[Allan Topol / AllanTopol.Com]
Lightning paced thriller writer
of International Intrigue
National Bestselling Author

The Rape Of Lebanon
by Allan Topol, [IMAGE]2004


Photo Courtesy: Julie Zitin
[Allan Topol / AllanTopol.Com] Last week, the U.N. Security Council adopted a resolution demanding that all foreign troops in Lebanon, including 20,000 Syrian troops, “withdraw” and stop interfering in the country’s electoral process. The vote was nine to zero with six abstentions.

What prompted the resolution was that under the Lebanese constitution, the president is elected for a six year term. The incumbent, Emile Lahoud’s, term is about to expire. Four other Lebanese politicians expressed a desire to run for the presidency. Any of the four might have demanded an end to Syrian occupation of Lebanon.

Whenever there has been trouble in the region or Middle Eastern terrorism, the Syrians are somehow involved. The U.N. resolution was jointly sponsored by the United States and France. Isn’t that a pleasant surprise? Washington and Paris agreeing on something for a change.

Lebanon was once an example of economic strength and sophistication. It was the pride of the Arab world; a banking and economical center for the Middle East and a playground for wealthy and powerful Arabs. That was all before the civil war and Syria’s rape of Lebanon.

The current Lebanese President, Lahoud, is content to be a Syrian puppet. Wanting to avoid a confrontation, the Syrians decided the safest course of action was to arrange for Lahoud to have another term.

To accomplish that objective, a constitutional amendment was necessary. Flaunting the U.N. resolution, the Syrians, at gunpoint, within twenty-four hours of the U.N. vote, required the Lebanese parliament to convene, dictated the language of the amendment, made threatening calls to legislators, and kept their soldiers very visible until it passed. This sad state of affairs is deplored by members of all three of the major Lebanese communities: Muslim, Maronite Christian and Druze.

There is nothing surprising about Syria’s recent actions in Lebanon. What is surprising is that the U.N. has finally raised its voice on the issue.

The Syrian military control over Lebanon began in 1976. The Syrian pretext was that they were intervening to quell a bloody civil war between Lebanese Muslims and Christians.

In fact, the Syrians were desperately afraid that the two sides might settle the war and that a free and independent Lebanon might emerge, which would limit Syria’s ability to make trouble in the region.

The Syrian ruler, Assad, was petrified when Bashir Gemayal, the then Lebanese President, negotiated a peace agreement with Israel. That would have assured Israel a quiet northern border and, along with Israel’s arrangements with Egypt and Jordon, would have isolated Syria as Israel’s sole foe with a common border.

The Syrian response to Bashir’s treaty was swift and harsh. Assad arranged Bashir’s execution and installed Bashir’s brother, Amin, in the presidency, who promptly tore up the treaty. Sounds like a plot worthy of Shakespeare.

Since that time, Syria, under Assad, and now his son, an optometrist by training, have organized, armed and financed Islamic Hezbollah terrorists in southern Lebanon to mount attacks on Israel under Syria’s guidance.

These Hezbollah terrorists have also been backed by Iran. Their presence in southern Lebanon is directly contrary to the 1984 Taif agreement ending Lebanon’s civil war. That accord, hammered out by the United States and Saudi Arabia, required Lebanese troops to police the border.

At the same time, the Syrians have opened their border with Iraq to provide sanctuary for Saddam Hussein’s family and supporters once the United States began its war to topple the Iraqi President. They have also provided a haven for Iraqi weapons. Finally, they have permitted terrorists, now called insurgents, to move into Iraq for attacks on United States troops.

France believes it has a unique involvement in this issue. During the colonial period, both Syria and Lebanon were French colonies.

The next question is whether the U.N. will take any action to enforce its call for Syria withdrawal. I’m betting that the U.N. will not, and that this will be one more example of a meaningless Security Council resolution.

I base my conclusion on the identity of the six abstainers: China, Russia, Pakistan; Algeria, the Philippines and Brazil. Lacking the support of Muslim countries, Russia and China, no action will be taken.

Lebanon could once again rise from the ashes. But that will only happen if the Syrians are forced to withdraw.