Iran's Unwavering Israel-Hatred - By Dr. Doron Itzchakov -
Four decades ago, the revolutionary movement led by Ayatollah Khomeini overthrew the Pahlavi dynasty and established the Islamic Republic of Iran on its ruins. Since then, significant changes have taken place in the discourse and concepts of its leaders. However, the Iranian political establishment has never wavered in its relentless hostility towards Israel. Once a friend to Israel, Tehran overnight became an archenemy dedicated to its destruction.
Iran's overnight shift from Israel's friend to its archenemy was a strange and shocking turn of events. The two countries do not share a common border, and there is no conflict between them regarding the presence of an ethnic or religious minority - including the Jewish community living in Iran. So what was the source of such virulent and apparently indestructible hostility?
To answer this question, it is helpful to examine the pattern of bilateral relations that developed between the countries not long after the establishment of the State of Israel.
Bilateral relations between monarchist Iran and Israel began to warm gradually upon Iran's de facto recognition of Israel in March 1950. Iran was the second Muslim country after Turkey to recognize Israel and even opened consular representation in Jerusalem. The relationship was established during a period of global and regional change that influenced Tehran's geopolitical status, both as a buffer between East and West and within the Muslim world.
Iran had to position itself in the new international order. It was a Shiite monarchy in the heart of a volatile Sunni region that was being shaken by new waves of Arab nationalism. At the same time, the regime had to respond to the challenges posed by the Cold War's bipolarity, as well as meet domestic challenges while stabilizing Iran's sociopolitical fabric.
Iran-Israel relations were formed as a result of a convergence of interests that took shape around four main interfaces:
- The oil trade
- Intelligence and security relations, which became the main axis of relations at the beginning of 1958 and grew in intensity after the July 1958 coup d'�tat in Iraq
- Trade relations, which expanded enormously in the mid-1960s
- The assistance Israel agreed to provide Iran in a wide range of areas, such as agriculture, rehabilitation after natural disasters, improvement of water resources, rural rehabilitation, and more.
These ties were considered anathema by many and were the subject of criticism both within Iran and abroad.
The revolutionary narrative presents Ayatollah Khomeini as the main opponent of the bilateral relationship and, indeed, of Israel's very existence. In fact, not only was Khomeini not among the first opponents of the Iranian-Israeli connection, but his rise to prominence in this respect occurred with the publication of the Basic Principles of the Shah's "White Revolution" in the early 1960s, though his age and standing enabled him to voice his opposition much earlier. In contrast, there were others, such as Ayatollah Abul Qassem Kashani and Navvab Safavi, who had preached against the nascent Iranian-Israeli ties since their establishment.
The reasons why Khomeini refrained from going public with his opposition until the 1960s are beyond the scope of this essay, but suffice it to say that he did not dare challenge the line of Grand Ayatollah Hossein Borujerdi - the marja taqlīd at the time - who advocated maintaining a separation between religion and politics. However, after Borujerdi's death in March 1961, things changed radically. The Shah's apprehensions about Qom's growing preeminence and his desire to establish Najaf (under the leadership of Ayatollah Muhsin al-Hakim) as the spiritual center of Shiite Islam roused Khomeini's anger and caused him to take a public stance against the monarch. Khomeini's ascendancy as an opponent of the regime was also aided by an intersection of interests between himself and the Egyptian ruler, Gamal Abdel Nasser - the Shah's main nemesis.
Muslim scholars, Shiite and Sunni alike, have long debated the question: Under what conditions can a Muslim ruler be overthrown? The basic premise was that a Muslim ruler is preferable to anarchy, even if he does not strictly obey Islamic commandments. This perception was considered acceptable among senior officials in the Shiite establishment, such as the Ayatollahs Khonsari and Shariatmadari. Khomeini, too, addressed this difficult question, publicizing the major change in his policy via the Basic Principles of the "White Revolution."
The "White Revolution" caused waves of resistance and protest throughout Iranian society, during which time Khomeini disseminated his worldview regarding the illegitimacy of the Shah's rule on the grounds of his ties with the US and Israel. In his many speeches, he combined opposition to reforms with revulsion at the Shah's rule and his relations with Israel. Khomeini's argument was that the connection contradicted the principles of Islam as well as Iranian social mores, and did not reflect the will of the people.
On June 3, 1963, Khomeini delivered a speech full of hatred against the Shah and Israel, and was subsequently arrested and imprisoned. In April 1964, the authorities granted his release and he returned to the city of Qom. However, in late October 1964, he was rearrested following a speech condemning the immunity law granted by Iran to US representatives.
In November 1964 Khomeini was exiled from Iran. After a short period in Turkey he settled in Najaf, Iraq, where he worked on forming a resistance movement under his leadership.
