It has been five days since the release of the Spiegel magazine article claiming Hizballah was responsible for the assassination of Rafik Hariri in 2005. So far the streets of Beirut are still quiet, save for the occasional gunshots and fireworks that go off after a speech. But this calm might not necessarily reflect what is going on beneath the surface in the aftermath of the news that could change everything here less than two weeks before the election.
Spiegel magazine reported Saturday that the international tribunal investigating Hariri’s murder had turned its focus to Hizballah. The author of the article, Erich Follath, cites sources “close to the tribunal” and evidence that was “verified by examining internal documents.” But he never names his source. Obviously whoever leaked the information would not want their identity disclosed, but the claim being made is such a potential bombshell that it is borderline irresponsible to print it without solid and presentable evidence to back it up.
From the beginning, people have suspected Syria was behind the hit. At the time, Syrian influence was still very high in Lebanon, but Hariri sought change that. Lebanon was emerging from a brutal civil war and occupation by Israel and Hariri was leading the rebuilding effort. Lebanon was set to retake it’s place as the “Paris of the Middle East”, and to Hariri this was best accomplished as an independent state free from Syrian influence. So Syria had a lot to gain (perhaps the most) from his death.
At the same time, it is alleged that Sunni Harri and Shiite Hizballah were coming to terms. According to Lebanon expert Nicholas Blanford, Hariri had been meeting with Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah just days before he was killed in an attempt at reconciliation between Shia and Sunni. Blanford also claims that Hariri was even using his influence with France’s Jaque Chirac to keep Hizballah off of the European Union’s list of terrorist organizations. If this is true, it doesn’t seem plausible that Hizballah would then turn on Hariri like that, especially when they had so much to gain with his partnership.
Conversely, Syria had a lot to lose in a Sunni/Shia reconciliation in Lebanon. Syria places a high value on its influence on Lebanon, but over the years it has been marginalized. In a reflection of Iran’s position of strength in relation to Syria, so goes the positions of their proxies in Lebanon (Hizballah and Amal, respectively). Today, Hizballah is much more powerful and respected than Amal in Lebanon. If Hizballah was going to cut a deal with the Sunnis led by Hariri, Syria would be the odd man out. So once again, Syria has the most to gain from his death.
The Spiegel article doesn’t address this. But Follath (the author) just talks in vaguaries, like Hizballah’s alleged motive being Nasrallah’s jealousy over Hariri’s popularity. When the motives for Hizballah wanting Hariri dead are weighed against motives for Syria wanting Hariri dead, Follath’s arguments do not hold water.
But Syria might not care all that much. This is a welcomed breather from all the claims implicating them in the plot, because at least the Spiegel article introduces a suspect in the murder other than them. It takes the pressure off that has been building since 2005, and it also gives their pro-Syrian allies in Lebanon (Amal) a little more space to maneuver in the days before the election.
The Saad Hariri-led March 14 coalition also gains from the allegations, or at worst remains stationary. Saad Hiriri has said that he will not comment on claims being made by anyone other that the tribunal, but if the perpetrator is perceived to be Hizballah, any March 8 (Hizballah-led coalition) loss has to be March 14’s gain. This is true whether he believes the report or not.
Of course, Follath will be vindicated if the tribunal releases findings to back him up. For some time, Syria has been trying to discredit the tribunal to soften its findings, and now Hizballah will be doing the same. By the time any charges are actually filed by the tribunal, its credit may be so undermined that people won’t know what to believe to the point where they might not even care.
With ten days to go before the election, and with all its bombshell potential, it seems the story has made little impact. Maybe its a tribute to the weakness of Follath’s evidence and sources. Maybe people here firmly believe Syria was responsible and not even the tribunal can change their minds. Or maybe what it means if Hizballah really was behind the hit is just too frightening to believe.
Since the civil war ended, Lebanon has come so far- even with a few notable setbacks. The violence of the past bubbles up to the surface now and again, but nothing strong enough to send Lebanon back to where it was in the 1980’s. The Sunni are still bitterly angry over Hariri’s assassination. He was their leader. If it turns out the Hizballah really was behind the hit (with evidence), the news may be too tough to bare and once again Lebanon could be facing another hot summer.
So, what if the tribunal fingers Hizballah? For the Sunni of Lebanon, with the future looking so bright here, with Lebanon experiencing prosperity it hasn’t seen in decades, with all the money there is to be made here, would they be willing to sacrifice it all for a vandetta? Or would they bite down hard on their tongues and just put it behind them for the good of the country? Perhaps this time Lebanon will show the world that it is closing the chapter of sectarian violence forever. For now, the streets are still quiet.
