Blue on Blue

Yes, I know the normal designation of enemy shooting enemy is "red on red" but since this involved progressives seriously questioning other progressives I thought "blue on blue" would be a bit more fun.

the all-out assault on Lebanon by Israel was not only long in the planning (at least two years ago, in fact), but was clearly greenlighted by the United States. Both of these claims are accurate: the San Francisco Chronicle reported on Israel's planning for a “coming invasion” of Lebanon, complete with Power Point presentations to foreign journalists and dignitaries, over a year ago. And the Bush Administration has made no secret that it wants Hezbollah defanged before it forces Israel to accept a ceasefire.

Yes, a competent military looks at it's greatest threats and makes plans on how to deal with those threats. Hasn't anyone from the progressive camp heard the phrase "Prior Planning Prevents Poor Performance?" The military, especially strategic planners have certainly heard of it. It doesn't prevent mistakes, but it's hardly a smoking gun to find that "plan" existed long before the actual military action started.

According to the signers, the best approach is to “offer our solidarity and support to the victims of this brutality and to those who mount a resistance against it.”
...
But the ill-chosen (one can hope) words by my illustrious colleagues reflects a very disturbing trend within the Left that has emerged the last few years, and which has come to a head with the latest war: Many leaders of the movement are moving away from the commitment to non-violence that defined the struggle against the Vietnam War and the vast majority of protests against corporate globalization and the invasion of Iraq, and towards embracing violent resistance (think the Red Brigade, Bader Meinhof Gang or the Weather Underground) as a viable, and even the best way to check the capitalist war machine.

Two points to make about this. First, it's nice to see some people in the progressive camp able to discern the nuance between being against violence in general and supporting one side's violence over the other. I honestly hope more people come to this conclusion. Second, this is not a new stance, although it may be the first time Mark Levine has noticed. Far too many for far too long have been supporting one half of a war, rather than denouncing both halves, as they should if they really were in favor of peace. In this one could toss Che Guevara worship, the ubiquity of the khalifah at every protest, and the lionizing of other monsters like Yassar Arafat. This is not the stance of a peace activist, but rather the stance of someone who wants the other side to win, as they so frequently have said over the decades since the Viet Nam war.
What the modern peace activists can't seem to get, is that there is a history for their type. Go & read about war protesters in WWI & WWII. They didn't simply support the Kaiser over the Allies. They denigrated both sides. A pox on both their houses should be the peace activists call (for more info: see Ghandi). See, when you only support one side over the other, that's called partisanship. It doesn't matter that the side you're supporting is some sort of perceived underdog, fellow-traveler, oppressed people, whatever. You're involved in perpetuating the violence.
This is, also, isn't news to Mr. Levine:

It's hard to endorse violence when you're anti-war, but if you're anti-imperialist there's a long history of violent struggles to “inspire” you (although supporters of this path seem to forget the most successful anti-imperialist struggles, such as Gandhi's in India and Mandela's in South Africa, were almost entirely non-violent, while others, like Algeria or Vietnam, produced corrupt and violent regimes in their wakes).

What? But, weren't the North Vietnamese the good guys?

Given this, is “glorifying Hezbollah” really the best model for an “anti-war” movement, let alone a movement that argues that “another world is possible” (the slogan of the anti-corporate globalization movement)?

Of course not, but do you honestly believe that the "reality-based" community gives a rats patooty about any repercussion apart from doing their honest best to dismantle the EVIL, western, capitalist civilization? Many (most?) honestly seem to believe that if only America was brought low, even eliminated, the world would be a happy place filled with harmony. All facts to the contrary aside.

Even if Hezbollah “wins” the war against Israel by surviving the onslaught and re-cementing its power with Lebanon and the Muslim world, Lebanon can only lose. How can progressives stand in solidarity with and support an organization that recklessly and selfishly played right into Israel's hands by giving it the pretense it was looking for to re-invade Lebanon?

OK, we get a bit of sense, but the "played into Israel's hands" bit seems off somehow. Maybe I'm mistaken, but didn't Israel unilaterally pull out of Lebanon six years ago? If they wanted it, and they had it, why didn't they simply keep it? Militarily re-occupying is going to be much more costly than simply continuing an occupation. What possible motive did they have for pulling out and then attacking again? None is offered in this article. It simply assumes, of course, that Israel is just neferious.

The simple fact is that today more than ever violence begets violence

This goes back to that good old Monty Python bit in the "Life of Brian." "What have the Romans ever done for us?" Violence never solves anything... except for stopping slavery, fascism, naziism, communism... Yeah, but apart from that what has violence every done for us? Plus, I think lots of progressives are still smarting over that last one.
Anyway, in answer to that last statement, which seriously sticks in my craw, there's this, better stated list.