Israel, Gaza and Iran

Trapping Obama in Imagined Fault Lines


Israel, Gaza and Iran
by Trita Parsi

In talking about the assault on Gaza, neo-conservative pundits and Israeli hardliners have relied on a familiar frame. The fighting in Gaza, they say, is a struggle between Israel and so-called "moderate" Arab states (namely, Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia) on the one hand, and Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas on the other. In reality, Israel is fighting Iran in Gaza, the argument reads.

These imagined Manichean fault lines defy logic and reality. This conflict is the last thing Tehran would have wished for in the last few weeks of the Bush administration. It increases the risk of a US-Iran confrontation now, and reduces the prospects for US-Iran diplomacy once President elect Obama takes over - neither of which is in Iran's national interest. Rather than benefiting from the instability following the slaughter in Gaza, Iran stands to lose much from the rise in tensions. And so does Obama.

To Iran, Hamas is no Hezbollah

While there certainly is an underlying rivalry between Israel and Iran that has come to fuel many other otherwise unrelated conflicts in the region, not every war Israel fights is related to Iran. In this specific case, the parallels to the 2006 Lebanon war are inaccurate. Iran's ties to Hamas are incomparable to the much deeper relationship Iran enjoys with Hezbollah. Iran's close relationship with Hezbollah is rooted in the Iranian view that Shiite minorities in Arab countries are Iran's most likely allies and agents of pro-Iranian sentiment; consequently, backing Hezbollah is viewed to be in Iran's core national interest. In contrast, Iran's relationship with Hamas is a marriage of convenience at best.

In spite of its ardent pro-Palestinian rhetoric, Iran's relationship with Palestinian groups -- including Hamas -- has often been strained. Tensions with Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Liberation Organization were mostly rooted in Arafat's insistence on defining the Israel-Palestinian conflict as a secular Arab nationalist cause -- leaving non-Arab Iran with no opening to play a leadership role in the Muslim world's cause célèbre. Differences with Hamas, however, derived from a mix of politics and ideology. Hamas' intellectual roots go back to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, a Sunni fundamentalist movement. Furthermore, during the Iraq-Iran war, both the PLO and Hamas expressed support for Saddam Hussein.

Throughout the 1980s, Iran was better at offering rhetoric than practical support to the Palestinian cause, due to Iran's immediate security concerns. This changed in the mid-1990s, when Iran feared that the Oslo peace process was partially aimed at securing Iran's prolonged isolation and political exclusion. But even after the outbreak of the second Intifada, the Iranians took the lead in making grandiose speeches about Iranian backing of the Palestinian cause, but seldom tried to live up to the standards set in its statements. As I describe in Treacherous Alliance - The Secret dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States (Yale University Press), European diplomats in contact with representatives of Islamic Jihad and Hamas visiting Iran after fighting between Israelis and Palestinians had broken out reported back that both groups were utterly disappointed with their Iranian hosts whom they accused of making empty promises -- Tehran neither provided them with money nor weapons. A joke in the streets of Tehran reflected Iran's pretense: "Why aren't there any stones left to stone the adulteress? Per the order of the Supreme Leader, all the stones have been shipped to Palestine as Iran's contribution to the Intifada."

Again, history seems to be repeating itself. After daily demonstrations in Tehran in favor of the Palestinians, including a six-day sit-in at Tehran airport by hard-line students demanding government support for sending volunteers to fight in Gaza, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei contained the protesters by thanking them - while pointing out that Iran was not in a position to go beyond rhetorical support since "our hands are tied in this arena." Other Iranian officials have reinforced that message. General Mohammad Ali Jafari, commander-in-chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, declared that Hamas does not need military support to defend itself. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's brother indicated to the demonstrators at Tehran airport that Iran's support for the Palestinians would be limited to "spiritual support for the victimized people of Gaza."

Why Israel's offensive in Gaza should worry Obama

Tehran's complex, if not conflicted, response to the assault on Gaza can best be understood in the context of its broader strategic aims. By rejecting any material Iranian support or involvement in the Gaza battles, Iran's strategic imperatives trumped its ideological concerns and pretenses once more. Khamenei's statement regarding Iran's hands being tied resembles Ayatollah Khomeini's refusal to support the Lebanese Shiites by directly entering into war with Israel in 1984 through his edict that the road to Jerusalem goes through Karbala. That is, until Iran has defeated Saddam Hussein, it will not be sucked into a conflict with Israel, regardless of Tehran's ideological opposition to the Jewish state.

