Outliving the Roadmap

[Mediocrates]

http://www.infoisrael.net/cgi-local/text.pl?source=4/b/viii/180920032


Outliving the Roadmap
What we can do personally to help save Israel

By Louis Rene Beres, Ph.D.

IHC Abstract
Above all, let us never be indifferent to the fate of our fellow Jews in Israel.
We need to care more, to pay attention, and as parent we must be sure to share this attentiveness with our children. We must oppose pressures upon Israel in every permissible fashion available in democratic societies: The Roadmap, like Oslo before it, is nothing less than an Arab Trojan Horse, a device to complete Israel's Final Solution. The Arabs say so themselves, overtly and repeatedly. We must recognize that Israel has always faced a genuine genocide from its many enemies. It is now possible to bring gas to the people; it is no longer necessary to bring people to the gas. The Arab side has never been subtle about its plans to "liquidate" the Jews. Left unchallenged, they will at some point have both genocidal capability and genocidal intent. Keep in mind that Israel is half the size of Lake Michigan, and that its Jewish population is largely concentrated along a tiny coastal section of the microscopic country. Arab clerics in mosques throughout the Islamic world insist in their weekly sermons that Allah has concentrated the Jews in Israel precisely to facilitate their annihilation.

We must always recall that memory is the heart of redemption and that we are obligated - strongly obligated - never to forget, to honor the souls of the six million. We must all act personally to help save the imperiled State of Israel.

I have been lecturing widely on risks to Israel of the Roadmap. Yet whenever I complete my largely analytic examination of the issues, I am left with a vague feeling of discomfort - a feeling that I have left my audience without enough concrete recommendations for practical action. With this in mind, I now offer the following precise answer to the important question: "But what can I do personally to help save Israel?"

1. Above all, let us never be indifferent to the fate of our fellow Jews
in Israel. It is unseemly, to say the least, when we continue with our regular entertainments while Israelis are being slaughtered in their own streets by Arab terrorists. I am always troubled and surprised that only hours after the latest suicide bomb attack, Jewish friends and acquaintances speak entirely of their vacations, their accomplishments and their planned shopping expeditions. It is as if the broad community of Israel, the People of Israel, are merely a minor and dispassionate concern. We need to care more, and to pay attention. As parents, moreover, we must be sure to share this attentiveness with our children. If our children are college students, we must awaken them to the obligation and the blessing to see themselves as Jews and to partake meaningfully of Jewish campus life wherever possible. Here at Purdue University, I am the Faculty Advisor for Israel Council at Purdue (ICAP), a pro-Israel advocacy group whose members are predominantly non-Jews. For the most part, our Jewish students do not want to seem "too Jewish." For them, "fitting in" is substantially more important.

2. We must all act to oppose existential pressures upon Israel, in every
customary and permissible fashion available in democratic societies. The Roadmap, like Oslo before it, is an example of such misconceived and inexcusable pressures. It represents nothing less than an Arab Trojan Horse, a device to complete Israel's Final Solution. The Arabs say so themselves, overtly and repeatedly. What more do we need to hear?

3. We must begin to increase our cooperation with America's Christian
Zionists. Many millions strong, these good people of faith genuinely believe in God's promise to Israel. Indeed, their commitment to Israel's peace and security often exceeds that of most American Jews. Personally, I have been deeply impressed and deeply moved by their unselfish devotion to Israel. And without them our political voice in the land will assuredly be too weak. Already, the number of Islamic-Americans exceeds the number of American Jews. Wonderful people and organizations - Esther Levens of the National Unity Coalition and Dick Hellman of Christians For Israel Political Action Committee (CIPAC) - are entirely devoted to the cause.

4. We must publicly recognize the unique and unforgivable barbarism of Palestinian terrorism. It can never be acceptable to try to justify Palestinian suicide-bombers by citing the rights of "self-determination" or "national liberation." Leaving aside the inherently flawed argument that Palestinians "deserve" a state, neither international law nor ordinary standards of decency can ever allow deliberate murder of Jewish children. In this connection the Jewish inclination to "fairness" often goes much too far. Rest assured that in a world of over one billion Muslims, fewer than a handful would ever speak of Jewish rights - including even the minimal right not to be maimed and murdered in schools or buses.

5. We must immediately recognize that there is no "cycle of violence" in the Middle East, only endless Arab terror followed by indispensable counter-terror. If the Arabs were to stop their murderous attacks on unprotected civilians, the Israelis would never lift a hand against them. If, however, Israelis should ever stop defending themselves, the Arabs would murder every Jew in "Occupied Palestine." In response to Palestinian arguments that there is "equivalence" between Arab terror and Israeli counter-terror, therefore, we must always recall an essential difference between premeditated murder and required national self-defense.

6. We must learn to read beyond the mainstream press, which is often
ignorant of facts on the ground, or - worse - maliciously inclined toward Israel's enemies. In this connection, American Jews must really learn history - Jewish history; Israel's history; Arab history. Presently, because there is so much historical ignorance amongst us, Arab propagandists and their allies normally have an easy time debating the issues. As a professor I see the difference every day between the intellectual preparedness of the Jewish students regarding history, which is generally weak, and that of the Arab students, which is usually far stronger. As a beginning, every American Jew should now be reading The Jewish Press and considering vital internet sources such as the Gamla, Arutz-7, Tzemach and Freeman Center websites.

7. We must ALL be willing to speak and write in defense of Israel. This is
not just the responsibility of the professors. Heaven forbid: if it were, we would be hearing even more about the evils of Israel's "occupation" of "Arab land." Here in West Lafayette, Indiana - in my own temple - only a small handful of Jewish souls make a sound about Israel's survival. Nowhere is it written that Jewish doctors, lawyers, dentists, accountants, merchants or plumbers cannot speak openly and audibly for Israel. The argument that "I don't know enough" is simply wrong and inexcusable. If you don't know enough, make it your business to know more. Now. And if you fear that it will be "bad for business," be ashamed of yourself - justifiably ashamed of your cowardice and demeaned Jewish spirit.

[Mediocrates]

8. We must encourage each other to undertake serious intellectual
examinations of the issues, and to exercise imaginative thinking for solutions. To a significant extent, the survival problems faced by Israel have an important intellectual dimension. For example, how to achieve any sort of reconciliation with the Palestinians must draw upon difficult conceptual explorations of both culture and trust. Similarly, as Israel will soon face expanding weapons of mass destruction among some of its state enemies, its leaders will have to figure out optimal strategies of deterrence, defense and preemption. As Chair of Project Daniel, a small advisory group to the Prime Minister concerned with chemical/biological/nuclear threats to Israel, I can testify to the difficulty of the intellectual tasks before us. Do not think if you are not a Ph.D. strategist or a member of the IDF General Staff that you are necessarily incapable of making useful observations.

9. We must recognize that Israel now faces - and has always faced – a genuine genocide from its many enemies. It is true, thankfully, that we Jews now have a state to prevent a repeat Holocaust. But it is also true and intolerably ironic that war can now become the instrument of another Jewish genocide. It is now possible to bring gas to the people; it is no longer necessary to bring people to the gas. Moreover, the Arab side has never been subtle about its plans to "liquidate" the Jews (the term they have favored since 1948) and we can assume that if left unchallenged, they will at some point have both genocidal capability and genocidal intent. Keep in mind that Israel is half the size of Lake Michigan, and that its Jewish population is largely concentrated along a tiny coastal section of the microscopic country. Keep in mind also that Arab clerics in mosques throughout the Islamic world insist in their weekly sermons that Allah has concentrated the Jews in Israel precisely to facilitate their next annihilation.

10. We must always recall that memory is the heart of redemption and
that we are obligated - strongly obligated - never to forget, to honor the souls of the six million, of the kedoshim. To do this we must never separate ourselves from the fate of our brothers and sisters in Israel. If necessary - and this is critical - we must sometimes oppose the Jewish establishment in the United States. Let us recall that this Jewish establishment was largely silent during the Holocaust and that it insisted upon support for Oslo even when it was apparent that Israel's good intentions would forever be unreciprocated. Nor should we ever assume that Jewish candidates for public office are necessarily good for the Jews or good for Israel, or even that they are honorable or capable in general. Senator Joseph Lieberman is a case in point, a Clinton-like politician who believes only in himself. New York Senator Chuck Schumer is another.

