[tptacek]

I'm sorry but my lived experience of this thread is that you're the one who jumped in. I'm happy you did so, but maybe we just leave this at "we disagree and our premises are too far apart for it to make sense to litigate".

My contention is that Hezbollah is a literal arm of the IRGC Quds Force, integrated into Iranian military command and control, operating in Iran's regional strategic interests, to the point of dragging Lebanon into another regional war for no apparent benefit to Lebanon itself; it is further the most powerful military organization in Lebanon and largely outside the reach of internal law in Lebanon. Ergo: I would say that Hezbollah is evidence of Iranian occupation of Lebanon.

If you want to dispute the definitions I'm using, that's fine; it's just about the most boring thing we could possible argue about. What I strongly object to is the notion that Hezbollah under Nasrallah has functioned as a "resistance movement", as has been claimed elsewhere on this thread. Ask a Sunni in Homs what they think about that claim.

[dtornabene]

That Sunni in Homs that you want to ventriloquize (do...do you actually know any Sunnis from Homs? Seriously dude. Do you get why its extremely gross to use their suffering for point scoring?) wasn't under Hezbollahs boot in 1982, when it was formed to resist an Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon. This is what I mean when I say your definition of "occupation" is doing an incredible amount of ideological lifting, and why it is, in fact, a resistance movement. You haven't responded to the link I provided nor provided any of your own to buttress an part of your own argument, which is pretty telling I think. Do you actually know anything, literally anything at all about the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon? Thats a serious question and if you want to respond to me I'd ask you to respond, in detail, to that. Because the idea that the Lebanese were just peachy keen over their country being invaded and brutalized, for years and years, until the Iranians planted an occupation force in their midst is... its kind of gross man! The idea that the Lebanese right now were just fine with the slaughter in Gaza and its only the evil Persians and their scheming who are whipping up antizionist sentiment...that kind of argument has a history. You can point to the horror show of the Syrian Civil War all you want, that came literally two plus decades after Hezbollah was formed. I'm not sure if its intentional or not, but I see you have now tightened your argument to say "Hezbollah under Nasrallah". Kind of looks like a shifting goalpost to me. Do you believe it was a resistance movement and then degenerated under Nasrallah? Seems germane!

[tptacek]

I don't know what point you're trying to make here, sorry. The Hezbollah siege of Madaya didn't occur in 1982. You've jumped onto a thread about what Hezbollah is; I don't know that it's reasonable to object to comments pointing out what it isn't. By all means, rebut them if you can.

[runarberg]

You seem to have adopted a very convenient definition of “resistance movement”. In almost all colonial warfare throughout history, the colonized received international support. Sometimes this was just weapons and aid, sometimes these were international volunteer bridges, and sometimes whole armies of a supporting nation. For example, in Rhodesian bush war, not only were the main Zimbabwe resistance groups armed and supplied by China and the Soviet Union, but they also had fighters and armed groups coming from Mozambique, ANC (South Africa) and Zambia.

During the Gaza genocide Hezbollah has been one of only two international groups who have fought with the Palestinian resistance (the other being the Huthis). Not even Iran has fought to help Palestine (they merely sent a nominal amount of missiles for reasons other than the liberation of Palestine). The ANC, and Mozambique fighters surely were armed and supplied by e.g. the Soviet Union, who probably event gave them intelligence, military advice, etc. But at no point were they a vessel or otherwise integrated into any military unit of the Soviet Union. And they fought the Rhodesian Government on ideological grounds and in solidarity with their colonized partners on the continent, but also of self preservation as e.g. the Mozambique resistance probably saw an independent Rhodesian Government would be a thread to their own liberation.

To claim e.g. that the ANC were evidence of a Soviet occupation in Africa would be very ahistorical (and I don’t thing anybody would do that), but still (and I haven’t checked, so I may be wrong) it wouldn’t surprise me that many contemporary apologists of African apartheid did just that.

[tptacek]

Was Hezbollah an active ideological adversary of Israel, a participant in the conflict between Israel and Hamas/PIJ? Absolutely. Does that mean it participated in what Iran calls "resistance" to the state of Israel? Absolutely. Is that Hezbollah's core function? Absolutely not. Hezbollah is a service branch of the Iranian military. In every conflict Hezbollah has fought with Israel, it has incurred fewer losses and contested less territory than it did in Syria.

Empirically, Hezbollah's function is to serve Iran's regional strategic interests. When those interests align against Israel, as they so often do, Hezbollah "resists" Israel. When they involve killing Lebanese Sunni political adversaries, they do otherwise. When they involve projecting Iranian military power in other foreign conflicts, that's what they do.

I walk down the street, and someone sitting down the side of the road asks for some spare change. I give them a couple bucks and keep walking. Am I a philanthropist? Maybe in that moment? But I am in reality a software developer.

If you want to argue that Hezbollah is both a resistance movement and a foreign military occupier of Lebanon, we might find a place to agree. But, obviously, us agreeing isn't important. I'm comfortable with what this thread says about our respective positions!

[runarberg]

With that line of reasoning you could claim that the American Indian Movement is a foreign occupying power within the USA, as they receive support from and serve the strategic interests of other indigenous liberation movements around the Americas (including Nicaragua and Bolivia); Or you could flip the script and claim that the Nicaraguan Contras were a US backed foreign occupying power in Nicaragua.

That is simply not what a foreign occupying power means. Let’s take the contras for example. They weren’t just mindless drones of the US empire, they had their own strategic interest which happened to align with US interest in the region. Would they have been active without US backing, for sure, they just wouldn’t have been so successful (and therefore not as brutal).

The Contras main interest were to reinstate the pre-revolution powerstructure, and to make sure no wealth and land redistribution occurred, they adopted whichever strategy they saw fit, including a heavy anti-communism in order to secure US backing.

[tptacek]

This feels like an argument about definitions. Substitute whatever term you prefer. Though: I don't find it plausible that the American aboriginal rights movement is directed by foreign powers.