Asia Times Special

Asia Times:
Tehran holds the key to a ceasefire

By Sami Moubayed
Aug 12, 2006

DAMASCUS - Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert spoke at a military graduation ceremony last week, commenting on Israel's war in Lebanon: "Israel is winning this war and chalking up unprecedented achievements. If the fighting were to end today, we could say certainly that the face of the Middle East has changed as a result of this great Israeli victory."

It's difficult to understand what achievements he is talking about. Olmert promised to crush Hezbollah in a matter of days. After four weeks, that has not been achieved. He promised to disarm Hezbollah by force to implement United Nations Resolution 1559. That also has not been achieved. He promised to gain the release of the two Israeli soldiers captured by Hezbollah on July 12. That, too, is far from being a reality, unless Israel releases Lebanese prisoners from Israeli jails.

Certainly, Israel has bombed Lebanon, killing more than 1,000 Lebanese (nearly 700 civilians) and displacing more than a million. Hezbollah, however, is still there - and fighting. Hezbollah says it has only lost 58 fighters in battle; Israel says it has killed 300-400.

The only things this war has "achieved" for Israeli - until now - is a bloody nose, a reputation for brutal reprisal, and shattering of the long-standing myth that Israel is invincible.

The war has already cost Israel an estimated US$1.6 billion. In addition, 120 Israelis have been killed, 82 of them soldiers. At the time of writing, 13 Israeli tanks had been destroyed by Hezbollah.

Unlike Olmert, Hezbollah has fulfilled many of its promises. It promised to "surprise" the enemy, and did so by striking an Israeli warship off the coast of Beirut during the early days of the conflict, and since then it has bombed numerous Israeli cities, including Haifa and "beyond Haifa" in the Israeli heartland.

It has not liberated the Sheba Farms, however, nor has it forced the Israelis to negotiate the release of their two captive soldiers, abducted on July 12, in exchange for Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails.

Some say that by surviving the might of the Israeli army for a month, and striking deep in the Israeli heartland, Hezbollah has already scored a victory and emerged in military triumph. Others, however, argue that the devastating results in Lebanon are proof that Lebanon - and Hezbollah - have been defeated.

The first tangible result of the war, which is a setback for Hezbollah, was the Lebanese government's decision to deploy 15,000 of its troops on the border with Israel. This was surprisingly agreed to by Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and the two Hezbollah members in the cabinet of Prime Minister Fouad al-Siniora. Since the liberation of south Lebanon in May 2000, Hezbollah has rejected deploying the Lebanese army in the south. The announcement came shortly before the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) announced on Thursday that the Christian border village of Marjiyoun was now under Israeli control.

The IDF, which used the village as a command base during its long occupation of Lebanon from 1978 to 2000, will serve as a strong foothold for Israel as it prepares to launch a massive ground invasion into Lebanon.

The move to deploy the Lebanese army is a grand setback for Hezbollah. So is the fall of Marjiyoun. It does not mean, however, that Hezbollah had been defeated. It does mean that Hezbollah has been exhausted. It also means that Hezbollah is under immense pressure, due to all the destruction having befallen Lebanon, and in desperate need for an exit strategy.

It also means that Nasrallah is willing to bargain with regard to previous red lines to attain his long-term objective: keeping Hezbollah armed. When the war started, it was believed that Hezbollah did not want confrontation, but now there is no turning back for Nasrallah.

When it became clear that the IDF would not be able to destroy Hezbollah by air attacks, Israeli leaders began toying with the idea of a ground invasion of south Lebanon. Hezbollah welcomed the idea, because of its superiority in hand-to-hand combat, and has so far performed with flying colors.

But the reality of today is that - whether the Arabs like it or not - Hezbollah has been tired, if not weakened. The acceptance to deployment of troops and the fall of Marjiyoun illustrate this, despite the thundering rhetoric of Nasrallah, who said this week that Lebanon would become a graveyard for the Israelis.

Hezbollah is, after all, a non-state entity with limited manpower and weapons. Political pressure to bring the war to a halt, along with the rising death toll in Lebanon, will eventually be too strong for Hezbollah to ignore. There are limits to what it can do, and there are limits to its supplies of arms and the fighting spirit of the Lebanese people. There are limits to what people can tolerate in exchange for Nasrallah's "surprises" on Israel.

