Secret Meeting between “Israel’s” Bennett, Jordan’s King Abdullah

09/07/2021

Secret Meeting between “Israel’s” Bennett, Jordan’s King Abdullah

By Staff- Agencies

“Israeli” Prime Minister Naftali Bennett reportedly took a secret trip to Jordan last week and met with King Abdullah II at his palace in Amman in the first meeting between the two sides after years of strained ties.

According to a report by Walla News website, the meeting was very positive.

At the top of the meeting, Bennett informed King Abdullah that he was prepared to approve a deal for the sale of more water from the “Israeli”-occupied territories to Jordan, beyond the quota provided by the 1994 so-called bilateral peace agreement.

“Both Bennett and the Jordanian king agreed to turn the page and resume normal dialogue,” the official said.

The Zionist entity said this appeared to be a tit-for-tat move for Jordanian Crown Prince Hussein bin Abdullah’s canceled trip to Al-Aqsa compound.

The meeting marked the first time Abdullah has met an “Israeli” prime minister since he hosted Benjamin Netanyahu in 2018. That meeting was also held in secret and only announced after it took place.

“Israeli” media outlets indicated on Thursday evening that Jordanian officials were unhappy with the fact that the meeting leaked out, since the two sides had agreed it would not be publicized.

A source told “Israel’s” Channel 12 TV that the news “embarrassed the king and it will definitely affect the ties” between Amman and Tel Aviv.

Bennett’s office contacted the Jordanians after the news of the meeting spread, and told them it was not responsible for the leak, “Israel’s” Kan News reported.

Leaks of the meeting came hours after “Israeli” foreign minister Yair Lapid met with his Jordanian counterpart, Ayman Safadi, on the Jordanian side of the King Hussein Bridge, which connects the occupied West Bank with Jordan.

أحمد جبريل… المُقاتل العنيد

مقالة ماهر الطاهر

الجمعة 9 تموز 2021

أحمد جبريل... المُقاتل العنيد
آمن جبريل بعمق بمحمور المقاومة وبقدرته على تعديل موازين القوى في المنطقة (أ ف ب )

في يوم حزين، هو السابع من تموز 2021، رحل عن عالمنا القائد الفلسطيني الكبير، أحمد جبريل، «أبو جهاد»، أحد مؤسّسي الثورة الفلسطينية المعاصرة، و«منظمة التحرير الفلسطينية». وبرحيله، فقدت الحركة الوطنية الفلسطينية والشعب الفلسطيني، كما الأمّة العربية والإسلامية وأحرار العالم، مقاتلاً عنيداً لا يعرف اليأس والخنوع.

وجد جبريل نفسه مع عائلته وأهله لاجئاً في سوريا بعد نكبة عام 1948. ومنذ أواسط خمسينيات القرن الماضي، بدأ يفكّر بتأسيس حركة يكون هدفها تحرير فلسطين. فانخرط، لتلك الغاية، في الكلية العسكرية، ودرس في مصر وتخرّج ضابطاً همُّه أن يعود إلى وطنه ويردّ على الجريمة الكبرى، جريمة اقتلاع الشعب العربي الفلسطيني من أرضه وتشريده في كل أصقاع الأرض. وعلى مدى أكثر من 65 عاماً، ناضل «أبو جهاد» وكافح وخاض كل معارك الثورة الفلسطينية المعاصرة مقاتلاً شجاعاً حتى آخر لحظة من حياته.

تميَّزت تجربة القائد أحمد جبريل، على مدى العقود الستة الماضية، بإيمانه بمجموعةٍ من الثوابت والمبادئ التي لم يحِدْ عنها قيْد أنملة، على رغم كل التحوّلات والعواصف التي مرّت على المنطقة العربية والعالم؛ وأهمّ هذه الثوابت والمبادئ:

أولاً: آمن «أبو جهاد» بعمق، بأن الصراع مع المشروع الصهيوني هو صراع وجود بكل ما للكلمة من معنى؛ فرفض بشكل قاطع نهج التسويات والتنازلات والحلول السياسية التي تؤدّي إلى الاعتراف بالكيان الإسرائيلي. ولذلك، كان أحد مؤسّسي «جبهة الرفْض الفلسطينية» التي تمّ تشكيلها بعد «حرب أكتوبر» عام 1973، عندما تمّ طرْح مسألة التسوية السياسية ومؤتمر جنيف. إذ كان يرى أن الانخراط في التسويات السياسية، هدفه تكريس الوجود الصهيوني والكيان الإسرائيلي على أرض فلسطين، فبقي ثابتاً على مواقفه، على رغم كل ما شهدته الساحة الفلسطينية والعربية من تحولات في المفاهيم والمواقف.

تميَّزت تجربة جبريل بإيمانه بمجموعةٍ من الثوابت والمبادئ التي لم يحِدْ عنها


ثانياً: آمن بأن قضيّة فلسطين هي قضيّة عربية، ورفَض كل محاولات عزلها عن عمقها العربي، لإيمانه بأن تحرير فلسطين مهمّة عربية، وليست مهمّة فلسطينية فحسب، لأن الخطر الصهيوني لا يهدِّد الشعب الفلسطيني وحده، بل الأمّة العربية بأسرها.
كذلك، كان يرى أن للقضيّة الفلسطينية بُعدها الإسلامي، وخاصّة بعد انتصار الثورة الإسلامية في إيران، ووقوف طهران الكامل إلى جانب الشعب الفلسطيني، فضلاً عن تقديمها كلّ أشكال الدعم للثورة الفلسطينية والمقاومة الفلسطينية. كما كان يؤمن بالبُعد التحرّري العالمي للقضيّة الفلسطينية.

ثالثاً: آمن المناضل أحمد جبريل بعمق بمحور المقاومة وبقدرته على تعديل موازين القوى في المنطقة. ولذلك، ربطته علاقات وثيقة بهذا المحور: سوريا، الجمهورية الإسلامية الإيرانية، المقاومة اللبنانية بقيادة «حزب الله»، المقاومة العراقية، والمقاومة في اليمن. وكان يحظى باحترام وتقدير جميع أطراف هذا المحور.

رابعاً: كان الراحل الكبير «أبو جهاد» يؤمن بعمْق بالمقاومة المسلَّحة كخيار استراتيجي في مواجهة الكيان الصهيوني، وأنَّ ما أُخذ بالقوّة لا يستردّ بغير القوّة. وقد جاءت الأحداث والوقائع لتؤكد صحّة ما سبق، بعدما ثبُت فشل خيار ما سُمّي بعملية السلام المزيّفة، والتي كان هدفها الوحيد ضرب المشروع التحرّري للشعب الفلسطيني.

في الوقت الذي نتقدم فيه بأحرّ التعازي إلى شعبنا الفلسطيني وأمّتنا العربية والإسلامية وإلى رفاق الدرب في «الجبهة الشعبية لتحرير فلسطين – القيادة العامة»، وإلى الرفيق المناضل الدكتور طلال ناجي وأعضاء المكتب السياسي واللجنة المركزية، فنحن على ثقة بأن رفاق القائد الكبير أحمد جبريل في «القيادة العامة» سيواصلون درب الكفاح والنضال حتى تحرير كل ذرّة من تراب فلسطين. وفي الختام نتوجّه بأحرّ التعازي إلى عائلة وأبناء القائد «أبو جهاد»، الأخ أبو العمرين، والأخ بدر، وجميع أفراد عائلته.

* عضو المكتب السياسي
لـ«الجبهة الشعبية لتحرير فلسطين
»

من كابول إلى بغداد مفاوضات الجلاء تحت النار

 محمد صادق الحسيني

أصوات عالية بدأت تسمع في واشنطن مفادها بأن بايدن رئيس ضعيف وأنّ إيران تستغلّ ضعفه لإخراجنا من كل من أفغانستان والعراق، كما جاء على لسان السيناتور الجمهوري في الكونغرس الأميركي ليندسي غراهام والذي صرّح بالحرف الواحد:

“الإيرانيون يبذلون جهداً لإخراجنا من العراق وأفغانستان ليسيطروا على هذين البلدين، كما يسعون لصناعة قنبلة نوويّة ويبحثون عن تدمير إسرائيل”.

 أضاف: “إنني لم أقلق يوماً كما أقلق الآن من إمكانية نشوب حرب بين إيران وإسرائيل”.

من جهة أخرى، فإنّ كلّ التقارير الميدانية الواردة من أفغانستان والعراق وإنْ بشكل متفاوت ومختلف، تفيد بأنّ واشنطن يتقلص نفوذها هناك وهي في طريقها للرحيل صاغرة أمام تحوّلات البلدين المتسارعة نحو التحرّر من الهيمنة الأميركية.

وهذا قانون من قوانين السنن الكونية بعد خسارة الأميركيين كل معاركهم ضدّ هذين البلدين كما ضدّ شعوب المنطقة.

في المقابل، فإنّ هذا لا يعني سقوط أميركا وهزيمتها الكاملة، والأهمّ إقرارها هي بهذه الحقيقة.

بل إنّ ثمة ما يشي بذهاب واشنطن الى خطط جديدة تقيها دفع الأثمان الباهظة نتيجة هذا الانسحاب بالإكراه ولو مؤقتاً…!

ففي أفغانستان ظلت واشنطن لفترة طويلة تحشد حوالي هذا البلد الإسلامي (جمهوريّات الاتحاد السوفياتيّ السابقة) بمجموعات من المسلّحين الإرهابيين من داعش والقاعدة في مناورة مكشوفة لإشعال حروب اثنية تجعل الاستقرار في هذا البلد الذي يمثل الكوريدور الحيوي شمال – جنوب، صعب المنال ليس فقط للأفغان، بل وأيضاً لإعدائها وتحويل هذا الطريق لكلّ من روسيا وإيران بمثابة حزام ناري يلفّ كلّ الحيّز الحيوي الجيوبوليتيكي لهذين البلدين الصاعدين دولياً الى جانب الصين.

هذا كما لجأت واشنطن مؤخراً الى حارس مرمى الناتو الجنوبي ومخلبها المتقدّم أردوغان لتسليم أمن مطار كابول أولاً ومن ثم المدينة أيضاً (حسب ما جاء في محادثات بايدن وأردوغان في بروكسل أثناء قمة الناتو) ربما في مقدّمة لإحداث قاعدة عسكريّة هناك لهم كما هي الحالة في قطر والصومال (علماً انّ هناك الآن نحو 500 جندي تركي في أفغانستان)، على افتراض ان تتحوّل هذه المعادلة الأمنية الجديدة بمثابة التفاف جديد للناتو حول رقبة كلّ من إيران شرقاً وموسكو جنوباً والصين غرباً…!

في ما يخص العراق تحاول واشنطن أن ترمي بالعراق الجديد الذي تؤكده كلّ حقائق الجغرافيا والتاريخ بمثابة الجار الطبيعي الحليف لإيران، بمثابة حلقة “إبراهيمية” في تحالف “شامي” مزيّف مع كلّ من الأردن ومصر، لترميه في غياهب اللاهوية واللا قرار، غصباً عن أهله وطبيعته الناصعة في الانتماء العربي والإسلامي المقاوم.

ولما كانت تظنّ كما في أفغانستان أنها في طريقها لفقدان نفوذها المباشر وعليها الرحيل في أقرب الآجال فهي تحاول من خلال تعطيل او الإخلال في الانتخابات المقبلة بهدف الإبقاء على بقايا من بقاياها في نسيج السلطة!

إنّ واشنطن تعرف تماماً أنّ موازين القوى العالمية والإقليمية الجديدة تتحدث على أرض الواقع بأنّ وجودها في بحارنا وأراضينا لم يعد مقبولاً، وانّ عليها الرحيل، وهي تحزم حقائبها في إطار دفع هذا الثمن، لكن دفع هذا الثمن بالأقساط وتحت النار، نار الفتن الإثنية والمذهبيّة، وإشغال قوى محور المقاومة وأصدقائنا من الروس والصينيين في معارك جانبية عديدة لمنعهم من ملء الفراغ…!

