Hizbollah

Britain asks EU to ban Hizbollah

Marcus Dysch — Tue, 21 May 2013 18:26:13 +0100

Britain has formally asked the European Union to outlaw Hizbollah as a terrorist organisation.

The move increases the likelihood of the EU taking action against the Iranian-backed group and follows months of pressure from Anglo-Jewish groups.

Prime Minister David Cameron requested that British Jews "make a noise" and help him persuade the EU to ban Hizbollah following a meeting with community leaders in January.

To proscribe Hizbollah requires consensus among all 27 EU members. The move would freeze the group's accounts and funding, hitting its European operations and terrorist activities.

It is understood that Hizbollah's increasing role in the Syrian Civil War led the Foreign Office to make the formal request.

A special EU working group is now due to discuss what steps to take against the group at a meeting next month with a ban on the organisation possibly being introduced by the end of June.

A Foreign Office spokesman said: “We are calling for Europe to respond collectively and robustly following the atrocious terrorist attack at Bourgas airport and in light of the recent conviction of an Hizbollah operative in Cyprus.

“We firmly believe that an appropriate EU response would be to designate Hizballah’s military wing as a terrorist organisation. This would be in line with our national proscription of Hizballah’s military wing.

“We continue to work closely with our European partners on this issue to reach a robust, collective EU position."

Middle East minister Alistair Burt said last week that the government was eager to see a “robust response” from the EU to the suicide bombing carried out by Hizbollah in the Bulgarian resort of Bourgas last July which killed five Israeli tourists and a Bulgarian bus driver.

The EU currently classifies Hizbollah as a social welfare organisation. The US, Israel, Canada and the Netherlands are the only countries which currently list Hizbollah as a terrorist organisation in its entirety — both its political and military wings.

A delegation of British Jewish community representatives met Helga Schmid, deputy head of the EU’s external action service last month to push for a Europe-wide ban.

Foreign Secretary William Hague is due to visit Israel on Thursday.

EU faces ‘great risk’ if it fails to curb Hizbollah

Marcus Dysch — Fri, 17 May 2013 18:15:28 +0100

Iran’s provision of money, military equipment and training to Hizbollah and terror groups, including Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas, is of “serious concern”, Middle East Minister Alistair Burt has told Parliament.

He said the Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ involvement in terror attacks in Thailand, India, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Kenya was increasingly worrying.

Mr Burt said the government was eager to see a “robust response” from the European Union to the suicide bombing carried out by Hizbollah in Bulgaria last July which killed five Israeli tourists and a Bulgarian bus driver.

Europe faces a “great risk” in failing to respond to that attack, he said, and should not fear instability in Lebanon if the EU was to proscribe Hizbollah’s military wing as a terrorist organisation.

Mr Burt was speaking in a Commons debate on Hizbollah brought by Labour Friends of Israel vice-chair Michael McCann last Thursday.

Mr McCann called on the government to take “decisive action” and praised Israel’s air strike on a Syrian missile depot and chemical weapons sites.

He said that while a “full ban on Hizbollah may be difficult to achieve, Britain must send a powerful message that we do not tolerate Hizbollah’s and Iran’s terrorism, and that we will work hard to curtail terrorist fundraising and recruitment across Europe”.

A delegation of British Jewish community representatives met Helga Schmid, deputy head of the EU’s external action service last month to push for a Europe-wide ban on Hizbollah.

Their visit followed Prime Minister David Cameron’s request for the community to help him persuade the EU to outlaw the group.

‘The arms will be pointed at Israel sooner or later’

Anshel Pfeffer — Thu, 09 May 2013 12:29:30 +0100

When a window of opportunity presented itself last weekend to prevent Hizbollah and jihadist fighters in Syria from acquiring strategic and chemical weapons, Israel acted.

The destruction of a missile depot and chemical weapons sites came after intelligence reports indicated that rapid action was imperative.

