Wanted Urgently: A Policy Against the Evil From the North
The Syrian Government now no longer has the excuse that it is "restoring order" to justify and explain the horror it is committing in Lebanon. It does not even trouble to make this "reasonable" claim. Thus, in the eyes of the whole world, hundreds of artillery pieces of the Syrian army continue day after day to shell the Christian sections of Beirut; and so, day after day, peaceful citizens, men, women and children are being killed, and those parts of the Christian sector of Beirut that survived the civil war are being destroyed. Thus Syria draws closer to her political goal the control of Lebanon as a further step in the realization of the dream of "Greater Syria."
Indeed this was the first cause of the bloody events in Lebanon of the past three years. The civil war opened in April 1975 with a joint onslaught on the Christians by Lebanese Moslems and the PLO, and it was carried out under the inspiration of the Syrians and with their material aid. Thanks to this aid the Moslems gained the upper hand and were preparing to take over the government of the State. At that moment, in the twinkling of an eye, by a well planned act of sleight of hand, the Syrians changed sides: their army invaded Lebanon and overcame the Moslem PLO coalition. They saved the Christians from mass slaughter; and by their own didactic method they brought home to the surprised Lebanese Moslems and the PLO that their attack on the Christians, and the lives they had sacrificed, were not intended to bring about the transfer of power to them but to the Government of Syria.
In these circumstances the Christians could not but be grateful for the Syrian intervention, even if they understood the nature of the trap into which they had been drawn. The Syrians for their part scrupulously took care not to upset the traditional Lebanese constitutional structure. A Christian was duly installed as president. It was the Lebanese parliament that formally elected Elias Sarkis, but it was the Syrians who appointed him.
The Syrians then took steps to legitimize their status. The Lebanese Government officially submitted a "request" to the Arab States, and the Arab States acceded to it, to "dispatch" an inter Arab military force to keep the peace in Lebanon. Other Arab States sent forces to the extent needed to provide a fig leaf and the Syrian army was recognized as the "inter Arab peace keeping force" in the sister State of Lebanon a respectable status for the cat appointed to watch the cream.
Now, it seems, we have reached the final phase of the Lebanese tragedy. A section of the Christians, recovering from the shocks of the civil war, began to manifest a spirit of rebelliousness toward the Syrians. This served as the sign for the Syrians to launch the next phase of President Assad's plan to put an end to any effective Christian force and indeed to dismantle the Christian fabric in the State. A strange spectacle now unfolds: a foreign army wreaks destruction in the capital and slaughters its Christian citizens; the partisan forces of the Christian population fight back to the best of their ability; and the "legal" government of Lebanon looks on in apparent indifference. Apart from a "plan to solve the problem" which the President submits from time to time to his masters in Damascus, it does not even squeak.
Obviously, then, no Lebanese government rules in Beirut, and the body calling itself the Government of Lebanon is a captive puppet of the Syrians.
Suddenly, while the heavy rain of Syrian shells continues to pour down on the homes of Beirut's Christian citizens, this government rises to its feet and issues an order. It has decided to impose its authority but not on Lebanon, only on one zone in the State, and it is sending a unit of its army to do so. The chosen zone is the south of the country the only part of the country where there is an effective Lebanese Christian force, which sprang from the grass roots, which has shown efficiency and resource in resisting attacks by the terrorists, which has achieved co operation with the Shi'ite Moslems in the area, and which is assured of assistance from Israel if renewed attacks by the terrorists make this necessary.
The brutal fact projecting from the mission of the "Lebanese unit" is that the Syrians have decided that with the Christian center going up in flames and the murder of the community going ahead as planned the time has come to start with the elimination of the independent Christian force in the south; and, no less important, to put an end to the relations of the population in the south with Israel. The aim of the Syrians of course is also to put an end to the "good fence" and, at long last, to lay the groundwork for a war front on the Israeli border. The "Lebanese unit" is nothing but an arm of the Syrians.
The Syrians, brimming with self confidence, do not deny their responsibility. They even boast of their domination. Damascus radio proclaims incessantly: the attack on Beirut is a calculated act of punishment against the "alliance of the Christians with the Israeli imperialists against Lebanon." As for the "Lebanese unit," it is being sent in order to put an end to the co operation between the militias of Hadad (the enemy of the Arab nation) and the Israeli enemy.
Hence, of course, the route to be followed by the unit. Its purpose is transparent: its orders are to avoid the concentrations of terrorists in the area and to advance into the Christian enclave. The Syrians obviously wish to bring about a confrontation inside the enclave.
We do not know what orders have been given to the unit on action inside the enclave. It is reasonable to assume that they will issue an ultimatum for the dissolution of the militias, and that they will try to arrest Hadad (and his colleague Chidiak) and transport them to Beirut. They may also try to close the "good fence" without delay. Most important: everything they do will be by order of the "legitimate Government of Lebanon."
