Palestinians need more negotiators, not arms
By: Camelia Entekhabi-Fard /Asharq Al Awsat
Wednesday, 30 Jul, 2014 .
Not long ago, perhaps less than a decade ago, I was one of those Iranians who viewed the Palestinians as terrorists and opportunists. As somebody who was born and raised in Iran, I can confidently tell you that this view is prevalent; there are many Iranians who viewed, and continue to view, the Palestinians in this way. Tehran is one of the biggest supporters of the Palestinian Hamas movement, and the same goes for Lebanon’s Hezbollah militia, and ultimately it is the Iranian government’s support for such organizations that creates this feeling among the Iranian public. Iran’s state media coverage regarding the Palestinian–Israeli conflict is characterized by propaganda. The Iranian people have not had the opportunity to hear the real story and to view what is happening to the Palestinian people from a moral standpoint. This gives rise to the prevalent view among the Iranian general public of Hamas as an opportunistic group that is coming to Iran for finances and seeking to embroil Tehran into the conflict.
The Iranian public are angered by the regime spending so much money on Hamas and Hezbollah when so many Iranian people themselves are living in poverty. Iranian society respects the principle of helping others, but there are other considerations that must be taken into account. Iran’s international prestige has been severely damaged by the Islamic Republic’s support of these militias, not to mention the sheer amount of money it has lost. I could tell you that when I was living in Iran, I was more sympathetic towards the Israelis than the Palestinians. The same goes for many other Iranians I was in contact with in Tehran during this period. The Iranian public’s knowledge about the Palestinian–Israeli conflict is miniscule; everything the Iranian people know about it comes directly from the regime. This represents Tehran’s interpretation of events, which they put forward to serve their own interests.
However, I ultimately changed my view about the Palestinian–Israeli conflict after I moved from Iran to the US. I studied International Affairs at New York’s Columbia University, and this brought about a change in my assessment of the situation. It’s interesting to see that the prevalent view among intellectual Americans is one of support for the Palestinians and condemnation of Israel. This support doesn’t have anything to do with Hamas or Fatah, but rather it’s a democratic call for Israel to end its occupation of Palestinian territories and abide by the UN Security Council resolution, which calls for Israel to withdraw to the pre-1967 borders. It was in the US that I learnt, and continue to believe, that the Palestinians are not a bunch of terrorists who represent a threat to Israeli peace and stability.
This brings us to the current round of conflict between Israel and Palestine, which has seen more than 1,000 Palestinians killed in the Israeli aggression against Gaza. As I write this op-ed, this conflict is ongoing, with all attempts to reach a lasting ceasefire ending in failure.
I am sure that many people in Iran are heartbroken by the sight of defenseless Palestinian women and children with no place to hide from the Israeli air strikes on Gaza. The one party that seems to be doing everything to bring about a desired ceasefire is US Secretary of State John Kerry, and not the Iranian side, unfortunately.
Speaking in late July, Iranian Supreme Guide Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei appeared to call for the West Bank to follow the approach being taken by Hamas in Gaza—namely, to pick up arms and fight Israel. During a speech to university students on July 23, Khamenei said: “Our belief is that the West Bank should be armed like Gaza. Those who love the fate of the Palestinians, if they can do something, this is it. The people there [West Bank] should be armed. The only thing that can uproot the distress of the Palestinians . . .[is] to have the strongest hand. It is to show strength.”
Following Khamenei’s comments, the Iranian, Arab and international media ignited, asking whether it would be better to seek a ceasefire, or fight as Khamenei urged.
Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi, the last Shah of Iran, truly sought to help the Palestinian people, and some argue that if he were not ousted by the 1979 Islamic revolution, he would have played a major role in ending this conflict. However the Islamic Republic of Iran has a different regional goal than that of the former Iranian monarchy. There has been no communication between Tehran and Tel Aviv; in fact, Iran and Israel are each other’s greatest enemy. If US President Barack Obama believes so strongly in the diplomatic approach, to the point that he has angered Tel Aviv—one of America’s closest allies—by making up with Iran over the nuclear dossier, then why can’t he enforce peace between Palestine and Israel? On the other hand, Iran has the financial and military resources to continue supporting Hamas and Hezbollah and play the role of spoiler in the Middle East if they so choose. However, how long will they continue to choose to do so?
Edward Said, one of the greatest Palestinian–American intellectuals of our time, focused on the lack of communication between Washington and the Arab world when dealing with the Palestinian Cause. Culture and Resistance: Conversations with Edward W. Said quotes Said as saying that “the absence of initiative” is “our greatest enemy.”
The Palestinians don’t need more arms, they need more negotiators. Communication is the key.
Image processed by CodeCarvings Piczard ### FREE Community Edition ### on 2019-02-02 20:42:48Z | | ÿÿÿÿÿo° xÿ
بارعة علم الدين: لحظة الحقيقة في العراق بعد محاولة اغتيال رئيس الوزراء
Iraq’s moment of truth in wake of attempt on PM’s life Baria Alamuddin/Arab News/November 11/2021
There is no mystery about who tried to kill Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa Al-Kadhimi. The target himself declared: “We know them very well and we will expose them.” Security sources confirmed that the perpetrators were Iran-backed paramilitaries. Al-Kadhimi should publicly name the perpetrators so that there can be no room for doubt that members of Al-Hashd Al-Sha’abi tried to assassinate their own commander-in-chief.
Prior to the attack, Asa’ib Ahl Al-Haq leader Qais Al-Khazali issued threats and accusations against Al-Kadhimi. This warlord, who was responsible for overseeing the killings of hundreds of demonstrators in 2019 — and who is culpable for innumerable assassinations and sectarian killings — shamelessly accused the prime minister of cracking down on thuggish Hashd agitators who were seeking to forcibly overturn the election results by throwing rocks at security forces. Al-Khazali then risibly alleged that Iraqi intelligence staged the attack against Al-Kadhimi, who is the former chief of the same intelligence apparatus.
A Kata’ib Hezbollah spokesman quipped: “Nobody in Iraq has the desire to lose a drone over the house of a former prime minister.” And Kata’ib Sayyid Al-Shuhada Secretary-General Abu Alaa Al-Wala’i implied that Al-Kadhimi deserved to be assassinated, taunting that he would never again be prime minister.
The Hashd militias believe they can collectively escape accountability; that, whenever the state acts against them, they can flood the capital with their shock troops and assassinate whoever speaks out. They want everybody to know they were responsible — that is the point. They may only be able to win a few pitiful parliamentary seats, but they crave to be perceived as the real power in Iraq, willing to murder anybody who stands in their way.
Sunday’s attack demonstrates how much militants fear Al-Kadhimi obtaining a second term, as he is perhaps the only politician in Iraq with sufficient courage to act against paramilitary dominance. However, as one analyst pointed out, this “stupid and short-sighted move” has already backfired against the militias. It has given Al-Kadhimi greater popular legitimacy, while showing the Hashd up as the murderous, cowardly criminals they are.
Last month’s elections represented a moment of truth for the Iranian proxies in Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere. Until now, Hezbollah and the Hashd had always been able to gerrymander sufficient support in elections to build parliamentary alliances and exert control over the executive. However, crises in both states have resulted in a spectacular plunge in nationwide popularity for these groups and their allies.
Sunday’s attack has given Al-Kadhimi greater popular legitimacy, while showing the Hashd up as the murderous, cowardly criminals they are.
In Iraq, this saw the Hashd’s Fatah list collapse from about 50 parliamentary seats in 2018 to a pitiful 14 out of 329 seats. Moreover, the January 2020 killing of Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani means there is no effective figure to bully rival blocs and compel sectarian Shiite factions to act together, although his hapless replacement, Esmail Ghaani, rushed to Baghdad immediately after the Al-Kadhimi attack in an attempt to manage the fallout from the crisis.
Iran has no intention of relinquishing its billions of dollars of investment in its transnational paramilitary proxies. Thus, if Hezbollah and the Hashd are to retain political dominance, they must enforce this through naked military muscle.
The Al-Kadhimi assassination attempt is a tangible example of this shift toward outright confrontation. In parts of the country, Hashd forces are the de facto powers. Many divisions of the security forces are largely composed of personnel originating from paramilitary groups, particularly the Badr Organization. They owe their primary loyalties to figures like Hadi Al-Amiri. In Lebanon, it is perhaps only a matter of time before we see Hezbollah resorting to assassinations and even more aggressive street-level agitation.
These Iranian proxies are demonstrating their readiness to plunge their nations into full-blown conflict as a means of neutralizing democratic setbacks. In the belief that they are the strongest force on the field, some hard-liners apparently embrace the prospect of war, believing they will emerge supreme.
For the Iraqi state and the international community, the Hashd’s electoral defeat represents an unmissable opportunity to curtail its dominance; through the reduction of its budget, the sidelining of Iran-affiliated hard-liners and by challenging the Hashd’s ability to illegally seek revenues from checkpoints, extortion and crime. Arab states must play a greater role in recalibrating Iraq’s lopsided relationship with its eastern neighbor. The Hashd, Hezbollah and other proxies flourished before the eyes of the world as an instrument of Iran’s aggressive regional brinkmanship. The world has failed to act for too long, and US President Joe Biden cannot afford any further foreign policy disasters after Afghanistan.
The fact that Iraqi militants can try to assassinate the prime minister, then openly taunt him about the attack, demonstrates — as if further proof was needed — that no genuine democratic process can exist in nations where militias can outgun the state, exist outside that state’s laws, and plunge this explosive region into renewed conflict.
It is no longer enough for the international community to applaud Al-Kadhimi’s efforts to restrain the Hashd from afar. Al-Kadhimi became the target and needs muscular Arab and Western backing if Iraq is not to permanently become an ungoverned space, dominated by paramilitaries who believe that they are at war against the civilized world.
The strike against the prime minister’s residence at the heart of Baghdad was a moment of truth: It is time for the people of Iraq and Lebanon to confront their demons of destruction. Recent events prove that they can either prosper as sovereign nations or wither as Iranian colonies.
Al-Kadhimi and his Lebanese counterpart Najib Mikati would find strong nationwide support — and they must be given equally unstinting international support — if they were to seize the opportunity to salvage their nations while they still can.
**Baria Alamuddin is an award-winning journalist and broadcaster in the Middle East and the UK. She is editor of the Media Services Syndicate and has interviewed numerous heads of state.