El-Youssef / The Levantine Review Volume 1 Number 2 (Fall 2012)
Larkin’s poems are good, and like all good art they have the ability to make the audience forget the repugnant views of the artist and bypass his personality too. Reading Larkin poems, just like listening to Wagner music, one temporarily forgets what such artists might have said, in either the private or public spheres. The ability of art to induce temporary forgetfulness is what I would like to make use of in answering the question that is the title of this essay: “Is the Levant a zone of conflict or culture?”
When
talking
about
the
Levant,
there
are
two
important
and
closely
connected
issues
one
must
keep
in
mind:
memory
and
the
attitude
of
each
of
the
Levant’s
communities
towards
the
“other.”
Jews,
Palestinians,
Kurds
and
many
other
nations
and
minorities
in
the
Middle
East
have
had
a
past
of
grief
and
a
history
of
suffering,
and
therefore
memory
is
a
very
important
and
popular
term
in
many
Middle
Eastern
quarters.
Indeed
memory
is
so
important
that
it
seemed
to
be
the
major
source
of
informing
and
goading
a
given
community’s
political
attitude
towards
the
“other,”
and
sometimes
towards
the
“self.”
The
trauma
of
the
dark
past
is
generated
in
deep
fear
and
suspicion
verging
on
paranoia.
Accordingly
the
“other”
is
seen
as
someone
who
has
no
other
wish
and
intention
but
that
of
defeating
us,
destroying
us.
Whatever
statement
and
move
the
“other”
makes
is
often
seen
as
part
of
a
wider,
sophisticated,
devious
plot;
an
endless
conspiracy
within
which
whatever
is
prefigured
years
earlier
is
bound
to
take
place.
The
“other’s”
group,
the
opposite
group,
is
usually
given
too
much
credibility,
suspected
of
being
always
cunning,
skilfully
organised
and
highly
co-ordinated,
or
at
least
having
the
benefit
of
unshakable
determination
to
keep
on
fighting
to
the
end.
Willingness
to
negotiate
and
reach
a
peace
agreement
is
often
viewed
with
suspicion
that
even
those
who
participate
seem
to
be
expecting
little
besides
their
suspicions
being
confirmed
and
justified.
The
protracted
and
farcical
Palestinian-Israeli
peace
process
is
a
good
example
of
how
such
two
aspects
manifest
themselves.
In
this
context,
any
concession
made,
no
matter
how
small
and
insignificant,
is
often
considered
the
first
of
many
other
greater
concessions
to
follow,
leading
eventually
to
the
destruction
of
those
surrendering
to
compromise.
Indeed
there
were
times
when
Palestinian
and
Israeli
peace
negotiators
seemed
to
be
waiting
to
see
who
is
going
to
flinch
first,
who
is
going
to
fail
to
keep
their
part
of
the
bargain.
The
desire
to
play
the
role
of
the
tragic
hero
must
have
haunted
the
mind
of
those
peace-makers
and
was
ready
to
be
animated
on
the
world
stage:
“Look,
we
have
tried
everything
to
reach
an
agreement;
we
stretched
out
our
hand
to
them
but
they
turned
it
down!”
I
am
sure
that
such
attitudes
and
such
discourse
were
rehearsed
numerous
times.
With
such
paranoia
left
unchallenged,
no
wonder
peace
remains
illusive
and
very
difficult,
not
to
say
impossible,
to
achieve.
Reconciliation
is
doomed
to
remain
a
distant
hope,
so
long
as
the
“other”
continues
to
be
viewed
with
distrust.
And
so,
