| |
Debate in the Arab Countries – Is Hizbullah a 'Resistance' Organization or Not?
by Rattle at 8:37 pm EDT, Aug 6, 2006 |
The war between Israel and Hizbullah has revealed profound disagreement in the Arab world concerning the legitimacy of Hizbullah's activities against Israel. Two major camps have emerged. The first camp, led by Saudi Arabia, opposed Hizbullah's activities and called them "uncalculated adventures," not "resistance," and said that in order for a group to be considered a resistance organization it must meet certain criteria that Hizbullah does not meet. The second camp, headed by Syria, has supported Hizbullah and has considered it a true resistance organization that is conducting "glorious national resistance" that brings honor to the Arabs. They contend that resistance is always legitimate, and that its legitimacy is not dependent on any particular conditions.(1) In a speech at the emergency summit of Arab foreign ministers in Cairo, on July 15, 2006, Lebanese Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh observed that there was a shift in Arab perceptions: "There has been a development in the concepts and criteria employed in the international arena. [These concepts] are crystallizing in a manner that is contrary to the Arab interest. [According to these criteria,] resistance is terrorism, but [Israel is seen as employing] self-defense, which gives it a free hand to destroy and kill without any limitation."(2) The following are excerpts from statements by Saudi and Syrian officials and media, as well as the Egyptian press.
|
| |
RE: Debate in the Arab Countries – Is Hizbullah a 'Resistance' Organization or Not?
by Decius at 9:03 pm EDT, Aug 6, 2006 |
They contend that resistance is always legitimate, and that its legitimacy is not dependent on any particular conditions.
Maybe its the way it is being presented here, but that's the dumbest thing that I have ever heard. Legitimacy is conditional by definition. In order for something to be legitimate, it must be possible for it to be illegitimate, and therefore there must be conditions that tell you where you're at. This declaration is equivelent to an admission of guilt. |
|
| | |
RE: Debate in the Arab Countries – Is Hizbullah a 'Resistance' Organization or Not?
by Rattle at 10:10 pm EDT, Aug 6, 2006 |
Maybe its the way it is being presented here, but that's the dumbest thing that I have ever heard. Legitimacy is conditional by definition. In order for something to be legitimate, it must be possible for it to be illegitimate, and therefore there must be conditions that tell you where you're at. This declaration is equivelent to an admission of guilt.
Yep. I think that's one of the things that can be taken away from reading that. The Saudi arguments all rely on logic. All the Syrian arguments rely on emotion to make them work, are are pure rhetoric. |
|
| | |
RE: Debate in the Arab Countries – Is Hizbullah a 'Resistance' Organization or Not?
by noteworthy at 11:55 pm EDT, Aug 6, 2006 |
Decius wrote: They contend that resistance is always legitimate, and that its legitimacy is not dependent on any particular conditions.
Maybe its the way it is being presented here, but that's the dumbest thing that I have ever heard. Legitimacy is conditional by definition. In order for something to be legitimate, it must be possible for it to be illegitimate, and therefore there must be conditions that tell you where you're at. This declaration is equivelent to an admission of guilt.
I suspect there may be a disconnect/miscommunication here, due in part to differences of language and worldview. I could see them saying that jihad is always legitimate. The complaint about "conditional by definition" is resolved/avoided by the fact that legitimacy is built into the definition of jihad. This is something of a semantic shift, and perhaps it is one to which the western mind is not accustomed. But in this view, if it is jihad, then it meets the criteria of legitimacy. Unfortunately not everyone agrees on the definition of jihad. So you still have the same debates, but they are framed in terms of whether something or not thing X is jihad, rather than whether or not jihad Y is legitimate (which, having met the definition of jihad, it obviously is). |
|
Debate in the Arab Countries – Is Hizbullah a 'Resistance' Organization or Not?
by noteworthy at 6:08 pm EDT, Aug 6, 2006 |
Presumably you've already seen this ... The war between Israel and Hizbullah has revealed profound disagreement in the Arab world concerning the legitimacy of Hizbullah's activities against Israel. Two major camps have emerged. The first camp, led by Saudi Arabia, opposed Hizbullah's activities and called them "uncalculated adventures," not "resistance," and said that in order for a group to be considered a resistance organization it must meet certain criteria that Hizbullah does not meet. The second camp, headed by Syria, has supported Hizbullah and has considered it a true resistance organization that is conducting "glorious national resistance" that brings honor to the Arabs. They contend that resistance is always legitimate, and that its legitimacy is not dependent on any particular conditions.(1) In a speech at the emergency summit of Arab foreign ministers in Cairo, on July 15, 2006, Lebanese Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh observed that there was a shift in Arab perceptions: "There has been a development in the concepts and criteria employed in the international arena. [These concepts] are crystallizing in a manner that is contrary to the Arab interest. [According to these criteria,] resistance is terrorism, but [Israel is seen as employing] self-defense, which gives it a free hand to destroy and kill without any limitation."(2) The following are excerpts from statements by Saudi and Syrian officials and media, as well as the Egyptian press.
|
|
|
