The Last Supper?

There is no question that Walid Jumblat put an abrupt halt to the National dialogue. The question is: did he betray his allies and supporters?

We never had great expectations from the dialogue. But we were all enjoying the smiley faces and upbeat statements. When I saw Saad Hariri and Hassan Nassrallah visiting Hariri’s grave, hand in hand, I thought: “That’s it, I’m buying Solidere shares. Lebanon is finally going to work out”.

Next thing we know, Jumblat declares from Washington after meeting Condoleezza Rice that Hezbollah is a militia and that it should be disarmed. Was he speaking for himself or was he representing the March 14 people?

Things are not clear yet, but Mr. Jumblat told Aljazeera that a deal to remove President Lahhoud in exchange for keeping Hezbollah’s weapons has failed. This suggests that he’s speaking for his allies. But the stakes are too high for such a public meltdown to happen.

Jumblat might be playing his usual game of brinkmanship, but the fact that he made that statement from Washington, and the fact that he didn’t seem to care about the many Lebanese who had high expectations from dialogue could prove more than the Druze leader and his allies could handle.

It took a lot of work and burnt nerves to create an atmosphere of trust before the dialogue. But Mr. Jumblat scrapped all of that in one statement. The implications might be much more serious than we think..