|
|
| The Islamic Republic of Iran and the Question of Palestinian Statehood |
 PRINTABLE VERSION |
By: Nima Shirali
Since the triumph of Iran’s ‘Islamic’ revolution in 1979, it has become abundantly clear that Khomeini’s arrival in Tehran commenced an era in which Islamic fanaticism would have significant implications for peace in the Middle East. To specify further, Khomeini returned from exile in France to actualize the ambitions of those which were aiming for the destabilization of the region. With his charismatic appeal and seemingly Moses-like aspiration in truly emancipating Iran’s people, Khomeini began the threshold of an era which would suppress the potential for Palestinian statehood.
From the outset of the proclamation of Iran’s Islamic Republic, critics of religious fundamentalism and the amalgamation of religion and politics (especially in the Middle East), correctly predicated negative consequences for Palestine’s people. In the context of reconciliation between the Israelis and the Palestinians, Iran’s Islamic Republic has undoubtedly served to take steps backwards, away from compromise.
With its blatant support for terrorist activity against Israel’s civilians, and its adamant dedication to eliminating Israel, Iran’s religious tyranny has in effect punished the Palestinian population. The Islamic Republic’s most dire punishment of the Palestinians has obviously been its devotion to perpetuating violence with Israel, hence inhibiting the possibility for Palestinian self-determination. In effect, this has served to invalidate the Palestinians’ true struggle for self-government.
To appreciate an analysis of the Islamic Republic’s relation with Palestinian statehood, it would help to elucidate the causes and motives for the Republic’s directives. Primarily, the newly-promulgated regime had an inherent interest in gaining support and recognition from its Muslim neighbors. Advancing the fiction that they were advocates of Palestinian freedom, the Mullas hoped to be seen as the most prominent proponents of the cause.
More recently, due to the current movement for democracy in Iran, the hardline theocrats have been inclined to reassert their political authority by ostensibly supporting the Palestinian movement for self-determination. Historically, this stance emanates from Khomeini’s aspirations in “exporting Iran’s Islamic revolution”. In attempting to realize this aspiration, Khomeini’s supporters manifested their support for groups like the Hizbullah, which adhere to the same extremism as themselves.
The clerics’ ostensible support for the Palestinians also originates from the need to divert attention away from their brutal policies governing Iran. These policies, which often resemble cruel medieval rituals, have been contributive to Iran’s current popular movement for democracy. The stoning of women and public hangings should be viewed as obsolete practices in the administration of justice, and not necessary in preserving some ‘Islamic’ form of republic. Needless to say, the juxtaposition of the words ‘Islamic’ and ‘republic’ is a stark contradiction in itself. This is due to the clash between the empowerment of the people, and the empowerment of a supreme religious leader (Imam). Placing this is context one can see why the theocratic government of Iran, which has found itself in a menacing contradiction, would want to divert attention away from home. Unfortunately, they have falsely calculated that support for terrorism would be the most effective means to achieve this objective.
The Islamic Republic is aware of the reality that terrorism is the most consequential obstacle to a two-state solution. However, it would help to realize that Iran’s clerics do not want an independent Palestinian state. If the Palestinians were to achieve self-determination, the clerics would no longer benefit from having Israel as their enemy. The creation of a Palestinian state would have two main consequences for Iran’s clerics. Firstly, it would be a cause for a decline in their seemingly influential role in ‘driving the Zionists out’. This emanates from the clerics’ interest in searching for an ulterior entity as an enemy, which would justify their extremism as well as divert attention away from home. Secondly, it would cause further unrest domestically since the failure of the Islamic Republic to replace Israel would be seen as a failure of an extreme objective. This can be correlated to the Republic’s failures in actualizing its extreme policies domestically. In turn, the creation of a Palestinian state would galvanize Iran’s democratic movement and would have unfavorable consequences for Iran’s theocratic government.
In conclusion, the Iranian clerics are expediently (as the ‘Expediency Council’ may suggest), exploiting the Palestinians’ true struggle for freedom in order to serve their own political ends. The Palestinians, ravaged by decades of violence, have unfortunately interpreted this exploitation as one helpful to their cause. Iran’s religious tyrants have been seen as allies by the Palestinians, not having realized that two things are happening. Firstly, steps are being taken backwards from statehood, and secondly, that the hardliners are benefiting from Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians. Again, this is implicated with the clerics’ desire in maintaining their religious and political authority and influence inside and outside of Iran.
|
Tags
You must be logged in to add tags.
|
Writer Profile
Nima Shirali
This user has not written anything in his panorama profile yet.
|
Comments
You must be a TakingITGlobal member to post a comment. Sign up for free or login.
|
|
