Spiegel's article on Hezbollah's involvment in Hariri's murder or the reinvention of Detlev Mehlis: a story in two acts by Netanyahu and Lieberman

Under the title 'New Evidence Points to Hezbollah in Hariri Murder', the German daily Spiegel joins the ranks of those who are trying to inlfluence the outcome of the coming legislative elections in Lebanon where Hezbollah and its christian coalition are expected to win.

Basically, nothing is new in the article because it recycles the first hypothesis for Hariri's murder: Hariri was killed by Syria and its allies in Lebanon. Strange enough, this hypothesis was advanced by the German Detlev Mehlis who was appointed to lead the special tribunal investigating Hariri's murder. Mehlis's work was described as lousy: he interviewed only people close to the Hariri clan, he did not conduct extended investigations, many of his witnesses were discredited, and finally Mehlis was disgraced, a disgrace that threatened to taint the way the UN does international justice. The UN appointed then the Belgian Serge Brammertz to conduct the investigation. Brammertz's method was different: he relied more on facts and solid evidence than on hearsay. Moreover, Brammertz's investigation seemed to lead to a new hypothesis: the business dealings of the late murdered Hariri.

Nevertheless,the Spiegel article, ignoring a considerable amount of evidence pertaining to the credibility of both prosecutors, affirms nonchatlantly:

In late 2005, an investigation team approved by the United Nations and headed by German prosecutor Detlev Mehlis found, after seven months of research, that Syrian security forces and high-ranking Lebanese officials were in fact responsible for the Hariri murder. Four suspects were arrested. But the smoking gun, the final piece of evidence, was not found. The pace of the investigation stalled under Mehlis's Belgian successor, Serge Brammertz.

The tribunal is now headed by judge Daniel Bellemare. If you listen to the careful and media shy Bellemare in a press briefing answering journalists' questions you wonder how Spiegel was able to access such 'explosive' revelations. Israel's new foreign minister was the first to react calling for

And if this latest piece of disinformation from Spiegel is meant to influence Lebanese who are going to vote on June 4th, it surely missed its target. Lebanese media, from all sides, are skeptical and unmoved. But the main target for such an irresponsible piece of journalism (or can we still call it journalism ?) is maybe the international opinion who is opening up to Hezbollah as a political force in Lebanon. Is Lebanon going to be the new Gaza ? Are we going to try to stall the democratic process there, and stall the Israeli-Arab peace process knowing that: 1) Lebanon and Hezbollah are at the center of the Israeli-Arab tensions, not Hamas and the lousy Abbas who were defeated and are unable to speak for their people ? 2) That Israel's new right wing government does not want to hear of any peace process and is reluctantly preparing for a new war on Lebanon after experiencing a humiliating defeat at the hands of few hundred Hezbollah militants in 2006. 3) That Hezbollah is a very popular movement inside Lebanon, and who are, contrary to Hamas and the representatives of the Palestinians, widely supported and respected in the Arab world ?

Having failed in the war against Hezbollah, Israel is now trying to manipulate international justice against its most serious ennemy in the Arab world who are at the brink of winning a historic election in a country Israel occupied twice, and desperately wanted to neutralise its resistance. The next act ? If Hezbollah wins the elections, Israel might contemplate another war on Lebanon. However, Israel never learned the lesson: Lebanon is not and will not be a second Gaza.
Angry Arab reminds us that on this day in 2000 Israel humiliatingly fled Lebanon, thanks to Hezbollah. This was before the 2006 defeat.

Read here why Spiegel's article is probably a 'plant'.

And once again, French blogger Loubnan Ya Loubnan gives us a socratic tour of the western media reporting on the latest developments in the Hariri investigation and the Spiegel's article.

Political Assassinations in Lebanon: Truth And Consequences

The UN Inquiry on the assassination of former Lebanese PM Rafiq Hariri and other political assassinations in Lebanon is stumbling on the unwillingness of ten countries to collaborate. Collaboration with the inquiry was a number one requirement in all UN resolutions concerning the inquiry. The head commissioner, Serge Brammertz, did not publish the names of the countries who won't collaborate, but speculations are running high since the Russian ambassador, Vitaly Tchourkine, asked for the divulgation of the names.

Rafiq Hariri was killed on a Valentine day, February 14th, in Beyrouth, after 'supposedly' a car exploded near his convoy. There is no final official report about the assassination since Brammertz's predecessor, Detlev Mehlis, was discharged after his line of inquiry collapsed in a serie of false and fabricated testimonies which were the only 'proofs' he had produced accusing Syria of the assassination. Syria's army left Lebanon after a public and international outrage at the assassination designated the Syrians as prime suspects. The follow-up to this event was an election victory of the March 14th movement led by Hariri son and Walid Jumblatt as well as other pro-US political movements in Lebanon. However, the March 14th movement is, since then, unable to overcome the dwindling of its political support inside Lebanon resulting from its inability to build consensus and from the fact that most Lebanese see the movement as accomplice of the latest July Israeli agression which was overtly supported by March 14th's western political mentors, the US and the UK.

While not mentioning the names of the countries not collaborating with the inquiry, Brammertz declared being totally satisfied with the Syrian collaboration. On his blog, Alain Gresh, a 'Le Monde Diplomatique' correspondant and specialist of the Middle East, reveals the names of some of these uncooperative countries as published on January 12th by the Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar, a daily seen as close to the Lebanese opposition. They are:
The US who have satellite pictures of the assassination;
Israel who has pictures taken before and after the assassination by its spy planes continously flying over Lebanon;
France who detains a suspect, Mohammed Said Saddik, who made a false testimony to the first UN inquiry headed by Mehlis;
Among other countries mentioned by the Lebanese daily are Germany, Saudi Arabia, Koweit, Australia, UAE, and Brazil.

It is known to these countries that:
The site of the assassination had undergone a 'cleanup' before any evidence gathering;
The first UN inquiry was marred by the lack of professionalism and lack of neutrality on Mehlis's part;
Precious time was lost for collecting and analysing the evidence;
Other politicians and prominent figures died since Hariri was killed, they all are related to the March 14th movement, and their assassinations prompted, eache time, accusations against Syria;
These political assassinations were included by the UN in the mandate of the commission at the demand of the Lebanese state;

Given that Brammertz was making progress and briefing the UN along the way to the point some assume that the change of method in the latest assassination in Lebanon (that of Pierre Gemayyel) was propably prompted by informations on Brammertz's progress and a will to derail the inquiry, one may wonder why these countries, who are all supporting the corrupt pro-US Lebanese government of Fouad Sanyura, won't help a honest inquiry into a series of assassinations that destabilised Lebanon and brought it to the edge of a new civil war ?

Ironically, the March 14th movement and its accolytes had the word 'Truth' as a main slogan on their protest banners (Haqiqa, in Arabic).

Change of Pattern in Political Assassinations in Lebanon related to Brammertz's Progress on the Initial Ones

Brian Whitaker from The Guardian is to my knowledge the only one who pointed out in his article 'The Smoking Gun' the relevance of the recent change in the method of political assassinations in Lebanon to the 'Who Did It' question:

''Spot the odd one out. Gemayel's killing was the only one that involved a gun. All the other attacks used explosives. In a report to the UN on June 10, Brammertz explained why, in his view, the first 15 cases were connected: there was linkage by motive and linkage by modus operandi.''
...''The modus operandi is much more problematic. Gemayel was followed, his car was rammed, then he and his bodyguard were shot at close range, apparently with silenced guns. The killer, or killers, then vanished. In most countries we would assume it was a professional hit job."

Then Whitaker examines under this perspective the links between the change of method and the progress UN commissioner Serge Brammertz has been making in the Hariri investigation recently" See Brammertz June and September reports.

The reports were not much publicised, contrary to the previous commissioner Mehlis reports, because they are based mostly on technical progress in the investigation rather than on empty accusations as Mehlis used to do when releasing his reports. Brammertz has been conducting his investigation like a maestro, in an real independant manner, unhampered by paid for lies, pressures, passions, attempts of blockades and acquaintances with high profile people from the March 14th movement. Is it because Brammertz comes from the country of Hercule Poirot ? Reading the reports one senses immediately that the man is into something.

''On reading the report, anyone involved in the earlier attacks might easily have concluded they were too complex for safety, giving far too many clues away in the planning stages. A straightforward shooting (almost impossible in the case of a highly protected figure like Hariri but practicable in the case of Gemayel) might therefore be a wiser option.''

And Whitaker concludes...nothing, merely that even if we should not exclude Syria we should also look at other possibilities.

I conclude that self protection might not have been the sole motive for a change of strategy. The other motive for a change of strategy might have been to confuse in two main ways, one internal, and the other external. Indeed by including in the mandate of the UN commission an additional assassination different in its planning and execution from the others , and the March 14th movement was quick in asking to inlcude the latest one, one can produce two or more intended or non intended effects on the Lebanese and international political scenes:

1- The change in the pattern of the killings, from planned bombings involving a group to what appears to be a hit job, signals a desire to continue to kill without giving further evidence to the continuing UN investigation by ending the initial trail followed by Brammertz , at least for this new assassination. Also, as Brammertz was pursuing two hypothseses, the group hypothesis and the isolated individuals hypothesis, the killers this time appear as if trying to avoid consolidating the group hypothesis. The group hypothesis means ramifications not only horizontal but also vertical in the planning of the assassinations.

2-Another effect of the new method used to assassinate Pierre Gemmayel is to point the accusation this time to parties inside Lebanon within the Christian camp. Indeed, this time the assassination took place in the heart of the Christian area. The fact that all the pressure was this time on Aoun confirms some shift of focus inside the March 14th movement from the outside, us against them, to the inside, 'Are you with them or with us ?'. People from March 14th are angry about Aoun because they feel that without him Hezbollah would be weaker.

3- By adding other paths of investigation to the initial one in which all assassinations were connected and the connections producing valuable informations like in a serial killer case, the other effect is not only to stop the trail of the initial investigation but also to weaken it by distributing its internal resources on a wider and less coherent network. Brammertz's team was not sufficient for the job he was asked to do even after the UN consented to add personnel to the team recently. There was and still acute shortage of personnel to conduct the UN investigation. Another close objective would be to slow the investigation on the initial assassinations in order to gain time.

From the above and within this context of analysis, it is easy to draw conclusions on who the perpetrators of Pierre Gemmayel might be:

-They are probably the same as those who started the recent (since Rafiq Hariri) political assassinations in lebanon;
-They have extensive knowledge of the inner workings of the UN investigation and are close to the evidence Brammertz has been gathering and know probably where it will be leading.

I will let you draw the conclusions but I really fear where this ugly political game might lead.