الملاحظة الأولى هي أنّ ما وصلت اليه الأمور هو نتيجة تراكم الإهمال المصريّ خلال العقود التي تلت رحيل القائد الخالد الذكر جمال عبد الناصر. فمصر خلال الخمسينيات والستينيات كانت منصة حركات التحرّر الأفريقية تجسيداً وتطبيقاً للرؤية الجيوستراتيجية التي بلورها القائد جمال عبد الناصر في “فلسفة الثورة” حيث الأمن القومي المصري يكمن في دوائر ثلاث: الدائرة العربية والدائرة الإسلامية والدائرة الأفريقية. كم كانت رؤيته الجيوستراتيجية ثاقبة آنذاك وكما هي صحيحة اليوم وفي الغد! لكن بعد رحيله أتيحت الفرصة للكيان الصهيوني التوغل في أفريقيا وبناء علاقات لم تكن ممكنة في وجوده وسياسته. الانكفاء المصري يعود إلى خروج مصر من دائرة الصراع العربي الصهيوني ما سمح للحضور الصهيوني بقوة في القارة الأفريقية.
ونلاحظ أيضاً أن بعد رحيل جمال عبد الناصر تحوّلت منصة حركات التحرّر من القاهرة إلى الجزائر مع الرئيس هواري بومدين. لكن رحيل الرئيس الجزائري سنة 1978 في ظروف تثير الريبة والشكوك تلت زيارة السادات للقدس في تشرين 1977 ومن بعد ذلك دخول الجزائر في العشرية الدامية فقدت الحركة التحررية الأفريقية منصة مؤثرة في نموها. حاولت ليبيا في ما بعد حمل العباءة الأفريقية، لكن مع خروج مصر من دائرة الصراع العربي الصهيوني غاب الدور العربي في أفريقيا وحيّدت محاولات القذافي للإمساك بالورقة الأفريقية. هذه الملاحظات تأتي للتأكيد على أنّ التوغّل الصهيوني في القارة الأفريقية لما كان لولا الغياب القسري العربي بشكل عام والمصري بشكل خاص. فمن الواضح أنّ أعداء الأمة العربية في الغرب وفي الكيان وفي بعض الدوائر العربية يمنعون أيّ دور عربيّ في أفريقيا يساهم في تنمية القارة من جهة ويمكّن استقلال وسيادة الدول المكوّنة من جهة أخرى وأخيراً لحماية الأمن القومي العربي وفقاً لرؤية جمال عبد الناصر. كما أنّ تقسيم السودان وبناء سدّ النهضة استهدف السودان في مرحلة أولى تمهيداً لاستهداف مصر. فالمطامع الصهيونية في مياه النيل معروفة والحذر من قبل بعض الدول العربية من مصر تقاطعت لفرض الضغوط على مصر وترويضها.
على صعيد خاص، كنا شاهدين على نتائج الغياب العربي في أفريقيا وذلك من خلال عملنا في التسعينيات في إحدى مؤسسات البنك الدولي حيث كنا نغطّي أفريقيا الغربية. لاحظنا امتعاض نخب أفريقيّة من التوغل الصهيوني فيما بينما كانت تذكر لنا فضائل مصر في دعم حركات التحرّر في البلدان المعنية. ما نريد أن نقوله إنّ الرأس المال المعنوي الذي كوّنته مصر كان محفوراً في ذاكرة الدول الأفريقية سواء في دعم حركة التحرر وفي ما بعد في دعم الاقتصاد والتعليم. هذا الرأس المال بدّدته سياسات اللامبالاة بعد كامب دافيد المدمّرة التي تحصد نتائجها مصر اليوم وكأن مستلزمات كامب دافيد قضت بالتخلّي عن الدور الأفريقي لمصر كما تخلّت عن دورها في الصراع العربي الصهيوني.
الملاحظة الثانية هي أن المواجهة الحقيقية في موضوع السد ليست مع الشعب الإثيوبي الشقيق ولا حتى مع حكومته. أحد المتكلّمين في الندوة الدكتور محمد حسب الرسول وهو نائب أمين عام المؤتمر القومي العربي أعطى إضاءات هامة حول المشتركات والروابط المصرية والسودانية مع الشعب الإثيوبي. فهناك حوالي 70 بالمئة من سكان اثيوبيا من المسلمين وأن الكنيسة الإثيوبية من أعرق الكنائس ولها ارتباطات مع الكنيسة المصرية، وحيث كادت اللغة العربية تكون لغة رسمية تجعلها مرشحة للانضمام إلى الدول العربية. ما نريد أن نقوله هو أن المواجهة ليست مع الإثيوبيين شعباً وحكومة بل مع رأس الأفعى الحقيقي وهو الكيان الصهيوني الذي ساهم على أكثر من صعيد في بناء ذلك السد. وإذا كان سد النهضة يشكّل تهديداً واضحاً للأمن القومي المصري والسوداني وبالتالي العربي فإن المواجهة هي مع العدو الصهيوني المحتلّ أولاً وأخيراً.
التخلّي عن الدور الريادي المصري في الشأن الأفريقي مبني على نظرية تمّ ترويجها أن 99 بالمئة من أوراق اللعبة تملكها الولايات المتحدة وأن البوّابة للولايات المتحدة هي الكيان الصهيوني المحتل. بغض النظر عن صحة ذلك التقدير آنذاك، أي في السبعينيات من القرن الماضي، فإن موازين القوّة الدولية والإقليمية الحالية والمرتقبة تدحض تلك النظرية وبالتالي الخيارات والسياسة المبنية عليها يجب أن تخضع لمراجعة. فمصر مهدّدة شرقاً وشمالاً من الكيان الصهيوني والخلايا الإرهابية المدعومة من الولايات المتحدة والكيان الصهيوني، وغرباً من أيضاً من جماعات التعصّب والغلو والتوحّش، واليوم من الجنوب عبر خطر التعطيش، وجميع هذه المخاطر مرتبطة بالكيان الصهيوني المحتلّ وداعمه الأساسي الولايات المتحدة. ألم يحن الأوان لمراجعة تلك السياسات لمواجهة التهديدات؟ بل نقول أكثر من ذلك ونعتبر أنه بإمكان تحويل التهديد إلى فرصة انطلاقة جديدة عبر قلب الطاولة على الكيان وجعل من سد النهضة منفعة مشتركة لكلّ من مصر والسودان وبطبيعة الحال إثيوبيا عبر تشبيك إقليمي بين دول وادي النيل والقرن الأفريقي لا مكان للكيان الصهيوني فيه.
الملاحظة الثالثة هي أنّ التشبيك الاقتصادي بين بلاد وادي النيل والقرن الأفريقي يتكامل مع التشبيك المرتقب بين بلاد الرافدين وبلاد الشام من جهة، ومع مشروع التشبيك في دول المغرب الكبير من جهة أخرى. والتكامل بين هذه المكوّنات الأربعة يساهم في وجود كتلة عربية وإقليمية تتكامل مع مشروع الطريق والحزام الواحد الصيني والمشروع الأوراسي الروسي. المستقبل هو في الشرق وليس في الغرب والأفول الغربي هو أفول استراتيجي لا يستطيع أحد إيقافه أو حتى إبطاءه. والمشروع العربي النهضوي الذي نناضل من أجله هو في صميم المواجهة مع الكيان الصهيوني حيث بوجود الكيان لا شيء غير التجزئة والضعف والتخلّف والانقراض. أما المواجهة فهي تأتي بالوحدة وبالوحدة تأتي القوّة وبالقوة تأتي النهضة.
The world Olympic movement has always been based on the principles of equal and impartial attitude towards athletes – representatives of all states of the world. The Olympic Games were designed to stop wars and political strife, to unite representatives of all countries of the International Olympic Committee. One of the main Olympic principles was peacekeeping – the opportunity for the strongest athletes to meet under national flags for a peaceful competition. We seem to be losing all this today. Since the days of Nazi Germany, the Olympic Games have become a weapon of propaganda, and during the Cold War, political squabbles from terrorist attacks, protests and boycotts unfolded around them. However, now, when the International Olympic Committee (IOC) forced the Russian team to abandon the national flag and anthem, the entire political background of the current Olympic Games has become especially visible.
In ancient Greece, military operations were stopped for the period of the Olympic Games. Peaceful competitions, the cult of sports, the cult of beauty and the spirit of ancient competitions had priority. As the founder of modern Olympics, Baron de Coubertin, wanted to revive all this! But the proud fathers of Athens or Baron de Coubertin could hardly have imagined that in modern days noble sports would turn into an instrument of a political game. Earlier, there were boycotts because of the Cold War, provocations in the stands, racism… Now we have strange doping scandals. As a result, the Tokyo Olympics, at the suggestion of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), have become institutions that also operate on the basis of political interests.
As a reminder, since 2014, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has been investigating the massive use of doping by Russian athletes. They were stripped of their medals and removed from the competition. In Russia itself, where they love sports and root for their athletes, this was perceived as a planned attack on Russian sports. Moreover, for example, Russian biathlon fans are convinced that half of European athletes in this discipline use anti-asthma drugs that expand the lungs “for medical reasons”.
However, that the suspension of Russian athletes is not based on scientific facts is confirmed by the statement of the most decorated Winter Olympian of all time, Ole Einar Bjorndalen.
Bjorndalen, 47, an eight-time Olympic biathlon champion, stated in 2017,that more compelling evidence than scratch marks supposedly found on sample bottles of some Russian athletes if they are to be implicated in the ongoing doping scandal.
“I hope that we will be able to see some evidence for what they [Russian athletes] are being punished, and that it it’s not that there are some marks on the bottles, because then I will be terribly afraid of giving samples,” Bjorndalen, said, as cited by the Norwegian News Agency (NTB).
The very idea that one can be found guilty of doping violations without being tested positive has stoked fears among the athletes as they now worry they can be punished virtually under any pretext, Bjorndalen said.
“We skiers are beginning to feel uncertain when we are being tested that there are some scratches on sample bottles for which they can punish us,” he said.(1)
Anyone who violates the doping regulations should be punished, and severely, so that the strong message is sent, that fair play is the basis of the Olympic Games. But to punish the whole country, and which is superpower in sport(Russia is always among the few countries with the most medals won), on the basis of unreliable evidence, is absolutely unacceptable.
Therefore, in response to a well-thought-out decision of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in the days of the Olympics rallies, the Russians launched the not quite tolerant hashtag #wewillROCyou (according to the permitted name of the Russian team – Russian Olympic Committee). The anger of ordinary Russian citizens is reasonable if we keep in mind that never in history has any country been deprived of its flag and anthem.
So we have to ask ourselves, all of us who love sports but also basic human rights, is it right to try to humiliate a country of 147 million inhabitants? Especially having in mind how much that country has provided to the world in the field of sports, culture, science. The answer is self-imposed – the injustice towards Russian athletes and Russia must be corrected.
From Palestine and South Africa to the Americas and Australia, settler-colonists [have] violently fought to prevent the indigenous people, that were colonised, from fighting for liberation.
This article explores Palestine’s right to self-determination under “Israel’s” illegal occupation. This paper seeks to demonstrate that since the Balfour Declaration that was issued by the British Government in 1917, there have been politically driven strategies deployed to gradually liquidate the Palestinian people. The indigenous people of Palestine have been faced with systematic persecution, apartheid policies and brutal occupation; as such, it is submitted that the Palestinian people must be able to exercise their right to self-determination. I will begin with a discussion on self-determination as a right before outlining the historical background of the “Israel”-Palestine issue, and the political allyship of each entity apart.
Self-Determination in International Law
The principle of self-determination, as it is understood today, evolved from a principle to a right, triggering much debate over the years. It denotes the legal right to peoples to decide their own destiny in the context of international order.[1]There are two aspects to self-determination: internal and external. Internal self-determination is the right of the people to govern themselves without any other interference, this includes the independence to freely choose their own political, economic and social system.[2] External self-determination on the other hand is the right for peoples to determine their own status politically – this allows the establishment of an independent state. After the First World War, and specifically after his famous “Fourteen Points” speech, US President Woodrow Wilson declared that, “Peoples may not be dominated and governed only by their own consent. ‘Self-determination’ is not a mere phrase. It is an imperative principle of action, which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril.”[3] The right of self-determination was introduced to the UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples in 1960, and subsequently adopted by the UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 in the same year. Additionally, the UN Charter stated that one of the purposes of the United Nations was “respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.”[4] Upon adopting the Declaration of Decolonisation, the UN underlined the necessity of ending colonialism and through this declared, inter alia, that the right to self-determination was not limited.
It is important to note that the right of self-determination has been cited extensively by the UN assembly, Security Council, and is enshrined in various treaties as well as in decisions made by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The following excerpt from the aforementioned declaration was subsequently introduced in Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) providing a detailed legal definition of self-determination, and this definition is used in various international and national treaties and documents.[5]
“All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development.”
It is widely accepted that the right of self-determination is applicable to “peoples” in colonial territories, as well as others who do not fall in the category of being colonised or oppressed, the only difference is they have to exercise their rights internally. The right of self-determination is no longer limited to the conventional colonial independence scenarios, such that various ethnic and cultural groups of people within different states effectively rely on the right of self-determination in order to declare their independence.[6] A common argument often presented against the right of self-determination is that the principle of territorial integrity in relation to states is challenged by the principle of self-determination – as it is the will of the people that fundamentally leads to the legitimacy of a state. This indicates that people are not only free to choose their state but also their territorial boundaries. However, in accordance with the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, the United Nations and International Court of Justice demonstrated that there is no contradiction between territorial integrity and the right of self-determination.[7] In that context, it is necessary to add that Koskenneimi argued that “It is doubtful whether the statement of principle was intended to be taken literally… its revolutionary potential was tempered by the Final Acts strong emphasis on territorial integrity.”[8]
In the context of Palestinian self-determination, I submit that “Israel” is a colonial entity that has occupied Palestinian territory; thus, the Palestinian people must be able to exercise this right. It is imperative to note that under international law, only groups categorized as “peoples” have the right to self-determination. The interpretation of “peoples”, however, continues to cause confusion. For example, one may question do all “peoples” need to share one ethnicity or location? If so, where would be the place that gathers people who are a part of multi-ethnic states? With regard to Palestinians, “Israel” has already officially accepted the existence of the “Palestinian peoples” in the Camp David Accords signed with Egypt in the year 1978.[9]
Moreover, it is argued that the right of self-determination can heavily disrupt the essence of peace, such that political communities may resort to force if their demands are not met.[10] Violence was also exhibited in the case of Nigeria after the British authorities recognized three main groups, Igbos, Hausa-Fulani and Yoruba. These groups were legally recognized after seeking independence. These minority groups were effectively excluded from the political sphere and the impact of this devolution caused further ethnic divide and political strife[11]. It is claimed that the violence that erupted between 1965-1967 with Nigerians and Biafrans signified that exercising the right of self-determination leads to political and ethnic turmoil.[12]
In response to this argument, it is contended that despite self-determination struggles usually portrayed as violent and brutal measures, people should still have the freedom to exercise this fundamental right. It is important to understand that colonial settlers aggressively battled to preserve their right of conquest as their own right to self-determination. Till present day, “Israel” has committed war crimes, most notably in Gaza. From Palestine and South Africa to the Americas and Australia, settler-colonists [have] violently fought to prevent the indigenous people, that were colonised, from fighting for liberation, thus the argument that self-determination leads to violence and brutality does not hold much weight in this context considering it is no different to the measures taken by colonising entities.[13] Further to this, in the past, the UN has failed to sustain peace even with states that exercised their right to self-determination, as noticed with the case of Cyprus.[14] Conflicts among states exist irrespective of self-determination, therefore the premise of this argument is incorrect. It may be more suitable to look beyond the UN paradigm if we ought to find lasting solutions to such conflicts.
The Palestine-Israel Conflict
In order to better understand the Israel-Palestine conflict, it is necessary to present the issue within the historical framework of decolonisation struggles. Historically, the world has witnessed decolonisation struggles beginning with violence as a result of a people being denied independence and liberation by the colonising entity. The Palestinian struggle against the Zionist ethnonationalist entity has lasted since the 20th century; the story of Palestine is on political independence, liberation, and putting an end to the apartheid Israeli regime. Whilst Zionists argue that “Israel” has a historic right to Palestinian land, it is imperative to note that had it not been for the involvement of European imperial powers, most notably Britain, there would have not been any creation of “Israel”. In November 1917, Britain the de facto ruler of Palestine, issued the Balfour Declaration. The eighty-word statement by Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour announced support for the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine.
In 1922, five years after the Balfour Declaration, the “League of Nations” approved the British Mandate for Palestine and the establishment of a “Jewish homeland.” The decision of the mandate did not consider the will of the Palestinian people or their fundamental rights. Between 1939 and 1949, there were a series of mass protests that took place against Jewish immigration to Palestine as well as armed Zionist groups launching attacks against the indigenous people of Palestine[15]. It is necessary to note that in 1947, the UN adopted Resolution 181, a partition plan for Palestine which was subsequently rejected by the Palestinians. The UN General Assemblies plan was to partition Palestine between the native Palestinians and the Jewish colonial settlers. Throughout 1948-1949, the Palestinians were attacked by Zionist forces. Villages and hotels were bombed near Haifa demonstrating early signs of ethnic cleansing. In April 1948, one month before the State of “Israel” was created, Zionist forces massacred over 100 250 Palestinians in the city of Deir Yassin[16] which is in close proximity to Jerusalem. In December of 1948[17], the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 194 which allowed the right of return of Palestinian refugees. This is a brief explanation of how the state of “Israel” came into existence. In 1974, Yasser Arafat, a Palestinian Political leader stated:
“The [UN] General Assembly partitioned what it had no right to divide – an indivisible homeland.”
“Israel” consistently and tactically made use of Occupation Law to further acquire Palestinian land whilst simultaneously arbitrarily arresting and targeting Palestinian people through the use of apartheid policies. It is argued that “Israel” has used UNSC Resolution 242 to justify and legitimate these actions through “political framework shaped by U.S intervention”[18] as mentioned by Noura Erakat, a human rights attorney and Palestinian activist. Erakat claims that the Occupation Law failing to regulate Palestinian territories effectively, is a result of a political, not a legal contest. It is asserted that “Israel’s” argument that the Palestinian territories are simply under their administration, would hold no weight were it not for the political powers involved in the region.
Furthermore, it is also argued that the United States has favoured “Israel” to such an extent that the US dismisses “Israel’s” violation of international law and allows the state to carry out war crimes without facing any repercussions besides blanket statements. As a result of the Occupation Law that “Israel” takes advantage of, Palestinian territories remain occupied, Palestinian people are systematically being ethnically cleansed[19], and their fundamental rights such as the freedom of movement are infringed.
The Human Rights Watch published a report in April 2021, in which it was made very clear that for the past 54 years, Israeli authorities have transferred Jewish Israeli’s to the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OTP) and “granted them a superior status under the law as compared to Palestinians living in the same territory when it comes to civil rights, access to land, and freedom to move, build, and confer residency rights to close relatives.”[20] In 1970, the General Assembly Resolution 2625 added that “Every state has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provision of the charter.” Therefore, “Israel” and the international community as a whole should not be denying the Palestinians their right to self-determination. Palestine should be able to manage its own affairs without the interference of external and colonial entities. It is important to understand that the Palestinian people have witnessed the occupation of their lands, forced expulsions to neighbouring lands, military bombardment, and erasure of their identity. As such, the struggle for independence and self-determination should be welcomed by all.
Ali Abunimah, a policy adviser, argues that self-determination “must return to the center of the Palestinian struggle”[21]. To add, Abunimah asserts that the Palestinian right to self-determination can indeed be compatible with the coexistence of Jews. It is claimed that the United States has a long history of deciding the fate of the Palestinian people. For instance, as per the Clinton Parameters, “Israel” would get “Jewish neighbourhoods” and the Palestinians would get “Arab neighbourhoods”. In hindsight, this meant that “Israel” would be allowed to keep the land it has colonised and annexed since 1967, and the people of Palestine would be able to have what is left – which Israeli occupation forces and settlers continue to annex and occupy till today. America’s “peace process” has allowed “Israel” to aggressively maintain their illegal occupation of the Palestinian people.[22]
Professor Noam Chomsky in his book ‘On Palestine’[23] highlights that “Israel’s” policies are directly connected to the Zionist ideology that “both aim to establish a Jewish state by taking over as much of historical Palestine as possible and leaving in it as few Palestinians as possible.” Chomsky, a Jewish historian and activist, further claims that the international community has “never condemned” the Israeli entity which led to the enormous expulsion of 750,000 people and the destruction of hundreds of villages and towns. In addition to this, Chomsky states that “ethnic cleansing has become the DNA of Israeli Jewish society.” Erasing the Palestinian land and people should be enough of a reason for the remaining people of Palestine to exercise their right to self-determination. There are distinct similarities between Palestine and the apartheid in South Africa. The Israeli Knesset authorises legislation that separates, segregates, and discriminates against the Palestinians. A recent report by Human Rights Watch also backs up this claim:
“Israeli authorities methodically privilege Jewish Israelis and discriminate against Palestinians. Laws, policies, and statements by leading Israeli officials make plain that the objective of maintaining Jewish Israeli control over demographics, political power, and land has long guided government policy.”[24]
The United States of America remains a close ally of “Israel”. The U.S provides financial and military support to “Israel” which has been used criticised by several human rights agencies as this funding is used to perpetrate human rights abuses against the Palestinians, particularly in the Gaza Strip. In the Ten-Year Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and “Israel”, $38 billion has been promised to “Israel” from the U.S beginning in 2016.[25] This includes $3.3 billion in Foreign Military financing and $500 million for missile defence programs. Several U.S politicians declare their support for “Israel” and do not shy away from mentioning “Israel has every right to defend itself” despite the fact that it is “Israel” that is committing heinous crimes against the Palestinian people. As mentioned by Chomsky, as a result of political power and close relationship with the U.S, “Israel” has been able to act with impunity since 1948. The U.S also has a history of blocking UN resolutions[26] against “Israel”. According to UN data, since 1972, the US has vetoed at least 53 United Nations Security Council resolutions that are critical of “Israel”[27].
Contrastingly, Palestine does not have such strong allies. Palestinian resistance leaders have announced receiving military and financial support from the Islamic Republic of Iran; however, I submit that as Iran is a sanctioned country, the support offered to Palestine may not be as much as the support offered by the U.S and the UK to “Israel”. The UK has consistently and repeatedly sold arms to “Israel” despite its illegal occupation of Palestine.[28]
In conclusion, the people of Palestine have every right to self-determination, and this can be understood just by investigating the crimes perpetrated by “Israel” against the Palestinians, and the systematic oppression they have faced as a people. Since 1969, the General Assembly has recognised the “inalienable rights of the people of Palestine”[29] In 1974, member states of the UN worked to restore the “Question of Palestine” on the General Assembly agenda, and as such Arab heads of states upheld the “right of the Arab Palestinian people to the return to its homeland and its right to self-determination.”[30] Some weeks later the General Assembly passed resolution 3236 which mentioned “Recognizing that the Palestinian people are entitled to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,” and (a) The right to self-determination without external interference”. It should be noted that the General Assembly condemned governments which failed to recognise the right to self-determination and independence of peoples under “colonial and foreign domination”. For the Palestinians to exercise this right, the Israeli entity must vacate from the occupied areas in order to establish an independent Palestinian state. The United Nations has again affirmed its commitment to the Palestinian right to self-determination. In November 2020, the UN General Assembly endorsed a draft resolution once again recognising “the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including their right to an independent State of Palestine.”[31] 163 states voted in favour of this resolution, whilst 5 states voted against this, namely: “Israel”, The United States of America, Micronesia, Nauru, and the Marshal Islands. Tomis Kapitan eloquently argues that legitimate residents of Palestine include all Palestinians irrespective of where they are located in Palestine, including Palestinian refugees outside of the country. He states that “expulsion does not remove ones right of residency… Palestinians also retain residency rights in those territories from which they were expelled.”[32] Kapitan asserts that the Palestinian people, as a collective, have the “entitlement to being self-determining in that region [historic Palestine]… not qua Palestinians, but qua legitimate residents. The force used against them has not erased the fact that they are, and are recognized as being; a legitimate unit entitled to participate in their own self-determination.”[33]
Whilst some may argue that the Palestinian right to self-determination is an anti-Semitic stance, it should be duly noted that a Palestinian state would include Jews, Muslims and Christians. It is in fact the Zionist entity that remains anti-Semitic by expulsing and rejecting Jewish natives from enjoying their rights in Occupied Palestine. It should be remembered that the Palestinian right to self-determination is legal and in accordance with international law. For the state of Palestine to be completely independent, colonial settlers will have to return to the European countries they entered from and respect international law. To end, a group of academics including Palestinians and Israelis issued a One State Declaration in 2007, inspired by the South African Freedom Charter and declared: “The historic land of Palestine belongs to all who live in it and to those who were expelled or exiled from it since 1948, regardless of religion, ethnicity, national origin or current citizenship status; Any system of government must be founded on the principle of equality in civil, political, social and cultural rights for all citizens. Power must be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all people in the diversity of their identities.[34]
[6] Quane, Helen. 1998. “The United Nations and the Evolving Right to Self-Determination.” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 47(3): 537–572.
[7] Johan D. Van der Vyer, ‘Self-Determination of the Peoples of Quebec under International Law’ [2012] 10(1) Journal of Transnational Law & Policy 38 [8] Martti Koskenniemi, ‘National Self-Determination Today: Problems of Legal Theory and Practice’ [1994] 43(2) The International and Comparative Law Quarterly <https://www.jstor.org/stable/761238> accessed 10 May 2021. [9] J Massad, ‘Against Self-Determination’ [2018] 9(2) Humanity 161-191 [10] M Evangelista, ‘Paradoxes of Violence and Self-determination’ [2015] 14(5) Formerly Global Review of Ethnopolitics <https://doi.org/10.1080/17449057.2015.1051811> accessed 3 May 2021. [11] B Ibhawoh, ‘Testing the Atlantic Charter: linking anticolonialism, self-determination and Universal Human Rights’ [2014] 18(7) International Journal of Human Rights 1-19
As Iran is literally depicted as illegitimate and derogatorily labeled a “regime,” these “experts” can inform their audiences without irony of the rising “menace” of Iran and the growing threat it poses to regional stability.
Under US occupation Afghanistan has become the beating heart of global opium cultivation and distribution, but for Iran haters, just a whiff of unrest anywhere in the country is often enough for them to get practically stoned. BBC Persian becomes embarrassingly euphoric, while Persian television ‘Iran International’ headquartered in London and with ties to Mohammed bin Salman, and VOA Persian begin to hallucinate completely.
Arabic media narratives usually depend on state policy towards Iran. Saudi Arabia’s Al Arabiya news channel is consistent in its hatred and is often more deranged than ‘Iran International,’ while Aljazeera Arabic and English narratives largely sway in harmony with the state of play in Doha’s dealings with Riyadh, Ankara, and Washington.
Western corporate and state-owned media usually, but by no means always, put more effort into appearing balanced and professional than their state backed Persian language Iran bashing counterparts. However, in all these outlets there is a recurring and repetitive theme that can appear credible and even well documented to the uninitiated or the true believers.
Any objective review exposes a certain consistency in “analyses” that many years ago used to surprise me. Since the 1980s, audiences have been constantly told that the Islamic Republic of Iran is an evil, unstable, unpopular, incompetent and a corrupt “regime” that is on the brink of collapse. In over four decades of research and reporting, it has been regularly implied that the day is not far off when the “regime” will finally fall into the dustbin of history.
Some would argue that these “experts” confuse analysis with aspirations and facts with expectations. For them, it seems the ultimate collapse of revolutionary Iran is natural and inevitable, since its ideological foundations, constitution and political structures are not based upon “superior” or “contemporary” western intellectual traditions. These views are constantly reinforced by a small army of Iranian comprador intellectuals and many angry “scholars” affiliated with western academia, think-tanks and media, who reassuringly repeat the favorite talking points of their western overlords. Liberals and “leftists” at academic institutions may fight over Cuba, Venezuela, and Iraq, but when it comes to Iran there is often a loving consensus.
The latent Orientalism of these western analysts and their native informants as well as the Eurocentric worldview imposed upon western institutions and academia, are solid barriers that prevent most from recognizing the often irresolvable paradoxes resulting from such “expert” analyses. Hence, as the Islamic Republic is literally depicted as illegitimate, incapable of self-governance, and derogatorily labeled a “regime,” these “experts” can inform their audiences without irony of the rising “menace” of Iran and the growing threat it poses to regional stability and even the “international community.”
They feel no need to explain how an incompetent and universally reviled “regime” can possibly be such an enormous threat to the existing and well entrenched regional and international order. Either the US-led Western Empire is vastly overrated, or the Iranian “regime” is not quite the regime it is portrayed to be.
Their failure to acknowledge, let alone explain, this contradiction lies in the fact that most are simply blind to its existence. The Orientalist demonization of Iran makes almost all negative attributes seem reasonable and plausible, even though they are often mutually exclusive.
The seemingly always-in-crisis Iran doesn’t even have the luxury of being competently evil or deceiving. We are told that Iranians hate the “regime,” Iraqis despise Iran (no allusion to General Suleimani’s massive funeral processions in Iraq), Afghans are resentful, Lebanese feel subjugated, Syrians are outraged, and Yemenis abused. Nevertheless, it is largely left unexplained how an unpopular and heavily sanctioned Iran can wield such enormous influence and maintain such powerful allies, while its western and regional antagonists have infinitely more wealth and resources at their disposal.
These so called experts and analysts don’t seem to recognize that while these powerful anti-Iranian narratives may have a significant impact on perceptions towards Iran, they definitely do not inspire confidence regarding the stability or legitimacy of the US Empire. Hence, we will continue to be told that the Iranian “regime” is possibly facing imminent collapse, but the real story may actually be that the centuries old domination of the “Free and Civilized world” is closer to imminent collapse.
Assaulted by cognitive dissonance across the spectrum, the Empire of Chaos now behaves as a manic depressive inmate, rotten to the core – a fate more filled with dread than having to face a revolt of the satrapies.
Only brain dead zombies now believe in its self-billed universal mission as the new Rome and the new Jerusalem. There’s no unifying culture, economy or geography knitting the core together across an “arid, desiccated, political landscape sweltering under the brassy sun of Apollonian ratiocination, devoid of passion, very masculine, and empty of human empathy.”
Clueless Cold Warriors still dream of the days when the Germany-Japan axis was threatening to rule Eurasia and the Commonwealth was biting the dust – thus offering Washington, fearful of being forced into islandization, the once in a lifetime opportunity to profit from WWII to erect itself as Supreme World Paradigm cum savior of the “free world”.
Red Square
Today, it’s not Germany-Japan but the specter of a Russia-China-Germany entente that terrorizes the Hegemon as the Eurasian trio capable of sending American global domination to the dustbin of History.
Enter the American “strategy”. And predictably, it’s a prodigy of narrow mindedness, not even aspiring to the status of – fruitless – exercise in irony or desperation, yielding as it is from the pedestrian Carnegie Endowment, with its HQ in Think Tank Row between Dupont and Thomas Circle along Massachussets Avenue in D.C.
Making U.S. Foreign Policy Work Better for the Middle Class is a sort of bipartisan report guiding the current, bewildered Crash Test Dummy administration. One of the 11 writers involved is none other than National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan. The notion that a global imperial strategy and – in this case – a deeply impoverished and enraged middle class share the same interests does not even qualify as a lousy joke.
With “thinkers” like these, the Hegemon does not even need Eurasian “threats”.
Wanna talk to Mr. Khinzal?
Meanwhile, in a script worthy of Dylan’s Desolation Row rewritten by The Three Stooges, proverbial Atlanticist chihuahuas are raving that the Pentagon ordered the partition of NATO: Western Europe will contain China, and Eastern Europe will contain Russia.
Yet what’s actually happening in those corridors of European power that really matter – no, baby, that ain’t Warsaw – is that not only Berlin and Paris refuse to antagonize Beijing, but mull how to get closer to Moscow without enraging the Hegemon.
So much for microwaved, Kissingerian Divide and Rule. One of the few things the notorious war criminal really got it was when he noted, after the implosion of the USSR, that without Europe “the US would become a distant island in the coastline of Eurasia”: it would dwell “in solitude, a minor status”.
Life is a drag when the (global) free lunch is over and on top of it you need to face not only the emergence of a “peer competitor” in Eurasia (copyright Zbig “Grand Chessboard” Brzezinski) but a comprehensive strategic partnership. You fear that China is eating your lunch – and dinner, and nightcap – but still you need Moscow as the designated enemy of choice, because that’s what legitimizes NATO.
Call The Three Stooges! Let’s send the Europeans to patrol the South China Sea! Let’s get those Baltic nullities plus pathetic Poles to enforce the New Iron Curtain! And let’s deploy Russophobic Britannia Rules the Waves on both fronts!
Chongqing Night
So far, Russia-China had been exhibiting infinite Daoist patience in dealing with those clowns. Not anymore.
The key players in the Heartland have clearly seen through the imperial propaganda fog; it will be a long and winding road, but the horizon will eventually unveil a Germany-Russia-China-Iran alliance rebalancing the global chessboard.
This is the ultimate Imperial Night of the Living Dead nightmare – hence these lowly American emissaries frantically scurrying around multiple latitudes trying to keep the satrapies in line.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the pond, China-Russia build submarines like there’s no tomorrow equipped with state-of-the-art missiles – and Su-57s invite wise guys to a close conversation with a hypersonic Mr. Khinzal.
Sergey Lavrov, like an aristocratic Grand Seigneur, took the trouble of enlightening the clowns with a stark, erudite distinction between rule of law and their self-defined “rules-based international order”.
That’s too much for their collective IQ. Perhaps what they will register is that the Russian-Chinese Treaty of Good-Neighborliness, Friendship, and Cooperation, initially signed on July 16, 2001, has just been extended for five years by Presidents Putin and Xi.
As the Empire of Chaos is incrementally and inexorably expelled from the Heartland, Russia-China is jointly managing Central Asian affairs.
Lavrov detailed how Russia is driving “the Greater Eurasian Partnership, a unifying and integrational outline between the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans that is as free for the movement of goods, capital, labor and services as possible and which is open to every country of the common continent of Eurasia and the integration unions created here.”
Then there’s the updated Russian National Security Strategy, which clearly outlines that building a partnership with the US and hitting win-win cooperation with the EU is an uphill struggle: “The contradictions between Russia and the West are serious and are hard to solve.” By contrast, strategic cooperation with China and India will be expanded.
A geopolitical earthquake
Yet the defining geopolitical breakthrough in the second year of the Raging Twenties may well be China telling the Empire, “That’s enough”.
It started over two months ago in Anchorage, when the formidable Yang Jiechi made shark fin soup out of the helpless American delegation. The piece de resistance came this week in Tianjin, where Vice Foreign Minister Xie Feng and his boss Wang Yi reduced mediocre imperial bureaucrat Wendy Sherman to stale dumpling status.
This searing analysis by a Chinese think tank reviewed all the key issues. Here are the highlights.
– The Americans wanted to ensure that “guardrails and boundaries” are established to avoid a deterioration of U.S.-China relations in order to “manage” the relationship responsibly. That did not work, because their approach was “terrible”.
– “Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Xie Feng hit the nail on the head when he said that the U.S. “competition, cooperation and confrontation” triad is a “blindfold” to contain and suppress China. Confrontation and containment are essential, cooperation is expedient, and competition is a discourse trap. The U.S. demands cooperation when it is in need of China, but in areas where it thinks it has an advantage, it decouples and cuts off supplies, blocks and sanctions, and is willing to clash and confront China in order to contain it.”
– Xie Feng “also presented two lists to the U.S. side, a list of 16 items requesting the U.S. side to correct its wrong policies and words and deeds toward China, and a list of 10 priority cases of China’s concern (…) if these anti-China issues caused by the U.S. side’s bent are not resolved, what is there to talk about between China and the U.S.?”
– And then, the sorbet to go with the cheesecake: Wang Yi’s three bottom lines to Washington. In a nutshell:
1. “The United States must not challenge, denigrate or even attempt to subvert the socialist road and system with Chinese characteristics. China’s road and system are the choice of history and the choice of the people, and they concern the long-term welfare of 1.4 billion Chinese people and the future destiny of the Chinese nation, which is the core interest that China must adhere to.”
2. “The United States must not try to obstruct or even interrupt China’s development process. The Chinese people certainly have the right to a better life, and China also has the right to modernization, which is not the monopoly of the United States and involves the basic conscience of mankind and international justice. China urges the U.S. side to expeditiously lift all unilateral sanctions, high tariffs, long-arm jurisdiction and the science and technology blockade imposed on China.”
3. “The United States must not infringe on China’s national sovereignty, let alone undermine China’s territorial integrity. The issues related to Xinjiang, Tibet and Hong Kong are never about human rights or democracy, but rather about the major rights and wrongs of fighting against “Xinjiang independence”, “Tibet independence” and “Hong Kong independence”. No country will allow its sovereign security to be compromised. As for the Taiwan issue, it is a top priority (…) If “Taiwan independence” dares to provoke, China has the right to take any means needed to stop it.”
Will the Empire of Chaos register all of the above? Of course not. So the inexorable imperial rot will go on, a tawdry affair carrying no dramatic, aesthetic pathos worthy of a Gotterdammerung, barely eliciting even a glance from the Gods, “where they smile in secret, looking over wasted lands / Blight and famine, plague and earthquake, roaring deeps and fiery sands, / Clanging fights, and flaming towns, and sinking ships, and praying hands”, as Tennyson immortalized it.
Yet what really matters, in our realpolitik realm, is that Beijing doesn’t even care. The point has been made: “The Chinese have long had enough of American arrogance, and the time when the U.S. tried to bully the Chinese is long gone.”
Now that’s the start of a brave new geopolitical world – and a prequel to an imperial requiem. Many a sequel will follow.
غالباً ما تخفي المواقف المبالغة برفع السقوف لتبرير السلبية دفاعاً عن ضفة سياسية يصعب تبنيها علناً، كمن يشترط لدعم موقف سورية بوجه العدوان المتكرر لجيش الاحتلال أن تقوم بالرد القاسي على كل مرة تتعرّض للعدوان، ويكون هو فعلياً بذلك يريد مساندة العدوان ولا يجرؤ، أو انه يدعم الجماعات الإرهابية المناوئة للدولة السورية، ويعلم ان احد اهداف الاعتداءات على الجيش السوري تخفيف الضغط على هذه الجماعات، لكنه يعبر عن دعمه لهذه الجماعات بهذه الطريقة التي تكمل أهداف العدوان، مَن يقول إنه مع مقاومة حزب الله شرط أن تبدأ من جنوب لبنان بتحرير فلسطين، تحت شعار ما قيمة السلاح والمقدسات تنتهك والقدس تهوّد والشعب الفلسطيني محاصر ويتعرّض كل يوم لعدوان جديد، وهو يرى بأم العين الجيوش العربية المصطفة بكل أسلحتها لا تكتفي بعدم تحريك ساكن لدعم فلسطين وشعبها، بل تنسّق مع الاحتلال، وتشارك في محاصرة الفلسطينيين وملاحقة المقاومين، ولا يأتي على سيرة هذه الجيوش بكلمة مركزاً اشتراطاته على المقاومة، وهذا لا يريد إلا أن يصرف النظر عن القضية الحقيقية التي تستعد لها المقاومة، شيطنة كل أمل بتغيير موازينها.
–
فيما تشهده تونس هذه الأيام وسط مشهد إقليمي دولي معقد، حيث لا يمكن فصل الواقع التونسي عن واقع الجغرافيا السياسية المحيطة بتونس من جهة ليبيا ومسارات الحرب فيها، او جهة المغرب ومسارات التطبيع فيه، أو جهة الجزائر والأطماع الدولية لتطويعها، وليس خافياً أن قطبي التجاذب في هذا المثلث هما تركيا وقطر من جهة ومصر وفرنسا والإمارات من جهة مقابلة، وفي تونس مسار سنوات من سيطرة الأخوان المسلمين على الحكم ومؤسسات الدولة، بحضور نيابي فشل في الدورة الأخيرة بتحقيق النتائج المرجوة، وفشل في الانتخابات الرئاسية في بلوغ الهدف، وأظهر الشعب التونسي الذي لا يملك أحزاباً ومرشحين لتشكيل أغلبية نيابية بوجه الأخوان تعبيراً عن رفضه لمشروعهم، عبر الإنتخابات الرئاسية مكانة الأغلبية الشعبية المناوئة للأخوان، عبر الفوز الساحق للرئيس قيس سعيد بأكثر من 70% من أصوات التونسيين.
–
خلال سنوات سيطرة الأخوان، تحوّلت تونس الى امتداد لجبهات الحرب الليبية إسناداً للدور التركي العسكري الذي ينال من السيادة الليبية ويعقد فرص الحل السياسي فيها، ويشكّل حاضنة للجماعات الإرهابية أسوة بما يفعله في سورية، كما حوّلت هذه السيطرة تونس الى ظهير حماية للتطبيع المغربي مع كيان الاحتلال حيث حكومة الإخوان في الحكم، وحوّلت هذه السيطرة تونس الى قاعدة لتصدير الإرهابيين الى المنطقة وسورية خصوصاً، ولم يعُد خافياً الدور الذي لعبه الأخوان في فرض مناخات إرهابية على الحياة السياسيّة والحريات والمنافسة الديمقراطيّة في تونس مع اغتيال رموز العملية الديمقراطيّة التي مثلها قادة مثل محمد البراهمي وشكري بلعيد، وتغوّلت سيطرة الأخوان على مؤسسات الدولة التونسية وعائداتها المالية، بصورة جعلت حصول المواطنين على الخدمات المستحقة من مؤسسات الدولة مشروطة بالمرور عبر مؤسسات الأخوان، وما أزمة تفشي كورونا والفشل في مواجهتها الا بنتيجة لهذه المعادلة.
