Developments in Lebanon, Syria make headlines in the Arabic press

by Thamer Abu Baker

The developments Lebanon has recently witnessed and the demonstrations that took place there were the main issues in the Arab press this week, as Arab commentators debated the consequences of these events.

Commenting on the recent demonstration arranged by Syria's allies in Lebanon, Abdulrahman Al Rashed stated in the London-based daily Asharq Al Awsat that regardless of the numbers attending the rally, the main issues were whether the big mass of people would be able to stop the pullout of the Syrian troops and what the political consequences of such a demonstration would be, if any.

The writer argued that previous experience, such as the one drawn from Iraq, has shown that demonstrations are not important in the case of crucial issues, since the policies decided by the superpowers are not affected by such protests. The rallies opposing the war on Iraq, for example, didn't prevent the war against this Arab country and didn't succeed in changing the US goals for the region.

The writer said that demonstrations are the expression of opinions, but they cannot have significant effects on countries' policies. The UN Security Council Resolution 1559 will remain an obstacle for Lebanon and Syria, but Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon prevents international interference in Lebanon that would have negative consequences on both countries.

Raghda Dergam asserted that if a civil war breaks out in Lebanon, several local and foreign parties will be blamed for that war. The first party to be blamed would be Hizbollah, as it took the decision to go against the Lebanese people's desire when it took to the streets in solidarity with the Syrian regime, ignoring the fact that the majority of the Lebanese want to end the Syrian hegemony over the country.

Writing in the London-based daily Al Hayat, the writer said that the international circumstances have changed today and thus the international community will not allow a civil war to occur in Lebanon. Moreover, she asserted that the American intervention in the Lebanese conflict could have damaging consequences for the country, as the US is using the Lebanese cause for the purpose of achieving its own benefits. Nevertheless, US President George W. Bush is helping the Lebanese regain their freedom in coordination with France and the international community, and making the Syrian regime withdraw its troops from Lebanon.

Furthermore, in order to stop the country from having another civil war, the US must stop considering Hizbollah as a terrorist organisation, allowing the party to be part of the political game in the country after the Syrian withdrawal. On the other hand, Hizbollah must realise that there isn't popular support in Lebanon for continuing the resistance against Israel from Lebanon in order to serve Syria's interests. If Syria wants to resist the Israeli occupation, it can do so from Syrian soil rather than from Lebanese territories, she said.

The implementation of the UN Security Council Resolution 1559 is in Lebanon's interest and therefore Hizbollah must become a political party that dismantles its militia. However, if Hizbollah chooses to serve Syria's interest, at the expense of Lebanon, it will be the main reason behind a civil war in the country.

Regarding the Lebanese opposition leaders' statements against Syria, Ahmad Amoraby wondered in the Dubai-based daily Al Bayan whether they are aware that the political circumstances surrounding Lebanon are a threat to the country's destiny, requiring a strategic cooperation between Syria and Lebanon in order to face these dangers.

The departure of the Syrian army from Lebanon isn't a significant strategic issue but a negotiable issue. However, that withdrawal mustn't end the strategic alliance between the two countries and therefore, the Syrian pullout from Lebanon mustn't pave the way for the Lebanese government to sign a peace treaty with Israel.

The writer said Hizbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah stated that Lebanon and Syria are still in a state of war with Israel. He added that the US' and Israel's demands wouldn't end with the Syrian withdrawal, as their agenda is to put in place in Lebanon a regime that collaborates with it and serves Israel's interests in the region.

The writer believes that there are some in the Lebanese opposition who have an Israeli-American agenda rather than a Lebanese one. If the US succeeded in establishing a puppet regime in Lebanon, civil war may take place in the country and the first party to be harmed from it will be the American agents in the country, he concluded.

The Syrian decision to withdraw from Lebanon paralysed the American and the Israeli plans against Syria, said Abdul Hady Al Tamemy who writes for the Qatari daily Al Sharq. He argued that the US is using double standards in the region, as it refuses to implement international laws and the UN resolutions pertinent to Israel, and does not apply pressure on the Jewish state to comply with the resolutions regarding the Palestinian cause.

The US considers the Syrian presence in Lebanon as an illegal occupation, while the American troops occupying Iraq without the UN or the international community's backing is another case of double standards, said the writer, adding that there are several reasons that make the US maintain such policies, such as the absence of any opposing power in the world, whether in militarily or economic terms.

Moreover, the achievements of the US-Israel axis in the region are due to several reasons, mainly the readiness of some Arab regimes to assist the American project in the area. There are two goals from the US pressure on Syria, said the writer: to destroy any trace of Arab nationalism, which Damascus now displays, and the Israeli aim to get rid of the Syrian regime - the only Arab regime that backs the Palestinian people's resistance - which threatens the American interests in the region.

This article was published in the Sunday, March 13, 2005 edition of the Jordan Times. It is used here with permission.