In Memory of Philip Roth

May 26, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

Introduction by GA: I wrote the following  book review a decade ago. 10 years later, Israel and its subservient English Speaking Empire are still mounting pressure on Iran,  the Middle East is bleeding and peace looks like a remote fantasy. Pre TSD is the medium in which we operate and a prospect of a better future seems like a delusional dream. A decade ago I concluded this review wiring that “the current plot isn’t just against America. It is a plot against humanity and human dignity.” Sadly, nothing really changed.

6_13_025.jpg

The Plot Against America – a book report and a reality check

by Gilad Atzmon

…Roth is no doubt an astonishing writer but somehow he has always failed to convince me. I always had the feeling that Roth is just too aware of his enormous talent; something that made him slightly technical and pretentious at times. Being a prolific writer, Roth can be slightly impersonal to my taste and yet, in his latest book he is free from that. No literary imposed tactics or strategies can be traced. In his latest book, Roth is overwhelmingly personal. Astonishingly enough, the fictional reality he conveys is so convincing that I found myself totally captivated from beginning to end. So enthralled was I, that I even managed to forget how depressing the world is out there. I avoided the anti-Iranian media blitz. I switched it off for three days and let the international community attack the Iranian president in a single Judeified voice.

‘The Plot Against America’ is a fictional tale that unwinds like a historical document enriched with personal detail. Its theme is: what would have happened if ace pilot Charles Lindbergh, the man who made the first solo transatlantic flight in 1927, the man who later called Hitler ‘a great man’, and was decorated by the Führer for his services to the Reich, had run for the American presidency against Roosevelt in 1940 and managed to win? Lindbergh’s message to the American nation is a classic Republican isolationist one. ‘No more war! Never again will young Americans die on foreign soil’. The year is obviously 1940 and Lindbergh is referring to Europe and the Pacific rather than Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria or Iran. In Roth’s book, instead of Roosevelt being elected for an unprecedented third term, Lindbergh wins in a landslide victory. He then signs non-aggression treaties with Germany and Japan. Soon enough the charismatic Lindbergh is cheered by American society as a whole. Every American loves him except of course the Jews who are far from being happy with a ‘peace loving’ president who happens to make business with the enemies of the Jewish people. But in fact this isn’t entirely true, a single prominent liberal Rabbi named Bengelsdorf positions himself right behind the new president.

The narrator is Philip Roth himself, a seven-year-old Jewish Ghetto boy from Newark, New Jersey. He tells a story of a Jewish family encountering a major disastrous political shift. Young Phil is telling the story of father Herman, mother Bess and brother Sandy. It is a story of collective fear, a story of a Jewish family’s reaction to the rise of anti-Semitism. However, throughout the book it is very hard to determine whether anti-Semitism constitutes a real objective threat or rather something the Jews bring on themselves. This very confusion is in my opinion the greatest literary asset of the book.

Roth is sketching a very deep and complex narrative in which each family member responds differently to the ‘devastating’ historical circumstances. Once again, Roth managed to convey an interesting image of the difficult amalgam of the Jewish identity both psychologically and sociologically. Like most American Jews, Herman the father is overtly pessimistic from the very beginning. He wouldn’t give Lindbergh even a single day of mercy. However, he is a proud patriotic American. He demands his civil rights. Were he in our midst, he would criticise the emerging catastrophic reality applying to the American liberal ideology. The mother Bess is far more practical, she tries to maintain the family’s sanity, behaving as if life must go on. More than anything else, she must calm down her righteous husband. Phil’s brother Sandy is a gifted painter and assumes a very interesting role. In the summer he disappears for an “apprenticeship” with a tobacco farmer in Kentucky. In a way he makes it into the heart of America. Later he is joining a new assimilation scheme by encouraging Jewish city boys to follow his example. This program is put together by Rabbi Bengelsdorf, the devoted supporter of Lindbergh. Sandy is doing very well, eventually he is invited to a reception at the White House. This is obviously far more than Herman can take. For Herman, the democratically elected American president is nothing but an enemy of the Jews and he refuses to give his son permission to go to Washington. The tension between family members threatens the stability of the family itself, which is on the brink of falling apart. However, all that time,  America has been kept out of the war. American boys aren’t dying in a far away country. American people are very happy but somehow the Jewish Americans aren’t.

All the way through the book father Herman is portrayed as a paranoid Ghetto Jew. He is totally single minded in interpreting reality, he is overly tragic. But he isn’t alone in his obsession. Alongside his Newark Jewish Ghetto neighbours he draws a lot of support from the famous Jewish journalist and broadcaster Walter Winchell who is spreading his anti-Lindbergh poison to the nation. It doesn’t take long before Winchell is stripped of his positions as a journalist, first in the printed press and later in his prime time radio slot. But Winchell won’t surrender; once he loses his job, he decides to run for the presidency. Winchell, the Jew, decides to reshape the American future. In other words, he is determined to take America into war in Europe. Within a short time into his campaign, Winchell is assassinated. Again, the reader may wonder whether the assassination is an anti-Semitic act or rather a punishment Winchell and the Jews insist upon bringing on themselves.

All the way through most of the book I couldn’t make up my mind whether the plot against America is a Jewish or rather a Nazi one. Clearly most of America into war that may serve their cause or if it was Hitler who employs an agent in the very centre of the American administration as the mastermind behind the plot. When time is ripe, young Phil provides us with a shadow of an answer.

Towards the very end of the book Lindbergh disappears with his private fighter plane without leaving a trace. Mysteriously, the wreckage of his plane has never been found. No forensic evidence can suggest what happened to him. Foreign governments volunteer their versions: the Brits blame the Nazis for kidnapping the president, the Nazis suggest that it was ‘Roosevelt and his Jews’ who abducted the American hero. These suggestions are all highly charged, unfounded gossip that are there to serve an international political cause. However, Roth deliberately decides to leave us with a very personal account. We hear Rabbi Bengelsdorf’s account told by his wife Evelyn who happens to be Philip’s aunt. Brilliantly, Roth’s historical narrative takes the shape of modern ‘Jewish history’. History is then reduced to a mere personal account in the shape of gossip devoid of any factual or forensic reference.

Following Rabbi Bengelsdorf’s account, we are entitled to assume that Lindbergh was indeed a Nazi agent. Anyhow, this is the time to remind us that Roth’s President Lindbergh is a fictional character. In fact Lindbergh, the real man, was an American hero, a man who ended the Second World War as a P38 combat pilot at the age of 42. ‘The Plot Against America’ is a fictional tale, Lindbergh wasn’t a traitor, he was an American patriot who happened, like many others, to have admired Hitler for a while. Lindbergh was an American nationalist who loved his people and truly believed that his country should stay out of the ‘Jewish War’. Roth’s Lindbergh is indeed imaginary, but the Jewish collective paranoia isn’t. It is very real. Moreover, the Jewish intent upon shaping American reality is more than real.  Most importantly, while the Nazi plot to run America is totally fictional, the Jewish Plot to run America is now more vivid than ever. Nowadays, when the American army is acting as an Israeli mission force in the Middle East, when Syria and Iran are just about to be flattened by Anglo-American might, it is rather clear what the real meaning of the ‘Plot Against America’ may be.

I read Philip Roth’s book while the entire international community was standing shoulder to shoulder behind the war criminal Sharon. While in Roth’s book the Herman Roths and the Walter Wichells were expecting  America to sacrifice its best sons on the Jewish altar, we are now watching the entire world joining the Jewish war against Islam. It is rather depressing to see our Western politicians enthusiastically adopting the most corrupt version of Jewish morality: a totally blind worldview based on supremacist endorsement of the justice of the stronger. Clearly, there is no isolationist Lindbergh to save us all. Unfortunately, there is not even a single Rabbi Bengelsdorf to suggest an alternative friendly human Jewish morality.

By the time I put Roth’s book down, the storm around the Iranian president subsided somehow. The Jewish world and the Jewish state had another great victory to be cheerful about. The UN’s General Assembly has passed a resolution designating 27 January as the annual ‘Holocaust Memorial Day’ throughout the world.

Why the 27th of January? Because this is the day Auschwitz was liberated. The resolution also rejects any denial that the Holocaust was a historical event in which the mass murder of six million Jews and other victims by Nazi Germany during World War II took place. Seemingly, the UN has a new role, while for years it has been engaged in securing world peace, now it is mainly concerned with securing Jewish history.  No doubt, a very nice present for the Jewish state, a state that holds the highest record for failing to comply with UN resolutions.

