Questions Facing Hezbollah

By Abdullah Iskandar

This comment was published in al-Hayat on 7/11/2010

The government cabinet in Lebanon is nearly paralyzed, the National Dialogue is threatened to stop, there are accusations against the Presidency of the Republic of leaving its position of neutrality and consensus, there is a gradually growing debate over the role played by the Parliament and the powers it enjoys, and doubts are being raised here and there over the extent to which military and security institutions would be able to prevent any security breakdown.

Thus all institutional and legal security valves, which could contain any lapse in the political conflict, have lost their function. And there are no longer any regional understanding protecting such a function, since local parties are breaching the red lines, which had been set down in order to preserve what remains of the ability to keep the situation in check.

Indeed, it is no longer a matter of how to resolve this or that issue, but rather of how to organize continued survival in a politically and religiously pluralistic country, and how to keep in check the internal balance of power in a manner that would allow maintaining the system of government which arose from the Taif Agreement… or at least this is how things should be if internal consensus over this were to be maintained, as is being said so far.

Such internal exposure involves dangers that could me lethal this time, and forestalling such exposure represents a priority that exceeds in terms of the danger it entails all of the issues that are currently the object of conflict, including that of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL). And if some Christians have gathered at the Patriarchal See in order to stress the evident dangers resulting from drawing away from the state and its institutions, and have been met in such concerns by the Future Movement, which represents the majority of Sunnis in Lebanon, the question regarding these concerns becomes strongly put forward to Hezbollah, not as a movement that raises the banner of resistance or clings to its weapons, but as a fundamentally Shiite movement.

The question is put forward to Hezbollah because it has made the issue of the STL one that concerns the core of the system, rather than a mere judicial investigation, even if claimed to be politicized. At the same time, and regardless of its intentions, it has not provided sufficient political and security guarantees that the core of the system will not be harmed. In fact, one hears from its periphery of scenarios, which it has not officially refuted, that speak of the ability to turn the tables on everyone and to cause change even through violence.

The question asked of Hezbollah, as a strong Lebanese Shiite movement, is about how far it will go in its wager on tests of strength to the point of becoming disconnected from other Lebanese sectarian constituents that are no less representatives of their sects than it is. Hezbollah may deny, perhaps rightly, its intention of settling things at the security level or to change the system in its favor, but this may well be the outcome and the result of a course that the country has begun to take. Moreover, denying such intentions does not exclude arriving at such a result.

Hezbollah is much more concerned than others to answer these questions, especially as it asserts in its discourse working to prevent civil strife, in both its inter-Muslim and Muslim-Christian aspects. The party’s Secretary-General Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah has had the habit of opening every one of his appearances in the media with a political overview of the region, which means that he is monitoring developments at every level. Such monitoring cannot overlook the tremendous and dangerous concerns regarding strife in the region, and it cannot overlook the growing fears of the Christians in particular of being turned into unwanted elements and perhaps being targeted with marginalization, displacement and killing. This reflects on Christians in Lebanon, who consider for historical reasons that the guarantee of their role remains in the nature of the system and in the active participation it provides them.

And during this period inflamed with concerns and fears, any ambiguity in Hezbollah’s stances turns into more concerns and fears for its national partners, and reduces chances of reaching understandings that would address the party’s concerns as well… concerns which some of its supporters consider that dispelling should be a unilateral endeavor.

The Symbolism In Employing Women

By Abdul Rahman al-Rashid
This comment was published in Asharq al-Awsat on 8/11/2010
 
Media battles broke out in Saudi Arabia with the majority clearly in favor of allowing women to work as ‘cashiers’ in shops. It may seem strange that this simple profession is the subject of controversy, whether in terms of its approval or rejection, but this particular profession is in fact a symbolic matter. Saudi Arabia is a remarkable country, where there are two opposing trends. In the Kingdom there are millions of students, and dozens of colleges, universities, and institutes specializing in female education. The state allocates the largest budget in the developing world for female training, educating women to the highest degree. Yet at the same time, the state forbids women from working, except in limited roles. As a result, one woman had to travel for hours each morning, in order to work in a school, in a remote village.
 
When women were allowed to work as ‘cashiers’ in some shops, albeit under many conditions, protests erupted. People claimed the move was a break from tradition, and was thus forbidden.
 
The problem, at least in my view, lies with two fundamental issues: luxuries and traditional customs. Saudi Arabia’s ‘luxury’ is due to its oil reserves, and this has made some people suggest that a job is no longer a necessity, or needed. Yet this is not true, in a country with over 20 million people, where the biggest concern is employment inequality between the genders. The second issue is Saudi Arabia’s customs, which have been interpreted differently, especially with regards to dealing with the status of women. There is a problem with training women for employment, and then saying “the woman’s place is the home”.
 
Although it is well known across the world that the Saudi woman cannot live like most women, because she is weighed down by traditions and laws, there are also many success stories. A Saudi daily reported that in the kingdom there are 1,200 female doctors, working in different disciplines of medicine, such as dentistry and surgery. Thus there is a clear contradiction between prohibiting women from working in a simple position, which will help her support her home and family, and the investing in female education for very lucrative professions, and allowing them to be employed in such fields.
 
The employment of female cashiers was not intended to highlight this contradiction, as much as it was a ‘test’ for the current situation, which requires correction. Every year, tens of thousands of young women, who had been educated at home, sit idly because of these unconvincing claims, and this is no longer acceptable. The primary danger to society today is not terrorism, or an external enemy, but rather unemployment, and declining family incomes. There is no solution except a realistic re-evaluation of the situation. The door should be open to all who are qualified and able, so that they can get their share of work in a country where they are competing with around ten million foreigners, whether living legally or illegally.

US Division On Middle East Is Increasingly Apparent

By Adel Safty
This comment was published in Gulf News on 8/11/2010

Last week’s American midterm elections results were a clear setback for President Barack Obama, and he described them as humbling. They were also a clear victory for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who seems to believe that a weakened Obama is good for Israel.

Republican control of the House of Representatives will weaken the ability of Obama to vigorously and actively pursue his peace agenda in the Middle East. And that is because the American Congress — already a strong bastion of uncritical support for Israel — is becoming even more staunchly supportive of Israel in remarkably incomprehensible ways that differ little from the extremist positions of the Israeli far right. This will expose a contradiction in American foreign policy in the Middle East, and complicate Obama’s quest for peace in the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Consider two of the notable changes likely to happen in the new Congress.

First, Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia — the only Jewish Republican in the House and potentially majority leader — will likely play an important role in shaping American foreign policy, particularly with regard to Israel. Cantor’s positions in this regard are practically indistinguishable from those of the far right in Israel. For instance, he combines ignorance of and contempt for international law with dogmatic convictions pregnant with ideology but devoid of commonsensical appreciation of the reality. Consider the following statement he reportedly made in July 2009:

“insistence that Israel return lands it has occupied since the 1967 Six-Day war and accept a ‘right of return’ of Palestinians who fled their homes in what is now Israel is just like saying you don’t accept the historical right of Israel to exist”.

Why should acceptance of the so-called Israel’s ‘historical right’ to exist be contingent upon a series of breaches of international law such as acquisition of territories by force, occupation, dispossession, colonisation, and denial of rights to the Palestinian people? Cantor does not say; he is interested in furthering the cause of the Israeli far right, not in reconciling his assertions with logic or legitimacy.

In fact, there are reasons to wonder whether Cantor really understands what he is saying or whether — in his zeal for Israel — he simply acts as a conduit for Israeli views communicated to him by the powerful pro-Israel organisation AIPAC. Last year, Cantor, then minority whip, and then House majority leader Steny H. Hoyer sent out an e-mail asking their colleagues to sign “the attached letter to President Obama regarding the Middle East peace process”.

The letter warns against pressuring Israel because “Israel will be taking the greatest risks in any peace agreement”. Nothing unusual here, except that the attachment to the e-mail was named “AIPAC Letter Hoyer Cantor May 2009.pdf”.

In their mindless support for Israel Cantor joined Hoyer in defending Israel’s merciless assault on Gaza. In an article in The Washington Times, they blame the Palestinian culture, which they describe as a culture that celebrates death. As for Israelis, they write, they “drop leaflets and make phone calls to Palestinian civilians in targeted areas, alerting the civilians, but forfeiting the element of surprise”. An assertion that flies in the face of documented reality of the Israeli assault, which Amnesty International called “22 days of death and destruction”, but which is consistent with Israeli propaganda.

It is worth recalling that the UN Goldstone Report concluded that the Gaza war was “a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorise a civilian population”.

Another Israel apologist

Second, Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen will likely be promoted to become chairperson of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. She will likely turn it into a standing platform for promoting more unconditional support for Israel. She will turn the committee into the source of inspiration for all sorts of anti-peace legislation and Congressional resolutions blaming the Palestinians and affirming Israel’s right to engage, with impunity, in all sorts of illegal acts.

