• Before posting an article from a specific source, check this list here to see how much the Orange Room trust it. You can also vote/change your vote based on the source track record.

western vision towards FPM

kappa273

Well-Known Member
Neighboring country?
Isn't that country the same country Jumblat and Hariri were taking orders from? (It's smart to ingore HA, Berri, Frangieh and the rest of the gang)
So after being kicked out of Lebanon, Syria now wants the best for Lebanon?
Did Aoun visit it because:
-Passing weapons to HA to attack Israel from Lebanon to liberate Syrian occupied land, is a benefit to Lebanon?
-Protecting Palestinian military bases on the borders of Lebanon by Syria, is of any benefit to Lebanon?
The enemy is still the enemy. Else, why we are still with war with Israel and we don't go and visit them since they left our country? Shouldn't we get over the past with Israel too?

nobody ignored HA, berri and Frangieh but you were being answered regarding the claims of Hariri and jounblatt.. simply said...

-you place few questions in the hope that nobody answers them and you can use them as propaganda...
let me answer your very intelligent questions:
-weapons passed to HA via Syria were not used to liberate syrian land.. they were used to protect lebanese lands from the new allies of hariri and jounblatt, the israelis..
-palestinian bases along the borders with syria should be disarmed and dismantled.. i wonder when the lebanese army or the ISF tried to enter those bases and were denied by the syrian army.. on the other hand, don't you think the palestinian camps now officially harboring wahhabi fighters (allies of saad hariri) should also be dealt with? is syria preventing the lebanese army from entering ein el 7elwe? did syria prevent the lebanese army from entering Nahr el Bared, or the syrian army actually supplied the lebanese army with weapons and fuel etc...

-your last question is very important... we are still in war with israel because of the repetitive incursions in lebanese territories.. (did you hear about the 2 lebanese farmers who were abducted yesterday?).. Israel still occupies lebanese lands.. Israel refuses to deliver the maps of land mines left in lebanon... Israel is refusing to find a valid solution to the palestinian refugees in lebanon.. i think after all those requests are met, everybody will be happy to sit and negotiate with the israelis..

as for the syrians, if they are the enemy, why did the president of the republic, the minister of interior, the head of the army, the head of ISF, the minister of i3lam (Metri) and minister Salem (i don't know which ministry he is holding), why did they visit syria?
are they supposed to be called traitors?

and since when did syria become enemy?

syria may not want the best for lebanon.. what's your alternative?

PS: I dare you answer my questions..

kappa
 

Amirkani

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
Worry not what the West thinks of FPM. They thought the worst of us between 1989 and 2003, yet they succumbed and made a 180 degree turn in 2003 and adopted our exact ideas about Lebanon. Before that we used to get thrown out of Western officials offices because we dared confront them and say that Syria is occupying Lebanon.

If what they think of FPM is good, like what they thought in 89 and still think today of Feb 14, then there is no need for FPM to confront them and lobby them to change their minds and push them to adopt our ideas about Lebanon. We could, like Feb 14, do no work and just go along with what the West tells us to do.

Our job is to tell the West what they should do in Lebanon. They might not like to hear it but we still tell them nevertheless. At the right time, they will end up liking it :)

As in 2003, eventually they will succumb and see things our way as far as Lebanon is concerned. We're confident there is no other way but our way... sooner or later, they will realize it.

---------------------
 

dodzi

Legendary Member
Worry not what the West thinks of FPM. They thought the worst of us between 1989 and 2003, yet they succumbed and made a 180 degree turn in 2003 and adopted our exact ideas about Lebanon. Before that we used to get thrown out of Western officials offices because we dared confront them and say that Syria is occupying Lebanon.

If what they think of FPM is good, like what they thought in 89 and still think today of Feb 14, then there is no need for FPM to confront them and lobby them to change their minds and push them to adopt our ideas about Lebanon. We could, like Feb 14, do no work and just go along with what the West tells us to do.

Our job is to tell the West what they should do in Lebanon. They might not like to hear it but we still tell them nevertheless. At the right time, they will end up liking it :)

As in 2003, eventually they will succumb and see things our way as far as Lebanon is concerned. We're confident there is no other way but our way... sooner or later, they will realize it.

---------------------

I disagree. The Western views about Lebanon have never changed:
- the US' view didn't change because the US never really had a view on Lebanon. They had a view on Israel and on their economic interests in the region (oil). Their policies on Lebanon have changed only in regards to those factors. Lebanon's well-being is only assured to them as long as they don't contradict the two first. But even then, they'd have to want to help us...
- Europe's views don't matter... Europe is divided, and each country on its own doesn't have an impact, even if it were one of the three most powerful (UK, Germany and France).
 

LebDocNCali

Active Member
Neighboring country?
Isn't that country the same country Jumblat and Hariri were taking orders from? (It's smart to ignore HA, Berri, Frangieh and the rest of the gang)
I was just answering your own question, sure you want to include them too no problem, except HA because they do have a different agenda and Frangieh because he is close to the Syrian regime and always will be independent of circumstances.
So after being kicked out of Lebanon, Syria now wants the best for Lebanon?
Did Aoun visit it because:
-Passing weapons to HA to attack Israel from Lebanon to liberate Syrian occupied land, is a benefit to Lebanon?
-Protecting Palestinian military bases on the borders of Lebanon by Syria, is of any benefit to Lebanon?
The enemy is still the enemy. Else, why we are still with war with Israel and we don't go and visit them since they left our country? Shouldn't we get over the past with Israel too?
Your own comment is the fruit of your imagination, that can not be supported by evidence nor proofs.
We are still at war with Israel, once the war is over yes we should move forward.
By the way, the only government in Lebanon that was ever at war with Syria is the Government of Michel Aoun, all the others were not. That is the main reason of the visit of GMA to Syria to bury the hatchet and move one.
Please when you come up with big titles investigate them before following logically with your own explanation. Or your words will be empty and meaningless.
 

Robin Hood

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
hi , read this article from the economist
u'll find some really bizarre things
i know we have issues with the west , but there's some very clear facts that the west ignore ........
isn't FPM responsible for the missunderstanding ???
did we ignore the west too much and didn't try to explain our point of view ??

check this article and take a look at the red part

click for the source

What ever u do, the West will continue viewing the FPM negatively, unless u become their slaves.
 

Nonan

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
What ever u do, the West will continue viewing the FPM negatively, unless u become their slaves.

Fine but there were facts that were wrong and someone from FPM should write to the economist, even threaten to do a legal action if they don't issue a correction. The Western world has rules and laws and their media is supposed to abid by it. They can be biased in their analyses, they cannot state wrong facts (e.g., we were allied with HA in the 2005 elections)
 

Souss

Well-Known Member
This is a mistake. The Economist has in the past referred to the FPM-HA alliance as having happened in Feb. 2006 as well as accurately mentioning who was allied with who during the 2005 elections (see article below).

IMO The Economist is the best business and international affairs weekly publication out there. I e-mailed them about the inaccuracy and will keep you posted. I'm confident they will issue a correction. In the meantime check out this article:
Lebanon unravels | Iran's tool fights America's stooge | The Economist

[FONT=verdana, geneva, arial, sans serif][SIZE=-1] Lebanon[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, geneva, arial, sans serif][SIZE=+1]Iran's tool fights America's stooge
[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][SIZE=-2]May 15th 2008 | BEIRUT
From The Economist print edition
[/SIZE][/FONT]


