| Monday, July 9, 2007 |
| By the way!! |
| How come there is still fighting in Naher El Bared?? We are in the beginning of the summer season, and the fighting is still going on. If the Lebanese Army has the upper hand, why don't they move in and finish it off?? Wouldn't that help the economy a little? Why all the delay? |
posted by Orange Peel @ 6:29 AM  |
|
|
|
| Saturday, July 7, 2007 |
| If the FPM ruled!! |
It seems that the FPM has a tight grip on what is being expressed in terms of political views by its supporters and opposers alike. Let me give you an example.
I usually read and engage in discussion board conversations and debates on 3 separate forums. These forums belong to the FPM, the LF, and the FM.
Forums are usually a good way to find out what is going on in the country in a live updated manner. But, being a user on all these 3 forums, there is a fundamental difference between the manner of moderation of these forums. The forums belonging to the LF and FM has a similar mode of operation. There is a set of rules that you have to abide with, and as long as you do so, you can post anything you want. The FPM forum (LFPM.org) has a different mode of operation. All posts are pre-moderated. This means that if you want to post an idea, a comment, anything on their forum, it has to be reviewed by a moderator first, before you are allowed to post.
This means that the individual moderator can block your idea from passing through, because he or she did not like it. This actually does not qualify as "moderation" but rather as censorship. I honestly would be very worried if the FPM ruled Lebanon. If censorship has come to an open source of information such as an open discussion board, then you could imagine what it would be like if this same concept gets applied on a governmental scale. Maybe, when the LFPM changes their policy regarding this rule, I would reconsider supporting them for governance. But this form of tapping into posted information, and censorship in a supposedly public atmosphere gives me the shivers. |
| posted by Orange Peel @ 6:47 AM |
|
|
|
| Thursday, July 5, 2007 |
| An unholy marriage? |
In the beginning, the FPM signed an agreement paper with another large Lebanese political party, Hizbullah.
This paper, signed in the church of St. Michael, located in what once used to be a No Man's land, on the fringes of the boundaries of the Lebanese civil war, caused many reverberations on various levels. The Future Movement, The Lebanese Forces and the PSP, saw this as an unholy marriage. In certain respects, it was sort of ironic, and mind boggling that the FPM was capable of achieving something like this. A couple of months back, all these political groups were allied in the elections with each other, against the FPM, and everything was fine and dandy. When the FPM signed this agreement with Hizbullah, hell broke loose, especially that this came at the knick of time, where things were not looking well between the 3 parties and Hizbullah. It seemed that the FPM snatched a powerful ally from the other side.
I want to elaborate on the pros and cons of this agreement in this post:
The Pros:
1- Hizbullah is "the" representative of the Shiaa sect in Lebanon. This agreement brought the Lebanese Shiaa back into the fold of the Lebanese political life, instead of their isolation, which could have disastrous effects.
2- Hizbullah signed an agreement to achieve a secular society. (Seemed impossible at first)
3- It eased the fears and tensions of the Lebanese Christian society living in predominately Shiaa areas, such as Tyr and East Saida.
4- A return of the Lebanese in Israel.
5- Spoke against political assassination.
6- Delineate the boarders between Lebanon and Syria, & a return of the Lebanese prisoners in Syrian jails, and Israeli jails.
The Cons:
1- No time table for Hizbullah to surrender its arms to the Lebanese Army. It was connected with the feeing of occuppied Lebanese territories. In my opinion, this is hypocrisy. Not having a timetable was one of Michael Aoun's main takes on the Taef agreement. The Taef agreement validated the Syrian occupation for an extended period of time, and the FPM/Hizbullah agreement validated Hizbullah's keeping of its arms for an extended period of time.
2- Allowed the Palestinians to keep their arms inside the camps. We all have seen how much arms could be stacked in the camps with the unfinished events in Nahr el Bared.
Even though the Pros are more than the Cons, yet, the nature of the Cons work in the opposite direction with much items in the Pros and invalidate their application. For example, the Palestinian arms inside the camps works against the item that deals with political assassinations, as we have seen the connection between these assassinations and these arms. On the other hand, Hizbullah arms have been used as an excuse by the Israeli government to wage a destructive war on Lebanon.
These two items that have been missed by the FPM, have caused the greatest destruction Lebanon have seen in more than 15 years. FPM has scored points on its political rivals, but have taken Lebanon into a dark route. |
| posted by Orange Peel @ 1:08 PM |
|
|
|
| Tuesday, July 3, 2007 |
| A Watchful Eye |
The Free Patriotic Movement is one of the major Lebanese parties only next to Hizbullah. It has a wide popular base ranging from Christians to Shiaa to Druze and some Sunnis.
The party portrays an image of secularism, and claims that it is on a mission to "Reform and Change" things around.
This blog is a commentary on such claims.
Note: I am not affiliated with any Lebanese political group. The fact that I singled the FPM out arises from my belief that it has potential, and that is why, I will seem a bit harsh. I could only be categorized as an independent. |
| posted by Orange Peel @ 7:16 PM |
|
|
|
|
