Lebanon power shift may lead to a solution

Palm Beach Gardens, Florida

Grubeiz@comcast.net

As long as the Middle East countries live in the heavy shadow of war preserving national security trumps state building. The specter of renewed civil conflict now hangs over Lebanon. Since last September the pro-West government and the Syria-backed-Hezbollah-led opposition have been deadlocked in a conflict over power sharing. The stalemate has caused the parliament to postpone the presidential election 19 times in six months.

Last week the Lebanese government suddenly imposed a communication security measure for the airport which provoked Hezbollah. The Cabinet ordered the dismantling of Hezbollah’s communication network, and the removal of the pro-Hezbollah head of airport security. In a military operation across West Beirut Hezbollah liquidated a mercenary militia and burned down a TV station that belongs to Saad Hariri, the leader of the parliamentary ruling coalition. The fighting spread east and south to the nearby mountains and to the north, but it has been subsequently contained by the neutral Lebanese army. Gaining authority the army withdrew the cabinet decisions adverse to Hezbollah.

To reciprocate the positive army gesture and to avoid being seen as a rival force to the state, the Shiite Resistance, Hezbollah, handed over street security in West Beirut to the Lebanese army by withdrawing from key positions it occupied in the recent fighting. About forty people have died so far in the inter-militia fighting.

As security erodes, power shifts in favor of the opposition. Now the government is probably ready to offer the political opposition significant power sharing in a national unity Cabinet. But this being Lebanon, regional and international approval for ending the crisis would be required. Have local politicians turned into robots with wires attached to Riyad , Damascus, Tehran, Paris and Washington?

Saudi Arabia and Syria have contrasting policies regarding Lebanon. An informed Washington observer confidentially stated that if Syria and Saudi Arabia would end their rivalry over Lebanon today, a political compromise in Beirut would materialize soon.

Iran and Syria push Hezbollah in one direction and the US, West Europe, and Saudi Arabia pressure the government in another.

Arab foreign ministers met in Cairo on May 11 to discuss the sudden eruption of violence in the Lebanon. They recommended dispatching an Arab League delegation to Beirut to attempt bringing the factions to a compromise. Past experience shows that when Arab diplomats fail to solve a problem they send a delegation to probe possibilities.

As a hybrid political structure Hezbollah poses a set of dilemmas for international law. The European concept of the modern state does not fully fit traditional societies, societies that are largely based on primordial and informal ties. In traditional societies tribal loyalties are more meaningful than loyalties to the state, especially when the state is failing to offer security and social services to the citizen.

The military ascendancy of Hezbollah is viewed by most Arab regimes as a threat to the security of Lebanon and to the rest of the Arab states.

The US opposition to Hezbollah remains firm. No doubt, the expected inclusion of Hezbollah in the next government will be a formidable challenge to US policy in the Middle East and adds a new reality for American - Israeli joint planning on Middle East policy.

Lebanon lives in contradictory political and cultural realities, partly because it is a society with excessive political freedoms, not necessarily the right mix of freedoms. Had Lebanon been an autocratic society, militia culture would have been easily terminated by sheer force.

The West tends to label Hezbollah a terror organization. In sharp contrast, a sizable section of Lebanese society considers the Resistance a heroic defense force against Israel. By competing with the national army, Hezbollah challenges the norm of state monopoly regarding use of force

International observers posit that Hezbollah can not assume uncompromised patriotism to Lebanon while acting in close cooperation with Syria and Iran. On the other hand, while this may be true, Hezbollah perceives the West as unfairly demonizing Arab resistance moovements and confusing political struggle with terrorism.

The Hezbollah - led opposition has a strong case for political protest. The Lebanese cabinet has lost the capacity to govern. The parliament has lost credibility. Political corruption is behind a national debt that exceeds the gross national product: over forty billion US dollars. The regime lives on Arab and foreign aid.

A cash bankrupt government finds itself obliged to follow the dictates of the US and the European Union. A widely demonized militia finds security in the support of two controversial neighboring regimes.

While the contradiction posed by a militia taking the role of a political party can not be totally ignored, for the near future the Lebanese army has to coexist with militia culture in order to preserve national unity. In the long term Hezbollah is expected to integrate politically and to shed its burden of armed resistance. But this positive scenario requires honest domestic debate, regional peace and international soft power to deal with the slow transformation of primordial authority- of the family, the tribe and the religious community- into national state structures.

The political case of Hezbollah needs to be better explained. Hezbollah satisfies a strong public aspiration for dealing with corruption in governance, for challenging Western domination and for defense against Israel in case of renewed war. Hezbollah is a national resistance movement that is allied with other significant opposition groups, such as the (Christian) Aoun’s Reform and Change Party. It has vowed to focus its resistance on Israel’s territorial hegemony and to avoid confrontation with Lebanese groups. Its success in liberating south Lebanon, albeit not total, from the Israeli occupation has given it immunity to foreign condemnation. A large section of the Lebanese community gives little credence to the current UN sanctions against Hezbollah.