Rabbi Eliezer Waldman has written importantly in The Jewish Press of "the eternal flame of Jewish life in Israel." By working for the redemption of Israel, Rabbi Waldman instructs, we work to bring a blessing to all the peoples of the world. It follows that we Jews in this country ought never to see a contradiction between our struggle for Jewish survival in the land of Israel, and our concern for both America and the wider global community. Following Rabbi Waldman's moving call upon Jewish leaders "to draw their faith from the depths of the Jewish soul," we must now ALL begin to draw our faith from that very same eternal and inextinguishable source. Only then can we begin to act personally to help save the imperiled State of Israel.

[Mediocrates]

http://www.infoisrael.net/cgi-local/text.pl?source=4/c/150720031

There Was Never Apartheid in Israel

By Anthony David Marks

Some allege that the situation of the Arabs in Israel is equal to what the Blacks in South Africa experienced under the former apartheid system of complete separation of the races. What are the facts?

1. Firstly there is no comparison and anyone who alleges that the Arabs in Israel live under an apartheid system is entirely ignorant of basic facts of Israeli society.

Consider the dictionary definition of “apartheid,” then the following points about Israeli society, and after that decide for yourself whether there is “apartheid” in Israel.

Apartheid: In South Africa, the official policy of political, social and economic discrimination and segregation enforced against minorities.

2. The Whites came to South Africa about four hundred years ago. There were no Whites living in South Africa before that time. In contrast, the Jews are descendants of the original Jews that came from the Holy Land and Jewish communities have always existed in Israel. The al-Aqsa Mosque, the only place in Jerusalem that is holy to Muslims, was built on the ruins of the First and Second Temples of the Jews of over 2,000 years ago.

3. Under the apartheid system in South Africa, Black and White races were completely separated. Residences, schools, transportation and even most hospitals were separate. In the walled Old City of Jerusalem there are Christian, Armenian, Muslim and Jewish Quarters. Is someone going to suggest that this is a form of apartheid? Thousands of Arabs study at the Hebrew University and other Israeli schools. The staffs of all hospitals include many Arabs and a large percentage of patients at Israeli hospitals are Arabs – not only local Palestinians but Arabs from all over the Middle East. Public transportation was never segregated in Israel, in contrast to South Africa where Blacks had their own buses, or in the southern United States where Blacks were required to sit in the back of the bus.

4. Arab parties have always existed in Israel’s Knesset. About 15% of the Knesset members are in fact Arabs. In contrast, no Black person under the apartheid system of South Africa ever was a member of the South Africa parliament. Arabs have also served in the Israeli Cabinet, Foreign Ministry and in the Justice Department.

5. Many Palestinian Arabs live in large luxurious villas far superior to the accommodations of most Jewish Israelis. One only has to tour many Arab areas to see how affluent is the level of accommodation.

6. Palestinian Arabs can freely visit all Jewish areas, except when Palestinian terrorists have just murdered innocent people and there is a security clampdown. How many innocent Israelis have been hacked to death or shot to death for visiting or accidentally straying into an Arab town or village.

7. The Temple Mount in Jerusalem, which is the holiest Jewish place in the world, is open to Arabs but barred to Jews.

8. Unlike South Africa, under the former apartheid system, there have never existed laws in Israel that discriminated between Jews and Arabs.

9. The Palestinian Authority was not successful in maintaining law and order in the lawless territories when it had full authority from 1995 – 2000. Israel is doing its best to perform a function the Palestinians were supposed to have performed. This means imposing temporary Draconian measures, which cannot be construed as apartheid policies. The United States and Great Britain are getting a taste of trying to maintain law and order in Iraq, so they should start to appreciate the challenges Israel faces daily.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: Original text submitted by the author, IHC Chairman.

Copyright © Anthony David Marks, 14 July 2003.

[Mediocrates]

http://www.infoisrael.net/cgi-local/text.pl?source=4/b/ii/220920031

Yasser Arafat- an Obstacle to Peace

By BICOM

IHC Abstract
After years of dealing with Yasser Arafat’s prevarications and refusal to take any serious measures toward peace, the Government of Israel has reached the conclusion that he is the primary obstacle to peace. The international community too has accepted that Arafat has not only been hindering the peace process but has also been directly involved in terror. Israel is committed to a lasting peace and is seeking a partner with whom it can negotiate. Arafat has proved time and again that he is not that partner.

The article spells out, point by point, the bloody and devious background of this vicious mass-murderer, who continues to encourage 'his people' to become martyrs. In 2002, the IDF made public evidence revealing that Arafat was personally involved in the planning, execution and financing of terror attacks against Israeli citizens. He placed obstacles in the way of Abu Mazen, the former Palestinian Prime Minister, and prevented him from acting against terror. The U.S. has publicly stated that Arafat is a serious obstacle to peace with whom negotiations should not be conducted. For peace to be achieved there must be a Palestinian leader with whom Israel and the world can work. Israel looks forward to finding a partner on the Palestinian side who will follow the courage and conviction of Anwar Sadat of Egypt and King Hussein of Jordan who achieved peace with Israel.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After years of dealing with Yasser Arafat’s prevarication and refusal to take any serious measures toward peace, the Government of Israel has reached the conclusion that he is the primary obstacle to peace. The international community has accepted that Arafat has been not only hindering the peace process but has also been directly involved in terror. Israel is committed to a lasting peace and is seeking a partner with whom it can negotiate. Arafat has proved time and again that he is not that partner.

Background:


Yasser Arafat was born in 1929. He claims to have been born in Jerusalem, although other sources say he was born in Cairo [1], where his father was working at the time. Whilst working as an engineer in Kuwait, Arafat started establishing “Fatah,” the Palestinian National Liberation Movement. Directing Fatah became his primary occupation and by 1965, the organization was launching guerrilla raids and terrorist attacks in Israel. By 1969, Fatah was the dominant faction in the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Arafat was elected the chairman of the PLO, a position he still holds.


After the Six Day War (1967), Fatah and the PLO relocated to Jordan where they remained until King Hussein saw fit, in 1971, to remove the destabilizing influence the group had become. After Jordan, the PLO moved its headquarters to Lebanon from where it continued its raids into Israel. After goading Israel into a war in Lebanon, Yasser Arafat was exiled to Tunis, from where he led the PLO until his return to the territories in 1994 as part of the Oslo Accords.

Links to terror:


From its inception, the PLO, headed by Arafat, has been involved in terror. The Munich Massacre of the Israeli Olympic Athletes in 1972, in which 11 men were brutally held hostage and then murdered, was masterminded by Yasser Arafat and carried out by the PLO faction, Black September. The Achille Lauro hijacking in 1985, in which an elderly disabled man was murdered, was carried out by the Palestinian Liberation Front, a faction of Yasser Arafat’s PLO. These acts of terror were loudly condemned by the international community.


In 1993, Yasser Arafat signed the Oslo accords, promised to renounce terrorism and recognize Israel. However, whilst making tactical denunciations of violence, he has continued to actively support and promote terror. Arafat encourages Palestinians to become martyrs [2] and congratulates the families of suicide bombers. [3]


The wave of terrorism that erupted in September 2000 and has claimed the lives of hundreds of Israelis is the result of a strategic Palestinian decision to use violence, rather than negotiation, as the primary instrument of advancing their political cause. Raed Lafi, a correspondent for the PA-affiliated daily Al-Ayyam, reported in 2001 that at a Gaza symposium Imad Al-Faluji (then the PA Communications Minister) said the PA had begun to prepare for the outbreak of the current Intifada since the return from the Camp David negotiations, at the request of Yasser Arafat, who predicted the outbreak of the Intifada as a complementary stage to the Palestinian steadfastness in the negotiations, and not as a specific protest against Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount. [4]


In 2002, the IDF made public documents linking Yasser Arafat with terror attacks against Israeli citizens. The evidence revealed that Arafat was personally involved in the planning, execution and financing of terror attacks against Israeli citizens. It has been proven that Arafat has been using funds donated by other countries, including the European Union to finance his terrorist activities. [5]


Arafat placed obstacles in the way of Abu Mazen, the former Palestinian Prime Minister, and prevented him from acting against terror. The horrific suicide bus bombing in Jerusalem on 19 August 2003, in which 23 people were murdered, brought the Roadmap to Peace in the Middle East to a dramatic standstill. The terrorist attack could have been prevented had Yasser Arafat not consistently impeded the actions of Abu Mazen to crack down on terror throughout his short time in office.

