First came the Syria Accountability Act approved by the US Congress. Now there is the US-sponsored United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559, calling for free elections in Lebanon and Syrian forces' withdrawal from Lebanon, which was passed on Friday.
The immediate spark for the US to have brought the Resolution to a vote Friday was the Syrian dictator's edict that Lebanon's current pro-Syrian premier, Emile Lahoud, continue in his position despite Lebanese legislation forbidding it.
And what is the state-controlled Syrian press saying?
On Monday, September 6, 2004, the Tishrin newspaper carried a column questioning the sudden American interest in Lebanon: "No-one can actually believe that the United States is capable of caring about Lebanon or about any other Arab country. There are enough US statements, policies and stances confirming the exact opposite: a clear program of hostility towards the Arabs. Palestine and Iraq are obvious examples," columnist Izz Eddine Al-Darwish wrote.
As proof of that claim, the Syrian commentator pointed to the US reaction to Israel's maintenance of its South Lebanon Security Zone from 1982 through 2000. The US, according to Darwish, blamed Lebanon for that Israeli "aggression" and "occupation".
Therefore, Darwish suggested, the American diplomatic moves are preparation for far more "dangerous" intervention in the region: "What the United States is saying about the Lebanese presidential elections and the Lebanese-Syrian relationship is.... basically a hostile, secret plot against Lebanon and Syria...."
Even as Lebanese newspapers are carrying articles critical of the Syrian intervention in Lebanese politics, the Syrian columnist wrote that no one has any right to interfere in the Syrian-Lebanese relationship, which goes back deep into history and is based now on the strongest fraternal ties and joint bilateral interests.
Another Syrian columnist, this time for the Al-Thawra newspaper, expanded on the American "secret plot", writing that it was part of the American strategy to revamp the Middle East in a way that will serve Israel "and its expansionist ambitions."
The columnist, Ahmad Hamadah, went on to explain that American elections are one reason for the current activity aimed at Syria, because a prime requirement to get elected is "pleasing" Israel and "the Jewish lobby" in the US, AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and "American Jews' long economic, financial and media arms." It is only because of Israel that the US is concerned about Lebanese democracy, according to the Al-Thawra article.
As proof of the purported Israeli interest that stands behind the American diplomatic offensive, Hamadah wrote that the UN Security Council Resolution would turn the Lebanese army into a protector of Israeli security in "northern occupied Palestine" and would "restrict Lebanese resistance"- meaning the removal of Hizbullah and the installation of Lebanese regular forces on the border.
Turning to the substance of the resolution, rather than its motivation, the Syrian columnist explained that the presence of Syrian troops in Lebanon is "legal, legitimate and agreed upon" by the two governments, as well as enjoying broad Arab and international support.
In short, Damascus sees the liberation of Lebanon from Syrian occupation as merely another "of the Israeli-American moves against Syria and Lebanon," as per Hamadah.
The immediate spark for the US to have brought the Resolution to a vote Friday was the Syrian dictator's edict that Lebanon's current pro-Syrian premier, Emile Lahoud, continue in his position despite Lebanese legislation forbidding it.
And what is the state-controlled Syrian press saying?
On Monday, September 6, 2004, the Tishrin newspaper carried a column questioning the sudden American interest in Lebanon: "No-one can actually believe that the United States is capable of caring about Lebanon or about any other Arab country. There are enough US statements, policies and stances confirming the exact opposite: a clear program of hostility towards the Arabs. Palestine and Iraq are obvious examples," columnist Izz Eddine Al-Darwish wrote.
As proof of that claim, the Syrian commentator pointed to the US reaction to Israel's maintenance of its South Lebanon Security Zone from 1982 through 2000. The US, according to Darwish, blamed Lebanon for that Israeli "aggression" and "occupation".
Therefore, Darwish suggested, the American diplomatic moves are preparation for far more "dangerous" intervention in the region: "What the United States is saying about the Lebanese presidential elections and the Lebanese-Syrian relationship is.... basically a hostile, secret plot against Lebanon and Syria...."
Even as Lebanese newspapers are carrying articles critical of the Syrian intervention in Lebanese politics, the Syrian columnist wrote that no one has any right to interfere in the Syrian-Lebanese relationship, which goes back deep into history and is based now on the strongest fraternal ties and joint bilateral interests.
Another Syrian columnist, this time for the Al-Thawra newspaper, expanded on the American "secret plot", writing that it was part of the American strategy to revamp the Middle East in a way that will serve Israel "and its expansionist ambitions."
The columnist, Ahmad Hamadah, went on to explain that American elections are one reason for the current activity aimed at Syria, because a prime requirement to get elected is "pleasing" Israel and "the Jewish lobby" in the US, AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and "American Jews' long economic, financial and media arms." It is only because of Israel that the US is concerned about Lebanese democracy, according to the Al-Thawra article.
As proof of the purported Israeli interest that stands behind the American diplomatic offensive, Hamadah wrote that the UN Security Council Resolution would turn the Lebanese army into a protector of Israeli security in "northern occupied Palestine" and would "restrict Lebanese resistance"- meaning the removal of Hizbullah and the installation of Lebanese regular forces on the border.
Turning to the substance of the resolution, rather than its motivation, the Syrian columnist explained that the presence of Syrian troops in Lebanon is "legal, legitimate and agreed upon" by the two governments, as well as enjoying broad Arab and international support.
In short, Damascus sees the liberation of Lebanon from Syrian occupation as merely another "of the Israeli-American moves against Syria and Lebanon," as per Hamadah.