Correct! Any rationalization of the May 7th events (the “glorious day according to Hassan Nassrallah)to say the least is transparent and assinine regardless of how well it’s paraphrased!

The only thing I can add is an observation.

No Lebanese militia, no matter how many or how big are/were its guns survived for long in Lebanon after it used its guns to kill other Lebanese (no matter what the pretense was). Rest assured Hizballah is no different. May 7 was the beginning of the end.

So much of what you said is so true, especially when you alluded to the corrupt nature of our system in all manners of speaking: legal, administrative, financial, and economic; and the list go on.

Alas, this is the same system that Lebanese lived under since the inception of the entity, with the sole exception of a few years when Lebanon had a quasi-military system of government run by former Army Chief and President Foua’d Shehab. It is really ironic that Lebanon’s so-called golden age happened under the auspices of military intelligence and not so-called democracy.

Pride has nothing to do with it, my friend. It is rather wishing to view the glass as half full.

You may well be correct when you say that sectarian alienation is rife in this little-big country of ours. But do you really believe that if the developments didn’t materialise the way it did –no ideal by any stretch, I hasten to add- we would have 16 (or be it 17, 18!) sects living an absolute harmony, freedom will become universal, immigration will stop be a drain on our social structure and the debt disappears?.

I can understand your frustration. If I were a sympathiser of M14 oratory I would be confused as well and as frustrated too. I believe part of the prevailing problem is that the rhetoric in question went way too far to be realistic. The

Our political system is by no means perfect; far from it. It suffers fundamental pitfalls that erupt into the unsavoury and worse at almost every juncture. History tells us that and more.

That said, far from being proud of our system, I believe it is the fault of Lebanese and no one else for the debacles we experience periodically like clock-work. We cannot agree on the character of our nation, we always look outside to impose our will inside, or at least try to; we look upon this country as an asset for immediate or short term gratification rather than a nation for future generation.

My optimism, albeit too premature in the eyes of some, no doubt, is based on commitments by some notable politicians to the concept of reform. I am prepared to give them a chance; I have no other choice, really, except give up on my country, something I am still not ready to do, nor will I ever do I think.
Regards

Who claimed to have a crystal ball? Do you really read or just skim through the words. Go back and read again. Please understand well what was said. Watch out for big IF’s and WHEN’s. Where do you sense that my call to settle the Palestinians is based on sectarianism? What is your proof that settling the Palestinians will be disastrous to Lebanon? They are already in Lebanon. So we are already living in your perceived disaster. What could be worst? We’ve already gone through and paid for it – 30 years of stupid fighting. Who would want to fight again? Imagine Canada, Australia and the US would do the same to all the migrants as we are doing to the refugees. Would there be Canada, US, Australia as we know them now? We are basically creating a third class of non-citizen residents, even if you go ahead and implement your so-called humane treatment to your implied ‘undesirables’ (I would say that is racist on your part, don’t you think?). And you think Ghassan had a more noble incentive for settling them than I do? You’re wrong. I have the better incentive. Here it is:
Currently, no one in Lebanon is interested in fully implementing Taif. Settling the Palestinians after proper compensation to the Lebanese State will force the various groups to rethink the meaning and value of citizenship and provide a powerful motive to fully implement Taif. I do not think that anyone would jump to arms and start a new war to protect the ‘Lebanese purity’ of the State when that happens as you seem to imply. The Palestinians are already part of the fabric of the Lebanese society. The general thinking is for Lebanon to first secularize and then absorb the Palestinians. This is not going to happen. The Lebanese have no incentive at the moment or even in the foreseeable future to do so. The formation of this government proves my point. Fiscal constraints created by the huge public debt will create the incentive to absorb the Palestinians in return for compensations which will set the stage for Taif to become fully implemented. What would you like to see in Lebanon: Cantoons (i.e. multiple mini state Lebanons which we currently have) or decentralized government, bicameral chambers, etc…?

The Lebanese are now very comfortable in the sectarian fortresses they have created. This is not what Taef envisioned. Decentralization is not creating cantoons. We are at the lowest level of civil governance as Purple explained specifically due to the indespicable acts of Hezb on May 7 and its continuing threats of the use of force and the failure of M14 to stand up to its ideals. The acts of May 7 entrenched sectarianism and created these fortresses. Any one who does not see this and seeks to wrongly justify these acts as you did (you basically copied verbatim Hezbollah’s explanations) lacks reason and is not worthy to of any consideration. May 7 acts need to be condemned with the loudest voice in order for any one to be considered a true and constructive participant in a democratic society. These acts cannot become a source of honor or pride, neither in absolute nor in relative terms, to any one who believes in democratic governance. Hezbollah is an anti-democratic organization and is a greater threat to the Lebanese State than the presence of the refugees.

“A government headed by the most popular Sunni person, supported by the largest Maronite (Christian) block in Parliament, with the Major Druze leader playing the role of a positive advisor and with the Shiite constituency willing to be active participants. Now, to me this sounds like quite a formidable government, on paper at least, Charbel Nahas or no.”

You are so wrong. You have fallen trap to the sick political system enforced by Hezbollah’s arms. The level of sectarian alienation is higher than ever before due to this notion that you seem so proud of. The emergence of the sects – and the parties that hold exclusive rights to talk in the name of those sects- as a necessary pathway to the creation of public institutions and even the formation of individual opinions is nothing to be proud of.

Our situation today and the way this Government was formed both represent the lowest point of self-respect we have achieved as a “nation”.

This alienation resulted directy from Hezbollah’s arms which forced the Quadruple Alliance, which was in itself the main driving force to Hezbollah’s exclusivity of Shia representation. This in turn led to the melting of the hopes and dreams of those that marched on March 14 2005 as each sect followed Shiites’ lead and aligned itself behind its zaims.

The marginalization of the constitution, the lack of trust in justice and the rule of law, the lack of trust in the democratic system as a means to improvement, are all a result of Hezbollah’s maneuvaring and March 14s failures over the past few years.

But you’re proud that Mhanna, Moussawi, Itani, and Areedhi can sit on the same table.

True to form, you practiced what seems to be your favourite hobby: that of politico-social racism. You further went on made a great number of statements that really beg serious questions about whether you are contributing to this post (and other perhaps) as an endeavour to communicate with and understand others or a way to blow off political steam irrespective of the validity and sometimes importance of topics discussed.

I do not believe that contributing to a post is “injecting” oneself “unnecessarily”, as you put it. I further believe that this is a public post that all with ideas to contribute can do so without being subjected to innuendos.

I never mentioned you by name. My contribution intended to reflect on a worrying trend that seems to be prevalent in this and other posts about PR and spin. I stand wholeheartedly with my assessment of QN, irrespective whether I agree or disagree with his analysis; at least it is coherent.

Unlike you, I do not have proverbial crystal ball handy to enlighten me as to whether Lebanon under a new government will achieve the minimum of what is required. But looking at the current domestic security situation, the support the government enjoys regionally and internationally, the unambiguous support for Hariri Government; all this I see as an observer a pre-requisite for a cabinet that will have some space to operate towards a specific goal that will be declared soon.

Again, your ‘crystal-balling’ tells you that the Palestinians will be settled in Lebanon come what may, and irrespective of the ‘wishes’ of the hosts and guests alike. Who am I to argue with your crystal ball! But will hazard a caution: settling Palestinians in Lebanon is good for neither party and could actually have disastrous repercussions to our country. What we need to do in Lebanon is have a serious re-think as to the Palestinians’ social and humane conditions with a view to improving it.

I will not come back to you about anything Saniora did or didn’t do. He is a spent force now, on the peripheral of Lebanese politics and will not have heads of state and lesser officials clamouring to him whenever he is deemed to be weak. Even his position as Head of Mustakbal Parliamentary block is of no real effect as his ultimate boss PM Hariri calls the shots. Saniora did what is required of him and did it well, to the detriment of Lebanon I feel.

It is good of you to refer to Ghassan (34). To me he utters sense from a non-sectarian left wing (dare I say communist) perspective. He is entitled to his opinion, and he did that eloquently. It is difficult for me also to reconcile worldly political events with religious jurisprudence. Yet, there might come a day when elements of those opposites will move in harmony. The only grievance I have about the Hizb is that apart from the National Defence Brigades, he so far failed to make universal the resistance and steadfastness in the face of the one real enemy to the south and all encompassing Lebanese affair, rather than sustain its social and sectarian character.

Lebanon has witnesses much more barbaric civil skirmishes and even war since 1958. May 7, with its regrettable yet ‘limited’ bloodletting and societal displacement that ensued helped in many ways: It saved Lebanon a sectarian civil war that has been in the planning for sometime; it created a government that might otherwise have never seen the light of day; it made the political environment conducive for electing a President for the country after months of haggling; it lessened the tensions and the probability of a civil unrest at a potentially disastrous level by convincing one of the proponents namely MP Jumblatt that reconciliation is the order of the day. Last but not least, it led to the creation of a government that all seem to agree with. This fact alone is better than having a government in limbo.

Hizbulla, according to my observations, is not against the state as such, rather he is against a state that he feels represent a threat to his core political ideals. Let us remember that the Hizb was part of government under Hariri senior and Saniora. But the Hizb doesn’t compromise for the sake of a cabinet seat here or a membership of a parliamentary committee there.

I do not try to “convince” myself of anything when it comes to politics, rather sober observation rules the day for me. My assessment is as follows: A government headed by the most popular Sunni person, supported by the largest Maronite (Christian) block in Parliament, with the Major Druze leader playing the role of a positive advisor and with the Shiite constituency willing to be active participants. Now, to me this sounds like quite a formidable government, on paper at least, Charbel Nahas or no.

Regards