Italian Ambassador Comments I: Is Hezbollah Part of Lebanon or Not? Depends on What the Best Way to Protect Hezbollah Is.
If you're confused about how the international community views Hezbollah's relationship to Lebanon, it's not your fault. The answer seems to change on the situation, but always (coincidentally) to change in to the way that provides the best argument against Israeli self-defense or for Hezbollah's legitimacy. Now they have to tread carefully, because this is a double-bind:
(a) if Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government, then it was the government of Lebanon that committed an act of war against Israel - and all of the "disproportionate response" and "Israel is turning Lebanon toward Hezbollah" nonsense goes away (the former because there's no such thing as a disproportionate response in a war short of a war crime and the latter because by definition Lebanon was already on Hezbollah's side). But,
(b) if Hezbollah is not part of the Lebanese government, then the ceasefire between Israel and the Lebanese government does not include Hezbollah - which means that the world effectively forced Israel to unilaterally declare a ceasefire. Also, it means that another state is maintaining a proxy army (two states, actually) which is essentially in occupation of Lebanon - a situation that one would imagine would require some kind of official UN notice.
Rather than pick their poison and forthrightly confront the consequences, however, diplomats just shamelessly change their story depending on the situation. Mysteriously, however, the way they change their story is always precisely the way that minimizes Israel's military options or maximizes Hezbollah's legitimacy.
So in July, when the State Department wanted to condemn Israeli attacks on Lebanese military and civilian infrastructure being used by Hezbollah - but didn't know how to get around the "self-defense" part of Israel's justification - Alberto Fernandez (State Department Director of Public Diplomacy in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs) said that Lebanese government was not a party in the war with Israel:
The Israeli Government has said 'we hold the Lebanese government responsible.' The US Government has not said that, and we don't believe that.
But then in August, when the State Department wanted to pressure Israel into accepting a ceasefire - but didn't know how to get around the "but the ceasefire doesn't address Hezbollah at all" part of Israel's objections - Secretary of State Rice said that the Lebanese government was the only relevant party in the war with Israel:
[T]he parties to this cessation of hostilities will be the Lebanese government and the government of Israel... Hezbollah, of course, has ministers in the Lebanese Cabinet... but let's remember that we have a democratically elected government of Lebanon whose territory is at issue here, and the democratically elected government of Israel whose territory is at issue here.
And now again.
In July, the EU needed to condemn Israel - so they implied that Hezbollah was disconnected from the Lebanese political system (so it's not fair to destabilize the government) and was disconnected from Lebanese society (so it's not fair to punish civilians):
The escalating crossborder violence - the worst in a decade - has also sparked a strong response from the EU... "Once again, civilians are paying the price of conflict," said EU Commissioner Louis Michel... The German government on Friday said Israel had the right to defend itself but should think about the long-term impact of its offensive in Lebanon... "Here we think care should be taken about the situation in Lebanon, which is a fragile entity as a state and could be further destabilised," he added... Like the German chancellor, US President George W. Bush also said Israel has the right to defend itself, but should not weaken the Lebanese government.
But now that we're in September, the Italy’s Ambassador to Israel Sandro De Bernardin has to explain why Hezbollah isn't on the EU's terrorism list. Suddenly, as far as the EU is concerned, Hezbollah has everything to do with Lebanese politics and culture:
Asked why, unlike Hamas, Hizbullah are not on the EU’s list of terror organizations, Bernardin said that Hizbullah’s solid integration in the Lebanese political and social system made it difficult for the EU to classify the Shiite guerillas as a terror group. "With Hizbullah the discussions within the European Union have been more difficult so far because Hizbullah has developed more the political side of the organization," he said.
Now, the interesting psychoanalytic problem is to figure out how deep this ideology goes. Do the State Department and the EU actually know that they're formulating foreign policy based on outright contradictions? Or is this genuine doublethink: are the reflexes to restrain Israel and to avoid criticizing terrorism so deep that the knowledge of holding two contradictory beliefs has been effectively erased?
And it'd be really engaging to examine that problem, if it wasn't so depressing to realize that these little cognitive diplomatic stunts have endangered the lives of millions of people. Once you realize that you just get angry, and the fun of the intellectual exercise somehow gets lost.
(a) if Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government, then it was the government of Lebanon that committed an act of war against Israel - and all of the "disproportionate response" and "Israel is turning Lebanon toward Hezbollah" nonsense goes away (the former because there's no such thing as a disproportionate response in a war short of a war crime and the latter because by definition Lebanon was already on Hezbollah's side). But,
(b) if Hezbollah is not part of the Lebanese government, then the ceasefire between Israel and the Lebanese government does not include Hezbollah - which means that the world effectively forced Israel to unilaterally declare a ceasefire. Also, it means that another state is maintaining a proxy army (two states, actually) which is essentially in occupation of Lebanon - a situation that one would imagine would require some kind of official UN notice.
Rather than pick their poison and forthrightly confront the consequences, however, diplomats just shamelessly change their story depending on the situation. Mysteriously, however, the way they change their story is always precisely the way that minimizes Israel's military options or maximizes Hezbollah's legitimacy.
So in July, when the State Department wanted to condemn Israeli attacks on Lebanese military and civilian infrastructure being used by Hezbollah - but didn't know how to get around the "self-defense" part of Israel's justification - Alberto Fernandez (State Department Director of Public Diplomacy in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs) said that Lebanese government was not a party in the war with Israel:
The Israeli Government has said 'we hold the Lebanese government responsible.' The US Government has not said that, and we don't believe that.
But then in August, when the State Department wanted to pressure Israel into accepting a ceasefire - but didn't know how to get around the "but the ceasefire doesn't address Hezbollah at all" part of Israel's objections - Secretary of State Rice said that the Lebanese government was the only relevant party in the war with Israel:
[T]he parties to this cessation of hostilities will be the Lebanese government and the government of Israel... Hezbollah, of course, has ministers in the Lebanese Cabinet... but let's remember that we have a democratically elected government of Lebanon whose territory is at issue here, and the democratically elected government of Israel whose territory is at issue here.
And now again.
In July, the EU needed to condemn Israel - so they implied that Hezbollah was disconnected from the Lebanese political system (so it's not fair to destabilize the government) and was disconnected from Lebanese society (so it's not fair to punish civilians):
The escalating crossborder violence - the worst in a decade - has also sparked a strong response from the EU... "Once again, civilians are paying the price of conflict," said EU Commissioner Louis Michel... The German government on Friday said Israel had the right to defend itself but should think about the long-term impact of its offensive in Lebanon... "Here we think care should be taken about the situation in Lebanon, which is a fragile entity as a state and could be further destabilised," he added... Like the German chancellor, US President George W. Bush also said Israel has the right to defend itself, but should not weaken the Lebanese government.
But now that we're in September, the Italy’s Ambassador to Israel Sandro De Bernardin has to explain why Hezbollah isn't on the EU's terrorism list. Suddenly, as far as the EU is concerned, Hezbollah has everything to do with Lebanese politics and culture:
Asked why, unlike Hamas, Hizbullah are not on the EU’s list of terror organizations, Bernardin said that Hizbullah’s solid integration in the Lebanese political and social system made it difficult for the EU to classify the Shiite guerillas as a terror group. "With Hizbullah the discussions within the European Union have been more difficult so far because Hizbullah has developed more the political side of the organization," he said.
Now, the interesting psychoanalytic problem is to figure out how deep this ideology goes. Do the State Department and the EU actually know that they're formulating foreign policy based on outright contradictions? Or is this genuine doublethink: are the reflexes to restrain Israel and to avoid criticizing terrorism so deep that the knowledge of holding two contradictory beliefs has been effectively erased?
And it'd be really engaging to examine that problem, if it wasn't so depressing to realize that these little cognitive diplomatic stunts have endangered the lives of millions of people. Once you realize that you just get angry, and the fun of the intellectual exercise somehow gets lost.
