Hizbullah -

Published December 2009
Vol. 9, No. 15 15 December 2009

Has Hizbullah Changed?

The 7th Hizbullah General Conference and Its Continued Ideology of Resistance

Brig.-Gen. (ret.) Dr. Shimon Shapira

Some Western analysts believe the political manifesto published in the wake of Hizbullah's 7th General Conference at the end of November 2009 represented a fundamental change in Hizbullah policy.

While its link to Iran as the ultimate source of authority was not mentioned in this or any previous political manifesto, this link - that is part of Hizbullah's essence - appeared in the "Open Letter" (Resala Maftuha) of 1985, which remains the founding manifesto of Hizbullah and continues to serve as the movement's ideological basis.

The preface to the latest manifesto describes the decline of the United States as the sole superpower and the retreat of American power throughout the world. In reflection of these global changes, Hizbullah offers its resistance to Israel and the United States as the model for emulation throughout the world.

Hizbullah's vigorous insistence that it retain an army of its own that does not heed the authority of the state but rather the representative of Iran's leader in Lebanon makes a mockery of the clauses in the political manifesto about Lebanon being the eternal homeland. Furthermore, by building a state-like system parallel to that of the Lebanese state, and one that relies on aid and funding from Iran and Syria, Hizbullah does not contribute to the strengthening of Lebanon.

The decision of the Lebanese government to recognize the continued legitimate existence of Hizbullah's armed militia demonstrates less a case that Hizbullah underwent a process of "Lebanonization," but rather that the Lebanese state has undergone a process of "Hizbullazation."

Hizbullah's alleged move toward pragmatism is based to a large extent on an Iranian decision to create a new atmosphere in Lebanon that will allow it to work unmolested. Iran is looking for strict silence in the Lebanese arena in order to enable Hizbullah to reconstruct its strategic capabilities (including long-range rockets and missiles) in Lebanon in order to make use of these capabilities at a time to be determined by Tehran.

Hizbullah wound up its clandestine 7th General Conference at the end of November 2009 that took place and lasted about four months. Hassan Nasrallah was again chosen to be Hizbullah's general secretary and, as with previous conferences, the movement published a political manifesto. Some Western analysts believe the manifesto represented a fundamental change in Hizbullah policy. Indeed, a few days after it was proclaimed, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband told the Beirut Daily Star, "carefully considered contact with Hizbullah's politicians, including its MPs, will best advance our objective of the group rejecting violence to play a constructive role in Lebanese politics."1 Later, British spokesmen denied they had changed their policy toward Hizbullah.

Hizbullah's 6th General Conference was convened in 2004 and, according to the movement's bylaws, the 7th General Conference was to have convened in 2007. However, due to the Second Lebanon War and the debates and internal struggles that erupted in its wake within Hizbullah, together with the death of Hizbullah military commander Imad Mughniyeh in a car bombing in Damascus in February 2008, the conference was postponed twice and was finally convened in 2009.2

Hizbullah's Leadership

Anyone proposing that Hizbullah has fundamentally changed should carefully examine the organization's leaders elected by the 7th General Conference. The newly elected Shura Council is comprised of:
Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah - Secretary-General
Sheikh Naim Qassem - Deputy Secretary-General
Sayyed Hashem Safi al-Din - Head of the "Shura Council Executive"
Sheikh Mohammed Yazbek - Head of the Spiritual Body
Sayyed Ibrahim Amin al-Sayyed - Head of the Political Council
MP Haj Mohammed Raad - Head of the Loyalty to Resistance Bloc (the Hizbullah faction in the Lebanese Parliament)
Hussein Khalil - Political Assistant to the Secretary-General

The name of the member of the leadership who replaced Imad Mughniyeh, who headed the Jihad Council - the supreme military body - and represented it in the Hizbullah leadership, was not publicized for security reasons.

Aside from the members of the Shura Council, Hizbullah has not published the names of other officeholders in the movement and close associates have made it clear that no substantial change has occurred in the movement's structure and leadership.3 It would seem that whatever changes occurred involved primarily second and third echelon officeholders in the party hierarchy as well as in the intra-party administrative frameworks at the unit and subunit levels. These changes were intended to incorporate new people into the leadership of the militia in order to infuse the ranks of Hizbullah with new blood.

It is plausible to assume that Nasrallah viewed changes in Hizbullah's military framework following the Second Lebanon War and the death of Imad Mughniyeh to be among the 7th Conference's top priorities, in order to rehabilitate and strengthen Hizbullah's military power and to prepare for the next conflict with Israel. Concomitantly, Nasrallah sought to contend with the penetration of Hizbullah ranks by Israeli intelligence, whose footprints are periodically discovered.

The Political Manifesto

On November 30, 2009, Hizbullah's new political manifesto4 was read by Hassan Nasrallah from a hiding place and was projected on giant screens at a press conference in Beirut.

As with previous political manifestos,5 the new manifesto - 32 pages long and published in a sky blue binding - reflected the changing political reality in which Hizbullah operated and the process of Hizbullah's integration into the Lebanese state and its institutions. While the theoretical-ideological foundation focusing on the link to Iran as the source of authority (wali al-fakih) was not mentioned in any of these manifestos, this link - that is part of Hizbullah's essence - appeared in the "Open Letter" (Resala Maftuha) of 1985, which bore the portraits of Imam Khomeini and Sheikh Raghib Harb.6 The Open Letter of 1985 remains, at least formally, the founding manifesto of Hizbullah and continues to serve as the movement's ideological basis.

The preface to the latest manifesto emphasizes that it was intended to present Hizbullah's political position within the framework of the international and Lebanese reality in which Hizbullah was operating. This reality includes historical changes presaging the decline of the United States as the sole superpower, the collapse of financial markets in the United States and worldwide, and the confusion and impotence of the American economy. All this, claimed the manifesto, presages the retreat of American power throughout the world and the beginning of the accelerated decline of Israel. In reflection of these global changes, Hizbullah offers its resistance to Israel and the United States as the perfect solution. In its view, resistance has become an international value that constitutes a source of inspiration and a model for emulation to all those who aspire to freedom and independence throughout the world.
The first chapter of the manifesto surveys American aspirations for global hegemony since World War II and concludes:

There is no doubt that the American Terrorism is the origin of all terrorism in this world. The Bush administration has turned the United States into a threat menacing the whole world on all levels and dimensions, and if an international survey was to be made, the U.S. would turn out to be the most hated in the world.

The second chapter deals with Hizbullah's status in Lebanon, and here we observe a significant change in Hizbullah's position toward the Lebanese state:

Lebanon is our homeland and the homeland of our fathers and ancestors. It is also the homeland of our children, grandchildren, and future generations. It is the country to which we have given our most precious sacrifices for its independence and pride, dignity and freedom.

We want a unified Lebanon for all Lebanese alike. We oppose any kind of partition or federalism.

With regard to the resistance (muqawama), it emphasized that:

It derives from the eternal threat of Israel to Lebanon and the difficult circumstances arising from the absence of a Lebanese authority. These required a campaign to obtain a homeland via armed resistance. The crowning achievements are the liberation in 2000 and the historic victory in July 2006.

The manifesto does not deal with the issue of the continued existence of the Hizbullah militia. This is a fundamental issue that is not open to discussion from Hizbullah's standpoint. Thus, Nasrallah makes clear that it was impossible for Hizbullah to disarm.7 Instead, the Hizbullah leader emphasized that the main effort is now invested in:
creating a defense strategy that will be based on the integration of the resistance that will assist in the defense of the homeland, strengthen its security and stability, [and]...liberate what remains under "Israeli" occupation in the Shaba farms and Kfar Shouba hills and the Lebanese village of Ghajar, as well as liberating the detainees and missing people and martyrs' bodies.

With reference to the political regime in Lebanon, Hizbullah calls for the abolition of the political sectarianism on which the Lebanese state is predicated. Nasrallah explained at a press conference:

Let's be realistic, the abolition of political sectarianism in Lebanon is one of the most difficult issues....Unfortunately, many of those who call for and advocate the abolition of political sectarianism are not serious about the issue.

