When used by Arabs, political expressions take on a meaning different than the one initially intended. Such is the case with "internationalization" against which warned Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem following the "Friends of Lebanon" meeting in Kuwait. Moallem also held the convening parties responsible for the damages internationalization will cause, as they called for an unconditional implementation of the Arab initiative, notably the immediate election of a president.

By the rejected "internationalization" Moallem means the Arab and international efforts to take the Lebanese card off Syria's hands, stop its interference in Lebanon's domestic affairs as the party in charge of the country's security and stability, and assure that the Lebanese can find solutions to their crisis if Syria stops hindering their unity and choices. However, none of the participants in the meeting has never championed a solution away from the Security Council resolutions on Lebanon, which acknowledge the country's independence, sovereignty, and right to self-determination. Is this what Syria refuses?

If internationalization implies the implementation of the UN resolutions by virtue of international law, then so be it. Amid the current security, political, and economic situation in Lebanon, the solutions cannot be frozen until a new US administration emerges and negotiates with Damascus and Tehran. On the other hand, if internationalization means ending Syrian and Iranian control over Lebanon, then it is most welcome. Why do we dread internationalization if it serves the idea of Lebanon's positive neutrality and rids it of the status of permanent hostage to the interests of others?

The Syrians are currently using this same internationalization to scare off the Lebanese, the Arabs, and the world, after having previously endorsed it when it meant US and Western approval and Israeli "disregard" - as they entered Lebanon in 1976 - and when it offered them political cover to take advantage of their small neighbor. Didn't the Syrian policy, which was based on continued military and security presence in Lebanon until a solution to the conflict with Israel was reached - including the return of Palestinian refugees - mean internationalization?

The opposite of internationalization is "Arabization," which equally takes on a special meaning for Damascus, a meaning reflected in Syria and its policy, whereby it rejects any other authority over Lebanon (except for the Iranian one, naturally, as if Tehran were an "integral part" of the new Arabism) even within the scope of the Arab League itself - and even if this authority would help the Lebanese overcome their crisis and divisions. In order to impose its viewpoint, Syria is ready to invalidate the Arab system itself, which it claims to defend, as took place at the Damascus summit that was boycotted by the main Arab countries in protest at the unusual Syrian concept of joint Arab action.

The Arab initiative, which Damascus fears may be "snatched away by international parties," is practically confined to the "basket" it created ever since it announced its unilateral interpretation, linking the presidential elections in Lebanon with its allies obtaining the majority in the government (the decisive one-third) and Parliament (elections law), as well as other impossible conditions.

Syria remained in Lebanon for almost 30 years before it pulled out its army in 2005. It may need another 30 years to digest this withdrawal - i.e. a whole generation of Lebanese and Syrians. This probably will not happen without the internationalization we mentioned.