Relations with the international community:


Despite his reluctance to take steps for peace, Arafat has enjoyed relations with the international community including the United Nations and the U.S.

The U.N.: In 1974, Arafat became the first representative of a non-governmental agency to address the U.N. when he was invited to deliver an address to the U.N., following which the PLO was granted observer status.

The U.S.: In order to achieve American recognition, Arafat had to renounce terrorism, assert Israel’s right to exist and agree to uphold U.N. Security resolutions 242 and 338. Since 1988 the U.S. has dealt directly with Yasser Arafat as leader of the Palestinian people. Since the Roadmap to Peace was published, the U.S. has publicly stated its belief that Yasser Arafat is a serious obstacle to peace with whom negotiations should not be conducted. [6]

Relations with Israel:


Israel’s relationship with Yasser Arafat has been long and tempestuous. In 1993 Israel took a leap of faith and agreed to move negotiations with the PLO from indirect to direct. Since this time, Arafat has consistently deceived and let down both Israel and his own people through his inability to seize historic opportunities to make peace and prevent catastrophe. The appointment of a Palestinian Prime Minister in April 2003 offered an historic chance for Israel and the Palestinian people to return to working for peace and good relations. Yasser Arafat has proven time and time again that he is incapable of making peace and his actions over the summer of 2003 have served to highlight this.

Palestinian Dissatisfaction with Yasser Arafat:


The Palestinian people are critical of Yasser Arafat. According to a Palestinian poll published in May 2002, popular support for Arafat dropped from 46 percent before the uprising to 35 percent. There are calls from the Palestinian community for reforms to the Palestinian Authority, viewing it as an oppressive, cumbersome, opaque and corrupt bureaucracy. Hanan Ashrawi, senior member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, stated that “Average Palestinians have become increasingly frustrated with the repressive and extra-legal security services, and with the inept administration in the occupied territories.” [7]


Yasser Arafat is reluctant to cede any of his power to another, including a Palestinian Prime Minister, as has been shown by his behavior towards Abu Mazen. He would rather see his own people suffer than allow his Prime Minister any power to act against terror.

Conclusion:

There can be no doubt that Yasser Arafat is incapable of delivering peace to the Palestinian and Israeli people. For peace to be achieved, there must be a Palestinian leader with whom Israel and the world can work, secure in the knowledge that terrorism has truly been renounced rather than simply masked with a fine veneer of accountability. Israel looks forward to finding a partner on the Palestinian side who will follow the courage and conviction of Anwar Sadat of Egypt and King Hussein of Jordan who achieved peace with Israel. Arafat has proved that he is an obstacle, rather than a partner, to peace.

[Mediocrates]

Notes:

[1] http://www.cnn.com/resources/newsmakers/world/middle.east/arafat.html

[2] "...The child who is grasping the stone, facing the tank; is it not the greatest message to the world when that hero becomes a Shahid (dies for Allah)? We are proud of them." "Oh God, give me martyrdom like this. We are all potential martyrs, the whole Palestinian people." Interview with Yasser Arafat on PA television, January 2002.

[3] Following the suicide bombing of the Tel Aviv nightclub the Dolphinarium in 2001, Yasser Arafat sent a letter of condolence to the family of the suicide bomber. That Arafat sees fit to send condolences to the family of a man who carried out such a brutal attack against Israeli teenagers is indicative of his support for terror. http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.
cgi?Page=countries&Area=palestinian&ID=SP237016

[4] http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.
cgi?Page=countries&Area=palestinian&ID=SP19401

[5] http://208.55.183.96/cgi-local/research/research.pl?id=24

[6] http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96651,00.html

[7] The Guardian, 7 June 2002


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: BICOM, 16 September 2003.

Abstract written by Giv Cornfield, Ph.D., an IHC volunteer.

Edited by IHC Staff.

[Mediocrates]

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/fence.html


Shockwave presentation on the security fence.

[Mediocrates]

http://www.ict.org.il/Articles/Hiz_letter.htm

An Open Letter
The Hizballah Program

The Jerusalem Quarterly, number Forty-Eight, Fall 1988
This is a slightly abridged translation of "Nass al-Risala al-Maftuha allati wajahaha Hizballah ila-l-Mustad'afin fi Lubnan wa-l-Alam", published February 16, 1985 in al-Safir (Beirut), and also in a separate brochure. It carries the unmistakable imprint of Sheikh Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, the Hizballah mentor, and is inspired by his book Ma'maal-Quwma fi-l-Islam (Beirut 1979). See also his article in al-Muntalak (Beirut), October 1986.

Our Identity
We are often asked: Who are we, the Hizballah, and what is our identity? We are the sons of the umma (Muslim community) - the party of God (Hizb Allah) the vanguard of which was made victorious by God in Iran. There the vanguard succeeded to lay down the bases of a Muslim state which plays a central role in the world. We obey the orders of one leader, wise and just, that of our tutor and faqih (jurist) who fulfills all the necessary conditions: Ruhollah Musawi Khomeini. God save him!
By virtue of the above, we do not constitute an organized and closed party in Lebanon. nor are we a tight political cadre. We are an umma linked to the Muslims of the whole world by the solid doctrinal and religious connection of Islam, whose message God wanted to be fulfilled by the Seal of the Prophets, i.e., Muhammad. This is why whatever touches or strikes the Muslims in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Philippines and elsewhere reverberates throughout the whole Muslim umma of which we are an integral part. Our behavior is dictated to us by legal principles laid down by the light of an overall political conception defined by the leading jurist (wilayat al-faqih).
As for our culture, it is based on the Holy Koran, the Sunna and the legal rulings of the faqih who is our source of imitation (marja' al-taqlid). Our culture is crystal clear. It is not complicated and is accessible to all.
No one can imagine the importance of our military potential as our military apparatus is not separate from our overall social fabric. Each of us is a fighting soldier. And when it becomes necessary to carry out the Holy War, each of us takes up his assignment in the fight in accordance with the injunctions of the Law, and that in the framework of the mission carried out under the tutelage of the Commanding Jurist.
Our Fight
The US has tried, through its local agents, to persuade the people that those who crushed their arrogance in Lebanon and frustrated their conspiracy against the oppressed (mustad'afin) were nothing but a bunch of fanatic terrorists whose sole aim is to dynamite bars and destroy slot machines. Such suggestions cannot and will not mislead our umma, for the whole world knows that whoever wishes to oppose the US, that arrogant superpower, cannot indulge in marginal acts which may make it deviate from its major objective. We combat abomination and we shall tear out its very roots, its primary roots, which are the US. All attempts made to drive us into marginal actions will fail, especially as our determination to fight the US is solid.
We declare openly and loudly that we are an umma which fears God only and is by no means ready to tolerate injustice, aggression and humiliation. America, its Atlantic Pact allies, and the Zionist entity in the holy land of Palestine, attacked us and continue to do so without respite. Their aim is to make us eat dust continually. This is why we are, more and more, in a state of permanent alert in order to repel aggression and defend our religion, our existence, our dignity. They invaded our country, destroyed our villages, slit the throats of our children, violated our sanctuaries and appointed masters over our people who committed the worst massacres against our umma. They do not cease to give support to these allies of Israel, and do not enable us to decide our future according to our own wishes.
In a single night the Israelis and the Phalangists executed thousands of our sons, women and children in Sabra and Shatilla. No international organization protested or denounced this ferocious massacre in an effective manner, a massacre perpetrated with the tacit accord of America's European allies, which had retreated a few days, maybe even a few hours earlier, from the Palestinian camps. The Lebanese defeatists accepted putting the camps under the protection of that crafty fox, the US envoy Philip Habib.
We have no alternative but to confront aggression by sacrifice. The coordination between the Phalangists and Israel continues and develops. A hundred thousand victims - this is the approximate balance sheet of crimes committed by them and by the US against us. Almost half a million Muslims were forced to leave their homes. Their quarters were virtually totally destroyed in Nab'a, my own Beirut suburb, as well as in Burj Hammud, Dekonaneh, Tel Zaatar, Sinbay, Ghawarina and Jubeil - all in areas controlled today by the 'Lebanese Forces',. The Zionist occupation then launched its usurpatory invasion of Lebanon in full and open collusion with the Phalanges. The latter condemned all attempts to resist the invading forces. They participated in the implementation of certain Israeli plans in order to accomplish its Lebanese dream and acceded to all Israeli requests in order to gain power.
And this is, in fact, what happened. Bashir Jumayyil, that butcher, seized power with the help also of OPEC countries and the Jumayyil family. Bashir tried to improve his ugly image by joining the six-member Committee of Public Safety presided over by former President Elias Sarkis, which was nothing but an American-Israeli bridge borrowed by the Phalangists in order to control the oppressed. Our people could not tolerate humiliation any more. It destroyed the oppressors, the invaders and their lackeys. But the US persisted in its folly and installed Amin Jumayyil to replace his brother. Some of his first so called achievements were to destroy the homes of refugees and other displaced persons, attack mosques, and order the army to bombard the southern suburbs of Beirut, where the oppressed people resided. He invited European troops to help him against us and signed the May 17th, [1984] accord with Israel making Lebanon an American protectorate.
Our people could not bear any more treachery. It decided to oppose infidelity - be it French, American or Israeli - by striking at their headquarters and launching a veritable war of resistance against the Occupation forces. Finally, the enemy had to decide to retreat by stages.
Our Objectives
Let us put it truthfully: the sons of Hizhallah know who are their major enemies in the Middle East - the Phalanges, Israel, France and the US. The sons of our umma are now in a state of growing confrontation with them, and will remain so until the realization of the following three objectives:
(a) to expel the Americans. the French and their allies definitely from Lebanon, putting an end to any colonialist entity on our land;
(b) to submit the Phalanges to a just power and bring them all to justice for the crimes they have perpetrated against Muslims and Christians;
(c) to permit all the sons of our people to determine their future and to choose in all the liberty the form of government they desire. We call upon all of them to pick the option of Islamic government which, alone, is capable of guaranteeing justice and liberty for all. Only an Islamic regime can stop any further tentative attempts of imperialistic infiltration into our country.
These are Lebanon's objectives; those are its enemies. As for our friends, they are all the world's oppressed peoples. Our friends are also those who combat our enemies and who defend us from their evil. Towards these friends, individuals as well as organizations, we turn and say:
Friends, wherever you are in Lebanon... we are in agreement with you on the great and necessary objectives: destroying American hegemony in our land; putting an end to the burdensome Israeli Occupation; beating back all the Phalangists' attempts to monopolize power and administration.
Even though we have, friends, quite different viewpoints as to the means of the struggle, on the levels upon which it must be carried out, we should surmount these tiny divergencies and consolidate cooperation between us in view of the grand design.
We are an umma which adheres to the message of Islam. We want all the oppressed to be able to study the divine message in order to bring justice, peace and tranquillity to the world. This is why we don't want to impose Islam upon anybody, as much as we that others impose upon us their convictions and their political systems. We don't want Islam to reign in Lebanon by force as is the case with the Maronites today. This is the minimum that we can accept in order to be able to accede by legal means to realize our ambitions, to save Lebanon from its dependence upon East and West, to put an end to foreign occupation and to adopt a regime freely wanted by the people of Lebanon.
This is our perception of the present state of affairs. This is the Lebanon we envision. In the light of our conceptions, our opposition to the present system is the function of two factors; (1) the present regime is the product of an arrogance so unjust that no reform or modification can remedy it. It should be changed radically, and (2) World Imperialism which is hostile to Islam.

