Across the Bay

Thursday, December 15, 2005

Open Season on Arab Democrats

Michael Young warns of the backlash against democratizers in Lebanon and calls for the "internationalization of Lebanese security when it comes to Syria."

It's very clear that the thug in Syria will go after every single prominent figure (or, the "dogs," as that shyster Faysal Mekdad reportedly called them) that led to Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon. We will not have a moment of peace until this goon is removed.

Hoda Husseini writing in ash-Sharq al-Awsat agrees with Michael on internationalization of security vis-à-vis Syria. See also the comments by Lebanese Shiite cleric Hani Fahs on this very issue.

It's very simple, even Joseph Smeha (yes, even him), with all his Arab nationalist leftist baggage, figured it out (once you sieve through his usual, and unavoidable, stupidities):

In reality, tying Lebanese stability to knowing "the truth" [about Hariri's murder] passes, necessarily, through change in Damascus.

The "besieged fortress" [Syria] is acting as if its resistance to change within passes through the stymieing of the change that has taken place in Lebanon, even rolling it back. No Syrian official would take the responsibility of saying that stability in Damascus is organically tied to a measure of instability in Lebanon.

And that's precisely why the Bashar cheerleaders from Landis to Leverett always keep silent on Lebanon when talking about a "deal." It's the assumed price that they are very willing to pay. While Landis is duplicitous on this issue, Leverett has come out and said it openly. Indyk pointed it out as well.

It's as simple as that. As we've (by we I mean Young, Abdulhamid, Smith, and I) said countless times, this regime is not a guarantor of stability as many have fooled themselves into believing. It's the exact opposite.

Addendum: See this important article by Hazem Saghieh on this issue: "It is therefore difficult to imagine relations between the two countries stabilising without change in Syria itself."