He wanted to be a Lebanese and Arab nationalist at the same time and so he walked on the rope, full of bombs, of the joint two tracks until it exploded. Perhaps he did not know that the beating heart of Arab nationalism, which he was disillusioned to think he can satisfy with the game of balance on ropes, had stopped some time ago and that its flame has moved to Baghdad
before it burnt out there when its advocate was found in a hole
He walked on a tight rope between two fires but unfortunately there is no middle ground between the paradise of the country and the hell of Arab nationalism: he opposed the extension of Lahoud's term and then signed the amendment of the constitution
so that he would not cut the rope. He played a biased game: for does the "trusteeship authority" accept middle solutions? He wanted to be a partner but they wanted him an agent or a supporter like the other "supporters" and it did not help him that his people and the world were along his side
for there is no balance in that dirty game, and no one is immuneâ€Å
Who killed him? They are the same ones that filled up mass graves in Iraq. The same who seek to burn out every beam of freedom no matter from where it shines. The same people who fought to the death to foil the elections in Iraq and Palestine and seek to foil and forge it in Lebanon. Hasn't Walid Jumblatt finally made his decision between Arab nationalism and freedom? Was it his early decision that saved him from a definite fate, considering that making up his mind made the hunt difficult and would have exposed the hunter? We do not know. Nevertheless, the Lebanese know who assassinated the leaders of their independence from Riad Solh
to Rafiq Al Hariri. Yet, the killer is pursuing his crimes until the last breath, when he would collapse into his hole. It is sheer malevolence. Why do the remnants of the fallen regime in Baghdad continue their crimes after more than a year on the collapse and political bankruptcy of their leader?
There are a lot of lessons to be learned from Beirut's most recent crime; it is that there can be no truce with those that do not know the difference between partnership and political servitude. The reconcilers, in the name of brotherhood or Arabism, might benefit every now and then, yet, in the end, they dig their political graves with their own hands, at least in the eyes of their people who denounce them and look toward their natural right of freedom from servitude and guardianship.
The most important lesson for the Lebanese and others is that there can be no subordination and independence and that there is no difference between oppression by an occupying enemy and oppression by a neighboring brother. Oppression is one and the result is one no matter how numerous the reasons or different the conditions. It remains for the Lebanese people and the peoples under crises in the Arab region to become aware that the biggest problem is not with external enemies; real or imagined. The enemy lives within and inside anyone who justifies oppression and subordination as a way to fight an external enemy. He who is defeated from within can win nothing on the exteriorâ€Å