Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 25 (since 2009-12-17 21:01:34)

unverified__c3hk10gk

Website: http://humanprovince.wordpress.com

Showing comments 25 - 1
Page: 1

• Brooklyn College's claim that it fired Petersen-Overton for insufficient credentials doesn't hold up
  • sean January 28, 2011 at 11:58 am

    Clearly, he was canned because of the pro-Israel pressure. And that is inexcusable.

    However, this should make CUNY think twice about their adjunct system, which is a problem throughout academia. While it's not uncommon to have grad students teach undergrad intro classes, it does strike me as kind of strange to have a second-year grad student teaching a graduate-level class.

• Today in Lebanon
  • sean January 26, 2011 at 1:53 pm

    Walid:

    As it happens, I was in the Shouf (near Baqleen) at about this time after having come up from West Beirut. No one I know or whom I spoke to (in the Shouf, Beirut or Dahiyeh) thought the Marines were going to invade Beirut. And for the record, the PSP guys gave at least as much as they got, without any heavy weapons being distributed or used.

• The China-Darfur distraction
  • sean December 20, 2009 at 4:02 pm

    I totally agree about the regime, but there was a lot of Arab (and even a fair amount of leftist European) support for the regime here, and not just from pious supporters of Hezbollah, also from Lebanese and Palestinian leftists. Many people, though, supported Tehran for self-interested reasons, as a counterweight to the US and Israel, and because the regime is an ally of the opposition here.

  • sean December 20, 2009 at 3:51 pm with 12 replies

    Yeah, you're right, the discussion has to be in good faith (which is often not the case). But I see more and more the assumption that if you're concerned about something else besides, or even in addition to, Palestine/Israel, then you're accused of ignoring Palestinians or even worse, defending Israel.

    Also, there's often an Arab solidarity that has it that there should be some kind of united front against Israel and the US, which would be fine, if it didn't mean supporting anything the US is against in a knee-jerk fashion, even when it's indefensible. To give an example, many Arab leftists, and Europeans as well, seemed to support the regime in Tehran over the opposition this summer primarily because that's the opposite position that Washington took. One can support Ahmadinejad over Kerrubi et al., but it's disingenuous when that support is just opposition to the US and not based on any actual principles -- or even worse goes against principles that the person claims to espouse in other situations.

  • sean December 20, 2009 at 3:25 pm with 15 replies

    What's interesting is that this dynamic often goes in both directions. Brutal regimes and/or despicable practices are often justified, at least here in the region, in the name of resistance to Israel. This includes Sudan, and in my experience, many people who are vocally critical of Israel go out of their way to defend Sudan.

    The solution, I think, is to be both critical of Israel and Sudan -- and Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria, just to name a few.

    At the end of the day, though, we can't expect everyone to be knowledgeable about every conflict or abusive regime in the world; we're not Human Rights Watch, after all. (For example, I have little to no knowledge about Latin America and so don't really have an opinion one way or the other about politics there.) What we can, and should, expect however, is for those who criticize Sudan to not have a double standard when it comes to Israel and vice versa. In short, we should expect honesty, if not an attempt at impartiality.

    I don't think it's intentional, but the title of this post discounts real human suffering in Darfur, and in China for that matter, and is symptomatic of a Middle East-centric view of the world. The conflicts in Darfur, Chad, Xinjiang, Tibet or elsewhere are not "distractions," if they're being discussed and debated in good faith. But I think many people who are primarily concerned with Palestine/Israel have a bad tendency of using them as rhetorical bludgeons in an argument that's about something else instead of dealing with them on their own terms.

• Insolence and hasbara are the soundtrack to these images in my head
  • sean December 19, 2009 at 3:24 am

    Wow: you profess to be interested in, or even capable of, civil debate, but then anyone who disagrees "is still a collaborator." I love how those who have the least flexible and most orthodox (and also least reasonable) views, are usually abroad. You're awfully gung ho about war and resistance but won't be hear to deal with any of the consequences.

    Actually, when I ask "at what cost," I was talking about the people who were killed during the conflict. You know, the people who are dead., like the Ghalayini kid in my neighborhood or those guys up in Halba. We've gone from one gridlock to another, and there's nothing to indicate that another shooting war won't break out again, either between the factions or between Israel and Lebanon. You may think that's great from wherever you are in the US, but personally, I'd like to avoid both. But I suppose that makes me a "collaborator" in your book.

  • sean December 18, 2009 at 7:38 pm with 2 replies

    So let's see, what is your problem with that post? Is it that their rhetoric actually isn't similar? Is it that they're not both actually shrill and silly? You don't like Godwin's law? Touché!!!

  • sean December 18, 2009 at 7:30 pm

    Did you cut and paste this from al-Manar?

    Sorry, I won't be able to respond until the next check comes. As soon as it's wired, I'll write more.

    But seriously, you've got a very partisan (and I would argue skewed) view of the matter, which ultimately came down to the question of the state (such that it is) versus the muqawama. The issue here is which should take precedence in Lebanon. Hezbollah is, for all intents and purposes, the muqawama, so its position is clear. March 14 controlled, at least nominally, the state, so their position was also clear. This was the macro struggle, and the actual question of cameras at the airport and an independent communications network only happened to be the way this conflict was vocalized.

    Now, while I tend to think that the state should trump the resistance (although the two don't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive), I'm not so naive to think that March 14 had the integrity of the state in mind first and foremost. It had come a personal, and vain, conflict between March 14 and Damascus and Hezbollah.

    March 14 pushed the issue and Hezbollah called their bluff that Hezbollah and its allies wouldn't turn their weapons inside. They did, and they made short work of the Future thugs but were stopped short in the Chouf. Geagea, funnily enough, gave Nasrallah advice about taking on the Druze in the Chouf as "al-Mujarab w al-Hakim," making reference to his attempts during the civil war.

    In any case, it broke the stalemate (but at what cost) and traded in one gridlock for another, as we saw during the 5 months it took to form a cabinet.

    You're obviously a partisan of Hezbollah, and that's your prerogative, but what really annoys me is the tendency to dismiss anyone who is critical of that view as a stooge of Israel, or even more often, as an Israeli agent. Believe it or not, reasonable people can disagree on Lebanese politics without having to be a "traitor."

    As for your sectarian baiting, I don't really care what sect you are. It's absolutely unimportant to me, but it's obviously a big issue for you.

  • sean December 18, 2009 at 6:26 pm

    Well, I suppose it all depends on what "it" is. If "it" is the game of chicken that March 8 and March 14 were playing, then there's plenty of blame to throw around, and you're right, Junblatt, Geagea and Gemayel played particularly active roles in that, as much if not more, than the March 8 crew.

    If the "it" is resorting to shooting people in the streets, then it's clear that Hezbollah et al. started it. I was referring to the latter, but it seems you're talking about the former.

    Concerning Halba, that was a despicable act and the Future partisans who did it need to be brought to justice. But so do the SSNP partisans who torched all of the Future media offices. At the end of the day, there has been no accountability for the situation that brought things to a head in the first place or the actual fighting. I find it scandalous (yet typical) that there hasn't been any accountability for the whole affair.

    You've obviously got a partisan view of things, but I don't count myself as a partisan of either side. If you'll read this, I think you'll see that I'm obviously not a Future supporter.

    If I do have biases, though I'd say most of them are negative ones. I despise the Kataeb, Amal and the SSNP. After them, I really don't like Future, the LF and Hezbollah. I don't mind Aounis but can't stand Aoun, and am mostly amused by the wily Jumblatt. Again, the only living politician I support without reservation is Ziad Baroud.

    You can assume whatever you like about Fadlallah; I'm not interested in a pissing contest over who's more Shi'a. I think our sect should be completely irrelevant to the debate, which is why I don't think it's problematic for me to be Shi'a or have Shi'a family (it's mixed, actually, so my family includes Sunnis, Shi'a and Christians) and still be critical of Hezbollah.

