Friday, July 21, 2006
The Conflagration II - "War is a global economic phenomenon" (Mos Def)
What's a war?
War is a confrontation between different class forces. War often adopts the language of religion, ethnicity and nation. But even if the soldiers believe that's what's at stake, there's much more going on. National ruling classes jockey for resources and influence. Within those ruling classes, upstart fragments of capital combat entrenched interests, using warfare to get massive profits and discredit their dovish opponents.
He said it, not me
Even anti-colonial wars are about class forces - a rising national bourgeoisie allying with popular, revolutionary forces against a colonial oppressor. This doesn't make an anti-colonial struggle less legitimate, it just means we have to understand them as a product of historical, materialist forces.
The comment box had some great discussion about the war. We're all going on hearsay, but I think it's possible to judge what explanations are more or less likely. Chomsky puts it best: "things have precedents, and you have to decide which was the inciting event." It's probably easiest to break it down into the key players.
This is Dahia, in Beirut, called a Hezbollah 'stronghold'. It looks more like a neighbourhood to me
Israel
In all the furor over Lebanon, let's not forget that the spark was Gaza. Not the kidnapping of Shalit , but the imprisoning of hundreds of men, women and children by Israel; the theft of Palestinian land, crops and water; and, according to Chomsky, Israel's kidnapping of two civilians on June 24th. Israel's colonial policy consists in provoking a reaction from the Palestinians. This meant they could step up attacks from daily shelling to outright invasion. I suspect they're trying to make life so hellish for Palestinians in Gaza that they'll simply leave. As Tanya Reinhart argues,
- to destroy the Lebanese government and install a more pliable regime
- to stop Hezbollah from becoming a new Shi'a powerbase
- to score points against the other regional player and Hezbollah ally, Iran
And to score points against Palestinian kids, naturally - children displaced by the June 27 invasion of Gaza
Trita Parsi in the Asia Times suggests this is an 'example' war: the U.S. may be mired in Iraq, but in case anyone gets the idea that the rules have changed, Israel is showing it's still very much a player.
Hamas
I don't see how Hamas gains anything from this conflict, and I also don't see that they have a choice. Israel had been provoking them for months. They simply couldn't maintain their ceasefire any longer. I'm sure they have the loyalty of the people who elected them, and the Palestinian resistance movement will continue. What I find most interesting is that Hezbollah's kidnapping of Israeli soldiers is widely regarded as a solidarity gesture with Palestine. Yet Hamas and most Palestinians are Sunni, while Hezbollah and most Lebanese are Shi'a. It's another argument against the right-wingers, who claim Shi'a - Sunni hatred goes back centuries. It doesn't, particularly not in the face of an Israeli onslaught.
Lebanon
Lebanon has very little to gain here too. They've had 500,000 people displaced (imagine what would happen if 500,000 Israelis were displaced. There would be wall-to-wall coverage of parallels with the Holocaust. But when it happens to Lebanese, the Israeli foreign minister can claim that "many civilians in southern Lebanon have Katyusha and other rockets under their beds".) But, like Hamas, I don't think the Lebanese have much choice but to respond.
Obviously a terrorist stronghold - Palestinian home destroyed by Israeli invasion
Hezbollah
Escobar points out that Israel has been holding Lebanese prisoners, and Hezbollah warned them five months ago they'd take captives of their own in response. This, then, is obviously what the Israelis were waiting for. But Hezbollah seems to be doing awfully well out of this. Gilbert Achar argues it's adventurism, a plan to provoke Israel into an invasion, which will kill an awful lot of civilians, do little damage to Hezbollah and raise its profile. Achar should know, since he defended Beirut against the Israelis in the 1980s, and had to deal with the Islamists then. But, while this may be true - and Achar is stating political strategy, not excusing Israel's invasion - I think it misses a key point. Escobar connects the invasion to a longer-term plan, the neo-conservative's 'Clean Break' strategy to reshape the middle east:
Funnily enough, the military isn't just about camaraderie
The final step would be a Greater Israel. Escobar points out that Israel's bombing is precisely targetted, an operation that couldn't have been planned in the days following the kidnapping. Hezbollah is also acting defensively: it may be an adventure, but it's an adventure born of necessity.
This analysis leaves out the major international players: Syria, Iran and the U.S. I hope to get to those as I learn more, and I welcome comments. However, the vital point here is to cut against the neo-con bogeyman of an Iranian plot to attack Israel. As I've argued before, President Ahmadinejad is an anti-Semite who uses populist rhetoric to mobilize the very real, anti-racist, anti-colonial sympathy for the Palestinians displaced by the Zionist butchers. (That's right, trolls, there's a huge difference.) Trita Parsi makes some excellent points:
War! Huh. What is it good for? Absolutely everything. Say it again!
So, I must modify my previous comments about Israel's limited engagement. I don't think Israel wants another full-scale war, but it and the U.S. are the only parties with a lot to gain here. The consistent thread is the Clean Break. Neo-cons are in charge in Israel and the U.S. They may be worried about losing the White House in 2008. This is their moment to build on their accomplishments in Iraq. My heart goes out to the Palestinian and Lebanese people, who are in the way.
War is a confrontation between different class forces. War often adopts the language of religion, ethnicity and nation. But even if the soldiers believe that's what's at stake, there's much more going on. National ruling classes jockey for resources and influence. Within those ruling classes, upstart fragments of capital combat entrenched interests, using warfare to get massive profits and discredit their dovish opponents.
He said it, not me
Even anti-colonial wars are about class forces - a rising national bourgeoisie allying with popular, revolutionary forces against a colonial oppressor. This doesn't make an anti-colonial struggle less legitimate, it just means we have to understand them as a product of historical, materialist forces.
The comment box had some great discussion about the war. We're all going on hearsay, but I think it's possible to judge what explanations are more or less likely. Chomsky puts it best: "things have precedents, and you have to decide which was the inciting event." It's probably easiest to break it down into the key players.
This is Dahia, in Beirut, called a Hezbollah 'stronghold'. It looks more like a neighbourhood to me
Israel
In all the furor over Lebanon, let's not forget that the spark was Gaza. Not the kidnapping of Shalit , but the imprisoning of hundreds of men, women and children by Israel; the theft of Palestinian land, crops and water; and, according to Chomsky, Israel's kidnapping of two civilians on June 24th. Israel's colonial policy consists in provoking a reaction from the Palestinians. This meant they could step up attacks from daily shelling to outright invasion. I suspect they're trying to make life so hellish for Palestinians in Gaza that they'll simply leave. As Tanya Reinhart argues,
Israel does not need this piece of land, one of the most densely populated in the world, and lacking any natural resources. The problem is that one cannot let Gaza free, if one wants to keep the West Bank. A third of the occupied Palestinians live in the Gaza Strip. If they are given freedom, they would become the center of Palestinian struggle for liberation, with free access to the Western and Arab world. To control the West Bank, Israel needs full control of Gaza.Israel in Lebanon is more complicated. Pepe Escobar suggests many reasons:
- to destroy the Lebanese government and install a more pliable regime
- to stop Hezbollah from becoming a new Shi'a powerbase
- to score points against the other regional player and Hezbollah ally, Iran
And to score points against Palestinian kids, naturally - children displaced by the June 27 invasion of Gaza
Trita Parsi in the Asia Times suggests this is an 'example' war: the U.S. may be mired in Iraq, but in case anyone gets the idea that the rules have changed, Israel is showing it's still very much a player.
Hamas
I don't see how Hamas gains anything from this conflict, and I also don't see that they have a choice. Israel had been provoking them for months. They simply couldn't maintain their ceasefire any longer. I'm sure they have the loyalty of the people who elected them, and the Palestinian resistance movement will continue. What I find most interesting is that Hezbollah's kidnapping of Israeli soldiers is widely regarded as a solidarity gesture with Palestine. Yet Hamas and most Palestinians are Sunni, while Hezbollah and most Lebanese are Shi'a. It's another argument against the right-wingers, who claim Shi'a - Sunni hatred goes back centuries. It doesn't, particularly not in the face of an Israeli onslaught.
Lebanon
Lebanon has very little to gain here too. They've had 500,000 people displaced (imagine what would happen if 500,000 Israelis were displaced. There would be wall-to-wall coverage of parallels with the Holocaust. But when it happens to Lebanese, the Israeli foreign minister can claim that "many civilians in southern Lebanon have Katyusha and other rockets under their beds".) But, like Hamas, I don't think the Lebanese have much choice but to respond.
Obviously a terrorist stronghold - Palestinian home destroyed by Israeli invasion
Hezbollah
Escobar points out that Israel has been holding Lebanese prisoners, and Hezbollah warned them five months ago they'd take captives of their own in response. This, then, is obviously what the Israelis were waiting for. But Hezbollah seems to be doing awfully well out of this. Gilbert Achar argues it's adventurism, a plan to provoke Israel into an invasion, which will kill an awful lot of civilians, do little damage to Hezbollah and raise its profile. Achar should know, since he defended Beirut against the Israelis in the 1980s, and had to deal with the Islamists then. But, while this may be true - and Achar is stating political strategy, not excusing Israel's invasion - I think it misses a key point. Escobar connects the invasion to a longer-term plan, the neo-conservative's 'Clean Break' strategy to reshape the middle east:
The "getting rid of Saddam" part has already been accomplished. The total degradation of the Palestinians is ongoing. The "destabilizing of Syria in Lebanon" took place last year. The next step would be hitting at both Syria and Iran via Lebanon.
Funnily enough, the military isn't just about camaraderie
The final step would be a Greater Israel. Escobar points out that Israel's bombing is precisely targetted, an operation that couldn't have been planned in the days following the kidnapping. Hezbollah is also acting defensively: it may be an adventure, but it's an adventure born of necessity.
This analysis leaves out the major international players: Syria, Iran and the U.S. I hope to get to those as I learn more, and I welcome comments. However, the vital point here is to cut against the neo-con bogeyman of an Iranian plot to attack Israel. As I've argued before, President Ahmadinejad is an anti-Semite who uses populist rhetoric to mobilize the very real, anti-racist, anti-colonial sympathy for the Palestinians displaced by the Zionist butchers. (That's right, trolls, there's a huge difference.) Trita Parsi makes some excellent points:
Clearly, Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad seeks to exploit the conflict - both by appealing to the disgruntled Arab and Muslim public outside of Iran by defying the US and Israel, and by drawing attention away from its nuclear program and sending the West a signal of what its allies in the region are capable of. But credible intelligence proving this was an Iranian trap is yet to surface.Iran has a lot of power in Iraq and, as Aijaz Ahmad argues, it's quickly shaping up to be a regional influence in many areas. But it doesn't need another war.
War! Huh. What is it good for? Absolutely everything. Say it again!
So, I must modify my previous comments about Israel's limited engagement. I don't think Israel wants another full-scale war, but it and the U.S. are the only parties with a lot to gain here. The consistent thread is the Clean Break. Neo-cons are in charge in Israel and the U.S. They may be worried about losing the White House in 2008. This is their moment to build on their accomplishments in Iraq. My heart goes out to the Palestinian and Lebanese people, who are in the way.
