Talk:Syrian occupation of Lebanon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Lebanon Portal This article is part of WikiProject Lebanon, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Lebanon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	Syria Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Syria has occupied Lebanon for the last 20 or 30 years. It's ironic (if that's the word) that no one minds that Jordan occupied West Bank or that Syria STILL occupies Lebanon, but everyone makes such a fuss over Israel 'occupying' (as they put it) Gaza Strip, West Bank and and Golan Heights.

If "occupation" is morally wrong or 'illegal', we should object just as much to the other occupations. Especially, since no one's ever tried to obliterate Syria, so what do they want in Lebanon? --Uncle Ed 17:58, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It may be ironic, but does it need an article of its own? I can't see why this info should be in a stand-alone article. And it's an orphon too. -Willmcw 09:29, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Occupation or Presence? 2 Note 3 Links 4 This article need help 5 Syrian presence in Lebanon 6 Travesty 7 I will remove this POV crap 8 Name redux 9 Split 10 Comprimise for name of article? 11 Noteworthy sentence 12 Hezbollah resistaacne or terrorist

[edit] Occupation or Presence?

A dispute over the title of this article began in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Lebanon under Syrian protection, over if it should be names "Syrian occupation of Lebanon" OR "Syrian presence in Lebanon":

• (...)The relocation of the page to Syrian presence in Lebanon also seems to be a pasty, non-neutral white-wash. It was a military occupation, not a vacation tour. :) — RJH 18:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• (...) Under Syrian protection is a very POV title, but so is Syrian occupation of Lebanon. The move to "Syrian presence in Lebanon" was done by a Lebanese editor and there are many reasons for why this title is more neutral. The main reason is that no international organization ever called it an occupation, and that many Lebanese Shi'a (which make up 30% of the Lebanese population) are actually very much Pro-Syrian and never termed it an occupation either. Yuber^(talk) 19:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

First, the dispute over "occupation" and "presence" should be in the talk page of the article. Second, I moved the "Syrian occupation..." to "Syrian presence...", as a step before this issue will be solved and to prevent POV. Personnaly I would prefer the title "Syrian occupation of Lebanon".500LL 20:34, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

How about the title "Syrian military presence in Lebanon"?Yuber^(talk) 01:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget that there was also the "Syrian intelligence presence in Lebanon" and "Syrian diplomatic pressure over lebanon". The title you suggested could only be fit in a the main article of a section of the article "Syrian occupation of Lebanon", and only if it ever gets expoanded. 500LL 12:59, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Is it possible this could be merged into another article? However, as for your claims about "Syrian diplomatic pressure" that has nothing to do with an occupation. I would recommend putting facts about Syrian diplomatic pressure on Lebanon into the article on Foreign relations of Lebanon, I would be happy to help. Syrian intelligence presence is another thing entirely. Both you and I know that it is impossible to tell whether Syria still has intelligence agents remaining in Lebanon, but I still don't see how these would constitute an occupation.Yuber^(talk) 22:46, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the current "Syrian Presence" is the best title and the only NPOV one. It's the phrase that the New York Times and the US State department used. The ICRC, which has the responsibility to call occupations occupations never called it one, because it could not.--John Z 02:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to add that using the word occupation implies that it is in some way equivalent to the Israeli occupation of Palestine. For those of us who have been to Lebanon under "occupation", it is clear that they were in no way, shape, or form equivalent.Yuber^(talk) 01:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We could call the article Syria's intervention in Lebanon although I would call it an occupation. I think it's important that we keep the article because this fact is disputed and we cannot focus on this subject in another article, Lebanon or Lebanese Civil war are not the proper place to expound this topic.

BTW lot of countries have called it an occupation, including the USA see--equitor 22:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

A bill or proposal in Congress does not amount to formal recognition of it as a military occupation. Congress simply does not have that power, only the president does.John Z 15:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The president of the United States did sign the Syria accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty act and implemented the sanctions requested by the congress. But, for the sake of the argument, let us suppose that he never signed it. Who said that an occupation had to be internationally recognized? Political reasons are often stronger than the truth, ethical behaviour is not the standard of international politics. The Nazi occupation of Tchecoslovaquia in 1938 was legalized, same for the Soviet and Eastern Europe. Also there are other elements that I added on the bottom. Finally, it's widely expected that the UN incriminates Syria for assassinating Hariri. How would reasonable people qualify the act of having a heavy military presence in a neighbouring country, imposing presidents and constitutional changes and political choices, and blowing prime ministers with 1000 kg of TNT killing tens of people? A 'presence'? A very heavy presence to say the least.--equitor 17:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Several US officials has called the occupation 'occupation'. The latest one is Adam Ereli, official spokesman of the state department (can you get more official than that?)

"I would note, obviously, that Mr. Kanaan was a central figure in the Syrian Government's occupation of Lebanon for many years. His role and that of other key officials in the Syrian leadership has come under increased scrutiny lately, in light of recent events in Lebanon, in light of the Mehlis report.

"We would call on the Syrian Government to end its interference in Lebanese affairs and to cooperate fully with the investigation of Mr. Mehlis into the murder of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri."

Asked whether a link exists between Kanaan's suicide and Hariri's assassination, Ereli said "I'm not making any such conclusions. In fact, we would look to the Syrian Government to come forth with whatever their assessment is of the circumstances of Mr. Kanaan's death." Links

I will probably revert the title after the Mehlis report. --equitor 19:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

its obviously an occupation that's what everyone calls it. noone calls it "syrian presence in" except maybe syrian supporters. John McW 03:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Exactly !--equitor 19:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you've been too hasty in changing the title. I'm not here to discuss if it was an occupation or a simple presence, but you should know that there's a lot of controversy inLebanon about the name of these 15 years of corrupt syrian-lebanese relations. The lebanese government has never called it an occupation (إحتلال) but have been using the word وصاية which I don't know its english equivalent. And using the argument Several US officials has called the occupation "occupation" is a proof of the Western bias that caracterises a lot of articles in Wikipedia, and is usually found in Lebanon-related articles. One that thing, this "occupation" is very similar to the Soviet union big influence on its satellite countries, but I've searched articles and the world "occupation" has never been used to describe this period. CG 17:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I think we should move the article back until more discussion takes place. Yuber^(talk) 00:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Why was this article moved? The new title is POV and the old one is NPOV, and there are several clear comments to that effectc above in the earlier parts of this discussion.

There may be arguments in favour of the current title as being accurate, but the old one is accurate too, and undisputedly so. This move doesn;t appear to have complied with guidelines either. I strongly support the comments of CG, who is one of the most knowledgeable and professional editors on Lebanese topics (despite the scary name). Palmiro | Talk 13:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Lol, is my name so scary? :-p

Syrian Presence in Lebanon was unambigiously POV. Its plays down what is internationally described worldwide as an occupation and makes it sound like a casual visit. NPOV does not hiding facts, just writing about them neutrally. User talk:Jtdirl 19:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

this is obviously an occupation, as many people have said above. i'm tired of syrian apologists trying to whitewash this. John McW 05:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Please, respond to my arguments.! CG 13:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Jtdir, you're missing the point. I'm not discussing if it was an occupation or not but this name is NPOV. It's putting down the lebanese POV which should be the essential view of this article. As I said, the fact that it's internationally described worldwide as an occupation is NPOV because it shows a western POV and not a lebanese POV. and like I said, it wasn't officially recognised by the lebanese government that it was an occupation. I could relate this to another example in the article Qana that wasn named originally "Qana massacre", but there had been a renaming war because this title was disturbing on the israeli side. Even the argument that the UN recognised it as a massacre hadn't much effect, so the most NPOV name "Qana" had been chosen. The same applies here. We should choose the title that it's most NPOV on all sides: Western, Syrian and Lebanese (yes it's view is different from all other views). Personnaly I neither like "Syrian presence in Lebanon" nor "Syrian occupation of lebanon". After much thinking I suggest to name it Lebanon-Syria relations. CG 19:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

syria didn't just influence lebanon, it controlled the country with troops and secret security services for 30 years, while sucking it dry for money. that is an occupation, not "influence". the lebanese goverment didn't call it an "occupation" because they were controlled by syria, and anyone who called it that would end up like Rafik Hariri. Lebanon-Syria relations have been going on for 60 years, but the 30 year Syrian occupation of lebanon shouldn't be in an article with that bland meaningless apologist name, even though I'm sure Syria and the syrians here would love that. John McW 15:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll put similar examples of such influence and occupation:

The Soviet Union over its satellite countries, it has influence, plus military presence, plus it executed many opposant. But it isn't called an occupation, at least in Wikipedia (check the articles).

The invasion of USA in Iraq: It is an armed military invasion, but is it called an occupation? no.

I'm saying that using the world "occupation" is to compare this period of Lebanese history with such occupations as the Nazi in WW2 or the North Korea in the Cold war, which in the Syrian case is not. It's a unique pattern of occupation that could best be described as similar to the satellite countries of the Soviet Union. An article's title should not put down prejudices, as "Syrian occupation of Lebanon" makes one automatically compare it to any other military occupation that followed an invasion or war. Syria has entered Lebanon "peacfully" following an invitation.

On the other hand, "Syrian presence in Lebanon" could be POV, because it undermines the "cruelty" of Syria.

I find both occupation and presence POV, and we should find a more NPOV title.

And by the way, I'm a regular followers of Lebanese news, and the current Lebanese government, ruled by the party of Rafiq Hariri hasn't called yet an occupation

even though I'm sure Syria and the syrians here would love that: You have your point of view, it's the same as mine, but we shoudn't neglect other point of views just because they upset the western world, or there aren't enough users to represent this view in Wikipedia. CG 16:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

"Occupation" appears unambiguous as it confirms a foreign mililtary imposition and threat to the local government. Presence can include troops located in a country as a result of a peaceful and friendly treaty between two nations. Hence the U.S. military presence in western Germany as a result of the cold war, which followed the military occupation. So I think presence is too ambiguous in the case of Syrian troops in Lebanon. If the Syrian troops were not present to manipulate the political situation, but were instead present solely to protected the country from a foreign power, then presence would be more suitable.

Is there not a suitable compromise title that would work here? How about "Syrian military intervention in Lebanon"? The article can then cover the aspect of "occupation" in a sub-section. :) — RJH 16:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

There have been different titles suggested, all in my view are POV, or doesn't represent all aspects. The one you suggested, doesn't represent all the period because it wasn't only a military intervention, but also a political influence. The best NPOV thing to do, even though I'm not really satisfied with it, is to make a Lebanon-Syria relations article and put the period in question as a sub-section. CG 17:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I support CG's suggestion, not that it's at all ideal and it is too broad, but it's possibly the best compromise that's come up yet.

As CG says, Lebanese sources, where they don't refer to ocupation, tend to use "wisaya" in Arabic. That translates according to my dictionary as "guardianship, curatorship, tutorship; executorship; tutelage; mandate (politics); trusteeship". It's also a fairly precise equivalent for "tutelle" which is the term normally used in Lebanon in French, which Harrap gives as "1. (a) tutelage, guardianship; enfant en tutelle, child under guardianship; (b) Politics: territoires sous tutelle, trust territories. 2. protection; prendre qqn sous sa tutelle, to tak someone under one's wing." That gives a flavour of the terminology used in Lebanon, though it doesn't inspire me with any immediate solution for our problem here. Palmiro | Talk 15:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

"occupation" is the word that actually describes what was going on and is the word most used in english, so it obviously should be used. John McW 22:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

If you think so, please refute the opposing points made in this discussion. Just saying "Oh yes it is" won't win you an argument. Palmiro | Talk 13:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

yuber moved this on may 30, against "policy" as you say. "syrian occupation of lebanon" returns 21,500 google results, "syria's occupation of lebanon" is another 11,800. "syria's presence" gets less. John McW 20:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

No, Cedar guardian (then known as 500LL) moved it. Read the discussion above and you'll see. Please refute the points made against that title, if you want it to stay where it is. Google hits is an appalling basis to decide where to put this, in my opinion. Palmiro | Talk 21:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

John McW you have missused the Google test. You shouldn't make this test to determine the POVness of a title: "When using Google to test for importance or existence, bear in mind that this will be biased in favor of modern subjects of interest to people from developed countries with Internet access, so it should be used with some judgment.". This test should only be used to compare different forms of a name ("The English language often has multiple terms for a single concept, particularly given regional dialects. A series of searches for different forms of a name reveals some approximation of their relative popularity."). Therefore your invalid argument about the popularity of the "occupation" word shows only a Western view and undermines all other views. CG 18:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• My vote goes for 'presence'. It certainly wasn't an occupation, and if the argument was made that it is a combination of the two, it definitely was much more of a presence than an occupation. This can be very simple to see, just by comparing it to any real occupation, such as the occupation of Palestine, and spotting the huge differences. I call on an admin to create a poll, since somebody changed it to 'occupation', even though the majority of users here appear to agree with the title using 'presence'. Asabbagh 01:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note

A few comments: In 1984, president Amine Gemayel, internationally recognized, asked the Syrian troops to leave, they did not. This makes it an occupation. But even before this:

You will not find any statement of the Lebanese government inviting Syrian troops in the beginning of 1976 because there isn't any. They entered first and it was legalized a posteriori, when the Arab league gave a mandate to Syria. After this, the Syrian force was nominally under Lebanese control but in practice, it never obeyed to the Lebanese government. Some Christian leaders and not Christian leaders (reluctantly) called for Syria's intervention. Actually they did not had any choice, Syria was playing a double game: Syrian-backed Palestinian militias were attacking Syrian populations (Damour among other) and they were on the edge to win the war. So Syria proposed to stop these militias, that were sent by Syria itself and had Syrian soliders in their ranks, by entering in Lebanon. Syrian special forces (especially the one headed by Rifaat) were going in and out of Lebanon as early as 1975. Moreover, Syria was interfering with Lebanese affairs through puppet Palestinian organizations like the Saika and the Palestinian Liberation Army. THese organizations were composed of Palestinians, but also Syrian military. You can do a quick internet research and verify that Saika and PLA were puppet Palestinian organizations armed, trained, controlled and based in Syria.

September 10, 1975: El Saaka Syrian forces attack the village of Deir Ashash, in Northern Lebanon,

September 11, 1975: The Saaka forces and forces from the Syrian Baath Party attack the village of Beit Mallat September 26, 1975: Egyptian newspaper El Ahram accuses Syria of meddling in Lebanon and attempting to impose the Syrian Baath Party on Lebanon by force.

October 9, 1975: Saaka forces traveling across the Syrian border attack the village of Tal Abbas in Akkar killing 15 people and injuring many others. The local church is set on fire with the hope of igniting religious strife between the Lebanese.

November 2, 1975: A whole Syrian battalion of Syrian Special Forces enter Lebanon through the Bekaa Valley.

January 7, 1976: In a statement published by a Kuwaiti newspaper Syrian Vice President Abdel Halim Khaddam announces that Lebanon is part of Syria and that it will be returned to it adding that this concept should be very clear to everyone.

January 15, 1976: A battalion from the Palestine Liberation Army, the Yarmouck division, which is under Syrian command, enters the Bekaa and has confrontations with Lebanese Army in the area.

January 19, 1976: More forces from the Yarmouck division along with some other forces from the Saaka enter Northern Lebanon and proceed to attack Lebanese police and internal security forces positions; they are helped by local armed Palestinian militias.

