Regardless of MP Walid Jumblatt's motives and apprehensions, his interpretation of international and regional politics, as well as his behavior on the Lebanese scene, arouses concern about him and for him. Fear for him comes as a result of his behavior and his switching stances, as if he was a dead man walking on his own two feet… towards a fate he has predicted or seeks after. Fear from him comes from his haste to anticipate events, due to a partial interpretation of the development of regional-international relations that has made him race against the clock to please Syria and return to the discourse of the “Left” and the “Resistance” to liberate Palestine from Lebanon and Gaza – and on the other hand, from conclusions based on assumptions that the Special Tribunal could lead to igniting a civil war in Lebanon. Recklessness in dealing with the contradictions and surprises of Walid Jumblatt, as the Druze leader or as the leader of the Progressive Socialist Party (PSP), will not benefit Lebanon. What the current phase requires at the Lebanese level is working towards a complete understanding of the (logical or not) motives of Walid Jumblatt, who is well-versed on the tactical and political levels, if his new stances aim to distinguish his weight as a leader on the Lebanese political scene as an independent who will join the “guarantee” president and become the “winning card”. This in no way implies that there is a blessing given to Jumblatt – or any other sectarian or national leader – to snatch away from Lebanese citizens what they sought and obtained in the legislative elections. No matter how accurate or erroneous his calculations are, and regardless of whether his political interpretations are deep or random, he has no right to deal carelessly with the election results, even if his calculations result from a concern for his sect, “machiavellian” positioning, or the obsessions pertaining to sorting regional relations. The timing of his overthrow of his March 14 allies is an overthrow of the choice of Lebanese voters, who voted for the March 14 project, line of thinking, and power in order to keep the majority away from the project of Hezbollah and its allies in the opposition and prevent them from ruling the country. These voters include the youth of the Druze community as well as its elders, who do not welcome making light of the votes they gave, and deserve better that the insult resulting from individualistic decisions or blunders that are offensive to the other communities with whom they coexist. This does not mean that we should disregard apprehensions which, for Walid Jumblatt, have domestic, regional and international justifications. However, dealing with such apprehensions deserves protecting achievements made with partners and opening the door to new partnerships together, instead of such confusing switching of stances, leaving behind them the taste of betrayal, unrest and frustration. What Walid Jumblatt has based his stance on did not come out of the void, but is rather essentially related to US policy towards the Middle East above all. He regrets trusting the George W. Bush Administration, which he feels has let him down, as it did Palestine and Lebanon, with false promises. He interprets the policy of the Barack Obama Administration as being based on the main headlines of any US Administration when it comes to Palestine and Israel primarily. However, the novelty is that it addresses Damascus as a main issue and as a key to its success. Thus it seems that Jumblatt has chosen for himself the strategy of adjustment with Damascus, including its partnership with Hezbollah and the “Resistance”, in order to anticipate what the relationship between the US and Syria – at the bilateral as well as regional level – will produce, specifically in its Lebanese dimension. Thus, if it produces a reinforcement of what Damascus calls “the logic of resistance”, he would be ready for it, and if it produces “the logic of negotiation”, he would be equally prepared, the same as Hezbollah in both cases. Indeed, he seems aware of the possibilities of divergence and of convergence between Syria and Hezbollah, as well as between Syria and Iran. His greater suspicions focus on Israel, which is feared to be setting up one trap after another for Palestine and Lebanon, and perhaps also for Iran. In some aspects, Walid Jumblatt is right, and in parts of them he might be wrong or excessive. Indeed, Syria, for example, has repeatedly declared that its strategic choice is that of negotiations and peace with Israel, and never said that the Resistance was its strategic choice. Hence there is no need to declare the Resistance to be the strategic choice for Lebanon. There is no need to raise doubts over the commitment of Lebanon's Sunni leadership to the country's Arab identity, for merely raising for the first time the slogan of “Lebanon first”. It is unnecessary to outbid the legitimate Palestinian leadership, as it is in the midst of exerting its utmost efforts to build the institutions of a Palestinian state, as a shield for the Palestinian people, so that it no longer remains crushed under Israeli occupation. Indeed, the choice of peaceful negotiations adopted by the leadership of President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayad is what is protecting the Palestinians inside of Israel – and in the West Bank – from “communal expulsion” and the policy of “transfer” that is in the minds of leaderships in Israel, “this by obstructing the pretexts of implementing” such a transfer. As for making the Lebanese arena alone the platform for resistance against Israel to liberate Palestine, it virtually represents handing over this country as a sacrifice, all tied up and ready to be slaughtered. And people – all people from Lebanon's various sectarian communities – will today not forgive they who would do such a thing. Moreover, US policy towards Palestine under Barack Obama is not of the “business as usual” type. What is new in such a policy deserves Arab encouragement, so that Israel may alone remain in a situation of blame for thwarting the efforts of the US President, who has made it clear that the issue concerns the national security of the United States and not only the just cause of establishing a Palestinian state. It is thus not necessary for any Arab party to move in this highly sensitive phase of US-Israeli relations, as it would represent saving Benjamin Netanyahu's government from US and international pressures and providing it with ammunition to elude such pressures unwittingly. Syria understands this equation perfectly, and is taking its position with the US Administration with extreme caution, to ensure a special status for itself with this administration. It now holds an improved rank with Washington, after that of Tehran as the main key to the US Administration's new policy towards the Middle East became reduced as result of the way the regime in Iran dealt with the presidential elections. Yet this is only to assert that Damascus is not the alternative to Tehran for Washington as the main key of US policy in the region as some would imagine, believing that Barack Obama is packing his bags to visit Damascus in order to please it or gain its favor, as they had imagined that Saudi monarch King Abdullah nearly reached the gates of Damascus weeks ago. The fact of the matter is that Syria's leadership is the one keen on presenting Washington with its credentials, and the one placing the relationship hoped for with the United States at the top of its priorities, and there is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is misinterpreting the details of the relationship, which would lead to making the wrong calculations. Indeed, Washington did not abandon Lebanon and did not sell it while formulating its relations with Syria. The Obama Administration has insisted on fundamental matters, most notably keeping Lebanon's independence and sovereignty outside the scope of deals and understandings, and not involving the Special Tribunal to try those responsible for political assassinations – most prominently the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafic Hariri – in negotiations to bring the US and Syria closer together. Thus if there is an exceptional window of opportunity for Lebanon, it is precisely available in the relationship between the US and Syria and in its repercussions of the relationship between Lebanon and Syria, which has found new bases ever since Damascus recognized Lebanon's independence. There is also a window of opportunity for a superior and professional relationship with the US Administration, this by the leaders of the current government in Lebanon and the leaderships of the majority that won the elections behaving with trust and respect for the importance of what the elections have resulted in. Indeed, the good news for Washington did not come from an American product but was rather made in Lebanon, in fair and free elections. Lebanon is thus not indebted to Washington. Rather, its government is mandated by the people to inform the US Administration that Lebanon must remain present as a directly concerned third party whenever US-Syrian talks find themselves focusing on the issue of Lebanon. Indeed, the Americans understand quite well their language of demanding that the independence of a government produced by the elections be respected, and they give themselves a margin of negligence and arrogance only when a party presents itself to them with a language other than that of demanding respect and standing. Moreover, Lebanon is qualified to be a highly important partner for the United States in the issues of the Middle East and beyond, this if it takes good advantage of its exceptional positions, negatively or positively. Indeed Lebanon is the forefront of peace and war in the Middle East, and it is also a laboratory for forging regional relations and a melting pot for testing regional and international balances of power. It is an important location in Barack Obama's war against extremism, based on a different logic than George W. Bush's war on terror. Indeed, present on Lebanese soil are various groups that play various roles and hold all kinds of information, and these also include the kinds of extremism the Obama Administration needs to understand and deal with. Thus it is important for Lebanon today to behave like a partner and not like a follower. It is necessary for its leaderships to estimate the weight of Lebanon in regional and international balances of power, and to benefit from putting forth such a weight in an innovative way even in issues which the Lebanese view as regional matters than are greater then their country, such as Saudi-Syrian talks. Indeed, even in the case of a convergence between Saudi Arabia, Syria and the US, there is still an exceptional window of opportunity for Lebanon today, so that it can be a qualified party of equal status when the matter regards it. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has indeed become a fundamental key to the region, this before the developments in Iran and after them on a grander scale. Hence Lebanon would doubly benefit if it behaves on the basis of its positive achievements and builds upon essential partnerships to broaden them, rather than abandon such partnerships and head in the opposite direction. Certainly, no one is blaming anyone for the reconciliations between parties in Lebanon or for the willingness to open a new chapter with Syria. Everyone is saying that Hezbollah has its place and its standing, and that the wager is on it to take the wise decisions and the necessary measures that prove that its natural destination and destiny is Lebanon, if it abandons its plans to turn it into an arena for Iran and its ambitions, as well as a pretext for Israel to bomb it repeatedly. However, the burden does not fall on Hezbollah alone when someone anticipates the decisions of the Special Tribunal with fear for Lebanon from a civil war that Hezbollah would ignite if the tribunal were to issue formal accusations that agree with the article published in Der Spiegel, which had leveled accusations of involvement in the assassination of Prime Minister Rafic Hariri against Hezbollah and not Syria. Regardless of the sincerity of all the parties and individuals who want to spare Lebanon a civil war and to stop the train of the Special Tribunal if this train will lead to such a war, the fact of the matter is that Hezbollah will remain innocent, even after any formal accusations are issued against any of its members, until prosecution and defense in a lengthy process that may yield some surprises. The fact of the matter is that what many leaders in Lebanon agree about is their fear of a civil war devastating the country merely by formal accusations being issued – if they are issued – against Hezbollah. The difference is that some of these leaders – such as Walid Jumblatt – are demanding to stop the course of justice, in order to contain and hold back a civil war whose flames would consume Lebanon, while others – such as Saad Hariri – see no need to stop justice and hinder the course of the Tribunal, first because he does not hold the tools to stop or hinder it, and second because he is not willing to do what Walid Jumblatt did after his father's assassination at the age of sixty, when he bit his tongue and suppressed his right to justice for Lebanon's sake. This is part of the disagreement between the two men, friends and partners who share the heritage of having seen their fathers killed and been thrust into becoming political heirs to the difficult situations that are the outcomes of assassinations. History will later judge whether the deals of evading accountability and punishment were indeed the safety valve against civil wars, or whether wisdom required to leave justice alone, especially that the Special Tribunal is not the concern of the Lebanese government, which has neither jurisdiction nor influence over it. What matters is for the efforts for containing the tensions resulting from Walid Jumblatt's change of stance to lead to a deep understanding of his fears and concern for Lebanon. As his ally and friend said, he is like a knight in armor enthusiastically riding his horse towards his noble target and destroying everything left and right while his objective remains national always, despite all the blunders.
