July 15, 2007
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Lebanese Left and Sovereignty
By Hussain Abdul-Hussain

WASHINGTON: Late inspiring journalist Samir Kassir was said to be the first leftist to reconcile his pronounced leftist thought to his endorsement of the principles of Lebanese sovereignty and independence. But not all of the Lebanese leftists follow in his footsteps today.

The left in Lebanon has always belittled the importance of Lebanon as an independent state, often adopting pan-Arab ideologies that were sometimes mixed with communism or domestically-authored versions of socialism.

The Lebanese left, accordingly, saw it natural to support, not only the right of the establishment of a Palestinian state, but also the cross-border military operations from Lebanon to Israel. Now according to international law, any occupied people have the right to self defense, also known as popular resistance.

But also to international law, there is no legal existence for a pan-Arab nation that exists from the “ocean to the gulf” with Lebanon and Palestine as part of it. Had such a state existed, then every country member of this pan-Arab nation would have had the right to use force against the occupiers of Palestine under the pretext of resistance.

Yet since this is not the case from the perspective of the international law, and since Palestine is a state independent from other Arab countries such as Lebanon, any Lebanese military activity against the occupiers of Palestine would make of it an act of military aggression and would give these occupiers the right to defend themselves and launch counter offensive.

So for the Lebanese to be able to “liberate” Palestine, the existence of Lebanon as an independent state was an obstacle and it was normal for the leftists to undermine the Lebanese sovereignty since they believe they belonged to a greater Arab nation, not a mere Lebanese state.

This article does not aim at judging the validity or morality of cross-border Lebanese-Palestinian military operations for the liberation of Palestine between 1967 and 1978. Such a situation ended anyway in 1978 with the first Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

After 1978, Israel maintained military presence in Lebanon until 2000. As such, the Lebanese had the legal right to resistance against their Israeli occupiers between 1978 and 2000, according to international law.

However, after the Israeli withdrawal in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 425 in 2000, the Lebanese right of resistance faded, despite minor border dispute over a 25-squared-km strip known as the Shebaa Farms.

After 2000, a majority of Lebanon’s leftists still maintained their support for waging military action to liberate Palestine. This, in international law jargon, would be the equivalent of launching war from the independent state of Lebanon into the independent state of Israel (even if Israel is viewed by these Lebanese as a racist occupier of Palestinian land). Once Lebanon launches any such aggression, it puts Israel in the position of self defense.

A number of leftists, Kassir included, believed that there were no point in going against international law. In one of his editorials, he described the Palestinian land of Israel prior to its establishment in 1948 as a sick limb that should be cut for the patient, in this case the Arab world, to cure. Kassir fully endorsed the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative for a two-state solution and said the best the Arab world, including Lebanon, could do was to withhold the signing of peace with Israel as a bargaining chip in support of Palestinians until they get their state.

Meanwhile, Kassir believed that support should be restricted to diplomatic and humanitarian action only. In other words, he was opposed to any Arab war with Israel saying all Arab states should implement a truce with the Jewish State until the two-state solution is in place, wherein signing peace with Israel would be permissible.

Along these lines, Kassir departed with the old leftist anti-Lebanese stances. He supported an independent Lebanese state and wrote extensively in its defense against pan-Arab populists. He believed Lebanon enjoyed some sort of democracy that should be improved as key to the revival of renaissance in the country. If all other Arab states followed in the footsteps of a democratic Lebanon, then there would be a good chance that the Arab renaissance of the 19th century, which Kassir adored, would be resumed from the point where it was interrupted.

Later, if peoples of the democratic Arab states vote to apply further unity, then the European Union stands as a good model for such an endeavor. This was Kassir’s vision and it all started with the reinforcement of Lebanon’s sovereignty.

But Kassir, like the dream of an Arab renaissance before him, was killed. The leftists after him, many of whom are his companions and close followers, resumed their old style of opposition to Lebanon’s sovereignty – on different counts – and their endorsement of Palestine as a cause that transcends all other causes in its importance.

A number of these leftists also believe that Lebanon cannot survive as an isolated entity in the region, yet they are also opposed to the Lebanese government alignment with one regional alliance against another. How can Lebanon, with its limited resources and power, influence regional events without taking sides with anyone of the alliances is not usually answered in such debates.

Perhaps history can give some answers here. Since ancient times, Lebanon has been under the influence of one regional power or another. The only time that Lebanon was so to speak non-aligned was when the two powers at the time (1958-1968), the US and Egypt, agreed on maintaining it as such.

This debate is complicated and long and certainly cannot be resolved in this single article. However, it is always good to start such debates. And while at it, it is good to remind the leftists who adopt Kassir as one of their inspirations to review his thought. Perhaps they can arrive at somehow different conclusions on their stance on Lebanon’s sovereignty and its worth and bring it back up to top that of Palestine in terms of national priorities.

Hussain Abdul-Hussain, a media analyst, is a former reporter for The Daily Star of Lebanon. He wrote this article for Alternative.