No election under occupation

[Bilal]

No election under occupation ...

Bush asked Syria several times to withdraw immediately from Lebanon before the election. He believes that no honest election under foreign occupation.

Just wondering …

What about the election in Palestine under Israeli occupation? Why he did not ask Israel to withdraw before election? At least 70% of Lebanese are supporting Syria … while Israel has no supporters among the Palestinian.

He claimed also that Iraqi election is great success, and this election was under American occupation.

I agree that Syria must withdraw from Lebanon, and Syrian people should transform to democracy peacefully.. But why Bush did not ask Israel to withdraw from The Syrian occupied land and letting 500000 Syrian refugees to return back?

By the way, Israel decaled that Syrian Golan Heights became permanent part of Israeli land in 1980, and the Syrian refugees lost their rights to get their houses or land! They use this time ''securing water resources and startigic location'' as excuse to steal the land of Syrian people.

 

[klusener]

good points there.. but on the topic of US elections, here is a news article that i found on the IVAW site from the Vietnam war era:

U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote:
Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror
By Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times
September 4th, 1967

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.

According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.

The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching here.

Pending more detailed reports, neither the State Department nor the White House would comment on the balloting or the victory of the military candidates, Lieut. Gen. Nguyen Van Thieu, who was running for president, and Premier Nguyen Cao Ky, the candidate for vice president.

A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam. The election was the culmination of a constitutional development that began in January, 1966, to which President Johnson gave his personal commitment when he met Premier Ky and General Thieu, the chief of state, in Honolulu in February.

The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government, which has been founded only on coups and power plays since November, 1963, when President Ngo Dinh Diem was overthrown by a military junta. Few members of that junta are still around, most having been ousted or exiled in subsequent shifts of power.
Significance Not Diminished

The fact that the backing of the electorate has gone to the generals who have been ruling South Vietnam for the last two years does not, in the Administration's view, diminish the significance of the constitutional step that has been taken.

The hope here is that the new government will be able to maneuver with a confidence and legitimacy long lacking in South Vietnamese politics. That hope could have been dashed either by a small turnout, indicating widespread scorn or a lack of interest in constitutional development, or by the Vietcong's disruption of the balloting.

American officials had hoped for an 80 per cent turnout. That was the figure in the election in September for the Constituent Assembly. Seventy-eight per cent of the registered voters went to the polls in elections for local officials last spring.

Before the results of the presidential election started to come in, the American officials warned that the turnout might be less than 80 per cent because the polling place would be open for two or three hours less than in the election a year ago. The turnout of 83 per cent was a welcome surprise. The turnout in the 1964 United States Presidential election was 62 per cent.

Captured documents and interrogations indicated in the last week a serious concern among Vietcong leaders that a major effort would be required to render the election meaningless. This effort has not succeeded, judging from the reports from Saigon.


© 1967 The New York Times

 

[misskitty]

Bush asked Syria several times to withdraw immediately from Lebanon before the election. He believes that no honest election under foreign occupation.

Just wondering …

What about the election in Palestine under Israeli occupation? Why he did not ask Israel to withdraw before election? At least 70% of Lebanese are supporting Syria … while Israel has no supporters among the Palestinian.

He claimed also that Iraqi election is great success, and this election was under American occupation.

I agree that Syria must withdraw from Lebanon, and Syrian people should transform to democracy peacefully.. But why Bush did not ask Israel to withdraw from The Syrian occupied land and letting 500000 Syrian refugees to return back?

By the way, Israel decaled that Syrian Golan Heights became permanent part of Israeli land in 1980, and the Syrian refugees lost their rights to get their houses or land! They use this time ''securing water resources and startigic location'' as excuse to steal the land of Syrian people.

There is no explanation for what President Bush does or why he does it. He may not have asked the Israeli occupants to leave because there has been a lot of focus on the going-ons over there. Bush might have wanted to make it look as though he is concerned about people being occupied all over the world and not just Israel/Palestine and Iraq.