Contrary to the neo-conservative narrative that the fighting benefits Iran, Tehran seems to view the Israeli assault on Gaza as highly problematic for several reasons. First, there are suspicions in Tehran that Israel's offensive is a trap with the aim of drawing both Hezbollah and Iran into the fighting. With only weeks left till President Elect Obama takes office, any direct conflagration between Iran and Israel would significantly reduce Obama's ability to deliver on his campaign promise of opening talks with Tehran without preconditions.

Second, increased tensions and polarization in the Middle East undermines Obama's ability to pursue a new policy towards this region, including a shift in America's 30-year old policy of isolating Iran. In fact, polarization along the imagined Gaza fault lines - and a misleading equation of Hamas with Tehran - traps the incoming Obama administration in an involuntary continuation of the Bush policies that contributed to the increased instability in the Middle East in the first place. From the vantage point of Israeli hardliners, this may be a welcomed outcome since it will make compromise with Tehran more difficult and pressure on Israel less likely. Hence, Tehran seems poised not to help reduce Obama's maneuverability.

Third, the conflict is creating unwelcome tensions between Iran and key Arab states. Arab dictatorships fearing that the rise of Iran would weaken America's position in the Middle East and that the survival of Hamas would embolden Islamic nationalist opposition groups throughout the region - both of which would undermine these Arab governments' undemocratic rule - initially sided with Israel by remaining silent or explicitly putting the blame on Hamas. But as the casualties rose and the images of slaughter spread on Arab satellite TVs, the anger of the Arab streets reached the Arab palaces and courts. A similar pattern was seen in 2006 when many Arab governments initially welcomed Israel's air assault on Hezbollah in Lebanon. There, the change of heart had less to do with the images of Lebanese casualties and more to do with Hezbollah's surprising resilience and fighting power.

Though it is true that increased tensions enables Iran to score propaganda victories on the Arab streets, since many Arab states have either remained silent or secretly collaborated with Israel to defeat Hamas, this does carry a great risk for Tehran. If the fighting in Gaza goes on for too long, the spillover effects will be felt in increased Arab-Iranian tensions at a time when Tehran is more interested in soothing ties with the Arabs in order to minimize Arab disruption to any potential US-Iran opening.

The neo-conservative narrative and its imagined fault lines may temporarily add fuel to the US-Israeli alliance, but it will neither bring stability nor order to the region. Rather, it will push the Middle East further into endless conflict and restrict America's next president to a mindset and a policy framework that risks making the promise of change a dream unfulfilled.

Trita Parsi is President of the National Iranian American Council and  author of Treacherous Alliance – The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the US, a silver medal recipient of the Council on Foreign Relations' Arthur Ross Book Award.


Recently by Trita ParsiCommentsDate
Bibi’s Three Steps Forward, One Back
Oct 13, 2012
Mistaken Path
Jun 22, 2012
Give Obama Elbow Room on Iran
Jun 15, 2012
more from Trita Parsi
Darius Kadivar

Food For Thought for Trita

by Darius Kadivar on

Hi Trita,

Here is an article published yesterday in the Figaro Magazine in France. The Author's name is Amir Jahanchahi and claims to belong to the Secular Democratic Opposition ( which clan or party ? I don't know but not the MKO from what I have heard ). I don't know him but have heard of him as an entrepreneur. Thought you may be interested in his views of the current crisis and the role of Iran in the Region.

He suggests a cooperation between France and America's new Administration as constructive Intermediaries between all involved that is Iran and the West but also on how to curb Iran's ambitions while leaving the door open to dialogue.


Article in French ( hope you can find a translator) I leave the pertinance and interpretation of the article and views expressed to your own Sagacity.

Original Link Here:


Happy New Year to you and your staff at NIAC despite the Gloomy news and our differences of opinion on this question.





Great review by Abdol!!

by Jaleho on

I just would comment about Hamas not recognizing Irseal. Within which border? Israel's expansionist ideology has led to its never accepting a border. No one would recognize a neighbor whose common fence is not only undefined, but is proven to encroach into your property on a continuous basis!

