The Power Struggle for Control of Lebanon on the Eve of the Release of the
Indictment in the Al-Hariri Assassination Case
By: N. Mozes*/MEMRI
December 7, 2010 Inquiry & Analysis Series Report No.648
Introduction
"Hizbullah and its allies have a full spectrum of options, from inaction to
extensive action, that would bring about significant political change at the
governmental level."[1] Thus, Hizbullah secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah
described the options that will be open to his organization after the
International Tribunal for Lebanon issues its indictment in the case of the
assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Al-Hariri. While Nasrallah
gave no hint that he has a preferred outcome, his statements ratchet up the
uncertainty and apprehension that prevail in Lebanon in advance of the
indictment's release – uncertainty and apprehension that stem from the
expectation that the indictment will accuse Hizbullah members of the
assassination, and, according to some reports, will also implicate Syria.
In recent months, Hizbullah has made the issue of the International Tribunal
into a bone of contention with the March 14 Forces – that is, Lebanese Prime
Minister Sa'd Al-Hariri and his supporters – after it had (at least formally)
been a matter of consensus in Lebanon.
The importance of the tribunal to the March 14 Forces is clear; it is the one
charged with investigating the assassination of Rafiq Al-Hariri in 2005, as well
as political assassinations that have taken place in Lebanon since then – most
of which have been against members of the March 14 Forces. Accordingly,
abolishing the tribunal, or undermining it, will leave the March 14 Forces
vulnerable to physical attack, and will sanction the ongoing political
assassinations in the country. Thus, the international tribunal symbolizes the
struggle of the March 14 Forces, and is an important element in their political
agenda.
For Hizbullah, the international tribunal is a flagrant provocation, because an
indictment against it will stain its reputation in both the Arab and the
international arenas. In recent months, Hizbullah has sought to minimize any
possible damage that could result from the indictment's release, by depicting it
as part of a Zionist-American plot to harm Hizbullah and, indeed, all of
Lebanon, and thereby discrediting it, and by demanding that Lebanese Prime
Minister Sa'd Al-Hariri exonerate Hizbullah completely.
It should be noted that since the national unity government's establishment a
year ago, the March 8 Forces (i.e., Hizbullah and its allies in Lebanon), which
are part of the government, have made it difficult for Prime Minister Sa'd
Al-Hariri to function in various areas that have nothing to do with the
international tribunal: they have blocked the state budget, encouraged various
sectors to protest against the government over employment conditions,[2] and
accused the government of relinquishing national resources for Israel's
benefit.[3] These moves paralyzed the government, and served as a pretext for
March 8 Forces demands that it disband.
It is not inconceivable that Hizbullah and its allies, in Lebanon and outside
it, could leverage the struggle over the indictment and the international
tribunal to change the balance in the parliament and in the government, and take
advantage of the majority they already have in parliament so as to allow the
March 8 Forces to take control by democratic means. Statements by Wiam Wahhab, a
former Lebanese minister who is close to Syria and Hizbullah, support this; he
said that "the battle is over the regime, not over the tribunal... [Prime
Minister Sa'd Al] Hariri must agree to a power-share, or must leave..."[4]
Wahhab told the Syrian daily Al-Watan that what was at issue was not only
Hizbullah's exoneration in Al-Hariri's assassination, but also "Sa'd Al-Hariri's
attempt to pull Lebanon into [unacceptable] regional and international
alliances... Today, [Syrian] President Bashar Al-Assad holds the cards in
Lebanon, Iraq, and Palestine. These are the facts of a new policy that Sa'd
Al-Hariri must internalize..." Wahhab added that stability in Lebanon is
contingent upon the dismantling of the March 14 Forces, which he called an
American creation.[5]
Hizbullah's Moves
Hizbullah and its leader Hassan Nasrallah are waging a multi-front battle to
clear its name; the battle includes an extensive propaganda campaign to destroy
the international tribunal's legitimacy and to harm the image of Hizbullah's and
Nasrallah's rivals, the March 14 Forces, in the eyes of Lebanese and Arab public
opinion. By means of its representatives and with the help of its allies in the
Lebanese parliament and government, Hizbullah is seeking to pressure Prime
Minister Sa'd Al-Hariri to remove his support for the international tribunal,
both by paralyzing the government and by systematically intimidating the March
14 Forces and their regional and international supporters.
Destroying the International Tribunal's Legitimacy
Hizbullah's main claim against the international tribunal is that it is a
political institution operated by international forces that seek to harm the
resistance, not a legal body engaged in uncovering the truth about the Al-Hariri
assassination.
According to Nasrallah, at the outset the international investigatory committee
pointed at Syria as the sole culprit, and that after it reached a dead end, it
turned in Hizbullah's direction, without even considering the possibility that
Israel was behind the assassination.[6] At a well-engineered press conference,
Nasrallah presented ostensible evidence of Israel's involvement in the
assassination,[7] and claimed that prosecutor Daniel Bellemare was in contact
with foreign security apparatuses and was leaking information in order to
prepare the ground for indicting Hizbullah in the crime.[8]
Nasrallah presented the international tribunal's decision to release four senior
Lebanese officers with Syria connections, who had been arrested on suspicion of
involvement in the assassination, as another sign of the tribunal's
politicization and lack of objectivity.[9] He said that their release proved
that the investigation had for years been based on "false witnesses," and that
after the officers were released there was no attempt to find out who was behind
them.[10] Nasrallah also claimed in the press conference that the investigation
had been based on information provided by Israel-controlled media.[11]
Nasrallah claimed that accusing first Syria and then Hizbullah was an attempt by
Israel and the U.S. to eliminate the forces that opposed them, by harming their
image and their reputation – after the previous attempt, i.e. the 2006 war, had
been thwarted.[12] Na'im Qassem, Nasrallah's deputy, said that the indictment
had become a synonym for an attack on the resistance, and was no longer a path
to the truth.[13] He said that today, the investigation was only a cover for the
gathering of intelligence on Hizbullah for Israel, adding: "What is happening
now is outrageous. The investigation is over. The indictment that they say will
be released was actually written in 2006, and the [German] weekly Der Spiegel
reported as much. I have known this since 2008... All these investigations are a
cover for gathering as much information as possible, [information] that
contributes nothing to the investigation..."[14]
Nasrallah called on all of Lebanon's residents to boycott the tribunal's
investigators and not to cooperate with them, saying that such cooperation meant
supporting the forces working against the resistance.[15] Hizbullah MP Hussein
Al-Mousawi declared an open conflict with the international tribunal and with
the Americans and the Zionists, who he said are sponsoring it, warning that
cooperating with the tribunal or with any international element that could serve
Israel constitutes betrayal of Lebanon.[16]
As part of the efforts to impede the tribunal's operation, in September this
year MPs from the March 8 Forces tried to block the transferring of Lebanon's
part in the tribunal's budget (49%), on the grounds that the Lebanese Finance
Minister had approved this funding by devious and unconstitutional means. It
should be noted that six months prior to this, the government, including the
March 8 representatives, had approved the transfer of the funds for the
tribunal. In response to a question on this, a March 8 MP said, "at the time, we
had not yet decided to launch the battle against the international
tribunal."[17]
Hizbullah has also sabotaged the efforts of the international investigators on
the ground. For example, on October 27, 2010, during a pre-scheduled meeting
between the tribunal's investigators and the manager of a clinic in the Dahiya
neighborhood in Beirut, a group of women stormed in and, according to the daily
Al-Hayat, took away documents and a portable computer belonging to the
investigators. The Al-Mustaqbal daily, owned by the Al-Hariri family, reported
that the women had been accompanied by Hizbullah members.[18]
The Kuwaiti daily Al-Rai reported that Hizbullah is following Lebanese officers
who are cooperating with the investigation, whom it regards as "spies," as well
as foreign officers and investigators of the tribunal, whom it regards as
"unwanted elements" in Lebanon.[19]
Presenting the March 14 Forces as Israeli Agents
As part of their struggle against the tribunal, Hizbullah and its allies claimed
that the March 14 Forces had contacts with Israel, the U.S., and other elements
hostile to the resistance – in effect accusing them of treason. In a speech on
the occasion of Martyrs' Day, Nasrallah accused the Al-Siniora government of
prolonging the 2006 war with Israel after a ceasefire had been agreed upon, and
thus held this government responsible for increasing the Lebanese
death-toll.[20]
Following reports about the exposure of an Israeli spy network in Lebanon,
Nasrallah claimed that these agents had proliferated in recent years because of
"their conviction that they were not being pursued or kept under surveillance...
[and because the climate] in Lebanon embraces them and sees nothing wrong in
their ties with Israel or in their acting as its agents... We have come to the
point where collaborating with Israel is a political [stance] and is regarded as
a [legitimate] option in the local and regional struggle... The ones who created
[this climate] must take care, lest they become accomplices [in the crimes of
the spies] they are protecting."[21]
As part of the efforts to compel the March 14 Forces to comply with Hizbullah's
demands, Nasrallah warned them that the U.S. and France, on whom they rely, are
involved in Lebanon only for their own selfish purposes and in order to protect
Israel. He said that the U.S. was the one who had instigated the Civil War in
1975, and that France was the one who had insisted on introducing amendments
into the Taif Agreement that improved the status of the Shi'ites at the expense
of the Sunnis and Christians. He added that former U.S. president George W. Bush
had done nothing to help the Al-Siniora government on May 7, 2008 (i.e., during
the Hizbullah takeover of Beirut), because these events had not threatened
Israel.[22]
Several articles in the daily Al-Akhbar, which is close to Syria and Hizbullah,
warned Sa'd l-Hariri that the U.S. did not have allies, but only interests, so
he should not expect it to come to his rescue, especially since Lebanon was at
the bottom of its priority list.[23] One of the articles also stated that Saudi
Arabia, Al-Hariri's patron, has realized that it must not pin all its hopes on
him, and that in order to preserve its influence among the Lebanese Sunnis, it
must develop ties with other Sunni leaders, including Al-Hariri's rivals.[24]
Another contended that Prince 'Abd Al-'Aziz, the Saudi king's advisor who is in
charge of the Lebanon dossier in Saudi Arabia, had suggested that Al-Hariri
would resign, and in return his rivals would not harm Saudi Arabia's
interests.[25]
Paralyzing the Government
Today, opposition elements refused to let the government convene until it places
the issue of the false witnesses at the top of its agenda, thereby preventing
the management of any other issue, such as the budget. Social Affairs Minister
Salim Al-Sayegh, from the March 14 Forces, described the situation as a "cold
war," saying that Lebanon was being held hostage to the false witnesses
issue.[26]
Threats Directed at Al-Hariri
Hizbullah and its allies are presenting Prime Minister Al-Hariri and his
supporters with a choice between justice and calm, that is, between bringing the
murderers to trial and maintaining Lebanon's stability. They are threatening
mass riots and protests that will paralyze the country, or worse – civil war. On
several occasions, Nasrallah clarified that his organization would not remain
silent in the face of "political accusations": "[Hizbullah] is part of the state
[institutions], the government, and the parliament, and if [other] elements in
the government make allegations... of this kind, we will not tolerate it...
because it would be an attack on us and on our image. [Such] a political
accusation may have serious repercussions on the political and social level, and
[a grave impact on] everyday life in Lebanon, on the local and national
levels..."[27]
Nasrallah threatened that Hizbullah will "cut off the hand" that tries to arrest
any of its members for murder,[28] and that "whoever is behind [the attempt to
blame Hizbullah] will come to regret it. Everyone must know that on May 7,
[2008], we merely lifted our hand, but we are strong enough to overturn ten
tables..."[29] He stressed that his organization would reject any compromise,
including the option of indicting Hizbullah members in the murder without
implicating the organization as a whole. "Even if they say, 'we are not blaming
Hizbullah, but [only] individuals within it,' they will still do us harm," he
said.[30]
The Resistance Axis – Iran and Syria
Unsurprisingly, Hizbullah has the support of its patron Iran and its ally Syria.
In the last two months, Syria has been negotiating with Saudi Arabia, the main
patron of the March 14 Forces, in order to reach understandings on Lebanon.
Recently, Iran has entered the negotiations as well, which may indicate that
Syria's influence over Hizbullah is limited, or that there is need for a
weightier regional power that can reach understandings with Saudi Arabia about
other sensitive regions, such as Iraq, in return for compromises in Lebanon.
