it doesn't have the same significance as nazi related fascism, but it isn't innocent either. for the sake of transparency, it is a salute that has been used by aoun's FPM and is also constantly in use by the phalangists (and others of course, but i'm just placing it in a leb. context).

i'm actually surprised they didn't use similar pics in which hezbollah kids (i.e. ~ 12 y.o.) have the same "cocked-arm gesture". i think that would have had a more "profound" effect.

MH-

Bah ... who CARES???

Signs mean what they mean depending on what the people who make them want them to mean and what their environment thinks they mean.

Nobody here (in Lebanon, that is) makes a connection between this salute and the German Nazis. People simply aren't cognizant of the German salute - yes, sounds strange since all those various groups mentioned by M are supposed to have modeled themselves after the NSDAP & its StormTroopers, but it's true.

Look, if you want to have a salute ... there aren't that many to choose from. "Right fist to the head" was already used by Monty Python in "The Life of Brian", military salute is too "army-ish" and, in any case, doesn't quite convey the "we sacrifice ourselves to thee, o great one" (which could be The Leader, god, or both).

Long story short: does the salute have its roots in the (European) fascist one? Yes. Is it a "fascist salute"? No.

I mean, nobody every claimed that the Germans' taking-up of the fascist salute meant that they wanted to re-establish the Roman Empire ...

--MSK*

MH- Bah ... who CARES???

Well, it is a viscerally repellent image, and it's not like the gesture's association is obscurely known.

Signs mean what they mean depending on what the people who make them want them to mean and what their environment thinks they mean.

Like hijabs, I agree. But in order to know what it doesn't mean, or may not mean, we need to know what it does mean. As I noted, a quick snapshot of certain Christian churches at certain moments would show an identical gesture, with a wholly different meaning.

Nobody here (in Lebanon, that is) makes a connection between this salute and the German Nazis.

Maybe they should read up on things.

People simply aren't cognizant of the German salute - yes, sounds strange since all those various groups mentioned by M are supposed to have modeled themselves after the NSDAP & its StormTroopers, but it's true.

Look, if you want to have a salute ... there aren't that many to choose from. "Right fist to the head" was already used by Monty Python in "The Life of Brian", military salute is too "army-ish" and, in any case, doesn't quite convey the "we sacrifice ourselves to thee, o great one" (which could be The Leader, god, or both).

In other words, a fascist salute.

Long story short: does the salute have its roots in the (European) fascist one? Yes. Is it a "fascist salute"? No.

Well, if it's a "sacrifice/kill for the collective" salute, as opposed to simply, the deferent military salute to superiors (fingers to forehead), it has a fascistic overtone.

I mean, nobody every claimed that the Germans' taking-up of the fascist salute meant that they wanted to re-establish the Roman Empire ...

Actually I think the Nazi's sort of claimed that (romantically) themselves, and the Italian fascists as well.

Interesting wikipedia entry (caveat lector) contains this 1890s era description of a salute originally proposed (and practiced in some places) to accompany the recitation of the American Pledge of Allegiance (the Bellamy salute):

At a signal from the Principal the pupils, in ordered ranks, hands to the side, face the Flag. Another signal is given; every pupil gives the flag the military salute -- right hand lifted, palm downward, to a line with the forehead and close to it. Standing thus, all repeat together, slowly, “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands; one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.” At the words, “to my Flag,” the right hand is extended gracefully, palm upward, toward the Flag, and remains in this gesture till the end of the affirmation; whereupon all hands immediately drop to the side.

The nazi salute seems to be popular among many groups in Lebanon. Even Aoun's supporters use it. Bizarre stuff.

"Signs mean what they mean depending on what the people who make them want them to mean and what their environment thinks they mean."

Signs can and will be used by your enemies to demonize you. Nothing says, "We are crazed fanatics who want to murder all Jews, so there's no use engaging us in dialog like actual human beings!" like doing the Hitler salute. Whether you actually believe that or not is irrelevant, you've already sent out the signs. Poor choice of signs/symbols will damage rather than enhance your core mission.

