How to Read Raisi’s Pledge to the Palestinians

Iranian support for Hamas and Hezbollah has done little to make conditions better for those living under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority.

By
12

When newly inaugurated Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi laid down a marker in his maiden foreign policy outing—“Palestine has been and always will be the number one issue of the Muslim world”—some might have been tempted to pay attention. After all, Palestine has been a touchstone for much of the Islamic world since the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. But after a string of military defeats and the loss of East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights, the commitment to “Palestine” has been rhetorical, financial, or at most via proxies for most. So when Raisi mouthed the rote Palestine pieties, it was little more than a nod to an increasingly marginal fight, the purview of U.N. General Assembly devotees, terrorists, Western progressive extremists, and Jew-haters.

In many ways, the trouble for Palestine—or more properly, the Palestinian Authority, as the recognized Palestinian government is known—is that the cause has become increasingly unserious, detached from the actual fate of the Palestinian people. For many, it is little more than a bumper sticker, while those more committed to at least a token effort toward a Palestinian state “from the river to the sea” are, for the most part, the Islamic Republic of Iran and its friends.

Raisi’s recent election to Iran’s top political post was greeted in Europe and the United States as yet another setback in the desperate effort to coax Iran into the community of nations. But while Washington, London, and Paris are focused on the Iranian nuclear program, Raisi made clear that his priority is elsewhere. On his first day in office, the erstwhile Iranian chief justice met with the leaders of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). (Observers can be forgiven for not remembering the PFLP; the Marxist-Leninist group’s big thing was hijackings, though it has claimed credit for a series of murders in and around Israel in recent years.) When all were in Tehran for Raisi’s inauguration, the new president also made time for Hezbollah’s No. 2.

Raisi’s pledge that “Palestine has been and always will be the number one issue of the Muslim world” reportedly was made to Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh. He then echoed the same theme in his inauguration speech, announcing that, “signs of the resistance’s great victory have emerged.” The problem is, signs of the resistance’s “great victory” haven’t really emerged. They remain buried under what might be termed the resistance’s “great failure.”

The recent war between Hamas and Israel claimed lives on both sides, but did little for the Palestinian people. Instead, it served to advance Hamas’ claims for the mantle of political authority against their main rival, the increasingly sclerotic Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah party. And resulted in the death of a number of key officials, engineers, and bomb-makers. Hezbollah has largely focused on preserving the Assad regime in Syria in recent years, although recent weeks have seen a number of rocket attacks on Israel, the first in 15 years. Their purpose? Perhaps establishing that Hezbollah is still a potent threat against Israel, though more in service to its own reputation and Iran’s foreign policy machinations, less to the Palestinians.

Iranian cash to the so-called liberators of Palestine, similarly, has failed to deliver prosperity to the Palestinian people. Au contraire. While Tehran reportedly upped its aid to Hamas to $30 million a month (though this seems hardly credible given Iran’s own economic dire straits), the group’s recent attacks on Israel resulted in at least $500 million in damage in Gaza, unlikely to be repaired by Iranian subsidies. Other pledges are unlikely—as always—to be fulfilled, leaving terrorists celebrating and average Palestinians high and dry.

If Iranian support for the liberation of Palestine has failed to deliver, others even more florid in their claims have managed even less. Al-Qaeda talks a big game:

… the breezes of the pride of faith have been blowing on our precious Ummah with an uprising and jihad of our noble courageous people in Bayt al-Maqdis [Jerusalem] and defiant Gaza and the West Bank and lands occupied in 48 against the brothers of the apes and pigs from the Zionist Jews …

As does al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula:

We must rise up and confront the usurping Jews with whatever effort we can. In this statement, we declare our solidarity and our support for our brothers in Palestine. How we wish we were among you!

But then again, if wishes were horses and all that. Between the hot air spouted by Sunni jihadists, the empty promises of Arab leaders, the growing acceptance of Israel by once-stalwart supporters of the Palestinians in the Gulf, Iran can at least claim it’s doing something. Or at least paying others to do something. Of course, the best option for the Palestinian people would be to embrace a more serious democratic process, elect new leaders, renounce the extremism of Iranian-backed groups, and lean in to a real peace process with Israel. But that’s not what Iran and its fellow travelers are fighting for. 

12
By
Comments (12)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Kurt Von Fuchs

    OK so let me just get this straight, you think that everyone who is disappointed that the United Nations resolutions on Israel and the Palestinian territories have never been fulfilled and actively ignored is an antisemite wow that's a huge stretch dude.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Evan Donovan

    Just to respond to an implication from the links:

    You are not anti-Semitic simply because you are anti-Zionist. In other words, you don't hate Jews simply because you oppose some of the actions of the modern Jewish state.

    If the Occupied Territories are really in violation of international law, then I don't think it is the province only of "progressive extremists" to say that US nonprofits shouldn't be able to find them without being taxed. Similarly, at least in the linked article, the person from Ben and Jerry's didn't make any hateful remarks about Jews, he simply said Ben and Jerry's wouldn't sell their ice cream in the Occupied Territories.

    I think this is a defensible position and calling it anti-Semitism is just an attempt to shut down debate, like the let's over-expansion of what constitutes racism.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Ignatius J. Reilly

      It is true that it is possible to be anti-Zionist without being antisemitic, meaning that this hypothetical person is against a homeland for the Jews in their ancestral land while also harboring no ill will toward Jewish people. Acknowledging that it is possible does not absolve the lion's share of activist groups and woke companies such as Ben & Jerry's of their loathsome actions and statements against the state of Israel. It is strange that these groups and companies seek to, for instance, divest and sanction Israel for its perceived sins against residents of Gaza in the most recent spring, 2021 conflict with Hamas, all the while giving a pass to the great tyrants of the world who are murdering their own citizens. Assad is responsible for well over a half million deaths of his own citizens, yet the likes of Ilhan Omar are not screaming for divestment and sanctions for Syria. China is committing a genocide against the Muslim Uighur population, consigning over one million of its citizens to concentration camps, yet Ben & Jerry's has issued no statement about ceasing the sale of its products in China. The first sentence of your comment is only banal because it states the obvious while missing the point.

      Israel is held to a higher standard than other states, especially high compared to those in its region, and is the target of activists for its responsible actions taken to defend its own citizens and one must ask why. Could it be because they are Jewish? The answer is obvious. All criticism of Israel is not antisemitism, but when activists target Israel for actions that most states would take in similar circumstances and those other states do not come under the same scrutiny when they take said similar actions, a merely sentient person must conclude that it is more evidence of the world's most ancient hatred and sickness, antisemitism.

      In this most recent conflict with Hamas, Israel acted with extreme restraint. Any other responsible state with Israel's military capability would have invaded Gaza and killed thousands of people in its quest to stop the hundreds of missiles being launched at its civilian population and to end the organizations responsible. Israel's careful response earned it a rebuke from leftist and Marxist groups, as well the economic divestment actions of millionaire ice cream guys from Vermont. If these people fail to hold other governments responsible for their actions taken in defense of their civilian population, but herald the Israelis as war criminals, could it be because the Israelis are Jewish as well as Zionists? Could be.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Evan Donovan

        A few points:

        1) See my clarification below. I support Israel's right to exist and defend itself, unlike some of the people on the left.
        2) I also would agree that Assad's regime, or most Middle Eastern regimes, violate human rights on a scale much greater than that of Israel.

        My key question to you and others though is:

        3) Do you believe that it is essential for Israel to have settlers in the Occupied Territories, contrary to law, in order for it to have an ancestral homeland? That is the point at issue here, not whether they have a right to exist, or to defend themselves, or even their specific conduct in fighting Hamas recently.

        To the best of my knowledge, Ben and Jerry's was simply saying that they would not sell in the Occupied Territories, if you read the full linked article.

        "Ben & Jerry’s will continue selling ice cream in Israel through a different arrangement. But doing so will be harder said than done as major Israeli supermarket chains – the main way the ice cream is distributed -- all operate in the occupied settlements." (https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/i-am-not-anti-semitic-ben-and-jerry-s-board-chair-says-amid-israel-boycott-controversy-1.5526321)

        This is not the same thing as BDS, and so it is false for the author of this article to say that necessarily makes Ben & Jerry's the province of "Jew-haters." That's a serious charge. I think the Palestinians have territorial rights in the region too - even though terrorism is unacceptable.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Ignatius J. Reilly

          I liked your response, it was very thoughtful. We have strayed, however from the original assertions. It is debatable whether Israel's presence along the Jordan river in the west bank is "against international law." They are in a particular pickle there. Security has its needs, they won a war in 1967 and during that time took territory from Jordan and Egypt. There were no Palestinians. The people are human and valuable, but there are no Palestinian land rights where no state has existed and has not been contemplated. Perhaps the solution is Gaza to the Egyptians and the West Bank to the Jordanians? I am curious. Are the Israelis occupying Jordanian territory? Could Ben & Jerry's sell under the rubric of a Jordanian contract?

          Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Evan Donovan

      *left's

      Just to be clear though, I believe Israel has a right to exist and to defend itself. And I of course am not in favor of the government of Iran or Hamas having control in Palestine. I would never say something at once so dangerous and so silly as that the US or Israel's actions in the Middle East could be equated with those of Hamas or the Taliban.

      Collapse
  3. TragicMishap

    But ofc, those populations don't care about their own living conditions. They care about wiping out the Jews. If it were not so, Hamas and Hezbollah would have no power.

    Collapse
  4. Token Liberal

    This assumes that the Palestinians, if left to their own devices, would chart a different path. Unfortunately, as they have repeatedly rejected any deal that leaves Israel in existence since 1948, I'm tempted to believe them when they continue to reject any two state solutions.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Paul Reichardt

      The Palestinians—meaning the stateless Arab refugees from the ’48 through ’73 wars—didn’t have a say in anything on the international stage until Reagan agreed to accept the PLO as their representative in the late 1980’s. A few years later, the Oslo accords were reached and the PLO, Fatah, and (post-Oslo) the PA made statements recognizing Israel. Peace talks for final status broke down famously in 2001 and 2006 but not because the Palestinians rejected the two-state solution (the PA’s sole raison d’etre for existence). A lot of time those negotiations came to end because of external events or change in political office—Clinton and Ehud Barak in 2001 and Olmert’s political fortunes in 2006 (Lebanon War, corruption charges, start of the Hamas/Gaza wars)

      Sure there’s plenty of blame to place on Arafat, Abbas, and others on that side, but Netanyahu was a fierce critic of Rabin in Oslo and was never shy in declaring on the record that he would never allow a Palestinian state. That essentially iced it. Hard to pin a rejection of two-states solely on the Palestinians.

      Collapse
      1. Token Liberal

        True, there have always been Israelis against the two state solution. But they only gained power after Arafat rejected the deal at Camp David, and took the wind out of the sails of Israelis prepared to trade land for peace. Rep. Tlaib calls the two state solution 'immoral'. It's fine for the Palestinians to feel that way, but can we at least recognize that they feel that way?

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Paul Reichardt

          I think the real sinker was the horror of the second intifada that came after Camp David. To this day Olmert asserts that he could have had a peace deal with the Palestinians if he had a few more years in office. Who knows?

          Anyway, The sinking political fortunes of Abbas and his Fatah party among the Palestinians certainly supports your observation. The settler enterprise and annexation will be irreversible at some point, if not already. But if the two-state solution is dead, the Tlaib / Beinart 1-state position becomes the default for realists and Palestinians, who feel that time is on their side.

          Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Victor Clairmont

    Let’s hope Iran collapses on its own. The previous sanctions were tightening the screws, but the current administration have been loosing them and giving them
    more space to breathe.

    But the small dive into the region and the new leader is interesting, as we should always keep tabs on our enemies as much as possible, and what their own people think of their leaders.

    Collapse