Today's Norway bombing may still turn out not to be perpetrated by Sunni Extremists, however this is the current hypothesis (the article on this link was amended later to point to what is known at this moment that the shooting and probably the bombing were all the doing of a lonely white norwegian man acting on the basis of probably right wing political motives including hatred of Islam).
Sunni extremism has a long history of being used by different countries to fulfill a political aganda. The Mujahidin were used by the west in order to oust the soviet republic from Afghanistan. But this utlimately resulted, after the end of the war in Afghanistan, with a disorientation of the goals of jihad to finally rest their sight on the US with multiple targets hit by Bin Laden and his allies over several years that culminated in 9/11. Whatever the official reasons behind 9/11, the reality is that global sunni jihad was getting out of hand the moment it losts its main enemy, the USSR. New goals were eyed by these jihadis including their own home countries, mainly Saudi Arabia and Yemen. This is probably the main reason why Saudi Arabia worked tirelessly to maintain the money flowing to the global sunni jihad while succeeding at keeping its monarchy out of its line of sight. Evidence from the 9/11 commission points to this complexe relationship between the kingdom and the global sunni jihad.
There are also many local examples in the ME of this flow of Sunni jihad from one country in crisis to another. Lebanon experienced this first hand when an extremist sunni group, Fatah El Islam, fought the Lebanese army for three months in the Palestinian refugee camp of Nahr El Bared which led to the total destruction of the camp in 2007. This group was formed by former Al Qaida combatants in Iraq. It infiltrated Palestinian camps in Lebanon with the financial help of local sunni politicians.
Similarly, there is a flow of sunni jihadis now from Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, from where the US has been reducing its military presence and from where Nato, exhausted by the Lybian campaign, will be pulling out soon, to countries experiencing the Arab spring. The Arab spring could well be hijacked by these extremist movements. In Syria for example a genuine revolution based on specific grievances turned quickly to an organised armed revolt the Syrian government has been fighting for the last four months with these movements. There is an indication that Syrian exiles, as well as Lebanese politicians who are opposed to the Assad regime, are trying to use these movements. There is also an indication that the Lybian revolution has been infiltrated by Al Qaida.
There is actually two possibilities to contain this flow of sunni jihadis:
1. The jihadis are used in an open sectarian war against Shias and this is a prospect the neocons, Israel and Saudi Arabia have been caressing recently because it serves the immediate political goals of each of these countries or political movements. It keeps the kingdom and other Arab monarchies, for now, out of the line of sight of the jihadis for political vindication and unrest due to the fact that the Arab spring proved to be a fertile ground for Sunni Islamist groups activism, and for the neocons and Israel, it pits sunnis against shias, a strife that may keep Arabs busy and Israel safe to occupy and oppress, with its usual unrestrained will, Palestinians and the land of Palestine...The Arab spring took Arab monarchies by surprise and they are trying now to protect themselves against it while playing the counter revolution in countries where the Arab spring took hold by using Sunni extremists.
This scenario is gloomy since, even though it may cynically seem at first contained to the US, Israel and the EU, touching only middle eastern countries where citizen lives are of absolutely no importance to the west, there is no guarantee that it will not spill and materialise in terror threats in the west, since the west will be actively engaged in the political transformations and wars of middle eastern countries, as ever.
2. The west is serious about the war on terror and will work to contain the global jihadi network with its many affiliates. In this case, the west won't be fuelling sectarian sunni-shia tensions and wars in the middle east since these wars will increase the likelihood that we will not be able to get rid of this network for a long time and that the west might see some of its side effects if we are to believe that 9/11 was a side effect of the end of the war in Afghanistan against the USSR.
There are many indications now that we are heading for the first case scenario, the first of these indications is the Qatari channel Al-Jazeera's misleading coverage of Syria spilling sectarian hate through sunni tele-preacher and Al-Jazeera frequent commentator, Al Qaradawi*, from day one of the Syrian revolt. But those who think that sunni-shia tensions will somehow weaken the global sunni jihadis might just be playing with fire, because as much as they think they are using these sunni jihadis to attain their political goals, as much as those same jihadis will be using them to attain their own political goals and it will be a slow war of attrition, including many regional wars, for which Arabs and Muslims will pay a hefty price in lives, livelihood, progress and development...
*Al Qaradawi moving to Norway!
Initial claim of responsibility for the Oslo attack.
Norway charges radical cleric with death threats.
P.S. A reader commented on the term 'Sunni extremism'. He wrote that 'Salafi' would be a fairer term. I think he is right. However, I chose 'Sunni extremism' because this extremism is actually condoned by countries with a Sunni majority like Saudi Arabia and Gulf countries who finance the terrorists worldwide in their operations against western targets and direct them regionally at shias in Bahrain, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Showing posts with label Sunni extremism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sunni extremism. Show all posts
25.6.11
US and UK Meet Syrian Muslim Brotherhood Representative In London
From Angry Arab.
Links about Al Bayanouni and the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood:
The Muslim Brotherhood: the trojan horse of the syrian revolution. (article in Arabic)
The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood between piety and lethal errors. (article in Arabic)
The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood by Gary Gambill (article in English).
Al Bayanouni speaking on the Syrian regime, Iran and Israel.
As of late, sunni extremism has become respectable to USrael and the west in general. Some links:
Israel and Saudi Arabia are natural allies.
Wikileaks: Hariri to the US: Syrian Muslim Brotherhood not extremist and they want peace with Israel
Israel wants a committment from the US to protect the Saudi regime.
UK and US want to make peace with the Taliban.
Al Bayanouni improves on Alawi question!!!! (but this was the context of the aftermath of the July 2006 war in Lebanon when everybody thought that Hezbollah was so weak and so unpopular that the Syrian regime was ready for compromise...
The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood new leadership: assessment of the Bayanouni years.
General information about the brotherhood and its ideology.
Links about Al Bayanouni and the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood:
The Muslim Brotherhood: the trojan horse of the syrian revolution. (article in Arabic)
The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood between piety and lethal errors. (article in Arabic)
The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood by Gary Gambill (article in English).
Al Bayanouni speaking on the Syrian regime, Iran and Israel.
As of late, sunni extremism has become respectable to USrael and the west in general. Some links:
Israel and Saudi Arabia are natural allies.
Wikileaks: Hariri to the US: Syrian Muslim Brotherhood not extremist and they want peace with Israel
Israel wants a committment from the US to protect the Saudi regime.
UK and US want to make peace with the Taliban.
Al Bayanouni improves on Alawi question!!!! (but this was the context of the aftermath of the July 2006 war in Lebanon when everybody thought that Hezbollah was so weak and so unpopular that the Syrian regime was ready for compromise...
The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood new leadership: assessment of the Bayanouni years.
General information about the brotherhood and its ideology.
5.8.07
Lebanon's Partial Parliamentary Elections: The Metn's Christians Say 'NO' to March 14th
Amin Gemayel was so afraid of loosing these elections that he adressed a request to the minister of interior asking him to post a public notice about the different titles the voters might add to his name when voting, in order not to invalidate the vote. The interior ministry complied, and it was contrary to the Lebanese electoral law.
Mr. Gemayel listed on the public notice his different titles, former deputy, former president of Lebanon, sheikh, and how might the voter designates him on the ballot according to these titles:
His excellency the president Amin Al-Gemayel;
His excellency the president sheikh Amin Al-Gemayel;
The president Amin Al-Gemayel;
The president sheikh Amin Al-Gemayel;
The sheikh Amin Al-Gemayel;
Amin Pierre Al-Gemayel;
Amin Al-Gemayel.
But that did not prevent him from loosing the battle for a doctor*, Camille Mansour Khoury, who is quite new to Politics, who is not former president, and who is not a former sheikh. And there are more titles Camille Khoury doesn't have and which Gemayel has; former warlord, former Syrian collaborator, former Israeli collaborator, and an ally to the Sunni-Saudi dominated March 14th's government.
Aoun is accused by March 14th of being pro-Syrian because he is against them. It is only since 2005 that March 14th like to describe themselves as anti-Syrian and everybody else as pro-Syrian. "You are either with us or against us". Some other critics of Michel Aoun have also pointed to the fact that his alliance with Hezbollah, an Islamist party, was going to loose him votes. However, there is a reality on the ground felt by Christians every day. The Gemayel and Lebanese Forces alliance with Hariri is diminishing the role of Christians in Lebanese Politics. Christians in the March 14th movement are not even playing second fiddle to Hariri. They have lost the support of their community for blatant corruption, special interest politics, and political incoherence. In a country used to freqent shifting in political alliances, they beacme the champions of the process to the point they are unable to make their moves intelligible for the community; allied to syrians one day and then to their ennemies the day after. However these leaders are acting like their fathers, grand'fathers, and grand grand'fathers, as if the people of Lebanon were going to vote along sectarian lines for the Zaim (local leader of the community), without accountability. And so Hariri, in his alliance with them, has been thinking the same, that by buying the Zaims he is buying the popular vote. But it didn't work that way for him since 2005. The emergence of general Michel Aoun, a former Syrian foe when everybody else was allied with the Syrians, and his party, The Free patriotic Movement, after Aoun's return from his exile in France after the Syrian withdrawal, has changed the political landscape in the christian community and beyond. The Hariri-Merch 14th coalition first tried to discredit him by depiciting him as a fool and a marginal of Politics but his popular support among Christians stayed unchanged. They then tried to strirr up the sectarian divide when they realised that this was not working enough for the March 14th coalition. But the more they try to push the people of Lebanon along this line and the more they discredit themselves in part of the population, the disappointed of 15 years of civil war, of two years of sectarian agitation since Hariri father died, and of the slow economic and social decline of the country that has emerged in Lebanon under the Hariris.
Christian leaders are only a screen for Hariris who, with the help of Saudi Arabia, continue implementing a one family rule (the Hariri family) of Lebanon marked by a shift from interreligious balance to affirming a Sunni-Saudi inspired and monitored takeover of the country, its economy, and its future. March 14th Christians are not even heard on decisions taken by the Hariri backed government and concerning their community in the first place;
The financing of Sunni extremism in Lebanon (for which many proofs have been given during the recent clashes between the Lebanese army and an extremist group in Nahr El-Bared);
The supression of the good Friday as a national holiday;
The signing by the Sanyura Hariri backed government of the Islamic chart for children's rights;
Many decisions disregarding the Christian community, the Hariri and Saudi backed Sanyura government has been taking, couldn't have been taken without the servility of March 14th Christian allies, and in total disregard for Lebanese political traditions in interreligious dialogue and balance of power between the different religious communities (in times of peace of course because when there is no dialogue they fight). Christian representatives allied to Hariri, like the Gemayels, Chamouns, Eddés, and Gea'gea, having lost the popular support, are just happy to be supported themselves by the all powerul Hariri and his money while sticking to the same sectarian politic of their ancestors.
The other reality is that the alliance between Michel Aoun's Christians and Hezbollah is different from the one between Christians and Hariri in March 14th. In the alliance between Aoun and Hezbollah, Christians are playing a major role and will continue playing this role on decisions concerning the fragile politico-religious equilibrium in Lebanon and the oecumenic character of the country. And because Hezbollah needs them in order not to appear as a southern only, shia only, political party, their influence extends to the way Hezbollah has practised and may continue to practice governance and power sharing in Lebanon. In addition to the fact that in the presence of a strong Christian party as an ally, Hezbollah, as Sheikh Nasrallah has expressed it in many occasions, will never govern Lebanon as an Islamic country, unless it is the will of all Lebanese. And as long as the voice of the Christian community will be heard, there will not be an Islamic republic in Lebanon. The other option being a secular Lebanon but under present circumstances in the Midlle east this option appears as an utopia.
On the other hand, as there is no written agreement between Hariri and his Christian allies on governance, Hariri feels he has free hands to do whatever he likes in all aspects of Lebanese life. The Saudi born and educated Hariri is islamising the country by small decrees under total silence from his Christian allies.
There is rhetoric and there is reality. Lebanese Christians may be sensitive to the rhetoric of March 14th and their propaganda. However, most of them, having lived through the civil war, are still more sensitive to reality because it allows them to sense danger and threats on their future in their country. The reality of the Christian community now in Lebanon is about the insecurity they feel for the place they might occupy in the Lebanese political chess game in the future. Changes for this future are hovering around. Who will choose the next Lebanese president, Hariri and Saudi Arabia or the people of Lebanon ? What will be the prerogatives of the new president to be elected in September in order to counter the monolithic Sunni ruled government and the all powerful Hariri and his holding that is sucking the blood of Lebanon, Solidere ?
No matter how much Aoun's political adversaries will try to pin on him the image of a Syrian collaborator - because of his alliance with Hezbollah - a man chosen by Syria and Iran, the reality is different. Because this same man had fought savagely the Syrian occupation while others like Gemayel and the Lebanese Forces have accepted unscrupulously the external American diktat of the time on collaborating with the Syrians. And no matter how much the March 14th will portray Hezbollah as an Islamist party, March 14th are the ones who are fighting sunni extremists who have gotten out of their control and of their pockets...
We can say many negative things on Lebanese and Lebanon's Politics but there is one thing the civil war taught Lebanese as communities: to evaluate danger on their survival. Hariri father and son have been transforming Lebanon and have achieved what a fierce civil war for survival and power sharing between religious communities had not achieved; putting Lebanon under the influence of one community while disregarding the others. The Mansourieh, Metn, Christians, and with them the whole Christian community who have been doing a soul search as of late, do no trust the Hariri coalition for their own future and the future of a multireligious Lebanon, the only viable option for Lebanese Christians.
"That General Aoun’s candidate, a virtual political unknown, proved a tough competitor to Mr. Gemayel, the onetime president who curried sympathy and campaigned in his son’s memory, underscored the level of discontent many Christians here have been feeling and the resonance of General Aoun’s message.
The general, in alliance with Hezbollah, has led the revolt against Lebanon’s political system, demanding greater inclusion and an end to control by a series of political dynasties."
Read this excellent analysis of the meaning of Gemayel's defeat by Joshua Landis at Syria Comment.
Angry Arab: Why I am worried about the safety of Armenians in Lebanon.
Angry Arab on Walid Jumblatt's Racism against Lebanese Christian Armenians
Mustapha Mond at Ms Levantine: Going Ugly early.
Angry Arab on Gemayel's reaction
*The results of the election are being contested by Gemayel as of Monday 1. a.m. local. This indicates that the tallies are in favour of Khouri. But even though Gemayel might be declared winner, given all his former titles and the fact that he led his campaign to replace the seat of his slain son, his 'victory' would only reflect the political loss Mr. Gemayel is incurring within his own community because of his alliance with Hariri.
P.S: The other partial election was in Beyrouth and the only challenger to the Hariri candidate was a secular communist. hezbollah boycotted the elections because they were not called by the president of the republic but by the March 14th government in disregard for the constitution. The participation was 18.9 % and the results are 22988 votes for the Hariri candidate and only 3556 for his communist rival.
Mr. Gemayel listed on the public notice his different titles, former deputy, former president of Lebanon, sheikh, and how might the voter designates him on the ballot according to these titles:
His excellency the president Amin Al-Gemayel;
His excellency the president sheikh Amin Al-Gemayel;
The president Amin Al-Gemayel;
The president sheikh Amin Al-Gemayel;
The sheikh Amin Al-Gemayel;
Amin Pierre Al-Gemayel;
Amin Al-Gemayel.
But that did not prevent him from loosing the battle for a doctor*, Camille Mansour Khoury, who is quite new to Politics, who is not former president, and who is not a former sheikh. And there are more titles Camille Khoury doesn't have and which Gemayel has; former warlord, former Syrian collaborator, former Israeli collaborator, and an ally to the Sunni-Saudi dominated March 14th's government.
Aoun is accused by March 14th of being pro-Syrian because he is against them. It is only since 2005 that March 14th like to describe themselves as anti-Syrian and everybody else as pro-Syrian. "You are either with us or against us". Some other critics of Michel Aoun have also pointed to the fact that his alliance with Hezbollah, an Islamist party, was going to loose him votes. However, there is a reality on the ground felt by Christians every day. The Gemayel and Lebanese Forces alliance with Hariri is diminishing the role of Christians in Lebanese Politics. Christians in the March 14th movement are not even playing second fiddle to Hariri. They have lost the support of their community for blatant corruption, special interest politics, and political incoherence. In a country used to freqent shifting in political alliances, they beacme the champions of the process to the point they are unable to make their moves intelligible for the community; allied to syrians one day and then to their ennemies the day after. However these leaders are acting like their fathers, grand'fathers, and grand grand'fathers, as if the people of Lebanon were going to vote along sectarian lines for the Zaim (local leader of the community), without accountability. And so Hariri, in his alliance with them, has been thinking the same, that by buying the Zaims he is buying the popular vote. But it didn't work that way for him since 2005. The emergence of general Michel Aoun, a former Syrian foe when everybody else was allied with the Syrians, and his party, The Free patriotic Movement, after Aoun's return from his exile in France after the Syrian withdrawal, has changed the political landscape in the christian community and beyond. The Hariri-Merch 14th coalition first tried to discredit him by depiciting him as a fool and a marginal of Politics but his popular support among Christians stayed unchanged. They then tried to strirr up the sectarian divide when they realised that this was not working enough for the March 14th coalition. But the more they try to push the people of Lebanon along this line and the more they discredit themselves in part of the population, the disappointed of 15 years of civil war, of two years of sectarian agitation since Hariri father died, and of the slow economic and social decline of the country that has emerged in Lebanon under the Hariris.
Christian leaders are only a screen for Hariris who, with the help of Saudi Arabia, continue implementing a one family rule (the Hariri family) of Lebanon marked by a shift from interreligious balance to affirming a Sunni-Saudi inspired and monitored takeover of the country, its economy, and its future. March 14th Christians are not even heard on decisions taken by the Hariri backed government and concerning their community in the first place;
The financing of Sunni extremism in Lebanon (for which many proofs have been given during the recent clashes between the Lebanese army and an extremist group in Nahr El-Bared);
The supression of the good Friday as a national holiday;
The signing by the Sanyura Hariri backed government of the Islamic chart for children's rights;
Many decisions disregarding the Christian community, the Hariri and Saudi backed Sanyura government has been taking, couldn't have been taken without the servility of March 14th Christian allies, and in total disregard for Lebanese political traditions in interreligious dialogue and balance of power between the different religious communities (in times of peace of course because when there is no dialogue they fight). Christian representatives allied to Hariri, like the Gemayels, Chamouns, Eddés, and Gea'gea, having lost the popular support, are just happy to be supported themselves by the all powerul Hariri and his money while sticking to the same sectarian politic of their ancestors.
