Stability must precede justice

Lebanon: Stability must precede justice
By: Ghassan Rubeiz / The Arab American News

With the assassination of Minister Pierre Amin Gemayel, Lebanon’s national unity has taken a long step backward. There is a background for this tragedy.

On November 11, a week-long series of heated meetings intended to strengthen opposition in a government of national unity failed. As a result, Hizbullah threatened to stage massive demonstrations after withdrawing its two ministers from the Cabinet and after successfully pressuring four other ministers to resign. People got anxious thinking of the civil war that ended in 1990 and the summer war of 2006.

Central to the conflict are the questions of Hizbullah’s future, General Michel Aoun’s presidential plans and the pursuit of justice for the murdered former Prime Minister Rafiq Harriri . Now add the murder of Gemayel.

Hizbullah remains a major source of tension in a country that has never used its national armed forces effectively. This “resistance” movement is not willing to lay down its arms in compliance with the recent U.N. cease-fire agreement.

The country’s conflict makes sad theater. Michel Aoun, a strong political leader, seeks to become the next president of the republic but he is rejected by the current anti-Syrian government; he is wooed by Hizbullah and he is opposed by the West.
The government plans to punish political murderers using a U.N.- mandated international tribunal that may implicate Syrian agents.
It is speculated that the Shi'a ministers withdrew from the cabinet to slow down the work of the U.N. tribunal. Hizbullah seems to consider the tribunal as foreign intervention, but outwardly it does not object to it.

The crisis of the government has two sides. In order of importance, the opposition includes Hizbullah, the Free Patriotic Movement Party of Aoun, other secular parties and a Syrian-supported-marginalized President, Emile Lahood. Hizbullah represents the Shi'a community; Aoun is a secular Christian and President Lahood is a Catholic (Maronite).

Iran and Syria back up the opposition, oppose the pro-Hariri government and orchestrate a policy of challenge to the U.S. By demanding better representation in the government, the opposition argues for struggle against Western hegemony, for political reform and for fair representation for all communities. The opposition groups have about half the country behind them

On the government side, there are two powerful Sunnite leaders: Saad Harriri and Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. The parliamentary majority includes about two thirds of the Christian legislators and representatives of the Druze community, of which Walid Jumblat is currently the most vocal anti-Syrian figure. The Hariri family is very close to the Sunni minded Saudi Arabia and to the West.

Clearly, the tragic murder of Gemayel adds much fuel to the current political crisis and elevates the insecurity of the Christian population. Facing the cliff-hanging position of their government, national leaders must focus on Lebanon’s unity first. Justice is needed on the following list of political murders that have occurred over the last three decades: Pierre Gemayel, Rafiq Harriri, Basil Fuleihan, Gibran Tueini, Samir Kasseer, Rene Mouawad, Bashir Gemayel, Rashid Karami, and Kamal Jumblatt.

But is it realistic at this transitional political juncture to immerse an insecure government in the procedural technicalities of international justice, when a large segment of the population is weary of foreign intervention? Justice will remain elusive as long as Lebanon’s army is very weak, its politicians are not credible and its national unity is too tender. Justice is not achievable in a political environment of high national insecurity.

A national government should be formed immediately to establish political catharsis and a balanced agenda for the regime and its opponents. The pursuit of basic stability may have to take precedence over the pursuit of “justice,” a code word for demands of both sides of the domestic conflict. In this nation of a wounded society the government may have to appreciate its limitations and move step by step in priorities from national unity to national security to national social services to people’s confidence that naturally brings about criminal and social justice.

The author is an independent Arab American commentator. His blog is aldikkani.blogspot.com

Lebanon's murder mystery

Lebanon’s Murder Mystrery

November 21, 2006




Pierre Gemayel, a prominent Lebanese Christian leader and Minister of Industry, was gunned down on November 21. The assassination follows two weeks of domestic political haggling over the role of Hizbullah (as an opposition) and its allies in a new national unity government. Gemayel’s murder may also be related to recent regional developments in Iraq and its two neighbors, Syria and Iran.

The country is overloaded with tension. There is a giant national debt, a weak army, a non credible parliament, militia rule and unfriendly neighbors.
Related to the conflict are the question of Hizbullah’s future and the government’s involvement of the United Nations International Tribunal in investigating the 2005 murder of former Prime Minister Rafic Hariri.

To stay armed Hizbullah needs Syrian and Iranian support. Hizbullah faces mounting pressure of United Nation’s Resolution 1701 which stipulates the demilitarizing of all Lebanese militias. Syria is suspected of murdering Prime Minister Hariri. To slow the Hariri murder investigation, Hizbullah’s ministers and their allies withdrew from the cabinet. The resignation of these Shia ministers precipitated a crisis of confessional balance in governance. The opposition to the government includes Hizbullah and several Christian and secular parties.

After the negotiations about the make up of the government failed, Hizbullah’s threatened to resort to street demonstrations. Today, street action in Lebanon is a segue to the unpleasant unknown. Local and foreign enemies mingle to exploit political vacuum. The most recent murder may simply be a domestic affair. However, there are groups outside the Lebanese opposition who wish to covertly enter the arena of public protest to cause immense disorder. We have witnessed the scene before too many times. One or two politicians are assassinated; a minority neighborhood is attacked; covert foreign agents escalate street fighting. A demonic surprise of some sort occurs. The killing of Gemayel may be the start of political unraveling of a too fragile Lebanon.

When an assassination takes place in Lebanon eyes usually look outside the country to figure out who the perpetrator is. For some unknown reason, political murders in Lebanon have for too long remained mysteries.

International opinion considers Syria the number one suspect. Anti Syrians in Lebanon agree. The theory is that Pierre Gemayel is the eighth victim of Syrian-type hegemony in Lebanon. But one has to assume that Syria would be very unwise to commit this murder when the international community is already suspicious of Damascus and when the US is seriously considering a dialogue with Syrian diplomats about a future role in an Iraq settlement. In addition, Syria has just established an embassy in Iraq. Further, Syria‘s ambassador in Washington has been working hard to receive recognition and approval from the US. Iran is also being considered by the Baker-Hamilton Group as a possible partner in future US regional negotiations on Iraq’s stability. Iran, Syria and Iraq seem to be coordinating their politics in facing the changing US Middle East policy.

Where else to look for the murderers? Could Israeli agents have orchestrated the Gemayel murder? If Iran and Syria manage to make a deal with the US over Iraq, Israel would feel marginalized and the peace process would have to be activated as a price for cooptation of Tehran and Damascus. If Syria could be falsely implicated for a new crime in Lebanon, the road to Washington from Damascus would be blocked. This theory is considered as pure Arab paranoia for those who find Syria a chronic killer in Lebanon.

Where is Lebanon heading? The country is divided on Hizbullah’s future, on national defense, on the process of identifying the agents of political murders, on foreign policy and on confessional balance in power sharing. The leaders must now focus on national unity by widening the representation of the opposition and identifying a political agenda that addresses the diverse needs of Lebanese society. Pierre Gemayel’s murder today brings to the front the crisis of governance in Lebanon. Solving Gemayel’s murder and the previous seven similar assassinations is unlikely before the Lebanese achieve unity.


The author is an independent Arab American commentator. His blog is .

Lebanon's murder mystery

Lebanon’s Murder Mystrery

Ghassan Rubeiz November 21, 2006 ( not published)




Pierre Gemayel, a prominent Lebanese Christian leader and Minister of Industry, was gunned down on November 21. The assassination follows two weeks of domestic political haggling over the role of Hizbullah (as an opposition) and its allies in a new national unity government. Gemayel’s murder may also be related to recent regional developments in Iraq and its two neighbors, Syria and Iran.

The country is overloaded with tension. There is a giant national debt, a weak army, a non credible parliament, militia rule and unfriendly neighbors.
Related to the conflict are the question of Hizbullah’s future and the government’s involvement of the United Nations International Tribunal in investigating the 2005 murder of former Prime Minister Rafic Hariri.

To stay armed Hizbullah needs Syrian and Iranian support. Hizbullah faces mounting pressure of United Nation’s Resolution 1701 which stipulates the demilitarizing of all Lebanese militias. Syria is suspected of murdering Prime Minister Hariri. To slow the Hariri murder investigation, Hizbullah’s ministers and their allies withdrew from the cabinet. The resignation of these Shia ministers precipitated a crisis of confessional balance in governance. The opposition to the government includes Hizbullah and several Christian and secular parties.

After the negotiations about the make up of the government failed, Hizbullah’s threatened to resort to street demonstrations. Today, street action in Lebanon is a segue to the unpleasant unknown. Local and foreign enemies mingle to exploit political vacuum. The most recent murder may simply be a domestic affair. However, there are groups outside the Lebanese opposition who wish to covertly enter the arena of public protest to cause immense disorder. We have witnessed the scene before too many times. One or two politicians are assassinated; a minority neighborhood is attacked; covert foreign agents escalate street fighting. A demonic surprise of some sort occurs. The killing of Gemayel may be the start of political unraveling of a too fragile Lebanon.

When an assassination takes place in Lebanon eyes usually look outside the country to figure out who the perpetrator is. For some unknown reason, political murders in Lebanon have for too long remained mysteries.

