Middle East Inside Line: Hezbollah Keeps Its Weapons (Legally) in Lebanon

On Wednesday, the 30 members of the Lebanese cabinet approved Hizbullah's right to keep its weapons. The endorsement dismisses a United Nations resolution after the Second Lebanon War calling on Hezbollah to disarm.

Some anlaysts have argued that the Western-backed Hariri Government is not willing to pursue disarmament, as this would raise tensions with Hezbollah, which has veto power over government proposals.

Latest Iran Video: A Non-Crowd for Ahmadinejad in Isfahan? (2 December)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzAswSQKx6A[/youtube]

The Latest from Iran (3 December): Normal Service?

Afghanistan Special: Josh Shahryar on the Obama Not-So-Grand Plan

NOTE: The second part of Scott Lucas's "Gut Reaction" to the Obama speech, covering the policy in Pakistan, will now appear on Saturday.

Finally Barack Obama made up his mind about sending more troops to Afghanistan? If so, it's a vague resolution: the only specifics were that there would be 30,000+ more troops sent to fight the Taliban and troop withdrawal would start in 2011.

This is an announcement that comes up short in so many ways. Fighting the Taliban shoud not be the only worry for the US and the West. There are a wide range of issues that are jeopardizing security, stability, and democracy in Afghanistan, but none of those issues were discussed with even the vaguest of details.

A Gut Reaction to Obama’s Afghanistan-Pakistan Speech: The Halfway House of The Long War (Part 1)

Afghanistan may be a failure inherited by Obama from former President George W. Bush, but 10 months is enough to forget President Bush’s flaws for a moment and start scrutinizing President Obama’s policies. After those 10 months, the best that we get out of Obama is that he’s simply going to press ahead --- there has been no major shift in policy.

The most important of the issues ignored by Obama is the presence of warlords in the Afghan government, as their continued exercise of authority has made the Afghan populace disillusioned with the West’s approach to their troubles. There's the far-from-minor issue of Afghanistan turning into a narco-state. And Obama’s plan outlines little on how the US is going to deal with Pakistan’s continued sloth in stopping Taliban militants engaging in cross-border raids.

Corruption has become so widespread that hardly anything gets done in Afghanistan without being first tainted with a side-deal. The most prominent recent example is the serious allegations against the Minister of Mines and Industries, who reportedly received millions from China to grant them access to one of Afghanistan’s largest copper mines. There’s the challenge of making Afghanistan a state that is viable and not just heavily dependent on foreign aid. The trickle of money from the West, which will dry up sooner or later, and the sale of opium are propping up the country. Add to that astronomical unemployment, and you have a catastrophe in the making.

None of the above is addressed in a satisfactory manner in the Obama plan. In essence, this is simply a make-over of Bush’s policy in Iraq – a policy that might have succeeded there but might completely fail in Afghanistan. For, without addressing the above issues, even a million US troops will do little to help the situation.

Worse, Obama's not-so-grand package is wrapped in the announcement that troops would start to be flown back in 2011. This gives the resilient Taliban a simple timetable to follow. They’ve kept fighting for eight years, so no difficulty for them to sit back for two years and then start fighting full-force again .

On what basis is Obama going to bring the troops back? What makes him so sure that the war would be won or even stabilized by 2011? None of these questions were answered by the President, his plan, or his associates.

This is not the Iraq War. The people are different, their needs are different, and their problems are different. For all his rhetoric of change, Obama seems to really lack an understanding of what it really means here. And without that understanding, this war will continue to escalate and take more Afghan and American lives.

Iran: English Text of Ayatollah Montazeri's Answers on the Green Movement

Translated and posted on Anonymous Iran:

QUESTIONS TO GRAND AYATOLLAH MONTAZERI:

Before the election the Iranian society had the desire to improve politically and economically. People had legitimate desires, and there was unparalleled excitement and positiveness as people took part in the election. But those people in power, with the help of "engineered votes", changed society’s situation to what we are witnessing now.

Iran Document: Ayatollah Montazeri’s Interview on Eve of 13 Aban
The Latest from Iran (3 December): Normal Service?

The Green movement after the election, represented the desire of the majority of the nation. But in doing so they suffered imprisonment and...torture and some even became martyrs. They hoped that by emphasizing the avoidance of violence that they would achieve their goals, until with God’s Blessing this movement would become widespread throughout the country. But for people to continue in this way, they need the answers to many questions. I respectively ask for your answers, that you will show the way to the movement and be a support to this oppressed nation.

In your opinion:

What were the achievements of the Sea of Green Movement over recent months?
What are the factors that could stop the movement from expansion and make the way harder for them?
What are the ways that would strengthen, safe-guard and protect the movement?
What do you suggest to make the movement grow and blossom?”

Grand Ayatollah Montazeri’s reply:

In the name of God the compassionate and the merciful,

"God will not change any nations circumstances unless the time that they themselves decide to change it’" Qu’ran Surah Ra’ad Aya 11

With greetings and appreciation of your concern regarding the current situation which is determining the fate of the nation:

1. The Sea of Green Movement is the real representation of the legitimate demands of the majority of the Iranian nation, over many years.

Up to now it has been facing the rough and extreme retaliation of the fundamentalist ruling regime, but the achievements of the Movement both nationally and internationally cannot be overlooked or ignored. This movement inside the country managed to establish a culture of peacefully demanding the rights of the nation. After the election, the movement exposed the real face of the oppressive and fundamentalist group (regime?). And of course the movement has suffered a very high cost. This shows that people won’t be satisfied with anything less than achieving their legitimate rights.

Killing, terrorizing, intimidation, arrests, irreligious and illegal show trials, along with the harsh and unjust sentences of active politicians and freedom seekers and lying and deceiving propaganda, have had no effect on people’s commitment or desire.

The foreign effect has been to change the view of foreign countries, especially those in the developed world, and among Human Rights agencies, about the desire of the nation and the suppression of the people. It has shown the real power of the nation to the world.

2. From amongst the factors that could be an obstacle to the movement’s legitimate expansion:

The use of deviating and divisive slogans. Any unsuitable slogans could give an excuse to the hard-line fundamentalists to put down the movement. The movement has both legitimate and legal desires and should pursue them peacefully. They should not respond to the violence and oppression with slogans or acts in ways that the regime would benefit. Things have been done deliberately to derail the movement and on many occasions people have seen both personal and public property being destroyed by the regime in order to blame and discredit the movement.

Another factor is expecting a quick victory with no patience. The movement should not show impatience to achieve the nation’s goals, but should have atience against roughness and disaster and perseverance in the way of justice....Perseverance to achieve rights is based in the important teaching of religion --- not only is it taught in the Qu’ran, but it is also reaffirmed in the Hadiths.

The third factor is differing views of how to achieve the end goal of the rights for the people. Disagreement on how to "encourage the good, and discourage the bad" can cause very serious damage to the cause and the people’s movement. In this subject the trusted and effective figures in the nation can clarify the legal and religious demands of the people and create full understanding with each other to avoid the aforementioned divisions and so strengthen the popular movement and safeguard against damage.

3. It is clear that those people who try to achieve the nation’s rights, in reality they do their national and religious duty of encouraging the good and discouraging the bad.

First of all they should show themselves to do right and good and avoid the futility of the bad. They should protect the boundaries of morality and religion, for their actions and movement to be in the way of the Creator and for the good of the people.

Once again I emphasize and repeat, I warn the rulers that the way you are walking on will bring nothing but damage and destruction not just to the religion, but also to the "earthly" issues, both upon yourselves and upon the nation.

Being loyal to the law and respecting the nation’s right is the best way to show a ruler’s good will.
Selfishness, greed, domination and the acts of violence against the nation, such the irreligious and illegal show trials of respected politicians and the heavy sentences for them, will have the outcome of isolation of the country and the system in the world. It puts even more distance between the people and the rulers and is destroying the face of the "oppressed Islam". And in the end it will bring God’s anger.

I hope that the people in charge will as soon as possible correct the futile way of wrong and will try to achieve the will of the creator and the nation.

After Swiss Referendum on Minarets: Who is Radicalizing Whom?

On Sunday, 57 percent of Swiss people who took part in a referendum voted in favour of a ban on the construction of minarets. The proposal had been put forward by the Swiss People's Party (SVP), the largest party in parliament. Reaction to the Swiss people's decision was immediate, with criticisms appearing in visual and written media all over the world.

From inside, Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey stated that Muslims in Switzerland now faced a restriction on their freedom to express their religion. She added: "The reality of our societies, in Europe and in the world (is that) every blow to the co-existence of different cultures and religions also endangers our security."

Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf said: "Concerns [about Islamic fundamentalism] have to be taken seriously. However, a ban on the construction of new minarets is not a feasible means of countering extremist tendencies."

The head of the Swiss Green Party, Ueli Leuenberger, pledged to support appeals against the ban to the European Court of Human Rights.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay called the ban a "deeply discriminatory, deeply divisive and a thoroughly unfortunate step for Switzerland to take." She added: "I have no hesitation at all in condemning the anti-foreigner scaremongering that has characterised political campaigns in a number of countries, including Switzerland, which helps produce results like this."

French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner called the ban "scandalous." Babacar Ba, a senior official of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, warned of an "upsurge in Islamophobia" in Europe. And the Vatican denounced the ban as an infringement of religious freedom.

Turkey is highly critical as well. Turkish President Abdullah Gul said: “This is a noteworthy example in terms of showing how animosity toward Islam, as we call it ‘Islamophobia,’ has been developing in the Western world. This is a disgrace for the Swiss.” Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan added: “What is the relationship of a mosque minaret with fundamentalism? That is an outdated, primitive understanding.”

Besides, Amnesty International said the vote violated freedom of religion and would probably be overturned by the Swiss supreme court or the European Court of Human Rights.

After all, do you think that it was right to take the issue of constructing minarets to a referendum? Are minarets really a symbol of political Islam? If so, what makes minarets a symbol of a radical political goal?

What if "non-radical" Muslims in other countries start banning construction of bell towers of churches or banning the sound of bells coming from churches, thanks to the "democratic" decision of the Swiss people that, unfortunately, consolidates the very opposite perception- considering "the West" as "aggressive," "intolerant" and an "enemy of Islam?"

In the end, who is becoming radical?