Signs can and will be used by your enemies to demonize you. Nothing says, "We are crazed fanatics who want to murder all Jews, so there's no use engaging us in dialog like actual human beings!" like doing the Hitler salute. Whether you actually believe that or not is irrelevant, you've already sent out the signs. Poor choice of signs/symbols will damage rather than enhance your core mission.

Precisely. Short of a swastika, I can't think of anything more brain-short-circuiting than that.

Though I'd love to get a photo of sieg-heiling katayeb.

no pic with me now, but i think this is better.

the context of the last half or so was a few weeks after pierre gemayel's assassination (i.e. less than a year ago)

MH et al-

Are you going to ask EVERYone across the world to cease using imagery that is offensive to ANYone on the globe? The raised arm salute is a "viscerally repellent image" in certain parts of the world - the West - for specific local/regional reasons. It does not have this connotation in the MidEast.

These groups are not aiming for global approval, they were/are aiming for a local audience. HA & the various other (mainly Christian) groups who use that salute simply don't care about what possible connotation the salute may have in an extra-Lebanon/Arab setting. As far as I know, the current ones certainly have not consciously chosen a "Jew Killer" salute. In the past, the Kata'eb modeled itself after the Nazis (like many corporatist/etatist movements of its time - from the MidEast to South America) but didn't take up its anti-Semitism. The various Arabist movements that consciously took Nazi influence (& the salute) did.

So, in order to find out "what it means" for Hizbullahis, various Christian groups, and the general audience ... you'd have to do a poll. As far as I know, in Lebanon (and the rest of the region, except Israel) this salute is not perceived as "Nazi/fascist/Jew-killing".

Now, speaking in terms of outside analysis, of course groups like HA et al can be classified under the "fascist/proto-fascist/fascistoid" label. But that's the difference of self-perception and outside analysis.

I think you'd be one of the first to object to the statement: Because Islamists use the hijab as a symbol of their cause, every woman who wears the hijab is an Islamist.

The same goes for this particular salute.

As for the German/Italian claim re: Roman Empire - please don't put words into my mouth. I didn't say anything about the Italians. But here are the details for you: The Italian fascists saw themselves as re-establishing the Roman Empire and thus consciously used old Roman symbols & insignia (the fasces, from where they got their name, the salute, etc.). The Germans, to the contrary, consciously used ANTI-Roman rhetoric and imagery, like "Hermann, the Cheruskian" who was stylized as the man who liberated the Germans from Roman colonialism. To say it in L's words: Get your fucking history straight.

--MSK*

MSK,
Thought the Germans were not above using Roman-influenced standards and other Roman symbols. See the Nuremberg rallies. Of course, self-consistancy was not their strong point.

Dear AT,

Of course they used Roman-influenced standards & symbols. But they did not say that they modeled themselves after Romans, as opposed to the Italian fascists. Again - self-image vs. outside analysis.

--MSK*

MSK - your academician background sometimes is leaden as well as blinding.

As pointed out, this salute was used in the USA prior to WW2 for the daily pledge.

If we are going to get rid of all offensive images, regardless of cultural or religious identity, shouldnt this at least be done equally?

In India they use a backwards swastika as part of their religious symbolism. Recently I walked into a local Indian place to get some mint and was greeted with a huge banner with swastikas at both ends. Time to go after Hindus?

The word, Swastika, itself is a Sanskrit word. Many cultures and religions have used it. I spent many years in Arizona in the USA and saw many American Indians use it as a religious symbol, many of them with the symbol tattooed on them. Time to ban sweatlodges?

At some point it must be realised that there is a segment of the American/Western populice that is never going to understand or like the Middle East and Arabs, whether they be Christian or Muslim.

I think pandering to misconceptions and changing one's culture for a group of people who are probably going to hate you no matter what you do is a waste of time.

What next? Suggest that Arabs use western fonts and transliterate Arabic because people in the West are intimidated by Arabic script?

While I have some sympathy for the claim that this salute is in itself harmless, short of being accompanied by a few words in German, there's a nice principle called, in French, "le principe de réalité", which I'm quite fond of. In short, while it is certainly true that roughly 70/80% of the world's population - think of Africa, Asia and great parts of Eastern Europe (I mean, Russian nazis?!) and Latin America - is unaware of and/or indifferent to Nazi symbols and salutes, it is incredibly stupid to disregard the fact that the remaining 20/30% live in North America and Western Europe, i.e. in countries driving the international agenda in terms of media and diplomacy. An incredible own goal in other words. Someone should tell them, for their own good, and no amount of comparison with the Pahalangistes or Aoun's CPL will do since these two organisations aren't in the crosshairs of the US, Israel and France, to name a few governments not overly sympathetically inclined towards the Hizbollah...

of course, regardless of my initial note on the phalangists and aoun's crew w.r.t. the salute, i must agree with ibn kafka. Perception is key, and Hezbollah fails miserably on quite a few counts.

again though, I'm surprised the islamofascism dudes didn't use this photo.

Ibn,

Where do you draw the line? There are a lot of American things that bring to mind oppression and mass murder to other peoples in the world. Do we ban those, or discourage their use, because they upset a certain percentage of people?

We are a nation that still uses openly racist images to promote sports teams! If we cannot get stereotyped images of ethnic minorities off the logos of our sports teams, how likely would we be to change other elements of our culture to suit other peoples?

Not too likely I dont think. How about national symbols? The Union Jack, or Butchers Apron (or rag as it is known in many places) is extremely offensive and reminds hundreds of millions of the actions of the British Empire. Time to change the British flag?

This salute was around long before Hizb'Allah, as was the swastika, and will be around long after. Considering the people who still use it have no relations to the people who gave it a bad name (unlike the Union Jack) why should they change it?

It might be realistic from your point of view, but then again, why should the people of the Middle East care what people in the West think anyways?

What do you think would be the reaction of the "average Brit" if you told them to change their flag, or other long standing practice because other people didnt like it?

You'd rightly get two fingers stuck in your face. Americans change based on outside opinion? Not a chance in the world.

So why should the Lebanese?

(I mean, Russian nazis?!)

No, better still.

As for the salute, if the groups using it think it's more important to preserve their way of saluting the zaïm than to preserve some shred of international credibility, fine. As long as they know what they're doing, they deal with it.

But, out of sheer curiosity, exactly what groups are using it? Hizbullah, FPM and the Kataeb have been mentioned -- are there others?

I think most of the groups in Lebanon use it. I have seen numerous pictures from almost all movements there showing them in the same stance.

I had to laugh when you talked about international credibility. Hizb'Allah never had it to begin with in the West, and the use of this salute will not hurt it's credibility anywhere else.

Explain why Hizb'Allah, who will never have any credibility in the West, should alter how they do things to cater to the West?

It doesnt make sense.

Personally I think it is all a bit stupid. Saluting a flag or anything else, but I realise as well that I dont have to do it, and that at the end of the day, Hizb'Allah or any of the other parties dont lose anything, so who cares?

It is not as if the mob at Little Green Footballs is going to suddenly love Hizb'Allah if they drop it, and the masses of Americans will suddenly start sending money to the various "Shaheed" organisations that support the widows and orphans of Hizb'Allah fighters.

It is a non issue to be flouted by those who already hate Hizb'Allah shown to those who dont care or already dislike them.

Non issue.

i had a previous comment, but i think i forgot to fill out the three letter word ... anyways, i won't repeat what i said there, but in response to Abu Sinan: Why should HA care? Because they have failed to market themselves properly to non-supporters.

And this type of criticism doesn't only come from people who dislike them.

Also, it may be possible that almost all groups in lebanon have "used" this salute in the past, but only a few still use it now.

Abu Sinan -- Explain why Hizb'Allah, who will never have any credibility in the West, should alter how they do things to cater to the West?

Well, as above. Hizbullah may not be the best example, since they, as you say, have little credibility outside the Arab/Muslim world to begin with. I think Aoun and the Kataeb should be more worried. But even Hizbullah has a radical pro-Palestinian fringe to tend to, as well as a lot of people who just want to know whether they can be reasonably trusted to keep a ceasefire. Pictures like this may go down well in the Bekaa, but they're sure to enhance their image as crazed fanatics abroad -- when they should aim to be seen as simply fanatics.