International opinion considers Syria the number one suspect. Anti Syrians in Lebanon agree. The theory is that Pierre Gemayel is the eighth victim of Syrian-type hegemony in Lebanon. But one has to assume that Syria would be very unwise to commit this murder when the international community is already suspicious of Damascus and when the US is seriously considering a dialogue with Syrian diplomats about a future role in an Iraq settlement. In addition, Syria has just established an embassy in Iraq. Further, Syria‘s ambassador in Washington has been working hard to receive recognition and approval from the US. Iran is also being considered by the Baker-Hamilton Group as a possible partner in future US regional negotiations on Iraq’s stability. Iran, Syria and Iraq seem to be coordinating their politics in facing the changing US Middle East policy.

Where else to look for the murderers? Could Israeli agents have orchestrated the Gemayel murder? If Iran and Syria manage to make a deal with the US over Iraq, Israel would feel marginalized and the peace process would have to be activated as a price for cooptation of Tehran and Damascus. If Syria could be falsely implicated for a new crime in Lebanon, the road to Washington from Damascus would be blocked. This theory is considered as pure Arab paranoia for those who find Syria a chronic killer in Lebanon.

Where is Lebanon heading? The country is divided on Hizbullah’s future, on national defense, on the process of identifying the agents of political murders, on foreign policy and on confessional balance in power sharing. The leaders must now focus on national unity by widening the representation of the opposition and identifying a political agenda that addresses the diverse needs of Lebanese society. Pierre Gemayel’s murder today brings to the front the crisis of governance in Lebanon. Solving Gemayel’s murder and the previous seven similar assassinations is unlikely before the Lebanese achieve unity.


The author is an independent Arab American commentator. His blog is .

Lebanon: a theater of internal and external conflict

Lebanon: A theater of internal and external conflict

Ghassan Rubeiz November 16, 2006


National Lebanese unity is at risk today. With confused priorities Lebanese political warlords are again at each others’ throats. On Nov 11, a week long series of heated meetings intended to strengthen opposition representation in a government of national unity failed. As a result, Hizbullah threatened to stage massive demonstrations after withdrawing its two ministers from the Cabinet and successfully pressuring four other ministers to resign.

Political leaders are juggling a strange mixture of local, regional and international issues. Related to the conflict are the question of Hizbullah’s future, General Michel Aoun’s presidential plans and the pursuit of justice for the murdered former Prime Minister Hariri.

In addition to local dynamics, the cabinet restructuring conflict has external dimensions. Lebanese society confronts two contrasting ideological currents from the outside. The West dominates the country through the influence of the US, Europe and Israel. Iran and Syria and the rest of the Arab/ Islamic world also have a firm hand on domestic politics and cultural life. Informally, the sad truth is that there have always been two Lebanons, one Western and one Oriental.

Hizbullah remains the center of tension in a country that has never used its national armed forces effectively. Hizbullah is not willing to lay down its arms but the recent UN cease-fire agreement stipulates demilitarization of unauthorized armies.

The country’s conflict makes sad theater. Michel Aoun, a strong political leader, seeks to become the next President of the republic but he is rejected by the current anti-Syrian government; he is wooed by Hizbullah and he is opposed by the West. The government wants to punish the murderers of the Prime Minister, using a UN- mandated international tribunal that would implicate prominent Lebanese and Syrian politicians. In this theater of conflict, Hizbullah, to stay strong, needs Syrian support in face of international pressure. Hizbullah’s ministers and allies withdraw from the cabinet objecting to the sudden request of the Cabinet to authorize the work of the Tribunal during the decisive negotiations of last week.

The plot thickens: the unpopular President of the Republic, Jamil Lahood, opposes his Cabinet and declares its insistence on approving the Tribunal illegal. But Lahood is in political debt to Syria since his term was extended through that country’s pressure before its withdrawal. He is ignored internationally and isolated domestically.

To simplify, the crisis of the government has two sides. In order of importance, the opposition includes Hizbullah, the Free Patriotic Movement Party of Aoun and President Lahood. Hizbullah represents the Shia community; Aoun is a secular leader but his followers are largely Christians and President Lahood is a Catholic (Maronite). From beyond the border, Iran and Syria back up the opposition, oppose the pro-Hariri government and orchestrate a policy of challenge to the US. By demanding better representation in the government, the opposition argues for struggle against Western hegemony, political reform and fair representation for all communities.

On the government side, there are two Sunnite leaders: Saad Harriri and Prime Minister Seniora. The parliamentary majority includes about two thirds of the Christian legislators and representatives of the Druze community, of which Walid Jumblat is currently (not in the past) the most vocal anti Syrian figure. The Hariri family is very close to the Sunni minded Saudi Arabia and to the West. Traditionally, Christian politicians are pro- Western, with notable exceptions.

The Christians are on both sides of the domestic conflict; they have become a demographic minority; they are poorly led; and they do not have a regional patron. The sectarian tension of leadership in Lebanon is gradually shifting from being Christian- Muslim to Shia- Sunni, mirroring a regional trend. Some would argue that the real rift within Muslim society is more ideological than sectarian. Many believe that the conflict is between the modernist and the traditionalist.

The political mess in which the government finds itself now is partially a result of its confused priorities. The current over riding issues are national unity and stability. After a hectic summer war which killed a thousand civilians, left tens of thousands without shelter, a million cluster bombs, a polluted coast line, the Hariri justice has faded in the wider perspective.

The crisis is containable but it has the potential of making Lebanon another Iraq. The government must focus on national unity: communal healing and rehabilitation of the victims. This unity policy means that achieving justice now in the explosive issue of the Hariri murder is divisive. The country is overloaded with tension: a giant national debt, a weak army; a non credible parliament, Hizbullah’s unclear status, and unfriendly neighbors.
On the other hand, Hizbullah’s threat to resort to street demonstrations is another type of confused priorities. Today, street action in Lebanon is a segue to the unpleasant unknown. Local and foreign enemies mingle with local adversaries to exploit political vacuum. There are groups, outside the resistance movement who wish to covertly enter the arena of public protest to cause immense disorder. We have witnessed the scene before too many times. One or two politicians are assassinated; a minority neighborhood is attacked; covert foreign agents escalate street fighting. A demonic surprise of some sort occurs.

The parliament has rarely been practical in solving hot national issues. One exit from this intractable conflict might be the formation of committee representing all parties. The group would synthesize the compromises already achieved in the last two weeks of negotiations toward widening the cabinet, strengthening the opposition and clarifying the top national priorities. If the work of the international tribunal could be delayed, the formation of the unity government is still possible to reach. The pursuit of basic stability may have to take precedence over the pursuit of full justice. In a nation that has a very weak army, a threatened economy, a wounded society, the government may have to appreciate its limitations and act accordingly.


The author is an independent Arab American commentator. His blog is .

Religion and Politics in the Middle East

Religion and Politics in the Middle East
Palm Beach, November 15, 2006, World Affairs Council

Good evening, Thanks for the kind introduction and my gratitude for the opportunity to be here.