Major Hadad's actions and statements prove that he is alive to the Syrian plot and that he comprehends the gravity of the danger confronting his men and the village communities, simple and naturally peace loving, to whose defence he is pledged. He knows the Syrian enemy, he knows the weaknesses of his own people, he understands the dilemma of his coreligionists in Beirut. Out of his common sense and his natural courage he says: "We shall not let them pass." It is no small matter that the Moslems in the area have also declared that they will not let them pass; they too are not deceived.
Hadad, hearing of the pressure being exerted on Israel by the Americans to influence him to agree to allow the passage of the unit from Beirut, has not hesitated to make it plain that even if he and his men are abandoned they will stand firm. They themselves will determine their fate because it is their home that is threatened by destruction. Its defence is in his hands and he is aware that his standing firm may be the only obstacle to the danger of extinction.
The dishonorable pressure on Israel to give silly advice to Hadad and in fact to abandon him, harmonises with Washington's behaviour since the beginning of the Lebanese conflict. Both America's interventions and her non interventions help to promote the Syrians' ambitions. To this day the United States has made no serious effort to prevent, or to halt, or to slow down the bloodshed in Lebanon. She encouraged Syrian intervention; from the outset she has pretended, and still pretends, that the Syrian presence in Lebanon is a "stabilising influence" (just as her Ambassador to the UN, Andrew Young, found the Cuban force in Angola to be a stabilising influence). It was she who extended her approval to the Syrians, "reassured" the Israeli Government, urged her to agree to the Syrian invasion of Lebanon and, ever since then, she (like the whole Christian world) watched unmoved while Christian blood is shed and encourages a situation in which Christian blood will continue to be shed.
Washington has a "special attitude" to Syria. It finds cruel expression on the Lebanon issue, but it is evident in other contexts as well. Shortly after he took office President Carter met President Assad in Geneva. Of course they discussed the question of Palestine. When Carter asked Assad to explain his reaction to the idea of a "Palestinian State", Assad replied:
The Palestinian matter must be seen in its entirety. It has two parts. On the one hand there is the problem of the territories occupied by Israel, which must be returned. But there is also the second problem the restoration of their homes and their lands to the refugees.
Actually President Assad does not miss an opportunity of giving public expression to this Arab attitude. In describing subsequently his conversation with Assad, Carter exhibited no sense of shock at this firsthand articulation of the Arab prescription for the destruction of the Jewish State. On the contrary he spoke approvingly of the Syrian ruler whom he described as a "moderate leader."
The behaviour of the American administration both before that conversation and after it, makes it evident that it regards with favour the expansionist aims of Syria, even at the price of Christian lives, even if it means more dangers to the security of Israel. There is no escape from this conclusion. Now, with the flames in Beirut lighting up the scene, Washington is cajoling Israel to bring pressure to bear on Major Hadad. She knows full well that carrying out her wishes would, sooner or later, bring the threat of death to the whole population of southern Lebanon, and the tightening of the Arab belt of aggression surrounding Israel.
We have reached a critical moment. It is inconceivable that Israel should continue to take part in this game of pretence and deception whose consequences are the tragedy in Beirut, the growing threat to the independence of Lebanon and, at the same time, the attempt to subjugate and abandon the Christians in southern Lebanon. Hitherto Israel has honoured unequivocally her promise to stand by the Christians of southern Lebanon. The situation in Beirut, however, and the despatch of the military unit to the south dictates a new stance by Israel. It is impossible to maintain a dialogue with the United States based on two parallel untruths that there is an inter Arab force in Lebanon which is keeping the peace, and that there is an independent government in Lebanon which is really and truly trying to establish law and order in the south.
It is up to the Israeli Government to lay down publicly a policy deriving from the simple realities. These realities demand a number of immediate conclusions which have to be included in an operative programme:
a) to announce to the world that Israel does not recognize the body called the Government of Lebanon; this non recognition will be valid until the Syrian military forces are withdrawn from Lebanon.
b) to convey a warning to the Syrian Government that if the shelling of Beirut by her forces does not cease, Israel will feel compelled to take action as required by the situation.
This is the immediate minimum called for, not only for very real human and moral reasons, but by the basic interest of Israel's security. Fate has chosen to create a close and deep common interest between us and the Christians in Lebanon.
The administration in Washington will undoubtedly be angry at our dissociating ourselves from the conventional lies which she is pressing us to accept as a basis for our actions. There is no doubt however that such a stand on Israel's part will result in pressure on Syria. It will surely bring relief to the Christians and beyond the administration there is a vast public opinion. The first indication of public reaction to what is happening has come in the decision of Congress to cancel financial support for Syria. Israel will find considerable support if she takes a courageous stand and explains it adequately. In any case, in the existing situation Israel has no option morally and pragmatically but to launch a realistic policy.
Ma'ariv 11.8.78 |
