Palestinian masses cannot trust Arab governments

1 LEBANON DE Thursday, November 20, •.. The new radicalism failed to make its mark in a big way, or rather it has so far failed to throw up the leaders it needs. Ever since the June war it had been the guerrillas who were the spearhead of a new order, gaining ground at the expense of the regimes which, whether "reactionary revolutionary" to operate from Lebanese territory, within limits, without government interference.

represent for many Arabs the discredited old order. But for the first time, the old order, decadent but full of guile, has got the better of the new order, vigorous but naive-and not incorruptible.' (David Hurst, Beirut November 7, "The Guardian'.)

LEBANON'S pro-imperialist regime has lived to betray another day. It has survived after what had looked like becoming the Lebanon's biggest crisis since 1958. from Lebanese soil, and they must keep their movements within specified corridors.

Then the Lebanese ruling class was saved from revolution by US Marines.

This time they have been helped by the political intervention by other Arab governments—particularly by Nasser-and by the lack of revolutionary leadership on the part of those who challenged them.

Alter IWo weeks Aftan trun washe of hitton fighting between the Lebanese army and the Palestine Arab guerrilla units, and strikes and demonstrations in • Lebanese cities in support of the guerrillas, Nasser succeeded in arranging an agreement between ine army commanaer in AL -chief, General Emile Bustani, and the Al Fatah and Palestine Liberation Organization leader, Yasser Arafat.

less than a fortniøht nre- UNDO AVA LINEAL viously, Arafat had said in Damascus that he doubted whether there was any value in talks between Arab leaders and the Lebanese governments.

Previous agreements had not been honoured, he said, and he saw no reason why any future ones should be.

The agreement that was signed following the talks in Cairo upholds the 'sovereignty and territorial integrity' of the Lebanese "government, while conceding the guerrillas' right THE MEANING OF THE MAUD REPORT IT HAS been reported ('The Times', , November 11, 1969) that the Labour Party's Regional and Local Government Advisory Committee has recommended to the NEC the adoption of the major proposals of the report of the Royal Commission on Local Government (Maud Report).* While the Labour Government has not yet stated which parts of the report it intends to carry out, the discussion and proposals of the Royal Commission indicate the importance which the ruling class attaches to the thoroughgoing preparation of the state machine for use in its attempts to take back the gains that the working class has won, particularly in the period since the last war.

The details of the agreement, the precise limits which it imposes on the guerrillas are secret, but it has been reported that they will not be allowed to fire across the Israeli border homeless in their own land by Zionist colonization and aggression, these Arab governments have failed them.

As soon as the 1948 war was over, the State of Israel came into existence in Palestine, the kingdom of JordanPAGE

Camp control According to reports the Lebanese authorities are to have control over the refugee camps, which are guerrilla recruiting grounds. then Trans-Jordan-annexed the Palestine Arab West Bank while Egypt annexed the Gaza strip, both regimes disregardthe Palestinian people's right to a state.

As for Nasser, the champion of Arab nationalism, he: has said on numerous occasions that he would recognise the 1947 partition as the basis for a peaceful settlement with the Zionist state, and more recently, the pre-1967 frontiers.

The Palestine problem is not just a dispute about boundaries that can be negotiated and settled between neighbouring states.

It is a national problem, the denial of selt-determination, ol a homeland to the Palestinian Arab people, and the imposition of a racist, colonialist, Zionist state.

The guerrilla movement arose because a new generation of Palestinians, realizing that they could not rely on governments, found inspiration from guerrilla movements in other parts of the world and took up arms themselves to wage popular war for the liberation of their homeland from Zionism.

After the debacle of June 1967, in which the Arab governments, both bourgeois and feudal, showed a combination of boasting demagogy with unnronaradnace for any unpreparedness ally real fight, enabling the Zionists to conquer even more territory and create more refugees, people throughout the Arab countries have become convinced that the guerrillas are right.

The heroism and determination of the Arab resistance fighters in the occupied territories-Israeli losses in the occupied areas have been much higher than they were in the Jane war-have earned them the prestige which the governIn local government, as in industry, mergers mean sackings.

Colonization

government on the one hand and the Arab masses on the other.

Full strength

saw hitle action aral in hine 1967, was used in full strength against the guerrillas and their supporters.

On October 24, Palestinian guerrillas in the South Lebanon Village of Majdal Salem were surrounded by 3,500 troops with tanks and artillery.

Elsewhere, guerrillas came under simultaneous fire from Lebanese and Israeli troops. hitherto managed to outdo its progressive colleagues in revolutionary fervour.' The Iraqi government's line apparently, as set out by Lieutenant-General Ammash, the deputy Prime Minister, rejected the guerrillas' claim to bases in Lebanon, saying tha all they needed was a 'corri dor' for infiltration.

ments, including Nasser's, had lost.

NoW, these governments, which failed to achieve anything for the Palestinian masses in 20 years, are attempting to retain their prestige, claiming to have some 'plan' for the struggle, to which the Palestinian organizations must subordinate themselves, surrendering the initiative they have taken. • The crisis in Lebanon brought out the real relationships between the • Palestinian people's struggle and the Arab In the proposals for the mammoth metropolitan areas these interests show even more clearly.

On the day before, army units had been brought into Beirut to guard against demonstrations in support of the Palestinian movement.

Police dispersed a demonstration of 500 people in the city's Bourg Al-Brajneh district, the Palestinian quarter.

A general strike broke out in the southern city of Sidon, in protest at the repression against the guerrillas.

In the city of Tripoli there were demonstrations and barricades were thrown up, with large-scale fighting.

The police were cleared out of the Bourg Al-Brajneh district of Beirut when guerrillas moved in, helping the people to put up barricades and take over the area.

It was the working masses who stood by the guerrilla fighters in their struggle.

To the support of the pro-imperialist government Lebanon came the so-called 'revolutionary' Ba'ath nationalist army officers' regime of Iraq.

Rejected claim We can quote once again the comment of 'The Times' cor -respondent Paul Martin:

'What must have come as

According to Paul Martin, 'The Times' correspondent in Beirut:

'Although its true significance will undoubtedly be denunad in molitical araumant the most sínister aspect of the muwutu m pululdl di ğumenl, Lebanese agreement from the guerrillas' point of view is the revelation by the Lebanese negotiating team that the secret agreement provides for the guerrilla action from Ishanans tamnitaan, ta han mrithin Levanest terrory l ve willi the framework of the general Arab plan.' In other words, although the Lebanese government has now acknowledged the right of the guerrillas to operate, it has insisted, however, that all operations be directed and controlled by the Arab governments; whereas, the whole historical significance of the guerrilla movements is that they have insisted on the Palestinian people being allowed to determine their own future, and have taken the initiative themselves rather than rely on the existing Arab governments.

Which is, more or less, what the Lebanese government said.

It is not a new line for the Iraqui regime.

In April this year, as was reported in "The Newsletter' (forerunner of Workers Press), they introduced measures to impose control on Palestinian groups in Iraq.

The Iraqi government note, signed by Chafic Al Daraji, decleared that all guerrillas should be moved nearer the front, concentrated in Jordan.

'There is no room for them to be in Iraq', said the note.

It also instructed all Palestinian organizations to inform Iraqi intelligence of their movements, and to appoint liaison officers to co-operate with the authorities about such matters as distribution of literature, fund raising, radio programmes, money, and arms.

It said they must stop holding rallies without permission and must subordinate themselves to the newly set-up, government-sponsored Arab Liberation Front'.

According to Geoffrey Sumner, in 'The Guardian', April 13:

'Iraq's ruling Ba'ath Socialist Party apparently fears that its unpopularity is contrasting dangerously with the strong local support for the guerrillas.' Cairo's role 'Self-determination' and 'liberation' are, it would seem, contaminating ideas. So much for the Iraqi regime.

To quote Paul Martin as to the role of the government Lebanon crisis:

'By bringing down the guerrillas a peg or two, General Ammash reasserted the right of Arab governments to determine Arab destiny and paved the way for Cairo to play a more active role in the negotiations.' ('The Times', November 8.)

While the Iraqi regime was taking measures to control Palestinian political activity and was also carrying out repressive measures to crush the underground Communist Party in Iraq, the Soviet bureaucracy has been busily wooing Iraqi rulers.

The Soviet bureaucracy has a lot to answer for to the Palestinian masses.

In 1947, Stalin and Gromyko supported the partition of Palestine and the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia supplied arms and aircraft to Israel.

Later, the Soviet bureaucracy expressed willingness to join the tri-partite agreement with Britain, France and America, guaranteeing the Israeli frontiers.

In 1966, they began dropping hints of a 'Tashkent'-type agreement being arranged between Israel and the Arab states, of course without the Palestinian Arabs being sented.

Since the June war the Kremlin has engaged in talks with the United States for an imposed solution.

Talks appeal

The Soviet Union issued a statement during the Lebanon crisis quite rightly warning the United States not to intervene; but in case their position hould be misunderstood, the ollowed this up with a fres appeal to the United States and Britain for talks between negot powers to impose The Soviet Union and al Communist Parties treat the Palestine issue solved by negotiations between states.

The Soviet newspaper 'Sovietskaya Rossiya' of April guerrilla movements for setting idea of replacing Israel by a 'Democratic Palestinian State', in which Arabs and Jews would be equal citizens, was not a realistic proposition.

The bureaucracy does not think that solutions implemented by the masses are 'realisThey place their faith in zeretionary imperialist is and.

governses do likewise ments and insist that the masThe Palestinian people and all the Arab masses have been betrayed too often.

They cannot afford to trust the governments and classes that have betrayed them any more, nor can they afford to trust the Soviet bureaucracy.

They need to create a new, revolutionary leadership, based on the working class and the peasants. In a further article we shall look at the guerrilla movements and their politics to see what sort of leadership exists at present.