Hezbollah's main weapon is its famed Russian-made Katyusha rocket. Lacking any target precision, the rockets are only effective when they are fired in large numbers at the same time, so that they fall indiscriminately in Israel. But ultimately, these missiles are outdated combat weapons. They were first used 60 years ago by the Russians against the Germans in World War II.

They are no match for the massive and highly precise US-made missiles that are raining on Lebanon. Hezbollah has used other missiles, including the Iranian-made Raad I (believed to be another name for Iran's Shahine 1) along with Fajr 3 (45-kilometer range), and Fajr 5 (75km range). Its most deadly weapon is Zilzal 2, a missile it has not used to date, which supposedly has a range of 200-400km and can hold up to 600 kilograms of explosives.

Diplomatic efforts
Meanwhile, the international community is still talking about a ceasefire. Hezbollah has repeatedly welcomed this, but refuses to announce it before Israel stops its bombing. It has also flatly turned down the French-US ceasefire agreement those to countries want to put before the United Nations. Among other things, it would create a buffer zone in south Lebanon that could only be entered by the Lebanese army and a multinational force.

The proposal also calls for the disarming of Hezbollah, and has been rejected by the Lebanese government because it does not call for the withdrawal of Israel troops from south Lebanon, nor for an immediate ceasefire. The draft places full responsibility for a ceasefire on the shoulders of Hezbollah, and makes Prime Minister Siniora responsible for distancing Hezbollah from the border.

What Israel could not do by force - effectively push Hezbollah away from the border with Israel - it is trying to do through the US-French ceasefire draft. Despite objections, and amendments to the original document, the UN Security Council is expected to issue a resolution on Monday, officially calling on Hezbollah to disarm.

In effect this would be implementing what the Franco-US document says, without consent of the Lebanese government - or even with hidden consent from the Siniora cabinet. After all, the Lebanese government has been trying to disarm Hezbollah through dialogue since the exodus of Syrian troops in April 2005.

Getting an international resolution calling on Hezbollah is one thing, however, and actually disarming the Shi'ite resistance is another. For now, nobody is seriously thinking of how Hezbollah will be disarmed. It certainly cannot be done by the Lebanese army. Nor can it be done by Siniora, or the UN.

It needs to be willingly done through Hezbollah's consent - otherwise it will inflame the bloody battle in Lebanon. Or it has to be done through Iran. Only Iran has the ability to disarm Hezbollah with minimal damage to Lebanon and the entire Middle East. Only Iran can command Hezbollah, and only Iran will Hezbollah obey. Yet Iran will only do so if it is given carrots - big carrots - by the US administration.

Thus, by seeking a UN resolution, the Americans and the French are actually looking in the wrong direction.

Although Hezbollah may be tired and ready to stop fighting, it will not do so unless Israel halts its fire first. And Israel will not do that as long as it is being injected with weapons - and confidence - by the United States to stay fighting.

If indeed Israel and the US want an end to the war, they should look for answers in Tehran, not at the UN.

Failing Iran, a better solution to the entire crisis would be to follow through with the seven-point truce plan made by Siniora on July 27. It calls for the mutual release of Lebanese and Israeli prisoners under the auspices of the International Committee of the Red Cross. If this were done, it would be a victory for Nasrallah, because he said the two Israeli soldiers abducted on July 12 would only be released in a prisoner exchange.

The Siniora plan also demands the withdrawal of the IDF from the south, and the return of the displaced to their villages. It also requests a commitment from the Security Council to place the Sheba Farms area and the Kafar Shouba Hills under UN jurisdiction until border delineation and Lebanese sovereignty over them are fully settled. Also, the IDF must give Lebanon all land-mine maps of south Lebanon, made during the 1978-2000 Israeli occupation of the south. Finally, it says the Lebanese army should take full control of south Lebanon. This would be complemented by a strong multinational force under UN auspices.
The difference between the Siniora plan and the Franco-US plan is that Paris and Washington insist on Israel's withdrawal only after an international force is deployed in south Lebanon. Their proposal also permits Israel to launch defensive attacks against Hezbollah, if the latter provokes it or if Hezbollah does not cease its attacks on northern Israel. It also calls on Hezbollah to hand over Israeli soldiers, but makes no mention of Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails.

