What? a new Sykes/Picot Agreement?
          The United States supported by France wants  to impose on the Arab states?

Back to Opinions Page

  During WW I, Actually in 1916, the British Sykes and the French Picot met and decided on a new colonialist  movement, by  force of which the two parties agreed to divide the Arab territories of the Ottoman Empire between the two colonialist powers. This took place at the time when these territories were still under Ottoman rule, and while the colonialist allies were promising the Arabs an independent Arab united state. The British insisted on getting Palestine, Trans Jordan and Iraq while they were already in control of the Arabian Gulf, because they had in mind to indorse Palestine to Zionism as a “national home for the Jews”. The French got what they called the Levant, and they divided it later into two states, Syria and Lebanon, and in 1939 they cut out of northern Syria the Sanjak of Iskandaron and gave it on a golden platter to Turkey; so as not to join the war with the axis, namely Germany, Italy and Japan. 

 After WW II the two imperialist powers, the victorious allies France and Great Britain, imposed their will on the “League of Nations”, which they created to grant them mandate, a polite polished terminology for colonies, over the “liberated” Arab territories.

 The new mini Arab states got their independence and sovereignty after a long struggle, but unfortunately they did not try  to unite into a big and strong enough viable state. The problem was not the people, but the puppet rulers the colonialist powers imposed as heads of state. Since then, abolishing the borders drawn by these colonialists powers became a violation of world security.

  France, after an awakening of conscience, apologized from its old colonies for its colonialist past, and its policy towards them was considered progressive. France led the opposition camp against the neocolonialist policy of the United States especially in its war of aggression against Iraq, which made the leaders of its neo-conservative camp label the Europe of France and Germany the “Old Europe” while European states which supported its invasion of Iraq, especially the old Soviet satellites, were “the new Europe”.

  The Franco/American draft  of the resolution calling on Syria to immediately withdraw from Lebanon and dismantle the so-called "terrorist organizations",  namely Hezbollah, shocked and astonished us. It is not strange that the neo-conservative U.S. Administration would take this step; on the contrary this was expected.  The cause of our shock is France's involvement, in cooperation with this administration. France had been in conflict with it and critical of  Israeli terrorism towards the Palestinians, and we had never heard of it criticizing Lebanese resistance led by Hezbollah, which liberated South Lebanon from Israeli occupation and reunited it with Lebanon anew.

  It is worth mentioning that the French resistance to the Nazi occupation of France during WW II was highly esteemed by the Free French and the allied forces led by the United States of America. The resistance men and women were rightly considered heroes. After the liberation the French resistance organizations killed tens of thousands of collaborators without trial, and they were not considered  terrorists or killers. On the other hand after the liberation of South Lebanon was partly achieved, with the exception of areas including the Chibaa Farms, the Lebanese resistance, unlike the French resistance, did not take revenge from the Lebanese collaborators with the Zionist occupation who killed a large  number of resistance fighters. On the contrary Lebanese  resistance handed over the collaborators, who did not flee to the Zionist enemy state, to the Lebanese Governmental authorities to be tried by the judicial authorities, who handed down  unbelievably light sentences.

  In our opinion the major purpose of the Franco/American and other European powers campaign and their resolution of the Security Council (No. 1559) of August 2nd is to impose their control over the two rebellious Arab states, Syria and Lebanon, and put them under the Zionist / American umbrella. 

 Experts confirm that this move, especially by the United States, comes under  cover of its project to reform the  Middle East politically, religiously and economically, and is claimed to introduce democracy.

  U.S. envoys, whether dropping in on Beirut during their tours in the area, or stationed ambassadors, visit the Lebanese president of the republic, the parliament speaker, the prime minister, the minister of foreign affairs or any official, and during their press conferences lecture their hosts on what they should do or not to do. How to elect the president of the republic, disarm resistance organizations, settle Palestinian refugees where they are, tell them to giveup the idea of the right of return of Palestinians to their homes and land.........  Endless orders and orders from the U.S. Administration envoys and visiting congressmen...... "Israel has the right to defend itself" through terrorizing  occupied and subjugated Palestinians as well as other Arabs.

  This comes at the time when we thought that France a close friend of the Arabs. France is simply considering that its relations with the Western bloc is more important than its good and honest relations with the Arabs, which we believe do not contradict. We believe this is a result of the Zionist/American pressure to give a blow to the Lebanese resistance (so called militias), and in this case Hezbollah.

  “An official with the French delegation to the Security Council told The Daily Star (Lebanese English language daily) Tuesday Aug. 31st. afternoon that one of the points already written and agreed on by Washington and Paris was the disarmaments of all militias in Lebanon.”

  Hezbollah, which was the major contributor to the liberation of South Lebanon and the West Bekaa that is 10% of the total area of Lebanon, was and is still performing its duty with the blessing of the Lebanese Government and people, and without its sacrifices and those of other resistance parties, this part of Lebanon would have been still  occupied by the Zionist enemy. It is without doubt a Zionist interest to concentrate on the disarmament of the resistance forces (Israel hailed the resolution, and its minister of foreign affairs, wrongly called shalom that is "peace" in Hebrew, said this will lead Lebanon to be the third Arab state to conclude a "peace treatment" with the Zionist entity.). The resistance forces are a necessity for the security of Lebanon against the violation of Lebanon’s sovereignty, and a vital need to proceed with the final and total liberation of the country. On this basis the Zionist entity and its ally/supporter the United States see in the Lebanese resistance a threat to their interests in the region, that is their military, political and economical interests, namely their total domination of the area. Still the United States ask why the Arabs hate us?!

  Second is to corner Syria and Lebanon, the two Arab states that did not yet fall under the yoke of the Israeli / American coalition. As we said above, the U.S. law for the Accountability of Syria and Lebanon’s sovereignty was not passed by the U.S. Administration and Congress that are under the strong influence of the Zionist lobbies, because their hearts ached for Lebanon’s freedom sovereignty and independence.

  The Franco/American Security Council resolution, which called for immediate withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanon should mean Israeli Zionist occupation forces, and cannot mean Syrian forces, because Syria as an Arab state not foreign as far as Lebanon is concerned.

  Where were these supreme powers to condemn Israeli violations of the security of Arab counties and terrorizing the Palestinian Arabs, and the U.S. invasion of Iraq and dominating most other states when:

  ·       Zionist occupation and almost the annexation of South Lebanon were done by Zionist forces.

  ·        Zionist forces invaded Lebanon and reached its capital, Beirut.

  ·        Zionist forces collected the Lebanese members of parliament from their homes by force “to elect” a “Lebanese President”, Bashir El-Jmayel in 1982.

  ·       Zionist forces occupied the Syrian Golan Heights, which is still occupied and annexed to Israel.

  ·        Zionist forces over ran the remaining 22% of historic Palestine not occupied in 1948, which is being fully colonized.

  ·       Zionist forces are applying Israeli state terror, which had been systematically demolishing everything built and planted by the Palestinians, not to speak about occupation the worst type of terrorism.

  ·        Zionist forces are assassinating Palestinians of all ages and sexes, on the pretence of targeting “terrorists” who are fighting for their existence, future and dignity as human beings.

  ·        The Zionist enemy violated tens of U.N. resolutions, and the U.S. vetoed tens more condemning Israeli state terrorism.

  ·        The United states waged two wars on Iraq, putting  it under siege for over a decade, resulting in the death of hundreds of thousands of people by bombardment, use of uranium depleted shells and malnutrition caused by its sanctions on Iraq. This not to speak about the Korean and the Vietnamese wars waged by "the greatest democracy in the world".

  ·        The United States had been supporting and financing Israeli state terrorism and occupation of sovereign state.

  ·        The United States had been overlooking Israel’s WMD especially its arsenal of atomic bombs.

 This issue became a part of the American election campaign and the fight for the presidency between the two candidates, Bush and Kerry. The latter said: "The Syrian interference in Lebanese affairs is unacceptable." Kerry like his competitor is justifying their interference in the internal affairs of all sovereign states around the world, waged wars on some and threatening others with use of force and/or putting economic and other types of sanctions on them, all without endoresment from international organizations;  on the contrary the two candidates take pride in unilateral acts of war. President Bush during his four years in the White House waged two wars, first on Afghanistan then after a short time on Iraq, which he could not justify, or his justifications proved to unfounded. 

 Syria and Lebanon were one of a whole, which was divided into two states by the former French "mandate" imposed on them. The Franco/American resolution considers the relations between Syria and Lebanon as an interference  of the first in the internal affairs of the second. Although they have a political, economical and security cooperation agreement officially officially signed and approved by their respective parliaments, and a copy of which was received without complaint by the United Nations. If this claim is justified why don't these supreme powers give the good examples to the regional powers not to acts as such? There is a long record of Israeli airraids and many other acts of state terrorism committed by this rogue state, Israel, which are  blessed by the United states and considered as "self defence."  Is it possible  to compare such "Syrian interference" in the Lebanese internal affairs, and Israeli intervention!!!? If the the rosolution that came as a complain against this relation is justified, why don't those who passed it give the good example to the regional powers not to act as such? Where is the comparison with the Israeli interference, which involves invasions, occupations and the use of state terror against so many Arab states extending between Tunis in the West and Iraq in the east, and we mentioned above, and the Syrian presence in Lebanon?

 Nobody should think we do not believe in democracy.  We firmly believe that the lack of democracy in Arab states, with the partition of the Arab land, are among our most serious problems, which also  include Zionist occupation and colonialist domination.