    So you're accusing me of racism and sectarianism. Who exactly am I being racist against? The Shi'a? Arabs in general? Palestinians? Unfortunately, you do seem to be all too familiar with some of the ways of Lebanon. So familiar, in fact, that you seem to interpret a criticism of Hezbollah as an attack on all Shi'a. That's unfortunate.

  • sean December 18, 2009 at 5:58 pm

    Yeah guys, you've caught me red-handed! Could you do me a favor and let me know where I'm supposed to pick up my check, please? Do you think they can make it out to "cash," because that would be so much more convenient for me. Do you think it's too soon for me to ask for a raise?

    Really? What planet do you guys live on? (And for the record, Seham, quotes are for, you know, actual quotes. Do a word search on this page and the only instance you'll find of the word benign is in this sentence and your "quote.")

  • sean December 18, 2009 at 5:45 pm

    Well, if you want to make this a sectarian argument, I'm Shi'a. I can get Fadlallah to fax you the papers if you'd like, ya 3yni.

    Who do you think organized the Amal and SSNP fighters? Did they just show up on their own? Of course not. If we're getting into specifics, in Caracas, where I was, the worst of the bunch were the SSNP kids. But again, the whole thing was organized and set in motion by Hezbollah. They were also the ones shelling the mountain. With the exception of a couple of villages, the SSNP couldn't take over anything anywhere without the backing of Hezbollah. Amal is a bit stronger militarily, but not that much. As I mentioned earlier, Hezbollah came in and did the heavy lifting and then left Amal and SSNP to mop up afterwards. But let's not be confused about the command structure here: orders went from Hezbollah down the chain to the other parties.

  • sean December 18, 2009 at 5:36 pm

    James:
    The Samir Kuntar thing comes directly from Nasrallah, because if you'll remember when Kuntar came home to a hero's welcome, Nasrallah said publicly to him that the 2006 war was about getting him released. If you'll also remember, it was made clear that summer that there would be no deal if Kuntar wasn't included. So if we take Nasrallah at his word, that means that all those people died so that Kuntar, in particular, could be released. Maybe some people here think 1,300 deaths is a fair swap, but I don't.

    The point of Darfur was to show that that argument isn't valid if you'll go back and read my original post:

    Right, and the crimes Israel has committed pale in comparison to those committed by the Sudanese regime, but that isn’t the question now is it?

    Being intellectually honest means fairly applying the standards we claim to espouse, not looking for excuses to selectively lower the moral bar. So if you’re willing to give Kuntar a pass because Israel has done worse things, then you’re buying into the same rhetoric that gives Israel a pass because it’s not as bad as Sudan or Yemen.

    The point is that saying Israel is worse than X, so X isn't so bad, is just as bad as saying Y is worse than Israel, so Israel isn't so bad. It's the same logic and isn't valid in either case. Only later when Shirin said, "I don’t find that Israel’s crimes pale in comparison to those of anyone else," did I lay out the ills of Sudan to show that she was wrong.

    As for May 7, the whole thing was planned and initiated by Hezbollah. After they secured the areas in West Beirut, they left Amal and the SSNP to do the rest of the dirty work. The PSP stayed in "their" areas, as did Mustaqbal. The fact of the matter is that everyone is armed in Lebanon, but what we saw that day was a Hezbollah-led armed group take over predominately Sunni areas and other mixed Sunni/Druze/Shi'a areas like Corniche el-Mazra'a. We didn't see Future or PSP thugs go into Harat Hreik, Basta or Ein el-Mreisseh. We then saw Hezbollah try to take over areas in the Chouf until they got their asses handed to them.

  • sean December 18, 2009 at 5:10 pm with 8 replies

    Really, that's the shocking thing to you? A couple of rent-a-cop schmucks who thought they could fight? Not the SSNP and Amal thugs with RPGs or the shelling of the Chouf, or the burning of media outlets, but the rat-tag group of neighborhood Mustaqbal thugs who barely knew which one was the business end of a rifle and who were, literally, shooting from the hip?

    As a matter of fact, I've mentioned those guys several times before.

  • sean December 18, 2009 at 5:01 pm with 5 replies

    And for the record, if anyone wants to know what I had to say about Gaza, you can see for yourself here and here.

  • sean December 18, 2009 at 3:39 pm with 19 replies

    I'll repost this here, since it seems the discussion has moved to the bottom. But by all means, please don't let this distract you from psychoanalyzing my "type" or "level" of Zionist apology which I've clearly been dispatched to plant on various websites. Hah.

    You have no idea what my politics are, actually. You assume that because I criticize Hezbollah, that my politics are “shit.” Is that how we’re judging politics, is that the litmus test to whether one has good politics or not?

    I’ve said the following things here:

    1. Your statement that Hezbollah doesn’t kill Lebanese civilians is patently false — see Hezbollah v Amal; Hezbollah v communists; Hezbollah v rival Shi’a clerics; May 7, 2008, etc.
    2. I resent being told that the 1,300 people who died in 2006 were a means to freeing Samir Kuntar, who is at best a kidnapper of civilians and at worst a murderer.
    3. I resent being told, again by Nasrallah, that May 7 — the day 100+ Lebanese were killed in the streets by other Lebanese, when kids were pushing residents around with kalashes and RPGs, when sectarian checkpoints were being set up in West Beirut — was a “glorious day.”
    4. Kidnapping civilians is categorically wrong, no matter who does it.

    For the gaggle of like-minded commentors here, this means that I’m a “Zionist parasite,” part of Israeli “hasbara,” etc. I’m sorry if these positions don’t fit in with your simple-minded, Manichean worldview, but none of them supposes support for Israel or a lack of support for Palestinians.

    What’s striking here is the ferocity and tunnel vision with which you guys are positing your “with us or against us” attitude. It’s actually just a reverse image of the likes of Pipes, Dershowitz, et al. and does a disservice to the cause you’re ostensibly supporting. Just as anyone who disagrees with the pro-Israel lobby is branded an anti-semite, you guys see fit to brand me a Zionist because I’m challenging some of your prêt-à-penser ideas (slogans might actually be more accurate).

    Well I’ve got news for you, the politics and history of Lebanon, and indeed the region, are extremely complicated. It’s not an American western where the good guys wear white and the bad guys wear black. It’s entirely possible to think that a “society of resistance” on Nasrallah’s model is neither good for Lebanon nor helpful for Palestinians, while still being vocally against Israeli policies and actions. It’s entirely possible to criticize both Israel and Hezbollah, or Hamas, for that matter. Just get me started about Jumblatt, Geagea, Hariri Jr., Gemayel, Berri, Aoun, Franjieh, you name it, and you’ll see that I’m critical of all of Lebanon’s motley crew. In fact, the only Lebanese politicians I consistently have something good to say about are Samir Kassir and Ziad Baroud, and the first one’ s dead.

    My “shit politics” include abolishing sectarianism, allowing civil marriage, according Palestinian refugees full civil rights in Lebanon, instituting electoral and citizenship reform and having Lebanon and Palestine join Syrian negotiations with Israel for an end to this horrible conflict. My politics support ending US financial and military aid to Israel and a one-state solution in which all Palestinian refugees have the right of return to a secular, democratic country between the river and the sea, and those who choose not to return are granted compensation and citizenship in their country of residence. My politics aren’t possible to pigeonhole as March 8 or March 14; they can’t be summed up on a placard. And they’re certainly not “hasbara.”

    But you guys don’t really seem interested in hearing about that. You’re interested in a black or white world where there are heroes and villains, so if I’ve got a critical word for your hero of the day, then I must be on the side of the bad guys. That’s a shame.

  • sean December 18, 2009 at 3:27 pm

    Tikram ayounik, ya hayete.

  • sean December 18, 2009 at 3:26 pm

    You have no idea what my politics are, actually. You assume that because I criticize Hezbollah, that my politics are "shit." Is that how we're judging politics, is that the litmus test to whether one has good politics or not?

    I've said the following things here:

    1. Your statement that Hezbollah doesn't kill Lebanese civilians is patently false -- see Hezbollah v Amal; Hezbollah v communists; Hezbollah v rival Shi'a clerics; May 7, 2008, etc.
    2. I resent being told that the 1,300 people who died in 2006 were a means to freeing Samir Kuntar, who is at best a kidnapper of civilians and at worst a murderer.
    3. I resent being told, again by Nasrallah, that May 7 -- the day 100+ Lebanese were killed in the streets by other Lebanese, when kids were pushing residents around with kalashes and RPGs, when sectarian checkpoints were being set up in West Beirut -- was a "glorious day."
    4. Kidnapping civilians is categorically wrong, no matter who does it.

    For the gaggle of like-minded commentors here, this means that I'm a "Zionist parasite," part of Israeli "hasbara," etc. I'm sorry if these positions don't fit in with your simple-minded, Manichean worldview, but none of them supposes support for Israel or a lack of support for Palestinians.

    What's striking here is the ferocity and tunnel vision with which you guys are positing your "with us or against us" attitude. It's actually just a reverse image of the likes of Pipes, Dershowitz, et al. and does a disservice to the cause you're ostensibly supporting. Just as anyone who disagrees with the pro-Israel lobby is branded an anti-semite, you guys see fit to brand me a Zionist because I'm challenging some of your prêt-à-penser ideas (slogans might actually be more accurate).

    Well I've got news for you, the politics and history of Lebanon, and indeed the region, are extremely complicated. It's not an American western where the good guys wear white and the bad guys wear black. It's entirely possible to think that a "society of resistance" on Nasrallah's model is neither good for Lebanon nor helpful for Palestinians, while still being vocally against Israeli policies and actions. It's entirely possible to criticize both Israel and Hezbollah, or Hamas, for that matter. Just get me started about Jumblatt, Geagea, Hariri Jr., Gemayel, Berri, Aoun, Franjieh, you name it, and you'll see that I'm critical of all of Lebanon's motley crew. In fact, the only Lebanese politicians I consistently have something good to say about are Samir Kassir and Ziad Baroud, and the first one' s dead.

    My "shit politics" include abolishing sectarianism, allowing civil marriage, according Palestinian refugees full civil rights in Lebanon, instituting electoral and citizenship reform and having Lebanon and Palestine join Syrian negotiations with Israel for an end to this horrible conflict. My politics support ending US financial and military aid to Israel and a one-state solution in which all Palestinian refugees have the right of return to a secular, democratic country between the river and the sea, and those who choose not to return are granted compensation and citizenship in their country of residence. My politics aren't possible to pigeonhole as March 8 or March 14; they can't be summed up on a placard. And they're certainly not "hasbara."

    But you guys don't really seem interested in hearing about that. You're interested in a black or white world where there are heroes and villains, so if I've got a critical word for your hero of the day, then I must be on the side of the bad guys. That's a shame.

  • sean December 18, 2009 at 1:40 pm

    I love how there are so many armchair historians here who are going to give me a lesson about my own home. I was actually here in Beirut during the war in 2006 and the street clashes in 2008. I have spent time in Ramallah, Bethlehem and Qalqilya. But because I insist on precise language and discourse that's a bit more nuanced than cheap slogans, I'm an apologist for Israel, or a "Zionist parasite." It's a good thing that my father-in-law, who was expelled from Beirut with Arafat during the civil war, isn't alive to see what his son-in-law has become -- a propagandist for the Jewish State, apparently.

    It seems that you don't know how to read, Seham. I am against taking civilians hostage. Period. That is a very simple concept, a brief declarative sentence. It doesn't matter to me if it's the IDF, Hezbollah or Samir Kuntar. In the article you cite, it says, "He told me that his motive for infiltrating Nahariya was to take hostages." So like I said before, even if he didn't kill the family, they were killed while he was attempting to take them hostage.

    You seem to think that my opposition to taking civilian hostages is a "double standard." How is it a double standard? You seem to be saying, correct me if I'm wrong, that it's all right for Lebanese or Palestinians to take Israeli civilian hostages if they're doing so in order to bargain for the release of Palestinians. To my mind, that's the double standard. Either taking civilians hostage is acceptable, or it isn't.

    Are you really so blinded by your politics that you can't understand that very simple concept? If so, then, I'm afraid you're entirely too stupid for us to even have a conversation. You want to run your mouth about Hezbollah and Lebanon, but you obviously don't know shi'ite from shinola, which might be fine for people who don't know any better, but I'm afraid that for those of us who actually live in Lebanon, speak Arabic and have to deal with Lebanese politics on a daily basis, you just end up looking like a twit.

    Like I said, you're part of the armchair muqawama. I tell you what, much of my family here lives in Dahiyeh, so if you're so crazy about armed resistance, I'll arrange for you to find a place to live here. Otherwise, if you'd prefer the camps, I can help set you up in Miye w Miye or Chatilla or Bourj el-Barajneh. I'll even set up an appointment for you to see how you can join the muqawama, ya habibti.

  • sean December 18, 2009 at 4:57 am

    Shirin December 18, 2009 at 3:05 am
    I don’t find that Israel’s crimes pale in comparison to those of anyone else.

    Wow, are you serious? Well, there are 2 million displaced and several hundred thousand dead Darfuris who would beg to differ. And that's just from 2003 and doesn't count the crimes of the Sudanese regime in the Nuba mountains or in the decades-long war in the south (together around 2 million deaths, mostly civilian) or the decision to let the inhabitants of Darfur starve back in the drought of 1984 (between 100,00 and 250,00 deaths).

    It's exactly this kind of childish Manichean rhetoric that sees Israel as the absolute evil (الشر المطلق) while looking the other way when others in the region commit atrocities that discredits what should be an otherwise airtight case against Israel.

    This sort of shrill rhetoric actually harms the Palestinian cause, and it's a shame that you don't see that.

  • sean December 18, 2009 at 3:07 am

    Are you being obtuse on purpose? My whole point is that it is unacceptable when the Israelis do it and also unacceptable when Samir Kuntar does it! Ya rab, suburni!

    If you are going to be inconsistent like Seham is doing, then you are ceding the moral high ground, which should easily and obviously be on the side of Palestinians. But by insisting on supporting people like Samir Kuntar, you weaken your case and frame the conflict as one in which no holds are barred and in which your enemies define which tactics are acceptable and which are not. This allows supporters of Israel to do likewise and paint Arabs as barbarous butchers and rhetorically justify heinous acts like last year's attack on Gaza and the 2006 war in Lebanon.

    Congratulations, if that's how you support Palestine, then Israel is going to win every single time.

  • sean December 18, 2009 at 12:07 am

    This is exactly the point I'm making: instead of dealing with his actions or those of Hezbollah, you keep changing the subject to, "Israel is worse." That's neither here nor there, in the same way that it's neither here nor there when Israelis use that identical rhetorical tactic. In both cases, it's equivocation or lazy thinking.

    And you are, in fact, lowering the bar, unless of course you think kidnapping families to then hold as hostages is acceptable. That part of the story is not in dispute. Kuntar says it, as do the Israelis.

    "The Israelis are liars." Well we can't even have a discussion about that, can we? Although I hope you recognize the irony of quoting with approval what an Israeli journalist says to back up your contention that "Israelis are liars." Manichean world views are awfully convenient, aren't they?

    Finally, who are the "you people" you're so charmingly lumping me in with?

  • sean December 17, 2009 at 11:44 pm

    Right, and the crimes Israel has committed pale in comparison to those committed by the Sudanese regime, but that isn't the question now is it?

