The political truce in Lebanon did not last long, as a heated debate was sparked off once again between Hezbollah and President Michel Suleiman. This came as no surprise. The points of disagreement remain unresolved and continue to revolve around the ongoing intervention of Hezbollah in the war raging in Syria. Before the outbreak of the Syrian war, the bipartite issue of the army’s arms and Hezbollah’s weapons was a point of disagreement between the March 8 and March 14 camps.

For his part, the president took a medial stance. He was trying — through the dialogue table — to find a unifying approach to reconcile between the imperatives of resisting Israel’s ambitions in Lebanon on the one hand, and the requirements of Lebanese sovereignty and the principle of limiting weapons to the Lebanese state on the other. This is not to mention Lebanon’s international obligations, especially when it comes to implementing international resolutions, namely UN Security Council Resolution 1701. The president’s intention was clearly reflected in his proposal for an “integrated national defense strategy,” which he distributed to the participants in the dialogue table on Sept. 20, 2012.

It is true that it has been the custom of Maronite presidents in Lebanon to spend the first three years of their term calling for national accord, building bridges between different political parties and components of Lebanon. This has sometimes been done to the detriment of traditional Christian principles.

On the other hand, the last three years of the president's term have been usually dedicated to upholding and defending the requirements of Lebanese sovereignty. This is when they cling back to the dominant movement of their denomination and identify with their historical principles as Maronite Christians.