[FONT=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][SIZE=-1]A delicate balance between Christians, Druze, Sunnis and Shias has broken down. Reassembly will be hard[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][SIZE=-1]
IT LOOKED disturbingly like a sequel to Lebanon's bloody civil war of 1975-90: gun battles in city streets, kidnappings, execution-style slayings and tearful vows of vengeance. With at least 81 people killed so far, the violence of past days represents the most serious internal strife since those years. And it is unclear who can stop it. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][SIZE=-1]
The most striking scene was the invasion of the capital, Beirut, mounted by opponents of the government. This was not exactly a conquest of the city, but rather the takeover of one part, Sunni-dominated West Beirut, by another, the dense, gritty and largely Shia-populated southern suburbs. This act quickly rippled across the mountainous country's sectarian patchwork, setting off clashes to the north and south. Because of Lebanon's position as a cockpit for regional power struggles, it also reverberated further afield, from Washington to the Iranian capital, Tehran. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][SIZE=-1]
It was natural that this latest turmoil should carry echoes of the civil war. That contest was only fudgingly resolved, and the country has struggled to recover. Small triumphs have been notched up here and there. One was the physical revival of Beirut from a bomb-scarred wreck to a gleaming magnet for tourism; another the brave popular uprising of 2005, which forced neighbouring Syria to pull out its long-overstayed “peacekeeping” troops. For many Lebanese, too, the hounding of Israel by the guerrillas of Hizbullah, the Shia party-c um-militia, leading to the Israeli army's withdrawal in 2000 after 22 years occupying the southern borderlands, and its humiliation in the 33-day war of 2006, were epic victories.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=verdana, geneva, arial, sans serif]Syria's role[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][SIZE=-1]
Yet none of those achievements was solidly shared by all. Reconstruction generated corruption and a giant pile of debt. Syria's removal alienated its many allies inside Lebanon and prompted it to sponsor what looks like a campaign of sabotage, including assassinations. The Sunni-led, anti-Syrian factions that gained power through the 2005 uprising failed to accommodate dangerous rivals, and suffered by close association with America. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][SIZE=-1]
Meanwhile, Hizbullah's lock-step allegiance to Shia Iran frightened not just Lebanese nationalists, but also the predominantly Sunni Arab world and Western powers. The [SIZE=-1]UN[/SIZE] Security Council resolved in 2004 that all Lebanon's militias must be disarmed, but Hizbullah insisted its noble cause was resistance to Israel, despite the Jewish state's abandonment of all but a tiny corner of Lebanon. The party continued to receive a supply of heavy weapons from Syria and Iran. In the end, the fight with Israel that Hizbullah provoked in 2006 brought massive and needless ruin.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][SIZE=-1]
Such strains would have tested any country, let alone a small one with a violent history, a population made up of 18 jealous religious minorities and a weak central state built on power-sharing between them. The wonder may be that Lebanon has held together at all, and even maintained a veneer of democracy. But this veneer has grown steadily thinner since the end of the 2006 war, which, aside from leaving 1,200 Lebanese dead and 100,000 homeless, also widened the central fissure in Lebanese politics.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][SIZE=-1]
This division is often defined, for simplicity's sake, as a split between Hizbullah, backed by Syria and Iran in the interest of confronting Israel and blocking American influence, against the Western-backed, democratically elected government of Fuad Siniora, the Sunni prime minister. The reality is more complicated.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][SIZE=-1]
Mr Siniora's coalition of Sunni Muslims, right-wing Christian parties, liberals, and the main Druze faction led by Walid Jumblatt, did indeed win 72 of the Lebanese parliament's 128 seats in the spring of 2005, riding on sympathy generated by the assassination of Mr Siniora's patron Rafik Hariri, a billionaire and five-term prime minister. But the election was run under rules drafted during Syrian control, before Mr Hariri's fatal falling-out with the Syrian regime. Many Lebanese Christians, who had been the core of opposition to Syria, felt these rules diluted their influence. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][SIZE=-1]
Moreover, the winning coalition, which adopted the name of “March 14th” after the date of a large anti-Syrian rally, secured some districts through an electoral alliance with Hizbullah. The Shia party was rewarded with seats in Mr Siniora's cabinet, but also believed there was tacit agreement to provide political cover for its massive rocket arsenal—perhaps, at some distant point, by incorporating its guerrilla force into the Lebanese army.[/SIZE][/FONT]


[FONT=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][SIZE=-1]
This alliance quickly unravelled, as Mr Siniora's Western backers pushed him to contain what they regarded as a terrorist group, and Hizbullah responded by forging a growing opposition coalition. This came to include not only its rival Shia party Amal, but also some pro-Syrian Christian, Sunni and Druze factions that had flourished, many with vigorous armed wings, under Syrian tutelage. Surprisingly, it was also joined by the Free Patriotic Movement ([SIZE=-1]FPM[/SIZE]), the Christian party of Michel Aoun, a maverick former general who had led a rising against Syria at the close of the civil war.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][SIZE=-1]
Mr Aoun bore several grudges against March 14th. As a battle-hardened foe of Syria, he felt entitled to a leading role after Syria's hasty withdrawal. He wanted to replace Emile Lahoud, the garishly pro-Syrian president whose term was due to expire in November 2007. (By custom, Lebanon's president must be a Maronite Christian, its prime minister a Sunni Muslim, and the speaker of parliament a Shia.) The [SIZE=-1]FPM [/SIZE]far outpolled the Christian parties inside Mr Siniora's coalition, reflecting wide distrust of the older, right-wing Christian parties who had gained a reputation for thuggery during the civil war.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=verdana, geneva, arial, sans serif]In Hizbullah's embrace[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][SIZE=-1]
Mr Aoun's abrasiveness, and March 14th's unwillingness to give him the presidency, ensured that the [SIZE=-1]FPM [/SIZE]remained in opposition. It was widely assumed that with his anti-Syrian credentials and largely pro-Western Christian constituency, the general would avoid Hizbullah, yet the two parties made an alliance in February 2006. Mr Aoun lost some Christian support over this, but then came the war with Israel. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][SIZE=-1]
Most Christians blamed Hizbullah for the fighting. Yet many also credited the [SIZE=-1]FPM[/SIZE], which mobilised aid for thousands of Shias displaced by the war, with healing a historic rift between the traditionally dominant but dwindling Christians and the long-disenfranchised but now formidable Shias. In Hizbullah's view, the alliance with Mr Aoun allowed it to clothe its Iranian-tinted Islamist militancy in Lebanese nationalist colours. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][SIZE=-1]
Hizbullah emerged from the war with its prestige enhanced, and speedily boosted it further with a big and efficient Iranian-financed reconstruction programme. By contrast, Mr Siniora's government, reduced during the war to issuing vain pleas to its Western friends to fend off the Israeli onslaught, looked vulnerable. It was given little credit for helping secure the eventual ceasefire, and even less for winning massive pledges of aid from Sunni Gulf countries. Privately, supporters of March 14th believed Hizbullah had recklessly exposed Lebanon to disaster. Yet the trauma of the war, and the sight of Israel, for the first time, being mauled by an Arab force, kept them quiet.[/SIZE][/FONT]



[FONT=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][SIZE=-1]Soon after the war's end, in November 2006, the opposition moved to cash in their political gains by demanding a national unity government, in which their members would have enough cabinet seats to block its decisions. Mr Siniora refused, suspecting a Syrian-inspired plot. The opposition responded by withdrawing the cabinet's six Shia members. This, they said, rendered the government illegal, since it was constitutionally required to represent all the main sects. The Shia speaker of parliament, Nabih Berri, leader of Hizbullah's sister party Amal, refused to convene the legislature. Over subsequent months the opposition increased its demands, including a revision of electoral laws to address Mr Aoun's concerns that Christians were being cheated. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][SIZE=-1]
As the lame-duck presidency of Mr Lahoud came to an end in November last year, the opposition stalled talks over the successor to be elected by parliament. Agreeing at last on Michel Suleiman, who commands the non-sectarian army, it insisted that its other conditions be fulfilled before Mr Berri summoned parliament. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][SIZE=-1]
So, to the frustration of ordinary Lebanese, the factions have produced an 18-month stalemate. Hizbullah and its allies call the government an American stooge; March 14th blasts the opposition as a tool of Iran and a cat's-paw for Syria. Mediators, including Amr Moussa, chief of the Arab League, have come and despaired.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=verdana, geneva, arial, sans serif]The galvanising moment[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][SIZE=-1]
March 14th has naturally tried to drive a wedge between Hizbullah and its Christian allies. Earlier this month, citing alleged evidence of suspicious traffic monitoring at Beirut airport, it reassigned the pro-Hizbullah head of airport security. It also declared illegal the party's communications network. If this was intended to highlight to Christians and Western powers Hizbullah's rogue status, it backfired. On May 8th Hizbullah's carefully-spoken leader, Hassan Nasrallah, described the government's moves as “treachery”, and said the time had come to defend the arms of the “resistance”. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][SIZE=-1]
Within minutes, a combined force of Hizbullah, Amal and allied fighters blasted their way into Beirut's Sunni quarter, eventually surrounding the residences of Mr Hariri's son and political heir, Saad, and of his Druze ally Mr Jumblatt. By May 10th fighting moved to outlying areas, affecting Mr Jumblatt's stronghold in the Chouf mountains south-east of Beirut and the Sunni-dominated north, as Mr Hariri's allies exacted revenge on pockets of opposition fighters. In other tit-for-tat action, Hizbullah blocked access to Beirut airport, while Sunni militiamen sealed the road to Syria's capital, Damascus.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][SIZE=-1]
The opposition stopped short of overthrowing the government, though it probably could have done so. It also promptly handed over control of most areas it invaded to the Lebanese army, ushering in a nervous calm after five days of fighting. But the 70,000-man army, which is wary of being infected itself by sectarianism, is scarcely a match for Hizbollah's trained and hardened guerrillas. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][SIZE=-1]
Government leaders have declared they will not be cowed by force of arms. Yet they have already backed down on the immediate issues that angered Hizbullah. Other concessions are likely to follow, if the Arab League, which has sent in a hurried diplomatic mission, can find a face-saving formula. This might include swift passage of electoral reform, the installation of Mr Suleiman as president and the formation of a “technocratic” transitional government before fresh elections.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][SIZE=-1]
This may all prove a tall order, however. The sense of injury among non-Shias is powerful, as is the urge for March 14th to exploit for political advantage Hizbullah's breaking of a long-standing pledge never to use its arms in internal squabbles. Should the government refuse to bend, the chances are that its opponents will push back even harder. Such a result, tipping Lebanon back into full-scale conflict, would suit no one. [/SIZE][/FONT]
 

orange infection

Active Member
Fine but there were facts that were wrong and someone from FPM should write to the economist, even threaten to do a legal action if they don't issue a correction. The Western world has rules and laws and their media is supposed to abid by it. They can be biased in their analyses, they cannot state wrong facts (e.g., we were allied with HA in the 2005 elections)

thank you
honestly that was exactly what i meant .....
the western pt of view , is not what bush or gordon brown think about us
i mean ppl in the west , or at least these magazines
USA is not lebanon , u cant just make a story from ur mind and publish it like mousta2bal do all the time
someone from FPM should contact the economist
 

Souss

Well-Known Member
Sorry for the late update. Here is my correspondence with the folks at The Economist.

Anyone wishing to follow-up further can do so by e-mailing [email protected].

Souss said:
Dear Sir,

In the December 8, 2008 article entitled "Aoun's Goal" (Aoun's goal in Lebanon | Aoun's goal | The Economist), you mention that "Aoun collaborated closely with Hizbullah, the dominant Shia political force in Lebanon, in the 2005 election, and his list, comprising the FPM and some Christian allies, won 21 of the 128 seats, giving him a solid platform in parliament."

This is not accurate, as Hizbullah was running on electoral lists with the current majority, i.e. against Mr. Aoun's party during the 2005 elections. Aoun's collaboration with Hizbullah came later and likely in a progressive way. In February 2006 this collaboration was made official when the Free Patriotic Movement (led by Aoun) and Hizbullah signed a Memorandum of Understanding.

I would appreciate if you could make that correction.
Many thanks,


David Butter said:
My editor has drawn my attention to your comments on the article published on Mr Aoun's visit to Syria, for which I was responsible as Middle East editor of Viewswire.

I maintain that there was collaboration between Mr Aoun and Hizbullah in the contests for a number of Christian-designated seats where a portion of the electorate was Shia. I am not aware of any instance in which Hizbullah was running against the FPM. You are of course correct to say that the collaboration became much closer in the context of the MoU signed in early 2006.

As the general point being made was that Mr Aoun drew closer to Hizbullah after his return to Lebanon, rather than a forensic examination of Lebanon's rather complex electoral system, I do not consider that a correction is warranted.

Thank you for your interest.

Best regards

Souss said:
Dear David,

[...]

As reported in Lebanon's Daily Star on June 13 2005 (The Daily Star - Politics - Baabda-Aley polls prompt heavy turnout), Hizbullah was running on the same electoral list as the current majority in the Baabda-Aley district. Here is what I judge to be the relevant excerpt:

"Mount Lebanon's third electoral district of Baabda-Aley witnessed heavy voting as competition between the two main lists drove people out to cast ballots in the country's most heated round of elections Sunday. As polling stations closed, the overall voting percentage was reported to exceed 50 percent, with some areas reaching as high as 70 percent turnout.

Most voted for one of the two main lists; the "Mountain Unity" alliance of Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, Hizbullah, Saad Hariri's Future Movement and the Lebanese Forces; and the "Reform and Change" list of FPM leader Michel Aoun and his Druze ally Talal Arslan. Aoun, who is running in Kesrouan-Jbeil, voted early in the morning in his hometown, and Hizbullah stronghold, of Haret Hreik in Baabda-Aley.

After casting his ballot, the FPM leader said he was convinced he would enter Lebanon' new Parliament with a strong bloc formed from his FPM and its allies. He said: "I predict my list will win. But we will bow down to the will of people when results come out." Aoun promised to change the country's political arena once in Parliament. He said: "We can change everything and the people have the chance to allow this change. When we present our reform plan to Parliament, people will know the truth."

Aoun said his next visit to the area will be to meet with Hizbullah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah, adding he respects the democratic competition between his FPM and Hizbullah in Baabda-Aley. He said: "I wish them success just like I wish it for myself, and people will decide the results." Hizbullah, which has one candidate running on Jumblatt's list, tilted the odds against Aoun by allying with Jumblatt in the area."


The FPM and allies list had presented two candidates for the two Shiite seats in the district, namely Ramzi Kanj, a member of the FPM, and Saad Slim. The current majority's two Shiite candidates were Hizbullah's Ali Ammar and Future Movement's Bassem Sabeh, further demonstrating that FPM and Hizbullah were on opposite sides. I am also not aware of any collaboration between FPM and Hizbullah in other districts.

In light of this, I kindly ask that you reconsider whether a correction is warranted.
Best regards,

David Butter said:
I appreciate that there were a lot of shifting alliances during the 2005 election. While taking your point on Baabda-Aley, I still hold that during the election period both Hizbullah and FPM explored ways of working together, which has led to the creation of an effective alliance. Our own reports at the time noted that FPM had figured on a joint list with Hizbullah and others in the Chouf, but without much success, prompting Mr Aoun to declare an end to his association with Hizbullah, complaining “they gave us almost a zero vote”.

I will certainly take on board your observations in our analysis of the forthcoming elections.

Best regards
 

kappa273

Well-Known Member
thanks a lot Souss for your effort...

as you can see there are a lot of misconception and wrong ideas held by the Economist, a very respectable magazine...

unfortunately, i see mr Butter insisting on his errors and even trying to convince you by introducing yet another wrong one: Hizbullah has no presence in Shouf whatsoever, especially one which would allow it to have deputies.

The Economist is only echoing what other media services have written about Lebanon, most of which led by the Neocons and other pro-israeli conservatives, like Piper, Krauthammer, etc....

kappa
 

orange infection

Active Member
thx souss
seems like this david butter 3endo jouzour lebneniyeh
we can show him how HA could have made FPM win the majority and 14 march lose , bas ba3do m3anad eno FPM and HA were allied , because of secret reports he have that prove that (eh sada2nek)
typical lebanese behavior
 

dodzi

Legendary Member
thx souss
seems like this david butter 3endo jouzour lebneniyeh
we can show him how HA could have made FPM win the majority and 14 march lose , bas ba3do m3anad eno FPM and HA were allied , because of secret reports he have that prove that (eh sada2nek)
typical lebanese behavior

This reminds of those conspiracy theorists that believe Aoun was allied with Syria since 2000.... Some also go as far to suggest that Aoun was allied with Syria since the '80s, and pretended to be against them so he could give Syria a pretext to invade Lebanon!
 

Souss

Well-Known Member
Just to clarify:

I can accept the view that FPM may have considered collaboration with Hezbollah in certain districts, although I think it is largely offset by Hezb's choice in Baabda-Aley. IMO Hezb's strategy was to split the March 14 alliance (which included FPM at the time), which they succeeded in doing, with the help of poor strategic choices by Jumblatt & Hariri.

This article is an analysis, and the author chose to interpret certain elements differently than how I would have. I do disagree with it, but there are many other articles where I agree with the analyses presented.

The Economist remains IMO one of the best publications, and certainly not biased anti-opposition. I've provided an example of a very good article in one of my previous posts where the Hariri bunch are described as "America's stooge".
 

orange infection

Active Member
Just to clarify:

I can accept the view that FPM may have considered collaboration with Hezbollah in certain districts, although I think it is largely offset by Hezb's choice in Baabda-Aley. IMO Hezb's strategy was to split the March 14 alliance (which included FPM at the time), which they succeeded in doing, with the help of poor strategic choices by Jumblatt & Hariri.

This article is an analysis, and the author chose to interpret certain elements differently than how I would have. I do disagree with it, but there are many other articles where I agree with the analyses presented.

The Economist remains IMO one of the best publications, and certainly not biased anti-opposition. I've provided an example of a very good article in one of my previous posts where the Hariri bunch are described as "America's stooge".

can u link us to that post
i would really like to read it
 

halayc

Active Member
hi Orange infection,

Some readers of the economists, NYT, or other western papers react to this defamation of Lebanon in the US media, and help end it, by writing letters to the authors of such articles. The main the readers criticize is religious segregation and sectarian labeling. This is how the media makes Lebanon pass for "scary" in the west, by labeling us as Christians and Shiites and Sunnites, and not as politically sophisticated thinkers. When they use these labels it's the equivalent of using the "N" word in the 50's in the US. It's about labeling people by religion or race, and not by their intellect. Some readers of these media send letters on a regular basis, to get that point across, and on occasion these letters get published.

There are also blogs that discuss these articles. Send me a message if you want to know more.
 

ecce homo

Well-Known Member
A new vision of the FPM? Will the new Barack administration listen to this recommendation?

Rapprochement with the Free Patriotic Movement.

One of the most glaring indicators of the failure and shortsightedness of U.S. Lebanon policy after 2005 has been Washington’s lack of accommodation and often hostile approach to General Aoun. Despite war, civil unrest, economic upheaval, and an array of pressure tactics by a number of states, the object of U.S. anger and frustration, the February 2006 FPM-Hizbullah Understanding, has survived—just as Aoun, though somewhat diminished, has retained his status as the single most popular Christian leader in the country. These facts, in addition to the vital “Christian cover” that Hizbullah evidently has gained from the understanding, should serve as an indicator to Washington that, at the very least, something went terribly wrong in its approach.

Unfortunately, the message has apparently not registered. Aoun and his supporters remain under the threat of possible legal action in the United States and elsewhere, while U.S. officials and representatives persist in the historically inaccurate and unproductive view that Aoun, and his duped constituency, are mere pawns in the larger schemes of Syria and Iran. With some Western election observers expressing great concern––in particular, that the Christian battleground districts could lean toward the FPM––the United States would do well to heed the lesson of the August 2007 by-election and move toward a rapprochement with General Aoun and the FPM. This would not mean hedging electoral bets, however. After all, the United States has little wiggle room in supporting its March 14 Alliance allies in 2009. Instead, the United States should use the opening to signal that it is indeed serious about engaging an array of leaders and their constituencies in a process that ends Hizbullah’s independent weaponry and creates political stability. Aoun and his constituency will, of course, be vital in this mission, given not only the party’s historical commitment to secularism and independence, but also since, as ICG puts it,

it is equally clear that while Hizbullah needs Aoun’s support given rising confessional tensions, Aoun would like to prove that his alliance has paid dividends. As a result, the Aounists have the opportunity to use their leverage to persuade the Shiite movement to accept a governmental program that would constrain the use of its weapons to strictly defensive purposes.​
Recognizing this as a first step, and in light of the fact that the threat of a “second government” has receded, the White House should revoke its 2007 Executive Order on the subject. U.S. officials should then encourage the FPM to play a leading role in crafting and supporting a specific plan of action for Hizbullah’s peaceful integration into the democratic fabric of the country.

The document is a must read: http://www.tcf.org/publications/internationalaffairs/Noe.pdf
 
Top