Former Lebanese PM Rafiq Hariri and at least nine other people were killed in a massive car bomb attack on the Beirut seafront today.
A Sunni Muslim billionaire from Sidon, who made his fortune as a contractor in Saudi Arabia, Hariri was Lebanon’s PM from 1992 thru 1998, and again from 2000 till last October.
Initial speculation– in the case of this bomb as of the one that severely wounded MP Marwan Hamadeh last October– turned to the possibility of a Syrian hand in the attack. Both Hamadeh and Hariri had been in the movement that opposed the Syrian-backed extension in office of Maronite Christian President Emil Lahoud.
However, in both cases there is also the possibility that the attacks were part of an orchestrated destabilization campaign in Lebanon aimed at turning the Lebanese people even more strongly against Syria. Who might be behind such a campaign? On the principle of cui bono one would have to say certain hardline forces inside Israel.
The possibility of some kind of a Mossad hand seems to me even more likely this time around than in October. Since October, the Syrians have definitely been trying to handle their relations with Lebanon in a more intelligent, less heavy-handed manner.
Al-Jazeera is reporting that its office in Beirut,
- received a phone call from a person claiming he was speaking on behalf of a group calling itself “al-Nasir [victory] and Jihad [Holy War] Group in al-Sham countries [Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine]”. [This would seem like the name of a Sunni fundamentalist group. ~HC]
The caller said this group has “announced carrying out the fair penalty against the infidel agent Rafiq al-Hariri”, adding that it was a “martyrdom operation” whose details would be later announced.
“We have never heard about this group before,” Aljazeera’s correspondent said. “The person is not a native-Arabic speaker. He was speaking Arabic with a foreign accent.”
The AP account linked to at the top, like all other media accounts, reports that,
- Syrian President Bashar Assad said he “condemned this horrible criminal action,” according to SANA, Syria’s official news agency. Assad urged the Lebanese people to reject those who plant “schism among the people” during this “critical situation.”
Before all my ardent pro-Israeli commenters get on my case here, let me just point out two things: (1) The use of car-bombs and other forms of roadside explosive devices has been an established Israeli SOP in Lebanon for many, many years (and has even recently been used inside Syria); and (2) Israel has maintained robust special-ops capabilities in central Lebanon throughout the whole period of Syria’s general domination of the area.
Destabilizing Lebanon’s still fractured, war-ravaged society is something that both its bigger neighbors have done a lot of over the past 35 years. In Syria’s case, these destabilization attempts have on occasion been pursued with the apparent aim of “persuading” the Lebanese that the only way to prevent their country from falling back into the abyss of civil war is to hang onto the Syrian security presence there “for dear life.” In Israel’s case, the ruling elite there has imho absolutely no desire or intention (since 1982, anyway) to send any kind of a lasting, regular troop presence back into Lebanon. But they have often sought to destabilize things there in order to “punish” Syria; to keep Syria “busy” in Lebanon; and to diminish the Damascus regime’s general ability to exert influence outside its borders.
It would be much, much easier for the Lebanese to prevent all these kinds of externally generated destabilization operations from succeeding if they could come to some kind of a durable national understanding among themselves. But they have never been able to do that yet. That has left their country extremely vulnerable to the often brutal machinations of their neighbors.
Poor old Rafiq Hariri. He was a decent person who did a lot of good for the country. But he did always have a very technocratic, top-down, investment-driven view of what “post-war reconstruction” should be. So his years in office ended up achieving very little in bringing about the kinds of deep social reconstruction that post-war societies need.
That was due to a lack of vision, however; and in no way to malice. Certainly, absolutely no-one could ever “deserve” to die in the terrible way that Rafiq and so many of his countrymen died today.
The Al-Jazeera correspondent cited above reported that after the car-bombing there were pro-Hariri demonstrations in Beirut’s Hamra Street, and that “pro-and-anti al-Hariri citizens in Beirut feel very upset.”
I am just praying that the destabilization efforts in Lebanon– whoever their author is this time around– do not succeed. It is totally obsecene that any party would (1) launch such a ghastly attack, and (2) seek apparently to use it to jerk the entire country back into a civil war.
I lived through six years of civil war in Lebanon. One thing war never does is serve the interests of the people living in the areas through which it stalks.
“We have never heard about this group before,” Aljazeera’s correspondent said. “The person is not a native-Arabic speaker. He was speaking Arabic with a foreign accent.
Which, as far as I’m concerned, is evidence that it wasn’t the Israelis, because Israel has plenty of native Arabic speakers who could have made the call. Sounds more like some local faction trying to put suspicion on the Israelis, if you ask me.
God bless and help Lebanon and Hariri’s family.
Issandr el-Amrani thinks it might be the Maronites. Thus far, there seems to be a long list of credible suspects: Syria, Israel, pro-Syrian factions in Lebanon, Sunni fundamentalists, right-wing Maronites, Shi’ite fundamentalists. All of them could conceivably benefit in some way from this, so I wouldn’t rule anyone out at this point – I don’t think it was the Israelis, but I wouldn’t rule them out either.
On the principle of cui bono one would have to say certain hardline forces inside Israel.
This is highly irresponsible speculation.
(1) The use of car-bombs and other forms of roadside explosive devices has been an established Israeli SOP in Lebanon for many, many years
Hmm, could be wrong but I think its been SOP with some other non-Israeli groups as well.
to keep Syria “busy” in Lebanon
What is Syria doing in Lebanon at all?
“The person is not a native-Arabic speaker. He was speaking Arabic with a foreign accent.”
I have to imagine Mossad has a few people on hand capable of speaking uninflected arabic.
I can’t think of one good reason for Israel to do this.
I can’t think of one “good” reason for anyone to do it.
As of now I agree with Jonathan: Thus far, there seems to be a long list of credible suspects: Syria, Israel, pro-Syrian factions in Lebanon, Sunni fundamentalists, right-wing Maronites, Shi’ite fundamentalists.
There’s been quite a lot of speculation already about pro-Qaeda Sunni fundamentalists, given his ties to the Saudi royals. If they did it, it could also make things tough for Syria at a time when Syria’s cracking down on their ability to destabilize Iraq from Syria.
No shreds of anything like “evidence” yet, though, apart from the call to Jazeera which I agree doesn’t prove anything one way or another. The Israelis actually don’t have the great range of Arabic-language speakers they once had (they raised the new generations of Arab Jews to all speak Hebrew!) But the one dialect they certainly have a lot of access to is Lebanese, from their old puppets the SLA.
I’m speaking here as my non-Dovish self.
A country which insists on its right to assassinate its enemies, killing civilians including children in the process, must certainly be included on the list of suspects. Those who are offended by the suggestion are being wilfully blind.
I can’t think of one good reason for Israel to do this. Posted by praktike
Try to think a little harder. Who also has an interest in destabilizing Syria that is a “good friend” of Israel?
U.S. Warns of U.N. Penalties After Lebanon Killing
Politics
The Israelis actually don’t have the great range of Arabic-language speakers they once had (they raised the new generations of Arab Jews to all speak Hebrew!)
Lots of Arabic-speaking Druze in the security forces, though, many of whom come from the region near the Lebanese border.
As I said, though, I’m not ruling anyone out – Israel is low on my list of suspects, but at this point nobody’s in the clear.
Oh, stuff and nonsense. Do you actually believe what you write?
This is a Syrian operatiion from top to bottom. The Syrians will never give up Lebanon. They have never accepted Lebanon’s independence, and anyone who actually wants them out gets killed. Their divide-and-conquer policy in Lebanon is easy to explain: they want to keep Lebanon as their protectorate with a view towrds eventual annexation and they need to maintain a way to get at Israel, since they no longer have the Golan.
Why should the Israelis want to kill someone who came to oppose the Syrian presence in Lebanon? Consider: Post-withdrawal, Lebanon has no territorial issues with Israel now. If Syria were to go, what happens? Lebanon signs a peace treaty with Israel, Hizb’allah gets the heave-ho, and the Syrian/Iranian front to Israel’s north goes POOF!
Get a little sense, will you?
A country which insists on its right to assassinate its enemies, killing civilians including children in the process, must certainly be included on the list of suspects.
Yes, Leila, you’re right: “Palestine” must also be included on the short list of suspects.
The Israelis … raised the new generations of Arab Jews to all speak Hebrew!”
Damn those perfidious Israelis! Raising their Arab Jews to speak the native tongue … but just what is an “Arab Jew” anyway?
UPI: Hariri’s killer is Palestinian linked to al-Qaida
Listening to the BBC reports from Lebanon in my car, on the way back home I was looking forward to Helena’s commentary given her familiarity with Beirut. I was also wondering where would the blame fall on, and knowing Helena I thought it might reach as far as the Basque separatists, with the obvious inclusion of the little Satan of Israel, but certainly exonerating Syrian or Palestinian angles.
I was wrong on the Basque, but everything else was true to form. You can always count on Helena for two things, smear and little else.
David
UPI: Hariri’s killer is Palestinian linked to al-Qaida
Whoops – sorry for the double post.
A car blew up? Like the French say, “Cherche Le Palestinien”.
E. Bilpe
A country which insists on its right to assassinate its enemies, killing civilians including children in the process, must certainly be included on the list of suspects.
This is interesting. Dany Chamoun ring any bells? Rene Mouwad ? Ramzi Irani? To say nothing of Gemayel himself. But you were talking about Israel! Wow.
All of those guys Argyll mentions above are certainly bombers. And a poster at Head Heeb made some convincing (to me) arguments why it wouldn’t be in Israel’s interest to do it. I’m merely saying that the person who was offended by the suggestion that Israel might be responsible is perhaps a little blind? Israel kills people via bombings (helicopter assaults) all the time, and then insists on her right to do it, even when it’s against international law. What’s so offensive about mentioning it? Or do you want to have it both ways – act out targeted assassinations, and then insist that you’re completely incapable of such a dastardly deed?
Whatever. My initial wish that it weren’t the Syrians will live on in blog archives. My father instructed me politely on why it very well could be the Syrians. I hope it’s not either the Israelis or the Syrians, or the nutty right wing Lebanese either.
Palestinians responsible – which ones? It was a very organized bombing – no ragtag cell could have done it. Palestinians killed my grandmother in 1985 (if you search anywhere for the Tikkun article I wrote you’ll get the details) so I have no interest in protecting Palestinians. I just don’t see why they’d bother, which faction could have done it, and how they’d benefit.
But in the end, I don’t understand how anybody thinks they could benefit, and that’s because I don’t understand killing people as a way to get what you want (and that absolutely goes for Palestinian terrorism too).
The back and forth of this discussion reminds me of something I heard the Dalai Lama say in Boston two years ago – that terrorism is in some ways worse than military violence simply because we don’t know who the perpetrators are.
Ephraim, Tyroler, and David, your comments all fall well short of the guideline on courtesy. Plus, we are talking about a terrible tragedy here already and the fear of worse to come for the people of Lebanon. Please try to find ways to express yourselves that recognize that people with whome you disagree are every bit as human and rational as you.
Bilpe, do tell me which Palestinian car-bombs you’re thinking of?
No Pref, that’s an interesting comment. But I think that most terrorists do claim authorship of their acts, since their intention is, after all, not just to kill people but also to send a big political message. Example: the IRA, which developed a very effective signaling system w/ the British public and govt.
It’s been a bit of a hallmark of Al-Qaeda, however, to “leave people guessing”, as in the WTC and the Madrid train bombs. Anniversary for Madrid coming up.
Whoever did it, had access to half a ton of high grade explosives, someone who could shape and pack it, hi-tech communications expertise, good communications links and intimate, real-time access to Hariri’s movement plans. This may help reduce the list of usual suspects.
All of those guys Argyll mentions above are certainly bombers.
Bombers? Actually they & their wives and children are all Lebanese victims of Syrian ‘state terrorism’. I seem to recall that Hezbollah also has some experience with car bombs, do they not?
Whoever actually did it, there is only one occupying power in Lebanon. And we all know what the fourth geneva convention has to say about the responsibilities of an occupying force with regard to protecting civilians, dont we?
Ephraim, Tyroler, and David … try to find ways to express yourselves that recognize that people with whome you disagree are every bit as human and rational as you.
Well, Cobban, then it’s interesting that you give a pass to comments such as Leila’s: “Those who are offended by the suggestion [of Israeli culpability] are being wilfully blind.” Perhaps the rules of this board are instrumental: comments you don’t agree with are discourteous; comments you do, courteous.
But I’d still like to know just what you mean by “Arab Jew.”
If you care, I am not offended by the suggestion that Israel killed Rafiq Hariri. Just puzzled.
I don’t think Israel benefits from killing an a powerful politician opposed to the Syrian occupation. Syria is a major enemy of Israel and will be happy if Syria pulls out of Lebanon.
An Arab Jew, wm. tyroler, is another term for the mostly Sephardic Jews from the Arab world. They have lived among and intermarried with Arabs so that they are just as dark, and are sometimes ethnically considered Arabs. Some of them may be descendants of converts from Islam to Judaism. Starting in 1948, about a half a million of them or more migrated from Muslim lands to Israel, where they make up half or more of the population.
Oops, typo. Israel will be happy if Syria pulls out…
An Arab Jew, wm. tyroler, is another term for the mostly Sephardic Jews from the Arab world.
Thanks, WarrenW., but I was more interested in hearing from the author herself. There are indeed some who indeed see themselves as “Arab Jews,” and they probably tend to be anti-Zionist. Of course, there are those who use the label simply to describe their historical roots, no more, no less. But it’s not much favored: “In fact,
until the mass exodus of Jews from Arab countries in the 1950s, the term Arab Jew was a
common usage, though today it is often perceived as an oxymoron.”
But why impose on an entire group of people an ethnic identity they haven’t themselves adopted — that’s a form of cultural imperialism, wouldn’t you say?
Sorry if I was too blunt, but the idea that Israel would assassinate someone who wanted Syria out of Lebanon just seems silly to me. Since Israel has completely withdrawn from Lebanon, there are no territorial issues between Israel and Lebanon now. The Syrian occupation is the ONLY thing that allows Hizb’allah, Iran’s proxy in Lebanon, to maintain its forces along the border with Israel. If you get Syria out, you get the terrorists out. That means 1) peace between Lebanon and Israel, 2) a crushing defeat for the “Greater Syria” faction which has always seen Lebanon as part of Syria, 3) a devastating blow to Syria’s status as a regional power, and 4) the complete loss of Syria and Iran’s northern front with Israel. With Israel in control of the Golan and Syria out of Lebanon, there is no way for the Syria-Iran axis to attack Israel. Syria must stay in Lebanon at all costs, and sowing mayhem has always been their method of maintaining power. This is Syria’s way of telling the Lebanese to stay in line. They are banking on the “world community” not having the guts to stand up to them. It has always worked in the past, and they are betting it will work now.
Regarding the term “Arab Jews”: many of the “Arab Jews” are, strictly speaking, not Sephardi (Spanish), they are Mizrachi (Eastern). Most people use the term “Sephardi” to refer to all Jews who are not Ashkenazim, but this isn’t really correct. A Sephardi is a Jew whose forbears originally came from Spain and who spoke Ladino (Judeo-Spanish). After the Spanish expulsion in 1492, most of these Jews dispersed to the Mediterranean parts of the Ottoman Empire.
Real Mizrachi Jews, however, never left the Middle East. They do not speak Ladino; they speak different dialects of Judeo-Arabic. For example, the oldest diaspora community in the world was that of Iraq (Babylonia), which dated to the time of the destruction of the first Temple by Nebuchadnezzar (somewhere around 500 BCE, IIRC). The Babylonian Talmud was written there and for more than 1000 years the sages of Babylonia were the authorities to whom Jews all over the world looked for guidance. The Jewish presence all over the Middle East predates the Arab Muslim conquest by many centuries. So, rather than many of the “Arab Jews” being converts from Islam (a rather far-fetched idea, considering that conversion from Islam was a captial offense, among other thngs) it is probably much more likely that many Arab Muslims are descendants of apostate Jews.
The Iraqi community (like all of the other ancient Jewish comunites all over the Arab world) existed up until its expulsion by the Iraqis after Israel’s War of Independence. In most cases, the Mizrachim did not “migrate” to Israel; they were kicked out of their homes after being robbed of everything they owned. Because of this history, they are usually more anti-Arab than their Ashkenazi counterparts, in spite of their perceived ethnic kinship with the Arabs.
We should also not forget the Iranian Jewish community. The Israeli Minister of Defense, Shaul Mofaz, is a member of that community.
I don’t see how anyone could suggest the Syrian government was behind this. The size of the bomb used could only mean:
1) The attackers had very limited opportunities to attack, and so had to use an especially large bomb because they could not get vrey close very often, or
2) The attack was specifically designed to so chaos above and beyond the killing of just Hariri.
Since Syria had 15,000 troops in Lebanon, it seems odd to suggest they would only have limited opportunity to attack Hariri. And Syria is and will be badly hurt by the chaos from this assassination, as world pressure on it grows to evacuate Lebanon. So it makes no sense that Syria would be behind this. This attack clearly destablizes Lebanon and Syria. Who would have an interest in that, Israel, the US, Al Qaeda, internal opposition groups? Those are the list of the most likely culprits, assuming this attack wasn’t for some more personal reasons that have nothing to do with politics.
Regarding Arab Jews
I wrote that there was intermarriage with Arabs and that the (mostly Sephardic) Jews became darker. It may be that when the Jews migrated into Europe they became lighter, as a result of intermarriage with Europeans. I made assumptions without basis.
I don’t see how anyone could suggest the Syrian government was behind this.
You might try consulting a knowledgable observer.
If you look how things evolve, if it were the syrians, they must be the silliest guys on earth.
The size of the bomb used could only mean: 1) The attackers had very limited opportunities to attack, and so had to use an especially large bomb because they could not get vrey close very often, or 2) The attack was specifically designed to so chaos above and beyond the killing of just Hariri.
Or simply that the bomber wanted to make sure he killed Hariri. Smaller car bombs often leave survivors, and the killer wasn’t likely to get more than one shot.
Re Amin Gemayel et al – my mistake – I was not reading carefully at all; responding to what I thought the poster was saying.
Re: who dunnit – I am swayed by the person who argued (on Head Heeb I think) the reasons why this act was not in Israel’s interest.
Did Syria do it? I dunno, but my doubts and concerns about it have been echoed by two former US ambassadors to Syria, Richard Murphy and T. Kattouf, so I am not in the company of traitorous terrorist-lovers.
Do I think either country is capable of such an act – unfortunately, yes I do. Those who say it is irresponsible to claim such a thing about Israel are forgetting Israel’s many such acts in Lebanon over the years. Not to mention the targeted assassinations of Palestinians. I personally agree with my government’s official position that targeted assassinations are against international law, bad policy, and morally wrong. I fervently believe in the rule of law, whether for Osama Bin Laden, Ahmed Yasseen, or Ariel Sharon. Persons accused of crimes against humanity should be brought to fair trial. I wish we could have gotten Osama in a defense stand in Brussels – the whole world, including the Muslim world, would have supported us.
The person who mentioned the Palestinians and their acts of terrorism also has my total agreement – I rejected violent resistance the first time I heard a Palestinian talk about it, when I was 12 years old visiting Ain el Helweh refugee camp. Through the whole LEbanese civil war I continued to assert my belief that violent measures only produce more violence and dont’ in the end help you “win” anything of value.
It’s possible to be sympathetic to the goal of justice for the Palestinians while rejecting violent resistance. It’s also possible to criticize the state of Israel and point out its wrongdoing while believing in that state’s right to exist in peace and security. (and hope for just peace with between that state and all its neighbors)
It’s further possible to believe that Syria is making attempts to befriend the US, reach out to us, and even make peace with the Israelis, while accepting that Syria, or factions within Syria, might commit such an act as this car bombing. Amazing what you can conceive of when you don’t hue to ideology.
To analyze my initial hope that Syria didn’t do it – some in the informed blogosphere and the print press suggest Syria has been trying to cooperate with the USA since 9/11. I hoped Syria under Bashar was opening up, and might well reform from the inside. There had been some hope that Iran was on the same path. If Syria were guilty of such a crime against LEbanon, it would mean that my hopes for liberalization are dashed.
It’s embarrassing that I was willing to think the worst of Israel and hope for the best out of Syria – of course on second thought I would prefer to hope for the best from each country. Similarly, I only post positive explications of the Israel/Palestine truce on my blog – I want to support the best possible interpretation of everybody’s actions, and not spend any energy crabbing, bitching and muttering darkly about betrayal.
When it comes to who is courteous -well, I’m trying. This business is extremely emotional. Helena is a gracious host who has a right to step in and warn people who she believes have crossed a line. If I have done so, I am sorry. This blog is like her salon, and we are here on her sufferance. You don’t like it, you’re free to start your own blog.
This is pretty long, and it appears to be from a pro-Lebanese site, but it gives a good rundown of the idea of “Greater Syria”, the real reason why Syria is in Lebanon and why they have no intention of leaving:
http://www.cedarland.org/syria.html
Helena,
I was refering to a simple test that you did not consider. If there was a suicide actor, then it ain’t Israel. There are no such precedents for Israeli perpetrators being suicidal. There is no promise of 72 virgins for them, and all indicates Israelis value life enough to try and stick around for whatever reasons (involving 72 females or not).
On the other hand Palestinian fathers have expressed their pride in their son’s immolations (the father of the Netanya bomber said he only regrets having no additional sons to sacrifice). The families are elevated in their social stature, and receive financial remuneration.
Somewhere along the line not only the story of the sacrifice of Isaac was not transcribed correctly. The typo where Isaac was replaced with Ishmael is well known, but it also seems like suicidal Islam missed the part where God stops Abraham’s hand as God wishes no such sacrifice but to test Abraham.
BTW, the news report supports the Palestinian and the suicide part.
E. Bilpe
Ephraim, I’m glad you stuck around. Thanks for the info on the Arab Jews issue and the link on “Greater Syria”. I lived in Lebanon 1974-81 and then wrote a book about it (it won a bit of a prize, actually.) So yes, I for one am very familiar with the GS idea. My ex-husband is a Lebanese Christian with relatives both sides of that border, which was notably shifted by the French when they had control of the two countries prior to 1943.
I’m not sure that GS explains everything, though. Mainly, it’s an ideology followed by Orthodox Christians in the region, whose families certainly were badly split up by the imposition of colonial-era boundaries…
W. Tyroler, I can’t imagine why you spend your time coming to my comments board with the goal of laying little ambushes for me, re “Arab Jews”. Or that then, you try to back up your claim that the term is used by people who “tend to be anti-Zionist” by sending us over to a post on Jonathan’s excellent blog– whose content you totally misrepresent.
I’m also not sure why you and many other commenters here have accused me of “smearing” Israel by mentioning in the main post the possibility that it might have been responsible for the bombing–alongside, and evidently not superseding, the possibility that Syria was responsible.
Then, I have to laugh that for a “knowledgeable observer” you send us to the site of some mouthy grad student someplace.
Hohoho.
Re the UPI report, it cites a single anonymous “security source” and I have not seen the Palestinian aspect of it corroborated anywhere else. That’s not to say it won’t be. But back when I worked for Reuters we would never go with a story so thinly sourced.
In the meantime, I think it is extremely unseemly for people to be jumping to conclusions, pointing fingers of blame, and engaging in gross ethnic and religious stereotyping of the sort you do, Bilpe. Yes, “Some” Palestinian fathers have lauded their son’s suicide bombings. If it comes to that, “Some” Israeli Rabbis lauded the work of Baruch Goldstein. But it’s really, really dangerous if “Some” people use such instances to start promulgating hate-fueling generalizations about entire other groups of people.
How about we all spend a few days mourning Rafiq and praying for the peace of Lebanon while we wait for whatever solid information can be obtained?
And yes, that should include the Bush administration.
the goal of laying little ambushes for me, re “Arab Jews”
Odd: you used that label; I merely sought to determine just what you meant. The notion that this amounts to laying a little trap for you puzzles.
Or that then, you try to back up your claim that the term is used by people who “tend to be anti-Zionist” by sending us over to a post on Jonathan’s excellent blog– whose content you totally misrepresent.
The post I cited is titled, “Two ways to be an Arab Jew,” one of whom (Ella Shohat) is explicitly described by Jonathan’s excellent blog as “an anti-Zionist.” The cite thus exemplifies my point, that a self-identified “Arab Jew” is likely to see him or herself as anti-Zionist. I misrepresented nothing.
I think it is extremely unseemly for people to be jumping to conclusions, pointing fingers of blame, and engaging in gross ethnic and religious stereotyping
Well, yes. But this belated condemnation of conclusion-jumping merely brings us back to the original, unfounded, and unwithdrawn speculation that Israel was behind this atrocity, doesn’t it? Not to mention the ethnic stereotyping that went into the still-unexplained assertion that Israel “raised the new generations of Arab Jews to all speak Hebrew!”
I wish we could mourn with a little grace and dignity as you suggest, Helena. We must try.
Such a pause should include the Bush administration, as you say. Instead, they have rushed to exploit, in a really repulsive way, this atrocity, by the theatrical withdrawal of their ambassador from Syria.
What can be done about such moronism? One grinds one’s teeth. How foul! How repellant to exploit such a thing in such a way. Is it possible the Yanks may have orchestrated the whole thing for this purpose, including the murder of Rafik Hariri?
Helena, you write: In the meantime, I think it is extremely unseemly for people to be jumping to conclusions, pointing fingers of blame…
Really?
Isn’t this thread about your (jumping to the conclusion) that Israel (“even more likely this time around”) is to blame?
No disrespect intended, but mourning Mr. Hariri and waiting for solid information didn’t seem to be your top priority yesterday.
BTW, Reuters (although they would never report something as “thinly sourced” as UPI) has a nearly identical story on that angle, although they don’t definitely say he was the “suicide bomber,” just the “claimer”:
Lebanon security storm Hariri bomb claimer’s home
I didn’t mean to violate the politeness rules Helena. I just tried to convey, in my limited ways, the notion that words do have a meaning and you cannot go around with this reflex of “Israel is the answer, what is the question” without undermining your own credibility. This time you went further out on a limb than Al Jazeera.
Here is my apology. It would be refreshing to read yours if and when Israel is exonerated of yet another accusation.
David
Having myself been the object of WMTyrolian “justice,” I sympathize, even if it was forseeable from your original post.
I don’t think you’ve made an entirely convincing case for why Israel’s motives here (balanced against the potential costs) outweigh the motives of others (balanced against the potential costs). Unlike Leila, I think we have to assume rational agency, which means that someone thought this was worth it. Unfortunately, it’s hard to determine who that could possibly be.
As for “mouthy grad students,” while I’m no Tony fan (Across the Bay, cited above), your dismissal is pretty off-base. I’m a “mouthy grad student” as well, and most of the professors I know who run blogs (whether you – or I – agree with them) started out as probably-mouthy grad students. Mouthy implies “unauthorized to speak” and “grad student”…well, it was an anti-intellectual pot-shot against people who make it their business to learn as much as they can about something (often a small something), and I think it was pretty cheap. I think you can find lots of reasons to attack Tony for what he says (or maybe me, too…it’s happened before).
The following is from Gordon Thomas’ book, “Gideon’s Spies”:
So with Hariri, it looks like a carbon copy execution…
recomanded blog about lebanon:
hariri killing and helena post
http://beirut2bayside.blogspot.com/
A note on modes of argumentation:
(1) Jonathan’s blog describes one person who’s an anti-Zionist who uses the self-description “Arab Jew”. Tyroler tells us that proves that people who use the latter term “tend to be anti-Zionist”. Do we have a sample-size problem here?
(2) “even more likely this time around” Yes, but even more likely than what? What I wrote was, “even more likely than in October”. This was not a judgment on the relative degrees of likeliness this time around, Israel vs. Syria, on which issue I was agnostic in the post. So I was not “jumping to a conclusion”. SoCal, why didn’t you quote the whole of my comparitive clause, as presented? Perhaps because truncated quotation made your case better?
(3) It’s always good to clarify and seek clarification for what people mean by the terms they use. I actually like “mouthiness” (check out my thumbnail description of the first of the blog’s linkees.) But neither mouthiness nor being a grad student qualify someone as being a “knowledgeable observer”, as that blogger was presented to us. “Knowledgeable” compared with what? Compared with the experience I’ve had in and of Lebanon over the past 35 years?
But let’s look on the positive side. What actually can each of us do for the peaceable-ness and wellbeing of the people of Lebanon?
A note on modes of argumentation:
(1) Jonathan’s blog describes one person who’s an anti-Zionist who uses the self-description “Arab Jew”. Tyroler tells us that proves that people who use the latter term “tend to be anti-Zionist”. Do we have a sample-size problem here?
Yes, Cobban, we do … which is in part why I wanted to know what you meant by the provocative descriptor, “Arab Jew.” Still waiting. Of course, distractive ankle-biting is a form of argumentation.
Not that it really matters, given that you don’t seem inclined to explain what yuo meant, but what I actually said was that “some” self-described “Arab Jews” “probably tend to be anti-Zionist” — ironic proof of the complaint of one Helena Cobban that “truncated quotation made your case better.”
I wish we could mourn with a little grace and dignity as you suggest, Helena. We must try…..Is it possible the Yanks may have orchestrated the whole thing for this purpose, including the murder of Rafik Hariri?
Such grace and dignity! Of course it’s possible, Dominic. ‘Cui bono’ after all. I favor a different principle: occam’s razor.
Compared with the experience I’ve had in and of Lebanon over the past 35 years?
I believe the ‘grad student’ in question is native lebanese.
Michael Young and Lee Smith weigh in at Slate in favor of the Syrian hypothesis.
Hello Argyll.
What William of Occam said, and which is known as “Occam’s Razor”, I believe is as follows:
“It is vain to do with more, what can be done with less”.
Having waded through acres of your deathly prose it surprises me to know that you purport to be a fan of Occam.
Citing the fact that Israel has killed terrorists with the blood of innocent Jews on their hands as somehow proving that they were behind Hariri’s assassination is absolutely ludicrous. Terrorists who have killed Jews deserve to die. Hariri was not a terrorist. There was no reason for Israel to kill him.
We need to get something straight here: the modus operandi of the PLO and its related and constituent terrorist groups has always been to deliberately target innocent civilians for the specific purpose of striking fear into the hearts of the Israelis so that they will lose their will to fight. This is PRECISELY why they deliberately target the most vulnerable people. This is quintessential terrorism.
Israel, on the other hand, targets specific terrorists such as Salameh. They do not now, nor have they ever, deliberately targeted civilians. The unfortunate civilian deaths that result from Israeli retaliation against terrorists occur because the terrorists deliberately place their military assets deeply within civilian populations for the specific purposes of 1) deterring any potential Israeli retaliation, and 2) maximizing civilian casualties for propaganda purposes when retaliation does occur. This is why the leaders of Hamas, for example, always make sure to surround themselves with children at their “rallies”. They know that if they showed themselves in public without their human shields they would be consorting with their 72 virgins forthwith. I should point out in this connection that placing military installations among civilian populations is in direct contravention of the Geneva Convention.
Salameh was a terrorist whose job was murdering Israelis and Jews, and he did his job well. He, like Yassin and Rantissi and all the rest, was a legitimate military target, and the Israelis killed him as he richly deserved. May Israel go from stength to strength and contnue to fearlessly strike at the enemies of Israel and the Jews everywhere.
Regardng the term “Arab Jew”, it is a term that is used by people with a vested interest in casting doubt on the legitimacy of the distinct peoplehood of the Jews. If a dark-skinned Arabic-speaking Jew living in an Arab country is simply an Arab of the Mosaic persuasion, and not a member of the Jewish people, then Zionism cannot be justified. Therefore, people who believe that the Jewish people have no right to an indpendent existence as a free people in their own land will use terms such as “Arab Jew” or “European Jew” to 1) emphasize the idea that proper place of the Jews is to be an ethno-religious minority in someone else’s country, and 2) to create divisions between Jews from different countries who now live in Israel. In this scenario, Jews from Europe are white Europeans and Jews from the Arab world are Arabs, and we all know that East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet.
As far as Hariri is concerned, I still think that Syria was responsible. It was a calculated risk that may very well backfire; Syria has acted this way in Lebanon since the ’70s and they have never paid a price for it, successfully banking on the desire of the “world community” for stability n the Middle East at all costs. For people who desire stability above all else, Lebanon under the Syrian boot is not a cause for concern. This time, though, they may have gone too far.
Citing the fact that Israel has killed terrorists with the blood of innocent Jews on their hands as somehow proving that they were behind Hariri’s assassination is absolutely ludicrous. Terrorists who have killed Jews deserve to die. Hariri was not a terrorist. There was no reason for Israel to kill him.
We need to get something straight here: the modus operandi of the PLO and its related and constituent terrorist groups has always been to deliberately target innocent civilians for the specific purpose of striking fear into the hearts of the Israelis so that they will lose their will to fight. This is PRECISELY why they deliberately target the most vulnerable people. This is quintessential terrorism.
Israel, on the other hand, targets specific terrorists such as Salameh. They do not now, nor have they ever, deliberately targeted civilians. The unfortunate civilian deaths that result from Israeli retaliation against terrorists occur because the terrorists deliberately place their military assets deeply within civilian populations for the specific purposes of 1) deterring any potential Israeli retaliation, and 2) maximizing civilian casualties for propaganda purposes when retaliation does occur. This is why the leaders of Hamas, for example, always make sure to surround themselves with children at their “rallies”. They know that if they showed themselves in public without their human shields they would be consorting with their 72 virgins forthwith. I should point out in this connection that placing military installations among civilian populations is in direct contravention of the Geneva Convention.
Salameh was a terrorist whose job was murdering Israelis and Jews, and he did his job well. He, like Yassin and Rantissi and all the rest, was a legitimate military target, and the Israelis killed him as he richly deserved. May Israel go from stength to strength and contnue to fearlessly strike at the enemies of Israel and the Jews everywhere.
Regardng the term “Arab Jew”, it is a term that is used by people with a vested interest in casting doubt on the legitimacy of the distinct peoplehood of the Jews. If a dark-skinned Arabic-speaking Jew living in an Arab country is simply an Arab of the Mosaic persuasion, and not a member of the Jewish people, then Zionism cannot be justified. Therefore, people who believe that the Jewish people have no right to an indpendent existence as a free people in their own land will use terms such as “Arab Jew” or “European Jew” to 1) emphasize the idea that proper place of the Jews is to be an ethno-religious minority in someone else’s country, and 2) to create divisions between Jews from different countries who now live in Israel. In this scenario, Jews from Europe are white Europeans and Jews from the Arab world are Arabs, and we all know that East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet.
As far as Hariri is concerned, I still think that Syria was responsible. It was a calculated risk that may very well backfire; Syria has acted this way in Lebanon since the ’70s and they have never paid a price for it, successfully banking on the desire of the “world community” for stability n the Middle East at all costs. For people who desire stability above all else, Lebanon under the Syrian boot is not a cause for concern. This time, though, they may have gone too far.
“It is vain to do with more, what can be done with less”.
(William of Occam)
Sorry about the double post. The system timed out when I tried to post the first time, so I posted again assuming that the first attempt had been unsuccessful.
A couple of other things I forgot to mention: as Helena pointed out, the French mandate for Syria, awarded to them by the League of Nations after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in WWI, resulted in shifting borders in Lebanon/Syria. Although Lebanon has always had a distinct cultural identity different from that of the Syrian interior, it had never been an independent state. The French, seeing themselves as the protectors of the Christian communities in Lebanon, severed Lebanon from the body of Syria for the specific purpose of creating a Christian-majority state where Christians could be independent and free from Muslim domination. This would, the French calculated, give them a permanent Christian and Europeanized ally in the Middle East that would always look to France as its protector.
Unfortunately, the French blundered when they created Lebanon, drawing up borders that ensured there were almost as many Muslims in Lebanon as Christians. This delicate balance was completely destroyed in 1970, when the PLO, driven out of Jordan by King Hussein, established itself in Lebanon and began to destabilize Lebanon as it had Jordan. The Syrians used this as their opportunity to intervene, and, by playing off different factions against one another and then betrayng them all in their turn, succeeded in dominating Lebanon completely.
Also, regarding Baruch Goldstein: the vast majority of Israelis, including the religious establishment, unreservedly condemned Goldstein’s murderous act. Any “rabbi” who extolled, condoned, or excused what he did is a disgrace to his people. While there may have been a few people who praised what he did, they are a very small minority. This is in stark contrast to the attitude of mainstream Muslim theologians and Arab, particularly Palestinian, society in general, where terrorists who deliberately murder innocent people are extolled as “martyrs”, have their families supported by government stipends, and have streets named after them.
Helena, you write: This was not a judgment on the relative degrees of likeliness this time around, Israel vs. Syria, on which issue I was agnostic in the post.
Agnostic?
I don’t think anyone here would say you’re agnostic about this. It seems fairly clear you were making the case that you believed Israel was the culprit.
I missed where you laid out the case that Syria (or anyone else), on the principle of cui bono (or any othe principle), was a likely culprit.
Sure, you say what other people have reported (“initial speculation”), without making a judgment. Then you launch into: Who might be behind such a campaign? After which you lay out your case for who you believe is the most likely perpatrator.
That doesn’t seem agnostic.
If you, after mentioning the “initial speculation” and listing the reasons why you think Israel might have done it, and then proceeded to build an equally exhaustive case why you think other actors might have done it, then the post would be agnostic.
But you didn’t do that.
You write: SoCal, why didn’t you quote the whole of my comparitive clause, as presented? Perhaps because truncated quotation made your case better?
No, add in “than in October” and you still jumped to a conclusion about who you thought was responsible, and why, later telling other posters that it’s unseemly to do such a thing.
A very cogent rundown of possible culprits, motives, etc, with Syria winning pretty much hands down:
http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/12221
A Gadarene rush to judgement.
People who exploit tsunamis and assassinations are not respected.
“A Gadarene rush to judgement. People who exploit tsunamis and assassinations are not respected.”
Could you explain this please?
Oh, wait, of course. You’re talking about “the Yanks”. Are you referring to the US government or to individual Yanks? Just curious.
Yes, I can see why you might think that wihdrawing the US ambassador from Syria without proof of Syria’s guilt could be seen as grandstanding. I’m not sure I disagree with you. Also, while I think that, based on past performance, Syria-Iran is the most likely culprit, I can certainly see why the US might be considered a possible suspect. However, I don’t credit the US secret services with that kind of skill, acumen, or access. And I’m an American.
This was a big, complex job. Somebody needed to get into the sewers in downtown Beirut with about 350 kg of high explosives, all right under the noses of thousands of Syrian troops and agents. I just don’t see the Americans being capable of that in a place like Lebanon where we have zero presence or pull. We can blast Baghdad to smithereens from the air and then send in the Marines, but we haven’t been particularly good at this kind of brazen deviousness for a while now. As a theoretical possibility, it is interesting. But it doesn’t seem to me that it is particularly likely.
How does the tsunami fit into this, though?
SoCal, take a deep breath, use your cool, calm, analytical reading skills and re-read my original post. Especially, the third and fourth grafs. Tell me where I “jumped to a conclusion”. I only said that Israel was a natural suspect if the aim was to destabilize Lebanon and turn Lebanese people more against Syria. This is known as a conditional clause.
I can certainly understand that many, many people are upset about what happened. I’m extremely upset myself; plus, fearful of what may be ahead. But please, let’s not let our emotion get in the way of our ability to read a text, calmly.
I join with you in wishing the very best for the people of Lebanon, some of whom are indeed my relatives.
My goodness, all these people taking advantage of Lebanon’s tragedy to make political points or to circulate obsecene, cheap jokes.
Ephraim, I’m afraid the latest cheap joke was yours. Amir Taheri, presented as someone who knows anything about Lebanon?? Amir Taheri, what’s more, brought to us by Eleana Benador?
And yes, that would be the same Eleana Benador who positioned all her neo-“con” clients so efficiently that they were able to “con” the US public into supporting a quite gratuitous war against Iraq.
So now, friends, guess which war she and the “members” of “Benador Associates” are trying to con us into?
Helena,
I feel extremely calm, am not short of breath, and am employing plenty of reason.
I just interpret what you wrote in a much different way than you’re currently explaining, which frankly doesn’t make much sense.
You didn’t only write that Israel is a natural suspect if the aim was to destabilize Lebanon and turn Lebanese people more against Syria. You go on to say (as we’ve already covered), that the Mossad “seems to you an even more likely culprit this time around than in October.” Is that the case only if the goal was to pit the Lebanese against Syria? I don’t think that’s clear from the post at all.
Again, as I’ve stated, it’s not like you spent any time, on this post (or any others), writing any conditional clauses that would help explain why you believe other suspects are likely.
Besides, from the funeral today and the demonstrations yesterday, you can see that the Lebanese believe that Syria is the natural suspect.
And it’s not as if they aren’t predisposed to have anti-Israel protests at the drop of a hat – just like practically everywhere else in the Middle East.
But the Iranian Mullahs agree with you. Their state controlled media also reported why they think “the Zionist Entity” is to blame.
I don’t think my level of emotion is trumping my sense of reason here. I think your (I’ll be charitable here) passions have trumped a sense of fair play.
And I do wish the people of Lebanon – well, most of them, not members of Hezbollah – all the best. And, as is the case with you, my prayers are with Hariri’s family and friends.
But it’s nothing short of amazing to read your post on the topic and then be told later you were merely agnostic, and not trying to point fingers.
I mean, you wrote that the Mossad “seems to you” even more likely this time around than in October, and that the Syrians have been on their best behavior since then, clearly discounting any possibility of their involvement.
That’s pretty clear. I don’t think we’re going to agree on this and it has nothing to do with my emotions. If you were truly agnostic, we’d have heard your theories as to other possibilities.
But anyway, I apologize if my posts come off as antagonistic or adversarial – I honestly don’t mean them to be. Just trying to have a conversation where I disagree with you, and letting you know why.
BTW,
I just want to add that I think it’s awful that the Bush administration has pulled the American ambassador to Syria.
There’s not enough evidence to definitely know that Damascus had a hand in this, and even if they did, I think pulling the ambassador is a dangerous sign.
And I’m not a big fan of the Ba’ahtists in Damascus but I think we’ve seen that war in that part of the world (and in most others) is not a good option.
I hope whichever cooler heads there are left in D.C., that they prevail.
And I hope the ambassador is sent back to Damascus soon, and then negotiations and talks open up to try and resolve the differences that exist.
Helena, I don’t know who Mr. Taheri is, really, nor do I know his politics. Ditto about Ms. Benador (oh, wait a minute, she is associated with the Middle East Forum. Yep, I guess she must be wrong about everything). I don’t know anything about you, either, for that matter, except that you lived in Lebanon for a number of years, were once married to a Lebanese Christian, and won some sort of prize for a book yo wrote (as you so helpfully informed me).
These people may or may not be “experts” on Lebanon in your opinion. However, a lot of people posing as “experts” are breathtakingly wrong when it comes to the Middle East, and it helps that I am not aware of their politics before I read what they write, although their biases very often come through quite clearly in their writings.
Your biases are also obvious, as the general tone of your post fngering the Israelis and your “neocon” comments make quite clear. If a person’s insights about a certain subject are tainted in your eyes because of their political views, then I really think that we might as well stop bothering to pretend that any of us are objective about this subject.
I certainly am not, and it is clear that you are not either. The ruling regimes of Syria and Iran are, in my opinion, evil regimes, for the immediate collapse of which I fervently pray on a daily basis. Anything that helps this along is a good thing.
This does NOT mean that I am happy that Mr. Hariri was assassinated. Only that I am not surprised, and that until I am presented with evidence to the contrary I will assume that Syria is to blame. Everyone else, of course, is just as free as I am to assign guilt to their bogeyman of choice, determined, of course, by their political biases.
Concerning tsunamis and assassinations.
Condoleeza Rice at her confirmation hearings opined that the Indian Ocean tsunami was a great opportunity for the United States.
Clearly, whther they organised it or not , the Yanks are exploiting this moment of bereavement in relation to Rafik Hariri. It is contemptible. It is almost unconscionable, by which I mean that it is such disgusting behaviour that it is almost too much to mention or condemn. So I mention it and I condemn it.
If you don’t like the reference “Yanks”, anybody, then you should do something to distinguish yourselves from the invaders, occupiers, and gulag-operators who are infesting other peoples’ countries.
Instead, what we find (I am from South Africa) is support from the majority of US posters on blogs. Even here on this essentially anti-imperialist site, we hear the relentless, patronising voice of the neo-colonist, all the time.
Citing the fact that Israel has killed terrorists with the blood of innocent Jews on their hands as somehow proving that they were behind Hariri’s assassination is absolutely ludicrous. Terrorists who have killed Jews deserve to die. Hariri was not a terrorist. There was no reason for Israel to kill him.
Right there we have your entire skewed perspective. You think killing people is all right. So your perspective is entirely biased — e.g. subjective.
We need to get something straight here:
Your attempt to manipulate…
the modus operandi of the PLO and its related and constituent terrorist groups has always been to deliberately target innocent civilians for the specific purpose of striking fear into the hearts of the Israelis so that they will lose their will to fight. This is PRECISELY why they deliberately target the most vulnerable people. This is quintessential terrorism.
You believe that every time some news outlet says “Palestinian suicide bombers [fill in the blank]…” it’s true. Have you ever once stopped to consider who controls the news outlets?
Israel, on the other hand, targets specific terrorists such as Salameh. They do not now, nor have they ever, deliberately targeted civilians.
Lies! Blindness! Countless innocent children have been MURDERED by Israeli snipers for no good reason. They even ran over an American protestor with a tank!!! For what? Deliberate targetting of innocent people.
The unfortunate civilian deaths that result from Israeli retaliation against terrorists occur because
Because the Zionist dictators of Israel, who probably don’t even have semetic genes, want to kill everybody to create a “great Israeli state” in order to supposedly bring on the second coming of Christ and all “gentiles” — who Zionists think of nothing better than a mangy old dog — will be left to waller in the aftermath while all the “chosen people” are raptured into some fabled “heaven.”
the terrorists deliberately place their military assets deeply within civilian populations
You have absolutely no evidence (you do have hearsay) to back up who is a terrorist and who isn’t.
Read Victor Ostrovsky’s book: “By Way of Deception” to learn exactly how Mossad operates. Ostrovsky is “ex” Mossad living in Canada now. His revelations are startling to say the least.
Ah, I see that “Anon” (courageous handle, that) has just revealed himself.
At any rate, since one of my essays seems to have become a point of contention, some clarification may be in order. The post involved two writer/academics of Iraqi Jewish origin, Sasson Somekh and Ella Shohat, who considered themselves Arab Jews. For Somekh, this was a product of his youth in prewar Baghdad, which contained a large assimilated Jewish middle class and where many Jews basically considered themselves Iraqis. Shohat, on the other hand, constructed her identity politically as a radical outgrowth of Mizrahi identity politics. Given that the logical endpoint of Mizrahi identity politics is denial of a single Jewish national identity, Shohat adopted an anti-Zionist position. Somekh is indifferent to Zionism (which he basically considers an Ashkenazi construction) but isn’t anti-Zionist or opposed to Israel as such.
In the discussion on that post (and on the two others in which I analyzed the crossroads of Arab and Jewish identity), the consensus was that self-identification as an “Arab Jew” is much easier for a non-Zionist. The reasons are fairly obvious: given that “Arab” and “Jew” are commonly used today as ethnonational markers and that Arab and Jewish nationalism are currently in conflict, it’s difficult for a Jew to consider himself an Arab unless he doesn’t view Judaism as a national identity. It isn’t impossible for a Zionist Jew to identify as an Arab – for instance, such a person might consider “Arab” a cultural rather than a national marker or accept the existence of dual ethnonational identities – but it’s harder. To that extent, I agree with Wm. Tyroler: given modern political realities, any Jew who identifies as an Arab is likely to be a non-Zionist (albeit not necessarily an anti-Zionist).
On the other hand, I’ve noticed that the term “Arab Jew” is commonly used in Arab countries, sometimes with a political agenda but often simply because it’s the generally accepted term. Thus, someone who has spent a lot of time in Arab countries – like, say, Helena – might use the term instinctively without knowing that the term preferred by Mizrahim themselves is “Mizrahi.”
I now return you to your regularly scheduled argument.
Sigh. Can’t we analyze these events w/o lapsing into these disgusting anti-Jewish tirades? I’m already numb to the knee-jerk reaction to blame everything on Israel. But the facts are indelible: Syria’s dictatorship plays by rules of its own. Tom Friedman of the NY Times sums it up under the term “Hama rules.” We all remember what happened in Hama in 1982. This is just more of the same.
Read any of the reports on Lebanon leaked to various news services by British intelligence over the past few months and one will see a pattern far more problematic then the bloody assassination of Hariri. Take a look at the pieces to this puzzle
JPublic:
Much of your post seems unintelligible and it is ways over the length guidelines. So shortly, I’m going to snip it quite a bit.
Hamas is not a factor in Lebanese politics. The rift between Syria and Al-Qaeda isn’t “recent”. Indeed, their relationship has always been extremely hostile. Remember, Qaeda are militant Sunnis and, ahem, the Damascus Baathists aren’t terribly fond of militant Sunnis… (One of the main concerns of western human-rights people regarding Syria these days is the Damascus’ government’s willingness to torture Qaeda suspects on contract to US intel agencies, (through “rendition”.)
As it says on the sidebar, I strive to have JWN be a part of the “reality-based community.”
If you have any links to new British articles that might explain what you’re trying to express a little more clearly, just post the links so we can assess them for ourselves…
John Cadiddy:
You say, the facts are indelible and then immediately give us an opinion, not a fact. Tom’s view that the Syrian regime has changed not one iota since 1982 may or may not be a reasonable interpretation. But to cite his opinion is not the same as presenting any actual facts about the Hariri case.
Facts, sadly, are in short supply, which is why a forensic investigation under appropriate international auspices may well be a good idea.
But until there are more facts, rushing to judgment is incendiary and very crass. I can understand why deep emotion may have led many (though not all) in Lebanon to do that. But for outsiders to do it smacks only of a desire for take advantage of this tragedy for political reasons.
There is nothing wrong with blaming Israel, but it is so predictable that you would blame them first, Helena. Just like Fisk. I haven’t read a thing from him about his but would lay good odds that he is also blaming Israel. It’s sort of a knee-jerk reaction in some circles.
On another note, I saw a link to an al-Jazeera poll about who people thought did this. Syria wasn’t even a choice – lol.
But until there are more facts, rushing to judgment is incendiary and very crass
Yes it is, which is why your own ill-informed rush to judgment regarding Israel is so deeply appalling!
As regards “Arab Jew”, I once had an acquaintance who was a Lebanese Jew, and he was for obvious reasons one of the saddest men I ever met. I am Irish; my family left Donaghadee, Co. Down (a small town just outside Belfast) just before the Irish war of independence (a.k.a. the Anglo-Irish War). At the time I knew this guy, 1989 or 1990, I thought the situation in the six counties was pretty hopeless, and I found this very depressing… I could not imagine how discouraging life must have been for him as a Jewish Lebanese patriot!
As for the assassination of Hariri- as someone else pointed out above, the Syrians have a long history of murdering Lebanese politicians in a similar fashion.
Incidentally, I greatly resent the earlier characterisation of the IRA as terrorist. Also, Hooray for anti-intellectualism!!!