وقد أتت معركة سيف القدس الأخيرة بمثابة إضافة نوعية مهمة ليس فقط في رفع قدرات محور المقاومة في موازين القوى العالميّة والإقليمية، بل وفي تخفيض وزن العدو “الإسرائيلي” لدى واشنطن أيضاً وليس فقط بالمقارنة مع قوّتنا الصاعدة، ما يجعل واشنطن أكثر حماساً في الرحيل السريع، وأكثر إحجاماً عن الدخول في حروب جديدة منعاً لاستنزاف قواتها في حروب لم تعد مضمونة كما كانت في القرن الماضي…!

ما يجري في لبنان وسورية من ضغوط عالية جداً في مجال التضييق على أهلنا في الغذاء والدواء والمحروقات، ومحاولة وقف عجلة إعادة البناء او التسريع في الانهيارات الاقتصادية، إنما يتمّ بشكل ممنهج ومنظم من قبل عملاء وأدوات أميركا من كارتيلات وحيتان مال وبقايا أمراء حروب، تلعب في الوقت الضائع لصالح سيدها، الى حين تنتهي معركة التفاوض بين إيران وأميركا وروسيا والصين مع أميركا، تحت النار، لا أكثر ولا أقلّ…!

عملية العدوان الغادر على مقار الحشد الشعبي على الحدود العراقية السورية، بأمر من بايدن شخصياً، جاءت لخدمة السياسة الآنفة الذكر وفي رسالة ردع يائسة لمنع العراق من الالتحاق بمعركة “الحرب الإقليميّة من أجل القدس” القادمة لا محالة.

وفي هذا السياق لا فرق إن تمّ التوافق بين طهران وواشنطن في فيينا أو ذهبت الأمور الى نهاياتها المسدودة وهو الأرجح، وكذلك لا فرق أن تعزّز توافق بوتين وبايدن للحفاظ على التوازن الاستراتيجي الذي تمّ في جنيف مؤخراً، أو عاد الطرفان الى تسعير الحرب الباردة بينهما من جديد، فالأمر سيان.

ففي كلتا الحالتين فإنّ المرحلة الانتقالية هذه ستظلّ سائدة الى حين، وأنّ نهاياتها لا بدّ منتهية بنصر وانفراج كبيرين لمحور المقاومة المنتصر.

والمعسكر المهزوم ليس أمامه سوى عدّ أيامه المتبقية في المنطقة بانتظار ترتيبات المغادرة والانسحاب من دون شك أو ترديد.

إنهم راحلون لأنهم طارئون ونحن الباقون لأننا أصحاب الأرض والحق، والسنن الكونية الواضحة والجازمة تعمل كما يجب، وهي في هذه الحالة لصالحنا وهي التي تقطع بأنّ المنهزم عليه دفع الثمن، وانّ المنتصر هو من يحدّد شروط الهزيمة والإذعان، وليس العكس.

بعدنا طيبين قولوا الله…

فيديوات متعلقة

مقالات متعلقة

TV report on Muslim Brotherhood’s varying stances towards Israel

June 27, 2021

Description:

A TV report on the divergent political stances towards Israel of the Muslim Brotherhood’s various branches across the Arab and Islamic world.

Source: Al Mayadeen TV (You Tube)

Date: June 7, 2021

(Note: Please help us keep producing independent translations by contributing a small monthly amount here )

Transcript:

UAE’s foreign minister Abdullah Bin Zayed put the name of the Muslim Brotherhood next to (the names of) Hezbollah and Hamas in a striking statement in which he attacked both resistance groups.

The Muslim Brotherhood movement however, no longer has a unified (political) direction, as it has undergone radical shifts following the so-called Arab Spring, especially when branches of (the movement) came to power in Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco. (The movement( was also strongly present in the Syrian crisis. (During this time), the objective of the US and the West in general was to support the movement’s branches in order to develop a new policy that accepts Israel, then normalizes (relations) with it.

It is normal for the branches of the movement in different countries to have their differences. However, with its rise into positions of power and its need to deal with projects such as the “Deal of the Century” and the subsequent surrender (to Israel) agreements,  the movement has witnessed a deep divergence in attitudes and (political) positioning.

In Morocco, for example,  the Justice and Development Party faced a dilemma in relation to its convictions (on the one hand), and the needs of the government (on the other), but this did not prevent it from normalizing (relations) with Israel.

In Tunisia, the Renaissance movement (Ennahda) has stifled – on many occasions – the (parliamentary initiative) to criminalize any normalization with the Israeli occupation, despite Ennahda expressing its support for the Palestinian people and its opposition to normalization.

While in power, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt adhered to the Camp David Accords, (thereby) obliterating the history of the movement, However, after losing power, it rejected the American Deal of the Century and its implications.

The harm caused by the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood to the current fighting against the submissive (‘peace’) projects (with Israel), and the provocative stances of some of its leaders against the Palestinian resistance factions during the “Sword of al-Quds” battle also goes without saying.

Many labels have been used (by the movement) to justify abandoning (its) principles, such as rationality and keeping ‘in touch’ with the (changing) circumstances. In fact, Qatar and Turkey acted as the supporter and the model for some of the Brotherhood branches, in that Doha maintains strong relations with Tel-Aviv, while Ankara has official relations with the Israeli entity.

However, unlike the aberration and illusions of the aforementioned branches of the Muslim Brotherhood, other branches in Algeria and Jordan have taken honorable positions against normalization (with Israel) to the point where they called for direct confrontation against the ‘Deal of the Century’ and the Gulf normalization projects with Israel. 


Subscribe to our mailing list!

Related Posts:

On Nasser’s Fight for Arabic Independence and a Free Palestine

Visual search query image

Cynthia Chung

June 15, 2021

Nasser became the catalyst for an Arab Revolution for independence, a revolution that remains yet to be finished, Cynthia Chung writes.

In the 1950s the so-called enemy of the West was not only Moscow but the Third World’s emerging nationalists, from Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt to Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran. The United States and Britain staged a coup d’état against Mossadegh, and used the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist movement and the grandfather organization of the militant Islamic right, in an attempt to remove Nasser, the leader of the Arab nationalists.

In the 1960s, left wing nationalism and Arab socialism spread from Egypt to Algeria to Syria, Iraq and Palestine. This emergence presented a threat to the old imperialist game of Great Britain, to which the United States was a recent recruit of, and thus they decided to forge a working alliance with Saudi Arabia intent on using Wahhabi fundamentalism as their foreign policy arm in the Middle East, along with the Muslim Brotherhood.

This paper will go through the carving up of the Middle East under Sykes-Picot, the British creation of Saudi Arabia and Israel and the British occupation of Palestine, the origin of the Muslim Brotherhood and Nasser’s fight for Arab independence. In a follow-up paper, I will discuss the role of the City of London in facilitating the bankroll of the first Islamic fundamentalist state Saudi Arabia, along with the Muslim Brotherhood and its terrorist apparatus.

An “Arab Awakening” Made in Britain

The renunciation will not be easy. Jewish hopes have been raised to such a pitch that the non-fulfilment of the Zionist dream of a Jewish state in Palestine will cause intense disillusionment and bitterness. The manifold proofs of public spirit and of capacity to endure hardships and face danger in the building up of the national home are there to testify to the devotion with which a large section of the Jewish people cherish the Zionist ideal. And it would be an act of further cruelty to the Jews to disappoint those hopes if there existed some way of satisfying them, that did not involve cruelty to another people. But the logic of facts is inexorable. It shows that no room can be made in Palestine for a second nation except by dislodging or exterminating the nation in possession.”

– the concluding paragraph of George Antonius’ “The Arab Awakening” (1938)

Much of what is responsible for the war and havoc in the Middle East today has the British orchestrated so-called “Arab Awakening” to thank, led by characters such as E.G. Browne, St. John Philby, T.E. Lawrence of Arabia, and Gertrude Bell. Although its origins go as far back as the 19th century, it was only until the early 20th century, that the British were able to reap significant results from its long harvest.

The Arab Revolt of 1916-1918, had been, to the detriment of the Arab people, a British led rebellion. The British claimed that their sole interest in the affair was the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire and had given their word that these Arab territories would be freed and allowed independence if they agreed to rebel, in large part led and directed by the British.

It is a rather predictable feature of the British to lie and double cross and thus it should be of no surprise to anyone that their intentions were quite the opposite of what they had promised and thanks to the Sykes-Picot Russian leak, were revealed in their entire shameful glory.

If the Sultan of Turkey were to disappear, then the Caliphate by common consent of Islam would fall to the family of the prophet, Hussein ibn Ali the Sharif of Mecca, a candidate which was approved by the British Cairo office as suitable for British strings. T.E. Lawrence, who worked at the Cairo bureau is quoted as saying:

If the Sultan of Turkey were to disappear, then the Caliphate by common consent of Islam would fall to the family of the prophet, the present representative of which is Hussein, the Sharif of Mecca….If properly handled the Arab States would remain in a state of political mosaic, a tissue of jealous principalities incapable of cohesion…” (1)

Once the Arab Revolt was “won” against the Ottoman Empire, instead of the promised Arab independence, the Middle East was carved up into zones of influence under British and French colonial rule. Puppet monarchies were created in regions that were considered not under direct colonial subjugation in order to continue the illusion that Arabs remained in charge of sacred regions such as Mecca and Medina.

In central Arabia, Hussein, Sharif of Mecca, the puppet leader of the Arab Revolt laid claim to the title Caliph in 1924, which his rival Wahhabite Abdul-Aziz ibn Saud rejected and declared war, defeating the Hashemites. Hussein abdicated and ibn Saud, the favourite of the British India Office, was proclaimed King of Hejaz and Najd in 1926, which led to the founding of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

The Al Saud warriors of Wahhabism were a formidable strike force that the British believed would help London gain control of the western shores of the Persian Gulf.

Hussein ibn Ali’s son Faisal (under the heavy tutelage of T.E. Lawrence) was bestowed as King of Iraq and Hussein’s other son, Abdullah I was established as the Emir of Transjordan until a negotiated legal separation of Transjordan from Britain’s Palestine mandate occurred in 1946, whereupon he was crowned King of Jordan. (For more on this history refer to my paper.)

While the British were promising Arab independence they simultaneously were promising a homeland in Palestine to the Jews. The Balfour Declaration of November 2nd, 1917 states:

His majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object…

Palestine had been seized by the British during the so-called Arab Revolt on December 11th, 1917 when General Allenby marched into Jerusalem through the Jaffa Gate and declared martial law over the city. Palestine has remained occupied ever since.

Britain would receive the mandate over Palestine from the League of Nations in July 1922.

Throughout the 1920s and 1930s violent confrontations between Jews and Arabs took place in Palestine costing hundreds of lives. In 1936 a major Arab revolt occurred over 7 months, until diplomatic efforts involving other Arab countries led to a ceasefire. In 1937, a British Royal Commission of Inquiry headed by William Peel concluded that Palestine had two distinct societies with irreconcilable political demands, thus making it necessary to partition the land.

The Arab Higher Committee refused Peel’s “prescription” and the revolt broke out again. This time, Britain responded with a devastatingly heavy hand. Roughly 5,000 Arabs were killed by the British armed forces and police.

Following the riots, the British mandate government dissolved the Arab Higher Committee and declared it an illegal body.

In response to the revolt, the British government issued the White Paper of 1939, which stated that Palestine should be a bi-national state, inhabited by both Arabs and Jews. Due to the international unpopularity of the mandate including within Britain itself, it was organised such that the United Nations would take responsibility for the British initiative and adopted the resolution to partition Palestine on November 29th, 1947. Britain would announce its termination of its Mandate for Palestine on May 15th, 1948 after the State of Israel declared its independence on May 14th, 1948.

The Rise of the Muslim Brotherhood

In 1869, a man named Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, the intellectual founder of the Salafiyya movement, went to India where British led colonial authorities welcomed him with honors and graciously escorted him aboard a government owned vessel on an all expenses paid voyage to the Suez. (2)

In Cairo he was adopted by the Egyptian prime minister Riad Pasha, a notorious enemy of the emerging nationalist movement in Egypt. Pasha persuaded Afghani to stay in Egypt and allowed him to take up residence in Cairo’s 900 year old Al Azhar mosque considered the center of Islamic learning worldwide, where he received lodging and a monthly government stipend (paid for by the British). (3)

In 1879, Cairo nationalists in the Egyptian Army, led by the famous Egyptian hero Ahmed ‘Urabi, organised an uprising against the British role in Egypt. Afghani was expelled from Egypt by the Egyptian nationalists that same year.

