Nasrallah's Speech Regarding the International Tribunal

I have just listened "live:" the Hezbollah's chief, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, regarding the Special Tribunal for Lebanon's indictment.

The speech was verbose, but here are the interesting points that Nasrallah has raised:

1. The Tribunal is biased for many legal and procedural reasons, but especially because it is headed by a friend of the "Zionist Entity", referring to Israel. As evidence he produced two pieces of evidence:
   
   
• Cassese was invited to Herzliya conference sponsored by the Institute for Policy and Strategy in 2010, but did not attend. Another participant was asked by Cassese to excuse his absence, and the said participant qualified Cassese as a "friend of Israel".
  
  
• Cassese wrote a legal opinion where he qualified Israel as a country respecting human rights. Nasrallah, trying to show his magnanimous fairness, did mention, in addition, that the report (written by Cassese) referred to Gaza as being under "Occupation", and did criticize some action undertaken by Israel.
  
  
The evidence presented by Nasrallah is weak at best. He failed to mention the following obvious and not so obvious facts:
• Cassese is most famous for his heading the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, where he tried Serbian (Christian) war criminals for crimes against humanity committed against Moslem Bosnians. Maybe Cassese should be also branded as a friend of the Moselms, or friend of the Sunnis?
  
  
• Cassese is recognized internationally as a chapion of human rights, and has issued a legal opinion (http://www.stoptorture.org.il/files/cassese.pdf) where he qualified the extra-judicial targeted killing of Palestinian civilian militants by Israel as war crimes. This is certainly a far stronger piece of evidence of the neutrality or even hostility of Cassese to the practices of the State of Israel.
  
  
2. Narallah on more than one occasion in his speech admitted that the persons who were targeted by the indictment, are indeed members of Hezbollah. This is a new fact that even the most militant members of the pro-democracy March 14 alliance did not dare state.
   
   
3. Nasrallah stated in no uncertain terms that the Lebanese government is not capable of executing the arrest warrants, thus admitting that Hezbollah is indeed a state within the Lebanese State, and that his militia does not answer to Lebanese law or the Lebanese authorities.
   
   
4. Nasrallah accused "certain Christian parties" within March 14 of attempting to stir confessional infighting between the Sunnis and the Shia. Is Nasrallah then trying to create anti-Christian sentiment on the part of both his supporters in the Shia community as well as the Lebanese Sunnis?

Nasrallah's speech, and his arguments were weaker than usual, and were mostly geared towards his supporters, i.e the "converted". What he said was far too unconvincing to change anyone's disposition towards the Tribunal and its indictment, even the undecided.

Lebanon: Is There Any Hope?

All the media and political discussions regarding Lebanon focus on tactical matters.

I believe that the real problem of Lebanon is not General Michel Aoun, Sayed Hassan Nasrallah, Samir Geagea or Saad Hariri. It's about the following fundamental problems:

1- Lack of a single vision of Lebanon. What Lebanon do we really want? What form of government, what foreign policy, what economic policies?

2- Lack of trust. Each side in Lebanon fears that the other side is out to destroy it. This is one reason why dialogue is never fruitful.

3- Each side in Lebanon tries to weaken or destroy the other side using a foreign power. This is due in part to #2, and a preemptive move to avoid being destroyed. This is akin to the mid 1800's when each community had its "protector".

4- The Lebanese public, in general, is extremely immature politically. It keeps electing the same scumbags, and believing in the same conspiracy theories. Some of the reasons for this are the points mentioned above:

#1: They have no vision for a Lebanon.

#2: They believe the scumbags will protect them against against annihilation by the other side.

#3: They have evidence that the other side is trying to annihilate them by siding with "evil foreigners"

The real question is how do we get out of this vicious circle? Are we doomed to repeat the same mistakes that have been plaguing us ever since the Phoenicians city states used to quarrel and undermine each other using foreign powers? Are these problems burnt deep into our collective DNA?

Ben Laden's Death: A Deal for the Future of Afghanistan?

There is no doubt that Osama Ben Laden's death is a great victory for the US and a morale blow for Al Qaeda.

Based on the location of the compound, and its size, it is more than likely that the Pakistani military was sheltering and protecting Ben Laden.

Based on the size and other characteristics of the operation to kill him, it is reasonably clear that the Pakistani military is no longer protecting Ben Laden.

Could Ben Laden have been the prize given to the Obama administration in order to let Pakistan have its way in Afghanistan? Is the death of Ben Laden a prelude to a deal allowing the Pakistani supported Taliban to take back Afghanistan, allowing US troops to return home?

The coming months will be telling.

The Precarious Political Position of the Lebanese Christians

The Lebanese Christians are more politically divided than ever.The divisions are not based on fundamental political beliefs, but on circumstantial factors purely linked to regional alignments.

One one hand, a loose coalition spearheaded by Samir Geagea's Lebanese Forces and their junior partners made of the Kataeb and other small parties are aligned with the March 14 alliance led by the Sunnis. This loose coalition is aligned with the US and its Middle Eastern allies (Saudi Arabia, Egypt and  Jordan), and opposed to Syria and Iran's influence in Lebanon.

One the other hand, former General Michel Aoun leads a coalition that comprises the Marada party of Suleiman Franjieh (Jr.), and is tightly aligned with the Shiite Hezbollah and their Syro-Iranian patrons. This is known as the March 8 alliance.

Fundamentally all Lebanese Christians have the same goal: provide the the Christians of Lebanon with a safe and prosperous homeland, where they have a significant political influence, and won't be treated as second -class citizens or undesirables like elsewhere in the Middle East.

What divides the Christians is the path to achieve this goal.

The March 14 alliance believes that an alignment with the West and moderate Sunnis is the best guarantee of Christian survival in Lebanon. Samir Geagea and his partners believe that the greatest danger is Syrian control over Lebanon, and the fundamental Shiite armed force that is Hizbollah. Geagea believes that the Sunnis present a lesser danger to Lebanon since they do not have a credible military force (unlike Hezbollah), and that the current Sunnis leadership tends to be religiously moderate.

The Aoun-ist movement believes the opposite. An alliance with the Shiites of Lebanon is the best guarantee to Christian survival. They believe that the Shiite tend to be more moderate (despite the past efforts of Hezbollah to establish an Islamic state in Lebanon), and are quick to point out that Christians live in reasonable peace in Iran and Syria, unlike Saudi Arabia and Egypt. The Aounists also believe that the future of the Lebanese Christians is through an alliance with the Shiites who outnumber the Sunnis in Lebanon and tend to be more nationalistic. Finally the Aounists believe that the US and the West in general cannot be trusted since they tend to abandon their allies rather unceremoniously.

Both sides have valid points and the collapse of the Egyptian regime tends to show that the Aounists may have bet on the better horse. What both sides fail to realize is that their are nothing but pawns in the hands of their more powerful allies. Aoun is currently a useful ally to Hezbollah and Syria, but will he remain so once he has finished serving his purpose? If the Americans and Saudis get a favorable deal from Syria on Iraq, will they still support their Lebanese allies?

The division of the Christians is temporarily a useful hedge that can minimize their losses when one side prevails, but this same division is weakening them to the point that the Druze have become the real kingmakers in Lebanon. Indeed, Walid Jumblatt, by switching sides, allowed the March 8 forces to prevail in the selection of the next Lebanese Prime Minister.