Reply #1: Noam has some points right and some points wrong [View All]

[Lithos]

Point 1) The Reagan administration really didn't support the invasion, rather it took them by surprise. The administration's messenger to Israel who returned their reply to the Israeli request was Alexander Haig who either bungled the message or took the initiative upon himself to introduce his own opinion into the matter.

Noam gives the Reagan administration too much credence in caring much about what was happening in the Middle East. Remember the Reagan Administration was so unknowing about what was going on that even a year later that they were still so clueless that they let such events as the bombing of the marine barracks and kidnappings surprise them.

Point 2) The main reason for the Israeli invasion was not that the moderates were threatening to negotiate. It was a culmination of many events in motion and requires looking not only at events starting with the civil war in Lebanon during the mid 70's civil war, the increasing militarization of the PLO in the South of Lebanon but also the political ambition of Ariel Sharon to become Minister of Defense and the political desires of Menachim Begin to implement a long held plan to secure the water sources along the Litani river, but also neutralize the PLO and Syrians in order to annex not only the Golan, but also the West Bank.

The fuse was the increasing raids, bombardments, and air attacks along the Lebanese-Israeli border by the PLO and the Israeli armed forces. While the UN did manage to broker a cease-fire along the border, the PLO stated that this did not extend to Europe where attacks on Israeli's continued. The spark that set it off was the attack on the Israeli ambassador in London, Shlomo Argov.

This was a period when the PLO were at their peak militarily. They were the de-facto masters of Southern Lebanon and were the recipients of vast quantities of military hardware and supplies. Their militant wing was firmly in control, so their was no room inside of the Palestinian people for moderates to have any voice.

Both sides were quite unilateral in their actions. The PLO were seeking only a military solution at this time. Menachim Begin following the return of the Sinai and his election to a second term was increasingly non-compromising in his actions towards the Arabs in both Syria and the West Bank. Fire met water.