The assassination of Pierre Gemayel is too desperate to be plausible. Since the beginning of "Iraqi Freedom", the Middle East is much worse than what we could imagine. Lebanon was an improbable island in the middle of this turmoil. Lebanon was having a growth rate of about 11 % a year and almost becoming the model of an arab country rich and democratic enough, before the war of July. This frail peace was based on a very delicate balance, which hid a lot of hipocrisy and was haunted by specters such as the Hezbollah.
Maybe those interested in the radicalization of the interest groups and those investing in the establishment of hard frontlines, could sacrifice the young leader, with a resounding family name, but who led an isolated and once defeated community.
These explanations do not bring him back to life, neither subside the fear among his people. But it is curious that everytime a Lebanese leader, with a western posture, rises in his country, something bad happens to him. Is it because he is pro-western or because he is lebanese? Does the West really want a successful arab country in a world stepping at the drum of the "Clash of Civilizations"?
The worse is that the arab mind is so plagued by resentment and hate, that it doesn't matter which church it kneels in to subdue its grievances. Maybe, someone is thinking that the voluntary suicide attempt is the only therapy arabs may have, to join the modern world. That's why his assassination is much more pointed out to the return of one of lebanese seasonal yields, protracted civil war, than regime change, which -- according to the theory -- should be only a bud, grafted from the XXIst Century aside.
I wouldn't be surprised if those who realised that war comes out of Democracy, prefer their stubborness to truth and aquiesce in that Democracy should come out of war. And if we have now two jihads, an eastern and a western, who cares if some more are going to die?