Saad Hariri when asked by the French weekly "Express" on UNSCR 1559 and how will all its contentious components be met (namely Hizbullah's disarmament issue), Hariri answered that through dialogue the Hizbullah issue will hopefully be resolved, especially that Sayyid Nasrallah has demonstrated willingess to put this issue onto the negotiating table; however the Lebanese need international guarantees that if Hizbullah disarms, we would not be attacked by Israel.
But best of all when Hariri said the following: "If the international community pressures us further to fulfill the demands of 1559, we will then also call for the fulfillment of the resolution's first clause which namely condemns the extension of the President's term and brands it as undemocratic."
What do you say to that?
"Nobody knows how many rebellions, besides political rebellions, ferment in the masses of life which people earth."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I say get rid of the extension. But I matter little.
What does Hezbo say to that? Or is that another reason they don't like 1559?
Finally, someone says it. Enough with this bull about Hizbullah not being a sectarian party. The worst sectarian rhetoric during the elections and afterwards came from Hizbullah (and, at one point, from Jumblat.)
http://www.annaharonline.com/htd/ROZANA050712.HTM
الامر الآخر اللافت في نظر هؤلاء اعتماد "حزب الله" كليا على "اللغة" الطائفية وهو امر لم يعهدوه فيه سابقا وتجييش الطائفة الشيعية من اجل الدفاع عن سلاحه وموقعه من ضمن السلطة الجديدة. وهو امر يتخطى المبدأ الطائفي الذي تقوم عليه تركيبة او في مواجهة بقية افرقاء الداخل الحزب، الى المنطق او الخطاب الجديد الذي بدأ يعتمده في معركته في مواجهة القرار 1559واستعمال الطائفة لتحصين مواقعه السياسية.
وهو امر ستكون له انعكاسات خطرة متى واجه الحزب اي مشكلة داخلية وليس خارجية فقط على ما سيتحول تنفيذ القرار1559 الذي ستعطي الدول المعنية لبنان مهلة للبحث في ايجاد حل له. في حين ان وضع طائفة في مواجهة الطوائف الاخرى سيؤدي الى تعقيد الوضع الداخلي على ما تشير اليه تعقيدات الامور حتى الآن.
BOMB in Beirut? I'll update soon.
ok, target was elias al-murr, first indications are that he's still alive but wounded. passers-by and some bodyguards were killed, numbers differ from one source to another. still need to confirm that the mexican ambassador was also around. place of explosion: naccache, antelias. yalla i'm going to work. check bbc for more news, they were the first to announce.
before everyone starts wondering how could it be syria or maktab teneh if he is so pro-syrian, i would ask if it isn't a simple case of "he knows too much". and if lahoud is as cruel (or as stupid) as he seems, i wouldn't put it beyond him to allow the sacrifice of his own son-in-law if he felt it would somehow save him. i doubt his father's alliance with aoun played a big role.
actually all this makes me wonder if the link between kassir, hawi, and now murr (and a couple of years back hobeika) wasn't a simple "kill all those who know too much or are coming too close to the truth" order. knowing kassir, he probably was putting together some big story super well researched and he had come too close. hawi was a shrewd player who socialised with every single one of the old and the new guard, murr was interior then defence minister, and hobeika, well, we all know hobeika's past, but of particular relevance would be the years he spent at the ministry of resources and energy, or was it electricity- and the ridiculous deals and sums of money that were syphoned down there with no result...
what do you guys think?
TM, he was alluding to POINT 0 of resolution 1559 :-)
I quote from the UN resolution text (right before the first point):
"Mindful of the upcoming Lebanese presidential elections and underlining the
importance of free and fair elections according to Lebanese constitutional rules
devised without foreign interference or influence"
Implying that a new president must be elected (on the next day) because syria forcing an extension for lahoud is not consitutionnal nor free nor fair.
Pat
The clause is in fact point 5, but now that I think of it, I am sure I saw an arabic version somewhere where it was the first clause, maybe lebanese newspapers back then put it first because it was the hottest point on the night of the elections.
Pat.
TM,
You are right, it does not name anyone specifically. However, ignoring the allusion to Lahoud is almost like pretending 1559 does one ask for disarming Hizbollah (which not mentionned by name either).
If I remember correctly the resolution was being cooked earlier but was kind of rushed out the door when it was becoming clear syria wanted to extend for Lahoud, in order to try and prevent that but Syria counter reacted by "forcing" the extension before anyone can do anything about it.
I suppose things are kept intentionnaly vague enough as a part of the changes that happen before the draft is finalized to make sure some countries that may otherwise have some reservations will vote for it or maybe so that it does not appear as a severe interference in the soverenty of the country, or even to maintain "tari' el raj3a" in case things change ...
Lahoud is probably trying to take advantage of that vagueness, as is Hizbolla by saying that the resolution only asks for disarmement of militias and they are not a militia, but imho that's pushing semantics too far :-)
Pat
Post a Comment