The Making of Lebanon
Fate entrusted the Lebanese with a very difficult mission. It confined them to a small spot and demanded that they coexist. This is no easy task. The constituents of the Lebanese formula are very challenging; there is no clear majority, the country cannot be ruled by one sect or party; and every time one side feels demographically superior, it is immediately reminded by the formula that it still constitutes a minority if it acted alone or attempted to impose its views on the others.
Fate entrusted the Lebanese with a very difficult mission; eliminating the other is much easier than reaching an understanding together, but the choice of elimination is suicidal. You may win a battle, only to discover that you have lost the war. You lost it because your victory seemed – perhaps unintentionally – to be similar to an attempt to assassinate the meaning of Lebanon, i.e. the reasons of its existence and survival. In 1982, Bashir Gemayel took hold of the presidency. In his moment of victory, he discovered that it takes two to tango. Walid Jumblat came out victorious in the Mountain War in 1983 only to reach the same conclusion as Bashir before him.
The mission is indeed diffcult. Divorce is impossible, and the conditions for marital bliss are not always available. This mandatory contract of coexistence requires continuous maintenance. You have to swim and survive without drowning the others; to defend your interests without compromising theirs; to preserve your views without wiping out theirs; to freely sing your songs without preventing them from singing theirs; to rely on history without turning it into an explosive device; to dance with geography without tying your hands; and to respect your neighbor”s right to read in his own book.
This delicate and fragile formula rests along a seismic fault: the Arab-Israeli conflict; the attractiveness of a single view that exempts from any real questions; the schools of single voices and official truths that cannot tolerate a question; the lack of conditions that could foster the growth of the strange plant known as democracy or the evil thought of accepting the other under the banners of equality or the state of law and institutions; restless regimes that are agitated by any open window; sectarian and confessional feuds that were further stirred by the invasion of Iraq. It is amidst such a difficult context that fate entrusted the Lebanese with making their nation and their state.
Lebanon constitutes a constant test for those families that are confined by fate in this small and beautiful spot. It is really exhausting for a nation to permanently stay under construction; to constantly need the wise and the powerful; it is really painful that leaders only become strong after a skyrocketing rise within their sectarian communities at the expense of the delicate ingredients of the coexistence meal. Those who are only strong are scary; those who are just wise are not reassuring; and it hard, yet not impossible, to find both wisdom and strength in the same person, albeit after very costly experiences.
Every time I ponder the future of Lebanon, the image of two men comes to mind; Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah and deputy Saad Hariri. The extent of their leadership within their sectarian communities is undisputable, even reaching to other communities. One may claim that both of them deserve to be recognized as regional players, although from different perspectives. Both men are now burdened with the unusual mission of confirming the ability of the Lebanese to try again and make a nation that can embrace all of its constituents. Undertaking this mission would imply that Lebanon must resume its swimming against the current of the Shiite-Sunni strife.
Undertaking such a considerable and serious role requires that the two men take historic resolutions; that they forego the wounds of the far and recent past and agree over the meaning of a Lebanon founded on moderation. Simply put, the loss of Lebanon would dissipate the accomplishments of the resistance and render its arsenal useless. The loss of Lebanon would also imply the loss of the truth even if it is reached by the international investigative commission. Hence, the restoration of Lebanese realities means neither denial nor betrayal. It means restoring Lebanon because this is a Lebanese and Arab need.
I was hoping for such a meeting to take place through an initiative by General Michel Aoun at his residence. Lebanese Christians do not have the right to play a role less than their presumed one in the making of Lebanon. I cannot understand why he has given up on such a significant historic role; the bitterness over failing to reach the presidential seat does not justify such an act, nor does the desire to have more parliamentary seats. He could have invested his new position both domestically and regionally to participate in the making of Lebanon. He did not have to dig up the graves of war as if he had been in Sweden when it happened; he did not have to lose his ability to speak to all sides at a time when his own allies are struggling to regain such ability; he did not have to wage campaigns to create tensions within the gathering of Lebanese families, or to issue statements that overlook the interests of the Lebanese at home or overseas. Such positions do not become a leader like you who enjoys such an undeniable representative power. If these errors are the outcome of advice given by your aides, then perhaps you should fire them or put them on leave. History records must not document that Maronite leaders refrained from participating in the making of the nation in order to focus on their feuds or that they showed up late but in time for the souvenir photo shoot at the port on the occasion of bidding the Maronites farewell.