هل يتورّط الأردن في جنوب سورية؟


هل يتورّط الأردن في جنوب سورية؟

أبريل 25, 2017

ناصر قنديل

– لم يكن مجرد صدفة أن يقع الاختيار على درعا جنوب سورية لإطلاق كرة النار التي صارت حرباً عالمية على سورية، ولا من باب الصدفة أيضاً إنشاء غرفة عمليات أميركية عرفت بغرفة الموك في الأردن تتولى تنظيم وتدريب المسلحين للقتال في سورية، قبل أن تقرر واشنطن الانتشار المباشر تحت غطاء قتال داعش شمال سورية، فالجنوب السوري يشكل المدخل الجيوسياسي للإمساك بالعاصمة دمشق وبالحدود السورية مع الجولان المحتل، وبالتالي خط الاتصال بمفهوم الأمن «الإسرائيلي» الذي كان ولا يزال حذر مواصلة الحرب على سورية.

– فشلت كل محاولات تنظيم وتجميع المسلحين للدرجة التي تسمح بتحقيق الأهداف المرجوة بتهديد أمن العاصمة السورية، أو توفير حزام أمني حقيقي لـ«إسرائيل»، رغم بلوغ الجماعات المسلحة أرقاماً بعشرات الآلاف، ويبدو واضحاً لغرفة عمليات الحرب على سورية أن ما لم يتم تحقيقه في ظروف صعود الجماعات المسلحة وتقدمها، لن يكون بالمقدور تحقيقه في ظروف هبوطها وبدء انحدارها، رغم محاولات الإنعاش التي تلقتها سواء، بالضربة الأميركية لمطار الشعيرات، أو بالتهديد بفتح الجبهة الجنوبية بشراكة أردنية «إسرائيلية» أميركية بريطانية.

– حاول «الإسرائيليون» الذين يفترض أنهم صاحب المصلحة الرئيسية بتشكيل كانتون جنوبي يشبه الكانتون الشمالي الذي أنشأه كل من الأميركيين والأتراك شمال سورية، وكانت مهزلة الحزام الأمني الذي رعاه موشي يعالون منذ كان وزيراً للحرب، ولم يتبقّ منه إلا بضع قذائف إسرائيلية كانت تتساقط لحماية جبهة النصرة في عمق الجنوب السوري وصارت تتساقط اليوم قرب خط الحدود، وعندما حاول «الإسرائيليون» مرات كسر معادلات الردع أصيبوا بالإحباط لتكريسها وتثبيتها، يوم غارتهم الأولى على القنيطرة واستشهاد جهاد مغنية والردّ في مزارع شبعا، وفي المرتين المتتاليتين لإطلاق الصواريخ السورية على طائراتهم، واعترافهم بأن المعادلات تتغير بعكس مصالحهم.

– حاول السعوديون بعد الحصول على الموافقة الأميركية تغطية حضور النصرة من بوابة غزوة دمشق وريف حماة وكان الفشل الذريع، ولا تزال انتصارات الجيش السوري تتدحرج، ولا يبدو أن الأميركيين والبريطانيين مستعدون لأكثر من إرسال وحدات عمليات خاصة، تحت شعار الحرب على داعش، لإسناد عملية يريدون للأردن تولّي مهمة تنظيمها وتغطية حركة الجماعات المسلحة التي تمّ تجميعها وتنظيمها لعبة الحدود السورية، ومحاولة اقتطاع جزء من جغرافيا الجنوب السوري، والمشروع تحت عنوان المناطق الآمنة للنازحين السوريين كما فعلت تركيا، لكن النتيجة ستكون خسارة الأردن ووقوعه في فخ قد يؤدي لتداعيات داخل الحدود وربما في العاصمة، فسورية اليوم غير الأمس، والوضع الدولي والإقليمي تغيّرا جذرياً، وما يتصل بـ«إسرائيل» حساباته مختلفة، فهل يريد الأميركي والبريطاني توريط الأردن لجعل الأراضي الأردنية مشاعاً تدخله وحدات داعش الهاربة من الموصل والرقة عبر الباديتين السورية والعراقية؟

(Visited 6٬746 times, 33 visits today)
Related Videos
Related Articles

Hezbollah obliterates ISIL’s HQ near Syrian border: video

BEIRUT, LEBANON (6:10 P.M.) – Hezbollah carried out a powerful attack against the Islamic State (ISIL) militants embedded in the Ras Ba’albak region of the Beqa’a Governorate of Lebanon on Monday.

The Lebanese group would score a direct hit on an Islamic State command center in Ras Ba’albak on Monday, killing and wounding several terrorists in the process of their attack.

Hezbollah turned the tables on the Islamic State this week after the latter launched a powerful offensive in Ras Ba’albak over the weekend.

The Islamic State has occupied several parts of Ras Ba’albak in eastern Lebanon for nearly two years now; they continue to operate in this region, despite ongoing attacks from Hezbollah and Lebanese Army.

