Palestine and Iran: history revisited

By: Salim Nazzal

My first encounter with Iranians was in Lebanon in the late nineteen-seventies. In that period, Lebanon was in the shadow of the Lebanese national movement and the PLO, which was at that time a Mecca among political movements, which representatives of most, if not all, left wing movements from the four corners of the earth used to visit. One would perhaps not be going too far if one were to assert that there is no national movement in modern history which has enjoyed such widespread and diverse relations worldwide as the PLO then done. It was a period of great optimism for the progressive forces of social and political change in the third world, largely motivated by the success of the Algerian revolution (1962), the victory in Vietnam (1974) and the rise of the ANC in South Africa and the PLO in Palestine. Members of the Iranian opposition were among those who stayed longest among the PLO because most of them were wanted by the Shah's regime in Tehran. There were Iranians of all political stripes, including communists from the Tuda party, Islamists and Islamo-Marxists; all were active and united over the aim of deposing the Shah's tyrannical regime, which was the greatest ally to the state of Israel in the whole Middle East.

What attracted my attention with Iranians at that time were their absolute determination and their unshakeable confidence that they would overthrow the regime of the Shah, despite the fact that this was a virtually unthinkable event in that period. I asked my friend, the late Mustafa Sharaf Al-Din, a Lebanese intellectual and a man who stood with Palestinians through good and bad times, how he explained the Iranians' confidence and determination. He replied in his humorous way that Iranians are known for making the best quality carpets, something which needs near-infinite patience since making just one carpet may take an entire year.

The subsequent 1979 revolution in Iran gave great hope to Palestinians, whose cause suffered major setbacks in that period for two principal reasons. The first of these was the withdrawal of Egypt from the Arab -Israeli conflict after signing peace treaty with Israel, the second was the deterioration of the relationship between the Baath regimes of Syria and Iraq, in a period when it was hoped that both countries would cooperate in order to compensate for the loss of Egypt from this war.

Yasser Arafat quickly grasped the significance of the enormous changes in Iran, which he must have known would lead to the weakening of the strategic position of the Zionist state. He was the first Arab leader to fly to Tehran and to be received for the first time by friendly Iranian Phantom jets, something Palestinians were not used to since the American-made Phantom in Israeli hands has become a symbol of death and destruction in the Palestinian collective memory. His declaration that the Palestinian strategic depth extended from Tyre in south Lebanon to Kurasan in Iran reflected the Palestinian optimism of the time regarding these changes. One major event which occurred at that time that had a particular impact on the Palestinian psyche was when a Palestinian embassy replaced the Israeli embassy in Tehran. This event carried great symbolism for the Palestinians whose nation had been wiped from the map to become a state for international Zionists. Unlike Zionist propaganda would have people believe, Polish and Russian Zionists did not come to an arid desert. In the nineteen thirties and forties, before the Zionist state enforced itself on Palestine, it was amongst the most advanced countries in the Middle East. It had one of the best educational levels in the region; it met all the criteria set by the League of Nations to become an independent nation. It had political parties, Palestinian currency ,recognized borders , mass media ,trade unions, a women's union, banks, factories, theatres, clubs; a railway system, and advanced agriculture especially in growing the Jaffa-type oranges known since the 19th century for their excellent quality. The result of the Zionists' occupation was catastrophic for Palestinians who lost the only country they identified themselves with. Bearing this history in mind, along with the deep-rooted Palestinian belief that Zionism is a temporarily phenomenon no matter how long it stays in Palestine, the embassy's replacement was perhaps the first step in the long road to the 'dezionisation' of Palestine.

Today the USA and Israel are playing by the divide and rule principle regarding creating imaginary conflict between Arabs and Iranians, Sunni and Shia, which every person with an IQ above single figures knows is a strategy aimed at weakening the resistance in the region. No wonder that the pro-Zionist circles have been active lately in portraying Iran as a threat to Arabs and even some ignorant Arabs go to the extent of equating the threat of Israel with an imaginary threat from Iran. Yet the question which demands an answer is: how many ordinary Arabs are buying this new Orientalist theory, and how many ordinary Arabs would buy Rice's words about “the moderate Sunni Arab countries,” which are supposed to stand against Iran? The answer could be found in the various polls conducted lately which demonstrate that most Arabs are not buying the new Orientalism of Miss Rice and her administration. Rice may be ignorant or pretending ignorance, but Arabs know very well the common history and heritage which Arabs and Persians share, which has produced great figures in philosophy, literature, medicine and theology. In modern politics, Arabs know very well that the limited differences between Arab nations and Iran, such as the case of the three islands occupied by the Shah's regime in 1971, can be solved through negotiation and thus do not form a reason for stamping Iran as a potential enemy. On the contrary, it is Israel, the very existence of which was based on displacing a whole nation and defying Arabs in the heart of their homeland that represents the threat which Arabs have suffered from since the plantation of the Zionist state.

Arabs need to do no more than contemplate the hard lessons drawn from Iraq. Invading Iraq has brought all the current bloodshed and divisions inside the country, which will extend to the whole region if not stopped, with Arabs being the primary losers. Therefore the price (if any) which Arab leaders will pay for rejecting any attack on Iran would be far less than the price they would pay if they supported such a war. The war, if it happens, will be in Arab and Iranian land and it is ordinary Arabs and Iranians who will pay its price. Also, apart from the cultural and historical bonds linking Arabs to Iran, it is not in the interest of Arabs that Iran become weakened, just as it is not in Arabs' interests that their countries become the playground of American and Israeli wars on Arab soil. The fact which every Arab should contemplate is that America, at the end of the day, will withdraw and the region will continue to be drowned in conflicts, while in the US they will say, well, we've withdrawn and it's now Arabs who are killing Arabs! This is the language which we hear already from some in America who attempt to escape the US's responsibility for feeding the conflict by asserting that it is an internal Iraqi conflict. Abu Hayan Al-Tawhede, a major Arab philosopher of the 11 century, once said that the problem of some is that they drink the poison thinking it's the cure! If this is the case for those who lack past experience and can perhaps be excused, what, I wonder, would Al-Tawhede have had to say about the Arabs who tried the poison several times and knew its destructive results, yet still wanted to drink more?

*Dr. Salim Nazzal is a Palestinian-Norwegian historian in the Middle East, who has written extensively on social and political issues in the region. He can be contacted at: snazzal5@gmail.com

URL:
http://www.amin.org/look/amin/en.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=7&NrArticle=42700&NrIssue=1&NrSection=3