What's with the Left's lovefest for Hezbollah

[henank]

Michael Young (Editor of the Lebanese Daily Star newspaper)

Hezbollah is adept at turning contacts with the party into valuable favors. Writers and scholars, particularly Westerners, who lay claim to Hezbollah sources, are regarded as special for penetrating so closed a society. That's why their writing is often edited with minimal rigor. Hezbollah always denied everything that was said about Mughniyeh, and few authors (or editors) showed the curiosity to push further than that. The mere fact of getting such a denial was considered an achievement in itself, a sign of rare access, and no one was about to jeopardize that access by calling Hezbollah liars.

But there was more here than just manipulation. The Mughniyeh affair highlights a deeper problem long obvious to those who follow Hezbollah: The party, though it is religious, autocratic, and armed to the teeth, often elicits approval from secular, liberal Westerners who otherwise share nothing of its values. This reaction, in its more extreme forms, is reflected in the way many on the far left have embraced Hezbollah's militancy, but also that of other Islamist groups like Hamas or Islamic Jihad—thoroughly undermining their ideological principles in the process.

The primary emotion driving together the far-left and militant Islamists, but also frequently prompting secular liberals to applaud armed Islamic groups as well, is hostility toward the United States, toward Israel for its treatment of the Palestinians, and, more broadly, toward what is seen as Western-dominated, capitalist-driven globalization.

Fred Halliday, himself a man of the left, wrote scathingly of the dangers in the accommodation between Islamists and the left based on a perception of shared anti-imperialism: "All of this is—at least to those with historical awareness, skeptical political intelligence, or merely a long memory—disturbing. This is because its effect is to reinforce one of the most pernicious and inaccurate of all political claims, and one made not by the left but by the imperialist right. It is also one that underlies the U.S.-declared ‘war on terror' and the policies that have resulted from 9/11: namely, that Islamism is a movement aimed against 'the west.'"

[Vegasaurus]

1. This is a great topic

because I have long wondered how liberals and progressives, who purport to be in favor of civil rights, human rights, etc., can ally themselves with groups like Hamas or Hezbollah.

It's like they have sympathy for the movement, without acknowledging that the oppression these citizens live under is the very oppression that liberals fight against.

[msmcghee]

2. Wow! A must read. n/t

[henank]

4. The best thing about it

is that it's written by a Lebanese. He is a very brave man. I've read other articles by him but I can't remember where, possibly in the Guardian. Must google...

[azurnoir]

8. Yep always great when they "eat" their own

would you say the same about Uri Avnery?

[LeftishBrit]

3. I don't think most leftists are keen on the likes of Hezbollah...

however, I think that the war, and opposition to it, have created strange bedfellows. Anti-war leftists are sometimes tempted to seek allies who are far-RW on everything but the war; and to assume that there must be something good in anything that Bush opposes. For some, this includes Islamic fundies. For others, it includes xenophobic isolationists of the BNP/ LePen/ Pat Buchanan variety.

Let us never forget that the enemy of my enemy is NOT always my friend - and that the forerunners of the Taliban were originally built up by Republicans who thought they must be OK as they were against Brezhnev.

[henank]

5. Well said. n/t

[Vegasaurus]

6. Thats true

but it sure isn't very "progressive" of them!

[azurnoir]

9. Most of the claimed support of Hezbollah

is based on this comment from Douglas Carpenter:

"but they are also pro-poor people just as many authoritarian Marxist-Leninist parties were also pro-poor people. Both Hamas and Hezbollah have networks of schools and clinics and other social services. This certainly does not make them progressive. But it does have a lot to do with their base of support".


and not on their terrorist activities as one could be led to believe

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=203674&mesg_id=203912

[Vegasaurus]

10. We went through this yesterday

There are those who support resistance of Hamas and Hezbollah, even if it includes murdering children.

There was a quote that supported this statement posted yesterday.

I don't doubt that there are those who support the "pro-poor" nature of these terrorists. But there are many others who support violence, because of their nationalist cause.

[azurnoir]

11. Find it n/t

[Name removed]

12. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Joad]

25. tom friedman?

huh, if only we could get that spoiled rich boy to post here, that would be fun.

[Vegasaurus]

26. It was found, and deleted

[sofa king]

21. That's a popular tactic.

Among others, the technique was/is practiced by the Maoists, the SAS, and the US Army Special Forces. The "hearts and minds" thing really works well when consistently applied.

Not coincidentally, all of those groups can be commended for doing those things, but it hardly cancels out certain other things they've all done. Just like Hamas and Hezbollah.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Looking4Light]

18. Hezbollah is one of the hands

of Syrian imperialism, which is one of the arms of Iraninan imperialism.

[subsuelo]

13. Actually, the "Left" - at least in the West - has more of a lovefest with the Israeli counterpart

They are often heard applauding Israeli war crimes, pledging faithful support for it, ignoring settlement expansion, pretending Israel does no wrong, etc.

A problem the 'Left' is faced with is it's choices of who to align with. Who are you going to choose - the side randomly bombarding civilians with rocket attacks? Or the side killing ten times as many? Not exactly choices to be thrilled with if you ask me.

What the 'Left' should be doing in my view is condemning the brutality committed by both sides and calling on both sides to put and end to this whole damn thing -- it's gone on too long.

[hifalutin]

14. Agreed

'What the 'Left' should be doing in my view is condemning the brutality committed by both sides and calling on both sides to put and end to this whole damn thing -- it's gone on too long.'

and agreed!

[pelsar]

15. the liberal left doesnt really have a problem...

http://eustonmanifesto.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=1

We are democrats and progressives. We propose here a fresh political alignment. Many of us belong to the Left, but the principles that we set out are not exclusive. We reach out, rather, beyond the socialist Left towards egalitarian liberals and others of unambiguous democratic commitment. Indeed, the reconfiguration of progressive opinion that we aim for involves drawing a line between the forces of the Left that remain true to its authentic values, and currents that have lately shown themselves rather too flexible about these values.
--------

once one defines ones principles and values, its not very difficult. If however, one prefers to simply react to the latest events as if they came out of a vacuum then there tends to be a lot of contradictions as we see constantly here on the DU.....

[LeftishBrit]

16. I certainly agree strongly with your last paragraph!

[pelsar]

17. this is a problem?...here let me help....

A problem the 'Left' is faced with is it's choices of who to align with. Who are you going to choose - the side randomly bombarding civilians with rocket attacks? Or the side killing ten times as many? ...........

let me add the missing part: .....in their attempts to limit the random bombing of their cities...(when there is no random bombing it appears there is also no attempts to "stop them" and no killing 10x)
___

so how is this confusing for the "left"?

[Looking4Light]

19. I agree with your last two statements

despite your first.

I think it's mainly the extreme Left (ANSWER, etc.) that is unconditionally behind Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc.
But the extremists are more motivated than people who have other things going on in their life.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[msmcghee]

23. Darn, there were some interesting comments and ideas in there.

It would be very cool when the mods delete a sub-thread if you could just mention what rule you are using. That way it can be a learning experience for us. Sometimes you do that and it is appreciated. Is there now going to be more attention paid to subthreads that wander off topic? That's been rampant in the past and I'm all for stricter enforcement. Is that what happened here or something else?

In general, I have trouble understanding where the lines are here. I read the rules pretty carefully but when people attack in their posts - one tends to go by what others seem to get away with when defending yourself.

I understand moderating this forum must be a very difficult job. A little more feedback and explanation for the deletions might make the job a little easier - then again it could make it harder if people start arguing with your decisions.

Added: Perhaps strictly enforce the rule that no-one is allowed to argue with a mod's explanation in the public area of the forum. I don't know.

[Looking4Light]

24. I agree

[bemildred]

27. "Never Apologize, Never Explain" -- Evelyn Waugh

The forum already has enough rules. Further "explanation" of them will not help. That is not where the problem lies.