Do the Der Spiegel allegations that Hizbollah killed Hariri actually change anything?
On one side, Hizbollah’s supporters argue that the article was an American or Israeli plot to make Hizbollah’s coalition lose the Lebanese elections (they are only slightly ahead in the polls).
And on the other side, Hizbollah’s enemies point and say ‘we told you so’. Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed writes in Saudi propaganda-rag Ash-Sharq Al-Awsat:
“Even if the story is not true, it will not change the fact that Hezbollah has a tarnished reputation.”
Tarnished reputation? Really? That’s not what I’ve heard. I thought Hasan Nasrallah was the second most popular politician in the Arab World – according to citizens of six “moderate” Arab states, in a survey carried out by Americans.
“Today, many people have not been surprised by [the allegations]”
Are you joking? The allegations have been thoroughly dismissed. Sami Moubayed’s argument is strongest.
In the middle of it all, the deafening silence from Sa’ad Al Hariri. He is in a difficult position. For four years – like a broken record – he has blamed Syria for his father’s death. What is he supposed to do now? Blame Hizbollah? It would look like cheap electioneering.
So who will actually benefit? Not Hizbollah. Not Hariri. Just outsiders. And as usual, Lebanon plays along.