Then again I could be wrong. I'm speculating so its likely.

Israel and Palestine should be two separate countries with their own independent governments to make their own decisions instead of fighting over everything. I think the occupation has lasted way too long and needs to come to an end as soon as possible.

 

[russ_watters]

Both the current Iraqi regime and the PA are transitional governments. Lebanon is supposed to be a sovereign nation.

 

[klusener]

Palestine is not a transitional government atleast to my knowledge, they have been having elections for a long time, but again I don't a know a lot about them. I will wait till bilal comes..

 

[russ_watters]

Palestine is not a transitional government atleast to my knowledge, they have been having elections for a long time, but again I don't a know a lot about them. I will wait till bilal comes..

Abaas is the 1st PM. He was actually elected a couple of years ago in their first election, but stepped down because Arafat wouldn't give up power. He was re-elected last year. Other than that, the PA has simply been run by Arafat as the political voice of Hamas.

But that's not the only reason to call it "transitional" - the main reason is that its a government without a country. A government that has never had a country. Until it gets a country, it isn't a "normal" government.

 

[kat]

Lol, I just can't believe Bush...doesn't he realize that just because Syria is not a democratic nation, run by a tyrant and is a country that has no history of bringing other countries to democracy that they are still perfectly suited to oversee another countries democratic elections! Shocking! How dense can he be?!

 

[misskitty]

Both the current Iraqi regime and the PA are transitional governments. Lebanon is supposed to be a sovereign nation.

This is a good point that your raise Russ. I agree with it too. However, supposed to be and are are two different things.

 

[russ_watters]

However, supposed to be and are are two different things.

Absolutely. That's why I bolded it. We're dealing with that concept a lot lately, aren't we?: perception vs reality.

 

[russ_watters]

Lol, I just can't believe Bush...doesn't he realize that just because Syria is not a democratic nation, run by a tyrant and is a country that has no history of bringing other countries to democracy that they are still perfectly suited to oversee another countries democratic elections! Shocking! How dense can he be?!

I don't know if it was too obvious, but somehow I missed that little piece of irony. Nice catch.

 

[misskitty]

Well, we can definitely say that the general public's perception of reality and the administration's perception of reality are on opposite ends of the playing field.

Can you imagine what some of these high ranking government officials spent some time with the general public and really got a good idea of what they really think about what's going on right now? Wow, now that would be a BIG reality check for them.

 

[Bilal]

Dear russ_watters
It is not mistake to have little knowledge about the region, but please correct your information.

First new election, under EU supervision, done in 1996, Arafat got 75% of votes. The second election should be in 2001 (every 5 years) but USA and Israel rejected to let the Palestinian to do it, because they sure that Arafat will win. Therefore, they waited till death of Arafat to do it.

Abu Mazen was not elected before 2 years, but USA forced Arafat to appoint him as PM and to give his some responsibilities.

Finally, Arafat is leader of PA-PLO which is secular organization established in 1963. He NEVER had good relation with Hamas which was established in 1988 by Ahmed Yassin.

In last election, The Palestinian had no other choose except to vote for Abu Mazen, otherwise Israel will continue destroying their country by American support.

Abaas is the 1st PM. He was actually elected a couple of years ago in their first election, but stepped down because Arafat wouldn't give up power..

There was no election before two years, just he was appointed as PM according to USA/Israeli orders. The first election was before 5 years. Arafat won by 75%.

He was re-elected last year. Other than that, the PA has simply been run by Arafat as the political voice of Hamas.

Arafat relation with Hamas is similar to the relation of neoconservatives with the extreme liberals.

But that's not the only reason to call it "transitional" - the main reason is that its a government without a country. A government that has never had a country. Until it gets a country, it isn't a "normal" government.

1- First government in Palestine was elected in 1936 from 5 political parties. It was the second elected government in ME in modern history after the election of Iraqi before the First World War.