Anecdote:
When our son Eddie was nine years old he asked me once to compare Christianity with Islam. In Geneva, we had sent our son to the mosque to learn Arabic but the mosque was not ready to teach Arabic without religion. After exposure to the mosque, our son surprised me one day with this question: “Which is better Christianity or Islam”? he asked. I said to him after a few seconds of hesitation: “Eddie, for you, Christianity is best; we know God through Jesus. For your Muslim friends, Islam is best; they know God through Muhammad. For your Jewish friends, Judaism is best; they know God through Moses”. Eddie was satisfied and his father breathed a sigh of relief.
This evening, I am discussing a framework of oppression in four dimensions in Middle East society. The people of the region are occupied four ways. Rulers occupy freedoms, religious authorities occupy the mind, colonialists occupy borders and local militias occupy the street.
How does a ruler occupy his own country? Well, the ruler behaves as if he is the state. But in reality, the ruler is in constant search for his often questionable legitimacy. Religion and its authorities are often abused to justify un ending rule.
The second type of occupation: How may religion occupy the mind? The religious establishment regulates marriage, inheritance, affiliation and life style through strict laws. Clerics require strict application of the faith. Religious authorities emulate political rulers in restricting freedom of interpretation of the scripture.
Third occupation: Why are colonial powers responsible for a portion of region’s problems? In 1919 the Western Allies designed the region’s map. They invented new countries and terminated others, like Kurdistan. The ME has had 50 years of British/ French colonialism followed by 50 years of US intervention.
Fourth occupation: How do militias become a state within a state?
Militias fill in the void when the state does not deliver. Militia ideologues are smart in pointing to the region’s problems, but their remedies may not be so smart. When armed groups are focused on liberation of land they are known as resistance movements. When their target is civilians they qualify as terrorists.
Let us look at each of these four types of occupations in some detail:
First, Ruler’s Occupation:
From a few examples we can infer that oppression in governance varies from country to country.
Take Saudi Arabia: Here The House of Saud is inherited through a long line of sacred succession. This Kingdom is legitimized as a protector of holy places, yet it is the most restrictive of social and political freedoms.
Other Gulf countries are less oppressive; these oil producing countries are under pressure to experiment with provision of political freedoms in small doses.
Take Egypt: Egypt is a republic with an autocratic government. To be fair, economically, Egypt is hard to govern. Limited land fertility and a bulging demography make it increasingly ungovernable.
But President Mubarak runs the show as if he is the proprietor of the country. Elections are predictable. Minorities complain about representation and majorities complain about legitimacy of governance.
Egypt and Saudi Arabia will be facing increasing internal pressure for regime change.
Iran: Iran is a religious republic. The republic side is authentic; the religious side is a drag on democracy. Khomeini in 1979 introduced religious control in Iranian state building.
However, experts on Iran tend to place hope in the potential power of women and youth to correct the structural inhibition of religion in politics. But when will the breakthrough take place?
Regrettably US policy of confrontation with Iran has extended the legitimacy of Iranian autocracies.
It is so important to understand Iran because it is connected with five types of power rivalries in the region: Arab vs. Persian, Kurd vs. Arab, Sunni VS. Shiite, secular vs. religious and militia vs. state.
Lebanon: The leaders of this country are war lords. However, Lebanon is a fragile sectarian power-sharing democracy that is plagued by corruption. The fact I can say that about Lebanon and visit the country is a good sign.
Jordan: Jordan is a Kingdom with a King and Queen that are bent on reform. But Jordan is 60% Palestinian and the reform is from top to bottom. This enforced reform has its limits and it may backfire at crisis time.
Syria: Syria is a semi-secular regime that is hard to understand. It is ruled by a regime whose politicians are an ethnic minority, known as Alawites, a form of Shiism.
The Assad family rules with an iron fist, but in recent years the regime has moderated internally and radicalized externally, by supporting the militia culture in Lebanon and Palestine. Its role in Iraq is important.
Israel: Israel is a democracy for five million Jews, and at the same time it is an occupation of five million Palestinians. Israeli leaders are enablers of their own community and hard on Palestinians under their rule.
In sum, the Middle East ruler is in constant search for legitimacy. He often abuses religion to justify oppression.
Second, occupation of the mind: the Fear to ask intelligent questions
In the Middle East, regrettably, each religious community believes that its God is the best. As a result, we have three distinct Monotheistic Gods.
A fourth God is imported from the West; he speaks “televangelically”.
Religious culture and leadership dominate science, politics, education, business and other social institutions.
To challenge religious authority is to challenge the faith itself.
Religious socialization is literal. We turn children who are born with curious minds to beings with robotic ways of thinking. We transform children who love all, to creatures who love the few.
Third, border occupations: Sovereignty
A look at Palestine:
Arabs and Jews look at history from contrasting perspectives. For the Jewish community, Israel is a religious fulfillment, a realization of a national dream, an opportunity to bring the community to a land of security.
In contrast, for Arabs, the Israeli state was born in a process of displacement of innocent Palestinian civilians from their native land of (what they consider) Historic Palestine.
Arabs are angry about land occupation in their region. They are furious about the ongoing occupation and annexation in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.
They feel that international social justice is eroding.
In contrast, today, Israelis consider “Occupied Territories” as land which they can afford to return to Palestinians.
Occupation in Syria: Israel occupied the Syrian territory known as the Golan Heights and the contested Shib’a Farms in 1967.
Syria says it is ready to negotiate peace and normalization if Golan is returned. Israel says it does not believe Syria is ready for peace.
Iraq: Iraqi people are living a security nightmare and the US is experiencing a political and military quagmire.
Regrettably, the issue of Iraq in the US is reduced to how and when to leave the mess after troop withdrawal, not how to change foreign policy to fit Iraq into the regional politics.
As result of the recent US elections and the sudden focus on the Baker Hamilton Iraq Study Group, reference is made that Iran, Turkey, Syria and Egypt should sit around the international UN table of negotiation in a future peace conference on Iraq. So far, this conference table is not connected with the Palestine/Israel and Syria table of peace. That is a pity, and there are efforts to make the connection.
US military presence in Gulf countries: US see its military presence in Qatar and other Gulf countries as a strategy for peace maintenance and a policy for oil supply. But as long as the oil producing countries are at the end of the scale in democracy building the US will carry the burden of being considered an agent of imperialism in the region.
There is a mutual dependence in US strong presence in the gulf. While the US needs uninterrupted flow of oil at any expense, America is afraid to encourage economic empowerment through industrialization. This is a short sighted policy. The salvation of these countries lies in the shift from the rent economy of oil revenues to a tiger economy of intensive labor.
The Islamic world views the military presence in the region as a form of hegemony.
Fourth, occupation of the street: unauthorized armies
Militias are by-products of state failure. Unauthorized armies become state-within-a-state formations. They fill in the void of state responsibility.
They may offer effective military resistance to external occupation. They may provide social services, and they always offer indoctrination and political organization.
Militias may occupy the street and the neighborhood in response to foreign occupation of land and or domestic regime injustice.
Militias are often correct in political analysis but they are also often misguided in problem solving. Hamas is an example.
Militia leaders mobilize young people with religious symbols but these leaders may not be religious themselves. Ben laden is best example.
Extended power asymmetry in combat between armies of wretched societies and technologically advanced militaries are leading to a new phenomenon of non classical warfare. Militias may compensate for their military weakness by living underground, taking cover in human shields and expanding their power with violence that victimizes civilians. Militias often respond to organized state terror with unorganized grassroots terror. This summer Lebanon was hijacked by Hizbullah and the Israeli response to it.

