For some, it is difficult to let go of old clothes when they become worn out, frayed, and unwearable. The reason is a sentimental attachment they have for these clothes and an old familiarity with them, which makes disposing of them akin to ripping out part of the person’s past and memory and throwing them in the bin.
The problem is, in this event, the closet no longer fits any of the new clothes needed by the man whose old clothes had decayed.
Something of the sort applies to the relationship some have with obsolete, or rather dilapidated, ideologies: the difficulty of disposing of them, and especially the difficulty of openly declaring this. They could rot and they could die, but none of those who had advocated these ideologies announce this. The corpse remains in the living room, and the revolting smell spreads and poisons the surrounding area, but a burial remains rejected.
In the history of militant and radical movements, there are many examples, the most important of which is the death of Soviet socialism. In modern Arab history, we have others, the most important of which are the slogans of Arab unity and liberating Palestine. With that, these slogans become muted, and their end could be concealed, but candid affirmations and honest revisions remain very unlikely
Lebanon recently underwent a similar experience, the US-mediated border demarcation agreement between Lebanon and Israel. It divulges, among other things, the end of Lebanese- Israeli confrontation and an implicit recognition by those ruling Lebanon, Hezbollah included, of the Jewish state. It establishes shared economic interests among the two sides, regardless of the unevenness in the sizes and percentages of shares.
War no longer being a possibility is certainly very good news, but the matter is slightly more complicated.
Indeed, the actual death of this militant cause is accompanied, this time, by loud noises about victory through it. Hezbollah says and reiterates that its arsenal is what has ensured that we arrived at this happy ending and that this should ensure this arsenal added longevity.
We have already seen something or the sort with many similar forces and organizations in the “Third World:” this shift from a cause that necessitated carrying arms to carrying arms without the original cause. However, the difference between the ZANU in Zimbabwe, to give just one example, and Hezbollah in Lebanon is that the former ruled its country and used weapons to impose its iniquitous rule, while Hezbollah will go on governing the country from behind the curtain provided by its Aounist allies. Certainly, the hope and expectation are for the ruling coalition (Hezbollah, the Aounists, the banks, and the mafias...) to remain in control of political life for years to come. However, this conglomeration of rulers will find a boost, in addition to that “victory,” in this promised oil “treasure,” ruling out any need for reform, which the ruling coalition has never taken seriously in the first place.
The Aounist contribution to the inauguration of this new triumphant era did not take long to emerge: Michel Aoun, in his latest speech given days before the end of his term (which the overwhelming majority of Lebanese are impatiently awaiting), was not stingy with his promises to “future generations;” he also talked with the language of starting from scratch, announcing the need to demarcate our borders with Syria and… Cyprus, without hesitating to commend the performance of the man whom it is hoped will become the star of the future, his son in law Gebran Bassil, in the energy ministry! Other Aounists added “cleaning Lebanon” of Syrian refugees to the promises of this future.
And so, the “achievement that was realized thanks to the people and the resistance,” as Aoun said, should become the foundation on which stands a regime whose implicit slogan is: no to resistance, yes to its weapons.
This retreat to the domestic side of things tempts us to discuss a ruling Maronite- Shiite duo embodied in Hezbollah and the Free Patriotic Movement, whose credit and legitimacy are derived from the now-gone resistance and its “victory.” However, it also leaves questions about how shares will be distributed and the criteria by which they will be divided, whether in the country as a whole, between Hezbollah and the Free Patriotic Movement, or within the Shiite sect, between Hezbollah and the Amal Movement, to say nothing about the genuine questions regarding new Iranian strategies in the region.
In any case, the demarcation agreement can only become a new event, completely new, after it is acknowledged that something old has died. Such an affirmation would result in the fall of a mentality, symbols, and links that have accompanied or resulted from this old formula. As a result, the ruling party leaves the government, taking with it its submissive devotion to Iran, its congeniality with “Souria Al-Assad” (Assad’s Syria), the alliance of minorities theory, and the rest of the toolkit that justified, in one way or another, transforming Lebanon into a “country of resistance.”
The oil and gas wealth, if its existence is confirmed, makes more pressing the need for a modern state of institutions that is simultaneously patriotic, democratic and just. Under this conglomeration of rulers, on the other hand, the intention is for this wealth to become an alternative to the state, institutions, modernity, patriotism, democracy, and justice.
In fact, the old clothes in Lebanon’s closet are many, and they are increasing at an unprecedented pace. No one will buy new clothes in light of such a “victory.”