The other reality is that the alliance between Michel Aoun's Christians and Hezbollah is different from the one between Christians and Hariri in March 14th. In the alliance between Aoun and Hezbollah, Christians are playing a major role and will continue playing this role on decisions concerning the fragile politico-religious equilibrium in Lebanon and the oecumenic character of the country. And because Hezbollah needs them in order not to appear as a southern only, shia only, political party, their influence extends to the way Hezbollah has practised and may continue to practice governance and power sharing in Lebanon. In addition to the fact that in the presence of a strong Christian party as an ally, Hezbollah, as Sheikh Nasrallah has expressed it in many occasions, will never govern Lebanon as an Islamic country, unless it is the will of all Lebanese. And as long as the voice of the Christian community will be heard, there will not be an Islamic republic in Lebanon. The other option being a secular Lebanon but under present circumstances in the Midlle east this option appears as an utopia.
On the other hand, as there is no written agreement between Hariri and his Christian allies on governance, Hariri feels he has free hands to do whatever he likes in all aspects of Lebanese life. The Saudi born and educated Hariri is islamising the country by small decrees under total silence from his Christian allies.
There is rhetoric and there is reality. Lebanese Christians may be sensitive to the rhetoric of March 14th and their propaganda. However, most of them, having lived through the civil war, are still more sensitive to reality because it allows them to sense danger and threats on their future in their country. The reality of the Christian community now in Lebanon is about the insecurity they feel for the place they might occupy in the Lebanese political chess game in the future. Changes for this future are hovering around. Who will choose the next Lebanese president, Hariri and Saudi Arabia or the people of Lebanon ? What will be the prerogatives of the new president to be elected in September in order to counter the monolithic Sunni ruled government and the all powerful Hariri and his holding that is sucking the blood of Lebanon, Solidere ?
No matter how much Aoun's political adversaries will try to pin on him the image of a Syrian collaborator - because of his alliance with Hezbollah - a man chosen by Syria and Iran, the reality is different. Because this same man had fought savagely the Syrian occupation while others like Gemayel and the Lebanese Forces have accepted unscrupulously the external American diktat of the time on collaborating with the Syrians. And no matter how much the March 14th will portray Hezbollah as an Islamist party, March 14th are the ones who are fighting sunni extremists who have gotten out of their control and of their pockets...
We can say many negative things on Lebanese and Lebanon's Politics but there is one thing the civil war taught Lebanese as communities: to evaluate danger on their survival. Hariri father and son have been transforming Lebanon and have achieved what a fierce civil war for survival and power sharing between religious communities had not achieved; putting Lebanon under the influence of one community while disregarding the others. The Mansourieh, Metn, Christians, and with them the whole Christian community who have been doing a soul search as of late, do no trust the Hariri coalition for their own future and the future of a multireligious Lebanon, the only viable option for Lebanese Christians.
"That General Aoun’s candidate, a virtual political unknown, proved a tough competitor to Mr. Gemayel, the onetime president who curried sympathy and campaigned in his son’s memory, underscored the level of discontent many Christians here have been feeling and the resonance of General Aoun’s message.
The general, in alliance with Hezbollah, has led the revolt against Lebanon’s political system, demanding greater inclusion and an end to control by a series of political dynasties."
Read this excellent analysis of the meaning of Gemayel's defeat by Joshua Landis at Syria Comment.
Angry Arab: Why I am worried about the safety of Armenians in Lebanon.
Angry Arab on Walid Jumblatt's Racism against Lebanese Christian Armenians
Mustapha Mond at Ms Levantine: Going Ugly early.
Angry Arab on Gemayel's reaction
*The results of the election are being contested by Gemayel as of Monday 1. a.m. local. This indicates that the tallies are in favour of Khouri. But even though Gemayel might be declared winner, given all his former titles and the fact that he led his campaign to replace the seat of his slain son, his 'victory' would only reflect the political loss Mr. Gemayel is incurring within his own community because of his alliance with Hariri.
P.S: The other partial election was in Beyrouth and the only challenger to the Hariri candidate was a secular communist. hezbollah boycotted the elections because they were not called by the president of the republic but by the March 14th government in disregard for the constitution. The participation was 18.9 % and the results are 22988 votes for the Hariri candidate and only 3556 for his communist rival.
11.4.07
The Hezbollah between USraeli sponsored anti-guerilla and national and regional dialogues
The political situation in Lebanon is in a dead end. The Sanyura government supported by the Bush administration is refusing any internal dialogue with its opponents, which are a majority in Lebanon and include Hezbollah, Amal and the Free patriotic movement. Arguing that Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation holding allegiances to Iran and Syria, the Bush administration has undermined any solution to the Lebanese dead end and is actively promoting confrontation by literally arming the anti-Hezbollah Samir Gea'gea's militia, the security apparatus of Sanyura's puppet government, which doubled in a matter of months reaching 24000 men, and by tolerating the activity of openly islamist sunni extremist organisations in Lebanon. The last bombing of two passengers buses in the Lebanese mountain at 'Ayn 'Alaq had the signature of sunni extremists. Read the April report of the International Crisis Group, page 11.
