Partitionning Lebanon

johnnyFPM

johnnyFPM

Legendary Member
I think no one is seriously talking here about a full partition of the country. A full partition btw if it ever happens will only be the consequence of a major regional change. If for example the situation in Syria evolves to the point where the regime becomes cornered to create his Alawit state on the coast, this might have a domino effect on the whole region from Iraq to Lebanon and help the creation of mini-states. But all that doesn’t seem to be anytime in the near future.
Again, why talk about partition (i.e. creating mini-states) when the above mentioned event can lead to a complete redrawing of Levant borders, and thus create a Christian country larger than what can be hoped from partitioning Lebanon.
 
  • Advertisement
  • Robin Hood

    Robin Hood

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    While France had strong sympathies for t
    he Maronites, the French government did not support their demands without reserve. In Mount Lebanon, the Maronites had formed a clear majority of the population. In a 'Greater Lebanon', they were bound to be outnumbered by the Muslims of the coastal towns and their hinterlands, and by those of the Bekaa valley; and all the Christian communities together, in a 'Greater Lebanon', could at best amount to a bare majority. The Maronites, however, were insistent in their demands. Their secular and clerical leaders had pressed for them during the war years among the Allied powers, not excluding the United States. Af'ter the war, the same leaders, headed by the Maronite patriarch Elias Hoyek in person, pursued this course at the Paris Peace Conference; and in the end the French yielded. On 1 September 1920 - barely four months after the conclusion of the San Remo agreement; barely two months af'ter the flight of' King Faysal and his Arab government from Damascus - General Henri Gouraud, from the porch of his official residence as French High Commissioner in Beirut, proclaimed the birth of the State of Greater Lebanon, with Beirut as its capital. The flag of this new Lebanon was to be none other than the French tricolour itself, with a cedar tree - now hailed as the glorious symbol of the ancient country since Biblical times - featuring on the central white.
    http://almashriq.hiof.no/lebanon/900/902/Kamal-Salibi/

    I wonder what was going in the head of the Maronite leaders back then...
     
    Libnene Qu7

    Libnene Qu7

    Super Ultra Senior Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    It’s not a matter of dreams or not, it’s matter of knowing if a sect in Lebanon has to endure the consequences of the behaviors of other sects’ ad vitam aeternam, or till pigs have wings. I know that Christians behaved awfully during the war and were not less barbarians than others. Yet, after the war and till nowadays Christian’s areas seems to be on a complete different planet than other sects’ areas. While Shia and Sunni regions are slowly slipping into chaos and outlaw with gang rules, private parties militias, checkpoints, kidnapping against money, smuggling guns and men to Syria, you still have a kind of stability, order and law within the Christian’s regions.

    The question is how long should Christians endure the regional policy of bearded religious fanatics from other sects, one year, ten years, fifty years, a century? I have no problems in accepting that other sects lives in the medieval ages or in eternal war with or against their neighbors, or send wave of their kids to fight divine conflicts, if that’s what they really aim for in life, but they should not dragged us with them till no end.

    I think no one is seriously talking here about a full partition of the country. A full partition btw if it ever happens will only be the consequence of a major regional change. If for example the situation in Syria evolves to the point where the regime becomes cornered to create his Alawit state on the coast, this might have a domino effect on the whole region from Iraq to Lebanon and help the creation of mini-states. But all that doesn’t seem to be anytime in the near future.

    Regarding federalism, it’s true that it is more of a Christian demand than a demand coming from other sects and that’s comprehensible. Basically Lebanon is shaped by three main demographical entities, the Christians whom at least on the electoral lists provided by the government (since no official census had been made for more than 80 years) represent 38-39 % of the electors, the Sunni and the Shia who represents each around 28-29% of the electors. Of course we have also other important minorities like the Druze and Alawit, but let’s limited for now to the main big three.

    Unlike the Christians of other Arab countries whom always lived with a submissive mentality toward the ruler, Lebanese Christians due to their demographical weight (they still represents the majority or the overwhelming majority in many of the Country’s districts) and to their historical importance since they created modern Lebanon, are uncomfortable with the fact of being dragged backward by other sects policy.

