A new beginning, but not for Lebanon

They say old habits die hard. This blog died, albeit softly. Walid Jumblatt, some will also say, lived to kill, again, those who died for an idea he helped foment. 

But to attack Jumblatt for his gradual about face risks lending his soon to be former friends an undeserved credit for waging a good fight. For none of them, ironically, showed the guts Jumblatt showed during the fabled Cedar Revolution. When he drew the line, they cheered, mimicked, or produced nothing of consequence. Some were too weak and unimaginative, others were shackled by their criminal past.  So when Jumblatt decides to run for the hills and disassociate himself from them, one has to wonder whether he's partly doing it for lack of faith in his comrades, and in those who promised him the moon. Jumblatt woke up from the red and white dream to find the swamp underneath full of alligators that are tearing apart the fabric he tried to patch up. No US muscles or European currency could send them away. The US had gone Obama's way, and Europe is in bed with Sarkozy. The age of new beginnings had come. What is the point of the fight, Walid thought, when the result would never amount to independence sought? Why engage in a bloodbath featuring farmed martyrdom-bound humanoids and insane orange lemmings?

The man who helped give Bashar nightmares and strip Hizbullah of its myths gave up. He did not want to fight the kind of independence battle that many idealists on this very blog wished for the Lebanese. So, we got this:

Jumblatt emphasized his desire for the Special Tribunal for Lebanon to unearth the truth behind the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, without countries influencing its decisions and meddling with its results.

He expressed regret about meeting with neoconservatives in the US to protect the Cedar Revolution, describing the meeting as a “black point in the party’s white history.” He also added that it is “not PSP policy to meet with those who have spread chaos in the Middle East, however, our priority was the Special Tribunal for Lebanon.”

He also commented on Lebanese-Syrian relations, emphasizing the necessity of having good relations with Syria now that Syria’s mandate over Lebanon has ended.   

Many will fault him for the above, and explain it as typical "pendulumistic" behavior, a la Jumblatt. That's fair. But those who accuse him of killing March 14 are wrong, for that movement died long before. 

I remember a defiant Jumblatt at the Brookings Institution in March 2006, months before the July 06 war, and at a time we were still running on the heat of the revolution. Here is some of what he said.

"It's a long struggle", he said, much harder than the Ukranian revolution, which was a "promenade" in comparison. "The March 14 forces are weak on their own. We need Arab and international backing. That's why I am here."

He said Lebanon faces the fundamental issue of how to "reconcile the independence movement with the Syrian regime. Can democracy coexist with a dictatorship next door smuggling weapons? If we don't change Syrian policy in Lebanon, there will be no independence."

Lebanon could not get the kind of support Jumblatt shopped for, at least not in Jumblatt's limited time frame. Instead, the country got a war by Israel, war by Syria via Fateh al-Islam, war by Iran via Hizbullah in Beirut, the Doha agreement from the Arabs, and a president that embodies the failure of the state. No ships came to the rescue, and worse, the Lebanese themselves proved to be too obsessed with cosmetics to care about the disease that lurked under their skins.  

And Jumblatt himself failed. His arsenal was depleted. What would you like the old man of the mountain to do that he didn't try during what he now calls the "black" years of the revolution? In that same defiant Brookings speech, he had confessed that he never opposed the Syrian regime that killed his father because he "lacked moral courage". Now that he has seemingly been shown that moral courage is synonymous with suicide, Jumblatt defaulted to moral cowardice to survive and achieve peace, and reap the promised fruit of the fabled "new beginning", albeit at the expense of an independence that will likely never come.

Comments

[Aussie Leb downunder]

Welcome back. Your wisdom and insights have been greatly missed.

[R]

Welcome back, I thought that such an event might bring back the itch :). I hope you don't mind if I try my hand at an analysis.

As I believe Michael Young said in a recent article (too laze to look for it), Jumblatt is motivated by 2 factors:
1-The bottomline safety of the Druze
2-His leadership of the Druze
and I would add:
3-His political relevance

Factor (1) was severely jeopardized in the May 07 invasions when it became clear that should push come to shove, the Druze would be pitted against the numerically and militarily dominant Shia with no support from the Sunnis or the Christians. Factor (2) was slightly jeopardized when he had to allow Talal Arslan to mediate with HA to stop the fighting and then rewarded him with an uncontested seat in the recent election (which Jumblatt could have handily won). Factor (3) comes into play when you consider that now that he is "in the centre", Jumblatt can leverage his position for political (and personal) gain by farming out his block's vote to one side or the other when the need and opportunity arises...

