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

["Michael Karadjis" <mkaradjis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Friedman" <mikedf@xxxxxxxx>


> 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
>
> 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.

________________________________________________
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



________________________________________________
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