.jpg)
Times of Reconciliation
The Lebanese can only rejoice during times of reconciliation. Crowds from every side meet and embrace. The slogans of national unity are floating everywhere. It is as if Parliament had never been closed, the tents never erected; as if there had been no March 14 or March 8, nor even a May 7; no boycotts, no accusations of treason here and there… It is as if nothing had ever happened. A sudden wave of overwhelming love is sweeping the country, to the point where one might think that the "others", those who initiated the past civil war, were the same ones who almost drove the country to a new war a few months ago – without it having a say or being able to do anything about it!
To dispel any misunderstanding, we are not against such love, as it helps pump warmth in the veins during these cold times. Our sole concern is to understand what it was that occurred overnight, without anyone noticing, and resulted in such a change of heart. One person has become an honored guest in Beirut”s southern suburb, while another visits the other side of Martyrs” Square. The different parts of the country have become open to one another, as if the apprehension of assassinations moving from place to place has vanished from memory and political concern. What has changed, for political quarrels to become symptoms of health that do not call for killing those who disagree with you or refuse to follow your leader”s vision? Just like the symptoms that affect other countries, where people differ in their opinions and stances, and then go to what they call a ballot box to input their choices and then go home.
Have we reached such a state? "We disagree on politics but we will not become enemies", as the Deputy Secretary-General of Hezbollah Naim Qassem stated. If that indeed is the case, then who will from now on define the standards of patriotism, and the measure of the extent which such political disagreement is "allowed" to reach? Who will decide where political stances end and "treason" begins? If that indeed is the case, then why are there still certain strategic choices (such as the weapons of the Resistance) that are not allowed to be discussed, as such discussion would not serve the "national interest"?
Lebanon has been through long periods of civil war, separated by brief periods of cordiality and rapprochement. Contrary to popular belief, setbacks did not occur abruptly and for no reason. In fact, they took place because falsehood ruled over reconciliations. Each side would be waiting for the right occasion to suddenly attack again, having felt that the present occasion was only good for… reconciliation.
The present situation in Lebanon does not offer great opportunities for optimism. Neither have the diverging stances on essential matters been reduced, nor have the regional repercussions on the domestic situation regressed. If there is a glimpse of hope, in these times of reconciliation, it is that there may be a period of truce, in preparation for next spring”s parliamentary elections, to allow each side to take all measures needed before then, especially given the overwhelming feeling that the period following the elections will represent a crucial turning point for the country, from one strategic choice to another.
Nevertheless, it is unfortunate for MP Michel Aoun to be oblivious of these times of reconciliation. Neither neutrality nor divergence of opinion is allowed in his book. If only he would be infected by the virus of reconciliation, at least in parallel with his "strategic ally". If only his "understanding" could include his political rivals on the Christian scene, emulating his partner, Hezbollah, which seemingly no longer minds "the monopoly of one party at the expense of others". Can Aoun finally be convinced that the Christian arena has enough room for all, and that his stances may be correct at times, but also incorrect at other times?