Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

StWC bans HOPI

What Nigel has said and what UD said in reply says it all about the SWP.

I know several people who have been to Palestine and of course Hamas are sexist. What you're doing UD is exactly the same mistakes as the left who tailed the Islamists in Iran.

less women wear Hijabs over there than here

Any figures for that?

They're not a sexist organisation in any other manner than that they believe in the teachings of the Qu'ran.

Sorry have got something wrong here, aren't the teachings of the Qu'ran (like all religious teachings) sexist?

Of course they would. Apart from the fact that they support capitalism. But I suppose that's a detail.

:D
 
If you think that less women wear the Hijab as a proportion of the Muslim population in the UK with relation to in the Palestinean territories, then that just goes to show how little you know about the reality of the cultural, political and social situation that the Islamic community now finds itself in internationally - and how ill-equppied with this essential cultural knowledge you are to express any sound opinions upon how the left should deal with a new generation of radicalised and politicised Muslims.

Not all religion is innately sexist - I would point you towards Buddhism or forms of spiritual deity worship (Wiccanism, many tribalist religions, etcetera) as examples. However it cannot be denied that the three Abrahamic religions are definitely sexist as sexist gets; so by virtue of being Muslims, you are saying it is impossible for anyone of the left to work with them or support them?

Thankyou for responding entirely in the stupid way I anticipated you would guys.
 
fanciful said:
Of course they would. Apart from the fact that they support capitalism. But I suppose that's a detail.

And you willingly display to me and the whole entire world how little you understand about capitalism! This is a genuine bollocks-up-bonanza here fellas! What do you understand about 'capitalism' exactly? Do you understand of capitalism an economic system - perhaps - where 'Capital' and its movement or interests is the dominant political power? If so - then I think you'll find that the form of Islamic/religious policies designed by movements like Hamas are not 'pro-capitalist'. They'd fall more easily into the category of Jacobite or feudal - though those wouldn't be correct interpretations either. They believe in the creation of a society in which Islamic values and the power of the mosque come first before anything else - that ain't capitalist 'jo.
 
fanciful said:
Of course they would. Apart from the fact that they support capitalism. But I suppose that's a detail.
Let’s be honest so did most of the movement in reality
 
Nigel Irritable said:
The speakers included a supporter of Hezbollah, a representative of the Sadr movement and, by radio link, a spokesperson for Hezbollah's television station.

Their radio station was responsible for creating the myth that Jews in the World Trade Centre did not go to work on the day of the 9/11 attacks.

Nice company to keep.......
 
You can catch up with the latest analysis of the Lebanon and Iran at this meeting:

The US War Drive in the Middle East

Meeting with:
Gilbert Achcar
co-author (with Noam Chomsky) of Perilous Power
Shadi Georges
Lebanese Communist Party

Tuesday 16 October, 7.30pm
Indian YMCA, Fitzroy Square, W1 (Warren St tube)

Will the US attack Iran?
Is the US losing the war in Iraq?
What is the current situation in Lebanon?

www.socialistresistance.net
PO Box 1109,London, N4 2UU
 
Das Uberdog said:
And what good would have come of it if there were?

Political clarity would be a start.

The SWP have insisted, over and over again, that anyone pushing for the IAWM to make socialist or class based arguments against the war is being divisive and seeking to narrow the movement. For some reason however, they don't seem to think that the IAWM associating itself with Hamas, al-Sadr, or Hezbollah is at all divisive or likely to narrow the movement. Socialists standing up, one after the other, to present all of these movements in an entirely positive light is madness.

Das Uberdog said:
In all honesty, you have to support Hezbollah if you claim to have any serious grip upon the politics of Lebanon. Everyone there supports Hezbollah.

In the last elections in Lebanon, Hezbollah won 14 seats. Out of 128. Who exactly is this "everyone" you speak of?

[Snip glowing description of the politics of a cross-class, pro-capitalist, sexist, homophobic, religious sectarian party. Jesus fucking Christ, why bother with the SWP, you should set up a British branch of Hezbollah.]
 
Das Uberdog said:
In all honesty, you have to support Hezbollah if you claim to have any serious grip upon the politics of Lebanon. Everyone there supports Hezbollah.

So following this logic as the Labour party is the most supported party in this country we should all ....
 
Nigel Irritable said:
Political clarity would be a start.




In the last elections in Lebanon, Hezbollah won 14 seats. Out of 128. Who exactly is this "everyone" you speak of?

