Quote:
Originally Posted by mount_amel Objected the Disarment Before the MOU or After the MOU ? |
Before the MOU, and even after but less directly... For example the Red Line comment during the recent FEI fiasco, and the fact that they in general never say much on the topic in public! In the MOU they talk about disarming outside, but not inside the camps. And the MOU never links the disarmament of HA with that of the Palestinian and doesn't talk about priorities in that regard, however many FPMers are constantly repeating that.
Here is the only text I found on the web for these sections in the MOU if someone has a better translation or has them in Arabic please post them. (It used to be on the tayyar.org, but I couldn't find it in the new design)
From the MOU:
""
9– Lebanese-Palestinian Relations. Addressing the Palestinian file requires a global approach that asserts, on one hand, the respect by the Palestinians of the authority of the Lebanese State and their compliance with its laws, and on the other hand, the reaffirmation of solidarity with their cause and their recovery of their rights, in accordance with the following rules:
A- The social condition of the Palestinians requires a strong attention to improving their living conditions and securing a decent standard for the bases of a dignified human life according to the mandates of bilateral cooperation and the human rights charter, in addition to giving them the required facilitations to move inside and outside of Lebanese territory.
B- The Right of Return of the Palestinians is a fundamental and permanent right, and the rejection of the settling of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon is an issue that has the consensus of the Lebanese people and cannot be conceded under any circumstance.
C- Define the relationship between the Lebanese State and the Palestinians in a single institutional Palestinian framework that would be a legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in Lebanon in a manner conducive to proper coordination and cooperation.
D- Address the issue of bringing the practice of weapons outside the camps to an end, and make arrangements for the security situation inside the camps. This must be done as part of a serious, responsible and close dialogue between the Lebanese government and the Palestinians, leading to the exercise of the State’s authority and laws over all Lebanese territory.
10– The Protection of Lebanon and Preserving its Independence and Sovereignty. The protection of Lebanon and the preservation of its independence and sovereignty are a national public responsibility and duty, guaranteed by international treaties and the Human Rights Charter, particularly in confronting any threats or dangers from any source that could harm them.
Therefore, carrying arms is not an objective in itself. Rather it is an honorable and sacred means that is exercised by any group whose land is occupied, in a manner identical to the methods of political resistance. In this context, Hezbollah’s weapons should be addressed as part of a global approach that falls within two bounds:
The first bound is the reliance on justifications that meet a national consensus for keeping the weapons, which would constitute a source of strength for Lebanon and the Lebanese people, and the other bound is the definition of objective conditions that would lead to a cessation of the reasons and justifications for keeping those weapons. Since Israel occupies the Shebaa Farms, imprisons Lebanese resistance members and threatens Lebanon, the Lebanese people should assume their responsibilities and share the burden of protecting Lebanon, safeguarding its existence and security and protecting its independence and sovereignty by:
A- Liberating the Shebaa Farms from the Israeli occupation.
B- Liberating the Lebanese prisoners from Israeli prisons.
C- Protecting Lebanon from Israeli threats through a national dialogue leading to the formulation of a national defense strategy over which the Lebanese agree to and subscribe to by assuming its burdens and benefiting from its outcomes.
""