    Being intellectually honest means fairly applying the standards we claim to espouse, not looking for excuses to selectively lower the moral bar. So if you're willing to give Kuntar a pass because Israel has done worse things, then you're buying into the same rhetoric that gives Israel a pass because it's not as bad as Sudan or Yemen.

    To my mind, neither of these lines of reasoning is defensible, morally or intellectually speaking.

  • sean December 17, 2009 at 11:17 pm

    So let's see, in the absolute best-case scenario, the father and daughter were killed in the crossfire when Kuntar tried to kidnap them, and the baby was accidentally suffocated by its mother while hiding in the attic from him and his comrades. In the worst-case scenario, the baby is the same, and he executed the daughter and father when he came under fire from the Israelis.

    Maybe Kuntar has done his time and should be let out after 30 years. Maybe. (Although he certainly never deserves to be treated like a hero.) But in what universe is Kuntar's freedom worth 1,300 lives?

    And to push the point a little further, how would you feel about the situation if the roles were reversed, if it had been an Israeli commando group that had come into Lebanon to kidnap a Lebanese family and three-quarters of the family ended up dead? Is kidnapping a family in order to hold it hostage an acceptable tactic as long as it's for Palestine?

  • sean December 17, 2009 at 10:17 pm with 34 replies

    Of course hundreds of civilians were killed by Israel. I was here, after all, and it was a terrible time, so I don't need a lecture from you to remind me. But believe it or not, just as it's possible to hold two thoughts simultaneously, it's also possible to hold two parties responsible at the same time. Just because Israel is a guilty party that I'm happy to criticize any day of the week, doesn't mean that Hezbollah cannot also be held accountable.

    When Hassan Nasrallah looked at Samir Kuntar, whom I believe deserves to be in prison, and told him that 2006 was all about getting him out of prison, it made me sick. When Nasrallah got on television and described the mini-civil war in 2008 as "a glorious day" (يوم مجيد ), my respect for him fell even lower. When the assassination of Imad Mughniyeh is avenged, it will likely spark another war, and thousands of people are likely to die. So everyone knows that the next war will displace hundreds of thousands and kill thousands, but will it liberate Palestine? Will my wife and in-laws or our future children be able to return to Haifa because of it? Of course not. But none of the armchair muqawama people here are willing to give Arabs any agency, to hold them responsible for their actions. So let's ask the question: was the last war with Israel worth 1,300 deaths? What about the next one, which is likely to be much worse?

    Hezbollah, and Nasrallah personally, deserve credit where credit is due: liberating the south in 2000 was a tremendous feat. But let's not whitewash history here and pretend like this is a party that it isn't. They fought a nasty war wtih Amal in the civil war; and they were responsible for liquidating communist Shi'a leaders and clerics whom they disagreed with in the south; they kidnapped civilians during the war, and their kidnapping of Lebanese Jews (using the pseudonym "the organization of the oppressed on the Earth") led directly to the near total emigration of Lebanon's Jewish population. They used arms to resolve a political dispute with their fellow compatriots back in 2008, resulting in over 100 deaths and leading many parties here to the conclusion that they should start arming themselves and training more. They are a fundamentalist religious party, not a group of secular leftists. Part of their campaign platform last summer was explicitly anti-naturalization for Palestinians here, and one of the rationales routinely given for maintaining arms is to stop the eventual naturalization of Palestinians who rot in camps throughout the country with almost no rights to speak of.

  • unverified__c3hk10gk December 17, 2009 at 4:32 pm with 43 replies

    To let Hezbollah off the hook for 2006 is absurd. To let them off the hook for over 100 deaths on May 7, 2008 is downright dishonest. If there's one thing that annoys me, it's the armchair muqawama set in places like Europe or North America.

    And for the record, "shukran jazeera" (شكرا جزيرة) means "thank you island." I think you probably meant "shukran jazilaan" (شكرا جزيلا ).

Showing comments 25 - 1
Page: 1