January 21, 1976: The Yarmouck and the Saaka forces, under the command of Syria, attack the Christian town of Damour

March 5, 1976: Saaka forces encircle the towns of Kobeyat and Anduct in Akkar in Northern Lebanon and proceed to bombard the area with heavy artillery and mortar fire. Meanwhile

April 4, 1976: Druze leader Kamal Jumblatt expresses his astonishment about the fact that Syrian forces are deploying in areas of Lebanon where there is absolutely no legal justification for their presence.

April 5, 1976: Bashir Gemayel, the leader of the Lebanese Forces announces that the different parties in Lebanon were on the verge of reaching an agreement when Syria intervened and disrupted all agreements.

May 31, 1976: Syrian tanks under the command of the Syrian army enter the Akkar area in Northern Lebanon for the first time ever.

June 1, 1976: The Syrian army advances into the Bekaa Valley and starts taking over all strategic and vital positions.

July 20, 1976: Syrian president Hafez Assad gives his famous speech on the stairs of the University of Damascus in which he states that he did not ask anyone's permission to send his forces into Lebanon.

November 11, 1976: The Syrian Saaka Forces attempt to assassinate the leader of the National Bloc Party, Mr. Raymond Edde.

December 15, 1976: Forces from the Syrian army and from the Syrian intelligence services attack the offices of the El Moharrar, Beirut and El Doustour newspapers, kick out their editors and take over their offices and their printing facilities.

--equitor 22:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Links

I don't think that we should have unrelated links in this article. This is not a political arena. --equitor 21:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The not so-clever guy who reverts from his IP address should take the topic on the discussion board. --equitor 07:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This article need help

After reading the article, I found two points that need much help:

• Most of the article describes the Cedar Revolution period and not the 30 years before it.
• There's no clear explanation on the different views about this chapter. Different parties call it different ways: The Western world call it an occupation, Syria call it a presence to help Lebanon, in Lebanon, the government has call it وصاية, a world which I don't know its translation, some lebanese political parties have call it occupation (like the Free Patriotic Movement and the Lebanese Forces), while Hezbollah is unclear about its position... All of these POVs and different titles should be features in the introduction.

And just one question, why has this article been protected? CG 20:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not accurate to say that the "Western world" calls it an occupation. As far as I know, most Western governments carefully refrained from using the term. "Occupation" has a pretty clear meaning in international law, which didn't apply to the Syrian presence in Lebanon, although it did to the Israeli occupation. WP's article on "military occupation", although it's crap, does at least avoid talking about things like the "Chinese occupation of Tibet" (which is just as much of an occupation) and "British occupation of Northern Ireland", for these reasons.

Since the term "occupation" represents a certain POV, and appears strictly inaccurate, the article shouldn't be at that title, and neither should it have been moved without discussion. However, of course all the POVs of siignificance should be discussed here. Palmiro | Talk 12:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not the international community that define if Lebanon was occupied or not. Before saying if it was an occupation, define the word occupation.--70.52.13.80 16:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Good point. "Occupation" has a meaning in international law, and I think that's the only basis we can work on here. Palmiro | Talk 13:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It's been a long time, and various users have objected to the title. I'm just going to go ahead and move it.Yuber^(talk) 18:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Syrian presence in Lebanon

Before making controversial page moves on sensitive topics, please use the talk page. In this case, there was a talk page discussion where more users favoured the current title and adduced strong arguments, notably User:Cedar-Guardian who is not by any means a supporter of the Syrian presence (as one might deduce from his name). This sort of sudden, undiscussed move is a very bad idea. If you want to move a page where there has been a lively discussion about the proper title you should pay heed to that discussion, and preferably participate in it, and finally you should list the page on WP:RFM. Palmiro | Talk 11:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't see much consensus for the move, and I recall this being discussed before and rejected. We can't invent terms: that is OR. It is known throughout the world as the "occupation of Lebanon," and as arguments have been rejected in the case of Israel, I see no reason to make an exception for Syria. At least in the case of Israel's presence in the West Bank, there are alternative terms for it. What are the alternative terms here? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not known throughout the world as an occupation. It is described by the US government as an occupation, but only in the last year or so, the US government took a very different stance when approving it previously. The US is not the world. In any case, as has been argued above, military occupation has a very specific meaning, which is generally agreed to apply in the case of the OPT, and not generally agreed to apply here. Most importantly, neither of the two most relevant parties, the governments of Syria and Lebanon, use the term. Nor does the bulk of the serious Lebanese media, at least not in news - as opposed to opinion - articles. Finally, if you want a move, please list it on RFM. Palmiro | Talk 11:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The article was moved by Yuber. It is he who should have listed it; I've just moved it back. The bulk of the world's media called it an occupation, to the best of my knowledge. Which parts of which definition of military occupation don't apply here? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, it was just you and Yuber who decided to move it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

What move are you talking about? I never decided to move this article; the first time I saw it, it was at Syrian presence in Lebanon, then John McW moved it. I see CG - a Lebanese nationalist, I might point out - moved it back after John McW moved it. In any case, it has been sitting here for five months and a discussion appears to have brought out more opinions objecting to the move to "occupation" than favouring it. If you want to move it, you should put it up on RFM. Unilaterally moving it over the heads of the involved editors and without getting involved in the discussion is quite arrogant, in my view. Palmiro | Talk 11:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry , it looks like CG moved it, then John McW moved it back, then Yuber moved it again. In any case this last move should not have taken place without discussion. I would ask you to read CG's comments in the above debate, which I think are worth bearing in mind. I am not at all sure that "presence" is the best place for this, but it is far better than the POV and inaccurate "occupation". Palmiro | Talk 11:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It was the Yuber move that should not have taken place without listing it, which is why I moved it back. Can you say which definition of military occupation you referred to, and which parts of the Syrian occupation/presence didn't fit it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, how can you argue that Israeli occupation isn't a POV, but Syrian occupation is? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Because belligerent occupation has a precise meaning in international law, and the consensus among jurists is that it applies to the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, whereas the Syrian presence in Lebanon was with the agreement of the legitimate sovereign government of Lebanon (recognised as such by the international community, and which never referred to it as an occupation, and still has not now that the Syrians have gone), and therefore was not legally a belligerent occupation. Use of the term "occupation" with regard to the Syrian presence in Lebanon is therefore in the realm of polemics, and not suitable for use as an article name. Palmiro | Talk 12:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The current title is obviously POV. Various names are used. The US, Europian Union and some Lebanese parties (FPM, LF...) calls it an occupation. Syria and the Arab league and even the current lebanese government refers to it as a "tutorship". It's not for us to discuss and analyse internation laws. According to the NPOV policy the title should be neutral. As for me, I'm not very happy with "presence", it's too vague. we could use "influence" but it sills vague. If anyone has a suggestion just post it. CG 23:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I saw the renamings by Fares S (talk • contribs) (who needs to read WP:NC) and non-destructively undid it. We can move it to whatever the consensus is. Thank you. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

the actual consensus is "presence". But it is always open for discussion and new suggestions but surely not "occupation". CG 09:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"hegemony" is commonly used by many writers in both English and French, and doesn't seem to have quite as partisan an overtone as "occupation". I still think "presence" is probably best, for all its shortcomings. Other possibilities might include "intervention", but I can't think of an immediate equivalent for "wisaya"/"tutelle" - indeed, "presence" seems to be the word that's used in English in the sorts of contexts where those words are used in Arabic and French respectively, for all that it clearly doesn't mean the same thing at all. Palmiro | Talk 16:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not an occupation, occupation is a military presence imposed by force, like the Israeli occupation. Syria came at Lebanon's request. Robin Hood 1212 19:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Travesty

This page, as it stands, is a travesty. Those who are editing it need to read the Wikipedia policy on writing from a neutral point of view. Palmiro | Talk 18:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific. Which FACT are you contesting? The assassination of Kamal Jumblat? The Saika forces and their role in the Lebanese war? Using general words like "travesty" does not help.

I would suggest that you interview Abdel Haleem Khaddam or Hikmat Shehabi. They are now in a position to provide you with interesting examples, that even go beyond the facts that are stated in this article.

Regards,

Fares S 18:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe Palmiro is referring to the first sentence and the first paragraph. Just read it through and you can almost see the bias seeping from the words: driven by his hegemonic vision.., Since his accession to power in 1971, Al-Assad decided to re-annex Lebanon, the Land of the Cedars., etc. Instead of being an article based upon events, it now seems to be article based upon showing an anti-Syrian POV. It also seems to show no references for any of the opinions that it claims Assad had (an autobiography would be a good source...maybe even the only credible source). As it stands, the article is a travesty, especially of it's former self. Perhaps we should check the page history and figure out who it was that wrote the first paragraph and so forth and then revert the changes that are obviously POV. The article anyway needs re-writing (and probably re-naming.... e.g. "Syrian Intervention in Lebanon" and then start the article with "The Syrian Intervention in Lebanon lasted from 1976 to 2005 and has also been popularly called the Syrian Occupation of Lebanon or Syrian Hegemony over Lebanon. And so forth and so forth).72.27.11.32 22:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I will remove this POV crap

Robin Hood 1212 19:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name redux

Even this viciously anti-Israel piece in Al Ahram calls it "the Syrian occupation of Lebanon". Jayjg ^(talk) 16:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

What's the relevance of that? Since when did being anti-Israeli give a greater validity to someone's views on Syria? Many Lebanese - maybe the vast majority of Lebanese, at the moment - are pretty vehemently anti-Israeli and pretty vehemently anti-Syrian. Would someone's harsh attacks on Syria mean that we should accept a statement from them to the effect that Palestine is an Islamic waqf? I'm sure we could easily enough find some viciously anti-Syrian people who've said just that. Palmiro | Talk 02:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Al Ahram is an Egyptian newspaper, not a Lebanese newspaper. On the May 17 page I brought a significant number of reliable sources which indicated quite clearly that Lebanon was occupied by Syria from 1976 onwards. There are many more. I'll add some to this article to deal with any objections. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I know quite well what country Al-Ahram is published in. The fact remains that a writer being prejudiced against Israel does not in any way render statements of his which could be construed as anti-Syrian more reliable than they would otherwise have been.

As regards reliable sources claiming that Syria had occupied Lebanon, I think the consistent refusal of the Lebanese government or any other competent instance to take the view that the Syrian presence amounted to occupation is a more than adequate answer to any loose usages by politicians and journalists. I have little doubt that you could find many journalists and politicians who have referred to, for example, the "Chinese occupation of Tibet" or the "British occupation of Northern Ireland". But however many people may have used such a term, that does not mean that there was in fact an occupation. Palmiro | Talk 14:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, the fact that puppet governments do not protest their occupiers presence is unsurprising and proves nothing. The Vichy government didn't describe Nazi Germany as "occupiers" either. And you forget that I've provided historians who've said the same thing as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. The occupied government terminology is irrelevant. Soveriegn countries don't have presences of other. Amoruso 00:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be forgetting that the Lebanese government, far from being a Syrian puppet, is composed most notably of pro-Hariri and right-wing Christian elements, and has frequently been accused of substituting American or international tutelage for Syrian tutelage. Palmiro | Talk 00:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

With the weakening control of syria on the government, although the president is a puppet, they did call it occupation and thus it ended. Back then it was all puppetety. Anyway, if lebanon doesn't call it occupation it means it's not an indepedent state which means there's no point in having 2 seperate countries and we should remove the Lebanon article completely. Basic international law calls this occupation regardless of how one calls it unless one is willing to unite to a format such as the United Kingdom. Amoruso 00:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split

Various sources seem to agree that after the 100 days war and the Taif accords, there was a defacto occupation of Lebanon by Syria. This is particularly true since Syria was invited in as peacekeeper, and with Lebanon's Civil War being effective over by then, any pretext that they were still there as peacekeepers is out the window. Before 1989, calling the presense an occupation is much more of a debatable POV. I've proposed we split this article between these time periods, to at least sequester the debate. -- Kendrick7 20:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The Lebanese government has never accepted that the Syrian presence was an occupation. The US government didn't either until very recently (for example, a US government website, now altered of course, used to refer to the expulsion of Michel Aoun from Baabda as the Syrians "assisting Lebanon's legitimate government" in restoring its sovereignty). I don't see why we should ignore legal fact and the position of Lebanon's legitimate government in order to use a political slogan as the title of this page. This has nothing to do with whether the Syrians behaved like an occupying power - one could equally argue that China is acting like an occupying power in Tibet, is indeed an occupying power in all but legal fact, and the same argument could be made for various other cases, but the issue is whether there was a military occupation in existence or not. I'm not aware that the US government has ever actually made that claim in its dealing at the UN, for instance - I suspect you will find that in fact it reserves it for rhetorical use. Palmiro | Talk 14:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Various sources provided agree that it was an occupation from 1976 onwards. Which sources do not? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Very bizarre proposal for a split. Has Syria been into Lebanon as a tourist entity ? Presence is one of the more ridicilous words used in this concept, and it seems a pure POV proposal. Should be scratched immediately. Amoruso 00:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on your last edit, Amoruso. It was one of the funniest I've seen for a while. Palmiro | Talk 12:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

As Sun Tzu said: "if, as a tourist entity, you travel in an armour column, you're much less likely to be pickpocketed than in a donkey caravan." El_C 21:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comprimise for name of article?

The two proposed titles for this article...'Syrian Presence in Lebanon' and 'Syrian Occupation of Lebanon' have been accused of pushing the POV of one side or the other; perhaps 'Syrian Influence in Lebanon' would be a reasonble comprimise? I submit that the term 'presence' is not a realistic representation of the situation from 1975 - 2005. Syria was more than 'present' in Lebanon. Having said that, the Syrian military did not conduct military operations for the purposes of occupying the country at the outset of the Lebanese Civil War. In any case, the term 'influence' would not only (perhaps) settle the argument, but would be able to encompass the broader scope of Syrian foreign policy in Lebanon, including social, economic and cultural impacts (which this article fails to address when discussing Syria in Lebanon as a whole). Also, I think this article could use some help on a number of levels...but before I begin collaborating, are there any thoughts? --Xtcrider 04:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Good luck! Palmiro | Talk 18:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noteworthy sentence

The following was removed from the article, on the basis that it has 'several articles' devoted to it already. I believe that it is a noteworthy sentence and it is useful to include it in this article.

One year following the withdrawal of Syrian forces, Israel attacked Lebanon in July 2006 (See 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict).

Any objections, please tell my why.

And, how can a poll be created regarding the title of the article? Asabbagh 19:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hezbollah resistaacne or terrorist

Some People want us to belive that heazbollah is just fighting for the indapendance of Lebanon. Hezbollah never fired one shot at the Syrians, who unlike the Israelis were not defending themselves. Syria a Sunni country run by a secular Sunni government along with Iran [which helped established Hezbollah] still supports the religious Shitte Hezbollah terrorist organization. The reason why was because Syria's top priority and one of Hezbollah's goals was and is the elimination of the Jewish state or how they will sa yit Zionist entity. Without Israel, Syria would give Hezbollah nothing.-Dendoi 11:41 PM, Wednesday March 14, 2007

Can you explain your point in terms of this article? Also, the Assad family is Alawi, not Sunni... but that's not so important either... gren グレン 05:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)