–
الذي فعله الرئيس التونسي قيس سعيّد هو توظيف كل هذه التوازنات الخارجية والداخلية، ومن استعداد الجيش والقوى الأمنية والمؤسسات القضائية للتحرك، بفعل تهميشها من جهة وتشجيعها من المناوئين لدور الأخوان ومرجعيتهم الإقليمية من جهة موازية، وذلك لفرض واقع جديد يحرر الدولة التونسية ومؤسساتها الخدمية والإعلامية والإدارية والتربوية والصحية من سيطرة الاخوان، وفرض واقع أمني ينهي قدرتهم على فرض معايير الرعب السياسي على الخصوم والمنافسين، وانهاض دور مؤسسات الأمن والقضاء، بصورة تتيح استرداد التوازن الى المعادلة الداخلية، والتوازن الى موقع تونس الاقليمي والدولي.
–
الذين يريدون تصنيف حركة الرئيس التونسي في خانة تنفيذ اجندة إماراتية تهدف للتطبيع او أجندة فرنسية تهدف لمحاصرة الجزائر أو اجندة مصرية تهدف لتوظيف تونس في المعادلة الليبية، يتنكّرون لمواقف الرئيس قيس سعيّد من التطبيع ومن الاستعمار الفرنسي ومن تورط تونس في الحرب الليبية، ويخفون بانتقاداتهم تأييدهم لهيمنة الاخوان على الدولة التونسية وتحويلها الى قاعدة يحتاجها الأتراك الذين ليسوا أبعد من المطبعين العرب عن التطبيع، وببساطة تستطيع أن تكون مع الرئيس قيس سعيد وأن تدين تطبيع الإمارات وتحذر من خطورته وأن تبقى بصوت مرتفع بوجه المشروع الاستعماري الفرنسي وان لا تتطابق مع السياسات المصرية وأنت تؤيدها بوجه مخاطر حرب المياه الإثيوبية وتعارضها في أدائها على حدود غزة، إن كنتم صادقين!
–
للذين لا يعرفون تونس يجب لفت الانتباه إلى أن في تونس حالة فريدة عربياً يمثلها الاتحاد العام التونسي للشغل، وهو أوسع إطار شعبي منظم له عراقة النقابات التاريخية، ومبادئ وطنية وقومية تحررية ثابتة تشكل ميراثه وثوابته، بالتمسك بالاستقلال وفلسطين والعروبة والديمقراطية، وهو صمام أمان هذه العناوين الأربعة عندما تتهدّدها الرياح.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The only democracy to emerge from the Arab Spring in 2011 is going through a process of strategic correction. Tunisian President Kais Saied announced late Sunday he was firing the prime minster, Hichem Mechichi, dismissing the parliament, and assuming executive authority under Article 80 of the constitution. The speaker of Parliament, Rachid Ghannouchi, declared the actions amounted to a coup.
Saied announced that he was assuming the public prosecutor’s powers and stripping lawmakers of immunity, while assuring Tunisian rights groups on Monday that he remains committed to civil liberties and the democratic process, and that the changes will be temporary.
The crisis stems partly from an economy which never improved, and the COVID pandemic which has hit Tunisia hard. The main cause of the crisis is a political power struggle between Saied, Mechichi and Ghannouchi which has split the country into two camps: those who want Tunisia to maintain a secular based government, and those who follow Radical Islam as a political ideology.
On Sunday, demonstrators across Tunisia called for the dissolution of Parliament, which gave Saied the green-light to take action based on the will of the people.
Videos posted to social media showed crowds cheering, honking, ululating and waving Tunisian flags after the president’s actions Sunday night.
By Monday afternoon, Saied had fired the defense minister and acting justice minister. On Wednesday, Saied revealed shocking allegations against Ghannouchi’s party, Ennahda, that they accepted money from foreign governments, which amounts to a crime against democracy in Tunisia. Additionally, Saied has identified 480 persons who have defrauded the government of billions of Tunisian dinars. He has promised to hold all accountable.
Mr. Saied was elected in 2019, and many Tunisians hoped he could turn things around, seeing him as a fresh political outsider. However, since taking the helm he has been locked in a fight with Mechichi and Ghannouchi.
What is Ennahda platform and leadership?
According to western mainstream media, such as the New York Times and Washington Post, Ennahda is a moderate Islamist party.
Likewise, the same media calls the group which holds Idlib, Syria as the ‘moderate rebels’, when in fact they are the Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria.
Anger toward Ennahda has mounted over the past year as the pandemic hit the country and its economy and a movement against police brutality gained steam. Angry citizen activists called for the dissolution of parliament, which is controlled by Ennahda’s highly unpopular leader Rachid Ghannouchi, who has been its president for 38 years.
Ghannouchi wrote, “The Islamic government is one in which: 1- supreme legislative authority is for the shari’a, which is the revealed law of Islam, which transcends all laws. Al-Ghannouchi, R. (1998). “Participation in Non-Islamic Government”.
Critics, lawyers and politicians have accused Ennahda of forming a secret organization that has infiltrated security forces and the judiciary. Ennahda was relaunched during the Tunisian revolution in 2011. The party was accused of being behind the 2013 assassinations of Chokri Belaid and Mohamed Brahmi, two progressive political leaders of the leftist Popular Front electoral alliance.
Ennahda was founded in 1981 by the Islamic cleric, Rached Ghannouchi. The party is part of the global network of the Muslim Brotherhood. The party’s decline in popularity continued into mid-2016, and has now hit rock-bottom with the present corrective action undertaken by Saied.
The role of the Muslim Brotherhood in the 2011 Arab Spring
Ghannouchi has remained a steadfast follower and member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Ghannouchi attened a global Muslim Brotherhood conference in Istanbul in April 2016, and has continued to serve Islamist and Brotherhood-affiliated organizations in Europe, as a high-ranking member. Most notable is his involvement with a Dublin-based center ECFR, and the designated terrorist organization, the International Union of Muslim Scholars.
Most worrying is Ghannouchi’s ties to Islamist and violent extremist groups, both in Tunisia and around the world. Leaders of the al-Qaeda-affiliated Ansar al-Sharia group in Tunisia (AST) attended meetings at Ghannouchi’s home in 2011 at which he allegedly advised them to encourage AST youth to infiltrate Tunisia’s national army and National Guard.
In a leaked video, Ghannouchi also claimed that his Ennahda party had previously met with AST leader Seifallah Ben Hassine. In 2014, Ben Hassine was sanction-designated by the United States and United Nations for his links to al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and his implication in various terror attacks, including the assassination of Tunisian security forces and political figures, as well as the September 2012 AST attack on the US Embassy in Tunis. Ben Hassine died in a US airstrike in Libya in mid-June 2015.
Many compare Egypt’s histories with Tunisia. In 2011 Egypt had a popular revolution which saw Mubarak step-down. The US engineered a vote which put a Muslim Brotherhood leader, Morsi, in power. However, the Egyptian people took to the streets once again, in a corrective change, and the current leader stepped into the leadership role. Many western analysts bemoaned that the fledgling Egyptian ‘democracy’ was squandered with the ouster of Morsi. The Egyptian people made a political correction: they decided the Muslim Brotherhood regime of Morsi was more brutal than that of the previous authoritarian leader, Mubarak.
Western governments such as the US and UK, and to a lesser extent Germany, are very close to the Muslim Brotherhood in their own land, and wanted to install, at any cost, like regimes across the Middle East. Places such as: Libya, Syria, Egypt and Tunisia. The west recognizes that the Muslim Brotherhood works well in coordination with Israel, and does not present a threat to Israel, or the occupation of Palestine.
What country’s currently struggle against Muslim Brotherhood?
Al Jazeera, the Qatar state news channel, said on Monday the security services had shut-down their bureau in Tunis. Qatar, and their media, are politically aligned with Ennahda. Qatar and Turkey are both run by Muslim Brotherhood regimes.
Currently in Libya, there is a civil war raging against those who support the Muslim Brotherhood, and those who wish to maintain a secular form of government. It is not surprising that the US is on the side of the Muslim Brotherhood there, along with Qatar and Turkey, while Russia supports the secular side.
In Syria, the US-NATO war against the Syrian people which began in 2011 and has raged for 10 years, pitted the US backed Muslim Brotherhood terrorists against the only secular government in the Middle East. The US and the Muslim Brotherhood lost the war, but not before destroying the country, and killing hundreds of thousands of unarmed civilians.
What will Biden’s position be on the Tunisian crisis?
The current Tunisian crisis presents a major test for the Biden administration. If Saied is seen as usurping power, and against democratic principles, we may see Biden square off in support of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Ennahda. Already we have a warning from the State Department, “Tunisia must not squander its democratic gains,” Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken, said in a phone call Monday with Mr. Saied, while encouraging him “to adhere to the principles of democracy and human rights.”
“Tunisia is the last ember of the Arab Spring, now snuffed out,” Said Ferjani, an Ennahda member of Parliament, said in an interview, calling on President Biden to demonstrate his commitment to democracy.
While the US and her allies might be on the Ennahda side, the opposing side is formidable. Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the two biggest powerhouses of the Middle East, join the UAE and Syria in welcoming the Tunisian president’s strategic correction, and the public denouncement of the Muslim Brotherhood.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Description: In a political talk show appearance on RT Arabic earlier this month, Iranian political analyst Amir al-Moussawi commented on Iran’s stance towards the US army’s withdrawal from neighboring Afghanistan, and concerns surrounding the potential threat posed by the Taliban towards Kabul and the wider region.
Al-Moussawi is the director of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Tehran.
Mr. Amir, regarding the plans being prepared by Iran, regardless of its deterrence capabilities against any threat, and you pointed out that the Fatemiyoun are present as a force that can oppose any threat. But what about Iran’s ability to protect Afghanistan from falling into a whirlpool of chaos? Can Iran use its cultural or religious common ground with Afghanistan, or other common ground, to prevent it from entering the tunnel of a civil war?
Amir Al-Moussawi, Director of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies:
I believe that the American project will fail in Afghanistan. They’re after strife, they’re looking to damage Iranian, Russian and Chinese national security, even India, and maybe Pakistan as well. This is why you have good communication today between these parties. Yesterday, the Indian Foreign Minister arrived in Tehran to conduct important negotiations; I believe there is good communication between Mr. Zarif and Mr. Lavrov, the same goes with the Pakistanis and the Chinese as well.
I believe that there is a strong, resilient front in the region today, regionally speaking. As for the domestic scene, I don’t believe that the Taliban are as strong as they used to be. The Afghan people felt a type of freedom after the fall of the Taliban, and cannot withstand a stringent rule as that of the Taliban’s in the country (once again). There are also very strong forces, as you’ve said, in western Afghanistan.
So the Taliban must come to an agreement and form a national unity government, and Iran will push matters in that direction and encourage different parties to come to an understanding. Because I believe that no one will accept, regionally speaking at the very least…the US may be out to constantly create strife in the region because it has criminal objectives against China, against Iran, against Russia. I believe that the region is now in agreement, and the situation inside Afghanistan will not allow the Taliban to spread further.
Every side will accept its own share, its own reality, and a national unity government will be formed. This is what was agreed upon in Tehran. Iranian diplomacy will encourage this, and I believe that the government of President Rouhani will hand this matter over to Sayyed Raisi, who has formed an important and special committee tasked with Afghan affairs.
Of course we know very well that General Qa’ani, the leader of (IRGC’s) Quds Force, was specialized in Afghan matters during the days of Hajj Qassem, and so he is also present, and is helping bring together different sides in Afghanistan, not to mention the regional support (that exists).
I believe that everything will be under control, and will not devolve into a civil war, because things aren’t as the Americans see them, and even the Taliban can’t expand beyond their size.
“Zionists not welcome in my country” campaign explodes in Morocco, in refusal of Zionist delegations visiting the country.
Thousands of Moroccans Launch the “No Zionists Welcome in My Country” Campaign
Thousands of Moroccans have launched a campaign on social media under the slogan “No_Zionists_Welcome_In_My_Country,” to express their disapproval at receiving Morocco’s first tourist delegation from “Israel”, describing those arriving as “war criminals.”
The “Moroccan Front for Supporting Palestine and Rejecting Normalization” is urging Moroccan citizens to campaign electronically and express disapproval of the Israeli delegations in Morocco, which include Israeli settlers of Moroccan origin.
In their publications, they highlighted the importance of supporting the Palestinian cause and rejecting all forms of normalization.
One activist wrote “I watched videos of receiving groups of tourists coming from the state that has usurped the land, usurped the lives of Palestinians, and desecrated the sanctities of the nation. Those who were pleased with this exaggerated celebration: How do you feel in front of hundreds of victims of women and children and the destruction of trees and stones?”
Dancing with child murderers to our music & raising an apartheid state flag in our country, is DISGUSTING. When people who come from other countries do they get to raise their flags? Have some integrity. A reminder, Moroccans stand with Palestine #لا_مرحبا_بالصهاينة_في_بلديhttps://t.co/KnGATm7wJX— #SaveSilwan (@LurkingMist) July 26, 2021
Idriss Bougrain Amrani asked: “Have you ever seen Moroccans in diaspora carrying the flags of the countries from which they came instead of carrying the flag of their country, Morocco, to which they belong?”
Amrani added, “This is a provocation to honorable Moroccans.” Amrani attached a picture with a sentence expressing the position of Moroccan Jewish activist Sion Asedon against “Israel.”
Morocco and “Israel” signed a tripartite agreement sponsored by the US last year, which included several memoranda of understanding to establish relations between Morocco and “Israel”. It was described by Moroccan Foreign Minister Nasser Bourita as “a roadmap that the three parties will work on during the next stage.”
The first is a perfect metaphor for the West civilization: Everything in that picture is perfect, including the uniquely British BoJo and his oh so sincere homopride.
The second images shows a true western triumph. On the basis of totally unsubstantiated claims by one defector who was under criminal prosecution in Russia, the collective West, via WADA and the IOC, has banned Russia from being called “Russia” at the Olympics. No flag. No national anthem. No country. Only “ROC” (Russian Olympic Committee).
After all, we ALL *know* that Russians athletes are all full of dope and drugs, when they are not soaking in cheap vodka. Here is some more evidence of that:
Yes, this is a woman. At least by western standards…
So the united West still has enough traction with organizations it created and controlled to insult and humiliate Russia. Bravo, that is a triumph! Right?
Well, none of that prevented Russian athletes to win medals, even in these terrible conditions!
But, hey, no worries, the West also has some awesome athletes. This creature might even win a medal, as a female: (see photo on right)
In fact, the West goes from triumph to triumph: it seized Russian diplomatic buildings, it kidnapped several Russian citizens and jailed them, it blamed MH17 on Putin personally, fabricated both the Skripal and the Navalnyi false attacked (and botched them both!!) and now it deprived the Russian athletes from their national symbols without even denying that, “yes, this is a form of collective punishment, so what?”
As for Biden, he just declared that there was nothing in Russia besides missiles and oil deposits (maybe he thinks that he has “become Obama” since that, at least, would make him black and woke-compatible!).
Surely, all this shows that the West is winning, Russia is losing, badly, and homorights and “democracy” will triumph all over our planet.
Good thing that the western legacy ziomedia is really honest and never engages in propaganda (like the Russian or Chinese press does):
As for the greatest military in the history of the Galaxy, it will crush Russia with a daring combination of (future) hypersonic missiles and (current) homo-soldiers 🙂
But, no worries, a the next generation of gender-fluid US kids is already being prepared
But , no worries, Russia is about to collapse, and so is China.
So all is well, no need to worry (or to listen to “Russian propaganda”). The West is doing GREAT and its future is even greater.
Right?
The Saker
PS: especially for the “alternatively gifted”: since I neither fear nor hate homosexuals, or homosexuality as such, I am not a “homophobe”. That is just a “loaded-term” whose sole purpose and function is to disqualify as “hate-filled” (or fear, or both) bigot anybody who has not been brainwashed by wokeness. That is also why the value-neutral term “homosexual” was replaced with “gay”. This is called “framing the discussion” (in order to supress any ideological opposition). Personally, if anything, I feel genuinely sorry for the poor people who are truly affected by gender dysphoria (the politically correct DMS-5 term for what was previously known as “gender identity disorder”) or any other psychological dysfunction. I just refuse to simply declare that a personality disorder is actually healthy only because those affected by it (a small, but loud and obnoxious minority) don’t want to be considered anything but totally healthy and “normal”. The very *last* thing these poor people need is to be told that they should be proud of their dysfunction. What they need is healing, not encouragements to go into denial (especially with the comorbidity which almost always accompanies gender identity disorders!).
لا تقيم إسرائيل اعتباراً فعلياً للدول الأعضاء في «نادي معجبيها»، مثل فرنسا (أ ف ب )
تأتي زيارة وزير الأمن الصهيوني، بيني غانتس، واجتماعه مع نظيرته الفرنسية فلورانس بارلي، ضمن مساعي حكومة الاحتلال إلى احتواء التداعيات السلبية لفضيحة برنامج «بيغاسوس» الذي أنتجته شركة «إن إس أو» الإسرائيلية، والذي استُخدم من قِبَل المغرب للتجسّس على هاتف الرئيس الفرنسي إيمانويل ماكرون، ورئيس وزرائه السابق إدوارد فيليب، و15 وزيراً ونائباً ومسؤولاً سياسيّاً. البيان الصادر عن وزارة الدفاع الفرنسية بعد الاجتماع، يشي برغبة في تجاوز التداعيات السلبية المذكورة، إذ يشدّد على ضرورة تقديم إسرائيل «التوضيحات التي تطلبها فرنسا، والأساسية بالنسبة إلى الثقة والاحترام المتبادل بين البلدين»، وإطلاع المسؤولين في هذا البلد «على مدى معرفة الحكومة الإسرائيلية بأنشطة زبائن إن إس أو». الارتباط العضوي بين الشركة المشار إليها والأجهزة الأمنية والعسكرية الصهيونية، لم يكن خافياً على العديد من الخبراء والصحافيين الفرنسيين، في السنوات الماضية، أي قبل «الفضيحة» الأخيرة. فهذا لوي إمبير في «لوموند»، يشير في مقالة بعنوان «برنامج بيغاسوس: مجموعة إن إس أو في قلب القوة الناعمة الإسرائيلية»، إلى أن «الشركة المنتِجة للبرنامج والحكومة الإسرائيلية تعملان يداً بيد لبناء تحالفات جديدة، وخدمة مصالحهما على المستوى الدولي». لم تكن الأجهزة الأمنية الفرنسية غافلة عن هذه الحقيقة، وطلب «توضيحات» من قِبَل رسميين فرنسيين يعكس حرصاً على الحفاظ على التعاون المتعاظم في الميادين التكنولوجية والأمنية مع الكيان الصهيوني، باعتباره مصدر إلهام في كيفية خوض «الحروب الجديدة»، الموجّهة أساساً ضدّ السكان والحركات الشعبية، نتيجة لخبراته المتراكمة في هذا المضمار في فلسطين المحتلّة ولبنان. هو «نموذج» يُحتذى بنظر قطاعات وازنة من النُّخب السياسية الفرنسية والغربية، وكذلك بالنسبة إلى زبائنه التقليديين من أنظمة فاسدة ومستبدّة في جنوب العالم، ومنه العالم العربي. لكن، وفي مقابل هذا الحرص على العلاقات مع «الدولة – النموذج»، فإن اللافت هو أن الأخيرة لا تقيم اعتباراً فعلياً للدول الأعضاء في «نادي معجبيها»، باستثناء الولايات المتحدة وروسيا والصين، كونها دولاً قادرة على ردّ الصاع صاعين في حال تجرّأت إسرائيل على استخدام منتجاتها التكنولوجية للتجسّس عليها.
حبٌّ من طرفٍ واحد
قيام إسرائيل ببيع برنامج «بيغاسوس» للمغرب لكي يستخدمه الأخير للتجسّس على المسؤولين الفرنسيين، يُعدّ تطوّراً يستحقّ التأمّل فيه، لأنه يكشف تحوّلاً في طبيعة التحالفات التي تنسجها تل أبيب وفي نظرتها الفعلية لِمَن تعتبرهم حلفاء من «الدرجة الثانية». محاولات إسرائيل للتجسّس حتى على أهمّ حلفائها، ليس بالأمر الجديد. جميعنا يذكر قضيّة الأميركي جوناثان بولارد الذي اعتُقل سنة 1985 بتهمة التجسّس على بلاده لحسابها. الجديد هو بيعها برامج تجسّس لدول أخرى تعمل على تطوير علاقاتها معها، كالمغرب مثلاً، دون التأكُّد من عدم استخدامها ضدّ حلفاء آخرين، كفرنسا مثلاً. يعزو فردريك مورو، الخبير الفرنسي في شؤون الدفاع، في مقابلة مع «لوموند»، عدم اكتراث إسرائيل لردّ الفعل الفرنسي أو الأوروبي تجاهها، إلى قناعتها بأنه سيكون في غاية الضعف. ولا شكّ في أن هذا الرأي يتضمّن الكثير من الوجاهة لأن التحوّلات البنيوية، السياسية والاجتماعية، التي شهدها الكيان الصهيوني في العقود الماضية، وطغيان التيارات الفاشية القومية والدينية على المشهد السياسي فيه، كان لها أيضاً أثر كبير على الفهم السائد للوضع الدولي وللتحالفات. العالم من منظور هذه القوى، بات غائباً أكثر من أيّ حقبة سابقة، وموازين القوى الفجّة هي التي تحكم تعامل أطرافه بعضها مع بعض، صراعاً وتقاطعاً وتحالفاً. إسرائيل لا تحترم إلّا الأقوياء، وهم في حالتنا الولايات المتحدة وروسيا والصين، وتتجنّب استفزازهم. أمّا الآخرون، فهي تتعاطى معهم، وكما أظهرت «الفضيحة»، وفقاً لأولوياتها الظرفيّة.
لم تَعُد قوّة إسرائيل «الناعمة» تستند إلى ادّعاءاتها بكونها «واحة ديمقراطية» في محيط من البرابرة
وما فعلته مع فرنسا، لن تتردّد في تكراره في المستقبل مع دول كالمغرب والإمارات والسعودية إذا اقتضت مصالحها المتغيّرة ذلك. لا تحالفات ثابتة، أو على الأقلّ تجنّباً للتأزيم، إلّا مع الأقوياء. هي لم تراعِ الاندفاعة الفرنسية غير المسبوقة حيالها في السنوات الماضية، والتي فصّلها الباحث والصحافي الفرنسي، جان ستيرن، في سلسلة مقالات على موقع «شرق 21» عن اللوبي الإسرائيلي في بلاده. فشركة «إلبيت» الإسرائيلية تساهم في إنتاج نظام «العقرب»، وهو في قلب استراتيجية القوات البرية الفرنسية في العقود القادمة، و»يسمح بتطوير قيادة رقمية واحدة تعتمد على وصلة مشتركة تسمح للجنود المنتشرين في الميدان وكذلك للأدوات العسكرية الجديدة، مثل الطائرات من دون طيار والروبوتات، بأن تكون متّصلة في وقت واحد لتستبق بالتالي ردود فعل العدو». أمّا الشركات الفرنسية العاملة في حقل التكنولوجيا الرقمية، فـ»جميعها تريد الموساد عندها»، بحسب العنوان الحرفي لإحدى مقالاته في السلسلة المشار إليها آنفاً، والتي يتحدّث فيها عن مدى إعجاب الشركات الخاصّة وصناعات الدفاع الفرنسية، بإنجازاته في المجالات التكنولوجية، خاصّة برنامج «بيغاسوس». وهذه المقالة نُشرت في 26 نيسان الماضي، أي قبل «الفضيحة»، ما يضعنا أمام هُيام من طرف واحد يقابله عدم اكتراث، إن لم يكن ازدراء من الطرف الآخر.
جاذبية نموذج السيطرة والتنكيل والقتل
لم تَعُد قوّة إسرائيل «الناعمة»، أي جاذبيتها، تستند إلى ادّعاءاتها بكونها «واحة ديمقراطية» في محيط من البرابرة و/أو الأنظمة المستبدة. فقدت هذه السردية الحدود الدنيا من الصدقيّة على نطاق الكوكب. جاذبيتها اليوم تستند إلى خبراتها ومعارفها في ميدان القوّة الخشنة، والتي اكتسبتها من خلال حربها المستمرّة على الشعب الفلسطيني وشعوب المنطقة وقواها المقاومة. وحتى كاتب صهيوني «معتدل» كيوفال هراري يعترف بذلك في مقالة كتبها بعنوان: «سنستطيع قرصنة البشر قريباً»، يعتبر فيها أن «الضفة المحتلّة هي حقل تجارب بالنسبة إلى الإسرائيليين حول كيفية بناء ديكتاتورية رقميّة. كيف نستطيع التحكُّم بـ2,5 مليون من السكان عبر استخدام الذكاء الاصطناعي والبيغ داتا والطائرات المسيّرة والكاميرات؟ إسرائيل رائدة في مجال الرقابة والسيطرة: تقوم باختبارات ميدانية، ومن ثم تصدّرها نحو بقية العالم». وعلى الغالب، فإن هذه الخبرات وما تتيحه من قدرات أمنية وعسكرية وتكنولوجية، لأطراف تعتبر الشعوب أو قطاعات معتبرة منها، مصدراً رئيساً للتهديد، هي بين أبرز الاعتبارات التي تُفسّر هيامها بالنموذج الإسرائيلي.
Tunisian President Kais Saied issues new orders, the most important of which is lifting immunity off members of Parliament – he stresses that he is “keen to enforce rule of law.”
Saeed reassures rights and freedoms
Tunisian President Kais Saied issued a presidential order to lift the parliamentary immunity of all members of the People’s Assembly for the duration of the suspension, and assigned the Secretary-General of the House of Representatives to handle the administrative and financial work of the Assembly.
He called on the Tunisian citizens, local and foreign, to be assured of their rights and freedoms because they “are governed by law,” noting that “the state is not a puppet driven by strings, and there are lobbies that move strings behind the curtain.”
The Tunisian president stressed that he “is keen to implement the constitutional text, and no one was arrested or deprived of his rights,” noting that he had taken these exceptional measures “to guarantee rights, freedoms, and the continuity of the state.”
Saied stressed that “there is no room for manipulating the state, dividing it, or exploding it from within,” noting that he derives confidence from “the popular power of attorney that appeared on more than one occasion, as well as on July 25.”
Saied assigned the advisor to the President of the Republic in the National Security Department, Reda Gharslawi, to run the Ministry of Interior.
Gharslawi took the constitutional oath before the Tunisian President to run the Tunisian Ministry of the Interior in accordance with Article 89 of the constitution.
President Saied also called on everyone in Tunisia and abroad to be reassured of their rights and freedoms, asserting that exceptional measures are taken to guarantee rights and freedoms and the continuity of the state.
Saied had earlier called on the Tunisian people to remain calm, and not to be drawn into provocations and rumors, stressing that his actions are consistent with the country’s constitution. This came after he issued a presidential order last Monday that decided to relieve the Prime Minister and the person in charge of managing the Ministry of the Interior, Hisham Al-Mashishi.
Today, Thursday, Al-Mashishi said that he is not denied any of his rights, rejecting rumors that he was beaten or threatened with weapons in the Carthage Palace.
The Head of the Tunisian Ennahda Movement, Rachid Ghannouchi, called earlier today for a national discussion in the country, expressing his party’s readiness for “any concessions in order to restore democracy.”
In an interview with Agence France-Presse, Ghannouchi called for “a national discussion in order to find out how Tunisia has a government,” noting that since the issuance of presidential decisions, “there has been no conversation with the President of the Republic, nor with his aides.”
In addition, the Assistant Secretary-General of the “Tunisian General Labor Union,” Mohamed Ali Al-Boughdiri, revealed that the union will present to the Presidency of the Republic a map that includes visions related to the political and economic aspects. He called called for an end to the transitional situation as soon as possible.
The President of Tunisia’s Ennhada Party Rached Ghannouchi considered the president’s recent decisions “a coup against the revolution and the constitution.”
The President of Tunisia’s Ennhada Party Rached Ghannouchi
The President of Tunisia’s Ennhada Party Rached Ghannouchi has called for a new national dialogue to restore democracy after Tunisia’s President Kais Saied announced his assumption of executive power and suspended parliament.
In an interview with AFP, Ghannouchi mentioned “if there is no agreement, we will call on the people to defend democracy.”
On July 25, Tunisian President Kais Saied took drastic measures, to dismiss Prime Minister Hichem Mechichi and freeze parliament for 30 days.
Ghannouchi has denounced President Kais Saied’s decisions, branding his suspension of parliament and dismissal of Prime Minister Hichem Mechichi’s government as “a coup”.
“We consider the institutions still standing, and the supporters of the Ennahda and the Tunisian people will defend the revolution,” he told AFP.
Ghannouchi continued, “there has been no contact with the President of the Republic, nor with his aides” since the decisions were issued” adding, “However, we believe that a national dialogue should take place regarding forming a Tunisian government.”
He went on to say, “We are willing to make any concession if democracy is restored…Our clinging to power is less important than the constitution.”
Related Videos
Following the protests in Tunisia on Sunday, Tunisian President Kais Saied suspends the Parliament and dismisses Prime Minister. Where is the situation heading to?
Iraqi Kataib Hezbollah resistance movement has emphasized that the American military troops must withdraw from the Arab country, vowing that it is ready to force the occupation troops to do so.
The anti-terror group, which is part of the Popular Mobilization Units, better known by the Arabic word Hashd al-Shaabi, announced in a statement on Thursday that it has and will firmly oppose the dominance of “evil” colonial powers over the natural resources of Iraq.
The statement noted that Kataib Hezbollah will continue to carry out its duties regardless of pressures and challenges it might face.
“All resistance groups have become a thorn in the eye of the American enemy. We are fully prepared to once again drive US forces out of Iraq in humiliation,” it also read.
Kataib Hezbollah warned that further surprises await American occupation forces in case they insist on their presence on the Iraqi soil.
Jafar al-Hussaini, spokesman for the resistance movement, said the Iraqi factions would not target diplomatic missions in the country, describing attacks on the US embassy in Baghdad’s fortified Green Zone as false-flag operations aimed at deceiving the Iraqi nation.
“Diplomatic facilities in Iraq are not on the list of targets by resistance forces. Attacks on the evil US embassy in Baghdad are meant to disrupt equations and trick Iraqi people,” Hussaini told Beirut-based Arabic-language al-Mayadeen TV on Thursday.
“The perpetrators of attacks on the evil embassy are pursuing destructive interests, and their affiliations are suspicious,” he added.
In the same context, Leader of Asaib Ahl al-Haq Movement, Qais al-Khazali, said the United States does not intend to withdraw its forces from Iraq, stressing that the cost of continued presence of American forces in the country will be heavy.
“US overflights in Iraq are aimed at espionage purposes. Baghdad-Washington negotiations will not result in the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. This is just a deception game,” he added.
Khazali described the Iraqi government’s negotiations with the United States and the agreement purportedly ending the US combat mission in Iraq by the end of 2021 as “deceptive” and “bogus.”
He said the agreement does not explicitly state the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq, and fails short of addressing the violation of the Iraqi airspace by US military aircraft.
“The agreement has simply been struck in order to change the title of US forces. This is what we had earlier reported about. US overflights in Iraq are being carried out to spy on resistance groups. Our demand concerning the pullout of foreign military forces is legitimate,” Khazali said.
US President Joe Biden and Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi on Monday sealed an agreement formally ending the US combat mission in Iraq by the end of the current year, more than 18 years after US troops were sent to the Arab country.
Under the agreement, however, US military forces will continue to operate in Iraq in what has been termed as an “advisory role.”
A joint Iraq-US statement issued after the meeting said the “security” relationship will be focused on “training, advising and intelligence-sharing.”
Speaking to reporters following the White House meeting, Biden claimed that the US would continue to “train, to assist, to help and to deal with Daesh [the Arabic acronym for terrorist ‘ISIS/ISIL’ group] as it arises,” when the combat mission comes to an end.
The US currently has about 2,500 troops in Iraq. It is not known how many troops will stay in the country beyond 2021. White House press secretary Jen Psaki said “the numbers will be driven by what is needed for the mission over time.”
Anti-US sentiment has been growing in Iraq since the assassination in January 2020 of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, deputy head of the Popular Mobilization Units, along with the region’s legendary anti-terror commander Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad.
They were targeted along with their companions on January 3, 2020 in a drone strike authorized by former US president Donald Trump near Baghdad International Airport.
Two days after the attack, Iraqi lawmakers approved a bill that requires the government to end the presence of all foreign military forces led by the US.
Militarily occupying Iraq and Syria is a thoroughly bipartisan policy in the United States. And bombing West Asia has become a favorite pastime that unites both Democrat and Republican presidents.
The United States believes it has the right to bomb, militarily occupy, and economically strangulate any country, anywhere, without consequence. But the world’s peoples are standing up more and more to the global dictatorship of US hegemony.
On June 27, Washington launched airstrikes against forces in both Iraq and Syria, two sovereign countries illegally occupied by the US military, which have repeatedly called for American troops to leave.
The US attack proved to be a gift to the genocidal extremists in ISIS: it helped provide cover as remnants of the so-called “Islamic State” launched a terror attack on a power grid in northern Iraq. Similarly, the US bombing killed several members of Iraqi government-backed units who had been protecting their nation from ISIS and Al-Qaeda.
It is far from the first time Washington has clearly been on the same side as far-right Takfiri fanatics. For example, current US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan admitted in an email to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2012 that “AQ is on our side in Syria.” And the US government supported al-Qaeda extremists in its wars on Yemen and Libya.
In addition to aiding notorious terrorist groups, these US strikes on Iraq and Syria were glaringly illegal under international law. Moreover, they constitute a clear act of aggression against the peoples of West Asia, who for decades have struggled for self-determination and control over their own, plentiful natural resources – resources that the US government and its all-powerful corporations seek to control and exploit.
The Pentagon tried to justify its attack claiming it was an act of “self-defense.” Absurdly, the US Department of Defense – the world champion in violating international law – even cited international law to try to legitimize the airstrikes.
In reality, the US military’s presence in Iraq and Syria is illegal. And under international law, a military power that is illegally occupying a territory does not have the right to self-defense. That is true just as much for apartheid “Israel” in its settler-colonial aggression against Palestine as it is for the United States in its imperial wars on the peoples of Iraq and Syria.
In January 2020, in response to Washington’s assassination of top Iranian General Qasem Soleimani and Iraqi Commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis – a criminal act of war against both Iraq and Iran – the democratically elected parliament in Baghdad voted 170 to 0 to expel the thousands of US troops occupying Iraq.
Washington simply ignored the vote, silencing the voices of the Iraqi people – while threatening more economic sanctions on their government. In addition, the Pentagon stressed that the vote was nonbinding. Still, even the US government-backed RAND Corporation acknowledged that there “is no treaty or status of forces agreement (SOFA) authorizing the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq.”
Likewise, the United States is illegally occupying one-third of Syrian sovereign territory. The internationally recognized government in Damascus has repeatedly called on the US military occupiers to leave, but they have refused, in a flagrant violation of Syrian sovereignty.
“The presence of Americans in Syria is a sign of occupation, and we believe that all nations and governments must stand up to their unlawful presence in the region,” Syrian Prime Minister Imad Khamis declared in 2020, after the US assassinations of the top Iraqi and Iranian military leaders.
While former Republican President Donald Trump radiated a kind of neocolonial arrogance, boasting that US troops would illegally remain in Syria because “we want to keep the oil,” the Democratic Joe Biden administration has not acted much differently.
President Biden appointed hardline neoconservative operative Dana Stroul as the top Pentagon official for Middle East policy. In 2019, Stroul bragged that Washington “owned” one-third of Syrian territory, including its “economic powerhouse,” which includes the vast majority of its oil and wheat reserves.
Stroul’s promotion was an unambiguous sign that the Democrats are endorsing the same sadistic Trumpian strategy, to militarily occupy Syria, steal its natural resources, starve its government of revenue, deny its people bread and gasoline, and prevent reconstruction of what Stroul snidely referred to as the widespread “rubble.”
The reality is that militarily occupying Iraq and Syria is a thoroughly bipartisan policy in the United States. And bombing West Asia has become a favorite pastime that unites both Democrat and Republican presidents.
Trump launched airstrikes against Syria in April 2018 on totally unsubstantiated accusations that Damascus had carried out “gas attacks,” claims that have since been proven false by multiple whistleblowers from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).
Then in December 2019, the Trump administration bombed anti-ISIS militias in both Syria and Iraq.
Biden carried out a similar, illegal attack on these same fighters in eastern Syria in February 2021. Another example of Washington serving as the de facto air force for the remnants of the so-called “Islamic State.”
The December 2019, February 2021, and June 2021 US airstrikes targeted the Iraqi government-backed Popular Mobilization Forces (PMFs), known in Arabic as the al-Hashd al-Sha’abi. In its official statement on the June bombing, the Pentagon stated unequivocally that it was attacking Kata’ib Hezbollah and Kata’ib Sayyid al-Shuhada, two prominent Iraqi armed groups in the Hashd.
The Department of Defense misleadingly referred to these units as “Iran-backed militia groups.” The US government and the corporate media outlets that act as its obedient mouthpiece always describe the Hashd as “Iran-backed” to try to downplay their role as indigenous protectors of Iraqi sovereignty and deceptively portray them as foreign proxies of Washington’s favorite bogeyman.
In reality, the PMFs are Iraqi units supported by the elected, internationally recognized government in Baghdad. The Hashd played a leading role in the fight against ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other extremist Takfiri groups in both Iraq and Syria – while the United States, apartheid “Israel”, and NATO allies spent billions of dollars backing Salafi-jihadist death squads in their genocidal war on the people of Syria.
The Hashd do indeed receive assistance from Tehran, and they have every right to do so. After all, Iran is Iraq’s neighbor, whereas the United States is on the other side of the planet. But Washington, NATO, and their de facto stenographers in the corporate press corps seek to discredit all resistance to criminal US aggression in West Asia by erasing its organic, indigenous roots and lazily depicting it as a vast conspiracy controlled by an omnipresent Iranian controller.
The PMFs made it clear that they will not tolerate Washington’s assault on their nation’s sovereignty. “We reserve the legal right to respond to these attacks and hold the perpetrators accountable on Iraqi soil,” the Hashd declared.
Unlike the US military occupiers, the people of Iraq and Syria do have a right to exercise self-defense in response to strikes by foreign aggressors. They can legally resist American military occupation and neocolonialism, just as the people of Palestine have the right to resist Israeli military occupation and Zionist settler-colonialism. It is a right enshrined in international law – and an inalienable right that any nation would defend.
If Washington wants to stop attacks on its troops, there is an easy way to do that: withdraw them from the region where they are not wanted. American soldiers will be much safer at home.The opinions mentioned in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Al mayadeen, but rather express the opinion of its writer exclusively.
ليس في العالم بلد يكرهه بعض أبنائه ويتمنون الشر له ويجهدون لتسخيف كل إشارة خير لتعميم اليأس، كحال لبنان.
يلفت نظر المتابع للمواقف الإعلامية والسياسية وجود حلف إعلامي حزبي يضم ناشطين في جمعيات تسمّي نفسها بالثورية، مهمته شيطنة كل مبادرة أو خطوة تتصل بمعالجة وجه من وجوه الأزمة الضاغطة على اللبنانيين.
لم تكن مبادرة السيد حسن نصرالله بالدعوة لاستيراد البنزين والمازوت من إيران بالليرة اللبنانيّة الهدف الوحيد الذي تم التصويب عليه من هذا الثلاثيّ، كي نقول إن الخصومة السياسية هي السبب، علماً أن أي لبناني يفترض أن ينظر لكل مبادرة يمكن أن تسهم في حلحلة معاناة اللبنانيين بإيجابية ويناقشها بانفتاح وعقلانية بعيداً عن الكيد والشيطنة لمجرد ان المبادر هو خصم سياسيّ.
عندما عرضت شركات صينية استثمارات في لبنان بمليارات الدولارات، خرج هذا الثلاثي يشكك في مبدأ وجود هذه الشركات، بالرغم من أن لهذه الشركات ممثلين ظهروا على وسائل الإعلام وخبراء شاركوا في اجتماعاتها مع المسؤولين الرسميين، وذلك فقط للقول إن الطريق مسدود أمام أية حلول إلا بالسياق الذي ترسمه السفارات الغربية والخليجية، والتشكيك بالشركات الصينية ومؤهلاتها وقدراتها التمويليّة مثير للسخرية، خصوصاً في مجال المرافئ وتجهيزها وتشغيلها، فالمعدات والشركات الصينية تشغّل كبريات موانئ العالم من دبي الى بوسطن وصولاً الى امستردام.
عندما جاء وفد رسمي روسي يرافق شركات روسية وجال بمشاركة السفير الروسي على عدد من المسؤولين عارضاً مشاريع استثمار في المرفأ والكهرباء ومصافي النفط كرر الثلاثي المعزوفة التشكيكية ذاتها، وقامت قنوات تلفزيونية تنتسب لهذا الثلاثي بالحديث عن أن الشركات الروسية وهمية، بصورة تثير الضحك، فهل يعقل أن السفير الروسي ووزارة خارجية دولة عظمى كروسيا سترسل شركة وهمية الى أي بلد في العالم وبأي هدف، بينما ذهبت قناة تلفزيونية أخرى الى فبركة تقرير يربط بين الشركة وباخرة النترات التي تفجّرت في مرفأ بيروت.
بعد توقيع لبنان على عقد مبادلة النفط بالخدمات بالليرة اللبنانية مع العراق نشطت قوى الثلاثي الشيطاني، ولم يرق لها الأمر فخرج بعضها يتساءل عن ماهية الخدمات التي سيقدّمها لبنان بهدف القول إن العقد لن ينفذ، بينما المنطق أن يتعاضد اللبنانيون لإنجاح هذا العقد الذي يوفر على لبنان نزيف 500 مليون دولار، وبعض آخر وضع أسئلة حول كيفية مبادلة النفط بالفيول وصولاً لتشكيك لا يهدف لتحصين الخطوة بل للطعن بها، وبعض ثالث لم يتورّع عن تصوير العقد بأنه بيع نفايات عراقيّة نفطيّة للبنان بهدف التخلص منها.
ليس في العالم بلد يكرهه بعض أبنائه ويتمنون الشر له ويجهدون لتسخيف كل إشارة خير لتعميم اليأس، كحال لبنان.
Reliable sources have confirmed that France wants a government as soon as possible, one that can guarantee three principle things for it.
The primary obstacle that prevented Hariri from forming the government is non-existent for Mikati.
Many wind up believing the lies they tell, ignoring, in terms of forming the Lebanese government (or impeding its formation), all internal and external talk of the Saudis’ refusal of a government presided by Saad Hariri. Instead, they continue to talk of internal obstacles and of swapping ministers here or there, which impeded the formation of a government for nine months.
When studying the odds of formation as far as the PM-designate is concerned, we need to dust off the many lies that have piled over the primary reason that has prevented Hariri from forming the government: France, Egypt, and Turkey have all asked Hariri to go ahead and pushed him in that direction, and at the same time, the President and the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) made one concession after the other. It even got to the point where they made ten concessions to help him form; yet, he did not, for the sole reason that he received no Saudi signal that would allow him to do so.
This primary obstacle that has prevented Hariri from forming is non-existent for the new PM-designate. Mikati is not Hariri – the hated in the eyes of Saudi Arabia – and neither is the latter the great power Mikati cannot breathe without.
Mikati is considerate to Saudi Arabia, tries not to displease it, and would never do anything to provoke it. However, (in contrast to Hariri) he never waited for its signals in his political career. On the other hand, the Kingdom has no veto against “a Mikati government” as it did with Hariri in terms of possible cooperation and finds nothing provoking about Mikati as it did with Hariri, which leads us to say that the first and primary reason that prevented Hariri from forming the government is non-existent today.
The second obstacle that worried Hariri was the removal of subsidies and the severe basket of procedures, which the international community calls reforms, that would have a huge impact on the regular citizen. Most of these procedures are now a fait-accompli, and the Mikati government must work on reducing their severity.
As for the traditional obstacles, such as ministerial quotas and the form of Hezbollah’s representation , these are all minor details that Mikati can find speedy settlements for, should an international decision to form a government exist. These settlements were never a reason to delay the formation or veto it, but they were mere tools used by the local forces waiting for external signals. Most importantly, Mikati is more capable here than anyone else in resolving issues and finding a middle ground that can please everyone, again if there is a definite international decision to form.
The question here is, do foreign powers want a government in Lebanon today?
Diplomatic and political intel from multiple reliable sources confirms that France wants a government as soon as possible, one that can guarantee three principle things for it:
1- Quick cash for its companies: the French President is late in delivering on the promises he made for major companies benefiting from the “Cedre” finances, which the Lebanese people are borrowing, only for the money to be rerouted to French companies for projects (that no one knows if they are truly necessary). It should be noted that the French Foreign Ministry has for years been reduced to no more than a PR employee looking for projects for French companies.
2- An attempt to close in on Russia’s advances in the region: France and Germany notice that the US is withdrawing from the region and that Russia is investing heavily in Iraqi oil, coupled with its exceptional military presence in Syria and a unique drive towards Lebanon, the first of its kind.
3- Stop the security collapse because of its dangerous political repercussions in terms of Hezbollah’s endurance, the collapse of all other forces, and the loss of the West’s substantial financial investments in the army and security forces.
An additional explanation is necessary here: The French and their international partners do not want a security collapse, but they do want the financial and services collapse to continue, at least until the next parliamentary elections. The US allies’ electoral program consists of only one thing: “hunger, poverty, and humiliation.” They are working hard to pin this on Hezbollah and the FPM so that they can reap its electoral benefits in the FPM’s areas. If they lose this one thing, they have nothing to base their coming elections on.
The unavailability of raw materials in the Lebanese market, under the direct, close supervision of the Central Bank, will definitely continue, with or without a government. Moreover, not giving depositors their money back, with or without a government, will also continue, and so will the surge in living expenses closely tied to the dollar exchange rate. The cries over the unavailability of medicines need to grow louder now that the pictures of children, the ill, and the elderly have become prime election material.
As such, they want the government to sign deals with them that would allow their companies to get their hands on money for long-termprojects that add nothing to people’s lives or living conditions (more useless roads and bridges and dysfunctional treatment plants). They want a government that can put an end to the feeble attempts of some ministers to secure alternative solutions for the unavailability of medicine, electricity, and some foodstuffs. They want a government that can put an end to the Russian ambitions in the port, refineries, and oil. They want a government that would borrow more money to spend on futile projects without any serious work in accounting books, quality of execution, or economic feasibility studies, whilst threatening those who try to impede or modify these dangerous goals behind the formation with silly European sanctions.
In the end, the government will likely be formed: the foreign powers want a government. Hezbollah and its allies (except for the Strong Lebanon Bloc) have all supported designating Mikati and voted for him. The President respects the constitution in terms of cooperating with the person designated by the parliamentary majority, whomever that may be.
Both the President and the FPM will not shoulder the responsibility of standing in the way of all the aforementioned. However, they will prepare for the elections, in their own way, letting the majority that named Mikati shoulder the responsibility for everything his government might do, taking advantage of the opportunity that enables them to finally show that they do not have a parliamentary majority, nor a cabinet majority, nor a power majority. The President and the FPM had some suspicions, but their conviction today is definite and firm: we cannot turn the table, so the least we can do is not sit at it.
المعلومات الدبلوماسية والسياسية من مصادر موثوقة متعددة تؤكد أن الفرنسيّ يريد حكومة بأسرع وقت ممكن تضمن له 3 أمور رئيسية.
العقبة الأولى التي منعت الحريري من التشكيل غير موجودة بالنسبة إلى ميقاتي.
غالباً ما ينتهي كثيرون إلى تكذيب الكذبة وتصديقها، فيتجاهلون في موضوع تشكيل الحكومة اللبنانية وتعطيلها مثلاً كلّ ما صدر من الداخل والخارج عن عدم القبول السعودي بتشكيل حكومة برئاسة سعد الحريري، ويواصلون الحديث عن عراقيل داخلية ووزير بالزائد أو بالناقص يمكن أن يوقف تشكيل الحكومة 9 أشهر.
ولا بدّ بالتالي عند البحث في احتمالات التشكيل بالنسبة إلى الرئيس المكلف من نفض الأكاذيب الكثيرة المتراكمة فوق السبب الأول الذي منع الحريري من التشكيل: طلب كلّ من الفرنسي والمصري والتركي من الحريري أن يُشكل، وضغطوا بهذا الاتجاه، في ظل تقديم رئيس الجمهورية و”التيار الوطني الحرّ” التنازل تلو التنازل، حتى بلغت 10 تنازلات لحثِّه على تدوير الزوايا والتشكيل، إلا أنَّه لم يشكّل لسبب وحيد أوحد هو عدم تلقّيه إشارة سعودية تسمح له بالتّشكيل.
هذه العقبة الأولى التي منعت الحريري من التشكيل غير موجودة بالنسبة إلى الرئيس المكلّف الجديد؛ لا نجيب ميقاتي هو سعد الحريري (المغضوب عليه) بالنسبة إلى السعودية، ولا السعودية هي تلك القوة العظمى التي لا يمكن التنفس من دون إشارة منها بالنسبة إلى ميقاتي.
ميقاتي يراعي السعودية، ويقف على خاطرها، ولا يمكن أن يفعل من قريب أو بعيد ما من شأنه استفزازها، لكنه (بعكس الحريري) لم ينتظر منها الإشارات يوماً في محطات مسيرته السياسية. في المقابل، إن السعودية لا تضع فيتو على “حكومة برئاسة ميقاتي”، كما كانت تضع فيتو على “حكومة برئاسة الحريري” لجهة التعاون المحتمل، ولا تجد في ميقاتي أي استفزاز لها كما كانت تجد في الحريري، وهو ما يدفع إلى القول إن السبب الأول والرئيسي الذي حال دون تشكيل الحريري للحكومة غير موجود اليوم.
أما العقبة الثانية التي كانت تُقلق الحريري، فهي رفع الدعم وسلة الإجراءات القاسية بحق المواطنين العاديين، والتي يصفها المجتمع الدوليّ بالإصلاحات، وهي في غالبيتها باتت أمراً واقعاً يفترض بحكومة ميقاتي أن تتمكّن من الحدِّ من قسوته قليلاً.
أما العقبات التقليدية، كالحصص الوزارية وشكل تمثيل “حزب الله”، فهذه جميعها تفاصيل صغيرة يمكن لميقاتي إيجاد حلول تسووية سريعة لها في حال وجود قرار دولي بالتكليف، وهي لم تكن بالمناسبة يوماً سبباً بحد ذاتها لتأخير حكومة أو تطييرها، إنما مجرد وسائل تعتمدها القوى المحلية في انتظار الإشارات الخارجية. والأهم هنا أن ميقاتي يتمتع أكثر من أي شخص آخر بالقدرة على تدوير الزوايا وإيجاد حلول وسطى ترضي الجميع، إذا كان ثمة قرار دولي حاسم بالتشكيل.
والمؤكد في هذا السياق أن نجيب ميقاتي ما هو في نهاية الأمر إلا نجيب ميقاتي: إذا أشار إليه المجتمع الدولي ممثلاً بالولايات المتحدة وفرنسا بالتشكيل سيُشكل، وإذا طلب منه المجتمع الدولي التريث سيتريث، وإذا لفتوا نظره إلى وجوب عدم الترشح أو رفض التكليف أو الاعتذار عن التكليف فسيفعل قبل صياح الديك. مصالحه في الخارج، وثرواته الموزعة في عواصم العالم، وعدم امتلاكه وريثاً سياسياً يخشى على مستقبله السياسيّ، يدفعه كله إلى الالتزام الحرفي بتوصيات الخارج، مهما كانت الحالة في الداخل.
وعليه، هل يريد الخارج حكومة في لبنان اليوم؟ المعلومات الدبلوماسية والسياسية من مصادر موثوقة متعددة تؤكد أن الفرنسيّ يريد حكومة بأسرع وقت ممكن تضمن له 3 أمور رئيسية:
1. أموال سريعة لشركاته، بعد تأخّر الرئيس الفرنسي كثيراً في تحقيق وعوده للشركات الكبرى باستفادتها من أموال “سيدر” التي يستدينها الشعب اللبناني لتذهب إلى الشركات الفرنسية من أجل بناء مشاريع (لا أحد يعلم ما إذا كانت ضرورية فعلاً)، مع العلم أنَّ الخارجية الفرنسية تحوّلت منذ سنوات إلى موظف علاقات عامة يبحث عن مشاريع للشركات الفرنسية الكبرى لا أكثر.
2. محاولة مزاحمة معجلة مكررة لروسيا في المنطقة بعدما لاحظ الفرنسي والألماني أن الأميركيّ ينسحب من المنطقة تزامناً مع استثمار روسي كبير في النفط العراقي، وحضور عسكري استثنائي في سوريا، واندفاع جدي أول من نوعه نحو لبنان.
3. إيقاف الانهيار الأمني، نظراً إلى تداعياته السياسية الخطيرة لجهة صمود “حزب الله”، وانهيار جميع الأفرقاء السياسيين الآخرين، وضياع الاستثمارات الغربية الكبيرة في الجيش والقوى الأمنية.
وهنا، لا بدّ من شرح إضافي: لا يريد الفرنسيون وشركاؤهم الدوليون انهياراً أمنياً، لكنهم يريدون استمرار الانهيار المالي والخدماتي، أقلّه حتى موعد الانتخابات النيابية المقبلة، حيث يتألّف البرنامج الانتخابي لحلفاء الولايات المتحدة في لبنان من بند وحيد أوحد هو “الجوع والفقر والذل”، الذي يعملون جاهدين لتحميل “حزب الله” و”التيار الوطني الحر” مسؤولياته، ويذهبون إلى الانتخابات في مناطق نفوذ “التيار” تحديداً على هذا الأساس، وهم إذ يخسرون هذا البند، فإنهم لا يملكون أي عنوان آخر يخوضون الانتخابات على أساسه؛ فانقطاع المواد الأولية من السوق اللبناني بإدارة مباشرة ودقيقة من حاكم مصرف لبنان رياض سلامة سيتواصل حكماً، مع حكومة أو من دون حكومة، وعدم دفع المصارف مستحقات المودعين سيتواصل هو الآخر، مع حكومة أو من دون حكومة، والغلاء المعيشي المربوط بسعر الصرف سيبقى على حالته السيئة. ولا بدّ من أن يتعاظم البكاء من انقطاع الدواء بعدما باتت صور الأطفال والمرضى والمسنين هي المادة الانتخابية الرئيسية.
وعليه، هم يريدون من الحكومة أن توقّع معهم الاتفاقيات التي تسمح لشركاتهم بالحصول على الأموال للبدء بمشاريع طويلة الأمد لا تؤثر من قريب أو بعيد في حياة المواطنين والظروف القاهرة (المزيد من الطرقات والجسور ومحطات التكرير التي لا تعمل)؛ حكومة تقطع الطريق على المحاولات الخجولة جداً لبعض الوزراء في حكومة تصريف الأعمال لتأمين حلول بديلة لانقطاع الدواء والكهرباء وبعض المواد الغذائية، حكومة تقطع الطريق أيضاً على الطموحات الروسية في المرفأ والمصافي والنفط، حكومة تستدين المزيد من الأموال لصرفها على المزيد من المشاريع العبثية من دون تدقيق جديّ بالحسابات ونوعية التنفيذ والجدوى الاقتصادية، مع تسليط سيف العقوبات الأوروبية السخيفة على كل من يحاول إعاقة التشكيل أو تعديل هذه الأهداف الخبيثة للتشكيل.
وفي النتيجة، احتمال التشكيل كبير جداً: الخارج يريد حكومة. “حزب الله” وحلفاؤه (باستثناء تكتل لبنان القوي) دفعوا باتجاه تكليف ميقاتي وسمّوه. رئيس الجمهورية يحترم الدستور لجهة التعاون مع من كلَّفته الأكثرية النيابية، أياً كان اسمه، وهو و”التيار الوطني الحر” لن يأخذا على عاتقهما من قريب أو بعيد مسؤولية الوقوف بوجه كل ما سبق تعداده، إنما سيستعدون على طريقتهم للانتخابات، تاركين للأكثرية التي كلّفت ميقاتي أن تتحمّل مسؤوليّة كلّ ما يمكن أن تفعله حكومته، بعدما سنحت الفرصة أخيراً لتظهير أنهم لا يملكون أكثرية نيابية، ولا أكثرية وزارية، ولا أكثرية سلطوية. كان لدى رئيس الجمهورية و”التيار الوطني الحرّ” بعض الشكوك، لكنَّ قناعتهما اليوم راسخة وحاسمة: لا قدرة لنا على قلب الطاولة. أقل ما يمكن أن نفعله هو عدم الجلوس عليها.
As we all know, to sell soothing useless one first has to buy something useless. At some point, Washington bought Ukraine – for a high price. The process of buying took a long time, as Ukraine was bought part by part.
When finally in 2014 all of Ukraine became the property of the US, White House quickly realized, to its horror, that several US administrations had been investing significant amounts of money in a completely useless product.
The Americans did not feel it necessary to hide their emotions. That is why as far as in 2015 some of the “Maidan heroes” guided by some emotional reactions of their American owners, overheard but not understood a proposed theory that Putin organized Maidan himself with the aim to take Crimea and burden the Americans with the rest of Ukraine. While the residents of the controlled territory entertained themselves with the conspiracy theories, the Americans were thinking about who they could unload Ukraine on.
At first, they though that Russia absolutely had to show interest in Ukraine. The reasons were obvious:
Long common history;
Personal and family connections;
Importance of cooperation in the industry and of the Ukrainian gas transit for the Russian economy;
Solution of the Crimea problem (with the disappearance of Ukraine, the claimant for the peninsula would disappear as well).
The US intended to trick Russia into buying Ukraine at the exchange for a free hand in Syria and the Middle East. They thought that the sanctions introduced for “the occupations of Crimea” would be left in place, this time under the guise of the sanctions for “the occupations of Ukraine”. In short, Washington planned to exchange something useless for something quite useful, preserving at the same time all the means of pressuring Russia. The Americans would not be the Americans if they did not manage to make money, even when faced with a potential loss.
However, this time the US was doomed to disappointment. Moscow did not show any interest in that useless product. It was not even clear whether Moscow would take Ukraine if it were paid to do so. As to paying something to get Ukraine – that was out of question. The next series of sanctions, aimed at creating a situation for Kremlin when annexing Ukraine would be less ruinous than keeping the status quo, also did not solve the problem. It turned out that Russia, although suffering short-term financial losses from the sanctions, learned how to use them to win strategic victories in the long-term game.
In 2016, Ukraine stopped playing a significant role in the American initiatives with regard to Russia. Ukraine was kept ready for sale, but it was understood that it was necessary to look for a new buyer. Furthermore, since by that time even pigmies in Africa realized just how useless Ukraine really was, it was critical to find a buyer that would not be able to refuse the offer. The sale of the Kiev colony of the US empire entered the mode “buy a brick” (1), which allowed to present an ordinary robbery as a voluntary purchase.
Obama during his term failed to find an appropriate “buyer”. Trump was not much interested in the Ukrainian problem, preferring to intrigue against China and fight against Nordstream-2 for the benefit of the US gas industry. However, in the end it were the Trump policies that helped the Biden administration to bind a “buyer” that would not be able to refuse the offer of a brick.
Fighting against Nordstream-2 and trying to minimize the cost of the American global hegemony, Trump seriously damaged the relationships with Germany. The Germans, finding themselves in an unexpected situation when the US turned from an ally to an economic competitor and stopped guaranteeing the military and political protection, had not dared to sharply change gears and go under the Russian wing. Besides, that could have easily caused an irreversible split in the EU. Berlin started to look for ways to restore the good relations with the US.
As a result, the Biden administration was able to execute a turnaround. Not being bound by the interest of the US oil and gas industry (Biden favors “green” energy instead of the traditional one) and with full understanding that the Germans were determined to complete Nordstream-2 at all costs, Washington pretended that it was super-concerned about the fate of Ukraine. A talk with Germany on the subject was presented as essentially a prerequisite for the normalization of relations. At the same time, the US made an unusual move refusing to impose sanctions against the German politicians and companies involved in the Nordstream-2 project.
Normally Washington never yields anything first during negotiations demanding concessions from its partners instead. In this case, however, the Americans were remarkably constructive. The real reason for that attitude was soon revealed: the Americans made Germany sign onto a deal purportedly serving the interests of Ukraine.
The celebrations in Kiev turned out to be short. When the details of the deal were revealed, it became quite clear that nobody guarantees anything to Ukraine or intends to compensate it for anything. Germany made a vague promise to fight for the interests of Ukraine and to push Gasprom to negotiate with Ukraine the extension of the transit contract. This, by the way, the Russian government never refused to do, provided Ukraine could offer competitive transit conditions. But this is precisely what Kiev does not want to do dreaming about continuing to profit from the “exclusiveness” of its transit capabilities. That is why Ukraine is fighting so fiercely against Nordstream-2. But nobody promised to force Moscow into an unprofitable deal. This was finally understood in Ukraine, and loud whine about betrayal immediately followed.
Ukraine is mistaken: it has not been betrayed; it has been sold. Furthermore, in spite what Biden’s opponents say, Biden did not sell it to Putin. Putin is using the Ukraine situation to serve Russian interests quite effectively, but he has not paid a dime or made a single political concession. On the contrary, Gasprom and Russia are planning to make a profit from all this, compensating for forced losses of the previous period. Biden sold the Ukrainian “brick” to Merkel.
In order to go away in style and leave her party a chance to remain in power, Bundeskanzlerin needed to restore mutual understanding with the US. However, the Nordstream-2 was such an important project that in this case Merkel was not prepared to make a single concession. The Americans are tough negotiators, though, so they did manage to make her an offer she could not refuse.
They have removed Nordstream-2 from the equation. The existing sanctions were left in place, for they did no harm, whereas no new sanctions, particularly against the Germans, will be imposed. All Germany’s obligations towards Ukraine would be expressed as vaguely as possible. It would be up to Berlin to decide what exactly these obligations are.
The only specific promise was that the US would collect money in the West in the amount of 1 billion dollars, which would be given to Ukraine to develop “green” energy in order to be able to compensate any potential problems with natural gas supplies. Germany would serve as a manager of the “green” energy development in Ukraine contributing 150-200 million dollars to that 1 billion (a tiny sum for Germany).
Biden killed two birds with one stone. First, he demonstrated to his supporters in the US how effectively he fights for ecology introducing “green” energy even in such a distant and God forsaken place as Ukraine.
Second, the Germans that have been fighting nuclear and coal power stations at home for years, could apply their experience in Ukraine at the same time making use of a billion dollars. They would, of course, have to share some with the aboriginies, but not that much. Besides, the Germans would be in a position to solve the problem of a dozen of nuclear blocks in Ukrainian nuclear plants all potential Chernobyls – that are still in the playful Ukrainian paws.
Thirdly, since after this “support” and “reforms”, Ukraine would inevitably face a deficit of electric power, the EU would be able to sell it not only natural gas “via reverse”, but also electricity.
Fourthly, the US finally got rid of the Ukrainian “suitcase without the handle” successfully forcing it onto Germany. Now it is time for the Merkel’s successors to think how to sell Ukraine back to Russia even if with added financial compensation.
Merkel herself has no cause to complain. She bought a “brick”, of course, but a brick nicely packaged in golden foil. While the purchase is being unwrapped, the elections will be over and the Chancellor will retire. If CDU/CSU fail to remain in power, that would definitely not be her fault. Merkel is passing on a solid well cared for country without debt or problems. The promises, which Kiev troublemakers would cling to, will surface later when the fate of the elections and the coalition will have been decided.
We have to give the honor where the honor is due: the Americans never discard anything and manage to get their pennies for the most useless and unattractive product.
As far as Ukraine is concerned… Well, nobody concerns himself with Ukraine anymore. The Ukrainian citizens are left with the only hope that at some time in the future, after a series of re-sales, this invalid, which is Ukraine, in spite of its obnoxious personality, a habit to gnaw at the owner’s furniture, damage wallpaper, and crap all over the place, would end up an good hands.
But this is very unlikely.
(1) “Buy a brick” – a common Russian joke. A big guy holding a brick approaches a passerby: “Ah, dude, buy this brick”. The person responds: “No, thank you, I don’t need it”. When the big guy waives the brick menacingly over the head of the other: “You’d better buy this brick and not tempt your fate”.
President Bashar al-Assad received on Wednesday Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, Speaker of the Islamic Shura Council and the accompanying delegation.
Talks during the meeting dealt with the close bilateral relations between the two countries and the standing constructive cooperation between them at various levels.
The two sides stressed the essential role played by the parliamentary institutions in Syria and Iran to open new horizons for bilateral cooperation, particularly in the economic field, not only in the government sector, but also activating cooperation between the private sector in both countries in a way that helps the two friendly peoples confront the economic war and the policy of blockade and sanctions imposed on them.
President al-Assad affirmed that Iran is a key partner for Syria and has stood by the Syrian people in the face of the terrorist war and provided them with support in all fields, pointing out that the coordination between the two countries in combating terrorism has given positive results on the ground and will continue until the liberation of all lands and the defeat of terrorist organizations.
In turn, Qalibaf considered that the recent election entitlements in Syria and Iran and the determination of the Syrian and Iranian peoples in fulfilling these entitlements prove the failure of the pressure policies that are being exerted against them, and stresses that no one can stand in against the people’s will.
Tunisia’s judiciary has launched an investigation into three political parties, the “Ennahda”Movement, the Heart of Tunisia Party, and the Ayich Tounes Society on suspicions of receiving illegal foreign funds.
The Economic and Financial Judicial Pole took decisions on several cases.
According to Reuters, Tunisia’s judiciary has opened an investigation into three political parties, the “Ennahda” Movement, the Heart of Tunisia Party, and the Ayich Tounes Society, on charges of receiving illegal foreign funds during the 2019 elections campaign.
Reuters reported that the investigation was initiated on July 14, before President Kais Saied issued, on July 25, the executive orders of dismissing the cabinet, freezing the parliament, assuming executive authority, and taking over public prosecution.
The Spokesman of the First Instance Court and the Economic and Financial Judiciary Pole, Mohsen al-Dali, assured that the Economic and Financial Judiciary Pole took decisions in a myriad of files and cases, including political parties and public figures.
Among these is the “Lobbying Contracts” file that was brought recently before the Public Prosecution of the Economic and Financial Judicial Pole. After examining the file, the Public Prosecution launched an investigation into the “Ennahda” Movement, the Heart of Tunisia Party, and the Ayich Tounes Society on suspicions of receiving illegal foreign funds.
Al-Dali assured that the investigation judge “started examining the file since mid-July.”
In the same context, Mohsen al-Dali explained that “the competent team has completed its examination of one of the cases and transferred the file to the Public Prosecution Office, and a research investigation has been opened.”
Saeid Meets the Members of the Supreme Council of the Armies
Today, Wednesday, the Tunisian President Kais Saied met with members of the Supreme Council of the Armies.
The Tunisian Presidency stated on its Facebook page that “President Saied is the Leader of the Armed Forces”, and “Today, on July 28, 2021 has chaired the meeting of the Supreme Council of the Armies in the Carthage Palace.”
On July 25, Tunisia witnessed an important political event coinciding with the 64th anniversary of the declaration of the Republic, which began with protests caused by a political crisis between the Government, the President, and the Parliament and ended with orders by the Tunisian President Kais Saied following his meeting with military and security leaders.
The decisions included the exemption of the Prime Minister, freezing the Parliament for 30 days, and lifting the immunity of all MPs. Moreover, the President assumed executive authority and took over the public prosecution.
On his part, Saied asserted that his actions are exceptional procedures in line with the constitution, but the Tunisian Parliament Speaker Rachid Ghannouchi and the “Ennahda” Movement described what the Tunisian President did as a “coup d’état against the revolution and the Constitution.”
Intelligence Forces Arrest Mossad Terrorist Network in Western Iran
Iran’s Intelligence Ministry announced on Tuesday that a network of the members of the Zionist regime’s Spy Organization (Mossad) was arrested on the western border of the country.
Following the intelligence activities of the forces of Iran’s Intelligence Ministry, a network of members of the Zionist regime’s Spy Organization (Mossad) was arrested on the country’s western border, said Director-General of Counterintelligence of the ministry on Tuesday.
He added that a big haul of weapons and ammunition, including, pistols, grenades, Winchester rifles, shotguns and ammunition was also seized during this operation.
Stating that Mossad members intended to use the equipment during urban riots and assassinations, he said that during the elections days also, the Zionist regime repeatedly attempted to carry out acts of sabotage in different parts of the country that with the timely action of the forces of Iran’s Intelligence Ministry, their terrorist sabotages were thwarted.
UPROOTED PALESTINIANS: SALAM ALQUDS ALAYKUM 