Elie Aoun: Clarifying Lebanon’s Misguided Politics/ايلي عون: توضيح سياسات لبنان المُضلّلة 


Clarifying Lebanon’s Misguided Politics/ايلي عون توضيح سياسات لبنان المضللة 
Elie Aoun/April 26/18

It is necessary to reflect on certain views of late Parliamentarian Samir Frangieh (as published in Annahar on November 6, 2009) to correct a misguided political ideology which continues to negatively impact Lebanon today.

Criticism in itself is not sufficient. A solution is presented, in brief, at the end of this article.

Mr. Frangieh spoke in favor of the “Union for the Mediterranean” and a “new Arab regime.”

If we look at a map of the “Union for the Mediterranean” member countries and place it next to an ancient map of the Roman Empire, both maps would look almost the same. The real objective behind such a “Union” is the “reunification” of member countries. France’s former President Sarkozy said in February 2007: “within every man and woman who lives on the shores of the Mediterranean sleeps the memory, nostalgia, for the UNITY lost 15 centuries ago.” He added that he wanted to be “the president of a France that will set the Mediterranean on the path of its REUNIFICAION, after 12 centuries of division.”

Israel is a member of the “Union.” Can anyone explain why Lebanon and Israel express public animosity against one another while they are both part of a “treaty” aimed at their “integration” as part of a wider Union?

Leaders on both sides of the border know that they are servants of a regional/global agenda, not a national one. In the same manner that the 2006 war led to the deployment of about 15,000 European troops on Lebanese soil, any future “managed” war will be aimed at facilitating more “integration.”

Also, whatever Mr. Frangieh meant by the “new Arab regime,” it is intended to be of a “European Union” style. When you unify or “federalize” Arab monarchial and dictatorial regimes, what do you expect to get – a “democracy”?

Whether it is a “Union” or a “new Arab regime,” one thing is clear: there is no national sovereignty or independence. Lebanon becomes officially what it is “behind the scenes” today: leaders pretending to be national leaders when in reality they are patsies implementing orders given to them by their “superiors” (regional or global). The better traitors they are, the greater their wealth and political power.

Mr. Frangieh is also wrong in prescribing to Lebanon a role between the Arabs and the West

Most Arab countries have better relations with the West than Lebanon. They have no need for Lebanon to play such a role, and the country is not fit to play that role under the present circumstances.

Furthermore, the slogan “Lebanon is a message” is but a myth. Most countries have more religious diversity and better religious co-existence than in Lebanon. They have nothing to learn from Lebanon about ‘diversity” or “co-existence” when they are living better than the Lebanese.

The Lebanese have to abandon the delusions of a “message” or “role” and begin to think realistically about resolving more pertinent issues facing the country – such as social, economic, and political.

Mr. Frangieh supports the so-called “religious dialogue” – which is adopted by Lebanon’s existing President when he called for making Lebanon a “center for religious dialogue.” In reality, this is a dissembling label for religious fornication.

Any Lebanese or researcher is encouraged to spend some time reviewing “religious dialogue” services (pursued by the infiltrated Vatican) videotaped on YouTube and decide for themselves if that is what they want for their country. Here is a video that summarizes the story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuXYgXFhlsU https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqqN2e5-zgkQhHOs-ailqBQ

The Christians believe in the deity of Jesus Christ and the Triunity of God. The Muslims, Druze, and other religions do not. The God of the Christians is not the same as the Allah of the Muslims. The religious issues are matters of faith and doctrine, and are not open to a deceptive “religious dialogue” aimed at merging all religions into one, at equating what is divine with what is not.

From all the “prayers for peace” made during the meetings for “religious dialogue” held from 1986 (in the Vatican) and many other cities in the years that followed, has Lebanon or the Arab region improved as a result?

Mr. Frangieh spoke of unifying the churches under the banner of an “Arab Church” with the purpose of an “honest cooperation with Islam to renew the Christian-Muslim East.”

The unification of churches implies a church unity under the infiltrated Vatican, which means the final annihilation of any true Church.

Anyone who does not think that the Vatican and Bkirki are infiltrated is free to explain how the Lebanese and Arab Christians are better off today than they were fifty years ago as a result of Vatican and Bkirki’s politics.

Furthermore, the Christian and Muslim clergy involved in politics wish to maintain their political authority. They will not take measures to “renew” the East in any constructive way.

Mr. Frangieh stated that Lebanese Christians were at the forefront of Middle Eastern Christians in calling for the separation between state and religion.

Such a measure implies three meanings: (1) to stop the clergy from interfering in politics; (2) to remove religious affiliations as a basis for governmental posts; or (3) to remove any link to God at governmental institutions.

The clergy of Rome, Tehran, Bkirki, the Southern suburb of Beirut, and others have no intention to cease political interference. If they do, then they are free to unilaterally withdraw from politics.

With regard to distributing governmental posts based on religious affiliation, that issue has to be maintained (in most part) in a religious-sensitive Lebanon. It cannot be entirely eradicated.

However, the true objective behind the measure is not about religion, but about God. Those behind that agenda want to separate God from the institutions of government – where it becomes non-permissible for someone to pray or read a Bible within the halls of a public school or a governmental institution (similar to certain cases in the United States).

Mr. Frangieh stated that there is “no clear vision for Lebanon’s future and our role in it.” Actually, his superiors in Bkirki and the Vatican do have a vision: It is the “Union.”

Patriarch Al-Rai said in his first speech as a Patriarch that the purpose of the Vatican Synod on the Middle East is to bring the Arab nations under the banner of Mary. What does that mean?

Mary, the mother of Jesus, has no political or geographical ambition. What “Mary” is the Patriarch referring to, and does “Mary” approve of what has been taking place in Lebanon and the Arab region from the time of the Synod until the present?

Other clergy also speak of a different kind of a “union,” an Islamic one.
Both the Lebanese and the Arabs continue to pay the price for the delusions of old men wearing robes (those of the clergy and secret societies) who foolishly seek to dismantle nation-states and to create a geographical unity which carries within it the seed of its destruction.

Mr. Frangieh is also wrong in attributing to “cultural link” as a means to “future peace.”Lebanon and some European countries have gone beyond “cultural links.” Half of Lebanon’s inhabitants are non-Lebanese. Is this the path to future peace?
Peace is based on viable legal and economic principles, not cultural links, unfounded dialogues, and misguided visions.

Those who advance certain ideals, need to first present a nation which adopted those ideals and elevated itself into peace and prosperity.

For example, those who seek an “Islamic” state, can they present to us one nation today that implements the Islamic Sharia and as a result transformed itself from war and despair to peace and prosperity?

Those who support Lebanon’s President’s and Mr. Samir Frangieh’s ideas (which they adopted from Jesuitism and Freemasonry), can they point to one nation today which elevated itself from political and economic decay by declaring itself to be a “message” for others, to have some magical “role” between East and West, to be a “center for religious dialogue,” or through openness, cultural link, or a Christian-Islamic renewal? This is all nonsense.

Former CIA Director William Casey said: “We will know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.” Similarly, the vast majority of what the Lebanese believe is actually false. They are being “sold” on certain false ideas “for their own benefit” when in reality the implementation of these ideas are for national suicide.

In brief, the proper solution for Lebanon and the Arab nations is the establishment of sovereign, independent, states with defined constitutional rights and principles similar to the ones adopted in English common law countries. Those who have a better model, let them point to it. To succeed, we must adopt models that have proven records of success – not promote unreliable theories.

Instead of seeking a vision within the Arab world or within the Mediterranean, it would be best to first pursue a vision within the Lebanese boundaries which aims at preserving the country and increasing the confidence of its citizens in their own nation.

N.B: The writer of any article, analysis or document published on the LCCC site takes full responsibility for his/her own personal opinion