That Tripoli today … is kidnapped! في أنّ طرابلس اليوم… مخطوفة!

**Machine translation Please scroll down for the Arabic original **

That Tripoli today … is kidnapped

Ibrahim Al-Amin

Saturday, January 30, 2021

For more than a year, on the day lebanon sparked a variety of protests, Tripoli was strongly present in the scene. But no one was able to catch the game’s strings there. Everyone participated in the celebration. Politicians, clerics, leaders and poor, old and new parties, civil societies, Arab, regional and international embassies, security agencies and local, regional and international armies, artists, media and activists of various races…

It’s been a long time, and the image of the night celebration is occupying the screens. However, there are those who have decided that Beirut needs Tripoli’s “muscles”. Buses carried what was available daily to fight the Regime’s youth or the “counter-revolutionary group”. Thus, things went on until everyone disappeared from the scene. No one knows why the motivation, enthusiasm, ability and organization have disappeared. Saad Hariri returned to form thegovernment!

For weeks after October 17, many of the city listened and scrutinised data on outside interference in the city’s activity. The positions remained the same until, about three weeks ago, delegates from the embassies of the United States, Britain, France and the European Union, toured and dialogues with state officials and leaders in all military and security agencies, carrying one clear and concise message: the difficult economic situation, the lack of government formation will inevitably lead to the return of popular protests, and we ask you not to resort to any repressive measures against demonstrators, and not to prevent them from saying what they want and doing what they want, and those who practice repression will be followed by us, and the price will be paid outside Lebanon, and the price will be paid outside Lebanon. If he doesn’t push him inside.

The letter was not ambiguous at all. The security and military authorities have even tried to examine them on the ground.

Let’s put aside all the boring political talk about power and its role. Also, let’s put aside external pressures to form a government that will proceed in the international program (offered by France) for a solution in Lebanon.  Let us put aside the natural effects of the economic and social crisis on the people of this neglected city in a way that was previously unknown to a Lebanese region, including the “loss” of the city’s wealthy people who do not leave the charity box and do not build a single factory that occupies thousands of the city’s youth and girls, and supports their families.

What is happening today indicates that Lebanon is facing the challenge of testing the regional chaos that there may be those who dream of turning it into a moment of dispensing with any connection to the state.

But is there any way to ask the questions that everyone is running away from? The government’s policy of “eliminating the threat of the use of force” is a major challenge. How can the protests be limited to local objectives that say that they strike all the positions that belong to the idea of the state, the security forces, the companies, the municipalities and other institutions on the list of targets? Do we want to repeat last year’s experience, where we go back to the obvious questions of who leads the people and what framework governs their movements, or whether the question about that is still forbidden? They are demons, other than this or that one who happens only to be from the group that sees the overthrow of Michel Aoun and the disarmament of the resistance as the only central goal?

This time, no one needs to be studied in the difficult social realities of this city, and no one needs explanations about the need for an uprising or even a coup d’état against this abhorrent power. What is happening today, according to all mental calculations, indicates that Lebanonis on the verge of challenging the test of regional chaos, which there may be those who dream of turning it into a moment of dispensing with any connection to the State, and then we will start to hear about the mass civil disobedience, the new local government, the independent or parallel administration of state facilities, and then we will find those who come out of the self-security rabbit and here the great nation… The result is that Tripoli is now kidnapped, as it has been for at least 40 years. It is waiting for election day to renew itself through money, kidnapped by the lords of the axes, the guardians of blood and the prisoners, and from a mercenary army that is spreading today like mushrooms in the name of civil society, and most of them are “the boys of embassies” of all kinds.   

The   city will continue to be haunted by the terror of the great security chaos, especially with security and military forces and agencies that know only exploitation or excessive use of force. Before who comes out to free this city and returns it to its true people!

في أنّ طرابلس اليوم… مخطوفة!

الأخبار

ابراهيم الأمين 

السبت 30 كانون الثاني 2021

بل أكثر من سنة، يوم اشتعل لبنان احتجاجات متنوعة الأهداف، كانت طرابلس حاضرة بقوة في المشهد. لكنّ أحداً لم يكن يقدر على الإمساك بخيوط اللعبة هناك. الجميع شاركوا في الاحتفال. سياسيون ورجال دين، زعماء وفقراء، أحزاب عريقة وأخرى مستجدة، جمعيات مدنية وسفارات عربية وإقليمية ودولية، أجهزة أمنية وجيوش محلية وإقليمية ودولية، فنانون وإعلاميون وناشطون من مختلف الأجناس…

مضى وقت طويل، وصورة الاحتفال الليلي تحتل الشاشات. لكن، ثمة من قرر أن بيروت تحتاج إلى «عضلات» الطرابلسيين. فكانت الحافلات تنقل ما تيسّر يومياً لمقارعة «شباب النظام» أو «جماعة الثورة المضادة». وهكذا، سارت الأمور حتى اختفى الجميع من المشهد. لا أحد يعرف لماذا اختفت الحافزية والحماسة والقدرة والتنظيم. لا أحد يعرف كيف ولماذا ولأيّ سبب انفضّ القوم، علماً بأن لا تغيير واحداً حصل. لا الأحوال الاقتصادية تحسّنت، ولا السلطة استقالت، ولا النظام سقط بيد الثوار، ولا الفقر هرب من تلك الأحياء، ولا الزعماء باعوا قصورهم وبنوا مكانها مصانع، ولا ميشال عون سقط ولا سلاح حزب الله نزع… بل عاد سعد الحريري ليؤلّف الحكومة!

طوال أسابيع من بعد 17 تشرين، كان كثيرون من ناشطي المدينة، وفاعلياتها، يسمعون ويدققون في معطيات حول التدخلات الخارجية في نشاط المدينة. لكن القائمين على «الثورة المدنية» كانوا يرفضون أصل النقاش. هم قرروا من طرف واحد أن الحقيقة محصورة في أن هناك غضباً بسبب الفقر وغياب الديموقراطية، وأن الثورة مصانة وستُستأنَف في أقرب وقت ممكن. والأكثر غرابة كان في أن أحداً من قوى السلطة أو قوى الشارع لم يكلف نفسه عناء إجراء حوار ولو جانبي بين المتخاصمين أو المشتبكين. وظلت المواقف على حالها إلى أن قام فجأة، وقبل نحو ثلاثة أسابيع، موفدون من سفارات أميركا وبريطانيا وفرنسا والاتحاد الأوروبي، بجولات وحوارات مع مسؤولين في الدولة ومع قادة في جميع الأجهزة العسكرية والأمنية، يحملون رسالة واحدة واضحة ومختصرة: الأوضاع الاقتصادية الصعبة، وعدم تأليف الحكومة سيقودان حتماً الى عودة الاحتجاجات الشعبية، ونحن نطلب منكم عدم اللجوء إلى أي إجراءات قمعية ضد المتظاهرين، وعدم منعهم من قول ما يريدون والقيام بما يريدون، ومن يمارس القمع سيكون محل متابعة منا، وسيدفع الثمن خارج لبنان إن لم يدفعه داخله.

لم تكن الرسالة غامضة على الإطلاق. بل إن الجهات الأمنية والعسكرية حاولت معاينتها ميدانياً. جرت محاولة لمطابقة التقدير الغربي مع المعطيات الميدانية لديها. والحيرة التي سادت لدى هذه أن غالبيتها لديها ناسها في الشارع، سواء على شكل مناصرين لقوى سياسية، أو على شكل مجموعات لا تزال ــــ نعم لا تزال ــــ تعمل بإمرة ضباط أمنيين من هذا الجهاز أو ذاك. وكانت النتيجة عدم توقّع أمر كبير، إلى أن انطلقت الاحتجاجات قبل أيام في طرابلس، وسط محاولات حثيثة لنقلها الى مناطق أخرى، وخصوصاً في بيروت والبقاع الأوسط وطريق الجنوب وصولاً إلى صيدا.

لنضع جانباً كل الحديث السياسي المملّ عن السلطة ودورها. هذه سلطة لم ولن يخرج منها الخير. ولنضع جانباً، كل الكلام المطابق لكلام السلطة والصادر عن قوى في السلطة انتقلت الى المعارضة. وهي قوى لم ولن يخرج منها إلا الشر كما فعلت طوال أربعة عقود. ومهما تلونت ورسمت لنفسها صورة جميلة، فهي ستظل المرآة تعكس روحها البشعة.

أيضاً، لنضع جانباً الضغوط الخارجية لأجل تأليف حكومة تسير في البرنامج الدولي (الذي عرضته فرنسا) للحل في لبنان. وهو برنامج يقضي بأن يكون لبنان تحت انتداب جديد ولو بصورة مقنّعة من خلال استخدام جماعات الـ«ان جي أوز» كقناع لتولّي إدارة الدولة، وهو انتداب يستهدف الإمساك بمقدرات لبنان القائمة أو المتوقعة، كما يستهدف جرّه الى ضفة المحور العامل برعاية أميركا وأوروبا وإسرائيل والسعودية، ما يوجب التخلص من المقاومة.
ولنضع جانباً الآثار الطبيعية للأزمة الاقتصادية والاجتماعية على أهالي هذه المدينة المهملة بصورة لم تعرفها منطقة لبنانية سابقاً، بما في ذلك «خِسّة» أثرياء المدينة الذين لا يغادرون مربع الصدقة والإحسان ولا يبنون مصنعاً واحداً يشغّل الآلاف من شباب المدينة وصباياها، ويعيل أهلهم.

ما يحصل اليوم يشير إلى أن لبنان مقبل على تحدّي اختبار الفوضى المناطقية التي قد يكون هناك من يحلم بتحويلها الى لحظة الاستغناء عن أي صلة بالدولة

لكن، هل من مجال لطرح الأسئلة التي يهرب منها الجميع؟

ترى، كيف لا يمكن لسياسي في لبنان، أو إعلامي، أو أمني، أن يقدّم خريطة واقعية تشرح طبيعة ما يجري في عاصمة الشمال؟ من هم هؤلاء المحتجّون؟ ومن هم الناشطون بينهم؟ وكيف يتمّ تنظيم تحرّكهم، ومن يقرّر هذه الوجهة من تنفيس الغضب من تلك، ومن يصرف الأموال المطلوبة (حتى لو كانت مئة ألف ليرة فقط)، ومن يقرر إعادة التركيز الإعلامي على هذه الزاوية أو تلك، ومن هو العبقري الذي يرفع الشعارات الكبيرة ضد ميشال عون وحزب الله، ثم يرمي القنابل على فرع المعلومات المحسوب على سعد الحريري الذي لا يزال خصماً أساسياً لميشال عون، ورابطاً للنزاع مع حزب الله؟ وكيف يمكن حصر الاحتجاجات بأهداف موضعية تقول بضرب كل المراكز التي تخص فكرة الدولة، قوى الأمن والسرايا والبلدية ومؤسسات أخرى موجودة على لائحة الأهداف؟ وهل نريد تكرار تجربة العام الماضي، حيث نعود من جديد الى الأسئلة البديهية عمّن يقود الناس وعن أي إطار ينظّم تحركاتهم، أم لا يزال السؤال حول ذلك محرّماً؟ ثم من هو الذي قرر أن كلّ سياسيي المدينة هم من الشياطين، ما عدا هذا أو ذاك من الذين يصادف ــــ يصادف فقط ــــ أنهم من المجموعة التي ترى أن إسقاط ميشال عون ونزع سلاح المقاومة هو الهدف المركزي الوحيد؟

هذه المرة، لا أحد يحتاج الى درس في معرفة الوقائع الاجتماعية الصعبة لهذه المدينة، ولا أحد يحتاج الى شروحات حول الحاجة الى انتفاضة أو حتى انقلاب على هذه السلطة المقيتة. لكنْ هناك حاجة إلى عدم التساهل مع الذين يحاولون اليوم، خطف المدينة وأخذها الى مواجهة نفسها فقط، إذ لا نتيجة عامّة لأي حركة من دون مشروع سياسي واضح. ولن تكون النتيجة سوى المزيد من العنف العدمي، الذي لا يشبه حتى دراما المنتحرين غضباً. وما يحصل اليوم يشير، وفق كل الحسابات العقلية، إلى أن لبنان مقبل على تحدّي اختبار الفوضى المناطقية التي قد يكون هناك من يحلم بتحويلها الى لحظة الاستغناء عن أي صلة بالدولة، وعندها سنبدأ نسمع عن العصيان المدني الشامل، وعن الحكومة المحلية الجديدة، وعن الإدارة المستقلة أو الموازية لمرافق الدولة، ومن ثم سنجد من يخرج أرنب الأمن الذاتي وهنا الطامّة الكبرى…

النتيجة أن طرابلس مخطوفة الآن، كما كانت مخطوفة منذ أربعين سنة على الأقل. رهينة يتبادلها الخاطفون. مخطوفة من سلطات تعاقبت على حرمانها من كل شيء. ومن برلمانات وبرلمانيين فاشلين. ومن زعامات لا ترتقي الى مقام فتوة الأحياء. بل تنتظر يوم الانتخاب لتجدّد لذاتها عبر المال، مخطوفة من أمراء المحاور وأولياء الدم والمسجونين، ومن جيش مرتزقة ينتشر اليوم كالفطر باسم المجتمع المدني، وجلّهم من «صبية السفارات» على أنواعها. ومخطوفة من بقايا «الثورة السورية المجيدة» الذين لا يزالون الى الأمس يعطون الدروس في كيفية العسكرة والانتقال الى مستوى جديد من «العنف الثوري»…

طرابلس فيها مساكين، يقوم دهاة من أهل النظام نفسه بتوجبه غضبهم الى حيث لن يكون هناك تغيير ولا ما يحزنون. والمدينة ستظلّ مسكونة برهاب الفوضى الأمنية الكبيرة، وخصوصاً مع قوى وأجهزة أمنية وعسكرية لا تعرف إلا الاستغلال أو الإفراط في استخدام القوة. وفي كل يوم يخضع فيه العاقلون لابتزاز المجانين، سترتفع الكلفة… قبل أن يخرج من يحرّر هذه المدينة ويعيدها الى أهلها الحقيقيين!

Apartheid from the Sea to the River

By Jeremy Salt

Source

B’Tselem’s description of Israel an apartheid state is valuable because B’Tselem, Israel’s leading human rights organization, is saying it.  Otherwise, the reaction should be of course it is. B’Tselem applies the word to all of Palestine and not just the remaining territories seized in 1967.  Again, of course it should.  Structural discrimination against the Palestinians is built into every level of government except elections,  which allows Israel repeatedly to tell the world that it is the only democracy in the Middle East, as if the ballot box is the only measure of democracy, blurring the reality unless people take a close look.

Israel and the policy of apartheid were born in the same year, 1948,  Israel as a colonial-settler declared unilaterally over occupied Palestine on May 15 and apartheid as the election-winning policy of South Africa’s National Party on May 26. On December 9 the same year, the UN General Assemby adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.  

The convention describes genocide as acts intended to destroy “in whole or part” a national,  ethnical, racial or religious group.   There is no other way to describe Israel’s intentions in 1948.  Hundreds of Palestinian villages were razed and about 800,000 people driven out of their native land to make way for European settlers.   As for why they had to go there are two reasons:   they were not Jews,  and they were living in a land the zionists wanted to turn into a Jewish state.   

The occupation of the rest of Palestine in 1967 and the military, economic and pseudo-legal weapons used to suffocate the Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem ever since are no more than an extension of what began in 1948.

B’tselem’s declaration revives the debate over whether zionism is a ‘racist’ ideology.  For the victims of racism in other colonized countries,  of course it is. Only in the imperial ‘west,’ with its own long history of racism, occupation and massacre, could the question even arise. 

In fact, racism has been in zionism’s DNA ever since Herzl talked of “spiriting” the Palestians out of their land to make way for a Jewish state.   How to get rid of them was the central consideration of the Zionist planners who followed him.

Everything evil committed against the Palestinians since 1948 speaks to the historical racism of the zionist enterprise.  You don’t treat people with the brutality that has accompanied the zionist march through history if you think they have the same rights as you do. Your soldiers, police and settlers do not kill or massacre people if they think they have the same right to life as they do.

Your state doesn’t create different laws and different rights if it thinks all people should have the same rights and live under the same laws. The state does not give a false right of return to Jews wherever they live and deny the genuine right of return of Palestinians. The state does not declare that the state is the state of the Jewish people and not the state of  its citizens,  Jewish or not.  

On November 10, 1975, the UN General Assembly passed resolution 3379,  describing zionism “as a form of racism and racial discrimination.” The word ‘race’ has no basis in science but everyone knows what it means in practice:   discrimination against specific groups on the basis of religion, ethnicity or skin color.  The Israeli ambassador,  Chaim Herzog,  was so enraged when the resolution was passed (72-35 with 32 abstentions) that he tore up his printout.

The passage of this resolution led to an immediate counter-attack by Israel, supported by the US and other governments.   As always, the bludgeon used was anti-semitism, with the US, from behind the scenes, prodding governments that had voted for the resolution to change their minds.  The tactics worked. On December 16,1991, the General Assembly revoked the resolution in resolution 46/86, passed 111-25 with 13 abstentions and 15 absentees.

Daniel Moynihan, the US ambassador at the UN and a zionist diehard, commented before 3379 was revoked that the UN “is about to make anti-semitism international law.” Of course, the resolution had nothing to do with anti-semitism but was born of the growing need to expose the ideology of a state which even by then had wrought massive destruction in the Middle East.

On the basis of  the commitments it had made to respect UN principles,   Israel was accepted as a UN member (Resolution 273, May 11, 1949), the General Assembly having resolved  that Israel “is a peace-loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the charter and is able and willing to carry  out those obligations.”  The next day it signed a protocol accepting resolution 194 (III) of 1948, setting out the basic rights of the Palestinians, including the right of return to their homeland, and the preservation of their property.

Nothing could have been further from the truth. Even at the time Israel was not “peace loving”: in hindsight the phrase is grotesque.  Neither did Israel have any intention of abiding by the commitments it had made to the Palestinians whom it had ethnically cleansed.  They would never be allowed to return. 

As for their property,  Israel was asked to suspend its ‘’Emergency Applications on Absentee Property’’ until a final peace settlement could be reached.  It responded that the so-called “custodian of absentee property” was acting only as a trustee for the owners,  “whose property is being administered in their interests.” 

This was a blatant lie. The “absentee property” was already being distributed among settlers old and new. It included village and town houses and a mass of agricultural land which had Chaim Weizmann, the state’s first president, in absolute raptures.  So much of it, and all of it acquired at absolutely no cost:

“ … about five million dunums of land [1.235 million acres] at least which could be taken under the plough almost at once,  but we have not yet got the people. In the district between Ramleh and Latrun there are about two milion dunums of the best land in Palestine for which, if we had to buy it, we would have to pay at least LP [Palestine pounds] per dunum and as you know, one could never buy land between Ramleh and Latrun. Now it is all free, overgrown with weeds and it is very doubtful whether the Arabs will ever come back to work it. Eveybody seems to think they have gone for good.”

This master dissembler knew perfectly well that Israel had no intention of allowing  ‘the Arabs’ back,  and as for a land “overgrown with weeds,” it was fertile and intensively worked by Palestinian farmers.

Everything the owners of “absentee property” had left behind was destroyed or stolen, down to furniture and small household items. The houses left standing were handed over to settlers,  senior zionist figures taking some of the best for themselves. 

An additional category was added to the list of absentees. These were the “present absentees” who fled from one part of Palestine to another during the fighting.   They were not allowed back to their original place of residence and their property was stolen too.

The lies told by Israel to secure UN membership were followed by the serial violations of Palestinian rights and international law along the spectrum of human rights which have continued to the present day. 

This being the case,  the rules of the club should surely prevail.  Anyone who joins a club and refuses to abide by the rules is usually warned once, warned twice,  suspended on the third offence and then thrown out if it still ignores the conditions of membership.  

Israel was admitted to the club on the basis of a false application.  It then refused to obey the rules, not once, twice or thrice but thousands of times but is still allowed to remain a member. 

Without the protection of the US, the UN General Assembly almost certainly would have voted for suspension of Israel decades ago and then ejection if it still refused to comply.   Thanks to the US, however, not only does  Israel remain a member but it is never punished for its crimes.

Noam Chomsky has described Israeli apartheid as “much worse” than South African apartheid. On the basis of the number of people who have died as a result of Israel’s racist policies, there is actually no comparison.

Under an apartheid government,  South African police, soldiers and white settlers beat, tortured and killed Africans.  Israeli police, soldiers and settlers do the same to Palestinians but whereas the worst state massacres in apartheid South Africa were Sharpeville (March 21, 1960), when police killed 69 people and wounded 180 others demonstrating against the pass laws,  and Soweto (June 16, 1976),  when at least 176 students (estimates are as high as 700) demonstrating against having to learn Afrikaans were killed,  the victims of Israel’s massacres run into the tens of thousands. 

This state of affairs will continue as long as the “international community” refuses to punish Israel for violation of the laws it has passed to protect human rights and preserve global peace.  Such punishment would be imposed through suspension from the UN and the suspension by governments of diplomatic and trade relations with Israel, but as long as it does not have to pay for its crimes and its contempt for international law it will see no reason to change.   As long as it refuses to change, it will remain a threat to Middle Eastern regional and global peace.

Israel’s Diabolical Agenda

By Stephen Lendman

Source

Like the US and other Western states, Israels self-proclaimed “democracy” is pure fantasy — a notion these nations abhor and tolerate nowhere.

The Jewish state’s 2018 Nation State Law is its version of Nazi Germany’s oppressive Nuremberg Laws.

Israel terrorizes Palestinians the way Hitler persecuted Jews.

Both regime’s earlier terrorized and repeat the practice today against unwanted people considered subhumans, forcing them to endure virtually every type indignity, degradation and crime against humanity.

Illegal Israeli occupation, colonization and apartheid breach core legal principles and values.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) affirmed self-determination as an inviolable right.

The 1960 Declaration on Colonialism, condemns it “in all its forms and manifestations.”

The 1973 Apartheid Convention calls this practice state-sanctioned discriminatory racism that’s “committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any (an)other…and systematically oppressing” its people.

Apartheid is an international crime.

The 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court calls it a crime under the Court’s jurisdiction.

Despite decades of flagrant Israeli guilt, accountability was never forthcoming.

Occupied Palestinians are illegally governed by oppressive military law.

Israel’s High Court affirmed a bifurcated system that discriminates between Jews and others, notably long abused Palestinians.

They’re denied virtually all rights afforded Jews.

Hardline Israeli regimes permit murder, extermination, enslavement, torture, arbitrary arrests, illegal imprisonments, denial of the right to life and liberty, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and other abusive acts on Palestinians.

Former UN Special Human Rights Rapporteur for Occupied Palestine, Richard Falk, earlier said “Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid in relation to the Palestine people should be taken with the utmost seriousness by all those who affirm human solidarity and care about making visible the long ordeal of a suffering and vulnerable people.”

Days earlier, B’Tselem called Israel “(a) regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.”

“This is (the ugly face) of apartheid,” it stressed, adding:

Israel and the Occupied Territories are controlled by its ruling regimes “under a single principle: advancing and cementing the supremacy of one group – Jews – over another – Palestinians.”

“Divide, separate, (and) rule” define Israeli apartheid as control over virtually all aspects of Palestinian lives — enforced by ruthless state terror.

Short of formal West Bank annexation, it’s proceeding by stealing Palestinian land dunam by dunam and dispossessing its lawful owners and residents.

Jews worldwide can freely emigrate to Israel and be granted citizenship.

Palestinians are forced to live in  isolated bantustans where they’re denied free movement and virtually all other human and civil rights.

Over 90% of what Israel illegally considers its sovereign territory is stolen and state controlled.

It’s used for exclusive Jewish development and use, displaced Palestinians prevented from returning to what’s rightfully theirs. 

Land once owned by Palestinians for millennia is off-limits to them now.

Jews alone enjoy rights affirmed under international law — denied to Palestinians for praying to the wrong God.

Gaza is the world’s largest open-air prison — terror-bombed and invaded at Israel’s discretion with impunity.

The world community and world body systematically turn a blind eye to its high crimes of war and against humanity.

Israelis have free movement internally and cross-border for foreign travel, their right to return protected by Israeli law.

Internal Palestinian movements are greatly constrained. If cross into the territory of a neighboring state, their right of return home can be denied.

Movement in and out of Gaza is strictly prohibited. 

In the West Bank and East Jerusalem, it’s greatly restricted for Palestinians by checkpoints and other apartheid practices.

They cannot participate in virtually everything that governs and controls their lives and well-being.

“A regime that uses laws, practices and organized violence to cement the supremacy of one group over another is…apartheid” ruthlessness B’Tselem stressed, adding:

“The harsh reality (of what’s gone on for decades) may deteriorate further” ahead.

“Fighting for a future based on human rights, liberty and justice is especially crucial now.” 

“There are various political paths to a just future here, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, but all of us must first choose to say no to apartheid.”

The myth of the ‘lesser evil’: Why US progressives back Biden

President Joe Biden took office this month after defeating Donald Trump in the 2020 vote (AFP/file photo)

Joseph Massad

29 January 2021 11:26 UTC 

As beneficiaries of the country’s imperialist system, supposedly progressive Americans have never truly sought radical change

Ever since I arrived in the United States to begin my university education in 1982, I have been baffled by arguments used by white (and some Black and Latino) American progressives, leftists and socialists to justify voting for Democratic presidential and congressional candidates.

Unlike mainstream liberal and conservative Americans, who believe their country is God’s gift to the world, the arguments of progressives often stress that Democrats are the “lesser evil” of the two contending parties.

The Democratic commitment to the rich was made amply clear with the major subsidies given to them by Clinton and Obama

Many agree that, in the words of Gore Vidal: “There is only one party in the United States, the Property party… and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt – until recently… and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties.”

Still, progressives always proceed according to the “lesser evil” theory. If I raised the question of US imperial policy, dubbed “foreign policy” in the US liberal mainstream media, I would be told by the more astute progressives that both parties were “equally imperialist”, and therefore their vote for the Democrats was justified by distinctions in their “domestic” policies.  

Still, because the elected Democratic presidents after Ronald Reagan, namely Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, were as neoliberal as Reagan and proceeded with his agenda of mercilessly dismantling the US welfare state, I remained at a loss as to what magnitude of difference existed between the two parties.

The more class-conscious socialists assured me that they were under no illusions that either party defended the white poor, let alone the downtrodden, impoverished racial minorities of Blacks, Latinos and Native Americans. Indeed, they insisted that both parties defended the rich, with the Democrats also defending the middle class in a limited way, although that commitment had declined measurably since the Clinton years.

So what, I asked, are the essential benefits to middle-class Americans that you are defending as progressives, socialists and leftists? Their sober responses highlighted issues of healthcare, social security and women’s reproductive rights. I replied that all of the above had been weakened by the neoliberal Democrats.

Enriching the rich

Support for women’s right to abortion declined considerably when the Clinton administration declared that abortions should be “safe, legal and rare”. Obama acknowledged the arguments of pro-lifers and called for reducing the demand for abortion, while Joe Biden, until his recent campaign, was a regular supporter of the 1976 Hyde Amendment (he changed his position in 2019), which prohibits federal healthcare programmes from directly funding abortion procedures except to save the life of the woman, or if the pregnancy arises from incest or rape.

As for Social Security, a bipartisan effort began the war on it in a set of 1983 congressional amendments, which Reagan signed into law. Both Clinton and Obama attempted to cut Social Security and government health benefits to Americans during their respective administrations, but were prevented from doing so by the Monica Lewinsky scandal in Clinton’s case, and public opposition in Obama’s.

Biden and former President Barack Obama have been described as a ‘lesser evil’ (AFP)

As for health services, attempts to offer universal healthcare to all Americans were obstructed by Clinton and later Obama, who adopted a Republican plan to subsidise private, for-profit health insurance companies, rebranded as “Obamacare”, and who paved the way for the horror that Americans found themselves in with the advent of the Covid-19 pandemic. The US empire is falling apart. But things can always get worseOscar RickettRead More »

While President Donald Trump also proposed cutting health benefits, which he did not do, anti-Trump propagandists accused him of proposing to cut Social Security, which he never did.

What about the Democratic policies of enriching the rich? Yet again, the party’s commitment to the rich was made amply clear with the major subsidies given to them by Clinton and Obama. The latter subsidised them to the tune of  $350bn in his bailout of the banks at the expense of middle-class homeowners whose houses were foreclosed upon. Obama did not hold Wall Street firms accountable for the economic meltdown, which followed Clinton’s 1999 repeal of New Deal-era banking regulations, but rewarded them instead.

Ideological blindness

So what justifies progressive, leftist and socialist Americans voting for the Democrats as the “lesser evil”? Is it ideological blindness, or attachment to the cosmetic political language of Democratic politicians, whose actions might have been worse than Trump’s, but whose style of delivery tends to be “kinder and gentler”?  

Why did the policies of Clinton, which transformed the criminal justice system in 1994 to expand the mass incarceration of African Americans, not cause a public outcry among liberals? Indeed, it was none other than Biden who helped to write the crime bill – the same Biden who opposed the racial integration of schools in Delaware back in the 1970s. And what about Kamala Harris, the grand incarcerator, who may succeed Biden in the 2024 election, assuming he does not step down due to ill health before then?America Last: Coming to terms with the new world orderRead More »

Why did Obama’s deportation of millions of “illegal” immigrants not garner the kind of popular opposition that Trump’s policy, which is a mere continuation of Obama’s atrocities, has encountered? While the American Civil Liberties Union challenged Obama in the courts, such legal opposition never translated into a public outcry against the “Deporter-in-Chief”.

Why was there no outrage over the fact that it was only in the last few months of Obama’s eight-year term that his Justice Department finally prosecuted one lone white cop for the racist murder of an African American?

In four years, Trump’s Justice Department did not prosecute a single white killer-cop, but this was a continuation of Obama’s practices. Yes, Obama’s Justice Department pursued “pattern of practice” investigations against police departments, which Trump discontinued – but that is hardly a major achievement on Obama’s part.

Hypocrisy and propaganda

And, yes, the so-called “Muslim ban” – yet another of Trump’s racist policies against some Muslim-majority countries – which people forget was based on a list of countries prepared by none other than Obama.

A legitimate feeling of horror was expressed on account of the 13 federal executions of convicted criminals carried out by the Trump administration in recent months, but these were never compared with the thousands of people that Obama killed by checking targets off his weekly drone kill list. Does it not matter to US progressives and leftists that unlike his Democratic predecessors, Trump, while continuing some of the subcontracted wars that Obama started – and presiding over a rise in civilian deaths as a result of US actions – did not launch a single new all-out war on some hapless country?

There is no such thing as American ‘foreign’ policy when US power controls the entire globe, making foreign policy ‘domestic’ policy

Could all these people who voted for Biden (slightly more than half of those who voted) – especially the benighted, white liberal intelligentsia – not know that many of the things they complained about during Trump’s rule were in fact done by their own beloved liberal presidents?

Most of them know, and their campaign against Trump was nothing but hypocrisy for the sake of propaganda, so that the poor and downtrodden would believe that Trump was evil while Obama, Clinton, Biden and Harris were good – or at least, the “lesser evil”.

Complicit in imperial crimes

In my conversations with progressive, leftist and socialist Americans over the decades, I have tried to point out that the US is not just the “leader” of the world, as asserted by liberal and conservative Americans equally committed to US jingoism, but that the US has been since 1991 the primary ruler of the world.

I explain to them that as US citizens, they are the only people on Earth who have the right to vote for a government that rules the entire globe, and that they are thus complicit in American imperial crimes when they decide, based on some illusory domestic agenda of the “lesser evil”, to vote for a government that would launch wars and kill hundreds of thousands of people. I add that there is no such thing as American “foreign” policy when US power controls the entire globe, making foreign policy “domestic” policy. 

Iranians burn a US flag during a rally in Tehran on 12 April 2019 (AFP)

Like their liberal and conservative “patriotic” and imperialist compatriots, many progressive and socialist Americans are not moved by such arguments. Indeed, they enjoin poor white Americans (“the deplorables” as former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton called them), along with downtrodden Black, Latino and Native American communities to join them in celebrating the Biden victory.

Why do they expect these Americans to celebrate with them, let alone the rest of the Third World – where millions have been killed by US firepower and covert operations since 1945, in wars launched by both Democratic and Republican leaders – when they know the US will probably initiate more wars against them? The reason is that these “progressive” and leftist Americans, like their liberal and conservative compatriots, are beneficiaries of the racist, classist and imperialist US system, which has always prevented them from seeking any real radical change.

The most they are willing to do is vote for a leftist imperialist Democrat, such as Bernie Sanders – who, like them, commits to changing very little, yet presumably also represents “the lesser evil”.

Joseph Massad is Professor of Modern Arab Politics and Intellectual History at Columbia University in New York. He is the author of many books and academic and journalistic articles. His books include Colonial Effects: The Making of National Identity in Jordan, Desiring Arabs, The Persistence of the Palestinian Question: Essays on Zionism and the Palestinians, and most recently Islam in Liberalism. His books and articles have been translated to a dozen languages.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

Oriental ’Orientalists’ and the US Unchanged Policies

By Elham Hashemi

Media outlets have been trying to anticipate and predict the new Biden Administration’s performance in terms of US domestic and international politics, with much focus on the nuclear deal with Iran known as the JCPOA. 

Articles and Op-eds praised the quick reversal of his predecessor’s decisions such as the reversal of the ‘Muslim Ban’, which may seem like a sign of goodwill. He seems to be giving his administration a façade of diversity which is impressive to the public opinion at least.  

But people of different color and race in the new administration is not necessarily a good thing. If those placed in power do not represent the popular opinions of the communities they come from then it is to no avail. The appointing of Kamala Harris, as the first woman of color to hold the position of Vice President, does nothing unless she is willing to create real change for women of color. 

Also pointing an American-Palestinian, Maher Bitar to a position co-ordinating the stream of information coming in from the US intelligence apparatus does not necessarily mean Biden will retreat from supporting the Israeli apartheid regime. 

According to a report published by the Politico last Friday, Bitar, who served as general counsel to Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee and played an important role in former president Donald Trump’s first impeachment, will assume the post of senior director for intelligence on Mr. Biden’s National Security Council.

The designation of the high-profile Arab-American lawyer to a prominent White House position co-ordinating the stream of information that pours in from the vast US intelligence apparatus and Kamala Harris sounds like Biden has decided to use the “oriental orientalists” to help him push his US policies forward. 

The Joe Biden website reads “Joe knows how we treat Muslim-Americans and prioritize issues affecting them reflects who we are as nation. As President, he will: protect Muslim-American constitutional and civil rights; honor the diversity of Muslim-American communities; ensure adequate healthcare; create a safe learning environment; rebuild our economy with a more resilient, more inclusive middle class; and make communities safer.” But these remain to be words of publicity and an exploitation to the American diversity unless serious steps are made and new policies are made in terms of dealing with the “East”. 

Why should the reversal of the “Muslim Ban” matter when the US is helping destroy many of the Muslim countries on that list? The halting of the border wall is maybe perceived as move of good will too, but wouldn’t it be great and more real if the United States was to also halt its policies which help create many of the refugees trying to find a better life in the United States?

The US Biden administration is different from the Trump administration, probably only in stopping the US staunch support for Saudi Arabia’s war on Yemen. It may arrive to a deal with Iran too on its nuclear program, but simultaneously without addressing the nuclear war heads Israel possesses or the violence and breach of law against other states. 

“Orientalism,” as Edward Said wrote, is “a Western style for dominating, restructuring, and having authority over the Orient.”

The result of this attitude and these policies? A culture in which the Middle East is seen as a playground and a subject for exploration, rather than a region of equal worth and value as the West. This was what the Palestinian-American intellectual and professor Edward Said observed in much detail in his famed book Orientalism, over fifty years ago.

American Hypocrisy Towards Unauthorized & Violent Protests Must End

By Andrew Korybko

Source

Whenever American administrations change, usually only the heads of various agencies and a few folks below them are replaced. Sometimes this is substantive, other times it’s only cosmetic, but the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the members of its military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”) remain the same.

The Biden Administration is following in the footsteps of the former Trump one by exercising hypocrisy towards unauthorized and violent protests. Both his and Trump’s condemned the violent storming of the US Capitol earlier this month, yet neither has any compunctions about endorsing similar destabilizations whenever they happen in Hong Kong or Russia. The former administration gleefully supported unauthorized and violent protests in China’s Special Autonomous Region against its national security legislation, while the present one is doing the exact same thing regarding imprisoned anti-corruption blogger Alexei Navalny.

That individual was recently detained for probation violations upon his return to Russia from Germany where he was receiving treatment after being mysteriously poisoned over the summer. He and some Western governments accuse the Russian one of attempting to assassinate him using the banned chemical weapon Novichok, a charge which Moscow vehemently denies. Navalny called for his compatriots to protest nationwide on Saturday in response to his detainment, which several tens of thousands of them did. Approximately three thousand people were detained for participating in these unauthorized protests, which quickly turned violent.

In the run-up to those riots, the Russian government strongly criticized its American counterpart for publishing the locations and times of unauthorized protests on its embassy website. It later slammed embassy spokeswoman Rebecca Ross for describing the security services’ response as a “concerted campaign to suppress free speech [and] peaceful assembly.” It should be noted that Russian media has shared footage of some participants attacking police and even beating up counter-demonstrators. Russia was also shocked that the unauthorized protests were being advertised to minors through social media.

It’s very disappointing that the Biden Administration is picking up where its predecessor left off, albeit by directing weaponized protests against Russia instead of China like Trump’s did, at least for now. America is further sacrificing its already dwindling soft power standing across the world through such blatant displays of hypocrisy. It cannot condemn similar manifestations of violence disguised as protest at home while enthusiastically supporting such instances abroad. In addition, the Biden Administration’s demand to unconditionally release Navalny and the protesters is a textbook example of meddling in another state’s affairs.

Nevertheless, this shouldn’t be all that surprising for observers. Whenever American administrations change, usually only the heads of various agencies and a few folks below them are replaced. Sometimes this is substantive, other times it’s only cosmetic, but the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the members of its military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”) remain the same. This in turn ensures policy continuation in the strategic sense, though it can of course be altered depending on the political will that the president at the time has to do so, like how Trump pulled out of the Iranian nuclear deal for example.

Evidently, President Biden and his team had no such will to stop their predecessor’s plans to support — and arguably even organize to a certain extent — this latest anti-Russian destabilization. They’re notorious Russophobes in the political sense who wouldn’t ever consider the pragmatism of easing pressure on Russia or the soft power benefits inherent in having a consistent stance towards unauthorized and violent protests. This is the absolutely wrong policy to practice since there’s never any excuse for violating international law. It also further erodes the country’s image abroad and could lead to unintended international consequences.

Whether someone’s protesting against national security legislation, allegedly rigged elections, or for the release of a detained blogger, they must always do so peacefully and follow the law. Illegally assembling and committing acts of violence against the security services and counter-protesters, especially while encouraging impressionable youth to de facto function as human shields, is absolutely unacceptable. It’s all the worse when a foreign power is politically supporting these events and even publicly organizing them through its embassy website. If President Biden is serious about change, then he must immediately stop these double standards.

#STANDWITHISSA: Issa Amro Stood Against Israel’s Settler State and is About to Pay a Heavy Price

By Miko Peled

Source

Anyone familiar with the Israeli occupation and the violence of the settlers would find the following story impossible and unthinkable, however, Issa Amro was able to pull it off.

Occupied Hebron — “Israel wants to steal our history. They want to focus only on one small part of the history and ignore all the rest,” Issa Amro told me in an interview for the “Miko Peled Podcast,” (also available at Mikoeled.com). Issa was talking about why Israeli settlers are so keen to take over Tel Rumeida, a hill overlooking the city of Hebron. It is a hill that contains an archaeological and historical gold mine. Not because it contains actual gold, but because along with the ancient olive trees that have been alive and have sustained people who lived in Hebron for thousands of years, it contains proof of an ancient civilization and continuous life that goes back thousands of years.

Violent extremist take over

The city of Hebron has the misfortune of having been invaded by extreme religious Zionist settlers. These are settlers who have a very particular reading of Biblical stories and are extremely violent and uncompromising. Their hate for Palestinians knows no bounds and like other Zionists, these settlers have no regard for the actual historical significance of the city of Hebron, but only see it in terms of their narrow, fanatic reading of the Old Testament.

Zionists in general, and the Zionist settlers in Hebron, in particular, feel that Old Testament stories represent history and completely disregard the fact that archaeological evidence points in a different direction. They interpret the archaeology in a way that satisfies their greed, their bigotry, and their desire to take the city away from its rightful inhabitants, the Palestinians of Hebron.

These fanatic settlers serve an important role within the larger Zionist takeover of Palestine. The method that Zionists have always used in order to take over land, even before the state of Israel was established, was to send young ideological zealots who are willing to use violence to forcibly take over Palestinian land. Then, they send in the military and claim that the area is a military base or is required for military use. Then the military leaves and invites settlers back to create a permanent settlement.

A portion of Tel Rumeida has already been taken over by settlers, but they will not be content until the entire Hill is in their hands. One man has made it his mission in life to make sure that this does not happen. This man, Issa Amro, was recently convicted by an Israeli military court of a list of charges that read like a textbook of civil disobedience. While he is yet to be sentenced, sentencing is expected to take place on February 8, 2021. There is reason to believe he will be serving time in an Israeli military prison. His only crime is that he dared to stand up to the vicious violence of fanatic Zionist settlers and the Israeli Army which is at their service using the tool of civil disobedience and non-violent resistance.

“I’m going to murder you Issa Amro!”

A couple of years ago I had the opportunity to take a few friends to visit Hebron. We met with Issa and he was kind enough to give us a tour of the city, the city in which he was born and now can only walk along roads in which he, as a non-Jew, is permitted to walk. It just so happens that the house in which he was born has been closed off by the Israeli army and Issa cannot access it.

As we reached a point in the city where non-jews (or rather Palestinians) are not permitted to walk, we saw a soldier standing and next to him a young settler who could not have been more than 14 years old. The boy looked at Issa and said to him in Hebrew, “Issa,  I am going to come and murder you one of these days.” He repeated this statement and then turned to the soldier and they gave each other a high-five. That is the environment in which Issa and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have to live because of the Zionist occupation of Hebron.

Saving a house in Hebron

Anyone familiar with the Israeli occupation in Palestine and the violence of the settlers and the Israeli military would find the following story impossible and unthinkable, however, Issa Amro was able to pull it off.

One house that was strategically placed on Tel Rumeida, and from which one can see the entire Old City of Hebron, was about to be taken over by settlers. It had gone through the process of the military takeover and was then handed over to settlers. Issa managed to find the Palestinian owner of the house and rent it from him legally. It had cost Issa agony, arrest, detention, endless interrogations, and required the intervention of hundreds of activists from around the world, but in the end, Issa was able to salvage the house from the settlers and establish a center from which he runs one of the most effective grassroots operations in Palestine, Youth Against Settlements (YAS).

Miko Peled, left, with Issa Amro at YAS Center in Tel-Rumeida, Hebron. Photo | Miko Peled

The work of Issa Amro and Youth Against Settlements includes documenting human rights violations by the army and settlers. Their work also includes organizing creative nonviolent actions, establishing and renovating community spaces such as a community center, kindergarten, woman empowerment center, and the beginnings of a cinema for which Issa may go to jail. Palestinians in Hebron are constantly at risk of forced displacement, and empowering this community in the most vulnerable areas through home repair, protective presence, and distributing charity is a crucial part of the local grassroots activism of Issa and the YAS.

Sentenced for civil disobedience

After a trial that has lasted several years and finally ended late in 2020, a military judge, Lt. Colonel Menahem Lieberman, himself is a religious Zionist settler who emigrated from the United States and has close ties to the settler community in Hebron, found Issa guilty of six out of the 18 counts of which he was charged. The indictment with 18 charges was presented in summer 2016, roughly three weeks after a campaign to establish a cinema in Hebron began.

THE CHARGES – CONVICTED:

• First count – assaulting a public servant
• Fifth count – participating in a rally without a permit
• Eight count – participating in a march without a permit
• Tenth count – obstructing a soldier
• Seventeenth count – participating in a march without a permit
• Eighteenth count – participating in a march without a permit

Between the time that this is published and February 8, at which time the judge will rule regarding sentencing, there is still time to act in order to help Issa Amro.

For information regarding the campaign please visit the Friends of Hebron where you can publish photos of yourself holding a sign in support of Issa, publish a video statement telling why you believe Issa Amro should go free. You can also call or email elected officials and reach out to your community centers, activist groups, local charities, religious organizations, and churches to request they release statements in support of Issa and contact your local elected and unelected officials.

Anyone wanting to help out is also encouraged to reach out to writers, journalists, celebrities, professors, and notable community members and ask them to make public statements or write editorials about the case. Friends of Hebron is also circulating a petition you can sign and send to others.

The risk of losing invaluable historical monuments and forgetting the rich history of Palestine is real. Doing what we can to prevent that is our responsibility as people of conscience for future generations. The first step is to stand with Palestinians like Issa Amro.

Our Children, Lockdowns, And The Great Reset

By Kevin Smith

Source

Over recent years, I’ve found that relying on life experience, critical thinking and instinct has served me well. I feel I can now think on so many levels than before. Children have this in abundance which we need to learn from. But too much academic learning at an early age often means they leave school with their critical thinking abilities seriously impaired by a system designed to turn out compliant robots.

Many of us will by now have heard of ‘The Great Reset’ and considered how this could affect the future of their children.

I’m sure most parents can recall big or important events and fond memories of their children growing up. My most vivid memories are the funny ones.

These are true stories.

In 1998, my son at the age of 5 was knocked down by a car. He broke his femur bone but had no other injuries.

He had just weeks earlier started school. His teacher at the time described him as ‘chatterbox’ but an intelligent one.

Yet, following the accident, for 6 weeks his leg had to remain in traction in hospital. My wife and I had to spend alternative nights sleeping there beside him.

When it was my turn, after my wife went home, I recall my son shared my love of the Simpsons and Bruce Lee movies, which we watched on TV in the evening.

Due to the time he was in hospital, he was assigned a personal tutor.

Generally, he responded well to probably what was better teaching than he would receive in his class of 30.

But I will never forget one scene in the hospital. My family were all there, including my 3-year old younger son, who permanently wore a Fireman Sam outfit with the helmet.

That day the teacher told my son off for being a chatterbox. She turned her back for a moment and my son took his willy out of his pants and waved it around in defiance. Not appropriate behaviour for this day and age, but he was just 5, it was over 20 years ago – and the teacher didn’t see it.

Watching this scene and of Fireman Sam bursting into hysterical fits of laughter remains with me to this day.

Another funny memory was not long after when he was back home. I used to spend a lot of time watching films with my older son. I remember we sat together for 90 minutes watching the cartoon type version of ‘Hercules’. We were both engrossed throughout.

As the credits rolled, he turned me yawning and said “Dad, what the hell was that all about?”

That same Christmas my mum recalls saying to him, “What do you think Father Christmas will bring you this year”? He turned to her with a look of amazement and said “I’m sorry to tell you Nanna, but Father Christmas doesn’t exist”

At 10, my younger son wanted to play football. He was very tall and quite big for his age and a little clumsy but loved to play sports.

Anyway, I signed him up to Saturday football. With all the smaller, fast and nimble footballers on the field, he rarely saw sight of the ball. The other kids gave him a hard time but he never complained or retaliated.

But the best and most comical moment was when one Saturday the ball was amazingly passed to him. He took it with skill.

He was immediately surrounded by about 3 or 4 of the nimble kids who like skittles at the same moment, fell in a heap, claiming a foul. There was some contact, but not much. My son scored and the goal stood.

I’m so proud that for his perseverance against these smaller bullies, he won ‘most improved footballer of the year award’. He could easily have given up.

Just recently I’ve been picking up my 13-year niece from school. She has an amazing, enquiring mind but is clearly bored with school.

So, I try and draw out her strengths and every day I’d explain the meaning of a new word or provide some wisdom. For example, recently I explained to her what the word ‘discerning’ meant and the importance of keeping an open mind.

The other day I explained about the word ‘incentive’. I explained it as positivity as I could and in terms of well-earned bonuses I received at work. Her response “Uncle Kevin, that rather sounds like bribery.”

My elder niece now has children of her own, but I still regard her from the same generation. Her message to her children is if the school try to jab them with Covid-19 vaccine to refuse and ‘punch the lights out’ of anyone approaching with a needle.

I’m sure many readers will relate to the above stories.

Parents, aunts, uncles and grandparents will always relate to the funny, innocent and incredible insight and resolve of their young relatives.

Our children are special. Right now, there are things we should learn from them. But it’s also our responsibility to wake up and think how we can shield them from the on-going madness.

I read a quote somewhere that children are so bright because they have not yet learnt. That is so true and why we need to protect them in these times.

To some extent, many children are shielded by their parents from the fallout of Covid-19 and lockdowns.

Yet children aren’t being shielded enough from the general madness being inflicted on us all. The madness that affects them directly such as the fear of passing Covid-19 to granny, mask-wearing and school closures. Mental health concerns all of a sudden swept aside during lockdowns.

Most children have spent much of the last year home schooling, away from that all important social interaction, vital for their development. Mental health issues such as depression and anxiety are going through the roof.

As we’ve all discussed here, adults in general have retreated into a shell. They’ve stopped thinking, and when I venture out on to the streets of suburbia, they resemble a kind of zombie-land.

Ivor Cummins summed it up well in several interviews when asked why he continues his fight to bring out the truth about Covid-19. He gave two reasons. One, the fight for science. But first and foremost, to protect the future of his 5 children.

So, what can we take from the memories described above and similar experiences all parents have of their children? And positively apply these to life now to fight the reset agenda? Perhaps quite a bit.

Learning From Our Children

Be sceptical and question everything

Like my 5-year old son, raising grave doubts about Father Christmas and my niece’s insightful interpretation, as adults we need to raise our game. In a way, Covid-19 is like Father Christmas. Yes, contrary to my son’s scepticism, he may exist, but he’s not a big threat to young children.

But seriously, history is littered with examples of where being lazy and complacent in our thinking ends badly.

Be a bit rebellious and draw your red line.

I don’t suggest waving one’s willy around the place or to punch anyone’s lights out, although it might come to that one day. But there are various ways of making a stand My red line is when they make masks mandatory outdoors. For now, I’ll go along with indoor wearing pointless masks in shops as for certain personal reasons, it’s just not worth the bother. Find your red line and fight tooth and nail when it’s breached.

Always stand up to bullies

This is something I learned, too late in life.

My older niece is an example of someone who won’t compromise on her core beliefs. Perhaps this a result of having a more difficult childhood. Nevertheless, we should instil values in our children to fight for our beliefs on the main matters.

The imminent threat is one of tyranny with the Great Reset which threatens all our futures. There are various ways of standing up to bullying, as my younger son discovered.

He fought from within and become a better person by participating and refusing to be side-lined.

In terms of modern-day challenges, adults are often forced to take on a more outside activist role. Either way, history always rewards those who resolve to remain independent and determined. Such people will determine our future rather than those who simply follow the crowd.

Instinct, creativity and education.

Over recent years, I’ve found that relying on life experience, critical thinking and instinct has served me well. I feel I can now think on so many levels than before.

Children have this in abundance which we need to learn from. But too much academic learning at an early age often means they leave school with their critical thinking abilities seriously impaired by a system designed to turn out compliant robots.

Occasionally when I’m stuck with a problem or idea, I ask my young niece what she would do. More often than not she comes back with an instant solution or a great idea, something I’d never thought of.

Parents need to balance the value of qualifications against drawing out their natural strengths to produce well rounded, creative children with a good overall understanding of the core subjects and life.

This is possibly a good example of the creative approach my young relatives then or a child now might take to solving a problem. This is an exchange of readers on the site ‘Off Guardian’ recently. The replies put the entire onus on an employer proposing a ridiculous request of their employees, and in my experience is an effective strategy.

Protecting our children.

Above all, we need to put concern about our kids as our top priority. Although this is obvious, I think in the present climate of fear our priorities have not always focused on this. So, it’s about creating a new sense of self-awareness.

I suppose at this stage we can only protect our children if we learn a few lessons from them. And wake up to the potential nightmare which threatens their future.

One lesson I learned, and everyone will have experienced, is being in a bad situation and wondering how you will recover. My son being in the hospital took me down that road. Yet 6 weeks later, he was better, and I now have nothing but lovely memories of that time. Things usually get better if you take things one day at a time.

But we must not be complacent. Major life-changing events, wars, etc., always happen in a lifetime. We can’t assume we can permanently carry on as usual as there’s always a threat to deal with.

To fight we have to realise that we are in a fight and that’s the challenge right now. Realisation of the reset agenda is the first goal. Then the fight starts and we have tools at our disposal.

And during these times, we need to draw upon the type of memories of children as I’ve mentioned.

Innocence, honesty, being inquisitive, humour, rebelliousness, determination and creative thinking. All things if you look at in your children today, or in the memories of the past, you will find in plentiful supply. We need to defend these things like mad to deal with all the imminent challenges now facing us.

What Wall Street fears

January 30, 2021

By The Ister for the Saker Blog

The origin of modern banking can be found in the early days of the gold trade. In the Middle Ages, goldsmiths accepted deposits of gold in return for paper notes, which could be exchanged for the deposits at a later date. Because these paper notes were more convenient for commercial use than physical metal, they were usually not redeemed for gold right away. The goldsmiths noticed their customers’ deposits could be used in the meantime to generate interest and began surreptitiously lending out the savings of their depositors. Over time fractional reserve banking developed from this tendency of lending out money in excess of the actual reserves being held.

Goldsmith became banker, and from this early monetary system, banking families emerged. Prior to the existence of modern financial institutions, these houses were the entities which could be relied upon for large amounts of credit. A reputable surname gave confidence to depositors that their gold was in good hands, and from the intergenerational accumulation of wealth grew large pools of loanable capital. As nobles required weapons and pay for their armies, the conflicts of medieval Europe were fueled by families such as the Medici, Fuggers, and Welsers. Today, it is the Federal Reserve which finances America’s enormous military and conquests abroad.

To truly understand banking, the concept of free markets must be cast aside. Just as oil is a strategic resource for the real economy capitalist, gold and silver are strategic resources for the financial capitalist. Physical bullion is the basis from which all other lines of credit extend; we know this because the same central banks which publicly proclaim gold to be a barbarous relic still feel the need to maintain enormous hordes in their vaults.

As in oil markets, pricing is not influenced primarily by a large number of producers and buyers but by concentrated cartel dynamics. So while we witness yet another energy battle between OPEC and Russia unfold, it should be understood that similar dynamics are at play in the upper echelons of the monetary world as bankers seek to fix prices and control physical bullion flows in a manner which is beneficial to their interests.

A key difference from oil is that while the pump leads to the refinery and the refinery to the end-user, bankers do not generally like to part with their gold. Accordingly, markets have been designed so that prices are determined not by physical delivery but by the trading of unbacked or fractionally backed “claims” on the underlying metal: certificates, ETFs, and futures. We can be certain that there is not enough physical bullion to cover all these paper metal claims, just like the medieval goldsmith did not hold his deposits in full.

These paper markets set the price, although bars rarely leave the vault

Where is the vault? While Fort Knox claims the largest holdings, the price is set by the London Bullion Market Association and CME Group which together account for around 70% and 20% of global trading volume respectively. The London Bullion Market began in 1850, when N. M. Rothschild and Sons and several other banking families created a cartel to oversee the operations of the global gold market, including the establishment of the “London good delivery” list which created trading standards for size, dimensions, shape and fineness of bullion; today trading on London markets requires a high purity and being between 350-450 ounces.

This domination of the world’s gold market was not achieved through peaceful means: look into the forces behind the conquest of Transvaal’s gold mines, for it bears a direct parallel to America’s invasions of oil-rich nations today. Another similarity with oil markets is that military interventions have a habit of “liberating” the target nation of their gold: just ask Muammar Gaddafi.

The price of such a strategic resource could not be determined by an open market, thus alongside good delivery standards the “gold fix” was established in 1919 and was held in the offices of New Court until 2004, when its operations were passed on to a cartel of bullion banks such JP Morgan and HSBC. Ever since, these banks have been investigated and convicted countless times of manipulating and spoofing the prices.

How do we know that there isn’t enough gold to cover physical deliveries? Back in the 1970s the dollar was under a lot of pressure and Western banks maintained secret gentlemen’s agreements not to request delivery of bullion. In 1971 Dutch central bank chief Jelle Zjilstra ignored these formalities and planned to convert $600 million of the Dutch dollar reserves to gold, prompting Federal Reserve chair Paul Volcker to fly out to the Netherlands and warn him: “you’re rocking the boat.” Shortly after Zijlstra refused Volcker’s pressure and continued with the purchase, the US decoupled from the gold standard.

Abandonment of the gold standard risked a reduction in dollar demand, so Nixon enlisted Wall Street scion Gerry Parsky to negotiate with oil exporting Arab nations. After discussion, the Saudi state agreed to sell oil priced exclusively in dollars and to invest the proceeds of oil sales in America.

To those who say dismissively that the dollar is now backed by “nothing,” I say it is backed by oil and the threat of the US military.

Look at the somber fates of those that tried to ditch the dollar for gold or the Euro: Libya in a state of permanent civil war; starving Syrians picking through landfills in search of food only miles from occupied wheat fields.

So maintaining confidence in our reserve currency requires the undermining of confidence in gold, as its reemergence would unnecessarily democratize the international monetary order. Confidence is undermined first by price suppression, which is accomplished by the manipulation of precious metals futures markets. While it would be hugely wasteful for a private individual or consortium to manipulate such a market with their own money, that is where the unlimited fiat available at central bank trading desks come in: and we know central banks are secretly trading precious metals futures due to leaked documents from CME Group.

Leo Melamed, chairman of CME Group and the putative father of modern commodity futures markets noted in his book Escape to the Futures that CME’s Globex system was inspired by the original London gold fix:

Sandner, Kilcollin and I were in London with the chairman of the Rothschild Bank seeking his advice on how to bring the “gold fix” to Chicago. From the heated debate that followed one would have concluded that Kilcollin knew more about the subject than the legendary Rothschilds, the people who had founded the concept ages before.

What we can see from this is that strategic commodities such as gold and oil are far from a free market: recall my previous article The Empire is Losing the Energy War which described how the Saudi state functions as a price-suppression weapon against Russia’s oil exports. This global commodity suppression schema allows the importation of the planet’s finite resources at a fraction of the true cost in return for theoretically unlimited currency. Recall Fed governor Kevin Warsh’s comments in December of 2011 when gold hit an all time high that banks were:

“finding it tempting to pursue financial repression- suppressing market prices that they don’t like”

There are signs, however, that the thin pool of physical bullion which exists to maintain confidence in paper markets is drying up. In March of 2020, CME Group had to relax its own requirement of 100oz bars to allow 400oz London good delivery bars to be shipped from overseas and used for trade settlement. Some would say: if price suppression exists then why has the gold price gone up over the last few years?

The middle ground between setting the price to very low or very high levels, say, $100 or $10,000, is that the prices are set high enough to minimize outflows from vaults, while at the same time using futures to hammer down the prices at psychologically important levels and initiating margin calls on those who are long gold using leverage. Those who have watched gold for a long time can attest to the sudden and inexplicable drops which originate in the futures market and which occur every time the gold price appears *just* ready to break out.

It’s a very complicated charade for the bullion bank cartel. Allow the price per ounce to go too low and you risk running out of the gold necessary to facilitate markets. At the same time, if the price rises too high it attracts international attention and risks gold reemerging in monetary policy. Notice how as soon as the supply shortages became apparent in March 2020 the bankers were forced to reset gold from $1230 to over $2000 in order to stem the outflows of physical delivery.

Putin is intentionally exacerbating this drought of physical gold in Western banks by expanding the Russian central bank’s purchases of gold. For the past few years Russia has been the number one global purchaser of bullion, having spent over $40 billion to bring Moscow’s reserves to the highest level in history: a sum close to the annual military budget because it is a strategic asset.

Just last week, Russia’s gold reserves passed its dollar reserves for the first time reaching a sum of $583 billion, highlighted by the central bank as part of Putin’s de-dollarization agenda. Given that purchases have grown at roughly 15% per year we can predict that even if the price does not rise, the value of these holdings will be around $1 trillion in three years. Read the anxious commentary about these purchases in Bloomberg and Forbes, and remember the nervousness in the business press when Germany demanded its gold back in 2013, which would only exist if behind-the-scenes physical gold flows were disjointed and there was internal muttering in the financial world as to whether the demand could be fulfilled.

To any who doubt that this is an overt move, in the pre-WW2 monetary system the mass accumulation of gold was well understood among central bankers as an aggressive act intended to starve competitor states of their ability to create credit. For example, French and American hoarding resulted in hyperinflation for Germany and forced Britain’s pound sterling off the gold standard.

Russia’s acquisition of precious metal is a direct threat to the financial system. How funny that the system is so fraudulent that it is an act of aggression to simply demand in physical form what one has paid for in full on an open market; an act which the designers of the system cannot protest lest they reveal their own bankruptcy. Just as it did in the 1920s, the hoarding of gold in the East will eventually limit the West’s ability to extend credit, it is simply unfolding on a longer time frame.

So why is a tiny stock like GameStop causing billionaire Leon Cooperman to cry on CNBC, and why is the SEC threatening small-time investors?

Simply, the financial markets are being revealed as a highly illiquid house of cards. Retail investors from Reddit began trolling short-sellers by rapidly buying small stocks and causing hedge funds to blow up from expensive margin calls. The losses are now estimated at around $70 billion, and as these small-time investors funnel their unemployment and stimulus checks into their aggressive trades they have fought wealthy investors in a more effective way than Occupy Wall Street ever did. They have now turned their eyes to the small and illiquid silver market…

Look at the fate of the Hunt brothers fortune: they were oil billionaires who tried to exercise their legal right to take physical delivery of a large volume of silver futures contracts and had CME pull the rug out from under them before it could be achieved. CME Group defeated the Hunt brothers by instituting Silver Rule 7 which limited the dollar amount of physical silver that an individual investor could buy. But how will that stop the hordes of young low net worth traders who are now telling one another to purchase physical bullion and intentionally strain the rigged silver market?

This arcane financial system is doomed to fail because it is based on ever-higher and more unstable abstractions of underlying wealth: CDOs squared and cubed, dark pool derivatives markets totaling trillions of dollars, and so on: all of which depends on the financial sector sucking as much money as possible out of a shrinking global economy through securitization. Now that people are demanding the underlying assets themselves, change is beginning.

What an interesting timeline: where Russia and unemployed youths have come to the same conclusion for how to defeat the banks.

---

The Ister is a researcher of financial markets and geopolitics. Author of The Ister: Escape America

Tim Anderson: US and Israeli involvement in the war on Yemen

A fake carrot to Iran

Source

January 30, 2021 – 20:58

TEHRAN – Joe Biden’s selection of Rob Malley as Iran envoy has sparked bitter dispute between hawks and progressives. They have launched media campaigns defending or opposing his selection. Hawks accuse him of going soft on Iran while progressives underline that the appointment of Malley will rekindle diplomacy with Iran.

But both groups fail to recognize that Malley is no friend of Iran and will work to secure the interests of the United States at the end of the day.

The first wave of criticism against the appointment of Malley came from a vague group called the National Union for Democracy in Iran (NUFDI) which sent an open letter to then-Secretary of State nominee Antony Blinken, urging him not to appoint Malley to the position of special envoy on Iran.

The group claimed that Malley was not interested in pursuing dialogue or consultation with what it called “Iranian human rights activists.”

“Mr. Malley’s record outside of government concerns us further. As head of the International Crisis Group, he has singularly focused on cultivating close relationships with Iranian government officials,” the group claimed.

Opposition to the appointment of Malley, the chief Middle East adviser in President Barack Obama’s second term and current president of the International Crisis Group, originates in his past positions on engaging Iran even though he will almost certainly act differently as a government official. In fact, being a government official is a whole lot different than being head of a non-governmental think tank, something that opponents of Malley failed to grasp.

On the other hand, progressives joined forces to defend the appointment of Malley as if he had a magical charm to put an end to U.S. malign behavior toward Iran. On Thursday, a group of these progressives put out a statement firmly defending the selection of Malley.

“Those who accuse Malley of sympathy for the Islamic Republic have no grasp of –or no interest in –true diplomacy, which requires a level-headed understanding of the other side’s motivations and knowledge that can only be acquired through dialogue,” the statement said.

The statement portrayed Malley as a man who will rekindle diplomacy with foes, identify possible areas of agreement and resolution, and, abracadabra, de-escalate tensions between Tehran and Washington as if nothing happened under Trump.

“Rob Malley is an extremely knowledgeable expert with great experience in promoting U.S. security through diplomacy rather than war. He would be an excellent choice for the role of Iran envoy,” Senator Bernie Sanders said in a tweet after Jewish Insider reported that Malley was under consideration to be the Biden administration’s envoy on Iran.

Opponents and proponents of Malley have one thing in common: both of them believe that he will facilitate talks between the governments of the U.S. and Iran. Progressives even sought to suggest that the appointment of Malley was an early carrot to Iran, implying that Iran should be grateful for that.

But this is exactly where opponents and proponents of Malley get it wrong. Judging by the Biden administration’s remarks on Iran, Malley will make it even more difficult for Iran to reach understanding with the U.S. in any future talks.

Biden officials have now made it clear that they want to expand the 2015 Iran nuclear deal – officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) -, not just simply rejoin it. And this will make any kind of negotiations between Iran and the U.S. harder than in 2015, when the two reached the JCPOA while Malley was a member of the U.S. negotiating team.

Imagine if Iran says no to a Malley demand on its missile program or regional activities in any future talks. The Biden administration would tell the whole world that it’s Iran, not the U.S., that doesn’t want to return to diplomacy.

Malley will not make decisions on Iran. Instead, he will largely be responsible for coordinating and implementing the White House Iran policy just like any other diplomat in the State Department. He will likely be a smokescreen for the Biden administration’s soft bullying against Iran. In this sense, Malley would be far from being a driving force for renewed diplomacy with Iran. He is by no means a carrot to Iran, not even a fake one.

PA/PA

Related Videos

RELATED NEWS

• Not a friend; definitely
• Iran advises Macron to avoid taking indiscreet, hasty positions
• Biden to rejoin JCPOA if Iran returns to commitments: ex-Obama aide
• Robert Malley: More demanding for Tehran to deal with
• JCPOA implementation amid a tug of war between rhetoric and facts
• Biden administration informed Israel that it has begun secret contacts with Iran: Channel 12
• Washington, Moscow held ‘serious and meaningful’ dialogue on JCPOA

When the Revolution Council in Homs Governorate participates in the Tripoli fires عندما يشارك مجلس الثورة في محافظة حمص في حرائق طرابلس!

**Machine translation Please scroll down for the Arabic original **

When the Revolution Council in Homs Governorate participates in the Tripoli fires

Paris  Nidal  Hamada

Lebanese security forces have released two leaders of  takfirist fighting groups who entered Lebanon under the cover of a journalist and were arrested in Tripoli during  demonstrations Thursday night and Friday.

It is not known how these fighters in the Al-Faruq Brigade  in Qusayr and in the neighbourhoods of Homs were allowed to enter Lebanon, although we knew from their Facebook pages that the Samir Kassir Center intervened to release them, i.e. the U.S. Embassy in Aoker and The Arab TV of Azmi Bishara.

The Information Branch arrested Anas Idris, a former spokesman for the Revolutionary Command Council in Homs province, Fadi Gargouz, a fighter of the Farouk Brigades in Qusayr and one of the founders of the Al-Qusayr Media Center, which belonged to this  brigade, and the two reside in Gaziantep, Turkey.

In a quick browsing of the page of the Revolution Council in Homs Governorate on the social networking site for short tweets «Twitter» in the years when Anas Idris was his official spokesman, we find Anas Idris promoting and supporting:

• Killings and terrorist operations,
• sectarian incitement
• Support for the Zionist enemy strikes on Syria
• And an explicit declaration in the fight against Hezbollah,
• Using expressions of Nusra and ISIS describing Hezbollah, as the party of Satan.

Though calling Lebanon a corrupted state, under pressure from the US embassy and the Qatari embassy in Beirut, the security forces released him yesterday, Friday.

Anas Idris and Fadi Gargouz are leaders of armed groups that fought the Syrian army and the Lebanese  resistance for years in Syria and Lebanon, bombed Lebanese villages and towns with rockets, and sent  dozens of car bombs into Lebanon, which killed hundreds of Lebanese, Syrians and Palestinians in the streets of Lebanese cities, entered and left Lebanon without being held accountable.

We are content with publishing some of the tweets of the Revolutionary Council in the Homs governorate during the period when Anas Idris was its official spokesman, so that the Lebanese know what kind of people were in Tripoli on the night of the great riot, and how these people left Lebanon without anyone asking them one question about the crimes they committed.

It is an issue similar to releasing Criminal Amer al-Fakhouri.

Related

• Sayyed Nasrallah: Al-Fakhoury’s Release Dangerous, We Didn’t Know About it….Trump Not Being Human
• Hezbollah MP: Fakhoury’s Crimes Mothers of All Crimes
• From Facing the Death Penalty to a Fugitive: US Assists Criminal Al-Fakhoury Out of Lebanon
• Lebanon’s Military Tribunal Acquits Collaborator with Israeli Enemy Amer Fakhoury
• Lebanon: Military Investigative Sentences Collaborator with Zionist Enemy Amer Fakhoury to Death

عندما يشارك مجلس الثورة في محافظة حمص في حرائق طرابلس!

باريس ـ نضال حمادة

أفرج الأمن اللبناني عن قياديّيْن اثنين في الجماعات التكفيرية المقاتلة دخلا الى لبنان بغطاء صحافيّ، وتمّ توقيفهما في طرابلس أثناء التظاهرات ليل الخميس – الجمعة.

ولا يُعرَف كيف سُمح لهذين المقاتلين في لواء الفاروق في القصيْر وفي أحياء حمص بدخول لبنان، وإنْ كنا عرفنا من صفحتيهما على «الفيسبوك» أنّ «مركز سمير قصير» تدخّل لإطلاق سراحمها، يعني السفارة الأميركيّة في عوكر والتلفزيون العربي التابع لعزمي بشارة.

وفي التفاصيل أنّ فرع المعلومات أوقف كلاً من أنس إدريس الناطق الرسمي السابق في مجلس قيادة الثورة في محافظة حمص، وفادي قرقوز أحد مقاتلي كتائب الفاروق في القصيْر ومن مؤسسي مركز القصيْر الإعلامي الذي كان يتبع لهذا اللواء، ويقيم الإثنان في غازي عنتاب في تركيا.

وفي تصفّح سريع لصفحة مجلس الثورة في محافظة حمص على موقع التواصل الاجتماعي للتغريدات القصيرة «تويتر» في الأعوام التي كان فيها أنس إدريس ناطقاً رسمياً باسمه نجد ما يدين أنس إدريس بالترويج والتأييد لأعمال قتل وعمليات إرهابيّة، فضلاً عن تحريض طائفي وتأييد للعدو الصهيونيّ في ضرب سورية، وإعلان صريح في قتال حزب الله، واستخدام تعابير النصرة وداعش في وصف الحزب بحزب الشيطان. وللمفارقة اتهام بالفساد للدولة اللبنانية التي قامت أجهزتها الأمنيّة يوم أمس الجمعة بإطلاق سراحه، كما بضغوط من السفارة الأميركيّة والسفارة القطريّة في بيروت.

أنس إدريس وفادي قرقوز قياديان في جماعات مسلحة قاتلت الجيش السوري والمقاومة اللبنانيّة سنوات في سورية ولبنان، وقصفت قرى وبلدات لبنانية بالصواريخ، وأرسلت عشرات السيارات المفخّخة الى لبنان التي قتلت مئات اللبنانيين والسوريين والفلسطينيين في شوارع المدن اللبنانية دخلا لبنان وخرجا منه من دون أن يحاسبهما أحد، ونحن هنا سوف نكفي أنفسنا وقرانا عناء البحث ونقوم بنشر بعض تغريدات مجلس الثورة في محافظة حمص خلال الفترة التي كان فيها أنس إدريس ناطقاً رسمياً باسمه حتى يعرف اللبنانيون نوعية الأشخاص الذين كانوا في طرابلس ليلة الشغب الكبير، وكيف أنّ هؤلاء خرجوا من لبنان من دون أن يسألهم أحد سؤالاً واحداً عن الجرائم التي ارتكبوها.

إنها قضيّة يمكن وضعها في مصاف قضية عامر الفاخوري.

مقالات ذات صلة

• «سنوكر» سعوديّ أميركيّ فرنسيّ في طرابلس؟
• احتجاجات طرابلس: الحريري يتّهم الجيش
• لبنان.. اشتباك محلي أم رسائل إقليمية؟

Noam Chomsky – Why Does the U.S. Support Israel?

إصلاح “حماس”، عمرو علان يساجل أحمد يوسف

*كاتب فلسطيني وباحث سياسي

عمرو علان

 عربي 21، الخميس 31 كانون الأول\ديسمبر 2020

نشر د. أحمد يوسف مؤخرا مقالا بعنوان “لأخي خالد مشعل، حماس وجدلية الإصلاح والتغيير”، وجاء المقال على صيغة نصيحة لحركة “حماس” ولرئيس مكتبها السياسي السابق السيد خالد مشعل بهدف تقويم المسار وسد الثغرات وتقوية الحركة حسب تصور د. أحمد. 

لكن جل ما عدَّه د. أحمد نصائح إصلاحية كانت في الحقيقة تساعد على زيادة اعوجاج المسار – إن كان مسار الحركة شابه اعوجاج – وتفتح الباب على مصراعيه للتنازلات في الثوابت عوضا عن سد الثغرات، وفيها مما يهدم قوة الحركة الحقيقية إذا ما استصاغتها قيادة الحركة.

ويبدو أن ما ورد في المقال المذكور يتجاوز كونه حالة فردية إلى كونه يمثل وجهة نظر شريحة معينة من أبناء حركة المقاومة الإسلامية “حماس”. 

ولا يدّعي كاتب هذه السطور أنه أحد أبناء هذه الحركة، لكن منطلقا من الحرص على كل فصائل المقاومة الفلسطينية، التي تعد حماس عمودها الفقري، والتي باتت تشكل يد الشعب الفلسطيني الطولى وسنده الصلب، هو ما اقتضى هذا الرد.

“حماس” والمعترك السياسي

يقول د. أحمد إنه كان من أوائل من دعوا إلى دخول معترك السياسة والحُكْم، ويتحسر على تأخر حركة حماس في اتخاذ هذه الخطوة، لكنه في الوقت نفسه يختلف مع السيد خالد مشعل على كون خوض حماس لانتخابات 2006 ودخولها معترك السلطة والحُكْم قد حمى ظهر المقاومة كما كان مرجوا، وهو محق في هذا التقييم، فكيف إذن لا تؤخذ هذه التجربة ونتائجها بالحسبان عند الدعوة إلى الغوص أكثر في دهاليز السياسة والحُكْم؟ 

وهنا يجدر التذكير بكون أول من عد انتخابات 2006 غير شرعية كانت أمريكا ومن لف لفها من دعاة الديمقراطية، رغم شهادة الجميع بنزاهة تلك الانتخابات بما في ذلك حركة فتح ذاتها. أليس في هذا عبرة لمن يَعدّ أن تلك الدول التي يرجى مخاطبتها في السياسة كخصم سياسي لن تعترف بحركات المقاومة كندّ سياسي حتى تتخلى عن الثوابت؟ ناهيك عن تخليها عن المقاومة المسلحة كمنهج وطريق للتحرير؟

وفي الواقع – ومع تقديرنا لكلام السيد خالد مشعل – فإن دخول حركة حماس انتخابات 2006 كان خطأ في التقدير، فهو أولا: لم يؤمّن للمقاومة وحركة حماس عموما أي حصانة، وثانيا: كان بمعنى أو بآخر اعترافا ضمنيا بأوسلو رغم تصريحات حماس بعكس ذلك، ورغم عدم رغبة حماس بالاعتراف بمسار أوسلو، فالسياسة ممارسة، لا مجرد مواقف تفقد قيمتها إذا ما اقترنت بالفعل، وعلى المرء أن يعترف بأن رفض مخرجات أوسلو ومن ثم دخول انتخابات للمشاركة في سلطة هي أحد مخرجات أوسلو فيه من التناقض ما لا يمكن تجاهله.

