I never liked Michel Kilu. I was never a fan of him, when everybody was a fan. He never impressed me: neither with his personality or this writings. He recently wrote a piece about the abandonment of Arab nationalism by the Ba`th Party: 1) It is true and that should have been pointed out. 2) He attacked the abandonment of Arabism by the Syrian regime in the mouthpiece of Prince Salman, Ash-Sharq Al-Awsat. Is there no irony, Mr. Kilu? Has any party in the Arab world attacked and undermined Arab nationalism and unity more the House of Saud? Did that occure to you? 3) He mixed the clear chauvinismt trends in Syrian regime thought, practice, and rhetoric but also mixed in the expression of opposition to Arab governments as being anti-Arab. To be sure, the expression by regime propaganda outlets has racist anti-Gulf Arabs tone and contents, but the expression of opposition to GCC or to other Arab governments by parties other than the lousy Syrian regime is not always chauvinist narrow nationalism. 4) Kilu does not appear principled in his opposition to Syrian regime: he seems more like a politician. His stance against the regime in recent months has been very flexible and weak, I argue. (thanks Abduljaleel)