I felt concerned when I heard Sayyeh Hassan Nasrallah speaking of the knife and of salt. I also felt concerned when I heard Prime Minister Saad Hariri reply that he believes in the pen and the book rather than the knife and that he will not ask anyone's permission before going to this or that place. It seemed to me that this first-of-its-kind exchange between the two men goes beyond the Borj Abi Haidar events in the Lebanese capital, even if these altercations and what followed are the direct reason behind the disclosure of some stances and feelings for the first time. I felt concerned, being thousands of miles away, and thinking of the deep concern that must surely be felt by the Lebanese residing in the land of our ancestors. Fate, or its representative in the assassination of Prime Minister Rafic Hariri, has put these two men face to face in an extremely dangerous Lebanese situation and in a worrisome regional situation, especially regarding the deterioration of Sunni-Shiite relations after Saddam Hussein's demise and execution and the events that followed in Iraq and the region. The hardest part in this is the prevailing belief that we are in the middle of a Sunni-Shiite conflict on Beirut and Lebanon. Lebanon is unable to undergo an open and unrestricted conflict between two leaders at such a level of strength domestically and at such a level of support regionally. Taking the conflict to its extreme “Iraqicizes”Lebanon and could eliminate it. Settling it in the street poses a threat on both Lebanon and the region. Getting involved in it drowns the resistance in a civil war that would make it lose even if it emerges victorious. Also, getting involved would bury the “truth” under the rubble of the civil war and bury with it the project of a state. Nasrallah's force needs no confirmation. His experience is unprecedented in Lebanon's modern history. No leader before him has ever reached this degree of charisma within his sect or caused through the party he leads a deep transformation in its stance and domestic and foreign choices. More important is the change that took place in society itself, and its interpretation of its past, present, and future, as well as the references for its behavior. Sayyed Nasrallah's force is not restricted to the rocket arsenal. It is based before this on the result of the confrontations with Israel and the erection of an extremely cohesive structure that cannot be penetrated by the enemies or any other sides. There are also the personal characteristics and the ability to mobilize the sect members and gain their absolute trust and allegiance. This is not to mention the charisma outside the sect, even if it was somehow tarnished due to the Iraqi situation and the clash between the resistance supporters and Rafic Hariri's supporters. Saad Hariri's force needs no confirmation. Fate pushed this young man into the arena of great fighters, and the game was a bloody one. He did not sleep on the glory of his legacy as an adult. He learned, trained, and practiced. He showed an ability to listen. He was strong enough to be able to acknowledge mistakes and rectify them. Five years after entering the arena, he is the undisputable leader of his sect. He had the courage to take part in the election and accept their results. An understanding of the Lebanese equation and its balances gives him a presence beyond his sect. His ability to connect with people enabled him to absorb the attacks that targeted him and add their repercussions to his record. He was successful in maintaining and developing the arsenal of Arab, Islamic, and international relations he inherited from his father. His flexibility in moving and solidity inside enabled him to take difficult decisions. Nasrallah and Hariri belong to the same country and differ in many things, or rather in most things. They know the meaning of personal and public losses. The former is the father of a martyr and the leader of a party that offered myriad martyrs. The latter is the son of a martyr and a leader that was crowned by many martyrs. They stand in a single city in a country whose history affirms that a victory through a lethal blow is forbidden or else it turns into a defeat for the victorious side, and that marriage is difficult and costly but divorce is forbidden. It is a difficult story. It is hard for Nasrallah, his party, and his supporters to accept an indictment which tells people that a young Shiite man from or close to Hezbollah assassinated the most prominent Shiite figure in this part of the world. It is hard for Hariri, his party, and his supporters to record the crime against an unknown person. Walid Jumblatt's precedent is different. The 2005 experience has taught us that the desire for revenge does not die. I have dreamt for years that a third man would come forward and play the role of the rescuer. I wish Michel Aoun had used his position after his return for such a historic mission. May God forgive him, as he was distracted from history by trifle things. I do not know if Walid Jumblatt is still able to play this role. He drained part of his record with the tension of going far and the panic of returning fast. An open and unrestricted battle between Nasrallah and Hariri and what each of them represents both inside and outside the arena is bound to be prevented. This type of battle is capable of killing the nation, the resistance, and the “truth”. Its catastrophic damages will go beyond Lebanon's borders, and its treatment depends on the Saudi-Syrian umbrella, under which painful decisions that must be taken by the two Lebanese sides can mature.