After this survey of four types of occupations I move to a set of conclusions.
A general statement first: The Arab silent majority is disabled intellectually by Mullahs, Bishops and Rabbis, and sandwiched between unruly militia power in the street, autocratic regime power in the capital and abusive foreign influence on the border.
Arabs, Israelis as well as Americans are tied with a knot of mutual interests. These three societies must review their perspectives. The US current policy in the Middle East is a disaster and the current regimes in the region are under increasing threats. Change of attitudes, policies and programs are urgent to reduce the global tension and bring about political and socio economic solutions. Change is required from all sides. There are no villains and angels in this tragedy. There is no monopoly on evil and virtue. We must shift from a moral paradigm of analysis to a political framework.
Here are some conclusions:
1 Arabs need to change attitude and policy
Tolerance: Religious tolerance is key to political and social change. Tolerance is not about changing the tenants of any faith. It is about attitudes toward diversity. Traditional religious education is a major problem that can only be modified by political change from within.
Women: Gender gap is another central problem in the Arab world; it is not sufficiently recognized by Arab women. Culture relativity is often used as a shell of protection of oppression of women. Islam is for the freedom of women, but I am not sure about Muslim Men in authority positions, who often act as God himself.
Priorities: The Order of Arab political priorities is reversed. Internal reform should come first. Palestine is important but it should not become an excuse for delay of regional reforms.
Indigenous Democracy building: Islam should experiment with its own form of gradual democracy building. Read “Passions of Islam” on this subject.
2. Iraq: When I think of Iraq I picture a surgeon with unclean hands operating on a patient in intensive care. The extended and abusive occupation has turned a solution into a major part of the problem. I offer four points on Iraq:
a. Withdrawal: Foreign troops should withdraw in phases in order to calm down the local people, raise their moral, reduce their anger, make them feel more responsible and above all and generate some good will and cooperation from the key states in the region.
b. Region Consultation: The Iraq solution needs consultation with and support from Key states: Turkey, Iran, Syria, Gulf countries and Europeans. Turkey is needed on Kurdistan issue; Iran on Shiite politics; Syria on border control and Gulf countries for economic aid. Europe to soften the American shadow that has become so negative in the region.
c. National accord: Bringing about a National accord leading to a credible government: New leadership, power sharing, and allowing Sunnite community access to revenues, and decentralization that gives Kurds some degree of autonomy.
d. Security and services: Provision of national Security and infrastructure services. Technical assistance is needed to strengthen the army. Within a regional accord, it is possible to liquidate criminal elements, end regional sabotage and to meet the demands of the local insurgencies.
US policy on Israel
Power management: It is true that within the Jewish community there is a lot of soul searching and sharp self criticism. However, Israeli advocacy may be too successful to its own disadvantage. We Lebanese Christians were so successful in convincing the world that Christian dominance in governance would guarantee stability in Lebanon. That was not the case for too long.
Long term security: Israel needs friends within the region. Israel can not rely on nuclear deterrence and US support for ever.
Ideas not walls: Israel needs to be protected with ideas, with relations, with diplomacy and for the distant future.
An engine not a thorn: Israel can be an engine of creativity for all, rather than (as perceived by many) as a thorn in the body of the region.
Territoriality: What the world community may need to better appreciate is that Palestinian territoriality is as strong as that of the Jewish community.
Equality or ethic cleansing: What lessons do we draw from the phenomenon of territoriality of both nations: Palestinian statehood or ethnic cleansing?
4. US needs attitude and policy change
Policy: We need to answer the question of “Why do they hate us”? honestly. We keep saying “they hate us for what we believe in”. It is the policy, not our values Muslims hate.
History: There is amnesia on history and a double standard on religious bigotry. There is a confusion of Muslim Politics with Islam as a religion.
Empowerment: US action should shift from exporting freedoms to empowering international economic and technological exchange.
In conclusion, US policy should heal a clinical military compulsion to overthrow “misbehaving” regimes. Instead the US policy should engage in the region’s aspirations. Now, in Iraq, there is aggressive micromanagement while in Palestine, there is abusive neglect.
Thank you for your attention and for the privilege of being here.

