Khaddam Interviews and Syrian Views

I would like to thank the many people who have been commenting on SC since I left Damascus and who have kept the site up to date and provided many interesting links and good analysis. Forgive me for reposting some of the things they have brought to our attention in the main pages. Some readers don't dip into the comment section frequently and I thought it was important to copy some of the most pertinent material to the main page. I haven't always given credit where it is due, but I am grateful all the same. On that note, let me also say that many people in Washington do read the comment section regularly. I was just in DC to attend an on-going seminar on Syria that is being run by a think tank there, and a number of people at the table referred to observations made by people in the comment section. So keep on giving your two cents. It makes a difference.

Saudi Arabia and Egypt are again trying to broker a way for Syria to avoid a direct confrontation with the UN and still cooperate with the UN.

Syria's Assad in Egypt After Saudi Visit
By REUTERS
Published: January 8, 2006

CAIRO (Reuters) - Syrian President Bashar al-Assad flew to Egypt and Saudi Arabia on Sunday for talks on Lebanon, a day after diplomats said Assad had rejected a U.N. request to interview him about a former Lebanese prime minister's murder.

``(The king) affirmed the kingdom's desire for stronger relations between Syria and Lebanon in all fields, so that the interests of both countries and security of the region are protected,'' said a statement on the Saudi state news agency SPA, after a meeting and banquet in Jeddah. It gave no more details.

Saudi Arabia, a key U.S. ally, said in November it had brokered a deal between Damascus and the United Nations to allow the questioning of five Syrian officials in Vienna.

Adel al-Harbi, political editor at the leading Saudi daily al-Riyadh, said Saudi Arabia wanted to find a way for Assad to meet the U.N. team without harming Syria's sovereignty.

``The anxiety here and in Arab countries is that Syria doesn't cooperate. Saudi Arabia is trying to get them to cooperate with the investigation to find the truth,'' he said. ``An interview which respects Syrian sovereignty does no harm in itself, as long as it is an interview and not questioning.''

Diplomats say Syria agreed to allow investigators to meet Foreign Minister Farouq al-Shara, who accompanied Assad on his Saudi trip.

``It seems that there are Saudi and Egyptian efforts to find a comprehensive regional and international agreement regarding the U.N. request to meet President Assad,'' said Syrian political analyst Imad Shuaibi. ``The U.N. request violated (international) protocol by naming the witnesses whom the commission wanted to meet.''

Assad, in an interview with an Egyptian paper, said this week that as president he had international immunity, indicating that U.N. investigators could not insist on interviewing him.

Here are a few more links to Khaddam interviews and articles supplied by T_desco and Adonis among others in the comment section.

Hassan Fattah of the New York Times: "A Critic, in Exile, Aims More Barbs at the President of Syria." - January 6, 2006. Here is a quote:

Mr. Khaddam repeated his allegation that Mr. Assad had personally threatened Mr. Hariri. Although he again stopped short of directly implicating Mr. Assad in the assassination, Mr. Khaddam gave more details of Mr. Assad's interaction with Mr. Hariri, and he harshly criticized Mr. Assad's increasingly aggressive governing style.

"You could see that there was this disgust toward Hariri, and he was fearing his growing power in Lebanon and its implications for Lahoud," Mr. Khaddam said.

He said he had pondered resigning as far back as 2003, three years after Bashar al-Assad rose to power, but finally stepped down in June 2005, after his attempts at reform were rebuffed, he said.

"Things are dangerous now, but the biggest danger is that the regime cannot make a smart decision anymore," he said. And he added another personal criticism of Mr. Assad: "The size of the responsibility he faces is bigger than him. And the people around him only serve to pump his ego and lie to him."

Newsweek by Christopher Dickey.

Do you think you will ever be able to go back to Syria?

Yes, I will be back. And it’s not in the distant future that I’ll be back.

What is the actual picture you have of the way things will develop in the next few months.
When the scenario starts to materialize all the people are going to see it. [But] if there is a big political agenda it is not feasible to make it public in the press.

Does your vision of Syria include any members of the Assad family?
The Assad family is one family in Syria. Whoever rules Syria will be decided solely by voting and ballots. Whoever gets the ballots, he will make the decision along with the Syrian people in that regard.

