September 14th will mark the 26th anniversary of Bashir Gemayel's assassination. Gemayel was a leader who first emerged to the forefront of Lebanese political life as the commander of the predominantly Maronite Christian Lebanese Forces (LF) militia, and, through a combination of political and military ingenuity, eventually became president of the war-torn country in 1982. His presidency was short-lived as he was killed in a bombing, along with a number of his colleagues, less than a month after being elected.
While some still criticize Gemayel for his stance on Palestinians in Lebanon, others came to see him as the promise of a better Lebanon. He was an individual who was able to mobilize a large segment of the country's Christian community against what was seen by some as a Syrian and Palestinian occupation. Thus, for many he became a symbol of Lebanon's ‘first’ resistance.
Accordingly, the poster of Gemayel (on the left) commemorating the 26th anniversary of his death reads at its base, “We are the Lebanese Resistance.”
Of course, the term ‘resistance’ in Lebanon today is often associated with Hezbollah. And, as Hezbollah has worked to frame itself as a national Lebanese resistance, so did Gemayel's Lebanese Forces years beforehand.
How has it come to be that the banner of ‘resistance’ has been carried by two parties so different from each other?
Gemayel, in an English-language interview with a British journalist in 1981, defined his resistance as such: (click here for video)
What similarities and differences can we draw between Gemayel's discourse in the early 1980s and Hezbollah's in the present day? While the uniforms of occupying forces have undoubtedly changed over the years, have the fundamental themes of ‘resistance’ remained essentially the same?
5 Comments So Far»
You have a pretty odd sense of what consitutes “Resistance.”
“While some still criticize Gemayel for his stance on Palestinians in Lebanon, others came to see him as the promise of a better Lebanon. He was an individual who was able to mobilize a large segment of the country's Christian community against what was seen by some as a Syrian and Palestinian occupation. Thus, for many he became a symbol of Lebanon's "first' resistance.”
Bashar Gemayel can best be described as a Lebanese Facist. The only people who considered him a Resister were Right Wing Christians. By “mobilizing” a large segment of Christians, do you mean murdering the other sects? Thats how he got the position he did. Through violence within the Lebanese Christian community. Finally, Bashr Gemayel is the one who collaborated with Ariel Sharon to try and eject all the Palestinans from Lebanon. He invited Ariel Sharon to invade Israel in 1982 and worked with the Israelis to crush the Palestinian national movement. I wouldnt exactly call that Resistance. Bashar Gemayel is a Resister in the eyes of very right wing Christians and no one else.
Jim thanks for your comment.
A critical view of Gemayel's policies and his rise to power has always been an essential part of this debate.
Dear Jim,
Your comments above constitute your own opinion. But of course, other people have different opinions, and the secret to a good debate is respecting what other people have to say.
In my opinion, I see a lot of similarity between Hizballa's resistance and Bashir's (the LF's) resistance.
- They were both based on fighting an existing threat (Syria and the Umma in the case of the LF) (Israel and the West in the case of Hizballa)
- They both began as a part of their sect (Christianity and the Maronites for the LF; Islam and being Shia for Hizballa)
- Later on, they both tried to stamp themselves in a different light. They both tried to “appear” more national. Did they succeed? I personally don't think so… but they tried.
- They both began with strong military forces and later tried to develop themselves more politically
As for your post itself…
- Yes, the LF did kill members of other sects and those that were not immediately involved in the Syrian Threat. It was a war and many such cases (which could and should have been avoided, weren't). However, this is ALSO a similarity between them and Hizballa. Hizballa and Amal fighting was an example. The sort of terror that Hizballa still has all over the south and Dahyeh is another example.
- as for collaboration with the “enemy”. again there is a similarity between the two. the LF received assistance from Israel in order to fight what they considered a larger threat - Syria. while Hizballa was and is still collaborating with Syria for what they think is the larger threat.
- and concerning crushing the Palestinian national movement. Please remember that it was this same movement that was a primary force in the lebanese “civil” war…which wasn't civil at all… remember the slogan Arafat used to have?
- Concerning your last point, Bashir is not only the resistance in the eyes of right wing christians alone. even members of the “moderate” Free Patriotic Movement (currently allied with Hizballa) consider him a true patriot and a martyr.
Thank you.
Boura,
Thank you for enriching this debate with your comments.
Some initial takeaways from you and Jim's comments:
1. Communal Infighting is perhaps an essential part of power consolidation by any leader or party that seeks be the key dictating force within that community, especially within the war-time context.
2. The nature of Lebanese politics, and its propensity to extend beyond to the regional stage in its scope, have, and perhaps always will, led/lead these movements to rely on external support.
Exactly Mod.
The issue with Lebanon is that we have always been fighting one side by utilizing the resources of the other. As such, due to our sectoral, religious, and political differences, resistance is always a matter of debate… and fighting external threats is also, regrettably, biased and dependent on what you believe to be a real threat.
This is why some were willing to forget Syrian atrocities in Lebanon; it became the means to achieve the greater end to fight Israel, which had been the occupying force, and had committed immense war crimes in the area.
This is the same reason why others sought the assistance of Israel, as they were on the receiving end of the Syrian crimes. It was their means for survival in a country being taken over by Syrian armed forces and Palestinian militants.
Thank you.
Leave Comments Below»