This committee may continue its dialogue for five, ten, twenty or even thirty years because, ultimately, no one can just simply describe a method of how to abolish political sectarianism....Possibly, after a long debate...we may reach the conclusion that realism necessitates that we accept sectarianism and that any efforts to the contrary would be a complete waste of time; that abolishing political sectarianism in this country is impossible.

The manifesto praises the excellent relations between Lebanon and Syria and views them as a mutual political, military, and economic necessity. It views Islamic Iran as a primary and important country and a chief supporter of the Palestinians. However, it includes no reference to Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei as being Hizbullah's source of authority, and does not mention Hizbullah's loyalty to the Iranian leadership.
Nasrallah was asked at the press conference about the 1985 Open Letter that spoke of a single leadership for Iran and Hizbullah. He responded:

We have provided [in the new manifesto] a political document, but have not dealt with aspects of belief, ideology, or intellectual culture....Our position on the question of the source of authority (wali al-fakih) is an intellectual, ideological and religious one, and not a political position subject to review.

In other words, according to Nasrallah, Hizbullah remains ideologically the same party it was back in 1985. Indeed, one analyst with a deep understanding of the Shiite group called the new Hizbullah political manifesto "a point-by-point expansion" of the principles laid out in its founding document in 1985.8

The third chapter of the manifesto deals with Palestine in the peace agreement process, the status of Jerusalem, and the Palestinian resistance. After determining that Zionism is a racist movement, Hizbullah makes it clear that the liberation of Palestinian lands including Jerusalem is a mission that is imposed upon the Arab and Islamic world. Hence it is clear that in its own self-appraisal, Hizbullah enjoys no special advantage or preferred status in leading the Palestinian struggle against Israel. At the same time, Hizbullah rejects any agreement with Israel that will be predicated on recognition of the legitimacy of its existence or any concessions on Palestinian lands. It was emphasized that this position is consistent, fixed and final, and there can be no retreat from it even if the entire world were to recognize Israel.

While the 7th Conference was taking place in Lebanon, its original architect, Ali-Akbar Mohtashemi-Pur, was staying in Damascus. Mohtashemi, who crossed the lines and joined the reformist camp, participated in a conclave of support for Palestine that took place at the shrine of Sayyida Zaynab, where he was attacked by Iranian representatives who were supporters of Ahmedinejad.9

Summary

As reflected in its political manifestos, Hizbullah has been focusing on consolidating its status within the internal Lebanese arena since 1992 when Hizbullah received the authorization of Iranian supreme leader Khamenei, its source of authority, and sent its representatives to Parliament, and in 2005 when it sent its representatives into the Lebanese government in the wake of the withdrawal of the Syrian army from Lebanon, in order to guarantee the continued existence of its independent military force.

The Lebanese flag, which was brutally trampled by Hizbullah during the 1980s, now occupies a place of honor alongside the yellow banner of Hizbullah. The impression is that Hizbullah has adopted the Lebanese state and in its self-appraisal has become an authentic representative of Lebanese national identity. There is a perpetual gap between the pragmatic spirit coming from the Hizbullah political manifesto and Lebanon's political reality. Hizbullah's vigorous position insisting that it retain an army of its own that does not heed the authority of the state but rather the representative of Iran's leader in Lebanon makes a mockery of the clauses in the political manifesto about Lebanon being the eternal homeland.

Furthermore, by building a state-like system parallel to that of the Lebanese state, and one that relies on aid and funding from Iran and Syria, Hizbullah does not contribute to the strengthening and health of the Lebanese homeland that Nasrallah says he wants to preserve and nurture.

Finally, the subversive conduct of Hizbullah, which acts against the interests of the Lebanese state and sends forth subversive and violent elements into nearby countries such as

Iraq, Egypt, and Jordan, makes the concept of loyalty to the Lebanese homeland void of any content.

It would seem, therefore, that the decision of the Lebanese government headed by Saad Hariri to recognize the continued legitimate existence of Hizbullah's armed militia demonstrates less a case that Hizbullah underwent a process of "Lebanonization," but rather that the Lebanese state has undergone a process of "Hizbullazation." Parallel to adopting the Lebanese identity, Hizbullah preserves its essential link to Iran: its commitment to the Iranian leader as the source of authority surpasses any other commitment including on the political level. Hizbullah adopts decisions on war and peace taken by Iran, the sole recognized source of authority, and not only on theoretical and religious issues, as Nasrallah may wish to claim.

Hizbullah's alleged move toward pragmatism is based to a large extent on an Iranian decision to create a new atmosphere in Lebanon that will allow it to work unmolested. After the Second Lebanon War that erupted at Israel's initiative and caught Hizbullah by surprise, Iran ordered Hizbullah to restrain activities against Israel and intensify its integration into the political life of the Lebanese state. Iran is looking for strict silence in the Lebanese arena in order to enable Hizbullah to reconstruct its strategic capabilities (including long-range rockets and missiles) in Lebanon in order to deter Israel, and to make use of these capabilities at a time to be determined by Tehran in the event that deterrence fails. This is the main reason for the quiet prevailing in South Lebanon, and it seems that Israeli deterrence of Hizbullah plays only a minor role.
* * *
Notes
1. Josie Ensor, "Britain Open to Contacts with Hizbullah," Daily Star (Beirut), December 1, 2009.
2. As-Safir, November 24, 2009.
3. Ibid.
4. Al-Manar, November 30, 2009.
5. This manifesto joins a series of previous political manifestos that were published at the end of the general conferences that Hizbullah conducted in May 1993 (the 3rd Conference), summer 1995 (the 4th), summer 1998 (the 5th), in 2004 (the 6th), as well as the election manifestos for the parliamentary elections in which Hizbullah participated in 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2005. For an analysis of Hizbullah's political and election manifestos, see Shimon Shapira, Hezbollah between Iran and Lebanon (Tel Aviv: HaKibbutz Hameuhad, 2000), pp. 186-192.
6. For an analysis of the "Open Letter," see Shapira, pp. 126-8.
7. Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed, "Nasrallah: Prime Minister of Lebanon," Asharq Alawsat, December 7, 2009.
8. Tony Badran, "For Hezbollah, Lebanon Is an Afterthought," NowLebanon.com, December 8, 2009, http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=131055.
9. www.mowjcamp.com/article/id/64087.
* * *
Brig.-Gen. (ret.) Dr. Shimon Shapira is a senior research associate at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

Setting the Stage for an Iranian Takeover of Lebanon

No. 571 May-June 2009

Hizbullah’s Struggle to Change the Lebanese Regime


by: Shimon Shapira and Yair Minzili


• The publication of Hizbullah’s subversive plan against Egypt and the exposure of a Shiite group headed by a Hizbullah activist that planned to act against Egyptian targets diverted
attention from the challenge that Hizbullah has made against the very foundations of
Lebanese authority.

• On April 3, 2009, Hizbullah published its political platform in advance of elections to the
Lebanese parliament scheduled for June 7, 2009. The document calls for the abolition of
sectarian politics and for the enactment of a new election law that would alter the
equation of sectarian forces in Lebanon.

• In this manner, Hizbullah seeks to destroy the foundations of the sectarian regime in
Lebanon agreed upon in the National Pact of 1943 that has been preserved by the
Lebanese state ever since. The abolition of the existing political system will advance
Hizbullah toward its fundamental goal: the establishment of an Islamic state and a
complete Iranian takeover of Lebanon.

• The scholarly analyses that define Hizbullah as a Lebanese national movement are
baseless. What Lebanese national interests are served by subversive activity in Egypt?
What Lebanese interests seek the transfer of Iranian arms from Sudan and Sinai to Gaza?
What national Lebanese ideology seeks to subvert the delicate sectarian structure upon
which the modern Lebanese state is predicated?

A Pattern of Hizbullah Subversion

The publication of Hizbullah’s subversive plan against Egypt and the exposure of a Shiite group headed by a Hizbullah activist, that planned to act against Egyptian targets under the cover of “logistical assistance” to the Palestinians, diverted attention from the challenge that Hizbullah has made against the very foundations of Lebanese authority.