Lebanon : Ongoing show of sad politics

Lebanon: Ongoing show of sad politics -The Arab American News-

Ghassan Rubeiz

Lebanon is facing a serious domestic political crisis involving Hizbullah. As stated in U.N. Resolution 1701, the international community demands eventual demilitarization of all militias. Given the instability in the region, Hizbullah is not ready to disarm. It is lobbying hard for more influence in the Lebanese cabinet to protect itself from speedy international intervention.
Hizbullah has threatened the government that it will stage street demonstrations if the cabinet is not widened to offer the opposition better representation. In a decisive meeting this week the parliament leaders are discussing the possible widening of the cabinet to avoid a crisis of escalating civil disorder. Hizbullah is already represented in the cabinet by two ministers and three additional Shi'a representatives.

It is already difficult for the foreign troops stationed in Lebanon to act as they wish. The U.N. Resolution is structurally difficult to enforce. To de-militarize Hizbullah the newly deployed peace troops need the approval of the weak Lebanese government. If Hizbullah and its political allies are well represented in the cabinet, they can block any unwelcome U.N. intervention. Since Hizbullah expects escalating hostilities from Israel, it wants to maintain its military readiness for the future.

An interesting development in February of this year enhanced Hizbullah's formal stature domestically. Early in the year, Michel Aoun, a popular Christian leader, forged an alliance with Hizbullah to reinforce a "reform and change movement" in the government. As a result, this Shi'a-Christian alliance has become the largest political force in the country. This alliance pledges to work on improved national defense, political reform and electoral change.

Aoun's supporters argue that he has achieved several objectives in his unexpected alliance with a militia movement. Aoun's followers, about half the Christian community, have enhanced their rapport with the Shi'a. The Aoun alliance with Hizbullah may have also softened the Christian community's obsession with Syria's political shadow over the country. Many argue that Aoun has distanced his followers from accepting the dominance of Western foreign policy. Finally, the alliance raises the chances of reforming the electoral law to allow emigrants to vote.

Aoun's critics argue that his alliance with Hizbullah is a pure act of electoral profiteering.
They interpret Aoun's move as a desperate act to advance his chances to be the next President of the Country. His opponents see his embrace of a militia party as an act that undermines the sovereignty of the state.

Hizbullah's formation and its evolution is partially a product of Lebanon's domestic confessional politics. The largest religious communities in Lebanon are the Shi'a (35 to 40 percent), the Christians (30 to 35 percent) and the Sunnis (20 to 25 percent). The current sectarian system offers Shi'a and Sunni the same number of parliament seats and it also offers Christians and Muslims 50/50 power sharing. There are no accurate or official statistics on the size of the 17 specific confessional communities and there is no agreement on whether the Lebanese abroad qualify as citizens.

According to a national agreement, when the parliament elects a new president next September, he will have to be a Catholic, a Maronite representing the largest Christian sect. When legislators elect a Speaker of the House they will chose a Shi'i. The president of the republic will appoint a Sunni prime minister.

Sectarian power sharing breeds perpetual distrust. Each religious community feels insecure about its future, especially the Christians. Having been intensely exposed to European ways of life, the Christian community of Lebanon is the most secular minded of the three main religious communities. However, this community is glued to the sectarian political system that has guaranteed it privileged representation. But this privilege has been eroding since the Taif Accord that ended the civil war 16 years ago. This agreement reduced the power of the Christian presidency and increased the power of the Sunni Prime Minister.

The Christian community, which has lost about half of its population through emigration over the last few decades, is hesitant to embrace a quota free system. Without quotas Christians anticipate Muslim domination of the parliament. This fear is based on the theory that majority rule in a traditional society does not guarantee minority rights.

There is also Sunni fear of change. In a secular election the Sunnis are afraid of losing political leadership to the Shi'a, the largest community, and the only one that runs a militia. A pure majority-rule political system would also give the Shi'a an edge in governance.

The Shi'a of Lebanon are not immune from anxiety about their future. The population of Shi'a is increasing but their representation in the state remains constant. The Shi'a have been the community of economic under-privilege for several decades. Because of their position on the border they have been exposed to displacement and ruthless attacks from the Israeli army over the last four decades. The summer war precipitated the latest wave of destruction and displacement.

The cease-fire arrangement that ended the war this summer was a band aid solution. The intricacies of Lebanese politics and the regional rivalries were not factored in to the shallow diplomacy of the UN. Resolution 1701 mandates the eventual demilitarization of Hizbullah, but this resistance movement is not willing to comply soon. The "resistance" does not wish to hand its arms to the state because it does not respect the current regime or trust the circumstances. Hizbullah accuses the Lebanese government of caving in to Israel, U.S. and European demands for de-militarization of armed militias. The government responds by accusing Hizbullah leaders of being agents of Syria and Iran.

The summer war made Hizbullah even more popular than before. A recent poll shows that 58 percent of the voters support Hizbullah. In this week's well-publicized parliamentary encounter Prime Minister Siniora, a pragmatist, is likely to yield to the Hizbullah-Aoun request. But he is also careful not to alienate the U.S. and the donor countries who insist that Hizbullah should be controlled militarily.

