=> On the other hand, this incident reminded me of two earlier terrorist attacks, also aimed at the deliberate mass murder of ordinary civilians, where we do know who did it. Both of them have been in the news recently, for different reasons. One was the bombing of a tourist bus in Burgas, Bulgaria in July 2012 that killed five Israeli tourists and a Bulgarian bus driver. In February of this year the Bulgarian government announced the results of its investigation, which indicated that this attack was organized by Lebanon's Hizbullah. The other is the July 1994 bombing of the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires (an attack on Argentine Jews, not Israeli Jews) , which killed 85 people and wounded hundreds of others. It was established a while ago that this was almost certainly a joint operation by Hizbullah and the Iranian government (or, at least, important elements of the Iranian government), and for some time Argentine courts have been fruitlessly trying to extradite figures from Iran and Hizbullah accused of having played key roles. But now, according to an announcement in February of this year, the Argentine government seems to be trying to cut a deal with the perpetrators to whitewash the whole affair.
In both Europe and Argentina, the politics of telling the truth about these Hizbullah terrorist attacks are complicated. A recent piece by Lee Smith usefully explained some of the political complexities at the European end. (Yes, occasionally even the Weekly Standard has some pieces worth taking seriously, mostly written by Andrew Ferguson or Lee Smith.)
The bus bombing in Bulgaria targeted Israelis, whose bus just happened to be in Burgas rather than Tel Aviv, and many people consider Israeli civilians legitimate (or quasi-legitimate) targets. But the fact that Hizbullah carried out such a blatant terrorist attack in a European country, and was publicly fingered for it by an EU member state, may strain Hizbullah's relations with other European governments and the EU—despite the fact that many European diplomats and officials are very reluctant, for various reasons, to admit publicly that Hizbullah is a terrorist organization. On the other hand, this unwelcome attention comes at a bad time for Hizbullah, which faces some serious political complications in its own neighborhood. Among other things, Hizbullah's prospects are closely bound up with the ongoing struggle for Syria. It is actively allied with the Assad regime and depends on it as a link to its patrons in Iran, so it will face very serious problems if the Assad regime is eventually overthrown—which looks likely.
Here are some of the key factors in play, as Lee Smith outlines them:
It would be hard to overstate the resolve the Bulgarian government showed in making the announcement. “Sofia came under enormous pressure from among others the French and Germans to 'nuance' the report and avoid antagonizing Hezbollah,” says Omri Ceren, a senior advisor at The Israel Project. [....]
The operation at the bus station in Burgas was one of Hezbollah’s few successes, and Bulgaria’s response comes in stark contrast to the decision recently taken by the Argentinean government to form a “truth commission” with the Islamic Republic of Iran to investigate the 1994 bombing of the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires. [....]
[There is an] ongoing debate within the European Union whether or not to designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. France and Germany are against listing Lebanon’s Islamic resistance, and led an aggressive campaign to convince the Bulgarians not to name Hezbollah as the culprit. The Netherlands, on the other hand, has been pushing for designation and has blacklisted Hezbollah separately from any EU actions. The UK meanwhile has designated Hezbollah’s “military wing,” an action taken largely because of Hezbollah fighters that squared off against UK troops in Iraq, and intended to distinguish it from the outfit’s “political wing,” a distinction that the Bulgarian report made implicitly. [....]
The distinction between the two “wings” is simply a convenient fiction invented by European policymakers. [....] Because U.S. officials are not allowed to deal with a designated foreign terrorist organization like Hezbollah, the Europeans are able to step in and fill the gap. But if Hezbollah is designated as a whole, and not simply its “military” wing, then the Europeans will lose one of the few cards they have to play in their Middle East policy. [....]
Indeed, the Europeans were already pushing back even before the report. EU counterterrorism official Gilles de Kerchove argued the day before the announcement that there “is no automatic listing just because you have been behind a terrorist attack… It's not only the legal requirement that you have to take into consideration, it's also a political assessment of the context and the timing." [....]
The Europeans are primarily worried about losing their diplomatic prerogative, but are also, understandably, concerned about winding up in Hezbollah’s crosshairs. Hezbollah and Iran were effectively at war with France in the 80s, often in Paris itself, and with French troops and civilians filling the UNIFIL ranks in southern Lebanon, they’d prefer to avoid shaking the hornets’ nest. [....]
Finally the Europeans reason that designating Hezbollah might destabilize the Lebanese government. This is a particularly odd rationale given that Hezbollah controls the government and destabilizing it, or forcing Lebanese parties to abandon their alliance with the party of God, would serve the interests of Beirut’s pro-Western parties. Already the announcement seems to be having an effect inside Lebanon. [....]
