Re: Hizballah threatens Lebanon again

On Mar 28, 10:08 pm, "Basil H" <hamdan.ba...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
The US and France have pledged to help the Lebanese army, not an
armed militia. The only armed militia at this point is Hizbollah.
There
is speculation about the other side arming themselves, but that is
only speculation,

Speculation or denial?

while we know for sure that Iran has been re-
supplying
Hizbollah with arms through Syria, in contravention to UNSCR 1701.

This is a fact while the above is speculation?

[...]
Because Syria's tactics is to use its Lebanese pawns, to fight
Lebanon.
Its the same tactic it has used during the civil war, agitate parties
against one another, create conflict and then wash its hands from it.
Without Syria's interference, direct and indirect, the Lebanese
problems
would have been solved a long time ago.

The Lebanese problems have always been internal. Involving and blaming
Syria doesn't resolve anything.

Your rhetoric is unfounded and based on the same old
propaganda. As Habtoor put it, terrorist acts exist in the entire
world, but are not a reason for the country's paralysis.

Then Habtoor better go tell Assad to leave us alone, without
his Hizbollah goons, there would be no paralysis.

What does Assad have to do with the corruption of the judges and
government during the last year?

[...]
I am sure there are many more weapons smuggling and transport that
have not been caught. Transporting illegal weaponry hidden in hay
through
residential areas is dangerous and illegal. Only the Lebanese army
has that authority, Hizbollah is acting as a state within a state
assuming
rights that it does not have.

As a resistance, they had rights that were guaranteed by former
governments. The Sheb3a Farms problem will be resolved soon (French
maps have been found that sustain the Lebanese sovereignty over the
territory), and after that, there won't be any reason left to have a
resistance movement.

I call for surrendering weapons, and for a political victory.
Unfortunately, the regional conflicts sponsored by the US are dividing
the Lebanese. I don't know what are Iran's intentions and I don't care
as long as they do not use Hezbollah as a proxy against Israel, we
avoid a nuclear crisis, and we reach an internal consensus for this
has been the legacy of those who created the Lebanese State: a
government based on power sharing - until we become wise and
politically mature enough to adopt secularism and therefore the
concept of democratic majority.

Again I applaud your wishes here, by they are not bourne out by facts
on the ground. Hizbollah is in fact an Iran proxy that is dragging
Lebanon down and serving the interests of foreign powers.

Hezbollah has showed a will to stop serving as a proxy yet this has
been met with suspicion and the adoption of foreign allies to counter
it. I'm pointing the finger to all those who are serving foreign
interests, Hezbollah included.

he main source for fear is Syria and its Lebanese
pawns. They are the ones that are armed in the first place and they
do not hide it. If they were to relinquish their weapons, the other
side would not be trying to re-arm themselves.

This is illogical justification (two wrongs don't make a right).

I never justified it, I just explained why it could be happening. I
still
do not think its right for any faction other than the Lebanese
army to to be armed.

We at least agree on this.

Weapons against weapons will lead eventually and irretrievably to
civil war or division.

That is right, then Hizbollah should disarm soon in order to avoid
civil war. Holding on to their weapons under the guise of a "national
resistance" is untenable and dangerous and could lead the other side
to re arm themselves. I am not justifying it, just observing that
this is a natural outcome. When one side is armed and refuse to
disarm,
the other side might end up arming themselves in order to counter
balance
it. Hizbollah cannot have it both ways, either they disarm or they
lose the right to ask for its political opponents to be disarmed

The small factions will not be able to disarm

Agreed. This is why I am formulating my opinion about disarming. Yet,
I don't pretend that my suggestion will be taken into consideration.

Hezbollah by force (Israel wasn't able to do it) and the latter will
not go to the mountains or Kesrwen. The only problems, if any, would
happen in Beirut not to discount the possibility of a future feud
between Jumblatt and Geagea - Lebanese politics tend to change
abruptly according to history. Hezbollah is no threat to the others
factions (not militarily), they know it, and we both know it.

Hizbollah is a big threat, without their weapons their illegal
tents would have been wiped out of downtown.

I disagree. Public demonstrations and political opposition are part of
the democratic life. Those tents' aim is to bring down the
irresponsible and unconstitutional government.

This
isn't our doing - it's the foreign interference consequence. Many on
SCL have opposed the possibility of the US' malevolent and ill-
intentioned meddling in Lebanon.

Speak for yourself, I find the US intentions and help in Lebanon
to be well intentioned and helpful. I am happy and proud
to see my adopted country helping my home country.

This is what I meant. You and others are refusing to acknowledge the
fact that the US, France, Saudi Arabia, (and Iran and Syria - there's
no disagreement here) are ALL helping themselves and not Lebanon. Your
adoptive country has been wreaking havoc in the region to the point
where your own compatriots aren't convinced anymore with the current
government's practices (there's even talk about impeachment).
Threatening Iran is not how you bring peace to the region (even if I
oppose a nuclear Iran, though I do approve of nuclear facilities for
producing energy). It's time for Israel to accept some sort of peace
proposal. It is the only key for a long lasting peace in the Middle
East.

DrSMITH.

Basil

.