The Drug of Rhetoric

So Nasrallah's Party held a rally today - I'll leave commentary and analysis on that to both his lovers and haters. However, I would like to discuss his insistence on the "When we build a strong and just state that is capable of protecting the nation and the citizens, we will easily find an honorable solution to the resistance issue and its weapons" notion. I will agree that not only is the current state weak in several aspects, but that it potentially does not even exist. But what I do not agree with is the use of abstract concepts such as a "strong and just state." What characteristics constitute a "strong state"? Only defense plans? Anti-israelism? Financial prosperity? Rights for all its civilians? Democracy? What? What checkpoints can be used to quantify how strong the government is becoming?

Without such classifications, Nasrallah's rhetoric is on par with a few of our other "leaders." Aoun calls for a "national unity government" without discussing the details of what that would bring to the Lebanese project, or the pros and cons of such a step. Jumblatt and co. call for equally such meaningless and abstract terms. "Unity" sounds lovely, as does "strong state", and "independence," and "democracy," but if those calling for such concepts don't elaborate on the required criteria, they sound like wannabe-leftists who sing kumbaya all day and hold hands under the sunset while calling for "Peace" - i.e. they offer no practical analysis of such abstract notions. And because of the lack of such practicality and depth, these characters, who excel in the use of meaningless rhetoric, have been active participants in keeping the Lebanese idea on the level of an idea. In fact, we all have been active participants because we have repeatedly allowed such rhetoric to drug us into submission.

Enjoy your weekend.

posted by Lazarus, 12:46 PM