“It will be hard for Hezbollah’s allies to back it when Europe turns against it,” says NOW Lebanon’s managing editor Hanin Ghaddar.[....] According to Ghaddar, the Bulgaria report is as significant as the special tribunal for Lebanon that named four Hezbollah members guilty for the assassination of former prime minister Rafik Hariri.[....]
It seems that the party of God is fighting on every conceivable front, and not faring well on any of them. In Syria, it’s sided with Bashar al-Assad’s besieged regime, sending forces to take on a Sunni-majority rebellion that will in time inevitably take its revenge on the Shiite militia. Its terrorist operations around the world are proving failures, except for the one in Bulgaria, which may in time turn Europe as well as its Lebanese allies against it.
We'll see. Meanwhile, read the whole thing (below).
—Jeff Weintraub
==============================
The Weekly Standard (On-Line)
February 6, 2013
Blaming Terrorists for Terrorism
Lee Smith
Yesterday the Bulgarian government announced the results of its investigation into the July 18, 2012 bus bombing that killed 5 Israeli tourists and a Bulgarian bus driver in the city of Burgas. At least two members of what appears to have been a three-man team belong to Hezbollah. More specifically, explained Bulgaria’s interior minister, Tsvetan Tsvetanov, they were part of Hezbollah’s “military wing”—a peculiar turn of phrase that hints at the political implications of the Bulgarian investigation, which may have a major impact on European Union foreign policy as well as Hezbollah’s ability to operate on the continent. And yet the most serious repercussions may be felt inside Lebanon, where Hezbollah is already feeling the pressure.
Even as late as the night before the announcement, says Matthew Levitt a former Treasury Department official and now a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, “U.S. officials didn’t know if Bulgaria would go ahead and name Hezbollah. The Israelis seemed more confident, but remained tight-lipped about it.” And the Bulgarians, Levitt told me, “spoke truth to power. They made it clear these were Hezbollah operatives, funded by Hezbollah in a Hezbollah plot.”
It would be hard to overstate the resolve the
Bulgarian government showed in making the announcement. “Sofia came
under enormous pressure from among others the French and Germans to
'nuance' the report and avoid antagonizing Hezbollah,” says Omri Ceren, a
senior advisor at The Israel Project.
“That Bulgarian officials were willing to let the evidence guide them
and expose who was behind the attack, even at this very delicate time
for the European Union and for Bulgaria's place inside of it, took
genuine political courage.”
There had been some speculation that the Bulgarians
might hint at Hezbollah involvement without naming the group and likely
inviting further attacks from an outfit that has picked up the pace of
its terrorist operations abroad in the last three years. As Levitt shows
in his new study,
“Hizballah and the Qods Force in Iran's Shadow War with the West,”
since January 2010 the Lebanese group and its Iranian partners have
plotted numerous attacks throughout Europe and the rest of the world,
targeting Israeli embassies and Jewish communities in, among other
places, Cyprus, Turkey, Thailand, Kenya, India, Azerbaijan, and
Georgia.
The operation at the bus station in Burgas was one
of Hezbollah’s few successes, and Bulgaria’s response comes in stark
contrast to the decision recently taken by the Argentinean government to
form a “truth commission” with the Islamic Republic of Iran to
investigate the 1994 bombing of the Jewish community center in Buenos
Aires. The purpose
of the agreement is to bury the case and whitewash Hezbollah’s role in
killing 85 people and wounding hundreds, exactly 18 years to the day
before the Burgas bombing. Bulgaria chose instead to underscore
Hezbollah’s bloody career.
The Obama administration and other U.S. officials greeted the Sofia report with enthusiasm. The White House’s counterterrorism
adviser John Brennan commended “its friend and NATO ally.” Obama’s
nominee for CIA director has in the past indicated
he’s somewhat confused about Hezbollah, recommending for instance that
Washington should seek to empower the terror group’s so-called
“moderates.” But regarding the Burgas bombing, Brennan was clear-eyed.
“Bulgaria’s investigation exposes Hizballah for what it is,” Brennan said
in a released statement, “a terrorist group that is willing to
recklessly attack innocent men, women, and children, and that poses a
real and growing threat not only to Europe, but to the rest of the
world.”
New Secretary of State John Kerry also weighed
in, urging “other governments around the world – and particularly our
partners in Europe – to take immediate action to crack down on
Hizballah. We need to send an unequivocal message to this terrorist
group that it can no longer engage in despicable actions with impunity.”
Kerry is referring to the ongoing debate within the
European Union whether or not to designate Hezbollah as a terrorist
organization. France and Germany are against listing Lebanon’s Islamic
resistance, and led an aggressive campaign to convince the Bulgarians
not to name Hezbollah as the culprit. The Netherlands, on the other
hand, has been pushing for designation and has blacklisted Hezbollah
separately from any EU actions. The UK meanwhile has designated Hezbollah’s
“military wing,” an action taken largely because of Hezbollah fighters
that squared off against UK troops in Iraq, and intended to distinguish
it from the outfit’s “political wing,” a distinction that the Bulgarian
report made implicitly.
In a statement following the report, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu argued against this idea, saying
that “there is only one Hezbollah, it is one organization with one
leadership.” As it turns out, Netanyahu’s interpretation is backed by
Hezbollah itself. "All political, social and jihad work is tied to the
decisions of this leadership," senior Hezbollah official Naim Qassem told the Los Angeles Times in
2009. "The same leadership that directs the parliamentary and
government work also leads jihad actions in the struggle against
Israel."
The distinction between the two “wings” is simply a
convenient fiction invented by European policymakers. No one is fooled
against his will, and the reality is that the Europeans aren’t even
fooling themselves with their hairsplitting. The effect of separating
the two “wings” is to give Hezbollah some wiggle room. If only the
“military” side is listed then the “political” group can still raise
money on the continent. The purpose of the distinction is to give
European diplomats an advantage over their American counterparts.
Because U.S. officials are not allowed to deal with a designated foreign
terrorist organization like Hezbollah, the Europeans are able to step
in and fill the gap. But if Hezbollah is designated as a whole, and not
simply its “military” wing, then the Europeans will lose one of the few
cards they have to play in their Middle East policy.
Spilling blood on European soil should make it much more difficult for the French and others to avoid designating Hezbollah, but “we’re not at a place yet where designation is certain, there’s a lot left to be done. There is no longer a debate over the facts,” according to Levitt. “The debate now is over policy—is it a smart move to list them?
Indeed, the Europeans were already pushing back even before the report. EU counterterrorism official Gilles de Kerchove argued
the day before the announcement that there “is no automatic listing just because you have been behind a terrorist attack… It's not only the legal requirement that you have to take into consideration, it's also a political assessment of the context and the timing."
If de Kerchove seems to be making room for some sort of justification that Hezbollah might offer for the attack, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton was even more mealy mouthed. "The EU and Member States will discuss the appropriate response based on all elements identified by the investigators," said Ashton, noting “the need for a reflection over the outcome of the investigation.”
The Europeans are primarily worried about losing
their diplomatic prerogative, but are also, understandably, concerned
about winding up in Hezbollah’s crosshairs. Hezbollah and Iran were
effectively at war with France in the 80s, often in Paris itself, and
with French troops and civilians filling the UNIFIL ranks in southern
Lebanon, they’d prefer to avoid shaking the hornets’ nest. However, the
fact is that Hezbollah has already targeted French UNIFIL troops, and
those of other EU members, including Spain and Italy.
Finally the Europeans reason that designating
Hezbollah might destabilize the Lebanese government. This is a
particularly odd rationale given that Hezbollah controls the government
and destabilizing it, or forcing Lebanese parties to abandon their
alliance with the party of God, would serve the interests of Beirut’s
pro-Western parties. Already the announcement seems to be having an
effect inside Lebanon.
“It will be hard for Hezbollah’s allies to back it when Europe turns against it,” says NOW Lebanon’s
managing editor Hanin Ghaddar. “Yesterday, Prime Minister Mikati said
he condemns Bulgaria bombing, and the Lebanese government is ready to
cooperate.” Mikati is not affiliated with the pro-democracy March 14
forces but was handpicked for the premiership by Hezbollah. “If you
support them on the bombing then you’ll have problems in Europe,” says
Ghaddar. “Mikati has business in Europe so he’s going to be very careful
with this.”
According to Ghaddar, the Bulgaria report is as significant as the special tribunal for Lebanon that named
four Hezbollah members guilty for the assassination of former prime
minister Rafik Hariri. “Nasrallah has a speech in ten days,” says
Ghaddar, “and everyone is saying that Hezbollah will have no comment
before that, but I think they don’t know what to say. Again Hezbollah is
in big trouble.”
It seems that the party of God is fighting on every
conceivable front, and not faring well on any of them. In Syria, it’s
sided with Bashar al-Assad’s besieged regime, sending forces to take on a
Sunni-majority rebellion that will in time inevitably take its revenge
on the Shiite militia. Its terrorist operations around the world are
proving failures, except for the one in Bulgaria, which may in time turn
Europe as well as its Lebanese allies against it.