Lebanon and Syria: The Politics of Assassination

By Ramzy Baroud

The assassination of Lebanese politician Antoine Ghanem on September 19 is
likely to be used, predictably, to further US and Israeli interests in the
region.  Most Western and some Arab media have industriously argued that
Syria is the greatest beneficiary from the death of Ghanem, a member of the
Phalange party responsible for much of Lebanon’s bloodshed during the civil
war years between 1975 and 1990. The reasoning provided is that Syria needs
to maintain a measure of political control over Lebanon after being
pressured to withdraw its troops. This political clout could only be
maintained through the purging of anti-Syrian critics in Lebanon, and by
ensuring a Lebanese parliament friendly to Syria. And indeed, with the
elimination of Ghanem, the anti-Syrian coalition at the fractious Lebanese
parliament is now left with an even slimmer majority - 68 MPs in a
128-member assembly.

Case solved.

Or is it?

The Syrian regime may, in fact, be responsible for the murder of six
Lebanese political figures, including Ghanem, since the tragic car-bombing
of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in February 2005.  However,
to understand the situation in Lebanon, one needs to refrain from any
simplistic conclusions. This is not an easy task, however, given that media
reports pertaining to Lebanon classify every Lebanese political figure as
‘pro’ or ‘anti’ Syrian. Such reporting rests on the idea that the Syrian
regime—and only the Syrian regime—has a keen interest in bringing death and
chaos to a small but strategically important Lebanon. By the same logic, all
of Syria’s allies - Iran, Hizbollah in Lebanon, and the Damascus-based
Palestinian groups, including Hamas and various socialist factions - are
regularly implicated by the Western media.

Considering the elaborate politics of assassination in Lebanon and the many
bloody events that were justified on the basis of such killings -
notwithstanding the rationalization of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and
the massacre of Sabra and Shatila in 1982 - one would assume that media
reporters and commentators have learned to become extra cautious before
following official American and Israeli lines.

As a country either fully or partially responsible for destabilizing
Lebanon, Syria may be a probable culprit in Ghanem’s death. This is a view
underscored daily by both those who are either genuinely seeking to liberate
Lebanon from foreign influence and those who wish to dominate the Lebanese
political landscape. But self-interested as it may be, Syria is also known
for being politically savvy and judicious. It has shown this by serving as a
valuable ally in the US ‘war on terror’ since the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001; it willingly collaborated in securing its borders with
Iraq, and even went as far as torturing America’s prisoners in the CIA’s
infamous ‘extraordinary renditions.’

Why would a country that was willing to sink so low now provide pretexts for
hostilities by carrying out brazen assassinations against America’s allies
in Lebanon?  Each such assassination only helps cement the anti-Syrian cries
stemming from Washington, Tel Aviv and Beirut. The Syrian regime’s past is
indisputably cruel, but inanity has hardly been one of its features.

Could it be plausible that Syria is innocent of the most recent bloodletting
in Lebanon? It is mind-boggling to imagine a country which has managed to
survive amidst the incalculable hostility stemming from across all its
borders being so foolish as to carry out such ludicrous crimes with such
harmful consequences at such a critical time. Despite Lebanon’s value in the
Middle East’s ongoing Cold War, Syria, like any other regime under threat,
should be less concerned about dominating a smaller neighbour than in
securing its own survival.

So who are the other possible culprits? Considering Lebanon’s bloodstained
past and the numerous players, sects and factions operating within its
borders, the list seems endless. However, taking into account the nature of
the assassinations (all targeting ‘anti-Syrian’ figures) and the official
line championed by the US and Israel, one can reasonably include those who
wish to drive Syria into a military confrontation, or perhaps a humiliating
political settlement with Israel (which Damascus has refused since its talks
with Tel Aviv broke off in 2000), including a compromise on the occupied
‘Golan Heights’. It would be worth noting here the neoconservative doctrine
prepared by Richard Perle in 1996 for then Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu.  Tellingly entitled ‘A Clean Break: Securing the Realm,’ it
outlines plans to subdue Syria through the Lebanese route. Could this help
to explain why the U.S. and Israeli governments are no longer pursuing
previously concerted efforts and publicly declared objectives and instead
blaming Israel’s military setback in Lebanon in 2006 largely on Syria’s –
and Iran’s - backing of Hizbollah?

It might also be helpful for those who insist that Syria alone is capable of
inflicting such mayhem in Lebanon to remember that Netanyahu recently and
unsurprisingly admitted that the ‘mysterious’ air strike inside Syrian
territories on September 6 - clearly an attempt to coerce Syria into a
military confrontation - was indeed deliberate. US diplomats scrambled to
justify the palpable act of war on the mediocre claim that the Syrian target
bombed by Israeli US-supplied F15 jets ‘may have had links to North Korean
nuclear arms,’ according to the British Guardian. Mediocre or not, a case
against Syria that involves the US, Israel and their allies in the region is
being diligently weaved, and one should not be surprised if the next
military confrontation against Hizbollah will widen to include Syrian
territories as well.

As media and official efforts have conveniently overlooked all other
possible culprits behind the determined efforts to destabilise Lebanon, the
region seems headed for another military confrontation and Lebanon for a
possible civil war.  This will most likely be blamed on Syria, Iran,
Hizbollah and Palestinian factions, and Israel will once again be presented
as acting in self-defence and the US as defending the cause of Israel,
democracy and human rights.

-Ramzy Baroud (ramzybaroud.net)  is an author and editor of
PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers and
journals worldwide. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A
Chronicle of a People’s Struggle (Pluto Press, London).