Iran
The visit of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Lebanon in mid-October was
a significant show of support for Hizbullah and Nasrallah. According to reports,
Ahmadinejad politely refused a request by Sa'd Al-Hariri to persuade Hizbullah
to be moderate in its response to an indictment against its operatives, on the
grounds that this was an internal Lebanese affair. However, at a mass rally held
in his honor in Hizbullah's stronghold in Beirut, the Iranian president did not
refrain from giving his opinion about the investigation, saying that the West
was responsible for Al-Hariri's murder and is trying to blame it on Iran's
allies as part of its battle against this country.[31]
Syria
Until recently, Syria – which was the main suspect in the Al-Hariri
assassination, since it controlled Lebanon at the time, and since it seemed
unlikely that an operation of this magnitude could be realized without its
knowledge – took a stance similar to Hizbullah's, trying to discredit and
abolish the international tribunal. Turning the spotlights from Syria to
Hizbullah after the publication of the Der Spiegel article did not make Syria
abandon its fight against the tribunal. An indictment of Hizbullah, Syria's
strategic ally in Lebanon, would harm its status as a state and would raise
questions about how it did not know anything about such a plan by the Lebanese
organization. Furthermore, it may be that Syria's apprehensions about the
international tribunal stem from the fact that it is still considered a suspect
itself, as a backer of Hizbullah in the assassination. Another possibility is
that Syria is seeking to retaliate against the March 14 Forces and their
supporters in the region and outside it for leading the struggle against Syria
following the assassination. Ghassan Sa'ud, a columnist in the daily Al-Akhbar,
wrote, "Syria wants to mock the international tribunal, not because the
indictment worries Hizbullah, but in order to prove that [the accusations] were
an international lie from the outset."[32]
Although Syrian officials stress that the tribunal is strictly a domestic
Lebanese affair that does not concern Syria, this country has acted to abolish
the tribunal, or at least to postpone the release of the indictment, while
forcefully supporting Hizbullah. According to a report in Al-Akhbar, in one
meeting with Sa'd Al-Hariri, Al-Assad stressed that any accusation of Hizbullah
and the resistance was an accusation against Syria,[33] and made it absolutely
clear to him that that he must choose between the tribunal and staying in power
– otherwise Lebanon would be destroyed and his premiership would be over.[34] It
was also reported that at a preparation meeting in advance of the joint visit by
Al-Assad and Saudi King 'Abdallah in Lebanon in order to calm the situation
there, Assad called for abolishing the tribunal because it was a political
burden to Lebanon, and stressed the danger posed by an indictment of Hizbullah,
which Syria supports.[35]
Despite this stance of Syria, the two leaders carried out their joint visit to
Beirut. According to reports in the Lebanese press, the Saudis promised to act
to postpone the release of the indictment, and in return, Syria instructed its
allies in Lebanon to lower the flames of the conflict. The resulting calm was
short lived. Only a few days after the visit, Wiam Wahhab, a former Lebanese
minister who is close to the Syrian leadership, warned that if Hizbullah is
directly attacked and civil war breaks out in Lebanon, Syria's tanks will
reenter its territory.[36] Wahhab told the Kuwaiti daily Al-Jarida: "If a
sectarian civil war breaks out in Lebanon, Syria will surely intervene... in
order to stop [the fighting], by every means at its disposal and without asking
anyone's permission."[37]
Reports also had it that Syria was displeased with Sa'd Al-Hariri for failing to
keep his promises. Contradicting earlier reports about a rapprochement between
Al-Hariri and Syria, columnist Ghassan Sa'ud wrote that trust had never
prevailed between the two sides, and that Syria was disappointed with Al-Hariri
because, while it had taken trust-building measures – such as remaining neutral
during the last Lebanese parliamentary elections – Al-Hariri had not fulfilled
his commitments, going so far as to ask Syria to pressure Hizbullah into
accepting the indictment.[38]
In a September 2010 interview with the Wall Street Journal during a visit to New
York, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Al-Mu'allem said that the tribunal's
investigation was political, and, echoing Hizbullah's demand, called to replace
it with a Lebanese tribunal in order to ensure an objective investigation. Al-Mu'allem
warned that an indictment against Hizbullah would destabilize Lebanon.[39] On
another occasion, Al-Mu'allem called on the Lebanese "to remove the reasons for
the instability and tension that we are currently witnessing in Lebanon [meaning
the tribunal]."[40]
Recently, it was reported that Syria had severed contacts with Al-Hariri on the
grounds that it was "unwilling to talk with one who is conspiring against the
resistance."[41] Al-Akhbar columnist Ghassan Sa'ud wrote that Syria was no
longer sure Al-Hariri could bring about reconciliation between Syria and the
Lebanese people, and cited a Syrian official as saying, "Lebanon needs a
fundamental change… which means replacing Sa'd Al-Hariri, since he is the only
obstacle to a [Syrian-Lebanese] reconciliation." [42]
In addition, Syria renewed its media campaign against the March 14 Forces.
Syrian Prime Minister Naji 'Otri, who has rarely referred to this issue,
described them as "unimportant cardboard figures."[43] 'Ali Jamalo, editor of
the Syrian website Champress, who is close to the Syrian regime, wrote that the
March 14 Forces had "sold their conscience and hired their minds and tongues to
the Devil…" and that they were exploiting Rafiq Al-Hariri's blood to harm Syria
and the resistance.[44] Columnist 'Abdallah Khaled, of the Syrian government
daily Teshreen, described the March 14 Forces' rise to power following
Al-Hariri's assassination as a "coup," saying: "What is happening now in Lebanon
is not a coup, but [an act of] returning things back to their natural course and
ending the negative repercussions of the actual coup, which took place in
2005…"[45]
Using the False Witnesses Affair to Discredit the Investigation
An example of Syria-Hizbullah cooperation in the campaign against the tribunal
and its supporters in Lebanon is their handling of the false witnesses affair.
