The Assassination of Samir Qasir: the sparks of civil strife in Lebanon. I had the same thought as Talal Salman in As-Safir. When I heard of the news, I immediately thought of Nasib Al-Matni. A courageous reporter who opposed the presidency of Sham`un in 1958. His assassination sparked the civil war of 1958. Is that what we are about to witness now? It is not with pleasure or vindication that I repeat my earlier statements to the effect that Hariri’s assassination, and the subsequent events, signaled the end of the end of the Lebanese civil war. I now feel strongly that under the surface, the causes for civil strife are only building. And the Lebanese factions are doing what they do best: drag in more outside interventions, and that only escalate matters. Little conflicts in Lebanon (throughout history) become a regional and international conflict only because Lebanese sects and factions do not feel that they can settle their scores without outside help (and weapons). And there was never a dearth of outside powers who desired to intervene in Lebanon, not for the sake of the Lebanese—Lebanese exaggerated and often illusory self-importance notwithstanding. I never met Samir Qasir; never knew him. But I must confess to you that he intensely hated me, for some reason. During Edward Said’s last visit to Lebanon, and at a dinner in Beirut, Qasir spent the evening attacking me, but dear people (Edward, Shafiq Al-Hut, and Joseph Massad) came to my defense. A friend reminded me that I once published an article in An-Nahar (the only one in An-Nahar, and my sister took it there when an editor told her that they would publish me without any censorship--yet, they took whole chunks out. It was a bitter critique of an appearance of the then US ambassador on LBC-TV, interviewed by Jizelle Khuri, Qasir’s wife. I compared Khuri’s silly interviewing style with the serious professionals at AlJazeera.) But there is politics also. I of course never agreed with his politics, and he never agreed with mine obviously. He never seems to write about the plight of the poor in Lebanon; and never examined the dreadful effects of Hariri’s policies in the country. And it irritates me to see the Hariri mouthpieces claiming that Hariri was a champion of freedoms in Lebanon. Hariri was a lynchpin of the Security Order established after Ta’if. He sent journalists to jail, closed TV stations, and censored articles and programs when they went after Syria. Hariri was prime minister when Qasir was harassed by the goons of the Security establishment. There is no question that the right-wing opposition in Lebanon lost a star. I am capable of offering a fair assessment of people who are on the other side of the political spectrum: Qasir was a highly effective and capable advocate. He was photo- and tele-genic and knew how to talk to the local and foreign media. Qasir, despite the recent heroism of people who now attack the Syrian government after the withdrawal of its troops from Lebanon, was a courageous and uncompromising voice against the Syrian-Lebanese security order in Lebanon. He never observed red lines, and may have paid the price for it. What people don’t know is that Lebanon has entered the era of settling of scores, from all sides for divergent reasons. The former director of Public Security, Jamil As-Sayyid—one of the most important people in the last decade, harassed him and persecuted him, and confiscated his passport in 2001. Hariri was prime minister, and if he opposed the practices of the security apparatus, he should have resigned. As-Sayyid wanted to scare Qasir, but he was not easily intimidated. A former student of Qasir (he taught at St. Joseph University) who rode in his car during that period, told me that Qasir would look in his rear view mirror to locate the cars carrying the goons of Sayyid. I don’t know for sure who killed him, but there are signs. Lebanese are so naïve to think that they will, with Kofi Annan’s help and Columbo, solve all the mysteries of assassinations in the Lebanese civil war—the on-going civil war we can add. The killers have long been dead, and recent killers may very well have been killed by those who sent them, just in case. Qasir was the loudest and most daring voice against the Syrian regime; I personally thought the he was obsessed with the matter. I of course never object to criticisms of all Arab regimes, and my political disagreements with Qasir were over domestic Lebanese politics. But it greatly bothered me that he never once uttered a word against the Saudi, Kuwait, Jordanian, Algerian, and Egyptian regimes. His fixation with Syria became for him, or so it appeared because I did not know him, an intense personal vendetta. But you have to admire his courage in the age of famous Lebanese cowardice and opportunism. Even in the recent Hummus Revolution, Qasir was a key organizer and strategist; although I thought the organization was not very smart or wise. International attention had nothing to do with Lebanese skills or talents but more to do with Bush’s desire to vindicate his doctrine, and to attribute manifestations of popular upheavals to his own policies and wars (but not in Uzbekistan of course where there is oil—Lebanon has olive oil). I for one never understood those Lebanese red-and-white scarfs—designed by Qasir I am told, or the decision to form human crowd images, a la North Korea. Now that was dumb. But that was not my movement, and they can do what they wish. I even designed a special Hummus flag for them, but it did not catch on. Qasir did not speak loudly against attacks on poor Syrian workers in Lebanon, but did mention that in passing, and condemned it. He wanted to be perceived as a consistent liberal, and even considered himself a new leftist, and was behind the founding of the Hariri Left (the Democratic Left). But I heard an interesting account today by one his students. He said on LBC-TV that Qasir was once addressing the crowds of the Hummus Revolution when the crowds started chanting racist anti-Syrian slogans. Apparently, Qasir admonished them, and they got mad and started to boo him. He told them: “I was not intimidated by the mukhabarat, and would not be intimidated by you.” I should also add that he appeared to be free of sectarian prejudice. Not once I read him or heard him express a sectarian position, although his participation in a movement that was at hart sectarian was a different matter. And in recent months, and even prior to the Hummus Revolution, Qasir established a daring position that nobody else in Lebanon supported. While Jumblat and company stressed that they are opposed to the overthrow of the regime in Syria—in fact, Jumblat and Marwan Hamade still talk about the “great golden age” of the Hafidh Al-Asad’s regime, and that they have no position on internal developments in Syria, Qasir advocated the overthrow of the Syrian regime, and wanted others in the opposition to take his position. He established close links with Syrian intellectuals, but I felt that An-Nahar’s exploitation of those Syrian intellectuals on its pages was quite patronizing and condescending. Qasir was a leftist in his youth, and worked in a pro-Palestinian journal during his days in France. He mostly wrote in French, but the right-wing sectarian Christian newspaper An-Nahar invited him to be a front-page columnist in 1998. His Arabic was poor, but he was intelligent and industrious enough to achieve an adequate command to enable him to write it and speak it. But it was not his article or writings or style of writing that distinguished him, but his toughness as an advocate. He wrote simple Arabic, but that is greatly appealing in a country like Lebanon, and his ideas appealed to those who were in the right-wing camp. They found somebody “cool” to advocate in a manner that escape the abilities of most Lebanese right-wing politicians. I was disgusted to read in this account in Al-Hayat that Qasir was born to “non-Lebanese” parents. Another account talked about his Syrian mother and his Lebanese father. In fact, his father was Palestinian (the Sham`un regime and its successors gave Palestinian Christians in Lebanon Lebanese citizenship in the hope of tipping the demographic “balance” against the Muslims). Lebanese newspapers don't think that it is cool to mention his Palestinian background; Lebanese patriots may get offended. And Lebanese now immediately rush to call for “an international investigation.” Even his widow jumped in. Do they know the consequences of that? Do they find an irony (or more) in a movement that yells about “independence” and “sovereignty” and now wants an “international investigation” for every fist fight in the country. I was also disgusted to hear that Kofi Annan issued a statement condemning the killing. We all condemn the assassination, of course, but why does this Annan not issue statements about the hundreds shot by the pro-US regime in Uzbekistan? Does he issue statements of condemnation for the regular killing in Congo? Or does his mandate prevent him from speaking out against the killing of Africans and the victims of pro-US regimes? And An-Nahar registered another mark of bad taste. Did they have to publish on the frong page, or on any page, the picture of the dead Qasir? Do they think of his daughters and widow when they do that? Lastly, I read the last article by Robert Fisk (thanks John) about Sa`d Hariri. I never thought that I would be as critical of Robert Fisk? You have to read it. He now sounds like a propagandist for Hariri, Inc. He now writes about Hariri the way Alan Hart wrote about Arafat. Sheer propaganda. I will be in Lebanon in days. Am not looking forward to seeing things first hand on the ground. I know I will eat good food.