Washington’s Bastille

Washington’s Bastille

January 16, 2021

by Jimmie Moglia for the Saker Blog

Trump’s supporters, having found the vanity of conjecture and inefficacy of expectations, resolved to prove their own existence, if not by violence, at least by physical presence.

They came forth into the crowded capital with an almost juvenile ambition that their numbers would be counted, their voice heard and their presence noticed.

But every upheaval, from Spartacus to the Bastille, is subject to unexpected developments. However peaceful the intents may be, the man involved in a turmoil is forced to act without deliberation, and obliged to choose before he can examine. He is surprised by sudden alterations of the state of things, and changes his measures according to superficial appearances.

Still, the corporate media, whose intestinal refuse is paraded as news, triumphs in every discovery of failure and ignores any evidence of success.

But, revolutionarily speaking, the storming of Washington was a success. And Trump did not expect, inspired or willed the unfortunate deaths.

If and when some reliable evidence will be produced, it will be probably found that parasitic elements, with dubious sponsors and of dubious character, joined the crowd.

This would only surprise the unawareness of the thoughtless. Even in Kiev, the ‘revolutionaries’ included characters who actually shot into the crowd from sundry buildings – as documented, in an intercepted phone call, by a then female president-of-something in the European Union.

Yet, when all is said and done, Washington may prove more eventful than the actual Bastille. For the date of the Bastille’s capture (July 14, 1789), became a French national commemorative event only through a convenient historical post-scriptum.

The punctilious historian may remember that the Bastille, like the Capitol dome in Washington, was visible from all of Paris – a medieval fortress, 100 ft high. At the time of the riot it only held seven prisoners, nor the mob gathered to free them. They wanted the ammunitions stored inside the wall.

When the prison governor refused, the mob charged and killed him. His head was carried round the streets on a spike.

Of the seven liberated prisoners one, a mentally-ill, white-bearded old man was paraded through the streets while he waved at the crowd, four were forgers who disappeared among the rabble, another, also mentally ill, was later re-incarcerated into an asylum. The only nobleman, and potentially an ‘enemy of the people’, was the Count de Soulange, who had been imprisoned at the request of his family for sexual misconduct.

The irony continues. Insensible to its possible historical value, the revolutionaries contracted with an enterprising bourgeois to demolish the tower.

After subduing the revolution Napoleon did not like the suggestive ideological connotations of the Place de la Bastille and thought of building there his ‘Arc de Triomphe’ (the one now in the ‘Etoile’), but that did not prove popular.

Therefore he ordered, instead, to build a huge bronze statue of an imperial elephant. A plaster model, a facsimile of the future finished product was built and inaugurated, but the wars made funding difficult. Waterloo and the Restoration did not help either. The plaster elephant stood in the iconic square from 1814 to 1848 when irreparable decay prompted its demolition.

But I digress.

As for the Washington’s Bastille, the related and subsequent events have openly shown the essentially unlimited power of the swamp, which, Don Quixote-like, Trump said he would attempt to drain.

Most of us know that the UUABLPPTH [Unmentionables Unless Accompanied By Lavish Praise plus their lackeys – hereinafter referred to as the ‘unmentionables’] make up the core of the swamp. I will return to them later, but the massively falsified elections, incontrovertibly show, among other things, how much the unmentionables hate the deplorables – in the instance and probably 60% of the nation.

Generally speaking and under often-recurrent conditions, elections are a rite enabling citizens to believe or continue to pretend that they live in a democracy rather than in an authoritarian regime.

By tradition, the absolute obedience of the population to absurd and incoherent decrees (“Patriot Act” et als.) has repeatedly reassured the masters that whatever they impose, the deplorables will accept.

For example, the Vietnam war protesters of old, plus peace-loving, cultural-marxists and amphetamines-laden youths met with policemen and waved flowers under their nose as an act of rebellion. But the war only ended seven years later. Meanwhile the richer and/or well-heeled dodged the draft, while the poorer didn’t. Besides, that ‘flower-inspired’ rebellion was not aimed at ending the war (or the war would have ended), but at turning upside down universally accepted ethics, and with ethics, perhaps unbeknown to them, the world as we know it.

Nevertheless I don’t think we should single out Americans for blame. Already in 1552, the young Frenchman Etienne de la Boetie wrote his “The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude” to address the central problem of political philosophy, namely the mystery of civil obedience.

Why do people, asked Etienne, in all times and all places obey the commands of the government, which always constitutes a small minority of the society? To him the spectacle of general consent to despotism (or in the recent American case, to fraud) is puzzling and appalling. “All this havoc – says he – descends upon you not from alien foes, but from the one enemy whom you yourself render as powerful as he is, for whom you go bravely to war, for whose greatness you do not refuse to offer your own bodies unto death. He who thus domineers over you has only two eyes, only two hands, only one body, no more than is possessed by the least man among the infinite numbers dwelling in our cities. He has indeed nothing more than the power that you confer upon him to destroy you. Where has he acquired enough eyes to spy upon you, if you do not provide them yourselves?”

Good question, we may say, but the problem remains. It is understandable in general, but only confusedly answerable in detail, due to the infinite intricacies of our individual lives. Therefore, a blanket indictment of the deplorables for letting themselves be driven by the unmentionables is theoretically logical but practically unjustified.

Still, during the Washington’s Bastille and for the first time that I recall, the unmentionables felt some concern for their ass. It is tragic that some of the revolutionaries died, because, as we know, the intent of the rally was peaceful and nothing compared to what was witnessed throughout America in 2020.
The lackeys’ official horror and concern for ‘democracy’ show that there is no vice so simple but assumes some mark of virtue on its outward parts. All that wringing of arms and shows of deprecation are falser than oaths made in wine. For none of the Capitoline lords would answer why they didn’t want to recount the votes. Leading the average deplorable to conclude that there is no more faith in them (as a lot) than in a stewed prune. For their intoxication with themselves will give no way to reason.

Equally, the Washington’s Bastille brought to the attention of many how much the Constitution has sunk under the feet of the unmentionables. Here is but one example – not to repeat what the readers already know, but to show the arrogance associated with the systems of censure the country is subjected to.

After the death of Ms. Ashly Babbit, shot by a policeman, an Internet friend of mine published the following post on his FB account, along with her picture.

“This is Ashly Babbitt. She was shot and killed by law enforcement during a protest in America. No one will take the knee for her. There will be no murals in her honor. The media will not mourn her death. She is white therefore her life does not matter for the establishment.”

FB returned this message,

“Your account has been restricted for 30 days because your post did not follow community standards.”

To comment on FB’s response the author said, “Mourning the death of this woman on Facebook is banned. Yet we have spent many months mourning the death of a drug addict, a criminal, an abuser, a man who broke into a woman’s home and put a gun to her stomach in order to extort money out of her. We have been paying our respect to this man all over the world for the best part of last year. And this woman who proudly served her country, she is now dead and you cannot even pay your respects to her own social media.”

The restraint and politeness of the censored statement are beyond question. And its censuring should make us pause. For it shows the scorn of the enemy for the rest of us. A scorn that should include the concurrent barrage of nauseating platitudes and the unrestrained bubbling to the surface of a diabolical hatred, no-longer disguised but steeped deep in history.

The Internet is yesterday’s telephone and Zion did not invent the Internet, nor computers, computing and communication software. Yet, the communication engines and components, companies and operations, Google, Twitter, Facebook and Youtube are owned and controlled by the unmentionables.

From his soul in hell, Coudenhove-Kalergi must be laughing his head off. His predicted new world, made up of ancient-Egyptians-looking deplorables lorded over by the unmentionables, cannot any longer be branded as a conspiracy theory. Under our own eyes there is the shape of things to come at large.

For he who controls speech controls opinion. Opinion molds thought and thought drives action. Therefore monopoly of opinion leads to control of action, and action includes just about every aspect of life and liberty.

Besides, free speech is ultimately vital to being human. It is the most important aspect of everything we refer to as freedom. Lack of freedom is the triumph of tyranny. And the train of tyranny drags in tow injustice, repression, murder, corruption, unjust and unnecessary wars.

Even earlier and more primitive media, newspapers and radio, controlled by a few, were the engines of persuasion and coercion to drive millions into quasi-genocidal world wars.

As an aside and in this respect, Germans owe a debt of historical gratitude to the Soviet Union. For it was fear of the Soviets that prevented the implementation of the “Morgentau Plan”, already signed by Roosevelt and Churchill, to be carried out after the end of WW2 – a plan that included the sterilization of all Germans. Disbelievers may wish to consult the details of the plan, as well as the book, “Germany Must Perish” printed in the US during the war.

Restricting free speech is necessary in every war and every tyranny. And we can identify tyranny by how much freedom of speech we have and by how much we can criticize the rulers. For reason and truth can outweigh lies and corruption. But massive suppression and an avalanche of lies and propaganda can make a mockery of factual truth and stuff the ears of men with false reports. Many, sick of show and weary of noise, turn off the set, how many we know not.

In this respect, technology and the power of global corporations to corrupt the minds have never been more powerful and ominous, in all history.

Furthermore, media of all types can now control feelings as well as the more primitive emotional parts of the brain. Never has government been bigger and more able to repress freedom with an infrastructure that includes the FBI, CIA, NSA and their counterparts in individual states and nations.

Never past tyrants better controlled their subjects than the globalists today. The threat to the freedom of the western peoples of the world is the greatest threat to their existence. Suppression of freedom of speech is exampled in the attitude of a controlled media, which is totally against the common feelings of the majority.

Most peoples of the world and nations want to preserve their nationality, country, customs, habits, religion and way of life. None of the corporate channels reflect these beliefs and objectives.

The axis of movies, Zionist Hollywood, ever since the abolition of the “Motion Pictures Production Code” act (1954), has been an extremely powerful engine of persuasion and shaper of belief, custom, habits and action, as well as an inculcator of hatred, let alone depravity. For reference read this article [ https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2021/01/14/the-jewish-role-in-promoting-cannabis-and-why-its-bad-for-you/ ]

The sum of these forces led to the US summer of 2020. Which was not a summer of discontent, but an extended season of Hollywood and media-inspired hatred. And mass hatred, as opposed to individual hatred, is an organized phenomenon.

The current biggest shapers of thought and human action are the networks of social media, primary tools for sharing ideas and learning things.

Owning and controlling these organizations are a few people, whose ethnic affiliation is undisputed and unmentionable. They can decide what the world can see, say, hear and consequently think.

Dismissing the reality and the consequences of this ideological monopoly as a ‘conspiracy theory’ is an insult to the minds of millions.

The conspiratorial element of a theory depends on identifiable circumstances and hypotheses. Even historically sanctified characters such as president Franklin Roosevelt stated as follows,

“In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way…” The point is that many of the major world events that shape our destinies occur because there is a plan behind them.”

In the same line of thought, if we were merely dealing with the law of averages, half of the events affecting a nation’s well-being should be good for that nation. If it were just a matter of incompetence, the leaders should occasionally make a mistake in favor of the deplorables. Instead it is planning and foresight that form the shape of things to come at large.

Not that chance is necessarily ruled out. According to his biographers, even Hitler firmly believed in grasping at fleeting opportunities. In a speech or lecture to his adjutants given in 1938 he said, “There is but one moment when the goddess of fortune wafts by, and if you don’t grab her then by the hem you won’t to get a second chance.”

The quote came to mind in thinking about the disparagers who have compared Trump with Hitler. Stupidity is sometimes invincible but, probably unbeknown to his detractors, Trump as a president, shared some characteristics associated with leaders who reach power outside the canonical paths – canonical paths that often include corruption, opportunistic servitude and/or crime.

For one, by all appearances Trump had far less authority on his advisers and subordinates than what we think a president has – an authority that seemingly weakened with each passing year. Also, a characteristic of heads of state who over-rely on advisers is a conscious desire ‘not to know.’ Even if they are later deemed directly responsible for what happened.

It is total speculation but the assassination of the Iranian General Suleimani may be one such instance. Though in other cases the reverse is true. The opening towards Kim Yong Sun of North Korea fits with Trump’s general style.

On the other hand, the policy towards Venezuela, though justified imperialistically, does not fit the profile. The ‘self-proclaimed’ Guaido’ is a puppet worthy of a Simpsons cartoon. Based on what I know of the country (readers may also consult my article “Don’t Cry for Me Venezuela”), the regime is anything but what described by the unmentionable media. The tight economic sanctions, the equivalent of a war, the arbitrary freezing of Venezuela’s gold reserves in London, the theft of CITGO, (the Venezuelan oil company operating in the US), the placing a bounty of 15 million $ on the head of Maduro, the many failed coups d’etat – quite open in planning and gross in execution – do not seem consistent with Trump’s character, at least as displayed in his general demeanor and other occasions.

Incidentally, the two ‘ambassadors’ of the Guaido’ puppet, in the US and Britain, are unmentionables. And there is an extant recording of the UK ‘ambassador’ Newman where she discusses assigning the Esequibo mineral-rich area – disputed between Venezuela with Guyana since the early 1800 – to an Exxon consortium of sorts.

Besides, in my view and independently of ideological convictions, in oratory, consistence, intelligence and demeanor Maduro towers over all former and latter members of the Trump administration put together. A remarkable achievement, I think, for someone who started as a bus driver and union leader to become the president of Venezuela. And although I cannot, of course, verify its accuracy, there is information among some Venezuelan sources that Trump expressed a secret admiration for Maduro.

To conclude, most records of history are but narratives of successive villainies, treasons and usurpations, massacres and wars – of which professional historians explain causes and effects.

As a non professional historian but a rude mechanical who earns his bread upon the Athenian walls I offer here an extremely arbitrary theory. On the ground that, just as a right line describes the shortest passage from point to point, a plausible historical explanation is that which connects distant truths by the shortest of intermediate propositions.

Therefore I select few key events – constituting an arbitrary beginning and its connecting causal links to the present. In the instance, fractional banking, 1968, Reagan and the Washington Bastille.

Fractional banking is a generally familiar idea whose implications, I think, are not sufficiently realized due to the apparently neutral effect of the term ‘fractional’. Risking the contempt of professionals and economists I will reduce the notion to its core with an example.

A bank that owns, says, 10 k$ in gold can loan out 100 k$ in money that does not exist – at say, 10% yearly interest.

After one year, globally, the borrowers return 110 k$ to the bank, (loans plus interest). Of the globally returned 110 k$, 100k$ are the money that did not exist, but the 10 k$ paid as interest correspond to the labor expended by the borrowers.

Let’s for a moment overlook where the borrowers got the additional 10k$ from, because for the purpose of this demonstration, the point is not important.

The bottom line is that with an investment of 10 kS of actual money (gold for example) the banker realizes an interest of a real 10k$ or 100%. Now with 20 k$ of actual money he can lend out 200k$ of non-existing money and so on.

It follows that the bank’s wealth increases exponentially. Consequently, sooner or later, the bank or banking system will essentially own and control – directly and indirectly – everything that has a demonstrable commercial value.

Fractional banking became the operating system of the first modern capitalism only at the end of the 17th century, with the establishment of the Bank of England. Which, unknown to many, was a private bank that lent money to the crown for conducting business and waging wars. Money paid back from the taxes on citizens.

The system is so brilliant in its simplicity that we must wonder why was it not applied centuries before.

And here we meet again with the unmentionables. Christianity, as well as Islam for that matter, considered interest usury and usury a sin.

The philosophical tricks by which Christian rulers tried to skirt the issue are ingenious and often amusing. Suffice to say, with a gross generalization, that it was found more expedient to let the unmentionables handle the matter. From thereon begin their path to unstoppable power.

As for 1968 – the second selected event – there took place a brilliant ideological operation, and again I generalize for simplicity. For the 1968 ‘revolution’ launched the ideology aimed at the deconstruction and destruction of the family, customs, traditions and gender distinctions. Destruction leading eventually to the assault on nationalities and ethnicities.

That destruction is in progress. I suspect without proof that the unmentionables’ hatred for Trump stems from his effort, however feeble, to mount an opposition. Opposition to a new world order where humans become merchantable individual atoms, drifting on the smooth world plane of exchangeable merchandise.

As for Reagan, with his background as a Coca-Cola cowboy, he was the perfect president for cutting the taxes of the rich, under the now all-but-forgotten theory of ‘trickle-down economics.’ Perhaps a thinly-disguised reference to the parable of the rich Epulon, from whose table fell the crumbs for the starving deplorables of the time.
From then on and on a planetary scale the already exorbitant assets of the overclass, began to increase immeasurably. And deregulation triggered a race to the concentration of capital and activities. Resulting in the stratospheric wealth of the few, with which they can buy everybody and everything, and become a dominant power over the traditional states, as even the events of the last few weeks unquestionably prove.

Remember Reagan’s, “The state is not the solution of problems, the state is the problem”. And now the state, the law and even health (e.g. Covid) are turning into a mockery of themselves.

In the end and in my view, the Washington’s Bastille was but the externation of long repressed and related feelings of helplessness.

To those who cannot but feel nauseated by the means used to impose the current presidential ticket on the rest of us, I will quote the answer, attributed to the wife of a Turkish diplomat at the court of King Lois XV. A courtier was asking her what happiness consisted in. “My lord – she replied – our happiness depends on the circulation of the blood.” [… ma foi, Monsieur, notre bonheur depend de la facon que notre sang circule.]

The others may reflect that, after all, man is little more than an instrument in an orchestra directed by the muse of history.

أوروبا تطالب لبنان بالتحقيق حول رياض سلامة

مراسلة رسمية في عهدة النيابة العامة للتدقيق في مبلغ 400 مليون دولار

الأخبار 

مراسلة رسمية في عهدة النيابة العامة للتدقيق في مبلغ 400 مليون دولار
(مروان طحطح)

الثلاثاء 19 كانون الثاني 2021

في تطور مفاجئ على الصعيد القضائي، تبلغ لبنان رسمياً طلباً من جهات عليا في الاتحاد الأوروبي وسويسرا لتقديم مساعدة قضائية في تحقيق جار حول ملف تحويلات مالية تخص حاكم مصرف لبنان رياض سلامة.

وعلمت «الأخبار» أن النائب العام التمييزي القاضي غسان عويدات وصلته مراسلة مباشرة (لم تُعرف بعد الطريقة الدبلوماسية، وإذا ما تمت عبر وزارة الخارجية أو عبر السفارة السويسرية في بيروت أو عبر القضاء السويسري) تطلب منه العمل مع الجهات القضائية المعنية، ولا سيما النائب العام المالي، من أجل الحصول على تفاصيل معلومات حول حوالات مصرفية تخص الحاكم وشقيقه رجا سلامة ومساعدته ماريان حويك، يصل مجموعها الى نحو 400 مليون دولار.


وبحسب المعلومات، فإن التحقيق الجاري له طابع جنائيّ ولا يخص سلامة وحده، بل سيكون له متعلقات بمصرف لبنان والمؤسسات التابعة له، ولا سيما بنك التمويل وشركة طيران الشرق الأوسط «ميدل إيست»، وبنك انترا وكازينو لبنان.

وقالت المعلومات إن الجهات الرسمية العليا في البلاد، ولا سيما الرئيسين ميشال عون وحسان دياب، وُضعت في أجواء الملف، ولكن لم يتضح بعد سبب عدم التفاعل والتجاوب مع الطلب، مع الإشارة الى أن مسؤولاً قضائياً بارزاً قال إن المسألة قد تكون مرتبطة بالإغلاق الناجم عن مواجهة جائحة كورونا. لكنّ مسؤولاً آخر قال إن السلطات اللبنانية تحاول التدقيق في إذا ما كان الطلب الأوروبي صحيحاً.

وأوضحت المصادر أن السلطات الاوروبية تدرس ملف سلامة من ضمن ملف يشمل عدداً كبيراً من الشخصيات اللبنانية وفق «لائحة شبهة» أعدت بالتعاون بين فرنسا وبريطانيا والولايات المتحدة التي طلبت من الاتحاد الأوروبي المشاركة في متابعة الملف وعدم حصر العقوبات بوزارة الخزانة الاميركية، وأن لا يبقى الأمر مرتبطاً فقط بما تسمّيه واشنطن «مكافحة تمويل الإرهاب».

مسؤول فرنسي لـ«الأخبار»: باريس لم تُخفِ رغبتها في تغييرات كبيرة تشمل مصرف لبنان بعد التدقيق في أعماله


وبحسب المصادر، فإن فرنسا وبريطانيا قررتا بشكل منفرد التحقيق في الأمر، وتم البحث خلال الاسبوع الأخير من شهر كانون الاول من العام الماضي، في ترتيب اجتماعات غير رسمية تشتمل على تحقيق مع سلامة، أو الاستماع اليه، وقد سافر الحاكم أكثر من مرة الى باريس من دون أن تتوضح الصورة، خصوصاً أن الجانب الفرنسي يمتلك ملفاً خاصاً يستند الى تحقيقات أجرتها مؤسسة فرنسية تعمل على تقصّي الملفات المالية للشخصيات العاملة في الحقل العام أو لمؤسسات رسمية كبيرة، منها المصارف.

وأفادت المصادر أن الاتصالات الجانبية التي جرت مع الجهات الفرنسية المعنية حول ملف مصرف لبنان، اشتملت في فترة معينة على فكرة التسوية التي تقضي باستقالة سلامة من منصبه ضمن صفقة تمنع ملاحقته قضائياً. وقال مسؤول فرنسي لـ«الأخبار» إن باريس لم تُخفِ رغبتها في تغييرات كبيرة تشمل مصرف لبنان بعد التدقيق في أعماله، لكنها لم تقدم أي ضمانات. وأضاف أن فرنسا «لا يمكنها تقديم ضمانات لأحد، لا في بلاده ولا في الخارج، وأن أوروبا شهدت عدة قضايا جرت خلالها ملاحقة رؤساء سابقين وقادة دول وأحزاب، ولم تنفع كل الضغوط لوقف الملاحقة».

من جهة أخرى، لفتت المصادر الى أن جهات لبنانية سألت عن سبب عدم صدور لائحة عقوبات كانت منتظرة من العاصمة الاميركية مطلع هذه السنة. وقالت إن أحداً لم يقدم توضيحات في هذا الشأن. لكن الأميركيين قالوا إن ملف العقوبات بذريعة الفساد يجب أن لا يقتصر على ما يصدر عن وزارة الخزانة فيها، وإن فرنسا وعدت بأن أوروبا ستقوم بدورها في هذا السياق. ولكن هناك تعقيدات في الآلية القضائية الأوروبية لا تشبه ما يجري في الولايات المتحدة.

لبنان نحو مزيد من التمركز الطائفيّ نحو «طائف فرنسيّ»؟

ناصر قنديل

بنى الكثير من اللبنانيين بنيات طيّبة أحلاماً على مشهد انتفاضة 17 تشرين 2019، معتقدين أن دخول لبنان في نفق الانهيار المالي والاقتصادي، سيؤدي إلى فتح الباب نحو تغيير جذري في الاصطفافات الشعبية، ويمنح الأمل بولادة دولة مدنية تفرضها حركة شعبية عابرة للطوائف، ورغم المسار التراجعي للحضور الشعبي وصولاً لنضوب موارد الحراك شعبياً، بقي البعض متمسكاً بهذا الأمل على قاعدة أن التردّدات الأشدّ قسوة للأزمة المالية والإقتصادية ستتكفل بإنتاج موجات أشدّ جذرية من الانتفاضة الشعبية بالاتجاه ذاته العابر للطوائف نحو دولة مدنية.

بغض النظر عن الاستثمار الذي مثلته بعض الجماعات القيادية الوازنة في الحراك ووسائل إعلام فاعلة سعت لقيادته، لأخذه بوجه المقاومة، أو لفرض عزلة على عهد الرئيس ميشال عون والتيار الوطني الحر، يبقى السؤال حول صدقيّة التحليل القائم على فرضية أن المزيد من الفقر سينتج مناخاً ثورياً مدنياً يدفع لبنان نحو التغيير هو المطروح، خصوصاً أن تجربة لبنان في السبعينيات قالت العكس تماماً، حيث يترتّب على المزيد من الفقر تراجعاً متصاعداً في وزن فكرة الدولة كفكرة لحساب الكيانات الطائفية كهويات كامنة تحت جلد الهوية الجامعة للكيان الوطني. ونهوض الجماعات الطائفية والعرقية بديلاً عن الدولة عندما تظهر عاجزة عن أداء مهمتها في الحماية والرعاية ليس حكراً على لبنان، فهو من ثوابت علم الاجتماع السياسي، كما هو حاصل مكرر في كل تجارب الدول الهشة القائمة على تراضي كيانات وجماعات تنتسب للهويات الكامنة. والحصيلة الثانية التي تقولها التجارب هي أن المكانة المميّزة للبنان في عيون الخارج، وهي مميّزة بعائداتها لمن يمتلك فيه وزناً مؤثراً، ومميزة بمخاطرها على من يترك تداعيات أزماته خارج السيطرة، ما يجعل كل التهاب في الوضع اللبناني مدخلاً لجذب التدخلات، التي تسارع لصناعة تسويات تعيد تركيب معادلة جديدة بين المكوّنات والكيانات الطائفية، كما كان اتفاق الطائف، وكما كان اتفاق الدوحة كملحق تنفيذي لبعض آليات الطائف بتوازنات جديدة، وتتحرّك هذه المداخلات والتدخلات في قلب المتغيرات الدولية والإقليمية التي ولدت في قلبها التسويات التي سبقت، وتلحظ التعديلات التي أصابت الموازين بين اللاعبين الخارجيين.

لا يمكن مراقبة الوضع خلال العام الماضي من دون ملاحظة أمرين واضحين، الأول أن الكيانات الطائفيّة التي أصابها الاهتزاز مع الانفجار الاجتماعيّ، والمتموضعة على ضفتين متقابلتين في المأزق الحكومي الراهن، أي فريقي رئيس الجمهورية والرئيس المكلف بتشكيل الحكومة، تسجلان تصعيداً في الخطاب الطائفيّ ونجاحاً في الإمساك المتنامي بشارع طائفي كان يبدو موضوع اهتزاز وتراجع ورهانات على التغيير في مرجعيّته السياسيّة وتسابق الوارثين المفترضين على لعب دور البديل، وربما نكون أمام صورة تتبلور يوماً بعد يوم، يظهر فيها تيار المستقبل أقوى في طائفته عمّا كان عشية 17 تشرين، وبالتوازي يظهر فيها التيار الوطنيّ الحر بصورة الممسك بالشارع المسيحيّ رغم كل الكلام عن تراجعه وتشتت مرجعيّاته، وتبدو الأزمة الحكوميّة وما تثيره من استقطاب وخطاب طائفيين، استثماراً مربحاً للفريقين، ما يفسر امتعاض البعض المتحمّس لإضعاف التيار الوطني الحر ورئيس الجمهورية من احتفاظ الرئيس المكلف بالتكليف من دون تأليف ومن دون اعتذار، لشعورهم بنتائج هذا الوضع لصالح التيار الوطني الحر والعهد، ويكشفون رغبتهم باعتذار الحريري ولو كان في ذلك خسارة كبرى لموقعه الطائفي الذي ينمو في ظل التجاذب القائم، ويقترحون بديلاً يقوم على ترك التيار والعهد يعودان بهما لصيغة تشبه حكومة الرئيس حسان دياب لإعتقادهم بأنها تنهي المناخ القائم على التجاذب والتصعيد الذي يرتاح إليه الفريقان المتقابلان، ولا يبدوان راغبين بإنهائه قريباً.

في الطوائف الأخرى لم يتعرّض التمركز الطائفي للاهتزاز بما يغير في اصطفافاته خلال الأزمة، وقد نجح من أصيب ببعض الشظايا بترميم الكثير من صدوعها، والخارج الذي دخل بعضه في رهانات على جعل الأزمة اللبنانية مدخلاً لتغيير جيواستراتيجي في توازنات المنطقة، كما كان الحال مع رهان أميركي معلن بألسنة كبار المسؤولين على إسقاط حزب الله والمقاومة، يعترف بالفشل منذ انطلاق المبادرة الفرنسية، ويعيد صياغة تموضعه الدولي والإقليمي بعد نتائج الانتخابات الرئاسية الأميركية، حيث تتراجع لغة التصعيد لحساب لغة السياسة، ويبدو التقارب الأميركي الأوروبي من البوابة الفرنسيّة عنواناً للمرحلة الجديدة، بمعزل عما سيحدث في ملف العلاقات الأميركية الإيرانية، وهو ليس مزيداً من التصعيد في أحسن الأحوال، بحيث يبدو المسار المقبل واضحاً نحو مزيد من التأزم اللبناني ومزيد من الزخم في المسعى الفرنسي، الذي لم يعد له من مركز نفوذ آخر غير لبنان، ويبدو المسعى الفرنسي مرشحاً ليحوز المزيد من الدعم الأميركي، وبالاستطراد تبدلاً في الكثير من المواقف الإقليمية، والطريق سيكون سالكاً باتجاه واحد، سبق وتحدّث عنه الرئيس الفرنسي، مشروع عقد سياسي جديد عبر حوار ترعاه باريس، يقع في منزلة بين اتفاق الطائف واتفاق الدوحة، ويعيد تعويم النظام الطائفي بقواه المتجذّرة، وفق صفقة تتضمن حكومة سياسية وتفاهماً على الرئاسة المقبلة، وقانون انتخابات جديد، والعديد من التطبيقات الإصلاحية، تحت عنوان تطبيق ما لم يطبق من اتفاق الطائف، ولكن بتوازنات ومعادلات تراعي ما سيثبته اللاعبون المحليّون وظهير كل منهم في الإقليم والعالم من وزن وحضور، وسيفرح المدنيّون اللبنانيون بقانون انتخابات يرجّح أن يكون قائماً على صيغة المجلسين، يفتح طريقاً نحو الخروج من الطائفية كما فرحوا بوعود اتفاق الطائف، لكن سيبقى الثابت أن الدولة المدنية لا يبنيها ممثلو الطوائف، وأن المدنيين الحقيقيين لا يزالون أقليّة وأقليّة ضئيلة.

UAE Converted Yemen’s Balhaf Gas Facility into Secret Prison

UAE Converted Yemen’s Balhaf Gas Facility into Secret Prison

Source

Over the past few years, the United Arab Emirates has been pursuing a plethora of agendas in Southern Yemen, whether directly or via backing the separatist Southern Transitional Council [STC].

Among Abu Dhabi’s primary objectives in Yemen are taking control of the country’s western Red Sea coast; the Bab-el-Mandeb, a strait located between Yemen, Djibouti and Eritrea in the Horn of Africa, and Socotra, an archipelago near major shipping routes.

But this hegemonic ambition has never been just limited to taking strategic locations.

The story of Balhaf is a case in point; a major oil facility in Shabwah Governorate turned by the Emiratis into a detention center, among other things.

The existence of the Balhaf prison was first announced by the United Nations in September 2019.

Two months later, Armaments Observatory released a detailed report about the facility which the Emiratis had turned into a military base and a secret prison.

But what made the story strange was the silence of France since the revelation. Given that Total SE, a French multinational oil and gas company, was the biggest shareholder with nearly 40% of stake, critics say the silence is significant.

The fact that they’ve taken over a gas plant essential for the country’s energy supply, and for its economy, and turned it into a detention camp where torture is being reportedly carried on is just an indication of the brutality of this occupation force in Yemen.

Gearoid O’ Colmain, Journalist & Political Commentator

Based on witness accounts, the report also accused Emirati soldiers of treating prisoners inhumanely. The UAE had already been accused of running a secret network of prisons across Yemen.

But I think having prisons in other countries, particularly in Yemen, it’s difficult to tell what’s happening in Yemen because there’s a war. So, I mean, it’s much easier to hide political prisoners, torture. It’s much more difficult for human rights agencies to tell what exactly is happening. And it’s much easier for the authorities and the occupation forces to deny that that these abuses are taking place. So I think having a detention center in Yemen is advantageous for the United Arab Emirates in that sense. Remember that the United Arab Emirates, is a country that presents an image of itself as a modernizing country; it’s highly invested in technology. And, you know, Dubai is a major city in the world, major modern city, so it would not work to have this kind of brutality on its own shores.

Gearoid O’ Colmain, Journalist & Political Commentator

But what made the story strange was the awkward silence of France since the revelation.

Total SE has 40% stake in Balhaf

Given that Total SE, a French multinational oil and gas company, was the biggest shareholder with a nearly 40% stake, critics said the silence was significant.

The French parliament has called on Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian to answer questions about the alleged existence of a UAE-built military base and detention center in the vicinity of Balhaf.

French lawmaker Clementine Autain has accused Emmanuel Macron’s government of covering up crimes committed by the UAE at Balhaf.

The UAE has gradually become a crucial partner for France.

“Despite their small size and low profile, the Emiratis play a key role in France’s international strategy.”

French Historian, Sébastien Nadot

UAE worth enough for France to ignore atrocities

A rich federation with a big appetite for arms purchase, the UAE is worth enough for the French to look the other way when the Emiratis are violating human rights at Balhaf, or anywhere else.

In fact, France’s silence could be explained by its lucrative partnership with Abu Dhabi, especially in military cooperation and arms purchases.

[The] United Arab Emirates, of course, have been relying on French technology. They have the tanks, the current tanks and Mirage planes which they’ve been supplied with by the French. The French, continue to maintain those military technologies that they’re using that that equipment that they’re using. And of course that is a key to their war because the equipment, most of it has been bought in the West, in particular in France. And so the French are heavily involved in this whole scenario here, where essentially the country’s energy supply is now being used as a torture and a prison center.

Gearoid O’ Colmain, Journalist & Political Commentator

Despite public outrage, arms deals have been getting bigger over the past decade between Paris and Abu Dhabi, according to the 2020 report to parliament on arms exports. 

“What we fear today is that these arms could be used to commit those violations and potentially war crimes. We call today through this legal study, for the opening of a real debate, and equally an immediate suspension of the sale of arms from France to those two countries engaged in war in Yemen.”

Aymeric Elluin, Amnesty International

The first French multi-service military base in the Middle East is located in Abu Dhabi “housing around 700 military personnel, the base includes an air base, a naval base capable of receiving a French aircraft carrier, and an army base.”

Well, since 2010 under President Nicolas Sarkozy, the French have upped their investment in other countries, in particular, the United Arab Emirates. They even have a military base in the United Arab Emirates, so they have been very much involved in supplying and modernizing the United Arab Emirates, technology, their military technology. And so that is the main reason that means that the partnership is quite extensive and quite deep. They’ve even allowed the United Arab Emirates to have major exports paintings, for example, have been exported temporarily to the United Arab Emirates, in exchange for continued military contracts, so these military contracts are extremely important for France. I already mentioned Mirage planes, Leclerc tanks and many more, much more technology. This is a multibillion dollar industry.

Gearoid O’ Colmain, Journalist & Political Commentator

French presence in UAE is strategic for Paris

According to Emma Soubrier, Arab Gulf States Institute, “For France, a presence in the UAE is strategic and will allow easy intervention to prevent possible disturbances affecting access to Gulf oil.”

Abu Dhabi is visibly formulating a regional strategy of influence with a focus on the creation of commercial and military port facilities stretching from the Horn of Africa to the Mediterranean.

“In general, Paris does not want to strike any false note that might spoil its intimate friendship with Abu Dhabi, believing that this symbiotic relationship will in the years to come always lead to success.”

Jalel Harchaoui, Global Initiative against Transnational Organized Crime

Given the military background of Emirati Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Zayed, the French have little, if any doubt, that the UAE will continue signing big arms deals with them.

The idea that France supports human rights, that it has concerns over rights, is really a myth. The Human Rights discourse is really part of the foreign policy agenda of the French. It’s about presenting a positive image of France as a moral order, as a moral power, when in reality they have never been interested in human rights, the main interest is in Power Projection and economic exchange and exploitation, in particular, of developing countries, and the Gulf, the Gulf states allied with ‘Israel’ and the West, are key to that objective.

Gearoid O’ Colmain, Journalist & Political Commentator

Balhaf mirrors the inhumanity of the Emiratis

Located on the Gulf of Aden coast in the southern part of Yemen, Balhaf mirrors the inhumanity of the Emiratis who have turned Yemen’s major source of income into a secret, macabre prison and the greed of the French who seem to have preferred petrodollars to anything else in the world.

Related Videos

Related Articles

هل يقترح الكاردينال الراعي فكرة المؤتمر التأسيسي؟

د.وفيق إبراهيم

الحائط المسدود في مراحل تشكيل حكومة جديدة للبنان يعكس انهيار أسلوبين تاريخيين وتقليديين تعتمدهما القوى السياسية اللبنانية منذ 1948، الأول هو الاعتماد على القوى الخارجية للسيطرة على السياسة في الداخل اللبناني.

أما الثاني فهو أسلوب التحشيد الوطني الذي يذهب في معظم الأحيان نحو تمجيد الأرز والتاريخ لكسب تنازلات من الفريق الآخر.

الآن بات لبنان من دون أسلوبيه المعتمدين منذ سبعة عقود على الأقل، بما يعني أنه مكشوف تماماً، وذلك بتراجع الضغوط الخارجية التي لا تزال حتى الآن غريبة بشكل كامل وفقط.

الكاردينال الراعي يعتمد حتى الآن أسلوب إثارة النخوة الوطنية على المثال التالي: هل يمكن لوزير أن يكون أغلى من لبنان؟

ألا يأتي الوزراء من الشعب وقوتهم تأتي منه مباشرة، سواء اكانوا ستة وزراء أم سبعة أم أقل أو أكثر؟ لا يهم بالنسبة للكاردينال، ما هو هام يتعلق مباشرة بضرورة وضع سياسة جديدة موضع التنفيذ تقوم على الحياد بين «إسرائيل» (العدو) وسورية، وهذا ورد حرفياً على لسان الكاردينال.

أما لجهة الارتماء في أحضان الخارج لتحقيق تغيير في الداخل، فأمره واضح بتموضع الكاردينال بين السياستين الفرنسية والأميركية بتعميد مقدّس من الفاتيكان.

والدليل أيضاً في أن الكاردينال كشف في إحدى خطبه أن الطرف الآخر لا يشبهنا، وكان يقصد «الخلاف الثقافي» الذي حدّد علم الاجتماع إطاره في الملبس والمأكل والمأوى والجنس.. هذه العناصر أدّت الى هيمنة فرنسية غربية على الاجتماع اللبناني بشكل بات الكاردينال يعتقد أن كل من يمارسها بطرق مختلفة لا «يشبهنا».

لكن علم الاجتماع يكشف أيضاً أن التشابه وصولاً الى التقليد يؤدي الى الانصياع الكامل كما يروِّج له نيافة الكاردينال.

ما بات واضحاً بقول للكاردينال بصراحة أن الأسلوبين سقطا في الوقت الحاضر فلا المبادرة الفرنسية تمكنت من التسلل والنجاح ولا السياسات الواردة من السفارة الأميركية تمكنت من إعادة بناء 14 آذار جديدة.

كما ان نمط إثارة النخوة هوى الى الحضيض حتى أن كثيراً من القوى السياسية اللبنانية قال للكاردينال بأسلوب النفخ الوطني أن لبنان الحالي يحتاج الى فتح مؤسساته السياسية أمام كل تنوّعات اللبنانيين تماماً كما فعلت سلسلة الثورات الأميركية والانجليزية والفرنسية، حتى أن أحداً لم يعد يعرف من هو الكاثوليكي او البروتستاني او الانجيلي وصولاً الى اليهودي؟

لم يلق طارحو هذا السؤال من الكاردينال إجابة لأنه اكتفى بهزة رأس عميق، لم يفهمها أحد اذا كانت موافقة او قشعريرة من هذا السؤال!

حتى الآن لم تسمح انهماكات الكاردينال الراعي بالإجابة عن هذا السؤال، عند هذا السؤال توقف حوار الراعي الذي آثر العودة الى تأمين هدنة بين الفريقين الماروني أي رئاسة الجمهورية والتيار الحر وبين الفريق السني أي الرئيس المكلف سعد الحريري وحزب المستقبل.

فهل توهّم الكاردينال بإمكانية عقد هدنة بين هذين الفريقين تستطيع بمفردها جذب رئيس المجلس النيابي نبيه بري والتأسيس لمعادلة رئاسية فرنسية أميركية ومارونية سنية، أي شبيهة بمعادلة الطائف..

هناك سؤال آخر يتعلّق بمدى إمكانية الراعي تحقيق معادلة تقوم على عزل الآخرين مع إعادة بناء نفوذ فرنسي أميركي، لا تبدو قواعده راسخة في السياسة اللبنانية الحالية، فهناك حزب الله أي القوة اللبنانية المحورية، تضعه اقتراحات الراعي خارج المعادلات وكأنها ترفع عنه غطاء مفترضاً هو بالأصل ليس موجوداً، فأين الحل إذا؟

هناك تيار كنسيّ يطالب الراعي بالاعتراف بالموازين في الداخلية والتأسيس لتيار داخلي لبناني يتعامل مع تطورات الداخل من دون استعمال الخارج لإجهاضه، فمثل هذه المحاولات فشلت بنماذج التاريخ لذلك يرى هذا التيار أن بناء معادلة داخليّة جديدة على اساس المثالثة او الدولة المدنية هو خيار يؤسس لدور سياسيّ جديد للمسيحيين يُضيف إليهم مئة سنة سياسيّة جديدة من الدور السياسي، فمسيحيّو لبنان هم المسيحيّون الوحيدون الذين يؤدون دوراً سياسياً في العالم الإسلامي باسره، وهذه ميزة اتسم بها لبنان ويفاخر بها، لكن المطلوب وجود قوة مارونيّة تستطيع تبني معادلة تفتح أبواب السياسة على كامل قوى الطوائف اللبنانية، فيتحقق التعادل مع إمكانية حماية لبنان من الإرهاب السياسي المحيط به والذي لا يحتمل وجود مسيحيين او أي مسلم من الأقليات.

فهل يصل الكاردينال الى هذه المعادلة؟

هناك رفض أميركي لمثل هذا الطرح يدفع بشكل طبيعي إلى رفض فرنسي مع محاولات لتأجيج قوى الداخل في وجهه، ما يعني أن لبنان مقبل على مرحلة من التأجيج الخارجي لأوضاعه الداخلية. وهذا يحتاج الى تضافر جهود الكاردينال مع نظرائه في دور الإفتاء والقوة السياسية المدنيّة لإنقاذ لبنان.

Biggest threat to global leftism returns to power: US fake-leftism (1/2)

Biggest threat to global leftism returns to power: US fake-leftism (1/2)
Ramin Mazaheri is currently covering the US elections. He 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. He is the author of ‘Socialism’s Ignored Success: Iranian Islamic Socialism’ as well as ‘I’ll Ruin Everything You Are: Ending Western Propaganda on Red China’, which is also available in simplified and traditional Chinese.

January 08, 2021

by Ramin Mazaheri (@RaminMazaheri2) for the Saker Blog

It was an interesting ride, at least, but the Electoral College’s vote for Joe Biden marks the definitive end of the Donald Trump presidency.

Preview in new tab

Trump was somebody you could never support in a vacuum, only by comparison; there’s nothing wrong with a united Europe but not this American-penned, neoliberal version, so it’s clear why Britain chose Brexit; France has long been the West’s only hope, so it’s not fair to put the politically advanced, physically courageous, full of solidarité Yellow Vests in with this group, but all three here are certainly related.

I never supported Trump. What I support is the fight against fake-leftism, which is the perhaps the biggest threat to real leftism.

Many Anglophones now have no idea what I am talking about. That’s a problem.

There’s a problem when you Google such a hugely important concept like “fake-leftism” and Ramin Mazaheri has multiple hits on the very first results page: what on earth have Anglophones been talking – or not talking – about?

Fake-leftism is such a huge threat because we all know what the right-wing wants – they are totally clear about it, and that is at least respectable. It must be conceded that while some of their values (like rabid anti-socialism) have no merit at all, some of their other values are respectable and cannot destroyed any more than yang can destroy yin.

So in many vital ways fake-leftism is as big a threat to leftism as rightism because fake-leftists are right-wingers in disguise on some issues and totally deluded about what true leftism is on other issues – they distort, distract and undermine real leftism and thus are actually perpetually engaged in pushing things always to the right.

So spending time fighting fake-leftism is certainly just as vital as opposing right-wing forces. Unfortunately, there are enormous, tedious, ineffective reams of the latter and yet so little of the former that I am seemingly in the position to monetise the term “fake-leftism” with T-shirts and coffee mugs?

Let’s start in the opposite direction: what is fake-rightism?

It’s very interesting to listen to American fascist media. I am not referring to Fox News, nor even Christian conservative radio. The US has genuinely, openly fascist media you can find on the fringe, but I’m not going to give them free publicity by listing them.

As a daily hack journalist it’s my job to listen to everyone and quickly provide copy; and perhaps temperamentally I am simply lucky in that I can listen to people I disagree with without getting angry.

These American fascist media are full of unacceptable racism and hatred but still can provide some very unique takes on Trumpism, as Trumpism is a right-wing ideology which they naturally grasp more about than I do: For example, they actually assert that Trump lost because he betrayed his White Power base – which is to say that Trump lost because he was not racist enough – and the fact that the only group he lost votes from in 2020 as compared to 2016 was White men proves that. Considering how close the vote was, the idea should be considered, at least. However, I have and I find it insufficient and actually just more typically-Western “race and tribe and religious differences are everything” (we are talking about the analyses of racist fascists, after all) and actually mere identity politics (we are talking about the analyses of modern Americans, after all).

But something they said once stuck out for me: The Republican Party is the party paid to lose. That was funny because I was interviewing a Green Party candidate in my recent work in the US for PressTV and he said the same thing about the Democratic Party. We absolutely cannot draw a false equivalence between the far-right and the far-left (though, of course this is exactly what is done all the time in the know-nothing corporate Mainstream Media), but both are totally right.

That is very easy to explain, but nobody wants to explain it. I can explain it quickly, I just can’t get it published in any Mainstream Media, because the MSM does not want to promote clear political understanding as that would threaten the grip of the 1%.

The Republican Party is slightly watered-down Western fascism – which was never discredited by defeat in the US, unlike in Europe due to World War II. Modern Republicans are actually a “fake-fascist” party: they have rejected open racism (the apartheid of Jim Crow). This explains why you can find American fascist media openly rejecting both Republicans and even Trump – many modern Republicans have rejected a key pillar of fascism, after all – openly espousing racism and claims of racial superiority. American fascists also point out that Trump never built the Mexico wall, and that many Republicans encourage making the US less White via immigration – two more pillars of fascism which have gone unbuilt, so it’s no wonder genuine American fascists rejected Trump long before the Electoral College did.

Again, it’s not hard to explain, but who in the MSM takes American fascism seriously? The US MSM only wants to support the 1%, not to be intellectually rigorous, honest and willing to openly discuss American failures. Just look at how Russiagate was foisted on the US public from 2016-19 for proof of the latter.

At the very least I think we can agree that on the left wing (and probably the centre wing) of the Republican Party their racism and xenophobia is hidden – this runs contrary to fascism’s open racism. So to true American fascists people who do this would be labelled as “fake-fascists”.

Despite the clear accuracy of this logic the term of “fake-fascist” is – per a Google search – so unpopular that it also appears open to monetisation. But only a fascist would ever try to monetise everything, of course, and only a fascist would ever even try to denounce somebody’s fascism as “fake” or “insufficient”.

