Part 1/2
As'ad Abu Khalil:
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?