Lebanon is witnessing a degree of confusion and media campaigns exchanged by the various parties. There are innumerable mutual accusations and maneuvers that some groups tirelessly employ, poisoning the atmosphere as a result, on the pretext that the end justifies the means; thus, false information is allowed to be spread to the public. This situation, which has lasted for more than six months as a result of a dispute over the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, requires us to stop and evaluate its impact, especially since it has come to govern Lebanese political life and create its daily events, at least in the media, while the actual events, offstage, are completely different, and even contradictory to them. Thus, the “false witnesses” issue becomes a reason to freeze the work of the state and the Cabinet, as well as delay issuing the budget. Meanwhile, the actual stance of political forces that champion this issue is that they are ready to make a trade-off, in a deal with Prime Minister Saad Hariri. They would require him to announce beforehand that he rejects the indictment, which presumably will accuse Hezbollah members of involvement in the assassination of his father. Thus, leaders from the opposition are asking the relevant figures, in closed-door meetings, to make efforts to delay the STL indictment. When these efforts are made by local parties and other states, the stance on a delay is unreasonable, because the problem is in the presumed indictment, and a stance is being requested before the indictment becomes an official accusation. Thus, also, Hariri is being asked to step back from the political accusation of Syria of involvement in the crime, and to condemn the false witnesses, as he did on 6 September when he accepted a political deal with Damascus that would extend to domestic Lebanese relations, especially with Hezbollah. This way, he would become the accused, instead of being encouraged to prepare the ground for a Lebanese settlement. There is growing talk of strife among the Lebanese, and the public statements have been stoking it for months, on the pretext of the awaited indictment. The talk about the indictment is based on documents, some of which prove its invalidity, and on leaks “ignited” by those who are warning about the specter of strife; they help cement the accusations that these documents contain in the mind of the public. While the other side concerned with the outbreak of strife, namely Hariri's team and his allies, rule out the possibility of it taking place, because this team lacks the means of violence that feed strife in the first place, another question arises after these flames have been stoked: why wasn't the indictment issued months ago, since its objective is to ignite strife? Wouldn't the issuing of the indictment in September, October or November have been more suitable in timing to launch this strife, since it is subject to American and Israeli desires, and the accusations are merely formulas for inciting strife? Wouldn't setting this process in motion with this indictment have been easier than now? This question about the suitability of the timing with the objective of igniting strife leads to another question. Will the leaks lead the public to become used to the accusations that are contained in these leaks, when the indictment is issued, if it is correct that it will contain these same accusations? Will this see the public disregard these accusations, as the element of surprise is lost? What if it is found that the accusations in the leaks differ from those in the indictment, and that the information that has been used to constantly warn of strife is different than what the indictment will rely on? The various Lebanese sides agree that a settlement of some kind will be produced by the Saudi-Syrian dialogue. This settlement will likely be paralleled by efforts to secure international guarantees about the costs of concluding it and of its implementation in connection with Syria's international relations, in return for stability in Lebanon through Damascus' agreement with Riyadh. When the settlement is concluded, what will happen to all of the commotion and the accusations made at a group of Lebanese as being agents of America, and involved in an “Israeli-American plan for strife”? The political campaigns that Lebanon has experienced in recent months have wasted a considerable amount of time for the Lebanese, since they have led to the paralysis of the state and are based on manufacturing scandals and accusations. Those behind the campaigns have become prisoners to what they have whipped up. They have in turn wasted many opportunities and done away with the positive impact of local and foreign political moves, such as western, and specifically French, openness to opposition groups, as well as Hariri's openness to Tehran during his recent visit there… and the result has been the continuation of paralysis of state institutions.
