“The sun rises from Southern Lebanon” (1)
By Yigal Carmon and Aaron Mannes, respectively President of MEMRI and
MEMRI’s Director of Research, June 5, 2000
MEMRI, Middle East Media Research Institute, is an independent non-profit
organization providing translations of the Arab media and original analysis and
research on developments in the Middle East.
Although Israel’s official intention and commitment to withdraw from Southern
Lebanon by July 2000 was known for months, the rushed manner in which it
took place under Hizbullah fire prompted strong reactions throughout the Arab
world and among the Palestinians in particular. The Secretary General of Hizbullah,
Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, on live television, exhorted the Palestinians to renew
armed struggle with Israel. (2)
While the prevailing reaction to this withdrawal expressed in the Arab media
was one of “delight,” and “enjoying the sweetness of victory,” many writers
analyzed it in order to draw the necessary lessons for the Palestinians.
In Praise of Jihad and Martyrdom The Islamist Reaction
Those who previously advocated Jihad and martyrdom saw Hizbullah’s victory
as proving their basic conviction that “Islam is the solution.” Gaza-based
Hamas leader, Dr. Abd Al-Aziz Al-Rantisi, who was recently released by
Arafat, committed Hamas “to completing the work of Hizbullah in the occupied
territories.” He stressed that Israel’s withdrawal, “weakened the option of
negotiations and strengthened the option of resistance,” and that
the Palestinian negotiator namely the PLO no longer has any option but
fighting. (3)
Al-Istiqlal, the Islamic Jihad’s weekly delivered the same
message: “This victory will narrow the range of Arab concessions, it will
weaken the illusions that marginalized the option of Jihad and resistance.
It is going to shame the option of negotiations.” (4)
PLO Ambivalence Calls for both Arms and Restraint
Israel’s withdrawal re-ignited the Arab debate over whether negotiations and
a peace settlement are the only and inevitable means of achieving the goal
of regaining occupied territories. Hizbullah’s success through armed
struggle, rather than by an agreement repeatedly proposed by Barak,
undermines those who support negotiations and a peace settlement as the
preferable means.
Consequently, those in the PLO who had viewed
negotiations as an inferior option to violence, rushed to call for a return
to the armed option. Others argued that the differences between the
Palestinian situation and Hizbullah’s situation still makes the armed option
not only inefficient but also dangerous for the Palestinians. A few voices
contended that regardless of the efficacy of force, negotiations and peace
settlements should always be the preferred option.
PLO Calls for Arms
PA Chairman, Yasser Arafat, was offended by Sheik Nasrallah’s call for a
return to armed struggle, which he considered an interference in domestic
Palestinian affairs. In his response he berated Nasrallah, saying it was
not Hizbullah who deserved the credit for the Israeli withdrawal but rather
Barak’s wish to implement UN Security Council Resolution 425. (5)
At the same time, an editorial in the Arafat-controlled daily, Al-Hayat
Al-Jadida, determined that the Israeli withdrawal from South Lebanon was
carried out “only due to the pressure of mortars and Katyusha missiles.” It
further asked, “What is the message Israel delivers to the Palestinians by
its withdrawal: We will not give you your rights, unless you follow this
model?” (6)
Some Palestinian leaders called for following Hizbullah’s lead and
confronting Israel. PA Minister of Treasury, Muhammad Zuhdi Al-Nashashibi
stated, “The Lebanese have supplied the entire world with an example of
steadfastness and they have taught everybody the strategy of strike after
strike until the enemy’s defeat. What happened in Lebanon is a lesson for
whoever wants to win in Palestine like in Lebanon.” (7)
The release of the prisoners from the Al-Khiyyam (8) prison drew remarks
from PA officials who advocate violence and demonstrations to bring about
the release of Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails. A leader of this
campaign, PA legislator Qaddurah Fares stated, “The hundreds of
civilians breaking into the Al-Khiyyam prison shows how prisoners can be
released.” (9)
Director General of the PA Ministry of Information, Hassan Al-Kashef, wrote:
“The Palestinian people see this as a model for the liberation of the
Palestinian occupied lands and the release of the prisoners.” (10) An
editorial in the PA-affiliated daily Al-Ayyam, reinforced this idea by
comparing the breaking into Al-Khiyyam prison with the breaking into the
Bastille, the spark of the French Revolution in 1789. (11)
PLO Calls for Restraint
Veteran Palestinian Journalist, Tawfiq Abu Bakr, writing in response to
Nasrallah, explained that the Lebanese case is different from the
Palestinian one. While Israel has no demands for Lebanese land, more than
half of the Israelis view the West Bank as the homeland of their
forefathers. Israel made concessions on other fronts in order to keep
territories on the Palestinian front.
Abu Bakr added, “The Intifada, for which Arabs, including Hizbullah, sing
songs of praise, was based on the philosophy of mass demonstration and the
symbolic violence of throwing stones at Israeli soldiers. This philosophy
avoided using weapons and militarizing the Intifada.” In this way,
Palestinians accomplished in a few years what the PLO failed to do in
decades But when Hamas and Islamic Jihad began
conducting suicide operations it led to Peres losing the elections. “The
goal of the Palestinians,” concludes Abu Bakr in his opposition to
Nasrallah’s call, “is to influence Israeli society so that the majority of
Israelis will agree to a just peace.” (12)
For similar reasons, Palestinian writer and producer, Daoud Kuttab, also
opposed adopting the Hizbullah model for the Palestinian case. Kuttab
argued that in contrast to Lebanon and Syria, which can exist without any
relations with Israel, the Palestinians have realized that their future is
dependent on their relations with their neighbors:
“Palestinians in the
occupied territories reached the conclusion that any long term solution to
their problem must include some type of normal relations with the three
surrounding countries, Jordan, Egypt, and Israel. With all three countries
opposed to the military option, the PLO had no realistic choice but to go to
the negotiating table.” (13)
The Editor of the PA affiliated Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Hafez Al-Barghuthi,
initially argued that the lesson Palestinians should take from Israel’s
withdrawal is to return to armed confrontation. (14) A few days later
Al-Barghuthi reversed himself claiming that such a lesson is in Israel’s interest.
