Lebanese ministers have spent more time criticising the Palestinian victims than denouncing the power that uprooted and drove them away

It is not a norm that all those engaged in politics should hold university degrees in history. Actually, many of the world's prominent statesmen did not major either in history or political science. Some entered politics as legislators after studying at law schools, and others came through military academies (such as Charles De Gaulle and Winston Churchill).
Then there's also a group that specialised in medicine and engineering, before seeking power either through electoral politics or revolutions. Prominent names among these feature physicians like Ernesto 'Che' Guevara, Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia and Michelle Bachelet of Chile, and engineers like US president Herbert Hoover, Necmettin Erbakan of Turkey.and currently Lebanon's Foreign Minister Jebran Bassil!
Going back to history, I do not think there is any issue in delivering a lecture on history. But, surely, there is a problem when history is misrepresented and involves subjective 'interpretation'.
Last week, Foreign Ministers of the 68-member 'Global Coalition' working to defeat Daesh met in Washington D.C. upon the invitation of US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. The meeting, attended by Bassil, was held in order to review and accelerate the campaign to defeat the extremist terrorist organisation.
I have not read enough about the contributions of Bassil in the aforementioned meeting. However, I had the chance to read what he said at the Wilson Institute in Washington during his stay in the United States.
The Lebanese foreign minister said - from what I have gathered - something around the lines that 'Daesh as an ideology' has been around for a long time. And because of this ideology, one third of the 'Lebanese' emigrated to America and other parts of the world. Later, another one-third died under the "Allies' siege" during WW1. The remaining third, according to Bassil, have managed to stay put and continue to fight against Daesh.
What is extremely interesting in this historical voyage is that it contradicts several simple historical facts. Moreover, it does not really help the cohesion of Lebanon's "national unity government", let alone the spirit of 'national entente' in the pretty complicated local, regional, and even international sphere.
To begin with claiming that Daesh's ideology has existed "for a long time", given the rest of his speech alludes to the pre-WW1 era, is incorrect. This means, it had existed before Lebanon was even created as an entity within its presents borders in 1920. By this reference, there is a clear indication that what he meant was the Ottoman Empire. However, the Ottomans followed the liberal Sunni Hanafi school of Islamic jurisprudence, which had nothing to do with Daesh' "takfir" - i.e. declaring others as apostates - which is rejected by all Muslim states. In addition to this, the Ottoman Empire, which dominated the Middle East and most of Northern Africa between 1516 and 1918, had gone through the "Tanzimat", a far-reaching progressive movement that included modernisation and constitutional reform between 1839 and 1876, ushering impressive religious tolerance and openness. In fact, even when external pressures and military setback in Europe provided an excuse for Sultan Abdul Hamid II to claw back some authoritarianism, he opposed it . Later, in fact he was deposed by the 'Three Pashas' Talaat, Enver and Djemal, who were far from Islamic conservatism.
Another issue Bassil touched on, and sounded more like folkloric rather than a serious reading of history, was when he mentioned about the Lebanese emigration during Ottoman rule ­- while ignoring the 'real' reasons for the accelerated exodus, which was the Lebanese War (1975-1990).
This could be explained by his ambiguous position towards Hezbollah. In Washington, he claimed that Lebanon was paying a heavy price for what was going on in Syria, including Hezbollah's military intervention there. He added that he did not speak for the (pro-Iran Shi'ite party/militia), and urged those interested in knowing more about its military intervention in Syria and elsewhere in the region to ask Hezbollah itself!
What is quite interesting here is that Hezbollah is regarded as a terrorist organisation by the US, where Bassil was speaking. However, it (Hezbollah) is an ally of Bassil's party, the Free Patriotic Movement. More interestingly, Hezbollah has been the main player that imposed Gen Michel Aoun, the FPM's founder and leader and Bassil's father-in-law, as president of Lebanon ­- after more than two years of presidential vacuum. Aoun, in turn, has continued to defend not only Hezbollah's military involvement in Syria, but also use the Syrian situation to justify the party's stance of retaining weapons. This is despite the fact that all Lebanese militias disarmed voluntarily after 1990.
Thus, when Bassil claims that "Lebanon's official policy", as expressed in the manifesto of the 'national unity government', is committed to keep Lebanon away from all regional conflicts, it is practically meaningless.
Another noteworthy point was Bassil's criticism of the failure of international community to act against Daesh. His party, the FPM, has always been critical of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) formed in 2005 to investigate and prosecute those involved in the assassination of ex-Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and 21 others. The STL as already accused at least five Hezbollah militiamen of involvement in the crime, but the party has refused to accept and cooperate with the tribunal. On the other hand, prominent figures in Bassil's FPM have recently bemoaned the costs of the STL to Lebanon's treasury.
Last but not least, the Lebanese foreign minister has yet again called for the return of Syrian refugees and displaced to either areas deemed combat-free, or to Tartous province in the Alawite heartland of northwest Syria. This negative stance towards the plight of Syrian refugees and displaced is not new. It is a re-enactment of the old negative stance towards Palestinian refugees who have been displaced since 1948. While it is a duty, from nationalist and humanitarian viewpoints, to reject uprooting and displacement in general, some Lebanese spent more time in the past criticising the Palestinian victims than denouncing the power that uprooted and drove them away from their homes. Today, the trend represented by Bassil does not want the Syrian victims around but neither criticises nor holds accountable those who caused their misery.
Here lies the heart of the problem that has prevented the transformation of Lebanon from a 'deal' to a true state; and thus, the intentional misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Middle East's history will keep Lebanon a weak link in a turbulent region.
Eyad Abu Shakra is the managing editor of Asharq Al Awsat. He has been with the newspaper since 1978. The article was originally published
in Asharq Al Awsat.
 

 

• MENA