By Ilan Weinglass
It is hard to doubt that Hizballah acheived an unequivocal victory yesterday. The original purpose, indeed the operation name, of Hizballah's kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, was "Freedom for Samir Al-Quntar and his brothers." In other words, Hizballah completely acheived it war aims.
Despite this victory, Matthew Levitt points out a significant development that could be very ominous for Hizballah in the future. The House of Commons approved the Home Office's banning of Hizballah's military wing (as distinct from the already-banned terrorist wing), which "would make it a crime to belong to or encourage support for Hizbullah's military wing."
As Levitt explains in Hizballah's Military Wing Under Pressure Despite Political Gains:
Yesterday, Britain's parliament approved a Home Office order issued earlier this month, banning Hizballah's military wing, al-Muqawam al-Islamiyya or Islamic Resistance. Hizballah's terrorist wing, often called the Islamic Jihad Organization (IJO) or, as in Britain, the External Services Organization (ESO), was banned in 2001. Condemning "Hizballah's violence and support for terrorism," the ban outlaws raising funds, encouraging support for, or belonging to, Hizballah's military wing.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown informed members of parliament that the decision to act now was based "on the sole grounds of new evidence of [Hizballah] involvement in terrorism in Iraq and the occupied Palestinian territories." According to reports in the British press, these include "planning to kidnap British security workers in Iraq," echoing the charges of two Iraqi parliamentarians claiming that Hizballah planned and oversaw the kidnapping of five Britons -- still missing -- from the Iraqi Finance Ministry in May 2007.
Two other sources of pressure are as follows:
The U.S. government has also taken action against Hizballah since its forced takeover of Beirut. The U.S. Department of Treasury designated two Hizballah operatives in Venezuela, highlighting the scope of the organization's global footprint.
...The pressure against Hizballah, however, is not just coming from governments. In the United States and Canada, two civil lawsuits were filed this month against Lebanese banks for providing Hizballah with financial services needed to carry out military and terrorist operations.
Levitt concludes:
Further exposing Hizballah's global footprint, and the violent and illicit activities in which its operatives are engaged, could help roll back the group's successes at home. According to Nasrallah, a European designation of Hizballah would "destroy" the organization since "the sources of our funding will dry up and the sources of moral, political, and material support will be destroyed." This week, Hizballah celebrates. But its party may be short-lived, especially if European leaders followed Britain's lead and held the group accountable for its militant and terrorist activities [My emphasis].
These are certainly positive steps. I find it hard to share Levitt's optimism, however. Most significantly, the ban does not apply to Hizballah's political/social wing, which means it will have very limited impact, as money is fungible. Regarding the lawsuits, I cannot say much about them for legal reasons. However, a glance at the public record shows that similar lawsuits have taken a long time to produce significant results.
So the noose is indeed tightening around Hizballah, but only slightly. If other European countries follow Britain's lead then the noose will indeed get tighter, especially given Hassan Nasrallah's 2005 statement on Al-Manar that a Europe-wide designation would effectively starve Hizballah. But even though we're technically closer, such an event is nowhere on the horizon, while Hizballah racks up a stunning political victory and is probably as strong as it has ever been.
Comments