ومن ثم يذكر د. أحمد فيما ذَكَر لدعم وجهة نظره خذلان بعض الحركات الإسلامية والعروبية التي كانت حماس تعول عليها بما نراه من انبطاح واتفاقيات تطبيع مخزية. 

حسنا، أليس أحد أهداف هذه الاتفاقيات بث الوهن في عَضُد حركات المقاومة والضغط عليها نفسيا؟ وإيهامها بأنه لم يعد لها سند ولا نصيرعلها ترضخ للمسارات السياسية طريقا عوضا عن طريق المقاومة والكفاح المسلح؟ 

نعم يألم الجميع لما نراه من هرولة للارتماء في أحضان العدو، لكن هذا لا يغير شيئا على الأرض وفي الميدان، فلقد طورت حماس في ظل السنوات العجاف التي مرت من قدراتها التسليحية أضعافا، وحفرت عشرات الكيلومترات من الأنفاق، وتحولت المقاومة إلى جيش يحسب له ألف حساب، ولكم في المناورات المشتركة الأخيرة “الركن الشديد” مثالا، وإن هذا الطريق هو الذي يحبط أهداف العدو من إسقاط بعض الأنظمة والحركات في براثن التطبيع، وأما الغرق أكثر في بحور السلطة فلن يكون مصيره أفضل مما وصلت إليه السلطة الوطنية الفلسطينية، التي لم تصمد على قرار وقف التنسيق الأمني الشكلي سوى أسابيع، حتى خرج علينا حسين الشيخ ليعلن انتصار الشعب الفلسطيني وعودة الحال لما كان عليه بعد استلامه ورقة من مجرد ضابط مخابرات صهيوني، وبالمناسبة كان شح الأموال وضيق الحال الاقتصادي من أهم دوافع السلطة لإعلان عودة التنسيق الأمني والخروج علينا بتصريح حسين الشيخ المخزي بكل المعايير، وهذه نفس الظروف التي أشار إليها د. أحمد في مطلع مقاله، ولعله بهذا يقرأ في كتاب الرئيس محمود عباس.

النظام الداخلي لحماس وحديث الهدنة

ويمضي د. أحمد في مقاله بعد ذلك لتعداد بعض النقاط التي يرى فيها خللا، ومن بينها على سبيل المثال: دعوته إلى تطوير النظام الداخلي لحركة حماس، ولعملية اختيار القيادات فيها، وهذا أمر مشروع ومحمود بالتأكيد، لكن مع مراعات منهج التطوير السليم، وإدراك كون حركة حماس حركة مقاومة وتحرير لا دولة، فصحيح أنه يجب بث الدماء الجديدة في صفوف القيادات والاستفادة من طاقات أبناء حركة حماس المخضرمين، لكن من الصحيح أيضا أن معيار اختيار القيادات الأساسي في حركات التحرير يبقى سِجِل تلك القيادات الجهادي والنضالي، وهذا نهج كل حركات المقاومة والتحرير عبر التاريخ، فلا تقاد حركات المقاومة (بالتكنوقراط) والاختصاصيين، ويُذكِّر هذا بما كانت تتداوله بعض قيادات فتح عن أبو عمار – رحمة الله عليه – بعد إنشاء السلطة، وبعد تصديقهم لأكذوبة أنه بات لنا دولة، فكانوا يتهامسون بأن أبا عمار ليس رجل المرحلة، حيث مقتضيات إدارة الدولة تختلف عن متطلبات إدارة حركة نضال وطني، والكل يعرف بقية القصة، وما آلت إليه حركة فتح بعد إقصاء كل من كان له تاريخ نضالي من صفوفها لصالح (التكنوقراط) على شاكلة سلام فياض وغيره.

ثم يقول د. أحمد إنه قد آن الأوان لعقد هدنة أو استراحة محارب، وليته وضح لنا مفهوم الهدنة التي يقترحها، ألم تعقد حماس عدة اتفاقيات تهدئة؟ لكن دائما كان العدو من يخرقها ولا ينفّذ ما التزم به، فالهدنة المقبولة من وجهة نظر العدو هي تلك التي تسلم المقاومة بمقتضاها سلاحها أو تتوقف عن الإعداد من زيادة السلاح كما ونوعا وحفر الأنفاق وغير ذلك، فهل هذا هو الثمن الذي يُقترَح على حركات المقاومة وحماس دفعه؟

المقاومة السلمية

 وفي نقطة أخرى متصلة يدعو د. أحمد إلى تبنّي منهج مقاوم يردع العدو ويكشف جرائمه، ملمحا إلى المقاومة السلمية، ويتعجب المرء من هكذا كلام وكأن المقاومة السلمية تردع عدوا أو تكبح مغتصبا، نعم المقاومة السلمية تعد أحد أشكال المقاومة لكن لا يجوز بحال تبنيها كمنهج وأساس للمقاومة، فالكفاح المسلح وحده من يردع العدو، ولو كانت مقاومة الشموع تردع محتلا لفلحت مقاومة من اتخذها نهجا من قبْل، فأي نصيحة هذه التي تؤدي إلى تسليم رقاب المقاومين للصهيوني كي يذبحهم على مذبح تجربة المجرب؟ وأما فضح جرائم الاحتلال، فليكن د. أحمد متأكدا بأن أولئك الذين يرغب بفضح العدو أمامهم هم ذاتهم شركاء حتى أخمص قدميهم في جرائم هذا العدو، ولا يلزمهم شرح ولا توضيح.

حزب سياسي للإسلاميين!

خاتمة

أما الطامة فكانت في قول د. أحمد “لقد آن الأوان لإنشاء حزب سياسي يتحدث باسم الإسلاميين في فلسطين، ويمثل رأس جسر لهم، بعيداً عن اتهامات التطرف والإرهاب”، عذرا لكن أيما تشويش في الأفكار هذا؟ هل يرضى د. أحمد وصول الحال بحماس بأن تشجب وتدين العمل المقاوم ليرضى عنها هؤلاء الذين يريد شرح جرائم الاحتلال لهم؟ ونربأ بالدكتور أحمد عن ذلك، وأيضا هل وصف حركة حماس وسائر حركات المقاومة بالإرهاب والتشدد لأنهم فعلا كذلك أم لكونهم متمسكين بحقهم وحق كل الشعب الفلسطيني في المقاومة والتحرير؟ 

وعليه ليس مفهوما ما المقصود من هذه النصيحة، وما هي طبيعة تلك الحركات الإسلامية “غير المتشددة”، ولعل مرد التشويش في الأفكار عند د. أحمد هو الإيمان بطريق السلطة والحُكْم، وإعلاء السياسة كأولوية على القوة والمقاومة اللتين تعدان مصدري صناعة السياسة ومرتكزاتها الأساسية، وبدونهما يصير العمل السياسي مجرد استجداء وحبر على ورق.

ويدعو د. أحمد إلى ضرورة إعطاء أولوية الإنفاق للمحتاجين، ولتوجيه دعم الدول العربية والإسلامية لوكالة الأونروا، مجددا القصد غير واضح تماما من هذه النصيحة ومن استخدام كلمة “أولوية” في هذا المقام،بالطبع يقع على عاتق حركة حماس مسؤولية اتجاه المحتاجين من شعبنا، كونها أحد الفصيلين الأكبرين في الساحة الفلسطينية، وكونها ارتضت تسلم السلطة في قطاع غزة، فإن كان القصد هو إيلاء هذه المسؤولية المزيد من الاهتمام عبر سد أبواب الهدر التي باتت وبصراحة كثيرة في نشاطات فروع حركة حماس في خارج فلسطين، عبر كثرة المؤتمرات الخطابية التي لا تقدم ولا تؤخر كثيرا، والتي تتسم في الكثير من الأحيان بالبذخ غير المقبول نهائيا، وصارت مصدر استرزاق للبعض وللزبائنية، وحيث صار جزء لا يستهان به من كوادر حركة حماس في الخارج عبء على كاهل الحركة بدلا من أن يكونوا رافدا لها.

فإذا كان المقصود هو سد هذا الباب وتحويل جزء من هذا الهدر لدعم المحتاجين من شعبنا فلا غبار على ذلك، وأما إن كان المقصود تحويل حركة حماس لجمعية خيرية، وتقزيم القضية الفلسطينية لتصبح قضية محتاجين ففي هذا انحراف كبير، فمسؤولية حركة حماس الأساسية مع باقي حركات المقاومة العمل على تحرير الأرض، والتحرير له أولوياته المعروفة، وهذا ما يحل مشكلة المحتاجين من أصلها التي ما هي إلا أحد أعراض الاحتلال وضياع الأرض، وإلا سيظل شعبنا محتاجا ومحروما إلى ما شاء الله، ومع الفوارق في الفداحة وقدر المعاناة، يظل حال الشعب الفلسطيني كحال غيره من شعوب المنطقة التي اتخذت من المقاومة والصمود طريقا، فها هي الجمهورية الإسلامية في إيران ترزح تحت حصار خانق منذ قرابة الأربعين عاما، ولبنان يتحمل من الحصار والضغوط الأمريكيين بسبب تمسك حزب الله بالثوابت الدينية والوطنية وحقوق لبنان في أرضه وثرواته من غاز وغيره، وتتعرض سوريا لحرب كونية ضروس منذ عشر سنوات بسبب مواقفها الوطنية والقومية الداعمة للمقاومات في لبنان وفلسطين على حد سواء، واليوم جاؤوها بقانون قيصر الظالم ليستكمل الحصار الاقتصادي على شعبها الصامد، فهذا هو حال شعبنا وهذه هي ضريبة التحرير، وإلا فلنرتضي أن تصير حركة حماس تنتظر الفتات من تحويلات مالية “إسرائيلية” كما السلطة الوطنية الفلسطينية العتيدة.

الحديث يطول فيما ورد في المقال من نقاط “ونصائح”، لكن ملخص القول إن د. أحمد دعا في غير موضع من مقاله إلى استخلاص العبر والدروس من تجارب الماضي، لكن الظاهر أن د. أحمد لم يستخلص العبر من المثال الشاخص أمامنا ممثلا في مسار منظمة التحرير وما وصلت إليه، ناهيكم عن مسارات المتخاذلين الآخرين من حركات ونظام عربي متهالك، فإذا كان هذا هو المنهج فلا لوم على الذين سقطوا سقوطا مدويا في عامنا هذا الذي يصح وصفه بعام الخيانات.

Russian Attack Helicopters Purge ISIS Cells In Central Syria

South Front

January 29, 2021

The Syrian Army and its allies continue active efforts to hunt down and neutralize ISIS cells in the Homs-Deir Ezzor desert.

In a recent series of raids, government forces eliminated at least 8 ISIS members that were involved in recent attacks on civilian and military columns moving between the towns of Kobajjep and al-Shoulah. Three pick-up trucks armed with machine guns were also destroyed.

The Russian Aerospace Forces also deployed attack helicopters to support security operations of the Syrian Army. The very same helicopters are involved in providing security to important columns moving along the Homs-Deir Ezzor highway. On top of this, Russian warplanes carried out a few dozens of strikes on ISIS targets across the region.

Pro-government sources argue that now the highway is fully secured. However, it is unlikely that the ISIS threat will be fully neutralized anytime soon. On December 30, at least 25 people were killed when ISIS cells ambushed a bus near Kobajjep on the M20. On January 24, a similar attack left three people dead near al-Shoulah.

The increase of ISIS attacks took place amid tensions between the Syrian Army and the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces in al-Hasakah and al-Qamishli. The SDF security unit, Asayish, is seeking to limit the freedom of movement of Syrian personnel and pro-government militias in these areas. These attempts have faced a strong resistance from the local Arab population that does not support the pro-US and separatist posture of the Kurdish leaders. Damascus and the Kurdish leadership are allegedly being involved in negotiations to settle the existing issues. Nonetheless, the SDF is not hurrying up to demonstrate any kind of constructive approach. It seems that the leaders of Syrian Kurds will find out that they are also Syrians and should cooperate with Damascus to receive protection not earlier than the Turkish Army once again launches an advance on SDF positions.

Meanwhile, the situation is escalating in Iraq. The new US administration seems to be not going to reduce the number of troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan in a move that goes contrary to the agreements and policies of the previous US President.

During his confirmation hearing last week, the new Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said that Washington was set to reexamine the plan announced by the administration of Donald Trump for reducing the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan each to 2,500.

This move is not only putting end to Trump’s attempts to reduce the US involvement in conflicts around the world, but also antagonize a large part of the Iraqi society and political leadership. In January 2020, the Iraqi parliament passed the law demanding the US to withdraw troops from the country. This decision followed the US assassination of top Iranian and Iraqi military commanders, Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, in a drone strike in Baghdad.

This act of the US aggression also led to the increase of activity anti-US armed groups (often linked with Iran) that have already carried out dozens of attacks on supply convoys and targets affiliated with the US-led coalition. This trend will continue to strengthen as long as the main source of tensions, the large-scale US military presence in Iraq, will not be removed.

Related Videos

Related News

• Situation in southern Syria deteriorates amid escalation of violence
• Governor of southern Syria town assassinated by unknown assailants
• International Security System Is On Its Way To Collapse
• Israeli Military Asks $1.2billion To Prepare For Strike On Iran
• Missiles Explode In Skies Over Riyadh. United States Boasts To Deploy Iron Dome In Gulf
• Dress Rehearsal Of Color Revolution In Russia

⁨انتخابات كلٌ يغني على ليلاه – New Elections or a Third Intifada?⁩

** Please scroll down for the English machine translation **

انتخابات كلٌ يغني على ليلاه

*كاتب فلسطيني وباحث سياسي

عمرو علان

عربي 21، الجمعة 29 يناير\كانون الثاني 2021

تدخل القوى الفلسطينية معترك انتخابات المجلس التشريعي التي تم التوافق على إجرائها وكلٌ يغني على ليلاه، فمحمود عباس يسعى من وراء هذه الانتخابات إلى الحصول على إقرار بكونه الممثل الشرعي لكل الفصائل الفلسطينية في الضفة وقطاع غزة، وعينه على طاولة مفاوضات جديدة تُعْقَد بمباركة إدارة جو بايدن الأمريكية، وعلى استئناف تلقي المخصصات من الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية والكيان الصهيوني، فهو لم يَعُدْ عنده أي شيء آخر ليقدمه للفلسطينيين، سوى ربما المزيد من تنسيقه الأمني “المقدس” مع قوات الاحتلال وبلا أدنى خجل، ولا يحتاج الإنسان إلى الكثير من العناء لتوقُّع مصير هذه المفاوضات، فيكفي النظر إلى تجربة الثلاثة عقود المنصرمة، وإذا كان هذا غير كافٍ فيمكن الاستئناس بما قاله جو بايدن مؤخرا عندما بشّرنا بأن التوافق بين أطراف النزاع يحتاج إلى المزيد من الوقت، وطبعا الكيان الصهيوني مستمر أثناء ذلك في تنفيذ مشروعه بقضم القليل المتبقي من أراضي الضفة عبر زيادة الاستيطان، وصولا إلى تهجير من تبقّى من سكان الضفة لأن الصهيوني يريد الأرض دون البشر الذين عليها، ويقدر أحد أصحاب الرأي بأنه لن يمضي الكثير من الوقت قبل أن يبدأ المستوطنون بحملات الإرهاب ضد سكان الضفة، حملات بدأت بوادرها بالظهور من خلال القتل الاعتباطي لبعض سكان أراضي 67، ولِما لا والسلطة الفلسطينية صارت وظيفتها الوحيدة حفظ أمن المستوطنين موفرةً بذلك للكيان الغاصب أرخص احتلال عرفه التاريخ، هذا ولم نتحدث عن الانتشار المريب للسلاح غير المنضبط بين أيادي بعض المشبوهين من أهالي 48، الذي أدى إلى حصول عدة جرائم في الشهور الماضية.

إن كل ما شهدناه من سياسة الحرد التي اتبعها محمود عباس فترة حكم دونالد ترامب، وصولا إلى اجتماع أمناء الفصائل الفلسطينية في بيروت لم يكن إلا مجرد مناورات تكتيكية، والمضحك المبكي أنه كان يُصرّح طيلة تلك الفترة عن تمسكه باستراتيجية المفاوضات العقيمة، لكن هناك على الساحة الفلسطينية من لا يريد أن  يسمع.

أما حركة حماس فهي تأمل من وراء هذه الانتخابات الخروج من المأزق الذي وضعت نفسها فيه بعد خوضها انتخابات عام 2006، لعلها تستطيع تخفيف وطأة الحصار الظالم على قطاع غزة، وهنا يُطرح السؤال الوجيه الذي يرِدْ على لسان الكثيرين: كيف لانتخابات جديدة أن تؤدي إلى انهاء الانقسام بينما كان منشأ الانقسام انتخابات 2006 بالأصل؟

واهمٌ من يظن أن حصار فصائل المقاومة الفلسطينية في قطاع غزة سببه الانقسام، الحصار يا سادة سببه تمسك المقاومة الفلسطينية بالحقوق والثوابت الوطنية، وحملها عبء قضية فلسطين المقدسة، ومربط فرس الحصار عند كيان الاحتلال لا عند سواه، لذلك أي محاولات لفك الحصار أو تخفيفه لا تمر عبر الاشتباك مع العدو الذي يفرض الحصار لن تكون ذات جدوى، ولن تفضي إلا إلى المزيد من تعمق الأزمة وإضاعة الوقت والجهود.

تشهد الضفة هذه الفترة حالة غليان لا يمكن تجاهلها، والعمليات الفردية والبطولية المستمرة تدلل عل أن النار تحت الرماد، فلا يمر أسبوع دون حصول عملية أو اثنتين، فأيهما أجدى؟ تأطير هذه الطاقات وتفعيل الحراك الشعبي وصولا إلى الانتفاضة، أم تنفيس هذا الغضب الشعبي الكامن عبر دخول انتخابات غير مقتنع بجدواها غالبية الشعب الفلسطيني؟

شعبنا بعمومه مدرك لكون فكرة انتخابات تحت حراب الاحتلال الذي يتحكم بكل مفاصل الحياة في الضفة الغربية ما هي إلا مزحة سمجة، لكن أحد أخطر عواقب هذه المزحة السمجة إدخال الإحباط في نفوس الشباب الغاضب في الضفة وتثبيط هممه.

خروج المقاومة الفلسطينية من أزمتها وتخفيف الحصار الظالم المفروض عليها لن يكون عبر سلوك الطريق الأسهل غير المجدي بل من خلال الطريق الأنجع حتى ولو كان الأصعب، والانتفاضة الثالثة سيكون من شأنها قلب المعادلات وتغيير الوقائع، ناهيكم عن فرصتها الحقيقية في دحر الاحتلال عن أراضي 67 دون قيد أو شرط في ظل حالة التراجع التي يعيشها العدو الصهيوني، والتي باتت تتحدث عنها مراكز دراسات العدو ذاته، ولا يغرنكم حالة التذمر الشعبي من صلافة العيش وضيق الحال، فلتبدأ الخطوات الجدية اتجاه حراك شعبي منظم وانتفاضة جديدة وستجدون خلفكم مارد اسمه الشعب الفلسطيني، يعض على الجراح ويربط الحجَر على المَعِدة لكتم الجوع – متمثلا بالرسول الأعظم – في سبيل الهدف الوطني الأسمى. 

New Elections or a Third Intifada?

Amro Allan

*Palestinian writer and Political researcher

Arabi 21, Friday January 29 2021

On the 15^th of January Mahmoud Abbas called for new elections to be held in the next couple of months in the occupied territories. But let us ignore the fundamental contradiction of holding a poll in an occupied territory under the watch of the occupation forces for now, and try to look in the motives behind this step.

We believe that each of the Palestinian factions is planning to run in this elections with a different ulterior motive.

First, Mahmoud Abbas is seeking  recognition as the legitimate representative of all Palestinian factions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. And all he has in mind is a new negotiating table held with the blessing of the new Joe Biden administration, and to resume receiving financial support from the United States of America and the Zionist Entity.  That is because he no longer has anything else to offer  to the Palestinians, except perhaps more security coordination with the occupation forces without any hint of shame. 

The outcome of this new negotiations is predictable, at least from the experience of the last three decades. And if this is not enough, we can draw on what Joe Biden has said recently when he warned that a consensus between the parties to the conflict needs more time. Of course, the Zionist Entity will continue to implement its project of annexing the little that remains from the West Bank lands by increasing settlement activities, with the aim to displace the remaining Palestinians in the West Bank. The Zionist Entity wants the land without the people on it. One expert envisages that it will not be long before the settlers start a campaigns of terror against the inhabitants of the West Bank; campaigns that began to appear through the arbitrary killing of some of the inhabitants of the territories occupied in 1967. And why not, when the Palestinian Authority sole function has become to maintain the security of the settlers. Thus, providing  the usurped entity the cheapest  occupation  in  history.

And we have not mentioned the suspicious appearance of uncontrolled weapons in the hands of some shady individuals in the territories occupied in 1948, which led to several homicides in the past few months alone.

All the steps that we witnessed from Mahmoud Abbas hinting to the withdrawal from the Oslo Accord during the days of Donald Trump was nothing but   a tactical maneuver. And the irony is that he was openly reaffirming all along his adherence to his futile strategy of negotiations.

Turning to Hamas, we find that it hopes that the new elections will break the deadlock in which they set themselves up after the last elections in 2006. Also, they hope to ease the unjust blockade on the Gaza Strip as they believe that a new elections will lead to unity between Hamas and Fatah. But here the valid question arises: how can new elections lead to an end to the division between Hamas and Fatah, when the elections of 2006 was what caused the current division in the first place?

In any case,, all who think that the siege of the Palestinian  resistance  factions in the Gaza Strip is because of the current division are deluded. The siege, gentlemen, is because of the Palestinian resistance’s adherence to the Palestinian’s national rights and principles, as well as carrying the burden of the holy cause of liberating Palestine.

The siege locks are in the hands of the Occupation Entity and not in Abbas’s hands nor any one else. Thus, any attempts to dismantle or ease the siege do not pass through the clash with the occupation which imposes the blockade will be sterile, and will only lead to further deepening of the crisis and wasting more time and efforts.

We have been witnessing a boiling situation over the passed year or two in the West Bank that cannot be ignored, and the continuous individual and heroic operations almost on a weekly bases clearly indicate that the fire is under the ashes. So which is more useful then, Framing  these energies and activating the popular movement to the intifada, or venting this underlying popular anger by running a new elections? 

The Palestinians in their majority are not convinced of the usefulness of this new elections. Our people in general are aware that the idea of elections under the bayonets of the occupation, which controls every detail of the life in the West Bank, is nothing but a joke. But one of the most serious consequences of this silly joke is to introduce dismay in the hearts of angry youth in the West Bank and discourage them.

The Palestinian resistance’s exit from its crisis, and the easing of the unjust siege imposed on it will not be through the easier and useless way, but through the most effective way, even if it is the more difficult one. And a third intifada will change the status-quo and the facts on the ground. Not to mention its real chance to force the occupation withdrawal from the 1967 territories without conditions.

Today the Zionist Entity is witnessing a real deterioration due to many reasons. Even ‘Israel’ thinktanks and strategic  centers acknowledge this deterioration , and it would be wise of the Palestinians to build on these new conditions. 

Finally, to the Palestinian resistance factions we say, do not be fooled by the discontent displayed by many Palestinians because of the present harsh economic situation in Palestine, let the serious steps towards an organised popular movement and a new intifada begin, and you will find behind you a giant called the Palestinian people, who will bear their wounds, and tie the stone on the stomach to bate the hunger as Prophet Muhammad, peace be on him, once did, for the sake of the supreme Palestinian national goal.

With “Biden” in the White House, the Kremlin now needs to change gear

ٍSource • JANUARY 27, 2021

First, a clarification. When I speak of “Biden” I don’t mean the fungus (to use Tom Luongo’s apt expression) which was recently planted in the White House, I am referring to the “collective Biden” which I defined here https://thesaker.is/terminology/ . With this caveat, now let’s see why Russia might want to change gears in 2021.

First, let’s begin by the basics:

Russians often say that US politicians change, but US policies don’t. There is much truth to that, we saw that very clearly with Obama and Trump: both promised sweeping changes and both pretty much continued the policies of their predecessors, at least on the foreign policy front. In a way, you could argue that this is normal and even desirable. A shill for the regime would say something along the lines that “well, that is normal, US national security priorities don’t change with each administration, so all this proves is that no matter what any candidate promises during his campaign, once in office he/she becomes aware of the hard realities of this words and then act on it just like their predecessors did“. This argument is deeply flawed, however, because it completely ignores the will of the US people (who, let’s not forget that, voted for change every time they got a chance to, be it with Obama or with Trump) and it assumes that only those “in the know” realize and know what they have to do. This kind of “logic” is typical for the elitism of the US ruling classes.

It also ignores the fact that US Presidents are really puppets, figureheads, even if during their campaign they pretend otherwise. As for the elections, every four years in the US, they are nothing but a grand brainwashing show whose sole purpose is to give the illusion of people power. They could have presidential elections every 2 years, or even every year, none of that would change the fact that the US is a plutocratic dictatorship with much less people power than any other state in the collective West.

In fact, the argument above is just a tiny fig leaf trying to conceal the undeniable fact that the US are not ruled by a person, but are ruled by a class, in the Marxist sense of this world. Personally, I call this ruling class the “US Nomenklatura“. And while both Obama and Trump pretended to want real change, they both lost that chance (assuming they ever wanted this is the first place, which I doubt) when they did not do what Putin did when he came to office: crush the Russian oligarchs as a class (some fled abroad, some died, some lost it all, and some agreed to play by Putin’s new rules). Obama, being the vapid and spineless car salesman that he, is probably never even contemplated any real move against the US Nomenklatura. As for Trump, being the pompous narcissist that he is, he might have even entertained some thoughts of showing “who is boss”, but that lasted only 1 month, until the US Nomenklatura forced Trump to fire Flynn (after that, it was all freefall…).

Anyway, the point is that we should not expect immense, sweeping changes from any administration. Since the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, we should assume that mostly we will get “more of the same, maybe even worse”. What am I talking about here? Here is a (partial) list of these “more of the sames”:

1. Further vilification of Russia, Russians and everything Russian by the entire western media (which is even less diverse and more uniformly lying than anything Goebbels or Suslov could ever had dreamed up!). You can think of it as “full spectrum russophobia”.
2. Even more “sanctions” against all Russian interests (economic, political, etc.) worldwide. The US sees this as a pure zero-sum game, any loss by Russia, no matter how marginal and puny is a victory for the AngloZionist Empire.
3. A return to Obama-era style military missile and air strikes. Probably not on Russian targets (yes, Hillary advocated that, but now this would be much more dangerous than 5 years ago), but definitely on Russian allies like Syria (including attacks on Iranian and Venezuelan vessels on the high seas).
4. A return to Obama-era petty harassment of Russian diplomats and citizens. The goal here is not to achieve anything meaningful, but rather it is to show that “Russia is weak and cannot prevent us from treating her like a 3rd rate power”. There is nothing the US could do which would really hurt Russia, so Uncle Shmuel will turn his rage on those few diplomats and even civilians it can kidnap, jail, expel, sanction, extort, threaten etc.
5. Even more sabre-rattling all along the Russian borders. I fully expect that US forces will be deployed in the Baltic statelets on a permanent basis (not on a rotation basis). USAF aircraft and USN ships will continue to harass Russian defenses under the pretext of “innocent passage”, “freedom of navigation” and the like.
6. Since the Biden Admin is a “who’s who” of Jewish and Ukrainian extremists (some combo!), and since Biden is personally implicated in the Ukraine (along with Hunter), we can also expect a rapid degradation of the political situation in the Ukraine and even more provocations than under Trump. As they say, these folks will “fight Russia down to the last Ukrainian”.

None of that will have any direct impact on Russia (for a detailed discussion, see here). However, this does not mean that Russia should continue to pretend like this is “business as usual” and take blow after blow after blow. Why? For a number of reasons:

1. There is plenty of evidence that the Russian people are getting fed-up with what they see is a rather weak, if not lame, attitude of Russian officials, especially against the constant flow of petty harassment measures against Russian interests. Folks in the West are never told this (after all, informing is not the mission of the corporate media), but the “patriotic” opposition to the Kremlin is much more dangerous than the hopelessly discredited pro-western “liberal” one (more about that below). The calls for a much more energetic “push-back” are now regularly heard, including from rather mainstream politicians.
2. There is also plenty of evidence that the “Biden gang” will want not only to fully resume Obama-era policies towards the Ukraine (trigger more violent incidents & support for the Ukie Nazis) but that these policies will now also be extended towards Belarus. The fact that these policies are unlikely to succeed does not mean that Russia’s best response to them is to maintain a “wait and see” position. It is pretty self-evident that any form of restraint by Russia is immediately explained away as “weakness” by the western propaganda machine. Any more such “restraint” will only make things more dangerous and more difficult for Russia and Putin personally. In other words, at this point in time, “restraint” only invites more aggression.
3. Furthermore, 2021 is an election (Parliament) year in Russia. Now, irrespective of anything Russia does, no matter how transparent or un-falsifiable Russian elections are, the West will use that opportunity to try to get violent riots in the streets of Russia before the elections and, after the election, the West will declare that the Russian elections were “undemocratic” and go on about “supporting the just democratic aspirations of the Russian people” (especially Russian homosexuals, of course!) and the like.
4. Finally, it is pretty clear that the Biden Cabinet brings together the crème de la crème of Zionist russophobes from the US deep state. These people are characterized by the following and very dangerous characteristics: narcissistic and messianic racist self-love, a “God ordained” racist hatred for all of mankind, a personal/family history of hatred for Russia, deep involvement in many Ukie corruption schemes, an almost total failure to understand that consequences and nature of war combined with a delusional belief in invulnerability and impunity (while the former is false, the latter has been true, at least so far), etc. This is a very dangerous combination, to say the least!

The truth is that pseudo-liberals are amongst the most dangerous creatures out there. Yes, their current “geopolitical toolkit” (the US and the AngloZionist Empire) is weak, but that does not mean that Russia (or the rest of the world) can simply ignore these dangerous psychopaths.

The good (or even excellent!) news is that Trump gave Russia four more years to prepare for what is coming next, and that the Russia+China tandem is in much better shape today than it was 4 years ago. For example, the Russian internal security situation is now the best ever, as witnessed to by the fact that the Russian federal “wanted list” does not include a single Chechen national; the self-styled “last Emir of the Caucasus”, Aslan Byutukayev, was killed on January 20th, which made it possible for Ramzan Kadyrov to “declare a total victory over terrorism” in Russia). In plain English this means that every single Chechen who has ever committed an act of terrorism in Russia has been identified and is now either dead (most of them) or jailed (only a few). Despite these achievements, I am not sure sure about the “total victory over terrorism” because there are still violent groups in several regions Russia. Besides, if the “Axis of Kindness” (US/Israel/KSA, sometimes joined by the country many Russians think of as “Puny Britain”) special services decide to reignite an insurgency in Russia, they might have at least some success, especially initially. The FSB/FSO better not let their guard down, especially in Dagestan, the Far East, Crimea and the Moscow region!

In purely military terms, Russia is completely “out of reach” for the United States armed forces, even with the EU/NATO thrown in. I have written a lot about that, and I won’t repeat any of this here. Suffice to say that Russia now has the best armed forces she has had in decades while the US has an immense, truly grotesquely bloated, military, but not one that can get anything done other than killing (and, at that, mostly civilians). Even if we look just at nuclear strategic forces of Russia they are at least a decade, if not more, ahead of the West. This is the first time since WWII that Russia is that powerful, and now she can reap the many advantages of being militarily secure.

All this being said, I have personally always defended what I called the Kremlin’s “restraint” for the simple reason that when I look at the aggregate power (not just military!) of Russia and the AngloZionist Empire I still see the latter as much stronger. However, I have do admit that the trend of this relationship is a positive one, that is to say that over the past decade or so Russia has become much, much, stronger while the US and the Empire have become much, much, weaker. Under Biden, this trend will only accelerate.

The time has now come for Russia to adapt her own policies to this new reality.

And the very first thing the Kremlin ought to change is its language, its rhetoric. Yes, “restraint” is good, especially when escalation into a full-scale war is amongst the possible outcomes of any crisis, but “restraint” cannot be a goal in itself. For example, while the US+NATO does, objectively, represent a major anti-Russian threat (if only because they are weak and can only count their on nukes to protect them!). Likewise, the ugly “Banderastan” which the Ukronazis turned the good old Ukraine into is not a threat to Russia whatsoever. So why not seriously turn down a few economic screws to make the Ukronazis feel that their never ending stream of insults and (empty) threats can have consequences?

Next, the Kremlin needs to mix strong words with strong actions!

Just this Sunday, January, the 24th, the US Embassy in Moscow was involved in openly coordinating the (small, but violent and illegal!) riots in Moscow, just the same way the NEXTA Telegram channel has done in Belarus. So what did the Kremlin do in response? The Russian Foreign Ministry did order US diplomats to the MID building and… … gave them a note of firm protest.

And that’s it?!

I don’t think anybody in the US Embassy in Moscow gives a damn about Russian protests. If anything, US “diplomats” probably get a good laugh each time they get such protests. And everybody knows that, including the Russian diplomats. So why do they hold to such a lame “communications line”?

The Russian Navy recently gave a very good example of how a good word can have much more effect when backed with some good action: remember when (of all names!) the USS John McCain recently breached the Russian maritime border? The Russian Navy did tell the McCain to withdraw, but it added that the Russian large antisubmarine ship (a “destroyer” in western terminology) Admiral Vinogradov would “ram” the McCain if his warnings were not heeded. Needless to say, the McCain got out really fast (the USN already has experienced this kind of situation in the past, see here). The problem with ramming, at least for the USN, is that you can hardly reply by opening up with your weapons, which would be truly suicidal inside Russian waters and near the (heavily fortified) Russian coastline. As for the Russians, they are “crazy” enough to do that, even when their ship is smaller (ask any US sailor who served in the US submarine force, they know!). The simple truth is that the Russian sailors “mean business” (the one of defending their motherland) whereas the US sailors, well, how shall I put it? They do very much want to “show the flag” and “defend principles”, but not if they might get seriously hurt. That’s just a fact. From the Russian point of view, joining the military means accepting that pain and death come with the territory. 1000 years of warfare have truly imprinted that on the Russian collective psyche.

By the way, a lot of US Americans love to repeat these famous words by General Patton: “No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country“. This is a neat aphorism, and it very much caters to a typically US view of warfare. It is also almost perfectly wrong, as any Russian, Iranian or Hezbollah fighter could tell you – that is not how you win wars. In fact, this is how you lose them. And this is why putative “dumb bastards” beat the crap out of US forces over and over again…

At the very least, it is high time to reduce the number of US officials in Russia: I am talking about diplomats, of course, but also the entire menagerie of “volunteers”, “NGOs” and, most definitely, US “journalists” accredited in Russia. Reducing their numbers will also make it easier for the FSB/FSO to keep an eye on the rest of them.

Next, I would also show a large number of EU “guests” to the door: after all, why keep them in this nightmarish Putin’s Mordor? Let’s send them back to the “freedom” they, apparently, care for so much (at least when in Russia; when in Paris, Berlin or Rotterdam – not so much).

Frankly, they EU rulers have gone completely insane. Now the EU is seriously considering cancelling the almost completed North Stream 2 over the Navalnyi nonsense! Sacrificing a multi-billion dollar project crucial to the EU economy over the fate of one particularly uninspiring and fake pseudo-dissident whose support in Russia is less than one percent (as shown by the miniscule crowds which violently rioted on is behalf). What the EU leaders fail to appreciate is that Russia needs NS2 much less than the EU does, as Russia’s main gas plans are fully focused on China. There is a good Russian expression about the kind of threats the EU makes: to “try to scare a hedgehog with a naked bottom!”. The EU really needs to be placed on a suicide watch, imho.

Frankly, this entire western “fauna” has become accustomed to living in Russia while making a living hating on Russia. They mostly got away with it in the 80s, they totally got away with it in the 90s, and for the past twenty years the Kremlin has done precious little to change this. I think that the “message” (westerners love “messages”) from the Kremlin should be simple: living and working in Russia is not a right, it is a privilege. If you can’t behave, then you have overstayed your welcome. In the current context, the West has much more to lose from this kind of policy than Russia (especially since Russian diplomats were already expelled, and Russian consular buildings illegally closed).

Next, Russia needs to respond to the US zero-sum-game, but not by accepting such a logic for herself. The main problem with the zero-sum-game mindset is that it is extremely wasteful: the side engaging in it has to spent a lot of time and efforts trying to deny any victory, or even mildly positive development, to the other side. What Russia should do instead, is define a list of vulnerable and important targets/goals of the Empire, and then focus her resources and energy denying them to the US. Such a fully focused effort is much more efficient than the kind of “full spectrum pestering” the US typically engages in. The good news, at least for Russia, is that the US is both vulnerable and weak, economically, militarily, culturally, socially – you name it. As for the Empire, it has been dead for a while already: it simply ceased to operate as an empire a while ago already. Again, this reality is carefully hidden in what I call “Zone A“, but in Zone B everybody knows it, even if they pretend otherwise.

The perfect place for Russia to really make a difference would be Iran. Though the Iranians are extremely sophisticated players, both their diplomats and their military, they badly need Russian help, especially in such fields as early warning systems, targeting, over the horizon radars, air defenses (ground and air based), antisubmarine warfare, coastal defenses, etc. – you name it! Iran is, by far, the most important country in the Middle-East and Iran is therefore constantly under threat by the “Axis of Kindness”. Russia has not, so far, taken the strategic decision to give Iran the means to be safe, at least in part to be able to put pressure on Tehran when needed (Russian and Iranian goals in Syria are similar in some ways, but also distinct in others).

