Quranic view on Russia and The Eastern Orthodox Christianity

November 30, 2017

لُعِنَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِن بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ عَلَىٰ لِسَانِ دَاوُودَ وَعِيسَى ابْنِ مَرْيَمَ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ بِمَا عَصَوا وَّكَانُوا يَعْتَدُونَ (78) كَانُوا لَا يَتَنَاهَوْنَ عَن مُّنكَرٍ فَعَلُوهُ ۚ لَبِئْسَ مَا كَانُوا يَفْعَلُونَ (79) تَرَىٰ كَثِيرًا مِّنْهُمْ يَتَوَلَّوْنَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا ۚ لَبِئْسَ مَا قَدَّمَتْ لَهُمْ أَنفُسُهُمْ أَن سَخِطَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِمْ وَفِي الْعَذَابِ هُمْ خَالِدُونَ (80) وَلَوْ كَانُوا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالنَّبِيِّ وَمَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْهِ مَا اتَّخَذُوهُمْ أَوْلِيَاءَ وَلَٰكِنَّ كَثِيرًا مِّنْهُمْ فَاسِقُونَ (81) ۞ لَتَجِدَنَّ أَشَدَّ النَّاسِ عَدَاوَةً لِّلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا الْيَهُودَ وَالَّذِينَ أَشْرَكُوا ۖ وَلَتَجِدَنَّ أَقْرَبَهُم مَّوَدَّةً لِّلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا الَّذِينَ قَالُوا إِنَّا نَصَارَىٰ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّ مِنْهُمْ قِسِّيسِينَ وَرُهْبَانًا وَأَنَّهُمْ لَا يَسْتَكْبِرُونَ (82) وَإِذَا سَمِعُوا مَا أُنزِلَ إِلَى الرَّسُولِ تَرَىٰ أَعْيُنَهُمْ تَفِيضُ مِنَ الدَّمْعِ مِمَّا عَرَفُوا مِنَ الْحَقِّ ۖ يَقُولُونَ رَبَّنَا آمَنَّا فَاكْتُبْنَا مَعَ الشَّاهِدِينَ (83)


Brotherhood, Wahabism: Two Faces of the Same Coin


Apr 13, 2012

All Roads Lead to Tel Aviv

25-11-2017 | 08:25

Both “Israel” and the Arab monarchies in the Persian Gulf have become a lot less shy about openly discussing their pursuit of rapprochement.

Netanyahu Salman

Hardly a week goes by without an “Israeli” official coming out to brag about what are supposedly clandestine ties.

The latest headline-grabbing revelations came from the “Israeli” Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who said that “fruitful cooperation with Arab countries is usually covert”.

But the “cooperation” is clearly not “covert” enough to prevent the “Israeli” premier from telling the whole world about it in an open forum.

Of course, the big ‘secret’ is that the absence of an “Israeli” flag flying over a building in Riyadh does not translate into an absence of a political, military and economic relationship that dates back to the days of the British Empire.

The endorsement of mass treason

Although the borders of the modern-day Middle East were sketched out in London and other western capitals, the creation of Saudi Arabia is unique in that its frontiers are the product of British efforts to facilitate the creation of “Israel.”

Throughout the 1920s, Ibn Saud and his Wahhabi armies eclipsed two Arab sheikhdoms, Ha’il and Hijaz, over their rejection of the British Empire’s Zionist project in Palestine.

As such, the Judaification of Palestine is embedded in the geopolitical DNA of contemporary Saudi Arabia.

The US-based Saudi dissident, Ali al-Ahmad, believes

“the British foresaw that before you could create “Israel”, you must create its foundations and the foundations for “Israel” are two countries in the region: Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Jordan is the buffer zone and Saudi Arabia legitimizes “Israel”.”

Naturally, in the years that followed, Saudi Arabia would never participate in a single Arab-“Israeli” war, or lose a single soldier to the fight against the “Israeli” occupation of Arab lands.

Whether facilitating flight paths for “Israeli” jets to bomb targets in faraway places like Iraq, or supporting “Israeli”-armed British proxies in North Yemen, the Al Saud family would maintain a fruitful relationship with Tel Aviv.

