Interior Minister Hassan Sabaa, who resigned nine months ago, has decided to resume his position. This is a definite boost for Siniora's cabinet, which is down to 17 ministers from 24. Sabaa decided that due to the volatile political situation he's resume his duties. Only one more minister needs to resign or be assassinated for the government to fall. With Sabaa's inclusion inthe cabinet, now two more ministers need to be knocked-off. Sabaa resigned after bloody riots that took place concerning the Dutch cartoon that mocked the prophet Mohammed.
Odd thins is that this country is in an extremely precariou political situation and we've had no Interior Minister for the past 9-months, after the many assassinations that took place? That's extremely odd.
The article:
http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/getstory?openform&A3F1CADD0E35E0DDC22572300029C59B
In other news, clashes are breaking out between the supporters of Hezbollah and Hariri (Future movement).
http://dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=77131
The streets are politically charged and really anything can spark another war. Not everyone in Lebanon has the benefits of education so they can't see that actions such as bashing a politican or sect is really not the most ideal action at this precarious moment. Especially when Hezbollah and Aoun announced that they will start protesting maybe as early as the begining of this week. They are protesting for a national unity government:
http://dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=77158
This is laughable:
http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/getstory?openform&A3F1CADD0E35E0DDC22572300029C59B
I mean c'mon! Businesses closing for two days because they're protesting the assassinations, a push for the international tribunal (to nail hariri's assassins) and civil protests that are deteriorating the economy? Sound counter-productive.
Showing posts with label HEzbollah. Show all posts
Showing posts with label HEzbollah. Show all posts
Saturday, November 25, 2006
Friday, November 24, 2006
Always looking at the past and expecting Allah to fix the present
One thing I've noted about Lebanon, both when I lived here in my adolescence and now with my move back is that Lebanese always lament the 'what Lebanon used to be like.' Bygone are the days in the early 70s before the war, where the country was beautiful, everything functioned and sectarianism was absent. Well, maybe sectarianism is stronger today but people seemed to still identify with the differences in their mindset as unique to their sect. Then, there was a strong middle class and stronger secular parties, like the Lebanese Communist Party, which served as a conduit for secular-minded people. However, according to foreigners who visited Lebanon in this 'golden-age' the country looked the same and functioned quite similarly. If we keep lamenting the past, how shall we move forward?
Another thing is that many, not all, Lebanese sum up the country's problems with this catch-all phrase: "this country is cursed." Tayeb, tell me, how are we to fix the country if it's cursed? This is throwing in the towel, saying the problems are not in your hands. It's a really cheap way out of trying to seek change on an individual level.
We need to stop looking back, leave Allah at home, and find a way, through a consensus, to fix this country.
Which brings me to another point: the Shi'ites. Honestly, the way that this country has dealt with the Shi'ites is shameful. Since Lebanon fully claimed it's independence in 1943, we built up the country's infrastructure and institutions, but forgot about the South--where most of the Shi'ites come from. Shi'ites are traditionally poor farmers, who at the time of independence, were a minority. Lacking much clout, the government brushed them aside, leaving the south without proper plumbing, electricity, schools, hospitals...And yet we wonder why these people are bitter? We wonder why they support Hezbollah in overwhelming numbers---the party who built infrastructure for them and gave them proper services? The Lebanese Communist Party (LCP) was the main provider of services to these and other sects' poor, unacknowledged areas. But with the civil war of 1975-1990, sectarianism rose and the LCP's membership fell.
To this day things have not gotten better with regards to including Shi'ites into this country and government. I've been to the bekaa valley and the south, two Shi'ite stroongholds. Many of the Shi'ite towns that have been littered with cluster bombs have not been cleaned up. Roads and houses that were destroyed have mostly been repaired by Hezbollah. Many villagers told me they hadn't even see a Lebanese official visit since the fighting ended on August 14. You may say: "why should these Hezbollah supporters
My friend Ahmed, a Sunni, made a good point: "The Sunnis, Druze and Christians leave this country, they go aborad for education and jobs. The Shi'ites are the only ones that stay." So in a way, these are Lebanon's most dutiful citizens, but they are forming a state within a state which contrasts this notion. If we made attempts to include them in the government without shunning their ways and politics, they'd have less of an incentive to form this micro-state. They'd have to play by the rules of the game.
And now, the unity talks:
Well, all things considered, the Shi'ites are the biggest sect in Lebanon at the moment. I don't think people would say otherwise. Fine, the Sunnis, Druze and Christians combined form a larger bloc but it's an alliance of conveinience. And a weak one a that: anti-syrian bloc. As far as party ideologies go, there's apparent differences.
