Democratic Palestine : 18 (ص 12)
غرض
- عنوان
- Democratic Palestine : 18 (ص 12)
- المحتوى
-
Aftermath of the 1986 Camp War
Interview with Comrade Abu Maher Yamani
In order to clarify the causes and effects of the latest round of fighting in the camps of Beirut, we inter-
viewed Comrade Abu Maher Yamani in early July. Abu Maher is a member of the PFLP Politbureau,
Secretary of the Palestine National Salvation Front (PNSF) and a member of the legimate PLO Execu-
tive Committee. He is particularly qualified to speak on this subject for he was personally involved in rea-
ching the most recent ceasefire agreement on June 14th, and one of the first Palestinian leaders to enter the
camps afterwards.
Sabra camp, Beirut, June 1986
What are the reasons for the renewal of the camp
war in the past few months?
The main reason was the Amal movement’s lack of commit-
ment to the terms of the Damascus agreement that was con-
cluded on June 17, 1985, after the camp war begun by Amal on
May 20th of the same year. Amal did not abide by clause two of
the agreement which stipulated that they should withdraw their
fighters from the area around the camps, back to the positions
they had before the fighting broke out. Furthermore, the
(Lebanese Army) Sixth Brigade did not return to their duties as
practiced before the 1985 camp war, as was specified in clause
three of the agreement. Rather they continued to support Amal
in blockading the camps. Nor did Amal abide by clause five of
the Damascus agreement which called for conducting mass
gatherings and reconciliation to end the hostility caused by the
war. Furthermore, the joint coordination committee, named in
clause nine of the agreement, was unable to perform its duties
on the political, social and security levels; it was unable to
resolve pressing problems.
Amal not only continued to besiege the camps. They also
stormed the houses of Palestinians in the surrounding quarters,
arresting many and killing many others. One of the most bloody
incidents was the autumn 1985 massacre in the Hureik quarter,
enacted by spiteful elements of Amal. In this massacre, many
Palestinian children and elderly were killed, and many homes
were burned down.
Amal uses Arafat’s group as justification for stri-
king the camps. Can you comment on this?
We cannot deny the presence of Arafat’s group in the camps,
but there is a big difference between their presence and their
activities. Of course, there are political differences between the
deviationist trend of Arafat and his followers on the one hand
and the PNSF on the other. However, despite this, the base of
Arafat’s supporters did not violate the Damascus agreement
12
between Amal and the Salvation Front. This base abided by the
ceasefire. It is true that Arafat and members of his central
committee were making provocative statements to the media,
but their maneuvers and public statements were not in confor-
mity with the position of their base in the camps. Their base even
condemned the meeting between some Fatah Central Com-
mittee members and Amin Gemayel.
Arafat benefitted from the camp war. The war gave him room
to maneuver and to speak about the Palestinian situation in
Beirut, from his particular point of view, on the Arab level and
internationally. Amal uses the activities of Arafat’s group in the
camp as the main justification for renewing the war, continuing
the siege and shelling the camps. Yet when shelling the camps,
Amal does not differentiate between Arafat’s group and other
groups a:id people that oppose him. Besides, if Amal had been
committed to the June 1985 agreement, Arafat’s men would not
have found a justification for their moves and statements.
What are the dimensions of this war? What are its
effects on the morale of the Palestinian masses in
Lebanon, and on their material conditions?
The war definitely has negative effects on the Palestinian
masses in Lebanon. The Palestinians lost many of their children
and fighters in this battle of self-defense. Those fighters had
participated in the confrontation against the Zionist enemy in
Lebanon. Those children would have become fighters and
played a role in future battles with the enemy. This war also left
many injured and crippled, and these people will remain a mark
of disgrace in the history of relations between the Palestinian
masses and the Amal movement. Most importantly, a state of
spite, resentment and animosity was created between two peo-
ples who are supposed to be allies, uniting all their efforts and
guns against the common enemy-Zionism, its agents and sup-
porters. - هو جزء من
- Democratic Palestine : 18
- تاريخ
- أغسطس ١٩٨٦
- المنشئ
- الجبهة الشعبية لتحرير فلسطين
Contribute
Not viewed