Doc's Talk: Why Syria Lost Big in Lebanon

Friday, June 06, 2008

Why Syria Lost Big in Lebanon

Daniel M. Zucker
FrontPageMagazine.com
Posted 6/5/2008

Caroline Glick, columnist and editor at The Jerusalem Post is normally right on the money with her comments about Middle-East politics. Her column of Friday, May 23, 2008, “Column one: Assad's week of triumph”[1] was a rare exception. As the title of her essay indicates, Glick believes that Bashar al-Assad had his best week since becoming President of Syria. With all due respect to Ms. Glick’s fine understanding of the area’s complex politics, I believe that she and her title miss it, by what we in Middle America call “a country mile”. Rather than being his best week due to Hezbollah’s successful power play in Lebanon two weeks prior, and the capitulation of the “March 14th” Coalition at the Doha talks last week, which cemented—at least temporarily—Hezbollah’s power to control Lebanon and Lebanese politics, the victory of this Iranian-backed Shiite militia proved to be the fulfillment of Assad’s worst nightmare.

Why do I say this? The truth is that Hezbollah is not subservient to Syria, but rather to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Syria, which dearly desires to regain control of Lebanon, if not to actually swallow the Levantine coastal nation outright, just saw Beirut become a satellite of Iran. With Iran controlling Lebanon through its Hezbollah proxies, Syria now is further from its goal of retaking Lebanon under is influence and control. Assad lost, and lost big time, when Hezbollah won. The Lebanese commentator Nizar Abdel-Kader, former deputy chief of staff of the Lebanese army, put it aptly when he wrote last week: “…the future role of Syria will be reduced to serving as a conduit for Iranian logistical support to Hizballah.”[2]

Given this twist in Syria’s Levantine fortunes, it now becomes understandable why Damascus authorized the publication of its three month old clandestine peace negotiations with Israel. Syria is economically in the doldrums as more than one analyst has noted,[3] and despite massive infusions of Iranian money, is in rough shape economically. Assad, a secularist, is not overly enamored of Iranian fundamentalism and is less than pleased to see Lebanon fall to the Shiite fundamentalists whose allegiance is vowed to Ali Khamenei, the Iranian faqih (Supreme Leader). Assad, in his own strange way, is desperately reaching out to the West—especially the United States, to try to break out of the isolation that he feels, as well as to remove the choking bear hug that Iran has placed around him. Peace with the implacable foe—Israel—if achieved on good enough terms, now looks better that being choked to death by Iran, or worse yet, being engulfed in the possible conflagration that may come when the United States and the West finally confront Iran. Dr. Bashar al-Assad is not as shrewd as was his father Hafez, but he has learned one trait from the old fox: longevity trumps everything else in importance.

As Syria essentially has maintained peaceful borders with Israel since the 1974 Disengagement agreements, we need to ask what it is that Assad seeks to gain from formalizing peace with Israel. Ostensibly it is the recovery of the Golan Heights, lost in 1967. However, Syria’s interest in regaining the Golan pales in comparison to its desire to regain Lebanon as a protectorate. If we realize that Hezbollah really is “Hizbullah” (the Farsi pronunciation), by which I mean to say that Hassan Nasrallah’s Shiite militia is controlled by Iran and not by Syria, we may begin to see—contrary to Caroline Glick’s analysis and that of Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff in the May 26, 2008 edition of Haaretz[4], as well as that of Barry Rubin in the May 26, 2008 edition of The Jerusalem Post[5]—that Syria lost when Hizbullah won control of Lebanese politics. And Assad does not like the idea of being muscled out of his own backyard by his “ally and benefactor,” Iran. Harel and Issacharoff point out that this is the second time in less than a year that Syria operated on a major concern without consulting or even informing its Iranian allies. Syria did not receive Iranian aid on its clandestine nuclear program—aid came from North Korea—and it did not inform Tehran about its secret negotiations with Israel, held under Turkish auspices.

Barry Rubin is right on the money when analyzing Syrian motives; his six points listing Syria’s reasons for participating in talks with Israel are very insightful except for his failure to see that Syria feels outmaneuvered by Iran in Lebanon. That point is critical however, as it explains the timing of Syria’s publication of its talks with Israel. Syria was registering a protest with its Iranian benefactor.

The February 13, 2008 assassination in Damascus’ uptown neighborhood of Kfar Suseh of “Hajj Radwan”, aka Imad Fayez Mughniyeh, Hizbullah’s international operations chief, has generally been attributed to the Mossad, Israel’s secretive intelligence and covert foreign operations agency. However, more than one online blogger has suggested that Hizbullah’s number two officer was the target of a Syrian Mukhbarat hit meant to signal Assad’s desire to draw closer to the United States,[6] and no less a figure than Druze leader Walid Jumblatt is reputed to have made a similar accusation.[7] Assuming for a moment that Jumblatt and these bloggers are correct, Syrian motives again would demonstrate Damascus’ desire to remove any impediments to a renewal of Syrian (not Syrian-Iranian) domination of Lebanon. Undermining Hizbullah’s operative strength at a time that Syria had little real fear of conflict with Israel would be a cheap way to begin to reassert control of Beirut, especially if Hizbullah made the mistake of attacking Israel and precipitated another Israeli attack on the Iranian proxy. Note the timetable: Syria’s secret talks with Israel began right after Mughniyeh’s demise. Admittedly, the Mughniyeh file still has many, many unanswered questions, but it should be clear that Syrian interests under Bashar al-Assad primarily center on regaining control over Lebanon, with any method of achieving the goal being acceptable to Damascus.

Following its power-play earlier this month, and its political victory at the Doha conference, Hizbullah has emerged as a rival to Damascus because it is controlled by, and swears allegiance to Iran’s Supreme Leader. Damascus and Tehran still play on the same team, but the internal rivalry is beginning to strain the cooperation between them. To those that say that Syria turned around and signed a mutual-defense pact with Iran only days after revealing the peace talks with Israel,[8] I would point out that Assad, while dismissing Israeli demands that Syria break its ties with Iran, also advised Lebanon to begin negotiations with Israel should the Syrian-Israeli peace discussions move forward.[9] Assad is proving to be a chip off of the old block—he is learning to be a wily negotiator, courting more than one suitor at a time—now Israel and the West (i.e., the U.S.), and now Iran and the jihadists. But most of all, Bashar al-Assad wants to regain Lebanon as a Syrian protectorate. That fact should never be forgotten when assessing Syrian motives and moves on the Middle East chessboard.

[1] Caroline Glick, “Column one: Assad's week of triumph”, The Jerusalem Post, May 22, 2008.

[2] Nizar Abdel-Kader, “At stake, the state of Lebanon”, Bitter Lemons International 20:6, May 22, 2008.

[3] See Nimrod Raphaeli, “Syria’s Fragile Economy”, Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) 11:2, June 2007, and Amir Taheri, “Behind the, New York Post, May 23, 2008.

[4] Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff, “ANALYSIS / Can Syria break its Iranian bear hug?”, Haaretz, May 25, 2008.

[5] Barry Rubin, “The Region: The Syrian talks aren’t serious”, The Jerusalem Post, May 25, 2008.

[6] See the commentary of Yazdan Badran, “Syria: Imad Mughniyeh Assassinated”, Global Voices, February 13, 2008, and of Scott MacLeod, “Who Killed Imad, Time, February 13, 2008.

[7] Nicholas Blanford, “Terrorist mastermind with $25m price on his head, Imad Mughnieh,, The Times, February 14, 2008.

[8] See Iran’s announcement of Syrian Defense Minister Lieutenant General Hassan Ali Turkmani signing a Memorandum of Understanding with his Iranian counterpart, Minister of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics Brigadier General Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar, on expansion of mutual cooperation between the two countries. Syrian policy seems bifurcated; Assad wants to demonstrate some independence from Iran for his intended Western audience, but at the same time, his military is permitting Iran to control its missiles. See the following report from UPI, “Iran and Syria sign missile pact”, June 2, 2008.

[9] http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/syria/?id=26127. (See end of article.)

Professor Rabbi Daniel M. Zucker is founder and Chairman of the Board of Americans for Democracy in the Middle-East. The organization’s web site is www.adme.ws. Additional articles by Rabbi Zucker can be found at www.analyst-network.com.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk