Indulging in speculation regarding the identity of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri’s assassins is of little value now. What demands urgent scrutiny is how his murder was intended to play a large part in the remolding of Lebanon’s role in the overall Arab-Israeli conflict and the balance of power in the region.
So while the Feb. 14 blast was reported in Beirut, its tremors were felt in Damascus.
The tide is turning against Syria and it is turning fast. Both Israel and the United States are up in arms to bring an end to Syria’s hegemony over Lebanese affairs. But one must not be too hasty to believe that the American-Israeli action is motivated by their earnest concern for Lebanese sovereignty. Look a few miles to the east, to Iraq, and be affirmed that meaningful national sovereignty is the least of Washington’s concerns at this point. And every one knows how Israel respects Lebanon’s sovereignty.
However, Syria must be ousted from Lebanon because, first, its presence there is beefing up Damascus’ standing as a regional power capable of dictating the terms of any future agreement between itself and Israel on the one hand, and Lebanon and Israel on the other.
Despite its military primacy, Israel is still a very small country. It is incapable of dealing with a cluster of other countries all at once. The mission, therefore, has always been to separate individual Arab countries from the pact, to pressure, to induce or to beat senseless (like in the cases of Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinian leadership respectively) until a peace deal, according to Israeli terms, is finally reached.
But Syria and Lebanon have thus far maintained a different dynamic in their dealings with Israel.
To begin with, Lebanese resistance demonstrated that Israel would only honor international law if it is forced to do so. To Israel, the partial implementation of UN Resolution 425 and its forced withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2000 was a very dangerous and alarming precedent.
Israel left Lebanon with undeniable humiliation. A major source of embarrassment, aside from the military defeat, was leaving Lebanon an empty stage to political reconfiguration that was not of Israel’s creation.
But what is in it for the United States? The Bush administration has no business in Lebanon whatsoever. There are no natural resources to exploit, no empire — domains — to be protected and no mock battles against terrorism to be fought. Lebanon has been a stable country (despite all the political and sectarian skirmishes), which enjoyed a commendable democratic experience and by far the freest press in the Arab world.
However, thanks to the pro-Israeli neoconservative elements in Washington, the Bush administration is working with the false assumption that Syria is the source of regional tension and must be “stabilized” or taken out.
The neoconservatives found many willing allies among Lebanese dissidents who agreed to play along. Together they helped forge the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003. Also with the help of those allies, Washington has been sending all kinds of signals, warning that Iraq’s fate could very well visit Syria.
Hariri’s assassination is the kind of provocation that precedes major military undertakings or major political reshuffling. The latter is the most likely prospect for now, and the US move to recall its ambassador from Syria “for urgent consultations”, coupled with the organized anti-Syrian campaign are ominous signs.
The Lebanese people have the right to demand and expect full sovereignty. Yet it would be a tragedy if Lebanon found itself free from an Arab neighbor only to fall under the grip of an alien foe, who has killed tens of thousands of Lebanese in recent years.
We might never know who is responsible for Rafik Hariri’s death, but it’s almost sure that his death will give rise to political turmoil of which Israel is the only beneficiary.
— Ramzy Baroud is a veteran Arab-American journalist and editor in chief of PalestineChronicle.com.