Yes, I promised to write about fake-rightism and gave you fake-fascism. I have a perfectly good answer to which allows me to move on: This is America, where fascism was never discredited and thus fascism is actually rampant (even if often a bit watered-down).

But what is the Democratic Party? It is fake-leftism

About this there is enormous, gigantic misunderstanding. It is so enormous that Google says that little old Ramin Mazaheri is a top exponent of what is the Democratic Party: It is a fake-leftist party.

Again, the far-right and the far-left are not at all, not at all, not at all the same, but political know-nothings, political-nihilists and lazy thinkers all like to claim that they are. So it’s important to briefly clarify why comparing socialists and fascists does not actually compare two extremes:

On the extreme left of the global spectrum of political thought anarchists occupy the furthest pole, with communists to the right of them, and then socialists to the right of them, and then centrists (combining elements of both left and right) to the right of them. Thus, socialism IS leftism and NOT far-leftism on the global spectrum of political thought. This is not up for debate – definitions are clear and accepted, and you are not allowed to make up your own if you want to talk among others without ruining the discussion.

Contrarily, the different national spectrums of political thought are indeed up for debate and are quite, quite mutable – merely look at how “Trumpism” clearly just become at least half of the Republican Party.

But the global political spectrum is almost totally immutable – it requires a stunning revolution in thought to upset it. One must concede that humans have thought about politics for a very long time, and that’s why it’s so hard to change the global political spectrum: what’s more to the left of anarchism, which posits that every person has total liberty and that nobody is in charge of anyone else? What’s to the right of totalitarian fascism, which has been most fully experienced by the victims in places like Apartheid South Africa, slave-owning states and Israel? Iranian Islamic Socialism was a huge, stunning revolution – many don’t know where to really place it on the global political spectrum – but it didn’t move the poles, right? Right.

So we know what things are on the global political spectrum when we see it, and the US Democratic Party is undoubtedly fake-leftist. We can argue about whether it is on the centre or right of the global political spectrum but it is definitely, definitely, DEFINITELY wrong to place it on the global political spectrum’s left.

So wrong it would be laughable if this issue of fake and real leftism were not so hugely vital.

Let’s unwelcome back the US fake-left’s return to power

I have written about this so much that even Google must acknowledge it, but I must admit I took some time off from writing about fake-leftism recently. I don’t think it was out of the boredom caused by repetition, but also because 21st century fake-leftism was deposed by Trump in the US, by Brexit in the UK and by the Yellow Vests in France – it became far more interesting to try and humbly publicly analyse these movements and why they arrived.

But with Biden’s ascension I realise I have to get back on the horse, because fake-leftism is back on the horse – it’s a huge threat to global leftism, after all, and one that goes totally, totally, totally unaddressed.

Part 2 of this article will remind us of just how right-wing the US Democratic Party is. This is perfectly obvious when what Joe Biden and his supporters actually believe are held side-by-side with the basic tenets of actual leftism. Because the West is so rabidly anti-leftist the basic, globally similar tenets of leftism are never openly discussed, and thus people get so very confused about what leftism is that they actually come to believe that Democrats are a “left” party on the global political spectrum. That’s absurd.

One last note, just to expand out this article as much as possible: In 2017 I supported Marine Le Pen for only the two weeks between Round 1 and Round 2 in France’s presidential election because I opposed Emmanuel Macron’s “fake-centrism”. Macron went on to wage incredibly fascistic violence against the Yellow Vests, extended the state of emergency for 2 years, closed down Muslim community centres, gutted longstanding French measures of economic redistribution and protection, and did many other things which would have caused an uproar…if they had been done by Le Pen. Macron was always a fake-centrist – he was also very far on the right, and the failure to call things by their proper names led to even worse long-term social disorder than if the repugnant Le Pen had won.

The repugnant Trump won in America, and so many great leftist-inspired movements absolutely dominated large swaths of Trump’s tenure: Black Lives Matter, #MeToo and a few others were not perfect, but mainly because in the US fake-leftism is so powerfully misleading and problem-inducing.

Let’s put aside Trump – perhaps only until 2024 – and focus on saying hello to the restoration of fake-leftism in the US.

It is very unfortunate to see you.

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

Dispatches from the United States after the presidential election

Results are in: Americans lose, duopoly wins, Trumpism not merely a cult (1/2) – November 5, 2020

Results are in: Americans lose, duopoly wins, Trumpism not merely a cult (2/2) – November 6, 2020

4 years of anti-Trumpism shaping MSM vote coverage, but expect long fight – November 7, 2020

US partitioned by 2 presidents: worst-case election scenario realized – November 9, 2020

A 2nd term is his if he really wants it, but how deep is Trump’s ‘Trumpism’? – November 10, 2020

CNN’s Jake Tapper: The overseer keeping all journalists in line (1/2) – November 13, 2020

‘Bidenism’ domestically: no free press, no lawyer, one-party state? (2/2) – November 15, 2020

Where’s Donald? When 40% of voters cry ‘fraud’ you’ve got a big problem – November 17, 2020

The 4-year (neoliberal) radicalisation of US media & Bidenites’ ‘unradical radicalism’ – November 22, 2020

80% of US partisan losers think the last 2 elections were stolen – December 3, 2020

Trump declares civil war for voter integrity in breaking (or broken) USA – December 5, 2020

Mess with Texas via mail-in ballot? States secede from presidential vote – December 8, 2020

Biden won? 2016-2020 showed what the US does to even mild reformers – Dec 18, 2020

Alleged Nashville bomber not Muslim: Western media disappointed – January 2, 2020

This week in the US: The ‘model nation’ for no nation anymore – January 7, 2020

مقارنة الفرسنة بالفرنسة بعين مجرّدة: السيد نصرالله وعمى الألوان السياديّ اللبنانيّ

ناصر قنديل

تجمع الأحرف المتشابهة بين الفرسنة التي يجري تداولها كخطر على لبنان، أي جعله تابعاً للفرس والمقصود إيران، والفرنسة التي تعني تتبيع لبنان لفرنسا، وبخلاف السائد إعلامياً فإن المقومات الواقعية للفرنسة تبدو حقيقية، ووجود مشروع جدّي لتحقيقها يبدو واقعاً قائماً، بينما لا مقومات للفرسنة ولا وجود واقعياً لمشروع لتحقيقها، وما جرى ويجري هذه الفترة يعبر عن عمى ألوان سيادي مرضي لدى الكثير من اللبنانيين، يتجاوزون دائرة التابعين وجماعة السفارات، ليشملوا فئات واسعة سياسية واجتماعية تعبر عن مرض ثقافي يصيب المجتمع اللبناني في مفهوم السيادة.

توقف السيد حسن نصرالله أمام عمى الألوان السيادي الذي أصاب هذه الشرائح التي يشكل بعضها بيئات صديقة للمقاومة، من خلال توقفه امام ما أثاره الكلام المنسوب لقائد القوة الجوفضائية في الحرس الثوري الإيراني، الذي تعرض للتحوير والتزوير واستدرج رغم التوضيحات ردوداً وتعليقات مباشرة وغير مباشرة أصابت المقاومة بلغة توجيهية في غير مكانها، لإثبات هوية سيادية لأصحابها كي لا يتم اتهامهم بالتبعية والتخلي عن الموقف السيادي. وعبر السيد نصرالله عن الألم لسيادة هذه الغوغائية والعشوائية، فالمسؤول الإيراني وصف حقيقتين، واحدة تقول بأن إيران قدمت سلاحاً للمقاومة، والثانية تقول بأن لبنان جبهة أمامية بوجه كيان الاحتلال، ليتم تسويقه على أساس أن إيران قدّمت الصواريخ للمقاومة لتشكل جبهة أمامية لإيران بوجه “إسرائيل”، ورغم تعميم التوضيح والتصحيح، بقيت التعليقات والمواقف تتعامل بخلفيتها مع السعي للتبرؤ من الاتهام بنقص سيادي إذا صمتت، فما هو الموقف السيادي اللبناني؟

الموقف السيادي اللبناني يرتكز على اعتبار أي زيادة بنسبة المتحدثين والمتعلمين باللغة الفرنسية تطوراً حضارياً وتعزيزاً لقيمة ثقافية إنسانية اسمها الفرنكوفونيّة التي يتباهى لبنان بكونه مؤسساً فيها، ويرتكز بالمقابل على اعتبار زيادة عدد الناطقين باللغة الفارسية والمتعلمين بها تعبيراً عن توسع نطاق الالتحاق بمشروع الفرسنة وعلامة خطرة على مصير السيادة، وذلك ليس لأن الفرنسية أعرق من الفارسية، فالفارسية بلغة العلم والتاريخ تنتمي لزمن سابق لولادة الفرنسية، وليس لأن نطاق انتشار الفارسية محدود بالقياس للفرنسية، فإن لم يكن عدد الناطقين بالفارسية أكثر فالعدد متساوٍ، ولا لأن حجم المعارف الإنسانية أدباً وشعر وثقافة وعلوماً باللغة الفارسية أقل، بل لسبب واحد هو موقف إيران الداعم للمقاومة والمناوئ للهيمنة الأميركية والعدوانية الإسرائيلية، ولأن أي إشارة لمودة لبنانية إيرانية على المستوى الشعبي تجلب غيظ كيان الاحتلال ومسانديه، وربما لو انتشرت العبرية لوجدت من يجد الأعذار لانتشارها، بينما تصب اللعنة على الفارسية، والسيادة تميّز بين الفرنسة الواقعية القائمة، والفرسنة المفترضة وغير القائمة.

الموقف السيادي اللبناني يقوم على اعتبار قيام الرئيس الفرنسي بممارسة الوصاية على لبنان فيتدخل بتسمية رئيس الحكومة وتشكيلها، ويملك في جعبته أسماء لحاكم مصرف مركزي جديد ومدير مرفأ جديد، ويتطلع لوضع يد الشركات الفرنسية على المرافق اللبنانية من الكهرباء الى الاتصالات، مجرد نخوة أخويّة لمساعدة لبنان، بينما مبادرة إيران لعرض تأمين الكهرباء بقروض ميسّرة بعيدة المدى وبالليرة اللبنانية ومثلها كل فاتورة لبنان النفطية، مشروعاً خيالياً وربما انتقاصاً للسيادة.

التخلي العربي والدولي عن لبنان عندما وقع تحت الاحتلال ومد يد العون للمحتل لفرض شروطه، في المفهوم السيادي اللبناني، مشاركة أخوية، والمساعدة الإيرانية للمقاومة حتى تحقيق التحرير، مشروع نفوذ ومساس بالسيادة، ولنتذكّر كيف كان النقاش منذ اتفاق الطائف حتى التحرير يجري تحت عنوان التشكيك بفرضية التحرير وتوصيف المقاومة كأداة إيرانية مرة لتحسين العلاقات الإيرانية الأميركية، وكأداة سورية مرة لتحسين شروط التفاوض على الجولان، وعندما تحرر الجنوب من دون أن تتحسّن العلاقات الأميركية الإيرانية أو تتحسّن شروط التفاوض على الجولان، لم يكلف الذين نالوا من شرف المقاومة ووطنيّتها عناء الاعتذار.

الحقيقة هي أن الذين يسوقون عمى الألوان السيادي هم ليسوا من المصابين به فهم يعلمون علم اليقين انهم مجرد جزء من تاريخ مشين ومخزٍ في الصمت امام الاحتلال، والطريق الوحيد لتبرئة تاريخهم هو تشويه تاريخ المقاومة وهويتها وتحالفاتها. فالحديث عن مشروع إيراني أو كما يسمّونه فارسي، وهو غير موجود، يخفف من مسؤولية الذين لم يكن لهم بصمة في مقاومة الاحتلال، إذا ربطوها بما يصيب السيادة، وتعففوا بداعي الحرص على السيادة، بينما لا يزعجهم انتهاك الطيران الإسرائيلي للأجواء اللبنانية يومياً، ولا يرون العقوبات الأميركية انتهاكاً للسيادة حتى لو هدّدوا بها، ولا ينظرون لتسميات شوارع العاصمة بأسماء جنرالات الاحتلال الغربي البريطاني والفرنسي، بينما يصيبهم بالصداع إطلاق بلدية اسم الرجل الذي أفنى عمره بنقل الصواريخ والمعدات للمقاومة ومدّ يد العون لإعمار ما تهدّم في عدوان تموز على أحد الشوارع.

Who is Destroying Lebanon and Why?

December 27, 2020

By Thierry Meyssan
Source: Voltaire Network

Within a few months, Lebanon, often misrepresented as “the only Arab democratic state” or even as the “Switzerland of the Middle East,” has collapsed. Successively, popular demonstrations against the political class (October 2019), a banking crisis (November 2019), a health crisis (July 2020), an explosion at the port of Beirut (August 2020) caused a sudden disappearance of the middle classes and a general decline in living standards of around 200%.

From the Lebanese point of view, this horror would be due to the catastrophic management of the country by the political class, whose leaders would be corrupted except for the leader of the religious community to which the person being questioned belongs. This absurd prejudice reveals an intolerant population and masks the reality.

Since the Ottoman occupation [1], especially since independence in 1942, and even more so since the civil war (1975-90), the Lebanese population has not formed a nation [2], but an aggregate of confessional communities. The Constitution and the Taif Accords allocate all political functions and henceforth all public jobs, not according to the capacities of citizens, but according to community quotas. Each community has chosen its leaders, usually former civil warlords, who have been recognized by the international community. They managed in their own name the subsidies that the former colonial powers offered for their community. They have taken a huge amount of royalties, which they have long since transferred abroad, but they have also distributed very large sums of money to maintain their “clientele” in the image of the ancient Roman senators. It is therefore perfectly stupid to accuse them today of corruption when they have been celebrated for decades for the same work.

This system was maintained by the United States and the European Union. Thus the President of the Bank of Lebanon, Riad Salame, was celebrated as the best money manager in the Western world before being accused of hiding a hundred million dollars in personal accounts in the United Kingdom. Or, the European Union’s High Representative, Federica Mogherini, claimed to be helping Lebanon solve its waste crisis while helping the two former prime ministers, Saad Hariri and Najib Mikati, to embezzle a hundred million dollars of this sum. [3]

Only the Lebanese, who have been kept in a state of political unconsciousness for eighty years and still have not understood what they experienced during the civil war, do not realize this.

How can we fail to notice that the collapse of Lebanon follows those of Yemen, Syria, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan? How can we fail to notice that in 2001, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his advisor, Admiral Arthur Cebrowski, advocated adapting the mission of the US armed forces to emerging financial capitalism? According to them, it was necessary to destroy all the state structures of all the states of the “Broader Middle East” so that no one – enemy or friend – could prevent the exploitation of the region by US multinationals.

If we admit that this “Endless War” (sic), proclaimed by President George W. Bush, is indeed going on, we must note that the destruction of the state structures of Lebanon was achieved at a lower cost.

However, given the effectiveness of the Lebanese resistance, it was necessary to achieve this objective by non-military means that escaped the vigilance of Hezbollah. Everything had already been decided in April 2019, as attested by the US response to the Lebanese delegation visiting the US State Department [4].

Four coalition powers, the United States, the United Kingdom, Israel and France, played a decisive role in this plan.

  • The Pentagon set the objective: to destroy Lebanon and exploit the gas and oil fields (plan of Ambassador Frederic C. Hof).
  • Whitehall set out the method [5]: manipulate the post-Civil War generation in order to liberate the current system without replacing it. Its propaganda specialists thus organized the so-called “October Revolution” which, contrary to what was sometimes believed, was not at all spontaneous. [6]
  • Israel destroyed the economy thanks to its control of all telephone communications (except Hezbollah’s private network) and its presence in the world banking system. It provoked the banking rout by convincing South American drug cartels that had placed their assets in Lebanon to brutally withdraw them. It deprived the country of its economic lung, the port, by bombarding it with a new weapon. [7]
  • France, for its part, proposed to privatize everything that could be privatized and put Saad Hariri back on stage to carry it out. It has applied itself to pouring out fine words while marginalizing Hezbollah [8].

Ultimately, the next twenty years should be devoted to plundering the country, especially its hydrocarbons, while the Lebanese will continue to blame scapegoats and ignore their real enemies. Already, the Israeli port of Haifa has partially replaced that of Beirut. Eventually, the country itself should be divided and the part south of the Litani River attached to Israel. [9]

It should be kept in mind, however, that the USA-UK-Israel-France coalition is not composed of equal states, but is commanded exclusively by the United States. In Libya, the USA alone pocketed the oil pact. Despite the promises made to them, their allies got only crumbs. The same scenario can be repeated in Lebanon. None of their allies could profit from their common crime.

Notes:

[1] Les Libanais ne reconnaissent pas l’Empire ottoman comme une puissance coloniale, ce qu’elle était pourtant. NdA.

[2] Par définition, le Liban n’étant pas une nation ne peut être ni une démocratie, ni une république. NdA.

[3] “EU funds embezzled by Mogherini, Hariri and Mikati”, Voltaire Network, 24 January 2020.

[4] « L’administration Trump contre le Liban », Réseau Voltaire, 2 mai 2019.

[5] Une fuite de documents officiels britannique atteste de ce rôle. Lire Complete infiltrating Lebanon (65,11 Mo). Les résultats ambitionnés ont manifestement été tenus : les Libanais souffrent tellement qu’ils ne voient plus ni l’origine de leurs problèmes, ni les solutions à portée de main, cf. “Taking Lebanon’s Pulse after the Beirut Explosion”, Michael Robbins, Arab barometer, December 15, 2020.

[6] « Les Libanais, prisonniers de leur Constitution », par Thierry Meyssan, Réseau Voltaire, 21 octobre 2019.

[7] “Israel playing with Lebanese people’s nerves”, Voltaire Network, 30 September 2020.

[8] “President Macron’s bad play in Lebanon”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Roger Lagassé, Voltaire Network, 29 September 2020.

[9] “Towards a partition of Lebanon?”, Voltaire Network, 8 October 2020.


«التطبيع» حرب ضدّ الجزائر بعد إيران و المغرب «المستوطنة»الثانية بعد الإمارات…!

محمد صادق الحسيني

كان حلم الساسة والقادة العسكريون الفرنسيون، بعد احتلالهم للجزائر سنة 1830، ورغم تحدي الثورة الكبرى التي قادها المجاهد الكبير، الأمير عبد القادر الجزائري، ضدّ هذا الاحتلال… وكذلك أنظارهم تتجه غرباً، نحو المغرب الأقصى، الذي يعرف بالمملكة المغربية حالياً.

وقد تحقّق هذا الحلم الفرنسي فعلياً، بعد انعقاد مؤتمر برلين ، الذي عقد في الفترة ما بين 26/2/1885 حتى 15/11/1884 والذي جرى خلاله تقاسم أفريقيا، بين القوى الاستعمارية الأوروبية آنذاك. اذ اتفقت الدول المشاركة على ان تكون المغرب والصحراء الغربية من حصة فرنسا واسبانيا. وهو ما دفع مواطني المغرب الى رفض هذه القرارات والبدء بثورة مسلحةٍ ضد الوجود الاسباني، في شمال المغرب، وذلك سنة 1839، وهي الثورة التي اطلق عليها اسم: حرب الريف، خاصة أنّ اسبانيا كانت تحتلّ مدينة مليلة المغربية والواقعة على ساحل المتوسط منذ عام 1497، والتي تبعتها حرب الريف الثانية 1909 بعد ان بدأت القوات الاسبانية تتمدد خارج مدينة مليلة وتسيطر على محيطها، تمهيداً للسيطرة على كامل الساحل المغربي على المتوسط.

وفي ظل تصاعد المقاومة المغربية للاحتلالين الاسباني والفرنسي عقد اتفاق اسباني فرنسي، سنة 1912، لتقاسم الاراضي المغربية بشكل نهائي ومتفق عليه، بهدف توحيد جهود الدولتين الاستعماريتين، ضد قوات الثورة المغربية في الريف (شمال البلاد بشكل خاصة).

لكن هذه الثورة تواصلت وتصاعدت، خاصة بعد انتهاء الحرب العالمية الأولى، وزيادة النشاط الاستعماري في المغرب من قبل دولتي الاحتلال، فرنسا واسبانيا، الى ان وصلت تلك المقاومة ذروتها في ثورة 1921، التي يطلق عليها اسم: حرب الريف الثالثة، بقيادة الأمير محمد عبد الكريم الخطابي واستمرت هذه الثورة حتى سنة 1926. ولَم تتمكن جيوش الاحتلال الاسبانية (في شمال المغرب) من قمع هذه الثورة الا بعد أن شنت حرب إبادةٍ جماعية، ضد الشعب المغربي في الشمال، مستخدمة الاسلحة الكيماوية وغاز الخردل بالتحديد، حيث قصفت بمدفعية الميدان ومدفعية البوارج الحربية، والطائرات الحربية أيضاً، كل شمال المغرب، قصفاً عنيفاً استخدمت خلاله ما مجموعه عشرة آلاف قذيفة من غاز الخردل، وذلك انطلاقاً من استراتيجية الأرض المحروقة، بحيث تصبح الأرض غير صالحة للحياة عليها لسنوات طويلة، الأمر الذي سيؤدي، حسب خطط المجرمين الاسبان وشركائهم الفرنسيين، الى فقدان الثوار للإسناد الشعبيّ وبالتالي للرفد بالمقاتلين.

وهو ما أدى الى أن ما يقرب من 80% من مرضى السرطان، الذين يعالجون في مركز السرطان الوطني في الرباط حالياً، هم من أهالي الأقاليم الشمالية، التي تعرّضت لهذا الكمّ الهائل من السلاح الكيماوي، قبل مئة عام. وهذا ما تثبته ليس فقط الجهات المغربية المعنية، وإنما هو مثبت رسمياً في أرشيف وزارة الدفاع الاسبانية، ولدى العديد من المنظمات الدولية المختصة (في الوقت الحالي وليس قبل مئة عام). وهذا ما يجعل من الضروري قيام حكومة المغرب بمطالبة اسبانيا بتعويضات مالية عن كل الخسائر المادية والبشرية، التي نجمت عن جرائم الحرب هذه.

وبالعودة الى الأحلام الفرنسية، في ثلاثينيات القرن التاسع عشر، بمتابعة الزحف من الجزائر غرباً، باتجاه المغرب، فإنّ هناك حالياً أحلاماً أميركية شبيهة بتلك الفرنسية، ولكن بالاتجاه المعاكس. أيّ الزحف من المغرب شرقاً باتجاه الجزائر، وذلك لأجل تحقيق أهداف المشروع الصهيوأميركي في المغرب العربي، او ما يسمّى حالياً عملية “التطبيع” الجارية بين المغرب و”إسرائيل”.

وهي في الحقيقة ليست عمليّة معزولةً، عن بقية المسار الاستراتيجي للخطط الأميركية، التي تهدف الى حصار الدول التي تعارض الهيمنة الأميركية في “الشرق الاوسط”، كـ إيران في الشرق والجزائر في الغرب، خاصة أنّ الولايات المتحدة قد أصبحت عاجزةً عن الدخول في مواجهة عسكريةٍ مباشرةً مع هذه القوى، لأسباب عديدة لا مجال للغوص فيها حالياً.

فما هي أهداف المشروع الأميركي الحالي، وأدواته الأعرابية والصهيونيّة والعثمانية، في منطقة “الشرق الأوسط” بكاملها؟

1

ـ محاولة خلق موجة جديدة من الفوضى الداخلية المسلحة، في عموم المنطقة، وذلك من خلال إشعال المزيد من الحروب والفتن الطائفية، يكون هدفها العاجل والمباشر إيران في الشرق والجزائر في الغرب، بحيث توكل إدارة وتسعير هذه الحروب الى “إسرائيل”، التي لن تزجّ جيشها ليقاتل على الجبهات، وإنما هي ستقوم بقيادة جيوش من المرتزقه المحليين، التي يطلق عليها اسم جيوش وخاصة في الخليج الفارسي، بحجة مواجهة الخطر الإيراني والتصدّي له!

