The only place that Hizballah is truly compartmentalized in such a way is in the fantasies of Washington officials. The rationale appears to boil down to: "It worked this one time, so let's try it here."
Claiming to pursue "dialogue" -- feel-good term that it is in American politics -- can easily become a cheap way of looking busy and scoring some attractive photo ops. But taking that approach also assumes two parties are communicating with one another as more or less equal participants (does Hizballah deserve that?) and in good faith (are we gullible enough to trust them?).
"Report: U.S. considering strategic outreach to Hezbollah," from Haaretz, March 21 (thanks to Weasel Zippers):
The administration of U.S. President Barack Obama is considering reaching out to the political elements in Hezbollah, the Washington Post reported on Friday, stressing that the at this stage it was an intelligence effort, not a policymaking one.
In an opinion piece appearing on the newspaper's online edition, columnist David Ignatius indicated that Washington was considering an effort similar to the one the U.K, implemented "during the 1990s with Sinn Fein, the legal political wing of the terrorist Irish Republican Army."
"That outreach led to breakthrough peace talks and settlement of a conflict that had been raging for more than a century," Ignatius wrote, adding that several U.S. officials were expected to endorse dialogue with political elements of both Hezbollah and the Taliban in an upcoming intelligence report.
Again: assuming compartmentalization where there is none. They will be played for fools.
Writing of the effect recent Mideast turmoil may have had on Obama's decision to accept these recommendations, the Washington Post writer said that the "political time bomb ticking away in the [intelligence report] is the question of whether the United States should seek some kind of direct or indirect engagement with Hezbollah — at least with its political wing."
"Officials who support this course argue that the organization is like the IRA or the PLO — with nonmilitary components that can be drawn into a dialogue," Ignatius added.
Ignatius quotes in his article one intelligence official, John Brennan, known for supporting a move toward dialogue with the Lebanese militant group, as saying that while "Hezbollah started out as purely a terrorist organization back in the early ’80s," it has "evolved significantly over time."
It has gotten better organized and stronger. The armed jihadist mission remains central to Hizballah's nature.
"The bottom line," the Washington Post article concluded, "is that after a decade of American wars in the Middle East, the Obama administration is increasingly looking for ways to talk with adversaries and draw them into a process of dialogue."
"The world is changing, and perhaps so should U.S. policy," he added.
RSS Feed
Evolved significantly over time? Is that guy kidding? When they started they wanted to kill all Jews and destroy Israel. And today they still want to kill all Jews and destroy Israel. What has changed, much to everyone's detriment, is their position in Lebanon and the Middle East - they've been granted space, freedom, weapons & funding from Iran and the opportunity from half-wit dhimmis like the Obama administration to be treated as a player of importance and worth. They've evolved to have more influence now because we haven't stood up to them. And when someone does, like Israel did with extremely good reason in 2006, the world stops it and thinks that "dialogue" will solve everything. This is the problem.
There's no distinction between the political wing and military wing of Hezbollah. They're the same; the political wing says that they want to kill all Jews and destroy Israel and the military wing carries this out. And you'll find that those from the political wing who say such things end up firing rockets as well. How stupid the Obama administration, or any for that matter, thinks that talking to these Islamic murderers will help things. It won't.