[Mediocrates]

We consider that all opposition in Lebanon voiced in the name of reform can only profit, ultimately, the present system. All such opposition which operates within the framework of the conservation and safeguarding of the present constitution without demanding changes at the level of the very foundation of the regime is, hence, an opposition of pure formality which cannot satisfy the interests of the oppressed masses. Likewise, any opposition which confronts the present regime but within the limits fixed by it, is an illusory opposition which renders a great service to the Jumayyil system. Moreover, we cannot be concerned by any proposition of political reform which accepts the rotten system actually in effect. We could not care less about the creation of this or that governmental coalition or about the participation of this or that political personality in some ministerial post, which is but a part of this unjust regime.

The politics followed by the chiefs of political Maronism through the 'Lebanese Front' and the 'Lebanese Forces' cannot guarantee peace and tranquillity for the Christians of Lebanon, whereas it is predicated upon 'asabiyya (narrow-minded particularism), on confessional privileges and on the alliance with colonialism. The Lebanese crisis has proven that confessional privileges are one of the principal causes of the great explosion which ravaged the country. It also proved that outside help was of no use to the Christians of Lebanon, just when they need it most. The bell tolled for the fanatic Christians to rid themselves of denominational allegiance and of illusion deriving from the monopolization of privileges to the detriment of other communities. The Christians should answer the appeal from heaven and have recourse to reason instead of arms, to persuasion instead of confessionalism.

To the Christians
If you, Christians, cannot tolerate that Muslims share with you certain domains of government, Allah has also made it intolerable for Muslims to participate in an unjust regime, unjust for you and for us, in a regime which is not predicated upon the prescriptions (ahkam) of religion and upon the basis of the Law (the Shari’a) as laid down by Muhammad, the Seal of the Prophets. If you search for justice, who is more just than Allah? It is He who sent down from the sky the message of Islam through his successive prophets in order that they judge the people and give everyone his rights. If you were deceived and misled into believing that we anticipate vengeance against you - your fears are unjustified. For those of you who are peaceful, continue to live in our midst without anybody even thinking to trouble you.

We don't wish you evil. We call upon you to embrace Islam so that you can be happy in this world and the next. If you refuse to adhere to Islam, maintain your ties with the Muslims and don't take part in any activity against them. Free yourselves from the consequences of hateful confessionalism. Banish from your hearts all fanaticism and parochialism. Open your hearts to our Call (da'wa) which we address to you. Open yourselves up to Islam where you'll find salvation and happiness upon earth and in the hereafter. We extend this invitation also to all the oppressed among the non-Muslims. As for those who belong to Islam only formally, we exhort them to adhere to Islam in religious practice and to renounce all fanaticisms which are rejected by our religion.

World Scene
We reject both the USSR and the US, both Capitalism and Communism, for both are incapable of laying the foundations for a just society.

With special vehemence we reject UNIFIL as they were sent by world arrogance to occupy areas evacuated by Israel and serve for the latter as a buffer zone. They should be treated much like the Zionists. All should know that the goals of the Phalangists regime do not carry any weight with the Combatants of the Holy War, i.e., the Islamic resistance. This is the quagmire which awaits all foreign intervention.

There, then, are our conceptions and our objectives which serve as our basis and inspire our march. Those who accept them should know that all rights belong to Allah and He bestows them. Those who reject them, we'll be patient with them, till Allah decides between us and the people of injustice.

The Necessity for the Destruction of Israel (See ICT Note)
We see in Israel the vanguard of the United States in our Islamic world. It is the hated enemy that must be fought until the hated ones get what they deserve. This enemy is the greatest danger to our future generations and to the destiny of our lands, particularly as it glorifies the ideas of settlement and expansion, initiated in Palestine, and yearning outward to the extension of the Great Israel, from the Euphrates to the Nile.

Our primary assumption in our fight against Israel states that the Zionist entity is aggressive from its inception, and built on lands wrested from their owners, at the expense of the rights of the Muslim people. Therefore our struggle will end only when this entity is obliterated. We recognize no treaty with it, no cease fire, and no peace agreements, whether separate or consolidated.

We vigorously condemn all plans for negotiation with Israel, and regard all negotiators as enemies, for the reason that such negotiation is nothing but the recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist occupation of Palestine. Therefore we oppose and reject the Camp David Agreements, the proposals of King Fahd, the Fez and Reagan plan, Brezhnev's and the French-Egyptian proposals, and all other programs that include the recognition (even the implied recognition) of the Zionist entity.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICT note: This paragraph did not appear in the original translation published by the Jerusalem Quarterly. It is possible that this ommision is due to the fact that the source (al-Safir) for the translation did not include this text, which appears in the original Hizballah Program. The original Program was published on 16 February 1985. The organization's spokesman, Sheikh Ibrahim al-Amin read the Program at the al-Ouzai Mosque in west Beirut and afterwards it was published as an open letter "to all the Opressed in Lebanon and the World". It should be emphasised that none of Hizballah's web sites have published the full text of the organization's program, and they prefer to publish the 1996 electoraral program which was intended for the specific propoganda campaign before the Lebanese Parliamentary elections in 1996.