Supporting the Siniora plan are the European Union, the Syrians, the Arab League and Hezbollah.

Much diplomatic activity is expected over the weekend, although it is highly unlikely that the war will come to an end soon. Any UN resolution that can't find a satisfactory way to disarm Hezbollah is worthless: the answers lie in Tehran.

Sami Moubayed is a Syrian political analyst.

Copyright 2006 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HH12Ak01.html

---

Attacking terrorism at its roots

By Ehsan Ahrari

The success of British intelligence in foiling the plot to blow up as many as 10 planes flying from United Kingdom to the US is linked to the help it received from Pakistani intelligence sources. That fact underscores that the struggle against terrorism is a global fight. It is not against any religion. Rather, it is about the inalienable right to practice any religion, and, above all, the respect for all religions.

The most disconcerting aspect of the foiled terror plot is that British-born Muslims are its chief suspects. At least that was what initial reports have suggested. If true, it underscores the reality that British Muslims - especially the young generation that is as British as fish and chips or the game of cricket - should be integrated into British society, not just economically, but also politically and culturally. This is something that the government of Prime Minister Tony Blair has failed to accomplish. A plan of action in that direction is sorely needed.

When one examines the studies covering Muslim alienation and anger in the British polity, at least three themes emerge as root causes buttressing those sentiments.

The first theme states that the anger of Muslims is related to the "blind" support of the Blair government for the policies of the administration of US President George W. Bush in the Middle East, especially Iraq and now in Lebanon. As one dispatch in the Guardian noted:

Attacks there [Iraq], as those in London, are not about hating anybody's way of life, but straightforward revenge: revenge for Fallujah and al-Qaim - and for Palestine and Afghanistan, which have been subsumed in them. The pictures of Iraq, Afghanistan or Palestine, with their dust and grime, might be different from the pictures of the London bombings, but they represent a continuity. The war of revenge and collective punishment has arrived in London. And it has its own rationality. Don't give me the nonsense about why do they hate us. They don't.

The second theme identifies the feelings of "separateness" of young British Muslims from the mainstream culture as the chief reason for their anger. A recent report from The Times of London describes "separateness" as a collective sentiment of British Muslim youth that are not just different but also separate from the rest of the nation. "The issues that bring them into direct conflict with Britain as a whole include freedom of speech and the 'war on terror' that is being fought at home."

The third theme underscores the growing cultural conflict and the widening cultural chasm between young Muslims and British society, which, to them, is a representative of Western values. A survey conducted by YouGov in July 2005 reported, "nearly a third of British Muslims, 32%, are far more censorious, believing that Western society is decadent and immoral and that Muslims should seek to bring it to an end. Among those who hold this view, almost all go on to say that Muslims should only seek to bring about change by non-violent means, but 1%, about 16,000 individuals, declare themselves willing, possibly even eager, to embrace violence."

Since Blair has made a point of publicizing this value conflict, it is worth noting that the same YouGov survey found that of "more than half of those interviewed, 52%, believe British political leaders don't mean it when they talk about equality. They regard the lives of white British people as more valuable than the lives of British Muslims. Almost as many, 50%, reckon the main party leaders are not being sincere when they say they respect Islam and want to cooperate with Britain's Muslim communities."

Blair's "complicity" with the US invasion of Iraq, and his current support of the policy of Bush not to seek an imminent ceasefire in Lebanon are regarded as reasons underlying his low popularity among Muslims.

There is little doubt that all three themes explaining Muslim alienation, frustration and even anger are valid and generally accurate. However, the root cause of their alienation may be directly related to their continued economic marginalization - especially related to a general absence of upward economic mobility among Muslims in most Western societies, with the United States being an exception - as well as the unwillingness of Muslims to come out of their self-created cultural cocoons.

However, these studies and discussions wholly miss the fact that Muslim religious schools in Britain as well as in almost all Western countries are dominated by teachers who spend a great deal of their energy and attention denigrating Western culture and advocating religious conservatism and primacy of puritanism. Most of these teachers are trained in the highly traditional religious schools of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh (and other Muslim countries). They bring to the West highly pronounced frames of reference of religious traditionalism that are incapable of reinterpreting Islam for Muslims who call Western countries home.

Even while these teachers and preachers reside in Western societies, they know little about its intricate features or about its positive traits, especially of tolerance for religious differences (despite the fact that tolerance is an integral feature of Islam, but is being consistently and vociferously sabotaged by the Wahhabi school) and its tradition of disagreeing with someone without being disagreeable. For these Muslim teachers and clerics, learning anything about Western societies (which are so "antithetical" to Islam, in their view), even if it is not a sin, is not worthy of their effort.

When Muslim youngsters are exposed to such sources of religious education, no wonder they evolve frameworks of reference of their own that are characterized by rigidity, cultural chauvinism and a lack of tolerance for deviation from strict Islamic precepts. What also reinforces that frame of reference is the fact that those youth see their parents remaining culturally separate from Western society. This may have nothing to do with any feelings of alienation or contempt. More often than not, immigrants are too busy making ends meet and have little time for anything else.

Add to these frames of reference of alienation and religious intolerance the highly contentious political issues of the era after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the US, when Islam is under constant scrutiny and criticism and is frequently a target of derisive verbal assault, and you have the making of a person who, if he is not a potential recruit for al-Qaeda, has ample sympathy for it.

Admittedly, the preceding is a partial explanation of the feelings of alienation of Muslim youth in the West. It should be emphasized in the same breath, that an overwhelming majority of them are upstanding law-abiding citizens and devout observants of Islam. At the same time, they are loyal citizens of the country of their residency.

However, the alienated ones - despite their small numbers - must be brought back into the mainstream. For that reason alone what is needed is a plan of action developed by Western governments.

Such a plan, first and foremost, should be aimed at enhancing economic integration of Muslims in Western societies. Even though we know that some of the British-born terrorists of the July 7, 2005, attacks were members of the middle class, economic alienation of Muslim youth is still regarded as one of the major reasons for their anger and estrangement, especially in a country like France. Britain is not doing that much better than France in that regard.

Second, this plan of action also must be focused on eliminating the current religious bastions that promote the denigration of Western culture and religious intolerance. Both aspects of this plan are quite intricate and require strategic plans that should be implemented at least for a decade or so.

The current generation of Muslim youth has to be re-socialized. That, in itself, is a tedious and an enduring process. In fact, this particular feature of reform has been emphasized by the administrations of president Bill Clinton and George W Bush in relation to Pakistani schools. The fact that President Pervez Musharraf was unable (or unwilling) to implement it fully in that country is a powerful reason why his government has not succeeded in stemming the tide of terrorism in Pakistan.

Third, the promotion of religious tolerance is also a very important aspect of this plan, since religion, while it is a framework that is supposed to promote harmony, may also be used - indeed, has been used - as an explosive tool for perpetrating violence.

Fourth, Muslim leaders who are educated in the West and are socialized not to have contempt for it or its values must play a leading role in helping the governments in developing religious curricula that promote tolerance and emphasize the need for reinterpretation of Islam as a Western religion. This has been systematically depicted as "heresy" by the Wahhabi schools all over the world. An equally systematic attempt is urgently warranted in Muslim schools all over world, but especially in the West, to reeducate the Muslim youth.

Islam has lived with people of different faiths for the past 1,400 years. Muslims must play a leading and, indeed, a highly proactive role in not only reviving, but also in institutionalizing that noble legacy of their religion. That might turn out to be the most potent weapon to fight global terrorism.

Ehsan Ahrari is the CEO of Strategic Paradigms, an Alexandria, Virginia-based defense consultancy. He can be reached at eahrari@cox.net or stratparadigms@yahoo.com. His columns appear regularly in Asia Times Online. His website: www.ehsanahrari.com

Copyright 2006 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HH12Aa02.html

---

Running from commandos - and mosquitoes

By Syed Saleem Shahzad

BEKAA VALLEY - Four weeks into the war in Lebanon, the country's civilians are still trying to adapt their lives to deal with the constant rain of death that falls unremittingly from the skies.