وهذا يعني إشعال حربٍ “عربية” ضدّ إيران، خدمة للمشروع الأميركي، ولكن دون تدخل أميركي مباشر في هذه الحرب، مما يعني خوض حربٍ أميركيةٍ بالوكالة، ضدّ إيران ومحور المقاومة.

وما موجة التطبيع الخليجية الإسرائيلية، وما تبعها من توقيع اتفاقيات تعاون بين الطرفين وفِي مختلف المجالات، إلا جزء من التحضيرات لنشر الفوضى، خاصة أنّ “إسرائيل” قد بدأت فعلاً ببناء قواعد تجسس وأخرى عسكرية لها، في الإمارات العربية والبحرين والأجزاء التي تحتلها السعودية والإمارات في اليمن وخاصة جزيرة سوقطرى ذات الموقع الاستراتيجي.

2

ـ وكما اخترعت القوى الصهيوأميركية عدواً وهمياً، لدول الخليج الفارسي في المشرق العربي، أسمته إيران، ها هي قد اخترعت بؤرة صراع جديدة في المغرب العربي، ترتكز الى الوضع الراهن في الصحراء الغربية، التي تطالب جبهة البوليساريو باستقلالها الكامل عن المغرب.

وما اعتراف الرئيس الأميركي، دونالد ترامب، باعتبار هذه المنطقة جزءاً من المملكة المغربية، وخضوعها للسيادة المغربية الكاملة، إلا الخطوة الأولى على طريق تصعيد عمليات التطويق الاستراتيجي لجمهورية الجزائر الديمقراطية الشعبية، التي ترفض الخضوع للمشروع الصهيوأميركي الهادف لتصفية القضية الفلسطينية. وهي قد أعلنت موقفها هذا عبر أكثر الناصرين للقضية الفلسطينية من كبار المسؤولين الجزائريين.

وبنظرة سريعة، لخريطة الجزائر، يلاحظ المراقب انّ فلول داعش في دول الساحل الأفريقي، والتي تناور بهم واشنطن، عبر ما يسمّى أفريكوم / قيادة أفريقيا في الجيش الأميركي / وذلك على حدود الجزائر الجنوبية، في كلّ من مالي والنيجر وتشاد، حيث توجد غرفة عمليات أميركية/ إسرائيلية مشتركة في نجامينا، عاصمة تشاد لتنسيق تحركات عناصر داعش وتقديم الدعم والإسناد اللازم لها، لتنفيذ عمليات إرهابية، كتلك التي نفذتها هذه المجموعات، ضدّ أهداف نفطية ومحطات غاز طبيعي في جنوب الجزائر أكثر من مرة سابقاً.

ومن نافل القول التذكير بالخطر الإرهابي الذي يهدّد الحدود الجزائرية من ناحية الشرق، ايّ عبر الحدود الليبية الشرقية وعبر الحدود التونسية شمال شرق الجزائر. علماً انّ هذه الحدود تشهد اشتباكات شبه يومية بين الجيش التونسي ومجموعات من داعش وغيرها، تحاول بشكل دائم اختراق الحدود الجزائرية، التي بقيت مؤمّنة بالكامل نظراً ليقظة الجيش الشعبي الجزائري وقدراته القتالية العالية…

3

ـ وانطلاقاً من معرفة القوى الصهيوأميركيّة بالقدرة العسكرية الكبيرة للجيش الجزائري، وبالنظر الى انه يملك أكبر سلاح للجو والبحر في أفريقيا وبالنظر للتصريحات المتكرّرة لقادة حلف شمال الأطلسي، والمتعلقة بالمخاطر التي يشكلها سلاح الجو الجزائري وسلاح البحرية الجزائرية، على الحركة الجوية والبحرية لقوات الحلف، في البحر المتوسط، فإنّ قوى العدوان الأميركي الصهيوني قد لجأت الى اختراع صيغة الصراع الجديدة، المشار اليها في البند السابق، والتي تتضمّن تطويق الجزائر من الغرب أيضاً.

وهو ما بدأته هذه الدوائر قبل مسرحية التطبيع، بين المغرب و”إسرائيل”، وبالتحديد منذ أن اتخذ المغرب، بالتنسيق مع واشنطن وتل أبيب، من خلال مستشار ملك المغرب الخاص، اندريه أَزولاي، نقول منذ ان اتخذ المغرب قرار إنشاء القاعدة العسكرية العملاقة في منطقة لاوينات، التابعة لبلدية مدينة جراده، التي تبعد 38 كيلومتراً عن الحدود الجزائرية، وذلك حسب ما جاء في المرسوم الصادر عن رئيس الوزراء المغربي، والمنشور في عدد الجريدة الرسمية المغربية رقم 6884، بتاريخ 21/5/2020، والذي أعلن فيه استملاك الحكومة المغربية مساحة 23 هكتاراً (الهكتار يساوي عشرة آلاف متر مربع) من الأراضي الخاصه لإقامة هذه القاعدة عليها.

4

ـ ولا بد هنا من التأكيد على درجة الخطورة العالية، لهذه القاعدة على الأمن الوطني الجزائري، وذلك لسببين هما:

أ) انها ستدار من قبل عدد كبير من الضباط الإسرائيليين، من أصل مغربي، وعلى رأسهم رئيس أركان الجيش الإسرائيلي السابق، الجنرال غادي آيزينكوت، وهو ابن يهودية مغربيّة من مدينة الدار البيضاء وأبٌ يهودي مغربي من مدينة مراكش، هاجرا الى فلسطين بداية خمسينيات القرن الماضي، وذلك الى جانب ضباط الجيش المغربي.

علماً انّ العدد الإجمالي لليهود المغاربة وأبنائهم في فلسطين المحتلة يربو على مليون شخص. وقد تبوّأ العديد منهم مراكز عليا في إدارة دويلة الاحتلال، مثل وزير الخارجية الأسبق ديفيد ليفي، ووزير الحرب الأسبق عامير بيريتس، ورئيس الأركان السابق الجنرال آيزينكوت، ومستشار الأمن القومي الحالي مائير بن شابات، الذي ترأس الوفد الإسرائيلي إلى المغرب يوم أمس (الأول)، وهو مولود لأبوين مغربيّين هاجرا إلى فلسطين المحتلة، في خمسينيات القرن الماضي.

وبالنظر الى أنّ القانون المغربي يعتبر جميع هؤلاء اليهود، المقيمين حالياً في فلسطين المحتلة، مواطنين مغاربة أيضاً، ويحق لهم حمل الجنسية المغربية، فإنّ دمج عدد منهم، او خدمة عدد منهم، في الجيش المغربي سيكون “قانونياً” أيضاً. وهذا ما يضاعف الخطر الكارثي على الأمن الوطني الجزائري. وهو الأمر الذي كرّره العديد من المسؤولين الجزائريين، عندما أشاروا في تصريحات لهم، خلال الشهرين الماضي والحالي، بأنّ ما يقوم به المغرب، من عملية تطبيع، ليس إلا نقلاً للجيش “الإسرائيلي” الى حدود الجزائر.

ولا بدّ في هذا السياق من التذكير بأنّ سلاح الجو الإسرائيلي قد حاول، بتاريخ 10/8/1988، بالاعتداء على الأجواء الجزائرية، لقصف اجتماع للمجلس الوطني الفلسطيني، الذي كان منعقداً في العاصمة الجزائر، حيث صدرت التعليمات لتشكيل جوّي جزائري، مكوّن من مقاتلات اعتراض طراز ميغ 25، بالتصدّي للطائرات الإسرائيلية، من طراز ف 16، والتي اكتشفتها وسائل الدفاع الجوي الجزائرية يومها وهي على بعد 400 كم من الأجواء الجزائرية. وكذلك الأمر فانّ بطاريات الدفاع الجوي، من طراز ، التي كانت قد وضعت في حالة تأهّب قصوى قبيل انعقاد المؤتمر، قد ضبطت الأهداف المعادية، ما أجبرها عملياً على أن تقفل راجعة الى قواعدها في فلسطين المحتلة، بعد اكتشافها انها في مرمى صواريخ الدفاع الجوي وطائرات ميغ 25 الجزائرية.

كما لا بدّ من التذكير أنّ سلاح البحرية الإسرائيلي كان قد نفذَ محاولة اقتراب، من الموانئ الجزائرية شرق العاصمة، وذلك بتاريخ 7/4/1984، بحجة أنّ مجموعة كوماندوز بحري تابعة لقوات العاصفة / فتح / قد انطلقت من تلك الموانئ الجزائرية. وقد تصدّت السفن الحربية الجزائرية ايضاً يومها لزوارق الصواريخ الإسرائيلية الأربعة، التي شاركت في محاولة العدوان الفاشلة، وردّتها على أعقابها من دون تحقيق أي هدف.

اذن فما نقوله ليس “هلوسات” متحمّس وإنما وقائع ميدان تاريخية، تثبت نيات العدوان الإسرائيلي المدعوم أميركياً، ضدّ الجزائر، منذ زمن بعيد. وهو ما يجعلنا ننظر ببالغ الخطورة، الى موضوع إعلان التحالف المغربي الإسرائيلي العسكري، الذي يهدّد الاستقرار في كلّ منطقة المغرب العربي.

ب) اما مصدر الخطر الثاني، على الأمن الوطني الجزائري، والمنبثق من هذه القاعدة، فهو انها ستضمّ قاعدة جوية، تخدم الطائرات المسيّرة في المرحلة الأولى. ولعلّ المتابعين يتذكرون ما صرّحت به مصادر في البنتاغون الأميركية، يوم 19/12/2020، من أنّ الولايات المتحدة ستبيع المغرب أربع طائرات بدون طيار من أحدث طائرات التجسّس الأميركية، التي لا يحتاجها المغرب للتجسس على الصحراء الغربيّة، وإنما للتجسّس على الجزائر، التي ترفض الانخراط في مشروع تصفية القضية الفلسطينية. أي المشروع الذي يُطلق عليه اسم “صفقة القرن”.

وغني عن القول طبعاً بأنّ “إسرائيل” سوف تلعب دوراً اساسياً، في تشغيل هذه الطائرات وغيرها من طائرات التجسس الإسرائيلية الصنع، والتي سيتمّ نشرها في هذه القاعدة، استكمالاً لدور طائرات التجسّس الأميركية، التي تعمل انطلاقاً من القاعدة الجوية التونسية الأكبر في البلاد، في سيدي أحمد، شمال غرب ميناء بنزرت التونسي، على البحر المتوسط، والتي تنكر وجودها (الطائرات الأميركية في جزء من القاعدة) كلّ الحكومات التونسية منذ عام 2011 وحتى الآن، والتي تسمّيها البنتاغون: القاعدة رقم 722، حسب ما نشرته مجلة “ذي ناشيونال انتريست” الأميركية في وقت سابق.

5

ـ وقد يقود العرض السابق، للمخطط الصهيوأميركي والدور الإسرائيلي في تنفيذه، الى طرح سؤال محقّ حول ما اذا كانت “إسرائيل” تملك جيشاً يوازي الجيش الأميركي في عدده وعدّته، كي تتمكن من الاضطلاع بهذا الدور الإقليمي الكبير، والجواب بالتأكيد هو: كلا كبيرة. إنّ “إسرائيل” لا تملك القدرات العسكرية، لبسط سيطرتها على كلّ هذا الإقليم او العالم العربي. كما انّ المخطط المشار إليه أعلاه لا يعطي الكيان الصهيوني دور نشر جيشه، وإنما مستشاريه العسكريين والأمنيين، في كلّ بلدان العرب التي دخلت نفق التطبيع معها.

كما أنّ من الضروري ان يفهم المرء انّ عملية التطبيع ليست هدفاً أميركياً إسرائيلياً بحدّ ذاته، وإنما هي وسيلة لدمج “إسرائيل” في المحيط العربي وجعلها كياناً مقبولاً، لا بل حليفاً، “يساعد” الحكام المطبّعين عسكرياً وامنياً، في التصدي للأخطار التي تواجههم سواء من شعوبهم او تلك الآتية من إيران وحلف المقاومة، كما يتصوّرون!

وهو الأمر الذي دفع بالقوى الخفيّة الداعمة لهذا المشروع، حتى قبل الانتخابات الأميركية، بالبدء بالتفكير في صيغة تسمح بضمّ الكيان الإسرائيلي الى منطقة صلاحيات او عمليات القيادة المركزية الأميركية . وهو الموضوع الذي يسمّى بلغة البنتاغون: او منطقة العمليات. الأمر الذي يجعل “إسرائيل” وجيشها في مقام جزء من القوات المسلحة الأميركية، وهو ما قد يُعتبر بديلاً لوجود عسكري أميركي مباشر في “الشرق الاوسط”، من قبل بعض المخططين الاستراتيجيين الأميركيين، خاصةً اذا ما اخذنا بعين الاعتبار انّ تل ابيب سوف تبرم اتفاقيات تعاون عسكري وأمني، مع كلّ الدول العربية التي تعلن تطبيع علاقاتها معها. ما يعني عملياً، وضع القوات المسلحة لتلك البلدان تحت قيادة “إسرائيل” وبتصرفها، وبالتالي تحويلها الى قوات احتياط (بما في ذلك الجيش الإسرائيلي) بإمرة القياده المركزية الأميركية، التي مركزها الدوحة.

علماً انّ “إسرائيل” حالياً تعتبر جزءاً من القيادة الأوروبية في الجيش الأميركي) ولا علاقة لها بالقيادة المركزية، المسؤولة عن “الشرق الاوسط”.

وهذا ما دفع الضابط السابق في البنتاغون، وهو المدير الحالي للمعهد اليهودي للأمن القومي الأميركي ، ميخائيل ماكوڤسكي لكتابة مقال يطالب فيه بضمّ “إسرائيل” الى منطقة عمليات القيادة المركزية في الجيش الأميركي. وهو يقول إنّ هذا الموضوع قد بحث مرات عدة في السابق، لكن الظروف المحيطة به قد تغيّرت في “الشرق الاوسط”، خاصة بعد توقيع ما يسمّى اتفاقيات أبراهام!

وفِي إطار الاستعدادات لتنفيذ هذه الخطوة عملياً فإنّ القيادة المركزية قد نفذت ثلاثة تدريبات جوية مشتركة، مع سلاح الجو الإسرائيلي، هذا العام، مستخدمةً طائرات أميركية، من طراز F 35، مرابطةً في قاعدة الظفرة الإماراتية.

6

ـ لكن الأمر لا يقتصر على ما حدث حتى الآن، بشأن ضمّ “إسرائيل” الى منطقة عمليات القيادة المركزية في الجيش الأميركي، وانما يجب على الكونغرس الأميركي تضمين هذا البند، في برنامج المساعدات العسكرية الأميركية للكيان، بالاضافة الى ضرورة ان تقوم الولايات المتحدة بزيادة كميات الأسلحة الدقيقة الموجهة، التي تزوّد “إسرائيل” بها وتختصر باسم ، يقول ميخائيل ماكوڤسكي، في هذا الصدد.

لكنه يضيف ان ضمّ “إسرائيل” لمنطقة عمليات القيادة المركزية، في الجيش الأميركي، سيسمح لها، في أوقات الحرب، باستخدام مخازن احتياط الذخيرة الأميركية، المخزنة في قواعد عسكرية متقدمة في “إسرائيل” لأوقات الحرب (بالنظر اليها من الولايات المتحدة)،: .

وهذا يعني، حسب ماكوڤسكي انّ هذه الأسلحة الأميركية تبقى تحت قيادةٍ أميركية في ظروف يسمح فيها لاستخدام هذه الذخائر، اذا ما وقعت حرب مع إيران او حزب الله.

7

ـ ويتابع قائلاً إنّ جعل “إسرائيل” جزءاً من منطقة عمليات القيادة المركزية الأميركية، التي تشمل العراق وافغانستان أيضاً، وهما دولتان لا تقيمان علاقات مع “إسرائيل”، إنما سيثير جدلًا، او بعض الإشكاليات، حول الدور الأميركي في هاتين الدولتين، خاصةً أنّ الولايات المتحدة الأميركيّة تواجه تهديدات إيرانيّة، عبر “الميليشيات” المدعومة من إيران، حسب زعمه. وربما تستخدم إيران هذه المسألة (ضمّ “إسرائيل” للقيادة المركزية) كحجة للقيام بتصعيد عسكري ضدّ القوات الأميركية في العراق.

ولكن الأمور ربما تتغيّر، نحو الأفضل، بعد تسلم الجنرال لويد اوستين وزارة الحرب الأميركية في ادارة الرئيس المنتخب بايدن، وهو الذي كان قائداً للقيادة المركزية الأميركية، في الدوحة، من سنة 2013 وحتى 2016، وتربطه علاقات وثيقة بـ “إسرائيل” ويعرف جيداً الأهمية التي تتمتع بها دويلة الكيان الصهيوني في المنطقة.

8

ـ وبناءً على كلّ ما تقدّم فإننا نكاد نجزم انّ جميع الزيارات، التي قام بها كبار العسكريين الأميركيين، خلال الشهرين الماضيين لكيان الاحتلال، قد تمحورت حول هذا الموضوع، وذلك لتحويله الى أمر واقع، قبل رحيل إدارة ترامب من البيت الأبيض، ايّ لوضع هذا المخزون الاستراتيجي الأميركي، من الذخائر (صواريخ) الموجهة الدقيقة تحت تصرّف “إسرائيل”، كي تقوم باستخدامه كما يحلو لها ويخدم مصالحها وليس لخدمة المصالح الأميركية. خاصة أنّ اهتمامات بايدن الاستراتيجية ستختلف تماماً عن اهتمامات ترامب، التي اقتصرت على عقد الصفقات المالية والاستعراضات الدبلوماسية، التي اطلق عليها اسم اتفاقيات التطبيع بين الدول العربية و”إسرائيل”. تلك الاتفاقيات التي لن تقود الى اية حلول لمشاكل المنطقة، وفِي المقدمة منها القضية الفلسطينية ولا تحدي محور المقاومة، الذي يُصرّ على مواصلة استراتيجيته، الرامية الى تحرير فلسطين وإنهاء الوجود الاستيطاني الاحتلالي الإسرائيلي فيها.

وفِي هذا الصدد، يكفي ان نستمع الى التصريحات النارية التي أطلقها بايدن في هذه الأثناء، ضدّ روسيا، والمتعلقة بالهجمات السيبرانية المتواصلة في كلّ أنحاء الولايات المتحدة ومؤسساتها المدنية والأمنية والعسكرية والصناعية بشكل فعّال!

ما يعني أنّ الرياح الآتية من واشنطن لا تأتي على هوى أشرعة سفن نتن ياهو، التي بدأت في هذه الأثناء بالغرق، وذلك بعد حلّ الكنيست وقرار إجراء انتخابات تشريعية جديدة، لن تأتي بنتن ياهو رئيساً للوزراء قطعاً. لا بل إنها ستمهّد الطريق لدخوله السجن لقضاء ما تبقى من حياته هناك.

وهذا يعني أنّ كلّ المؤامرات والألاعيب، التي مارسها ويمارسها نتن ياهو، مع جاريد كوشنر وأعراب النفط، مضافاً اليهم ملك المغرب، الذي يريد “تحرير” الصحراء الغربية، من سكانها العرب والأمازيغ الأصليين، بينما لا يحرك ساكناً لتحرير سبته ومليلة، المحتلتين من قبل اسبانيا منذ قرون، نقول إنّ كلّ تلك المسرحيات ليست لها علاقة بالواقع الميداني، المتعلق بالصراع الاستراتيجي الشامل، الدائر حالياً بين الدول الرافضة لاستمرار الهيمنة الأميركية في العالم، وفِي مقدمة هذه الدول، مع الصين الشعبية وروسيا، إيران وسورية وحلفاؤهما في المنطقة، وفي العالم مثل فنزويلا وكوبا وبوليفيا، في أميركا اللاتينية.

خلاصة نقول إنّ التطبيع حرب استنزاف فتنوية خاسرة بالتأكيد رغم كلّ مظاهر نجاحها الإعلانية البراقة…!

ذلك لأنّ العالم تغيّر كثيراً واهمّ متغيّراته تحوّل محور المقاومة الى لاعب دولي رئيسي بمقام دولة كبرى في المعادلات الدولية بعد أن ظلت منطقتنا مجرد تابع يتلقى الأوامر من سفراء وقناصل الدول الكبرى!

بعدنا طيبين قولوا الله…

Antisemitism Claims Mask a Reign of Political and Cultural Terror across Europe

December 14, 2020

The German Parliament passes a resolution that designates the BDS movement as antisemitic. (Photo: File)

By Jonathan Cook

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz has run a fascinating long report this week offering a disturbing snapshot of the political climate rapidly emerging across Europe on the issue of antisemitism. The article documents a kind of cultural, political and intellectual reign of terror in Germany since the parliament passed a resolution last year equating support for non-violent boycotts of Israel – in solidarity with Palestinians oppressed by Israel – with antisemitism.

The article concerns Germany but anyone reading it will see very strong parallels with what is happening in other European countries, especially the UK and France.

The same European leaders who a few years ago marched in Paris shouting “Je suis Charlie” – upholding the inalienable free speech rights of white Europeans to offend Muslims by insulting and ridiculing their Prophet – are now queuing up to outlaw free speech when it is directed against Israel, a state that refuses to end its belligerent occupation of Palestinian land. European leaders have repeatedly shown they are all too ready to crush the free speech of Palestinians, and those in solidarity with them, to avoid offending sections of the Jewish community.

The situation reduces to this: European Muslims have no right to take offense at insults about a religion they identify with, but European Jews have every right to take offense at criticism of an aggressive Middle Eastern state they identify with. Seen another way, the perverse secular priorities of European mainstream culture now place the sanctity of a militarized state, Israel, above the sanctity of a religion with a billion followers.

Guilt by Association

This isn’t even a double standard. I can’t find a word in the dictionary that conveys the scale and degree of hypocrisy and bad faith involved.

If the American Jewish scholar Norman Finkelstein wrote a follow-up to his impassioned book The Holocaust Industry – on the cynical use of the Holocaust to enrich and empower a Jewish organizational establishment at the expense of the Holocaust’s actual survivors – he might be tempted to title it The Antisemitism Industry.

In the current climate in Europe, one that rejects any critical thinking in relation to broad areas of public life, that observation alone would enough to have one denounced as an antisemite. Which is why the Haaretz article – far braver than anything you will read in a UK or US newspaper – makes no bones about what is happening in Germany. It calls it a “witch-hunt”. That is Haaretz’s way of saying that antisemitism has been politicized and weaponized – a self-evident conclusion that will currently get you expelled from the British Labour party, even if you are Jewish.

The Haaretz story highlights two important developments in the way antisemitism has been, in the words of intellectuals and cultural leaders cited by the newspaper, “instrumentalized” in Germany.

Jewish organizations and their allies in Germany, as Haaretz reports, are openly weaponizing antisemitism not only to damage the reputation of Israel’s harsher critics but also to force out of the public and cultural domain – through a kind of “antisemitism guilt by association” – anyone who dares to entertain criticism of Israel.

Cultural associations, festivals, universities, Jewish research centers, political think-tanks, museums, and libraries are being forced to scrutinize the past of those they wish to invite in case some minor transgression against Israel can be exploited by local Jewish organizations. That has created a toxic, politically paranoid atmosphere that inevitably kills trust and creativity.

But the psychosis runs deeper still. Israel, and anything related to it, has become such a combustible subject – one that can ruin careers in an instant – that most political, academic and cultural figures in Germany now choose to avoid it entirely. Israel, as its supporters intended, is rapidly becoming untouchable.

A case study noted by Haaretz is Peter Schäfer, a respected professor of ancient Judaism and Christianity studies who was forced to resign as director of Berlin’s Jewish Museum last year. Schäfer’s crime, in the eyes of Germany’s Jewish establishment, was that he staged an exhibition on Jerusalem that recognized the city’s three religious traditions, including a Muslim one.

He was immediately accused of promoting “historical distortions” and denounced as “anti-Israel”. A reporter for Israel’s right-wing Jerusalem Post, which has been actively colluding with the Israeli government to smear critics of Israel, contacted Schäfer with a series of inciteful emails. The questions included “Did you learn the wrong lesson from the Holocaust?” and “Israeli experts told me you disseminate antisemitism – is that true?”

Schäfer observes:

“The accusation of antisemitism is a club that allows one to deal a death blow, and political elements who have an interest in this are using it, without a doubt… The museum staff gradually entered a state of panic. Then of course we also started to do background checks. Increasingly it poisoned the atmosphere and our work.”

Another prominent victim of these Jewish organizations tells Haaretz:

“Sometimes one thinks, ‘To go to that conference?’ ‘To invite this colleague?’ Afterward, it means that for three weeks, I’ll have to cope with a shitstorm, whereas I need the time for other things that I get paid for as a lecturer. There is a type of ‘anticipatory obedience’ or ‘prior self-censorship.’”

Ringing off the Hook

There is nothing unusual about what is happening in Germany. Jewish organizations are stirring up these “shitstorms” – designed to paralyze political and cultural life for anyone who engages in even the mildest criticism of Israel – at the highest levels of government. Don’t believe me? Here is Barack Obama explaining in his recent autobiography his efforts as US president to curb Israel’s expansion of its illegal settlements. Early on, he was warned to back off or face the wrath of the Israel lobby:

“Members of both parties worried about crossing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Those who criticized Israeli policy too loudly risked being tagged as ‘anti-Israel’ (and possibly anti-Semitic) and confronted with a well-funded opponent in the next election.”

When Obama went ahead anyway in 2009 and proposed a modest freeze on Israel’s illegal settlements:

“The White House phones started ringing off the hook, as members of my national security team fielded calls from reporters, leaders of American Jewish organizations, prominent supporters, and members of Congress, all wondering why we were picking on Israel … this sort of pressure continued for much of 2009.”

He observes further:

“The noise orchestrated by Netanyahu had the intended effect of gobbling up our time, putting us on the defensive, and reminding me that normal policy differences with an Israeli prime minister – even one who presided over a fragile coalition government – exacted a political cost that didn’t exist when I dealt with the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Japan, Canada, or any of our other closest allies.”

Doubtless, Obama dare not put down in writing his full thoughts about Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu or the US lobbyists who worked on his behalf. But Obama’s remarks do show that, even a US president, supposedly the single most powerful person on the planet, ended up blanching in the face of this kind of relentless assault. For lesser mortals, the price is likely to be far graver.

No Free Speech on Israel

It was this same mobilization of Jewish organizational pressure – orchestrated, as Obama notes, by Israel and its partisans in the US and Europe – that ended up dominating Jeremy Corbyn’s five years as the leader of Britain’s leftwing Labour party, recasting a well-known anti-racism activist almost overnight as an antisemite.

It is the reason why his successor, Sir Keir Starmer, has outsourced part of Labour’s organizational oversight on Jewish and Israel-related matters to the very conservative Board of Deputies of British Jews, as given expression in Starmer’s signing up to the Board’s “10 Pledges”.

It is part of the reason why Starmer recently suspended Corbyn from the party, and then defied the membership’s demands that he be properly reinstated, after Corbyn expressed concerns about the way antisemitism allegations had been “overstated for political reasons” to damage him and Labour. (The rightwing Starmer, it should be noted, was also happy to use antisemitism as a pretext to eradicate the socialist agenda Corbyn had tried to revive in Labour.) It is why Starmer has imposed a blanket ban on constituency parties discussing Corbyn’s suspension. And it is why Labour’s shadow education secretary has joined the ruling Conservative party in threatening to strip universities of their funding if they allow free speech about Israel on campus.

Two Types of Jews

But the Haaretz article raises another issue critical to understanding how Israel and the Jewish establishment in Europe are politicizing antisemitism to protect Israel from criticism. The potential Achilles’ heel of their campaign are Jewish dissidents, those who break with the supposed “Jewish community” line and create a space for others – whether Palestinians or other non-Jews – to criticize Israel. These Jewish dissenters risk serving as a reminder that trenchant criticism of Israel should not result in one being tarred an antisemite.

Israel and Jewish organizations, however, have made it their task to erode that idea by promoting a distinction – an antisemitic one, at that – between two types of Jews: good Jews (loyal to Israel), and bad Jews (disloyal to Israel).

Haaretz reports that officials in Germany, such as Felix Klein, the country’s antisemitism commissioner, and Josef Schuster, president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, are being allowed to define not only who is an antisemite, typically using support for Israel as the yardstick, but are also determining who are good Jews – those politically like them – and who are bad Jews – those who disagree with them.

Despite Germany’s horrific recent history of Jew-hatred, the German government, local authorities, the media, universities and cultural institutions have been encouraged by figures like Klein and Schuster to hound German Jews, even Israeli Jews living and working in Germany, from the country’s public and cultural space.

When, for example, a group of Israeli Jewish academics in Berlin held a series of online discussions about Zionism last year on the website of their art school, an Israeli reporter soon broke the story of a “scandal” involving boycott supporters receiving funding from the German government. Hours later the art school had pulled down the site, while the German education ministry issued a statement clarifying that it had provided no funding. The Israeli embassy officially declared the discussions held by these Israelis as “antisemitic”, and a German foundation that documents antisemitism added the group to the list of antisemitic incidents it records.

Described as ‘Kapos’

So repressive has the cultural and political atmosphere grown in Germany that there has been a small backlash among cultural leaders. Some have dared to publish a letter protesting against the role of Klein, the antisemitism commissioner. Haaretz reports:

“The antisemitism czar, the letter charged, is working ‘in synergy with the Israeli government’ in an effort ‘to discredit and silence opponents of Israel’s policies’ and is abetting the ‘instrumentalization’ that undermines the true struggle against antisemitism.

Figures like Klein have been so focused on tackling criticism of Israel from the left, including the Jewish left, that they have barely noted the “acute danger Jews in Germany face due to the surge in far-right antisemitism”, the letter argues.

Again, the same picture can be seen across Europe. In the UK, the opposition Labour party, which should be a safe space for those leading the anti-racism struggle, is purging itself of Jews critical of Israel and using antisemitism smears against prominent anti-racists, especially from other oppressed minorities.

Extraordinarily, Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, one of the founders of Jewish Voice for Labour, which supports Corbyn, recently found herself suspended by Starmer’s Labour. She had just appeared in a moving video in which she explained the ways antisemitism was being used by Jewish organizations to smear Jewish left-wingers like herself as “traitors” and “kapos” – an incendiary term of abuse, as Wimborne-Idrissi points out, that refers to “a Jewish inmate of a concentration camp who collaborated with the [Nazi] authorities, people who collaborated in the annihilation of their own people”.

In suspending her, Starmer effectively endorsed this campaign by the UK’s Jewish establishment of incitement against, and vilification of, left-wing Jews.

Earlier, Marc Wadsworth, a distinguished black anti-racism campaigner, found himself similarly suspended by Labour when he exposed the efforts of Ruth Smeeth, then a Labour MP and a former Jewish official in the Israel lobby group BICOM, to recruit the media to her campaign smearing political opponents on the left as antisemites.

In keeping with the rapid erosion of critical thinking in civil society organizations designed to uphold basic freedoms, Smeeth was recently appointed director of the prestigious free speech organization Index on Censorship. There she can now work on suppressing criticism of Israel – and attack “bad Jews” – under cover of fighting censorship. In the new, inverted reality, censorship refers not to the smearing and silencing of a “bad Jew” like Wimborne-Idrissi, but to criticism of Israel over its human rights abuses, which supposedly “censors” the identification of “good Jews” with Israel – now often seen as the crime of “causing offense”.

Boy Who Cried Wolf

The Haaretz article helps to contextualize Europe’s current antisemitism “witch-hunt”, which targets anyone who criticizes Israel or stands in solidarity with oppressed Palestinians, or associates with such people. It is an expansion of the earlier campaign by the Jewish establishment against “the wrong kind of Jew”, as identified by Finkelstein in The Holocaust Industry. But this time Jewish organizations are playing a much higher-stakes, and more dangerous, political game.

Haaretz rightly fears that the Jewish leadership in Europe is not only silencing ordinary Jews but degrading the meaning – the shock value – of antisemitism through the very act of politicizing it. Jewish organizations risk alienating the European left, which has historically stood with them against Jew-hatred from the right. European anti-racists suddenly find themselves equated with, and smeared as, fledgling neo-Nazis.

If those who support human rights and demand an end to the oppression of Palestinians find themselves labeled antisemitic, it will become ever harder to distinguish between bogus (weaponized) “antisemitism” on the left and real Jew-hatred from the right. The antisemitism smearers – and their fellow travelers like Keir Starmer – are likely to end up suffering their very own “boy who cried wolf” syndrome.

Or as Haaretz notes:

“The issue that is bothering the critics of the Bundestag [German parliament] resolution is whether the extension of the concept of antisemitism to encompass criticism of Israel is not actually adversely affecting the battle against antisemitism. The argument is that the ease with which the accusation is leveled could have the effect of eroding the concept itself.”

The Antisemitism Industry

It is worth noting the shared features of the new Antisemitism Industry and Finkelstein’s earlier discussions of the Holocaust Industry.

In his book, Finkelstein identifies the “wrong Jews” as people like his mother, who survived a Nazi death camp as the rest of her family perished. These surviving Jews, Finkelstein argues, were valued by the Holocaust Industry only in so far as they served as a promotional tool for the Jewish establishment to accumulate more wealth and cultural and political status. Otherwise, the victims were ignored because the actual Holocaust’s message – in contrast to the Jewish leadership’s representation of it – was universal: that we must oppose and fight all forms of racism because they lead to persecution and genocide.

Instead, the Holocaust Industry promoted a particularist, self-interested lesson that the Holocaust proves Jews are uniquely oppressed and that they, therefore, deserve a unique solution: a state, Israel, that must be given unique leeway by western states to commit crimes in violation of international law. The Holocaust Industry – very much to be distinguished from the real events of the Holocaust – is deeply entwined in, and rationalized by, the perpetuation of the racialist, colonial project of Israel.

In the case of the Antisemitism Industry, the “wrong Jew” surfaces again. This time the witch-hunt targets Jewish left-wingers, Jews critical of Israel, Jews opposed to the occupation, and Jews who support a boycott of the illegal settlements or of Israel itself. Again, the problem with these “bad Jews” is that they allude to a universal lesson, one that says Palestinians have at least as much right to self-determination, to dignity and security, in their historic homeland as Jewish immigrants who fled European persecution.

In contrast to the “bad Jews”, the Antisemitism Industry demands that a particularist conclusion be drawn about Israel – just as a particularist conclusion was earlier drawn by the Holocaust Industry. It says that to deny Jews a state is to leave them defenceless against the eternal virus of antisemitism. In this conception, the Holocaust may be uniquely abhorrent but it is far from unique. Non-Jews, given the right circumstances, are only too capable of carrying out another Holocaust. Jews must therefore always be protected, always on guard, always have their weapons (or in Israel’s case, its nuclear bombs) to hand.

‘Get out of Jail’ Card

This view, of course, seeks to ignore, or marginalize, other victims of the Holocaust – Romanies, communists, gays – and other kinds of racism. It needs to create a hierarchy of racisms, a competition between them, in which hatred of Jews is at the pinnacle. This is how we arrived at an absurdity: that anti-Zionism – misrepresented as the rejection of a refuge for Jews, rather than the reality that it rejects an ethnic, colonial state oppressing Palestinians – is the same as antisemitism.

Extraordinarily, as the Haaretz article clarifies, German officials are oppressing “bad Jews”, at the instigation of Jewish organizations, to prevent, as they see it, the re-emergence of the far-right and neo-Nazis. The criticisms of Israel made by the “bad Jew” are thereby not just dismissed as ideologically unsound or delusions but become proof that these Jews are colluding with, or at least nourishing, the Jew-haters.

In this way, Germany, the UK and much of Europe have come to justify the exclusion of the “wrong Jew” – those who uphold universal principles for the benefit of all – from the public space. Which, of course, is exactly what Israel wants, because, rooted as it is in an ideology of ethnic exclusivity as a “Jewish state”, it necessarily rejects universal ethics.

What we see here is an illustration of a principle at the heart of Israel’s state ideology of Zionism: Israel needs antisemitism. Israel would quite literally have to invent antisemitism if it did not exist.

This is not hyperbole. The idea that the “virus of antisemitism” lies semi-dormant in every non-Jew waiting for a chance to overwhelm its host is the essential rationale for Israel. If the Holocaust was an exceptional historical event, if antisemitism was an ancient racism that in its modern incarnation followed the patterns of prejudice and hatred familiar in all racisms, from anti-black bigotry to Islamophobia, Israel would be not only redundant but an abomination – because it has been set up to dispossess and abuse another group, the Palestinians.

Antisemitism is Israel’s “get out of jail” card. Antisemitism serves to absolve Israel of the racism it structurally embodies and that would be impossible to overlook were Israel deprived of the misdirection weaponized antisemitism provides.

An Empty Space

The Haaretz article provides a genuine service by not only reminding us that “bad Jews” exist but in coming to their defense – something that European media is no longer willing to do. To defend “bad Jews” like Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi is to be contaminated with the same taint of antisemitism that justified the ejection of these Jews from the public space.

Haaretz records the effort of a few brave cultural institutions in Germany to protest, to hold the line, against this new McCarthyism. Their stand may fail. If it does, you may never become aware of it.

Once, the “bad Jews” have been smeared into silence, as Palestinians and those who stand in solidarity with them largely have been already; when social media has de-platformed critics of Israel as Jew-haters; when the media and political parties enforce this silence so absolutely they no longer need to smear anyone as an antisemite because these “antisemites” have been disappeared; when the Jewish “community” speaks with one voice because its other voices have been eliminated; when the censorship is complete, you will not know it.

There will be no record of what was lost. There will be simply an empty space, a blank slate, where discussions of Israel’s crimes against Palestinians once existed. What you will hear instead is only what Israel and its partisans want you to hear. Your ignorance will be blissfully complete.

– Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). Visit his website www.jonathan-cook.net. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.

What Does The Future Hold For a Suffering Yemen?

Source

08.12.2020 

Author: Valery Kulikov

YEM83222

On November 30, both sides of the Yemeni front line marked the 53rd anniversary of the end of British occupation and Yemen’s complete independence from Britain. However, it should be noted that true sovereignty of the Yemenis is not the reality of this country. The poorest people in the Middle East continue to suffer from foreign interference.

The war between the government of Yemen and the Houthi rebels has been going on since 2014 with the active participation since 2015 of the Arab coalition led by Saudi Arabia, which was supported by the United States, Britain, France, Germany. The West’s instigating role in unleashing the Yemeni conflict, in supplying arms to Yemen and various terrorist groups, does not stop either.

The President of the Supreme Revolutionary Committee of Yemen, Mohammed Ali al-Houthi, bluntly told the media on October 6 that the US counterterrorism struggle was a cover for attacks on civilians. “Saudi Arabia and the United States crossed all the red lines in the war against Yemen. They attack all vital targets and civilians with prohibited weapons and use the siege of Yemen as a pressure tool. One of the reasons the United States and Saudi Arabia still did not stop the war in Yemen, lies in the fact that they want to plunder the resources of the Gulf countries and put their mercenaries in power in Yemen,” – al-Houthi stressed.

As the  Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Humanitarian Affairs claims, 233,000 people have died in the last five years of the conflict in Yemen.

In addition, hunger, which the world has not faced in decades, threatens Yemen unless urgent action is taken, said UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. He believes that, in addition to the ongoing hostilities, a significant cause of the famine is the reduction in funding for emergency programs in this country.

A human rights organization in the Yemeni capital, Al-Raidat al-Idala lit-tanimiyya wal-Hukuk bi-Sanaa (Pioneers of Justice for Development and Rights in Sana’a), in its annual report, showed statistics on the crimes of the Saudi coalition and human rights violations against Yemeni women stressing that “direct and indirect violations of women’s rights and their suffering as a result of the continued aggression and siege of Yemen have led to the killings, forced migration of thousands of Yemenis, health, education and nutrition crises, in addition to their psychological and social consequences.”

In view of the damage inflicted on the civilians of Yemen, a court in the city of Saada in the north-west of the Arab country, controlled by the Ansar Allah (Allah’s Helpers, Houthis) rebel movement, sentenced in absentia the highest officials of Yemen, Saudi Arabia and the United States “to death. executions for the killing and wounding of more than 100 people in an air strike by the Saudi coalition in August 2018 “. At the same time, the court sentenced “several officials in Yemen, the United States and the coalition led by Saudi Arabia, including King Salman bin Abdul Aziz al Saud and Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia Mohammad bin Salman, the President of the United States Donald Trump, Yemeni President Abd Rabbu Mansour Hadi., for involvement in the deaths of thousands of Yemeni civilians.”

The court also ruled that “the defendants must pay $ 10 billion to the families of the victims.”

Regarding the assessment of the development of the situation in Yemen, Deputy Head of the Yemeni Parliament Abdulaziz Jabari in an interview with the Qatari TV channel Al-Jazeera at the end of September said that “the real master of the situation in the territories not controlled by the Houthis is the Saudi Ambassador Mohammed Al-Jaber, who treats the Yemenis as his own subordinates”, seeking to carry out instructions from the Saudi kingdom and the UAE to establish “control over political decisions in Yemen.” At the same time, the deputy head of parliament stressed that the Yemenis “will not obey anyone,” and the monarchies of Saudi Arabia and the UAE “want to become strong players in the region at the expense of the Yemenis.”

The representative of the Ministry of Information of Yemen Mohammad Qizan said that “there is no talk about any 80% of the Yemeni territories liberated by the Saudi coalition, the government cannot return to any of the allegedly liberated provinces.”

As noted by regional media, recently, not only Saudi Arabia is trying to strengthen its military presence in Yemen. The UAE and Israel are also actively seeking to increase the number of their military installations, in particular on Socotra Island. For example, Israel plans to build its intelligence facilities on the island, and the UAE has begun building military bases and seizing large strategic territories in Socotra, which is controlled by UAE-backed separatists from the Southern Transitional Council.

At the same time, according to experts, by the end of 2020, trends in the Yemeni war were extremely unfavorable for the Saudi coalition. The foreign intervention that Riyadh began in the spring of 2015 with plans of a fairly rapid capture of East Yemen, the fall of Aden and a number of key cities on the coast, did not initially suggest that the war could drag on for so long. Ansar Allah is increasingly demonstrating that, with proper support, it can not only succeed in the Yemeni war, but also become for Iran what Hezbollah has become in Lebanon. “Ansar Allah”, speaking from the standpoint of protecting the territorial integrity of the country, attracts more and more supporters, including from the ranks of former opponents, who are massively deserting by entire tribes and divisions.

Today it is recognized that 2019 was the beginning of a radical turning point in the course of the Yemeni war. The flow of weapons and other foreign aid allowed Ansar Allah to firmly seize the operational initiative and win a series of landmark victories, while the Saudi coalition has not been able to achieve even small successes at the front for the past two years. By the end of November 2020, Houthi troops reached the approaches to Marib, where an attack on Sana’a was planned in June. There is a high probability that even before the end of 2020, the rebels will be able to take Marib, which may entail a significant destruction of the original plans of the Saudi coalition to resolve the Yemeni issue by force. In addition, the protracted Yemeni war continues to drain Saudi Arabia, whose budget has recently been bursting at the seams.

At the same time, unique opportunities are being created for Iran to deliver direct attacks by the hands of the Houthis on the territory of Saudi Arabia in response to the hybrid actions of the United States, Israel and the kingdom against Iranian forces in Lebanon, Syria or Iraq.

Valery Kulikov, political expert, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Lebanon’s Collapse Is Like the Titanic’s Sinking – French FM

Lebanon’s Collapse Is Like the Titanic’s Sinking – French FM

By Staff, Agencies

French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian likened Lebanon’s political and economic collapse to the sinking of the Titanic, only without the music.

“Lebanon is the Titanic without the orchestra,” Le Drian told the daily Le Figaro in an interview published on Sunday. “The Lebanese are in complete denial as they sink, and there isn’t even the music.”

Le Drian’s remarks set a pessimistic tone a little over a week before French President Emmanuel Macron makes his third visit to Beirut since a massive port blast destroyed swathes of the city and killed 200 people in August.

Macron is losing patience with Lebanon’s politicians as rival politicians mired in turf battles stand in the way of sweeping reforms that donors say are imperative for badly-needed financial aid to be released.

It is believed the Titanic’s orchestra kept playing for as long as it could as the liner went down in the Atlantic Ocean in 1912, trying to help keep passengers calm amid impending doom. All the musicians perished.

فرنسا «الحنون» تدعم تشكُّل قوى سياسيّة لبنانيّة جديدة!

 د. وفيق إبراهيم

أحبطت القوى السياسية اللبنانية، آمال فرنسا بتأمين استقرار داخلي نسبي في بلاد الأرز يسمح لها بالتموضع عند بوابة الشرق الأوسط مجدداً.

لقد بدت نتائج رعايتها للبنان منذ أكثر من عام تقريباً فاشلة تماماً وتدعو الى اليأس من قوى سياسية داخلية تنتمي الى المنظومة الحاكمة نفسها، لكنها تواصل الصراع على الحصص والمغانم وكأن لبنان لم يتعرّض لأعمق كارثة اقتصادية وسياسية يشهدها بلد بحجمه.

فالخلافات لا تزال تندلع حتى على المكاسب التافهة، والرئيس المكلف سعد الحريري يجول منذ أربعين يوماً لتشكيل حكومة جديدة معتقداً أن الدعم الفرنسي له بخلفية أميركية هو أكثر من كافٍ للاستفراد بتعيين وزراء يقول إنهم مستقلون وينتقيهم هو شخصياً وهذه تندرج في باب المعجزات.

وفيما تباشر «إسرائيل» توسيع مرفأ حيفا في فلسطين المحتلة ليلبي النتائج الاقتصادية لتطبيعها السياسي مع دول الخليج، يسكتُ سياسيو لبنان عن مرفأ بيروت، وكأن لا أمل يُرتجى من إعادة إعماره، واستئناف وظائفه السابقة بربط بيروت بالشام والأردن والعراق والخليج.

اللافت للانتباه هنا، أن فرنسا التي ترعى للمرة الثانية مؤتمر مجموعة الدعم للبنان، تركز وللمرة الثانية أيضاً ان محصلة التبرعات التي تؤمنها الدول والجمعيات المشاركة تذهب الى جمعيات خاصة تعمل في المجالات الإنسانية وذلك باستبعاد كامل لأي دور رسمي لبناني.

يبدو أن الذريعة الفرنسية حاضرة وبقوة، وتقول إن لبنان السياسي لم ينجح بتشكيل حكومة جديدة، بالإضافة الى عجز المؤسسات الدستورية اللبنانية عن تنفيذ تدقيق مالي او جنائي وتهرّبها من هذا الموضوع الى درجة انسحاب شركة «مارسال وألفاريز» التي كانت مكلفة بالتدقيق نتيجة رفض حاكم مصرف لبنان رياض سلامة تسليمها الملفات المالية الموازية.