You’re not afraid that the Muslim Brotherhood will get all the ballots?
No. In Syria, Christians and Muslims have a religious consciousness, but they are not fanatics. It’s a kind of mosaic of religions in equilibrium. And the Muslim Brothers now have enhanced their way of thinking, and they have come up with a new liberal agenda. And naturally when we talk about an open and democratic state, everyone is welcome to present his agenda.

David Ignatius writes in the Post of January 4, "Mob War In The Mideast."

In the gangster movies, you know all hell is about to break loose when one of the disgruntled old dons decides to switch sides and rat out the young Godfather. Something like that is now happening with Syria -- and it provides a new year's bombshell for an already turbulent Middle East.

Jumblatt says he hopes America will stand by the Cedar Revolution. "If Bush considers Lebanon one of his major achievements, now is the time to protect Lebanon," he told me. When I asked what he wanted from America, he answered: "You came to Iraq in the name of majority rule. You can do the same thing in Syria."

The Nouvel Observateur:

Interrogé dans la matinée sur une responsabilité du président syrien Bachar el-Assad dans cet attentat perpétré le 14 février 2005 à Beyrouth, il a répondu: "Je ne peux pas le nier, même si je ne peux pas affirmer qu'il soit responsable".

From interview with Asharq Al-Awsat as translated by al-Jazeera.net:

Khaddam said that he was rallying Syrian opposition parties to "create the right atmosphere for the Syrian people to topple the regime."

“This regime cannot be reformed. The only alternative is to overthrow it.”

Khaddam accuses shaleesh and Makhlouf of monpoly

RTL: as quoted in "Le Monde."

Syria-news has an article in Arabic which explains how Khaddam was the main opponent of the Damascus Spring movement in 2000. It quotes Khaddam's famous speech at the university of Damascus during the second half of 2000 in which he criticized the Damascus Spring movement for demanding the end of emergency law. He stated that Syria would not allow the "Algeriazation of Syria." In other words, he claimed that if Syria allowed democratic freedoms, the Islamists would win and the country would slip toward civil war.

Adonis points out that I am wrong about Mustafa Tlas. I wrote yesterday that he is a Damascene. He writes: "He is not damascene but from a Village near Homs, Rastan." I stand corrected, but let me add that whereas Khaddam and sons have built their mansions in Banyas, Tlas has greater aristocratic pretensions. He married Lamia Al-Jabiri in 1958, who is from the noted Aleppine family of Saadallah al-Jabiri, the leader of the Aleppo branch of the National Bloc during the French Mandate years and right hand man of Syria's first president, Shukri al-Quwatli. His son, Firas is also married to a Jabiri, if my memory serves me, making him more Jabiri than Tlas. By marrying well for two generations, the Tlases outrank the Khaddams in their social connections and pretensions. A very small point, but one worth making as Syrian society is very conscious of such things. Tlas is also responsible for rehabilitating the standing of the old Sunni notable class through his work as a publisher of history books and by supporting a new television series of biographies of the men and women who made Syria during the 20th century, which is now going into production and which will champion such notable families as his in-laws and the Quwatlis. Tlas is also responsible for having portraits of all past presidents and prime ministers of Syria hung on the walls of the People's Assembly. Indeed the Tlases have no equals within the Baath Party as champions of the old urban notables, who were so precipitously dismissed from the scene in the 1960s and shamelessly written out of Syrian history. It is such activities, not to mention horseback riding, gardening, etc. that have won the Tlases a firmer place in Damascene society than the Khaddams enjoy.

Majed khaldoon adds:

How could Mr. Landis make such mistake, Tlas is hated in Damascus. People say he loves women, money and he was a supporter of assad family, he is from a city north of Homs. The revolution in 1963 was anti Damascus revolution.

In closing, I will copy two emails that I received recently. Both are Syrians. The first is from a middle-aged man from an old notable Sunni family who presently lives in the US. He believes that the Asads will soon be out of power and that the transition will be non-violent. The second is by a young Syria, living in the Emirates, who argues that the president and Syria did not kill Hariri, a view, he insists that is still prevalent among his Syrian friends.

Dear Mr. Landis: Some thoughts about current events in Syria!?
As the regime of Al-Assad/Al-Baath is coming to a close soon I thought of two items worth keeping in mind for a post Assad regime.

1- I do sincerely believe that the transition of powers will be a peaceful one, despite a few incidents here and there. Why? The Syrian society is a mercantile society at heart (not an agrarian society nor a heavily industrialized society), has been and always will. A Mercantile society does not like violence. It is bad for business (Ask the Dutch). Syria through out its history has encountered a multitude of occupations and different kind of occupiers since the dawn of its history, and the people of that land remained resilient and capable of bypassing many agonies of tyrants that attempted to destroy the nature of that culture.

2- Many fears a form of sectarian violence in the aftermath of the toppling of the regime, these will not happen! Again, because the nature of the Syrian "mercantile" nature, and again, religion and open religious persuasions meaning the forced application of one religious view against another views is(are) very bad for business...always the case for Syria and will always be the case...Probably the Dutch learned from the Syrians on how to be tolerant in this scenario.

3- The other factor that will prevent a sectarian violence from taking place is the well integrated Syrian society especially in cities like Damascus, Homs and Aleppo. Most neighborhoods and especially the new sections of these cities are homes to a well integrated society. These voluntary integration and population movements have been taking place since independence. Remembering my neighborhood, it was loaded with all kinds and different sorts of Christian families, two Kurdish families, two Alawi families, Armenians, and one Jewish family for good measure and what not!!!??? We were all friends and neighbors and all shared the joy of festivities with each others and the sad ones when a someone get sick or die. Perhaps things have changed since my departure many moons ago as a young man, but that is how things were in that neighborhood...

That is why many people's concern about the future of violence in Syria is highly unfounded, yours included...
Later. E. J.

Here is the second.

What went through the mind of normal Syrians since Monday, February 14, 2005?
After reading, watching and listening to endless analysis (mostly presented by non-Syrians) for 328 days (according to Future TV's now sacred calendar!) all firmly claiming to represent the Syrian people's voice, I just can't take it anymore. I think that the final straw was Junblat's latest hysteric low, inviting the US to "invade Syria complying to public Syrian demands". How hypocritical and opportunistic can someone get? Away from Junblat's now non-stop insults to my intelligence as a Syrian, many non-Syrians have continuously asked: What went through your mind (as a normal politically-independent Syrian) when trying to make sense of "What the hell is happening" in the last 11 months? I just wanted to share this, and unlike Junblat, Khaddam, Sa'ad, Ghadry, Bush, many of the regime figures or the endless "analysts" and "experts" on the Syrian people's inner minds, I do claim to represent some majority of Syrian youth, mothers and fathers.

Until more credible data are presented, the following is how I (and the overwhelming majority of Syrians I've met) see the whole series of events and I argue that many many Lebanese share this view. I think that every Syrian during the last 11 months consciously or subconsciously went through the following analysis trying to make sense of who committed these crimes and why were they committed:

Isn't it possible that someone from the Syrian regime committed these crimes?
ABSOLUTELY... largely unlikely though.. Much analysis was printed and broadcasted since the crime took place on why the Syrians must have done it. Revenge, jealousy and preemptive attack on Hariri are just few of the proposed motives, but the funniest was the "they hated our freedom" Dubbia nonsense adopted by many analysts. The Syrian regime has all the capabilities needed to commit the crime, but it lacked a motive, will and even the guts to do it. If it was really done by someone in the Syrian regime (out of blind revenge presumably for 1559 or as a preemptive attack to eliminate Hariri before the elections) then the Syrian people should be ready to face internal struggles to pinpoint and isolate the people who did it from the country as a whole. This is an extremely complicated thing to do after 40 years of brutal grip on power by the regime PLUS the plethora of external parties itching to jump to the occasion and punish Syria the country, not just the regime, to fulfill their own agendas that is largely against the Syrian people's interests. I personally believe that the Syrian people are not ready to carry out this process in a radical manner, as this might lead to economic or security unrests or worse.. civil war (where external factors would be the main catalyst). Such a conflict if it took place, is something that would potentially create another ethnically-divided or sectarian-based entity in the ME to be added to Lebanon, Iraq and Israel. If the regime is found guilty (after a convincing trial) then the Syrian people (as I see it) would voluntarily do it in a way that guarantees Syria's interest first and not any other regional or international party's interest on Syria's expense (be it an "jasmine revolution" or some other way).

I'm not saying that the culprits should not face justice, I'm simply saying that, until now, we don't know for sure who exactly planned and committed it and until we become 100 percent sure it should be "BUSINESS AS USUAL" in Syria. External parties should not be allowed to harm Syrian interests, economy, dignity, rights and security in the process by exploiting the grievances of the victims of these crimes or the opportunistic politicians (such as Junblat inviting the US "to invade Syria" in the Washington Post or Khaddam proposing himself as "the alternative"!).
The logical question here would be: WHY IS SYRIA THEN STALLING THE INTERNATIONAL INVESTIGATION IF IT HAS NOTHING TO HIDE? My view is that there are multiple reasons: There is the somewhat justified "preserving Syrian dignity" excuse (unfortunately it is something becoming obsolete by the day!). The second reason for "not cooperating" is the justified fears of infiltration and spying (does the word UNSCOM ring a bell?). But the most important reason for the "slow" and "conflicting" Syrian cooperation would be because the Syrian regime does have a lot to hide, but it is not necessarily linked to the Hariri affaire. The Syrian regime (as almost every other political administration in the world) has a lot of "dirty laundry" that it does not want to be exposed. They are simply trying to hide stuff such as corruption, money laundering and other illegalities that were committed by the Syro-Lebanese mafias in Syria and Lebanon. Stuff that would definitely be exposed in any inquiry into Syrian Lebanese relations in the last 30 years. Any sane politician would want to hide such stuff from the public.

If it's not the Syrians then who was it and why?
The main suspects are: First.. Israel.
I know that many people don't want to hear its name in the Hariri issue (mainly because it was used as a scapegoat for too long by Arab dictatorships that even when it is a credible suspect, many people tend not to believe it no more!). Nonetheless, Israel had a strong motive, the capabilities and the political cover (just in case). Allow me to elaborate:

You have to admit that Israel was the main beneficiary of the whole thing.. Syria is in deep deep trouble, Lebanon is in deep deep chaos and ultimately -and most importantly- Hizballah is very very cornered and on the road do be dismantled (which would constitute the main motive).

Let's look at the facts.. we have fanatics in Washington stating publicly that they support "constructive chaos" in the middle east that would change things to "the better". We have a regional party (Israel) with strong will and motives (cornering Syria, destabilizing Lebanon and ultimately getting rid of Hizballah). It has a long experience in political assassinations (countless such surgically accurate car bombs over the last 25 years in Palestine and Lebanon at least!). Finally, it also possesses the capabilities from the technology to the required agents (hundreds of Israel's agents infiltrated within the Lebanese society.. the Lahdists and SLA members -with Lebanese blood on their hands- that were granted amnesty after 2000, among others).

Excuse me for putting the following analysis of the series of crimes so bluntly: The series of murders fits very well in the scenario of framing Syria. Think about the following: Hariri was killed in an extraordinary point of time when his relation with Syria is in one of its very few low points. A point of time when such a crime would easily be pinned on Syria (which was successfully achieved). Basel Fuleihan was a collateral damage. Hawi was killed to push the Lebanese left to an extreme anti-Syria position (to manipulate the parties that support Syria out of their hate for Israel) and to become more outspoken against Syria (which was successfully achieved too). Given the emotional nature of Arabs in general, Samir Kassir and May Chidiac were chosen very smartly to supply the Lebanese, Arabic and international media with a further negative emotional charge against Syria (which also was successfully achieved). Allow me to be more detailed here: Killing Kassir made Annahar and Al-Arabyia channel (that his wife work for as an anchor) explode emotionally against Syria which lead to further manipulation of Arab public opinion towards blaming Syria (which also was successfully achieved). May Chidiac was targeted to do the same with Al-Hayat and LBC. Jubran was killed on the eve of the security council meeting to guarantee that the harshest resolution possible would be passed and to give an extremely hard time to countries trying to make it softer (which also was relatively successfully achieved). Pushing Junblat to his seizure of hysteria against both Syria and Hizballah came as a bonus (or was it planned?!). If it really was Syria trying to take revenge and/or terrorize its Lebanese critics then wouldn't you say that any one of those idiots in the Syrian mukhabarat would have waited for two days so the Security Council would pass a softer resolution and then take revenge or terrorize by killing Jubran?!

IT'S A SIMPLE CALCULATION REALLY.. YOU KILL ONE OUTSPOKEN SYRIA CRITIC AND A THOUSAND IS INSTANTLY CREATED INSIDE AND OUTSIDE LEBANON (you also get the media to emotionally lash out against Syria as a bonus!). If it was the Syrians doing it then they would have taken a lesson from the Marwan Hamade attempt that this is what is happening, wouldn't they? My mind refuses to accept the idea that the Syrians would intentionally alienate the Saudis and the French, give the neo-cons and Israelis a dream-come-true moment, extremely weaken Hizballah intentionally, shoot themselves in the foot and not learn the lesson then chose to shoot themselves in the leg and then in the stomach and so on and, moreover, keep doing the exact same mistake at the extremely precise timings that would do them the MOST harm possible!!!!!! The people in the Syrian regime are absolutely no angels, but I would give them a little more credit than this on the "common sense" front!

For Marwan Hamade, I think he was a "test balloon" (to probe the public and political reaction) by whoever did the whole series of crimes. I think that the criminal system (I'm convinced that it is an experienced and very capable system) had a theory on who the media and public fingers would be pointing at after attempting to kill Hamade (and it helped pointing them that way). They tested that theory and it worked out, therefore they continued to the REAL target. The hastily fabricated abu-Addas tape proves this theory as the Syrians and Lebanese security system were totally confused and not ready to deal with the aftermath of Hariri crime (otherwise if they managed to successfully plan to kill Hariri for a year avoiding the French, American and Saudi intelligence plus his own security detecting anything, then I'm sure they would have been better prepared with a stronger story than Abu Addas, wouldn't they?). If they were able to carry the politically and technically complex planning and execution of the crime then they might as well have been capable of providing a more credible alternative suspect. Furthermore, if they were really planning to do it for a year, then it's common sense to make friends with Hariri publicly after he was forced to leave office, just to have a good defense when they kill him.. "hey, don't accuse us we were his friends up to the last moment"!. These guys might (and might not) have threatened Hariri, but that does not necessarily mean that they killed him in my opinion. If they did threaten him, then it would be one of those ugly and stupid methods used by security-oriented regimes to achieve their political goals. It won't be the first time nor the last where a dominating political power threaten a personality -one way or another- in our world to achieve it's goals (I'm not condoning but listing facts). BUT I'm more interested in knowing who exactly knew that Hariri was threatened by the Syrians (if he really was threatened) and took advantage of this information in carrying out the whole thing and framing Syria (according to Khaddam, the criminals had enough time as the crime took place 8 months after the threat actually took place according to Khaddam.. if it really did)!

One more thing, my mind refuse to be convinced that the Syrians and Lebanese top security people (along with at least 20 people) were planning it for a year (according to Mehlis) and that Khaddam (the powerful ruler of Lebanon and well connected Syrian VP for 35 years) was not aware of anything! If they did it then he knew and kept it silent (which is unlikely given his strong business and family relation with the Hariris), otherwise they did not do it and therefore he did not know.

Oh and by the way, to all the political and media analysts who keep bombarding the Syrians with their analysis of how the Syrian regime thought that they would kill Hariri and the Lebanese would wake up the next day, go about taking care of their own businesses and overlook the crime! It is simply a very shallow analysis that any simple person who was reading news since resolution 1559 would not make. I remember my jaws dropping when I heard the news on February 14th last year saying to myself "Massive demonstrations in downtown Beirut coming up!". It also was the reaction of every Syrian and Lebanese I met that day. I received at least 20 phone calls from friends who all agreed that there would be huge shockwaves in Lebanon against Syria. Oh and the most important thing is, at that day I was invited to a Lebanese community meeting (outside Syria obviously!) where people were not radical in their reaction. The position of the majority of the people I asked that day was: "It could not be Syria, regardless, I think that Syria would take lot's of sh** for it". Two days later, after endless hours of emotionally-charged incitement on every news outlet on planet earth, I met with many of the same Lebanese persons who thought that "It simply couldn't be Syria" two days ago. The new reaction was.. you guessed it.. "&^%$#@! Syrian, why did you kill our Mr. Lebanon?". The moral of the story is: IT WAS CLEAR FOR EVERY IDIOT ON EARTH THAT SYRIA WOULD BE BLAMED, so you would think that the people who did it would have definitely thought that this would happen.. AND ACTUALLY COUNTED ON IT!. So to those Lebanese, Arab and international "experts" and "analysts" I say: Please please please spare us the "They though that it would be a crime that would pass like their other crimes in Lebanon" rhetoric!

Not Syria, Not Israel, who else then?
The other suspect would be someone from the Lebanese warlords who benefited from the crime. Some do have motives and capabilities to do it. I'll not continue in this route as it's largely unlikely (though the analysis took place subconsciously in my mind!). It's worth noting though that we are speaking about vicious warlords with Lebanese blood on their hands who were and still are capable of committing such a political crime (Ja'ja, Aoun, someone from the Phalange or the Lahdists to name a few Lebanese parties that gained huge political benefits from this horrendous murder). This is not an accusation as it is a list of few facts. Some of those also had killed a former Lebanese PM by blowing up his helicopter before, so it's not that unlikely!

On that note, I think it would be unreasonable to pick and chose from Khaddam's (now countless and increasingly-boring-and-disgusting) speeches and use double standards. If he is saying the truth then the Lebanese should consider all of what he offered.. and therefore not use double standards and celebrate and award the killer of a former Lebanese prime minister "Karami" (who if I may frankly add was a more patriotic and a less corrupt Lebanese than Hariri). Khaddam made it clear that Ja'ja killed Karami where there was no reason for him to lie on this now. In the other hand Khaddam had the many reasons mentioned in my earlier comment (http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/L/Joshua.M.Landis-1/syriablog/2006/01/syrians-view-of-khaddam-patronage.htm) to lie in his remarks about "Assad threatening Hariri" (namely: vendettas, business deals and his ego and thirst for power). Again, I'm trying to list all of the possible suspects logically and am not accusing anyone here.

Who else? The other possibility is that the Hariri murder was a liquidation by a one of the competing mafias playing in the Syro-Lebanese arena. I won't go any further here too because it's highly unlikely.

Conclusion
Most Syrians I've met (inside and outside Syria) see the whole series of crimes as a plot that magnificently serves every single goal of Syria's enemies while extremely damaging to the Syrian regime internationally. Not to mention of course the disastrous effects of the aftermath of these crimes on the Syrian people's economy, security, dignity, their right in the Golan and their whole country's future. I'm not saying that the Syrian regime is not capable of carrying out such a crime, I'm simply saying that it is not that stupid or suicidal. You can't blame the Syrian people for questioning the motives for solely targeting their country as a suspect, the same way you can't blame many Lebanese for pointing their fingers at Syria 30 seconds after the crime took place (though I do blame the many Lebanese intellectuals and "free" media for their bias, lack of balance, investigative reporting and deep analysis). Take a look at what Mehlis said in his first report on that matter (the un-edited version where he mentioned Asef and Maher, as published by the Washington Post): "Certain Lebanese media had the unfortunate and constant tendency to spread rumors, nurture speculation, offer information as facts without prior checking and at times use materials obtained under dubious circumstances, from sources that had been briefed by the Commission, thereby creating distress and anxiety among the public at large and hindering the Commission’s work.." (Mehlis first report, page 3 paragraph 16 - unedited version). By the way, can anyone explain to me why such a statement was deleted from the final report? My view is that whoever pushed for its deletion does want the Lebanese media to continue on its route of emotionally-charged accusation against Syria that is "hindering the commission's work". This gives more credibility to my analysis about the murders of Samir Kassir, Jubran Twaini and targeting May Chidiac.. and may be more journalists to come as this tactic proves to be successful time after time in damning Syria.

When Syrians criticize Khaddam for what he is, this in no way imply that they blindly support his Syrian rivals and needless to say this does not mean that they don't want justice to be served. It simply means that we have all the reasons in the world to question his sudden change of heart and all the information he uttered. Unfortunately, when many Lebanese ask for justice, naming the Syrian regime as the one and only suspect (while granting absolute innocence to all the other beneficiaries), they are not doing "the truth" any justice and are not doing so from a well-thought and informed perspective. The accusation is mainly based on old (and mostly justified) grievances that are being exploited by the media and power thirsty politicians which does not help in thinking reasonably. Few Lebanese are also doing it from pure hatred (of sectarian or racist origin) towards Syria, that was there long before Hariri or even the Syrian troops going into Lebanon.

The basic line is whoever did it should be brought to justice, but Syria the country should not be damaged further in the process to the benefit of everyone but the Syrian and Lebanese people, especially when we are not 100 percent sure that someone from the Syrian regime actually did it. If someone in the Syrian regime did kill Hariri then justice SHOULD NOT BE SERVED ON THE EXPENSE OF 18 MILLION INNOCENT SYRIANS, nonetheless it should be served. Striking this balance is what should be sought by Syrians and Lebanese, not serving one goal on the expense of the other.

Idaf