Aoun today in Parliament brought the Resistance debate out in the open. At last, we are hearing open talk about this hush-hush topic.
He pointed that the Government Policy Statement refers to the Resistance in an Arab-wide context (refer to my previous post on the statement) and thus he asked the following: We all respect the Resistance but we would like to ask what are the Arab countries that we have to coordinate with in order to continue on with our Resistance? Syria? Syria has not fired one shot from its border towards Israel since more than 20 years ago. Jordan? Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1994. Egypt? Egypt was the first Arab country to sign a peace treaty with Israel. The other Arab and Gulf countries? We're seeing more and more of them moving towards naturalizing their relations with Israel....
While these words were being said, the cameras honed in on HA's Minister Fneich and Berri.
The debate is out in the open and the current government in fact is encouraging transparency. The Parliament today was a place where taboo subjects can be opened and dealt with. And it is in fact the right of MPs to relay their constituents' thoughts and questions in that public forum no matter what they are. That is the way to go....
"Nobody knows how many rebellions, besides political rebellions, ferment in the masses of life which people earth."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Sho, I guess Aoun was the one that allowed this type of debate to happen??? he seems to be taking credit for everything these days...
Glad to see someone ask the hard questions.
I am a bit disappointed, that there are still no comments here after half a day.
Lets see, hard question in Parliament for the first time in a while: no comments yet.
Previous post on government statement of intentions: 2 comments.
Post before, Geagea: 15 comments.
Our priorities are screwed up.
While in exile, did Aoun have any contacts with Israelis or pro-Israel groups?
Itiail
Well,
We are still suffering selective wakes of conscience from most parties, mostly lacking introspection.
I think the debate-to-rise can be very healthy, as long as there are no taboos and transparency applies to all. The meaning?
Asking that question is good. Asking it in the same speech that included the issue of the Lahad militia leaves him, and hence his better questions and platform unfortunately, exposed to attacks.
Hummbumm,
I am a (dovish) Zionist, so I certainly wasn't trying to impugn Aoun for talking to Israelis.
I wanted to know if Aoun had contacts with Zionist groups so I could guage just how serious Aoun might be about friendship with Israel. Nothing would delight me more than normalization between Lebanon and Israel. I think the Israeli-Lebanese dyad has more potential to be a warm peace than any other potential Israel-Arab State relationship.
I don't claim to know very much about Lebanese politics, so I was hoping that you could inform me.
Itiail
oh, could this be one of Aoun's well brewed schemes for more christian support? that and the SLA issue. hot issues for many christians, just check the Patriarch's ideas.
The words "Aon" and "well brewed schemes" ought not exist in the same sentence.
And Condi Rice agrees with me on that one...
I assume when they talk about Lebanese living in Israel, they are referring to the members of the SLA who had to flee for their lives. Well, to an outsider, they are still just as much Lebanese as was Geagea when he was in prison. He was welcomed home; I don't see why the SLE and their families can't also be welcomed home. The WAR has got to be put behind, and changes - as in the legislative policy statement - just cry to be made for the sake of the future of Lebanon.
I had thought that possibly Aoun had been in France too long, but his quoted speech makes me feel much better about his position. That topic is out of the closet now, and should be fair game for open discussion.
barney g.
There has to be some line of accountability drawn somewhere. Let the SLA is, and it would be as if the war never happened. That isn't the same as "getting over the war" and "understanding the war" but more "ignoring the war". Is there to be no sense of punishment for anyone who was involved? In other countries, a traitor (in the same way SLA are traitors, for various reasons) are punished with death. Here we are welcoming them back with smiles.
The most important issue currently is disarming Hizbullah. By bringing up the SLA issue Aoun opens himself up to attacks that he is an Israeli sympathizer. Which is not true, but shows how clumsy a politician he can be. Either that or he really cares less about being a positive force in disarming Hizbullah but just wants to placate his constituency, thus acting like all the other secretarian leaders…
The SLA army betrayed the country, so they sure as hell can wait a few more years before we discuss their issue. A compromise would be to have them spend time in prison upon their arrival.
"The most important issue currently is disarming Hizbullah."____It's no good just disarming them. What do they do after that? What employable skills do they have? Dump hundreds of ex-fighters on the streets and they will simply turn to organised crime - and they will very quickly re-arm. You have to find a role for them.
Is it possible to assimilate the resistance into the Lebanese Army? Call it Southern Brigade or something. What is the consensus in this regard?
The resistance COULD be folded into the Army, but there are other aspects to be considered. Do you want to integrate them completely into the Army, so that members of the resistance would be scattered throughout the Army? Or do you want to keep them as a unit, in the Army but together as a Brigade, say, stationed in the southern part of Lebanon?
If you did the latter, would there be any problems with Army command sending the 'Southern Brigade', say, into the Baaka valley to patrol the border? Or sending them as a unit to the north of Lebanon? I think there might be.
How do you suggest it would work?
barney g.
I dont think that Lebanon would have been able to negotiate with Israel to withdraw from the south. Without some form of armed resistance, the Israeli settlers would have moved into southern Lebanon a long time ago.
But a combination of armed resistance plus negotiation with Israel would have gotten them to leave. And then we wouldn’t have had Hizbollah getting the credit. The credit would have gone to the Lebanese government which is always a good thing in our fractured society.
This is all of course very hypothetical as with Syria in Lebanon there was no chance for one on one negotiations with Israel.. In any case I am totally against one-one negotiations with Isreal in theory. The Arabs should have bargained collectively a long time ago. But that went out the window thanks to Sadat..
As an aside to Ramzi S
People forget that Israel left or withrew from South Lebanon once (or twice?) well before there was a Hezbo, and I am not talking about May 17 Peace ag.
I need to look up the dates, but negotiations, and diplomatic pressure got them out before.
If I am not mistaken, Lebanon is the only country who got Israel out, both diplomatically and militarily without signing a peace treaty. How's that for the "weakest" Arab country?
JW,
ah yes, please look up the dates, and please note that pullout at the end of an inflitration operation is not a withdrawal. the latter usually succeeds an occupation.
an infiltration only shows that the "host" country was too weak/unwilling to stop the infiltration.
To the zionist guy: if aoun had contacts with israeli he would most certainly keep it secret. We're not THAT open yet. In fact he'd probably refuse any sort of direct contact, as it may cast him out of political life, and even out of the coutry.
That's another stupid taboo that nobody is willing to attack yet.
If someone here will tell me "no that's not a stupid taboo", well, what do you think about a lebanese singer who got impeached from participating in a contest because she'd be competing with israelis? How smart is that?
Post a Comment