Demonising Hizbullah is a blunder

[Violet_Crumble]

Matthias S Klein
guardian.co.uk
Friday July 25 2008

Britain's attempt to crack down on the military wing of Hizbullah is likely to strengthen the Lebanese Shia organisation

Last week, Israel and Hizbullah completed the first step of their latest "body exchange" - in return for the two Israeli soldiers captured by the Lebanese Shi'ite Islamist group two years ago, Israel released four HA fighters and a Druze Lebanese terrorist who'd been imprisoned for almost 30 years.

This was widely portrayed as a great day for Hizbullah, and its media-savvy secretary-general, Hassan Nasrallah, as it proved – yet again – that the "party of God" keeps the promises it makes and continues to be the only Arab force that can deal with Israel on an equal footing.

By pure coincidence, just the day before the swap the British parliament voted to induct Hizbullah's military arm into the UK list of terrorist organisations. The official reason for this was given as follows:

"Hizbullah's military wing is providing active support to militants in Iraq who are responsible for attacks both on coalition forces and on Iraqi civilians, including providing training in the use of deadly roadside bombs. <…> Hizbullah's military wing also provides support to Palestinian terrorist groups in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad."

Allegedly, this decision has no effect Hizbullah's charitable and social programmes or NGOs working with it to raise funds in the UK. In reality, though, it is next to impossible for Hizbullah's social welfare branch (which provides medical or social services in southern Lebanon and Beirut's southern suburbs) to prove that none of its funds are used to buy weapons. Book-keeping is often basic, to say the least, and a post-9/11, post-7/7 environment of suspicion against anything "Islamic" has already led to a general sense of distrust. Who is going to believe a Hizbullah accountant?

However, the more important effect of this decision by parliament is not in the UK, but in Lebanon and the wider Middle East. In short, it helps Hizbullah. For an organisation that builds its reputation, its attraction, its brand on the symbol of "resistance" – to Israel, to the west, to local allies of the west – being vilified by western governments, and especially by those who have troops on the ground in the region, is a badge of honour – something it can market as a sign that it's on the right path.

When the plan to designate Hizbullah's military arm as a terrorist organisation was initially announced by the British government, Nasrallah immediately seized the opportunity to use it in a speech the following day, calling it "an honour and a medal for us" and immediately linking it to the long struggle for Palestine against Zionist occupation by reminding his audience that the UK is "one of the founders of the Zionist entity … and the permanent sponsor of the Zionist enemy".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/25/lebanon.middleeast

[bemildred]

1. Keeping their streak alive ... nt

[LeftishBrit]

2. But what can one do about it?

Should Western governments support Hizbullah (a nasty bunch by all accounts), in the hope that this will make Hizbullah more unpopular in the region?! I suppose it could have that effect - but then again it might not.

Perhaps the real moral is that as long as we are messing things up in Iraq, we're less likely to have a positive influence in the Middle East on other issues - so we shouid get out of there as soon as possible.

[bemildred]

3. One is required neither to demonize them nor to support them.

Like the state of Israel, like any established political entity, they are there, they must be dealt with pragmatically. One does not control political situations by ignoring the parts you don't like.

[LeftishBrit]

4. Actually I agree - as I did about the IRA, etc,

I always say, "Not talking to/ about X doesn't make X not exist."

However, I get the feeling from the article that the idea is not just that one needs to recognize that they're *there*, even if one doesn't like them, but that too much criticism from the West may lead to an increase in their local support. While I think that's possible, I don't think one can refrain from criticism on those grounds. One cannot predict such things - and I think that what Middle Eastern groups support is not mainly based on what the West thinks, positively or negatively. The article makes Middle Easterners sound rather like rebellious teenagers who like certain clothes and activities just because their parents disapprove of them - and I really give Arabs and others in the Middle East credit for more maturity than that!

[bemildred]

5. The OP suggests as you say.

You raised the question of whether one is then to "support" them. I am pointing out that one need not do either. One can criticize without demonizing too, it is all a matter of attitude and choice of language.

On the other question, Hezbollah is "there" BECAUSE it has popular support, and that popular support is "there" because of the perception that they have had some successes as suggested. In what degree that credit is deserved is another question. The support is a political fact that one ignores at ones peril, and denies at the cost of committing propaganda blunders, as the OP points out. You may believe you are the good guys, but it is naive to expect everyone else to share your opinion.

As a matter or strategy, it is essential to be clinical in ones judgement of ones own faults and the strengths of ones opponents. That is the great weakness of regimes that become too reliant on "information control" as a mechanism of rule. They become disconnected from reality and commit blunders, and are unable to make corrections based on changed facts.