When discussing the scopes of the Maronite Patriarch Bechara al-Rahi's visit to Damascus and its political repercussions on the inter-sectarian relations in Syria, Lebanon, and the entire Levant, one must make a distinction between two separate issues in order to have a healthy discussion. The two issues are: the religious aspect of this visit and its timing, as it was connected to two religious occasions. In addition, there is a non-negligible number of Maronites in Syria, including Syrians and non-Syrian residents. The second issue is the fact that Al-Rahi did not pay a visit to a “regular" country in a “normal" situation. He went to a country that has witnessed a war between the regime and most of its people for almost two years. The religious and sectarian elements are a major part of this war and almost overshadow the political factors. We will hereby be discussing the political aspect of the visit because we believe that we are not fit to discuss the religious aspect. In addition, this is no place for such a discussion. Concerning the political issue, there were supporters and opponents of Al-Rahi's visit to Syria both in Lebanon and in the region. This division also concerned the positions of the Maronite patriarch over the conflict in Syria ever since he was appointed at the head of the Maronite Church. The patriarch's positions were viewed as supportive of the Syrian regime in the face of its opponents. Although Al-Rahi tried to “rectify" these positions on several instances, the prevailing impression remained the same. This impression was further reinforced by the nature of Bkirki's relations with the different Lebanese sides according to their closeness or hostility vis-à-vis the Syrian regime. Since the visit to Damascus occurred in this atmosphere, it is hard to strip it from its political aspect, especially that Al-Rahi's predecessors abstained from visiting Syria following the separation of the two countries because of their constant reservations concerning Syria's interferences in its tiny neighbor's affairs. The statements that Al-Rahi made in Syria failed to remove this impression, especially in light of the media coverage of the visit by the pro-Syrian regime Lebanese media or the Syrian official media. Both these media outlets considered that the visit represents an acknowledgment of the regime and its right to defend itself in the face of the “criminal terrorists." In addition, both sides viewed the visit as an indication to the fact that the regime is the only party that can be trusted with the protection of the minorities in Syria. Had he been willing to, the patriarch could have avoided these interpretations. He could have been more explicit when discussing the ongoing killings in Syria and the displacement of the innocent citizens, as he called them. However, Al-Rahi failed to designate the party that is responsible for the state of events. He called on halting the war and the violence “coming from any side." His position could have allowed him to be a witness for what is right and to be clearer and more honest without being afraid. Thus, he could have prevented people from believing that he is trying to acquit the regime or to hold both sides equally responsible. When Al-Rahi was alluding to the political solution and to reform, he seemed to have adopted the regime's point of view in full since he said that the reforms cannot be imposed by external sides; that they must come from within the country as per the country's needs; and that they must take place through dialogue, cooperation and understanding. Obviously, such statements overlook the Syrian regime's oppressive nature and its use of power to protect its sectarian identity. This is exactly what the regime did since day one of the crisis when it confronted the protestors who called for reform “from within." Here too, Al-Rahi could have aided both the regime and the Syrian people more had he been honest in describing Syria's ailment and suitable remedy. Patriarch Al-Rahi says that the reason why he visited Damascus was to work on halting the innocent bloodshed and preserve the Christian presence in Syria and the other regional countries. Time alone will tell whether this visit that was carried under the ensign and sponsorship of the Syrian regime will decrease the bloodshed and whether the impression created through this visit on Al-Rahi's support for the regime is the best way to protect the Syrian Christians as they are faced with radicalism and fanaticism from every side.
