Why is there no news about this? Sorry, but I think that it's more important than both the primaries and Ted Kennedy's brain tumor. I really don't understand it, particularly since it seems like a great opportunity to blame George Bush, and actually (much more rarely) be right.
Why is there no news about this?
Simple. It's because Iraq pushes out most other foreign news. Iraq is more than half of Washington's entire foreign policy.
They're too busy winning in Iraq to do anything about Lebanon.
Actually, Iraq was billed as a solution to Lebanon's problems; it was to be a beacon of democracy in the Middle East. It's a beacon all right, but not the one that they bargained for. Iraq's Prime Minister took Hezbollah's side against Israel.
Okay, it's also not that simple. There hasn't exactly been "no" news about the Lebanon agreement, because "American Thinker" must have learned it from somewhere. For instance, The New York Times had a full report. I can believe that Fox News hasn't said anything about it though.
So American Thinker copied NYT huh Jim? That was a neat trick considering the American Thinker article is dated a day before the NYT article. Of course the NYT pulled a neat trick too, their article is dated tomorrow.
Bad news indeed.
The great Lebanon of the past is gone. All those people left during the miserable years from 1980 on, a great Lebanese diaspora. What's left is a combination Palestinian refugee camp and reform school for young Syrian antisocials. Probably just as well that it descend the final step and become a formal terrorist state, like Gaza under Hamas. Clears away some of the confusion and hesitation.
I don't think there would be much mileage over propping up the "Weimar Republic" Seniora government. There's no future there.
But God help the Lebanese too poor or too young to get out.
As for why not the outcry...that's an interesting mystery. The MSM have never given a fsck about the Lebanese, couldn't care less if they all die like animals. Even their coverage of Israeli "aggression" vis-a-vis Lebanon doesn't have the intensity (viciousness) of the same vis-a-vis the Palestinians in Gaza. Their hearts aren't really in it. But why? All I can think of is that Lebanon and the Lebanese have a long history of being a proud and self-reliant people, quite unlike the pathetic angry-teenager dependency of the Palestinians, and we know which style in a client attracts the mavens of the left.
Could it be strategic? If I had to speculate on a silver lining perhaps it would be to save the small fry for later? Maybe the recent rumors on Iran are right for a change. Maybe we can throw Syria in on that "deal" as well and suddenly the Hizzies fizzle (under an Israeli onslaught). Maybe the nuclear bomb race among Arabs and Persians can be halted?
Trying to think good thoughts, we live in interesting times.
My bet is the Administration finally realized that Siniora is a weak figurehead not worth American time and money. The Hariri family is the real power and money in the pro-Western coalition.
Lebanon lost? Maybe a little perspective is in order. This isn't the same as Al Qaeda or the Taliban. According to this, even Lebanese Christians support Hezbollah:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0728/p06s01-wome.html
middle of the article.
They have abandoned the goal of an Islamic state:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17060
All links retrieved via:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah
Jim,
is there a web site you can refer me to where you DON'T post comments. I'd like to read well thought out, adult comments, and you ain't it. I'm getting tired of your idiot liberal driveling here.
Jim if, God forbid, Obama or Hitlry get elected, who will you aim your hate at, after Jan 10th next year?
Enquiring minds want to know.
Lebanese Christian is as vague and useless a term as American Christian would be. The Wikipedia "Demographics of Lebanon" page gives an introduction to the Byzantine* complexities of religion and ethnicity in Lebanon.
*Sometimes literally. Heh.
The term Maronite Christian, probably applies more effectively. The Syrian Mukharabat and Hezbollah were tired of picking off the remaining liberals
one at a time; Gemayel, Tueni, et al; they decided to seize the power, all at once. The former to curtail the Mehlis inquiry into the assasination; the latter to turn the country in Hezbollahstan. Siniora was a Sunni in a predominantlyShia country
so his viability was limited. The recent troubles arise from Jumblatt's ill considered deal that empowered HB beyond their numbers; after the Cedar Revolution elections. Of course, this is not surprising, paramilitary rightist not to say
'fascist' organization, marshall their forces
to overwhelm the civilian opposition. It happened
in Italy, Germany, Portugal, Japan, Romania; it was attempted in the British mandate of Palestine
at least on one occasion, and at least as many times in Iraq under the Golden Square' Rashid Ghailani; until they ultimately succeeded under
the Baathists.
Jardinero1, I see no notable difference between Hezbollah and the other crazies in the Middle East. Their growing power in Lebanon, and continued lawlessness and aggressiveness just means that someone will have to invade sooner or later. Maybe numerous times given how effect such invasions often are.
The loss in Lebanon, like our 2003 invasion of Iraq, is also a consequence of past policy errors. Consider how much different things might be now if Israel had defeated Hezbollah in 2006 or if we had deposed Saddam Hussein in 1991.