The alternative strategy employed by Syria was to build up its military
capacity so as to be able to confront Israel, while at the same time seeking to
control the Palestinian resistance movement in such a way that its policies became
subservient to the requirements of Syrian security. This too aroused considerable
Arab hostility, particularly when it involved Syria’s military confrontation with the
PLO’s forces in Lebanon in 1976 and then its later attempts to divide the
Palestinians and to promote an alternative leadership to Yasser Arafat after 1983.
Analysis of the influence of the Palestinians on Arab politics and inter-state
relations is even more complex than that of Israel. For most of the first two
decades after 1948 they were without a state of their own, and largely under the
control of several different regimes. However, once they began to assert their
own independence of action in the late 1960s they inevitably posed major problems
for those Arab states they asked for support. One, of course, was the danger
of inviting a harsh Israeli response. Another was the twin appeal that the
Palestinian leadership was willing and able to make, both to the regimes and to
their people. Although one of the main principles of Fatah’s political creed was
to maintain the movement’s freedom of action by avoiding interference in the
internal affairs of Arab states, this was often ignored in practice. In some cases,
as in Jordan in 1970 and in Lebanon a few years later, it meant direct attempts to
destabilize the regime in association with opposition forces; in others, there was
pressure to follow a revolutionary logic that placed Arab unity and the necessity
of constant confrontation with Israel above everything else. As a result, the
leaders of most Middle Eastern regimes could have been forgiven for supposing
that, while Palestinians saw their own nationalism as perfectly compatible with a
wider Arabism, they were quite ready to ride roughshod over Jordanian or
Egyptian or Lebanese national self-interest if this was believed to stand in the
way of their own objectives.
In addition to their own nationalism, the Palestinians also developed an
evolving strategy for achieving their political aims. This began with great stress on
the primacy of armed struggle. But, as in the case of most movements of national
liberation, it turned progressively towards an emphasis on diplomacy and a negotiated
settlement. The first major stage in this transformation was completed in
1974 when the twelfth Palestinian national council agreed on what was called an
‘interim’ or ‘phased’ programme by which it was decided that an ‘independent
national authority’ was to be established over any part of Palestinian national territory
that could be liberated from Israeli control – generally understood to refer to
the West Bank and Gaza. Twelve years later this process reached its culmination
with the political statement issued by the nineteenth national council held in
Algiers in November 1988 that affirmed the determination of the PLO to arrive at
a ‘political settlement’ of the Arab–Israeli conflict by means of an international
peace conference at which all parties would be represented on an equal basis.33
The process just described owed much more to developments within the
various Palestinian communities inside and outside the West Bank and Gaza than it did either to Arab diplomatic activity or to obvious Arab self-interest.
Indeed, a number of Arab regimes did their very best to split the movement, to
marginalize its leadership or to make their own political arrangements with the
Israelis without reference to the PLO.
النتائج (
العربية) 1:
[نسخ]نسخ!
The alternative strategy employed by Syria was to build up its militarycapacity so as to be able to confront Israel, while at the same time seeking tocontrol the Palestinian resistance movement in such a way that its policies becamesubservient to the requirements of Syrian security. This too aroused considerableArab hostility, particularly when it involved Syria’s military confrontation with thePLO’s forces in Lebanon in 1976 and then its later attempts to divide thePalestinians and to promote an alternative leadership to Yasser Arafat after 1983.Analysis of the influence of the Palestinians on Arab politics and inter-staterelations is even more complex than that of Israel. For most of the first twodecades after 1948 they were without a state of their own, and largely under thecontrol of several different regimes. However, once they began to assert theirown independence of action in the late 1960s they inevitably posed major problemsfor those Arab states they asked for support. One, of course, was the dangerof inviting a harsh Israeli response. Another was the twin appeal that thePalestinian leadership was willing and able to make, both to the regimes and totheir people. Although one of the main principles of Fatah’s political creed wasto maintain the movement’s freedom of action by avoiding interference in theinternal affairs of Arab states, this was often ignored in practice. In some cases,كما هو الحال في الأردن في عام 1970، وفي لبنان وبعد سنوات قليلة، كان يعني محاولات مباشرةزعزعة استقرار النظام بالاشتراك مع قوات المعارضة؛ وفي حالات أخرى، كان هناكالضغط على اتباع منطق ثورية التي وضعت الوحدة العربية وضرورةالمواجهة المستمرة مع إسرائيل قبل أي شيء آخر. نتيجة لذلكقادة الأنظمة الأكثر في الشرق الأوسط يمكن أن غفرت لنفترضهذا، بينما يرى الفلسطينيون القومية الخاصة بهم متوافقة تماما معالعروبة الأوسع نطاقا، كانوا على استعداد تام لركوب عرض الحائط عبر الأردن أوالمصلحة الذاتية الوطنية المصرية أو اللبنانية إذا كان يعتقد أنه بالوقوف فيطريقة لأهدافهم الخاصة.بالإضافة إلى النزعة القومية الخاصة بهم، وضع الفلسطينيين أيضاالاستراتيجية المتطورة لتحقيق أهدافهم السياسية. هذا وبدأت بضغوط كبيرة علىأولوية الكفاح المسلح. ولكن، كما هو الحال في معظم الحركات الوطنيةالتحرير، تحولت تدريجيا نحو تركيز على الدبلوماسية وتفاوضيالتسوية. اكتملت المرحلة الرئيسية الأولى في هذا التحول في1974 عندما وافق المجلس الوطني الفلسطيني الثاني عشر في ما كان يسمىبرنامج 'المؤقت' أو 'مرحلي' الذي كان قرر أن ' المستقلةالسلطة الوطنية ' ستنشأ على أي جزء من التراب الوطني الفلسطينيالتي يمكن أن تتحرر من السيطرة الإسرائيلية – المفهوم عموما للإشارة إلىالضفة الغربية وقطاع غزة. اثني عشر عاماً في وقت لاحق بلغت هذه العملية ذروتهاwith the political statement issued by the nineteenth national council held inAlgiers in November 1988 that affirmed the determination of the PLO to arrive ata ‘political settlement’ of the Arab–Israeli conflict by means of an internationalpeace conference at which all parties would be represented on an equal basis.33The process just described owed much more to developments within thevarious Palestinian communities inside and outside the West Bank and Gaza than it did either to Arab diplomatic activity or to obvious Arab self-interest.Indeed, a number of Arab regimes did their very best to split the movement, tomarginalize its leadership or to make their own political arrangements with theIsraelis without reference to the PLO.
يجري ترجمتها، يرجى الانتظار ..
