Denying Emotions Is Ignoring Their Causes
Walid Choucair Al-Hayat - 24/11/06//

On Wednesday, the majority forces recaptured the scene of March 14, 2005 in Lebanon. It cannot be denied that the scene dispelled the confusion surrounding the opposition's attempts for more than a year now to cast doubt on whether this majority is in fact a majority, and their claim that it is illusory. Anyone who denies this is blindfolded. It is as undeniable as the fact that March 14 will celebrate again its 63rd independence anniversary amidst serious divisions among the Lebanese in comparison to the original March 14. Either one can see this clearly, or one is again politically blindfolded.

There are too many ironies one can mention:

• Lebanon has bid farewell to a young man full of promise and lively enthusiasm. He began his political life in circumstances that gave him a degree of openness to the 'other', in contrast to a party that can be criticized for isolating itself in a Christian environment. He became a leading candidate for the future leadership of this party because of his openness to the Muslims. Sheikh Pierre Gemayel was laid to rest when he had the accumulated experience to lift him, his family and his party from the context of war begun by the Phalangists in 1975 and maintained by them to 1989, to peace and coexistence with their former enemies. They had committed fatal and bloody errors, just as everyone else had.

His murderers have removed from the scene a youth who could have played a major role in his surroundings in the direction of the Lebanese finally leaving behind them the mentality of war and strife, thanks to how engrossed he was with the Muslims of March 14 in their day-to-day details. Pierre was a beautiful symbol of the transition of a Christian generation going from one stage to another and a test of the transition of his party from one phase to another. This experiment was terminated with the assassination this young, 34-year-old.

• The opposition took up issues with the leaders of March 14 whom they say have made use of this crime politically, simply because they called for a public burial and insisted on upholding the adoption of the International Tribunal to try those accused of the assassination of martyr and Prime Miniter Rafik Hariri and others who have been murdered or who have been subjected to assassination attempts. This is a strange paradox, as if the image of the six martyrs, beginning with PM Rafik Hariri, and the image of the 'living martyrs' and the widows and children of the leaders who gathered in the church to pay their respects for Pierre Gemayel have been 'killed' for non-political reasons. The criticism of the majority force denies the role of emotions in the political consequences of the assassination. And the denial of feelings abrogates the role of assassinations in politics and the consequences in the political arena. It is almost an abrogation of the assassination itself.

Since the beginning of the series of assassinations, some have behaved as though life is returning to normal and there are no repercussions. Is it not the right of those who have been subjected to this series of assassinations to protect themselves with the emotions of their sympathizers? And is not this the reaction the least reaction to be expected? Is it logical to hold the victim accountable for his indignation and outrage and for translating his feelings politically?

Denying the effect of these feelings on politics is exactly the same as some of the March 14 Forces denying the Secretary General of Hezbollah Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah's feelings of bitterness at the enthusiasm of some of the majority last August to disarm Hezbollah. The blood of the martyrs of the barbaric Israeli aggression on Lebanon has not yet dried, while these forces are making the mistake of being blindly led by this enthusiasm.

Denying Sayyed Nasrallah's feelings is exactly like Hezbollah's denying Prime Minister Fouad Siniora's feelings about the victims who died because of the Israeli aggression when he shed tears in his landmark address to the Conference of the Arab Foreign Ministers in Beirut. Opposition leaders and Hezbollah have left no opportunity to attack Siniora for the tears he shed because of the military machine of Israeli aggression, in comparison with the effectiveness of the Party and the steadfastness of its arms and the sacrifices of its fighters. They denied that Siniora took up a stance in face of the aggression. It was a political stance against Siniora, meant to obscure his patriotism to justify their attack on him, even though his public stance was understood by one and all.

• This policy of denying will lead to one-sided calculations and readings that will throw the responsibility for everything on others, and also lead to the illogical sequence of the facts. This approach ignores the facts, and sometimes leads to the fabrication of some accounts in order to justify expectations and calculations and to ignore changes that take place. Did the four-party alliance leaders in the 2005 elections - between Hezbollah, Amal, the Future movement led by MP Saad Hariri and the Progressive Socialist Party led by Walid Jumblatt - not ignore the impact of the Islamic bloc leaders in circumventing the public regarding the Christian General, Michel Aoun? Did they not do this when they saw the risk of the Muslims closing their ranks after the Syrian withdrawal, which would deprive them of their share of power? Is turning a blind eye a justification for not seeing the changes happening now as a result of the disintegration of the quadruple Muslim alliance and the effects of the alliance of Aoun and Hezbollah on the Christian masses and the rank and file of the other political forces?

The call for doing away with the policy of denying does not mean we should deny in turn, the extent of the sharp division in Lebanon. It means a call for seeing the real reasons of this policy