The northern rim of the Arab world is a mess, any way you look at it. Some US politicians, echoing Israel’s position, speak glibly (and dishonestly) of a transformed or new regional order. In reality, the situation has worsened. Israel has accelerated its war on Gaza, its violent land-grabbing in the West Bank and occupations and deadly bombings of Lebanon and Syria.
Meanwhile, Palestinians are without inspired leadership capable of projecting a strategic vision. Instead, they are mired in the muck of failed ideologies or imposed structures of governance.
Before anyone can speak of a transformed Middle East, two things must occur: Israel’s occupations and out-of-control brutal behaviour must be stopped, and new Arab leadership must emerge that can project a vision for the future that can inspire and transform the politics of Lebanon, Syria and Palestine.
This discussion of vision reminds me of a meeting I had a decade ago at my office with the leader of the Syrian National Coalition. Our exchange was pleasant and yet unmemorable – until he was about to leave. He paused at the doorway and turned to ask me: “What is your long-term vision for the region – from Iraq to Lebanon? And what do you see for us in the next three years?”
These are exactly the questions that should be asked and answered by leaders on all levels of government and civil society across the Middle East. It is critically important to have a broad strategic vision of the future that embodies the values and aspirations of your people. And it is equally important to be able to project how that vision can be implemented in the short term.
My initial response was a bit flippant, saying that looking 100 years down the road I can see an Arab boy from Amman marrying an Israeli girl from Tel Aviv and taking a job and settling down in the suburbs of Damascus. I quickly added that what I meant was that I envisioned a region at peace with itself, with integrated societies, economies, and open borders (or no borders at all) allowing for the free movement of people and commerce.
Given the bloody wars of the past several decades and continuing tumult and tension, such a vision might appear fanciful. Naysayers will go so far as to argue that it is not in the genetic makeup of either side to ever accept peace or integration. But I’m convinced they are wrong. No group of people is uniquely indisposed to peace and integration, and no people are immune from the inevitable pressures of history.
In this regard, the Middle East is no exception. It’s true that the region is plagued by war and upheaval, but which region of the world hasn’t been so plagued? The same despair was once widespread across Europe. That continent had, for centuries, been the setting for bloody conflicts pitting nations and sects against each other, culminating in the 20th century's two devastating World Wars. Who, in the midst of those horrors, could have imagined a Europe at peace with itself?
In the past few decades, Europe formed an economic union and then ended a Cold War that had divided the continent. Though still not a “perfect union”, the profound and positive transformations that have occurred and are still unfolding across that once-tormented region are impossible to ignore.
What is important is that, in the midst of conflict, people be given a vision of the future and the possibility of change, precisely so that they do not surrender to despair. Projecting such a vision can inspire and motivate societies to move forward, rejecting the paralysis that comes from feeling trapped by present-day “realities”. By projecting a progressive vision of the future, leaders are also able to present a stark contrast between the idea of the world they seek to create with notions advocated by those operating without such a vision.
When applied to the conflicts raging across the Levant, the matter becomes clearer.
What, for example, would be Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s or Hamas’s visions of the future? And who would want to live in the future projected either by the past or current Syrian leadership? Is there anyone who hopes that 100 years from now Lebanon is still divided by sect, with power monopolised by the same families who have governed their clans or regions for the past century?
Having a progressive vision of the future allows one to challenge those who can't think beyond the dead-end constraints of the present. It rejects those who for reasons of power and personal privilege want to freeze current realities or elevate them to the status of the eternal, and those whose blasphemous distortions of religion cause them to envision the future as a return to an idealised past.
Thinking about the future means we do not create “false idols” of the past or present, or become so arrogant that we project our ideologies onto God, seeking to validate our whims and fancy. It also requires that we reject the temptation to use means that contradict the very ends we seek to accomplish.
This leads me to consider my Syrian friend’s second, no less important question: to envision the Levant in three years’ time. This more difficult challenge forces us to directly confront the constraints of the present.
I believe that 100 years from now there will be no latter-day “Al Assad” on the scene, no “religious” fanatics tormenting the “less pure,” and no clan leaders or ultra-nationalists – precisely the characters who define life today. They must be defeated, but how they are defeated matters. That’s why a future vision based on values is important. Fighting evil with evil, repression with repression, and fanaticism with fanaticism, are no-win propositions. New ideas matter and so do means by which to bring those ideas to life.
I thank my Syrian friend for asking his thoughtful questions and for the discussion that followed. It provided us both with an opportunity to reflect on means, ends and goals. The very fact that he asked these questions made me appreciate his leadership. I would love to hear this challenge put to other leaders, on all levels, across the Levant. Their answers would be revealing.
