Fourth edition (May 2014): Hezbollah: A Short History

New Prologue and Expanded Afterword.

"Best introduction....succeeds in rising above the passions of the debate."--As'ad AbuKhalil (Journal of Palestine Studies).  Jimmy Carter reading Hezbollah.  "Best recent study on Hezbollah"--Fareed Zakaria (Newsweek). "Norton has pulled off a noteworthy feat by producing an accessible yet nuanced study of Hizbollah--a rare achievement in academic research."—Melani Cammett (MESA Bulletin). "[T]he most authoritative, up-to-date analysis of this enigmantic group....Piquant anecdotes and richly textured details make the book enjoyable reading."--Kristian P. Alexander (Middle East Policy). "A series of related essays, each concise and provocative, this is an excellent introduction for the novice."--Joel Gordon (Journal of Military History). “A cogent analysis of [Hezbollah's] emergence and impact on Lebanese politics”—Sheldon Kirsher (Canadian Jewish News). "Norton deserves praise for writing an insightful and multilayered work accessible to a wide...readership."—Rula Abisaab (Journal of Palestine Studies). "...thorough study of Hezbollah, updated with a new afterword in 2008, retraces Hezbollah’s history, from its emergence to its recent struggle against Israel in 2006."—Lina Zuhour (Arab Reform Initiative). "It's wonderful, the best I've read in English"--Anthony Shadid (2007 post). "For first time readers on Lebanon and Hizbullah I highly recommend..."—Sami Hermez (International Journal of Middle East Studies). “This short, authoritative book, based on first-hand experience, efficiently analyses [Hezbollah's] status"—Iain Fianalayson (The Times). "America's leading scholar on Hezbollah"—Joshua M. Landis. “Highly informative, jargon-free book...An objective account of the genesis and development of Hezbollah....Highly recommended.”—N. Entessar (Choice). “A good, concise survey by a perceptive student of the Lebanese Shia”—David Gardner (Financial Times). “Thorough, articulate portrait of Hezbollah”—Publishers Weekly. “Norton's timely Hezbollah chronicles that dramatic evolution and its sweeping implications for the region and beyond”—Jonathan Finer (Washington Post Book World). "Everyone who wants to understand the complexities of the Middle East . . . should read this book”—Bruce Elder (Sydney Morning Herald). “Recommended”—Harvard Bookstore. “Norton elucidates . . . domestic and international complexities in Hezbollah”—Allen McDuffee (In These Times). "He ends on a tentative note, voicing hope that Hezbollah will play a "constructive" role in Lebanon. One can only hope he's right."—David Rosenberg (Bloomberg News). “Short personal anecdotes from his time in Lebanon add both color and authority to the book”—Beryl C.D. Lipton (Harvard Crimson). “An excellent summary that ends with a dramatic question: ‘What next?’"—Kail C. Ellis (Middle East Journal). "An excellent primer"—(The Colby File). "Most fluent survey of Hezbollah to date_covers the Lebanese resistance group from its inception to the current Lebanese political crisis”—Margeret Hall (Washington Report on Middle East Affairs). : “In an easily read, easily comprehended book, Norton traces the origins and history of Hezbollah”—Suzi Brozman (Atlanta Jewish Times) “The many complex and often changing dimensions of Hezbollah are presented in the book in a clear, concise manner”—Rami G. Khouri (Daily Star). "Suggested reading"--(NPR). "There is no better person to address these questions…than Norton, who has been studying Lebanon, and especially the Lebanese Shiites, for longer than Hezbollah has been in existence. He offers here a brisk and balanced history"—L. Carl Brown (Foreign Affairs).  

Kindle version.
iTunes book.
Google Play.
Barnes and Noble.
Kno ebook.
Kobo ebook.

31st Annual Meeting of the Conference Group on the Middle East: Call for Papers for 2015

The Conference Group on the Middle East (CGME) meets in conjunction with the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association.  The 2015 meeting convenes in San Francisco, September 2-6.

Young people represent a gigantic majority of the Arab population.  While the proportions obviously vary, in places like Iraq, Gaza, Syria and Egypt, upwards of three quarters of the population are young than 30 years.  In one case after another, young people face a future of "adulthood denied" to quote the title of a topical monograph, in the sense that they lack the ability to get a decent job, have their own place to live, marry and reproduce the family.  

Youths played significant, often leading roles in the demonstrations that marked the first stage of the Arab Awakenings that began in late 2010.  The cases of Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen come to mind, but also Morocco, Bahrain, Jordan and certainly Syria, among other instances.  Many of the youthful political activists and mobilizers were later marginalized as better organized, more experienced and more brutal actors displaced them and state elites clawed back power.  Today in repressive Egypt, for example, many of the key youth actors are in jail serving long terms for disobedience, organizing protests or a variety of trumped up charges.  

The CGME will address youth politics after the Arab Awakenings: Is there a "youth politics", are there organized political forces devoted to youth causes, and what has been the enduring impact of formal or informal associational life on the texture and content of politics in the Middle East; has something important changed? The welcomes empirically informed papers that rigorously address single cases, including studies of single associations, parties or interest groups, country studies, or comparative studies. Theoretically oriented papers are welcome as well.

CGME:  three decades ago, little serious attention was paid to the Middle East at the annual meetings of the leading disciplinary associations, including the American Political Science Association (APSA). Professor Louis J. Cantori and a small group of colleagues, including this writer, decided in 1983 to create the Conference Group the Middle East (CGME), which convened for the first time in 1984 and has continued ever since.

Measured review of Vali Nasr's encomium to the rising Muslim middle class

"

Whether Nasr is strolling along the Bosporus with a Turkish friend, dining with a colonel in Ankara, enjoying an Iranian watermelon with Iraqi soldiers in Basra on a hot summer day in 2008, visiting the Jamkaran Mosque outside of the clerical city of Qom in Iran, speaking on the telephone with an old friend in Lahore, recounting his grandfather’s pride at being selected in 1928 by Reza Shah to study in the West, or surfing the Web for signs of “prophets of change” and music that appeals to the “youth bulge,” he sees signs that the rising middle class increasingly looks to tradition, even if unwittingly invented, “to help navigate the currents of change” (p. 184).

British Foreign Secretary offers a reasoned and impressive call for political dialogue with Muslim majority governments and organizations

David Miliband, an articulate and engaging speaker, delivered this talk to the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies (video excerpt). The thread that ran through the presentation was a commitment to political dialogue, including with those groups or governments that avow ideologies that may conflict with our own. He emphasized that such dialogue is conditioned upon an embrace of politics rather than a commitment to violence intended to destroy the political process.
The q+a session is not reproduced on the ministry website. Miliband was asked several interesting questions, including whether the two European permanent members of the U.N. Security Council should give up a seat to allow a major Muslim country to enjoy permanent member on the Council. He replied that if dialogue is to take place then it would not make sense to exclude the U.K. Asked about Israeli settlements in the West Bank and their long-term status he noted that the British government referred to them as "illegal Israeli settlements." He emphasized the steps that Britain has taken to insure that British imports do not include goods produced in the illegal settlements. He was reminded of colonial era British understandings with Pushtun tribes that allowed them to retain arms and he seemed to agree that these understandings added to the complexities of the Pakistan situation. When asked about Hamas he seemed at pains to color within the lines: He endorsed Egyptian efforts to pursue Palestinian reconciliation, underlined that the PA was the responsible body for conducting negotiations, and described Hamas as not accepting a two-state solution (which is factually debatable).

Newsroom

"What I want to argue today is that the central task for foreign policy is the creation of arenas of politics, national and international, in which different values and ideas can be argued out, and in the process recourse to violence marginalized; and that the central danger is the failure to create such arenas, with consequent strengthening of those committed to violence."

........

"That means being prepared to encourage reconciliation with organisations whose values we may not share but who are prepared to pursue common interests."

Emile Nakhleh: on bridging differences between the Muslim world and the U.S.

This is streaming audio of a talk presented at Boston University April 5, 2009.

Obama in Ankara: Full text of his speech to the Turkish parliament, April 6, 2009

Remarks of President Barack Obama - As Prepared for Delivery

Address to Turkish Parliament

Ankara, Turkey

April 6, 2009

Mr. Speaker, Madam Deputy Speaker, distinguished members, I am honored to speak in this chamber, and I am committed to renewing the alliance between our nations and the friendship between our people.

This is my first trip overseas as President of the United States. I have been to the G-20 Summit in London, the NATO Summit in Strasbourg and Kehl, and the European Union Summit in Prague. Some people have asked me if I chose to continue my travels to Ankara and Istanbul to send a message. My answer is simple: Evet. Turkey is a critical ally. Turkey is an important part of Europe. And Turkey and the United States must stand together – and work together – to overcome the challenges of our time.

This morning I had the privilege of visiting the tomb of the great founder of your Republic. I was deeply impressed by this beautiful memorial to a man who did so much to shape the course of history. But it is also clear that the greatest monument to Ataturk’s life is not something that can be cast in stone and marble. His greatest legacy is Turkey’s strong and secular democracy, and that is the work that this assembly carries on today.

This future was not easily assured. At the end of World War I, Turkey could have succumbed to the foreign powers that were trying to claim its territory, or sought to restore an ancient empire. But Turkey chose a different future. You freed yourself from foreign control. And you founded a Republic that commands the respect of the United States and the wider world.

There is a simple truth to this story: Turkey’s democracy is your own achievement. It was not forced upon you by any outside power, nor did it come without struggle and sacrifice. Like any democracy, Turkey draws strength from both the successes of the past, and from the efforts of each generation of Turks that makes new progress for your people.

More MTV please

Remember when George Bush insisted right after 9-11 that "they hate us because of our values"?  In fact, the evidence has been consistent that "they" do not hate U.S. values, but rather U.S. policy and actions.  This has shown up in poll after poll in which American values and American popular culture are generally viewed positively.  The linked NYTimes piece makes the point by noting the popularity of U.S. media, including T.V.

