With Hezbollah Unchecked, the EU Falls Short of its Own Security Aspirations

Much like most things in the European Union, the question of designating Hezbollah in its entirety as a terrorist organization is a thicket of conflicting political interests, bundled in opaque and sometimes burdensome bureaucratic mechanisms, all branded in the EU’s usual – laudable, inspiring, but often feeble – value-based discourse. While there is no doubt that Hezbollah, as one entity – inseparable between its military and political wings – is a terrorist enterprise, for the EU this has been an open and protracted question for nearly 20 years. Aside for the important milestone in 2013 – when, on the heels of the deadly bus bombing in Burgas, Bulgaria, the EU decided to add the so-called military wing of Hezbollah to its terrorist list, there have only been few notable developments.  

The recent decision – dating April 30th, 2020 - by Germany to join the Netherlands (2004) and the UK (2019) in banning all of Hezbollah, comes only shortly before the country assumes the presidency of the European Union, as well as the unanimous resolution in Austria’s parliament calling on their government to follow suit, must represent a vigorous new push in this slow, uphill struggle to take on the group. So what are the challenges and the processes to be triggered, if this is to become realistic? 

Oh, the bureaucracy! 

Listing individuals or entities as terrorist, which in practice means being subject to a series of restrictive measures, is a consensus process in the EU – i.e., it must be agreed upon by the 27 member states –  a single country opposing listing is enough to block the whole process. Not only that, it is an 8-step procedure, with long built-in review slots, which involves nomination by a member state, consultations, recommendations, clarification periods and only then, a decision by the EU Council – the body that brings the member states together.  

What’s more: the definition of what constitutes terrorism is itself disputed, and while a common text exists (under Common Position 2001/931/CFSP), this serves only as a guideline. This is reflective of competences in matters of security: while the EU has increasingly tried to synchronize policy on foreign affairs, defense and counter-terrorism – the issues remain still largely decided at the national level.  

This is to say that, beyond the merits of the conversation itself and the inevitable political battles, the process too is no walk in the park. 

Oh, the politics! 

Many of the political considerations impeding stronger action against Hezbollah have been constant and long-lasting, while those that led to progress were rather the result of circumstance and bursts in advocacy efforts.  
France,  with its strong cultural and historical ties with the Lebanese Republic, has long been a major player in the anti-designation camp, based on the long-standing view that action against Hezbollah would contribute to further  destabilize Lebanon, particularly now at a time when the country is struggling with a sovereign debt crisis and up until the pandemic, engulfed in large-scale protests. 

This has reinforced the general discourse among EU foreign policy circles - that Hezbollah, as part of the ruling coalition in Lebanon’s government and together with its front as a “social” actor, is somehow instrumental to Lebanese stability, and that, on balance, it’s worth keeping ties with the organization in order to maintain communication channels open. 

Proponents of this view, alongside France, include for instance Belgium and the Scandinavian countries. While this narrative remains steadily in place, it was certainly disrupted by the aforementioned  July 2012 terrorist attack in Burgas, Bulgaria, in which Hezbollah operatives blew up a bus of over 40 passengers, leaving 6 dead: 5 Israeli tourists and the local bus driver. 

The Burgas attack – a turning point

It took a terrorist attack on EU soil to trigger serious discussions about designation.  Regrettably, what came out of this was a half-measure: artificially and nominally splitting Hezbollah into political and military wings and only labelling the latter a terrorist organization. This is of course a distinction without a difference – it is well documented that these two wings overlap and answer to the same command structure; Hezbollah itself does not regard its two alleged wings as separate entities. But what’s perhaps more noteworthy is that the EU countries now most in favor of maintaining the status quo were themselves the ones opposing this distinction prior to the 2012 attack. At the time, they were doing so to oppose a ban of any kind – even the limited one in place today – but I submit that their argument about a lack of substantive difference should stand.

Implications of the Syrian conflict

The turmoil in the Middle East makes it nearly impossible to speak about Hezbollah without touching on broader conflicts. Early into the Syrian civil war, the EU was reluctant to target Hezbollah, hoping to temper its operations in Syria on the side of the Assad regime. However, this failed and the atmosphere in Brussels started shifting, with mounting support for sanctioning Hezbollah one way or another. 

The attack in Burgas was simultaneous to this changing approach. And while publicly, the partial designation came as a direct result of the attack, the developments in Syria were certainly a contributing factor.
 
The partial ban doesn’t do nearly enough to help

There is a clear dissonance in the EU’s approach between the short-term effects of not upsetting Hezbollah and its coalition partners and the long-term effects of continuing to lend legitimacy to a murderous paramilitary organization which continues to be the main source of instability in Lebanon.

