‘Kingmaker’ Lebanese MP Michel Murr Passes Away from COVID-19

Michel al-Murr. (NNA)
Michel al-Murr. (NNA)
TT

‘Kingmaker’ Lebanese MP Michel Murr Passes Away from COVID-19

Michel al-Murr. (NNA)
Michel al-Murr. (NNA)

Lebanese MP Michel al-Murr, known as the “kingmaker” in local politics, passed away on Sunday after succumbing to the coronavirus after being infected weeks ago.

The 88-year-old politician was already suffering from poor health, with the virus putting an end to an eventful political career that spanned decades.

“Abou Elias,” as he was popularly known, served as minister in several government, acted as deputy prime minister between 1990 and 2000 and deputy parliament speaker in 2004 and headed various ministerial committees. He also took part in the national dialogue that was launched by former President Michel Suleiman, whose support from Murr helped him secure the presidency.

Murr enjoyed close ties with several former presidents, including Elias Sarkis, whom he called a friend, slain Bashir Gemayel in the 1980s, Elias al-Hrawi in the 1990s and Emile Lahoud, whose daughter married his son Elias. Murr and Lahoud’s ties would sour during the end of the latter’s tenure and their children’s union would also end in divorce.

A deft politician, Murr was quick to form alliances, while also making rivalries along the way. He imposed himself as the leading politician, or “zaim”, in the northern Metn region in Mount Lebanon, holding sway for several years and garnering him a sizable popular base.

An Orthodox Christian, this popularity helped him win seats in various elections in the predominantly Maronite region. He also took advantage of the absence of a powerful Christian figure in the area in the post-civil war (1975-90) period until 2005 to further tighten his grip.

During the war, he was among three signatories of the Tripartite Accord with Damascus, which cemented Syria’s hold over Lebanon. The agreement was also signed by future Speaker Nabih Berri, as head of the Amal Movement, Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblatt, and then leader of the Lebanese Forces Elie Hobeika.

In the 1990s, Murr was victim of a failed assassination attempt. His son Elias would also be targeted in a failed attack in 2005. Assassinations in Lebanon are usually blamed on the Syrian regime that had imposed its hegemony over the country from 1976 to 2005.

The motives behind the attacks were different, as Murr senior boasted good ties with former President Hafez Assad. Elias’ case is being addressed by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, which was formed to tackle the 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. His murder is widely blamed on Syria.

Michel Murr’s road to politics was not always smooth. He ran twice for elections in 1960 and 1964, failing in both tries. The third time was the charm and he won a seat in the legislature in 1968 after forming an alliance with Pierre Gemayel.

In post-civil war Lebanon, he ran for the Orthodox seat in Aley and would continue to secure electoral victories until his death.

His electoral run in the 2018 polls was fraught with challenges from the Free Patriotic Movement, Lebanese Forces, Kataeb and civil society groups.

Murr’s bloc lost seats in parliament with the FPM’s rise on the political scene in 2005. At one point the MP allied himself with the movement, before abandoning it and declaring himself an independent.

Despite the challenge mounted by the FPM, Murr’s popularity in the Metn did not wane and he managed to secure a lone seat for himself in the last parliamentary elections.

His legacy is expected to live on in the Metn region where his daughter Mirna is head of the northern Metn municipalities union.

Similar to the majority of Lebanese politicians, Murr’s career was not without controversy, corruption and illicit accumulation of wealth. Among these glaring examples was his naturalization of hundreds of Syrians in 1994 when he served as interior minister so that they could vote for him during elections.



UN Court Opinion Due on Occupied Palestinian Land

People in front of the Peace Palace ahead of a ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on a request from South Africa for emergency measures for Gaza, in The Hague, Netherlands, 26 January 2024. (EPA)
People in front of the Peace Palace ahead of a ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on a request from South Africa for emergency measures for Gaza, in The Hague, Netherlands, 26 January 2024. (EPA)
TT

UN Court Opinion Due on Occupied Palestinian Land

People in front of the Peace Palace ahead of a ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on a request from South Africa for emergency measures for Gaza, in The Hague, Netherlands, 26 January 2024. (EPA)
People in front of the Peace Palace ahead of a ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on a request from South Africa for emergency measures for Gaza, in The Hague, Netherlands, 26 January 2024. (EPA)

The UN's top court will on Friday hand down its view on the legal consequences of Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories since 1967, amid growing international pressure over the war in Gaza.
Any opinion delivered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) would be non-binding, but it comes amid mounting concern over Israel's war against Hamas sparked by the group's brutal October 7 attacks.
A separate high-profile case brought before the court by South Africa alleges that Israel has committed genocidal acts during its Gaza offensive.
Judges will read their findings at 1300 GMT at the opulent Peace Palace in The Hague, the home of the ICJ.
The UN's General Assembly asked the ICJ in late 2022 to give an "advisory opinion" on the "legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem".
The ICJ held a week-long session in February to hear submissions from countries following the request -- supported by most countries within the Assembly.
Most speakers too during the hearings called on Israel to end its 57-year occupation. They warned a prolonged occupation posed an "extreme danger" to stability in the Middle East and beyond.
But the United States said Israel should not be legally obliged to withdraw without taking its "very real security needs" into account.
Israel did not take part in the oral hearings.
Instead, it submitted a written contribution in which it described the questions the court had been asked as "prejudicial" and "tendentious".
'Ongoing violation'
The General Assembly has asked the ICJ to consider two questions.
Firstly, the court should examine the legal consequences of what the UN called "the ongoing violation by Israel of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination".
This relates to the "prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967" and "measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem".
In June 1967, Israel crushed some of its Arab neighbors in a six-day war, seizing the West Bank including east Jerusalem from Jordan, the Golan Heights from Syria, and the Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula from Egypt.
Israel then began to settle the 70,000 square kilometers (27,000 square miles) of seized Arab territory.
The UN later declared the occupation of Palestinian territory illegal, and Cairo regained Sinai under its 1979 peace deal with Israel.
The ICJ has also been asked to look into the consequences of what it described as Israel's "adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures".
Secondly, the ICJ should advise on how Israel's actions "affect the legal status of the occupation" and what are the consequences for the UN and other countries.
The ICJ rules in disputes between states. Normally, its judgements are binding although it has little means to enforce them.
In this case however, the opinion it issues will be non-binding, although most advisory opinions are in fact acted upon.