Another prominent Syrian regime adversary in Lebanon has been assassinated. This time it’s Pierre Gemayel.
No one intelligent can think for even a second that the timing of this is coincidental or that the Syrian government didn’t have anything to do with it. The Lebanese government has been mounting an investigation into the assassination of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, and this is a direct blatant attempt to intimidate those involved and disrupt the normal process of law.
If the Syrian government doesn’t suffer serious consequences for this, they’ll continue to act the same way. The problem is, I don’t know if there is anyone in the international arena who is willing to make those consequences happen.
1Curtis on Nov 21, 2006 at 11:27 am:
You shouldn’t jump the gun on Syrian involvement. As far as I know Hariri’s assassination hasn’t been definitively tied to the Syrians yet and I’ve heard a lot think that Israel may have something to do with these assassinations.
I don’t know what to think about the international arena on making consequences happen. When the Israeli’s killed 19 mostly women and children in their sleep in Gaza, the US vetoed a Security Council Resolution and voted against a General Assembly resolution that “expressed regret” (not condemnation) at the deaths of the innocents.
2danithew on Nov 21, 2006 at 11:34 am:
I don’t believe that killing Hariri or Gemayel has served Israeli interests. It’s a possibility to consider, I suppose, but it isn’t obvious to me why Israel would have an interest in making that happen.
On the other hand, Syria’s government had very serious problems with Hariri when he was alive and most people/governments in the international arena seem to feel that believe Syria’s involvement is obvious. Of course, Syria is denying involvement.
The current Lebanese government is attempting to conduct a serious investigation into Hariri’s assassination and this most recent assassination is an obvious effort to weaken that government.
3Curtis on Nov 21, 2006 at 1:19 pm:
There is a rationale for Israeli involvement. I don’t know myself who is behind the killings, but I think it is something to consider.
The rationale says that with the Hariri murder, Syria was pushed out of Lebanon by the UN Security Council resolution. This left Lebanon open to the attack this summer by Israel which in turn led to the buffer zone mandated by the UN. This is useful to Israel because if they want to attack Iran sometime, they will not have to worry so much about retribution by Hezbollah fighters. This viewpoint is supported by the revelation that Netanyahu provided in showing that the attack against Lebanon was planned well in advance and was not just a knee jerk response to the soldier capture situation.
Apart from the Lebanese situation, Israel has also been throttling any Palestinian ability to harm Israel in case of an attack against Iran.
The Gemayel assassination could go along the same lines depending on what sort of reaction the UN has toward it.
4danithew on Nov 21, 2006 at 2:09 pm:
Curtis,
That’s an interesting explanation but personally I don’t think it’s plausible. Predicting how the Security Council will respond to a major event (like the assassination of a prime minister) is a difficult proposition. While in retrospect everything that happens is a sensible step-by-step progression, it isn’t the kind of thing that a government body could determine in advance.
5Curtis on Nov 21, 2006 at 2:51 pm:
Yes, I see what you mean.
This latest assassination seems strange to me though, were it to be the work of Syria.
Syria is on the verge of getting involved in talks on tempering the violence in Iraq. At least there is greater international support for Syria’s involvement with Blair pulling for it.
At a time when they are close to becoming a diplomatic power, to commit such a flagrantly obvious crime as killing an enemy of Syria, an act that is bound to put them squarely back on the side of the bad guys, and out of the diplomatic picture, just doesn’t make sense to me.
Also, they would be turning support away from Hezbollah and dividing Lebanon from an almost purely anti-Israel sentiment, to partial anti-Israel and partial anti-Syria sentiment.
Syria would be pretty foolish to commit such a crime. However, we know that foolish people rule nations.
6danithew on Nov 21, 2006 at 3:13 pm:
It’s important to remember the Lebanese investigation into Rafik Hariri’s assassination. If dramatic proof of Syrian participation in the plans to assassinate Hariri is provided by the Lebanese, then any chance of Syrian “diplomatic power” is in the pooper anyway. That’s a powerful incentive for Syria to incite more violence and cause further destabilization of Lebanon’s government … anything to get the Lebanese gov’t to arrest this investigation.
Besides that, I’m not very convinced of Syria’s sincerity in participating in diplomatic talks or in Syria’s desire for less violence in Iraq. Middle East powers participate in diplomatic conferences and discussions all the time. A state may have representatives at a conference, who will say all kinds of nice things, while the state still pursues its interests by every means available. That’s what governments do.
By the way, in regards to an earlier comment, the Palestinians do not need any kind of Iranian situation to arise in order to feel a motive to attack Israel. On the other side of the equation, completely regardless of what happens in Iran, Israel has concerns about the rise of a Palestinian state. From the vantage point of at least some Israelis, this possibility, by itself, provides plenty of motive to “throttle” the Palestinians.
7Curtis on Nov 21, 2006 at 3:37 pm:
Yes, I doubt the sincerety of most governments too.
Truly, the Palestinians have cause to attack Israel without an Iranian provocation. However, I believe that the Palestinians would stand in solidarity with the Iranians if Israel attacked Iran. Palestinians would likely step up attacks against Israel in such an event.
8Curtis on Nov 22, 2006 at 11:16 am:
Now that I think about it, I don’t quite see how the Gemayel murder is going to slow down the Hariri investigation.
If slowing down the Hariri investigation is the main reason to kill Gemayel, then Israel did some good slowing down of that investigation this summer too. Does that mean they are also a suspect?
Just trying to make a point here. I know that Israel is not a suspect. I just think it’s way too coincidental that every time Syria gets closer to engagement with the west, another assassination conveniently occurs to distance them from us again.
Our relationship with Syria is strange in many respects. We talk them up as if they were part of the axis of evil… but then they were the most cooperative nation in the middle east in providing intelligence after 9/11. Also, we do the extraordinary rendition thing sending our prisoners to Syria to be tortured as in the case of Maher Arar:
http://www.ips-dc.org/lm-awards/2006/maher_arar_speech.pdf
Syria is vehemently denying any hand in the murder, yet the media is full of diplomats and politicians pointing the finger at Syria, saying that Lebanon’s sovereignity was attacked etc. Strange indeed.
9danithew on Nov 22, 2006 at 11:59 am:
Curtis, if you want to continue to think that Syria had little or nothing to do with this murder, that’s your right. If you want to consider Israel a potential suspect, that’s your right too.
I just happen to disagree with you on both points.
Syria is the obvious suspect as they have the most obvious motive.