Civil War in Lebanon? – Moon of Alabama

November 21, 2006

Civil War in Lebanon?

This assassination could very well be the starting point of a new civil war in Lebanon.

Lebanese cabinet minister assassinated in Beirut

BEIRUT – Lebanese anti-Syrian cabinet minister and Christian leader Pierre Gemayel was shot dead in a Christian suburb of Beirut on Tuesday.

Security sources said gunmen opened fire as his convoy drove through the Christian Sin el-Fil neighborhood. Gemayel was rushed to hospital, where he later died of his wounds.
[…]

Gemayel, the minister of industry and son of former President Amin Gemayel, was a member of the Phalange party and supporter of the anti-Syrian parliamentary majority, which is locked in a power struggle with pro-Syrian factions led by Hezbollah.

Of course Syria will be blamed as Haaretz already implicates by using the pro-/anti-Syria attributes.

Could
Syria have done this? Sure I could have. But why would it do so. Its diplomatic position was getting better by each day. Hizbullah had planed big peaceful demonstrations for tomorrow to demand a demographicaly fair share of the power.

So let me ask: Cui bono? Who could benefit from this?

Posted by b on November 21, 2006 at 14:46 UTC | Permalink

Comments

What a strange sense of deja vu… for any not familiar with Lebanese politics, I recall when Pierre’s uncle, Bashir Gemayel, then president-elect of Lebanon, was assassinated on 9.14.82… This was in the wake of the huge Israel war on Lebanon of the summer of 1982, and Bashir Gemayel was Israel’s candidate… the history is very complex but what happened immediately after the assassination was that chaos erupted and the Lebanese Phalange forces invaded the Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camps, committing horrifying massacres under the watch of Israeli troops… Who knows what will ensue in Lebanon now, but it is NOT an auspicious omen. I find it hard to believe that Syria would be that blatantly stupid, particularly as it just yesterday re-established diplomatic relations with Iraq for the first time since 1982… and was invited, with Iraq, to a summit in Iran to work on the alleviating the situation in Iraq (showcasing the regional power of Iran as opposed to the weakness of the US). I do not believe the answer to the question “cui bono” can possibly be Syria in this case, but time will tell.

Posted by: Bea | Nov 21 2006 16:28 utc | 1

Col. Pat Lang, who has been involved in the scene for years, writes:

I am told that Pierre Gemayel was not killed by the Aoun/Shia bloc, but rather by those who wish to delay disintegration of the present political system in Lebanon. In other words, this was a “provocation” intended to get the masses out into the streets where noise will overwhelm negotiation. (no irony at all) This may seem fanciful to many, but that really means that you do not know Lebanon.

Posted by: b | Nov 21 2006 16:39 utc | 2

B: Well, honestly, this is quite obvious.
Bashar al-Assad has brains, contrary to his US colleague, he’s maybe not as tricky as his dad, but he’s not terminally stupid.
Hezb leader has proven this summer he’s smart.
This shit clearly intends to push Maronite/Sunni against Shia/Syria.
Some were just too disappointed that this summer’s war didn’t cause their wishful Lebanese civil war redux, so they give it another try.

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Nov 21 2006 17:07 utc | 3

Sorry, I’m spamming here.
They’re not even cautious when it comes to covering their tracks, these guys are really pityful amateurish buffoons, or they just don’t care.
Just read Pat Lang’s *previous entry* on his blog, predating Gemayel’s murder…

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Nov 21 2006 17:11 utc | 4

I find it hard to believe that Syria would be that blatantly stupid, particularly as it just yesterday re-established diplomatic relations with Iraq for the first time since 1982… and was invited, with Iraq, to a summit in Iran to work on the alleviating the situation in Iraq (showcasing the regional power of Iran as opposed to the weakness of the US).
the US has recently been making nice w/syria.

Intelligence sources report that the Bush 41 team, still grateful for Syrian President Hafez al Assad’s support for Operation Desert Storm, is working to exonerate Bashar Assad, Assad’s son, for his government’s alleged role in the February 2005 car bomb assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. WMR has previously reported that Hariri’s assassination was ordered by neo-cons in Israel and the United States who wanted to implement their “Clean Break” policy in order to drive Syrian occupation troops out of Lebanon and then engineer wars with the Lebanese Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran. With the Iraq Study Group led by Bush 41 Secretary of State James Baker and including Defense Secretary-designate Robert Gates engaged in negotiations with Syria to work out an American military withdrawal from Iraq, the neo-con charges against Syria for the Hariri assassination are being cast aside, according to U.S. intelligence sources.
…
Intelligence sources report that the Bush 41 team, still grateful for Syrian President Hafez al Assad’s support for Operation Desert Storm, is working to exonerate Bashar Assad, Assad’s son, for his government’s alleged role in the February 2005 car bomb assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. WMR has previously reported that Hariri’s assassination was ordered by neo-cons in Israel and the United States who wanted to implement their “Clean Break” policy in order to drive Syrian occupation troops out of Lebanon and then engineer wars with the Lebanese Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran. With the Iraq Study Group led by Bush 41 Secretary of State James Baker and including Defense Secretary-designate Robert Gates engaged in negotiations with Syria to work out an American military withdrawal from Iraq, the neo-con charges against Syria for the Hariri assassination are being cast aside, according to U.S. intelligence sources.

nov 10, scroll
very interesting the timing of one assasination blame off syria, another surfaces.. who benefits?
The detente with Syria and its Lebanese allies is sure to irritate the neo-cons loyal to Vice President Dick Cheney but as the article below suggests, Cheney’s days as well as those of his allies may be numbered. With Cheney’s mentor Rumsfeld now out of the Pentagon, the Cheney wing of the administration is extremely vulnerable.

Posted by: annie | Nov 21 2006 17:56 utc | 5

New York Times

Israeli Foreign Affairs Minister Tzipi Livni said: ”The news from Lebanon is another example of the kind of region, the kind of neighborhood we are living in.”

poor me

Posted by: beq | Nov 21 2006 18:17 utc | 6

The NYT titles predictably: “Anti-Syrian Minister Is Assassinated in Lebanon”
WaPo: “Lebanese Cabinet Member Assassinated”
The anti-syrian is not the main feature in this conflict.
It is about a power sharing agreement that gives more power to the christian fractions than to the shia (based on a 1938 or so count), even though the demographics have changed and the christians are now a minority.
For the Gemayel clan and its protofascist party (as well as for Hariri) it is all about keeping the unjustified share of power. For Hisbullah it is to get the deserved power for their constituency.
Syria definitly has its own role in here too (Lebanon was a part of Syria but during the “decolonizing” France and Britain carved out Lebanon as a “Christian country”) – but the influence is less than is percieved in the “west”.

Posted by: b | Nov 21 2006 18:26 utc | 7

rami khouri timely article out today. i presume this was written before the asasination. as he is the editor for the beruit daily star i read his editorials as a backdrop for any news coming out of lebanon.

It is difficult to read a serious news analysis of American options in Iraq without running into the idea that Washington must open a dialogue with Syria and Iran. This means that Iran and Syria have won the first round of their political boxing match with the United States — also that we are likely to witness a spike in regional tensions. Round two of this contest for control of the Middle East sees the antagonists probing all angles of their opponent’s potential weak spots.
…
Currently, this concept of engaging Syria and Iran smacks of a troubling combination of romanticism, desperation and neo-colonialism. Syria and Iran have a combined total of around 10,000 years of cumulative experience in dealing with foreign armies that come into the area with an eye to re-configuring the region and dominating the world. They know how to deal with such phenomena, including by letting the foreigners get hopelessly stuck in the local quicksand, spinning them around a few times to increase their confusion, and then negotiating a deal that gets them out, make them look good, and reverts local hegemony to the local powers.
The United States has used significant diplomatic and economic pressures, and not-so-veiled military threats, in the past three years to attempt changes in the policies of Damascus and Tehran, without major success. So now it seems prepared to try a more rational approach. Syria and Iran are perfectly willing to engage in dialogue. They have a list of issues they would like to include in such discussions, starting with an American commitment to drop regime change as a sword Washington hangs over their head.
…
Washington is in the awkward position of seeking a dialogue and political cooperation with two countries that it has either mainly ignored or actively sanctioned and threatened in recent years. It has diligently disregarded their advice on addressing the Palestine-Israel issue and Israeli occupation of Arab lands as the essential starting point for any revised and more constructive American engagement in the region. So now Washington expects them both to stand at attention and offer cordial assistance, only because the United States cannot figure out how to get out of the mess it created for itself and for Iraq? Neo-colonialism comes in many forms, and this is only the latest and most acute.
The United States is prepared to make reasonable deals — as most superpowers desperate for redemptive exit strategies from foreign military adventures usually are. The problem for Washington is that its recent pressures against Iran and Syria have expanded into international processes. A Security Council-mandated investigation into the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri may blame Syrians for the dirty deed, and Iran is being hauled in front of the same Security Council to be sanctioned for its ongoing nuclear industry developments.

It is about a power sharing agreement that gives more power to the christian fractions than to the shia (based on a 1938 or so count), even though the demographics have changed and the christians are now a minority.
i agree that is what it is supposed to look like, that would be a natural easily formulated assumption. one the other hand, in the region we have the inclusion of these recent talks w/iran and syria. a weakening of the neocon/zionist/israel approach. how can we negotiate w/iran over iraq nd threaten to bomb them at the same time? wasn’t lebanon used as a pawn in the game once before to inflame conflict in the region? this pivotal timing? who benifits from a civil war in lebanon? who benefits from civil war in iraq. i won’t take any options off the table. except perhaps the most obvious.

Posted by: annie | Nov 21 2006 19:18 utc | 8

@annie – ack (in comp speech)
A very, very revealing interview with outgoing Israeli ambassador in the U.S.: Israel: Outgoing Ambassador To US Views Iran Issue, Saudi Plan, Bilateral Ties
Interview with Dani Ayalon, Israel’s outgoing Ambassador in
Washington, by Ben Kaspit; in Washington, date not given: “Bush Will
Take Steps Against Iran, Use Force if Necessary”
Ma’ariv (Internet Version-WWW)
Sunday, November 19, 2006Just a few bits here:

(Kaspit) Did they really give us card blanche to do everything in that war?
(Ayalon) Almost everything. They asked us not to damage Lebanese
infrastructures, so as not to hurt Al-Sanyurah, and to involve as few
civilians as possible. I was in constant contact with Condoleezza and
her people, Yoram Turbowicz was in contact with Steve Hadley, and
Tzipi Livni also talked to Rice. We were fully coordinated. I gave my
input from here about the situation here and it flowed well.
…
(Kaspit) Since this was the precursor of the real struggle against
Iran, what do you think about President Bush? Will he allow Iran to go
nuclear?
(Ayalon) No. I have been here for nearly five years. I know my way
around the corridors. I maintain good ties with the President, and I
am friends with his people. I tell you because I know that first they
will try every political path possible, then they will try imposing
effective sanctions, and in the end, if there is no other choice, he
will take action.
…
(Kaspit) How will it [the election] affect us?
(Ayalon) It will not affect us, just the contrary. The Americans’
support for us is not partisan. Nancy Pelosi, Tom Lantos, Rahm
Emmanuel, Joe Bayden, Steny Hoyer — all those prominent Democrats —
are huge friends of Israel. Tom Dashel once said that when it comes to
the issue of Israel, there are no Democrats or Republicans. They are
all Americans.
…
(Ayalon) Not at all. Look, when the war in Lebanon started, one of the
most liberal Democrats told me: “Go for Nasrallah’s head.” The
Neo-Cons are not the only ones who understand terror these days. The
world is changing. Everybody knows now what Israel is going through.
They understand the consequences of terror. From the US point of view,
Israel has turned into something like a laboratory, a model that
proves that terror can be beaten, that there are ways of dealing with
suicide terrorists. Every day that goes by with no suicide terrorist
blowing up in Tel Aviv helps the Americans prove to the Europeans that
they must not blink, that they must not make compromises with terror.
Therefore, the difference between the Neo-Cons and the liberal
Democrats in this area is insubstantial.
(Kaspit) If in the next presidential elections Condoleezza should run
against Hillary Clinton, who gets your vote?
(Ayalon) That is a good question. It is a real problem for me.

Billmon?

Posted by: b | Nov 21 2006 19:50 utc | 9

Yawn…Gasp…Gag…Mossad/their allies to scuttle BushDaddy’s Boys incipient negotiations w/Syria & Iran…

Posted by: jj | Nov 21 2006 20:07 utc | 10

jj, my sentiments exactly.
b, thanks for link, post, thead, moon, etc

Posted by: annie | Nov 21 2006 20:32 utc | 11

b, ditto what annie said. Thanks for all that you do here!

Posted by: Bea | Nov 21 2006 21:30 utc | 12

YouTube – America and the Third World War
John Stockwell is an ex Cia Chief he coined the term “Third World War” in the eighties, here he talks of creation of the 3rd World War…
“We are not attackin our enemy we are attacking the 3rd World”
Covert war for over 40 yrs.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Nov 21 2006 22:28 utc | 13

addendum:
John Stockwell page
Wikipedia: John Stockwell

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Nov 21 2006 22:31 utc | 14

Cheney is losing its grip on power by the day, after the disastrous election, and he still wants to go after Iran. So… anything making life harder for reasonable people is good for him, I guess.
Ayalon is stupid. Europe hasn’t daily terror bombings, never had. They just don’t need to “compromise with terrorists” or to “get tough on terror” to avoid daily bombings.

Posted by: Clueless Joe | Nov 21 2006 22:56 utc | 15

As the Angry Arab rightly states:
The UN Security Council today condemned the assassination of Pierre Gemayyel and considered it a “violation of Lebanon’s sovereignty” (!?). The same Security Council did not condemn the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and did not consider it a violation of Lebanon’s sovereignty.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Nov 21 2006 23:04 utc | 16

it is highly unlikely that Iran, Syria or Hizbollah would jeopadize their steadily increasing relevance in the Middle-East by assasinating Pierre Gemayel. As inciteful as his stupid fascist statements celebrating the superiority of Chrisians were, his assasination constitutes a far greater provocation of the Christian Falange as well as the greater Lebanese public, than Syria, Iran or Hezbollah would even remotely want to be associated with, especially at this time.
When all else fails, create chaos. Nothing new.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Nov 22 2006 2:40 utc | 17

b–
Thanks for the link.
Clueless Joe–
Reading the interview I don’t think Ayalon is stupid, exactly, more like clever and vicious.
And completely wrong-headed.

Posted by: Gaianne | Nov 22 2006 6:00 utc | 18

“So let me ask: Qui bono? Who could benefit from this?”
In these loony times, let me guess…The Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan??

Posted by: pb | Nov 22 2006 6:03 utc | 19

missinglinks has an excellent post

The Pierre Gemayel assassination was probably the most quickly solved murder in history. In fact, even before the trigger was pulled, the Israeli intelligence groupies at MEMRI issued a report (dated November 21, the same day as the assassination) dramatizing the Hizbullah decision to hold street-demonstrations in support of their demands for bigger representation in Cabinet, under the scary heading “Lebanon on the brink of civil war”. MEMRI added: “It should be noted that these statements and threats are supported by Syria and Iran.”
And when the assassination news broke, the Western news outlets, as if with a single voice, referred to the victim as the anti-Syrian cabinet minister Pierre Gemayel. Knowledgable people everywhere “hinted” at the involvement of Syria in this. Or at least they referred to people who did, including Israeli foreign minister Livni, US ambassador to the UN John Bolton, and Saad Hariri. Quite a broad cross-section, in other words, of informed opinion.
Naturally, the guilty verdict against Syria isn’t based on any forensic evidence in the traditional sense of the word. It is all based on motive, namely a supposed Syrian motive for destabilizing the Lebanese political process.
Which is surprising, since it seems clear that Syria stood to benefit from the current directions in political development, not only in Lebanon, but in the Mideast region as a whole. Hizbullah has been intent on exploiting the opportunity to advance its position domestically, and it is hard to see how any gains it made would have been upsetting to Syria. Meanwhile, the Bush administration had quietly asked the Syrian administration to help out in the pacification of Iraq, and this was reflected in the highly-publicized visit to Baghdad by the Syrian foreign minister on the weekend. Any such US request would have involved some degree of US concessions to Syria, and this would probably have involved an easing of direct US pressure on the Syrian regime, and a lighter US hand in Lebanon. Hardly the kind of environment that would make the Syrian regime anxious to stir up an international outcry over an assassination.
On the other hand, there are a couple of regimes that could well have felt they were losing control of the regional political evolution. Unexpectedly, the visit to Baghdad by the Syrian foreign minister was quickly followed up by the news about a three-country summit in Tehran next weekend. Maybe it’s just me, but if I were in charge in Tel Aviv or Washington, I would have been more than a little upset to hear that. This was supposed to be a controlled process for the strictly-limited purpose of pacifying Iraq, and suddenly it was turning into a Syrian-Iraqi-Iranian summit. Without the US, and where none of the participants was particularly friendly to Israel.
Which is merely to say that if all there is to go on is motive for upsetting the card-table, I don’t think the finger points that decisively at Syria. Quite the contrary.
Of course, once you realize that Western news media didn’t point out to people the dramatic shift in the US-Syria dynamics, or the regional implications of the Tehran-summit idea, perhaps you can being to understand the Syria-is-guilty mentality. All you have to do is recall that for the entire six years of the Bush administration Syria has been the embodiment of evil. So I guess after all it wasn’t that hard to pick them out of the lineup.

Posted by: annie | Nov 22 2006 9:33 utc | 20

nimmo weighs in

Baker, a consummate CFR globalist—or, as the elitists like to call themselves, an “internationalist”—is no friend of the Arabs, however. “If the Baker Commission plan prevails,” writes Stephen Lendman, Iraq is “likely to be divided into several autonomous regions under nominal Iraqi regional and national rule but centrally controlled by a dominant US authority headquartered in the US Embassy in the fortress-like Green Zone using a US-directed satrap Iraqi army and police to enforce order for its master in charge of everything.”
This does not deviate from the neocon plan to a large degree. However, the neocons and the Israelis are not amenable to talking with the Syrians and Iranians, even with a back-stabbing dagger hidden away for the appropriate coup de grâce, a trick far too many Arabs have fallen for in the past. Instead, the neocons prefer to rush to judgment and unleash a withering shock and awe campaign against the Iranians and the Syrians, although rolling back Syria, described as a “regional challenger” in the neocon holy writ, the Clean Break document, will suffice for now.
It should be obvious Israel’s Mossad engineered the assassination of Pierre Gemayel in Lebanon as a response to the Baker Boys and the emerging recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. It was, in effect, a stone thrown to kill two birds—one, to sully Syria and thus make any accommodation proposed by Baker and Hamilton untenable and second to ratchet up ethnic and religious animosity in Lebanon, a process well underway in the wake of Pierre Gemayel’s timely murder.

Posted by: annie | Nov 22 2006 18:46 utc | 21

nimmo’s surely out of his mind, right? gemayel family & philangists have a long cozy relationship w/ israel/u.s./france.

Posted by: slothrop | Nov 22 2006 18:50 utc | 22

From the wayback machine, circa July 2003.

Serving and former U.S. intelligence officials attributed a political motive to the attacks, alleging they were designed to disrupt cooperation between the CIA and Syrian intelligence.
“Syria has given us invaluable help on hunting down members of al-Qaida, and they were instrumental in ex-filtrating some major Iraqi fugitives back to Baghdad,” one former senior CIA official said. “That is not to everyone’s liking.”
In early May, two top Iraqi biological scientists who had been hiding in safe havens in Syria were ex-filtrated back to Iraq where they were captured by U.S. military forces, former CIA officials said.
A U.S. intelligence official told UPI: “It was a gift to Secretary of State Colin Powell” and also an effort by Damascus to compensate for its apparent lack of cooperation with the United States in closing the Damascus offices of Palestinian militant groups, which are on Washington’s list of terrorist organizations.
But CIA-Syria cooperation was far more extensive, former and serving U.S. intelligence officials said.
According to these sources, Syria and the CIA have a joint exploitation center based in Aleppo, plus Syria turned over to the agency all its intelligence networks in Germany as well as all of Syria’s cover companies there. As a result, the agency learned that Sept. 11, 2001, hijacker Mohammed Atta once worked in Germany for a Syrian cover company, these sources said.
“Syria was not the only source, but they were very helpful in this matter,” a former senior CIA official said.
The CIA was also grateful to Damascus for giving early warning of a planned al-Qaida attack on U.S. installations in Bahrain, using an explosives-laden glider, which would be invisible to radar, according to these sources.
“The Syrians have been an incredible help in sharing intelligence,” one serving U.S. intelligence officer said.
Senior Pentagon leaders, who administration officials describe as being very close to Israel, have been unhappy with the increasingly close CIA-Syria ties and used the June 18 attack to disrupt the CIA-Syrian intelligence relationship.
“I think that certain Pentagon officials want to see (Syrian president) Bashar Assad deposed and Syria sign a peace treaty with Israel,” said former senior DIA official Pat Lang.

http://tinyurl.com/6sr5o

Posted by: Thrasyboulos | Nov 22 2006 19:03 utc | 23

gemayel family & philangists have a long cozy relationship w/ israel/u.s./france.
When has that ever restricted israel/u.s./france to stab that back?

Posted by: b | Nov 22 2006 19:28 utc | 24

i’m w/ya on that b, nice link thras

Posted by: annie | Nov 22 2006 21:30 utc | 25

Informative and intelligible Lebanese perspective:
Reasons for killing a politician in Lebanon (and elsewhere)
Also check Israeli Enlightenment at the same blog.
And Anecdotes from a Banana Republic says the March 14 bloc (phalangists, pro-Hariri sunnis, etc.) are preparing for “incidents of vandalism and possibly violence,” but she doesn’t think all-out civil war is likely.

Posted by: Alamet | Nov 22 2006 23:18 utc | 26

Asia Times’ analysis on “cui bono?”

Posted by: Bea | Nov 27 2006 19:33 utc | 27

A non dumb CNN employee: Michael Ware

Posted by: b | Nov 27 2006 20:17 utc | 28

Back to Main