On Tuesday, Trump unveiled his and his son-in-law Jared Kushner’s “Deal of the Century”, categorically rejecting the sovereignty and will of the Palestinian people, in fulfillment of “Israel’s” full-scale occupation and colonization scheme to finish off the West Bank and extinguish any prospect of Palestinian territorial, governmental, or military sovereignty.
The proposal, a Trump-style business deal meant to save face while cutting losses following US failures in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, comes at the helm of Netanyahu’s push to annex all of the West Bank and close off a complete occupation of Palestine. As “Israel” underwent years of failures with respect to its plans for external colonization, such as in south Lebanon and Syria in the occupied Golan’s Quneitra and Daara, it buckled down with its moves in total internal annexation and expropriation. “Israel” did this in the vein of Oslo, picking up where Yitzhak Rabin had left off with signing off the carved-out administrative and security zones in the West Bank to be set aside for a gradual and further procession of ethnic and territorial cleansing of Palestine actualized in the current “Deal of the Century.”
Though the political portion of the deal just unveiled following last June’s announcement of the economic portion, the parts that have been revealed before Tuesday, involving the multi-billion dollar development plans allocated to both Occupied Palestine and the Arab states around it, speaks for itself and exemplifies the material interest underlying any possible political proposal. The plan was brokered last June in Bahrain, a tiny oil-rich island hosting US naval 5th fleet and the US’s first military base established one year before “Israel” in 1947, where years of a relentless uprising against oppression have been hopelessly stifled by the Gulf regime and its neocolonial order.
The plans build upon these age-old schemes and initiatives by enabling “Israel” to annex all of al-Quds [Jerusalem], and over a third of the post-Oslo Area C subdivision in the West Bank, which, under the 1993 agreement had placed it under total “Israeli” security and military domain.
In the largest illegal land-grab since the aftermath of the 1967 Six-Day War, “Israel” would also be allowed to claim nearly every illegal settlement built in the West Bank. Included in this is the Jordan Valley, with, along with Jerusalem, carved out to extend and overreach the Zionist entity’s claims over Palestine’s eastern boundary and isolate Palestinians from their regional neighbors.
The plan claims to offer Palestinians some concessions in proposing a halt to all new settlements and sparing 15 locations in the West Bank from further settlement. However, the plan as it exists does not guarantee or ensure a complete moratorium on settlement-building; an irrelevant concession either way given the Deal’s nefarious demand of ensuring US recognition of all current and exiting illegal settlements and annexation of Jerusalem, all illegal under international law but with most recent settlements officially greenlit by the US in November 2019. Before the deal, an uptick of massive illegal settlement construction, daily violations and instructions of the Al-Aqsa mosque, a higher and more aggressive than usual uptick of forced removals and demolishment, and self-declared annexations by the Occupying entity were so endemic to US policy towards Palestine under the Trump administration where violence, occupation, and expropriation had operated more incrementally before. 2018 saw the US’s attempts at slashing UNRWA, a service that not only provides aid to displaced Palestinians but also recognizes their right to return under international law, the opening of a US Embassy in al-Quds [Jerusalem], the shutting-down of PLO offices in DC, and more aid cut to Palestinian programs, services, and institutions, including the Palestinian Authority in February 2019. This helped seal the deal for the upcoming deal, laying the groundwork that would ultimately position any concession a net gain in “Israel’s” favor.
From the December 2017 declaration to declare al-Quds [Jerusalem] as the so-called capital of the Occupying Entity rather than Palestine, to the mobilization to build an additional 10,000 illegal settlements in the last year alone, any lip service given to an unguaranteed halt to settlements has already been surmounted by the largest and most violent cases of land expropriation and forced removal Palestinians had to face since 1967. Just last month, a disabled man in East Jerusalem witnessed his home demolished for the first time in 20 years. West Bank Palestinians, especially in Jerusalem, are continuing to be forced out of their homes in droves, with demolitions and forced removals especially high in the last two years. Palestinian residents and families in East al-Quds [Jerusalem] have even been forced to demolish their own homes as “Israel” remains committed towards its relentless pursuit to seize al-Quds -m a practice commonplace before “Israel’s” anticipation of the Deal, but unprecedented in frequency since then.
These propositions, a means of continuing an age-old project with added characteristics of a renewed, neoliberal development deal, is meant to cement economically what is becoming unsalvageable politically. The deal calls for Palestinians to completely rescind the infrastructure for self-defense and resistance alike, adding to their already feeble military capabilities diminutive in land and absent in air and sea. Though this predictably calls upon resistance groups in Gaza to disarm, it will also force the Palestinian Authority, who post Oslo served as the useful Palestinian containment apparatus of the “Israeli” Occupying Forces [IOF], to also demilitarize.
Though the deal is meant to salvage some semblance of a pre-determined destiny imposed upon the will of the Palestinian people, it rather signals a grave level of defeat on the part of the American empire and its “Israeli” and Gulf allies in the Middle East. The US-”Israel”-Gulf axis is losing militarily in the Middle East and the “Deal of the Century” has been the US’s attempts at saving face in the region and consolidating its neocolonial hold on West Asia. Predictably, the shared political interests of Saudi Arabia, the UAE,
Nonetheless, the effects of the Steal-of-the-Century have already proven to backfire. As the “two-state solution” framework long upholding the discourse of the liberal peace shatters to pieces, Palestinians and their Arab neighbors in Yemen, Iraq, and Syria’s Golan under similar situations of military occupation and aggression will further actualize their right to resist, having long exhausted all diplomatic and legal avenues for peace and sovereignty.
The Deal comes as huge swaths of territory in Yemen, east of Sana’a and Idlib and Aleppo. In Syria are being liberated. Palestinians have rallied in Gaza, Ramallah, and elsewhere to mobilize a mass resistance and rejection of “Israel’s” impunity with theft. And this solidarity extends and will expand past Palestinian boundaries into other Arab struggles; Sayyed Abdul Malik al-Houthi, leader of the Ansarullah movement in Yemen that has resisted Saudi Arabian aggression for years, just called upon “all people of the region” to act in counter to the “Deal of the Century,” which he called a “US initiative to prop up Israeli occupation with Saudi and UAE money.” Hezbollah, honoring these efforts in popular resistance, regarded “resistance” as the “only option to liberate the land and restore the sanctities” in a recent statement condemning the American administration’s decision and the complicitness of its Arab allies, vowing that the Palestinian people will resist to overturn the deal before it can act on its depraved vision.
The $50 billion Trump is proposing to Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, and Occupied Palestine is not an investment or a package to the Arabs. It’s a bribe, and a package serving only “Israel” and its allies. The Trump administration mistakenly expects complicities of the Arabs of the region with this money, similar to that of its Gulf allies when given such transactions for development and arms deals alike. Yet, the mounting resistance against the Deal – and the reaffirmations from Palestinians that have long declared that Palestine is not for sale, have taken root to uproot occupation and colonization. For better or for worse, the two-state solution is dead – so it’s past time for the US, “Israel”, and the Gulf to face up to phasing out of its overstayed un-welcome in the region; lest all regional forces of progress, resistance, and anti-colonialism appropriately take it upon themselves to do so.
Tens of thousands of Yemenis took to the streets in the northern city of Saada, the capital Sanaa and elsewhere to protest the so-called “deal of century” unveiled by US President Donald Trump this week.
Yemen’s al-Masirah television network said the demonstrators carried banners and slogans Friday, decrying the deal and pledging to support the Palestinian struggle against the ‘Israeli’ occupation.
The protesters, in a statement, slammed what they described as the treason of certain “hypocritical Arab regimes” – particularly Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates – for supporting the plan and betraying the Palestinian cause.
The statement underlined that existing divisions within the Muslim and Arab world have emboldened Tel Aviv and Washington to carry out the measure.
The protesters called on Palestinian factions to unite and overcome existing rifts to liberate Palestine from the ‘Israeli’ occupation.
The statement reiterated an earlier pledge from the leader of Yemen’s popular Ansarullah revolutionary movement Sayyed Abdul-Malik Badreddine al-Houthi to support the “Palestinian and Lebanese” resistance in any future conflict with the Zionist regime.
Trump unveiled the so-called peace plan alongside Zionist Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on Tuesday.
The so-called deal would, among other contentious terms, enshrine al-Quds as ‘undivided capital’ of the Zionist occupation regime and allow the regime to annex settlements in the occupied West Bank and the Jordan Valley.
The Tuesday announcement of the deal – which all Palestinian groups have unanimously rejected – has aroused a storm of indignation and protest across different countries in the Middle East along with the condemnation of various international organizations.
Related Videos
تغطية خاصة لمسيرة لا لصفقة ترامب بالعاصمة صنعاء | 31 01 2020
تغطية خاصة | اليمن مسيرات مليونية بعنوان لا لصفقة القرن
القوات المسلحة اليمنية تؤكد وقوفها إلى جانب الشعب الفلسطيني في مواجهة صفقة ترامب 29-01 2020
البطش لمسيرة صنعاء: نعتز ونفتخر بالشعب اليمني
الزهار: “اليمن لم يحتله محتل، وكل من دخله دُمر، واليمنيون اليوم يرفعون أصواتهم في وجه صفقة ترامب”
تنتظر السلطة الفلسطينية منذ سبعة وعشرين عاماً تطبيق الكيان الإسرائيلي لاتفاق اوسلو الموقع بينهما، فيما اعتقد الاردن ان معاهدة وادي عربة التي وقعها في 1994 مع «إسرائيل» تزيل عنه أي خطر سياسي أو كياني ناتج من ارتدادات الاستيلاء على كامل فلسطين المحتلة.
فماذا كانت النتيجة؟
أعلن الأميركيون والإسرائيليون الطرفان الراعيان للاردن و»بلدية» محمود عباس في الضفة الغربية عن صفقة قرن تلغي سلطة محمود عباس وتنزع من الأردن الوظائف التي دفعت الانجليز في ثلاثينيات القرن الماضي الى فصله عن سورية وتحويله كياناً للهاشميّين الذين كانوا قد خسروا بالتتابع مشاريعهم في جزيرة العرب وسورية والعراق.
هؤلاء الإنجليز الذين كانوا يستعمرون المنطقة العربية من العراق الى اليمن، هندسوا ولادة الدول العربية الحديثة التكوين والنشأة لتلبية وظائف تسهم في تعميق المصالح الغربية.
فأسسوا دولاً حديثة غير تاريخيّة لتأمين وظيفتين: الأولى نفطية وتشمل معظم بلدان جزيرة العرب والثانية جيوسياسية لامتصاص قوة الدول التاريخية مثل مصر والعراق واليمن وسورية، فكان الأردن واحداً من هذه الدول التي أريد منها إضعاف سورية، ومنع اتصالها الجغرافي بجزيرة العرب، وإنشاء كيان أردني لا يُعادي «إسرائيل» وقابل للتحالف معها، هذا مع ارضاء الهاشميين المرتبطين دائماً بالاستعمار الإنجليزي في جزيرة العرب.
لكن البريطانيين فضّلوا الانحياز الى المشروع الوهابي – السعودي لاقتصار حركته على جزيرة العرب، حيث النفط الغزير والتخلي عن الهاشميين الذين كانوا يبحثون عن خلافة على مستوى بلاد الشام وجزيرة العرب والعراق واليمن. وهذا ما كان البريطانيون يخشون منه على الرغم من الارتباط الانصياعي التاريخي للهاشميين بهم.
لجهة السلطة الفلسطينية فتندرج في إطار حركة إسرائيلية أميركية أريد من تأسيسها إلهاء الفلسطينيين بكانتون صغير يُجهض تدريجياً القضية الفلسطينية دافعاً نحو صراعات فلسطينية لأسباب داخلية جغرافية (الضفة وغزة) او ايديولوجية (خليجية واخوان مسلمون، ومرتبطون بمحور المقاومة).
هذا ما حدث بالفعل لجهة صعود كبير للنزاعات بين منظمات فلسطينية، فمنها من رضخ منتظراً الغيث الإسرائيلي من أوسلو فيما ذهبت غزة نحو قتال دائم ورافض، واعتبرت أن تحرير فلسطين لا يكون بالاتفاق مع الكيان المحتل على مشاريع وهمية، لكن النتيجة هنا ذهبت نحو نتائج صاعقة على مستوى اتفاقات أمنية إسرائيلية مع سلطة عباس أوقفت الجهاد الفلسطيني في الضفة الغربية، على مستويي المنظمات المقاتلة والتظاهرات الشعبيّة.
فأصبح هناك «فلسطينان» الأولى مهادنة الى حدود الاستسلام في الضفة، والثانية مجاهدة الى مستوى القتال المفتوح في غزة من أجل كامل فلسطين.
لكن الإعلان الأميركي – الإسرائيلي لصفقة القرن، أبطل أحلام محمود عباس مؤكداً في الوقت نفسه على صحة تحليل منظمات غزة بضرورة القتال الدائم للكيان الإسرائيلي.
يكفي أن هذه الصفقة تلغي أولاً مفاعيل اتفاق أوسلو الذي كان ذاهباً نحو تأسيس دويلة فلسطينية لها حدود مع الأردن من خلال الغور والبحر الميت بسيادة نسبية وحق عقد الاتفاقات مع دول تجاوره اقتصادياً وسياسياً، وتشكّل غزة جزءاً منها على ان تكون المستعمرات الإسرائيلية في الضفة جزءاً من السيادة الفلسطينية.
هذا أصبح من الماضي، لأن صفقة القرن أطاحت بأوسلو وتطرح إدارة ذاتيّة لمنطقة فلسطينية مبعثرة تدير نفسها داخلياً من غير حدود وسيادة وأي نوع من العلاقات، مقابل تخليها لـ»إسرائيل» عن المستوطنات والأغوار والقدس والنازحين وكل أنواع العلاقات الخارجية مهما كانت تافهة، وتجريدها من السلاح.
بذلك تلغي صفقة القرن «اوسلو» التي لم ينفذها أصلاً الكيان الإسرائيلي.
فما العمل؟ إن أضعف ما يمكن لعباس فعله، هو إعلان التخلّي الفلسطيني عن اتفاق اوسلو الخائب وتحشيد داخلي نحو المقاومة الشعبية والمسلحة، ووضع العرب في موقع المسؤول عن هذا الانهيار من خلال الإعلام والمؤتمرات ودعوة الجامعات العربية والمنظمات الى تبني كل الأساليب لوقف السطو على فلسطين.
على مستوى الأردن فالوضع شديد التشابه، وهناك تغيير كامل لوظائفه القديمة الداعمة بعزل «إسرائيل» عن جوارها العربي وإضعاف سورية.
لذلك يبدو أن اتجاه صفقة القرن ينحو نحو اعتبار الأردن الجسر الحيوي التي تريده «إسرائيل» للوصول الى جزيرة العرب لتسهيل الاتصال الجغرافي والسياسي والعسكري مع الدول الخليجية الحليفة لها، من دون إهمال ما يطمح الكيان المحتل اليه من مواصلات برية تنهض بعلاقاته الاقتصادية مع جزيرة آل سعود ونهيان وخليفة وتميم وقابوس والصباح، فهؤلاء هم الهدف الإسرائيلي – الأميركي لإبقاء هذه المنطقة في القرون الوسطى، وتستطيع «إسرائيل» عبر الدور الأردني المواصلاتي قيادة المنطقة بتقدّمها العسكري والاقتصادي.
هل لهذه الوظيفة الأردنية الجديدة انعكاس على الكيان الاردني؟
إن المشروع الإسرائيلي الفعلي والعميق هو تحويل الاردن كياناً للفلسطينيين فينهون بذلك حتى الأمل الفلسطيني بقسم من الضفة الغربية مع غزة مجردة من السلاح لحي مغلق بشكل عنصري، وما يحتاجون اليه هو محمود عباس جديد يرث الهاشميين في الأردن الفلسطيني.
لذلك فإن مسارعة عبدالله الثاني الأردني وعباس الى إلغاء اتفاقيتي وادي عربة واوسلو، هو الوسيلة الضرورية لإيقاف مفاعيل صفقة القرن، وسحب اعترافيهما بدولة «إسرائيل».
فهذا أسلوب صاعق قد يثير غضب الرئيس الأميركي ترامب، لكنه يؤدي الى المحافظة على الحق العربي بفلسطين وسلامة الكيان الأردني من لعبة تغيير الوظائف التي تهدّد بتفجيره وسحبه من خريطة الدول العربية.
فيديوات متعلقة
عبد الباري عطوان كيف رد الرئيس عباس على الصفقة وهل سيكون الأردن الوطن البديل للمرحلة القادمة
عبدالباري عطوان أنيس النقاش وحديث حول كيفية افشال صفقة ترامب
The Lebanese FM Nassif Hitti stressed via Al-Manar TV that Lebanon categorically rejects the naturalization of the Palestinian refugees, but that it supports their right to return to their land.
Hitti denounced the so-called “Deal of the Century”, considering that it infringes on the peoples right to choose their destiny and violates the international laws.
“It is unacceptable to tamper with Lebanon’s borders,” Hitti said in a comment on one of the stipulations of the so-called “The Deal of the Century” which denied Lebanon its right to its Israeli-held territories.
The Lebanese to diplomat emphasized that he will convey Lebanon’s stance towards the US ‘deal’ during the meeting of the Arab foreign ministers in Cairo next Saturday.
The Israeli media outlets highlighted the Saudi role in the so-called “Deal of the Century”, despite the fact that KSA’s envoy did not attend the announcement of Trump’s plan.
The Zionist outlets confirmed that bin Salman followed all the process of the plan since its inception, adding that he used to send threat letters to the Palestinian officials in order to oblige them to approve the deal.
The Israeli media reports also focused on the accelerating steps of normalizing ties between the Zionist entity and Saudi, highlighting the enemy’s desire to open the file of the Jewish existence in the Arab peninsula.
It is worth noting that the Zionists interior ministry had decided to allow the Israelis to visit Saudi, as reports indicate a remarkable number of Zionists attending certain KSA’s historical sites which are symbolic for the Jews.
Idlib militants seem to be in disarray amid the developing advance of the Syrian Army. Since the liberation of Maarat al-Numan, government forces have achieved several important breakthroughs on the frontline in southeastern Idlib and southwestern Aleppo.
The army has liberated the villages of al-Qahira, al-Jaradah, Khan Assubul, Maarrat Dibsah and Ain Halbane, all located on the M5 highway north of Maarat al-Numan. Near Aleppo city, government forces have liberated Tell Maher, Tell Abiad, Tell al-Zaitoun, Tell al-Mahruqat, Jurf al-Sakhr, the Rashidin 5 neighborhood and one of the key militant strongpoints – Khan Tuman.
Most of these areas were liberated without significant resistance from Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda) or the Turkish-backed National Front for Liberation. Despite this, according to pro-opposition sources, up to 200 militants have been killed or wounded in clashes with the Syrian Army.
The setbacks of al-Qaeda-backed militants and their pro-Turkish allies has caused discontent in Turkey. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan claimed that Russia “hasn’t abided by either the Astana or the Sochi agreements.”
“We have waited until now, but from this point, we are going to take our own actions. This is not a threat but our expectation is that Russia will give the regime the necessary warning,” the President said.
The main point of contradictions between Turkey and the Syrian-Russian-Iranian alliance is the fighting of terrorism and the separation of opposition groups from terrorist groups like Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. Ankara does not want or just cannot separate its proxies in Idlib from al-Qaeda. So, it sees anti-terrorism efforts by the Syrian-Russian-Iranian alliance as a threat to its own interests and influence.
On January 29, reports appeared that Syrian government forces had shelled a Turkish military convoy west of Aleppo city. According to photos which appeared online, the shelling destroyed at least one vehicle. However, it remains unclear if it belonged to the Turkish Army. Turkish military convoys moving through Idlib often include members and equipment of Turkish-backed militant groups. So, one of these vehicles may have become a target of the Syrian strike. This would explain the lack of reaction from the Turkish Defense Ministry.
Currently, the advance of government forces seems to be focused on the M5 highway area. The army and its allies exploit the internal contradictions among Idlib militant groups who have failed to cooperate properly to set up strong defenses deep inside the region. It is no secret that mighty Idlib fighters prefer taking selfies to digging trenches.
Related Videos
استديو العاشرة 2020/1/30 تقديم :سناء محمود
اسود الجيش السوري داخل معرة النعمان رابط صفحة عشاق النصر بالوصف اسفل الفيديو
راجمات الجيش السوري تحول مواقع مليشيات تركيا الى رماد و تقوم بمسحها عن الخارطة في ريف حلب 30 1 2020
بلدة خان طومان اليوم بعد سقوط مليشيات تركيا تنظيم القاعدة في ريف حلب الجنوبي الغربي 30 1 2020
ابن ادلب ابو شام داخل معسكر الحامدية معرة النعمان اشتركوا بقناته على اليوتيوب رابطها اسفل الفيدي
الجهات المختصة تضبط أسلحة وذخائر من مخلفات الإرهابيين في يلدا بريف دمشق – موفدتنا ليمونة صالح
Turns out that Trump and the Pentagon were lying. Again. This time about the true impact of the Iranian counter-strike on US forces in Syria. First they claimed that there were no injured U.S. personnel, only to eventually have to fess up that 34 soldiers had suffered traumatic brain injury (which Trump “re-classified” as a “headache”). Then they had to admit that it was not really 34, but actually 50!
According to some sources, not all U.S. personnel were hiding in bunkers and some were deployed to defend the base perimeter. Whatever may be the case, this adds yet another indication that the Iranian counter-strike was much more robust than originally reported by the Empire. In fact, Iranian sources indicate that following the strike, a number of wounded casualties were flown to Israel, Kuwait and Germany. Again, we will probably never find out the full truth about what happened that night, but two things are now certain:
The Iranian attack was extremely effective and it is undeniable that all the US/NATO/Israeli forces in the region are now exposed like sitting ducks waiting for the next Iranian strike.
Uncle Shmuel has had to dramatically under-report the real extent and nature of the Iranian counter-strike.
Now, let’s be clear about the quality of the warning the U.S. personnel had. We now know at the very least the following warnings were received:
Warning through the Iraqi government (whom the Iranians did brief about their intentions).
Warning through the Swiss authorities (who represent U.S. interests in Iran and whom the Iranian did brief about their intentions).
And yet, in spite of these almost ideal conditions (from the point of view of defense), we now see that not a single Iranian missile was intercepted, that the missiles all landed with very high accuracy, that the U.S. base itself suffered extensive damage (including destroyed helicopters and drones) and that there were scores of injured personnel (see this article for a detailed discussion of the post-attack imagery).
