I do not know what Saad Hariri felt last night when TV channels showed scenes from the new rally in Martyrs' Square. He is entitled to feel relieved and to consider that the March 14 camp retrieved its public and its pulse, and succeeded in filling the squares despite those who had left for the other side, either by choice or by force. It also gave the impression of overcoming the blows that targeted it, and succeeded in saying out loud what it had been secretly whispering. It represents a little more than half of the Lebanese, and declared in advance its no-confidence in Najib Mikati's government, at least within his sect, and Mikati's task in dealing with the issues of arms and the STL became more difficult. However, Saad Hariri will assuredly feel that this broad mandate is still deficient, and that the March 14 camp was not able to rule even when it enjoyed parliamentary majority. Also, the fact that it lacks serious representation within the Shia constituent keeps its broad mandate deficient. I do not know what Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah felt last night when he followed his opponent's rally. What happened is great, important, and serious. It was the first time that Hezbollah heard such a discourse about its arms and its program, and the first time that a crowd of such magnitude and representation voiced out its opposition against the resistance and its arms outside the control of the state. This is no trivial or simple matter. It was obvious that the strong March 8 camp, which represents a little less than half of the Lebanese, suffers from a deficiency in mandating, as it lacks any serious representation within the Sunni constituent. Such deficiency also applies to the resistance itself. I do not know what Michel Aoun felt while watching the Martyrs' Square rally. It is probable that he was not happy. The square was filled with people, despite his absence and withdrawal for years. He heard the speakers demand [the presence of] the state, its right to be the sole bearer of arms, and its duty to lead the resistance. These are the slogans he used to raise, and which allowed him to bring in followers. This man lost a historic opportunity to be the bridge between the two camps. I did not understand the justifications of his recent statements, which harmed the prime minister-designate and encouraged many to join the crowd yesterday. Saad Hariri should warmly thank him. I do not know what Najib Mikati felt last night when he followed the scenes from Martyrs' Square. The discourse was so open and difficult that it cannot be smoothed out at a later stage. He has no problem in providing a parliamentary majority that gives the government its confidence vote. This fact makes him feel there is a deficiency in the mandate in regard to the Lebanese structure. I do not know if this moderate and calm man felt that he took a risk when he accepted his danger-ridden task. There are heavy burdens, and he must convince the team that supports him; ease the anger of the opposing team; and convince the world that he did not come to isolate Lebanon from the international community. I sometimes have simple and naïve questions. Have some people forgotten how dangerous it is to clash with Rafik Hariri's blood? Would it not have been better to deal differently with the STL issue? Was there not a formula to lessen the damages incurred by the country and the parties that are afraid to be harmed by the indictment? Was the clash between the resistance supporters and Hariri's supporters an inevitable fate or is it the result of miscalculations? Would it not have been better to give Walid Jumblatt the opportunity to be the bridge between the two camps, so that it would appear as if he was convinced, not subjected? Would it not have been better for the S-S initiative to succeed, regardless of its costs? Was it really necessary to remove Saad Hariri and destroy the last bridge? Does this or that camp have the right to hold on to the halo of sainthood of its martyrs and treat the other martyrs as if they were car accident victims? The Lebanese have been spiraling on embers for six years. There is no solution other than a reconciliation among the martyrs, and a reconciliation among the living. There is no solution other than everyone to have the state and its institutions as reference. Anything other than this would mean that the two banks will remain unconnected by a bridge, the Lebanese will continue to dance on embers, and the truth, justice, resistance, and the blood of all the martyrs will be lost.
