Russia and Iran Prepare To Retaliate for the Attack on Syria (TruNews Radio)

Advertisements

TAKE TWO MINUTES TO LISTEN TO ROGER WATERS ON THE WHITE HELMETS AND DOUMA CW HOAX

In Gaza

Zarif: “Milking Continues”

 April 5, 2018

As he hailed Ankara summit on Syria between presidents of Russia, Iran and Turkey, Foreign Minister Mohamamd Javad Zarif lashed out at transactions between the US and Saudi Arabia in regard to the Syrian situation.

In a tweet on Wednesday night, Zarif deemed the three-way summit “crucial” and, hailing it as a “joint renewal of commitment to sovereignty, independence, unity, territorial integrity and non-sectarian character of Syria.”

He further described the joint efforts by the three guarantor states as “building on the achievements of Astana and Sochi to secure lasting cease-fires and advance political process.”

The summit was the second of such tripartite summit following one in November in the Russian Black Sea resort of Sochi. Tehran will be hosting the third summit on finding a political solution to the Syrian crisis.

Zarif then described the transactions between the US and Saudi Arabia in regard to the Syrian situation as “milking”, saying “President Trump demands additional $4B from Daesh financiers to keep uninvited US troops in Syria,” referring to the Arabic acronym of ISIL.

“Anything to reverse successes against extremists and undermine Syrian national unity,” he added.

Source: Mehr News Agency

Related Videos

يوم الأرض…بقلم د.بثينة شعبان

بقلم د.بثينة شعبان

لقد أصبح واضحاً اليوم، وبعد سبعين عاماً من احتلال استيطاني استعماري غاصب لأرض فلسطين، أنّ الأرض هي المبتدأ والمنتهى، وأنّ الأرض هي القصة الحقيقية، وهي الهدف الذي يبغون حيازته، ويرتكبون في سبيل ذلك أبشع المجازر عبر التاريخ.

انتفض الشعب الفلسطيني من أجل حماية أرضه مرّات عديدة حتى وقعت نكبة عام 1948

لقد انتفض الشعب الفلسطيني من أجل حماية أرضه مرّات عديدة حتى وقعت نكبة عام 1948، وقدّم التضحيات والشهداء منذ ثورته عام 1969، وانتفض في 30 من آذار/ مارس عام 1976 وقدّم الشهداء، وها هو ينتفض اليوم في 30 آذار/ مارس عام 2018 ويقّدم الشهداء ليقول إنّ هذه الأرض لنا، وإننا أصحابها الحقيقيون الشرعيون. ومن الواضح خلال هذا التاريخ أنّ الكيان الصهيوني يريد أرضاً بلا شعب، تماماً كما فعل الاستعمار الاستيطاني في الولايات المتحدة الأميركية وفي نيوزيلندا وأستراليا وكندا، وكما أراد المستوطنون الفرنسيون في الجزائر، والبريطانيون في جنوب أفريقيا، فأبادوا السكان الأصليين تماماً في أميركا الشمالية وأستراليا، وشوّهوا صورتهم في كتب التاريخ، ودفنوا حضارتهم وثقافتهم ومعتقداتهم، واستوطنوا تلك الأرض، وأتوا بالمهاجرين البيض ليحتلوها ويمتلكوا كلّ ثرواتها الخيّرة. وإلى يومنا هذا لم يُنصف أحد حضارات الشعوب الأصلية، التي كانت غنيَة بثقافتها وفنونها ومعتقداتها، لأنّ المستوطنين هم الذين كتبوا التاريخ، وهم الذين سوّقوا هذا التاريخ في كلّ أنحاء العالم، بحيث أصبحت الصورة الوحيدة المتاحة عن حضارات شعوب المايا والأنكا والأبورجينز، وغيرها من حضارات كثيرة عديدة، هي الصورة التي قدّمها المستعمرون والمستوطنون الذين قاموا بإبادتهم والاستيطان على أنقاض حضارتهم. وهنا لا بدّ من التأكيد أنّ المهمّ ليس الانتصار فقط إنما كتابة تاريخ هذا الانتصار.

واليوم نشهد مسرحاً مماثلاً جداً في فلسطين، حيث تقضم سلطات الكيان الأرض الفلسطينية شيئاً فشيئاً، وتُصدّر على مدى عشرات السسنين كلّ القوانين التي تمكّنهم من سرقة هذه الأرض من أصحابها الشرعيين، وتهجير الشباب والأبناء، وعدم السماح لهم بالعودة، وفي المقابل استقدام المستوطنين من كلّ حدب وصوب ليحلّوا محلّهم. نحن نشهد اليوم استيطاناً شبيهاً جداً بالاستيطان الذي حلّ في أميركا الشمالية وكندا وأستراليا منذ مئتي عام ونصف، والغريب في الأمر أنّ بعض أصحاب الحقوق في شرقنا الأوسطي ينتظرون من المستوطنين الغربيين أن يساندوهم في نيل حقوقهم. إن كان هناك من أمر فإنّ المستوطنين الغربيين يساندون المستوطنين الإسرائيليين لأنهم يرونهم شبيهين بهم، ويسيرون على خطاهم، فكيف يمكن لهم أن يتفهموا صاحب الحقّ، وصاحب الأرض، وهم الذين حاربوه وقتلوه وأبادوه في ديارهم لتكون بلدانهم كما هي عليه اليوم، بل على العكس هم يتفهّمون العقلية الاستيطانية الإسرائيلية وحلمها في أن تكون فلسطين أرضاً لها من دون أيّ أثر للشعب الفلسطيني، أو للتراث الفلسطيني، أو للثقافة والتاريخ والجذور التي يعملون على اقتلاعها في كلّ قانون أو تشريع يصدر بهذا الصّدد. ولايزال الفلسطينيون للأسف، يواجهون كلّ هذا المخطط بعفوية، وبصدور الشباب العارية، وبمسيرات الناس العزّل الذين يقعون ضحايا البطش الاستيطاني، ليضاف إلى قائمة الشهداء شهداءٌ آخرون يروون تراب فلسطين بدمائهم. ومع كلّ اعتزازنا وفخرنا بروح الانتماء التي تدفع الشباب للدفاع عن الأرض حتى الشهادة. لكن هل هذا هو الأسلوب الناجع لاستعادة الأرض؟ وهل تمكّن الشهداء بدمائهم الذكية من تغيير المعادلة في هذا الصراع؟ أم أنّ قضم الأراضي مستمرّ بحيث لم يعد الفلسطينيون يملكون أكثر من 15% من أرض فلسطين التاريخية؟ السؤال المؤلم اليوم: ألا يتوجّب على الفلسطينيين والعرب إعادة النظر باستراتيجياتهم وآلياتهم من أجل صون الحقوق وتحرير الأرض؟

إنّ إلقاء الضوء على تجربة الشعب اللبناني في جنوب لبنان بعد احتلال أرضه، وتشبّثه بالبقاء في دياره إلى أن تمكّن من تحرير هذه الأرض عام 2000، تثبت أنّ عدم النزوح من الأرض، حتى وإن مكث على صدرها معتدٍ محتلّ، هو الأسلوب الأنجع لاستعادة هذه الأرض، وأنّ النزوح عنها هو بالضبط ما يريده الطامعون في هذه الأرض، والمخطّطون للاستيلاء عليها. وهذا ما استنتجه كثير من الفلسطينيين ولكن بعد النزوح الكبير عام 1948، والنزوح عام 1967. ومن الواضح من القصص التي سمعناها عن هذا النزوح أنّ المستوطن الإسرائيلي كان يهدف إلى ترويع السكان حتى قبل أن يصل إليهم، ويهدّدهم من خلال مكبّرات الصوت ويدعوهم إلى مغادرة قراهم وبساتينهم ومدنهم فوراً. غادر كثيرون منهم وهم يظنّون أنهم عائدون بعد بضعة أيام. إذاً لم تكن هناك درجة من الوعي ولا قيادات حقيقية لتقوم بخطوات مضادّة لخطوات المستوطنين، وتعمل على تثبيت السكان في مواقعهم، بينما توفّر هذا عام 1982 في لبنان. ربما مستفيدين من الدرس الفلسطيني، ولاسيما أنّ أهل الجنوب كانوا هم من استقبل النازحين الفلسطينيين عام 1948، وشهدوا على معاناتهم. الوعي والقيادة أمران أساسيان في خوض المعارك، عسكرية كانت أم سياسية، بوقت أقصر وأثمان أقلّ. واليوم يعمل الكيان الصهيوني جاهداً على إلغاء حقّ عودة الفلسطينيين وعلى تغييب الشاهد الأخير على هذا الحقّ، ألا وهي منظمة الأونروا. لذلك لا بدّ من وضع الخطط، وتكثيف الجهود، وجمع الأموال والتبرعات كي تبقى هذه المنظمة قادرة على العمل، وشاهداً حياً على اللجوء وحقّ عودة الفلسطينيين. في يوم الأرض نُحَيّيْ كلّ شهداء فلسطين وسوريا ولبنان والعراق واليمن، وعلى امتداد جغرافيا هذا الوطن العربي، ونقول من أجل هذه الأرض لا بدّ من تطوير آليات العمل، ووضع الاستراتيجيات التي تحافظ عليها وتضمن ازدهارها على يد أبنائها الأصليين المخلصين، وتصدّ عتها كلّ معتدٍ وطامع ومستعمر.

RELATED ARTICLES

• نتن ياهو لأردوغان: من يغزو ويذبح المدنيين في عفرين لا يحق له أن يعظنا بالقيم والأخلاق
• حياة جديدة في أحياء دمشق
• Arab League to Hold “Emergency” Meeting over IOF Gaza Killing
• خالد مشعل يشيد بسيطرة الأتراك على عفرين السورية !؟

What Is One of the World’s Most Important Universities Teaching Its Students About Hezbollah?

Omar Nchabeh

30-03-2018 | 07:58

Some in Lebanon and in the Arab world believe that their blind hatred for Hezbollah gives them some credibility in the West. But the irony is that one of the most important institutions of higher education in North America [McGill University] is guiding its students to deepen their understanding of the path of struggle that has been pursued by Hezbollah since its inception. In this academic edifice, the student seeks knowledge, regardless of his political and ideological orientation. Here, there is no room for fabricating accusations of terrorism against resistance fighters [this is the jurisdiction of the special courts].

 

Located in Montreal and founded in 1821, McGill University has 300 academic programs for higher education and more than 40,000 students. It defines itself as being “among the world’s greatest universities”. Finally, the curators of a research project at the university entitled “Women and War in Lebanon” invited a specialist from al-Akhbar to deliver a lecture about a book on the civil war from a women’s perspective. He was also invited by Lebanese organizations in Montreal to deliver another lecture tackling the new electoral law for the parliamentary elections in Lebanon. During the visit to Canada, al-Akhbar got to know the Institute of Islamic Studies at McGill, where Professor Malek Abisaab and Professor Rula Jurdi teach an academic course titled “Islamic Reform and Radicalism in the Middle East”.

From this course, undergraduate students acquire scientific knowledge about the evolution of Islamic movements since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. In covering these movements, students also get acquainted with Hezbollah, which the Canadian government classifies as a “terrorist organization”. However, the curriculum does not mention terrorism. Abu Saab and Jardi do not rely on any references or sources that identify the resistance fighters as saboteurs and try to dismantle the concept of terrorism through examples of the struggles of the blacks, feminists, and workers in America and Canada. On the contrary, during a meeting in Montreal, Abu Saab explained to al-Akhbar that “Hezbollah’s path of struggle represented by the liberation of southern Lebanon from ‘Israeli’ occupation is somewhat similar to other paths of struggle in South Africa and Vietnam, for example.”

In South Africa, the African National Congress [ANC], in which Nelson Mandela was one of most prominent leaders, was classified as a terrorist organization and many of its supporters were persecuted. It should be recalled that the late Mandela had called for an armed revolutionary struggle to counter the apartheid regime in South Africa and rejected proposals for a peaceful solution to the apartheid regime in Johannesburg.

Between Rationalists [Usuli] and Extremists

The classes in the academic course tackling Hezbollah are made up of two basic parts: the first explains the party’s doctrine and its intellectual orientations, which distinguishes it from other radical Islamic movements. The second part deals with the stages of development that the party has undergone since its inception as well as its vision of local, regional and international situations.

The above-mentioned class distinguishes between rationalist movements and extremist movements, whereas Hezbollah is considered an Islamic rationalist organization while Wahhabism [Salafist] and the orientations of the Islamic groups related to it are considered extremist. Jurdi explains that this central distinction is reflected in the interpretation of religion and Fiqh whereby the margin of ijtihad of the rationalists is wider than that of the extremists. Hezbollah’s Islamic doctrine is moving away from isolation and stagnation and favors the development of society through the ijtihad of the Guardian of the Jurist. Teaching materials also focus on the priority of the national issue in Hezbollah’s strategy and struggle to liberate the occupied territory.

The students of this class refer back to the modernist writings and teachings of Sayyed Mohamed Hussein Fadlallah, which calls for the enlightenment of thought through the formation of a clear concept of the purposes of Islamic Sharia and not by imposing the law literally and forcefully without any thought or development, due to the requirements of the time.

The late Sayyed Fadlallah guided Hezbollah’s youth to modernity and modern civilization, and therefore he is not only different in form from the Wahhabi movement that forms the basis of the Salafi-Takfiri movement, but also in essence and in principle.

Abisaab and Jurdi had done in-depth research on the Shiites in Lebanon, depending on them to write a book called “The Shiites of Lebanon: Modernity, Communism and Hezbollah” in 2014 [Syracuse University Press, New York].

Interviews were conducted with a number of party intellectuals, including MP Ali Fayyad and researcher Abdel Halim Fadlallah. They found that the party had two intellectual currents, one enlightening, open and close to the ideas of the leftist liberation movements, and the other less open and more hard-line in imposing strict Islamic teachings.

The stages of the party’s development

Undergraduate students at McGill University are introduced to the stages that Hezbollah has undergone since its inception. The history of some of the leaders of the first generation of the party with the Palestine Liberation Organization is explained in order to emphasize the convergence of the Palestinian cause and the party’s political thought and to dispel the misconception prevailing among the Palestinians in the camps of Lebanon and the Shiites. Abisaab and Jurdi also point to the embryonic stage of the emergence of the party and the relationship between the founders of the Amal Movement and Dawa Party and some Islamic student groups in Jabal Amel and Najaf in Iraq.

Abisaab and Jurdi dedicate a share of their lectures to exploring the crystallization of the relationship with the communists and the leftists, as well as to demonstrate the continuity of the resistance path that began with the Communists when they launched the Lebanese national resistance against the “Israeli” invasion in 1982. Jurdi points out that there are two wings in Hezbollah. One is influenced by Mohsen Hakim’s anti-communist approach that rejects any discussion of the convergence of the left-wing political agenda with the Islamic political agenda. The second is influenced by martyr Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr, who was open to discussion and serious intellectual exchanges with the leftists.

For further clarification regarding the evolution of thought and orientation among the party’s leaders and supporters, Abisaab and Jurdi narrate to their students the sequence of events through three periods:

– The era of the secret work prior to the founding of the party 1982-1985: There was no Hezbollah in the organizational sense during this stage, which saw the recruitment of young people to engage in the armed Islamic resistance against the “Israeli” occupation of Lebanon and beginning to define the path and doctrine.

– The era of founding the party and organizing its supporters 1985-2009: Hezbollah was founded during this stage and its first founding document was established. The Shura and the Secretariat were established. The organizational structure was defined. Responsibilities were distributed. The internal, financial and military regulations as well as the party’s social, educational, medical and services bodies were established.

– The era of developing the party and modernizing its capacities 2009-2018: The second document of the party was prepared in 2009. Some directions were modified. The most important of which is related to abandoning the idea of establishing an Islamic state in Lebanon, the party’s local alliances, confronting the Takfiris, and the relations with international forces.

By teaching this academic course, Abisaab and Jurdi aim to contribute to the development of the scientific methodological foundations adopted by the students in their research by criticizing and deconstructing the prevailing concepts and quotes among the resistance and liberation movements. They contributed to refuting the stereotypical portrayal of orientalists [new and old] on the path of change in Muslim societies. Jurdi and Abisaab present new and creative visions of understanding the history of the peoples of the Middle East based on local materials drawn from the archives of the countries, religious libraries and concerned parties, and also through oral history and the memory of religious and civil figures who played important roles in our modern Islamic Arab history.

Source: Al-Akhbar Newspaper, Translated by website team

كيف يدرَّس حزب الله في إحدى أهم جامعات العالم

الخميس 29 آذار 2018

يتوهّم البعض في لبنان والمنطقة العربية أن حقدهم الأعمى بحق حزب الله يمنحهم شيئاً من الصدقية لدى الغرب. لكن المفارقة تكمن في أن إحدى أهم مؤسسات التعليم العالي في أميركا الشمالية (ماغيل) ترشد طلابها الى تعميق فهمهم للمسار النضالي الذي ينتهجه حزب الله منذ نشأته. في هذا الصرح الأكاديمي يتنوّر طالب العلم بالمعرفة، بغض النظر عن توجهاته السياسية والعقائدية. هنا لا مجال لتلفيق تهم الإرهاب بحق مقاومين (فهذا من اختصاص المحاكم الخاصة).

مونتريال | جامعة ماغيل التي تأسّست عام 1821 وتضم 300 برنامج أكاديمي للتعليم العالي وأكثر من 40 ألف طالب، تعرّف عن نفسها بأنها «من بين أعظم جامعات العالم». وأخيراً، وجّه القيّمون في الجامعة على مشروع بحثي بعنوان «المرأة والحرب في لبنان» دعوة الى كاتب متخصّص في «الأخبار» لإلقاء محاضرة تناولت كتاباً عن الحرب الاهلية من وجهة نظر نسائية، ومحاضرة أخرى بدعوة من منظمات لبنانية في مدينة مونتريال تناولت القانون الجديد للانتخابات النيابية في لبنان. وتعرّفت «الأخبار» خلال زيارة كندا الى معهد الدراسات الإسلامية في «ماغيل»، حيث يدرّس الدكتور مالك أبي صعب والدكتورة رلى جردي مادة أكاديمية بعنوان «الإصلاح الإسلامي والراديكالية في الشرق الاوسط». ويكتسب طلاب الليسانس

(undergraduate) من خلال هذه المادة معرفة علمية بشأن تطوّر الحركات الاسلامية منذ انهيارالسلطنة العثمانية. ومن بين تلك الحركات يتعرّف الطلاب الى «حزب الله» الذي تصنّفه الحكومة الكندية «تنظيماً إرهابياً». غير أن منهاج هذه المادة التعليمية لا يأتي على ذكر الإرهاب، ولا يعتمد أبي صعب وجردي أيّ مراجع أو مصادر تنعت المحازبين المقاومين بالمخربين، وتحاول تفكيك مفهوم الإرهاب من خلال أمثلة تتعلّق بنضالات السود والهيئات النسوية والعمال في أميركا وكندا. لا بل إن أبي صعب شرح لـ«الأخبار»، خلال لقاء في مونتريال، أن «المسار النضالي الذي يتبعه حزب الله المتمثل بتحرير الجنوب اللبناني من الاحتلال الإسرائيلي، يشبه إلى حدّ ما مسارات نضالية أخرى في جنوب أفريقيا وفيتنام مثلاً».

ففي جنوب أفريقيا، صنّف المؤتمر الوطني الأفريقي الذي كان المناضل نيلسون مانديلا أحد أبرز قياداته بالإرهابي، وتعرض العديد من مناصريه للاضطهاد. ولا بد من التذكير بأن الراحل مانديلا كان قد دعا الى الكفاح الثوري المسلح لمواجهة نظام الفصل العنصري في جنوب أفريقيا، ورفض عروضاً بالحل السلمي مع النظام العنصري في جوهانسبرغ.

بين الأصوليين والمتطرفين

تتألف الحصص في المادة الأكاديمية التي تتناول حزب الله من جزءين أساسيين: الاول يشرح عقيدة الحزب وتوجهاته الفكرية التي تميّزه عن بعض الحركات الإسلامية المتطرفة، أما الجزء الثاني فيتطرق الى تطوّر المراحل التي مرّ بها الحزب منذ نشأته، ورؤيته الى الاوضاع المحلية والإقليمية والدولية.

يميّز الصف المذكور بين الحركات الأصولية والحركات المتطرفة، بحيث يُعدّ حزب الله من التنظيمات الإسلامية الأصولية، بينما تُعدّ الحركة الوهابية (السلفية) وتوجهات الجماعات الإسلامية المرتبطة بها متطرفة. وتشرح جردي أن هذا التمييز المحوري يتجلى في تفسير الدين والفقه، حيث إن هامش الاجتهاد لدى الأصوليين أوسع منه لدى المتطرفين. فالعقيدة الإسلامية التي يتبعها حزب الله تبتعد عن الانغلاق والجمود، وتحبّذ تطوّر المجتمع من خلال اجتهادات الوليّ الفقيه. كذلك تركز المواد المعتمدة في التدريس على أولوية المسألة الوطنية في استراتيجية حزب الله ونضاله في سبيل تحرير الارض المحتلة.

ويعود طلاب هذا الصف الى كتابات وتعاليم السيد محمد حسين فضل الله الحداثوية، التي تدعو الى تنوير الفكر من خلال تكوين مفهوم واضح لمقاصد الشريعة الإسلامية لا الى فرض الشريعة حرفياً وبالقوة من دون أي تفكير أو تطوير، نظراً إلى متطلبات العصر.

السيد الراحل فضل الله أرشد شباب حزب الله الى الحداثوية والتمدّن العصري، وبالتالي فإنه لا يختلف في الشكل عن الحركة الوهابية التي تشكل أساس قيام السلفية التكفيرية فحسب، بل في الجوهر والمنطلق أيضاً.

وكان أبي صعب وجردي قد قاما بأبحاث معمّقة عن الشيعة في لبنان، استندوا إليها لوضع كتاب بعنوان «شيعة لبنان: الحداثة والشيوعية وحزب الله» عام 2014 (منشورات جامعة سيراكيوز في ولاية نيو يورك).

وأجريت مقابلات مع عدد من مثقفي الحزب، بمن فيهم النائب علي فياض والباحث عبد الحليم فضل الله. وتبين لهما أن في الحزب تيارين فكريين، أحدهما تنويري ومنفتح وقريب من أفكار حركات التحرر اليسارية، والثاني أقل انفتاحاً وأكثر تشدداً في فرض التعاليم الإسلامية الصارمة.

مراحل تطوّر الحزب

يبدأ تعريف طلاب الليسانس في جامعة «ماغيل» الى المراحل التي مرّ بها حزب الله منذ نشأته بشرح تاريخ بعض قيادات الجيل الاول من الحزب مع منظمة التحرير الفلسطينية، وذلك للتأكيد على تلازم القضية الفلسطينية وفكر الحزب السياسي، وأيضاً لتبديد الفكرة الخاطئة السائدة عن العداء بين الفلسطينيين في مخيمات لبنان والشيعة. كذلك يشير أبي صعب وجردي الى المرحلة الجنينية من نشوء الحزب وعلاقة المؤسّسين بحركة أمل وبحزب الدعوة، وببعض المجموعات الطلابية الإسلامية في جبل عامل والنجف في العراق.

ويخصّص أبي صعب وجردي حيّزاً من التدريس للبحث في تبلور العلاقة مع الشيوعيين واليساريين وأيضاً للتدليل على الاستمرارية في النهج المقاوم الذي بدأ مع الشيوعيين عندما أطلقوا المقاومة الوطنية اللبنانية ضد الغزو الاسرائيلي سنة 1982. وتلفت جردي النظر الى أن هناك جناحين من المحازبين في حزب الله، أحدهما يتأثر بنهج محسن الحكيم المعادي للشيوعيين والرافض لأي بحث في تلاقي الأجندة السياسية اليسارية مع الأجندة السياسية الإسلامية، وثانيهما متأثر بالشهيد محمد باقر الصدر المنفتح على النقاش والتبادل الفكري الجدي مع اليساريين.

تشجّع جامعة ماغيل طلابها على نقد وتفكيك المقولات والمفاهيم المعرفية السائدة حول حركات المقاومة والتحرر

ولمزيد من التوضيح بشأن تطوّر الفكر والتوجه لدى قيادات الحزب ومناصريه، يسرد أبي صعب وجردي لطلابهما تسلسل الاحداث من خلال ثلاث حقبات زمنية:

ــ حقبة العمل السرّي السابق لتأسيس الحزب 1982 ــ 1985: لم يكن هناك حزب الله بالمعنى التنظيمي خلال هذه المرحلة التي شهدت تجنيد الشباب للانخراط في المقاومة الإسلامية المسلحة ضدّ الاحتلال الإسرائيلي للبنان وبداية تحديد النهج والعقيدة.

ــ حقبة تأسيس الحزب وتنظيم المناصرين 1985 ــ 2009: تأسّست منظمة حزب الله خلال هذه المرحلة ووضعت الوثيقة التأسيسية الاولى لها. وأنشأت الشورى والأمانة العامة، وتحددت الهيكلية التنظيمية، وتوزعت المسؤوليات، ووضعت أنظمة داخلية ومالية وعسكرية، وأسّست الهيئات الاجتماعية والتربوية والطبية والخدماتية التابعة للحزب.

ــ حقبة تطوير الحزب وتحديث قدراته 2009 ــ 2018: وضعت الوثيقة الثانية للحزب عام 2009، وتعدلت فيها بعض التوجهات، وأهمها يتعلق بالتنازل عن قيام الدولة الإسلامية في لبنان، وبتحالفات الحزب المحلية، وبمواجهة التكفيريين، وبالعلاقة مع القوى الدولية.

يهدف أبي صعب وجردي من خلال تعليم هذه المادة الأكاديمية إلى الإسهام في تطوير الأسس المنهجية العلمية التي يعتمدها الطلاب في أبحاثهم، وذلك عبر نقد وتفكيك المقولات والمفاهيم المعرفية السائدة حول حركات المقاومة والتحرر. وأسهما في دحض الصورة النمطية التي رسمها المستشرقون (الجدد والقدماء) عن مسار التغيير في المجتمعات الاسلامية. وتطرح جردي وأبي صعب تصورات جديدة وخلّاقة حول فهم تاريخ شعوب منطقة الشرق الاوسط ترتكز على مواد محلية مستمدة من أرشيف الدول والمكتبات الدينية والأحزاب المعنية، وأيضاً من خلال التاريخ الشفهي وذاكرة شخصيات دينية ومدنية لعبت أدواراً مهمة في تاريخنا العربي الإسلامي الحديث.

المزيد لعمر نشابة

• الفهد يتمرّد
• خطر فبركة ملفات جنائية بحق صحافيين
• تسريبات وتلكؤ وتجاهل خطير للأصول
• القضاء البلغاري: لا علاقة لحزب الله بهجوم بورغاس

In Case You Missed It: What Is Antisemitism?

By Michael Neumann

March 27, 2018 “Information Clearing House” – Every once in a while, some left-wing Jewish writer will take a deep breath, open up his (or her) great big heart, and tell us that criticism of Israel or Zionism is not antisemitism. Silently they congratulate themselves on their courage. With a little sigh, they suppress any twinge of concern that maybe the goyim–let alone the Arabs–can’t be trusted with this dangerous knowledge.

Sometimes it is gentile hangers-on, whose ethos if not their identity aspires to Jewishness, who take on this task. Not to be utterly risqué, they then hasten to remind us that antisemitism is nevertheless to be taken very seriously. That Israel, backed by a pronounced majority of Jews, happens to be waging a race war against the Palestinians is all the more reason we should be on our guard. Who knows? it might possibly stir up some resentment!

I take a different view. I think we should almost never take antisemitism seriously, and maybe we should have some fun with it. I think it is particularly unimportant to the Israel-Palestine conflict, except perhaps as a diversion from the real issues. I will argue for the truth of these claims; I also defend their propriety. I don’t think making them is on a par with pulling the wings off flies.

“Antisemitism”, properly and narrowly speaking, doesn’t mean hatred of semites; that is to confuse etymology with definition. It means hatred of Jews. But here, immediately, we come up against the venerable shell-game of Jewish identity: “Look! We’re a religion! No! a race! No! a cultural entity! Sorry–a religion!” When we tire of this game, we get suckered into another: “anti-Zionism is antisemitism! ” quickly alternates with: “Don’t confuse Zionism with Judaism! How dare you, you antisemite”

Well, let’s be good sports. Let’s try defining antisemitism as broadly as any supporter of Israel would ever want: antisemitism can be hatred of the Jewish race, or culture, or religion, or hatred of Zionism. Hatred, or dislike, or opposition, or slight unfriendliness.

But supporters of Israel won’t find this game as much fun as they expect. Inflating the meaning of ‘antisemitism’ to include anything politically damaging to Israel is a double-edged sword. It may be handy for smiting your enemies, but the problem is that definitional inflation, like any inflation, cheapens the currency. The more things get to count as antisemitic, the less awful antisemitism is going to sound. This happens because, while no one can stop you from inflating definitions, you still don’t control the facts. In particular, no definition of ‘antisemitism’ is going to eradicate the substantially pro-Palestinian version of the facts which I espouse, as do most people in Europe, a great many Israelis, and a growing number of North Americans.

What difference does that make? Suppose, for example, an Israeli rightist says that the settlements represent the pursuit of aspirations fundamental to the Jewish people, and to oppose the settlements is antisemitism. We might have to accept this claim; certainly it is difficult to refute. But we also cannot abandon the well-founded belief that the settlements strangle the Palestinian people and extinguish any hope of peace. So definitional acrobatics are all for nothing: we can only say, screw the fundamental aspirations of the Jewish people; the settlements are wrong. We must add that, since we are obliged to oppose the settlements, we are obliged to be antisemitic. Through definitional inflation, some form of ‘antisemitism’ has become morally obligatory.

It gets worse if anti-Zionism is labeled antisemitic, because the settlements, even if they do not represent fundamental aspirations of the Jewish people, are an entirely plausible extension of Zionism. To oppose them is indeed to be anti-Zionist, and therefore, by the stretched definition, antisemitic. The more antisemitism expands to include opposition to Israeli policies, the better it looks. Given the crimes to be laid at the feet of Zionism, there is another simple syllogism: anti-Zionism is a moral obligation, so, if anti-Zionism is antisemitism, antisemitism is a moral obligation.

What crimes? Even most apologists for Israel have given up denying them, and merely hint that noticing them is a bit antisemitic. After all, Israel ‘is no worse than anyone else’. First, so what? At age six we knew that “everyone’s doing it” is no excuse; have we forgotten? Second, the crimes are no worse only when divorced from their purpose. Yes, other people have killed civilians, watched them die for want of medical care, destroyed their homes, ruined their crops, and used them as human shields. But Israel does these things to correct the inaccuracy of Israel Zangwill’s 1901 assertion that

“Palestine is a country without a people; the Jews are a people without a country”.

It hopes to create a land entirely empty of gentiles, an Arabia deserta in which Jewish children can laugh and play throughout a wasteland called peace.

Well before the Hitler era, Zionists came thousands of miles to dispossess people who had never done them the slightest harm, and whose very existence they contrived to ignore.

Zionist atrocities were not part of the initial plan. They emerged as the racist obliviousness of a persecuted people blossomed into the racial supremacist ideology of a persecuting one. That is why the commanders who directed the rapes, mulilations and child-killings of Deir Yassin went on to become prime ministers of Israel.(*) But these murders were not enough. Today, when Israel could have peace for the taking, it conducts another round of dispossession, slowly, deliberately making Palestine unliveable for Palestinians, and liveable for Jews. Its purpose is not defense or public order, but the extinction of a people. True, Israel has enough PR-savvy to eliminate them with an American rather than a Hitlerian level of violence. This is a kinder, gentler genocide that portrays its perpetrators as victims.

Israel is building a racial state, not a religious one. Like my parents, I have always been an atheist. I am entitled by the biology of my birth to Israeli citizenship; you, perhaps, are the most fervent believer in Judaism, but are not. Palestinians are being squeezed and killed for me, not for you. They are to be forced into Jordan, to perish in a civil war. So no, shooting Palestinian civilians is not like shooting Vietnamese or Chechen civilians. The Palestinians aren’t ‘collateral damage’ in a war against well-armed communist or separatist forces. They are being shot because Israel thinks all Palestinians should vanish or die, so people with one Jewish grandparent can build subdivisions on the rubble of their homes. This is not the bloody mistake of a blundering superpower but an emerging evil, the deliberate strategy of a state conceived in and dedicated to an increasingly vicious ethnic nationalism. It has relatively few corpses to its credit so far, but its nuclear weapons can kill perhaps 25 million people in a few hours.

Do we want to say it is antisemitic to accuse, not just the Israelis, but Jews generally of complicity in these crimes against humanity? Again, maybe not, because there is a quite reasonable case for such assertions. Compare them, for example, to the claim that Germans generally were complicit in such crimes. This never meant that every last German, man, woman, idiot and child, were guilty. It meant that most Germans were. Their guilt, of course, did not consist in shoving naked prisoners into gas chambers. It consisted in support for the people who planned such acts, or–as many overwrought, moralistic Jewish texts will tell you–for denying the horror unfolding around them, for failing to speak out and resist, for passive consent. Note that the extreme danger of any kind of active resistance is not supposed to be an excuse here.

Well, virtually no Jew is in any kind of danger from speaking out. And speaking out is the only sort of resistance required. If many Jews spoke out, it would have an enormous effect. But the overwhelming majority of Jews do not, and in the vast majority of cases, this is because they support Israel. Now perhaps the whole notion of collective responsibility should be discarded; perhaps some clever person will convince us that we have to do this. But at present, the case for Jewish complicity seems much stronger than the case for German complicity. So if it is not racist, and reasonable, to say that the Germans were complicit in crimes against humanity, then it is not racist, and reasonable, to say the same of the Jews. And should the notion of collective responsibility be discarded, it would still be reasonable to say that many, perhaps most adult Jewish individuals support a state that commits war crimes, because that’s just true. So if saying these things is antisemitic, than it can be reasonable to be antisemitic.

In other words there is a choice to be made. You can use ‘antisemitism’ to fit your political agenda, or you can use it as a term of condemnation, but you can’t do both. If antisemitism is to stop coming out reasonable or moral, it has to be narrowly and unpolemically defined. It would be safe to confine antisemitism to explicitly racial hatred of Jews, to attacking people simply because they had been born Jewish. But it would be uselessly safe: even the Nazis did not claim to hate people simply because they had been born Jewish. They claimed to hate the Jews because they were out to dominate the Aryans.

Clearly such a view should count as antisemitic, whether it belongs to the cynical racists who concocted it or to the fools who swallowed it.

There is only one way to guarantee that the term “antisemitism” captures all and only bad acts or attitudes towards Jews. We have to start with what we can all agree are of that sort, and see that the term names all and only them. We probably share enough morality to do this.

For instance, we share enough morality to say that all racially based acts and hatreds are bad, so we can safely count them as antisemitic. But not all ‘hostility towards Jews’, even if that means hostility towards the overwhelming majority of Jews, should count as antisemitic. Nor should all hostility towards Judaism, or Jewish culture.

I, for example, grew up in Jewish culture and, like many people growing up in a culture, I have come to dislike it. But it is unwise to count my dislike as antisemitic, not because I am Jewish, but because it is harmless. Perhaps not utterly harmless: maybe, to some tiny extent, it will somehow encourage some of the harmful acts or attitudes we’d want to call antisemitic. But so what? Exaggerated philosemitism, which regards all Jews as brilliant warm and witty saints, might have the same effect. The dangers posed by my dislike are much too small to matter. Even widespread, collective loathing for a culture is normally harmless. French culture, for instance, seems to be widely disliked in North America, and no one, including the French, consider this some sort of racial crime.

Not even all acts and attitudes harmful to Jews generally should be considered antisemitic. Many people dislike American culture; some boycott American goods. Both the attitude and the acts may harm Americans generally, but there is nothing morally objectionable about either. Defining these acts as anti-Americanism will only mean that some anti-Americanism is perfectly acceptable. If you call opposition to Israeli policies antisemitic on the grounds that this opposition harms Jews generally, it will only mean that some antisemitism is equally acceptable.

If antisemitism is going to be a term of condemnation, then, it must apply beyond explicitly racist acts or thoughts or feelings. But it cannot apply beyond clearly unjustified and serious hostility to Jews. The Nazis made up historical fantasies to justify their attacks; so do modern antisemites who trust in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. So do the closet racists who complain about Jewish dominance of the economy. This is antisemitism in a narrow, negative sense of the word. It is action or propaganda designed to hurt Jews, not because of anything they could avoid doing, but because they are what they are. It also applies to the attitudes that propaganda tries to instill. Though not always explicitly racist, it involves racist motives and the intention to do real damage. Reasonably well-founded opposition to Israeli policies, even if that opposition hurts all Jews, does not fit this description. Neither does simple, harmless dislike of things Jewish.

So far, I’ve suggested that it’s best to narrow the definition of antisemitism so that no act can be both antisemitic and unobjectionable. But we can go further. Now that we’re through playing games, let’s ask about the role of *genuine*, bad antisemitism in the Israel-Palestine conflict, and in the world at large.

Undoubtedly there is genuine antisemitism in the Arab world: the distribution of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the myths about stealing the blood of gentile babies. This is utterly inexcusable. So was your failure to answer Aunt Bee’s last letter. In other words, it is one thing to be told: you must simply accept that antisemitism is evil; to do otherwise is to put yourself outside our moral world. But it is quite something else to have someone try to bully you into proclaiming that antisemitism is the Evil of Evils. We are not children learning morality; it is our responsibility to set our own moral priorities. We cannot do this by looking at horrible images from 1945 or listening to the anguished cries of suffering columnists. We have to ask how much harm antisemitism is doing, or is likely to do, not in the past, but today. And we must ask where such harm might occur, and why.

Supposedly there is great danger in the antisemitism of the Arab world. But Arab antisemitism isn’t the cause of Arab hostility towards Israel or even towards Jews. It is an effect. The progress of Arab antisemitism fits nicely with the progress of Jewish encroachment and Jewish atrocities. This is not to excuse genuine antisemitism; it is to trivialize it. It came to the Middle East with Zionism and it will abate when Zionism ceases to be an expansionist threat. Indeed its chief cause is not antisemitic propaganda but the decades-old, systematic and unrelenting efforts of Israel to implicate all Jews in its crimes. If Arab anti-semitism persists after a peace agreement, we can all get together and cluck about it. But it still won’t do Jews much actual harm. Arab governments could only lose by permitting attacks on their Jewish citizens; to do so would invite Israeli intervention. And there is little reason to expect such attacks to materialize: if all the horrors of Israel’s recent campaigns did not provoke them, it is hard to imagine what would. It would probably take some Israeli act so awful and so criminal as to overshadow the attacks themselves.

If antisemitism is likely to have terrible effects, it is far more likely to have them in Western Europe. The neo-fascist resurgence there is all too real. But is it a danger to Jews? There is no doubt that LePen, for instance, is antisemitic. There is also no evidence whatever that he intends to do anything about it. On the contrary, he makes every effort to pacify the Jews, and perhaps even enlist their help against his real targets, the ‘Arabs’. He would hardly be the first political figure to ally himself with people he disliked. But if he had some deeply hidden plan against the Jews, that *would* be unusual: Hitler and the Russian antisemitic rioters were wonderfully open about their intentions, and they didn’t court Jewish support. And it is a fact that some French Jews see LePen as a positive development or even an ally. (see, for instance, “`LePen is good for us,’ Jewish supporter says”, Ha’aretz May 04, 2002, and Mr. Goldenburg’s April 23rd comments on France TV.)

Of course there are historical reasons for fearing a horrendous attack on Jews. And anything is possible: there could be a massacre of Jews in Paris tomorrow, or of Algerians. Which is more likely? If there are any lessons of history, they must apply in roughly similar circumstances. Europe today bears very little resemblance to Europe in 1933. And there are positive possibilities as well: why is the likelihood of a pogrom greater than the likelihood that antisemitism will fade into ineffectual nastiness? Any legitimate worries must rest on some evidence that there really is a threat.

The incidence of antisemitic attacks might provide such evidence. But this evidence is consistently fudged: no distinction is made between attacks against Jewish monuments and symbols as opposed to actual attacks against Jews. In addition, so much is made of an increase in the frequency of attacks that the very low absolute level of attacks escapes attention. The symbolic attacks have indeed increased to significant absolute numbers. The physical attacks have not.(*) More important, most of these attacks are by Muslim residents: in other words, they come from a widely hated, vigorously policed and persecuted minority who don’t stand the slightest chance of undertaking a serious campaign of violence against Jews.

It is very unpleasant that roughly half a dozen Jews have been hospitalized–none killed–due to recent attacks across Europe. But anyone who makes this into one of the world’s important problems simply hasn’t looked at the world. These attacks are a matter for the police, not a reason why we should police ourselves and others to counter some deadly spiritual disease. That sort of reaction is appropriate only when racist attacks occur in societies indifferent or hostile to the minority attacked. Those who really care about recurrent Nazism, for instance, should save their anguished concern for the far bloodier, far more widely condoned attacks on gypsies, whose history of persecution is fully comparable to the Jewish past. The position of Jews is much closer to the position of whites, who are also, of course, the victims of racist attacks.

No doubt many people reject this sort of cold-blooded calculation. They will say that, with the past looming over us, even one antisemitic slur is a terrible thing, and its ugliness is not to be measured by a body count. But if we take a broader view of the matter, antisemitism becomes less, not more important. To regard any shedding of Jewish blood as a world-shattering calamity, one which defies all measurement and comparison, is racism, pure and simple; the valuing of one race’s blood over all others. The fact that Jews have been persecuted for centuries and suffered terribly half a century ago doesn’t wipe out the fact that in Europe today, Jews are insiders with far less to suffer and fear than many other ethnic groups. Certainly racist attacks against a well-off minority are just as evil as racist attacks against a poor and powerless minority. But equally evil attackers do not make for equally worrisome attacks.

It is not Jews who live most in the shadow of the concentration camp. LePen’s ‘transit camps’ are for ‘Arabs’, not Jews. And though there are politically significant parties containing many antisemites, not one of these parties shows any sign of articulating, much less implementing, an antisemitic agenda. Nor is there any particular reason to suppose that, once in power, they will change their tune. Haider’s Austria is not considered dangerous for Jews; neither was Tudjman’s Croatia. And were there to be such danger, well, a nuclear-armed Jewish state stands ready to welcome any refugees, as do the US and Canada. And to say there are no real dangers now is not to say that we should ignore any dangers that may arise. If in France, for instance, the Front National starts advocating transit camps for Jews, or institutes anti-Jewish immigration policies, then we should be alarmed. But we should not be alarmed that something alarming might just conceivably happen: there are far more alarming things going on than that!

One might reply that, if things are not more alarming, it is only because the Jews and others have been so vigilant in combatting antisemitism. But this isn’t plausible. For one thing, vigilance about antisemitism is a kind of tunnel vision: as neofascists are learning, they can escape notice by keeping quiet about Jews. For another, there has been no great danger to Jews even in traditionally antisemitic countries where the world is *not* vigilant, like Croatia or the Ukraine. Countries that get very little attention seem no more dangerous than countries that get a lot. As for the vigorous reaction to LePen in France, that seems to have a lot more to do with French revulsion at neofascism than with the scoldings of the Anti-Defamation League. To suppose that the Jewish organizations and earnest columnists who pounce on antisemitism are saving the world from disaster is like claiming that Bertrand Russell and the Quakers were all that saved us from nuclear war.

Now one might say: whatever the real dangers, these events are truly agonizing for Jews, and bring back unbearably painful memories. That may be true for the very few who still have those memories; it is not true for Jews in general. I am a German Jew, and have a good claim to second-generation, third-hand victimhood. Antisemitic incidents and a climate of rising antisemitism don’t really bother me a hell of a lot. I’m much more scared of really dangerous situations, like driving. Besides, even painful memories and anxieties do not carry much weight against the actual physical suffering inflicted by discrimination against many non-Jews.

This is not to belittle all antisemitism, everywhere. One often hears of vicious antisemites in Poland and Russia, both on the streets and in government. But alarming as this may be, it is also immune to the influence of Israel-Palestine conflicts, and those conflicts are wildly unlikely to affect it one way or another. Moreover, so far as I know, nowhere is there as much violence against Jews as there is against ‘Arabs’. So even if antisemitism is, somewhere, a catastrophically serious matter, we can only conclude that anti-Arab sentiment is far more serious still. And since every antisemitic group is to a far greater extent anti-immigrant and anti-Arab, these groups can be fought, not in the name of antisemitism, but in the defense of Arabs and immigrants. So the antisemitic threat posed by these groups shouldn’t even make us want to focus on antisemitism: they are just as well fought in the name of justice for Arabs and immigrants.

In short, the real scandal today is not antisemitism but the importance it is given. Israel has committed war crimes. It has implicated Jews generally in these crimes, and Jews generally have hastened to implicate themselves. This has provoked hatred against Jews. Why not? Some of this hatred is racist, some isn’t, but who cares? Why should we pay any attention to this issue at all? Is the fact that Israel’s race war has provoked bitter anger of any importance besides the war itself? Is the remote possibility that somewhere, sometime, somehow, this hatred may in theory, possibly kill some Jews of any importance besides the brutal, actual, physical persecution of Palestinians, and the hundreds of thousands of votes for Arabs to be herded into transit camps? Oh, but I forgot. Drop everything. Someone spray-painted antisemitic slogans on a synagogue.

* Not even the ADL and B’nai B’rith include attacks on Israel in the tally; they speak of “The insidious way we have seen the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians used by anti-Semites“. And like many other people, I don’t count terrorist attacks by such as Al Quaeda as instances of antisemitism but rather of some misdirected quasi-military campaign against the US and Israel. Even if you count them in, it does not seem very dangerous to be a Jew outside Israel.

Michael Neumann is a professor of philosophy at Trent University in Ontario, Canada. He can be reached at: mneumann@trentu.ca

This article was originally published by “Counterpunch” –

The views and opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Information Clearing House.

East Ghouta: Obama’s Last Stand In Syria?