Only the enemies of the Arab people can welcome the growth of anti-Palestinian sentiment in Lebanon over the Fatah Al-Islam incident, writes Dyab Abou Jahjah All across the Arabic homeland one reality seems to be imposing itself: civil war. Between the rock of occupation and the hard place of Al-Qaeda, the Arab people is today divided and confused, neo-conservative and Zionist plans of fragmenting and reshaping the whole region by means of a new Sykes-Picot appearing well on schedule. These plans seek to create a new Middle East that can be better subjugated and controlled in order to safeguard the colonial state of Israel and retain control of Arab oil reserves. These two goals can only be attained through maintaining a weak and underdeveloped Arab nation that is divided between several entities clashing regularly with one another and in need of continuous international -- i.e. American -- patronage. What is happening in Lebanon now is an extension of what has already been taking place in Palestine and Iraq, namely a stratagem aiming at destabilising a country and plunging it into civil war. The role of Al-Qaeda and its franchises, like Fatah Al-Islam, in this plan is crucial. Al-Qaeda in Iraq, by attacking Shias relentlessly, has helped build support for the occupation among Shia groups fiercely opposed to the occupation in the beginning, and has prevented the emergence of a unified Iraqi national resistance. The behaviour of Al-Qaeda even recently led to clashes among Sunni Islamist factions of the resistance. This makes clear that despite the occasional success Al-Qaeda scores in fighting the occupation, it is more a liability for the resistance than an asset, acting as a divisive factor among anti-occupation factions. Hence Al-Qaeda fits perfectly into the fragmentation plans of the neo-cons and is a catalyst for sectarian wars all across the homeland. In Lebanon, the Fatah Al-Islam group is an extension of Al-Qaeda and is linked organically to the Iraqi situation. This group took control of the Nahr Al-Bared refugee camp in northern Lebanon almost a year ago, supplanting another group called Fatah Al-Intifada that is pro-Syrian and that controlled the camp previously. Since then it has been attracting jihadists from several Arab countries and is believed to have a fighting force of 500 militants, mainly Lebanese, Syrian and Palestinian, but with a contingent from the Maghreb and some Eastern countries like Bangladesh and Pakistan. As such the group has a typical jihadist profile and adopts the same discourse as Al-Qaeda. The group started a campaign of bank robberies in order to finance itself and soon became involved in destabilising armed attacks within Lebanon borders, like the bombing of passenger buses in the Christian town of Ain Alak. Whether the group is infiltrated by intelligence elements of a certain state or states remains to be determined, but the Lebanese pro-Western 14 March coalition accused the group of being a puppet of Syrian secret services. This is very unlikely since Fatah Al-Islam has been linked to attacks and shootouts inside Syria and its leader, Shaker Al-Abssi, has spend time in jail in Syria and is still wanted by the Syrians. Recently the Syrians killed two leaders of the group while they were trying to enter Iraq. It is also noteworthy that American journalist Seymour Hersh accuses the Lebanese government of Fouad Al-Siniora and its Future Party of supporting the group indirectly by funnelling Saudi and American money to it. According to Hersh, the intention of the Americans and the Saudis by supporting jihadi groups like this one -- or Jund El-Sham near the city of Sidon -- is to create a Sunni militia capable of confronting Hizbullah. Yet instead of confronting Hizbullah, the American-Israeli strategy appears now to drag Hizbullah into a quagmire of sectarian civil war in which it loses its brio as a pan-Arab popular resistance movement and becomes just another sectarian militia. Until now Hizbullah has avoided falling into this trap and seems fully aware of American plans. What seems to have been happening is that Fatah Al-Islam, regardless of the aims of its unlikely friends, developed its own agenda and has been pursuing it, including increasing its power, recruiting, and eventually opening a jihadist front in Lebanon against both the government and United Nations peacekeepers, and probably the Shias and Hizbullah. This fits within the global strategy of Al-Qaeda. The group committed strategic mistakes, however, when it became clear that they were behind the Ain Alak bombings and were enriching themselves by way of bank robberies. It was in pursuit after one of these bank robberies that the Lebanese police raided a Fatah Al-Islam safe home in Tripoli, leading the group to attack the Lebanese army, catching it by surprise and killing 23 officers and soldiers. It is important to note that the Lebanese army is the only Lebanese institution that is accepted and respected by all parties, including the resistance. It is a people's army, not that of any one personality, and it plays a crucial role in keeping civil peace in a country starkly divided between pro- government and opposition forces. Take the army out of the equation, or disable it, and it will not be long before the country plunges into general mayhem and civil war. The situation in the Palestinian camp of Nahr Al-Bared posed a dilemma to the army. It could not leave things as they were, but retaliation to the attack of Fatah Al-Islam posed a threat to the safety of Palestinian refugees in the camp held effectively hostage by the group as it barricaded itself in. All Palestinian factions, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad, declared that they condemn Fatah Al-Islam and consider it as an outside group that has nothing to do with the Palestinian people. They also declared their support for the Lebanese army but demanded that the situation be dealt with in a restrained manner in order not to jeopardise the lives of innocent refugees. Now the pro-Western and corrupted Siniora government -- and behind it the 14 March coalition -- is trying to make political capital out of these events in order to open again the subject of the arms of the resistance and to rally the Lebanese people against the Palestinians. Only the opposition -- and despite supporting the army in eradicating Fatah Al-Islam -- is calling for safeguarding the lives of the refugees and dealing with the situation in a manner that would avoid an all-out confrontation with the Palestinians. Racist forces in Lebanon are amalgamating Fatah Al-Islam and the Palestinians to the delight of the Bush administration. Until now the situation is very delicate. The correct position would be to support the Lebanese army in fighting Fatah Al-Islam terrorists while at the same time pressuring the rightwing government not to turn the Palestinians into the enemy. If this means striking a ceasefire and opening negotiations, so be it. The Arab nation cannot afford to be wounded further and anyone thinking that instigating a massacre in Nahr Al-Bared is justified simply because a terrorist group is barricading itself in the camp is simply adopting the same logic as the terrorist Zionist state that is the common enemy of all Arabs. How should a patriotic army deal with a hostage situation? Should it bomb the hostages together with the hostage takers? This is not the correct way to deal with the situation. If the situation escalates into total confrontation between all the Palestinian camps and the Lebanese state it will be but another victory for our enemies, served up by Siniora and his cohorts. Terrorists declare themselves as such. The state should behave differently. Fatah Al-Islam should be defeated, but the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon should be safeguarded: this is the only acceptable equation. Any other outcome would be catastrophic.
