>From: Joel Schalit
>I'm sorry but I can't buy the notion that Hezbollah are any better than
>the IDF. If given the go-ahead, and perhaps slightly better weaponry,
>they'd kill as many Israeli civilians as possible.
>
>The only reason Hezbollah haven't killed more Israelis is because they're
>under attack, and having to fire inaccurate artillery missiles. One of
>them will eventually hurt a lot of folks - its just a matter of time.
Israel is the one hurting a lot of folks, but let's probe this a bit further. What draws you to your conclusion that Hezbollah would with better weaponry target "as many Israeli civilians as possible"? Given that this is the first time they have killed Israeli civilians and given that it is in the course of fighting an Israeli incursion? Is there something peculiar to Hezbollah that makes such a priori judgments acceptable?
>Also, how on earth can one justify the risks Hezbollah took inviting the
>Israelis into Lebanon? Given how the IDF was conducting itself in Gaza,
>they were just asking for trouble. In the days immediately following the
>capture of the Israeli POWS, every Lebanese newspaper forecasted this
>inevitability.
Yes - like the rape victim who wears a short skirt: asking for it. Look, we can both agree that Hezbollah's attack on those soldiers was unwise at the very least. I have read several accounts of how it happened and where, but let's say it was "irresponsible" in Chomsky's phrase. Does this mean that at this moment when Lebanese people are supporting Hezbollah against Israel, when the Lebanese government are joining them in the fight against Israel, we should take a purist line, wash both hands and refuse to take sides? I can't believe that's a responsible attitude.
>I condemn Hezbollah on the grounds that they were willing to sacrifice
>Lebanon's civilian population to the IDF. They instrumentalized Lebanon's
>population as part of their desire to become the hegemonic political force
>in the country.
This is exactly the line coming from the Phalange as it happens, but it isn't true. Hezbollah is responsible for what it did, but it is not responsible for Israel's appalling 'response' (which is nothing of the kind, it should go without saying).
>In closing, and on a more general level, what is the value of leftist
>anti-capitalists in the west supporting Islamist guerrilla organizations
>and theocratic political formations?
>
>Fighting empire and the market should not come at the expense of
>supporting theocratic movements, even if fundamentalists claim to speak in
>the name of the oppressed.
Why not? You know, the Irish Republic was a quasi-theocratic state following the defeat of the British because of the bourgeois-Catholic element in the struggle. One naturally would have preferred the communists to win out there, but does this mean one wouldn't have supported de Valera against the British. The FLN certainly had 'theocratic' elements to its struggle, and was very very harsh in its application of Islamic morality. Does this mean that one shouldn't have supported them against the French? Much of the Iraqi resistance, though nationalist, has an Islamist inflection? Does this mean that one refuses to support their attacks on occupying armies?
Struggles are always multi-dimensional, and those whom one would support against an imperialist army are not necessarily those whom one would support domestically. I also support these guys, who are fighting Israel: http://www.lcparty.org/170706_9.html
They have, of course, stood on electoral slates with Hizbollah, but if it were about Lebanon's internal politics (if Lebanon were ever allowed to have internal politics), I would support the communists and socialists against all-comers.
_________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™ Messenger has arrived. Click here to download it for free! http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/?locale=en-gb