Written June 2006

We can always count on something like Facebook to oversimplify an otherwise complex conflict that is now occurring in Lebanon into a suitable environment for blind cheerleading. It is no longer a matter of innocent civilians caught in the crossfire -- in this case, Palestinian and Lebanese civilians caught in the crossfire of a conflict sparked by many different agitators (namely, independent militias, security forces, the Lebanese army and Fath al-Islam), each with their own instances of flawed conduct. One of which has been the sheer lack of concern over civilian casualties ("collateral damage") beyond meaningless rhetoric. This is in addition to the grievances of innocent civilians within Palestinian refugee camps who have suffered for generations after they were displaced from their homeland by Israel. The Lebanese army has a long record of showing its muscles only when it is against defenseless Palestinian refugees. When Israel attacked Lebanon last summer, they were nowhere to be found as a few hundred Hezbollah fighters -- the only line of defense for the Lebanese people -- fought off what seemed to be insurmountable odds.

Not a single political party spoke out against the indiscriminate bombing of the Palestinian refugee camp of Nahr al-Bared by the Lebanese army. It has been nothing but a rush over who can show the most support. Practically everyone is supporting a "decisive military option" which means that the Lebanese army would be allowed to invade Palestinian refugee camps.

It is fine to show support towards a particular action, but to throw your entire support on one side (a specific and identifiable party or military apparatus and not some wide-reaching term) without objectively observing the situation and finding faults within each party is absolutely ridiculous. There is a difference in stating that "Hezbollah is a legitimate resistance against foreign occupation in Lebanon!" from "I support Hezbollah!" While the former is specific in what action it is supporting, the other paves the way to blind cheerleading.

I find it mind-boggling that many people who have criticized such blind, unquestioned support of the American population’s “Support the troops!” mentality fails to see the same parallel associated with blind support for the Lebanese army. There is no need to state that you support the Lebanese soldiers, that is a given. All soldiers are subject to the state apparatus which utilizes them to do its bidding without any question -- that is the general framework of the relationship. In principle, each soldier should be shown support, but support can also be shown by opposing the state's command. In other words, "I support the army!" will always be a vague slogan that will fail to do justice to the complexity of a particular conflict, while making the state apparatus immune to any criticism.

All moral human beings should always be on the side of the oppressed. In this situation, it is innocent and defenseless Palestinians primarily caught in the crossfire, as casualties continue to rise. I am not saying for people to stop supporting any particular action by the Lebanese military which includes entering Palestinian refugee camps. Analyze the situation yourself and come to your own conclusion which could be subject to change at any moment. Nevertheless, again, you must look at this issue objectively and avoid such divisive (and outright idiotic) cheerleading. In this case, the cheerleading has already been hijacked by many people seeking to strengthen the solidarity of the Lebanese people with Israel in its offensive against the Palestinian people. They play on anxiety, fear and the classical racism towards Palestinians that has long been in existence in Lebanon. You can also find people who are bent on demonizing Islam and Muslims throwing their two cents in there as well. They are opportunists, nothing more. And yes, sadly, many have taken the bait surrendering their capacity for critical thinking.

As of this moment, it is hard to tell where this conflict is going. One thing is for certain: innocent Palestinian and Lebanese civilians must be protected from the bullets fired by all sides. In this case, the superior firepower of the Lebanese army is the biggest threat to human lives and its exercise of firepower should be put into question. That is the general rule of thumb when state firepower through the military is thrown into the mix. There are terrorist organizations in the Philippines right now, but no one will ever find me surrendering the complexity of that conflict for a slogan like "Support the Philippine army!"

There are better alternatives than being trigger happy and falling victim to blind support. Fath al-Islam is a small fanatical group which is primarily made up by foreigners (non-Palestinian) and many observers argue that it could have been dealt with as a security matter, without requiring the firepower of the Lebanese army. Personally, I concur with this opinion.

In the spirit of resistance,
Critical Mood