[The October 15 issue of the Militant and the October 18, 1982, issue of Intercontinental Press
(The first article, the reply to Jaquith and Jenness by the French Revolutionary Communist draw an inch. The fighters left under the surveillance of Ariel Sharon, to be disarmed on their arrival in the host countries, and put into camps. They left behind them a defenseless civilian population. The entry of Israeli troops into West Beirut, the searches, the systematic disarming of the population, the massacres, and the installation of the Phalangists in power were the logical follow up to the implementation of the Habib plan. And this is unfortunately not the end. The Zionists and Phalangists are not hiding their desire to expel or again displace tens of thousands of Palestinian refugees.
The article by David Frankel, widely quoted by comrades Doug Jenness and Cindy Jaquith, reduces the purpose of the Habib negotiations for the PLO to knowing how "they would not be slaughtered during the withdrawal (from Beirut)."
This is a little overquick to identify the PLO with its leadership and with the 9,000 evacuated fighters. There are 500,000 Palestinian refugees in Lebanon; the bulk of the resistance forces, and the population which supports them, have therefore remained at the mercy of the Zionist, imperialist and Phalangist troops.
The role of the Multinational Interposition Force is integral to the implementation of the Habib plan, in which it plays an essential part. Comrades Doug Jenness and Cindy Jaquith base their argument on a radical distinction between the role of the first interposition force, which, according to them, guaranteed the retreat of the Palestinian fighters, and the second which had the character of a "military force of occupation." The problem is that we cannot separate the different functions of the MIF since the month of August. At the same time as it guaranteed the withdrawal of the fighters it brought an international guarantee to the Phalangist regime, and opened the gates of West Beirut to the Zionist army by dismantling its defenses. Comrades Cindy Jaquith and Doug Jenness claim that it was the PLO themselves who dismantled their defense lines. This is contrary to the eye-witness reports, and fortunately this is not the case. French parachutists were pictured engaged in this mineclearing exercise.
It is no longer possible to separate the function of the first from that of the second interposition force. Moreover, Yassir Arafat himself established their continuity in only reproaching the first for not having stayed to "protect" the camps after having protected the withdrawal.
Imagine an armed traveller, attacked in the corner of a wood by bandits with murderous comer of a wood by bandits with murderous intentions. Other bandits arrive who interpose themselves, but profit from the situation in robbing and then letting the traveller go, disarmed, in a wood infested with wolves. We can understand that the traveller would not be in a position personally to publicly draw out the moral of this story. But nothing forbids us from doing so and saying that a thief is a thief, even if claiming to be a savior.
The interposition force justified its presence
'protection" it in the eyes of the world by the "
gave the Palestinian fighters. But it remained above all an imperialist military force which came, on the heels of the Zionist army, to fashion an "American peace" in the region.
3. For the whole duration of the war we gave unconditional support to the PLO in its struggle against Zionist aggression. But unconditional support does not mean uncritical, and does not imply that we take responsibility for the tactical choices made by the PLO leadership, that were furthermore disputed in its own ranks.
This is what the SWP comrades are now doing in considering that the withdrawal from Beirut, as it took place, was "necessary," and marking it up on the positive side of the PLO leadership's balance sheet.
In insisting in their articles on the revolutionary qualities of this leadership the comrades suggest an analogy between it and revolutionary leaderships such as the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) in Nicaragua or the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN) in El Salvador. It seems to us, on the contrary, necessary to insist on the historical, political, and social differences between these organizations. The PLO is a front. Bourgeois components play a hegemonic role in its leadership. Economic and military dependence on the bourgeois Arab regimes influence it in a determinant way.
This is why the continual confusion that comrade Frankel makes between the Palestinian resistance and the leadership of the PLO seems to us dangerous. He thus attributes to "the PLO fighters" the decision "to organize the withdrawal," whereas the negotiations and their outcome were the subject of bitter controversy among the fighters themselves during the siege. It is even more wrong to accept the PLO leadership's proclamations, according to which the withdrawal from Beirut would be transformed from a military defeat into a diplomatic victory. This would be to underestimate the gains made by imperialism and the lasting consequences.
4. We are therefore in disagreement with the position of the American comrades who are reverting to abstaining from any criticism of the first interposition force in the imperialist countries. Even if the leadership of the PLO had no other choice that would be no reason for us to stop denouncing in our own countries the role of these military expeditions which prepared the ground for an imperialist solution in the Middle East on the backs of the Palestinian resistance and against the interests of the Arab masses. It is even more important as in France the Mitterrand government was able to take advantage of the attitude of the Soviet bureaucracy and the Arab regimes to fraudulently present itself as the best protector of the Palestinians.
Today, however, we are absolutely in agreement in demanding the withdrawal from Lebanon of the Zionist troops and imperialist troops of the second interposition force. However it was Yassir Arafat and Walid Jumblatt who vehemently demanded the return of the MIF after the Sabra and Shatila massacres. Who could pretend that this second mission, in which the French parachutists actively participated in the sealing off and search and control operations in West Beirut, does not have any relationship with the first?
rialism. They placed the agreement of the PLO forces to withdrawal from Beirut within this framework.
It was total disagreement with this erroneous line that led the Socialist Workers Party Political Bureau to disassociate itself from the joint declaration.
Relationship of class forces
Because they focus on the supposed intentions of the PLO leadership, the leaders of the French and Italian LCRs separate the withdrawal from the objective relationship of class forces under which it was agreed to.
West Beirut was surrounded by the Israeli army — an invasion force that was variously estimated at 50,000 to 120,000 troops. According to the British Financial Times, there were nine Israeli armored divisions (some 90,000 troops) and 1,300 tanks in Lebanon. Not to mention the Israeli air force, one of the most powerful in the world.