Lebanese politicians are feigning tranquility, while attempting to conceal their grave concerns. There is no wonder here. Indeed, the tragedy that Syria is experiencing is more than Lebanon can bear. We are talking here about the possibility of the demise of one of the longest lasting unions known by the Arab world. A union that lasted for decades without being officially called one. We can say for sure here that the Syrian role had declined in the wake of the withdrawal of the Syrian troops from Lebanon. Yet Syria maintained a veto power in certain Lebanese affairs, and the power to voice its opinion with regard to other issues, as well as to influence security and stability in the country. For decades, the Syrian issue was the center of political life in Lebanon. Syria was a mandatory stop for anyone who wanted to sit under the dome of the parliament; a mandatory stop for anyone desiring to become His Excellency the Minister; and more than a mandatory stop for the Maronite who wished to become Mr. President. To be more accurate, we can say: Leadership was made either by allying with Syria and espousing its policies, or declaring opposition to it. In the leaderships' club, I am not talking about men who were made by Syria. The leadership of Walid Jumblatt is local par excellence, but he ‘triumphed' in the War of the Mountain thanks to Syrian guns. Rafik Hariri would not have been made Prime Minister, were it not for Syria's feeling that it needed him. Yet the leadership of Rafik Hariri was quintessentially Lebanese, fostered by his track-record and the fact that he became a Lebanese need. The leadership of Saad Hariri was born out of the friction with Syria and so it exceeded the limits of his father's leadership. The leadership of Nabih Berri is unquestionable, but he would not have remained the Speaker of the Parliament for two decades were it not for Damascus's support, even though Berri was not the top entry in the list of Syria's allies in the last decade. And the local leadership of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah is absolute within his community, yet Hezbollah would not have attained its current strength without the alliance with Damascus. General Michel Aoun attracted a large proportion of Christians on the basis of his resistance against “Syrian occupation”. He fired his guns, was pushed to exile, and then he returned. He is now positioned in an alliance with Hezbollah and Syria, despite the high cost of his stances and his fiery statements sometimes. Dr. Samir Geagea ascended to the rhythm of the confrontation with Syria, which he resumed following his release from prison. After the assassination of Rafik Hariri, he achieved a breakthrough and for the first time gained a foothold outside of his community, which helped him become part of the regional game. The leadership of Amin Gemayel was made in Lebanon, but he had many rounds of dialogue and conflict with Damascus. Finally, the leadership of Suleiman Franjieh is strong in his northern stronghold, but as much so as he is steadfast in the inherited alliance with Damascus. For decades, the relationship with Syria was the center of political life in Lebanon. Political life would develop in agreement with, allegiance to or antagonism against Syria yet each choice has had a price, albeit risk lies mostly in the second choice, not the first. For this reason, one can understand the deep turmoil in the Lebanese political scene. The Lebanese used to see in Syria a strong, stable and firm regime, domestically, and a prominent player on both the regional and international levels. Neither the allies expected the situation in Syria to deteriorate this much, nor foes dared to dream of a situation of this kind. The developments therefore surprised both allies and foes, and then both sides became caught in a tense waiting game. For decades, the Lebanese political class accepted that the Syrian role was part of the internal fabric, and that the three leaders must always remember Damascus in both internal and external issues, especially when meeting the U.S. ambassador. Today, these leaders are confused. They are trying to dissociate themselves with varying degrees. They talk about the Spring with prudence, caution and vague talk. There is nothing wrong with that. If only they helped the institutions avert the daily embarrassment they are subjected to. What is happening among the islands within the government is shameful. Were it not for my fear of being accused of naivety, I would have suggested the creation of a national unity government: A government that is able to coexist with the Syrian fire and prevent its ashes from spilling over to Lebanon and set its fabric on fire; a government whose main task is to prevent the fire from spreading to Lebanon and prevent the country's sliding to strife or isolation. It is the right of the Lebanese to oppose change in Syria, and the right of another segment of the Lebanese to support change and condemn the killing. But it is not the right of the Lebanese to import the civil war, for whatever reason. Lebanon has no shortage of powerful men, whether in the ranks of their parties, communities or regions. But this is not the hour of the strong men. It is the wise men's hour. Those dreaming of the spoils of the survival of the regime in Syria must show some prudence. The same applies to those dreaming of the regime's collapse. Now is the time for Lebanon to come first.