To keep ignoring Shi'ite demands they way we have and catering to more influential sects' needs only serves to further Shi'ites feelings that they are disenfranchised and need to look out for their own. Unfortunately, the way this constiution is formed, is several parties are competing in elections in one area, whichever party recieves 51% of the vote, when's the sates for that area. So this forces people who want to sit in parliament to run with the bigger parties, and in the south and Bekaa, this is Hezbollah.
I don't want a religious state. But we need to break down confessionalism, cater to everyone's needs, not just the rich, and establish a working constitution so we can get this country going. Sometimes things need to get a little worse before they can get better.
Another thing is that many, not all, Lebanese sum up the country's problems with this catch-all phrase: "this country is cursed." Tayeb, tell me, how are we to fix the country if it's cursed? This is throwing in the towel, saying the problems are not in your hands. It's a really cheap way out of trying to seek change on an individual level.
We need to stop looking back, leave Allah at home, and find a way, through a consensus, to fix this country.
Which brings me to another point: the Shi'ites. Honestly, the way that this country has dealt with the Shi'ites is shameful. Since Lebanon fully claimed it's independence in 1943, we built up the country's infrastructure and institutions, but forgot about the South--where most of the Shi'ites come from. Shi'ites are traditionally poor farmers, who at the time of independence, were a minority. Lacking much clout, the government brushed them aside, leaving the south without proper plumbing, electricity, schools, hospitals...And yet we wonder why these people are bitter? We wonder why they support Hezbollah in overwhelming numbers---the party who built infrastructure for them and gave them proper services? The Lebanese Communist Party (LCP) was the main provider of services to these and other sects' poor, unacknowledged areas. But with the civil war of 1975-1990, sectarianism rose and the LCP's membership fell.
To this day things have not gotten better with regards to including Shi'ites into this country and government. I've been to the bekaa valley and the south, two Shi'ite stroongholds. Many of the Shi'ite towns that have been littered with cluster bombs have not been cleaned up. Roads and houses that were destroyed have mostly been repaired by Hezbollah. Many villagers told me they hadn't even see a Lebanese official visit since the fighting ended on August 14. You may say: "why should these Hezbollah supporters
My friend Ahmed, a Sunni, made a good point: "The Sunnis, Druze and Christians leave this country, they go aborad for education and jobs. The Shi'ites are the only ones that stay." So in a way, these are Lebanon's most dutiful citizens, but they are forming a state within a state which contrasts this notion. If we made attempts to include them in the government without shunning their ways and politics, they'd have less of an incentive to form this micro-state. They'd have to play by the rules of the game.
And now, the unity talks:
Well, all things considered, the Shi'ites are the biggest sect in Lebanon at the moment. I don't think people would say otherwise. Fine, the Sunnis, Druze and Christians combined form a larger bloc but it's an alliance of conveinience. And a weak one a that: anti-syrian bloc. As far as party ideologies go, there's apparent differences.
To keep ignoring Shi'ite demands they way we have and catering to more influential sects' needs only serves to further Shi'ites feelings that they are disenfranchised and need to look out for their own. Unfortunately, the way this constiution is formed, is several parties are competing in elections in one area, whichever party recieves 51% of the vote, when's the sates for that area. So this forces people who want to sit in parliament to run with the bigger parties, and in the south and Bekaa, this is Hezbollah.
I don't want a religious state. But we need to break down confessionalism, cater to everyone's needs, not just the rich, and establish a working constitution so we can get this country going. Sometimes things need to get a little worse before they can get better.
Today's protest and funeral for Pierre Gemayel
First off, I'd like to announce that I added a new segment to the Conspiracy post, below. I've added another reason why Aoun and Hezbollah may have done it.
Today was the funeral for Gemayel (Wednesday was the mourning). Afterwards there was a big protest at Martyr's square. There were maybe 10-20,000 people there, tops (and that's generous). 'Official' statistics said hundreds of thousands attended. I've been to many a protest, and I'd say that's an extremely stretched number. Other people in attendance felt similary.
First, let me get this out of the way: I attended the protest because I want to know how people feel about the political situation here. Second, I was there to protest the death of an innocent, regardless of political allegiance.
I went down to the protest with three other women, all middle-aged. Two from England and one from France. One, who shall be named something snazzy like Jamila, is a supporter of March 14. This is fine by my standards because I don't support anyone.
