Homeland Security and Terrorism

There are many terrorist groups in the Middle East, the most prominent of which are Al Qaeda and Hezbollah. There are various techniques which these organizations use to gain recognition, support and power. These techniques are social, economic, and at times, political in nature. In this paper, we shall analyze some of these techniques and how they have helped strengthen these organizations. Terrorist organizations always claim to be fighting for the social justice of the people of the Middle East. They state that their main aim in undertaking actions of terror against their governments, the state of Israel, or the interests of the United States is because these are corrupt countries which are the symbol of all that is bad in the world. Not only do they do this, but these organizations also run social welfare programs in those areas they control and a good example of this is Hezbollah in Lebanon. This ensures that there is no lack of support for these groups and further, they are guaranteed a base for the recruitment of fighters. Because of the sectarian divisions in the Middle East, terrorist organizations find it easy to gain some political support from some prominent members of government who sympathize with them. These ensure that members of the organization have safe places where they can operate without any interference from the government. It can be said that external forces in the Middle East, such as the American and NATO’s military presence, have helped strengthen these organizations. For example, the power vacuum left from the ousting of Saddam Hussein in Iraq ensured that the presence of Al Qaeda was expanded to this country.

Iranian Nuclear Issue

The stories that have been selected for analysis are articles in the CNN and BBC concerning the attendance of Iran’s president of the General Assembly meeting of 2012. These articles cover the story of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s presence in this year’s United Nations General Assembly. President Ahmadinejad, unlike in previous years, presented a more moderate approach towards the West when it came to the issue of Iran’s attempt to develop nuclear weapons. He stated that the governments of the West were setting double standards for other countries such as Iran when it came to the development of nuclear power, while they themselves had some of the largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons in the world. The story further covers President Ahmadinejad’s comments on the powerlessness of the United Nations Security Council when it comes to deal with matters of inequality among the nations of the world due to the fact that it is dominated by few very powerful nations which put their interests first before the interests of the whole world. The President then touched on Israel and the injustices it has brought about through its occupation of Palestine stating that the Security Council should be reformed so that such injustices could be better handled.

When reading the story as presented on the CNN website, one will immediately note that this article is not well balanced. Instead, it is biased towards what may be considered to be the beliefs of the Western government about Iran. Despite the fact that the title of the article is about President Ahmadinejad and his attendance of the General Assembly Meeting, this story is given very little space in the article and instead, more attention is given to what Western leaders said about Iran’s nuclear issue and the fact that they were not going to rule out military action against this country. After this, the story moves on to something completely different, discussing what other world leaders had to say about their own local and regional problems and their need for the support of the United Nations. One would say that the BBC article is more balanced, since the headline of the article is about President Ahmadinejad, and because the whole story is dedicated to the speech he gave to the General Assembly and the responses of some Western leaders towards it. The speech is dealt with in greater detail when compared to the way it was in the CNN story, often making direct quotes of what he said as well as giving out a tone of his wanting the matter of Iran’s nuclear issue to be settled peacefully. The story in the BBC article deals completely with the topic of the headline and does not digress to other stories.

The BBC article can be considered to be a better source of information than the one of CNN mainly due to the fact that it does not show any kind of bias. The BBC article has remained objective throughout its story, providing a balanced assessment of the situation at hand and leaving it to the reader to decide for themselves what to believe to be true.

Did Lebanon fall apart in the 1970s and 1980s because of the Arab-Israeli conflict?

The Arab-Israeli conflict had a huge impact on Lebanon during the 1970s and 1980s and this is because the countries, which were in conflict, bordered Lebanon on all sides except the Mediterranean Sea. It is a normal thing for countries, which border those, that are involved in conflict to experience some form of repercussions from the civil and external conflicts of their neighbors and in this case, Lebanon was not an exception. Lebanon was so much influenced by the conflicts of its neighbors that it not only had economic consequences, as would normally be the case, but also political ones as well. The Arab-Israeli conflict had a direct hand in the political instability which developed in Lebanon since, as an Arab country, it came to be pulled into the conflict.1 Lebanon, in an attempt to show solidarity with the Palestinians because of Israeli occupation got themselves in the wars, which the Arab states of Jordan, Egypt, and Syria launched against Israel. Despite the fact that the Lebanese army did not do much during this conflict and its success was minimal, it came to become one of the havens for the Palestinian liberation movements. While these groups were provided with a safe haven in Lebanon, their strength within the country grew so much that they started getting involved in the local political affairs. The arrival of these groups as well as the influx of Palestinian refugees increased the sectarian tensions, which were lurking just beneath the surface of the Lebanese society.

One of the most significant events that developed from the Arab-Israeli conflict and came to be a contributing factor in the destabilization of Lebanon is that which led to the Black September in Jordan.2 When the Jewish state was formed in 1948, the remaining Palestinian territories came under the control of Jordan and Egypt, with the former occupying the West Bank for maintaining its own security. Jordan had quite a large number of Palestinian refugees, who formed about half of its population, and when it occupied the West Bank, the Palestinian population doubled to form one third of the total Jordanian population. This country suddenly found itself in a situation where its native population had become a ruling minority. This situation inevitably led to a conflict between the two groups that formed the population of Jordan, especially when the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) established itself within the country. Black September is the conflict, which arose between the Jordanian government of King Hussein, and the Palestinians, represented by the PLO, to determine who would control Jordan. This conflict lasted for almost a year and it resulted in the defeat and expulsion of the PLO from Jordan as well as the entrenchment of Hashemite rule in the country. When this happened, the PLO moved its base of operations to Lebanon where, it contributed to the increasing sectarian tensions by bringing with it most of its fighting force. While launching guerilla attacks against Israel, the PLO also got involved in local Lebanese politics and during the civil war, it often sided with the Islamic groups against the Maronite Christian population.3

The PLO’s making Lebanon their base of operations ensured that they got involved in the internal affairs of this country. In essence, this organization formed a state within a state within this country, and this inevitably led to conflict with the host government. The power of the PLO was so great that it came to take over the administration of all the Palestinian refugee camps in the country, hence denying the Lebanese government the right to exercise power over its own territory. The PLO, with its headquarters in the Lebanese capital, continued to build its armed base by recruiting from the refugee camps it controlled. With its newfound confidence and political muscle, this organization used Lebanon as a base of operations in launching attacks against Israel, the latter that often retaliated in kind.4 The conflict between the PLO and Israel did considerable damage to Lebanon as this country and its people had to undergo a lot of suffering and loss in a war, which was not theirs to fight. In addition, this conflict increased the tense sectarian atmosphere in the country with forces such as the PLO and Israel taking sides in the sectarian divisions experienced within the country. These sectarian divisions and the outside support that many of the sects received was one of the main reasons why the violence, which turned into the Lebanese Civil War, took place.

An endeavor by the Abu Nidal Organization, to assassinate the Israeli envoy to the United Kingdom in 1982 led to Israel’s decision to attack Lebanon in the same year.5 The aim of this invasion was to ensure that a government friendly to Israel was put in place and an agreement signed which would guarantee Israel peace for many years to come. The Israeli invasion was targeted at the radical anti-Israeli Muslim groups, which used Lebanon as a base of attack against it. By attacking them and destroying their power, Israel wanted to weaken them enough to ensure that they would not easily regain the ability to attack it. During this conflict, Israel came to a direct confrontation with a part of the Syrian military, which was based in Lebanon at the time. The attack was swift and well planned and in the Palestinian and Syrian groups found themselves surrounded in Beirut. Israel’s plan had been to establish Maronite Christian dominance6 of Lebanon through the person of Bashir Gemayel, who would form a government that was pro-Israel, hence the establishment of peace between Israel and Lebanon. However, with the assassination of this popular Maronite leader, the Israeli position in the conflict was compromised, and bowing to pressure from both home and abroad, it withdrew from Lebanese territory. While its main aim had not been achieved, the Israeli invasion had pushed the PLO, the most popular Palestinian movement, out of Lebanon and it set up base in Tunisia.7 However, the power vacuum that remained was swiftly filled by Hezbollah and its allies, which consolidated its power in the south of Lebanon.

Throughout the Lebanese conflict, the various countries of the Middle East which had their own interest in this country contributed to its falling apart. None of the countries that were involved in this conflict saw any reason for the peaceful solution of the Lebanese sectarian conflict, and instead they all supported their own sectarian factions within the country. For example, Iran and Syria gave their full support to such groups as Hezbollah8 and Alawite militia groups, Libya and Egypt supported the various Sunni militias, and finally, Israel gave its support to the Maronite Christians. All the foreign states involved in this conflict, except Israel, wanted their own factions to take over Lebanon so that it could be used as a base for attacking Israel in a war, which many of them believed, was inevitable. Israel, on the other hand saw the establishment of a friendly government in Lebanon as a way of securing itself to the north and of establishing the peace, which it had long desired in the region. Furthermore, it was one of Israel’s aims to ensure that the Syrian military presence in Lebanon was removed because it posed a major threat to its interests towards the north.9 The loss of life among the native Lebanese population was massive, but this did not bring the conflict to a swift end as one would have expected. Instead, this conflict became even worse, with each of the sectarian factions even more determined to establish its dominance all over the country. The Arab-Israeli conflict, therefore, had a direct hand in the causing of the Lebanese crisis since each of the countries involved attempted to use Lebanon to achieve its own ends.

The support of Israel for the Maronites and other Christian groups in Lebanon can be considered to be one of the reasons why the country fell apart in the 1970s and 1980s. Among the reasons why Israel supported the Maronites was because of the fact that this group of Christians, unlike their fellow citizens, supported the existence of the Jewish state.10 This proved to be an opportunity for Israel whose aim was to put the Maronites in power so that a friendly government could administer its northern neighbor. As a consequence of this, the militant groups, which were associated with the Maronites, were trained in Israel by the Israeli Defense Force. In addition, whenever there were any conflicts which involved the Maronites, Israel tended to provide them not only with logistical support but also brought in advisors to help them make strategies on how best to tackle their Muslim adversaries. The fact that some of the Maronite leaders wanted to remove the PLO and all Palestinian refugees from Lebanon made them a valuable ally for Israel who, in addition to supporting them militarily, also started providing them with political support, which enabled them to gain an edge over their Arab backed opponents. As a direct consequence of the training they received from Israel, the Christian militia groups in the south of Lebanon later came to form the South Lebanese Army.11 The formation of this army contributed a great deal in the development and the duration of the conflict between the various Lebanese sects over control of the country.

Syria came to be directly involved in the affairs of Lebanon in 1976 when, because of the growing power of the various Palestinian groups in the country, it felt that the Christian population had to be protected against them. This meant that the Syrians came into the conflict on the side of the Maronite Christians against the radical Islamist and Palestinian groups, whom they had previously supported.12While this was the case, Syria brought its army into Lebanon for the purpose of keeping peace between the conflicting groups, so that it could be better able to secure its interests in the country as well. The Syrian army caused significant damage to the various armed Palestinian groups in Lebanon but at a meeting of the Arab League, it was forced to call for a cessation of hostilities. While this was the case, the Syrians were given a mandate to form a deterrent force to ensure that all the sides of the Lebanese conflict maintained a ceasefire. Despite their initial support for the Maronites, the Syrians changed sides and supported the various Muslim groups instead. The biggest opportunity for the Syrians came during the Lebanese war of 1982, which drove the PLO out of Lebanon, and Israel was pressured into withdrawing. This created a situation where the Syrians were able to consolidate their power in Lebanon and effectively come to dominate it.13

In conclusion, it can be said that the falling apart of Lebanon was caused, directly and indirectly by the Arab-Israeli conflict which was ragging all around it. Its strategic position along the Mediterranean coast as well as its proximity to Israel made it a natural target for both sides of the conflict. The meddling of the main players in the affairs of Lebanon made it weak internally because of the increasing sectarian conflict, which was brought about through the influence of the Arab-Israeli confrontations. One would go as far as to say that after the wars between the Arab states and Israel, Lebanon became the place where their conflict continued because both of these sides supported different sides of the Lebanese sectarian conflict. In essence, the Arab-Israeli conflict continued in Lebanon by proxy, with the different Lebanese factions representing the interests of their sponsors. This situation kept fueling the civil war within the country and it is possible that had outside force not been involved, then such a war would not have taken place and destroyed the once prosperous Lebanese economy. The continued conflict within the country also led to the growth in the power of militant groups such as Hezbollah, which are still dominant in Lebanon to this day. However, despite the continued conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, Lebanon has managed to recover from the wars it experienced in the 1970s and 1980s and has regained the peace, which it once had. It is yet to be seen if the current conflict in Syria will have any effect on the peace that has been regained in Lebanon.