Why the governemnt wants HA's weapons first and not Palestinian weapons?

[GMA forever]

Originally Posted by Learned

The question is, how much longer will it take March 14 before they come to terms with reality?

I'm guessing never.

Well they weren't brought to us from the beginning in order for them to come to reality, but rather to stay as they are and all what they can do is provoke provoke and provoke more.

I don't blame their leaders, the ones that are getting paid for these stances, I blame the poor followers who were fed enough blind hate in order not see what is being done.

But what the hell, every season has its slogans: earlier it was DAROURE SHAR3E WA MOU2AKAT, now it is 7ARRAR 3AMMAR 3ALLAM. Don't worry you will always have people that believe them.

[chafic]

Originally Posted by GMA forever

I agree with you that the main problem are the refugees and this is where Lebanon must have a strong card at hand or else who do you think will care to solve that problem for you if you couldn't impose it?

Impose it on who exactly? I think ideas in the absolute can sound attractive: cards in hand, impose,...; Practically, how could that translate in a realistic scenario to anything in favor of Lebanon? (Assuming that this is the real purpose behind Hezbollah's military organization which I strongly doubt)
I think the issue here is the pros and cons of one choice over the other.

Originally Posted by GMA Forever

I agree with you too that Lebanon is very much behind in its preparations for peace negotiations with Israel, mainly because the dear ministers and presidents that were there were more busy filling their pockets and fighting over personal gains and who can please the major powers more rather than concentrate on crucial matters like these, especially that they got used to have their stances taken for them by those outside powers whoever they were. Hizballa's mistake here in my opinion, is that they turned a blind eye on these matters, thinking that let those politicians fight over the government and leave us in peace with out resistance. Little did they know that those same politicians will come afterwards to fight with them.

No, we're much behind because most of the Lebanese (parties and people) do not want that peace; It's even viewed as a form of treason.

Originally Posted by GMA Forever

Well whether you consider it self destruction or not, and whether you like Hizballa or not, you & me cannot deny the fact here that Hizballa succeeded to create a balance of power with Israel, that each one don't dare to mess with the other. This is not only the opinion of Hizballa's supporters and sympathizers, but rather the opinion of the Israelis themselves.

It's not about liking Hezbollah here (what is "liking" a political party\militia anyway?); I don't think that there are by any means any balance of power between Israel and Lebanon (or Hezbollah), they're not even close in military strength, and thus talking about a balance of power is totally delusional. It's just that Israelis realize that the guerrilla warfare methods of Hezbollah would inflict losses on Israeli forces in a conventional war invasion, and that small fighting groups would be hardly controllable, or defeated.

[chafic]

Originally Posted by emotion

This was Israels aim with the war:
"It was made clear to us on several occasions that the issue is not freeing the soldiers, but changing the political arena. Olmert made it clear he had no intention of negotiating over any issue related to the war, and the same goes for the rest of the Israeli representatives we met. They were confident of their victory."

How serious do you think they were with Annan? It's just a show of "good will". Sure, the Israelis wants peace with all the arabs but on what conditions? Will the Israelis respect all UN resolutions in a peaceagreement? That is the least any arab country should demand if it is to be called a Just Peace. The Israeli message has rather always been: Taht Sermaiti please...thank you!

So the real bottom line is and has always been, what does Israel want?!

emotion,

1- What do you think of the peace treaties signed between Israel and Egypt and Jordan?
2- Yes, it was obvious that Israel's aim was not simply freeing the two soldiers, and they made it clear ever since the war started. Hezbollah's aim was not freeing the Lebanese prisoners either.
3- A peace agreement is consensual, it's an agreement. If you think the terms do not serve your national interests, you're not forced to sign such an agreement.

[GMA forever]

Originally Posted by chafic

Impose it on who exactly? I think ideas in the absolute can sound attractive: cards in hand, impose,...; Practically, how could that translate in a realistic scenario to anything in favor of Lebanon? (Assuming that this is the real purpose behind Hezbollah's military organization which I strongly doubt)
I think the issue here is the pros and cons of one choice over the other..

Impose it on the Israeli side of course. I mean is it so hard to imagine, that Lebanon can also have its conditions for peace? Cards in hands and imposing are not just beautiful slogans, they are crucial for you as a Lebanese in order to be at the negotiation table and not on the negotiation table.

Israel (supposedly) wants to secure its northern border, Lebanon wants a solution for the Palestinian refugees apart from naturalisation, now you let your imagination flow.

Originally Posted by chafic

No, we're much behind because most of the Lebanese (parties and people) do not want that peace; It's even viewed as a form of treason..

Well the normal people wants peace badly, most of the politicians and warlords don't want peace with nobody since using the pretext of having a monster ennemy south of the border allowed them before to oppress, kill and steal, and now having a "new" ennemy north and east of the border is allowing them again to oppress, kill and steal.

Originally Posted by chafic

It's not about liking Hezbollah here (what is "liking" a political party\militia anyway?); I don't think that there are by any means any balance of power between Israel and Lebanon (or Hezbollah), they're not even close in military strength, and thus talking about a balance of power is totally delusional. It's just that Israelis realize that the guerrilla warfare methods of Hezbollah would inflict losses on Israeli forces in a conventional war invasion, and that small fighting groups would be hardly controllable, or defeated.

Well if you don't apreciate the word liking in politics then you can use the word supporting instead.

The balance of power created by Hizballa is exactly what you describe in your post about the guerilla warfare methods with some higher capabilities of Haifa and my ba3da Haifa!
Was it efficient or not? well go ask the people of the south who are directly under Israel's threat and see if they tell you they feel safer with Hizballa or not.

[chafic]

Originally Posted by emotion

Considering Israels bloody history and them beeing very similiar to an apartheid state, what kind of assurances would make you believe that Israel will not annex Libanon or parts of it in the future?

Originally Posted by emtion

I really think they should try it so you can realise that it's worthless if the lebanese would push for a just peace. What do you think the lebanese demands should be? Do you think Israel will accept them?

Good the point here is:
-What are your demands?
- What would you offer in return?
Regarding Lebanese demands, I think they've been mentioned pretty many times on the forum, so I would simply repeat the same thing. As I said earlier, the impasse here is the question of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon which realistically would involve more than simply Lebanon and Israel, for any possible solution; Yet, the perpetuation of war is more than futile in approaching this problem. I think it's only a huge delusion.

Originally Posted by emotion

Because never in the history of Israel have any negotiations produced any justice. And what do you mean with internationally? US?

Justice is a flexible term don't you think? It depends on what you consider to be just; After all, Israel and few Arab countries reached agreements, and they're now negotiating with others; What matters is reaching an acceptable solution by both parties.
As for "internationally", I mean the US, the whole world governments, and peoples.

Originally Posted by emotion

Never, that I know of...

Thank you. Agreed.

Originally Posted by emotion

By demanding that Israel follows the UN resolutions.

Weapons never demand. And what resolutions are you exactly talking about?

Originally Posted by emotion

Nothing if the peace is just.

Agreed, but would you please define your understanding for a just peace?

Originally Posted by emotion

Because it would no longer be a bargaining chip. If so they could get rid of it in other ways, like they've been trying to do fort the past X years.

Can you elaborate?

Originally Posted by emotion

By making them the minority.

Mass killings?

[chafic]

Originally Posted by GMA forever

Impose it on the Israeli side of course. I mean is it so hard to imagine, that Lebanon can also have its conditions for peace? Cards in hands and imposing are not just beautiful slogans, they are crucial for you as a Lebanese in order to be at the negotiation table and not on the negotiation table.

Israel (supposedly) wants to secure its northern border, Lebanon wants a solution for the Palestinian refugees apart from naturalization, now you let your imagination flow.

GMA forever,

How to impose it on Israel? The latter couldn't care less if you don't conclude a peace agreement with it, if the price it has to pay for that peace is taking back hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees. It would certainly prefer to deal with occasional security threats on its northern borders, as long as it has the military superiority. It has much less to lose than Lebanon would; After all, what political weight would a war wretched Lebanon have?

Originally Posted by GMA forever

Well the normal people wants peace badly, most of the politicians and warlords don't want peace with nobody since using the pretext of having a monster ennemy south of the border allowed them before to oppress, kill and steal, and now having a "new" ennemy north and east of the border is allowing them again to oppress, kill and steal.

Well, I won't allow myself to speak in the name of the people, but I think that many, at least publicly, do not express that they want peace (in the political term of it). As for the other part, I agree.

Originally Posted by GMA forever

Well if you don't appreciate the word liking in politics then you can use the word supporting instead.

The balance of power created by Hizballa is exactly what you describe in your post about the guerilla warfare methods with some higher capabilities of Haifa and my ba3da Haifa!
Was it efficient or not? well go ask the people of the south who are directly under Israel's threat and see if they tell you they feel safer with Hizballa or not.

I have no doubt that, Hezbollah's supporters, a considerable part of the Lebanese people, consider Hezbollah to be protecting them, for one reason or the other (After all, Hezbollah has enough means to rebuild, compensate, and indoctrinate).
The question is: How did Hezbollah protect Lebanon in summer 2006? Did it really prevent the death and destruction? Did it prevent the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Lebanese? I think it was not efficient at all, at least in protecting the Lebanese people. .What it did, at best, was protecting itself (as a military organization).
(And again, I don't want that to be understood as belittling the efforts of Hezbollah's fighters as individuals, or the attitude of Southerners and\or Hezbollah's supporters; But that simply doesn't imply rightness in political choices).

Regards

[GMA forever]

Originally Posted by chafic

GMA forever,

How to impose it on Israel? The latter couldn't care less if you don't conclude a peace agreement with it, if the price it has to pay for that peace is taking back hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees. It would certainly prefer to deal with occasional security threats on its northern borders, as long as it has the military superiority. It has much less to lose than Lebanon would; After all, what political weight would a war wretched Lebanon have?

Chafic why are we doing Israel's work instead of them. Well they don't wanna take the palestinians back, at least let them help solve their case. I think that you agree with me that Lebanon alone cannot solve that issue. And by stating that Israel would prefer occasional security breaches instead of solving the issue of the palestinians refugees well this means that the Israelis don't want peace. And our whole argument was that the israelis are already ready for peace and we are not.

Originally Posted by chafic

Well, I won't allow myself to speak in the name of the people, but I think that many, at least publicly, do not express that they want peace (in the political term of it). As for the other part, I agree.

I am also skeptical like you, but to live with the idea that the normal people refuse peace and would prefer to have a permanent state of war instead of wishing for a peaceful future for their kids is kind of scary to me and it can only show that we are all doomed in this tiny little piece of land. I'd rather stay optimistic here.

Originally Posted by chafic

I have no doubt that, Hezbollah's supporters, a considerable part of the Lebanese people, consider Hezbollah to be protecting them, for one reason or the other (After all, Hezbollah has enough means to rebuild, compensate, and indoctrinate).
The question is: How did Hezbollah protect Lebanon in summer 2006? Did it really prevent the death and destruction? Did it prevent the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Lebanese? I think it was not efficient at all, at least in protecting the Lebanese people. .What it did, at best, was protecting itself (as a military organization).
(And again, I don't want that to be understood as belittling the efforts of Hezbollah's fighters as individuals, or the attitude of Southerners and\or Hezbollah's supporters; But that simply doesn't imply rightness in political choices).

Regards

Well we can only compare summer 2006 with spring 1982. Back then it took the Israelis less than 4 days to make it to our capital, in 2006 it took them almost 40 days not to even reach al litani.
Now if you are gonna tell me that the Israelis didnt want to occupy Lebanon and they would have succeeded if they intended to, well here we can both only speculate, but the amount of bombardments and the amount of artilleries and soldiers brought to the border shows very well that if the Israeli would have had their way, they would have surely invaded.

Best regards

[Tanios]

Originally Posted by GMA forever

BTW4: If you disarm HA today, what bargaining cards will you have to use with Israel if ever you were to have peace negotiations with them?

Oh I am sorry, you didn't think that far, ma3le I forgive you, you are not alone with this symptom.

Can't u realize keeping your so-called "bargaining chip" is going to burn Lebanon.

The problem of Lebanese people, as the Qatari Prime Minister is simply that they are ... too intelligent!!

We Lebanese are always right and we like to give lessons to the entire world, we can predict the end of Israel, we can insult all the countries that are trying to help us (except Syria and Iran, those are really sincere they don't need something from us they are simply genuiney helping) when we are not even capable of preventing our country from burning !!!!!

I am simply saying you want to keep the arms as "bargaining chips" and are simply missing the fact that the most likely outcome of having weapons the way we have will be civil war!

Again I have never said we should disarm HA by force, but we should really focus on this subject if we don't want Lebanon to enter a new "Nakba"

[Shuyu3i]

This bargaining chip is just an excuse for HA to hold on to its weapons. When was HA against the palestinians? Did you all forget when SHN said that the camp is a red line? Why would he want to defend lebanon from the palestinians knowing most of them are PROSYRIANS LIKE HIM. I don't get it.

[Zghertewe]

Originally Posted by Shuyu3i

This bargaining chip is just an excuse for HA to hold on to its weapons. When was HA against the palestinians? Did you all forget when SHN said that the camp is a red line? Why would he want to defend lebanon from the palestinians knowing most of them are PROSYRIANS LIKE HIM. I don't get it.

When SHN talked about the camp as a Red Line, he meant the civilians.