Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
When The Security Council Violates the UN Charter
The UN Security Council, tasked with the protection and maintenance of international peace and security, was established to enforce the aims and principles of the United Nations. And the council’s decisions are, most of the time, in accordance with those lofty aims. However, the situation has changed after the world came to live under the “new world order”. Under this new dispensation, the Security Council has lost its objectivity and its decisions have come to serve the interests of larger countries.
Resolution1559 , the latest to be passed by that body, goes beyond its powers and violates UN principles. In fact it is a direct call to defy the UN charter. This is something that has not ever happened before.
The resolution deals with an amendment to the Lebanese Constitution and the presence of Syrian forces in Lebanon, both of which are not legitimate concerns of any international body. Such an attempt to dictate how sovereign nations should conduct their affairs violates the UN Charter, which says that “there is nothing in this document that allows the United Nations to interfere in affairs that are part of the internal structure of the country.”
Amending its constitution and extending the term of its president are the internal issues Lebanon. No one has the right to interfere with them. Further, both the decisions where taken according to the principles of the democratic system: The constitutional amendment was approved by the Parliament and does not threaten or endanger international security or peace.
Hence it does not concern the Security Council. As for the presence of Syrian forces in Lebanon, they are there at Beirut’s request, as part of the Taif peace formula that brought an end to the long civil war in that country. Since they are in Lebanon at the request and desire of its government and Parliament, their presence does not defy any international law and does not touch upon issues of international peace or security. In fact, on various occasions when divisive politics threatened to start another civil war, it was the essence of Syrian forces that preserved the country’s unity and integrity by preventing sectarian bloodbath. Hence, it is a mystery why a decision that defies international law and the charter of the United Nations itself, asked for by France and the United States, was approved by the council.
It is obvious that the decision primarily serves Israel and is seen as an important step toward breaking up Arab countries into small fragments, resurrecting the old divisions in Lebanon, and threatening Syria with an invasion. Israel fears a trilateral alliance of Lebanon, Iran and Syria. The withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon will make it easy for it to realize its global and regional ambitions.
It serves US interests also. That will be quite in step with the plans it has drawn up for the Middle East to make it a colony in every sense but name. It will also help it to contain Iran, encircling it with a string of client states — Afghanistan and Iraq already and Syria if the present machinations succeed. As for France, its position is still mystifying. Its role in all this is unclear and its reasons are unconvincing. The enigma deepens when you remember that France was considered a special friend of Syria and Lebanon.
However, one thing is clear. If the exercise, accompanied with overt and covert threats directed at the country and its people, was meant to scare Lebanon into accepting the US as an overlord, it was a failure: Even before the resolution could be passed, the Lebanese nation stood firm in the face of superpower pressure.
While the Security Council was threatening dire consequences, the Parliament went ahead and ratified the constitutional amendment and presidential extension — with 96 members voting for and 29voting against, which is a clear mandate for rejecting any suggestion to force Syria to withdraw its forces from Lebanon. The Middle East cannot be reshaped to American specifications or to suit Israel’s ambitions.
http://arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=51421&d=13&m=9&y=2004
The resolution deals with an amendment to the Lebanese Constitution and the presence of Syrian forces in Lebanon, both of which are not legitimate concerns of any international body. Such an attempt to dictate how sovereign nations should conduct their affairs violates the UN Charter, which says that “there is nothing in this document that allows the United Nations to interfere in affairs that are part of the internal structure of the country.”
Amending its constitution and extending the term of its president are the internal issues Lebanon. No one has the right to interfere with them. Further, both the decisions where taken according to the principles of the democratic system: The constitutional amendment was approved by the Parliament and does not threaten or endanger international security or peace.
Hence it does not concern the Security Council. As for the presence of Syrian forces in Lebanon, they are there at Beirut’s request, as part of the Taif peace formula that brought an end to the long civil war in that country. Since they are in Lebanon at the request and desire of its government and Parliament, their presence does not defy any international law and does not touch upon issues of international peace or security. In fact, on various occasions when divisive politics threatened to start another civil war, it was the essence of Syrian forces that preserved the country’s unity and integrity by preventing sectarian bloodbath. Hence, it is a mystery why a decision that defies international law and the charter of the United Nations itself, asked for by France and the United States, was approved by the council.
It is obvious that the decision primarily serves Israel and is seen as an important step toward breaking up Arab countries into small fragments, resurrecting the old divisions in Lebanon, and threatening Syria with an invasion. Israel fears a trilateral alliance of Lebanon, Iran and Syria. The withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon will make it easy for it to realize its global and regional ambitions.
It serves US interests also. That will be quite in step with the plans it has drawn up for the Middle East to make it a colony in every sense but name. It will also help it to contain Iran, encircling it with a string of client states — Afghanistan and Iraq already and Syria if the present machinations succeed. As for France, its position is still mystifying. Its role in all this is unclear and its reasons are unconvincing. The enigma deepens when you remember that France was considered a special friend of Syria and Lebanon.
However, one thing is clear. If the exercise, accompanied with overt and covert threats directed at the country and its people, was meant to scare Lebanon into accepting the US as an overlord, it was a failure: Even before the resolution could be passed, the Lebanese nation stood firm in the face of superpower pressure.
While the Security Council was threatening dire consequences, the Parliament went ahead and ratified the constitutional amendment and presidential extension — with 96 members voting for and 29voting against, which is a clear mandate for rejecting any suggestion to force Syria to withdraw its forces from Lebanon. The Middle East cannot be reshaped to American specifications or to suit Israel’s ambitions.
http://arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=51421&d=13&m=9&y=2004
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
AMASCUS (Reuters) - Syria and Lebanon rejected any outside role in shaping their relations Sunday, a day after a top State Department official said Damascus should pull its troops from its small neighbor.
Syrian Information Minister Ahmad al-Hasan and his Lebanese counterpart Michel Samaha also rejected media reports heralding a change in ties between them or a redeployment of the 17,000 Syrian troops in Lebanon.
"All those who wish to tackle the issue of ties, from outside these two states, should know that they would be interfering in a Lebanese issue of sovereignty," Samaha told a news conference with Hasan in Damascus.
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs William Burns said after meeting Syria's president Saturday it was time for Syria to quit Lebanon. He also voiced "deep concern over Syrian intervention" in its political process.
Hasan said pressure on Syria and Lebanon was intended to infringe on their sovereignty and the unity of their policy tracks.
Samaha said Burns' comments in Damascus would not affect prospects for any Syrian troop redeployment, which would be determined by security requirements and sovereign decisions of the two countries.
Samaha said Lebanon might even call for greater Syrian troop deployment if a foreign security threat emerged.
"In that case we shield ourselves through a sovereign decision for redeployment in another way," he said.
U.N. RESOLUTION QUESTIONED
Hasan questioned the legitimacy of a U.N. Security Council resolution adopted earlier this month calling on all foreign forces to leave Lebanon, for militias to disband and foreign governments to respect Lebanese sovereignty.
The resolution did not give anyone the right to impose decisions on Lebanon or to override its agreements with Syria, he said.
The resolution, drafted by the United States and France, did not mention Syria by name, but was seen as an attempt to end the Syrian military presence and control of Lebanese politics.
The Lebanese parliament defied the U.N. resolution by voting shortly afterwards to extend the term of Syrian-backed President Emile Lahoud, a move Washington said was driven by Damascus.
Hasan hailed Washington's willingness to talk as a positive development in relations and reiterated Syria would cooperate with U.S. security experts to try to stabilize Iraq.
The United States imposed economic sanctions on Syria in May for supporting anti-Israeli groups and refusing to renounce weapons of mass destruction. Washington also said Damascus was not doing enough to prevent anti-U.S. militants crossing into neighboring Iraq.
In an apparent reference to Burns' remarks that Syria must halt the activities of anti-Israeli groups to allow progress in Arab-Israeli peacemaking, Hasan said violence resulted from Israeli occupation of Palestinian land.
"The resistance of the Palestinian people is a legitimate right that is guaranteed by the United Nations pact, therefore there should be a definition for terrorism that differentiates between it and legitimate struggle against occupation," he said.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=6212202
BEIRUT: Lebanon and Syria announced Sunday an upcoming series of talks that will further enhance their brotherly relations, both asserting the Syrian presence in Lebanon was legal.
The conclusions were announced during a news conference held in Damascus by Information Minister Michel Samaha and his Syrian counterpart Ahmed al-Hassan, following a meeting between the two ministers and Syrian Foreign Minister Farouq Sharaa for over an hour.
Samaha denied rumors that Syria would redeploy its troops in Lebanon in the coming few days and said such a redeployment is based on an agreement between the two concerned countries and is affected by security needs and capabilities.
Samaha, who denied that his visit was aimed at announcing a new form of the Lebanese-Syrian relation, said that the visit of U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for the Near East William Burns to Syria Saturday was positive.
Hassan said Burns did not have demands concerning the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, but the talks were on the situation in Iraq.
But Burns had clearly delivered a U.S. message asking Syria to withdraw its troops from Lebanon and stop interfering in Lebanon's domestic affairs.
"We underscored our deep concern over Syrian intervention in the Lebanese political process and reiterated that, in accordance with the UN Security Council Resolution 1559, Syria must end its armed forces," Burns told reporters following his visit to Syria.
Syria has currently 20,000 troops in Lebanon despite the 1989 Taif Accord, which stipulates their withdrawal.
On Saturday, several sources mentioned the possibility of a redeployment of Syrian troops in Lebanon to occur at the start of this week, while Lebanese officials denied the information.
Some observers say that talks concerning redeployment could be brought up Monday when an official Syrian military delegation will visit Baabda to congratulate President Emile Lahoud for the extension of his term.
Concerning the UN resolution, Samaha said it was a "U.S. attempt to nationalize the Palestinians, threaten the Lebanese stability and hit the Palestinians on the Palestinian territories," while Hassan considered the resolution as not having a political or legal meaning - and therefore not binding on Lebanon.
Meanwhile, Patriarch Nasrallah Butros Sfeir defended the UN resolution to stop Syria's interference in the Lebanese domestic affairs. During an interview with the U.S.-run SAWA radio, Sfeir said Syria's policies in Lebanon were behind the dire economic situation, the reason for an increase of depression among the Lebanese and the significant number of youth emigrants.
"Syria is capable of ordering whoever it wants in any official position in Lebanon. Therefore, the Security Council noticed an intervention by a foreign country in Lebanese affairs, the reason it intervened to end such a foreign intervention," Sfeir said.
Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Jean Obeid continues his diplomatic attempts to protest the Security Council resolution. Obeid will fly Monday to Egypt to attend the meeting of Arab foreign ministers in Cairo. The foreign minister is expected to meet the Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa during a lunch, where they are supposed to further discuss the Arab ongoing problems, particularly UN Resolution 1559.
Lebanon is planning to add to the statements that will be issued by the meeting of foreign ministers in a separate section, which asks the Arab countries to "support Lebanon's preserving its right and sovereignty in international organizations, and its political forces both internally and externally."
Deliberately, the section did not directly refer to the UN Resolution 1559 so as not to create a conflict between the Arab countries, whose majority announced last week their support to the resolution.
Observers also said that UN Secretary General Kofi Annan could have been asked by the U.S. and Europe to demand in his report the resignation of Lahoud on the grounds that the Lebanese Parliament violated the resolution clauses.
In the mean time, Lebanon is hoping to gather an Arab support during the UN General Assembly meeting scheduled for Sept. 23 in New York.
However, Lahoud will not attend the meeting, and therefore Lebanon's speech will be delivered by Deputy Premier Issam Fares. The speech was previously scheduled for Sept. 23, but now that Lahoud is not attending, a new date is going to be settled in the coming days.
On Monday, Prime Minister Rafik Hariri will also meet with Annan. Hariri announced last week that his Cabinet would resign before the month's end.
Meanwhile, opposition figures, mainly those who voted against the constitutional amendment that allowed the extension of Lahoud's term for three years during Parliament's extraordinary session on Sept. 3, continued to voice their position against a Syrian interference in Lebanese affairs.
On Saturday, Chouf MP Walid Jumblatt met with Metn MP and member of the Christian opposition group Qornet Shehwan Gathering, Nassib Lahoud, at his resident in Mukhtara. "We are here to discuss the coming phase, similar to the way we cooperated in the past with the Progressive Socialist Party in elections that are linked with freedoms and democracy," said Lahoud following the visit.
Lahoud, who voted against the amendment of Article 49 said: "We will cooperate with MPs who stood against the constitutional amendment within a battle to secure democracy and freedoms and Lebanon's sovereignty."
Jumblatt, whose three ministers Marwan Hamade, Ghazi Aridi and Abdullah Farhat withdraw from Cabinet last week to oppose the constitutional amendment said: "We support freedoms and democracy ... we support strategic relations with Syria, however we are against any interference in Lebanese affairs."
He added that this has been his position since 2000, and it is a position that does not stand against Arabism.
"There is no meaning and worth for Arabism without freedom," Jumblatt said.
On Sunday, Health Minister Suleiman Franjieh criticized Jumblatt and said: "God help the Christians if they follow Jumblatt."
Franjieh, a close to Syria, said that whether Syria withdrew its troops from Lebanon or not, its supporters inside the country will remain, and this will be revealed during next parliamentary elections, scheduled for next year.
The constitutional amendment, which indirectly created distance between Bkirki and Baabda, was bought to the open on Saturday during a visit of Kesrouan MP Farid Khazen to Sfeir to his summer residence in Diman.
"Sfeir refuses to boycott the government and constitutional and public institutions," Khazen said.
Regarding talk that the patriarch had not yet called Lahoud to congratulate him for the extension of his term, Khazen added that Sfeir had said that he would not break relations with any Lebanese party, particularly with the president, "but there is a tradition that the president-elect visits the patriarch and asks for his blessing."
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=8325
Syrian Information Minister Ahmad al-Hasan and his Lebanese counterpart Michel Samaha also rejected media reports heralding a change in ties between them or a redeployment of the 17,000 Syrian troops in Lebanon.
"All those who wish to tackle the issue of ties, from outside these two states, should know that they would be interfering in a Lebanese issue of sovereignty," Samaha told a news conference with Hasan in Damascus.
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs William Burns said after meeting Syria's president Saturday it was time for Syria to quit Lebanon. He also voiced "deep concern over Syrian intervention" in its political process.
Hasan said pressure on Syria and Lebanon was intended to infringe on their sovereignty and the unity of their policy tracks.
Samaha said Burns' comments in Damascus would not affect prospects for any Syrian troop redeployment, which would be determined by security requirements and sovereign decisions of the two countries.
Samaha said Lebanon might even call for greater Syrian troop deployment if a foreign security threat emerged.
"In that case we shield ourselves through a sovereign decision for redeployment in another way," he said.
U.N. RESOLUTION QUESTIONED
Hasan questioned the legitimacy of a U.N. Security Council resolution adopted earlier this month calling on all foreign forces to leave Lebanon, for militias to disband and foreign governments to respect Lebanese sovereignty.
The resolution did not give anyone the right to impose decisions on Lebanon or to override its agreements with Syria, he said.
The resolution, drafted by the United States and France, did not mention Syria by name, but was seen as an attempt to end the Syrian military presence and control of Lebanese politics.
The Lebanese parliament defied the U.N. resolution by voting shortly afterwards to extend the term of Syrian-backed President Emile Lahoud, a move Washington said was driven by Damascus.
Hasan hailed Washington's willingness to talk as a positive development in relations and reiterated Syria would cooperate with U.S. security experts to try to stabilize Iraq.
The United States imposed economic sanctions on Syria in May for supporting anti-Israeli groups and refusing to renounce weapons of mass destruction. Washington also said Damascus was not doing enough to prevent anti-U.S. militants crossing into neighboring Iraq.
In an apparent reference to Burns' remarks that Syria must halt the activities of anti-Israeli groups to allow progress in Arab-Israeli peacemaking, Hasan said violence resulted from Israeli occupation of Palestinian land.
"The resistance of the Palestinian people is a legitimate right that is guaranteed by the United Nations pact, therefore there should be a definition for terrorism that differentiates between it and legitimate struggle against occupation," he said.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=6212202
BEIRUT: Lebanon and Syria announced Sunday an upcoming series of talks that will further enhance their brotherly relations, both asserting the Syrian presence in Lebanon was legal.
The conclusions were announced during a news conference held in Damascus by Information Minister Michel Samaha and his Syrian counterpart Ahmed al-Hassan, following a meeting between the two ministers and Syrian Foreign Minister Farouq Sharaa for over an hour.
Samaha denied rumors that Syria would redeploy its troops in Lebanon in the coming few days and said such a redeployment is based on an agreement between the two concerned countries and is affected by security needs and capabilities.
Samaha, who denied that his visit was aimed at announcing a new form of the Lebanese-Syrian relation, said that the visit of U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for the Near East William Burns to Syria Saturday was positive.
Hassan said Burns did not have demands concerning the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, but the talks were on the situation in Iraq.
But Burns had clearly delivered a U.S. message asking Syria to withdraw its troops from Lebanon and stop interfering in Lebanon's domestic affairs.
"We underscored our deep concern over Syrian intervention in the Lebanese political process and reiterated that, in accordance with the UN Security Council Resolution 1559, Syria must end its armed forces," Burns told reporters following his visit to Syria.
Syria has currently 20,000 troops in Lebanon despite the 1989 Taif Accord, which stipulates their withdrawal.
On Saturday, several sources mentioned the possibility of a redeployment of Syrian troops in Lebanon to occur at the start of this week, while Lebanese officials denied the information.
Some observers say that talks concerning redeployment could be brought up Monday when an official Syrian military delegation will visit Baabda to congratulate President Emile Lahoud for the extension of his term.
Concerning the UN resolution, Samaha said it was a "U.S. attempt to nationalize the Palestinians, threaten the Lebanese stability and hit the Palestinians on the Palestinian territories," while Hassan considered the resolution as not having a political or legal meaning - and therefore not binding on Lebanon.
Meanwhile, Patriarch Nasrallah Butros Sfeir defended the UN resolution to stop Syria's interference in the Lebanese domestic affairs. During an interview with the U.S.-run SAWA radio, Sfeir said Syria's policies in Lebanon were behind the dire economic situation, the reason for an increase of depression among the Lebanese and the significant number of youth emigrants.
"Syria is capable of ordering whoever it wants in any official position in Lebanon. Therefore, the Security Council noticed an intervention by a foreign country in Lebanese affairs, the reason it intervened to end such a foreign intervention," Sfeir said.
Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Jean Obeid continues his diplomatic attempts to protest the Security Council resolution. Obeid will fly Monday to Egypt to attend the meeting of Arab foreign ministers in Cairo. The foreign minister is expected to meet the Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa during a lunch, where they are supposed to further discuss the Arab ongoing problems, particularly UN Resolution 1559.
Lebanon is planning to add to the statements that will be issued by the meeting of foreign ministers in a separate section, which asks the Arab countries to "support Lebanon's preserving its right and sovereignty in international organizations, and its political forces both internally and externally."
Deliberately, the section did not directly refer to the UN Resolution 1559 so as not to create a conflict between the Arab countries, whose majority announced last week their support to the resolution.
Observers also said that UN Secretary General Kofi Annan could have been asked by the U.S. and Europe to demand in his report the resignation of Lahoud on the grounds that the Lebanese Parliament violated the resolution clauses.
In the mean time, Lebanon is hoping to gather an Arab support during the UN General Assembly meeting scheduled for Sept. 23 in New York.
However, Lahoud will not attend the meeting, and therefore Lebanon's speech will be delivered by Deputy Premier Issam Fares. The speech was previously scheduled for Sept. 23, but now that Lahoud is not attending, a new date is going to be settled in the coming days.
On Monday, Prime Minister Rafik Hariri will also meet with Annan. Hariri announced last week that his Cabinet would resign before the month's end.
Meanwhile, opposition figures, mainly those who voted against the constitutional amendment that allowed the extension of Lahoud's term for three years during Parliament's extraordinary session on Sept. 3, continued to voice their position against a Syrian interference in Lebanese affairs.
On Saturday, Chouf MP Walid Jumblatt met with Metn MP and member of the Christian opposition group Qornet Shehwan Gathering, Nassib Lahoud, at his resident in Mukhtara. "We are here to discuss the coming phase, similar to the way we cooperated in the past with the Progressive Socialist Party in elections that are linked with freedoms and democracy," said Lahoud following the visit.
Lahoud, who voted against the amendment of Article 49 said: "We will cooperate with MPs who stood against the constitutional amendment within a battle to secure democracy and freedoms and Lebanon's sovereignty."
Jumblatt, whose three ministers Marwan Hamade, Ghazi Aridi and Abdullah Farhat withdraw from Cabinet last week to oppose the constitutional amendment said: "We support freedoms and democracy ... we support strategic relations with Syria, however we are against any interference in Lebanese affairs."
He added that this has been his position since 2000, and it is a position that does not stand against Arabism.
"There is no meaning and worth for Arabism without freedom," Jumblatt said.
On Sunday, Health Minister Suleiman Franjieh criticized Jumblatt and said: "God help the Christians if they follow Jumblatt."
Franjieh, a close to Syria, said that whether Syria withdrew its troops from Lebanon or not, its supporters inside the country will remain, and this will be revealed during next parliamentary elections, scheduled for next year.
The constitutional amendment, which indirectly created distance between Bkirki and Baabda, was bought to the open on Saturday during a visit of Kesrouan MP Farid Khazen to Sfeir to his summer residence in Diman.
"Sfeir refuses to boycott the government and constitutional and public institutions," Khazen said.
Regarding talk that the patriarch had not yet called Lahoud to congratulate him for the extension of his term, Khazen added that Sfeir had said that he would not break relations with any Lebanese party, particularly with the president, "but there is a tradition that the president-elect visits the patriarch and asks for his blessing."
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=8325
Blame the Jews! It doesn't work anymore, bozo. Israel is not trying to "break up" nations. Your country occupies another and no there is no justification for it. Lebanon is not yours. I wish Syria well - and await the day when it's people rise up and take their country back from the likes of you.
As for the presence of Syrian forces in Lebanon, they are there at Beirut’s request, as part of the Taif peace formula that brought an end to the long civil war in that country. Since they are in Lebanon at the request and desire of its government and Parliament, their presence does not defy any international law and does not touch upon issues of international peace or security. In fact, on various occasions when divisive politics threatened to start another civil war, it was the essence of Syrian forces that preserved the country’s unity and integrity by preventing sectarian bloodbath. Hence, it is a mystery why a decision that defies international law and the charter of the United Nations itself, asked for by France and the United States, was approved by the council.
You're overlooking the fact that Syria has violated the Taif Accord many times, therefore even this accord can't excuse the Syrian occupation of Lebanon.
But the most important fact you are deliberately omitting is that Syria created an atmosphere in which it could impose on Lebanon's political system a situation where it was formally "invited" to remain indefinitely in Lebanon. In other words, Syria coerced Lebanon into accepting its occupation. This is a breach of int'l law, therefore the Security Council is by right demanding Syria get out of Lebanon.
Furthermore, Syria's occupation IS impacting regional security and peace negatively. They are enabling Hizballah's terror against Israel and serve as a conduit to all the arms and funds flowing from Iran to Hizballah. If Hizballah were disarmed and disbanded (along with practically every other Lebanese militia and terror organization that were all disbanded) as the Taif Accord you're hanging your arguments on stipulated, there would have been no Israeli fighter aircraft flights above Lebanese territory, Israel wouldn't have to retaliate against Hizballah's harassment by striking at this group's targets in Southern Lebanon by air and artillery, and there would have been peace at least in the Israel-Lebanese front. And of course, no Israeli citizens in northern Israel would have been injured or murdered, as has happened to several Israelis since May '00 in a few acts of aggression by Hizballah.
But the most important fact you are deliberately omitting is that Syria created an atmosphere in which it could impose on Lebanon's political system a situation where it was formally "invited" to remain indefinitely in Lebanon. In other words, Syria coerced Lebanon into accepting its occupation. This is a breach of int'l law, therefore the Security Council is by right demanding Syria get out of Lebanon.
Furthermore, Syria's occupation IS impacting regional security and peace negatively. They are enabling Hizballah's terror against Israel and serve as a conduit to all the arms and funds flowing from Iran to Hizballah. If Hizballah were disarmed and disbanded (along with practically every other Lebanese militia and terror organization that were all disbanded) as the Taif Accord you're hanging your arguments on stipulated, there would have been no Israeli fighter aircraft flights above Lebanese territory, Israel wouldn't have to retaliate against Hizballah's harassment by striking at this group's targets in Southern Lebanon by air and artillery, and there would have been peace at least in the Israel-Lebanese front. And of course, no Israeli citizens in northern Israel would have been injured or murdered, as has happened to several Israelis since May '00 in a few acts of aggression by Hizballah.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$140.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network