Everything I’ve read about Lebanese citizens’ “support” for Hezbollah indicates that it’s tempered with a great deal of ambivalence. From what I can gather, most seem to recognize that it was Hezbollah’s political ambitions that started the latest Israeli aggression (or, better, gave Israel the pretext it has quite publicly been seeking), and a great deal of Hezbollah’s support is tactical, situational, a default position due to the impotence of the broader state. In other words, Lebanese popular reaction to being bombed, killed, and terrorized is the same as most attacked people in the west and the rest of the world: to seek the protection from the (domestic) force seeming to best offer it, without necessarily submitting to its political program tout court.
But this sort of equivocal stance is denied to populations in the periphery by western leftists, or at least certain opportunistic factions of it, who see in Lebanese “support” an unambiguous fealty to Hezbollah. So for the anti-imperialist western leftist, the complexity that, for example, allowed 90 percent of Americans to “support” George Bush after 9/11 while largely rejecting his larger agenda is specifically not available to subaltern subjects. “They” all support Hezbollah unreservedly, and western leftists had better offer similar fealty by honoring and lining up behind “their” devotion. Any other stance amounts to collaboration with Israeli-American aggression.
The (party) politics behind such a view are becoming more apparent. As this makes clear, Hezbollah is less a terrorist organization or resistance force than a political party, and a quasi-Keynesian, nationalist one at that. Just the sort of thing a SWiPer frustrated at his [sic] lack of influence on Labour and on western states can get behind.