حرب اليمن وقتل الخاشقجي

نوفمبر 16, 2018

ناصر قنديل

– في التشابه الوحشي بين حرب اليمن وقتل جمال الخاشقجي بعض رمزية الفاعل، لكن في التزامن بين مأزق القضيتين وضغطهما على النظام الحاكم في السعودية رمزية أخرى تتّصل بسطحية فهم هذا النظام للمعادلات الجديدة، التي تحرّك التعامل الدولي مع القضيتين، وكيف تصنع أوهام العظمة الأخطاء القاتلة، وكيف يلعب غرور القوة دوره في تصوير التورّط في مأزق جديد مخرجاً من مأزق قديم، فالمخارج التي يقدّمها نظام الحكم السعودي للقضيتين لا تشكل سوى بداية القبول لمسار سيتكفل في تفاصيل الحلقات المتتابعة منه بتعميق المأزق وليس الخروج منه.

– الرواية الجديدة للتحقيق السعودي لم يقرأها أحد إلا إقراراً بالمأزق من جهة، ومحاولة التفاف عليه بالإعلان عن نية التخلص من شهود مشاركين بالقتل لطمس الأدلة والرواية الكاملة، وقطع الطريق على تحقيق دولي يكشف الحقيقة، لكن الرواية الناقصة ستزيد المطالبين بالتحقيق الدولي، والحديث عن وقف الحرب في اليمن محاولة استرضاء لغضب الراي العام الدولي من وحشية المشهد الميؤوس من قدرته على تحقيق نصر عسكري سعودي، والتفاف على الحل السياسي الجدّي بربط كل حل بالحفاظ على الهيمنة السعودية على اليمن، لكنه بالأساس محكوم بالتزامن مع قضية الخاشقجي ورهان على تخفيف الضغوط المرتبطة بها، والترابط سيستمر وسيُصرف كل ضعف سعودي في قضية لإضعافه في القضية الثانية.

– لا يمكن إنكار المكانة التي يحتلها في خلفية المشهد الراهن، الفشل المشترك للسعودية و»إسرائيل» وفي طليعتهما إدارة الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب في البديل الاستراتيجي المشترك لهزائم حلف الحرب على سورية، أمام صعود الحلف الروسي الإيراني السوري، والمتمثل بالتحالف المعلن بين السعودية و»إسرائيل» بوجه إيران على خلفية توقيع سلام فلسطيني إسرائيلي بشروط الأمن الإسرائيلي برعاية أميركية بدأت بالإعلان عن القدس عاصمة لـ«إسرائيل». والفشل هنا ناتج عن صحوة شعبية فلسطينية جعلت الحصول على التوقيع الفلسطيني على الشروط الإسرائيلية التي سُمّيت بصفقة القرن مستحيلاً، ومع الفشل سقط البديل الاستراتيجي كله، ولا ينقذه خيار العقوبات المبني أصلاً كفرع من جزء على هذا المناخات التي يفترض أن يوفرها هذا البديل. وأمام هذا الفشل على الحلفاء تقاسم فاتورة هزائم حروب القرن الحادي والعشرين، أو تدفيعها كلها لواحد من الحلفاء، هو دائماً الأضعف والأشدّ تبعية. وهنا تكون السعودية هي الغنيمة التي يجب تقاسمها تفادياً لفواتير الهزيمة، وما يجري في ملف اليمن والخاشقجي محكوم بمسار استثمار طويل لبلوغ هذا الهدف.

– سيتحول الحديث عن مصداقية السعودية وتحقيقاتها إلى مطالبات تتصاعد بتحقيق دولي، وستحاول السعودية تفادي الخطر برواية جديدة للتحقيق، كما فعلت لمرات عدة خلال شهر ونصف، وسيتحول الحديث عن وقف النار في اليمن إلى حديث عن فك الحصار بعدما يثبّت وقف النار، وكما ستجد السعودية أنها تتراجع بالتتابع والتدريج في ملف الخاشقجي فهي أيضاً ستجد نفسها محكومة بالتراجع المتتابع في ملف اليمن.

– ليس التزامن صدفة ولا المسار سينتهي عند واحدة من محطات التزامن الذي سنشهد محطات لاحقة له أكثر وضوحاً وأشد قوة، وسيكتشف السعوديون بسهولة في منتصف الطريق أن عملية فك وتركيب دولتهم تتم على إيقاع قضيتي الخاشقجي واليمن، تحت شعار الوقاية مما هو أعظم، وسيكتشفون أن الطريق المرسوم لهم هو تركهم يصلون إلى الذهاب نحو هذا الأعظم طوعاً.

