Hazem al-Amin

A gathering was held last Monday in downtown Beirut as an expression of solidarity with the Syrian people’s plight under the Syrian regime. The meeting was attended by hundreds of activists, writers, journalists and individuals who were appalled by the events in our neighboring country. Coincidentally, the meeting was held one day after several Arab states and governments ended their silence regarding these events. The Arab League and the GCC thus issued statements, and Gulf States withdrew their ambassadors from Damascus.

Participation in this Beirut gathering was limited to civil activists who do not belong to any particular political movements and are not part of social blocs. The gathering was held in Beirut but was devoid of any local civil representation. The political and cultural Beirut was there, but the civil Beirut was not. Such an absence was a characteristic feature of the meeting. Some said it was positive as it reflected civil unanimity over sympathy with the Syrian people’s plight, whereas others deemed it reflective of the lack of any civil status in the city. In fact, political forces representing it, namely the Future Movement, were represented by symbolic figures rather than by urban and daily faces, i.e. students, women and unions. This reveals the existence of a genuine dilemma that should addressed immediately. Indeed, one cannot say that the Future Movement has its hands tied politically on such an occasion as proven by Future Movement leader Saad Hariri’s successive statements in which he stated his support for victims in Syria, in addition to the fact that the movement was represented in the gathering by MP Ahmad Fatfat and former Minister Hassan Mneimneh. This goes without mentioning the Saudi stance, which coincided with a rare demonstration in the Saudi capital Riyadh to protest against what the Syrian people is subjected to.

Another shortcoming prevented civil participation in Beirut – and this reminds us of another abstention in the Syrian uprising: The city of Aleppo has abstained from joining the protest movement. We now have seemingly convincing answers regarding the reasons underlying Aleppo’s abstention, which range from the city’s trade status and tremendous regime investments in it in addition to the tight security grasp and the help of neighboring tribes to control the city.

Accordingly, the questions asked regarding Beirut may lead to similar, if not identical, answers. Political Beirut seems unable to be in sync with civil Beirut. It is by no means a coincidence that political (the manner in which Saad Hariri was deprived of the premiership being an example in this respect) and security (the spread of weapons) decision-making were easily taken away from its representative and civil committees. The most dangerous thing of all is that civil Beirut’s abstention from taking part in an occasion similar to the one held Monday evening is tantamount to an approval of what the city was subjected to.