Adam Shatz: The Clarion Fund and its Obsession

As many of you know, in recent weeks a shadowy group tied to the tax-exempt Clarion Fund have circulated 28 million copies of "Obsession", a 2006 video. The video is designed to heighten fears about violent Muslims and raise the alarm about "radical Islam."

The film is complementary to efforts by other activists to alert the public of "Islamo-facism," a term that is indiscriminately applied to denote a variety of Muslim groups and activities. Shatz has done a bit of detective work to determine who stands behind the Clarion Fund. He notes that the group avoids an express endorsement of John McCain, but its narrative fits well with whispering campaigns intended to lined Barack Obama to Islam and to Muslim extremists. Even so, it remains to be determined whether the group's effort to influence the upcoming U.S. election is a violation of IRS regulations. Tax-exempt groups under section 501 (c) 3 of the IRS Code are specifically prohibited by IRS regulations from seeking to influence political campaigns.

Here is the relevant IRS standard:

"Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes."
LRB · Adam Shatz: Short Cuts

Misconstruing Apostasy

Many of you no doubt read or heard about Edward Luttwak's poorly founded article in NYTimes, in which he argued that Muslims would see Obama as a lapsed Muslim. The article attracted many on-line responses, as well as letters to the editor, most of which were critical. Here the Public Editor of the Times, addresses the paper's decision to publish the article.

The Public Editor - Entitled to Their Opinions, Yes. But Their Facts? - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com

"All the scholars argued that Luttwak had a rigid, simplistic view of Islam that failed to take into account its many strains and the subtleties of its religious law, which is separate from the secular laws in almost all Islamic nations. The Islamic press and television have reported extensively on the United States presidential election, they said, and Obama’s Muslim roots and his Christian religion are well known, yet there have been no suggestions in the Islamic world that he is an apostate.

"Luttwak said the scholars with whom I spoke were guilty of “gross misrepresentation” of Islam, which he said they portrayed as “a tolerant religion of peace;” he called it “intolerant.” He said he was not out to attack Obama and regretted that, in the editing, a paragraph saying that an Obama presidency could be “beneficial” was cut for space.

"Shipley, the Op-Ed editor, said he regretted not urging Luttwak to soften his language about possible assassination, given how sensitive the subject is. But he said he did not think the Op-Ed page was under any obligation to present an alternative view, beyond some letters to the editor.

"I do not agree. With a subject this charged, readers would have been far better served with more than a single, extreme point of view. When writers purport to educate readers about complex matters, and they are arguably wrong, I think The Times cannot label it opinion and let it go at that."

Published responses to the article.

It will be interesting to watch how this appointment is received

The idea of appointing an ambassador or special envoy came out of the bureaucracy in Washington. In fact, I first heard the idea more than two years ago. One wonders why it took so long. The new enjoy is a successful Ismaili named Sada Cumber. The Ismailis, led by the Aga Khan, are a Shi'i sect and many of the adherents are quite successful nowadays. In all, they account for less than two percent of all Muslims.
They have evolved considerably over the centuries, and it might be remembered that the Ismailis (or Nizaris) are the sect that gave rise of the cult of assassins in the Eleventh century. In contrast, the Ismailis are often pillars of the establishment, wherever they may live. [Updated: Mr. Cumber has been a generous supporter of Republican candidates, including the current president and the candidate who flopped, Rudy Guliani. The former NYC mayor railed ad naseum against "Islamofascism."]
Cumber was born in Karachi, and the following report is from Bangladesh.
The New Nation - Internet Edition

Tariq Ramadan --from a forthcoming article in the NYTImes Mag on Sunday

Tariq Ramadan Has an Identity Issue - Ian Buruma - New York Times: "To his admirers, he is a courageous reformer who works hard to fill the chasm between Muslim orthodoxy and secular democracy. Young European Muslims flock to his talks, which are widely distributed on audiocassettes. A brilliant speaker, he inspires his audiences, rather like Black Power leaders did in the 1960s, by instilling a sense of pride. A friend of mine saw him last year in Rotterdam, talking to a hall packed with around 1,000 people, mostly Muslims. To them he had the aura of an Islamic superstar. Even my friend, an Iranian-born Dutchman with entirely secular views, was impressed by the eloquence of this Muslim thinker, who wishes to press his faith into the mainstream of European life. His critics see things differently: they accuse him of anti-Semitism, religious bigotry, promoting the oppression of women and waging a covert holy war on the liberal West."

Tariq Ramadan will take up post at Oxford

The Chronicle: Daily news: 08/31/2005 -- 02: "A prominent European Muslim scholar who last year was refused a visa to travel to the United States to take up a teaching post at the University of Notre Dame will begin a visiting fellowship this fall at the University of Oxford.
Tariq Ramadan, a professor of Islamic studies and philosophy who is based in Paris and holds Swiss citizenship, resigned his tenured faculty appointment at Notre Dame's Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies after his visa was revoked at the request of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The United States government offered no explanation for its action, citing only the terms of the USA Patriot Act, and the move was widely criticized by civil-liberties groups and many academics as an infringement of academic freedom (The Chronicle, September 10, 2004). "