I was reading through the internet forum and realized how OK people are with the agreement around the discussion table on the disarming of the Palestinians outside but not insde the camps. When people first start talking about the need to disarm the Palestinians inside Lebanon, naturally, you would think that it means disarming them inside and outside the camps. But somehow we got this new equation of the need to keep the Palestinian arms inside the camps but not outside it. Who , and I'm talking about all politicians , are they trying to fool with this smooth act?



I am not accusing the politicians of having ulterior motives through this move, but what is this type of neo-comprimisation infront of Lebanese interests. Do they really think that people are gullible enough to actually think that those weapons that the Palestinians have inside thier camps are going to repel a full fledged Israeli attack that HA and the army was not able to repel.

The Cairo agreement was signed on the basis of supporting the arab/palestinian cause. The main purpose was to arm the Palestinians and have them launch attacks at Israeli, which Lebanon was in an official state of war with since 1948. That agreement was one of the main causes that lead to the war errupting in 1975. The Palestinians used those weapons against the Lebanese, and they also gave Israel another exuse to enter Lebanon, Twice.

The purpose of this post is not to point fingers, but its main purpose is to point out this specific agreement that has been agreed upon on the discussion table, but is closer to a ridiculous comprimise over Lebanese interests, much like what happened before. I'm a staunch opposer of HA's weapons, but I do not believe that this concentration on disarming HA is going to lead anywhere when they refuse to disarm the foriegners IN and OUT of the camps.