The Israel-Arab Reader

by Walter Laqueur

  It is no secret to anyone of you that it was not easy at all to manage to convince many people about our vision of the future. In fact, we had to wait for this future to be present and speak for itself. Today, the facts speak for themselves; not just as we imagined them in the past, but even in a clearer and more expressive manner.

  We meet today while their cherished Middle East, which is built on submission and humiliation and the deprivation of peoples of their rights, has become an illusion. In fact, it has turned into a sweeping popular upsurge on the level of the Arab arena characterized by honor and Arabism and its rejection of all the excuses offered it to justify our continued existence as submissive and timid—killed, while we are silent in the same way the sacrifice used to be offered to appease the gods and avoid their anger. . . .

  In other words, if wisdom, according to some Arabs, means defeat and humiliation, then by the same token, victory means adventure and recklessness. . . .

  During the peace process, we—the Arabs—adopted the only peace option and cancelled all the other options and then replaced the purport of the only peace option with the cheap or free peace option. In this option, we are supposed to offer everything to Israel and take a little. Actually, through practice, we offered a great deal and perhaps some of us offered everything, but we did not get even a little. In fact, we did not get anything at all. Thus, we find the Palestinians today paying the price of that past reality. For this reason, and through its vision at the time, Syria refused to concede any of its rights. . . .

  Before the peace process, Israel used to tell the world that it wanted peace and the Arabs wanted war. The world was surprised when the Arabs agreed to join the peace process—hence the reaction was this statement. But the prevailing Arab wisdom used to say: We must close our eyes so as to embarrass Israel before the international community, which was reduced to a few states loyal to Israel. The other world states, most of which stood by us and supported our causes, were ignored and marginalized. The result is that we became embarrassed before our Arab people and lost our respect and credibility before our friends and foes at the same time.

  This was the Arab responsibility in the failure of the peace process, but what about the responsibility of the others? Of course, with the exception of Israel and the United States, which are in one basket, the world states after the 1973 war, the October Liberation War, showed interest in the Middle East. They concentrated all their attention on our region and talk began about peace. This talk about peace continued until we reached the peace process in Madrid. Of course, this subject passed through various stages. When most of the world states concerned became reassured that the peace process had taken off through the negotiations, they handed the entire process to the United States, which remained the sole sponsor of this process. The United States, in turn, handed the process to Israel. Therefore, every proposal that came to the Arabs during that period was either an Israeli proposal or a proposal endorsed by the Israelis.

  When most world states realized that the Arabs had dropped the option of real peace and replaced it with a peace option to appease Israel and the United States, they turned their back to the peace process and us. It is only today, in these battles, that they remembered the peace process and us. . . .

  The glorious battle, which the resistance fought with faith and rare competence, has established a number of facts. The first fact is that military force, no matter how great, when it does not possess belief and ethics and is not based on legitimate rights and not built on a principled policy, produces defeat. The second fact is that the resistance, which has faith, resolve, and steadfastness; which embraces the vision, principles, and goals of the people; and which is embraced and adopted by the people, produces victory. In this case, the victory of the enemy, which is armed to the teeth, is nothing more than destruction of stones and murder of civilians. Since every occupation is an immoral act, it should, in fact it must, fail and be defeated. Israel is the model. Military force is not everything. Israel only possesses destructive power on the military level and some other elements on the international level.

  However, it possesses one big strong point, which is the Arabs’ moral weakness before material weakness. When we decide—and the decision is in our hands—to overcome this gap, no doubt the balance of power will be in our interest. And here lies the third fact, which affirms the limitation of Israeli power despite its supremacy, depending on our strong faith, firmness, and struggle. This should strengthen our self-confidence and remove every effect of the moral defeat, which was strengthened by hostile propaganda, making people believe that the battle is decided in advance in the interest of Israel, or that defeat is the inevitable fate of the Arabs. It should also make Israel think about the consequences of its terrorist policy against the Arabs in future. . . .

  Therefore, from the military viewpoint, the result has been decided in favor of the resistance, and Israel, by all military standards, was defeated from the beginning of the aggression and not at its end. However, wars carry with them disasters and Lebanon has paid a great cost, materially and in terms of human life, and we must stand with it as Arabs to rebuild what has been destroyed. But will the blood of martyrs and innocent people be in vain? At a minimum, we should turn the military victory into a political gain, at least in the peace process. The preliminary results of the battles on the political level have been the return of the talk about the need to realize peace and the return of territories and rights. We as Arabs have now been consulted on this, after such a long time. This means that part of this matter now is in our hands. We do not want to exaggerate; it is a very small part. The credit goes to the resistance. Standing by it now and supporting it will enable us to have the major part in this matter, and to compel the interested and concerned parties to take our views and interests into consideration.

  In other words, resistance and peace are one component and not two. Whoever supports the one must support the other. Those who claim to be experienced and to have a vision of peace must show us his achievements in the field of resistance. Otherwise, this experience would be regarded as too short to be taken seriously. Since we are living now through extraordinary and critical circumstances, there is no place for compliments, compromises, or settlements, and we must speak frankly.

  Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine still have territories that have not been liberated. This means that we are concerned with the issue of war and peace—of course I mean we are the first to be concerned. We want our Arab brethren to stand by us. We welcome whoever wants to stand by us, but through our own vision and our own assessment of our interests. We were the ones who suffered in war and in the peace negotiations over these past decades. If some are not convinced of our vision, we only ask them to move out of our way in order for us to carry out what we should carry out. We will not ask anyone to fight with us or on our behalf. This is because whenever there is some trouble, we hear some officials say: Why have you embroiled us? Nobody embroils anybody. In fact, each country is responsible for itself. In fact, they did not tell us this, they told it to the resistance, of course. But as a general principle nobody embroils anybody else and each is responsible for his own country, as I have said. However, at a minimum, they must not adopt the enemy’s stand toward our causes, and they must not play a role at the expense of our interests. Anyone who had not experienced war has no right to make himself a teacher and a guide on matters of peace.

  Today’s resistance will define the political direction of tomorrow, and the stand on it now will define the roles that will be played in the future. In other words, the time for assuming the roles of political mercenaries and political parasites is over, especially after these battles and under the current circumstances. It is over. . . .

  Let us suppose that the time that separates two generations ranges from 15 to 20 years. Then I consider myself to represent the third generation that came after the usurpation of Palestine. Now we have part of the fourth generation. . . . They are young people who have
attained full political awareness. Israel must know that every new generation hates Israel more than the generation that preceded it. . . .

  Therefore, Israel must know that time is not in its favor. On the contrary, a generation will come which will be more determined to strike at Israel and would take revenge for all that it perpetrated in the past, and then your children, you the Israelis, will pay the price. . . .

  Therefore, we tell them: You have tasted humiliation during the recent battles in Lebanon, and in the future your weapons will not protect you, not your planes, not your missiles, and not even atomic bombs. Generations develop and the future generations in the Arab world will be able to find a way of defeating Israel in a more determined way than we have seen in these past battles. . . .

  Brothers, the heroic national Lebanese resistance has written with its blood and the sacrifices of its sons a great epic in the life of the nation, has destroyed the myth about the invincible army, and trampled under its feet the policy of submission and humiliation. It has proven that the power of faith in the homeland and the nation will defeat the power of weapons no matter how big and ruthless they are. I send my greetings, appreciation, and praise for the resistance men. I pay homage to the resistance’s pious martyrs and salute the brotherly Lebanese people, who, through their steadfastness, were the basic incubator for the resistance. . . .

  With each drop of sweat, with each drop of blood, with every missile that destroys a tank, and with each defeated Israeli soldier on the Lebanese territory, there will be a medal to be hung on the chest of every Arab citizen.

  Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: The World without Zionism Conference (October 26, 2005)

  We need to examine the true origins of the issue of Palestine: Is it a fight between a group of Muslims and non-Jews? Is it a fight between Judaism and other religions? Is it the fight of one country with another country? Is it the fight of one country with the Arab world? Is it a fight over the land of Palestine? I guess the answer to all these questions is “no.”

  The establishment of the occupying regime of Qods [Jerusalem] was a major move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world.

  Therefore the struggle in Palestine today is the major front of the struggle of the Islamic world with the world oppressor, and its fate will decide the destiny of the struggles of the past several hundred years.

  The Palestinian nation represents the Islamic nation against a system of oppression, and, thank God, the Palestinian nation adopted Islamic behavior in an Islamic environment in their struggle, and so we have witnessed their progress and success.

  Our dear Imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini] said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine.

  Recently they [Israel] tried a new trick. They want to show the evacuation from the Gaza Strip, which was imposed on them by Palestinians, as a final victory for the Palestinians and end the issue of Palestine with the excuse of establishing a Palestinian government next to themselves. Today, they want to involve Palestinians with mischief and trick them into fighting with one another over political positions so that they would drop the issue of Palestine.

  They want to convince some of the Islamic countries that, since they evacuated the Gaza Strip with good intentions, the legitimacy of their corrupt regime should be recognized. I hope Palestinian groups and people are aware of this trick.

  The issue of Palestine is not over at all. It will be over the day a Palestinian government, which belongs to the Palestinian people, comes to power; the day that all refugees return to their homes; [and] a democratic government elected by the people comes to power. Of course those who have come from far away to plunder this land have no right to choose for this nation.

  I hope the Palestinian people will remain alert and aware in the same way that they have continued their struggle in the past ten years.

  If we get through this brief period successfully, the path of eliminating the occupying regime will be easy and downhill.

  I warn all leaders of the Islamic world that they should be aware of this trick. Anyone who recognizes this regime because of the pressure of the world oppressor, or because of naïveté or selfishness, will be eternally disgraced and will burn in the fury of the Islamic nations.

  Lebanese Political Leader Walid Jumblatt: Television Interview (July 20, 2006)43

  A ceasefire between who? [Israel] and the Lebanese state? Will Hizballah recognize the Lebanese state? . . . No one empowered [Hassan Nasrallah] to fight from Lebanon for the sake of the nation. . . . The question should be directed at [Nasrallah], and at the Syrians and Iranians with their agenda: do they really want a Lebanese state, or do they want an open battlefield, which would serve Iran’s nuclear interests and expansionist goals in the Gulf? As for Syria, it benefits when Lebanon turns into rubble. The poorer the Lebanese people gets, the more it is destroyed, the more the elite emigrate. How does [Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad] manage to rule Syria? Through poverty. He rules it through power and intelligence agencies. He rules a people that is wretched, imprisoned. He wants to do the same to Lebanon. . . .

  Is there really a Lebanese consensus that the battle of the [Islamic] nation should be launched from Lebanon? Do all we Lebanese really agree with the words of that “hero” from afar, the head of the Iranian Shura Council, who said that from Lebanon. . . . “We will set out to liberate Palestine in its entirety, inch by inch”? I have no objection, but why Lebanon alone? Why is there a disengagement agreement in the occupied Syrian land of the Golan? How come 4 million to 5 million Israeli and foreign tourists come to the Golan? How come no bullet has been fired in the Golan since 1974?

  ... Great, so [Nasrallah] is a hero. But I’d like to challenge this heroism of his. I have the right to challenge it, because my country is in flames. Besides, we did not agree. . . . The agenda with regard to Palestine, on which we agreed, includes the establishment of a [Palestinian] state alongside Israel, the right of return, Jerusalem as the capital, the demolition of the wall of humiliation, and the dismantling of the settlements. This is our agenda at this point in time. In his political speeches, [Nasrallah] says: “I do not recognize the state of Israel, and I want to set out from South Lebanon to liberate Palestine in its entirety.” This is what he is doing. If this is his agenda, I have the right to oppose it.

  Hizballah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah: Interview on Al Jazeera Television (July 24, 2006)44

  The international community has never been with us, [so we can] claim that “today it is not with us, it is besieging us, abandoning us, and neglecting us.” It has never been with us. On the contrary, it has been against us in the things that matter. For example, we have been on the American terrorism list since . . . since they began the terrorism list. We were among the first to be included in the terrorism list. Some European countries also include us in their terrorism lists. The position of the international community is clear, and therefore we are not surprised by the international community, and we have never pinned our hopes on it. . . .

  As for the Arab regimes, all we expect from them is to be neutral. And if they do not want to be neutral—brother, let them treat Israel and us equally. We would even accept it if they treat the hangman and the victim equally. But for them to participate in spilling the blood of the victim, and to provide cover for the crimes of the hangman—I tell you that we did not expect this. This was indeed a surprise. . . .

  I say categorically that the Israeli response to the capturing operation could have been harsh, but limited, if not for the cover provided by the Arabs and international community. . . .

  In addition, some of the Arabs provided a cover, and encouraged Israel to continue the battle. Israel was told that this is a golden and historic opportunity to annihilate the resistance in Lebanon. They don’t want to annihilate only the resistance of Hizballah in Lebanon. They want to annihilate any motivation to conduct resistance in Lebanon, whether by Hizb
allah or anyone else. They want to bring the country to a situation in which the word resistance is considered derogatory. Martyr, jihad, wounded, steadfastness,challenge, liberation, freedom, power, honor, nobility, dignity—

  all these words must be removed from the vocabulary of the Lebanese, from the press, the political writings, from the political thinking, from the popular conscience. This is what Israel is doing. America needs this if it wants to reorganize the region. . . .

  Victory in this case does not mean that I will enter and conquer the north of Palestine, and liberate Nahariya, Haifa, and Tiberias. This is not one of our slogans. This is a long process, which pertains to the Palestinians and to the nation. . . . The victory that we are talking about [is that] if the resistance survives, this will be a victory. If its determination is not broken, this will be a victory. If Lebanon is not humiliated, if its honor and dignity remain intact, if Lebanon continues to face all alone the strongest military force in the region, and if it perseveres and refuses to accept any humiliating terms in the settlement of this issue—this will be a victory. If we are not militarily defeated, this will be a victory. As long as a single missile is launched from Lebanon to target the Zionists, as long as a single fighter fires his gun, as long as someone plants an explosive device for the Israelis, this means that the resistance still exists.

  ... Today, we Shiites are fighting Israel. Our fighting and perseverance ultimately serve our brothers in Palestine, who are Sunni, not Shiite. In other words, we, Shiites and Sunnis, fight side by side against Israel, which is supported and strengthened by America. I’m telling you that if [Israeli prime minister Ehud] Olmert reaches a point at which he says to the Americans, “I cannot complete this,” Bush will say to him, “You go on, and if you encounter a problem, I will resolve it for you.” This is what I meant when I talked about “a battle of the nation”. . . . I say that the outcome of the battle that Hizballah is fighting in Lebanon, for better or worse, is an outcome for the nation. Defeat in Lebanon is defeat for the nation, and victory in Lebanon is victory for the nation. . . .