Why didn't the leader of the Progressive Socialist Party (PSP) Walid Jumblatt do it before the announcement of the completion of the “final” formula that was supposed to facilitate the formation of the government of Prime Minister-designate Saad al-Hariri? Why didn't the “Socialist” leader want a divorce with the March 14 group before the parliamentary elections, but rather wanted it to surprise all his allies due to what these elections have entailed, in the framework of calculations pertaining to the size of his parliamentary representation?... Did Jumblatt mean by his “repentance” to acquit himself from all the mobilization he spearheaded when he even went farther than the positions of his ally Al-Hariri and escalated beyond the red lines in his campaign against “the group of submission and the joint Lebanese-Syrian security regime and the Syrian tutelage and Iranian guidance?” If the shock caused by Jumblatt restores many paradoxes that only increase the chronic frustration of the Lebanese people, thanks to the “destiny” of their country and the “innovations” of their politicians, the truth of the matter is that most of them who are no longer surprised by quakes and tremors and the hails of corner-rounding can do nothing but mock the awakening [of Jumblatt] towards a Lebanese left movement that might hide “miracles” which the Soviet Union could not bring… They become even more ridiculous when any leader tries to provoke our repentance and make us ask for pardon because we have forgotten Arabism and Palestine, as though Lebanon is the father, mother, and sister of Arabism, and all what has befell it since the July war 2006 is a punishment for denying its role, while all the Arabs are waiting for it. We have forgotten Palestine while its people are slaughtering each other. Let us do like them at least to prove out “loyalty” to “our Palestinian affiliation.” The March 14 group has “forgotten” Arabism, which was finalized as a choice by the Christians since the Taef Agreement. What the Druze Socialist leader wanted to say is nothing but his recognition of misleading us since he was among the leaders of the “Cedar Revolution.” What he is saying is that the March 8 group is right, and what the March 14 has done with this group was incorrect! Is this the policy of leading whoever you lead to “hell” and then apologize… after the demolition of Al-Basra? Finding justification for the leader of the Socialist Party involves some harshness – not in terms of his late recognition of the left after the Communism committed suicide in its strongholds – in the Machiavellian approach, as he, just like others who come from a political house, has paid a heavy price so that leaderships won't die, even though with the aim to secure their survival at the head of the sects. Whoever remembers the slogans Walid Jumblatt raised after the assassination of martyr Rafiq al-Hariri would remember how he went beyond any discourse in politics, when he held the regime in Syria responsible for every Lebanese suffering. He even went beyond the ceiling raised by the family of the martyr [Rafiq al-Hariri] to request the truth followed by the justice in an international tribunal. At the peak of the last parliamentary elections, Jumblatt advised Saad al-Hariri to content himself with the truth. Today, his advice is to establish outstanding ties with Damascus and forget the dossier of Hezbollah's arms, while no one asks about who triggered the May 7 events, because the answer is known. Also, no one asks about who spearheaded the attempts to undermine what he called the “sacredness of Hezbollah”; who warned the Lebanese against being taken to the wars of the “Persian Empire” with the rifles of the resistance; and who raised the slogan of “revenge” in Martyrs Square, to direct a blow to all the independents today by restoring the so-called “the revolution of freedom, sovereignty and independence.” Between Lebanon's independence and Jumblatt's independence along with other politicians who are seeking significant roles, we wouldn't be adding anything new if we said that everlasting constants or unchanging alliances in any policy in the region and the world is impossible. But this impossible becomes a characteristic of Lebanon's politicians, who, when facing misfortune, resort to their sects to justify their overthrowing principles under the pretext of defending these sects. Otherwise, if using this discourse openly is shameful, then let it be for the sake of cementing civil peace! With Jumblatt's awakening, we should ask if embarrassment alone is what bitterly prevented the leader of the Socialist Party from frankly relaying his feeling to his previous allies in the March 14 group, after talk about the need for this group to practice self-criticism to address its mistakes, approaches, and behaviors after the May 7 tumultuous events was on the rise. The reassurance Jumblatt addressed to Saad al-Hariri, following the shock, that he will not abandon him, is more like adding salt on a deep wound which will not heal quickly, no matter how much Jumblatt insists that what he did was “misinterpreted”, justifying it with the need to raise new slogans. The additional frustration has deprived the majority of the effects of its victory in the parliamentary elections to allow for the birth of “slogans”. The opposition can gratefully thank Jumblatt for his success in achieving what it failed to accomplish relentlessly alongside regional sides: Dividing the March 14 group. The catastrophe would be if it turns out that all the prices paid by the Lebanese during the past four years were nothing but a battle over a slogan.
