Lebanon, and that under the present conditions, whatever the pressures to which the leadership of the PLO is subject and whatever the policy followed by this leadership, it must inevitably take account of the view of the rank and file. Moreover, during the past several months all the initiatives and activities of the leaders of the PLO have been accepted by the rank and file, even if they have been the subject of lively discussions; unless by "Palestinian rank and file" the author means only a few minority and isolated elements each of which tailors a revolution to its own measure. I do not want to make a complete analysis of the situation in Lebanon, but I place myself at the disposal of the friends of the Fourth International to undertake a discussion with them in order to be able to clarify the policy of the PLO.... Hoping that you will make the present communication known in the next issue of your journal, I extend to you, dear friends, my militant greetings. Naim Khader, Representative of the PLO in Brussels
IN REPLY The author of this letter seems to place a question mark over the degree of support the organizations of the Fourth International have extended to the Palestinian resistance. Given the post held by the author of the letter, he cannot be unaware of the role the various sections of the Fourth Infernational have played in supporting the Palestinian resistance ever since it arose, and in particular during 1970 and throughout the civil war in Lebanon. These positions have been expressed by the entire press of the International, as well as by statements of the United Secretariat of the Fourth International. Thus, when the author of the letter accuses the Fourth International of being "so negative, intolerant, and unfair in regard to the Palestinian revolution, *the point is different. What the author of the letter means by "Palestinian revolution" is clearly not the Palestinian struggle but rather the political line of the Palestinian leaderships. This is a necessary distinction, for while the Fourth International completely supports all the fighting Palestinian organizations in their struggle against the various henchmen of imperialism and against all forms of repression, it nonetheless does not support the political program or slogans of the PLO. And although given the present situation prevailing in Lebanon, active support must now take priority over polifical critiques, this does not mean that all support must be expressed in the form of flattery of the forces being supported or through murky political positions. After eighteen months of civil war it is necessary to draw a balance-sheet, to explain our view of the reasons for the successive defeats of the Palestinian resistance and the Lebanese left, to present our analyses and perspectives. Let us examine some of the basic criticism raised in the letter. First of all we may note that it is not the case that all political tendencies of the "left and centerleft" are in the PLO. In any event, it is erroneous to characterize the Palestinian organizations in such terms, since all these organizations (leaving verbal differences aside, of course) reject placing the national struggle in the context of the class struggle, and since the only real cleavage among these organizations relates to acceptance or rejection of the Palestinian mini-state. What is rejected in the INPRECOR article is not this or that organization but rather the narrow and utopian conception of the liberation of Palestine, a conception which is common to all components of the Palestinian resistance today. This vision is not accidental but results essentially from the social origins and political references of the Palestinian resistance, as well as the milieu in which it acts. As for the opportunism of the Palestinian leaderships, one need not occupy any particular geographical locotion to take note of this feature of the leaderships. Their close relations with the various Arab bourgeoisies
(which continue to exist even now and their refusa! to ally with the movements of social struggle in the various Arab countries, to mention only these two points, are the direct consequence of the Palestino-centrism of all the Palestinian organizations. All this was dealt with in the article and the author of the letter has not advanced a single element placing this analysis in question. Allow us, however, to ask a few questions:
*How can one explain the fact that at the very moment when one leader of Fateh, Abu lyad, declared that all the Arab regimes without exception had a negative attitude toward the Palestinian resistance, two members of the Central Committee of the same organizafion were holding a secret meeting with the leaders of the Christian right?
*Why is it that although the siege of the Palestinian camp Tel el-Zoatar lasted for fifty-two days, no military operation was initiated to lift the siege? Especially since passage between the camp and the western section of Beirut was possible, as was stated by combattants who escaped from the camp and had fled through the hills of Mount Verde? (See, for example, the reports in the Lebanese dailies An-Nahar and As-Safir during that period.)
*How can one explain the sudden retreat of the Palestinian forces from the mountains, a retreat that seems to have been prepared long in advance, judging by its organization, and left the Palestinian resistance without any political trumps against an increasingly demanding Christian right and Syrian regime? The Syrian regime has rejected the partial concessions that have been offered by the leadership of the PLO. The other Arab regimes have turned a deaf ear to AraFat's repeated appeals, But the lessons have not been drawn up to now and the same maneuverist policy is still being applied. Let us note that what was criticized in the article was not the principle of concessions but the context in which these concessions are made. In our opinion the concessions made by the leadership of the PLO up to now do not enable it to safeguard its political independence but only to gain time. And now the Syrian regime has rejected even this. Additionally, to our knowledge no initiative of the leaderships has been either accepted or rejected by the rank and file, since in point of fact the rank and file has never had the opportunity to express itself and has never been asked to offer its opinion. The congresses of the Palestinian organizations are attended only by the category known as "cadres" (appointed by the leaderships and generally all full-timers) and have nothing at all to do with the "combattants, who are systematically kept in political ignorance. It is true that this apoliticism does not exist to the same degree everywhere; discussion and some criticism are allowed in certain organizations, and nuances must therefore be introduced. The principle, however, does not change from one organization to another. Selim Accawi
31
Marie and Noel Murray, two Irish anti-imperialist fighters, are now under sentence of death by hanging. They were convicted of killing a policeman during a bank raid in Dublin, Ireland, last Easter. The appeals court has thrown out their appeal against conviction and the decision as to whether or not to go ahead with this legalized murder now rests in the hands of the presi-
The fate of the Murrays will have major significance for the anti-imperialist struggle in the whole of Ireland. The Dublin government has been gradually intensifying its role as the main ernment has made itself one of the most repressive regimes in Europe. The Murrays are among
The Murrays were found guilty by the new Special Criminal Courts. These courts have no jury and the normal rules of evidence do not apply. The only real "evidence" presented against the
Murrays was a "confession" that was subsequently retracted, the Murrays declaring that the confession had been extracted under torture. The coalition government of Liam Cosgrave is so unsure of the strength of its case that the Irish liberal fortnightly Hibernia is facing contempt
As British imperialism and its watchdog in the twenty-six counties continue to be unable to impose their will on the Irish people, demands for intensified repressive actions have escalated on both sides of the border as well as in Britain itself. The government in southern Ireland has long been unable to carry out the type of repression demanded by British imperialism because of the including the invoking of a state of emergency, are all part of a massive offensive aimed at intimidating the southern Irish working class. The goal is to prevent the workers in the South
From extending any support to the struggle against the occupying British troops in the northern six counties. If the southern regime succeeds in going ahead with this hanging, British imperialism will be given a green light to odopt similar measures against "terrorism" in the North and even in Britain itself. The execution of the Murrays would also represent a victory for the gov-
Given the hysteria around the Murray case that has been whipped up in the twenty-six counties, as well as the press blackout and the refusal of the reformist workers leaders in the South to put themselves in the position of defending "terrorists, " the campaign to save the Murrays has remained isolated in the South. Under these conditions, only an international campaign of solidarity can stop the executions. In view of the dependence of the Irish economy on imperialist investment, the Irish government is very sensitive to international opinion and pressure. All steps outside Ireland are valuable weapons for the southern Irish campaign to break the isolation.
Already an important step has been taken in this direction with the sending of a telegram from a German Irish Solidarity Campaign. Among the 15,000 signatures calling for the suspension of the death penalty are Heinrich Ball, Jean-Paul Sartre, Hans Magnus Enzensburger, and Ernst
SAVE
THE