Dotting the I’S & Crossing the T’S

My testimony against the testimony of Marwan Hamadeh / Part.1

Written by Nasser Kandil,

Any man of law knows that there is no value of the testimony of Marwan Hamadeh before the International Court that deserves that contrived programmed violence, which accompanied or preceded it, as if the truth was revealed. This man has not any evidences which concealed ten years away from the investigation and now he is coming to disclose them. No information of political values is hidden and today is going to be told. It is a detective political analysis which we have read on the next day of the assassination, in the Kuwaiti newspaper “politics”, in which the one who gave it the analysis, has dictated half of what he has said to the witness Al-Malik Mohammed Zuhair Al-Sedeek who was no longer present in the court’s files, Marwan Hamadeh has exerted on repeating the second half approximately over ten years ago, accompanied with political media chorus that contains Fares Khachan, and  groups of informational people who were coming from the party of ( The Lebanese Forces ) to the party which is concerned with the blood of the President Rafik Al-Hariri, as analysts, politicians and magistrates, researchers and sources of follow-up, and other features which the responsible of the satellites distributed on those who have the orders to be on air, while they have not any feature.

The center of the testimony of Hamadeh in the politics was the resolution 1559, and the relationship which related the President Rafik Al-Hariri with Syria, and what he has narrated of the plan of the President Al-Hariri of invasion the parliament in 2005 against Syria, as a preparation for announcing of what Hamadeh liked to name as Independence, and that Al-Hariri has told him about the threat from the Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, which means that all ( Hamadeh’s facts) belonged to summer 2004 ,and particularly before the extension of the President Emile Lahoud. According to Hamadeh this event of extension related to the resolution 1559, and what Hamadeh has considered as a disconnection between Al-Hariri and Syria and consequently, towards the accusation of the assassination.

None of the witnesses of Hamadeh is available to be investigated, President Bashar Al-Assad is not a witness whom Hamadeh dare to say; ask him, he will prove my speech, Al-Hariri has dead, and there is no responses according to Hamadeh of how could the President Al-Hariri intend to struggle with Syria Electorally? This requires two conditions, first, the intention of confrontation and the animosity. Second, the will of struggle. If no one in politics can talk about the intentions of hearts, and no one knows what is hidden in the hearts of faith, so how about the intentions, thus was the will of  struggle as an outcome of an interaction between the factors of intention, considerations,  balances, loss and profit. In front of us there was what Hamadeh has testified as a crucial document in his testimony; it is the behavior of the President Al-Hariri regarding the extension which represented an example of his behavior towards what Syria has wanted, whether we accepted the narration of Hamdeh or not, how can he after he was shown as a coward and  terrified of what Hamadeh described as a Syrian threat accepted and kept on humiliatingly?, so how can the one who have done that, went back and planned for the battle of fracture with Syria?, although he has an international statement to refuse the extension and to be secure with it, and has an open invitation from the French President Jacques Chirac to come to France and to refuse the extension there, he himself has travelled and returned to Lebanon for conducting the extension, has refused the French presidential invitation and has decided to implement his promise and what has included of the conduction of the extension.

In the narration of the President Al-Hariri to his conducting of the extension, in response to the members in the parliamentary bloc where he was a member, and which is closer to reality than the narration of Hamadeh’s narration and many claimers about an existence of a plan which is the independence off Syria and not with it. Actually, the plan was for the French and American intelligence which were gathered to put Al-Hariri after his death in a frame which their occupiers wanted them to draw carefully in a way seemed that they belonged to him. In that famous meeting of the parliamentary bloc, Al-Hariri said;” We will go tomorrow and vote for the extension of the President Lahoud, I have suggested the law at the parliament”, but when there were some deputies who have asked not to vote, he said” The only two deputies who were  allowed not to vote are Ghattas Khoury and Ghazi Al-Aridi , according to Ghattas I supported him as a presidential candidate, so logically I will not ask him to vote for the extension, since we have arranged a date with the President Al-Assad” He turned to me smiling “ Al-Aridi is a common member in our bloc and the bloc of the deputy Walid Jumblatt, so he has the right to vote no, while according to the rest I will not accept from them any diligent, because Rafik Al-Hariri does not cheat, I did not abide to have a full vote, my bloc members, but if I have to support then all have to do so and vice versa, but I have given my approval and I have proprio motu (unasked) presented the suggestion, because it is my way in the implementation of the promises.

One of the deputy has said that he aimed that the President Al-Hariri has done as the deputy Walid Jumblatt has done before under the slogan of leaving the freedom to the deputies, so they will be divided into two teams favorable and opposer, especially after some ones have raised their speech against the extension, so this will embarrass them if they vote with yes,  he added, some cannot vote in favor of  the extension after all these proofs that they have said to justify their refusal of the extension. The meeting was about what to say to the people, so the President Al-Hariri responded explaining in an extended way; he finished his speech with a proved clear decisive decision.

Al-Hariri said “who imagined that I was against the extension of the President Lahoud because I intended to have an   engagement with Syria is deluded, and who was happy with the issuance of the Resolution of 1559 is naïve and superficial. My advice to the President Chirac was to go to talk of how to apply the Agreement of Taif , if it was inevitable to have an international resolution about Lebanon which includes the departure of the Syrian forces, and the withdrawal of weapons of the militias, since Taif Agreement is clearly explained that, but it has a compatible road map in order to achieve it. The Resolution 1559 divided the Lebanese after Taif Agreement had united them; it agitated the Syrian Lebanese relationships and made them internationally after they were regionally”. He added “Regarding the extension, I was not obliged to accept, since I am not of those who accept or refuse any attitude without logic, to those who were talking about their refusal of the extension, I am the first one who was against it, and the rest followed me, I used to take into consideration all the people, who thinks that he is a leader then he will be asked about himself not about his attitude with me and not about the reason of the changing of my opinion. So let him have the upcoming elections away from my list, but those who want to be in the electoral list of Rfik AL-Hariri has to admit that according to his strong leadership, the people will ask him about the attitude of Rafik Al-Hariri”.

He added” When I have carried out the political solution of the crisis in Lebanon according to Taif Agreement I have not practiced a hobby, but I have gone into a difficult complicated equation. My principle was that Lebanon which is the independent country and which is governed by the institutions only is a delayed dream. This dream will not be accomplished while Lebanon is in the center of the Israeli- Arab conflict. Frankly without the achievement of the peace, Lebanon will be between two choices their title is the waiting, either to wait in the shelter which is the civil war and the shelter is Israel, or to wait in the available Salon which is Syria, I have no doubt that it is a ( Swiss ). In my opinion, the Syrian salon needs to be amended and reconditioned, and changed a lot, for that I object whenever I notice something wrong, but when the matters aggravated to choose between to stay in this salon or to leave it, then my decision is with the survival of Lebanon within the Syrian salon, and not take Lebanon once again to the shelter ( Israel ). My plan was and still to try to improve the conditions of the Syrian salon for the Lebanese stand-by state, this attempt will not stop but with the consent of the Syrians and not against their will. Remember very well, Al-Hariri is not kidding in basics. When Syria is defeated in Lebanon then Israel wins and not Lebanon. We have tried to distance the Syrians away from the extension choice, and have presented to them substitutional options, but they have decided to proceed in the extension, so those who admire my thoughts and behavior, then let them be with me and those who do not then they can leave. Tomorrow I will not accept any excuse or absence, I do not pledge with a specific vote or a certain number, since I know that the positive result will be with the extension with half of the bloc’s votes, but it is an opportunity to say that how Rafik Al-Hariri explained his commitments, so who wants to be with me has to take this into consideration.

Tomorrow’s article will be what the President Al-Hariri told me about Jumblatt and Chirac after the extension.

All of my speech was recorded on 30-8-2005 in the records of the International Independent Investigation Commission, which announced me as a fifth suspect in a position in which the President Fouad Al-Siniora was unconcerned with Detlev Mehlis and contrary to every tradition and law. On that day I returned from Damascus challenging and stood at the borders in front of  press conference and said “the Arabism is the judger “. It seemed that the trial is still continuous.

2014-11-20 | عدد القراءات 1804