I am not sure what you would call this. Attempting to take over a country via drug blackmail maybe. Part of the World Economic Forums Agenda is to take over land. I guess Pfizer wants into the land grab.
They really do not want the vaccine as it is dangerous anyway. As noted over the past two months.
February 27, 2021
Pharma giant Pfizer has been holding sovereign governments to ransom making bizarre demands asking for bank reserves, embassy buildings and military bases as collateral in return for COVID-19 vaccines.
The US-based company Pfizer is holding governments to ransom, interfering with their legislation, and even demanding military bases as guarantee.
Pfizer asked the Govt of Argentina to be compensated for the cost of any future civil lawsuits, reported WION.
If someone files a civil lawsuit against Pfizer in Argentina and wins that case, the government of Argentina and not Pfizer would pay the compensation.
So, Argentina’s parliament passed a new law in October 2020, but Pfizer was unhappy with its phrasing.
The law said Pfizer needs to at least pay for negligence, for its own mistakes if it happens to make any in the future.
Pfizer rejected this, after which Argentina offered to amend the law to define negligence more clearly – to include only vaccine distribution and delivery under negligence.
Pfizer was still not happy and demanded the law be amended through a new decree, which Argentina refused.
Pfizer then asked Argentina to buy an international insurance to pay for potential future cases against Pfizer, to which the country agreed.
But that was not enough, in December 2020, Pfizer again came back with more demands.
And this time Pfizer demanded Argentina’s sovereign assets as collateral. Pfizer demanded that Argentina put its bank reserves, military bases and embassy buildings at stake.
Argentina did not agree with Pfizer’s demands.
Another country Pfizer made such bizarre demands is with Brazil. Pfizer told the Govt of Brazil to create a guarantee fund, and deposit money in a foreign bank account.
On January 23, 2021 – Brazil’s Health Ministry put out a statement citing excerpts from Pfizer’s pre-contract clauses.
Here’s a list of Pfizer’s demands:
• Brazil waives the sovereignty of its assets abroad in favour of Pfizer, • that the rules of the land – be not applied on Pfizer, • that Brazil take into consideration a delay in delivery, • that Pfizer is not penalised for a delayed delivery, and • that in case of any side effects, Pfizer be exempted from all civil liability.
The government of Brazil calls these clauses abusive. The Pfizer deal with Brazil failed too.
In Israel it seems the more vaccines they give the more so Called Covid and deaths they are getting. This episode covers a lot. The World is FED UP with Covid19; Testing on Children Begins; Israel’s New Covid Pass; Owner of the Busiest No-Mask Store in FL; Cattle Rancher Exposes Our Fragile Food Supply
On Thursday, Biden regime terror-bombing strikes in Syria showed his contempt for the rule of law and unbending hostility toward Damascus and Tehran.
It also showed the illusion of his diplomatic outreach to Iran, an act of rhetorical head-fake deception with no policy action follow-through.
On Thursday, Blinken’s spokesman Price pretended otherwise, saying:
“(O)ur approach recognizes that maximum pressure accompanied by the lack of diplomatic engagement got us to where we are.”
“That is why we are embarking on a different path, one that prioritizes real, principled, clear-eyed diplomacy (sic).”
Actions are polar opposite, indicating more of the same ahead.
Falsely blaming Iran for strikes on US bases and Baghdad’s Green Zone it had nothing to do with, followed by sending a message to Tehran by terror-bombing Syria, shows no change in maximum failure policy toward the Islamic Republic.
So does refusal to return to JCPOA compliance and lift illegally imposed sanctions.
Endless US war on Iran by other means continues under Biden.
Ignore rhetoric by regime officials. Follow their actions.
They show continuation of Trump’s anti-Iran agenda instead of going another way.
Biden officials also relentlessly push the phony threat of Iran advancing toward developing and producing nukes — knowing reality is polar opposite.
Where the Islamic Republic hasn’t gone for over 42 years, it shows no intention of moving toward now.
Yet the Big Lie otherwise persists in Washington, other Western capitals and Tel Aviv.
It refuses to die because Big Lies keep it alive.
In response to Biden’s escalated aggression, Syria’s Foreign Ministry said the following:
“In a flagrant violation of the rules of international law and Charter of the United Nations, the US warplanes on Thursday, February 25, 2021, launched a cowardly aggression by bombing some areas in Deir Ezzor province near the Syrian-Iraqi borders,” adding:
It sent a message to Damascus and Tehran that Biden intends continuation of endless aggression in Syria that aims to gain another US client state along with seeking to isolate Iran regionally.
It shows no change in US hostility toward the Islamic Republic, no intention to engage with its officials diplomatically according to the rule of law, no change in longstanding US regional imperial aims.
They’re all about dominating the Middle East, partitioning targeted countries for easier control, plundering their resources, and exploiting their people.
US ruling authorities aim to achieve their objectives through endless wars by hot and other means — even though they haven’t succeeded and won’t likely ahead.
It’s futile for Iran to believe that Biden will diverge from Trump’s hardline agenda.
Since taking office, he’s followed Trump’s toughness and escalated aggression, showing more of the same is highly likely.
Syria’s Foreign Ministry also slammed endless Israeli aggression, its undeclared war on the country with no end of it in prospect, so-called “international forces” in the country pursuing the same agenda, and high crimes by ISIS and other terrorists the West and Jewish state support.
The Syrian Arab Republic affirms its determination to defeat illegal occupation, eliminate the scourge of terrorism, and liberate “every inch” of its territory.
Moscow criticized Biden’s aggression, a Foreign Ministry statement saying:
“We strongly condemn such actions and call for Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity to be unconditionally respected.”
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said “(w)e are closely monitoring the situation on the ground.”
“We are in permanent contact with Syrian colleagues.”
Russia’s presidential envoy to Syria said the Biden regime has yet to cooperate with Russia on issues relating to Syria or Iran.
Sergey Lavrov said Russia was only notified of US airstrikes four to five minutes in advance, a useless, offensive heads-up, adding the following:
“We have recently heard different information from different sources.”
“While we cannot confirm this, we want to ask the Americans directly.”
“Reportedly, they could be making a decision to never leave Syria at all, eventually leading to the destruction of the country as a whole.”
There’s no ambiguity about US aims. Wars by hot and other means continue endlessly, no resolution in prospect anywhere.
Permanent occupation of Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and numerous other countries is planned.
Regime change targets all nations free from US control, wanting pro-Western puppet rule replacing their sovereign independence.
US rage for unchallenged dominance over planet earth, its resources and populations makes unthinkable global war possible.
Going another way with Iran and other independent nations was never Washington’s intention and surely isn’t now.
The world shouldn’t celebrate President Biden’s declaration that “America is back” but should tremble in fear. He doesn’t mean that it’s returning to the international community as an equal member, but that it’s doubling down on its bad habits.
US President Joe Biden thundered that “America is back” while addressing the Munich Security Conference last week via video, but his understanding of what this means might be a bad thing for the rest of the world. There were high hopes that he’d pragmatically re-engage with the international community in order to right his predecessor’s many foreign policy wrongs, but it seems from the rest of the words that he shared during his speech that he has other motivations in mind. The problem is that President Biden revealed how ideological his envisioned foreign policy is, which will inevitably contribute to further international instability in the future.
According to the American leader, the world is presently at an inflection point between democracy and what he described as “autocracy”. He said that his country’s “galvanizing mission” must therefore be to “demonstrate that democracies can still deliver for our people in this changed world” since he’s convinced that “it’s the single best way to revitalize the promise of our future.” In and of itself, that wouldn’t be an issue so long as the US focused solely on improving the state of its democracy at home, but regrettably, he wants to impose its interpretation of this governing system onto the rest of the world in a paradoxically undemocratic way.
Democracy is supposed to be about respecting differences, yet President Biden proclaimed that America will “speak out to defend [its values] around the world”, which differ from other countries’. Every state should have the right to practice their own form of democracy at home in line with their national traditions and culture without coming under pressure from abroad for this choice. Just like every person in a democracy should be able to do whatever they’d like as long as it’s peaceful, responsible, and doesn’t infringe on others’ rights, so too should every member of the international community be able to do this as well.
Unfortunately, President Biden’s ideologically driven foreign policy denies this right to China, which discredits America’s pro-democratic approach to International Relations. He proposed that “the United States, Europe, and Asia work together to secure the peace and defend our shared values and advance our prosperity across the Pacific” due to what he described as their “long-term strategic competition with China”. He also said that “We have to push back against the Chinese government’s economic abuses and coercion that undercut the foundations of the international economic system. Everyone — everyone — must play by the same rules.”
That statement is extremely hypocritical since it doesn’t align with reality. It’s the US that carries out economic abuses and pursues a policy of coercion against others which confirms it’s unwillingness to play by the same rules as everyone else. This is proven by its trade war against China and reliance on illegal sanctions as a foreign policy tool. China, by contrast, has always complied with international law and the rules of the World Trade Organization. Beijing doesn’t believe that there should be any double standards in this respect. It’s consistently advocated for America to return back to respecting international rules and norms instead of violating them.
President Biden’s messianic belief in America’s mission to impose its national interpretation of democracy onto others seems to have made him think that it’s acceptable to apply double standards towards this end. That’s the only explanation for why he’d so shamelessly lie to the rest of the world by claiming that China carries out a policy of economic abuses and coercion when that’s actually what his own country has a proven track record of doing. This observation strongly implies that the fundamental fallacy of his foreign policy is the mistaken assumption that America’s model of democracy is universal and that this thus makes the country exceptional.
That’s not true, though. America isn’t better than anyone else like the country’s conservatives claim, nor is it “the first among equals” like its liberals seem to believe. It’s simply just another member of the international community, albeit the one which is arguably the most responsible for destabilizing the world because of its dangerous belief in its own messianic mission and exceptionalism. Considering this, the world shouldn’t celebrate President Biden’s declaration that “America is back” but should tremble in fear. He doesn’t mean that it’s returning to the international community as an equal member, but that it’s doubling down on its bad habits.
JERUSALEM — Last year, Israeli forces killed a Palestinian teenager with an American gun. Now human rights organizations, activists, and politicians are calling on the United States to investigate the killing and stop the flow of military support to Israel.
On Dec. 4, 2020, Israeli forces fatally shot Ali Abu Aliya in the stomach while he was watching a protest against the establishment of a new settlement in the West Bank. It was his fifteenth birthday. According to Defense for Children International – Palestine (DCIP), Aliya wasn’t participating in the demonstration and did not pose a threat to Israeli soldiers.
“Under international law, intentional lethal force is only justified in circumstances where a direct threat to life or of serious injury is present,” DCIP said. “However, investigations and evidence collected by DCIP regularly suggest that Israeli forces use lethal force against Palestinian children in circumstances that do not appear to be warranted and may amount to extrajudicial or [willful] killings.”
Israel is the largest recipient of U.S. foreign assistance, acquiring an estimated $3.8 billion annually in aid. Roughly $800 million of the funds is dedicated to purchasing weaponry from inside Israel. In addition to American dollars maintaining Israel’s occupation of Palestine, American weapons are also being used in the deadly violence against Palestinians.
Aliya was shot with a Ruger rifle, a gun manufactured in the U.S. by Connecticut-based Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. This isn’t the first instance of the Ruger firearm being used by the Israel Defense Forces. The Ruger 10/22, the semiautomatic sniper rifle that killed Aliya, has been used by Israeli forces as far back as 1987 during the First Intifada (Palestinian uprising against the Israeli occupation). Despite Sturm, Ruger & Co.’s code of ethics, the company has a distribution partnership with Israel.
The Arms Export Control Act and the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 contain provisions barring the sale of American weaponry to countries engaging in gross violations of human rights. And under the nation’s Leahy Law, the U.S. government is prohibited from providing assistance to foreign security forces committing human rights violations, such as extrajudicial killing.
With these laws in mind, American Muslims for Palestine (AMP) — along with 29 human rights organizations including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International USA, and DCIP — sent a letter to the State Department urging the agency investigate Aliya’s death “as a possible case of extrajudicial killing that is subject to sanctions under the Leahy Law.”
“The United States is obligated to investigate whether our tax dollars have contributed to gross violations of human rights,” AMP’s advocacy director, Raed Jarrar, told MintPress News. “Every year around 1,000 foreign units will get suspended,” Jarrar said. “It’s a very strong system that works very well in other parts of the world, but it has not been implemented a single time in Israel.”
The State Department responded to AMP’s letter addressing military training in the U.S. but not the larger issue of the U.S.’s yearly, billion-dollar military aid package to Israel. Currently, AMP is drafting a coalition response to the State Department. “What we are trying to do now is to say ‘enough is enough,’” Jarrar said. “It is time to hold Israel and all other foreign countries accountable. It’s time to hold all countries to the same standard.”
For Jarrar, the Biden administration’s decision on whether to follow through with the AMP letter’s requests is not just a matter of morality but a matter of law. “If the Biden administration chooses to break U.S. law and continue to equip and arm foreign units accused of gross violations of human rights, that will not only be a political issue, it’ll also be a legal violation,” Jarrar said.
A new administration, a new congress: greater accountability?
Human rights organizations aren’t the only ones pushing for an end to military support to Israel in light of Aliya’s killing. Just a few days after Aliya’s death, Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN) entered a statement into the Congressional Record, calling on the then “incoming administration of President-Elect Biden to investigate Israel’s killing of Ali Abu Aalya, as well as Israel’s ongoing pattern of using state sponsored military violence against Palestinian children.” McCollum explained:
Members of Congress and the American people deserve to know whether U.S. taxpayer funding to Israel’s Ministry of Defense is being used directly or indirectly to facilitate or enable violence against Palestinian children. Committing human rights abuses with impunity and with U.S. taxpayer aid is intolerable and there must be accountability on the part of the U.S. Government.”
McCollum introduced a bill in 2019 and a bill in 2020, both of which focus on U.S. military funding to Israel. Promoting Human Rights for Palestinian Children Living Under Israeli Military Occupation Act bars foreign funds from being used for the military detention, interrogation, abuse, or ill-treatment of children. The bill currently has 24 cosponsors. The Israeli Annexation Non-Recognition Act, currently with 11 cosponsors, bans certain funds from supporting activities in West Bank areas annexed by Israel and activities facilitating annexation.
Grassroots activists are pressuring congressional leaders to stop the flow of American weapons to Israel. The US Campaign for Palestinian Rights launched a call to action demanding Congress hold Israel accountable and cease arms sales. And, on a more local level, Massachusetts Peace Action released a similar direct-action initiative for Massachusetts residents to urge their representatives to support the aforementioned bills.
