Whodunnit? Whoever it was, Syria unlikely
From Mark Levine, Huffington Post (23 November 2006):
So why would Syria risk upsetting this favorable balance by killing a Maronite politician when Hezbollah had already bolted the government and was threatening massive demonstrations to bring down the post Cedar Revolution political arrangement in favor of one that would better reflect its–and thus Syria’s–increasing power? And this question can be asked of anyone who thinks that Hezbollah was somehow involved in or sanctioned the murder, which has sapped the energy out of its latest political machination.
As far as I can see, the only party that benefits from Gemayel’s assassination is Israel. Israel was the main loser in last summer’s war, at least politically and strategically. The country’s leaders began threatening a new round of fighting even before they began pulling troops out of the south of Lebanon. Hezbollah’s post-war ascendence was the most visible and troubling sign of Israel’s seemingly unprecedented military weakness and strategic blundering.
… The death of Pierre Gemayel could well push Lebanon to the brink of civil war and lead to further alienation of Syria and Hezbollah; and from the strategic perspective of the Olmert government and a wounded Israeli military, that would be something to give thanks for indeed.
My good friend The Fanonite also has a noteworthy entry on this, surveying the crucial Cui Bono:
March 14 Movement:
Israel’s assault on Lebanon earlier in the year had greatly damaged the pro-American March 14 movement which more recentlly was facing an imment collapse in the face of Hizbullah and Amal’s withdrawal from the National Unity government. In the meanwhile, the US, their prime sponsor, was considering a paradigm shift which included bringing Syria, their prime enemy, and Iran into the dialogue. As Charles Harb put it in the Guardian:
The assassination of Pierre Gemayel could not therefore have come at a more opportune moment for the March 14 alliance. Just two days before the planned start of mass public protests, the assassination halted the opposition’s momentum.
Israel/Neocons
With the plans for an attack on Iran being shelved and the bold plan to extend Israel’s hegemony over the whole region in tatters, this new turn of events could not have been more fortuitous. The Ziocons are aware that they can always rely on the credulity of the media to deem evidence superfluous in denouncing established rogues such as Syria or Hizbullah. In their powerplay against the old-guard of the Baker commission, this would clearly strengthen their position. This scuttles any future plan to bring Syria into the dialogue on Iraq. This also provides Israel and its fifth column in the US an opportunity to renew their efforts for enlisting American military power to batter its regional adversaries. Mostly importantly it serves as a useful distraction from Isreal’s horrific crimes against the defenseless Palestinians, evident in its most brutal manifestation in the recent murder of 19 sleeping men, women and children in Beit Hanoun.
Addendum: more links that are skeptical of Syria blamecasting, as I am. Thanks to the Fanonite for these:
- Trish Shuh, Faking the Case Against Syria (Counterpunch)
- Charles Harb, Whover pulled the trigger, Syria’s allies are the losers (Guardian)
- Zvi Bar’el, The accusations against Syria are all too routine (Ha’aretz)
So, by posting these articles, are you saying you think Israel committed the assassination? You so rarely put your own words in…
By posting these articles, I am considering possibilities, not certainties. I don’t think the most seasoned pundit could proffer with any pretence of certitude which party or parties were behind it. And I did put my own words in upfront, I actually think it is highly unlikely Syria was responsible, whoever it was. As for your words, dear “Norton”?
“As for your words, dear “Norton”?”
What is that supposed to mean? Am I not posting my words? Yeesh.
Am I to assume that you wholeheartedly agree with every article you post? Do you truly believe the Israeli government wants Lebanon to fall into civil war? That’s pretty damn fascinating. And here I am thinking how they asked that the Lebanese army patrol its southern border and control its sovereign lands. Sounds like they want a peaceful Lebanon controlled by a strong central government.
You asked whether I was saying Israel was responsible through the posting of the articles and claimed that I didn’t put my words in – I responded saying I did in fact proffer my opinion upfront and invited you to follow your own injunction and put in your opinion about culpability. Only ever commenting to criticize others opinions is not the same as posting your own opinions and venturing your own ideas.
With respect to Israel only ever wanting a strong, peaceful Lebanon, would that that was true. No country is monolithic and each government contains sometimes divergent ideological positions, but to ascribe only benevolence to Israel’s geopolitical ambitions is at best naive and goes against your own realpolitik in past comments. If Israel only desires a strong sovereign Lebanon and good ties with its neighbour (goodness knows it needs them in the region), it might have thought about demonstrating rather than destroying goodwill by its entirely disproportionate attack that consisted of laying waste to civilian infrastructure throughout the entire country and dropping most of its despicable cluster bombs in the last 72 hours of the war, when a ceasefire was imminent. Again, your Israel position to me is patently unconvincing.