Lebanon is now forced to choose between national unity with tolerance of militia culture and political unraveling with no hope for recovery of statehood. An imperfect Lebanon is better than a disintegrated Lebanon. The Lebanese must be allowed to determine their future.

Middle East Peace Requires Forgiveness

Palm Beach gardens, Florida

April 25, 2008, Grubeiz @comcast.net

Peace requires forgiveness. Jimmy Carter’s meeting in Damascus last week with the leadership of Hamas has aroused strong emotions. If compromise of principles disqualifies parties from peace making, the Middle East is doomed for ever. The Damascus visit involves five main parties: Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, Israel, the US and former president Carter. There is no uncompromised party among the five listed. Hamas compromised in violence, the Palestinian Authority in corruption, Israel in a harsh occupation, the United States in nursing erosion of justice and Jimmy Carter in over- tolerance of Arab autocracy.

I am a strong critic of Hamas for not recognizing Israel and for not exploiting non-violent resistance, the most powerful weapon that Palestinians can muster for liberation from an oppressive Israeli occupation. But whether one supports Hamas or not this grassroots movement did win the last parliamentary national elections. This historical election authorized Hamas to lead the government of the Palestinian communities - under Israel’s occupation - in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza.

The election of Hamas in January 2006 was a remarkable event in Arab democracy building. It is rare that a corrupt Arab regime, the Fateh-led Palestinian Authority, is ousted through ballots rather than bullets. However, since the surprise victory of the Islamist Hamas, Israel and the US have been working with the (rival secular) Palestinian Authority and its artificially formed government in the West Bank. In contrast, Hamas, which now controls Gaza by force, is being isolated, pauperized and targeted militarily to force it to accept Washington and Tel Aviv’s recipe for compromised peace. Although it has shown subtle signs of moderation, Hamas refuses to yield.

The news this week that Israel and Syria have started a new round of indirect peace talks (through the mediation of Turkey) is too good to be true. Similarly the news that President Bush is confident about “defining” the contours of a viable Palestinian state before he leaves office remains a trip to the land of fantasy. But fantasy is all we have got to live for in an increasingly gloomy Middle East. Why is Carter’s attempt to open dialogue with the most important segment of Palestinian leadership perceived in some quarters as a threat to peace in a region that is hard to reach with understanding but easy to manipulate with force?

Carter is trying to help Israel by softening Hamas’s hard line position but, regrettably, many in the Jewish community and outside it do not trust the former US president anymore. They brush aside the Nobel laureate’s breakthrough peace work of the late seventies.

Not many in Israel realize that their state can not achieve peace without creative compromise with Hamas and without political reconciliation within the leadership of the Palestinian community. Hamas is a grassroots movement that is bound to gain power through martyrdom; as a policy to restrain violent rebellion the Israeli occupation continues to make living condition for all Palestinians unbearable. In conditions of extreme deprivation Hamas thrives politically, a David and Goliath phenomenon.

The peace process has been deadlocked for eight years and needs innovation to be revived. Former President Jimmy Carter is morally compelled to continue his mission of peace-making. He initiated the progress toward peace in the Middle East four decades ago. His initial role in conflict resolution should not be forgotten as he marches onward in trying to break barriers between Arabs and Israelis.

Carter met with Hamas leaders last week defying a US government ban on formal negotiations with the Islamic Resistant Movement, better known as Hamas. Even in his capacity as a private citizen Carter has antagonized the US congress by his meeting with the leaders of Hamas. This latest Carter mission follows his controversial 2006 book entitled “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid”.

The book is about the erosion of justice in the Occupied Territories. Carter’s comparison of the Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian Territories with the former South African apartheid regime was considered unfair and inflammatory by many Israelis and friends of Zionism. Some members of the US Congress are upset with Carter for what they consider unauthorized “presidential” behavior. As a punitive measure a group of congressmen is considering legislation to cut funding for the Carter Center.

Does Carter really need to be disciplined?

Before critics lose patience with Carter they should realize that he is a man of faith, and that he is applying his biblical principles in peace making. The former president is against the militant resistance strategy of Hamas. In fact, he is opposed to any form of resistance that exposes civilians to violence. Carter remains a true friend of Israel.

Carter is among the most formidable peace makers in the world. He skillfully managed to bring Egypt and Israel to the peace table in the late seventies. Egypt’s peace with Israel made it easier for (smaller) Jordan to make peace with Tel -Aviv in the nineties. As a result the trend of Arab moderation continues. Qatar and Morocco have already taken significant first steps toward peace with Israel in the last few years. Since President Sadat signed the peace agreement, Syria has been eager to exchange its occupied Golan Heights territory for peace with Tel-Aviv. In recent years the Arab League has offered a plan for normalization if Israel returns the land it occupied in 1967 to the Palestinians who are yearning to have a state of their own.

Carter’s talks with Hamas were an attempt to jump-start a dying peace process. The visit should be commended, not condemned. The former president is reminding the world that there is no short road to peace. Hamas has to be included in a democratic march toward peace. Forgiveness is the oil that facilitates dialogue.