The Table That Is No Longer Round

Posted on by Mustapha

The shape of the new hiwar (dialogue) table symbolizes the difference between the first, ill-fated hiwar and the one that will start tomorrow.

So how different is a rectangular table from a round one? Very different.

A round-table is an egalitarian setting where those who are taking place are given equal importance. Depending on your point of view, the non-polar arrangement can either symbolize equality or an insolvable gridlock.

A rectangular table on the other hand, like the one that will be used tomorrow, is a polar setting in which two parties face each other, and a judge –in this case the President– chairs and arbitrates their exchange. 

In form at least, tomorrow’s non-round table will be a small victory for those who seek the supremacy of the state, and a setback for those who thrive on anarchy and gridlock.

0 Responses to The Table That Is No Longer Round

  2. aren’t you a tat over thinking this? i mean there’s more news worthy topics you can post, like the rumors of syrian commandos in tripoli or the six bombs in the capital, not the shape of a bloody table!!

    regards

  3. the talks to end the civil war in Lausanne in the eighties was postponed several times because of the shape of the table, check it out :-) the final configuration of tables was very interesting, although that did not help end the war…

  5. The shape of the table is indeed symbolic, but there is a big difference between symbolism and importance… What is important here is the makeup of the group and particularly the issues they discuss.

    I don’t understand how this can be seen as a “victory” for anyone. It only reinforces the myth that there are two groups at odds with one another. In reality there are dozens of groups with conflicting interests that simply cannot be classified as believing in “the supremacy of the state” or “anarchy and gridlock.”
    Our problems are not so cut and dry.

  6. They could not find a round table big enough to fit the Lebanese ego so they had to settle for this.

    Personally I prefer a triangle.

    On the other hand I would like some geniune investigative reporting on the stories being thrown around that North Lebanon is a Jihadist mecca. Can anyone take a couple of days off and travel north to check this out?

    No?

    Ok…

  7. “tomorrow’s non-round table will be a small victory for those who seek the supremacy of the state, and a setback for those who thrive on anarchy and gridlock.”

    this is trash talk, because there is no state to begin with. there is only various mafias and prostitutes posing as a state. and ALL the factions “thrive on anarchy and gridlock”, but for very different reasons.

    and here’s mustapha actually trying to convince us to take this politics junkfood seriously. shiiiiiiiiit no.

  9. damnnn, i just heard in the news that they are going to change the chairs, they found them uncomfortable, such spoiled brats

  10. The problem is not the table (or chairs) but the unqualified people who will be planning the future of a nation.

  14. I saw positive elements in the latest convening of Lebanese leaders in Baabda. Most importantly, the dialog now looks like a Lebanese effort. I also applaud the decision to deal with so-called defense strategy which hopefully will lead to disarming of all militias and groups that continue to challenge Lebanese Government authority. On the other hand, I feel discourage by the continued use of such terms as resistance to indicate the exclusivity of certain groups. I also regret that for the first time I have to agree with such Mr. Aoun who was the only one to propose the idea of discussing the need or lack therefof for resistance. I believe this is an important proposition which needs to be carefully considered.

    Any discussion of so-called resistance must begin by a definition which will encompass all forms of resistances that aim to achieve Lebanese sovereignty and independence. Most importantly the resistance of Syrian interference and meddling in Lebanese affairs must be made paramount. On the other hand, the dialog must address the strategy for achieving peace with the Jewish State as the main ingredient of the so-called defense strategy. This definition of resistance and defense strategy will ensure the sovereignty and independence of Lebanon. It is very clear that Lebanon’s economy is in shambles. Therefore, achieving peace with Lebanon’s southern neighbor is a Lebanese requirement, since it will free Lebanon from its dependence on Syrian land routes to the Arab world. Peace is also a requirement according to Arab and International resolutions. A peace deal that specifically mentions Lebanon’s neutrality with regards to regional conflicts, and which requires other States (Syria of course) to respect such neutrality is in the best interests of Free and Sovereign Lebanon. Once signed and ratified the deal will become an international document enforced by International Law.

    I regret to say that some politicians (like Seniora, Jumblat and others) are impeding Lebanon’s march towards independence by continuing to insist that Lebanon will be the last Arab State to sign a peace treaty with Israel. This is counterproductive and in no way furthers Lebanese interests and sovereignty.

  15. We have no business singing any sort of peace deal with the state of Israel until they give up Shebaa and stop flying in our airspace (at the very least). It has wreaked havoc on our people more than once and is the last state in the region to be worthy of any sort of alliance (to which a peace deal would be tantamount).

    No question – Syrian interference in Lebanese affairs has been a major problem, but there is no comparison between our indigenous neighbor and a racist state made up of foreigners who look down on us. We can work out our differences with Syria (although this will take time) but Israel is a much bigger problem…

  16. Kalash,
    Israel indicated more than once it will give up the farms for a peace deal with Lebanon. Of course, the peace treaty will also require Israel to cease flying over Lebanon and respect its sovereignty. Spelling out Lebanon’s neutrality in regional conflicts is the best guarantee for Lebanon’s independence and sovereignty, and is the best achievable defense strategy. Look at Switzerland. It maintains neutrality even until the present with the Soviet Union being history. It is wrong to assume that signing a deal with your southern neighbor is tantamount to an alliance. It simply means normalizing relations as between any two sovereign states. Lebanon will remain an integral part of the Arab world just like Egypt, Jordan, SA and others. With regards to feelings of superiority, I can assure you the Lebanese have similar attitudes. A Lebanese thinks he is the most superior human being on earth. So let’s not go beyond realism and issues that are of substance. I disagree that you can solve your problems with Syria. The Syrians never gave up and will never give up on their attempts to rule Lebanon directly or by proxy. A peace deal would force the Syrians to adopt a different attitude and begin to truly look at Lebanon as a separate and sovereign state. After all, the deal will be guaranteed by the International community including the US, the EU and major Arab States. I would suggest President Sleiman raise the issue of Shebaa farms and Israeli over flights in his upcoming meeting with President Bush, instead of continuing to cower to Mr. Assad. He should make use of this opportunity to indicate Lebanon’s commitment to seeking a peace track with Israel in order to resolve any outstanding issues between the two countries once and for all.

  17. Lebanon is no Switzerland. Spelling out its neutrality in regional conflicts assumes that neutrality exists in the first place – it does not. The country is divided among people who hate Israel (in varying degrees) and a smaller number who who don’t. These groups start shooting at each other when they feel their interests are threatened and they effectively govern the country (case in point, the need for a ‘national dialogue’ instead of letting parliament do what it should). The state itself is weak and relies on some sort of balance between the desires of its various clans to avoid falling apart.

    I can’t see any good in following the path of hypocrisy undertaken by Egypt and Jordan (who’s civilian populations oppose Zionism like most other people in the region). While there may be some Lebanese who are cool with the Zionist state next door, they are in a minority. Simply put, the state of Israel is a black mark – it does not belong. Sadly, there is no denying its existence, but the reality is also that its own people realize they don’t ‘fit’ in the region. They look down on their Arab neighbors and that is an issue of great substance that should not be ignored (even if Lebanese people have some of the biggest egos in the world). Why should we sign a peace deal with an imperialist terrorist-state that is responsible for so many of the problems Lebanon faces? Is it just so they can stop being a thorn in our side? I don’t think that’s a good enough reason. Pretending it is not a problem will only make the next blow that much harder.

    Even if such a deal would put Syria ‘in line’ (doubtful), it is still unwarranted. Understandably, the Syrian REGIME has never given up its hold over Lebanon, but that regime will eventually fall. Good relations between Lebanon and Syria are far more possible than good relations with the state of Israel. Lebanese have much more in common with their Syrian brethren then they do with the foreign occupiers to the south.

    Anyways, the problems of Lebanon will not be solved by looking towards others. We need to get our shit together before we can start talking about peace deals, especially with the state of Israel. Simply put, that is not a priority. Anyone who understands Lebanon understands that.

  18. I wouldn’t call the path taken by Egypt and Jordan hypocritical. This path lasted for some thirty years in the case of Egypt and close to twenty years in the case of Jordan and still counting. It is not true that the people of those countries oppose their governments’ peace policies. My contacts with Egyptians and Jordanians indicate majority support. The Lebanese seem to be lagging behind their Arab brethren in recognizing realities, and seem to be attracted to empty pronouncements like those of Mr. Najjad. It is true the Israelis are different from the rest of the people of the area. But you could also argue about the Lebanese themselves being different from each other. So are the Syrians. The whole Middle East seems to be a collection of various ethnic groups. These groups must learn sooner or later how to coexist and the sooner the better. I don’t see any possibility that a REGIME change in Syria will take place any time soon if ever. Furthermore, it is doubtful that a new Syrian regime will adopt a different Lebanese policy than the current regime. The idea that Lebanon should be ruled by Syria is deeply ingrained in the Syrian mind since early childhood. A Syrian simply cannot accept a separate independent Lebanon. I could cite countless examples which support this but this is not the proper forum. It seems to me that the Lebanese must first learn how to grow up and chart an independent path to themselves in order to secure their independence. Regurgitating empty outdated slogans about Zionism or feelings of superiority or inferiority is futile child’s play, and is only good for consumption by the misinformed and/or by those ruled by their irrational emotions rather than realism.

  19. Kalash,
    I don’t intend to go back and forth. But I can assure that I have read volumes about the ME history including the history of Israel and Zionism. Besides, I grew up in Lebanon at a time when all the so-called revolutionaries and Arab nationalism were at their peak. So, I’d be careful if I were you to assume that I lack information about the subject(s). My point is simple. You have to become a realist, control your irrational impulses and use your critical judgement when listening to certain people. You cannot engage in politics to deal with on regional issues (of which Lebanon is part off) without the attribute of realism.

  23. Hey :)

    You are invited to blog at our premises (tables are not round though:) please read on.

    The International Blog Action Day this year, on October 15, will bring together thousands of bloggers from all over the world to talk about Poverty. One Day, One Issue, thousands of voices. Bloggers united against Poverty, each a different point of view.

    We could be part of the conversation. We can make a difference from Lebanon by joining the entire blogosphere and focusing on the issue of poverty.

    You are cordially invited to join the Social Media Exchange team and influential bloggers across Lebanon at Rootspace—Saife to blog, write about the issue of poverty and help us connect the Lebanese blogosphere so that together we can make a difference. Please invite your friends and spread the word.
    Your participation is much appreciated.

    Regards,
    The Social Media Exchange team

    In order to reserve a seat, please call Mohamad Najem our program coordinator on 03-792505 or submit contact info by e-mail to mohamad.najem@gmail.com
    (This event is hosted for the sole reason of collaboration and is free of charge)

    For more information about the Social Media Exchange program, please visit our blog: http://www.socialmediaexchange.blogspot.com/
    or our Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Social-Media-Exchange/49369130692

    For more information on Blog Action Day 2008 please visit: http://blogactionday.org/