Democratic Palestine : 31 (ص 43)
غرض
- عنوان
- Democratic Palestine : 31 (ص 43)
- المحتوى
-
creating a parallel institution to the
ministry which is located in West
Beirut.
While Aoun is taking concrete steps
to cement Lebanon’s partition, Geagea
is working to consolidate the hegemony
of the Lebanese Forces over the
Phalangist Party and the Lebanese
Front, which groups all the right-wing
Christian organizations, because in the
foregoing period these were more
closely aligned with Amin Gemayel.
Geagea’s militiamen have been taking
over the military posts held by soldiers
loyal to Gemayel in the North Metn.
Geagea was the inspiration behind the
Phalangist Politbureau’s recent deci-
sion to replace the general director of
the Voice of Lebanon radio station,
and the editor-in-chief of the party
newspaper Al Amel, both of whom had
been aligned with Gemayel.
All these moves demonstrate that the
Aoun-Geagea alliance aims to confront
the Lebanese people with a fait ac-
compli, forcing them to accept the con-
tinuation of the sectarian system which
guarantees class privileges. According
to this plan, Lebanon would be split
into two entities, the first consisting of
the areas controlled by Aoun’s part of
the army and Geagea’s Lebanese Forces
in the North and the areas under Israeli
occupation and Lahd’s South Lebanon
Army in the South. The second entity
would be the rest of Lebanon, living
under the constant threat and provoca-
tion of the first entity. Such an ar-
rangement would keep Lebanon as a
whole subordinated to the imperialist
West, and would give ‘Israel’ free reign
to interfere in Lebanon.
In line with these aims, Aoun has re-
jected all suggestions for merging the
two governments, refusing to give up
his right to the presidency on the basis
that he was ‘constitutionally’ appointed
by Gemayel. Aoun has asserted that he
will only consider such a solution after
prior recognition of his military
government. The Lebanese Forces have
also rejected merging the two govern-
ments; they reject any new government
unless it gives them direct representa-
tion and control.
While this isolationist camp and their
fascist plan of partition is the first
threat to Lebanon, ‘Israel’ represents
the second threat, both enjoying sup-
port from US imperialism.
US ROLE
While the US role does not appear to
be the most prominent in determining
current developments in Lebanon, im-
perialist policy - today and in the past
-has contributed decisively to the cur-
rent impasse. In line with Phalangist
thinking that «Lebanon’s strength lies
in its weakness» as was articulated by
the party founder,Pierre Gemayel,it is
in the interests of US imperialism to
keep Lebanon divided and weak. Accor-
dingly, the US funded the 1982 Israeli
invasion of Lebanon, and was pivotal
in the imposition of Phalangist Bashir
Gemayel as president. The US spon-
sored the negotiations which finally led
to the May 17th agreement. However,
with the abrogation of this treaty and
the general Israeli-rightist failure to
passify Lebanon in line with imperialist
interests, the US today prefers to keep
Lebanon a prisoner of its own turmoil.
Thus, the Reagan Administration had a
role in subverting the Lebanese
presidential elections, leading to the
constitutional vacuum that prevails
today.
In late August, the Lebanese
newspaper, Al Safir, and other Arab
newspapers revealed that Washington
had sent a secret memorandum to a top
Lebanese official. This memo contain-
ed the US administration’s formula for
a different kind of Lebanon, raising the
possibility of two or more govern-
ments, and then a form of confedera-
tion between them. This bears evidence
to the duplicity of the US role in the
negotiations that preceded the aborted
presidential elections. On the one hand,
the US reached an agreement with
Syria on a presidential candidate; then
it worked to undermine this same
agreement.
The US aims are very clear - to pre-
vent the establishment of any na-
tionalist government in Lebanon, that
would enact meaningful reforms in the
sectarian political system. Since such
reform is imperative for maintaining
the unity, sovereignty and Arab identity
of Lebanon, the implications of US
policy are in fact a divided Lebanon.
Thus, US policy aims to give ‘Israel’ a
free hand in Lebanon to serve the
Zionist plan of uprooting all Palesti-
nian and Lebanese nationalist activity,
and thus isolating the uprising in the
occupied territories from support from
the surrounding countries.
It would, however, be inconvenient
for the US to openly state such policy
aims. For this reason, the Reagan Ad-
ministration has not formally
recognized the Aoun government.
Rather, the US is following events from
a distance, alert to any chance to
strengthen its influence in Lebanon as
part of tightening its hegemony in the
region. Thus, the US administration
appears to keep all doors open. One
day, US spokesmen reiterate that the
Syrian-US agreement on a concensus
candidate for the Lebanese presidency
still applies. Another day, there are
statements to the effect that the
Lebanese themselves should agree
among themselves, which is really just
leaving the door open for the Aoun-
Geagea alliance to block a solution. On
yet other occasions, US statements say
it is «unfortunate» that the Lebanese
parliament was unable to elect a new
president or speaker, and _ that
Lebanon’s partition has become a bitter
fact.
‘ISRAEL’ BENEFITS
FROM PARTITION
‘Israel’ is taking advantage of the
current disarray to enlarge its so-called
security zone, further subjugate the
South and increase its attacks on
Lebanese and Palestinian patriots. By
supporting the partitionist forces in
East Beirut, ‘Israel’ enlarges the scope
of its influence.
In coordination with the South
Lebanon Army, ‘Israel’ has beefed up
its presence in the occupied ‘security
zone.’ In addition to the approximately
one thousand troops it has permanently
stationed in this zone, ‘Israel’ brought
in 1,800 more soldiers and 160 ar-
moured vehicles to the areas adjacent to
Metullah, plus 700 soldiers and 45 ar-
mored vehicles close to the West Bekaa
Valley; it established two new barracks
at Ayshia and Koukaba. There are
many indications that these steps are
more than preparations for ‘retaliation’
in the face of increased Lebanese and
Palestinian nationalist resistance.
Rather, ‘Israel’ appears to be preparing
for a major military operation to
enlarge its self-declared security zone
and uproot Lebanese and Palestinian
nationalists.
43
> - هو جزء من
- Democratic Palestine : 31
- تاريخ
- ديسمبر ١٩٨٨
- المنشئ
- الجبهة الشعبية لتحرير فلسطين
Contribute
Not viewed