By Abdul Hussein Shbieb Who believes Saad Hariri and his "Future Party" claiming that this Party has nothing to do with what Damascus accuses them of as regards their involvement with the security unrest occurring in some Syrian regions?
The denial might be true as well as the fact that any accusation must be linked to concrete and viable evidence. In case such evidence is provided, it must take a judiciary path through the assigned channels among Lebanon and Syria on the basis of an agreement signed by the specialized constitutional authorities. Such talk is also true, but the problem of Hariri and his party is that there is a group of evidences within the hands of the public Arabic opinion, among which the Lebanese and the Syrian opinions are. Such evidences do not support Hariri to make people believe his denial, especially when this data has been accumulated at least since the beginning of 2005 - particularly since the assassination of PM Rafik Hariri and the direct accusation charged by the "Future Party" and its political allies to Syria, which has been led by Bashar Assad; without having the slightest evidence, they accuse Syria of committing the assassination.
For five years, Saad Hariri and his team led a Lebanese party towards the edge of the abyss and to the declared confrontation with the Syrian leadership. To do so, they used whatever interdicted weapons, which had no relation at all with any struggle that can be described as rational and that is featured with the least extent of logic and horizon of thinking of such conduct's consequence. However, the "Future Party" and its leadership threw behind all of the rational statements made to them by some of their friends or rivals, and they went on a political delirium against Syria - particularly against President Bashar Assad.
They actually translated this delirium in the arena at several stages and with different shapes and tools. Nobody can deny that all of the local, regional, and international efforts beyond the Special Tribunal for Lebanon exclusively targeted Syria. Many declarations of Saad Hariri and the March-14 leaderships stated that in public festivals, press conferences and meetings, and at the backstage. Those refused the least doubt whether Syria actually committed the crime or not; they saw that Syria should be punished, and that was the philosophy that would establish the Tribunal. Those accusations inspired the Arabic and international pressures on President Assad.
Furthermore, embracing the escape process of Abdul Halim Khaddam, providing him with residence and food in Paris and other places, and covering up his media activity were only a part of that process, of which Saad Hariri was the most prominent director, along with the names that have become unknown. There's a real labor that took place with direct American direction and French and Saudi Arabian sponsorships, and it was based on a plan, whose execution was tried several times to overthrow President Bashar Assad, and which was devastated by the specialized Syrian systems.
Actually, there's a lot of talk that relates those attempts to the suicide of Ghazi Kanaan, the other companion and most prominent one of Khaddam. Still, the names of George Bush, Jacque Shirak, and Bandar Bin Sultan weren't absent from these efforts. Hereupon, it's not of help for Hariri to deny any path of this kind as he faces an American cable (documented as the 2735th) that represents a meeting proceeding, which took place on August 24, 2006, between Sheikh Saad, one of the grand staff members of the American Congress's Foreign Affairs Committee - Benet Tallwar, and a diplomatic politician working in the American Embassy of Beirut. The cable, issued by the Embassy and sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, literally says that Hariri devoted a big part of the meeting to talk about regional affairs - particularly Syria, and he said that the Syrian and Iranian regimes represented the greatest obstacles facing peace in the region.
In his opinion, the attempts of the U.S. government to «change the conduct of the Syrian regime» were worthless; in fact, changing the regime was required since «it is the perfect time - after the July War - for the international community to weaken Bashar». Hariri also saw that the U.S. government «needs a clear, new policy to isolate Syria» and that "the Saudi Arabians and the other Arabic countries have had it with the young Bashar, and they do not anymore want to use a reconciliatory approach towards the Syrian regime. Moreover, he added that after the last speech of Bashar, during which the latter had threatened of a Lebanese civil war, they were no longer interested in holding talks with Damascus and that Hariri had "directly heard this from the Saudi Arabians, and Prince Bandar is currently delivering this message to Washington D.C."
After placing, at the background of his strategic perusal, an axial aim of putting an end to the Iranian influence in the region through breaking what he called the "Syrian bridge" to Lebanon and Palestine, Hariri concludes that he should advice his American visitors, literally saying, "The Syrian regime has to be totally abolished; it has always survived upon conflicts, and these conflicts will end once the regime is abolished."
Well, once the Americans asked Hariri the logical question about the alternative that he found convenient for the post-overthrowing of Bashar, he suggested "a partnership between the Syrian Muslim Brothers and some characters that had previously been a part of the regime, as Abdul Halim Khaddam and Hekmat Shehabi." Having perfectly complimented the "Brothers in Syria", said they were similar to their Turkish counterparts, and "they even accept a Christian or a woman for the presidency of the republic; they support peace with "Israel"," he advised them to talk to the banished guide of those Brothers, Ali Albianoni - as he was doing, whereby he informed them of his strong connections with Khaddam and Albianoni. Hariri then promised his American visitors that they "are going to see wonders if you get in very good terms with him (Albianoni)" and if they depended on him to prepare for a terminating process that overthrows President Bashar Assad.
Hariri can neither deny this cable nor the other leaks of the Wikileaks Site, for his wild desire to topple the Syrian President was obvious through his direct sponsorship of the process of fabricating the false witnesses, the most prominent of whom was Muhammad Zuheir As-Siddique, who was heard on a voice record with Hariri, Hariri's security chief - Wissam Alhassan, and the head of the international investigators - Gerhard Leman. Hariri himself confirmed the record, whereby As-Siddique exclusive mission was how to create evidence that could convict Assad and his grandest assistants with the assassination crime, which was similar to the job required from the other false witnesses as Hussam Hussam and Ibrahim Jarjoura. All of these false accusations were accredited by the international investigator, Detlef Millis in his first and second reports and were celebrated by the leaders of the Future Party and March-14 forces. As a matter of fact, it had taken Millis's successors a long time before they acknowledged having faked the process and led the investigation astray.
If Hariri publicly announced his enmity of President Bashar Assad, accused him of the assassination of his father, refused any other hypothesis, asked the Americans to topple this President, pushed the international investigation committee to exclusively accuse Syria of the crime, was caught red-handed with the false witness Muhammad Zuheir As-Siddique, brought Lebanon to the edge of a war on Syria - the victims of which were tens of innocent Syrian workers in Lebanon, and was making his best bets on the July War, then how does he want the Arabic public opinion not to believe the Syrian accusations against the Future Party of involvement with the recent security incidents, especially when he did what he did, and when his media and allies didn't even stop denouncing the Syrian President as Hariri paid the climax of his visits to Damascus and ate food at President Assad's home? Besides, they're not leaving a single triviality or incident occurring today in Syria without spotlighting and enlarging it.
If Hariri relied on the presumption of Syria's military presence in Lebanon and its holding control over the security to make his accusation, without any concrete evidence that links it to the crime, and, still, ventured the Lebanese people's security and future for five years, then why doesn't he accept what the Syrians are saying today about his Party? It is actually much less than what he said about them and did to them. This is in spite of their having the data - whether the previously mentioned or the data that the Syrian television has shown some of - that is enough to charge a rational accusation, which is absolutely unlike the accusation Hariri used in his war that he led to overthrow the Syrian regime.
We return to the introduction and say it is true that any accusation must be based on viable evidence and go through a judiciary path; yet, accomplishing the principle of "an eye for an eye," Hariri now has two things to do: asking his minister of justice and his judges to put to execution the Syrian arrest warrants issued in absentia on behalf of those accused of fabricating the false witnesses; as for the second thing, it is getting ready for five years during which Syria has the right to accuse him and his Party, using the same method he used. In such manner, his objection becomes accepted; this is in case there's no absolute proof that the data denying his Party's involvement resembles the denial of their involvement with the false witnesses.
River to Sea
Uprooted Palestinian
