| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Jean
Lebanon
50 Posts |
 Posted - 07/06/2005 : 7:18:59 PM
|
Given the intensity of the discussions that took place on the rights of Lebanese Jews as citizens of Lebanon, and given that many forum participants there favored a discussion on the relations with Israel instead (some Lebanese seem to be wired to shift any meaningful discussion where they cannot voice a sound opinion, to a discussion on the relations with Israel; same for the politicians or other leaders who have no program to offer, theirs become the war with Israel), I thought we should open the discussion.
Admittedly, Lebanon is in a state of war with Israel, in which the Lebanese people were always at the receiving end of the beating from the Israelis and from whoever party was/is fighting Israel from the Lebanese territories, be it the Palestinians, the Libyans, the Somalis, the Iraqis, the Iranians, and local militias some of them subscribing to foreign ideologies.
All of them of course alleged to fight in the name of Lebanon and the Arab just cause, and the muslim causes and whatever the cause of the grocers and shopkeepers in Ras el-Nabe3, Wata LeMsaytbeh, El Basta Ettahta and Verdun were .
Today the real question is: do we as people and government take control of this unending destructive war and decide that the Lebanese people should collectively through their government (parliament and the council of ministers) make any and all decisions related to war or acts of war with the state of Israel? or do we keep it in the hands of groups whose allegiance remains to be ascertained.
Is the state of war with Israel really necessary? If yes to what end? Can we end it without necessarily signing a peace treaty? What would it take to end the state of war with Israel given that Lebanon cannot fight on equal footing anyway? |
|
|
mehio
Lebanon
10 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2005 : 12:12:09 PM
|
| I think israel is the enemy of the nation: arab and muslim nation. we should continue the war with israel until we win. How to win the war should be the question. |
 |
|
|
Jean
Lebanon
50 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2005 : 11:15:58 PM
|
Let me agree with you for the sake of discussion: how do you suppose we could win the war? You asked the question, do you have an answer for it?
Is the military war a viable option in your opinion? Do we have enough resources to strengthen ourselves and our infrastructures economically and socially while at the same time fighting a military war? |
|
|
|
Talal
Syria
21 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2005 : 01:27:14 AM
|
I agree with mehio.
we have shown that we can win a war against israel when we kicked her out of lebanon, insha'allah we will liberate all palestine the same way. |
|
|
|
lebanon419
United Kingdom
19 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2005 : 07:40:33 AM
|
Jean I see there was no point of the repulsive intro u made there about how everyone turns everything into a war with Israel. Well erm duh! That was the whole point of the ‘Lebanese Jew’s’ discussion -What will Lebanese people, who are currently at the state of war with the Jewish state of Israel, look at him as-. Trying to act smart made you appear so dense.
Please name me a leader who you claim has no programme to offer and so twists everything into a war with Israel? Yes I would be delighted to hear your reply.
As for Israel, we have won back Southern Lebanon. The same way, we can win back our Shebba Farms. This enemy has proven to us that no diplomatic solutions have been taken into consideration by him. What other means do we have?? Quiet logical. We have been fighting in South Lebanon, whilst building the infrastructure and economy at the same time. Israel itself has proven that a country can be at the state of war and build itself at the same time.
hawniha bit hon, sa3beha btes3ab!
There will come a time where many will die,
When the ground will shake and the skies will cry.
But out of the darkness will rise a light,
A servant of Allah, full of wisdom and might. |
|
|
|
Jean
Lebanon
50 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2005 : 11:59:31 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by lebanon419
We have been fighting in South Lebanon, whilst building the infrastructure and economy at the same time.
Lebanon419: Who are "We"? The Lebanese army? The Lebanese people? The Lebanese government?
What is your proposal? Do you have anything to offer other than rhetoric and criticism? Do you have any constructive ideas to offer?
My initial questions were:
1. "do we as people and government take control of this unending destructive war and decide that the Lebanese people should collectively through their government (parliament and the council of ministers) make any and all decisions related to war or acts of war with the state of Israel? or do we keep it in the hands of groups whose allegiance remains to be ascertained.
2. Is the state of war with Israel really necessary? If yes to what end? Can we end it without necessarily signing a peace treaty? What would it take to end the state of war with Israel given that Lebanon cannot fight on equal footing anyway?"
Do you have specific (to the point) answers? or do you simply like to make a joke of everything?
I believe that this forum is for serious people who are here to exchange ideas for the best of Lebanon. If you can't be serious enough about these issues, if you are here simply to criticize everyone else and attack their persons and to serve as a propaganda machine to Islamic fundamentalism, I for one am not interested in what you have to say. So spare yourself the trouble of typing because I believe many in this forum share my sentiments.
I say that respecting your right to have fun, make jokes and live life as you please; asking you in return to respect our right for a level-headed and intelligent discussions on important national issues. |
Edited by - Jean on 07/12/2005 12:00:23 AM |
|
|
|
Reformist
20 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2005 : 06:38:01 AM
|
Jean,
Yes a solution must be found, but that does not mean we have to compromise.
Here is the ReformLebanon (RL) policy on Israel:
Reformist Policy Towards Israel
Lebanon is currently at a state of war with Israel. The Lebanese reformists would like to see an end to hostilities on the border, but with our demands for peace met.
Reformist Demands For Peace With Israel:
- The Lebanese boundaries as defined on the proclamation of independence from France in 1943 must be fully respected. Any lands within these boundaries currently under Israeli occupation must be relinquished. Any Israeli flights over Lebanese airspace; or Israeli vessels venturing into Lebanese waters; or Israeli transport onto Lebanese territory without permission from the Lebanese Government will be considered as a breach of Lebanese sovereignty and thus the Lebanese Republic reserves the right to defence and retaliation.
- Israel is to compensate Lebanon for damages to infrastructure as a result of 22 years of Israeli occupation between 1978 and 2000.
- Peace will not be achieved with Israel until the Palestine question is resolved.
- All Palestinian refugees in Lebanon shall be returned to their original homes and resettled by the Israeli and Palestinian governments. We will not recognise Israel's right to exist until Israel recognises the Palestinian right to exist in the Holy Land.
- All Arab lands - captured in 1967 in the Six Day War - currently under Israeli occupation (Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights) must be relinquished. Note: This shall only apply if Syria integrates Lebanese demands in their peace negotiations also.
|
|
|
|
Jean
Lebanon
50 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2005 : 10:17:45 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Reformist
... a solution does not mean we have to compromise.
I totally agree with you on that.quote:
Originally posted by Reformist
Lebanon is currently at a state of war with Israel. The Lebanese reformists would like to see an end to hostilities on the border, but with our demands for peace met.
How can they be met if you do not make them of the appropriate authorities. Has any Lebanese authority since 1990, made a clear demand of Lebanese rights in exchange for peace? I do not think so, at least not publically. Our case is like those who shout at the wind. I like it that you articulate clearly your reform demands although I take issue with some of them.
I think it goes without question to say that your first 2 demands are quite clear and legitimate and should be the top priority. But then you say: quote:
Originally posted by Reformist
Peace will not be achieved with Israel until the Palestine question is resolved.
Why? You are raising the Palestine question, why? In what role? Has Palestine appointed us as a negotiator for its rights? The Palestinians can represent best what they want. We do not have to do that for them. We support their cause politically, we support them as much as we can but why do we have to go to war for them? So I disagree with you on that.quote:
Originally posted by Reformist
All Palestinian refugees in Lebanon shall be returned to their original homes and resettled by the Israeli and Palestinian governments. We will not recognise Israel's right to exist until Israel recognises the Palestinian right to exist in the Holy Land.
The Palestinian refugees must be given the right to return if they choose to. You cannot force them to go back if they do not want to. They are human beings and you must respect their right to choose. Most of them were born in Lebanon and do not know another country, what do you tell them. I do not have the answer to that but this point certainly warrants a debate.
On the matter of the "Holy Land": again my only Holy Land is the Land of Lebanon; outside a peaceful and prosperous Lebanon, nothing is Holy. If my country is at war and my people are dying, where is Holiness. So I disagree with you on that and I think we can debate this issue.quote:
Originally posted by Reformist
All Arab lands - captured in 1967 in the Six Day War - currently under Israeli occupation (Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights) must be relinquished. Note: This shall only apply if Syria integrates Lebanese demands in their peace negotiations also.
This does not concern us at all. Egypt liberated its land, so did Jordan, the only remaining occupied land is that of the Golan heights, that is a matter for Syria to fend on its own and excuse me if I am not willing to stay at war for the sake of the Syrians. So here again I disagree with you but will be happy to debate you. |
|
|
|
Reformist
20 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2005 : 09:53:30 AM
|
Jean,
Thank you for your response.
I will answer your points in sequential order.
1/ We are aware that there is a lack of a national cohesion within Lebanon, preventing it from forming a set of national interests. We have established a set of stances based upon Lebanon's national interests by taking into concern the considerations of each sect and region in Lebanon. This is the basis of our stances. In regards to our policy on Israel, this is what we demand be our stance in peace negotiation with Israel and we will lobby those demands as best as possible until they are adopted officially by the Lebanese state.
2/ We are not asking for war on behalf of Palestine. You said we will support Palestine politically, and that is exactly what we're doing by offering to not recognise Israel until the Palestinians are themselves recognised and re-settled in their lands. This does not mean we have to be at war with Israel.
3/ The Lebanese determine who will settle on their land, no one else. When refugees sought asylum in Australia, by UN law Australia should have settled them, but instead Australia either deported or detained refugees with the support of the majority of the Australian people. The majority of the Lebanese people also reject the settling of the Palestinians in Lebanon, and we will not yield on this position unless the majority of LEBANESE choose otherwise. Mahmoud Abbas or any other PLO leader does not make decisions for Lebanon. If Abbas wants to sign a peace deal with Israel, he either has the option of taking his people and cramming them into the West Bank/Gaza or pushing for a greater deal which enables the Palestinians to settle and gain Israeli and/or Palestinian citizenship. To achieve the latter, we advise a co-operation between the Palestinians, Lebanon and other Arab states regarding peace negotiations so Abbas does not sell his people short.
4/ Adjoining our peace negotiations with other Arab states is a strategic choice. We are offering to take into consideration the issues of other Arab states with Israel, namely Syria and the Palestinians, in exchange that our demands be also included in peace negotiations. Do note that we emphasised the need for our demands to be included in any joint peace negotiation effort.
We cannot hope to achieve anything from Israel on our own. Israel is the power in the region, it doesn't want peace on our terms, it wants it on their terms. We are trying to ensure that we do not sign a cheap deal on their terms, and the greater our alliances and co-ordination with other states and organisations, the stronger our position.
|
|
|
|
Jean
Lebanon
50 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2005 : 6:49:13 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Reformist
3/ The Lebanese determine who will settle on their land, no one else. When refugees sought asylum in Australia, by UN law Australia should have settled them, but instead Australia either deported or detained refugees with the support of the majority of the Australian people. The majority of the Lebanese people also reject the settling of the Palestinians in Lebanon, and we will not yield on this position unless the majority of LEBANESE choose otherwise.
Thank you Reformist for your clarification, particularly number 3. In the Australia case, how long have the refugees been in Australia before being deported? I am all for the humane deportation of all the Palestinians that are currently in Lebanon if we can, but I do not see it happening in reality.
If the Palestinian Authority evolves into a state and that state reaches a peace agreement with Israel, then the best that can happen is for the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon to become a "Jaliya" or "Ra3aya" of the Palestinian state. Short of a Palestinian demand to send them to Palestine, the decision to deport them will require a UN resolution.
On the issue of adjoining other Arab states in peace negotiations, the only state left there that matters anyway is Syria. What is Lebanon's interest in adjoining Syria, when Syria has occupied Lebanon for 30 years, exploited its resources, and that it was kicked out by UN mandate, it decided to close its borders to suffocate us economically? I wonder if it would be prudent at this junction to open the borders with Israel and let our goods flow through to Jordan and from there to the arab world and screw Syria economically and politically until the Baath regime in there has changed. Again this is only a contemplation and a flushing of ideas. |
|
|
|
PaxLibano
France
39 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2005 : 6:05:02 PM
|
I think Assad's regime is trying to push Lebanon into signing peace with Israel. Closing the borders with Syria by the Assad regime can lead to one of 2 things: 1) Lebanon suffocating economically or 2) opening the borders with Israel. Unless Assad has decided to use us again as hostages to bargain with the Arab world for money or more respect (whatever that means).
I think the issue of war and peace should be evaluated in the context of Lebanon's interest only regardless of the Palestinians, the Syrians or the rest of the Arabs. The question should be: What is best for Lebanon? We answer it then we proceed.
We have tried the Arab/Syrian choice for more than 50 years now; we have sown more than 40 years of war, destruction and occupation. The Lebanese proverb says: "Mish 7imar yalli byeghlat, 7imar yalli bi3id ghletto." So have we learned anything from our strategic alliance with the Arabs? Should we consider alternative strategies?
I am asking these questions to generate a discussion and perhaps as the devil's advocate. So I beg of those who disagree with the questions or the tone of the discussion, not to attack me but rather discuss meaningfully the issue. |
|
|
|
Truth Squad
114 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2005 : 08:58:58 AM
|
Pax, our problems with Syria and the Syrian regime should not force us in any way to peace negotiations with Israel. First rule, you do not negotiate when you are in a weak position and our political and strategic position today in Lebanon is pathetic.
I am a peace advocate but a peace that comes out of convictions of the need for it not one that is forced on us as the only choice. Even if the Syrian Baath is trying to push us in this direction by imposing an economic embargo on our goods and closing the border to transit from Lebanon, we should exploit other economic venues before we jump in the Israeli lap. |
|
|
|
Reformist
20 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2005 : 05:27:28 AM
|
On Lebanon-Syria relations, I would be more than happy to discuss this in another thread. All I will say is that on political, economic, strategic, geographic, historical and cultural levels, we need the best of relationships with Syria.
In support of what Truth Squad said, yes we do need to be in a stronger position in peace negotiations for the reasons I have also mentioned.
However, we must consider another important fact when discussing peace negotiations with Israel. Unlike other Arab states, Lebanon is a semi-democracy and to a small extent relies on the voice of the people. States like Egypt and Jordan can make peace deals with Israel and survive because they suppress their people, and the opinions of their people are not taken into consideration.
In Lebanon, it's a different situation. There will be turmoil on the streets as we saw in May 17 if any Lebanese Government moves for a unilateral, cheap peace deal with Israel. Yes Lebanon was occupied by Syria for 30 years, but Lebanon was absolutely crushed by Israel in a single week in 1982. As long as the majority of the Lebanese resent Israel, then there is no point discussing the possibility of cheap peace talks with Israel.
|
|
|
|
Truth Squad
114 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2005 : 11:17:50 AM
|
I think the problem of war and peace with Israel cannot be discussed in isolation from the problem of war and peace with Syria. After 30 years of what many regarded as Syrian occupation of and military war on Lebanon, now Syria has launched a new economic war on Lebanon.
Let's not get carried too far by Arab or Syrian nationalism here. In as much as the Syrian Baath Regime continues its economic war on Lebanon for political goals, for me it is an ennemy. I can understand economic wars in the realm of market competition, but I do not accept that a regime that describes itself as a friend and a brother, imposing suffocating conditions on my economy that threatens the well-being of my citizens, my farmers, my markets.
Our independance war with Syria has not ended yet.
This is not to say that we need to go and make peace with Israel. On the contrary, it means we need to strengthen our internal front to face both ennemies: Israel and the Syrian Baath Regime. If you can use one ennemy against the other, it would better.
P.S. I distinguish the Syrian People from the Syrian Baath regime, as the people are our friends and families, but the regime is a despotic one that must go. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
War and Peace with Israel
Forum Locked
