Hizbullah

The political organization Hizbullah, which can be labeled as a military group, political party and even terroristic organization, is under discussion in many countries because of numerous contradictions and disagreements considering its activities. Such issues are deeply analyzed in many non-scientific and scientific works, among which one can find the peer-reviewed articles by Sadiki, Harb and Linders, which concern the aims and origin of the organization, its military and political activities, and will be analyzed further. The authors of two articles have provided numerous evidences, which confirm the point of view that the organization is very complex, and cannot be considered as a purely terroristic. It is essential that having read the articles I can conclude that the ideas were clearly stated and supported; and I agree with many of them.

The first credible works, which is based on the analysis of the above mentioned movement, is “Reframing Resistance and Democracy: Narratives from Hamas and Hizbullah”. In this article, Larbi Sadiki (2010) investigates the connection between politics and violence and possibility to separate these two occurrences. Having read the article, I believe Sadiki (2010) has chosen quite effective arguments to prove that the fact that the Western modernity is civilized and peaceable is a myth, and violence appears to be a general problem not only of the Islamic world. Numerous political events like two world wars, which have annihilated more than 100 million of people, warfare in Vietnam, Kurdistan, Afghanistan, appear to be clear evidences of violence for all common people. Therefore, such choice of examples and article composition makes it understandable to various layers of the society. To my mind, the examples of terrorism, which include the actions of Ben Laden, the 9.11 attacks and twin towers terroristic act also contribute to emphasizing it as barbaric and unacceptable. A very compelling argument is that all the terroristic actions are based on the ideas of Islamic teaching and are targeted at civilians while the Hizbullah actions are of a holistic nature and are based on cultural, political, military and informational resistance (Sadiki, 2010). It is essential to mark out the citations used by the author in the article as they belong to the Islamic representatives and members of Hizbullah. Such choice acknowledges that Sadiki (2010) supports the point of view that people should be more tolerant to this resistance movement. However, I would argue this point of view as the evidences provided by the author prove that the problem exists, but equals it to the generally accepted problems is not right as I do not think that violence should be tolerated. Moreover, the argument that the religion is a background of their actions can be only informative rather than persuasive. Usage of numerous footnotes and explanations helps the reader to perceive the information better. The author does not ignore the fact that the military actions of Hizbullah movement are violent, but points out that, although the Islamic paradigm of morality is not foolproof, it justifies the deployment of violence. As a result, one can regard the Islamic teaching about the “holy war” as a background for both – terrorism and nationalist Islamic movement. Numerous consequences prove that this teaching is too radical; it sensitizes the young Muslims to treat others in a hostile way, and namely this aspect of Islam religion is the most troubling. To sum it up, Sadiki (2010) has managed to represent his thoughts clearly, providing the appropriate supporting evidences; the points mentioned in the initial abstract of the article coincide with the ideas, which are stated in the conclusion.

The analysis provided in the article “Know thy Enemy: Hizbullah, ‘Terrorism’ and the Politics of Perception” has much in common with the previous one. Hard and Linders (2005) argue that Hizbullah organization is quite complex and labeling it as a political force as well as labeling it as terroristic organization is incapable to grasp its essence. The essential fact is that numerous manifestations of violence by the Islamic political party Hisbullah evoke contradictory reactions among people since its inception in the mid-1980s. To my mind, the correctness of the following analysis is that it refers to the origin of the movement, not only its consequences. Hard and Linders (2005) highlight that namely the contradictions about its activity in various spheres do not let Hizbullah be labeled as a purely terroristic organization. The article consists of several parts, which separately describe advantages and disadvantages of the organizations. Such facts organization together with headings used in the article simplify the possibility of the readers to catch on the guiding idea and the main points of the article. Although the terroristic traits of the Hizbullah are depicted at the beginning quite clearly, Harb and Linders (2005) have described in details their numerous positive achievements. As it is widely known, such countries as USA, Great Britain, Canada, Egypt, Australia, Netherlands, Israel consider it to be a terroristic organization, which should be stopped. At the same time numerous Islamic countries believe that it is a nationalist movement or even unofficial Lebanese military forces. As a result, it is obvious that the authors took into consideration two different approaches: the terroristic and “lebanonisation” before making conclusions and offering their own point of view. I support this idea as the scientific assumptions always should take into consideration other points of view.

Consequently, it is important that the up-to-date bibliography and proper references make the information provided in the article credible, and express the objective opinion that the Hizbullah is different from terroristic organizations, although possesses some of its traits. However, one cannot ignore its distinctive features. It is of great significance that originally it was created at the period of Lebanon occupation by Israel and, therefore, its aim is fighting the aggressors; this wins the support of public and of government. Both articles contribute to the knowledge about Hizbullah and prove that its aim is not being a terroristic organization and making terror. Its main destination is justice, but the main problem is that the Islamic religion and morality justify the means used to obtain it. However, I don’t think that such views can be properly comprehended by Christians or representatives of other religions. In general, violence, which is entitled to be used even with a higher aim, cannot be justified.