ABSTRACT: Marco Pannella's point of view of the Middle East issue in five points: 1) in the absence of specific deliberations, the Party should not be involved in personal stances taken by the secretary; 2) the criteria to be used as a starting point are nonviolence, political democracy, antimilitarism, human and civil rights; 3) The USSR is operating in the Middle East not for peace but for war and instability; 4) According to the Radicals, there are no clean, honourable wars, worthy of human respect; 5) The mass media, indifferent to the 30.000 victims of hunger and underdevelopment every year, have turned the Israeli leader Sharon into the negative hero of these months; the terms used are "extermination" and "Nazi aggression". What about the Syrians, the PLO, the different Lebanese factions? To state that the PLO's policy is apt to represent the interests of peace, democracy and justice of the Palestinians is the expression of racism, of that particular racism according to which Arabs and Palestinians are

incapable or inapt for political democracy and for anything but war.

(RADICAL NEWS n. 10, 15 July 1982)

(Marco Pannella had written this article for Radical News on Arafat's visit to Italy just before the tragical news from West Beirut were divulged).

The papers that normally censor us quoted the Radical Party as a party involved in the triumphant welcome of the leader of the PLO. The Secretary of the radical Party, on the contrary, knew nothing about it, and this is what the party told the press which was calling - semel in anno - to collect statements from the headquarters in Via di Torre Argentina.

Thus, we were among the few who did not put down the red carpet for Arafat and who did not turn his visit into the occasion for a political, diplomatic and moral achievement of the PLO.

Having done nothing at all, I have nothing to explain and even less to justify. But the occasion is suitable to express my personal point of view on the Middle East issue.

First point: in the absence of any specific deliberation of the party on the matter, I believe the Secretary has the right to do all that is possible to prevent the Party from being involved in his personal stances.

Second point: the only criteria which the Secretary of the Party could base his intervention on are nonviolence (and therefore also political democracy), antimilitarism, human and civil rights. From this point of view, I am personally inclined to conclude that all Arab and Moslem countries of the Middle East are, without exceptions, "structurally violent, structurally anti-democratic, structurally anti-popular". I believe the Syrian, Iraqi, Iranian, South Yemenite people (to remain "to the Left", given that to the "Right", the Sheiks are sufficiently known for what they are) are everyday victims of assassination, torture, often even massacres, and of the most barbaric violations of their human and political rights on the part not of Israel, but of the oligarchies that rule them. As far as Israel is concerned, I am convinced that its policy ("not its structure, for the moment") is belligerent, violent and harbinger of an extremely dangerous conversion - which should be opposed - of the historical values of a

great part of the political culture of this country.

Third point: I believe the USSR and to a lesser but substantial extent forces of real power, multinationals connected to the almighty military-industrial complex, denounced (as far back as 1956) by the U.S. President General Eisenhower, are operating not for peace in the Middle East but for war and instability. For such purpose they support violent and racist forces in the Arab world which are concerned about maintaining nationalism as the instrument of their dominion and to prevent the onset of the democratic and social problems and ideals which would wipe them away.

Fourth point: according to us Radicals, there is no clean, honourable war, worthy of human respect. War is a barbarity, and cannot be anything else. In a war you fight to win over your opponent, to defeat him, to destroy him. We are even willing to support the imposition of a unilateral disarmament for Israel provided it is truly guarantied in its independence and freedom, but we are not willing to hypocritically establish the offensive and defensive tactics it needs to use to win over its opponents and enemies. We want to disarm Israel all the more because Israel is dear to us, as it is dear to a whole generation. But the militarization of its society and its war risk making it similar to those whom they were once the victims of.

Fifth point: the "mass media", indifferent to the 30.000 victims every day of the policy of extermination by hunger of the poor of the whole world, have incredibly and unanimously turned the war in Lebanon and the Israeli leader Sharon into the "negative hero" of these months and of these years.

"Extermination", Nazi aggression" are the terms used. But were the Syrians, the PLO, the different Lebanese factions not armed? Do they shoot only against the Syrians or against the Lebanese? Could the thousands of billions that these regimes (which need Israel, its mistakes, its crimes, to remain in power and to oppress their own people or deny them political, cultural, religious and civil freedom) spent in arms not have been spent differently to enable the solution of the historical problem of the Palestinian people, which is not only and perhaps not even chiefly a territorial problem? And in Israel, don't the authoritative, militarist, populist, clerical forces need this constant and necessarily barbaric war to repress the democratic, liberal, socialist, pacifist, and fundamentally non-nationalist forces?

The list is endless. On the basis of the above considerations, and especially of the first one, I would have gladly accepted - from party to party - a proposal to meet the PLO to know each other better. But I did not take, and will never take the initiative. Moreover, I believe the way in which Arafat's visit was turned into a demonstration of manichaean judgement is wrong.

It is not only arbitrary but also deeply unjust and wrong. Those who claim that the PLO's policy is apt to represent the interests of justice, of peace, of democracy and progress of the Palestinian people are guilty of racism and contempt vis-à-vis those which they want to defend and honour. According to these people, Arabs and Palestinians are incapable of political democracy and are unfit for anything but war.

We don't believe this is true. And - Beghin and his supporters shouldn't resent this - we believe this is even less possible for the Israeli people in all its components of class and of national origin.

------

19 September statement

"The chorus of protests and the proclamations of dismay of the Italian and international political class against the massacre of Beirut is largely the obscene chorus of the responsibles of the event which is pathetically deprecated. That which applies for Palermo applies to Beirut too, as Sciascia (1) quite rightly pointed out. This war and these massacres are caused not by the "lack of international power", but precisely by the "presence of power" of the States and of the industries which supply weapons and complicity to State Assassins of all kinds.

Instead of crying and deprecating, it is necessary to act. The Radical Party, for its part, takes the following initiatives:

1) Tomorrow we will go to the Embassy of Lebanon to present a formal denunciation for massacre, premeditated assassination, and pillage against "Major" Haddad, and every other person proven to be guilty of the criminal deed. Defending Lebanon also means trying to defend and stimulate the dignity and the exertion of the functions of the State on the part of those who formally accepted such responsibilities. Otherwise, they too should be denounced and convicted.

2) In the following weeks, we shall go to Lebanon, to Beirut and to Israel together with militants and exponents of the nonviolent and pacifist movements to fight against violent barbarity and its horrors with the weapons of nonviolence;

3) As friends of the Israeli people, we formally ask General Sharon to resign; until the contrary is proven, we could decide to believe in his good faith, in the statements delivered in his recent interview with Oriana Fallaci (2), and in the statements of other Israeli authorities in these hours. But, we repeat, until the contrary is proven. There can be no doubts that the Israeli army has consistent responsibilities in the killings of yesterday and of the day before, whereas all the recent belligerent initiatives had been justified with the intention of preventing them. Such killings have been on the contrary made possible, and have been carried out in the most atrocious way. If these are not war crimes proper, they are at least tragical errors that have immense effects. In cases such as these, it is a duty to resign".

Translator's notes:

(1) Leonardo Sciascia (1921-1989): Italian writer. Member of the Radical Party, was elected member of the European and Italian Parliament.

(2) Oriana Fallaci (1930): Italian journalist and writer.