Finally, the Kremlin needs to become much more attuned to the arguments of the “patriotic opposition”. For one thing, many of the arguments of this patriotic opposition are correct, so listening to them is simply common sense. Second, some of these arguments are flawed, but they cannot be ignored: these arguments need counter-arguments. Simply assuming that the Russian people will always support the Kremlin no matter what is delusional and dangerous. Finally, some of these arguments are based on fallacies and only serve the interests of the US/EU/NATO block. The fact that some Russians sincerely repeat them is a dangerous sign of how susceptible some segments of the Russian society still are to US PSYOPs. For all these reasons, the Kremlin has to change its PR policies which are, frankly, becoming stale and sometimes even toxic.

Right now, there are three basic kind of opposition in Russia: the fake opposition in the Duma, which talks a lot, but basically supports the Kremlin, the non-systemic pro-US/EU opposition which probably speaks for about one percent of the Russian people, and the non-systemic “patriotic” opposition, which is also rather small, but which really needs to be represented in the Duma and become “part of the system of institutions” (as opposed to the current “one man show”) of Russia.

I am in no way suggesting that Russia should become confrontational or provocative. All that is needed is for Russia to be less “diplomatic” and much more forceful in the defense of her interests. That in turn means two things: Russian officials need to change their rather demure tone when dealing with western imperialists and, second, Russian officials needs to back their words with real, measurable, actions.

Conclusion: learn from your mistakes

Russian history is filled with cases when diplomats simply wasted the efforts and successes achieved by the Russian military. This is why the Russian military has a saying “the blood of some is spilled because of the incompetence of others” (another version: “some had to become heroes to undo that which cowards did“). Finally, if there is one thing which Russian history has shown beyond any doubt it is that the internal enemy is much, much more dangerous than the external one.

I have always maintained that the Empire and Russia have been at war since at least 2014. This is not the purely military WWIII, of course, but a war which is 80% economic, 15% informational and only 5% kinetic. This is, nonetheless, a total/existential war which will end with only one side standing, the other will vanish. For Russia, this is a war for the survival of the Russian civilizational realm, hardly a minor matter. Besides, this 80/15/5 percent war could quickly turn into a 0/0/100 kinetic one. Thus Russia needed to be very careful indeed. Now, roughly seven or eight years later, we can see that Russia has been winning, which is very good. But this war is far from over, such processes are very slow, and Russia simply cannot assume that “more of the same” from her will be enough to be victorious. All in all, the Russian policy towards the collective West has been both sound and very effective, but now the time has come for meaningful change. Should the Kremlin ignore these changing circumstances, then Russia might, yet again, be forced to solve with her military that which the diplomats failed to protect and preserve. God willing, Putin will heed the lessons taught by the history of Russia.

«سنوكر» سعوديّ أميركيّ فرنسيّ في طرابلس؟

ناصر قنديل

–

لم يبق أحد معنياً بأحداث طرابلس إلا وتحدّث عن ثنائية، وضع اجتماعيّ يقارب الانفجار، واستغلال سياسيّ ومخابراتيّ بالدفع بأموال لجماعات تصدّرت عمليّات الفلتان وتعميم الفوضى وصولاً لإحراق المؤسسات. وجاءت المواقف الغاضبة للقيادات التي تملك شارعاً وازناً في طرابلس إلى حد تحميلها الجيش مسؤولية التهاون كحال الرئيس سعد الحريري، أو تلويح بعضها بالأمن الذاتي كحال الرئيس نجيب ميقاتي، لتقول إن هذه القيادات ليست لديها استثمار يبرّر اتهامها بالوقوف وراء الأحداث، بل لتقول إن هذه القيادات تشعر بالاستهداف بنسبة قلقها من الجهة المحلية المعتمَدة ونسبة شعورها باستهدافها من الجهة الخارجيّة المشغّلة والمموّلة.

–

تنحصر الخيارات بين المحور الخليجيّ بقيادة السعوديّة، والمحور التركيّ القطريّ، من حيث الإمكانيّة العمليّة على التحرك في طرابلس والشمال، والمصلحة بالاستخدام، وبالتدقيق بالحسابات والمصالح تبدو تركيا غير معنية برسائل عبر لبنان أو سواه بينما هي في مرحلة الترقب لتبلور السياسة الأميركية الجديدة في التعامل معها، وتنحو للتهدئة كي لا تؤثر سلباً على فرضية تبلور سياسات إيجابية، كما تبدو على علاقة طيّبة بالرئيس الحريري، خصوصاً في زمن علاقته السيئة بولي العهد السعودي، بينما تبدو السعودية في حال اضطراب وارتباك وتوتر، وشعور بالضيق، مع صوت أميركي مرتفع باتجاه العودة للاتفاق النووي مع إيران، وتجاوز الصراخ السعوديّ عن شرط الشراكة في التفاوض، وقد قدّمت ظاهرة صعود مفاجئ لعمليات داعش على جبهتي العراق وسورية، ووجود انتحاريين سعوديين في عمليات بغداد، إشارات واضحة لوجود سعي سعوديّ للضغط على إدارة الرئيس الأميركي جو بايدن لتأجيل انسحابه من العراق وسورية، باعتباره نصراً لمحور تحتل إيران فيه موقعاً حاسماً، لا تريد السعودية أن يحدث إلا ضمن سلة تكون لها منها نصيب، والرهان السعودي أن الانسحاب يتعقّد كلما بدا أن القضاء على داعش لم يتحقق.

–

في السيناريو القائم على الفرضية السعودية، إشارتان، الأولى أن الجهة التي يتم التأشير إليها في الأحداث التي شهدتها طرابلس يتصدّرها شقيق الرئيس سعد الحريري، بهاء الذي جرى تقديمه كبديل لشقيقه خلال احتجازه في فندق الريتز، والذي يبدو واضحاً أنه يحظى بدعم ولي العهد السعودي من خلال الهواء الذي منح لمشروعه الإعلاميّ عبر قناة تلفزيونية وازنة تربطها علاقة متميّزة بولي العهد السعودي على أكثر من صعيد، وجاءت بعض التصريحات التي تشيد ببهاء من شخصيات مثل النائب السابق مصباح الأحدث، أو تتحدّث عنه كمشروع تحالف كما قال الوزير السابق أشرف ريفي، لتمنح هذه الفرضية أسباباً أكبر خصوصاً أن دور المنتدى المموّل من بهاء الحريري في ما سُمّي بطرابلس عروس الثورة كان علنياً ومعلوماً من الجميع.

–

في التوقيت هناك تطوّران قيد التفاوض تزامناً مع الهبّة الطرابلسية، الأول السعي الفرنسي للحصول على تفويض أميركيّ لإحياء الرعاية الفرنسية للبنان، والثاني التمهيد الأميركي لتكليف الخبير روبرت مالي بمهمة مبعوث خاص للملف الإيراني، كتعبير عن نيات أميركيّة جدية بالعودة للاتفاق وسعياً لترميم الثقة مع القيادة الإيرانيّة، وبالتوازي كانت حملة سعوديّة واسعة النطاق استنطقت بعض اللبنانيين احتجاجاً على تعيين مالي، فجاءت أحداث طرابلس لتربط مصير لبنان بما بدأ في سورية والعراق، وتقول إن تطبيق السياسات التي ستُرسم في الإقليم لن تمرّ من دون الرضى السعوديّ، ومدخل هذا الرضا التزام بعدم بتّ التفاهم مع إيران من دون شراكة سعودية، ولبنان في ظل الحضور القويّ لحزب الله ساحة مناسبة لإنعاش السياسات التي رسمتها السعودية مع الرئيس السابق دونالد ترامب، بربط أي تعافٍ للبنان بإضعاف حزب الله.

–

ما حدث أمس كان لافتاً، فقد خرج الرئيس الفرنسي امانويل ماكرون ليتحدّث عبر قناة محمد بن سلمان ليقول إنه متمسك بحق الشراكة السعودية في التفاوض مع إيران، بينما أعلن البيت الأبيض تجميد صفقات السلاح السعوديّة والإماراتيّة حتى وقف حرب اليمن، وتم إصدار قرار تسمية مالي مبعوثاً خاصاً في الملف الإيراني، فهل كانت طرابلس طاولة لعبة سنوكر سعوديّة فرنسيّة أميركيّة، حققت أهدافها على المسار الفرنسيّ وأدخلت الطابة المستهدفة، بينما كان الحصاد الأميركي سلبياً، وربما أدخلت الطابة الخطأ، إن لم تكن الطابة الممنوعة؟

الحملة على الجيش في طرابلس ظالمة

–

ما شهدته طرابلس خلال الليالي الماضية كان مؤلماً وموجعاً، سواء لما تعانيه طرابلس من نموذج فاضح لتخلّي الدولة عن مسؤولياتها الإقتصادية والمالية والاجتماعية خلال عقود، رغم كثرة الوعود، أو لمشاهد حرق المؤسسات وتخريب منشآت المدينة، خصوصاً لمؤشر الخطورة بجعل الفوضى نتاجاً وحيداً لتزاوج أزمتي تفشي كورونا والأزمة السياسية الاقتصادية المفتوحة.

–

تجاهل سياسيّو طرابلس خلال هذه السنوات مسؤولياتهم كرؤساء حكومات من المدينة أو من خارجها يتزعّمون تيارات سياسية تملك أغلبية التمثيل النيابي للمدينة خلال عقود، سواء بصفتهم قادة حكم أو بصفتهم متموّلين كباراً أحجموا عن بناء مشاريع اقتصادية منتجة في هذه المنطقة الشديدة الحرمان رغم وعودهم الكثيرة.

–

خلال مرحلة ما بعد 17 تشرين عام 2019 كانت كل مداخلات السياسيين المعارضين للمقاومة تقوم على محاولة استغلال الشارع والتشجيع على قطع الطرقات والضغط على قيادة الجيش والقوى الأمنية للتراخي مع أعمال الشغب والتخريب، خصوصاً قطع الطرقات وكلما كان يتشدّد الجيش والقوى الأمنية كانت المواقف تندّد وتدعو لتفهم الغضب بصفته تعبيراً مشروعاً.

–

مع أحداث طرابلس شعر هؤلاء أنهم مهدّدون، لأن اللاعب الذي يعبث بالشراع يستهدف نفوذهم ويحمل مشروعاً لا يقيم حساباً لمكانتهم ويقدم بديلاً مدعوماً وممولاً لينمو ويتقدم على حسابهم، خصوصاً أنهم يعلمون أن الراعي الإقليمي الذي اعتادوا على رعايته يعتمد وكيلاً جديداً وبرسائل يريد توجيهها للمبادرة الفرنسية التي يراهنون عليها استغلّ طرابلس واستثمر أوجاعها.

–

المطلوب من الجيش أن يتشدد ومن القوى الأمنية أن تفعل، لكن المطلوب من القيادت المعنية ان تتخلى عن الكيل بمكيالين وتقف وراء القوى الأمنية والجيش، لكن أن تتحمل مسؤولياتها بثلاثة مستويات، تسريع تشكيل الحكومة بالتخلي عن السقوف العالية للمحاصصة، والحضور السياسي في الشارع الطرابلسي على مستوى قيادات الصف الأول، وفتح صناديق المال وخزائن الثروات لاعتماد سياسة تضامن وتعاضد مع العائلات الفقيرة بالإضافة لحثّ مؤسسات الدولة على تسريع مساهماتها في هذا المجال.

فيديوات ذات صلة

مقالات ذات صلة

• عندما يشارك مجلس الثورة في محافظة حمص في حرائق طرابلس!
• في أنّ طرابلس اليوم… مخطوفة!
• فوج المغاوير يدخل طرابلس… وسجال عون والحريري يجدّد تعقيد المسار الحكوميّ
• احتجاجات طرابلس: غياب الخطّة الأمنيّة… والمرجعيّة
• الحملة على الجيش في طرابلس ظالمة
• احتجاجات طرابلس: الحريري يتّهم الجيش
• لبنان.. اشتباك محلي أم رسائل إقليمية؟
• الرئيس اللبناني يدعو إلى انعقاد مجلس الأمن المركزي بعد أحداث طرابلس

The time to harvest the fruits of steadfastness and legendary resistance to The Yemenis أوان حصاد ثمار الصمود والمقاومة الأسطورية لليمنيّين

**Machine translation Please scroll down for the Arabic original **

The time to harvest the fruits of steadfastness and legendary resistance to The Yemenis

Hassan Hardan

President  Joe and Biden’s administration has decided to suspend arms sales to Saudi Arabia, freeze the inclusion of Ansar Ullah on the U.S. terror  list, and reconsider U.S. strategy toward Yemen. These resolutions were described by followers of the new  U.S. administration as steps in the course of inaugurating the U.S. rotation and stopping the continuation of the war  on Yemen and withdrawing the cover provided by Washington to the Saudi  government in  launching and continuing the war, after it entered its sixth year and became a heavy burden on Saudi Arabia and threatens to have serious  repercussions will have more negative repercussions on the security and stability of  Saudi Arabia, and u.S. colonial influence in the Gulf…

These decisions also put pressure on Riyadh to tame its crown prince Mohammed bin Salman, who  led the war and bet on victory in it, and failed, thus helping him to decide to admit failure and drag the cup of defeat, to force him to harmonise with the new directions of Washington if he continues to support it, which sees the U.S.-Saudi interest in the need to quickly stop the war to reduce its repercussions and the losses resulting from it on all sides, which we will come to address in the article.

There is no doubt that the Biden administration felt the danger of continuing a war that failed to achieve the goals for which it was launched, and that its continuation became sterile and has serious negative  repercussions on Saudi Arabia and U.S. interests in the Gulf and the region.

The Biden administration’s rationale is part of  a review of U.S. strategy in Yemen. Work to calm down and launch the course of negotiations with Ansar Allah to reach a political settlement in Yemen and put an end to the humanitarian catastrophe there… Thus enabling Washington to withdraw the  bulk of U.S. forces in the Gulf to mobilize them in the Pacific in the face of China, where the greatest threat to U.S. influence in the face of the growing  influence of the Chinese giant in East Asia and the world at large…

But is it  true  that  these  are the backgrounds behind the  Biden administration’s decision to stop the war,  and what are the implications and implications of this decision? 

First, the real reasons why the Biden administration made this decision are not due to the eagerness to put an end to human suffering caused by the war to the Yemeni people, or to diminish Yemen’s importance in the calculations of U.S. interests in the Gulf, in the interest of prioritising the face of China’s growing economic,  military and political power and expanding its influence at the expense of U.S. influence in the East Asia-Pacific region. which also occupies a priority on the Biden administration’s foreign policy agenda.

The real reasons for the U.S. Democratic Administration’s decision to push for an end to this war are due to the following reasons:

 1. The war has reached an impasse and despair of the possibility of achieving its objectives in eliminating the resistance of the Yemenis and re-subjecting Yemen to American-Saudi domination.This is due to the legendary resistance, courage and steadfastness of the Yemeni people, in the face of the war of destruction and extermination carried out by the Saudi-American war machine, the brutal massacres committed against civilians, the destruction of infrastructure and the starvation of Yemenis through the imposition of the suffocating siege by land, sea and air. This has led to a humanitarian catastrophe, widespread poverty  and diseases, and the transformation of Yemen into a disaster country.  This revealed to the world the ugly and criminal face of the rulers of Saudi Arabia and the administration of aggression in Washington supporting and partnering with them in waging this war. His increased the solidarity of world public opinion with the Yemeni people and their resistance and embarrassed western countries in continuing to provide cover for Saudi Arabia to continue its war and to provide it with the deadly weapons of human kind and the destruction of human civilisation in Yemen…

2  The war turned into a war of heavy-caliber attrition for Saudi Arabia, economically, physically and humanly, where the cost of war is comparable to the cost of what America suffered as a result of its invasion  and occupation of Iraq between 2003 and 2011… This is not surprising considering that the war in Yemen has not stopped with its momentum since its first day six years ago, because of the inability of Saudi Arabia to occupy Yemen, and the success of the resistance in moving the war to the Saudi rear and striking vital  oil economic sites and installations, in addition to the heavy losses of the Saudi forces with equipment  and lives estimated at 0,000 soldiers between the dead and Greg, except of course the losses of the Forces of the Arab Coalition, material and human. As the U.S. war on Iraq ended a month later with the occupation of Iraq, it later turned into resistance operations that drained U.S. forces, forcing them  to  withdraw in 2011 because America could not continue to bear the cost of  continuing the bleeding caused by the escalating resistance strikes.

 3. The growing  concern of the ruling establishment in Washington and the Biden administration about Yemen’s transformation into another south Lebanon, in which the armed resistance and popularity is firm and enjoys the embrace and support of the people, is able to turn Yemen into a liberal base and part of the alliance of resistance and liberation in the region, and oversees and controls the most important artery of global trade and oil supplies. Washington is  a threat to U.S. colonial influence and interests in the region…

4  The dangers of economic and social repercussions within the Kingdom, and the growing  opposition against Saudi rule of America, which is one of the most important pillars of its colonial hegemony in the Arab world, especially as the U.S. reports  from within the kingdom point to  growing discontent among princes and Saudi  society from the policies of Mohammed bin Salman, who squandered  Saudi wealth in an unprecedented  way, by giving hundreds of billions to President Donald Trump to secure his protection and support in reaching the throne, or by funding America’s military and terrorist wars against Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon, etc. Thus, the people of the Arabian Peninsula are deprived of this wealth to achieve  development, progress, development and social justice…

Secondly, the consequences  and implications of Washington’s decision to stop the war:

 1. Enshrining the victory of  the  resistance of the Arab people in  Yemen  against the American-Zionist project and its reactionary  Arab tools of  regimes, rulers, and forces that are waged and subordinate to colonialism and Zionism. Intisar will have repercussions and repercussions on the path of a political solution, in the interest of  promoting the option  of independence of Yemen, and putting  an end to U.S.-Saudi interventions in its internal affairs…  Enabling  the national forces to reshape power in the interest of  this triumphant liberal  approach, thereby freeing Yemen’s wealth from plundering Western companies, exploiting them to rebuild what was destroyed by the brutal war, to achieve independent development and social justice…

2  Strengthening the line of resistance and liberation in the region, and enshrining Yemen’s accession to the Resistance Alliance and turning it into a real force supporting the resistance in occupied Palestine against the Zionist occupation, which has already begun to worry the enemy entity, whose leaders have talked about  putting Yemen in the resistance front and possessing  missile capabilities that can strike the Zionist entity in  any war with the Resistance Alliance. In addition to the threat of the movement of Zionist warships in the  Gulf and the Bab al-Mandab road   …

 3 Weakening the role, location, status and influence of Saudi Arabia at the Arab, regional and Islamic levels. Even at the Gulf level.  This contributes to limiting the ability of the Saudi government to continue sewing plots against independent governments that reject colonial domination and resistance movements against Zionist occupation…

4   Crown Prince Mohammed  bin Salman’s exit from the war defeated, will put him in the position of being accused of direct responsibility for the great losses suffered by the Kingdom at all levels, without  result,  which may weaken his ability to ascend the throne after the death of his father King Salman, and may push the Biden administration to pressure the king to reconsider the mandate of the Covenant, and the return of consideration to Mohammed bin Nayef, who was placed under house arrest by Ibn Salman after he took the  mandate of the Covenant and all his powers…

In short, the time has come for the Arab people in Yemen to reap the  fruits of their legendary heroic steadfastness and resistance, and the U.S.-Saudi alliance’s recognition of defeat and failure to break the will of the Yemenis, which has proved to be intractable and subjugated, and it is stronger and harder than the enemy of Yemen imagined and imagined.Therefore,  it is time for Salman’s son and his American master to pay the price for the crimes they committed against Yemen and its people…

Related Articles

• GIDHR Launches A Petition Calling on Australia to Stop Arms Sales to Saudi, Emirati Governments
• Ansarullah Welcomes Italy’s Decision to Block Arms Exports to Saudi Arabia, UAE
• Europe Complicit in Yemen Humanitarian Disaster by Selling Arms to Saudi Arabia, UAE

أوان حصاد ثمار الصمود والمقاومة الأسطورية لليمنيّين

حسن حردان

قرّرت إدارة الرئيس الأميركي جو بايدن تعليق بيع أسلحة للسعودية، وتجميد إدراج حركة انصار الله على لائحة الإرهاب الأميركية، وإعادة النظر في الاستراتيجية الأميركية تجاه اليمن.. هذه القرارات وُصفت من قبل المتابعين لتوجهات الإدارة الأميركية الجديدة بأنها بمثابة خطوات في مسار تدشين استدارة الولايات المتحدة والتوقف عن مواصلة الحرب على اليمن وسحب الغطاء الذي وفرته واشنطن للحكومة السعودية في شنّ الحرب والاستمرار فيها، بعدما دخلت عامها السادس وباتت عبئاً ثقيلاً على المملكة السعودية وتهدّد بتداعيات خطيرة سيكون لها المزيد من الانعكاسات السلبية على أمن واستقرار السعودية، والنفوذ الاستعماري الأميركي في الخليج…

كما وُضعت هذه القرارات في سياق بدء الإدارة الأميركية الجديدة الضغط على الرياض لترويض ولي عهدها محمد بن سلمان، الذي قاد الحرب وراهن على تحقيق النصر فيها، وفشل، وبالتالي مساعدته على اتخاذ قرار الاعتراف بالفشل وتجرّع كأس الهزيمة، وصولاً إلى إجباره على التناغم مع التوجهات الجديدة لواشنطن إذا ما استمرّ في معاندتها، والتي ترى مصلحة أميركية سعودية بضرورة المسارعة إلى وقف الحرب للحدّ من تداعياتها ومن الخسائر الناجمة عنها على الاصعدة كافة، والتي سنأتي على التطرق إليها في متن المقال.

لا شكّ في أنّ إدارة بايدن استشعرت خطورة الاستمرار في حرب فشلت في تحقيق الأهداف التي شنت من أجلها، وبات الاستمرار فيها عقيماً وله تداعيات سلبية خطرة على السعودية والمصالح الأميركية في الخليج وعموم المنطقة..

المبرّرات التي ساقتها إدارة بايدن تندرج في إطار إعادة النظر بالاستراتيجية الأميركية في اليمن.. والعمل على التهدئة وإطلاق مسار المفاوضات مع حركة أنصار الله للتوصل إلى تسوية سياسية في اليمن، ووضع حدّ للكارثة الإنسانية فيه… وبالتالي تمكين واشنطن من سحب القسم الأكبر من القوات الأميركية في الخليج لحشدها في المحيط الهادي في مواجهة الصين، حيث التهديد الأكبر الذي يواجه نفوذ الولايات المتحدة أمام تنامي نفوذ العملاق الصيني في شرق آسيا والعالم عموماً…

لكن هل صحيح أنّ هذه هي الخلفيات التي تقف وراء قرار إدارة بايدن وقف الحرب، وما هي دلالات وتداعيات هذا القرار؟

اولاً، إنّ الأسباب الحقيقية التي تدفع إدارة بايدن إلى أخذ هذا القرار، لا تعود إلى حرص على وضع حدّ للمعاناة الإنسانية التي تسبّبت بها الحرب للشعب اليمني، أو تراجع أهمية اليمن في حسابات المصالح الأميركية في الخليج، لمصلحة إعطاء الأولوية لمواجهة تنامي قوة الصين الاقتصادية والعسكرية والسياسية وتوسع نفوذها على حساب النفوذ الأميركي في منطقة شرق آسيا والمحيط الهادي.. التي تحتلّ أيضاً أولوية على أجندة السياسة الخارجية لإدارة بايدن..

إنّ الأسباب الحقيقية لقرار الإدارة الأميركية الديمقراطية الدفع باتجاه وقف هذه الحرب، إنما يعود للأسباب التالية:

1

ـ وصول الحرب الي طريق مسدود واليأس من إمكانية تحقيق أهدافها في القضاء على مقاومة اليمنيين وإعادة إخضاع اليمن للهيمنة الأميركية السعودية.. وذلك بفعل المقاومة الأسطورية الصلبة والشجاعة وصمود والتفاف الشعب اليمني حولها، في مواجهة حرب التدمير والإبادة التي قامت بها آلة الحرب السعودية الأميركية، والمجازر الوحشية التي ارتكبتها بحق المدنيين وتدمير البنى التحتية وتجويع اليمنيين عبر فرض الحصار الخانق براً وبحراً وجواً.. مما أدّى الى كارثة إنسانية وانتشار الفقر والأمراض وتحوّل اليمن إلى بلد منكوب.. مما كشف للعالم الوجه القبيح والإجرامي لحكام السعودية وإدارة العدوان في واشنطن الداعمة والشريكة معهم في شنّ هذه الحرب.. وهو ما زاد من تضامن الرأي العام العالمي مع الشعب اليمني ومقاومته وإحراج الدول الغربية في مواصلة توفير الغطاء للمملكة السعودية لمواصلة حربها وتزويدها بالسلاح القاتل للبشر والمدمّر للحضارة الإنسانية في اليمن…

2

ـ تحوّل الحرب الى حرب استنزاف من العيار الثقيل، للمملكة السعودية، اقتصادياً ومادياً وبشرياً، حيث باتت كلفة الحرب تضاهي كلفة ما تكبّدته أميركا نتيجة غزوها للعراق واحتلالها له بين أعوام 2003 و2011… وهذا أمر ليس غريباً إذا ما أخذنا بالاعتبار انّ الحرب في اليمن لم تتوقف بزخمها منذ يومها الأول قبل ست سنوات، لعجز السعودية عن احتلال اليمن، ونجاح المقاومة في نقل الحرب إلى العمق السعودي وضرب المواقع والمنشآت الاقتصادية النفطية الحيوية، إلى جانب تكبيد القوات السعودية خسائر جسيمة بالعتاد والأرواح قدّرت بنحو عشرة آلاف جندي بين قتيل وجريج عدا طبعاً عن خسائر قوى التحالف العربي، المادية والبشرية.. فيما الحرب الأميركية على العراق انتهت بعد شهر باحتلال العراق، وتحوّلت في ما بعد إلى عمليات مقاومة استنزفت القوات الأميركية مما أجبرها على الانسحاب عام 2011 لعدم قدرة أميركا على مواصلة تحمّل كلفة استمرار النزف الذي تسبّبه لها ضربات المقاومة المتصاعدة.

3

ـ تنامي قلق المؤسسة الحاكمة في واشنطن ومعها إدارة بايدن من تحوّل اليمن إلى جنوب لبنان آخر، فيه مقاومة مسلحة وشعبية راسخة وتحظى باحتضان وتأييد شعبي كبير، باتت قادرة على تحويل اليمن إلى قاعدة تحرّرية وجزء من حلف المقاومة والتحرر في المنطقة، وتشرف وتتحكم بأهم شريان للتجارة العالمية وإمدادات النفط.. مما يشكل بنظر واشنطن تهديداً للنفوذ والمصالح الاستعمارية الأميركية في المنطقة…

4

ـ مخاطر حصول تداعيات اقتصادية واجتماعية في داخل المملكة، وتنامي المعارضة ضدّ الحكم السعودي التابع لأميركا، والذي يشكل أحد أهمّ مرتكزات هيمنتها الاستعمارية في الوطن العربي، لا سيما أنّ التقارير الأميركية الواردة من داخل المملكة تؤشر إلى تزايد السخط في أوساط الأمراء والمجتمع السعودي من سياسات محمد بن سلمان، الذي أهدر ثروة السعودية على نحو لم يسبق له مثيل، انْ كان من خلال منح مئات المليارات للرئيس دونالد ترامب لتأمين الحماية له ودعمه في الوصول إلى العرش، أو عبر تمويل حروب أميركا العسكرية والإرهابية ضدّ اليمن والعراق وسورية ولبنان إلخ… وبالتالي حرمان أبناء الجزيرة العربية من الاستفادة من هذه الثروة لتحقيق التنمية والتقدّم والتطور والعدالة الاجتماعية…

ثانياً، النتائج والتداعيات المترتبة على قرار واشنطن وقف الحرب:

1

ـ تكريس انتصار مقاومة الشعب العربي في اليمن ضدّ المشروع الأميركي الصهيوني وأدواته العربية الرجعية من أنظمة وحكام وقوى مأجورة وتابعة للاستعمار والصهيونية.. انتصار سيترك انعكاسات وتداعيات على مسار الحلّ السياسي، في مصلحة تعزيز خيار استقلال اليمن، ووضع حدّ للتدخلات الأميركية السعودية في شؤونه الداخلية… وتمكين القوى الوطنية من إعادة تشكيل السلطة لمصلحة هذا النهج التحرّري المنتصر، وبالتالي تحرير ثروات اليمن من نهب الشركات الغربية، واستغلالها لإعادة بناء ما دمّرته الحرب الوحشية، وتحقيق التنمية المستقلة والعدالة الاجتماعية…

2

ـ تعزيز خط المقاومة والتحرّر في المنطقة، وتكريس انضمام اليمن إلى حلف المقاومة وتحوّله قوة حقيقية داعمة للمقاومة في فلسطين المحتلة ضدّ الاحتلال الصهيوني، وهو أمر بدأ منذ الآن يقلق كثيراً كيان العدو الذي تحدّث قادته عن توضع اليمن في جبهة المقاومة وامتلاكه قدرات صاروخية بإمكانها ضرب الكيان الصهيوني في أيّ حرب تحصل مع حلف المقاومة.. إلى جانب تهديد حركة السفن الحربية الصهيونية في الخليج وطريق باب المندب…

3

ـ إضعاف دور وموقع ومكانة وتأثير المملكة السعودية على المستويات العربية والإقليمية والإسلامية.. وحتى على المستوى الخليجي.. وهو أمر يسهم في الحدّ من قدرات الحكم السعودي على مواصلة حياكة المؤامرات ضدّ الحكومات المستقلة الرافضة للهيمنة الاستعمارية، وحركات المقاومة ضدّ الاحتلال الصهيوني…

4 ـ خروج ولي العهد محمد بن سلمان من الحرب مهزوماً، سوف يجعله في موقع المتهم بالمسؤولية المباشرة عن الخسائر الكبيرة التي مُنيت بها المملكة على كلّ الصعد، من دون نتيجة، مما قد يضعف قدرته على اعتلاء العرش بعد وفاة والده الملك سلمان، وقد يدفع إدارة بايدن للضغط على الملك لإعادة النظر بولاية العهد، وردّ الاعتبار لمحمد بن نايف الذي وضعه ابن سلمان في الإقامة الجبرية بعد أن انتزع منه ولاية العهد وكلّ سلطاته…

خلاصة القول، لقد آن الأوان كي يقطف الشعب العربي في اليمن ثمار صموده ومقاومته البطولية الأسطورية، وإقرار التحالف الأميركي السعودي بالهزيمة والفشل في كسر إرادة اليمنيّين، التي أثبتت أنها عصية على الانكسار والإخضاع، وانها أقوى وأصلب مما تصوّر وتوهّم أعداء اليمن.. وبالتالي آن الأوان لأن يدفع ابن سلمان وسيده الأميركي ثمن الجرائم التي ارتكباها بحق اليمن وشعبه…

مقالات ذات صلة

• تصريحات كوخافي: الدوافع والدلالات
• صنعاء تراقب «الشدّ والجذب»: لا أمل للرياض
• تسليح السعودية والإمارات معلّق: نهاية «اللعب على المكشوف»
• روما تلغي عقود الرياض وأبو ظبي

How Saudi Arabia Gets Away with Murder

By Steven Cook – Foreign Policy

On Wednesday, the Saudis opened their annual confab in Riyadh, officially called the Future Investment Initiative but widely referred to as “Davos in the Desert.” That nickname had always annoyed the people who run the World Economic Forum and its signature event in Davos, Switzerland, because they—like most of the rest of the world that is concerned about protecting their brand—haven’t wanted much to do with Saudi Arabia and its crown prince in recent years.

That trend may be coming to an end, however. Increasingly, things are back to business as usual in Riyadh. A veritable A-list of Wall Street and private equity titans flew in for the event this week. Gone are the days when the leaders of the financial services industry stayed away, fearing the reputational costs of becoming associated with Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman after the murder of Jamal Khashoggi in 2018. The remains of the journalist and onetime courtier to Saudi power centers have yet to be found. But investors have now decided there are deals to be done.

They are making a bet that the stated commitment by human rights organizations, journalists, and a relatively bipartisan group of US lawmakers to hold Saudi Arabia accountable doesn’t amount to much—and they may be right.

There is a general expectation in Washington that the Saudis are going to have a rough time with the new Biden administration. During the presidential campaign, Joe Biden and his running mate Kamala Harris vowed that they would “reassess our [America’s] relationship with the kingdom, end US support for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen, and make sure America does not check its values at the door to sell arms or buy oil.” After being sworn in as president earlier this month, Biden made good on that promise when he froze—at least temporarily—arms sales to Saudi Arabia that his predecessor approved.

Saudi Arabia is a problematic ally. In the last five years, its crown prince launched a futile military campaign in Yemen that has killed and injured tens of thousands of people, oversaw the hit team that dismembered Khashoggi, presided over the arrests and abuse of reformers, and led an international embargo of Qatar [which is also a not a model ally, but it is a critical security partner for the United States]. There are also lingering questions about Saudi Arabia and the role of its citizens in the attacks on New York and Washington in 2001. As much as the Saudis want Americans to forget, there were 15 young Saudi men on those planes, not Qataris.

It is true that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has overseen important social changes in Saudi Arabia that have improved the lives of his citizens, but that does not diminish the entirely reasonable desire to hold the Saudis accountable for his many transgressions. Doing so may be harder than it seems, however.

There was never a chance that the global business community was going to write off Saudi Arabia. Sure, CEOs stayed away for a while, but even at the height of the outrage over Jamal Khashoggi’s brutal murder, Saudi Arabia remained a place where people believed they could make money. And since that is the sine qua non of financiers, consultants, and oil companies—and firms that provide all kinds of services—Mohammed bin Salman was forced to spend some time in the penalty box, but he was never made the international pariah some hoped he would become. Yes, the Saudis have a range of economic problems, the wisdom of vanity projects like the would-be high-tech city of Neom escape most people who look at them, and Riyadh’s efforts to restructure its labor market and establish the institutions of a market economy are enormous and difficult tasks—but the Saudis still have the biggest economy in the Middle East, which makes it an attractive partner to those who showed up in Riyadh for the Future Investment Initiative.

There is an argument to be made that just because business leaders want to consort with the Saudis that does not mean that the US government is obligated to do the same. That’s true enough—but that’s not to say Washington is simply free to do whatever it likes. It faces the constraints of geopolitics. At the same time that leaders of industry were rubbing shoulders in Riyadh, the US military was beefing up its presence in Saudi Arabia just in case there is conflict with Iran. US military planners see Saudi Arabia as an important partner in Iran policy. That includes the potential Iran policies under consideration by the Biden administration, whether they involve rejoining the 2015 nuclear agreement or negotiating a new deal. To make either work, the administration is going to need Riyadh to support the deal, which means that American negotiators are going to have to be sensitive to Saudi concerns.

Related to Iran and the geopolitics of the region is the war in Yemen. The Saudi assault on its neighbor to the south, which began in 2015, accomplished everything the intervention was supposed to prevent. As a result of Riyadh’s poorly thought-out and poorly executed military operations, the Iranians now actually do have a relationship with Ansarullah, and Saudi Arabia is less secure. The war is unwinnable, and the Saudis need to get out. What remains to be seen is whether they can do so without US help. The Saudis would no doubt like that help in the form of enhanced border security, including weapons systems.

This is going to be a tough decision for the administration given the strong strain of animus toward the Saudis in Washington and the Biden-Harris team’s own stated policy to “reassess” America’s relationship with Saudi Arabia. One argument they might respond with is: Screw them. Let them figure out how to get out of their own quagmire. That is understandable, but it’s not wise. It is in America’s interest both for the Saudis to get out of Yemen and for them to maintain good ties with Washington. Like it or not, Saudi Arabia is Washington’s primary interlocutor in the region, and an American deal with Iran is going to have to run at least partway through Yemen.

But should the United States cut the Saudis off from what they seem to love most about America—its fancy weapons systems? This is no longer in the realm of theoretical. The Biden administration’s ongoing review of Saudi Arabia will assess how it uses American weapons, specifically how many civilians it has killed and maimed in the process. Given the damage inflicted by Saudi Arabia in Yemen, such a reckoning is appropriate. But even if it allows Americans to take further steps to end their complicity in Saudi Arabia’s Yemen debacle, one should also acknowledge that it will not end that war.

Lost in all the discussions about “accountability” is the problem of defining what it would actually look like. Do Saudi Arabia’s critics want to see the crown prince replaced or in the dock? The United States is not going to determine Saudi Arabia’s leader. Even if the US intelligence community releases what it knows about the murder of Khashoggi—as the Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff, has demanded, and as the new director of national intelligence, Avril Haines, committed she would do in her written response to questions from senators during her confirmation hearings—Mohammed bin Salman will be the crown prince the next day and the day after that and the day after that, and so on. No doubt it would cause an international uproar, forcing those currently attending Davos in the Desert to stay away for a few years or maybe more. But they will find their way back to Saudi Arabia so long as they calculate that doing so is still good for business.

Also missing in the chatter about accountability are the potential consequences of imposing it. This isn’t to dismiss the idea of calling out the Saudis and refusing to sell them weapons out of hand but rather a plea to weigh the costs and benefits of such an approach. The Saudis may prove unwilling to work with the United States on a new nuclear deal with Iran or even try to undermine an agreement. Riyadh may feel encouraged to drift toward Washington’s competitors. Folks in Washington might dismiss that as idle threats, but the Chinese have a lot to offer, and the Russians are particularly good at taking advantage of stress between the United States and its traditional partners in the region. At the very least, tighter ties between the Saudis, Chinese, and Russians can make things harder for the United States, especially since great-power competition is now alleged to be the framework for American foreign policy.

Then again, US policymakers may not care about the downside risks of holding the Saudis accountable. Energy resources from the Persian Gulf are still important to the United States, but not like they once were, diminishing the urgency long attached to the Middle East and importance of close ties with countries like Saudi Arabia. The stakes may no longer be so high, giving the Biden team more room to maneuver. It just seems that up until now few inside the Beltway have worked through what accountability means in a rigorous way. That is unfortunate, because foreign policy by exhortation is likely to fail.

Related Videos