The EyeOnThePost piece that noted the semantic double standard employed by the Washington Post in its refusal to call the Syrian presence in Lebanon an "occupation" referred to a Post article on February 15. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp...-
2005Feb14.html
Today we again find The Post referring to Syria's "presence" in Lebanon. Today's article states: "...the Syrian government, which is facing international pressure and a popular uprising here to end its 30-year presence in Lebanon." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp...3-
2005Mar6.html Today's article nowhere uses the words "occupied" or "occupation" ... Ooops ... I take that back. It does use the word "occupied" one time ...while referring to the period of time Israeli troops were in Lebanon. It states: "Under the 1989 peace accord that ended Lebanon's civil war, Hezbollah was allowed to keep its arsenal of small weapons and rockets because Israel at the time still occupied
Robert,
If you read today's Post article that you link to, it is very clear that the Post's usage is consistent with the international law definition I cite. In particular, the references to Israeli occupation are specific to the part of Lebanon that Israel was occupying, and do not refer to the whole of Lebanon, which Israel was not occupying. ("...helping end the Israeli occupation of south Lebanon..."; "Israel at the time still occupied parts of southern Lebanon").
In contrast, the two references to Syria's "presence" (one a direct quote from Assad) refer to the whole of Lebanon, not specifically to the part of Lebanon Syria is occupying. ("...a popular uprising here to end its 30-year presence in Lebanon..."; "We should not remain in Lebanon one day after there is a Lebanese consensus over our presence,").
As I indicated in my post, if the Post consistently avoids using the word "occupation" to refer to the portion of Lebanon controlled by the Syria, that
[continued]
... if the Post consistently avoids using the word "occupation" to refer to the portion of Lebanon controlled by the Syria, that would seem to me evidence of bias or, at least, would call for a good explanation. The article you cite, however, is consistent with recognized usage and, therefore, does not provide evidence of bias.
Commenting by HaloScan
