With some reductionism that tries not to betray the facts, one of our most prominent tragedies can be described as the contradiction between reality and slogans, or the latter lying to the former: when reality shrinks, the slogans expand, and the smaller and more fragmented reality becomes, the bigger the slogans become and the more forcefully they are stuffed with claims of a consensus around them.
This formula applies almost every time.
Let us take an example from Lebanon that speaks volumes: when the relationship between Muslims and Christians exploded, the slogans launched amid this same climate called for the establishment of Arab unity or building socialism… This was the case in the 1960s and 1970s. When the relationship between Sunnis and Shiites, as well as Christians and Muslims, exploded, which is the situation we are in today, the insistence on liberating Palestine and praying in Al-Aqsa increased.
There is no link whatsoever between capacities declining until they wither, due to our internal contradictions, and the tasks asked of ourselves and others - whether genuinely or not - which demand immense capacities. Cheap headings that are intentionally inflated take it upon themselves to paper over the massive gap, slogans like “the end of the era of defeats” or “forbidding Israel from altering the rules of engagement” …. Those who are convinced of these headings are already convinced of everything they had been taught.
The tragedy is made more tragic by the fact that the only thing these slogans achieve is exacerbating our internal conflicts and the mutual fears that communities have of each other, leaving them more solid and entrenched. This simply stems from the fact that the slogans, while they descend upon civil divisions, do not do what it is said they do in terms of creating solidarity and expediting the transgression of “the grudges of the past” regarding the battle with the “fateful enemy.” This is awful poetry. It adds fans the flame of social divisions.
The more reasonable and experienced among us, those who are more aware of the reality of the situation and demand that we turn the page on extravagant slogans and modestly work toward bringing rival communities together, are defamed. They are described, with great self-assurance, as traitors and spies in the worst cases and, in the best case, as orientalists, and orientalists, of course, don’t understand us. As we search for beds to hide under and evade the other sect’s bullets, we declare that we are a people who unanimously stands behind this noble cause, not conflicting sects. Like the vivid North Korean portraits, we say that we are advancing as one on the path to glory.
Thus, regarding Israel, for example, possible degrees of solidarity with the Palestinian cause, politically, economically and in the media, are vilified, and impossible degrees are demanded: “It is a war of existence, not borders. Either survival or annihilation.”
However, besides demanding sacrifices that humans are incapable of making and don’t want to make in the first place, it immediately becomes apparent that the matter is not so innocent. What lies behind the slogan comes to the fore, for sectarian motives stand behind such slogans, motives that lead to arming one sect among several, making it stronger than other sects that are terrified of its strength. Regional interests of states that want to turn the slogans into a gateway to expanding their influence, a prospect feared by many of the people of the country with slogans flying around, also lie behind them.
The recent incident in Lebanon’s Chouaya, a town in the southern district of Hasbaya, where the townspeople refused that Hezbollah station its rocket launching truck between their homes, indicated just how impossible the impossible extent of sacrifice being demanded indeed is; it does nothing but reinforce the hostilely between Druze and Shiites.
It is a repetition, though on a narrower scale so far, of the confrontations that used to break out between the Palestinian resistance of the time and residents of the South in the late 1960s and early 1980s. For launching rockets from between the people of the towns’ homes, compelling Israeli retaliation that has devastating consequences for residents, struck the relationship between southerners and Palestinians at its core. And, as we all remember, this was accompanied by notorious armed clashes, especially after the Amal Movement’s emergence, which was established as an armed force representing southern Shiites.
At the time, like today, those opposed to being dragged to their death don’t need “misguided” ideas, “American” funding, “Zionist” propaganda or the “South Lebanese Army” to defend their lives. This strong incentive is reinforced further when the armed faction belongs to another sect or another community, as had been the case in the period between the 1960s and the 1980s, and as is the case today. Moreover, this apprehension is made even stronger by the fact that the only attainable “victory,” for the sake of which civilian residents should sacrifice themselves, is the Israelis in Galilei going down to their shelters or hearing warning sirens go off in this or that Israeli town!
We thus end up with the following formula: every time Hezbollah demands this kind of “sacrifice” of its people, hatred for the party expands, sect after sect and region after region, and hostility to the cause that Hezbollah claims to represent grows as well.
Some modesty would have compelled, instead of all of this, a focus on solving basic tribal issues, like that which manifested in the region of Khaldeh just south of Beirut, where Hezbollah clashed with the region’s “Arab tribes.” Such a policy would moderate slogans and stop them from deceiving reality. Bringing Israelis down to shelters does not compensate for the Lebanese people’s death and abasement.
