> I agree with Doug. All of the criticisms of LeVine's article which
> took this position are objectionable because they inevitably help
> usher in - or legitimate existing - theocratic social systems which
> are equally violent, undemocratic and discriminatory. Backing
> Hezbollah and Iran because they are the only agents actively fighting
> against US/Israeli imperialism is thus wrong. That's the difference
> Doug is talking about.
But if Hezbollah fail or are significantly weakened what is waiting to fill the void created? A more palatable organization to western leftists or an even more reactionary fundamentalist organization? I would most definitely not consider myself an expert in this field but from what I can see should Hezbollah fall they will be replaced by something worse. Hezbollah may not be a model for the future but they are better than any viable alternative that I can currently see.
You tell me, what sort of organization do you see as having a realistic chance to fill the void that would be created if Hezbollah is weakened to the point of irrelevance?
John Thornton