When is a terrorist not a terrorist?

Isn’t that an interesting question? You might think it is not, but what happens when we consider our own pat, the letters of marque and the bounty arrangements many European nations had preceding the 19th century? And when we consider those ‘privateers’, how far away were they from being pirates?

That is underlying the stage we see in the Jerusalem Post when we see ‘EU must designate Hezbollah as terror organization, 230 lawmakers say’ (at https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/eu-must-designate-hezbollah-as-terror-organization-230-lawmakers-say-635378). We can argue on the premise of this, yet let’s be clear, when was Hezbollah not a terrorist organisation? The quote “The EU already recognizes Hezbollah’s military wing as a terrorist group, but has not extended that designation to the organization’s political wing. Such a designation must be made by the unanimous consent of the EU’s Council of foreign ministers, where opinions on the matter are divided”, So apparently there are white sheep and black sheep, yet what about the grey and brown sheep? The letter as stated had all these signatures, so for the record we see “Signatories to the letter included 131 members of European national legislatures, 73 members of the European Parliament, 17 members of the US Congress, eight members of the Parliament of Canada and six Knesset members” In addition we see “Among those who already recognize Hezbollah in its entirety is Argentina, Bahrain, Canada, Colombia, Germany, Honduras, Israel, Japan, the Netherlands, Paraguay, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States”, So apart from the fact that 2 EU members are already seeing Hezbollah as a complete danger, what gain is there for the EU to keep this debate going? This entire sheep fur issue is what gives Hezbollah the edge they need to remain a danger in the EU and beyond. 

This is seen in a different way, I remember, I was (indirectly) around in 1982 when Hezbollah started. When we see the quote “For Iran, the creation of Hezbollah represented the realisation of the revolutionary state’s zealous campaign to spread the message of the self-styled ‘‘Islamic revolution’’, whereas for Syria the Shia party was a fortuitous instrument for preserving its interests: Syria’s alliance with Iran presented it with the means to strike indirectly at both Israel and the United States, as well to keep Lebanese allies, including the Amal movement, in line.” We get this from The Role of Hezbollah in Lebanese Domestic Politics by Augustus Richard Norton. We see the clear and direct interaction of its political and military side, this could not have continued if military and political sides were not in the same direction, which means that they needed to align, which gets us the direct interaction. We might think that they are clever, using a seemingly Chinese wall side with different people, but they have a connection through a person and optionally through other links as well. “Hezbollah’s speedy distribution of $12,000 payments to each family made homeless by the war. The opposition alliance, formally sealed in a written compact on February 2006, has proven remarkably durable. It comes with the reference The full translated text may be found at yalibnan.com/site/archives/2006/02/full_english_te.php. The military did not have the funds, there is a larger political connection meaning that they are not separate, no matter the reason for the interaction, there is interaction. In the stage that I see it, the EU is seemingly knowingly blind to that interaction, perhaps as a way to keep the door open for business, this is my speculative implied  consideration that when it comes to money the EU is willing to let go of whatever ethical needs it has, it is not beyond the scope of things, but the idea that they remain in denial of that small part is a little to sour for consideration. 

It all gets worse when you consider the Arab News (at https://www.arabnews.com/node/1705556) where we see ‘Desperate Lebanese forced to look to Hezbollah’, and here we get “It is already clear that the tribunal will issue a judgment concerning the four accused and not against the group to which they belong: Hezbollah. This means that each of the nowhere-to-be-found accused will be issued with a judgment independently, which insulates Hezbollah from any direct legal accusation, even though the political accusation has been issued by all since the day of the assassination of Rafik Hariri in 2005” a political push to insulate Hezbollah? Do you still think that there is not a stronger level of interactions and at what point will the military arm not herald the consequences of the desperate Lebanese? The essential pushes, now intensified through Covid-19 on a global scale means that Hezbollah has a larger and wider stage of interactions. Still the EU considers the military and political arm apart? What evidence do they have that there is no interaction when there are mountains of evidence (A Golan joke if you please) that there is interaction?

And when the issues between Israel and Syria starts, how much more interactions within Hezbollah will be ignored? At some point we will need to accept that the EU needs a much closer look on who they go to bed with and a publication of names connected to the EU Gravy train will suddenly be stopped on national security reasons, there are more interactions and there is more denial than too many politicians are comfortable with and the stage that unfolds will have a few larger traps, I wonder how it will turn out.


Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Military, Politics

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.