It seems that we do indeed live in a world that despises the sensible and is enchanted by populist showmen.
We understand the fact that the truth is the first victim of war, and any doubts that may have remained were dispelled by the heart-wrenching “Gaza war” that began two weeks ago.
As we have known for a while, attempts at persuading those who have adopted unwavering positions are futile. Going against the teachings of Imam Al-Shafi'i, they have concluded, a priori, they have concluded that their beliefs are the absolute and only truth and that it cannot be disputed, doubted, or reexamined. Moreover, after the three-quarters of a century we have spent dealing with Israel and 40 years of dealing with Iran, political enmity can always be contained and resolved... unless it turns into a “war of annihilation” that can only end with the total elimination of the other side.
Israel has seen the emergence of many prominent figures over its history, and the overwhelming majority of them believed in and upheld Zionist principles. Nonetheless, competing conceptions of Zionism, as well as opposing views on the optimal strategy for realizing this project, have been there from the outset. While most of the arrivals to Palestine believed it to be land that God had promised them, a substantial minority went for reasons outside their control, pushed there by the "game of nations," imperial ambitions, unruly nationalist and religious fervor, and fanatical racism.
As a result, if some Zionists pushed self-serving interpretations of the Torah, others were satisfied with non-exclusionary coexistence in the land of Palestine from the very beginning. On one side, there were the fanatical right-wing parties pioneered by figures like Zeev Jabotinsky and his "disciples," such as Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir, and finally Benjamin Netanyahu and the settler groups known as Kahanists. They formed parties that splintered and then merged, adopting several different names over time. On the other side, there were movements and individuals who marched to a different beat and never bought into the idea that there was no alternative to a "transfer."
In fact, some ultra-orthodox groups, like the Neturei Karta, are anti-Zionist. They see it as a secular political movement that contradicts Jewish teachings. Many thinkers, secular scholars, liberals, and leftists also opposed the religious Zionists. To varying degrees, they oppose the Jewish state, falling somewhere along the spectrum of moderates who believe in coexistence and dividing the land, liberals proponents of a secular state, and radical revisionists of Zionism’s historical narrative as a whole.
Sadly, to the misfortune of us Arabs, and every sensible and moderate Israeli who is not keen on annihilating us, the eliminationist "transferists" govern Israel. Supported by complicit circles in the West, they have seized Western public opinion under the guise of the need to protect Israel.
Over the past two weeks, as natural sympathy for the suffering of Palestinian civilians was perniciously conflated with the morally reprehensible support of Hamas's latest operation, some Western politicians have made statements that every respectable and sensible member of the Jewish community would be ashamed to repeat... among them historians like Ilan Pappé and Avi Shlaim, the activist, author, and intellectual Naomi Klein, and the brilliant journalist Amira Hass.
Indeed, Amira Hass made striking remarks yesterday in an interview she gave from New York. Her voice breaking as tears went down her eyes, she concluded by saying that Israeli public opinion is “drunk with the will to take revenge” as “the Israeli government is carrying on the political program of the extreme fascist, messianic, religious, settler right-wing.” She then eloquently added that “history did not begin on October 7, 2023” (the day Hamas launched its attack). The implication here is clear; the complexities of the 75-year Arab-Israeli conflict did not begin yesterday.
With regard to the discourse around the Hamas attack, I watched part of the debate on a Lebanese political talk show in which views from across the spectrum were represented. One of the few positives that can be found in what remains of Lebanon - for now - is that such a wide range of views can be brought together. Nonetheless, I was disconcerted, though not surprised, to see that some Palestinian activists and their "supporters" - Lebanese participants who went further than the Palestinians themselves - remain captivated by the outdated and stagnant discourse riddled with empty slogans of the 1960s.
Still, worse than this intractable discourse, with all its “bravado,” "militant struggle", and “utopian idealism,” was the egregious disregard for the pain of people and suffering that has been inflicted and is being inflicted by the disproportionate, inhumane Israeli retaliation to every operation by Hamas and its allies.
One of the speakers shamelessly reminded the viewers and listeners of the lessons of history. In a self-righteous lecture, he explained that struggle and liberation require casualties. However, this speaker failed to explain how there can be "resistance" to Israel - which is backed by the United States - can be effective if the massacres and destruction are only seen on one front, while the "strategic ally" of the resistance complies with the "rules of engagement", exchanging fire with the enemy within predetermined parameters in South Lebanon.
Additionally, we failed to give a satisfactory answer regarding the "scenarios" that can be anticipated, in both Lebanon and the region, should Iran decide to carry out its repeated "warnings" and enter into battle to prevent Israel from focusing its destructive capacities on Gaza alone. On this question, while some Hamas have, in interviews, politely shared grievances against the posture that Tehran and Hezbollah have taken amid the "Gaza war," the situation is volatile in Lebanon in particular, and the other countries forming a "ring” around Israel in general. It will become increasingly perilous as time goes on unless the idea of a "transfer" is taken off the table.
Indeed, the Egyptians remained vehemently opposed to the displacement of Gazans to Sinai, and Jordan has always rejected the "alternative homeland" conspiracy. Meanwhile, Lebanon has always been wary of plans to grant Palestinian refugees, and more recently Syrian refugees a resettlement.
However, could Washington dare to open the door to dark uncertainty? Could it ignore all of these "red flags" to appease the Israeli right in an election year? How would Iran act and reap the benefits?
