Suspicions were also raised that the commando units the US wanted to train might be intended for use against the National Lebanese Resistance during a future conflict with Israel.
On March 16, 2010, the Syrian daily Al Watan asked Lebanese MP Nawaf
Mousawi about the growing concern in Parliament. Mousawi, one of Hezbollah's most popular and sought after interlocutors with American and other foreign delegations visiting Lebanon, replied:
"If the reports we read in the Lebanese papers are true, this would be a horrid scandal since it would mean that the American embassy was violating Lebanon's sovereignty and that the American security apparatuses were trying to infiltrate personal and national security in
Lebanon. This would constitute an Israeli security infiltration since there is a security agreement between Israel and America in regard to the exchange of information"
Lebanon."
Crossing the boundaries of Diplomatic protection?
The Embassy's intense and escalating campaign against the Opposition, a main pillar of Lebanon's government, is also raising questions among International lawyers and government officials whether the Embassy has squandered its diplomatic status under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. A study in underway in Lebanon to determine the extent of the US Embassy abuse of Diplomatic Immunity. Opinions among scholars and analysts range from a raft of challenges to allowing Israel to have an "illegal outpost" in Lebanon to sanctioning the Embassy for violations of the Vienna Convention, specifically under Art. 41 which requires that foreign Embassies, "respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State and not interfere in the internal affairs of the receiving State."
Researchers point out that 27 years ago this month, on April 17, 1983 the American Embassy was attacked as a direct and foreseeable result of the Embassy's involvement as a command and control center on behalf of Israel against the majority population of Lebanon.
According to former CIA
agent Robert Baer, the CIA never did determine who was behind the
bombing (there were a few dozen upstart resistance groups wanting to
expel Israel in those days) but understood that it was the result of
hostile US actions against Lebanon.
Food for thought
Legal experts at the State Department privately admit that despite years
of public statements to the contrary, the April 17, 1983 attack cannot
be accurately labeled "terrorism' because by bringing in and housing the
command center staffed by at least 8 CIA agents and various "special
ops' units who were running a network of pro-Israel assets and providing
targeting information to the USS New Jersey offshore and Israel forces
in the mountains and Chouf the Embassy lost its claim to diplomatic
immunity.
The
Embassy actions enabled the shelling of Lebanon and the killing of
hundreds of innocent Lebanese civilians, among many other activities.
Consequently, the Embassy
became a legitimate military target under the international laws of
armed conflict. Lebanese resistance forces, who opposed the Israeli
occupation of their country and their American and French allies who had
abandoned their claimed role as "peacekeepers" and in fact had taken
sides in the conflict were legally within their right and duty to
neutralize the threat presented. The specific and legitimate military
target of the April 18,1983 attack on the US Embassy is Beirut were the
eight CIA agents and their teams who had been identified by Soviet
sources and the information sent to allies in Lebanon. (Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
While no
reasonable person might suggest that the Embassy is currently subject to
a third attack, despite regular salafist and al Qaeda wannabe threats,
observers point out the irony that it has been Hezbollah, incessantly
attacked by the Embassy and its allies in the Lebanese Forces and
Phalange party, (the same groups who held power in 1983 and sponsored
the giveaway May 17, 1983 Agreement with Israel), that has invisibly
protected the Embassy several times over the past two decades, just as
it quietly provided security in south Beirut during last spring's visit
of President Carter with Lebanon's Senior Shia cleric, Ayatollah
Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah, still on a US Terrorism list for purely
political reasons.
Lebanon's recourse
Lebanon currently
has few practical or easy diplomatic options. The ultimate sanction and
prevention measure available for Lebanon is the severance of diplomatic
relations. That is unlikely unless Israel attacks Lebanon for the 6th
time with the predictable American "green light'. The doctrines of self
defense and self preservation are also available to Lebanon in order to
prevent a foreign Embassy from facilitating aggressor against it.
Additional activities viewed as arguably incompatible with its
legitimate diplomatic functions is the drum beat of attacks on certain
parties in
Parliament (those allied with Hezbollah) including the
current - widely believed to be fake - "Syria gives Scuds to Hezbollah"
charges. On April 15,
2010, Syria emphatically denied the charge
and asked for evidence while claiming that Israel was paving the way for
new military action in the region with its false allegation.