2- This Palestinian government took brave decision in 1939 to stop the Palestinian revolution (1936-1939) and to support the British army during Second World War 1931-1945. UK issued in that time the ‘’white book’’; declared to give independence of Palestine and to stop the illegal immigration of Jews.

3- Due to that agreement, the Zionists organizations started the first wave of terrorism in ME by bombing the British, Palestinian and non Zionists Jews …. Some of them collaborated with the NAZI, e.g. Stern, and later they arrested and killed by British.

4- Palestine as State and government finished in 1948 by dividing Palestine among three occupation armies : Israel (80% of Palestinian kicked out by force from their houses and replaced by Jews settlers), Jordan and Egypt.

 

[Bilal]

Palestinian presidential election

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_presidential_election,_2005


((The 2005 Palestinian presidential election — the first to be held since 1996 — took place on January 9, 2005 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Voters elected PLO chairman Mahmoud Abbas as their new President of the Palestinian Authority to replace Yasser Arafat, who died on November 11, 2004.
Ten candidates were registered by the Palestinian Central Elections Committee by the end of the registration period, with another two would-be candidates being rejected on eligibility grounds. Candidates had until December 15 to withdraw their candidacies. All of the candidates are from the West Bank.
The election was boycotted by Hamas and Islamic Jihad on the grounds that an election held under occupation can hardly be free and fair. In the Gaza Strip, where Hamas has its most supporters, it is estimated that about half of the eligible voters voted.))

 

[Bilal]

hmmm

Iraq is the first country formed in ME! how you call it not a sovereign nation!

Both the current Iraqi regime and the PA are transitional governments. Lebanon is supposed to be a sovereign nation.

 

[misskitty]

1-First government in Palestine was elected in 1936 from 5 political parties. It was the second elected government in ME in modern history after the election of Iraqi before the First World War.

Does your country still have five political parties? I'm asking because there must be a bigger diversity in opinions than I thought if there are that many different parties.

 

[Bilal]

You will find short information about different Palestinian parties that survived till now and still active. This is chronology of the power of these political parties:

(For example Left secular wing represented more than 70% of the Palestinian in 60s and 70s, while now they are less than 15%, Islamic parties were not exist till 80s)

- 1920s-1950s : Secular organizations + Communist party

- 1960s-1970s : Rise of nationalists , extreme secular and left parties

- 1980s-2000s : Rise of Islamic parties

This is the main current Palestinian organization with political wing:

FATAH

Established in 1963; Secular Democratic, largest Palestinian organization in the last 40 years. First leader Arafat murdered/died in 2004. Estimated support among the Palestinian 20% -35%

Hamas

Established in 1988; Islamic Democratic, part from “Muslims Brothers organisation: Egypt– one of largest Islamic organizations in Islamic world". First leader Ahmed Yassin-murdered by Israel 2004, estimated support among the Palestinian: 15%-30%

Islamic Jihad

Established in late 70s, Islamic-nationalist-democratic, supported by the Islamic revolution of Iran. First leader was Fathi Sheqaqai, murdered by Israel in 1996. Estimated support among the Palestinian: 2% - 5%

PFLP (The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine)

Established in 1967, Left nationalist secular, Spiritual leader : George Habash , estimated support among the Palestinian : 4% -8%

PCLP-GC (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command)

Established in 1968, Left nationalist secular, leader : Ahmed Jibril, estimated support : less than 2%

PPP - Palestinian People's Party

Reformed Palestinian communist party in 90s, established in 1921. Estimated support: less than 2%

The Palestinian Revolutionary Communist Party

Palestinian communists in Lebanon in favor of armed struggle, estimated support : less than 1%

The Palestinian Democratic Union (FIDA)

reformist movement within the PLO, arising from a 1990-1 split within DFLP, with Yasir ‘Abd Rabbu, critically support Madrid and Oslo processes, estimated support 2% -4%

Palestine Liberation Front

Established in 1967, Radical left organization – formerly Marxist, estimated support; 1%

Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PDFLP)

The DFLP is a Marxist-Leninist and formerly pro-Soviet group that split from the Popular Font for the Liberation of Palestine(PFLP) in 1969 , Leader : Naif Hawatmeh, estimated support 2% - 4%

Does your country still have five political parties? I'm asking because there must be a bigger diversity in opinions than I thought if there are that many different parties.

