Quote:
Originally Posted by TAYYAR AL AOUNI  Sfeir: Experience Has Shown a Cabinet of Pro-Government and Opposition Forces Is Not Encouraging
Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir said in comments published Monday the formation of a cabinet that includes pro-government and opposition forces was "not encouraging" based on the previous experience.
In an interview with al-Massira magazine, Sfeir said: "A government in which a majority rules and the minority opposes will do well."
He added: "However, if a government is formed with one horse in the front and another in the back then the carriage will not be able to move."
He said the presence of both pro-government and opposition forces in a future cabinet would lead to "the obstruction and hindrance" of its work.
Sfeir insisted that he will continue to "be candid and speak the truth regardless of their words or threats."
"The important thing is for the Christians to know where they are headed," he added.
Asked whether he was pleased that March 14 remained a majority in parliament, he said: "To a certain extent the weight did not move to March 8, but we do not know what the future is hiding for us. Isn't it true that a transfer of power means that each of Iran, Syria and the opposition's Palestinians control the Lebanese situation?"
He said that the Lebanese expatriates "live in the United States, Australia, Canada and Europe not in Iran." He said that Lebanon had "absolutely no interest" to boycott the West
On Hizbullah's weapons arsenal, Sfeir said "there is no country in the world in which there are armed groups and others unarmed. The people wants to live in a state that treats them equally."
"The issue of weapons is in the hand of the state alone. The problem is that Hizbullah has become stronger than the state forming an abnormal and unnatural situation," he added.
"Is liberation an exclusive right for Hizbullah?" he asked. Naharnet News Desk |
The Western Diversion from Lebanon - General Michel Aoun
Rabieh, 27 of July 2009
Disraeli – one of England’s nineteenth century Prime Ministers – once said: “England has no permanent friends and no permanent enemies. England has permanent interests”. Based on this principle implemented in international politics, every state has a prioritized set of interests it tries to maintain. If incidentally the state has to choose between two interests, it will surely sacrifice the lesser interest to safeguard the one of greater value. Without knowing the interests of the countries with which we deal, we will not be able to know what the stances of these countries would be toward us should a conflict arise between us and other countries.
The interests of countries can be summed up in three: political, economic and security-military. If we assume that military supremacy, controlling energy resources and monetary control are at the heart of the US triangle of strategic goals, we will then find that Israel, being integrally linked to the United States in all its interests and constituting one of the essential US political, economic and military components, ranks first within this triangle. As for the oil-producing Arab countries, they rank second considering their enormous oil production and reserves and the fiscal surplus they are unable to invest in their own markets and depend on the United States in investing and ‘squandering’ it in the stock exchange.
Lebanon, on the other hand, does not exist within this triangle of American interests because, in comparison to its surroundings, it does not represent an important interest to the US. Lebanon, instead, is in the crosshair of its surrounding countries that seek to transform it into a solution to the Palestinian refugee problem or a consolation prize given to those who might get harmed by a resolution of the Middle East conflict.
Rejecting the return of the Palestinians and fearing the Arab population increase within its borders, Israel is first to demand that the Palestinians be naturalized in the countries of their current presence and that all who remain from them be deported from Israeli land. Israel enjoys, in its demands, the full support of the United States since, as previously mentioned, it is integrally linked to US interests. Consequently, the European countries that toe the United States policies are also among the supporters of Israel’s demands.
We are a people who are fond of freedom, respect human rights and love peace. We do not seek hostility toward the United States or Europe but it’s rather them who do; and the worst part of the issue is that they keep on pretending to embrace and care for Lebanon while they know well that their actions will lead to Lebanon’s implosion and fragmentation. This hostility toward Lebanon started with the creation of the state of Israel on Lebanese borders with the wars it precipitated and all their repercussions the burden of which Lebanon had to bear, from the flow of refugees and destabilization to the internal clashes with the Palestinian organizations. Our internal and Arab problems have been feeding on these clashes and have not ended yet. We are today in a worse shape than we were in the 6-day war period. At the time, Lebanese governments used to be formed in Lebanon whereas today we cannot tell where a government is actually being formed or who is forming it.
That era witnessed the start of confrontations between the army and Palestinian organizations, retaliatory Israeli raids on Lebanon and the Cairo agreement, in addition to continuous American pressure to control the Palestinians. Under these conditions, the situation escalated quickly and finally exploded on April 13, 1975 between the Palestinians and Lebanese factional militias.
As soon as that event took place, the western media started feeding the international sentiment with news of a “civil war” in Lebanon, keeping away from the world public opinion the true identity of the participants in this war as well as its catalysts and motives. What was happening on the ground was much different from what was being broadcast on radio and TV. The western media never reflected the true image of the Lebanese war: the more Palestinian groups arrived in Lebanon from Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria and other Arab countries, the more the western media emphasized the talk about a “civil war” in Lebanon thus disregarding the identity of the participants in this war, its financiers from oil-producing Arab countries and the Israeli interventions. Once the incoming Palestinian forces got the upper hand in Lebanon, the US envoy Dean Brown came and proposed to Presidents Frangieh and Chamoun evacuating the Christians away from their country. This was the only option he offered them.
Every Lebanese in general, and every Christian in particular, has to understand that if they want to preserve their country and themselves, the only choice available to them today is to unite, reinforce their national strength, immunity and solidarity, and steer away from the burning maneuvering of the greater powers rather than throwing themselves into its flames.
tayyar.org - Lebanon News -The Western Diversion from Lebanon - General Michel Aoun
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Watch this also:
YouTube - Michel Aoun Explains Why He Has Turned His Back on the West
25th August 2009
25th August 2009
