It is the impossibility of divorce that explains the reunion around the negotiation table after every feast; after every stunt committed by this side or that. The first provision in any effort to save Lebanon is to put an end to the hypocrisy. It is impermissible to conceal the blood spots with shy words. It is unacceptable to hide the daggers behind the hand-shakes. The communication has to be frank, clear and naked. It must be acknowledged that this country is witnessing an unprecedented crisis among its primary components. The events of the past few days were not a casual traffic accident. They were not caused by a train rolling off track as a result of a technical error. The country is collapsing. This country is either under construction or on its way to vanishing.
Those floating around the table in Doha should confess what they know. Lebanon is living the beginnings of a Sunni-Shiite dispute over its future; over domestic balances and over the regional and international position of the country. Among the Shiites, there are those who believe that the traditional Lebanese arrangement is a cage that blocks the recognition of new realities. Among the Sunnis are those who believe that the halo of the resistance is being used to reduce their share. The Christians are deeply fearful over their future; the demographic balance is against them and they are weary of the growing intolerance in the region.
The convening parties in Doha have their work cut out for them. It may even be an impossible mission. It is an attempt to explore the possibility of inventing a nation that has room for Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah, Saad Hariri, Walid Jumblatt, Amin Gemayel, and Samir Geagea. Each one of them has undeniable representation; either popular representation or the representation of the extent of the demands and fears within their sectarian communities. In no way is Nabih Berri's presence to be understated, but it is not with him that the others have issue this time. In no way is General Michel Aoun's quality of representation understated, but Gemayel and Geagea are far more capable than him to express the old and new fears of their community just as Hariri and Jumblat do with respect to theirs, and even if the extent of representation by the latter is far wider, almost reaching the point of absolute leadership.
This is why Hariri, Jumblatt, Gemayel and Geagea must openly and tolerantly listen to what Hezbollah's delegate Mohammed Raad has to say; to listen to his demands and fears as a representative of a major partner whose approval and the understanding of which are indispensable to build the nation. Their reliance on parliamentary majority does not give them the right to impose their voice, image or choices on the whole nation in the Lebanese order. This is their duty regardless of their feelings or the vocabulary of their dictionary.
It is Raad's duty to listen to the demands and fears of others to understand the others and be understanding of them. Hezbollah has no right, regardless of its sacrifices, to impose its color on the country without considering the desires of the other components. The majority enjoyed by March 14 does not grant it the authority to impose its state on the resistance without an historic settlement. Yet, the halo of the resistance does not authorize Hezbollah to impose its state or transform the Lebanese state into a state hanging on the ropes of a future open conflict in the region. These are Lebanese principles; they are principles regardless of the bitterness they may trigger and even if they sometimes seemed to be taking from the strong to offer the weak to save the cage outside which the Lebanese order cannot survive.
The Lebanese nation cannot be reinvented outside the logic of settlement; the logic of halfway solutions or the nearest possible point. The elements of strength cannot be ignored, but they cannot be submitted to or automatically translated into results either. It can be said that history will be watching Nabih Berrri's performance. His famous uprising in 1984 taught him the limits of uprisings and later introduced him into the club of the wise. History will also be watching Michel Aoun's performance. His acceptance of a governmental formula that cannot make decisions and run the country will devastate his image before his size.
It is fine for Lebanon to be summoned naked to the Doha table; for its veins and their congested contents to be revealed; for its bones, the fluctuations of its heart, and the suffocation of its lungs to be seen. I know that the Emir and Prime Minister of Qatar and the participating ministers will see what surprises, upsets, and frustrates them, but they will have to try. Saving Lebanon is saving the entire Arab nation, and who cannot coexist in Lebanon cannot succeed outside it.
Settlement is the only possible choice. Without it, the state will be no more; the resistance will be no more; the winds of Iraqization will blow and its fires will spill over outside its borders, even if this took a time. No choice other than settlement is possible, even if it is laden with bitterness. No choice other than settlement is possible even if every guest felt it was more of a poisonous feast.
Tags: Hezbollah, Lebanon, Qatar, source: Al Hayat
