-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Marxism] Re: [Three Way Fight blog] Defending My Enemy's Enemy Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 00:58:53 +1000 From: Michael Karadjis <mkaradjis at theplanet.net.au> To: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition <marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Friedman" <mikedf at amnh.org>
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 18:48:55 -0400 From: kersplebedeb <info at kersplebedeb.com> Subject: [Marxism] [Three Way Fight blog] Defending My Enemy's Enemy **************************************************
DEFENDING MY ENEMY'S ENEMY
by Matthew Lyons mlyons at rci.rutgers.edu
Yet no matter how courageous its fighters may be, no matter how many schools and hospitals it runs, Hezbollah is essentially a right-wing political movement. Its guiding ideology is Khomeini-style Islamic fundamentalism. Hezbollah's political ideal, the Islamic Republic of Iran, enforces medieval religious law, imposes brutal strictures on women and LGBT people, persecutes religious and ethnic minorities, and has executed tens of thousands of leftists and other political dissenters. This is not exactly a liberatory model. **************************************************
As the July 31 MERIP report "Hizballah: A Primer" indicates, the Islamic Republic of Iran neither runs Hezbollah, nor constitutes it's "political ideal." Rather, Hezbollah is an independent, home-grown and nationalist formation. One must ask: has Hezbollah DONE any of the things Lyons tries to slander them with by association with the Islamic Republic?
_____________________________
I agree with Mike F, and let's answer his question to avoid confusion. The fact that imperialist leaders and media continually talk as if Hizbullah were a local branch office of the Iran regime can blind people to the realities.
1. "The Islamic Republic of Iran enforces medieval religious law"
Hizbullah does nothing of the sort in southern Lebanon and south Beiruit, where they run most of the councils, and have been the effective state power for nearly 20 years
2. "The Islamic Republic of Iran imposes brutal strictures on women and LGBT people"
I do not know the situation of LGBT people in Lebanon, but suggest it is probably no better and no worse than anywhere in the Middle East, or most of the third world for that matter. Regarding women, no doubt they face many of the kinds of rstrictions they face right throughout the region. However, Hizbullah does not "impose brutal strictures on women" throughout the areas it runs. Many wear veils, many do not. Women wearing jeans and average western looking clothing can be seen walking around the central Shia mosque in south Beiruit, the Hizbullah headquarters. Young men and women work together in the local pizza hut. Women in general are very visible and active, unlike in pro-western Jordan with a "non-fundamentalist" government, for example. I stayed at the Palestinian camp in Bourj al Barajneh, right in this area. The camp is full of bullet holes from when Amal was firing on them in 1985. The Palestinians there were most grateful when Hizbullah came and shoved the Shia-communalist Amal out of the way. I asked Olfat Mahmoud, a social worker in the camp, if Hizbullah had at least initially tried to impose strict religious restrictions on the local populaiton, many years ago, and had perhaps given up later. She replied "we heard a lot about that in the western media, but I never noticed it here."
3. "The Islamic Republic of Iran persecutes religious and ethnic minorities"
Hizbullah does not persecute Christians or Sunni Muslims, or anyone else as far as I know. They fought against other Shia (Amal) to defend Sunni and Christian Palestinians. They fought against the 'Christian'-led South Lebanon Army because it was Israel's proxy army of occupation in the south.
4. "The Islamic Republic of Iran has executed tens of thousands of leftists and other political dissenters"
Hizbullah has not executed leftists or political opponents, on the contrary it works with them. Just on that point, let me turn to a message LP sent quoting Gilbert Achcar:
"Hizbollah built itself partially through fighting the LCP over this (Shia) constituency and managed to prevail"
I don't know about that. Amal launced many violent attacks on the LCP in the early 1980s, over the Shia constiuency, but that was before Hizbullah was born. I don't rule out that Hizbullah may have in the earliest times, but I was following events pretty closely in the early years of Hizbullah. And I can assure you, repelled by the executions in Iran, I had no predisposition to thinking Hizbullah would not continue Amal's work; I expected they would step it up. Yet from my memory I was pleasantly surprised that they did nothing of the sort.
However, a Council on Foreign Relations dossier on Hizbullah claims:
"Hizballah proved to be especially intolerant of competitors for Shi'i recruits. In this regard, the Communist Party, an especially appealing target given its alien and atheist ideology,was singled out for attacks. Dozens, if not hundreds, of party members were killed in a brutal, bloody campaign of suppression and assassination in 1984 and 1985." It gives as its source a book, A.R. Norton, Amal and the Shia: Struggle for the Soul of Lebanon', Austin: Uni of Texas press, 1987.
However, Hizbullah only clearly emerged in 1985 with its famous declaration. Before that, there were a number of smaller groups, with names like Islamic Jihad, which went on to form Hizbullah. Many were still under the shadow of Amal. And this period, 1982-85, before Hizbullah's clear emergence, these groups were more directly under the control of the contingent of Iranian revolutionary guards which ahd been dispatched to Lebanon. From 1985 however, the open Hizbullah came much more strongly under the influence of Lebanese reality, including of radical Lebanese Shia figures, like Sheik Fadlahah, who were sympathetic to Iran but undeniably and forcefully independent, with a long term standing on their own feet.
Hizbullah is obviously not a left-wing or socilaist organisation, so I suppose one can call it "right-wing" in a very general sense, ie, it is led by the Shia bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie and operates within the confines of national liberation. However, it is not a "right-wing" movement in the sense suggested above, one "dedicated to Khomeini style fundamentalism", or one that represents some kind of international right-wing anti-imperilaism, as suggested elsewhere in that article, which one might arguably say about Al Qaida. It is simply a Lebanese national liberation movement, and at the same time a movement of the relatively impoverished Shia section of the Lebanese nation for a greater slice of the pie. And comapred to the majority of other movements originating with 'Islamist' colouration, I think it has to be argued that many of its policies and tactics are surprisingly sensible.
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm