From: eliedw@ulrik.uio.no (Elie Dib Wardini)
Subject: Re: Lebanon and Syria: once and for all...
Organization: Univerity of Oslo, Semitics dep.
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 09:29:30 GMT

In article <NMOUAWAD.92Jul30215105@math.waterloo.edu> nmouawad@waterloo.edu
(Naji Mouawad) writes:
>
>Let it be said once and for all: no historical facts, no engraved
>writing, no orders from the heavens of Time, no thunder from the
>rulers will force us to accept what we refuse.
>
>Syria is today a country ruled by a blood-thirsty regime. This regime
>has times and times again subdued, diminished, humiliated, tortured
>and killed all those who opposes it. This regime had done nothing than
>destroying once a flourishing country, a stable economy and a
>promising land. I am refering to Syria.
>
>Any one, any one who stand up today, for a reunification with Syria is
>implicitly or explicitly in support of the government of Damascus. If
>he is ignorant, let him think twice, it not, let the blood of the
>victims of this government be on his hand as it is on the hands of
>Assad.
>
>Once and for all: unity is brought in peace and joy. Not in bombs and
>violence. Any Lebanese who loves Lebanon, any Syrian who loves Syria
>would postpone the unity issue until Syria has recovered its dignity
>and its freedom. 
>
>If you don't feel like respecting the living, bear some respect for
>the dead.
>
>naji


let me divert here. In the beging of the 20th century Syria was not ruled by
any tyrant, but was under the French mandate (if some want to say that was
Tyrany, OK)

at that time a large chunk of the Lebanese (mostly christians but aslo many
Muslims) refused to be united with Syria.

The question of unity is not a metter of who is the ruler and who gives me
more.

NOte that we speak all too often of the European community.

I wonder how many really foolow the debates on the "union" in the European
community.

THis Union is done on purely economic reasons. There are very stringent rules
that regulate this union, e.g. how much budget deficit, much much inflation,
intrest rates etc. etc.

Moreover the treaty of political union is not without its opponents. Note the
Danish vote. The implications of this treaty are not clear and are not accepted
by all. It seems that many will see it as a treaty that will not be implimented
in its stirctest sense.

Nevertheless, the treaty is not based on "brotherhood", or "nationshood" or
common past or "common destiny". Ther treaty does not impose an identity except
the very broad and vague and very pluraistic "European identity" which is so
vague that we all can be European if we want. NOte that Maroccor wants to apply
for membership (correct if I am wrong) so do the Turks.

Therefore Assad may change his heart and repent. We may get the most democratic
country in he world as a neghbour, but this does not imply that I will want to
unite with it.

I wuld efinitely want to have close ties and cooperate with such a Syria as
much as possible, don't get me wrong.

My point is that there is not historical basis for a union or a common state
between Lebanon and Syria.

If the issue comes up, it is a decision of the people. 

Some may want others may not.

I personally would not want such a union, but I would call to close cooperation
between the two countries, once Syria is really democratic.

To start with, I should work on making Lebanon democratic!


elie wardini