Stretch?Originally Posted by William F. Owen
Let's see here - Hezballah exists in order to establish a caliphate. Caliphates must be ruled by direct descendants of Muhammad the prophet. Noble tribes are descendants of Muhammad the prophet. Noble tribesmen feel that they have a right and religious obligation to rule. Their supporters feel the same - it's the shari'a that compels them, and their pride. You can throw up the Israel thing as being Hezballah's raison d'etre, but it aint. They want power - and they'll either take it through the democratic process or through violence - whatever is easiest. And the Musawi tribe (vis a vis Nasrallah) is the prime beneficiary.
The insurgent organizations in Iraq, both Sunni and Shi'ite, are fighting to establish their versions of the Caliphate. What we see as sectarian violence is also a tribe war between the Sunni and Shi'ite noble tribes. It's an identity thing - they are both motivated by the same idea that their noble tribesmen have the right and obligation to rule the caliphate, should there be one.
The activities of the Luhayb are documented by scholarship - it's an example meant to drive home the point of the need to INVESTIGATE further. Since you are an Arabic speaker, I hope that it follows that you are an Arabic reader, as well. With this proficiency, I suggest diving all the way into the subject. Since neither one of us knows for sure, it requires that. However, I wouldn't be amazed if found that the majority of Hezballah's members come from the poorest Shi'ite Arab tribes in Lebanon, and that their recruitability stems largely out of economic need, perhaps MORE than the sectarian appeal. I hate to say it, but there is a social marxist theoretical application here that requires further exploration as well. Knowing the history of Lebanon and the concurrent "oppression" of shi'ites therein, this has to be a factor.
I see your point, but I don't concede it - not until the investigation of this issue is done. Such an investigation would require knowledge of what Hezballah's constituency looks like on a person by person level. It would then also require a thorough breakdown of Lebanon's tribal system using Lebanese scholarship.
Any Beiruti will tell you that there are no tribes in Lebanon. For Beirut, where there is relatively more government presence and effectiveness, this might be the case. But in the countryside, tribalism becomes more and more important. Where do you suppose Hezballah is strongest? Ibn Khaldun might suggest that if Hezballah is strong in the city now, then it is because they displaced those who were there before them.
For the sake of social dialectics, I'll conclude that tribalism as it pertains to Hezballah is more important than you suppose, and less important than I would guess. I place a lot of importance on the noble tribes as being key drivers of instability in the Middle East. As Nasrallah comes from the ((Al-Musuwi)) tribe, which claims nobility through Musa Al-Kadhim, who was a descendant of Imam 'Ali Ibn Abi Talib, and such Musuwis are important throughout the rest of Iraq as being high level leaders of insurgent organizations such as JAM, special groups, et al - I'm fairly certain that tribalism is an overlooked aspect in Lebanon's Hezballah, but not because it is irrelevant. It's because we drink too much progressive pan-Arabist kool aid, and because we are lazy and too prone to think that our Lebanese counterparts are "just like us." As if Hezballah is really just a political organization in modern clothes that isn't trying to get their version of a caliphate established...
Interesting subject - us Americans are just beginning to start studying tribes. The Brits were better at it 100 years ago, but they are as bad as we are now.
Regards,
tribeguy
Bookmarks