The timing of Khomeini's arrival in Iraq worked out well for him. It was during the reign of Abdel Salam Aref, who maintained close ties with Nasser and allowed him to increase his influence in Iraq. This made it easier for Khomeini to establish the resistance movement, which he called the "Iranian Liberation Movement." The movement contained various streams that united for a common purpose. It included elements from the national front, factions from the Iranian left, and branches of the religious establishment, which was not monolithic. Some followed the line of Khomeini, whose aim was to oust the Shah and establish an Islamic government. Others aspired to reduce the Shah's power and restore the constitutional monarchy.
Khomeini's teachings were based on the notion that Islam in general and Iran in particular were under attack by the West in a number of realms (military, economic, and cultural), and a counterattack was needed. In his proclamations, one can identify the influences of other thinkers, such as Sayyid Qutb, Ali Shariati, and Jalal al-Ahmad. A basic component of their thinking was hostility towards Israel. Khomeini emphasized that element to discredit the Shah and cast his leadership as illegitimate.
Khomeini elected to link up with militant movements that believed the political effort would not achieve its goal without violent resistance. The first was Hayat-ye moatalefe-ye Eslāmi, which was established after Khomeini's release from prison and which was involved in the assassination of PM Hassan Ali Mansour in 1965.
At the same time, a movement of Iranian dissidents, mostly students, began to organize outside Iran's borders. They established a militant underground group, Sama, which received training in Egypt. That training continued until the end of 1966, but differences of opinion between Nasser and the movement's leadership nearly severed the connection.
Starting at the end of 1967, and particularly after September 1970 (which saw both Black September in Jordan and Nasser's death in Egypt), there was a significant development of the connection between Iranian resistance movements and the PLO. Many activists from Cherikhā-ye Fedai-e ḵalq and the Mojahedin-e Khalq organizations took part in military training held at PLO bases in Jordan and later in southern Lebanon. In the 1970s, the triangular relationship among the Iranian resistance movement, Palestinian terrorist organizations, and Shiite factions in southern Lebanon intensified.
The most prominent Iranian figures in the relationship were Mustafa Charman and Ali Akbar Mohtashimpour. The former came to Lebanon on several occasions, but in 1971 he joined Musa Sadr and became a founder member of the Amal organization. The other, Ali Akbar Mohtashemipour, arrived in Lebanon (together with Muhammad Montazeri, the son of Ayatollah Montazeri) to assist the Palestinian struggle. He eventually became known in the collective memory as "the Iranian leader who founded Hezbollah."
According to American scholar Ervand Abrahamian, the militant organizations that took an active part in the Iranian resistance movement were divided into five categories depending on worldview, professional-social affiliation, and ideological leadership. However, for most of them, opposition to the Shah's regime reflected opposition to the bilateral relationship that had developed between Iran and Israel. It therefore served as a ground for cooperation with Palestinian terrorist organizations. The activities of the Iranian resistance organizations were occasionally combined with anti-Zionist and antisemitic propaganda.
After the revolution, with the establishment of the new order, resistance to Israel became an ideal to follow for both strategic and ideological reasons. It is no coincidence that the first guest invited to visit Iran after the revolution was Yasser Arafat. On that occasion, the keys to Israel's delegation building were handed over to him in appreciation of the warm ties that had developed between the two resistance movements during the 1970s.
The warm relations between the Islamic Republic and the PLO were not based on shared theology but on mutual interests. Arafat led a national movement that was far from Shiite Islam, and especially from Khomeini's concept of the "rule of jurisprudence."
For his part, Khomeini hoped ties with the PLO would bridge revolutionary Iran and the Arab world, but that hope was quickly dashed. The Palestinian leadership refused to adopt the principle of "Velayat-e faqih." To make matters worse, Arafat took an unhelpfully ambiguous position during Iran-Iraq War; the PLO held talks with Iranian opposition elements in France; and the PLO had contacts with Saudi Arabia regarding the Fahd Plan in August 1981.
Despite Khomeini's disappointment with Arafat, the Palestinian cause continued to be a central theme in his preaching. He based his speeches on Shiite concepts like the distinction between oppressors and oppressed and the principle of helping the weak. However, the main reason for his continued interest stemmed from developments that took place after the establishment of the Islamic Republic. Khomeini's ambition was to spread the "rule of jurisprudence" to other Muslim countries (he did not consider himself a local leader only).
His efforts failed because Muslim countries did not adopt his theory or embrace his teachings, but there was another reason specific to Iran's domestic situation following the revolution. Some of Khomeini's revolutionary associates began to rebel against his leadership and to resist his harsh stand against the opposition. Facing those pressures, Khomeini opted to unite the factions by focusing on an external adversary. This meant focusing anew on Islamic activism on behalf of the cause of Palestine. As a result, in August 1979, he declared the last Friday of the month of Ramadan "International Jerusalem Day" (Ruz-e Jehani-y Quds), which is marked in solidarity with the Palestinians to this day.
After Khomeini's death in June 1989, the Iranian establishment maintained his legacy faithfully in order to prove its loyalty to his path and to the revolutionary movement he had established. Khomeini viewed animosity towards Israel as a tool to be used to bolster regime achievements, and that animosity remained a cornerstone of the regime's behavior - so much so, that it became an inseparable element of its identity.
The Islamic Republic that emerged from the revolution is predicated on Khomeini's "Velayat-e faqih" theory that views the other - the adversary - as an integral component in the construction of a new collective identity. Thus, in the new discourse, Israel-hatred became a convenient framework from which to promote Iran's status (however illegitimate) as a hegemon in the Middle East.
A three-pronged set of interests exists among the Supreme Leader's Office, the Revolutionary Guards, and the conservative wing of Iranian politics. This three-legged stool depends for its stability on the collective assumption that loyalty to the legacy of the revolution's founder will consolidate the regime's power and influence both at home and abroad. As a result, faithfulness to the "Palestinian struggle" is maintained, despite hiccups along the way.
Palestinians: No Peace or Reconciliation with the 'Infidels' - by Khaled Abu Toameh -
In a recent move, Palestinians have begun resorting to Islam to justify their vehement opposition to normalization of relations with Israel. Palestinian leaders and activists have long cited political and nationalist reasons to explain their opposition to any form of normalization with Israel -- but Islam is a new factor in the mix.
The increased talk about the possibility of some Arab countries normalizing their relations with Israel has prompted the Palestinians to wage a campaign aimed at pressuring Arab leaders to refrain from embarking on such a move. The most recent campaign is titled: "Normalization is a Crime."
Palestinian Authority officials who are not known as particularly religious have been warning Arab states that normalization with Israel is tantamount to treachery. Mahmoud al-Aloul, Deputy Chairman of the Palestinian Authority's ruling Fatah faction (headed by Mahmoud Abbas), went as far as describing Arab normalization with Israel as a "stab in the back of the Palestinians."
Aloul and other Palestinian officials say they are opposed to Arab normalization with Israel because the Palestinians are afraid of being abandoned by their Arab bothers. Their main argument is that normalization with Israel should take place only after, and not before, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is resolved.
PLO Secretary-General Saeb Erekat urged the Arab states to abide by the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, which states that Arab countries would establish normal relations with Israel after a complete Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines, including the Golan Heights, and the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state.
The Palestinians, however, apparently feel that their appeals to the Arab countries are falling on deaf ears. They are convinced that the US administration is continuing with its efforts to persuade some Arab states to establish normal ties with Israel before solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Last week, these Palestinian fears were reinforced when the US administration envoys Jason Greenblatt and Jared Kushner visited the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The Palestinians perceive this tour as part of the US administration's upcoming plan for peace in the Middle East which, they claim, is mainly aimed at promoting normalization between the Arabs and Israel "at the expense of the Palestinians."
Apparently as part of their effort to thwart the prospective, but as yet unseen, plan, also known as the "Deal of the Century," and to prevent Arabs from establishing normal relations with Israel, a group of Palestinian Islamic scholars issued yet another fatwa (Islamic religious opinion) on March 3 warning against any form of normalization with the "Zionist entity."
The scholars are hoping that their fatwa will rally Muslims worldwide to the Palestinian campaign against normalization with Israel. By issuing such fatwas, the Palestinians are clearly hoping to turn the conflict with Israel into a religious one.
The Gaza-based group, called Palestinian Scholars' Association, said in its fatwa that according to the rulings of Islam, "normalization with the Zionist enemy, and accepting it in the region, is one of the most dangerous penetrations of the Muslim community and a threat to its security, as well as a corruption of its doctrine and a loss of its youths."
The scholars go on to explain that "normalization and reconciliation means empowerment of Jews over the land of the Muslims, surrender to the infidels and loss of religion and Islamic lands."
Nothing new here: these Palestinian scholars are simply reminding the Arab leaders and governments of what Hamas lays out clearly in its charter:
"The land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Muslim generations until Judgement Day."
The Palestinian scholars also warn the Arabs that reconciliation and normalization with the Jews contradicts the Koran, especially Surah An-Nisa (4:74), which says:
"How is it that you do not fight in the way of Allah and in support of the helpless -- men, women and children -- who pray: 'Our Lord, bring us out of this land whose people are oppressors?'"
Addressing Arab leaders and governments, the scholars ask, in wake of this Koran verse:
"If God makes it a duty to fight to save the helpless, how can we make peace with the Zionist occupiers and allow them to be superior over the Muslims in Palestine?"
The scholars are also sending a warning to the Arabs who have already signed agreements with Israel, including the PLO, Jordan and Egypt. The scholars' warning said that the Arabs who signed agreements with Israel have "reaped only disappointment and humiliation and did not liberate the Islamic holy sites."
The current peace and the current normalization with Israel "represents injustice and aggression against the Palestinian people," the scholars added.
"It denies the right of the Palestinian people to its land and falsely recognizes the right of the Jews to it. Reconciliation and normalization with the Zionist enemy is considered null and void and an explicit violation of the provisions of Sharia [Islamic religious law]."
The ruling by the Palestinian Scholars' Association is also aimed at sending a message to the US administration that Palestinians and the Muslims will have nothing to do with the "Deal of the Century." Moreover, it serves as a reminder that even if some Arabs do sign peace treaties with Israel, there will always be those Muslims who will denounce them as "traitors" and accuse them of acting against the Koran and the rulings of Islam. In light of this threat, it is hard to see how Abbas or any Palestinian leader would be able to agree to any form of reconciliation and normalization with the "Zionist enemy."
Abbas, meanwhile, is acutely aware that Muslims will condemn him -- and perhaps issue a fatwa calling for his death -- if he ever dares to make peace with the Jews. That suspicion might explain his recent comment during a visit to Egypt, when he was reported to have said that he does not intend to end his life as a traitor by making concessions to Israel. It now remains to be seen whether the Arab and Islamic world will endorse Abbas's stance and allow themselves to be intimidated by Palestinian Islamic clerics.
Future Egypt - Jim Fletcher -
Born in Old Cairo in 1954, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi is not a radical Muslim. As Egypt's current president (from a 2012 coup that toppled the diabolical Muslim Brotherhood chieftain Mohammed Morsi), al-Sisi is perhaps the most Western-friendly leader from this legendary country.
Recently, it came to light that al-Sisi is far more open to the Jewish community than any previous Egyptian leader.
New York political consultant Ezra Friedlander met with al-Sisi during a gathering to present an award to the widow of former Egyptian leader Anwar Sadat. From news reports:
"'President Sisi spoke fondly not only of Egypt's past vibrant Jewish community, but also said that should there be a resurgence of the Jewish community in Egypt, the government will provide every religious necessity required... that was a very warm embrace,' he said. 'He [Sisi] basically said that should there be a resurgence of the Jewish community, the government will build synagogues and other related services.'"
This is in keeping with a thawing of relations between Israel and Mideast states in the past few years.
"Sisi's comments came a couple of weeks after the United Arab Emirates officially recognized its small Jewish community, in a move seen as an effort to present itself to the West as a country that is tolerant of other religions. While there was never a historical Jewish community in the UAE - although there is now a small synagogue in Dubai - the Jewish community in Egypt extends back to antiquity. Before the establishment of Israel in 1948, an estimated 75,000 Jews lived in the country. "They were expelled in the 1950s, and only a handful of Jews are believed to live in Egypt today.
"The commission's founder said that Sisi also promised to clean up the ancient Bassatine Cemetery in Cairo, a cemetery dating back to the ninth century and believed to be the second-oldest Jewish cemetery in the world. In December, Sisi also announced a multi-million-dollar project to restore Jewish heritage sites in Egypt."
So is all this prophetic in nature? Well, the Bible does have things to say about future Egypt:
"And the LORD will strike Egypt, He will strike and heal it; they will return to the LORD, and He will be entreated by them and heal them" (Isaiah 19:22).
"Blessed is Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel My inheritance" (Isaiah 19:25).
One of the most awe-inspiring aspects of God's love is that He loves all people. All nations. Today, we live in a fallen world that is disintegrating, it seems. Humans cannot/will not solve their problems. Sin is the problem.
Yet God gives us the big picture and the future picture by letting us know that one glorious day, He will bring in righteousness and heal relationships.
Let us hope that al-Sisi's changing heart is genuine. We do know that he opposes the Muslim Brotherhood. Let us pray fervently that the Lord is beginning that redemptive work, as we look greatly forward to a future that is bright and holy unto the Lord.
THIS IS NOT SPAM...CHECK OUT MY BUSINESS.... THIS IS AMAZING!!!
I RELAX EVERY NIGHT WITH ESSENTIAL OILS. GO TO WWW.YOUNGLIVING.COM. IF YOU ARE INTERESTED, CONTACT ME VIA THIS EMAIL, AND I WILL GIVE MORE DETAILS. I PROMISE YOU THAT YOU WILL ENJOY THIS AS MUCH AS I DO. IF YOU ARE INTERESTED.... CONTACT INFO:
TERRY SEEMAN - DISTRIBUTOR # 16084320
TERRY SEEMAN - DISTRIBUTOR # 16084320
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.