Last September, the U.N. Special Tribunal for Lebanon indicted Hezbollah member Salim Jamil Ayyash of three bombings targeting Lebanese politicians.  The tribunal is expected to pronounce judgment shortly on an earlier case against Ayyash, and four other Hezbollah fighters for orchestrating the bombing that killed Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and 21 others and wounded 220 passers-by in 2005.

In addition, Hezbollah has continued in the past year to exert influence on Lebanese politics by questionable means, including assaulting demonstrators in Beirut and setting fire to their tents, intimidating and censoring journalists and buying votes. This is all in addition to its documented terrorist and organized crime activities abroad, including in the EU. 

A Secure Europe in a Better World

A Secure Europe in a Better World - this is the objective and motto of the European Security Strategy of 2003. It was the first time, following 9/11, that the EU put forward a comprehensive plan to address its security needs. It promised to do so – in EU spirit - “based on our core values”. 

In an increasingly polarized and tense international arena, the EU has positioned itself as one of the main moral, value-based actors. Yet its weak and politicized action – or rather inaction – has fallen short of this worthwhile objective. The calls to designate Hezbollah a terrorist organization are dismissed as hawkish or even biased and avoided by some of the key national-level actors. While enough support for a ban could in the long run theoretically be garnered from certain member-states, the mobilization of the EU’s oldest, largest members – strong democracies that shape the discourse of the EU - is essential, if the criteria is one of core values.

This should particularly be the case since the EU-Lebanon partnership priorities for 2016-2020 pledge to work with Lebanon to promote the shared values of democracy and the rule of law.

It’s worth remembering that one of the leading voices in 2013, following the Burgas attack, to ban Hezbollah entirely came from then-Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs Frans Timmermans, of the Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, a champion of progressive politics. His example, back then, ought to be followed.
​
The EU has, since 2003 and the adoption of the European Security Strategy, taken important steps in the fight against terrorism – from appointing a Counter-Terrorism Coordinator and reinforcing the Crisis Coordination Arrangements and the Civil Protection Mechanism, to increased data sharing with the US and other international actors. Yet without the political will to tackle the issues, we are not harnessing the full potential of these tools. The upcoming months are essential in maximizing the capital of the important decisions at the national level in Germany and Austria, and the EU must be sure to make use of the momentum.   

​As millions worldwide are in lockdown due to the current health crisis, it seems hard to believe it was only a month ago that Carnival season was in full swing everywhere from Europe and Asia to Africa and the Americas. Zooming in on parts of Europe, what should have been an otherwise joyous occasion turned out to be a festering den of anti-Semitic displays. Photos out of Belgium and Spain have made their way into international media, depicting Jews as insects and trivializing Holocaust survivors. It is worth looking at these highly troubling incidents in historical context. What is a nearly 1000 year old tradition of celebration has brought forward unexpected challenges to our ethics and morals today. Carnival began as a tradition in the Middle-Ages, as a moment of indulgence before Lent. Parades, extravagant costumes and excessive consumption of food and drink were all typical elements. In parallel to the joyous spirit, an anti-Semitic streak of satirizing - and in many cases abusing -  the Jewish community developed as well, much in the spirit of the widespread Jew hatred of the time. Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, in Rome, rabbis in the Jewish Ghetto were marched through the city streets and mistreated by the crowds. In a letter by the Jewish community of Rome, Pope Gregory XVI was asked to stop this annual march. He is said to have replied: “It is not opportune to make any innovation.”

Indeed, this seems to still resonate. Between Feb. 21st and 23rd this year, the carnival in the Belgian town of Aalst was taking place, sparking outrage after showcasing anti- Semitic imagery akin to that seen in Nazi Germany in the 1930s. The carnival’s organizers distributed many so-called “rabbi kits,” encouraging attendees to wear hooked noses, sidelocks and black hats. Flocks of attendees dressed in costumes depicting Jews as vermin, the mocking of circumcision, the depiction of Jews controlling international institutions and the ridicule of Jewish religious sites were center stage within the parade. The 2020 edition of the Aalst carnival came on the back of harsh global condemnation following the incendiary edition of 2019, where a float depicting ultra-Orthodox Jews surrounded by bags of money and rats led to the delisting of the festival from the UNESCO Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.

Only days after the Aalst festival, Carnival arrived in the Spanish region of Castilla-La Mancha, in the small town of Campo de Criptana. There, a troupe of dancers dressed as Nazi officers and concentration camp prisoners were accompanied by a float featuring a menorah and two crematorium chimneys. The Spanish case sent a chill up the spine of the Jewish community - not only was the float in Spain shocking, but, following the displays in Aalst, it painted a picture that such displays were becoming commonplace.

It’s worth noting that – turns out - the circumstances of the two carnivals were significantly different. In Spain, both authorities and the carnival were quick to recognize the inappropriate nature of the performance. A statement was swiftly put out by the local municipality condemning the troupe and the association responsible for the float declared that it had failed to deliver “the message of awareness and respect that we had wanted to transmit.” Indeed, it would appear that the Criptana carnival wished to pay tribute to the victims of the Holocaust, albeit in a vehemently misguided way. That might not be much consolation, but it stands in stark contrast with the attitude seen in Aalst, where the carnival organizers, alongside the authorities, were purposefully trying to provoke and incite the reaction of the Jewish community as a sort of badge of honor to the carnival’s unapologetic spirit.  
​
While the underlying perspective of the two events differs, there are common learning points – and as we look towards next year’s Carnival season, it is them we should be focusing on:

• Education is key: What we saw in both parades was a lack of understanding among the general public as to why the displays were offensive. Whether it is a lack of sensitivity towards adequate memorialization of the Holocaust, or downplaying how stereotypical depictions of Jews can lead to discrimination and even violence, these educational shortcomings must be addressed – through proper teaching about the Holocaust, as well as the history of Jewish life and its diversity today.
• More oversight: as we experienced firsthand the harmful outcomes of the carnivals, we must demand accountability in future editions about the content displayed. Whether this falls under the responsibility of carnival organizers or local municipalities may vary from place to place, but regardless of the setup, organizers should not be able to shield themselves behind the decisions of individual revelers. This can take the form of guidelines and sets of values for float creators, or it can mean required submissions of descriptions from groups of the floats they intend to display or other creative solutions.
• Strong reactions from authorities are crucial: The displays we’ve witnessed may not be illegal – and in fact, constructive solutions are likely educational, not punitive. Yet authorities do play a crucial role: that of speaking out, channeling the concerns of the communities affected and reinforcing the norms and values that should not have allowed these manifestations in the first place.

 
As we expect next year’s Carnival season – that will hopefully find us in calmer times than we are living through today - we must work to put in place all these protections to ensure the festival is not about marginalization and stigmatization, but about celebration and inclusion.

 If your budget, work schedule or other circumstances have put a damper on that bike trip on the continent, a great sightseeing holiday is not out of the question for anybody these days. Jewish history in all its glory comes to you via three websites reviewed below.

Sponsored by the Council of Europe under the umbrella of its “Cultural Routes” program, (www.AEPJ.org), the website of The European Association for the Preservation and Promotion of Jewish Culture and Heritage is supported by a consortium of 21 organizations, including B’nai B’rith Europe. Claude Bloch, B’nai B’rith Strasbourg and historian of the Jewish community of Alsace, who founded the association and developed its annual European Day of Jewish Culture, is now its honorary president; its current president is B’nai B’rith leader Françoise Moyse. Visitors to its pages are able to hop from country to country, exploring both restored and unrestored synagogue landmarks housed in an ever-growing group of European countries, from the United Kingdom to Turkey; the journey is augmented by three themed sections charting modernist currents (spanning Art Nouveau and Art Deco through Expressionism), surveying the construction of Polish wooden synagogue buildings and locating places where important Jewish women left their mark. Through their beautiful and detailed photos, even those who possess an expertise in subject matter connected to 19th and 20th century art and history will come away with new insights that recontextualize Judaism’s significant contribution to, and inspiration from, the evolution of European culture.

Far from stagnant, the AEPJ website is continually introducing and developing new methods for expansion and education through its “incubator” pages, recent additions to the site that outline opportunities for those who wish to create, develop, learn or teach. Innovations in technology meld the past with the present on a sister website, Parallel Traces: a new lens on Jewish heritage, (https://paralleltraces.eu/), where award-winning entries of cutting edge multi-media works and pictures shining the light on Jewish life and history by European artists and photographers can be viewed. Through this site, those interested can also download three apps devoted to different aspects of Jewish heritage.

AEPJ has recently entered into a collaboration with Ruth Ellen Gruber, coordinator of Jewish Heritage Europe (https://jewish-heritage-europe.eu/), a site sponsored by the Rothschild Foundation, which includes the latest news about resources for restoration support and recently opened heritage sites. Here, a series of exhibits describe and document imagery and symbolism specific to Jewish architecture, liturgical objects and decoration, folk art and monuments, including gravestones, located throughout the continent. Similar to the presentation on the AEPJ site, a series of photo galleries are devoted to the art and architecture of specific countries. This joining of forces will surely foster the continued appreciation and renewed understanding of such important and literally eye-opening subject matter. To be sure, there is much that remains unexamined.
​
For those inclined to venture closer to home, but who still want to thrill to some amazing sights, the website of The Shapell Collection (https://www.shapell.org) has much to offer. There, everyone can see and learn about actual letters written by Jewish Civil War Soldiers or tour curated exhibits which spotlight Jewish legends like Albert Einstein or investigate the lives of President Abraham Lincoln and the writer Mark Twain, historic figures impacted by their encounters with the Jewish community here and abroad, all presented in the letters and manuscripts they left behind.

With the commemoration of 75 years after the liberation of Auschwitz just behind us, it’s becoming clear that there is a revisionist trend sweeping Europe.

The arc of post-World War Two history, however sluggish and bumpy, has generally bent in the direction of acknowledging responsibility. While tensions persist in many regions still today, European states have progressively come forward professing their role in the Holocaust and have taken steps, big and small, towards restitution and reconciliation. It’s futile to try to evaluate the degree of genuine remorse versus the pressure exercised by international standards or by public opinion in a changing national landscape; regardless, by and large, states have moved towards assuming their roles as collaborators or enablers of the Nazis.

But with a short historical memory and political sensibilities at play, recent years have brought to light just how fragile this path towards a universally accepted single, factual narrative is.

A Look to the National Level

You will remember the uproar caused in 2018 by a Polish law: a law seemingly excepting Poland from its historical responsibility, and that initially criminalized such expressions as “Polish death camps” or “Polish concentration camps.” While indeed these specific formulations are inaccurate, the anti-Semitism endemic to pre-war, wartime and post-war Poland is a reality. Many Polish collaborators outed, extorted and rounded up Jews for the Nazis. This is a reality that Poland tried to shield itself from and in so doing created an international fiasco.

But the Polish case is by no means singular: The preamble of the Hungarian Basic Law of 2011 states: “We date the restoration of our country’s self-determination, lost on the nineteenth day of March 1944 (note; the day of the Nazi occupation of Hungary), from the second day of May 1990, when the first freely elected body of popular representation was formed”. The Hungarian constitution does not directly deny the Holocaust, but the culpability of the Hungarian state for the organised murder of about 600,000 Hungarian Jews, and in so doing has contributed to such negative consequences as the glorification of Nazi collaborators, the rewriting of curricula and the creation of a controversial ‘House of Fates’ museum.

Recent proposed legislation in Lithuania has also caused outrage.  A bill drafted in the Seimas, the country’s Parliament, is titled, “The Lithuanian state, which was occupied in 1940-1990, did not participate in the Holocaust,”. Although Lithuania was occupied at the time, several Lithuanian leaders did collaborate with the Nazis. About 70,000 Jews were killed in Ponary forest during the Holocaust by German SS and Lithuanian collaborators. More than 90 percent of the 200,000 Lithuanian Jews were murdered. 
 
On an International Level: Minimization, Instrumentalization

The developments above, taking place at the national level are certainly distressing. What we’ve also seen, however, is the muddying of the waters on an international stage.

Unlike the national level where the actors involved usually come to the table with a nationalist agenda, we are seeing a frivolous depiction of the past on the international level, weaponized to deal with current political clashes – especially in response to Russia flexing its muscles globally and in Eastern Europe in particular.

In September 2019, the European Parliament debated a motion on the importance of European remembrance for the future of Europe focused on condemning the totalitarian regimes haunting 20th century Europe: Nazism and Stalinism. While the motion is not factually problematic, the tone clearly departs from the preservation of the singularity of the Holocaust. For instance, the motion “calls for a common culture of remembrance that rejects the crimes of fascist, Stalinist, and other totalitarian and authoritarian regimes of the past as a way of fostering resilience against modern threats to democracy” and stresses the importance of “recognising and raising awareness of the shared European legacy of crimes committed by Stalinist, Nazi and other dictatorships.” With these formulations and more, the Parliament is conflating the Holocaust with other 20th century tragedies and thereby depriving the Holocaust of the special focus it warrants.
​
A perfect example of the difficulties at hand: while intending to emphasize the importance of remembrance, and to protect against revisionist trends today, the European Union falls into its own trap. As we look to the European Union to be one of the main checks in place to guarantee the preservation of the historical record, we must remind policymakers that guarding the memory of the Shoah, and avoiding its instrumentalization at all costs is crucial and foundational to the very essence of the European project.