Related Articles

الأسد يتّهم الأردن بتسهيل الغزو الأميركي في الجنوب … وعقود النفط والغاز مع روسيا في «خطواتها الأخيرة»

الأسد يتّهم الأردن بتسهيل الغزو الأميركي في الجنوب … وعقود النفط والغاز مع روسيا في «خطواتها الأخيرة»

أطفال من بلدتَي كفريا والفوعة وصلوا أمس إلى مدينة حلب (أ ف ب)

قد تشير التصريحات الحادة اللهجة، الصادرة من دمشق تجاه الأردن، إلى أن الجنوب السوري سيشهد تصعيداً واسعاً، من الممكن أن تنخرط فيه عمّان بدفع أميركي باتجاه موقع مشابه للأتراك في الشمال، بحجة حماية الحدود من «الإرهاب». الهجوم السوري تجاه الجارة الجنوبية جاء على لسان الرئيس السوري بشار الأسد، الذي أكد أن الدور الأردني لم يخرج عن الأجندة الأميركية من بداية الحرب

ي ضوء التصعيد المتواصل لهجمات المجموعات المسلحة في مدينة درعا، بالتوازي مع المعلومات التي تحدثت عن مشاريع أميركية ــ أردنية مشتركة على طول الحدود السورية الجنوبية، أكد الرئيس السوري بشار الأسد علم دمشق بتلك المعلومات من مصادر مختلفة، مهاجماً الدور الأردني خلال الحرب السورية، الذي كان «جزءاً من المخطط الأميركي منذ بداية الحرب».

التأكيد الرسمي من دمشق قد يشير إلى أن الجنوب السوري سيكون بدوره كما الشمال مسرحاً لعمليات عسكرية مدعومة أميركياً، سوف تحاول ضمنه واشنطن بمشاركة حلفائها الإقليميين، وعلى رأسهم الأردن وإسرائيل، إضعاف نفوذ دمشق وحلفائها، وإبعاد «خطرهم» عن إسرائيل. وهو ما انعكس في تصريحات وزير الدفاع الأميركي جايمس ماتيس، من إسرائيل، التي قال فيها إن «تحالفنا مع إسرائيل هو الحجر الأساس لتعاون أمني أوسع يشمل التعاون مع مصر والأردن والسعودية وشركائنا في دول الخليج». وأكد أن سوريا «لا تزال تحتفظ ببعض أسلحتها الكيميائية»، محذراً الرئيس الأسد من استخدامها.

واعتبر الرئيس الأسد في مقابلة مع وكالتي «ريا نوفوستي» و«سبوتنيك» الروسيتين، أن «الأردن ليس بلداً مستقلاً، وكل ما يريده الأميركيون سوف يحدث، فإذا أرادوا استخدام الجزء الشمالي من الأردن ضد سوريا، فإنهم سيستخدمونه». وفي المقابل، استفز كلام الرئيس السوري الحكومة الأردنية. فبعد ساعات على نشر المقابلة، أعرب المتحدث باسم الحكومة محمد المومني، عن «أسفه لحديث الأسد عن موقف الأردن وهو لا يسيطر على غالبية أراضي سوريا». ورأى أن «حديث الأسد منسلخ تماماً عن الواقع».

هجوم الأسد ضد الدور الأردني لم يأتِ وحيداً، إذ أكد أنه «عندما تتحدث عن الغزو التركي، وعندما نتحدث عن القوات الأميركية التي نعتبرها غزواً، وعندما تتحدث عن الإرهابيين على الأرض، فكلهم كيان واحد… وعندما تهزم الإرهابيين، عندها تستطيع أن تذهب وتحارب الآخرين الذين يحتلون الأرض»، معتبراً أن «الأميركيين كالأتراك، كأي محتل آخر عليهم الخروج بإرادتهم أو بالقوة».
وأشار إلى أن التصدي للهجمات الصاروخية الأميركية «بحاجة إلى نظام مكثف يغطي كل زاوية كي يتمكن من إسقاط الصواريخ»، مشيراً إلى أن «الإرهابيين لجأوا منذ بداية الهجمات إلى تدمير الدفاعات الجوية التي لا علاقة لها بما كانوا يسمونه حينذاك المظاهرات السلمية». ولفت إلى أن القوات السورية «فقدت أكثر من خمسين في المئة» من قوات دفاعها الجوي خلال سنوات الحرب، مضيفاً أن «الروس من خلال دعمهم عوّضوا جزءاً من تلك الخسارة بأسلحة وأنظمة دفاع جوي نوعية».

وجدد التأكيد على أن حادث خان شيخون «مفبرك»، وعلى أن الغرب والولايات المتحدة منعوا أي وفد من القدوم للتحقيق لأنه لو أتى «سيجد أن كل رواياتهم كانت فبركة وكذباً». وحول التفجير الذي استهدف الحافلات في منطقة الراشدين السبت الماضي، قال الأسد: «نحن نتحدث عن فصائل مختلفة وجميعها مرتبط بالقاعدة أو (جبهة النصرة)، قام أحد تلك الفصائل بمهاجمة الحافلات التي كانت مخصصة لنقل نفس المدنيين».

وعن تحرك القوات السورية باتجاه الرقة، أشار إلى أنه «قبل شهر فقط كان جيشنا يتقدم من حلب نحو الشرق، باتجاه الرقة، ولم يكن بعيداً عن الوصول إلى هناك، عندها شن الإرهابيون هجومهم على وسط سوريا… وتم إبطاء تقدمنا لأننا غيّرنا أولويتنا».

في سياق آخر، رأى الأسد أن «معظم الفصائل التي انضمت ظاهرياً إلى المفاوضات في أستانا وبعض تلك التي شاركت في جنيف، لا تقبل بدولة علمانية. إنهم يريدون دولة دينية إسلامية، وهو الجزء الأكثر أهمية في الخلاف المتعلق بالدستور».

