Log in

View Full Version : Hafez Al-Assad in 1976



freepalestine
22nd June 2012, 03:42
Hafez Al-Assad in 1976

By As'ad AbuKhalil - Thu, 2012-06-21 18:33- Angry Corner



People of my generation cannot (and should not) forgive and forget. What happened in 1976 changed the course of contemporary Lebanese history and prolonged the agonizing years of the civil war. In 1976, the PLO-Lebanese National Movement (LNM) coalition was on its way to defeat the pro-Israeli Phalanges militias in Lebanon, after they were the ones who started the civil war on behalf of Israel and the US.


According to Newsweek magazine at the time, the PLO-LNM joint forces controlled more than 80 percent of Lebanese territory. They reached all the way to Oyoun el-Siman in Mount Sannine and Kamal Jumblatt famously told Abdul-Halim Khaddam that the next meeting would be held in Bikfaya (the stronghold of the Phalanges and the birth place of the Gemayyels).

Arafat was forced to join the offensive after his senior lieutenants made it clear that they would not go along with his policy of neutrality in a war that aimed at defeating the PLO in Lebanon. Some senior Fatah leaders, like Abu Salih, would take advantage of Arafat’s absences from Lebanon to provide weapons to the Lebanese factions. Arafat was very restrained in his policies and Jumblatt often complained about the quality of weapons that Arafat provided.

In 1976, the Syrian regime intervened militarily in Lebanon on the side of the Phalanges and Israel. The record is available (from Henry Kissinger’s memoirs to the memoirs of Israel leaders): Syria and Israel reached an understanding in Lebanon.

The understanding was that Syrian troops would enter Lebanon to defeat Israel’s enemies provided that the Syrian troops stay north of the Litani river.

The Syrian troops strictly adhered to the agreement all the way until their humiliating withdrawal from Lebanon in 2005. Never once did Syrian troops dare cross south of the Litani river no matter how brutal and savage Israeli attacks on South Lebanon were. The Syrian regime intervened to smash a promising revolutionary movement that would have changed the map of the Arab East.

To be sure, there were problems in the PLO-LNM that would force one to tame his/her enthusiasm and revolutionary fantasies. Arafat would not have permitted a revolutionary base in Lebanon (as George Habash worked to establish an Arab Hanoi north of Palestine) and Kamal Jumblatt was a sectarian feudal leader who had non-revolutionary credentials and calculations. But the masses of the LNM were ready for a revolutionary fight and for the only time in the 20th century, the mass audience of the LNM was non-sectarian and had presence in every corner of Lebanon.


There was an opportunity to defeat once and for all the pro-Israeli militias of the Phalanges and punish them for starting the civil war. More importantly, there was an opportunity to end the civil war in 1976, one year after it had started. So many tens of thousands of dead and injured would have been spared.

The Syrian regime would have none of it. It did not want Lebanon to slip out of its grip and it also did not want the armed Palestinian and Lebanese revolutionary movements to drag the Syrian regime into an unwanted confrontation with Israel.

People of my generation still remember that famous speech by Hafez al-Assad at Damascus University. All Phalanges and later Lebanese Forces leaders would quote from it by heart. It was a wholesale attack on the Palestinian and Lebanese resistance movement and it claimed that the objective of the movement was an extermination of the Christians.

Assad was a hated man at that time. Every few days we would hear gunfire in the air and hope that it was a celebration of Hafez’s assassination.

Syrian troops entered Lebanon with Western blessings. Abu Jihad and Arafat did not want a real fight and only provided symbolic resistance. Only radical Lebanese and Palestinian organizations put up a good fight. The Nasserist troops in Sidon famously attacked Syrian tanks. Even Ahmad Jibril’s PFLP-GC and the Syrian Social National Party (two tools of the Syrian regime nowadays) stood against the Syrian regime.


The Amal movement was one of the few exceptions and stood by the Syrian regime, but its offices all over Lebanon were taken over in two days. It was that weak at the time when the Left prevailed in Lebanon in Shia areas of the country.

The regime did not only take over Lebanon north of the Litani, it also entered into a Faustian alliance with the Phalanges and facilitated the fall of the Tal Az-Zatar camp – the Syrian regime and Israel were on the same side. A small leftist faction, the Socialist Arab Action Party-Lebanon took the initiative and declared guerrilla warfare on Syrian troops.


The Syrian regime was savage. Those who were suspected of aiding the resistance movement were tortured and shot – the lucky ones were put in al-Mazzeh jail to languish for years.

We don’t have fond memories of the Syrian regime in Lebanon, no matter what side one is on. The Amal movement may be the only consistently pro-Syrian regime party and its media are more crude in supporting the regime than Syrian regime media itself. But what happened in 1976 should serve as a lesson to those who still harbor illusions about the intentions and aims of the Syrian regime.




http://english.al-akhbar.com/blogs/angry-corner/hafez-al-assad-1976










1970 SalahJadid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salah_Jadid#Downfall

SalahJadid - Hafez al-Assads Corrective Revolution 1970
http://angryarab.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=Salah+Jadid

Prometeo liberado
22nd June 2012, 03:59
The Syrian regime is ugly to its core, no doubt. But never forget that what may replace it intends to learn from previous mistakes and sink its fangs still deeper into the flesh of Syria and it neighbors. More so than its predecessor.

cynicles
22nd June 2012, 20:07
The Syrian regime is ugly to its core, no doubt. But never forget that what may replace it intends to learn from previous mistakes and sink its fangs still deeper into the flesh of Syria and it neighbors. More so than its predecessor.
They're both equally as bad, don't play the "but this one we'll be worse ergo let's support Assad card". Syrian's are screwed with either of these option nothing has proven as yet that either forces will be better or worse than the other.

Prometeo liberado
22nd June 2012, 20:21
They're both equally as bad, don't play the "but this one we'll be worse ergo let's support Assad card". Syrian's are screwed with either of these option nothing has proven as yet that either forces will be better or worse than the other.

Agree, so do you assist the imperialist in replacing one with the other? And you quote me as saying "let's support Assad.."? Find where and when I wrote that and I'll gladly resign from this site. And maybe you should do the same when you can not. Bending, or straight out making things up doesn't help your cause little one.

cynicles
23rd June 2012, 20:43
Agree, so do you assist the imperialist in replacing one with the other? And you quote me as saying "let's support Assad.."? Find where and when I wrote that and I'll gladly resign from this site. And maybe you should do the same when you can not. Bending, or straight out making things up doesn't help your cause little one.

I reject the first question on the grounds that it frames the situation as either one or the other. I reject both the independant third-world ruling class and the western imperialist ruling class. I never quoted you as saying let's support Assad. The quote is that thing in the box at the top of my post where it directly quotes what you said in the previous quote. I put that other statement in quote's to highlight a common position adopted by Assad supporters or people who playing the lesser of two evils game. I rejected your statement that the MB or the SNC would be worse and thus I used the phrase. Also, I never said anything about a 'cause', with since very few people are willing to openly criticize both sides vigorously it's difficult to find any major organization or group backing the "I hate the regime and the SNC" cause.

I'd also ask you to refrain from hostility and rude behaviour so as not to derail the thread please.

Eagle_Syr
23rd June 2012, 20:45
Lebanon is a part of natural Syria, so Syria never "oppressed" the Lebanese, who were murdering each other in bloody civil war at the time.

cynicles
23rd June 2012, 20:56
Lebanon is a part of natural Syria, so Syria never "oppressed" the Lebanese, who were murdering each other in bloody civil war at the time.
I agree with that part about Lebanon being originally apart of Syria but the second part sounds wrong.

cynicles
23rd June 2012, 21:21
"thats like saying people who are against the syrian govt are alqaeda supporters" huh? Explain please.



you are ahead of yourself,you mention the mb,its not like egypt,nor is the syrian mb like the egyptian mb,see alqaeda.
the only argument the mb,and hardline islamists thro saudi/qatari propaganda outlets have is sectarianism,and liberals cheerleading on blindly.
there is too much misinfo on syria.
and you mention an opposition ,there is in syria-some of whom are against the rebels as they see that outside forces including are trying to destablise the country and society,not that they support the syrian govt.
btw the govt as a lot of support and its not sectarian,as opposed the snc
I know the MB in Syria is different from the MB in egypt, which is different from the MB in Kuwait and Palestine, I mentioned them because of their involvement in the SNC and the fact that I find both them and the SNC repugnant. I don't actually understand the point you're trying to make here to be honest.

Yes there is a lot of misinformation.

I wasn't aware that there was a fourth option, all I had heard about so far were the pro-regime side, the pro-SNC side and the neutrals. I also don't doubt that the regime still enjoys support and is less sectarian, though I find it hard to believe they're completely innocent ont he sectarian issue.

cynicles
24th June 2012, 00:41
The only reason I'm sceptical is because there were people who claimed Saddam was secular when he wasn't so I doubt the secular credentials of these degenerate nationalist regimes.

wsg1991
24th June 2012, 00:48
The only reason I'm sceptical is because there were people who claimed Saddam was secular when he wasn't so I doubt the secular credentials of these degenerate nationalist regimes.

he was secular , how you know ? women rights

cynicles
25th June 2012, 04:00
Not enough to turn a blind eye towards lgbt in Iraq like Assad did, then again things have gotten worse on that front.

TheRedJew
3rd July 2012, 23:02
Why do you guys support facists? There is no socialists in palestine!
Why support nationalist movements? I don't get it!