By the time I put Roth’s book down I am more or less ready to learn my lesson. Once again I failed to acknowledge that suffering is an exclusive, internal Jewish affair. No one is allowed entry, neither the Palestinians of Gaza’s concentration camp, nor the massacred inhabitants of Fallujah and Tikrit. One million victims of Rwanda are obviously out, three million in Vietnam are out as well, so are the innocent civilians of Hamburg, Hiroshima, Dresden and Nagasaki and millions of others who were killed in the name of democracy. By the time Roth’s ‘Plot Against America’ finds its way onto my bookshelf, I agree with myself at least: A young Rabbi Begelsdorf is long overdue. If we are being Judeified, we may as well take the best of Judaism rather than its supremacist brutality, namely Zionism. By the time Roth’s tome is resting I realise as well that the current plot isn’t just against America. It is a plot against humanity and human dignity

Advertisements

بعد لقاء الاسد وبوتين في سوتشي .. هل نستعد للأخبار العاجلة ؟؟

 بقلم نارام سرجون

لم تعد السياسة علما ولافنا منذ ان بدأ الربيع العربي ورأينا مارأيناه .. السياسة كانت نوعا من الاحجيات والمعادلات الصعبة والمركبات التي يجب تفكيكها .. وأحيانا كانت شكلا من اشكال التنجيم الصعب ..

ولكن أمتلك الثقة الكاملة لاقول ان أبسط مواطن عربي صار يعرف تماما كيف يمكن ان يستنتج اتجاه الحدث السياسي لبلاده وللمنطقة ويستطيع كل مواطن عربي ان يكون خبيرا استراتيجيا ولديه مركز دراسات عن بلده يغنيه عن الخبراء الاستراتيجيين للجزيرة والعربية الذين لم يتوقعوا شيئا الا وحدث نقيضه .. فمثلا كلما ظهر الرئيس الاميريكي في خطاب عن الشرق الأوسط يتنبه المنعكس الشرطي السعودي أو السلماني عند المواطن السعودي .. حيث ومن غير تفكير لايجد السعوديون أنفسهم الا وهم يمدون ايديهم الى جيوبهم لافراغها مما فيها من أموال وقطع نقود حتى من القروش والملاليم .. لأنه بعد كل خطاب عن الشرق الأوسط يعرف السعوديون جميعا كبيرهم وصغيرهم ان الملك السعودي سيدفع المعلوم والجزية على داير مليم .. وسيشاهد بن سلمان في واشنطن يجلس مذعنا وهو يعرض للنسويق ويضع عليه ترامب لوحة المشتريات والاسعار فيما بن سلمان يهز رأسه كالابله ضاحكا لاحول له ولاقوة ..

وكلما خرج اردوغان بخطاب ناري عن القدس يعرف المقدسيون أن مصيبة قادمة في القدس .. لأن هذا الكذاب والممثل لايفعل شيئا سوى الثرثرة والاستعراض وهو سبب مصائب القدس لأنه كان قائد الربيع العربي الذي استهلك شباب العرب ومدنهم ومالهم .. فعقب كل خطاب يخفق قلب فلسطين هلعا ويتسرع لأنه صار معتادا ان كل خطاب أردوغاني سيتلوه تصفيق اسلامي وتكبير ولكن لاشيء آخر الا ان نتنياهو سيغرز انيابه في لحم قلبها وينهشه وهي تتألم .. والحقيقة هي ان اردوغان الثرثار هو من أضعف القدس وأوصل ترامب ونتنياهو الى مرحلة اللااكتراث لأنه طحن العالم الاسلامي بحروب الاخوان المسلمين وشغل دول الطوق ومحور مقاومة اسرائيل بحروبه العثمانية المجنونة واسلامييه الذين سهلوا لاسرائيل وترامب قرار نقل السفارة الاميريكية الى القدس لأنهم استهلكوا أشرس المقاتلين الاسلاميين في تدمير أنفسهم وأموالهم وامكاناتهم وتدمير كل الشعوب المحيطة باسرائيل واشغال كل أعداء اسرايل عنها ..

فهل نسأل المواطن العربي عن توقعاته السياسية كلما ذهب ملك الاردن الى أميريكا مثلا؟؟ طبعا سيعرف المواطنون العرب من المحيط الى الخليج ان الملك سيجول على صالات القمار أولا ثم سيذهب الى البيت الابيض ليتلقى تعليمات بشأن مؤامرة جديدة وعن هلال طائفي جديد أو قمر عرقي أو شمس مذهبية .. وهل يجهل المواطن العربي ماالذي يتوقعه اذا شاهد امير قطر او ملك البحرين يستقبلان وزير الدفاع الاميركي .. المنطق يقول ان القواعد الاميريكية ستشتغل في قصف بلد عربي ..

وعلى العكس من تلك البدهيات الواضحة .. يستطيع كل مواطن سوري وعربي ان يعرف ماذا سيعني لقاء الرئيسين بوتين والاسد .. في كل لقاء بين الرئيس الأسد وبوتين ترتعش التنظيمات الارهابية ويتحسس كل ارهابي رأسه .. بينما تلتفت عيون المجرمين الى السماء بحثا عن السوخوي .. ويجد نتنياهو نفسه يزداد قلقا على طائراته .. كل لقاء بين الأسد وبوتين يعتبر فاصلة عسكرية كبيرة تسبب الرعب للكثيرين .. فترتعد الرياض وتبول في ثيابها وتهتز الدوحة وتقبل انقرة بقضاء الله وقدره .. وبعد كل لقاء تستعد قطعة كبيرة من الجغرافيا السورية لخلع ثياب الاعدام لارتداء ثياب الحرية .. صارت هناك معادلات بوتين والاسد السياسية .. فكل لقاء بين بوتين والاسد يعني للرئيس الاميركي انه سيخسر قطعة جديدة من سورية التي يحتلها بشكل غير مباشر بالارهابيين .. منذ اول لقاء والذي كان لقاء السوخوي .. ثم تلته لقاءات حلب وغيرها .. هذه المرة ربما اقترب الأسد وبوتين كثيرا من ترامب في الشرق السوري .. ورغم كل مؤشرات السلام ونهاية الحرب السورية فان الاميريكيين يعلمون ان وجودهم في المنطقة الشرقية صار على كف عفريت .. فهناك عبارة اهتزت لها واشنطن قالها بوتين وهي ان القوات الاجنبية يجب ان تحزم حقائبها .. وهي عبارة لايقولها شخص وزعيم عالمي مثل بوتين اعتباطا فهو اتخذ قرارا بشأنها أو أنه تبلغ عبر قناة ما أن الأميريكيين يريدون أن يفتحوا مفاوضات الخروج والانسحاب .. فكل كلمة يقولها بوتين يجب ان تترجم خاصة انها تقال في لقاء مع الأسد الذي يملك الارض بالجيش والشرعية والذي يحارب بوتين الى جانبه .. واذا حاول البعض تفسير الكلام على انه موجه لايران وحزب الله .. وانها في سياق تفاهم اميركي اسرائيلي روسي فهي محاولة تفسير غير موفقة .. لأن الروس والسوريين ليسوا اغبياء لاخراج حلفائهم قبل اتمام الحرب وترك الاميريكيين في الشرق ينعمون بالراحة والاستقرار كي يغيروا الاتفاق ويطلقوا داعش او اي تنظيم جديد .. ومن المعلوم أن لحلفاء سورية من الايرانيين وحزب الله دورا هاما في المعارك البرية ضد الارهاب الذي مثل القوات البرية الاميريكية .. واذا خرج حلفاء سورية من الجغرافيا فاننا سنعود الى نقطة الصفر ولكن اذا خرج الاميريكيون فليس هناك حاجة لبقاء القوات الحليفة بذات الكثافة والدور .. ويمكنها ان تعود الى حالة استشارات فنية وصاروخية كما كانت قبل الحرب .. فالجيش السوري عاد قويا وتمرس على أشرس المعارك .. وتطور .. وأضاف عامل الثقة بالنفس الى رصيده .. والمواجهة مع اسرايل ستكون مواجهة تقنية وصاروخية .. الا اذا تغيرت معطيات المعارك ..

هذان الرجلان لايلتقيان اعتباطا ولاتعنيهما الاحتفالات الاعلامية والكرنفالات التي تقام لملوك الخليج الذين يذهبون لدفع الجزية في الغرب .. فمما لاشك فيه أنهما اجتمعا من أجل أمر هام جدا قادم .. لايسر من سمي (أصدقاء الشعب السوري) .. ولايسر المعارضين الذين ينتظرون منذ 8 سنوات بطاقة الدعوة لاستلام السلطة واعلان نهاية عصر الأسد .. وربما ساجرح مشاعرهم كثيرا وستغوض كلماتي كالسكين في أحشائهم للقول انها بداية عصر الأسد كزعيم عالمي .. بدأت منذ هذه اللحظة التي أعلن فيها لأول مرة بشكل ديبلوماسي ان الوجود الاميريكي في شرق سورية قد انتهت صلاحيته .. وهذا التهذيب الديبلوماسي .. فيه انذار ديبلوماسي .. ولاشك أن على الاميريكيين ان يردوا التحية الروسية بأحسن منها .. والا ..

هذا الحدس والاستقراء في علم السياسة له مماثل فيزيولوجي .. هو ظاهرة بافلوف .. فعندما يرى الناس ملكا سعوديا في واشنطن او أي عاصمة غربية ترتسم ابتسامة عربية عفوية لاارادية فيها مرارة .. فيما يسيل لعاب الاوروبيين والاميريكيين كما كلب بافلوف عندما يسمع جرس الطعام .. جرس الاميريكيين اليوم هو بن سلمان .. حيث يفيض لعابهم ولعاب اوروبة كلما لمحوه كما لو كانوا يلعقون الليمون الحامض ..

ولكن عندما يرى العالم الأسد وبوتين معا .. ترتفع درجة حرارة الأرض .. ويخفق قلب السماء الأزرق للقاء السوخوي .. ويسيل لعاب الدبابات .. وترقص البنادق .. وتجف الحلوق في الغرب والشرق .. فيما تتبلل عروق المدن الحزينة الظمأى بالأخبار السارة .. وتتهيأ الدنيا للأخبار العاجلة ..

   ( الثلاثاء 2018/05/22 SyriaNow)

The Israeli Government Role in Promoting Islamophobia Internationally

May 11, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

images.jpg

by Paul Larudee

Much of the study of Islamophobia is directed at the social and political causes and manifestations, including religious and political dimensions and racist characteristics.  However, Islamophobia is also used as a strategic tool or weapon; i.e., in pursuit of national agenda.

Many of us are familiar with Islamophobic movements within the Buddhist majority in Myanmar (against the Rohingya minority), and within Hindu nationalist parties in India. It is important to note, however, that it is characteristic of these movements that they direct their Islamophobia against particular groups of Muslims within their own societies, and are less concerned with creating an international movement against Islam.

This is what makes the case of Israel unique.  Although Israel, like Myanmar and India, seeks to marginalize and ultimately eliminate a specific population of Muslims – in this case the mostly Muslim Palestinians – part of its strategy for doing so includes encouraging and fostering Islamophobia internationally.  Thus, for example, Israel has successfully pursued strong military and diplomatic ties with the governments of Myanmar and India, and especially the Islamophobic movements within those countries.

It is clear, therefore, that Islamophobia within Israel is not only a matter of organized bigotry and social hatred, which one finds in other societies, but also of instrumentalizing or weaponizing Islamophobia as a strategic tool to legitimize and justify the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the territories under Israel’s control, as well as to support Israeli aggression towards other mostly Muslim countries in the region. Promoting and fostering Islamophobia internationally helps to increase and solidify international support for the Zionist genocidal project.  It is therefore treated as an important tool of Israeli and Zionist international influence.

My attention was first brought to this fact in casual but unusual circumstances. In early 1993 my family and I were on vacation at a Club Med in France where there were also Israeli intelligence officers and their families.  I got into a discussion with one in particular, who said that with the fall of the Soviet Union, Islam would replace communism as the new enemy.  It sounded a bit far-fetched, but in retrospect he knew what he was talking about, and more important, he was in a position to help make it happen, which of course it did.

The groundwork was laid much earlier.  As Deepa Kumar at Rutgers University reports, the effort to tie Islam to terrorism started at a Zionist funded neoconservative conference on international terrorism in 1979. Then, after a second such conference in 1984, “both US neocons and Zionists worked together to convince Western policy makers that ‘Islamic terrorism’ would replace communism as the West’s next great threat. By tying Islam to terrorism, neocons would gain political cover for their imperialistic ambitions in the Middle East, and Zionists would benefit from garnering Western sympathies for their struggle against Palestinian ‘terrorism.’”

Since then, researchers like Sarah Marusek, David Miller and others have cataloged international Zionist networks that sponsor Islamophobic propaganda and policies.  The work of Pamela Geller and the so-called American Freedom Defense Initiative is one of the well-known examples.  Geller’s anti-Islam billboards and bus advertisements are familiar to many, as well her so-called “Muhammed Art Exhibit and Contest” in Garland, Texas in 2015, resulting in the police killing of two armed men.

Geller is hardly alone, however.  According to the Center for American Progress, the US has six major organizations that manipulate Islamophobia in order to further US support for Israel. These are the Center for Security Policy, the Society of Americans for National Existence, the Middle East Forum, Jihad Watch, Stop Islamization of America, and the Investigative Project on Terrorism.  Sarah Marusek includes even more groups in her paper entitled “The Transatlantic Network: Funding Islamophobia and Israeli Settlements”, published in the anthology, What is Islamophobia?

These organizations constitute a network, as Marusek says, but the complete network is much wider and more diverse than the assets concerned with promoting Islamophobia.  They are known as the sayanim, the Hebrew word for helpers or assistants, and are composed of Zionists who have achieved important and useful positions in societies from which they can exercise powerful initiatives, especially when they operate in concert. Thus, for example, friendly journalists can work with lobbyists and others to quickly and massively spread influence, information, analysis and disinformation that are useful to Israel.

Such initiatives require coordination, intelligence, strategic planning, covert action, technical assistance, and other expertise.  For many years, the sayanimwere coordinated by the Mossad. However, following a 2010 report from the influential Reut Institute (a prestigious strategic think tank in Israel), organizational changes were made that moved such responsibility to the Ministry of International Relations, Intelligence and Strategic Affairs – better known as the Ministry of Strategic Affairs.  The report also notes that there are as many as 4000 sayanim in each of the major centers of power and influence, such as London and New York. A concentration of sayanim in important sectors of society that inform the public, such as film, entertainment, journalism, education and social media permits them to help shape public opinion.

In line with Reut Institute recommendations, the Strategic Affairs Ministry has grown in size and secrecy over the last decade.  Reut projected that Israel’s main strategic threat would no longer be to its military security but rather to its image and influence in other countries, especially the US and Europe.  According to this view, BDS was to be regarded as a serious threat, as well as the human rights NGOs, Palestine solidarity groups and the critical alternative press.  The Ministry of Strategic Affairs was therefore selected to coordinate a major new effort to combat this perceived threat.

The Strategic Affairs Ministry has informally been called the HasbaraMinistry, using the Hebrew word for explanation or propaganda. It certainly is that, but also much more.  The reorganization of the Strategic Affairs Ministry can be compared in scope to that of the Homeland Security Department.  A lot of security and intelligence functions were transferred from or shared with Mossad.  The Ministry became responsible for propaganda, influence and manipulation in other countries.  Coordination of the sayanim became part of its purview, as did thousands of students who were paid or received scholarships in return for haunting social media and the comments sections of websites.  The purpose was to dominate the media, insofar as possible, in countries vital to Israel’s plans and intentions, and to sway public opinion toward outcomes determined by Israel’s strategic goals.

Many readers are familiar with the “Brand Israel” campaign. Its function, suggested by the Reut Institute, is to mold Israel’s image in the media of the US and other countries.  Its tactics are PR on steroids, such as, for example, slipping subliminal questions into the Jeopardy quiz program and idyllic holy land vacations into Wheel of Fortune, but permeating nearly everything we see, hear and read in film, entertainment, journalism, education and social media for the purpose of molding public opinion.  With enough effort of this kind, we will presumably think of Israel as Disneyland.

Another example is Facebook and the personal collaboration between Mark Zuckerberg and Benjamin Netanyahu. After a meeting with Netanyahu, Zuckerberg hired a former employee at the Israeli embassy in Washington to be in charge of censoring so-called “fake news” on Facebook.  Only Facebook has the actual figures of who gets censored, but anecdotal evidence seems to indicate that a lot more anti-Zionists than Zionists are affected.  Similarly, Islamophobic postings and Tweets seem to be at least somewhat resistant to censorship compared to ones that are labeled anti-Semitic (which are often merely critical of Israel).

But it’s not just about making Israel look like the good guys. Demonizing and dehumanizing Muslims also helps to justify Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians, as well as its belligerent policies toward its mainly Muslim neighboring countries. A successful program of Islamophobia helps to support Israel’s pogroms of Palestinians in Gaza, its settlements in and economic strangulation of the West Bank, its invasions of Lebanon, its attacks against Syria, and its promotion of US wars against Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, Libya and Syria.  Making the US military a proxy for Israel greatly multiplies Israel’s capability, which is why Israel and its US lobby are working hard to create a new international war against Iran.

In order to provide the Strategic Affairs Ministry with all possible means of making such operations possible and successful, it has been assigned some important intelligence functions, including black ops and psy-ops capabilities, which used to be the exclusive purview of the Mossad.  This gives the ministry greater capability to engage in digging up or inventing dirt about people it wants to harm or discredit, especially in the BDS movement and other pro-Palestinian groups.

The hand of the Strategic Affairs Ministry is not always obvious, and it takes care to shun the light.  But occasionally its actions become known, as with the Aljazeera exposé of Israeli operative Shai Masot, working from the Israeli embassy in London and coordinating the actions of British citizens working with Israel. He coached them on how to demonize and “take down” members of parliament, including the Foreign Office Minister, Alan Duncan, who was considered insufficiently supportive of the effort to suppress BDS.

Al Jazeera has produced a similar exposé on the workings of Israel and its US lobby, but the release has been indefinitely delayed, which may be an indication of Israel’s power and influence and the effectiveness of the operations coordinated by the Strategic Affairs Ministry.  Nevertheless, a glimpse of such operations can be seen in the 2004 espionage indictmentsagainst AIPAC lobbyists Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman.  The indictments were ultimately dropped, partly because sensitive information would have to be revealed in order to successfully prosecute the cases (or perhaps that was just the excuse used to cover the fact that Tel Aviv gets to decide who gets prosecuted, not Washington).

France can be considered an extreme case.  People have been arrested there for wearing a Free Palestine T-shirt.  PayPal and several large banks in France recently closed the accounts of all organizations that support BDS, which has been ruled anti-Semitic.  Anti-Semitism is broadly defined, as you can see, and it is illegal in France.  You can be fined or jailed for practicing it.

But not for Islamophobia.  Islamophobia is free speech but anti-Semitism is racism. In fact, the French equivalent of AIPAC, known as CRIF, has publically declared that “Islamophobia is not a form of racism.  We have long drawn attention to the danger of conflating Islamophobia and anti-Semitism.  To do so would impede all criticism of Islam, such that the fundamental rights of [other] religions could not be respected. The CRIF will therefore block all resolutions against Islamophobia”.

The writings of Jacob Cohen are instructive in this regard. He has published a remarkable and very comprehensive exposé on the promotion of Islamophobia in France, including the actions of Israeli operatives and French Zionist organizations.  But there’s a catch.  In order to publish it in France without being arrested or sued, he has to disguise it as very thinly veiled fiction, in this case O.P.A. Kabbalistique sur les Nouveaux Indigènes. It is available only in French, but even in that language you have to know the persons and groups to which he refers with pseudonyms, and few outsiders know the French scene well enough to recognize more than a handful of them.

So what can we conclude from all this information about the involvement of Israel and the Zionist movement in sponsoring Islamophobia?  The point is that some sources of Islamophobia are not attitudes or social structures. We have to face the fact that there is a very potent, resourceful, well organized and well funded international movement that sees Islamophobia as a strategic tool in pursuit of its national interest. For this reason, it is largely impervious to education or negotiation or legal considerations.

In fact, Israel is also pursuing an apparently contradictory effort to encourage interfaith cooperation between Jews, Muslims and Christians, but with the same goal in mind.  That goal is to blunt criticism of Israel, whether by getting people to hate Muslims and thereby endorse Israel’s belligerence and ethnic cleansing, or by pressuring Muslims not to criticize Israel out of concern for potentially offending their Jewish brothers and sisters.  Since the two strategies are aimed at different populations, I suppose that they might be able to work simultaneously.  This is often how PR campaigns work.

The point is that in all the efforts at fostering tolerance and understanding we are faced with an adversary that is working quite diligently in the opposite direction for reasons that have nothing to do with how they view Islam as a religion or Muslims.  This is therefore a different type of challenge in trying to overcome Islamophobia.

• This article is a revised version of a paper read at the 9th Annual Islamophobia Conference in Berkeley, California, April 29, 2018.

Source: https://dissidentvoice.org

President Assad’s Interview with the Greek Kathimerini Newspaper

ST

hursday, 10 May 2018

H.E. President Bashar Al-Assad said that France, Britain, and the US, along with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey are responsible for the war in Syria due to their support of  terrorism, describing the Western allegations about the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian Arab Army as a farce and a very primitive play whose only goal is to attack the Syrian Army after the defeat of terrorists.

In an interview given to the Greek Kathimerini newspaper, President Assad said that Syria is fighting terrorists, who are the army of the Turkish, US, and Saudi regimes, stressing that any aggressor and any army, whether Turkish, French, or whoever, they are all enemies as long as they came to Syria illegally.

Following is the full text of the interview:

Journalist: Mr. President, thank you very much for agreeing to do this interview. It’s a pleasure to be here in Damascus.

President Assad: You’re most welcome in Syria.

Question 1: Let me ask you first of all, you know, there’s been accusation by the US and the Europeans about the use of chemical weapons, and there was an attack after that. What is your response to that? Was there a chemical attack? Were you responsible for it?

President Assad: First of all, we don’t have any chemical arsenal since we gave it up in 2013, and the international agency for chemical weapons made investigations about this, and it’s clear or documented that we don’t have. Second, even if we have it, we wouldn’t use it, for many different reasons. But let’s put these two points aside, let’s presume that this army has chemical weapons and it’s in the middle of the war; where should it be used? At the end of the battle? They should use it somewhere in the middle, or where the terrorists made advancement, not where the army finished the battle and terroristsgave up and said “we are ready to leave the area” and the army is controlling fully that area. So, the Western narrative started after the victory of the Syrian Army, not before. When we finished the war, they said “they used chemical weapons.”

Second, use of mass destruction armaments in a crammed area with a population like Douma – the supposed area, it’s called Douma and they talk about 45 victims- when you use mass destruction armaments in such an area, you should have hundreds or maybe thousands of victims in one time. Third, why all the chemical weapons, the presumed or supposed chemical weapons, only kill children and women? They don’t kill militants. If you look at the videos, it’s completely fake. I mean, when you have chemical weapons, how could the doctors and nurses be safe, dealing with the chemical atmosphere without any protective clothes, without anything, just throwing water at the victims, and the victims became okay just because you washed them with water. So, it’s a farce, it’s a play, it’s a very primitive play, just to attack the Syrian army, because… Why? That’s the most important part, is that when the terrorists lost, the US, France, UK, and their other allies who want to destabilize Syria, they lost one of their main cards, and that’s why they had to attack the Syrian Army, just to raise the morale of the terrorists and to prevent the Syrian Army from liberating more areas in Syria.

Question 2: But are you saying that there was an incident of chemical attack and someone else is responsible, or that there was nothing there?

President Assad: That’s the question, because, I mean, the side who said – allegedly – that there was a chemical attack, had to prove that there was an attack. We have two scenarios: either the terrorists had chemical weapons and they used them intentionally, or maybe there was explosions or something, or there was no attack at all, because in all the investigations in Douma people say “we didn’t have any chemical attack, we didn’t see any chemical gas, or didn’t smell” and so on. So, we don’t have any indications about what happened. The Western narrative is about that, so that question should be directed to the Western officials who said there was an attack. We should ask them: where is your concrete evidence about what happened? They only talk about reports. Reports could be allegations. Videos by the White Helmets, the White Helmets are funded by the British Foreign Office, and so on.

 

Question 3: President Trump, in a tweet, used a very strong expression. He said “animal Assad.” You remember that? What is your response to that?

President Assad: Actually, when you are in that position, I mean president of a country, you have first of all to represent the morals of your people before representing your own morals. You are representing your country. Question: does this language represent the American culture? That is the question. This is very bad, and I don’t think so. I don’t think there’s a community in the world that has such language. Second, the good thing about Trump is that he expresses himself in a very transparent way, which is very good in that regard. Personally, I don’t care, because I deal with the situation as a politician, as a president. It doesn’t matter for me personally; what matters is whether something would affect me, would affect my country, our war, the terrorists, and the atmosphere that we are living in.

