14.1.06

Illusive cause?

Maybe what I am going to write, as my first post on this blog, is a bit controversial. But I'm fed up. I want to say all the things that have been resounding in my mind for a while and were annoying me. Palestinian camps! Politicians are saying the weapons should not be outside the camps. Why should they be inside the camps? Are camps strategic sites that help in the war against Israel? Or these weapons are targeting Lebanon itself and its sovereignty? I'm not telling that we should not support the palestinian cause. We can, but not in Lebanon. I used to be among those who defended this cause in Lebanon. (well, not quite, because at the time I wasn't born or was too young) But I found out, after all these years that I was wrong. (btw, i always do self criticism which i found healthy) Not only me. All those who participated in the war, from both sides. They killed each others for an illusive cause. For a cause that wasn't really worth it. (for us, as Lebanese) Lebanon has a history in either relying on foreign forces or defending other's causes. What did we gain from all this. Nothing. We lost too much. I hope that all Lebanese have learned from the past. I think we should see the war in a perspective that helps us surpassing all the problems and crisis we are and will encounter, as Lebanese. I'm not being xenophobic, not at all. But I think that we have the right to be chauvinistic, especially in these crucial times of Lebanon's modern history. The problem in Lebanon that there are many critical issues that are considered as taboo which is not healthy, and it's continuing till now.

17 Comments:

At Saturday, January 14, 2006 5:43:00 PM, Blogger JoseyWales said...

Nobilis

Agreed. Blogged several times on this. See my latest on Eido.

I would just add you are making the same mistake as those you criticize.

Why be defensive? No need to say "I am not xenophobic", no need to say "I am for the cause but blah blah blah"....

1) The laws of the country need to be applied. Sovereignty is a must.

2)A national debate ought to take place to determine first IF, then HOW and AT WHAT COST Lebanon will support, or not, the cause.

Why is it a GIVEN that "we" support the "cause"? Whatever the hell that means.

 
At Saturday, January 14, 2006 6:02:00 PM, Blogger Rampurple said...

I couldnt agree with you more. I believe there should not be any weapons in Palestenian camps. I don't see why they are allowed to have them. In or out of camps.

 
At Saturday, January 14, 2006 6:07:00 PM, Blogger francois said...

well the palestinian guns .... some people and i think the same are dating the lebanese civil war not from 1975 but from 1969, when the arab world pressured lebanon to accept those weapons on the lebanese territory.

lebanon unfortunatly is a small and weak country, with a community patriotism that allows some foreign parties to manipulate the lebanese communities.
the palestinians guns were not here to defend lebanon but a plan to destabilise lebanon at that time by syria and egypt because the lebanese soil was the only real democratic country in the middle east.

today, sorry but the palestinian weapons are not my main fear for the future. the palestinian dont have heavy weapons, it would easy for the lebanese army to make a blocus of these camps , to let everyone leave theses camps with some control and to enter these camps to get the fighters after some times.
my main concern is therefore not the palestinian camps but the "lebanese" weapons, in the hand of the hezbollah which is used the same way palestinian were used by egypt and syria, but by this time by iran and syria.

can we allow that? we have as you re saying to learn from our past, not to allow this same mistake to happen.
u re saying that we cant rely on foreign forces to defend lebanon, are theses forces having lebanese objectives or foreign objectives?
the hand is in lebanon, but the brain is in damascus or teheran.

the only way to get ride of that problem is to build a strong state that can oppose to the hezbollah's social services which explains its popularity, states social services.
hezbollah was also created to defend chiits not only from israliens but also from palestiniens, it s the state role to do it, not a organisation that is a state inside the state.

however, lebanese, i m sorry to say it are suffering from mass amnesia, they are not understanding that these days, the picture is more global then the lebanese scene. i m not having answers to the problems that include this global picture, but i know that we need to neutralise foreign influences in lebanon, among which there is the palestinians, but also the hezbollah.

if the lebanese were not having this amnesia, we wouldnt have been today forgetting aanjar's tombs that were discovered before tueni's assassination, we wouldnt have been allowing for an amnisty law for the war criminal's in the 90's without the confession of all their sins
we can forgive but we dont have the right to forget and we have to make possible that it wont happen again

 
At Sunday, January 15, 2006 3:40:00 AM, Blogger Jamal said...

Solutions anyone?

the palestinian problem in lebanon is much larger than the weapons. Unless we have a comprehensive solution to the half million "refugees", we will not get anywhere on this issue.

 
At Sunday, January 15, 2006 10:56:00 AM, Blogger nobilis tobilis said...

there are many issues to be solved in Lebanon. There are signs of a new war. I hope not. And what happened yesterday wasn't a good omen.

 
At Sunday, January 15, 2006 11:58:00 AM, Blogger francois said...

well to jamal first:
i dont think that the palestinian weapons are a problem as i explained b4, i think we have a social problem more then a military problem, therefore we might allow them to have access to knowledge and let them to work, we can replace syrian workers by palestinian working, i dont mind about it , we can facilitate their access to the universities if after they can work in the arab world and send their money here in lebanon to their families etc...
we have many ways to transform the disadvantage of their presence into an advantage even if the constant into that problem must be to prevent their implementation on the lebanese soil.


to nobilis tobilis:
to tell u the truth, i m happy that finally yesterday's problem occured as far as it was previsible that we would have such problems since the entry of the hezbollah in the government which has to comply with the UN resolutions. there was therefore a paradox and such paradoxes can only at one time or another explose in a way or another.
i was more scared by the delay it took to get into that result as far time makes the things worst, now what we have to check is how worst it is now.
but i m happy, why ? because finally things will move now.
i m even making some bets , thinking that we ll have a new government now, with the support but not the presence of the CPL, it is not in their interest, till the end of the fouad boutros commission, and the promulgation of a new electoral law, then new elections without that scelerat 2000 electoral law, then the election of a new president.
the CPL strategy that wasnt understood till now was to avoid being on the side of the 2 axes fighting in the middle east, the pro syro-iranian axe, represented by amal hezbollah in lebanon and the pro saoudian "american" axe represented in lebanon by the future movment. adopting a neutral attitude toward both of them was allowing the cpl to have the position he s occupying today: a position of judge which also explains why he ll be support the new government without being inside it.
the new war ll occur only if the role of equilibrium between the 2 axes is broken, internally or externally
internally we are close of a clash but i dont believe that we ll get to a clash
externally it can be broken by a military shot on the iranian nuclear facilities and the retaliation through the hezbollah on israel.

 
At Sunday, January 15, 2006 4:42:00 PM, Blogger JoseyWales said...

Jamal,

you are falling in the old trap: until the Israeli-Palestinian problem is solved (in 600 years) nothing can be done.

I refuse that.

Before any solution; we have to say, we have other priorities, our OWN.

You cannot say because there are 500K refugees then it's OK for Jibreel to have weapons everywhere and threaten our PM without consequence, etc...

Our pols behave, and talk, like we are willing to destroy Lebanon, again, for the sake of Palestine. I do not believe that even 5% of Lebanese are for that, especially when the stakes are laid out properly.

 
At Sunday, January 15, 2006 6:40:00 PM, Blogger Jamal said...

Josey-
ALl i'm saying is patchwork solutions won't get us anywhere. As Francois said, it's a major socio-political problem that is not about jibril or even israel anymore. It has to be resolved once and for all.

Francois-what new government scenario do you see? do you think aounist-future government (that's if they ever agree, which is very far as of now) can work without HA blessing?
how about Aounist-HA cabinet? I see no way Future is stepping aside at this point?

add in the external factors you mentioned and i'm not very optimistic.

 
At Sunday, January 15, 2006 10:23:00 PM, Blogger francois said...

aounist future of course

a ha - aounist government is not actual since the program of the aounist movment is toward the elimination of the sect parameter into the public administration

yes it can work out, a government with just the future and joumblat is technically possible but it wont have any support nor from the shiits nor from the christian point of view as kornet shewan is no more representative of thc christians , and as far the LF deputies were not elected by the christian vote in baabda aley and in the north of lebanon.
to get popular support from the christians against the HA, the future movment needs christian support
(i hate at this point this sect logic but this is the logic that prevails in lebanon)

on my side, i think that we are passing from the occupation to another stage, therefore of course during that stage, problem occurs, i beleive that we wasted time right now, we nearly wasted 1 year and i m happy that now things are going to move
i m believing that if we re falling now, lebanon would face 2 years of destabilisation before reaching a new equilibrium

the bet is that we cannot afford to belong to one axe or to another, i m not believing we will fall into a civil war or just a war, most of the young now that comes into the age of reason and the age of real political impact remember of the war and wont accept it anyway.

regards

francois

 
At Monday, January 16, 2006 1:08:00 PM, Blogger Joumana said...

Because they are cowards. NO GROUP has the right to bear weapons in a country save that country's army. NO excuses. Just common sense.

 
At Monday, January 16, 2006 1:23:00 PM, Blogger nobilis tobilis said...

François by saying : "2 axes fighting in the middle east, the pro syro-iranian axe, represented by amal hezbollah in lebanon and the pro saoudian "american" axe represented in lebanon by the future movment. adopting a neutral attitude toward both of them", u mean that this the lebanese aspect of the conflict between chiits and sunnits in the region? Which reminds me of what frangieh said last week.

 
At Monday, January 16, 2006 9:38:00 PM, Blogger Tempest said...

This topic has been milked for all it's worth, i'd say. I have rarely heard anyone support the palestinians and their weapons in lebanon... or to a lesser extent, the HA issue... albeit, there are those who believe this whole "resistance" and whatnot scam, and tend to support HA.

That said, I agree that lebanon does need help to clean up this mess, the palestinians must be met with force, if need be. Both because of the fact that they lack any legitimacy, and since the outcome would be positive.

I have the ominous feeling that the same cannot be said of HA. That might lead to a spiral of violence that we're better off without. They MUST succumb to the rule of law, they MUST disarm. That much is clear. How to do it is the question.

 
At Monday, January 16, 2006 11:37:00 PM, Blogger francois said...

nobilis:

lebanon would knew peace if foreign manipulations didnt occur in 69 through the pressure on the lebanese by syria and egypt to sign the cairo deals
lebanon wouldnt have been destabilised if in 75, the army interrupted the fight when it was possible to do so, but syrians pressured the members of the government in order to avoid it and this is due to the weakness of the lebanese constitution which is based on secterian division of the political executive.
was even lebanon a democracy ?
never, it was closer to an oligarchy then to a democracy.
all the countries that used to have a similar constitution dismantled that constitution as far it is not a constutution that allows executive to take decisions that have to be taken
if u re removing the secterian parameter:
france got ride of its 4th constitution
italie did the same
etc...

we need first before getting to any fight to rebuild an executive allowing us to deal with the current , this is why we need to be neutral, we cannot afford to be on one side or another side for the moment.
and something to be noticed, this weakness of the executive is the main explanation of the civil war but also of the eruption of movement such as the milicias that were created b4 and during the war.

yes there is a big threat of a fight between sunnits and shiits as it happens in iraq, but this threat , this is due to the irruption of fundamentalist movment and how were created theses mouvements, hezbollah , al qaida etc...
it was created to a huge frustration of the defeats of the arab secular countries mainly egypt and syria against israel.
how then these countries reacted ?
through fighting by proxies on the lebanese soil and floors.
we cannot let this happen again.

since i came back in lebanon in 97, i didnt notice that the war in lebanon was over, lebanon paid by a civil war the fight btw syria and egypt through the manipulation of the palestinians against israel
now we re back into the point of 75
2 axes fighting again ,
let them fight i dont mind about it, but in lebanon,
let them fight in iraq, let them fight in syria soon etc...
i dont believe that they ll be fighting in lebanon as far there was always a constant in the middle east equations till now
every time lebanon was destabilised, the arabic countries were stable and vice versa
now there is a need to stabilise lebanon as most of the arabic countries are unstable, destabilised by the 2 axes fight and destabilised by the occurance of a possible islamic revolution in the gulf etc...
this is why i dont believe now we ll have a war but we ll have attemps to destabilise lebanon which ll be failures.

however, lebanon is too small to exist by itself, lebanon needs protection and i prefer a far away protector then a "close" protector that will have direct interests on the lebanese floor.

but what is the meaning of close in this globalised world today?
we need to enlarg our views not only to the direct neighbours but also to other regional actors

i cannot accept a syrian or israelian mandat on lebanon
but i cannot accept as well that saudians are plugging us to the current war they are having against al qaida,
i cannot accept iranian inteferences on lebanon through the hezbollah to protect their interest

i would accept a US interest on lebanon, a european strong interest which is for me more secure for the lebanese through the meda partenariat

let me tell you one thing, lebanese are mostly mentally closer to europe through their mentality then turkey.
i used to live in strasbourg, where the european parlement is located, i can tell u that it is amazing how 25 countries today are talking, discusting together, how they made peace when 60 years they were fighting against each other.
i believe in that european spirit even if sometimes we can be disappointed.
what made europe going to that point ?
well prosperity by peace.
u want to get ride from the hezbollah? just tune the shiits to prosperity through a strong executive on the long term
in this short term ?
we dont need a war, but we need peace to bring that prosperity back to lebanon.

if they refuse in the short term ?
well this is not a problem, as most of the countries need a stabilised lebanon as they are unstabilised for the arab world and the international country today cannot accept anymore foreign interferences as it used to be in 69 till the 90
if such destabilisation would occur, trust me, maybe they wont send troops in lebanon but for sure many other countries that would be the authors of that destabilisation would directly pay for it

regards

 
At Monday, January 16, 2006 11:40:00 PM, Blogger francois said...

correction :

let them fight but not in lebanon

 
At Tuesday, January 17, 2006 11:43:00 PM, Blogger Jamal said...

"i would accept a US interest on lebanon."
Yes that turned out great for honduras, guatemala , el salvador,venezuela, bolivia, chile, argentina, etc....
Get to know our latest visitor, Mr. Elliot Abrams.
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Elliott_Abrams

is this what we want for lebanon?

 
At Tuesday, January 17, 2006 11:52:00 PM, Blogger Jamal said...

Don't get me wrong, i think we can learn alot from the U.S.
oBut we do not need someone like abrams , or john bolton calling the shots, because their interest in Lebanon ends in a fews months at most, and then we are left to deal with their mess for generations.

 
At Wednesday, January 18, 2006 12:35:00 AM, Blogger francois said...

theses countries are close to the US , lebanon is far away , which is a difference

 

Post a Comment

<< Home