Assassinations and demonstrations
November 22, 2006
On the day of the assassination of Lebanese Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel, New TV was playing patriotic songs praising Syria and Hezbollah, the kind you usually find on Syrian television only. I hadn’t noticed them before, but I guess this pretty much settles where New TV stands on the assassination of Pierre Gemayel, on who is really responsible, and on who benefits from it according to them. Most other Lebanese channels are in a very different mood (and so is CNN, by the way). I naturally deplore any assassination, I deplore the cold-blooded killing of a young man, I deplore this violence, but let's not lose track of the stakes here.
Gemayel's assassination is quite different from Hariri's, and not only because of the latter's stature. After Hariri, there was shock but also defiance in Lebanon. After the other murders (Hawi, Kassir, Tueni), there was sadness but continued and resolute boldness. After Gemayel, however, I feel there is mostly apprehension, because the 24 gun shots fired in broad daylight may have different consequences on the situation in Lebanon. But what? The Syrians are already out, Hezbollah will be damned if it disarms or steps aside after Israel's attack last summer, and the investigation into the first murder is rather tepid up to this point. So what's going to happen? I think that Syria is going to be temporarily slighted by this event, but that there is no long-term possibility that it will relinquish its influence for the benefit of the US and Israel.
The promised or threatened (depending on which side of the fence you stand) mass demonstrations of Thursday, under the leadership of the March 8 forces (aka Hezbollah and co), will now be replaced by a mass demonstration (funeral) under the leadership of the March 14 forces (aka Hariri and co). The slogans will be drastically different, and the support for the crumbling government of Fouad Siniora (who at least didn't cry yesterday) will dominate the event. Not music to Syria's ears, but it will survive.
Some Lebanese parties are acting and speaking as if the International Tribunal for Hariri will actually accuse, prosecute and condemn the entire Syrian regime for the assassination, and that everyone will then live happily ever after. I have my doubts about this version of events, but in any case, the assassination of Pierre Gemayel basically sets in stone the foundation of the tribunal, rather than the contrary – in other words, he could not have been killed merely because of this. The tribunal was going to happen with or without Syria's agreement, with or without Siniora's governance, and with or without Gemayel's assassination. Still not in Syria's interests, but again the regime will survive.
And Syria's actual role in the assassination? Frankly, who really knows? It's not like there is a lack of suspects, but you wouldn't know that from following comments on the situation.
It's nearly funny to note that most Lebanese bloggers are, as usual, passionately ridiculing the notion of "Syria doesn't gain by this" as even a possible rationale for their non-involvement. These days, it doesn't matter whether something makes sense or not as long as Syria can be blamed; you see, that rationale is that even if it doesn't benefit Syria, the Syrians are so stupid that they capable of doing things that hurt them.
I certainly think this applies to a number of events in the past couple of years, but not to this one, as too many good things were happening to Syria recently (more on that in an article I am supposed to be writing instead of blogging). I think the "certitude" of certain Lebanese (like Samir Geagea) that ministers were about to be eliminated qualifies at least as a possible lead, don't you think? And there are certainly other suspects amongst the Lebanese themselves, and amongst other neighbors!
I'd also add a few miscellaneous comments on the whole situation. Why are the Lebanese Phalanges, inspired by Hitler's Nazi party and a fascist party by default since its creation by Pierre Gemayel senior, now considered a beacon of democratic values while the Baath (of which I hope you all know I am certainly no fan) is considered an evil fascist party although it is actually socialist in inclination?
Why is Emile Lahoud "unconstitutional" (a statement with which I agree entirely) while Fouad Siniora's government, now missing ministers from an entire sect, not unconstitutional?
Why were the demonstrations last year which aimed at removing the pro-Syrian government "democratic," while Hezbollah's planned demonstrations are considered a "coup d'état"? Why are Nasrallah's calls for his followers to take to the streets "threats" while March 14 calls are freedom of expression?
Why is Syria necessarily the culprit "because it is weak," and why is it equally necessarily the culprit "because it is strong"?
Why is the American ambassador's blindingly obvious interference in Lebanese affairs not considered "meddling," while every one of Syria's comments are?
Why is Robert Fisk so boring, so predictable, and so superficial when he writes about Lebanon?
I am on neither side, but I hate double standards! Speaking of which, I leave you with this hilarious (not really) statement by the Israeli foreign minister, who said of Gemayel's assassination that "this is the kind of step that can only increase tension in the region rather than lead to greater peace, and it is something to be deplored." Clearly, she feels that indiscriminate bombings of Lebanese civilians and infrastructure was, on the contrary, leading to peace.