Question 4: He said that his mission was accomplished. He said “mission accomplished in Syria.” How do you feel about that?

President Assad: I think maybe the only mission accomplished was when they helped ISIS escape from Raqqa, when they helped them, and it was proven by video, and under their cover, the leaders of ISIS escaped Raqqa, going toward Deir Ezzor just to fight the Syrian Army. The other mission accomplished was when they attacked the Syrian Army at the end of 2016 in the area of Deir Ezzor when ISIS was surrounding Deir Ezzor, and the only force was the Syrian Army. I mean, the only force to defend that city from ISIS was the Syrian Army, and because of the Americans’ – and of course their allies’ – attack, Deir Ezzor was on the brink of falling in the hand of ISIS. So, this is the only mission that was accomplished. If he’s talking about destroying Syria, of course that’s another mission accomplished. While if you talk about fighting terrorism, we all know very clearly that the only mission the United States have been doing in Syria is to support the terrorists, regardless of their names, of the names of their factions.

Question 5: But, I mean, he was using such language with the North Korean leader, and now they’re going to meet. Could you potentially see yourself meeting with Trump? What would you tell him if you saw him face to face?

President Assad: The first question you should ask, whether to meet or to make contact or whatever, what can you achieve? The other question: what can we achieve with someone who says something before the campaign, and does the opposite after the campaign, who says something today, and does the opposite tomorrow, or maybe in the same day. So, it’s about consistency. Do they have the same frequency every day, or the same algorithm? So, I don’t think in the meantime we can achieve anything with such an administration. A further reason is that we don’t think the president of that regime is in control. We all believe that the deep state, the real state, is in control, or is in control of every president, and this is nothing new. It has always been in the United States, at least during the last 40 years, at least since Nixon, maybe before, but it’s becoming starker and starker, and the starkest case is Trump.

Question 6: When is your mission going to be accomplished, given the situation here in Syria now?

President Assad: I have always said, without any interference, it will take less than a year to regain stability in Syria; I don’t have any doubt about this. The other factor is how much support the terrorists receive; this is something I cannot answer, because I cannot foretell. But as long as it continues, time is not the main factor. The main factor is that someday, we’re going to end this conflict and we’re going to re-unify Syria under the control of the government. When? I cannot answer. I hope it’s going to be soon.

Question 7: Now, there was some criticism lately, because you apparently have a law that says that anybody that doesn’t claim their property within a month, they cannot come back. Is that a way to exclude some of the people who disagree with you?

President Assad: No, we cannot dispossess anyone from their property by any law, because the constitution is very clear about the ownership of any Syrian citizen. This could be about the procedure. It’s not the first time we have such a law just to re-plan the destroyed and the illegal areas, because you’re dealing with a mixture of destroyed and illegal suburbs in different parts of Syria. So, this law is not about dispossessing anyone. You cannot, I mean even if he’s a terrorist, let’s say, if you want to dispossess someone, you need a verdict by the judicial system, I mean, you cannot make it by law. So, there’s either misinterpretation of that law, or an intention, let’s say, to create a new narrative about the Syrian government in order to rekindle the fire of public opinion in the West against the Syrian government. But about the law, I mean, even if you want to make a procedure, it’s about the local administration, it’s about the elected body in different areas, to implement that law, not the government.

Question 8: Now, who are your biggest allies in this fight? Obviously, they are Russia and Iran. Are you worried that they might play too an important role in the future of the country after this war is over?

President Assad: If you talk about my allies as a president, they are the Syrian people. If you talk about Syria’s allies, of course they’re the Iranians and the Russians. They are our strongest allies, and of course China that supported us politically in the Security Council. As for them playing an important role in the future of the country, these countries respect Syria’s sovereignty and national decision making and provide support to insure them. So, it doesn’t make sense for these countries to take part in a war to help Syria defend its sovereignty, and at the same time violate or interfere with this sovereignty. Iran and Russia are the countries which respect Syria’s sovereignty the most.

Question 9: How about Turkey now? Turkey did an intrusion, an invasion of part of your country. You used to have a pretty good relationship with President Erdogan. How is that relationship now after that intrusion?

President Assad: First of all, this is an aggression, this is an occupation. Any single Turkish soldier on Syrian soil represents occupation. That doesn’t mean the Turkish people are our enemies. Only a few days ago, we had a political delegation coming from Turkey. We have to distinguish between the Turks in general and Erdogan. Erdogan is affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Maybe he’s not organized, but his affiliation is toward that ideology, I call it this dark ideology. And for him, because, like the West, when the terrorists lost control of different areas, and actually they couldn’t implement the agenda of Turkey or the West or Qatar or Saudi Arabia, somebody had to interfere. This is where the West interfered through the recent attacks on Syria, and this is where Erdogan was assigned by the West, mainly the United States, to interfere, to make the situation complicated, again because without this interference, the situation would have been resolved much faster. So, it’s not about personal relations. The core issue of the Muslim Brotherhood anywhere in the world is to use Islam in order to take control of the government in your country, and to create multiple governments having this kind of relation, like a network of Muslim Brotherhoods, around the world.

Question 10: In an election campaign rally, he said that two days ago, that he’s going to do another intrusion into Syria. How are you going to respond to that if it happens?

President Assad: Actually, since the very beginning of the war, Erdogan supported the terrorists, but at that time, he could hide behind words like “protecting the Syrian people, supporting the Syrian people, supporting the refugees, we are against the killing,” and so on. He was able to appear as a humanitarian president, let’s say. Now, because of these circumstances, he has to take off the mask and show himself as the aggressor, and this is the good thing. So, there is no big difference between the Turkish head of regime Erdogan sending his troops to Syria, and supporting the terrorists; this is his proxy. So, we’ve been fighting seven years his army. The difference actually between now and then is the appearance; the core is the same. At that time, we couldn’t talk about occupation, we could talk about supporting terrorists, but this time we could talk about occupation, which is the announcement of Erdogan that he’s now violating the international law, and this could be the good part of him announcing this.

Question 11: But how can you respond to that?

President Assad: First of all, we are fighting the terrorists, and as I said, the terrorists for us are his army, they are the American army, the Saudi army. Forget about the different factions and who is going to finance those factions; at the end, they work for one agenda, and those different players obey one master: the American master. Erdogan is not implementing his own agenda; he’s only implementing the American agenda, and the same goes for the other countries in this war. So, first of all, you have to fight the terrorists. Second, when you take control of more areas, you have to fight any aggressor, any army. The Turkish, French, whoever, they are all enemies; as long as they came to Syria illegally, they are our enemies.

Question 12: Are you worried about the potential third world war starting here in Syria? I mean, you have the Israelis hitting the Iranians, you know, here in your own country. You have the Russians, you have the Americans. Are you concerned about that possibility?

President Assad: No, for one reason: because fortunately, you have a wise leadership in Russia, and they know that the agenda of the deep state in the United States is to create a conflict. Since the campaign of Trump, the main agenda was against Russia, create a conflict with Russia, humiliate Russia, undermine Russia, and so on. And we’re still in the same process under different titles or by different means. Because of the wisdom of the Russians, we can avoid this. Maybe it’s not a full-blown third world war, but it is a world war, maybe in a different way, not like the second and the first, maybe it’s not nuclear, but it’s definitely not a cold war; it’s something more than a cold war, less than a full-blown war. And I hope we don’t see any direct conflict between these super powers, because this is where things are going to be out of control for the rest of the world.

Question 13: Now, there’s a very important question about whether Syria can be a unified, fully-sovereign country again. Is that really possible after all this that has happened?

President Assad: It depends on what the criteria of being unified or not is. The main factor to have a unified country is to have unification in the minds of the people, and vice versa. When those people look at each other as foreigners, they cannot live with each other, and this is where you’re going to have division. Now, if you want to talk about facts and reality, not my opinion, I can tell you no, it’s not going to be divided, and of course we’re not going to accept that, but it’s not about my will or about my rhetoric, to say we’re going to be unified; it’s about the reality. The reality, now, if you look at Syria during the crisis, not only today, since the very beginning, you see all the different spectrum of the Syrian society living with each other, and better than before. These relationships are better than before, maybe because of the effect of the war. If you look at the areas under the control of the terrorists, this is where you can see one color of the Syrian society, which is a very, very, very narrow color. If you want to talk about division, you have to see the line, the separation line between either ethnicities or sects or religions, something you don’t see. So, in reality, there’s no division till this moment; you only have areas under the control of the terrorists. But what led to that speculation? Because the United States is doing its utmost to give that control, especially now in the eastern part of Syria, to those terrorists in order to give the impression that Syria cannot be unified again. But it’s going to be unified; I don’t have any doubt about that.

Question 14: But why would the US do this if you’re fighting the same enemy: Islamic terrorism?

President Assad: Because the US usually have an agenda and they have goals. If they cannot achieve their goals, they resort to something different, which is to create chaos. Create chaos until the whole atmosphere changes, maybe because the different parties will give up, and they will give-in to their goals, and this is where they can implement their goals again, or maybe they change their goals, but if they cannot achieve it, it’s better to weaken every party and create conflict, and this is not unique to Syria. This has been their policy for decades now in every area of this world. That’s why, if you see conflicts around the world, after the British, the Americans are responsible for every conflict between different countries everywhere on this globe.

Question 15: Do you feel you’ve made any mistakes in dealing with this crisis and the civil war, when it started, if you look back?

President Assad: If I don’t make mistakes, I’m not human; maybe on daily basis sometimes. The more you work, the more complicated the situation, the more mistakes you are likely to make. But how do you protect yourself from committing mistakes as much as possible? First of all, to consult the largest proportion of the people, not only the institutions, including the parliament, syndicates, and so on. But also the largest amount of this society, or the largest part of the society, to participate in every decision.

While if you talk about the way I behaved toward, or the way I led, let’s say, the government or the state during the war, the main pillars of the state’s policy were to fight terrorism – and I don’t think that fighting terrorism was wrong – to respond to the political initiatives from different parties externally and internally regardless of their intentions, to make a dialogue with everyone – including the militants, and finally to make reconciliation; I don’t think we can say that this was wrong. So, about the pillars of our policy, I think the reality has proven that we were right. About the details, of course, you always have mistakes.

Question 16: Now, how much is it going to cost to reconstruct this country, and who is going to pay for this?

President Assad: Hundreds of billions, the minimum is two hundred, and in some estimations it’s about four hundred billion dollars. Why it’s not precise? Because some areas are still under the control of the terrorists, so we couldn’t estimate precisely what is the number. So, this is plus or minus, let’s say.

Question 17: Now, there is a lot of speculation, people say in order for a political solution to be viable, you might have to sacrifice yourself for the good of the country, you know this, that kind of speculation. Is that something that crosses you mind?

President Assad: The main part of my future, as a politician, is two things: my will and the will of the Syrian people. Of course, the will of the Syrian people is more important than my will; my desire to be in that position or to help my country or to play a political role, because if I have that desire and will and I don’t have the public support, I can do nothing, and I will fail, and I don’t have a desire to fail. After seven years of me being in that position, if I don’t have the majority of the Syrian people’s support, how could I withstand for more than seven years now, with all this animosity by the strongest countries and by the richest countries? Who supports me? If the Syrian people are against me, how can I stay? How could I achieve anything? How could we withstand? So, when I feel that the Syrian people do not want me to stay anymore, of course I have to leave without any hesitation.

Question 18: But you know, there is a lot of blood that has, you know, taken place, and all that, so can you see yourself sitting across from the opposition and sharing, you know, power in some way?

President Assad: When you talk about blood, you have to talk about who created that blood. I was president before the war for ten years, had I been killing the Syrian people for ten years? No, definitely not. So, the conflict started because somebody, first of all part of the West, supported those terrorists, and they bear the responsibility for this war. So first of all the West, who provided military and financial support and political cover, and who stood against the Syrian people, who impoverished the Syrian people and created a better atmosphere for the terrorists to kill more Syrian people. So, part of the West – mainly France, UK, and US, and also Saudi Arabia and Qatar and Turkey are responsible for this part. It’s not enough to say there is blood; this is a very general term. Of course there is blood; it’s a war, but who’s responsible? Those who are responsible should be held accountable.

Question 19: Now, it’s been a few years since you visited Greece. Your father had a very close relation with some of the Greek political leaders. How have the relations been between Greece and Syria these days, and what kind of message would you like to send to the Greek people?

President Assad: At the moment, there are no formal relations between Syria and Greece; the embassies are closed, so there are no relations. At the same time, Greece wasn’t aggressive towards what happened in Syria. It always supported a political solution, it never supported war or attacks against Syria. You didn’t play any role to support the terrorists, but at the same time, as a member – and an important member – of the EU, you couldn’t play any role, let’s say, in refraining the other countries from supporting the terrorists, violating the international law by attacking and besieging a sovereign country without any reason, without any mandate by the Security Council. So, we appreciate that Greece wasn’t aggressive, but at the same time, I think Greece has to play that role, because it’s part of our region. It is part of the EU geographically, but it’s a bridge between our region and the rest of Europe, and it’s going to be affected, and it has been affected by the refugee situation, and the terrorism now has been affecting Europe for the last few years, and Greece is part of that continent. So, I think it’s normal for Greece to start to play its role in the EU in order to solve the problem in Syria and protect the international law.

Journalist: Thank you very much Mr. President.

President Assad: Thank you.

Dr. Mohamad Abdo Al-Ibrahim

Editor-in-Chief

alibrahim56@hotmail.com

https://www.facebook.com/Mohamad.Abdo.AlIbrahim

http://syriatimes.sy/

http://www.presidentassad.net/

Related

حزب الله «أصلي» في «بحر الروم»

أبريل 27, 2018

Image result for ‫د. وفيق إبراهيم‬‎د. وفيق إبراهيم

الإشارة الأميركية الواضحة حول ضرورة إبعاد إيران عن البحر الأبيض المتوسط، دليلٌ على استعار مرحلة الصراع على خطوط نقل الغاز من السواحل الشرقية لهذا البحر إلى العالم.

ورد هذا «التنبيه الصارم» في تصريح للرئيس الأميركي ترامب أبان محادثاته مع ضيفه الفرنسي ماكرون، في ما يمكن اعتباره إقراراً غربياً بنجاح الحلف السوري ـ الروسي ـ الإيراني وحزب الله بالربط بين بحري قزوين والمتوسط بفواصل برية عبر إيران والعراق وسورية ولبنان.

للتوضيح فإن الاسم القديم التاريخي للمتوسط هو بحر الروم بسبب هوية القوى اليونانية الإغريقية والرومانية التي كانت تسيطر عليه. بالإضافة إلى أنّ العرب كانوا يكرهون البحر ولم يكن الترك وصلوا منطقتنا آتين من هضبة منغوليا وتركمانستان. وكانت سورية منقسمة ولاءات استعمارية متعدّدة.

وللأمانة التاريخية أيضاً فإن الأمويين حرّروا «بحر الروم» في معاركهم ضد الرومان، محطمين القول المأثور الذي كان معمولاً به في ذلك الوقت: «البحر.. إياك والبحر، الداخل إليه مفقود والخارج منه مولود».. وعندما عوتبوا على سيطرتهم على جزيرة قبرص، أجابوا باستراتيجية عميقة: وكيف نتركها وصياح الديكةِ فيها يُسمع في اللاذقية؟.. مطلقين على بحر الروم اسم بحر اللاذقية الذي ظل متمسكاً بهذا اللقب طيلة مرحلة السيطرة العربية على سواحله.

هناك توضيح إضافي وهي أنّ إيران موجودة عند شواطئ المتوسط عبر تحالفاتها وهي الدولة السورية عند سواحلها، وقاعدتان روسيتان في طرطوس وحميميم، و.. حزب الله المنتشر على طول سواحل لبنان للدفاع عنها ضد الاعتداءات البحرية الإسرائيلية.. وغيرها.

المنطقة إذاً وبعد تصريح ترامب تقع في قلب صراع بحري يشكّل بدوره امتداداً أصلياً للقتال البري العنيف بين القوى الكبرى في العالم والإقليم والمشرق العربي.. لمزيد من التحديد يمكن الجزم بأن هذا الصراع يشبه مرحلة الصراعات الدولية على موارد الطاقة، التي تجسّدت بالفحم الحجري في القرن 19 والنفط في القرن العشرين وبالغاز في القرن 21.. أما القوى المنخرطة عسكرياً في هذا الصراع فهي الولايات المتحدة ومعها أوروبا وروسيا وسورية وتركيا والعراق وإيران.. وحزب الله..

وهذا ليس مبالغة.. فالحزب تنظيم شعبي أخذ على عاتقه الدفاع عن لبنان في وجه العدو الإسرائيلي في مرحلة الدولة اللبنانية الضعيفة، مضطراً إلى التمدّد الإقليمي لمجابهة الإرهاب الذي يستهدف منطقة المشرق العربي بأسرها.. وعندما تبيّن له وجود تحالفات مموّهة بين هذا الإرهاب الوهابي ودول خليجية و«إسرائيل» برعاية أميركية ـ أوروبية، وجد نفسه منخرطاً في نظام تحالفات بدأت مع امتداده الطبيعي في سورية وإيران، وصولاً إلى الروس المتحفزين بدورهم للعودة إلى العالم من بوابته الرئيسية في الشرق الأوسط عند قلبه في سورية.

والحزب بما هو تنظيم تستند أيديولوجيته إلى الربط بين النفوذ الأميركي والكيان الإسرائيلي وطاعون الفكر الوهابي المتطرف، لا يبالي بالثروات المعدنية وموارد الطاقة، إلا لكونها من الضروريات التي تسهم في ازدهار الشعوب وتطور الدول. بمعنى أنه لا يمتلك مشروعاً خاصاً لوضع يده على مصادر الطاقة، كحال معظم المنتفعين والدول التي «تُهندس» حروبها على هدي آبار النفط والغاز والاستهلاك.. حزب الله «يهندس» حروبه على قياس مصالح شعبه وتقدّمه.

هذا ما وضع حزب الله في خانة القوى الأساسية المتصارعة في ميدان المشرق العربي وبشكل أكثر أهمية من كثير من الدول التي تزوّد الأميركيين والأوروبيين بآلاف مليارات الدولارات ليقاتلوا بها حزب الله وإيران وروسيا وهي قابعة ذليلة في قصور ألف ليلة وليلة.

نكتشف أنّ حزب الله «أصلي» في الصراع الإقليمي ووجد نفسه قوة كبرى لها وزنها في الصراع بين المحاور الأساسية المتقاتلة على «موارد الغاز». أما لجهة القوى المتقاتلة فهناك تركيا الحالمة بسبب موقعها الاستراتيجي، للعب دور محطة عالمية تستقبل الغاز من قطر عبر العراق وسورية عبر حدودها ومن لبنان وفلسطين المحتلة عبر المتوسط، ومن العراق من خلال الحدود المشتركة.. وتؤمن تركيا لهذه الخطوط مهام عدة. تسييل الغاز وإعادة تصديره إلى أوروبا عبر حدودها البرية والبحر الأسود والبحر المتوسط.

وهذا شكّل جزءاً من التباين المستجدّ بين أنقرة وواشنطن والذي يعود إلى أنّ الأميركيين لا يريدون لخطوط نقل الغاز أنّ تكتمل بشكل ينافسُ مخزونها الضخم من النفط والغاز الصخريين. أيّ أنها تفضل نشوب صراعات تسويقية إنتاجية بين «دول الغاز» لتستطيع تسويق مخزوناتها الضخمة..

ألا تنير هذه الخطط الأسباب التي أملت على الأتراك استعمال الإرهاب والإخوان المسلمين لتدمير الدولة الوطنية في سورية؟

ألا تفسّر هذه المشاريع مسارعة حزب الله لإرسال مجاهديه إلى الميدان السوري للقتال إلى جانب دولته؟

بالمقابل، يضيء هذا على مدى التورط التركي، الإسرائيلي الخليجي بالرعاية الأميركية، فاضحاً الأسباب التي أملت على أربعين دولة مشاركة في تدمير سورية؟ هناك أيضاً مشروع مصري مبني على اكتشافات حديثة لآبار غاز مصرية ضخمة ولعلها الأكبر في العالم.. ما أدى إلى انبثاق طموح مصري لتحويل «أم الدنيا» إلى محطة تسييل وتخزين وتسويق لغاز الشرق الأوسط نحو أوروبا من خلال سواحل مصر مع بحري المتوسط إلى أوروبا والأحمر إلى أفريقيا، وذلك عبر التعاون الغازي الذي بدأ بين مصر و«إسرائيل» بالصناعات المشتركة والتسويق ومع الأردن كمحطة مرور لخطوط الغاز الخليجية نحو مصر.

وهذا يشرح أيضاً أسباب تصاعد التناقضات المصرية ـ التركية حول قبرص وعلى مقربة من فوهات بنادق حزب الله.

كما يعطي تفسيراً عميقاً للدوافع التركية التي ذهبت لمحاولة السيطرة على مصر من خلال الإخوان المسلمين.. وفشلت لسببين: الشعب المصري.. الذي أسقطها بتحركاته، والدور الأميركي الذي غطَّى تحركاً لبعض تيارات الجيش المصري لمجابهة الإخوان المسلمين.

هذه هي المناخات التي سعى حزب الله إلى التعامل معها، في مهمة جهادية بالنسبة إليه ووطنية بالنسبة للبنانيين.. وهي مهمة الدفاع عن الشعب في وجه الإرهاب، وتحرير الأرض والاستمرار في الدفاع عنها أمام المطامع الإسرائيلية.. والدليل موجود في ما تفعله «إسرائيل» عند حدود لبنان البرية مع فلسطين المحتلة من تعدٍ ومحاولات اقتطاع أجزاء منها، بالإضافة إلى انتهاكاتها اليومية للأجواء اللبنانية.

ولا يمكن إقصاء محاولات «إسرائيل» للسطو على الغاز اللبنانية عند حدوده البحرية. وهي مزاعم تقف واشنطن منها موقف المتبني من وراء الستار الداعي إلى التعقل.. في نزاع يعرف الأميركيون أنه مفتعل لتأخير استثمار الغاز في لبنان لغايات لها علاقة بتسويق الغاز الإسرائيلي ومشاريع الولايات المتحدة بعرقلة خطوط نقل غاز شرق المتوسط إلى أوروبا عبر بلدان متنافسة أهمها مصر وتركيا وسورية.. أما «إسرائيل» فغير مقبولة بهذا الصدد.

حزب الله إذاً هو في قلب معركة الغاز في «بحر اللاذقية».. وكما أصاب بارجة إسرائيلية كانت تزهو بحجمها قبالة سواحل لبنان في 2006 وأغرقها، يؤدي اليوم دوراً تاريخياً يبدأ من تأكيد إلغاء الصفة «الرومية» على البحر المتوسط.. وهذا يعني الحدّ من الهيمنة الأميركية البحرية في المنطقة التي بدأت تشعُر بوجود منافسين لها على طول الساحل الشرقي للمنطقة في سورية ولبنان وبدعم روسي وإيراني.

ولروسيا مصلحة كبرى في هذا الصراع.. فهل يمكن نسيان أنها الدولة الأولى في إنتاج الغاز في العالم؟ وأنّ المشاريع الأميركية في الشرق الأوسط ترتكز على أساس محاصرة الإنتاج الروسي وعدم السماح بتسويقه من أجل جعل أوروبا تعتمد على النفط والغاز الصخريين الأميركيين؟

..إنها حروب الطاقة وحزب الله جزء منها من زاوية الدفاع عن ثروات السوريين واللبنانيين، متحالفاً مع روسيا وإيران لإنقاذ المنطقة من المشروع الغربي المتدثّر بعباءة محمد بن سلمان وأقرانه الخليجيين الذين ينثرون المال للمحافظة على عروشهم معتقلين شعوبهم في إطار القرون الوسطى وعصور الظلام.

IN VIDEOS, PHOTOS: GOVERNMENT FORCES DEVELOPING MOMENTUM IN SOUTHERN DAMASCUS

South Front

21.04.2018

In Videos, Photos: Government Forces Developing Momentum In Southern Damascus

Click to see the full-size image

Syrian government forces are increasing pressure on militants in the Yarmouk refugee camp area in southern Damascus. According to reprots, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies have made a series minor advances against both ISIS and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham there. The goal of the effort is to force militants to surrender and to to accept a withdrawal agreement. MORE HERE

In Videos, Photos: Government Forces Developing Momentum In Southern Damascus

Click to see the full-size image

Videos:

Photos:

In Videos, Photos: Government Forces Developing Momentum In Southern Damascus

Click to see the full-size image

In Videos, Photos: Government Forces Developing Momentum In Southern Damascus

Click to see the full-size image

In Videos, Photos: Government Forces Developing Momentum In Southern Damascus

Click to see the full-size image

In Videos, Photos: Government Forces Developing Momentum In Southern Damascus

Click to see the full-size image

SYRIAN ARMY CAPTURES NEW POSITIONS FROM ISIS IN SOUTHERN DAMASCUS (VIDEO, PHOTOS)

On April 21, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and the Palestinian Liberation Army (PLA) continued their military operation against ISIS pocket south of the Syrian capital of Damascus.

They captured the al-Mujahedeen mosque in the southeastern part of al-Hajar al-Aswad district, according to Syrian pro-government sources.

Warplanes of the Syrian Arab Air Force (SyAAF) and the Russian Aerospace Forces supported the government advance carrying out a new wave of airstrikes against the fuel and ammo depots of ISIS in the al-Hajar al-Aswad district and the Yarmouk refugee camp.

The ISIS-linked news agency Amaq claimed that ISIS fighters had repelled two attack by the SAA on their positions in the southern parts of al-Qadam and Tadamon. ISIS fighters killed six soldiers of the SAA and captured their light weapons, according to the source.

Meanwhile, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) said that the negotiations between the Damascus movement and ISIS is still ongoing and said that the deal is near.

According to Syrian pro-government activists, ISIS accepted most of the demands of the Damascus government on April 20. However, the SAA and its allies will not stop their military operation until the terrorist group approves and fulfills all the demands.

Photos of the SAA attack on the ISIS-held pocket south of Damascus:

Syrian Army Captures New Positions From ISIS In Southern Damascus (Video, Photos)

By Damascus Now, click to see the full-size image

Syrian Army Captures New Positions From ISIS In Southern Damascus (Video, Photos)

By Damascus Now, click to see the full-size image

Syrian Army Captures New Positions From ISIS In Southern Damascus (Video, Photos)

By Damascus Now, click to see the full-size image

Syrian Army Captures New Positions From ISIS In Southern Damascus (Video, Photos)

By Damascus Now, click to see the full-size image

Syrian Army Captures New Positions From ISIS In Southern Damascus (Video, Photos)

By Damascus Now, click to see the full-size image

Syrian Army Captures New Positions From ISIS In Southern Damascus (Video, Photos)

By Damascus Now, click to see the full-size image

Related Videos

Related News

Saudi Arabia in Syria: Between the Loss of Investment and Being Let Down by Trump

Ali Mrad

19-04-2018 | 07:54

Hours after the end of the tripartite aggression on Syria at dawn last Saturday, regional and Gulf capitals issued statements of support and congratulations. One of these statements came from the Saudi Foreign Ministry’s on Tuesday afternoon announcing Riyadh’s full support for the “military operations launched by the United States, the United Kingdom and France against Syrian military targets”. The Riyadh statement held Damascus responsible for what happened and accused the international community of “failing to take firm measures” against Syria. What Riyadh calls “inaction” reflects its chronic disappointment in Syria, having been disappointed by Obama in September 2013 after the first chemical film. And Trump seems to be repeating history today.

Saudi Arabia in Syria: Between the Loss of Investment and Being Let Down by Trump

After December 25, 2015, the date of the assassination of the leader of the “Army of Islam” [Jaysh al-Islam] Zahran Alloush, it became clear that Saudi dreams in Syria, especially in the Eastern Ghouta, were gone. Alloush represented an old Saudi investment that dates back to the time of his father Abdullah Alloush who injected the residents of Douma and Eastern Ghouta with Saudi Wahhabism. He spent his life in Saudi universities and schools, and his son Zahran followed in his footsteps.

In June 2015, Saudi Foreign Ministry documents published by WikiLeaks included the minutes of a meeting titled “Preparatory Committee Emerging from a Higher Committee to Study Topics Related to anti-Iranian Threats and Movements”. In the minutes of the mentioned committee’s meeting (which seems to have been held in the beginning of 2012), the fourth item from the recommendations explains the outlook of the Saudi regime towards the war in Syria, describing it as “the current battle with the Iranian regime on the domestic scene in Syria”. It explains its objective when it considers that

“it is absolutely impossible in any event to lose it [the battle] due to the consequences and dangers that may directly threaten the national security of the Kingdom and its strategic interests. “

From here, one can understand why the Saudis have always sent proposals to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad that the war would end and that things would return to normal if he decided to sever his relationship with Tehran. They also relied on the US remaining in Syria due to Syria’s rejection of temptations. This was stated by the Saudi crown prince in an interview with Time Magazine at the end of last month.

Following the tripartite aggression on Damascus, the idea that the Saudis and the Zionists were still betting on the dismantling of the Russia-Iran-Syria alliance, which had secured many victories, was reinforced.

In his recent speech last Sunday, Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah pointed to the “disappointment of some regional countries that bet that the tripartite aggression will destroy the Syrian air force and the positions of the Revolutionary Guards and allies.” It is no secret that both Tel Aviv and Riyadh basically wanted the Americans to target sites where the Revolutionary Guards and Hezbollah were deployed. Immediately after the aggression, the Zionist lobby in the United States rushed to talk about “building on the first strike to take tougher steps toward Iran in Syria”. The aim, of course, is to focus pressure on Tehran, especially after the “Israeli” T-4 aggression, to push it to retreat from Syria.

This approach, which Riyadh has in common with Tel Aviv, was expressed by the Saudi crown prince during his recent visit to the United States. He did not miss an opportunity to give an interview there. He exaggeratedly cautioned about what he called the “Iranian threat” and the need for Washington to respond to it.

What consolidated the Saudi disappointment in the limit of the aggression is what the Wall Street Journal revealed. Two days ago, the newspaper reported that the Trump administration is considering a project to replace its forces in Syria with troops from Arab countries. The newspaper quoted US officials as saying that contacts were made with the Egyptians while Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar were told about the idea of sending their troops to replace the US forces because Trump – according to the newspaper and confirmed by the White House spokeswoman a few days ago – is insisting on withdrawing US forces from Syria as soon as possible.

Jim Reese, a retired Marine colonel (Delta Force), spoke about this plan in an interview with US broadcaster Fox News hours before the tripartite assault on Syria. Reese said he knew that the Pentagon is currently considering a plan for US allies to deploy in the areas where the Americans are located in Syria. He names Saudi Arabia and the UAE at the top of the list. He sets the area of deployment (which he says they own) from Ain al-Arab in the north heading downward to the last point controlled by the Americans along the Euphrates. He hinted that the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman discussed the matter with Trump during his visit to Washington, adding that the goal is to form the East Euphrates Force that stands in the face of the Syrian and Iranian forces located west of the river.

Reese spoke about this plan in a second interview with Fox News hours after the tripartite aggression and in a third interview on Tuesday. The fact is that this plan existed since 2015 and is not new. Back then, Senator John McCain and Lindsey Graham (known for their strong ties to the Saudi regime) were eager to promote it.

Related image

McCain and Graham proposed the idea of forming a ground military force made up of 100 thousand fighters. 90 percent of the armed forces would come from Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan, while only 10 percent would be made up of the US-led Western forces. The objective of deploying this power, according to McCain and Graham, is to fight both President Assad and Daesh. They believed that the “threat of Assad’s survival” will strengthen Iran’s presence in Syria and will give a signal from Washington that it remains committed to defending its “allies” in the region, despite the negotiations on the nuclear agreement with Iran at the time.

It is very clear that the Trump administration knows very well that the task of protecting its 2,000 soldiers after launching the tripartite aggression against Syria has become a difficult one. So it seeks to calm the anger of the American populist movement (Trump’s electoral base) which rejects military adventures and to minimize its losses while ensuring what it calls “filling the void” in areas it controlled with troops from its satellites.

The Egyptians are busy fighting the terrorist groups in Sinai and controlling their borders with Libya. Saudi Arabia and the UAE are involved in Yemen, and Jordan is not interested in engaging in such a project that will expose it to danger. It is the one who seeks to restore its relationship with Damascus. And the Turks renewed their commitment to the Astana path after the tripartite aggression even though they declared their support for it. Thus, it is a stillborn plan as its implementation seems almost impossible. It is most likely that Trump may seek to raise the ceiling of the price of his withdrawal, which he is mainly demanding from the Saudis, by maneuvering and threatening to withdraw immediately unless Mohammed bin Salman pays the price he requests.

Source: Al-Ahed

%d bloggers like this: