Hossein Jaberi Ansari, the former Arab-African deputy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: The Palestinian issue did not start on October 7
Hossein Jabari Ansari, the former Arab-African deputy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran, made remarks at a summit held under the title "A review of Palestinian developments". The summit was held with the presence of Seyyed Hassan Khomeini and with efforts of the institute for compilation and publication of Imam Khomeini’s works.
He further said that the Palestinian issue did not start on October 7. The Palestine’s history should be examined from 1948 and even three for four decades before that. Because the problem were are now facing is nearly a century old.
Inquiring why the Palestinians launched the attack is a wrong question because it is arising from the portrayal of the Israelis.
Explaining further, the former Arab-African deputy of the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that the gap between the Palestinian government (Palestinian Authority) and the nation had created questions in public opinion. And some of these questions are of key importance and significance.
One of the key points to understanding and comprehending the Palestinian cause and also the Al-Aqsa storm operation is that the Palestinian issue did not start or emerged on October 7.
The history of Palestine should be examined from 1948 and even three to four decades before that. We are facing a problem that is nearly a century old. Asking why the Palestinians started the attack is a wrong question and it is a question arising from the portrayal of the Israelis.
The former official stated that the question "Why don't the Palestinians follow the path of peace?" The query from its very basic essence is wrong, he clarified:
We must find out where is peace basically?
“Peace began in 1991 with the Madrid process. This was while decades had passed since the beginning of Israel's occupation and for decades the obvious rights of the Palestinian nation were completely denied,” he said
Following the occupation of Kuwait and the promise that the United States had given to the Arabs, the process of moving towards peace began, and from that heart, the peace of Madrid and then the Oslo agreement were accomplished.
In accordance with the Oslo Accords, water is the sign of the Palestinian leadership, and finally they have a vision for him, and they killed him in 2004. No movement towards peace was seen after that.
My personal interpretation is that there is not only a living person in this coffin of peace that they have placed in front of the Palestinians, but there is also no corpse.
They are facing an empty coffin that is so-called peace, and it is natural that the elites and the Palestinian people are furious and frustrated about this situation.
The former official further stated that the late Arafat, the head of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) , was deceived once, but in 2000, when the negotiations reached a deadlock in the final stages, he had told the Americans and Israelis that I would not sign such a deal.
“It was because even the minimum rights of the Palestinians will not be secured with this deal and the Palestinian people will kill me,” Arafat said at the time
It is worthy to mention that the Oslo negotiations consisted of three stages: initial, intermediate or transitional, and the final stage. What they gave to the Palestinians in the initial stage
It was the administration of the Palestinian territories by PLO and nothing more. Howwith this, they wanted to break the backbone of the Zionist army.
It should be remembered that the intifada or the popular uprising was a direct result of the hope created by the victory of the Islamic revolution. The result is that there is no peace and all roads are closed to the Palestinian nation.
He concluded by saying that Ben-Gurion, Israel's first prime minister, had a threefold strategy; and believed that the confrontation from inside occupied Palestine should be transferred outside of Palestine.
The former Israeli prime minister believed that the use of surprise should always be on Israel's agenda, and he used to emphasize that quick wars and quick victories guarantee Israel's survival.
What Lebanon did in 2000 and Gaza in 2005 and what Palestinian elites are doing now is the exact opposite of Ben-Gurion's strategy.
Accordingly, they want to return the battle to the interior of Palestine, let surprise become an initiative in the hands of the Palestinians and wear them out with wars of attrition that are against Israel's will.
The strategic battle must be managed with a strategic view.
There is no place to surrender to feelings; Any action that is in line with the resistance's reverse engineering strategy and helps the Palestinian nation is a right action.
And any action that helps Israel's strategy to divert the issue from the occupation and violation of the Palestinians' obvious rights is a wrong action.