[ Contents | Search | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: SL
Date: 10 May 1999
Time: 00:13:11
Remote Name: 209.79.169.164
Remote User:
Interesting article, Fadi. I do have a problem with equating Charles Malik and other isolationists as "Lebanese nationalists". My definition of Lebanese nationalism is the belief in a democratic, secular Lebanon, where all Lebanese citizens are equal under the law. In fact, the Lebanese National Movement's program of the 1970s still serves as a good model of what Lebanese nationalism means. Certainly, the phalangists and other isolationists do not support this definition. They are in favor of an exclusivist, racist Lebanon using Israel as a model. As we all know, there is a fundamental contradiction between a democratic state and a state defined by race, religion or ethnicity (e.g. the Jewish state). A more apt description of those who call for an exclusivist Lebanese state would be "Lebanese isolationists" or "Lebanese sectarians" but not "Lebanese nationalists". The second point I would like to make is that Saadeh seems to favor a voluntary union between Syria and Lebanon and not a coerced one. I do not believe that the present conditions are ripe for such a union because of: the divergence in the political/economic choices made by Lebanon and Syria, and the unwillingness of the Lebanese majority to have such a union, because of the Syrian regime's emphasis on totalitarian methods to administer its political affairs, which is in stark contrast to the Lebanese insistence on democracy and freedom of expression. In my opinion, for a real unity to take place between Syria and Lebanon, Lebanon will have to become like Syria or vice versa. The odds are, given the balance of power, that Syria would like to mold Lebanon in its image, an option that most Lebanese will reject out of hand. I look forward to your feedback regarding this vital issue.