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.
Elias Bejjani/Text & Video: No Allies for Occupying Forces in Lebanon: Only Mercenaries, Iscariots, Trojan Horses, and Opportunists Elias Bejjani/December 22, 2024
Modern Lebanese history is rife with examples embodying treachery, Trojan horse tactics, submissiveness, political opportunism, sectarian exploitation, and trading official positions at the expense of the nation’s interest, identity, sovereignty, independence, and the dignity and rights of its people. These chameleon-like figures, stripped of any sense of self-respect, values, honor, fear of God, or the Day of Judgment, have consistently exploited crises, occupations, and foreign interventions due to their ingratitude and moral bankruptcy. They have always been a poisoned and cancerous dagger in the hands of Palestinian, Syrian, and Iranian occupiers. They were never genuine allies to these forces or convinced by their projects, schemes, and policies. Rather, they were traitors, self-serving narcissists motivated by personal gains and temporary rewards.
Since the entry of Palestinian, Arabist, and leftist terrorist organizations into Lebanon, committing atrocities against the Lebanese and seeking to establish an alternative Palestinian homeland, whose memory still lingers among the Lebanese, to the occupation of Lebanon by the brutal and criminal Assad regime, and finally to Hezbollah’s Iranian occupation, these forces never found genuine allies among the Lebanese. Instead, they relied on local tools: mercenaries and hypocrites adept at changing their stances, loyalties, and colors to suit political winds, driven solely by notions of personal profit and loss.
In this context, following the resounding defeat Hezbollah suffered at the hands of Israel and the death of most of its terrorist leaders, who have no connection to Lebanon, coupled with the collapse of Assad’s criminal regime, the erosion of its influence in the region, and the exposure of its atrocities, prisons, and human slaughterhouses, these tools—politicians, clergymen, and political activists in Lebanon—began changing their stances blatantly. As we say colloquially, they “turned 180 degrees” and swapped their hats without shame or hesitation.
Examples of Hypocritical Chameleons
Walid Jumblatt is the undisputed master of chameleons in changing stances, alliances, and turnarounds. His record is unparalleled, making him the king of moments of abandonment and epiphany, sitting by riverbanks waiting for the corpses of his enemies to float by.
Meanwhile, Ex-Minister Wiam Wahhab is a living example of this hypocrisy. Wahhab, who was a loud, street-level mouthpiece and media thug for the Assad regime and Hezbollah, as well as the leading cheerleader for the defunct “resistance axis” in its hostility toward Israel, recently began adopting entirely contradictory positions. He called on Lebanese Shiites to recognize the state of Israel. Those familiar with this opportunist and deceptive demagogue were not surprised by his U-turn but had long anticipated it.
The Sunni minister Faisal Karami, filled with hatred, resentment, and stupidity, presents yet another example of political opportunism and duplicity. Until recently, he was praising the Assad regime and Hezbollah, but he has recently turned against the Syrian Assad regime, claiming that it had fought against his father, Omar Karami, and his uncle, Rashid Karami, for years. We remind this hypocrite and those of his ilk with their duplicitous culture that Hezbollah, in one of the cabinet formations, ceded a ministerial position allocated to the Shiite sect and gave it to Faisal Karami to infiltrate the Sunni community through its leaders. MP, Faisal, whose actions continue to be driven by hatred and ignorance, still accuses Dr. Samir Geagea of assassinating his uncle, Prime Minister Rashid Karami, despite his full knowledge and the clear evidence that the Assad regime is the true culprit behind that crime.
Sheikh Hassan Mrad is another example of this opportunistic culture. After praising and glorifying Hezbollah and its false resistance, he has now turned against his stances, justifying his reversal with flimsy and childish excuses. This is the same sheikh accused of forging his academic certificates, with his credibility amounting to zero.
Then there is Mr. Elie Ferzli, a man of the corrupt Assad regime, who is now, renouncing his pro-Assad past and claiming yesterday that his allegiance and support were for the Syrian state, not the regime.
However, the most despicable and vile of all opportunists and traitors who aligned themselves with Hezbollah and the Assad regime are Michel Aoun, his corrupt son-in-law Gebran Bassil, and their cohort of fraudsters, merchants, and opportunists. Aoun, Bassil, and their group have betrayed every stance, slogan, promise, and commitment since signing the 2006 Mar Mikhael Agreement. Bassil and his uncle, former President Michel Aoun, epitomize political opportunism, exploiting Hezbollah, the Assad regime, and the Iranian mullahs’ system to achieve personal and political gains. Through this disgraceful alliance, they secured parliamentary and ministerial seats and influential positions in the Lebanese state. In return, they sold out sovereignty and independence, sacrificing Lebanon’s national interests on the altar of their personal ambitions. Today, after Hezbollah’s defeat and the Assad regime’s collapse, they shamelessly and brazenly change their loyalties, denying their masters – Hezbollah, Iran, and the Assad regime.
The political hypocrisy of the Aoun-Bassil approach did not stop there. After Hezbollah’s humiliating defeat against Israel and the loss of most of its terrorist leaders, Bassil has begun publicly distancing himself from his former ally, attempting to restore his tarnished image among the Lebanese people. Suddenly, he is once again raising the slogans of sovereignty and independence in a desperate attempt to regain the popular support he lost due to his submission to Hezbollah and his association with Iran’s expansionist project.
This blatant political flip-flopping, characteristic of Bassil and Aoun’s chameleon-like nature, is a scandalous example of opportunism and hypocrisy. It demonstrates their readiness to change positions, colors, and even their skins to serve their interests, even at the expense of destroying the nation, undermining its principles, and enslaving and humiliating its citizens.
In conclusion,There are no allies for occupying forces in Lebanon, but only mercenaries, Iscariots, Trojan Horses, and Opportunists.