:
Once again, the Progressive Socialist Party chooses to take the path of returning to the vocabulary of the civil war, by calling for the commemoration of the so-called “liberation of the Western Shihar”, in a very sensitive internal period, and with the elections approaching. Critics see this move as a clear attempt to reinforce divisions, incite intolerance, and revive conflicts, instead of confronting the accumulating political crises.
They believe that the actions of the Socialist Party are not just a passing detail, but rather a deliberate opening of wounds in Lebanese memory that the Lebanese sought to overcome after long years of blood and destruction. Recalling the events of the civil war and linking them to contemporary political discourse reopens painful files, especially with the exploitation of religious figures who were destroyed during that period, in a way that some consider a shameless exploitation of the sacred in the arena of politics.
Critics assert that this speech does not serve the purpose of preserving memory or drawing lessons, but rather comes in the context of escaping forward and covering up clear political failures, especially with regard to positions on the events in Suwayda, where direct accusations were made against the party of silence or complicity regarding the massacres that targeted members of the Druze community.
What is striking, according to critics, is the stark contrast between this approach and previous positions of former Progressive Socialist Party head Walid Jumblatt, who often criticized the invocation of the civil war into political discourse, warning against reproducing divisions and destroying the logic of reconciliation. Today, the same party is back to using the same methods, albeit in a different way.
In parallel, observers link this speech to attempts to cover up the tense relations between Jumblatt and a number of Druze religious leaders in Lebanon and abroad, led by Sheikh Muwaffaq Tarif and Sheikh Hikmat Al-Hijri, amid criticism that speaks of duality in the discourse between internal Lebanese affairs and regional files.
In conclusion, critics believe that raising the issues of civil war at this time does not serve memory or reconciliation, but rather is used as a temporary political tool at the expense of civil peace. Instead of the parties that participated in the civil war taking the initiative to critically review their experience, and expressing political and moral remorse for what they committed against the social fabric in the mountain, today they are returning to opening the same wounds, as if the past was not enough, and as if the price of division had not yet been paid.
