In Lebanon, there hardly is any talk that doesn't involve Syria. Domestic disputes are now all trivial in comparison, despite their intensity at times. The same applies to trade union action, the chronic grumbling over the state's weakness, the power cuts, the traffic jams and the November rain flooding the streets. The Lebanese politician is not surprised that the Lebanese are currently preoccupied with the developments in Syria. He said that for decades now, Lebanon has lost its ability to sail by itself, as an independent state. The ability of the Lebanese to make their own decisions has long since been eroded. National unity has been undermined, and the institutions have lost their purpose and the ability to carry out their duties. The Lebanese have since always needed a sponsor, a hegemon or a mediator, and Damascus was always the side the best poised to play all these roles combined. I was struck by the politician's views, especially because he is a frequent traveller on the Beirut-Damascus road, and has not changed this habit of his, at least not yet. He said that the current scene is unprecedented. Over many decades, the picture was as follows: Lebanon in deep turmoil and Syria in strict stability. He pointed to what is no longer a secret- and was never a secret: That Lebanese cabinets are formed or cooked in Damascus, and that electoral alliances and lists always carry the hallmarks of the brethren [i.e. the Syrians]. The charade of extending the President's term was a Damascene invention. The Lebanese politicians would take stances either to please Damascus or spite it. The Lebanese thus agreed to forfeit a large part of their independent decision, in return for some measure of stability. The politician remembers that when Dr. Bashar al-Assad took office, there was a great deal of hope in change both within Syria and in the context of the relationship between the two countries. However, the invasion of Iraq, the assassination of Rafik Hariri and the July War all brought change in Syria to a halt while exacerbating the complex relations between the two countries. Iran figured more now in the Lebanese equation, and Hezbollah inherited some of the Syrian role. The division regarding the events that are shaking up Syria only made the already existing polarization over the Hariri Tribunal worse, and over the issues of Hezbollah's arms and the attempt to enlist Lebanon into the axis of resistance and its discourse. Here, Hezbollah's position was no surprise. First, it rejoiced- as did Iran- in the Arab Spring when it hit in other countries, but then considered the same suspicious when it broke out on Syrian soil. Hezbollah saw the developments there as an attempt to break the “crescent of resistance”, something that would push Iran in the direction of Iraq and leave the party to deal with Lebanese facts alone, facts that are not at all simple in light of the demographic and religious mosaic there. Meanwhile, General Michel Aoun did not change his ways. Whenever he goes in a certain direction, he seems to do go a great length, scorching the land he leaves behind. He does not enter into half-alliances or half-marriages. The views some of his supporters would say in secret, about the alliance among minorities, have now become a public matter in Lebanon. This was in fact encouraged by the interjections delivered by the Maronite Patriarch Bishara Rai on the Arab Spring, from the standpoint of the minorities' concerns, especially in Syria. The flood of statements he gave came across like he was in a period of rapid public exercises that could not possibly have come about without some mistakes in his approaches, formulations and then rectifications. Saad Hariri's position was not surprising either. His supporters do not hide their feelings when it comes to analyzing the crisis in Syria. Furthermore, he accuses Syria and Hezbollah, together, of being behind the coup against the parliamentary majority that excluded him from the post of prime minister. With the escalation of the crisis in Syria, Hariri, who has been away from Lebanon for months now, declared that he stands on the side of the ‘Syrian revolution'. Dr. Samir Geagea too went public with his position, calling on the Christians to take part in the Arab Spring – that is otherwise a source of concern for the Patriarch and the General. As regards Walid Jumblatt, who for months has been walking a tightrope, he chose in the end a position that keeps the door open with Hezbollah but closed it once again with Damascus, in an equation that will prove extremely difficult. Prime Minister Najib Mikati's skill in navigating between the mines, while relying on ambivalent statements, is not enough to overcome this critical period. What is disturbing is that the role of President Michel Suleiman is on the decline, and so is the damage done to the role of Speaker Nabih Berri as a result of the coup against the majority and the belligerent positions of his ‘compulsory ally' General Aoun. The Lebanese continue their battles on the verge of the earthquake then, in a country that suffers from a deficient immunity and a fatal absence of wise men.