Compare with Iran, if you will: no one likes the regime Iran in the West, and no one ever will (or should), but Ahmadinejad's mad-as-a-hatter routine makes it so much easier for pro-bombing hawks in the US to sell their case. Perhaps it plays well with the people he wants to reach, and then it could be worth the risk. But in the case Hizbullah, I have a hard time seeing the enormous benefits of heiling Nasrallah.

But non-issue, yes, I suppose.

[Answering my own question above, I've done some research: the SSNP does it too, but with a laxer, bent-arm, Seinfeld-style heil -- Exhibit A, Exhibit B. Then again, they've got bigger image problems.]

Dear all,

I think we are talking past each other here.

As AS & I have pointed out, HA & most of the other Lebanese groups don't really care what the rest of the world thinks of them. HA has Iran to back it & unless the uncles in Tehran say "You know what, why don't you turn down the martial displays and maybe drop that salute" it won't happen. The Kataeb, in their PR aim to cozy up to the (liberal) West, might have already dropped it (I can ask around & let you know), just like Uncle Walid (Jumblat) didn't mention socialism in his recent trips to the U.S.

So, yes, if I was PR adviser to HA, I'd be telling them to drop that Nazi-esque salute.

An interesting example of what many of you are calling for re: HA has been done by our good pal Abu Aardvark vis-a-vis the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. (http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2007/10/doing-dialogue-.html)

At the end ... HA's "Sieg Heil" salute is about one of the last things that is problematic with that group. And as someone who thinks that the current leadership is structurally unable to "reform", I am actually glad that they don't come across any more likeable.

--MSK*

Alle,

The pictures you show are exactly the same as one of the Boy Scout salutes used here in the US and in Europe. You raise your right hand, elbow bent, and give your pledge.

It might be time for them to drop it. What will people in the USA and Europe think? The boy scouts must be a pro-facist organisation.

http://www.txtroop301.com/images/NavIllSalute2.jpg

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/e/e6/180px-Tom_Salute.jpg

Here we even have the king doing the scout salute:

http://www.scout.org/var/corporate_site/storage/images/media/images/global/media_centre/press_releases__1/the_king_of_saudi_arabia/4159-1-eng-GB/the_king_of_saudi_arabia.jpg

Lithuanian Scouts doing the full arm salute:

http://www.pinetreeweb.com/calgaric10-lithuania1.jpg

http://www.beavertontroop870.org/images/I_Will_Do_My_Best.gif

MSK -- Kataeb haven't dropped the salute. Yet.

on a related note - I personally loathe the swastika, especially given my family suffered under the Nazis in Europe - but think that the left-wing (or 'politically-correct') attempt to expunge the swastika everywhere has gone overboard... certainly, it's offensive used as a political symbol, as it would be spray-painted on a synagogue or Jewish gravestone, but there are many cultures which predate the Nazis which used the swastika as a benign or even sacred symbol, generally for the sun - including the Navajo, Tibetan Buddhists and Nepalese Hindus.

All that this adds to the discussion is that interpreting one symbol through another culture may give completely the wrong impression.

Abu Sinan: "Explain why Hizb'Allah, who will never have any credibility in the West, should alter how they do things to cater to the West?"

Well, for a start, to avoid being put on the EU's and eventually the UN's list of terrorist organisations - in the EU Council of ministers, only the strong opposition of the Swedish, Irish and French governments hindered the US satellites there from adopting such a blacklist decision. Western governments' brains often stop functioning when approaching Middle East issues as it is - making what they see as a Nazi salute will not make them come to their senses.

A bit like the Danish cartoons really - no big deal in themselves, but the timing and context were rather sub-optimal.

But I suppose that autarcy is a better alternative, although it doesn't seem that the Hezbollah shares that view

Dear IK,

HA does not care about being put on the blacklist. Actually, come to think of it, if anything they might actually like it, as it helps their self-portrayal of "they all hate us because we are Shi'ite/Muslim/Arab/good/fighting evil/blablabla".

