I’d like to agree with your logic, but can’t.
The problem with Berri is that you cannot separate him from Hezbollah. They ran on the same list, and as such, he was Hezbollah’s choice for Speaker. This was probably because they knew they could not get their own guy into the position. Regardless, Berri was Hezbollah’s choice and won on Hezbollah’s list.

A comparison could be drawn to, say, Muhammad Safadi. He’s not Mustaqbal, but ran with them on the Mustaqbal list. That, and he’s Sunni.

So, if we are to take your logic, then we should give the position to someone allied with Aoun, but not a member of Aoun’s party. That would mean giving the Presidency to Ghassan Mokheiber, or - gasp - Sleiman Franjieh (except he didn’t win).

All the members of Qornet Shehwan elected to this Parliament were not put in their position by a majority of Maronite voters. Everyone elected in Keserwan was elected by a majority of Maronite voters.

I’m just playing with the logic and not putting forth my opinion. You could play with another set of rules and give the speakership to a Shia elected in an area that is minority Shia (Jbeil or Baabda). And then you could give the presidency to a Maronite from an area that is minority Christian (Jezzine, Akkar).
However, by that logic, there would be a lot of Prime Minister’s from Bar Elias since the Sunni stick together.

Playing with arbitrary rules is not the way to choose Presidential candidates. Strida for President?
Definitely the most appealing choice.

Thanks for your enlightened input Mr Mousse

But who are you exactly to decree authoritatively what’s best for the people of Achrafiyyeh, Junieh and Zahleh, and more generally how and when Lebanese Christians should choose their leader?

Your parallelism between Hizbullah and Aoun’s Free Patriotic Movement is really shameful- the former has always been a subversive fundamentalist conduit for foreign interference in our country’s politics: the (proto) Hizbullah was actually jumpstarted and funded by the Mossad between 1977 and 1979, and various Iranian intelligence services since 1980.

The whole “Hizbull-shit” thing started in the mid-1970’s when then Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin was looking for South Lebanese collaborators against the PLO and its mainly Sunni Lebanese and Arab backers: the Israelis found a complacent ally in the rapidly growing Shiite “revivalist” movement, which at the time was treated disdainfully as Southern folklore by the Sunni-Beiruti establishment, the Israelis then passed on the baton to Ayatollah Khomeyni and the rest is History…

On the other hand, as Karine said earlier Gen Michel ‘Aoun is “ an honest patriot who has always served his country with pride and devotion…Unlike intolerant Wahhabi stooges such as Sa’ad-uldînn Hariri and Fuâd Seniora, Michel ‘Aoun has always been a staunchly secular leader: this is the reason why President Saddam Hussein, the greatest contemporary Sunni-Arab leader backed Aoun wholeheartedly against Rafik el-Hariri and Hafiz-el-Assad ”

Mustapha,
I have another equivalence for you:
Isn’t Nabih Berri’s in the Shiaa camp the equivalent of La7oud in the maronite one?
I mean if the shias picked the same corrupt pro-syrian person to stay in the same position shouldn’t the maronite pick the same corrupt pro-syrian person to stay on the same position?
Maybe we could re-amend the constitusion to allow them to do that if they so wish :-)

On a more serious note, It was a mistake for Hariri and Jumblat to use that logic the first place.
By going with “The shi3a chose Berry so we accept him” they now have to deal with the stupidy of their move.
If they let maronites pick they’ll have to deal with a choice they might not like, if they don’t let them pick they’ll alienate them further just like the syrians alienated christians when they kept picking their representatives.

I admit, I kind of enjoy the irony in the situation. Especially since i beleive that mistake of theirs completely killed the momentum of March 14th need for a change.

The christians must not “chose” the president, the parliament must. The only condition is that this Christian be representative, not a puppet like Ghattas or Lahoud for example.

The same should apply for the speaker and the prime minister. They must be chosen by the parliament, not by their community, but be acceptable to the community.

Who in their full brains could’ve stood up to the Shia leadership choice during election time (very instable times) without risking civil war?
This is a question I asked myself all along the process.
Back then, it was an existential approach by hizbullah.
I wonder if the same applies to the christian choice now.

One thing I do not understand, FPM claim to be Secular, and if they are, why are they using this logic?

