At the outset, I would like to extend my thanks to the Center for Lebanese Studies in Oxford University for this valuable initiative, especially that the people who prepared for this meeting chose to tackle the educational aspect in order to study the life of the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. Education remains the main pillar to read the future we wish for in any country, and we are not talking about its geographical stretch but about the identity of the values system which the community demography has followed in multiple historical contexts. This is if we suppose that there are constants in the educational values system accumulated by the consecutive generations, even though there are definitive changes which might be positive and negative and might be imposed by certain historical facts.

 

In any case, and away from any slogans or demagogy to approach the relation of Lebanon, State and People, with the Palestinian refugees and to include a balanced approach of this relation in any possible history book, there is something we have to figure out: why haven’t the Lebanese succeeded so far in molding a collective memory in a history book that includes the minimum common values that are based on reality?

 

The answer to such a question is only met with complete impotence, as the minimum common values in this issue, namely the relation of Lebanon, the state and People, with the Palestinian refugees, is still subject to popular exploitation, mobilization of instincts, sectarian tension, confused concepts, and re-awakening of wounds. Such features that are shaken in structure and in form cannot be isolated from essential distortions in the Lebanese as well as the Palestinian collective memories. The reason behind the distortions is because the Lebanese and the Palestinians chose to be together as victims. They approached the visions and aspirations they carry for each other. Here started the clash of concepts. The battle to absolve the Lebanese and Palestinian memories starts with rectifying the concepts and finally the tracks. Any history, regardless of the historians, among whom are the Lebanese and Palestinians who have undergone a lot of stress, reads the past. However, in this issue in particular, history should read the past with all its complications, based on certain principles, in the hope that such a reading would protect the present and safeguard the future from any explosions or suspicious penetrations that were aimed at making brotherly people liquidate their causes. Hence, the enemy would be satisfied, and the beneficiary would be comfortable to increase his gains.

 

This approach, which I chose to entitle as “Lebanon and the Palestinian Refugees in a postponed history book: “Declaration of Principles””, is aimed at highlighting the Lebanese and the Palestinian causes together. Both causes share many similarities and are governed by geopolitics. They are also governed by a common will to resist an enemy whose goal was to eradicate the identity of these two causes and suppress the voices defending them. These two causes were violated by their own people, and it is time for reconciliation and joint efforts. The highlight that I am suggesting is a brief description, but I will back it with a bundle of founding principles, hoping that history specialists would take them into account. Hence, we would be having a restorative start to establish Lebanon’s history book since as it seems, the hotly contested issue in decisive periods of Lebanon’s history is the most useful means to gather advocacy for the Palestinian Cause and protect Lebanon at the same time.

 

In 1948 that was stained by the tragedy of coercive Palestinian refuge as a result of the crimes perpetrated by Zionist gangsters, one hundred thousand Palestinians sought refuge in Lebanon. The tragedy of dispersion started in camps, none of which had the minimum base of a decent life. The direct Lebanese-Palestinian social overlapping started as well though it was organic on family, cultural, economic and diplomatic levels. Lebanon had three consulates in Palestine. Before 1948, it was a very bright phase of Lebanese-Palestinian relations. The Lebanese contributed to the pace of culture, economy, trade and education in Palestine. The Palestinians contributed in the same fields in Lebanon. When the Nakba year dawned, Lebanon was still newly-born in terms of an independent state. It was not qualified- neither in terms of visions nor institutions- to keep apace with the repercussion of Nakba. Definitely, UNRWA’s intervention was basically efficient to ensure the life services to the Palestinian refugees who were distributed in miserable camps over the Lebanese territories. The Lebanese hosted them, showing their love and generosity as much as they can, and they supported their just cause. In 1969, the Cairo Agreement was signed, legalizing the initiation of Palestinian “Fidaiyin” operations from Lebanon. The Lebanese were divided between those who wanted the duality between the “Revolution” and the “State” and those who saw in that a blow-off to the Lebanese structure. The tensions and tug of war continued until 1975 when a Palestinian clash with Lebanese parties broke out. A bloody phase kicked off during which mutual bloodshed prevailed. The Palestinians erred and so did the Lebanese. The enemy, brother and friend took part in inciting their confrontations. In 1982 and in the wake of the Israeli invasion, the Palestinian Liberation Organization fighters left Lebanon. Then was the era of the war of camps. Therefore, in 1987, the Lebanese Parliament cancelled the Cairo Agreement. Yet, no discussion of the problematic Lebanese-Palestinian relations ever took place. Before the Taif Accord, the Lebanese waged destructive internal wars. After the Taif Accord and reaching the Israeli Occupation phase, Lebanon lived under an era of a de facto hegemony. In 2000, Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon, while the Shebaa Farms and Kfarshouba Hills remained under occupation. In 2005, the Syrian hegemony retreated. In the same year, the restoration and rectification of Lebanese-Palestinian relations started via the Cabinet’s formation of the Lebanese-Palestinian Dialogue Committee on the basis of both Lebanese and Palestinian authorities’ agreement on respecting the sovereignty, independence and stability of Lebanon and ensuring a decent life to the Palestinian refugees by urging the international community, via UNRWA, to bear its responsibility towards them and work via calm, courageous and strategic diplomacy, to support the right to return stipulated in international resolutions and the Arab peace initiative. In 2007, the Nahr al-Bared Camp crisis broke out, and both, the Lebanese and Palestinian authorities, overcame it successfully.

 

This quick overview is a speedy and brief attempt to read the history of Lebanese-Palestinian relations. However, the problem lies in the vision that should come out as a result of acknowledging general principles that should govern any attempt to examine the history of these relations. Such drafting of a history should be included in any unified Lebanese history book, which seems to be postponed until now. However, any drafting of the history of these relations can only be correct and meaningful through:

 

Everybody erred in the hideous war of Lebanon. Every person, whether from his political, or ideological or even sectarian or economic position, was mistaken to give dominance to his personal vision over the public good. We definitely need a careful reading of the reasons and repercussions of the wrongdoing. However, what matters is to admit the mistake. In “Palestine’s Declaration in Lebanon” in which the PLO took the initiative to apologize to the Lebanese, there was courage to not burying the head in the ostrich. And Beirut’s Declaration was exceptional Lebanese audacity, which was followed by a string of Lebanese party-based, academic and media approaches, longing for a fraternal embrace of suffering refugees. Any healthy historical structure of Lebanon’s relation with the Palestinian refugees or vice versa can only be straight if kept away from demagogy.

 

Just like 100,000 Palestinian refugees sought shelter in Lebanon in 1948, 100,000 Lebanese working in Palestine returned home. There is such a special civilizational convergence between Lebanon and Palestine. The Lebanese and the Palestinians constitute together the pillars of three renaissances: the first is cultural, the second economic and the third political. The third, in particular, contributed because of its extreme democracy, to making both parties whip themselves and pushed them towards group suicide. Nevertheless, it contributed at the same time to keeping the flare of the Lebanese and Palestinian causes lit, which was an indication of the creative capability of revolution and up-rise. These three renaissances constitute a joint interest that produces positive points in the daily life and the continuous strife for a better future. Any healthy drafting of the history of Lebanon’s relation with the Palestinian refugees or vice versa can only be correct by halting the deliberate distortion of facts and profoundly researching the disaster resulting from the adoption of such distortion.

 

 

In 2005, the liberalization coincided with liberation. The era of using the Lebanese-Palestinian relations as a negotiating or swapping card, or as an arena to settle internal, regional and international accounts, ended. Upon the initiative taken by His Excellency Prime Minister Fouad Seniora, the Lebanese Cabinet established the Lebanese-Palestinian Dialogue Committee. A new phase of serious tackling of the Palestinian refugees cause was incepted based on three constants: First- ensuring a decent life to the Palestinian refugees pending their return as per international resolutions and the Arab peace initiative, and in cooperation with the international community via UNRWA; Second- full respect of Lebanon’s sovereignty, independence and stability; Third- support the right to return and Lebanon’s recovery of its diplomatic pioneer role in backing the Palestinian Cause. The NBC battle might have been an attempt to foil this trend. Yet, the sturdy will of the Lebanese and the Palestinians thwarted the attempt. The oath ceremony by President General Michel Suleiman consolidated the context of these constants. The decisions of the National Dialogue Commission since 2006 have been built on these constants. It is the time of calm work. Any healthy drafting of the history of Lebanon’s relation with the Palestinian refugees or vice versa can only be correct if founded on what the Lebanese-Palestinian Dialogue Committee called a “New Era”.

 

The discord among the Lebanese themselves and between the Lebanese and the Palestinians did not evolve around the support of the Palestinian Cause but the means to that. I am not here to acquit intentions, but I would like to mention that mutual bloodsheds under the slogan of supporting the Palestinian Cause or defending Lebanon reached intolerable extent. They were disaster to Lebanon and the Palestinian Cause. “Lebanon First” is the backbone of “Palestine First”. The healthy Arab Lebanon living in civil peace and practicing its Arab and international diplomatic role, as I witnessed it personally before the Lebanese War, and the stable Lebanon in terms of its independent decision constitutes a safeguard to the Palestinian Cause. Any healthy drafting of the history of Lebanon’s relation with the Palestinian refugees can only be correct via protecting “Lebanon First” so that the first and only Arab cause, “Palestine First” becomes victorious.

 

There is some confusion in the concepts, which distort the Lebanese and Palestinian mentalities. Rectifying them is urgent to set the public policies track right. I will not go over what is said to distort and exploit. However, the complete and pure truth which any history drafting of Lebanon’s relation with the Palestinian refugees should be built on are the following concepts which should be defined with three founding points- and I suggest their definition:
 

 

The aforementioned depicts an urgency to draft a history of Lebanon’s relation with the Palestinian refugees based on correct foundations and provisions, away from exclusion, intimidation, provocation and distortion. They are partners in the responsibility, each from his own position. Let us build together a bright future, or else history will make us perish… it will rather curse our black consciences.

 

The aforementioned is an approach in the philosophy of drafting the history of the Lebanese-Palestinian relations which are a basic element in Lebanon’s modern history. We leave the experts to asses this Declaration of Principles. However, in the end, and based on my conviction in the essential role that the Ministry of Education should play via the Educational Center for Research and Development, we should tend to prepare a scientific draft to be included in the Lebanese curricula. Even though the unified history book is still postponed- and we hope that it is not postponed for long- I suggest the following:

Amb. Khalil Makkawi :the current president of the Lebanese-Palestinian Dialogue Committee at the Lebanese Presidency of the Council of Ministers, and he is head of the World Association for AUB Alumni/ former Lebanese Ambassador to UN, London, Berlin, Rome, and former chair of UNICEF’s executive board.