The silent majority of the Lebanese population watches politicians debate power–sharing and national defense with disdain and fear for their future. The people desire change but they are not ready for it.

This week's marathon political negotiations are likely to reach a compromise and defuse the crisis. But whatever solution emerges it is not likely to last long. Lebanon is an ongoing show of sad politics. Aoun and Hizbullah should not be ignored but their threats of taking their demands to the streets may not be easily justified, given the current post-war fragility of the country.

The author is a Lebanese Arab American commentator. His blog is aldikkani.blog spot.com.

Four-way occupation in Arab world

Four-way occupation in Arab world -Arab American News-

Ghassan Rubeiz, November 6, 2006

When the UN Arab Human Development Reports appeared a few years ago the authors spoke with sanitized language. When analyzing political tyranny in the region, they dubbed oppressive governance as “freedom deficit”. This medical diagnosis of the “deficit in freedom” treats tyranny as if it is a nutritional lack, a problem in degree, not a problem in kind. The implications are that if we add a bit of freedom in this regime and a bit more in that regime, Arab society will be liberated. The assumption of the Reports is that we just have to wait for the rulers to reform. The authors used the terms “gender deficit” and “Knowledge deficit” to explain men’s cruelty to women and the pathetic status of intellectual life.
I propose a four category analysis of the current Arab society predicament. Arab society is occupied four ways. Rulers occupy freedoms, religious authorities occupy the mind, colonialists occupy borders and local militias occupy the street.
First, let us examine political freedoms. Rulers personify the state. They act as if they own the nation. They are in constant search for legitimacy. They control national elections and guarantee the results ahead of voting.
Second, let us look at religious freedoms. The religious establishment regulates social life and its legal framework. The cleric, the priest and the rabi require strict application of the faith. Despite the openness of the Middle East faiths to reason in principle, in reality, religious authorities emulate political rulers in restricting freedoms of adaptation and interpretation of the scriptures.
Third, consider colonialism. This type of injustice exists in the forms of occupation of territories, annexation of land, external invasions for so called “democracy building” and foreign military presence to protect external strategic interests. There are Occupied Territories in Palestine, a Golan Heights annexed in Syria, a contested Shib’a Farm that is lost to international legalese. There is Iraq under a brutal occupation in the cover of a misguided war on terror. In the Gulf countries a more covert style of colonialism is rampant. The security of the Gulf region is in the hands of external powers. The economy of this oil rich region is run by foreigners. Iran has a hold on Lebanon and Syria. The only region that is relatively free of colonialism is North Africa. But this region is not doing well in provision of domestic freedoms.
No wonder then that we have militias erupt like mushrooms to fill the void of the failing Arab state. Unauthorized armies become a state within a state. They undermine the authority of existing national political regimes. Militias often use force indiscriminately. When these armed groups are focused on liberation of land they are known as resistance movements. When their target is civilians they qualify as terrorists. Labeling militias is a very provocative and subjective endeavor.
To sum it up these four layers of hegemony are run by rulers, religious authorities, colonial powers and militias. These four types of domination overwhelm the silent majority of Middle East societies and turn on their radical minorities. The silent majorities are confused which way to go ideologically and they are not free to speak out. But radical minorities, mostly unemployed youth, are seduced by quick fix solutions of the militias. These four hegemonies are interactive; they operate in society like a vortex system.
The silent majority is sandwiched between the militia power in the street, the power of the regime in the capital and foreign influence on the border. The socio-political situation in the Middle East goes from bad to worse because there is no clear analysis of the problems. Arabs deny what is going wrong domestically and the West denies what agony their policies are costing the less fortunate side of the globe.
The situation of suffering in the Middle East may escalate to a point of a political meltdown. Street power may become too strong; militias across borders may wipe out existing national regimes in a domino sequence. A Pandora‘s box would open up, when US and Israel with panic would respond militarily.
Needed is a new US regional foreign policy to deal with comprehensive territorial injustices and a new economic empowerment program like the Marshall plan. This requires an international effort of peace making with the involvement of responsible stakeholders from the region and the international community.
Second, the region needs an industrial empowerment program that will start labor intensive projects to engage the youth, build the middle class and encourage women in political reform and all walks of life.
Third, a massive educational exchange program should replace military assistance and democracy building initiatives. Middle East international Universities should be funded generously. Scholars from all over the world would work side by side to promote social change and regional cooperation.
Fourth, a new era of awakening in religious education should be developed locally and regionally. Revised standards for teaching religion to encourage respect for intellectual inquiry and respect for other religions are urgent. A new world order requires new political thinking.

The author is an Arab American commentator. His blog is aldikkani.blogspot.com.