It is assumed that the presidential meeting has turned the controversial page not only between President Aoun and speaker Berri, but also between Berri and Hariri who were in a critical situation.
Four main points from the issued statement caught the attention of the audience:
Never let any dispute threaten national peace and stability, Committing to the National Accord Document, addressing any dispute through constitutional institutions and law, and the provision of a suitable political and secure climate in order to hold the parliamentary elections on May 6 in a democratic ambience.
These points, whether applied or not, emphasize on an institutional orientation embraced by the state and the constitution, on keenness in addressing any dispute within the institutions not on the streets, and on a Lebanisation in handling national issues. Therefore, no external conferences nor interventions from here and there to resolve the Lebanese crises, but the Lebanese self-determination to maintain stability according to the state, the Constitution and the law.
Three basic questions emerged after turning this controversial page.
Will the political truce continue until the parliamentary elections? Did the presidential compromise include an implicit settlement related to controversial titles in their forefront the fate of the Ministry of Finance after the parliamentary elections? Is the settlement between President Aoun and Berri paving the way for a compromise between Berri and Bassil, or is the final settlement separated from the agreement with the head of the Free Patriotic Movement? If this is the case, will this compromise stand to face the dispute between the Free Patriotic Movement and Amal Movement?