The Victors in Lebanon
Zuheir Kseibati Al-Hayat - 22/05/08//
On the dawn of May 21, 2008, the Lebanese entity and republic were saved from a seemingly inevitable death, as the images of the civil war and its fires were revived in every house and street, but this time draped in a dreadful sectarian cloak.
The "miracle" was realized as the instigation and accusations of treachery will come to an end. Both the majority and the opposition can claim victory. But the real victory belongs to the Lebanon of pluralism that will need long years to get rid of its "immunity deficit." To this end, every loyalist and oppositionist will have to learn that the most decent forms of politics and patriotism lie in the commitment to one and only one standard: the sanctity of coexistence with the other and his opinions, and defending his freedoms as if they were theirs.
In Doha where the Qatari sponsor of the Lebanese national convention had to be involved in the language of the majority and opposition and to get busy with the details about electoral districts in a manner unprecedented as far as the history of mediating conflicts is concerned, a new Lebanese dawn broke. It is a new dawn with which the host country can celebrate for having driven the convening parties towards the language of peace and for having cornered them at the moment of decision and choice: either a Lebanon for all or a complete collapse that leaves victory to none and forgets the sacrifice of both sides as well as the identity of arms as devastation prevails.
The Doha Accord is far more than a truce if both sides to the conflict and agreement remained committed to what they cosigned, and they will certainly show such commitment if they are truly aware of regional and international variations and if they abstain from chasing the fingers that set Lebanon on fire in May, almost burning everyone along.
Yet, is it not natural to wonder about rapidly occurring regional incidents that herald a new historic phase in the region, starting with Iraq, passing through Lebanon and all the way to Syria and Iran, especially after the bitter suspicions in the repeated verbal assurances uttered by President Bush during his trip in support of Prime Minister Siniora's cabinet and his hopes to save Lebanon's democracy?
In Iraq, Washington successfully helped the national army enter al-Sadr city after shrinking Iran's influence in this country. It is also preparing for a new stage that replaces sectarian-ethnic sharing, while the Bush administration ignores Iran's need to resume dialogue over Mesopotamia's security.
In Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh preempts the outcomes of the Doha convention, hoping the Arab ministerial committee would help achieve reconciliation between Hamas and President Mahmoud Abbbas, just as it has done with the Lebanese leaders.
On May 21st, just before those leaders packed their bags to leave Doha after five bitter days of battling for reconciliation, an official Syrian statement concurs with a statement issued by Ehud Olmert's office in reference to resuming indirect Syrian-Israeli talks sponsored by Turkey. Since it is common knowledge that this sponsorship dates back to almost a year, one can only pay attention to the expressions of "good intentions" and "seriously continuing the dialogue" mentioned in the statement.
In other words, this is a serious attempt to move the peace efforts on the Syrian-Israeli front forward, with the possibility of commissions meeting in Turkey soon. In practice, this would catalyze the regional split between the Syrian and Iranian tracks, unless the events of Bushehr, the extinguished Lebanese fire, and Damascus's opened windows for a new phase of "serious" negotiations with Israel, constitute a prelude to regional-international understandings that will refashion roles in the region.
The fact that Tehran did not conceal its fears when it expressed its disappointment hours prior to the birth of the accord among the conveners in Doha because "Lebanon's problems should be resolved by Lebanese parties," and voiced its refusal to "disarm the resistance of its defense capabilities," may once again be attributed to the so-called emerging suspicions between the two wings of the Syrian-Iranian alliance…all this at a time when Damascus rushed to welcome the May 21st accord.
Not least among the changes that will be brought by this accord is the attempt to end the efforts once made under the banner of foiling the American-Zionist project in Lebanon at a time when Tehran insists on direct dialogue with the Bush administration.
What changed early morning yesterday was the signal to stop the complete collapse of all constitutional institutions in Lebanon and to revive the parliament to put an end to the street "dialogues."
It is a new beginning before the death of a republic at the hands of a final sectarian blow.
|
