Murderous States

The murder of the anti-Syrian Lebanese politician, Pierre Gemayel, on Tuesday could well be the straw that breaks the Lebanese camel's back. As with the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, Syria is the prime suspect and, yet again, the Syrian government has strenuously denied any involvement.

The title of Gideon Rachman's latest article on his international affairs blog for the Financial Times sums up the situation: "Lebanon on the Brink". Many used such words after the death of Mr. Hariri, but Hezbollah seemed to distract everyone with their renewed attacks on Israel, which eventually lead to the recent war.

While I say that Syria is the prime suspect, and while I don't want to prejudice the ongoing investigation, who else has a motive? If it wasn't Syria, it was Hezbollah - but then "Syria" and "Hezbollah" are virtually interchangeable terms. This is why I am not convinced by the change of policy in the United States, which now appears to wish to engage with Syria (as well as Iran). If Syria had lain dormant for a while - or at least refrained from murdering politicians who oppose its influence in Lebanon - then perhaps this could be seen as a sensible decision by the State Department but, given recent events (not just this murder, but also the almost constant stream of weapons flowing from Syria to Hezbollah before and during the war), would it not have been more sensible for the Bush Administration to have taken the line espoused by their Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton? He believes that "additional assassinations might be coming" and, when asked about possible Syrian involvement, he said, "We need to find out all of the facts, but you can take a look at the pattern of who gets assassinated in Lebanon..."

As with a great many people, I can't say I often agree with John Bolton but, on this occasion, he seems to be one of the more sensible voices around.