Ahmed ‘Urabi served as prime minister of Egypt briefly, from July 1882 to Sept 1882, however, his movement for Egyptian independence was eventually crushed by the British with the shelling of Alexandria in July 1882 followed by an invasion which resulted in a direct British occupation of Egypt that would last until 1956. It would be Gamal Abdel Nasser who would finally end British colonial rule of Egypt during the Suez Crisis, whereupon the Suez canal was nationalised and the British military bases expelled.

While Egypt was fighting its nationalist fight from 1879-1882, Afghani and his chief disciple Muhammad Abduh travelled together first to Paris and then to Britain, it was in Britain that they would make a proposal for a pan-Islamic alliance among Egypt, Turkey, Persia and Afghanistan against Czarist Russia (4).

In addition, the crisis in Sudan, was in the middle of a tribal religious rebellion against the British led by a man named Mohammed Ahmad a Sudanese sheikh who proclaimed himself the Mahdi, or savior, and was leading a puritanical Islamic revolt. (5)

What Afghani was proposing to the British was that they provide aid and resources to support his formation of a militant Islam sect that would favour Britain’s interest in the Middle East, in other words, Afghani wished to fight Islam with Islam, having stated in one of his works “We do not cut the head of religion except by sword of religion.”(6)

Although it is said that the British refused this offer, this is not likely considering the support Afghani would receive in creating the intellectual foundation for a pan-Islamic movement with British patronage and the support of England’s leading orientalist E.G. Browne, the godfather of twentieth century Orientalism and teacher of St John Philby and T.E. Lawrence.

E.G. Browne would make sure the work of Afghani would continue long beyond his death by immortalising him in his 1910 “The Persian Revolution,” considered an authoritative history of the time.

In 1888, Abduh, the chief disciple of Afghani, would return to Egypt in triumph with the full support of the representatives of her Majesty’s imperial force and took the first of several positions in Cairo, openly casting his lot with Lord Cromer, who was the symbol of British imperialism in Egypt.

Abduh would found, with the hold of London’s Egyptian proconsul Evelyn Baring (aka Lord Cromer) who was the scion of the enormously powerful banking clan (Barings Bank) under the city of London, the Salafiyya movement. (7)

Abduh had attached himself to the British rulers of Egypt and created the cornerstone of the Muslim Brotherhood which dominated the militant Islamic right throughout the twentieth century.

In 1899, Abduh reached the pinnacle of his power and influence, and was named mufti of Egypt.

***

In 1902, Riyadh fell to Ibn Saud and it was during this period that Ibn Saud established the fearsome Ikhwan (translated as “brotherhood”). He collected fighters from Bedouin tribes firing them up with fanatical religious zeal and threw them into battle. By 1912 the Ikhwan numbered 11,000 and Ibn Saud had both central Arabia’s Nejd and Al-Ahsa in the east under his control.

From the 1920s onward, the new Saudi state merged its Wahhabi orthodoxy with the Salafiyya movement (which would be organised into the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928).

William Shakespear, a famed British agent, forged the first formal treaty between England and Saudi Arabia which was signed in 1915, which bound London and Arabia for years before Saudi Arabia became a country. “It formally recognized Ibn Saud as the independent ruler of the Nejd and its Dependencies under British protection. In return, Ibn Saud undertook to follow British advice.” (8)

Harry St. John Bridger Philby, a British operative schooled by E.G. Browne and father to the legendary triple agent Kim Philby, would succeed Shakespear as Great Britain’s liaison to Ibn Saud under the British India Office, the friendly rival of the Cairo Arab Bureau office which was sponsoring T.E. Lawrence of Arabia.

In Egypt 1928, Hassan al-Banna (a follower of Afghani and Abduh) founded the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan al-Muslimeen), the organization that would change the course of history in the twentieth century Middle East.

Banna’s Muslim Brotherhood was established with a grant from England’s Suez Canal Company (9) and from that point on, British diplomats and intelligence service, along with the British puppet King Farouq would use the Muslim Brotherhood as a truncheon against Egypt’s nationalists and later against Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser.

To get the Muslim Brotherhood off the ground, the Suez Canal Company helped Banna build the mosque in Ismailia that would serve as its headquarters and base of operation. (10) The fact that Banna created the organization in Ismailia is itself worthy of note. For England, the Suez Canal was the indispensable route to its prize possession, India and in 1928 the town Ismailia happened to house not only the company’s offices but a major British military base built during WWI. It was also, in the 1920s a center of pro-British sentiment in Egypt.

In the post-WWI world, England reigned supreme, the flag of the British empire was everywhere from the Mediterranean to India. A new generation of kings and potentates ruled over British dominated colonies, mandates, vassal states, and semi-independent fiefdoms in Egypt, Iraq, Transjordan, Arabia and Persia. To varying degrees those monarchies were beholden to London.

In the half century between 1875 and 1925 the building blocks of the militant Islamic right were cemented in place by the British Empire.

Nasser Leads the Fight for Arab Independence

In 1942, the Muslim Brotherhood would earn their well-deserved reputation for extremism and violence by establishing the “Secret Apparatus,” an intelligence service and secret terrorist unit. This clandestine unit functioned for over twelve years almost entirely unchecked, assassinating judges, police officers, government officials and engaging in goon squad attacks on labor unions and communists.

Throughout this period the Muslim Brotherhood worked for the most part in an alliance with King Farouq (and thus the British), using their clandestine forces on behalf of British interests. And throughout its entire existence it would receive political support and money from the Saudi royal family and the Wahhabi establishment (more on this in part 2 of this series).

The Secret Apparatus would be smashed into pieces by Nasser in 1954.

After WWII, the faltering Farouq regime lashed out against the left in an intense campaign of repression aimed at the communists. The Cold War was beginning. In 1946, prime minister Isma’il Sidqi of Egypt who was installed as head of the government with the support of Banna, openly funded the Muslim Brotherhood and provided training camps for its shock troops used in a sweeping anti-left campaign. Sidqi resigned in Dec 1946 after less than one year as PM due to massive unpopularity.

As King Farouq began to lose his grip on the Egyptian people, the Brotherhood distanced itself while maintaining shadowy ties to the army and to foreign intelligence agencies and always opposed to the left.

The Palestine War (1947-1949) resulted in the establishment of the State of Israel at the cost of 700,000 displaced Palestinian Arabs and the destruction of most of their urban areas.

The territory that was under British administration before the war was divided between the State of Israel (officially formed May 14th, 1948), which captured about 78% of it. In opposition to Israel, the Kingdom of Jordan captured and later annexed the West Bank, and Egypt captured the Gaza Strip, with the Arab League establishing the All-Palestine Government, which came to an end in June 1967 when the Gaza Strip, along with the West Bank, were captured by Israel in the Six-Day War.

The Egyptian people were furious over these developments, and the reign of British puppet King Farouq who had done nothing to prevent the dismantling of Palestine was on extremely shaky ground. In response to this, Farouq’s accord with the Muslim Brotherhood broke down, and in December 1948, the Egyptian government outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood. Weeks later a Brotherhood assassin murdered prime minister Mahmoud El Nokrashy.

Two months later, in Feb. 1949, Banna was assassinated in Cairo by the Egyptian secret police.

For Arab nationalists, Israel was a symbol of Arab weakness and semi-colonial subjugation, overseen by proxy kings in Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia.

On the night of July 23, 1952, the Free Officers, led by Muhammad Naguib and Gamal Abdel Nasser, staged a military coup that launched the Egyptian Revolution of 1952, overthrowing the British puppet monarch. The Free Officers, knowing that warrants had been issued for their arrest, launched the coup that night, storming the staff headquarters in Cairo.

Cairo was now, for the first time, under the control of the Arab people after over 70 years of British occupation.

The seizure of power by the Free Officers in Egypt came during an era when the entire Arab world from Morocco to Iraq was locked in the grip of imperialism. Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia were French colonies; Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE, Oman and Yemen were British colonies. Iraq, Jordan and Saudi Arabia were kingdoms ruled by monarchies installed by London. And Egypt under King Farouq was the political and economic center of the Arab world.

A growing surge of Arab nationalism arose in response to the Free Officers’ actions in Egypt. The powerful Voice of the Arabs radio in Cairo was reporting to the entire Arab world that they had found their independence movement, and that Nasser was at its helm.

From 1956 to 1958 Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon underwent rebellions, Iraq’s king was toppled, and Syria united with Egypt in Nasser’s United Arab Republic, part of Nasser’s strategy to unify the Arab world.

In Algeria, moral and material support was given from Cairo towards the Algerian revolution that finally won them independence from French colonial rule in 1962.

That same year, Yemen underwent a Nasser-inspired revolt, triggering a proxy war pitting Saudi Arabia against Egypt, with Nasser stating in a 1962 speech, “Yemen’s fight is my fight. Yemen’s Revolution is our Revolution.”

Nasser’s leadership and the inspiration he stirred were so strong that even as late as 1969 the year before Nasser’s death, Libya’s king was overthrown and Sudan’s right-wing regime was eliminated by military leaders loyal to Nasser.

Nasser had managed to threaten the very heart of Anglo-America’s post-WWII strategy in the Middle East. Nasser understood, that if the vast oil fields in Saudi Arabia were under Arab control, the potential for an economic boom would be enormous for all Arab states, such that the old game of imperialism by Britain and France could no longer retain its chokehold on Arab independence.

Not only was Egypt a military rival to Saudi Arabia, not only did Cairo clash with Riyadh in a shooting war in Yemen, not only did Nasser inspire Arabs in Saudi Arabia with republican ideals but the Egyptian leader even won over some of Saudi Arabia’s royal family. This group was led by Prince Talal to form the ‘Free Princes’, which defected to Egypt demanding the establishment of a republic in Saudi Arabia!

What was really going on during the period of 1954 to 1970, under Nasser’s leadership, was a war between two competing visions for the future of the Middle East; an Arab world of independent but cooperative Arab republics utilising their natural resources to facilitate an economic boom in industrialisation vs a semi-feudal scattering of monarchies with their natural resources largely at the West’s disposal.

The real reason why the British and Anglo Americans wanted Nasser removed, was not because he was a communist or because he was susceptible to communist influence; it was because he refused to obey his would-be foreign controllers and was rather successful in this endeavour, bringing their shadowy actions uncomfortably close to the light and inspiring loyalty amongst Arabs outside of Egypt including those sitting on top of the oil.

What especially worried London and Washington was the idea that Nasser might succeed in his plan to unify Egypt and Saudi Arabia thus creating a major Arab power. Nasser believed that these oil wells were not only for the government of those territories to do with as they wished but belonged to all Arab people and thus should be used for the advancement of the Arab world. Afterall, most Arabs are aware that both the monarchies themselves and the artificial borders that demarcate their states, were designed by imperialists seeking to build fences around oil wells in the 1920s.

Nasser understood that if Cairo and Riyadh were to unite in a common cause for the uplifting of the Arab people, it would create a vastly important new Arab center of gravity with worldwide influence.

In 1954 Egypt and the United Kingdom had signed an agreement over the Suez Canal and British military basing rights. It was a short lived. By 1956 Great Britain, France and Israel concocted a plot against Egypt aimed at toppling Nasser and seizing control of the Suez Canal, a conspiracy that enlisted the Muslim Brotherhood.

In fact, the British went so far as to hold secret meetings with the Muslim Brotherhood in Geneva. According to author Stephen Dorrill, two British intelligence agents Col. Neil McLean and Julian Amery, helped MI6 organize a clandestine anti-Nasser opposition in the south of France and in Switzerland, (11) in his book he writes “They also went so far as to make contact in Geneva…with members of the Muslim Brotherhood, informing only MI6 of this demarche which they kept secret from the rest of the Suez Group [which was planning the military operation via its British bases by the Suez Canal]. Amery forwarded various names to [Selwyn] Lloyd, [the British foreign secretary].”

British prime minister Anthony Eden, Churchill’s handpicked successor, was violently anti-Nasser all along and considered a British coup d’état in Cairo as early as 1953. Other than such brash actions, the only political force that could mount a challenge to Nasser was the Muslim Brotherhood which had hundreds of thousands of followers.

Nasser’s long postponed showdown with the Muslim Brotherhood occurred in 1954, this was timed to add pressure during the rising frustration concerning the British-Egyptian negotiations over the transfer of the Suez Canal and its military bases to Egypt. The British, after over 70 years of direct occupation in Egypt, were not going to give up on one of their most prized jewels, their gateway to the Orient, so easily.

From 1954 on, Anthony Eden, the British prime minister was demanding Nasser’s head. According to Stephen Dorrill’s “MI6: Fifty Years of Special Operations”, Eden had ranted “What’s all this nonsense about isolating Nasser or ‘neutralising’ him, as you call it? I want him destroyed, can’t you understand? I want him murdered…And I don’t give a damn if there’s anarchy and chaos in Egypt.”

Nasser would not back down, and in the first few months of 1954 the Muslim Brotherhood and Nasser went to war, culminating in Nasser outlawing them as a terrorist group and a pawn of the British.

On Oct. 1954, a Muslim Brotherhood member Mahmoud Abdel-Latif attempted to assassinate Nasser while he was delivering a speech in Alexandria, which was live broadcasting to the Arab world by radio, to celebrate the British military withdrawal.

Panic broke out in the mass audience, but Nasser maintained his posture and raised his voice to appeal for calm, and with great emotion he exclaimed the following:

My countrymen, my blood spills for you and for Egypt. I will live for your sake and die for the sake of your freedom and honor. Let them kill me; it does not concern me so long as I have instilled pride, honor, and freedom in you.”

The crowd roared in approval and Arab audiences were electrified. The assassination attempt backfired, and quickly played back into Nasser’s hands. Upon returning to Cairo, he ordered one of the largest political crackdowns in the modern history of Egypt, with the arrests of thousands of dissenters, mostly members of the Brotherhood.

The decree banning the Muslim Brotherhood organization said “The revolution will never allow reactionary corruption to recur in the name of religion.” (12)

In 1967, there was a Six-Day War between Israel and the Arab states Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq, which was started by Israel in a coordinated aerial attack on Egypt, eliminating roughly 90% of Egyptian air forces that were still on the ground, followed by an aerial attack on Jordan, Syria and Iraq. Israel then went on to conduct a ground attack with tanks and infantry, devastating whole Arab regions.

Despite the disastrous loss to Israel, the people of Egypt refused to accept Nasser’s resignation and took to the streets in a mass demonstration calling for Nasser’s return. Nasser accepted the call of the people and returned to his position as president where he remained as until his death in Sept 1970.

Five million people turned out on the streets of Egypt for Nasser’s funeral, and hundreds of millions more mourned his death throughout the world.

Although Nasser had devastatingly lost a battle, the Egyptian people along with their Arab compatriots understood that the fight for Arab independence was not lost. The dream of dignity and freedom, in forever opposition to the shackles of tyranny could not be buried now that it had been stirred to its very core. Nasser would be the catalyst for an Arab Revolution for independence, a revolution that remains yet to be finished.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is chung_1-175x230.jpg

Also by this author

Cynthia CHUNG

Cynthia Chung is a lecturer, writer and co-founder and editor of the Rising Tide Foundation (Montreal, Canada).

A Damned Murder Inc: Kennedy’s Battle Against the Leviathan

The U.S. Pivot to Asia: Cold War Lessons From Vietnam for TodayReturn of the Leviathan: The Fascist Roots of the CIA and the True Origin of the Cold WarBeyond Oil: How the UAE’s HOPE Mars Mission Is Breaking the Arab World Out of the Crisis of Scarcity

Newspeak in the 21st Century: How to Become a Model Citizen in the New Era of Domestic Warfare

The Washington Post Details US, ‘Israel’, Saudi Role in Coup Plot Against Jordan King

14/06/2021

The Washington Post Details US, ‘Israel’, Saudi Role in Coup Plot Against Jordan King

By Staff, Agencies

The Zionist entity, Saudi Arabia and the US joined forces to pressure Jordan’s King Abdullah II to partake in the US-sponsored “normalization deals” with Tel Aviv, according to the Washington Post.

The Jordanian monarch resisted the attempts, leading to a plot to “destabilize” the country, that ensnared the king’s half-brother Prince Hamza and former senior officials Bassem Awadallah and Sharif Hassan bin Zaid.

According to the report, Saudi crown prince Mohammad bin Salman [MBS], former Zionist PM Benjamin Netanyahu and former US President Donald Trump were at the center of the intrigue.

“It became a belief of Trump that the king was a hindrance” to his plan, a former senior CIA official was quoted as saying.

The report noted the close relations that Trump and his son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner had forged with MBS, Saudi Arabia’s de-facto ruler.

Abdullah was said to be concerned those expanded ties came at Jordan’s expense, because of his reservations over the US proposal for the Middle East.

Abdullah is recognized as the custodian of the Haram esh-Sharif and the al-Aqsa Compound, and other Muslim sites in the Old City, which the Zionist regime occupied in the 1967 Six Day War.

The newspaper wrote that Abdullah felt the US, ‘Israel’ and Saudi Arabia were trying to push him out as custodian.

As Kushner’s campaign to advance Trump’s plan picked up last year, he also hoped to help facilitate a normalization pact between the Zionist entity and Saudi Arabia, according to the report. However, Abdullah was seen as an obstacle to such a rapprochement.

A key figure in the report was Awadallah, one of the former senior officials implicated in the alleged recent plot. Awadallah, a cabinet minister and onetime head of the royal court, moved to Saudi Arabia in 2018 and became close with the Saudi crown prince.

“A sticking point for us is al-Aqsa. The king [Abdullah] uses that to browbeat us and keep his role in the Middle East,” Awadallah was reported to say regarding the US plan.

An unnamed former US official, according to the report, said he was told by Awadallah that “MBS is upset because he can’t get a deal because he can’t handle the reactions of Palestinians if the king holds his position” on occupied al-Quds.

The Post also quoted from a Jordanian investigative report on the coup plot.

“Awadallah was working to promote the ‘deal of the century’ and weaken Jordan’s position and the King’s position on Palestine and the Hashemite Custodianship of Islamic and Christian holy sites in al-Quds,” the Jordanian report said.

According to the same report, bin Zaid, the other senior Jordanian official implicated alongside Awadallah, met in 2019 with two officials from a foreign embassy in Amman “to inquire about their country’s position on supporting Prince Hamzah as an alternative to the King.”

The Post said an unnamed Western official who gave him the report believes the embassy was likely the US mission in the Jordanian capital.

The plot against Jordan’s King Abdullah

Jordan’s King Abdullah II is pictured in Amman on 11 April 2021 (Yousef Allan/Jordanian Royal Palace/AFP)
David Hearst is co-founder and editor-in-chief of Middle East Eye. He is a commentator and speaker on the region and analyst on Saudi Arabia. He was The Guardian’s foreign leader writer, and was correspondent in Russia, Europe, and Belfast. He joined the Guardian from The Scotsman, where he was education correspondent.

David Hearst

14 April 2021 

Abdullah fell foul of the axis of Mohammed bin Salman and Benjamin Netanyahu after refusing to go along with the Trump plan to push West Bank Palestinians into Jordan

For once, just for once, US President Joe Biden got something right in the Middle East, and I say this conscious of his abysmal record in the region.

In accepting the intelligence he was passed by the Jordanians that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was up to his ears in a plot to destabilise the rule of King Abdullah, Biden brought the scheme to a premature halt. Biden did well to do so.

His statement that the US was behind Abdullah had immediate consequences for the other partner in this scheme, Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel.

While bin Salman was starving Jordan of funds (according to former Foreign Minister Marwan Muasher, the Saudis have not provided any direct bilateral assistance since 2014), Netanyahu was starving the kingdom of water.

Without Washington’s overt support, King Abdullah would now be in serious trouble, the victim of a two-pronged offensive from Saudi Arabia and Israel

This is water that Israel siphons off the River Jordan. Under past agreements, Israel has supplied Jordan with water, and when Jordan asks for an additional amount, Israel normally agrees without delay. Not this year: Netanyahu refused, allegedly in retaliation for an incident in which his helicopter was refused Jordanian airspace. He quickly changed his mind after a call from US Secretary of State Antony Blinken to his counterpart, Gabi Ashkenazi.

Had former US President Donald Trump still been in power, it is doubtful whether any of this would have happened.

Without Washington’s overt support, King Abdullah would now be in serious trouble: the victim of a two-pronged offensive from Saudi Arabia and Israel, his population seething with discontent, and his younger half-brother counting the days until he could take over.

The problem with Abdullah

But why were bin Salman and Netanyahu keen to put the skids under an ally like Abdullah?

Abdullah, a career soldier, is not exactly an opposition figure in the region. He of all people is not a Bashar al-Assad, Recep Tayyip Erdogan or Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. 

Abdullah was fully signed up to the counter-revolution against the Arab Spring. Jordan joined the Saudi-led anti-Islamic State coalition, deployed aircraft to target the Houthis in Yemen, and withdrew its ambassador from Iran after the Saudi embassy in Tehran and consul in Mashhad were sacked and Saudi Arabia consequently cut diplomatic relations.Jordan arrested senior suspect over contact with Saudi crown prince Read More »

He attended the informal summit on a yacht in the Red Sea, convened to organise the fight against the influence of Turkey and Iran in the Middle East. That was in late 2015.

In January 2016, Abdullah told US congressmen in a private briefing that Turkey was exporting terrorists to Syria, a statement he denied making afterwards. But the remarks were documented in a Jordanian foreign ministry readout passed to MEE.

Jordan’s special forces trained men that Libyan general Khalifa Haftar used in his failed attempt to take Tripoli. This was the pet project of the UAE.

Abdullah also agreed with the Saudis and Emiratis on a plan to replace Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas with Mohammed Dahlan, the Emirati- and Israeli-preferred choice of successor.

Why then, should this stalwart of the cause now be considered by his Arab allies, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, an inconvenience that needs to be dealt with?

Insufficiently loyal

The answer partly lies in the psychology of bin Salman. It is not good enough to be partially signed up to his agenda. As far as he is concerned, you are either in or out. 

“But there is also a feeling [in Riyadh] that Jordan and others should be with us or against us. So we were not completely with them on Iran. We were not completely with them on Qatar. We were not completely with them on Syria. We did what we could and I don’t think we should have gone further, but to them, that was not enough.”

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman welcomes Jordan's King Abdullah II to Riyadh on 8 March 2021 (Bandar al-Jaloud/Saudi Royal Palace/AFP)
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman welcomes Jordan’s King Abdullah II to Riyadh on 8 March 2021 (Bandar al-Jaloud/Saudi Royal Palace/AFP)

Abdullah’s equivocation certainly was not enough for the intended centrepiece of the new era, Saudi Arabia’s normalisation of relations with Israel.

Here, Jordan would have been directly involved and King Abdullah was having none of it. Had he gone along with the Trump plan, his kingdom – a careful balance between Jordanians and Palestinians – would have been in a state of insurrection.

In addition, Abdullah could not escape the fact that he was a Hashemite, whose legitimacy stems in part from Jordan’s role as custodian of Al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy sites in Jerusalem. This, too, was being threatened by the Al Sauds.

The importance of Aqaba

But the plan itself was regarded by both bin Salman and Netanyahu as too big to stop. I personalise this, because in both Saudi Arabia and Israel, there are experienced foreign policy and intelligence hands who appreciate how quickly this plan would have destabilised Jordan and Israel’s vulnerable eastern border.

The plan has been years in the preparation and the subject of clandestine meetings between the Saudi prince and the Israeli leader. At the centre of it lies Jordan’s sole access to the Red Sea, the strategic port of Aqaba.

The two cities of Aqaba and Ma’an were part of the kingdom of Hejaz from 1916 to 1925. In May 1925, Ibn Saud surrendered Aqaba and Ma’an and they became part of the British Emirate of Transjordan.