ولم يقبض الفرنسيون بجدية ذلك الإخراج الهزلي الذي اعتمده مؤخراً المجلس النيابي اللبناني بموافقته على مشروع للتدقيق الجنائي في مصرف لبنان والمديريات العامة والصناديق ومؤسسات الدولة في آن معاً، وذلك لأن تنفيذ هذا القرار قد يحتاج الى عقد كامل من قراءة ملفات تملأ مئات الغرف والمكاتب فيما المطلوب تحديد رأس الأفعى في مصرف لبنان المركزي والانطلاق منه. لكن الجهاز السياسي المدافع عن حاكمية مصرف لبنان يدافع عنه لأن أي تدقيق فعلي في طريقة إنفاقه للأموال يكشف أدوارهم في وضع اليد على احتياطات لبنان وودائع الناس وحتى الديون بإدارة رياض سلامة الذي أمن عبر هذه الطريقة، أقوى وسيلة حماية يمكن لحاكم مصرف لبنان ان يحظى بها وهي داخلية في قسم وخارجية في الأجزاء الاساسية، وإلا كيف يمكن للسفيرة الاميركية في لبنان شيا أن تعلن من مقر البطريركية المارونية رفض بلادها أي مساس بحاكم مصرف لبنان.

لمزيد من التوضيح، فالاهتمام الفرنسي لا يزال قوياً ويكفي أن الرئيس الفرنسي ماكرون زار لبنان مرتين بين آب وأيلول الماضيين ويستعد لزيارة ثالثة في نهاية العام.

لذلك سعى في مؤتمر مجموعة لبنان الى تأمين شرعية دولية له بدعوة 30 رئيس دولة وأمين عام الامم المتحدة انطونيو غوتيريس وعدد أكبر من رؤساء الحكومات والوزراء والمؤسسات الاقتصادية والمالية ذات الطابع الدولي، مضيفاً الى هؤلاء صندوق النقد الدولي الذي يرفض حتى الآن مفاوضة لبنان حول قروض ممكنة، متبنياً مطالب فرنسا بالتدقيق المالي والجنائي والحكومة الجديدة بشكل مسبق.

وإذا كان مؤتمر الدعم الاول أنتج هبات قدرها مئتان وخمسون مليون دولار فيتوقع الفرنسيون ان تزيد الهبات هذه المرّة عن مليارات عدة ومع مبلغ كهذا يستطيع الفرنسيون تسجيل المزيد من الضغط لتشكيل حكومة جديدة في أواخر الشهر الحالي.

لكنهم يعملون هذه المرة على تسهيل نمو تيارات من المجتمع المدني موالية لهم، وتتكتل على شكل جمعيات إنسانية تستطيع بواسطة أموال مؤتمر الدعم التحول الى الوظيفة الأساسية.

هذه الجمعيات التي تزيد عن خمسين حركة تعلن انتسابها لمدنيّة المجتمع هي التي يسارع الفرنسيون الى الإمساك بها وذلك بديلاً من الاميركيين الذين موّلوها في مراحل سابقة انما من دون جدوى فاعلة.

والكلام هنا هو عن مساعدات أميركية لهذه الجمعيات بلغت مليارات عدة من الدولارات.

وكان الأميركيون يريدون منها ان تكون الوسيلة الجديدة لاختراق الانماط التقليدية للسياسة في لبنان مع اعتمادها كلاعب أساسي يفجر فوضى عميقة على منوال ما يحدث في العراق مثلاً.

إلا أن الفرنسيين ذاهبون الى اعتماد جمعيات فيها تعددية طائفية، اعلنوا بصراحة انها الآليات التي يقبل بها المؤتمر الدولي لتوزيع دعم المتضررين والمحتاجين في لبنان.

هذا يستولد ملاحظات متتابعة أولها أن انتقاء الفرنسيين لجمعيات محددة يؤكد انها تحتوي على قدر كبير من القيادات الموالية لهم. كما ان تجاهل الفرنسيين في عمليات التوزيع حكومة حسان دياب تحديداً وحصراً هو عمل مريب يكشف أن السياسة الفرنسية لا تريد توزيعاً عادلاً للهبات الإنسانية الدولية بل توزيعاً سياسياً يريد تأسيس تيار جديد يواليهم في اطار فرنكوفونية تشابهُ من أبعادها المخفية عثمانية رجب اردوغان.

إن هذا الدعم الجديد لن يكون إنسانياً فعلياً إلا اذا ارتبط بآليات توزيع منزهة عن الأبعاد التسييسية، أما مسألة علاقة فرنسا مع الطبقة السياسية اللبنانية فهذه مسألة تاريخية ترتبط بتغطية الغرب للنظام السياسي اللبناني منذ تأسيسه وحتى مرحلة الحريرية السياسية التي كانت مدعومة من السياسات الأميركية والسعودية والفرنسية، مع غطاء سعودي مرحلي.

فهل تنجح فرنسا في إعادة استحضار فرنكوفونيتها من إطار الذكرى التاريخية الى مستوى الوجود السياسي القوي في لبنان؟

إن حيادية فرنسا في الصراعات الداخلية اللبنانية وتجسيدها لدور الصديق الفعلي للبنان دولياً، هما الأسلوب الوحيد لحضور سياسي فرنسي وازن.

لكن مشكلة الفرنسيين هي أولاً مع الاميركيين الذين يريدون احتكار الشرق الاوسط بكامله، ما يعني ان على الفرنسيين ان يجابهوا الاميركيين اولاً قبل توزيعهم لبعض الإعانات في أحياء الجميزة وساحة ساسين.

Naqqash’s solution for Middle East: A Levantine Confederation (Pt. 1)

September 29, 2020

Description: 

In a recent conference held on Zoom and published on YouTube, senior Middle East political analyst Anees Naqqash spoke about his 2014 book titled The Levantine Confederation: The Battle of Identities and Policies.

The book proposes that the solution to the chronic problems of the war-ravaged and tumultuous Middle East region lies in the establishment of a confederation that unites the states of the Levant, or what Naqqash often calls the ‘West Asian region’.

Middle East Observer will gradually be publishing English translations of the author’s online talk over several posts. This is part one, which revolves around Naqqash’s initial motivation for developing the concept of a ‘Levantine Confederation’.

(Read Part Two here)

Source:  Kalam Siyasi (YouTube Channel)

Date:  Aug 26, 2020

(Important Note: Please help us keep producing independent translations for you by contributing as little as $1/month here)

Transcript :

One does not need to be a political or strategic expert in order to know that our (Arab and Islamic) countries are (currently) living through numerous wars, whether internal wars or those of an external (nature); and that international and local powers are participating in these wars; and that the (Arab and Islamic) nation’s capabilities are being exhausted by these wars and violence. Its unity, territorial integrity, potentials, property and civilization are being consumed (as a result).

The worst thing about these wars is that they often tarnish and distort (true) Islamic thought, thus proving that many of those who bear arms (in this region) are in a state of aimlessness regarding the actual and necessary track that they should pursue in order to confront the true enemies of the nation. In other words, it has been proven that many activists and local actors have a weak (level of) awareness. Thus, these topics must be highlighted in order to put things back on track.

Naqqash's solution for Middle East: The Levantine Confederation (Pt. 1) | Middle  East Observer

The idea of a Levantine Confederation stems from two points. First, history shows that for more than 1400 years our region lived in a state of empire, starting from the Umayyads, to the Abbasids, all the way to the Ottoman Sultanate. Apart from some perversions during the Crusades and the Tatar and Mongol wars, the region lived in (a state of imperial) unity. No foreign power was allowed to intervene in its military, intellectual or economic affairs. However, following the two world wars, the (Arab & Muslim) nation was faced with a set of programs, plans and schemes resulting from its military defeat against the Western powers. This defeat enabled these (Western) powers to set up a very dangerous triangle for us: the Sykes-Picot-Balfour triangle.

The Sykes-Picot Agreement (in 1916) divided the Arab states in the region into small(er) states, while the Balfour Declaration (in 1917) fulfilled the promise of giving Palestine to the Jews for the establishment of a (Jewish) entity, one of the most brutal entities that the (Arab and Muslim) nation has ever faced in the modern era in terms of military, conspiratorial and intelligence capabilities. Today, this (Israeli) entity is posing a new danger, penetrating deep into the nation and the minds of its people.

In addition, these geographical divisions (created by Sykes-Picot and Balfour) established two types of regimes. First, there were the regimes that were built for religious-sectarian reasons, such as the Lebanese state established as a favor for the (Christian) Maronites in Lebanon. However, Lebanon has changed due to shifts in different kinds of balances as Maronites are no longer the largest demographic group (in Lebanon), nor do they occupy the main role in the country. Therefore, Lebanon always suffers from political problems because of its system that is based on sectarian identity, while it is demographically changing in relation to its sects, as some sects weaken and others grow stronger, which causes continuous security disturbances.

In fact, a part of Syrian land was cut off during the drawing of the map of Lebanon. The map of Syria was not drawn by the hands of its people. Rather, it was established based on the lines and borders demarcated by the French, who at that time gave Turkey a part of Syrian territory. Turkey was the only country (in the region) to demarcate its own borders via blood (i.e. through the military sacrifices that it made), because it was defending what was left of the Ottoman Empire. In other words, historically, Turkey was the only country whose borders were drawn with the blood of its people. Meanwhile, Lebanon’s borders were determined by the French Commission (the French body that controlled Lebanon). Many parts of Syrian territory were cut off, and what was left became the Syrian state.

Naqqash's solution for Middle East: The Levantine Confederation (Pt. 1) | Middle  East Observer

The good thing about Syria is that it preserved its unity against the four-zone division project that the French were planning for. (The French) wanted to establish (four states): an Alawite state, a Druze state, and two Sunni states, one in the north and another in the center; but this project was foiled by the national unity of the Syrians.

Iraq did not demarcate its (own) borders either. Not one Iraqi was involved in the drawing up of the map of Iraq. It was Miss Gertrude Bell – an advisor at the British Foreign Ministry – who drew up the map (of Iraq) and proclaimed Faisal the King of Iraq, based on a sectarian equation that would satisfy both the Shias and Sunnis, and she added some Kurds to a part of the current Iraqi map because (she deemed them) as fierce fighters who would fight against Turkey if a clash broke out between Iraq and the new Turkey.

(Winston) Churchill established Jordan and drew up its map. There was no country called Jordan. The establishment of Jordan fully complemented the British project to establish the State of Israel, in addition to Iraq which was also a British protectorate.

In conclusion, the Levant was suffering from the delineation of borders that were carried out without consultation with its people. (The Levant) was divided up, and new, quasi-national territorial identities were established alongside the sectarian and religious identities that continued to play an (important) role too.

(Read Part Two here)

—–

Subscribe to our mailing list!

Related Posts:

Syria: The complicated scene

By Abir Bassam

November 24, 2020 – 10:49

It is a dirty war that has been going on in Syria, Libya, and Yemen. Almost nine and a half tragic years have passed. The three countries were subjected to all kinds of terror and brutally destroyed. Actually, what has been going on is a world war! All weapons were used and tested and many countries were involved.

It was a real dirty war, in which the West and the Americans and their allies in the region have used the worst kind of men: a group of collaborators and barbaric terrorists. 

The worst kinds of mercenaries from all over the world were sent to Syria. They practices the ugliest inhumane deeds: they decapitated heads, literally ate hearts, and burned people alive to death. 

These groups were directly led by generals from the U.S., France, and Turkey. This information was supported by different informed resources that reported capturing French, British, and Turkish officers since 2015, in particular, during the invasion of Idlib. The district was invaded by a tenth of thousands of terrorists from Nusra, especially its group Fateh al-Sham which is directly supported and trained by Turkey, and Ahrar al-Sham which was directly supported by the Americans. The invasion was directly led by the Turkish tank battalions and the NATO alliances. 

By December 2015, the northeast of Syria was also invaded by another terrorist group, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria [ISIS]. ISIS was created with the utmost attention of Hilary Clinton, during Barak Obama’s administration. This was revealed by Donald Trump during his election campaign in 2016. ISIS swept over the al-Jazeera region and extended to Palmira through the Syrian Desert and occupied Homos, the biggest Syrian district. It was directly protected by the American extending military bases in northern Syria and the eastern base in al-Tanf. ISIS attacked both the Syrian government forces and the opposition factions. 

The plan was to allow ISIS invasion of northern-eastern Syria territories and western-northern Iraqi territories in order to terminate the opposition factions in the region. It was carefully planned by Obama’s administration and in particular his vice president Joe Biden, the new president of the United States of America.

Under the pretense of fighting terrorism, the Americans were back in Iraq and restored bases in Iraq, built new ones in Syria and reestablished new militia groups in the area of the northeast, mainly Kurdish groups. They were trained and equipped by the Americans. For the U.S., it was a necessary step to launch a Kurdish federalism on the Syrian territories.  

Nonetheless, the U.S. had set the return plan before withdrawing from Iraq in 2010. Upon its departure, the American administration empowered the al-Qaeda group in Iraq, and supported its existence, as Trump declared and accused Hillary Clinton of being the mastermind behind it. ISIS was basically the American approach to siege Syria, and eventually, apply the plan of division in the region and establish a Kurdish state. 

Saying that may seem to be naive and simple. However, executing the plan required initiating “revolutions” in other Arab countries, recruiting media specialists, recruiting special personnel to initiate eruptions by social media, and consuming billions of dollars in the process, of which the Saudi kingdom and Qatar were the main contributors.

In 1992, I was on a visit to al-Hassaka and al-Qamishli. I was just a young beginner in journalism. I was conducting an investigation report about the Yazidis. At that stage, a large number of Yazidis and Kurds were immigrating to Syria. They escaped the biased and brutal treatment of Saddam Hussein and the fanatic Turks. These Kurds were building a wide network in Europe. They bought sympathy and support to establish a federation in Iraq in 1996. The process was facilitated by the Americans after the second Persian Gulf War in 1991 as Saddam’s power was fading.

The idea of having a similar kind of federation in Syria became appealing to both the Americans and Israelis. The size of Israeli foreign intelligence service Mossad’s presence in the Iraqi Kurdistan is not a secret anymore. It is an established fact. The Americans also facilitated the Israeli presence in northeast Syria, especially those who came with American nationality to work in the oil fields.

The Turkish president Erdogan was one of the supporters of the American plan to dismantle Syria. Erdogan was able to recruit Qatar to the best interest of Turkey. Both countries were discontent with the Syrian government’s refusal to allow building the Qatari gas pipeline to Turkey through its territories. Syria saw that a move that would discomfort its allies in Russia and Iran. However, Erdogan had bigger plans in Syria. In the northwest region, Erdogan mainly saw the Idlib and Aleppo districts as the extent of Turkey, and a head starts to initiate the Ottoman dream. 

This dream vanished to thin air when Syria started liberating the area occupied by ISIS in West Euphrates, and al-Gab plain after cleaning the Damascus area, Homos, and the center of Syria from terrorism with unlimited support from Russia. The second shock Erdogan received when the Americans started supporting the establishment of the Kurdish federation in al-Hassaka. 

The Kurdish militia was founded in October 2015 under the name Syrian Democratic Forces [SDF]. SDF in its formation includes Kurds from Syria and others who came mainly from Turkey and other countries, most of them do not speak Arabic, unlike the Syrian Kurds. 60% of the militia includes Arab Syrians, according to the Pentagon. There are other nationalities included among the formation of SDF, who are Turkmens, Armenians, Circassians, and Chechens, who came from all over Asia.

In 2016, SDF updated its constitution from a separate federal state into an Autonomous Administration of Northern and East Syria [NES] and declared SDF as its official defense force, which complicated the Syrian political scene, furthermore. Now NES or SDF are cooperating with the official American forces in east-north of Syria and serve as “the Southern Lebanese Army, [SLA]” in South Lebanon during the Israeli occupation in South Lebanon. As SLA has tried to establish an independent state in South Lebanon, SDF or NES is trying to acquire the same course. 

Since 2018 the Syrian army, with the help of allies – Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah- has been able to liberate most of the occupied lands. However, the liberation coincided with the rise of economic pressure on Syria. The price of the Syrian lira if compared to the American dollar dropped and its purchasing value decreased. It was due to the economic sanctions that were imposed on Syria, and lately “Caesar Law” which was activated in the mid of June 2020. 

In 2018, the American troops withdrew from the north of Syria and were redeployed in the al-Hassaka district around the Syrian richest oil fields. The American companies, in particular ARAMCO, are now draining the Syria oil to the interest of NES and financing the American troops stationed in the northern-eastern area of the Euphrates in Syria. Actually, Syria is facing an internal problem with the lack of petroleum resources. The hard winter is coming and the lines for buying the diesel needed for heating the houses will be crowded as much as the lines for gasoline.

After burning and stealing the wheat plains in the al-Jazeera district by the Americans and the Turks, the bread prices went 25% higher. Shortage in bread supplies was triggered by the government’s decision to set the bread rations. The Americans were literally applying Kissinger’s policy which states that nations are ruled by bread, not by arms. The shortage of bread and petroleum products is new to the Syrian population; therefore, the successive Syrian governments are facing major challenges since the beginning of 2019. 

Caesar Law added additional pressure on the countries that may establish economic and commercial deals with Syria. The law was imposed at a time in which the world is suffering from COVID-19 epidemic, which spread in Syria as well. In addition, Syria needs to deal with the issue of the Syrian refugees. It is a dilemma that needs to be dealt with appropriately. The refugees’ dilemma is used as a political card to force the Syrians to submit to the American political demands, which are set on two levels: national and international.

On the national level, the international community wants to pressure the Syrian government into implementing a new constitution based on the sectarian division of power, just like Lebanon, which would diminish the presidential authority and redistribute it, as it happened in Tunisia and Sudan, which would divide the power of the head of the state. The second issue is related to the question of the forcibly disappeared people, who were kidnapped or killed by the rebel groups, and treating the killers and kidnappers as political opponents without subjecting them to trials. This issue will be a matter of conflict, and will not be accepted by those whose families and friends were kidnapped or killed. This fact was revealed a few days ago by the new Syrian Foreign Minister, Mr. Feisal Muqdad. 

On the international level, the requirements of the international community, i.e. the U.S., have become common knowledge.  Since 2003, after the invasion of Iraq, the U.S. secretary of state, Colin Powell, came to Syria and laid down the U.S. demands: dismantling Hezbollah arms, ending Syrian support to the resistance groups in Lebanon, Palestine, and Iraq, and ending cooperation with Iran in the region. The end means, as usually explained, is ensuring the security of Israel. 

Naturally, the Syrians refused American demands. Therefore, we should make no mistake and assume that what had happened in the Arab region under the pretense of “Arab Spring” was meant for the destruction of Syria in order to dismantle it into minor sectarian states that can be easily controlled to the best interest of “Israel” and America.

Hence, Syria requires two essential needs to start its reconstruction process: the first is lifting the sanctions imposed on it; and the second is to end the American occupation in the northeast area. However, the West insists on linking lifting the sanctions to the political process. But when it comes to the achievement of the liberation from the Americans this process cannot be realized unless the national resistance would be highly activated in the northeast of Syria. It is America that we all know. It did not end its occupation of Vietnam, Korea, and eventually Iraq in 2010 until the number of causalities becomes unbearable in the American community.

Syria’s essential needs were clearly stated by its president Bashar Al-Assad on two occasions, the first was during a video call with Russian President Vladimir Putin on the 10th of November. The second time was in his speech at the opening of the International Conference on the Return of the Refugee in Damascus [ICRRD] on the 11th of November.

During his visit on the 5th of November to the exhibition “Producers 2020” in “Tekia Sulaymaniyah” in the capital, Damascus. It was attended by producers from the Aleppo governorate whose facilities, workshops, and shops were damaged during the war. President al-Assad talked about the economic impact of the issue of shortage of oil supplies and burning the wheat fields in northeastern regions. 

He also explained that the economic problem was clearly becoming worse when the banks in Lebanon blocked the Syrian deposits. President al-Assad said that there is vagueness about the Syrian deposit’s estimations. Its assessment ranges from 20 billion dollars to 42 billion dollars. The blockade has been going on for years. He added the crisis began years before the Caesar Law and began years after the siege. It coincided with the money disappearance in the Lebanese banks. Furthermore, al-Assad declared that we do not know what the real number is, and this figure for an economy like the Syrian one is a frightening number.

Al-Assad’s declaration became one week before ICRRD to which Lebanon was invited. Was this a message to Lebanon? It could be, although many observers have denied it. The denial is basically based on Syria’s previous special treatment of Lebanon. Lebanon in the Syrian considerations are two contradictory facts: the first, Lebanon is an opening to the western world with bipolar swings. The first swing expressed in the historical Arab and regional ideology.

And the second swing is expressed in the lining towards a Western ideology, with the tendency to sign normalization agreements with “Israel”. The second group was of great concern to the Syrians since the creation of Lebanon. It is known as the right-wing groups, who allied with the Americans and the Israelis. 

The second fact, Lebanon as a state is based on providing services and tourism. It is considered to be the lung that Syria needs to breathe with. However, this lung health became worse since 2011, when the United States accused the Lebanese Canadian Bank of laundering terrorism money. And then again in 2016, since many banks faced the same accusations and were prohibited to deal with customers that the U.S. listed them as Hezbollah members.

Accordingly, the Lebanese banks froze several balances for many customers and in particular the Syrian customers that were importing goods to Syria through Lebanon after imposing an embargo on Syria. It is clear for the Syrians, regardless of the unique relationship with Hezbollah, it is about time that Lebanon should release these balances, and pay its debts to Syria, especially the debts that have been accumulating since 1990, which are the revenues from selling electricity.

Syria, as President al-Assad explained, will need its money in the process of rebuilding the country’s main infrastructure and vital installations, which were destroyed during the liberation war against the terrorist groups. It is a call for Lebanon to join forces with Syria to demand lifting the embargo and to be excluded from Cesar Law consequences because Lebanon needs to open up to Syria for commercial trades towards the east, in particular, to Arab countries, or Lebanon will be demanded to pay back its debts. 

The Americans were pushing Syria and the region since 1973 towards peace and normalization treaties with “Israel”. However, Syria has proven that such an agreement would be difficult to execute unless it was a “peace for land” agreement, which would ensure the right of return of the Palestinian people. An equation, nor the Israeli, neither the Americans are willing to sign for. In addition, Syria’s main condition, during the negotiations held in Oslo in 1992, was the return of all occupied Arab territories. However, the series of recognitions Trump has approved throughout his reign made the return to the negotiation table almost impossible. It also pushed into more complications with the relation between Syria and Lebanon since the assassination of Rafiq al-Hariri in 2005. The need to separate the Syrian-Lebanese course in the peace process is becoming a must for the Americans. A need until today could not be achieved.

Syria now is subjected to American pressure that requires its approval to initiate peace and normalization agreements with Israel. This goal so far was difficult to achieve, especially after Trump’s recognition of the Golan Heights as part of Israel. Even Syria’s allies, in particular Russia, cannot force the Syrians to give up part of their land. Syria’s war on terror has spared all its allies the tragedy of dragging this war into their own territories. 

Hence, Syria prepaid in blood for the security of its “friends” now. History will, sooner or later, reveal this fact. Syria’s insistence on the unity of its land, and its refusal to have any divided authority is now a fact. The Syrians cannot compromise it, and the allies cannot go against it. The course of negotiations the allies led in Astana and Sochi has affirmed it. However, this fact has complicated the Syrian scene furthermore. It might even force the Americans to lead directly the war in the region, whether in arms or diplomacy, since the proxies have proven their disabilities.

RELATED NEWS

أيها اللبنانيون مَنْ منكم يعرف أسماء شهداء الاستقلال؟

معن بشور

شكراً لرفاق القوميين الاجتماعيين الذين بإحيائهم على مدى أعوام لذكرى رفيقهم شهيد الاستقلال في بشامون سعيد فخر الدين، يذكّرون اللبنانيين بأنّ استقلالهم لم يأت دون شهداء وتضحيات، وأنه لم يكن نتيجة ضغط بريطانيّ على الانتداب الفرنسي، كما يحلو للكثيرين تصويره..

ولكن كم من اللبنانيين يعرف أنّ البطل فخر الدين لم يكن الشهيد الوحيد في تلك الأيام العشرة الفاصلة بين اعتقال أركان حكومة الاستقلال 11 تشرين الثاني وإعلان الاستقلال في 22 تشرين الثاني 1943، بل كان هناك 14 شهيداً و 44 جريحاً في طرابلس تمّ إطلاق النار عليهم في ساحة السلطي في شارع المصارف، بعد اعتقال المغفور له عبد الحميد كرامي مع الرئيسين بشارة الخوري ورياض الصلح والوزراء كميل شمعون وعادل عسيران وسليم تقلا، بالإضافة الى شهداء أطفال المدارس في صيدا الذين تمّ قتلهم بالدم البارد أمام مقر الحاكم الفرنسي…

بل كمّ من اللبنانيين يذكر كيف اتّحد اللبنانيون، كما لم يتحدوا من قبل في معركة الاستقلال، فصنعوا في شوارع عاصمتهم وسائر المدن والأرياف، كما في برلمانهم والحكومة المؤقتة في بشامون وفي قلعة راشيا، ملحمة الاستقلال التي صنعت للبنانيين استقلالاً، ولكن لم تكن كافية لتصنع لاستقلالهم دولة الحق والقانون والعدالة الخالية من أمراض الطائفية والفساد والارتهان للقوى الخارجيّة..

لم يكن إهمال الرواية الكاملة لملحمة الاستقلال جزءاً من الإهمال المزمن الذي يعاني منه اللبنانيّون منذ أكثر من 77 عاماً، بقدر ما كان جزءاً من خطة خطيرة بعناوين متعدّدة.

أوّل العناوين ترسيخ القناعة لدى الشعب اللبناني أنّ لبنان قاصر تتقاذفه لعبة الأمم ولا يستطيع شعبه ان يحقق نصراً لا في الداخل ولا على الخارج إلا «بمعونة أجنبيّة»، وهو ما يتجلّى اليوم حين باتت المبادرة الفرنسيّة هي حبل نجاة اللبنانيين في مفارقة تاريخيّة تقول «إنّ من اجتمع اللبنانيون جميعاً بالأمس لإخراجه، من بلدهم أصبح اليوم محطّ إجماع الطبقة السياسيّة الحاكمة لإنقاذ البلد بعد 77 عاماً من الاستقلال.

ثاني العناوين تكريس الانطباع أنّ الاستقلال كان نتيجة جهود فوقيّة بين سياسيين وسفراء لا ثمرة كفاح شعبيّ دامٍ قدّم خلاله اللبنانيون العديد من الشهداء مباشرة في لبنان، أو من خلال انخراط العديد منهم في الثورة السورية الكبرى عام 1925 بقيادة سلطان باشا الأطرش والتي يجمع المؤرّخون وفي مقدمّهم المؤرخ الكبير الأستاذ شفيق جحا أنها كانت أحد أبرز الأسباب التي أدّت الى استعجال المندوب السامي الفرنسي منح لبنان دستوره عام 1926، وهو الدستور الذي ما زال معمولاً به بعد تعديلين أولهما يوم الاستقلال، وثانيهما بعد الطائف عام 1989.

ثالث العناوين هو انتهاج سياسة حرمان بعض المدن والمناطق اللبنانيّة من الإعلان شرف المشاركة بدماء أبنائها في ملحمة الاستقلال، وكأنّها ناقصة «اللبنانية» لتبرير حرمانها طيلة عهود الاستقلال من أبسط حقوقها ومن تشغيل أهمّ مرافقها، ولعلّ ما تعرّضت له مدن كطرابلس وصيدا وجبل عامل وأرياف الشمال والبقاع من حرمان هو أنصع دليل على هذه الخطة.

من هنا، وفي ظلّ إهمال الطبقة الحاكمة لشهداء تلك الملحمة الاستقلاليّة الرائعة، والذين لم يستحقوا حتى زيارة «بروتوكولية» لمدافنهم، كما هي زيارة أضرحة الرؤساء والوزراء والزعماء الذين شاركوا في تلك الملحمة، نشعر انه لا بدّ من أن نذكر أسماء أولئك الشهداء، خصوصاً في طرابلس وصيدا، مذكرّين أيضاً بلوحة في قلعة الاستقلال في راشيا تضمّ أسماء كلّ أبناء تلك المنطقة الذين استشهدوا في معارك ضدّ الاحتلال الفرنسي.

أما شهداء طرابلس فهم: سليم صابونه، أحمد صابر كلثوم، رشيد رمزي حجازي، فوزي قاسم شحود، عبد الغني أفيوني، عباس إبراهيم حبوشي، محمد علي حسين خضر، عبد القادر مصطفى الشهال، كمال عبد الرزاق ضناوي، وديع خاطر بركات، أحمد جوجو، محمد حسين الحمد وسليم الشامي.

وفي صيدا استشهد في انتفاضة 1936 ضدّ الانتداب، برصاص جنود الانتداب الذي أصاب ايضاً كتف المجاهد الشهيد معروف سعد وأدّى الى استشهاد كلّ من: عبد الحليم الحلاق، محمد مرعي النعماني، ناهيك عن كوكبة من طلبة المدارس في صيدا الذين استشهدوا او جرحوا برصاص الانتداب أمام مركز المندوب الفرنسي وهم الشهداء: سعد البزري، ثروت الصباغ وشفيقة ارقدان.

فكيف تكون احتفالاتنا في عيد الاستقلال في غياب أيّ ذكر لشهداء الاستقلال، بل في غياب أيّ محاسبة لمن أوصل لبنان الى ما هو عليه من حال مزرية على كلّ المستويات، ومن فساد ما زال أقوى من كلّ محاولات التصدّي له، حتى بات «استقلالنا» هذه الأيام هو «طرد» شركة تدقيق جنائي لمصرف لبنان وحساباته، ولوزارات الدولة ومؤسساتها، من بلادنا، حرصاً على «الصندوق الأسود» الذي بات أهمّ من استقلال الوطن وحقوق المواطن.

عندما تخضَّبت مياه «السين» بدماءِ شرفاء الجزائر

السيد سامي خضرا

لعلَّك لم تسمع بهذه الحادثة من قبل وفي هذا ظلم عظيم عليك وعلى حقائق التاريخ وحق الأمة ووطنك وأهلك وكرامتك:

في 17 تشرين الأول/ أكتوبر عام 1961 تداعت الجالية الجزائرية في فرنسا للاجتماع والتظاهر استنكاراً لجرائم الفرنسيين في بلادهم فاحتشد عشرات الآلاف منهم مباشرة بعد خروجهم من مقرات العمل في ساحة الأوبرا للتعبير عن حقهم الطبيعي لنصرة أهلهم وقضيتهم.

حصل ذلك أثناء الثورة الجزائرية (1954–1962) وبعد عودة شارل ديغول للسلطة حيث أخذت الشرطة الفرنسية ومنظمة الجيش السري تنتهج سياسة العنف تجاه الجزائريين المطالبين باستقلال بلادهم، والقضاء على قيادات جبهة التحرير الوطني في فرنسا.

لكن الدعوة إلى التظاهر لم ترُقْ للسلطات الفرنسية الاستعمارية الحاقدة صاحبة التاريخ الأسود فَتَصدَّت لهذه الجموع وفَتَكَت بها حيث وقع المئات من القتلى والمفقودين والجرحى عدا عن المعتقلين الذين بلغُوا الآلاف باعتراف السلطات الفرنسية.

ولم يكتفِ رئيس الشرطة الفرنسية موريس بابون بذلك بل أراد أن يُبدع في جريمته فتفنَّن في إكمال مسلسل المجزرة بما يتناسب مع تاريخ فرنسا الطبيعي مع الدول التي استعمروها فقيَّد أيدي المعتقلين وثبَّت أرجلهم في قوالب إسمنتية ثم رماهم في نهر «السين» فتخضَّبت مياه النهر بدماءِ شرفاء الجزائر من طلاب الجامعات.

وسُجِّلَتْ شهادات حية في أنّ عشرات الجثث ظلت تطفو فوق نهر «السين» أياما عديدة بعد تلك الليلة بينما اكتشفت عشرات أخرى في غابَتَي «بولون وفانسون».

عدا عمَّن أُلْقِي بهم في قنوات المياه الآسِنة والبحر.

وأما الجرحى فَتُرِكوا بمئاتهم على قارعة الطريق ليُلاقوا مصيرهم.

وبعضهم ما زال حياً إلى يومنا هذا ليروي مأساته.

وفي مزيد من مواقف التكبّر والتجبُّر رفضت السلطات الفرنسية لعقود مجرد الاعتذار من الشعب الجزائري وأهالي الضحايا والجرحى الأحياء لأنّ الاعتذار كان ثقيلاً على حكومة لا تعرف إلا احتقار البشر وعبودية المُسْتَعمَرين.

أرادوا الصمت عن هذه المجزرة التاريخية كما أخفوا العشرات مثلها في شتى أنحاء العالم.

يقول الباحث في العلاقات الدولية زيدان خوليف في لقاء معه:

إنّ مواد التاريخ الموجودة في الأرشيف لا يمكن الوصول إليها بقرار شخصي من الرئيس السابق فرانسوا ميتران، متسائلاً:

«لماذا ترفض فرنسا الإفراج عن الأرشيف المتصل بتلك الأحداث حتى اليوم؟!»

حتى أنت أيها القارئ لهذا الكلام لعلك على الأغلب لم تسمع بهذا الحدث من قبل لأنّ التعتيم الإعلامي هو جزءٌ من المعركة.

لِذا لا نرى مَن يتحدث أو يذكر أو يتناول مثل هذه الأحداث التاريخية وذلك لأنّ الدول الكبرى تستمرّ في سياسة ظلم الشعوب.

ففرنسا والتي هي دولةٌ كبرى وعضوٌ دائمٌ في مجلس الأمن والذي يُقرّر مصير الشعوب لا يليقُ بها أن يُتَحَدَّث عما فعلت أو تفعل من جرائم.

بل إنَّ الخانعين والتابعين والمنهزمين لا يعرفون من فرنسا ولا يتحدَّثون إلا عن سحرها وعطرها وأناقتها وفنِّها ونسائها وأزيائها وأسواقها وأطعمتها وسهراتها وموضتها… وهذا غاية البؤس.

حتى أنّ المسؤول المباشر عن الجريمة رئيس الشرطة موريس بابون تُرِك ليتبوَّأ مناصب شتى إلى أن وصل إلى وزارة الداخلية نتيجة إنجازاته!

وبعد عقود من الجريمة كان لا بدّ لتجار البشر ومُدَّعي الإنسانية أن يستفيدوا من دماء أهلنا فَلَمَّح الرئيسان فرنسوا ميتران وهولاند إليها.

وأما الرئيس الحالي إيمانويل ماكرون فقد اعتبرهُ حدثاً مؤسفاً فحسب!

وحتى شارل ديغول المجرم وهو الذي يُصوَّر في بلادنا على أنه بطلٌ استثنائي وقدوة للسياسيين والعسكريين إلتزم الصَّمْت، لأنّ بعض مَن في لبنان يُصِرُّ على أن يُشوِّه التاريخ والحقائق ولا يعيش إلاَّ على أطلال العبودية.

فكم من وقائع التاريخ مُغيَّبة عنا ليقوم بعض المنهزمين قائلاً: ذهبت إلى الغرب فرأيت الإسلام ولم أرَ المسلمين!

بين العميدين.. الخوري والمعلم

راميا الإبراهيم

راميا الإبراهيم  مذيعة ومقدمة برامج في قناة الميادين

المصدر: الميادين نت

18 تشرين ثاني 20:53

من مجلس الأمن في أربعينيات القرن الماضي إلى “جنيف 2 ” عام 2014 قصةٌ وطنيةٌ خطّها “مسيحيٌّ ومسلمٌ”.. معذرة. ما بينهما وبعدهما الكثير مما يعرّي كذبة الطائفية حيث سورية وطنٌ للجميع حرٌّ ومستقلّ.

من مجلس الأمن في أربعينيات القرن الماضي إلى “جنيف 2 ” عام 2014 قصةٌ وطنيةٌ خطّها “مسيحيٌّ ومسلمٌ”.. معذرة. ما بينهما وبعدهما الكثير مما يعرّي كذبة الطائفية حيث سورية وطنٌ للجميع حرٌّ ومستقلّ.

بين العميدين.. الخوري والمعلم
بين العميدين.. الخوري والمعلم

في بلادي أي سورية (ونحن فيها نكتب سورية بالتاء المربوطة) لم نكن نعلم ديانة صديقٍ أو زميلٍ إلا في حالتين الزواج أو الوفاة.. لم نكن أساساً نُعير بالاً لذلك… حتى وإن جاء أحدٌ على ذكر الأمرِ وهي كانت من النوادر، كان يخفض صوته همساً و كأنه يقرّ بأنه يرتكب خطيئة..

محرك الوطنية.. فارس بيك الخوري 

لا تتّسع بضع الكلمات التي أهمُّ بكتابتها لإنصاف أحد قامات بلادي الوطنية، الثائر ضد الاحتلالين العثماني والفرنسي، الأديب والمفّكر والسياسي الأصيل.. مناصبُ عديدةٌ تدرّج فيها رئيس الوزراء فارس بيك الخوري ومنها وزارة الأوقاف، وهذه الأخيرة لم تكن  الوحيدة التي شغلها، لكن أهمية ذكرها تكمن في كون الخوري مسيحياً. معذرة … مسيحيٌ حارب محاولات فرنسا تبرير إبقاء استعمارها لسورية… بادعائها أن المسحيين يطلبون حمايتها، فذهب إلى المسجد الأموي واعتلى المنبر قائلاً: إن الفرنسيين يقولون إن المسيحيين يطلبون الحماية منها، أنا من هنا أعلنها، أنا أطلب الحماية من شعبي.

من قصص استقلال سوريا 

عام 1946 في جلسة مجلس الأمن، جلس فارس بيك الخوري في المقعد الخاص بالمندوب الفرنسي. وعندما جاء المندوب الفرنسي ليجلس على مقعده، فوجئ بالخوري… طلب منه الفرنسي الانتقال إلى المقعد الخاص بسورية لكن الخوري تجاهله وأخرج ساعته من جييب سترته وراح يتأمل فيها بينما المندوب الفرنسي استشاط غضباً وراح يشرح له… هذا مقعد فرنسا، أنظر هذا العلم الفرنسي أمامه وهناك مقعد سورية حيث علمها أمامه.. لكن الخوري لم يتحرك واستمر بالنظر إلى ساعته. كاد مندوب فرنسا أن يفقد عقله، وعند الدقيقة الـ 25 قال فارس بيك بلغة فرنسية واضحة: سعادة السفير جلست في مقعدك 25 دقيقة، فكدت تقتلني غضباً وحنقاً.. سورية تحمّلت سفالة جنودكم 25 سنة وآن الآوان لها أن تستقلّ.

وكان الاستقلال إلى جانب بطولات أبناء الوطن على اختلاف تلاوينهم. وفي بلدي كما المنطقة لوحة فسيفسائية من الأديان والمذاهب والقوميات هي مصدر قوة بلا شك، وستبقى كذلك. 

في قصص سيادة سورية

بعد ثلاث سنوات من الحرب في سورية وعليها، وهي الأقسى بالمناسبة تحدثت فيها الكرة الأرضية جمعاء باسم الشعب السوري وحكومته وجيشه ورئيسه.. ما عداهم.

وكانت كلمة سورية 

في مؤتمر “جنيف 2” حيث اجتمع العالم لمناقاشة “قضية سورية”، كانت كلمةٌ للوفد السوري برئاسة الراحل شيخ الدبلوماسية ابن دمشق الأصيل وزير الخارجية وليد المعلم. 

خطأٌ أعتقدُ أن واشنطن تندم عليه إلى اليوم، مع عواصمَ للأسف عربية وأيضا غربية. فهي لم تعتقد أن هناك من يضرب أو يشكك بروايتها التي أفردت لها امبراطوريات الإعلام والسياسة بين الغربية منها والعربية وبمال هذه الأخيرة عن “الرئيس القاتل وجيشه السفاح  للثورة”.

عشر دقائق مُنحت للمعلم ليقول كلمته.. لكنها كلمة سورية، قال المعلم بكل هدوء، وأضاف مخاطباً بان كي مون الأمين العام للأمم المتحدة سابقاً عندما حاول مقاطعته لتخطيه الوقت المحدد: “لقد تكلمتَ أنتَ 25 دقيقةً، أنا أعيش في سورية وأنت تعيش في نيويورك.. لدي الحق لإيصال الصورة الحقيقية في سورية”.

 تحدث المعلم  34 دقيقة بالتمام، لم تفلح لا مقاطعات بان كي مون ولا أصوات الجرس في ثنيه عن إكمال كلمته حتى النهاية.. مع رسائل واضحة ومباشرة، مخاطباً وزير الخارجية السابق جون كيري: “لا أحد في العالم سيد كيري، لا أحد في العالم يستطيع إضفاء الشرعية أو عزلها أو منحها لرئيسٍ أو حكومةٍ أو دستورٍ أو قانونٍ أو أي شيءٍ في سورية إلا السوريين أنفسهم”.

و كانت كلمة سورية.. أجبر العالم على سماعها كاملة. 

رئيس أركان الجيش الدبلوماسي 

لم يكن المعلم رئيس وفد سورية إلى مؤتمر “جنيف2” فحسب.. كان يمثل تاريخاً من الوطنية والانتماء والمهنية والخبرة والثبات والعفة، فالملايين من الدولارات دُفعت له حتى ينشقَّ عن وطنيته في سنيّ الحرب في سورية وعليها، فأبى كما الجسم الدبلوماسي السوري، ليكون رئيس أركان جيش دبلوماسيٍّ بطلاً وشريكاً بالانتصار.

سورية وطن للجميع 

بين العميدين الخوري والمعلم من مجلس الأمن في أربعينيات القرن الماضي إلى “جنيف 2 ” عام 2014 قصةٌ وطنيةٌ خطّها “مسيحيٌّ و مسلمٌ”.. معذرة، وما بينهما وبعدهما الكثير.. تعرّي كذبة الطائفية والصدام الديني حيث سورية وطنٌ للجميع حرٌّ مستقلّ…

The Interpretation of (Left) Dreams

 BY GILAD ATZMON

left dream1_edited-1.jpg

by Gilad Atzmon

“Why do we dream? Freud’s answer is deceptively simple: the ultimate function of the dream is to enable the dreamer to stay asleep.” Slavoj Zizek (2006)

Traditional Left Ideology sets out a vision of how the world ‘ought to be.’ The Left’s view can be summed up as the belief that social justice is the primary requirement for improving the world, and that this better future entails the pursuit of equality in various forms. The Left ideologist believes that it is both ethical and moral to attempt to approach equality in terms of civil rights and material wealth.

But if the Left focuses on ‘what could be,’ the Right focuses on ‘what is.’ If the Left operates where people ‘could be,’ the Right operates where people ‘are’ or at least, where they believe themselves to be. The Right does not aim to change human social reality but rather to celebrate, and to even maximize it.

Left ideology, accordingly, is shaped like a ‘dream.’ Aiming for what ‘ought to be’ rather than ‘what is’ induces a level of utopian illusory detachment and depicts a phantasmal egalitarian world often removed from our abusive, oppressive and doomed reality. In this phantasmic future, people will just drift away from greed and gluttony, they will work less and learn to share, even to share that which they may not possess to start with.

This imaginary ‘dream’ helps explain why the (Western) Left’s ideology rarely appealed to the struggling classes; the masses, consumed by the pursuit of bread and butter, were hardly going to be interested in utopian ‘dreams’ or futuristic social experiments. Bitten by the daily struggle and chased by existence, working people have never really subscribed to ‘the revolution,’ usually because they were just too busy working. This perhaps explains why so often it was the middle-class and bourgeois agitators who became revolutionary icons. It was they who had access to that little bit extra to fund their revolutionary adventures.

The ‘Left dream’ is certainly appealing, perhaps a bit too appealing. Social justice, equality and even revolution may really be nothing but the addictive rush of effecting change and this is perhaps why hard-core Leftist agitators often find it impossible to wake from their social fantasy of transformation. They simply refuse to admit that reality has slipped from their grasp, preferring to remain in their cozy phantasmal and delusional universe, shielded by ghetto walls built from archaic terminology and political correctness.

In fact, the more appealing and convincing the revolutionary fantasy is, the less its supporters are willing to be awaken by reality. This blindness helps explain why the Western ideological and political Left has failed on so many fronts: it was daydreaming when the service economy was introduced, and it did not awaken when production and manufacturing were eviscerated. It yawned when it should have combatted corporate culture, big money and its worship, and it dozed when higher education became a luxury. The Left was certainly snoring noisily when, one after the other, its institutions were conquered by ‘New Left’ Identitarian politics.

It is most important to point at the contemporary American so-called ‘Left’ that was deeply asleep when the American working classes drifted away to the Republican party. The American Left was so deeply consumed by its ‘revolutionary fantasy’ that it didn’t notice the embarrassing fact that an abrasive multi-billionaire real estate tycoon morphed into a populist revolutionary icon for hard-working people. The American Left was so thrilled by its self-worship that it pretended not to see that its entire operation was practically sustained by Wall Street tycoons and globalists of the worst type. The American Left has become a controlled opposition apparatus. It practically went to bed with the bitterest enemies of peace and justice let alone anything that resembles ‘social justice’ and human harmony.

In one of his most insightful moments, Slavoj Zizek delved into a comparison between Freud and Lacan’s perception of the dream: “Why do we dream?” Zizek asked. “Freud’s answer is deceptively simple: the ultimate function of the dream is to enable the dreamer to stay asleep.”

According to this perception, the dream is there to sustain the slumber against all odds. It represses the external disturbance (whether it is depression, anxiety, noise or even an immediate threat) by incorporating it into the dream. In The Interpretation of Dreams, Freud tells a story of a father whose young son has just died. The father falls asleep and dreams that the child is standing by his bed in flames, whispering the horrifying reproach: ‘Father, can’t you see I’m burning?’ Soon afterwards, the father wakes to discover that a fallen candle has set fire to his dead son’s shroud. The father had smelled the smoke while asleep and incorporated the image of his burning son into his dream to prolong his sleep. Zizek wonders: did the father wake up because the external stimulus became too strong to be contained within the dream-scenario? Or was it the obverse, that the father constructed the dream in order to prolong his sleep, but what he encountered in the dream was even more unbearable than external reality, so that he woke up to escape it?

In the ‘Left Dream,’ the cosmopolitan revolution occurs by itself, as its conditions are ‘determined’ by an inevitable mass consciousness shift. In the ‘Left dream’ the revolution is inevitable so to say. In the ‘Left’s nightmare,’ however, reality proves the complete opposite; the condition for the revolution are ripe on the verge of ultimate but then, pretty much out of the blue, the same script keep repeating itself, a ‘Hitler’ figure appears ‘out of nowhere’ and steers the masses away from the ‘revolution’ to the ‘flag.’ But one thing is clear. In the Left Dream there is no escape route to reality. Unlike the father who awakes devastated by the image of his son being burned, there is no Left dream where the struggling masses can have their say. In the American Left Dream, for instance, there is no room for ‘White uneducated males’ who pop out of the blue and ask: what about us? Why have you forsaken us? In the American Left Dream these kinds of ‘white’ people are called ‘Trumpsters,’ ‘Deplorables,’ White Supremacists,’ white nationalists, and so forth. In the Contemporary American Left dream there is no path back to reality. Those few Leftists who are awaken by any sort of reality check are effectively pushed out, left with no other option but flipping (political) sides. This may explain why demographic studies reveal that people are most often born Leftists and die Conservatives. Maturity, so it seems, involves a growing acceptance of ‘realistic pessimism.’ People tend to wake up, but the dream doesn’t.

One may wonder: where was the German Left when Hitler’s popularity increased amongst Germany’s Working class at a speed that puts Covid-19 to shame? Where was the British Left when Margaret Thatcher, who destroyed many of Britain’s industries and undermined the unions, became so popular amongst British Working people for making it possible for them to own their homes? Where was the British Left when Corbyn and Labour’s popularity minced into dust? It is also fascinating to look at the Israeli Left, as Israel was formed around the idea of Labour Zionism. The Israeli Labour party that dominated Israeli politics until 1977 literally vanished as its ‘dream’ of a Hebraic proletarian metamorphosis couldn’t sustain itself. Due to the fact that Labour Zionism was shaped and operated in a dream mode, it could never adopt to a political reality that was molded by its own dream.

The Left is often too blind to the political and social conditions in which it operates. It never detects the growing wave of resentment it brings upon itself because operating in a dream mode inflicts a severe form of detachment. As Freud realised, the dream is there to sustain the slumber. It ignores political opposition by reducing it into an outer ‘noise.’ It either sets regions of blind spots (political correctness) or alternatively defines growing regions of ‘political outcasts’ (Trumpsters, Fascists, Racists, Deplorables, White supremacists etc.)

In November 2016 Hillary Clinton was in a state of a total shock when she woke up to learn that Donald Trump won the election. In her dream Hillary already won the election, the act of voting was just a formal procedure. Four years later, Biden, the DNC and pretty much the entire Mainstream media followed the exact same pollsters who were totally off-mark in 2016. They anticipated a ‘landslide victory.’ The fact that Donald Trump was meeting so many supporters in his open rallies must have been realised within the context of the ‘Left Dream’ as noisy disturbances. When Michael Moore warned the American Left that the GOP and Trump could make it again, not one in the American progressive universe cared to address his concerns. When people are asleep you are expected to walk on your tiptoes.

I assume that the contemporary American Left’s wet Dream is easy to describe: You go to sleep with Donald Trump in the White House, you wake up and he is gone. This simple dream describes exactly what happened in the early morning of the 4th of November. America went to sleep accepting that Trump, against all odds, did it again. In the wee small hours bookies all over the world put their money on his success by a rate as high as 7 to 1. In the morning suddenly the situation flipped: Trump was on his way out. On the face of it the American Left dream has materialised.

America is obviously divided in the middle. Those who favour Biden insist that he won the election. Those who support Trump are convinced that something unusually dishonest happened during that night and in the days to follow.

I do not have the means or the intention to tell or even try to determine who won the election but it is clear that the DNC, Biden, Harris and the entire American mainstream media do not let the tsunami of mistrust interfere with their ‘materialised dream.’ Biden doesn’t seem too concerned by the fact that America currently looks like a banana republic. Like in a banana republic, Americans do not trust their political system nor do they trust their institutions. People who live in banana republics learn quickly to expect the unexpectable to the point that the unexpectable is becomes the new normal. Biden doesn’t let reality interfere with the dream. As ‘president-elect’ he doesn’t waste time, he works with his transition team, he keeps the fantasy afloat. America is on the verge of a civil war but even that doesn’t bother the ‘president-elect’ and his transition team. In the progressive dream, vowing to ‘unite the nation’ is way more forceful that the reality of a sharp divide.

Back in 2006, Zizek provided a Lacanian insight into the reality that we currently see in the USA. “Reality,” Zizek wrote, “is for those who cannot sustain the dream.” It is always the hard-working people struggling for bread and butter who can’t sustain the fantasy of social change. It is always the working classes that push for concretization. They want America to be great again (Trump), they want Great Britain to be as ‘Great’ as implied by its name (Brexit), they want France to be French (Yellow Vests). Before it is too late, those who watched the so-called ‘Trumpsters’ yesterday in Washington DC should accept that the patriotic reality embodied by the flag must at least be as meaningful as the Identitarian ‘dream’ of ‘others united.’

Source: https://www.unz.com/gatzmon/the-interpretation-of-left-dreams/

Donate

The Long Goodbye of Social-Democracy

The Long Goodbye of  Social-Democracy

November 17, 2020

by Francis Lee for the Saker Blog

The ongoing process of political degeneration which has been happening in the UK Labour Party is basically part of a deep-going movement which has been taking place in all left-of-centre parties in Europe. In political/ideological terms, they have been swept away by the rampaging neo-liberal globalist forces – circa 1980 onwards and have, like good little boys and girls, trimmed their sails to the globalist agenda. This, straight betrayal has been justified by the usual TINA cliche. The roll-call of the sell-outs has included the SPD (Germany) the PS (France) Pasok/Syriza (Greece) the old ex-communist party of Italy, (now rebranded as the Democratic Party) PSOE (Spain) not forgetting the Democratic Party in the US. This historical betrayal has given the militant right a chance to attack the very real sell-out of the centre-left parties and publications which includes the Guardian, New York Times, Economist, Washington Post, . L’Express, La Figaro, Der Spiegel – the list is extensive.

THE BRITISH LABOUR PARTY

The Guardian newspaper had long been a supporter of the Labour Party but more recently has been the trend-setter in this ‘liberal turn’ if we may call it such. There has taken place an unseemly metamorphosis from centre-left to the Blairite right. Going back to earlier days the Manchester Guardian, as it was then called, steered an honest social-democratic course under the leadership of C.P.Scott famous for his catchphrase, ‘’Comment is free but facts are sacred.’’ was the ultimate statement of values for a free press and continued to under-pin the traditions of good newspapers throughout the western world, (but sadly of course this is no longer the case, not by a long shot).  Looking back, Scott and the then Manchester Guardian resolutely opposed the British war against the Dutch settlers (Boers) in South Africa (1899-1902). For his pains Scott’s home was physically attacked by jingoistic mobs and he required police protection, as did the property of the Manchester Guardian which was also attacked.

That was then, this is now.

The rot in the current Guardian newspaper began with the conversion of what was once a campaigning left-of-centre political publication into a straightforward business journal with a centre-right political orientation; this happened earlier in this century when the Scott Trust was rebranded as the Scott Trust Limited, along with the Guardian Media Group – GMG – both of whom became registered as a commercial company by decamping to the tax haven of the Cayman Islands British Overseas Territory, for tax reasons – i.e. tax avoidance.

THE CORBYN AFFAIR

As for the whole ‘anti-semitic’ brouhaha surrounding ex-leader of the Party, Jeremy Corbyn, and the Labour Party itself, this was engineered from both internal and external sources. It should be understood that anyone who is anyone in the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) and who entertains political and occupational preferment in the PLP is a member of the ‘Labour Friends of Israel’ – this is mandatory. The same is true of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats. So we have here a situation where an ostensibly sovereign state, the UK, has been penetrated by another sovereign state, Israel which in effect is selecting who and who shall not be members of the Labour Party’s policy and decision-making processes. This blatant process was caught by a mole planted by the Kuwaiti TV Station Al Jazeera and televised under the name of ‘The Lobby’ where the mole in question interviewed a member of the London Israeli embassy – Shai Masot – about the ‘taking down’ of pro-Palestinian politicians and spreading Zionist influence inside independent political groups active in the UK. This TV interview showed Mr Masot – who was blissfully unaware of being televised – discussing with his interlocutor how to cause embarrassment to pro-Palestinian politicians deemed to be detrimental to Israeli interests.

Students and campaigners told a reporter posing as a pro-Israel activist they had been given funding and support from Israel’s embassy in London to counter the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. When asked whether he had ever “built a group”, Mr Masot replied: “Yeah, I did several things like that, yeah…in Israel and here. Nothing I can share but yeah.’’

“It’s good to leave those organisations independent, but we help them actually.”

The UK National Union of Students said it was investigating alleged attempts to influence last year’s leadership election, which saw its first black, Muslim, female president Malia Bouattia voted in.

Following claims that opposing NUS members held “secret meetings” with activists supported by the Israeli embassy, a spokesperson for the union said: “The NUS takes these allegations seriously. We are looking into them and, when we have all the information available, the behaviour of NUS officers will be reviewed, and appropriate action taken.” (1)

This seemed outrageous, but such is the influence of extra-national political configurations in British politics. This was instanced in the manner in which the now ex-leader of the Labour party – Jeremy Corbyn – was subject to a relentless but bogus assault internally from the Blairites, the media and also Britain’s Jewish opponents on the basis of his ongoing support for Palestinian rights. Of course anyone who in Zionist terms is a supporter of Palestinian rights is ipso facto an anti-Semite. On absolutely no evidence Corbyn was suspended from the leadership of the party which was now under the leadership of one (Sir) Keir Starmer QC, who doesn’t seem to have any political views at all, apart from his unconditional support of Israel, which of course befits yet another political carpet bagger on the make. ‘What are my politics?’ What would you like them to be?’

Of course the same scenario also applies to the United States – a fortiori. This latter case of organized Jewish influence both internal and from outside (Israel) is so open, widespread and obvious that it barely needs mentioning. (2) Moreover, socialism in the United States, or even social-democracy, has, never, since the days of Eugene Debs been anything other than a minor curiosity and led by a leadership so venal that it collapses at the first serious challenge. Such was the fate of Bernie Sanders, who managed to capitulate to the DNC powers-that-be not once but twice.

But to return to the Labour Party, this political hollowing-out of what was once a mass and proud reformist party has by now been pretty much neutered and in keeping with centre-left conditions just about everywhere. The list does not make pretty reading. Currently there is no centre-left party, in western Europe at least, worthy of the name, the capitulation seems complete. As follows:

GREECE. THE RISE AND FALL OF SYRIZA

On its accession to power Syriza laid great emphasis on trying to convince their opponents that their proposals were financially sound and of benefit to all in the long-run. This is one of the characteristics of social-democracy. It is an approach based upon ‘the truth’, as they understood it, and rationality of their approach and compared favourably to the mistaken beliefs of their political opponents. What Syriza did not understand, however, was that the social virtues and heritage of social democratic reform was now history, buried deep under the refuse pile of new neoliberal values.

The political imperatives of SYRIZA’s position consisted of an adamantly committed policy to stay in the eurozone and the euro regime; but this was a regime of structural flaws which only benefitted the elites rather than ordinary folk. Concurrent with this the Greek people were consistently indicating in various polls taken that they did not want to leave the eurozone either. Like Syriza they wanted to end austerity and stay in Europe and keep the euro. Neither thus understood that the root of austerity lay in the neoliberal euro regime that they wanted to keep. One would have thought that following the crowd in this instance was a dereliction of duty on the part of the Syriza leadership who should have known better, but it is so much easier to take the easy way out than actually lead.

Syriza wanted a European version of the US 1930’s New Deal, but there was no FDR on the horizon, and, moreover, this was 70 years later, and history was not about to repeat itself.

The upshot of this sad historical nemesis was when Syriza took the road of least resistance. The European base of neoliberalism required the arrangement of goods and services and free movement of labour and capital which had indebted Greece (and other peripheral economies) and ensured some form of perpetual austerity. But this was precisely how the system was designed to work.

‘’Over the course of the third debt restructuring negotiations in 2015, Syriza would at first deny and then resist this reality, then concede in steps as it retreated from its positions and its Thessaloniki programme. In August 2015, it capitulated. Like its political predecessors, New Democracy in 2012, and PASOK in 2010, Syriza would also eventually settle into the ‘caretaker’ role for the neoliberal Troika.’’ (3)

FRANCE – LE PARTI SOCIALISTE – ABJECT FAILURE.

In late 2016, French President Francois Hollande became the first leader of the 5th Republic to announce that he would not seek re-election leaving his Parti Socialiste to find another candidate for the April 2017 presidential election. The five years of Hollande’s presidency had not been kind to the ruling party. Terrorist attacks, a shift to the right on domestic matters, persistent unemployment, internal party divisions, and even an illicit love affair, eroded confidence in Hollande’s government and left the Socialists with little in their playbook that remained popular with voters.

Hollande’s choice for economy minister, Emmanuel Macron, created new problems for the president right from the start. Just 36 when he was appointed in 2014, Macron was a former investment banker at a firm owned by the Rothschild family – an unusual choice for a president who once declared that the world of finance was his “enemy”.

Macron soon angered the Socialist’s left wing with his criticism  of the 35-hour work-week and by calling for the deregulation of the French economy. Socialist deputy Yann Galut spoke for many in his party when he accused Macron of “disowning all the values of the left”. But then what else from an investment banker did the party expect?

The pro-business reforms, known as the “Macron laws”, included allowing stores to remain open  on Sundays and late in the evenings. A more wide-ranging labour code 5, made it easier for firms to hire or fire and to extend employee working hours, soon followed suit. The proposed reforms prompted months of sometimes violent protests  over the summer from students and unions who were angry over diminished labour protections. Yes it was all straight from the neoliberal policy manual. Hollande’s government controversially pushed the bill  through parliament in June 2016 without holding a vote, igniting a new burst of outrage.

Macron was not the only member of Hollande’s cabinet to anger the party’s leftist base. Manuel Valls, 54 – the French Tony Blair – who served as interior minister and then prime minister before resigning to announce his own presidential run, has proved that even a Socialist Party can have a right wing.

As protests against labour reforms spread across France last summer, Valls once again took a hard line, moving to ban further demonstrations in Paris after sporadic outbreaks of violence. It was the first time since the 1960s that union demonstrations had been banned in France and it sparked outrage across the political spectrum, including within the already divided Socialist Party. After a weeklong stand-off, the unions were eventually allowed to hold a protest march via a different route.

Valls has said he wanted to ‘modernise’ the Socialist Party, even suggesting that it rename itself because the term “Socialist” is too “old-fashioned”. He says that a revitalised party could unite all of the country’s “progressive forces” into one movement. Valls’ brand of ‘right-wing Socialism’ (i.e., a neoliberal party) highlighted the quandary the party faced. If Hollande is seen as representing the traditional yet ineffectual left, its more dynamic members now look like the centre-right.

As unemployment continued to hit record highs, Valls infuriated many by saying more needed to be done to encourage the unemployed to get back to work. Macron, for his part, had said that the costly system of unemployment benefits needed to be revised, blaming the unions for deadlocking negotiations.

Statements such as these, coming as record numbers of French citizens struggled with a lack of job opportunities, have heightened resentment among much of the public and divided those within the Socialist party. And they seem more like admonishments that would come from the right-wing Les Républicains party than from the fresh new faces of France’s left. But after the erratic Hollande years, the party now faced the task of reinventing itself as a movement that combines traditional leftist values with a fresh dynamism that is ready to meet the challenges of the future. In short, the PS had to change into a neoliberal outfit. After all – TINA!

Humiliated, unloved, and threatened to be plundered by Macron’s movement, the French socialists stood shivering at a crossroad. Hardly unexpected of course. France was, after all, being corralled into the neoliberal sheep-pen.

France has predictably followed the universal neoliberal economic prescriptions and rewarded with the wholly expected failed outcomes. After growing at an estimated rate of 1.7% in 2018, GDP grew by an abysmal estimated 1.3% in 2019. Minimal growth rates needed to overcome this economic standstill needed to be at least 2% to make any impact on what has become a secular stagnation. This has had political ramifications.

The European elections of May 2019 saw the victory of the National Rally of Marine Le Pen (far right), gathering 23% of the vote, compared to 22% for the Republic in March of Emmanuel Macron. On the international scene, the president intends to strengthen the integration of the euro zone by revitalizing the Franco-German partnership. But Macron’s delusions of grandeur are simply swimming against the stream here with unemployment at 10%, trade figures all negative, private debt to GDP at 227% and Sovereign debt at 98%. Unquestionably France is in a deep structural political/economic crisis.

From Gaullism in 1945 consisting of independence and distrust of the Anglo-Saxon bloc, to the current force feeding of neoliberalism and an unquestioning loyalty to NATO. Mission accomplished? Not quite. And then comes the emergence of the Gilet Jaunes. What next for France?

GERMANY: THE SPD

The oldest, Social Democratic Party in Europe, the Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, can be traced back to the 1860s, and for much of the 20th and 21st centuries it has represented the centre-left in German politics, although not the far left politics of the pre-war KPD (Communists) and SAP (Socialist Workers’ Party’ where Willie Brandt was once a member). Nevertheless from 1891 to 1959 the Party at least theoretically espoused Marxism. Of course this all changed in the main due to Cold War but more importantly for the need for political deals and coalition governments which were made the sine qua non for the formation of governments in Germany. At the present time, the SPD is in a fragile coalition government together with the conservative CDU/CSU and the SPD, the Grand Coalition as it is called.

THE EUROPEAN POWER-HOUSE:

In economic terms Germany had always been the economic powerhouse of Europe and possibly even the world. It’s dynamism came from a globally competitive industrial base, pivoting on automobiles, chemicals, and machine tools. Its exports enabled it to command vast surpluses on current account thus providing the wherewithal to lend globally.

Whether this Teutonic pre-eminence was a conscious policy choice on the part of Germany, or merely a policy-drift due to the internal structure of Germany’s post-war policy configuration seems debatable. Germany had certainly bucked the Anglo-American trend of de-industrialisation and financialization which had become de rigueur internationally as a result of the putative ‘efficiency’ of the Anglo-American model. Germany had not deindustrialised, had a smallish stock market compared with other developed states, eschewed as far as possible a system of equity funding and maintained a traditional reliance on bank funding for industry since long term relations were easier to develop among corporations and banks and the internal structure of corporations is not driven by the desire to placate stock markets. Moreover, the German banking system had a multitiered and competitively structured organization which included a raft of smaller and medium sized banks, the Sparkassen, which operated with a local focus. This stood in stark opposition to the oligopolistic banking monoliths of the Atlantic world.

Additionally, there were further reasons why Germany emerged as the EU hegemon. Primarily, Germany did not sacrifice its world class industrial-export sector on the altar of deindustrialisation. But instead adopted and adapted its own variant of financialization while at the same time protected its industrial sector by manipulating its exchange rate to protect exports. The German manufacturing sector is highly productive, export-oriented and has maintained relatively strong union representation in the wage formation process compared to the rest of the private (domestic) sector which has modest productivity and relatively weak unions in comparison with other EU countries.

In the domestic economy, however, Germany was able to restructure (i.e., lower) wage costs and working conditions with the imposition of the Hartz reforms – a set of policies arrayed against German labour which pushed down costs through the implementation of ‘flexible’ labour markets. This gave Germany a competitive first-mover, edge in intra-European trade resulting in an ongoing surplus on its current account. And when one state achieves a (recurring) surplus on current account other states must record a deficit on current account. In this instance this was the southern periphery. If this smacked of neoliberalism –that’s because it was.

In sharp contrast to the southern periphery the eastern periphery of central Europe was not part of the eurozone which means that they were not ensnared in the Iron Cage of EMU and enabled to keep their own currencies. But heavy German investment in this area produced a core-periphery relationship where low-wage, semi-skilled assembly work was farmed out to Slovakia, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland. That is the usual pattern of FDI supply chains. High-end production, including R&D was kept at Home Base.

Additionally, Central European peripheries have come to depend heavily on Germany for technology and markets. If Germany faced a severe recession so would probably be the whole of Central Europe.

Thus, Germany was to become the overseer of an increasingly neo-liberal order precisely at the time when the 2008 blow-out was to cross the Atlantic and usher in a quasi-permanent period of instability for the whole EU project. The main actors in the future development of the EU were the ECB the EC and the IMF, the infamous Troika. The ECB in particular was the paragon of Banking, monetary and fiscal rectitude. This was underlined insofar as it was domiciled in Frankfurt as was the Bundesbank and was heavily influenced in policy terms by this particular institution.

Then came the 2020 derailment. Prior to this, however, growth rates had been zero to miniscule at less than 1% per quarter since 2018. Then came the yo-yo bounce in 2020. Ten Year Bunds Yields were at -0.53 (that’s a minus sign BTW), unemployment was beginning to rise, inflation was at -0.2% which means that it was actually deflation, interest rates were at zero, consumer confidence was at -3.1, retail sales at -2.2%, Sovereign Debt-to-GDP 68%, Private Debt-to-GDP at 154% (but these latter private figures were based upon 2018 statistics).

THE SPD VANISHING TRICK:

And where was the SPD during all this time? It was following the trend of course. The then party leader and Chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, defended his counter-reformist ‘Agenda 2010’ and praised Tony Blair’s ‘New Labour’ as a successful example of ‘modern’ social democracy. At the same time, up and down the country, some 90,000 workers responded to a call by the Trade Union Federation, the DGB, and demonstrated against attempts to dismantle the welfare state. In East Germany, 84% of all steel workers organised in the IG Metall voted in favour of industrial action for the 35-hour week which had been introduced in the West back in the 1990s.

Horrified by high unemployment (4) and fear of recession and even depression, Schroder and his think tanks were doing what they had always accused the previous Helmut Kohl government of doing: they were attacking the unemployed and not unemployment. They claimed that dismantling the welfare state and massive tax reductions were to the benefit of the employers and the rich but in general would open the path towards economic growth and a new jobs miracle. In doing this, they could count on the applause of the bourgeois media and politicians who kept pushing them further and further down that road.

But later developments in 2019 have led to a new inward turn of the SPD which will give the already rapidly changing party system a further push. Both the CDU and SPD have lost dramatically during recent European and regional elections. The winners have been the ‘woke’ Green party and the far-right Alternative fur Deutschland (AfD). The Green party, also led by a new team since January 2018, has been a clear beneficiary of the rise of the urban middle-class and the weakness of the two governing parties. The Green party is now solidly number two in the party system and highly likely to join the next government, either with the CDU or the two parties on the ‘left’, the SPD left centrist and Der Linke the old East German Communist Party.

CONCLUSION

Throughout Europe the Social-Democratic tradition has been in crisis since the 1980s onwards and is heading rapidly toward marginalization and oblivion. Having prostrated itself before the deities of neo-liberalism and globalization, and swallowed the holy dogmas whole there seems no way back. And if anything the situation in the southern and eastern peripheries are even more dire than those in Western Europe. The political structures in Europe now range from outright fascist, right and centre right, and an allegedly centre-left that acts like a centre-right, a Guardian-style liberal woke party. That’s it folks. Europe seems to be heading to a turbulent and ugly future

NOTES

(1) The Lobby – Al Jazeera – The Independent newspaper – London 12-January-2017

(2) The Israel Lobby – John J Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt – passim.

(3) Looting Greece: A New Financial Imperialism Emerges – Jack Rasmus – passim.

(4) The story of the German jobs miracle is misleading. It is true that the number of people in employment increased by more than 10 percent between 2003 and the end of 2016 from 39 to 43 million. But this was achieved mainly by replacing full-time jobs by part-time and mini jobs. In fact, actual working time did not increase at all up to 2010; the work was just spread over more people.” And also since the economic climate improved in 2011, the volume of work has been growing much more slowly than employment and is still below the levels of the early 1990s. And that is why in 2016, 4.8 million people in Germany were living entirely from mini jobs. A further 1.5 million are working against their will in part-time jobs. And then there are around 1 million contract workers and more than 2 million self-employed without employees, and most of them do not have enough work.

The “industrial reserve army“ of the unemployed, as Karl Marx once called them, “was reduced in size at the price of a growth in the reserve army of the under-employed in part-time work and the over-employed who have to do several jobs to get by.”

%d bloggers like this: