Dr Salim Nazzal. Why the Lebanese won and the Palestinians did not yet

from Dr Salim Nazzal -

The question of why the Lebanese succeeded in freeing south Lebanon while Palestinians could not is one of the questions which were frequently asked in the aftermath of the success of the Lebanese liberation war in May 2000 and the successful defense of the July war in 2006.

Why the Lebanese won and the Palestinians did not yet










It was Immanuel Kant who said once that the critique is the best invention of the mind. Questions are perhaps the best approach to obtain knowledge. The question of why the Lebanese succeeded in freeing south Lebanon while Palestinians could not is one of the questions which were frequently asked in the aftermath of the success of the Lebanese liberation war in May 2000 and the successful defense of the July war in 2006. Perhaps one of the best ways to understand a situation as Leo Trotsky suggests, is through understanding the circumstances which surround it. Not without wisdom, he thought that before we can judge we must understand. Before we can understand, we must view the situations in their historical context.

Examples from history of national movements and resistances demonstrate that each experience is unique. The experience of Ghande in freeing India from the British is different than the experience of Nelson Mandela against the apartheid regime of South Africa. The Algerian experience against the French occupation is different than the Cypriot struggle against the British occupation. The same occupation force in one country can be different in another country, as it has been in the case of the Israeli occupation in Lebanon and Palestine. The only common thread between all national movements and resistances is the rejection of the status quo imposed by the occupational power.

The post-war period following the July 2006 war in Lebanon witnessed a wave of criticisms toward the Palestinian national movement which were filled with calls to imitate the methods of Hezbollah. These calls focused in my view on the results of the conflict in southern Lebanon while overlooking the complications in the Palestinian, Israeli conflict. Most comments tended to marginalize the complexity of the Palestinian struggle. In the study of conflicts, political scientists distinguish between two forms of conflict, the first is the "interest conflict" (border conflict for instance) and the second is the "value conflict" which takes the form of total confrontation. The Palestinian struggle belongs to the "value conflict"; the conflict is about the land, the identity and even about the Palestinian traditions which the Polish and Russians immigrant Jews claimed to be theirs. The major complicating factor of the Palestinian struggle is the nature of the Israeli occupation in Palestine. The Israeli occupation in Palestine is both ideological and political, while the Israeli occupation to south Lebanon was only political. In other words Zionists view their conflict with Palestinians as existential, while perhaps they do not hold that view in others conflicts. The fact that Israel withdrew from Sinai and from south Lebanon and was ready to negotiate the withdrawal from the Golan Heights I believe supports this supposition.

The importance of this point is that it casts light on the nature of the complicating factors in the Palestinian, Israeli conflict. It is not a traditional occupation as is the case with the European colonial projects in third world countries, nor it is like earlier European settlements such as in Rhodesia , Namibia or the apartheid South Africa.

The Zionist settlers did not decisively outnumber the native Palestinians as was the case of the European settlers in North America and New Zealand nor did they remain the minority as in the case of South Africa and Rhodesia. The Zionist movement paradoxically allied itself with the British colonial role against the native Palestinians while at the same time presenting itself in the west as a national movement for self determination: to make this point clearer imagine that the white settlers in Africa portrayed their genocidal policy against the natives as part and parcel of self determination.

Apart from Hamas and the Palestinian Communist party the Palestinian parties were the product of the Palestinian Diaspora in the absence of a Palestinian national state. Consequently in the absence of a unifying political culture, the party culture has become a dominant factor, functioning as a Mini-Palestine for its members. In other words party identification replaced prior self-identifiers such as family and clan. This culture continued even after the Palestinian leaders returned back to Palestine after the Oslo agreement in 1993. The Oslo agreement put Palestinians in a situation where they had no clear position: they were neither a state nor were they a liberation movement as it was before 1993. In the view of many Palestinians such as the Palestinian writer Lubna Hamad the Palestinian leadership had been reduced from a liberation movement to a subsidiary of the Israeli occupation. Imaginary Palestinian institutions were established, while in reality any Israeli officer on the check points has more power than the Palestinian president. Palestinians have no power to over their land, sea, skies, or any thing real in their lives. That power has stayed in the hands of the Israeli military officers, while at the same time the Palestinian Authority is "officially responsible". It is an ideal situation for the state of Israel, which continues occupying Palestine but without paying a price of the occupation.

Lebanon was declared an independent state in 1946 and Lebanon became a member in the U.N. and other international organizations. This is a major difference, Palestine is a Country which was totally removed from the map, unlike Lebanon which only part of its territory was occupied. In other words the Lebanese resistance in its secular period as was the case with the Lebanese National Front and in its current phase with Hezbollah, fought the Israeli occupation backed with an independent state in addition to the backing of Syria and Iran. The Lebanese resistance fights the extension of the
Zionist project, while Palestinians fight the heart of the Zionist project which naturally makes the Palestinian struggle more difficult and more complicated.

I do not view this article as belonging to apologist literature. The current crisis in Palestine is serious and I think it mirrors the complications of the Palestinian struggle more than it reflects a conflict between "moderates" and "extremists". The first problem lies in the nature of the occupation in the first place. The second problem lies in the absence of a united Palestinian national discourse.

Perhaps more than any time since the Oslo agreement in 1993, Palestinian political parties need to debate new approaches in dealing with the Israeli occupation. There is a great need to redefine the Palestinian liberation project in order to come to a united Palestinian course. Does the Palestinian national movement struggle for a democratic secular state as in the historical Palestine as it was initiated in 1965 or do the Palestinians struggle for a two state solutions as suggested in the 10 points of the P.N.C. in 1974? The swinging between both projects and the vagueness in the national project has become in my view points of weakness in the Palestinian national movement. One point which may explain the Lebanese victory is that the Lebanese struggle is straightforward; it was directed against the Israeli military occupation of south Lebanon. Therefore the major difference between the Lebanese and Palestinians struggle lies in one major point; the Lebanese struggle is against the Israeli military occupation, while the Palestinian struggle is against the whole Zionist project. To win the national struggle, Palestinian leaders need to prepare the right conditions for victory. The first step towards victory is to reorganize the Palestinian national project.

* Dr. Salim Nazzal is a Palestinian historian. He has written extensively on social and political issues in the Middle East .E mail:  gibran44@hotmail.com