Related Videos

Related Articles

Advertisements

Thanking vets for their “service” – why?

The Saker

November 15, 2018

Thanking vets for their “service” – why?

[This article was written for the Unz Review]

Depending on the context, the small word “why” can be totally innocuous or it can be just about the most subversive and even sacrilegious word one can utter.  This is probably why I love this word so much: it’s ability to unleash tremendous power against all sorts of sacred cows and unchallenged beliefs.  So,today I want to ask everybody why so many people feel the need to thank veterans for their “service”?

But first, let’s debunk a few myths:

First, let’s begin by getting myth #1 out of the way: the notion that US Americans don’t like wars.  That is totally false. US Americans hate losing wars, but if they win them, they absolutely love them.  In other words, the typical US reaction to a war depends on the perceived outcome of that war. If it is a success they love it (even if it is a turkey-shoot like Desert Storm). If it is a deniable defeat (say the US/NATO air operations against Serbian forces in Kosovo or the total clusterbleep in Grenada) they will simply “forget” it. And if it is an undeniable defeat (say Iraq or Afghanistan) then, yes, indeed, most US Americans will be categorically opposed to it.

 

Next is myth #2: the truth is that no US serviceman or woman has fought a war in defense of the USA since at least WWII (and even this one is very debatable considering that the US forced Japan to wage war and since the attack on Pearl Harbor was set-up as a pretext to then attack Japan). Since 1945 there has not been a single situation in which US soldiers defended their land, their towns, their families or their friends from an aggressor. Not one! All the wars fought by the USA since 1945 were wars of aggression, wars of choice and most of them were completely illegal to boot (including numerous subversive and covert operations). At most, one can make the argument that US veterans defended the so-called “American way of life,” but only if one accepts that the said “American way of life” requires and mandates imperialist wars of aggression and the wholesale abandonment of the key concepts of international law.

Finally, there is the ugly dirty little secret that everybody knows but, for some reason, very few dare to mention: the decision to join the (all volunteer) US military is one primarily based on financial considerations and absolutely not some kind of generous “service” of the motherland for pure, lofty, ideals.  Yes, yes, I know – there were those who did join the US military after 9/11 thinking that the USA had been attacked and that they needed to help bring the fight to those who attacked the USA.  But even with a very modest degree of intelligence, it should have become pretty darn obvious that whether 9/11 was indeed the work of Bin Laden and al-Qaeda or not (personally I am absolutely certain that this was a controlled demolition) – this atrocity was used by the US government to justify a long list of wars which could not have possibly had anything to do with 9/11. Hey, after all, the US decided to attack Iraq (which self-evidently had nothing to do with 9/11) and not the KSA (even though most of the putative hijackers were Saudis and had official Saudi backing). Besides, even if some folks were not smart enough to see through the lies and even if THEY believed that they joined the US military to defend the USA, why would the rest of us who by 2018 all know that the attack on Iraq was purely and solely based on lies, “thank” veterans for stupidly waging war for interests they cannot even identify? Since when do we thank people for making wrong and, frankly, immoral decisions?!

Veterans of foreign wars? Wait, I was not aware that there were any other types of vets!

Now let’s look at another basic thing: what is military service? The way I see it, military personnel can roughly be split into two categories: those who actually kill people and those who help those who kill people kill people. Right? If you are a machine gunner or a tank driver, then you personally get to kill people. If you are a communications specialist, or a truck driver, or an electrician, you don’t get to kill people yourself, but your work is to make it easier for those who kill people to kill people. So I think that it would be fair to say that joining a military, any military, is to join an organization whose main purpose is to kill people. Of course, that killing can be morally justifiable and, say, in defense of your country and fellow citizens. But that can only be the case if you prepare for a defensive war and, as we all know, the USA has not fought such a war for over 70 years now. Which means that with a few increasingly rare exceptions (WWII veterans) ALL the veterans which get thanked for their service did what exactly? If we put it in plain English, what fundamental, crucial decision did ALL these veterans make?

In simple and plain English, veterans are those who signed up to kill people outside the USA for money.

Sorry, I know that this sounds offensive to many, but this is a fact. The fact that this decision (to join an organization whose primary purpose is to murder people in their own countries, hundreds and thousands of miles away from the USA) could ALSO have been taken for “patriotic” reasons (i.e. by those who believed in what is most likely the most lying propaganda machine in history) or to “see the world” and “become a real man” does not change the fact that if the US military offered NO pay or benefits, NO scholarships, NO healthcare, etc. then the vast majority of those who claim that they joined to “serve” would never have joined in the first place. We all know that, let’s not pretend otherwise! Just look at the arguments recruiters use to convince people to join: they are all about money and benefits! Need more proof? Just look at the kind of social groups who compose the bulk of the US military: uneducated, poor, with minimal career prospects. The simple truth is that financially successful folks very rarely join the military and, when they do, they usually make a career out of it.

As somebody who has lived in the USA for a total of 21 years now, I can attest that folks join the military precisely for the same reasons they enter the police force or become correctional officers: because in all those endeavors there is money to be made and benefits to enjoy. Okay, there must be, by definition, the 1% or less who joined these (all violent) careers for purely lofty and noble ideals. But these would be a small, tiny, minority. The overwhelming majority of cops, correctional officers and soldiers joined primarily for material and/or financial reasons.

By the way, since that is the case, is it not also true that the soldier (just like the cop or the correctional officers) has ALREADY received his/her “gratitude” from the society for their “service” in the form of a check? Why do folks then still feel the need to “thank them for their service”? We don’t thank air traffic controllers or logging workers (also very tough careers) for their service, do we? And that is in spite of the fact that air traffic controllers and logging workers did not choose to join an organization whose primary goal is to kill people in their own homes (whether private homes or national ones) which is what soldiers get paid for.

Let me repeat that truism once again, in an even more direct way:

veterans are killers hired for money.  Period.  The rest is all propaganda.

In a normal sane world, one would think that this is primarily a moral and ethical question. I would even say a spiritual one. Surely major religions would have something relevant and clarifying to say about this? Well, in the past they did.  In fact, with some slight variations, the principles of what is called a “just war” have been known in the West since at least Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas.  According to one source they are:

  • A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
  • A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
  • A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient–see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with “right” intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
  • A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
  • The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
  • The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
  • The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

Modern religions for war

(Check out this article for a more thorough discussion of this fascinating topic)

Now Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas are hardly heroes of mine, but they are considered as very authoritative in western philosophical thought. Yet, when checked against this list of criteria, all the wars fought by the USA are clearly and self-evidently totally unjust: all of them fail on several criteria, and most of them (including the attack on Iraq and Afghanistan) fail on all of them!

But there is no need to go far back into the centuries to find authoritative western thinkers who clearly denounce unjust wars.  Did you know that the ultimate crime under international law is not genocide or crimes against humanity?

Robert H Jackson

Nope, the supreme crime under international law is the crime of aggression. In the words of the chief American prosecutor at Nuremberg and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Robert H. Jackson, the crime of aggression is the supreme crime because “it contains within itself the accumulated evil” of all the other war crimes.  He wrote:

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

So from the 4th century through the 20th century, the people of the West always knew what a just war was, and they fully understood that starting such a war is the supreme evil crime under international law. But this goes beyond just major wars. Under international law, the crime of “aggression” does not only refer to a full-scale military attack. Aggression can be defined as the execution of any one of the following acts:

  • Declaration of war upon another State.
  • Invasion by its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another State.
  • Attack by its land, naval or air forces, with or without a declaration of war, on the territory, vessels or aircraft of another State.
  • A naval blockade of the coasts or ports of another State.
  • Provision of support to armed bands formed in its territory which have invaded the territory of another State, or refusal, notwithstanding the request of the invaded State, to take, in its own territory, all the measures in its power to deprive those bands of all assistance or protection.

Finally, it is important to note here that by these authoritative legal definitions, every single US President is a war criminal under international law! This, in turn, begs the question of whether all the wars fought by US soldiers since 1945 were indeed waged by a legitimate authority (as mentioned by Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas above)? How can that be when the Commander in Chief himself is a war criminal?

Let’s sum it up so far:

we have folks who agree to become killers (or killer-assistants), who do that primarily for financial reasons, who then only participate in illegal and immoral wars of aggression and whose commander in chief is a war criminal.

And they deserve our gratitude why exactly?!

Maybe because so many veterans have been hurt, maimed, traumatized? Maybe because once they leave the armed forces, they don’t get the social and medical support they need? Perhaps merely because wars are horrible? Or maybe because the veterans were lied to and deceived? Or maybe because some (many?) of them did try to stay human, honorable and decent people in spite of the horrors of war all around them? When we think of the horrendous unemployment, homelessness and even suicide figures amongst veterans, we cannot but feel that these are people who have been lied to, cheated and then discarded like a useless tool. So maybe saying “thank you for your service” is the right thing to say?