So much so that by 1981, Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Fahd Bin Abd Al-Aziz presented his eight-point peace plan, which suggested a region-wide recognition of “Israel.”

At the time, Libya’s Foreign Minister Abdulati Obeidi said that

“the Saudis are worse than Sadat.”

”At least Sadat did it alone. Sadat was shot for treason, and now the Arab states are being asked to endorse mass treason,” he said.

During the time of Hafez al-Assad’s Syria, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya, Fahd still had to “ask”.

But today, Crown Prince Muhammad Bin Salman is doing nothing of the kind.

Two Arab leaders and traditional Saudi allies were summoned to Riyadh this month. Both the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Lebanon’s Prime Minister Saad Al-Hariri were humiliated and given ultimatums by Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler.

Abbas was told bluntly he had to choose between collaborating with US President Donald Trump’s so-called peace initiative or resign. Under added pressure from Washington, he chose the former.

Meanwhile, Hariri was forced to resign from Riyadh and then detained. That fiasco was also linked to the Saudi rapprochement with Tel Aviv, with Lebanon being selected as the venue for the first open collaboration between the kingdom and “Israel.”

According to Richard Becker of the ANSWER Coalition,

“the reality is that there is an alliance that has long existed, headed by the United States, “Israel” and Saudi Arabia, as well as other reactionary governments, against the Palestinian people, against the people who live in Saudi Arabia and against the Arab people as a whole.”

In yet another shameless effort to consolidate its position in the Arab world, which is increasingly polarized over Riyadh’s push to normalize ties with “Israel”, the Saudis convened an emergency Arab League summit.

During the gathering in Cairo, Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister, Adel al-Jubeir, accused Iran of aiming “to destabilize” the region. The summit’s final statement also accused Lebanon’s Hezbollah of “supporting terrorism”.

Ali al-Ahmad explains that

“throughout history, all those that were at war with “Israel” were also at odds with the Saudi monarchy. Be it the forces of political Islam or secularists like Nasser. That has always been the case, because the nature of Saudi Arabia is to serve as an insurance policy for “Israel”.”

Fight for the Jews

Muhammad Bin Salman’s pre-emptive coup, which purged the royal family of potential opponents, tore up the kingdom’s traditional power-sharing arrangement into pieces.

Securing the crucial support from the Trump White House in his ascent to the Saudi throne obliged Bin Salman to also alter the longstanding formula governing Middle Eastern affairs.

Thus, the two-state solution became obsolete and the ‘secret’, decades-old “Israeli”-Saudi relationship is going public.

These political and social earthquakes require dramatic adjustments in the Arab world’s perception of the Zionist agenda and the existence of “Israel”.

So, while Saudi satellite states entertain anti-Iranian Jewish groups, Bin Salman is comparing the Leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to the man that sought to wipe out the Jewish people during World War II.

“The American-“Israeli”-Saudi project that gave rise to Daesh was designed to counter Iran and now that this project collapsed they need another strategy,” al-Ahmad adds. “Bin Salman’s use of the word ‘Hitler’ is very significant because he is basically trying to create this narrative that we have to fight all together to protect the Jews from ‘Hitler'”.

“That gives you an idea of what’s coming and that’s a clear and open Saudi alliance with “Israel” to target Iran,” he opined.

The region is brimming with rumors that King Salman is preparing to abdicate in favor of the crown prince any day now. And if the coldly calculated, ruthless behavior of the young king-in-waiting is any indication of what he may do once the throne is his, the unholy alliance between “Israel” and his country only promises to be even more shamelessly open and certainly a whole lot more audacious.

Source: Al-Ahed

Saudi Arabia Has Become An «Irrational Actor in ME»

24-11-2017 | 16:10

Saudi Arabia has become much more aggressive in the Middle East as the United States has pulled back from its traditional role in the region, according to Philippe Dauba-Pantanacce, global geopolitical strategist at Standard Chartered bank.

Saudi Crown Prince MBS

“We’re seeing a series of miscalculations … We tend to think that Saudi Arabia has become an irrational actor in the Middle East,” Dauba-Pantanacce told CNBC Thursday.

His comments come as the Sunni Islamic kingdom’s foreign policy actions are increasingly forcing instability upon smaller nations, where analysts believe Saudi Arabia is seeking to amplify sectarian divisions. These moves have unfolded against the backdrop of escalating competition between Saudi Arabia and its Shia arch-rival Iran.

“I say this because every single foreign venture they (Saudi Arabia) try has reached the opposite result that they wanted. In Yemen, in Qatar, and now in Lebanon,” he said.

In the latest twist to come out of Middle East geopolitics, Lebanon’s Prime Minister Saad Hariri on Wednesday suspended his previous resignation, apparently in order to open “a new gateway for responsible dialogue,” he said in a statement. Whether this came with Saudi approval is not yet known.

The prime minister returned to Beirut Tuesday night following an unexpected two-week stay in Saudi Arabia, where he delivered a shock resignation from the capital Riyadh on November 4. This prompted widespread speculation that the prime minister was “held hostage,” as well as consensus among analysts that Saudi Arabia forced Hariri to resign.

“What Saudi Arabia is miscalculating is that in (holding) the PM of Lebanon probably against his will in the country, it has managed the feat of unifying all of Lebanon against Saudi, including the constituency of Lebanon that is traditionally sympathetic to Saudi,” the strategist explained.

An ‘outbreak of unity’

A diverse country of 18 different religious groups, Lebanon’s fragile political system is based on power-sharing between Sunnis, Shiites and Christians. This often results in a fractured and gridlocked government and society, most vividly manifested in a bloody 15-year civil war that only ended in 1990.

Hariri, a Sunni who holds Saudi citizenship and is a traditional Saudi ally, has since 2016 led a consensus government including Shia political party and group Hezbollah — something the Saudis apparently would not tolerate. The group, which Saudi Arabia classifies as a “terrorist” organization, is Lebanon’s most powerful political body.

Saudi Arabia’s efforts are part of its campaign to isolate Hezbollah and freeze its involvement in regional conflicts in which the Sunni kingdom has interests, like Yemen and Syria. But as Dauba-Pantanacce explained, its military campaign in Yemen has actually prompted greater Iranian involvement there, and its actions concerning Lebanon have brought the fractured country together.

Supporters of Lebanon’s resigned Prime Minister Saad Hariri hold up placards demanding his return from Saudi Arabia on the starting line of Beirut’s annual marathon on November 12, 2017. Hariri announced on November 4 in a televised statement from Riyadh that he would be stepping down from the post, sending shock waves through Lebanese politics.

Supporters of Lebanon’s resigned Prime Minister Saad Hariri hold up placards demanding his return from Saudi Arabia on the starting line of Beirut’s annual marathon on November 22, 2017. Hariri announced on November 4 in a televised statement from Riyadh that he would be stepping down from the post, sending shock waves through Lebanese politics.

“We see an outbreak of unity in Lebanon for their PM because they saw the attitude of Saudi Arabia as humiliating for Lebanon. It’s interesting that we’ve seen this unity against Saudi — Saudi probably outplayed its hand in this conflict,” he told CNBC.

Dauba-Pantanacce attributed the kingdom’s intensifying foreign aggression to Saudi Arabia’s new leadership, headed up by the young Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The prince has moved to consolidate power through both foreign interventions like its offensive in Yemen and a domestic “anti-corruption” purge of government officials. Dauba-Pantanacce also noted the US’s “retrenchment” from its traditional role in the region as partly to blame for growing Saudi influence.

Source: CNBC, Edited by website team

The Saudi System and Why Its Change May Fail

The Saudi System and Why Its Change May Fail

EDITOR’S CHOICE | 21.11.2017

The Saudi System and Why Its Change May Fail

The Saudi clown prince Mohammad Bin Salman is an impulsive tyrant. But what accounts for the urge to purge the country of any potential competing power center Why does he run a such an activist foreign policy? The answer might be Iran. Not Iran the country, but Iran the system.

Since the U.S. war on Iraq the sclerotic Saudi Arabia continuously lost standing in its region. The Iranian model gained ground. A decade later the authoritarian Arab systems were challenged by the so called “Arab spring”. While the movements in the various countries -as far as their were genuine- have failed, they were a warning sign for things to come.

Saudi Arabia reacted to the challenges by moving away from a sedate, consensual run family business towards a centrally controlled, supercharged tyranny. The move allows for more flexible and faster reactions to any future challenge. But it also increases the chance of making mistakes. To understand why this endeavor is likely to fail one needs look at the traditional economic and social system that is the fabric of the country. The fate of the Hariri dynasty is an example for it.

Since Salman climbed the throne he has moved to eliminate all competition to his rule. The religious establishment was purged of any opposition. Its police arm was reigned in. First crown prince Murqrin was removed and then crown prince Nayef. They were replaced with Salman’s inexperienced son. Economic and military powers were concentrated in his hands. During the recent night of the long knives powerful family members and business people were detained. The Wall Street Journal reported of a second arrest wave. More higher ups have been incarcerated. This round includes senior military commanders and very wealthy business people.

As the prison for the arrested VIPs, the Ritz-Carlton hotel, is fully booked, the next door Mariott is now put to use. Qualified personal was hired to handle the prisoners:

As many as 17 people detained in the anti-corruption campaign have required medical treatment for abuse by their captors, according to a doctor from the nearest hospital and an American official tracking the situation.

The former Egyptian security chief, Habib el-Adli, said by one of his advisers and a former Egyptian interior minister to be advising Prince Mohammed, earned a reputation for brutality and torture under President Hosni Mubarak.

After the torture reports spread due to employees of local hospitals, a medical unit was established in the Ritz itself.

My assertion in earlier pieces, that one motive of the arrest wave was to fleece the prisoners, is confirmed. The arrested rich people are pressed into “plea deals” in which they give up their assets in exchange for better treatment and some restricted kind of freedom. The aim is to “recover” up to $800 billion in so called “corruption” money. Thousands of domestic and international accounts have been blocked by the central bank of Saudi Arabia. They will eventually be confiscated. But Saudi billionaires have long been looking for ways to park their money outside of the country. The accounts which were now blocked are likely small change compared to their total holdings in this or that tax haven. Historically the recoveries of such assets is problematic:

Asset recovery programs never really go quite to plan. They are beset by obstacles — most often in the form of wealth squirreled away offshore and political infighting over wealth seized onshore.

Most likely, Saudi Arabia will obtain a sliver of these assets — say in the tens of billions of dollars — a useful, but temporary, gain. What happens after that depends on how Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman re-sets relations with business.

The financial success of the MbS raids will be insignificant. The financial damage he causes with his jihad against his own family members will be significant. It ruins his plans for attracting foreign investment:

“Half my Rolodex is in the Ritz right now. And they want me to invest there now? No way,” said one senior investor. “The wall of money that was going to deploy into the kingdom is falling apart.”

One can not steal money from some people and then expect other people to trust assurances that such could never happen to them. MbS’s big plans for Neom, a $500 billion artificial city financed by foreign investors, will fall apart.

To accuse princes and high officials of “corruption” is a fancy excuse. “Corruption” is how business is done in Saudi Arabia. It is tightly connected to the traditional ruling system. The king and his son are trying to change both:

Foreign investors tend to enter the Saudi market via partnerships with established business franchises or princes as they seek to exploit their domestic clout to navigate a complicated bureaucratic landscape.

The same goes for any state tender. To contract for building a road or public housing a company will have to find a prince or high official with the necessary clout. To get a tender signed it will have to promise, or pay upfront, a share of the expected profits. When the job is finishes it will need to come back to get its bill paid. No money will flow for the delivered work unless another bribe is paid. Contracts are calculated with 40% on top to compensate for these necessary lubricants.

The systems works. It becomes problematic when a contractor delivers shoddy work, but can still bribe his patron into accepting it. Drainage man-hole covers in Saudi streets, without the necessary drainage tunnels below them, are a well known and despised phenomenon.

Rafic Hariri, the father of the Lebanese premier minister Saad Hariri, built a construction empire in Saudi Arabia by paying the right people. He was also a capable manager who ran his business, Saudi Oger, well. He was also the Saudis man in Lebanon and did his best to fulfill that role.

His son Saad never got a grip on the business site. By 2012, seven years after Rafic Hariri had been assassinated, the family business in Saudi Arabia ran into trouble:

Almost a year ago, the Saudis began keeping an eye on Hariri’s company, which reeked of corruption. Several high-ranking officials – some close to Saad Hariri – were accused of theft and extortion. But Hariri could not find a solution to the crisis, nor was he able to restore the confidence that the company lost in the market.

So he began a major pruning operation, laying off lower-level employees without any indication of objections to their job performance. The dismissals did not even spare Saudi nationals, leading to widespread dissent.

The Saudis once treated the company with care, providing it with contracts in the region’s biggest oil economy. Now, the company is suffering from internal disputes and theft. It became closer to a scrapyard for the Kingdom.

Saad Hariri had the wrong contacts, bribed the wrong people and delivered shoddy work which made his company an easy target. He also failed to be a reliable Saudi asset in Lebanon. There the Shia Hizbullah gained in standing while the Sunnis, led by Hariri, lost political ground.

The Hariri company took up large loans to finance its giant construction projects for the Saudi government. But by 2014 oil prices had fallen and the Kingdom simply stopped paying its bills. It is said to own $9 billion to the Hariri enterprises. Other Saudi constructions companies, like the Bin Laden group, also had troublesome times. But they were bailed out by the Saudi government with fresh loans and new contracts.

No new contracts were issued to Hariri. No new bank loans were available to him and his bills were not paid. The Saudis demanded control over Lebanon but Hariri could not deliver. In July, after 39 mostly successful years, Saudi Oger went out of business. The Hariri family is practically bankrupt.

Hariri’s two youngest children, 16 and 12 years old, are kept hostage in Saudi Arabia. After the recent trip to Paris his wife also returned to Riyadh. The French President Macron had intervened and Hariri was allowed to leave Saudi Arabia. But Macron failed (intentionally?) to free him from Saudi influence. Hariri’s financial means and his family are under control of the Saudi tyrant. He is not free in any of his political, business and personal decisions.

Hariri is pressed to now drive a political hardline against Hizbullah in Lebanon. He knows that this can not be successful but his mischievous Saudi minder, the Minister for Gulf Affairs Thamer, does not understand this. His boss, MbS, believes that the whole world can and should be run the same way he wants to run his country.

Bloomberg’s Erik Schatzker has long observed how business is done in Saudi Arabia. He had portrait the Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. His recent observations at a nightly desert picnic explains how the al Saud family used to run the country:

It was almost midnight when the prince held a Majlis, a traditional Bedouin ceremony in which tribesmen come to pay their respects and ask for charity. A line of men in white robes and red-and-white Arab headdresses stretched into the darkness. One by one they approached, removing their sandals, bowing and handing him pieces of paper. Some recited poetry. The prince scribbled on each cover sheet and put the papers on a stack.

Saudi Arabia used to run on patronage:

Saudi society is divided by tribe, region, sect, degree (or nature of religiosity), and class. Although these various groups are only rarely organized in formal structures outside of the state, many developed special connections with specific state bodies, turning the sprawling state apparatus into constituencies of sorts.

Middle East expert Steffen Hertog has aptly described how the Saudi state emerged in the oil era: leading princes carved out structures they could dominate; state institutions worked in silos and coordinated poorly; and networks of beneficiaries, contractors, and influence brokers populated various bureaucracies. The Saudi state expanded rapidly into an uncoordinated group of what Hertog goes so far as to call “fiefdoms.”

High up princes take care of lower ranking ones. Each has common folks, clans or whole tribes he is supposed to take care of. Obedience is bought by controlling the “social” spending that trickles down through this pyramid. The princes make their money by having their fingers in, or “taxing”, all kind of state businesses. It is this money that sponsors their luxurious life as well as the benefits they distribute. This was never seen as corruption as it is understood in the west. For decades these tribute payments were simply owned to the princes. They had a birth-right to them.

MbS “corruption” ride is destroying that system without him having a replacement. Saudi Arabia has been run as a family business. Decisions in recent decades were taken by consensus. Every part of the family was allowed to have its cash generating fiefdom and patronage network. The rule of King Salman and his activist son are trying to change that. They want to concentrate all business and all decisions in one hand.

Mohammad bin Salman’s view of the world is that of Louis XIV – “L’etat, c’est moi” – I am the state. In his own view MbS is not just a crown prince or the future king of the state of Saudi Arabia. He, and he alone, is Saudi Arabia. He is the state. He let this view known in an interview with the Economist in January 2016:

[W]e have clear programmes over the next five years. We announced some of them, and the rest we will announce in the near future. In addition to this, my debt-to-GDP is only 5%. So I have all points of strength, and I have the opportunities to increase our non-oil revenues in many sectors, and I have a global economic network.

As I remarked at that time:

The young dude not only thinks he owns the country, he actually thinks he is the country. He has debt-to-GDP, he has ten million jobs in reserve, he has all women of Saudi Arabia as productive factor and he has scary population growth.

Does the guy understand that such an attitude guarantees that he personally will be held responsible for everything that will inevitably go wrong with his country?

Saudi Arabia and its state apparatus have for decades been build on an informal but elaborate system of personal relations and patronage. MbS expects that he can take out one part of the system, the princes and businessmen, and the rest will follow from that. He will be the one to control it all.

That is a doubtful endeavor. The ministries and local administrations are used to do their business under tutelage. Eliminating the leadership caste that controlled them will not turn them into corruption free technocracies. Seeing the exemplary punishments MbS hands out at the Ritz the bureaucracies will stop working. They will delay any decisions out of fear until they have the okay from the very top.

Ten-thousands of tribal and clan leaders are bound to and depend on the patronage system. The hundreds of people who sought audience with Alwaleed bin Talal at the desert picnic will turn whereto? Who will take up their issues with higher authorities? Who will provide them with hand outs and the “trickle down” money they depend on?

Another target of Mohammed bin Salman’s activities have been the religious authorities. Some critical sheiks have been incarcerated, others are held incommunicado. The Salman “revolution from the top” extends into their judiciary role:

Historically, Saudi leaders have propounded the view that the sharia is the country’s highest law and the overall legal system operates within its bounds.

the domination of the religious establishment in law is ending. The king and crown prince are clearly favoring (and fostering) religious figures who repudiate some long-standing official views.

Bin Salman is purging the religious establishment, the military, the competing members of the families, the business people and the bureaucracy. He wants to run the state by his own. He demands the right to review any decision in the legal, business and foreign policy realm. He has authority to punish people responsible for decisions he dislikes. Under this concept any personal initiatives will become extinct.

The country is too big for one person to control. MbS can not take all decisions by himself. No large system can work like that. The people will soon become unhappy with his centralized and unresponsive control.

That is already visible in his failing foreign policy. MbS wants to be seen as the indisputable “leader of the Islamic world”. His hate for everything Iran originates there. The Iranian system of a participatory and democratic Islamic state is a living alternative to the autocratic model he wants to implement in Saudi Arabia. The western model of a “liberal democracy” does not adapt well to the historic social models that are prevalent in the Middle East. But the Iranian system is genuine and fits the local culture. It is the sole competition he fears. It must be destroyed by any means.

But all his attempts to counter Iran (even where it was not involved) have been unsuccessful. Saudi interventions in Yemen, Qatar, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon have been disastrous. Over the weekend the Arab League delivered the usual criticism of Iran but decided on nothing else. Half of the Arab League states, including the powerful Egypt, are not willing to follow the aggressive Saudi course. Mohmmed bin Salman’s grant scheme of using Israel and the U.S. to fight Iran in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and Iran itself is unraveling.

The Saudi response to the competition of the Iranian system is a move towards more authoritarian rule. This is hoped to allow for more agile policies and responses. But the move breaks the traditional ruling system. It removes the sensible impediments to impulsive foreign policies. It creates the contitions for its very failure.


Debate: The end of Daesh and its caliphate

سورية والحلفاء يكسرون عظم امريكا في البوكمال .. غرناطة داعش واقتلاع المسمار الأخير


نارام سرجون

في الحروب الكبيرة تكون خسارة المعقل الأخير أقسى من خسارة كل الحرب .. وأشد مرارة في الروح من خسارة كل المدن لأنها تعني الخاتمة ونهاية عصر وبداية عصر .. وهي الخط الفاصل بين النهاية والبداية .. بين التاريخ والمستقبل .. فبرغم سقوط كل المدن الاندلسية فان ذاكرة العرب والمسلمين لايمكن أن تنسى سقوط غرناطة المدينة الاخيرة الباقية لهم في أندلسهم .. وبقيت غرناطة منذ قرابة 600 سنة تنبض كالقهر والعار في وجدانهم دون بقية المدن التي خرجوا منها وكأنها كانت كل الأندلس ..

فبقاء حي واحد أو شارع في مدينة محاصرة عصيا على الخصم فانه يعني أن المدافع لايزال على قيد الحياة وأن جثته لاتزال فيها بعض الروح والنبض في جسد مثخن بالجراح وقد فقد الوعي وصار ينزف ببطء حتى الموت .. ولاينتشي الفائز بنصره كاملا الا باغماد خنجره في طعنة الرحمة القاتلة في القلب ليحتفل بأعلى صوت .. ولذلك تكون آخر المعارك من الأشرس على الاطلاق حيث يستميت الخصوم في القتال لما للنصر من أهمية رمزية لاتضاهى ..

من بين كل المعارك التي خاضتها القوات السورية وحلفاؤها فان معركة البوكمال لها مذاق خاص ووقع خاص لأنها غرناطة مملكة داعش .. وبشكل أدق انها “غرناطة” أميريكا والمدينة الأخيرة الباقية في الشرق الرهيب الذي أرادت أن تبنيه اميريكا من جماجمنا .. ولذلك فقد قررت أميريكا أن تكون هذه المدينة كالعظمة في الحلق .. والطعنة في الظهر .. وجيبا متقيحا في الجغرافيا الأهم بين سورية والعراق .. الأميريكيون يريدون نصرا ناقصا لسورية وحلفائها ويراد للمعركة في البوكمال أن تقول بأن الثمن الذي تريده اميريكا لخروجها من سورية ليس كافيا ولم يتم الاتفاق عليه .. بل وأعلن الاميريكيون انهم باقون في سورية حتى التسوية السياسية وأعلنوا عن عديد قواتهم التي في البيانات الرسمية هي بحدود 506 جنود وفي زلات اللسان تتجاوز الأربعة آلاف .. ولكن هناك مأزق قانوني وشرعي للأميريكيين لايستهان به .. فاذا ما تم دحر داعش في النقطة الأخيرة في البوكمال فان تبرير وجود اميريكا حتى بذريعة انتظار التسوية لم يعد قانونيا ولاشرعيا ولايغطيه قرار مجلس الأمن الذي حصلت عليه لصناعة التحالف الكبير المفوض بمحاربة داعش وليس بتحقيق التسوية .. والبوكمال هي النقطة الأخيرة التي بقيت في شرعية الوجود الاميريكي .. وهي تشبه مسمار جحا وتتعلق اميريكا بها كما يحدث عندما يبتر ذراع محارب ولايبقى معلقا بالجسد الا من خلال قطعة جلد صغيرة بعد قطع العظم واللحم ..

وقرر الاميريكيون جعل معركة البوكمال مكلفة واستقدموا كل مخزون الانتحاريين وأرسلوا أشرس المقاتلين الى المدينة وعززوا ذلك بنقل مقاتلي دير الزور وغيرها الى البوكمال وقاموا حتى بحرب الكترونية عالية التقنية لمنع الطيران الروسي من تحقيق قصف ورصد دقيقين والقيام بعمليات التنسيق والاستطلاع .. ولتأخير النصر وجعل المعركة صعبة يجب ان تكون مكلفة جدا سياسيا وعسكريا .. فحاول الأميريكيون ابتزاز السوريين والروس بالملف الكيماوي الذي طرحوه للنقاش كهراوة تهديد من أجل ابقاء جيب البوكمال منطقة باردة ومحايدة حتى اتمام الاتفاقات النهائية .. ولكن الابتزاز لم يفلح وكسر الروس الهراوة الاميريكية دون أي اكتراث ..

وبالمقابل قرر الحلفاء أن أميريكا يجب أن يكسر رأسها وعظمها في آخر معركة في البوكمال لما تعنيه المعركة الأخيرة في الشرق من الحد الفاصل بين النهايات والبدايات .. وبين الجد واللعب .. فتم حشد قوات فائقة التدريب لها مهمة واحدة فقط هي اقتلاع أميريكا من البوكمال .. بالقوة .. وقد بدأ العظم الأميريكي يتكسر ولم يبق من ذراع اميريكا الا آخر قطعة جلد معلقة ..

بالنسبة لنا كسوريين فان دمشق كانت في نظر الأميريكيين معركة غرناطة الأخيرة لهم التي ستخرج هذا الشرق من التاريخ ومن الزمن وترسم النهايات والبدايات بعد أن خرجت القاهرة وبغداد والقدس وبيروت وعدن .. ولكن يقول التاريخ أن غرناطة الاندلس كان يحكمها بقايا ملوك الطوائف وملك صغير هو عبدالله الصغير .. وكان الاميريكيون يريدون أن يحكم دمشق زعماء الطوائف و شخص معارض من مقاس (أبو عبدالله الصغير) وكانت من أجل تلك الغاية تفصّل كل يوم واحدا جديدا وصغيرا جديدا وصعلوكا جديدا .. أما دمشق فلن تكون غرناطة .. ولايمكن ان تسقط .. لأنه ليس فيها ابو عبدالله الصغير وليس فيها صغار ولن تقبل أن تحكمها الطوائف ..

مايجب أن نعرفه الآن أن درس غرناطة التاريخي لالبس فيه .. وهو أن المدن التي يحكمها الصغار والعملاء وملوك الطوائف لاتصمد أمام الفاتحين .. وان غرناطة الاندلس لم تكن لتسقط لو لم يحكمها بقايا ملوك الطوائف والملوك الصغار .. ولذلك فان كل من خاض الحرب ضد سورية وتحصن في مدنها باسم الطوائف وملوكهم وأمرائهم من العربان خرج من كل المدن السورية التي غزاها باسم الطوائف .. وعلى العكس فانه هو من صارت له مدينة أخيرة تمثل غرناطته الطائفية التي يحاول الحفاظ عليها يائسا .. وهي مسماره الأخير .. وفي كل غرناطة طائفية صنعها الاميركيون والاتراك والسعوديون كان هناك (ملوك صغار) .. ففي غوطة دمشق غرناطة السعودية ومسمارها الأخير .. والتي سيتم اقتلاعها كما اقتلعت غرناطة أميريكا الداعشية في البوكمال وصغار الخلفاء الدواعش .. ولتركيا غرناطتها الأخيرة في ادلب وملوكها الصغار وهي تحاول تحييدها وابعادها عن نفاذ صبر الحلفاء .. ولاسرائيل غرناطتها الأخيرة وعملاؤها في الجنوب السوري والتي ستقتلع من جذورها ..

وعلى كل من كان يبني غرناطته وزمن حكم الطوائف في أي مكان من سورية أو يتحصن في غرناطته .. عليه أن يتذكر أننا قادمون كالقدر لكسر عظم من يقف في مدن الشرق ليحيلها الى غرناطة من الطوائف .. ولسحق لحمه واقتلاعه كالمسمار الأخير .. ولايهمنا من كان معه .. سواء كانت أميريكا أو السعودية أو اسرائيل أو تركيا أو الأكراد الانفصاليون ..

ولاشك أن لحن تحرير المدن والأراضي يكون أجمل دوما في المدينة الأخيرة ..

استمعوا للحن اقتلاع المسمار في البوكمال .. وللحن كسر العظم الأميريكي وهو يطقطق على ضفة الفرات .. وانتظروا .. سقوط كل الغرناطات التي يحكمها عباد الله الصغار .. وممالك الطوائف ..

%d bloggers like this: