Love of the Land: The Resistance Bloc Will Not Be Appeased

The Resistance Bloc Will Not Be Appeased

Michael J. Totten
Contentions/Commentary
21 March '10

Hezbollah’s reaction to Israel’s plan to build 1,600 apartments in a Jewish neighborhood in East Jerusalem might help President Barack Obama understand something that has so far eluded him: the Syrian-Iranian-Hamas-Hezbollah resistance bloc will not allow him to appease it.

“The scheme is yet another part of a Judaization campaign,” Hezbollah said in a statement quoted by the Tehran Times, “that targets the holy city of al-Quds [Jerusalem] and a provocation of Muslim feeling.” If Obama expected a little appreciation from Israel’s enemies for making the same point with more diplomatic finesse, he was mistaken. “The Zionist plan to construct hundreds of homes in al-Quds,” Hezbollah continued, “truly shows American cover to it.”

So not only is Obama denied credit for standing up to Israel’s government, he is accused of doing precisely the opposite.

Anti-Americanism is ideological oxygen for partisans of the resistance bloc. They will no sooner let it go than they will stop breathing. Their entire worldview and political program would turn to ashes without it, much as Fidel Castro’s would without socialism. When the United States doesn’t follow the script, they just lie.

If we extend a hand in friendship, they’ll bite it and try to chew off a finger. If we take their side once in a while to appear evenhanded, they’ll twist the truth until it looks like a sinister plot, then they’ll bite us again.

A couple of years ago Hezbollah stretched a banner across an overpass near Lebanon’s international airport that said, in English, “All our catastrophes come from America.” Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah would have an awfully hard time climbing down from that high a tree even if his Iranian masters would let him — and they won’t. They’ve been calling Israel the “Little Satan” and the U.S. the “Great Satan” since Jimmy Carter, of all people, was president.

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: The Resistance Bloc Will Not Be Appeased

Love of the Land: The Resistance Strategy: The Middle East's Response to Calls for Peace and Moderation

The Resistance Strategy: The Middle East's Response to Calls for Peace and Moderation

Barry Rubin
GLORIA Center
19 January '10

Have you heard from any of the Western mass media about the Resistance strategy of Middle East radicals? I'm sure you haven't. Yet without understanding this powerful and widely accepted worldview how could anyone possibly comprehend events in the region?

"Resistance" is the slogan used by Syria, Hamas, and Hizballah especially but also is used by Iran's regime, other Lebanese supporters of the Iran-Syria bloc, and assorted radicals throughout the region. While the word has echoes for any Western auditor of the French Resistance against the Nazis, this is not the origin of this Middle East usage.

Rather, it means on the one hand, Resistance to supposed U.S., European, and Israeli intentions to turn the Arabs into slaves and destroy Islam. It also signifies Resistance to Westernization and modernization. And then, too, of equal significance, it means Resistance to attempts to promote peace or even a peace process with Israel and moderation in general.

Most obviously, Resistance means rejection but it also implies the use of violence, to resist is to reject diplomatic solutions and to fight instead. No matter how many people die, how much destruction will hurt the societies of those resisting, how long bloody conflict will continue, and how remote the prospects for victory seem to be, this is the preferred option. In contrast, moderation, compromise, and negotiation are seen as cowardly and treasonous.

But those preaching Resistance also believe they will be victorious by dividing and wearing down their opponents. Indeed, they think-even though they are more wrong than not-that they are winning now. They think the West is weak and corrupt, while Israel is going to fall apart and give up. A lot of the arguments made and policies put forward in the West-apology, concession, misconception, self-criticism-feed this confidence and thus contribute to more violence and conflict.

In many ways, the Resistance philosophy is a close parallel to Arab thinking in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, a new version of what used to be proudly called Rejectionism by Arab regimes. Now, however, it is reformulated in a version to be palatable to Islamists as well as nationalists and semi-Marxists.

If there was a founding statement regarding the Resistance strategy it was the speech of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to the Syrian Journalists' Union on August 15, 2006. Assad said he was formulating his alternative to the "new Middle East" proposed by the West and Israel in which political peace would produce prosperity, democracy, and stability. "The world does not care about our interests, feelings and rights except when we are powerful," Assad stated. Otherwise, they would not do anything."

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: The Resistance Strategy: The Middle East's Response to Calls for Peace and Moderation

Love of the Land: Strong horse politics

Strong horse politics

Talking to author Lee Smith

Tony Badran
Now Lebanon
12 January '10

(An excellent read, covering a very wide scope.)

Lee Smith is a visiting fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC. He is a longtime observer of the Middle East and has written extensively about the region, where he has lived and traveled. His book, The Strong Horse: Power, Politics, and the Clash of Arab Civilizations, was just published by Doubleday.

NOW sits down with Smith to talk about America, the Arab World and strong horse politics.

Tell our readers about your new book. What is its main thesis and what prompted you to write it?

Smith: The title comes from Osama Bin Laden’s observation that people by nature prefer the strong horse to the weak one. I was writing for an American audience and what I wanted to try to explain is how politics works in a region like the Middle East, where, with very few exceptions, there are no peaceful transitions of authority, and power is not shared but rather is typically passed from one family member to another, or taken in a military coup.

I suspect this thesis will be confused with the notion that “Arabs only understand force,” except I believe that violence and coercion is something much of the world has had to deal with throughout history, and modern-day Americans are exceptionally lucky insofar as this is not an issue for us. I was trying to explain to them that this is not the case around the world, and certainly not in the Arabic-speaking Middle East.

How do you see the strong horse principle playing out in the region today?

Smith: I think it’s the same as it ever was, with various actors vying for regional supremacy. On one hand you have the Islamic Republic of Iran, which wants to rewrite the regional order to its own advantage, and on the other you have Washington and the American-backed regional order, including Sunni powers like Saudi Arabia and the Arab Gulf states, along with Egypt, Jordan, and of course Israel, that wants to maintain its position.

Tehran, at least until the June presidential elections, has been very confident in its status as a rising power, while the US is now led by a president who has expressed his discomfort with power. In his UN address, Obama even argued against the balance of power, which is a strategic principle about as old as politics itself. Even if you find it desirable, I doubt it’s possible to rewire human nature in this way by emptying human beings of their political ambition and quest to exercise power. I guess we’ll see how reality catches up with the White House and what kind of adjustments the administration is capable of making on the fly.

(Read full interview)

Love of the Land: Strong horse politics