The opposition to the Sanyura government has entered its fifth month of standoff with no solution in sight despite some attempts (not genuine in my opinion) from the Saudis to come up with a proposal. Initially, the opposition has asked for an extension of the Sanyura government into a national unity government to include ministers from the Christian Free Patriotic Movement. As their pacifist demand was ignored, they have now one outcome, the ballot box. But even here, the Sanyura government seems to be reluctant to agree on early elections and is afraid of losing its grip on power.
It is in this tense climate that Hassan Nasrallah gave Alain Gresh the following interview translated by the author of this blog.
Meeting and interviewing Hassan Nasrallah, leader of the most important party in Lebanon, is not an easy task. Even though Hezbollah is a parliamentary party with a large social infrastructure and a preponderant influence among Shiites, it is classified as a terrorist organisation by the US. Hassan Nasrallah is, without a doubt, un « homme à abattre », a man on the killing list.
The interview is meant for TV and is a part of a TV documentary on Hezbollah. We are told that the meeting will take place in the afternoon and that someone will meet us at a restaurant and drive us to the meeting venue without any other precision as to the time of the meeting. A first car drives us into a garage where we are transferred into a second car with blackened windows: we cannot identify the trajectory. We will be transferred five times from one car to another before we reach our destination: an improvised studio with two flags, the Lebanese and Hezbollah's.
Despite all these precautions, the man who comes to meet us does not appear anxious. He speaks slowly, smile often and tries to convince without ever raising the tone of the conversation. The interview lasts 2 hours. Here are some themes tackled in the interview. There are no transcripts yet of the recordings and the quotes are taken from personal notes. Questions are in Italic Bold.
The internal situation in Lebanon.
The risks for a renewal of the civil war exist, however Hezbollah will do everything in its power to avoid it. The majority of the Lebanese people, who have already experienced a civil war, do not want another one. Our objective for Lebanon is not an Islamic republic for to be implemented the Islamic republic will require the consent of the majority of the population. That is not the case in Lebanon: not only the Christian minority refuse to live in an Islamic republic but even Lebanese Muslims are not convinced by such a project. We want a Lebanon whose destiny is not decided by one religion but by all its religious communities. It is for this same reason that we asked for a national unity government. The Imam Moussa Sadr was the first to advocate an end to sectarianism in Lebanon; but we have to take into account the realities and fears of Lebanese, those among Christians who are afraid from becoming marginalised.
Why doesn't Hezbollah give its weapons in a sign of good will destined to the other communities?
Our weapons are not directed at other communities in Lebanon neither are they for at internal combat operations. They were never used as such. Our weapons are destined to Israel and the resistance against the external enemy, Israel and Israeli aggression and occupation.
The velayat e-faqih [1] and relations with Iran. Is there a contradiction between the fidelity to the religious principle of velayat e-faqih and the fact that Hezbollah is a national Lebanese political party ?
No. On one hand, all what we do we do it to serve our country Lebanon. We even make use of our relations with Iran in the service of our country, never the contrary. We define our Politic and our strategy according to our priorities. On the other hand, the velayat e-faqih is an allegiance to a man and not a country. The Velayat e-faqih is actually Iranian, before he was Iraqi, and in the future he will probably be Lebanese. Iran is a state and it designs its strategy and obligations accordingly. These strategy and obligations are not ours. For example, Iran has diplomatic relations with Lybia but we don't. We are hostiles to such relations as long as Lybia does not explain the disappearance of Imam Moussa Sadr (Sadr is the founding Shi'ite Imam of the political movement 'Al-Mahroumin', the dispossessed, the precursor movement to present Shi'ite political parties, Amal and Hezbollah. He disappeared in Lybia in suspicious circumstances in 1978 and his disappearance has not been explained by Lybian authorities). We also differed with Iraq's Sh'ia on the decision to execute Saddam Hussein. We had concerns about the timing and the conditions in which the execution was carried. In Iran, there were different opinions on this matter also.
On Israel and Palestine.
The creation of Israel is the result of a denial; denying the Palestinians their right on their land. Time will do nothing to this fact and Palestinian rights must be respected. The two state solution is not possible, it is not realistic. The best solution is a one state solution. One democratic state on the entire territory of Palestine in which Jews, Muslims and Christians can live and coexist. The name of such a state is not important, it can be agreed upon by all parties.
What will happen if the Palestinian national unity government signs a peace agreement with Israel?
We supported the Mecca agreement signed by Hamas and Fatah. The Palestinian problem should be left to Palestinians themselves to decide and we should not impose upon them a solution (as we should not impose upon Lebanese a solution they don't agree with). Our first responsibility goes for Lebanon and its occupied territory, not Palestine.
If a global peace agreement is signed between Israel and Arab countries, will Hezbollah recognize Israel ?