The Palestinians stated that they would give Obama some time to get the derailed peace negotiations back on track. Obama’s attempts to do so will be hampered by the zealous attempts from the new Congress to derail such efforts, and the Palestinians and much of the international community will watch with disbelief the contradictory signals from Washington. On the one hand they have a president who stated that peace in the Middle East was a vital national interest of the US and promised to pursue it assertively and actively. On the other hand, they have a Congress determined to interfere and undermine the president’s efforts in order to advance the expansionist agenda of the anti-peace elements of the Israeli society.

Only Obama can resolve this contradiction by adopting a more assertive approach towards his recalcitrant ally. He has tried the carrot strategy by offering Netanyahu a remarkably generous package of incentives, including security guarantees, diplomatic support at the UN, and even the promise not to ask for any future moratoriums on colony construction, in return for the Israeli prime minister agreeing to extend the recently expired moratorium by 60 days. Humiliatingly for Obama, Netanyahu turned down the offer.

Obama has at his disposal a set of options that might be described as the stick strategy, the counterpart to the failed carrot strategy. It will not be the first time an American president successfully pressured Israel. Eisenhower pressured Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion into withdrawing from the Egyptian Sinai, which the Israelis had occupied during the 1956 Suez War. President George H.W. Bush and his secretary of state James Baker threatened to cut off financial support if Israeli prime minister Itzhak Shamir continued to refuse to attend the Madrid Peace Conference, which was supposed to launch peace negotiations for a comprehensive peace settlement in the Middle East. Shamir gave in and came, but nothing of significance came out of the conference.

Obama tried diplomacy with Netanyahu and achieved little. It is time he tried Realpolitik. Only Washington has the necessary leverage to effectively bring about a change of behaviour in its stubborn ally.

Lebanon: Will Diplomacy Prevail in Ghajar?

This editorial was published in Daily Star on 8/11/2010

 

Israeli officials are once again making noises about an impending withdrawal from the Lebanese territory of northern Ghajar in compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 1701.

This news, while welcome, can only be greeted with skepticism. First, one must ask whether Israel’s proposal for a withdrawal comes with hidden motives. For example, the plan could simply be a prelude to renewing peace talks with Syria or a means of bargaining with the United States to get more tough on Iran. The move could also merely be a means for Israel to extract more “incentives” from the US in return for complying with international law, much like the advanced fighter planes and security aid that were reportedly promised to it in exchange for a halt to settlement expansion in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Second, Israel’s track record on Resolution 1701 renders the veracity of its announcement suspect. The Israelis have set multiple deadlines for a pullout since they reoccupied the Lebanese half of Ghajar in 2006, only to subsequently ignore their own target dates. Ironically, Israeli leaders’ foot-dragging on this issue – which they frequently claim is necessary to preserve Israel’s security – has served to heighten instability along the border.

The same is true of Israel’s numerous other violations of Resolution 1701, including its serial incursions into Lebanese airspace and ongoing occupation of the Shebaa Farms and Kfar Shouba Hills. These illegal activities bolster the argument of those Lebanese who say that armed resistance is necessary because nothing can be gained from Israel through diplomacy.

Indeed, Israel has disregarded the Security Council’s diplomatic efforts to restore stability to south Lebanon ever since Resolution 270, which condemned Israel’s 1969 air attack on southern Lebanese villages. Resolution 425, issued in the wake of the 1978 invasion, was the first of these to call for Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanese territory. Numerous resolutions since then have urged Israel to abide by international conventions and respect Lebanon’s sovereignty, but all have been violated.

Washington’s track record in encouraging its ally to obey UN resolutions has been equally dismal. Successive US administrations have regarded the Security Council’s decisions as a buffet from which they can pick and choose. Instead of standing steadfastly behind the need for all parties to abide by international law, American presidents have more often blindly supported Israel’s “right to defend itself,” even when its means of doing so are so obviously counterproductive.

If diplomacy is to succeed in eliminating the prospects of another war in Lebanon, it must begin to record some successes. An Israeli pullout from Lebanese territory at a time when its troops are not coming under Hizbullah fire would certainly be a good beginning.

IMF Economic Forecast For 2011

By Fahed Fanek
This comment was published in Jordan Times on 8/11/2010

In a recent report, the International Monetary Fund revealed its latest projections for the economies of both exporting and importing countries in the Middle East and North Africa.

