US State Department: Lebanon Is Not Responsible for Hezbollah
According to the professional sophisticates helping to decide the US State Department's Middle East policy, the Lebanese government doesn't really have much to do with this whole regional war thing. Alberto Fernandez (Director of Public Diplomacy in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the State Department) took pains to be very clear on this point in a conversation with Jim Zogby's Arab American Institute:
Fernandez rebuk[ed] Israel's position toward the Lebanese government. He specifically said: "If it gets me in trouble, it gets me in trouble. I don't care. The Israeli Government has said 'we hold the Lebanese government responsible.' The US Government has not said that, and we don't believe that."...
Clearly Mr. Fernandez was also mirroring President Bush's attempts to continue to express verbal support for the Lebanese government under Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. He added: "We have been cognizant of the efforts of the Lebanese Cabinet to be responsible and to act in a mature and serious way. This is one of the best governments Lebanon ever had, it's a serious government, and the result of a democratic process. They have made it clear that they do not endorse the actions Hezbollah took...They recalled their ambassador, who publicly took the Hezbollah position vs. The official Lebanese Government position."
We don't mean to put too fine a point on this, but we think that the current Lebanese government (best ever?) would be a lot more fantastic if Hezbollah wasn't actually one of its members. Like if Hezbollah didn't actually have cabinet ministers with portfolios and voting rights and stuff, that would be really great - and the State Department's declaration that the Lebanese government has nothing to do with this would seem a lot less convuluted.
We're not even talking about how it's near-black letter international law that if you let a militia use your country to start a war, you're responsible for that war. Or about how the Lebanese government created this situation by refusing to lift a finger while Hezbollah was transforming southern Lebanon into a gigantic military base and launching pad. Forget all that.
All we want to know is how it could possibly be the case that the Lebanese government is not responsible for Hezbollah's actions - when Hezbollah is actually part of that government. But maybe we're just not sophisticated enough to figure this out - if someone from the State Department could explain it very slowly, we'd be much obliged.
In fairness, the rest of the conversation is actually kind of gratifying. For instance, it's nice to see that people at Foggy Bottom recognize that Hezbollah is using Israel's presence in the formally Syrian Shebaa Farms as a pathetic pretext to continue killing Israelis. Gratifying, because about a year ago, the State Department wasn't even willing to go that far.
[Cross-posted at IsraPundit]
Fernandez rebuk[ed] Israel's position toward the Lebanese government. He specifically said: "If it gets me in trouble, it gets me in trouble. I don't care. The Israeli Government has said 'we hold the Lebanese government responsible.' The US Government has not said that, and we don't believe that."...
Clearly Mr. Fernandez was also mirroring President Bush's attempts to continue to express verbal support for the Lebanese government under Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. He added: "We have been cognizant of the efforts of the Lebanese Cabinet to be responsible and to act in a mature and serious way. This is one of the best governments Lebanon ever had, it's a serious government, and the result of a democratic process. They have made it clear that they do not endorse the actions Hezbollah took...They recalled their ambassador, who publicly took the Hezbollah position vs. The official Lebanese Government position."
We don't mean to put too fine a point on this, but we think that the current Lebanese government (best ever?) would be a lot more fantastic if Hezbollah wasn't actually one of its members. Like if Hezbollah didn't actually have cabinet ministers with portfolios and voting rights and stuff, that would be really great - and the State Department's declaration that the Lebanese government has nothing to do with this would seem a lot less convuluted.
We're not even talking about how it's near-black letter international law that if you let a militia use your country to start a war, you're responsible for that war. Or about how the Lebanese government created this situation by refusing to lift a finger while Hezbollah was transforming southern Lebanon into a gigantic military base and launching pad. Forget all that.
All we want to know is how it could possibly be the case that the Lebanese government is not responsible for Hezbollah's actions - when Hezbollah is actually part of that government. But maybe we're just not sophisticated enough to figure this out - if someone from the State Department could explain it very slowly, we'd be much obliged.
In fairness, the rest of the conversation is actually kind of gratifying. For instance, it's nice to see that people at Foggy Bottom recognize that Hezbollah is using Israel's presence in the formally Syrian Shebaa Farms as a pathetic pretext to continue killing Israelis. Gratifying, because about a year ago, the State Department wasn't even willing to go that far.
[Cross-posted at IsraPundit]
