Daily Archives: October 6, 2007

by

Rubbish Journalism

The New York Times is so blinded by Bush Hatred that its Lebanon reporting is becoming an insult to Lebanese intelligence.

Thanks to DBK for pointing out this outrageous piece in the New York Times on Lebanon:

“The struggle is over who gets to be the next president, a post reserved for a Christian under Lebanon’s Constitution, and which must be filled by the end of November. But the larger question — one that is prompting rival Christian factions to threaten war — is whether Lebanese Christians must accept their minority status and get along with the Muslim majority (the choice of the popular Gen. Michel Aoun) or whether Christians should insist on special privileges no matter what their share of the population (the position of veteran civil war factions like the Phalange and the Lebanese Forces).

They have to be kidding! Where does the Times find these idiots?

Aoun’s entire platform for the presidency is getting a “strong Christian leader”, and many say that his alliance with Hezbollah is a tactical move before eventually confronting them on their weapons.

It is plain irresponsible for the Times to manipulate the American Audience’s unfamiliarity with Lebanese nuance just to drive home a simplistic “Bush and his allies are evil” message.

Update: Tony has shred the piece apart.

by

Nassrallah: Choose Between Compromise And Aoun

Sayyed Nassrallah’s apparent endorsement of a popular presidential vote is a clever way to hang on to Aoun without committing to him.

Mr. Nassrallah said many things last evenings that are objectionable, like his blanket defense of the Syrian regime and exonerating it from the killings. But some of the more sophisticated pronouncements he made have to do with internal Lebanese politics.

Mr. Nassrallah made the case to his cheering (and shooting) crowds that in the absence of a compromise, which he said the Syrians would bless, a constitutional amendment allowing direct vote by the people would be a fairer way than the 50%+1 to decide who the next President will be.

To many people, universal suffrage is indeed a fair way to pick a President. But in Lebanon, there’s a reason why the constitution prefers parliamentary elections. In our established sectarian system, the Christian President is selected by a parliament which by law should be half Muslim, half Christian.

That  composition hardly reflects demographics on the ground, where Christians have lower birth rates and higher immigration figures. This is why PM Seniora rejected the proposal on the grounds that it institutionalizes the dominance of Muslims over Christians.

Bkirki is against such an amendment too because it could lead down the dangerous road of secularization (the next logical step after universal suffrage would be universal eligibility), and Aoun knows it.

Still, it was a shrewed political move from Mr. Nassrallah who found a way to hold on to his awkward alliance with Mr. Aoun without losing his ability to let go of him when he gets other options.