Nope! These are all excellent reasons to feel compassion and sympathy for veterans, yes. But not gratitude. There is a huge difference here. Everybody, every human, and I strongly believe every creature deserves compassion and sympathy. But it is one thing to say “I feel compassion for you” and quite another to say “thank you for what you did” because that implies that the deed was a moral, good, ethical deed, and that is entirely false.

Major General Smedley Butler put it best when he wrote:

War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war, a few people make huge fortunes.

If we agree that war is, indeed, a “racket” and that it is conducted “for the benefit of the very few” then it would make sense for these “very few” to express their gratitude to those whom they hired to enrich them.  And, in fact, they do.  Here is the best example of that:

Corporation for war

(well, that at least makes sense!)

Of course, Google is no more dependent on wars of aggression than any other US corporation.  The very nature of the US economy is based on war and has always been based on war.  The so-called “American way of life” but without wars of aggression has never been attempted in the past, and it won’t be attempted for as long as the USA remains the cornerstone of the AngloZionist Empire and the world hegemony it seeks to impose on the rest of mankind.  But until that day arrives the “American way of life” will always imply wars of aggression and the mass murder of innocent people whose only “sin” is to dare to want to live free and not be a slave to the Empire.  If you believe that those who dare to want to live free in a truly sovereign country deserve to be murdered and maimed, then yes, by all means – thank the veterans from the bottom of your heart!

But if you don’t believe this, offer them your compassion, but not your gratitude for their crimes.

The Saker

No Sanctions Can Stop Cooperation between Russia, ASEAN Countries, 13 States Mull Buying Russia’s S-400 Despite US Sanctions

Russian President Vladimir Putin

Putin: No Sanctions Can Stop Cooperation between Russia, ASEAN Countries

November 15, 2018

Russian President Vladimir Putin warned on Thursday that no sanctions can stop cooperation between Russia and the ASEAN countries.

At a press conference in Singapore after his participation in the 13th East Asia Summit (EAS) and the Russia-ASEAN summit, Putin said that any politically-motivated restrictions in the economy are a hindrance and hurt everyone, including those who introduce them.

No sanctions can stop cooperation between Russia and the ASEAN countries and the development of their economies, the Russian strongman said.

Putin meanwhile, stressed that Russia is ready to work with Japan to resolve controversial issues.

He also asserted that Russia’s participation in WEF in Davos “will not affect Russia’s authority in world’s economy. A country’s authority in the world’s economy depends on its economic power, the economy’s structure, results in terms of technological effectiveness, the GDP growth, macroeconomic indicators, small external debt, the absence of budget deficit or its minimum rate or, what is better, budget surplus, which Russia enjoys now.”

Those imposing restrictions on Russian businessmen’s participation in WEF impose them against themselves, Putin added.

On the other hand, the Russian President has spoken briefly with US Vice President Mike Pence and White House National Security Adviser John Bolton before the beginning of the plenary session of the East Asia Summit in Singapore.

Meeting with Pence, Bolton

Putin and Pence had discussed strategic stability as well as the implementation of a new start treaty, Sputnik said.

He said that he believes that strategic stability is the key issue on the agenda of Russia-US talks.

Commenting on Syrian influx of migrants, Putin said that Europe should get rid of its “phobias” and help the Syrian people if it does not want to face a new inflow of migrants.

Russia is ready for full-fledged work in Syria’s economy, which would be advantageous for Moscow, and hopes that joint humanitarian aid deliveries in Syria, conducted by Russia as well as France and Germany, will continue, Putin added.

Source: Sputnik

https://www.globalresearch.ca/

13 States Mull Buying Russia’s S-400 Despite US Sanctions: Report

November 15, 2018

S-400 air defense systems

At least 13 countries have expressed their interest in purchasing the Russian S-400 Triumph surface-to-air missile systems instead of US equipment despite the likelihood of provoking Washington’s sanctions, media reported citing people with first-hand knowledge of a US intelligence assessment.

Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Vietnam were among the countries that had already engaged in talks on buying the Russian missile systems, the CNBC broadcaster reported on Wednesday.

Washington expected that several countries would yield to the US pressure and abandon their plans to purchase the Russian equipment, the outlet added.

“Many of these countries do not want to wait for US regulatory hurdles … The S-400 has less export restrictions and the Kremlin is willing to expedite sales by skipping over any regulatory hurdles. It’s like buying it off the shelf,” one of the sources told the broadcaster.

Another source noted that S-400 had been more powerful, in terms of capability, than the US most capable Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system.

“No other US system can match the S-400’s ability to protect large swathes of airspace at such long ranges,” the source, who was not authorized to speak publicly, said.

Sanctions over the purchase of the Russian military equipment could be triggered under the US Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, which came into force in 2017 and is set to punish Moscow for it alleged meddling in the US 2016 presidential election.

Source: Sputnik

Related Articles

Facing Propaganda The dirty war on Syria مواجهة بروباغندا الحرب القذرة على سوريا

Related Videos

Related Articles

Sanctions will fail to hinder Iran’s progress: AEOI chief

Head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran Ali Akbar Salehi

Head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran Ali Akbar Salehi

Sun Nov 11, 2018 03:17PM

Head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) Ali Akbar Salehi says sanctions will fail to stop the country’s progress in different fields.

“In spite of sanctions, Iran’s achievements in various fields, particularly in the defense and missile industry sectors as well as the nuclear industry have astonished the world,” Salehi told IRNA on Sunday.

He added that the United States has been pursuing the policy of imposing sanctions on the Iranian nation since the victory of the Islamic Revolution some 40 years ago, emphasizing that sanctions were nothing new for Iran.

Iran’s nuclear chief noted that the country has managed to achieve great success despite all kinds of pressures, restrictions, eight years of Iraqi-imposed war and crippling sanctions.

The AEOI chief emphasized that the Iranian nation relied on its own capabilities despite all the sanctions, saying Iran’s long-range missiles and nuclear gains have become famous in the world.

The administration of US President Donald Trump announced on November 5 the re-imposition of the “toughest” sanctions ever against Iran’s banking and energy sectors with the aim of cutting off its oil sales and crucial exports. The bans had been lifted under the 2015 nuclear deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

The first round of the anti-Iran bans — which had been lifted under the accord — was re-imposed in August.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif on Saturday dismissed his American counterpart’s starvation threat, stressing that the Islamic Republic will survive and even advance despite Washington’s sanctions.

In a post on his official Twitter account, Zarif said US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s open threat to starve the Iranian nation was “a crime against humanity” and “a desperate attempt to impose US whims on Iran.”

Zarif’s tweeted remarks came after Pompeo said in an interview with BBC Persian that Iranian officials must listen to Washington “if they want their people to eat.”

Read more:

Related Videos

See Also

Iran vows to protect oil tankers against US threats

‘Issue of Sovereignty’: Macron Wants EU to Be Less Dependent on Dollar

Emmanuel Macron

‘Issue of Sovereignty’: Macron Wants EU to Be Less Dependent on Dollar

November 12, 2018

French President Emmanuel Macron admitted on Sunday that the European nations have so far failed to provide a viable alternative to the US dollar, and are excessively dependent on the American currency.

In an interview with CNN, the French president said currently Europe didn’t have ‘a clear alternative’ to the dollar because “de-facto there is an international extraterritoriality of the dollar due to its strength”.

“Until now, we fail to make the euro as strong as the dollar. We made a great job during the past years but it’s not yet sufficient,” he said, when asked whether the EU will come up with a response to the US withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal in terms of currency.

Macron suggested that European corporations and entities were deeply dependent on the US dollar.

“This is an issue of sovereignty for me. So that’s why I want us to work very closely with our financial institutions, at the European levels and with all the partners, in order to build a capacity to be less dependent from the dollar,” he told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria.

Macron meanwhile, elaborated that such an alternative was not intended to rival the dollar, but was necessary for “the stability of the global order”:

“It doesn’t mean to be opponents – but I think for the stability of the global order, you’ll need a strong currency like [the] dollar, but you need some alternatives. Euro has to be one of these alternatives, which means we have to better enhance our financial structures and the financing of our players at the euro-zone level.”

 

SourceSputnik

Related Articles

Sayyed Nasrallah Warns ‘Israel’ of “Inevitable Response” to Any Attack on Lebanon

manar-03866840015418563561

November 10, 2018

Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah stressed that Hezbollah will inevitably respond to any attack against Lebanon and will not accept any underestimation by the enemy of the country’s power as it used to do in the past.

In a televised speech marking Hezbollah Martyr’s Day on Saturday, Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that the “source of our strength are our missiles because the Lebanese army is not allowed to acquire advanced missiles.”

The secretary general was responding to reports that the Zionist entity warned the Lebanese government through American and European intermediaries that it was readying to attack Hezbollah in the near future to prevent it from acquiring advanced missiles.

Hezbollah has a tremendous rocket capability and the enemy will not dare to attack Lebanon because of this power, His eminence stressed, adding that any attack will be faced automatically.

His eminence saluted the families of the martyrs. “Thanks to martyrs’ sacrifices, the resistance has achieved all its victories.”

“[Israeli PM Benjamin] Netanyahu believes that the key of everything is power and not the occupation,” Sayyed Nasrallah continued. “His problem, though, is that we have the power. We will respond to any Israeli strike on Lebanon and will not accept any aggression by the enemy on our land.”

Hezbollah’s S.G. condemned all form of normalization with the Zionist entity, calling on “everyone to reject normalization and not to be silent about it, and this duty is imposed by all standards and the voice must always be raised to condemn all steps of normalization.”

Sayyed Nasrallah addressed the Palestinian people saying: “do not lose hope over the Arab states’ normalization with ‘Israel’, what before went on behind the scenes now is taking place publicly. The current normalization has put an end to Arab hypocrisy, and brought down the masks of the swindlers and hypocrites.”

“Those who are taking part in Gaza return marches and those who are sacrificing in Gaza and West Bank give us hope because they resist the pressures exerted on them,” his eminence added. “Had the Syrian people and the government not resisted the pressure, we would have seen Netanyahu in Damascus because most of the so-called opposition in Syria maintains ties with ‘Israel’.”

Sayyed Nasrallah also deplored the international community’s outcry in the aftermath of the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi while turning a blind eye to the Saudi crimes it’s committing against Yemeni on a daily basis: “While they complain about the murder, they ignore the crimes Saudi Arabia is committing in Yemen.”

Sayyed Nasrallah pointed that the US calls for an end to the war on Yemen might be a hoax, “the timing of these calls is doubted.” Addressing Yemeni people, Sayyed Nasrallah called on them to remain patient and cling to their positions “because you are closer to victory more than ever before.”

On Bahrain, Hezbollah leader said the regime ruling against opposition leader Sheikh Ali Salman which had changed from innocence to life sentence confirms the regime’s repressive nature.

Addressing US sanctions against Iran, Hezbollah leader said the party was not afraid of any sanctions and “we will continue to hold on to our weapons and missiles.” “Binding government formation with US sanctions on Iran and with the crisis in Syria is ridiculous.”

Turning to the local issue of cabinet formation, Sayyed Nasrallah reiterated Hezbollah’s backing for the participation of independent Sunni MPs in the upcoming government.

“Lebanon does not need more than eight or ten ministers to represent all its parties but they chose to make it 30. Why not form the government of 32 and allow place for the representation of Sunni MPs,” his eminence said.

“Based on some parties criteria in ministerial shares, it was our right to demand 10 ministerial shares. It seems humbleness in this country is useless,” Sayyed Nasrallah responded to some allegations that Hezbollah was obstructing the cabinet formation. “But we didn’t demand more than 6 ministers, which in fact doesn’t reflect our parliamentary, political and popular size, but because we wanted to facilitate the formation of this government.”

Sayyed Nasrallah also lashed out at Progressive Socialist Party chief Walid Jumblatt who accused Hezbollah of ‘delaying the cabinet formation’, saying Jumblatt has obstructed the government formation for four months and has no right to speak of obstruction.

We behaved modestly before some parties because we wanted for this government to be formed, His eminence indicated.

Hezbollah’s S.G. emphasized that the party has raised the demand to allocate a ministerial portfolio for Sunni MPs “since day one after the Premier’s designation. We told him that this demand was basic and necessary for the formation of the new government.”
“Independent Sunnis were the ones who prevented the transformation of the political conflict in the country to sectarian one,” he stressed, calling on the PM-designate to give everyone his right of representation.

“We will remain at our allies side no matter how much time their issue would take,” Sayyed Nasrallah said, advising the PM-designate that if he wants this cabinet to be formed, “sectarian incitement will lead nowhere.”

On Hezbollah’s relations with the Lebanese President, Sayyed Nasrallah said: “Relations between Hezbollah and [Michel] Aoun are intact and no one can drag us to a rift over the Sunni MPs issue.”

“We will stand by the side of independent Sunni allies because we reject isolation,” his eminence stressed, adding that Hezbollah will agree to any decision by the Sunni MPs regarding their participation in the government.

Source: Al-Manar Website

 

Related Videos

Related Articles

%d bloggers like this: