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:
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: