Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Hariri: Hot Diary of an Affair!
I have known Rafik Al Hariri for quite some years now. Our acquaintance involved a lot of physical interaction and deep-throat cries! He is much older than me, but our relation deepened beyond belief. I was obsessed by him, and where ever I went... I sabotaged his pictures.
I have been beaten by his men, arrested by his police, teargassed, water-cannoned and smothered by his “riot” control! I have held banners against his policies, demanded his dismissal from office, refused to collaborate or even be seen next to any of his followers, took non-violent direct actions against his projects, policies... and presence – I was not alone; I was/still am one of many. Today I am outraged!
Today I´m struck by grief and shock to the way he got assassinated... “We” have lost an Exploiter to the hands of a bigger one! Today I wish like never before to be in Beirut, beside those loved ones, those exploited and eaten alive. In Beirut among those thousands of people marching down the streets... among the very few of them who are tearing down his pictures and spraying a series of big Nos!
No to assassinations, to hegemony, to occupation, to the World Bank, to debt, to all factions and partisans of the Lebanese mainstream political spectrum, to blinded reactionaries, to free trade, to discrimination, to neo-liberal policies... to capitalism... the list never ends!
AL Jazeera wrote on their website:
“A huge car bomb on Monday killed Lebanon's former prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri, a businessman turned politician who masterminded the country's reconstruction after its 1975-90 civil war... At least 12 others, including several of al-Hariri's bodyguards, died when his motorcade was blown up as it passed through an upmarket section of Beirut's seafront, four months after he resigned as prime minister.
Former economy minister Basil Fulaihan, also riding in the convoy, was critically wounded. At least 100 other people were hurt, officials said...
Al-Hariri had remained politically influential since his resignation and recently joined opposition calls for Syrian troops to quit Lebanon in the run-up to a May general election...
Beirut was often rocked by car bombs during the civil war, when fighting among religious and political factions all but tore Lebanon apart. But they have been rare since then.
Al-Hariri, 60, had held office for most of the past 12 years before quitting in October 2004 amid a bitter rift with Lahud. The Sunni Muslim al-Hariri spent some 20 years in Saudi Arabia, where construction deals made him a fortune that Forbes estimated at $3.8 billion in 2003.
In 1977, he struck gold when he took up the challenge of building in just six months a palace for the late Saudi king Khalid in the resort of Taif before an Islamic summit, as a sub-contractor for Oger, an affiliate of a French group.
Al-Hariri won the confidence of then-crown prince Fahd, now Saudi Arabia's king, and was awarded the rare privilege of Saudi nationality.
He then went on to become Saudi Arabia's leading entrepreneur, acquiring Oger in 1979 and founding Oger International, based in Paris.
Al-Hariri's interests extended across banking, real estate, oil, industry and telecommunications.
He founded a television station, Future TV, in Beirut and purchased stakes in several Lebanese newspapers.
He was the biggest shareholder in Solidere, the joint-stock company that sent bulldozers to revive central Beirut after Lebanon's 15-year civil war.
But politics remained a fixation for the burly businessman. In 1982, he donated $12 million to Lebanese victims of Israel's devastating invasion and helped clean up Beirut streets with his own money.
Al-Hariri also used his personal wealth to finance the Taif national reconciliation accords in 1989 which put an end to the civil war. The Sunni Muslim was back in power in 2000 after a landslide election victory as many Lebanese saw no alternative to reversing an economic slide that worsened in his absence. But optimism about the businessman's ability to resurrect Lebanon as a financial and tourism hub was tempered by the mounting number of battles fought with Lahud loyalists over privatisation and other cost-cutting plans.
When Lebanon faced a financial crisis in 2002, al-Hariri persuaded France to host an international summit of lenders who pledged enough cash to avert a meltdown.
The construction tycoon's ties with European, Asian and Arab leaders helped keep Lebanon out of an abyss of debt run up during efforts to rebuild Beirut, including an expensive downtown area that rose from the ruins to become top-end property hawked by a company al-Hariri largely owned.
Businessmen praised him for cutting through a paralysed Lebanese state bureaucracy and rebuilding war-shattered Beirut. But hopes that an economic renaissance would flower with a Middle East peace process wilted with it instead. ”(http://english.aljazeera.net/)
This is what Al Jazeera wrote about former prime minister Hariri after his assassination besides the fact that French president Jacques Chirac visited Beirut to pay respect and condolences to Hariri's family emphasizing the close friendship, being the only state president taking part in the mourning day of the funeral and visiting the grave. This was the most accessible detailed Arab coverage of the assassination in English I could find. Media in Lebanon all cried against Syrian occupation, some bluntly, some more diplomatically and “politely”.
Tens of thousands of people took to their streets their anger, grieve and demands. All asking for a withdrawal of Syrian troops and hegemony of Lebanon. People that I have known for years and who took no part in political activism were on the street taking part in the funeral/demo and laying flowers at Hariri's grave in downtown Beirut.
Just there, few meters away from where we had the open sit-in for 45 days organized by independent activists and groups in solidarity with Palestinians under Israeli crimes in 2002. A sit-in that was a landmark in the Lebanese anti-war anti-capitalist movement, a womb for IMC Beirut, Al Yasari (an independent leftist underground publication), No War No Dictatorship campaign, the campaign to Boycott Companies Supporting Israel, the Leftist Platform, a series of high profile actions and demos ...etc. Let alone being the first extensive experience in autonomous horizontal self-organization in Lebanon. All this was happening few years ago, very few meters away from where Hariri's body lay today, and with few activists who rejected Hariri's policies, while residents of Beirut – mourners of today, whizzed in their cars towards the first warm restaurant. My friends never went there before... but they did few days ago to lay flowers on Hariri's grave and scream “Syria out now”, and “We do not want a parliament that is a doorman for Syria”... waving his pictures and flapping Lebanese flags with banners reading “enough”. Friends that never believed in any protest or action, let alone believe in the need to change things were now protesting against such a high profile issue as Syrian occupation of Lebanon. An issue that even the most radical of activists thought twice before tackeling. Out of a sudden, everyone is empowered. What did it take? An aggravated tragedy.
Friends that always praised the amount of democracy we enjoy in Lebanon compared to the rest of our “regressive” Arab neighbors - “for fuck's sake movies get launched in Lebanon at same time as Europe” ... let alone the long discussion about the quantity of quality resorts, night life and artistic entertainment. Talking to my mom - a mother - over the phone she sounded devastated. She was never a fan of Hariri nor his politics but the images of the bomb were reminiscent of so many bad civil-war memories. She never liked him, but she never wished him dead. She blamed him for many of our economical problems, but she never believed that he can be over thrown. And there she was infront of the TV, her worst nightmare got wiped out with a bigger one... rather a catastrophe!
My first reaction was a smile and taking it for a joke. Of course not! Hariri have so much money and so much power... let alone a top notch security shield. I remember my mobile phone going off network when his convoy passes by. The convoy cars were fully armored and protected (and of course he afforded the top of the line)... so no way it can happen! But still, all media reported it and showed pictures of him on a stretcher completely burned out. One of the big puppets in the hands of the capitalist system was put to a stop, but the way was worse than anyone can imagine. Shock, confusion, anger and disbelief! Who did it? Why? Why now? How? How strong are they? How far can they go? Who are they? What can we do? Who are we?
After the shock faded, I started following the on-line media religiously, sometimes pressing the Refresh icon endlessly without stopping. I was eager to read everything, to know as much as possible, to try to understand. Years ago I learnt about a ruthless system, but here I am again seeing its ruthless power in action, seeing authority and the system that “we” all believe in failing us again. And again, I see “us” waving flags and repeating the same old broken record. Even “our” grief is imported and copied for the eyes of the media. Rejecting violence and fucked up politics tuned into a reactionary wave condoning Hariri policies, even portraying Hariri as a national hero!. I heard people going “yeah he fucked the country up, but now he portrays something, he said no to Syria! He became a symbol of our freedom”
Hariri was responsible of a deteriorating economical situation and a continuous exploitation of a wide sector of the Lebanese society. He masterminded the “reconstruction” of Beirut central district... or Solidere.
Solidere
Solidere is what some people use to refer to down town Beirut. It is not an arabic word, and it is not the name of the area. Solidere is a Hariri-owned company, with some small-fish shareholders. It drove people out from Beirut down town by either petty money, or state force (sometimes extra non-governmental intimidation) and took over their property. All of Beirut central district now, including Martyr's Square is owned by Solidere. Funny, ha? Solidere owns a public square, imagine if Solidere wanted by its lawful right to fence downtown Beirut!
Well it did, in many cases we were asked not to gather/ protest in that “public square” cause it is a private property and does not even lie under the authority of the municipality. You can only go there if you are dressed in a certain way – few reported cases of people being asked to leave the “property” else remove their kufiahs. It is a place for everyone, except those living with a limitted income or under poverty line... more accuratly 60% or more of the population.
To make it funnier, the Lebanese parliament lies at the heart of this “property”... and even more, the Italian embassy, the British embassy, the Spanish Cervantes,... and the United Nations House. All this were more parking lots are rising and more bourgeoisie apartments and big corporations are taking bigger shapes. Where the rosey and velvety society of Lebanon have itself some fun and "democracy".
