Regardless of the consistency or inconsistency of the clues put forward by Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah in his accusation against Israel of standing behind the assassination of Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri, what should be taken into consideration is this dangerous contradiction between justice and stability. The truth is that since its establishment, the international justice system - its courts, prosecutors and judges - has been subjected to the prevailing international political climate. Indeed, all international trials, from Nuremberg to the special tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, were the object of justified protests related to the court's neutrality, professionalism, and its respect of the international climate under which it was operating. The issues put before the special tribunal for Lebanon are related to political crimes committed during a highly troubled stage which started with the issuance of Security Council Resolution 1559. It would be useless to say at this level that Lebanon became exposed to foreign factors which encouraged all imaginable regimes and apparatuses to achieve gains and address strikes to the opposite powers. This is a mere preliminary approach. On a higher level of dealing with the tribunal issue, one can say that this exposure transformed local Lebanese sides into affiliated sides (or ones obligated to become affiliated by use of force or incentives) to states enjoying enough power and influence to control the Lebanese political and social courses. Therefore, “justice” cannot be secured as easily in Lebanon without obtaining the consent of the countries concerned with Lebanese affairs, recognizing that the conflicts and alliances of these countries change based on data which extend beyond these states, i.e. the international reality with its political, economic and strategic components. The aforementioned data changed since February 14, 2005 and until this day. Wounds have healed while others were opened and the bleeding continued in some places while it stopped in others. This means that the list of states, powers and sects which wanted “justice” revised their positions. Moreover, some of them completely exited the ranks of those demanding that the truth be reached by the special tribunal. This is where the problem emerges. Security data and irrefutable evidence are not usually the most important elements looked at in trials related to political crimes. This is the truth whether the tribunal were to confirm its insistence on its autonomy and the impossibility to see its judges and investigators affected by external influences, or were to recognize the existence of loopholes in its immunity wall. This does not annul the presence of an arsenal of means enjoyed by the concerned states, slowing down the activities of the international tribunal to the point where they may seem completely frozen. In this context, it should be said that deferred justice is an absent justice. The situation in Lebanon points to the fact that domestic stability comes way ahead of justice in its general meaning. The Lebanese, who are sensing the imminence of the storms from the Israeli side, are worried about the escalation of the current conflicts and their exit from the frameworks of calm imposed by Syria and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Nonetheless, what we have mentioned should not conceal the bitter truth saying that the continuation of the postponement of justice and the favoring of short-termed stability over the project of building a state in which political disputes are allowed without having to resort to violence or threaten to do so, is leaving Lebanon a prey to the settlement of regional and international scores and exposing it to difficult ordeals on a regular basis. Israel's accusation of having assassinated Al-Hariri may be comforting to many sides, but the drafting of this accusation in a hurry is only deepening the abyss on whose edge the Lebanese are standing.
