EU Falls into the Trap

Soraya Helou

The European Union has finally bowed to the US and "Israeli" pressures and set Hizbullah on the European list for terrorist organizations. In an independent move though, the EU drove wedge between Hizbullah's military wing and political arm, with which it seeks to maintain contact. This is the sole formula reached by Europe's thinkers to reconcile US-"Israeli" demands with European interests.

The deal is thus sealed, and if no one really understands-mainly Europe's foreign ministers-how the distinction between the military and political wings will be made, what matters is that the EU is done with the pressures that have tremendously increased for the past months and which absolutely have nothing to do with Burgas bombing in Bulgaria.
Almost a year ago, an explosion of a bus in Burgas killed "Israeli" tourists. "Israel" accused Hizbullah and Bulgaria government followed suit, although Bulgarian judiciary has said evidences were lacking. Ever since, this affair has been a pressure chip against Hizbullah, before the EU decided to go through threats to the end and thus placed Hizbullah on the terrorism list. The menace was constantly brandished, but then a member state at the EU disagrees and hence puts off the decision.
This time, the scenario was different and the EU 27 states consented to blacklisting the party "provided that dialogue is maintained with the political wing." Behind closed doors, European diplomats in Lebanon express their disagreement with the decision, but mention that the EU succumbed to pressures. Publically, they say the exact opposite and avow that since Hizbullah was involved in terrorist acts on European soil, it was normal for the EU to do as such.

Yet deep inside, they all know that Burgas bombing was just an alibi. Truth is that EU High Representative Catherine Ashton has herself said that it was all because of Hizbullah participation in Syria battles alongside the regime of Bashar Assad. If Hizbullah fought alongside the opposition, there would not have been any measure against it. On the contrary, the party would have reaped felicitations even if it used the most destructive weapons; it would have still been a hero. It is the same double standard policy.

Considering the battle of Qusayr in which Hizbullah took part, and which changed the equation in Syria in favor of the regime whose troops managed to retake grip on many fronts from Aleppo to Homos passing by Daraa and Damascus, it was deemed high time to end this defeat and severely punish those who made it happen, with the door to dialogue kept open nonetheless. The EU decision can be resumed as follows: Hizbullah is condemned, but there is a possibility to renege on this decision if the party refrains from helping the Syrian regime.

Once again, Europeans have shown that they haven't gotten the Lebanese Resistance as yet. Springing from one victory to another ever since its formation during the 1982 "Israeli" invasion, the resistance has proven that it only fears God and that it does not yield to pressures. Why? Because it conjugates conviction, faith, and courage. Its abounding qualities make the flaws of those who sell, buy, and monetize their cause.

For Hizbullah, participating in Syria battles meets the strategy of defending Lebanon and the axis of the resistance. Have criticizers wondered how the situation in Lebanon would be if Qusayr and its vicinity did not fall in the hands of the regime troops? The entire Bekaa would have become a passageway for Syrian militants and al-Nusra Front, only to multiply attacks on Bekaa towns at first and then nationwide, though the north. Have the Europeans, who keep voicing support for Lebanon's stability, envisaged such a possibility and how would they converge their calls for stability with the anti-Hizbullah decision? How would they clip this decision with the fresh stance of the French President pro a government including all the components of the Lebanese society?

The more we try to analyze the decision, the more inconsistencies we encounter. What chiefly matters is that the decision is quite irrelevant. In general, such decisions lead to two key consequences: the assets of the designated terrorist organization in European banks would be frozen and its members would be banned from obtaining visas for Europe. Yet in both cases, Hizbullah can principally survive these sanctions.

 Its funds, if ever existing, are certainly not in Europe, and members do not spend their time traveling from one European country to another. Still is the political and moral weigh. If some Lebanese parties are definitely to exploit the decision politically to preclude Hizbullah participation in the next government, the decision will still have no impact on the domestic balances in Lebanon. Notwithstanding, it actually shows how strong the party has become so that the Europeans had to adopt a decision which themselves don't surely buy.

The fact that the EU decision has followed suit the measures taken by GCC against alleged members of Hizbullah, not to omit the US similar decisions, only shows that nothing can ever influence the party's mind. Today, it is rather the EU that must ask some questions: how will it differentiate between the military and political wings during talks with Hizbullah officials, and with whom will the UNIFIL-comprising key European contingents-deal to ensure calm in South Lebanon? In fact, by Okaying such a decision, not just did the EU make a mistake, but it also complicated its own condition. It fell into the trap it has, itself, set.

Source: Al-Ahed News