My Understanding Of Hezbollah

Since I’ve thrown all the “big name” liberal blogs out of my reader, I’ve been evaluating various other left-leaning blogs, looking for one or two that aren’t so obsessed with Ned Lamont. Anyway, today I ran across this post on The Agonist: Imagine.

Now I know this breaks my recently self-imposed rule of avoiding commentary on other bloggers’ commentary, but this deserves a response. By my interpretation, The Agonist is saying that, since Hezbollah is the only force capable of defending Lebanon, it doesn’t make sense that people would condemn them for fighting back against Israel’s invasion.

I might feel differently about Hezbollah if Israel were known for launching random, unprovoked attacks on Lebanon for no particular reason. Then I could see some justification for a militia group that could defend the people in the absence of a strong state army. But as far as I know, Israel hasn’t done that. The reality is Hezbollah, either by calculation or by ignorance, provoked the latest invasion from the most sophisticated army in the region and then fled the battlefield, choosing instead to hide out in bunkers and around hospitals, schools, and apartment buildings. That’s a very strange way to go about defending one’s people, if you ask me, and it’s really hard for me to respect those tactics.

I can understand why the average person in southern Lebanon would look to Hezbollah for protection, food, water, medicine, and so forth. They’re basically the only game in town, thanks to the weak Lebanese government and the backing of wealthier states like Iran. But I think Hezbollah is ultimately using the people for its own ends. In the long run, Hezbollah will do a lot more harm than good to the people of southern Lebanon.

Related

• Cease-Fire Sounds Doomed
• Cockroach Victory
• Imbalance In Casualty Coverage
• Where’s An EMP When You Need One
• Hopefully, CNN Is Just Confused