In #53 you state:

“In all discussions, the analysis turns macro and people are seen as pawns that can be disregarded or moved around. And this is quite general, when talking about a “Comprehensive” Arab-Israeli agreement, Ras Beirut #49 dispatches the Palestinians of Lebanon as if they were a commodity. These people were born in our country, they have lived all their lives in our country, all their memories are in Lebanon, all their social network is in Lebanon. They might not speak of it for political and ideological reasons. But they have ties to the country that should be respected. I think it’s the only region on earth where refugees are discussed in that fashion. Upholding their right of return doesn’t mean threatening or ignoring their right to stay and be treated equally.

Sorry for my tantrum. Some comments just drive me crazy! ”

I would like to take the opportunity to clarify my point in #49 vis a vis the refugees issue in any potential negotiation with israel. What I stated was not a personal view or an endorsement at all about what the fate of the refugees should be, far from it. Rather, I was stating the facts on the ground as they stand today.

The lebanese constitution today expilicitly
prohibits the naturalization of the refugees. On top of that, by law, they are forbidden from owning real estate or engage in many professions. Pretty dismal situation to say the least from the refugees perspective.

If the naturalization law is to be reversed, parliment will have to change the law, which requires a super majority Yes votes. Regardless of where one feels about the subject, I find it hard to believe that these votes can be obtained in parliment today.

That is why I talked about the other alternative, since the naturalization option is not realistically available. Maybe I should have clarified that up front, so my comment would not be misunderstood.

In all honesty, this issue should be debated nationally and in parliment. Just in case negotiation somehow appear at the door step, and Lebanon should at least be prepared to have a clear negotiation position on such a relevant issue.

As it stands right now. Lebanon’s publicly stated position is the endorsement of the 2002 Beirut arab league one, that does include the right of return (with a little bit of flexibility) according to the wording.

Preperation ahead of negotiation is a good thing.

Interesting discussion. Here’s my conservative, Jewish-American POV.

- Lebanon SHOULD have a unified, national discussion concerning their security needs

However, will Hezbollah start another war with Israel? Its this what Lebanon wants?

If so, by all means go for it.

OTOH, if the Lebanese do NOT want a war with the Israel, can they trust Hezbollah and Iran that they won’t start a war?

IMHO, Israel’s strategy is not psychological or otherwise. It is clear. They have to retain a technological edge to make up for the greater number of combatants and the increasing technology that is coming into the region.

Israel knows it isn’t going to throw Hezbolah out of Lebanon, so their goal (as AIG has stated) is to make it very painful for the Lebanese if they allow Hezbollah to do whatever they please.

I offer this opinion to boast or gloat, but only to explain, perhaps, the Israeli POV.

Certainly Lebanon can bolster their defences and bring in as much military equipment. But is this the priority in Lebanon? Are the border disputes that important? I think the Lebanese have to answer these questions before the next round of violence takes us all by surprise.

I definitely agree that there should be a round of national dialogue talks for the purpose of forging a comprehensive, unified defensive strategy. But this has to be undertaken with seriousness regarding the need to build a formidable defense.

You are correct in concluding that the current situation is not the ideal one, because ideally the state should be committed to building and sustaining a strong national military capable of detering any potential attacks on Lebanon. Unfortunately, however, our political elites, have historically refused to build a strong national army for fear of weakening their sectarian positions.

Now, as you well know, my view of this issue goes beyond Lebanon, as I don’t believe that Lebanon, on its own, has the resources or the ability to be truly free, sovereign, and independent, and that this requires collective national effort, which is why I believe that national consciousness is so important.

I hear what you’re saying, and as you know, I’m the first advocate of directing our energies at the long-term problems: education, illiteracy, poverty, economic planning, sustainability, etc.

I also do believe that Lebanon should have some kind of deterrent capabilities. And you are exactly right when you say:

Our goal is not to have a “peace agreement” but rather to have the strength to provide a peaceful environment in which our people can advance and progress freely.

But, in my opinion, this conclusion begs the same old question: how is our desire “to provide a peaceful environment in which our people can advance and progress freely” achieved by the current strategy pursued by Hizbullah? I’m not an advocate of rolling over and playing dead. I’m an advocate of pursuing all options to achieve the goal that you phrased succinctly above.

Why not make our demands very clear, in one voice? Why not hold a round of national dialogue talks focusing only on the issue of national defense and the objectives of the resistance, and emerge with a single Lebanese plan outlining what our demands are vis-a-vis peace with Israel?

Peanut gallery, the floor is yours…

Great response, I appreciate it, especially this point:

Don’t you find it strange that this ambiguous “defence strategy” we have doesn’t take into account the civilian population (no plans of evacuation, no plans to provide for them in case of bombing or invasion, no shelters, no alarm signals…).

As for your second point about bloc dynamics in March XIV®… Do you believe that they still hold a theoretical majority?

I may need a week to read your last comment, but I’ll try to get to it eventually.

(For everyone else, Nour is an old buddy from my Syria Comment days. We agree on very little, but our debates are always animated and fun. PS: Nour is a man, not a woman.)

Before we can effectively tackle this contentious issue of armed resistance, I think it is important to address the oft-repeated slogan “freedom, sovereignty, independence,” which both sides of this debate continuousl proclaim to represent. Forgive me if my post is a little long, but it is a necessary step to clearly define the terms of this debate.

Before we elaborate on the above three issues, we have to set a criterion on which our discussion and conception should be Based.

1- Freedom – Sovereignty – Independence are Values of Life.

2- Those Values are Not Political, They are National.

3- Values of Life are Not individual, they are Social Values.

Let us start with Freedom:

Freedom is the struggle to achieve what is best for society.

A lot of people, including some thinkers, disagree with the concept of freedom as a national value, or a social value, as they favor the idea that freedom is an individual quality that Should be respected and maintained in support of so-called Human Rights principles.

Based on the above, those individualists adopt the following concept of freedom:
My freedom stops where others’ freedoms start.

I view this as an erroneous concept for the reasons laid out below.

IF this concept were true, (which it is not), then there would be no point in introducing diciplinary systems in organizations, such as the Army, hospitals, schools, universities, government offices, law firms,etc. Those diciplinary systems contradict the Individualualists’ conception of freedom, because they restrict the activities of members of these respective organizations, and they limit the authorities of each.

Based on the above, I consider Freedom to be a Social Value that is defined by the interest of the society, all generations of which should practice it to meet their social belonging to a prosperous and progressive nation. No national interest is achieved by empty slogans, dreams, and division. Furthering and serving national interests are a result of an ongoing struggle, as demonstrated by the following examples:

Security.

Building a strong Army, improving on weapons and equipment, improving on tactics, plans, and training techniques, etc., ensures national security, yet it requires the efforts of the engineer who invents and designs devices and weapons, the doctor who improves and enhances battlefield medical services, an administrator who introduces layouts and personnel and manpower allocation,etc., and includes inventory management, vehicle mechanics, in other words almost every profession in life. It is a continuous process of hard work; i.e. Struggle.

Science.

Our national interest dictates on us that we be innovative in the scientific field, establishing research and development institutions that cater to the exploration of our educated generations, providing them the opportunity to discover new medicines, new mechanical, hydraulic, electrical, or electronic devices, and even being involved in nano technology. This will boost up the standard of our universities, add value to education, open up economic potentials, and improve our industrial sector.

If these endeavors, along with others, are performed, practiced and executed, it would give our nation the freedom of dictating our interests on others, due to self-sufficiency in a lot of areas. This is the essence of Struggle, and it applies to every aspect of the social and national life, including economy, finance, art, education, trade, politics, etc.

The Government is to provide the opportunities for its people to be able to be productive, setting up rules and measures to ensure Harmony in the production process, and never to allow monopolies, whether by individuals, companies or even governments institutions. All efforts put together in such a system will ultimately result in the freedom of the society, members of which would enjoy directly and indirectly the fruits of their struggle to improve their living standards and meet their national interest’s requirments.

However, if we do not have the capability to safeguard and ensure our continued free struggle for what is best for society, then we can never be free in the true sense, and our children’s and children’s children’s future will continue to be marred by uncertainties, lack of opportunities, poor economic conditions, etc.

Sovereignty

The issue of sovereignty cannot be properly comprehended unless we take into consideration the Homeland and our National Rights.
So before we can further our discussion, we have to determine what is the Homeland, and what are our National Rights.

The Homeland is the geographical area, or as a more accurate definition, the natural environment, over which the nation evolved.

Accordingly, our homeland is our identity, by which our character is determined, and our outlook on life was developed. It is an environment that has embraced our ancestors, who conducted their life over it, provided it with their best, defended it from invaders, and most importantly, interacted with its nature in a process of developing our identity. This homeland means our history, our existance and our future; in short, it is our Life. We therefore have no interest in Life without our Home Land. (We as a nation/society, not as individuals).Accordingly, any breach of our homeland is a breach of our existence, our future and our interests.

Our homeland should at all times be under the control and jurisdiction of our nation. Our nation/society is the only authority that has the right to declare what, how, where and when to utilize our natural resources, protect our identity, secure our borders and ensure the safe developement of our natural environment. In other words, we are the only ones with the right to determine the fate of our homeland.No one understands our needs like us. No one can appreciate our interests like us, and definitely, no one cares for our welfare like we do. Accordingly, our sovereignty means our will in life. It means our character.

And notice that I said our nation is the sole authority, and not our government. This is simply because sovereignty means that even if a group of people, or a complete generation has decided to give away a piece of our homeland, they would be breaching the nation’s sovereignty over its natural environment, for this is not a property, it is a natural environment; it is a Right that all generations share; those who were here before us, the present one, and the coming generations as well. We have no right to place our homeland under another nation’s will, as the coming generations have rights to the land equal to ours, and we have obligations to deliver it to our children equal to our forefathers’.

AnyBODY, (Meaning organization, institution, government, state, etc.) who takes advantage of our weakness to speak on our behalf, dictate on us “our” interest, or decide on our behalf the course of our life, is also in breach of our sovereignty. Again, The only authority that has the right to determine our national interests in life is our nation.

Accordingly, sovereignty means national will.

Based on the Above, we notice the importance of maintaining a sovereign nation over its homeland and its will in life.

Independence

There are two important factors to consider when addressing the issue of independence, Materialistic Independence and Spiritual Independence.

A lot of us think that independence is a political achievement, whereby we recognize it by assigning a date on which we celebrate the liberation of our country from foreign occupation. This concept is trivial and shallow. as independence has more to it than being free from foreign military occupation.

Today there is not a semblance of independence in Lebanon, as we heavily feel the influence of foreign nations’ WILLS on our Daily life, even though we do not have any foreign troops on our soil, (except of course the UN, which are supposed to be under the supervision and command of the Lebanese Army). Yet, we cannot decide on ANY matter, being it political, social, or economic, without the interference of foreign influence.

So then what is independence? How do free nations enjoy independence? How do free nations protect and immunize their independence?

Independence is the state whereby a nation is completely free and sovereign in tackling its on life matters without any external influence. In other words, it is a state whereby the nation has reached a national maturity to acknowledge its identity, decide upon the nature of its interest and apply its will on all matters concerning its life, prosperity and progress.

Social:

The social factor of independence is when a society knows its character and decides upon its course in life, reflecting its own vision according to its needs for a better life. It is the spirit whereby the people can never accept any dictating from external powers on internal matters. This is called spiritual independence.

Material Independence

To be independent from foreign influence, in the true sense, we have to immunize our national economy. This means that we should develop our own industries, trade system, financial vision, and administrative concepts that may bring our nation as close as possible to self-sufficiency. Of course there is no such thing as completel self-sufficiency, but we should be able to offer other nations so much of what they need that they become dependent on our production. Otherwise, we are bound to become subjected to other nations’ dictates, thus opening the door for them to impose their interests on us, thereby jeopardizing our independence.
What we should do is safeguard our will with our own national production, meet our internal needs, and spread our efforts through all fields of life, including agriculture, industry, trade, finance, etc.

So as you can see, independence is a result of hard work, equal to sovereignty and Freedom. In fact, the interlink is so strong that we can hardly imagine achieving one without the others, or lacking one without the others.

This is why nations build, solidify, and strengthen themselves in all fields, including the military, without which they cannot effectively deter other nations from imposing their wills upon them. Now, the building of a military, or an armed forces, is not merely for aesthetic purposes, but for the clear objective of defending the nation and the homeland against foreign threats and designs. And having an effective defense, means having an effective deterrent capability, because if other nations know that the costs of any military adventure on your land far outweigh the benefits, then they are likely to opt for the peaceful route.

In Lebanon, the political establishment has never demonstrated a will or a commitment to build an effective armed forces, capable of defending the homeland against foreign attacks. As such, a resistance arose which effectively and successfully took on the role of such an armed forces. Therefore, there really is no ambiguity between resistance vs. defense vs. deterrence, as they are all part and parcel of the same thing. The resistance has mounted an effective defense against “Israeli” attacks and therefore forms a deterrence to any possible military adventures in Lebanon.

Thus, QN, you phrased your two options incorrectly. A school building is merely a structure; it can be rebuilt. However, possessing a true, effective educational and academic system supported by a strong, sustainable economy requires our ability to ensure that foreign nations’ wills are not dictated upon us so that we may continue to freely struggle to achieve what is best for our society. Our goal is not to have a “peace agreement” but rather to have the strength to provide a peaceful environment in which our people can advance and progress freely. The US, for example, does not have a “peace agreement” with the rest of the world but lives quite peacefully because its superior strength allows it to impose its own interests on its land. Anything short of that is not peace, but surrender to foreign dictates. And sure, if you succumb and submit to “israeli” hegemony, then you may be allowed to live in a state of non-war, but you will not live in peace, and you will definitely not have freedom, sovereignty, and independence.