The Guardians of the Cedars Party issued the following communiqué:

The failure of the Arab delegation’s mission to Lebanon was no surprise. In fact, its success would have been a surprise given the attributes of impotence, cowardice, and collusion that accompanied the Arab League since its inception in the mid-1940s and to this day. Impotence, because that is the historical record. Cowardice, because it never had the courage to call things by their name, relying instead of evasiveness, trickery and bias to hide the truth. Collusion, because its silence over the deeds of criminals encouraged the latter to continue in their crimes and, in so doing, the League became an accomplice in violation of the Good Samaritan Law which says that to see the crime and remain silent is to be an accomplice to it.

For this reason, we believe the government erred in seeking the help of the Arab League in stemming the Syrian onslaught on Lebanon, unless this was done so the government can say it tried, or for distraction and killing time while waiting for the international tribunal to initiate its proceedings.

But for the Secretary General of the Arab League to say that Lebanon is an Arab responsibility, it only pushes the Lebanese to more anxiety rather than tranquility, and it makes them fear the loss of their country by the Arabs like Palestine was lost. These words are not meant to slander or offend or exaggerate; but Lebanon has suffered for so long because of the Arab League, which bears a great deal of responsibility with the corrupt Lebanese establishment for the near collapse of Lebanon.

Isn’t it this Arab League that dispatched, out of ignorance or deliberately, the Syrian forces to Lebanon in 1976 and gave them a broad cover of Arab legitimacy? Isn’t it this Arab League that remained silent over the atrocities and massacres that the Syrian forces committed against the Lebanese for 30 full years, leading to the exhaustion and dismemberment of Lebanon, the destruction of its constitutional institutions, and the undermining of its very existence as is happening at this very moment in Lebanon’s history?

What useful dialogue is possible with a Lebanese leadership that have sold themselves to the occupation and participated with it in destroying the country, pilfering its resources and starving its people, and to this day continue to be unable or incapable of freeing themselves from their ties to the regime in Damascus?

We are convinced that the majority of the Arabs are not serious about finding effective solutions for the Lebanese question, even if they could, because for Lebanon to remain a stage for regional conflicts alleviates the burden of most Arab regimes, provided that the Lebanese flames remain within the borders of the country and do not reach their own borders. Also, the return of Lebanon to its previous glory and prosperity worries many an Arab country because that return may take away from them the development, financial and economic achievements that they accomplished at Lebanon’s expense.

The question that begs itself in this context is: Until when will Lebanon continue to burn in lieu of the Arabs? Until when will it remain a ball that is tossed around by regional interests? And the answer is: When the Lebanese themselves realize that their salvation begins with the internationalization of their cause, the declaration of Lebanon’s neutrality, and its withdrawal from all Arab and regional organizations and alliances.

Lebanon, at your service
Abu Arz
June 29, 2007