Re: The disease is violence

DrSMITH wrote:

Will you accept a new poll to find out?

Anytime. For me democracy is not a-la-carte. It's an all or nothing proposition.

I already stated that we'll have to wait for more details although,
such political filth rarely gets published. You have to work with what
any politician lets slip.

OK, waiting, I am not in a hurry to expand the government to bring in bala Karameh, Franjieh the kid, and the turncoat general.

I never denied I might be wrong, but I see it as the only way out of
this deadlock. Do you have any other practical solution?

Yes, not in any particular order:

- End political sectarianism
- Let Lebanese nationals outside Lebanon vote with rights and obligations
- Decentralize the internal-policy government (short of the federation model)
- Strengthen external policy and national government and the army
- Equal economic and social development for all areas of Lebanon - eliminate high poverty concentrations
- Loyalty to the watan precedes all loyalties

Clauses are negotiable. The general trend is that we need to adopt progressives governance policies or else we will remain stuck in the 12th century (CE).

Then a public poll can solve this. Let the Lebanese population vote for
all the important seats adopting a new electoral law (Joseph is always
defending the idea of one man one vote - let's put it into practice).

Amen

At least, we would have a legal representation and those who are
voicing that the government is not representative will have fewer
alibis. If the March 14 is sure about its base, then they shouldn't
fear. Don't you agree?

March 14 is the base. You mean March 14 politicians :-)

This is why the extra constitutional dialog was set in the first place.
Why put people that will have to consult with their leaders each now
and then if you can put the leaders together.

Because the parliament contains constitutional representatives. What's the point of having a parliament if its inhabitants are not representative? Besides, leaving the head honchos out give them time to think before they open their mouths. The opportunity to think is not necessarily a bad thing.

At no time did I advocate its sanctity. The statement was presented as
a draft.

Technically, once it was signed it ceased to be a draft. You can call it a living document if you expect it to change.

Everybody was invited to join *conditionally*. In other words,
they are invited to bring their points of view, modify the text, add to
it and maybe even take out of it till a consensus is reached.

Do you really believe this? Let's see it took months of negotiation for two parties to reach a document that from their point of view is constructively ambiguous so that Aoun can explain it to his constituency one way and Hizbollah can explain it to its constituency another way.

Now bring a third party. If this party is a treated like a peer then it needs equal time to negotiate with Aoun, Hizbollah and Aoun-Hizbollah. That's a few more months. The constructively ambiguous agreement because even more ambiguous.

Now bring a fourth party. If this party is a treated like a peer then it needs equal time to negotiate with Aoun, Hizbollah, third party and Aoun-Hizbollah, Aoun-third-party, Hizbollah-third-party, Aoun-Hizbollah-third-party. That's many more months and more ambiguity.

I guess you get the progression. The way a new national understanding is done is by bringing everybody under one tent (a convention) and let them talk it out until they hammer out a common understanding.

Aoun was
the first one to agree with Hezbollah,

Actually Hizbollah and Berri had first (still have) their understanding. Hizbollah, Berri, Junblat and Hariri had their quad understanding just before the elections. Hizbollah clients are, in order: Berri, Junblatt, Hariri, Aoun, will kheir la 'oddem.

something the government hasn't
been able to do,

Taef

or hasn't wanted to do or, for all that matters to us,
hasn't done. Nor did they even propose another course of action to
include everybody.

You forget the Hiwar? The Hiwar achieved some understandings, deadlocked on Lahood and the weapons discussion were in still in progress.

As I have already stated, all we have is a Hezbollah
promise.

[..]

Hezbollah's weapons should be addressed as part of a global approach
that falls within two bounds: The first bound is the reliance on
justifications that meet a national consensus for keeping the weapons,
which would constitute a source of strength for Lebanon and the
Lebanese people, and the other bound is the definition of objective
conditions that would lead to a cessation of the reasons and
justifications for keeping those weapons.

Where is the promise here? What are the reasons? Hizbollah can tell its constituency that the reason is Israel's aggression that started with Palestine. Aoun tells his constituency that the reason is Shebaa. Nothing in this understanding resolves the ambiguity, in fact if anything it points to a national dialog! (see below)

Accordingly, once the Sheb'aa farms are reintegrated to Lebanon and the
prisoners are set free, Hezbollah's reasons to hold to its weapons will
cease to exist. Hezbollah will relinquish its weapons to a government
of unity.

That's your analysis and you miss a third condition, read below for full text.

http://www.cggl.org/scripts/document.asp?id=46257

10 – The Protection of Lebanon and Preserving its Independence and Sovereignty. The protection of Lebanon and the preservation of its independence and sovereignty are a national public responsibility and duty, guaranteed by international treaties and the Human Rights Charter, particularly in confronting any threats or dangers from any source that could harm them. Therefore, carrying arms is not an objective in itself. Rather it is an honorable and sacred means that is exercised by any group whose land is occupied, in a manner identical to the methods of political resistance. In this context, Hezbollah’s weapons should be addressed as part of a global approach that falls within two bounds: The first bound is the reliance on justifications that meet a national consensus for keeping the weapons, which would constitute a source of strength for Lebanon and the Lebanese people, and the other bound is the definition of objective conditions that would lead to a cessation of the reasons and justifications for keeping those weapons. Since Israel occupies the Shebaa Farms, imprisons Lebanese resistance members and threatens Lebanon, the Lebanese people should assume their responsibilities and share the burden of protecting Lebanon, safeguarding its existence and security and protecting its independence and sovereignty by:

1- Liberate the Shebaa Farms from the Israeli occupation.

2- Liberate the Lebanese prisoners from Israeli prisons.

3- Protect Lebanon from Israeli threats through a national dialogue leading to the formulation of a national defense strategy over which the Lebanese agree to and subscribe to by assuming its burdens and benefiting from its outcomes.