One can safely assume that Hizbullah activity in Egypt was performed with the full knowledge of Iran. The weapons shipment that departed Iran for Gaza was dispatched with Tehran’s blessing. Iran was undoubtedly aware that the Egyptian security authorities could uncover Hizbullah’s subversive activity, but believed that the Egyptians would prefer to turn a blind eye and allow the passage of the weapons inventory to Gaza. Even if this was not the case, the Iranians posited military assistance to Hamas as a supreme interest of the Islamic Revolution and were prepared to pay the price of a deterioration in relations between the countries. The attacks by Hassan Nasrallah against Egypt, including a summons to the Egyptian army to overthrow the Mubarak regime during Israel’s Gaza operation, would not have been made had Nasrallah not understood that in this fashion he was serving the wishes of his masters in Tehran.

Ever since the disclosures, the mass media in the Arab world and in the West has been
preoccupied with the dispute that has erupted between Hizbullah and Egypt, and have almost totally ignored the struggle that Hizbullah has initiated to change the face of the Lebanese regime.

While Britain adopted the questionable decision to open a dialogue with the “political wing” of Hizbullah and in practice recognized Hizbullah as a legitimate movement, it would appear that the artificial distinction drawn by the UK between the political and the military wings of Hizbullah has totally collapsed with the discovery of Hizbullah’s subversion in Egypt, which merely compounds what was previously discovered in Morocco. In that Sunni Arab kingdom, the king severed ties with Iran in March 2009, accusing it of supporting Shiite Islamic missionary activity.

Hizbullah’s Election Platform:
Setting the Stage for an Iranian Takeover of Lebanon

On April 3, 2009, Hizbullah published its political platform in advance of elections to the
Lebanese parliament scheduled for June 7, 2009. The document calls for the abolition of
sectarian politics and for the enactment of a new election law that would alter the equation of sectarian forces in Lebanon. (The English text of the 2009 Hizbullah platform appears at the end of this essay.)

The 2009 election platform joins a series of basic documents of the Hizbullah movement: These include the Open Letter (Risala Maftuha) from 1985, the first Hizbullah election platform for parliament from 1992, the Hizbullah political document ratified at the movement’s Third Congress in 1993, Hizbullah’s election platform for the 2000 parliamentary elections, and its platform for the municipal elections of 2004.
These two components – the unequivocal call to abolish sectarian politics and the enactment of a new election law – were placed at the very beginning of the platform in order to emphasize Hizbullah’s priorities. In the electoral platform of 2000, Hizbullah had called for establishing a national body for the abolishment of political sectarianism, but only in the fourth section of the platform. It is assumed that in this manner Hizbullah seeks to advance its aspiration to destroy the foundations of the sectarian regime in Lebanon agreed upon in the National Pact of 1943 that has been preserved by the Lebanese state ever since, amidst repeated crises. The abolition of the existing political system will advance Hizbullah toward its fundamental goal: the establishment of an Islamic state that provides political expression to the Shiite majority and a complete Iranian takeover of Lebanon.

What is missing in the new Hizbullah platform? There is no reference to its militia and weapons, as well as to the call from inside Lebanon to dismantle Hizbullah’s military capability and to integrate it into the Lebanese Armed Forces. Hizbullah ignores this aspect and insists on keeping its independent military wing as a “resistance” force against Israel.

However, it is clear that the preservation of Hizbullah’s military strength is intended primarily to allow the movement to translate its military power and demographic weight into a fundamental change of the Lebanese political system. In addition to this purpose, and no less important, Hizbullah’s military power serves as the cutting edge of Iran on Israel’s northern border, enabling the Islamic Republic to employ the military power that it erected in Lebanon to serve its strategic interests.

In recent years, and in the course of the severe political crises that have struck Lebanon since the murder of former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri in March 2005, Hizbullah has not concealed its intentions to realize the mission entrusted to it by the Iranian Revolutionary regime. The movement is to seize power in Lebanon and thus create another stable and trustworthy link in the Shiite axis of evil under Iranian leadership. In the Lebanese political realm, Hizbullah has labored to reinforce “the (Shiite) Opposition Camp” by aligning with powerful factions beyond the Shiite community against the Sunni-Shiite coalition headed by Saad al-Hariri. In practice, Hizbullah scored a major success by attracting to its side the Christian Free Patriotic Movement headed by Gen. Michel Aoun, and has strengthened its alliance with extremist Salafist Sunni groups. In a show of force, Hizbullah undertook an unprecedented brutal action when it effectively took over Beirut on May 7, 2008, in response to a government attempt to bring about the dismantling of Hizbullah’s independent communications infrastructure within Lebanon.

Hizbullah’s call for ending political sectarianism, coupled with the enactment of a new election law, came after this demonstration of power and self-confidence, and constitutes the apogee of its indefatigable efforts to attain power in Lebanon. The formulation of an electoral program in a manner that awards Hizbullah the deceptive image of an authentic Lebanese party operating on the basis of Lebanese interests was calculated to attract maximal representation and perhaps even a majority in parliament. However, its political rivals at home will seek to exploit Hizbullah’s recent entanglements in subversion against Egypt in order to expose Hizbullah as a disruptive force operating in the service of Iran and Syria.

Once again, it has been demonstrated that all the scholarly analyses that define Hizbullah as a Lebanese national movement are baseless. What Lebanese national interests are served by
subversive activity in Egypt? What Lebanese interests seek the transfer of Iranian arms from
Sudan and Sinai to Gaza? What national Lebanese ideology seeks to subvert the delicate
sectarian structure upon which the modern Lebanese state is predicated? The responses to these questions may be found in the framework of relations between Revolutionary Iran and its protégé in Lebanon, and between Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his loyal and obedient representative Hassan Nasrallah. The essence of the tie between them is not simply religious, but has far-reaching political implications influencing the range of Hizbullah behavior in the Lebanese arena and beyond, and symbolizes the growing influence of Iran in the Arab world.

The Hizbullah Platform for the June 2009 Parliamentary Elections

Introduction

Mohammed Ra’ad, the head of Hizbullah’s parliamentary bloc, presented Hizbullah’s election
platform on April 3, 2009:

With the approach of the parliamentary elections on June 7, we are seeking to
reformulate the political process and deal with the collapse of authority that has
resulted in crises that have adversely influenced national life and have plunged this
country into a cycle of instability.

UN Resolution 1559 of 2004 [which calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all
militias in Lebanon] constituted in some respects a portal for an internal civil war and
opened the gates to regional and international intervention that occasioned bitter
divisions. These divisions were exploited by international forces headed by the
United States in order to transfer the Lebanese arena to their tutelage.

When Hizbullah joined the national dialogue, we expected that this would serve as an
opportunity to reformulate a national consensus, and step away from the division into
camps, for we believe that we cannot safeguard the homeland and its unity unless a
spirit of mutual understanding and dialogue triumphs. We were always those who
sought Islamic unity and national unity. Subsequently, mutual understanding was
achieved between Hizbullah and the Christian Free Patriotic Movement [led by Gen.
Michel Aoun] as a pioneering step on this track.

The Zionist war of aggression in July 2006 touched off an unprecedented
international attack upon Lebanon. It strove to liquidate the Lebanese desire to
maintain the resistance and subordinate Lebanon. However, the major achievements
and acts of bravery of the holy warriors (mujaheddin) of the Islamic resistance turned
the criminal aggression supported by international and regional forces into a
disgraceful debacle which found expression in the downfall of the political and
military team of the Zionist entity, and the evaporation of illusions of an American
takeover of the region. Lebanon’s victory in this war was recognized throughout the
entire world.

The resistance is determined to complete the liberation of the remaining occupied
lands, and particularly the Shebaa Farms and the hills of Kfar Shuba. We believe that
any strategy of defense must integrate the current capabilities of the resistance and
the capabilities of the Lebanese army, enabling it to stand up to Israeli aspirations
regarding our lands and our water sources.

We affirm our enmity to Israel, our support and assistance to our Palestinian brothers
to liberate their land and the holy places, and our assiduous efforts to establish
excellent ties of fraternity with the Syrian Arab Republic.

In the Field of Political Reform P1

A. Cancelling Political Sectarianism

Forming the National Committee for Cancelling Political Sectarianism in accordance with the
Lebanese national consensus document, so that it will start its work and take the practical
measures to implement the recommendations that it will reach.

B. Electoral Law

The sound way to effect reform lies in enacting a modern electoral law based on proportionality. At the same time, the constitutional amendment concerning lowering the voting age to 18 years must be finalized, in addition to finalizing another amendment related to the separation of the parliamentary membership from the cabinet membership.

C. Equitable Development

The principle of equitable development constitutes one of the pillars of political reform. For this purpose it was enunciated in the contractual preamble of the constitution. In order to realize this, we demand the restoration of the Planning Ministry, drawing up five-or 10-year plans that monitor the needs of all areas in various sectors.

D. Administrative Decentralization

In its preamble, the constitution stipulates a revision of the administrative divisions, taking into consideration national unity and the preservation of coexistence. The administrative
decentralization means granting expanded administrative powers to smaller units –
municipalities, districts, and governorates. The aim is to strengthen development opportunities and facilitate the quick handling of paperwork and administrative duties.
E. The Judiciary

Since the Lebanese constitution has stipulated that the judiciary is an independent authority, side by side with the legislative and executive branches of power, and since the fair and impartial judiciary is a guarantee for the establishment of the state of law and preserving the rights of both the individual and the society – and hence there can be no political reform without it – we are of the opinion that work is necessary to enact and implement laws that help organize the judiciary under a higher independent judicial committee.

Administrative Reform

Administrative reform constitutes a major challenge in all societies. Trim and efficient
administration is the characteristic of modern states where administrative reform aims to reduce the burdens on the citizens, mobilize resources and capabilities, and carry out duties with speed and efficiency. In this regard, work should proceed in accordance with the following principles:

A. Drawing up a comprehensive blueprint for the administration and its needs, making an
inventory of the shortages and vacant positions and filling them.
B. Stressing scientific qualifications and practical skills.
C. Introducing modernization, automation, and information networking, and fighting
bureaucracy.
D. Activating monitoring and accountability and strengthening and bolstering monitoring
establishments – Civil Service Commission, Central Inspection, and the Public
Disciplinary Council, in addition to the Auditing Commission.
E. Developing laws and regulations in the field of administration and the budget, ensuring
speed in the performance of work, stopping waste, and ending bribery.
F. Adopting a scientific and methodological plan in the appointment of employees,
especially the senior officials (grades one and two) within efforts to enhance efficiency
and good performance in the official administration.
G. Enhancing efforts to implement the creation of the two governorates of Baalbek-Hermel
and Akkar, and completing the issuance of the applicable decisions in this regard.

Economic and Financial Reform

Since independence, Lebanon has been suffering from the absence of carefully studied economic and developmental visions that are based on the available resources, national requirements, and regional harmony. For these reasons the process of improving and developing economic performance has been proceeding in a haphazard manner. This led to the deterioration of some productive sectors, the termination of others, and the growth of others in an illogical manner. The Lebanese economy has been steered to promote services and realize profit. This resulted in harming economies that were considered productive and providing employment for skilled people, such as agriculture and industry.

In order to begin a genuine economic reform, we must first draw up a natural role of the state and move from an indifferent state with limited social and economic contributions to a state that is responsible for realizing growth and justice. Therefore, it is necessary to work along the following tracks:

1. The development track, through an equitable development of the various sectors and
areas, a partnership in development between the public and private sectors, and fair
distribution of profits.
2. The economic track, by realizing a sustainable and firm growth in domestic production,
raising production competitiveness in the economic sectors, and merging with the
regional surroundings (the Arab and Islamic markets).
3. The social track, by lowering the unemployment level, fighting poverty, and developing
the means of redistribution of income and providing basic services.
4. The financial track, by ending the vicious circle of public debt, reducing the servicing of
debts, reducing the budget deficit, fighting dissipation, and carrying out fair taxation
reforms.
5. In this connection, emphasis must be laid on the need to develop and sustain the policy of
activating the productive sectors such as agriculture, industry, and tourism by ensuring
loans on easy terms, providing taxation incentives, encouraging small businesses to
merge, strengthening cooperative work, providing guidance, extending support through
needed equipment, increasing irrigated areas, studying the needs of the domestic and
external markets by aiming at agricultural industrialization, developing the animal
production sector, and backing various types of exports.

The ultimate aim is to fight poverty and social marginalization, and this requires joint
efforts by the public and private sectors in concentrating on economic activities that
provide job opportunities and which are directed at the countryside and remote areas.

Education and Learning Sector

The Lebanese University is the most important higher education institution in Lebanon in terms of its size, its specialties, and the number of its students, especially those who come from limited income families. It is supposed to contribute to building the future of the homeland’s generations. This requires backing and developing by implementing the law that pertains to it, which protects its financial and administrative independence, ensures its development, and strengthens its scientific research resources. Unresolved issues must be resolved such as the problem of full time teachers and their protection, supporting the Contracting Fund, and reviving the Lebanese University’s Students National Union.

As for the public education sector, duty calls for drawing up a comprehensive educational plan, stressing a higher level of educational qualifications, providing the necessary needs for schools, ensuring heating fuel during winter, backing the School Fund Program, revising the map of the distribution of schools in conformity with the requirements of equitable development, in addition to developing educational institutions, stressing the powers of educational inspection, implementing the system of compulsory and free education, enhancing academic, vocational, and technical education, and treating the chronic needs of the teachers and instructors in various stages in a responsible and positive way.

Civil Society Organizations

Within the framework of enhancing the national sense of responsibility, efforts must be exerted to develop party and trade union activities and open the way for civic society organizations to be active and to become a vital supporter and an effective monitor of the performance of the ruling authority’s departments. This will lead to enhancing the awareness of society to the need to shoulder its duties in managing public life. In this regard, we emphasize the following:

1. The media

Freedom of expression must be preserved and protected, as stipulated in the preamble of the constitution, considering it an unchanging right that cannot be infringed upon within the
framework of the law. Thus, emphasis will be laid on freedom of the media and the revision of certain laws, especially the Publications Law, thus lifting the threats against the media.

2. Women

Efforts should be exerted to strengthen the role of women and develop their participation in the political, cultural, educational, media and social fields, and to exploit this role in establishing a balance in society in terms of psychology and values.

3. Youth

Taking care of the rising generations and the young, developing their resources and talents,
guiding them towards sublime national and humanitarian objectives, and protecting them from corrupt thought and the tools and means of deviation and immorality.

4. Fighting the deviations and the harmful ailments in our society, whether through the media or by other means, emphasizing educational and media guidance, warning against the spread of corruption and dissolute values, and augment the monitoring of scenes and pictures that infringe on public morality and harm the humanitarian image of women.


5. Protecting the privacy of citizens by preventing indiscriminate wiretapping of their telephone conversations, and respecting the laws that pertain to these issues and bringing the violators of these laws, whoever they may be, to account for what they do.

Improving and Developing Social Services

In light of our conviction that the state cannot shirk its caring role nor behave in an indifferent manner or be apathetic towards the needs of the citizens, it is the duty of the state to improve services in the fields of health, education, housing, and social care. Of these duties, we mention the following:


A. Activating the public health sector, generalizing the principle of healthcare and
preventive medicine, putting an end to monopolization in the drug market, and unifying
the hospitalization funds.
B. Backing efforts to develop and reform the National Fund for Social Security and
expanding the circle of its beneficiaries.
C. Drawing up a housing strategy that takes into consideration the comprehensive
development of all areas, in addition to enhancing the state’s support for housing loans.
D. Continuing the process of land planning and specification, enhancing the work pertaining
to the annexation and demarcation of land, and treating property problems and issues
pertaining to joint possession of property, and dealing with violations of the law by
owners of buildings.


