EyeOnThePost wants to know why one Washington Post report calls Israeli military activity in Lebanon “occupation,” while Syrian military activity in Lebanon is merely “a presence”. Compare the following snippets of background information:
* Nasrallah appeared after what he called an ’emergency meeting’ of more than 30 political parties aligned with the Syrian government, which is facing international pressure and a popular uprising here to end its 30-year presence in Lebanon.
* With an extensive social services network and an armed wing celebrated here for helping end the Israeli occupation of south Lebanon in 2000, Hezbollah is perhaps the most formidable player in the power-sharing system among religious-based parties.
* Under the 1989 peace accord that ended Lebanon’s civil war, Hezbollah was allowed to keep its arsenal of small weapons and rockets because Israel at the time still occupied parts of southern Lebanon.”
The language is clearly uneven; Israel withdrew its forces from Lebanon in 2000. Syria committed itself to withdraw all its forces in the 1989 Taif Agreement (signed even while Israel still had a “presence” in southern Lebanon) but the troops never left. Does the fact that the foreign soldiers in Lebanon are Syrian make the Lebanese any less “occupied?”