The U.S. has been a great ally to Israel since the state’s inception, with some experts even arguing that Israel can’t survive without American financial support. But as Americans become increasingly critical of the Israeli government, foreign assistance is put under a microscope.
Recent polls have shown that Americans—particularly Democrats, Millennials, and Gen-Z’ers—believe Israel has too much influence on American politics and support conditioning aid to Israel. This public shift is reflected in congressional support. “There’s been a really magnificent movement in Congress in the last two years.” AMP’s Jarrar said, continuing:
When I moved to Washington, D.C. 15 years ago, we used to have four or five members of Congress willing to step outside of the pro-Israel, hardcore line. And now sometimes we have 50 or 60 members of Congress who sign on to letters demanding accountability and justice in Israel and Palestine. So, the tide is definitely shifting and this administration feels the heat from Congress and change will come.”
Whether it’s Rep. McCollum, “the squad,” or Sen. Bernie Sanders, more and more of Congress’ progressive wing is speaking out against Israel’s actions. The majority of Americans and Congress are still largely supportive of Israel, but voices from the pro-Palestinian camp are getting louder.
With a slew of domestic problems spurred by the coronavirus, Americans want greater transparency when it comes to how their tax dollars are spent. And they appear less willing to tolerate their government’s complicity in human rights abuses in foreign nations.
“Public opinion has been shifting not only on Israel, but on the idea that the United States government can give its allies a blank check,” Jarrar said. “There’s a clear movement saying our government has to stop contributing to human rights abuses abroad. And Israel is no exception to that.”
Yet, the English doctor Edward Jenner is celebrated for having discovered the smallpox vaccine in 1796. This is the predominant western account on the origin of the smallpox vaccination.
It is also recorded that inoculation against smallpox was already being practiced in Sichuan province by Taoist alchemists in the 10th century CE. [3] The Chinese inoculators administered dead or attenuated smallpox collected from less virulent scabs, which were inserted into the nose on a plug of cotton. Inoculation may also have been practiced much earlier by the Chinese — some sources cite dates as early as 200 BCE.
China obviously has a historical background in strengthening the immune response of people. Yet, in the western media, one seldom reads or hears about the Chinese COVID-19 vaccines. Neither were we well informed about the effectiveness of the Russian COVID-19 vaccine — that was until recently, when some western nations have been coming up short on vaccine supplies. The Canadian government has been scrambling to meet the demand for vaccines since Pfizer shipments were held up. The focus of western state and corporate media seemed clearly on procuring supplies of the Pfizer (US), Moderna (US), and AstraZeneca (UK-Sweden) vaccines. This is despite effective, but less heralded, Russian and Chinese vaccines being available and at a more affordable price. South Korea’s Arirang Newsreported Russian test results that “its second COVID-19 vaccine is 100% effective.” CBC.ca found this success problematic; it depicted a political quandary in considering a Russian vaccine: “At first dismissed and ridiculed by Western countries, Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine has not only been rehabilitated; it’s emerging as a powerful tool of influence abroad for President Vladimir Putin.” France 24 concurred, hailing it as “a scientific and political victory for Vladimir Putin’s Russia.”
Would Canada refuse to consider securing vaccines from Russia to safeguard the health of Canadians to avoid granting Putin, derided by Canadian magazine Macleans as a “new Stalin,” a political victory? Why shouldn’t Russia be lauded for coming up first with a working and effective vaccine? What does it matter if the leader of that country receives recognition? Shouldn’t the national priority be obtaining the best vaccine to protect the health of citizens?
Medical data aside, western mass media has, apparently, been effective in stirring up a distrust of COVID-19 vaccines from China and Russia in comparison to western vaccines, as revealed in a YouGov poll of almost 19,000 people worldwide.
Hungary has been mildly criticized for going its own way in ordering the Russian vaccine. Hungary’s foreign minister, Péter Szijjártó, had no qualms and defended Budapest’s decision to buy two million doses of Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine.
What Americans need to understand about the race to find vaccines and treatments for Covid-19 is that in the U.S., … the production of pharmaceutical drugs is still a nearly riskless, subsidy-laden scam.
The World Health Organization (WHO) director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus strongly criticized big pharma for profiteering and vaccine inequalities. Adhanom charged that younger, healthier adults in wealthy countries were being prioritized for vaccination against COVID-19 before older people or health care workers in poorer countries and that markets were sought to maximize profitability.
In chapter VII of the e-book The 2020 Worldwide Corona Crisis: Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression, Global Coup d’État and the “Great Reset” (December 2020, revised January 2021), professor Michel Chossudovsky writes:
The plan to develop the Covid-19 vaccine is profit driven.
The US government had already ordered 100 million doses back in July 2020 and the EU is to purchase 300 million doses. It’s Big Money for Big Pharma, generous payoffs to corrupt politicians, at the expense of tax payers.
The objective is ultimately to make money, by vaccinating the entire planet of 7.8 billion people for SARS-CoV-2….
The Covid vaccine is a multibillion dollar Big Pharma operation which will contribute to increasing the public debt of more than 150 national governments.
Imagine, if those thousands of people stay home, reduce contact with others, they may have survived the pandemic. [4]
Chossudovsky also questions the safety of the rushed testing and the need for a vaccine given that the WHO and the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) both confirmed that Covid-19 is “similar to seasonal influenza.” [5]
Some Safety Concerns about Vaccines
A report raised alarm about at least 36 people who developed a rare, lethal blood disorder, called thrombocytopenia, after receiving either of the two approved COVID-19 vaccines in the US. A Miami obstetrician, Gregory Michael, just 56, died of a brain hemorrhage just 16 days after receiving a Pfizer vaccination. His thrombocytopenia had caused his platelets to drop to virtually zero.
A Johns Hopkins University expert on blood disorders, Jerry L. Spivak, who was uninvolved in Michael’s care, said that based on Michael’s wife’s description: “I think it is a medical certainty that the vaccine was related [to Michael’s death].”
In Israel, at least three people suffered Bell’s palsy, facial paralysis, after receiving the vaccine. Data from Pfizer and Moderna vaccine trials revealed seven COVID-19 participants had experienced Bell’s palsy in the weeks following vaccination.
In Norway, at least 23 people who received the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine died. According to authorities, thirteen of the fatalities were associated to the vaccine’s side effects. In addition, 10 deaths shortly following vaccination were being probed in Germany.
Regarding the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, the CDC reported the administration of over 41 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines in the US from 14 December 2020 through 7 February 2021. During this time, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System received 1,170 reports of death (0.003%) among people vaccinated for COVID-19. Based on the extremely low figure, the CDC advised people that “COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective” and “to get a COVID-19 vaccine as soon as you are eligible.”
Yet, it seems some Europeans distrust their own government-approved Covid-19 vaccines. A black market has arisen; two doses of unapproved Chinese vaccines have reportedly sold for as high as 7,000 yuan (£800) — almost 20 times the reported usual price.
Vaccine makers, Sinopharm and Sinovac, cautioned the public not to buy the vaccines online.
Chinese Vaccines and Profit-seeking
Chinese leader Xi Jinping has been magnanimous with what could be an extremely profitable property. Said Xi, “China is willing to strengthen cooperation with other countries in the research and development, production, and distribution of vaccines,”
“We will fulfill our commitments, offer help and support to other developing countries, and work hard to make vaccines a public good that citizens of all countries can use and can afford.”
Imagine that: making an in-demand product available as a “pubic good” instead of taking advantage of a seemingly dire situation to rake in huge profits. Africa, for one, is benefiting.
Back in October 2020, Fortune.com proclaimed in its headline: “World’s vaccine testing ground deems Chinese COVID candidate ‘the safest, most promising.’” The tests conducted in Brazil were large, human trials of the COVID-19 vaccines that included Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and China’s Sinovac and Sinopharm.
São Paulo Governor João Doria said,
The first results of the clinical study conducted in Brazil prove that among all the vaccines tested in the country, CoronaVac from Chinese developer Sinovacis the safest, the one with the best and most promising rates.
On 3 February 2021, the peer-review medical journal, The Lancet, published a study by Wu et al. who spoke to the urgent need for a vaccine against COVID-19 for the elderly. Their study found that the Chinese CoronaVac, containing inactivated SARS-CoV-2, is safe and well tolerated by the elderly.
Journalist Wei Ling Chua, who follows closely how events involving China are portrayed and perceived elsewhere, asked in an email on 12 February 2021:
1) till this date, there is no report of a single death or hospitalisation after taking China vaccine
2) unlike the capitalist west, China vaccine companies did not require nations to excuse them from legal liability from side effects.
Despite, western nations acknowledging many having died soon after taking the vaccine, they all claim that after investigation the cause of death not related to vaccine. But, why does death happen so soon after taking the vaccine?
Why following administration of a Chinese vaccine are there no reports of people dying soon afterwards?
Closing Comments
This essay does not explore the necessity for vaccination against COVID-19. Indeed, there are grounds to be skeptical of the necessity for all people to be vaccinated. However, if COVID-19 is genuinely an urgent health issue, [6] then why would governments play politics with the health of their populace?
The city’s name is an eponym for Prince Rupert of the Rhine, a European elitist who never set foot on the Pacific coast. For the Ts’msyen: “Place names are usually rooted in the natural world and the land they refer to.” See Kenneth Campbell, Persistence and Change: A History of the Ts’msyen Nation (Prince Rupert, [sic] BC: First Nation Educational Council, 2005): 10. Author Kenneth Campbell commented, “By writing and saying the name name in Sm’algyax [the Ts’msyen language], both the language and the people are honored.” (p. 10)
Tom Swanky, The Great Darkening: The True Story of Canada’s “War” of Extermination on the Pacific plus The Tsilhqot’in and other First Nations Resistance (Burnaby, BC: Dragon Heart Enterprises, 2012). See also an interview with Tom Swanky.
Robert Temple, The Genius of China: 3,000 Years of Science, Discovery and Invention (London: Prion Books, 2002): 135-137.
President Biden’s Thursday night strike on Eastern Syria against alleged pro-Iranian militias there surprisingly prompted some criticism from influential Republicans like Don Jr., which was unexpected because one would have thought that they’d applaud his aggression since it advances the security interests of their country’s “Israeli” ally and also made it less likely that his efforts to revive the nuclear negotiations will succeed.
American politics is characterized by hypocrisy, and nowhere is this seen more clearly at the moment than with President Biden’s Thursday night strike on Eastern Syria against alleged pro-Iranian militias there. Breitbart pointed out how the American leader and some of his officials like Vice President Harris and spokeswoman Psaki criticized former President Trump’s assassination of Iranian Major General Soleimani at the start of last year yet ironically went and supported a similar killing albeit against much lesser-known figures a little less than a month after taking office. That’s a valid observation to make, but equally valid is the fact that influential Republicans like Don Jr. are also being hypocritical for criticizing Biden for the first attack of his presidency. After all, one would have thought that they’d applaud his aggression since it advances the security interests of their country’s “Israeli” ally and also made it less likely that his efforts to revive the nuclear negotiations will succeed. It also deserves mentioning that Trump himself bombed Syria just several months into his presidency in response to false claims that President Assad carried out a chemical weapons attack.
What’s happening here isn’t that everyone suddenly had a change of heart and coincidentally reversed their prior positions at the same time, but simply that they’re behaving as they’re expected to considering their current political positions. Opposition figures usually always criticize the ruling party’s strikes, hoping that this will endear them more to anti-war voters who are largely skeptical of larger military involvement overseas, whether for reasons of principle, security, and/or financial cost. Biden and his ilk behaved this way when Trump killed Soleimani, which is the exact same role that Don Jr. is now playing. Trump himself, while thankfully not starting another major war during his term in office unlike other presidents over the past four decades or so, went back on his prior anti-war pledges from the campaign trail by bombing Syria so soon after entering the White House. Just like Biden nowadays, this proves that opposition figures who are critical of the incumbents’ military actions abroad almost always end up carrying out their own such attacks because they believe in their own way — whether rightly or wrongly — that they do indeed support America’s national interests.
Trump’s Syria strike was the result of “deep state” manipulations while Biden’s was much more voluntary on his part, but nevertheless, they both served to send a message to Iran’s Syrian ally that the US won’t go “soft” on it despite Trump’s prior peaceful talk and Biden’s ongoing attempts to revive the nuclear deal with Tehran. About the most recent attack and the context in which it was carried out, Biden was also pressured by domestic factors to show Republicans that he won’t be “soft” on Iran either despite his administration’s diplomatic outreaches to it and their policy shift regarding Yemen. Although some criticized Trump for his proud pro-”Israeli” foreign policy sympathies, Biden is just as bad from this perspective because he directly targeted alleged pro-Iranian militias in Syria as a strong showing of his administration’s “goodwill” towards Tel Aviv in response to their concern that Washington is neglecting its regional interests by wanting to re-enter into nuclear talks with Tehran. Those negotiations might now be more difficult to revive than ever since Iran’s ruling “reformists” are under severe pressure from the “principalists” not to talk to the US until after June’s elections.
These two outcomes — the US’ clear signs of geostrategic fealty to “Israeli” regional security interests and potentially self-sabotaging the nuclear talks with Tehran — arguably align with Republican foreign policy interests and were unquestionably advanced by Trump himself during his tenure through his assassination of Major General Soleimani and decision to withdraw from the JCPOA. Many Republicans, however, don’t want to remember this since they’re just interested in criticizing the incumbent leader of their rival party due to how sour they still are over the contentious outcome of last year’s elections. Had Trump won re-election and been the one to bomb Syria last Thursday instead, they’d all probably be cheering him and praising his decisive military support for “Israeli” regional security interests at Iran’s alleged expense. At the same time, those Democrats who stand in support of Biden’s latest strike would have probably condemned it had Trump been the President who authorized the attack. This is all so predictable, yet few are talking about it because they’re blinded by the desire to make rhetorical points of relevance in the immediate moment.
The explained dynamic probably won’t ever change because the American people are so easily manipulable. Although outliers certainly exist as proven by the reader themselves for even being interested in this analysis in the first place, the majority have been conditioned to react to political rhetoric instead of think on their own. Partisan politics plays an enormous role in all of this since it’s rare for the average Democrat or Republican to criticize their side, especially when doing so would place them in the same camp as their opponents. That’s why so few Republicans can bring themselves to applaud Biden’s Syria strike even though they’d have likely praised it to high heaven had Trump been the one to carry it out. Similarly, few Democrats want to call Biden and his team out for their hypocrisy in criticizing Trump’s assassination of Soleimani yet nevertheless authorizing the assassination of a much higher number of lesser-known individuals allegedly linked to Iran. At the end of the day, more such examples are inevitable since this dynamic will remain the same so long as Americans continue to allow themselves to be manipulated in such simplistic political-rhetorical ways.
WASHINGTON — Barely a month into his presidency, Joe Biden launched an airstrike on Syria yesterday. The attack was reportedly aimed at militias close to the Iraq border, killing 22 people — considerably more than the White House first claimed. In the attack, 1.75 tons of bombs were dropped on a small border-crossing village, according to The New York Times.
It was commonly reported that the target of the raid was pro-Iran forces — specifically, members of the Popular Mobilization Front, a contingent of Iraqi militia groups formed to fight ISIS that were eventually brought under the command of the Iraqi government. In its headline, the Times described the militias as such, although in the body of its report the paper admitted it had no evidence and was not sure this was the case.
U.S. government spokespersons framed the decision to bomb a country over 6,000 miles away as “defensive in nature” and as a response to attacks on American personnel in the region. The Syrian government characterized the incident as “cowardly” and a violation of international law.
Predictable cheers (and jeers)
The news was met with cheers from many of Biden’s more prominent supporters. “Good. Targeting our troops should carry a consequence,” wroteTime columnist David French. Former U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul was of a similar opinion, tweeting his approval of the attack. “So different having military action under Biden. No middle school-level threats on Twitter. Trust Biden and his team’s competence,” reacted Amy Siskind, a prominent liberal writer.
Others in the press were equally delighted. “By authorizing air strikes, the U.S. president showed he won’t ignore Tehran’s provocations while pursuing diplomacy,” wroteBloomberg columnist Bobby Ghosh. Ghosh claimed that the strike would be sure to snap Iran out of its “sense of impunity” and deter any more “aggression” against the United States.
While the bombing drew applause from establishment Democrats, it also elicited condemnation from anti-war voices. “This is basically the polar opposite of getting back in the peace agreement, which was what [Biden] promised to do. A liar and a warmonger,” concluded political commentator Kyle Kulinski. “You will never bomb your way to peace,” reacted progressive activist and podcast host Jordan Uhl.
No step forward, two steps back
The news of the bombing came at the same time as reports that the new administration was planning to drop its attempts to pass a federal $15 minimum wage. Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled that a $15 minimum wage could not be part of Biden’s $1.9 trillion COVID relief plan. It is perfectly within the power of the Vice President Kamala Harris, serving in her capacity as president of the Senate, to overrule the decision and push forward with the plan regardless. However, reports suggest the Biden administration is not looking to do so. “Today Biden approved an airstrike in Syria and the Senate parliamentarian shot down the federal minimum wage hike through reconciliation. Dems can overrule her but Biden doesn’t want to. Dems will lose everything in the midterms and possibly the next general election. And they’ll deserve it,” fumed Ana Kasparian of “The Young Turks.”
The news capped off a month marked largely with disappointment for progressives. After campaigning on a promise to “immediately” send out a $2,000 check to every American, Biden has walked back that offer to a means-tested $1,400, something that is still stuck in negotiations and will only be sent out in the spring at the earliest.
Earlier this week, Trump-era child prisons along the Mexican border were reopened, this time with the word “bienvenidos” (Spanish for “welcome”) daubed on their exterior. Washington Post columnist Greg Sargent insisted that Biden’s camps were fundamentally different. “What Biden is doing has nothing in common with ‘kids in cages,’” he wrote, describing them merely as “warehouse-like facilities.”
The new president’s Middle Eastern policies have left many pro-peace figures disappointed. While pledging to end the war in Yemen as part of his election campaigning, Biden has merely promised to halt support for “offensive” Saudi actions and pause “relevant” arms sales. Yet his administration simultaneously reaffirmed Saudi Arabia’s right to defend itself and immediately began condemning supposed Houthi attacks on its neighbor to the north, suggesting that the change is one of semantics rather than policy. Earlier this week, State Department official Timothy Lenderking also, according to an official communication, bizarrely “expressed gratitude for Saudi Arabia’s generous support over the decades for the people of Yemen.” Biden has also approved the controversial Trump-era decision to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.
While few expected him to be an anti-war president, the expectation on Iran was that Biden would return to the nuclear deal signed by President Barack Obama, a deal that kept a lid on U.S. aggression against the country. However, the 78-year-old Delawarean is dragging his feet on that, too. This latest strike is hardly likely to improve matters.
Leith Aboufadel BEIRUT, LEBANON (1:00 P.M.) – The U.S. Coalition carried out heavy strikes over eastern Syria on Thursday evening, targeting a number of Iraqi paramilitary personnel near the border city of Albukamal. According to reports from eastern Syria, the U.S. Coalition targeted the troops of Kata’ib Hezbollah at a base near the Iraqi border; this resulted in heavy damage to the installation.
The number of casualties from the U.S. strikes is still unknown at this time, as Kata’ib Hezbollah has not released any figures regarding their losses.
The attack was the first carried out by the administration of U.S. President Joe Biden since he took office on January 21st, 2021.
لم يكن أنيس يحلم باليوم التالي لتحرير فلسطين فحسب، بل كان يعرف أيضاً، أنه قادم حتماً.
الاشتباك في حالة أنيس النقاش ومن سبقه وعاصره من رجال بذلوا أنفسهم من أجل فلسطين في مواجهة الصهيوني والإمبريالية الغربية هو وعي الأهمية لأن تصبح المقاومة حقلاً معرفياً قائماً بذاته.
“تكليفنا لا يقتصر على قتال إسرائيل، تكليفنا هو الانتصار عليها” (الشهيد عماد مغنية).
قبل أكثر من 100 عام بقليل، وتحديداً في تمام الساعة 9:40 من مساء السادس من تشرين الثاني/نوفمبر 1917 (25 تشرين الأول/أكتوبر، بحسب التقويم اليولياني)، أطلق الطراد “أورورا”، الراسي حينها على ضفاف نهر نيفا الَّذي يقطع مدينة بطرسبورغ الروسية، رصاصة مدوية في الهواء. كانت تلك إشارة لأنصار البلاشفة بأمر الهجوم على قصر الشتاء. بعدها بدقائق قليلة، كانت فرق الجيش الأحمر تقتحم قصر الشتاء كالإعصار، ليدخل بعدها تاريخ الإنسانية والعالم مرحلة جديدة سيتغيّر معها العالم.
بعد تلك الليلة بتسعة وثلاثين عاماً، في 26 تموز/يوليو 1956، ومن ميدان المنشية في الإسكندرية، أعلن الرئيس جمال عبد الناصر تأميم قناة السويس. في 9 كلمات فقط (“قرار من رئيس الجمهورية بتأميم الشركة العالمية لقناة السويس”).
لم يكن الرئيس عبد الناصر يصدر الأمر للسيطرة على مكاتب “الشركة العالمية لقناة السويس” فحسب، بل كان يعلن بداية انقلاب العرب على اتفاق “سايكس بيكو” ووعد “بلفور” ومفاعيلهما، بفتحه الأفق والطريق للوحدة العربية كعملية تاريخية. هكذا كان إعلان المنشية إيذاناً بتحوّل فكرة الجماعة العربية والأمة العربية لقوة تاريخية فعلية ومضادة للاستراتيجية الاستعمارية القائمة على التجزئة.
بعدها بتسعة عشر عاماً (وأكثر من نصف قرن على رصاصة الطراد أورورا)، وتحديداً في 29 نيسان/أبريل 1975، أعطى الجنرال الفيتنامي فان تاين دونغ الأمر للجيش الشعبي الفيتنامي باقتحام سايغون. بعدها بيوم واحد فقط، كان العالم يشاهد مذهولاً اقتحام دبابات الفيتكونغ لبوابات القصر الرئاسي في سايغون، كإعلان صارخ لهزيمة الإمبراطورية الأعتى في التاريخ (والثالثة بعد فرنسا واليابان).
بعد ذلك اليوم بخمسة وعشرين عاماً، وتحديداً في 25 أيار/مايو 2000، وفي نهاية مشهد مذلّ من الانسحاب الفوضوي لطّخ سمعة كلّ عسكري صهيوني إلى الأبد، أغلق ضابط صهيوني مهزوم ومكسور الروح اسمه بيني غانتس بوابة فاطمة في جنوب لبنان، ظناً منه ومن حكومته أن باباً حديدياً يمكنه أن يوقف مفاعيل تلك الهزيمة المُرَّة عند تلك النقطة، لكن ذلك اليوم وتلك الهزيمة المُرة والأولى في تاريخ الصراع العربي- الصهيوني أسست لمسار يقوده الأمين لحزب الله السيّد حسن نصر الله بعبقرية، وبَشَّرَنا بخاتمته بصلاة العرب في الأقصى الراحل أنيس النقاش في مقاله “اليوم التالي للصلاة في الأقصى”.
أنيس المثقّف المشتبك: جدليّة الفعل والفكر
خلف كلّ تلك المشاهد العظيمة والمدهشة التي غيّرت وستظلّ تغيّر العالم، فكرة ونهج تفكير عرفه الراحل أنيس النقاش وأتقنه جيداً، ولخّصه سيد المقاومة في ذلك اليوم العظيم من أيار/مايو بكلمتين: “مصيرك بيدك”، فخلف كلّ تلك المشاهد التي تختصر وتختزل جوهر حركة التاريخ وتغييره كانت جدلية الفعل والفكر، ديالكتيك الممارسة والنظرية.
وليس غريباً أنها تجلَّت أولاً، وبوضوح، في مشهد الثورة البلشفية، فمع فلاديمير لينين فقط، يقول الفيلسوف الفرنسي لوي التوسير في “لينين والفلسفة”: “يمكن للعبارة النبوءة في الأطروحة الحادية عشرة لـ (الفيلسوف الألماني) لودفيغ فيورباخ أن تكتسب أخيراً الشكل والمعنى: حتى الآن، قام الفلاسفة بتفسير العالم بطرق مختلفة، بينما الهدف هو تغييره”، فزعيم الثورة البلشفية تجاوز معرفة ماهية الفلسفة إلى معرفة ماهية ممارسة الفلسفة، تجاوز النظرية للفعل والممارسة. هكذا أصبحت الماركسية عند لينين السياسي والقائد ممارسة (جديدة) للفلسفة، وهو ما لم يغير الفلسفة فحسب، ولكن غيّر العالم أيضاً في تشرين الأول/أكتوبر 1917.
لهذا السبب بالضبط، يجادل التوسير بأنه مهما حاول أحد الإيديولوجيين دفنه (أي لينين) تحت دليل من التحليل التاريخي، فسيظل هذا الرجل يقف دائماً على سهل التاريخ والحياة، وسيواصل الحديث بهدوء أو بحماس. سيواصل الحديث عن شيء بسيط: “عن ممارسته الثورية وعن ممارسة الصراع الطبقي. سيواصل الحديث عما يجعل من إمكانية الفعل في التاريخ. وليس ذلك لإثبات أن الثورات حتمية، ولكن لجعلها (حقيقة) في حاضرنا الفريد”.
أنيس النقاش، المثقف المشتبك بامتياز، أدرك ذلك جيداً، فالاشتباك الثوري، كما هو في حالة المثقف المشتبك، من تشي غيفارا إلى وديع حداد، ومن عماد مغنية إلى غسان كنفاني، هو ديالكتيك الفعل والفكر في أرقى صوره على الإطلاق.
الاشتباك، كما عرفه أبطال المقاومة، ليس الاشتباك الثقافي البحت مع مثقفي الطرف الآخر في صفحات الجرائد والمجلات أو في شاشات التلفزة فحسب، ولا حتى مجرد تسخير للمعرفة والثقافة المكتسبة في الأكاديميات والجامعات في خدمة النضال السياسي والقضايا الكبرى.
الاشتباك في حالة أنيس النقاش ومن سبقه وعاصره من مقاومين عرب من أجل فلسطين في مواجهة العدو الصهيوني والإمبريالية الغربية هو وعي الأهمية الفائقة لأن تصبح المقاومة حقلاً معرفياً (علم المقاومة) قائماً بذاته فعلاً، مختبره الميدان الفعلي للمواجهة، وأن تصبح المقاومة أيضاً مادة المعرفة الأولى والأخيرة والهم الدائم للمثقف التي يختبرها بنفسه ومباشرة في الخنادق والدشم والمتاريس وبين أزيز الرصاص.
في حواره مع صقر أبو فخر، عبّر النقاش عن هذه الفكرة بوضوح لا لبس فيه: “بدأت بالفعل البحث عن مجالات سياسية تلبي رغبة الفاعلية والجهد المباشر. وأكثر ما كان يضايقني، حتى الآن، قلة الفاعلية أو انعدامها، أي من يقول ولا يفعل، لأن أي قول، لكي يكون ذا أثر، يجب أن يقترن بالعمل المباشر، وإلا أصبح كلاماً وتنظيراً فقط، ولا سيما في القضايا الكبرى مثل الدفاع عن العدالة”.
الأهم من كل ذلك، أنّ أنيس لم يكن مثقفاً فقط، كما لم يكن مقاوماً فقط، بل جمع الصفتين، فكان لما يقوله كمثقف مشتبك وزن أكبر بكثير من أي قائل آخر لم يعرف المقاومة في الميدان، مهما كانت مستوى ثقافته، فلم يكن لمثقف غير مشتبك، مهما كانت درجة ثقافته فعلاً، أن يعرف متى يعطي إشارة اقتحام قصر الشتاء، أو تأميم قناة السويس، أو اقتحام سايغون، أو طرد الصهاينة وهزيمتهم في لبنان. لم يكن لأيّ مثقّف غير مشتبك، مهما كانت مستوى ثقافته، أن يتحدث بالثقة المطلقة والقناعة الحاسمة التي تحدث بها أنيس النقاش عن حتمية تحرير فلسطين، فالمعرفة في القضايا الكبرى تشترط انخراط المثقف في ميدان المواجهة المباشرة، ولا يمكن تحصيلها في الأكاديميات التقليدية.
كانت هذه الفكرة لوحدها دليل أصالة روح أنيس المقاومة وصدق انتمائه المطلق إلى مشروع تحرير فلسطين، ففي عُرف أنيس النقاش، وفي عرف المقاومة، كل مقاوم لا يؤمن حتى النخاع بحتمية تحرير فلسطين وزوال الكيان الصهيوني، لم يُهزم قبل أن يبدأ فقط (وربما كان عليه أن يبقى في بيته)، بل أصبح بروحه المهزومة وعقله المستعمر عبئاً حقيقياً وخطراً جدياً على مشروع المقاومة. هذه هي معضلة بعض قادة الثورة الفلسطينية الأساسية وسبب فشلهم الأهم، فمن لم يكن منهم على اقتناع بحتمية زوال الكيان الصهيوني، انتهى إلى طاولة المفاوضات متنازلاً عن الأرض والشعب.
أنيس الاستراتيجي
“تعالوا إلى كلمة سواء: نحو استراتيجيا شاملة لبلاد الشام“. كان هذا عنوان وفكرة مقال نشره الراحل أنيس النقاش مباشرة عقب انتصار تموز 2006 في صحيفة الأخبار اللبنانية. ورغم أن العنوان يكشف عن محتوى المقال، كما يختزل ويختزن فكرته الأساسية إلى حد كبير، فإنه يكشف أيضاً بعض ملامح المنظومة المفاهيمية التي شكَّلت أسس التفكير السياسي للراحل.
ويكشف منطق المقال أيضاً بعض ما يربط التفكير السياسي للنقاش بمنهجية وآلية تفكير سياسي لتيار عروبي وحدوي جنوبي الهوى ومتنوع المشارب الإيديولوجية (يساري، قومي، إسلامي)، تطور منذ عهد الرئيس الراحل جمال عبد الناصر وثورة يوليو، وما زال سائداً عند كل من يعتقد من العروبيين وثوار الجنوب وأحرار العالم بكل مشاربهم العقائدية بأولوية اللحظة الإمبريالية على ما عداها في التحليل السياسي.
فكرة الوحدة في هذا التقليد السياسي ليست مجرد اتفاقية بين بلدين أو أكثر أو اندماج بين شعبين أو أكثر، بل هي استراتيجية مؤسسة على وعي وإدراك عميق بجوهر السيطرة الإمبريالية وطبيعتها، فلا يمكن، وفق هذه الرؤية، تحقيق الاستقلال والسيادة والأمن لشعوب أمتنا ومنطقتنا في عصر الاستعمار الغربي وإمبراطورياته الكبرى، إلا عبر رؤية ترى في الوحدة أولاً وأساساً تكتلاً مضاداً من القوى المناهضة للهيمنة الإمبريالية والمتضررة منها. لهذا، إن منطق الوحدة العربية كاستراتيجيا في مواجهة الكيان الصهيوني، مثلاً، يستند إلى قاعدة سياسية بسيطة أجملتها في مقال آخر في “الميادين نت” سابقاً بعبارة: “كلما كبر العرب، صغرت إسرائيل”.
هذا الفكر المؤسّس على الوحدة والعروبة كاستراتيجيا أكثر من كونها إيديولوجيا، يؤشر إلى إدراك صاحبه العميق بأن التجزئة الاستعمارية للوطن العربي، وللمنطقة بمجملها، هي من أهم متطلبات الهيمنة الامبريالية الغربية، ومن أهم متطلبات النهب الإمبريالي، ويؤشر كذلك بالتالي، وبالضرورة، إلى إدراك النقاش أن الوحدة ليست أهم آليات ومتطلبات المواجهة والانتصار فحسب، بل وأهم متطلّبات الدفاع عن النفس والوجود أيضاً.
هذا المنهج في التفكير السياسي الذي اعتمده الراحل أنيس النقاش يتجاوز مجرد المعاداة الإيديولوجية والعقائدية للإمبريالية الغربية القائمة على أساس التناقض الاجتماعي أو الاقتصادي-السياسي البحت (الطبقي على مستوى عالمي)، كما في بعض الإيديولوجيات اليسارية، كما يتجاوز إدراك بعض الإيديولوجيات القومية ذات الفهم القاصر لمفهوم الأمة، والتي كانت ترى في الوحدة “فكرة مطلقة”، فالأولى بقيت أسيرة رؤية قطرية ضيقة تبحث عن عدالة اجتماعية غير ممكنة الإنجاز والتحقيق في سياق منظومة نهب عالمية تتحكّم بها القوى الإمبريالية الغربية، فيما اصطدمت الثانية بتباينات الواقع الاجتماعي القطري الذي يكشف ارتباط بعض شرائحه الاجتماعية عضوياً بالإمبريالية الغربية.
لهذا، كانت نتيجة هذه الاستراتيجيا، يقول النقاش، “التي عُرفت في الماضي بسياسة فرّق تسد، تُمارس اليوم على أكثر من صعيد، وأهم ما فيها أنها تستهدف المفاهيم المكونة للمجتمع وعقائده أكثر مما تستهدف تفريق الصفوف فقط، كما كان في السياسات القديمة لاستراتيجيات فرّق تسد، أو مجرد السيطرة على الأرض والمواد الأولية، فهي تحوي كل هذا في آن واحد”.
الأهم أنَّ هذه الرؤية القائمة على أساس الوحدة كاستراتيجيا، وجوهرها التأسيس لأكبر تكتل مضاد في مواجهة العدو، تستتبع بالضرورة مركزية قضية فلسطين ومركزية تحريرها، كما توفّر الآلية الأكثر فاعلية وإمكانية لتحقيق النصر وإنجاز التحرير.
ولهذا، يستنتج النقاش: “على استراتيجيتنا الشاملة أيضاً أن تنقض على بقايا الاستعمار القديم وقراراته بتقسيم المنطقة، من خلال وحدة الجهاد والاجتهاد والصحوة والعمل التنموي، وخصوصاً العمل الوحدوي في مجتمعاتنا المستهدفة في وحدتها الاجتماعية وسلامها الأهلي، وبالتالي في مستقبلها وآمالها. إنها استراتيجيا بلاد الشام قاطبة، محورها بيت المقدس، وساحتها أكناف بيت المقدس كساحة جغرافية لحركتها”.
ولأنَّ هذه الفكرة كانت تعبيراً عن منهج تفكير عند النقاش، يمكننا رؤيتها في تعاطيه مع أغلب القضايا السياسية. هذا التفكير هو الذي يرى الأهمية الوجودية لعلاقة العرب مع إيران وفنزويلا وكوبا وبوليفيا وغيرها من مجتمعات الجنوب المتضررة من الهيمنة الغربية، والمهددة مثل أمتنا تماماً بوجودها، فليس انتصار العرب وغيرهم من أهل الجنوب وتحررهم فقط، ولكن استمرار وجودهم نفسه أيضاً، أصبح مشروطاً بهذه الاستراتيجية: أن نكون جزءاً من تكتّل مضادّ يدرك أنّ المعركة مع الإمبريالية الغربية، وليس فقط مع ممثلها في منطقتنا (العدوّ الصهيوني)، هي معركة وجودية بامتياز، تتطلب وتفترض اندماج هذه القوى، وليس مجرد تعاونها فقط.
وداعاً أنيس فلسطين
لم يكن أنيس يحلم باليوم التالي لتحرير فلسطين فحسب، بل كان يعرف أيضاً، كما كتب عن ذلك اليوم، أنه قادم حتماً. كان يعلم أنَّ ثمة من يعمل لذلك اليوم في الليل والنهار. يومها، وبينما تقرع أجراس كنائسنا في المهد والقيامة إجلالاً للشهداء والمقاومين، سنسوّي صفوفنا، ونعتدل خلف إمامنا وقائد حركة التحرير العربية والأمين عليها، السيد حسن نصر الله، لنصلّي في المسجد الأقصى. ولأنَّ النّصر سيكون كبيراً، فإن الفرح سيكون أيضاً كبيراً، لكن ستكون في القلب غصة، لأنَّ بعض من أحبّ فلسطين، وأفنى عمره في سبيلها وفي سبيل أن نصل إلى ذلك اليوم، لن يكون معنا.
يومها، سنفتقدك جداً يا أنيس، كما سنفتقد كل مقاوم استشهد على طريق فلسطين، لكنَّ عزاءنا يكمن في أنَّنا نعرف أنَّكم عشتم وقاومتم واستشهدتم وأنتم ترددون خلف سيد المقاومة: “اللهم إنّك تعلم أنه لم يكن الذي كان منا منافسةً في سلطان، ولا ابتغاء لشيء من الحطام، وإنما كان إحياءً للحق، وإماتةً للباطل، ودفاعاً عن مظلومي عبادك، وإقامةً للعدل في أرضك، وطلباً لرضاك والقرب منك. على هذا قضى شهداؤنا، وعلى هذا نمضي ونواصل العمل والجهاد، وقد وعدتنا يا رب إحدى الحسنيين: إما النصر وإما التشرف بلقائك مخضبين بدمائنا”.
The United States released a previously unseen drone video showing the Iranian missile strike on US forces at the Ayn Al Asad Airbase in Iraq which took place on the 8th of January 2020 as a retaliation for the US assassination of the Iranian general Qassem Sulaimani.
How Precise Are Iranian Missiles? Analysis Of Missile Strikes On U.S. Military Base In Iraq (2020):
This video is based on the analysis of Haider Geoanalyst originally appeared on TheSaker.is
Several sources in the past weeks have analyzed the Iranian missile strikes on US forces at the Ayn Al Asad Airbase which took place more than two weeks ago on the 8th of January 2020 as a retaliation for the US assassination of the Iranian general Qassem Sulaimani.
In this analysis, the post-strike satellite imagery is assessed to give us some insights on what happened at the Ayn Al Asad Airbase and to estimate the accuracy of the Iranian missiles.
It is clear, even prior to conducting any analysis, that the Iranian missiles targeted individual structures with a high rate of accuracy. This analysis attempts to estimate the accuracy in terms of how far the missiles landed from their targets. Since the Iranians did not make public the targets they wanted to hit or destroy, it is assumed that the individual missiles were targeting the actual structures they destroyed or the nearest structures to their impact locations.
A term often used in precision guided munitions (artillery shells, smart-bombs, missiles, etc.) is the circular error probability (CEP). This value is not derived from actual warfare statistics but from weapons testing or claims from the weapons manufacturer. Instead of using the CEP, we will attempt to derive our own statistics from the small sample size of missile strikes.
Introduction to Ayn Al Asad Airbase
The US occupation forces between 2003 and 2005 changed the name of the airbase from its original 1980s name of Qadisiyah Airbase to the name of Ayn Al Asad, which in Arabic literally either means “Eye of the Lion” or in this case “Lion spring” due to the hydrological spring which is now located within the perimeter of the airbase. This spring feeds the Wadi al Asadi stream valley located in the northern part of the air base and flows eastwards into the Euphrates River as one of its tributaries. The main part of the base originally had a perimeter length of 21 km, not including other secondary or auxiliary bases located in the surrounding areas. The perimeter was expanded by the Americans to 34 km (Figure 1), giving the base a total area size of approximately 63 km2 and making it the largest military base in Iraq by area size. For comparison, this is almost twice the size of the New York City metropolitan area.
The base consists of two major runways (a third runway is unpaved), several taxiways, a variety of different facilities and buildings for personnel, equipment, communications, including sports and leisure centers with theaters and swimming pools. The base further has soft and hardened aircraft shelters (hangars). The trapezoidal shaped hardened aircraft hangers were built by Yugoslavian companies across many bases in Iraq in the 80s and are nicknamed “Yugos” by the Iraqis. The two hardened runways have a length of approximately 3,990 m. This is almost 1 km shorter than Iraq’s longest aircraft runway of 4,800 m located at Erbil airport, which is also one of the longest in the world. For further historical and general information on the Ayn Al Asad Airbase, see the following websites here ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Asad_Airbase ), here ( https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/al-asad.htm ) and here ( https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/al-asad-airbase-iraq/ ).
Reports indicate that around 15 to 16 missiles were fired from multiple locations inside Iran, with at least 10 missiles fired from bases in the Kermanshah area. If this is indeed the case and assuming a straight line flight path, the missiles could have traveled a distance of approximately 425 km from Kermanshah until reaching the Ayn Al Asad Airbase (Figure 2).
Airbase missile strike overview
In recent days, analysts have identified a total of nine separate missile impact strikes within the Ayn Al Assad Airbase perimeter. This does not exclude the possibility of other missile impact sites within the base’s perimeter which have not been identified or published online. Seven strikes (number 1 to 7) are found at the facilities located just above the northern taxiway and runway, which according to the imagery, houses a variety of drones and aircraft, including V-22 Ospreys, MQ-1 Predator drones, UH-60 Black Hawks and even (K)C-130 Hercules aircraft for transport and refueling. Another missile impact (number 8) is located on the taxiway between the two paved runways and impact number 9 is found on a taxiway in the southeastern complex of hardened aircraft hangars.
Site number 1 and 2
Strikes number 1 and 2 are approximately 110 m apart. Crater impact nr. 1 is 28 m away from the destroyed soft non reinforced target (possibly a tent structure). Nr. 1 has a small circular blast followed by a secondary semi-circle pattern. The secondary pattern towards the west also gives away the eastern incoming missile direction. Impact nr. 1 is peculiar since it is not a direct hit, but landed 28 m next to the nearest structure. The question is if the Iranians intentionally targeted this point or is it an accuracy issue (off by 28 m) ?
Strike nr. 2 has a similar sized crater and blast pattern as nr. 1 (approx. 27 to 28 m). So it is highly possible that both strikes were conducted using the same missile, with strike nr. 2 having a more obvious blast circle due to it landing exactly in the middle of a series of built soft structures (possible tents). From the measurements we can conclude that strike nr. 2 is more or less dead center on the 5 soft like tent structures and there is no substantial accuracy error.
Site number 3
Site nr. 3 contains two soft structures (possible tents). The missile’s crater and circular blast pattern is located almost in the center of the left building. If this building was deliberately targeted, the error is no more than 3 m. For comparison, this is the average accuracy of a handheld GNSS (GPS) device or a current smartphone, which is very impressive for a warhead landing at more than 2000 km/h (terminal velocity).
Site number 4 and 5
Sites 4 and 5 are two building (soft structures) next to one-another each hit with what seems to be similar type of missiles with primary blast radius of 8 to 9 m and secondary circles of around 20 to 22 m. If the center of the buildings were targeted, accuracy errors are 6 and 14 m for site 4 and 5, respectively. Again, we do not know if the Iranians deliberately targeted a certain part of the structures.
Site number 6
Strike 6 is located on the left side of a long metal roof soft structure, similar to a steel open warehouse. The left half of the building shows a primary blast circle of approximately 17 m in radius, with an overall damage radius of approximately 25 m. If we assume that the center of the building was the actual target, then we find an error of 51 m. Again, the question is whether the left side of this building was deliberately struck instead of the central part. It’s possible to assume that the Iranians intentionally targeted the western side of the building, having prior knowledge the blast radius of their missiles and the importance of the western side of the building.
Site number 7
Strike number 7 is the most easterly impact site and is found near the end of the northern runway. The impact is located almost exactly in the middle of four soft aircraft shelters. The post-strike image (taken a few hours after the event) shows V-22 Ospreys and MQ-1 predator drones parked just south of the shelters. The first circular blast pattern has a 15 m radius. The incoming direction of the missile caused the complete destruction of the adjacent shelter just left of the impact point, while the shelter to the right was lightly damaged. If we assume the Iranians were targeting the middle point of the second shelter (taken from left to right) than the accuracy error would be about 18 m. However, it is highly likely that the four soft shelters were targeted as a single unit. If that is the case, then the missile was only 7 m off (accuracy error) from the middle point.
Site number 8
If we assume that the Iranians are not randomly lobbing missiles inside the airbase with CEP errors of 100 to 500 m as some of the so called “think tank” experts presume (or have previously presumed in recent years), then we can assume that site nr. 8 was targeting the taxiway located between the two paved runways as previously shown in Figure 3. In the images below we can see an impact crater hitting the side of the taxiway. The impact is 23 m from the center of the taxiway pavement and we use this distance as a measure of accuracy. A clear circular blast pattern is visible and a directional blast cone indicates the incoming missile direction.
Site number 9
Strike nr. 9 is the second strike on a taxiway and is the most southern impact site situated in a hardened hangar complex. The impact crater is located almost exactly on one of the corner points of a paved T-junction. If the Iranians purposely targeted this exact point, then the accuracy error could possibly be no more than 2 meters. However, if the target was the actual center of the T-junction, then the error is approximately 11 m. Like in site nr. 8, we see a circular blast with a cone like fan shaped pattern giving the incoming missile direction.
Assessment and conclusions
There are different ways to assess the accuracy of these strikes based on the fact that we do not have the exact coordinates the Iranians wanted to target. It is not very realistic to assume that the Iranians were perfectly able to target the exact coordinates they intended to hit with perfect accuracy. There is however uncertainty in whether the Iranians intentionally missed some of their targets. The abovementioned observations clearly show a pattern of very accurate strikes on individually targeted buildings/structures. There are two most likely scenarios:
The Iranians intentionally targeted and destroyed some targets. Accuracy errors occurred causing some missiles to miss the exact center point of their targets, with other targets being completely missed.
The Iranians intentionally destroyed some targets and intentionally missed some others.
The table shows the estimated range in accuracy for each of the 9 strike locations based on our observations and interpretation. The green numbers are the most likely errors in meters, while red numbers indicating the less likely errors based on our assumptions of what the Iranians intended to target. An average missile target accuracy of 11 m is based on what are the most likely intended targets (or in other words the most likely scenario). The statistical spread of this small sample size (of only 9 strikes) is 8.5 m. So the lower and upper limits of the accuracy, based on the standard deviation, is estimated to range between 2.5 and 19.5 m. The median value, which is somewhat comparable to the CEP, is 7 m. This means that half of the strikes landed within 7 m. Finally, the average blast (damage) circle is estimated at 21 m.
Let’s visualize these numbers and assume that these numbers can be used in circles. The figure shows a MQ-1 predator drone theoretically being targeted. The yellow line indicates the 11 m mean accuracy value. This is where missiles will land on average. The red line gives the 7 m median value where 50 % of the strikes are found inside this circle. The subsequent figure also includes examples of blast circle (average radius of 21 m) locations in respect to the target.
Assuming the estimation of the intended targets and measurements are realistic, an Iranian missile accuracy ranging on average between 2.5 and 19.5 m is very impressive to say the least and indicates the use of advanced terminal guidance technology (guiding a missile in its terminal phase). Reports have suggested that the Fateh-313 tactical short range ballistic missile (SRBM) was used in the Ayn Al Asad Airbase attack, with other reports suggesting that the Qiam 1 was also used in the attack, including on Erbil Airport. The Fateh-313 is an upgraded Fateh-110, with an increased missile range up to 500 km. Terminal guidance technologies are most likely to be combined, including inertial guidance systems (INS), GNSS systems and possibly electro-optical guidance.
For Palestinians, exile is not simply the physical act of being removed from their homes and their inability to return. It is not a casual topic pertaining to politics and international law, either. Nor is it an ethereal notion, a sentiment, a poetic verse. It is all of this, combined.
The death in Amman of Palestinian poet, Mourid Barghouti, an intellectual whose work has intrinsically been linked to exile, brought back to the surface many existential questions: are Palestinians destined to be exiled? Can there be a remedy for this perpetual torment? Is justice a tangible, achievable goal?
Barghouti was born in 1944 in Deir Ghassana, near Ramallah. His journey in exile began in 1967, and ended, however temporarily, 30 years later. His memoir “I Saw Ramallah” – published in 1997 – was an exiled man’s attempt to make sense of his identity, one that has been formulated within many different physical spaces, conflicts and airports. While, in some way, the Palestinian in Barghouti remained intact, his was a unique identity that can only be fathomed by those who have experienced, to some degree, the pressing feelings of Ghurba – estrangement and alienation – or Shataat – dislocation and diaspora.
In his memoir, translated into English in 2000 by acclaimed Egyptian author, Ahdaf Soueif, he wrote, “I tried to put the displacement between parenthesis, to put a last period in a long sentence of the sadness of history … But I see nothing except commas. I want to sew the times together. I want to attach one moment to another, to attach childhood to age, to attach the present to the absent and all the presents to all absences, attach exiles to the homeland and to attach what I have imagined to what I see now.”
Those familiar with the rich and complex Palestinian literature of exile can relate Barghouti’s reference – what one imagines versus what one sees – to the writing of other intellectuals who have suffered the pain of exile as well. Ghassan Kanafani and Majed Abu Sharar – and numerous others – wrote about that same conflict. Their death – or, rather, assassination – in exile brought their philosophical journeys to an abrupt end.
In Mahmoud Darwish’s seminal poem, ‘Who Am I, Without Exile’, the late Palestinian poet asked, knowing that there can never be a compelling answer: “What will we do without exile?”
It is as if Ghurba has been so integral to the collective character of a nation, and is now a permanent tattoo on the heart and soul of the Palestinian people everywhere. “A stranger on the riverbank, like the river … water binds me to your name. Nothing brings me back from my faraway to my palm tree: not peace and not war. Nothing makes me enter the gospels. Not a thing …,” Darwish wrote.
The impossibility of becoming a whole again in Darwish and Barghouti’s verses were reverberations of Kanafani’s own depiction of a Palestine that was as agonizingly near as it was far.
“What is a homeland?” Kanafani asks in ‘Returning to Haifa’. “Is it these two chairs that remained in this room for twenty years? The table? Peacock feathers? The picture of Jerusalem on the wall? The copper-lock? The oak tree? The balcony? What is a homeland? .. I’m only asking.”
But there can be no answers, because when exile exceeds a certain rational point of waiting for some kind of justice that would facilitate one’s return, it can no longer be articulated, relayed or even fully comprehended. It is the metaphorical precipice between life and death, ‘life’ as in the burning desire to be reunited with one’s previous self, and ‘death’ as in knowing that without a homeland one is a perpetual outcast – physically, politically, legally, intellectually and every other form.
“In my despair I remember; that there is life after death … But I ask: Oh my God, is there life before death?” Barghouti wrote in his poem ‘I Have No Problem.’
While the crushing weight of exile is not unique to Palestinians, the Palestinian exile is unique. Throughout the entire episode of Palestinian Ghurba, from the early days of the Nakba – the destruction of the Palestinian homeland – till today, the world remains divided between inaction, obliviousness, and refusal to even acknowledge the injustice that has befallen the Palestinian people.
Despite or, perhaps, because of his decades-long exile, Barghouti did not engage in ineffectual discussions about the rightful owners of Palestine “because we did not lose Palestine to a debate, we lost it to force.”
He wrote in his memoir “When we were Palestine, we were not afraid of the Jews. We did not hate them, we did not make an enemy of them. Europe of the Middle Ages hated them, but not us. Ferdinand and Isabella hated them, but not us. Hitler hated them, but not us. But when they took our entire space and exiled us from it they put both us and themselves outside the law of equality.”
In fact, ‘hate’ rarely factors in the work of Barghouti – or Darwish, Kanafani, Abu Sharar and many others – because the pain of exile, so powerful, so omnipresent – required one to re-evaluate his relationship to the homeland through emotional rapport that can only be sustained through positive energy, of love, of deep sadness, of longing.
“Palestine is something worthy of a man bearing arms for, dying for,” wrote Kanafani. “For us, for you and me, it’s only a search for something buried beneath the dust of memories. And look what we found beneath that dust. Yet more dust. We were mistaken when we thought the homeland was only the past.”
Millions of Palestinians continue to live in exile, generation after generation, painstakingly negotiating their individual and collective identities, neither able to return, nor feeling truly whole. These millions deserve to exercise their Right of Return, for their voices to be heard and to be included.
But even when Palestinians are able to end their physical exile, chances are, for generations they will remain attached to it. “I don’t know what I want. Exile is so strong within me, I may bring it to the land,” wrote Darwish.
In Barghouti too, exile was ‘so strong’. Despite the fact that he fought to end it, it became him. It became us.
– Ramzy Baroud is a journalist and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of five books. His latest is “These Chains Will Be Broken: Palestinian Stories of Struggle and Defiance in Israeli Prisons” (Clarity Press). Dr. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA) and also at the Afro-Middle East Center (AMEC). His website iswww.ramzybaroud.net
An explosion that ripped through an Israeli-owned cargo ship in the Gulf of Oman on Thursday could be the work of Iran, The Times of Israel reports, citing unnamed Israeli officials as saying.
Unsourced reports from the Israeli media outlets Haaretz and Channel 13 claimed that Iran knew that the vessel was owned by an Israeli businessman – who himself rejected the speculation pertaining to the Islamic Republic.
A separate unsourced report by Israel’s Channel 12 asserted that the explosion was caused by a missile fired by an Iranian warship.
1/2 Israeli owned MV HELIOS RAY suffers explosion within the Gulf of #Oman. Vessel inbound Singapore from Dammam Saudi Arabia when incident occurred 44nm NW Muscat. Owner tells Reuters damage = two holes, diameter approx 1.5m.https://t.co/ufdRoPmOcYpic.twitter.com/d5B03UwAc1
This was echoed by the maritime risk-management firm Dryad Global, which tweeted on Friday that the blast could possibly stem from “asymmetric activity by Iranian military”. Tehran has not commented on the matter yet.
The company identified the ship as the MV Helios Ray, claiming that the blast took place as the vessel with 28 crew members on board was about 44 nautical miles (50 miles) from Oman’s capital Muscat.
Israeli officials believe #Iran was behind the explosion on the Israeli cargo #ship in the Gulf of Oman. The ship was not disabled, and no one was injured aboard. Neither Iranian nor #Israeli officials have officially reacted to the report. pic.twitter.com/q6Y6VUgh1A
No one was reportedly hurt in the blast, which ostensibly caused several holes in the port and starboard sides of the ship, owned by Israeli businessman Abraham Ungar, founder of Ray Shipping Ltd.
The maritime risk intelligence company Ambrey Intelligence posted a raft of photos on its Twitter page, thought to show damage to the Helios Ray as a result of the explosion. The authenticity of the images has yet to be confirmed.
Various photos circulating of the damage to the HELIOS RAY corroborate reports from two U.S. defence officials cited by AP of two holes in the port and starboard sides of the vessel (four total), just above the waterline. Signage shows damage at deck 3 level. pic.twitter.com/5PweU95UxT
The Israeli media reports come as the satellite-tracking data from the website MarineTraffic.com showed that the explosion-hit cargo ship arrived at a Dubai port earlier on Saturday.
This was preceded by Ungar being quoted by the Ynet news outlet as claiming that the explosion was most likely caused by “missiles or a mine placed on the bow”.
“Israeli authorities will investigate this together with me. I don’t think this deliberately targeted an Israeli-owned ship. That has not happened to me before”, the businessman added.
He reportedly went even further by asserting that the blast could be “part of the game between Iran and the US, that’s why they are hitting Western ships”.
The claims come after the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) said, without providing further details, that a ship was hit by an explosion in the Gulf of Oman at 20:40 GMT on Thursday. The UKMTO added that “investigations are ongoing” and that the “vessel and crew are safe”.
Iran-US Tensions
The developments come amid increasing tensions between Tehran and the US, Israel’s ally, which escalated on 25 February, when two F-15 jets launched seven missiles in Syrian territory, following an order from US President Joe Biden.
The attack destroyed nine facilities and partially damaged two facilities, making them unsuitable for use. The facilities were used, according to Washington, by Shia militia group Kata’ib Hezbollah and other formations that are believed to be behind attacks against American military assets in Iraq.
Iran denounced the US airstrikes as “aggression” and a “violation of international law”, insisting that the US presence in Syria is illegal. The attack was also condemned by Syrian authorities as a “cowardly aggression” that will “lead to consequences that will escalate the situation in the region”.
President Biden, for his part, said that Thursday’s US airstrikes are a message to Iran: “You can’t act with impunity. Be careful”.
US-Iranian tensions have been in place since then-President Donald Trump announced Washington’s unilateral exit from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), in May 2018, and the reinstatement of strict economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic. Exactly a year later, Tehran announced that it had started scaling down some of its JCPOA obligations, including those related to uranium enrichment.
As far as Israel and Iran are concerned, relations between the two sides remain frozen, with Tehran denying the Jewish state’s right to exist and frequently pledging to destroy it.
Over the last few years, Israel has reportedly carried out a number of airstrikes on Syria, which Tel Aviv says are aimed at countering the alleged Iranian military presence in the Arab Republic. Damascus condemns such attacks as violations of Syria’s national sovereignty, while Tehran insists that there are only Iranian military advisers in the country to help the government fight terrorists.
It sure did not take Biden very long to, as the US politicians like to say, “send a message” by illegally attacking a sovereign nation and murdering 17 people.
If you voted for the Dems, then
This act of international aggression, and all those which will now follow, are on YOU!
Yes, you. There is simply *no way* that you could argue that “oh I did not know” or “but, but, Biden promised to be a good president“. Sorry, because for the past 4 years thousands of us have been trying to warn you, to explain to you in detail what would happen if the Neocons fully took control of the USA. We predicted it all, we gave you all the evidence, but you refused to listen. Now it is too late.
And while it is true that Biden did steal the election, those who truly and legally voted for him now bear the moral responsibility for this crime and all the future crime of the Biden Administration.
Only those who did not vote for the Dems can still say “not in my name”.
All others are now accomplices (before, during and after the fact) to the crime of aggression. They are also to blame for the internal chaos which will result from having a the first “Woke Administration”.
I knew him 50 years ago when the whole nation was rising, and I last met him in Damascus.
No, Anis, the novel is still long, and we will all leave before it is over, and there are generations that have not yet been born.
I was in my third year of law school, in my second year in the Syrian National Social Party, and at the height of the enthusiasm to break all the sectarian, class and isolationist fences of any kind, when I read that the Islamic schools of “Makassed” ask for a part-time French language school, which I was doing in the school of Jisr al-Basha camp.
I made my request, and everyone laughed at me: Can you believe that “Makassed” will choose Maronite to be the first Christian schoolteacher in its classes!? I was chosen. That was the decision of the late Shafiq Al Wazzan. I flew with joy, from breaking the regional barrier to breaking the sectarian barrier.
It was the days of the big dream, and we were young, living it with certainty. Between “purposes” and their atmospheres, especially the “Union of Students of Purposes”, the faculty of law and its atmosphere, party work, and the association of all of this with Palestinian work.
Najah Wakym
Our partisan nervousness existed and strong, reinforced by early youth, but our national and national compass was clear and stronger than all the nervousness.
Therefore, we were inspired by the elections of Najah Wakim, who defeated Naseem Majdalani in his constituency, the young Christian Jubaili who had just graduated from the Arab University of Beirut, who presented himself as the candidate of the party or the political current (Nasiriyah) and youth, and without any funding, defeated the traditional and sectarian leadership in its own backyard.
Zaher al-Khatib
Like him, Zaher al-Khatib’s breakthrough was in Al-Shuf. (The two became the only deputies to vote against the humiliating May 17 agreement with the Israeli enemy) .
In this battle, I met Anis al-Naqash, and I did not know that it was Mazen. I knew that he was a fighter in the ranks of the Student Union and in Fatah, and that he was close to Abu Jihad. I felt interested when I was told in the party that he was the nephew of Dr. Zaki Al-Naqash, the man who was with Anton Saada in the founding phase, and then moved away to become a national Islamic destination distinguished by his seriousness and boldness.
He was a Fathawi par excellence, but his name was attached to the Popular Front at one point, specifically the two martyrs Kamal Khair Bek and Wadih Haddad, to come shock after 40 years in his confessions during a dialogue with his friend Sakher Abu Fakhr, and another television interview, that he did not go to Kamal, and to Wadih Haddad, except by order of Abu Jihad, to show him all that Haddad was planning, and then to prevent what Abu Jihad was rejecting.
Therefore, he recounted in detail his role in the thwarting of the Vienna Process Why? Because the front used to see that this kind of external operation was the one that shocked international public opinion, telling him that the Palestinian people exist, and Palestine is not a land without a people for a people without a land. Whereas, “Fatah”, which he is from, and Abu Jihad is its second man, she believed that some operations harm the security and image of the Palestinian resistance, and that assassinations, especially diplomacy, are not a useful method for a resistance that wants to gain Arab and international public opinion. Anis was risking himself to implement these visions. Compliance or conviction?
In both cases, he was a fighter, but on the ground, the choice of forming resistance cells was inevitable, and there is no dispute about it. Accordingly, Anis was the first to work on this in southern Lebanon after the secret organization in Beirut.
George Ibrahim Abdullah
I haven’t seen him since that time in Beirut until the late 1990s. I thought he wouldn’t be released from life imprisonment (in a break in Damascus, in 2015 he touted me how he put his strategy in prison so that no one would forget him, so that he would not be a victim of the improvement of Franco-Iranian relations in the days of Mitterrand). And he came out. Leaving the abandoned militant George Ibrahim Abdullah.
In 2002, we met on the plane from Beirut to Doha. We didn’t exchange a word. The besieged Iraq was a wall between us. Our meetings were repeated in Doha for Al-Jazeera programs, until we openly opened the discussion in a breakfast session. I was surprised by his acceptance of the harsh controversy. I did not deny that the Iran-Iraq war was a Western American fabrication. I had translated hundreds of documents proving this (especially the Elysee diaries during the era of Mitterrand, in which Western officials were arranging for the continuation of the war until the two sides were exhausted), but I did not accept leaving Iraq for its siege and for the obvious plot, it is the wall of the nation, and I, who covered, on the ground, presence, study, follow-up and translation, every stray and present around it from 1980 until two months before the occupation of 2003.
We disagreed a lot, but we agreed on the issue of Palestine. This man believed with strange optimism that Palestine is an issue that cannot be erased. One way or another, there will always be surprises that will return them to their rightfulness. What he did not say explicitly is that he considers that the tried methods have failed and must be renewed. I asked him sincerely: Is it the search for an alternative that led you and Munir Shafiq to the Islamic option? He smiled cunningly, and said, “Maybe yes, maybe not.
As a result of his relationships, it was once said that he was influenced by Anton Saadeh, and once by Mao Zedong, especially with his proximity to Munir Shafiq, and once by Marx and Lenin, and even by Michel Aflaq, until he admitted that he had read them all and learned from them all, but his real teachers were his responsible in the field resistance from the age of 15 to the gray. Let us say, the security resistance, because most of his tasks were in this area, whether it was dialogue diplomacy or the dangerous field. As he admitted, his first course was in Egypt, and we don’t know what’s next.
The Levantine Confederation – Conflict of Identities and Policies
In Damascus, we met repeatedly, and worked in a joint book. I confronted him with that, and he admitted to me that the events in Syria changed a lot for everyone and crystallized a lot. He told me about his project The Levantine Confederation , so I told him: In principle, the axis is a thing and the nation is something, and if it mixes, it ruins everything, then the problem does not lie only in geography. Unless sectarian and ethnic sub-identities dissolve, geography only expands the arena of conflict. He surprised me with approval. He considered Syria a matter of life or death. He told me: Palestine will end if Syria ends. I told him: I remember Jean-Pierre Schweinmann when he wrote in 1991 about an American plan to Lebanonize Iraq. Now, we must not allow Syria to be stirred. this is the most important. This alone is a bet for the survival or demise of Palestine.
Today, I cry heartily. I knew him while we were a young generation collecting from their pocket money for the resistance, and the generation of our young people today left between those who live as martyrs to prevent death and those who beg the NGOs and the embassies to enjoy the dollars and sell the homeland and the concerns of the citizens.
I knew him as we delivered a young Christian to parliament for a Sunni constituency without the cost of a penny. A young man with whom we disagree ideologically and patricianly, but we support him and we are winning. We differ from dozens of trends, but we meet on the big goals. We know that the Communists and Charles de Gaulle fought together to liberate the country from Nazism, and they know that they will later disagree on the social program, without disbelieving each other. I knew him as a young generation that succeeded in breaking sectarian walls, and we were appointed to Palestine. And here he is leaving with the walls rising, and the eye on the nation from Iraq to Syria to Lebanon to Palestine.
I knew him 50 years ago when the whole nation was rising, and I last met him in Damascus. We couldn’t leave the hotel, because the shelling was coming out of Ghouta. We left only when It was liberated. Yesterday, friend Ahmed al-Darzi said that Anis wrote on a paper two days before his departure: I am finished, the novel isdead!!
No, Anis, the novel is still long, and we will all leave before it ends, but there are generations that have not yet been born.
عرفته قبل 50 عاماً حين كانت الأمة كلها تنهض، والتقيته آخر مرة في دمشق. لا يا أنيس، الرواية ما تزال طويلة، وسنرحل كلّنا قبل أن تنتهي، وهناك أجيال لم تولد بعد.
اختلفنا كثيراً، ولكننا اتفقنا على ما يخص فلسطين
كنت في سنتي الجامعيّة الثالثة في كليّة الحقوق، وفي سنتي الثانية في الحزب السوري القومي الاجتماعي، وفي عز مرحلة الحماس لتكسير كل الأسوار الطائفية والطبقية والانعزالية، من أي نوع كانت، حين قرأت أنّ مدارس “المقاصد” الإسلامية تطلب مدرّسة لغة فرنسية بدوام جزئي، وهو ما كنت أقوم به في مدرسة مخيم جسر الباشا.
قدمت طلبي، وضحك الجميع مني: هل تصدقين أن “المقاصد” ستختار مارونية لتكون أول مدرّسة مسيحية في صفوفها!؟ وتم اختياري. كان ذلك قرار المرحوم شفيق الوزان. وقد طرت فرحاً، من كسر الحاجز الإقليمي إلى كسر الحاجز الطائفي.
كانت أيام الحلم الكبير، وكنا صغاراً نعيشه بيقين التحقّق. بين “المقاصد” وأجوائها، وخصوصاً “اتحاد طلاب المقاصد”، وكلية الحقوق وأجوائها، والعمل الحزبي، وارتباط كل ذلك بالعمل الفلسطيني. كنت أسمع بـ “مازن”؛ النموذج النشط وصاحب القدرة التنظيمية الكبيرة. كنا نعرف أن معظم الأسماء حركية، ولكننا لم نكن نأبه بمعرفة من وراءها. المهم هو الأفق الذي يكمن أمامها.
كانت عصبيّاتنا الحزبية موجودة وقوية، يعزّزها الشباب المبكر، ولكن بوصلتنا القومية والوطنية كانت واضحة وأقوى من كل العصبيات. لذلك، هلّلنا لانتخابات نجاح واكيم الّذي هزم نسيم مجدلاني في دائرته؛ الشاب الجبيلي المسيحي الذي كان قد تخرج للتو من جامعة بيروت العربية، والذي طرح نفسه مرشح الحزب أو التيار السياسي (الناصرية) والشباب، ومن دون أي تمويل، فهزم الزعامة التقليدية والطائفية في عقر دارها. ومثله كان اختراق زاهر الخطيب في الشوف. (أصبح الاثنان النائبين الوحيدين اللذين تجرّآ على التصويت ضد اتفاقية 17 أيار المذلّة مع العدو الإسرائيلي).
في هذه المعركة، التقيت أنيس النقاش، ولم أعرف أنه مازن. عرفت أنه مناضل في صفوف الاتحاد وفي “فتح”، وأنه قريب من أبو جهاد. شعرت بالاهتمام عندما قيل لي في الحزب إنه ابن شقيق الدكتور زكي النقاش؛ الرجل الذي كان مع أنطون سعادة في مرحلة التأسيس، ثم ابتعد ليصبح مقاصدياً قومياً إسلامياً متميزاً بجديته وجرأته.
بعدها، سمعنا الكثير عن أنيس. كان فتحاوياً بامتياز، ولكن اسمه التصق في فترة ما بالجبهة الشعبية، وتحديداً بالشهيدين كمال خير بيك ووديع حداد، لتأتي الصدمة بعد 40 سنة في اعترافاته خلال حوار مع صديقه صخر أبو فخر، وحوار تلفزيوني آخر، بأنه لم يذهب إلى الجبهة، وإلى كمال، وإلى وديع حداد، إلا بأمر من أبو جهاد، ليطلعه على كل ما كان يخطط له حداد، ومن ثم ليمنع ما كان يرفضه أبو جهاد.
وعليه، روى بالتفصيل دوره في إفشال عملية فيينا. لماذا؟ لأن الجبهة كانت ترى أنّ هذا النوع من العمليات الخارجية هو الذي يصدم الرأي العام الدولي، ويقول له إن الشعب الفلسطيني موجود، وفلسطين ليست أرضا بلا شعب لشعب بلا أرض. في حين أن “فتح”، وهو منها، وأبو جهاد رجلها الثاني، كانت تعتقد أن بعض العمليات يسيء إلى أمن المقاومة الفلسطينية وصورتها، وأن الاغتيالات، وخصوصاً الدبلوماسية، ليست أسلوباً مفيداً لمقاومة تريد كسب الرأي العام العربي والدولي. كان أنيس يخاطر بنفسه لتنفيذ هذه الرؤى. امتثالاً أم قناعة؟
في الحالين، كان مقاتلاً، أما على الأرض، فكان خيار تشكيل خلايا مقاومة هو المحتوم، والذي لا خلاف حوله. وعليه، كان أنيس أول من عمل على ذلك في جنوب لبنان بعد التنظيم السري في بيروت.
لم أره منذ تلك الفترة في بيروت وحتى أواخر التسعينات. اعتقدت أنه لن يخرج من السجن المؤبد (وفي جلسة استراحة في دمشق، عام 2015 حكى لي بطرافة كيف وضع استراتيجيته في السجن كي لا ينساه أحد، وكي لا يكون ضحية تحسن العلاقات الفرنسية الإيرانية أيام ميتران). وخرج.. ليبقى المناضل المتروك جورج إبراهيم عبد الله.
في عام 2002، التقينا في الطائرة من بيروت إلى الدوحة. لم نتبادل كلمة واحدة. كان العراق المحاصر جداراً بيننا. تكررت صدفة لقاءاتنا في الدوحة لبرامج “الجزيرة”، إلى أن افتتحنا النقاش بصراحة في جلسة فطور. فوجئت بتقبله الجدل القاسي. لم أنكر أن الحرب العراقية الإيرانية هي افتعال أميركي غربي. كنت قد ترجمت مئات الوثائق التي تثبت ذلك (وخصوصاً يوميات الإليزيه في عهد ميتران، وفيها كيف كان المسؤولون الغربيون يرتبون لاستمرار الحرب إلى أن ينهَك الطرفان)، ولكنني لم أتقبل أن يترك العراق لحصاره وللمؤامرة الواضحة، فهو الجدار الاستنادي للأمة، وأنا التي غطيت، حضوراً ميدانياً ودراسة ومتابعة وترجمة، كل شاردة وواردة حوله منذ 1980 وحتى شهرين قبل احتلال 2003.
اختلفنا كثيراً، ولكننا اتفقنا على ما يخص فلسطين. كان هذا الرجل مؤمناً بتفاؤل غريب بأن فلسطين قضية لا يمكن أن تشطب. وبطريقة أو بأخرى، ستتفجر دائماً مفاجآت تعيدها إلى حقها. ما لم يقله بصراحة أنه يعتبر أن الأساليب المجربة فشلت ولا بدَّ من جديد. سألته بصدق: هل البحث عن البديل هو ما دفعك ومنير شفيق إلى الخيار الإسلامي؟ ابتسم بمكر، وقال: ربما نعم، وربما لا.
نتيجة علاقاته، كان يقال مرة إنه تأثر بأنطون سعادة، ومرة بماو تسي تونغ، وخصوصاً مع قربه من منير شفيق، ومرة بماركس ولينين، وحتى بميشال عفلق، إلى أن اعترف بأنه قرأهم جميعاً وتعلم منهم جميعاً، ولكن معلميه الحقيقيين هم مسؤولوه في المقاومة الميدانية مذ كان صبياً في الخامسة عشرة من عمره وحتى الشيب. ولنقل، المقاومة الأمنية، لأن معظم مهامه كانت في هذا المجال، سواء كانت دبلوماسية حوارية أو ميدانية خطرة. وكما اعترف، كانت أول دوراته في مصر، ولا ندري ما بعدها.
في دمشق، التقينا مراراً، وعملنا في كتاب مشترك. واجهته بذلك، واعترف لي بأن أحداث سوريا غيرت الكثير لدى الجميع وبلورت الكثير. حدثني عن المشرقية، فقلت له: مبدئياً، المحور شيء والأمة شيء، وإذا اختلطا، خرب كل شيء، ثم إن المشكلة لا تكمن فقط في الجغرافيا. ما لم تذب الهويات الفرعية، الطائفية والعرقية، فالجغرافيا توسع ساحة الصراع فحسب. فاجأني بالموافقة. كان يعتبر سوريا قضية حياة أو موت، قال لي: ستنتهي فلسطين إن انتهت سوريا. قلت له: أتذكر جان بيير شفينمان عندما كتب في العام 1991 عن خطة أميركية للبننة العراق. الآن، يجب ألا نسمح بعرقنة سوريا. هذا هو الأهم. هذا وحده رهان بقاء أو زوال فلسطين.
اليوم، أبكي بحرقة. عرفته ونحن جيل شباب يجمع من مصروف جيبه للمقاومة، ورحل وجيل شبابنا اليوم بين من يثوي شهيداً لمنع الموت ومن يتسول الـ “أن جي أوز” والسفارات لينعم بالدولارات ويبيع الوطن وهموم المواطنين. عرفته ونحن نوصل شاباً منا مسيحياً إلى البرلمان عن دائرة سنية ومن دون كلفة قرش. شاب كنا نختلف معه عقائدياً وحزبياً، ولكننا ندعمه ونهلل لفوزه. نختلف بين عشرات الاتجاهات، ولكننا نلتقي على الأهداف الكبرى. نعرف أن الشيوعيين وشارل ديغول قاتلوا معاً لتحرير البلاد من النازية، وهم يعرفون أنهم سيختلفون في ما بعد على البرنامج الاجتماعي، من دون أن يكفّر أحدهما الآخر.
عرفته ونحن جيل شباب ينجح في تكسير الأسوار الطائفيّة، وعيننا على فلسطين. وها هو يرحل والأسوار تعلو، والعين على الأمة من العراق إلى سوريا إلى لبنان إلى فلسطين.
عرفته قبل 50 عاماً حين كانت الأمة كلها تنهض، والتقيته آخر مرة في دمشق. لم نستطع مغادرة الفندق، لأن القصف كان ينهمر من الغوطة. لم نغادر إلا وقد تحررت. يوم أمس، قال الصديق أحمد الدرزي إن أنيس كتب على ورقة قبل رحيله بيومين: أنا انتهيت، ماتت الرواية!!
لا يا أنيس، الرواية لا تزال طويلة، وسنرحل كلّنا قبل أن تنتهي، لكن هناك أجيال لم تولد بعد.
After nearly two months of daily attacks against United States convoys and positions in Iraq, on February 25th Washington carried out airstrikes in response.
US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said that Washington was confident in what it attacked, and that it was the right target. There was no information about this incident or any damage caused by the strike from officials in Damascus or Tehran. Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby said that the US had carried out a “defensive precision strike”.
This involved airstrikes that struck alleged Kata’ib Hezbollah (KH) and Kata’ib Sayyid al-Shuhada (KSS) facilities. They were located at a border control point in Eastern Syria.
The press release misspells the names of both KH and KSS, which is showing in how clearly the US is aware of who continues attacking its interests.
Both groups are part of the Iraqi Armed Forces, as they are in the ranks of the Popular Mobilization Units. One of the key forces in the fight against ISIS. Many PMU factions historically have had close relations with Iran and thus they were struck as an authorized response for the strikes on US interests in the Middle East.
According to Washington, the strikes aren’t aimed at an escalation, but rather to de-escalate the situation. Any casual observer would note that it is far more likely that US President Joe Biden will get an escalation as a result.
Two days before the “defensive precision strike” Kata’ib Hezbollah released an official statement denying that it had anything to do with the rocket strikes on US positions. Evidently, to no avail.
The last straw for the US happened during the day on February 25th. Two convoys were attacked by IED blasts. These attacks led to no casualties, similarly to the previous ones. It appears that material damage was the purpose of the incidents. The declared purpose of the attacks was to push the US forces out of Iraq. This, too, is unlikely to happen anytime soon.
NATO is increasing its presence in Iraq. The US also said it could deploy more troops to the Middle East. When Joe Biden was elected US President, the MSM claimed that the two-faced international policy was done with, after Donald Trump had vacated office. This is a testament to the opposite.
On one side, Washington says that it is ready to sit at the negotiating table with Iran, and discuss restoring some normality. One the other side, it strikes Iran’s allies and accuses them of carrying out attacks that they vehemently deny.
As of writing this article, 75.4% of Israel’s new Covid-19 cases are under 39. Only 5.5% were over 60. Only 59.9% of critical patients are over 60 years old. 40% are under 60. The country has also detected a sharp rise in Covid-19 cases amongst pregnant women. Many are in hospital, with 8 currently in critical condition.
In Israel, cases in new-born Covid-19 have seen a significant 1300% spike (from 400 cases in under two-year-olds on November 20 to 5,800 in February 2021).
Israel’s Covid-19 cases per capita spiked sharply and were amongst the highest in the world (if not the highest) during the first month of the ‘successful’ mass vaccination campaign. Within two months of intensive inoculation with the Pfizer vaccine, Israel managed to double the number of deaths it accumulated in the prior ten months of the pandemic. We are talking about 2, 700 Israeli citizens, a similar number to the amount of IDF soldiers who died in the Yom Kippur war, supposedly the most traumatizing event in modern Israeli history.
When I presented these numbers to UK Column’s David Scott just two days ago his reaction was direct and lucid: “what you describe here is, really, a new disease.” I am afraid that Scott was correct. This is exactly what we see in Israel.
Yesterday I watched Ynet’s live discussion with Professor Nachman Ash, the Israeli ‘Covid-19 chief.’ During the online discussion, Prof. Ash attempted to address Israelis’ concerns regarding the Covid-19 situation and the impact of the Pfizer vaccine. Surprisingly (or not), Ash struggled to address most of the questions for obvious reasons. Nobody, including Prof. Ash, knows the answers to most of the crucial questions regarding Covid-19 and the so-called ‘vaccines’.
No one knows how effective the Pfizer substance is going to be in the long term. No one knows how Covid-19 may evolve in the near future. No one knows whether Israelis are about to face a mass ADE (Antibody-dependent enhancement) surge, though hopefully not. What we do know for certain is that the Israeli medical specialists who air such legitimate concerns are subject to some insane abuse and harassment. They can easily lose their medical license for life. Dr Avshalom Karmel, who was brave enough to warn his fellow citizens about the possible consequences of the vaccine, reported in a tweet yesterday: “The Ministry of Health is threatening me, the director of my hospital scolded me…” Is this how we supposed to treat medical professionals in a ‘free’ society?
משרד הבריאות מאיים עלי בשימוע, מנהל בית החולים נזף בי, עיתונאים סוג ב הוציאו דברי מהקשרם, ציצנים איחלו לי מוות, אבל אמשיך לאמר שצעירים בריאים לא צריכים לרוץ להתחסן בחיסון שהניסיון בו טרם הושלם וכעת גם אוסיף אזהרה לבני 60+; אם חליתם אחר החיסון, סיכון התמותה שלכם כ5%. השמרו היטב!
I listened to the live interview with Professor Ash even though he had really nothing to offer, but then came the question I was waiting for. One Israeli asked Prof. Ash “for how long are you going to hide the fact that we are dealing with an ‘Israeli Mutant’?” The Ynet presenter referred to the question as ‘conspiratorial,’ however Ash admitted that “we are detecting many mutants.” I couldn’t hear a categorical denial.
The truth of the matter is that a discussion about an “Israeli mutant” has been circulating for a while. Back in late January, the IDF’s Intelligence warned that an Israeli Covid-19 mutant is a likely possibility. On 24 January Times of Israel reported that “a military-led task force has warned of the potential emergence of a mutated Israeli variant of the coronavirus resistant to vaccines” and “mass rollout of vaccine amid ongoing outbreak may put ‘evolutionary pressure’ on the coronavirus…”
Examining current Israeli policy suggests the possibility that AMAN (IDF Intelligence) was spot on in its prediction. Judging by the unique and novel symptoms that are associated with Covid-19 in the Jewish State, we are dealing with a disease with novel characteristics. It attacks the young and the pregnant, it gave up on the elderly and vulnerable. The more Israel lowers the age of the vaccinated, the younger the cases, and those cases are growing exponentially.
It is hard to ignore the possibility that the success of the mass vaccination campaign is Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s election card. If the campaign proves to be a success by the eve of election day, Bibi is expected to win. Yet, if mass vaccination unveils itself as a disastrous, reckless and politically motivated adventure that has put the entire Israeli population at risk, not only would his political future be destroyed, he would probably see the criminal case against him expanding substantially, and not just in Israel.
I am not in any position to verify whether AMAN’s prophecy regarding the possible emergence of an Israeli mutant has fulfilled itself, but I can try to analyse Israel’s current policies in the light of such a concerning possible development.
1. Israel mounts incredible pressure on every Israeli to take the vaccine. By means of a ‘green passport’ it plans to dramatically limit the freedoms of the unvaccinated and their ability to earn a living. Netanyahu vowed on the 24th of February that, by the 10th of April, every Israeli would be vaccinated. This can obviously be interpreted by some as Bibi’s ‘genuine concern’ for the health of his people. A more cynical explanation is that Bibi now understands that, if there is an Israeli strain triggered by the mass vaccination campaign, the only way to fight it is to vaccinate every living Israeli hopping that the vaccine may reduce illness and death as various studies suggest.
2. Israel’s International airports, seaports and border crossings remain locked indefinitely. Some Israelis may be able to fly in, but nobody can leave the country. One may wonder why Israelis (or even just the vaccinated) aren’t allowed to leave. One possible explanation is that Israel insists on preventing the leak of a potentially unique Covid-19 strain out of the country. Why doesn’t Israel allow its large community of vaccinated to travel? One possibility is that Israel acknowledges that the vaccinated may be spreading the strain. You may even push it and wonder why Israel cares about spreading a mutant? I don’t know if Israel cares or not, but I know that they have an election in less than a month. Bibi will do whatever it takes to maintain the image of a ground-breaking success in the fight against Covid-19. The Israelis who have been the Guinea pigs in this experiment are asked to keep in line for at least one more month.
3. We learn from different Israeli sources that some issues regarding Israeli Covid-19 policy, including discussions within the Governmental Corona Cabinet, are now subject to 30-year confidentiality laws. In Israel, only matters that are related to national security (such as IDF and Mossad secret operations) enjoy such ‘confidentiality’ status. What is it that the Israeli government and its Prime Minister insist on hiding from his people and the world and why?
There is a growing number of studies that originating in Israel that refer to the vaccine as over 90% successful in preventing the disease and in reducing illness. Yesterday a new study ‘confirmed’ that Pfizer’s vaccine “performed as well in the real world as it did in the clinical trial that led to its use.”
I myself do not have any doubt that the vaccine could be successful in the short term in protecting those who are willing to take it. But I also can’t turn a blind eye to the scary correlation between mass vaccination and exponential rise in Covid-19 cases and deaths that can be detected in every country that engaged in mass vaccination. I cannot turn a blind eye to the undeniable fact that rapid mass vaccination in Israel correlates with a radical shift in the symptoms of Covid-19 to the point that it appears as a ‘new disease all together.’
I therefore ask every responsible person and government to look at the Israeli case with caution and to examine the shift in symptoms as a crucial hazardous event.
If IDF’s AMAN was correct in its warning and Israel is struggling with its own unique strain, then Israel should come clean and announce to the world that this is the case. This is what China and Britain did. This is what California has just done. This is exactly what we expect from a responsible nation, but Bibi may prefer to keep his cards close to his chest. If this is the case, he may have two paths to choose from. One is to lock the country and to prevent the spread of the Israeli variant before the election. The other is to encourage other countries and reckless governments to follow the Israeli path so they eventually develop lethal mutants of their own.
بعد التقليل من أهمية تهديد الصواريخ الدقيقة لدى المقاومة للجمهور الإسرائيلي، لجأ العدو إلى «تجزئة» هذا التهديد، قبل أن يبدأ بخفص سقوفه: في البداية، تحدّث عن وجود عدد ضئيل من الصواريخ، ثم تحدّث عن عشرات الصواريخ، قبل أن يرجّح وجود المئات منها في حوزة المقاومة. آخر ما «كشفه» العدو الذي يرفض تكبيل يديه تجاه أعدائه، هو أنه لن يتحمّل وجود أكثر من 1000 صاروخ دقيق في لبنان! العدّاد، بطبيعة الحال، مرشّح للارتفاع مستقبلاً
هي نتيجة مألوفة ومتوقّعة، وباتت طبيعية جداً، في معادلة بناء القوة العسكرية للمقاومة. تسعى إسرائيل لـ«الحؤول دون»، وتهدّد بأنها «لن تسمح وإلّا»، ومن ثم تتراجع لتتعايش قسراً مع واقع جديد بات يكبّل يديها أكثر في مقاربة الساحة اللبنانية عسكرياً. هذه هي حال إسرائيل مع سلاح حزب الله الدقيق، بل وفائق الدقة، كما يرد أخيراً من تل أبيب.
ما ورد في الإعلام العبري، وعلى لسان جهات رفيعة المستوى، يدفع إلى التهكّم. وفقاً لهذه الجهات: امتلاك حزب الله سلاحاً صاروخياً دقيقاً، وتحديداً ما بين 500 و1000 صاروخ هو سقف أعلى، إن جرى تجاوزه، فيلزم «إسرائيل» بالعمل. حديث «الجهات الرفيعة المستوى» غير معلوم إن كان تهديداً أم «تعزية ذات». والمفارقة أنه يأتي بعد يومين فقط من حديث آخر لرئيس حكومة العدو بنيامين نتنياهو، أكّد فيه أنه «لن نساوم على تطوير صواريخ عالية الدقة، في سوريا ولبنان».
في السابق، قيل الكثير إسرائيلياً عن الصواريخ الدقيقة. الويل والثبور لحزب الله وللبنان وللبنانيين، إن أبصر «مشروع الدقّة» النور وخرج من مرحلة «التفكير به» إلى مرحلة الإنتاج، وأي خطوة في هذا الاتجاه وفقاً للتهديدات «تُلزم إسرائيل بالعمل».
التهديد كان قاطعاً، وعلى لسان كبار المسؤولين الإسرائيليين، بل كان التهديد في حينه جزءاً لا يتجزأ وحاضراً دائماً لدى أيّ موقف أو تصريح يصدر عن شخصيات أو محافل أو مصادر في «إسرائيل»، تتناول الشأن اللبناني. أيضاً، رسائل التهديد نُقلت إلى لبنان عبر زائريه من شخصيات رسمية وغير رسمية وفدت إلى لبنان، ومنها من جاء خصّيصاً كي ينقل التهديد ويؤكد جديته، بأن «إسرائيل» لن تهتم ولن تقف أمام ما سيجري لاحقاً لأنها قرّرت أن تتحرك لضرب «مشروع الدقة»، إن لم يتوقف.
استمر «مشروع الدقة»، فيما استمرت «إسرائيل» بإيصال تهديداتها علناً أو عبر آخرين. وفي السياق، كانت تعمد بين الحين والآخر إلى طمأنة جمهورها عبر إنكار الواقع باللعب على الكلمات بأن «مشروع الدقة» لدى حزب الله هو «مجرد فكرة» لم تجد تعبيراتها العملية، وبالتالي لا إنتاج لصواريخ دقيقة حتى الآن. السبب كما كانت الأذن الإسرائيلية تسمع، هو إصرار تل أبيب وعملها على الحؤول دونه. وكان هذا الموقف، الموجّه إلى الداخل، خليطاً من الأماني وإنكار الواقع وقلة الحيلة وارتفاعاً غير معقول وغير محتمل لمقاربة متطرّفة، قد تقدم عليها «إسرائيل» في مواجهة «الدقة».
في السياقات، لجأت «إسرائيل»، إضافة إلى التهديدات، إلى العمل على إدخال الآخرين في المعركة ضد «الدقة». والجهة التي كان يُعول عليها كثيراً، هي الولايات المتحدة الأميركية، التي سارعت بطبيعة الحال إلى تبني مقاربة «إسرائيل» والاصطفاف خلفها وإلى جانبها، في المعركة على الصواريخ الدقيقة. فواشنطن معنيّة تماماً، كما تل أبيب، في الحؤول دون امتلاك الحزب هذا النوع من الاقتدار العسكري. ليس هذا القرار محصوراً بما يتعلق بأمن «إسرائيل»، وهو أولوية واضحة جداً لديها، بل أيضاً بما يتصل بأجندتها الخاصة بها في المنطقة، التي لا يمكن أو يصعب تحقيقها، مع تعاظم قدرة أعدائها على الإيذاء، إن لها مباشرة أو لأتباعها، الأمر الذي يعني السياسة الأميركية في الإقليم على أكثر من صعيد.
المساندة الأميركية كانت تهديدية واستخبارية، مع العمل على الداخل اللبناني كي يكون وقوداً للمعركة ضد حزب الله. ووسّعت «إسرائيل» مواكبة تحرّكها الدعائي الذي وصل إلى منابر دولية لعرض «المظلومية» وللحديث عن أماكن مختلفة في لبنان ينشط فيه «مشروع الدقة». والمفارقة أنه في الوقت الذي كانت فيه الحملة تستعر ضد الصواريخ الدقيقة، كان يقال للجمهور الإسرائيلي إن مشروع الدقة «مجرّد فكرة».
سعت إسرائيل أيضاً لتحقيق غايتها عبر تحريض اللبنانيين وبيئة حزب الله المباشرة على المقاومة، عبر سرديات مختلفة. من بينها تقارير شارك فيها رئيس حكومة العدو، بنيامين نتنياهو، بشكل استعراضي، عما قيل إنها مصانع للصواريخ الدقيقة تنشط بين الأحياء السكنية. الغاية كانت الإشارة إلى الجمهور اللبناني أن حزب الله يتسبّب بتهديد له، عبر «زرع المصانع» بين المدنيين التي ستكون عرضة لهجمات إسرائيلية تدميرية. كان الأمل بأن يؤدي ذلك إلى انقلاب في لبنان والبيئة المباشرة للمقاومة على حزب الله وإن بوصفه مقاومة. وهو كما العادة، خطأ تقديري متوافق جداً مع أخطاء تقديرية إسرائيلية سابقة تتعلّق بالعلاقة بين حزب الله وجمهوره.
في كل سياقات «مشروع الدقة»، كانت إسرائيل تعمل وتعد العدّة، العسكرية والأمنية ورواية ما بعد الفعل على السواء، ضد الصواريخ الدقيقة لحزب الله. وكانت المحاولة الفاشلة في حي ماضي (شارع معوض)، في الضاحية الجنوبية لبيروت في آب 2019، واحداً من مساعي «إسرائيل» الأمنية التي تحولت نتيجة الفشل العملياتي من عمل أمني بلا بصمات دالة عليها، إلى عمل عسكري صاخب، أدى لاحقاً بعد الرد عليه إلى تكريس أكثر للردع في مواجهة العدو. كانت تل أبيب، حينذاك، أمام استحقاق غير سهل وما زالت، مع سجلّات وفرضيات وأفكار مختلفة وأحاديث عن ضغوط يعاني منها حزب الله، وأخرى ترى أن رد الحزب ليس أمراً حتمياً، أو أنه سيقتصر على أهداف عسكرية إسرائيلية وحسب، بما بات يُعرف بـ«جولة أيام قتالية». وحين كانت «إسرائيل» تجادل نفسها، كان إنتاج الصواريخ الدقيقة مستمراً.
لا يخفى أن أسهم العمل العدائي الأمني، وفي أحيان العسكري، كانت ترتفع ربطاً بمتغيرات تطرأ على الساحة اللبنانية والإقليمية، ظنت محافل القرار في تل أبيب أن بإمكانها لجم حزب الله أو تخفيف رده على اعتداءات قد تلجأ إليها ضد اقتداره العسكري الدقيق. في حينه، كانت أسهم الحرب مرتفعة، وألزمت المقاومة، كما بات معروفاً، باستنفار وحداتها المختلفة. كان الجانبان في تموضع حربي واضح. وكما العادة، عندما تدرك «إسرائيل أنها أخطأت تقدير فاعلية «الظروف» التي ترى أنها تضغط على حزب الله، تتراجع إلى الخلف، لتعود إلى سياسة التهديدات بلا أفعال.
التوثّب كان سمة السنوات الماضية، تماماً كما كان التوثّب المقابل للرد وربما المواجهة الواسعة اللاحقة على الرد. لم تكن المعركة تتوقّف. انتظرت «إسرائيل» الفرصة التي لم تأت. بل إن جاءت كما قدّرت، فوّت عليها حزب الله الفرصة، عبر إظهار إرادة وجدية الرد والذهاب بعيداً في أعقابه، مهما كانت التبعات.
معقولية الحرب، أو الأيام القتالية التي تؤدي إلى حرب، كانت تعلو وتنخفض وفقاً لتقدير توثّب العدو وقرار المواجهة لديه. ما حال دون المجازفة، ولا يزال، هو الكلفة والثمن اللاحقان على الاعتداءات، الأمر الذي أبعد العدوان، وإنْ أبقاه على طاولة اتخاذ القرار في تل أبيب من دون إبعاده بالمطلق.
في السياقات أيضاً، عمدت «إسرائيل» إلى تجزئة تهديد الصواريخ الدقيقة، وإن ظهّرت أن خطها الأحمر ثابت: لن نسمح بالسلاح الدقيق. الهدف كما كان واضحاً، وهو الداخل الإسرائيلي لطمأنته. قيل في البدء إن حزب الله نجح في توفير أجزاء من مكوذنات تصنيع الصواريخ الدقيقة، لكن ما زالت مكوذنات أخرى غير متوفرة. كان الهدف هو التأكيد على أن «مشروع الدقة»، رغم نجاحات حزب الله بالتزوّد بمكوّناته، ما زال «مجرد فكرة». من ثم تجاهلت إسرائيل وامتنعت عن الحديث عن المكوّنات، وعمدت إلى تجزئة التهديد الصاروخي الدقيق نفسه. وكانت هذه التجزئة تمهيداً لاقرار إضافي لم يعد الواقع يسمح بتجاوزه: هناك نوعان من التهديد الدقيق. يتعلق الأول بصواريخ موجودة في لبنان يُعمل على تطويرها كي تصبح دقيقة ومجنّحة وما إلى ذلك، والثاني يتعلق بتصنيع صواريخ تكون من الأساس دقيقة. وهنا جاءت التوليفة: الجزء الثاني أكثر تهديداً من الجزء الأول، وإن كان الجزءان تهديداً لا يُحتمل من ناحية «إسرائيل».
أعقب التجزئة إقرارٌ لاحق بأن حزب الله نجح في تطوير وتصنيع عدد محدود جداً من الصواريخ الدقيقة، التي لا تتجاوز عدد أصابع اليدين. ثم أعقب ذلك حديثٌ عن عشرات الصواريخ… ولاحقاً عن مئات. وما سيَرِدُ من المقبل من الأيام، واضح جداً وقابل للتقدير.
وللدلالة على حجم التهديد من ناحية إسرائيل، نعيد التذكير بأنه «يكفي أن يكون لديك عشرون صاروخاً دقيقاً لتغيّر وجه المعركة»، بحسب ما ورد على لسان أحد قادة العدو العسكريين، قائد المنطقة الشمالية السابق في جيش الاحتلال، اللواء يؤال سترايك، لدى إجابته على واحد من أسئلة الدقّة المتداولة في الكيان.
لفترة طويلة، واظبت «إسرائيل» على القول لجمهورها إن مشروع الصواريخ الدقيقة ليس أكثر من «فكرة»
في أخبار اليومين الماضيين، مفارقة مع ما ورد أمس. إذ أكد رئيس حكومة العدو، بنيامين نتنياهو أنه لن يسمح بصواريخ «عالية الدقة» في سوريا ولبنان. والمفارقة ليست إجمال سوريا في التهديد، بل إيحاؤه أن السلاح الدقيق غير موجود و«إسرائيل» لن تسمح بوجوده.
مع ذلك، معاينة كلمات نتنياهو كما وردت بالعربية على الموقع الرسمي لرئاسة حكومة العدو، من شأنها الإشارة أيضاً إلى نوع آخر من التجزئة، وإن من نوع آخر أكثر دقة. وفقاً لتهديده، «إسرائيل» لن تسمح بصواريخ «عالية الدقة». و«العالية» هنا هي الجديد في كلامه، فهل يقصد التفريق بين صاروخ دقيق مع هامش خطأ مترٍ أو مترين، وآخر مع هامش خطأ سنتمترات؟
ولكي لا نقع في خطأ التقديرات، والركون إلى امتلاك القوة و«إنتاجات» مشروع دقة الصواريخ وغيره من الوسائل القتالية الدقيقة، على أهمية ذلك، يشار إلى أن أصل امتلاك صواريخ متطورة لا يعني – ولا يمكن أن يعني – شيئاً من ناحية «إسرائيل»، إنْ لم تكن إرادة استخدام هذه القدرة موجودة، وهو ما تدركه تل أبيب جيداً، خاصة ما يتعلق منه بالموقف الدفاعي لحزب الله. وعلى هذه الحيثية تحديداً تدور معركة «إسرائيل» وتطلعاتها. وهي تتحيّن الفرصة لاستغلالها إنْ لاحت لها: متى؟ وكيف؟ وما هي مدة تأثير أي ضغوط على حزب الله أو أزمات أو غيرها مما يمنعه من تفعيل إرادة الرد على اعتداءات «إسرائيل»، الأمر الذي يتيح لها التحرك والاعتداء؟ المعركة الحالية بين الجانبين هنا، بعد أن كاد ما يغايرها ينتفي وبلا جدوى ملموسة في تحقيق النتيجة ضد حزب الله.
إذاً هي معركة على قراءة وتقدير نيات حزب الله وإرادته، وعلى قراءة وترقّب أي ظرف يمنعه من تفعيل قدراته رداً على «إسرائيل». في معركة كهذه، الخطأ وارد، ووارد جداً. إلا أنها طبيعة الأمور ونتيجة ملازمة لتوثّب دائم لدى عدو لا يرضى أبداً بتكبيل يديه ومنعه من فرض إرادته على الآخرين. فهل ما كفل إلى الآن منعَه عن الاعتداء العسكري، ينسحب أيضاً على المرحلة الراهنة؟
Biden’s diverse Strangelove Pentagon dropped an undisclosed number of bombs on undisclosed areas of eastern Syria near the Iraqi border, around 1830 Langley time, 25 February.
Taking a war criminal page from little urchin Hollande who war criminally bombed Syria after a French national engaged in terrorism in Paris (who then bombed Syria again after the Frenchman magically escaped to Brussels, which is in Belgium which is not Syria), Centcom reported on the Pentagon statement that the US aggressive bombings were of an Orwellian self-defensive nature, somehow in fascist retaliation for the recent bombings of some US military bases in Iraq, which is not in Syria.
War criminal Centcom utilizing Newspeak for US war crimes.
The Biden diverse Strangelove Pentagon issued a statement “attributed to” Press Secretary John Kirby who was adamant that the latest round of US war crimes against the Syrian Arab Republic were “defensive.”
The Pentagon paid perfunctory lip service to President Biden being in charge of the most recent war criminal bombing of the SAR by the US, but let us show some integrity in sharing this pre-inaugural screenshot when Dr. Jill let go of hubby’s arm for a moment, and he started to wander just prior to the time they were to head down the ramp:
At this writing, the Syrian Arab Republic has not released an official statement of the Biden regime/Strangelove Pentagon war crimes against the homeland.
This is the 4th US/ Israeli illegal bombing of Syria since Biden’s diverse regime took over from his predecessor war criminal Trump, blatant aggression against a sovereign state and founding member of the United Nations by a permanent member state of the Security Council supposedly responsible for painting peace and security around the world and upholding international law and the UN Charter, not breaching each article of them the way the US is doing with no accountability.
To help us continue please visit the Donate page to donate or learn how you can help us with no cost on you. Follow us on Telegram: http://t.me/syupdates link will open Telegram app.
UPROOTED PALESTINIANS: SALAM ALQUDS ALAYKUM 