On Jul 25, 2006, at 12:02 AM, www.leninology. blogspot.com wrote:
>
> 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"?
Sure - the fact that they're targeting civilian population centers now. Given Hezbollah's stated intention to do more damage - and the IDF's continuation of their actions in Lebanon inviting such a response - its more than reasonable to conclude.
>
> 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 understand where you're coming from, and the logic of your argument is totally clear. And I appreciate your elevation of the responsibility question here. but there are a number of levels of things you're getting it, so let me respond this way:
Israel committed numerous war crimes in Lebanon between 1982 and 2000. These issues have never been adequately dealt with by the international community.
After the Israelis were defeated and withdrew to the other side of the international border, do the war crimes the IDF committed in Lebanon during these years justify a military response that took such possibilities as Israel laying the country to waste once again?
This is why I consider Hezbollah not irresponsible in the sense defined here, but criminally negligent, because they knew what kind of reaction they were inviting. That's different.
>
> 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)..
This doesn't make sense. Hezbollah share in Israel's responsibility for what happened because they had prior knowledge that if they did X the Israelis would do Y. If they didn't, it would be another story. That's not the case here.
>
> 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.
Because in most historical cases, the 'interim' dictatorship of the proletariat never results in the evolution of a state which transcends that. The Irish situation is unique, and cannot be considered to be a general historical rule in a region such as the Middle East. Religion impacts politics differently in every culture - and we cannot displace European examples there.
> 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?
The theocratic component of the FLN was not the hegemonic component. That's the key difference.
> Much of the Iraqi resistance, though nationalist, has an Islamist
> inflection? Does this mean that one refuses to support their
> attacks on occupying armies?
I'm all in favor of the left working in coalition with religious progressives to achieve secular, democratic ends (that's one of the reasons I work at Tikkun). But not if the religious groups participating in revolutionary struggles are committed to a theocratic philosophy of state.
>
> 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
I also believe that its important to support multidimensional and multiparty struggles. But I do not see any value in creating coalitions which are not explicitly and thoroughly dedicated to the immediate establishment of secular, democratic institutions from the outset, and in are not in agreement about this.
My personal opinion is that the idea that it would not be an issue in the Middle East comes from a specifically European worldview, where religion has become sufficiently privatized that even when bourgeois religious elements play a hegemonic role in state formation - and governing - there's every chance this influence will recede and give way to secular, democratic statehood.
>
> 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.
Sure.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Windows Live™ Messenger has arrived. Click here to download it for
> free! http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/?locale=en-gb
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>