The Lebanese have succeeded, and what success, at stripping the body of their state of flesh and fat, and proceeding to eat at its nerves. And some of them these days are quarreling over shreds of its broken skeleton.
They have succeeded, and what success, at destroying a social semi-fabric that was once in agreement. They have become openly divided into sects, regions and families, each with its own stances, concerns, programs and wars. The fig leaf has fallen off, after some had tried to hide their faces with it, under the cover of national unity, shared fate, coexistence, etc.
There are no longer some who hide behind mutual lies such as consensus and middle-ground solutions to save the country. Destroying what remains of the country and breaking down what remains of the state’s bones has become an openly declared goal. The slogan of internal stability is no longer reinforced by keeping the country away from regional conflicts. In fact, the declared slogan has become that of getting dragged into such conflicts and driving towards them.
On the background of such declared division, does not Hezbollah, for example, ask itself what it would do if it were to succeed at taking control of the country, at a time when the Sunnis and half of the Christians oppose it? Does not the Future Movement, for example, ask itself how it can govern a country at a time when the Shiites and the other half of the Christians oppose it? Do not the Free Patriotic Movement and the Progressive Socialist Party, as well as other political groups that are engaged in this conflict, ask themselves about the role and the position they would have in case one side triumphs over the other?
Do they not ask themselves about the meaning of the merciless battles currently being waged and about their results? And do they not ask themselves in the first place about the meaning of burying the country’s constitution, the Taif Agreement, and after it the Doha Agreement as well as the National Dialogue Table and its decisions?
Because all of these questions find no answers among those parties, Lebanon is witnessing today this exceptional phenomenon of political debate turning from the complications of forming a new government cabinet to outbidding in stances towards Iran, denouncing or supporting it. In fact, such stances are turning into the nexus of internal division. There is nothing new about the Lebanese disagreeing over a stance on a foreign country, yet what is new this time is how exhausting what remains of the state and claiming to speak in the name of all the Lebanese are coinciding. Each side is now dealing with itself, and with both the domestic and foreign scene, as if it were the heir to the collapsed state.
The stance on Iran involves particular sensibilities, but there are those same parties quarrelling over these very same remnants, in dealing with the tragedy of the Lebanese community in the Ivory Coast as in dealing with the problem of Roumieh Prison. And with the same eagerness in which Iran was denounced or supported, accusations were exchanged on a sectarian background.
There is nothing new about sectarian disputes in Lebanon that have always been connected to a struggle over shares in the single state. And forms of compromise were often able to be found for these struggles. What is new this time is involving the struggle in this historical crisis across the region, making the compromises organically connected to it. In other words, it makes such compromises out of reach for this small country, in which any dominance becomes oppression that cannot bear its continued pluralism.
The region is leaning towards sectarian division and violence in expressing it, in a manner unprecedented in modern times. And Lebanon is likely to be the eye of the storm, since its citizens are racing to join such division, after they have abandoned all safety valves in order to safeguard their country’s stability.
They have succeeded, and what success, at destroying a social semi-fabric that was once in agreement. They have become openly divided into sects, regions and families, each with its own stances, concerns, programs and wars. The fig leaf has fallen off, after some had tried to hide their faces with it, under the cover of national unity, shared fate, coexistence, etc.
There are no longer some who hide behind mutual lies such as consensus and middle-ground solutions to save the country. Destroying what remains of the country and breaking down what remains of the state’s bones has become an openly declared goal. The slogan of internal stability is no longer reinforced by keeping the country away from regional conflicts. In fact, the declared slogan has become that of getting dragged into such conflicts and driving towards them.
On the background of such declared division, does not Hezbollah, for example, ask itself what it would do if it were to succeed at taking control of the country, at a time when the Sunnis and half of the Christians oppose it? Does not the Future Movement, for example, ask itself how it can govern a country at a time when the Shiites and the other half of the Christians oppose it? Do not the Free Patriotic Movement and the Progressive Socialist Party, as well as other political groups that are engaged in this conflict, ask themselves about the role and the position they would have in case one side triumphs over the other?
Do they not ask themselves about the meaning of the merciless battles currently being waged and about their results? And do they not ask themselves in the first place about the meaning of burying the country’s constitution, the Taif Agreement, and after it the Doha Agreement as well as the National Dialogue Table and its decisions?
Because all of these questions find no answers among those parties, Lebanon is witnessing today this exceptional phenomenon of political debate turning from the complications of forming a new government cabinet to outbidding in stances towards Iran, denouncing or supporting it. In fact, such stances are turning into the nexus of internal division. There is nothing new about the Lebanese disagreeing over a stance on a foreign country, yet what is new this time is how exhausting what remains of the state and claiming to speak in the name of all the Lebanese are coinciding. Each side is now dealing with itself, and with both the domestic and foreign scene, as if it were the heir to the collapsed state.
The stance on Iran involves particular sensibilities, but there are those same parties quarrelling over these very same remnants, in dealing with the tragedy of the Lebanese community in the Ivory Coast as in dealing with the problem of Roumieh Prison. And with the same eagerness in which Iran was denounced or supported, accusations were exchanged on a sectarian background.
There is nothing new about sectarian disputes in Lebanon that have always been connected to a struggle over shares in the single state. And forms of compromise were often able to be found for these struggles. What is new this time is involving the struggle in this historical crisis across the region, making the compromises organically connected to it. In other words, it makes such compromises out of reach for this small country, in which any dominance becomes oppression that cannot bear its continued pluralism.
The region is leaning towards sectarian division and violence in expressing it, in a manner unprecedented in modern times. And Lebanon is likely to be the eye of the storm, since its citizens are racing to join such division, after they have abandoned all safety valves in order to safeguard their country’s stability.
No comments:
Post a Comment