so it is no longer a secret that there is an open war on FPM by Feb 14 led by FM and assisted - directly or indirectly - by many Mar 8 members.
But is this war being waged on FPM because it is behind the crisis? Or is it because FPM is against the crisis?
Many of our "smart" politicians make statements left and right accusing FPM of being the cause of the whole impasse and that all of this is the result of not electing a president. But let's go back and recap some of the events in the past couple of years:
- the first crisis was when the parties were discussing a new "fairer" electoral law and they failed. That failure was not attributable to FPM but for those who refused to put such proposals for a vote in parliament. Namely Nabih Berri, of course supported by everyone in Feb14 and implicitly by HA. Was there a valid reason behind this?? No. Who was pushing for a fair election law? FPM. Crisis #1. That all happened when we had a president.
- then there was the "extension" of parliament's mandate. We all know it's wrong, unconstitutional. But of course just like everything in this country, it became a de facto blessed by our partial judicial system. Were there valid reasons for that extension? We all know it was all BS!! But they all supported it. Mainly Berri HA and of course FM and their satellite parties. FPM was probably the only party pushing for new elections, which is the logical and right thing to do. Crisis #2. All of this happened when we had a president.
- then there was the first extension of the military leaders' mandates. Once again, no vod reasons except for saying there was no consensus. Was that the right thing to do? Of course not. Who blessed it? All of feb 14 and March 8 except for FPM. Only at this point did the accusations that Aoun was creating a crisis just because he favoured his son-in-law. The crisis had already started. This was only nail #3. And we had a president at that time.
- then there were the presidential elections. Crisis #4 -- not #1!! Here Aoun was the easy target. He (and HA) boycotted the elections. We were already knee deep in the crisis And Aoun's argument was that agreement is needed. Of course he was the easy target. The rest of them cause crisis #1 to #3 for NO REASON, but now Aoun became the eye of the storm.
- then there was the second parliamentary extension. Again no valid reason!!! Some say we had no president - they forgot they extended it once before while we had a president, others say the situation didn't allow it, when we all know it's BS.
- then there e was the second extension for the military leaders. Again, justification is BS. Some said there is no president, forgetting they have done it already when we had a president. Others say the situation doesn't allow it forgetting we've had change of arms many times even during the Lebanese war.
So is this whole impasse caused by FPM? Or who is the real reason behind it?
Is he whole crisis resulting from not having a president? Or did the root of it start when we had a president?
Will the whole crisis be resolved if Aoun is broken? Or is breaking him one of he objectives of this impasse ?
Unfortunately people are busy with the latest developments and forget the chronology of events.
But is this war being waged on FPM because it is behind the crisis? Or is it because FPM is against the crisis?
Many of our "smart" politicians make statements left and right accusing FPM of being the cause of the whole impasse and that all of this is the result of not electing a president. But let's go back and recap some of the events in the past couple of years:
- the first crisis was when the parties were discussing a new "fairer" electoral law and they failed. That failure was not attributable to FPM but for those who refused to put such proposals for a vote in parliament. Namely Nabih Berri, of course supported by everyone in Feb14 and implicitly by HA. Was there a valid reason behind this?? No. Who was pushing for a fair election law? FPM. Crisis #1. That all happened when we had a president.
- then there was the "extension" of parliament's mandate. We all know it's wrong, unconstitutional. But of course just like everything in this country, it became a de facto blessed by our partial judicial system. Were there valid reasons for that extension? We all know it was all BS!! But they all supported it. Mainly Berri HA and of course FM and their satellite parties. FPM was probably the only party pushing for new elections, which is the logical and right thing to do. Crisis #2. All of this happened when we had a president.
- then there was the first extension of the military leaders' mandates. Once again, no vod reasons except for saying there was no consensus. Was that the right thing to do? Of course not. Who blessed it? All of feb 14 and March 8 except for FPM. Only at this point did the accusations that Aoun was creating a crisis just because he favoured his son-in-law. The crisis had already started. This was only nail #3. And we had a president at that time.
- then there were the presidential elections. Crisis #4 -- not #1!! Here Aoun was the easy target. He (and HA) boycotted the elections. We were already knee deep in the crisis And Aoun's argument was that agreement is needed. Of course he was the easy target. The rest of them cause crisis #1 to #3 for NO REASON, but now Aoun became the eye of the storm.
- then there was the second parliamentary extension. Again no valid reason!!! Some say we had no president - they forgot they extended it once before while we had a president, others say the situation didn't allow it, when we all know it's BS.
- then there e was the second extension for the military leaders. Again, justification is BS. Some said there is no president, forgetting they have done it already when we had a president. Others say the situation doesn't allow it forgetting we've had change of arms many times even during the Lebanese war.
So is this whole impasse caused by FPM? Or who is the real reason behind it?
Is he whole crisis resulting from not having a president? Or did the root of it start when we had a president?
Will the whole crisis be resolved if Aoun is broken? Or is breaking him one of he objectives of this impasse ?
Unfortunately people are busy with the latest developments and forget the chronology of events.