HA gets its $$$ and support no matter what the EU says.

--MSK*

MSK is right. Hizb' is either going to be on the list or it isnt, and no pictures of a bunch of people doing something social unacceptable IN EUROPE is going to change that.

Heck, maybe Europeans should stop eating pork, maybe then AQ might consider not attacking them anymore?

The argument isn't that less heiling would by itself keep Hizbullah off a terrorist list. It's that Hizbullah has a couple of real reasons not to alienate the precious little support it has in the West, and not push its more moderate enemies even further away. To avoid terrorist lists (= having its fundraisers, exiles, activists and relatives in Europe interrogated or arrested) is one of those reasons. And, if they're thinking straight, they'll take this into consideration when building their image. Is it enough reason to change a minor detail like the salutes, if that causes unnecessary badwill abroad? Perhaps, perhaps not, but it's not irrelevant to the question.

Anyway, I'd be more interested in hearing why MSK thinks Hizbullah can't reform (Oct 23 above) and what that means Western governments should do. (I don't have any strong opinions on this myself.)

Muslims Against Sharia congratulate David Horowitz FREEDOM CENTER and Mike Adams, Tammy Bruce, Phyllis Chesler, Ann Coulter, Nonie Darwish, Greg Davis, Stephen Gale, David Horowitz, Joe Kaufman, Michael Ledeen, Michael Medved, Alan Nathan, Cyrus Nowrasteh, Daphne Patai, Daniel Pipes, Dennis Prager, Luana Saghieh, Rick Santorum, Jonathan Schanzer, Christina Sommers, Robert Spencer, Brian Sussman, Ed Turzanski, Ibn Warraq and other speakers on the success of the Islamofascism Awareness Week.

Islamofascism (or Islamism) is the main threat facing modern civilization and ignorance about this threat is astounding. We hope that this event becomes regular and reaches every campus.

A great many Westerners do not see the clear distinction between Islam and Islamism (Islamofascism). They need to understand that the difference between Islam and Islamism (Islamofascism) is the same as the difference between Christianity and Christian Identity Movement (White Supremacy Movement).

Original post

I'm pretty sure the above comment counts as spam & ought simply to be deleted (along with this one).

It's not spam, merely disingenous idiocy. As such I leave it as is.

I'd say if it's not even attempting to engage in the conversation, it's spam. But whatever.

after reviewing it (and links to the same page) it seems like hyped garbage - it has mostly non-muslim participants on their webpage (a few arab and pakistani names are the only exceptions, but that doesn't indicate faith); a call to excise verses of the Qur'an that are believed to call to murder, and the declaration that anyone who believes profanation of Prophets or hatred of Islam as blasphemous is blaspheming...

it's kind of tedious, and especially given the fact that like ibn Warraq, they challenge Islamic sources as being (7th century, unavailable, ancient) while refusing to post their own academic grounds or contact info, and leave their authority on exceedingly dubious grounds while claiming to live in fear of extremist terrorists murdering them... err, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins regularly say equally or more offensive things, but they at least have academic records...

for the last point, just before I go back to ignoring this kind of BS, the idiot who professes to run their webpage claimed - amongst other idiotic things like quoting Khoemeini, apparently endorsing sex with children and animals - in an interview that "Robert Spencer, of JihadWatch, knows more about Islam than 99% of [the] muslims"... well, if he's your authority on interpreting Islamic law, that explains quite a bit.

I'd say deleting it would be worthless, because these people will then believe they're being shut out or ignored, and this will endorse their victim-mentality perception of the world (one thing they've learned from Zionists)-

p.s.: here are their contributors, from:
http://www.reformislam.org/support/
Contributors:
Khalim Massoud, USA
Ilshat Alsayef, Russia
Linda Ahmed, Sweden
Rashid Ahmed, Sweden
Grisha.W., Israel
Shem Tov Z., Israel
Ahmad Panjshir, Afghanistan
Daniel Ellsworth, USA