Israel saw that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s grip on his stockpile of chemical weapons was beginning to loosen. The calculation was that a strike now would be highly unlikely to lead to retaliation.

At the same time, the recent arrival from Iran of strategic missiles at Damascus airport meant that Hizbollah was potentially just days away from receiving Fateh-110 solid-fuel missiles that cannot easily be detected by Israel’s defences.

One of the major targets was the Jamraya research centre in Damascus, a chemical weapons hub and already the target of an Israeli strike in January.

Over the past two years of the Syrian civil war, Israeli intelligence has believed that chemical weapons were well-guarded and that the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and Western governments had workable plans to take control of them quickly if the regime fell.

This assessment changed in recent months. The lecture three weeks ago by Brigadier-General Ittai Brun, commander of IDF military intelligence’s research directorate, who claimed that Syria had already used sarin nerve gas against rebels, underlined this new assessment.

The chances of an internationally-backed operation to secure the stockpiles also started to look slim as Western leaders ruled out armed intervention and the more secular FSA began to lose control of the rebellion to al-Qaeda-linked jihadists.

Although all attempts to predict Assad’s demise have so far proved wrong, one thing is certain: Israel will do everything in its power to prevent the spread of chemical weapons.

Israel has emphasised the fact that last weekend’s strikes, and the previous one in January, were not directed against the Syrian regime.

For a start, despite no one being in any doubt as to who was behind the air strikes, Israel has taken no responsibility for them.

This is the same tactic used in 2007 when Israel bombed the Syrian nuclear reactor at Deir a-Zour. Then, Assad was allowed “an honourable out” with Israel not acknowledging that it had carried out the attack or even publicly accusing him of building the reactor. The tactic appears to have worked again.

Indeed the government was so certain there would be no retaliation that Mr Netanyahu stuck to his original schedule and left for a five-day visit to China on Sunday night.

In addition, Israeli sources spread the suggestion that its planes did not actually fly over Syrian territory but rather launched stand-off missiles from planes flying over Lebanon.

IDF exercises that had been scheduled months ago to take place this week near the northern border with Syria were scaled back to prevent reports of a mobilisation of ground forces. The only overt military precaution was the positioning of two Iron Dome missile-defence batteries near Haifa and Safed.

The Syrian Foreign Ministry claimed that Israel’s attacks were “coordinated with terrorists” — as it calls the rebels — but behind the scenes Israel is working against the rebels’ interests.

In high-level discussions with Western governments, including the meeting between David Cameron and Benjamin Netanyahu in London three weeks ago, senior Israeli representatives have been urging their counterparts not to arm the rebel groups.

“When they talk about supplying the Syrian opposition with arms,” said one high-ranking Israeli official, “we ask them: which Syrian opposition? There are so many of them and any arms reaching Syria will almost certainly be pointed later on against Israeli and Western targets.”

‘Rebel’ fight against Assad is jihad to set up Islamist state

John R Bradley — Thu, 09 May 2013 09:38:21 +0100

As the Syrian civil war spirals into mindless violence, the Western powers’ response to the turmoil is increasingly confused and contradictory.

It all looked so simple at the outset. Following the popular uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, a people-led revolution would topple President Bashar Al-Assad; a Nato-friendly interim government would, as in Libya, be installed; and Iran would thus lose its key conduit for supplying arms to Hizbollah and its only Arab ally.

Meanwhile, Israel or the US — or both — would prepare to bomb the Islamic theocracy’s nuclear facilities.

The plan was based on two premises, both fatally flawed from the outset to all but the policy wonks busy drawing it up.

The popular uprising against Assad still has not happened. In fact, it is a more remote possibility than ever.

Contrary to the constant barrage of “good verses evil” propaganda from the Western media, this is not, and never has been, a people’s uprising against a hated dictator.

It’s a jihad, led by tens of thousands of Islamic extremists, armed and funded by the Wahhabi dictatorships of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, in co-ordination with Western intelligence agencies.

The jihadis’ stated intention is to establish a hardline Islamist state. Coupled with their repeated, and well-documented, human rights abuses, they have alienated Syria’s myriad religious minorities and the moderate Sunni Muslims, who form the majority of the population. More than ever, Syrians are determined to stick with the devil they know.

Which brings us to the second false premise.

The New York Times reported last week what has also been obvious for more than a year to all but the wilfully misinformed: that “nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of”.

All the front-line fighting and suicide bombings are being carried out, in fact, by the Al-Nasra Front.

Bizarrely, this is a group that Washington has listed as a terrorist outfit and recently formed an alliance with al-Qaeda in Iraq. Worse, spokesmen for the Al-Nasra Front have been openly bragging about how, once the Assad regime falls, they will turn their jihadi fury — and arms — on Israel and the West.

Small wonder that last week Mr Obama ruled out sending ground troops to aid the “rebels”. His statement came on the back of a Reuters/Ipsos poll, which found only one in 10 Americans think the US should now intervene — rising to only 27 per cent if chemical weapons are used by the Syrian government. A Pew poll similarly found that in every Mid East country, an overwhelming majority is against US military intervention.

In the midst of all this, Israel’s airstrike last week targeting Syrian weapons sites allowed Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, Hizbollah’s leader, to join Mr Assad in presenting the whole debacle as part of a world Zionist conspiracy.

With the claims that the Syrian forces have used chemical weapons against civilians being met by deep scepticism, and even by counter-claims at the UN that the jihadis have been committing the same war crime, Nato has boxed itself into a corner — with only two viable options left.

The first is the assassination of Mr Assad, which, because illegal under international law, would have to be carried out by the jihadis. But Mr Assad, presumably, is not sleeping in the same bed every night; and he rarely appears in public. The second is to simply let the grisly chaos reign.

'Drone designed by Iranians,' said Israel

Anshel Pfeffer — Thu, 02 May 2013 14:30:53 +0100

Hizbollah has repeatedly denied any connection to a drone which was shot down west of Haifa last Thursday evening.

According to the IDF, Israeli radars monitored the unmanned aerial vehicle as it flew out of Lebanese territory and over the Mediterranean.

As the drone turned east towards the Israeli coast, Israel Air Force F-16 fighter jets were scrambled and, after visual confirmation that the aircraft was unmanned, the order was given to shoot it down over the sea.

Israeli officials said that the drone was almost certainly of Iranian design and probably belonged to a special reconnaissance unit operated by Hizbollah under the guidance of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards.

Israeli officials said this week that they are almost certain that Hizbollah intended to use footage shot from the drone as a propaganda coup.

Hizbollah have denied the drone was theirs but Israeli analysts believe that, had it succeeded in entering Israeli airspace, the terrorist movement would have been more than happy to take credit for the operation.

Israel shoots down drone near Haifa

Zoe Winograd — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 15:44:41 +0100

The Israel Air Force shot down an drone near Haifa on Thursday afternoon.

According to sources, the IAF launched fighter jets to bring down the unmanned aircraft believed to have been operated by the Lebanese terrorist organisation Hizbollah.

The Israel Defence Force is investigating exactly where the plane originated from and whether it was holding surveillance equipment or weaponry.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said: "I see the attempt to breach our borders with unmanned aircraft very seriously. We will do what needs to be done in order to safeguard our security."

This is the second time an incident of this kind has occurred in the last six months.

IDF shifts focus to Lebanon as Hizbollah gains firepower

Anna Sheinman — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 11:27:47 +0000

The Israel Defence Force is shifting its focus from Syria to Lebanon due to Hizbollah’s recent acquisition of new weaponry, including thousands of anti-tank missiles.

As Syrian government forces have been pushed out of key areas the country, Iran and Hizbollah have gained access to sophisticated weapons stores. Israeli military intelligence chief Major General Aviv Kochavi said: “They are trying and in some cases succeeding to obtain air defence capabilities, shore-to-sea missiles, surface-to-surface missiles and other capabilities.”

This increased firepower for Hizbollah has led to the IDF changing the assignments of two of its reserve brigades last week. Both are now rehearsing manoeuvres for operations in Lebanon after years of focusing on Syria, Haaretz reported.

Training is also shifting focus to deal with anti-tank missiles, thousands of which have now fallen into the hands of Hizbollah, according to military sources.

The level of military activity on the Syrian border is the highest that it has been for many years. On Sunday, the IDF fired a missile at a Syrian machine gun post after to two rounds of gunfire emanated from across the border. Two Syrians were injured but no Israelis were hurt in the exchange.

Hizbollah row may lead to Irish cabinet split

Marcus Dysch — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 12:40:11 +0000

The Irish Defence Minister may have created a potential domestic dispute with government colleagues after suggesting it was “not valid” to differentiate between Hizbollah’s political and military wings.

Alan Shatter appeared to depart from government policy by questioning the separation of the Iranian-backed terror group’s wings by a number of European governments

The Irish government has yet to outline its position on whether Hizbollah should be proscribed by the Europe Union.

Mr Shatter, who is also Minister for Equality and Justice and is the most senior Jewish politician in Ireland, began a tour of the Middle East this week by visiting Irish troops stationed in southern Lebanon.

He told Beirut’s Daily Star newspaper that it was not possible to make a “valid distinction” between Hizbollah wings, and said: “I think Hizbollah is a single organisation. It doesn’t reflect... the structure of the IRA where the IRA, or Provisional IRA, was a military wing and Sinn Fein was a political wing.

“Whether Hizbollah would be named a terrorist organisation or not from a European perspective is a matter that remains to be considered by European justice ministers.”

David Cameron last month called on the British Jewish community to help him persuade the EU to proscribe Hizbollah in its entirety.

At the moment the EU classifies Hizbollah as a social welfare organisation. To proscribe Hizbollah requires consensus among all 27 EU members. The move would freeze the group’s accounts and funding, hitting its European operations and terrorist activities.

Ireland’s Foreign Affairs Ministry declined to comment on whether Mr Shatter’s views were a departure from the official government position.

A department spokesman said: “If there is a formal proposal at EU level to designate Hizbollah, then Ireland as current EU president will convene a meeting of the relevant working group in Brussels and ensure that all necessary consideration is given to the proposal and to the evidence provided.

“It would be for the EU Foreign Affairs Council to decide on what action to take, based on a recommendation from the working group. The government has not taken a position on any such proposal.”

Mr Shatter was due to meet Israeli counterparts, including Tzipi Livni, during his tour, as well as Palestinian Authority representatives.

The minister lost his seat in parliament in 2002 and has made a remarkable political comeback since then.

Hizbollah member in Cyprus staked out Israelis

Anna Sheinman — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 21:38:46 +0000

A man on trial in Cyprus has admitted to being a member of Hizbollah but denied that he had taken part in a plot to target Israeli tourists, the New York Times has reported.

Hossam Taleb Yaacoub, 24, from Lebanon, was arrested in July in possession of a small red notebook in which the licence plates of buses which carried Israelis were recorded. He denied that he was plotting to target Israelis, and said: “Even if they asked me to participate in a terrorist action I would refuse. I could never do that. I’m only trained to defend Lebanon.”

But the Lebanese national acknowledged that he was a courier for Hizbollah and that he had staked out locations in Cyprus frequented by Israelis.

After the oﬀence, maybe ‘sorry’ is just another word

Jennifer Lipman — Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:00:00 +0000

Elton John got it wrong. Sorry isn’t the hardest word at all.

Last week, amid calls for the EU finally to ban Hizbollah — those cuddly terrorists who thought it would be fun to bomb Israeli holidaymakers last July — one Financial Times hack wasn’t convinced.

