Hezbollah: A Short History — Norton's Book Reviewed

Introduction

Augustus Richard Norton's book Hezbollah: A Short History attempts to provide a balanced and nuanced view of the Shiite Islamic organization. Concerned primarily with the issue of self-rule and self-determination within Lebanon — at least at the time of its founding — Hezbollah has come to be labeled a terrorist organization by many world governments, and Norton critically examines this identification along with the events and perspectives that have led to this conclusion. Much of what Norton describes in the book is a straightforward matter of fact, but his interpretation and analysis of those facts is at times somewhat controversial. This paper examines Hezbollah: A Short History through the lens of several critical scholars who reviewed the work, in order to determine the general consensus — or lack thereof — that exists in the academic community regarding Hezbollah's status.

In order to understand Norton's argument that Hezbollah should not be considered a true terrorist organization, one must first understand how he defines terrorism. In Norton's view, the vast majority of Hezbollah's violent actions have been directed against military targets. This fact — rather than the fact that the group operates out of civilian centers and lacks formal military installations — is what leads him to classify Hezbollah as a paramilitary or rebel group rather than a terrorist organization.

Defining Terrorism

This is, admittedly, an oversimplification of Norton's argument, but it nonetheless represents the central position he takes regarding Hezbollah and its violent actions directed primarily against the Israeli military. Norton also highlights the extensive charity work that Hezbollah engages in, and he cites the primarily religious nature of the organization's guiding principles and philosophies, insofar as those can be currently determined.

Other scholars appear to agree with this general assessment, at least if the widespread praise given to Norton's work as a fair and well-balanced portrait of the organization is taken as a validation of his central arguments — which seems a fairly necessary conclusion. There are others, however, who disagree either with Norton's scholarship generally or with his conclusions regarding terrorism specifically. In this view, though Hezbollah may be a charitable and paramilitary organization, its dependence on violence rather than diplomacy makes it a terrorist organization, and one far less able to deflect responsibility for its decisions onto other countries than Norton suggests.

Conclusion

Upon re-reading certain sections of Augustus Richard Norton's Hezbollah: A Short History following an examination of some scholarly critiques of the work, it becomes possible to see where certain gaps in theory exist and even to develop parallel or contradictory theories to those of Norton using the very facts he provides. The shortcoming of Norton's comprehensive analysis of Hezbollah as an organization lies not in a lack of detailed consideration but rather in his selection of explanations for the many details he does note. One is less inclined to distrust this book on the basis of factual errors than on its lack of theoretical rigor.