The new foreign strategy says Russia is responsible for defending cultural and spiritual values against “pseudo-humanistic” and other “neoliberal ideologies”.
Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow, Russia in February 2022. (Reuters)
Russia adopted a new foreign policy doctrine on Friday that prioritizes reforming world politics away from the hegemony of the United States and its Western allies and supporting countries that choose to fight neocolonialists and foreign interference.
The new foreign strategy went into effect after being signed by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
“The Russian Federation intends to give priority to the elimination of vestiges of the dominance of the United States and other unfriendly countries in world politics,” the document said.
Russia would aim to “create the conditions for any state to reject neo-colonialist and hegemonic aims,” the 42-page policy read.
“Radical changes” in the world prompted the new policies, Putin said during a security council meeting, stressing that Russia’s engagement in the international arena must reflect its view on these changes.
Defender against neo-liberal ideologies
Russia views China and India as key allies in its new foreign doctrine and stresses the strategic importance of deepening relations and “coordination with friendly sovereign global centers of power and development located on the Eurasian continent.”
The war in Ukraine led to severe sanctions by the US and EU who lobbied countries around the world to join in on the unilateral sanctions, but many countries, including China and India, increased economic and bilateral relations with Moscow, reaching historic levels.
Chinese President Xi Jinping made a three-day official trip to Moscow earlier this month where he met with Putin and held what was described by the media as historic talks. The two presidents signed during Xi’s trip two joint strategic documents aiming to boost the two global powers’ economic and diplomatic partnership.
Russia, as per the document, is a “state civilization” and is responsible for protecting the “Russian world” – in reference to cultures that align with that of the country within Eurasia. Russia will be tasked with protecting “traditional spiritual and moral values” against “pseudo-humanistic and other neo-liberal ideological attitudes.”
Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that the new foreign policy doctrine identified “the existential nature of threats to the security and development of our country, driven by the actions of unfriendly states.”
“The United States of America is directly named as the main instigator and driver of anti-Russian sentiment,” he added.
“The West’s policy of trying to weaken Russia in every possible way is characterized as a hybrid war of a new type.”
US military vehicle is seen on a patrol in the countryside near the town of Qamishli, Syria, December 4, 2022 (AP)
By Al Mayadeen English
Six US soldiers have been added to the tally of injuries that resulted from the bombardment on US occupation bases in Syria over the weekend.
Six US occupation soldiers in Syria have suffered “traumatic brain injuries” during two attacks that targeted illegal US occupation bases in the country this past week, the US Department of Defense said Thursday, adding that the soldiers were diagnosed during routine screenings carried out in recent days.
The disclosure further raises the human toll among American forces from strikes and counter-strikes in Syria last week to a total of 12 US occupation troops wounded. The attacks also killed an American contractor and injured another.
Four service members suffered traumatic brain injuries at the US base near the Syrian city of Hasaka during a drone attack on March 23, Pentagon spokesperson Patrick Ryder said. Two others suffered injuries at the mission support site Green Village during an attack on March 24.
“All personnel in the vicinity of a blast are screened for traumatic brain injury. So these additional injuries were identified during post-attack medical screenings,” Ryder told a news briefing.
According to the Pentagon, the US shelling killed eight personnel in Syria.
The US claims that Iran was behind the attacks on its occupation bases, adding that those killed were not believed to have been Iranian, though they were associated with the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC).
The New York Times on Monday highlighted that the Biden administration was yet to respond to an attack that killed an American contractor and injured six other Americans in northeast Syria, which the US claimed was of “Iranian origin, President Biden’s response has so far been more restrained.”
The newspaper drew parallels between the Biden administration’s dealing with a contractor dying during an offensive in an occupied country and the Trump administration’s dealing with the issue.
Two American F-15s retaliated Thursday by launching airstrikes on several sites, which prompted the armed groups in Syria to retaliate against the US occupation, launching a barrage of rockets, as well as drone attacks, on Friday, injuring another American.
NYT, citing US officials, reported that US warplanes were set to go for another round of bombings late Friday, but the White House held off.
On Friday, several rockets and drones targeted US occupation bases in the Conoco gas field and Al-Omar oil field east of Deir Ezzor, Eastern Syria.
A few hours before, the US military said it carried out “precision airstrikes” in eastern Syria in response to an alleged drone attack that killed one American and injured five US service personnel.
A Department of Defense statement claimed that the casualties fell “after a one-way unmanned aerial vehicle struck a maintenance facility on a Coalition base near Hasakah in northeast Syria.”
On Saturday, Syria slammed the savage aggression carried out by the US occupation forces on several areas in the Deir Ezzor Governorate that resulted in the killing of a number of people, the wounding of others, and material damage.
It is noteworthy that the US has for long employed the alleged “ISIS threat” as a pretext to continue its illegal occupation of northeastern Syrian territories.
US occupation forces frequently loot oil from Syrian gas fields and transport them to other occupation bases in Iraq via illegal crossings.
Sleiman Frangieh, Head of Marada Movement in Lebanon (photo from archive).
The presidential election was back to the limelight on Thursday after news emerged that the leader of the Marada Movement Sleiman Frangieh had received an invitation to visit Paris.
The visit coincides with another one made by the leader of the Progressive Socialist Party Walid Jumblatt who arrived in the French capital a few days ago to meet with Patrick Durrell, the French President Advisor in charge of the Lebanese file, Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar reported on Friday.
The paper quoted sources close to Jumblatt as saying that there won’t be a meeting between the latter and Frangieh in Paris.
This invitation comes days after a call between French President Emmanuel Macron and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, in which the two leaders discussed the Lebanese affairs.
It also comes, amid information about France’s shift in position towards backing Frangieh to the presidency, the daily reported.
“There is a high possibility that Paris is mulling informing Frangieh that it has failed to persuade the United States and Saudi Arabia to agree on the nomination of Frangieh as part of a settlement package,” the Lebanese paper said.
Al-Akhbar cited to diplomatic sources as saying that, France seemed to be strained over US and Saudi’s refusal to launch an initiative that both sides consider “appeasement of Hezbollah”.
“Paris reached this conclusion after being subjected to a campaign launched by US and Saudi’s allies in Lebanon, in addition to an Egyptian implicit message that the position of Saudi Arabia remains essential, and that Cairo cannot go ahead with any option that Riyadh rejects,” the daily reported, citing the diplomatic sources.
Following the last five-way meeting on Lebanon, which was held in Paris, disagreements emerged between the US, France, Saudi, Egypt and Qatar, the sources said, adding that Egypt was exerting efforts to activate contacts.
“Cairo counts on the Iranian-Saudi rapprochement to expand the external communications, although Tehran and Riyadh avoided talking about any direct reflections of the deal on the situation in Lebanon,” according to the sources.
For his part, Frangieh expressed, in front of his visitors, “great satisfaction about the way the things are going during the last two days.”
Frangieh visitors reported, according to Al-Akhbar, that the Lebanese politician believes France is still on its position towards his nomination, and that the visit may be in order to complete the discussion on details related to the presidential file, or to convey a Saudi message to Frangieh in order to request some guarantees or inquire about some issues. In this context, Frangieh visitors noted that he is not making great expectations over Paris’ invitation.
The visitors also said that Frangieh received yesterday Russian Ambassador to Lebanon Alexander Rudakov, who informed him that Moscow is exerting efforts in a bid to convince Riyadh with to proceed with a settlement that leads to the election of Frangieh.
In this context, remarks made by the US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Barbara Leaf were significant. The US official hoped that “the Saudi-Iranian rapprochement would reflect positively on Lebanon,” hailing and any development that “contributes to de-escalation in the region.”
Leaf, who recently visited Beirut on an official visit, met caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati, Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, Foreign Minister Abdullah Bou Habib, and other officials. The US diplomat, who boycotted the Christian powers, was quoted by Lebanese media as saying, “I stressed in Beirut the need to elect a president, form a government with full powers and implement economic reforms in order to return Lebanon to the path of recovery.”
Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Barbara Leaf
“There will be American-Europe-Arab sanctions imposed on those who are obstructing the election of a new president.” The US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Barbara Leaf issues a new warning, as reported by Lebanese daily, Al-Akhbar.
Leaf has met several Lebanese officials in her visit to Beirut last week, the paper reported on Tuesday as it revealed some details on the meetings.
Except for the sanctions threat, the American official gave neither a clear position on the presidential settlement, nor nominations of presidential candidates, as she focused on “the alarming reality Lebanon is experiencing in light of indications of that the great collapse is looming,” according to Al-Akhbar.
She also expressed her dissatisfaction with the “state of denial” practiced by the political class in dealing with the crises, whether the presidential vacuum or the economic turmoil, especially regarding the reforms required.
The daily quoted sources familiar with the meetings as saying that the US official “attended the five-way meetings held in Paris on behalf of her country, but she did not get into details related to the nominations.”
However, she said that her country would deal with any elected president, and disclosed that there were some disagreements with other four countries – in approaching the crisis in Lebanon – specifically with Saudi Arabia.”
In addition to the message that Leaf conveyed regarding the sanctions, there was another “implicit” message, Al-Akhbar added, noting: “Her visit schedule did not include any meeting with Christian powers in Lebanon.”
Political circles regarded Leaf’s deliberate move not to meet Christian officials – including Maronite Patriarch Bechara Boutros Al-Rahi – as a great insult and exclusion of the Christian component. In this context, the circles interpreted Leaf’s decision in this regard as a way to hold the Christian powers responsible for the presidential vacuum, according to the paper.
“The Christian powers appear as if they are the only side which is hindering the election of a new president,” Al-Akhbar cited the circles who wondered whether the sanctions that Leaf hinted at “would only affect Christian figures.”
The circles also found it weird that Leaf’s move didn’t provoke any of the Christian powers “who were busy with the spat of the daylight savings time.”
Last Friday, Leaf met MPs Waddah Sadek, Ibrahim Mneimneh, Abdul Rahman Bizri, Bilal Al-Hashimi, and Fouad Makhzoumi, at the US Embassy in Awkar.
Attendees said that the meeting “reflects Leaf’s acknowledgment of the Sunni diversity and that Washington doesn’t consider Prime Minister Najib Mikati as their representative, especially since the meeting included deputies with different approaches,” Al-Akhbar added.
عاد الملف الرئاسي إلى الواجهة أمس مع الإعلان عن تلقّي رئيس تيار المردة سليمان فرنجية اتصالاً من المسؤول الفرنسي عن الملف اللبناني باتريك دوريل الذي وجه إليه الدعوة لزيارة باريس اليوم. تتزامن الزيارة مع وجود رئيس الحزب التقدمي الاشتراكي وليد جنبلاط في باريس منذ أيام للقاء دوريل، علماً أن «لا لقاء سيجمع فرنجية وجنبلاط في العاصمة الفرنسية» وفقَ ما تؤكد مصادر الأخير.
وتأتي الدعوة بعد أيام من اتصال بين الرئيس الفرنسي إيمانويل ماكرون وولي العهد السعودي الأمير محمد بن سلمان «ناقشا خلاله الملف اللبناني»، وسط معلومات عن تراجع فرنسا عن الدعم الذي تقدمه باريس لفرنجية، وأن هناك احتمالاً كبيراً بأن تكون العاصمة الفرنسية في صدد إبلاغ فرنجية عجزها عن إقناع الولايات المتحدة أو السعودية بالسير به ضمن صفقة شاملة.
(هيثم الموسوي)
وبحسب مصادر ديبلوماسية، فإن الجانب الفرنسي بدا شديد التوتر إزاء ما سمعه من الجانبين الأميركي والسعودي لناحية رفض إطلاق مبادرة يعتبرها الطرفان «مراضاة لحزب الله»، وأن باريس شعرت بذلك من خلال تعرضها لحملة في لبنان من قبل حلفاء واشنطن والرياض، إضافة إلى إشارة مصرية إلى أن موقف السعودية يبقى أساسياً في الملف، ولا يمكن للقاهرة السير في أي خيار ترفضه الرياض.
وقالت المصادر إن المعطيات الحقيقية حول الاجتماع الخماسي الأخير في باريس أظهرت وجود خلافات كبيرة، وإن القاهرة تحاول القيام بمبادرة لإعادة التواصل إلى مستواه العملاني. وأضافت أن المصريين يعولون كثيراً على الاتفاق السعودي – الإيراني لتوسيع قنوات الحوار الخارجي حول لبنان، وإن كانت طهران والرياض تجنبتا الحديث عن أي انعكاسات مباشرة للاتفاق بينهما على الوضع في لبنان.
زوار فرنجية ينقلون ارتياحاً كبيراً لسير الأمور في اليومين الأخيرين
من جهته، أبدى فرنجية أمام زوراه «ارتياحاً كبيراً لسير الأمور في اليومين الأخيرين». ونقل هؤلاء أن «فرنسا لا تزال على موقفها من ترشيحه»، مشيرين إلى أن الزيارة «قد تكون من أجل استكمال البحث في الملف الرئاسي، أو إبلاغ رسالة سعودية إلى فرنجية على سبيل طلب بعض الضمانات أو الاستفسار عن بعض الأمور»، لكن من دون المبالغة في توقع الإيجابيات من هذه الزيارة. وقال الزوار أيضاً إن فرنجية سمع من السفير الروسي في بيروت ألكسندر روداكوف الذي زاره أمس كلاماً إيجابياً حول مساع تقوم بها موسكو مع الرياض لإقناعها بالسير بتسوية يكون فرنجية عنواناً لها. كما وضع روداكوف فرنجية في أجواء الشق اللبناني من الاجتماع الذي حصل أخيراً بين وزيري خارجية روسيا والسعودية.
في هذا الإطار، كانَ لافتاً كلام مساعدة وزير الخارجية الأميركي لشؤون الشرق الأدنى باربارا ليف، إذ أملت في أن «ينعكس التقارب السعودي – الإيراني بشكل إيجابي على لبنان، وأي خفض للتوترات بين لاعبين إقليمين كبيرين، وأي شيء يؤمن هدنة للتصعيد المستمر منذ سنوات هو شيء عظيم». وليف التي زارت بيروت أخيراً في زيارة رسمية التقت خلالها رئيس حكومة تصريف الأعمال نجيب ميقاتي، ورئيس مجلس النواب نبيه بري، ووزير الخارجية عبدالله بو حبيب، وعدداً من المسؤولين، مقاطعةً القوى المسيحية، لفتت إلى «أنني شددت في بيروت على الحاجة لانتخاب رئيس وتشكيل حكومة ذات صلاحيات كاملة، وتنفيذ إصلاحات اقتصادية لإعادة لبنان إلى طريق الانتعاش»، موضحة أنّ «مساعدة اللبنانيين في أوقات الأزمات أولوية بالنسبة لنا».
Palestinian women wave flags during a rally marking the 47th anniversary of Land Day, east of Gaza City, occupied Palestine, March 30, 2023 (AP)
By Al Mayadeen English
Palestinian Resistance factions called Thursday for national unity and the bolstering of comprehensive Resistance to defend the country against continuous Israeli violations.
The factions said in a press release on Land Day that this day was a momentous turning point in the Palestinian struggle against the Israeli occupation and the Palestinian people’s confrontation with the occupation’s colonial plans.
The factions underlined the unity of the land, the people, and the Resistance, highlighting that historic Palestine is an endowed land “of which we cannot give up a single grain of sand, and it belongs to Palestinians. The Zionist occupation will inevitably vanish.”
Furthermore, the factions said the right to return was well-established and could never be given up. “The Palestinian people have given sacrifices for more than 75 years, and it still is, in an effort to regain their right to return and their overall rights.
Palestinians commemorate Land Day on March 30. This has been ongoing since 1976 when the Israeli occupation confiscated large swaths of Palestinian land in occupied Palestine, which sparked protests that led to numerous martyrdoms and injuries.
Palestinian Resistance faction Hamas said it was adhering to national unity and comprehensive Resistance as a sole means of regaining the Palestinian people’s rights, as well as reclaiming occupied Palestinian territories and religious sanctities.
Hamas “will not give up an inch of historic Palestine. The occupation’s plans and criminality will not pay off in allowing it to steal our land, nor will it allow it to colonially infiltrate our culture and alter historic facts.”
The Resistance movement called on Palestinians to go to Al-Aqsa Mosque and station themselves there to prevent Israeli settlers from raiding it as they seek to divide the mosque.
The Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) condemned major powers’ provision of protection and aid to Israelis and their political cover for their crimes, which is in violation of international law.
The PFLP underlined that the Israeli occupation sought to escalate against occupied Palestine by forming a new gang under the banner of the “National Guard”.
“Netanyahu is now holding a meeting with Ben-Gvir and ministers from his Likud party to discuss developments,” Israeli media said Monday, highlighting that “Netanyahu pledged to Ben-Gvir that the cabinet would approve the establishment of a National Guard as a subordinate to the Police Ministry.”
The PFLP underlined the need for unity and Resistance as a means of safeguarding Palestinians in their confrontation against “Israel”, calling for an escalation in the confrontation with the occupation, as well as drawing up a united political strategy to confront it.
The Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, on the other hand, condemned the Palestinian projects and agreements that provide political cover to the Israeli occupation.
“These projects contributed to providing a political cover to Israel to carry out its colonialist project in the majority of the West Bank and expedite the Judaization of Al-Quds,” the DFLP said.
The faction also called on the Palestinian Authority to halt the discussions regarding the political projects, the last of which was the Sharm El-Sheikh summit, demanding that it also undertakes resistance as a path toward liberation.
Sharm El-Sheikh hosted earlier in March a five-sided meeting between the PA, the Israeli occupation, Egypt, Jordan, and the United States aimed at “de-escalation” in the region.
The Egyptian Foreign Ministry said on Sunday that the Israeli occupation and the Palestinian Authority (PA) agreed during a security meeting in Egypt’s Sharm El-Sheikh to establish a mechanism to “curb violence” and counter “inflammatory statements and actions.”
It is noteworthy that the same provision was included in the concluding statement of the Aqaba meeting that was held by Jordan a couple of weeks ago. However, Israeli occupation Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu later confirmed that “the construction of settlement outposts in the West Bank will continue without any change.”
Under international law, all Israeli settlements are illegal, and the United Nations Security Council has condemned Israeli settlement activities in the occupied territories in several resolutions.
According to the Sharm El-Sheikh meeting statement, the two sides reaffirmed their “commitment to all previous agreements between them, in particular, the legal right of the Palestinian National Authority to carry out the security responsibilities in Area (A) of the West Bank.”
The Israeli occupation and the PA also agreed to “establish a mechanism to take the necessary steps towards improving the economic conditions of the Palestinian people, per previous agreements, and to significantly enhance the fiscal situation of the Palestinian National Authority.”
“Israel” carries out yet another aggression on Syria, and the country’s air defenses intercept the missiles.
Israeli aggression on Syria (Archive)
Syria’s official state agency reported that Israeli airstrikes have hit several sites in the vicinity of the Syrian capital Damascus, adding that the “Syrian air defenses have intercepted the missiles.”
SANA reported that explosions were heard in Damascus, only to later confirm that Israeli missiles targeted certain sites in the Syrian capital.
Not an isolated incident
The Syrian Transport Ministry confirmed on March 22 that “Israel” launched an aggression on Aleppo International Airport, and operations have been suspended.
At the time, the airport’s runway and navigation equipment were damaged and destroyed in the attack, while all flights were redirected to the airports in Damascus and Latakia.
On March 7, the Syrian news agency, SANA, confirmed that Syrian air defenses intercepted Israeli missiles in the airspace above Aleppo.
On February 18, the Syrian air defenses intercepted Israeli missiles that targeted areas in the Damascus countryside, in Kafr Sousa and Tal Al-Masih near the city of Shahba, north of Al-Suwayda.
Our correspondent indicated at the time that several civilians were killed as a result of the Israeli aggression that targeted residential buildings in Kafr Sousa. A source in the Syrian Health Ministry told Al Mayadeen that five civilians were killed in the aggression, with others were in critical condition.
At the beginning of this year, two Syrian soldiers were killed and two others were wounded as a result of an Israeli air attack on Damascus International Airport and its surroundings.
In recent years, “Israel” has carried out hundreds of strikes in Syria, killing civilians and damaging property amid international silence.
The Palestinian people are currently marking the 47th anniversary of “Land Day,” renewing their steadfast commitment to their identity and the land that remains the cornerstone of their struggle and the heart of the conflict with the Israeli occupation.
Against the backdrop of Israeli authorities’ ongoing policies of confiscation, home demolitions, and displacement, supposedly based on claims of unauthorized construction or non-recognition of Palestinian ownership of land they have inherited and owned since before the Nakba in 1948, this year’s commemoration takes on added significance.
At present, the Zionist ideology is more explicitly embracing the principle of “more land and fewer Arabs,” particularly in light of recent developments in the Negev region and the occupied West Bank. The challenges confronting Palestinians are increasingly dire, given the extremist Israeli government’s persistent attempts to Judaize more Palestinian land, annex it to the occupying state, and establish additional settlements and settlement blocs.
