«Israel’s» Gaza Headache

«Israel’s» Gaza Headache

Abdallah al-Sinawi

“I hope to wake up one morning and not find Gaza on the map,” former “Israeli” Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin told the French President Francois Mitterrand during a meeting in the Elysee Palace. These were feelings he could no longer hide and the nightmares haunting him when he thought about the future of the Jewish “state”.

This was in the early 1990s when talk of settling the Palestinian issue dominated the arena of international diplomacy. The “Israeli” statement, conveyed by the surprised French president to his old friend Professor Mohamed Hassanein Heikal, was not a metaphor for fears as much as it was the basis of a complete strategy that governed “Israel’s” negotiations with the Palestinians in Oslo.

“Israel’s” strategic goals in the Oslo negotiations leaned towards getting rid of the Gaza headache as quickly as possible and transferring the responsibility over to a Palestinian Authority that is bound by full security cooperation with the “Israeli” occupation forces.

It was no coincidence that the title of the first phase of the Oslo agreement was “Gaza and Ariha [Jericho] first”. At the time, there was a fundamental criticism regarding the gaps and concessions that took on the title: “Gaza and Ariha, first and foremost”. This has been happening somewhat for more than a quarter of a century.

“Israel” did not abide by what it signed and there was no Palestinian state created on the territories occupied in 1967. The settlements expanded until they almost devoured the greater part of the West Bank. Al-Quds was annexed by the force of arms and not much attention was paid to any legitimate rights or international resolutions. The Palestinian Authority itself became a hostage under the bayonets of the occupation.

Popular uprisings unfolded. Confrontations took place in al-Quds and the West Bank. Gaza progressed to become “Israel’s” headache.

New situations arouse, the worst of which was the bloody Palestinian division between Fatah and Hamas or the West Bank and Gaza. A harsh siege was imposed on the impoverished enclave, making life there almost impossible.

Three devastating wars were carried out against Gaza in 2008, 2012 and 2014. Sporadic “Israeli” raids and attacks destroyed and killed. But Gaza did not succumb. No one in “Israel” is thinking of reoccupying Gaza. The price is high and intolerable. There are no biblical references advocating the occupation of a populated and armed enclave poor of natural resources.

“Israel’s” exact intentions with respect to its ongoing military operations against Gaza and its people are to reduce the prospects for the growth of the armed resistance and to sever its links to the West Bank in order to break the unity of the people and the cause. This is the closest explanation to the truth regarding the motives of the intelligence operation, the repercussions of which have caused the most severe clashes between the “Israeli” army and the resistance groups since 2014.

The failure of the operations shocked the “Israelis”. The commando force, which infiltrated into Khan Younis, fell into the ambush of the resistance. Its commander was killed and another officer was seriously wounded. It almost fell captive had it not been for the general military and intelligence mobilization directly supervised by the “Israeli” chief of staff to save it from that fate.

That incident with its ramifications and the courage shown by the Palestinians in a battle that lacked military parity was a new Gaza headache for “Israel”. The “Israelis” thought they can do whatever they wanted, launch incursions, kill and arrest, without caring about the truce that is supposed to refrain it from any provocative actions.

Such operations are not new. It cannot be envisioned that “Israel” will stop launching them in any long-term truce. It believes that it has the right to do whatever it wants in the name of its security without taking into account that there are about two million Palestinians who demand reciprocity. Calm in return for calm. Not calm from one side. That was the first message. There was a second message sent by the besieged Strip, which was targeted by “Israeli” missiles and destroyed while its residents were intimidated. The message conveyed is that it can retaliate, hurt and push 250 thousand “Israelis” to bomb shelters, paralyze and frighten the southern part of the Jewish “state” and eventually force the “Israelis” to accept Egyptian mediation for a ceasefire and a return to the course of calm, whose longevity cannot be counted upon.

While accepting the ceasefire, “Israel” declared that it would continue military operations if necessary.

What was the necessity that called for breaking the truce?

There is no single answer that goes beyond the loose phrases about “Israeli” security. As if one side has the right to violate the truce on vague grounds and to remove the other party’s similar rights. As usual, the US administration ensured that the “Israeli” war machine was protected in the UN Security Council. Hamas rockets appeared to be the only culprit, as if Palestinian victims were not terrorized and killed by “Israel’s” excessive violence. As usual, the Arab powerlessness was clearly tragic. As if the Gaza headache struck Arab rulers that wished not to find it on the map or that the entire Palestinian cause would simply disappear.

The Arab scrambling for normalization was the fundamental reason that drove the “Israeli” delegate in the UN Security Council to call other states that were talking about the disproportionate use of force ‘immoral’. That light criticism was not easy for “Israel”. As if identifying with the occupation and condemning the victims are the components of morality according to the latest “Israeli” definitions.

Despite “Israel’s” arrogance in its power, its fragility and lack of confidence in the future cannot be hidden. Suffice it to point the targeting of the Al-Aqsa TV with intensive shelling that leveled the premises and surrounding areas. This is a sign of weakness, not power. The capabilities and level of broadcast of the TV station is limited. This shows that “Israel” cannot tolerate a voice against its policies. It is unleashing policies that do not have a way to get rid of the chronic Gaza headaches other than the excessive use of force. It is a peace imposed by force, according to US President Donald Trump, in other words the “Deal of the Century”. With any objective reading, Gaza is its main focus. There is no room for negotiations over the settlements in the West Bank and al-Quds as well as the refugees. The Arab initiative of a comprehensive normalization in return for a full withdrawal from the Arab territories occupied since 1967 has clinically died. The separation of Gaza from the West Bank is an essential objective of the prepared plan.

