[Re: [Re: Why ]]

Abu Nasr abu-nasr at SPAMusa.net
Mon Jun 19 10:05:47 MDT 2000

Dear Eran, and everybody!

You are right that the Zionists' divide and rule policy failed in Lebanon; the
South Lebanese Army just collapsed when the Israeli presence disappeared.

I would not say that the 22 year occupation of south Lebanon was due to
"militarists' narrow mindedness", however.  True, it probably was not for
economic exploitation of the occupied lands (although they have drained off
lots of river water and still are doing so through channels they dug under
ground), but part of its "security" policy which is based on the nature of the
Zionist state as a settler colonial entity.  That is, they first steal the
land then they must "defend" what they have stolen.  To "defend" it they must
keep their enemies weak, divided, and far away.

After little invasions going back to 1977 and before, they launched their big
invasion, killed tens of thousands of Lebanese in 1982 and occupied the south.
They tried to install a puppet goverment (Bashir Jumayyil) and they imposed
the 17 May agreement on it.  But then that failed.  Later they (the Zionists)
retreated further south, and then further.  Why? Because the costs of
occupying Lebanese territory -- economic costs, costs in manpower, costs in
international support -- all exceeded the benefits.  In other words, they were

Thus the approach of divide and rule has been a basic strategy of the Zionists
from the beginning.  It still is, in fact, and you can see it in the way they
try to negotiate with Arafat and then keep the talks with Syria separate so
they can try to use the Palestinian talks to pressure Syria and the Syrian
talks to pressure the Palestinians.  They try this divide and rule all the
Sometimes they do it directly and militarily.  Now that failed in Lebanon, but
it still works in occupied Palestine, and they are still doing it there.  This
is not so much militarist narrow mindedness, it is just that they do whatever
they can get away with.  They can't rule Lebanon or even any part of Lebanon
now militarily; they have been beaten, but they will still try to divide and
rule in some other way.

With revolutionary greetings!

Abu Nasr

eran tamir <tamir8888 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> dear friends !
i agree with most of the things you proposed.
imperialist power and israel as the last one, tried to
structure and shape lebanon political situation in
way that would have served them.
folowing this rational israel tried to bring maronit
sect to power by helping them fight their brother.
this action failed down with the asassination of
bashir jumaiel.
israel continue to occupy south lebanon but it was
more because of militarists narrow mindedness than a
want of exploitation.
israel had no interest in frithening her former allies
and we know that israel didn't predict the run away of
6000 south lebanies.
on the contrary israel didn't want those s.l.a
refugees ,because  of:
1. demographic reasons - the israeli don't want
another 6000 arabs in their country.
2. it is clear that those refugees would not forgive
israel of what they see as betrayalin their interest.
 3. as soon sa they come to israel they suffer from
emplloyment problems...
its clear that the ideae of split and rull is not the
preferred analytical application to this reality.

> Get free email and a permanent address at

Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger.

Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1

More information about the Marxism mailing list