“I don’t doubt Hizbollah/Iran could be behind Bulgaria bombing but also think Israel could pay Sofia to say anything,” ruminated Borzou Daragahi, without outlining who else he thought might have had cause to bomb Burgas.

Now perhaps Mr Daragahi was privy to information unavailable to the common folk. But I doubt it, because he followed up, after hefty criticism, with the acknowledgement: “Sincere apologies and regret for ill-conceived Tweet yesterday about Israel and Bulgaria.”

Unpleasant though it was, his comment wasn’t anything to get worked up about. Conspiracy theories fly around all the time, about every news story, especially in the age of twitter — just look at the speculation around the pope’s resignation.

The fact it was shared by an experienced journalist and that he referred to Israel, money and power pushed it towards questionable territory. Still, it was hardly a “heads must roll” offence. An apology was solicited, and offered. Case closed.

The problem is that’s the way it almost always goes these days. Say something appalling — directed at Jews, homosexuals, women or any other group — and “disgusted of somewhere-or-other” demands an apology. Accordingly, any residual outcry is made to disappear by the culprit bandying around such phrases as “sorry”, “ill-judged”, “not my intention to cause offence” or some other eloquent expression of remorse.

“Calm down dear,” snarked David Cameron, swiftly followed by: “I deeply regret that” (an apology, no doubt, crafted by a harried adviser).

It’s partly the media. No sooner has an unwise slip occurred than it is a hot topic on Twitter, or “breaking news” on Sky. And because controversies boil so quickly, there is insatiable demand for the next chapter, for the anti-hero to acknowledge his mistake. The mea culpa has become the inevitable next step after the faux pas. Once offered, the villain of the moment can move on.

But we don’t help. The moment someone causes offence we go in guns blazing with demands for an apology. We’ve seen it recently, with the Sunday Times, ever so “sorry” after it was pointed out that satirising Israel’s leader as a bloodthirsty killer on Holocaust Memorial Day was rather insensitive. Subscribers threatened to switch papers, people screeched. Now the apology has been delivered, calm reigns again.

Aidan Burley gave an “unreserved, wholehearted and fulsome apology” following his fun-filled stag weekend, and his party leaders soon lost interest. Paul Flynn acknowledged — after repeated requests — that his remarks about Matthew Gould were “clumsily expressed”, and the fuss went away. “Sorry” really is a very useful word.

But here’s the thing. What if it’s too easy? Of course everyone is sorry when they realise it might be expedient to show remorse.

Yes, apologies can be sincere. We’ve all said things we regret; if someone recognises the error of their ways, so much the better. We are right to demand that a hurtful jibe is reconsidered. But there is a crucial difference between admitting error, and expressing regret only after it is solicited. An apology given grudgingly is merely a sticking plaster that does nothing to heal the wound.

“Sorry” is cheap, used too often as a get-out-of-jail-free card. As toddlers, we learn the currency of an apology — its power in convincing parents we won’t punch our sibling again, or deliberately spill our veg all over the floor. And, as adults, surely all of us have apologised for something, while privately thinking we are in the right.

So, in the case of public figures, who backtrack at the first sniff of controversy, why should we be convinced by a swift about-turn? “I apologise sincerely for the unintended offence which my words caused,” said David Ward, after being reprimanded for his Auschwitz and “the Jews” jibe. Except, quite clearly he didn’t, since he followed it up with comments about boycotts and the pro-Israel “machine”. As an apology, it’s worthless

How many times can we hear an insulting remark — about Auschwitz, or Jews and money, or anything — before we stop accepting “sorry” as a response? If an apology becomes de rigueur after a thoughtless jibe, how long before it loses all meaning? Wrongheaded slurs should be challenged by facts; false accusations condemned. An apology makes all the difference when offered willingly. But the danger is that, if all we ever ask for is “sorry”, all we will get is a word