Rafik Al-Hariri's death is now for Israel what 9/11 became for the US: an opportunity, writes Ramzy Baroud* The Syria verdict is out. In fact, it has been out for years, long before German investigator Judge Detlev Mehlis furnished us with the findings of his ground shaking report regarding who planned, funded and carried out the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Al-Hariri on 14 February. There is little that Syria can say or do to keep the hounds at bay, save offerings of stern political concessions, mainly to Israel and the United States; a response that somehow seems irreconcilable with the crisis at hand. Attempts to reduce the clash invited by the killing of Al-Hariri to that of a foreign power bent on vulgarly micromanaging the inner politics of its weaker neighbour to serve its own interests are unrelenting. Yet few are willing to consider, or even interested in pondering, the general atmosphere surrounding the storm invited by Al-Hariri's death. The intricacies of Syrian-Lebanese relations extend beyond Al-Hariri's murder and its aftermath. For decades, Lebanon has been the stage for a regional and international power play in which various Arab countries, Israel and the United States have been engrossed. These power brokers manipulated the country's political alliances, poured in money, supplied weapons, helped validate certain players within the unfolding Lebanese drama and marginalised others. While Syria had an inventory of alliances, Israel had and still maintains proxies, as well as Washington its right wing Lebanese Christians and Iran its militias. Even Iraq, during the Baath Party era, shared in the meddling. The Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) was also a significant power, until the deadly Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, which killed tens of thousands. Since then, Palestinians have been confined to their refugee camps following the expulsion of PLO forces to various world capitals. Considering that nearly all of the competing forces on the Lebanon stage, whether internally or externally, maintain their interests in the country's affairs, and thus involvement, it's unscrupulous, to say the least, to heap the criticism on Syria alone for Lebanon's misfortunes, past and present, and to solely single out Damascus as the only likely suspect in Al-Hariri's murder. It's ironic that those who have for long contributed to Lebanon's demise are now the main players in leading the faultfinding chorus, demanding justice and the "truth". This should not in any way suggest that Syria's record in Lebanon was a shining example of courtesy and decency. Syria's thrust in Lebanon had little to do with alleviating that country's woes. It certainly had more to do with sheltering and benefiting Syria; an objective that often lead to abuses of power, unwarranted interference in Lebanon's political affairs and the near complete abrogation of the country's sovereignty. But to act as if the uproar amplified by the Bush administration -- and more specifically pro-Israeli elements within the administration -- is aimed at unmasking the truth and bringing Al-Hariri's murderers to justice is to succumb to a ruse as sizeable as allegations that Iraq harboured weapons of mass destruction. The Bush administration, which began "rallying" the international community to isolate and sanction Syria, even mull over military action "as a last resort", is itself a gross violator of human rights, a burden felt almost exclusively by Arab and Muslim nations. Coincidentally, as American diplomats are now stamping their feet to bring "the perpetrators of Al-Hariri's killing to justice" -- as phrased by the State Department -- administration officials are pressing Congressional lawmakers to exempt the CIA from a proposed ban on the "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" of anyone held by US authorities, mostly Arabs and Muslims. It's obvious to those familiar with US foreign policy in the Middle East that Bush's sudden interest in "justice" is geographically and temporally unique, with the purpose of moulding Lebanon into another "friendly" regime circulating within the American sphere. The crowd that would likely be in charge of operating the Lebanon project are, ironically, the same individuals that drafted and pushed for anti-Syria policies in Washington, most notably the so-called Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, which was cemented by American sanctions and a US-led international campaign to drive Syria out of Lebanon. It was certainly no secret that the bill was the joint effort and handiwork of right wing Christian Lebanese individuals, key pro-Israeli members of the Bush administration and the Israeli lobby, whose keenness in "rolling back" Syria borders on obsession. It's interesting and even disturbing how US foreign policy towards Syria has remained consistent with the infamous report prepared for the Israeli government in 1996 by individuals who fabricated the case for war on Iraq, namely Richard Pearle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, among others. "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" counselled that "given the nature of the regime in Damascus, it is both natural and moral that Israel abandon the slogan 'comprehensive peace' and move to contain Syria, drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction programme, and rejecting 'land for peace' deals on the Golan Heights." The policy report recommended that Israel should establish "the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces". It also read: "Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq -- an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right -- as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions." The bloodstained hands responsible for Al-Hariri's murder are, so it seems, the least relevant detail, as far as Israel and the Bush administration are concerned. The death of the "father of Lebanon" was but an opportunity to further "contain" and extract concessions from Damascus, concessions that are likely to be generously offered now that Syria is a lone ranger in the face of the Israeli-American storm. Considering the non-existent Arab front which might otherwise have slowed the encroaching anti-Syrian crusade and the reckless and self-destructive foreign policy practised by the Bush administration, Syria will most likely be forced to capitulate on selected strategic interests in order to be spared the same fate that was unleashed on Iraq ahead of the 2003 invasion. Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad has already given indication that he will do all that it takes to spare his country that feared calamity. Syria is expected to eliminate any influence it might still maintain over Lebanon, expel Palestinian factions that oppose the Israeli occupation and prepare to accept Israel's interpretation of a suitable resolution to the Golan Heights conflict Interestingly, these are all but American concerns. The US call on Damascus to fully cooperate in its war on terror has long been satisfied; the US contentment with Syria's ongoing cooperation was registered in a State Department acknowledgement in April 2003 and at later dates. Syria's falling out is evidently with Israel, not the United States. The German judge who is leading the international investigation into the assassination of Al-Hariri might have indeed been accurate and honest in his assessment that lead him to construe a Syrian role in the murder. But one should be wary of overstating the rapport between that alleged involvement and the campaign to pressure Syria on a vast range of issues, of which Al-Hariri's death is a minor detail and pretext at best. * The writer is a Palestinian-American journalist.