What is being planned and what the “Israelis” hope to implement is striping away Gaza’s National liberation nature and transforming it into a purely humanitarian issue that includes improving the standards of living and services such as electricity, fuel and the establishment of a water corridor between Cyprus and Gaza under the full supervision of the “Israeli” security services. In one way or another, the failed intelligence operation and the ensuing military confrontation come in the context of the “Deal of the Century”. In one surreal scene, the violence, siege, starvation and the pressure to halt US shares to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) come side by side with proposed projects, deals and promises to improve the standards of living in exchange for Palestinians surrendering any legitimate rights. This kind of thinking is closer to delirium and is certainly fated to fail.

Source: Al-Akhbar, Translated by website team

صداع غزة في رأس إسرائيل

عبدالله السناوي

  الخميس 15 تشرين الثاني 2018

«أتمنى أن استيقظ من النوم ذات صباح فلا أجد غزة على الخريطة». هكذا كاشف رئيس الوزراء الإسرائيلي الأسبق إسحاق رابين الرئيس الفرنسي فرانسوا ميتران في اجتماع ضمهما بقصر الإليزيه بمشاعر لم يعد بوسعه أن يخفيها وكوابيس تلاحقه في النظر إلى مستقبل الدولة العبرية. كان ذلك مطلع تسعينيات القرن الماضي وأحاديث تسوية القضية الفلسطينية تتسيّد كواليس الديبلوماسية الدولية. لم تكن العبارة الكاشفة، التي نقلها الرئيس الفرنسي مندهشاً من رسائلها إلى صديقه القديم الأستاذ محمد حسنين هيكل، تعبيراً مجازياً مبالغاً عن هواجس ومخاوف بقدر ما كانت تأسيساً لاستراتيجية كاملة حكمت إدارة إسرائيل للمفاوضات مع الفلسطينيين في «أوسلو».

مال التصميم الاستراتيجي الإسرائيلي في مفاوضات «أوسلو» إلى التخلص بأسرع ما هو ممكن من صداع غزة وإحالة مسؤوليتها إلى سلطة فلسطينية مقيّدة بالتزامات التعاون الأمني الكامل مع قوات الاحتلال الإسرائيلي. ولم تكن مصادفة أن يكون عنوان المرحلة الأولى في اتفاقية «أوسلو»: «غزة وأريحا أولاً». شاع وقتها نقد جوهري لما انطوت عليه الاتفاقية من ثغرات وتنازلات أخذ عنواناً مضاداً: «غزة وأريحا أولاً وأخيراً». على مدى أكثر من ربع قرن هذا ما حدث تقريباً.

لا إسرائيل التزمت بما وقعت عليه ولا نشأت دولة فلسطينية على الأراضي التي احتلت عام 1967. توسعت المستوطنات حتى كادت تلتهم الجانب الأكبر من الضفة الغربية وضمت القدس بقوة السلاح من دون التفات كبير لأية حقوق مشروعة أو أية قرارات دولية، والسلطة نفسها تحولت إلى رهينة تحت حراب الاحتلال.

هبّت انتفاضات شعبية وجرت مواجهات في القدس والضفة الغربية وتقدمت غزة لتفاقم صداعها في الرأس الإسرائيلي.

ثم نشأت أوضاع جديدة، أسوأها الانشقاق الفلسطيني الفادح بين «فتح» و«حماس» أو الضفة وغزة، وفرض حصار قاس على القطاع الفقير حتى أصبحت الحياة شبه مستحيلة.

جرت ثلاثة حروب مدمرة عليه أعوام 2008 و2012 و2014 فضلاً عن غارات واعتداءات متكررة تضرب وتدمر وتقتل من حين لآخر من دون أن تخضع غزة. ليس في وارد أي تفكير إسرائيلي إعادة احتلال غزة، فالثمن باهظ وغير محتمل، كما أنه ليست هناك مطامع توراتية، أو إغواءات ما لاحتلال قطاع فقير في موارده الطبيعية ومكتظ بالسكان والسلاح. ما تريده إسرائيل ـ بالضبط ـ من عملياتها العسكرية المتواصلة ضد غزة وأهلها تقليل احتمالات نمو المقاومة المسلحة واتصال أدوارها بالضفة الغربية لفصم وحدة الشعب والقضية. هذا هو التفسير الأقرب إلى الحقيقة لدوافع العملية الاستخباراتية، التي استدعت تداعياتها أوسع اشتباك بين الجيش الإسرائيلي وجماعات المقاومة منذ عام 2014.

كان فشل العملية صدمة إسرائيلية مؤكدة. وقعت قوة الكوماندوس الخاصة التي تسلّلت إلى خانيونس في كمين المقاومة، قتل قائدها وأصيب ضابط آخر بجروح خطيرة، وكادت أن تقع في الأسر لولا التعبئة العامة العسكرية والاستخباراتية لإنقاذها من ذلك المصير تحت الإشراف المباشر لرئيس الأركان الإسرائيلي.

ما حدث تلك الليلة بدلالاته ومستوى الشجاعة التي أبداها الفلسطينيون في معركة تفتقد التكافؤ العسكري، تعبير جديد عن صداع غزة في رأس يتصور أن بوسعه فعل ما يشاء، يخترق ويستكشف ما يريد استكشافه، يقتل ويعتقل، من دون أن يأبه بمسار التهدئة الذي يفترض أن يلزمه بالامتناع عن أية تصرفات استفزازية بالسلاح.

مثل هذه العمليات الإسرائيلية ليست جديدة، ولا يتصور أن تمتنع عنها في ظل أية هدنة طويلة المدى، إذ ترى أن من حقها فعل ما تشاء باسم أمنها من دون أن يخطر ببالها أن هناك نحو مليوني فلسطيني يطلبون المعاملة بالمثل ـ تهدئة مقابل تهدئة وليست تهدئة من طرف واحد. كانت تلك رسالة أولى. كما كانت هناك رسالة ثانية من القطاع المحاصر، الذي استهدفته الصواريخ والطائرات الإسرائيلية تقتيلاً وهدماً وترويعاً لمواطنيه، أن بوسعه أن يرد ويوجع ويدفع نحو 250 ألف إسرائيلي إلى الملاجئ وإصابة جنوب الدولة العبرية بالذعر والشلل ويجبر المعتدي في نهاية المطاف على قبول الوساطة المصرية لوقف تبادل النيران والعودة إلى مسار التهدئة الذي يصعب التعويل على إمكانية ديمومته.

إسرائيل نفسها أعلنت في لحظة قبولها وقف إطلاق النار أنها ستواصل العمليات العسكرية إذا اقتضت الضرورة.

    • ما الضرورة التي تدعو لخرق التهدئة؟

لا إجابة واحدة تتجاوز العبارات الفضفاضة عن الأمن الإسرائيلي، كأنه من حق طرف واحد أن يخرق التهدئة بدواعي غامضة وينزع عن الطرف الآخر أية حقوق مماثلة، أو غير مماثلة. كالعادة تكفّلت الإدارة الأميركية بتوفير الحماية لآلة الحرب الإسرائيلية في مجلس الأمن الدولي، وبدت صواريخ «حماس» متهماً وحيداً، كأنه لم يسقط ويروع ضحايا فلسطينيون بالعنف الإسرائيلي المفرط. وكالعادة تبدى العجز العربي مأسوياً كأن صداع غزة قد أصاب قصور حكمه حتى تمنت بدورها ألا تجدها على الخريطة، أو أن تختفي القضية الفلسطينية كلها من الوجود.

كانت الهرولة العربية للتطبيع داعياً جوهرياً لما أسماه المندوب الإسرائيلي في مجلس الأمن بـ«عدم أخلاقية» الدول التي تتحدث عن عدم تكافؤ العنف بين الإسرائيليين والفلسطينيين. لم يكن ذلك النقد الهيّن مناسباً لإسرائيل، كأن التماهي مع الاحتلال وإدانة الضحايا من مقومات الأخلاق وفق أحدث التعريفات الإسرائيلية.

على رغم عجرفة القوة فإنه لا يخفى مدى هشاشتها وعدم ثقتها في مستقبلها. تكفي الإشارة إلى استهداف «فضائية الأقصى» بقصف مكثف أزال مبناها وما حولها. هذه علامة ضعف لا قوة، فالفضائية محدودة في إمكانياتها ومستويات انتشارها، كأن إسرائيل لا تحتمل صوتاً يناهض سياساتها. إنه انفلات أعصاب وسياسات لا تعرف وسيلة ما للتخلص من صداع غزة المزمن غير الإفراط في استخدام القوة. وإنه سلام القوة ـ بتعبير الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب، أو «صفقة القرن» بتعبير آخر. بأية قراءة موضوعية مما تسرب عنها فإن غزة محورها الرئيسي. لا مجال لأي تفاوض في مستوطنات الضفة الغربية والقدس واللاجئين، والمبادرة العربية التي تقضي بالتطبيع الشامل مقابل الانسحاب الكامل من الأراضي العربية المحتلة منذ عام 1967 ماتت إكلينيكياً. فصل غزة عن الضفة الغربية هدف جوهري للخطة المزمعة.

ما هو قيد التخطيط ومحاولة التنفيذ نزع الطابع التحرري الوطني عن غزة وتحويلها إلى محض قضية إنسانية يخفف من وطأتها تحسين مستويات المعيشة والخدمات كالكهرباء والوقود وإنشاء ممر مائي مع قبرص للانتقال من غزة وإليها تحت الإشراف الكامل للأجهزة الأمنية الإسرائيلية. بصورة أو أخرى تدخل العملية الاستخباراتية الفاشلة وما ترتب عليها من مواجهات عسكرية في سياق «صفقة القرن». في مشهد سريالي واحد يتجاور العنف والحصار والتجويع والضغط بوقف الحصة الأميركية في «الأونروا» وكالة الأمم المتحدة لإغاثة وتشغيل اللاجئين الفلسطينيين مع التلويح بمشروعات وصفقات ووعود تحسن مستوى الحياة مقابل التخلي عن أية حقوق مشروعة. هذا النوع من التفكير أقرب إلى الهذيان ومصيره الفشل المؤكد.

    • * كاتب وصحافي مصري

Related Videos

Related Articles

Advertisements

The Victorious Palestine

Hussein Samawarchi

The act of celebration is very symbolic. Knowing what a people celebrate gives the spectator insight on what kind of society they represent, along with their values.

The Palestinians just celebrated repelling an offensive and avoiding another full-blown massacre against their families. They did not celebrate attacking the illegal settlers who continue to rape their land. Not that they don’t have every ethical right to do so; after all, those settlers are foreign elements who have displaced them by resorting to terrorist methods like the use of weapons and a mercenary army for the purpose of ethnic cleansing and the theft of ancestral land.

It just shows how genuinely pure their cause is – it gives indications of their social attitude. These are the same people who expressed sorrow for the many Jews who endured the unspeakable in Europe almost 80 years ago; they are the same people who opened their hearts and doors so innocently for those who barely made it with their lives. They did it under the belief in the Arabic saying “??? ???? ?????” which means God’s land can accommodate all.

Little did they know that the ships claiming to bring in refugees turned out to be transporting Zionists pretending to be Jews. Pretending, because humanity’s prophet Moses did not teach theft and is, by all means, exonerated from the criminal practices of these people. You are not a Jew if you do not follow the teachings and example of Moses.

The rockets shot at the occupied land were not an act of attack, they constituted a defense strategy. Terrorism could not have possibly been stopped with dialogue. God knows the Palestinians, with their natural social tendencies to peaceful approaches, had tried for decades, but words were always met with bullets and more extermination. Hence, the “Israelis” were met with reciprocation this time. It seems that a conversation in their own language is what yields results. Unleashing rockets back at them made them desist from leveling more buildings on children like they have done so many times before.

The Palestinians have celebrated the success of stopping another chapter in their holocaust.

Of course, what happened took its toll on an already divided and ailing “Israeli” political scene. The modern-day Heinrich Himmler of the Zionist entity decided to take a quick exit from the council of psychopaths they call government. Lieberman must have finally accepted the fact that being a bouncer at a nightclub does not necessarily qualify him to lead an occupying force. More reverberations took shape in the further plummeting of Netanyahu’s popularity among his people.

The footage that emerged this week of a beautiful symbol exploding while touched by impure hands carried immense significance. When “Israeli” terrorists tried to desecrate the great flag of Palestine with hands drenched in the blood of innocents, it exploded. A flag is the representation of a nation. It was a lesson; the nation will explode and engulf desecrators with fire just like its symbol did. They need to understand that regardless of how long they remain occupying the holy land, it will never be theirs just like it will never lose its real name, Palestine.

Next to the one dealing with the Palestinian resistance unifying in the face of terrorism, another great event took place during this same period. The Arab leaders who have been supporting Zionists in secret for so long have decided to come out in the open. As unfortunate as that may be, it does help put things in perspective. Now, the revelation that Palestine is not limited, as a cause, to Arabs has been confirmed. And now, those Palestinians who waited for the presumed Arab support know that they are not going to receive it.

The positive aspect is that the Palestinians are able to finally make better alliance calculations. The leaders who have always pretended to be supporters of this righteous central cause have made their reality public. The indisputable knowledge that they belong to the “Israeli” camp indicates that whomever they are against must be in the camp supporting Palestine.

The continuous bashing of the Syrian government, Hezbollah, and the Islamic Republic of Iran by the same people who welcome the oppressors of Palestinians does not require a great deal of analysis. The preposterous allegation that a Shiite geographical crescent is being formed to subdue Sunnis has been debunked by the same people who made it.

If there is a crescent in the making, it is one that includes Shiites, Sunnis, Druze, Alawites, Christians, and any other free soul who believes in Palestine.

It is high time to stop listening to the media funded by those who are too busy between offering “Israel” billions to strike Lebanon and turning their diplomatic missions into human slaughterhouses. Or, that of those who give a private mosque tour to the woman who compares the Islamic mosque Azan to dogs barking. People must focus on the deeds and not the words – contemporary history is sufficient to know whose compass is in the right direction, who is suffering from wars and crippling sanctions due to their dedication for Palestine.

May Palestine remain united and may it celebrate many more victories to come.

Source: Al-Ahed

Related Articles

Israel’s failure in Gaza

2018-10-13_al-aqsaal-aqsa.jpg

By Mohammad Ayesh
Source

The failed Israeli operation that targeted Hamas members on Sunday evening confirms that Israel is not sparing any opportunity and is not risking losing any target, regardless of the political situation. It does not care if the truce collapses or survives and it does not care about any international mediator. It has become clear that we are facing a security and military system not governed by politicians and therefore it does not adhere to what they adhere to.

However, the implications of the Israeli operation against the Gaza Strip do not just come down to Israel not caring about the truce or political mediators and not sparing a Palestinian target from its attack. It goes beyond this due to its military nature and sensitive timing, occurring at a time when truce talks under Egyptian auspices are taking place. The most important and prominent implications of this Israeli operation are as follows:

First, judging the success or failure of the operation should not be based on the human losses sustained on either side because this is not a conventional war or a military scale. Instead. Israel’s failure is manifested in the fact that the operation aimed to abduct a Hamas leader, most likely the martyr Nur Baraka who recently obtained a Master’s degree. This operation means that Israel wanted him alive, because if they wanted to kill him, they would use an air strike, not a ground attack, after determining his exact location. This means that according to Israeli assessment, the man possessed important secrets and that is why they wanted to arrest him alive, not assassinate and eliminate him. However, they failed in their operation, as they lost the man and his secrets and came out of the operation with the death of an Israeli officer from the unit that carried out the operation.

Secondly, the Israelis are not respecting the Egyptian mediation for the truce. This means that international guarantees more binding for Israel should be sought if Hamas agrees to a truce. It should also be known whether the Israeli security agency would comply with the commitments of the politicians. If the Israeli government was aware of this operation and agreed to it in advance, that would mean that Tel Aviv is not interested in a truce with the Gaza Strip, and that there are no guarantees for the continuation of the truce after reaching it, as Israel could breach it at the first sight of a Hamas leader it can reach.

Thirdly, the disregard for the Palestinian side and the Egyptian mediation, and the execution of this operation in this manner, including the military ground invasion, backed by air cover, would not have happened had it not been for the unprecedented wave of Arab normalisation with Israel. This includes the Gulf’s keenness to build free relations with Tel Aviv. Otherwise, why would Israel no longer care about the Egyptians’ anger and letting them down if the numerous channels in the Arab world were not open to it. Accordingly, any tension in the relations with Egypt and Jordan (traditional friends) could possibly be compensated for by relations with other Arab countries.

Fourthly, Israel definitely wanted to test Hamas’ military strength and also wanted to test its armed forces’ reaction after all of these years of siege imposed on the Gaza Strip. It seems that this test was important from an intelligence perspective for the Israelis before initiating a truce period. Perhaps Tel Aviv also wanted to conduct this test before making the decision to wage (or not to wage) a full-scale war on the Gaza Strip. In previous wars, Israeli forces’ estimates of Hamas’ strength were mostly wrong, and the previous three wars ended without results.

In summary, Israel suffered a new loss in this operation and although the operation’s target, the martyr Nur Baraka, was not known to the public, he was certainly an important man and Israel wanted him alive to obtain the information in his possession. Otherwise, it would not have engaged in this risk that almost ended in the capture of another Israeli officer if he hadn’t been killed on the spot. On the other hand, it is important to say that the free Arab normalisation with Israel and the Gulf moving towards Tel Aviv bears part of the responsibility for this Israeli arrogance.

Khashoggi, Ben Barka & PressTV’s Serena Shim: A 4-part series

by Ramin Mazaheri for The Saker Blog

November 11, 2018

In October of 1965, 2014 and 2018 three journalists were prominently assassinated: Mehdi Ben Barka, Serena Shim and Jamal Khashoggi. Most readers likely don’t know the first two, while the entire world seems to know about the last one.

This is a 4-part series which explains what Jamal Khashoggi represented ideologically, the relevance of his ideology in the modern Islamic World, the perhaps-unexpected similarity of his ideology with the Western World, and why – even more unexpectedly – the world is still talking about Khashoggi six weeks after his death.

Why do so few remember Mehdi Ben Barka or care about Serena Shim even though they did far more for the People than Khashoggi ever did?

There is a quick answer to this question: Khashoggi remains in the spotlight because the House of Saud killed a Western journalist.

The location and details, or Khashoggi’s birthplace and background, are totally subservient to the fact that he worked for a top Western media and that he was blindly and foolishly loyal to their ideology. A Western journalist cannot be killed without media campaigns and even serious bilateral repercussions, but Khashoggi was no regular freelancer – he was a prominent editorialist at the United States’ 2nd-most important newspaper, the neoconservative The Washington Post.

Anyone familiar with American media knows that The New York Times and The Washington Post essentially set the agenda of discussion in the country. All of America’s other media – with such dwindled newsrooms and so much free, terrible content – have their low-wage 20-somethings essentially re-report what these two media put on their front pages. Television news, even at the very top channels, often starts with “The Washington Post reported that….”

So, forget everything else: kill a member of The Washington Post and it is certain to be huge news for a long time…because they will ensure that it stays in the national headlines.

Given that the US runs the Anglophone world, and add in that other Western nations (such as France) are constantly paying more attention to the US than their own backyards, and this all explains why the world is still talking about Khashoggi – if you think that the US isn’t the primary decider of what’s on the average screen, think again.

Why not Shim and Ben Barka? They believed in and reported from the ‘wrong’ view – class

However, kill a journalist who doesn’t work for the US and their interests and the Western media says,

“Who cares?”

That was the case with PressTV’s Serena Shim in 2014. She was born and raised in the US, half-Lebanese, a mother of two, and was doing ground-breaking, extremely brave reporting about Turkey’s collusion with Western NGOs to get terrorists across their border to Syria. She reported on PressTV about being threatened with assassination by the Turkish secret service two days before her suspicious death, and the West said…essentially nothing. Not their media, nor even the US government, even though Shim was a lifelong American citizen.

Or what about Morocco’s Mehdi Ben Barka? It’s no exaggeration to say that he was the most widely influential Muslim thinker and activist of the 1950s and 1960s. Ben Barka was the organiser of the Tricontinental Conference in Havana, an update of the famed Bandung Conference, and the last great gathering of international leftism. We are in desperate need of another anti-imperialist conference, and another Ben Barka: he was the man who truly did bridge the gap between African, Asian and Latin American leftists, but he also could have done the same for the Muslim and European worlds. Just as East Asia had China, and then Korea, and then Vietnam, Ben Barka would have taken what happened in Algeria to Morocco – one of the few fundamentally key Muslim nations, historically – but he was abducted off Paris streets just before the start of the Tricontinental. Who killed him, why won’t France open up their archives, what is his legacy, why doesn’t Western media do more reports on the annual October demonstrations in Paris (and who is wiping my annual reports from Google and YouTube?!) to keep his flame alive in the public mind? To all that the West says…nothing.

Both Shim and Ben Barka combine to disprove many unstated claims of the West: that they care about all journalists equally, that they care about Western journalists regardless of their political persuasion, that their presses are free, and that their leadership respects a free press more than in other nations.

Ben Barka was the son of the policeman and a math teacher before he got involved in politics. Serena Shim had chosen a career in journalism, but hardly a ladder-climbing one – working for Iranian government media would only land you a job in a top Western media if you then turned around and denounced Iran.

Khashoggi came from a totally different background: his grandfather made his family billionaires via the connections provided by his job – doctor to the king. Those billions helped future family members become prominent artists, journalists and intellectuals by purchasing gallery space, column space and bookshelf space. Jamal truly grew up among the political and cultural elite of Saudi life.

Khashoggi graduated from (the hardly prestigious, given his wealth and connections) Indiana State University, and did not even get trained as a journalist but got a degree in business administration. It is being widely misreported, even by places like Al-Jazeera, that he studied journalism, but Indiana State doesn’t even have a journalism program (top-notch work there, guys – score one for PressTV). “Business administration” says a lot about his intellectual orientation and his plans as a young man (to manage his millions).

But Khashoggi was so elite that he just had to ask to become king of the Saudi journalism sphere – he procured not one but two appointments to the newspaper Al Watan. After all, he had access to all the Saudis movers and shakers, was extremely close with Osama Bin Laden and was a high-level official at Saudi Arabia’s embassy in Washington for two years.

All this explains why reading Khashoggi is to read a guy who essentially says, “What I’m writing here is going to be made into public policy” – and he means it and is right! For a journalist – who could ask for more? Contrarily, Ben Barka was hounded out of Morocco and nobody picked up on Shim’s reporting that UN World Food Organisation trucks headed for Syria were filled with people who looked and dressed like Takfiri terrorists.

Despite his influence and responsibility, Khashoggi’s journalism did not attempt to voice the needs of the People of Saudi Arabia. In his journalism he admitted his social station divorced him from their common experience. What is far worse is that after such admissions he simply dropped the subject – he never questioned his privilege nor the system that maintained it.

Even more so than a guy like The New York Times’ unbearable Thomas L. Friedman, who married into billions and is similarly influential in shaping policy discussions in the US, Khashoggi’s writing combines an aristocrat’s air of unquestionable authority with the certainty that the sun could never and should never set on his totally unmerited entitlements.

Khashoggi is being portrayed as some sort of dissident, but it’s absolutely not the case: he spilled tankers of ink showing that he was 100% supportive of the Saudi (monarchical, and thus anti-democratic) system – the only question was “which monarch”? He ran afoul of the wrong one, but his proffered solution was only another monarch, and one who could have just as easily vivisected him in a Turkish embassy.

Just ask his kids – his sons recently told CNN“Jamal was never a dissident. He believed in the monarchy that it is the thing that is keeping the country together.”

Like all far-right proponents – not just monarchists – Khashoggi’s proffered solutions only suggested looking backward and deeper into his own tiny tribe – the 1% of Saudi Arabia. But Arabia is not all Saudi…and that is what Khashoggi’s journalism explicitly fought against – reflecting the democratic will of the Arabian Peninsula.

The outrage in the West should be over their support for such an elitist, out-of-touch, anti-democratic reactionary…and yet HE is now the poster child for freedom of the press?

No. We have Serena Shim – too many Serena Shims – for that. We will have more Serena Shims.

I regret that even this series talks about Khashoggi and not Shim and Ben Barka from this point forward, because they certainly deserve it, and because the Mainstream Media never does that. They were the dissidents, the real reformers, the true martyrs.

Jamal Khashoggi was not a victim but a willing, favoured participant in a system of exploitation and repression which he desperately wanted to uphold – read some Khashoggi and that will be clear. So why does the West support such a person?

Khashoggi: Cultural colonist extraordinaire, but the Muslim World doesn’t want more Westernization

Khashoggi obviously represented something which The Post wanted to promote. That is hardly an epiphany, but Khashoggi gives us a chance to examine exactly what that was on an ideological level. Such understanding will grant us better understanding of Western policy and political culture; it also allows us to fully compare “Khashoggi-Thought” with the ideologies of previous decades and centuries, and also with other ideologies available and being promoted in 2018.

Certainly, these intellectual currents are what are the most important to grasp when discussing Khashoggi. The media prefers to focus on that which is not relevant to our daily lives and struggles – the sensational and gruesome details of the killing, and the soap opera of the House of Saud’s latest, never-ending, internecine power struggles.

It is very telling that there has been essentially no discussion of Khashoggi’s actual ideas, writings and morals. The unsaid implication in the West, then, is that he was “one of us” – i.e. he thought like a Westerner and supported Westernization.

And he certainly bent over backwards to show them how much he wanted Saudi Arabia to exactly emulate the West. Khashoggi only wrote about 20 columns for The Washington Post and three of them were literally titled, “What Saudi Arabia could learn from…”, concluded by “Queen Elizabeth II”, “South Korea”, and even the Hollywood movie the “Black Panther”. A fourth carried the same message: “Why Saudi Arabia’s crown prince should visit Detroit”. Not only is that lazy and unoriginal headline writing, but it’s basically advertising (for Westernization) instead of journalism.

In his work at Al-Arabiya (the Saudi answer to Al-Jazeera) which published his columns from 2012-16, the publication most often cited by Khashoggi seems to be The Economist, capitalist newsmagazine nonpareil.

The West is mourning Khashoggi because they knew what they had: a Westerner in sheik’s clothing.

But what did Jamal Khashoggi really believe, this journalist for whom we are spending so much time, energy and consideration, for whom column inches are devoted to instead of Shim and Ben Barka? Illuminating these great unsaids is the goal of this series, which analyzes and quotes from Khashoggi’s writings at The Washington Post and Al-Arabiya.

And here is the quick upshot: Khashoggi ticked the three main ideological boxes a Saudi Arabian (or any Muslim) needs in order to win a prominent place in Western media:

Firstly, he despised Iran, by far the Muslim country which has most successfully rebelled against the West’s dictates, and was also an anti-Shia sectarian of the highest and most disgusting order.

Secondly, he was the foremost promoter of what I accurately term “Liberal Democratic Salafism”. That’s an incredibly stupid ideology which combines 1%-focused West European/bourgeois democracy with (Islamic) monarchism, but that’s exactly what he promoted. For this he was hailed as a “reformer” because…the West is full of monarchy-loving, backwards-looking Liberal Democratic Salafists whose only difference is that their Salafism is of the Christian variety.

Thirdly and lastly, “Liberal Democratic Salafism” combined with neoliberal capitalism is what made Khashoggi the prototypical fake-leftist of the monarchical Muslim World. Western 1%ers adored Khashoggi because the extremely limited and bourgeois changes he advocated would inevitably lead to mass privatization, thus giving Western high finance control over the single most powerful economic tool in the world today – Saudi oil. Handing over your country to such interests in the name of “reform” is obviously catastrophic, anti-socialist, unpatriotic, and fake-leftism.

Why care about Khashoggi at all? It’s no revelation to find out that he was a reactionary tool of the West, but how many people appreciate that “reactionary” in the Western and Islamic Worlds are not worlds apart, but fundamentally identical?

Clarifying what Khashoggi truly represented allows us to identify, call attention to, and fight against these reactionary forces, and also to appreciate the truly modern, cooperative, socialist-inspired world that Mehdi Ben Barka, Serena Shim and countless unheralded others have worked and died for.

***********************************

This is the 1st article in a 4-part series which examines Jamal Khashoggi’s ideology and how it relates to the Islamic World, Westernization and Socialism. Here is the list of articles slated to be published, and I hope you will find them useful in your leftist struggle!

Khashoggi, Ben Barka & PressTV’s Serena Shim: A 4-part series

Khashoggi Part 2: A ‘reformer’…who was also a hysterical anti-Iran warmonger?

Khashoggi Part 3: ‘Liberal Democratic Salafism’ is a sham, ‘Islamic Socialism’ isn’t

Khashoggi Part 4: fake-leftism identical in Saudi Arabian or Western form

Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. His work has appeared in various journals, magazines and websites, as well as on radio and television. He can be reached on Facebook.

Related Videos

Related Articles

Journalist Throws Shoe at Dissident Yemeni Minister during Press Conference in Riyadh: Video

Journalist Throws Shoe at Dissident Yemeni Minister during Press Conference in Riyadh: Video

November 11, 2018

The dissident information minister in the Yemeni salvation government Abdol Salam Jaber was surprised by one of the journalists throwing his shoe at him while attending the former’s press conference in Riyadh.

It is worth noting that the Yemeni government had appointed the chairman of SABA news agency Dayfallah Al-Shami in substitution of Jaber.

Related Videos

Related Articles

HOUTHIS: AL-HUDAYDAH BATTLE SHOWS YEMEN IS ‘GRAVEYARD’ FOR SAUDI-LED FORCES

 

Houthis: Al-Hudaydah Battle Shows Yemen Is 'Graveyard' For Saudi-led Forces

Source

10.11.2018

On November 9, a senior Houthi official, Mohammed Abdulsalam, said Yemen will be a “graveyard” for aggressors as Saudi-led coalition forces are developing their advance on the port city of al-Hudayah.

Our people, with their full-scale defense of Hudaydah, once again have proved that Yemen will be a graveyard for the aggressors,” the official announced via Twitter.

Abdulsalam also claiemd that the “agressors” had failed to achieve any of their objectives due to the “exemplary steadfastness” of the Yemeni people. He also accused the Saudi-led coalition of cooperating with ISIS and al-Qaeda.

The American-British-Israeli coalition, along with domestic and foreign mercenaries and terrorists groups, including Daesh [ISIS] and al-Qaeda … have failed to achieve any of their objectives after four years of aggression, due to the exemplary steadfastness of the nation,” he said.

Earlier on the same day, coalition forces made another attempt to develop their advance on al-Hudaydah. Pro-coalition sources claimed tha over 100 Houthi fighters had been killed and  coalition forces had advanced towards the northern and the western flanks of the port city.

Pro-Houthi sources denied these claims. Furthermore, according to their version of the events, Saudi-backed forces had already lost over 500 fihters since the start of their new push on al-Hudaydah.

However, sources on the ground and videos released show that coalition forces had indeed achieved some gains. If the Houthis are not able to prevent the encirclement of al-Hudaydah by coalition forces, they will face a real threat of losing the battle of al-Hudaydah. On the other hand, coalition forces positions are overstretched east of the city and the Houthis may exploit this for counter-attacks.

The situation is developing.

Related Videos

Related Articles

Sayyed Nasrallah Affirms Support for Independent Sunni MPs: Hezbollah will Absolutely Retaliate against any “Israeli

Zeinab Essa

Hezbollah Secretary General His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah delivered on Saturday a speech in which he tackled various regional and Lebanese topics.

Martyrs’ Day: Track to Victory

Addressing  thousands of people commemorating Hezbollah Martyrs’ Day, Sayyed Nasrallah hailed the  resistance that was decisive, firm and strong. “The Resistance managed to achieve victories,” he added, pointing out that “there are families who sacrificed more than one or two martyrs.”

“Today we are honoring all martyrs, self-scarifying martyrs and the Mujahedeen who were martyred in various fields and still convoys of martyrs contribute to achieving victories,” the Resistance Leader emphasized.

According to Sayyed Nasrallah: “All of our country’s security and honor are because thanks of the martyrs’ blood.”

Response Ready

His Eminence further highlighted that “Deterrence exists because of Hezbollah’s missile capabilities as the Lebanese Army isn’t allowed to possess such types of missiles.”

“We adhere to the golden equation of the Army, People and the Resistance,” he affirmed, noting that “Hezbollah will also adhere to the strength of the resistance and to all its missiles.”

Meanwhile, Sayyed Nasrallah asserted that ““Israeli” PM Benjamin Netanyahu can’t bear the strength of the resistance and the quantity of rockets in Lebanon.”

“The “Israeli” is focusing on the resistance missiles through diplomatic pressure, intimidation and the use of the Americans,” he explained.

In a warning message to the “Israeli” entity, Sayyed Nasrallah announced that “Hezbollah will absolutely retaliate against any “Israeli” aggression, air raid or shelling  on Lebanon.”

“It isn’t acceptable for the “Israeli” enemy to return to Lebanon,” he reiterated, stressing that “even if we sold our houses, we will preserve these [the Resistance’s] missiles.”

In addition, His Eminence stated that “Hezbollah is not afraid of any sanctions and we will continue to preserve our weapons and missiles.”

Normalization Make Arab Masks Fall

Moving to the Arab normalization track with the “Israeli” enemy, Sayyed Nasrallah condemned “any form of normalization with the “Israeli” enemy, regardless of its source and form,” urging the people of the region to reject all forms of normalization.

“Current normalization puts an end to some Arab’s hypocrisy and will make masks fall,” he mentioned.

Sayyed Nasrallah went to say that “the US sanctions against Iran will have no effect on Hezbollah.”

Hailing the sacrifices of Palestinian people, His Eminence viewed that “The people of Gaza are the hope through their March of Return  and the sacrifices they make.”

On Syria, Bahrain and Triumphant Yemen

On Syria, he said: “If Syria’s people and leadership  did not resist, we would have seen Netanyahu as well as the “Israeli” culture minister at the Umayyad Mosque.”

“We solemnly praise before the people of the occupied Syrian Golan, who thwarted the occupation’s elections,” Hezbollah Secretary General said.

Moreover, Sayyed Nasrallah commented on the recent developments related to Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi’s murder by saying: “The world has every right to get surprised and condemn what happened, but this world is also strange for standing unmoved while witnessing the daily massacres in Yemen.”

“We are in front of a new situation in Yemen and the call for an end to aggression may be either serious or potentially deceitful,” he added, noting that “The possibility for calling to an end to the aggression on Yemen is due to fact that the Yemenis have resisted this aggression.”

Regarding the situation in Bahrain, His Eminence underscored that “the authorities in Bahrain want the people to surrender but they will not give up.”

“The Bahraini judiciary’s move in turning Sheikh Ali Salman’s acquittal into a life sentence is repressive,” he added.

“The announcement of the US initiative to cease fire after a month coincided with the most severe aggression on the west coast of Yemen,” Sayyed Nasrallah emphasized, noting that “the Yemeni people are closer to victory than ever before.”

Political Modesty Our Prob in Lebanon

Moving to the internal Lebanese front, Hezbollah Secretary General commented on the Lebanese government formation process by declaring: “All officials including President Michel Aoun and House Speaker Nabih Berri had initially agreed on the representation of independent Sunni MPs but the PM-designate did not.”

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

His Eminence also said:

“We’ve never thought about allocating a share for independent Sunni MPs from the share of President Michel Aoun.”

Sayyed Nasrallah further clarified that “Since day one after the Premier’s designation we have demanded that Sunni MPs of March 8 be represented,” announcing that “Political modesty in Lebanon does not work.”

Asking PM Saad Hariri to give the Sunni MPs in March 8 a seat from his share, he affirmed that

“Hezbollah will agree to any decision by the Sunni MPs regarding their participation in the government.”

On Hezbollah’s relations with President Aoun and the Free Patriotic Movement, Sayyed Nasrallah said:

“Our relation with Aoun and the FPM are intact and no one can drag us to a rift over the Sunni obstacle.”

Meanwhile, he slammed the statements of the Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblatt who accused Hezbollah of “delaying the cabinet formation”.

“Jumblatt has obstructed the government formation for a whole of four months and has no right to speak of obstruction.”

In conclusion, Sayyed Nasrallah affirmed:

“When the six MPs call us and tell us, ‘You may give the names of your ministers [to Hariri],’ then we will.”

Source: Al-Ahed news

Related Articles

%d bloggers like this: