If Hezbollah and the Association of Islamic Charitable Projects agreed that a “futile” individual dispute could lead to the night clashes seen in Beirut and in which rockets were used and claimed the lives of three people, what can the Lebanese expect if the conflicts of the mighty were to move to the street? It may be said once again that the tensions on the street were due to the power crisis and the “silent” high voltage power lines among the sides involved in major files such as the international tribunal, the indictment, the defense strategy, the armament of the army and the eradication of the agents which are invading the country from all sides, but especially those concerned about nipping the projects of strife in the bud – as they are all warning against them while no one knows which spark will trigger them. Some may consider that the Tuesday clashes which escalated against the backdrop of a “futile” reason and lasted three hours, carried a message in regard to the ability to implicate Hezbollah in conflicts in Beirut's alleys and neighborhoods, in order to renew the dispute over the purpose of the arms of the Resistance far away from the friction lines with the Israeli enemy and the supervision of the Lebanese army. In reality, it was an unfortunate twist of fate that the clashes which terrorized the civilians in their homes and brought back – within a few minutes – the ghost of strife to the streets of the Lebanese capital, coincided with the speech of Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. The Burj Abu Haidar incident avoided holding any side responsible for the surfacing of the arms instinct once again. However, regardless if the information about the kidnapping of a citizen and his son from their home in that dark night is true, this incident undermined the chances of seeing the continuation of the effects of the Arab summit in Beirut for long. Also, it was preceded by signs pointing to the revival of the high-voltage lines after Ramadan. Moreover, Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri stated he was convinced that some insist on withering the effects of the summits and consequently on undermining of the truce. Nonetheless, it remains odd to see certain media outlets insisting on drawing up the scenarios of the tensions and addressing political messages to specific sides involved in the complications of the stage that was previously referred to as being “the eve of the indictment” of the international tribunal. It is clear that the goal behind these messages is to provoke positions, prompted by the fear over the country's fate following the issuance of the indictment and in regard to the “possible politicization” of the tribunal. Still, what is concerning after the failure of the latter attempt, is to see the security “activation” acting as an alternative to implicate Saad al-Hariri's government and place it before the predicament of mobile confrontations. This may also apply to the attempt to eliminate the priority of the armament of the army to allow it to respond to the Israeli violations on the border, considering that the return of the security tensions on the domestic arena will impose the priority of distancing Lebanon and its stability from the brink of the abyss. While some observers believed that what happened in Burj Abu Haidar and the way the incident was contained conveyed an advance for the Projects Association over the Islamic Association and the recognition of the presence of the arms in the hands of the organizations, the street clashes and the sounds of the bombs shifted the attention away from Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah's exclusion of the toppling of the government, especially on the street. Hezbollah's need for Saad al-Hariri's government is justified by the fact that it is the best one to follow the repercussions of any indictment which may accuse specific individuals or sides of having assassinated martyred Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri and his companions, as long as the prime minister is the most concerned about the outcome. Still, Nasrallah's pledge to maintain the conflicts and disputes – without any exception – under the dome of parliament seemed a bit too early. Nonetheless, this does not eliminate the reality of his commitment on Tuesday to uphold calm, notwithstanding the bloody clash which followed the “futile” dispute in Beirut. Moreover, his calls for mutual listening among all the sides concerned about the major file was almost identical to the one made by the prime minister to resort to dialogue and calm and announce a divorce with the yelling heard in the speeches and via the media outlets. Even when he asked that the army be supplied with weapons, he suggested that the process start with the Arab states “while keeping Iran until the end,” thus making sure not to provoke the other side which blames Hezbollah for being linked to Wileyat e-Faqih and the Iranian course. However, what many noted is the fact that there is one tune setting the beat of calm within Hezbollah, embodied by one standard in dealing with the tribunal file regardless of the veracity of the theory of separation between the indictment and the court. Before that, it is feared that security explosions will surprise everyone along the high-voltage lines, and will be perceived by the opposition as being a new attempt to topple the “army, people, resistance” equation and by March 14 as being an attempt to trade the court in exchange for security. Along and around the high-voltage lines, can someone deny the ability of outside powers to infiltrate them? What about the role of the agents if non-“futile” disputes were to erupt, thus causing more deaths and generating more armament far from the border with the enemy?