They even go further when they say that the Majority of the LEBANESE chose AOun, do they mean that the Christians are Lebanese while others arent?

I am really dissapointed….

The interesting thing, is that none of what happened was “logic”. Let’s see that, once and for all, if we really want things to at least seem to change. We still play this “blame game”, pointing fingers at others and say they did that too …

I agree with you Khaled, the Orangist are just incoherant idiots. And malek is right, it wasn’t possible to reject Berri’s at the time.

You’re on bad day Mustapha.
I agree with you most of the time but today you make it seem like the LF are more moderate or more acceptable than Aoun. It’s plain wrong. Aoun raises his voice but his supporters are much more moderate than the LF who are sectarian bigots of the worst kind.
Don’t assume that the LF are moderate because they allied with FM and PSP. They did so because of their weakness and opportunism not out of conviction or moderation. These guys do not believe in Lebanon’s Unity while Aoun does. Aoun has many many flaws but he is truly secular and honest.

Just to put in my two cents about Aoun and his supporters … his supporters (generalizing here) are as moderate (or unmoderate) as LF supporters. The only difference is that the LF is more extreme than Aoun. If Aoun changed his current stance, then you would also see a current shift in “moderation” in his supporters.

Regardless of how much you may respect Aoun, you must realize that his supporters aren’t all that different than other supporters.

m-

OR the system could be changed so that it doesn’t have to be a maronite AT ALL.

in the meantime … why should “the christians” mirror the behavior of “the shiites”?

but hey, in the end … we’ve all learned something today: menachem begin founded hizbullah & then handed it over to his old pal, ayatollah khomeini. the hizbis, however, were so pissed off at having been sent off by their cool, modern masters (the israelis) to their masters’ distant, backwards cousins (the iranians), that they took out their anger & abandonment issues on their old masters.

damn zionists.

–raf*

This whole discussion is pointless because it’s based on an absurd comparison. As Raf said, it’s not because the Shia did something that the Christian should mime them.

I am waiting for Mustafa’s typical ‘let’s move to the next topic gentlemen, shall we?’. :)

The lebanese president should be elected by the lebanese parliement, neither by the christian nore by the patriarch. The whole concept that the shia must choose the speaker and the sunna the PM and the christians the president is a chame. Why not change the consitution and turn lebanon to a federation instead.
PS: Im not saying that the President should be a puppet in Jumblat’s hand

Alright Gentlemen, Can’t disapoint Vox.
Let’s move on.

Dont think that those who supported Berri did it because “the Shiaa chose him”. This is bullshit.

They did it because Berri makes the Muqawameh feel at ease that’s all.

So any sectarian comparison doesnt stand, the comparison should be a political one.

Kamal

What “Muqawameh”?

From Baalback to Sûrr I see only Irano-Zionist collaborators!

I have an Idea which I blogged as a joke, why not let the Lebanese chose the president in a reality-TV show to be called “Appointed By the Lebanese”, this will be great to have the contestants vie for the top spot in Lebanon’s post-Syrian government.
what do you think?

The shia’s picking Birri is an exception that should not be turned to a rule. This exception had its circumstances as Malek pointed out. I also agree with VP that the parliament, the representative of the Leabnese people, should choose all three presidents.

Abdul Karim

u all mistaken u r all a bunch of ediots mr. nabih berri is a great man who helped lebanon throuhg war and hard times and u r speaking on him as if he were a corrupt man but in the truth he is a hero he is loyal to his country and he should and will be re-elected and elected and elected and elected and elected and elected and nobody can stop him and fuck u all

u all mistaken u r all a bunch of ediots mr. nabih berri is a great man who helped lebanon through war and hard times and u r speaking on him as if he were a corrupt man but in the truth he is a hero he is loyal to his country and he should and will be re-elected and elected and elected and elected and elected and elected and nobody can stop him and fuck u all

[...] • I’ve been writing about Aoun’s “right” for the presidency for some time. In September 2005, I argued that since the Shiaas chose Amal for the Speaker’s position (instead of the more popular Hezbollah), it is unfair to say that the most popular politician in a sect is entitled to the highest post • In October 2006, I highlighted a comment which gives an alternative theory on why Aoun is entitled to the presidency • Last March, I wrote about the problems the opposition are having with Aoun. [...]