Also, on Sharon's "unilateral disengagement," I think Sharon achieved more than just a prelude for gobbling up more of the West Bank. Here's what I wrote to Zion in Allah Akbar blog. You might add to these goals, any future money that Israel would demand from the US taxpayers to remove the settlements from West Bank, a double charge! That is, the settlers that were removed from Gaza to West Bank, would bo doubt get huge money AGAIN to put their mobile home from West Bank, charging the US a repeated $BILLIONS !!


Americans $10 BILLION enabled GAZA massacre

by Jaleho on

Zion, I wonder how long are you going to ignore FACTS and support slaughter of a people whose home and land your Israeli brethren have stolen, enslaved them in a place like a concentration camp, and is now pouring bombs in that closed prison?

The butcher Ariel Sharon (who deservedly became a vegetable but didn't pay enough for his crimes) begged and got $10 billion of American taxpayers  in the form of loan guarantees to remove 9000 Israeli thieves from GAZA. That is equivalent of every Israeli thief who had stolen Palestinian land in Gaza and put a mobile home there, getting about $1 million from American taxpayers as reward for his THEFT!!

Sharon achieved few evil goals all at once:

--Stole $10 billion from Americans,

--Froze Peace process,

--made a viable Palestinian state impossible,

--made it strategically possible for Israel to pour bombs on the head of Gazans who were trapped in a sliver of a land without killing any of the Israeli thieves. This is what in 2007  the racist criminal Israeli chief Rabbi Eliyahu has asked Olmert to carpet bomb Gaza so no Israeli would die even if 1 million Gazan died,


"Eliyahu ruled that there was absolutely no moral prohibition against the indiscriminate killing of civilians during a potential massive military offensive on Gaza aimed at stopping the rocket launchings... "

--Sharon achieved all these mayhem and theft while he called it "unilateral disengagement" for ugly propaganda spread by people like you.

The following is the Gaza plan, first appeared in Haaretz, Oct8, 2004, which I can not find now, but here's parts of it from antiwar:


"While Israel's military, purportedly on its way to get out of the Gaza Strip, is getting deeper and deeper into it, exercising its long terrorist tradition of forcing the civilian population to collaborate in massive killing and the destruction of homes and infrastructure, Sharon's top advisor Dov Weisglass made it to Ha'aretz's front page (Oct. 6, 2004):

"The significance of [Sharon's] disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process. … The disengagement is actually formaldehyde, it supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians. … What I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns. That is the significance of what we did."

In the full interview (Oct. 8, 2004) Weisglass elaborated:

"When you freeze the political process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and you prevent a discussion on the subject of refugees, borders and Jerusalem. This whole package called 'the Palestinian state' has been removed from the daily agenda for an unlimited period of time."


Nice article, thanks.

by Jaleho on

It is not just the "official neo-cons" who try to drag Iran into this.

The same US media that has been extremely effective in spreading lies for Iraq invasion, and has been busy doing the same for a redux in Iran, is hard at work, albeit with less success. And I don't mean the less effective FOX type loud mouths. I mean the more subtle and more dangerous ones like NPR.

The very typical analysis by Daniel Schorr , who sets the tone for any Middle East news coming out of NPR, when asked by Scott Simon about Gaza was: "Iran's proxy war."


Speech writing for Palin? (to Kashani)

by Anonym7 (not verified) on

Kashani says: "No time ever like in the current conflict, have people realized more and more, that IRI is the biggest cause and the biggest beneficiary of the conflict, and the reasons, as I said in my previous article, are as follows"

Kashani_jAn, neither your comment here nor your article are objective. You are confusing political analysis with slogans and rhetoric. Perhaps you could be a good speech writer for Sara Palin, your political knowledge appears to be better than hers.

Farhad Kashani

IRI is biggest cause and beneficiary of conflict

by Farhad Kashani on

No time ever like in the current conflict, have people realized more and more, that IRI is the biggest cause and the biggest beneficiary of the conflict, and the reasons, as I said in my previous article, are as follows:

- The regime needs to divert attention on itself to Israel. As the world is realizing that IRI is the center of chaos in the region and world, IRI wants to show the world that it is in fact Israel whose causing all this, neglecting the fact that by refusing to recognize Israel’s right to exist, the IRI and its puppet groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, have essentially made any peace between Israel and them impossible.

