Britain engaging with Hizbullah: Excellent!


Posted by Helena Cobban
March 6, 2009 1:02 PM EST | Link
Filed in Britain under Brown , Lebanon

Gordon Brown's government in London is the first significant western government to-- finally-- break the taboo on political engagement with Hizbullah.

Yesterday, a spokesperson for the Foreign Office said,

    "We are exploring certain contacts at an official level with Hezbollah's political wing, including MPs."

    ... The spokesperson said the UK was doing "all it can" to support Lebanon's unity government, of which Hezbollah's political wing is a part.

    "Our objective with Hezbollah remains to encourage them to move away from violence and play a constructive, democratic and peaceful role in Lebanese politics, in line with a range of UN Security Council Resolutions."

    The spokesperson said Britain would continue to have no contact with Hezbollah's military wing.

This is excellent news; and long overdue.

I have been arguing for many years now that all the world's governments need to engage politically with Hizbullah, a significant Lebanese political movement that has participated (successfully) in Lebanese parliamentary elections since 1992 and has even had representatives in a number of Lebanese governments over the years, including now.

You can read two of my longer pieces on Hizbullah here (spring 2005) and here (Nov/Dec 2006).

So long as George Bush and his neocon allies were in power in Washington-- and yes, also, before him, under Bill Clinton-- no significant western power dared to break the prohibition that Washington and the Israelis kept in place on their allies and friends having any contact with Hizbullah, Hamas, Iran, or (to a certain extent) Syria. Indeed, George Bush's Washington gave its full support to the brutal military campaigns Israel waged to crush and/or topple Hizbullah in 2006, and Hamas at the end of last year.

Now-- with or without a nod of consent from Washington (though I suspect, with)-- London has broken the taboo on dealing with Hizbullah.

Hillary Clinton is meanwhile urging that Iran be included in a peace-sponsoring conference she's proposing for Afghanistan... And Washington is well on its way to restoring the level of political relations with Syria to what it was before George Bush and Elliott Abrams came along with their thinly veiled campaign for regime change in Damascus.

Hizbullah for its part sounds almost deliriously happy about London's change heart, showcasing the Union Jack on ts website (behind Hizbullah's own signature yellow flag), and writing that "the British-Hezbollah relations entered a new era!"

Things are definitely changing... and in a good, de-escalatory direction. Long may the trend continue.



Comments
Comment from... Titus, at March 7, 2009 10:25 PM:

Another Eurocoward move prostrating to the dark empire. Look at what that has brought to the Swedes in Malmo when these peace loving refugees express their opinion in front of the Davis Cup stadium... No need for words:

http://sydsvenskan.se/malmo/article417781/Polis-drog-vapen-under-kravallerna.html

Comment from... N, at March 8, 2009 08:46 PM:

This is indeed a good move. It could easily be that Hizbullah and "the opposition" make gains in the June elections. The UK recognizing them as a legitimate political movement / party helps Lebanon, as Israel has already warned in essence that if Hizbullah emerges victorious in the elections that they'd treat all of the country as Hizbullah (just as they did Hamas in Gaza). This seems to be a sign that the UK won't support such a policy, at least that's my hope.

Recent Posts on JWN
• My IPS piece on dimming peace prospects (1)
• Rahm Emanuel's disturbing view of US role (26)
• Obama's peacemaking pledge-- to the world (35)
• Obama: Peace in US interest (5)
• Discussing Palestine, Israel, Iraq on Bloggingheads (0)
• Long knives, Washington, Afghanistan, part 2 (7)
• Long knives out in Washington over Afghanistan (3)
• Amal Saad-Ghorayeb responds (10)
• NATO and Lebanon (16)
• IPS piece on Obama-Netanyahu tussle over priorities (0)
• Gaza police and noncombatant immunity (46)
• Gaza, the Obama administration, and the present (4)
• Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, "benchmarks" (2)
• Barak: Iran not existential threat (0)
• Garlasco, suspended with full pay (15)
• Me, speaking Sept 24 at Middle East Institute (3)
• Goldstone Commission reports on Gaza-war war-crimes (23)
• Another blunt No from Netanyahu (30)
• Ramadan t.v. offerings, 2009 (2)
• I-P: Borders first-- and fast? (4)
• A testimony the world needs to hear (2)
• Garlasco, part 3 (32)
• Malley on refugees, settlers, etc (7)
• In 2009, as 2001: US needs Iran, Russia (3)
• IPS piece on the rights war over Gaza (3)
• Garlasco, part 2 (20)
• Continuing bad news for US/NATO in Afghanistan (4)
• Marc Garlasco's little "hobby" (71)
• Trashing one-staters with Hussein Ibish (12)
• 500 new settlement homes in Jerusalem... (12)
• When election results are disputed: Afghanistan, etc (6)
• B'tselem's figures on Gaza assault toll (8)
• American power has limits? Who knew? (13)
• Israel's assault on Gaza: The final toll (1)
• Hamas-related negotiations moving forward? (1)
• Sweden, and the Israel-linked organs story (18)
• Qtube-- what a resource! (2)
• Cook and Elam on Israel's organ-removal problems (48)
• "The White House regrets... " (48)
• Lessons from the Soviet experience in Afghanistan (9)
• IPS analysis of Iraq and related regional tensions (1)
• Visser goes 2.0 (8)
• More on Norway's targeted divestment (14)
• Pat Lang on the dangerous, continued rise of 'COIN'-mania (8)
• Bravo, Norway! (6)
• An exiled Palestinian visits "home" (20)
• Israel releases nine of 32 Hamas legislators (2)
• Why Blair wants Dahlan to retake Gaza? (0)
• Afghanistan debate: The missing international ingredient (9)
• State-building: Palestine (3)