[Snip glowing description of the politics of a cross-class, pro-capitalist, sexist, homophobic, religious sectarian party. Jesus fucking Christ, why bother with the SWP, you should set up a British branch of Hezbollah.]

I think they do enjoy majority support from all sections of the population on some issues, for example their anti imperialist and social welfare work (which is not limited to shia or even muslims) is widely respected even by their political opponents (to the extent where christians send their kids to hezbollah schools). That doesnt mean theyd win elections, cos you can support a group on some things but still vote for someone else.

There is a tendency to confuse (sometimes intentionally, sometimes not) hezbollah when it was set up with what it is now. It has changed massively since it was founded, and is moving in an increasingly non sectarian direction, hence the use of lebanese national flags on hezbollah organised anti government demonstrations. Thats not to say theyre socialists, theyre not, but theyr not the baby eaters they once were. To be honest Id go with what the lebanese left organisations say, which is by and large I understand positive towards hezbollahs development.

The Sadrist movement on the other hand I think people should be even more careful about, given that half the people calling themselves sadrists in Iraq, dont even answer to Sadr and are possibly little more then street gangs since the Jaish Al Mahdi started falling apart, which is why Sadr has called a ceasefire for it to reorganise it.
 
Fourth International member, Gilbert Achcar, who knows more about the situation in Lebanon than either side of the superficial analyses of NI or D_U, has a more refined viewpoint informed by a Marxist analysis, about the role of Hezbollah - both a key element of the resistance to Israel but fundamentally a sectarian organisation:

Lebanon and the Middle East Crisis
by Gilbert Achcar and Paul D'Amato; International Socialist Review; March 01, 2007

D'Amato
TO WHAT extent has Hezbollah attempted to act against, or overcome sectarian divisions -- or at least project itself as part of a broad opposition? It seems like Hezbollah at least in some respects tries to present itself as part of a broader political opposition. Would you say that there's an element of that, but that it isn't going to succeed because the sectarian logic is too deep?


Achcar
YES, DEFINITELY. There is an element of that. Hezbollah is keen on not appearing as a purely sectarian force, and trying to enlarge its alliances. That's why they are quite happy to have the alliance with Aoun, who is a major force among Christians; and they try to cozy up to some Sunni forces, including Lebanese Sunni Islamic fundamentalists, and to whatever kind of allies they can find in communities other than the Shiite community. But basically, they are a Shiite organization. In order to be a member of Hezbollah, you have to be a Shiite. It is by nature not only a religious organization, but a sectarian one. It has built itself in the Shiite community and never bothered in any serious manner to build itself outside it. Its set of priorities is, first, unity among the Shiites -- hence, their alliance with Amal, the other major Shiite organization. Then they are keen on avoiding clashes with other Muslims -- the Sunnis -- because it is neither in their interest, nor in Iran's interest. Hence their conciliatory stances. Inciting sectarianism, actually, is only in the interests of the Saudi, Egyptian, and Jordanian regimes, and of Washington behind them, because that's the only effective ideological tool they've got. And for the reasons mentioned, Hezbollah -- although it tries to prevent the situation from deteriorating into sectarianism -- is, by its very nature, an easy target for those wanting to whip up sectarianism.

http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=12246&sectionID=1
 
If you think that less women wear the Hijab as a proportion of the Muslim population in the UK with relation to in the Palestinean territories, then that just goes to show how little you know about the reality of the cultural, political and social situation that the Islamic community now finds itself in internationally - and how ill-equppied with this essential cultural knowledge you are to express any sound opinions upon how the left should deal with a new generation of radicalised and politicised Muslims.

Not all religion is innately sexist - I would point you towards Buddhism or forms of spiritual deity worship (Wiccanism, many tribalist religions, etcetera) as examples. However it cannot be denied that the three Abrahamic religions are definitely sexist as sexist gets; so by virtue of being Muslims, you are saying it is impossible for anyone of the left to work with them or support them?

Thankyou for responding entirely in the stupid way I anticipated you would guys.

Wow you're in your usual lovely mood :D

In terms of your first paragraph have you actually been to Palestine as many people I know have. And again I'd ask, have you got any statistics? Because you can't just generalise about the hijab in Palestine. In the West Bank not many women wear it, but it's fairly common in Gaza. So have you got any stats or are you just making this all up off the top of your head?

I'd probably wage a fair amount that I have more links to people in the muslim community in the UK (through friends) then you do as well. But really that's besides the point, as you're obviously trying to sound off like you're the oracle of all things Islam when clearly you're not. Why don't you be really right on like your fellow SWP member on here and start calling white people "gora".

Do you really think that Buddhism isn't sexist at all? Do you have much knowledge of Buddhism?

The tradition of the ordained monastic community (sangha) began with Buddha, who established orders of Bhikkhu (monks) and later, after an initial reluctance, of Bhikkuni (nuns). The stories, sayings and deeds of some of the distinguished Bhikkhuni of early Buddhism are recorded in many places in the Pali Canon, most notably in the Therigatha. However, not only did the Buddha lay down more rules of discipline for the bhikkhuni (311 compared to the bhikkhu's 227), he also made it more difficult for them to be ordained.

However it cannot be denied that the three Abrahamic religions are definitely sexist as sexist gets; so by virtue of being Muslims, you are saying it is impossible for anyone of the left to work with them or support them?

And where did I say this in any shape or form? Don't be pathetic, this is just as bad as when the SWP called people Islamophobic for criticising RESPECT for non-class based alliances (but now of course uses exactly this argument themselves). My point is that you said that as an organisation they're not sexist other than following the teachings of the Koran. My point is as those teachings are sexist don't you think it's a bit of a ridiculous statement?
 
And you willingly display to me and the whole entire world how little you understand about capitalism! This is a genuine bollocks-up-bonanza here fellas! What do you understand about 'capitalism' exactly? Do you understand of capitalism an economic system - perhaps - where 'Capital' and its movement or interests is the dominant political power? If so - then I think you'll find that the form of Islamic/religious policies designed by movements like Hamas are not 'pro-capitalist'. They'd fall more easily into the category of Jacobite or feudal - though those wouldn't be correct interpretations either. They believe in the creation of a society in which Islamic values and the power of the mosque come first before anything else - that ain't capitalist 'jo.

What are you blathering on about? The point is that such an organisation, if it took power, would still support capitalism. Like after the Iranian revolution.
 
cockneyrebel said:
Wow you're in your usual lovely mood :D

In terms of your first paragraph have you actually been to Palestine as many people I know have. And again I'd ask, have you got any statistics? Because you can't just generalise about the hijab in Palestine. In the West Bank not many women wear it, but it's fairly common in Gaza. So have you got any stats or are you just making this all up off the top of your head?

Welledy now, looks like we both have exactly the same direct experience with Palestine as eachother. I know - off the top of my head, 16 people who've been to Palestine in the last three years, including Michael Lavalette who's written a pamphlet on the bloody place. And as previously mentioned, two of those are Lebanese Christians from my college from whom I've recieved a wealth of firsthand knowledge and information about the situation. As mentioned, both are staunch supporters of Hizbollah (as you have to be in Lebanon if you're actually serious about resisting Israeli terror). Knowing that less people wear hiabs in the Lebanon as a proportion of the population to over here isn't something you need statistics for, it's as common knowledge as saying old guys wear more flat caps.

I'd probably wage a fair amount that I have more links to people in the muslim community in the UK (through friends) then you do as well. But really that's besides the point, as you're obviously trying to sound off like you're the oracle of all things Islam when clearly you're not.

You're right when you say what you're talking about is besides the point, but not about anything else. I not only guarantee I have more direct "links" to members of the muslim community than you (not through "friends" - whatever that means?) I would stake my life on it. And as far as my trying to 'sound off' as some kind of oracle, I have not a clue what you're talking about. Seriously man, you're too nice a guy to do aggro and get away with it. Stick to peacekeeping.

And where did I say this in any shape or form? Don't be pathetic, this is just as bad as when the SWP called people Islamophobic for criticising RESPECT for non-class based alliances (but now of course uses exactly this argument themselves). My point is that you said that as an organisation they're not sexist other than following the teachings of the Koran. My point is as those teachings are sexist don't you think it's a bit of a ridiculous statement?

Let me take you through our discussion as you obviously had difficulty comprehending it first time round...

Niggling Irascible said:
*sarcastically*Another assured us that, when part of a delegation to southern Lebanon, she had seen no evidence of sexism apart from segregated seating and explained at some length that Hezbollah were not homophobic or at least were no more homophobic than any religious Muslim or Christian.

Note for Cocker: the sarcastic (or dismissive) tone in this extract would suggest to most English speakers that Hezbollah are an intrinsically sexist, more so than many other religious organisations which socialists work with every day. It was not just the tone, but also the general message in Nigey's post that Hezbollah are an organisation which the left can't work with which leads us to assume thus

D-Dawg said:
They're not a sexist organisation in any other manner than that they believe in the teachings of the Qu'ran.

Cocker: Here I counter by simply saying their philosophy is no more intrinsically racist than the fact that they are muslims

Cocker said:
Sorry have got something wrong here, aren't the teachings of the Qu'ran (like all religious teachings) sexist?

No Cocker, you are quite right.

D-DAWG! said:
...it cannot be denied that the three Abrahamic religions are definitely sexist as sexist gets; so by virtue of being Muslims, you are saying it is impossible for anyone of the left to work with them or support them?

...this is merely the extended logic of your previous statement...

So as you can see, in the context upon which you criticised my statement (originally a response to Nigey-boy) you were implicitly agreeing with his original tenet that Hizbollah was an organisation which we could not work with - part of the reason for that being its 'inherant sexism'. Therefore you do not have to actually state that you believe you can't work with Muslims for people to conclude you believe as a result of your "logical" position; I knew you did not believe this, which is why I posed my final post as a R-H-E-T-O-R-I-C-A-L Q-U-E-S-T-I-O-N.

Cocker-doodle said:
What are you blathering on about? The point is that such an organisation, if it took power, would still support capitalism. Like after the Iranian revolution.

Hezbollah are a revolutionary organisation - I think it's hard to imagine both a position from which they might take power and indeed what they might do with it at this stage.
 
Udo Erasmus said:
In my locale, the local CPGB member has never done a single StWC stall, flypostering or any activist things.

The only time they turn up is at StWC meetings where their are resolutions to be passed.

They have no interest in activism or building a movement they are a profoundly sectarian organisation

All true, but it is also a pretty accurate description of the SWP's relationship to CND in the early 1980s; but CND still allowed the SWP to affiliate.

When building a mass single issue movement you have to accept some nutters will want to participate. But if you are to keep the focus on the single issue, you have to accept that you can't operate exclusion. Back in the 1960s the US movement against the Vietnam War had all kinds of wacky groups offering a distinctive way forward. One had a strategy based on surrounding the Pentagon with a mass anti-war demonstration, and then using the power of thought to levitate it into space, thus stopping the war. They were politely allowed to put forward their position and then the movement moved on to next business.

Read 'Out Now' by Fred Halstead, if you want to get a flavour for how to build an open movement.
http://www.pathfinderpress.com/s.nl/it.A/id.819/.f?category=112

However I do disagree with the kid gloves approach within Respect. The CPGB refuse to support Respect candidates in elections, and since Respect is primarily an electoral body, they should be chucked out.
 
Obviously it's not ideal to be working with a religious organisation as Marxists - still less when they are the most influential aspect of the movement. They're not perfect and his criticisms are not incorrect - but from that point, what do you do? Do you work with them and involve yourself in the popular movement, ignore them and focus upon an increasingly dead 'class based struggle' (dead more than anything else because the economies of the Palestinean countries are more than ever dependant upon aid and there's barely a 'working class' to speak of with any kind of industrial clout, rather than through lack of will on behalf of the people) or do you work against them and marginalise yourself from the wider community of people who rely upon Hezbollah's social programs to get through the week with food and shelter?
 
Going back to the original point here, I agree that while the CPGB/CS and HOPI can be annoying, sectarian and counter productive, banning them from StWC is obviously NOT the way forward!

It should be fairly easy to win the debate democratically with clear arguments. The last StWC 'Peoples Assembly' passed this following position statement on Iran:

"Opposition to an attack on Iran does not imply support for its regime. On the contrary we are in sympathy with all democrats, trades unionists, women and others fighting for an extension of their rights within Iran. However, the internal affairs of Iran is the responsibility of its own people alone, and the nature of the present system, which is certainly no less democratic than many pro-western regimes in the middle east cannot in any sense be a justification for war"

Section 3: Declaration on don't attack Iran.
Peoples assembly. Stop the War Coalition Declaration. March 2007.

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/_Current/documents/PADeclarations.pdf

Yet by banning HOPI, the StWC officers will now give propaganda ammunition to the pro-war right wing who will wish to claim that all opponents of an attack on Iran are mere stooges of its regime.

However, it obviously strengthens the anti-war case in the US and UK if we can point to the democratic and socialist movements in Iran which can promote 'regime change from below'. It also helps if we can show a history of solidarity with them.

Now the disaster in neighbouring Iraq is clear for all to see, no one can credibly claim that imperialist 'regime change from above' can bring democracy.

I have taken part in StWC for many years, but now this banning makes the coalition feel even more like the private property of a few control freaks. This is sad, as it has been a genuine mass movement and broad coalition.
 
now, looks like we both have exactly the same direct experience with Palestine as eachother. I know - off the top of my head, 16 people who've been to Palestine in the last three years, including Michael Lavalette who's written a pamphlet on the bloody place. And as previously mentioned, two of those are Lebanese Christians from my college from whom I've recieved a wealth of firsthand knowledge and information about the situation. As mentioned, both are staunch supporters of Hezbollah (as you have to be in Lebanon if you're actually serious about resisting Israeli terror). Knowing that less people wear hiabs in the Lebanon as a proportion of the population to over here isn't something you need statistics for, it's as common knowledge as saying old guys wear more flat caps.

Well good for you but as said I know many people who have gone to Palestine including people in the same political organisation as me, my partner and friends and they all say there is a big difference between Gaza and the West Bank in terms of how many people wear the hijab. So I’ll ask again, do you have any stats saying that more people where the hijab in the UK than in Palestine. I haven’t got a clue myself (given that I’m not sure how the averages between Gaza and the West Bank would tot up and given that many (most?) muslim women in the UK don’t wear the hijab). So have you just plucked that stat out of the air or do you have any facts? And remember I was responding to your point about Palestine, not Lebanon as you said: “the prevailing religious culture in Lebanon and tbh the whole of Palestine is surprisingly liberal - less women wear Hijabs over there than here

You're right when you say what you're talking about is besides the point, but not about anything else. I not only guarantee I have more direct "links" to members of the muslim community than you (not through "friends" - whatever that means?) I would stake my life on it. And as far as my trying to 'sound off' as some kind of oracle, I have not a clue what you're talking about. Seriously man, you're too nice a guy to do aggro and get away with it. Stick to peacekeeping.

Sorry I forgot you were the hardman (remember we have seen pictures of you on here ;) ). As for you having more links to the muslim community than anyone else in the history of the world, maybe. But in all seriousness you know nothing about my personal life and very little about my political work but I’m not gonna get into some pathetic game of “I know more muslims than you”. The point I’m making is that you shouldn’t come across as some know it all about all things islam.

Also I wasn’t responding to your spat with Nigel but what you said I couldn’t care what NI was saying in this context, but even so I doubt very much that he would say that socialists can’t work with Hizbollah I thought he was suggesting you shouldn’t’ do it in an uncritical way.

But you seem to want to brush over any criticisms.

And I definitely have no problem with the “critical support” tactics in terms of Hizbollah and wasn’t “implicitly agreeing with” anything that you suggest.
Also care to teach me anymore about how un-sexist Buddhism is?

Hezbollah are a revolutionary organisation - I think it's hard to imagine both a position from which they might take power and indeed what they might do with it at this stage.

What and Iran didn’t have a revolution and didn’t keep supporting capitalism? Do you really think that if Hezbollah took power they wouldn’t keep supporting capitalism?
 
Das Uberdog said:
a society in which Islamic values and the power of the mosque come first before anything else - that ain't capitalist 'jo.
That'd be mosque-controlled/run capitalism - in the same wa the USSR was state-controlled/run capitalism.
 
Nigel Irritable said:
In the last elections in Lebanon, Hezbollah won 14 seats. Out of 128. Who exactly is this "everyone" you speak of?

Sorry, you're showing your ignorance: Under Lebanese "democracy" despite being only quarter of the population, Christians are guaranteed half the seats.
If there were genuine elections Hezbollah would be in government. If there were genuine elections, Nasrallah would be president - only Nasrallah can't be president, under the constitution no muslim can be president despite muslims being a majority in the country!

Opinion polls also showed a surge of support for Hezbollah last summer with there quarters of the population backing their military resistance to the Israeli Defence Force. Hezbollah were the only force that stood between Beirut and Tel Aviv, they were the Vietcong of the Middle East - doesn't mean we should support them uncritically or give a national liberation movement "communist colouring"

Out of interest, many Palestinian leftists I know are sympathetic towards Hezbollah but can't stand Hamas.

Das Uberdog, you should try and get a CD of a talk by Simon Assaf, a Lebanese member of the SWP at Marxism 2007. He quite clearly demolishes myths and prejudices about Hezbollah but at the same time he shows up the contradictions of the organisation. For example, sectarianism has come back with a vengeance in Lebanon: why? Because their was a general strike that had the potential to bring down the government and Lebanese political system. At the last moment Hezbollah called off the strike: why? Because it would have embarrassed their middle class allies in Aoun's Christian Patriotic Alliance - this is the politics of class collaboration.
 
Das Uberdog said:
Hezbollah [SNIP] I think it's hard to imagine both a position from which they might take power and indeed what they might do with it at this stage.
Oh, I think I could probably make an educated guess what would happen afterwards ... :rolleyes:
 
Das Uberdog, you should try and get a CD of a talk by Simon Assaf, a Lebanese member of the SWP at Marxism 2007. He quite clearly demolishes myths and prejudices about Hezbollah but at the same time he shows up the contradictions of the organisation. For example, sectarianism has come back with a vengeance in Lebanon: why? Because their was a general strike that had the potential to bring down the government and Lebanese political system. At the last moment Hezbollah called off the strike: why? Because it would have embarrassed their middle class allies in Aoun's Christian Patriotic Alliance - this is the politics of class collaboration.

This is far better than DUs rantings.

Interesting point about Lebanons political system. Do you think they'd get over 50% of the vote then if put to the general population?
 
cockneed-revel said:
Sorry I forgot you were the hardman (remember we have seen pictures of you on here ;) ).

:confused:

You've seen a video of me at a demo that I know of - and someone mistook me (most likely 'willingly') for a girl on another photo - other than that I'm not aware of the population of Urban being exposed to any internet archive of my photos - unless you've been doing some personal reseach?

tbh I've never attempted to give the impression of the 'hard-man' either, more the 'bloody-minded lambaster of the bloody-minded lambasters of my organisation'.

cocky said:
I’m not gonna get into some pathetic game of “I know more muslims than you”.

That's fine so long as you recognise you sort of initiated the whole waste of time by meaninglessly boasting of your links, "through friends" (still don't know what that means?) to the Muslim community as though it was something that meant anything. I was simply taking the "debate" to your turf.

croquette said:
But you seem to want to brush over any criticisms.

And I definitely have no problem with the “critical support” tactics in terms of Hizbollah and wasn’t “implicitly agreeing with” anything that you suggest.

I've not once tried to display an uncritical level of support for Hezbollah - this is something which you've obviously (and incorrectly) assumed because I had the tenacity to try and defend them (saying nothing more, really, than they're not as bad as you're making out and that they actually do alot of progressive things).

As far as Assaf goes, I'm quite aware of this and I quite agree - I'm being tarred with the brush of Islamophile here when all I've actually done is try to bring some sanity to the proceedings - albeit in my own unique and charming way :cool: .
 
Udo Erasmus said:
Sorry, you're showing your ignorance: Under Lebanese "democracy" despite being only quarter of the population, Christians are guaranteed half the seats.
If there were genuine elections Hezbollah would be in government. If there were genuine elections, Nasrallah would be president

Actually Udo I'm quite familiar with the Lebanese electoral system, and the injustices it produces. You on the other hand seem to be deluded on a number of points.

Nobody knows what the religious demographics of Lebanon are precisely. There hasn't been a census in over six decades because the issue is so sensitive. It is generally accepted that Muslims are a majority with something between 60% and 65% of the population and Christians with something between 35% and 40%. The Muslim population is further divided however, with Sunnis and Shi'as making up a little less than half each and quite substantial Druze and Alawite minorities making up the rest.

There are 128 seats in the Lebanese parliament. 64 of those seats are reserved for Muslims. 27 of them are for Shi'ites. Hezbollah hold 14 seats.

It is quite possible that the Shi'ites are the largest single sect in Lebanon, but if so it isn't by much. Hezbollah is a confessional party and has shown no ability to draw significant numbers of votes from outside the Shi'a community. Even within that community it is not dominant in the way you suggest. The other main Shi'a party, Amal, has just as many seats and small but significant numbers of Shi'ites vote for parties other than the big two.

If there was a standard capitalist democracy in Lebanon it is very likely that Hezbollah would have more than their current 14 seats. It is very unlikely however that they would have all that many more. They are a sectional party supported by a minority of the electorate.
 
Gotta admit the names changes you've made of cockneyrebel are making me laugh :)

You might want to try going from croquette to coquetish ;) (only found out what that meant when someone I was having a brief liaison with described herself as coquetish and didn't have a clue what she was talking about).

But the name changes remind me of when they have the line up in Never Mind the Buzzcocks.....

You've seen a video of me at a demo that I know of - and someone mistook me (most likely 'willingly') for a girl on another photo - other than that I'm not aware of the population of Urban being exposed to any internet archive of my photos - unless you've been doing some personal reseach?

tbh I've never attempted to give the impression of the 'hard-man' either, more the 'bloody-minded lambaster of the bloody-minded lambasters of my organisation'.

No I'm not stalking you, was just talking about that video. But be fair you might still 'ard. Those kung fu monk types don't look that 'ard but when they head butt bits of slate you realise they are. And ok if you're just saying you're a "'bloody-minded lambaster of the bloody-minded lambasters of my organisation" then fair enough ;) :D

That's fine so long as you recognise you sort of initiated the whole waste of time by meaninglessly boasting of your links, "through friends" (still don't know what that means?) to the Muslim community as though it was something that meant anything. I was simply taking the "debate" to your turf.

I wasn't boasting about anything (it's hardly a good or bad thing whether you know muslims, christians, buddhists or satan worshippers). I was responding to you saying: "that just goes to show how little you know about the reality of the cultural, political and social situation that the Islamic community now finds itself in internationally - and how ill-equppied with this essential cultural knowledge you are to express any sound opinions upon how the left should deal with a new generation of radicalised and politicised Muslims." By which I thought you were suggesting I had no idea about muslims or their culture, and I was just saying that I do have some idea. As for friends, if you have friends who are from a religion of whatever kind then there is a fair chance you will have learnt something from them about their religion. But as said, I was also talking about political and trade union links as well. Have to say though I've learnt more from people on a personal level.

I've not once tried to display an uncritical level of support for Hezbollah - this is something which you've obviously (and incorrectly) assumed because I had the tenacity to try and defend them (saying nothing more, really, than they're not as bad as you're making out and that they actually do alot of progressive things).

But you could of done it in the far more balanced way that Udo or FG have. Instead it does sound like you're being uncritical and lavishing Hezbollah with uncritical praise. And given how the SWP has been on this question recently it comes across even more like that. I have to say that the meeting NI describes sounds terrible.
 
Nigel Irritable said:
They are a sectional party supported by a minority of the electorate.

Sorry Nigel but that simply isnt true. Not only does support for Hezbollah (albeit existing in many different forms) stretch way beyond the shiite muslim community, Hezbollah have time and again attempted to emphasise their cross sect credentials:

-providing welfare services for all lebanese regardless of religion
-opening up sections of the armed wing for non muslim or shiite recruits
-lebanese rather then hezbollah flags on demonstrations theyve organised.
 
I think, in response to Grogwilton and Nigel, the reality is contradictory: Hezbollah both reach outside of their confesional base but at the same time their politics makes it difficult for them to build strong roots among other communities. For example, they have effectively dropped their demand for an Islamic state, in the areas they control you will see women without hijab etc.

Hezbollah as an islamic party obviously has a limited appeal. But at the same time they do things that reach out of their standard constituency - for example massive welfare programmes which reach beyond the Shia community, for example in the 90s, Hezbollah helped maronite christians rebuild their homes, many christians and sunni attend the medical clinics founded by Hezbollah. Hezbollah became massively popular because after the Israeli war on Lebanon because they provided aid and rebuilt communities before the Lebanese state did (with money from their Iranian backers). They have also increasingly moved towards a more nationalist politics, for example when the war on terror began, Nasrallah described it not in religious terms but as "a war between rich and poor, between oppressor and oppressed".
It is also important to note that they are fundamentally different from the Taliban or Al Quaeda, as Simon Assaf describes it:

"Hizbollah has a network of shop stewards, environmental activists and they even sit on the Aids awarness committee run by Gay rights group. No-one thinks twice about this... but then sex and sexuallity are viewed differently here (that's why western gays historically sought refuge in the Middle East)."

Simon Assaf described his surprise when meeting some friends with a book on "sexual health for gay couples", he asked where they got it from? His friends said, "The Hezbollah Bookfair". This doesn't mean that I am saying that Hezbollah are fighters for gay rights just that the reality is more complex than people in the West think. See: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/opinion/2005-2392.html

This is what I mean by challenging prejudices and myths about Hezbollah. I have heard crude stereotypes about this organisation from both Socalist party and AWL activists.

Thoussands of people would have died during the war if it wasn't for the massive solidarity movement that Hezbollah were a force in that oversaw an evacuation of people from South Lebanon to North Lebanon - this gives you credibility.

What is interesting is that the main party Hezbollah bloc with in Lebanese politics is the Christian Patriotic Alliance.

Another thing to challenge is the idea that Hezbollah deliberately targeted Israeli civilians - while they certainly did kill Israeli civilians, evidence from a British journalist based in Nazareth paints a more complex picture.

While Hezbollah certainly killed Israeli civillians there is substantial evidence that their targets were military.

Ironically, while Hezbollah were accused of being based in civillian areas. The Israeli military actually locates many of it's military bases in civilian areas including next to hospitals!

I refer to an article by Jonathan Cook, a journalist who once lived in Cardiff but is now based in Nazareth, Israel:

Jonathan Cook said:
As a first-hand observer of the fighting from Israel’s side of the border last year, I noted on several occasions that Israel had built many of its permanent military installations, including weapons factories and army camps, and set up temporary artillery positions next to -- and in some cases inside -- civilian communities in the north of Israel.

Many of those communities are Arab: Arab citizens constitute about half of the Galilee’s population. Locating military bases next to these communities was a particularly reckless act by the army as Arab towns and villages lack the public shelters and air raid warning systems available in Jewish communities. Eighteen of the 43 Israeli civilians killed were Arab -- a proportion that surprised many Israeli Jews, who assumed that Hizbullah would not want to target Arab communities.

In many cases it is still not possible to specify where Hizbullah rockets landed because Israel’s military censor prevents any discussion that might identify the location of a military site. During the war Israel used this to advantageous effect: for example, it was widely reported that a Hizbullah rocket fell close to a hospital but reporters failed to mention that a large army camp was next to it. An actual strike against the camp could have been described in the very same terms.

It seems likely that Hizbullah, which had flown pilotless spy drones over Israel earlier in the year, similar to Israel’s own aerial spying missions, knew where many of these military bases were. The question is, was Hizbullah trying to hit them or -- as most observers claimed, following Israel’s lead -- was it actually more interested in killing civilians.

A full answer may never be possible, as we cannot know Hizbullah’s intentions -- as opposed to the consequences of its actions -- any more than we can discern Israel’s during the war.

Human Rights Watch, however, has argued that, because Hizbullah’s basic rockets were not precise, every time they were fired into Israel they were effectively targeted at civilians. Hizbullah was therefore guilty of war crimes in using its rockets, whatever the intention of the launch teams. In other words, according to this reading of international law, only Israel had the right to fire missiles and drop bombs because its military hardware is more sophisticated -- and, of course, more deadly.

Nonetheless, new evidence suggests strongly that, whether or not Hizbullah had the right to use its rockets, it may often have been trying to hit military targets, even if it rarely succeeded. The Arab Association for Human Rights, based in Nazareth, has been compiling a report on the Hizbullah rocket strikes against Arab communities in the north since last summer. It is not sure whether it will ever be able to publish its findings because of the military censorship laws.

But the information currently available makes for interesting reading. The Association has looked at northern Arab communities hit by Hizbullah rockets, often repeatedly, and found that in every case there was at least one military base or artillery battery placed next to, or in a few cases inside, the community. In some communities there were several such sites.

This does not prove that Hizbullah wanted only to hit military bases, of course. But it does indicate that in some cases it was clearly trying to, even if it lacked the technical resources to be sure of doing so. It also suggests that, in terms of international law, Hizbullah behaved no worse, and probably far better, than Israel during the war.

The evidence so far indicates that Israel:

* established legitimate grounds for Hizbullah’s attack on the border post by refusing to withdraw from the Lebanese territory of the Shebaa Farms in 2000;
* initiated a war of aggression by refusing to engage in talks about a prisoner swap offered by Hizbullah;
* committed a grave war crime by intentionally using cluster bombs against south Lebanon’s civilians;
* repeatedly hit Lebanese communities, killing many civilians, even though the evidence is that no Hizbullah fighters were to be found there;
* and put its own civilians, especially Arab civilians, in great danger by making their communities targets for Hizbullah attacks and failing to protect them.
Full article here:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=13559
 
Back
Top Bottom