NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070306/wl_mideast_afp/mideastconflictlebanon

If we assume (perhaps naively) that Syria is not passing weapons over the Lebanese border to Hezbollah (or allowing anyone else to do so), and...

if Lebanon is not Syria, and...

if the UN has a mandate to be there in Lebanon with an international force...

why would Syria care if international troops were stationed along the inside of the Lebanese border to make sure that weapons aren't being shipped into Lebanon?

I mean, Lebanon isn't Syria...

Just trying to see this from Syria's point of view. If you think that the UN is an arm of US interests, and you base that on their continued protection of Israel, then you might object to UN troops being stationed on your border since that would pin you between US troops in Iraq and UN troops. It's a bit of paranoia, but just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

Just trying to see this from Syria's point of view. If you think that the UN is an arm of US interests, and you base that on their continued protection of Israel, then you might object to UN troops being stationed on your border since that would pin you between US troops in Iraq and UN troops. It's a bit of paranoia, but just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

Oh yeah, like the UN is an arm of US interests. Remind the Syrians that we didn't get permission in advance to overthrow Iraq... or bomb the Serbs...

Oh yeah, like the UN is an arm of US interests. Remind the Syrians that we didn't get permission in advance to overthrow Iraq... or bomb the Serbs...
I'm not saying that they're right in their assumptions--just saying that their objections make sense if they believe that. And while the UN may not be an arm of US interests, nothing happens there unless the US says it's okay--the effect of veto power.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070306/wl_mideast_afp/mideastconflictlebanon

If we assume (perhaps naively) that Syria is not passing weapons over the Lebanese border to Hezbollah (or allowing anyone else to do so), and...

if Lebanon is not Syria, and...

if the UN has a mandate to be there in Lebanon with an international force...

why would Syria care if international troops were stationed along the inside of the Lebanese border to make sure that weapons aren't being shipped into Lebanon?

I mean, Lebanon isn't Syria...
Not in Syria's eyes, or grand-historical terms really. Do remember that ALL of the modern Middle Eastern nations except for Egypt, Turkey, (maybe) Saudi Arabia and Iran are ultimately the creations of the League of Nations Mandates; given to the European colonial powers after World War I ended and the Ottoman Empire finally folded. The borders are literally identical except where individual territories split off from the broader mandates (such as Israel from Palestine/Transjordan) to become nations themselves. And just like Kuwait was technically part of Basra province under Turkish rule (sound familiar? This historical technicality was the basis of Iraq's longstanding claim to Kuwait from the Kassem to Hussein regimes) until 1922, even if Britain held effective control from 1889 (IIRC) on due to having an indebted As Sabah family emirate in their pocket, the area now known as "Lebanon" didn't exist aside from as part of a broader Turkish-subjugated region including modern "Syria" that had no more meaning itself. The ethnic/religious distributions of Syria and Lebanon are broadly similar, and they were both part of the French colonial sphere until after World War II.
To Syria, Lebanon is part of their greater sphere and has been since the days of the Phoenician and Hittite civilizations. Colonially-drawn borders mean nothing to them, and not surprisingly so if those borders confer rival Israel an advantage with the Golan Heights occupation taken into account. Until those are returned, Damascus is only marginally-defensible at best should Israel decide to push as hard and preemptively against Syria as it objectively could for whatever reason; and so maintaining a Hezbollah-dominated puppet state on Israel's flank in Lebanon only makes sense for Syria until the broader problem of peace with Israel is solved to Syria's liking. All the more so since Lebanon is another "Arab" state and Syria is the last openly Pan-Arab Ba'athist state around (Egypt's Ba'athist state having shed the name and the ideology for simple nationalism long ago), hence ideally part of the greater "Arab" nation that Syria still imagines itself leading if it can just outlast Israel's advantageous period and the American presence in Iraq.

Oh yeah, like the UN is an arm of US interests. Remind the Syrians that we didn't get permission in advance to overthrow Iraq... or bomb the Serbs...

....but when ahead and ignored the UN and did it anyway. Same with the Sandinistas and all that. And when the UN votes against Israeli occupation? US veto. UN votes against Syria? - bye, bye and thanks for minding the tanks. The US knows the UN is useless against them. What annoys them is the way they speak up. Thats it. Just cant take any opposition....what wankers.....

Not to mention the UN Peacekeepers were created purely to put a quazi-legal face to the occupation of the Suez canal by the UK, France, and Israel.

Somehow, were I Syrian, I doubt I would trust an organization originally created by western powers to occupy an Arab nation with not being used by the western powers to attack an Arab nation.