Thread by @asadabukhalil

A response to Rashid Khalidi:

1) I always say at the outset that I am indebted to Rashid: he was my undergraduate advisor at AUB and later served as my advisor for MA, also at AUB. He directed me and mentored me in my education and helped me in my PhD pursuits in the US.
2) Syrian regime and the Palestinians: I have always said that I would never forgive the Syrian regime for its military intervention in Lebanon in 1976 on the side of the Phalanges and their fascist allies (Israeli militias). Syrian regime saved those forces from defeat and Syrian intervention was coordinated with US and yes Israel. However, if Rashid was upset about that—as I am—he should also be upset about the betrayal of the Palestinians in Tal Az-Za`tar by the Syrian regime and also by Yasser Arafat, who betrayed the Palestinians as many times as the Syrian regime. And if Rashid was bothered (as I am) about Syrian regime alliance with the Phalanges at the time, Arafat and his corrupt PLO also aligned with the LF in various stages of the war and always kept secret channels with them throughout the war—even when they were slaughtering Palestinians. Read the pathetic letter that Abu Iyad wrote to Amin Gemayel AFTER Sabra and Shatila massacres (Gemayel published in his memoirs). Also, if Rashid is bothered by Syrian regime ties to LF (as I am) he should also be upset that PLO of Arafat supported in later stages of the civil war the Lebanese Forces and supplied them with arms. LF’s official representative in Israel, Pierre Rizk, was later made a special financial and political advisor of Arafat.

3) now on the question of the paper tiger. I feel strongly about this. Rashid refers to the Lebanese resistance in the last war as paper tiger. In comparison to what? To the PLO? The PLO used to run alway—LITERALLY—in the face of Israeli invasions. It happened in the invasion of 1978 and of 1982. And if Rashid wants to say but the Lebanese resistance today receive support from Iran, I will say to him: the PLO and the Lebanese National Movement received money and arms from the following countries: USSR, East Germany, Bulgaria, Cuba, China, Hungary, Algeria, Yemen, Libya, Egypt (before Sadat), Syria (in different stages to different factions), Iraq, and huge amount of money from Gulf countries which managed the glorious revolutionary leadership of Yasser Arafat. Despite all this massive aid, the PLO forces ran alway in the face of Israeli advances. In the PLO days, it used to take hours—HOURS—for the Israeli invading army to reach Beirut. In 2006 and even in this round, when Hizbullah received severe blows and its leadership was decapitated, it was not able to occupy any part of South Lebanon. And it was Israel which asked for a ceasefire (and Hizb) while in the past, Israel never accepted a ceasefire but Arafat would plead for it. In his book, Under Siege, Khalidi presented the PLO stand in Beirut as epic and yet: one battle in Southern Lebanese villages against Israel is more epic and heroic than the entire history of PLO struggle against Israel. As far as Iran being a paper tiger: in comparison to Arab armies? And Rashid (typical of many Arab intellectuals) only criticizes one Arab government (the Syrian regime) and the Iranian regime. Criticize them all you want but why sparing ALL OTHER ARAB governments which reached peace with Israel (which surrendered to Israel) any criticism whatsoever? Why? is it not noteworthy? Iran is a paper tiger which was able to send more missiles against Israeli targets than all Arab governments combined?

4) on Iran and its support for Palestinians being for its own national interests. OK. How did Iran support for Hamas and Hizb help Iranian national interests? Please show us and explain to us. Iran has been under savage Western sanctions and facing Israeli conspiracies for decades all because of its support for Palestinian and Arab resistance to Israel. It even armed the PFLP, which is a communist non-Shiite organization. How did that help Iran? If Iran were to end its support for Arab resistance, all sanctions would have been lifted immediately—unless you believe that the West’s problem with the Iranian regime (or with the Syrian regime) is about human rights. If you believe that (and it is possible you believe that) you need to explain how the West has absolutely no problem whatever with Gulf regimes, unless like many Arab intellectuals you believe that they represent virtuous democracies because they are rich dispensing funds to control Arab culture and academia. And if Iran helped Palestinians (and you mock their support for Palestinians when no Arab government EVER in its history—not even the government of Nasser who I admire—helped them as Iran has helped them militarily) for its own interests, why didn’t Arab regime help Palestinians just like Iran? If this would help their national interests. It is hard for people in the West to understand that Khomeini truly planted a doctrine which centers on Palestine and that those who follow Khomeini believe in that doctrine and for that Iran helps the Palestinians. And if this doctrine were to be abandoned, Iran would not be helping the Palestinians and you probably believe that Palestinians would be better off—relying instead on verbal Arab declarations and international legitimacy.

5) it really bothered me how you seem to mock the sacrifices of people in South Lebanon who have been dying since the 1960s in defense of their land. They defended their land in different stages (before there was even an Iranian Islamic regime) because like the Palestinians they have an attachment to their land. They have been defending their lands not for Iran or Khomeini or anybody else. You seem to basically repeat the talking points of March 14 in Lebanon (which has been aligned with the Israeli-Saudi-UAE agenda). And it is rich that you mock the resistance of the Lebanese when you and I witnessed the resistance of Hajj Ismail of Arafat in 1982.

I also want to say that in his last book in reference to Damour battle during the war: he relied in his account and the numbers on Phalanges claim, which are totally untrue—and I told him so.