Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Mitchell Says No Mideast Peace at Lebanon Expense
BEIRUT - U.S. envoy George Mitchell said on Friday a Middle East peace agreement would not come at Lebanon's expense and praised this week's election as an "important milestone" for the country.
Lebanese parliamentary majority leader Saad Hariri (L) talks with US envoy George Mitchell (R) after their meeting in Beirut. The United States will not sacrifice Lebanon as it seeks to reach comprehensive peace in the Middle East, Mitchell said on Friday. (AFP/Joseph Barrak) Mitchell, who has Lebanese roots, is on a tour that has taken him to Israel, the West Bank, Egypt and Jordan as part of U.S. President Barack Obama's Arab-Israeli peace push. He is due to travel to Syria later on Friday.
Washington is seeking a swift renewal of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks as well as a comprehensive peace deal which not only involves Israel and the Palestinians, but Syrians, Lebanese and other surrounding countries.
"Lebanon will play a key role in the long-term effort to build lasting comprehensive peace and stability in the Middle East," Mitchell said after meeting Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.
"Clearly there can be no lasting solution reached at Lebanon's expense and we look forward to continuing to work with Lebanon to build this solution."
Privately, Lebanese officials said they would inform Mitchell of Lebanon's opposition to naturalising some 400,000 Palestinian refugees living in the country, arguing that doing so would upset Lebanon's delicate sectarian balance.
Most of the refugees, who make up 10 percent of Lebanon's population, are Sunni Muslims.
This is the first time Mitchell has visited Lebanon in his visits to the region since he was appointed Middle East envoy in January. Mitchell had been reluctant to visit Lebanon until the outcome of a parliamentary election held on Sunday was known.
A U.S.-backed coalition, led by billionaire politician Saad al-Hariri, won 71 of 128 seats in parliament, against their opponents in an alliance that includes Iranian-backed Hezbollah.
The surprise result has pleased the U.S. administration which had indicated it would condition its aid to Lebanon depending on who won the vote. Obama called President Michel Suleiman to congratulate him on the election.
"These elections were an important milestone for this country. The United States remains steadfast in its support for a sovereign, free, and independent Lebanon," Mitchell said.
"We look forward to continuing to build our strong bilateral relations, to working with the new government, including in the effort to bring comprehensive peace and stability in the entire Middle East," he said.
Mitchell has assured the Palestinians of Washington's commitment to a state of their own, saying its establishment was the only viable to solution to their conflict with Israel.
At the same time, the veteran envoy and former U.S. senator, has promised Israel its alliance with the United States would remain strong despite their differences.
- Posted in
6 Comments so far
Show AllOK - but this wasn't cleared with AIPAC.
Yes, the US threatened its support of Lebanon was conditional to who won. Just like the US supported the Israel War of Retribution against Lebanon in 2006. Quickly coming in to sequester control, the US promised Lebanon contracts, private and military, wrapped with an agreement to secure 10-15 years of business investments in to the Lebanese economy.
The point is the concerted effort between Israel and the US to dominate a carrot and stick approach in the Near East. First flatten Southern Lebanon and cripple the Lebanese government, then wave reconstruction dollars in front of the political class and say, "which will it be?"
Henry Kissinger once stated, "the US has no friends, only interests"... one should not assume Mitchell's Lebanese lineage imparts an emotional connection to a land he is only connected to by his mother's birth record.
One would never assume seriousness between US and French relations simply because an Ambassador or Envoy's family came from France, or Germany, or Poland. Nor should anyone assume the Lebanese voter is impressed by the rhetoric of Obama or are dutifully attached to the politics of Saad Hariri and his international connections. If the Lebanese voter believes Hariri compromises the integrity of the Lebanese state, he will be voted out and along with it the risk of losing Lebanon in general as a key in the process of creating a Palestinian state.
Another pro-west puppet has assumed power, this time in Lebanon. This translates into Israel continuing to violate international law with impunity and also receive $4.5 billion in annual aid from U.S. taxpayers. The only way to even begin to establish a viable soveregin Palestinian State is for The U.S. to squeeze Netanyahu's balls until they pop. But there is a greater likelihood of encountering a burning shrubbery that speaks Hebrew than seeing Capital Hill put any real pressure on Israeli's killing machine.
johnz52
The zionist pimps and whores in our Congress, love Kosher sausage. No matter if the scum bag zionists kill our sailors or civilians, the pimps and whores will never turn off the money to these scum bags. Can you tell me why we have a zionist museum in Washington?
"johnz52 June 12th, 2009 7:40 pm
Another pro-west puppet has assumed power, this time in Lebanon. ..."
Sure, but a billionaire puppet, which might be even more dangerous; maybe. After all, being billionaire, he evidently is very attached to extremely excessive amounts of material wealth (while pretending to be Christian).
Anyway, with that said, the following article is an interesting analysis of the election in Lebanon. And, btw, guess who ordered that no one should interfere with these elections and then went and did so? Should be easy to figure out this answer. The U.S. Administration, of course. First Hillary Clinton went to Lebanon, to meddle there. Then VP Joseph Biden went in May, followed by not going to Lebanon, but certainly speaking about it, even if indirectly, was Obama in his speech in Cairo; and then Deputy Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman.
This is a relatively short article, but a fine analysis and report.
"The US-Israeli supported March 14 Alliance Wins Lebanon’s Parliamentary Elections",
by Rannie Amiri, June 11, 2009
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/06/12-4
"A U.S.-backed coalition, led by billionaire politician Saad al-Hariri, won 71 of 128 seats in parliament, against their opponents in an alliance that includes Iranian-backed Hezbollah."
Was this another election which was all about who had the most cash to spend?