We have been seeing a new term for a few years now, especially since Al-Aqsa Flood: "anti-Rejectionism;" it suggests that the thoughts and actions of the two opposing sides are governed by the same logic. Those who use this term are implying that their stance represents a synthesis of the two that places them "above" both of them, or that they reframe the two stances and stick the two sides of the binary together before presenting their position as a middle ground "between" the two.
This "neither this nor that" argument is probably always easy to make. However, its veneer of wisdom reflects little more than a failure to carve a pave to politics, much like when the opinion of an elder known for his wisdom is sought and it is then left to others, engaged and influential figures, to take this wise opinion in and turn it into reality.
Worse than that, the "rejectionism and anti- rejectionism" theory grants the first foundational and original status or renders it the primary thesis, while positioning the second as the response, the antithesis.
In truth, such framing collapses if we consider the existence of states and nations to be the foundational and original given, or at least, that in the modern era, every national community ought to see it that way. This premise and the order of priorities it assumes form the basis of stances on everything outside the national state's borders. Since the era of the military and security regimes born of Arab nationalist ideologies- the predecessors of the Axis of Resistance that currently embodies the politics of resistance- the domestic views and stances of those who take this approach to politics have been determined by their positions on what lies outside the nation state's borders.
Existing states thus appear to be mere temporary administrative arrangements, while legitimacy is derived from an ideological (Arab or Islamic) "nation" that does not exist in reality. Accordingly, regimes that avoid conflict with Israel could deserve to be overthrown, and those that do fight Israel are worthy of praise. "No voice can rise above the sound of battle" in our struggle against the Jewish state. Since 1979, this criterion for judging patriotism has fed on another: enthusiasm for Iranian influence in one’s country so long as it fights Israel.
The fact is that before the current war- rather, before many other "fateful" and "nationalistic" wars- Hezbollah's politics had been broadly denounced, and the Levant’s repressive military regimes even more so. This condemnation did not arise solely from the poor domestic policies of these actors, but also from the fact that these policies prioritized transnational considerations (whether this was genuine or mendacious is beside the point) to the greatest extent possible. We cannot separate one from the other, as they are both part of a single conceptual and political system. If the proponents of "neither this nor that" justify their position with the claim that Hezbollah and its allies are not actually fighting Israel, then their argument seems untenable today; the party does fight Israel, and that is precisely the problem, as this fight is the other side of the coin to our own suffering. This obliges us to adopt a straightforward stance on the principle of "fighting Israel" and to see it as a priority and a litmus test.
In other words, ethical, humanist, and cultural commitment to Palestinian rights and the Palestinian state is one thing, and charging towards a war, with absolutely no regard for the will of the people in a particular country, is another. Similarly, condemning the brutality of Israel’s continuous war crimes in the strongest terms does not require summoning this brutality to the country in order to be "patriotic." This distinction makes one’s position on the "support war" as such- as a principle, not on the details of how it is practiced- a litmus test: approval cannot be underpinned by a patriotic and sovereignist position, but it fits perfectly into a nationalist, religious, or populist (as these terms are commonly understood) worldview.
The "neither this nor that" theory seems to combine an interpretation of the world in which transnational nationalism, and perhaps religion, continue to play a significant role, with aspirations centered around patriotism, justice, and freedom. But when reality reveals the contradictions between the two priorities, it becomes increasingly evident by the day that reconciling them is impossible and the "neither this nor that" theory starts to sound like a sermon hurling condemnations at both sides left and right.
For instance, with Hezbollah weakened due to Israel’s strikes, should the Lebanese state avoid taking action to fill the void left by this weakness because doing so would be "betting on Israel”? Should the state taking control of the airport, the port, and other facilities be rejected because doing so was facilitated by the realities created by Israel’s actions during the war? What about the principle of disarming Hezbollah, and disarming any party, regardless of whether it is fighting Israel or not?
Faced with these kinds of practical questions, the difference between "rejectionism" and "anti- rejectionism" becomes clear, as does their irreconcilability. They cannot be “synthesized” from above either, nor can one stand in some middle ground between them. Recent developments, the blood and destruction we have seen, provide a well of evidence.
