For decades, "isolationists" in Lebanon were portrayed as a "bunch" and a "clique" whose power was attributed to “its collaboration with colonialism." The term "isolation" was itself meant to signal that they were marginal and insignificant. This "clique" was isolated from a sweeping mass movement unanimous in its commitment to throwing Lebanon into the ring of grand fateful battles.
In what might be a result of the popularity shown by the movements of March 14, 2005 and then October 17, 2019, those who speak for fateful battles in the press, television, and social media, have now begun acknowledging that "half of Lebanon's population" (and some even say "over half of the population”) opposes their camp. Despite changing the label, the opposition is characterized in the same terms, as it has now become a “front supporting the Zionist enemy.”
More importantly, the change in label did not precipitate a change in behavior. The advocates of fateful battles are committed to a stable, immortal policy; whether it is opposed by a “bunch” and a “clique” or “over half the population, it is not going anywhere.
An array of factors explain the consistency of policy, of course. One of them, however, is that absolutely no consideration is paid to civilian citizens. So long as the latter are civilians- that is, unarmed and thus too weak to threaten or challenge the power of the armed faction- it is right to maintain the approach that does not take them into consideration. As for democracy being the political system for managing relations with them, it is a myth to which lip service is paid to with the intention of making a mockery of.
This disregard for civilians, be they many or few, carries the seeds of a potential perpetual crime against humanity, as those who are paid no mind when the decision to go to war is taken will not be accounted for once the war begins, the casualties fall, and the scale of destruction expands. As for the pretext the proponents of this behavior employ to justify their actions, it is no more than an idea they call correct, even sacred. However, every idea could be shown to be erroneous with time, leaving us with no alternative to putting the dead under the dirt and praying that they receive mercy as victims of the error in the idea of those who believed in it.
The belittlement of civilians in our mainstream political culture has taken many other forms. We saw some of them in Syria when the population that had been on the receiving end of barrel bombs was characterized as forces confronting the conspiracy against the Syrian people. Today, we can see just how provocative advocates of fateful battles find talk of the pain that the civilian citizens of Gaza have suffered as a result of Israel's criminal strikes, or a broadcaster filming a crying child or a woman or man overcome by despair and frustration. Speaking of or filming these things is denounced as complicity in the conspiracy against Gaza and its steadfast resolve. Indeed, depictions of pain are only acceptable insofar as they can be exploited politically, i.e., when they are limited to affirming and condemning Israel’s brutality. To ward off conspiracy and avoid indifference, the starving Gazan child should be portrayed beaming with joy, while the pregnant mother whose fetus was killed by an Israeli airstrike speaks of nothing but indescribable joy and pleasure.
In this, an image of humanity, as the advocates of fateful causes envision it, takes shape, presenting humans as mere fighters. Pain does not hurt human beings, death does not frighten them, and neither hunger nor thirst weaken their resolve. As for those who feel pain and discuss it publicly, they do not deserve to live in the first place, just like the children of Sparta who were subjected to the test of wild nature. If they were destined to live, they would become warriors in their youth. When they die, the reproductive machine is tasked with compensating us for the loss. The reproductive machine is women, whose value derives solely from this function in a belligerent society since they are not soldiers.
Citizens, at the end of the day, are superfluous. Skeptics should ask the intellectuals, who are supposed to be a reservoir of critiques of their people’s mistakes, including the mistakes they have made in confronting Israel’s genocidal war. It seems that, in contrast to what is supposed to be, they have transformed and are transforming into a battalion in the army of the militaristic society demanding war. But those who need war to exist and survive are in constant need of an enemy, as there can simply be no war without an enemy.
In any case, the humans of militant portrayals are one thing, and actual humans are another. The humans of the militant depictions do nothing but fight and stand their ground, and they only speak out about their pain or hunger to expose the enemy and his atrocities. Such humans do not exist, and if they did, actual humans would see them as terrifying creatures, or creatures who can confront life in no other way than by committing suicide.
During the Battle of Okinawa, the last battle of World War II, voicing grief and pain was looked down upon. Such sentiments were said to go against the spirit of a nation of warriors like Japan. One popular slogan raised at the time called on the entire Japanese nation to commit suicide because “we are all kamikazes.”