If we look at this strike as primarily a “proof of concept” operation, then it becomes pretty clear that on the Iranian side what was proven was a superb degree of accuracy and robust ballistic missile capability, whereas on the U.S. side the only thing this strike did was to prove that the U.S. forces in the region are all extremely vulnerable to Iranian missile attack. Just imagine if the Iranians had wanted to maximize U.S. casualties and if they had given no warning of any kind – what would the tally be then?! What if the Iranians had targeted, say, fuel and ammo dumps, buildings where U.S. personnel lived, industrial facilities (including CENTCOM’s key logistic nodes), ports or even airfields? Can you imagine the kind of hell the Iranians would have unleashed against basically unprotected facilities?!
Still dubious?
Then ask yourself why Trump & Co. had to lie and minimize the real scope of the Iranian attack. It is pretty obvious that the White House decided to lie and to present the strike as almost without impact because if it had admitted the magnitude of the strike, then it would also have had to admit to the total powerlessness to stop or even to meaningfully degrade it. Not only that, but an outraged U.S. public (most Americans still believe the traditional propaganda line about “The Greatest Military Force in the History of the Galaxy”!) would have demanded a retaliatory counter-counter-strike against Iran, which would have triggered an immediate Iranian attack on Israelwhich, in turn, would have plunged the entire region into a massive war which the U.S. had no stomach for.
Contrast that with the Iranian claims which, if anything, possibly exaggerated the impact of the strike and claimed that 80 servicemen were injured (I would add here that, at least so far, the Iranian government has been far more candid and less inclined to resort to crude lies than the U.S. has). Clearly the Iranians were ready for exactly the kind of further escalation that the U.S. wanted to avoid at almost any cost.
So what really took place?
There are two basic ways to defend against an attack: denial and punishment. Denial is what the Syrians have been doing against the U.S. and Israel every time they shoot down incoming missiles. Denial is ideal because it minimizes your own casualties while not necessarily going up the “escalation scale”. In contrast, punishment is when you don’t prevent an attack, but when you inflict retaliatory counter-strike on the attacking side, but only after being attacked yourself. That is what the US could do against Iran, at pretty much at any time (yes, contrary to some wholly unrealistic claims, Iranian air defenses cannot prevent the US armed forces from inflicting immense damage upon Iran, its population and infrastructure).
The problem with punishing Iran is you are dealing with an enemy who is actually willing to absorb immense losses as long as these losses eventually lead to victory. How do you deter somebody who is willing to die for his country, people or faith?
There is no doubt in my mind that the Iranians, who are superb analysts, are fully aware of the damage that the U.S. can inflict. The key factor here is that they also realize that once the U.S. unleashes its missiles and bombers and once they destroy many (if not all) of their targets, they will have nothing else left to try to contain Iran with.
Here is how you can think of the Iranian strategy:
If the U.S. does nothing or only engages in symbolic strikes (say, like Israel’s strikes in Syria), the Iranians can simply ignore these attacks because while they are very effective in giving the Americans (or the Israelis) an illusion of power, they really fail to achieve anything militarily significant.
If the U.S. finally decides to strike Iran hard, it will exhaust its “punishment card” in that counter-attack, and will have no further options to deter Iran.
If the U.S. (or Israel) decides to use nuclear weapons, then such an attack will simply give a “political joker card” to Iran saying in essence “now you are justified in whatever retaliation you can think of”. And you can be darn sure that the Iranian will come up with all sorts of most painful forms of retaliation!
You can think of the current US posture as “binary”: it is either “all off” or “all on”. Not by choice, of course, but these conditions are the result of the geostrategic realities of the Middle-East and from the many asymmetries between the two sides:
Country
US
Iran
Air superiority
yes
no
Combat capable ground forces
no
yes
Willingness to incur major losses
no
yes
Short and secure supply lines
no
yes
Prepared for major defensive operations
no
yes
The above is, of course, a simplification, yet it is also fundamentally true. And the reason for these asymmetries lies in a very simple yet crucial difference: Americans have been brainwashed into believing that major wars can be won on the cheap. Iranians have no such illusions (most certainly not after Iraq, backed by the US, the USSR and Europe, attacked Iran and inflicted immense destruction on the Iranian society). But the era of “wars on the cheap” is now long over.
Furthermore, Iranians also know that U.S. air superiority alone will not magically result in a U.S. victory. Finally, the Iranians have had 40 years to prepare for a U.S. attack. The U.S. has only really been put on notice since January 8th of this year.
Again, for the US, it is “all in” or “all out”. We saw the “all out” in the days following the Iranian counter-strike and we can get an idea of what the “all in” would look like by recalling the Israeli operations against Hezbollah in 2006.
The Iranians, however, have a much more gradual escalatory capability, which they just demonstrated with their attack on the U.S. forces in Iraq: they can launch only a few missiles, or they can launch hundreds of them. They can try to maximize U.S. casualties, or they can decide to go after CENTCOM’s infrastructure. They can chose to strike Uncle Shumel directly, or they can decide to strike his allies (KSA) and bosses (Israel). They can chose to take credit for any action, or they can hide behind what the CIA calls plausible deniability.
So while the U.S. and the AngloZionist Empire as a whole are much more powerful than Iran, Iran has skillfully developed methods and means which allow it to be in control of what military analysts call the “escalation dominance”.
Has Iran just “ledeened” the almighty US?
Remember Michael Ledeen? He is the Neocon who came up with this historical aphorism: “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business“.
Is it not ironic that Iran did exactly that, they took the US and “threw it against a wall, just to show that they meant business”, did they not?
And what does this all tell us?
For one thing, the U.S. military is in real trouble. It is pretty obvious that U.S. air defenses are hopelessly ineffective: we saw their “performance” in Saudi Arabia against the Houthi strikes. The truth is that the Patriot missiles never performed adequately, not in the first Gulf War, nor today. The big difference is that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq did not have any high-precision missiles and that its attempts to strike at the U.S. (or Israel, for that matter) where not very effective. Thus, it was easy for the Pentagon to fudge the real performance (or lack thereof!) of its weapon systems. Now that Iran has been able to pinpoint some buildings while carefully ignoring others shows that the entire Middle-East has entered a radically new era.
Second, it is equally obvious that U.S. bases in the Middle-East are very vulnerable to ballistic and cruise missile attacks. Air defenses are a very complicated and high-tech branch of the military and it often takes years, if not decades, to develop a truly effective air defense system. Due in part to its tendency to only attack weak and lightly-defended countries, and also due to the very real deterrent might the U.S. armed forces used to deliver in the past, the U.S. never had to really worry much about air defenses. The “little guys” had no missiles, while the “big guys” would never dare to openly strike at Uncle Shmuel’s forces.
Until recently.
Now, it is the previously almighty World Hegemon which has been tossed against a wall by a much weaker Iran and thus found itself being treated like a “small crappy little country”.
Sweet irony!
But there is much more to this story.
The real Iranian goal: to get the U.S. out of the Middle-East
The Iranians (and many Iranian allies in the region) have made it clear that the real retaliation for the murder of General Soleimani would be to bring about a complete withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq and Syria primarily, followed by a complete withdrawal from the entire Middle-East.
How likely is such an outcome?
Right now, I would say that the chances of that truly happening are microscopically small. After all, who could seriously imagine the U.S. leaving either Saudi Arabia or Israel? Ain’t gonna happen short of a true cataclysm.
What about countries like Turkey or Pakistan which are formally allies of the US but which are also showing clear signs of being mighty fed-up with the kind of “patronage” the US likes to mete out to its “allies”? Do we have any reason to believe that these countries will ever officially demand that Uncle Shmuel’s mercenaries (because that is what U.S. forces are, paid invaders) get the hell out?
And then there are countries like Iraq or Afghanistan which have hosted a very successful and active anti-U.S. insurgency which has kept U.S. forces hunkered down in heavily fortified bases. I don’t think there is anybody mentally sane out there who could offer a even semi-credible scenario of what a U.S. “victory” would look like in these countries. The fact that the U.S. stayed in Afghanistan even longer than the Soviets did shows not only that the Soviet forces were far more effective (and popular) than their U.S. counterparts, but also that Gorbachev’s Politburo was more in touch with reality than Trump’s NSC.
Whatever may be the case, I believe it is undeniable that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are lost and than no amount of grandstanding will change this outcome. The same goes for Syria where the U.S. is basically holding on out of sheer stubbornness and a total inability to admit defeat.
Uncle Shmuel’s “vision of peace” for the Middle-East
Zionist Apartheid combined with a typically illegal land grab in violation of hundreds of UNSC resolutions. And they call that a “Vision for Peace”.
I just listened to the Idiot-in-Chief proudly present “his” Middle-East “peace” plan to Bibi Netanyahu and the world. This latest stunt shows two crucial things about the mind-set in Washington, D.C.:
There is nothing which the U.S. ruling classes will not do to try to get the favor and support of the Israel Lobby.
The US does not care, not even marginally, what the people of the Middle-East think.
This dynamic, which is not anything new, but which received a qualitative “shot of steroids” under Trump, will only further contribute to the inevitable collapse of Empire in the Middle-East. For one thing, all the so-called “U.S. allies” in the region understand that the only country which matters to the US is Israel, and that all the others count for almost nothing. Furthermore, all the rulers of the Middle-East now also know that being allied to the US also means being a cheap prostitute for Israel which, in turn, is guaranteed political suicide for any politician not wise enough to smell the trap. Finally, the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon and Syria have shown that the “Axis of Kindness” is long on hyperbole and hubris, but very short in terms of actual combat capability.
The simple truth is that the abject brown-nosing of the Israel Lobby that Trump has been engaged in from Day 1 of his term only serves to further isolate and weaken the U.S. in the Middle-East (and beyond, really!).
In this context, how realistic is the Iranian goal of kicking Uncle Shmuel out of the region?
As I said, not realistic at all, if seen solely in the short term. But I hasten to add that it is very realistic in the mid-term if we look at some, but not all, the countries of the region. Finally, in the long term, it is not only realistic, it is inevitable, even if the Iranians themselves don’t do much, or anything at all, to make that happen.
These grinning ignoramuses are doing more than anyone else to bring down the Empire, even if they don’t understand this!
Conclusion: “Israel’s” days are numbered
The Israelis have been feeding us all a steady diet about this or that country or politician being a “new Hitler’ who will either gas 6M Jews “again”, or wants to wipe Israel “off the map” or even engage in a new Holocaust. Gilad Atzmon brilliantly calls this mental disorder “pre-traumatic stress disorder”, and he is spot on. The Israelis mostly used this “preemptive geschrei*” as a way to squeeze out as many concessions (and money) from the western goyim as possible. But in a deep sense, it is possibly that the Israelis are at least dimly aware that their entire project is simply not viable, that you cannot ensure the survival of any state by terrorizing all of your neighbors. Violence, especially vicious, rabid, violence can, indeed, terrorize people, but only for so long. Sooner or later, the human soul will outgrow any fear, no matter how visceral, and will replace that fear by a new and immensely powerful sense of determination.
You heard Sharon, before he suffered his massive stroke, he used this phrase in the Knesset, you know, “The Palestinians must feel pain.” This was during one of the intifadas. The idea that if you continue to beat and beat and beat the Arabs, they will submit, that eventually they’ll go on their knees and give you what you want. And this is totally, utterly self-delusional, because it doesn’t apply anymore. It used to apply 30 years ago, when I first arrived in the Middle East. If the Israelis crossed the Lebanese border, the Palestinians jumped in their cars and drove to Beirut and went to the cinema. Now when the Israelis cross the Lebanese border, the Hezbollah jump in their cars in Beirut and race to the south to join battle with them. But the key thing now is that Arabs are not afraid any more. Their leaders are afraid, the Mubaraks of this world, the president of Egypt, King Abdullah II of Jordan. They’re afraid. They shake and tremble in their golden mosques, because they were supported by us. But the people are no longer afraid.
What was true only for some Arabs in 2006, has now become true for most (maybe even all?) Arabs in 2020. As for the Iranians, they have never had any fear of Uncle Shmuel, they are the ones who “injected” the newly created Hezbollah with this qualitatively new kind of “special courage” (which is the Shia ethos, really!) when this movement was founded.
Empires can survive many things, but once they are not feared anymore, then their end is near. The Iranian strike proved a fundamental new reality to the rest of the world: the US is much more afraid of Iran than Iran is afraid of the US. U.S. rulers and politicians will, of course, claim otherwise. But that futile effort to re-shape reality is now doomed to failure, if only because even the Houthis can now openly and successfully defy the combined might of the “Axis of Kindness”.
You can think of U.S. and Israeli leaders as the orchestra on the Titanic: they play well, but they will still get wet and then die.
(*geschrei: the Yiddish word for yelling, crying out, to shriek)
(Victor Rothschild, 1910-1980, the famous “Fifth Man” of the Cambridge Five Spy Ring)
Reprise of key article:
Here is proof that the Rothschild-controlled world central banking cartel is behind Communism, war and world government tyranny.
As the New World Order (“globalism”) reveals its ugly face–censorship, gender dysphoria, migration– this article reveals who is behind it. Most politicians and media are owned by the people who create money out of nothing.
In 1942, Sir Mark Oliphant, a leading British physicist was shocked when a messenger delivered a part from his new radar technology with a warning from MI-5 Security Inspector Victor Rothschild to “tighten up your security.”
A few days earlier Rothschild had visited Oliphant’s Birmingham University lab, quizzed him on his research, and pocketed the three-inch diameter magnetron.
But talk about chutzpah!
Baron Rothschild was himself a Soviet agent! Before returning the magnetron, he had transmitted detailed drawings to Moscow, a fact later confirmed by his KGB handlers.
Oliphant related this story in 1994 to Roland Perry, the Australian author of The Fifth Man (1994, Sedgwick and Jackson, 475 pp).
Between 1935 and 1963, the Soviet Union knew all of Britain’s military and scientific secrets thanks to “The Cambridge Five” a spy ring that operated in M1-5, MI-6 and the Foreign Office. Western intelligence agencies were rendered ineffective and Allied secrets, including the design of the atomic bomb, were stolen.
The traitors were Kim Philby, Donald Maclean, Guy Burgess and Anthony Blunt. But there is a natural reluctance to admit that “the Fifth Man” was Nathaniel Meyer Victor Rothschild (1910-1990), the Third Baron Rothschild, the British head of the world’s richest banking dynasty, which controls the Bank of England.
In 1993, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, six retired KGB Colonels in Moscow confirmed Rothschild’s identity to Roland Perry. Col. Yuri Modin, the spy ring’s handler, went on the record. Perry writes: “According to …Modin, Rothschild was the key to most of the Cambridge ring’s penetration of British intelligence. ‘He had the contacts,’ Modin noted. ‘He was able to introduce Burgess, Blunt and others to important figures in Intelligence such as Stewart Menzies, Dick White and Robert Vansittart in the Foreign Office…who controlled Mi-6.” (p.89)
You can understand the reluctance. The Rothschilds are undoubtedly the largest shareholders in the world’s central banking system. Victor Rothschild’s career as Soviet agent confirms that these London-based bankers plan to translate their monopoly on credit into a monopoly on everything using government as their instrument, ultimately a “world government” dictatorship akin to Communism.
It adds credence to the claim theRothschilds were behind the Bolshevik Revolution, and used the Cold War and more recently the 9-11 hoax and bogus “War on Terror” to advance their world hegemony.
Which is more plausible? One of the richest men in the world, Victor Rothschild espoused Communist ideals so that his own fabulous wealth and position could be taken away?
Or that Communism in fact was a deception designed to take away our wealth and freedom in the name of “equality” and “brotherhood”?
Evil and Rich)
MAN OF ACTION
According to “The Fifth Man”, Victor Rothschild had an IQ of 184. He was a gifted jazz pianist with an intuitive understanding of many scientific disciplines. He saw banking as a dreary affair and preferred the exciting example of his great grandfather Lionel Rothschild (1808-1879) who Benjamin Disraeli immortalized as “Sidonia” in the novel Coningsby (1844).
“No minister of state had such communication with secret agents and political spies as Sidonia. He held relations with all the clever outcasts of the world. The catalog of his acquaintances in the shape of Greeks, Armenians, Moors, secret Jews, Tartars, Gypsies, wandering Poles and Carbonari, would throw a curious light on those subterranean agencies of which the world in general knows so little, but which exercise so great an influence on public events. The secret history of the world was his pastime. His great pleasure was to contrast the hidden motive, with the public pretext, of transactions.” (Coningsby pp. 218-219)
Rothschild studied Zoology at Cambridge where Anthony Blunt recruited him for the KGB about 1936. (Blunt later said it was Rothschild who recruited him, which makes more sense.) Rothschild later joined MI-5 and was in charge of counter sabotage. He instructed the military on how to recognize and defuse bombs. Rothschild was a personal friend of Winston Churchill. Perry writes:
“The two socialized often during the war years. Rothschild used his wealth and position to invite the prime minister to private parties. His entree to the wartime leader, plus access to all the key intelligence information, every major weapons development and his command of counter-sabotage operations in Britain, made Rothschild a secretly powerful figure during the war years…The result was that Stalin knew as much as Churchill about vital information, often before the British High Command was informed.” (xxviii-xxix)
(left, only a society with a death wish would idealize traitors and dupes.)
Rothschild helped neutralize enemies of the Soviet Union who came to the British for support. For example, he was involved in the cover-up of the assassination of Polish war leader and British ally Wladyslaw Sikorski, whose plane was blown up in July 1944. Sikorski had become burdensome to Stalin after he discovered the KGB had massacred 16,000 Polish officers in the Katyn Woods and elsewhere in 1940.
In 1944, Blunt, Burgess and Philby all stayed with Victor at the Rothschild mansion in Paris. Rothschild was briefly in charge of Allied intelligence in Paris and interrogated many prisoners.
After the war Rothschild spent time in the US overseeing attempts to learn the atom bomb secrets. Due in part to the Cambridge Five, Perry says “the Russians knew about every major intelligence operation run against them in the years 1945 to 1963.” (xxxi)
CONCLUSION
Victor Rothschild held many jobs that served to disguise his true role which I suspect was that of a member of the Illuminati Grand Council. (The Illuminati represent the highest rank of Freemasonry.) He was not a lowly agent. He probably gave orders to people like Winston Churchill, FDR and Stalin.
For example, he ensured that the USSR supported the establishment of the State of Israel. “He knew the proper back-channels to reach decision-makers in Moscow,” a KGB Colonel told Perry. “Let us just say, he got things done. You only did that if you reached the top. He was very persuasive.” (176)
T Stokes wrote: ” In the Russian Intel archives Lord and Lady Rothschild are codenamed; “David and Rosa.” Rothschild and Churchill were inseparable during W.W.II. The bankers bought Churchill’s services in W.W.II for a recorded £50,000 to lobby for total war with Germany, and in W.W.1 Churchill had a bank account in the name of ‘Colonel Arden,’ to accept these secret donations.”
(Rothschild making Satanist hand sign) The fact that Rothschild was protected until his death suggests this is a ruling class conspiracy.According to Greg Hallett, Anthony Blunt, a fellow spy, was an illegitimate son of George V, half-brother and look-alike to Edward VIII, the Duke of Windsor. Until his exposure in 1964, Blunt was Knighted and Curator of the Queen’s art collection. He received immunity from prosecution in exchange for his confession.
Many believe this conspiracy is “Jewish.” Yes but “generational Satanist” would be more accurate. These Sabbatean Jews intermarry with Gentiles. The current Lord Jacob Rothschild, the Fourth Baron Rothschild is Victor’s son by his first wife Barbara Hutchinson, pictured above, a non-Jew who converted. In Jewish law, Jacob Rothschild is not a Jew. He married Serena Dunn. By the way, Meyer Amschel, Victor’s only son by his second marriage, also to a non-Jew, ‘committed suicide’ in 1996.
While Victor Rothschild pretended to “socialist ideals,” this was just a ruse to entrap misguided idealists. The banker was a conscious traitor. Treason is the template for contemporary politics. The central banking cartel is erecting its “world governance” dictatorship and anyone who wants to succeed must be loyal to the sick new paradigm and a traitor to the genuine old. While distracting us with sex and sports, our political and cultural “leaders” attack our national, religious, racial and family foundations using war, homosexuality, pornography, feminism, migration and “diversity.”
Clearly, we need new leaders who will stand up to the owners of the world monetary system. The destiny of humanity is at stake.
—— First Comment by James Perloff
I read Perry’s book years ago; it was very enlightening, and further affirmed the intimacy between bankers and communists. The Fabian Society’s Nicholas Murray Butler explained it well in 1937: “Communism is the instrument with which the financial world can topple national governments and then erect a world government with a world police and a world money.” The Protocols of Zion also affirmed it: “We appear on the scene as alleged saviors of the worker from this oppression when we propose to him to enter the ranks of our fighting forces – Socialists, Anarchists, Communists . . . . By want and the envy and hatred which it engenders we shall move the mobs and with their hands shall wipe out all those who hinder us on our way.” The only reason Victor Rothschild gave Britain’s World War 2 nuclear secrets to the USSR instead of Israel: Israel did not yet exist! The Soviet Union was the Rothschilds’ first proxy state. But with the establishment of their REAL proxy state–Israel–in 1948, the Soviets became expendable. So we had the Cold War, which gave the Zionists a pretext for building up and weaponizing Israel as our “ally.” Then, in the mid 1980s, the Rothschilds were ready to have America switch its enemies. In 1985, Gorbachev came to power, signalling the end of the Cold War, and in 1986 Reagan bombed Libya based on a Mossad ruse, marking the start of the “War on Terror.” After all, the goyim couldn’t very well die fighting Muslims for Israel in Middle East wars if the dreaded Commies were still a threat.—————–NK wrote- ROTHSCHILD WAS A SOVIET AGENT In the sixties the Daily Express ran a sensational series of articles on Soviet penetration and control of the UK, it made the reputation of the journalist Chapman Pincher. Intel personel said their fears were being ignored so began to whistleblow My stepfather worked for the Express, and he would come home with astonishing news the world beating British aircraft the TSR2 was cancelled by Socialist sympathizers who wanted to weaken the UK defence capability Peter Wright and Trevor Stokes, and to a lesser extent Arthur Martin, were passing on info direct to the British public. Stokes said Rothschild was not the 5th man he was the first man Stokes said all along Philby was a traitor and so was Blunt, and its untrue that Rothschild had an intelligence rating of 184. Peter Wright left Marconi to work for our intel people,Rothschild told him if the the government do not honour your old age pension i will make it up, when Wright retired he was only entitled to a very small pension , and Rothschild the worlds richest man went back on his word, so wright wrote a tell all book naming Rothschild, Rothschild sent Wright a first class ticket to come to the UK to discuss it Rothschilds threats meant the first chapter on Rothschild and the jews getting the UK into 2 world wars, was removed. This man Stokes was one of those who interviewed Bunt on spying homosexual killings of young boys and running messages from our Royals to Hitler, also said all along Winston Churchill was a spy for Russia, and the defector Anatoli Vrinski passed over the same info that Constantin Volkov did, that Churchill worked for Rothschild. Cambridge was a vile nest of socialists, its tutors were put in place by Rothschild.
If “Israel” has to go to war tomorrow against Iran or Hezbollah, there’s a problem.
The “Israeli” mechanized division that would fight at the entity’s northern border, or enter Syria or Lebanon, are in bad shape.
The 319th Division, stationed in northern “Israeli” occupied Palestinian territories, is short of equipment such as tanks, and the equipment it does have is in poor condition, according to an “Israel” Occupation Forces [IOF] audit cited by “Israeli” news site Ynet.
“According to the audit’s findings, 52 percent of combat vehicles are unfit for use and there is a 20 percent shortage of weapons and night-vision equipment for soldiers,” Ynet said.
The auditors found that many armored vehicles were lacking during proper maintenance checks, with 68 of them sitting uncovered and unprotected against the elements. Dozens of other vehicles were found unusable due to faulty tires and broken engines, and only 34 percent of oil tankers and more than 33 percent of cranes were also found to be unusable.
The Ynet article was accompanied by photographs that showed vehicles in a dilapidated condition or unprotected by tarps against the elements.
Auditors found that the problem extended to the entity’s 319th Division’s support units, as well. “The Northern Command’s logistics unit, upon which the 319th Division relies in times of war, has a shortage in communications equipment and vehicles for medical evacuation, and the division’s medical unit hasn’t had a commanding officer or lieutenant for almost a year.”
One reason for the 319th Division’s woes is that there isn’t enough equipment to meet both operational and training needs. “The audit found that about half of the 319th Division’s Mark 4 Merkava tanks and almost 100 communication devices have been lent to the Armored Corps training unit, located more than 350 kilometers [217 miles] from their main storage and maintenance areas in the north,” Ynet said.
These tanks are worn out, impairing their emergency and combat capabilities.
According to a high-ranking officer in the IOF Northern Command “the issue of lending equipment and armored vehicles is a military decision, citing the Mark 4’s production lines being incapable of accommodating both the standard and training units”.
Yet the 319th Division’s woes reflect a larger pattern in the IOF. In the 2006 “Israeli” aggression on Lebanon, “Israeli” troops suffered from shortages of basic items, from food and water to ammunition, IOF – which prides itself on flexibility to rapidly adapt to the chaos of battle – bases its approach on the mission-oriented tactics of the World War II German army. Yet despite being a virtuoso on the battlefield, the Wehrmacht’s logistics skills were often lacking: German troops constantly ran out of fuel, ammunition and food during Operation Barbarossa, the 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union.
Sometimes a nation has sufficient time and strategic depth to remedy logistical shortfalls. But as this writer learned while observing an “Israeli” armored brigade on maneuvers along the occupied Golan Heights in February 2019, the IOF may have only hours to prepare for battle along the entity’s northern border.
Time to fix mistakes is a luxury the “Israeli” entity does not have.
ليس هناك أدنى شك في أنّ ترامب ونتنياهو يستغلان ما تمرّ به المنطقة وسورية تحديداً لتمرير ما بات يُعرَف بصفقة القرن، والتي هي حرب وجودية تستهدف شعبنا في فلسطين الذي أدارت له أنظمة التطبيع العربية ظهرها، فيما بقيت سورية الجبهة الأخيرة التي تقاوم المشروع الصهيوني في المنطقة، ولذلك تمّ استهدافها لإضعافها والنيل من دورها الريادي المقاوم للمشروع الصهيو– أميركي.
صفقة القرن كشفت أمرين أساسيين وأكدت عليهما، الأمر الأول هو حجم التحالف بين العدو “الإسرائيلي” وبعض الأنظمة العربية والشوط الكبير الذي قطعته العلاقات بينهما من تطبيع علنّي وصفقات تجارية، حتى أنّ السعودية لم تجد حرجاً في تأييد صفقة القرن بموقف تثمّن فيه “الدور الذي تقوم به أميركا في دعم عملية السلام”! وسبق الموقف السعودي الداعم لصفقة القرن إعلان الكيان الصهيونيّ السماح للصهاينة بالذهاب إلى السعودية، ولم يصدر عن الرياض أيّ موقف رافض، ما يعني أنّ هذا الأمر منسّق مع النظام السعودي وهو جزء من عملية التطبيع.
أما الأمر الثاني فهو متصل بالأول، ففي ظلّ تهافت العديد من الأنظمة العربية للتطبيع مع العدو، فهذا يؤكد تآمر هذه الأنظمة المتهافتة على المسألة الفلسطينية، وبأنها ليست في حالة صراع مع العدو، الأمر الذي يرسّخ فكرة أنّ الصراع الحقيقيّ بالمعنى القومي هو صراع سوريّ – صهيونيّ، وأنّالدول السوريةالتي تشكل المحيط الطبيعي لفلسطين، أيّ لبنان والشام والأردن والعراق هي المعنية بخوض المواجهة المصيريّة، وهي التي تتحمّل تبعات الاحتلال والحرب على فلسطين منذ العام 1948.
نحن لا نغفل البعد العربي والإسلامي والمسيحي والإنساني للمسألة الفلسطينية، ولكن التعويل اليوم هو على مقاومة شعبنا، والبناء على نفسيته المقاومة المستندة إلى إرث عريق في مقاومة المحتلّ وطرده. وهذا يتطلب المزيد من الالتفاف حول سورية ودعمها لتعزيز صمودها وتثمير إنجازاتها العسكرية للاستمرار في مشروع المقاومة الكبرى وهو مقاومة المحتلّ «الإسرائيلي». فسورية لا تستطيع أن ترفع شعار سورية أولاً ولا تستطيع أن تدير ظهرها لفلسطين، كما فعلت أنظمة التطبيع العربية.
سورية حاضنة المقاومة، هي آخر القلاع وآخر الجبهات وآخر الآمال، وانتصارها هو انتصار لفلسطين والجولان والإسكندرون وكلّ الأمة. وكما يقول الشاعر القومي محمد يوسف حمود:
مــا خـطــونــا خـطــوة إلا ذكــرنــا مـيـســلـونــا
عانى لبنان خلال قرن كامل من أولوية الخيارات الإقليمية والخارجية على الخيارات والشؤون الداخلية في رسم الاصطفاف السياسي، بخلاف كل دول العالم التي توحّدها رؤية مشتركة في المفاصل الكبرى لرسم المصالح الوطنية تحتوي اصطفافات داخلية في مواقع متباينة؛ بينما لبنان منذ انقسام اللبنانيين حول الانضمام لدولة الملك فيصل في دمشق، كما قالت مؤتمرات الساحل، أو الاحتفال بلبنان الكبير كما كان خيار زعماء جبل لبنان، منقسم حول الخيارات الإقليمية، بين الدخول في حلف بغداد أو الوقوف مع جمال عبد الناصر، وبين الوقوف مع المقاومة الفلسطينية أو اعتبارها خطراً على السيادة اللبنانية، حتى عندما وقع الاحتلال الإسرائيلي انقسم حوله اللبنانيون، وخلال مسيرة المقاومة تواصل الانقسام ولو تغيّرت الشعارات، وبعد التحرير تغيّرت مرة أخرى الشعارات وتعمق الانقسام، وبقي لبنان عندما ينتصر يشعر بعض الداخل بمرارة الهزيمة، وعندما يسقط صريعاً يشعر بعض الداخل بنشوة النصر، ودائماً كانت القضايا التي تتشكّل منها السياسة في أي بلد تصير ثانوية في لبنان بسبب هذا التشوّه البنيويّ.
–
ما حملته صفقة القرن من تحدٍّ وجودي للبنان واللبنانيين، أظهر جملة إشارات لفرصة لبنانية تحمل بعض الأمل بتغير قواعد الاشتباك بين القوى السياسية الوازنة، فتلاقى موقف رئيس الجمهورية ورئيس مجلس النواب ورئيس الحكومة مع مواقف أطراف الغالبية وأغلب المعارضة. ويجب النظر بتمعن في موقف تيار المستقبل بصفته القوة الوازنة في الجبهة المقابلة للحكومة، الذي عبر عن تشخيص مخاطر الصفقة وحتميّة مواجهتها، والتمسك بحقوق الشعب الفلسطيني، ودعم نضاله لإسقاط الصفقة، والتمسك بحق العودة ورفض التوطين، والذي ختم بالقول إن الصفقة لن تمرّ، وبالتوازي شهدت ساحات الحراك رغم جفاف الحشود الذي تعانيه منذ أسابيع حركة لافتة لمجموعات خرجت بهتافات تضامنيّة مع الشعب الفلسطيني وقضيته، وهي تهتف “تسقط تسقط إسرائيل”، والحراك هو الضفة الثانية التي يهمّ رصد حركتها لرسم المشهد السياسي المقبل.
–
بين الشعور بالخوف والقلق من أن تشكل الانقسامات اللبنانية من لبنان الخاصرة الرخوة التي تتلقى كل العائدات السلبية للتحولات الإقليمية، والخوف من ضغوط مالية لفرض تحوّلات بنيوية تفجر الداخل اللبناني بعنوان التوطين، وتجعل الطوائف في حال استنفار ديمغرافي وجودي تتهم بعضها بعضاً بالتواطؤ والتآمر، والقلق من استغلال الوضع المالي لفرض إملاءات لتعديل الحدود الدولية للبنان التي تجاهلتها خرائط صفقة القرن ودعت لتفاوض على ترسيمها، وفي قلبها ثروات النفط والغاز، تتوافر فرصة هامة لتصويب مسار السياسة في لبنان المختلّ منذ قرن، فيلتقي اللبنانيون لحماية المصالح العليا لدولتهم ووطنهم، ويحفظون حق الاختلاف على شؤون السياسة المحلية، كتعبير عن استقامة فهمهم للسياسة بعد طول غياب، لأن لا أحد يدعو للربط بين المسؤوليّة الوطنية عن موقف جامع بوجه صفقة القرن ومخاطرها، وبين الخلافات السياسيّة الداخلية المشروعة، والتي يترتب على فصلها عن مساعي التوظيف في الاصطفاف التصادمي على ضفاف السياسات الخارجية، وضعها في إطارها الطبيعي وإدارتها تحت سقف الأمن الوطني بمفهومه الكبير، القائم على قواعد اللعبة الديمقراطية واحترام أصولها.
–
الاختبار الحقيقي لصدقيّة هذه الفرصة يتمثل بعدم الاكتفاء بموقف يتيم يليه صمت القبور، بل بقدرة الأطراف السياسية على التصرف كجبهة موحّدة في التصدي للمخاطر التي تستهدف لبنان، وقد باتت محدقة وواضحة المصدر والأهداف، والفصل بينها وبين الخلاف السياسي الداخلي، الذي يمكن إدارته على نار هادئة إذا توحّدت الخطوات التي تعمل جدياً على مواجهة الخطر الداهم. وهذا هو المفهوم الديمقراطي العميق لتداول السلطة الذي لا يعني في غير لبنان إخلالاً بالثوابت الوطنية وتغييراً في التوجهات من المسائل الوطنية، وإذا اجتاز لبنان هذا الامتحان بنجاح سيفتح الباب لتداول السلطة بطريقة سلسة في استحقاقات مقبلة.
The Global Movement to Boycott USA Products issued a statement in which it denounced and rejected the “Deal of the Century” announced by the US President Donald Trump:
Once again, the United States of America demonstrates its total bias in favor of the Zionist entity at the expense of the rights of the Palestinian people in their historical land. Once again, the policies of the successive American administrations prove their hostility and threat to the peoples of the region in their presence, security and stability. Once again, Washington proves to be the lifeblood that provides the Zionist entity with all the reasons for survival and continuity.
The global movement to boycott USA products (BUP) denounces US President Donald Trump’s announcement of the alleged “Deal of the Century” and invites all Arab and Islamic peoples and free people of the world to participate in the activities of boycotting USA products, joining the efforts made in this context, describing the boycott as one of the effective weapons that people can use to express their rejection and condemnation of the hostile American policies towards them.
The movement believes that the Arab and Islamic peoples and the free people of the world have a duty to confront with the available capabilities, for the continuous American attempts to eliminate the central issue for them, and considers that the opportunity is appropriate today to move forward in an effective boycott as a popular option available to play the role assigned to us as the peoples of free and proud masses.
Global movement to boycott USA products (BUP) stresses that the Palestinian cause must remain the center of unanimous freedom in the world, to whatever nationality or religion they belong. It called for making the province an essential and complementary source of the efforts being made to overthrow the “Deal of the Century” project.
On January 28, units of the Syrian Army, led by the 25th Special Mission Forces Division, liberated the town of Maarat al-Numan, the Wadi Al-Deif military base and nearby villages from Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and other al-Qaeda-linked groups.
Earlier on the same day, a Turkish military convoy consisting of at least 30 vehicles entered Syria through the Kafr Lusein crossing and moved to the south. This was mostly a tactical manoeuver designed to demonstrate to pro-Turkish militant groups that Ankara was not going to surrender its positions in Idlib. Nonetheless, the only thing that these Turkish forces are able to do is to establish another observation point in the region. Local sources say that this point will be set up south of
Another area where Hayat Tahrir al-Sham forces suffered setbacks is southwestern Aleppo, where government troops pushed militants away from the Khan Tuman farms and delivered a blow to militant formations deployed in the Rashidin 5 area.
On January 29, government forces continued their operations on both frontlines. The current priority of the Syrian Army in southeastern Idlib is to secure the chunk of the M5 highway between Khan Shaikhun and Maarat al-Numan. After this, the militant strong points in Kafr Nubl and Kafr Sajnah will likely become the next target of the army offensive. Their liberation is crucial if government troops want to create a proper defense against possible militant attacks from the Zawiyah Mountain area.
Saraqib, located on the crossroad of the M4 and M5 highways, is also a high priority target. Nonetheless, an advance in this direction is unlikely in the immediate future.
In Western Aleppo the Syrian Army seeks to liberate Khan Tuman, Rashidin 4 and Rashidin 5 in order to limit the number of mortar and rocket attacks on Aleppo city by militants.
The Syrian military, supported by the Russian air power and special forces, launched an offensive in Greater Idlib on December 19, 2019. Since then, pro-government forces have liberated over 50 settlements in the south and the east of the Idlib de-escalation zone. As long as al-Qaeda-linked factions remain the core of the so-called Idlib opposition and Turkish-backed groups cooperate with them, such military operations in the area will continue.
.
Another area where Hayat Tahrir al-Sham forces suffered setbacks is southwestern Aleppo, where government troops pushed militants away from the Khan Tuman farms and delivered a blow to militant formations deployed in the Rashidin 5 area.
On January 29, government forces continued their operations on both frontlines. The current priority of the Syrian Army in southeastern Idlib is to secure the chunk of the M5 highway between Khan Shaikhun and Maarat al-Numan. After this, the militant strong points in Kafr Nubl and Kafr Sajnah will likely become the next target of the army offensive. Their liberation is crucial if government troops want to create a proper defense against possible militant attacks from the Zawiyah Mountain area.
Saraqib, located on the crossroad of the M4 and M5 highways, is also a high priority target. Nonetheless, an advance in this direction is unlikely in the immediate future.
In Western Aleppo the Syrian Army seeks to liberate Khan Tuman, Rashidin 4 and Rashidin 5 in order to limit the number of mortar and rocket attacks on Aleppo city by militants.
The Syrian military, supported by the Russian air power and special forces, launched an offensive in Greater Idlib on December 19, 2019. Since then, pro-government forces have liberated over 50 settlements in the south and the east of the Idlib de-escalation zone. As long as al-Qaeda-linked factions remain the core of the so-called Idlib opposition and Turkish-backed groups cooperate with them, such military operations in the area will continue.
Secretary General of Islamic Jihad Palestinian Resistance movement Ziad Nakhale stressed that the so-called “Deal of the Century” target the Palestinian people and the entire nation.
In a statement released a day after the announcement of US President Donald Trump’s so-called “peace plan”, Nakhale described the plan as a conspiracy “that represents a great challenge to our nation and unprecedented bullying.”
Trump started his plan by blaming Arab and Muslim world for not recognizing Israel,” Nakhale added.
He noted that Washington “wants to make our people slaves to Israelis after a long history of struggle, resistance and sacrifices.”
“They (US administration and occupation authorities) think they can simply change the history… They think they can wipe out our culture.”
“This stage is different and needs more forms of resistance,” Nakhale said, lashing out at Arab states’ stances towards the “Deal of the Century.”
We closely followed the briefing by Under-Secretary-General Mark Lowcock; however, apparently, he did not have time to listen either to us or to Syria. It is a pity. We believe it would make sense to listen to what we have to say. I hope colleagues will convey what we say to him.
Despite the fact that stabilization has become a steady trend at the major territory of Syria, peaceful life has started to get back to the country, the social and economic infrastructure is restoring, there still remain hotbeds of tension, and the population needs humanitarian assistance. In this regard we point out active partaking of UN specialized bodies, the ICRC, the SARC, and non-governmental organizations in providing assistance to the population in coordination with the Syrian authorities.
The situation remains worrisome at the territories that are out of control of the Syrian government – in Idlib, in the East bank of the Euphrates, and in the ‘Al-Tanf’ zone.
Early in January, the Russian and Turkish military made yet another attempt to establish ceasefire in Idlib. However, radical groups under ‘Hayat Tahrir al-Sham’ that has been recognized as terrorist, again ignored that and continued firing at the positions of the Syrian troops and adjacent human settlements, in the first place – Aleppo. The density of attacks reaches up to 60 incidents a day. This month alone, such armed provocations have taken dozens of lives and entailed injuries for hundreds of civilians. This cannot go unretaliated. Syrian governmental forces have to react to terrorist raids, therefore they carry out limited operations to neutralize terrorist activity and mitigate threats that are coming from Idlib.
Today we heard statements that almost copied one another: about bombardments of schools, hospitals, marketplaces, places of IDP gatherings. We were cited exact figures of how many died and were wounded. We already heard that before. Word-to-word. Let me ask you once again: Where from do you get your verified data? Where did you find that many medical facilities that had been bombed? You were speaking of dozens, if not say hundreds such facilities in Idlib alone. Escalation in Idlib is not caused by operations of Syria’s armed forces. It is caused by constant deliberate provocations by terrorists. Starting from 13 January three humanitarian corridors have been functioning to help peaceful population leave the de-escalation zone. Those who have no permanent place of residence can be received in temporary accommodation facilities in Hama province. Unfortunately, terrorists continue to use people as a “human shield”, keep civilians hostages, prevent them from exiting, and fire at crossing points. This is yet another point that proves our position that we articulated earlier: the problem of Idlib cannot be resolved as long as those whom the Security Council has recognized as terrorists are running those territories.
Mr.President,
The situation in the Euphrates region has improved, in no small part due to the implementation of the Turkish-Russian Memorandum dated 22 October. Now Turkish-Russian patrols monitor the agreed sections of the border. Besides, the Russian military make energetic efforts to restore the devastated infrastructure, provide medical assistance to those who need it, deliver food and basic necessity items.
The direst problem is the humanitarian situation in the biggest refugee and IDP camps that are situated at the U.S.- controlled territories: “Rukban” in the South and “Al-Hawl” in the North-East. Implementation of the UN evacuation plan for the remaining inhabitants of the camp was due five months ago, but has been postponed ever since because militants refuse to guarantee safety of UN personnel. The problem of “Rukban” cannot be solved through humanitarian convoys alone, it is even more so, because assistance often fails to reach the refugees and ends up in the hands of militants. It is important that we continue and finalize efforts to resettle the camp.
Mr.President,
Today USG Lowcock gave a poor assessment to cross-line assistance. However, let me remind that a lion’s share of assistance in Syria is provided through this mechanism, including assistance for the province Al-Hasakah in the North-East. All humanitarian UN agencies, apart from WHO, deliver assistance to the North-East from the territory of Syria.
Let me also address effects of adoption of resolution 2504. The effects are that this resolution is both explicit and implicit. It steers the United Nations towards search for solutions and cooperation with the legitimate government of Syria according to resolution 4682, as should be the case under the international law. Instead of inflaming passions, the UNOCHA should rather hurry to establish effective cooperation with the legitimate authorities in Damascus. This is what meets the interests of the UN and us all.
We expect the UN report for the month of February to provide information about alternative routes of humanitarian deliveries to Syria. As we said, alternatives to “Al Yarubiyah” and delivering humanitarian assistance to “Al-Hasakah” really exist. We would like to be briefed about the steps taken at this track and the results that have been achieved.
Now to statistics which is known to be a stubborn thing. 1 million people in Idlib are covered by the cross-border mechanism, 9-10 million more are covered by regular humanitarian programs. It is what the recent report of the Secretary-General says. I am saying this to respond to the words that the Syrian government allegedly does not cooperate with the UN. The number of humanitarian convoys that are agreed with Damascus is growing month-to-month. Representatives of the UNOCHA cited this statistics at the meeting of the Humanitarian Task Force in Geneva.
What remains stable is the financial situation of the Syrian humanitarian plan. This indicator has stalled at 60%. Here is an interesting thing: the bigger is the territory that gets back under control of the Syrian government, the less is financing that donors allocate for the Syrian humanitarian plan. You have cited humanitarian principles: humanity, impartiality. Where are they?
We agree with those who said today that the humanitarian topic is over-politicized. This is also true for the post-conflict recovery. Some of our colleagues boast that they manage to politicize this issue by putting forward ever-increasing requirements to the Syrian authorities.
We call upon the global community to join projects for post-conflict recovery of Syria and lift unilateral sanctions in order to normalize the life of Syrians. Of course, if you are truly interested in the country’s well-being.
Thank you.
Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations
Maarat al-Numan city is liberated from NATO terrorists by the Syrian Arab Army and its allies, the city is the largest city in the southern countryside of Idlib province.
After the fiercest clashes with all of NATO, all of the Gulfies, and all of the evil powers on Earth supporting the human garbage of Nusra Front and its affiliates, the Syrian Arab Army proved once again they are the masters of the fight against terror. The SAA managed to neutralize dozens of NATO terrorists in the last 24 hours.
The resumption of the military campaign to clean the province of Idlib and the countryside of Aleppo from terrorists came after the last ceasefire collapsed when once again the Turkish pariah Erdogan intentionally failed to commit to his own promises by separating foreign non-moderate terrorists forming the backbone of the ‘Syrian’ opposition from the moderate head-choppers of the same opposition.
Units of the SAA are combing the streets and allies block by block and apartment by apartment for remnants of terrorists and for explosives they usually plant in every corner of the places they infest to continue to cause maximum harm and suffering among the Syrian people after they leave.
Damascus – Aleppo International Highway aka M5 artery goes right through the city connecting the political capital and most populated city of Syria with the economic capital and powerhouse Aleppo.
Maarat Numan has been infested by NATO terrorists since October 2012 and ever since has been their launchpad to carry out their terrorist attacks against other towns and cities in addition to cutting off the international highway connecting Syria’s north with its south.
NATO countries and their international stooges have tried all their best to impede the military operation to clean Maarat Numan and the rest of Idlib from their terrorists, their terrorists intensified their indiscriminate bombing of the residential neighborhoods of Aleppo, which at the time of writing this report news are coming that the NATO Front (al-Qaeda Levan) terrorists left Al Rashideen 4th neighborhood in the city, and also some NATO ‘special forces’ have sabotaged Syrian undersea oil pipelines as a way to pressure the Syrian state and also to punish the Syrian people who are in dire need of every oil drop for their daily living needs.
Related Videos
استديو الحدث 2020/1/29 ربى الحجلي
تغطية خاصة ومباشرة 2020/1/29 حسين الفياض
الجيش السوري يستعيد السيطرة على مدينة معرة النعمان
تغطية خاصة 2020/1/29 حسين الفياض
أخر التطورات الميدانية من خان طومان في ريف حلب مع مراسلنا وليد هناية
الإخبارية السورية تنقل الواقع من خان طومان بريف حلب – موفدنا حسين مرتضى
Wafa’a Shabrouni severely wounded by NATO weaponry via Erdogan’s terrorists.
Wafaa Shabrouni, Syrian journalist for RT, was seriously wounded in newly liberated Maarat al Numan, Idlib countryside. She and her crew came under attack while reporting on the Syrian Arab Army’s military campaign against the remaining Erdogan-run mercenaries and other al Qaeda factions.
Shabrouni was taken to the Hama State Hospital for surgery to remove shrapnel from her face and her jaw.
Wafaa Shabrouni, Syrian journalist for RT Arabic.
Also at the time of this writing, there have been no reports from western media about the wounding of Shabrouni by NATO armed savages.
This history of Syrian journalists being kidnapped and murdered by the terrorists dates back to the early days of the crisis. The journalist martyrs got little or no western news coverage; how could they, given western reporters are NATO stenographers who support the murderers armed by NATO countries.
In August 2011, TV journalist Yara Saleh was abducted by members of the moderate criminals, the FSA, who moderately murdered a member of her crew.
TV journalist Yara al Saleh & her crew were rescued by the SAA.
Syrian journalist Maya Nasser was murdered by a moderate FSA sniper, while reporting live on PressTV, from Damascus, 26 September 2012.
Khaled al Khatib was on assignment with RT TV, covering Syrian Arab Army operations in the eastern countryside of Homs, when his crew was hit by an anti-tank missile, 30 July 2017. He was martyred immediately.
Syrian journalist Khaled al Khatib, martyred 30 July 2017.Khaled al Khatib’s mom carries her son’s coffin.
Less than one month later, 26 August 2017, soldier-journalist Mohammad Salman Nasser was martyred in the southern countryside of Raqqa. He was both defending his homeland from NATO terrorists, and reporting on the SAA operations.
Soldier-journalist, Mohammad Salman Naser, 1982-2017.Soldier-journalist Mohammad Salman Naser with his family
On 8 March 2018, Syrian journalist Hassan Ali Badran was martyred by NATO armed terrorists in al Ghouta, prior to the liberation of the suburb of Damascus, by the Syrian Arab Army.
Hassan Ali Badran.Hassan leans over the coffin of his father, Brig. Gen. Ali Badran, martyred in Harasta.
There is a well-respected, allegedly impartial, New York City based NP/NGO, that claims to support “press freedom and defends the rights of journalists.” It is the Committee to Protect Journalists, and its massive, colonialist bias is seen on its website. Type in all of these names of Syrian journalists martyred or wounded in their home country. Some are not mentioned; some have a burp. Then, use the site to search any of the illegal westerners killed in Syria, those masquerading as journalists or actual journalists — such as illegal Marie Colvin — and you will find kilometers and kilometers of reports.
Wafaa Shabrouni is reported to be in stable condition.
القوات المسلحة اليمنية تعلن عن تطهير منطقة نهم وأجزاء من مأرب والجوف 29-01 2020
January 29, 2020
The Yemeni Armed Forces Command announced on Wednesday liberating Nahm city and areas in Marib and Al-Jawf from the Saudi-led forces, highlighting the heavy losses inflicted upon them.
Spokesman General Yahya Sarea read a statement in which he stressed that the Yemeni forces struck Saudi targets in response to the ongoing aggression on Yemen, underscoring readiness to liberate the entire country.
Our forces continued making gains as the enemy’s forces were collapsing, until they reached western Marib and liberated directorates inside the Provinces of Marib and al-Jawf, the statement added.
General Sarea noted that thousands of the enemy’s forces were either killed, injured or detained in the course of the operation, adding that the enemy’s forces, composed of 17 military brigades and 20 battalions in Naham District were forced to leave, and all of their ordnance have been seized.
“Two brigades of the so-called “Third Region” centered in Sarwah Directorate in Marib were forced to withdraw, as well as three brigades in the so-called “Sixth Region” centered in al-Jawf.”
“The Yemeni Armed Forces allowed hundreds of the enemy’s forces to flee in implementation of the leadership’s instructions and to save the blood of those who decided to flee the battlefield.”
The Yemeni Armed Forces highly appreciate the responsible role of the residents of Naham, Marib and al-Jawf, and their free tribes who cooperated to expel the invaders and occupiers, according to the statement.
“The Yemeni Armed Forces hail all the honorable and free Yemenis to fulfill their national and religious duty during this historic phase.”
General Sarea clarified that the Yemeni Rocketry Force and the Propelled Air Force carried out qualitative attacks on the Aramco Company in Jizan and Abha airports
The statement also urged all the Yemenis who collaborated with the Saudi-led aggression to refer back to propriety, vowing to deal with them tolerantly.
Regarding the US attitude towards the Palestinian cause, the Yemeni Armed Forces underscored solidarity with the Palestinian people in confronting the US conspiracy.
Prominent Lebanese political analyst Nasser Kandil analyses the strategic significance of Iraqi Shia leader Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr’s recent call for a “million-man march”, which demanded that the US military completely withdraw from the Arab country.
Kandil is a regular fixture on Lebanese and Arab media, often commentating on matters relating to the regional ‘Resistance Axis’, an emerging anti-Israeli/anti-US imperialist alliance composed of, but not limited to, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Iraq’s Hashed al-Shaabi, Yemen’s Ansarullah, and various Palestinian armed factions.
Source: Nasser Kandil (YouTube)
Date: 18 January, 2020
الحلقة 03 # من برنامج ستون دقيقة مع ناصر قنديل 18 01 2020
Transcript:
Dear followers of “60 Minutes with Nasser Kandil”, welcome to the new, third, episode of 2020. The title of this episode is “Two Wars Progressing Side by Side”. The first war is the one that has been started by the Axis of Resistance to expel US forces from the region. This war was faced with some disruptions as a consequence of the Ukrainian plane crash, whether through the international community who’s taking advantage of this incident, or through its impact on public opinion in Iran where protests were held over the incident. But two developments put things back on track. The first was the speech of the Russian foreign minister, who’s considered a (credible) source when it comes to providing information. (In his speech), he says that a squadron of American F-35 jets were flying over Tehran at the time of the incident which disrupted Iranian defence systems in terms of handling flying objects whether civilian or military. The second development was Imam Khamenei’s speech that mobilized the Iranian people. This mobilization came in the form of the amazing crowds of millions in the streets of Tehran (who stayed) under freezing cold weather, and at temperatures between -1 and 4 °C. Not only did (the crowds) stay to pray, but they also listened to the speech in Persian and then the speech in Arabic. His eminence’s speech was strongly worded and clear, stating that the battle in the region will continue until US forces are expelled, and that the long-term goal is freeing Palestine. He advised Arabs and Muslims to unite over the cause of freeing Palestine, and expelling US forces, and to engage in dialogue with neighbouring countries and Arab regimes to prevent segregation, discord and divisions. This strong political message, in addition to these huge crowds, bring us back to square one, in which the resistance forces announced – that is before the consequences that came about after Iran took full responsibility for the downing of the Ukrainian plane – (we are back to) the same climate of cohesion and solidarity. In fact, what matters the most – not because Imam Khamenei’s speech is less important, not at all, but because actions speak louder than words.
(Looking at) the practical steps today, it is obvious that, according to the Axis of Resistance, the key arena in which it will clash with the Americans is Iraq. In other words, when we talk about expelling Americans (forces) from the region, no one should think that we will start from Saudi Arabia, for example, or from the waters of the Gulf. The key battle to expel US forces from the region revolves around beginning (the fight) to expel the US forces from Iraq, and making this a regional and international cause, thus ending automatically the American presence in Syria. Because the American presence in Syria would be impossible if there is no American presence in Iraq.
However, it is obvious that the battle in Iraq today is set according to a calendar. On one side, we have a prime minister, Dr. Adel Abdul-Mahdi, who is obviously making firm decisions. He brings the decision of the Council of Representatives, puts it on the table, addresses the American government with persistence and a serious attitude. He establishes committees to begin technical negotiations in order to devise a mechanism for this withdrawal. The situation will escalate at the diplomatic level, through addressing the Security Council and major powers, and escalation will take place with the US itself. American threats and intimidation, I believe, are empty for a simple reason. When Americans become convinced that they must withdraw (from Iraq), they will have two priorities: first, to make the withdrawal seem voluntary and not an expulsion. And in that case, it is against American interests to impose sanctions on Iraqi governments, because this would mean continuing the battle in a different form. Second, to try to protect their interests that lies with keeping a positive relationship with the Iraqi government. So now Americans can make threats, send messages, exploit divisions and fight the battle for survival. This is normal. It is unlikely for their position to change for months. But when their position starts to change towards them accepting the idea of leaving, Americans will make sure to – they will for sure adopt a position encouraging a friendly positive exit through negotiations. They will prepare a schedule that guarantees keeping a number of advisors for six months for purposes related to the fight with ISIS. After six months they will say they need to make sure that the Iraqi army is prepared and has the (necessary) potentials. They will link the issue to the relationship with Russia suggesting that the Russians act as an ally in fighting against terrorism. This will happen in the next stage. However, now, do not take American threats seriously. What should be taken seriously are the preparations that are being done by the Axis of Resistance to have this confrontation.
The frontline of this confrontation is Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr’s call for millions (to demonstrate). Here I have to parenthetically say that we must look into the meaning, position, value and importance of this call. Because this entire American move, as I have said earlier when the Council of Representatives voted (to expel US forces) – it is not true that Americans were counting on a political coup in Iraq, by seeing whether they will succeed to exert influence on Sunni and Kurdish parliamentary groups under the auspices of Saudi Arabia, the Gulf or others. They knew they had that in their pocket. They are counting on the answer to this question: is there hope to (win) the battle in Iraq? Which brings up another question: is there hope to shatter the unity of the Shia community? Yes, or no? They pinned their hopes on shattering the unity of the Shia community via (effecting change in) Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr’s position, because they cannot manipulate the highest religious authority. They hope for divisions among the highest religious authorities in Qom on the one hand, and in Najaf on the other, especially since the highest religious authority in Najaf always tends to be more moderate. However, even the position of the highest religious authority in Najaf will be tougher if there is unity in the Shia community.
So, how does the Shia community unite? Or what is the factor that can divide them? Is it Ayad Allawi? Of course not. The factor that can divide them is Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr. The elections are the proof. Don’t we talk about the Sairoon political bloc, that is represented and led by Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr? When there was a dispute on which is the bigger bloc that should be entitled to nominate a candidate as the prime minister. The two competing blocs were Sairoon and Al-Binaa, i.e. Sayyed Muqtada and the resistance forces. And the dispute was resolved through the agreement of these two blocs to choose President Adel Abdul-Mahdi. This is the equation. This is the battle. Americans have tried, through third parties, especially through Gulf states and some Iraqi groups, to change Sayyed Muqtada’s position. They have succeeded to make accomplishments in some places, and failed in others. But the answer to the big question of “where does Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr stand?” remained unclear. Neither resistance forces have the answer to this question nor its opponents. Sayyed Muqtada has his own position.
In terms of Iraqi internal affairs, he is against the alliance of the resistance. However, regionally, he makes sure to reflect the image of an Iraqi patriot who develops relationships with Gulf states, Iran and Syria – but in his unique way which he makes sure to preserve. Therefore, the Gulf and American high hopes for the position of Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr (to change) is what explains America’s hard efforts to destabilize Iraq, especially after the last movement sponsored by Sayyed Muqtada. The reason is that they think that if the status, position and authority of Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr – and that is a reasonable and important assumption – shifts to become against Iran and the resistance forces, big changes will take place in Iraq, which is extremely accurate.
This (assumption) is based on the fact that, first, Sayyed Muqtada has inherited this enormous institution, in Baghdad in particular and in Iraq in general, from his father, Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr who, during the previous regime, under the rule of Saddam Hussein, had a political vision that kept him away from violent clashes (with the regime). He also made sure to maintain his position as a top religious scholar without cutting ties and completely destroying relationships, although the previous regime showed great hostility towards Sayyed Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr and committed crimes against his family through murder, death sentences, etc….But Sayyed Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr turned into a social institution. Baghdad traders feel beholden to him. They used to pay contributions to his fund. While his institution has and is still providing for thousands of families, giving tens of thousands of (cases) of aid, taking care of a community of almost two million Iraqis and responding to their social, economic and developmental needs. This gave Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr, who followed in his father’s footsteps of honesty, integrity, and direct supervision, and having (close) ties with the poor, assuming the role of their leadership and authority, and representing their interests. This is the first factor.
The second factor is that Sayyed Muqtada was not among those who fled from Iraq. Therefore, opposition forces who came back to Iraq when the American occupation began can be criticized by those who are affiliated with the previous regime and by the Sunni commentators who have the same stances as the representatives of the previous regime; those who consider that the patriotic position against the occupation lowered the status of Sunnis in the government and gave Shias a high status. Those people can face Shia leaders, and say: “you came with the American tanks. Don’t give us a lesson in patriotism. We have fought”, because at the beginning members of the resistance were mainly Sunni. However, they cannot say this to Sayyed Muqtada. First, he didn’t come (to Iraq) on American tanks. He was in Iraq from the beginning. Second, and most importantly, he is one of the first Iraqi leaders to call for resistance. He also never had any relationship with the occupation. He was the symbol of fighting the occupation. He established the Mahdi Army with the objective of fighting the occupation. And on top of that, when the battle of Fallujah took place following the actions of the resistance, and when Americans raided the city, committed what they committed, put its people under siege and deprived them of food, drinks and electricity; no one stood with Fallujah, except for Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr. He offered moral and financial support, and sent food supplies and aid convoys. He adopted a tough stance during the demonstrations that were held in support of Fallujah in Shia regions. Therefore, people of Fallujah and people of central Iraq in general, Sunni people, will always be grateful to him. Then, this issue happened again, when Nour al-Maliki was the prime minster, during the al-Anbar uprising, and the uprising of Sunni people against al-Maliki, who ofcourse later took a stand (against) the occupation, the (in support) of the resistance, and in support of the forces affiliated to the Axis of Resistance. However, Sayyed Muqtada, at the time, in addition to beating others in terms of his position in support of the resistance, also showed solidarity with the people of al-Anbar and central areas against the government of Nour al-Maliki. He was also the one that gave this opposition a national united aspect, which was another reason that increased his status and influence. At least, if anything, it results in the inability to challenge (Sadr) regarding his sincerity in confronting the occupation.
Today, when Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr calls for a ‘million-strong march’ to expel the occupier, no one can challenge his position as a leading religious scholar and as a patriot. On the one hand, no one has a record that is like Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr’s record in confronting the occupation. On the other hand, regarding the issue of national unity i.e. refraining from sectarian calculations and sectarian violence, no one emulates the position of Sayyed Muqtada. Neither have the Sunni leaderships succeeded in showing solidarity with the concerns of Shias, nor have the rest of the Shia leaderships succeeded in showing solidarity with the concerns of Sunnis as the Shia leader Sayyed Muqtada has done. He always pays attention to the suggestions and concerns of Sunnis which secures in turn his strong position in politics and society amongst all Iraqi leaders. Thus, when Sayyed Muqtada himself calls for this march and the resistance forces join in, it means that he didn’t issue the call in competition with the resistance forces. Not at all, this has happened in coordination between them all. As they did when they nominated the Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi, the resistance leaders communicated with Sayyed Muqtada, met him, and agreed with each other, but this time the equation is more accurate and clearer; it came as a shock to the US and the Gulf. (The shock came in the form of) the political leadership of Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi, in addition to the popular leadership of Sayyed Muqtada, in addition to the presence of the resistance forces who stand in support behind both (Abdul-Mahdi and Sadr). This reflects a smart, mature, wise and courageous advancement that offers the resistance forces the ability to decide the appropriate timing and tempo of (military) resistance actions that serve the interests of the battle taking place on the legal, diplomatic and populist path i.e. the path being led legally and diplomatically by Adel Abdul-Mahdi, and the one being led on the popular level by Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr. Thus, the ‘million-strong march’ beginning on Friday is not just one march; it represents a starting point on the path that will be followed by other ‘million-strong marches’ on the popular level.
The US and the Gulf rushed to work on how they can agitate the civil movement to challenge the call of Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr. They found groups that can gather merely hundreds of people. In contrast, the great mass of people that were at the beginning of the (recent) Iraqi (protest) movement and that moves in the name of Sayyed Muqtada value his stance towards the movement; they know that he is an Iraqi patriotic leader and an Iraqi populist leader; they know that (Sayyed Muqtada) is on the front lines in fighting corruption, and in terms of fighting the occupation he is on the front lines, and he is the most eligible and capable to clash with any (Iraqi) government or authority. In fact, we have an excellent opportunity (before us).
In practice, the unique (position) of Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr has been proven in practice with the following example: the US and the Gulf had bet on creating division in Lebanon among the (Speaker of the Parliament) Nabih Berri ̶ that is between Hezbollah and the Amal movement – their assumption being that (these two parties) compete with each other (on the Lebanese scene), and that (Parliament Speaker) Berri has his own unique (characteristics), his own approach towards (political) issues, that he follows his own path concerning his relations with the Gulf and the international environment, while Hezbollah adopts a more deep-rooted stance in the political and regional arena. During the key stages and (historical) moments that (Lebanon witnessed), the US and the Gulf made their bets and calculations (based on such assumptions). In 2005, we read a lot of analyses, and today we arrive at the same scene, that all parties, the (Lebanese) March 14 alliance, the US, and the Gulf used to hold that: the struggle is to find out how to attract (Parliament Speaker) Berri and get him out of (his) relationship with Hezbollah, but (these parties) found an impenetrable wall and lost all the cards (which they were betting upon).
Today in Iraq the same scene is repeated. In so much as the Iranian leadership and his eminence Sayyed (Hassan Nasrallah) have always been keen to preserve the relationship with (Parliament Speaker) Berri in Lebanon, they also make sure to preserve the relationship with Sayyed Muqtada (in Iraq). Previously, we didn’t use to say this (publicly) but today we have an interest in saying this: the relationship and the meetings of Sayyed Muqtada with the Iranian leadership have never stopped, and his relationship, meetings and visits to his eminence Sayyed (Hassan Nasrallah) have never stopped either. There was always an acceptance and understanding (by Iran and Hezbollah) of the special room for manoeuvre that Sayyed Muqtada had assumed within which he was carrying out his (political) movements and stances. Thus the relationship (between Sadr and Iran/Hezbollah) was always based on accommodating this specificity. However, the moment that the situation becomes critical, (it was agreed that) Sayyed Muqtada will not be outside this decisiveness in terms of taking a political stance. Concerning this battle, when Imam Khamenei spoke about expelling the US (forces) from the region, he was not merely giving lip service on this matter. Nor was Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah giving lip service on this matter either. Not at all. The (regional) resistance (movement), its leadership, the leadership of the Resistance Axis, holds that the battle today (must be waged) in Iraq, and that it is a political and popular battle, within which the (resistance forces) have to gradually warm-up (the circumstances and conditions), such that when the resistance in the battlefield is required to undertake its highest level of (military action), it will be ready to carry it out.
—————————–
The US is facing a challenge: it is now trying to engage in sowing sedition in a political, diplomatic and security battle to remain in Iraq, yet in any case it will lose (this battle), because with regards to the issue of ‘sedition’, the US’ options are linked with the ability of finding an environment (conducive for this). However, when Sayyed Muqtada is the focus of the struggle, it is difficult to find large solid Sunni blocs that can fight Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr. (In that case) they will prove to be disloyal and ungrateful. They will appear as if they are denying the history, unity and stance in confronting the occupation. It is difficult for these (Sunni forces) to fight (in such circumstances) with the forces that it accuses of being an extension of Iran, or (fight) with the resistance forces whose leaderships appeared after the occupation began. (Let alone) when talking about Sayyed Muqtada. If they want to say that you didn’t take into account the (political) storms and tribulations that Sunni regions have faced, they can’t say it about Sayyed Muqtada. Therefore, the intelligent manner in which this current struggle (against the US occupation) is being waged nullifies the possibility of sedition. It nullifies the possibility of sedition with the Kurds as well. The joining of forces between Adel Abdul Mahdi and Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr creates a new balance on the political, psychological and social scene in which the fight against the US occupation is taking place. What can the US do in such a situation? It will certainly (try whatever it can do) since it is difficult for it to (accept) going down in defeat.
UPROOTED PALESTINIANS: SALAM ALQUDS ALAYKUM 