Today a Christian, anti-Syrian Lebanese Government official, Pierre Gemayel was assasinated on the streets of Beirut. Over a year ago, the ex prime minister, the very popular, anti-Syrian Rafik Hariri was spectacularly assasinated in a massive car bombing on the streets. Of course, the first fingers pointed directly to Damascus.
Syria denied involvement. Today, they denied involvement and issued a statement of sympathy towards the victims family and Lebanon. The assasination of Hariri had the immediate effect of forcing Syria to withdraw their military presence from Lebanon.
Without too much shaky speculation, I would like to propose that Syria was not the perpretator. Why would they commit acts so obvious that only have the effect of turning world opinion against them? Why would they commit an act that has the world pointing fingers at them at the same time they are beginning to cooperate with the United States over Iraq? On the same day that they are in the news establishing relationships with Iraq for the first time in over 20 years?
I really feel the hand of a third party here. One that stands everything to gain by the destabilization of Lebanon and destroying the credibility of Syria. A renewed civil war would be just the reason Israel needs to re invade Lebanon to restabilize things and set them up they way they would want. Think about it.
8 comments:
You "feel" a third party...I might feel that the it was aliens...I'd hold my tongue though. Problematically, your feelings here may be taken seriously and others will use it to confirm their "feelings." This is called "consensus building." In some circles, these "feelings" which lack any evidentiary support are typically referred to as bias. If you were concerned about the potential repercussions of your speech but still chose to blog, you might say "my particular bias leads me to suspect that..."
Just a thought on responsibility. We should all have the freedom of choice, I'd only ask that you choose wisely.
A third party indeed. Espionage serves many purposes and the goals of many states without having to raise its ugly head for all of the world to see.
I have the "feeling" can I use that phrase here? I think that mr. anonymous is trying to tell me to keep my mouth shut and imply that any speculation along these lines is somehow anti-semetic and accuse me of such.
Did you get to this page by googling comments about the Gemayel assasination? Why are you so concerned about one mans ideas?
I think in light of the events of the last few years and the blatant disregard for the value of human life shown by the Israelis by the use of cluster bombs and phosphorus on civiliian populations in Lebanon this summer, they have allowed themselves to be open to suspicion.
"...the destabilization of Lebanon and destroying the credibility of Syria..."
As if both could be worse?
Firstly, you were accused of bias...not antisemitism. An antisemite might have spoken of Jews rather than Israel. You seemed inclined to blame Israel rather than the other interested parties...If you spoke of big noses and evil plots, then you'd be an antisemite. I'm able to distinguish between anti-Israeli bias and antisemitism...and i did.
Secondly, on the issue of other parties: the fact that the act might not produce the optimal result for them, should not lead one to rule them out. Both state and non-state actors often act irrationally. I live in the United States, I know. The point here is that multiple parties should be considered suspect. It's perfectly conceivable and in no way unprecedented that Israel, Syria or Hezbollah might be at fault here.
Thirdly, you wrote:
"Did you get to this page by googling"
Is googling intrusive or too amateurish? Does the method i used to find this page have any bearing on the validity of my comment?
Fourthly, you wrote:
"Why are you so concerned about one mans ideas?"
Why would a person blog if they weren't interested in people taking note of their ideas?
That comment aside, it's not really one man's ideas that concern me. It's this whole consensus building thing that scares me. You see, someone will read what you wrote and their suspicion that Israel may have done it will be strengthened. Inadvertently, you'll have strengthened someone's opinion without having used evidence to do so. Isn't that a little scary? This consensus building thing...it's the reason americans have traditionally equated Arabic people with terrorism. It's the reason so many Middle Easterners believe that Jews sacrifice babies. You have the ability to affect people. In my comment, i was merely suggesting that you might consider being more mindful of that.
Hopefully this provides sufficient clarification.
Mr. Anonymous, you know, I really do agree with you on most of your points. I find myself walking on eggs whenever I make any statement that could be interpreted as being critical of Israel. I have dear friends that I cannot discuss Middle East politics with because of the automatic urge to defend every action of Israels'. I believe that Israel has been forced into a cycle of destructive action to itself and its' neighbors.
I stated my opinion in the piece. I over reacted because I felt that I was being automatically attacked by someone who was trying to quash any criticism of the Israeli State. Admit it, the policy of political assasinations in Palestine really leaves them open to this kind of suspicion. I feel badly for all the people who blindly support Israels actions because of the goodness of their hearts. I see how public opinion is influenced by their organizations in America. I see how they court the fundamental christian religious right. I expected some criticsm for voicing this opinion. Voila!
Hello microdot and anonymous,
This is a very good debate and one that I have thoroughly enjoyed. To anonymous, you have brought up very good points and have presented them very well. You are the type of person I like to see reading and posting your viewpoints on microdot’s blog site.
To speak in behalf of microdot, I recently have sent him personal letters and communications from the people who were involved with the Iran / Contra matter of the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. What was made public and presented as the truth was far from being the truth. (A very good family friend was the lawyer to the CIA agent who Ollie North reported to and the only one who was not indicted. A fact that the lawyer took a great deal of pride with) To carry this thought on, Microdot and I both know that what is presented in the news, be it liberal or conservative, is not necessarily a full divulgence of what the facts are. So to suggest that this assignation of a political leader in Lebanon deserves greater pursuit and investigation, I think is a valid one.
I also want to take this time and wish everyone a Happy Thanksgiving to all who read and post on this blog site. To microdot, keep up the good work and I am looking forward to more of your writings, thoughts, and recipes.
Microdot, what you might find surprising is that I'm also known to be critical of Israel and after spending a semester doing graduate studies on near eastern affairs under the tutelage of a palestinian phd, I've found sufficient reason to maintain that position.
What you say about their policies is true. However, what you will find distinct in Israel is a striking amount of press freedom and open access to government records that could take a century to be declassified within the united states. The nefarious deeds of the Israeli government throughout the last fifty years have quite often been exposed by the Israeli government itself(see The New Israeli Scholars). Therefore, critics of Israel receive factual confirmations.
Outside of Israel, (i.e. syria) you do not find this sort of press freedom and access to information. The misdeeds of many of the corrupt dictatorships and otherwise corrupt governments remain cloaked. While the Israeli government stands aside to allow jewish Israeli's to speak out against it and to create information that rightfully condemns it, the Asaad family (amongst others) are a bit more tight lipped. If you live in Syria, it is not wise to speak ill of the government. The best we can expect in this respect are a few unconfirmed rumors and a plethora of unanswered questions.
Given this lopsided flow of information and their poor track record, Israel is a fairly easy target. In fact, they may have done it...However, given the lack of information attained to date, they don't seem to be more likely a candidate than Syria or the various militaristic shi'i organizations based in Lebanon. My position here is that until more information is available, in any presentation of the matter--and idealistically in the minds of all observers--suspicion should be distributed thoroughly and equally amongst suspect parties. In my mind, this is a safer position...for all of us.
Post a Comment