Add to the above, Jumblatt had to relinquish several seats in Chouf and Aley to his Christian allies, which I think he resents considering that he a) dislikes many of them and b) gets nothing in return (or perceives so). Finally, all the precipitating international factors that AK mentioned add to the reasons why this is perhaps the correct move for him. Unfortunately, it is reprehensible on more than one level. But we know that.

[Ghassan Karam]

AK, as well written as ever.

Please allow me to add two observations:

(1) To say that Jumblatt is motivated by the safety of the Druze is to give him more personal credit than he desrves on this issue. The principle that his first duty is the assured continued prosperity of the Druze community is a fundamental "secret" beliefs of the Druze as revealed in a book written by a Druze that was well referenced and researched in which he told all about the Druze because he felt that it was time for more transparency. Walid Jumblatt as any other Druze leader has no choice when it comes to this principle of survival.

(2) Walid Jumblatt did not kill March 14, as you have rightly stated , at least not this time around. He was one of the many established politicians who usurped the Cedar Revolution four years ago. They coopted it and have transformed it to become , from the inside at least, as bad as the system that they have sustained for decades, a system of sectarianism, croonyism and feudalism. Walid Bey has unwittingly helped kill the spark of the Revolution a long time ago. But a system that treats the personal words and views of an individual as if they are synonymous with the will of a large segment of the population when the said population is willing to accept a complete reversal in the positions of said leader is a rotten system that is not based on participatory democracy but is populated by sheeple.

[M.]

Welcome back. Blogging is an addiction that never seems to end :)

[Solomon2]

"What would you like the old man of the mountain to do that he didn't try during what he now calls the "black" years of the revolution?"

A bit late to solicit for such advice. The options Jummie had then are not the options he has now: Bush is gone, Chirac is gone. No ships came to the rescue, for no help was asked. Playing the Lebanese game, Jumblatt got played by others.

The new, unconstitutional, president has stated that Lebanon's fate is dictated by others, so since last May Lebanon has essentially accepted that all its affairs are subject to the veto, if not the explicit approval, of the reigning Iranian satrap. The Cedar Revolution is over, and Lebanese can no longer claim they are a Free People, for they are subjects of a new Imperium.

Consequently, I no longer see the point of asking what a single Lebanese "leader" should do; it's like complaining to your garbageman about taxes, rather than the mayor.

Doesn't it make more sense to decide what kind of Lebanon is desired, and then how to get there from here?

[maverick]

WB AK,
Your post shed light on a popular contraversy and its this kind of insightful blogging we came to miss. I hope this will set the trend for more to come.
Unlike most Lebanese who are flailing their arms and rolling their eyes on the latest Jumbie U-turn, I anticipated it for quite some time and i believe it to be way overdue. The Druze have survived for so long in such a hostile environment through their savvy politics and shifting alliances.It is when they stick their necks out for a cause, that they pay the highest price.Going back to their roots or their comfort zone via "Arabism" and "Palestine" etc shakes off alot of hostility. Hostility, which is dangerously brewing for some time now and if it climaxed into a Sunni-Shia rift as in Iraq, Jumbie knows, that those who will pay the heaviest price will be his own people.The last time a Saudi-Syrian reconcialition took place, his late father Kamal Joumblatt paid the price and it is from this lesson, that Jumbie sees the futility in standing up for principles.Added to that, as mentioned above, the lack of support within Lebanon and the international community, Jumbie is really only doing whats meant to be done ala Machiavellian approach...survival is the order of the day.

[Ghassan Karam]

Maverick,
It is so crucially important not to blame the recent actions for the inevitable demise of a coalition that died right after its creation but it is just as important NOT to justify the unprincipled actions of Walid Jumblatt. Since when has the principle that the end justifies the means risen to the level that it is to set the standard for action? Why was Walid Jumblatt all of a sudden threatened with survival in 2009 when he did not have to worry about this issue in 2005? You know that you are going out of your way to twist and turn the facts in order to fit that popular Machiavellian idea? In my book the end never justify the means because I would rather live in a world where principals still count for something and where moral obligations shape behaviour. If that is not so then why even bother to survive? Whatever happened to "Live free or die?" as a political guide to action.

[Blacksmith Jade]

I knew you'd be back ;)

Its great to have you back on the scene, trust me, a lot of blog writers and readers (myself included) missed your postings.

In any case, my position on this whole saga is pretty apathetic. March 14th was never an end in itself, it was a means to an end. Did we accomplish every single thing we aspired towards? No. Did we make a difference? Yes. A big one. The fight goes on, by different means, under different names or banners, it doesn't matter, what matters is that without a shadow of a doubt we've shown that Lebanon can rely on a broad base of people who's aspirations for the country outweigh the machinations of those working against it.

[IMB]

Welcome back - Good to read you again - Your analysis of the situation is crystal clear. What I really don't understand is the need of the lebanese politicians to continue to brag about the arabism and the kadiyya al filistiniyya. As long as they believe that these theme are going to help them avoid internal trouble, then their future is indeed doomed......

[maverick]

GK, I respect your principles, and I wouldnt have it any other way if I was living in a Utopia.Meanwhile this is Lebanon, a synonym for Jungle/Fuedal/Sectarian politics inwhich the purpose of a Zaím is to shepherd his people.You can argue that the Zaim manipulates the sheeple, but for the sake of argument, Lets say Joumblatt or any other Zaim has a priority in managing the welfare of his people.Its not the case that he's moody or bored or afraid of his own life. Joumblatt reads the play like a weather forecaster and his moves whether it be political rhetoric,shifting politics,changing alliances etc are all means to an end, an end that is the welfare of his people.
M14 as a political alliance is only alive by name,the quintessential principle of M14 was and still is the soveriegnty and independance of Lebanon.ie. Withdrawal of the Syrian mandate which it has achieved. From then on, it failed to produce anything productive and became dormant. It is now a term to describe nothing more then bieng anti this or anti that.Even during the elections, M14 deteriorated into a confederate of political parties each bickering over the piece of pie(Joumblatt had a negative experience here). Added to that the overall makeover of M14 is right wing in nature barring the Democratic Left party and the PSP.Having stayed in M14 Joumblatt would have dissolved his own party principles, and was heading his own party and sect towards an unnatural environment with hostilities both from M8 and M14.
Any person with half a brain knows that the tug-o-war between the two factions is tearing Lebanon apart, with hostilities and and antagonisms still ripe. Joumblatt saw the Synthesis of the thesis and anti-thesis is the middle way and if i recall he voiced his opinion loud and clear in encouraging the centrists and independants pre elections.
An opportunist? yes by all means, his latest shift is only logical and natural given its context.For one, he becomes alot more relevant as a mediator or Centrist on amicable terms with all sides instead of going the way of oblivion.Two, Reinventing his political party by strenghtening its core principles.Three, reading the regional forecast, he has placed his sect underneath a shelter of "Arabism" and integration of the whole instead of sticking their necks out in the name of isolationsim.
Dizzying, but wise, Joumblatt is a character out of a Sun Tzu manuscript and his latest acrobatic feat ( eventhough I dont see why its such a big deal, His not sleeping with the enemy), has captured my respect.This is politics and Joumblatt is a politician par excellence.Nothing more,nothing less.

[Gebran Sons]

Welcome back AK!

[Qifa Nabki]

al-7amdillah 3a-s-salemeh

[Bad Vilbel]

Look who's back!

I'm more disgusted than ever by what passes for politics in our native homeland. I'm now convinced that I (and many others here) did call it correctly when we gave up and said "There's just no hope of it ever getting better."
I stand by that.

Having said that, it's nice have AK back and having something to read that's so well written and thought out.

[danny]

AK,

Wow, as you can attest from your loyal addicted friends on this blog; we never gave up on you and kept on visiting it periodically!
May be your return is the part of new beginnings...

Great analysis as always! You were missed. Welcome back!

[VOR]

Thanks for coming back and enlightning us with a well thougt out column...I sure hope to see more of your intelligent contributions to the lebanese blogspehere.
About the subject, well suffice it to say that Walid bey reverted back to his old self (as a sectarian zaim) after realizing how futile his struggle for democracy and independance within this coalition called M14 was. The problem lies within our rotten sectarian system and split loyalties to so many regional bosses as opposed to the ideal that was to be "Lebanon first" but never really materialized. The 2005 movement was never really given a chance to grow beyond those early days and we are now back to square one, wondering what the hell happened to all these aspiartions and dreams of days long gone by.