A strategic political ceasefire among the Lebanese parties is not an act of appeasement. It is an option that March 14 should consider seriously.
Many of us who were inspired by the Ideals of that glorious March 14 day (Rule of Law, A strong state, sovereignty and Independence) are disheartened by the prospect of a Michel Suleiman presidency. “Colorless”, “boring”, “insipid” are just some of the words used to describe him, as even America, the godfather of the Cedar revolution, starts taking him seriously.
The unfortunate reality is that we are all -both sides- still in denial of what Lebanon truly is.
Lebanon is not some fancy ideal we try to project on it. It is not “The forefront of an honorable, victorious resistance against an evil occupier” the same way it is not the Paris of the Middle East with a “strong democratically elected government and the rule of law”
Lebanon is what it is: A loveless marriage of a couple with differing hopes and expectations, each trying in vain to impose his/her vision on the other. Both are self-righteous and both are unchangeable.
Michel Suleiman, with his pandering to all sides, is the presidential equivalent of the couple saying: “This constant bickering is hurting the kids and a divorce would cost a fortune. Let’s just sit on it and hope one day one of us will change”
| Print: 
The beirut spring is a blog that is interested in Lebanese society and its politics. It started in February 2005 after the assassination of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri
August 21st, 2007 at 6:45 pm
That’s an excellent analogy, Mustapha. And a very sad one.
Let’s face it, just sitting on a broken marriage (i.e. prolonging the status quo, a dysfunctional state) is a dumb idea. The “kids” are fleeing this dysfunctional household in droves. In the end, either we need to fix the marriage, or divorce. There is absolutely no excuse for maintaining a dysfunctional state and hoping for some magical fix somewhere down the line. There won’t be much of a state left by then, which, basically, takes up back to the “divorce”.
August 21st, 2007 at 7:19 pm
“colorless”, “boring”, “insipid”…
Gee Steve, you fooled me…I thought you were talking about Saniora or Saad. ;)
Better yet than armistice it may well be time to put divorce on the table, just to see what happens.
August 21st, 2007 at 8:42 pm
I agree. Put the freakin divorce on the table. Enough status quo. Enough prolonging the agony.
August 21st, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Let’s just hope that the divorce won’t be something along the lines of “Mr & Mrs Smith”
:)
I would bet my $.02 cents that it won’t be like that - after all, I don’t think Hassan would be photogenic enough to be in black dress playing the Angelina Jolie role…
– just a joke on a serious thing.
keep it up Mus!
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:24 am
Michel sleiman: we`ve heard it all! on beirutspring. pls read previous posting. The story of the commander in cheif in the restaurant. Moreover, Sleiman Pre-authorized protests and did not crash the cedar revolution. Wow! what a accomplishment. Tell me who would stand and face his own people protesting against the occupier and chanting freedom and independence. You would probably point out to some incidents where the Aounists together with some LF students were dragged and humiliated for protesting for the same cause. Does that make Sleiman more sensible to sovereignty issues. NO! we did not hear any words of condemnation from the Commander in chief!!! Guys The commander in chief is from a school that teaches obediance and nothing but obeying to orders. We had enough with obeying soldiers ie. our fellow president.
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:25 am
If the marriage is “loveless”, the couple having “differing hopes and expectations, each trying in vain to impose his/her vision on the other” and both are “self-righteous” and “unchangeable” … then why not get a divorce?
August 22nd, 2007 at 6:00 pm
I liked this posting, as it describes in simple terms what is easy to miss to everyday’s debates.
I agree with those who said that if the two parties cannot be reconclied that they should seek a divorce. I would much better have a smaller Lebanon where the rule of law and democracy rule versus more of the same. This means a new Lebanon minus its South and Bekaa. If Hizbollah want to fight it out with Israel, they can do it all day long and transform their “region” into another Gaza.
I am not sure I follow the logic in electing Gen. Sleiman, however. If the two parties cannot be reconciled, electing a lame president will not solve anything. It will only serve as a band-aid until the next national crisis comes about (such as a military engagement between Hizbollah and Israel, the resignation of opposition MPs and/or ministers every time that something that they don’t like is voted on). The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of a new Lebanon for its Christian, Sunni, Druze, and free Shiites.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
[…] • Back in August, I argued precisely for what Mr. Jumblat is doing today • I then Called Mr. Suleiman the inevitable candidate • I also shared an anecdote about him that a reader posted • In September I pinpointed the one word Mr. Suleiman likes to be associated with. […]