There are too many ifs. We will define our position in due time according to the regional and international contexts.
Al-Qaida.
Our disagreements with this movement are numerous and they concern Religion and Politics. This movement the non participation of Islamic movements i n national elections while we in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine, as well as the Muslim brothers in Egypt, are engaged in the political electoral process. Moreover, Al-Qaida denounces Muslims who depart from Al-Qaida's political and religious agenda and does not refrain from killing them. That is not our conception of Religion and Politics. Some tried to suggest the existence of links between our movement and Al-Qaida but nobody has been able to substantiate this claim with the slightest proof. We will never engage if fight against them as we do not intend to fight anybody who does not attack us (Nasrallah is sending a message here to Sunni Muslim extremists in Lebanon linked to Al-Qaida whose presence was revealed by the article of Seymour Hersh, the redirection, and who seem to infiltrate Lebanon with the blessings of the US and its allies, the Sanyura government and Saudi Arabia).
Risk of war.
If there is a war on Lebanon, the situation will be totally different from what was before the July war when Israel attacked Lebanon. We have vacated the border positions between Israel and Lebanon and they are now occupied by the Lebanese army. If Israel were to attack again, the role of the army will be to defend the Lebanese territory. We are present in the south because we live in the cities and villages of the south. Our combatants come from these cities and villages, they can fight in the next war. The UNIFIL will be in a very difficult position: either it will be a spectator of the war or it will help repel the aggression. It can also retreat. None of these solutions is satisfactory. Some are surprised and concerned that we are renewing our weapons arsenal but they do not react the same way to the fact that Israel is seeking weapons from the US and is preparing for war through maneuvers and intensive training
Read here my post: Hassan Nasrallah, the New Face of Moderation in Lebanon and the Middle East
Notes
[1] The principle of velayat e-faqih, or the government of the doctrine, is to assign an important power to the guide of the community of the faithfuls in the Shi'ite religion. Since the creation of the Islamic republic of Iran, this position was attributed to ayatollah Khomeini and is now filled by Ali Khamenei. This principle is disputed by many Shi'ite clerics. It is accepted by Hezbollah while rejected by ayatollah Mohammad Fadlallah, one of the highest ranking Shi'a clerics in Lebanon. Fadlallah is considered also as someone who is close to Hezbollah.
Read how Haaretz reports on Hezbollah's public declarations about its weapons arsenal. It seems that Hezbollah is doing this just to offset Israel.
The opposition to the Sanyura government has entered its fifth month of standoff with no solution in sight despite some attempts (not genuine in my opinion) from the Saudis to come up with a proposal. Initially, the opposition has asked for an extension of the Sanyura government into a national unity government to include ministers from the Christian Free Patriotic Movement. As their pacifist demand was ignored, they have now one outcome, the ballot box. But even here, the Sanyura government seems to be reluctant to agree on early elections and is afraid of losing its grip on power.
It is in this tense climate that Hassan Nasrallah gave Alain Gresh the following interview translated by the author of this blog.
Meeting and interviewing Hassan Nasrallah, leader of the most important party in Lebanon, is not an easy task. Even though Hezbollah is a parliamentary party with a large social infrastructure and a preponderant influence among Shiites, it is classified as a terrorist organisation by the US. Hassan Nasrallah is, without a doubt, un « homme à abattre », a man on the killing list.
The interview is meant for TV and is a part of a TV documentary on Hezbollah. We are told that the meeting will take place in the afternoon and that someone will meet us at a restaurant and drive us to the meeting venue without any other precision as to the time of the meeting. A first car drives us into a garage where we are transferred into a second car with blackened windows: we cannot identify the trajectory. We will be transferred five times from one car to another before we reach our destination: an improvised studio with two flags, the Lebanese and Hezbollah's.
Despite all these precautions, the man who comes to meet us does not appear anxious. He speaks slowly, smile often and tries to convince without ever raising the tone of the conversation. The interview lasts 2 hours. Here are some themes tackled in the interview. There are no transcripts yet of the recordings and the quotes are taken from personal notes. Questions are in Italic Bold.
The internal situation in Lebanon.
The risks for a renewal of the civil war exist, however Hezbollah will do everything in its power to avoid it. The majority of the Lebanese people, who have already experienced a civil war, do not want another one. Our objective for Lebanon is not an Islamic republic for to be implemented the Islamic republic will require the consent of the majority of the population. That is not the case in Lebanon: not only the Christian minority refuse to live in an Islamic republic but even Lebanese Muslims are not convinced by such a project. We want a Lebanon whose destiny is not decided by one religion but by all its religious communities. It is for this same reason that we asked for a national unity government. The Imam Moussa Sadr was the first to advocate an end to sectarianism in Lebanon; but we have to take into account the realities and fears of Lebanese, those among Christians who are afraid from becoming marginalised.
