In the aftermath of the assassination of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri on 14/2/2005, there was a general impression that lasted for years that it was Syria behind his assassination, and also behind the subsequent assassination that targeted some of the most prominent figures in Lebanon. Today, the general impression is that it is Hezbollah behind these assassinations. Can the current impression not be wrong just like the previous one? Hezbollah is publicizing the allegations against the party, and its senior officials say that they have information that the upcoming indictment will implicate Hezbollah. Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah had also said in a speech he gave that Prime Minister Saad Hariri conveyed to him information that the indictment will implicate rogue elements in the party, and that he refuses this, as there are no rogue elements in Hezbollah. Before all that, I asked in Damascus whether it is possible for a squad in Hezbollah's military wing to have acted without the knowledge of the Secretary-General, and that the assassination of Imad Mughniyeh is related to that possibility. I was told that the Syrian officials have raised this possibility and others, but that they believe it unlikely “because the party does not usually operate in this manner". Personally, I am willing to make vows, to repent most sincerely, and to return to praying and fasting in the Sunni, Shiite and Christian manner in return for seeing Hezbollah exonerated from any role in the assassination of Rafik Hariri. Lebanese politics are at an impasse. Everyone is talking about the indictment as though they read it. I do not understand the wisdom in Hezbollah's position either when it says that the indictment is a lie. But will it still be a lie if it was issued and did not implicate Hezbollah? Moreover, the talk about false witnesses is a waste of time. Those have gone away with Detlev Mehlis, and when Bellemare's decision is issued, it will not be based on their testimonies which are now established to have been false. Not only do I want to see Hezbollah vindicated, but want the indictment to also implicate Israel. However, what I want is something, and what the judiciary wants is something else, and so are the wishes of Hezbollah. I also wish that Hezbollah had followed another strategy in dealing with the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL). When I analyzed the pre-emptive campaign (a la George Bush), I concluded that Hezbollah wants to undermine or abolish the STL; but can this be done? A resolution issued by the Security Council can only be repealed by a subsequent decision of said council, and I do not remember that this has ever come to pass in the past. Naturally, Lebanon can request the Security Council to abolish the STL, and to replace it with a Lebanese tribunal. If this happens, Lebanon would be saying that it has changed its opinion, and wants the Security Council to follow suit. I also heard about a request for permanent adjournment of the indictment. However, this is also up for the Security Council to decide and not the Lebanese government. Any Security Council resolution requires the approval of each of its five permanent members, which have the veto power. I cannot see how the United States and Britain would approve something to this effect, or France, even if Russia and China accepted. In my experience with the Security Council over 30 continuous and uninterrupted years, I do not recall that the council issued a decision reversing another, previous, one, but only an amendment or an annex to one. I am writing from knowledge and experience, but I am not afraid to express my opinion. I believe that Hezbollah is a national liberation movement confronting Israeli terrorism, and that it is the United States that supports terrorism by supporting Israel, not Syria which supports Hezbollah and Hamas, a Palestinian faction that is also a national liberation movement. Syria is the real target of the Tribunal, before and after Hezbollah. While it was the Bush administration that had placed Hezbollah in a corner, the Obama administration is helpless when it comes to ending this deadlock. The Lebanese government is being asked something that it does not have the ability to achieve. The Syrian officials concerned with the issue of the STL told me that the latter is politicized and that they too oppose it like Hezbollah. They believe that pointing fingers at Hezbollah now, when for years they were pointed at Syria, is an attempt to get at Syria through the back door, after the issue of the false witnesses eliminated the opportunity for the enemies of Syria after they had been exposed. The situation is critical, and the prospects for an explosion in my assessment are equal to the prospects of calm. At least, the Syrian officials appreciate Prime Minister Saad Hariri and his positions, and say that they are honest and that he is working for close relations with Syria. However, they reproach him for having an undisciplined ‘entourage”, who issue statements criticizing Syria in contrast with what the Syrian officials hear from the Prime Minister. I believe that the correct information about the situation is available for those who want the truth. Nonetheless, I am so ostentatious as to claim that I know in which direction Lebanese politics will move in the coming months. [email protected]
