Democratic Palestine : 1 (ص 14)
غرض
- عنوان
- Democratic Palestine : 1 (ص 14)
- المحتوى
-
and if their previous practice was on this line. We want to
know if they are prepared for self-criticism. On the
organizational level, we want to know if they are ready to
change the individualist way of leading the revolution. We
will not accept general or non-committal responses.
We are also working to get the opinion of the mass and
professional unions. There are ten main unions within the
framework of the PLO, and we want their view. After this,
we want the opinion of prominent Palestinians in Palestine,
Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, etc. Especially, we want the opinion
of the independent members of the PLO’s Central Council
and the Palestinian National Council. Perhaps we will try to
forge a front within the PLO for unity and democratic
reform, that will work politically and organizationally to give
the program real force.
Most important, our party branches everywhere are
working to see that this program reaches every Palestinian
home, because this is the only program for saving the PLO’s
unity and ensuring reform. From the response we have
received, we feel that a great majority of our people are with
this program, because they want unity and reform. We will
struggle until we have unity on the basis of reform, and we
will succeed.
Now, after the Syrian-Saudi agreement, which ended the
fighting, some may say, let’s take a rest. On the contrary, our
political struggle will escalate. What has happened, in
particular the fighting, constitutes a burden on the conscience
of all Palestinian leaders. Why did it take place? Aside from
external factors, there are two main reasons: First, certain
leaders do not recognize the law for how to solve internal
contradictions at this stage of our liberation struggle. Second,
there was an urgent need for reform. The ceasefire is a
temporary treatment, but we want a radical, thorough,
permanent treatment.
There is disagreement among those Palestinian forces who
want reform, concerning the nature of the Palestinian
bourgeoisie and how to face the right wing. How do you
view this issue?
At present, the term ‘Palestinian right’ is being used
without an accurate definition. The protest phenomenon that
began in Fatah and their Palestinian allies are using this term
in an infantile leftist fashion. What is the right-wing at this
stage of the Palestinian struggle, which is that of national |
liberation, not building socialism? In a class sense, the right is
the bourgeoisie. At this stage, scientifically speaking, it is in
the interests of Palestinian workers, peasants and the
bourgeoisie to struggle against the Zionist occupation. Thus,
the Palestinian bourgeoisie is a nationalist class.
When the Palestinian bourgeoisie embarked on armed
struggle in 1965, it was sincere in wanting to liberate all of
Palestine. Even now, if it were a question of wishes, they
would like to have a fully liberated Palestine, including its
coastal waters, for this would be in their political and
economic interests. However, they faced difficulties, because
this slogan is hard to fulfill. After the experience in Jordan
1970-71, leaders of Fatah were asking how they could
continue. They had seen that liberation is difficult and began
to lean towards what they thought were more realistic goals,
for example, liberating only the West Bank and Gaza. Still,
after the defeat in Jordan, it was easy for the Palestinian
revolution to reinforce its presence in Lebanon, where the
army was weak. The atmosphere of discouragement
vanished, and the bourgeois forces again began to speak of
total liberation. This was evidenced in the positive decisions
of the 11th Palestinian National Council for full liberation of
Palestine, etc.
After the October 1973 war, the PLO gained broad
international recognition. Certain western states began to talk
to the Palestinian right, saying, we supported you not in
14
liberating all Palestine, but to have self-determination in the
West Bank and Gaza. After the October war, a state in the
West Bank and Gaza Strip seemed to be possible, and the
bourgeoisie was ready to consider this. PFLP and other
radical forces disagreed with this course.
Notice the difference between the bourgeoisie’s stand in
1973-74, when it was ready for a US-Soviet compromise
proposal as represented by the Vance-Gromyko statement,
and its stand after we left Beirut. Only then was the
Palestinian bourgeoisie ready to hop on the US line, and for
goals even less than a state.
The current division in Fatah has class significance; the
protest phenomenon is a petit bourgeois reaction to the right-
wing policies of the Fatah leadership, especially after the
way the opposition in Fatah was treated by the leadership.
Still, the Palestinian bourgeoisie is a nationalist class.
Accordingly, Fatah is among the nationalist forces.
Recently two trends have become highly visible on the
international scene: US imperialism’s renewed willingness to
intervene directly, and the growth of the peace movement.
What are the reasons for the first, and how do you evaluate
the second?
Without going into the whole question of imperialism’s
increasingly aggressive policy, we can state three reasons
why US imperialism is now intervening directly with its own
forces:
One: Imperialism feels that its local tools, its class allies
and their armed forces, are unable to resist radical or
revolutionary change. The formation of the Rapid
Deployment Force was a response to the victory of the
Iranian revolution. This meant that the US was preparing for
direct intervention. Due to the developments of the last ten
years - the popular uprisings and victories, the US feels the
need for using its own forces.
Two: US imperialism is not satisfied with merely
stopping new victories for the people. It wants to roll back
the victories that are already achieved, and this is difficult
without direct intervention.
Three: Certain points are particularly strategical for US
imperialism’s global policies and thus require direct US
military presence. The US is actually taking all the
preparatory measures for a global confrontation. In an area
like the Middle East, with its resources and proximity to the
Soviet Union, the US deems it necessary to have its:-own
military bases and forces. The same applies to Central
America. In this way, one can see why Lebanon and Grenada
became the sites of direct US military intervention.
Four: Military intervention is part of Reagan’s policy for
solving the crisis of capitalism. The Reagan Administration
wants to have credit for the fact that no revolution in the
three continents has been victorious during its term in office.
As internal problems worsen in the capitalist countries, US
imperialism tries to divert the people by directing their
discontent against an external enemy.
Concerning the peace movement: I am very pleased that
it is becoming a real force and a real nuisance to imperialism.
This is clear just from reading imperialist propaganda.
Demonstrations continue and broaden against the stationing
of the cruise and Pershing II missiles in western Europe.
When it became clear to people in the US and Europe that
we are on the verge of a nuclear war, the common man asked
where the policies of imperialism are leading. Now Reagan
can't say that it’s the communists only opposing his policies. It
is broad sectors of his own people demonstrating against
these policies. We look forward to the continued growth and
development of these forces. This will be a major obstacle
for the Reagan-Thatcher-Kohl policies. We salute these
forces and feel the importance of their work at this stage for
the sake of all humanity. rd - هو جزء من
- Democratic Palestine : 1
- تاريخ
- يناير ١٩٨٤
- المنشئ
- الجبهة الشعبية لتحرير فلسطين
Contribute
Not viewed