[continued from previous message] 
  
 groups or parties condemning the bombardment of Nahr al-Bared camp? 
  
 ABUKHALIL: As far as reaction in Lebanon this is one of the most painful 
 elements of this story at the personal level. I have never felt more 
 isolation as someone who speaks out on Palestine as I have felt in the 
 past few days. There is an overwhelming, unanimous competition by 
 people and organizations to rally behind the Lebanese army and to pay 
 tribute to the troops. Not a single political party in Lebanon has 
 spoken out, none, against the indiscriminate shelling of the refugee 
 camp of Nahr al-Bared. Hizbullah has taken a position in support of the 
 army, as has the Lebanese Communist Party, and other organizations. Of 
 course we didn't expect anything different from the March 14 movement, 
 but among the opposition it has been a competition of who can show more 
 support. General 'Awn, the main Christian opposition leader has been 
 totally, unconditionally supportive of the Lebanese army and its resort 
 to what is called the "decisive military option" -- which means to 
 allow the Lebanese army to enter or invade the camps. 
  
 EI: Why is this the case? 
  
 ABUKHALIL: First, I understand the Lebanese army was hit hard last 
 summer. It's morale and its prestige suffered tremendously because of 
 the lack of performance in the face of brutal Israeli attacks. Because 
 there are no unitary symbols for Lebanon, people always want to 
 underline, well, 'maybe it's the army.' It can't always be baba ghanouj 
 or hummus. It has to be something more concrete. And this is why there 
 is a rush to support the Lebanese army. 
  
 Second, there is a general racist attitude -- classical racism towards 
 Palestinians -- and one brave Lebanese columnist, Khalid Saghiyya wrote 
 about this in al-Akhbar. This is why it is easy for so many people to 
 tolerate indiscriminate attacks on Palestinian refugee camps. 
  
 This is not the first time. Just like in Jordan there were all these 
 chapters of bombing of the camps culminating in Black September. 
 Throughout the time I was growing up in Lebanon there were all these 
 attacks by the Lebanese army and later by other militias. In 1973, when 
 I was thirteen years old, Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon were 
 bombed from the air by the Lebanese army. There is a long record. This 
 Lebanese army doesn't show muscle except against defenceless 
 Palestinian refugees. 
  
 Of course there is a Fath al-Islam organization, as I have mentioned, 
 but this is a small fanatical group that could have been dealt with as a 
 security matter. It didn't require the firepower of the Lebanese army 
 which certainly we didn't know existed when last summer Lebanon was 
 under attack by Israel, and when the Lebanese army was mostly hiding, 
 and watching as few hundred Lebanese irregulars bravely resisted 
 Israeli aggression. 
  
 EI: The Lebanese government would certainly respond to you that they 
 are not targeting the residents of the camp and they have even made 
 statements that they understand that the group that they are targeting 
 is alien to the Palestinians in Lebanon. 
  
 ABUKHALIL: What is so ironic is yes, they said all that and they said 
 more. They used the same words uttered by the Israelis when they bombed 
 the refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza. It's the same language the 
 US uses in Afghanistan and Iraq: 'They are hiding behind civilians. 
 They are using civilians as human shields. Hitting civilians is a 
 mistake, the army cares about the civilian population.' All this 
 propaganda of collateral damage is being used by the government. 
  
 The Palestinians are also weak regionally and internationally. There is 
 no support for them among Arab governments which explains why the 
 Lebanese government was not only willing and able to do what it did, 
 but yesterday the official statement of the Arab League not only 
 offered support and expressed "satisfaction" to use their own language, 
 for what is happening in Lebanon but offered military assistance as a 
 reward for the shelling of the camp. 
  
 EI: There is clearly an American hand in this. We saw the Lebanese 
 government request military assistance, including ammunition and 
 equipment from the United States, as a direct response to the events in 
 Nahr al-Bared. How do you see the United States' role and let me 
 broaden the question a little bit. How are the events in Lebanon linked 
 to what is happening in Gaza and does the United States actually have a 
 strategy for the region? What is the big picture here? 
  
 ABUKHALIL: Certainly there is a heavy-handed American role in all this. 
 A mere week ago the American Undersecretary of State for the Near East, 
 David Welch, was visiting Lebanon. He met in an unprecedented manner 
 with the commander-in-chief of the Lebanese army. This never happened 
 in the past. We do not know what was discussed but the Lebanese press 
 - -- even the press loyal to the government -- indicated how 
 unprecedented it was that Welch met with the commander-in-chief. 
  
 As far as the Americans are concerned, we also have to note that first, 
 there was an American official announcement that the Lebanese government 
 made a request for emergency military assistance. And yet the Lebanese 
 government promptly denied that it made such a request. And later they 
 are denying the denial. Why are there these confused signals? What is 
 being cooked behind the scenes? I think the answer to that is we have 
 to look at the map of the Middle East to see the extent to which there 
 are events that are quite related to one another. 
  
 You look at Gaza and you find that the American funded, financed and 
 armed militias of Muhammad Dahlan and [Palestinian Authority President] 
 Mahmoud Abbas were tasked with fighting and killing other Palestinians. 
 You look at Lebanon today and you find a Lebanese government financed, 
 funded and armed by the American government and they are doing the 
 same. Palestine and Lebanon have become more important not so much 
 because of any attention that the US administration is willing to pay 
 to those places, but particularly because of the failure of the 
 American project in Iraq. So with victory eluding Bush in Iraq there is 
 a desperate attempt to make some progress -- to use that clichi -- 
 somewhere other than Iraq. And the places favored are Palestine and 
 Lebanon because in those places there are US-armed and financed puppet 
 militias that the US can use against its enemies and the enemies of 
 Israel. 
  
 EI: What do the current events tell us about the direction of events in 
 Lebanon? The Israeli press, for example, keeps talking about another war 
 this summer. Are these opening shots as many people fear? 
  
 ABUKHALIL: I am more of the opinion that this may be an indication that 
 this conflict might be an alternative to such a war. Neither the 
 Israelis nor Hizbullah are interested in a flare-up this summer at all. 
 And I think what the United States is willing and capable of doing is 
 to push the Lebanese government against the Palestinian refugee camps 
 to disarm them, in order to make Israel more secure from their own 
 standpoint. Even that would backfire because we have already seen that 
 the Palestinian refugee camps are quite angry at what is happening. 
  
  
  
                                 * 
 ================================================================ 
  NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems 
            Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us 
  
 [continued in next message] 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)