When General Michel Aoun continued the series of reconciliations in Lebanon when he attended the meeting of the Maronite Bishops' Council and his statement about a new chapter, one between Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir and who is considered the "patriarch of politics" for Christian sides, then this is a good sign that the wave of accusations and "undermining of the high-ranking positions" will stop. It is perhaps no less important to envisage a role for General Aoun in bringing together the Bishops' Council and the visions of many sides that were in the opposition camp before the formation of the government under Saad Hariri, with these sides representing now half the opposition, only if the conflict within the cabinet and outside it renews, after the government obtains the confidence of the parliament. Is it a mere pessimistic possibility? The problem lies in the Lebanese memory. Otherwise, how can we justify the blessed "attack" on political sectarianism which is about to become a chronic disease, whereas the Taef Accord provided the solution but was ignored for many years. The doctor has changed, but preempting the government's receipt of confidence with a surprising awakening to this sectarianism and its diseases, does not alleviate the concerns or deprives "Hezbollah" of a national justification for more momentum in the pursuit of "the powerful and just state." While some sides believe there is a distinction between the proposals of the party's political document and the rush of Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri to cancel political sectarianism "so that Lebanon survives", this does not cancel other fears pertaining to the fact that provoking the issue (just as it was provoked at the outset of the civil war) will push political sides for a Christian polarization and others for Sunni polarization. The fear is – according to the leader of the "Democratic Gathering" Deputy Walid Jumblatt – "to prevent some sects from monopolizing some posts"… while one power continues to monopolize the arms. The weapons will continue [to remain in Hezbollah's possession] as long as the Israeli threat continues, according to the political document of Hezbollah. If we put Birri's surprising momentum in relation to looking for the source of the problem – before the government gains confidence – to Jumblatt's excessive enthusiasm about receiving the document and supporting the majority of its clauses and his attack on the "sectarian monopoly," then we can explain the emerging polarization in the street with the following equation: Shiites with the Druzes, and Sunnis with some Christians. Is it an arbitrary polarization? The question is still the same about the secret of the surprising concern about Lebanon, after all of its leaders overlooked the constitution of the Taef Accord throughout the era of the Syrian presence in Lebanon. Most important is that since the Doha Agreement, a large part of the Lebanese people have not been arguing about the legitimacy of defending the land, but are waiting for a "miracle" of the settlement, one that puts the legitimacy of the state in one scale at least with the legitimacy of a resistance. This resistance does not contest the state over its duties and rights and eliminates its fears over its weapons…until the cancellation of political sectarianism is cancelled. It is true that the document presented by Hezbollah's Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah carried a calm tone, but preempting the table of dialogue [with this document] does not encourage the concerned sides about the growing power of the party to express optimism that the party will be completely "Lebanonized." The evidence is that the party blamed the Arabs for dealing with Iran. Since the party views this as negative, it is unlikely that it will break its ties with Tehran, while the second sign toward Syria seems vague, i.e. the divergence with Damascus over the negotiation with Israel. Negotiation in itself is out of the question according to the party's vision of an everlasting conflict, as long as the Hebrew State is on the [world's] map. Neither the party nor Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah is wrong when insisting on the reality of the Israeli enemy. But the fact that Lebanon remains at a risk of a war, until Israel ceases to exist, is the other facet of the "everlasting" quality of the weapons of the resistance. The same applies to the "everlasting" quality of the disease of sectarianism. Everyone in Lebanon openly detests it, while some sides hide behind it today in the face of the strongest weapon and in light of the "weakest" state. The other side however recognizes the disease and considers the solution a priority before the historical settlement. One of the positive aspects of the document is its recognition of the only and united Lebanon. But talking about "genuine democracy" and the condition to achieve it, i.e. canceling political sectarianism, is recognition that the periodical consensual democracy is not a genuine one. So will there be politics and a state is the national dialogue lasts for many years…which Hezbollah does not deem unlikely? There is an everlasting conflict with the enemy, and a national dialogue that has been everlasting since Lebanon's independence. Between the document and Berri's "momentum" and Junblatt's enthusiasm to end "the sectarian monopoly," and the confusion of the majority of the loyalist group and the apprehension of the Druzes and the concerns of the Shiites, the era of sects returns to the golden cage.
