Saturday, March 14, 2009
Taking Hezbollah at its word
Memo to Barack Obama: This is going to make negotiating with Hezbollah more difficult, perhaps, than containing or interdicting it:
The leader of Lebanon's Islamist Hezbollah movement, Hassan Nasrallah, has said his group will never recognise Israel's right to exist.
He was responding to a US suggestion that both Hezbollah and the Palestinian faction Hamas should recognise Israel before expecting any US engagement.
"We reject the American conditions," he said. "As long as Hezbollah exists, it will never recognise Israel."
Of course, we can always hope that they will change.
Abu M has some useful thoughts with which I only partially agree:
Personally, I think Hizballah is a lot more intimidated by Barack Hussein Obama than it ever was by the cartoon villain George W. Bush. It would be like if Iran voted in a moderate president and we still had to deal with the issue that the Iranian population still wants nuclear power and feels they have a right to it. It's all well and good when some cartoonish clown like Ahmadinejad or Bush is in charge. When a conciliatory moderate is in charge but your interests still aren't alligned, that's when you see the real differences -- and you can't blame all your disagreements on the other side.
I have two thoughts:Maybe it's about time we start taking some Islamist groups seriously and at their word. When Hamas or Hizballah says there is no circumstance under which they would recognize Israel or accept a two-state solution, maybe we should, you know, believe them. Maybe we shouldn't think about how we are going to pursue our own interests without first seeing whether or not we have partners willing to meet us halfway. Hizballah can put the most enlightened spokesperson in front of the organization -- Ibrahim Mousawi, Hussein Rahal, whoever -- but if it looks as if there is no middle ground on which we can meet, there is really nothing we can talk about.
What if the Obama Administration said, "Hey, Hizballah, if we guarantee Israel will not attack you, will you lay down your arms?" I'm guessing the response would be something along the lines of "a) let us check with Tehran first and b) well, we've been telling our Shia supporters that these crazy Sunnis in Lebanon are a threat as well, so that's really not an option. Plus, they think our hard-won seat at the table in Beirut would go away if we disarmed. So, no."
The bottom line is, we the United States made things easy on Islamist groups from 2001-2009. With hard-liners in Washington, they could always deflect blame onto the United States and our inflexible policies. Now, I suspect, they will have to adjust to the new realities in Washington -- or risk isolating many of the supporters they have gathered in recent years.
Well, I certainly agree that (1) we ought to believe Islamist terrorists, (2) we ought to figure out whether we have a "partner in peace" before we pursue peace by means other than whipping the other guy, and (3) Bush made it easy for such groups to avoid stating their point of view clearly because so many moderate people around the world disliked him so much. The last sentence, though, makes no sense to me. The Obama administration might well pursue a policy of unspined appeasement of such organizations (and Iran and, possibly, Syria, which had a good week) which could in turn bolster the credibility of Hezbollah and Hamas and further swell the ranks of its supporters. What evidence is there, so far, that it is not?
5 Comments:
By 
, at
Sat Mar 14, 08:29:00 PM:
Interestingly enough, I think the Obamatons are likely to take terrorists at their words. After all, if the voters had only taken Obama at his word in th emost extreme instances we might have a President McCain.
By , at
Sat Mar 14, 10:00:00 PM:
Sorry, it wasn't Bush who made it easy for such groups to avoid the consequences of their point of view, but rather those people whose Bush derangement allowed them to pretend our President was the problem and not the terrorists and their apologists/enablers.
Frankly, I'm tired of the stupidity all around and wish somebody in our government would stand up to these goons and clearly state, "Well, okay, since you won't recognize Israel's right to exist, and since our country is clearly beholden to and operated at the behest of the Israeli Lobby, we have no choice but to refuse to recognize your right to exist either."
By , at
Sun Mar 15, 03:25:00 AM:
The voters did take Obama at his word, that's why they were hoodwinked into electing him. He simply found out what the people wanted to hear and then said it, paying no regard to what he knew he would actually do if elected.
By , at
Sun Mar 15, 10:51:00 AM:
"What if the Obama Administration said, "Hey, Hizballah, if we guarantee Israel will not attack you, will you lay down your arms?""
Hizballah would immediately jump at such an offer. Then, they would redefine the word "attack" and demand that fellow Muslim Obama live up to his word.
How redefine? Simply claim that retention of a part of Jerusalem was an "attack" on Islam.
By 
Chris, at
Sun Mar 15, 01:50:00 PM:
I fail to see what the point of having a flexible policy is when dealing with an inflexible and implacable enemy. When the entire reason for Hezbollah's existence is the destruction of Israel, I don't see how we can enter into any kind of negotiation or relationship with Hezbollah unless we agree to share their core belief in some fashion.
This smacks of blaming us for others' ridiculous and intransigent beliefs.