Energy and the Protection of Resources

Squandering water and natural resources is one of the chronic problems in Lebanon. Despite
huge precipitation and multiple sources of water, the hardship continues to be great, especially during the dry season. Therefore, work should be done on the following:

A. Protecting water resources, especially the ones that are being threatened by the Israeli
enemy.
B. Completing Canal 800 of the Litani River project.
C. Exerting serious efforts to complete the dams and lakes projects in accordance with a
specific timeframe.
D. Expanding and rehabilitating the irrigation networks, especially in agricultural areas.
E. Completing the establishment and the rehabilitation of the domestic water networks.

As for the electricity sector, what is required is work to complete the electric power lines,
modernize the production plants, treat the technical waste, fight transgressions on energy
sources, and expand to create new and environment-friendly means of production.

As for the communications sector, we are required to preserve this national resource by
developing this sector and improving its services, offering the consumers further services and observing the rule of providing the best service at the least cost.

Environmental Protection

The environment in Lebanon has been exposed to a large-scale process of destruction and
violations, such as forest fires, indiscriminate felling of trees, lawlessness in opening quarries
and gravel facilities, polluting the rivers with sewage water, and indiscriminate burial of sold
waste. All of this makes us sound the alarm and declare a state of national emergency to do the following:

A. Adopting a guiding scientific environmental plan on sites for quarries and gravel
production.
B. Enhancing the completion of building sewage systems in all areas.
C. Drawing up a modern study for the best means of getting rid of solid waste and
transforming it into energy instead of burying it under the ground.
D. Providing effective means of firefighting, imposing strict measures to prevent tampering
with the environment, and combating transgressions on the seacoast and rivers.
E. Launching a national campaign to enhance the green picture of Lebanon by cooperation
with all organizations, both local and foreign, that care for the environment

* * *
Note

1. This translation of the Hizbullah platform appeared on the “Now Lebanon” website, based on the speech by Mohammad Raad broadcast on Hizbullah-affiliated Al-Manar TV on April 6,
2009, http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=89737

* * *
Brig. Gen. (res.) Dr. Shimon Shapira is the author of Hizballah: Between Iran and Lebanon, 4th ed. (Tel Aviv: Dayan Center, Tel Aviv University, 2006). He is a senior research associate at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

Yair Minzili is a senior researcher in the fields of economics, political policy, and Islam in the
Middle East.
---

The Jerusalem Letter and Jerusalem Viewpoints are published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, 13 Tel-Hai St., Jerusalem, Israel; Tel. 972-2-5619281, Fax. 972-2-5619112, Internet: jcpa@netvision.net.il. In U.S.A.: Center for Jewish Community Studies, 5800 Park Heights Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21215 USA, Tel. (410) 664-5222; Fax. (410) 664-1228. © Copyright. All rights reserved. ISSN: 0792-7304.

The opinions expressed by the authors of Jerusalem Viewpoints do not necessarily reflect those of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.
---
To subscribe to the Jerusalem Viewpoints list, please go to link: 3TUhttp://www.list-jcpa.org/brief-sub.html

THE VIOLENCE OF ISLAM - HATRED IN THE KORAN

January 16, 2009

Is Islam a Violent Faith?

...Violence, Hatred and Discrimination in the Koran



















Dr. Sami Alrabaa

If you say that Islam is a violent faith, you are accused of being anti-Islam and you are propagating “Islamophobia.”

There are more than one billion Muslims around the world, and I’m one of them. We are told that the Koran is the “word of God.” When you read the Koran, however – which over 90% of all Muslims have never read, according to a survey by Bielefeld University in Germany, and if they ever do, either they do not understand its archaic language or they do not ponder on what it says – you find out that it is full of passages that incite to hatred, killing, and discriminate against women.

Below are some quotations from the Koran. We begin with what the “holy book” of Muslims says about people of other religions.

According to the Koran and many Muslims, Christians and Jews have left the true path of their religion. Therefore, they are infidels (unbelievers) like Buddhists and Hindus, for example. In other words, according to the Koran, only Muslims, i.e. 19% of the world population, are true believers. The rest are “unbelievers” and “infidels.”

Literally, the Koran says the following about the Jews, Christians, and other “unbelievers:”

“O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.” (Sura 5, verse 51).

“And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah DESTROY them; how they are turned away!” (Sura 9, verse 30).

“And the Jews will not be pleased with you, nor the Christians until you follow their religion. Say: Surely Allah's guidance, that is the (true) guidance. And if you follow their desires after the knowledge that has come to you, you shall have no guardian from Allah, nor any helper.” (Sura 2, verse 120).

“And KILL them (the unbelievers) wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.” (Sura 2, verse 191).

“Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming.” (Sura 3, verse 28).

“And guard yourselves against the fire which has been prepared for the unbelievers.” (Sura 3, verse 131)

“And when you journey in the earth, there is no blame on you if you shorten the prayer, if you fear that those who disbelieve will cause you distress, surely the unbelievers are your open ENEMY.” (Sura 4, verse 101).

“O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).” (Sura 9, verse 123).

“Surely We have prepared for the unbelievers chains and shackles and a burning fire.” (Sura 76, verse 4).

“O you who believe! if you obey a party from among those who have been given the Book (The Jews and Christians), they will turn you back as unbelievers after you have believed.” (Sura 3, verse 100).

“And their taking usury (interests on money) though indeed they were forbidden it and their devouring the property of people falsely, and We have prepared for the unbelievers from among them a painful chastisement.” (Sura 4. verse 161).

“Surely Allah has cursed the unbelievers (Jews, Christians and followers of other faiths) and has prepared for them a burning fire.” (Sura 33, verse 64).

“And whoever does not believe in Allah and His Apostle, then surely We have prepared burning fire for the unbelievers.” (Sura 48, verse 13).

Does Allah discriminate? The Koran says:

“You are the best of the nations raised up for (the benefit of) men; you enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong and believe in Allah; and if the followers of the Book had believed it would have been better for them; of them (some) are believers and most of them are transgressors.” (Sura 3, verse 110).

Therefore, what does the Koran say about those who turn their back to Islam and commit apostasy?

“They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them (the unbelievers) friends until they flee (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and KILL them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.” (Sura 4, verse 89).

Now, what does the Koran say about women? Here are some quotations:

“Men are superior to women because Allah has made so. Therefore good women are obedient, and (as to) those (women) on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and BEAT them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.” (Sura 4, verse 34).

“And as for those who are guilty of an indecency from among your women, call to witnesses against them, four (witnesses) from among you; then if they bear witness confine them to the houses until death takes them away or Allah opens some way for them.” (Sura 4, verse 15).

According to the Koran, a woman’s testimony is worth half of that of a man.

“O you who believe! when you deal with each other in contracting a debt for a fixed time then call in to witness from among your men two witnesses; but if there are not two men, then one man and two women from among those whom you choose to be witnesses, so that if one of the two errs, the second of the two may remind the other.” (Sura 2, verse 282).

As far as sex is concerned, women are sex objects, according to the Koran. They must be ready for intercourse any time the husband wishes so.

“Your wives are a tilth for you, so go into your tilth when you like, and do good beforehand for yourselves, and be careful (of your duty) to Allah, and know that you will meet Him, and give good news to the believers.” (Sura 2, verse 223).

During menstruation, however, men should keep away from women; they are filthy. The Koran says:

“It (menstruation) is a discomfort; therefore keep aloof from the women during the menstrual discharge and do not go near them until they have become clean; then when they have cleansed themselves, go in to them as Allah has commanded you; surely Allah loves those who turn much (to Him), and He loves those who purify themselves.” (Sura 2, verse 222).

Women, according to the Koran, are, in general, unclean creature. After a Muslim has washed and prepared himself for prayer, he should not touch a woman. Therefore, “pious” Muslims never shake hands with women.

“O you who believe! do not go near prayer until you have washed yourselves; and if you have touched women, and you cannot find water, betake yourselves to pure earth, then wipe your faces and your hands; surely Allah is Pardoning, Forgiving.” (Sura 4, verse 43).