As mentioned above, one of their claims against the tribunal is that its
investigation has relied on false testimonies and on witnesses acting on behalf
of Hizbullah's and Syria's enemies. To lend this claim legal weight, they used
Jamil Al-Sayyed, formerly the head of Lebanon's Internal Security Forces. Sayyed
is one of four pro-Syrian Lebanese officers that were arrested in 2006 based on
the witnesses' testimony, and released in 2009 after the witnesses proved
unreliable. Syria has allowed him to file a lawsuit against the false witnesses
in a Syrian court, and against the figures who allegedly sent them, including
senior officials in Lebanon's military and judiciary, such as the current head
of internal security, Ashraf Rifi, and General Prosecutor Mirza Sa'id.
At the same time, Assad pressured Al-Hariri on this account. In an August 30,
2010 meeting between them, he threatened the Lebanese prime minister that unless
he took care of the false witnesses, Syria would issue arrest warrants against
them. Presumably, it was this pressure that prompted Al-Hariri to say publicly,
in an interview with Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, that false witnesses had "mislead the
investigation, harmed Syria, Lebanon and [Al-Hariri's] family… and ruined the
relations between the countries, using the murder for political purposes."[46]
This statement by Al-Hariri was a triumph for Hizbullah, since it confirmed the
organization's claims that the investigation was biased, politicized and based
on false testimonies.
The plot thickened when Jamil Al-Sayyed himself was summoned for questioning in
Lebanon for lambasting Sa'd Al-Hariri at a September 11, 2010 press
conference.[47] The Lebanese opposition supported Al-Sayyed and demanded to
cancel the summons against him. Upon his return from Paris, they held a mass
reception for him at the airport, and an armed Hizbullah convoy escorted him to
his home. This show of power by Hizbullah was regarded by the March 14 Forces as
an act of defiance against the Lebanese judiciary and police, as a rebellion
against the regime, and as a sample of what would happen should an indictment be
issued against Hizbullah.
On October 4, 2010, it was reported that Syria's Prosecutor General had issued
arrest warrants against 33 figures connected to the Al-Hariri investigation,
most of them associates of Prime Minister Sa'd Al-Hariri. Among them were Wisam
Al-Hassan, head of the information branch of Lebanon's Internal Security Forces
and contact man between Sa'd Al-Hariri and the Syrian leadership,[48] as well as
Internal Security Chief Ashraf Rifi and Prosecutor General Mirza Sa'id. Though
Syrian officials, headed by Assad, stressed that this was a legal, rather than
political, affair, the issuing of these arrest warrants was seen as a blunt
threat directed at Sa'd Al-Hariri, meant to coerce him into complying with
Syria's and Hizbullah's demands regarding the tribunal.
Assad: The Indictment Must Be Based on Decisive Evidence
Syria has no interest in letting the March 14 Forces collapse. In fact, a
complete collapse of Sa'd Al-Hariri's camp would divest it of its role as
mediator between the two sides. Recently, it withdrew its demand to cancel the
release of the indictment, after this proved to be unfeasible. In an interview
with the daily Al-Hayat, Assad called instead to issue indictments based on
decisive evidence rather than conjecture and circumstantial evidence,[49] and
Foreign Minister Al-Mu'allem echoed his demand, saying that nobody would object
to an indictment based on decisive evidence.[50] This seems to be a tactical
maneuver, taking advantage of media reports and of a recent statement by the
tribunal's prosecutor, Daniel Bellemare, to the effect that most of the evidence
in the case is circumstantial.[51]
The March 14 Forces Stand Behind the Tribunal
The pressures exerted by Syria and the March 8 Forces on Prime Minister
Al-Hariri to renounce the international tribunal have borne some fruit. Since
coming into office, Al-Hariri, who in the past blamed Syria for his father's
murder, has made several visits to Damascus and has publicly retracted these
accusations. This may also be the result of pressure from Saudi Arabia, his main
sponsor, as part of King 'Abdallah's efforts to reconcile with Syria.
However, Al-Hariri has not capitulated to Syria's demand to renounce the
tribunal. In an interview with Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, he said: 'There is a tribunal
and it is doing its job… It [is following] its own course, which has no
connection to hasty political accusations. There is a tribunal and an
investigation, and they have no connection to what I or anyone else thinks. The
tribunal examines only proof…"[52] In an interview with the Arabic-language
Russian channel Russia Al-Yawm, Al-Hariri said that the existence of the
tribunal ensured that political murders would not recur in Lebanon. About
Hizbullah's accusations against him, he stressed: "We are the oppressed side. We
are the ones whose leaders were murdered…" He expressed his willingness for
dialogue, but without coercion: "… I will not have any of them put a gun to my
head or tell me where I need to go…" About the arrest warrants issued in Syria
against his associates, he said that they were illegal and that he had asked the
Lebanese Justice Minister to look into the matter.[53]
Prominent among Al-Hariri's supporters are Samir Geagea's Lebanese Forces party,
and the Al-Kataeb (Phalangist) party, headed by Amin Al-Gemayel, whose son
Pierre Al-Gemayel's murder is one of the crimes included in the international
tribunal's mandate. At a meeting with senior officials of his party, Amin Al-Gemayel
stressed that the party would support the international tribunal under any
circumstances, since this was one of its main causes, and because the tribunal
was essential to Lebanon's future and stability. He acknowledged it would be
difficult for the Lebanese state to bring the suspects to trial, but said that
the indictment itself would be an importance national achievement, since it
would expose the culprits.[54] As to the tribunal's allegedly politicized
character, he said that murder too was political, as was the Security Council's
decision to form the tribunal, but that the tribunal itself was operating purely
in the legal domain. Al-Gemayel stressed that those who opposed the tribunal
were engaged in "a gradual coup against [Lebanon's] state institutions, as has
already happened in the past… Today there is an attempt to overturn the regime
and its democratic and pluralistic [characteristics].[55]
Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea convened a conference of the Christian
members in the March 14 Forces, under the aegis of Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah
Sfeir, as a show of strength and of support for the international tribunal and
Prime Minister Al-Hariri, and as a counterweight to Christian leader Michel
Aoun's support of Hizbullah. The conference's closing statement expressed a
concern Lebanon would be "removed from its Arab environment and from the
international community, and dragged in a direction that is at odds with its
history [i.e., towards Iran]… against the will of the majority of Lebanese…"[56]
Unlike March 14 Forces officials, who are cautious in their criticism of Syria,
Al-Nahar columnist 'Abd Al-Wahhab Badrakhan, who is close to the March 14
Forces, wrote explicitly that "…Hizbullah, Michel Aoun's faction, and their
regional allies, Iran and Syria, are trying to take over the country… the
understandings between Saudi Arabia and Syria do not match [the latter's]
aspirations, which are to abolish the international tribunal and regain an
international power of attorney to manage Lebanon's affairs…"[57]
Another Al-Nahar columnist, Ali Hamada, mocked Hizbullah's attempts to abolish
the tribunal, saying: "…This demand is not realistic, and reflects a faulty
reading of the international [community's] position… Is it logical that the
international community should be defeated by an organization like Hizbullah,
which is being pursued by Arab and international [forces alike]? Is it logical
that while increasing the sanctions on Iran for its nuclear program, the
international community would allow an [Iranian] base [to prosper] in
Lebanon…?"[58]
International Support for the Tribunal, Prime Minister Al-Hariri
Prime Minister Sa'd Al-Hariri is supported by numerous Arab and non-Arab
countries, most notably Egypt and Saudi Arabia in the Arab arena, and the U.S.
and France in the international one.
Saudi Arabia: Support for the Tribunal Despite Pressures
Despite pressures, especially from Syria and Iran, Saudi Arabia continues to
stand by the tribunal and by Sa'd Al-Hariri, though, according to reports in the
Lebanese press, the Saudi king has undertaken to postpone the issuing of the
indictments as far as possible, one of the reasons being his concern that a
civil war in Lebanon would spill over to other countries in the region.[59]
Today Saudi Arabia is holding contacts with Iran and Syria in a bid to achieve a
lull in Lebanon that will also persist after the release of the indictment. It
is assessed that Saudi Arabia may make some concessions to Syria and Iran
regarding Lebanon, in return for comprehensive regional understandings also
including Iraq.
Egypt: Unflinching Attack on Hizbullah
Egypt is the only Arab country that unreservedly supports the international
tribunal and the Lebanese prime minister, and dares to openly attack Hizbullah
and Syria. In response to Nasrallah's threat to "cut off any hand" that tries to
harm his organization, Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmad Abu Al-Gheit said,
"Nobody should think he can cut off hands… It will cause him [to suffer] many
casualties."[60]
Osama Saraya, editor of the government daily Al-Ahram, wrote that Hizbullah,
which lost its legitimacy as a resistance movement after the 2006 war, is now
nothing more than "a militia armed to the teeth with Iranian weapons… [and] a
thug who, having been caught red handed, is trying to threaten his partners in
the homeland. [His] crimes are many, and the assassination of prime minister
Rafiq Al-Hariri is neither the first nor the last of them…"[61] Al-Ahram
columnist Makram Ahmad criticized Syria: "Most of the [political] murders were
perpetrated when Lebanon was under the control of the Syrian forces. Those who
could have easily punished the culprits... are insisting, like Hizbullah, that
the tribunal was established for political purposes..."[62]
Recently, Egypt has been working to tighten its relations with Turkey, inter
alia in order to form a unified front on the Lebanese issue. After meeting in
Turkey, the foreign ministers of the two countries expressed similar views on
this issue.[63] It is assessed that Egypt's contacts with Turkey are meant to
counterbalance the latter's tightening relations with Syria.
France: Concern about Possible Attack on UNIFIL
So far, France has withstood pressures from Syria and Hizbullah to postpone the
release of the indictment or to reject its content – pressures that included
threats to harm France's interests in Lebanon and target French troops serving
in UNIFIL.
At the same time, France has been holding contacts with various parties in
Lebanon in order to ease the tensions and safeguard its interests. As part of
these efforts, Lebanese Parliament Speaker and head of the Amal party, Nabih
Berri, was summoned to Paris along with Michel Aoun of the March 8 Forces.
According to reports in the Lebanese media, Nasrallah refused a request by the
French ambassador to meet with him in order to guarantee the safety of the
UNIFIL forces after the release of the indictment. The ambassador did meet with
Nasrallah's deputy, Na'im Qassem, but received no assurances in this matter.[64]
At the moment, then, there is no guarantee that Hizbullah will not harm UNIFIL
after the indictment's release, possibly by means of the locals in South
Lebanon, as happened in July 2009.[65] Al-Akhbar columnist Fida 'Itani wrote
that a single order from Hizbullah would suffice to prompt the people of South
Lebanon to strike at the U.N. troops in the region, especially the Europeans
among them.[66]
The U.S.
In response to the growing pressure on Al-Hariri and on Saudi Arabia to back
down on the issue of the tribunal, and in advance of the release of the
indictment, the U.S. increased its statements of support for Al-Hariri and the
tribunal. According to Lebanese media, President Barack Obama impressed upon the
Saudi king the importance of backing Al-Hariri and the tribunal.[67]
Furthermore, in early November, the U.S. pledged an additional $10 million for
the tribunal, bringing the total U.S. funding for the court to $30 million.
These moves and others were regarded by Syria as an attempt to sabotage the
Syrian-Saudi efforts to resolve the Lebanese crisis, as Syrian Deputy Foreign
Minister Faisal Al-Miqdad said.[68]
Possible Scenarios
The uncertainty regarding Hizbullah's response to an indictment against it
creates considerable difficulty for the organization's rivals in Lebanon and
abroad. Some assess that Hizbullah will use the indictment as a pretext to take
over Lebanon, as it took over Beirut in May 7, 2010. This assessment is
supported by a November 1, 2010 report in Al-Akhbar, which is close to Hizbullah,
regarding a secret drill the organization had held on October 28. The drill
simulated a takeover of Lebanon, including the deployment of forces countrywide
within two hours, the cordoning off of extensive areas of the country, the
arrest of wanted individuals, and the seizure of ports and border crossings.[69]
It was also reported that Druze leader Walid Jumblatt has signed a memorandum of
understandings with Hizbullah on military and security issues, which guarantees
Hizbullah safe passage through the Mount Lebanon region.[70]
However, a takeover of Lebanon would harm Hizbullah's image as a legitimate
organization that directs its resistance at Israel, so its threats may be
largely intended to intimidate its rivals. Moreover, the political changes that
have occurred in Lebanon in the past year[71] make it easier for Hizbullah and
its allies to bring about a regime change by non-violent political means, making
a violent takeover of the country unnecessary. Hizbullah's response depends to a
large extent on Iran's situation, which can use the organization's threats as a
lever in its negotiations with the West over its nuclear program.
Lebanon is preparing for every eventuality. Lebanese Armed Forces Commander Jean
Kahwaji clarified that one of the army's tasks is to prevent internal fighting.
He said that his forces are on high alert and have already deployed in the
capital, and can go to full alert at an hour's notice.[72] However, MEMRI
assesses that the power and control are in the hands of Hizbullah and its
patrons, and that they are the ones who determine the intensity and scope of the
conflict.
* N. Mozes is a research fellow at MEMRI.
Endnotes:
[1] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), November 16, 2010.
[2] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), November 27, 2010.
[3] See MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No. 624, " Internal Conflict in Lebanon Over
Control of Oil and Gas Resources," July 12, 2010, http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4441.htm.
[4] Al-Jarida, Kuwait, August 25, 2010.
[5]Al-Watan (Syria),October 11, 2010.
[6] Moqawama.org, March 31, 2010.
[7] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), August 10, 2010
[8] Moqawama.org, March 31, 2010.
[9] Almanar.com.lb, May 1, 2009.
[10] Moqawama.org, March 31, 2010.
[11] Moqawama.org, July 17, 2010.
[12] Moqawama.org, March 31, 2010.
[13] Al-Watan (Syria), November 14, 2010.
[14] Moqawama.org, October 28, 2010.
[15] Moqawama.org, October 28, 2010.
[16] Al-Intiqad, Lebanon, November 5, 2010.
[17] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), September 14, 2010.
[18] Al-Hayat, Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), October 28, 2010.
[19] Al-Rai (Kuwait), November 20, 2010.
[20] Moqawama.org, November 11, 2010.
[21] Moqawama.org, July 17, 2010.
[22] Moqawama.org, November 11, 2010.
[23] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), November 3, 2010.
[24] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), October 30, 2010.
[25] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), October 29, 2010.
[26] Al-Nahar (Lebanon), November 22, 2010.
[27] Moqawama.org, March 31, 2010.
[28] Moqawama.org, November 11, 2010.
[29] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), July 27, 2010.
[30] Moqawama.org, March 31, 2010.
[31] For excerpts from his speech, see MEMRI-TV Clip No. 2641, "Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Beirut Reiterates 9/11 Conspiracy and Accuses
the West of Al-Hariri Assassination," October 13, 2010, http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2641.htm.
[32] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), September 20, 2010.
[33] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), September 15, 2010.
[34] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), September 20, 2010.
[35] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), July 31, 2010.
[36] Nowlebannon.com, August 4, 2010.
[37] Al-Jarida (Kuwait), August 25, 2010.
[38] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), September 20, 2010.
[39] WSJ.com, September 27, 2010.
[40] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), October 7, 2010.
[41] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), October 2, 2010.
[42] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), October 20, 2010.
[43] Al-Rai (Kuwait), October 23, 2010. It should be noted that, a few days
after this statement was made, President Assad denied the existence of any
tension between Al-Hariri and himself and expressed his confidence in
Al-Hariri's ability to overcome the present crisis.
[44] Champress.net, October 24, 2010.
[45] Teshreen (Syria), October 19, 2010.
[46] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), September 6, 2010.
[47] Al-Safir (Lebanon), September 12, 2010.
[48] An investigative report by the Canadian CBC channel claimed, based on
documents from the U.N. investigation, that Al-Hassan had been suspected of
involvement in the murder. www.cbc.ca, November 21, 2010.
[49] Al-Hayat (London), October 26, 2010.
[50] Al-Watan (Syria), November 15, 2010.
[51] Al-Hayat (London), October 26, 2010.
[52] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), September 6, 2010.
[53] Syriahr.com, November 14, 2010.
[54] Al-Nahar (Lebanon), November 21, 2010.
[55] Al-Nahar (Lebanon), November 19, 2010.
[56] Al-Mustaqbal (Lebanon), November 6, 2010.
[57] Al-Nahar (Lebanon), November 11, 2010.
[58] Al-Nahar (Lebanon), October 26, 2010.
[59] Al-Safir (Lebanon), July 30, 2010; Al-Watan (Syria), August 1, 2010.
[60] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), November 13, 2010.
[61] Al-Ahram (Egypt), November 16, 2010.
[62] Al-Ahram (Egypt), October 15, 2010.
[63] Al-Mustaqbal (Lebanon), November 23, 2010.
[64] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), November 20, 2010.
[65] See MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis 547, " In South Lebanon, Tension Increases
Between UNIFIL and Hizbullah-Syria-Iran Bloc," October 6, 2009, http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/3666.htm,
[66] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), November 10, 2010.
[67] Al-Nahar (Lebanon), October 31, 2010.
[68] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), November 11, 2010.
[69] See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 3341, "Lebanese Daily: Hizbullah Drills
Takeover of Lebanon," November 3, 2010, http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4725.htm.
[70] Al-Anba (Kuwait), November 14, 2010.
[71] See MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No. 611, "Syria Reimposes Its Patronage over
Lebanon," May 24, 2010, http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4203.htm.
[72] Kataeb.org, November 6, 2010.
http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4820.htm