Some have expressed a dislike to labels used by the General against his opponents. No matter what label is used, emphasis must be placed on the rights deprived to the oppressed and not the label used to describe the oppressors.

It is said that the ?Loyalists? want a president ?they can deal with.? Could they first define the manner by which they want to deal with the president ? if such a manner is different from how they are currently treating the presidency ? so it would be clear who is to blame in the ?dealing process??

It has been spoken of a ?consensus president.? If consensus is on national unity and principles, then General Aoun has a better record than other candidates ? and, therefore, the most deserving of the presidency.




- Source: amin.org, 07/09/2007.

Regardless of what they say about the ?leaning?, the General is not a patsy to anyone against his countrymen. If the ?Loyalists? want to protect themselves from foreign intrusion, there is no candidate better for them than him. Do the ?Loyalists? honestly believe that what most of them could not achieve combined (i.e., stand up to foreign pressure) one of them will be able to achieve alone as a president?

The General is also accused of acting out of ?personal interests.? Are his opponents unselfishly practicing politics for the love of God and country? If a person defends the constitution and individual rights, then he is accused of ?personal interests.? Those who are violating the constitution and depriving citizens of their rights on whose interests are they acting?

In the pursuit of Lebanon?s next president, the candidate who made the most contributions ? both in words and deeds ? toward national unity is General Michel Aoun. In terms of principles, the presidential candidate who has proven to side with all Lebanese (including his political opponents) against any foreign intervention is General Michel Aoun.

The General is sometimes accused of ?leaning? the Christian community toward Syria and Iran instead of the United States. For those making the accusation, why do they have to imply that leaning to the West is better than leaning to the East ? instead of simply being Lebanese? The security of all citizens is national unity, and that cannot be imported from foreign countries.

One of these defining decisions was The Understanding between FPM and Hezbollah. As a result, both General Michel Aoun and Hezbollah leadership created bridges of understanding between many Lebanese across religious and political lines. The opponents portrayed the Understanding as ?Syrian-Iranian.? If this is the case, all they had to do was join it and make it ?Lebanese?, especially since they never disagreed with its content. And if the content is agreeable to them, would that make them Syrians and Iranians as well?

The opponents also falsely linked the Understanding to the 2006 war ? as if the Understanding was a military agreement against Israel, or as if Israel never caused a war before the Understanding was enacted. The Understanding played a role in national unity, civil peace, and victory over Israel ? without any of these, there would have been no Lebanon.

(3) Fear from ?this? or ?that?? The answer can be legal and constitutional systems that ensure individual equality and protection for all citizens regardless of political or religious affiliation. Based on proper systems and policies, neither ?this? nor ?that? would be threatening.

The Lebanese must be aware that
(1) to reach viable understandings among themselves is obviously more advantageous than being subordinates to foreign influence. Foreign diplomats should not be viewed as more responsible for any community?s or Lebanon?s fate than the members of that community or the Lebanese themselves.
(2) if the international community is truly a ?helper?, then it would have respected the will of the Lebanese and internal constitutional standards.
(3) the Lebanese are primarily responsible for their own destiny, which will be defined by the decisions they make.

All Lebanese live in one country called the Republic of Lebanon. Those who seek to preserve it, preserve it for everyone. Those who seek to undermine any community within it by aligning with foreign elements against that community, undermine it for all ? including themselves.

The Lebanese seem to be always presented with choices:
(1) Iran and Syria or the United States? The answer should be clear: Lebanon and constitutional rights. If government officials win the support of the whole world and lose the country, what good would that be?
(2) Diplomacy or military defense? Those who pride themselves with diplomacy are free to pursue such a venue based on agreed upon national standards and principles. Those who are competent in military affairs will play a role in military defense. The defense of the southern part of Lebanon, for example, is also a defense of the Chouf, Beirut, and the rest of the country. The answer does not have to be one or the other. It can be both working jointly.