The total casualties in Lebanon and Israel are estimated at close to a thousand, with the majority being civilians in Lebanon.

The Zaitar family in Baalbek lives in an average house near the American Education Institute. The house is a standalone building, with no other buildings close.

"We have a strange lifestyle now. This is summer vacation for the schools and the kids are always desperate to play on the road, but out of fear of Israeli attacks, we have to lock them in the four walls of the house," said Saida, mother of four.

Members of the family while away the days talking on the house's terrace, the elders smoking cigarettes and drinking endless cups of tea and coffee.

"This has been our routine since the war broke out - there is nothing else to do. Sometimes we watch TV, but the electricity goes off quite often, so there are not many options left," said Waleed, 21, a recruit in the Lebanese army and a member of the Zaitar family.

The sound of a motorbike caught the attention of the family, and they yelled almost with one voice for the rider to come over to the house. He was selling groceries and bread, and the family bought some.

"All the shops are closed. Now we are dependent of these mobile vendors - they sell medicine and other items for daily use," Saida explained.

Time to move on and meet other people in the Bekaa Valley, the strategic center of Hezbollah.

Apart from the driver, a local Hezbollah man accompanied me in the car. It was 6pm and the roads were already deserted.

We stopped in the Makaneyeh area to take a pictures of a red car destroyed by Israeli drones. Another vehicle drew up near us and a man frantically told us that we had better move off. "Israeli commandos have landed in the area," he said, adding that he was part of a local network of people assigned to spread such critical information.

We didn't need a second invitation, and promptly drove on for a date to drink tea with the Muqdad family in a nearby neighborhood.

As we drove down a narrow alley I noticed that a car appeared to be following us, so we slowed down short of the Muqdad household. The other car stopped as well.

A tall beaded man in camouflage dress and holding a walkie-talkie approached. A brown prayer mark shone on his forehead. He could only be Hezbollah, and had obviously been alerted to the presence of a strange car marked with the letters "TV" in white tape on the body.

In our experience of the past few days, the media do come to the Bekaa Valley, but only when the Israelis hit a target. They seldom stay any longer than they have to, as the valley is under the constant observation of Israeli drones and air attacks are frequent throughout the day and night.

After some basic queries, the Hezbollah commander was satisfied that we were harmless and joined us for tea.

"This is exactly the time for Israeli strikes, at dusk. Their aircraft, including Apache helicopters, enter the valley from the Western Mountains and travel all around the area as they make their way east," the commander said.

"When they get specific information, they drop their commandos, who try to confront us, otherwise they target vehicles, especially supply trucks. So please watch out when you drive back," the commander said. He declined to mention his name.

Only half an hour later, Israeli forces and Hezbollah confronted each other in Brital village in the valley. Apparently, Hezbollah suffered heavy losses.

Meanwhile, the Muqdad family apologized that they would not be able to chat for long as they were preparing their sleeping bags to take to a farm, where they slept every night under trees.

"At least trees can provide a good hiding place and shelter, and being in the open gives us a chance to run if we have to. If the Israelis pounded our houses, we would be trapped inside the concrete structures," one member said.

Such a scenario was all to easy to imagine. Just a few hours earlier I had been to the farmhouse of the Jamaluddin family, where several members had been killed in an Israeli air attack last week.

The seven family members had been sleeping when Israeli drones scored a direct hit with an MK bomb. A few ran out nervously to hide near the house, which belonged to the local mayor.

The drone followed the fleeing members and they were killed, their blood spattered all over the place. The family's Volkswagen station wagon was also hit.

By now the Muqdad family had headed for their sleeping place, and it was getting late. Although mosquitoes were the only things that had attacked me - a pack of barking dogs looked pretty menacing, too - I was acutely aware that the dreaded drones could home in on me at any time.

Hezbollah fighters were hunkered down, awaiting a possible attack.

It was time to go - I was not ready to be caught in the middle of a situation of which I was not a part. Despite the insistence of my driver that it was too dangerous to travel, we drove back to Beirut.

Syed Saleem Shahzad is Pakistan Bureau Chief for Asia Times Online. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com

Copyright 2006 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HH11Ak01.html