Hazem al-Amin

On the first real setback plaguing Syria’s Baath regime after more than 40 years in power, a weighing Christian Lebanese group decides that it is the appropriate moment to display its total affiliation to this regime. This group is Aoun’s partisans who, ever since the start of protests in Syrian cities, have made no secret of their partiality towards the criminals in Syria.

Over the past week, the first Aounist minister Gebran Bassil visited Damascus and met with the Syrian president. On the same day, the Aounist TV hosted the Syrian ambassador in Beirut while their “authors” in the written press profusely explain the Baath Party’s protection of minorities.

Aoun’s partisans have a long history in short-term exploitation. The issue, for them, is no more than calculations over the next few weeks. Hence, it dawns on them that partiality towards a crumbling regime is in their interest and leads to securing the position of director general of the Ministry of Social Affairs for instance. Such a reward would justify sacrificing the future of a whole community.

The expression “cunning of minorities” has been created to counter that of “tyranny of minorities.” Reality, however, calls nowadays for creating a new expression: we propose “minority stupidity.”

Yet once again, this is not the case with Aoun’s partisans. Indeed, what is at hand is full hypocrisy that is devoid of any pretense. It may well be useless to despair of these people.

Still, it would be useful to wonder if the Aounist partiality towards the executioners’ in Damascus expresses some of the Lebanese Christians’ feelings at this moment in Syria’s history. The answer, unfortunately, is yes. Non-Aounist parties in Lebanon have expressed their concerns regarding “minorities” in Syria under the wave of protests. Similar statements have been voiced within the Kataeb and the Church also sang the Syrian regime’s praise. The regular Christian opinion, which is not affiliated to parties and – by and large – traditionally not in sync with the Syrian regime’s status is silent and confused today, and is even one step closer to supporting its former foes. Moreover, some Lebanese Christians who oppose the Syrian regime suffer from schizophrenia and hallucinations, as they establish a difference between the benefits of the [Syrian] regime’s fall as far as they are concerned in Lebanon and the dangers entailed by this fall on the Christian minority in Syria. It is as though they are telling Syrian citizens: “We want your regime to remain for your sake, but we hate it as far as we are concerned.”

The Lebanese “Christian” stance on the Syrian uprising describes the issue of defending the rights of regional minorities as being a genuine moral dilemma. In fact, the protection of minorities has for long been a criterion for gauging the respect of regimes for the rights of their communities. However, we stand before the opposite case here, i.e. the respect by minorities of national unanimous decisions pertaining to the interests of the state and society.

Accordingly, when the majority of the Syrian people say “the people want to topple the regime,” Gebran Bassil’s visit to the People’s Palace in Damascus is not in the interests of Christians in Lebanon and Syria.