The 1967 Arab defeat by Israel was not as bad as what followed. Doaa El-Bey examines subsequent crises No sooner had the Lebanese army declared that the fighting with Fatah Al-Islam militants in the Nahr Al-Bared Palestinian refugee camp had been contained than the group's leader vowed to take the conflict to Ain Al-Helwa, the biggest Palestinian refugee camp. Earlier, two Lebanese soldiers were killed in Ain Al-Helwa in fighting with Jund Al-Sham, another militant group. The recent violence is described as the worst internal fighting Lebanon has seen since the end of its civil war 17 years ago. The London-based daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi regarded the spread of clashes between the army and the militant groups as a dangerous development that could threaten fragile Lebanese stability and take the country back to civil war and sectarianism that reigned during the 1970s. The editorial criticised the Lebanese media for adopting a provocative dialogue that deepened the present sectarian division and pushed towards bloody confrontations not only with Fatah Al-Islam but with all Palestinian camps. "The media is demonising the Palestinian refugees and launching hate campaigns against them. Such a policy could affect security, stability and peaceful co-existence in Lebanon," the editorial read. It warned that the state of turmoil in Lebanon reached its climax when the UN Security Council endorsed a resolution to set up an international tribunal investigating the death of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Al-Hariri. That tribunal, as the editorial added, could have an adverse effect on security and stability and would destroy all Lebanese achievements, double its debts and put it under the mercy of external powers. George Nassif wrote that the recent clashes should cast light on a number of facts: the confrontation did not erupt on the spur of the moment but came after months of preparation and training on the part of Fatah Al-Islam. Second, the presence of both Lebanese and Palestinian militant movements in the area is old and nourishes on a political and conservative atmosphere away from the control of authority. The area also suffers from unemployment and marginalisation. A Lebanese-Palestinian programme should be immediately drawn up to alleviate the misery of Palestinians in the refugee camps. In the Lebanese independent daily An- Nahar, Nassif hailed the role of the army in fighting the militants in order to enforce its control on the whole of Lebanon and protect civilians. The clashes in Lebanon coincided with the 40th anniversary of the 1967 Arab defeat against Israel. Writers focussed on analysing the state of the Arab countries since. In a review of the victories and defeats in the last 40 years, Mohamed Kaoush wrote that the 1967 defeat did not force the Arab states to give in to Israel. It was only after the October 1973 victory that the Arab states divided, entered into bilateral conflicts and wars and then talked about peace and recognition of Israel. It was only after 1973 that the Palestinians were left alone to face Israeli aggression while Arab states not only accepted an economic embargo against the Palestinians but even took part in it. "Now, 40 years after the defeat, we witness an information, political and intellectual move to break Arab steadfastness and cast doubt on the abilities of the Arab armies. They are trying to create a culture of defeat rather than one of resistance among Arab states," Kaoush wrote in the independent Jordanian daily Al-Arab Al-Yom. The daily United Arab Emirates Al-Khaleej wrote in its editorial that the 1967 defeat could have been avoided had the Arabs looked deeply into its causes and significance. The defeat, as the editorial read, could not be attributed to the sudden Israeli attack or the support that Tel Aviv received from the big powers. "Arab peoples never take part in decision-making unless their support is needed. Regimes took stands not out of conviction, but out of concern for their political safety. Decisions and resolutions were concluded without the least intent to execute them." Our mistakes did not only make us forget our common enemy but also engaged us in internal fighting. Meanwhile, our enemy, as the editorial said, exploited our differences for its own interest and survival. Abdullah Al-Seweigi wrote that during the last 40 years the Arabs witnessed numerous other defeats, like how we transformed the October 1973 victory into defeat after President Anwar El-Sadat's visit to Israel; normalisation of Israeli relations with many Arab states without any concessions made to the Palestinians in return; the growing political, technological and economic cooperation between Israel and a number of Arab parties; the deterioration of the Arab situation after Iraq invaded Kuwait; the US occupation of Iraq; the civil war that lasted for 17 years in Lebanon and finally the peace initiative that the Arabs declared in Beirut in 2002 without being ready to enforce implementation. "Forty years after the Naksa [defeat] and 60 years after the Nakba [calamity] and the loss of Palestine, the Arab states are still banking on the US and good Zionist intentions. They failed to rely on their peoples and economic and military abilities," Al-Seweigi wrote in Al-Khaleej. Ibrahim Darwish wrote in Al-Quds Al-Arabi that 40 years after the 1967 defeat, Palestinian citizens are still besieged in their lands. They cannot go out of their houses without an Israeli permit. Their journey outside their homes is from one Israeli barrier to another. Darwish questioned why the dilemma of thousands of Palestinian refugees expelled from their homes in 1948 is either denied or ignored. "At a time when denying the Holocaust is regarded as a crime, denying the Palestinian Nakba is part of the official Israeli story line or the myth of the formation of Israel."
