Lebanon
And Syria:
The Politics Of Assassination
By Ramzy Baroud
01 October, 2007
Countercurrents.org
The
assassination of Lebanese politician Antoine Ghanem on September 19
is likely to be used, predictably, to further US and Israeli interests
in the region. Most Western and some Arab media have industriously argued
that Syria is the greatest beneficiary from the death of Ghanem, a member
of the Phalange party responsible for much of Lebanon’s bloodshed
during the civil war years between 1975 and 1990. The reasoning provided
is that Syria needs to maintain a measure of political control over
Lebanon after being pressured to withdraw its troops. This political
clout could only be maintained through the purging of anti-Syrian critics
in Lebanon, and by ensuring a Lebanese parliament friendly to Syria.
And indeed, with the elimination of Ghanem, the anti-Syrian coalition
at the fractious Lebanese parliament is now left with an even slimmer
majority - 68 MPs in a 128-member assembly.
Case solved.
Or is it?
The Syrian regime may, in
fact, be responsible for the murder of six Lebanese political figures,
including Ghanem, since the tragic car-bombing of former Lebanese Prime
Minister Rafik Hariri in February 2005. However, to understand the situation
in Lebanon, one needs to refrain from any simplistic conclusions. This
is not an easy task, however, given that media reports pertaining to
Lebanon classify every Lebanese political figure as ‘pro’
or ‘anti’ Syrian. Such reporting rests on the idea that
the Syrian regime—and only the Syrian regime—has a keen
interest in bringing death and chaos to a small but strategically important
Lebanon. By the same logic, all of Syria’s allies - Iran, Hizbollah
in Lebanon, and the Damascus-based Palestinian groups, including Hamas
and various socialist factions - are regularly implicated by the Western
media.
Considering the elaborate
politics of assassination in Lebanon and the many bloody events that
were justified on the basis of such killings - notwithstanding the rationalization
of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and
the massacre of Sabra and Shatila in 1982 - one would assume that media
reporters and commentators have learned to become extra cautious before
following official American and Israeli lines.
As a country either fully
or partially responsible for destabilizing Lebanon, Syria may be a probable
culprit in Ghanem’s death. This is a view underscored daily by
both those who are either genuinely seeking to liberate Lebanon from
foreign influence and those who wish to dominate the Lebanese political
landscape. But self-interested as it may be, Syria is also known for
being politically savvy and judicious. It has shown this by serving
as a valuable ally in the US ‘war on terror’ since the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001; it willingly collaborated in securing
its borders with Iraq, and even went as far as torturing America’s
prisoners in the CIA’s infamous ‘extraordinary renditions.’
Why would a country that
was willing to sink so low now provide pretexts for hostilities by carrying
out brazen assassinations against America’s allies in Lebanon?
Each such assassination only helps cement the anti-Syrian cries stemming
from Washington, Tel Aviv and Beirut. The Syrian regime’s past
is indisputably cruel, but inanity has hardly been one of its features.
Could it be plausible that Syria is innocent of the most recent bloodletting
in Lebanon? It is mind-boggling to imagine a country which has managed
to survive amidst the incalculable hostility stemming from across all
its borders being so foolish as to carry out such ludicrous crimes with
such harmful consequences at such a critical time. Despite Lebanon’s
value in the Middle East’s ongoing Cold War, Syria, like any other
regime under threat, should be less concerned about dominating a smaller
neighbour than in securing its own survival.
So who are the other possible culprits? Considering Lebanon’s
bloodstained past and the numerous players, sects and factions operating
within its borders, the list seems endless. However, taking into account
the nature of the assassinations (all targeting ‘anti-Syrian’
figures) and the official line championed by the US and Israel, one
can reasonably include those who wish to drive Syria into a military
confrontation, or perhaps a humiliating political settlement with Israel
(which Damascus has refused since its talks with Tel Aviv broke off
in 2000), including a compromise on the occupied ‘Golan Heights’.
It would be worth noting here the neoconservative doctrine prepared
by Richard Perle in 1996 for then Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Tellingly entitled ‘A Clean Break: Securing the Realm,’
it outlines plans to subdue Syria through the Lebanese route. Could
this help to explain why the U.S. and Israeli governments are no longer
pursuing previously concerted efforts and publicly declared objectives
and instead blaming Israel’s military setback in Lebanon in 2006
largely on Syria’s – and Iran’s - backing of Hizbollah?
It might also be helpful for those who insist that Syria alone is capable
of inflicting such mayhem in Lebanon to remember that Netanyahu recently
and unsurprisingly admitted that the ‘mysterious’ air strike
inside Syrian territories on September 6 - clearly an attempt to coerce
Syria into a military confrontation - was indeed deliberate. US diplomats
scrambled to justify the palpable act of war on the mediocre claim that
the Syrian target bombed by Israeli US-supplied F15 jets ‘may
have had links to North Korean nuclear arms,’ according to the
British Guardian. Mediocre or not, a case against Syria that involves
the US, Israel and their allies in the region is being diligently weaved,
and one should not be surprised if the next military confrontation against
Hizbollah will widen to include Syrian territories as well.
As media and official efforts
have conveniently overlooked all other possible culprits behind the
determined efforts to destabilise Lebanon, the region seems headed for
another military confrontation and Lebanon for a possible civil war.
This will most likely be blamed on Syria, Iran, Hizbollah and Palestinian
factions, and Israel will once again be presented as acting in self-defence
and the US as defending the cause of Israel, democracy and human rights.
Ramzy Baroud
(ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com.
His work has been published in many newspapers and journals worldwide.
His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a
People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London).
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.