On Bashir Gemayel: History cannot be written through judging intentions

The last issue of Alternative created a controversy over the story reporting Bashir Gemayel's extermination of the National Liberal Party's militia, the Tigers.

Some Gemayel loyalists were looking for the staff of Alternative to physically assault them. To these militants, we say that gone are the days of physical combat. If you have any problem with what we write, then go ahead and write your counter-argument instead of using your fists to show us your physical fitness.

Another group protested that the story of Gemayel's extermination of the Tigers was taken out of context and that by re-producing the historic account, Alternative would be opening old wounds.

To this group we say that a story of a massacre of a group of people for political purposes can never be taken out of context: it is a crime and so it should be treated. What "political" reasons were behind the Safra Operation remain of little importance. Yet, Alternative reported that the apparent reason behind the Safra killing was the "unification of the Christian rifle."

The third group, a minority indeed, debated with the writers of the story and Alternative staff the role of Bashir Gemayel prior to his assassination in 1982.

This fruitful and civilized debate went as follows:

Gemayel lovers argued that even though Bashir Gemayel was a militia and a gang leader for most of his career as a fighter, he intended to work for the interest of a unified Lebanon after his election as Lebanon's President in 1982.

Our argument agreed that being a militia leader does not condemn Bashir. After all, gangsters and militia leaders were everywhere, in every area and among every sect, running the Lebanese civil strife and contributing to the systematic destruction of Lebanon. Bashir was not an exception.

Bashir was not alone in destroying the country's landmarks of civilizations. He was one of many and when writing a historic account about him, we should treat him as such. But saying that Bashir "intended" to reconstruct Lebanon and to restore its role after his election as President in 1982 is a fallacy because when writing history, we can never judge intentions, we only record deeds.

When Bashir was assassinated in 1982, he took his intentions with him. When writing history, no one can claim what his real intentions were.

The claim that Bashir abandoned his Israeli allies therefore they killed him is yet another fallacy. After the invasion of a neighboring country which cost the Israelis financial and human losses, it is improbable that they would have killed their best bet, even if Bashir had a stormy meeting with officials in Naharia after his election.

A stormy meeting is not enough to make the Israelis get rid of their then best horse in Lebanon.

Finally, it is in the best interest of Lebanon to treat its history from a "historic" point of view. So what if Alternative reports about past mistakes of a leader who commanded vast popularity in some Lebanese areas?

It is time that Lebanon de-iconizes its historic leaders and rewrites its history. This is the only way toward resolving past differences and looking toward a brighter future.