It is perhaps acceptable, during national wars, to calibrate cultural life to wartime necessities. Accordingly – and only as an exception and for a limited period of time – some expressions seen to potentially benefit the side fighting the nation and its people could be banned.
However, it is very clear that Lebanon is not currently engaged in a national war. The war is being waged by a particular segment of the population. Other segments oppose it, and they are skeptical of its utility, objectives, and the force fighting it. Moreover, these critics see the war itself as a dubious effort to target and subjugate them under the pretext of clashing with Israel.
It is not only a small and isolated segment of the population, who could be accused of being traitors and foreign agents, that breaks with this consensus; nor is it a reflection of an ideological divide like that seen in France when the Nazis occupied the country, with ideas and interests (which are inherently contingent and subject to change) central to the split.
In Lebanon, we are looking at a chasm between communities, in which constant variables far outnumber contingent ones. This split can only be addressed in one of two ways: either through a compromise, which has become highly unlikely with the armed group and its affiliates emphatically consolidating their power, or through a war on the other communities (religious, sectarian, or ethnic) that are not armed – if not a material war then against their collective will and the way of life they have chosen.
In this sense, the tendency to impose a particular viewpoint on the rest of society indeed suggests genocidal intentions, or at the very least, the intention to eradicate a way of life. In turn the genocidal party’s capacity to act depends on circumstance.
Given this state of affairs, it is not strange for two developments indicative of how deep the country’s civil strife has become (and by extension of the superficiality and mendacity of the talk about a unifying national battle) to unfold at the same time:
– A practical ban, through intimidation, on the performance of Wajdi Mouawad’s play “Wedding Day At The Cro-Magnons,” which had been scheduled by a theater located in a neighborhood opposed to Hezbollah’s war. As for the pretext for this band, it is that Mouawad is a “normalizer.” That is, he refuses to see the world as a perpetual total war. It was supplemented by another equally ridiculous pretext: Germany’s stance on the war on Gaza and its repercussions!
– The rise of a climate of communal tensions in Lebanon, its most recent manifestation being, if not the murder itself, the rhetoric that we heard following the murder of the Lebanese Forces’ official, Pascal Sleiman. It’s worth noting that, for some time now, Lebanese Forces circles have been the targets of accusations of treason and acts of assassination.
The total lack of consensus has not precipitated a push for compromises with “national partners.” Instead, it has fueled the drive to humiliate them through the imposition of choices that they had had no say in and which they see as a threat and an assault on their decisions. This course of action follows the mindset of civil war and the intention to subjugate that stands behind it.
In such a context, the armed party expands and gnaws away at cultural life, and mind you, past experiences show that the scissors of militant censorship will not stop with Mouawad. It could become unacceptable, going forward, for the Lebanese to watch a movie directed by Steven Spielberg or read a book written by Jurgen Habermas, not to mention the hundreds of philosophers and creators whom the Axis of Resistance orbit is not fond of.
Currently, the broad segment of the Lebanese population being repressed believes, and says, that unlimited openness to cultural works is part of its culture and identity, rather, that it is part of its conception of what this nation stands for. This is an extension of a tradition that goes back decades, to Lebanon’s best days, a time when the Lebanese people got to know the world and cultivated individuals, such as Wajdi Mouawad, some of whom became globally renowned artists.
As for the broad segment of the population behind the repression, its spokesmen have never defended a book that had been banned or a play or movie that had been stifled. While this passion for censorship is part of its mental and psychological makeup, the fervor is also an extension of a tradition that sees so-called “national liberation”- police states, informants, prisons, and assassinations – as a “beacon.” This heavily armed tradition is known for being terrified of every cultural activity that goes against its preferences and does not parrot its boring, barren narrative.
It seems that, regrettably, these genocidal intentions and attempts against a particular culture are reinforced by the disgraceful racist attacks of some Lebanese groups against Syrian refugees, groups that claim loyalty to the Lebanon which is being subjugated and degraded. It is as though some of the oppressed have spitefully and cowardly chosen enemies weaker and more oppressed than they are.
In any case, it is becoming clear that those who want a free country, be it communities or intellectuals and creatives, are under siege, just like the idea of their country. It is advisable for the intellectuals among them who do not want the confrontation to be limited to a “sectarian party,” to be kind enough to also defend cultural freedoms themselves. Indeed, it is not just a play or a book that is likely to be erased, but the choices that make Lebanon rich, its diversity, and its freedom.