    I have never seen before the word “federalism” so much tagged in the streets of Ashrafieh as I see it today, a sign that Christians are becoming more and more fed up to be forced to live regressively because of the choice of others.
    You speak of Christians having to "endure" and live through pains that other sects are forcing... Seriously? Do Muslims vote for the likes of Michel el Mur, N2oula Fattouch, Sami Gmayel, and Strida Geagea? Ok, maybe Strida. In any case, I'm sure you get my point. I wouldn't trust the Lebanese Christians with a dog, let alone a country. And don't get offended, I'm Christian too (by name). If the Christians started to pop out young, secular, non-feudal and non-warlord politicians, with true political agendas and policies, and our fellow Muslims didn't follow suit... then maybe, just maybe I will consider the option of federalism. And so would many enlightened Muslims too (they'd want to join our state). But reality states that as backwards as YOU and many other Chrsitians see their fellow Muslims, you guys, my friend, and far more regressive. Short skirts and alcohol don't make you cultured and civilized. What happened with that pub in Dekweneh where the municipal police "checked" the boys' derriers to see if they're homo? I truly wonder what they were expecting to find. No thanks, you can keep your medieval Christian Inquisition to yourself. As in the words of the great @Dry Ice; Walih faqih better than Inquisition.
     
    Robin Hood

    Robin Hood

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    They did not want to abandon christians, particularly maronites, in non-Mount Lebanon regions... And they wanted to take advantage of the Bekaa for its agricultural wealth (back then, Agriculture was like Oil & Gas today)
    And at the end, they got outnumbered...
     
    Robin Hood

    Robin Hood

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    You speak of Christians having to "endure" and live through pains that other sects are forcing... Seriously? Do Muslims vote for the likes of Michel el Mur, N2oula Fattouch, Sami Gmayel, and Strida Geagea? Ok, maybe Strida. In any case, I'm sure you get my point. I wouldn't trust the Lebanese Christians with a dog, let alone a country. And don't get offended, I'm Christian too (by name). If the Christians started to pop out young, secular, non-feudal and non-warlord politicians, with true political agendas and policies, and our fellow Muslims didn't follow suit... then maybe, just maybe I will consider the option of federalism. And so would many enlightened Muslims too (they'd want to join our state). But reality states that as backwards as YOU and many other Chrsitians see their fellow Muslims, you guys, my friend, and far more regressive. Short skirts and alcohol don't make you cultured and civilized. What happened with that pub in Dekweneh where the municipal police "checked" the boys' derriers to see if they're homo? I truly wonder what they were expecting to find. No thanks, you can keep your medieval Christian Inquisition to yourself. As in the words of the great @Dry Ice; Walih faqih better than Inquisition.
    Except for some bits, you took words out of my mouth.

    And if the Lebanese want to be civilized, then maybe they should start treating the disabled and the non-White people as human beings (and stop their inferiority complex vis-à-vis the White people)..
     
    dodzi

    dodzi

    Legendary Member
    Well, the Belgian communities/regions/etc are geographically contiguous, something that can't happen in Lebanon unless you have population transfers or worse, ethnic cleansing and blood spilled...
    Again, Robin Hood, no offense, but you are expressing the same judgement on the concept of Federalism that most Lebanese have.

    Why would federalism entail population transfer, ethnic cleansing or blood spilled? A Federal system is a system that reorganizes the system of government by giving more administrative powers to regions smaller than the state.

    Lebanese, like you, believe that if Lebanon was Federal, than a Christian would have no rights in a Muslim region, and a Muslim would have no rights in a Christian region.

    If you read what I said, certain powers are transferred to the regions, and this might include tax powers, infrastructure, roads, public transport system, perhaps or not medical and other systems.

    But that does not mean that in a Federal system, the Muslim canton can impose the Sharia law, force women to wear the veil, or forbid the construction of Churches... There are professionals of Constitutional law that might explain this better to you than I can, and that can lay out a system where rights of individuals are protected and a system in place would have the least amount of corruption, etc.
     
    Robin Hood

    Robin Hood

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Again, Robin Hood, no offense, but you are expressing the same judgement on the concept of Federalism that most Lebanese have.

    Why would federalism entail population transfer, ethnic cleansing or blood spilled? A Federal system is a system that reorganizes the system of government by giving more administrative powers to regions smaller than the state.

    Lebanese, like you, believe that if Lebanon was Federal, than a Christian would have no rights in a Muslim region, and a Muslim would have no rights in a Christian region.

    If you read what I said, certain powers are transferred to the regions, and this might include tax powers, infrastructure, roads, public transport system, perhaps or not medical and other systems.

    But that does not mean that in a Federal system, the Muslim canton can impose the Sharia law, force women to wear the veil, or forbid the construction of Churches... There are professionals of Constitutional law that might explain this better to you than I can, and that can lay out a system where rights of individuals are protected and a system in place would have the least amount of corruption, etc.
    Do we want a federation based on geography or sects, because Lebanese seem to want it on sects. And then, will Sidon be administrated from Tripoli?
    And Lebanon is not Belgium or Canada. In the West, people respect minority rights (in general) and the law there means something, but in Lebanon, where every tribe treats the others as [email protected], Tripoli will have no problem imposing Shariah and Bsharreh will have no problem banning mosques.
     
    Republican

    Republican

    Legendary Member
    I'm not a partitionist fan, I still want to believe in Lebanon, the Greater Lebanon, in which, the Maronites found in 1919. However, I could also understand those who wants partition.

    Frankly, those who are asking for partition are Christians. And the reason for partition is not sectarianism in a pure sense. Christians always believed in a strong independent state. A secular one in which all are equal under the law. However, and to be honest, both Islamic sects have shown no interest in what Christians want. PEACE, PROSPERITY AND maybe in a simple way, LIVE AND LET LIVE.

    So, Some Christians see no hope in Lebanon as we know today. They think by partition they may could live a free prosperous life.
    This must be a joke?

    Strong and independent state:
    -Baghdad Pact
    -Operation Blue bat
    -Early contacts —even before the creation of israel— between the zionists and the maronite leaders. Eyal zisser book is an eye opener on this particular matter; he even presents documents showing that at one point in 1951, Ben gurion planned operations —in coordination with his "christian friends"— to eliminate and silence —by force— all the muslims opposing his "christian friends", thus securing their rule of the puppet state.

    What you see as a strong and independent state was nothing more that an american-french puppet state that was later sold out —the fate of every puppet state— to the saudis and the syrians.

    Secular and equal under the law:
    -The Maronite church was and still is a staunch opponent of any form of secularism
    -The lebanese parliament was, and still is, partitioned according to sects and religious affiliations; 6/5 pre-taef; 5/5 post-taef —obviously in theory—
    -All high ranking positions in the state were reserved to christians, regardless of competence —obviously they were incompetent, for the country was and still is in turmoil—
    -Entire areas in the north, the south and the bekaa lacked basic services like electricity and water, nevermind education and schools.

    Matter of fact, most Lebanese act and think as slaves do; they are tribal and sectarian with a disturbing delusion of being "modern and civilized and definitely much better than the Lebanese from that 'other' sect". The christians among them, in general, are the least secular; they have only began considering "secularism" after they've realized that the numbers are starting to favor their muslim counterpart. The funny thing is that the exact situation was in contraposition when the muslims were literally crushed and small in numbers.

    Jean Aziz, in his latest article, painted an entertaining picture of a "Secular, strong and independent Lebanese".
     
    JB81

    JB81

    Legendary Member
    This must be a joke?

    Strong and independent state:
    -Baghdad Pact
    -Operation Blue bat
    -Early contacts —even before the creation of israel— between the zionists and the maronite leaders. Eyal zisser book is an eye opener on this particular matter; he even presents documents showing that at one point in 1951, Ben gurion planned operations —in coordination with his "christian friends"— to eliminate and silence —by force— all the muslims opposing his "christian friends", thus securing their rule of the puppet state.

    What you see as a strong and independent state was nothing more that an american-french puppet state that was later sold out —the fate of every puppet state— to the saudis and the syrians.

    Secular and equal under the law:
    -The Maronite church was and still is a staunch opponent of any form of secularism
    -The lebanese parliament was, and still is, partitioned according to sects and religious affiliations; 6/5 pre-taef; 5/5 post-taef —obviously in theory—
    -All high ranking positions in the state were reserved to christians, regardless of competence —obviously they were incompetent, for the country was and still is in turmoil—
    -Entire areas in the north, the south and the bekaa lacked basic services like electricity and water, nevermind education and schools.

    Matter of fact, most Lebanese act and think as slaves do; they are tribal and sectarian with a disturbing delusion of being "modern and civilized and definitely much better than the Lebanese from that 'other' sect". The christians among them, in general, are the least secular; they have only began considering "secularism" after they've realized that the numbers are starting to favor their muslim counterpart. The funny thing is that the exact situation was in contraposition when the muslims were literally crushed and small in numbers.

    Jean Aziz, in his latest article, painted an entertaining picture of a "Secular, strong and independent Lebanese".
    No other than under the Maronites that Lebanon enjoyed independence though it was hindered by Muslims. Under the Maronites, Lebanon was the jewel of the Middle East. Everywhere you go in the world, when mentioning Beirut, they remember Beirut under the Maronites, Beirut, Paris of the Middle East.

    Baghdad Pact? It was made By Chammoun to preserve Lebanon independence from Nasser. And who stand with Nasser against their state and countrymen?
    Operation Blue bat, not sure what you're talking about here, but if it have to do with Israel, so what? who did not contact the Israelis even before the creation of Israel. It wasn't the Maronites who brought the jews to Palestine.... the Ottomans Sunnis allowed them to settle in Palestine to satisfy the British government, the British government that was in debt to the Rothschild and other Jewish European bankers.

    Muslims were always undermining the Christians so it is natural for Christians to find friends that support them.

    Lebanon was found on a Confessional system.... that system was there to protect all sect. The system failed and Christians in majority don't like it.

    Christians want a secular Constitution.... However, Muslims are against a civil law, it goes against the Sharia.
    This is the main reason that Christians want a equilibrium in governance, it is to protect their basic rights until Muslims accept One Law for all Lebanese, regardless of religious affiliation.
    Therefore, Christians did pacts to save Lebanon independence from Nasser, created a respected name for Lebanon that even until today, westerners and Arabs regard Lebanon as a modern state, and Beirut as a cultural center and a land where one have freedom of expression.
    As for secularism, most Christians want a civil state where one law govern, but Muslims don't accept that. Therefore, in order to protect whatever rights they have, an equal representation in politics will be in effect until further notice.
     
    JB81

    JB81

    Legendary Member
    To be honest, as hard as I try, I cannot picture in my head Lebanese Christians living peacefully and with prosperity inside a mini-sate of theirs. The first and only thing that comes to mind is feudalism of the Khazens, Murs, Gemayels, and the militarism of the Geageaists. If the Christians had one DAY of history that shows otherwise, I would be the first to support this dream of yours. Until then, keep dreaming because even if partioning happens, you'll be looking back at these days as "iyem el loulou".
    I'm not really a fan of partitioning, mostly, because the land is too small.

    Khazen and Mur are almost over..... Ja3ja3 have no kids and he's in his 60s. He barely have another 10 good years in politics.... he is frail and he don't seem that healthy.

    Gmayels are also weak.... Franjiyeh are local to zgharta.... but moreover, an overall look, Christians would cease to rally behind Christian leaders based on "I protect you from the evil Muslims". The competition would more or less on other issues, such as the economic and social issues.
     
    dodzi

    dodzi

    Legendary Member
    Do we want a federation based on geography or sects, because Lebanese seem to want it on sects. And then, will Sidon be administrated from Tripoli?
    And Lebanon is not Belgium or Canada. In the West, people respect minority rights (in general) and the law there means something, but in Lebanon, where every tribe treats the others as [email protected], Tripoli will have no problem imposing Shariah and Bsharreh will have no problem banning mosques.
    Again, you're confusing things. A Federal system does not mean that the regions have the right to enact any laws they want, nor does it mean that the Federal government will be entirely weakened!

    How will giving control over a region's infrastructure, public transport, public goods, etc. to a local government bring about Sharia in Tripoli or Saida?

    As I said, the Federal government will still exist. Laws will still be enacted at Federal level!

    Just like in the US: back until the 60s, states could legislate on race matters. But the Federal State later forbid it to do so! Can Alabama still enact laws to separate white from coloured? NO! Why? Because the Federal Government (Administration, House of Representatives, Senate and the Judiciary) impose certain rules all over the country!
     
    Robin Hood

    Robin Hood

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    No other than under the Maronites that Lebanon enjoyed independence though it was hindered by Muslims. Under the Maronites, Lebanon was the jewel of the Middle East. Everywhere you go in the world, when mentioning Beirut, they remember Beirut under the Maronites, Beirut, Paris of the Middle East.

    Baghdad Pact? It was made By Chammoun to preserve Lebanon independence from Nasser. And who stand with Nasser against their state and countrymen?
    Operation Blue bat, not sure what you're talking about here, but if it have to do with Israel, so what? who did not contact the Israelis even before the creation of Israel. It wasn't the Maronites who brought the jews to Palestine.... the Ottomans Sunnis allowed them to settle in Palestine to satisfy the British government, the British government that was in debt to the Rothschild and other Jewish European bankers.

    Muslims were always undermining the Christians so it is natural for Christians to find friends that support them.

    Lebanon was found on a Confessional system.... that system was there to protect all sect. The system failed and Christians in majority don't like it.

    Christians want a secular Constitution.... However, Muslims are against a civil law, it goes against the Sharia.
    This is the main reason that Christians want a equilibrium in governance, it is to protect their basic rights until Muslims accept One Law for all Lebanese, regardless of religious affiliation.
    Therefore, Christians did pacts to save Lebanon independence from Nasser, created a respected name for Lebanon that even until today, westerners and Arabs regard Lebanon as a modern state, and Beirut as a cultural center and a land where one have freedom of expression.
    As for secularism, most Christians want a civil state where one law govern, but Muslims don't accept that. Therefore, in order to protect whatever rights they have, an equal representation in politics will be in effect until further notice.
    Easy to complain when it's not you who woke up one day only to find yourself separated from your country and attached to a country created by a colonial power and made to people who don't share your religion.
    Also, is it me or many Maronites seem to not give a damn about out Christians?
    And no, neither the Maronites (nor anybody else) made Lebanon strong. The army has always been neglected. In the alliances the Maronites built with the West, Lebanon was acting like a slave. Had the government been trying to build a strong army, that would have been something else, but when you ally with strong powers without caring about your own army, you are being a slave. Also, the political elite back then used to believe Lebanon's strength lies in it,s weakness.
     
    Robin Hood

    Robin Hood

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Again, you're confusing things. A Federal system does not mean that the regions have the right to enact any laws they want, nor does it mean that the Federal government will be entirely weakened!

    How will giving control over a region's infrastructure, public transport, public goods, etc. to a local government bring about Sharia in Tripoli or Saida?

    As I said, the Federal government will still exist. Laws will still be enacted at Federal level!

    Just like in the US: back until the 60s, states could legislate on race matters. But the Federal State later forbid it to do so! Can Alabama still enact laws to separate white from coloured? NO! Why? Because the Federal Government (Administration, House of Representatives, Senate and the Judiciary) impose certain rules all over the country!
    Except that there is nothing called rule of law and civic education in Lebanon. And I live in Canada, and thus know what federalism means.
     
    Robin Hood

    Robin Hood

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    I don't actually support this, but had I been a Maronite in 1926, after adding Muslim areas to Lebanon, I would have lobbied for integration as a French Department.
    Something I don't get, why do many blame us or outnumbering the Christians in Lebanon when they could have avoided the situation had they chosen so. Even the French initially wanted Lebanon to be only Mount Lebanon, but the Maronites insisted otherwise.
     
    JB81

    JB81

    Legendary Member
    Easy to complain when it's not you who woke up one day only to find yourself separated from your country and attached to a country created by a colonial power and made to people who don't share your religion.
    Also, is it me or many Maronites seem to not give a damn about out Christians?
    And no, neither the Maronites (nor anybody else) made Lebanon strong. The army has always been neglected. In the alliances the Maronites built with the West, Lebanon was acting like a slave. Had the government been trying to build a strong army, that would have been something else, but when you ally with strong powers without caring about your own army, you are being a slave. Also, the political elite back then used to believe Lebanon's strength lies in it,s weakness.
    The Maronites collaboration with the Israelis is really over rated and really shameful when Muslims speak of it. The Maronite-israeli deals don't make up a drop of Muslim treachery and collaboration with Israel. In 1948, while the Lebanese Army under Maronites command was crushing Israeli militias in northern Palestine, Muslims were backstabbing each other.... with every Lebanese advancement against the Israelis, king Abdallah l of Jordan, who reside the Arab Israeli war, used to order the army to retreat. Moreover, it wasn't the Maronites who threw rice and roses on Israeli soldiers in South Lebanon. Wasn't joumhourel moukawameh who did it? BBecause back then the Palestinians were humiliating and threating the Shi'ites?
    How come it is acceptable for you to deal with the Israelis to protect yourself, but you forbid that from the Maronites.

    Speaking of slavery to the west, we all know who are the slaves.... ya3neh, again, the Maronites are the least to be seen for it. In contrary, the Maronites used their religious ties to the west to modernize Lebanon. Printing press was brought, schools were flourishing all over Lebanon, silk trade and others economic opportunities.... it wasn't a surprise to have Arab Renaissance coming from Christians of the Levant.

    Again, the Maronites were not the ones detached to other Lebanese. It was the other who used Nasser and later the Palestinians to corner the Maronites.
    As the flower throwers on Israeli soldiers in south Lebanon, Maronites have also the right to deal with the devil to protect themselves.... moukhtara have personally hosted Sharon in 82, yet, you still talk about the Maronites. Get over the Israeli Maronite bla bla... ya3neh, Muslims are the last ones who should point a finger.
     
    Robin Hood

    Robin Hood

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    The Maronites collaboration with the Israelis is really over rated and really shameful when Muslims speak of it. The Maronite-israeli deals don't make up a drop of Muslim treachery and collaboration with Israel. In 1948, while the Lebanese Army under Maronites command was crushing Israeli militias in northern Palestine, Muslims were backstabbing each other.... with every Lebanese advancement against the Israelis, king Abdallah l of Jordan, who reside the Arab Israeli war, used to order the army to retreat. Moreover, it wasn't the Maronites who threw rice and roses on Israeli soldiers in South Lebanon. Wasn't joumhourel moukawameh who did it? BBecause back then the Palestinians were humiliating and threating the Shi'ites?
    How come it is acceptable for you to deal with the Israelis to protect yourself, but you forbid that from the Maronites.

    No need to be overtly defensive
    Speaking of slavery to the west, we all know who are the slaves.... ya3neh, again, the Maronites are the least to be seen for it. In contrary, the Maronites used their religious ties to the west to modernize Lebanon. Printing press was brought, schools were flourishing all over Lebanon, silk trade and others economic opportunities.... it wasn't a surprise to have Arab Renaissance coming from Christian of the Levant.

    Again, the Maronites were not the ones detached to other Lebanese. It was the other who used Nasser and later the Palestinians to corner the Maronites.
    As the flower throwers on Israeli soldiers in south Lebanon, Maronites have also the right to deal with the devil to protect themselves.... moukhtara have personally hosted Sharon in 82, yet, you still talk about the Maronites.
    Why on the defensive. My point is that everyone in Lebanon, kelloun adrab men ba3od, and Maronites are no exception. No, you didn't make Lebanon strong, neither any other sect did.
    Lebanese are nothing but uncivilized bajam who are loyal to their tribes more than their country. They don't deserve independence.
    And I personally don't feel ashamed Shias threw rice on the Israelis...
    About Maronites not being isolated from others, is that a joke? Wasn't the Maronites trying to claim they are Westerners and different from their surroundings?
     
    Robin Hood

    Robin Hood

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Some food for thaught...



    Wein sheyif hal Christian state? Even in Syria ma fi. Seems the state in the western part of Syria will be made of of Sunnis and Alawites.
     
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    I'm not a partitionist fan, I still want to believe in Lebanon, the Greater Lebanon, in which, the Maronites found in 1919. However, I could also understand those who wants partition.

    Frankly, those who are asking for partition are Christians. And the reason for partition is not sectarianism in a pure sense. Christians always believed in a strong independent state. A secular one in which all are equal under the law. However, and to be honest, both Islamic sects have shown no interest in what Christians want. PEACE, PROSPERITY AND maybe in a simple way, LIVE AND LET LIVE.

    So, Some Christians see no hope in Lebanon as we know today. They think by partition they may could live a free prosperous life.
    You know that works both ways right? I mean you do know that the civil war had two sides?

    Your Christians weren't exactly throwing rice, flowers and doves out of their canons!
     
    JB81

    JB81

    Legendary Member
    You know that works both ways right? I mean you do know that the civil war had two sides?

    Your Christians weren't exactly throwing rice, flowers and doves out of their canons!
    My Christians were not the ones who first restore to violence to achieve a political gain. It was the Muslim leaders who decided to undermine the state by their Palestinian sunni army. Christians didn't have to carry the cannons you mentioned had the Muslims sought for equal representation thru peaceful meanings. After all, Muslims in Lebanon were way better off living under the Maronites than most Muslims around the world. The Muslims could've saved us all this destruction had they been passionate despite that the average Muslim was not really different than his Christian brother.

    The civil war was truly a familial war. A war between Christian families of gemayel, Franjiyeh and Chamoun who were one step ahead of Muslim families of Salem karami and jumblat. Was it worth it to take up Palestinians to fight Christians so Jumblat dream of becoming Lebanese president come true?
     
    Top