“Israel’s plan is to have the Palestinians enter a battle which
will make it easy for Israel to empty the land of its inhabitants, if not to
burn them . The circumstances prevailing in Lebanon and the
world are going to turn against the Palestinian people overnight.” “Why,” he asked, “aren’t those
directing this same advice to Damascus?” (15)
The “Degrading Pragmatism” of Negotiations
Renowned Palestinian poet and former PLO Executive Committee member, Mahmoud
Darwish, spoke at a rally at Beir Zeit University. He shared in the
general Palestinian joy that Israel, which allegedly claimed that the Arabs
only understand the language of force, proved that it does not understand
any other language itself. While Darwish granted that there is no return
from the peace option chosen by the PA, he characterized it as “degrading
pragmatism,” and was heartened by and praised the revival of armed Arab
resistance, which “has regained some of ideological weapon.”
He ridiculed the Israeli leadership who called the Israeli withdrawal a
victory to heal their hurt Narcissism. “If the Israelis perceive the
withdrawal as a victory,” he boasted, “they should have more such victories
on the rest of the fronts. Let them have their triumphal retreat or
retreating triumph, we have no problem with the terminology. There is
nothing wrong with a human being defeating his own stupidity.” (16)
Conclusions
Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon restored Palestinian and Arab confidence
that negotiations and peace settlements with Israel are not the only means
to achieve their goals. Columnist Salim Azooz, of the Egyptian opposition
daily Al-Ahrar, expressed the feelings of both Palestinians and the Arab
world in general, when he wrote:
“The resistance has given us the greatest
practical proof that what we thought was our predetermined fate, is not our predetermined fate and the
talk of ‘circumstances,’ ‘conditions,’ and ‘situations’ that the experts
hammered into our heads, day and night, to ease the swallowing of our defeat
with all its bitterness . Israel is , they
fled with only their skins on them, like fleeing pigs. And why should we
say ‘like,’ when they are, in fact, pigs and apes.” (17)
Similarly, Walid Junblat leader of the Druze community in Lebanon, said, “We
have liberated the south without any conditions or normalization and without
an Israeli embassy in Beirut. We have no need for a peace agreement .” (18)
While Arafat seems reluctant to endorse this lesson, due to the many
differences between his situation and the situation in Lebanon, the general
Palestinian and Arab mood will further harden Arafat’s position against any
concessions.
Endnotes:
(1) Al-Ayyam (PA), June 2, 2000.
(2) Al-Jazeera (Qatar), May 27, 2000.
(3) Kul Al-Arab (Israeli Arab weekly), June 2, 2000.
(4) Al-Istiqlal (Gaza), June 1, 2000. Some mainstream papers have been swept up in the euphoria. For example,
an editorial of Al-Quds, an independent Palestinian daily states: “The Israeli side must internalize the Lebanese lesson
when it deals with the Palestinian track. The Palestinians have chosen peace and negotiations as a means for achieving
their legal and just rights, but up till now, Israel delays its withdrawal from the Palestinian lands… Why does Israel
corner the Palestinians and increase the confusion and frustration from the peace process, as well as the doubts
regarding the best way to achieve their legal national demands, after the negotiations have reached a dead-end?” May
24, 2000.
(5) Israel Radio, May 29, 2000.
(6) Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (PA), May 24, 2000.
(7) Al-Ayyam (PA), May 28, 2000. Another example is Ali ‘Amer, an official with the PA Ministry of Culture, who
urged the Palestinians to “learn the model. We must use all means at our disposal to liberate the land and the
prisoners and to build the state.” Al-Ayyam (PA), May 26, 2000.
(8) Al-Khiyyam prison, in southern Lebanon was operated by Israeli forces and the Southern Lebanese Army.
When Israeli forces left southern Lebanon, the prison was overrun and the prisoners were released.
(9) Al-Ayyam (PA), May 26, 2000.
(10) Al-Ayyam (PA), May 24, 2000.
(11) Al-Ayyam (PA), June 2, 2000.
(12) Al-Ayyam (PA), May 31, 2000.
(13) Jerusalem Post (Israel), May 25, 2000.
(14) Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (PA), May 24, 2000. Al-Barghuthi wrote: “The occupation soldiers did not withdraw from
South Lebanon because they got sick of the occupation: Unless the coffins were multiplying, they would have stayed
along with their agents… who flee now like terrified mice. … If blood does not bring victory, it at least bequeaths it to
future generations. For the first time, Israeli invaders flee, from an Arab land; humiliated, all they want is to stay alive,
having tasted death. They did not pee on the negotiation table in order to force their terms, but rather peed in their
pants…”
(15) Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (PA), June 1, 2000.
(16) Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (PA), May 30, 2000.
(17) Al-Ahrar (Egypt), May 30, 2000. The notion of the Jews as descendants of pigs and apes is based in Islamic
tradition and is common among the Islamists. For example, it is found in the Hamas covenant.
(18) Kul Al-Arab (Israeli Arab weekly), June 2, 2000.
