The Hezbollah Conundrum

Last week, the European Union succumbed to U.S./Israel pressure and designated the so called “military wing” of the Lebanese political party/social organization/militia , Hezbollah, as a “terrorist organization”. The decision made by politicians in Brussels has left the EU professional diplomats and legal experts with a major mess to try and sort out. The problems were immediately evident. While an EU spokesperson in Brussels was acclaiming the important consequences of this action, the EU Ambassador to Lebanon, Angeline Eichhorst, was meeting with Hezbollah and other Lebanese leaders in Beirut to explain that this action would have no impact on EU relations with Hezbollah or Lebanon. My reaction was “have they lost it?”

Among the problems that this ill-considered action creates is “who exactly is being blacklisted?” There is no clearly defined line between the “military wing” of Hezbollah and its political and social activities. This was demonstrated during the 2006 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Hezbollah members abandoned their positions as dentists, political figures, farmers etc., reclaimed their AK-47s and grenade launchers from their closets or under their beds and joined the fight against the invader. While there is a professional component to the Hezbollah militia, by and large it is the consummate citizen army.

The U.S. gets around this problem by blacklisting all of Hezbollah. During my last visit to Beirut, I was treated to one of the bizarre consequences of this position when a U.S. diplomat responsible for non-military aid to Lebanon told me that she could not meet with the government minister responsible for disseminating this aid because he was a member of Hezbollah. She had to rely on the Swiss to coordinate with the Lebanese government.

Everyone is puzzled about how the EU will distinguish between the “Civil Wing” and the “Military Wing” of Hezbollah. My friend Franklin Lamb, an American writer and researcher based in Beirut, describes the issues in a recent article.

“According to a lawyer at the American Society of International Law in Washington DC, the EU decision was a big mistake from an international law standpoint and could be an international lawyer’s worst nightmare or a dream come true. Which would depend if the lawyer was representing the EU in trying to unravel the civil-military conundrum or advising thousands of EU member states businesses and agencies wanting to continue any business with the Lebanese government, UNIFIL, or countless NGO’s who regularly interact with Hezbollah. (sic)

‘It’s a real legal mess!’ the ASIL source explained, as he described the legal confusion the EU action caused. ‘The best thing for EU credibility and international relations right now on this subject would be for the EU to forget what it did and to desist from any implementation whatsoever. And then let the designation be removed after the six months trial period as provided by EU regulations. Otherwise, their decision will swamp courtrooms and complicate Middle East-European political and economic relations with challenges from all points on the compass with uncertain outcomes to say the least’.” (The whole article is here.)

(Photos from al Manar)

Technorati Tags: Lebanon,European Union,Hezbollah

When Will We Ever Learn

A recent article written by Franklin Lamb, an American journalist and researcher based in Lebanon commenting on the anniversary of the tragic bombing of the U.S Embassy in Beirut. He puts this event in larger perspective.

Beirut -- This observer has no idea if the American Ambassador here in Beirut, Maura Connelly or Secretary of State John Kerry has ever listened to Marlene Dietrich’s classic October 1965 performance of Pete Seeger’s “Where Have All The Flowers Gone,” still stunning, deeply moving and available on the Internet. (here)

But on this 30th anniversary of the bombing of the US Embassy in Beirut I found myself near the old embassy site on the sea front for personal reasons, and stepped down the block below the American University of Beirut to meet a friend at Starbucks. When I entered, maybe the 5th time in my life

I have been to a Starbucks since I don’t drink coffee and for political reasons tend to avoid the chain, I noticed someone was playing Dietrich’s classic.

Having just read reports in the Lebanese media concerning the American Ambassador and Secretary of State’s political comments on the embassy events, three decades on, Marlene’s enchanting, deep voiced, “When will they ever learn,?” numbed me.

Kerry slammed Hezbollah in the Lebanese media, saying “On this 30th anniversary of the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, the United States celebrates 30 years of close cooperation with the people of Lebanon that proves the enemies of democracy failed,” he said from

Washington, "especially at the people-to-people level, and this proves the terrorists' goals were not achieved.”

For her part, U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Maura Connelly said the bombing opened a new chapter in America’s history in the Middle East. Connelly said the explosion taught Americans that “peaceful intentions were not enough to protect us from those who would use terror to achieve their aims in the Middle East.”

What both officials avoid mentioning is the subject of who was committing the terrorism in Lebanon when these events, including the US Marine Barracks and the Embassy again in 1984, occurred.

Regarding Hezbollah, which would not be a formed organization ready to announce itself publicly until 1985, CIA operative Robert Baer and his team assigned to investigate the Embassy bombing concluded there was not enough reliable evidence to support the theory that the Party of God was responsible. Among the more than three dozen militias of various persuasions operating in Beirut alone in the early 1980’s, only Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.

The American officials also failed to take into consideration the fact, never denied by Washington, that at that time the US Embassy had the largest contingent of CIA agents working out of the Embassy and performing command and control functions for the US Marine base in South Beirut, more in fact than in any other capital city except Moscow. When the US Embassy became a command post, by the terms of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic relations it lost its protected status.

The US Marines as a hostile military force in Lebanon never had adequate protection, and by targeting civilians, its base near the airport became a legitimate target. Contrary to the political spin put on the event, there was no terrorism involved in the operation.

The reason is because, despite Reagan administration claims, and this week's assertion by Ambassador Connelly, the US forces were not “a neutral peacekeeping unit” as hyped. Rather, they were enemy combatants fighting and killing on one side of a civil war conflict. When the battleship New Jersey's shells killed hundreds of people, mostly Shiites and Druze, that fact was clear. It's not surprising that in his memoir, General Colin Powell, at the time an assistant to Caspar Weinberger noted that "When the shells started falling on the Shiites, they assumed the American ‘referee’ had taken sides."

Some examples. On 14 December, 1983 the New Jersey fired 11 projectiles from three of her 16 inch (406 mm) guns at the rate of three per minute each at positions inland of Beirut. These were the first 16 inch shells fired for effect anywhere in the world since New Jersey ended her time on the gun line in Vietnam in 1969.

According to news accounts by reporters in Beirut at the time, the New Jersey bombardment sometimes began at 1:25 P.M. and ended at 11 P.M. followed by American fighter-bombers which could be heard flying over Beirut in search of targets.

On September 19, 1983, the New Jersey and other US warships began shelling Druze, Syrian and Palestinian positions in the Chouf Mountains outside Beirut. The battleship New Jersey with its 2,700 pound shells ("flying Volkswagens") led the action. And on 8 February 1984, the New Jersey fired almost 300 shells at Druze and Shi'ite positions in the hills overlooking Beirut. More of the massive projectiles rained down on the Bekaa valley east of Beirut and constituted the heaviest shore bombardment since the Korean War.

The inaccuracy of New Jersey's guns was a scandal in US government circles and was consistently called into question. An investigation, led by Marine colonel Don Price, into New Jersey's gunfire effectiveness in Lebanon found that many of the ship's shells had missed their targets by as much as 10,000 yards (9,144 meters) and therefore may have inadvertently killed civilians. Records and oral hearings of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the matter could not be clearer, and Secretary Kerry and Ambassador Connelly know this. Tim McNulty, a correspondent for the Chicago Tribune based in Lebanon at the time wrote: "Everybody loved the New Jersey until she fired her guns. Once she fired, it was obvious she couldn't hit anything,” Well, as the citizens of Lebanon know, it did indeed hit things mainly innocent civilians, their property and Lebanon’s infrastructure.

As Secretary of State Kerrey knows well from his nearly three decades in the US Senate and his four years (2009-2013) as Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee the actions of the USS New Jersey itself was arguably terrorism and some experts in the International Law Bureau of the Pentagon have said as much.

This observer lived for more than a year in the Chouf village of Choueifat, a beautiful place set high above the remains of the US marine barracks, the Beirut airport and the Mediterranean Sea where the USS Jersey and other US Sixth fleet warships are normally positioned when they come calling on Lebanon.

Neighbors still recall what some here call, “the terror days of USS New Jersey” and its shelling with both 26 inch and 19 inch shells, the former weighing up to 2,700 pounds. Clearly visible around Choueifat and dozens of other smaller towns, are the remains of houses and buildings not yet repaired from the devastation caused by the intense shelling. Also visible at various locations are indications that unexploded shells even now remain imbedded in the ground.

One wonders if as part of the "special enduring friendship between the United States and Lebanon on a people to people level” that the president might order the Pentagon to defuse and remove these huge unexploded bombs. If so he would distinguish his administration from that of the occupiers of Palestine who for more than three decades have targeted various parts of Lebanon with American supplied and US taxpayer-paid weapons, including literally millions of US-made cluster bombs during the 33 day Israeli aggression in 2006.

It is certainly appropriate to honor the victims of the 1983, but it is no less appropriate to honor the other tragedies in Lebanon during this period under review that precipitated it. In her closing remarks this week, Ambassador Connelly noted that in her opinion, “the bombing of the US Embassy taught us the stakes of involvement in this region.”

Has it?

As we contemplate another “neutral peacekeeping presence” being planned in Washington for Syria, we gravely doubt that it has.

When will we ever learn?

Avoiding a Middle East Regional Conflict

As Israel continues its assault on Gaza a number of diplomatic initiatives, led by the French, are in process to bring about a cease fire. As in Lebanon in 2006, Israel appears determined to press its assault until international pressure becomes so great that they will need to declare victory and withdraw. The US is supporting this effort by instructing its UN representatives to block all UN efforts to demand a ceasefire.
It is not clear to anyone, including the Israelis, what victory means in this case. The goals of the invasion have been variously described by Israeli leaders as a new ceasefire with Hamas that reflects Israel’s terms, to regime change in Gaza, to eradication of the Islamist movement.
The effort to destroy Hamas has been supported, not only by the western powers, but also by so called moderate, conservative regimes in the region such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. These are undemocratic countries in which the major opposition groups are Islamist and, like Hamas, affiliated with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. The last thing these conservative governments want to see is a successful, prosperous, democratic Islamic state in Gaza that their opposition can use as a model.
Although Israel is trying to delay any ceasefire in order to give its military time to accomplish its “goals”, January 20th is the drop dead date. One of the contributing factors to the timing of this war was the imminent end of a Bush administration that gave Israel carte blanche. Israel is worried by the unknown of an Obama administration’s policies and doesn’t want to anger him right from the beginning.
One question is can Israel succeed in destroying Hamas in the short time remaining. Another is can Hezbollah, Hamas’ ally, afford to remain on the sidelines if it appears Hamas will be destroyed. Several rockets were fired today into Israel from Lebanon. Hezbollah has denied responsibility and it is likely they were the work of Palestinian groups in Lebanon. It is also possible that Hezbollah is sending a message. If Hezbollah becomes engaged, will Iran, its sponsor, be content to stay on the sidelines?
Iranian parliamentary leader Ali Larijani met for many hours this week with Hamas leader, Khaled Meshal. Hopefully they were trying to find a way out of this conflict that has the potential to create $200 per barrel oil and make the current economic crisis look like a walk in the park.

Changing Landscape

One of the trends that became apparent during my recent visit to the Middle East was the changing political landscape. During discussions with Hezbollah and Hamas, two groups isolated by the western powers as terrorist organizations, the words that I heard most frequently were respect, dialogue and the need to solve the Israeli/Palestinian situation in order to have peace and stability in the region.

What I saw in Hamas and Hezbollah spokesmen were reasonable people who, although they remain committed to resistance to the occupation, were open and desirous of dialogue on the basis of mutual respect to solve the regions problems. They certainly did not come across to me as the fanatical terrorists that are portrayed in the west. One of the Hezbollah spokesmen that I talked to was married to an American woman who insisted that her first child be born in NYC. His daughter, therefore, is an American citizen.

Hesham Youssef, the Chief of Staff of the Arab League, talked about their efforts to bring Hamas and Hezbollah to the mainstream.


At the time that Arab politics is moving towards moderation, Israeli politics is moving sharply to the right. It appears that Likud, the hard right Israeli party, will win the February elections and Bibi Netanyahu will be asked to form a government. He is being pulled further to the right by members of his own party such as Moshe Feiglin (His manifesto is here) and other right wing parties such as Yisreal Beiteinu whose leader Avigdor Lieberman advocates expelling Israeli Arabs to the West Bank. Even Kadima leader Tzipi Livni, who portrays herself as a moderate, has advocated transferring Israeli Arabs to the Palestinian territories. (Her comments are here)

I met with Ephraim Sneh, former general and Labor party member of the Knesset, who has formed his own party, Strong Israel, which he describes as center-left. His comments left members of our group in shock.



This is not a recipe for peace and stability.

Signals

Amman, Jordan: One thing that is evident in this part of the world is that there are completely unrealistic expectations for an Obama presidency. Following the election, the Cairo weekly English language paper had a banner headline, “A Dream Come True”.
The US embassy personnel have told us that they are making an effort to reduce expectations. They are explaining that US policy is not made solely by the President. Many people and organizations influence the process. Lobbying groups, corporations, advisors, the State Department and others will have a say and even if a new policy is put in place it will take time to implement it.
Nevertheless, in the wake of the wave of hope for a new US policy approach in the Middle East there has been much signaling of a willingness to engage in dialogue.
On the Iranian front, President Ahmadinajad sent is congratulations to President Elect Obama. This is the first time that has happened since the Iranian revolution. The Iranian President is under domestic criticism and pressure for his bellicose rhetoric and the poor performance of the economy and a thawing of relations with the US might help him in the upcoming elections. Obama did not respond and gave the party line on Iran’s nuclear program. The Iranians returned to criticizing Obama, but it didn’t seem to have the same passion.
For the American part a US military officer was quoted as saying “The US needs an interlocutor in Afghanistan. We need to take the views of the Iranians into account. They don’t want a radical Sunni regime in Afghanistan any more than we do.”

In our meeting with Hezbollah Foreign Affairs Director Nawef Mousawi, he responded to a suggestion that they might make a gesture that would assist President Obama in implementing a change in policy by saying “That is interesting to me. I would be open to suggestions.”
The next day this Hezbollah release appeared in the Beirut media:

Mousawi says Hezbollah is ready for dialogue with US if it is recognized and respected

Hezbollah foreign relations officer Nawaf Mousawi said the "Resistance had forced a change in the American behavior in the region."Following a meeting with a delegation from the US Council for the National Interest, headed by former ambassador Edward Peck, Mousawi said that Hezbollah looks forward to setting up relations with all people on the basis of mutual recognition and respect.On the new American policy in the region, he said, "We know that wrong policies which were adopted in the past have been reviewed.""We have shown our desire for dialogue if Hezbollah is considered a resistance movement against Israeli occupation and aggression and a Lebanese political party”. He added, “The Washington based fair minded American delegation we met with yesterday joined us in dialogue on the facts as we see them and Hezbollah is grateful for that. We welcome more dialogue and frank discussions with such Americans”.
Although it is never clear that there can be a positive outcome from dialogue, one can only hope that the US is not “tone deaf” to the signals.

Israel ignores the US

This week Israel and Hezbollah completed a prisoner exchange agreement mediated by Germany under which 5 Lebanese Hezbollah fighters and 200 bodies of deceased fighters, Lebanese and Palestinian, were exchanged for the bodies of the 2 IDF soldiers who were kidnapped by Hezbollah in 2006.

Israel has also been negotiating with Hamas using Egypt as the intermediary. Thus far the outcome has been a cease fire in Gaza which has for the most part held and it appears that a prisoner exchange will occur on this front as well to be followed by a gradual opening of the Gaza border crossings and easing of the blockade that has starved the Gaza economy.

All this plus ongoing peace negotiations with Syria, mediated by US ally Turkey, has taken place despite fierce opposition from the US. Martin Indyk, former ambassador to Israel and currently Director of the Saban Center for Near East Policy, a pro Israel think tank, said in a lecture in Ketchum, Idaho that the US said to Israel “don’t you dare talk to Hezbollah, Hamas and Syria”.

The fact that Israel ignores the US is not particularly surprising. Israeli war hero and Chief of Staff of the IDF Moshe Dayan once said “the US gives us money, guns and advice”. We choose to take their money and guns and ignore their advice. Ambassador Indyk said that negotiating with these three adversaries makes sense for Israel. The purpose is to co-opt these Iranian allies so that Israel will be free to attack Iran without fear of retaliation from their close neighbors.

This may work for Israel, but how does it work for their erstwhile Palestinian negotiating partner Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen). Following last year’s Annapolis conference, US/Israel policy was to isolate Hezbollah, Hamas and Syria and strengthen Abu Mazen and Fatah with money, arms and political backing. In return Fatah would negotiate with Israel toward a peace framework. After months of fruitless negotiations, Fatah has accomplished almost nothing to benefit the Palestinian people. Israel has refused to release prisoners, stop settlement building or remove checkpoints and has continued attacks on the West Bank.

Hezbollah and Hamas, whose approach is confrontation, resistance and occasional violence, have been successful. Hezbollah was even clever enough to demand the release of Palestinians in the prisoner exchange. They now can say to the Palestinian people “See. We told you that negotiating with Israel is futile. The only thing that they respond to is force”. With Palestinian elections probably upcoming, Fatah is in a weaker position with respect to Hamas than they were last week and US policy is in shambles.