I have been in Lebanon for the past five weeks and not a day passes without hearing people talk about the implications of the indictment, which is scheduled for September 2010, on the basis on which the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) will convene.

The intensity of the anticipatory speculation rises in all directions along the length of the political spectrum as the time for the delivery of the indictment approaches. It has become a subject of controversy, division and conflict among the Lebanese.

Naturally, each side hopes the results of the investigation will be in the directions of the predictions that serve its interests. Syria has announced that it was not involved and that it is ready in the event any of its citizens were implicated in the attack, to refer them to the tribunal on a charge of high treason.

For his part, Hassan Nasrallah, Secretary General of Hizbullah, rejects any accusation that may be directed against any of his members. He has multiplied his media appearances, just as he did during the war of July 2006. In the space of three weeks, he appeared four times to discuss the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. He has also expressed reservations about the credibility and professionalism of the tribunal.

Israel , meanwhile, proclaims in full clarity and confidence that internal tumult is in store for Lebanon in the coming autumn. Here, we come back again to the attempts of Israel, which tries each day to sow the germs of conflict in Lebanon (the recent Adaisse incident), since its main concern is to destabilize Lebanon and undermine the détente which it has enjoyed for some months.

In my view, Israel is working relentlessly to strike at the credibility of the STL in order to transform it into a fuel to spread strife among the Lebanese. It is not only content with fixing in advance the date of the publication of the indictment, but is determining the identity of the suspects and naming them explicitly, as if it was supervising the ongoing investigation.

The spreading of such “intelligence” harms the credibility of the STL, which faces another challenge, represented by its manner of dealing with false witnesses and the need to be clear about their motivations and the reasons that led them to mislead the investigation. Whoever is trying to push the investigation onto a false trail is seeking to hide the truth.

We must warn against one thing, namely the mobilization of the international tribunal for political ends. What we have seen until now does not take account of the considerations of the law. The president of the Lebanese Republic, because the American and French presidents were boycotting him, was prevented from giving his point of view on the tribunal. The reason was that the mandate of Emile Lahoud was extended for three years, contrary to Resolution 1559. Then certain MPs admitted in writing that they had extended the term of the president under pressure, and those were MPs who had said they were masters of their decisions.

Further, there have been many questions concerning the Special Tribunal for Lebanon since the time when Detlev Mehlis was holding this dossier and, especially following the arrest of four top officials, whose guilt had not been proven. The credibility of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon was thus somehow compromised and we fear it has been politicized.

It is absolutely critical for everyone, for the tribunal and for justice that the issue of investigations and of the verdicts should be kept strictly separated from political disagreements. The decision of the tribunal should be characterized by two elements: the first is that it rests on decisive evidence. The second is that the Lebanese cannot exploit it for sectarian advantage. Thus, the international tribunal is legally required, when the indictment is issued, to confirm it with evidence so that it can be inserted in its judicial position.

When the indictment is revealed, all the Lebanese must base their opinion on what is practiced in every part of the globe, namely that a man is innocent until the contrary is proved, no one being above suspicion. We as Lebanese must not serve as a tool for this or that faction to take revenge on its opponents, or to serve the objectives of foreign forces.

Of what use would the publication of the indictment in the case of the assassination of Rafik Hariri and the crimes that followed if Lebanon were to perish? And who would benefit from the destruction of Lebanon? Would the families of the victims benefit from it, or would it be the one who assassinated Hariri in order to provoke strife?

The Lebanese should therefore work to consolidate their unity to ensure permanent political stability for themselves. All the parties, whatever their affiliations and their tendencies, should act in solidarity so that Lebanon can stop being a scene of confrontation or a fuel keeping alive the conflicts which disturb the region. Any verdict serving one group at the expense of another is a project of internal strife from which all sides will emerge losers. And any verdict that consolidates national unity benefits all sides.

Thus, the forthcoming STL indictment concerns the Lebanese and they hold their fate in their own hands. It is true that the exterior can be a factor of support, but the decision of civil peace is a Lebanese decision, on this level no one can replace the Lebanese.