 

[misskitty]

Bilal, I have one word for ya: Whoa! :shocked:

 

[russ_watters]

Several things:

-1996 election. I'd forgotten about it. Apparently, it was reasonably fair, but choices were limited.

-2003: Abas was selected, not elected. I didn't realize that. Nevertheless, he resigned for the reason I stated. (but then, technically, I was right about it being the 2nd election ).

-Regarding the PLO being secular. I've heard it before and its hard to accept considering the entire conflict in the region is based on religion. I do recognize though that their primary concern is with Palestinian statehood.

-Regarding the PLO vs Hamas: sorry, its Fatah. My mistake. The point is the same: the PA is the political arm of a terrorist organization, ie. Sinn Fein and the IRA.

Iraq is the first country formed in ME! how you call it not a sovereign nation!

Iraq is not a sovereign nation: they just lost a war in which their government was dismantled and they are currently under occupation. Once their new government is established, they will become a sovereign nation again. That's why they call it "transitional".

 

[misskitty]

After we finish helping them get back on their feet and everyone returns home, Iraq will be a soverign nation.

I'm curious to see what kind of political parties will form after we leave. I wonder if they will form as many different parties as Palestine has. I'm also curious to see how their constitution is written and how many times it will be amended. How long do you think it will take the new government to write their constitution?

 

[Bilal]

-Regarding the PLO being secular. I've heard it before and its hard to accept considering the entire conflict in the region is based on religion. I do recognize though that their primary concern is with Palestinian statehood. .

The conflict is not religious!
Zionism is secular nationalist Jews organization …. They started their activities by non religious Jews; later the religious Jews joined them. Even many religious Jews ,e.g Naturi Karata, are against creation of Israel before the last coming of the Jews Masseih , who will rebuild their temple and destroy all the enemies of Israel in Armageddon as mentioned in their bible.
Palestinian (20% - 30% christain) was not religious nation till the late 80s … PLO and other organization are well known as extreme secular, a and many of their leaders are Christian Palestinian , e.g. George Habash, Naief Hawatmeh, nabil Abu Radina …). The most two radical Palestinian groups 60s and 70s are established by Christian Palestinian .

Religion became important only after 11/9 because the alliance of Israel want to take advantage of the ‘’war on terrorism’’.

-Regarding the PLO vs Hamas: sorry, its Fatah. My mistake. The point is the same: the PA is the political arm of a terrorist organization, ie. Sinn Fein and the IRA. ".

PLO: Council of secular Palestinian organizations. (all Palestinian organizations except Hamas and Islamic Jihad)

Fatah : The oldest and the larger Palestinian organization. It is not classified as terrorist by any country (even not by USA or Israel!)! it is recognized by UN since 1974 and they have permanent seat. It is secular organization who want to create democratic secular State for Muslims, Jews, Christian and non religious in Palestine. For this reason they have much support among Christian and secular Muslims.

PA: Palestinian authority, it is the temporary Palestinian government. It is chosen by free election and recognized by most of world countries including USA and Israel.

Military wing of Fatah which is put on the list of terrorism is called ‘’Al qsa martyrs”. It is established in 2000 to response on the Israeli attacks.

- Iraq is not a sovereign nation: they just lost a war in which their government was dismantled and they are currently under occupation. Once their new government is established, they will become a sovereign nation again. That's why they call it "transitional".

Lebanon also lost its government in 1976. Their government has no real power and appointed by occupation forces: Israel in 1982 and Syria in 1990.It is transitional government for permanent constitution.

 

[russ_watters]

Lebanon also lost its government in 1976. Their government has no real power and appointed by occupation forces: Israel in 1982 and Syria in 1990.It is transitional government for permanent constitution.

Its been "transitional" for 15 years? You are seriously trying to say that's the same thing as the current situation in Iraq?

Btw, didn't Syria agree to pull out a decade ago and then never left?

 

[misskitty]

It's a similar situation, but's definitely not the same thing. The circumstances are different.

 

[Bilal]

I agree that Syria should leave ... but I do not see any logic for Bush who occupying Iraq to ask Syria to withdraw for doing election!

Its been "transitional" for 15 years? You are seriously trying to say that's the same thing as the current situation in Iraq?

Btw, didn't Syria agree to pull out a decade ago and then never left?

 

[klusener]

I agree that Syria must withdraw from Lebanon, and Syrian people should transform to democracy peacefully.. But why Bush did not ask Israel to withdraw from The Syrian occupied land and letting 500000 Syrian refugees to return back?

By the way, Israel decaled that Syrian Golan Heights became permanent part of Israeli land in 1980, and the Syrian refugees lost their rights to get their houses or land! They use this time ''securing water resources and startigic location'' as excuse to steal the land of Syrian people.

hey, buddies don't ask buddies to leave.. It's only when something is against your interests that you use moral reasons as a facade to serve your objective, as long as it is your friend that's doing it, your eyes are blind..

 

[misskitty]

I agree that Syria should leave ... but I do not see any logic for Bush who occupying Iraq to ask Syria to withdraw for doing election!

It is out of place for Bush to request Syria leave Lebanon when we are still occupying Iraq. He might just be trying to lessen the tension in that area.

 

[russ_watters]

I agree that Syria should leave ... but I do not see any logic for Bush who occupying Iraq to ask Syria to withdraw for doing election!

A number of points have been made already that you haven't really responded to. For example:

-Lebanon is supposedly sovereign, Iraq is not.
-Iraq's government is transitional, Lebanon's is not.
-Iraq's government is new, Lebanon's is not.
-The US has a democratic tradition, Syria does not.
-The US has a responsibility to build a government in Iraq, Syria has no such responsibility with Lebanon.

It seems pretty self-evident to me that the two situations are utterly different.

 

[kat]

You all seem to forget that the transitional government in Iraq has asked the United States to stay...in Lebanon, they've already made an agreement for syria to leave...a decade ago.
Syria is very sly..no way will they just leave. They will play the same game they have been since the beginning. Syria still pursues a re-united of greater syria.

 

[SOS2008]

Lol, I just can't believe Bush...doesn't he realize that just because Syria is not a democratic nation, run by a tyrant and is a country that has no history of bringing other countries to democracy that they are still perfectly suited to oversee another countries democratic elections! Shocking! How dense can he be?!

The old philosophy of "sphere of influence" seems to be okay with the U.S. in regard to China, et al, in dealing with N. Korea. But apparently this does not apply in the event of elections--Syria has no right to be involved with countries around it's borders. And who's to say how fair the elections were in Iraq with the U.S. there as a foreign occupier? I'm sure the U.S. hasn't tried to guide Iraq away from being an Islamic republic, and most of all trying to ensure they are pro-American? And let's face it, only the U.S. can play a peace-keeping role, etc., because the U.S. is the "good guy." That's right, Bush wears a white hat, didn't you know?

 

[Bilal]

In fact the elected Lebanese government with majority of the Parliament asks Syria to stay!

You all seem to forget that the transitional government in Iraq has asked the United States to stay...in Lebanon, they've already made an agreement for syria to leave...a decade ago.
Syria is very sly..no way will they just leave. They will play the same game they have been since the beginning. Syria still pursues a re-united of greater syria.

 

[kat]

Bilal, both the Lebanese government adn the united nations have passed rulings and requested and Syria has agreed to remove their troops from lebanon. If you know of any ruling that states otherwise I'd appreciate the link but since my husband is first generation Lebanese with most of my inlaws living in Lebanon I feel pretty secure in making that statement.

 

[Bilal]

I know that the agreement asked for withdraw of Syrian army after the situation become stable and establish ''real democracy'' , end of Israeli occupation and cancellation of differences between different religious communities. Beside that, the agreement asked both governments (Syria and Lebanon) to arrange the withdraw by another agreements among their governments..

Syria could not withdraw because Israel rejected to withdraw till 2000 .. Also they still have conflict on water of South Lebanon and Sheba farms.

Syria reduced their forces since 2000 from 40000 to 14000, and they promise to withdraw after establishing strong Lebanese army to avoid any security gap.

The question: Israel sings Oslo agreement , according to this agreement Israel should withdraw within 5 years (in 1998), but we observed that Israel increased the settlements by 200% within this period and stole 60% of Lands and 85% of water resources, so why Bush can not tell Israel also to withdraw?

I support the withdrawal of Syria, but I do not like such double standard...

By the way, I did not expect that you are female! I shocked several times by your extreme views against the Arab and Muslims!

Always I think man with “Rambo mentality” behind the keyboard of your PC .

Bilal, both the Lebanese government adn the united nations have passed rulings and requested and Syria has agreed to remove their troops from lebanon. If you know of any ruling that states otherwise I'd appreciate the link but since my husband is first generation Lebanese with most of my inlaws living in Lebanon I feel pretty secure in making that statement.

 

[kat]

The question: Israel sings Oslo agreement , according to this agreement Israel should withdraw within 5 years (in 1998), but we observed that Israel increased the settlements by 200% within this period and stole 60% of Lands and 85% of water resources, so why Bush can not tell Israel also to withdraw?[/QOUTE] This is not accurate and very misleading. Why don't you try again?

I support the withdrawal of Syria, but I do not like such double standard... [/QOUTE] Lebanon and it's occupation by syria is a much different matter the Israel in Palestine. I won';t even get into Syria's responsibility for the origional problems in Lebanon, Syria using Lebanon as a launching pad for attacks against Israel is not a good excuse for Syria to continue occupy Lebanon. I know how sneaky Syria is. If you are familiar with the area, then you should as well.

By the way, I did not expect that you are female! I shocked several times by your extreme views against the Arab and Muslims!

Always I think man with “Rambo mentality” behind the keyboard of your PC .

I'm not against Arab or muslims, I am against tyrants and the destruction of moderates in the Arab society. I am against the opppression of women, I am against a society that romanticizes young men and women strapping bombs upon themselves and destroying their own precious lives as well as those of other innocents. I am against the destruction of Lebanon. I am against how the Arab world has used the Palestinian people and how men like arafat have used the palastinian people. I am against your twisting of facts and misleading statements. If being against those things and correcting your propoganda is a "Rambo metality" then we need more Rambo's on this forum.

 

[klusener]

Can you please post links to show that Bilal's post is not accurate?

I am against a government that invades a country under the name of democratic ideals without the civilians in mind. Russ agrees that this is done without the civilians in mind and for your country's own interests, which is exactly what he posted under the other thread.

So you agree that the reasons that are used as a pretense for the usage of the force are self-serving?

Of course! Countries act primarily based on their own self(ish) interests. That is neither unusual, nor is it wrong.

 

[Bilal]

I'm not against Arab or muslims, I am against tyrants and the destruction of moderates in the Arab society. I am against the opppression of women, I am against a society that romanticizes young men and women strapping bombs upon themselves and destroying their own precious lives as well as those of other innocents. .

- Women in Turkey, Palestine, Lebanon, Tunisia, Syria ... and many other Muslims countries have good situation.. The rest of the countries are in process to improve the situation of the women.

Currently in Palestine, we have 60% of graduate students are female!

Women suffered also in most of third world countries and in some East European countries.. We can not change the situation within one month.

Education among Palestinian women before 40 years was less than 3%, but currently it is more than 90% and the graduate female students are more than male-students especially in Engineering and medical sciences. In all political parties we have female activists including the Islamic parties.

Here are stories of some female suicide bombers:

* Ayat Akhras, 18 years old , member on Fatah (secular party) , she revenged for her fiancé whom killed in cold blood before one week of their marriage ...
* Hanadi Jaradat; Lawyer, 29 years old, The Israeli murdered her cousin and brother inside her room...

If you care about women rights, why you do not care about suffering of Palestinian women under occupation?

I am against the destruction of Lebanon.

It was dirty game and many countries involved in it , starting from USA in 1958, France, Israel , Syria, PLO ...We all against that bloody war!

I am against how the Arab world has used the Palestinian people and how
men like arafat have used the palastinian people. .

- Do you believe that Palestinian have rights to defend their country? If you were Palestinian, will you accept to create (Jews State) in your homeland? Why you think the rest of Arab nations have no right to scare from creation of Israel? Israel considered Golan Syrian heights as part from their land forever in 1980? This means they can occupy Damascus and Amman and considers them as Israeli land? So the Arab nations have enough reasons to scare from the Racist Zionism project in ME, which will not stop on the border of Palestine.

I am against your twisting of facts and misleading statements. .

- Please show me where I mentioned wrong statements! I will be thankful if you show me that!

If being against those things and correcting your propoganda is a "Rambo metality" then we need more Rambo's on this forum.

- I considers my statement about " Rambo" as joke, I expected you will accept , but it seems you so serious .. I apologize if I injured your feelings.

 

[Bilal]

[/QOUTE] Lebanon and it's occupation by syria is a much different matter the Israel in Palestine. I won';t even get into Syria's responsibility for the origional problems in Lebanon, Syria using Lebanon as a launching pad for attacks against Israel is not a good excuse for Syria to continue occupy Lebanon. I know how sneaky Syria is. If you are familiar with the area, then you should as well..

This is the sequence of Lebanese war

- 1860: Conflict between Duruz and Maronite in the mountain of Lebanon … due to that; France, Russia , Britain sent their forces . France supported Maronite, Russia supported Roman Orthodox and Britain supported Duruz …

- 1945 France decided to withdraw from Syria, but they decided also to create ‘’Lebanon’’ … they added to the Mountain of Lebanon (majority Maronite) , the South (Shia) and the north , Tripoli (Sunni). Lebanon became more looks like State with 55% Christian, most of them Maronite.

- In 1958, Lebanese left parties arranged demonstrations against the government (Kamil Shimon). These demonstrations arranged by the Duruz well known leader (Kamal Jumblat). Kamil Shimon asked USA to stop these demonstrations, so the Marines attacked the protesters and murdered hundreds of people.

- In 50s Armenian Christian and Palestinian refugees Christian (Mar Elias camp) got Lebanese nationalities for demographic reasons.


- In 1975 after tension between right wing Maronite groups from one side and Left groups with Palestinian organization from other side, the civil war started.

- In 1976; Palestinian and Left organizations defeated the right wing Maronite … USA, France and Israel asked Syria to protect the Maronite or they will going to occupy Lebanon..


- Upon request of Maronite, Syrian army decided to enter Lebanon, they destroyed the Palestinian organizations. One of bloodiest masscres by Syrian (and Maronite) was the masscre of Tel Zater (6000 Palestinian civilian were killed)

- The war continue and Israel in 1978 attacked south of Lebanon to destroy the other part of Palestinian forces and their alliance in the south.


- In 1982, Israel and their Lebanese alliance invaded Beirut and their invasion end with Sabra and Chatila massacre against the Palestinian and their Lebanese alliance.

- Israel occupied the South till 2000 and they left under the attacks of the Lebanese resistance.

- Syria decided to stop the civil war in 1990, so they end the Militia of Michael Awn and arranged international agreement declaring the end of the civil war.

In fact I believe that Lebanese should thank Syria for ending the civil war and saving their country. Otherwise the wars will not end till the last Lebanese or to divide the country into isolated cantons