Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Lebanon - accident, tragedy or conspiracy?

02:40 / 19.03.05

How did the Prime Minister, Rafik Hariri, of Lebanon die? Who may have been responsable and who stands to benefit?

Apologies for the drunken spelling and potential lack of future responses, but I am interested to hear people's views of the recent "popular" move towards "democracy and freedom" in the Lebanon.

Personally I feel slighlty worried...

11:55 / 20.03.05

Well first and foremost I think it problematic to talk of a 'popular move towards democracy and freedom' since the lebanon already has democratic institutions.

Despite what some would have you believe, the situation in the Ukraine are not even slightly analagous - there isn't a question of election fraud in the Lebanon, but there is a history of bloody civil war, one that could re-ignight if the status quo is challenged too robustly and a power-vacuum is percieved to have formed in the country's government...

unheimlich manoeuvre

20:42 / 22.03.05

For a start, it wasn't an accident. The Prime Minister was assassinated by a road side bomb. The prime suspect is Syria as the PM was Anti-Syrian but the main beneficiary has been Israel as international community , read USA, pressure has lead to the repositioning of the Syrian troops who were stationed there on a UN mandate at the end of the Civil War.
Will we now see Israeli troops leaving the Golan Heights? I don't think so.

12:00 / 25.03.05

That sounds like what I was getting at, although the title of this post could have been better thought out, obviously he was assassinated. He was known to be against the continued presence of the Syrian troops sent in as peace keepers during the last civil war. He also had used much of his personal fortune to finance the rebuilding of Beruit.

Whilst he was no angel and probably had many business rivals and people put out by his personal wealth and how it was ammassed, I believe the suspicions around the investigation of his murder suggest a large organisation, possibly a government was behind the murder.

Which brings me back to the question of who would have the most to gain? The obvious answer would be Syria, but a UN resolution had already been passed calling for all remaining foreign forces to withdraw and this had been largely ignored. International pressure was unliklely to force a pull out as Western nations have little influence and Arab nations are more concerned with the actions of Israeli troops. So what better than the assissination of popular anti syria prime minister to unite the people to rise up against the Syrian occupation?

So, how many countries are there known for their policies of assassination instead of negotiatio?
Or should that read targetted killings?

12:55 / 25.03.05

I think its important to note here that Hariri was not the prime minister of the lebanon when he died - he resigned that position in 2004 (although Hariri had made political come backs in the past he wasn't an immediate threat to 'Syrian interests' ) - Syria didn't have an immediate gain out of the assassination - There is also a lack of actual substantial evidence implicating any party or individual. I am by no means convinced that Syria was indeed behind this...

However what is clear is that many, both in the international community and in the lebanon itself, have taken the assassination as an opportunity to press for their own agenda for the future of the Lebanon...

unheimlich manoeuvre

15:30 / 26.03.05

The Guardian March 11, 2005. Lebanon is not Ukraine.

[Lebanese]... governance is built on a sectarian and feudal consensual system. It is an aggregate of religious minority groups that coalesce around local feudal lords in return for services. Each sect is given a clear share of power. For example, the president of the country has to be a Maronite Christian, the prime minister a Sunni Muslim and the head of parliament a Shia Muslim. Governance tends to be built on consensus between the various parties, leaving no room for accountability or programmatic politics. When majordifferences between the factions emerge, the country is thrown into crisis. And when external players get involved, crisis has the potential to turn into civil war. That was the case first in 1952, again in 1958 and 1969, culminating in the 15-year civil war between 1975 and 1990.

SBS 4.3.2005
Mr Hariri had strong links with the ruling Saudi royal family, which also wants a transparent investigation into the killing.

The slain leader was granted citizenship of the kingdom and spent two decades there, where construction deals turned him into one of the world's richest men.

...

All the usual suspects, France, USA, Britain, Syria and Israel, have previously used assassination as a political tool. AFAIK Israel/USA support the Christians. Iran/Syria supports the Shias (Hamas).