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. |
Drop your governmental declaration first and then, you will have the right to ask such request to FPM. Ask Hariri to stop his 20 years of support for the resistance and then, you can go back here and tell us what you are asking for now.
The first (and only lebanese) document which is evoking the end of Hezbollah arms is the MOU. If the people who are criticizing it have another solution, we urge them to sign it with Hezbollah, otherwise it's not a solution. When you look for a solution, you do it with what you're thinking is the problem and not by insulting or disrespecting or diabolizing him every day.
What is unbelievable here is that you are talking about Hezbollah arms which were never turned against Lebanese (and they proved their efficiency on summer 2006) but no word about Palestinian arms. The civil war started with Palestinians and 1 year ago we were attacked by extremists from Palestinian camp of Nahr el Bared too.
Your support of Palestinian arms is so obvious and you want to hide it by parasiting and asking for the end of the only Lebanese resistance against Israeli agressions.
Joseph Lubnan, if you had some credibility, you would ask first for the end of Palestinian arms which were always our big problem but your only concern now is to mark political points by provoking sectarian tensions. Corner Hezbollah politically means corner a big portion of a lebanese community...ya3né the same technique Hariri-Joumblat-Berri used against christians during syrian occupation. Shame on you!