US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared to break with US policy on Tuesday when she discussed Lebanese resistance group Hezbollah on the Charlie Rose show, identifying only the organization's "military wing" as a terrorist concern.
Discussing the recent negotiations between the five UN Security Council nations plus Germany -- P5+1 -- and Iran, Secretary Clinton told Rose:
"I mean, the Iranians not only worry us because of their nuclear program, they worry us because of their support for terrorism, their support for the military wing of Hezbollah, their support for Hamas, their interference in the internal affairs of their neighbors, trying to destabilize gulf countries and other countries throughout the greater region."
Hezbollah has been on the US State Department's List of Terrorist Organizations since 1999, with no distinctions thus far made between the group's military or political branches. Hezbollah itself rejects distinctions between its various bodies.
Earlier this summer, the British government did make that distinction however, placing only Hezbollah's military wing on its list of organizations banned under the 2000 Terrorism Act. Globally, only the United States, Canada and Israel view Hezbollah as a terrorist group.
A State Department spokeswoman, however, denied any policy shift, saying: "The Secretary's statement is fully consistent with our existing policy. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization."
But if Clinton's statement during the lengthy interview with Rose was a mere slip of the tongue, it was a very precise and specific gaff.
Which begs the question, is the US administration about to tweak its decade-long position on Hezbollah, and if so, why now?
The US Secretary of State's new phrasing comes exactly one day after the formation of a unity government in Lebanon, led by US-backed Prime Minister Saad Hariri.
The government's new cabinet includes ten ministerial positions for the Hezbollah-led opposition, two of which will go to Hezbollah members.
Any change in the US's position on the Lebanese resistance group could reflect this new reality: that Hezbollah participated in democratically held elections and is now part of Lebanon's official governmental body.
In the background, however, lurks another possible incentive for a US policy shift. A war of words between Israel and Hezbollah has persisted since the end of Israel's 33-day war on Lebanon in mid-2006. The stalemate that resulted was widely viewed as a defeat for Israel, a country that has relied on the psychology of victory to act as a deterrent for its Arab neighbors. And this perception of defeat has caused significant frustration within Israel's military establishment.
This past summer, Israeli rhetoric threatening Lebanon peaked when it became clear that although the pro-US coalition had won the Lebanese elections, a unity government including Hezbollah was inevitable.
"If Hezbollah joins the Lebanese government as an official entity, let it be clear that the Lebanese government, as far as we are concerned, is responsible for any attack -- any attack -- from its area on the state of Israel," Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said as recently as August. These comments followed similar statements by Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, increasing speculation that another military conflict could be in the offing.
Could the US administration be softening its stance on Hezbollah in order to give Lebanon's new government a shot at succeeding, and simultaneously warning Israel to back off? President Obama has a lot on his plate, juggling talks with Iran -- an Israeli foe and Hezbollah ally -- managing US military activities in Afghanistan and Iraq and trying to jumpstart peace talks between Palestinians and Israel. The last thing he needs is another large-scale armed conflict in the region to distract from his Mideast agenda.
In August, Obama's Assistant on Homeland Security and Counter-terrorism, John Brennan introduced more moderate language about the Lebanese resistance group at an event held at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in DC.
While reiterating the US position on Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, Brennan painted a more nuanced picture of the group:
"Hezbollah started out as purely a terrorist organization in the early '80s and has evolved significantly over time. And now it has members of parliament, in the cabinet; there are lawyers, doctors, others who are part of the Hezbollah organization ... And so, quite frankly, I'm pleased to see that a lot of Hezbollah individuals are in fact renouncing that type of terrorism and violence and are trying to participate in the political process in a very legitimate fashion."
In an article in The Nation a few days later, a State Department spokesman responded to Brennan's comments: "U.S. policy toward Hezbollah has not changed. We do not make any distinction between the political and military wings."
But his Secretary of State just did.
Whether Clinton on Tuesday deliberately meant to redefine US policy on Hezbollah or not, it seems the thinking within the administration has taken a turn anyway.
Follow Sharmine Narwani on Twitter: www.twitter.com/snarwani
How can Secretary Clinton, Susan Rice & others in the Obama adm continue to support or take seriously in any way any individual who makes such threatening gestures to his neighbors? Let's hope that along with the BDS movement, more pressures will be put upon the Obama adm to distance itself from the right-wingers in Israel & their Christian Zionist enablers in the USA.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2008/06/20086226195408187.html
If the US should distance itself from anyone, it should be the Islamists who are causing havoc and chaos throughout the world and not an ally like Israel
using his American citizenship, infiltrated the US Military as an Army Psychiatrist, where he committed an act of terror by mass murdering his fellow soldiers in what was an ultimately unsuccessful suicide attack, as he lived.
If a Palestinian or any Muslim had committed this same act in Israel, Iraq, India, Pakistan or Afghanistan, this would have immediately been labeled an act of Terrorism and Hasan a Terrorist.
Hezbollah is a resistance group that was created entirely as a result of Israel's occupation of Lebanon. Under every bit of international law there is, an indigenous population has the right to resist an occupying force.
Get over yourself. This terrorism propaganda is losing its credibility hard and fast. Now that Hezbollah is in the Lebanese government - and please remember that even the pro-US elements of the Leb gov't reject the idea that Hezb is a terrorist group - that fairy-tale is going to unravel quickly. As you can see by the article above. Even if Clinton denies it, the writing is on the wall - every one of our European allies has reached out to Hezbollah in the past two years. Wait and watch Washington follow suit.
"A political party/social institution doesn't go together with a private army"
Under Ideal circumstances you are correct, but then again, it's not that simple.
To use a well worn analogy (well-worn because of its direct applications to the situation) The Irish IRA had a political wing called Sinn Fein. By talking with SInn Fein it has been possibly to mollify the radical catholics of Northern ireland, who believed only a military solution to British rule in Northern Ireland was possible. Those radical elements have since joined the political debate and pu their weapons "beyond use". Northern Ireland is not a more peaceful and equitable place for all its citizens.
If Britian had continued with its "we do not negotiate with terrorists" policy northern Ireland would still be in the grip of the terrible decades long violence which poisoned relations between the two communities.
At the height of its powers The IRA was at least as capable as Hezbollah, however thankfully, the government in Westminister had more sense (and morality) than to pulverise Dublin and southern ireland with like the Israels have done with Lebanon.
And a crucial difference, the IRA didn't pledge to destroy England and kill all British in their charter, did they? It may seem like a nuance, but it is not. Hamas considers all of Israel to be Palestinian territory. That is not a military stance, that is their POLITICAL stance.
Taking the P1+ 55?
If we had some eggs, we could have ham and eggs. If we had any ham that is.
If we play make-believe games, we can pretend we are children. Or alternatively, we could start acting and talking to each other like adults.
Why did a need to correct the record: "The Secretary's statement is fully consistent with our existing policy. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization."
Sharmine Narwani says, "But if Clinton's statement during the lengthy interview with [Charlie] Rose was a mere slip of the tongue, it was a very precise and specific gaff."
The Obama Administration would be wise to keep the gaffe-pron SoS quieter, and let a careful diplomat speak the frist time, rather than having to do frequent and embarassing sweep ups. .
Israel has nowhere to go anymore. Their cards are played and the international community is united to keep them in line during the peace process. Further delay will be to their detriment, not Palestine's.
What "peace process"?
What "political process" is possible with those who deny your right to exist, your right to live, your right to draw a breath?
it would be a very good step towards finding a settlement for Palestine.
Refusing to talk to anyone is foolish. Especially groups that have demonstrated popular support.
Might not care for them. But it is better to deal with reality.
Because you are not going to have any kind of settlement without Hezbollah and Hamas. Better to engage them than to fight them.
I only worry that Israel's fears about the changing status quo will make it act more irrationally than usual. If you know the story of Masada, we may have more to fear from a nuke-laden Israel than we ever thought.
I somewhat share your fears re what Seymour Hersh termed "The Samson Option," but remain optimistic.
Sooner or later, all great powers act in their own best interests and it is becoming increasingly obvious to America what its best interests are and are not. In 25 years: at least 3 billion Muslims (now 1.75 billion); 600-700 million Arabs, including 12 to 15 million Palestinians between the River Jordan and the Med. The implications for US foreign policy should be obvious to any thinking person. The handwriting is on the wall. Only the un/misinformed and/or zealots fail to comprehend what the future holds.
Certainly, when they have been admitted to governance, they represent the views of large numbers of people, some of whom will be "terrorists" and others not. Not talking with them disenfranchises large numbers of people.
If the US is about to admit that it is willing to engage Hezbollah in talks and recognise those facts then it is to be applauded.
Mrs. Clinton may recall that the British government was engaged in talks with the (political wing of) IRA for years before it officially admitted as much. Those talks led directly to the current situation, in which the peace process in Northern Ireland progresses well, and a return to the violence of days gone by is almost unthinkable.
The Israeli government (and others) would do well to note the futility of refusing to discuss matters of vital importance with those who oppose it, even if those people are violent extremists.
I intended to put inverted commas around "violent extremists" to reflect that I think that is the Israeli government view, but hit "Post" instead of "Edit", and thought I would just let it stand. Perhaps I should have added another comment to clarify the point, but HP is so clunky that the effort seemed disproportionate to the advantage gained!!
I expect, at any moment, that hasbara factions will post objections to the IRA analogy as being totally irrelevant, but then, they would, wouldn't they? It doesn't fit the "unique" position that they like to believe affects Israel uniquely, and they do like to be unique.
Meantime, Israel is anticipating violence, as usual, instead of grabbing any chance of discussing a viable future by talking without preconditions. And the Palestinian factions are quite capable of being equally intransigent, before there is a clamour that they too are guilty of failing to talk (though it is difficult when the people you need to talk with won't take part).
That doesn't say "extremist" to me, and it certainly bespeaks a certain tolerance of other cultures. How do you see that?
Hamas and Hezbollah, while having trained the IRA, are nowhere near as rational as the IRA, and their goal is much more vile and visicious.
On what basis? your adhoc psychological profiling of Hezbollas leadership is questionable.
Their goal is freedom, I can understand that freedom for anyone but the jews is "vile" and "viscious" to you but can you understand that not everyone shares this opinion?
Speaking of which, why isn't Israel on our list of terrorist states? Oh yeah, because they bought our Congress.
Hmm...
"Oh yeah, because they bought our Congress."
I would like you to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish-controlled_U.S._government
Then think about what you just said.
Do you honestly compare an overflight with a rocket attack that kills?
Oh, like the USA isn't interfering?