Home | Hegemony | Archives | Blogroll | Resume | Links | RSS Feed | subscribe by email    

Flagrancy

to Reason

 

blog roll


    clinton..., 2004-07-26 19:58:09 | Main | Gen. Glut has some alternative..., 2004-07-28 21:55:10

    hm:

    somebody bumped the needle:

    [The Syria Accountability Act's] core demand refers to UN Security Council Resolution 520, calling for respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon, violated by Syria because it still retains in Lebanon forces that were welcomed there by the US and Israel in 1976 when their task was to carry out massacres of Palestinians. Overlooked by the congressional legislation, and news reporting and commentary, is the fact that Resolution 520, passed in 1982, was explicitly directed against Israel, not Syria, and also the fact that while Israel violated this and other Security Council resolutions regarding Lebanon for 22 years, there was no call for any sanctions against Israel or for reduction in the huge unconditional military and economic aid to Israel. The silence for 22 years includes those who now signed the Act condemning Syria for its violation of the Security Council resolution ordering Israel to leave Lebanon. The principle is very clear, Zunes writes: "Lebanese sovereignty must be defended only if the occupying army is from a country the United States opposes, but is dispensable if the country is a US ally." The principle applies quite broadly in various manifestations, not only in the US of course.

    A side observation: by 2-1, the US population favors an Israel Accountability Act, holding Israel accountable for development of WMD and human rights abuses in the occupied territories.

    Back in April I thought "using the Israeli land-grab in Syria as an argument for US invasion" was sort of a joke - they beat me on that though. Now if only this guy's delivery was as good as Clinton's. :P

    The one recent report on this particular subject refers to how "the country appears increasingly incomprehensible" - to Washington. Washington's stance towards Syria demands "specifically an end to continuing Syrian support for 'outlawed' Palestinian groups, Hizbullah and those fighting the US in Iraq, as well as a discontinuation of Syria's possible development of weapons of mass destruction." These are all incomprehensible: to my knowledge Syria hosts Hizbullah offices - an "outlaw" group that hasn't been linked to terrorism in years; there's a shortage of evidence (mere speculation abounds) of any link between the Iraq insurgency and the Syrian government nor a credible case for demanding cessation of whatever interference is taking place - Washington has no more justification for being there than Syria, which probably has more being as there are 140,000 hostile troops assisting in the creation of a puppet state across its border; and the IAEA has likewise found a vast absence of evidence for WMD.

    How that list of demands require that "Syria's regime must relinquish much of its control and power, opening the way for greater participation by civil society" is likewise incomprehensible. It'd be nice, sure, but it doesn't appear to be much of a concern in Washington, which saves the concerns of "civil society" as the pretext of last resort.


:: posted by buermann @ 2004-07-27 01:34:30 CST | link





    go ahead, express that vague notion
    Name:
    Email:
    Homepage:
    Comment

    your turing test:

journals, notes,
and
other curmudgeonry

Enforcing
American
Hegemony
- A Timeline -

Oil for Nothing:
US Holds On Humanitarian Supplies
Iraq: 1997-2001


the good book
and other cultural
artifacts


The Autobiography
of
Mother Jones


Contact Info:
buermann[at]
flagrancy[dot]net



"Any man who is not a radical at 20 has no heart. A man who is not a cynic at 50 has no mind."