The Assassination of Nasrallah and the Left's Attitude

Hezbollah had deployed missiles and rockets in Gaza in order to force Israel into a ceasefire. A ceasefire in Gaza would not only give the Palestinian resistance groups a break, but would also pave the way for Israel’s defeat. In line with this goal, Hezbollah has entered the war for Palestine. However, it has become painfully clear that the balance of power in the new war is very different from the war in 2006. It has become clear that the preparations made by both sides according to their capacities were very disproportionate. As a result, Israel declared its victory by killing all of Hezbollah’s leadership, including its historical leader Hassan Nasrallah.

What the correct reaction to Nasrallah’s death is has sparked fierce debate on the Turkish left. In order to clearly discuss the issue, we must first define Hezbollah as a national liberation movement.  Hezbollah is an organization that led the way in removing US troops from Lebanon in 1983 and ended the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon with an 18-year war between 1982 and 2000. It should not be forgotten that Lebanon does not have a significant army to defend its territory. The war against Israel has brought Hezbollah to a respected position throughout Lebanon over the years. During this period, Hezbollah abandoned its goal of establishing an Islamic state in Lebanon and took shape as an organization focused primarily on fighting Israel. Hezbollah’s biggest partners in Lebanon’s highly contentious domestic politics were also the Christian powers. Hezbollah, which became even stronger militarily with the support it received from Syria and Iran, successfully emerged from the 2006 war with Israel. Hezbollah intervened in the Syrian Civil War that broke out in 2011 and played a leading role in preventing Syria from falling into the hands of Salafi jihadists who are fed by imperialism. If Syria had fallen into the hands of the jihadists, it would have been a matter of time before Lebanon fell. For this reason, the prestige of Hezbollah and Nasrallah in Lebanon increased even more. When the popular movement that started in Lebanon with class motives in 2019 targeted bourgeois politicians from all ethnic and religious groups, the reactions towards Nasrallah, who was actually part of the status quo, were much softer. While the Lebanese left respected Nasrallah on the one hand, it had to face the difficulties of developing as an independent critical force on the other. Nasrallah was most recently the architect of the attacks on Israel in support of the resistance in Gaza, and he lost his life on the way. 

We have to summarize these basic points because we often come across haphazard comments made on the left without even having basic knowledge on the subject. Now let's examine the erroneous attitudes:

1) Those Rejoicing at Nasrallah’s Death:

There is not much to comment on in the fanatically sectarian Sunni jihadists, secular nationalists in Turkey who always support Israel, and unwavering US fans rejoicing at Nasrallah’s death.

Names like Eren Keskin or Ayşe Hür who are close to the Kurdish national movement or who look at the world from a liberal perspective… This clique supports the US-Israel front instead of another oppressed people, the Palestinians or the Lebanese. Instead of embracing a universal worldview, those who are trapped in the world of identities turn the phrase “man is man's worst enemy” into “the oppressed are the worst enemies of the other oppressed”. Thus, they break away from basic ethical values ​​and completely lose their consistency and credibility.

Iranians… There were many Iranians who rejoiced at Nasrallah’s death because Hezbollah was a close ally of the Iranian regime. We know what they suffered from the Mullah regime in Iran.  But how can those who are not organized, who do not have a clear program on the path to freedom, who hope for help from imperialist vultures, imagine a future?

2) Those Who Take a Somewhat Neutral Stance:

A leftist tendency that journalistically reported Nasrallah’s death as “news” considering his Islamic and bourgeois character and who do not want to see Hezbollah as an oppressed national movement also exposed itself in this process. Those who follow this tendency are not on the side of Israel and the US, but they never accept to take a stance on the side of Hezbollah in a way that would mean a kind of neutrality in this extremely unequal war. However, it is necessary to remind them that remaining neutral in the war between the strong and the weak means being on the side of the strong. They also remind us of Hezbollah’s reactionary aspects. We are of course aware of these aspects, but revolutionary politics has very little to do with political correctness. Otherwise, we would find ourselves saying “well done” to Israel.

The infamous, middle-of-the-road slogan “neither Sam nor Saddam” coined by the ÖDP (Free Democratic Party of Turkey) during the US invasion of Iraq is a very typical example. Emphasizing how bad a dictator Saddam was when the US was plundering a weak country like Iraq only served to create confusion among the masses and reduce the intensity of the struggle. Today, instead of focusing on the US-Israeli massacres, emphasizing the reactionary aspects of Hezbollah will only serve the interests of Zionism. The same applies to Haniyeh, who is less consistent than Nasrallah against imperialism. It is clear who is served by highlighting the reactionary aspects of Hamas. It is necessary to stay away from purist commentary and from lukewarm waters of the middle-of-the-road. The duty of revolutionaries is to make the main blow clearly and to guide the progressive forces correctly.

3) Those Who Chase the Tail:

On the other side of the coin, there are those who swing to the exact opposite side.  Protesting Nasrallah’s assassination is one thing, presenting Nasrallah as a heroic “guide” to be followed is another. So why would Middle Eastern workers follow the very weak socialists instead of Hezbollah and its allies? Unfortunately, while a significant portion of the left in Turkey adopts following national movements, another portion, due to their distorted understanding of anti-imperialism, thinks it is a skill to form an alliance with the bourgeoisie in the anti-US camp. As a natural result of this, political independence is abandoned. In other words, the anti-imperialist struggle is not waged with an independent class perspective. The masses are confused by attributing the role of “great leader” to Nasrallah or Haniyeh, class collaborationist alliances are formed with Islamists, and the opportunities of criticism is eliminated…

Ultimately, the real issue ends with the political program. Those who do not have a “socialist Middle East” perspective are indexed to the imaginary democratic solutions suggested by the minimum program or to national liberations that are not possible in the age of late capitalism.  They seek democratic solutions in vain and mislead the masses. The horizons of these groups never go beyond capitalism. It is not possible for these groups, which see socialism as unlikely in underdeveloped countries, to give the masses a solid perspective. The only progress available is national liberation struggles, and they are subject to the leadership of these movements. It will not be possible to progress without a solid perspective.

One Solution, Permanent Revolution

The defeat of imperialism, collaborationist regimes and other tyrannical dictators can only be possible with a united class revolutionary movement throughout the Middle East. This is the program that we must discuss once again with the vanguard workers and youth on the occasion of Nasrallah’s death. We cannot defeat the reactionary bloc we face with programs based on national borders, solutions that do not go beyond the horizon of capitalism, and the support of this or that state. The defeat of major imperialist centers such as the US and Israel can only be possible with a rising revolutionary movement on a regional scale. A united revolutionary worker and youth movement that will take shape in Iran, Iraq, Egypt and other North African countries, Turkey and Kurdistan can defeat the rulers by increasing the class war. This is the only way out of the Middle East quagmire. The most technological weapons possessed by the imperialist powers will be of no use against the class war of the workers united by the perspective of international socialism.  We must raise our struggle to defeat imperialism, Zionism and capitalist dictatorships with this perspective.