Patrick Seale’s weighs in on the Hariri Assassination
Seasoned Syria analyst and author Patrick Seale weighed in on the debate over the Hariri assassination, Lebanon, and Syria. His article appeared in today’s Guardian.
Seale argues that he does not know who killed Rafiq Hariri but he is sure the Syrians did not do it. This has been my position since the assassination. I still do not have a clue who committed this crime but I remain firm that Syrian involvement is highly unlikely.
I am sure Seale will be attacked by a section of the blogging community. Nothing about this debate has been neutral or logical. In fact, the debate has become so reactionary and ideological as various segments of Lebanon and the US unite with the common goal of clubbing Syria that few have been allowed to voice an alternative analysis.
While many factions are joining the fray against a common perceived enemy, each group has specific and separate reasons for its dislike and aims of limiting Syria’s regional reach. This has all the makings of a big miscommunication down the road.
I completely understand and empathize with the united Lebanese feeling of national unity and support their right to live outside the spectrum of the Syrian presence, but all domestic, regional, and international parties involved need to be explicitly clear about their motives, intentions, and the end goal if this is conclude reasonably.
This is, at least, what I understood from Seale’s piece and it is a contribution to what will likely be an unsolved case.
UPDATE:
The article that Sam suggests in his comment is Dyab Abou Jah Jah’s piece from the Arab-European League.
It can be found on this on this page - it is the second article:
Categories: Lebanon, Syria.
Josh I do agree with your analysis on the fact that Syria is not involved in hariri’s murder, But why do you think that lebanese are united against syria? we are far from united on anything let alone that issue. Lebanon is divided on this matter along sectarian lines. More than half of the lebanese people are ready even to take up arms to defend Syria against the other half, that is the reality in Lebanon, and the country is that close to civil war. Anybody telling that all Lebanese are anti Syria is bluffing or having a misconception. Again read this article on the Syria Lebanon Issue, that guy Abou Jahjah is a key figure in Europe and Lebanon and he knows what he is talking about….
http://www.arabeuropean.org/live/index.php/federal/news/what_is_going_on_in_lebanon_between_the_past_and_the_future?eZSESSIDfederal=9bda746d5cc1670366a448c02a6b43a2
Sam,
Thanks for the analysis and for the piece. Since I don’t study Lebanon or live there, it is unfair to make such an assumption. I defer to you on the point and hope the rest of the forthcoming comments are as reasoned, cool, and collected as yours.
Although I still think find it hard to believe Syria might have carried this out, we should explore the possibility that some “rogue element” within the Syrian regime was behind this. Is that possible? What makes me think this is that from what I’ve heard and read, Bashar is nowhere as in control as his father was. So who in Syria would be ready to make such a move?
If we look at the alternatives to Syria, it’s Iran, Israel or a Lebanese faction. If it is a Lebanese faction, there is a good chance that it had the backing of some Syrians, if not the “official” regime. If it is Hizbullah, can we assume that at least the Iranians were in the loop? What would be their motivations? Some people I talk to familiar with Lebanon suggest the Hizbullah has a lot to gain from instability because they are the only ones militarily ready, and have been under pressure by the US and Israel ever since Richard Armitage made that crazy comment about Hizbullah being the A-Team of terrorism and Al Qaeda the B-Team.
A lot of questions… not a lot of answers.
Thanks Josh. I sent AEL your piece on Kefaya they have putten it opn their site aswell.
Sam
I think a main element in all this is the motive, as in any criminal investigation. The theory of a syrian rogue element is possible ( i dont belive in perfectly coordinated systems in anything) the only problem is why hariri? I think a more likely target would be Joumblat, Kill joumblat and make Hariri pick up the pieces and stabilize the situation. hariri was a sabilization factor in Lebanon so who ever killed him wanted to distabilize. when you want to distabilize you need to be unhappy with the status-quo, and the statusquo iwa in favour of Syria and even itys rogue elements wont see it any differently.
I think rather that the people who killed hariri wanted a civil war in lebanon and that would lead them to neutralize hizbollah either by eliminating it or by making it turn its weopons inwards. And this all can be seen as part of a gambit to clean the way in order to flank Iran.
My Israeli friend, who is “spiritual”, not political, but is the daughter of a senior retired Israeli diplomat and the sister of a top intelligence officer (now deceased) - this friend said quite innocently on the telephone that maybe the USA did it. I told her that she’s an Israeli and she can say such things on the telephone. I never would. And nobody else in the Middle East studies or blog world is willing to say it publicly either.
I just think it’s interesting that this Israeli friend thought of it so easily.
My own paranoid suspicion, based on reading too many crime novels, is that the “closest ally”, the one first to accuse Syria, the one who is benefiting right now, the one who has followers inside Israel, perhaps even in the military - that close friend and ally must also be under suspicion. Any policeman would look there first. Especially when this close friend said publicly “Hariri told me -it’s you or me next.” No, that close friend and ally is a bit too cocky about this assassination. I can’t say I have proof - just that all the evidence inclines him to suspicion. Any detective inspector would agree.