In case of inheritance, a woman inherits half of the portion a man inherits:

“They ask you for a decision of the law. Say: Allah gives you a decision concerning the person who has neither parents nor offspring; if a man dies (and) he has no son and he has a sister, she shall have half of what he leaves, and he shall be her heir she has no son; but if there be two (sisters), they shall have two-thirds of what he leaves; and if there are brethren, men and women, then the male shall have the like of the portion of two females; Allah makes clear to you, lest you err; and Allah knows all things.” (Sura 4, verse 176).

And what kind of punishment does a thief get, according to the Koran, regardless how much they steal?

“And (as for) the man who steals and the woman who steals, cut off their hands as a punishment for what they have earned, an exemplary punishment from Allah; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.” (Sura 5, verse 38).

Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world that uses the Koran as its day-to-day law for all kinds of disputes and crimes. It is the Shari’a (Islamic law). For Islamists and conservative Muslims, Shari’a is the constitution and law that must prevail everywhere. They argue, what is better than the law of Allah which He, via the Engle Gabriel revealed to the Prophet Mohammed 1400 years ago?

King Abdullah, the absolute monarch of Saudi Arabia, said on a televised speech August 27, 2008, “We do not need democracy, we do not need political parties, we do not need Western human rights, we do not need their freedom of speech. What we need is the Koran. It regulates our life perfectly. It is the best legislation in the history of mankind, it is the word of Allah. There is nothing better than Allah’s law.”

The “Hadeeth,” a collection of statements and comments which Prophet Mohammed allegedly made during his lifetime, is also full of atrocities. Here is a sample:

“A woman came to the Prophet and admitted that she had committed adultery and thereafter became pregnant. The Prophet summoned her husband and all people of Median (in Saudi Arabia). He said, ‘This woman committed adultery. Therefore, after she delivers her innocent baby, all of you are going to stone her to death. This is Allah’s verdict.’ After she delivered her baby she was stoned to death in the center of the town.” (Narrated by Muslim, (a close contemporary follower of Mohammed), cited by Khoury, The Koran, p. 550).

Stoning women and flogging men for adultery are widely practiced in Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Hester on the scaffold in puritan Massachusetts, America of the 17th century, in the Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne, must have felt happy that she was not born among the “believers” in the Arabian Peninsula.

The Koran is filled with contradictions. While in sura 2, verse 256, it says “There is no compulsion in religion,” it urges Muslims to kill those Muslims who convert to other religions.

Both the Koran and the Hadeeth were collected after the death of Prophet Mohammed in 632. The second Caliph, Othman ordered collecting the Koran and the Hadeeth which had been written no where. They were memorized by Mohammed’s followers. Then Mohammed and his followers were illiterate. He disseminated Islam by the word of mouth. A committee was formed in Mecca and followers of the new faith queued up to deliver what they could remember from the Koran and Hadeeth. This campaign lasted for over 70 years.

That the vast majority of Muslims have not read or digested the Koran has two major implications. First, if rational, modern-thinking Muslims read the Koran thoroughly, they would desert Islam. They would argue that God cannot incite to hatred and violence. The Koran cannot be the “word of God.” Second, if simple-minded Muslims read the Koran and digested it, they would stick to the above “commandments” and we would have more radical and extremist Muslims around the world.

Certainly the Torah, the Bible, and other holy books have their own atrocious passages, especially those discriminatory ones against women, though with one difference: Muslim fundamentalists adhere to the above cited passages – in belief they are commanded directly by Allah – and implement them to the letter. Think of those suicide bombers in the Middle East and elsewhere and of the violent demonstrations against the “Mohammed cartoon” in some Muslim cities. But it is also true that the majority of Muslims simply ignore these dreadful passages like many Jews and Christians ignore their own.

After he received and read this piece, Henrik Clausen from Europe News asked me if I was not afraid of being declared apostate. I said, “No.” I’m fighting for a human and modern Islam. Besides, the truth must be told at all costs. I also told him, it is not my personal opinion that the Koran incites to hatred, violence, and discrimination, etc., as we have seen above – it is our “holy” book that is preaching all this. The cited passages prove that beyond any shred of doubt. I’m just citing what the Koran commands.

Further, the above quotations are intended to help critics of Islam present tangible evidence for their arguments. It is not enough to say, “I think, I believe, etc.” It is also not enough to say “I’m exerting my right of freedom of speech.”

There is no room for theological interpretations unless you handle the Koran in its own historical perspective. The religious establishment rejects any interpretation anyway. The slightest attempt to do so is rejected and its authors are persecuted as heretics. Think of the Egyptian theologian Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd, who is now living in hiding in the Netherlands. Besides, for conservative Muslims and fundamentalists, the Koran, as it is, is valid for all times and for everywhere. It is the “word of God.” He is not fallible and moody like we humans are.

Reformers of Islam, and I consider myself one of them, argue that the Koran and the Hadeeth should be looked at in a historical perspective. Muslims 1,400 years ago were fighting Christians and Jews. Therefore, they hated them. The Muslims wanted to prevail at all costs, therefore these passages in the Koran. Women were discriminated against because this was natural in the Arab culture at the time, and is to some extent today. Apropos, the situation in Medieval Europe was not better.

In addition, it is one of two things: Either the Koran was concocted by the Muslim leader, Mohammed, or at least partly, or it was made up by his zealous followers after his death. Remember that hundreds or thousands of Muslims at the time contributed to compiling this work. They were promised Paradise for their contributions like suicide bombers are nowadays promised it plus 60 virgin girls.

*Note: The verse numbers may vary from one Koran translation to another.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Dr. Sami Alrabaa, an ex-Muslim, is a professor of Sociology and an Arab-Muslim culture specialist. Before moving to Germany he taught at Kuwait University, King Saud University, and Michigan State University.

Is Hizballah worming its way into the Lebanese army, or is the army now a part of Hizballah?

October 23, 2008

Former CIA Ops Officer on Hizballah

Maj. W. Thomas Smith, Jr.

Maj. W. Thomas Smith Jr. is director of the Counterterrorism Research Center of the Family Security Foundation. A former U.S. Marine infantry leader and shipboard counterterrorism instructor, Smith writes about military/defense issues and has covered conflict in the Balkans, on the West Bank, in Iraq and Lebanon. He is the author of six books, and his articles have appeared in USA Today, George, U.S. News & World Report, BusinessWeek, National Review Online, CBS News, Townhall.com, The Washington Times, and others.

Among my sources for a recent piece, “Are We Funding the Lebanese Army or Hizballah?” (Human Events, Oct. 20, 2008), was my friend and colleague, Clare M. Lopez, who – when I mentioned to her my concerns regarding Hizballah’s having wormed its way into the legitimate Lebanese Defense apparatus as an official component of the army – said to me, “It’s actually the other way around. The army now appears to be part of Hizballah.”

Lopez – a former operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency who is today a widely sought expert in the interconnected realms of strategic policy, counterintelligence, and counterterrorism – clearly understands the dynamics of Lebanon, its strategic importance in the war on terror, and its increasingly dominant kingdom within the state, Hizballah.

While pulling together information for the piece from additional sources, I spoke with Lopez a couple of times by phone and email. And her analysis for me was so informationally rich that – though I was unable to include all of it in our Human Events piece – I am including it here now.

I’m doing so on the 25th anniversary of the terrorist bombing of the U.S. Marine Barracks in Beirut. The suicide attack – carried out by fledgling Hizballah on Oct. 23, 1983 – killed 241 American Marines, sailors, and soldiers.

Following is Lopez’s unedited, exclusive analysis regarding Hizballah:

“Tom, yes, since May 2008, when Hizballah swiftly and brutally demonstrated its ability to impose military control throughout Lebanon, literally at will, and then with the July formation of the government of national unity (wherein Hizballah wields cabinet veto power), it is clear that Hizballah – and by extension, Iran – owns Lebanon. This means that a radical, revolutionary, and expansionist Shi'a jihad force occupies a foothold on the southeastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea.

“The Lebanese Army stood aside when Hizballah made its move in May: no big surprise to anyone who understands what has been happening demographically in Lebanon these last years: as a Shi'a majority force, the Army's sympathies are obviously with Hizballah. Other militias and political groups within Lebanon – from Michel Aoun's Free Patriotic Movement, to Druze leader Walid Jumblatt's Progressive Socialist Party, to Amal leader Nabi Berri, and now even a clutch of Sunni parties – are lining up to ally themselves with Hizballah.

“Some say that even Saad Hariri's revered father, Rafiq, may have been killed with Saudi involvement because of his close relationship with [Hizballah Secretary General Hassan] Nasrallah – who can be seen on YouTube, by the way, waxing eloquent about Rafiq in front of millions of cheering Lebanese. The lead UN investigator has also spoken publicly about Saudi involvement in the assassination.

“U.S. Middle East policy is woefully misguided, in my opinion. How could it be otherwise? Thirty-five years of graduates from Saudi-Wahhabi-Salafi-funded Ivy League Middle East Studies programs now occupy top positions throughout our Dept. of State, Intelligence Community, think tanks, media, and academia itself.

“There seems to be little to no comprehension or willingness on the part of the Bush administration to recognize current hard realities in the Levant, primary of which is the massive and nefarious influence of Iran. I don't know exactly why there is such fear and reluctance to confront Iran, but my own personal suspicions lie with the status of its nuclear warhead development program – and where those warheads may now already be deployed. Iran's threats, and Hizballah's ability, to field scores, if not hundreds of suicide bombers to Iraq, Israel, and our own cities in the West may also be a reason why our national leadership seems paralyzed with fear about Iran.

“Thing is, this is not going to improve with time if we don't do something to confront it....we'll simply be forced into a position of total submission – dhimmitude–vis-a-vis Iran and the forces of jihad. What this means in the first instance is abandonment of Israel, our foremost ally in the Middle East and the only reliable outpost of liberal democracy in the region. Obama already has promised his support to Muslims and Palestinians, and has indicated he will end the special relationship between the U.S. and Israel – in truth, not a big change from the policies of the Condi Rice State Dept., but now it will be official policy, if he wins the presidency.

“It is Iran that guided and funded and armed the formation of Hizballah in 1982 – and continues to do so. It is Iran that advises, arms, funds, and guides the Palestinian terror organizations sworn to the destruction of the State of Israel: Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Fatah militias (Tanzim, Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade). It is Iran that reportedly has provided Hizballah with something on the order of $3 billion for reconstruction in Lebanon since the summer 2006 war. Not the Lebanese government, not the French or Americans or Europeans or the international community: Iran – which means Nasrallah gets to take credit among [many of] the Lebanese people, who obviously adore the guy. Nasrallah is known as the ‘man who never lies,’ because the promises he makes, he keeps.

“Most dangerous for Israel, it is Iran that has rearmed Hizballah in the aftermath of that war with Fajr 3 and Fajr 5 surface-to-surface missiles, Chinese-made shore-to-sea C-802 missiles, Zelzal-2 and Zelzal-3 missiles (which are capable of delivering CBW munitions a distance of 250 km.), wire-guided TOW missiles, and AT-3 Sagger antitank missiles, antiaircraft cannons, SA-7 anti-aircraft missiles, shoulder-fired Strela-7 and mobile Rapier 2 ground-to-air missiles, Katyusha artillery rockets, sophisticated explosive charges, and small arms.

“Hizballah's command-and-control system is fully integrated with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran. Its military telecommunications system -- the one the Fuad Siniora government made a weak (and ultimately futile) move to bring under central Lebanese government control in May, is world-class and now demonstrably untouchable by the Lebanese government. Its broadcast network – TV, radio, Internet – is modern, sophisticated, and very large.

“Since taking control of Lebanon in May, Hizballah forces have occupied all the key high ground and established layered defenses north of the Litani River, in the southern and central Bekaa Valley, and reinforced their presence in southern Beirut.

“UNIFIL's 15,000 ground forces in Lebanon have failed utterly to enforce UN Resolution 1701 and instead of preventing Hizballah's massive rearmament following the summer 2006 war, they have engaged in liaison and pay-off operations with Hizballah for the purpose of force protection.

“So, the U.S. government decision to grant the Lebanese Army millions of dollars worth of military assistance, in full knowledge that those weapons will never be used to confront Hizballah, and more than likely will only add to their arsenal, is foolish in the extreme, in my opinion. After the events of May and July, there can simply be no doubt in any sane person's mind about who controls Lebanon: it is not the Fuad Siniora government! Hassan Nasrallah controls Lebanon.

“I am not one who believes Hassan Nasrallah dances on a puppeteer's strings manipulated out of Tehran – I think he uses Iranian and Syrian assistance for his own ends in Lebanon (although he may be more willing to do their bidding abroad) – but their common purpose surely is the destruction of the State of Israel.

“All I can think is that our national security policy is in the hands of those who do not really believe in the defense of liberal democracy – and most especially if that liberal democracy is embodied in a Jewish State of Israel. There is a terrible strain of anti-Semitism that has taken root and grown in the ranks of our State Dept. and CIA in particular – again, perhaps the result of all those years of Saudi-Wahhabi indoctrination in our top universities. But the result is clear: Condi's readiness to throw Israel under a bus at Annapolis last November [2007]; the Bush administration's refusal to deal with Iran, despite a lot of soaring rhetoric, and now, a real and perceptible diminishment in the bilateral commitment.

“The naiveté of our government’s dealings with Syria, as well as this military deal with the Lebanese Army, seems incomprehensible to me. The ability to distinguish between friend and foe in the Middle East seems lost and will have disastrous consequences for our own national security objectives in the region and ultimately, at home.” — Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. at uswriter.com.

Kill, Capture, Torture, Destroy

"Next Time" Now: Kill, Capture, Torture, Destroy -

To Free Gilad Schalit

Dr. Aaron Lerner
Date: 16 July 2008

"Next time it will be different", a nation swears as the caskets of Goldwasser and Regev are broadcast on television in the immoral, grotesque and humiliating bodies for terrorist deal.

A deal that sends the message to Israel's enemies not to kidnap more Israelis - but instead to grab and kill more Israelis.

Well. The "next time" is already now.

And so. Instead of pondering how many murderers the Jewish State should hand over to the terrorist Hamas to gain the release of Gilad Schalit, the State of Israel must return to its senses and do what a normal state that truly values the lives of its citizens does:

Kill, capture, torture (aka "interrogate"), and destroy - to free Gilad Schalit.

We don't know the exact location of Schalit but we know he is in the narrow Gaza Strip.

And we know exactly the chain of command that is holding him captive.

And so.

Like any nation that values its citizens.

That does not accept its citizens being taken hostage.

Israel should launch now a bloody and violent invasion of the Gaza Strip in search of Gilad Schalit.

Every camp, office, warehouse, apartment - basically any place; every official, officer, gunmen, etc. associated with the organizations that hold Schalit (and that includes first and foremost Hamas) is a target.

If there is resistance then the IDF will react like the army of any country that values the lives of its citizens and give priority to the lives of the soldiers engaged in the operation over the lives of those either endangering its soldier or intentionally providing a human shield to those enemy forces.

Hamas leadership should find themselves literally facing the decision of their lives: unconditionally release Schalit or be responsible for the utter destruction of Hamas and their own collective one way visit to Paradise.

Yes. "Next time" is now.

And only a return to a strong and respectful response now to the ongoing challenge presented by the holding of Gilad Schalit by Hamas can restore the deterrence that Israel so critically requires for its survival.

Dr. Aaron Lerner,
Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)
(Mail POB 982 Kfar Sava)
Tel 972-9-7604719/Fax 972-3-7255730
INTERNET ADDRESS: imra@netvision.net.ilWebsite: http://www.imra.org.il

MURDERER OF ISRAELI CHILDREN TO BE SET FREE

Blogmaster’s rant: This contemptible act speaks volumes about the resolve (lack thereof) of the present Israeli Government and gives Hizbullah, Hamas, Fatah and other terrorists the green light to kidnap and murder more Israeli soldiers. Finally, they have found a way to force Israel to negotiate with terrorists! There will be more kidnappings… we have opened the door and have no one to blame but ourselves. May Kuntar soon die a slow and agonizing death.

