I must say, after all the anticipation, I was left somewhat deflated. The hype had suggested that there was evidence that Israel had killed Hariri.
There was no such clear evidence.
This is what, in a nutshell, Nasrallah said:
1. Israel has the capability to kill people through clandestine means
2. Israel has done this before
3. Numerous Israeli spies have been arrested recently, they specialised in the following areas: Surveillance, information gathering, logistics and the smuggling of people over the border.
1 and 2 are clearly true. 3? It certainly seems to be true. – But there’s nothing new here.
There was use of video of Israeli UAVs flying over Beirut. The video followed two routes taken in the past by Hariri’s motorcade. He highlighted how they seemed to linger above corners and sharp turns in the road, where the convoy would slow down.
There was also video of confessions by the alleged spies. The only mention of Hariri was from a man employed to watch his residence.
Nasrallah appeared to have backtracked and stated time and time again that this was not an open and shut case. He claimed that this was a “war of public opinion” and that it was odd that, given there was an official investigation, that the Israelis weren’t suspects.
My thoughts:
1. This seems to be a clear step backward from earlier claims of proof
2. Everything was circumstantial
3. There was only one agent linked, in any way, to Hariri
4. Nasrallah has refused to hand over copies of the videos to the international tribunal, saying he will hand it to an independent Lebanese body. As a result, the video cannot be verified or studied Israel undoubtedly conducts UAV surveillance of Beirut, to believe otherwise would be naïve. However, given that the video cannot be analyzed, it is impossible to say how representative the footage is. It was clearly edited (and set to music) by Hizballah for this press conference. How much editing has occurred?
5. Nasrallah openly spoke of the war “of public opinion”. It seems that his only objective here was to cast serious doubt on the Tribunal
Following the speech journalists asked Nasrallah questions. The overall atmosphere could be summed up in the following questions: “Who are you trying to convince?” The journalists were clearly confused as to how he expected them and, by extension, the general population to respond.
To his credit, Nasrallah didn’t duck the issue. He claimed that he was aware the “evidence” was circumstantial and that he was aiming to sway public opinion. Finally, he added that an independent investigation was needed.
After all the build-up I can’t help but feel that it fell a little flat. There was no compelling evidence. Sure, there’s certainly a case for investigating possible Israeli involvement, however, it’s far from clear. Nasrallah was asked why he didn’t show the video from the UAVs earlier, he claimed technical difficulties had prevented him from doing so.
I can’t help but feel that Nasrallah has made a mistake in his handling of this. The Lebanese were, depending on their political persuasion, awaiting clear evidence of Israeli involvement, or a pack of lies. They got neither.
However, then you recall Nasrallah’s statement: He claimed that he was aware the “evidence” was circumstantial and that he was aiming to sway public opinion.
This wasn’t about proof. It was about blowing the Tribunal out of the water. Mission accomplished. There will be enough doubt, and assumptions of Israeli involvement, among the Lebanese to achieve that.
However, the cost, in terms of his credibility outside of his constituency, might prove to be high.
There have been mixed responses, both in Lebanon and abroad, with some arguing that he had some degree of success, other claiming it fell flat.
Regardless, I think this snippet from Al Jazeera sums the situation up nicely:
Nasrallah unveils 'Hariri proof'
Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, has tried to implicate Israel in the murder of Rafiq al-Hariri, the former Lebanese prime minister.
Note the quote marks in the title, note the use of the word “tried” in the text.
The tribunal might be dead, but Nasrallah didn’t come off looking all that convincing.
Hey,
ReplyDeleteI kind of felt the same after watching it. A little disappointed. But then I though maybe the purpose of the whole thing was just to point out the difference between hard-facts and accusations based on circumstantial 'evidence'.
I think this will help discredit any 'circumstantial evidence' against Hezballah if the tribunal did not have concrete proof.
I'm not sure it'll discredit anything.
ReplyDeleteIf anything, I'd regard this as all being very suspect. If he's happy with what he's got, why a., wait so long, or b., refuse to hand it over?
All very strange.
He mentioned that there is more "evidence" on the subject but that he will not provide it until he deems it necessary to do so, as this "evidence" will expose more sensitive information about Hizballah's secret operations.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question, Brit, the implication is that he waited in order to preserve the secrecy of Hizballah's operations. Whether this is an excuse to hide an ulterior motive is anyone's guess.
And as for handing it over, my understanding is that he will do so only by way of the Lebanese authorities and not directly to the tribunal.
My opinion is that the information he has provided so far was a taste of what is to come should the tribunal decide to indict Hizballah. I, for one, expect one hell of a bombshell to hit in the coming months.
Right, which is all part of his play to blow the Tribunal out of the water.
ReplyDeleteThis operation he's protecting, it must have been in existence in 2005. That's ancient history. I find it hard to believe that an operation from 5 years ago is vital to organization. Or, that they've been running some sort of ongoing covert op for the past 5 years. If they are, what is it?
As for handing it over? To a Lebanese comittee that will do nothing about it? Fine. That makes a joke of the entire process. There's no way, now, that the committee could even contemplate blaming anyone other than Syria or the Israelis. For fear of civil conflict.
Regarding your opinion "a taste of what is to come"... well... he didn't provide any concrete "evidence". So, if this a taste, I'd expect it the rest of the "evidence" to be equally suspect.
Overall, I think this was a seriously bad idea. He should have a., shown all the information, or b., stayed silent.
He’s playing with us. He gave us a teaser to get the gears turning. And the result? If the tribunal chooses to ignore his “evidence” and go ahead and indict Hizballah, Nasrallah can claim that the tribunal is politicized (particularly if the indictment is not based on conclusive evidence). He can then provide more “evidence” to further muddy the waters. If the tribunal opens up an “Israel is a suspect” file, Hizballah gains, at the very least, more time.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of what Nasrallah personally believes to be true, he’s playing his cards close, and he’s playing them right. The primary goal of the resistance is to keep itself alive, to keep the money flowing in from Iran. “Resisting” Israel is just a means to that end.
“If the tribunal chooses to ignore his “evidence” and go ahead and indict Hizballah, Nasrallah can claim that the tribunal is politicized (particularly if the indictment is not based on conclusive evidence).”
ReplyDeleteBut he’s not going to give the evidence to anything other than a Lebanese group… which doesn’t exist. So, the STL can’t “ignore” his “evidence” as he won’t give it to them in the first place.
“He can then provide more “evidence” to further muddy the waters. If the tribunal opens up an “Israel is a suspect” file, Hizballah gains, at the very least, more time.”
Yeah, but he hasn’t muddied the waters with the first round. He hasn’t achieved anything. Other than call for a Lebanese body to be formed.
And, I think, there’s a snowflake’s chance in Hell of that happening.
“Regardless of what Nasrallah personally believes to be true, he’s playing his cards close, and he’s playing them right. The primary goal of the resistance is to keep itself alive, to keep the money flowing in from Iran. “Resisting” Israel is just a means to that end.”
The existence of The Resistance wasn’t in doubt. There’s no one to oppose them.
The goal of the speech was to blow the STL out of the water. Which he did.
It might also have been designed to get a Lebanese panel to look into it. Which might happen.
But, all that’s come at the cost of looking a little silly.
Bellemare has requested the "evidence", and he will get it. There are multiple sources saying that he requested it.
ReplyDeleteAfter a quick search, I found this:
http://www.yalibnan.com/2010/08/13/hezbollah-agreed-to-provide-evidence-to-lebanese-authorities/
Ya Libnan is not the best source, but they quote Hizballah MP Nawaf Moussawi saying that Hizballah doesn't care either way if the Lebanese authorities give the data to the tribunal.
Had Bellemare chosen to ignore Nasrallah's evidence, it would have de-legitimized the STL. But he chose to acknowledge the new information and at least take a look at it.
So far, nothing has been blown out of the water.
I know he's requested it.
ReplyDeleteNasrallah has said he will not give it to anything but an independent Lebanese body.
http://www.yalibnan.com/2010/08/13/hezbollah-agreed-to-provide-evidence-to-lebanese-authorities/
There are mixed messages, clearly.
As such, yes, the Tribunal is dead.