It seems to be a divine curse or a doomed fate for the Lebanese to keep swapping the task of digging ditches of hostility with Syria. This is seen either under the pretext of Lebanon's sovereignty, freedom and independence, which are threatened by Syrian tutelage and prompting Lebanese chauvinism to emerge and target Syrian workers, or under the pretext of supporting the only rejectionist Arab regime that is standing against the American and Israeli wills and dictations. But the result is the same: the deepening of the schism between two people, although anyone can see they are deeply connected at the level of their interests and future. Let us say up-front that the Lebanese behavior at the Security Council during the discussion of the Syrian issue stemmed much more from political cowardice than from concerns about national interest. Cowardice is what characterized the Lebanese official dealings with the Syrian refugees in North Lebanon and what marked the Lebanese apparatuses' surrendering of two soldiers who crossed into Lebanon during the Tal Kalakh incidents to their counterparts across the border. The examples at this level are countless. The current government and the forces in it are responsible for the “distancing of Lebanon” away from the statement issued by the Security Council and featuring a condemnation of the practices of the Syrian regime against the civilian population. However, what happened at the Security Council was not the result of the current political moment, as Lebanon – and since it became a non-permanent member in the Council – has adopted positions reflecting the structural frailty affecting its policies and national consensus. This was seen for example at the level of the international sanctions against Iran, when Lebanon abstained from voting to avoid appearing biased in favor of either the Americans or the Iranians. One might say that the small country should not be embarrassed and that the unfortunate geopolitical situation was enough to deter those issuing blames. It is thus claimed that Lebanon, with its demographic structure, its geographic position and vertical divisions (all watered down expressions to convey the reality of the failure of the project to build a state in our country), in addition to its great reliance on foreign aid, donations and transfers, cannot handle the wrath of the brothers and neighbors or the boycotting of the friends. Consequently, it is the obligation of the Lebanese government, regardless of the political side controlling it, to uphold “shrewdness” and not to place the country in the midst of a new bloody or economic experience. This talk conveys a sample of the Lebanese politicians' shortsightedness, regardless of their movements and affiliations, based on the logic of the small time traders and shopkeepers. At this level, there is no room to go over the details of the way this mercantile method and mentality backfired on Lebanon, from the policy of “Lebanon's strength resides in its weakness” to the turn toward the foreign invaders and tyrants against the people. And while it would be wise not to throw Lebanon due to its known circumstances in the devastating regional and international conflicts - as our politicians and citizens did in the seventies and eighties, thus leading to a destruction from whose political, social and economic consequences the Lebanese have not yet risen - holding on to the minimum level of national interests and moral nobility reveals much greater wisdom. Now, the simple question that must be addressed to whoever issued instructions to Lebanon's mission at the United Nations is related to his vision of the future of the relations between the two peoples and states in Syria and Lebanon following the inevitable change in Damascus. This change might be delayed for months and accompanied by difficulties, violence and bloodshed, but its signs are clear to all. Yet, the Lebanese government is finding nothing wrong with the instatement of new hostility with the Syrian people by disregarding their suffering and the horrendous acts committed against them by the existing regime. Has the time not come for the establishment of relations based on clear interests and mutual respect by the two governments for the two peoples?
