Fateful Triangle

Aftermath606Khiyam in 1978, the last directly under Israeli military occupation. Thedemand that PLO “allies” leave Beirut simply reflected Israel’s not-sohiddenagenda in Lebanon: to ensure the rule of minority Christiangroups allied with Israel, a goal that dates back to the first days of theestablishment of the state, indeed before, as we have seen.The significance of Israel’s moves was well-understood by the potentialvictims. The Sunni-dominated Muslim “National Movement” heldthat its weapons were needed “for the struggle to end Israeli occupationhere.” The “leading Shiite Moslems have expressed a similarsettlement,” Hijazi adds. Nabih Beri, head of the Shiite militia Amal thatfought alongside the PLO, “has said that if the Israelis do not leave ‘wewould become the new Palestinians who will fight them’.” “A genuineLebanese is the one who fights Israel,” he added, warning that a peacetreaty signed under Israeli guns would “lead to partitioning Lebanon.”And the spiritual head of the Shiites, the largest of Lebanon’s religiousgroups, “issued a religious edict declaring that collaboration with Israelis a sacrilege.” Once again, the people who had just been liberated werefailing to express their gratitude for their salvation, though as we haveseen, true believers here continued to uphold staunchly the doctrines ofthe faith, as convinced about what they had seen on their guided toursas were earlier visitors observing happy peasants in the Gulag. Seechapter 5, section 8.2.2.3.3 Ungrateful ClientsMeanwhile, things were not going well between Israel and its chosencandidate for President, Bashir Gemayel. Whatever else Gemayel mayhave been, he was a Lebanese nationalist and intended to maintainLebanon’s position within the Arab world. There had long been a splitClassics in Politics: The Fateful TriangleNoam Chomsky