Democratic Palestine : 17 (ص 9)
غرض
- عنوان
- Democratic Palestine : 17 (ص 9)
- المحتوى
-
> ty
— para rebedaaed munatna? Taina k se parte a
i 3 . et e,
Ree A ERR ON AS PRY TE ge ele 8
Syrians gather to shout across the occupation lines to relatives in the occupied Golan Heights.
concerted propaganda war all this year, where imperialist and
Zionist media have accused Syria of plans to attack the Israelis
in the Golan, Lebanon and occupied Palestine. A massive
Syrian arms and troop build-up has been repeatedly ‘‘reported’’
to an extent never confirmed by independent sources or even by
leading Israeli officials when they are speaking soberly. The
intent of this propaganda war is to elicit further imperialist
backing for ‘Israel’ and for whatever way it chooses to resolve
its dilemmas.
Morever, in the light of Israeli expansionism and past beha-
vior, it cannot be ruled out that the Zionist leadership will seize
on the military option for resolving what is basically a political
problem. In early April, Syrian air defense downed an
unmanned Israeli reconnaissance drone over Jebel Qassioun in
Damascus, which houses military radar. ‘‘There is open discus-
sion in Israel about the possibility of knocking out the Syrian
missile sites with pre-emptive strikes. To do so, they need to
monitor the radar frequencies that quide the missiles’’ (The
Observer, April 10th).
US DUPLICITY
While the US posed as mediator during the December ‘‘mis-
siles crisis’’, the Reagan Administration turned its wrath
directly on Syria at the turn of the year. At a January 9th press
conference, Robert Oakley, head of the State Department’s
“‘counterterrorist’’ office, threatened to extend the US eco-
nomic embargo of Libya to Syria, unless tlie latter ‘‘changes its
pattern of support’? for Abu Nidal (New York Times, January
10th). Such threatening statements have continued throughout
the spring from various US officials. In the course of this bar-
rage, two things have become clear: First, by naming Abu
Nidal,the Reagan Administration is actually targeting all
Palestinian and Lebanese anti-imperialist groups which pose
problems to US-Israeli policy. Second, almost every single
threat against Syria has been followed immediately by a more
conciliatory statement. This does not reflect disagreement in the
Reagan Administration, for one sees the same official alterna-
ting between threats and compliments to Syria.
There is also an obvious attempt to distinguish between Syria
and Libya. CIA Director William Casey’s briefing to a congress
committee on February 4th was typical. Speaking of the
“radical Arab states of Syria, Libya and Iran (who) oppose
nearly all aspects of US policy in the region... want to destroy or
weaken the moderate Arab leadership... are in active opposition
to the US peace process and... practice and sponsor terrorism,”’
Casey said: ‘‘Syria is the most effective of the three. While its
goals are more limited than the other two, its leadership is tacti-
cally brilliant and generally successful... ‘“(Mideast Observer,
February 15th).
Besides attempting to divide the nationalist ranks, Casey’s
remarks illustrate two things: First, after basically ignoring
Syria for over five years, the US began about two years ago to
gradually and implicitly acknowledge its role, especially in
Lebanon. Second, there are formidable, objective obstacles to
the US or ‘Israel’ directly striking Syria.
After its own fiasco in trying to induce reactionary stability in
Lebanon, the Reagan Administration has been forced to see
that Syria has greater potential than any other single force for
stabilizing Lebanon. The US hopes for Syrian help in control-
ling certain Palestinian and Lebanese forces, and in obtaining
the release of hostages. These hopes could be ruled out if the US:
were to stike Syria directly. President Assad has clearly stated
that the Syrian efforts to have some hostages released were
progressing, only to be dashed by the US air strike on Libya.
Moreover, any Israeli or US strike on Syria could involve the
Soviet Union, in view of the 1980 Friendship and Cooperation
Treaty between the two countries. ‘Israel’ for its part is unwil-
ling to engage in any war it cannot win quickly. This speaks
against striking Syria directly. If there is a US-Israeli decision to
hit Syria militarily, this would most likely occur via Lebanon.
Even then, ‘Israel’ will consider its past experience in Lebanon,
and the massive domestic dissent this evoked, before enacting a
large, new intervention. Still, the Phalangists’ sabotage of the
Syrian-sponsored tripartite agreement keeps the door open to
this possibility. Encouraged by the imperialist-Zionist cam-
paign against Syria, the Lebanese fascists assembled an entou-
rage of right-wing ‘‘Christian leaders’? in early May. They
agreed on a ‘‘Christian project’’ directly opposed to the tri-
partite agreement. Vague phrases, such as ‘“‘securing
Lebanon’s military neutrality’’ are designed to quell the resis-
tance to Zionist occupation and allow for collaboration with it.
Other phrases are not so vague, such as ‘‘cancelling the Cairo
agreement’’. This is designed to end the Palestinians’ political
9
» - هو جزء من
- Democratic Palestine : 17
- تاريخ
- يونيو ١٩٨٦
- المنشئ
- الجبهة الشعبية لتحرير فلسطين
Contribute
Not viewed