Why doesn't Hezbollah give its weapons in a sign of good will destined to the other communities?
Our weapons are not directed at other communities in Lebanon neither are they for at internal combat operations. They were never used as such. Our weapons are destined to Israel and the resistance against the external enemy, Israel and Israeli aggression and occupation.
The velayat e-faqih [1] and relations with Iran. Is there a contradiction between the fidelity to the religious principle of velayat e-faqih and the fact that Hezbollah is a national Lebanese political party ?
No. On one hand, all what we do we do it to serve our country Lebanon. We even make use of our relations with Iran in the service of our country, never the contrary. We define our Politic and our strategy according to our priorities. On the other hand, the velayat e-faqih is an allegiance to a man and not a country. The Velayat e-faqih is actually Iranian, before he was Iraqi, and in the future he will probably be Lebanese. Iran is a state and it designs its strategy and obligations accordingly. These strategy and obligations are not ours. For example, Iran has diplomatic relations with Lybia but we don't. We are hostiles to such relations as long as Lybia does not explain the disappearance of Imam Moussa Sadr (Sadr is the founding Shi'ite Imam of the political movement 'Al-Mahroumin', the dispossessed, the precursor movement to present Shi'ite political parties, Amal and Hezbollah. He disappeared in Lybia in suspicious circumstances in 1978 and his disappearance has not been explained by Lybian authorities). We also differed with Iraq's Sh'ia on the decision to execute Saddam Hussein. We had concerns about the timing and the conditions in which the execution was carried. In Iran, there were different opinions on this matter also.
On Israel and Palestine.
The creation of Israel is the result of a denial; denying the Palestinians their right on their land. Time will do nothing to this fact and Palestinian rights must be respected. The two state solution is not possible, it is not realistic. The best solution is a one state solution. One democratic state on the entire territory of Palestine in which Jews, Muslims and Christians can live and coexist. The name of such a state is not important, it can be agreed upon by all parties.
What will happen if the Palestinian national unity government signs a peace agreement with Israel?
We supported the Mecca agreement signed by Hamas and Fatah. The Palestinian problem should be left to Palestinians themselves to decide and we should not impose upon them a solution (as we should not impose upon Lebanese a solution they don't agree with). Our first responsibility goes for Lebanon and its occupied territory, not Palestine.
If a global peace agreement is signed between Israel and Arab countries, will Hezbollah recognize Israel ?
There are too many ifs. We will define our position in due time according to the regional and international contexts.
Al-Qaida.
Our disagreements with this movement are numerous and they concern Religion and Politics. This movement the non participation of Islamic movements i n national elections while we in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine, as well as the Muslim brothers in Egypt, are engaged in the political electoral process. Moreover, Al-Qaida denounces Muslims who depart from Al-Qaida's political and religious agenda and does not refrain from killing them. That is not our conception of Religion and Politics. Some tried to suggest the existence of links between our movement and Al-Qaida but nobody has been able to substantiate this claim with the slightest proof. We will never engage if fight against them as we do not intend to fight anybody who does not attack us (Nasrallah is sending a message here to Sunni Muslim extremists in Lebanon linked to Al-Qaida whose presence was revealed by the article of Seymour Hersh, the redirection, and who seem to infiltrate Lebanon with the blessings of the US and its allies, the Sanyura government and Saudi Arabia).
Risk of war.
If there is a war on Lebanon, the situation will be totally different from what was before the July war when Israel attacked Lebanon. We have vacated the border positions between Israel and Lebanon and they are now occupied by the Lebanese army. If Israel were to attack again, the role of the army will be to defend the Lebanese territory. We are present in the south because we live in the cities and villages of the south. Our combatants come from these cities and villages, they can fight in the next war. The UNIFIL will be in a very difficult position: either it will be a spectator of the war or it will help repel the aggression. It can also retreat. None of these solutions is satisfactory. Some are surprised and concerned that we are renewing our weapons arsenal but they do not react the same way to the fact that Israel is seeking weapons from the US and is preparing for war through maneuvers and intensive training
Read here my post: Hassan Nasrallah, the New Face of Moderation in Lebanon and the Middle East
Notes
[1] The principle of velayat e-faqih, or the government of the doctrine, is to assign an important power to the guide of the community of the faithfuls in the Shi'ite religion. Since the creation of the Islamic republic of Iran, this position was attributed to ayatollah Khomeini and is now filled by Ali Khamenei. This principle is disputed by many Shi'ite clerics. It is accepted by Hezbollah while rejected by ayatollah Mohammad Fadlallah, one of the highest ranking Shi'a clerics in Lebanon. Fadlallah is considered also as someone who is close to Hezbollah.
Read how Haaretz reports on Hezbollah's public declarations about its weapons arsenal. It seems that Hezbollah is doing this just to offset Israel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Since March 29th 2006