Malte's comment on Hezbollah [Archive]

ArabRASH

24th February 2008, 18:24

Since he posted this in the Kosovo thread, i wanted to address it separately.

You must be kidding me. Are you seriously telling me that an deeply anti-semitic, Islamist organization struggling for a feudal state based Sharia law, is any more progressive than a movement struggling for a US/EU backed bourgeois democracy, only because Hezbollah is displaying some sort of social opportunism (already the Nazis did that BTW)? Or are you referring to their anti-semitism, masked as anti-zionism? Is that what you think is "progressive"?! How is it any more "progressive" than the anti-Russian (imperialist) stance of the Kossovo-Albanians?

Ok. Whooaa! First of all, how on earth can Hezbollah be anti-semitic....they are semites! (Us arabs are semites too!!!)

Second of all proof that they're NOT anti jewish, is that Norman Finkelstein came and gave a lecture on lebanon....and hezbollah requested an interview with him, and they showed each other solidarity....yes...finkelstein...he's an antizionist jew.

Struggling for a feudal state based on Sharia law? Please tell me where you got that information from. Because i live in Lebanon. And i am friends with many members of hezbollah. I am not even Shia, I am sunni on paper, but an atheist. They all know that, and they have no problem with me. They provide free housing, free water, free electricity to all citizens living in their areas. They participate in DEMOCRATIC elections. There are anchorwomen who work for their tv station who don't even wear hijabs.

Why would Hezbollah be against Jews? They don't even know any Jews! All they know is Israel, a country that has attacked them for years, and they fight back, they are a resistance movement. They are allied with the Lebanese Communist Party, and the CHRISTIAN Free Patriotic Movement.

Now i do not give them my UNCONDITIONAL support. But what you are saying is false, and is a product of American propaganda. Next time get your facts right. Or if you wish to continue believing bullshit you read on cnn.com then please, i extend an invitation to you come to lebanon and observe their areas and their people, and see what they are really like.

Invader Zim

24th February 2008, 18:33

I don't want to butt in, so I'll only make this one point of semantic clarification: -

First of all, how on earth can Hezbollah be anti-semitic....they are semites! (Us arabs are semites too!!!)

This is indeed true, but in a modern context the term 'anti-semitic' has become synonamous with anti-Jewish.

Keyser

24th February 2008, 18:43

I think many people take one polar extreme view or another with regards to Hizbullah.

One extreme is the Zionist/imperialist version (Hizbullah are Nazi inspired anti-semites with a totalitarian and fuedalistic socio-economic policy for Lebanon).

The other extreme is that Hizbullah are socially progressive and to be wholly supported.

To be honest, I have no idea what social and economic policies Hizbullah holds, whether they are hostile to the free market and a capitalist economy or if they are free marketeers themselves.

Their foreign policy and anti-Zionism does strike me as a populist brand of Lebanese nationalism and anti-imperialism, this is evident in their associated work with other non-Shia political groups in Lebanon (the LCP and the FPM being two examples) and their emphasis on Lebanese national self determination and sovereignty over pan-Islamism and a loyalty to the Umma (global Islamic community) that is shown by other more Islamist/jihadist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists.

I support any military operation to both expel Israel's military, political and economic presence in both Lebanon and Palestine, all anti-imperialists, communists, anarchists and socialists should.

SouthernBelle82

24th February 2008, 18:46

Right. I agree with you. From what I understand of Hezbollah is they were created because of an invasion from a neighboring country (sorry I can't remember who right now) and they see themselves as protectors and to keep other forces from invading again whether it's Israel or some other neighbor. Doesn't that mean the Minutemen here in the States is the same as Hezbollah in their (Minutemen) minds?

Since he posted this in the Kosovo thread, i wanted to address it separately.

Ok. Whooaa! First of all, how on earth can Hezbollah be anti-semitic....they are semites! (Us arabs are semites too!!!)

Second of all proof that they're NOT anti jewish, is that Norman Finkelstein came and gave a lecture on lebanon....and hezbollah requested an interview with him, and they showed each other solidarity....yes...finkelstein...he's an antizionist jew.

Struggling for a feudal state based on Sharia law? Please tell me where you got that information from. Because i live in Lebanon. And i am friends with many members of hezbollah. I am not even Shia, I am sunni on paper, but an atheist. They all know that, and they have no problem with me. They provide free housing, free water, free electricity to all citizens living in their areas. They participate in DEMOCRATIC elections. There are anchorwomen who work for their tv station who don't even wear hijabs.

Why would Hezbollah be against Jews? They don't even know any Jews! All they know is Israel, a country that has attacked them for years, and they fight back, they are a resistance movement. They are allied with the Lebanese Communist Party, and the CHRISTIAN Free Patriotic Movement.

Now i do not give them my UNCONDITIONAL support. But what you are saying is false, and is a product of American propaganda. Next time get your facts right. Or if you wish to continue believing bullshit you read on cnn.com then please, i extend an invitation to you come to lebanon and observe their areas and their people, and see what they are really like.

ArabRASH

24th February 2008, 19:04

Hahah come on you can't SERIOUSLY be comparing a bunch of lunatics against immigration(thats all i know about the minutemen) to a resistance movement in the south of lebanon that protects lebanon as a whole against Israeli occupation. So from your logic, that the Iraqi people that want an end to American occupation in Iraq are like the minutemen as well? And the IRA were also like the minutemen? come on....

SouthernBelle82

24th February 2008, 19:11

Note I said in THEIR MINDS. I wasn't comparing them. :rolleyes: Please read it again. I said in the Minutemen's minds. And duh the Minutemen are a bunch of nationalist jokers who need to get over themselves and need a history lesson.

Hahah come on you can't SERIOUSLY be comparing a bunch of lunatics against immigration(thats all i know about the minutemen) to a resistance movement in the south of lebanon that protects lebanon as a whole against Israeli occupation. So from your logic, that the Iraqi people that want an end to American occupation in Iraq are like the minutemen as well? And the IRA were also like the minutemen? come on....

Die Neue Zeit

24th February 2008, 19:18

Because i live in Lebanon. And i am friends with many members of hezbollah. I am not even Shia, I am sunni on paper, but an atheist. They all know that, and they have no problem with me. They provide free housing, free water, free electricity to all citizens living in their areas. They participate in DEMOCRATIC elections. There are anchorwomen who work for their tv station who don't even wear hijabs.

Why would Hezbollah be against Jews? They don't even know any Jews! All they know is Israel, a country that has attacked them for years, and they fight back, they are a resistance movement. They are allied with the Lebanese Communist Party, and the CHRISTIAN Free Patriotic Movement.

Now i do not give them my UNCONDITIONAL support. But what you are saying is false, and is a product of American propaganda. Next time get your facts right. Or if you wish to continue believing bullshit you read on cnn.com then please, i extend an invitation to you come to lebanon and observe their areas and their people, and see what they are really like.

I have an online Lebanese acquaintance in Montreal who said the same thing you did (getting the facts straight about Lebanon), and given that you're echoing his position from a closer perspective, I'm pretty much forced to agree with you regarding Hezbollah.

I've seen these pics, though:

http://images.google.ca/images?q=hezbollah+nazi

Is this anti-Semitism, or merely a scare tactic by Hezbollah against the Israelis by deliberating invoking what can easily be perceived as Nazi imagery?

SouthernBelle82

24th February 2008, 19:22

Thinking more about it it doesn't seem like Hezbollah would be against Jewish people or any other type of people in general because of how open-minded and progressive they are. What really struck me was how the women don't have to wear hijab's if they don't want to. If they are open minded about that then they wouldn't be anti-semitic. From my understanding and experiences those type of feelings only come from people who are very very into their religion and are extremest. If they were religious extremist they wouldn't have female anchors. They sound pretty socialist to me.

Since he posted this in the Kosovo thread, i wanted to address it separately.

Ok. Whooaa! First of all, how on earth can Hezbollah be anti-semitic....they are semites! (Us arabs are semites too!!!)

Second of all proof that they're NOT anti jewish, is that Norman Finkelstein came and gave a lecture on lebanon....and hezbollah requested an interview with him, and they showed each other solidarity....yes...finkelstein...he's an antizionist jew.

Struggling for a feudal state based on Sharia law? Please tell me where you got that information from. Because i live in Lebanon. And i am friends with many members of hezbollah. I am not even Shia, I am sunni on paper, but an atheist. They all know that, and they have no problem with me. They provide free housing, free water, free electricity to all citizens living in their areas. They participate in DEMOCRATIC elections. There are anchorwomen who work for their tv station who don't even wear hijabs.

Why would Hezbollah be against Jews? They don't even know any Jews! All they know is Israel, a country that has attacked them for years, and they fight back, they are a resistance movement. They are allied with the Lebanese Communist Party, and the CHRISTIAN Free Patriotic Movement.

Now i do not give them my UNCONDITIONAL support. But what you are saying is false, and is a product of American propaganda. Next time get your facts right. Or if you wish to continue believing bullshit you read on cnn.com then please, i extend an invitation to you come to lebanon and observe their areas and their people, and see what they are really like.

ArabRASH

24th February 2008, 19:44

I assure you that that salute is not a "nazi salute" to show solidarity with hitler for killing the jews. Come on...Hezbollah dont know any jewish people to hate them! theyve never met any! How can they be nazis? If they were nazis they'd beat themselves up wouldn't they? We were next if Hitler came here!

Oh i wouldn't go so far as saying Hezbollah were socialists, although many aspects they have in their areas are socialistic, but personally i have never talked to any of them about whether they support free market economics or not, neither do i believe that they really care at the moment. They are religious, but definitely not religious extremists. They do have female anchors. Some things they do i do not agree with (such as BOASTING about how many casualties they have had with Israel). and they have not used suicide bombing tactic since the 80s.

Look, in the end, i support them as a resistance movement against Israel, and see them as a tinge of hope in a region too often controlled by american and israeli interference.

( R )evolution

24th February 2008, 19:53

RNK

24th February 2008, 19:53

Well, for one, there are lots of Russian Nazis who worship Hitler, regardless of the fact that Hitler wanted to kill them all.

Anyway, that's not necessarily an attempt to mimic the Nazi salute (and is more than likely clever twisting of context on the part of propagandists). In the picture with Arafat, he appears to be waving at the camera.

I agree with ArabRASH and Richter. Hezbollah is by far one of the most progressive anti-Israeli forces in the region. That isn't to say they are perfect, but writing them off as jew-hating barbarian arab jihadists is an idealist position.

SouthernBelle82

24th February 2008, 23:54

I was thinking maybe they were socialists because of the programs they do and how they help people and do things for free but it would be interesting to read what they do think about economics but yea I'm sure it's not very far up on their mindset right now and shouldn't be. I don't think you're ever going to find a perfect group and I'm sure and not everyone in the group agrees with that either. At least they're in the right direction and I think that's what counts. However about not knowing anyone to hate them while that's generally true there are a lot of people here in the States who hate people who are Muslim (even though that's pretty broad with race since it isn't a race but a belief system obviously) and come from the mid east and how much do you want to bet many of those people don't know a single person from the mid east or who is Muslim? But I understand what you're saying though.

I assure you that that salute is not a "nazi salute" to show solidarity with hitler for killing the jews. Come on...Hezbollah dont know any jewish people to hate them! theyve never met any! How can they be nazis? If they were nazis they'd beat themselves up wouldn't they? We were next if Hitler came here!

Oh i wouldn't go so far as saying Hezbollah were socialists, although many aspects they have in their areas are socialistic, but personally i have never talked to any of them about whether they support free market economics or not, neither do i believe that they really care at the moment. They are religious, but definitely not religious extremists. They do have female anchors. Some things they do i do not agree with (such as BOASTING about how many casualties they have had with Israel). and they have not used suicide bombing tactic since the 80s.

Look, in the end, i support them as a resistance movement against Israel, and see them as a tinge of hope in a region too often controlled by american and israeli interference.

SouthernBelle82

24th February 2008, 23:59

Correct. Here in the States before Hitler came a long we used to do a flag salute that ended up being used by Hitler. I tried to find a picture but wasn't able to. :(

Simply because Hezbollah use a Nazi like salute does not directly link them to Nazism or support for the killing of jews, that is ignorant and just a incorrect way to view an organization. If you really would like to compare Hezbollah and Nazi's then please look at their ideology and their actions not just their salutes.

BobKKKindle$

25th February 2008, 08:49

Now i do not give them my UNCONDITIONAL support. But what you are saying is false, and is a product of American propaganda. Next time get your facts right. Or if you wish to continue believing bullshit you read on cnn.com then please, i extend an invitation to you come to lebanon and observe their areas and their people, and see what they are really like.

If you don't offer them unconditional support, then you're not a Trotskyist. I offer unconditional support to all groups fighting against imperialism. I recognize that workers in our own countries are incapable of revolution, as long as they remain supportive of Imperialism and do not view workers in other countries as their comrades in a unified struggle. Supporting these struggles weakens capitalism across the globe and opens opportunities for revolutionary change. Unconditional support is, however, not the same is uncritical support. I recognize that such groups may have views which are in conflict with the views of Socialists - for example, regarding the role of women, and the Jewish working class. Socialists criticise these groups in areas we disagree and try and win other members to revolutionary organisations, or change their policies so as to make these groups more progressive. This is also true of countries facing Imperialist oppression, such as Iran. Although we support any attempts to overthrow the current regime and establish a workers state, if Iran faces attack, we will call for the defense of Iran.

This, comrades, is the revolutionary position.

Nothing Human Is Alien

25th February 2008, 09:09

Unfortunately, many comrades mistake all opposition to a particular imperialist power or one of its puppets as 'anti-imperialism' that we should get behind. This is largely due to a lack of alternatives in the period of reaction that followed the counterrevolutionary overthrow of the USSR and 'Socialist Bloc' (a period which we are just now beginning to overcome).

We must look at the class forces involved before we go around shouting "We are all Hezb'ollah."

It's a different thing to defend Lebanon from Israeli attacks than to lend political support to a band of reactionaries like Hezb'ollah.

Which classes does Hezb'ollah represent? What would a victory by Hezb'ollah mean? What kind of society would that create? Would it better the position of the working class and aid in their fight to take power and transform society?

Lenin talked about this sort of thing.. "It is particularly important to bear in mind ... the need to combat Pan-Islamism and similar trends, which strive to combine the liberation movement against European and American imperialism with an attempt to strengthen the positions of the khans, landowners, mullahs, etc."

ArabRASH

25th February 2008, 13:45

If you don't offer them unconditional support, then you're not a Trotskyist. I offer unconditional support to all groups fighting against imperialism. I recognize that workers in our own countries are incapable of revolution, as long as they remain supportive of Imperialism and do not view workers in other countries as their comrades in a unified struggle. Supporting these struggles weakens capitalism across the globe and opens opportunities for revolutionary change. Unconditional support is, however, not the same is uncritical support. I recognize that such groups may have views which are in conflict with the views of Socialists - for example, regarding the role of women, and the Jewish working class. Socialists criticise these groups in areas we disagree and try and win other members to revolutionary organisations, or change their policies so as to make these groups more progressive. This is also true of countries facing Imperialist oppression, such as Iran. Although we support any attempts to overthrow the current regime and establish a workers state, if Iran faces attack, we will call for the defense of Iran.

This, comrades, is the revolutionary position.

What i meant by I don't offer them UNCONDITIONAL support is different than what you think. Don't forget that Hezbollah is also a political force in Lebanon. If they were to protest against, let's say, the use of the prophet Mohammad in a drawing, I would not attend the protest. I would not say "yeah! Hezbollah are anti imperialists so i agree with them on not being allowed to draw the prophet!". (maybe thats what you meant by uncritical support?)

Anyway other than that i completely agree with what you called "the revolutionary position". Well said.

chegitz guevara

25th February 2008, 13:48

BobKKKindle$

25th February 2008, 13:50

What i meant by I don't offer them UNCONDITIONAL support is different than what you think. Don't forget that Hezbollah is also a political force in Lebanon. If they were to protest against, let's say, the use of the prophet Mohammad in a drawing, I would not attend the protest. I would not say "yeah! Hezbollah are anti imperialists so i agree with them on not being allowed to draw the prophet!". (maybe thats what you meant by uncritical support?)

I support them unconditionally in their role as a force fighting against Imperialism - in other areas, I would face no such commitment, and would happily criticize and even campaign against Hezbollah. I might actually join them in a protest against Islamophobic drawings, but that's a matter of personal opinion, and another issue, and I understand your point - we are in agreement.

Edelweiss

25th February 2008, 14:03

First of all, how on earth can Hezbollah be anti-semitic....they are semites!

Oh please, stop that semantic bullshit! You know as good as I know what the term anti-semitism refers to. It's quiet shocking to see that supposed communists go into this semantic games which we are normally used from stormfornters...

They provide free housing, free water, free electricity to all citizens living in their areas. They participate in DEMOCRATIC elections. There are anchorwomen who work for their tv station who don't even wear hijabs.

So? Social opportunism is a feature of all fascists worldwide. The Nazis did the exact same thing to appease the working class.

If you Lebanese "communists" decide to collaborate with the class enemy, so may be it. I guess it's a clear sign of the completely hopeless situation there is in the middle east.

The Hezbollah quiet clearly is propagating anti-semitic thought through their TV station for example. A quick Google search will proof that. But it's pretty useless to provide you any links know, because ignorants like you will deny everything anyway as "zionist lies", because that's more comfortable for you in your little world of it's own.

You don't need to see the images of Hezbollah thugs giving the fascist salute to realize their reactionary nature.

Why would Hezbollah be against Jews? They don't even know any Jews!

Now that is stupid. You don't need to know any Jews in order to be anti-semitic. You also don't need to know any blacks to be racist. In fact, racism is worst here in Germany in the east, a region where are by far less immigrants than in the west. You obviously haven't understood at all the mechanism ans the nature of racism and anti-semitism.

25th February 2008, 14:34

I have an online Lebanese acquaintance in Montreal who said the same thing you did (getting the facts straight about Lebanon), and given that you're echoing his position from a closer perspective, I'm pretty much forced to agree with you regarding Hezbollah.

I've seen these pics, though:

http://images.google.ca/images?q=hezbollah+nazi (http://www.anonym.to/?http://images.google.ca/images?q=hezbollah+nazi)

Is this anti-Semitism, or merely a scare tactic by Hezbollah against the Israelis by deliberating invoking what can easily be perceived as Nazi imagery?

No, that is the Roman salute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_salute). It is a salute that has been used for thousands of years, and while it is commonly synonymous with the NAZI's in the western world, it doesn't carry the same stigma in other parts of the world, much like the swastika.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/David-Oath_of_the_Horatii-1784.jpg/774px-David-Oath_of_the_Horatii-1784.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9b/Serment_du_jeu_de_paume.jpg/800px-Serment_du_jeu_de_paume.jpg

http://lh3.google.com/Main.Ben/Rv6iKlF22ZI/AAAAAAAAAvY/hhdcK_oHdkA/american-school-children-bellamy-salute.jpg

Which classes does Hezb'ollah represent? What would a victory by Hezb'ollah mean?

What is a "Hizb'allah victory"?

Lenin talked about this sort of thing.. "It is particularly important to bear in mind ... the need to combat Pan-Islamism and similar trends, which strive to combine the liberation movement against European and American imperialism with an attempt to strengthen the positions of the khans, landowners, mullahs, etc."

Hizb'allah hasn't been a pan-islamic organization since the 80's as far as I knew. Their stance on Lebanese society now is that they would like all Lebanese people to become Muslim and to have a Muslim state, but that they would not force it upon those who do not wish to convert. This is evident not only in their writings but in their work with other organizations and people of other religions.

I see nothing wrong with that position.

I support them unconditionally in their role as a force fighting against Imperialism - in other areas, I would face no such commitment, and would happily criticize and even campaign against Hezbollah.

You should also criticize them in their fight against imperialism when appropriate. Unconditional support isn't uncritical support.

The Hezbollah quiet clearly is propagating anti-semitic thought through their TV station for example. A quick Google search will proof that. But it's pretty useless to provide you any links know, because ignorants like you will deny everything anyway as "zionist lies", because that's more comfortable for you in your little world of it's own.

Could you provide some links, Malte?

You don't need to see the images of Hezbollah thugs giving the fascist salute to realize their reactionary nature.

Oh, come on. You of all people should know the history of that salute.

Leo

25th February 2008, 15:27

Their stance on Lebanese society now is that they would like all Lebanese people to become Muslim and to have a Muslim state, but that they would not force it upon those who do not wish to convert. This is evident not only in their writings but in their work with other organizations and people of other religions.

I see nothing wrong with that position.

No offense but I would start questioning myself if I were you.

25th February 2008, 15:37

No offense but I would start questioning myself if I were you.

Because I don't find anything wrong with religious people not wanting to push their religion down others throats?

Sankofa

25th February 2008, 15:53

Oh please, stop that semantic bullshit! You know as good as I know what the term anti-semitism refers to. It's quiet shocking to see that supposed communists go into this semantic games which we are normally used from stormfornters...

I don't think it's exactly fair to compare him to Stormfronters, Malte. We all know how Israel uses this term today, but that doesn't mean that it's being used correctly.

The facts are: Palestinians are semitic, Lebanese are semitic, and the Israelis are not.

How they can come from Europe, plant themselves on foreign land, drive the natives out, and label resistance groups anti-semitic, and the entire world go along with the lies because of Hitler is just gross.

Leo

25th February 2008, 16:07

Because I don't find anything wrong with religious people not wanting to push their religion down others throats?

No, because you don't find anything wrong with a religious-bourgeois political program.

Edelweiss

25th February 2008, 16:07

Sankofa

25th February 2008, 16:41

Yonkers, and everyone else being ignorant on this: Do me a favor, and look up "anti-semitism" in a dictionary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-semitism). It's impossible to have an honest discussion here, if you use the rhetorical means of a fucking Nazi here.

Oh, and I don't label all resistance groups against Israel to be anti-semitic. Hezbollah however clearly is (http://emperor.vwh.net/docs/shatat.wmv).

That's not a dictionary, that's Wikipedia. It talks about how the term antisemitism is used, today, as prejudice against Jews as a religious, racial and ethnic group.

Which is great, we know how the term is used in present. Even the article you provided states that the word's etymology refers to ancient semitic people, which the Jews in Israel are not.

This is the definition of a semite from my Random House College Dictionary: a member of any of various ancient and modern peoples originating in SW Asia, among them being the Hebrews and the Arabs.

Real semitic Jews have been living in that part of the world for thousands of years, unlike the Zionists who've only been there since 1948. It's clear what people mean when they say "anti-semitism" but it does not mean they aren't using it incorrect.

I never implied you labeled anybody with anything; I was talking about Israeli government.

25th February 2008, 17:00

No, because you don't find anything wrong with a religious-bourgeois political program.

Which program is that?

Oh, and I don't label all resistance groups against Israel to be anti-semitic. Hezbollah however clearly is (http://www.anonym.to/?http://emperor.vwh.net/docs/shatat.wmv).

I would agree that they have many anti-semitic elements, but I wouldn't consider the organization itself to be anti-semitic.

Invader Zim

25th February 2008, 17:07

That's not a dictionary, that's Wikipedia. It talks about how the term antisemitism is used, today, as prejudice against Jews as a religious, racial and ethnic group.

Which is great, we know how the term is used in present. Even the article you provided states that the word's etymology refers to ancient semitic people, which the Jews in Israel are not.

This is the definition of a semite from my Random House College Dictionary: a member of any of various ancient and modern peoples originating in SW Asia, among them being the Hebrews and the Arabs.

Real semitic Jews have been living in that part of the world for thousands of years, unlike the Zionists who've only been there since 1948. It's clear what people mean when they say "anti-semitism" but it does not mean they aren't using it incorrect.

I never implied you labeled anybody with anything; I was talking about Israeli government.

Your point lacks any relevence. The etymology of the term anti-semitic doesn't matter; the point is how it is used by just about everybody. The fact that the term has evolved beyond its etymological origions does not detract from the point that anti-semitism is used near exclusively to refer to those who have a problem with Jews.

Sankofa

25th February 2008, 17:17

Your point lacks any relevence. The etymology of the term anti-semitic doesn't matter; the point is how it is used by just about everybody. The fact that the term has evolved beyond its etymological origions does not detract from the point that anti-semitism is used near exclusively to refer to those who have a problem with Jews.

How are my points not relevant? I know, and understand the way anti-semitism is being used today. I never denied that's how people use the word.

What I'm trying to get across is, modern "antisemitism" is a tool used by the Zionists to ostracize any and everyone who is critical to Israel and her policies. It hasn't evolved at all, it's being used as a scare tactic. Should Arabs consider the Israelis semites just because everyone says they are?

They aren't semities, no matter how much the term is allocated towards them. The only true antisemitic force there is Israel, that's all I'm really trying to say.

Edelweiss

25th February 2008, 17:20

The only true antisemitic force there is Israel, that's all I'm really trying to say.

And that is a completely stupid thing to say.

Forward Union

25th February 2008, 17:30

Ok. Whooaa! First of all, how on earth can Hezbollah be anti-semitic....they are semites! (Us arabs are semites too!!!)

"if [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide." - Nasrallah

Sources.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/774649/posts
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0CEEDB1F3CF930A15756C0A9629C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

Sankofa

25th February 2008, 17:35

And that is a completely stupid thing to say.

How is that a stupid thing to say? It's correct; there are no semites from Europe. You can argue that Hezbollah wants to destory Israel, and is anti-zionist; but that doesn't make them "antisemitic".

Which means, Israel's actions against the Arabs is the only thing that can be called "antisemitism". I don't see why that doesn't make sense.

Invader Zim

25th February 2008, 17:43

How is that a stupid thing to say? It's correct; there are no semites from Europe. You can argue that Hezbollah wants to destory Israel, is anti-zionist, or generally despise all Jews; but that doesn't make them "antisemitic".

Which means, Israel's actions against the Arabs is the only thing that can be called "antisemitism". I don't see why that doesn't make sense.

It's correct; there are no semites from Europe.

Only if you apply a highly arcane definition of the term; if not, then the comment is completely ludicrous.

Sankofa

25th February 2008, 17:50

Only if you apply a highly arcane definition of the term; if not, then the comment is completely ludicrous.

This is starting to get a little ridiculous. How is a basic fact arcane?

I don't care how many Jews got put into a gas chamber; Israel will never have enough sympathy or power to alter reality. It's that simple.

RNK

25th February 2008, 19:07

Wow, this is a really pointless fucking arguement, debating the definition of a fucking word. Yeah, most Jews in Israel aren't semites, and Arabs are, and when we use anti-semitism to refer to prejudice against Jews we're all using the word incorrectly according to its original definition.

And when we call something "pink" we're actually calling it a piece of industrial machinery for which the colour was named after after its physical similarity to a common pink-coloured flower.

Now can we go back to discussing Hezbollah?

ArabRASH

25th February 2008, 20:05

"if [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide." - Nasrallah

Sources.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/774649/posts
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0CEEDB1F3CF930A15756C0A9629C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

"Eugene Goodheart asks whether I am familiar with two statements he attributes to Hizbullah’s secretary-general, Sayed Hassan Nasrallah (Letters, 7 September). Goodheart uses the inflammatory quotations to accuse Nasrallah of being ‘an anti-semite with fantasies of genocide’. If I am unfamiliar with the statements, it is because they are in all likelihood fabrications. The first (‘If they [the Jews] all gather in Israel it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide’) was circulated widely on neo-con websites, which give as its original source an article by Badih Chayban in Beirut’s English-language Daily Star on 23 October 2002. It seems that Chayban left the Star three years ago and moved to Washington. The Star’s managing editor writes of Chayban’s article on Nasrallah, that ‘I have faith in neither the accuracy of the translation [from Arabic to English] nor the agenda of the translator [Chayban].’ The editor-in-chief and publisher of the Star, Jamil Mrowe, adds that Chayban was ‘a reporter and briefly local desk sub and certainly did not interview Nasrallah or anyone else.’ The account of Nasrallah’s speech in the Lebanese daily As Safir for the same day makes no reference to any anti-semitic comments. Goodheart’s second quotation – ‘They [the Jews] are a cancer which is liable to spread at any moment’ – comes from the Israeli government’s website at http://tinyurl.com/99hyz. For the record, a Hizbullah spokeswoman, Wafa Hoteit, denies that Nasrallah made either statement." Charles Glass

Source:
http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2007/02/06/is-nasrallah-an-anti-semite/

вор в законе

25th February 2008, 20:16

Malte (and the German extreme-left in general) have the tendency of defending every aspect of Israeli policy since they feel "guilty" for the Holocaust and thus want to portray themselves as fierce anti-nationalist by ignoring the fact that Israel is an Imperialist State which btw as we speak has imposed a blockade to Gaza and cut the electricity off the hospitals.

Leo

25th February 2008, 20:27

Which program is that?

Wanting to have a Muslim (bourgeois) state.

25th February 2008, 21:44

Wanting to have a Muslim (bourgeois) state.

I don't think I ever defended that. I said that I see nothing wrong with religious people not wanting to force their religion down others throats. That is the part of their position that I said I have nothing wrong with. Them "wanting" to have a Muslim state is irrelevant, as it will never happen and that really is no longer their intended goal.

Random Precision

25th February 2008, 21:56

Devrim

25th February 2008, 23:00

If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli.

It is difficult to tell if it is real. All of those quotes from Evrensel of Nasrallah talking left last year were certainly fabricated. The original source is the New York Times, certainly not a paper sympathetic to Hezbollah. As far as I know Nasrallah's camp hasn't denied him saying this though, which has happened in the past when he has been misquoted.

I think that going on about Hezbollah's anti-Semitism is somewhat missing the point though.

Devrim

Spirit of Spartacus

26th February 2008, 01:29

Malte, as I was just telling TragicClown, every time I happen to read a post of yours regarding Israel, the Arab resistance or a similar topic, I feel an urge to punch through a wall.

Let's talk about the alleged Nasrallah statement first. If Hasan Nasrallah ever made an anti-Semitic statement, such as that one about gathering the Jews in one place and doing whatever, trust me, a Hizbullah representative would NEVER deny that statement.

You know why? Because these people mean business. It is very easy to gain cheap popularity through anti-Semitic statements, simply because of the atmosphere of anger against Zionist crimes in Arab countries.

In any case, Hizbullah's fight is against the expansion of the capitalist world-system (as represented by the American war-dog in the Middle-East, the apartheid-state of Israel). Each time Hizbullah strikes at imperialist aggresion, it weakens the capitalist world-system as a whole, and brings the day closer when this system can be overthrown.

Devrim

26th February 2008, 06:20

If Hasan Nasrallah ever made an anti-Semitic statement, such as that one about gathering the Jews in one place and doing whatever, trust me, a Hizbullah representative would NEVER deny that statement.

Eugene Goodheart asks whether I am familiar with two statements he attributes to Hizbullah’s secretary-general, Sayed Hassan Nasrallah (Letters, 7 September). Goodheart uses the inflammatory quotations to accuse Nasrallah of being ‘an anti-semite with fantasies of genocide’. If I am unfamiliar with the statements, it is because they are in all likelihood fabrications. The first (‘If they [the Jews] all gather in Israel it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide’) was circulated widely on neo-con websites, which give as its original source an article by Badih Chayban in Beirut’s English-language Daily Star on 23 October 2002. It seems that Chayban left the Star three years ago and moved to Washington. The Star’s managing editor writes of Chayban’s article on Nasrallah, that ‘I have faith in neither the accuracy of the translation [from Arabic to English] nor the agenda of the translator [Chayban].’ The editor-in-chief and publisher of the Star, Jamil Mrowe, adds that Chayban was ‘a reporter and briefly local desk sub and certainly did not interview Nasrallah or anyone else.’ The account of Nasrallah’s speech in the Lebanese daily As Safir for the same day makes no reference to any anti-semitic comments. Goodheart’s second quotation – ‘They [the Jews] are a cancer which is liable to spread at any moment’ – comes from the Israeli government’s website at http://tinyurl.com/99hyz (http://www.anonym.to/?http://tinyurl.com/99hyz). For the record, a Hizbullah spokeswoman, Wafa Hoteit, denies that Nasrallah made either statement.

SoS demonstrates here that not only does he have no knowledge of what he is talking about but also that he hasn't even read the thread.

Hezbullah frequently denies statements, which it says have been misattributed to it.

Devrim

RNK

26th February 2008, 06:43

Great way to refute an arguement.

Talk about someone in the third person, and then make a claim without providing any sort of source to counter the handful of sources that prove you wrong.

Devrim

26th February 2008, 07:00

I have no idea what you are talking about RNK. The fact is that Hizbollah frequently denies statements and SoS says that they never do.

There is a source above. I will repeat it here:

For the record, a Hizbullah spokeswoman, Wafa Hoteit, denies that Nasrallah made either statement.

Wafa Hoteit, Chief of Al Noor Radio, denied that Nassrallah made tha statement.

As for his argument:

In any case, Hizbullah's fight is against the expansion of the capitalist world-system

It is too ludicrous to bother with.

Devrim

chimx

26th February 2008, 07:01

I think that going on about Hezbollah's anti-Semitism is somewhat missing the point though.

I agree in that attacking imperialism via an Islamic state is not progressive, but instead erects a yet new barrier for workers to overcome.

RNK

26th February 2008, 07:04

Considering that the statements themselves came from a reporter who has since been denounced as untrustworthy by his own media employer...

Anyway, you appear to be confused. SoS said that if Nasrallah had infact made that statement (ie, if the statement was indicative of Hezbollah's stance on the matter), then Hezbollah wouldn't deny it -- they would ratify the statement into policy, which they have not. He wasn't saying that Hezbollah never denies it says anything -- naturally it does, unless you're surmising that nobody on this planet has spoken a lie about them.

RNK

26th February 2008, 07:12

I agree in that attacking imperialism via an Islamic state is not progressive, but instead erects a yet new barrier for workers to overcome.

It is important to look at the nature of this "Islamic state". For all intents and purposes, Hezbollah appears to be quite progressive -- I'd even say its progressive and secular nature surpasses that of Israel, for whom strict religious adherence is written into its constitution. There is plenty of evidence showing Hezbollah eschewing conservative and particularly radical and fundamentalist islamic viewpoints.

I agree entirely, of course, with the edict that religion is inherently a negative influence -- but when talking about the relative effects of two different things it is important to take into account all factors.

A quick look on the internet is enough to reveal the differences between Hezbollah and your run-of-the-mill militant islamist. Shortly after 9/11 Nasrallah gave this statement:

"What do the people who worked in those two World Trade Center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center) towers, along with thousands of employees, women and men, have to do with war that is taking place in the Middle East? Or the war that Mr. George Bush may wage on people in the Islamic world? ... Therefore we condemned this act -- and any similar act we condemn. ... I said nothing about the Pentagon, meaning we remain very silent. We neither favored nor opposed that act .... Well, of course, the method of Osama bin Laden, and the fashion of bin Laden, we do not endorse them. And many of the operations that they have carried out, we condemned them very clearly."

chimx

26th February 2008, 07:37

Most of the people that died from the Pentagon attacks were civilians on a plane ride. What's to remain silent about... :mad:

Devrim

26th February 2008, 07:41

Anyway, you appear to be confused. SoS said that if Nasrallah had infact made that statement (ie, if the statement was indicative of Hezbollah's stance on the matter), then Hezbollah wouldn't deny it -- they would ratify the statement into policy, which they have not.

I have just reread it. You are right. I misread his point. Apologies, SoS.

Considering that the statements themselves came from a reporter who has since been denounced as untrustworthy by his own media employer...

I am not sure, which employer of a free lance journalist you are referring to here. Generally though I don't put my complete trust in what people's employers say.

I did, however, check details on the events in Arabic too before posting.

Devrim

Guerrilla22

26th February 2008, 07:43

I think we all need to recognize the reason Hezbollah exist in the first place. Hezbollah was formed to counter US/Israeli aggression during the civil war. The organization came about as a self defense mechanism. I personally don't support Hezbollah, nor do I think that their ideology is the least bit progressive, let alone revolutionary. However, as long as Israeli aggression persist, groups like Hezbollah will continue to exist.

The question is, do the Lebanese people have the right to defend themselves? Certainly the Lebanese army isn't willing to do it, so who else will? Thus, we see why Hezbollah remains popular. Instead of criticizing hezbollah we should be criticizing the US and Israel for giving rise to the organization in the first place.

Devrim

26th February 2008, 07:44

For all intents and purposes, Hezbollah appears to be quite progressive
This is ludicrous too. It is amazing how people are trying to turn a nationalist sectarian organisation into a 'progressive' one.

Devrim

Nothing Human Is Alien

26th February 2008, 11:35

What is a "Hizb'allah victory"?Their stated goal is the creation of an 'Islamic state' , similar to what exists in Iran, and the destruction of Israel.

Hizb'allah hasn't been a pan-islamic organization since the 80's as far as I knew.Lenin also mentioned "similar trends." The main point was to look at what class interests Hezb'ollah represents. Is the working class, the mullahs and khans, or others?

Anyway "Nasrallah has greater ambitions than to win more seats in Lebanon's parliament, and he has had the firm backing of Iran and Syria. At once a determined radical and an astute pragmatist, he views Hezbollah both as a Lebanese party committed to assuring the welfare of its constituents and as a vanguard in the pan-Islamic struggle..." Hizballah: Terrorism, National Liberation, or Menace? Sami Hajjar (SSI).

Unconditional support isn't uncritical support.Actually, that's exactly what it is.

Conditional support would be, 'I support them as long as the don't break a rent strike.' Critical support would be, 'I support them in their fight against Israel even though I'm critical of their politics.' Unconditional support is, 'I support them no matter what' hence unconditional (i.e. without condition).

Nothing Human Is Alien

26th February 2008, 11:47

Instead of criticizing hezbollah we should be criticizing the US and Israel for giving rise to the organization in the first place.

Why do we have to stay silent on one or the other? Why can't we criticize both and fight for independent revolutionary action on the part of the working class?

The only consistent position for communists to take during the last conflict was to call for the defeat of Israel's advance, while not giving an ounce of political support to Hezb'ollah or calling for their victory. At the same time, we needed to try to organize workers responsible for the manufacture and transport of weapons to Israel to stop work, strike, hot cargo, etc., all the while fighting for the Lebanese working class to rise up and defeat both the invaders and 'their own' treacherous rulers through socialist revolution.

Each time Hizbullah strikes at imperialist aggresion, it weakens the capitalist world-system as a whole, and brings the day closer when this system can be overthrown.

If they can defeat the U.S.-backed Israeli army, then yeah it weakens U.S. imperialism in some fashion, but how is replacing an imperialist-oppressed secular government with an imperialist-oppressed religious government represent progress for workers (and that's what it would be.. Hezb'ollah has no intention of overturning capitalist property relations and building socialism)? So we're supporting the defeat of one imperialist power so another can gain? Look at Iran (which is what Hezb'ollah aims to emulate)... it's still dominated by imperialists, they're just not from the U.S.

Guerrilla22

26th February 2008, 15:35

Why do we have to stay silent on one or the other? Why can't we criticize both and fight for independent revolutionary action on the part of the working class?

I was simply saying that we have to realize why Hezbollah exist in the first place. You're right, they shouldn't be beyond criticism, however as long as Israeli aggression persist, groups like Hezbollah will persist.

26th February 2008, 17:20

I agree in that attacking imperialism via an Islamic state is not progressive, but instead erects a yet new barrier for workers to overcome.

They are not attacking imperialism; they are attacking Israeli imperialism.

It is important to look at the nature of this "Islamic state". For all intents and purposes, Hezbollah appears to be quite progressive

Progressive =/= anti-capitalist or socialist.

The question is, do the Lebanese people have the right to defend themselves? Certainly the Lebanese army isn't willing to do it, so who else will? Thus, we see why Hezbollah remains popular. Instead of criticizing hezbollah we should be criticizing the US and Israel for giving rise to the organization in the first place.

We should criticize both.

Their stated goal is the creation of an 'Islamic state' , similar to what exists in Iran, and the destruction of Israel.

This was one of their original goals stated in their 1985 manifesto, but has since been more or less abandoned. This is evident by not only the shift in their actions and overall viewpoint, but has even been openly stated by Nasrallah as largely impractical and implausible:

"We believe the requirement for an Islamic state is to have an overwhelming popular desire, and we're not talking about fifty percent plus one, but a large majority. And this is not available in Lebanon and probably never will be."
-Nasrallah

Lenin also mentioned "similar trends." The main point was to look at what class interests Hezb'ollah represents. Is the working class, the mullahs and khans, or others?

Point taken. I missed that part of the quote, but I do agree with what Lenin has said. Hizb'allah does not represent the interests of the working class in general. In some instances they do while in others they do not; their social programs and resistance to Israeli imperialism are in the interests of the workers, but it's important to remember that this organization is led by petit-bourgeois religious leaders whose interests are in conflict not only with Israeli imperialism, but also Lebanese workers' power and bourgeois domination.

The crucial question then is how to view such an organization. I support Hizb'allah's struggle against Israeli imperialism for the Lebanese people, their social programs for the reason that they are incredibly beneficial to the working class and other oppressed peoples, and the numerous other services they offer to the Lebanese people.

What I don't support is the "buying off" of the Lebanese people with these social programs in order to gain support for a petit-bourgeois political party whose interests aren't that of the Lebanese working class. Nor do I support their ties to other radical petit-bourgeois and bourgeois religious groups, governments and organizations.

The predicament is that one cannot simply reject an organization as Hizb'allah, as it has massive support among the Lebanese people (particularly the Shi'i community), and doing so would marginalize oneself to the point of being completely ineffective. The other side, though, is that supporting such an organization could lead to the support of an organization which will turn on those working and oppressed people that originally supported it. So my position on Hizb'allah is somewhat on the fence in that sense.

Anyway "Nasrallah has greater ambitions than to win more seats in Lebanon's parliament, and he has had the firm backing of Iran and Syria. At once a determined radical and an astute pragmatist, he views Hezbollah both as a Lebanese party committed to assuring the welfare of its constituents and as a vanguard in the pan-Islamic struggle..." Hizballah: Terrorism, National Liberation, or Menace? Sami Hajjar (SSI).

This is merely the opinion of an author. However, I think a reasonable compromise that we can come to (and the only one we ever will) is that Hizb'allah is no longer an openly pan-Islamic organization.

By the way, have you ever read Augustus Norton's book Hezbollah? It's probably the most indepth book written on the organization, and I would consider him to be one of the most authoritative authors on the subject.