From the onset of their exile, Palestinian refugees in Lebanon began to exemplify practices and realities that forced them to see themselves as separate from their Lebanese counterparts. While this separation was not always felt individually, as suggested by Farid Ayad, there was a distinct civil divide. While the basis of nationalism and national identity is enshrined in the development of a national consciousness based on a common history or memory which then develops itself into a functioning society, the treatment of the Palestinians in the camps may have reversed this development.
When exploring classical theory, starting with Smith, the Palestinians were able to develop a sense of economic and legal regularity which would define them. Unfortunately for the refugees, it was not done in similar fashion to most nations, the
178
Palestinians in Lebanon had a common economy, common laws and common territorial mobility defined by their lack of mobility and economic opportunity. Similarly, Gellner’s theory predicated on division of labour may provide for a similar development of identity, in which, the Palestinians were not able to develop a division of labour, as their economic prospects were not exactly in their control. The division of labour, as it applied to the Palestinians, was a product of the evolving ethnocratic make-up of states such as Lebanon, Israel, Syria and Jordan. This is important due to the construction of Palestinian identity not forming itself from memory or history but due to trauma and lack of opportunity in their places of residence.
In the first chapter, a number of Palestinian notables were quoted arguing that the Palestinians are Palestinian because they chose to be, or chose to relate to one another. The experiences in Lebanon provide for a different conclusion, the Palestinians were forced to be “Palestinian”; they were forced to be different than their Lebanese neighbours. That is not to say that they did not have an attachment to their lost homeland, but that the necessity for a homeland and control of their destiny was strengthened by the treatment of the Palestinians in the refugee camps.
In revisiting the first research question; “What events had to take place in order for the Palestinian political factions in the Arab world to be able to control their own narrative/cause and for the Arab, then later the Western world to recognise the PLO as the sole representatives of the Palestinian people?” The separation was forced upon them while in Lebanon. Previous chapters have shown to what extent the Arab world attempted
179
to control the Palestinian narrative, but the suppression of Palestinian consciousness and the politics of division in Lebanon were instrumental in the Palestinians taking control of their own affairs. The concept of “the other” or “belonging” as theorised by Guibernau, Hobsbawm, Said, Hall and others has shown itself to be essential, but not as regularly depicted as Arab vs. Jews. The initial development of the Palestinians as a group, unique to their surroundings was not formulated against Israel per se but against those of which they share a history, ethnicity and language.
This thesis argues that the Palestinian identity before their trauma has become irrelevant in the modern day. The argument of who was in the land of historic Palestine or who God may have promised the land to will not sway political favour to the Palestinians. The Palestinians in the Arab world were not always welcomed, nor were they integrated, even with the best efforts of the United Nations.
The refugees in Lebanon have faced decades of oppression and mistreatment, but in terms of forming a Palestinian national identity, this mistreatment may have been instrumental. The impact or being forced into refugee camps, sent to special schools, surviving on UNRWA rations created a sense of “place” for the Palestinians. The walls of these refugee camps have become a place to channel resistance.403 The graffiti and posters pledging allegiance to different political parties or commemorating certain events has allowed for this identity and history to be passed down from generation to generation.
180
During the early 1960s the epicentre of Arab nationalism was in Syria and Egypt, the majority of Palestinians were in Jordan but the Palestinian revolution did not start in these states, it did not start in the West Bank or Gaza, it started in Southern Lebanon. On January 1, 1965 the General Command of al-Asifa Forces (Fatah’s military wing) announced that they had conducted a raid into the occupied territories and returned safely. It is not clear whether this raid actually happened or if it as thwarted, nevertheless, there was jubilation in the camps. It took four years before the revolution returned to Lebanon, but the third stage of Abu Lughod’s politics of revolution and hope began to take form as a revolution, the suffering has become a struggle. Bassam Abu Sharif also suggests the pertinence of the time in Lebanon, stating that:
In Lebanon particularly, in the camps of Lebanon, the Arab nationalist movement was created raising the slogan that Arab unity is the way to liberate Palestine and return to Palestine while Fatah started al-Asifa in order to start their own military resistance to their colonisers. Certain Arab regimes, the West in general, and Israel in particular were trying to wipe out the belonging of the Palestinians, this adhering of the Palestinians to their identity, the strong belief of the Palestinians roots in the Palestinian soil, these deep roots that have confronted all invasions of their land through history.404
Palestine was longed for, but not as a romanticised paradise, but simply where the people felt they were home. Take for example the impoverished Palestinian peasant population who were, for the most part, living on rations. Due to their connection with Europe, Lebanon was more advanced when compared to the surrounding Arab states, allowing for the educated few to flourish. The Palestinians were an agrarian society- their attachment to the land was based on their livelihood. When their land was taken away, so was their sense of ownership and self-sufficiency.
181
Wayne Norman spoke of remoralising and reconfiguring identity, the changing of content as it affects identity. It is at this stage where this process began, the nature of being Palestinian was not based on being from Palestine, but being treated differently than their neighbour. Here I will refer to the discussion on the impact of identity with Bassam Abu Sharif, where he believes that the Palestinian national identity will always be, and has always been an Arab identity, what changed, or in this case developed, was a Palestinian political identity.405 The rights and responsibilities of the Palestinians were not existent, nor was there much opportunity to develop their own society as their rights were taken away. The treatment of the refugees in Lebanon was damning, but it allowed the Palestinians to reengage thoughts on identity developed through a lack of rights, economic opportunity and mobilisation.
In regards to nationalism and identity theory, the Palestinian case acts as an outlier in that it was shaped by the lack of inclusion. The Palestinians came together while geographically dispersed, not because of a memory or attachment, but as a need to survive. The refugees in Lebanon and the rest of the Arab world reignited the bitterness Fatah leaders had towards the Arab armies due to their negligent handling of the Arab- Israeli war of 1948. The next chapter will explore how the PLO’s revolution created a sense of a quasi-state in Jordan and then Lebanon providing the Palestinians with a sense of pride while empowering the nation.406
405 Loc.cit
406 It is essential to understand that I used Lebanon as one epicentre of Palestinian nationalism.
The experiences of Palestinians in Israel, the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Syria and Jordan were all tragic and effective in their own right. According to UNRWA, as of today there are over 1.5 million registered Palestinians living in 58 refugee camps throughout the region. They are all still subjected to poverty while living in fear and insecurity. Important to this chapter is not Lebanon
182