Peres pardons Kuntar

"I want to stress the obvious – in this decision there is no forgiveness or absolution for the murderer's heinous actions. I will not forget, and I won't forgive… I have reached this difficult decision after speaking with the Shahar, Keren and Haran families – the families of the victims of the despicable murderer Samir Kuntar. I, together with all the people of Israel, feel their pain, which is unbearable." President Shimon Peres

KUNTAR VOWS TO KILL MORE ISRAELI BABIES…

Kuntar, who was jailed in the Hadarim Prison in the Sharon region 29 years ago, after murdering the Haran family members and two police officers during a terror attack on the northern city of Nahariya, made the promise in the following letter to the mass murderer and leader of the Hizbullah Shiite terrorist organization, Hassan Nasrallah. The letter was first published in the Palestinian Authority's official daily newspaper al-Hayat al-Jadida.

"My dear and respectable master and commander," Kuntar wrote in the letter to Nasrallah. "Peace be with you and with our shahids (martyrs). "I give you my promise and oath that my only place will be in the fighting front soaked with the sweat of your giving and with the blood of the shahids (martyrs), the dearest people, and that I will continue your way until we reach a full victory. I send my best wishes and promise of renewed loyalty to you, sir, and to all the jihad fighters,"

Samir Kuntar

The World Should Know What He Did to My Family

By Smadar Haran Kaiser

Sunday, May 18, 2003; Page B02
NAHARIYA, Israel

Abu Abbas, the former head of a Palestinian terrorist group who was captured in Iraq on April 15, is infamous for masterminding the 1985 hijacking of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro. But there are probably few who remember why Abbas's terrorists held the ship and its 400-plus passengers hostage for two days. It was to gain the release of a Lebanese terrorist named Samir Kuntar, who is locked up in an Israeli prison for life. Kuntar's name is all but unknown to the world. But I know it well. Because almost a quarter of a century ago, Kuntar murdered my family.

It was a murder of unimaginable cruelty, crueler even than the murder of Leon Klinghoffer, the American tourist who was shot on the Achille Lauro and dumped overboard in his wheelchair. Kuntar's mission against my family, which never made world headlines, was also masterminded by Abu Abbas. And my wish now is that this terrorist leader should be prosecuted in the United States, so that the world may know of all his terrorist acts, not the least of which is what he did to my family on April 22, 1979.

It had been a peaceful Sabbath day. My husband, Danny, and I had picnicked with our little girls, Einat, 4, and Yael, 2, on the beach not far from our home in Nahariya, a city on the northern coast of Israel, about six miles south of the Lebanese border. Around midnight, we were asleep in our apartment when four terrorists, sent by Abu Abbas from Lebanon, landed in a rubber boat on the beach two blocks away. Gunfire and exploding grenades awakened us as the terrorists burst into our building. They had already killed a police officer. As they charged up to the floor above ours, I opened the door to our apartment. In the moment before the hall light went off, they turned and saw me. As they moved on, our neighbor from the upper floor came running down the stairs. I grabbed her and pushed her inside our apartment and slammed the door.

Outside, we could hear the men storming about. Desperately, we sought to hide. Danny helped our neighbor climb into a crawl space above our bedroom; I went in behind her with Yael in my arms. Then Danny grabbed Einat and was dashing out the front door to take refuge in an underground shelter when the terrorists came crashing into our flat. They held Danny and Einat while they searched for me and Yael, knowing there were more people in the apartment. I will never forget the joy and the hatred in their voices as they swaggered about hunting for us, firing their guns and throwing grenades. I knew that if Yael cried out, the terrorists would toss a grenade into the crawl space and we would be killed. So I kept my hand over her mouth, hoping she could breathe. As I lay there, I remembered my mother telling me how she had hidden from the Nazis during the Holocaust. "This is just like what happened to my mother," I thought.

As police began to arrive, the terrorists took Danny and Einat down to the beach. There, according to eyewitnesses, one of them shot Danny in front of Einat so that his death would be the last sight she would ever see. Then he smashed my little girl's skull in against a rock with his rifle butt. That terrorist was Samir Kuntar.

By the time we were rescued from the crawl space, hours later, Yael, too, was dead. In trying to save all our lives, I had smothered her.

The next day, Abu Abbas announced from Beirut that the terrorist attack in Nahariya had been carried out "to protest the signing of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty" at Camp David the previous year. Abbas seems to have a gift for charming journalists, but imagine the character of a man who protests an act of peace by committing an act of slaughter.

Two of Abbas's terrorists had been killed by police on the beach. The other two were captured, convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Despite my protests, one was released in a prisoner exchange for Israeli POWs several months before the Achille Lauro hijacking. Abu Abbas was determined to find a way to free Kuntar as well. So he engineered the hijacking of the Achille Lauro off the coast of Egypt and demanded the release of 50 Arab terrorists from Israeli jails. The only one of those prisoners actually named was Samir Kuntar. The plight of hundreds held hostage on a cruise ship for two days at sea lent itself to massive international media coverage. The attack on Nahariya, by contrast, had taken less than an hour in the middle of the night. So what happened then was hardly noticed outside of Israel.

One hears the terrorists and their excusers say that they are driven to kill out of desperation. But there is always a choice. Even when you have suffered, you can choose whether to kill and ruin another's life, or whether to go on and rebuild. Even after my family was murdered, I never dreamed of taking revenge on any Arab. But I am determined that Samir Kuntar should never be released from prison. In 1984, I had to fight my own government not to release him as part of an exchange for several Israeli soldiers who were POWs in Lebanon. I understood, of course, that the families of those POWs would gladly have agreed to the release of an Arab terrorist to get their sons back. But I told Yitzhak Rabin, then defense minister, that the blood of my family was as red as that of the POWs. Israel had always taken a position of refusing to negotiate with terrorists. If they were going to make an exception, let it be for a terrorist who was not as cruel as Kuntar. "Your job is not to be emotional," I told Rabin, "but to act rationally." And he did.

So Kuntar remains in prison. I have been shocked to learn that he has married an Israeli Arab woman who is an activist on behalf of terrorist prisoners. As the wife of a prisoner, she gets a monthly stipend from the government. I'm not too happy about that.

In recent years, Abu Abbas started telling journalists that he had renounced terrorism and that killing Leon Klinghoffer had been a mistake. But he has never said that killing my family was a mistake. He was a terrorist once, and a terrorist, I believe, he remains. Why else did he spend these last years, as the Israeli press has reported, free as a bird in Baghdad, passing rewards of $25,000 from Saddam Hussein to families of Palestinian suicide bombers? More than words, that kind of cash prize, which is a fortune to poor families, was a way of urging more suicide bombers. The fortunate thing about Abbas's attaching himself to Hussein is that it set him up for capture.

Some say that Italy should have first crack at Abbas. It had already convicted him of the Achille Lauro hijacking in absentia in 1986. Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi now wants Abbas handed over so that he can begin serving his life sentence. But it's also true that in 1985, the Italians had Abbas in their hands after U.S. fighter jets forced his plane to land in Sicily. And yet they let him go. So while I trust Berlusconi, who knows if a future Italian government might not again wash its hands of Abbas?

In 1995, Rabin, then our prime minister, asked me to join him on his trip to the White House, where he was to sign a peace agreement with Yasser Arafat, which I supported. I believe that he wanted me to represent all Israeli victims of terrorism. Rabin dreaded shaking hands with Arafat, knowing that those hands were bloody. At first, I agreed to make the trip, but at the last minute, I declined. As prime minister, Rabin had to shake hands with Arafat for political reasons. As a private person, I did not. So I stayed here.

Now I am ready and willing to come to the United States to testify against Abu Abbas if he is tried for terrorism. The daughters of Leon Klinghoffer have said they are ready to do the same. Unlike Klinghoffer, Danny, Einat and Yael were not American citizens. But Klinghoffer was killed on an Italian ship in Abbas's attempt to free the killer of my family in Israel. We are all connected by the international web of terrorism woven by Abbas. Let the truth come out in a new and public trial. And let it be in the United States, the leader in the struggle against terrorism.

Smadar Haran Kaiser is a social worker. She is remarried and has two daughters.
© 2003 The Washington Post Company