Home >> Middle East >> Syria & Lebanon

     Email   Print 

Syria wants to annex Lebanon

Ted Belman - 4/14/2008

Pursuant to the San Remo Conference in 1920 The Syrian Mandate was created with France in charge. France broke it up into six separate states including Lebanon. Lebanon was intended for the Maronite Christians that lived there. But it also included some Muslims.

Muslims in Greater Lebanon rejected the new state upon its creation. They boycotted the general census in 1922, and refused to receive new identity cards before General Gouraud agreed to remove from the cards the part stating the Lebanese citizenship. The Muslim continuous demand for reunification with Syria eventually brought about an armed conflict between Muslims and Christians in 1958 when Muslim Lebanese wanted to join the newly proclaimed United Arab Republic, while Christians were strongly opposed to that. Wikipedia

The remaining states merged into Syria. Syria has never given up its claim to Lebanon. Therein lies the conflict. It is reminiscent of the Arab rejection of Israel.

Now that the Damascus Summit is over we read Assad’s Plan after Summit … Three Nos

A senior Arab official who took part in the Arab summit uncovered on Friday that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad wants to adhere to “Three Nos” in dealing with the Lebanese crisis in the next stage: “No peace, No reconciliation, No solution.”

The official stressed that the Assad regime was not at all willing to reach a solution on Lebanon “since such a settlement calls for implementation of Arab as well as Security Council resolutions” – which call for supporting Lebanon’s independence, sovereignty as well as the international tribunal.

He said Assad wants a “Syrian solution” to the Lebanon crisis such as Arab and foreign states will give such a settlement the “necessary support.”

The official said Assad was betting that “Syria’s determination” to topple the Lebanese government is “stronger than Arab or international willpower,” adding that Damascus is relying on its allies, particularly Hizbullah.

He stressed that the Syrian regime will not hesitate to use all sorts of “weapons, cards and pressure,” including the possibility of a Lebanon-Israel outbreak of war.

Sound familiar?

Greater Syria

Syria also has designs on Israel, Jordan and Sinai as can be seen from the map. In the seventies, Syria tried to take over Jordan. Now they are focussed on Lebanon. Iran is backing them and they both have designs on Iraq which was also included in Greater Syria. While Brzezinski may want stability, the Iran Syria Axis wants to take over all these countries mentioned. Probably Brzezinski would have no problem with that.

It is as plain as the eye can see.

ADDENDUM

Aaron Klein just wrote that Syria advised U.S. can buy our loyalty

If the U.S. helps facilitate billions of dollars in business for Syria and builds up Damascus as the primary American ally in the Arab world in place of Saudi Arabia, the Syrians would be willing to discuss scaling back alliances with Iran and making peace with Israel, according to a senior Syrian official speaking to WND.

He said Syria also demanded as a key condition for considering altering its alliances that the U.S. cease opposing Syrian influence in Lebanon.

“Syria is the key to the Arab world. We have influence with Hezbollah and Lebanon and hold many cards in the Palestinian and Iraqi arenas. The U.S. needs to rethink the value of the investment it places in Saudi Arabia,” said the official, who spoke by phone from Damascus on condition his name be withheld.

The official said Syria is asking the U.S. firstly to end its opposition to a trade and association agreement between Damascus and the European Union drafted in 2004 that is said to be worth about $7 billion per year for the Syrian economy. The agreement was not signed or implemented largely due to American pressure, said the Syrian official.

Is it any wonder than that S. Arabia and Syria are at odds. S Arabia undermined the Damascus Conference and is supporting the Siniori government. It also supported Israel during Lebanon War II.

The Syrian offer comes as no surprise to me. In Nov ‘06 I wrote Greater Syria is the answer. Yes, no, maybe.

Expect the US to try to cut a deal whereby Lebanon remains a Syrian extension but where Syria is clearly aligned with the US. Syria will also want the Golan back before agreeing to the switch, but will it insist on it. After all Lebanon is a good deal in itself. Turning it around, would Syria get out of Lebanon in order to have the Golan back? I think not. Lebanon is far more important to them.

The US may well be thinking that Greater Syria (Syria, Lebanon and the Golan) would be a very important ally in the ME, perhaps more important than Israel or Egypt. That is not to say that the US would want Israel to be destroyed but it would be prepared to downgrade its importance. If such a deal is in the works, it would involve the solving of the Israel/Palestinian conflict. If Syria withdrew its support for the terrorists and supported a settlement somewhat favourable to Israel (i.e. no right of return and the fence as the border.) in exchange for the Golan and the US forced Egypt to cut off the smuggling and support such a deal, you would have the makings of a settlement. It is of the utmost importance to the US that this conflict be solved as it’s support for Israel creates much animosity in the Muslim world against it. Until now, the US needed Israel and so endured the animosity. This would no longer be the case if Syria were to switch sides.

If these carrots were not enough to get Syria to switch, Israel, could always attack Hezbollah and Syria in a major war and thereby weaken Syria and threaten the regime. This would help Israel get a better deal. Syria should not be in a position to dictate terms. Israel and the USA must dictate.

Israel would accept such a deal.

Keep in mind that James Baker gave Syria control of Lebanon just prior to the first gulf war. So this is not a far fetched suggestion. Perhaps the war drums we hear now are part of the solution.