Doc's Talk: Lebanon: Back to Square One?

Monday, September 21, 2009

Lebanon: Back to Square One?

David Schenker
September 21, 2009

On September 10, after seventy-three days of trying to formulate a government, Lebanon's prime minister designate, Saad Hariri, resigned his mandate. Although Hariri's pro-West March 14 coalition secured a parliamentary majority in June elections -- and with it the right to govern -- the Hizballah-led minority rejected the cabinet he submitted to President Michel Suleiman. Now that March 14 has reelected Hariri as its candidate for premier, the stage is set for yet another showdown with Hizballah and its allies. As the process drags on, both Hizballah and March 14 are hardening their positions. Meanwhile, Syria, via the regime-controlled press, is hinting at a return to violence in Beirut. Today, on the nineteenth anniversary of the Taif Accords, which ended the civil war, Lebanon again stands on the precipice.

Background
After the March 14 coalition secured a majority -- 71 of 120 parliamentary seats -- in the June 7 elections, President Suleiman offered Saad Hariri the mandate to form a government. Throughout the summer, Hariri met continuously with his coalition allies and opposition leaders from Hizballah, Amal, and Michel Aoun's Free Patriotic Movement (FPM), to work out an acceptable formula for a national unity cabinet.

Negotiations were extremely complicated. Not only did Hariri want to placate his March 14 partners, he was committed to ensuring that Hizballah's March 8 alliance did not realize its demand for a "blocking third" -- one third plus one of the cabinet seats -- which would provide the opposition with the ability to stymie major initiatives and bring down the government at will. Hariri's efforts were further complicated by leading coalition partner, Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, who -- in an apparent shift -- opined during an August 3 speech that his political alliance with March 14 "cannot continue."

In attempting to form his cabinet, Hariri adopted a formula -- fifteen seats for the majority, ten for the opposition, and five for the president -- which, on the face of it, would denude the opposition of the blocking third. At the same time, Hariri indicated that he would not allow those who did not win parliament seats in the general elections to become ministers, a decision intended to preclude former telecommunications minister Jebran Bassil -- the son-in-law and political heir apparent to Michel Aoun -- from joining the cabinet. Likewise, Hariri designated all the opposition ministers himself, instead of allocating the portfolios to opposition parties and allowing them to choose. Hariri presented his cabinet to President Suleiman on September 7.

Swift Reaction
The opposition declared Hariri's proposed government dead on arrival, claiming, dubiously, that Hariri's designation of opposition ministers was unconstitutional. Seemingly more offensive to the March 8 coalition, however, was Hariri's position that only members of parliament could serve as cabinet ministers. Aoun -- who had demanded the reinstatement of Bassil as telecommunications minister -- was particularly incensed that his son-in-law was shut out, a sentiment echoed by Hizballah deputy secretary general Naim Qassem when he said on September 10 that ministries were not "prizes given out in accordance with the parliamentary elections results." Clearly the issue is personal for Aoun. When the Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir suggested that the appointment of losing candidates as ministers would "go against the popular opinion," Aoun accused the cardinal of having joined March 14's leading Christian party, the Lebanese Forces.

Syria, too, was quick to respond to Hariri's resignation. On September 10, the regime daily al-Watan reported that Lebanon "had entered a period of instability" in which the "political vacuum" would be filled by "security tensions." The paper, which is owned by Syrian president Bashar al-Asad's cousin, added that it was unlikely a new government would be formed until December.

Even before Hariri resigned, the Obama administration was sharply critical of Syrian efforts to undermine government formation in Beirut. In an August interview with al-Nahar, a "high-ranking U.S. official" -- believed by many to have been Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman -- told the Lebanese daily that "The Syrians are mistaken if they think that their relations with us will not be affected as a result of what they are doing in Lebanon.... President Obama wants to improve relations with Syria, but it would be impossible if Syria and its friends in Lebanon continue to cripple the democratic institutions."

In this context, it came as little surprise that on September 11 -- the day after Hariri quit -- two Katyusha rockets were fired on Israel from Lebanon, allegedly by a heretofore unknown al-Qaeda affiliate. More likely, some speculate, the attack was perpetrated by the Syrian-backed Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine--General Command.

Moving Forward?
That Hariri will have an easier time forming a government his second time around is doubtful. As Naim Qassem told an audience convened for Iftar (at the ironically named Fantasy World restaurant) on September 12, "the reasons that complicated this [government] formulation are the same ones that the new prime minister designate will face." Knowing that he would be given another chance, it now seems apparent that Hariri's resignation represented calculated political theater, a tactic designed to pressure the opposition to make concessions. Now, although Walid Jumblatt is openly opposing the idea, Hariri is upping the ante, suggesting that he might not establish the cabinet based on the previously agreed 15-10-5 seat allocation.

Still, Hizballah and its allies do not appear to be fazed. March 8 has not yet veered from its demand for a "national unity government" that would provide the opposition with decisive influence in the decisionmaking process. The opposition remains confident it can achieve this influence -- the blocking third -- through the 15-10-5 formula: all that is required is to co-opt one of the president's five cabinet members, at least one of whom will be Shiite. Given the dynamic, March 8 is currently focused on trying to lock Hariri into this formula. Anything short, said Hizballah minister of labor Muhammad Fnaish in an ominous note, "means the state enters into a dark tunnel."

Hariri and his coalition have held tough so far, refusing to provide concessions to the minority that essentially would reverse the results of the June elections. Precedent suggests that the deadlock could last some time; in 1969, it took nine months for prime minister designate Rashid Karami to form a government. But Hariri also knows that sooner or later, Hizballah and/or Syria will likely resort to violence to force concessions from the pro-West coalition. And while Jumblatt clarified his August comments distancing himself from March 14, he remains an unreliable ally and leaves the coalition weakened.

Conclusion
Prime minister designate Saad Hariri has indicated that he will resume coalition negotiations after Eid al-Fitr on September 20. Although the talks will take time, it should become clear in relatively short order whether the direction of these talks suggests a different outcome than the first round. Ultimately, if March 14 wants to avoid another Hizballah invasion of Beirut, it may be forced to accept the 15-10-5 formula. Yet March 14 need not accept all the opposition demands.

Indeed, the opposition is also playing with a somewhat weakened hand. Although Hizballah won all the parliamentary seats for which it contended, its FPM allies performed poorly. Likewise, developments in Tehran and the recent bankruptcy of Hizballah's chief Lebanese financier have proved deeply embarrassing for the militia. At a minimum, Hariri has an opportunity to weaken his FPM rivals by excluding Bassil and relegating Aoun's ministers to peripheral portfolios.

While Lebanese government formulation should be an internal matter, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt are all playing a part, by advising their local allies. Riyadh and Cairo continue to play a productive role in providing political support to March 14, but this will probably not be sufficient. If Washington wants to strengthen its Lebanese allies' position in these negotiations, the Obama administration will have to bring some pressure to bear on Damascus. As a first step, the administration should follow through on its August warning, perhaps by informing the Asad regime of the decision to postpone indefinitely the posting of a new ambassador to Syria.

Washington has a vested interest in seeing Hariri succeed in establishing a government not beholden to Hizballah and the FPM. No doubt, it is an ambitious goal. But given the June 7 election results, the Obama administration, like Hariri and March 14, should be aiming higher than a return to the status quo in Beirut.

David Schenker is the Aufzien fellow and director of the Program on Arab Politics at The Washington Institute.

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