Peoples, in order to remain peoples, are supposed to have something in common, or seek hard to build such denominators under the leadership of the party among them that is the most alert to this issue. If this is not possible, and if there is nothing to suggest that it is possible, whether sooner or later, then peoples consider the possibility of breaking apart and go on to reconsider their national partnership. If this existential matter does not deserve provoking a broad national debate, then there is little else that does. Lebanon, in its short history, has undergone a lot of ebb and flow in what regards the process of becoming a textbook people. This process was marked by a lot of instances of questioning the reality of national partnership. But it never suffered a total and qualitative splintering in the choices of its people as it does now. Indeed, there is a party, a minoritarian by definition, which forces the rest of the people, by virtue of its weapons, to pursue policies, even a lifestyle, that the majority of this people do not want. This starts from the perception of the country overall as "resistance country" to God knows what else, with what this entails economically and in terms of lifestyles, all the way to the security of the airport and the results of official exams, not to mention involvement in a bloody conflict unfolding outside the national borders. In every matter, large or small, we can find today the signs of this qualitative split between "two peoples," with rising costs each day. Thus, it is no small the number of Lebanese who say today, having shrugged off all taboos hitherto imposed on them in one way or another, that the costs of the resistance is greater than the costs of any occupation. In such a situation, it is very legitimate to question the meaning of the survival of a homeland, where its sense of patriotism, that is, its universal association, is imposed on it by the force of possessing the means of violence, but nothing more. The creation of the Lebanese entity in 1920 took place amid much folklore and a lot of discrimination, which the dominant ideology tended to ignore until 1975. However, the creation of this entity was also linked to a lot of freedom that distinguished this small Mediterranean spot from the rest of the region, whose misfortune meant that it fell into the hands of tyranny and dictatorship. This freedom is the first, if not the only justification for this country to remain a country, and for its people's quest to become a people. So if this reality, which imposes on the majority of Lebanese choices they do not want, from the highest levels of their social existence to its lowest, shall continue, then it becomes their right, nay their duty, to reconsider this coercive existence altogether. To be sure, countries and homelands are not set stone or idols to be worshipped. If countries do not fulfill the conditions of prosperity and progress for its citizens – and freedom is at the heart progress and prosperity – then the otherwise binding social compact becomes null and void. In all probability, force, no matter how mighty, cannot keep the dead alive! As for the habits that helped make us "Lebanese,'' well, these too can turn on their heads, and prompt both of those two segments that are supposedly Lebanese to search, each, for the path of its own salvation.