Anywho, Jamila and I got to talking. I figured that because she's from England, she'd be more open-minded and willing to talk to me as someone who likes to play the devil's advocate. I asked her her thoughts on why she supports March 14 and who she thought carried out the assasination. Then I asked her about our constitution and the national unity government.**explained below***
What should we do with it? She says that the constitution should not change and that there should be no national unity government. So I ask her why? Doesn't she think the constitution is terribly flawed and outdated? No, she replies. I then sked about the national unity government--should one ber formed, in her opinion? No, she says. Hezbollah wants to take over and start an Islamic regime. They cause a lot of trouble--for instance this past summer's war with Israel. So I said "don't you think that maybe it'd be better to talk to Hezbollah and stop avoiding them (which is what our current government, which is comprised of the March 14 party, has done). Doesn't avoiding the Shi'ites only serve to further the sectarian rift and create more of a state-within-a-state, like Hezbollah has? Then, she went beserk. Turns out that living in England, a place with a stable civil society where people deliberate, not fight, over politics, hasn't served her well. She's a lot like the many Lebanese here--you aren't supporting us 100%, then you're an enemy. There's nothing to discuss (much like my last post).
Right there, in the middle of the Kataeb protestors that are waiving their Kataeb flags while we stand on pictures they burnt of Aoun and Nasrallah, she starts accusing me of being a Nasrallah supporter, very loudly. She's asking me if I want an Islamic state.
"Well, no, I am Christian, and not even religious."
"You want Nasrallah to make an Islamic state!"
I asked her to stop putting words in my mouth, I'd never said that. She stormed off after making another ad hominem attack.
This is what I fear for the country. You are not allowed to question why people believe what they believe if you are not concurring with their opinion. How are we to move forward if we cannot talk?
Anyway, the rest of the protest went a little oddly. I found that it was really divided. The Hariri supporters (Future movement) were in this area, chanting their slogans while the Geagea (Lebanese Forces) supporters retorted with theirs, also in a separate area. And the Kataeb were a bit more spread, but also with their crosses and flags.
Oh yes, good old confessionalism.
The speakers were pretty inciteful, saying things like "If [Syria] wants war, we'll give them war," Geagea said. Maybe not the best thing to belt out to several thousand people if you claim that you're trying to keep the country stable (since they are also pointing a finger to Hezbollah and Aoun by accusing Syria).
Also, in one predominately-Shi'ite town that used to be a Sunni stronghold, leftover Sunni residents tried to hang a picture of Saad Hariri, their leader, by a Nasrallah poster the Shi'ites put up. There were no clashes, but some serious tensions that were forcefully quelled when the army came in. So yes, sectarianism seems to be on the rise, rise rise.
***{I'll put this into context: our constitution is about 60 years old and was influenced by the then colonial power, France. It stipulates that each sect recieves national power according to their numbers. So, at the time of independence, Maronite-Christians were the majority, so they recieved the Presidency. Sunnis came next with the prime ministerialship. Third was Shi'ites who recieved the speaker of the house position. And it goes down accordingly (there are 18 different sects in Lebanon, a country that fits five times into America's smallest state, R.I.). So, 60 years later, our confessional constitution remains intact based on the same consensus we had in the 1930s (no one wants to do a new head count for fear of losing power or wriling up conflict) . Obviously the demagrophics have changed--Christians are a minority and it seems that Shi'ites are probably at 40% of the population whereas before they were the minority (they pop out a lot of babies). So there is discussion now about giving the Shi'ites a more proportionate percentage in the parliament, which would lead to national unity talks and perhaps the changing of our constitution (which is terribly flawed anyway, to every sects' disadvantage.}
Today was the funeral for Gemayel (Wednesday was the mourning). Afterwards there was a big protest at Martyr's square. There were maybe 10-20,000 people there, tops (and that's generous). 'Official' statistics said hundreds of thousands attended. I've been to many a protest, and I'd say that's an extremely stretched number. Other people in attendance felt similary.
First, let me get this out of the way: I attended the protest because I want to know how people feel about the political situation here. Second, I was there to protest the death of an innocent, regardless of political allegiance.
I went down to the protest with three other women, all middle-aged. Two from England and one from France. One, who shall be named something snazzy like Jamila, is a supporter of March 14. This is fine by my standards because I don't support anyone.
Anywho, Jamila and I got to talking. I figured that because she's from England, she'd be more open-minded and willing to talk to me as someone who likes to play the devil's advocate. I asked her her thoughts on why she supports March 14 and who she thought carried out the assasination. Then I asked her about our constitution and the national unity government.**explained below***
What should we do with it? She says that the constitution should not change and that there should be no national unity government. So I ask her why? Doesn't she think the constitution is terribly flawed and outdated? No, she replies. I then sked about the national unity government--should one ber formed, in her opinion? No, she says. Hezbollah wants to take over and start an Islamic regime. They cause a lot of trouble--for instance this past summer's war with Israel. So I said "don't you think that maybe it'd be better to talk to Hezbollah and stop avoiding them (which is what our current government, which is comprised of the March 14 party, has done). Doesn't avoiding the Shi'ites only serve to further the sectarian rift and create more of a state-within-a-state, like Hezbollah has? Then, she went beserk. Turns out that living in England, a place with a stable civil society where people deliberate, not fight, over politics, hasn't served her well. She's a lot like the many Lebanese here--you aren't supporting us 100%, then you're an enemy. There's nothing to discuss (much like my last post).
Right there, in the middle of the Kataeb protestors that are waiving their Kataeb flags while we stand on pictures they burnt of Aoun and Nasrallah, she starts accusing me of being a Nasrallah supporter, very loudly. She's asking me if I want an Islamic state.
"Well, no, I am Christian, and not even religious."
"You want Nasrallah to make an Islamic state!"
I asked her to stop putting words in my mouth, I'd never said that. She stormed off after making another ad hominem attack.
This is what I fear for the country. You are not allowed to question why people believe what they believe if you are not concurring with their opinion. How are we to move forward if we cannot talk?
Anyway, the rest of the protest went a little oddly. I found that it was really divided. The Hariri supporters (Future movement) were in this area, chanting their slogans while the Geagea (Lebanese Forces) supporters retorted with theirs, also in a separate area. And the Kataeb were a bit more spread, but also with their crosses and flags.
Oh yes, good old confessionalism.
The speakers were pretty inciteful, saying things like "If [Syria] wants war, we'll give them war," Geagea said. Maybe not the best thing to belt out to several thousand people if you claim that you're trying to keep the country stable (since they are also pointing a finger to Hezbollah and Aoun by accusing Syria).
Also, in one predominately-Shi'ite town that used to be a Sunni stronghold, leftover Sunni residents tried to hang a picture of Saad Hariri, their leader, by a Nasrallah poster the Shi'ites put up. There were no clashes, but some serious tensions that were forcefully quelled when the army came in. So yes, sectarianism seems to be on the rise, rise rise.
***{I'll put this into context: our constitution is about 60 years old and was influenced by the then colonial power, France. It stipulates that each sect recieves national power according to their numbers. So, at the time of independence, Maronite-Christians were the majority, so they recieved the Presidency. Sunnis came next with the prime ministerialship. Third was Shi'ites who recieved the speaker of the house position. And it goes down accordingly (there are 18 different sects in Lebanon, a country that fits five times into America's smallest state, R.I.). So, 60 years later, our confessional constitution remains intact based on the same consensus we had in the 1930s (no one wants to do a new head count for fear of losing power or wriling up conflict) . Obviously the demagrophics have changed--Christians are a minority and it seems that Shi'ites are probably at 40% of the population whereas before they were the minority (they pop out a lot of babies). So there is discussion now about giving the Shi'ites a more proportionate percentage in the parliament, which would lead to national unity talks and perhaps the changing of our constitution (which is terribly flawed anyway, to every sects' disadvantage.}
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
And the Gemayel conspiracies set in
As good Lebanese, ever person is now constructing their conspiracy theories around the Pierre Gemayel death. Here are some I've heard:
AMERICA DID IT: The U.S. decided to get rid of Pierre Gemayel to put further pit Lebanon against Syria, forcing Syria into the international spotlight pressuring it to clean up its ways. Benefits: possibly more cooperation in Iraq? This theory, as I heard it, didn't seem to have much of a backbone. (If anyone had a anything to add to this conspiracy, and any others, let me know)
SYRIA DID IT: This is popular with the March 14 forces because it also implies that Hezbollah/Aoun colluded, in the 'guilty by association' sense for the former's support of Syria and the latter's willing to work with Hezbollah. The Kaetaeb has been a traditional Syrian foe and one of the first to unwaveringly call for Syrian withdrawal. Why not get rid of their greatest foe? Also strikes a blow to Christian powers as they were the only faction to demand from the begining of Lebanon's inception to the present-day, that Syria must let Lebanon achieve its full independence (though Syria didn't occupy Lebanon till 1976, they were always meddling in it's business before). See 'Aoun/Hezbollah did it' (below) for another reason why Syria may have done it.
AOUN/HEZBOLLAH DID IT: By assasinating Pierre and attempting to assasinate Michel Pharoun the government would fall. Pharoun is a protestant minister who was also targeted in a failed assasination attempt that day. The government would fall for lack of ministers to legally run it. Due to the 3 hezbollah, 2 Amal and the one Christian minister (a Syrian ally) that resigned, if two more ministers either resigned or are assassinated, the government would not have enough ministers to continue to function (according to the constitution). This would lead to elections and possibly augment Hezbollah and Aoun power in the government.
ISRAEL DID IT: I've heard it said, but I haven't heard why.
MARCH 14 FORCES DID IT: Why eliminate one of their own? This one gets complicated and needs some major explanation. Gemayel was 'the weakest link' and the Kaetaeb is the weakest party of the major three Christian factions (which go, in order of most support: Aoun, Geagea and Gemayels. Aoun for the Free Patriotic Movement, Geagea, the Lebanese Forces and Gemayel's the Kaetaeb party). The incentive to kill Pierre is:
a) Hezbollah was going to go out and demonstrate in the streets on Thursday, to demand a third of parliament's cabinet seats, which would give them veto power. The March 14 forces said, "no, let's have the vote on the international tribunal first, then you'll get your third.' The international tribunal refers to the Hariri killings-- Syria is most suspect in the slaying of the former prime minister. The March 14 feared that if Hezbollah recieved veto power through their seat number boost, they'd veto the tribunal. Hezbollah refused this deal, and their three ministers resigned, then the Amal party, with two seats, followed suit. This left no representation of Shi'ites in cabinet, which makes it constitutionaly illegal to vote on legislation without all sects being represented. As March 14 only voted to approve the international tribunal after the Shi'ite ministers resigned, the decision is legally nixed. Now that Hezbollah cannot protest on Thursday (for respect for the Gemayel family and they'd be accused of inciting sectarian violence) they've affectively been neutralized. Hezbollah's ability to mobilize its population is feared, as they are the biggest party in Lebanon (though due to gerrymandering and not having a national consensus since the 1930's, it makes it seem otherwise). If Hezbollah mobilized on Thursday, the weak government (which is March 14 party) would have had to kowtow to such great pressure. This would be one reason to do away with Pierre, to stop the protests and ensure that Hezbollah doesn't get veto power.
b) Another reason is to push the international tribunal forward. The momentum for the international tribunal was dying. March 14 were the only ones vehmently pushing it. Pierre's death is a reason to start a renewed push to implement the tribunal. March 14 may use it by saying something like, "If we don't push for this tribunal, Hariri's killers will not be held accountable, which gives a greater incentive to slay other politicians. Pierre's death attests to this fact. A tribunal is needed to put an end to these deaths."
c) The Kataeb is a weak party. Aforementioned, it's the weakest of the big 3 christians factions. Pierre was also a weak politician, who was young and not a mover and a shaker. So March 14 decided to assassinate him because he was dispensable. Whomever assumes the reins of the kataeb party will not break with the March 14 party, so effectively, the party isn't losing much due to his death. This assertion is interesting because it does make you ask: why was Pierre, who was really one of the weakest of the March 14, assassinated? If someone, a country or a party, wanted to strike a blow to the March 14 forces, they would have targeted a bigger figure. If you don't agree with the assertion that Pierre was weak, ask yourself: why was he in a flimsy Kia car that had no bullet-proof glass and he only had two body guards? Other March 14 figures like Walid Jumblatt, Saad Hariri and Geagea all have sturdy cars that have bullet-proof glass and have an entourage of body guards. When they move around the city, a security convoy follows them. Why wasn't the same protection awarded to Pierre?
That's all the conspiracy theories I've heard. Want to add one? Write a comment. Either way, don't chew my head off--I'm not supporting any of these, I'm reporting what I've heard.
AMERICA DID IT: The U.S. decided to get rid of Pierre Gemayel to put further pit Lebanon against Syria, forcing Syria into the international spotlight pressuring it to clean up its ways. Benefits: possibly more cooperation in Iraq? This theory, as I heard it, didn't seem to have much of a backbone. (If anyone had a anything to add to this conspiracy, and any others, let me know)
SYRIA DID IT: This is popular with the March 14 forces because it also implies that Hezbollah/Aoun colluded, in the 'guilty by association' sense for the former's support of Syria and the latter's willing to work with Hezbollah. The Kaetaeb has been a traditional Syrian foe and one of the first to unwaveringly call for Syrian withdrawal. Why not get rid of their greatest foe? Also strikes a blow to Christian powers as they were the only faction to demand from the begining of Lebanon's inception to the present-day, that Syria must let Lebanon achieve its full independence (though Syria didn't occupy Lebanon till 1976, they were always meddling in it's business before). See 'Aoun/Hezbollah did it' (below) for another reason why Syria may have done it.
AOUN/HEZBOLLAH DID IT: By assasinating Pierre and attempting to assasinate Michel Pharoun the government would fall. Pharoun is a protestant minister who was also targeted in a failed assasination attempt that day. The government would fall for lack of ministers to legally run it. Due to the 3 hezbollah, 2 Amal and the one Christian minister (a Syrian ally) that resigned, if two more ministers either resigned or are assassinated, the government would not have enough ministers to continue to function (according to the constitution). This would lead to elections and possibly augment Hezbollah and Aoun power in the government.
ISRAEL DID IT: I've heard it said, but I haven't heard why.
MARCH 14 FORCES DID IT: Why eliminate one of their own? This one gets complicated and needs some major explanation. Gemayel was 'the weakest link' and the Kaetaeb is the weakest party of the major three Christian factions (which go, in order of most support: Aoun, Geagea and Gemayels. Aoun for the Free Patriotic Movement, Geagea, the Lebanese Forces and Gemayel's the Kaetaeb party). The incentive to kill Pierre is:
a) Hezbollah was going to go out and demonstrate in the streets on Thursday, to demand a third of parliament's cabinet seats, which would give them veto power. The March 14 forces said, "no, let's have the vote on the international tribunal first, then you'll get your third.' The international tribunal refers to the Hariri killings-- Syria is most suspect in the slaying of the former prime minister. The March 14 feared that if Hezbollah recieved veto power through their seat number boost, they'd veto the tribunal. Hezbollah refused this deal, and their three ministers resigned, then the Amal party, with two seats, followed suit. This left no representation of Shi'ites in cabinet, which makes it constitutionaly illegal to vote on legislation without all sects being represented. As March 14 only voted to approve the international tribunal after the Shi'ite ministers resigned, the decision is legally nixed. Now that Hezbollah cannot protest on Thursday (for respect for the Gemayel family and they'd be accused of inciting sectarian violence) they've affectively been neutralized. Hezbollah's ability to mobilize its population is feared, as they are the biggest party in Lebanon (though due to gerrymandering and not having a national consensus since the 1930's, it makes it seem otherwise). If Hezbollah mobilized on Thursday, the weak government (which is March 14 party) would have had to kowtow to such great pressure. This would be one reason to do away with Pierre, to stop the protests and ensure that Hezbollah doesn't get veto power.
b) Another reason is to push the international tribunal forward. The momentum for the international tribunal was dying. March 14 were the only ones vehmently pushing it. Pierre's death is a reason to start a renewed push to implement the tribunal. March 14 may use it by saying something like, "If we don't push for this tribunal, Hariri's killers will not be held accountable, which gives a greater incentive to slay other politicians. Pierre's death attests to this fact. A tribunal is needed to put an end to these deaths."
c) The Kataeb is a weak party. Aforementioned, it's the weakest of the big 3 christians factions. Pierre was also a weak politician, who was young and not a mover and a shaker. So March 14 decided to assassinate him because he was dispensable. Whomever assumes the reins of the kataeb party will not break with the March 14 party, so effectively, the party isn't losing much due to his death. This assertion is interesting because it does make you ask: why was Pierre, who was really one of the weakest of the March 14, assassinated? If someone, a country or a party, wanted to strike a blow to the March 14 forces, they would have targeted a bigger figure. If you don't agree with the assertion that Pierre was weak, ask yourself: why was he in a flimsy Kia car that had no bullet-proof glass and he only had two body guards? Other March 14 figures like Walid Jumblatt, Saad Hariri and Geagea all have sturdy cars that have bullet-proof glass and have an entourage of body guards. When they move around the city, a security convoy follows them. Why wasn't the same protection awarded to Pierre?
That's all the conspiracy theories I've heard. Want to add one? Write a comment. Either way, don't chew my head off--I'm not supporting any of these, I'm reporting what I've heard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)