Culture » April 24, 2007

Deconstructing Hezbollah

By Allen McDuffee

When George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13224 on Sept. 23, 2001, presenting a protocol to combat al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations of “global reach,” Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shia organization, was not on the list, despite the fact that in 1997 the State Department had designated it a “foreign terrorist organization.” Two weeks later, under congressional and external pressure, the administration amended the order and Hezbollah was added. The administration’s initial omission indicates the complex nature of Hezbollah. How do you classify and develop policy toward an organization that has committed acts of terrorism in the past, that currently provides important social services such as health care, schools and financial services, that defends its country from occupation in the south, and that plays by the rules in official Lebanese national politics (and thereby exercises democratic principles in a region with a less than stellar democratic record)?

Richard Norton, professor of international relations and anthropology at Boston University, elucidates these domestic and international complexities in his new book, Hezbollah: A Short History. Working as an observer with the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization, Norton first encountered the Shia of Lebanon in 1980—in the midst of Lebanon’s bloody 15-year civil war and two years after Israel’s 1978 invasion. In Hezbollah, Norton addresses both the fundamentals (the basic tenets of Shi’ism, the Lebanese civil war and biographical notes on prominent Shia figures) and the complex issues (the oscillating relationship with Palestinians and the PLO, carefully cultivated relations with Syria and Iran, and the “rules of the game” in engaging Israel during the occupation of southern Lebanon).

Most Americans remember Hezbollah for its 1983 attack on U.S. marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 servicemen. As Norton notes, Hezbollah has engaged in that and other acts of terrorism, such as the hijacking of TWA flight 847 in 1985 and the 1998 kidnapping of Lieutenant Colonel William R. Higgins of the U.S. Marines, an unarmed U.N. observer who was tortured and murdered. While the blame was not undeserved, Norton argues that it is “generally easier to trace much of the terrorism of the ’80s and early ’90s to Iran than to Hezbollah.”

He writes: “For Iran, the creation of Hezbollah was a realization of the revolutionary state’s zealous campaign to spread the message of the self-styled ‘Islamic revolution.’ From Syria’s standpoint … supporting Hezbollah allowed Syria to maintain its alliance with Iran, gain the means for striking indirectly at both Israel and the United States, and keep its Lebanese allies, including the Amal movement, in line.”

Unlike other recent books on Hezbollah, such as Judith Palmer Harik’s Hezbollah: The Changing Face of Terrorism, Norton’s was written after the 2006 war, which was touched off when Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers in Israel and provoked an Israeli offensive that left more than 1,000 (mostly Shia) Lebanese dead. Although Hezbollah admits that it miscalculated the extent of Israel’s response and would not have acted as it did had it properly assessed the situation, the war had no victor. However, Norton writes that the war “solidified Hezbollah’s role as both a political player in Lebanon and a regional exemplar for other opposition-minded Muslims.”

One of Norton’s shortcomings is his willingness to cater to certain themes overemphasized by essentialist writers and scholars of the Shia. For example, he devotes seven pages to one element of Ashura (the commemoration of Imam Hussein’s martyrdom at Karbala), namely bloodletting (tatbir)—a nicking of the forehead to induce bleeding that symbolizes the beheading of Imam Hussein. Sensationalist media accounts often depict Shia with footage of processions of men marching down the street with blood dripping down their heads and faces. And while Norton points out that this is “not to every Shi’i’s taste,” and Hezbollah’s religious leader, Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, disapproves of the practice, he still devotes a significant portion of a short book to it, thereby legitimizing the simplistic, sensationalist media accounts he hopes to avoid.

In a similar simplification, Norton refers to Hezbollah as a Janus-faced organization, suggesting that it acts in one capacity in order to deceive in other capacities. A more useful analysis would explain that each of Hezbollah’s dimensions—as a militia, as a legitimate political party, as a provider of social services—work in conjunction with the others. For example, it is precisely because of the social services it provides to (mostly southern) Lebanon that it is afforded the privilege of operating as an armed militia in the south with tacit consent and support.

Nonetheless, with other similarly complex organizations on the rise, such as Hamas in Palestine, Norton provides a model of how we might begin to think through their multidimensional, seemingly contradictory natures.

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  Terrorists who provide ” important social services such as health care, schools and financial services, that defends its country from occupation in the south, and that plays by the rules in official Lebanese national politics (and thereby exercises democratic principles in a region with a less than stellar democratic record)?”

  Are terrorists. Without Hezbollah “occupation in the south” would not be neccessary. Defense is a legitimate action of a state not a group of bearded theocratic freaks.  Kill them all.

  Posted by texasindependent on Apr 24, 2007 at 8:48 PM

  Israel is the leading terrorist state in the
  Middle East and Arab terrorism is in reaction
  to theirs. Israel occupied the south of Lebanon
  repeatedly BEFORE Hezbollah was created in
  the 80s AS A REACTION TO ISRAELI OCCUPATION.
  At the time they were not even particularly pro-Palestinian
  but became very anti-Israel solely in reaction to
  Israel’s Occupation. Texas Independent is a racist
  and has posted under Natalie, Wicky Woo, Scorp,
  Wolf and Aunty Fascist as well as Aunty Rightty.
  Ignore him.

  Posted by bostonblackie on Apr 24, 2007 at 9:20 PM

  W’s definiton of terrorist is anyone who doesn’t
  follow US orders. Chomsky has demonstrated
  that Bush is a serial psychopath. Why are so many
  Texans that way ?

  Posted by bostonblackie on Apr 24, 2007 at 9:30 PM

  Ask a silly question…

  “How do you classify and develop policy toward an organization that has committed acts of terrorism in the past, that currently provides important social services such as health care, schools and financial services, that defends its country from occupation in the south, and that plays by the rules in official Lebanese national politics (and thereby exercises democratic principles in a region with a less than stellar democratic record)?”

  Funny, this description would have fit Nazi Germany, but we didn’t wonder how it should be dealt with.

  Next question.

  Posted by whattheheck on Apr 25, 2007 at 12:18 PM

  Suggestion:

  In case there is still any question…

  For details on how to deal with Hezbollah, contact the widows, children and parents of the 241 Marines.

  Posted by whattheheck on Apr 25, 2007 at 12:22 PM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 8 posts.

Also featured The Talented Mr. Griffin
The Fraudulence of Voter Fraud
Defining Hate in the United States

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!

Also by Allen McDuffee

• No JROTC Left Behind
  Are military schools recruitment pools?Posted on August 20, 2008
• RoboCop in Iraq
  In the next five years, according to DefenseLink, the Pentagon plans to spend $2 billion on robots, breaking the monopoly of human soldiers in an armyPosted on January 9, 2008
• Empire’s Architecture
  Should it ever be finished, the U.S. embassy in Iraq will stand as a colossal monument to the Bush administration's failures Posted on January 2, 2008
• Another War We Can’t Afford
  The neo-cons may be coordinating with the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Fox, and all the usual suspects to build enough public support to bomb IranPosted on September 18, 2007
• With an Empire to Build, Who Needs an Iraqi Parliament?
  The Bush administration has brought democracy to Iraq, only to ignore it Posted on June 1, 2007