remembrance
18 Nov 2009
How Different Are Lebanon's Martyrs From Our Own?
We're often told that Islam promotes a 'martyrdom culture' completely foreign to our humanist, life-celebrating tradition. After spending Remembrance Day in Beirut, Austin G Mackell is not so sure
It's the eleventh of the eleventh. A few thousand people are gathered in an auditorium to remember those lost in battle. The front few rows are reserved for veterans, a small roped-off section for journalists tucked behind them, followed by row upon row of ordinary people who have come to pay their respects. Behind the stage are pictures of the fallen, leaders and ordinary fighters, one of them has such young features — he couldn't have been more than a teenager. Alongside the pictures of the fallen are some doves in flight and the image of a nameless fighter, a rifle hanging from his shoulders and a floppy hat upon his head, silhouetted against a blue sky with a scattering of puffy white clouds.A prayer is read. A commander barks orders and the band starts up (it does not play Waltzing Matilda). They march their way to the front to the rhythm of a boisterous military tune. The music stops long enough for a wreath to be laid. Every one stands for the national anthem, then sits down and readies themselves for the over-long speeches praising the courage of those who made the ultimate sacrifice so that we may live in peace.
The scene is Martyrs' Day, held yearly in Lebanon on 11 November to mark the anniversary of the 1982 suicide mission of Ahmad Jaafar Qassir, the baby-faced killer who was pictured behind the stage. At 10 minutes to seven in the morning, as Israeli soldiers were returning from night patrols, the 19-year-old Qassir drove a Peugeot loaded with explosives to the Tyre headquarters of the Israeli military's occupation force in south Lebanon, killing 75 soldiers, border policemen, and Shin Bet agents as well as an unconfirmed number of Lebanese (probably between 14-27) being held prisoner within. It was the first of a long string of suicide attacks, that along with conventional guerrilla war tactics and international and internal pressure on the Israeli government, lead to the withdrawal of Israeli forces from almost all Lebanese territory in 2000.
It can be assumed that the date of the attack was not chosen to coincide with the "Remembrance Day" that we celebrate, and so the timing of the ceremony can be thought of as a coincidence. However the other similarities — the flowers, the marching band, the elevation of sacrifice — cannot be so easily dismissed.
Many so-called experts on the Middle East like to go on at length about an obsession with martyrdom that they say is unique to Islam. Once they've finished denouncing the depravity of this position, they generally use it as a reason why negotiation is impossible: You can't talk to these people — they're crazy. You can read such rants, here and here. These accounts usually fail to mention the fact that suicide bombing was a tactic pioneered by the primarily Hindu Tamil Tigers. They also fail to mention the culture of celebrating martyrs present in all societies, and indeed their own.
There is nothing foreign or incomprehensible about honouring those who died for their country. It's what we in Australia do as a nation twice a year. On ANZAC Day, in which I have marched many times wearing my grandfather's medals, remembrance of the dead is only part of the ceremony — the part where we lower the flags as the march passes the cenotaph — but on Remembrance Day it is the main event.
Some may object to this comparison, saying that the promises of paradise and virgins fed to the young Muslim men and women who choose to become human delivery systems for rudimentary but powerful bombs rob their actions of the respectability of those who died for the secular cause of their nation. Why then does it say on my grandfather's Military Cross "for God and Empire"? And, if martyrdom is such a Muslim thing, why, when he spoke to the Martyr's Day crowd, did Hezbollah's secretary general Hassan Nasrallah take time to point out that they honoured that day not just their fighters, but all who had died defending the Lebanese nation, thereby including the Christians, communists and other fighters that participated in the struggle?
The truth is that in both cases there is a mix of nationalist and religious symbolism used to justify these sacrifices. Hezbollah and their supporters may emphasise the religious element more than we do, but existing as they do in a much more religious society, it would be strange if they did not. That greater emphasis seems to me, however, to be more a difference in symbolism and rhetoric than one of emotional content, which fundamentally celebrates the same thing.
People who would cling to the idea that our martyrs are different from theirs may argue that suicide bombers do not, as such, die fighting — rather they fight by dying. But in Lebanon the term martyr is not reserved for suicide bombers, it applies to all who die for the cause. Besides, does choosing to fight with little or no chance of personal survival make your act less heroic? The number of Victoria Crosses awarded posthumously suggests Australians don't think so.
Of course it is not just Australia and Hezbollah who dedicate a day each year to their fallen. There are martyrs days in India, Burma, Panama, Uganda, Tibet, Kashmir, Azerbaijan and other places. As Baruch Kimmerling writes in his article on Israel's own culture of martyrdom "Nations like to imagine themselves as unique, but one belief they have in common is that it is noble to die in their name."
To be fair, however, I must admit I have been focusing so far on the similarities rather than the differences between these two traditions, and there were differences. There was no one minute's silence for the fallen — on the contrary there were times when the crowd rose to its feet and began chanting slogans. The wreath, rather tackily, was a Hezbollah flag composed of yellow flowers and green plastic. Nasrallah's speech was far longer and more overtly political than would have been acceptable at an Australian Remembrance Day ceremony. And the marching band wasn't that good.
The difference that struck me most, however, was the absence of a reference to "our brave young men and women" fighting today on the battlefields of some far-off country. This difference, of course, can be attributed to the fact that Hezbollah's fighters, unlike Australia's soldiers, are not, at time of writing at least, waging war against anyone.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
Austin
The fact that you equate the Hezbollah terrorist organisation (which is NOT the national army of Lebanon) with the Australian Defence Forces, a legitimate National defence force, dishonours the memory of the soldiers who fight on behalf of Australians. Determining that flowers and marching makes the Commonwealth Rememberance Day in any way relative to Martyrs’ Day in Lebanon serves only to impress upon your readers your lack of understanding of the notion of martyrdom, and the insidiousness of suicide bombings as a terrorist act.
And by the way, it says "For God and Empire", because Australia is a apart of the British Commonwealth, which which upholds a monotheistic tradition. Fighting for an organisation named "Party of God" is something else entirely.
Next time stick with apples and apples …
Not much difference, I’d say.
Consider this: about half of Allied airmen involved in the area bombing of German cities were ‘martyred’. Most of their victims were civilians. A major object of the campaign was to terrorise Germans into submission.
Then there were the suicidal charges at the Nek and on the Western Front, and all the countless acts of voluntary self sacrifice in all our wars.
Oh, but now I see. These blokes were called Smith and Robinson and didn’t shout Allah u Akbar. Makes all the difference in the world, don’t it…
Harry Morton Charge of the Light Brigade as the poet put it .Into the Valley of Death.’Suicidal ?
The rise of war appears to be connected with the rise of self-conscious leaders, preoccupied with the ideas of personal domination and personal survival after death.
Even today, when economic considerations are supposed to be supreme, ideas of ‘glory’ and ‘immortal fame’ still ferment and bubble in the minds of our political leaders and military gofers.
Europeans have always worshipped the military hero and, since the rise of Christianity, the martyr. Islam is nothing but a replication of these prior beliefs.
The Eurocentric admiration for military heroism and martyrdom has tended to make men (especially so) and women believe that a good death is more important than a good life, and that a long course of folly and crime can be cancelled out by a single act of physical courage.
The soldier fighting for the nation-state is as much as an infant in thought as is the fundamentalist terrorist.
nice article
one other of the many differences might be that though we like to believe that we believe in the martyrdom…our soldiers don’t necessarily believe in the cause, want to get paid for fighting it and sure as hell don’t like to die for it
our soldiers are just mercenaries…for the most part
interesting observation.
So tell me, Austin, which ANZAC soldiers cost Australia 130,000 jobs?
It all started in 1982 but once suicide bombing became all the rage, with targets like restaurants and discos within Israel proper, Israel was driven to the desperate expedient of erecting a wall between its pre-1967 territory and the West Bank and Gaza.
Suicide bombings abruptly stopped. The former Palestinian workforce in Israel was quite quickly replaced—by Romanians, Somalis, Thais. Not so the jobs and export market within Israel which the West Bank especially relied on. Right now, the Palestinian Authority is virtually the only employer in the West Bank.
Talk about shooting oneself in the foot!
" And, if martyrdom is such a Muslim thing, why, when he spoke to the Martyr’s Day crowd, did Hezbollah’s secretary general Hassan Nasrallah take time to point out that they honoured that day not just their fighters, but all who had died defending the Lebanese nation, thereby including the Christians, communists and other fighters that participated in the struggle? "
Well considered article Austin. The German Chancellor and French President sharing Armistice Day Observance was another unexpected development this year.
But we have to ask in the case of our own Country why do old men still send young men to war?
A very interesting and comparison of simplicity, when you strip both Martyr’s Day and Remembrence Day to the core of the celebrations the difference is merely a few colors on the flag layed down.
Part of the difference stems from the big problem with Western media, as it has a tendency for portraying the West as good and the Rest as evil. So any act of self sacrifice for ones country or ones beleif by anyone other than Western, whether they be holding a rifle or carrying chestplate of dynamite is deemed an act of terrorism or an act of martyrdom rather than an act of heroism defending ones country. (Take Gallipoli for example, those young Australian soldiers that ran into the battlefield holding rifles had very little chance of survival and they are deemed heros becuase they died "fighting" for their country and idealology. Whilst Muslims strapped to a bomb are label religious fanitics or extremists. With no disrepect, I wonder how much fighting those men did before dieing onto the beach 5 meters from the shore? I think they would have had to been pretty fantical or extreme themselves, no?
And what of the budding new alliance between Turkey and Iran, this has been called by Western medias as the new AXIS (of evil ?), which holds WW2 derrogatories, and not an ALLIANCE like it would be with Western nations?
I can understand how the similarities must have struck you, but it almost sounds like you are trying to excuse this kind of culture, just because there is something similar in Australia.
Posthumous honours for suicide attacks should disturb you, and if you see the Australian remembrance day ceremonies as the same thing, then those should disturb you too.
Perhaps if I’m honest I do find something discomforting about celebrating the way so many Aussie soldiers went like lambs to their slaughter… But the reality is that the remembrance for fallen Aussie soldiers honours the fact these guys were part of a state-controlled disciplined team fighting for a state-driven agenda, not individuals fighting for a religion-driven agenda.
Langelee (which sounds oddly like the home of CIA headquarters, Langley, Virginia), someone who meets death with arms in hand, in the act of killing others, may be a soldier or he may be a criminal but a martyr he is not—not in the sense we in the Christian West understand the term.
And **a propos** terms, Muslim law and the Quran contain strict prohibitions against suicide. Accordingly, that term can’t ever be used in connection with the acts of Qassir and the others. the more acceptable "martyrdom" being substituted.
Hi Austin
So this is your rant
Trying to equate suicide bombings to Rememberance Day. You are sick.
Must have run out of new excuses for you apologist agenda for Islam so you are just making stuff up now
Apart from a meaningless coincidence of a shared date in November the essential difference is this - most Australian martyrs have been conscripts fighting in conventional wars, often in the defence of our country. Hezbollah are volunteer zealots who spend most of their time beating, murdering or intimidating their fellow citizens who do not share their zealotry. Seems a bit different to me.
I will go with Gandhi on this one: "There are many causes I would die for. There is not a single cause I would kill for."
Does the Geneva Convention serve to salvage some humanity around war or serve rather to make war appear more acceptable and thus perpetuate it? Hezbollah’s acts appear to us as particularly brutal, because they do not abide by the ‘rules’ of war. The reality is that war is intrinsically brutal and undermines the dignity of all.
The human race has had a bloody past and perhaps in times gone by war may have been justified. Today is a new age. We are living in an increasingly global society and it is time to transcend such violent ways.
jewinthefat,
Hezbollah is a little more than a mere ‘terrorist organisation’. from what i understand, while it is not an internationally recognised government it does play many of the roles of government and represents the wishes of a significant proportion of the lebanese population. The fact that it is celebrating a fight against an occupying force should also lend it a certain degree of legitimacy. In Australia’s case, while the ADF is certainly a governmental force, and have in certain cases contributed to liberation from occupying forces (most prominently in the world wars), it also has in many cases been itself an invading force - in Vietnam and Iraq, for instance. (please let me make clear that if i am criticising these actions it is a criticism of the governments who make such decisions rather than of the brave soldiers themselves who seek only to defend their country). Given this, I think there is in some cases and in some ways not only a moral equivalency but even a moral supremacy in what Hezbollah is celebrating.
Austin - thank you for pointing out that the allegation that there are fundamental differences between ‘us’ and ‘them’ is flawed. I think that the more we can come to understanding that fact, the closer we will come to resolving our differences.
The great American Utah Philips termed the question in the light of surrendering moral autonomy to political authority.
A soldier always surrenders morality to his political masters.
Much the same as a police officer does. A situation where you belief the state can sanction you in the taking of a life is immoral , unethical or plain wrong , whatever degree accords with your beliefs.
Does a suicide bomber surrender moral autonomy to political authority or make a moral choice in a situation of desperation ?
Slightly off topic but I wonder why the Saudis don’t get more attention for spreading Wahabism, the most dangerous form of Islam. Compared to the Islamism of Hezbollah or Hamas who mainly protect their own territory, the Saudis actively spread jihadist propaganda world wide.
This article on ‘home grown’ terrorists in England is worth reading.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/renouncing…
Interesting article, thank you
@ Jonah Bones’ statement;
What you wrote is interesting and worth pondering, however what about Kamikaze pilots? Are these not also suicide bombers however NOT under their own moral autonomy as you make the distinction in stating your point
As a returned soldier I am surprised at the extent to which we have elevated returned service to a form of national religion. It has not always been so - indeed it is largely an invented tradition of quite recent origin. Anzac Day was in terminal decline until the Hawke Government Australia Remembers campaign and the promotions around the 75th Anzac Day commemoration. Thus - this wonderful experience - is largely a PR invention..
The historian Henry Reynolds was asked why the immense focus on war and death as supposedly defining Australia when there is so much else we could commemorate - trade unions, womens right to vote, the social welfare system. He suggested it might have been the scale of deaths in many Australian towns during World War One. But then at Gallipoli there were more Brits, French and Turks killed than Australians.
Nevertheless, it seems this article has got it right - rememberance is less about remembrance and more about propaganda and PR. A very interesting piece.
Harry Morton I went to the 75th at Gallipoli None of the Turks we met thought it was a PR stunt, nor did the hundreds of young Australians who sat there overnight.The red poppies of remembrance came out all over the site and dozens were placed on Simpson’s grave and some tears fell too. As they did on Attaturk’s huge memorial with its mothers weep no more your sons and our sons are buried here etc The hundreds who walk the Kokoda Track don’t think its PR it is to pay homage to blokes like you. Finally Henry Reynolds is a historian, it doesn’t make him infallable. I don’t refer to him but I quote John Steinbeck when he wrote of some Spanish people ’ I write this record now so it will now and forever remove the sneers from the lips of sour scholars.
Thanks all for your impassioned comments. It’s very satisfying to get people talking.
jewinthefat
I think your just attacking my conclusions on the basis that you don’t agree with them… rather than saying WHY you don’t agree with them… so I can’t really respond…
nungman
While I’m talking about Hezbollah, not Hamas, my point was also about how we discriminate against Muslims in general so your comment does warrant a response. Here it is:
If defending Australia from the Japanese HAD cost Australia 130 000 jobs, do you think that would make the soldiers deaths unworthy of commemoration?
lisadp
While Hezbollah’s soldiers didn’t die for a state driven agenda (the Lebanese barely have a state, let alone a state agenda), I don’t think its fair to say they died for a religious agenda. Their agenda was a nationalist one, forcing an occupying force from their soil. Admittedly there were religious overtones, overtones I believe are quite comparable to the presence of army chaplains on the UK’s trident nuclear submarines.
chrispriolo
Like Jewinthefat you’ve simply stated your disagreement (and your opinion of me as a person). Not much I can say to that… one question though.. what exactly am I “making up”
the_not_quite_so_terrible
I’m no expert but I have a tendency to believe those who say that Ghandi’s role in liberating India is overstated, and that the role of those who engaged in violent resistance is understated. Your point about the Geneva Convention legitimizing war is interesting… I would add that no one I know about follows it any way (can some one tell me a war fought in accordance with the conventions rules?)
I agree the time has come for a global system that can make war a thing of the past. In the absence of that, however, how are those communities confronted by aggression expected to act?
GraemeF
You’re right to highlight the difference between Hezbollah’s ideology and Wahabism, an incredibly intolerant form of Islam that has been at the heart of some very scary movements. What’s extremely interesting is the role the British played in helping the Wahabists gain such sway in Saudi. They were a useful bunch of violent Zealouts for a while there.
Noel Turnbull
While I’m grateful for the all the supportive comments on this page, yours, coming from an returned soldier, is especially gratifying. Thank you.
Harry Morton doesn’t think people at the 75th at Gallipoli thought it was PR. Of course not, it would be very poor PR if it didn’t convince people that the reason for their tears and emotions were genuine. I got a bit emotional a few years ago when I visited some areas I had operated in back in 1968 in SVN. When I visited Gallipoli - not on Anzac Day thank heavens - the thing that struck me after looking at the Turkish graves was the sheer arrogance of Australians to keep carrying on as if it was all a uniquely Australian experience. John Howard even wanted to put the Cove on the Australian Heritage Register. The Turks weren’t very keen on that for obvious reasons - despite the very generous tributes to the Allied death Atataturk put on the Gallipoli monument.
I know many people are deeply moved by all the militaristic remembrance nonsense we get pushed down our throats but that doesn’t alter the empirical fact that Anzac day was in decline but underwent a resurgence after a national PR campaign.
The the reality is that much of the remembrance has been deliberately encouraged by governments for political reasons.
My father, who served in New Guinea, thought One Day of the Year was a great play because he said those who had experienced the worst of war said the least about it while those who experienced much of it vicariously were the most vociferous.
Austin’s cross-cultural comparison is an important reminder that what we believe is unique is manipulated in similar ways in different societies.
Austin I aleady stated that in my comment. Either you did not read it properly or you just choose to deny. You know you have just made up this disgraceful premise by drawing the comparision between those who died in Rememberance Day and suicide bombers.
Austin, you would do well to remember that it was the USA that thought Australia worth defending in 1942 while the "mother country", Great Britain, was ready to write her off.
I do not find the parallel apt between Hezbollah and the Australian Army in World War II. Whatever Hezbollah is "defending" it certainly is not the unity and sovereignty of Lebanon, to which it is a greater danger than any force from outside Lebanon’s borders.
It is however true that Hezbollah has not been able to send suicide bombers into Israeli cities. Its specialty is shoot and scoot rocket attacks, leaving the civilian population of southern Lebanon to face the inevitable retaliation.
My point was simply that as a tactic, suicide bombing is as counterproductive as any imaginable. It is much easier to infuriate the Israelis than to cow them, but perhaps that is the true purpose.
chrispriolo
You’ve told me that you think I’m sick and that the comparison is disgraceful… but you haven’t said why you think this…
Nungman
I don’t understand the relevance of your point about America defending us and England not… care to explain?
Regarding the comparison between our army and Hezbollah, that’s not the point I was making. I was just comparing the Martyrs Day ceremony with Remembrance Day in order to debunk the idea that there is a "martyr culture" is unique to Islamic society. I wanted to show that the way they honour their martyrs isn’t that alien to us at all. I wasn’t talking about whether Hezbollah are good thing for Lebanon or not.
You’re right to point out that Hezbollah pose a threat to Lebanon’s unity and sovereignty. Interestingly, during the ceremony there were no references to those killed in the 2008 fighting when Hezbollah were shooting at their fellow Lebanese. They’re not as keen to remember those martyrs. However, I think you’re overstating it to say that they pose the greatest threat to Lebanon.
Regarding the effectiveness of suicide bombing (my article was not a defense of this tactic, by the way) I disagree with you. Suicide bombings were one of the ways Israel was forced to withdraw from Lebanon.
Regarding “shoot and scoot” tactics, there is something to this. The way Hezbollah fighters launch their rockets (at civilians) then hide amongst other civilians is deplorable. However, in 2006 it was Hezbollah responding to Israel’s bombing with rockets, not the other way round. Israel bombed first. Hezbollah replied with rockets and made a public offer to the Israelis that if they stopped bombing Lebanon, Hezbollah would cease its rocket attacks and the war would be between soldiers and soldiers.
Israel did not take them up on the offer, choosing instead to continue the bombing and shelling, killing over a thousand people (the majority women and children) injuring scores more and leaving still more homeless.
I think the point Nungman is demonstrating, is the ignorance that can flourish through propaganda and myths.
It’s why he and most others believe the bullocks about USA acting out of some sort of altruism in beating the Japs when they were a threat to Australia.
They weren’t interested in us AT ALL.
It’s in none of our history books but at the Curtin Uni web site; a quote from the minutes of the meeting between PM Curtin and US emissary Gen MacArthur.
"The Commander-in-Chief added that, though the American people were animated by a warm friendship for Australia, their purpose in building up forces in the Commonwealth was not so much from an interest in Australia but rather from its utility as a base from which to hit Japan."
http://john.curtin.edu.au/events/speeches/edwardsp.html
I don’t have a source to offer, but I have read that British pilots in WWII were instructed to use their planes as missiles rather than ‘ditching’ a plane…. Kamikaze style.
There’s nothing typical about a suicide bomber, apart from the fact that he’s left with no ‘better’ means off attack.
Some ‘older soldiers’ like Noel Turnbull (above) have learned the hard way who to trust and when to dodge from the BS.
Let us glorify our armed forces, it’s not like these young men enlist to use sexy weapons….hmmm …what young man would do that??
"In none of our history books…", phoneyid. How odd.
But not so odd as the spin you put on Gen. MacArthur’s assurances that there was no intention of making Australia a colony of the USA despite the possibly disquieting sight of US Navy ships in Australia’s ports and tens of thousands of American soldiers, sailors and marines on Australia’s streets and byways.
btw, Gen MacArthur was not an "emissary" but a theater commander. A hard man to like, he got on surprisingly well with the Australian leadership, who were inclined to be touchy and easily offended. They also were prepared to fall back to the Brisbane Line, ceding a third of the country to the Japanese, until MacArthur convinced them that the fight for Australia had to be made in New Guinea.
Harry Morton MacArthur was a liar. He had a photo for the Yank newspapers captioned somewhere in New Guinea with his troops when it was taken at Rockhampton. The only time he went to New Guinea was when he stayed overnight in a hotel at Port Moresby. He went once by B15 escorted by fighters to see the 503rd Paratroop Regiment drop on a undefended site at Nadzab. Truman had to sack him when he wanted to Atom bomb the Chinese during the Korean war. As far as the Brisbane Line that had already been discarded before he arrived. US troops came to Australia because the Japs had captured the Phillipines, not to save us. It was the AIF and the Militia at Milne Bay and the AIF at Kokoda who stopped the Japanese not the Americans. When the US battalion came to New Guinea at Buna they threw their Tompson submachine guns away and ran. MacArthur sent a colonel in and told him to make privates sargeants and nco’s majors to put some backbone into them. Blamey crawled to MacArthur and Curtin tolerated him but I was a kid then and we did not idolise MacArthur and our soldiers had many fist fights with Yank soldiers and if girls went with them we called them Yank Happy.
Nungman, today Xe formerly Blackwater, fight for the money (full stop); similarly MacArthur spelled it out for us, see the quote I posted earlier… It had nothing to do with noble or loyal mateship.
I might hate your guts and wish you even dead (p.s.I don’t) but will fight to protect your house and you from an approaching flood ONLY because my house is next door to yours.
Commander in Chief MacArthur (YES an emissary representing USA in the meeting with Curtin) made his motives for ‘defending Australia’ quite clear… It was in the immediate interest of America, and nothing to do with ‘who occupied our land’…(us).. it’s what he said.. read it again.
The Poms (leaders) showed us about ‘loyalty’… just what makes you think the Yanks any better… It is we who have the myth of mateship…NOT THEM.
I’ll tell you an important mythos embedded in the Yanks.."Manifest Destiny" it’s kind of like a divine right of kings.. they think they have a god given right to do their thing… Just look at what they do to the globe. And we go along like mugs.. thinking we’re "mates".
As an Australian with Greek parentage, I have no delusions of Greeks coming to defend me, and I suggest you drop any delusions of the other Anglophones driven by altruism coming to defend us.
Aussie for Aussies.. and if we want the Septic Tanks (Yanks),,, we’ll just pay them like we did last time.
A few tons of Uranium or a base from which to interact with their satellites and they’ll come running.. just like Xe.
With our diverse population and resources we can exploit a +ve interaction with all and not just be like America’s submissive moll… let’s have some dignity.
I’m fed up with our curtailing to the project For a New American Century.
Phoneyid, I have always believed the USA should have spared itself the effort of supporting the Greek royalists in 1948 and let the country go Communist. What a sorry mess the place is as a capitalist country!
I don’t know what Xe means but I know one Greek word that describes your post: **bourthes** (rubbish).
It was because of the menace to shipping lanes between Australia and The US west coast that that America started an offensive against the Japanese in the Solomons without being properly prepared.
Harry, it would take a whole essay to point out all the mistakes.
That’s **Douglas** MacArthur, he flew in a B-17 not a B-15, Robert Eichelberger was a general not a colonel when MacArthur told him (according to Eichelberger’s memoirs): "Bob, I’m telling you to take Buna or don’t come back alive."
All democracies begin wars badly. The Americans’ tactics at Papua were poor, their leadership in the field not equal to the task, but the US military cemetery at Buna shows not all the Yanks ran away.
The Australian Diggers were and are superb soldiers—the USA was glad to have them in Vietnam, where they paid with interest any remaining debt for World War II assistance.
Yes, Austin, Hezbollah offered to stop the rocket attacks—but not to return or provide any information about the two IDF reserve sergeants it had captured (kidnapped?) from **inside** Israel. They eventually were returned—in coffins—and if God is good they were already dead when taken over the border.
If Qassir’s suicide attack drove Israel from southern Lebanon, it took five years to do so. Israel withdrew its forces from southern Lebanon predicting that Hezbollah would move back in and the rocket attacks resume—only too prophetic.
The original suicide bombers were of course the Japanese **Shimpu** pilots, called **Kamikaze**. They did a lot of damage to the US Navy but the damage they ended up causing Japan was many times worse. Any debate within the US administration over whether to use the atomic bomb was settled by the proof they provided that the Japanese preferred death to negotiation.
Austin,
I would start by disputing your last point: That hezbollah is not “waging a war” against anyone. As you would know, Hezbollah, or “party of god” was created with the help of Ayatollah Khomeini’s supporters, and was intended as a continuation of the “Islamic Revolution”. It is still funded and armed by the regimes of Iran and Syria, and has close ties with Hamas.
Its flag displays the word “allah”, with its Sufic script grasping an assault rifle that looms over a sketched globe. Near the picture it reads “Then surely the party of Allah are they that shall be triumphant”.
In hezbollah’s 1985 manifesto: "whatever touches or strikes the Muslims in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Philippines and elsewhere reverberates throughout the whole Muslim umma of which we are an integral part. … No one can imagine the importance of our military potential as our military apparatus is not separate from our overall social fabric. Each of us is a fighting soldier. And when it becomes necessary to carry out the Holy War, each of us takes up his assignment in the fight in accordance with the injunctions of the Law, and that in the framework of the mission carried out under the tutelage of the Commanding Jurist."
The most salient feature of all of this is indeed the emphasis on war. Every Muslim is a soldier and enjoined by god to fight holy war, no exceptions. In other words, ‘you are on standby to be called to war whenever we wish’. Hezbollah exists for war, justifies itself by declaring war, and maintains control over people by declaring the word of god – for holy war. Hezbollah is the waging of war. It is no good saying it is in fact a political or “liberation” movement, as if that excuses it, for its essence is theocratic and oppressive.
Your point about similarity in ceremony, symbolism and the fact of honouring the dead holds water on a superficial level; people celebrate those from among their ranks who fell for a “national” cause, and evoke the memory of them. But that is where the similarity ends.
What really matters, and what marks the fundamental difference, are the virtues being honoured in such a ceremony. After all it makes no sense to simply honour someone because they died for a cause (whatever it happens to be) without mentioning what virtues are inherent in that cause. Martyrs’ Day, as you say, commemorates principally the death (not the life) of Ahmad Jaafar Qassir, an ignorant (let’s not mince words) suicide-murderer. You also mention the fallout and the ultimate withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon. Forgive me, but it sounds almost like you’re saying that the end justifies the means. How could it possibly be good to honour the virtue of ignorance, impressionability, and a willingness to kill indiscriminately, even if that includes the innocent (then, of course, no-one is innocent if you are waging holy war)?
(I should add that I do not say all this from a pro-Israel position, I am as anti-zionist as I am anti-hezbollah, given that it too is a self-serving power structure appealing to the divine and ineffable to justify killing and the theft of occupied lands. My qualm is with religion. A two-state solution is the only solution – but that will never happen so long as the parties of god claim exclusive rights and endorse extreme violence.)
You mention, Austin, that hezbollah has a more religious flavour to it (slight understatement) simply because the society in which it resides is more religious. True, to be sure. But you might as well say that because that society has a proclivity to believe a creed that claims to be the last word on everything, that claims to be all you need, that demands you submit yourself to a totalitarian belief, it is in its very nature highly susceptible to the abuse and tyranny of a few vile characters wishing to exploit this credulity for real power, in the here and now. And you would be correct in doing so. But what service does this do your case? You go on to say, “[t]hat greater emphasis seems to me, however, to be more a difference in symbolism and rhetoric than one of emotional content, which fundamentally celebrates the same thing.” Are you saying that all the stuff about divine injunction for holy war, the umma, the religious obligation to commit murder-suicide is merely rhetoric and symbolism? Come on. Considering the above, it is not clear that our moral obligation towards fellow human-beings is in fact NOT to tolerate their oppression under religious tyranny? Wouldn’t this be a true demonstration of respect?
It is thoroughly masochistic to pretend that there is some sort moral equivalency here. And it is an unfortunate tendency of recent liberal thinking that sentimentally claims, explicitly or implicitly, that morality is and should be relative (I say that as someone who is left-leaning). There is a HUGE difference between secular humanism and totalitarian theocracy.
Be realistic, and view this in a broader historical context; the theocratic, which is totalitarian by definition, is fundamentally incompatible with liberal democracy, and a clash between them is inevitable. When that theocracy is militaristic, possessed of a nihilist death-wish, then we have a moral obligation to oppose it, for the sake of everyone – especially those who are being coerced by it. And in the case of Lebanon, as it happens, the democratic urge is very strong.
To bolster your case about the similarity in ceremony by pandering to the common and un-nuanced view that the involvement of our countries in foreign conflicts is by definition wrong is, in my view, questionable. It is playing with moral fire, Austin. Don’t make the mistake of capitulating to violence and tyranny for the sake of some nebulous idea about maintaining the smoothness of inter-cultural understanding (which is a noble enterprise, I might add). These people would not do you the same service, I assure you.
At best, in pointing out our shared habit of honouring the dead, especially those who died for a cause, you have simply underlined our shared humanity and shared capacity for sorrow, pride and emotional investment. But this only serves to highlight the differences in the powers that govern us. Rather than relativise, what you point out can only serve to harden our view that appeals to the divine, the championing of murderers – theocratic totalitarianism in general – are all wicked things and should be opposed vehemently. We at least owe them that.
So Austin,
In answer to your question "How different are Lebanon’s martyrs from our own?":
They are not different at all; they are just as dead.
The real question is ‘How different are the reasons for their deaths, and how differently does our society rationalize them?’:
Very different, and very differently.
Nungman
You’re incorrect.
Hezbollah did offer to return the soldiers, alive, right from the start. The deal was that they would swap him for Samir Qantar, a Lebanese Druze member of the Palestine Liberation Front, a PLO being held in an Israeli prison on multiple life sentences for the murder of Israeli father, daughter and two policemen. A tough decision for Israel no doubt, and one they avoided until the media attention had died down, when they agreed to give him back (alive) in exchange for the corpses of their kidnapped soldiers. It’s a shame they didn’t just make the swap to start and save not just the lives of those two poor young men but of the other Israeli soldiers and Hezbollah fighters who died in south Lebanon, the dozens of Israeli civilians the thousand plus Lebanese civilians.
None of the Israeli pilots responsible for killing whole Lebanese families (or their commanders) have ever done jail time, unfortunately.
NOTE: apparently I was somewhat incorrect to say the Israeli bombing started before the rocket attack as during the mission to capture/kidnap the Israeli soldiers they fired a volley of rockets at other border towns as a distraction. They did then cease the rocket attacks until after the bombing began.
Samualjm
First of all, thanks for the effort you’ve put into your comment. It’s a long and complicated one so my response to it might be a little fragmented. I hope I can make it clear which point I’m responding to at which time.
Hezbollah, or “party of god” was intended as a continuation of the “Islamic Revolution”. It is still funded and armed by the regimes of Iran and Syria, and has close ties with Hamas. How does this mean they are currently waging war?
They are a religiously framed group, formed, as I said, out of a religious population. They do have a quote from the Quran on their flag. Their manifesto does tie them to the fate of other Muslims world wide and declare that the whole population was ready to fight for them.
However, none of this changes the fact that they were formed by a population under occupation and it’s primary goal was to end that occupation. That is it’s “essence”. If Israel would stop menacing Lebanon (fighter jets violating Lebanon’s airspace to pick a recent example) Hezbollah would be at a huge political loss and the more liberal and democratic forces inside Lebanon (who are unfortunately backed by totalitarian Egypt, Wahabist Saudi Arabia and imperialist America) would gain substantial ground.
That is also where the emphasis on war comes from. They were motivating men to fight the occupation.
Which of its actions was related to the global Muslim agenda?
The virtues being honoured in the ceremony are courage and self sacrifice. The same as those honoured at Remembrance Day.
Why do you call Qassir ignorant and impressible? What do you know of his decision making process? Do you think Hezbollah kill more or less indiscriminately than an English bomber pilot over Berlin?
“Are you saying that all the stuff about divine injunction for holy war, the umma, the religious obligation to commit murder-suicide is merely rhetoric and symbolism?” – yes in the case of hezbollah i’m saying that’s what it is. Having met with Hezbollah supporters and members (a blurred distinction, what with all of them being ready to fight when called upon) and asked them why they support Hezbollah, the reasons they give are very simple ones that any one could understand – Hezbollah freed their people and their land from brutal (think torture, murder, extortion) occupying forces.
There IS a huge difference between secular humanism and totalitarian theocracy. I agree and I’m not a moral relativist.
You’re right that the theocratic politics of Hezbollah, and of its ideological partners in Iran is repugnant and totalitarian. And the inevitable clash between that and democracy is real, and taking place in Lebanon right now. Please read my second response to Nungman
That an anti war stance (i.,e. That we shouldnt fight in wars unless we or our allies are threatened AND that fighting those wars will reduce that threat) is common and un-nuanced doesn’t mean it’s wrong. My point was that for all our moral superiority, WE are the ones living in a society that is carrying out massive violence against Muslims, not the other way around.
And I’m not capitulating to any one. I don’t know why you think I am. I never said Hezbollah are good.
Regarding the idea that I shouldn’t try to understand Hezbollah because they wouldn’t try to understand me… huh? Since when was I trying to be like them?
“ in pointing out our shared habit of honouring the dead, especially those who died for a cause, you have simply underlined our shared humanity and shared capacity for sorrow, pride and emotional investment.” - Fantastic! This was my aim. There is a tendency to talk as if muslims cannot be understood in normal human terms, indeed a mutual friend of ours (for others reading this me and Sam go way back) once said to me regarding Muslims “they’re not individuals like us”. This is what my article aims to combat.
I don’t defend “appeals to the divine,” or “theocratic totalitarianism in general”., or for that matter the championing of murderers” - i was saying that if we consider those who fought killed and died in our wars heroes not murderers we shouldn’t think its so strange when other people, religious or secular, do the same.
If the “real question” is, as you say ‘How different are the reasons for their deaths, and how differently does our society rationalize them?
I would reply that that’s actually two questions, the reasons for their deaths are quite similar, though in the case of Hezbollah, they probably had stronger justifications to die fighting invaders of their territory than Australia’s soldiers did to die defending England or France (those who died fighting the japanese are closer to hezbollah than those who died fighting the Germans in Africa and Europe and Turkey). The rationalization, I still contend, is rhetorically different, but emotionally the same.
I would like to just restate the point of my article now, as our discussion has becme slightly tangental. People say that there is a “martyr culture” in Islamic society that is death loving and completely unlike anything in the west. My point is to combat this idea, not defend Hezbollah’s politics.
Clarrification… where i say:
“Are you saying that all the stuff about divine injunction for holy war, the umma, the religious obligation to commit murder-suicide is merely rhetoric and symbolism?” – yes in the case of hezbollah i’m saying that’s what it is. Having met with Hezbollah supporters and members (a blurred distinction, what with all of them being ready to fight when called upon) and asked them why they support Hezbollah, the reasons they give are very simple ones that any one could understand – Hezbollah freed their people and their land from brutal (think torture, murder, extortion) occupying forces.
I should add that there are those one could describe as true beleivers, but that it’s my impression that they are a minority.
Also, in light of the point about Hezbollah clashing with other groups in Lebanon, perhaps a better tittle for this piece would have been "Are Hezbollah’s martyrs so different from our own". Not all Lebanese claim ownership of these martyrs. unfortunatley the time difference between Sydney and Beirut meant I didn’t get a chance to suggest this to the editors who headlined it.
Austin, let’s just say that your version of events is not confirmed by any source I can credit. And what if it were accurate? That would mean either that Hezbollah lied about its intention to return the two Israeli soldiers alive or that—unlike Qantar—they both died in Hezbollah custody.
So…the Obama administration is imperialist? ("Yankee imperialist"—wow! Thought that phrase went out with the Cold War. Dust off your eight track and get out the bell bottoms.) Egypt is totalitarian? Authoritarian, perhaps, but where’s the Party Line, the altered history, the worship of Big Brother?
I think recent events in Teheran clearly show where the real totalitarians are…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200607/s1685242.htm
Do you trust the ABC? if not google "2-07-2006 + prisoner swap"
You’re right, they were either dead from the start or died in custody. Is your point that Hezbollah are nasty people? I never questioned that. The only reason I’ve said anything that might sound like their defense is because people can’t stick to the bad stuff they’ve actually done and start making things up as well. I have the same problem when discussing Israel with Arabs some time. There is plenty to critisize Israel about that’s well documented but people get so heated and into it they start making stuff up.
And yes perhaps Egypt is better described as authoritarian than totalitarian. We can both agree their pretty nasty though. Not sure who is worse between Egypt and Iran… but since your interested in the "recent events" there please check out the article I wrote on them http://www.the-diplomat.com/001f1281_r.aspx?artid=117
You might be interested to know that this bell bottom wearing tree hugging hippy you think I am reported for FOX news while I was there as well. Do you still see me in bell bottoms? If you do, so what? That’s not an argument… it’s just a jibe…
I’m through with responding to your comments. I’m getting the impression you’re just out to score points rather than discuss the issues in any meaningful way. Peace.
Austin,
An interesting article though I disagree with you. The primary difference between our memorial days and those celebrated by Hamas and Hezbollah is that we do not celebrate the murder of civilians. We mourn those that we have lost and sometimes cherish their memories or sit amazed that they are able to perform such feats of bravery (including killing enemy soldiers) but we do not hand out sweets when civilians die. We do not idolize those that intentionally go out to blow themselves up in cafes, kindergartens and discotheques. These are not martyrs but murderers.
Raffe,
I think you’re confusing Hezbollah and Hamas (I.e. discotheques, cafes and kindergartens). Hezbollah though, have taken civilian lives, just like some of the men we commemorate on remembrance day (The bomber pilot over Berlin etc).
At both our Remembrance day and their Martyrs Day these elements are glossed over and the focus is on those who died fighting soldiers. Peace.
Austin,
The 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish Centre in Argentina that killed scores of innocent people was committed by Hezbollah. This was not bombers flying over a target who accidentally release their payload but rather committed men who drove a truck full of explosives into a civilian building. This is just one example of scores littered throughout the bloody Middle East conflict that stretch far beyond the borders of Lebanon. One could also say that we have learnt our lesson from our actions in WW2. The tactic of Total War is now considered inhumane and we have since revised our laws of warfare to reflect that. Do some civilian buildings get hit? Of course. This is war and more often than not mistakes are made. However the key difference between the West and Hezbollah is that we have investigations (and often convictions) if things go wrong.
Take the actions of Samir Kuntar for example. Had he died that night in 1979 would he have been one of the glorious martyrs that Hezbollah praises? Despite the fact that he smashed the head of a four year old girl with a rock and killed her father. Last year he was greeted as a hero by Hezbollah when he was released by Israel in a prisoner swap.
I don’t deny that there are similarities between the two days and every army, including resistance groups, are entitled to memorial days to commemorate those that they consider heroes. But lets not mince words…these people are murderers. Peace
The indiscriminate bombing of german cities was a deliberate policy of Churchill and Truman. There are too many cases of civilian buildings and crowds being hit by western airplanes in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam for them all to be written off as unfortunate mistakes. We’re talking thousands, hundreds of thousands and sometimes more civillain dead in these places.
The investigations you refer to are jokes, carefully orchestrated to minimize public outrage.
Samir Kuntar is a monster. Agreed.
What about the man who dropped the atom bomb on Hiroshima? A man who killed tens of thousands of civilians in one ghastly action and when interviewed years later said he had only positive feelings about it. He was satisfied he’d carried out his mission. Also a monster.
War makes monsters into heroes.
Call them murderers if you like but also call the Israeli soldiers who shoot unarmed palestinians and israelis monsters, and the pilots who bomb convoys of refugees fleeing their villages and the helicopter gunship men who fire on ambulances marked with the Red Cross.
And since your prepared to put every Hezbollah fighter in the same category, you should do the same with every american british or israeli soldier too.
