Solidarity with the
Lebanese and Palestinian peoples!
The recent events in Lebanon have demonstrated, if any further proof were nec essary, that the great majority of the Lebanese population are opposed to the Phal-
The main local instrument of the imperialists, the Zionist army, is more unable and reluctant to intervene than ever be-
The imperialist states themselves are less prepared than ever to offer Gemayel the only means of reversing the relationship in his favor, that is, massive angist regime of Amin Gemayel that the multi-imperialist so-called Multi-National intervention by imperialist troops.
The American imperialists realized a
Under the hammer blows of the armed masses, Gemayel's state, which was lab.
long time ago that "Lebanon is no Grenoriously rebuilt after October 1982 with the support of imperialist troops and ada," as the armed Lebanon opposition under their supervision, has crumbled, leaving the true state of affairs starkly exkeeps saying.
It is, moreover, an elo-
The troops of the "legal" army are as Phalangist as the militias fighting quent fact that the very troops that carried out the Grenada operation today
In view of the scope of the defeat suffered by their protege and the pressure of find themselves obliged to withdraw from their own public opinion, some of the powers involved in the multi-imperialist force
Now, with the developments
Great Britain and Italy have done this.
in Central America and the Middle East, administration has also found itself compelled to announce the withdrawal of its for the first time in a decade the Ameritroops from Lebanese soil. But it is continuing to intervene by means of its naval can imperialists face the possibility of artillery, savagely pounding the anti-Gemayel positions in the Lebanese mountains.
one, two, many Vietnams. It is true that
As for the French government, it is trying to extricate itself from the affair withthese struggles are on a relatively small out losing face, asking that the multi-imperialist force be relieved by a UN one, ir they are sufficiently strong which French troops might participate and which would try to succeed where the nonetheless to be daunting,
Multi-National Force failed, that is, in consolidating the bourgeois order in Lebanwith elections coming up in the US.
Such a UN force could also favor the partitionist schemes of the Phalangist far
Rather than go for a wider interven-
"hornets nest," a tion in the Lebanese
The victorious offensive of the Lebanese opposition calls for anti-imperialist larger and larger section of the American forces throughout the world to redouble their efforts to mobilize opposition to imestablishment is openly advocating abanperialist policy in Lebanon under the following slogans:
After all, the country
All imperialist forces out of Lebanon, including its offshore waters!
in itself is not particularly important. It is not an oil producer and it does not have a great strategic significance.
Solidarity with the Lebanese and Palestinian masses in struggle!
what has been at stake in reality in the fighting in Lebanon since the summer of
1983 is not so much direct influence over the Lebanese central government as it is the whole of American policy in the region, as defined by the Camp David accords and the Reagan plan. In fact, it was
Force was sent in to prop up posed:
alongside them are pulling out their troops.
right.
Zionist troops out of Lebanon!
No UN intervention!
The Reagan
United Secretariat Bureau of the Fourth International
February 16, 1984 meeting to examine, together with his anon. Syria decided to counterattack the signing of the Israeli-Lebanese treaty on May 17, 1983, that lit the fuse to the powderkeg in Lebanon. (1) Syria retaliates
Up until that time, the Syrian regime had taken a reserved, if not positive, attitude toward Gemayel, while warning him against accepting any treaty with Israel. After the treaty was signed, it pushed the Lebanese political and military forces under its influence to fight the Phalangist government and the imperialist
This was made all the easier by the fact that Israel was becoming less and less of an effective deterrent.
By midsummer of 1983, the Zionist army had to beat a hasty retreat from the Chouf region, while it had not yet consolidated a bulwark in southern Lebanon. The battle of the mountains that followed ended in a grave defeat for the PhalanGemayel's "legal" army. The latter managed, with imperialist military support, to halt the advance of Joumblatt's Druze forces, which were joined by the PLO dissident's forces and given Syrian artil-
The September 25 ceasefire opened the way for a "reconciliation" meeting in Geneva a month later, at which the Syrians hoped to convince Gemayel to abrogate the May 17 treaty. He was in fact instructed by the participants in this
American tutors, the means for renouncing this treaty, which had become the precondition for a second "reconciliation"
He went immediately to Washington for that purpose, where he got no-
The Reagan administration rejected any abrogation of the treaty, which it had made a point of pride, having presented it as a fundamental step toward Pax Americana in the Middle East.
For the American government, this accord, together with the EgyptianIsraeli peace treaty, prepared the way for
(and Palestinian)-Israeli treaty, which would make Syria rather than Egypt the outcast of the Arab world of Damascus's alleged "pro-Soviet extremism." Mubarak's Egypt was then, moreover, getting involved in the game by helping Arafat organize the battle in northern Lebanon. (2)
Arafat returned the favor by spectac ular action in favor of ending the Arab and Islamic boycott of Egypt, the last obstacle to the reactionary Arab regimes coming out openly in support of the Reagan plan. It was Arafat who opened the way for the sort of meeting that has just been held in Washington between
Mubarak and Hussein. years of hypocrisy, the Arab reactionaries decided to put their cards on the table.
It was in this context, marked by Arafat embracing Hussein and the Islamic conference in Casablanca deciding to bring Egypt back into the fold, that the latest round of fighting flared in Lebthrough Lebanon and to inflict a setback on American policy, forcing abrogation of the May 17 treaty. This time the battle started in Beirut itself, touched off by an offensive of the pro-Iranian faction of the Shite movement, which is linked to Syria. Gemayel's army struck back so brutally that it definitively alienated almost all the Muslim forces in the country, (the consequences of this were described in the beginning of this article. Trap closes on Gemayel
The action of the "moderate" faction of the Shite movement Amal, which is strongly predominant, made it possible to wrest the control of West Beirut from Gemayel at the beginning of February. The intervention of Joumblatt's Druze forces on February 13 opened the way for a link up between the capital and the Chouf mountains, and thus with the areas under Syrian control. The Phalangist redoubt was consequently smaller and more threatened than ever. In fact, Gemayel no longer had any choice but to submit to the Syrian conditions.
At this writing, the news from Beirut indicates that he is going to announce the abrogation of the May 17 treaty. If he
"The Crisis of the PLO" in IV, No 46, February 13, 1984.
International Viewpoint 27 February 1984
does, Gemayel could hope to get a new "reconciliation" meeting (which might be held this time in Saudi Arabia). The result of this would be that for the first time since 1943, the year Lebanon became independent and the celebrated National Pact was adopted that provided for a division of power among the various communal factions of the Lebanese bourgeoisie, we would see an important change in the institutional framework of the country, with the Muslim factions of the bourgeoisie getting a bigger share of the cake. It would lead above all to a return to the 1977 situation, with a Lebanese central government largely under the sway of Syria. Gemayel might manage to stay in the presidency, but he would lose the real power, or at least his monopoly of the power.
One thing is certain, however, the outcome of the latest fighting in Lebanon will not be a settlement going beyond the limits of bourgeois rule, whatever form this may take. All the major forces op-
Gemayel are bourgeois forces, just as their patron, the Baathist regime in Damascus, is a bourgeois government.
The National Salvation Front, which includes the Lebanese Communist Party, is led by three key bourgeois figures, united only by their hostility to the Phalange and their subordination to Syria. One is Frangieh, a former president and Maronite, who was an ally of the Phalange from 1975 to 1978. second is Karame, a former premier and Sunni Muslim, the longest occupant of this post in Lebanese history. The third
Gemayel — looking for a new "reconciliation"? (DR) is Joumblatt, successor to his father as the bourgeois-feudal leader of the Druze community. The role of Amal
As for the Amal movement headed by the Shiite lawyer Nabih Berri, up until the last days, it stood to the right of the National Salvation Front, which it refused to join so as to avoid a break with Gemayel. Amal, or rather the "movement of the Outcast," of which Amal is the military wing, was formed in the 1970s. Its clear objective was to organize the poor Shiite masses under a bourgeois leadership that, unlike the traditional Shiite chiefs — who were the most backward hangovers from Lebanese feudalism — was capable of using populist demagogy-
In fact, the Amal operation was directed mainly against the Lebanese CP, whose spectacular growth in 1968-72 was based on recruitment mainly among Shites. From 1975 to 1982, Amal did not fight a single battle against the camp of the Phalangists and its allies. Instead, it built itself through battles against the Lebanese CP and the Palestinian organizations, on the basis of anti-Communist and antiforeign propaganda mirroring that of the Phalange. Under the influence of the Iranian revolution, a minority faction in Amal radicalized in accordance with the Khomeini model. In 1982, it split from the movement, denouncing Berri's collusion with the Phalangists. International Viewpoint 27 February 1984
Today, Berri is not showing any sign of "radicalism" beyond his opposition to Gemayel in person, whom he blames for the recent events. At the same time, he is showing a very great concern to keep things from going too far as regards a breakdown of the bourgeois state. He has insisted that the militarized police and the ordinary police, or even Lebanese army troops under the command of Muslim officers, take charge of restoring bourgeois order in West Beirut. demonstrating a special respect for the legal institutions, insisting that any political change must be carried out through the channels established by the constitution, that is, through a parliament elected in 1972 (!). This parliament has been kept on ice since that time and is made up of people who were the most corrupt representatives of the Lebanese ruling class before the deluge. It was this parliament that elected Sarkis president in 1976, then Beshir Gemayel, and most recently his brother Amin, to whom it gave an overwhelming majority in 1982.
Nabih Berri, moreover, is now calling, along with the Mitterrand government, for the intervention of UN forces in Lebanon, not as a buffer between Lebanon and Israel, but as a backup to the "legal" Lebanese forces, to help them maintain bourgeois order in the country forces UN troops are the only outside that might be accepted by the Lebanese masses as a whole. Any such intervention must be rejected, especially since it could encourage the partitionist inclinations of the extremist faction in the Phalangist camp.
The Revolutionary Communist Group (GCR), Lebanese section of the Fourth International, has participated in the recent struggle to bring down Amin Gemayel and to force the withdrawal of the imperialist forces. tive in Beirut, where they have been engaged in defense actions alongside the Lebanese CP, with which the GCR works. They have also been active in the mountains to the southeast of the capital, where they have been engaged in activities of the same type along with the Lebanese Left, as well as Palestinian resistance and Druze forces.
The present evolution of the situation in Lebanon is putting the demand for a constituent assembly back on the agenda, in the context of overthrowing Gemayel. Such circumstances would enable the Palestinian resistance (the forces of the dissidents who are actively involved in the ongoing fighting) to reestablish themselves in the Beirut camps, overcoming Berri's opposition to their return. It is only on such conditions that the Lebanese masses can profit from a victory that they have bought with their blood, rather than see it serve once again only the interests of the bourgeois leaderships, only to remodel a bourgeois state that will remain their enemy.
7
From the