The rejectionists and resistance fighters have known since day one who was behind the chemical massacre committed in the two Ghoutas. They are fully aware of the fact that the regime forces are the ones that launched the lethal rockets on the sleeping population in the village, without this altering their loyalties and bias in any way. And the latter know, with the same level of certainty, who is responsible for the explosions in the Southern Suburb of Beirut and Tripoli last month, but they are disregarding this as well. Why? The international inspectors' report clearly points to the direction the chemical rockets came from (north and northeast of the devastated villages). As for Annex 5 of the report, it features pictures of the remains of the rockets, which the experts say were Iranian-made Falaq-2 and Russian-made M14 rockets. And no one in Syria has such types of weapons except for Bashar al-Assad's troops. Naturally, the report did not announce that the rockets were launched from sites that have become known, as known as the names of the officers leading them. Instead, the inspectors settled for saying that the facts speak for themselves. And they do. One can assert that countless crimes committed by the regime and its followers in Syria have been tolerated and justified by the rejectionists, who will also rush to acquit the killer of all crimes that will be committed in the future. Hence, the pretext system being used – despite its shallowness – is still seen in the rejectionist media outlets, saying that the resistance against Israel is the utmost priority, in parallel to the protection of minorities and the deterrence of the Takfiris and Al-Qaeda organization. And the Syrian president is topping it all by assuring that Syria was not witnessing war, but rather an attack by Al-Qaeda. The mistakes, flaws, and actions of some forces associating themselves with the Syrian opposition cannot be defended and should be condemned. In addition, all those attacking the Syrian citizens in the name of the revolution should be deterred. But this is one thing, and punishing the entire Syrian population and its revolution for the mistakes of dubious elements is another. Nonetheless, the prevalence of the margins over the core has been a stable policy in the logic and among the writers of rejectionism. This behavior brings back to mind the story of a man and his wife who saw a foreign body on a small hill. The man insisted it was a goat, while the wife said it was a swan. When the animal spread its wings and flew, the man had nothing to say but: "It's a goat, even if it flies." The rejectionists are practicing outsmarting by relying on the Russian positions that are skeptical about the international report. They are thus asking the ultimate question: Could a major state lie about such a serious matter? And the answer is yes. Just like the American administration lied about Iraq ten years ago, Putin's administration is lying about Syria today. But all of this falls in the context of futile bickering and wrangling. The core issue resides in the social and sectarian composition of the largest portion of rejectionists, and their fear of seeing the nature of the regime in Syria altered, which would result in changes at the level of the of the power map in Lebanon. The issue thus appears to be much deeper than moral integrity and political correctness. It is related to the sectarian sensitivities which the ruling sects in this part of the world insisted on installing in the face of national identity. Hence, sectarian belonging and its ideological discourse, related for example to the underdogs, the resistance fighters, the hard workers, etc. have become the basis for the definition of reality and identity. Some like to cram the question of identity in the corner of fate, unaware of the fact that the changing of fates is part of history's course and law.
