The comedy play in Baabda Palace has ended, as the President of the Republic, who is totally absent has completed his consultations for a dialogue, known in advance that it will not happen, and if it does , it will just be a dialogue in vain.

Aoun received and bid a farewell, and met with several officials, but in vain. The main obstacle in the country will not be solved, neither by wishful thinking nor by hollow promises. The dialogue cannot take place with one party, while other parties refuse to attend and participate. Of course, the President of the Republic and the covenant team can claim that the other party obstructed the dialogue, given that it refused to participate in it.

But, Is the President of the Republic able to persuade Hezbollah to abide by what was agreed upon at the previous dialogue tables? We all remember that the party agreed in 2012 on Baabda Declaration, then retracted the approval, declaring through the head of its Parliamentary Bloc, Muhammad Raad, that the content of the declaration was not worth the ink with which it was written. Is the one who said such words ten years ago prepared for a dialogue in the first place? It is noteworthy that the party was not in the position of bulling at the time, as it did not participate in the battles of Syria, Iraq and even Yemen.

What about Hezbollah’s condition today, after it turned to be the most vital faction of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard? Anyway, the issue is not here, but rather in the spirit from which Hezbollah is based. When Hezbollah talks about dialogue and supports it, he is cheating the people.

How can we believe that the Yellow party wants dialogue while its is disrupting the Cabinet sessions? Isn’t the government the constitutional framework for dialogue on matters that are completely disputed, like the Parliament?

So why does the party want to deal a blow to the existing constitutional institution in favor of a constitutional institution that does not exist, which is the dialogue table?

In brief, Hezbollah does not want a dialogue, but rather wasting time in a fruitless and unproductive dialogue. Is that what is required after a deaf dialogue in Lebanon?