[Mediocrates]

This item is available on the Middle East Forum website, at

http://www.meforum.org/article/499

The Return of Hizbullah
by Eyal Zisser
Middle East Quarterly
Fall 2002

In early April 2002, Israel and Hizbullah seemed to be on the brink of war. Hizbullah had stepped up its military operations against Israeli targets, both military and civilian, along the border, creating a situation that Israel could tolerate no longer. Jerusalem sent a warning to Damascus, but it appeared that Syria's young leader, Bashshar al-Asad, failed to recognize the gravity of the situation. At times, he seemed indifferent to the possibility that the region might be plunged into war. At that moment, it looked inevitable that Israel would take military action, which might trigger a regional conflagration—or at the very least, war between Israel and Syria.[1]
Predictions of all-out war along Israel's northern border did not come true, and the frontier has settled into a period of relative calm—for the time being. For that calm is the result of decisions by radicals whose basic objective is to defeat calm. The April crisis subsided thanks to Hizbullah's own decision to suspend the offensive it had launched against Israel. Ominously, the restraining influence on Hizbullah appears to have been Iran, not Syria.
The events that took place in April along Israel's northern border confirm three crucial facts. First, Hizbullah has established its own "Hizbullahland," a territory in south Lebanon over which it has complete control. This territory serves as a home base both for Hizbullah's military operations against Israel and for mobilizing support for the organization's activities within Lebanon. The area lies outside the effective control of the Lebanese government, and even of Syria.
Second, Hizbullah has succeeded in recent years, and particularly since the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) pulled out of Lebanon in May 2000, in building an impressive military capability. It has a rocket arsenal that includes thousands of Katyushas and more advanced rockets that cover the entire north of Israel.[2] Hizbullah's direct and immediate threat to the Israeli civilian population is greater than that of some neighboring Arab states.
Finally, and as a result of its territorial base and arms buildup, Hizbullah has become a powerful player in the region and enjoys much more independence than in the past. Syria, which once had an important say in the activities of the organization, has been brushed aside. For good or ill, Iran is now in charge.
All this has come as a cruel surprise to many analysts. After the Lebanese civil war came to an end in October 1989, and even more so after the IDF's withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000, these analysts predicted that Hizbullah would undergo a process of "Lebanonization"—becoming a Lebanese political movement, moderated by its local responsibilities. "Hizbullah has no appetite to launch a military campaign across the border, should Israel withdraw from the south," wrote one such analyst in 1998.[3] "Episodic attacks on Israel might occur from Lebanon, but the broadly popular resistance will close up shop when Israel leaves."[4]
It now seems obvious, however, that Hizbullah has not changed, and that it remains a radical and militant organization whose principal objective is to lead an armed struggle against Israel. The fact that in recent years its military power has grown to strategic proportions, with the aid and encouragement of Iran, proves that the Lebanese "veil" worn by Hizbullah is exceedingly thin. Sham "Lebanonization" allows the organization to continue building its military strength undisturbed and to attract a political following for future struggles, not only against Israel but also within Lebanon.
This situation has many implications, not only for tranquility along Israel's northern borders with Syria and Lebanon, but also for Lebanon's own future. An entity is taking shape within Lebanon that has the military power of a mini-state but that lacks the conventional restraints of a sovereign state. There is a precedent for this—the mini-state created in Lebanon by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in the 1970s—and the tensions it created led to war. For now, the military confrontation along the Israel-Lebanon border has been postponed. But it is still a possibility; some might say that it is inevitable.
Post-Pullout
In May 2000, as the IDF completed its withdrawal from southern Lebanon, Hizbullah portrayed this retreat—and rightly so to a certain extent—as an important historical victory in the Arab struggle against Israel.[5] For the first time in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, Israel had pulled out unconditionally from Arab land—without a peace treaty, without a cease-fire agreement, without even a tacit understanding that quiet would prevail on its border with Lebanon. On the contrary, both Damascus and Beirut made it very clear to Israel that its withdrawal would not guarantee the quiet it craved and that the armed struggle against Israel would continue.[6]
Following Israel's pullout, Hizbullah asserted its position as a rising force in the Arab and Muslim worlds and as a vanguard in the Arab and Muslim struggle against Israel. But along with the short-term rewards Hizbullah reaped when the IDF pulled out, the withdrawal accentuated the acute dilemma that had shadowed Hizbullah since the early 1990s: Would Israel's pullout, and with it the relaxation or even cessation of the armed struggle against Israel, bring about the "Lebanonization" of the organization?
Throughout the 1990s, most analysts believed that Hizbullah was undergoing a process of "Lebanonization" that would turn it into an ordinary Lebanese movement—an Islamist equivalent of such movements as the Communist Party, the Syrian Nationalist Party, the (mostly Shi‘ite) Amal movement, the (mostly Druze) Progressive Party, and so on. This process of "Lebanonization," so people thought, would force Hizbullah to shelve its long-term goals, including its demand for an Islamic regime to replace the confessional order. This process, more importantly, would force Hizbullah to give up its military struggle against Israel.
True, throughout the 1990s, Hizbullah had made a great effort to establish itself as a political and social force, and in many respects it succeeded. From the outset, Hizbullah grounded itself in the Shi‘ite community in Lebanon, which provided thousands of recruits and a mass constituency. For many Shi‘ites in Lebanon, Hizbullah was and still is a legitimate force for social and political change. And it is true that Hizbullah today is something more than a quasi-military formation. Even were it to lay down its arms, it would continue to exist as a political and social movement.[7]
At the same time, however, it is also obvious today that the military mission of Hizbullah, including its armed struggle against Israel and the West, is central to the organization's world-view and practical agenda. Without it, Hizbullah would cease to exist as the heroic organization its followers have come to admire and support—a transformation that Hizbullah's current leaders will go to every length to avoid.
The tension Hizbullah is now experiencing—that is, the tension between the sweeping ideological goals on which it was nurtured and the need to adopt a pragmatic strategy in order to survive—is reminiscent of the tension experienced by other Muslim movements, such as Hamas in the West Bank and Gaza, and the Muslim Brethren movement in Egypt, Jordan, and Sudan. And yet Hizbullah's case is unique, for three major reasons.
First, Hizbullah's unprecedented success in its struggle against Israel and the West appears to have gone to its leaders' heads. This is especially true of its secretary general, Hasan Nasrallah, who now sees himself as a hero on a divine mission—due in part to his portrayal as a Shi‘ite mastermind in the Israeli and Western media. Hizbullah has always been obsessed by its own media coverage and swayed by the media reports on Israel (which it follows assiduously). This has led the movement's leaders to make ever-more-boastful assessments of their own strength—and Israel's weakness. Nasrallah has set the tone, claiming that "Israel, which has both nuclear power and the strongest air force in the region, is weaker than a spider's web."[8] At the height of the Palestinian suicide bombing campaign in March 2002, Sheikh Nabil Qa‘uk, Hizbullah's commander in south Lebanon, determined that "Israel is exploding from the inside. Tel Aviv is turning into a city of ghosts. … Israel is down on the ground and bleeding at political, military, and security levels. All we have to do now is to finish it off."[9]
Second, Iran's support for the organization, in particular the aid it affords Hizbullah in building military capabilities superior to those of some Arab countries, has released Hizbullah from the restraints generally imposed upon Islamist movements and that usually compel them to adopt a more pragmatic line.
Third, Hizbullah has found a territorial niche that no state is eager to occupy. When the IDF pulled out of the security zone in May 2000, Hizbullah quickly took over the territory along the border with Israel and became the area's de facto ruler—military, political, and civil. Syria had given Hizbullah the green light to seize the south, and the Lebanese government was powerless to stop it.

[Mediocrates]

Hizbullah has also succeeded in militarizing its territorial base. Because Israel did not wish to give Hizbullah an excuse to strike northern Israel, it has stood with folded arms while Hizbullah has built an extensive military presence along the border. This presence includes reconnaissance and surveillance positions, supported by Hizbullah troops deployed throughout southern Lebanon.[10] Even more disturbing from Israel's point of view is a powerful arsenal that reportedly includes some 10,000 Katyushas and Iranian-made rockets (al-Fajr) with ranges up to 70 kilometers, covering Israel as far south as Hadera (between Haifa and Tel Aviv).[11] Hizbullah has thus turned southern Lebanon into a kind of "Hizbullahland"—successor to the "Fatahland" that the Palestine Liberation Organization ruled until 1982 but geographically much larger. This is an area completely under Hizbullah's control that serves as its home base and from which it could ignite all-out war in the region.
As Hizbullah became a powerful political and military player in the Lebanese arena, Syria declined in stature and power. The downward trend that began when Israel pulled out of southern Lebanon in 2000 gained momentum following the death of Hafiz al-Asad on June 10, 2000, and the accession of his son Bashshar al-Asad. Many of those who feared or respected the father regarded the son as an unworthy heir. He was thought to lack the necessary charisma, self-confidence, and experience to rule Syria. In Lebanon, Christians (and others) grew bolder in calling for the withdrawal of Syrian forces from the country. Bashshar failed to deflect this challenge and decided instead to capitulate, pulling his troops out of populated areas in Lebanon in order to reduce the day-to-day tensions between them and the Lebanese population. By so doing, he hoped he would be able to appease critics of Syria's heavy-handedness in Lebanon. Yet, it goes without saying that his strategy was seen in Lebanon as a form of weakness.[12]
The relationship that began to form between the Syrian president and Hizbullah's secretary general, Nasrallah, testifies to Bashshar's weakness in the Lebanese arena. Nasrallah once admitted that he had never met Hafiz al-Asad face to face.[13] Probably the elder Asad saw no point in such a meeting, since for him Nasrallah was just one more Syrian pawn in Lebanon. Bashshar, on the other hand, has met with Nasrallah numerous times and obviously looks up to him as an admired warlord and experienced role model. Indeed, when Bashshar succeeded his father, Nasrallah quickly took the younger man under his wing and has since expressed Hizbullah's willingness to help Bashshar strengthen his position and defend Syria's interests.[14]
Hizbullah Joins the Intifada
The outbreak of the so-called "al-Aqsa intifada" in September 2000 resolved Hizbullah's post-withdrawal dilemma. As violence swept the Palestinian territories, Hizbullah joined the struggle. Its television station, Al-Manar, put itself completely at the service of the intifada. And Hizbullah itself began to ratchet up its armed struggle against Israel. It attacked IDF positions in the Shib‘a Farms area, which it declared to be Lebanese territory occupied by Israel. In its first operation, on October 7, 2000, Hizbullah managed to kidnap three Israeli soldiers, then announced it was willing to negotiate their release. Later, Israel determined from forensic evidence that the soldiers had been killed during their abduction.[15] Since October 2000, Hizbullah has launched attacks against IDF positions in Shib‘a Farms every few weeks.
Hizbullah probably assumed that Israel would refrain from retaliating because it was expending all its energies on the Palestinians. Hizbullah also assumed that the concentrated and limited attacks on military posts would make it difficult for Israel to present these as a casus belli against which to launch an all-out offensive. Hizbullah also calculated that it had established a balance of terror with Israel: if Israel retaliated, it would face Hizbullah's rocket launchers, spread throughout southern Lebanon. Initially, Hizbullah's gamble paid off: Ehud Barak, as prime minister, refrained from retaliating for Hizbullah's attacks on its military posts.
However, when Ariel Sharon became prime minister after the elections of February 2001, Israeli policy changed . On April 17, 2001, following an attack on the IDF post at Har Dov that left one soldier dead, the Israeli air force struck a Syrian radar station in Dahr al-Baydar. Four Syrian soldiers were killed in this attack. Later, on July 1, 2001, the Israeli air force hit a Syrian radar station in Riyaq, also following Hizbullah attacks against IDF positions in Shib‘a Farms.[16]
Israel's response probably surprised Hizbullah. Yet, Israel did refrain from attacking Hizbullah directly and did not strike Lebanese infrastructure targets as it had done in the past. Instead, Israel attacked Syrian military targets, a choice that theoretically absolved Hizbullah of the need to retaliate. Israel also warned Damascus that it must curb Hizbullah's new offensive or suffer the consequences.
But Hizbullah decided to resist Israel's attempt to change the rules of engagement. When Israel attacked the Syrian radar position in Riyaq, Hizbullah immediately retaliated by launching offensives on Israeli posts in Shib‘a Farms, as well as on Mt. Hermon. In so doing, Hizbullah made clear that it would not allow Israel to change the equation Hizbullah had imposed, according to which the struggle between Israel and Hizbullah would be confined to the Shib‘a Farms. Hizbullah sought to deter Israel from widening its range of operations against Hizbullah or opening a new front against the Syrians elsewhere. Paradoxically, since Syria itself failed to retaliate for Israel's attacks on its forces in Lebanon, Hizbullah emerged from the tit-for-tat in mid-2001 as the defender of the Syrians in Lebanon, alongside its acknowledged role of defender of Lebanon and the Lebanese against Israeli attacks.[17]
Second Front
In March 2002, the wave of Palestinian terror against Israel reached an unprecedented peak, triggering Israel's Operation Defensive Shield. The objective of this operation, according to Israeli spokespersons, was to destroy the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank. In the course of this operation, Israel launched incursions into most of the cities of the West Bank.
Hizbullah, for its part, saw the violence in the territories as an opportunity to advance its own agenda. Its spokesmen announced their unconditional support for the Palestinian cause and added that they would shortly translate their words into deeds. As Nasrallah put it: "The intifada in Palestine today is our front line, so that our support is not only an obligation but also a necessity, and we have, therefore, taken it upon ourselves to aid the intifada, not only in words but in deeds."[18]
Even before Operation Defensive Shield, Hizbullah—perhaps emboldened by the perception of Israeli vulnerability—had launched a dramatic attack on Israeli civilians near the northern town of Shlomi, killing seven people. Hizbullah was careful to deny any connection to the operation; an unknown Palestinian organization took credit for the attack. According to Israeli sources, however, Hizbullah was clearly responsible for it.[19] It became clear from that incident that Hizbullah had already decided to escalate its operations, and events in the Palestinian territories during March and April encouraged it to raise the stakes even higher.
Hizbullah began by increasing its attacks on IDF posts around the Shib‘a Farms and extended its operations to other areas, such as the northern Golan Heights and central and western Galilee. In some cases, Hizbullah denied responsibility and pointed to the Palestinians. Palestinian organizations, such as Ahmad Jibril's Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, helped Hizbullah by launching their own attacks on Israel from within Lebanon, undoubtedly with Syria's knowledge and support, and perhaps even with the connivance of Hizbullah. On the other hand, Hizbullah, as well as the Lebanese government, impeded other Palestinian activists (for instance, Arafat's Fatah faction) from opening their own Lebanon front against Israel.[20]

[Mediocrates]

Israel was loath to retaliate against Hizbullah, lest a limited exchange escalate into war. Israeli sources did not hide their concern that Hizbullah might make use of its rocket arsenal to strike at Israeli civilian targets in retaliation for a serious Israeli offensive against the organization. Israel knew that if this happened, it would have to launch a comprehensive military campaign, and perhaps even send ground forces into Lebanon to stop missile attacks on Israeli cities. This scenario raised old apprehensions in Israel, especially for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who was involved in a similar campaign twenty years earlier in 1982.
Secretary of State Colin Powell's mission to the Middle East in early April 2002 ostensibly eased tensions along the Israeli-Lebanese border. Powell issued firm warnings to the governments of Syria and Lebanon, saying they should curb Hizbullah's operations.[21] Yet, it was actually Iranian foreign minister Kamal Kharazi who, during a visit to Beirut, instructed Hizbullah to scale back its offensive. Kharazi surprised many people when he spoke in Beirut in favor of restoring quiet (even though he quickly interpreted himself, saying he had meant that it was Israel that had to be curbed).[22]
Why did Iran restrain Hizbullah? At the time, Iran was reeling from its inclusion in what President George W. Bush called the "axis of evil," and Iranian leaders openly speculated that Bush's speech might be a prelude to U.S. "aggression" against Iran. Iran may have curbed Hizbullah for fear that the United States might blame Iran—Hizbullah's sponsor—for any escalation and might even retaliate against Iran. Iran may also have preferred to keep Hizbullah's capabilities under wraps. Iran's own original design in building Hizbullah's military strength has been to deter Israel, in the event Israel should consider striking strategic Iranian targets (such as a nuclear reactor). To reveal and perhaps endanger this strategic asset, in a mere show of solidarity with the Palestinians, would not have served Iran's own long-term interests.
In contrast, Syria played no visible role in the crisis. Was Bashshar acting cleverly behind the scenes, using Hizbullah as leverage against Israel? Or were Hizbullah and Iran already acting independently of Bashshar, keeping the inexperienced Syrian president out of the loop? Whatever the case, Syria did not loom large in the crisis, once more raising questions about who really called the shots in Lebanon: a weakened Syria or an emboldened Hizbullah?
The dust has settled, but the question remains: What did Hizbullah try to accomplish by the offensive it staged in April 2002, and what will it do next?
Many in Israel believe Hizbullah would prefer an all-out war in the region.[23] But Hizbullah conceptualizes the struggle in its own way. The deputy secretary general of Hizbullah, Na‘im Qasim, explained his organization's long-term guidelines in fighting Israel:
Liberation is a long process and does not come about after a single military campaign or within a day or two or ten. Such resistance does not follow classical war strategies where you attack and vanquish. Our method is hit and run; we strike at specific targets in specific circumstances. As for our current operations, you should note that we stepped up our struggle in response to the events in Palestine [Operation Defensive Shield]. We have made clear that these were warning signals for Israel and are meant to express our solidarity with the Palestinians.[24]
Thus, Hizbullah's actions fall just short of goading Israel into war but are intended to test Israel's limits, wear Israel down, and justify Hizbullah's own continuing role as a "resistance" movement. So it was before Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon, and so it is now.
In the meantime, evidence accumulates against the much-anticipated "Lebanonization" of Hizbullah. The organization continues to build an independent military potential. And it continues to strengthen its ties with radical Palestinians and with the Palestinian Authority. From its involvement in the Karine-A arms smuggling ship (foiled by Israel), to its attempt to sneak arms through Jordan (foiled by Jordan), Hizbullah acts as a militant organization, determined to keep the conflict with Israel alive, directly and indirectly.[25]
For most of the 1990s, it was unfashionable to take Islamist leaders at their word. Their public statements were categorized—and sometimes dismissed—as ideological rhetoric. But now that one Islamist organization—al-Qa‘ida—has acted on its rhetoric, perhaps the statements of Hizbullah's leaders also deserve closer scrutiny. Here, then, is Nasrallah on the future intentions of Hizbullah:
One of the central reasons for creating Hizbullah was to challenge the Zionist program in the region. Hizbullah still preserves this principle, and when an Egyptian journalist visited me after the liberation and asked me if the destruction of Israel and the liberation of Palestine and Jerusalem were Hizbullah's goal, I replied: "That is the principal objective of Hizbullah, and it is no less sacred than our [ultimate] goal. The generation that lived through the creation of this entity is still alive. This generation watches documentaries and reads documents that show that the land conquered was called Palestine, not Israel." We face an entity that conquered the land of another people, drove them out of their land, and committed horrendous massacres. As we see, this is an illegal state; it is a cancerous entity and the root of all the crises and wars and cannot be a factor in bringing about a true and just peace in this region. Therefore, we cannot acknowledge the existence of a state called Israel, not even far in the future, as some people have tried to suggest. Time does not cancel the legitimacy of the Palestinian claim.[26]
For the last twenty years, this has been the position stated by every leader of Hizbullah, and it has not changed.
Now this movement, swearing eternal enmity to Israel, occupies its own "Hizbullahland," an enclave as wild as the Afghanistan of the Taliban, where a radical Islamist movement calls the shots. Sheltered from the intervention of Arab governments and retaliation by Israel, it has become a military power of considerable strength and one full of its own sense of invincibility. By astute maneuvering among much larger forces, Hizbullah has become the key to peace and tranquility in the Middle East.
Only one player has a clear license to remove this time bomb from the stage: Syria. But Bashshar al-Asad appears to lack both the will and the strength to take the necessary actions. In this vacuum, and with each passing day, a confrontation between Israel and Hizbullah moves from the realm of the probable to that of the inevitable.
Eyal Zisser, senior research fellow at the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies and head of Middle Eastern degree studies at Tel Aviv University, is the author of several books on Syrian history and politics.
[1] Ha'aretz (Tel Aviv), Apr. 12, 2002; Yedi‘ot Aharonot (Tel Aviv), Apr.16, 2002.
[2] Ha'aretz, Mar. 12, 2002.
[3] Augustus Richard Norton, "Hizballah: From Radicalism to Pragmatism?" Middle East Policy, Jan. 1998, at http://www.mepc.org/journal/9801_norton.html.
[4] Bahman Baktiari and Augustus Richard Norton, "Lebanon End-Game, " Middle East Insight, Mar.-Apr. 2000, at http://www.mideastinsight.org/3_00/baktiarinorton_3.html.
[5] Hasan Nasrallah, Hizbullah secretary general, al-Manar television (Beirut), June 6, 2000.
[6] As-Safir (Beirut), Apr. 21, 2000; Ash-Sharq al-Awsat (London), Apr. 21, 2000.
[7] Eyal Zisser, "Hizballah at a Crossroads," in Bruce Maddy-Weitzman and Efraim Inbar, eds., Religious Radicalism in the Greater Middle East (London: Frank Cass, 1997), pp. 90-100; Hala Jaber, Hezbollah: Born with a Vengeance (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), pp. 145-168.
[8] Hasan Nasrallah, al-Manar television, June 6, 2000.
[9] Quoted in The Daily Star (Beirut), Mar. 7, 2002.
[10] Ha'aretz, July 7, 2000; Yedi‘ot Aharonot, Feb. 1, 2002.
[11] Yedi‘ot Aharonot, Feb. 1, 2002; Binyamin Ben Eliezer, Israeli defense minister, Israeli television, June 5, 2002.
[12] Al-Hayat (London), Apr. 5, 2002; Ha'aretz, Apr. 5, 2002.
[13] Radio Damascus, June 10, 2001.
[14] Tishrin (Damascus), June 13, 2000.
[15] Ha'aretz, Oct. 9, 2001, Feb. 1, 2002.
[16] Ha'aretz, Apr. 18, 2001; al-Hayat, Apr. 18, 2001, July 2, 2001.
[17] Al-Hayat, July 2, 2001; as-Safir, July 2, 2001.
[18] Al-Manar television, Feb. 1, 2002.
[19] Ha'aretz, Mar. 15, 2002.
[20] Al-Hayat, Apr. 19, 2002; Ha'aretz, Apr. 19 and 20, 2002.
[21] The New York Times, Apr. 16, 2002; al-Hayat, Apr. 16, 2002.
[22] Al-Hayat, Apr. 10, 2002; as-Safir, Apr. 22, 2002.
[23] Ha'aretz, May 24, 2002; Ma'ariv (Tel Aviv), June 1, 2002.
[24] Al-Manar television, Apr. 17, 2002.
[25] Ha'aretz, Mar. 15, 2002; al-Hayat, Mar. 15, 2002.
[26] Hasan Nasrallah, interview, Egyptian television, June 2, 2000.

This item is available on the Middle East Forum website, at http://www.meforum.org/article/499

[RichardP]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Israel was loath to retaliate against Hizbullah, lest a limited exchange escalate into war. Israeli sources did not hide their concern that Hizbullah might make use of its rocket arsenal to strike at Israeli civilian targets in retaliation for a serious Israeli offensive against the organization. Israel knew that if this happened, it would have to launch a comprehensive military campaign, and perhaps even send ground forces into Lebanon to stop missile attacks on Israeli cities. This scenario raised old apprehensions in Israel, especially for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who was involved in a similar campaign twenty years earlier in 1982.
Secretary of State Colin Powell's mission to the Middle East in early April 2002 ostensibly eased tensions along the Israeli-Lebanese border. Powell issued firm warnings to the governments of Syria and Lebanon, saying they should curb Hizbullah's operations.[21] Yet, it was actually Iranian foreign minister Kamal Kharazi who, during a visit to Beirut, instructed Hizbullah to scale back its offensive. Kharazi surprised many people when he spoke in Beirut in favor of restoring quiet (even though he quickly interpreted himself, saying he had meant that it was Israel that had to be curbed).[22]
Why did Iran restrain Hizbullah? At the time, Iran was reeling from its inclusion in what President George W. Bush called the "axis of evil," and Iranian leaders openly speculated that Bush's speech might be a prelude to U.S. "aggression" against Iran. Iran may have curbed Hizbullah for fear that the United States might blame Iran—Hizbullah's sponsor—for any escalation and might even retaliate against Iran. Iran may also have preferred to keep Hizbullah's capabilities under wraps. Iran's own original design in building Hizbullah's military strength has been to deter Israel, in the event Israel should consider striking strategic Iranian targets (such as a nuclear reactor). To reveal and perhaps endanger this strategic asset, in a mere show of solidarity with the Palestinians, would not have served Iran's own long-term interests.
In contrast, Syria played no visible role in the crisis. Was Bashshar acting cleverly behind the scenes, using Hizbullah as leverage against Israel? Or were Hizbullah and Iran already acting independently of Bashshar, keeping the inexperienced Syrian president out of the loop? Whatever the case, Syria did not loom large in the crisis, once more raising questions about who really called the shots in Lebanon: a weakened Syria or an emboldened Hizbullah?
The dust has settled, but the question remains: What did Hizbullah try to accomplish by the offensive it staged in April 2002, and what will it do next?
Many in Israel believe Hizbullah would prefer an all-out war in the region.[23] But Hizbullah conceptualizes the struggle in its own way. The deputy secretary general of Hizbullah, Na‘im Qasim, explained his organization's long-term guidelines in fighting Israel:
Liberation is a long process and does not come about after a single military campaign or within a day or two or ten. Such resistance does not follow classical war strategies where you attack and vanquish. Our method is hit and run; we strike at specific targets in specific circumstances. As for our current operations, you should note that we stepped up our struggle in response to the events in Palestine [Operation Defensive Shield]. We have made clear that these were warning signals for Israel and are meant to express our solidarity with the Palestinians.[24]
Thus, Hizbullah's actions fall just short of goading Israel into war but are intended to test Israel's limits, wear Israel down, and justify Hizbullah's own continuing role as a "resistance" movement. So it was before Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon, and so it is now.
In the meantime, evidence accumulates against the much-anticipated "Lebanonization" of Hizbullah. The organization continues to build an independent military potential. And it continues to strengthen its ties with radical Palestinians and with the Palestinian Authority. From its involvement in the Karine-A arms smuggling ship (foiled by Israel), to its attempt to sneak arms through Jordan (foiled by Jordan), Hizbullah acts as a militant organization, determined to keep the conflict with Israel alive, directly and indirectly.[25]
For most of the 1990s, it was unfashionable to take Islamist leaders at their word. Their public statements were categorized—and sometimes dismissed—as ideological rhetoric. But now that one Islamist organization—al-Qa‘ida—has acted on its rhetoric, perhaps the statements of Hizbullah's leaders also deserve closer scrutiny. Here, then, is Nasrallah on the future intentions of Hizbullah:
One of the central reasons for creating Hizbullah was to challenge the Zionist program in the region. Hizbullah still preserves this principle, and when an Egyptian journalist visited me after the liberation and asked me if the destruction of Israel and the liberation of Palestine and Jerusalem were Hizbullah's goal, I replied: "That is the principal objective of Hizbullah, and it is no less sacred than our [ultimate] goal. The generation that lived through the creation of this entity is still alive. This generation watches documentaries and reads documents that show that the land conquered was called Palestine, not Israel." We face an entity that conquered the land of another people, drove them out of their land, and committed horrendous massacres. As we see, this is an illegal state; it is a cancerous entity and the root of all the crises and wars and cannot be a factor in bringing about a true and just peace in this region. Therefore, we cannot acknowledge the existence of a state called Israel, not even far in the future, as some people have tried to suggest. Time does not cancel the legitimacy of the Palestinian claim.[26]
For the last twenty years, this has been the position stated by every leader of Hizbullah, and it has not changed.
Now this movement, swearing eternal enmity to Israel, occupies its own "Hizbullahland," an enclave as wild as the Afghanistan of the Taliban, where a radical Islamist movement calls the shots. Sheltered from the intervention of Arab governments and retaliation by Israel, it has become a military power of considerable strength and one full of its own sense of invincibility. By astute maneuvering among much larger forces, Hizbullah has become the key to peace and tranquility in the Middle East.
Only one player has a clear license to remove this time bomb from the stage: Syria. But Bashshar al-Asad appears to lack both the will and the strength to take the necessary actions. In this vacuum, and with each passing day, a confrontation between Israel and Hizbullah moves from the realm of the probable to that of the inevitable.
Eyal Zisser, senior research fellow at the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies and head of Middle Eastern degree studies at Tel Aviv University, is the author of several books on Syrian history and politics.
[1] Ha'aretz (Tel Aviv), Apr. 12, 2002; Yedi‘ot Aharonot (Tel Aviv), Apr.16, 2002.
[2] Ha'aretz, Mar. 12, 2002.
[3] Augustus Richard Norton, "Hizballah: From Radicalism to Pragmatism?" Middle East Policy, Jan. 1998, at http://www.mepc.org/journal/9801_norton.html.
[4] Bahman Baktiari and Augustus Richard Norton, "Lebanon End-Game, " Middle East Insight, Mar.-Apr. 2000, at http://www.mideastinsight.org/3_00/baktiarinorton_3.html.
[5] Hasan Nasrallah, Hizbullah secretary general, al-Manar television (Beirut), June 6, 2000.
[6] As-Safir (Beirut), Apr. 21, 2000; Ash-Sharq al-Awsat (London), Apr. 21, 2000.
[7] Eyal Zisser, "Hizballah at a Crossroads," in Bruce Maddy-Weitzman and Efraim Inbar, eds., Religious Radicalism in the Greater Middle East (London: Frank Cass, 1997), pp. 90-100; Hala Jaber, Hezbollah: Born with a Vengeance (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), pp. 145-168.
[8] Hasan Nasrallah, al-Manar television, June 6, 2000.
[9] Quoted in The Daily Star (Beirut), Mar. 7, 2002.
[10] Ha'aretz, July 7, 2000; Yedi‘ot Aharonot, Feb. 1, 2002.
[11] Yedi‘ot Aharonot, Feb. 1, 2002; Binyamin Ben Eliezer, Israeli defense minister, Israeli television, June 5, 2002.
[12] Al-Hayat (London), Apr. 5, 2002; Ha'aretz, Apr. 5, 2002.
[13] Radio Damascus, June 10, 2001.
[14] Tishrin (Damascus), June 13, 2000.
[15] Ha'aretz, Oct. 9, 2001, Feb. 1, 2002.
[16] Ha'aretz, Apr. 18, 2001; al-Hayat, Apr. 18, 2001, July 2, 2001.
[17] Al-Hayat, July 2, 2001; as-Safir, July 2, 2001.
[18] Al-Manar television, Feb. 1, 2002.
[19] Ha'aretz, Mar. 15, 2002.
[20] Al-Hayat, Apr. 19, 2002; Ha'aretz, Apr. 19 and 20, 2002.
[21] The New York Times, Apr. 16, 2002; al-Hayat, Apr. 16, 2002.
[22] Al-Hayat, Apr. 10, 2002; as-Safir, Apr. 22, 2002.
[23] Ha'aretz, May 24, 2002; Ma'ariv (Tel Aviv), June 1, 2002.
[24] Al-Manar television, Apr. 17, 2002.
[25] Ha'aretz, Mar. 15, 2002; al-Hayat, Mar. 15, 2002.
[26] Hasan Nasrallah, interview, Egyptian television, June 2, 2000.

This item is available on the Middle East Forum website, at http://www.meforum.org/article/499

Mediocrates, I wanted to take the time to thank you for this insightful and enlightening thread. :p

[Mosheh Thezion]

:cool: Greetings,

what is the problem?

if you, as a Jewish people actually want to win all this fighting, then you will need a better plan.

one) Give up your democracy.. and establish a brotherhood of humanity, for the long term benefit of all humankind. set up a plurilistic order, dedicated to science, and put the jews at the top of the order.. as its founders.

two) start taking the role of the worlds spiritual leaders... like the Torahs says to do.. and that means giving up on fanatasism.. and hating Christians and muslims... be the bigger guy's... and lead.

three) if then, once you are open to embrassing the palestinians..
if they refuse.. then they are the haters.. and simply push them all out.. and into jordan and egypt...

four) dont rebuild the temple on the mount.. or do.. but do it quickly.
if your not going to do it.. then hey.. build a better one..
a super massive all encompassing structure where in all religions can come to study and worship... build a new Jerusalem. and a new temple.

five) if you guys actually wanted a Jewish state, then why are there so many arabs and such living amoung you?
that not a Jewish state.. its a friendly democracy.

six) if you cant do those things.. which i wont be surprised if you dont.
but if you cant.. atleast start having very large families.
cause thats the arab plan... to smother you with their babies.

seven) start practicing what the Torah teaches.

-MT