There is much more blood on western and Israeli hands than on the hands of the muslims who oppose us. Our violence is of a completely different scale. It is industrial.
This is perhaps one reason it’s harder to comprehend how evil it is. You can imagine a girl having her head beaten in with a rock. It’s ghastly, but it’s a simple enough act for our minds to really animate it.
Imagining whole families crushed beneath the concrete slabs of their houses, or children punctured in a dozen places by shrapnel is a little harder. The sanitized way most media covers our violence, as opposed to the gripping accounts given of their violence doesn’t help.
Call Hezbollah’s fighters murderers if you like, the shoe fits, but please try and educate yourself about the reality of modern war.
We have murderers too.
Correction, the sixth paragraph down should read:
Call them murderers if you like but also call the Israeli soldiers who shoot unarmed Palestinians and Lebanese murderers, and the pilots who bomb convoys of refugees fleeing their villages and the helicopter gunship men who fire on ambulances marked with the Red Cross.
"However the key difference between the West and Hezbollah is that we have investigations (and often convictions) if things go wrong."
Tell that to our allies’ Republican Party new Foreign Policy Advisor Lt Col Oliver North.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28808.html
Oh, oh, I’ve struck a nerve.
Truly, Austin, the reference to bell bottoms was non-ideological. The phrase you used is as passe, as outmoded, as that article of clothing.
I read your report on the Iranian election. The Basij truly are twenty-first century cossacks. The regime they defend is as doomed as the Romanoffs.
[from **Wikipedia**]
HOT BIRD 6 (active) was launched in 21 July 2002. Starting on 12 June 2009, the day of Iranian elections, deliberate interference affecting this satellite was traced to Iran. Hot Bird 6 is the primary carrier for BBC Persian Television.[1]
One has to respect the memory and dignity of all Australians who have offered and sacrificed their lives in what they perceived was their duty to the nation.
However, that said, it must be also noted that Australia has been involved in only ONE war ever that could be considered to be "Just"and that is WW2.
And having said that, it must also be appreciated that Churchill (while our hero for wearning about the Nazi danger) was a racist warmonger and mass murderer (he deliberately murdered 6-7 million Indians in the 1943-1945 Bengali Holocaust; see the transcript of the 2008 BBC broadcast involving me, Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen and other scholars: http://www.open2.net/thingsweforgot/bengalfamine_programme.html ) who did his best to get Japan into war with the US (see Rusbridger, J. and Nave, E. (1991), Betrayal at Pearl Harbor. How Churchill Lured Roosevelt into World War II (Summit, New York), co-authored by one of Australia’s very top intelligence people) and for all his pro-Zionism (perhaps because of it?) was also complicit in the mass murder of Hungarian Jews by rejecting (on Zionist advice) the Joel Brand Plan to save 0.7 million Hungarian Jews from the Nazis (see "BRAND, Joel. Exposing Zionist complicity in Nazi mass murder of Hungarian Jews": http://sites.google.com/site/jewsagainstracistzionism/brand-joel-exposin… ).
Unfortunately we in Australia are fed an utterly false history by lying, genocidal, racist Zionists (RZs) and a lying Anglo-American Establishment.
Lest we forget the literally MILLIONS of women and children killed in these heroic wars.
Australia has participated in all post-1950 US Asian wars, wars that have been associated (so far) with up to 25 million violent or non-violent avoidable deaths, the breakdown being 1 million (Korea), Indo-China (Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam; 13 million), Iraq (4 million), Afghanistan (3-7 million) (see my book “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950” (G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007: http://mwcnews.net/Gideon-Polya and http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/ ).
The bottom line in any comparative analysis of violent wrongdoing is consequential violent death (from bombs and bullets) or non-violent excess death (avoidable death from deprivation and deprivation-exacerbated disease) as detailed below.
The current "annual death rate" for Occupied Afghan under-5 year old infants under the US Alliance is 7% (warmonger Kevin 07 indeed) - as compared to that of 4% (for Poles under the Nazis in WW2), 5% (French Jews under the Nazis and the Nazi-collaborator Vichy régime in WW2), 13% (Australian POWs of the Japanese in WW2) and 19% (Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe).
Our soldiers are NOT the war criminals - the war criminals are the racist, warmongering, war-making, child-killing Lib-Lab politicians and their racist Zionist (RZ) and neocon supporters.
Post-invasion in Occupied Afghanistan, non-violent excess deaths total 3.2 million, violent excess deaths total up to 4 million, non-violent and violent excess deaths total 3-7 million, under-5 year old infant deaths total 2.3 million and there are 3-4 million refugees plus a further 2.5 million Pashtun refugees generated in NW Pakistan under Obama war policies – an Afghan Holocaust and an Afghan Genocide as defined by Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention (for details and documentation see “Polish Holocaust (1939-1945) & Afghan Holocaust (2001-)”: http://gpolya.polls.newsvine.com/_news/2009/09/02/3218030-polish-holocau… ).
Peace is the only way but Silence kills and Silence is complicity.
just incase any one is still interested… found this article in Haarets:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1138124.html
bang on
One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter—that’s pretty much conceded by everyone. That also was the thrust of the Haaretz article. [People nowadays forget with what idealism, what optimism for future Arab-Jewish relations, the Jewish colony in Palestine was founded. The Labor Socialist organ Haaretz is there to remind them.]
But those Jews executed as terrorists by the British Mandatory authority were not "martyrs" and not the most hard-core Sternists ever called them so. Martyrdom is a Christian concept. It is alien, even abhorrent, to Jews. As a people historically on the edge of annihilation—even if this is not the case today—Jews are commanded to preserve their life, not give it up.
btw: Being a martyr wasn’t ever real popular among Christians, either.
Dear Nungman,
The "one mans terrorist" concept is very widely acknowledged yes, I just thought this article put it artfully.
But the idea of martyrdom being abhorrent to Jews? I’m sure I’ve heard the expression "six million martyrs" more than once…
Your right, however, that suicide is forbidden in Jewish lore, as it is in Muslim lore.
btw: Being a martyr isn’t number one on the to-do list of any of the Muslims I’ve met.
Austin, I hope you carry on meeting only your kind of Moslems. Everyone who’s met the other kind is dead.