Posts by TalShalev:
Hezbollah’s Survival
February 3rd, 2014
By Tal Shalev.
Hezbollah has lost more than 300 of its people since the organization has gotten involved in the Syrian civil war. It currently operates in three main sites, after its successful assistance of the Al-Qusayr campaign: the eastern rural area of Damascus (Al-Ghouta al-Sharqiyya), the Al-Qalamoun mountain range, north of Damascus, which runs along the Syrian-Lebanese border (the Homs – Damascus route), and the grave of Al-Set Zaynab, south of Damascus.
The reasons for Hezbollah’s involvement in the Syrian crisis look very obvious to the common outsider, as the organization has a strong strategic alliance with the Syrian regime since it was formed in 1982. Yet, senior officers of Hezbollah said to the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Rai that Hezbollah is fighting in Syria for other reasons, and not necessarily to protect the Syrian regime and President Bashar al-Assad.
Hezbollah, they said, protects Lebanon and seeks to gain control over the area bordering on the Syrian-Lebanese border (the Al-Qalamoun mountain range), out of which organizations affiliated with Al-Qaeda (such as Al-Nusra Front). It also has a sectarian-religious aspect, as Hezbollah is committed to continue defending the grave of Al-Set Zaynab, which is under constant attack by the rebels, who are aware of the site’s religious significance.
Nonetheless, Hezbollah’s involvement in Syria, regardless its reasons, causes a major problem to the organization in Lebanon. The Al-Nusra Front in Lebanon, which is the local franchise of Syria’s Al-Nusra Front, a jihadist rebel movement, has conducted five major suicide bombing at the heart of Hezbollah’s territory – the Dahiyeh in Beirut.
The rebels had recently warned Hezbollah that attacks on their controlled areas will continue until Lebanon releases Sunni Islamist prisoners and the organization withdraws from Syria, which means a declaration of war.
Loyalty is appreciated and strategic alliances even more so. Hezbollah had done for Syria more than any other would have. However, the organization has paid too high a price for its involvement and should understand its place in Lebanon is far more important than the war in Syria. In Syria, the organization is not fighting for its survival, but that of President Assad.
In Lebanon, it is a matter of the organization’s survival. In Lebanon, it is more than a resistance organization, or a terrorist group – it is a political party and a welfare organization as well, with a wide infrastructure that might fall apart if Al-Nusra keeps hunting Hezbollah as it does today.
Should Hezbollah lie itself on the fence for the Syrian regime? Should the organization commit suicide for a strategic alliance? Hassan Nasrallah needs to understand that Hezbollah must survive, and survival is nowhere near the Syrian civil war.
Comments Off on Hezbollah’s Survival
What was behind Mikati’s resignation?
December 25th, 2013By Tal Shalev.
Former Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati resigned on behalf of his government on Friday, March 22, 2013. Back in the announcement, he cited the Cabinet’s failure to pass a proposal to extend the term of the country’s police chief, who will retire on April 1, as well as the blocking of a decision to form a supervisory committee for the 2013 elections. Free PatrioticMovement Leader MP Michel Aoun described the motives behind Mikati’s decision to throw in the towel as “silly.” Prime Minister Mikati said that he informed anyone of his decision in order to avoid pressure from all sides, and that his decision was personal.
Nevertheless, one has to admit that Aoun has a solid point. Mikati survived many political crises since he formed the government in June 2011, making these reasons for resignation seem out of character and a little bit peculiar. Could there be other reasons for Mikati’s resignation?
First and foremost, there are the Syrian civil war and the ensuing political pressure from its spill-over into Lebanon. Last year’s clashes in Tripoli are just one example, but more important is the tension between the Sunni and the Shi’a groups in Lebanon, over the matter of which side the Lebanese should support: Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, or the Syrian rebels. The tension now is in its highest level and maybe Mikati feels he cannot control the country anymore, preferring to step aside and let another person deal with the expected clashes.
A second option might be his relations with Hassan Nasrallah. It is well known that Nasrallah was responsible for bringing Mikati to premiership, and while they had their differences, mostly over the STL issue, they have cooperated well most of the time. However, STL’s proceedings still ongoing and Hezbollah is in a very delicate position in Europe due to the Burgas bombing and the Hezbollah’s activist’s conviction in Cyprus. It is certainly possible that Mikati feels that the time has come for him to step down from office since he cannot protect Hezbollah from the STL, the United States, the U.N. and the people of Lebanon.
A third option might be that though Prime Minister Mikati claims that he consulted no one and his decision to resign was his own, Nasrallah demanded the resignation because he thought Mikati could not handle future events “properly” i.e. to Nasrallah’s satisfaction, and perhaps has found a better, as of yet, unknown candidate. The future candidate would probably be more subjugated to Nasrallah’s will and turn a cold shoulder to the world’s demands on Syrian rebels, the STL issue and many more.
What future holds for Lebanon? Only time will tell. One thing is obvious: the reasons that Prime Minister Mikati stated as the reasons for his resignation are probably just a smokescreen.
Freedom and Democracy in Egypt – Was It Just A Dream?
October 8th, 2013By Tal Shalev.
Egypt’s temporary government announced its intention to designate the Muslim Brotherhood movement due to last riots, as well as their “risky” opinions of the State of Egypt. Have this government and the army learned nothing from past experience? Do they want to move forward and bring Egypt into a better era or to go back to the dark days of President Mubarak?
We, Westerners, have inherited democracy in our home countries, and should watch and learn how this form of government is being built in a country that has no history of civil freedoms for its citizens. This is a process of learning by blood, sweat and tears and the Egyptians have to go through it by themselves. We can only hope for them that the process will end with the fewest casualties as possible.
Banning Hezbollah’s Military Wing: Was it worth it?
July 25th, 2013By Tal Shalev.
European Union’s decision on Monday, July 22nd to ban Hezbollah’s military wing proved no more than Europe’s readiness to the move forward with the war on terrorism and cooperation with the U.S.
Though the Israeli government is inclined to take credit for the above decision, the main provider of pressure on Union members was the Obama administration and as such, it deserves most of the credit for this development. Over the past few years, the administration has increased its efforts to convince the EU to sanction Hezbollah. The result of this massive pressure has been the banning of merely the military wing, and not the organization itself. As John Brennan, President Obama’s Chief Homeland Security and Counter-Terrorism Advisor, called on October 26, 2012, for the EU to recognize that Hezbollah continues to pose a real and growing terrorist threat to Europe, the United States, and the world.
The EU has now taken a huge step by formally asserting that Hezbollah is involved with terrorist activity and this has several implications. Sanctions will be enacted that will include travel restrictions for Hezbollah’s military officials and the freezing of European-held assets of the military wing. Both of these constraints mean that Hezbollah will no longer be able to conduct fundraising for its military activities within the EU, nor will it be able to transfer monies through European banks to Lebanon for the same purposes. However, the organization has not held open European fundraising events to benefit its military wing in Europe for years. Hezbollah’s main base of activity used to be in the UK, but after that country banned the military wing several years ago, it had to adapt and adjust its policies accordingly.
Hezbollah is a hybrid organization, meaning that though it has many coordinated and cooperative branches, in the end, it is a unified organization. Though the EU differentiates Hezbollah’s military wing from its political and social wings – the organization is still one entity. And that is what makes the EU’s decision an empty shell.
Let’s take Hassan Nasrallah as the first example. Nasrallah is a political figure in European eyes. He is not a military man and not subject to banning, in the EU list. However, since Imad Mughniyah was assassinated in 2008, the leader of the military wing remains unknown, and therefore cannot be designated, nor can be identified by official authorities.
As for collecting funds, Hezbollah’s current European fundraising is focused almost entirely on collecting funds from local Shia communities through donations to Lebanese social organizations, such as al-Shahid Foundation, or Jihad al-Bina. This Zakat (charity) money is sent to Lebanon and Hezbollah’s use of those funds is not supervised so it is impossible to know whether they are building schools or buying more guns for its fighters. Moreover, Hezbollah’s assets are probably not listed under its military wing’s name, but rather in the name of the political or social wings. As such, the financial damage to the organization would be pretty minor.
Was the EU’s decision worth all the efforts that the US, Britain, and Israel have made over recent years? Make no mistake – it is a big step for the EU, but it makes no sense to designate only one part of the organization. You either decide to ban the organization as a whole, or not at all. A hybrid Hezbollah is a complicated creature, and the EU should have known better.