The "legal" manipulation

Please don’t even go there, don’t even pull the argument that as Israel showed it could criticize its actions as a warmongering state, then Lebanon should do the same and uphold Hizbullah responsible for alleged constitutional violations. Because, if it really was a ‘constitutional’ problem then Hizbullah has played by the rules from beginning to end. It has been talking of its defense strategy which included capturing soldiers, and all the political players seemed to agree. Go back to your newspapers of last year and the year before. Hizbullah has been at great pains and spent a lot of useless time playing by the rules so that no one comes to pull out stuff like that. Why? Because it pays for Hizbullah to play by the rule because this way it can reach the state and create an image of legitimacy in a much more effective way.
Why? Because Hizbullah is a popular movement and popular movements build credibility incrementally.

And one important detail: It is Israel who attacked and destroyed the shit out of the country damn it, and it was planning to do so anyways!

Check this pitiful call for ‘accountability’ by leader of the infamous democratic left Elias Atallah (thanks Hilal). See him beg for the international tribunal. Shame Shame Shame. Maybe we should apply some accountability on him and see where he gets his paycheck at the end of the day. I can’t believe people like him do not just keep a low-profile and shut the hell up. Do you realize that this guy was with a party that fought in the ‘resistance’? I don’t think that at the time he was waiting for constitutional decrees to answer to Israeli aggression. But with time things have changed, one starts living the good life of the bourgeois and starts courting the rich magnates, then one discovers that ‘state’ ‘legality’ etc. are useful tool when it comes to impose a specific view that can get him closer to power.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “The "legal" manipulation

  1. you know, i find the name “democratic left” really interesting. is the rest of the left “undemocratic”? and with elias, just follow the money 🙂

    anyways, i know i’m probably outdoing my welcome in the comment sections 🙂 but which rules are you referring to in the first paragraph? and what rights does being a “popular movement ” entail?

    also, playing the devil’s advocate for a second, i don’t like the argument that “israel planned to do so.” i’m sure any country with a solid military has a defense plan against its neighbors – the states had one against canada in the early 1900’s (unless I have my decades confused).

  2. What I meant is that Hizbullah did not violate any legal structure, because, even 14th of March at recognize Hizbullah as a resistance movement and all this entails.
    The ‘State’ or the various power sharing arrangements in Lebanon had sanctified the various actions Hizbullah has been taking. There is nothing illegal in what Hizbullah has been doing. I defy anyone to present the contrary evidence.

    But that’s also because the country is made of different groups who to gain power accepts and make other groups integrate the state, so legalize them (and whatever the political maneuvers these groups ask for).

    Now 14th of March or others think they can brandish the ‘constitutional’ weapon when it suits them, which is acting like an amnesiac because they used these weapons to legitimize Hizbullah in the first place.

    So it is important to study the use/misuse of the legal structure adn affiliated institutions in order to understand how different groups grasp their share of the pie, and to stop being fooled by the fact there is something inherently right because it’s legal or wrong because it ‘violates’ whatever spirit of the law.

    now for Israel, it was all over the press, Israeli generals admitted that they plan to take out hizbullah some time in Sept. 2006, and that this was coordinated with Pentagon officials. Even Lebanese officials were briefed on that by US ambassador Feltman who told them not to worry and that it will take three days.

  3. Well how come everybody is on someone’s payroll and I am still broke. Heck, I can make all the statements they want for the proper amount of $$$ (sorry no LPs).

    Is there a website showing which political sponsor pays how much for what? I am rally tired of my day job.

    Bech are we talking about the same state that legalized the PLO,Fatah Land, arms in the camps, major corruption at all levels, Lahoud’s extention…

    You should contact the State, it will be very happy to hear that there is at least one person in Lebanon that takes it seriously. Unless you happen to be on the State payroll :).

  4. bech, my point is that HA couldn’t have played by the rules because there are no rules to speak of, since, as you mention, the ‘constitutional’ weapon has been used for everything.

    you didn’t expand on your points enough, so there is a chance i misunderstood your post, but your first paragraph seemed like a justification for what hezbollah did., and has done, since it is a “popular movement” and it “pays … to play by the rule(s)”. if an image of legitimacy exists, does that mean it is in fact legitimate, regardless of how the other fools in power blow their horns?

    and about your last paragraph in your comment, i am not denying that israel has planned their attack. please reread my comment. i don’t think using their planning is viable argument.

  5. I remeber that Hezbollah (Nassrallah) called upon the state to set up an investigation comittee on the war right after the cease fire. He demanded a fact finding comittee, Lebanese or Arab, to probe into the causes, results etc of the war, and was ready to be held accountable …

    As for Mr Attallah, well…

  6. bech, i agree with laz and ms. in that you should be more explicit about the assumptions and implications expressed in your post.

    Where is kamal to defend the yassar democrati …?

  7. Ok let’s simplify it quickly:

    1- rules are made by powerful actors which ends up either constraining them into doing things or enhance their dominant position, etc.

    2- in Lebanon we have scattered often contradictory system of rules and regulations (ex. post-taef executive divisions). another example is that ministries are fiefs for each community who runs it like a business.

    3- resistance work or other para-state or para-military behavior has been legalized albeit in an ad hoc way depending on how it suited each player through time (including Hizbullah).

    4- Hizbullah has played by the rules meaning that he consulted and made sure everyone knew what he was doing and why and how. so it became sanctified by the ‘state’.

    5- let’s not forget that a big element of state power lies in Lahoud, the security system and the army. All these dudes are pro-hizbullah to the bone and made sure the relation with hizbullah legally-wise was a prolonged honeymoon.

    6- What Moussa said is but an example of how Hizbullah is ready to use institutional and legal structures to show its political honesty in terms of its actions.

    By the way you cannot take the State seriously yet because there is no “State” in the proper sense of the term. There are different tribes using something called the state that they inherited from colonial powers. Sometimes they agree (ex. pax syriana phase) on looting jointly the country, or they differ drastically on future course of action and thus paralyze the state (ex today). in the Second case, you see well how the state does not really have any ‘transcendental’ presence. But in the first phase it wasn’t there either. it’s just that the state functioned more effectively for the joint division of fiefs. in the second case, each one calls for his OWN “state”.

    Manar, there are rules but they are constantly re-worked and sometimes it pays to follow the rules sometimes it doesn’t. Rules are mostly in this case worked out verbally too. So you can say that Hizbullah showed a lot of transparency in its actions.

    I’m not trying to defend Hizbullah but I am trying to show the ideological in the intellectual tyranny of the “legal”. So I’m trying to break it down. For me saying the Israeli held their government accountable so we should do the same is not in itself wrong (you should hold the government accountable for tacitly accepting and maybe helping Israelis at least certain elements in the government yes!). But it’s just crazy to think that Hizbullah all of a sudden is an outlaw, a political phenomenon that needs to ‘pay’ for something.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s