White man’s (and house’s) burden

The plot is becoming thicker by the day. The White House has apparently issued a statement on an alleged plot to “topple” the Lebanese government. Let us celebrate, the White House has just hired a bunch of Arabic-to-English translators, to better understand the speeches by and interviews of Lebanese politicians that make up the “axis of evil”… As for the intelligence element of this statement, for which the White House takes credit, let us give credit where credit is due: Al-Manar TV and HezbAllah itself, for the interesting interview yesterday with Hassan Nasrallah. So, the government is to be toppled (note that there is no reference to the methods of toppling the government except the threat of staging street demonstrations), and that is undemocratic how? Undemocratic as the orange “revolution” (i.e., coup d’etat, yes, that’s what it was), or the rose “revolution”, undemocratic as the U.S support for the undemocratic and authoritarian regimes of Azerbaijan’s Aliyev, Armenia’s Kocharian, Egypt’s Mubarak, and the lately-Arafatized “Abu Mazen” (who is living off the starvation of the Palestinian people)? Is this the latest joke? Just read Bush’s statement at the UN General Assembly on Sept. 19, 2006:

We Worked To Enforce A UN Resolution That Required Syria To End Its Occupation Of Lebanon – Then Our Enemies Set Out To Destabilize The Young Democracy.

When Hezbollah Launched An Unprovoked Attack On Israel That Undermined The Democratic Government In Beirut, The World United To Support Lebanon’s Democracy. Secretary Rice worked with the Security Council to pass Resolution 1701, which will strengthen Lebanese forces as they retake southern Lebanon and stop Hezbollah from acting as a state within a state. The President appreciates the troops pledged by France, Italy, and other allies.

We Are Employing The Full Array Of Tools At Our Disposal To End Tyranny And Promote Effective Democracy In The Middle East. We are speaking out against abuses of human rights by undemocratic governments in the region, publicly supporting democratic reformers in repressive nations, and using foreign assistance to support the development of free and fair elections, rule of law, civil society, human rights, women’s rights, free media, and religious freedom.

I know, I know, who takes this man seriously? He is better known for some of his idiotic remarks. But let us for a second consider the above remarks, and in particular the bits I have underlined. First of all, notice that while there is emphasis on 1701 (and Ms. Rice’s contribution to it – when Ms. Rice would’ve never imagined that things would go as far as Israel begging – literally – for a ceasefire), the operation on July 12 is referred to as an unprovoked attack, despite the fact that it could be taken as a response to constant Israeli provocations. But, of course, there is no talk about, not even the tiniest reference to, the violation of the blue line (at least the blue line, and not even the international border – two different things) by Israel prior to July 12. History starts on July 12, or if it dates further back, it starts at a point when HezbAllah launched rockets (in retaliation), which would, given the obvious ommission of what led to the rocket attack, be presented as an unprovoked attack by HezbAllah.

Furthermore, notice how the rhetoric has shifted from terrorism and fighting terrorism, to the rhetoric of democracy and democratization. Because the so-called war on terror has elicited widespread condemnation, be it regarding Iraq or Afghanistan, any plots vis-a-vis the region, and in particular in Lebanon, would have to be justified in terms of maintaining (or, as in the case of Iraq, in response to the exposure of the myth of the WMD, perpetuating the myth of creating) democracy. Thus, when you have Inerga rockets thrown around in Beirut, you get the justification for placing cameras all over the city, so that the democratically (sic – because can you really call it a democracy when the minority rules the majority?) elected government can maintain order (who cares about personal privacy anyway, or the fact that this is being used as a justification to extend and strengthen the arm of the police state), and when you have more Inergas thrown around after Nasrallah’s speech (and he did refer to the issue of the installation of the cameras), you might perhaps get the green light to connect those cameras to a satellite system (which was objected to by HezbAllah following the initial proposal, on the bases that it would provide free information to the Israelis). And who might just benefit from such a reality?

As for the so-called world unity in support of Lebanon’s democracy, which “world” is he referring to, and what unity exactly? Very typical statement, a string of words with no actual meaning behind it. Suppose that it is true that “the world united”, how can one support democracy or the elected government by massacring (or providing the bombs for that very purpose) thousands of civilians? Isn’t it a given that such an action would merely embitter the Lebanese against the bombers and their bomb-providers and supporters (even the so-called united world), and would encourage perceptions that the government is merely a spokesperson of these bombers/bomb-providers? How does that strengthen democracy, unless one is to go by the imperialist philosophy (killing = pacifying) with a propagandistic twist (killing to liberate)?

The worst (I would say it’s funny if it weren’t so tragic) part is actually the last paragraph; abuses of human rights by undemocratic governments. I take it that abuses of human rights by democratic governments are acceptable. OK. And a full array of tools? Does that include gun silencers ordered by the U.S embassy in Lebanon, Inerga rockets, etc.? Remember, if they kill you, and no one finds out about it until they find your corpse disposed of in some remote location, it means they had nothing against you. On the contrary, they were using all the tools at their disposal to “end tyranny”. But the 1.2 million cluster bombs are not tyrannical, nor is the 33-day bombardment campaign, nor are the massacre-orgies, nor in fact the aerial and naval blockade of an entire country (talk about using civilians as hostages/human shields) that lasted for more than a month and a half (but make no mistake, Miqati & co. were allowed to save their jets, and of course, many of our democratically elected leaders shuttled back and forth between Paris, Riyadh, and who knows where else; the same leaders who make no mention of the armed salafis in the north; can we not assume, since assumption is the name of the game, that they are in fact bringing weaponry to arm some factions, to counter HezbAllah? Could this not be part of the reference to the full array of tools at the disposal of the U.S, I wonder? If not, why not? And why are the converse assumptions and untruths sold to the press and the ignorant masses to be taken as absolute truths?).

And free and fair elections? Ironic,  because I can still see the Palestinians being starved to death for the sovereign choice they made in voting in free and fair, and perfectly democratic elections. What message is the U.S sending to the Palestinians? That democracy will lead to starvation. If this is to be taken as genuine belief in and attempts to spread democracy, then I don’t know what unegenuine ones would look like. And I don’t want to know, because I can only assume that they would be worse than the mass-starvation of Palestinians.

And what is meant by the reference to “effective democracy”? Is there ineffective democracy? And are these “ineffective democracies” to be dealt with by mass-starvation of the population? And what gives USA in particular, the right to decide what is effective democracy, and what is not? I have the answer at the end of this post.

Before I conclude, let me quote the following question put forth to Mr. Tony Snow, and the latter’s reply:

Q: Tony, with all the talk today about counterterrorism and the President’s visit to the center there today, I’m just trying to square that approach on actively engaging in the war on terror, and here you have a strong U.S. ally, Israel, come under attack from a terrorist organization, and the U.S. was all about diplomacy and settling that peacefully, as opposed to allowing them to engage in the war on terror. How does that square?

MR. SNOW: Well, wait a minute. The United States said that Israel had the right to defend itself. You’re seeming to imply that the United States put up a big stop sign. The United States did nothing in terms of trying to — again, Israel had its right to defend itself. Both of these efforts are designed to create peaceful ways to the future. If you interrupt a terror operation you’re saving lives. If you’re trying to find a diplomatic way out, you’re trying to save lives. They both have that in common.

But also in common is the desire to foster democracy and foster democratic dreams. And, interestingly, the two are related, because to the extent that you can build a stable democracy in Lebanon, to the extent that you can build a democracy with the Palestinians, to the extent that you build a democracy with the Iraqis, you’re sending a powerful message to the jihadis, or to the people that they would want to recruit, that there’s a better way. And so the two are related in that sense.

So, the question is: What gives USA in particular the right to decide what is effective democracy, and what is not?

And the answer:

Take up the White Man’s burden
Send forth the best ye breed–
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives’ need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild–
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.

Take up the White Man’s burden–
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another’s profit,
And work another’s gain.

Take up the White Man’s burden–
The savage wars of peace–
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.

Take up the White Man’s burden–
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper–
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark them with your living,
And mark them with your dead.

Take up the White Man’s burden–
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard–
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:–
“Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?”

Take up the White Man’s burden–
Ye dare not stoop to less–
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloke your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.

Take up the White Man’s burden–
Have done with childish days–
The lightly proferred laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!

-Rudyard Kipling

18 responses to “White man’s (and house’s) burden

  1. Every democracy is right democracy, the palestinian choosed hamas…fine…that is what
    they want.
    but they need th think what is the meaning of choosing hamas, hamas doesn’t recognize
    israel as a state, so why should both israel or U.S to give them money? because they are
    democracy? hitler also choosed in a democracy elections…so?
    I agree palestin is a democracy, but they choosed to be our enemies, now they have problem
    if they want money from the world they need to recognize we are not their suckers any more.

  2. The problem is that Hizbollah and Hamas TERRORIZE the democratic process. They may get elected democratically, but they intimidate and assassinate their opponenets.

    You can attack Bush, but Bush is not the problem. From 1992 – 2000 Pres. Clinton invited Arafat to White House many times. How come Arafar rejected the peace deal of 2000? Because Hamas would have assassinated Arafat is Arafat had made a deal.

  3. Israeli dude:
    Israel does not recognize the Palestinians’ unconditional right to self-determination. Israel does not recognize Hamas. Why would Hamas recognize Israel, when it is the PRODUCT of Israel’s non-recognition of the Palestinians as human beings first, national group second, a group aspiring for self-determination and statehood third?

    Also, this is not about Hamas or Israel giving Hamas money. Actually, the money that Israel is supposed to “give” the Palestinians is the Palestinians’ own money, and has nothing to do with Hamas. Second, Israel has no right to starve the Palestinians for their choice, even if it has the right to boycott Hamas. Boycotting Hamas is one thing, imposing collective punishment for electing Hamas is another.

    Anyway, if the U.S/Israel think they would bring the Palestinians onto their knees by imposing collective starvation on them, they might want to think twice, and actually look at previous examples; what happened in Lebanon? What is happening in Afghanistan? Unless you are going to argue that both are successes, in which case, we would have to embark on a whole different debate, a pointless one at that (and easy as 1-2-3).

    Effects dude:
    The problem is not with Hamas and HezbAllah, as both are PRODUCTS of the terrorism and weakness and puppetry of the elites who ruled them. The problem is, yes, with people like Arafat (who, by the way, in case you did not know, did assassinate his competitors/rivals, and in fact even critics; see for example Arafat’s assassination of Palestinian cartoonist Naji Al-Ali) and “Abu Mazen” (Abbas), who want/ed to monopolize the Palestinian leadership and decision-making process. In fact, this is exactly what Israel wants. Whereas a democratic process would mean that large segments of the Palestinian people would have a voice in the peace settlement, the authoritarian rule of people like Arafat & Abu Mazen mean/would mean that one person would choose what is best for millions of people, and that person is often driven not by the wish to see his people free and sovereign, but with the wish to procure more wealth and maintain power. This was in fact one of Israel’s aims in trying to sustain the war in Lebanon, the prevention of the formation of a secular-democratic state in Lebanon, and it also explains why USA/Israel have divided the region into “good dictators” vs “bad dictators”.

    As for your assertion of Arafat rejecting the peace deal of 2000, revise your facts, and please see what this so-called “peace deal” was about. Just because it’s called a “peace deal” and it was rejected, does not mean that the concept of a peace deal was rejected. Specifically, see what Barak’s infamous “offer” was all about.

  4. Plans to topple a government is not reflective of democracy, it is reflective of a coup. If Hezbollah can not win the strength it needs in government in free an open elections, and resorts to back-room brokered deals and threats, then it is simply not democracy.

    And, it is important to be transparent, Hezbollah has not real interest in supporting democracy, it wishes to have a government style that is more theocratic and less democratic.

    And, let us be transparent, in that the UN Resolution called for disarming Hezbollah, and that has not taken place. While Lebanon and the world cried for Israel to cease bombing, and how cruel it all was, the United Nations delivered a ceasefire, but those working behind the scenes in Lebanon have made it of non-effect.

    Therefore, when the bombs start falling again, Lebanon should not come crying to the United Nations, or to world to reign Isreal. If Lebanon can not keep its obligations in a bargain it strikes for peace, then Lebanon can not complain when Lebanon does not have peace.

    It is time for Lebanon to accept responsibility for its willingness to choose war over peace. Lebanon was offered peace, and Islamic revolutionary forces within Lebanon have chosen to thank the entire world by plottig a coup, and taking steps towards war rather than peace.

    Lebanon accepts the false-belief that its future lies in the hands of the child Hezbollah, whose mother is Iran, and anyone with the good sense of goat can see this puts Lebanon in war zone, not a peace zone. Perhaps Lebanon will rejoice and prosper under the eyes of Hezbollah, but Hezbollah is an illusion that shall consume the nation of Lebanon. Hezbollah’s mother is pushing toward war, and will push Hezbollah toward war. There is no peace for Lebanon on this path and that is tragedy of this coup. Lebanon shall become a slave-state of Iran and a pawn in Iran’s world games. It is not freedom for Lebanon, it is not democracy for Lebanon, it is the makings of a tragedy for Lebanon.

  5. Plans to topple a government is not reflective of democracy, it is reflective of a coup.
    Actually, it is not a coup; A coup would employ non-peaceful, and often organized military means (not necessarily always facing violent resistance) to overthrow the government. Sort of like what happened in Thailand. As for what you refer to as “backroom” deals, what deals are those? HezbAllah has a memorandum of understanding with another (and probably one of the most popular in Lebanon, across sects) party and its leader, namely the Free Patriotic Movement headed by General Michel Aoun, who fought against the Syrians back in the Ta’ef era (late 80s-early 90s) when USA had given Syria the green light to take over Lebanon in return for its services for the 1st Gulf war…

    As for transparency, I would say that first of all, HezbAllah does not have the means to democratically impose a theocracy, so if it had real intentions and a definite timeframe to institute such a thing, it would’ve done so with its weapons. Why has it not done so? Because it can’t? If it can’t, and if that realization has hindered it from trying it, what’s the problem, then? I don’t see why everyone is all of a sudden worried about so-called theocracy; what about the biggest theocracy in the world, the Saudi Arabia? Isn’t KSA the biggest ally of the U.S in the region? Didn’t they just buy some 70 Eurofighters? So again, if theocracies are bad, then doesn’t that mean that all are bad, no matter how much some of these might benefit some states militarily and strategically?

    The UN resolution 1701 states the following on the issue of H.A arms:

    “Emphasises the importance of the extension of the control of the government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory in accordance with the provisions of resolution 1559 (2004) and resolution 1680 (2006), and of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, for it to exercise its full sovereignty, so that there will be no weapons without the consent of the government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the government of Lebanon;”

    The Ta’if states the following on the issue of weapons:

    PART III: THE LIBERATION OF LEBANON FROM ISRAELI OCCUPATION

    1. Renewed state control to the internationally recognized Lebanese border requires the following measures:

    a. The implementation of Resolution 425 and the other Security Council decisions referring to the complete removal of the Israeli occupation.

    b. Adherence to the armistice agreement signed on March 23 1949.

    c. Taking all necessary measures to liberate all Lebanese lands from Israeli occupation the extension of government sovereignty to all these lands the deployment of the Lebanese army along the border with Israel and the strengthening of the UNIFIL presence in southern Lebanon in order to ensure the Israeli withdrawal and to restore security and stability to the border area.

    Since Ta’ef is the official bases on which the government functions, and which it accepts, this means that the arms of HezbAllah are very much legal and actually LEGITIMIZED as a national resistance by the Lebanese government.

    As for the so-called behind the scenes acting to render 1701 ineffectual, why make so much effort to express such blind accusations of behind-the-scenes action, when you have in-front-of-the-scenes actions that render the 1701 ineffectual? How about, for example, the constant israeli violations of Lebanese airspace, which is considered a hostile act that can lead to the resumption of further hostilities?

    Moreover, since there is so much emphasis and betting on the Lebanese government, will this mean that 1701 will remain relevant when (not if, because it is a question of time) the current Siniora government, that the U.S-Israel and *gasp* the theocratic KSA have placed their bets on, falls? That would be a nice blow to the references to the government, would it not? For example, it would be a very big blow to the article in the resolution that says: ” No sales or supply of arms and related materiel to Lebanon except as authorized by its government;”

    By the way, this statement gives me a very funny feeling; for all we know, it can be interpreted as allowing the transfer of arms through the government (authorized by it) to some groups other than the national army. So if the Siniora government feels threatened and decides to get weapons and give them to the salafis in the north to counter HezbAllah’s “threat”, this would be perfectly legitimate under 1701. Yes? No? Moreover, if the Siniora government falls, and the Aoun-Nasrallah axis comes to power, and the government decides to buy arms and add to HezbAllah’s capabilities (not saying it will happen, we are talking hypothetically, to show that the 1701 is, and will be used as, a double-edged sword), does that make it legitimate? Actually, it was not Lebanon that was crying, it was Siniora who was crying. We all know the hypocrisy of the international community, including so-called open-minded individuals such as the ones who claim to care so much about the 1200 civilians killed that they want H.A disarmed so that another 1200 wouldn’t die. Yeah right! We know better than to trust the so-called international community. The days of the weak, defeatist, puppet governments in Lebanon are over. The people are sick and tired of the war criminals who have held Lebanon hostage; they want reform and change, and the U.S is opposed to this. The U.S does not give a shit about what I, or my neighbour, think about the statement that is deemed as an undermining – if not violation – of Lebanese sovereignty. The U.S should stop meddling in others’ affairs, and if it can’t accept its defeat in a proxy-war, then it should not embark on other such adventures. So, do you think I give a shit about what USA has warned about? Do you really think that the Lebanese people hold the U.S in high regard? Do you think that the Palestinians hold the U.S in high regard after the mass-starvation it has imposed on them, for their choice at the polls? Where is the concept of sovereignty and self-determination in all this? Is self-determination not self-determination when it violates USA’s and Americans’ world view?

    I say, if I have to choose between “peaceful occupation” (whatever the hell that means) and violent freedom/anarchy, I would choose the latter. So, the U.S should keep its paws off the region, or it will get constantly burned. Maybe when the Americans have learned enough about Middle Eastern history, Islamism, and the political/social/economic dynamics in/of the region, they can come and philosophize, and maybe their philosophies will be “right on” and their dictation of these may actually work, for a change. But until then, the U.S (and any American who lives off the myth of American supremacy and righteousness) is in no position, and definitely unwelcome, to tell us how to live and manage our affairs, let alone force these self-righteous philosophies on us.

    And last but not least, surely you have heard the phrase: “no justice, no peace!”

  6. Speaking of the overflights, you might be interested in this article in Haaretz:

    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/783157.html

  7. Thanks for the link.

    However, the claim on which this whole pressurization theory is based, is unsubstantiated. Has Israel produced any proof (real, or at least having some semblance of reality) of this? The answer is an absolute, big NO. And it won’t, because it can’t, because there is no such thing going on, and even if so, then it is none of its business. If the issue is one of the weaponry posing a threat to Israel and its security, wouldn’t the same apply to the Lebanese army, if it gets modern weaponry? If the answer is no based on the idea that H.A is a state within a state, whereas the state is a legitimate entity and it has the monopoly over violence (through the army), then, would the same be true if the government is democratically and legitimately run by anti-Israeli forces, or those that are not particularly friendly to Israel as the Siniora government is? Would the national army be then viewed in the same manner as it is now, given that the only reason given is that H.A is an illegitimate entity / militia, and it is based on terrorism? I wouldn’t bet on it. I bet you that if an anti-Israeli government comes to power, and the leadership of the army changes, and the army is modernized, Israel will consider THIS as a threat to its security, and will deem it a hostile act. The issue is not about smuggling, but about attitudes. The Israeli attitude is based on keeping everyone down militarily, even not allowing armies to get capabilities that would enable them to only DEFEND rather than carry out hostile/offensive action aimed at reclaiming the territories that the zionists stole/occupied. The reasons Israel gives today to carry out its massacres in Lebanon with impunity will not be used in the future when it intends to carry out such massacres and embark on ethnic cleansing and occupation campaigns. The definitions and attitudes require shifting and redefining, to meet the challenges of the highly dynamic situation and the developments in the region; in this case, Lebanon.

  8. Anarchorev,

    The reason I linked to the article is that it shows Israel is full of s**t when it says the overflights are just “routine reconnaissance operations” designed to gather intelligence about Hizbullah. Here we have an IDF internal document showing that the overflights are driven by political objectives. You may very well be correct that the ultimate goal of Israel is to intimdimate Arabs from challenging its hegemony rather than preventing smuggling per se.

    By the way, I came across another article earlier this week (which I can’t find) where the EU and the US offered to use their own satellite technology to monitor any smuggling, and this offer was rejected out of hand by Israel.

  9. Well, regardless of why you linked to the article, I just thought I would debunk this myth once and for all, since this is all that I’ve been hearing lately. I have not come across the article where the EU & US offered this. If you find it, can you please post the link? Thanks in advance.

    Not that I quote the right-wing daily star extensively, but here’s an article that I found interesting, which also mentions ground violations by Israel (shooting at farmers..) :
    http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=76560

  10. Here is the article:
    http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2006/10/israeli_violati.php

    “Israel, however, rejected a proposal by the United States and another European country that they would provide intelligence from their own spy satellites in exchange for Israel agreeing to terminate its flights in Lebanese airspace.”

  11. Hmm, interesting. I’m not sure what their sources are. I would say that the source itself is not a reliable one (I know that they are based on volunteers writing/collecting reports); it might well be that they have taken it from elsewhere, but I am yet to find it mentioned elsewhere, on any reliable news source.

    But if true, it could be very damning indeed. Though I doubt that USA would take such a step and embarrass Israel in this manner. I would say that USA knows and approves of Israel’s reasons for keeping up the violation of Lebanese airspace…

  12. I do not believe the future is bright for Lebanon. The United Nations has failed Lebanon in the past, and may do so again in the very near future. China and Russia do not support sanctions with any teeth againt Iran ad as a result, this opens up the possiblity that Israel may attempt to destory the nuclear program for the purpose of self-preservation since President Ahmadinejad so willfully has desplayed Israel must be destroyed. Such an action may trigger a regional war. A Regional war may require that the United States meet its obligation to defend Israel. In any event, Lebanon and Palestine stand in the path of any large confrontation.

    Failure of the United Nations Security Council to affect positive change is historic. In the end, the Security Council may make itself obsolete and nature will simply take its course. It is rather frightening to consider that what Israel learned from the last confrontation is that Hezbollah has dug in facilities, which will require substantial bunker buster weapons. The destruction to Lebanon will only increase, not decrease. It is unlikely that anyone will be able to broker a ceasefire considering the recent failure.

  13. And who should be blamed for the sequence of events, set into motion by the injustice of Israel’s plans for the domination of the region, and the U.S willingness to acquiesce in this hegemony (and even assign Israel as its proxy hegemon)?

  14. Hi,
    I discovered your blog during the last israeli agression on Lebanon. I returned few times since. I always appreciate the visit. Keep up the good work.

  15. The burden is not the white man’s. The burden is that of the people of Lebanon to achieve their rights. Such a long and boring analysis is a mute lecture as to who is responsible for one’s ‎freedom, and the protection of civil rights . It looks as if the Lebanese people got rid of ‎the Syrian Yoke and are about to brace the Iranian Yoke.‎

    Personally, I think Bush is naive if he believes that western democracy can be established in Lebanon, ‎Syria, Iraq, or Palestine. Tribes, ethnic groups, religious divides make it impossible. Any aspiring freedom seeker will be lucky to keep his head on his shoulder after the second sentence. ‎

    Give everybody a break, do not pass the blame, please look in the mirror. You would be ‎looking at the problem causing the impasse to freedom‎.

  16. It looks as if the Lebanese people got rid of ‎the Syrian Yoke and are about to brace the Iranian Yoke.
    There is no “Iranian yoke” except in your imagination. However, there was an Israeli yoke, and it was destroyed. More than twice.

    Ah, but yes, looking in the mirror is exactly what the U.S and Israel have tried (somewhat successfully) to prevent us from doing. Now if the U.S would leave us alone to manage our own affairs without issuing a statement here and a statement there about so-called plots to overthrow an undemocratic corrupt government that has not achieved ANYTHING in its lifespan (nor have the people in control, who have been ruling the country since my dad’s 20s), and actually without doing things that would bring about “constructive instability” (blowing up people, spreading fear with sound bombs and Inerga rockets), we can start doing that for a change.

  17. U.S. officials demand IAF cease overflights in Lebanese airspace

    Two Bush administration officials demanded that Israel Air Force overflights of Lebanon be halted, saying that such flights undermine the standing of Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.

    The two U.S. diplomats, David Welch and Elliott Abrams, held short meetings Thursday with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni.

    (more)

  18. Pingback: Global Voices Online » Blog Archive » Lebanon: Sweet and Sour

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s