The Real Conspiracy

By Jonathan Cook

June 15, 2017 “Information Clearing House” – Israeli and US officials are in the process of jointly pre-empting Donald Trump’s supposed “ultimate deal” to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They hope to demote the Palestinian issue to a footnote in international diplomacy.

The conspiracy – a real one – was much in evidence last week during a visit to the region by Nikki Haley, Washington’s envoy to the United Nations. Her escort was Danny Danon, her Israeli counterpart and a fervent opponent of Palestinian statehood.

Mr Danon makes Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu look moderate. He has backed Israel annexing the West Bank and ruling over Palestinians apatheid-style. Ms Haley appears unperturbed. During a meeting with Mr Netanyahu, she told him that the UN was “a bully to Israel”. She has warned the powerful Security Council to focus on Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hizbollah, instead of Israel.

To protect its tiny ally, Washington is threatening to cut billions in US funding to the world body, plunging it into crisis and jeopardising peacekeeping and humanitarian operations.

On the way to Israel, Ms Haley stopped at the UN’s Human Rights Council in Geneva, demanding it end its “pathological” opposition to Israel’s decades of occupation and human rights violations – or the US would pull out of the agency.

Washington has long pampered Israel, giving it millions of dollars each year to buy weapons to oppress Palestinians, and using its veto to block UN resolutions enforcing international law. Expert UN reports such as a recent one on Israel’s apartheid rule over Palestinians have been buried.

But worse is to come. Now the framework of international laws and institutions established after the Second World War is at risk of being dismembered.

That danger was highlighted on Sunday, when it emerged that Mr Netanyahu had urged Ms Haley to dismantle another UN agency much loathed by Israel. UNRWA cares for more than five million Palestinian refugees across the region.

Since the 1948 war, Israel has refused to allow these refugees to return to their lands, now in Israel, forcing them to live in miserable and overcrowded camps awaiting a peace deal that never arrives. These dispossessed Palestinians still depend on UNRWA for education, health care and social services.

UNRWA, Mr Netanyahu says, “perpetuates” rather than solves their problems. He prefers that they become the responsibility of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which looks after all other refugee populations.

His demand is a monumental U-turn, 70 years in the making. In fact, it was Israel that in 1948 insisted on a separate UN refugee agency for the Palestinians.

UNRWA was created to prevent the Palestinians falling under the charge of UNHCR’s forerunner, the International Refugee Organisation. Israel was afraid that the IRO, formed in the immediate wake of the Second World War, would give Palestinian refugees the same prominence as European Jews fleeing Nazi atrocities.

Israel did not want the two cases compared, especially as they were so intimately connected. It was the rise of Nazism that bolstered the Zionist case for a Jewish state in Palestine, and Jewish refugees who were settled on lands from which Palestinians had just been expelled by Israel.

Also, Israel was concerned that the IRO’s commitment to the principle of repatriation might force it to accept back the Palestinian refugees.

Israel’s hope then was precisely that UNRWA would not solve the Palestinian refugee problem; rather, it would resolve itself. The idea was encapsulated in a Zionist adage: “The old will die and the young forget.”

But millions of Palestinian descendants still clamour for a right of return. If they cannot forget, Mr Netanyahu prefers that the world forget them.

As bloody wars grip the Middle East, the best way to achieve that aim is to submerge the Palestinians among the world’s 65 million other refugees. Why worry about the Palestinian case when there are millions of Syrians newly displaced by war?

But UNRWA poses a challenge, because it is so deeply entrenched in the region and insists on a just solution for Palestinian refugees.

UNRWA’s huge staff includes 32,000 Palestinian administrators, teachers and doctors, many living in camps in the West Bank – Palestinian territory Mr Netanyahu and Mr Danon hunger for. The UN’s presence there is an impediment to annexation.

On Monday Mr Netanyahu announced his determination to block Europe from funding Israeli human rights organisations, the main watchdogs in the West Bank and a key data source for UN agencies. He now refuses to meet any world leader who talks to these rights groups.

With Mr Trump in the White House, a crisis-plagued Europe ever-more toothless and the Arab world in disarray, Mr Netanyahu wants to seize this chance to clear the UN out of the way too.

Global institutions such as the UN and the international law it upholds were created after the Second World War to protect the weakest and prevent a recurrence of the Holocaust’s horrors.

Today, Mr Netanyahu is prepared to risk it all, tearing down the post-war international order, if this act of colossal vandalism will finally rid him of the Palestinians.

Jonathan Cook is a Nazareth- based journalist and winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism.

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

Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.

Trump’s Art of the Deal: Selling Wars and Terrorism

The  Man 0f Shalom = Peace for JEWS

By Finian Cunningham

May 25, 2017 “Information Clearing House” – It would be funny if it were not so sickening. US President Donald Trump’s whirlwind tour through the Middle East was a “triumph” of make-believe rhetoric over reality. Donald “the peace-maker” is sowing decades of further violence in the war-torn region.

