Doing more damage is not the same thing as killing as many civilians as possible. Hezbollah aren't even trying to do that now. They're only firing off these risible missiles, with their 16-mile range that have comparatively limited blasts. They are plainly trying to target the military infrastructure and they have hit it several times.
>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.
By that rationale, many many entirely reasonable actions could be ruled out because of the 'reaction' that one might 'invite'.
>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.
I don't think I like the smell of that, but let me take it at face value - how would any anti-imperialist have known that de Valera's Papist state would eventually become a more liberalised society? They couldn't have! They had to take the risk that the Irish Republican fighters would sort it out among themselves. That's part of the dignity of being human.
>The theocratic component of the FLN was not the hegemonic component.
>That's the key difference.
I don't see why that is the key difference for you. Did that not also lead to a dictatorship? Has the Algerian regime not behaved abominably?
>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.
And why not? One can work with them toward one's shared goals and part, and even oppose, on points of difference. Isn't this tactical common sense?
>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.
Then you severely limit your possibilities, especially if you were an activist in Palestine or Lebanon. Coalitions on shared goals are necessary, all the time. Since Hezbollah in particular have simply deferred their goal of an Islamic Republic, it isn't as if that's even a decisive issue here.
_________________________________________________________________ Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters! http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters