A leaked US embassy cable revealed an act of perfidy by a Lebanese cabinet minister, as the Special Tribunal gets set to accuse Al-Hariri's assassin, reports Lucy Fielder An already tense Lebanon was rocked by the publication this week of cables leaked from the US embassy in Beirut. Al-Akhbar daily, staunch supporter of the parliamentary majority of which Hizbullah is a part, obtained the cables, widely believed to be genuine and part of the release of such documents by the WikiLeaks website. They detailed the collusion between Washington and the anti-Syrian 14 March movement during the divisive period after the 2006 war when Washington's interest -- detractors would say US meddling -- in Lebanon was at its height. Al-Akhbar declined to say how it had obtained the cables. They were not published on the main WikiLeaks website, which has released a flood of embarrassing and sensitive US embassy cables over the past few weeks in collaboration with several global newspapers. Of the Lebanon cables, the most damning detailed a meeting between Defence Minister Elias Al-Murr and a US official, in which Al-Murr gave advice to Washington on how Israel should wage its next war with Hizbullah. It is dated March 2008, and Al-Murr seemed under the impression conflict was imminent. Israel should not touch the areas along the Blue Line that separates Lebanon from Israel, or bomb infrastructure in Christian areas. The Christians "were supporting Israel in 2006 until they started bombing their bridges," the cable quotes him as saying. "If Israel has to bomb all of these places in the Shia areas as a matter of operational concern, that is Hizballah's problem. According to Al-Murr, this war is not with Lebanon, it is [with] Hizballah." Al-Murr went on to explain, the cable said, that he had told army leader Michel Suleiman, who is now Lebanon's president, that the army should at all costs avoid getting involved in such a conflict. "Murr seems intent on ensuring the Army stays out of the way so that Hizballah bears the full weight of an Israeli offensive," it read. "The information posted by WikiLeaks is not complete and is not accurate," Al-Murr's aide, George Soulage, was reported as saying. "The aim behind this is to sow discord in Lebanon." In another cable, then telecommunications minister Marwan Hamade shared details of Hizbullah's parallel telephone network with the United States and discussed how to remove it, weeks before the 14 March government of the time clamped down on the network in May 2008. The Shia guerrillas and their allies seized parts of western Beirut to force the rescinding of the decision, and the fighting spread to other parts of the country. Other documents were potentially embarrassing to Prime Minister Saad Al-Hariri, former premier Fouad Al-Siniora and Druze leader Walid Jumblatt -- a leading hawk in 14 March who later moved towards the opposition. Al-Akhbar columnist Fidaa Itani told Al-Ahram Weekly that the leaks confirmed publicly what the former opposition already knew in private. "The WikiLeaks documents confirm the worst fears of the opposition, that the other side has been plotting -- advising the Americans and Israelis how to conduct the coming war to destroy Hizbullah," he said. 14 March officials had sharpened their rhetorical knives about the Al-Hariri tribunal over the past few days in order to deflect criticism of their own conduct, he added. As those revelations deepened divisions, expectations mounted that the Special Tribunal for Lebanon in The Hague could in a matter of days indict suspects in the 2005 assassination of former prime minister Rafik Al-Hariri, which plunged Lebanon into a crisis from which it has never entirely recovered. But it is not clear that the contents of the indictment will be made public. It is widely expected, including by the group itself, that Hizbullah members are to be indicted for the killing. The Iranian- and Syrian-backed party denies involvement and accuses Israel of being behind the killing and influencing the tribunal. Along with its allies, Hizbullah is pushing for an internal settlement ahead of the indictment, comprising withdrawing official Lebanese support for the court, Al-Hariri denouncing any charges against the Shia group's members and resolving the issue of the "false witnesses", who gave testimony to the Al-Hariri investigation and later retracted it. Syria and Saudi Arabia are working to achieve a deal, but time appears to be running out. "The difference between the Saudis and the Syrians is whether to have a settlement before the indictment or after it," Itani said, adding that the opposition rejected the latter. "If American pressure for the indictment to be issued before 20 December succeeds, it appears the country is heading for the worst," Itani said. Prosecutor Daniel Bellemare is supposed to begin his Christmas holiday on that date. There had been a Saudi deal with Syria to delay the indictments until March, but it failed to win US support, Itani said. The local English-language Daily Star reported on 7 December that the indictment would be passed to the pre-trial judge in the coming weeks, but "almost certainly" kept sealed for several months, with no details forthcoming on evidence or suspects, the tribunal's acting registrar, Herman von Hebel, told the daily. Itani said the prospect of the court summoning witnesses or suspects without releasing details of the indictment could create serious problems. Hizbullah and its allies believe the charges will rest on telecommunications data and evidence from those the opposition calls false witnesses, and is therefore tainted. Lebanon has uncovered an alleged network of Israeli spies in its telecommunications systems over the past couple of years. The Belgium-based International Crisis Group (ICG) think tank released a report this week that outlined several ways out for Lebanon, none wholly pleasing to either side. They included Lebanon requesting the Security Council to halt the Special Tribunal once the charges are issued in the interests of stability -- though so drastic a move might be indigestible to Al-Hariri. Or Beirut could condition cooperation with the tribunal on it changing its modus operandi, for example by forgoing in absentia trials -- relevant to this case given that Hizbullah is likely to continue to refuse to hand over suspects. A third option was for cooperation to continue while doubts are expressed about the court, but that is likely to be insufficient for Hizbullah. "Banking on Hizbollah's tameness or Hariri's capitulation will only encourage the two sides to stick to uncompromising positions that could push Lebanon to the brink," the ICG reported. "No winner will come out of the current battle. What is necessary is to ensure the Lebanese people do not emerge as the biggest losers of all."
