The first «leaving» marked the first political moment in which the masses took part, as demonstrators. Syrians were acting, after decades of rule by a group that banned politics from the public sphere. The second «leaving» is now seeing politics return to closed rooms in other countries that oversee the «event» taking place in Syria. People left their homes to engage in politics, but they have gone back to being passive recipients; they were deprived of their political maturity after glimpsing a fleeting mirage of actually obtaining this long-sought goal. They were then placed in a situation of extreme hardship, to the point that they required salvation.
Comparisons should not be made between the Lebanese Civil War and the conflict raging in Syria today. On most levels such comparisons aren’t valid because of the differences in the two contexts. But there are some things to be said, if we return to the pent-up memories of the war: shelters, checkpoints, certain images, certain types of relationships. However, in the experiences of the 1980s and 1990s, the image wasn’t prevalent. There was no «breaking news,» or live broadcasts on television. What we «saw» we would in fact hear, often through friends and acquaintances. And if the tale of an atrocity is told, doubt remains – perhaps it was imagination, or a lie. Today, the situation has changed. Nevertheless, if we step back from the immediate weight of what is happening in Syria – the burden of crimes as they are committed – the war-related media outlets seem eliminative; they have allowed the details as well as for curtailing, manipulation and abundance. Corpses piled over each other, violence followed by more violence, and ISIS rose. The images have choked off everything else to the point where the location was eliminated from the image; either for not being much related to the context or for being too present to not be eliminated. Naturally, doing away with local voices is also due to other, non-media-related reasons, most prominently the political one. In the battle, silencing local voices is the winning card played by dictators, just as with a wide range of other players in the battle. This silencing of local voices goes along with politics leaving behind the public sphere, which recalls an earlier set of developments.
After the Israeli invasion of Beirut and the resistance that forced the Israelis to withdraw, a series of mini-wars followed – the cease-fire for one conflict would be immediately overtaken by the eruption of another. For young people, family, school and the public space didn’t talk politics. They spoke at length about assistance, efforts, victims, and incidents – the daily details. It wasn’t that becoming accustomed to the situation was so much desired as it was inevitable. People in Beirut experienced the Civil War and we also saw them experience the violence in Iraq, the «black decade» in Algeria, and Syria today – rapidly-spreading ugliness and sharp, extremely bloody escalation. These images, whose political content has been silenced, and thus along with it the depth of political responsibility, are labeled «humanitarian,» as if it’s a biological or scientific definition of their victims. Something that is humanitarian requires relief, and it truly does.
Politics has left behind the public sphere; it had barely entered this domain in Syria. In terms of the authorities, «serious» negotiation has begun: Moscow, Vienna, Geneva and who knows which city will hold a «Taif» conference in the future. In terms of the people, no independent political deal is on the horizon. Arriving at the end of Lebanon’s Civil War was beyond the power of that country’s people – they were unable to demand the change in their bloody leaders, who imposed themselves on the public sphere. The people were unable to avoid the «fate» of figures now wearing civilian clothes, and some did not want to even move in this direction. In fact, no other leaders were even in the picture. Some people lived, and others died; the post-war reconciliation came for communities that repressed their feelings toward such a development, and did not truly experience the reconciliation process. Such a reaction is possible when the community in question is barely alive in the first place. Countries that move to a period of humanitarian relief in their political life are ones that have experienced a great deal of death and many difficulties.
Relief efforts are being demanded throughout the world. Some Syrian activists here and in Europe rejected these calls, in order to strip humanitarian assistance of its political dimension. It was tantamount to robbing the victim of his or her political voice. In the media and at seminars, they criticized the related politics-free videos, which tried to help the citizens of Europe understand the situation. International organizations such as Save the Children made the videos; such criticism held a bit of luxury that was beyond those bestowed in hardships. Relief efforts should avoid such problematic questions, in order to mobilize the public to provide support. Separating between the humanitarian and political dimensions is problematic on several levels. But abandoning the humanitarian side for the sake of politics is a luxury these days. In addition, silencing politics in the public sphere is not only something imposed from above, it’s also a result of the «on the ground» situation of this public sphere. Over the last five years, amid the violence of war, no political rhetoric has arisen to coherently offer people a different reading of the situation. Likewise, there has been no self-critical political movement that remains aware of its situation. Politics hasn’t been a fertile ground, and it was relatively easy to prevent it from developing.
Political rhetoric outside the international corridors of power has remained divided between two players. The war’s bloody events either prove the criminality of the regime, or affirm the corruption of the uprising. This dichotomy has destroyed every news item, tragedy, political stance, rocket that is fired, or barrel bomb that is dropped – they’re all used as examples of the correctness of one’s position – a definitive correctness. It’s a political dichotomy that is produced merely for consumption; it produces and reproduces only itself. The humanitarian aspect wins out, but free of politics, as the daily misfortunes become fuel for the situation of political polarization. Hope is lost, as one merely hopes to remain alive, and reach home – confronting such a state of affairs would be insane.
Leaving behind the political dimension for the humanitarian one marks a move between two spaces that Syrians have not truly been accustomed to in modern times. For decades, people in Syria were banned – by force, naturally – from the political sphere. But in return they received benefits to keep them tame; most important here might be the protection from being obliged to demand humanitarian relief. The thinking was that «we won’t be Lebanon, or Iraq» – this was the reward for leaving politics behind.
Remaining alive used to constitute the «reward» for leaving politics behind, while today it constitutes the condition for regaining life.