[end of quote]

So the third point requires a defense strategy to be formulated in a national dialog. In a national dialog session, Hizbollah presented a defense strategy that keeps the resistance withs weapons. The agreement is worthless as a binding document because it is ambiguous.

Their demands aren't impossible.
What are their demands that are not impossible? Facts please, not your
opinion of their demands.

Again: Prisoners and Sheb'aa farms.

And the defense strategy that keeps the "resistance".

If you won't read the statement, we won't advance.
http://www.cggl.org/scripts/document.asp?id=46257

Read it several times before.. that's why I am asking you to quote the part that you think make your argument so we can discuss it.

Wlo, if Bashar the Lion says that the sky is blue and you say that the
sky is blue does it make your view "are the apparent stance of some
politicians" [Bashar]?

I'm lost between this and Joseph's coincidence theory :-))

Add to this your no linkage theory. My and your characterization of JM's theory (if true) are not that different. Separate people independently reaching an intuitive conclusion is a coincidence.

Yes, because it translates into believing Iran is pushing Hezbollah's
buttons, which is a March 14 / US propaganda. Moreover, when I'm
pointing to this being untrue (for lack of substantial proof, and I did
post about Iran not getting off the hook despite the fact that some
accuse Hezbollah of seeing into the future), I get accused of many
things (the least of which is having an IQ inferior to that of rocks
:-))).

We're not out of the woods yet. US is still hell bent about doing something to Iran and Hizbollah still has missiles with which it can retaliate if Iran it attacked or cornered. Whether or not you believe that Iran pushes Hizbollah's buttons, when the missiles start flying Israel will not turn to you for advice. They will retaliate. So it doesn't matter whether you think that Iran pushes Hizbollah buttons. People in a position of decision making do.

Let's be direct with this then: do you agree with the March 14 agenda*
(which only clear goal has been to disarm Hezbollah without
intermediate steps)? If not, then I'm wrong - no shame in admitting my
mistake.
(*Check below)

Point to a website that has "March 14 agenda" for reference. I am for the points that were verbalized by the March 14 demonstrators (and Later Feb 14 2006 demonstrators). Essentially:

- Truth about Hariri
- Syria out
- Lahood and company out
- popular opposition to Syria's agents in Lebanon
- Hurriya siadeh istiqlal

Where is the Hizbollah disarmament in this list?

I am for putting the Hizbollah military command and control under the Lebanese Army, i.e. the Lebanese government. Everything else can remain the same: missiles, weapons caches, fanaticism, philosophy of resistance, philosophy of martyrdom, etc. whatever works.

I'm not associating you, I'm stating that my impression is that you are
associating yourself in thought (only in ideas, since you have already
announced that you're not associated with anybody and there's no debate
on this).

How do you know how I think? Again, don't interpret me, thank you, quote me. I don't need interpretation.

Don't you want the March 14 politicians to succeed in disarming
Hezbollah?
That's not possible, how can I advocate it, silly?

It's not advocating, it's wanting. The answer is yes, no, huh? :-)

No.. The question supposes an impossible situation. Since I never beat my wife, I can't stop a beating that never happened :-)

I don't want anyone but the Lebanese government to make war and peace decisions and that's no loose weapons for: Hizbollah, Syrian-Palestinians, SSNP, Baath, etc.

So we were talking about two different things.

Akhiran

At no time ever did any
of my comments include the March 14 marchers.

At no time ever did any of my comments include the March 14 politicians. You are trying to ram the March 14 politicians in my throat and smear me by insisting on an association.

Whenever I mention March
14, it's related solely to the politicians. (*This is where my
reference above points to).

Whenever I mention March 14, it's related solely to the marchers.

Lol! Two things here: Bashar can scream his lungs out and I would
insist he keeps his opinions to himself. Yet, he's intelligent enough
to play on details, and those details I keep mentioning (and he
parroted them) are internal Lebanese impressions. The facts are the
following (based on simple media reporting):

Oh boy.. facts you say? I say opinions.

You're welcome to correct me if I'm wrong in any of the above.

I just did.

Now if
we agree on those points, what do you make out of them (concerning
Hezbollah and Saniora and Co.)?

Start considering them opinions and we have something to discuss (my opinion vs yours). As long you insist they are fact there is nothing to discuss. Facts are by definition not debatable.

bassem
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The disease is violence
    ... Israel held on to the remaining three as a bargaining chip ... Unless Hizbollah is willing to sweeten the deal (and ... the first one to agree with Hezbollah, ... also said politicians are welcome to join bringing their conditions. ...
    (soc.culture.lebanon)
  • Re: government duplicity
    ... Israel advised its generals after the latest Lebanon war not to travel to England because somebody in England of allegations of Human rights abuses against them. ... Syrian is still in Lebanon through its killing machine, through Hizbollah, through a number of Lebanese politicians without conscience, and now through Aoun. ... Hizbollah are in the government because Lahood had veto power and would not have agreed to a government that doesn't include his allies Hizbollah. ...
    (soc.culture.lebanon)
  • Re: Politics and the military (Re: The rise in military science fiction)
    ... >> A modern Western army, equipped with the weapons of the 19th century ... >> tremendous progress in the hardware end of things. ... > perhaps because our politicians receive no training or certification. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
  • Re: Things Western industry learned from the Soviets?
    ... politicians, which is why they only built about 1,000 instead of the 10,000 ... Weapons evolve, the ... there's a evolutionary track all the way back to fifteenth century hand ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: MASSACRED ENGINEERING STUDENTS
    ... Europe is slowly surrendering to the Islamics. ... Some politicians might be afraid to tell it like it is but you can be ... weapons and use it on them. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)