Soccer Dad

Occupied in thought

This past week the former Prime Minister of Lebanon - and one-time Syrian ally - Rafik Hariri was killed. Suspicion for his murder immediately fell upon Lebanon(ed. should read "Syria". Thanks Biur!). This led to acknowledgement of 14,000 (or so) Syrian troops in Lebanon. Their presence is rarely referred to as an "occupation."

This article in the Washington Post "Blast Kills Ex-Premier In Lebanon" states:

Hariri, 60, was a self-made billionaire who spearheaded the renovation of Beirut's war-battered downtown. His assassination comes as Lebanon prepares for parliamentary elections, scheduled to begin as early as April, that could usher in a government more strongly opposed to Syria's decisive influence in Lebanese political affairs. Syria maintains an estimated 15,000 troops in bases on the outskirts of Beirut and in the eastern Bekaa Valley.

The only reference to "occupation" in the article is a quote from Maronite newspaper publisher - not an independent observation of the reporter.
The reporter also mentions the Taif Accord, alas he doesn't describe it as a 15 year old agreement of the Arab League to end Lebanon's occupatoin by Syria!
And even if the Post felt that it had some constraints about using a loaded word like "occupation" on its news pages, it should have had no compunction about using the term in its harshly critical editorial about Bashar Assad and his country. Yet the word is nowhere in the editorial.

A search using the NY Times search facility of "+syria +occupation" for the past week yielded 9 results. For just "+syria" there were 42 results. Of the results showing "occupation," most were not using the term as part of the report, only in quoting or citing someone else. (These searches are good for Feb 20, 2005.)
One by Nir Rosen, wasn't about Syria but talked of the American occupation of Iraq. One here, is a Reuters story that recounted the Israeli occupation of Lebanon:

Hezbollah, backed by Syria and Iran, is now a formidable Lebanese political party as well as an anti-Israel guerrilla force that still controls much of southern Lebanon since Israel ended its 22-year occupation of that part of the country in May 2000.

The death of Mr. Hariri, a wealthy Sunni businessman who had opposed Syrian domination of the country, caused an outpouring of public grief mixed with anger against Syria, which was automatically held responsible for the killing by many Lebanese.

Only in Thomas Friedman's "Hama Rules" was the term "occupation" referring to Syria's activity in Lebanon in the writer's own voice.

This begs the question of these news organizations. Why was it so easy to throw around the term "occupation" as an indictment when referring to Israel's defensive positions in Southern Lebanon - lacking the Israeli presence Hezbollah has expanded its activities, not disarmed - but so difficult to use that term regarding Syria? Syria's presence in Lebanon, was offensive, longer, and more brutal than Israel's and yet it is never described as "occupation." Even after Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon stripping Syria of any pretext, the term "occupation" has been used sparingly in news reports.

Here's an article that explains why the brutal Syrian occupation was really less severe than Israel's security zone in southern Lebanon:

Syrian troops first entered Lebanon in strength in 1976 to help restore order after a year of civil war. Syria's fortunes in Lebanon waxed and waned with the flow of conflict, but by 1989 it had secured a position as the dominant power broker.

During the 1990s, Syria's influence in Lebanon was all-pervasive except in a strip of southern Lebanon occupied by Israel. While Lebanon possessed all the trappings of independence, most analysts say that real political power lay with Damascus. Syria views Lebanon as an economic asset and a necessary bulwark against Israel.

Despite the presence of some 25,000 Syrian troops in the early 1990s (since reduced to about 14,000 soldiers), Damascus's influence was subtler than Israel's military occupation of the south, analysts say.

"Syria's role has been apparent at all levels of Lebanese society and government," says Mr. Young, the political analyst. "Unlike Israel, Syria is not regarded as a formal enemy, which made it easier for them."

The withdrawal of Israeli troops from south Lebanon in May 2000, and the death a month later of Syrian President Hafez al-Assad, led to calls for a redressing of Lebanese-Syrian relations.

Got that? Syria's role "all-pervasive" but it was "subtler" than Israel's defensive position in southern Lebanon. Makes sense to me! (the Mr. Young quoted here is a contributing editor to Reason Magazine. This article though, doesn't seem to be excusing Syria the way the quote in the ABC article seems to.)
And of course the "news station" Al Jazeerah knows who really killed Hariri:

Hariri’s killing, like so many of those in Iraq, is the work of either the Israeli dark ops or American mercenaries who have been hired out to kill people who are progressive in the Arab and Muslim worlds. That is why in Lebanon today, people know that it was not some dissident “Islamist group” (that no one has heard of, nor does anyone believe actually exists) who allegedly took credit for the deed, and in Iraq, where the religious leaders among the Sunnis and Shi’is are telling their people not to revenge themselves on one another, because they know the killings are professional jobs being done by people from outside Iraq. The parallels are evident to experts, but these experts will not be allowed on American media. But, Professor Rima Allaf, of the Royal Institute in England is correct, this was the work of an intelligence agency—and we damn well know who the only two would be—because they are the only two to gain by this deed, Israel or America.

The refusal to call Syria's presence in Lebanon an "occupation" is arguably responsible for allowing it to continue. It may not be a journalistic sin on the order of Al Jazeera's but it certainly allows one to ask about the objectivity of those covering the Middle East. Now the term should be very easy to use, but apparently few are still willing to use it.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.

Posted by SoccerDad at February 20, 2005 01:36 AM | TrackBack