These projections were on the bright side. They indicated that the coming year will witness reasonable growth rates in almost all the countries of the region

The IMF forecast for Jordan is that economic growth is expected to be 4.2 per cent, inflation 5 per cent, and the unemployment rate to be around 12 per cent.

These forecasts did not take Jordanian analysts by surprise. The fund did not expect surprises, substantial changes or large-scale developments. At least it did not take such possibilities into account in its projections.

IMF projections are usually built on the assumption of continuation. The future, the fund believes, is an extension of the present. The IMF does not take into consideration the fact that the Middle East region, in particular, is prone to surprises and that uncertainty is the name of the game here.

One cannot predict what will happen in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Sudan, Yemen or Palestine, even though events in these countries have a major impact on the economic situation.

As far as Jordan is concerned, the IMF predicted that 2011 will be more of the same, and that the economic indicators will remain the same, with slight improvement.

The IMF predications raised Jordan’s economic growth rate by less than one percentage point, maintained inflation at the current rate of 5 per cent, and reduced the annual average of unemployment by one percentage point - nothing spectacular.

This way, the benefits of the IMF predictions are very limited; they say nothing new that general observers do not know. The IMF predictions will not create shockwaves, shake stagnant water, or change much of Jordan’s economic outlook. They do not alter the mood in the business circles.

The question one needs to ask is whether the government is satisfied with these slight gains the IMF report was kind enough to bestow on Jordan’s economic performance in 2011.

The Ministerial Economic Team needs to tell us why the economic growth rate cannot exceed 5 per cent, inflation cannot be stabilised at 4 per cent or less, and the rate of unemployment cannot be reduced to a single digit.

If it is true that the overall world economic growth rate will reach 4.5 per cent in 2011, why should Jordan be content with a growth rate lower than that of the world, including poor and developing countries as well as rich and developed countries with slow growth rates?

To be at the level of the world growth rate is a static state of affairs. This should not be acceptable to an ambitious and dynamic country that seeks to compete and rise faster than the world at large in order to catch up with the advanced countries.

One should not forget that the per capita income in Jordan does not exceed one tenth of the per capita income in many advanced countries.

So far, the government did not say anything about its own projections or objectives for economic growth in 2011. Perhaps it is saving its point of view to be used with the coming draft budget. It is hoped that its projections will be more ambitious and much better than the projections of the IMF, which does not expect a strong rebound after two years of economic slowdown.

The Sahara Negotiations And Accord In The Maghreb

By Mohammad el-Ashab

This comment was published in al-Hayat on 7/11/2010

Perhaps it was a coincidence this time that forced the Sahara negotiators to try their luck in the suburbs of New York, two days after Morocco celebrated the anniversary of the Green March of 1975. If anything was achieved on the ground, it was that the concerned sides have begun to talk to each other without mediation, with a view to permit the formulation of a true determination to foster stability in the region through a political solution to the regional conflict. Irrespective of whether some progress can be made in the direct dialogue sponsored by UN envoy Christopher Ross, or if the stalemate continues, this accomplishment can neither be cancelled, nor, by the same token, be forsaken, since that would lead to unknown consequences.

Meanwhile, it was no coincidence that Taieb Fassi Fihri, Morocco’s Foreign Minister, chose to pay a quick visit to Madrid before heading to the suburbs of New York. He relayed a message that the Sahara conflict was the last confrontation between Morocco and Spain, especially after the Madrid Accords of 1975. Thus, in other words, there would be no going back to the situation prior to that date, as the conflicts that followed have instead taken on another dimension and involved other parties. Thus, Fihri may have sought with this visit to test the waters before the negotiations.

It is very unlikely that the negotiations will result in more than what the previous rounds have achieved. However, none of the parties wants to be held responsible for the collapse of negotiations that are mandated by the Security Council. When Minister al-Fahri declared from Madrid that the related resolutions say nothing about a referendum on self-determination, but that they have instead emphasized the idea of an alternative political solution, he was directing his comments to his partners in the negotiations to be held in the suburbs of New York, particularly since Ross heard a similar position during his recent stop in Rabat.

The Sahara negotiations are no longer taking place in a closed setting. They could have retained the traditions of negotiation with a continued commitment to the link between all of the proposals being put forth, namely negotiations in which each side is aware of the limits of concessions and the red lines that cannot be crossed. Up to now, the negotiations that have usually led to a period of calm and to a roadmap into the accomplishment of goals, have now become a reason for more tension and escalation.

Hopes have risen regarding the negotiation track that was launched three years ago, as it gathers all the elements of the problem. In other words, it takes into account the regional dimension, in the course of focusing on the two principal actors, Morocco and the Polisario Front. This formula is closest to understanding all of the surrounding aspects of the Sahara issue. However, the imbalance no longer lies in identifying the concerned parties, which may be involved directly or indirectly, but in the will to search for a solution.

What is absent in the formula previously established by the former UN envoy James Baker are the responsibilities it had assigned, as part of a previous agenda, to certain parties. Such responsibilities involved the preparation for the participation of the Saharan people in the plebiscite on self-determination. Since Algeria and Mauritania hosted a large number of Saharans concerned with this referendum -that no longer has any political significance-, they became indirect parties to this issue. Thus, it is correct to believe that the participation of all parties should be determined as part of the formula for a political solution, under the UN umbrella.

Morocco wants the upcoming negotiations to engender a certain reality that follows the conclusion of a Maghreb Union accord. Thus, it continues to seek a solution for the Sahara by going back to the Maghreb accord. But since all of this has changed, the negotiations in themselves become meaningless, at least in Rabat’s opinion, if strategic objectives are not achieved - objectives that would otherwise lead the Sahara conflict to disappear in context of the Maghreb accord. These are precisely the stakes involved in the negotiations, which have more reasons to collapse than reasons to succeed.

The Saudi Women Labour Issue

By Mshari Al-Zaydi
This comment was published in Asharq al-Awsat on 7/11/2010
 
With regards to the issue of Saudi women and work, there are facts, opinions, and interpretations. These are the facts:
 
The first fact is that Saudi women constitute half of the overall Saudi population. According to the latest census, the total number of Saudi nationals currently living in Saudi Arabia, out of the 27 million overall population of the Kingdom, has surpassed 18 million, or to be more accurate, 18,707,576. Out of these, 9,527,173 are male, or 50.9 percent of the population, whilst 9,180,403 are female, making up the other 49.1 percent.
 
Secondly, compared to overall statistics, the unemployment rate amongst women is particularly alarming. According to what Saudi writer and businessman, Fahd al-Du'ghithr, reported in the Saudi newspaper ‘al-Watan’, the latest figures revealed by the Saudi Ministry of Labour indicate that the unemployment rate among women has reached 28 percent, yet it stands at only 7 percent for men. Female unemployment is rising at a faster rate compared to male unemployment, due to the limited job opportunities available for women.
 
Thirdly, no one is infallible, and no opinion is sacred, no matter who expressed it. Islam was revealed as a mercy for all men. Consequently, unemployment, recruitment, and development are parts of our worldly affairs, and we all ought to be aware of them, as Prophetic Tradition has instructed us.
 
Fourthly, no religious clerics or leaders – even the most conservative amongst them – have issued a fatwa that entirely forbids gender mixing. For example, consider the fatwa recently issued by Sheikh Abdul Rahman al-Burak, which has become notorious amongst Saudis. The Sheikh criticized ‘forbidden’ gender mixing, which thus implies that there also a form of gender mixing that is permissible.
 
Fifthly, any Saudi who remembers the old days, when marketplaces were widespread in cities and towns, knows that women used to sell goods in public. The former Secretary General of the Senior Council of Clerics, Sheikh Abdul Latif Aal al-Sheikh, has supported this claim, telling Asharq al-Awsat newspaper that it was permissible for female merchants to trade at that time. In a further interview with the Saudi newspaper ‘al-Jazeera’, Sheikh Abdul Latif also recalled the city of Riyadh in the past, with its vibrant marketplace, full of male and female traders trying to earn a decent living. They were buying and selling without any complications, and they would conduct their business in "Muqibera" marketplace, or any other location for that matter, with whatever capital they could raise. At the time, none of the senior clerics in Saudi Arabia protested, or prohibited such action.
 
Up until this day women still sell goods in open marketplaces. However, the climate of heated debate in Saudi Arabia has notably inflamed some opinions.
 
The sixth point is that it is hard to imagine female cashiers, who would work in large shopping complexes, being exposed to indecent gender mixing. This is simply because they are constantly seen by hundreds of people, not to mention the installed surveillance cameras. Moreover, it is important to note that the majority of women who undertake such positions do so out of their dire need, and thus would not have time for ‘indecent’ gender mixing.
 
These facts are not open to speculation. They are stark realities that we now place before those who have emphatically issued fatwas prohibiting Saudi women from working as mall cashiers. Shouldn't these realities be taken into account? Doesn't evidence constitute a solid basis for argument?