[Marxism] Re: [Three Way Fight blog] Defending My Enemy's Enemy

["Mike Friedman" <mikedf@xxxxxxxx>]

> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 18:48:55 -0400
> From: kersplebedeb <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [Marxism] [Three Way Fight blog] Defending My Enemy's Enemy
> **************************************************
>
> DEFENDING MY ENEMY'S ENEMY
>
> by Matthew Lyons
> mlyons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> But let's be clear about something else too: The fact that Israel and the
> United States want to destroy Hezbollah does not make it a positive
> political force. To be sure, Hezbollah has staunchly resisted Israeli
> aggression for years. It runs a sizeable network of social services and
> has a solid base of popular support centered in the largely poor Shi'i
> community but cutting across denominational lines. 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? One
important point made in the MERIP piece is that Ayotollah Khameini
constitutes the SPIRITUAL -- but not the POLITICAL guide for Hezbollah.
And, as Lyons admits in his article, Hezbollah has "acknowledged"
pluralism in Lebanon (actually it goes much further than that, according
to the MERIP report). The MERIP report also points out that Hezbollah has
fought privatization and the neo-liberal agenda in Lebanon. The most Lyons
can say is that Hezbollah is not socialist like the Spartacus League.

[...]

> The Spartacist League takes Workers World to task for "prettifying"
> Hezbollah in this manner, and notes that during the Cold War both the
> United States and Israel "fostered the growth of Islamic reaction as a
> counterweight to Communism and secular nationalism." The Spartacists
> declare, "As Trotskyists, we in the Spartacist League militarily defend
> Hezbollah against the Israeli military machine in this conflict, while
> maintaining our political opposition to this reactionary fundamentalist
> outfit."

And this, in a nutshell, sums up the Sparts disconnect from reality (and
that of their defenders, like Lyons): the Spartacus League MILITARILY
defends Hezbollah? So, this is the stance Lyons wishes us to take?

> What's missing from the Spartacist League position, however, is a clear
> recognition that Hezbollah is *both* right wing *and* anti-imperialist. I
> don't mean Hezbollah is inconsistent -- I mean its opposition to Zionism
> and its U.S. patron is rooted in a right-wing philosophy. This doesn't fit
>

No, it's opposition is rooted in the oppression of the Lebanese people --
largely, but not exclusively, the most disenfranchised section: the
Shiites -- by imperialism and its Zionist viceroys. Through his
unsupported assertion, Lyons lays to rest the actual history of Hezbollah
and its organic connection to the oppressed in Lebanon. And disagreement
over that single fact distinguishes a Lyons from a revolutionary
socialist.


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism