Quote:
Originally Posted by joseph_lubnan  The issue of Hezbullah arms is a matter of principle.
Some believe that the arms are no longer necessary from a pure Lebanese perspective. They believe that in fact today in 2008 the arms are a negative influence on the stability of the borders and Lebanon's ability to create and benefit from a neutral environment to protect itself as the middle east crisis continues to evolve. Some believe that the Shebaa farms are simply an excuse, that the prisoners issue can be resolved over time with other means and with calmer rhetoric much like everyone is dealing with the Syrian prisoners issue. Some have suspicions that Hezbullah's insistence on maintaining its arms doesn't only emanate from its desire to protect itself, in fact it is primarily driven by its desire to use these weapons for a broader regional goal that keeps the prospects of an open front in the south of Lebanon a reality for the benefit of regional players such as Iran, Syria and Hamas. Some believe that Hezbollah's weapons, may very well be used at some point in time for internal reasons, and they believe that political parties should not control militias and have arms that it can leverage politically, and internally, even if it doesn't ever use them. Some believe that Hezbollah is very interested in an Islamic Shiite state that transcends the borders of Lebanon and fear that one day It may use its arms to forward that goal. Some believe that peace and war in their country is an important matter that they should have a say in and are never willing to farm it out to one group, one sect, or one militia. These same people believe that appeasing HA is not the answer. They also believe that going to war with Hezbollah is not the answer either. They believe that isolating HA politically, and dealing with the matter of arms on the basis of strong principles and not on the basis of weak capitulation is the right way forward.
Back in the day GMA used to be one of these people.
Most people arent suggesting disarming by force, they simply do not agree with FPM's self-serving defacto capitulation in the form of a marketing tool - the MOU. |
Here is what I wrote on May 2, 2006, in a post regarding this issue:
Quote:
Regardless of what one feels about the Syrians, if you put the patriotic
emotions and fears aside, and from a 'mathematical' point of view, the
Syrians provided the balance needed to keep Harriri and Saudi Arabia
from a complete take over. When Harriri was killed, the Sunnis and
Jumblat turned to the Christians for help and support, then immediately
went back to their original objectives. Their greed led the 'Shiya' and
the Christians to recognize their need for each other, or created that
need if you like. Today, agree or not, I think Hezbollah's weapons
along with the Syrian/Iranian backing are what is keeping this balance.
The Christians are surviving all this by the work of few good people and
a lot of luck.
Another point is, the Sunnis, i.e., Harriri, have lots of financial
power, backed by one of the biggest financial powers in the world,
supported strongly by two of the most powerful nations in the world, has
selfish goals, and are on the offensive, are much more dangerous than
Hezbollah with weapons, who are on the defensive, regarded as
'terrorists' by major nations, and everyone is waiting for them to make
a mistake and use their weapons internally so they can discredit their
claim to be a Resistance and not a militia, and therefore go after them.
Also, don't forget who massacred Christians many times over including in
recent history.
Finally, If Harriri/Jumblat and their 'Christian allies' think that in
few month they can elect the president, and then everybody 'goes home',
they are delusional. It is the same scenario of 1989: no agreement on a
president was reached, two separate governments were formed and the
country went into turmoil. Neither the 'Chiya' nor the Christians are
going to sit back and say "oh well they elected a president! Let's go
home". The Harriri/Jumblatt are leading everyone to disaster. If we
think we are afraid that Syria may try and come back to Lebanon, wait
until then, when everyone starts fighting everyone else.
|
Quote:
|
Back in the day GMA used to be one of these people.
|
Back in the day we thought that when the Syrians leave, the Christians will not have to fight for their rights.
Back in the day we thought that when the Syrians leave, we will have a fair electoral law without the need for begging, and that we would never have to use the 2000 election law ever again.
Back in the day we thought that when the Syrians leave, the Christians will have equal representation in the government.
Back in the day we thought that when the Syrians leave, the Chrisitan will get to elect their leadership, and those elected leadership will be able to represent them and no one would have the power to sideline them just because they can.
Back in the day we thought that when the Syrians leave, we would not be threatened of a civil war just because we elected a leadership that Jumblatt did not impose on us.
Back in the day we thought that when the Syrians leave, there will be no more risk of 'islamizing' Lebanon, cncelling our holidays, and imposing a Muslim education agenda.
Back in the day...Back in the day...