- By making Israel look bad, it will look good. One can notice that IRI’s propaganda machine bashes Israel using the same language that the World bashes it, namely lack of respect of Human Rights and engagement in supporting terrorism. IRI also bashes democracy and liberalism for failing to “provide support for Ghaza”, thus, making its own ideological brand, which is fundamentalism, look good and effective.

- By engaging Israel in proxy wars, Israel and Arabs both, especially moderates Arabs, will lose resources and world public opinion support. In the meantime, IRI keeps building its resources.

- IRI wants to come out as the sole defender of Islamic causes in order for it to dominate the Islamic world and dominate Islamic public opinion. That’s neglecting the fact that IRI has not fired a single bullet towards Israel, but it is screaming on top of its lunges for other Islamic nations to attack Israel. Even bashing countries like Egypt who has gone into wars with Israel 3 times. By engaging in a blind irrational hatred towards Israel, the IRI will come to mind first when one thinks about governments or groups who are standing in the way of Israel. That makes IRI appear to be “tough” on Israel.

- Making the U.S look bad. IRI has promoted this idea that Israel does not take a single action without U.S’ approval, neglecting the fact that U.S supports Palestinian groups and other Middle Eastern countries who have been into war with Israel and who have no relations with Israel, including S Arabia. And also neglecting the fact that U.S has brokered fair and just peace treaties a few times between Israeli and Arabs in Camp David and Oslo, and constantly calls on Israel to halt settlements and establish two nation solutions.

There are many more reasons, those are just a few.


Dr. Parsi is a good Iranian-American

by Jamshid Niavarani (not verified) on

I believe NIAC and Dr. Parsi will help usher in the new era of US-Iranian Relations.

After 30 years it is time for direct talks.

Ayat'Allah Khamenei will visit the White House. President Hussein Obama will visit Qom and Tehran and hold talks with Ayat'Allah Seyed Ali Khamenei.

And once again, it will be cool to be Iranian.

Just as it was when the Iron Sheikh became the World Champion of the world.


pround of the Jewish tradition

by Muslim iranian (not verified) on

Do not under estimate the Muslim Iranians. We are also well cognizant of the rich Jewish traditions. We know how much we owe to the wonderful Jewish musicians writers philosophers, doctors, etc.


Dear Awfully Ashamed, As one

by A n o n (not verified) on

Dear Awfully Ashamed,

As one Iranian Jew to another, I am awfully proud of our heritage that embraces even the awfully ashamed like you. You know we do not have anti-Zionist Jews or Gays in Iran ;-)


Awfully ashamed

by Iranian Jew (not verified) on

Please hear us too:



Early this morning, Jewish activists in a historic first in Los Angeles, chained themselves to the entrance of the Israeli Consulate and blocked the driveway to the parking structure, blocking all traffic in and out of the building. "We sent a clear message to the world that LA Jews are part of the global majority in opposition to the Israeli siege of Gaza," said Lenny Potash a 72-year old protester who was cuffed to eight other activists, blocking the driveway to the consulate. The activists were joined by 50 other supporters and who chanted "LA Jews say, End the Siege of Gaza" and "Not in Our Name! We will Not be Silent!" Protesters also held up signs reading "Israeli Consulate: Closed for War Crimes."


ISNA: Hamas is against permanent cease-fire

by Jang talab (not verified) on

حماس: با آتش بس دائم مخالفيم
ایسنا: حماس اعلام كرد نقطه نظرات خود نسبت به طرح مصر براي برقراري آتش‌بس در نوار غزه را به قاهره ابلاغ كرده و قرار است كه دولت مصر پس از بررسي و ارزيابي‌هاي اوليه نظرات حماس را به اسرائیل منتقل سازد.

نماينده‌ حماس در هيات اعزامي به مصر اظهار داشت ما در ديدار با مقام‌هاي مسوول مصري نظرات و شروط خود را به بررسي و گفت‌وگو گذاشتيم.

از سوي ديگر عضو دفتر سياسي حماس در دمشق در گفت‌وگو با شبكه الجزيره اظهار داشت حماس در حال حاضر نه طرح مصر را رد كرده و نه به صورت كامل با آن موافقت كرده است.

وي افزود حماس مخالف آتش‌بس دائم با اسراييل، استقرار نيروهاي بين‌المللي در مناطق فلسطيني و برخورد با مساله‌ قاچاق سلاح است.

اين در حاليست كه سخنگوي نخست وزير اسرائیل اظهار داشت تل آویو هرگز با آتش‌بس موقت با حماس موافقت نخواهد كرد كه اين فرصت را به اين گروه دهد تا بتواند بار ديگر به توانايي‌هاي نظامي و سازمان‌دهي‌هاي لازم بپردازد.

وي افزود هر نوع آتش ‌بسي با حماس بايد آتش‌بس دائم باشد.


The apologia

by Fred on

The misunderstood Islamist Republic would have been a more apt title for this head of the NIAC lobby’s lopsided apologia of the Anti-Iranian national interest policies of the Islamist republic.


The war of June 1967, was a

by abol (not verified) on

The war of June 1967, was a major turning point in the history of Israel and the history of the region. In the course of the war, Israel captured the Golan Heights from Syria, the West Bank from Jordan and Sinai from Egypt. After the war, Israel started building civilian territories in the occupied territories in violation of international law. So Israel became a colonial power and an imperial power.
The question remains, the legitimacy of the state of Israel within its pre-1967 borders. What is rejected totally, absolutely and uncompromisingly, is the Zionist colonial project beyond the 1967 borders. So we have to distinguish very clearly between Israel proper, within its pre-1967 borders, and Greater Israel, which began to emerge in the aftermath of the June ‘67 war and has completely derailed the Zionist project.
In a long-term historical perspective, Let us begin with the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. history of the Arab-Israeli conflict since 1948 can be summarized in one sentence, that throughout its sixty years, Israel has been remarkably reluctant to engage in meaningful negotiations with its Arab opponents to resolve the dispute between them and only too ready to resort to military force in order to impose its will upon them. And the current vicious Israeli onslaught on the people of Gaza is the climax of this long standing Israeli policy of shunning diplomacy and relying on brute military force.
President Bush described Ariel Sharon as a man of peace. I’ve done a great deal of archival research on the Arab-Israeli conflict, and I can honestly tell you that I have never come across a single scintilla of evidence to support the view of Ariel Sharon as a man of peace. He was a man of war, a champion of violent solutions, a man who rejected totally any Palestinian right to self-determination. He was a proponent of Greater Israel, and it is in this context that I see his decision to withdraw unilaterally from Gaza in August of 2005.
The withdrawal was officially called the unilateral Israeli disengagement from Gaza. I would like to underline the word “unilateral.” Ariel Sharon was the unilateralist par excellence. The reason he decided to withdraw from Gaza was not out of any concern for the welfare of the people of Gaza or any sympathy for the Palestinians or their national aspirations, but because of the pressure exerted by Hamas, by the Islamic resistance, to the Israeli occupation of Gaza. In the end, Israel couldn’t sustain the political, diplomatic and psychological costs of maintaining its occupation in Gaza.
And let me add in parentheses that Gaza was a classic example of exploitation, of colonial exploitation in the post colonial era. Gaza is a tiny strip of land with about one-and-a-half million Arabs, most of them—half of them refugees. It’s the most crowded piece of land on God’s earth. There were 8,000 Israeli settlers in Gaza, yet the 8,000 settlers controlled 25 percent of the territory, 40 percent of the arable land, and the largest share of the desperately scarce water resources.
Ariel Sharon decided to withdraw from Gaza unilaterally, not as a contribution, as he claimed, to a two-state solution. The withdrawal from Gaza took place in the context of unilateral Israeli action in what was seen as Israeli national interest. There were no negotiations with the Palestinian Authority on an overall settlement. The withdrawal from Gaza was not a prelude to further withdrawals from the other occupied territories, but a prelude to further expansion, further consolidation of Israel’s control over the West Bank. In the year after the withdrawal from Gaza, 12,000 new settlers went to live on the West Bank. So I see the withdrawal from Gaza in the summer of 2005 as part of a unilateral Israeli attempt to redraw the borders of Greater Israel and to shun any negotiations and compromise with the Palestinian Authority.
Israel says the reason it has attacked Gaza is because of the rocket fire, the rockets that Hamas is firing into southern Israel.
This is Israeli propaganda, and it is a pack of lies. The important thing to remember is that there was a ceasefire brokered by Egypt in July of last year, and that ceasefire succeeded. So, if Israel wanted to protect its citizens—and it had every right to protect its citizens—the way to go about it was not by launching this vicious military offensive, but by observing the ceasefire.
Before the ceasefire came into effect in July of 2008, the monthly number of rockets fired—Kassam rockets, homemade Kassam rockets, fired from the Gaza Strip on Israeli settlements and towns in southern Israel was 179. In the first four months of the ceasefire, the number dropped dramatically to three rockets a month, almost zero.

This figure are beyond dispute, because they come from the website of the Israeli Foreign Ministry. But after initiating this war, this particular table, neat table, which showed the success of the ceasefire, was withdrawn and replaced with another table of statistics, which is much more obscure and confusing. Israel—the Foreign Ministry withdrew these figures, because it didn’t suit the new story.
The new story said that Hamas broke the ceasefire. This is a lie. Hamas observed the ceasefire as best as it could and enforced it very effectively. The ceasefire was a stunning success for the first four months. It was broken not by Hamas, but by the Israel. It was broken by the Israel on the 4th of November, when it launched a raid into Gaza and killed six Hamas men.
And there is one other point about the ceasefire. Ever since Hamas captured power in Gaza in the summer of 2007, Israel had imposed a blockade of the Strip. Israel stopped food, fuel and medical supplies from reaching the Gaza Strip. One of the terms of the ceasefire was that Israel would lift the blockade of Gaza, yet Israel failed to lift the blockade, and that is one issue that is also overlooked or ignored by official Israeli spokesmen. So Israel was doubly guilty of sabotaging the ceasefire, A, by launching a military attack, and B, by maintaining its very cruel siege of the people of Gaza.
Israel calls Hamas “terrorist.” What is definition of “terror”?
definition of “terror” is the use of violence against civilians for political purposes. And by this definition, Hamas is a terrorist organization. But by the same token, Israel is practicing state terror, because it is using violence on a massive scale against Palestinian civilians for political purposes. They harm civilians indiscriminately. Killing civilians is wrong, period. That applies to Hamas, and it applies equally to the state of Israel.
Hamas was elected in a fair and free election in January 2006. Election were monitored by a number of international observers, including President Jimmy Carter. So it is not just a terrorist organization. First point is that, Hamas is a democratically elected government of the Palestinian people and the representative of the Palestinian people in Gaza, as well as the West Bank.
And the second point is that, since coming to power, Gaza has moderated its political program. Its charter is extreme. Its charter denies the legitimacy of a Jewish state. The charter calls for an Islamic state over the whole of historic Palestine. The charter has not been revived, but since coming to power, the leadership of Hamas has been much more pragmatic and stated that it is willing to negotiate a long-term ceasefire with the state of Israel for twenty, thirty, forty, maybe even fifty years.
Thirdly, Hamas joined with Fatah, the rival group, the mainstream group, on the West Bank in a national unity government in the summer of 2007. That national unity government lasted only three months. Israel, with American support, helped to sabotage and to bring down that national unity government. Israel refused to deal with a Palestinian government which included Hamas within it. And shamefully, both the United States and the European Union joined in Israel in this refusal to recognize a Hamas-dominated government, and Israel withdrew tax revenues, and European Union withdrew foreign aid, in a shameful attempt to bring down a democratically elected government.
Hamas hasn’t received a fair hearing from the international community, and Israel has done everything to sabotage it all along.
Hamas emerged in the course of the First Intifada in the late 1980s. It is the Islamic resistance movement. The mainstream movement, Fatah, was led by Yasser Arafat. And Israel gave tacit encouragement and support to the Islamic resistance in the hope of weakening the secular nationalists led by Yasser Arafat. It was a dangerous game to play, because the end result of this game was that Hamas emerged as the strongest Palestinian political party.
And Israel helped Hamas inadvertently in another way, because Fatah signed the Oslo Accord with Israel in 1993. It expected the Oslo Accord to lead to a two-state solution. And yet, Israel, after the election of Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996, reneged on the Israeli side of the deal. So, the Oslo Accord, the Oslo peace process wasn’t doomed to failure from the start. It failed because Israel, under the leadership of the Likud, reneged on its side of the deal. So that left the Palestinians with nothing but misery and poverty and frustration and ever-growing Israeli settlements on the land.


NIAC's official position

by Anonym (not verified) on

Has the NIAC voiced an official position on humanitarian grounds about this slaughter.

and if so through what channels. I want to know how Iranians in the Diaspora and specifically in the US can voice their humanitarian insistence for an immediate seize fire.