The price for turning on the tap of Saudi finance was too high for Abdullah to pay. It was total subservience to Riyadh

It would be another 40 years before the two independent countries would agree on a Jordan-Saudi border. Jordan got 19 kilometres of coastline on the Gulf of Aqaba and 6,000 square kilometres inland, while Saudi Arabia got 7,000 square kilometres of land.

For the new kid on the block, bin Salman, a prince who was always sensitive about his legitimacy, reclaiming Saudi influence over Aqaba in a big trade deal with Israel would be a big part of his claim to restoring Saudi dominance over its hinterland.

And the trade with Israel would be big. Bin Salman is spending $500bn constructing the city of Neom, which is eventually supposed to straddle Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt. Sitting at the mouth of the Gulf of Aqaba, the Jordanian port would be firmly in Saudi sights.

This is where Bassem Awadallah, the former chief of Jordan’s royal court, comes in. Two years before he definitively broke with King Abdullah, and while he was still Jordan’s envoy to Riyadh, Awadallah negotiated the launch of something called the Saudi-Jordanian Coordination Council, a vehicle that Jordanian officials at the time said would “unblock billions of dollars” for the cash-starved Hashemite kingdom.

A giant Jordanian flag is raised during a celebration in the port of Aqaba in 2016 (AFP)
A giant Jordanian flag is raised during a celebration in the port of Aqaba in 2016 (AFP)

Awadallah promised that the council would invest billions of Saudi dollars in Jordan’s leading economic sectors, focusing on the Aqaba Special Economic Zone.

The money, of course, never materialised. Saudi support for the kingdom diminished to a trickle, and according to an informed source, Muasher, Saudi funds stopped almost completely after 2014.Jordan: Why King Abdullah’s troubles are not over Read More »

The price for turning on the tap of Saudi finance was too high for Abdullah to pay. It was total subservience to Riyadh. Under this plan, Jordan would have become a satellite of Riyadh, much as Bahrain has become.

Netanyahu had his own sub-agenda in the huge trade that would flow from Neom once Saudi Arabia had formally recognised Israel.

A confirmed enemy of the Oslo plan to set up a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, Netanyahu and the Israeli right have always eyed annexation of Area C and the Jordan Valley, which comprises 60 percent of the West Bank. Under this new Nakba, the Palestinians living there, denied Israeli citizenship, would be slowly forced to move to Jordan. This could only happen under a Saudi-oriented plan, in which Jordanian workers could travel freely and work in Saudi Arabia. As it is, remittances from the Jordanian workforce in Saudi Arabia are an economic lifeblood to the bankrupt kingdom. 

The money pouring into Jordan, accompanied by a  mobile workforce of Jordanians and  stateless Palestinians, would finally put to bed grandiose visions of a Palestinian state, and with it the two-state solution. On this, Netanyahu and bin Salman are as one: treat them as a mobile workforce, not citizens of a future state.

Hussein’s favoured son

That Prince Hamzah should be seen as the means by which Jordan is enlisted to this plan represents the final irony of this bizarre tale.

If the Hashemite blood runs deep in any veins, it is surely in his. He was King Hussein’s favoured son. In a letter sent to his brother Prince Hassan in 1999, King Hussein wrote: “Hamzeh, may God give him long life, has been envied since childhood because he was close to me, and because he wanted to know all matters large and small, and all details of the history of his family. He wanted to know about the struggle of his brothers and of his countrymen. I have been touched by his devotion to his country and by his integrity and magnanimity as he stayed beside me, not moving unless I forced him from time to time to carry out some duty on occasions that did not exceed the fingers on one hand.”

Abdullah broke the agreement he made with his father on his death bed when he replaced his half-brother with his son, Hussein, as crown prince in 2004.

The new foreign policy establishment in Washington should wean itself off the notion that US allies are its friends

But if Hashemite pride in and knowledge of Jordan’s history runs deep in Hamzah, he of all princes would have soon realised the cost to Jordan of accepting bin Salman’s billions and Netanyahu’s tacit encouragement, just as his father did.

Hamzah’s friends ardently dispute they are part of this plot and downplay connections with Awadallah. Hamzah only owns up to one thing: that he is immensely concerned at how low Jordan has fallen under years of misrule. In this, Hamzah is 100 percent right.

It is clear what has to happen now. King Abdullah should finally see that he must completely overhaul the Jordanian political system, by calling for free and fair elections and abiding by their result. Only that will unite the country around him.

This is what King Hussein did when he faced challenge and revolt by Jordanian tribes in the south of the kingdom; in 1989, Hussein overhauled the political system and held the freest elections in the history of the kingdom. 

The government that emerged from this process led the country safely out of one of the most difficult moments for Jordan: Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent Gulf War.

The real villains

Biden, meanwhile, should realise that letting bin Salman get away with the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi has a cost. 

Bin Salman did not learn anything from the episode and carried on in exactly the same way, reckless and swift, against an Arab neighbour and ally, with potentially disastrous consequences.

The new foreign policy establishment in Washington should wean itself off the notion that US allies are its friends. It should learn once and for all that the active destabilisers of the Middle East are not the cartoon villains of Iran and Turkey. 

Rather, they are the closest US allies, where US forces and military technology are either based, or as in the case of Israel, inextricably intertwined: Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Israel.

Jordan, the classic buffer state, is a case in point.

انقلاب في الأردن أم في أميركا؟

عمرو علان - Amro 🇵🇸 (@amrobilal77) | Twitter
*كاتب وباحث سياسي

الأخبار

عمرو علان

الثلاثاء 13 نيسان 2021

تتميّز المملكة الأردنية الهاشمية بموقع جغرافي مميّز، فهي تشكل فاصلاً جغرافياً وحاجزاً بشرياً بين الكيان الصهيوني وبين العراق والسعودية، وبصورة ما أيضاً بين سوريا والكيان الغاصب، إذا ما أخذنا في الحسبان الحدود الأردنية السورية المشتركة، بالإضافة إلى كون الحدود بين الأردن وفلسطين المحتلة هي الأطول من بين دول الطوق.

أما سياسياً، فالمَلَكية في الأردن وأجهزة الدولة تربطهما مع المملكة المتحدة البريطانية والولايات المتحدة الأميركية علاقات وثيقة وقديمة أمنياً واستخبارياً وعسكرياً، ناهيكم بالعلاقات المميزة بين الحكم الأردني وبين الكيان الصهيوني، تتضافر كل هذه العوامل لتجعل الأردن ذا أهمية خاصة في الإستراتيجية الأميركية تُجاه العالم العربي، لذلك تُعد ديمومة الحكم في الأردن واستقراره من المسلّمات في العقيدة الأميركية، وبناءً عليه يُستبعد حصول أي تغيير أو محاولات تغيير في الحكم الأردني دون أن تكون لها ارتباطات دولية وإقليمية، أو دون أن تكون محكومة بسقف أميركي لا يسمح بانزلاق الساحة الأردنية إلى فوضى غير منضبطة، تُفضي إلى انعكاسات أمنية خطيرة على كيان العدو. إذن كيف يمكن تفسير إجهاض ما بات مرجّحاً أنه كان محاولة لاستبدال رأس الحكم الأردني عبر إحلال الأمير حمزة بن الحسين وليّ العهد السابق محل أخيه غير الشقيق الملك عبدالله الثاني؟
بدايةً نستذكر «صفقة القرن» التي طرحها الرئيس الأميركي السابق دونالد ترامب، والتي كانت ترتكز على ثلاثي ترامب وابن سلمان ونتنياهو، وكان واضحاً عدم رضى الأردن الرسمي عن تلك الصفقة بما تشكّله من تهديد مباشر للوصاية الهاشمية على المقدّسات في القدس المحتلة، ومن حيث كونها مقدمة لتنفيذ مخطط الوطن البديل في الأردن، وكان حضور الملك عبدالله الثاني لقمة القدس الاستثنائية التي عُقدت في إسطنبول في كانون الأول/ ديسمبر 2017 برغم الضغوط الإقليمية التي تعرّض لها آنذاك مع محمود عباس لثنيهما عن الحضور علامة فارقة في العلاقات السعودية الأردنية، حيث ظهرت للعلن بعدها آثار توتر العلاقات عبر وقف المساعدات السعودية للأردن وعبر ضغوط أخرى، لكن ما شهدناه في الأيام القليلة الماضية يشير إلى أن تأزّم العلاقات هو أكثر عمقاً مما كان ظاهراً، وأنه مذّاك الحين بدأت السعودية والإمارات بالتعاون مع نتنياهو بالإعداد إلى استبدال رأس الحكم في الأردن ضمن مسعى تنفيذ «صفقة القرن»، وعلى الأرجح أن ذلك كان بعلم ورضى أميركيين لما يشكّله الأردن من أهمية في الاستراتيجية الأميركية.

ما موقع الأردن من الإستراتيجية الجديدة لإدارة بايدن؟ هل تقرر تحويل المملكة الهاشميّة إلى ما يشبه قاعدة عسكرية أمريكية؟


لكن تعثر تطبيق «صفقة القرن»، وصعود الديمقراطيين إلى سدة الحكم الذين جاؤوا باستراتيجية مغايرة لتلك التي اتّبعها ترامب، يبدو أنهما فرضا تبديلاً في الأولويات الأميركية وتغييراً في طريقة التعاطي الأميركي مع ملفات المنطقة، ولقد كان لافتاً إبرام الاتفاقية العسكرية الأميركية الأردنية أخيراً، التي لاقت استياءً كبيراً في الأوساط الأردنية لما تتضمنه من تنازل عن السيادة الأردنية لمصلحة القوات العسكرية الأميركية، والتي تُحوِّل الأردن على امتداد أراضيه إلى قاعدة عسكرية أميركية، وقد تزامن توقيع هذه الاتفاقية مع الإعلان عن إحباط محاولة إطاحة العاهل الأردني عبدالله الثاني، لذلك يصير من المشروع ربط الخطوتين، إحداهما بالأخرى.
إذا ما صحّت هذه القراءة، فنحن نشهد انقلاباً في الإستراتيجية الأميركية تُجاه المنطقة العربية اقتضى طيّ صفحة مشروع سابق لمصلحة مسار جديد يتم العمل به، ويصير معه البعد الداخلي الأردني للأحداث تفصيلاً، ويصبح السؤالان الأهم: ما الذي ترسمه إدارة جو بايدن للمستقبل؟ وما هو موقع الأردن في هذه الإستراتيجية الجديدة الذي يلزمه معها تحويل الأردن إلى ما يشبه القاعدة العسكرية الأميركية؟
من المبكر الإجابة عن هذين التساؤلين بشكل قطعي، فنحن في انتظار تكشُّف المزيد من المعطيات، لكن من المفروغ منه أن احتمالية الانسحاب الأميركي من العراق، ومصير التوصل إلى تفاهم في الملف النووي الإيراني من عدمه، وما يخفيه الأميركي لسوريا في قابل الأيام، هي قضايا لعبت كلها أو بعضها دوراً في الهزة غير المسبوقة التي شهدها الأردن في هذه الأيام القليلة، وفي تحويل الأردن إلى منصة عسكرية أميركية يمكن استعمالها بصورة أو بأخرى.

مقالات سابقة للكاتب


What Just Happened In Jordan?

By Andrew Korybko

Source

What Just Happened In Jordan?

Last weekend’s arrest of several prominent people in Jordan, including the unofficial house arrest of former Crown Prince Hamzah, on suspicion of conspiring to destabilize the country in possible coordination with foreign intelligence agencies is more than likely a preemptive security operation aimed at thwarting a latent threat and not an urgent response to what some have feared was an imminent regime change attempt.

An Unexpected Conspiracy In The Heshemite Kingdom

Jordan is one of those few countries that’s friends with everyone and enemies with no one, which is why the world paid attention last weekend after the arrest of several prominent people on suspicion of conspiring to destabilize the country in possible coordination with foreign intelligence agencies. This included the unofficial house arrest of former Crown Prince Hamzah, who subsequently released footage of himself condemning alleged corruption in the monarchy that he claimed was responsible for worsening his citizens’ living standards, after which he pledged loyalty to King Abdullah II to de-escalate the crisis (presumably while under pressure). Former Crown Prince Hamzah had also reportedly met with some tribal leaders who’ve purportedly been unhappy with the stagnant – if not, according to some accounts, gradually deteriorating – socio-economic situation in the Kingdom. Amman has since banned all coverage of this palace scandal on traditional and social media in an attempt to quell the uncertainty that it provoked in this so-called “oasis of regional stability”.