على صعيد آخر، أعلن الرئيس السوري أن «السوق المحلي مفتوح الآن للشركات الروسية كي تأتي وتنضم إلينا وتلعب دوراً مهماً في إعادة بناء سوريا والاستثمار فيها»، مضيفاً أنّ «الجزء الأكثر أهمية بالنسبة إلينا، وأعتقد بالنسبة إليهم أيضاً، هو مجال النفط والغاز، وقد انضمت أخيراً بعض الشركات الروسية إلى القطاع خلال الأشهر القليلة الماضية، وتجرى الآن الخطوات الأخيرة في عملية توقيع العقود».
وبالتوازي مع التصعيد الدبلوماسي الأخير، استهدفت القوات الإسرائيلية أمس مواقع للجيش السوري في القنيطرة. وأوضح مصدر عسكري أن «طيران العدو الإسرائيلي عمد الى إطلاق صاروخين من داخل الأراضي المحتلة على أحد مواقعنا العسكرية في محيط بلدة خان أرنبة، ما أدى إلى وقوع خسائر مادية».

وفي موازاة الاتهامات الأميركية لدمشق، رأى وزير الخارجية الروسي سيرغي لافروف، أن رفض الدول الغربية مقترح إجراء تحقيق حول خان شيخون «أمر غير مقبول». وقال إن «المعلومات الكاذبة حول استخدام السلاح الكيميائي تستغل للتراجع عن القرار الدولي (2254) الذي ينص على تسوية سياسية، والعودة إلى فكرة تغيير النظام، ويجب ألا نسمح بحدوث ذلك». ولفت إلى أنه يجب التركيز على عملية أستانا لضمان الوصول إلى وقف لإطلاق النار، مشيراً إلى أنه يجري العمل على «توسيع عدد المشاركين في هذا الاتفاق».

وبالتوازي، قالت وزارة الخارجية الروسية إن لافروف، ونظيره الأميركي ريكس تيلرسون، اتفقا في اتصال هاتفي أمس، على ضرورة البحث في إمكانية تشكيل لجنة تحقيق تحت رعاية «منظمة حظر الأسلحة الكيميائية». وأضافت في بيان أن لافروف أعرب «عن أسفه لمعارضة واشنطن مبادرة روسيا» في «منظمة حظر الأسلحة الكيميائية»، لافتة إلى أنه جرى الاتفاق على «إطلاق نشاط مجموعة العمل الروسية ــ الأميركية المشتركة، على مستوى نواب وزيري الخارجية للبلدين».
(الأخبار)

 

Le Pen, Macron to Face Off in French Runoff Election

 photo pencron_zps46yajpty.jpg

[ Ed. note – Marine Le Pen, who wants to steer France out of the EU, and Emmanuel Macron, the pro-EU candidate, will face off against each other in the May 7 runoff election in France.

Both have emerged as top vote-getters in today’s election. According to the New York Times, Le Pen, with 34 percent of the votes counted, is the official front-runner, having garnered 24.6 percent of the vote, compared to 21.9 percent for Macron. The BBC, on the other hand, while still naming Le Pen in first place, is saying the tallies were much closer–at 23.5 percent and 23 percent respectively.

“What is at stake in this election is a referendum for or against lawless globalization,” Le Pen said to the enthusiastic cheers of her supporters after claiming victory. “Either you choose in favor of a total lack of rules, without borders, with unlawful competition, the free circulation of terrorists, or you make the choice of a France that protects. This is truly what is at stake. It is the survival of France.”

Macron, too, spoke to a crowd of supporters–many of them waving both the French flag and the flag of the EU.

“The two political parties that have governed France for years have been discarded,” he said. “The deep … feeling which has led our people to love our country and overcome its divisions is spectacular. You have shown that the hope of our country was not a dream but a relentless and benevolent will.”

Below is an article actually published a couple of days ago, but it gives some insights into French politics and why today’s election may have turned out the way it did. ]

The Main Issue in the French Presidential Election: National Sovereignty

By Diana Johnstone

Paris.

The 2017 French Presidential election marks a profound change in European political alignments. There is an ongoing shift from the traditional left-right rivalry to opposition between globalization, in the form of the European Union (EU), and national sovereignty.

Standard media treatment sticks to a simple left-right dualism: “racist” rejection of immigrants is the main issue and that what matters most is to “stop Marine Le Pen!”  Going from there to here is like walking through Alice’s looking glass. Almost everything is turned around.

On this side of the glass, the left has turned into the right and part of the right is turning into the left.

Fifty years ago, it was “the left” whose most ardent cause was passionate support for Third World national liberation struggles. The left’s heroes were Ahmed Ben Bella, Sukarno, Amilcar Cabral, Patrice Lumumba, and above all Ho Chi Minh.  What were these leaders fighting for?  They were fighting to liberate their countries from Western imperialism.  They were fighting for independence, for the right to determine their own way of life, preserve their own customs, decide their own future. They were fighting for national sovereignty, and the left supported that struggle.

Today, it is all turned around.  “Sovereignty” has become a bad word in the mainstream left.

National sovereignty is an essentially defensive concept. It is about staying home and minding one’s own business.  It is the opposite of the aggressive nationalism that inspired fascist Italy and Nazi Germany to conquer other countries, depriving them of their national sovereignty.

The confusion is due to the fact that most of what calls itself “the left” in the West has been totally won over to the current form of imperialism – aka “globalization”.  It is an imperialism of a new type, centered on the use of military force and “soft” power to enable transnational finance to penetrate every corner of the earth and thus to reshape all societies in the endless quest for profitable return on capital investment. The left has been won over to this new imperialism because it advances under the banner of “human rights” and “antiracism” – abstractions which a whole generation has been indoctrinated to consider the central, if not the only, political issues of our times.

The fact that “sovereignism” is growing in Europe is interpreted by mainstream globalist media as proof that “Europe is moving to the right”– no doubt because Europeans are “racist”. This interpretation is biased and dangerous. People in more and more European nations are calling for national sovereignty precisely because they have lost it. They lost it to the European Union, and they want it back.

That is why the British voted to leave the European Union.  Not because they are “racist”, but primarily because they cherish their historic tradition of self-rule.

The Socialist Party shipwreck

As his five-year presidency drew to its ignominious end, François Hollande was obliged by his drastic unpopularity to let his Parti Socialiste (PS) choose its 2017 presidential candidate by primary.  In a surprising upset, the Socialist government’s natural candidate, prime minister Manuel Valls, lost to Benoit Hamon, an obscure member of the PS left wing who refused to vote for the unpopular, neo-liberal, anti-labor laws designed by Hollande’s economic advisor, Emmanuel Macron.

To escape from the unpopularity of the PS, Macron formed his own movement, “En Marche!” One after another, Valls, Hollande and other prominent PS leaders are tiptoeing away, leaving Hamon at the helm of the sinking ship.  As Hamon justifiably protests against their betrayal, the party bigwigs pledge their support to Emmanuel Macron.

Macron ostentatiously hesitates to welcome his shopworn converts into the fold, fearing that their conversion makes it too obvious that his “En Marche!” is a clone of the right wing of the PS, on the way to becoming the French subsidiary of the U.S. Democratic Party in its Clintonian form. Macron proclaims that he is neither left nor right, as discredited politicians from both left and right jump on his bandwagon, to his embarrassment.

Hamon himself appears to be unaware that the basic cause of the Socialist Party’s shipwreck is its incompatible devotion to two contrary principles: traditional social democracy, and the European Union (EU). Macron, Hollande and their fellow turncoats at least have made their choice: the European Union.

The Twilight of the Traditional Right

The great advantage of Republican candidate François Fillon is that his policies are clear.  Unlike Hollande, who tried to disguise his neoliberal policies as something else, and based his claim to be on the left on “societal” issues (gay marriage), Fillon is an unabashed conservative.  His policies are designed to reduce the huge national debt. Whereas previous governments (including his own, when he was President Sarkozy’s Prime Minister) beat around the bush, Fillon won the Republican nomination by a program of sharp cutbacks in government spending.  Fillon claims that his austerity measures will lead French capitalists to invest in France and thus save the country’s economy from being completely taken over by foreign corporations, American retirement funds and Qatar.  This is highly doubtful, as there is nothing under EU rules to encourage French investors to invest in France rather than somewhere else.

Fillon departs from EU orthodoxy, however, by proposing a more independent foreign policy, notably by ending the “absurd” sanctions against Russian. He is more concerned about the fate of Middle East Christians than about overthrowing Assad.

The upshot is that Fillon’s coherent pro-capitalist policy is not exactly what the dominant globalizing elite prefers. The “center left” is their clear political choice  since Tony Blair and Bill Clinton revised the agendas of their respective parties. The center left emphasis on human rights (especially in faraway countries targeted for regime change) and ethnic diversity at home fits the long-term globalist aims of erasing national borders, to allow unrestricted free movement of capital. Traditional patriotic conservatism, represented by Fillon, does not altogether correspond to the international adventurism of globalization.

The Schizophrenic Left

For a generation, the French left has made “the construction of Europe” the center of its world view.  In the early 1980s, faced with opposition from what was then the European Community, French President François Mitterrand abandoned the socializing program on which he been elected.  Mitterrand nursed the hope that France would politically dominate a united Europe, but the unification of Germany changed all that. So did EU expansion to Eastern Central nations within the German sphere of influence. Economic policy is now made in Germany.

As the traditional left goal of economic equality was abandoned, it was superseded by emphatic allegiance to “human rights”, which is now taught in school as a veritable religion.  The vague notion of human rights was somehow associated with the “free movement” of everything and everybody. Indeed the official EU dogma is protection of “free movement”: free movement of goods, people, labor and (last but certainly not least) capital. These “four freedoms” in practice transform the nation from a political society into a financial market, an investment opportunity, run by a bureaucracy of supposed experts. In this way, the European Union has become the vanguard experiment in transforming the world into a single capitalist market.

The French left bought heavily into this ideal, partly because it deceptively echoed the old leftist ideal of “internationalism” (whereas capital has always been incomparably more “international” than workers), and partly due to the simplistic idea that “nationalism” is the sole cause of wars.  More fundamental and complex causes of war are ignored.

For a long time, the left has complained about job loss, declining living standards, delocalization or closure of profitable industries, without recognizing that these unpopular results are caused by EU requirements. EU directives and regulations increasingly undermine the French model of redistribution through public services, and are now threatening to wipe them out altogether – either because “the government is bankrupt” or because of EU competition rules prohibit countries from taking measures to preserve their key industries or their agriculture.  Rather than face reality, the left’s reaction has mostly been to repeat its worn-out demand for an impossible “Social Europe”.

Yet the dream of “social Europe” received what amounted to a fatal blow ten years ago. In 2005, a referendum was called to allow the French to approve a Constitution for united Europe. This led to an extraordinary popular discussion, with countless meetings of citizens examining every aspect of this lengthy document. Unlike normal constitutions, this document froze the member States in a single monetarist economic policy, with no possibility of change.

On May 29, 2005, French voters rejected the treaty by 55% to 45%.

What seemed to be a great victory for responsible democracy turned into its major failure.  Essentially the same document, renamed the Lisbon Treaty, was ratified in December 2007, without a referendum.  Global governance had put the people in their place. This produced widespread disillusion with politics as millions concluded that their votes didn’t matter, that politicians paid no attention to the will of the people.

Even so, Socialist politicians continued to pledge undying allegiance to the EU, always with the prospect that “Social Europe” might somehow be possible.

Meanwhile, it has become more and more obvious that EU monetarist policy based on the common currency, the euro, creates neither growth nor jobs as promised but destroys both. Unable to control its own currency, obliged to borrow from private banks, and to pay them interest, France is more and more in debt, its industry is disappearing and its farmers are committing suicide, on the average of one every other day.  The left has ended up in an impossible position: unswervingly loyal to the EU while calling for policies that are impossible under EU rules governing competition, free movement, deregulation, budgetary restraints, and countless other regulations produced by an opaque bureaucracy and ratified by a virtually powerless European Parliament, all under the influence of an army of lobbyists.

Benoit Hamon remains firmly stuck on the horns of the left’s fatal dilemma: determination to be “socialist”, or rather, social democratic, and passionate loyalty to “Europe”. While insisting on social policies that cannot possibly be carried out with the euro as currency and according to EU rules, Hamon still proclaims loyalty to “Europe”. He parrots the EU’s made-in-Washington foreign policy, demanding that “Assad must go” and ranting against Putin and Russia.

Jean-Luc Mélenchon Grasps the Nettle

Not only is the drab, conformist Hamon abandoned by his party heavies, he is totally upstaged on the left by the flamboyant Jean-Luc Mélenchon, a maverick ready to break the rules.  After years as a PS loyalist, Mélenchon broke away in 2005 to oppose the Constitutional Treaty, gaining prominence as a fiery orator. In 2007, he left the Socialist Party and founded the Parti de Gauche (Left Party). Allied with the much weakened Communist Party, he came in fourth in the first round of the 2012 Presidential election with 11% of the vote.  This time he is running for President with his own new movement, La France Insoumise, which can be translated in a number of ways, including “the France that does not submit”.

Submit to what?  Mainly, to the euro and to the antisocial, neoliberal policies of the European Union that are ruining France.

French flags and la Marseillaise have replaced the Internationale at Mélenchon rallies. “The Europe of our dreams is dead,” he acknowledges, vowing to “end the nightmare of dictatorship by banks and finance”.

Mélenchon calls for outright disobedience by violating EU treaties that are harmful to France. That is his Plan A.  His Plan B is to leave the EU, in case Plan A fails to convince Germany (the current boss) and the others to agree to change the treaties. But at best, Plan B is an empty threat to strengthen his hand in theoretical negotiations.  France is such a crucial member, he maintains, that a French threat to leave should be enough to force changes.

Threatening to leave the EU is just part of Mélenchon’s vast and complicated program which includes calling a national convention to draft a constitution for France’s “sixth Republic” as well as major ecological innovation.  Completely changing both France and the European Union at the same time would require the nation to be in a revolutionary effervescence that is by no means visible. It would also require a unanimity among the EU’s 28 member States that is simply impossible.

But Mélenchon is canny enough to have recognized the basic problem: the enemy of jobs, prosperity and public services is the European Union. Mélenchon is by far the candidate that generates the most excitement.  He has rapidly outdistanced Hamon and draws huge enthusiastic crowds to his rallies. His progress has changed the shape of the race: at this moment, he has become one of four front-runners who might get past the first round vote on April 23 into the finals on May 7: Le Pen, Macron, Fillon and himself.

The Opposites are (almost) the Same

A most remarkable feature of this campaign is great similarity between the two candidates said to represent “the far left”, Mélenchon, and “the far right”, Marine Le Pen.  Both speak of leaving the euro.  Both vow to negotiate with the EU to get better treaty terms for France. Both advocate social policies to benefit workers and low income people. Both want to normalize relations with Russia. Both want to leave NATO, or at least its military command.  Both defend national sovereignty, and can thus be described as “sovereignists”.

The only big difference between them is on immigration, an issue that arouses so much emotion that it is hard to discuss sensibly.  Those who oppose immigration are accused of “fascism”, those who favor immigration are accused of wanting to destroy the nation’s identity by flooding it with inassimilable foreigners.

In a country suffering from unemployment, without jobs or housing to accommodate mass immigration, and under the ongoing threat of Islamist terror attacks, the issue cannot be reasonably reduced to “racism” – unless Islamic terrorists constitute a “race”, for which there is no evidence. Le Pen insists that all French citizens deserve equal treatment regardless of their origins, race or religion. She is certain to get considerable support from recently nationalized immigrants, just as she now gets a majority of working class votes. If this is “fascism”, it has changed a lot in the past seventy years.

What is significant is that despite their differences, the two most charismatic candidates both speak of restoring national sovereignty. Both evoke the possibility of leaving the European Union, although in rather uncertain terms.

The globalist media are already preparing to blame the eventual election of a “sovereignist” candidate on Vladimir Putin. Public opinion in the West is being prepared for massive protests to break out against an undesired winner, and the “antifa” militants are ready to wreak havoc in the streets. Some people who like Marine Le Pen are afraid of voting for her, fearing the “color revolution” sure to be mounted against her.  Mélenchon and even Fillon might face similar problems.

As a taste of things to come, on April 20, the EU Observer published an article entitled “Russia-linked fake news floods French social media”. Based on something called Bakamo, one of the newly establishment “fact-check” outfits meant to steer readers away from unofficial opinion, the article accused Russian-influenced web sites of favoring Marine Le Pen, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, François Fillon, Francois Asselineau, and Philippe Poutou. (They forgot to mention one of the most “sovereignist” candidates, Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, currently polling in sixth place.)  Since a large majority of the eleven candidates, including three of the four front-runners, are strongly critical of the EU and of NATO and want to improve relations with Russia, it would seem that Putin wouldn’t have to make a great effort to get a more friendly French government next time around.  On the other hand, the EU Observer article is only a small sample of blatant “interference in the French election” on the part of the globalists on behalf of their favorite, Emmanuel Macron, the most enthusiastic Europhile.

The Future of France

Among those listed as alleged Russian favorites, François Asselineau is by far the most thorough critic of the European Union.  Systematically ignored by the media since he founded his anti-EU party, the Union Populaire Républicain (UPR), ten years ago, François Asselineau has thousands of ardent supporters who have plastered his poster all over the country. His tireless didactic speeches, reproduced on internet, have driven home several key points:

– there is no way to improve the EU from the inside, because any change would require unanimity among 27 member states who disagree on key issues.

– the only solution for France is to use Article 50 of the EU treaties to withdraw entirely, as the United Kingdom is currently doing.

– only by leaving the EU can France save its public services, its social benefits, its economy and its democracy.

– it is only by restoring its national sovereignty that genuine democratic life, with confrontation between a real “left” and “right”, can be possible.

– by leaving the EU, France, which has over 6,000 treaties with other countries, would not be isolated but would be joining the greater world.

Asselineau is a single issue candidate.  He vows that as soon as elected, he would invoke Article 50 to leave the EU and immediately apply to Washington to withdraw from NATO.  He emphasizes that none of the other critics of the EU propose such a clear exit within the rules.

Other candidates, including the more charismatic Mélenchon and Le Pen, echo some of Asselineau’s arguments.  But they are not ready to go so far as to advocate a clear immediate break with the EU, if only because they realize that the French population, while increasingly critical of the euro and alienated from the “European dream”, is still fearful of actually leaving, due to dire warnings of disaster from the Europeists.

The first round campaign is an opportunity for Asselineau to present his ideas to a wider audience, preparing public opinion for a more coherent “Frexit” policy.         By far the most fundamental emerging issue in this campaign is the conflict between the European Union and national sovereignty.  It will probably not be settled in this election, but it won’t go away.  This is the major issue of the future, because it determines whether any genuine political life is possible.

No Joke: U.N. Elects Saudi Arabia to Women’s Rights Commission, For 2018-2022 Term

Global Research, April 24, 2017
UN Watch 22 April 2017

The Geneva-based human rights group UN Watch condemned the U.N.’s election of Saudi Arabia, “the world’s most misogynistic regime,” to a 2018-2022 term on its Commission on the Status of Women, the U.N. agency “exclusively dedicated to the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women.”

“Electing Saudi Arabia to protect women’s rights is like making an arsonist into the town fire chief,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch. “It’s absurd.”

“Every Saudi woman,” said Neuer, “must have a male guardian who makes all critical decisions on her behalf, controlling a woman’s life from her birth until death. Saudi Arabia also bans women from driving cars.”

“I wish I could find the words to express how I feel right know. I’m ‘saudi’ and this feels like betrayal,” tweeted a self-described Saudi woman pursuing a doctorate in international human rights law in Australia.

Yet the fundamentalist monarchy is now one of 45 countries that, according to the U.N., will play an instrumental role in “promoting women’s rights, documenting the reality of women’s lives throughout the world, and shaping global standards on gender equality and the empowerment of women.”

Saudi Arabia was elected by a secret ballot last week of the U.N.’s 54-nation Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). Usually ECOSOC rubber-stamps nominations arranged behind closed doors by regional groups, however this time the U.S. forced an election, to China’s chagrin.

Saudi Arabia was also recently re-elected to the U.N. Human Rights Council where it enjoys the right to vote on, influence and oversee numerous mechanisms, resolutions and initiatives affecting the rights of women worldwide, including:

https://web.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fweb.facebook.com%2Funwatch%2Fvideos%2F10153872903866561%2F&show_text=0&width=690

The latest ECOSOC vote is reported in a U.N. press release:

Commission on the Status of WomenThe Council elected by secret ballot 13 members to four-year terms, beginning at the first meeting of the Commission’s sixty-third session in 2018 and expiring at the close of the sixty-sixth session in 2022:  Algeria, Comoros, Congo, Ghana and Kenya (African States); Iraq, Japan, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia and Turkmenistan (Asia-Pacific States); and Ecuador, Haiti and Nicaragua (Latin American and Caribbean States).

The only good news: thanks to the U.S. calling a vote — breaking with the Obama Administration policy which in 2014 allowed Iran to be elected by acclamation — Saudi Arabia was not elected by acclamation, but instead received the least votes of any other country: 47 out of 54 votes cast, even though there was no competition given that there was an equal amount of competitors for available seats.

Here were the results of the elections, with all 54 ECOSOC members voting:

African States
Algeria: 54
Comoros: 53
Congo: 53
Ghana: 53
Kenya: 53

Asian & Pacific States
Iraq: 54
Japan: 53
Republic of Korea: 54
Saudi Arabia: 47
Turkmenistan: 53

Latin American States
Ecuador: 54
Haiti: 54
Nicaragua: 52

*

It was a secret ballot, but the math tells us that at least 15 of the following democratic member states of the U.N. Economic and Social Council voted to elect Saudi Arabia to the U.N.’s women’s rights commission:

  • Andorra
  • Argentina
  • Australia
  • Belgium
  • Brazil
  • Chile
  • Colombia
  • Czech Republic
  • Estonia
  • France
  • Germany
  • India
  • Ireland
  • Italy
  • Japan
  • Norway
  • Republic of Korea
  • South Africa
  • Spain
  • Sweden
  • UK
  • USA

Hezbollah heads the internal compass to the south حزب الله يصوّب البوصلة الداخلية جنوباً

Hezbollah heads the internal compass to the south

أبريل 24, 2017

Written by Nasser Kandil,

Some people considered this move outside the context of the Lebanese concerns and interests which immersed in the search for a substitute for the law of elections to avoid the worst, some of media figures and politicians mobilized against it, so they fell in the trap which set by the move to reveal the hidden of the Lebanese politics about the operator and the financer, and to put the friend and the ally in front of the mirror entitled know your ally to know your enemy Hezbollah has engaged carefully, wittingly, and simply with its southern compass in the Lebanese policies specifying its main destination going beyond the borders. There is the cause, the security of Lebanon and the region, and the enemy. The real messages are directed to there and from there the real messages come even if they are heard by Lebanese people, but they remain the origin and the rest are just echo.

Hezbollah has driven the Lebanese people forcibly away from their sects, their tribalism, and their diaries which are full of depressed details, frustrating news, and the permanent inability in order to reveal to them what their enemy which is not far from them is preparing against them or that they are under its pinpoint while they are heading their hidden weapons against each other in competing and in following the remnants of spoils that nothing will left of them when the hour of war is stroke by this enemy, but the resistance is alert to it, it has prepared and got ready for every possibility and fight without the need to listen to anyone who pretends to be keen on an army which he fought and undermined its prestige one day, and which is now is protected by the resisters and it protects them, they exchange with it the loaf of bread, the sweat and the blood in the moments of mourning. In a critical Lebanese moment Hezbollah said to all the Lebanese people do not let the bad details kill your future and make you forget the great equations that surround you, you the Lebanese are in front of a vigilant enemy, it harbors you the evil and misfortune, so understand, cooperate and prepare yourselves, replace your disagreements with dialogue, concessions, and the low voice because the enemy is hearing the pulses of your hearts.

Hezbollah said and the Lebanese people heard it. Some of them prepared and got ready to undermine the last call before they listen to its content, a call before the storm and the stray in the mazes. So they hastened to pay off their bills of their concerns and interests, once because “the old habits die hard” and once because they keen on the priorities, as deepening the sectarian tension on which they invested a lot, and when it is the time to reap their gains there was who put the things in perspective and reset the record straight to the old memory. As the intentions which bear a slip of tongue or an urgent repayment were appeared, the good souls and the honest hearts emerged celebrating the honor moment a few years ago and which is meant for us to forget, even the sticking of some people to the resolution 1701 in which the President of the Republic has said what is enough regarding will not make us forget its significance, but Israel is violating it every day by violating our spaces, so do not point at oppositely.

Most importantly is that the Israelis heard Hezbollah, they heard the names of their officers on air; the Major Eliyahu Gabay; you are the responsible of the engineering unit for forming the barriers and removing the trees in Salha the occupied area even if its name became “Evimeem”. The Major General Yoel Strick you are the commander of the northern front which includes the Division 91 and in which the Galilee and Golan division work, as well as the brigade of the western of 300 which centralized opposite to the settlement of Nahariya in its three battalions “Zerieit”, “Evimeem”, and “Leeman”. Maybe the Israelis hear these details about their army and its commanders and formations for the first time. Hezbollah said you are listening to our pulses but we count your breathes and names and what is revolving in your minds. But on the day of the confrontation neither the barriers nor the industrial terrain nor the high rocks will benefit you. Every disease has a remedy and every resistor has an appeal as the late poet Omar Al Farra said “on the Day of Judgment we will emerge to you between your teeth”.

The messages have been received the Lebanese people woke up, but some of them have woke up for the sake of a homeland that worth to be managed with a mind that compensate with the challenges, some of them woke up in order to avoid drowning in the tribalism, and some of them got up in order to know who is his ally and who is the ally of his ally, but unfortunately some of them woke up on what he was before, forgetting what he must be. But the lurking enemy did not sleep to wake up, because it woke up to face more of panic for a day still to come.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

حزب الله يصوّب البوصلة الداخلية جنوباً

أبريل 21, 2017

ناصر قنديل

– في خطوة رآها البعض خارج سياق الهموم والاهتمامات اللبنانية المنغمسة في البحث عن بدل عن ضائع لقانون الانتخابات، تفادياً للأسوأ، واستنفر بوجهها بعض إعلام وبعض سياسة ليقع في الفخ الذي نصبته الخطوة لكشف مستور السياسة اللبنانية عن خلفيّات المشغّل والمموّل، ووضع الصديق والحليف أمام مرآة عنوانها أعرف حليفك، فتعرف عدوك، وبعناية وذكاء وبساطة خاض حزب الله ببوصلته الجنوبية غمار السياسات اللبنانية عابراً محدّداً وجهته الأساس، ما وراء الحدود. فهناك القضية وهناك أمن لبنان والمنطقة، وهناك العدو، وإلى هناك فقط توجَّه الرسائل الحقيقية، ومن هناك تأتي الرسائل الحقيقية ولو سمعت بأصوات لبنانية، تبقى هي الأصل والباقي مجرد صدى.

– أخذ حزب الله اللبنانيين عنوة عن طائفياتهم وعصبياتهم، ويوميّاتهم المليئة بالتفاصيل المحبطة والأخبار الكئيبة والعجز المقيم، ليظهر لهم ما يُعِدّ لهم عدو لا يقبع بعيداً عنهم، أو لا يقيمون بعيداً عن منظار تصويبه، بينما يصوّبون مناظيرهم وأسلحتهم الخفية لبعضهم بعضاً، تنافساً وتسابقاً على فتات غنائم لا يبقى منها شيء متى دقت ساعة حرب يقرّرها هذا العدو، وتقف قبالتها مقاومة أعدّت واستعدّت، لكل احتمال وقتال من دون حاجة لمن يحاضر فيها بعفة الحرص على جيش قاتلوه ودمّروا مهابته ذات يوم، ويحميه اليوم المقاومون ويحتمون به، ويتبادلون معه رغيف الخبز وقطرات العرق والدم في لحظات المنون، فقال حزب الله في لحظة لبنانية صعبة، لكلّ اللبنانيين، لا تدعوا التفاصيل المريضة تقتل غدكم، وتُنسيكم معادلات كبيرة تحيط بكم. أنتم أيها اللبنانيون أمام عدو لا ينام ويبيّت لكم كلكم كلّ شرّ وسوء فتفاهموا وتعاونوا وأعدّوا واستعدّوا، واستعينوا على خلافاتكم بالحوار والتنازلات والصوت المنخفض، فالعدو يسمعكم وينصت لدقات قلوبكم.

– قال حزب الله وسمعه اللبنانيون، ومنهم من أعدّ واستعدّ للنيل من النداء الأخير قبل أن يستمع لمضمون ما فيه، نداء ما قبل هبوب العواصف والضياع في المتاهات، فقرّر هؤلاء المستعجلون لسداد الفواتير كشف همومهم واهتماماتهم، مرة لأنّ الطبع يغلب التطبّع، ومرة حرصاً على الأولويات وهي عندهم تعميق التوتر الطائفي الذي استثمروا عليه كثيراً وكادوا يحسّون بقرب القطاف، فجاء من يُعيد الأمور إلى نصابها ويعيدهم إلى مربعات الذاكرة القديمة، وكما ظهرت النيات ذات زلة لسان مستعجل، أو سداد دين لا يقبل التأجيل، ظهرت النفوس الطيبة والقلوب الصادقة والعيون المشتاقة، تحتفل بشعور لحظة عزّ كانت قبل أعوام ويراد لنا أن ننساها، ولن ينسينا معناها كثر تشدّق البعض بالقرار 1701 الذي قال فيه رئيس الجمهورية ما يكفي، «إسرائيل» مَن يخرقه كلّ يوم بانتهاك أجوائنا، فلا تصوّبوا عكس الاتجاه.

– قال حزب الله والأهمّ أنّ مَن سمعه هم «الإسرائيليون»، سمعوا أسماء ضباط مواقعهم على الهواء، الرائد إلياهو غاباي أنت المسؤول عن وحدة هندسية لإقامة السواتر وإزالة الأشجار، في منطقة صلحا المحتلة، ولو صار اسمها افيميم. اللواء يوءال ستريك، أنت قائد الجبهة الشمالية التي تضمّ الفرقة 91 وتعمل فيها فرقة الجليل وفرقة الجولان، واللواء غربي 300 المتمركز مقابل مستعمرة نهاريا بكتائبه الثلاث زرعيت وأفيميم وليمان، وربما يكون «الإسرائيليون» يسمعون هذه التفاصيل عن جيشهم وقادته وتشكيلاته للمرة الأولى. وقال حزب الله أنتم تتنصّتون على نبض قلوبنا، ونحن نُحصي أنفاسكم وأسماءكم وما يدور في عقولكم، ويوم النزال لن تنفعكم السواتر ولا التضاريس الصناعية، ولا الصخور الشاهقة، فلكلّ داء دواء ولكلّ مقاوم رجاء، وكما يقول الشاعر الراحل عمر الفرا «سنخرج لكم يوم الحشر من بين أسنانكم».

– وصلت الرسائل، استفاق اللبنانيون، بعضهم استفاق لوطن يستحق أن يُدار بعقل يتناسب مع التحديات، وبعضهم استفاق كي لا يغرق بتفاصيل العصبيات، وبعضهم استفاق ليعرف مَن هو حليفه ومَن هو حليف حليفه، وبعضهم للأسف استفاق على ما كان، ونسي مَا يجب أن يكون، لكن العدو المتربّص لم ينم كي يستفيق، فاستفاق فيه مزيد من الذعر ليوم نزال آتٍ.

(Visited 2٬343 times, 209 visits today)
Related Videos

“Electing Saudi Arabia to protect women’s rights is like making an arsonist into the town fire chief”

Saudi Arabia Elected to UN Women’s Rights Commission

Saudi Arabia was elected to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women.

The addition of the Gulf nation was first flagged by UN Watch, a nongovernmental body that monitors the United Nations. The Commission on the Status of Women’s main mission is to assess the challenges to reaching gender inequality, according to the U.N. website.

The organization’s executive director slammed the election, which occurred in a secret vote during the U.N.’s Economic and Social Council

“Electing Saudi Arabia to protect women’s rights is like making an arsonist into the town fire chief,” Hillel Neuer said. 

Neuer called the election “absurd,” noting that all women in Saudi Arabia “must have a male guardian who makes all critical decisions on her behalf, controlling a woman’s life from her birth until death. Saudi Arabia also bans women from driving cars.”

Saudi Arabia, a top U.S. ally, is also on the U.N. Human Rights Council

%d bloggers like this: