In light of the current situation in Lebanon, and in the aftermath of the so called Four-Day-War, we attempted to evaluate the overall outcome and status-quo of the crisis by having a conversation with Marwan Dbaise, political analyst in the Lebanese newspaper Aliwa’.

iloubnan.info: How do you evaluate the overall situation in Lebanon? 
Marwan Dbaise: The situation in Lebanon is the result of a long repression among some of the conflicting parties. If I were to compare the current crisis to anything, I would compare it to a womb, which is bound to give birth to something that remains mysterious and unknown. Time can only tell what this womb will give birth to. However, what is certain is that the whole crisis is not mainly about the decisions taken by the government. It is rather a rage against the existence of this government as a whole; it is a question of unfinished business between both conflicting ends. A problem that has begun since 2005…

Could this Crisis have been avoided from the beginning?
As I already said, this crisis goes back to 2005, even before the assassination of late PM Rafik El Hariri. Each party had its own demands and never looked for common ground or agreement. Thus, each party took a different way and had extremely opposed opinions. Then, an attempt to dialogue has been made, but it needed to be followed and applied. Dialogue is not just about talking for the sake of talking. It is rather implementing the common grounds upon which it was agreed. Unfortunately, those parties have never reached this stage. All these factors have allowed regional conflicts to erupt and affect the internal situation, which has been weakened by the absence of communication between both parties. 

Do you consider it as a coup d’état?
If the opposition meant to have a coup-d’état it would have conquered the Ministries and the Legislative institution. As long as it is still in the streets, there can be talks about rebellion or armed conflicts, but never about a coup-d’état, especially that the Siniora government is diplomatically recognized worldwide. The entire situation is an attempt to reverse the political equation and give the opposition a large participation in the government. They are willing to have a stronger negotiating point.

Can we talk about a victory here? And if so, who is the winner?
Neither 14th nor 8th of March can claim victory today. Even if Hezbollah were to conquer and take over all Lebanon, it would still be unable to rule the country without a common consensus. The Lebanese system is based on mutual agreement. Any system beyond that basis will never be able survive. The geopolitical structure of Lebanon forbids that. 

There have been talks about different scenarios. Can we really say that there is a well-prepared scenario behind this crisis?
Even if there was a scenario, (some talk about an Iranian scenario or an American scenario), it can never be implemented on our soil. Lebanon has never and will never be ruled by one sect. History has proven so from 6000 years. The survival of Lebanon is related to the survival of the social pact and understanding, which has always been the label of this country. Common grounds and mutual agreement have always won against guns and artillery on this soil; the social pact of 1942 is a real proof, and the Taef agreement is another one. There was always an end framed by dialogue, understanding, and sharing of rights.

So you don’t think that the current situation is mainly due to the regional conflicts?
As I said, regional conflicts are part of the whole crisis. However, the main crisis is internal. When your internal situation is weak, you cannot resist the foreign interference. It is just like the human body: Once the immunity is down, viruses will conquer the whole body. Therefore, a Social pact between all conflicting parties will give Lebanon the immunity it needs and segregate us from the regional conflicts. 

How do evaluate the Army’s performance during those actions?
I think that the Army did all it can do because doing more than what has already been done would have involved it in those conflicts, and this would have lead to a division within the army. A big part of the Army belongs to the Shiite sect. Under the Syrian regime, the army was prevented from taking any action. But today, the only thing preventing the army from getting involved in the conflicts is the fear of a division within its ranks.