When the world stood against Hitler in the 1940s, Palestinian leader Hajj Amin al-Husseini chose to stand with Hitler against the world. The Nazis were defeated in 1945 and the victors supported the establishment of the state of Israel.
During the Tripartite Aggression carried out by Israel, France and Britain on Suez in 1956, American President Eisenhower took Egypt’s side and stopped the aggression. Gamal Abdelnasser was revived and he overturned against Washington and allied with Moscow. Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion then inaugurated the “Tel Aviv-Washington” highway because he believed that the future was with Washington and not with London.
These political choices were decisive in the path of the occupation state’s establishment and expansion. These were not Saudi options but the options of whoever handled the affair directly inside and outside PalestineFares bin Hezam
These political choices were decisive in the path of the occupation state’s establishment and expansion. These were not Saudi options but the options of whoever handled the affair directly inside and outside Palestine. Hajj Husseini and afterwards President Abdelnasser chose to be on the side of imagined victory.
Arabism voices were still loud with defiance and wanting to expel the invader. Victory in “the language of Arab steadfastness” is originally linked to defeat. Loss alone is repeated; therefore, there’s no shame in creating Arab victory our own way. The victory of defeat is the filthiest of thing to live on.
OPINION: ‘Arabhood’: A political story in ‘American’ English
It is as malicious as cancer’s harm in one’s body. The substantial difference is that this ‘victory’ controls all the power, and receives voluntary, insistent surrender. What further strengthens it is denying the defeat and shaming others. The victory of defeat is a hideous thing that even the filthiest history books in human biographies cannot tolerate.
Saudi Arabia's role
For the past decades, Palestinian parties sought to devise one role for Saudi Arabia, which is to first handle paying money and provide political support when it’s asked to. President Yasser Arafat’s path was familiar with this approach after he became the sole political and military decision maker and after he transferred the Palestinian affair from extremist ideological regimes to moderate states.
ALSO READ: Trump’s surprise: Negotiating with Rowhani
Saudi Arabia maintained its role in supporting the Palestinian cause. It did not impose anything on the authority, the country’s legitimate representative, or any political or military option. It respected the desire of the cause’s leaders, to provide financial support and political support. It supported them when they revolted, and it facilitated their task when they sought peace. Saudi Arabia was with the cause at each step despite the temptations of the solo peace, which many countries in the region drooled over.
It’s Saudi Arabia’s fate, when you grow considering your responsibilities and status throughout history and, not just in your surrounding areas but also in the wider scene, you must bear the whims of the little ones before those of the peers. When you’re responsible for more important matters, and one day in your tally is like an era being built, you have to get busy with what’s higher and safer for the house’s ceiling.
Ever since our early years and throughout the rich memories conveyed to us, we have known the kingdom as dauntless in its politics. This is true based on the kingdom’s history and honor that it’s the country of the two holy mosques and the leader of many international balances that safeguard world peace and security in an international system, while maintaining the 2002 initiative as the only solution.
This article is also available in Arabic.
Fares bin Hezam is Editor-in-Chief at Al Arabiya News Channel.