Dissociation à la Gemayel

In a somewhat misleadingly titled piece, the Daily Star reports that “Gemayel backs Lebanon’s dissociation policy”:

“This has been my policy [dissociation] from the start. If the government adopts it, that’s good. Principle and logic compel me to adopt this position. I don’t like the term dissociation but [prefer] positive neutrality, one that truly isolates the Lebanese scene from sharp divisions born of conflicts with strategic dimensions,” Gemayel, the head of the Kataeb party, told Al-Akhbar newspaper in an interview published Monday.

This does indeed sound as if Gemayel is joining the Mikati bandwagon on Syria, but the crucial difference, the difference that makes Gemayel’s position more honorable and one that I can easily stand behind, is that he is not afraid to call things by their own names:

In the interview, Gemayel also reiterated that his party supported the “Syrian revolution.” “Nobody paid the price of the ‘barbarism’ of the Syrian regime like our party and family did and this is a primary and sufficient reason for us to support and stand in solidarity with the Syrian revolution with our calls, which are spontaneous emotional and political cries,”

Can you imagine Mikati ever using those words? Herein lies the crucial difference between a true policy of positive neutrality, a pragmatic approach to complex political events that doesn’t prevent you from expressing your honest opinions, and Mikati’s so-called dissociation, which is nothing more than subservience to the position of the Syrian regime disguised as neutrality.