Today, Thursday, marks the anniversary day, a solemn occasion that the Palestinians commemorate with a series of activities and events. The event serves as a reminder of the vast areas of their land that the Israeli authorities confiscated, sparking a struggle that still rages today.
زرع أغصان الزيتون ضمن فعاليات إحياء ذكرى يوم الأرض شرق منطقة جحر الديك جنوب شرق مدينة غزة pic.twitter.com/AZuzXX1gFT
In commemoration, Arab-Palestinians are organizing a central march in the city of Sakhnin in the Lower Galilee to renew their pledge to the land, as per the organizers’ announcement.
The Higher Follow-up Committee for the Arab Citizens in ‘Israel’, the highest unitary representative body for the Arabs, has called for a central and unitary march in Sakhnin to commemorate the 47th anniversary of Land Day, with tens of thousands expected to participate.
The committee’s head, Muhammad Baraka, emphasized that the march signifies the renewal of the covenant to the land and homeland, intending to defend their children, lives, homes, and their beloved homeland, which they have no other place to call their own.
However, Baraka warned that the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is the most right-wing government in the history of the Jewish state, with plans that pose an existential danger and threat to the Palestinians through its legislation and policies. “The government has even claimed that there are no Palestinian people, and it has deployed heavily armed gangs in their villages and historic cities,” he said in a statement.
This anniversary usually sees thousands of Palestinians take to the streets in popular demonstrations, brandishing Palestinian flags, and calling for justice and peace.
Yesterday, Wednesday, dozens of children in Gaza participated in a scout march to commemorate the Land Day, raising Palestinian flags, as well as banners emphasizing their right to return to the lands from which their ancestors were expelled.
Standing Strong, The Fight for Land Continues
Palestinian factions consistently emphasize that land is the primary focal point and driving force in their confrontation with the Israeli occupation, which continues to pursue its endeavours to Judaize, confiscate, and alter the land’s character, and the continuation of these efforts is nothing short of a dangerous game with fire.
Hamas Representative in Lebanon Ali Barakah told Al-Manar TV that the Israeli entity is currently grappling with a significant predicament, as it confronts internal disintegration, which is not limited to its military apparatus but pervades the entire Zionist social fabric.
Ali Barakah in an interview with Al-Manar TV on Thursday, March 30, 2023
“The pronounced schism between the so-called extreme religious right and the Israeli center-left continuum betrays the vertical cleavage that besets this entity,” Barakah said, noting that such a state of confusion and schism within the enemy’s ranks provides an opening for the Palestinian resistance to assert itself and gain leverage.
“This deepening schism within the Zionist entity not only affects the military, but also the Israeli society as a whole, exposing the fragility of the so-called Jewish state,” he said.
Barakah also noted to Al-Manar’s Maa Al-Hadath program that the increasing polarization between the extreme religious right and the center-left further exacerbates the divide, leaving the enemy vulnerable and weakened. “This state of confusion and conflict provides fertile ground for the Palestinian resistance to exploit and advance their cause,” he asserted.
It’s worth noting that the Zionist entity is currently facing an internal crisis that could potentially lead to a civil war and result in the dissolution of the Israeli state, as Israeli President Isaac Herzog has cautioned. The conflict, which prompted a massive wave of protests and paralysis, is between a government coalition led by Benjamin Netanyahu, including religious and ultranationalist groups, and opposition from secular and right-wing parties at odds with Netanyahu.
For his part, Suhail al-Hindi, a member of Hamas’ political bureau, recently stated in an interview with Al-Arabi Al-Jadeed that the land is everything to the Palestinians, symbolizing their history, memories, future, dignity, faith, religion, and fundamental principles. Palestinians cannot concede even an inch of their land, which is deeply embedded in their consciousness.
According to al-Hindi, it is impossible to partition the land that has been steeped in the blood of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and Arabs. Palestinians derive the value of the land from its Arab identity, and no outsiders can settle in it. The claims of some Israeli extremists that the Palestinian land is the promised land are nothing more than falsehoods and fabrications.
Al-Hindi acknowledges that there may be tactical differences among Palestinian factions, but they are united in their steadfast determination to resist the occupier and reclaim their land without relinquishing any part of it.
Similarly, Ahmed Al-Mudallal, a member of the political bureau of the Islamic Jihad movement, explains that “Land Day” is a national day for Palestinians to affirm their attachment, roots, and adherence to their land. He adds that the attempts to steal the Palestinian land by the Israeli occupation began before 1948. “However, the Palestinian people affirmed their roots in their land and made great sacrifices, and thousands were martyred until the start of Land Day in 1976,” he said. Al-Mudallal stresses that the Palestinian people are continuing their resistance, and can only stop it by expelling the occupation from the land of their fathers and grandfathers.
Munther al-Hayek, spokesman for the Fatah movement in the Gaza Strip, states that the conflict with the Israeli occupation is a struggle over existence and on the ground.
When Balfour promised the Zionist entity to establish a state on the land of Palestine in 1917, the goal was to control the land and displace the people. The conflict has extended to Christian and Islamic sanctities through various practices and attacks in Palestinian cities. Al-Hayek considers, in an interview with Al-Arabi Al-Jadeed, that “Land Day” a day of confrontation, challenge, and steadfastness. He affirms that the land belongs to the Palestinian owners who are historically linked to it. “It is the beginning of the renewal of the covenant and the decision to continue the struggle process and field action until the liberation of the land and people from the usurper occupation,” he said.
The Palestinian people’s unyielding attachment to their land is rooted in a deep-seated sense of identity, history, and dignity that makes any attempt to Judaize, steal, or alter it an affront to their very existence.
As such, the Palestinian factions stand united in their unwavering commitment to the defense of their land, which they view not just as a physical space but as a symbol of their hopes and aspirations for a better future.
In the face of ongoing threats to their sovereignty and territorial integrity, including the continued expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the Palestinian people remain resolute in their determination to achieve their goals, foremost among them the establishment of a state on their own land in accordance with the principles of international law and humanitarian norms. With Palestine now an observer member of the United Nations, the global community has a responsibility to stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people in their struggle for self-determination and justice.
The Israeli enemy has intensified its measures against the Palestinians in Hawara, closing stores and checking pedestrians as well as cars.
Hawara mayor Moaeen Damide indicated that the Zionist occupation forces closed the town’s checkpoint as well as the roads which lead to the main highway.
Hawara mayor Moaeen Damide i
Damide added that the enemy managed to paralyze the public movement in Hawara town, noting that only the vehicles of the occupation forces and settlers cross the highway.
Abdul Rahman Al-Zitawi, a local store owner, said that customers have not reached his store since two days, blaming the Zionist measures which disregard the sanctity of the Holy Month of Ramadan.
Hawara locals are also obliged to guard their houses and neighborhoods in face of the possible attacks of the settlers guarded by the occupation forces.
Israel bombed the outskirts of Damascus at the dense of the night, again, sounds of explosions followed by the rise of fumes of smoke and fire were seen from across the Syrian capital.
The people of Damascus were awakened by loud sounds of explosions at around 2 am local time as the SAA, Syrian Arab Army’s air defense units were addressing incoming missiles, with the usual scenery of air defense missiles blowing up incoming missiles targeting their city.
As usual, the Israelis overwhelm the Syrian air defenses with a large number of missiles, they depend on the generosity of the US taxpayers providing them with the expensive missiles.
A military spokesperson for the Syrian Ministry of Defense said in a statement conveyed by the Syrian News agency SANA:
“At about 1:20 in the morning today, the Israeli enemy carried out an air attack with a number of missiles from the direction of the occupied Syrian Golan, targeting some points in the vicinity of the city of Damascus, and our air defense media intercepted the missiles of the aggression.”
The spokesperson concluded ‘our air defenses intercepted the aggression’s missiles and shot down some of them, and the aggression resulted in the injury of two soldiers and some material losses.’.
Israel insists on reminding the world of its criminal nature and the need to dismantle this cancerous criminal regime
This is the second time Israel bombs the residential neighborhoods of Damascus within the past 40 days, the previous bombing on the 19th of February, last month killed five people and injured 15 others. This aggression comes 10 days after Israel bombed Aleppo International Airport taking it out of service, another war crime in its very long list of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The anti-Jewish Zionist state is taking advantage of the impunity provided to it by its sponsors, the ‘collective west’ and the silence of the rest of the world including Russia and China, Russia’s position is very awkward as the Russian military has signed this strange agreement to ‘coordinate their air forces movement over Syrian skies’ at the same time, Russia prevents the Syrian Army from using the dated S300 air defense systems it delivered after a delay of 8 years at the request of its ally Israel.
Had Russia delivered the S300 to Syria as contracted in 2010, the whole US-led war of terror on Syria would have been averted or at least would not have included the free movement of the US and its NATO and Israel’s air forces aiding Al Qaeda and ISIS and bombing the posts of the Syrian Arab Army and its allies when pursuing al Qaeda and ISIS terrorists.
China’s investment in the Israeli economy also is as much strange, when the Lebanese Hezb Allah movement vowed to avenge the Israeli bombing of their country’s infrastructure by targeting Israel’s ports in response, the US and other western companies fled and the Chinese came in to operate Israel’s ports!
China also has a military cooperation pact with Israel ignoring the atrocities committed by the Zionist entity against the people of the Levant, especially the people of Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon.
We call on the two superpowers and the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, Russia, and China, to fulfill their responsibilities and review their relations with the entity of fanatic settlers expelled from Europe and former Soviet republics and to explicitly condemn the Israeli war crimes bombing Syria, an establishing member state of the United Nations.
Also, we especially call on the Russian Federation to cease its military’s ‘coordination with Israel over Syrian skies’ as it’s against international law, the Charter of the United Nations, and against the interests of the bilateral agreements with Syria, which have been subjected of the most heinous terrorist war led by the USA and its western and Gulfies lackeys for refusing to isolate Russia itself and strangle its economy since 2007.
The Syrian Resistance has vowed to bomb the US Army oil thieves in Syria each time Israel bombs Syria, the US military illegally deployed in Syria and busy stealing Syrian oil and wheat would be on high alert awaiting their new toll of casualties, the Pentagon must prepare a new shipment of coffins for its troops in Syria.
Syria News is a collaborative effort by two authors only, we end up most of the months paying from our pockets to maintain the site’s presence online, if you like our work and want us to remain online you can help by chipping in a couple of Euros/ Dollars or any other currency so we can meet our site’s costs.
You can also donate with Cryptocurrencies through our donate page. Thank you in advance.
“What’s Coming IS WORSE THAN A WW3, THIS IS SERIOUS” in Exclusive Interview Larry Johnson is back on the show to talk about the war in Ukraine.
Johnson gives his assessment of where things stand on the ground. They talk about the astounding casualty numbers and the horrifying nature of the battle over Bakhmut. Johnson then gives some predictions for the next stages of the war.
They talk about the rising tension with China. They agree there is no need to go to war with China but discuss what may explain the sudden attention shift towards Beijing. Lastly, they talk about the effects of cronyism in the weapons industry and the probability of a nuclear war.
Find more @judgenapolitano-judgingfre7226 Discussed on the show: “This Time It’s Different” (The American Conservative) “Ukrainian soldiers in Bakhmut: ‘Our troops are not being protected’” (Kyiv Independent) Larry Johnson is an American blogger and former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. He is the co-owner and CEO of BERG Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group).
كان رئيس حكومة الاحتلال بنيامين نتنياهو يعتقد أن مجرد موافقته على تأجيل البتّ بالتعديلات التي يريد فرضها على النظام القضائي، سيكون كافياً لإعادة الأمور الى نصابها مع واشنطن، التي لم تخف انحيازها إلى جبهة خصوم نتنياهو وحلفائه في الحكومة. ووصل نتنياهو الى حد اتهام واشنطن بتمويل التظاهرات ضده في تصريح منسوب لابنه بالنيابة عنه، وقد وصف نتنياهو جماعات المعارضة بمجرد امتداد أميركي سواء عبر الجيش والمؤسسة الأمنية أو عبر أحزاب المعارضة وتمويل التظاهرات.
بعد الترحيب بخطوة نتنياهو، انتقلت واشنطن بلسان الرئيس جو بايدن للكلام الصريح عن أن الحل ليس بالتأجيل بل بإلغاء التعديلات القضائية، وبدا بوضوح أن نفي بايدن لتوجيه دعوة لنتنياهو لزيارة واشنطن، تعبير عن قرار أميركي بربط الانفتاح على نتنياهو بفك الارتباط بينه وبين رموز التطرّف في حكومته الذين تعلن واشنطن بلا تردّد قلقها من التعاون بينهم وبين نتنياهو، وتعتبر التعديلات القضائية محور الصفقة التي تربط بينه وبينهم، وإسقاط الصفقة هو المدخل لإعادة رسم المشهد السياسي والحكومي في الكيان.
رغم الغلاف الديمقراطي لمعركة واشنطن مع نتنياهو، فإن جوهر الخلاف بين واشنطن ومعها اللوبي اليهودي الأميركي، ونتنياهو ومعه حلفاؤه في الحكومة، ينطلق من تقدير واشنطن للنتائج المترتبة على سياسات الحكومة التصعيدية بوجه الفلسطينيين، والتهديد الذي تمثله بتفجير المنطقة وإدخالها في احتمال حرب كبرى، ليس على جدول أعمال واشنطن قدرة تحملها وتقبلها، ولو مجرد فرضية، وسط أزمات وتحديات واستحقاقات لا تدع المجال لواشنطن للتعامل مع حرب في المنطقة.
بالتوازي مع كلام الرئيس بايدن الجاف والقاسي مع نتنياهو، تحدّث رئيس أركان الجيوش الأميركية الجنرال مارك ميلي بصراحة عن أن واشنطن عاجزة عن التعامل مع حرب تشترك فيها روسيا والصين معاً، وأن الأشدّ خطورة هو أن تكون إيران طرفاً ثالثاً في هذا الحلف المناوئ لواشنطن. وواشنطن تراقب عن كثب تطور الحضور الصيني والروسي في مناطق نفوذ أميركية تقليدية مثل تركيا والسعودية، تعرف أن مسار التطبيع بين كيان الاحتلال ودول الخليج أولى ضحايا تحولات المنطقة، وأن الانفتاح على سورية بخلاف المشيئة الأميركية هو التحول الثاني الناتج عن هذه المتغيرات، وأن حرباً كبرى تأتي على خلفية انفجار فلسطيني إسرائيلي، سوف تغيّر وجه المنطقة، وربما تقرّر مصير وجود «إسرائيل» وليس فقط هزيمتها، وتضع واشنطن أمام خيارات صعبة لا تتحمل الاختيار بينها، وكلها مرّ.
يكشف الكاتب الأميركي المتابع لشؤون المنطقة توماس فريدمان معادلة أميركية جديدة قوامها، لا تهدئة مع بقاء نتنياهو، والتهدئة في المنطقة أكثر من ضرورة أميركيّة ملحّة، إنها قضية أمن قومي وعنوان الاستراتيجية، والجمع بين نتنياهو وضمان الاستراتيجية الأميركية بات مستحيلاً، والثقة معدومة بنتنياهو، وحجم مخاطر بقائه في الحكم يفرض على اللوبي اليهودي الأميركي أن يقول ما يلزم لضمان بقاء «إسرائيل» تحت سقف يتيح لأميركا الدفاع عنها ومواصلة تمويلها وتسليحها. بينما يتحدّث كتاب آخرون عن الحاجة للتفكير بخيارات من خارج العلبة لضمان التهدئة، فما دام الحلفاء يتصرّفون بهوى مصالحهم من وراء ظهر واشنطن، وهذا يصحّ في حال تركيا والسعودية، والآن «إسرائيل»، فلماذا على واشنطن أن تضبط خطواتها بحساب مصالح الحلفاء. وهنا يطرح السؤال لماذا لا تنفتح واشنطن على خيار العودة إلى التفاهم النووي مع إيران كسقف لضمان التهدئة، وسقف لحركة الحلفاء؟
State Duma Deputy Chairman Alexander Babakov did not dismiss the possibility for the formation of a single BRICS currency.
State Duma Deputy Chairman Alexander Babakov said on Thursday that the BRICS alliance is working on creating its currency and is scheduled to present ideas on the matter at the organization’s forthcoming summit in South Africa in august this year.
“The transition to settlements in national currencies is the first step. The next one is to provide the circulation of digital or any other form of a fundamentally new currency in the nearest future. I think that at the BRICS [leaders’ summit], the readiness to realize this project will be announced, such works are underway,” Babakov said on the sidelines of the Russian-Indian Strategic Partnership for Development and Growth Business Forum.
Babakov further did not dismiss the possibility of the formation of a single BRICS currency. According to him, the currency would be secured not just by gold, but also by other groups of products, including rare-earth elements of the soil.
Earlier today, China and Brazil struck a deal to ditch the US dollar in their bilateral transactions, which is expected to reduce investment costs and develop economic ties between the two countries.
The agreement between the Asian superpower and Latin America’s largest economy – the mutual top trading partners – is a new financial and political strike against the green banknotes as more countries, with the growing geopolitical and economical influence of the East, are paving the way to distance themselves from the US politically-oriented currency.
Earlier in January, both nations reached a preliminary deal on the matter that was finalized in a Brazil-China Business Seminar in China on Wednesday, which Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva was scheduled to take part in but failed to attend due to emergency health issues.
On another note, South Africa’s international relations minister Naledi Pandor said today that her country will not cut ties with Russia as per the wishes of third parties or countries.
She further said that her country has currently been granted the BRICS presidency for this year in January and she was looking forward to further collaborating with Russia within the BRICS framework.
The zionist entity is experiencing an unprecedented internal crisis, which has prompted Israeli President Isaac Herzog to caution that it could lead to a civil war that would leave no trace of the “Israeli state.”
The first side of the conflict is the government coalition led by Benjamin Netanyahu, which comprises the “Likud” party, religious groups from the “Haredi” movement, and so-called ultranationalist Jews. On the opposite side, there are opponents from predominantly secular (centrist and leftist) parties, as well as right-wing parties, who are at odds with Netanyahu.
Shortly after it was formed in January, the government submitted draft legislation aimed at overhauling the Israeli judicial system, to be followed by other projects, in preparation for amendments that were supposed to affect other state institutions. These draft amendments were met with significant opposition from Israel’s political community, including ex-officials, elites, and specialists, who were joined by the majority of the Hebrew media.
Therefore, those opponents staged protests in Tel Aviv and other areas in response to the government’s overhauls which they called a “coup against the system of government and democracy.”
With the date for approval of the overhaul in the “Knesset” approaching, the protests grew, as did the list of those who opposed them. They were joined by members of the “Knesset” from the “Likud,” led by the Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant, who was later dismissed due to his opposition.
What exactly are these overhauls? Do they merit all of this opposition or all of that backing in return? Is it worth sparking political and social discord as well as threatening to demolish institutions such as the army?
The amendments seek to restrict the judiciary’s powers by preventing it from invalidating laws enacted by the “Knesset.” This appears against the backdrop of the Knesset’s opposition to fundamental laws or those with constitutional standing, or legal principles that the Supreme Court has used to reject certain bills, most of which depend on human rights and freedom of speech… and others.
In addition, the changes seek to alter the process of selecting and appointing judges, particularly Supreme Court judges. This happens by changing the structure of the appointment committee, with the governing coalition having the ultimate say in the decision. Opponents argue that such a committee would be affiliated with politicians, effectively ending the judicial system’s most important fortification, independence, and non-reliance on the political establishment.
But does this plan presage civil war?
The effort to introduce, as well as the attempt to avoid, the aforementioned amendments is a manifestation of the reality of a sharp split within Israel’s “community of societies,” so to speak. The Supreme Court plays a significant role in managing the divide by balancing the public interest and societal harmony as well as preventing any component from violating the rights of the other components or forcing its will on them.
According to the opponents of the overhaul, described by them as the “coup,” restricting the judiciary’s ability to consider laws and decisions issued by the government and the “Knesset” means introducing laws into political settlements as preconditions for the joining of this or that party to a coalition, even if this harms the so-called ‘state of Israel’.
It is worth noting here that the extremists’ agenda is very broad, and if it is translated into legislation in the “Knesset” without the chance of nullification, the identity of the Zionist entity will change.
For many secular Israelis, if talks to establish a government coalition are successful, the “Haredi” religious parties will be forced to demand the passage of Talmudic-style legislation. These parties deny the rights of the Israeli majority and compel them to do or not do things based on Talmudic law, something which cannot be applied without “violating human rights.”
Similarly, agendas of fascist parties, such as “religious Zionism”, rely on harming others just because they are “others”. Such parties view the involvement of the Israeli regime in conflicts and wars for territorial gains as a supreme value, resulting in wars for which ‘Israel’ itself pays the price, and to no avail.
The two samples referred to here are just part of what would transform ‘Israel’ into a different entity, not only by abolishing the so-called ‘democracy’ and allowing a group of Israelis to impose their will on others but also by exposing ethnic and social divisions and differences. This makes handling the divide and mitigating its consequences difficult.
Given this setting, it is easy to see how a shift in the court’s and judiciary’s powers could lead to a civil conflict. This is because Israel’s dilemma is insoluble. Even if a solution to the overhaul is found – in which the amendments would be paused or totally withdrawn, any solution will not fully fix things.
Thus, if prudence, based on concerns and the growth of opposition, can halt the legislation, the issue is likely to reoccur later, possibly with greater gravity.
In a society that defies itself internally in almost everything, Nazi and radical right-wing groups, as well as followers of Talmudic laws, are growing in power, status, and number. As a result, if the combat is not taking place right now, it is expected to take place shortly.
* Yahya Dbouk is a Lebanese journalist who writes for Al-Akhbar Newspaper. This article was published on Tuesday, March 28, 2023.
A review of Mahmood Mamdani’s “The International Criminal Court’s Case Against The President of Sudan: A Critical Look” (2009): comparing the ICC’s indictment of Omar El Bashir with that of President Putin.
The ICC’s Legal Acrobatics: from Darfur to Donbass
“Against those who substitute moral certainty for knowledge, and who feel virtuous even when acting on the basis of total ignorance.” (M. Mamdani, Saviors and Survivors: Darfur, Politics, and the Global War on Terror, 2009)
The recent legal complications between Russia and the ICC, which have resulted in mutual arrest warrants, are eerily reminiscent of the ICC’s case against Sudanese President Omar el Bashir in 2008, which evokes similar legal complications: such that neither El Bashir nor President Putin are nationals of states party to the Rome Statute nor are the crimes they were accused of committing on the territory of a state party to the Rome Statute. The ICC, according to its founding treaty: the Rome Statute, doesn’t have jurisdiction for indicting either person, yet the ICC, which is principally a technocratic apolitical international organization, acted as a front line for the US in isolating its enemies.
“The decisions of the ICC have no significance for our country, including from a legal point of view,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said after the International Criminal Court’s Pre-Trial Chamber II issued an arrest warrant for President Putin and Presidential Commissioner for Children’s Rights Maria Lvova-Belova.
In 2019, Omar El Bashir was eventually ousted in a military coup ending his three-decade-long streak of iron-grip rule over Sudan. He was then sentenced to two years in prison for charges of corruption by the newly formed government which refused to turn him in to the ICC. The case of El Bashir was swiftly contained with minimal implications to geopolitics in the Middle East to the US interests: One ‘pariah‘ regime accused of bloodshed within Sudan was replaced by an internationally recognized regime involved in bloodshed in Yemen.
Despite the swift containment of El Bashir, the significance of Mamdani’s argument holds. If anything, Mamdani’s argument stands as even more relevant when looking at Putin’s case. The indictment of Putin is incomparably consequential compared to the indictment of El Bashir.
The International Criminal Court
The mandate of the ICC is expressed by the Rome Statute of 1998 :
Only individuals are liable for indictment. As opposed to its sister organization, the International Court of Justice, whose mandate presumes a legal personality of states, the ICC can only indict “natural persons” as expressed in article 25. The ICC cannot prosecute states only individuals.
The jurisdiction of the court, as expressed by Article 5, is restricted to the “most serious crimes of concern for the international community” i.e. mass atrocity crimes which expressly include: Genocide (article 6), Crimes against Humanity (article 7), War Crimes (article 8), Crime of Aggression (article 9).
As a precondition for prosecuting an individual accused of committing a mass atrocity, the court can have no jurisdiction over the case unless the alleged criminal is either a national of a state party to the Rome Statute or they had committed the alleged mass atrocity on the territory of a state which is a party to the Rome Statute, as expressed by article 12.
Typically, cases studied by the ICC are not autonomously-initiated, rather they are administered following referrals: either by a state party to the Rome Statue or more recently through a referral by the Security Council (as was the case with Omar el Bashir) or following an investigation conducted by the Prosecutor after getting authorization from the Pre-Trial chamber (as was the case with President Putin).
Revisiting the Case of Omar El Bashir in the Geopolitical Context of the War on Terror
The indictment of Omar El Bashir by the ICC was a landmark event in the practice of international law and international organizations. It set precedence by issuing an arrest warrant for not just any “natural person” but a president of a sovereign state. Furthermore, it manifested a very blatant case of the politicization of justice by coopting an international court for furthering geopolitical interests.
The prosecution of Omar El Bashir had happened in the context of the ferocious so-called “War on Terror” waged by George Bush on the nations of West Asia. As revealed by General Wesley Clark, Sudan was fourth on the list of the Seven-Country grand strategy devised by the US following the terrorist attacks of 9/11. After the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the failed Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006, Bush was in the last year of his second term and he was still 5 countries short of fulfilling the grand strategy.
In addition to Western diplomats with actual interests at stake, many civil society groups were very excited about the indictment of El Bashir. Most notorious were the groups that fell under the “Save Darfur” campaign. The campaign has since been irrelevant, but it’s very much comparable to other pertinent campaigns promoting “democracy” and “human rights” like Free Iran or SOS Cuba.
Mamdani extensively tackles the drives and dynamics of the human-rights-activism phenomena of the “Save Darfur” campaign in his book “Saviors and Survivors: Darfur, Politics, and the War on Terror” which was published in the same year as his article critiquing the ICC. Despite having been largely dismissed by many of the “Save Darfur” human rights activists as an apologia for El Bashir’s crimes, Mamdani doesn’t argue for el Bashir’s innocence; Mamdani’s article “The International Criminal Court’s Case Against The President of Sudan: A Critical Look” (2009) essentially serves as an ideographic critique of the ICC through the case study of the former Sudanese President.
Framed in the literature on the ontology of international organizations, Mamdani argues that the ICC serves more as a tool rather than an actor in international affairs (I. Hurd, International Organizations: Politics, Law, Practice, Ch2, 2014). The ICC which is typically presented to be uniquely technocratic and apolitical in contrast to other international organizations, actively partook in a geopolitical strategy to take down the enemies of the US.
Mamdani’s Argument on the Politicization of the ICC
In “The International Criminal Court’s Case Against The President of Sudan: A Critical Look” (2009) Mamdani argues that the politicization of the indictment of Omar El Bashir was evidenced by (1) the historical revisionism in approaching the crisis in Darfur (2) the skimpy investigation and representation of evidence, but most importantly (3) the legal process for the ICC’s indictment of El Bashir.
El-Bashir was the first president to be indicted by the ICC. Despite being legally consistent with the Rome Statute, the indictment was a novel event in the history of the ICC. Despite standing as the personification of the Sudanese state, El-Bashir was ultimately a “natural person” liable for prosecution by the ICC in theory. However, his indictment was a landmark event in the practice of international law: partly because it was unprecedented but also because it was a clear case of mobilizing the ICC for geopolitical ends.
Most evidently, the politicization of the case manifested in the double standards exhibited by the ICC; Mamdani points out that El Bashir was prosecuted by the ICC for manning a violent counter-insurgency campaign in Sudan (which was classified as genocide in reference to article 6 of the Rome Statute), less than a decade from the cross-Atlantic invasions which Bush waged against Afghanistan and Iraq (which classify as Crimes Against Humanity per article 7, War Crimes per article 8, and Crimes of Aggression per article 9 of the Rome Statute) without being subject to indictment by the ICC.
Furthermore, El-Bashir was indicted for the crime of genocide, which is specified under article 6 of the Rome Statute as a mass atrocity crime that falls under the jurisdiction of the ICC. In his article, Mandami problematizes the arbitrariness of the prospect of genocide. The distinction between a legitimate counter-insurgency campaign and an international-community-shaking mass atrocity such as genocide is manipulated by political semantics. There is no clear distinction between the two. Objectively, one event can be categorized as either. There is no death-count threshold that separates the two in international law. A counter-insurgency can result in more deaths than genocide. The distinction, as stipulated by the definition of genocide adopted in article 6 of the Rome Statute, is conditioned upon the “intentions” of the perpetrator.
Rome Statute
Article 6 For the purpose of this Statute, “genocide” means any act committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group
The vagueness of some prospects of the Rome Statute, its susceptibility to the politics of semantic manipulation, and the ICC’s potential for infringing on the sovereignty of governments has led many States to refrain from ratifying the statute: Sudan being one of them in addition to Russia, the US, Ukraine, and many others. The ICC, whose jurisdiction is fundamentally preconditioned on the ratification of the Rome Statute, has acted despite this under the moral pretext of responsibility to protect human lives which suspiciously coincided with the geopolitical interests of the US: by targeting those who are hostile to the US and sparing the US and their allies. For example, El Bashir was indicted for cracking down on insurgents in Sudan, but King Mohammad of Morocco wasn’t for the violent suppression of the Sahrawi people nor was Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman for slaughtering and starving Yemenis nor was Yehud Olmert for attempting to invade Lebanon. The ICC, after all, is mobilized according to what is of “concern” to the “international community”.
Rome Statute
Article 5 The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole.
Briefly, Mamdani’s argument can be formalized as follows:
(P1) Sudan didn’t ratify the Rome Statute
(P2) thus, the ICC doesn’t have jurisdiction over the alleged crimes committed by El Bashir in Darfur
(P3) the ICC’s arrest warrant is devoid of a legal basis (or at least is founded on a shaky legal basis)
(C) Therefore, acknowledging the geopolitical context, the indictment of El Bashir is a case of politicized justice
Counter-argument to Mamdani
Many have refuted Mamdani’s argument for the illegal nature of the ICC’s indictment by referring to Chapter VII of the UN charter. Sudan isn’t party to the Rome Statute but they are party to the United Nations. The conflict in Darfur was referred by the Security Council to the International Criminal Court through Resolution 1593 of the SC as per article 13 (b) of the Rome Statute. The ICC in itself might not have jurisdiction over Sudan, but the Security Council does. The Council also has the liberty to decide on whatever measure it sees fit to deal with a given situation. The SC which had jurisdiction over Darfur granted the ICC jurisdiction by extension through the referral expressed in Resolution 1593.
UN Charter: Chapter VII
Article 39 The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken.
Article 41 The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures.
Despite refuting the part about legality, Mamdani’s critique of the ICC, as being subject to politicization for furthering western geopolitical interests, stands. The reason why similar security council resolutions for referral to the ICC have not been posited against Bush for committing comparable and even worse “mass atrocities” in Afghanistan and Iraq or Obama for crimes in Libya and Syria or Olmert for crimes in Lebanon and Palestine is political. The ICC despite being presented as technocratic and apolitical is molded by the power relations of international politics.
The West’s Game of Legal Acrobatics with Russia
The ICC’s jurisdiction encompasses states which are party to the Rome Statute
Neither Russia nor Ukraine are parties to the Rome Statute. Russia and Ukraine signed the statute in 2000 but neither ratified it (they didn’t pass it in their respective national parliaments). Russia even withdrew its signature from the statute in 2016 after the legal fiasco of the ICC with Omar Al Bashir.
Thus, neither of the alleged “criminals” (Putin nor Belova) are nationals of a state which is a party to the Rome Statute nor are the alleged “crimes” done on the territory of a state (Russia nor Ukraine) which is a party to the Rome Statute.
Legally, the ICC doesn’t have jurisdiction over any potential crime that might happen during the military conflict in Ukraine. Unless the alleged criminal is a national of a state which has ratified the statute. If the ICC finds the war in Ukraine a hotspot for “serious crimes of concern to the international community,” the only individuals they have jurisdiction for prosecuting would be Polish, German, British, or French “natural persons” involved in alleged crimes (or any other individual who is a national of a state which has ratified the Rome Statute).
referral to the ICC was done by the ICC Prosecutor
Furthermore, referral to the ICC was done by the Prosecutor’s investigation, as per article 13 (c) of the Rome statute which wasn’t ratified by Russia or Ukraine. Consequently, the Pre-Trial Chamber II issued an arrest warrant for President Putin and Commissioner Maria Belova.
Contrary to the case of El Bashir, the ICC’s arrest warrant wasn’t legitimized through extending jurisdiction from a security council resolution. The activation of the ICC was solely based on the Rome Statute. Extending legitimacy for the Rome Statute from the UN charter by a security council resolution as was the case with El Bashir can’t possibly happen such that Russia holds a permanent seat in the Security Council and enjoys veto power against any resolution.
the pretext for the arrest warrants is the transfer of children from a war zone
The ICC’s lack of jurisdiction isn’t the only sketchy prospect about the ICC’s case against Putin and Belova. The alleged crime that the two Russian officials were accused of is very peculiar: the forcible displacement of Ukrainian children from Donbass to the Russian Federation, as per article 6(e) of the Rome Statute).
The ICC’s choice of allegation is very comical in light of the coverage of the war in Ukraine by western media; Putin was accused of unjustifiably invading Ukraine, killing civilians, torture, and a plethora of other crimes which were popularly broadcasted by western media with the onset of the Russian special military operation.
The Rome Statute abounds with specific crimes which correspond to the narratives of western media about Putin, yet the ICC Prosecutor opted for the most ambiguous to indict Putin for: “Genocide” by the forcible transfer of children.
Rome Statute
Article 6 for the purpose of this Statute, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Even if were to assume that the ICC has jurisdiction over the situation in Ukraine, the alleged crime for which Putin and Belova are being indicted can be problematized on different levels. The transfer of children from Ukraine to Russia doesn’t imply genocide; as expressed by the Statute genocide is defined according to the intentions of the perpetrator.
Putin never expressed intentions to “destroy, in whole or in part” the Ukranian national group. There was no explicit intention of genocide. Furthermore, there are no implicit intentions of genocide that can be stipulated from Putin’s actions. The military operation is in line with its declared objectives of deterring NATO expansion and protecting the Donbass population neither of which can be identified as “genocide”. It’s not clear that the children transferred to the Russian Federation were “forcibly” transferred nor is it clear that the children who were transferred are Ukrainian and not Russian. The population residing in the Ukrainian territories of Donbass are predominantly Russians who have been systematically prosecuted by the Kiev regime since the 2014 coup.
The pretext for Putin’s arrest is very comical when acknowledging the geopolitics and the legal semantics underlying the ICC’s indictment. One can argue that many school bus drivers are worse genocidal criminals than Putin.
The US wants the ICC to indict Putin but doesn’t want to provide them with the necessary evidence
More comical is the US policy towards the indictment. The confusion of the US bureaucracy before and after the ICC’s arrest warrant against Putin is representative of US arrogance: wanting to have their cake and eat it too. The Biden administration, in the final days of its first and seemingly last term, has grown restless to score a swift geopolitical victory by diplomatically isolating Putin: a restlessness that is comparable to that of Bush’s in 2009.
The White House’s excitement to cooperate with the ICC to isolate Putin was quickly met with concern from other bureaucratic institutions in the US which anticipated a potential backfire from fraternizing with the ICC.
Back in early March, theNew York Timesreported that the US Department of Defense opposes Biden’s initiative to hand over evidence that allegedly incriminates Russia for committing ‘war crimes’ in Ukraine to the ICC. The report claimed top-ranking officials in the US military are attempting to stifle the ICC-US cooperation through the provision of evidence in fear of setting a dangerous precedent that might expose the US to similar measures.
The United States has long avoided the ICC out of concern that the tribunal would go after US officials accused of war crimes. However, back in December, Congress modified the legal restrictions on cooperating with the Court strictly to allow sharing of information on Ukraine in an effort to prosecute Russian individuals.
The evidence for the arrest warrant is still ambiguous. The Prosecution conducted an investigation and presented it to the Pre-Trial chamber which deemed it reasonable enough to proceed with court proceedings.
The ICC’s arrest warrant expressed that “there are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Putin bears individual criminal responsibility” however it’s still not clear whether the evidence on which the Prosecution based their investigation was acquired from the White House. It’s also still not clear what type of evidence it was or if it was sufficient evidence for indicting Putin for genocide. What’s clear however is how international law can be stretched and spun in favor of some against others.
In brief, regardless of the lack of jurisdiction, the ICC’s case against Putin is still not clearly justified in terms of evidence. The only detectable basis for the ICC’s arrest warrant is the advertised virtuous indignation and moral high grounds of the West.
Perhaps President Biden’s comment on the situation best captures the oxymoronic confusion and legal acrobatics underlying the ICC’s arrest warrant against Putin. “I think it’s justified, but the question is, it’s not recognized internationally by us, either. But I think it makes a very strong point. Putin clearly committed war crimes”
As the Draconian Western-led sanctions on Russia exacerbate the economic crisis worldwide, and as Russian troops gain more ground despite the influx of military aid into Ukraine, exposing US direct involvement in bio-labs spread across Eastern Europe and the insurgence of neo-Nazi groups… How will things unfold?
في سياق داخليّ خارجيّ متوقع، طويت صفحة صندوق النقد ضمن استراتيجية أميركية واضحة لإحلال «برامج دعم» تتصيد المواطنين بالمفرد وتقيدهم وتربط مستقبلهم بمزاج الداعمين، محل برامج الصندوق التي تقيد المواطنين والبلد بالجملة وتربط مستقبلهم بمزاج الأجندة الأميركية
بعد انتهاء الزيارة الأخيرة لصندوق النقد الدولي لبيروت يمكن القول إن «وهم الصندوق» سقط نهائياً، وإن كان معنيون يؤكدون استحالة أن يغادر هذا الغراب الأميركي سماء البلاد المحتضرة. وإذا كان البعض يهلل لكلام مسؤولي الصندوق بوصفه إدانة للمنظومة السياسية كاملة و«فضحاً باهراً» لإخفاقاتها، فإن هذه المواقف ليست إلا جزءاً من عدة الشغل الأميركي لتمويه القرار الثابت بعدم فتح أي متنفس اقتصادي للبنان يخفف من وطأة الحصار. لذلك، سيواصل الصندوق إيجاد مبررات لعدم تحقيق أي اختراق في ملف استجرار الكهرباء أو غيره. ومن يعتقد أن الخلفية اقتصادية أو مالية أو إصلاحية فهو واهم. وتنبغي الإشارة، هنا، إلى أن قانون الـ«كابيتال كونترول» الذي تتواصل زيارات وفود الصندوق في شأنه، قدّمه النواب سيمون أبي رميا وآلان عون وإبراهيم كنعان في اقتراح معجل مكرر في 20 أيار 2020، وكان يمكن أن يمر من ذلك التاريخ في الهيئة العامة، لولا أن الصندوق سارع إلى إرسال ثماني صفحات من الملاحظات دفعت إلى تحويله إلى اللجان النيابية ليبدأ مسار التأخير والتمييع. رفع السرية المصرفية شهد أيضاً تقدّماً على نحو يسمح للقضاة المعنيين برفع السرية فوراً عن كل من يشتبه بإثرائه غير المشروع، وهو ما استخدمته القاضية غادة عون فوراً. إلا أن الصندوق، في سياق البحث عن ذرائع لعدم التوصل إلى اتفاق مع لبنان، يواصل طلب المستحيل مما لا مثيل له في العالم. والأمر نفسه ينطبق على إصرار الصندوق على توحيد سعر الصرف على نحو يهدد بتدمير اقتصادي واجتماعي شامل.
الواضح في هذا السياق أن كل ما يحصل منذ 17 تشرين الأول 2019 مرسوم بدقة: من قرار إقفال المصارف، إلى قرار التصدي للـ«كابيتال كونترول»، والدفع إلى عدم دفع الديون بدل إعادة جدولتها، إلى توفير الذرائع المتواصلة لعدم اتخاذ أي قرار إنقاذي مع رمي المسؤوليات تارة في ملعب المصارف، وأخرى على هذه الكتلة النيابية أو تلك، وثالثة على حاكمية مصرف لبنان، ومرات على مجلس الوزراء، وإضاعة كل هذا الوقت لاستجداء موافقة صندوق النقد. علماً أن كثيراً من القوانين الإصلاحية أُقرّت فعلاً في المجلس النيابي، لكنها لم تقدم أو تؤخر لأن السلطات التنفيذية والقضائية والمالية والأمنية المعنية بتنفيذها لا تجد نفسها ملزمة بذلك، ولا يوجد من يحاسبها… وهذا ما يقود إلى الاستنتاج بأن صفحة «إنقاذ صندوق النقد للبنان واللبنانيين» طويت حتى إشعار آخر، ما يبقي للبنانيين 3 خيارات:
الأول، وضع حد للخفة المستحكمة بكل مواقع المسؤولية، موالاة ومعارضة؛ ووضع رؤية اقتصادية تحدد إمكانيات الدولة وموجوداتها (من الذهب إلى النفط إلى الأملاك) ومداخيلها لمفاوضة صندوق النقد أو غيره من موقع قوة. مع قرار سياسيّ نهائيّ مشترك بتطبيق القوانين وإجراء الإصلاحات الطارئة اللازمة. وهذا ما يستلزم انتخاب رئيس جمهورية، وتشكيل حكومة من دون إضاعة عام أو عامين في مناكفات الأحجام ثم تعطيلها بذرائع مختلفة.
الثاني، فعل كل ما يلزم لاسترضاء الخليج عموماً والسعودية خصوصاً، لتعود العقارب إلى زمن باريس 1 و2 و3 وتعويم الدولة اللبنانية بنظامها وشعبها، بغض النظر عن الفساد وسائر الموبقات. علماً أن استرضاء الخليج اليوم لا يقتصر على النأي بالنفس عن مشكلات المنطقة إنما يمر بضمان أمن إسرائيل أيضاً. الثالث، تحويل حزب الله خطاباته عن الصين، مثلاً، من أقوال إلى أفعال، مستفيداً من عدم قدرة خصومه على التعطيل إذا ما قرر المضي قدماً في هذا الاتجاه. مع العلم أن تطوير البنية اللبنانية التحتية والمطار والمرافئ ووصل سكة الحديد اللبنانية بعيد تأهيلها بحمص أو الشام، بشراكة صينية، جميعها من صلاحية وزير الأشغال علي حمية. ولا شك أن خصوم الحزب سيلزمون الصمت كما حصل عند وصول النفط الإيراني إذا ما نجح في إقناع الصين بضخ بضعة مليارات من الدولارات في الاقتصاد اللبناني، مع وجوب شرح كيف وأين انتهى التداول في النفط الإيراني، ولماذا لم تقدم روسيا على استثمار رمزيّ أقله في قطاع صناعة الدواء على رغم قيام وزير الحزب السابق حمد حسن بكل ما يلزم لبناء مصنع للقاحات سبوتنيك؟
تنبغي الإشارة هنا إلى أن الولايات المتحدة والاتحاد الأوروبي والخليج تنفق نحو مليار دولار سنوياً للحفاظ على نفوذها في لبنان، فيما لا تبدي بكين وموسكو أي اهتمام ببناء أي نفوذ، لا بل سارع عملاق النفط الروسي إلى التخلي عن حصته ضمن ائتلاف التنقيب في لبنان لمصلحة الشركات القطرية، من دون أن يقدم على تطوير استثماره لخزانات الشمال بعدما تحدّت وزارة الطاقة الولايات المتحدة في منحه هذا الامتياز الاستراتيجي.
صفحة «إنقاذ» صندوق النقد للبنان واللبنانيين طُويت حتى إشعار آخر
وإذا كان الخيار الأول صعباً جداً أو شبه مستحيل، والخيار الثاني غير وارد، والخيار الثالث تنقصه الإرادة الصينية والقدرة الروسية قبل الإرادة والقدرة اللبنانيتين، فإن الأكيد أن كل ما رسم اقتصادياً عبر الأدوات المتنوعة بدأ يؤتي ثماره لجهة الإفقار الممنهج المدقع قبل ربط العسكريين مباشرة بالحلم الأميركي بمئة دولار، والأسر الأكثر فقراً بثمانين أو مئة وعشرين دولاراً، في سلسلة برامج ستشمل قريباً الدواء والغذاء والمياه. وإذا كانت فرص العمل قد باتت محصورة منذ أكثر من خمس سنوات بجمعيات المجتمع المدني الممولة من الولايات المتحدة ودول الاتحاد الأوروبي، بعد تدمير القطاعين العام والخاص، فإن فرص الصمود واستمرار الحياة للمواطن العادي تنحصر يوماً تلو الآخر أكثر فأكثر بما يوصف ببرامج الدعم الممولة هي الأخرى من الولايات المتحدة ودول الاتحاد الأوروبي، بعد أن حول الاقتصاد اللبناني من اقتصاد ريعي مفترض إلى اقتصاد يقوم على برامج الدعم للهيمنة بفتات الفتات. والأكيد في هذا السياق أن المقاربات التي تبشر بإعادة نظر أميركية – أوروبية – خليجية في هذه السياسات، بعد أن تيقن القيمون عليها بعدم جدواها، غير دقيقة أو واقعية أو منطقية، لا بل العكس تماماً، إذ تعتقد الولايات المتحدة وأوروبا والخليج أن فاتورتها في لبنان انخفضت، بعدما تخلص هؤلاء من السماسرة الذين كانوا يتقاضون عمولة هائلة لربط المواطنين بهم مباشرة – والمقصود هنا بعض الموظفين في المؤسسات الأمنية – في ظل انهيار مؤسساتي يسمح لهم بتحقيق اختراقات جوهرية على صعيد الإدارة و«الداتا» والبرامج التشغيلية للإدارات، وفي ظل معلومات تؤكد أن دافعي الضرائب في الولايات المتحدة لا يسمحون بانتفاع أي مواطن لبناني سواء كان عسكرياً أو غيره من برنامج المئة دولار ما لم يكن مؤمناً بـ«قيم الولايات المتحدة» في ما يخص الديموقراطية و«محاربة الإرهاب»، تماماً كما يحصل في الجمعيات على صعيد التوظيف والاستفادة من المشاريع. وإذا كان الحزب قد نجح في تحصين بيئته ضمن الطائفة الشيعية، فإن المقاربة الأميركية تقول إن البيئة الحاضنة للحزب كانت شيعية ومسيحية ودرزية، فيما هي شيعية فقط اليوم، وهو انتصار مهم في المرحلة الأولى من الحصار التي يفترض أن تتبعها ثانية وثالثة
The Israeli occupation Prime Minister and his ministers respond to the US President’s remarks on the judicial overhaul legislation.
Israeli occupation Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a ceremony in occupied Al-Quds on June 6, 2021 (Reuters)
Israeli occupation Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday responded to US President Joe Biden’s remarks on the government’s judicial overhaul plan, claiming that “Israel” does not take decisions “based on pressures from abroad.”
“I have known President Biden for over 40 years, and I appreciate his longstanding commitment to Israel. The alliance between Israel and the United States is unbreakable and always overcomes the occasional disagreements between us,” Netanyahu tweeted.
I have known President Biden for over 40 years, and I appreciate his longstanding commitment to Israel. The alliance between Israel and the United States is unbreakable and always overcomes the occasional disagreements between us
— Benjamin Netanyahu – בנימין נתניהו (@netanyahu) March 28, 2023
The occupation Prime Minister claimed that “Israel is a sovereign country which makes its decisions by the will of its people and not based on pressures from abroad, including from the best of friends.”
Biden urges Netanyahu to ‘walk away’ from judicial overhaul
On Tuesday night, Biden urged Netanyahu to “walk away” from the judicial overhaul legislation, warning that “Israel” “cannot continue down this road.”
“Like many strong supporters of Israel, I’m very concerned. And I’m concerned that they get this straight,” Biden told reporters before he boarded Air Force One at the Raleigh-Durham airport.
“They cannot continue down this road. And I’ve sort of made that clear,” the US President pointed out.
Biden: "Like many strong supporters of Israel I'm very concerned. I'm concerned that they get this straight. They cannot continue down this road. Netanyahu won't be invited to the White House in the near term" pic.twitter.com/YeuH6QbT3c
“Hopefully the prime minister [Netanyau] will act in a way that he can try to work out some genuine compromise, but that remains to be seen,” Biden said.
When asked whether he would be inviting Netanyahu to the White House, the US President said, “Not in the near term.”
He also noted that he had not spoken to Netanyahu by phone “in the middle of all this” — in reference to mass protests against the Israeli government — adding, “I delivered a message through our ambassador.”
Landing back in Washington, DC, when Biden was asked by Reuters’ White House correspondent what he wanted from Netanyahu, the US President said, “I hope he walks away from it.”
‘Israel’ not another star on US flag: Ben-Gvir responds to Biden
On his part, Israeli occupation Police Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir claimed that the United States needs to understand that “Israel” is “an independent country” and “not another star on the US flag.”
Speaking to the Israeli Army Radio, Ben-Gvir said that while “Israel” appreciates the democratic regime in the US, “it is precisely for this region that they need to understand that Israel is an independent country and no longer a star on the US flag.”
The occupation Police Minister added that “it should be clear all over the world – the people here went to elections and they have their own desires.”
It is noteworthy that Netanyahu on Monday decided to suspend his cabinet’s plans to reform the judiciary amid widespread protests against his government and his decision to dismiss Security Minister Yoav Gallant, though he stressed that “we will never give it up.”
The Israeli KAN public broadcaster reported that Ben-Gvir told Netanyahu earlier in the day that he would “resign from the government if the legislation is postponed” and that he would continue pushing for the judicial overhaul from outside the PM’s coalition.
In the same context, other members of the Israeli Knesset also criticized Biden’s remarks, such as Israeli Culture and Sport Minister Miki Zohar, who tweeted: “It’s sad that Biden has fallen for all the fake news.”
He later deleted the tweet and posted another one saying, “Out of respect for our important relationship with our greatest ally, the United States, I have deleted the tweet.”
“It breaks my heart to see how much damage has been done to Israel from all the fake news that has been spread in connection to our justified legal reform,” Zohar added.
Israeli opposition blames Netanyahu’s government
On the other hand, Israeli opposition leaders blamed Netanyahu’s government for the US President’s statements, with former Israeli occupation Prime Minister Yair Lapid saying that “for decades, Israel was the USA’s closest ally, and the most extremist government in the country’s history has spoiled that in three months.”
Former Israeli occupation Security Minister and National Unity Party chair Benny Gantz considered Biden’s remarks “an urgent wake-up call for the Israeli government.”
“Damaging relations with the USA, our best friend and most important ally is a strategic attack,” Gantz pointed out.
Amid mass protests witnessed in “Israel” against the Netanyahu government’s postponed judicial overhaul that would undermine the power of the Israeli Supreme Court, the White House underlined on Sunday that the US is deeply concerned by events in “Israel” and “strongly urges” Israeli leaders to find a compromise as soon as possible.
Israeli occupation Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sacked Security Minister Yoav Gallant on Sunday. This prompted Israeli officials to condemn the step.
According to Israeli media, former officials in the Israeli security establishment said that Gallatn's dismissal is "a big… pic.twitter.com/W8nXRmpzuO
“We continue to strongly urge Israeli leaders to find a compromise as soon as possible. We believe that is the best path forward for Israel,” White House National Security Council Spokesperson, Adrienne Watson, said in a statement.
In the same context, Israeli media cited senior officials in the US administration as saying that they are very concerned about the situation in “Israel” and Gallant’s dismissal.
Yedioth Ahronoth reported that in “Israel” they were very surprised by Biden’s words, considering that it was the most dangerous statement on the part of the US administration regarding judicial reforms.
The newspaper cited a senior political source as saying that Biden’s statement is nothing less than a “diplomatic attack” or a “resounding slap”.
According to the source, Biden’s remarks reflect Washington’s anger and frustration with Netanyahu and his government and indicate that the Americans do not believe that pausing the legislation is sufficient.
The source added that Biden wants to make clear that the crisis in “Israel” has not really ended.
Elsewhere, the source considered that Biden’s strong announcement that Netanyahu will not be invited soon to Washington is the most severe for “Israel” and aims to pass a message to the government.
Over the past month, upheaval and chaos took the Israeli occupation entity by storm. Violent clashes erupted between the opposition and police, as Israeli settlers protest against the government’s judicial reforms. Appeals for civil disobedience and riots have been met with stern warnings from both sides, as political rifts are widening and warning against the outbreak of a “civil war”.
نتقلت الأزمة الداخلية العاصفة بكيان الاحتلال الصهيوني، والتي أحدثت شرخاً عميقاً سياسياً ومجتمعياً. انتقلت الى داخل الجيش «الاسرائيلي» وباتت تهدّد قدرته على مواصلة عملياته القتالية.. مما شكل حسب الكثير من المسؤولين السابقين والخبراء والمحللين الصهاينة خطراً داهماً، يهدّد وحدة وتماسك الجيش الذي طالما اعتبر الأساس الصلب الذي يرتكز اليه كيان الاحتلال في استمرار وجوده المصطنع والمؤقت، وفي مواصلة احتلاله لأرض فلسطين، والجولان السوري وأجزاء من الأراضي اللبنانية.. على انّ المؤشرات على هذا التهديد لوحدة وتماسك جيش الاحتلال تجسّدت بالوقائع التالية:
أولاً، فشل جهود رئيس الأركان في جيش الاحتلال «الاسرائيلي»، هرتسي هليفي، للحيلولة دون وصول الأزمة الى الجيش، بعد انضمام المئات من نخبة الجيش من الطيارين والضباط وجنود الاحتياط الى الاحتجاجات ورفضهم الخدمة في الجيش.
ثانياً، ظهور احتمال تمرّد جنود عاملين في الخدمة، مما قد يؤثر على مهام وعمليات جيش الاحتلال في الضفة الغربية والقدس المحتلتين.
ثالثاً، دعوة وزير الحرب يواف غالانت، وهو نائب في الكنيست عن حزب ليكود، إلى تعليق إقرار التعديلات القضائية لمدة شهر، محذراً من أنّ الاحتجاجات ضدّ التعديلات وانضمام عدد متزايد من جنود الاحتياط إلى الاحتجاجات «يؤثر على عمل القوات النظامية ويهدّد الأمن القومي»، وأكد أنه «لن يجعل ذلك يسيراً»، في إشارة إلى احتمال امتناعه عن التصويت على التصديق على مشروع القانون في الكنيست.
رابعاً، ردّ رئيس الحكومة بنيامين نتنياهو على دعوة غالانت بإقالته، مما دفع وزير الحرب السابق بيني غانتس إلى القول: «نواجه تهديداً حقيقياً ونتنياهو وضع نفسه قبل أمن إسرائيل».
هذه الوقائع والتطورات تؤشر الى عمق الأزمة التي امتدّت إلى الجيش الذي طالما كان في السابق بمنأى عن الصراعات السياسية، ويوصف بـ «جيش الشعب وحامي الكيان»، ويُقال عنه بأنه «أساس وجود الكيان»، ولهذا عندما تبلغ الأزمة حد إحداث الشرخ والتمرّد داخل الجيش فهذا إنما يدلل على حجم الخطر الذي بات يتهدّد وجود الكيان وأمنه واستقراره الداخلي، لأنّ الشرخ الحاصل في المجتمع الصهيوني بين متديّنين وعلمانيّين، وبين يهود اشكيناز غربيّين، ويهود سفرديم شرقيّين، ينعكس على المؤسسة العسكرية، وهو ما دفع قادتها الى التحذير من مخاطر استمرار الازمة على الجيش، الأـمر الذي حذر منه أيضاً العديد من الصهاينة الذين باتوا يعبّرون عن خوفهم من اندلاع حرب أهلية إذا ما واصل نتنياهو عناده ورفض التخلي عن مشروعه إدخال تعديلات على القضاء لحماية نفسه وحليفيه بن غفير وسموتيريتش من ملاحقات قضائية بتهم الفساد.
انطلاقاً من هذه المعطيات، يبدو أنّ الأزمة تسير نحو مزيد من التفاقم استنادا إلى ثلاثة عوامل: العامل الأول، عدم وجود أيّ استعداد لدى نتنياهو وحليفيه بن غفير وسموتيريتش، على التراجع عن مشروعهم بإقرار إصلاحات قضائية، تجعلهم قادرين على التحكم بالقضاء، لا سيما المحكمة العليا، لحماية أنفسهم من الملاحقات بتهم الفساد.
العامل الثاني، ارتهان نتنياهو للتحالف مع بن غفير وسموتيريتش، لإبقاء حكومته، مما يجعله مكبّل اليدين لا يستطيع الإقدام على قبول حلول وسط مع المعارضة للخروج من الأزمة، من دون موافقة حليفيه اللذين يرفضان ايّ حلول وسطية ويصرّان على السير بالتعديلات القضائية مهما كانت التداعيات، بل ويهدّدان المعارضة باستخدام القوة لقمع الاحتجاجات… فنتنياهو يدرك انه في حال تراجع ووافق على تعليق التعديلات، فإنّ عقد الائتلاف الحكومي سوف ينفرط…
العامل الثالث، عدم قدرة نتنياهو على تصدير الأزمة الداخلية من خلال قيامه بشنّ حرب ضدّ المقاومة في لبنان، او ضدّ المقاومة في قطاع غزة، أو ضرب البرنامج النووي الإيراني، لأنّ اتخاذ مثل هذا القرار يحتاج إلى موافقة المؤسّستين الأمنية والعسكرية في كيان الاحتلال، وهو أمر لا توافق عليه هاتان المؤسستان، بسبب عدم ضمان تحقيق النصر من ناحية، والخوف من تدحرج الأمور نحو حرب واسعة تهدّد بالخطر وجود الكيان من ناحية ثانية، كما أنّ قرار شنّ الحرب يتطلب الحصول على ضوء أخضر أميركي، وهو أمر غير وارد لدى إدارة بايدن، إما لأنها لا تريد إبعاد الأنظار والانشغال بعيداً عن الحرب الأساسية ضدّ روسيا في أوكرانيا، أو بسبب المخاطر الكبيرة للحرب على النفوذ الأميركي وأمن ووجود الكيان الصهيوني..
واذا افترضنا أنّ نتنياهو مستعدّ للمغامرة وتجاوز موقف واشنطن، فإنه لا يستطيع تجاوز اعتراض المؤسّستين الأمنية والعسكرية في الكيان الصهيوني.. لكن هل يعني ذلك أنّ نتنياهو وحليفيه باتوا في طريق مسدود؟
من الواضح أنهم فعلاً أصبحوا في طريق مسدود، بسبب ما يلي:
أولا ـ اشتداد وتوسّع دائرة المعارضة للتعديلات القضائية، لتشمل إلى جانب تزايد حجم المشاركة في التظاهرات والاحتجاجات في معظم المدن، وإقفال مطار بن غوريون، والشلل الحاصل في الاقتصاد والبورصة، واحتمالات اندفاع الوضع إلى الفوضى. ثانيا ـ مخاطر انتقال تمرّد ضباط وجنود الاحتياط، إلى داخل الوحدات النظامية في الجيش الإسرائيلي مما يهدّد بانتقال الانقسام السياسي والحزبي والمجتمعي إلى صفوف الجيش الذي يشكل حصن الكيان وحاميه…
ثالثا ـ أمام مخاطر تصاعد وتفاقم الأزمة، من المحتمل ان تنتقل الأزمة إلى داخل حكومة نتنياهو بانضمام وزراء آخرين إلى جانب وزير الحرب بالدعوة إلى تعليق إقرار التعديلات القضائية، مما قد يقود إلى انفراط عقد الائتلاف الحكومي وفقدانه الأغلبية في الكنيست إذا لم يرضخ نتنياهو وحليفاه إلى دعواتهم ويقبلوا بحلول وسطية للأزمة،
ولهذا من المرجح أن يسلك نتنياهو سبيل تأجيل إقرار التعديلات لتجنّب اتساع الأزمة واحتواء غضب المعارضة في الشارع.
هذه الأزمة العنيفة التي تعصف بكيان الاحتلال ويهدّد استمرارها وحدة وتماسك جيشه، ووجود الكيان برمّته، دفعت وزير الخارجية السابق أفيغدور ليبرمان إلى وصف نتنياهو بأنه «الخطر الاكبر على إسرائيل، أكثر من إيران وحزب الله»… فيما بات ينعت من قبل المحتجّين بالديكتاتور الذي أدخل الكيان الصهيوني في صراع داخلي حادّ أدّى إلى انقسام سياسي، وشرخ مجتمعي لم يسبق أن شهده منذ اغتصابه أرض فلسطين واعلان قيامه عام 1948…
“Russia IS WIPING THEM OUT, THIS IS IT” in Exclusive Interview Douglas Macgregor is back on the show to talk about the war in Ukraine. Macgregor gives his assessment of where things stand on the ground. They talk about the astounding casualty numbers and the horrifying nature of the battle over Bakhmut. Macgregor then gives some predictions for the next stages of the war. They talk about the rising tension with China. They agree there is no need to go to war with China but discuss what may explain the sudden attention shift towards Beijing. Lastly, they talk about the effects of cronyism in the weapons industry and the probability of a nuclear war.
Douglas Macgregor: “Ukraine IS LOSING, THIS IS IT” in Exclusive Interview Douglas Macgregor is back on the show to talk about the war in Ukraine. Macgregor gives his assessment of where things stand on the ground. They talk about the astounding casualty numbers and the horrifying nature of the battle over Bakhmut. Macgregor then gives some predictions for the next stages of the war. They talk about the rising tension with China. They agree there is no need to go to war with China but discuss what may explain the sudden attention shift towards Beijing. Lastly, they talk about the effects of cronyism in the weapons industry and the probability of a nuclear war.
Premiered 13 hours ago
Discussed on the show: “This Time It’s Different” (The American Conservative) “Ukrainian soldiers in Bakhmut: ‘Our troops are not being protected’” (Kyiv Independent) Douglas Macgregor, Col. (ret.) is a senior fellow with The American Conservative, the former advisor to the Secretary of Defense in the Trump administration, a decorated combat veteran, and the author of five books.
Scott Ritter is back after a year as we build a chronology of the events of the Russia-Ukraine War so far.
What were Russia’s goals? Did they succeed or fail? What were NATO’s goals?
Why did Russia’s initial offensive not bring a negotiation? Why did sanctions on Russia fail?
How can we determine who is winning or losing when war propaganda is this thick? We even have a little debate about the issues around which an antiwar movement could try to reconstitute itself. Negotiations to end this war?
Scott thinks no. Arms control? Scott thinks maybe.
UPROOTED PALESTINIANS: SALAM ALQUDS ALAYKUM 