A Saudi, “Israeli”, Or Joint Saudi-”Israeli” Coup Attempt?

These fast-moving developments prompted a lot of speculation about what might really be going on behind the scenes, especially concerning the possible role of foreign intelligence agencies. It can’t be known for sure, but it doesn’t seem like there was any imminent regime change attempt that was thwarted at the last possible minute by the security services. Rather, it appears to be the case that the government staged a preemptive security operation after finally obtaining enough indisputable evidence that something foul was afoot, hoping to nip this latent threat in the bud long before it blooms. Some have suggested that the connections that two of the detained individuals have with Saudi Arabia hints at Riyadh’s covert involvement in recent events. Others, meanwhile, saw a hidden “Israeli” hand behind everything due to the Mossad ties that the businessman who reportedly offered to fly former Crown Prince Hamzah out of the country is alleged to have. It’s unlikely, however, that those secretly allied governments played any significant role in what just happened in Jordan.

Interpreting The Reported Foreign Intelligence Connections

It’s an open secret that foreign intelligence agencies, especially those based and/or active in the Mideast, cultivate a broad network of agents, informants, and “useful idiots”. Neither Saudi Arabia nor “Israel” have any serious problems with Jordan that can’t be amicably resolved, and therefore wouldn’t benefit from a destabilizing regime change in the neighboring kingdom between them. It’s therefore likely the case that while both of their intelligence agencies probably at least have some indirect presence close to the Jordanian royal family, they each lack the strategic motivation whether unilaterally or jointly with one another to overthrow King Abdullah II. In all likelihood, they might have been aware of former Crown Prince Hamzah’s recent meetings with increasingly unhappy tribal leaders and perhaps even his speculative resentment at being passed over for the throne by the current King in favor of the latter’s son in 2004, but it’s doubtful that they sought to operationalize this in any way. They likely only observed and monitored it, that’s all.

A Possible Disruption To The “Phased Leadership Transition”?

This brings the analysis around to discussing the domestic situation in Jordan. Many people are reportedly unhappy with everything there, and have allegedly been so for quite a while already, but the majority of the population is also loyal to the royal family and doesn’t seem to harbor any serious aspirations of replacing it with a republican form of government or any other. Like all monarchies, Jordan will inevitably undergo a “phased leadership transition” one way or another when power is transferred from the current King to his successor at some point in the future, but it’s here where the security services might have feared that a speculatively resentful former Crown Prince Hamzah might try to make a last-ditch move in an attempt to reassert what he and his unclear network of supporters (likely a combination of civil society elements, tribal leaders, and perhaps even some members of the royal family) believe is his rightful claim to the throne. They therefore probably acted preemptively in order to thwart that scenario before it had a chance to materialize.

Concluding Thoughts

As it stands, Jordan’s stability doesn’t seem threatened. Palace intrigue is normal in any monarchy, just like intrigue between members of a democracy’s permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”) is too, but it was nevertheless unexpected that something so dramatic took place in Jordan last weekend since few thought that such intrigue had became so intense to warrant such a high-profile security response. At the very least, former Crown Prince Hamzah’s reported closeness with increasingly frustrated but also supposedly influential tribal leaders was a cause of serious concern for the Kingdom’s security services since they feared that it represented a latent regime change threat which might materialize in the midst of the inevitable “phased leadership transition” from King Abdullah II to his son sometime in the future. There might even be a bit more to it than just that, but it’s extremely unlikely that any such speculation will ever be confirmed. For now, King Abdullah II doesn’t seem to have anything to worry about except for the economy.

هل انتهى الأردن نموذج 1930؟

د. وفيق إبراهيم

الانقلاب الذي أصاب الحكم الأردني منذ عدة أيام، ليس عملاً عادياً يُراد منه تغيير أمير بملك كما يحدث في معظم البلدان.

الاشارة الأولى الى ان الانقلاب كان ضخماً ولم ينجح، وسكتت عنه قوى مجاورة، لم يكن أحد يعتقد أنها قادرة على الصمت، يكفي ان المتورطين هم أصحاب أحجام كبيرة وارتباطات خارجية أكثر.

يبدو أن الملك عبدالله الثاني انتبه منذ مدة قياسية الى شيء ما يدور في الأجنحة العسكرية والسياسية لمملكته بهدف إقصائه فاحتاط بانياً شبكة امان من حوله لأسباب عديدة، اولها ان الغليان يضرب المنطقة من سورية الى فلسطين مروراً بلبنان ومصر، لقد شعر أن تغييراً كبيراً يستهدف الكيان الأردني السياسي بهدف إنهاء قضية فلسطين، وهذا غير ممكن إلا بإنهاء الاردن السياسي وإيجاد حلول نهائية لنحو مليون ونصف فلسطيني مقيمين ويرتبطون بأعداد مماثلة منهم في سورية ولبنان، ما يعني أن ثلاثة ملايين فلسطيني كانوا عرضة لقبض تعويضات محترمة من جهات إسرائيلية ودولية لينتقلوا الى بلدان آسيوية وغربية. وهذا أمر سهل ليس له ما يحول دونه. فالسيسي مثلاً مستعدّ بنخوة القادر على التلاعب بقناة السويس بدمج أكثر من مليون فلسطيني مقابل مبالغ معلومة وتأييد غربي سياسي.

وكذلك بعض بلدان شمال أفريقيا المتأهبة لدمج فلسطينيين مقابل تأييد غربي سياسي لها كحال المغرب وليبيا والجزائر.

الانقلاب الأخير إذاً ليس مجرد تغيير عادي في الحكم بقدر ما أراد الذهاب نحو إنهاء القضية الفلسطينية على أساس إبعاد ملايين الفلسطينيين من الأردن وإلغاء الدور السياسي للأردن المتأسس منذ 1930 كفاصل بين فلسطين المحتلة والاردن له وظائف استيعاب المهاجرين الفلسطينيين وإقفال طرق الخليج من جزيرة العرب وفلسطين المحتلة.

فهل أراد انقلاب الامير حمزة بين الحسين تحقيق إجراءات سياسية عديدة تجري دائماً عقب كل انقلاب عسكري ام ان الذين يقفون خلفه، نحوا منحى إلغاء الاردن السياسي وانهاء القضية الفلسطينية؟

خصوصاً أن الجهود المبذولة لإنجاح الانقلاب لم تكن عادية لأنها شملت مراكب قوى كبرى في دولة عادية كالأردن، ولا يمكن لأحد ان يصدق أن الاميركيين والاسرائيليين لم يكونوا على علم بذلك ويذهبون مذهب تشجيعه؟

أما لماذا التشجيع فلإنهاء القضية الفلسطينية بإنهاء دور الأردن لأنه لم يعد مطلوباً كما كان في الثلاثينيات.

هنا يقول المتورّطون الخارجيون إن ولي العهد السعودي محمد بن سلمان أراد بقوة تأييده لـ«إسرائيل» فنحا منحى تأييدها بإنهاء قضية فلسطين وهذا لا يكون الا بإنهاء قضية فلسطين المتمركزة سياسياً وايديولوجياً وبيولوجياً في الأردن، لذلك دعم محاولة انقلاب أوهم فيها حمزة بن الحسين أنه يريد الانفتاح على اسرائيل بانقلاب أردني، لا يؤدي الى تغييرات بيولوجية عميقة، بل ينتج تحالفاً أردنياً – إسرائيلياً سعودياً.

بدوره صدّق الحمزة خصوصاً بعد تلقيه كميات كبيرة من المال معتقداً أنها دليل تأييد سعودي وغربي وإسرائيلي في آن معاً.

الهدف اذاً كما يبدو هو تحويل الأردن الى لعبة لإنهاء قضية فلسطين بالتعاون بين ثلاثي رأسه محمد بن سلمان السعودي الذي يريد بقوة حلفاً إسرائيلياً سعودياً، والعرب و«إسرائيل» بأجنحتها اليمينية واليسارية والدينية المتطرفة.

هل هذا يعني انتهاء مرحلة الدلال الأردني مع الأميركيين والإسرائيليين بعد واقعة الانقلاب الأخير؟

يبدو أن هذا الانقلاب ذهب نحو تجديد ممر النظام الأردني من طريق غربي إسرائيلي وسعودي أردني من جهة ثانية، فأصبح صعباً إحداث تغييرات بيولوجية عميقة باستثناء بعض التحسينات السياسية وهذا شيء ممكن قد يدفع اليه الأميركيون والبريطانيون.

ويبدو أن المعونات المالية للأردن الآتية من الإنجليز والسعوديين والإسرائيليين قد تشهد تطوراً كبيراً له وظائف متعددة أهمها تأكيد استمرارية النظام السياسي الأردني كحال الأنظمة العربية المماثلة.

كما أن الأميركيين أخذوا على عاتقهم تأمين دعم خليجي كبير للأردن من السعودية والإمارات والكويت ودولة الإمارات. وهذا يعني العمر المديد لأصحاب الأعمار القصيرة.

هذا ما أكده أمين سر المملكة باسم عوض الله الذي كشف أن الاردن اجتاز مرحلة جديدة برعاية أميركية سعودية إسرائيلية وأمراء أردنيين.

سياسياً، يذهب الملك الأردني عبدالله ناحية بناء تحالفات مع مصر و«إسرائيل» والإمارات ومحمد بن سلمان والغرب الاميركي والأوروبي لتأمين استقرار قوي لمملكة الأردن التي لا تنتج شيئاً وتتلقى رواتبها من الدول الأجنبية كل شهر جديد، كالعمال تماماً. أهذه دولة؟

لم تنته اذاً خدمة الأردن التاريخية مع تأمين انضباط كبير لكامل أمراء العائلة المالكة، على ان يتولى الراعي الأميركي توفير الحماية للراعي الملكي واخواته والعاملين عنده من كافة الاتجاهات مع منع الفلسطينيين من أية اتجاهات مستقلة والبقاء تحت رايات الهاشميين يصِلون سعودية محمد بن سلمان وبن غوريون وجيش العدو بقوات فلسطينيّة.

فيديوات ذات صلة

مقالات ذات صلة

كيف نفهم أخبار محاولة الانقلاب في الاردن؟ الحديقة التوراتية الخلفية لإسرائيل How do we understand the news of the coup attempt in Jordan? Israel’s Biblical Back Garden

**Please scroll down for the English Machine translation **

كتب نارام سرجون: كيف نفهم أخبار محاولة الانقلاب في الاردن؟ الحديقة التوراتية الخلفية لـ “اسرائيل”.

كتب نارام سرجون

كيف نفهم أخبار محاولة الانقلاب في الاردن؟ الحديقة التوراتية الخلفية لإسرائيل

من يعرف تكوين النظام الاردني لن يشغل نفسه بأخبار الانقلاب الملكي في الاردن.. فالأردن نظام يستحيل فيه قيام انقلاب من داخل القصر او خارجه لأن كل ما في القصر مضبوط الحركة ومراقب بالمخابرات البريطانية والصهيونية.. منذ ان نشأ هذا الكيان الوظيفي كان معلوما انه غير قابل للحياة بفصله عن محيطه السوري الطبيعي.. انه الحديقة التوراتية الخلفية لإسرائيل التي تحمي ظهرها.. فهو اقتصاديا لا يقدر على ان يجد حتى الماء .. وليست فيه اراض زراعية كافية ولا ثروات.. فهو صحراء كبيرة.. لا زراعة ولا صناعة ولا سياحة ولا نفط ول اغاز .. ولكنها تحقن بالكورتيزون الاقتصادي كي تبقى منتعشة وواقفة ومستيقظة ….

ومع ذلك فمنذ ان دخلت جيوش لورنس العرب الى الاردن لم تحدث فيها اي حركة تمرد واعطيت ادارتها لموظف سمي ملكا من بني هاشم.. وهو يتبع للتاج البريطاني.. فالملك حسين تربية بريطانية صرفه.. وكان يدرك انه ليس ملكا الا امام شيوخ العشائر الاردنية، ولكنه امام السفير البريطاني هو موظف بريطاني.. وكان الرئيس حافظ الاسد قد سئم من سلوك هذا الملك وأصر على وصفه بما يليق به في خطاب شهير قال فيه (ان الملك حسين جاسوس بريطاني يقضّي اجازاته في الأردن) وكان هذا التوصيف أفضل تلخيص حقيقي دون مبالغة.. وهذا الشعور من الملك ان ملكه مجرد نكتة ربما كان السبب في ان يقبل بعمل اضافي كموظف في السي أي ايه وعمل كجاسوس باسم مستر (نو بيف) مقابل مليون دولار سنويا وفق الوثائق الأميركية التي اكدت ان كارتر هو من اوقف هذا الراتب واعتبر انه لا يجوز لملك ان يعمل كجاسوس بأجر..


القصر الملكي الاردني هو ملحق بالسفارة البريطانية ولا تصدر عنه اي قرارات مصيرية الا بالرجوع للمملكة المتحدة.. والبريطانيون لا يسمحون لأحد ان يلعب في ملعبهم.. ولذلك فان الملك حسين تم تزويجه من الملكة نور وهي امريكية اسمها اليزابيت (ليزا) الحلبي ويقال انها من أصول يهودية سورية.. ثم عندما زوجته من الفلسطينية علياء طوقان وجدت ان ذلك الاختراق للقصر قد يخلخل او يسرب بعض اسراره.. فتم التخلص منها.. لتدخل الملكة منى بدلا عنها.. والملكة منى هي يهودية ايضا واتخذت اسم منى للتمويه واسمها الحقيقي هو أنطوانيت غاردنر ..
لذلك التمرد الوحيد والتحدي الذي تعرض له الموظف البريطاني حسين بن طلال كان مع المنظمات الفلسطينية التي اصطدم معها في ايلول وقام بتصفيتها بمساعدة بريطانية واسرائيلية وسعودية ..
وعندما اقتربت وفاته تقررت ولاية العهد في بريطانية التي أرسلت على الفور البديل المناسب وهو عبد الله (ابن اليهودية منى) والذي كان لا يعرف النطق بالعربية.. ولكن البريطانيين لا يسمحون لهذا العرش الوظيفي ان يتم تداوله الا وفق قرار مدروس يكفل ان تستمر وظيفته كحديقة توراتية خلفية لإسرائيل التي هي حديقة للمملكة الصليبية القديمة …


لذلك إذا كان هناك كلام عن انقلاب في الاردن فأنني لا أبالي به لإنه يستحيل فالمخابرات الاردنية محشوة بالمخابرات الاسرائيلية والانكليزية.. ولا يمكن ان تحدث مؤامرة بسبب ان اجهزة الامن تشرف عليها المخابرات البريطانية من الألف الى الياء..

لا أتذكر في اخبار الانقلاب الا حكاية الانقلاب التركي المسرحي على اردوغان الذي كان طريقة وسيلة للقبض على التيارات التركية التي كانت تتململ.. فالتهديد بالخطر من الكيان الموازي لفتح الله غولن كان كفيلا بالسماح لأردوغان بأخونة الجيش وأخونة كل المؤسسات التركية والتسلط على كل شيء ومراقبة المعارضة وتخوين كل من يعارضه.. انها نفس طريقة احداث نيويورك فالقبض على كل السياسة الخارجية الامريكية قد تم وكذلك فان تنفيذ المحافظين الجدد لمخططهم كان لابد له من ان يمر عبر بوابة احداث سبتمبر ..
فماذا وراء الاكمة في الاردن؟؟ وهل هناك من يريد ان يصنع من الملك بطلا وهو ليس بطلا؟؟ ام اسرائيل تريد ان تضغط على الاردنيين وتقول لهم ان ملكهم العظيم في خطر لأنه يعترض على مخططات اسرائيل..

البطل الهصور في خطر .. وحامي القدس العظيم.. وبطل الهلال الشيعي.. في خطر.. ويا خوفي يقولو ان حزب الله وإيران وسورية خلف المؤامرة!!!

فيديوهات متعلقة

مع الحدث – قاسم عزالدين

مقالات متعلقة


How do we understand the news of the coup attempt in Jordan? Israel’s Biblical Back Garden

Naram Sergoon

Who knows the composition of the Jordanian regime will not bother with the news of the coup d’état in Jordan? Jordan is a system in which it is impossible to stage a coup from inside or outside the palace, because everything in the palace is controlled and monitored by British and Zionist intelligence. Since the creation of this functional entity, by separating it from its natural Syrian surroundings it has been known that it is not viable.

However, since the armies of Lawrence of Arabia have gone to Jordan, there has been no rebellion and their administration has been given to an employee named King of Bani Hashem, belonging to the British Crown.

King Hussein is a purely British upbringing. He knew he was not king but the sheikh of the Jordanian tribes, but in front of the British ambassador he was a British employee.

President Hafez al-Assad was fed up with the king’s behavior and insisted on describing it as appropriate in a famous speech in which he said that King Hussein was a British spy who was on vacation in Jordan. The king’s feeling that his king was a joke may have been the reason why he accepted overtime as a CIA employee and worked as a spy on behalf of Mr. No Bev for a million dollars a year, according to U.S. documents that confirmed that Carter had stopped the salary and considered that a king should not work as a paid spy.

The Royal Palace of Jordan is attached to the British Embassy and does not make any fateful decisions except to return to the United Kingdom. And the British don’t let anyone play in their own court. King Hussein was therefore married to Queen Noor, an American named Elizabeth (Lisa) al-Halaby, who is said to be of Syrian Jewish origin. Then, when his Palestinian wife, Alia Toukan, found that the breach of the palace might disturb or leak some of his secrets .. She was disposed of … so Queen Mona entered instead of her … Queen Mona is also Jewish, and she took the name Mona for disguise, and her real name is Antoinette Gardner ..

The only rebellion and challenge to British employee Hussein bin Talal was with the Palestinian organizations with whom he clashed in September and liquidated it with British, Israeli, and Saudi assistance.  

When his death approached, the Covenant state in Britain, which immediately sent the appropriate alternative, Abdullah (son of The Jew Mona), who was not known to  speak Arabic.  


Therefore, if there is talk of a  coup in Jordan, I don’t care because it is impossible because Jordanian intelligence is stuffed with Israeli and English intelligence.

I don’t remember the news of the coup except the story of the Turkish coup d’état against Erdogan, which was a way of catching the Turkish currents that were fidgeting.

What is behind the heap in Jordan ?? Is there anyone who wants to make the king a hero when he is not a hero ?? Israel wants to pressure the Jordanians and tell them that their great king is in danger because he objects to Israel’s plans.    

The hero is in danger. And the great protector of Jerusalem. And the hero of the Shiite crescent. In danger. Oh my fear, they say that Hezbollah, Iran and Syria are behind the plot !!!

Related Videos

Related News

Save Sheikh Jarrah: The online campaign giving hope to Palestinian refugees in East Jerusalem

Residents of Karm al-Jaouni live under the threat of forcible eviction that would see them replaced by Israeli settlers

Nabil al-Kurd, a long-time resident of Karm al-Jaouni, stands next to a wall graffitied with “We will not leave” in Arabic (MEE/Aseel Jundi)

By Aseel Jundi in Sheikh Jarrah

Published date: 22 March 2021 16:06 UTC 

At first glance, everything looked seemingly normal in Karm al-Jaouni in the Sheikh Jarrah district, but the clamour of gathering news outlets and legal institutions last week told another story of a neighbourhood in turmoil.

The Sheikh Jarrah district is inhabited by refugees who were expelled from their towns and villages by Zionist militia during the Palestinian Nakba (Catastrophe) in 1948. But due to Israel’s push to populate the area with Israeli settlers, Palestinian residents are now, once again, facing the spectre of expulsion.

In an effort to garner international support, activists launched an online campaign, #SaveSheikhJarrah, in Karm al-Jaouni on Monday to help save the residents, who have lived in the neighbourhood for decades, from forcible removable, which many of their neighbours have already endured. 

Nabil al-Kurd, a 70-year-old Jerusalemite and resident of Karm al-Jaouni, sees the campaign as a glimmer of hope that could help him retain his current home, and avoid reliving the experience of having been forced out of his family house in Haifa in 1948.

Karm al-Jaouni
Israel’s judicial system has repeatedly shown bias toward Israeli settlers (MEE/Aseel Jundi)

“We want to relay our voices to Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, the United Nations and international law organisations because all these parties are involved in our issue, which has certainly reached the level of war crime,” he said.

In 1956, the Jordanian government, together with the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, reached an agreement to settle these families in Jerusalem in return for their UNRWA documents.

Some 28 families were selected and provided with housing units, built by the Jordanian government, for three years, after which the ownership of the property will be automatically theirs. The lease contracts expired in 1959 and the residents became the owners of the property.

‘Their dogs attack us, their trash floods the entrance, they have killed the trees and turned the house into ruins’

– Nabil al-Kurd, resident

However, after the occupation of Jerusalem in 1967, with the eastern part of the city coming under Israeli control, the inhabitants of Sheikh Jarrah district were taken by surprise when two Jewish committees registered their ownership of the 18-dunums of land at the Land Department in 1972.

Thereafter, dozens of judicial cases were raised in Israeli courts, as the 28 nuclear Palestinian families expanded and the number of residents facing eviction in favour of settlers rose to around 600 Palestinians.

In 2019, lawyer Sami Ershied told MEE that Sheikh Jarrah eviction cases are discriminatory because the legal procedures do not take into account that East Jerusalem is an occupied territory.

Under international law, an occupying state cannot forcibly transfer residents of occupied territories because it has an obligation to preserve the demographic composition of the inhabitants.

Another point of contention has been claims made by religious Israelis that a sacred shrine belonging to Shimeon al-Siddiq (founder of the Israelite Tribe of Simeon) is located in the heart of the Karm al-Jaouni district.

Palestinian residents refute this claim, asserting that the shrine is Islamic, and known as the saint Saad al-Din Hijazi, who was buried there 400 years ago, and that “Ottoman maps” prove their narrative.

Relentless harassment

Al-Kurd’s experience with the Israeli occupation is a flagrant example of Palestinians suffering at the hands of settlers.

In 2001, he built a house adjacent to the one he already had, only for Israeli occupation authorities to confiscate the keys to the new house, just four days before he was planning to move in. In 2009, settlers came and occupied the house, turning Kurd’s life into hell. 

At the time, al-Kurd erected a tent at the entrance of the house where Palestinian, European and Jewish activists came to demonstrate their support. Settlers harassed the activists by spraying them with spoiled milk, hitting them with rotten fruits, vegetables, and waste and setting rodents on them while they slept.A decade in, Palestinian family fights on against East Jerusalem eviction

Five years later, the settlers set fire to the tent and burned it down, but the harassment of the family did not stop, even after the sit-in ended.

“Settlers would take their clothes off and stand at the windows overlooking our home. I had to hang a fabric barrier to protect my wife and daughters,” Nabil said. 

“Their dogs attack us, their trash floods the entrance, they have killed the trees and turned the house into ruins.”

Since his retirement several years ago, this elderly Jerusalemite has divided his time between keeping an eye on settlers, lest they suddenly attack his family, and countering the Israeli judicial system.

The Israeli district court has recently issued a verdict giving al-Kurd a grace period to vacate his house before May.

Al-Kurd said that although the settlers lack any proof of ownership of the land, they are adamant to evacuate its residents in accordance with the Judaisation policies in occupied East Jerusalem.

Residents of the neighbourhood, he said, have had no means of defending themselves except resorting to the law, but that avenue has been marred with challenges as the judicial system has repeatedly shown bias toward the settlers.

‘I did not surrender’

The online campaign, which has been trending in both Jordan and Palestine, has given hope to Fawziah al-Kurd, who was forcibly removed from Karm al-Jaouni in 2008, that an international campaign would stop Israel from expelling these refugees for a second time, and allow her to return to her neighbourhood.