The horrific repercussions of American foreign policy are all around us, from the illegal occupation of Palestinian territories to the ongoing wars in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, to the latest terror attack in Britain where 22 people were killed in a suicide bombing at a concert in Manchester.

With a typical inane understanding of the web of international terrorism that American foreign policy has generated over many years, Trump glibly condemned the bombing atrocity in Manchester as the work of “losers.”

Trump – on his first overseas tour as president – regaled Middle East leaders with florid words about peace and prosperity and a faux pretense of historical appreciation, referring to the region as thecradle of civilization,” a sacred land and rich heritage.”

There were minimal details in how Trump would achieve peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, or defeat terrorism in the Middle East. It was all the just feel-good rhetoric that papered over the systemic causes of conflict and terrorism.

The one tangible takeaway was the American president’s mammoth arms deal signed with Saudi Arabia – $350 billion-worth over ten years. It was hailed as the biggest ever weapons contract, with an initial payment of $110 billion. Put in perspective, Trump is selling the Saudi rulers a total three times what Obama managed to achieve over his two administrations – some $115 billion in weapons to Saudi Arabia, which itself was a record high.

The proposed weapons supply is truly staggering, not least because of their destination to a regime up to its eyes in terror sponsorship.

During his next stop to Israel, Trump’s entourage visited the Wailing Wall abutting East Jerusalem, thus giving Washington’s imprimatur to the creeping annexation of the entire city by the state of Israel. Moves are underway to shift the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in what would sound the death knell for Palestinian aspirations to claim East Jerusalem (al-Quds) as the capital of a future independent state.

That would also signal the abandonment of long-standing US policy avowedly advocating a two-state solution. Something which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his rightwing Likud government are lobbying for. Everything about Trump’s kowtowing indicates he is a willing patron to Israeli expansionism.

From Jerusalem, Trump drove to the Israeli-occupied West Bank where he met with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas in Bethlehem. Families protesting the incarceration of hundreds of hunger-striking Palestinians by Israel were kept at bay, while Trump delivered the ultimatum: “Peace can never take root where violence is tolerated.

Trump would never have the integrity or understanding to deliver the same ultimatum to Saudi and Israeli leaders. Even though the admonishment of “not tolerating violence” there is manifold more pertinent and meaningful.

During the past fifty years since the Six Day War, America has condoned the relentless illegal annexation of land by Israel. The last round of futile “peace talks” ended in failure in 2014, when then US Secretary of State John Kerry adopted the usual policy of turning a blind eye to Israeli settlements and military occupation. The Trump administration is prepared to capitulate even further.

The Saudi and other Arab rulers are also jettisoning any pretense at pursuing a just peace accord for Palestinians.

They utter not a word of protest over Israel’s land grabs and moves to kill off Palestinian claims to East Jerusalem – the site of Islam’s third holy

Trump’s visit to the Middle East – ahead of his trip to the Vatican to meet Pope Francis and then NATO leaders in Brussels – is yet another sign of a geopolitical realignment. It seems an antiquated notion that Saudi Arabia and allied Arab regimes are somehow in opposition to Israel. As if the former are defenders of Arab and Muslim rights.

What’s going down is a tawdry tie-up in the region between American-backed client regimes. This has nothing to do with forging peace and all about consolidating Washington’s hegemony over the oil-rich region. That hegemony is primarily underpinned by Washington’s militarization and saturated selling of weaponry.

Significantly, the $350 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia caused no concern for Netanyahu’s government.

How can it hurt?” Amos Gilad, a former Israel defense official, told the Times of Israel. For now, there’s an alliance between the US and the Arab world against Iran, said Gilad.

The Times also quoted Yaakov Amidror, the former national security adviser to Netanyahu, as saying, Israel has no reason to worry about the massive Saudi-US arms deals.” He added that the latest Saudi arms deal could help pave the way for Israeli-Arab cooperation in the future.

Besides, Washington’s strategic doctrine is that Israel will always be given US priority to retain a so-called qualitative military edge over all other states in the region. That means US arms transfers to its Arab allies will be met with ever-more military aid to Israel, which currently clocks about $3.8 billion a year.

In other words, Trump’s arms dealing are a win-win for the US, more than ever. Mammoth sales to Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf Arab monarchies will drive up American weapons business with Israel. But a virtuous circle for Washington is a vicious cycle for the region whereby an already militarized conflict zone is being deluged with American firepower.

Given that the US-backed regimes are in various ways indelibly connected to territorial strife, sectarian conflict and in particular the sponsorship of Wahhabi terror groups it is almost certain that Trump’s reckless weapons trading will fuel more violence. It is well documented that Saudi Arabia serves as a conduit for American weaponry to Al-Qaeda-affiliated terror networks in Syria and elsewhere.

Still more ominous is how Trump’s military racket is pushing the region into a war with Iran. This fatuous president is giving full vent to Israeli and Saudi propaganda accusing Iran of “fueling the fires of sectarian conflict and terror” in the region, citing Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Yemen. This is a breath-taking inversion of reality, given the nefarious role of Saudi Arabia in those same countries.

In the Saudi capital, Riyadh, Trump called on assembled Arab regimes to stamp out terror by targeting Iran for regime change.

While in Jerusalem, Trump said:

There is a growing realization among your Arab neighbors that they have a common enemy with you in the threat posed by Iran.

Israel premier Netanyahu also remarked that

old enemies [sic] have become allies against a common enemy.

We can be sure that the “common enemy” spoken of is not terrorism, but rather Iran.

Donald Trump, the business tycoon-turned-president, never stops boasting about his prowess on boosting the “bottom line.” He may well boost the profits of American weapons manufacturers by flooding the Middle East with ever-more military arms. But the bottom line for the region and beyond is more wars, destruction, and bloodshed.

Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. Originally from Belfast, Ireland, he is a Master’s graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. For over 20 years he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Now a freelance journalist based in East Africa, his columns appear on RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation and Press TV.

This article was first published by RT

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

Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.

وثيقة حماس..سامَحَ اللهُ حزب الله

الأربعاء 03 أيار , 2017 01:40


إيهاب زكي – بيروت برس – 

في ظل الانقسام الفلسطيني، أصبح انتقاد أحد طرفّي الانقسام، يضعك تلقائياً في خانة الطرف الآخر، دون أيّ اعتبارٍ لأصل القضية أو حقائق التاريخ وثوابت الواقع، ودون حتى اعتبار لمجرد فلسطينيتك اللامؤطرة وعروبتك اللامتحزبة، وبما أن وثيقة حماس قد صدرت وأصبحت حقيقة لا تسريبات، وبما أنها قابلة للنقد كقابليتها للنقض كأيّ عملٍ بشري، ودرءًا لشبهة تسخير النقد في معمعة الانقسام الفلسطيني، وبالتالي إفراغه من مضمونه ومحتواه بحجة تحامل الطرف الآخر وتصيده الأخطاء، فقد قررت الانتماء إلى حركة حماس على طول الفترة الزمنية لكتابة هذه الأسطر، لكنه انتماءٌ مشروطٌ بعدم البيعة على السمع والطاعة في المنشط والمكره،  لذلك فمبدئياً لن أطلب من حماس الاعتذار إلى فتح كما فعل أحد الناطقين باسم حركة فتح، رغم أن من يقارن وثيقة حماس ببرنامج النقاط العشر عام 1974، يدرك أن المطالبة بالاعتذار أمراً وجيهاً، ولكني سأقر إقرارَ كامل الأهلية بكل ما جاء في الوثيقة، مع بعض الاستثناءات التي قد تنسف الإقرار بالوثيقة، مع كامل الأهلية أيضاً.

بالرجوع إلى برنامج النقاط العشر عام 1974، نجد أنه أكثر تفوقاً من وثيقة حماس الجديدة شكلاً ومضموناً، فمثلاً وعلى سبيل الدعابة، فقد اعتبر البرنامج أن الكفاح المسلح على رأس الوسائل النضالية المشروعة لتحرير فلسطين، فيما اعتبرت حماس المقاومة في قلب الوسائل، والرأس متفوقٌ على القلب، كما ورفض البرنامج القرار 242، كما رفض أي مشروع كيان فلسطيني يكون ثمنه الاعتراف بالعدو والصلح والحدود الآمنة،  لكنه من جهةٍ أخرى دس فكرة تجزئة القضية من خلال تجزئة الأرض، تحت بند إقامة سلطة وطنية مقاتلة على أي جزءٍ يتم تحريره، فيما حماس كانت أقل غموضاً وأقل حنكةً حين حددت أراضي 67، وللمفارقة فإن برنامج النقاط العشر يقوم بتكليف السلطة الوطنية –الناشئة عن تحرير الجزء-بالعمل من أجل توحيد أقطار المواجهة في سبيل تحرير كامل التراب الفلسطيني، أي إزالة “إسرائيل”، فيما وثيقة حماس تقبل بدولة 67  مع الإشارة إلى إمكانية التهدئة في إطار إدارة الصراع، وهذه المقارنة ليس من باب أفضلية طرحٍ على آخر، فكلا الأمرين كانا مقدماتٍ لما هو أدهى وأمَّر، ولكن للرد على من يحاجج بقوة البنود في وثيقة حماس ومبدأيتها، متغافلاً عن التفريط المقصود فيها.

قد يكون انطباعاً شخصياً وليس يدخل باب التحليل السياسي، لكن رئيس المكتب السياسي حركة حماس خالد مشعل، كان وهو يقدم للوثيقة باديَّ الإرباك والتلجلج، فهو كمن يريد أن يلقي على مسامع قومه قولاً ثقيلا، وناور كثيراً قبل البدء بتلاوة المقصود حصراً من الوثيقة، وهو القبول بدولة في حدود الرابع من حزيران عام 67، دون الاعتراف بـ”دولة إسرائيل”، خصوصاً وهو يبرر لها بأنها ليست من صنيعته منفرداً، بل هي موقف حركته أدناها وأعلاها، كما أنها بتوافق جناحيها العسكري والسياسي، وهي ليست وليدة اللحظة بل أربع سنوات من النقاش والمشاورات، وهذه الأربع سنوات بالذات للخلف تعني عام خروج حماس من سوريا، وكتبت حينها بأن هذا الاصطفاف الحمساوي إخوانياً، يأتي في إطار مغريات تركية قطرية لمشروع إخواني شامل برعاية أمريكية، لاستبدال سلطة وطنية”علمانية” بسلطة وطنية”إسلامية” إخوانية، وفي كلتا الحالتين ليست سلطة مقاتلة، ففي الوقت الذي ترفض فيه حماس اتفاقية أوسلو وما ترتب عليها، تردف في بندٍ لاحق أن السلطة يجب أن تكون في خدمة الشعب، وهذه السلطة إحدى مترتبات أوسلو، وقد خصت حماس رفضها لمترتبات أوسلو بالتنسيق الأمني، في الوقت الذي اعتبر فيه مشعل أن التفاوض مع العدو ليس حراماً، وقد نستنبط من هذا أن حماس قابلة للتفاوض مستقبلاً لكن دون الاضطرار لتنسيق أمني.

واستطراداً وعلى عجالةٍ أود أن يكون من المهم الاستخفاف بمقايسة تفاوض النبي مع مشركي قريش، التي يستخدمها الإسلاميون لتبرير كل تفريطٍ أو تنازل، كما قال مشعل في تقديمه للوثيقة أيضاً، فالقياس خاطئٌ  في أصله، ومن حيث يدرون أو لا يدرون، فإن هذا القياس يعني لو أن النبي كان بيننا اليوم، لما تردد في التفاوض مع “إسرائيل”، ولأبرم معهم “عهود” أوسلو أو وادي عربة أو كامب ديفيد، فهل يقبل الإسلاميون وضع النبي في مكانة من وقّعوا تلك المعاهدات، أم أنهم سيعتبرون أنه بحكم نبوته وما يتنزل عليه من وحي سيأتي بشروطٍ أفضل، وكخلاصةٍ ووصولاً للعنوان والحقيقة، قد تكون ظروف التسعينات قابلة لاستنباط تبريرات التنازلات، — -رغم أن التنازل لا مبرر له سوى الرغبة فيه-، حين أقدمت عليها منظمة التحرير، حيث انهيار المعسكر الشرقي وتدمير العراق وهيمنة أمريكية مطلقة وموازين قوى مختلة وذهاب عربي بالإجماع إلى مدريد، ولكن اليوم ونحن نشهد صعود محور المقاومة وإعادة بعض التوازن لميزان القوى العالمي، لا يمكن لحماس أن تبرر وثيقتها بحجة النضج السياسي وتراكم التجربة، وأنها لا تعيش في جزيرة فتسعى لإعادة توضيح قضيتها للعالم بشكلٍ مقبول، إنما الحقيقة أن هذه الوثيقة هي ضريبة اصطفاف حمساوي صريح في محور تركي قطري وسعودي أيضاً و”المعتدل” عموماً، ولكن تجربة حزب الله العسكرية ومواقفه المبدأية السري منها والمعلن، وكذلك الصمود السوري سيجعلان من وثيقة حماس ومواقفها المستجدة، مجرد سلحفاة لكعة ومتعثرة، لأن سقف هذا الصمود وهذه المواقف مرتفعٌ جداً، بشكلٍ يجعل من السير في طريق التفريط أمراً متعسراً لا سلساً، بعكس لو سقطت سوريا وانتزع سلاح الحزب، لكان التنازل أكثر يسراً، وهذا الاستنتاج يقودنا إلى تساؤلٍ أخطر، وهو هل ستضطر حماس تحت ضغط محورها وضغط الرغبة بوراثة السلطة في الضفة، لاتخاذ مواقف سلبية علنية من الحزب، لذلك سامح الله حزب الله على هذا السقف المرتفع.

Haniya Elected New Head of Hamas – Islamic Jihad Rejects Palestine State within 1967 Borders

Ismail Haniya Elected New Head of Hamas

May 6, 2017

Hamas said its former chief in Gaza, Ismail Haniya, was elected overall head of the Palestinian resistance group on Saturday, succeeding Khaled Meshaal.

Haniya is expected to remain in the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian enclave run by Hamas since 2007, unlike Meshaal who lives in exile in Doha and has completed the maximum two terms in office.

“The Hamas Shura Council on Saturday elected Ismail Haniya as head of the movement’s political bureau,” the group’s official website announced.

He beat contenders Moussa Abu Marzuk and Mohamed Nazzal in a videoconference vote of the ruling council’s members in Gaza, the West Bank and outside the Palestinian territories.

On Monday, Hamas unveiled a new policy document, announcing it accepts the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, east Al-Quds (Jerusalem) and Gaza, the territories occupied by the Zionist entity in the Six-Day War of 1967.

It also says its struggle is not against Jews because of their religion but against the Zionist entity as an occupier.

The original 1988 charter will not be dropped, just supplemented, the movement said.

Hamas officials said the revised document in no way amounts to recognition of the Zionist entity as a state.

Source: AFP

Islamic Jihad Rejects Palestine State within 1967 Borders

May 6, 2017

Islamic Jihad's deputy leader, Ziad al-Nakhala

Palestinian resistance group Islamic Jihad reiterated its stance on a Palestinian state limited to the 1967 borders.

The announcement comes few days after other Palestinian resistance movement, Hamas unveiled a new policy document, announcing it accepts the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, east Al-Quds (Jerusalem) and Gaza, the territories occupied by the Zionist entity in the Six-Day War of 1967.

Islamic Jihad’s deputy leader, Ziad al-Nakhala said his movement rejects what he described as Hamas’s new policy of easing its stand on the Zionist entity.

“As partners with our Hamas brothers in the struggle for liberation, we feel concern over the document” which the main Islamist movement that rules Gaza adopted on Monday, said Islamic Jihad’s deputy leader, Ziad al-Nakhala.

“We are opposed to Hamas’s acceptance of a state within the 1967 borders and we think this is a concession which damages our aims,” he said on Islamic Jihad’s website.

Nakhala said the new Hamas policy formally accepting the idea of a state in the territories occupied by the Zionist entity in the 1967 Six-Day War would “lead to deadlock and can only produce half-solutions”.

Related Articles


The Palestinians and the “State” Delusion

By: Rashid Shahin

After over 20 years of the futile “negotiations” the whole world (including the Palestinians) agrees that it has been fruitless.  It was aimless negotiations but a waste of time during which the occupation state of Israel has succeeded to shuffle the occupied land upside down and create deep demographic changes through accelerating the settlement that has never been done before.

Despite all the facts on the ground, some still hope to believe in that mirage and works to revive life in the dead body of the Oslo Accord. Still, some Palestinians are looking for an exit of some sort that would save them some self respect, or what has remained from their self respect, to prove that they can get something from a process that has resulted in nothing but more land grab, building settlements for more settlers obsessed with Talmudic heresies.

When talking of negotiations between enemies, it should be agreed upon from the beginning that there is a possibility for each party to recognize the other which  doesn’t exist in the Palestinian-zionist case. The Zionist party and since the very beginning of the struggle doesn’t recognize the existence of the Palestinian people, in the first place which was very clear from their deceptive slogan that was created in the early twentieth century of “a land without people to a people without land”.


Accordingly, the Palestinian leadership should take this in consideration and understand the fact that the Oslo process will never lead to a durable or comprehensive peace with the Zionists, with a state that was created initially by terrorist groups who committed heinous crimes in documented massacres against the Palestinian people to establish their atrocious states built on Talmudic heresies, on the rubble of the Palestinian people.

Gambling to reach to any peaceful agreement, even at the minimum level, with the Zionist state of gangsters (especially at the deteriorating Arab situation) is more futile than it was at the beginning of the Oslo process in Madrid Peace Conferencesupported by the first Intifada which was continued secretly later on in the suspicious Oslo Agreement.

Trying to copy the Iranian style (of negotiating) and identifying with it can’t work in the Palestinian case and dragging the situation into the Syrian case is a leap into the unknown.

Working at going back to the same futile negotiations again is nothing but a fruitless game that should be stopped especially after the facts on the ground imposed by the Zionist occupation, which is very clear not only to the Palestinian people in the street but also to all the world leaders.

Finally, we think that the status cue is a thousand times better than pursuing the mirage of the endless negotiations, especially it is clearer now (which is a fact that we should admit) that the Zionist occupation state is not intending to reach to a peaceful settlement for the struggle, and it is not ready ( as it has never been  before) to agree that the Palestinians get an independent state with Jerusalem its capital, and needless to mention the Palestinian refugees and the Right of Return.

The utmost reconciliation that the Zionist state might be willing to is to give the Palestinians an “expanded” autonomy, or a state with two different statuses, one to include the West Bank with annexing some of the bordering Palestinian towns that the Zionists want to get rid of, which is a typical racist style. OR, full occupation and annexing the West Bank. Accordingly we call to stop those futile negotiations with the Zionists that will end into nothing for the Palestinians.


خطة مايكل فلين من مواقف ترامب

ناصر قنديل

– لا يمكن إدراج مواقف الرئيس الأميركي الجديد دونالد ترامب تحت باب شخصيته المضطربة وانطلاقه من ازدواجية تخفيف أعباء التدخلات وأكلافها وتوتراتها تحت عنوان «أميركا أولاً» من جهة، والخطاب المتغطرس لتظهير أميركا القوية من جهة مقابلة، فقد بدا ترامب «يلعب سياسة» في جملة مواقفه، رغم ظاهر المواقف بالمتسم بالفظاظة والتحدي. فقد بدأ بالحديث عن إسقاط التفاهم على الملف النووي الإيراني ثم تعديله ليختتم في ملخص ما نشره البيت الأبيض عن محادثته الهاتفية مع الملك السعودي، أن الاتفاق كان على التطبيق الصارم للاتفاق النووي مع إيران بدلاً من تعديله وإلغائه، وكذلك في ملف نقل السفارة الأميركية لدى كيان الاحتلال، بدأ بقرار نقل ثم دراسة ثم لا نزال بعيدين عن توقيت البحث بالأمر، وفي ملف الاستيطان «الإسرائيلي» الذي كان عنوان إشعاله حملة ضد إدارة الرئيس أوباما بسبب عدم استخدام الفيتو في مجلس الأمن ضد الإدانة وتبشير «الإسرائيليين» بأن كل شيء سيتغير مع تسلمه السلطة، ثم تمسكه بالدفاع عن الاستيطان وصولاً لاعتباره غير مفيد، وكذلك في ما يخصّ المنطقة الآمنة في سورية التي بدأت قراراً رئاسياً وصارت دراسة وانتهت بانتظار التوقيت المناسب لدراستها، وكلّها دلائل على أن السياسة تحكُّم وليس العناد ولا العنتريات ولا الغطرسة ولا المبادئ بالتأكيد.

– من خلال تتبّع العناصر التي بادر ترامب لوضعها في التداول على الطاولة تلتقي مع قضية منع السفر إلى أميركا، قضايا المنطقة الآمنة في سورية وقضية السفارة الأميركية لدى كيان الاحتلال ودعم الاستيطان، مع قضية التفاهم على الملف النووي الإيراني والتجارب الصاروخية الإيرانية، ونفوذ إيران في باب المندب كعنوان استعمله ترامب في الحديث عن تدمير البارجة السعودية بصاروخ يمني، مع قضيتين رئيسيتين تحضران في السياسة الخارجية الأميركية المقبلة ومنطلقاتها في حسابات الأمن القومي الأميركي، كما يهندسها الجنرال مايكل فلين مستشار الأمن القومي لترامب الآتي من رئاسة المخابرات العسكرية والواقف في الظل وراء خطاب ترامب المرشح قبل ترامب الرئيس.

– منهج فلين في رسم الاستراتيجيات الجديدة يقوم على محاولة بناء معادلة قوامها أولوية الحرب على الإرهاب والحاجة الماسّة للتعاون مع روسيا. وهما القضيتان اللتان تلتقيان بالقضايا التي أثارها ترامب ورماها في التداول، ومنهج فلين يستند إلى السعي لرسم التعاون مع روسيا في إطار الحرب على الإرهاب على قاعدة تحقيق مكاسب ومصادر قوة لـ«إسرائيل» وإضعاف مصادر القوة التي تمتلكها إيران، والصيغة التفاوضية هي تقديم عرض لروسيا قوامه مقايضة الدور الإيراني بالدور الأميركي في الخطة الروسية في الشرق الأوسط، ودعوة موسكو للتخلّي عن طهران مقابل الحصول على التعاون مع واشنطن، والتخلي هنا ليس إعلان حرب، بل تهميش الدور، ومضمون التخلّي هو التعاون في مقاتلة النصرة وداعش في سورية وإزالة التحفظات على التعاون مع الدولة السورية مقابل خروج إيران وحلفائها وفي مقدمتهم حزب الله من سورية.

– المنهج الروسي لا يضع إيران مقابل أميركا، ولو فعل لاختار أميركا حكماً، بل ينطلق منهج موسكو من أن التعاون الأميركي الروسي ضرورة وحاجة، وفي الحرب على الإرهاب خصوصاً، لكن روسيا وأميركا قوتان خارجيتان في الشرق الأوسط، وعليهما ترجمة تعاونهما عبر بناء مرتكزات نظام إقليمي قوي قادر على هزيمة الإرهاب وتحقيق الاستقرار وحمايته، وترى موسكو بعيداً عن العواطف والرغبات أن هذا النظام الإقليمي تفرضه الأحجام والجغرافيا السياسية، وهي تتطلع لثلاثي تركي إيراني مصري، ولا مانع من أن يصير رباعياً مع السعودية، ترعاه ثنائية أميركية روسية وتدعمه حيث يجب، وترى أن أمن «إسرائيل» وحلّ القضية الفلسطينية متلازان فلا قدرة لأحد على حماية أمن «إسرائيل» خارج حل وفق القرارات الدولية الخاصة بالقضية الفلسطينية، وهذا اللازم تعتبره موسكو من ثمار تعاون روسي أميركي بالتنسيق مع قوى النظام الإقليمي الجديد.

– حتى موعد لقاء الرئيسين الروسي والأميركي تستمرّ منهجية فلين بلسان ترامب، خصوصاً في اللقاء بين ترامب وبينامين نتنياهو قريباً، بدعوة «إسرائيل» للاختيار بين تلبيتها بمكاسب إعلامية وسياسية في ملفات السفارة والاستيطان مقابل إغفال التصعيد مع إيران، أو العكس، لأن قراراً مثل نقل السفارة وحدَه سيتكفّل بإشعال الشارع العربي والإسلامي وسيتحوّل حكماً، كسباً كبيراً لإيران إذا تزامن مع حملة التصعيد بوجهها، بينما ربط التصعيد بتبريد الملفات التي تستفز الشارع العربي والإسلامي يمكن أن يستقطب خصوم إيران في المنطقة سواء على أساس سياسي أو تحت عنوان مذهبي، وهو استقطاب يصير مستحيلاً إذا تزامن التصعيد بوجه إيران وتسخين ملفات الاستفزاز للشارع الداعمة لـ«إسرائيل».

Related Videos

Related Articles

Do You Hear What I Hear?

It’s a song breaking through this fight…

UN Security Council Resolution 2334–“Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967…”

…adopted on December 23, 2016 by a vote of  14-0 with 1 abstention.

Israeli settlements are illegal

Voting in Favor: Russia, China, Malaysia, Venezuela, New Zealand, Senegal, Spain, Uruguay, France, Angola, Egypt, Japan, UK, Ukraine

Abstaining: US

Text of the Resolution:

The Security Council,

Reaffirming its relevant resolutions, including resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 446 (1979), 452 (1979), 465 (1980), 476 (1980), 478 (1980), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003), and 1850 (2008),

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming, inter alia, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,

Reaffirming the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice,

Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions,

Expressing grave concern that continuing Israeli settlement activities are dangerously imperilling the viability of the two-State solution based on the 1967 lines,

Recalling the obligation under the Quartet Roadmap, endorsed by its resolution 1515 (2003), for a freeze by Israel of all settlement activity, including “natural growth”, and the dismantlement of all settlement outposts erected since March 2001,

Recalling also the obligation under the Quartet roadmap for the Palestinian Authority Security Forces to maintain effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantling terrorist capabilities, including the confiscation of illegal weapons,

Condemning all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation, incitement and destruction,

Reiterating its vision of a region where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders,

Stressing that the status quo is not sustainable and that significant steps, consistent with the transition contemplated by prior agreements, are urgently needed in order to (i) stabilize the situation and to reverse negative trends on the ground, which are steadily eroding the two-State solution and entrenching a one-State reality, and (ii) to create the conditions for successful final status negotiations and for advancing the two-State solution through those negotiations and on the ground,

1. Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace;

2. Reiterates its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard;

3. Underlines that it will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations;

4. Stresses that the cessation of all Israeli settlement activities is essential for salvaging the two-State solution, and calls for affirmative steps to be taken immediately to reverse the negative trends on the ground that are imperilling the two-State solution;

5. Calls upon all States, bearing in mind paragraph 1 of this resolution, to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967;

6. Calls for immediate steps to prevent all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation and destruction, calls for accountability in this regard, and calls for compliance with obligations under international law for the strengthening of ongoing efforts to combat terrorism, including through existing security coordination, and to clearly condemn all acts of terrorism;

7. Calls upon both parties to act on the basis of international law, including international humanitarian law, and their previous agreements and obligations, to observe calm and restraint, and to refrain from provocative actions, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric, with the aim, inter alia, of de-escalating the situation on the ground, rebuilding trust and confidence, demonstrating through policies and actions a genuine commitment to the two-State solution, and creating the conditions necessary for promoting peace;

8. Calls upon all parties to continue, in the interest of the promotion of peace and security, to exert collective efforts to launch credible negotiations on all final status issues in the Middle East peace process and within the time frame specified by the Quartet in its statement of 21 September 2010;

9. Urges in this regard the intensification and acceleration of international and regional diplomatic efforts and support aimed at achieving, without delay a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference, including the principle of land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Quartet Roadmap and an end to the Israeli occupation that began in 1967; and underscores in this regard the importance of the ongoing efforts to advance the Arab Peace Initiative, the initiative of France for the convening of an international peace conference, the recent efforts of the Quartet, as well as the efforts of Egypt and the Russian Federation;

10. Confirms its determination to support the parties throughout the negotiations and in the implementation of an agreement;

11. Reaffirms its determination to examine practical ways and means to secure the full implementation of its relevant resolutions;

12. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council every three months on the implementation of the provisions of the present resolution;

13. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

From Ma’an News:

Palestine Victorious Over UNSC Resolution, Israel Left ‘Abandoned’ by US

BETHLEHEM (Ma’an) — Palestinian leadership and members of the international community were victorious after the United Nations Security Council adopted a resolution calling for an end to illegal settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory and reiterated that their existence is illegal under international law.

After days of diplomatic turmoil, the US shocked and outraged Israel by refusing to veto the resolution — by abstaining from the vote, US President Barack Obama allowed resolution 2334 to pass Friday night at the UNSC.

Palestine’s envoy to the United Nations Riyad Mansour noted that the resolution came after years of allowing Israel to “entrench its occupation and a one-state reality with absolute impunity, at times even being rewarded for its violations and intransigence”

“Against this backdrop,” Mansour said, “one Council resolution in nearly eight years is not disproportionate; it is shameful. But today’s vote rectifies this record and sets us on a new course.”

Meanwhile, Secretary General of the PLO Saeb Erekat described the event to Reuters news agency as “a day of victory for international law, a victory for civilized language and negotiation and a total rejection of extremist forces in Israel.”

“The international community has told the people of Israel that the way to security and peace is not going to be done through occupation … but rather through peace, ending the occupation and establishing a Palestinian state to live side by side with the state of Israel on the 1967 line,” Erekat said.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas reportedly called the resolution “a slap in the face to Israeli policy” and an “absolute international condemnation to settlements and unanimous support for a two-state solution.”

He said in a statement earlier marking the occasion of Christmas that “Despite the Israeli occupation, our presence in our homeland and the preservation of our cultural and national heritage are the most important form of resistance in the face of the darkness of a foreign colonialist occupying power.”

Spokesperson for the Hamas movement Fawzi Narhoum said that Hamas applauded the countries who “rejected the Israeli occupation’s aggressive settlement policies against the Palestinian people.”

“We ask for more such supportive positions seeking to bring justice to the Palestinian cause and end occupation.”

Leftist Palestinian faction the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) also released a statement Friday welcoming the Security Council resolution, but warned that Israel and its allies would likely try to make the resolution null and void.

“Israel and its allies,” the statement said, “will try to impede implementation of the resolution or call attention to parts of the resolution’s content related to terrorism, violence, and incitement, which can be harmful to the Palestinians.”

Human rights organization Amnesty International called the decision to “finally” pass such a resolution a “welcome step.”

“This is the first time in almost four decades that such a resolution has been passed. During this time, settlements not only continued to be built, but at an accelerated pace,” Sherine Tadros, Head of Amnesty International’s UN Office in New York wrote in a statment, noting that resolution not only demands a halt to settlement building but also recognizes their illegality.

“Amnesty International has campaigned for many years on this issue. Israel’s settlement policy is inherently discriminatory and has resulted in grave human rights violations including destruction of homes, forced evictions, unlawful killings, arbitrary detentions, and collective punishment.”

Israel reacts

Meanwhile, Israeli officials and their allies expressed shock and outrage over the resolution, accusing the Obama administration of colluding with Palestine while betraying a decades-long relationship of supporting Israeli policies.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel “would not abide by the terms” of the “shameful anti-Israel resolution.”

Netanyahu also reportedly instructed Israel’s ambassadors in New Zealand and Senegal — two states that supported the resolution — to return to Israel for consultations. He also ordered the cancellation of a planned visit to Israel by Senegal’s foreign minister and the cancellation of all aid programs to Senegal, according to Israeli news site Ynet.

Israeli Minister Yuval Steinitz said that the United States had “abandoned” Israel by abstaining from the vote, adding that “the heart aches that after eight years of friendship… and cooperation with Obama, this is his final chord” in the departing Obama administration.

Ynet quoted an anonymous Israeli official as saying that Obama and US Secretary of State John Kerry “secretly cooked up” the “extreme anti-Israeli resolution behind Israel’s back.”

He said the resolution would be a “tailwind for terror and boycotts,” calling the move “shameful” and “an abandonment of Israel which breaks decades of US policy of protecting Israel at the UN.”

Israel’s ambassador to the UN Danny Danon for his part insisted that “Neither the Security Council nor UNESCO will rewrite history and to sever the link between the people of Israel and the land of Israel,” warning that “Efforts to attack Israel” would not help the peace process.

A number of US officials also reacted with dismay to the decision, with President-elect Donald Trump saying ominously in a Tweet, “Things will be different after Jan. 20th.”

Netanyahu had said after the resolution’s passage that he looked forward to working with Trump and the pro-Israeli members of the US Congress to reverse the damages of the “absurd” decision.

US Speaker of the House Paul Ryan calling the abstention vote by the US “absolutely shameful,” while Republican Senator John McCain said the move made the US “complicit in this outrageous attack” against Israel.

Leading up to the vote, US Republican Senator Lindsey Graham who oversees the Senate subcommittee that controls United States’ UN funding, had threatened to cut funding for the UN and any nation that backed the measure.

However, critics have pointed out that dozens of past UN resolutions condemning Israeli policies in the occupied territory have not been supported by the political will necessary to enforce such measures.

Many expressed worry that the Friday’s resolution would also be merely symbolic — noting in particular the resolution did not authorize any form of sanctions to compel Israel to respect international law.

Despite the US government, particularly under Barack Obama, having routinely condemned Israel’s settlement expansions, US officials have yet to take any concrete actions to end settlement building and instead inadvertently encouraged the enterprise through consistent inaction over Israel’s violation of international law and continued support of the Israeli government through inflated military aid packages.

Amnesty International continued in their statement, saying that going forward, the UNSC “must now ensure this resolution is respected. Indeed, it should go further and demand that the state of Israel not only fulfil its legal obligation to halt settlement-building, but also dismantle its settlements and relocate its settlers outside Occupied Palestinian Territories. This is the only way to a just and durable peace.”

%d bloggers like this: