Doc's Talk: Syria's Strategic Alliance with Hizbullah

Wednesday, September 08, 2010

Syria's Strategic Alliance with Hizbullah

Jonathan Spyer*

http://www.gloria-center.org/gloria/2010/9/syria-strategic-alliance-hizballah

President Bashar Assad of Syria this week reiterated his country's firm strategic alliance with Hizbullah. The occasion for the dictator's remarks was the latest visit by Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri to the Syrian capital. Assad's statement was particularly noteworthy because some in Lebanon and further afield have claimed to discern in recent weeks a growing distance between Syria and Hizbullah. The Syrian president's latest verbal endorsement of the "resistance" was followed by reports in a Kuwaiti newspaper of a military alliance between Syria and Hizbullah which if correct would make Syrian involvement a certainty in a future conflict between the Shi'ite Islamist movement and Israel. Hariri's visit came against the backdrop of the latest mini-crisis to have swept through Lebanon. The clash between Hizbullah members and militants of the small Sunni al- Ahbash group in the neighborhood of Bourj Abi Haidar, which led to three deaths, has raised once again the issue of privately held weapons. Some observers identified in the fighting a coded message of the type through which Syria sometimes communicates.

The Ahbash group is Sunni Islamist by ideology, but it is also staunchly pro-Syrian. Some Lebanese analysts concluded that last week's events were much more than simply a squalid brawl between two sets of local Islamist toughs. According to this view, Syria deliberately activated its Sunni Islamist friends against its Shi'ite Islamist ones to make clear to Hizbullah that its unquestioned domination of Lebanon at street level was now open to question.

This contention forms part of a larger view that has emerged in recent weeks, which sees Syria moving away from its close alliance with Iran, in order to reestablish its dominance of Lebanon with the blessing of the West and the Arab world. Whatever the precise reasons for the brawl at Bourj Abi Haidar, however, this larger view is mainly the product of wishful thinking.

Re-domination of Lebanon is certainly a goal of the Syrian regime.

Syria's agenda by no means coincides with Hizbullah's in every way, and the record shows past moments of disagreement and tension between them. But as Assad's ringing endorsement of the "resistance" makes clear, the strategic link between Syria and Iran, and hence Syria and Hizbullah rests on foundations too firm to be disturbed by any momentary or tactical differences.

This is so for two main reasons: Firstly, Syria benefits directly and very significantly from its alliance with Hizbullah and Iran.

Secondly, Syria does not have the power to move back into Lebanon except in cooperation with Hizbullah.

THE 30-YEAR-OLD alliance between Syria and the Islamic Republic of Iran has served Syria well - particularly in the last half decade. There were many in its early days who saw the link as a marriage of convenience against the jointly-hated neighboring regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Yet the alliance survived the fall of Saddam and indeed has proved at its most useful to Syria in the post-2003 period.

Five years ago, following the US invasion of Iraq, and Syria's subsequent expulsion from Lebanon, the Ba'athist regime in Damascus looked on the ropes. Its demise was being predicted by many Western and regional pro-Western commentators. Yet today, Syria is riding high. The alliance with Iran, and the cover it brings Syria to engage in subverting its neighbors and supporting proxies against them, is the instrument which has enabled the Syrians to engineer their return to strength. It has been said that Syria is a strategic tool, rather than a strategic ally, of Iran. If this is so, Syria is a rare kind of tool which knows how to make its masters work to its benefit.

The Syrian power of disruption in Iraq, in Lebanon and among the Palestinians meant the regime had either to be engaged with or pushed back. The alliance with Iran, with its region-wide ambitions and reach, has given the regime the strategic partner necessary to pursue the path of subversion and confrontation, and deterred those who might have objected to it from putting Syria back in its place.

If Syria is to return to dominate Lebanon, it will do so in partnership with the Iranian power on the ground represented by Hizbullah, not instead of it. This is not a matter of sentiment for Damascus. The Ba'athist regime simply lacks the power to enforce any decision in Lebanon to which Hizbullah is opposed.

Syrian agents have skillfully succeeded in undermining civil order and confidence in Lebanon over the last half decade. But it is Hizbullah which possesses the real power on the ground. The days when Syria could dictate terms to all the players in Lebanon are long gone.

Hizbullah, as a client and instrument of Iran, has effectively outgrown the Lebanese context. Assad's declaration reflects his awareness of this reality.

It appears that other internal Lebanese elements are aware of it too.

As a result, the initial outcry over the possession of weapons by Hizbullah in Beirut predictably led nowhere.

Interior Minister Zaid Baroud and Defense Minister Michel Murr met with Hariri on Monday, following his return from Damascus. The subject they were scheduled to discuss was an agreement on the control of possession of arms in Beirut. The ministers were quick to state that of course Hizbullah's arsenal would not be discussed. The weapons of the "resistance" are out of bounds for discussion whether they are being used to strike at Israel, or to defend parking spaces against Sunni Islamists in residential neighborhoods of Beirut. This stance reflects an acknowledgement of reality.

Syria too is unable to ignore this reality. Neither does it wish to.

The Saudi role in backing the government of Lebanon and the growing friendship between Syria and Turkey do not in any way contradict this.

The deep, long-standing alliance with Iran is the cornerstone of Syrian strategy. The latest indications suggest that Syria is with the Iranian alliance until the end.

*Dr. Jonathan Spyer is a senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, Herzliya, Israel

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