The woman in black in the first picture is the wife of resistance fighter Kifah Sharara (Struggle Spark, aren't arabic names beautiful?) killed during the Israeli war on Lebanon in July 2006. She offered his gun (an israeli gun, a war bounty) to singer Julia Butros who raised $5 millions for the reconstruction of the South. Julia waived with the gun and the crowd cheered. You want the resistance weapons? Come and take them.
Watch Julia's song ahebba'i (a7eba2i)" My beloved". The lyrics are taken from Hassan Nasrallah's address to the resistance fighters during the July 2006 war. Great song, great lyrics, full of love.
+081.jpg)
Posts
8 comments:
actually, Rami, Julia raised $3 million and not $5 million
:-)
Hi Rami. I am wondering why you're posting this in the way you do. I thought this blog was about sustainable development, which obviously needs peace to succeed. Why promote armed struggle? I don't get it.
so by the same token, the French Resistance during WWII and those who fought the Nazis should not have been supported because they did not contribute to sustainable development
That, of course, is an argument to which there can be no reply. Obviously, yes, it was 'right' for the resistance against the Nazis to stand up, even if that didn't contribute to sustainable development. Leaving aside the analogy for a moment, though, I still don't get how an armed resistance in Lebanon will help anyone in the long run. I'm sorry if this sounds like a clueless opinion, but I should be allowed to express it I guess? There can be no military victory against Israel. The solution has to be political. And to me it seems Hizballah's arms are a major obstacle to reaching a Lebanese political consensus, which would be a precondition for finding a regional political solution that keeps Israel at bay. I would be glad if you can explain to me how the party's weapons help in that. I don't see it.
to answer your first question, dr miletzki, the armed struggle in Lebanon allowed for the liberation of the majority of Lebanese lands from Israeli military occupation. Had there not been an end to the military occupation, there could have been no sustainable development for the people of that land.
as for your second comment, why leave aside that analogy? that analogy corresponds quite well to the circumstances we have now in Lebanon.
Rami: thank you.
hi rania
thanks for answering. why leave aside the analogy - for one, it makes everyone arguing against armed struggle look like a potential nazi apologist, and I refuse to be labeled as such. I also disagree with it because to my knowledge, in Israel it is possible to oppose and criticise government policy without getting yourself killed. I think that's a considerable difference to Nazi Germany.
This connects to the other point; the liberation of Lebanese land from Israeli occupation. In my view, Israel withdrew IN PART because of constant pressure the government was facing from opposition groups and society, due to the losses the army sustained in Lebanon (something that could never have happened in Nazi Germany). The other part was a calculation on Barak's part that a withdrawal would make it more difficult for Hizballah to legitimise its resistance. And hence, a new opening would be possible for a settlement between Israel, Lebanon and Syria. Prior to 2000, Israel had been able to ignore societal opposition to the occupation for 18 years without major problems. That's why I think it would oversimplify things to say that it was ONLY the resistance in Lebanon which forced it to withdraw.
To clarify my initial point, I am not doubting the necessity of armed resistance in certain conditions. But why *glorify* it to such an extent? That is what puzzles me. It seems to me very much like a narrative that tolerates very little reflection or criticism, very 'with-us-or-against-us'.
hello again,
a few points
you write: in Israel it is possible to oppose and criticise government policy without getting yourself killed
true: if you are an Israeli Jew. If you are a Palestinian with an Israeli citizenship, then the past and the present speak otherwise. If you are a Palestinian under Israeli occupation, again, the situation is different.
however, when the analogy is made between the french resistance and the lebanese resistance, refusal of this analogy does not imply that one is a nazi apologist. the french resistance arose without full support of the french people, at a time when the french 'government' was collaborating, and it arose at a time when the potential for liberation and victory was quite small. nevertheless, they arose. they picked up arms. they fought to liberate their homes.
furthermore: stating that one supports armed resistance does not negate other important acts of resistance, such as passive resistance and the important resistance of staying in one's home while it is under military occupation.
second: we are in agreement: we both agree that without the national resistance movement (armed) of hezbollah, there would have been no liberation of the (majority of) lebanese lands in 2000.
as for your question: why glorify it? because, as is recognized by all - from the Israeli generals to the Lebanese right-wing parties - without Hezbollah, there would have been no liberation. Whether they were partly responsible or fully responsible is a detail: without them, the Israeli military would still be occupying 20% of Lebanon.
And, as we all recognize, without an end to military occupation, there can be no positive development.
Let me clarify: when we speak in support of armed resistance, that does not mean that we do not critique Hezbollah for its other policies - such as its absence of a strong critique of a neo-liberal economics. Rami, for example, has criticized this point numerous times in his blog.
Finally, you write: "It seems to me very much like a narrative that tolerates very little reflection or criticism, very 'with-us-or-against-us.' "
Unfortunately, it such an assumption that pushes dialogue towards such a binary Bushism. We can - and we have - and Rami is one example of this - been making positive arguments in support of armed national resistance and also raising our voices against the silence of Hezbollah and other opposition parties in Lebanon on matters of critical importance, namely economics.
Hi Rania
thanks for getting back to my points again. On the nature of Israeli democracy, I fully take your point. Palestinians with or without citizenship are excluded from it. (In fact I was hesitating when I wrote this because I am aware of the contradiction.) I still think the analogy with Nazi Germany is lacking, though, because back then no segment of the public, not even 'Aryans', could have survived (or even mounted) an attempt at publicly lobbying the 'government' for change. Yet in Israel, civil society movements can do this, sometimes successfully - witness the Israeli movement that has opposed Israel's occupation of Lebanon since 1982.
As you say, it seems we agree on some points regarding PAST armed resistance. I wonder, however, about the present and future. Couldn't it be the case that Hizballah's refusal to lay down its arms is precisely what keeps it from developing a constructive domestic economic agenda, for example? And what if the Shebaa farms will eventually become Lebanese - what will the party do then? (Not that I am assuming you to have predictive powers, but would be interested in your opinion)
I still wonder too, isn't it two different things to criticise armed resistance and to denounce a lack of economic policy vision? It still seems to me, from what you write, that criticising armed resistance is out of bounds. It is not supposed to be done, because it has been successful in the past. (And the image in Rami's post seems to express the same thing - Julia Boutros holding up the captured enemy rifle with the crowd cheering around her. Btw, I am a fan of her music) In fact, you say that glorifying the armed resistance is justified given that it managed to liberate Lebanese lands from Israeli occupation.
This is where I would beg to differ. If the circumstances change (i.e. Shebaa becomes Lebanese), wouldn't it be better to lay down the arms? To me, a glorification of anything seems dangerous in itself because it precludes change, it implies the sort of Manichean worldview that you denounce when expressed as 'Bushisms'.
And: if I now understand your use of the French resistance correctly - criticising the armed resistance is OK, but a sign of lack of courage, vision and initiative? Equal to those in France who, at the time the resistance started in the early 40s, tolerated it but thought it pointless and doomed to fail? Hm. It's a new thought to me, but interesting.
Post a Comment