meionline.com/features/338.shtml
Coordinated campaign
It is no secret that the US and Israel have coordinated their campaign against Syria and Hizbullah. Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said on 23 February: “Giving back Lebanon’s sovereignty to the Lebanese depends on the dismantling of Hizbullah. Israel is acting towards the realization of this vital objective in a world-wide political campaign.” He added: “In coordination with the US, we are pressing the EU countries in particular to put Hizbullah on the list of terrorists.”
Israel’s endeavours have focused on blaming Hizbullah for terrorist acts carried out against Israel by Palestinian groups, such as the suicide bombing in Tel Aviv on 25 February. The Sharon government has persuaded the US that Hizbullah is trying to undermine the Palestinian Authority’s new president, Mahmud Abbas, leading David Satterfield, the acting assistant secretary of state, to warn Hizbullah: “They need to stop and to stop immediately.”
The US campaign has concentrated on the group’s fundraising and media efforts. The Justice Department has invested considerable effort in pursuing Hizbullah “cells” in the US. Those cells have been involved exclusively in fundraising rather than military affairs. A great deal of press attention was given to a group in North Carolina convicted in 2003 of operating a cigarette-smuggling cartel that channelled money to Hizbullah.
The White House’s broader strategy has been to try to get the international community to replicate the legal measures the US has taken. On his trip to Europe in mid-February, Bush put intense pressure on the EU to list Hizbullah as a terrorist organization. Such a move would isolate Hizbullah politically and prevent it from raising funds in Europe through charities. So far, Washington has not succeeded, largely because of French resistance.
The US-Israeli campaign scored a modest victory, however, when the European Parliament agreed to brand Hizbullah a “terrorist” organization on 10 March and recommended the Council of Ministers do likewise. While Shalom welcomed the development effusively, press reports suggest that US officials are displeased with Israeli officialdom’s many pronouncements on Lebanese politics, believing they damage the credibility of the Lebanese opposition. They are equally upset that rumours surfaced in the press that the Lebanese opposition was in talks with Israeli officials, reports seized on by Nasrallah, who has said his party would not agree to negotiations with Israel.
Efforts to shut down Hizbullah’s successful TV station, al-Manar, which claims 10-15 million viewers, have also made headway. The US State Department put al-Manar on the Terrorism Exclusion List on 17 December, effectively preventing it from broadcasting in the US. The station was also recently banned in France.
The problem faced by the US and Israel at the moment is one of overreach. With its massive demonstrations, Hizbullah has put paid to the idea that the Lebanese are united in opposition to Syria or in favour of disarming the Shi’ite militia. Had the US focused exclusively on Syrian withdrawal, it might not now be faced with accusations of back-tracking. Nasrallah has emphasized that Hizbullah supports a Syrian pull-out under the terms of the Taif Accord. It is precisely the anti-Hizbullah provisions of 1559 that alienate many Lebanese, who see them as intended to benefit Israel.
It will not be easy for the US to side-line Hizbullah, given the group’s continuing popularity, and the fact that even without the Syrian presence it is likely to remain a potent military force. With this in mind, as well as its past success in driving both the US and the Israelis from Lebanon, Hizbullah is understandably defiant. On 8 March, addressing the possibility of a US intervention, Nasrallah told demonstrators in Beirut: “We have defeated them in the past. If they come again we will defeat them again.”