The area is sealed by Lebanese army on all ends, and in some past cases they shut down the whole area even in the face of journalists (a recent case was the peaceful anti-capital punishment protest http://www.beirut.indymedia.org/ar/2004/01/908.shtml). The army reportedly denied individuals to access the area... Hariri's area.
Hariri Fairytale
Hariri indulged in continuous debts, and some grants to Lebanon's “reconstruction”. We got “reconstructed”... we have the best highways now, a top notch first class airport, a source-of-pride stadium, and all multi-nationals you can dream off. Unemployment rates increased and prices soared higher. It was not only the movies, a beer in a Beirut Downtown pubs can cost you more than one in London... further “civilization” was introduced, a democracy of the few.
Under Hariri's term as a prime minister, the WTO was pushed further and deeper in Lebanon. So did Free Trade on the expense of millions of workers, women and children worldwide. Privatization was taking over, everything was due for it from the electricity to the mail-service. Hariri's companies and affiliated ones were taking over left and right. His personal money and contacts were used to run state matters where no one else could manage... or benefit. Several drastic economical outcries happened under Hariri's term, leading to the killing of five demonstrators in April 2004 by the Lebanese army. http://www.beirut.indymedia.org/ar/2004/05/1286.shtml
Another landmark in Hariri-style democracy is the attack on the Jnah underpriviliged area in March 2004 where the Lebanese army used tanks to attack protestors refusing to pay exagerated electricity fees to a government that denies them even affordable clean drinking water. http://www.beirut.indymedia.org/ar/2004/03/1000.shtml
That was not the only time where Hariri's government got its hands dirty with state-repression. Hariri was responsible for the September 1993 killings where 10 anti-Oslo agreement protesters (some say Hezbollah members - Hezbolah is now taking Hariri as a resistance figure) got killed on the hands of the Lebanese army.
Some people argue that he gave Lebanon an international trust-worthy name after the civil war; well he made it possible for us to drink Starbucks and eat Mcdonalds. The name he made was only appealing for those who could afford, or for multinational corporations and investors that has nothing held more sacred than profit, not even life itself. Corporations that do nothing but ruin our local economy, local and global environment and human rights. A democracy that is based on capital and totalitarian rule of capitalism. The one depending on genetically modified crops, sweatshops, and the planet´s exploitation.
He on the other hand sent people on grants to study and earn degrees – he had his own organization for that, Al Hariri Foundation. Some of those “good students” were to earn a salary working in his companies, or become his voting sheep. People oriented their voting choices according to his choices... he was the money provider in a dying economy – that he was killing, and he was the one who “provided for the kids' education”. He was the Sunni figure, the one who decided that him being born in Sidon in the south is not of an enough political impact so moved his papers to Beirut and ran there for elections... in the capital, becoming an MP of Beirut, a prime minister, and a leader/ puppeteer of small exploiters who ran were he told them. In the past municipal elections he received quite a blow when the majority of the citizens of Beirut did not vote, still his babies hatched in the municipal board of Beirut. Yesterday, all of Beirut marched in tears demanding that Syria goes out.
Few months ago that same square witnessed a protest against the re-election of President Lahoud and its consecutive constitution, it had banners calling on Syrian withdrawal and hands off Lebanon. Around a hundred young people showed up. People were tucked in their houses ranting about the economical situation and Syrian hegemony. We were a 100 surrounded by hundreds of army soldiers, riot police and endless checkpoints... the rest of the country was silent, blessing the re- “election” of Lahoud as a president. http://www.beirut.indymedia.org/ar/2004/09/1634.shtml
Hariri's assasination is a national tragedy on many levels, but he is never and will never be a symbol of freedom and social justice. He is responsible for so many atrocious policies and actions that “we Lebanese” are paying for and will do for quite sometime. Hariri the powerful, the invincible, the man who holds so much power, ties and connections to world's high corporate world, state heads and monarchs. He was a Lebanese MP, tycoon, former prime minster, billionaire, body-guarded by top of the line security experts and almost a Saudi prince... still “they” - whoever they were – managed to take him down. Just like this... snap! Just when he no longer satisfied their needs, or maybe when his death became more beneficial than his life.
A capital-monger taken down fueling all enmity to Syria to the extent that Syrian exploited workers in Lebanon are being beaten down the streets to no one's astonishment. Everyone is running around to copy Princess Diana's pictures by laying candles and flowers and posing for international media. Media is talking again about Hariri the “builder of Beirut”, “Mr. Beirut”, “the re-constructor of Lebanon”, “national hero” and a “martyr”; with pictures of Chirac holding Hariri's wife's hand. I wonder if Mobarak gets assassinated tomorrow... or even Bush, will they turn into national heroes? ... maybe also people would light them candles and lay flowers on their tombs. Maybe if Pinochet stayed in office enough to be assassinated he would have got the same as well. Lebanese people are all demanding Syria out, people are hysterically in the street denouncing violence, something we suffered for so long. It was inspiring to see as much in the streets crying out loud against assassinations and bombs; and against the Syrian occupation. But as someone who lived 26 years in the state of Lebanon, and who carries its passport, I carry a bigger fear now. A fear that this wave of country-wide solidarity turn out into further racism and nationalism/ fascism. Syrian workers who are exploited both by “their” government and “ours” are the victims again. Hariri's assassination is a rejected practice, a further establishment of a system that oppressed us for so long yet Hariri was nothing but another tool of repression and exploitaiton.
the outrage is total, we all are...
the grief is deep,
the shock is beyond belief,
the bombing brings nightmares of past life ... the worst of all,
the demand for an immediate Syrian withdrawal, military and
politically is nonnegotiable,
but condoning Hariri's policies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lebanese youth are teaming under cries rejecting violence; it is inspiring to see it happen. But I missed a point, how did he rebuild the country? Or brace us for freedom? Or even thought of us beyond police batons, army bullets, and empty pockets and mouths? Please tell me my country fellow men and women... if you finally decided to march for freedom and "independence" why march towards Hariri´s tombstone? Why construct/emphasise more symbols and leaders...especially out of criminals? If "we" are demanding independence why do not we march to Jnah or Hey El Selloum with chants for Syria to get out and the government to fall?
My grief and outrage is for those who died on Thursday May 27th, 2004 in Hay El Seloum. My grief and apologies is for those who are still jailed, beaten and unheard off just for demanding food that day... to the thousands in jails in Lebanon and Syria for voicing their dissent. My solidarity is with you and no-one else, my apologies in the name of these thousands marching today... sorry they did not march in thousands before May 27th for you, or even later on the 29th, or 30th....or today for you!
Sorry they did not march till the Exploiter got terminated by a bigger fish!
I wonder, what fish will munch on us now after he is gone!
http://beirut.indymedia.org/ar/2005/02/2213.shtml
Today I´m struck by grief and shock to the way he got assassinated... “We” have lost an Exploiter to the hands of a bigger one! Today I wish like never before to be in Beirut, beside those loved ones, those exploited and eaten alive. In Beirut among those thousands of people marching down the streets... among the very few of them who are tearing down his pictures and spraying a series of big Nos!
No to assassinations, to hegemony, to occupation, to the World Bank, to debt, to all factions and partisans of the Lebanese mainstream political spectrum, to blinded reactionaries, to free trade, to discrimination, to neo-liberal policies... to capitalism... the list never ends!
AL Jazeera wrote on their website:
“A huge car bomb on Monday killed Lebanon's former prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri, a businessman turned politician who masterminded the country's reconstruction after its 1975-90 civil war... At least 12 others, including several of al-Hariri's bodyguards, died when his motorcade was blown up as it passed through an upmarket section of Beirut's seafront, four months after he resigned as prime minister.
Former economy minister Basil Fulaihan, also riding in the convoy, was critically wounded. At least 100 other people were hurt, officials said...
Al-Hariri had remained politically influential since his resignation and recently joined opposition calls for Syrian troops to quit Lebanon in the run-up to a May general election...
Beirut was often rocked by car bombs during the civil war, when fighting among religious and political factions all but tore Lebanon apart. But they have been rare since then.
Al-Hariri, 60, had held office for most of the past 12 years before quitting in October 2004 amid a bitter rift with Lahud. The Sunni Muslim al-Hariri spent some 20 years in Saudi Arabia, where construction deals made him a fortune that Forbes estimated at $3.8 billion in 2003.
In 1977, he struck gold when he took up the challenge of building in just six months a palace for the late Saudi king Khalid in the resort of Taif before an Islamic summit, as a sub-contractor for Oger, an affiliate of a French group.
Al-Hariri won the confidence of then-crown prince Fahd, now Saudi Arabia's king, and was awarded the rare privilege of Saudi nationality.
He then went on to become Saudi Arabia's leading entrepreneur, acquiring Oger in 1979 and founding Oger International, based in Paris.
Al-Hariri's interests extended across banking, real estate, oil, industry and telecommunications.
He founded a television station, Future TV, in Beirut and purchased stakes in several Lebanese newspapers.
He was the biggest shareholder in Solidere, the joint-stock company that sent bulldozers to revive central Beirut after Lebanon's 15-year civil war.
But politics remained a fixation for the burly businessman. In 1982, he donated $12 million to Lebanese victims of Israel's devastating invasion and helped clean up Beirut streets with his own money.
Al-Hariri also used his personal wealth to finance the Taif national reconciliation accords in 1989 which put an end to the civil war. The Sunni Muslim was back in power in 2000 after a landslide election victory as many Lebanese saw no alternative to reversing an economic slide that worsened in his absence. But optimism about the businessman's ability to resurrect Lebanon as a financial and tourism hub was tempered by the mounting number of battles fought with Lahud loyalists over privatisation and other cost-cutting plans.
When Lebanon faced a financial crisis in 2002, al-Hariri persuaded France to host an international summit of lenders who pledged enough cash to avert a meltdown.
The construction tycoon's ties with European, Asian and Arab leaders helped keep Lebanon out of an abyss of debt run up during efforts to rebuild Beirut, including an expensive downtown area that rose from the ruins to become top-end property hawked by a company al-Hariri largely owned.
Businessmen praised him for cutting through a paralysed Lebanese state bureaucracy and rebuilding war-shattered Beirut. But hopes that an economic renaissance would flower with a Middle East peace process wilted with it instead. ”(http://english.aljazeera.net/)
This is what Al Jazeera wrote about former prime minister Hariri after his assassination besides the fact that French president Jacques Chirac visited Beirut to pay respect and condolences to Hariri's family emphasizing the close friendship, being the only state president taking part in the mourning day of the funeral and visiting the grave. This was the most accessible detailed Arab coverage of the assassination in English I could find. Media in Lebanon all cried against Syrian occupation, some bluntly, some more diplomatically and “politely”.
Tens of thousands of people took to their streets their anger, grieve and demands. All asking for a withdrawal of Syrian troops and hegemony of Lebanon. People that I have known for years and who took no part in political activism were on the street taking part in the funeral/demo and laying flowers at Hariri's grave in downtown Beirut.
Just there, few meters away from where we had the open sit-in for 45 days organized by independent activists and groups in solidarity with Palestinians under Israeli crimes in 2002. A sit-in that was a landmark in the Lebanese anti-war anti-capitalist movement, a womb for IMC Beirut, Al Yasari (an independent leftist underground publication), No War No Dictatorship campaign, the campaign to Boycott Companies Supporting Israel, the Leftist Platform, a series of high profile actions and demos ...etc. Let alone being the first extensive experience in autonomous horizontal self-organization in Lebanon. All this was happening few years ago, very few meters away from where Hariri's body lay today, and with few activists who rejected Hariri's policies, while residents of Beirut – mourners of today, whizzed in their cars towards the first warm restaurant. My friends never went there before... but they did few days ago to lay flowers on Hariri's grave and scream “Syria out now”, and “We do not want a parliament that is a doorman for Syria”... waving his pictures and flapping Lebanese flags with banners reading “enough”. Friends that never believed in any protest or action, let alone believe in the need to change things were now protesting against such a high profile issue as Syrian occupation of Lebanon. An issue that even the most radical of activists thought twice before tackeling. Out of a sudden, everyone is empowered. What did it take? An aggravated tragedy.
Friends that always praised the amount of democracy we enjoy in Lebanon compared to the rest of our “regressive” Arab neighbors - “for fuck's sake movies get launched in Lebanon at same time as Europe” ... let alone the long discussion about the quantity of quality resorts, night life and artistic entertainment. Talking to my mom - a mother - over the phone she sounded devastated. She was never a fan of Hariri nor his politics but the images of the bomb were reminiscent of so many bad civil-war memories. She never liked him, but she never wished him dead. She blamed him for many of our economical problems, but she never believed that he can be over thrown. And there she was infront of the TV, her worst nightmare got wiped out with a bigger one... rather a catastrophe!
My first reaction was a smile and taking it for a joke. Of course not! Hariri have so much money and so much power... let alone a top notch security shield. I remember my mobile phone going off network when his convoy passes by. The convoy cars were fully armored and protected (and of course he afforded the top of the line)... so no way it can happen! But still, all media reported it and showed pictures of him on a stretcher completely burned out. One of the big puppets in the hands of the capitalist system was put to a stop, but the way was worse than anyone can imagine. Shock, confusion, anger and disbelief! Who did it? Why? Why now? How? How strong are they? How far can they go? Who are they? What can we do? Who are we?
After the shock faded, I started following the on-line media religiously, sometimes pressing the Refresh icon endlessly without stopping. I was eager to read everything, to know as much as possible, to try to understand. Years ago I learnt about a ruthless system, but here I am again seeing its ruthless power in action, seeing authority and the system that “we” all believe in failing us again. And again, I see “us” waving flags and repeating the same old broken record. Even “our” grief is imported and copied for the eyes of the media. Rejecting violence and fucked up politics tuned into a reactionary wave condoning Hariri policies, even portraying Hariri as a national hero!. I heard people going “yeah he fucked the country up, but now he portrays something, he said no to Syria! He became a symbol of our freedom”
Hariri was responsible of a deteriorating economical situation and a continuous exploitation of a wide sector of the Lebanese society. He masterminded the “reconstruction” of Beirut central district... or Solidere.
Solidere
Solidere is what some people use to refer to down town Beirut. It is not an arabic word, and it is not the name of the area. Solidere is a Hariri-owned company, with some small-fish shareholders. It drove people out from Beirut down town by either petty money, or state force (sometimes extra non-governmental intimidation) and took over their property. All of Beirut central district now, including Martyr's Square is owned by Solidere. Funny, ha? Solidere owns a public square, imagine if Solidere wanted by its lawful right to fence downtown Beirut!
Well it did, in many cases we were asked not to gather/ protest in that “public square” cause it is a private property and does not even lie under the authority of the municipality. You can only go there if you are dressed in a certain way – few reported cases of people being asked to leave the “property” else remove their kufiahs. It is a place for everyone, except those living with a limitted income or under poverty line... more accuratly 60% or more of the population.
To make it funnier, the Lebanese parliament lies at the heart of this “property”... and even more, the Italian embassy, the British embassy, the Spanish Cervantes,... and the United Nations House. All this were more parking lots are rising and more bourgeoisie apartments and big corporations are taking bigger shapes. Where the rosey and velvety society of Lebanon have itself some fun and "democracy".
The area is sealed by Lebanese army on all ends, and in some past cases they shut down the whole area even in the face of journalists (a recent case was the peaceful anti-capital punishment protest http://www.beirut.indymedia.org/ar/2004/01/908.shtml). The army reportedly denied individuals to access the area... Hariri's area.
Hariri Fairytale
Hariri indulged in continuous debts, and some grants to Lebanon's “reconstruction”. We got “reconstructed”... we have the best highways now, a top notch first class airport, a source-of-pride stadium, and all multi-nationals you can dream off. Unemployment rates increased and prices soared higher. It was not only the movies, a beer in a Beirut Downtown pubs can cost you more than one in London... further “civilization” was introduced, a democracy of the few.
Under Hariri's term as a prime minister, the WTO was pushed further and deeper in Lebanon. So did Free Trade on the expense of millions of workers, women and children worldwide. Privatization was taking over, everything was due for it from the electricity to the mail-service. Hariri's companies and affiliated ones were taking over left and right. His personal money and contacts were used to run state matters where no one else could manage... or benefit. Several drastic economical outcries happened under Hariri's term, leading to the killing of five demonstrators in April 2004 by the Lebanese army. http://www.beirut.indymedia.org/ar/2004/05/1286.shtml
Another landmark in Hariri-style democracy is the attack on the Jnah underpriviliged area in March 2004 where the Lebanese army used tanks to attack protestors refusing to pay exagerated electricity fees to a government that denies them even affordable clean drinking water. http://www.beirut.indymedia.org/ar/2004/03/1000.shtml
That was not the only time where Hariri's government got its hands dirty with state-repression. Hariri was responsible for the September 1993 killings where 10 anti-Oslo agreement protesters (some say Hezbollah members - Hezbolah is now taking Hariri as a resistance figure) got killed on the hands of the Lebanese army.
Some people argue that he gave Lebanon an international trust-worthy name after the civil war; well he made it possible for us to drink Starbucks and eat Mcdonalds. The name he made was only appealing for those who could afford, or for multinational corporations and investors that has nothing held more sacred than profit, not even life itself. Corporations that do nothing but ruin our local economy, local and global environment and human rights. A democracy that is based on capital and totalitarian rule of capitalism. The one depending on genetically modified crops, sweatshops, and the planet´s exploitation.
He on the other hand sent people on grants to study and earn degrees – he had his own organization for that, Al Hariri Foundation. Some of those “good students” were to earn a salary working in his companies, or become his voting sheep. People oriented their voting choices according to his choices... he was the money provider in a dying economy – that he was killing, and he was the one who “provided for the kids' education”. He was the Sunni figure, the one who decided that him being born in Sidon in the south is not of an enough political impact so moved his papers to Beirut and ran there for elections... in the capital, becoming an MP of Beirut, a prime minister, and a leader/ puppeteer of small exploiters who ran were he told them. In the past municipal elections he received quite a blow when the majority of the citizens of Beirut did not vote, still his babies hatched in the municipal board of Beirut. Yesterday, all of Beirut marched in tears demanding that Syria goes out.
Few months ago that same square witnessed a protest against the re-election of President Lahoud and its consecutive constitution, it had banners calling on Syrian withdrawal and hands off Lebanon. Around a hundred young people showed up. People were tucked in their houses ranting about the economical situation and Syrian hegemony. We were a 100 surrounded by hundreds of army soldiers, riot police and endless checkpoints... the rest of the country was silent, blessing the re- “election” of Lahoud as a president. http://www.beirut.indymedia.org/ar/2004/09/1634.shtml
Hariri's assasination is a national tragedy on many levels, but he is never and will never be a symbol of freedom and social justice. He is responsible for so many atrocious policies and actions that “we Lebanese” are paying for and will do for quite sometime. Hariri the powerful, the invincible, the man who holds so much power, ties and connections to world's high corporate world, state heads and monarchs. He was a Lebanese MP, tycoon, former prime minster, billionaire, body-guarded by top of the line security experts and almost a Saudi prince... still “they” - whoever they were – managed to take him down. Just like this... snap! Just when he no longer satisfied their needs, or maybe when his death became more beneficial than his life.
A capital-monger taken down fueling all enmity to Syria to the extent that Syrian exploited workers in Lebanon are being beaten down the streets to no one's astonishment. Everyone is running around to copy Princess Diana's pictures by laying candles and flowers and posing for international media. Media is talking again about Hariri the “builder of Beirut”, “Mr. Beirut”, “the re-constructor of Lebanon”, “national hero” and a “martyr”; with pictures of Chirac holding Hariri's wife's hand. I wonder if Mobarak gets assassinated tomorrow... or even Bush, will they turn into national heroes? ... maybe also people would light them candles and lay flowers on their tombs. Maybe if Pinochet stayed in office enough to be assassinated he would have got the same as well. Lebanese people are all demanding Syria out, people are hysterically in the street denouncing violence, something we suffered for so long. It was inspiring to see as much in the streets crying out loud against assassinations and bombs; and against the Syrian occupation. But as someone who lived 26 years in the state of Lebanon, and who carries its passport, I carry a bigger fear now. A fear that this wave of country-wide solidarity turn out into further racism and nationalism/ fascism. Syrian workers who are exploited both by “their” government and “ours” are the victims again. Hariri's assassination is a rejected practice, a further establishment of a system that oppressed us for so long yet Hariri was nothing but another tool of repression and exploitaiton.
the outrage is total, we all are...
the grief is deep,
the shock is beyond belief,
the bombing brings nightmares of past life ... the worst of all,
the demand for an immediate Syrian withdrawal, military and
politically is nonnegotiable,
but condoning Hariri's policies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lebanese youth are teaming under cries rejecting violence; it is inspiring to see it happen. But I missed a point, how did he rebuild the country? Or brace us for freedom? Or even thought of us beyond police batons, army bullets, and empty pockets and mouths? Please tell me my country fellow men and women... if you finally decided to march for freedom and "independence" why march towards Hariri´s tombstone? Why construct/emphasise more symbols and leaders...especially out of criminals? If "we" are demanding independence why do not we march to Jnah or Hey El Selloum with chants for Syria to get out and the government to fall?
My grief and outrage is for those who died on Thursday May 27th, 2004 in Hay El Seloum. My grief and apologies is for those who are still jailed, beaten and unheard off just for demanding food that day... to the thousands in jails in Lebanon and Syria for voicing their dissent. My solidarity is with you and no-one else, my apologies in the name of these thousands marching today... sorry they did not march in thousands before May 27th for you, or even later on the 29th, or 30th....or today for you!
Sorry they did not march till the Exploiter got terminated by a bigger fish!
I wonder, what fish will munch on us now after he is gone!
http://beirut.indymedia.org/ar/2005/02/2213.shtml
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
After 9/11, Administration neo-cons offered a "noble lie" to sell the public on the need to invade and occupy Iraq (The Iraqis will shower our troops with flowers and kisses). The same group has invented a new "virtuous prevarication" to build support for an attack on Syria. Ignoring recent testimony by CIA Director Porter J. Goss that "Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-U.S. jihadists" (Washington Post, February 17, 2005), this group of high US officials in Defense, State and the Vice President's office have organized a "get Syria" movement.
- The "Noble Liars" Attack Syria
Ignoring recent testimony by CIA Director Porter J. Goss that "Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-U.S. jihadists" (Washington Post, February 17, 2005), this group of high US officials in Defense, State and the Vice President's office have organized a "get Syria" movement.
Without evidence, US officials accused Damascus of responsibility for the February 14 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in Beirut, and of sponsoring terrorism in Iraq as well.
Anti-Syria rhetoric followed from the Iraq precedent. Following the 9/11 attacks, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and then-Defense Policy Board Chair Richard Perle found they could convince President Bush to switch from traditionalist (do little) policy to aggressively asserting naked military power.
Altering Teddy Roosevelt's policy advice by speaking loudly and also carrying a big stick, these neo-cons replaced truth with "myth-making." The neo-cons shared a common guru, former University of Chicago political philosopher Leo Strauss. Under Strauss' neo-platonic model, a governing elite wields power and utilizes the "noble lie" to guide imperial ideology. Beyond sharing a common understanding of the Straussian fundamentals of political rule, the neo-cons also share enthusiasm for aggressive Israeli policies.
In the early 1990s, they sold Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfled on this strategy. After 9/11, Cheney and Rumsfeld used their positions as Vice President and Defense Secretary to sell Bush on the new approach. From that time on, official statements utilized the neo-con "noble lie": Saddam Hussein backed the 9/11 terrorists and possessed WMDs and planned to share them with terrorists; thus, the US had to stop him. Repeat it and report it in the press and the public will believe it. Pro-Israel media acolytes like the NY Times' Judith Miller obliged the neo-cons in manufacturing "evidence" of an "enemy" that the public could effortlessly hate.
By late 2004, the White House admitted that Saddam had neither WMDs nor links to the 9/11 fiends. Logically, Bush should have fired this gang for involving the country in the Iraqi morass. Instead, their disastrous Iraqi performance brought the neo-cons even more clout in the second Bush Administration. Using their spin-mastery to inflame opinion, the neo-cons invented new "black hats" Iran and Syria.
The neo-cons also stage-managed facts in the aftermath of the February 14 assassination of Hariri, who had demanded that Syrian troops leave Lebanon, so as to point the accusatory finger at the Bashar al-Assad government. Even after Assad condemned the murder as a "horrible crime," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recalled the US Ambassador to Syria for "consultations," while threats of possible US military action emanated from neo-con offices in Washington.
Spun properly, Hariri's murder transcended the commonplace assassinations in the Middle East and became an international cause célèbre. The neo-cons correctly counted on the media to maintain "temporal atrophy." The press neither commented on how assassinating one's "enemies" impacted the rule of law, nor on how routine extra-judicial assassinations by Israel and the United States had become.
Bush revealed in his 2003 State of the Union address that "more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries. Many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way-- they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies." What a lesson to teach!
Had the media reported Hariri's assassination as just another probable state-sponsored execution, it would have stripped both shock value and the veneer of moral indignation from Bush's reaction.
But it didn't. So, the anti-Syria theme escalated. Bush had already used his February 2005 State of the Union address to confront "regimes that continue to harbor terrorists and pursue weapons of mass murder. Syria still allows its territory, and parts of Lebanon, to be used by terrorists who seek to destroy every chance of peace in the region."
The next day, Wolfowitz told Senate Armed Services Committee members that Syria should stop "destabilize[ing] Iraq" as if Syria, not the United States, invaded Iraq in March 2003 without UN Security Council authorization.
The Senate panel's curiosity did not extend to asking Wolfowitz about Israeli destabilization of Lebanon during the 1980s or how Israeli-backed Phalangist militias massacred thousands of Palestinian refugees in 1982 at Sabra and Shatila.
Indeed, historical amnesia after Hariri's murder permitted Bush officials to sanctimoniously demand that Congress warn Syria to end her "occupation" of Lebanon and support Lebanese "sovereignty." Even Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who commanded Israeli military operations in Lebanon in 1982, made such a demand.
What Chutzpah! Sharon demands Syrian withdrawal while Israel continues its 38-year occupation of Palestinian territories, in defiance of UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338. Indeed, Israel still occupies Syria's Golan Heights in violation of UN Security Council resolution 497.
Another part of the "noble lie" relates to the threat Syria's 14,000 troops poses to Lebanese "sovereignty." In fact, the bilateral agreement between Lebanon and Syria to station troops resulted directly from the prior destabilization of Lebanon by Israel, the United States, France and to a lesser extent Syria whose interests are directly affected by Lebanese instability.
But who benefits? Without a context, official US language makes it seem as if Lebanon and the United States would gain from hostility toward evil Syria. On February 8, Secretary of State Rice called Syria "unhelpful in a number ways." Did she mean to include Syria's post 9/11 assistance in providing US intelligence with information that saved American lives by preventing an Al Qaeda attack on the US Fleet in Bahrain?
Did she refer to Syria's help in arresting Mohammed Haydar Zammar, a Syrian-born German citizen accused of recruiting some 9/11 hijackers in Hamburg? Indeed, did Rice also suffer terminal forgetfulness?
The State Department affirmed on April 30, 2003: "The Government of Syria has cooperated significantly with the United States and other foreign governments against al-Qaida, the Taliban, and other terrorist organizations and individuals." More recently, Damascus cooperated by closing holes in the porous Iraqi-Syrian border.
Syria learned: no good deed goes unpunished. Syria still remains on the State Department's list of countries sponsoring terrorism. In November 2003, Congress passed without debate the Syria Accountability Act. No Member publicly referred to Syria's anti-terrorist efforts. Yet, the bill charged Syria without citing evidence -- with "harboring terrorists," "developing weapons of mass destruction" and "occupying Lebanon." On May 12, 2004, Bush banned US exports to Syria and Syrian aircraft from US territory.
Following Hariri's murder, anti-Syria rhetoric escalated. Senator George Allen (R-VA) and Representative Eliot Engel (D-NY) called for sending "a message" by imposing "tough" new measures banning US business in Syria -- on Damascus.
The verbal attacks coincided with demands to install "democracy." Indeed, "democracy" had already served to cover previous US aggression. A month after the 9/11 events, Bush bombed Afghanistan "they hate us because we're free"--despite the fact that most of the 9/11 hijackers came from oily Saudi Arabia, the US ally. Similarly, Bush "liberated Iraq" by making war the most profound violation of human rights -- against the human rights abusing Hussein.
The democracy beat continues because the major media doesn't question it. David Frum and Richard Perle (January 7, 2004 Wall St. Journal) contended in reference to Syria that, "When the door [to democracy] is locked shut by a totalitarian deadbolt, American power may be the only way to open it up." In their 2003 book An End to Evil, Frum and Perle advocated regime change in Syria, Cuba, North Korea and Iran. In 1996, Perle and fellow neo-con Douglas Feith had projected a policy to facilitate Israel's shaping of "its strategic environment...by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria." In their report, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," Perle and Feith argued for the removal of "Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, an important Israeli strategic objective as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions."
If rogue elements in Syrian did the Beirut murder, it was what Israeli journalist Uri Avnery's called "an act of supreme folly, since it was obvious that it would help the Americans build up the Lebanese opposition and arouse a storm of anti-Syrian sentiment."
Regardless of who assassinated Hariri, the deed focused world attention on a problematic Lebanese-Syrian relationship. Hariri's death may indeed serve to catalyze a new round of US and even some European intervention in Arab affairs. The very threat of such a move has pushed Syria to talk of withdrawing its forces from Lebanon.
But as Bush descended upon Europe last week to forgive France and Germany for being right about Iraq, Europeans indicated they would proceed "cautiously in blood," as Edmund Burke once advised.
The neo-cons awaited Bush's return to Washington so as to proceed with their foreign policy script, oozing with "sound and fury" (Shakespeare's "Macbeth"), which calls for burying judicious voices and replacing them with "noble lies."
-- Farrah Hassen recently spent 2 months working for the United Nations Development Programme in Syria. She can be reached at: FHuisClos1944 [at] aol.com
Saul Landau directs Digital Media at Cal Poly Pomona University. He and Farrah Hassen made the 2004 film: SYRIA: BETWEEN IRAQ AND A HARD PLACE.
Homepage: http://www.counterpunch.org/
http://beirut.indymedia.org/ar/2005/03/2261.shtml
- The "Noble Liars" Attack Syria
Ignoring recent testimony by CIA Director Porter J. Goss that "Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-U.S. jihadists" (Washington Post, February 17, 2005), this group of high US officials in Defense, State and the Vice President's office have organized a "get Syria" movement.
Without evidence, US officials accused Damascus of responsibility for the February 14 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in Beirut, and of sponsoring terrorism in Iraq as well.
Anti-Syria rhetoric followed from the Iraq precedent. Following the 9/11 attacks, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and then-Defense Policy Board Chair Richard Perle found they could convince President Bush to switch from traditionalist (do little) policy to aggressively asserting naked military power.
Altering Teddy Roosevelt's policy advice by speaking loudly and also carrying a big stick, these neo-cons replaced truth with "myth-making." The neo-cons shared a common guru, former University of Chicago political philosopher Leo Strauss. Under Strauss' neo-platonic model, a governing elite wields power and utilizes the "noble lie" to guide imperial ideology. Beyond sharing a common understanding of the Straussian fundamentals of political rule, the neo-cons also share enthusiasm for aggressive Israeli policies.
In the early 1990s, they sold Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfled on this strategy. After 9/11, Cheney and Rumsfeld used their positions as Vice President and Defense Secretary to sell Bush on the new approach. From that time on, official statements utilized the neo-con "noble lie": Saddam Hussein backed the 9/11 terrorists and possessed WMDs and planned to share them with terrorists; thus, the US had to stop him. Repeat it and report it in the press and the public will believe it. Pro-Israel media acolytes like the NY Times' Judith Miller obliged the neo-cons in manufacturing "evidence" of an "enemy" that the public could effortlessly hate.
By late 2004, the White House admitted that Saddam had neither WMDs nor links to the 9/11 fiends. Logically, Bush should have fired this gang for involving the country in the Iraqi morass. Instead, their disastrous Iraqi performance brought the neo-cons even more clout in the second Bush Administration. Using their spin-mastery to inflame opinion, the neo-cons invented new "black hats" Iran and Syria.
The neo-cons also stage-managed facts in the aftermath of the February 14 assassination of Hariri, who had demanded that Syrian troops leave Lebanon, so as to point the accusatory finger at the Bashar al-Assad government. Even after Assad condemned the murder as a "horrible crime," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recalled the US Ambassador to Syria for "consultations," while threats of possible US military action emanated from neo-con offices in Washington.
Spun properly, Hariri's murder transcended the commonplace assassinations in the Middle East and became an international cause célèbre. The neo-cons correctly counted on the media to maintain "temporal atrophy." The press neither commented on how assassinating one's "enemies" impacted the rule of law, nor on how routine extra-judicial assassinations by Israel and the United States had become.
Bush revealed in his 2003 State of the Union address that "more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries. Many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way-- they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies." What a lesson to teach!
Had the media reported Hariri's assassination as just another probable state-sponsored execution, it would have stripped both shock value and the veneer of moral indignation from Bush's reaction.
But it didn't. So, the anti-Syria theme escalated. Bush had already used his February 2005 State of the Union address to confront "regimes that continue to harbor terrorists and pursue weapons of mass murder. Syria still allows its territory, and parts of Lebanon, to be used by terrorists who seek to destroy every chance of peace in the region."
The next day, Wolfowitz told Senate Armed Services Committee members that Syria should stop "destabilize[ing] Iraq" as if Syria, not the United States, invaded Iraq in March 2003 without UN Security Council authorization.
The Senate panel's curiosity did not extend to asking Wolfowitz about Israeli destabilization of Lebanon during the 1980s or how Israeli-backed Phalangist militias massacred thousands of Palestinian refugees in 1982 at Sabra and Shatila.
Indeed, historical amnesia after Hariri's murder permitted Bush officials to sanctimoniously demand that Congress warn Syria to end her "occupation" of Lebanon and support Lebanese "sovereignty." Even Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who commanded Israeli military operations in Lebanon in 1982, made such a demand.
What Chutzpah! Sharon demands Syrian withdrawal while Israel continues its 38-year occupation of Palestinian territories, in defiance of UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338. Indeed, Israel still occupies Syria's Golan Heights in violation of UN Security Council resolution 497.
Another part of the "noble lie" relates to the threat Syria's 14,000 troops poses to Lebanese "sovereignty." In fact, the bilateral agreement between Lebanon and Syria to station troops resulted directly from the prior destabilization of Lebanon by Israel, the United States, France and to a lesser extent Syria whose interests are directly affected by Lebanese instability.
But who benefits? Without a context, official US language makes it seem as if Lebanon and the United States would gain from hostility toward evil Syria. On February 8, Secretary of State Rice called Syria "unhelpful in a number ways." Did she mean to include Syria's post 9/11 assistance in providing US intelligence with information that saved American lives by preventing an Al Qaeda attack on the US Fleet in Bahrain?
Did she refer to Syria's help in arresting Mohammed Haydar Zammar, a Syrian-born German citizen accused of recruiting some 9/11 hijackers in Hamburg? Indeed, did Rice also suffer terminal forgetfulness?
The State Department affirmed on April 30, 2003: "The Government of Syria has cooperated significantly with the United States and other foreign governments against al-Qaida, the Taliban, and other terrorist organizations and individuals." More recently, Damascus cooperated by closing holes in the porous Iraqi-Syrian border.
Syria learned: no good deed goes unpunished. Syria still remains on the State Department's list of countries sponsoring terrorism. In November 2003, Congress passed without debate the Syria Accountability Act. No Member publicly referred to Syria's anti-terrorist efforts. Yet, the bill charged Syria without citing evidence -- with "harboring terrorists," "developing weapons of mass destruction" and "occupying Lebanon." On May 12, 2004, Bush banned US exports to Syria and Syrian aircraft from US territory.
Following Hariri's murder, anti-Syria rhetoric escalated. Senator George Allen (R-VA) and Representative Eliot Engel (D-NY) called for sending "a message" by imposing "tough" new measures banning US business in Syria -- on Damascus.
The verbal attacks coincided with demands to install "democracy." Indeed, "democracy" had already served to cover previous US aggression. A month after the 9/11 events, Bush bombed Afghanistan "they hate us because we're free"--despite the fact that most of the 9/11 hijackers came from oily Saudi Arabia, the US ally. Similarly, Bush "liberated Iraq" by making war the most profound violation of human rights -- against the human rights abusing Hussein.
The democracy beat continues because the major media doesn't question it. David Frum and Richard Perle (January 7, 2004 Wall St. Journal) contended in reference to Syria that, "When the door [to democracy] is locked shut by a totalitarian deadbolt, American power may be the only way to open it up." In their 2003 book An End to Evil, Frum and Perle advocated regime change in Syria, Cuba, North Korea and Iran. In 1996, Perle and fellow neo-con Douglas Feith had projected a policy to facilitate Israel's shaping of "its strategic environment...by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria." In their report, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," Perle and Feith argued for the removal of "Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, an important Israeli strategic objective as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions."
If rogue elements in Syrian did the Beirut murder, it was what Israeli journalist Uri Avnery's called "an act of supreme folly, since it was obvious that it would help the Americans build up the Lebanese opposition and arouse a storm of anti-Syrian sentiment."
Regardless of who assassinated Hariri, the deed focused world attention on a problematic Lebanese-Syrian relationship. Hariri's death may indeed serve to catalyze a new round of US and even some European intervention in Arab affairs. The very threat of such a move has pushed Syria to talk of withdrawing its forces from Lebanon.
But as Bush descended upon Europe last week to forgive France and Germany for being right about Iraq, Europeans indicated they would proceed "cautiously in blood," as Edmund Burke once advised.
The neo-cons awaited Bush's return to Washington so as to proceed with their foreign policy script, oozing with "sound and fury" (Shakespeare's "Macbeth"), which calls for burying judicious voices and replacing them with "noble lies."
-- Farrah Hassen recently spent 2 months working for the United Nations Development Programme in Syria. She can be reached at: FHuisClos1944 [at] aol.com
Saul Landau directs Digital Media at Cal Poly Pomona University. He and Farrah Hassen made the 2004 film: SYRIA: BETWEEN IRAQ AND A HARD PLACE.
Homepage: http://www.counterpunch.org/
http://beirut.indymedia.org/ar/2005/03/2261.shtml
Last Update: 04/03/2005 01:38
Beirut spring
By Zvi Bar'el
Today's dramatic developments in Lebanon, signaling the victory of the democratic opposition, in effect began in late March 2000, even before the Israeli withdrawal.
The chief of Syrian intelligence in Lebanon, General Rustum Ghazaleh, is getting closer to the guillotine blade. According to a report from Syrian sources that surfaced this week in Lebanon, Ghazaleh exchanged several verbal blows with Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri shortly before the latter's resignation last October. Hariri left the meeting angrily and told his associates that his "life may be about to be over." The day before the report was made public, "Syrian sources" told the Ilaf Web site, which is financed by Saudi Arabia, that President Bashar Assad plans to replace Ghazaleh with another general.
In fact, these "Syrian sources" were brimming over with an extraordinary amount of information this week. For instance, they told Lebanese reporters that Assad intends to carry out a far-reaching reform of the army and of government institutions, and plans to dismiss cabinet ministers and get rid of the "power centers" that were willed to him by his father. The sources contended that pressure from Lebanon and the U.S. will help Assad execute the task that he has been unable to carry out up to now. These same sources reported that Syria has drawn up a six-stage plan for the withdrawal of its forces from Lebanon, eventually leaving only 2,000 Syrian soldiers (of the current 15,000) on Lebanese soil.
It was also a tough week for Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk Shara, who spent two days shuttling between Cairo, where he conferred with President Hosni Mubarak, and Saudi Arabia, where he tried to assure the Saudis that Syria was truly poised to withdraw from Lebanon. Withdraw, not redeploy, in keeping with the current demand of the Lebanese opposition. This is the first time that the Syrian foreign minister has been asked not only to explain the Syrian presence in Lebanon to Arab leaders, but also to report on Syria's plans in the near future. It is also the first time that Arab leaders are not merely interested, but are demanding that Syria take action, and the first time that Syria is not rejecting the demand.
"Assad is now carrying on a dual campaign," one Lebanese analyst told Haaretz. "He is trying to clear himself of accusations, or at least present himself as someone who didn't know what was going on, and he is trying hard to preserve the asset his father bequeathed him - Lebanon. It is hard to say which is the greater crime - that he didn't know that someone among his forces planned to assassinate Hariri, or that he himself gave the order." Does Lebanon have categorical proof of Assad's involvement or that the assassin was a Syrian? "No one has any proof, and now, proof isn't even needed. It is patently obvious that Syria was behind the repugnant assassination. If Assad doesn't know what's going on in his own backyard - he ought to resign, and if he did know - he should be put on trial."
No evidence exists, but the perception is that Syria is responsible, and this perception furnishes an excellent means for demanding Syria's departure from Lebanon. Assad tried to persuade a newspaper interviewer this week that a Hariri assassination by Syria would be tantamount to political suicide, which is why, he said, Syria did not do it. Yet one doubts that even the perpetrator could have foreseen the rapid development of events in Lebanon since the murder. On the other hand, logic is not always the best guide to political developments in Lebanon, of which the long list of assassinated leaders is ample proof.
Symbol of revolution
The result, for now, is a popular, bloodless revolution, with the emphasis on "for now." On Monday, for instance, when Prime Minister Omar Karami, 71 (the younger brother of Rashid Karami, the former prime minister, who was assassinated in 1987) announced his resignation, rioting broke out in Tripoli, Karami's hometown. Shots fired "in the air" as a sign of protest against his resignation killed a young supporter of the prime minister. In Beirut, Sunni youths called for the regime to be as sensitive to their demands as it is to those of the Christians. The fragile ethnic weave that succeeded, with abundant effort, in pushing through the Taif Agreement of 1989, was now being stretched precariously thin, inducing opposition leaders to try to calm the public mood by declaring, "We are a democratic opposition. An opposition that adopts peaceful ways."
No one would argue that the week marked a victory for democratic opposition in an Arab state. But the civil revolution in Lebanon did not begin this week, or even on the day of Hariri's assassination. Perhaps this turn of events can be traced to the end of March 2000, two months before the Israeli army's withdrawal from Lebanon. The editor of the Lebanese newspaper An-Nahar, Jubran Tueni, ran an open letter to Bashar Assad even before his appointment as president of Syria (his father would die three months later, in June 2000, but the letter was printed at a time when it was already clear that the IDF would be beginning its withdrawal from Lebanon in May).
"It is my wish, Dr. Bashar, that you ask yourself the following question: What would be the response of the Lebanese to a Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon? And what would be the relations then between Lebanon and Syria? And does Syria still have any genuine allies in Lebanon? ... I will tell you with utter candor, many Lebanese consider Syria's behavior in Lebanon to be completely at odds with the principles of sovereignty, dignity and independence."
Two days later, the Lebanese newspaper Al-Mustaqbal, owned by Hariri, published an initial response to Tueni's column. The then-editor of the newspaper Al-Fadhal Shalaq lashed out at those who write "open letters" and who do not recognize the interests of their country. "The culture of fear and intimidation always places the responsibility on the other," he wrote. "It is what frees from responsibility the individual who exhibits helplessness. In this manner, the others are always the criminals and Lebanon is always the victim." In this context, wrote Shalaq, Tueni's column has to be understood. After all, "Raising the issue of Syria's stay in Lebanon serves no purpose to Lebanese national interests or to Arab interests. Because at this time everyone should be standing at Syria's side as it approaches the negotiations, not only for Syria but also for all Arab interests."
In a second column, which ran the following day in Al-Mustaqbal, the writer reiterated that the Lebanese interest, like its economy and its prosperity, was closely linked to Syria, which serves as a bridge between Lebanon and the Arab world. Israel, the column said, cannot give Lebanon this advantage. Of course, Hariri could not have known that nearly five years later he would be the symbol of the struggle against the Syrians or that his picture, now affixed to the blue paper ribbons that are being worn on shirt lapels, would become a symbol of the popular revolution.
During these four and a half years, the newspaper An-Nahar, the Christian leadership and later on the Druze leadership continued to protest publicly against the Syrian presence, and in the course of this period, Syria has agreed four times to "redeploy" its soldiers. Lebanese public opinion merited scant notice by global public opinion, or even that of the Arab states. Lebanon was considered, and is still considered, an atypical country, both because of the composition of its population and the freedoms that are practiced there. Lebanon served as a shining example of the effect that public opinion and a free press can have on the behavior of an occupying state like Syria, but a shining example only to its own citizens.
Risky gambles
The question now is what Lebanon and Syria will do, the former with its popular victory and the latter with the advent of its downfall in Lebanon. Among the Lebanese commentators appearing this week on Lebanese and satellite television programs, no one was prepared to offer any definite answer. All spoke of the need for a "coordinated democratic step," meaning the formation of a new government in consultation with the opposition, until parliamentary elections are held in May. Nevertheless, this conciliatory option is at odds with the dual demand voiced by the opposition, which is too weak to cobble together a coalition by itself. The demand is that Syria remove its forces post-haste and that pro-Syrian president Emile Lahoud resign. Meanwhile, Lahoud has already begun contacts ahead of the formation of a new government and appointment of a new prime minister.
Will the opposition agree to work together with the president - whose term in office was extended last October under Syrian pressure, and who has been accused by the opposition of being responsible for Hariri's assassination? Will Syria concede the last struggle over its status in Lebanon and allow the opposition to drive out the president, too?
"In similar situations in the past, I could say with certainty that Syria would not give in, that it would continue to strive to maintain Lahoud's status and that it would ensure that the next prime minister is pro-Syrian," says the Lebanese commentator, "but now Syria is being subjected to heavy pressure, from Lebanon, from Arab states, and from the United States and France. On the other hand, within Syria, Assad is still subject to the influence of the old power centers from his father's time, who are already quietly demanding that Assad junior not squander the legacy of Assad senior in Lebanon. Today, every gamble in Lebanon is risky. I only hope that Assad acts with logic and not on the basis of his emotions."
Unsurprisingly, perhaps, the Lebanese analyst is not saying that the Lebanese will act in logical fashion and will not deteriorate into a new civil war. Unsurprising, because until now the opposition has emphasized its desire to maintain good contacts with Syria, as long as Syria stays off Lebanese soil. The opposition still talks about national unity and about the sense of common purpose of the ethnic communities. Only on the margins does one hear the sorts of slogans that were voiced during the period of the civil war.
Here, too, lies the interesting difference between the Lebanese and groups outside the country that are encouraging change. Whereas the United States, France and the Arab states cite UN Security Council Resolution 1559, which calls on Syria to withdraw from Lebanon and cut off its support for terror groups, the Lebanese invoke the Taif Agreement of 1989, which created the post-civil war political structure of Lebanon, and which in effect led to the end of the war. The agreement called for Syria to remove its army from Lebanon, leaving certain units in position in the Bekaa Valley for the first two years after the signing of the agreement. Lebanese critics are saying that Syria is already 13 years late in holding up its end of the agreement.
The Lebanese opposition is not interested at this time in taking any action under the American shadow. It would be better, it reasons, to argue the Lebanese position on the basis of the Taif Agreement, rather than placing the opposition in the delicate position of potentially being accused of working on behalf of a foreign power, one that is anti-Arab and anti-Muslim. This also explains why leaders of Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, and the secretary of the Arab League are seeking a local Lebanese-Syrian solution, rather than permitting the U.S. to shape the future of yet another Arab state in the region.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=547829&contrassID=1
Beirut spring
By Zvi Bar'el
Today's dramatic developments in Lebanon, signaling the victory of the democratic opposition, in effect began in late March 2000, even before the Israeli withdrawal.
The chief of Syrian intelligence in Lebanon, General Rustum Ghazaleh, is getting closer to the guillotine blade. According to a report from Syrian sources that surfaced this week in Lebanon, Ghazaleh exchanged several verbal blows with Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri shortly before the latter's resignation last October. Hariri left the meeting angrily and told his associates that his "life may be about to be over." The day before the report was made public, "Syrian sources" told the Ilaf Web site, which is financed by Saudi Arabia, that President Bashar Assad plans to replace Ghazaleh with another general.
In fact, these "Syrian sources" were brimming over with an extraordinary amount of information this week. For instance, they told Lebanese reporters that Assad intends to carry out a far-reaching reform of the army and of government institutions, and plans to dismiss cabinet ministers and get rid of the "power centers" that were willed to him by his father. The sources contended that pressure from Lebanon and the U.S. will help Assad execute the task that he has been unable to carry out up to now. These same sources reported that Syria has drawn up a six-stage plan for the withdrawal of its forces from Lebanon, eventually leaving only 2,000 Syrian soldiers (of the current 15,000) on Lebanese soil.
It was also a tough week for Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk Shara, who spent two days shuttling between Cairo, where he conferred with President Hosni Mubarak, and Saudi Arabia, where he tried to assure the Saudis that Syria was truly poised to withdraw from Lebanon. Withdraw, not redeploy, in keeping with the current demand of the Lebanese opposition. This is the first time that the Syrian foreign minister has been asked not only to explain the Syrian presence in Lebanon to Arab leaders, but also to report on Syria's plans in the near future. It is also the first time that Arab leaders are not merely interested, but are demanding that Syria take action, and the first time that Syria is not rejecting the demand.
"Assad is now carrying on a dual campaign," one Lebanese analyst told Haaretz. "He is trying to clear himself of accusations, or at least present himself as someone who didn't know what was going on, and he is trying hard to preserve the asset his father bequeathed him - Lebanon. It is hard to say which is the greater crime - that he didn't know that someone among his forces planned to assassinate Hariri, or that he himself gave the order." Does Lebanon have categorical proof of Assad's involvement or that the assassin was a Syrian? "No one has any proof, and now, proof isn't even needed. It is patently obvious that Syria was behind the repugnant assassination. If Assad doesn't know what's going on in his own backyard - he ought to resign, and if he did know - he should be put on trial."
No evidence exists, but the perception is that Syria is responsible, and this perception furnishes an excellent means for demanding Syria's departure from Lebanon. Assad tried to persuade a newspaper interviewer this week that a Hariri assassination by Syria would be tantamount to political suicide, which is why, he said, Syria did not do it. Yet one doubts that even the perpetrator could have foreseen the rapid development of events in Lebanon since the murder. On the other hand, logic is not always the best guide to political developments in Lebanon, of which the long list of assassinated leaders is ample proof.
Symbol of revolution
The result, for now, is a popular, bloodless revolution, with the emphasis on "for now." On Monday, for instance, when Prime Minister Omar Karami, 71 (the younger brother of Rashid Karami, the former prime minister, who was assassinated in 1987) announced his resignation, rioting broke out in Tripoli, Karami's hometown. Shots fired "in the air" as a sign of protest against his resignation killed a young supporter of the prime minister. In Beirut, Sunni youths called for the regime to be as sensitive to their demands as it is to those of the Christians. The fragile ethnic weave that succeeded, with abundant effort, in pushing through the Taif Agreement of 1989, was now being stretched precariously thin, inducing opposition leaders to try to calm the public mood by declaring, "We are a democratic opposition. An opposition that adopts peaceful ways."
No one would argue that the week marked a victory for democratic opposition in an Arab state. But the civil revolution in Lebanon did not begin this week, or even on the day of Hariri's assassination. Perhaps this turn of events can be traced to the end of March 2000, two months before the Israeli army's withdrawal from Lebanon. The editor of the Lebanese newspaper An-Nahar, Jubran Tueni, ran an open letter to Bashar Assad even before his appointment as president of Syria (his father would die three months later, in June 2000, but the letter was printed at a time when it was already clear that the IDF would be beginning its withdrawal from Lebanon in May).
"It is my wish, Dr. Bashar, that you ask yourself the following question: What would be the response of the Lebanese to a Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon? And what would be the relations then between Lebanon and Syria? And does Syria still have any genuine allies in Lebanon? ... I will tell you with utter candor, many Lebanese consider Syria's behavior in Lebanon to be completely at odds with the principles of sovereignty, dignity and independence."
Two days later, the Lebanese newspaper Al-Mustaqbal, owned by Hariri, published an initial response to Tueni's column. The then-editor of the newspaper Al-Fadhal Shalaq lashed out at those who write "open letters" and who do not recognize the interests of their country. "The culture of fear and intimidation always places the responsibility on the other," he wrote. "It is what frees from responsibility the individual who exhibits helplessness. In this manner, the others are always the criminals and Lebanon is always the victim." In this context, wrote Shalaq, Tueni's column has to be understood. After all, "Raising the issue of Syria's stay in Lebanon serves no purpose to Lebanese national interests or to Arab interests. Because at this time everyone should be standing at Syria's side as it approaches the negotiations, not only for Syria but also for all Arab interests."
In a second column, which ran the following day in Al-Mustaqbal, the writer reiterated that the Lebanese interest, like its economy and its prosperity, was closely linked to Syria, which serves as a bridge between Lebanon and the Arab world. Israel, the column said, cannot give Lebanon this advantage. Of course, Hariri could not have known that nearly five years later he would be the symbol of the struggle against the Syrians or that his picture, now affixed to the blue paper ribbons that are being worn on shirt lapels, would become a symbol of the popular revolution.
During these four and a half years, the newspaper An-Nahar, the Christian leadership and later on the Druze leadership continued to protest publicly against the Syrian presence, and in the course of this period, Syria has agreed four times to "redeploy" its soldiers. Lebanese public opinion merited scant notice by global public opinion, or even that of the Arab states. Lebanon was considered, and is still considered, an atypical country, both because of the composition of its population and the freedoms that are practiced there. Lebanon served as a shining example of the effect that public opinion and a free press can have on the behavior of an occupying state like Syria, but a shining example only to its own citizens.
Risky gambles
The question now is what Lebanon and Syria will do, the former with its popular victory and the latter with the advent of its downfall in Lebanon. Among the Lebanese commentators appearing this week on Lebanese and satellite television programs, no one was prepared to offer any definite answer. All spoke of the need for a "coordinated democratic step," meaning the formation of a new government in consultation with the opposition, until parliamentary elections are held in May. Nevertheless, this conciliatory option is at odds with the dual demand voiced by the opposition, which is too weak to cobble together a coalition by itself. The demand is that Syria remove its forces post-haste and that pro-Syrian president Emile Lahoud resign. Meanwhile, Lahoud has already begun contacts ahead of the formation of a new government and appointment of a new prime minister.
Will the opposition agree to work together with the president - whose term in office was extended last October under Syrian pressure, and who has been accused by the opposition of being responsible for Hariri's assassination? Will Syria concede the last struggle over its status in Lebanon and allow the opposition to drive out the president, too?
"In similar situations in the past, I could say with certainty that Syria would not give in, that it would continue to strive to maintain Lahoud's status and that it would ensure that the next prime minister is pro-Syrian," says the Lebanese commentator, "but now Syria is being subjected to heavy pressure, from Lebanon, from Arab states, and from the United States and France. On the other hand, within Syria, Assad is still subject to the influence of the old power centers from his father's time, who are already quietly demanding that Assad junior not squander the legacy of Assad senior in Lebanon. Today, every gamble in Lebanon is risky. I only hope that Assad acts with logic and not on the basis of his emotions."
Unsurprisingly, perhaps, the Lebanese analyst is not saying that the Lebanese will act in logical fashion and will not deteriorate into a new civil war. Unsurprising, because until now the opposition has emphasized its desire to maintain good contacts with Syria, as long as Syria stays off Lebanese soil. The opposition still talks about national unity and about the sense of common purpose of the ethnic communities. Only on the margins does one hear the sorts of slogans that were voiced during the period of the civil war.
Here, too, lies the interesting difference between the Lebanese and groups outside the country that are encouraging change. Whereas the United States, France and the Arab states cite UN Security Council Resolution 1559, which calls on Syria to withdraw from Lebanon and cut off its support for terror groups, the Lebanese invoke the Taif Agreement of 1989, which created the post-civil war political structure of Lebanon, and which in effect led to the end of the war. The agreement called for Syria to remove its army from Lebanon, leaving certain units in position in the Bekaa Valley for the first two years after the signing of the agreement. Lebanese critics are saying that Syria is already 13 years late in holding up its end of the agreement.
The Lebanese opposition is not interested at this time in taking any action under the American shadow. It would be better, it reasons, to argue the Lebanese position on the basis of the Taif Agreement, rather than placing the opposition in the delicate position of potentially being accused of working on behalf of a foreign power, one that is anti-Arab and anti-Muslim. This also explains why leaders of Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, and the secretary of the Arab League are seeking a local Lebanese-Syrian solution, rather than permitting the U.S. to shape the future of yet another Arab state in the region.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=547829&contrassID=1
Of all the suspects, Israel stands to gain the most from Hararis murder. Syria stands to gain nothing, and to lose a great deal.
Only fools would take Israeli claims that Syrians did it seriously.
Only fools would take Israeli claims that Syrians did it seriously.
You've made it too easy for yourself.
For one, where did you read or hear Israel arguing that Syria did it?
Secondly, note all those Lebanese who have claimed Syria is the culprit. You dismiss all these people as fools?
I suggest you do your homework before sounding off at Israel's expense.
For one, where did you read or hear Israel arguing that Syria did it?
Secondly, note all those Lebanese who have claimed Syria is the culprit. You dismiss all these people as fools?
I suggest you do your homework before sounding off at Israel's expense.
> For one, where did you read or hear Israel arguing that Syria did it?
The Haaretz article strongly implied it (while maintaining their wiggle room) by saying, “the perception is that Syria is responsible.”
>Secondly, note all those Lebanese who have claimed Syria is the culprit. You dismiss all these people as fools?
Not fools, but opportunists, some in the pay of the Anglo-American-Israeli Axis, others just out seize power for themselves and/or their bosses.
The Haaretz article strongly implied it (while maintaining their wiggle room) by saying, “the perception is that Syria is responsible.”
>Secondly, note all those Lebanese who have claimed Syria is the culprit. You dismiss all these people as fools?
Not fools, but opportunists, some in the pay of the Anglo-American-Israeli Axis, others just out seize power for themselves and/or their bosses.
Many in Lebanon want Syria out. A large portion of those who want the Syrians out are Lebanese Christians who think they will gain more power with Syria gone, but Syria has made enemies among many different segments of the population.
That many in Lebanon want Syria out explains why Syria is blamed for an assassination under Syria's watch. Much of the opinion on the street is that Syria is resoponsible even if it wasnt carried out by the Syrian government.
Hariri was a corrupt billionaire who gained most of his money by favor of the Saudi royal familly (for reasons that nobody seems to be able to explain). He made enemies on the left and right who wanted him dead for economic and political reasons and its likley that those who kileld him did it for reasons one rarely hears in the press (which on all sides is using his death to argue for things that have nothing to do with his death).
That many in Lebanon want Syria out explains why Syria is blamed for an assassination under Syria's watch. Much of the opinion on the street is that Syria is resoponsible even if it wasnt carried out by the Syrian government.
Hariri was a corrupt billionaire who gained most of his money by favor of the Saudi royal familly (for reasons that nobody seems to be able to explain). He made enemies on the left and right who wanted him dead for economic and political reasons and its likley that those who kileld him did it for reasons one rarely hears in the press (which on all sides is using his death to argue for things that have nothing to do with his death).
So what? If tens of thousands of lay people say the earth is flat, does that mean we can fall off the edge?
Of course not. I typical Zionist fashion, Critical Thinker has employed a logical fallacy in an attempt to decieve and manipulate you.
See:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pop.htm
Of course not. I typical Zionist fashion, Critical Thinker has employed a logical fallacy in an attempt to decieve and manipulate you.
See:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pop.htm
Worn out!?! Gimme a break. it's fresh as a daisy. What *is* worn out is the argumentum ad populum. In fact, the whole Zionist repetoir of lies, half truths and logical fallacies is worn out. Why don't Zionists just tell the truth about Israel for a change? Oh wait, now i remember. There *is* no honest defense of ethnic cleansing.
Fresh as a daisy!?! Gimme a break. it *is* worn and tired crap, just as the nessiesque argumentum ad populum. In fact, the whole nessiesque anti-Zionist repetoir of lies, half truths, distortions, exaggerations, deceit and logical fallacies is worn out. Why don't nessiesque anti-Zionists just tell the truth about Israel and the Palestinians for a change? Oh wait, now i remember. There *is* no honest defense of ethnic cleansing of Jews.
Last Update: 05/03/2005 13:41
Syrian exiles group claims Syrian behind Hariri assassination
By Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent
A group of Syrian exiles claimed Friday that Syrian intelligence staged a video recording aired by the Al Jazeera satellite TV showing a Muslim extremists claiming responsibility for the assassination of former Lebanese prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
The Paris-based National Council for Truth, Justice and Reconciliation in Syria made the claim, based on "reliable sources in Damascus," in a statement released on Friday.
The group claimed that Tyasir Abu Adas, said to be the suicide bomber who blew himself up last month near the convoy of former Lebanese prime Minister Rafik Hariri, killing Harir together with 16 others, was in fact detained by Syrian intelligence at the time of the incident.
According to the statement the bomber, Abu Adas was arrested by department 251 of the Syrian intelligence headed by general Bahaght Suleiman.
Abu Adas was detained until February 6 when he was transferred, according to the statement, under the custody of the Republican Guard headed by Syrian President Bashar al Assad?s brother, general Maher al Assad.
In its statement, the exiles group wants to prove that Syrian intelligence staged the recording and tried to depict Hariri?s assassination as an act carried out by Muslim extremists, in order to deflect criticism from Syria.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/548200.html
Syrian exiles group claims Syrian behind Hariri assassination
By Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent
A group of Syrian exiles claimed Friday that Syrian intelligence staged a video recording aired by the Al Jazeera satellite TV showing a Muslim extremists claiming responsibility for the assassination of former Lebanese prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
The Paris-based National Council for Truth, Justice and Reconciliation in Syria made the claim, based on "reliable sources in Damascus," in a statement released on Friday.
The group claimed that Tyasir Abu Adas, said to be the suicide bomber who blew himself up last month near the convoy of former Lebanese prime Minister Rafik Hariri, killing Harir together with 16 others, was in fact detained by Syrian intelligence at the time of the incident.
According to the statement the bomber, Abu Adas was arrested by department 251 of the Syrian intelligence headed by general Bahaght Suleiman.
Abu Adas was detained until February 6 when he was transferred, according to the statement, under the custody of the Republican Guard headed by Syrian President Bashar al Assad?s brother, general Maher al Assad.
In its statement, the exiles group wants to prove that Syrian intelligence staged the recording and tried to depict Hariri?s assassination as an act carried out by Muslim extremists, in order to deflect criticism from Syria.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/548200.html
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$140.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network