BREAKING NEWS: Lebanon elects a Christian president
Supporters of the Free Patriotic Movement asked only beautiful people to vote.
In what pundits called a victory for the United States, which had threatened to cancel aid to Lebanon if it voted “naively,” exit polls show conclusively that Lebanese voters elected a Christian politician to the Presidency in the June 7th national elections.
While prominent Lebanese analysts had predicted this outcome months in advance, given that the Lebanese Presidency is reserved by law for a Christian candidate, external observers nevertheless interpreted the win as a blow to Iran.
“The Lebanese conclusively decided that they would prefer to be in the American sphere of influence rather than the Iranian sphere of influence,” said Martin Indyk, a Senior Fellow at the Kings’ Institution, a Washington-based think tank devoted to preserving Middle East stability and monarchies. “I congratulate them on making the right choice.”
Other Middle East experts saw this as a step forward in relations between Lebanon and the United States.
“That the Lebanese people elected a Christian as President shows that they are open to cooperation with the West,” said Thomas Friedman, a columnist still tolerated by the New York Times. “I call it the platypus effect. They elected a leader who speaks Arabic, but shares a religion with the rest of the world. Kind of like a platypus. This is a perfect recipe for change in the age of Obama–not too much salt, nor too little. The hummus will be delicious.”
CNN’s Middle East Expert Octavia Nasr predicted earlier today that the President-elect, inspired by the rise of African-American Barack Obama to the White House, would appoint a Prime Minister of Sunni Muslim background, and that the Speaker of Parliament would be a Shiite Muslim.
The State Department issued a press advisory congratulating Lebanon for making the right choice, its worries that the Lebanese would reject the quota-based system based on 80 year old demographics apparently quelled by a turnout greater than zero.
“We look forward to working with the new Lebanese government to opening up a new chain of McDonalds in southern Beirut,” said Secretary of State for Near East Affairs Jeffrey Feltman. “We will work with Beirut to make sure we can bring it even nearer East, as far away from Iranian interference as possible.”
[...] 7th, 2009 by yaman | Posted in Asides | Source: http://www.kabobfest.com “None” Full [...]
[...] Excerpt from: BREAKING NEWS: Lebanon elects a Christian president | KABOBfest [...]
I love Lebanon. Even an election campaign is littered with self-indulgence.
From my understanding the Lebanese gov't structure always selects a Christian president, Sunni PM and Shia Speaker of Parl, this isnt new is it?
pray tell, what's the point of this post?
Your headline threw me for a loop! Because I this was the law. Then I read the artcle. Very good.
I believe in the "best person should win" mentality and in no way support how the governmental structure of Lebanon is set up where a candidate must be a Christian in order to be elected as President. What does that say to all the little Sunni, Shiite, Druze, agonistic and atheist kids in Lebanon who aspire to be president? However, with that said, I find this article quite condesending. There is already a palpable divide amongst religions in the Arab world, and I feel this article was written in a way that supported this "divide." Not cool. There's a way of phrasing things to get your point across and harping on the fact that a omg…CHRISTIAN…was elected was not the way to do it. I think diversity in the Arab world is also a good thing. Again, I don't believe a person should be voted in based on their religious affiliations, but to get a little spice in the mix is not a bad thing..so long as it comes from the people, which this obviously did not. Again, soild point underminding the article, but was written in an inappropriate fashion.
Hi Not Cool, I appreciate your comments and I agree with you, but I apologize if you think this was targeting Christians. My only targets in this post were (a) the Lebanese electoral system; (b) lame American "experts" on the Middle East (who are just as shallow when it comes to sectarian issues in Lebanon) and (c) the incompatibility of Washington's position against "external interference" when it is just as involved in Lebanese politics as other parties. I wish you could elaborate a little bit more why you thought this particular emphasis was inappropriate.
I wouldn't say Washington's position is incompatible. It can be reconciled. The US doesn't want Iran/Syria to interfere with factions that are unelected and not the legal representation of the Lebanese people. They also control try to control their politicians like puppets. It is Iran and Syria that interfere to an extent that goes to financing illegal militias and force those politicians to adopt certain policies. Syria's army still occupied Lebanon just several years ago. Their force and control is strong. Of all the political assassinations, how many of those were done by Syria? Does the US and France try to influence Lebanese politicians? Sure but not to the extent that Syria and Iran do. Although Saudi Arabia does as well.
That is purely speculative and incorrect. Hizballah is an elected part of the parliament with ministers in the government. On what legal grounds do you call it illegal? You must not realize that the money Iran has given to Lebanese politicians is outweighed by so much compared to the amount of money Saudi Arabia gives to them. Not to mention that in fact the US is funding/training militias in Lebanon. You tell me how many assassinations were done by Syria–and then tell me how many by Israel. Your "extent" here is very dubious and I doubt you can back this up with anything but speculation.
Odd — this post wasn’t by me. To Joe-2: there’s another regular poster here already using the same name, you might want to switch or things will get confusing quickly.
For instance, I argue that Hezbollah is illegitimate because it’s only interested in democracy as a means to an end, and that its ultimate end is the destruction of the secular-liberal principles which make Lebanon worthy as a country.
This post was hilarious, how can people not understand or see the sarcasm in the title….
Agreed. One of the funniest I've read in a while. Well played, Yaman!
c'est bon.
I love this wikipedia entry on the Free Patriotic Movement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Patriotic_Movem...
The FPM party advocates secularism and the right to vote for Lebanese abroad. It is one of the allies of Hezbollah.
They advocate secularism. It is one of the allies of the Party of God.
I still don't get how people can't see the sarcasm here..funny shit Yaman.
It's funny to make fun of the closest thing to actual democracy that exists in the Arab world, outside of Iraq? I agree the government in Lebanon is pretty pathetic, but *funny*? Nope.
non of this matter, the lebs will be shooting each other in a matter of weeks.
Yaman has 3 thumbs up, and everyone who said Yaman was funny has at least one thumbs up. I call bullshit.
is this goes as erections for the 2009 elections ?
we erect u but u have to vote ?
absolutely hilarious. bravo!
So who are the hotties?
what a surprising result, lebenan continues the confessional system!! This is my favorite part:
“That the Lebanese people elected a Christian as President shows that they are open to cooperation with the West,” said Thomas Friedman, a columnist still tolerated by the New York Times.
I am glad that the NYT has writers that do not know the government systems that they are writing about. It would be like: breaking news, the United States makes a leap towards egalitarianism by electing a president and not a Monarch!!
Freidman is an idiot and i think the NYT should consider employing a certain recent Berkeley graduate.
mn8aH1 comment1 ,