Emile Hokayem
Lebanon: overcoming a tortuous legacy
The Assad regime had an abusive relationship with Lebanon, a country Syria effectively occupied between 1976 and 2005 and whose politics it shaped through coercion and cajolement. It was therefore no surprise that the demise of the Assad regime was welcomed with as much joy on the streets of diverse Beirut and Sunni-dominated Tripoli as on those of Damascus and Homs, and with as much dread on the streets of Shia-dominated Baalbek and Nabatieh as on those of Alawite-heavy Tartous and Jableh.
Regardless of the regime in place in Damascus, Syria and Lebanon have always had intimate yet tortuous relations. The former has resented the latter’s independence and liberalism, seeing itself as the larger, more important country. For its part, Lebanon has always looked down on Syria as the less sophisticated country, politically and economically. This has made for a uniquely unhealthy dynamic.
Above all, Syria has seen Lebanon as part of its sphere of influence, while Lebanese Hizbullah has considered Syria its strategic depth. Scores of Lebanese politicians, journalists and civil actors were killed by Bashar al-Assad’s forces, and Hizbullah spearheaded Assad’s counter-uprising military efforts, killing tens of thousands of Syrians in the process. This bloody legacy colours perceptions, but the concomitant ouster of Assad and the weakening of Hizbullah have also given rise to more positive narratives in both countries.
No comments:
Post a Comment