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.
أبو أرز . اتيان صقر: فضحية مقترح فرنسي على تسهيل عودة النازحين السوريين الى بلادهم مقابل موافقة لبنان على توطين اللاجئين الفلسطينيين على ارضه/Abu Arz . Etiene Saqr, Exposes a Scandal Involving a French Proposal aimed at facilitating the return of Syrian refugees to their homeland, in exchange for Lebanon agreeing to settle Palestinian refugees on its soil
Abu Arz . Etiene Saqr, Exposes a Scandal Involving a French Proposal aimed at facilitating the return of Syrian refugees to their homeland in exchange for Lebanon agreeing to settle Palestinian refugees on its soil.
أبو أرز . اتيان صقر: فضحية مقترح فرنسي على تسهيل عودة النازحين السوريين الى بلادهم مقابل موافقة لبنان على توطين اللاجئين الفلسطينيين على ارضه. بيان صادر عن حزب حراس الارز – حركة القومية اللبنانية 23 شباط 2024 خبر فاضح . . نشرت جريدة_الاخبار بتاريخ ٨ شباط الجاري خبراً عن مصدر فلسطيني مفاده “ان فرنسا قدّمت مقترحاً يقوم على تسهيل عودة النازحين_السوريين الى بلادهم مقابل موافقة لبنان على توطين_اللاجئين الفلسطينيين على ارضه”. خطير هذا الخبر إذا ما ثبتت صحتُه، انه يكشف نوايا السياسة_الفرنسية الضمنية تجاه لبنان ويفضح الحقائق التالية: ١- يُفهم من هذا الخبر ان الحكومة_الفرنسية قادرة على تسهيل عودة النازحين السوريين الى بلادهم، ما يجعلنا نطرح السؤال التالي، لماذا امتنعت حتى الان “الأم_الحنون” عن إعادتهم الى بلادهم لتخفيف هذا العِبءَ القاتل عن كاهل وطننا المنكوب بطوفانٍ من اللاجئين المقيمين على ارضه بأعدادٍ باتت تقارب عدد سكانه؟ ٢- ويُفهم أيضاً من هذا الخبر ان العائق الأمني الذي كان يحول دون عودتهم الى بلادهم حتى الآن قد انتفى، فما هو إذاً السر وراء إصرار الامم_المتحدة والمجتمع_الدولي وفرنسا على إبقائهم على الاراضي_اللبنانية؟ ٣- إن العرض الفرنسي هذا يضعنا كلبنانيين امام خياريْن كلاهما مر، فإما ان نقبل بتوطين عشرات الألوف من اللاجئين الفلسطينيين فتتخلخل الديموغرافيا_اللبنانية ويتزعزع الكيان، وإما ان يبقى عشرات الملايين من الفلسطينيين والسوريين معاً على ارضنا، فينهار الكيان. ٤- كل هذا يدفعنا الى الأعتقاد بأن مقولة “الام الحنون” التي دغدغت طويلاً مشاعر اللبنانيين قد سقطت، ولم تعد فرنسا في نظرهم حامية لبنان والمدافعة عن حقوقه الوطنية. الدرس الكبير الذي يتعيّن عليا ان نتعلمه يرتكز على المبدأ القائل، لا صداقات دائمة بين الدول بل مصالح دائمة، وإن الدول الكبيرة تتلاعب بمصائر الدول الصغيرة بحسب أهوائها ومصالحها الخاصة، ما يُحتّم على الاوطان الصغيرة ان تبني قواها الذاتية السياسية والعسكرية والاقتصادية والاجتماعية بنفسها، وأن تدافع عن مصالحها وكيانها بزنود أبنائها … وعندئذٍ تفرض إحترامها على العالم، وتصبح قادرة على إقامة علاقات صداقة مع الدول الكبيرة من منطلق الند للند وعلى أساس المصالح المشتركة وليس العواطف المشتركة. خلاصة القول، ان قدر الدول_الصغيرة ان تبقى قوية باستمرار، وان لا تضعف تحت طائلة الزوال، إذ لا مكان للضعفاء في هذا العالم المتوحش. لبيك لبنان، اتيان صقر ـ أبو أرز
Abu Arz . Etiene Saqr, Exposes a Scandal Involving a French Proposal aimed at facilitating the return of Syrian refugees to their homeland in exchange for Lebanon agreeing to settle Palestinian refugees on its soil. February 23/2024 Statement issued by the Guardians of the Cedars Party – Lebanese National Movement A scandalous development… On February 8, the Al-Akhbar newspaper published a report citing a Palestinian source stating, “France has proposed facilitating the return of Syrian refugees to their country in exchange for Lebanon’s agreement to resettle Palestinian refugees on its land.” This news, if proven true, reveals the underlying intentions of French politics towards Lebanon and exposes the following facts: This news implies that the French government is capable of facilitating the return of Syrian refugees to their country. This raises the question: Why has the “compassionate mother” so far refused to repatriate them to alleviate this deadly burden on our afflicted nation, inundated with a flood of refugees whose numbers now rival its own population? It also suggests that the security obstacle preventing their return to their country has been removed. So, what then is the reason behind the insistence of the United Nations, the international community, and France on keeping them on Lebanese soil? This French offer presents us as Lebanese with two equally dire options: either accept the resettlement of tens of thousands of Palestinian refugees, leading to demographic destabilization and the collapse of our entity, or let tens of millions of Palestinians and Syrians remain on our land, leading to the disintegration of our entity. All of this leads us to believe that the notion of the “compassionate mother,” which has long appealed to the sentiments of the Lebanese, has fallen. France is no longer seen as the protector of Lebanon and advocate for its national rights. The major lesson we must learn is based on the principle that there are no permanent friendships between states, only permanent interests. Large countries manipulate the destinies of small countries according to their whims and interests, necessitating that small nations build their own political, military, economic, and social strength, and defend their interests and entity with the breasts of their sons and daughters… Only then will they command respect in the world and be capable of establishing friendly relations with large countries on the basis of reciprocity and common interests rather than shared emotions. In conclusion, the fate of small countries is to remain strong continuously, and not to weaken under the threat of extinction, for there is no place for the weak in this ruthless world. Labbayka Lebanon, Etiene Saqr – Abu Arz (Free translation from Arabic by: Elias Bejjani)
