Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon

So Syria has decided to withdraw its troops for Lebanon (whether or not it is a full withdrawal is another matter). But why has the US been pressuring for this to happen?
Two reasons:
1.) It serves Bush to be able to say he was responsible. It creates an illusion that the war in Iraq has created a 'wave' of democratisation throughout the Middle-East.
2.) Lebanon has no standing army of its own. Lebanon borders Israel. Israel can now push more Palestinian refugees into Lebanon and/or take some more land. And there is no one to stop them any more.

The protestors against Syria have been from the Christian minority (they make up about forty percent of the population). The counter movement is largely Muslim. Christians have much to gain if Israel ruled parts of Lebanon, the Muslim population does not.

The withdrawal will have some serious consequences within the region. While the Lebanonese do have the right to self control, they will not be able to keep it while they have no standing army. UN Peacekeepers should be placed on both tbe Lebanon/Syria and Lebanon/Israel borders.


Couple of small things about the post. The protesters have been mostly Christian Druze and Suni, the pro Syrians have been mainly Shiite. It is a little more complex than just Islamic\Christian - that being said, it speaks of the greater instability of the country that may or may not be ready to put the bloody Civil War in its past.

I don't know that I buy into to your Israel theory. If Hezbollah doesn't continue to launch terrorist strikes inside of Israel, they really have no reason to invade. I'm not an apologist for Israel, but that theory doesn't explain why France, Germany and even Russia have been behind a Syrian withdraw. Do you have something to help support the Israeli angle Greg? I'd honestly be interested in reading it.  

Posted by The Cranky Liberal
3/09/2005 02:48:00 am  
Hey, thanks for stopping by my blog some time ago, and for inviting me to this site. I've commented here in the past. I remember this place and I love it!
3/09/2005 05:46:00 am  
I find it amusing how the US and Israel are jumping on the bandwagon to stop the occupation of lebanon by Syria... like their occupations of Palestine/Iraq/afghanistan and now possibly iran is nothing in comparison. I'm not downplaying the syrian occupation, they should go out, but the US and Israel are using it as a fucking springboard to their PR campaign.


Posted by M
3/09/2005 09:20:00 am  
"I don't know that I buy into to your Israel theory. If Hezbollah doesn't continue to launch terrorist strikes inside of Israel, they really have no reason to invade. "

Hezbollah as a terrorist organization is a matter of opinion. The EU for the moment does not regard them as terrorist but as a militant political party. They do designate the international wing as terrorist. They are Islamic fundamentalist but have continued to say an Islamic state cannot be imposed by force. Whether they will stay true to this only time will tell.

It must be remembered that Hezbollah is the Shi'a reaction 'to' terrorism and I don't see them disbanding as long as they feel a threat from Israel, which is very real in my opinion. Remember, Israel was forced out of Lebanon by Hezbollah. If they had been allowed they would still be occupying that land. This is the reason for them to invade. Of course, this will be after they force Hezbollah into defending themselves where they will then be able to scream and shout 'terrorist attack' Boom Boom Boom

I am sick to death of George Bush, Ariel Sharon, Tony Blair and John Howard!! Have I left any capitalist imperialist out? I will add Chirac if he goes too much further.

Posted by Dianne
3/09/2005 11:27:00 am  
Yes, M it's the same old bullshit as plain as the nose on your face. I'm against all forms of terrorism and this includes 'state' terrorism. The white man is still rampaging around the world. We're just a bunch of predators. *scream*
3/09/2005 11:33:00 am  
Yeah but Dianne, why were they in Lebanon in the first place? And how many political parties are allowed to be "millitant" and attack other countries in this world? 

Posted by The Cranky Liberal
3/09/2005 12:46:00 pm  
What else, Cranky? They were chasing Arafat and the PLO. But, they didn't just bomb and run, they occupied and set up a puppet government.

What's wrong with militant political parties? Is it only the occupiers or the strongest that are allowed to be militant? When is one allowed to defend their country, land, freedom? Who are the civilized ones?


Posted by Dianne
3/09/2005 02:33:00 pm  
American demands on a Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon would sound so much more credible if they were accompanied by similar demands on Israel to withdraw from the Westbank. 

Posted by hans
3/10/2005 11:15:00 pm  
You're right, hans. But, 'American demands' are getting very tiresome especially as they allow no demands to be put on them. 

Posted by Dianne
3/11/2005 06:22:00 am  



<< Home