of the country by Syria was particularly politically disadvantageous to the Christian population as most of their leadership was driven into exile, or had been assassinated or jailed.
Combatants in the war included The Lebanese Front, The South Lebanon Army, Syria, Israel, The Lebanese National Movement, The Lebanese National Resistant Front, the PLO, Amal Movement, Hezbollah, Lebanese Armed Forces, and the Arab Deterrent Force.
There is no consensus among scholars and researchers on what triggered the Lebanese Civil War. However the militarization of the Palestinian refugee population, with the arrival of the PLO guerrilla forces did spark an arms race amongst the different Lebanese political factions.
Chris Phillips’ CiF piece, “Lebanon: Blair’s other Middle East mistake“, about Blair’s actions during the 2006 Lebanon war, quite predictably had no patience for “simplistic” views about Blair’s characterizations of Hezbollah (and their sponsor, Iran) as the cause of turmoil in the region:
From Blair’s perspective this religious struggle defines the Middle East. He states: “To me, you can’t understand Hezbollah unless you understand the role of Iran; or understand Lebanon unless you understand Syria … or understand either country in its present state unless you understand the history not just of the region but of the religion, how it saw itself, how it had developed its own narrative, how it saw its own predicament.”
This includes a remarkable simplification of the Israel-Palestine conflict, which he claims “is used as a potent source of friction and war because of religious difference”. The impact of other significant forces, notably…imperialism, are conveniently sidelined.
(Oh yes, of course, Western “imperialism” is the root cause of the conflict. How naive of me to think otherwise.)
There are very few places, other than the Guardian, that a “progressive’ could seriously doubt the nefarious influence of the Iranian sponsored Shiite terrorist group on Lebanon and the broader region.
Just for clarity, it should be noted that Hezbollah has been involved in the death of approximately three hundred Americans.
Further, as testimony to the U.S. Congress (by Jeffrey D. Feltman, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, and Daniel Benjamin, Coordinator, Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism) in June, 2010, demonstrated:
While Iran continues to provide a significant portion of Hizballah’s funding, Hizballah has also broadened its sources of financial support in recent years. Hizballah is now heavily involved in a wide range of criminal activity, including the drug trade and smuggling. It also receives funds from both legitimate and illicit businesses that its members operate, from NGOs under its control, and from donations from its supporters throughout the world. Hizballah also has established its own commercial and communications networks outside the Lebanese legal system that in essence rob the Lebanese treasury of the tax revenues that would come via legitimate licensing, registration, and tax reporting.
…
Hizballah’s destabilizing actions also have a global reach. The recent conviction of a Hizballah cell in Egypt for spying, plotting attacks on resorts frequented by tourists, and arms smuggling illustrates Hizballah’s growing regional reach and ambitions. In Iraq, we are also aware of Hizballah providing training and other support to Shia militant groups. As of early 2007, an Iran-based individual by the name of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis formed a militia group, employing instructors from Hizballah to prepare this group and certain Jaysh al-Mahdi Special Groups for attacks against Coalition Forces in Iraq. Hizballah’s web also extends to Europe and diplomatic missions abroad, where Hizballah planned to attack the Israeli Embassy in Baku. While this attack was foiled, and the perpetrators are now imprisoned in Azerbaijan, these actions illustrate the group’s continued disregard for the rule of law, both inside Lebanon and outside its borders.
…
Time and again, we have seen that Hizballah’s weapons and Syria’s support for its role as an independent armed force in Lebanon are a threat, both to Lebanon and Israel, as well as a major obstacle to achieving peace in the region. Hizballah exploits the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict to bolster its own interests and influence. The group claims to maintain arms in order to defend Lebanon from Israeli “aggression” and derives much of its popularity from its image as a “resistance” group. In truth, Hizballah is actively using the conflict with Israel in order to gain regional popularity and justify its vast arsenal, acting as a point of leverage in the region for Iran. One of Hizballah’s rhetorical points regards Israeli overflights of Lebanese territory. The UN Secretary General has cited in his reports on UNSCRs 1559 and 1701 that these overflights are a violation of UNSCR 1701, a resolution which we are all committed to seeing fully implemented. Yet there is an unmistakable connection between these overflights and Hizballah’s blatant and ongoing efforts to evade the arms embargo that is the essence of UNSCR 1701; Hizballah’s activities create the very conditions that Hizballah then uses as a pretext to justify its own destabilizing behavior, putting Lebanon at severe risk.
…
Hizballah’s insistence on remaining armed, aggressive, and unaccountable threatens important American interests and goals – especially our interests in Middle East peace and regional security, in containing the spread of destabilizing weapons and terror financing, and in a strong, democratic, and independent state of Lebanon.
A guest post by AKUS
It is possible that on Sunday, August 22, a ship (incorrectly named a “flotilla” in most media accounts) will set sail from Lebanon for Gaza?
Attempts have been made to paint this as a “women’s initiative”, but it is quite clear that the moving spirit behind this is Yasser Kashlak, a male Syrian of Palestinian origin. Kashlak’s ship is ostensibly bringing needed medical supplies (including unnamed “cancer drugs”!), food to pile onto Gaza’s already overloaded market stalls and squeeze into the well-stocked UNRWA warehouses, and “educational supplies” (one can only guess what those are) for the benefit of Gaza’s children.
If the much-delayed ship leaves port it will carry a group of women to “break the blockade” of Gaza. The use of a group of women has been heavily publicized as a way to demonstrate Israeli “brutality”, if the ship is intercepted by Israel, and to whip up anti-Israeli hysteria. Press TV, for example, has already run a clip claiming that Israel intends to kill the women. As an additional PR ploy, Kashlak has renamed the ship the “Mariam” (the Virgin Mary) to attract the attention of Christian groups. It is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that this ship is nothing more than yet another propaganda stunt aimed at Israel.
There are no flotillas being sent to the refugee townships maintained as true prison camps by the Lebanese in Lebanon where refugees have been kept bottled up for 60 years:
Hawkeye
Omar2
WellofSense
Medusa
The Alchemist
Louise
Tosca
Maimon
Telling the Truth
Israelinurse
Adam Levick
Margie in Tel Aviv
Guest/Cross Post
Hadar Sela
Fences: Blogging from Metula @ Lebanese Border, where Global March to Jerusalem clashes may erupt
March 30, 2012 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: Global March to Jerusaelm, Hezbollah, Lebanon | by Adam Levick | 9 comments
Metula, overlooking Lebanese border
There’s a fence just beyond the white building on the upper left of the photo, where the border between Lebanon and Israel stands.
So far, there’s been no GMJ related provocations, though the IDF thinks there’s a good chance it may sometime during the day.
I just met a man in Metula, in northern Israel along the Lebanese border, whose home overlooks the field shown in the photo – who not only let me recharge my laptop battery by his garage, but invited me in his home to chat.
George is a Christian Lebanese-Israeli. That is, he is Lebanese but fled S. Lebanon with his family not too long after Israel withdrew in 2000. Their decision to leave was based entirely on the fear of Hezbollah and what he thought would be the corresponding intolerance towards Christians as the result of the ascendant Shiite Islamist movement.
George told me, when asked, over a cup of intense Lebanese coffee, that he would never consider returning to his country of birth, even if his safety could be assured.
Israel is now his home.
Just one little anecdote perhaps, but a tale which speaks volumes about the small physical fissures, and quite large moral ones, separating the Jewish state from its neighbors.
Related articles
Share this:
Like this: