Abdelhalim Khaddam might go down in history as the man who killed the Syrian Baath.

Here’s my favorite new hobby: Watching Syrian “experts” comment on what their previous vice president has just said. Somewhere between their mumbling and their bumbling, you could relish in their impotence to produce arguments against a man who, until yesterday, was considered one of the people you can’t criticize.

But rest assured. Their tongues won’t be tied forever. They are just waiting to take their cue from the regime’s lousy spin master who will eventually design an elaborate Khaddam-is-one-of-the-bad-guys story. Something along the lines of being brainwashed in Paris by a Chirac who is too eager to destroy the last bastion of Arabism.

Khaddam’s closeness to the Hariris is an established fact; nevertheless, his testimony remains very significant not least because it was the first to come from a Syrian high official. His defection might encourage others to follow suite and might embolden hesitant Lebanese pro-Syrians (like Nabih Berri) to make up their minds. (In a way, Khaddam gave Berri an opening when he said that Ghazaleh Threatened Hariri, Jumblat and Berri).

The repercussions remain to be seen, but I estimate that this is indeed a very significant turning point.

Who let the dogs out?

It’s official, the Lebanese and the Syrians have started insulting each other “doggie-style”.
One of the well-publicized banners held by group of Lebanese youngsters at Gebran Tueiny’s funeral read: “ The rooster of Annahar is stronger than the dogs of the Baath”. Faisal Mekdad, a Syrian diplomat who should have known better responded: “Every time a dog dies in Lebanon you want to start an international investigation?” The Lebanese are furious: “Stop killing us like dogs!”

Our canine friends must love the publicity, but why them? One answer is vocabulary; Take the phrase: “The Lebanese have a dogged determination to be victorious and free”. Or the phrase: “The killers have dogged Gebran till they killed him”, or “The Syrian regime has dug itself a big hole”. Not to mention all the doggerels and other slogans everyone keeps raising, only a few of which are witty enough to be dog-eared.

It would all have been funny if it weren’t too serious. The Syrian regime doesn’t just bark. It also bites.

How Lebanon can help replace the regime in Damascus.

Most of the Lebanese are very motivated; we want to do something to make a difference yet we have an overwhelming sense of powerlessness and anger. We are watching our leaders fall one after the other and we feel that we can’t do anything about it.
The security council is not helping either. We are learning that realpolitik often trumps high ideals and the sense of justice. Even the Arabs don’t seem to get it, and we’re stuck with saving our own asses. We are tired of words and condemnations, what can we do?

We have two choices: cry and blame others for our historic bad luck, or we can be pro-active and try do something about it. As far as things stand right now, the Syrians are playing a better game than we are. It doesn’t matter who’s wrong and who’s right, all that matters is playing the game right. Are we up for the challenge?

The dilemma is this: Entrenched in Damascus is a bloodthirsty regime that comes from a middle age mentality. The regime values notions like total dominion and revenge, and Lebanon will never be safe as long as the Assads or the Shawkats rule Syria. This is why, whether or not the international investigation implicates Syria, the regime has to go. How can we help achieve that?

The Syrian regime has two strengths:
1- It has convinced the west (and some intellectuals) that there are no better alternatives than the current rulers
2- I has a ruthless iron-grip on its interior and it’s stifling any form of dissent.

The problem is that they are creating a vicious circle. If no dissent is allowed, no alternatives to the regime can be created, and this enforces their first strength.

How can we as Lebanese change that? By looking at our own strengths: freedom of expression and the freedom to gather and exchange of ideas. This is not about poetry or slogans. This is about a plan that can actually work, a plan that is based on our competitive advantages.

What we need in Lebanon is an all-encompassing vision that takes advantage of our chore strengths to be able to influence and ultimately break, our neighboring regime.

All our energies abroad and in Lebanon should be focused transforming Lebanon into some sort of “Syrian dissidents incubator”. The purpose of such an enterprise is not to impose ‘foreign’ political ideas on our Syrian brothers and sisters, but simply to plant the seed of free expression in their minds.

Gebran Tueni has already done something similar by making Annahar the forum of choice for Syrian intellectuals Ali al-Abdallah, Yassin al-Haj Saleh, Burhan Ghalyoun, Muhammad Ali al-Atassi, Ali Sadreddine al-Bayanouni, Michel Kilo, Anwar al-Bunni, and Suheir al-Atassi who have expressed their strong discontent at his slaying. But what I’m talking about here is much larger than simply a newspaper opening its page for critics.

We need to transform this principal into THE guiding strategic policy for our dealing with Syria. We have to create incentives for Syrian dissidents to come to live and work in Lebanon. we have to allow them to thrive in an environment that allows them to mature their ideas. They should be invited to talk on LBC, Future and NTV, all watched inside of Syria. We have to give them incentives to assemble and plan in Lebanon. Our objective should be to “incubate” them until they have a good following in Syria, and until they are ready to “take charge”.

Will this work? My answer is this: If Syria didn’t feel tangibly threatened by Samir Kassir and Gebran Tueny, it wouldn’t have killed them. It is worth noting that both Samir and Gebran got killed when they started inciting the Syrians against their regimes.

That, gentlemen, is food for thought.

Ghassan Tueini, the slain Gebran’s father, pledged ‘no tears’ for his son’s death and vowed to continue to pursue Annahar’s uncompromising vision.

Gebran Tueni, Prominent Lebanese Journalist and vehement anti-Syrian critic died on December 12, 2005, Aged 48.

You can find a video of the above speech by Mr. Tueni here
Mr. Tueni’s personal website is here.
Mr. Tueni’s English news website is this one.
Obituaries of Mr. Tueni here and here.
Previous commentry on this blog about Mr. Tueni here, here and here.
Reporters Without Borders’ statement here.
Al-Arabiya article about Mr. Tueni here (Arabic).

Psst..The government has just made a brave decision on a very divisive issue.

Not everything that divides the Lebanese is political. Take the issue of traffic lights for instance. Everytime it comes up, anywhere in the world, the Lebanese get polarized. On one side, we have the proud rule breakers. Their argument runs as follows: “It is in our blood as Lebanese to trick the law. This is what makes us what we are and this is the reason why we’re so successful all over the world. We’re too free to be constrained”.

This naturally infuriates the other camp. They see the attitude of the first camp as an embodiment of all that is wrong in Lebanon. “How can we build a country if we lack the single most important trait of civilization? Discipline?” They fume.

In light of the above, the government has shown some surprising unity and resilience in making up its mind: It has unanimously decided to back the second camp. The city of Beirut is to install “Red light cameras” to monitor law-breakers and to fine them everytime they exercise their favorite sport of ignoring traffic lights.

This is a bit tricky. The government might want to think about how it plans to communicate to illiterate Taxi drivers what those cameras mean. That, of course, is secondary. They have to first explain to them what the actual traffic lights are for.

(P.S: Just for curiosity’s sake and as an informal poll, which camp are you on?)