Several years ago, a smart Swiss businessman- or confidence artist- came up with an idea to relieve the stress off businessmen like him, who suffer from daily work pressure, stress and anxiety that come with each decision they have to make. He suggested screaming as a solution; for example, the beleaguered businessman would go to the mountain and scream in its valley until he lost his voice, before going back to Geneva or Zurich to resume business as usual.

I think that the Lebanese are in dire need for such a solution. They have to deal with far worse daily problems than the Swiss do, and on top of everything, they have the specter of war that never leaves, and which is ever-haunting their minds and souls in the most dangerous spot in the world.

Also, for every uphill road there is a downhill one, and for every mountain there is a valley. The mountains of Lebanon are more renowned, and I personally know very well its valleys. I can take any desiring individual to scream in Wadi al-Jamajem [Valley of the Skulls], located between Bekfayya and Beskanta. There must be some kind of a story or legend behind its name. There is also the Qadisha Valley in its two parts: Qezhaya Valley and Qannoubin Valley, or Lamartine Valley as it combines beauty with poetic scenery, which had once motivated the French poet to praise and celebrate it. For the reader’s information, there is also K’farhatta Valley in Iqlim al-Tuffah, and the residents there call it the Valley of Hell as it is so deep, an onlooker on its top would not be able to even see its bottom.

But in truth, I did not intend to talk about the screaming solution. I was rather going over the controversy over the municipal elections electoral law, and before I managed to hear anything that would shed light on the subject – although I consulted the ‘experts’, i.e. my rather very active friends – and before I could form an opinion, I had moved on to the issue of the Dialogue Table.

Is there anything that is not a subject for dispute among the Lebanese? In the few recent days alone, they disputed over the abolishment of political sectarianism, proportional representation, the municipal division of the city of Beirut, and the municipal elections and the proposed reforms which were referred to the parliament for deliberation (something raises the possibility of delaying the elections amid the insistence by some on holding them on time). Also, there was a proposal to lower the voting age to 18, something that could lower the number of Christian voters. To counter this, some proposed giving the [Lebanese] expatriates the right to vote, in the hope that there is a Maronite majority among the latter.

I found all the above issues to be controversial and extremely complex to begin with. I can’t see any solution for these issues, nor do I have a solution for them myself. Hence, I moved on to the issue of the Dialogue Table. I recall that the first round was held in March, 2006, and the second in June 2009. I am confused; are we now witnessing the third round, or continuing that second round?

The controversy over the dialogue began even before anyone sat around the table, and the dispute involved the issue of who should participate, or who will be absent, was not invited or had limited representation – something that they found to be unfair. Of course, if each Lebanese was to get what he or she believes is his or her right, then the entire Middle East would not have provided enough room for the rights of the Lebanese.

But then Hezbollah settled the debate (should I say aborted the debate) before it even starter, as it proclaimed that the Resistance’s arms are not an item on the dialogue’s agenda, despite the fact that the only item officially on the agenda is the Lebanese National Defense Strategy. This is unless the participants decide to add other items.

I am writing today as a citizen, and I want to say that the only matter that is settled for me is the fact that I support Hezbollah against Israel without any questions. However, I hope that this does not contradict or invalidate the fact that I also support the state and the rule of law, and my confidence in President Michel Suleiman, his wisdom and in his equal distance (or proximity) to all political parties in the country. The best solution for this issue can be achieved by placing Hezbollah’s fighters and arms under the command of the national army. However, this is merely a slogan at present, and the devil is in the details. In the end, I don’t see that reaching an agreement over any formula is possible through the Dialogue Table.

While I support a move by the participants in this dialogue to discuss the Palestinian arms, both inside and outside the [refugee] camps with a view to put an end to this issue, I fear that the Dialogue Table will end in delving into the less important issues – in my opinion – such as indirectly going back to the civil war, and blaming Samir Geagea for all its horrors, as though he were the only warlord in the country. He is definitely responsible, and his role is terrible; nonetheless, he is not responsible alone as there are at the Dialogue Table itself, other belligerents. Then I also fear that pressure against him will increase, in a bid to isolate him and curtail his popularity among the Christians (and perhaps this has already happened).

The proposed dialogue is an attempt to escape forward; Lebanon is facing clear and present dangers, and an occupying country led by a fascistic government that is ever seeking reasons for more killing and destruction – or as the press there says ‘to take Lebanon back to the stone ages’ - lies to its south. Even if all the Lebanese were to agree, this would not cancel out this danger, even though it would place Lebanon in a better position to confront it. It is sufficient as proof in this regard to try and imagine what awaits the country should an Israeli embassy in a given capital be the target of an attack, or if the scenario of the attempt on the life of the Israeli ambassador Shlomo Argov in London in 1982 is repeated.

Argov was attacked on 3/9, and the invasion of Lebanon began on 6/9. In other words, the invasion was preplanned and was just awaiting the go ahead. It is also preplanned today, and is also awaiting the go ahead.

Since the Lebanese do not agree on anything, all what they can do is scream with me in the Valley of the Skulls (since the Valley of Hell is too close to the border, and we don’t want them to gloat about our suffering, whether together, or against each other).

khazen@alhayat.com