Fawziah, who is better known as Um Kamel al-Kurd, said that although it has been 13 years since she was forced to leave, she still visits the place three times a week. 

Fawziah al-Kurd
A 2008 photo shows the tent that Fawziah al-Kurd lived in for a year after she was expelled from her home in Sheikh Jarrah (provided)

She said she passes by her house, which is currently occupied by settlers, as a show of resilience and to reiterate her refusal to abandon it. 

“I lived in the house for 40 years, the last five of which were the hardest because Israelis took half of my house by force before practically throwing me out on the street along with my ailing husband,” Fawziah told MEE. 

“Despite all of this, I did not surrender and I lived in a tent adjacent to my house for a whole year.”

Save Sheikh Jarrah

One of the coordinators of #SaveSheikhJarrah, Karmel al-Qasim, who lives in the area, said that his family was given until early May to vacate their house in which they have been living since 1956.

‘Our one and only demand is to let us live peacefully in our homes just like any normal family anywhere in the world’

– Karmel al-Qasim, resident

He pointed out that the goal behind the campaign is to convey the voice and the suffering of Karm al-Jaouni residents to the whole world and generate international political pressure to stop the displacement and dispersion of its inhabitants, once again.

“Our one and only demand is to let us live peacefully in our homes just like any normal family anywhere in the world, without the threat of eviction and displacement,” Qasim said. 

“Through the #SaveSheikhJarrah campaign, we call upon UNRWA and Jordan to assume their legal and moral responsibilities toward us because we have been living here in compliance with an agreement that both parties reached in the 1950s.” 

Karmel said he will not abandon his right to resist the policy of eviction and will continue to follow in the footsteps of his late mother Amal al-Qasim, a refugee who was expelled from Jaffa in 1948. 

He, along with his brothers and sisters, intend to stand fast in their neighbourhood, which is strategically located near the Old City of Jerusalem.

Aref Hammad, a member of Sheikh Jarrah Refugees Housing Units Committee, told MEE that the Skafi, Qasim, al-Kurd, al-Jaouni, Hammad, al-Daoudi and al-Dijani families are in the process of filing an appeal to the Israeli Supreme Court, in a last push in the legal recourse against the eviction verdicts recently issued by the district court. 

Hammad said that 169 residents of the neighbourhood have received orders to vacate their homes, including 46 children from 12 different families. 

Related Videos

Related

The Arab yacht summit plotters have fallen out

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is DYxJNIWWAAMxxsb.jpg
George Nader (fourth from left) organised a secret summit of Arab leaders on a yacht in the Red Sea in late 2015
David HearstDavid Hearst is co-founder and editor-in-chief of Middle East Eye. He is a commentator and speaker on the region and analyst on Saudi Arabia. He was The Guardian’s foreign leader writer, and was correspondent in Russia, Europe, and Belfast. He joined the Guardian from The Scotsman, where he was education correspondent.

David Hearst

15 March 2021 15:09 UTC 

An alliance of regional rulers that put so much effort into suppressing democracy is weakening now as its participants bear substantial grudges against each other

For the past decade, an alliance of rulers has bent every sinew to halt the onward, and irreversible, fight for human rights in the Arab world.

To preserve their own decaying regimes, this alliance has laid waste to once proud and civilised nations. It has waged wars in Yemen, Libya and Syria, reducing much of them to rubble. It has funded coups in Egypt, and attempted them in Tunisia and Turkey. The blood of hundreds of thousands has been shed in these interventions.

They were fought in the name of defending the region from Islamism and extremism. In this, they attracted the credulous, or cynical, support of former colonial powers France and Britain. But in reality their “jihad” had nothing to do with defending liberalism or secularism.

These regimes had no qualms about enlisting religious forces for political ends. Their quest was for hegemony, or how to transfer autocracy from one generation to another. For them, power was part of the family silver.

Late in 2015 – two years after their first major success, that being the military coup in Egypt, the leaders of this alliance – crown princes and rulers of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Egypt and Jordan – met secretly on a yacht to plot their plans for the region. To summon the same cast of characters on a yacht in the Red Sea today, six years on, would, however, be more difficult. 

For one thing, the fixer of this secret summit is in prison. George Nader is serving ten years on child sex charges. For another, the participants today bear substantial grudges against each other.

Money like rice?

Relations between Saudi Arabia and Egypt have cooled fastest. The Saudis no longer have “money like rice” as the Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el Sisi once bragged to his chief of staff Abbas Kamel. And any way King Salman is not as generous as his late brother Abdullah was, even if he had the money, which he doesn’t.

Sisi has no interest in following Mohammed bin Salman into the camp of pariah dictators

Sisi tried to get a new line of funding from Riyadh by giving it two uninhabited but strategically placed Red Sea islands, Tiran and Sanafir, to much protest at home. But the Saudis are no longer interested in such baubles like the Suez Canal and the Gulf of Aqaba.  

Their eyes light up when contemplating cheaper and faster ways to the Mediterranean – through Israel. Egypt is not saying it, but it is getting increasingly irritated by plans to bypass the Suez Canal, which it enlarged to the tune of $8.2bn.

Whether it is reversing a once-secret desert pipeline that ran from Iran to Israel during the time of the Shah, or the development of ports and free zones in Israel, or Blue Raman, a new fibre optic cable for the Middle East, it’s all pointing in one direction for Cairo – a huge loss of money and regional influence. 

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (AFP)
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (AFP)

It is not as if there have not been past divergences between banker and client state. Egypt’s refusal to send troops to fight in Saudi Arabia’s disastrous war in Yemen was one. It has refused to be as hostile to Iran and its allies in Lebanon. But two new factors are persuading Egypt that its national interests are not always best served by its regional allies. 

The Biden factor

The first is the arrival of US President Joe Biden and his obvious antipathy to the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman – even though he refuses to sanction him. Sisi has no interest in following bin Salman into the camp of pariah dictators. Rather, he has a strong motive to distance himself from that clan.For Trump’s Middle East allies, Joe Biden is a new nightmareRead More »

Bin Salman’s international reputation has been tarnished by the release of the US intelligence report into the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. When it was released, Mohammed bin Salman expected that every member of his club, and even those that were not, like Qatar, to send a message of support. 

Most did. King Abdullah II of Jordan; Sudan’s prime minister, Abdalla Hamdok, flew to Riyadh. Others like Bahrain and the UAE issued statements. The only country to fall silent was Egypt.

The second factor was the military defeat of the Libyan general Khalifa Haftar, when his forces were repulsed from Tripoli and retreated to Sirte. The Turkish intervention, and the effectiveness of its drones, came as a shock to Egypt, whose agenda in Libya was driven by the Emirates. Egypt, however, invested considerably in training, arming and supplying Haftar’s forces.

When both the UAE and Egypt discovered that they were on the losing side – and this was sometime before Haftar pushed Sisi to invade – some in the Egyptian media began to question publicly why Egypt was in this position. Libya is important to its neighbour, not least because of the millions of Egyptians who – in times of peace – work there. When Libya prospers, so does Egypt. Haftar’s defeat opened the way for direct talks with the government in Tripoli, and covert talks with Turkish intelligence chiefs. 

As a result, the candidates of the list which lost the election to the post of prime minister had been agreed beforehand by both Turkey and Egypt. When the Libyans rejected those candidates, it did not disturb the tacit understanding between Ankara and Cairo. Nor are things as close between Cairo and Abu Dhabi. The froideur started over a question of money. But it rapidly went much further over Abu Dhabi’s recognition of Israel

The second wave

The second wave of normalisation with Israel displaced the first. Both Egypt and Jordan lost influence as the gatekeepers of the Arab world to Israel, in the same degree to which the UAE gained it.

It’s no coincidence that two of the nations that attended that yacht summit are in the process of softening their hostility to Ankara

When Abu Dhabi announced it would invest $10bn in Israeli energy, manufacturing, water, space, healthcare and agri-tech, it was no coincidence that Jordan at first refused permission for Benjamin Netanyahu’s jet to use its airspace, and he had to cancel his trip to pick up the prize money in person. Netanyahu’s office said the dispute with Amman stemmed from Israel’s decision to cancel the Jordanian crown prince’s plans to visit the Al-Aqsa mosque the day before.  

Much of the legitimacy of the Hashemite dynasty rests on its role as custodian of the holy sites in Jerusalem, a role that is now being overtly threatened by its Saudi cousin with Israel’s encouragement. Bin Salman is playing a zero-sum game. By advancing his own relationship with Israel, he is weakening the stability of Israel’s safest border. 

Egypt's President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi attends the closing session of an African summit meeting (AFP)
Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi (AFP)

The yacht summit was convened to counter Turkey and Iran’s resistance to their schemes. So it’s also no coincidence that two of the nations that attended that summit are in the process of softening their hostility to Ankara.

Enters Turkey

Both Turkey and Saudi Arabia are being pushed into each other arms by a US president who is hostile to the Saudi crown prince and the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Mohammed bin Salman was told by his advisers that if Biden won, he would have to open relations with Turkey. 

Where foreign relations are based on secret pacts between leaders each of whom have good reason to fear their own people, they are built on sand

Bin Salman is not convinced, and can’t overcome the feeling that Erdogan was out to get him for having ordered Khashoggi’s murder. But the relationship between his father, King Salman, and Erdogan was never ruptured and so halting attempts are being made.

Qatar has offered to mediate, which is ironic, because when the boycott of the Gulf peninsula states started, the Turks offered to mediate. Turkey maintains strong relations with Oman and Kuwait and both Ankara and Riyadh have an interest in showing Washington they are regional players.

But is more going on under the table? Recently the Houthis claimed to have shot down a drone that “had proven its worth in Azerbaijan”, an oblique reference to Turkey. It was a Turkish drone, but not one used in Azerbaijan. Last year the Saudi government signed a deal with a local company to supply armed drones after getting a technology transfer from a Turkish defence firm, Vestel Karayel. Six drones were delivered. 

Turkey denies there was anything official about this technology transfer. A Turkish source familiar with the defence industry said Vestel did not seek government authorisation to make such a tech transfer to Riyadh. Still, the incident raised eyebrows. Janes defence news said the Karayel has not been previously known to be in service with the Saudi military.

In any case the Saudi boycott of Turkish goods still continues.

Repairing ties with Egypt

Last week’s flurry of statements from the Turkish foreign minister, Mevlut Cavusoglu, chief counsellor to the president Ibrahim Kalin and the president himself about turning the page with Egypt have been downplayed by Cairo.

Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry, confirming contacts with Cavusoglu, said that Turkey must “align with Egypt’s principles” before relations could return to normal. And the editor in chief of Egypt’s al Watan newspaper published ten conditions before relations could be restored.

This will have the same effect on Ankara as the 13 demands the blockading countries laid on Qatar.

The optimism in Ankara started when Egypt announced an oil and gas exploration bid in the Eastern Mediterranean which acknowledged the coordinates of the continental shelf declared by Ankara. The Greek foreign minister, Nikos Dendias, claims to have since “adjusted” those coordinates after a trip to Cairo.Turkey-Egypt relations: What’s behind their new diplomatic push?Read More »

Turkish intelligence chiefs have, however, met their Egyptian counterparts several times. Apart from Libya, Turkey is offering the Egyptians help in their dispute with Ethiopia over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. UAE is doing the opposite by offering help to the Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmet. 

Mohammed Dahlan, the Abu Dhabi-based former Fatah security chief, visited Addis in an announced visit. What was not announced was that his boss Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed went with him, according to one informed source. Egypt is baulking at the Turkish charm offensive and there has been no breakthrough.

“Egypt wants Ankara to take at least a symbolic step on the presence of Muslim Brotherhood in Turkey,” an official told MEE. 

If that is what is needed, it will not materialise. The Muslim Brotherhood does not have a physical presence like a regional office in Turkey. So there is nothing to close down. To go against individual members of the large expatriate Egyptian community in Istanbul would mean extraditing individuals, which Turkey is not going to do. Nor is there any discernible Turkish pressure on the Egyptian opposition media in Istanbul. Cairo would particularly like Al Sharq television off air.

“The Turkish authorities have nothing to offer nor withdraw when it comes to Al Sharq Channel because we are not funded by Turkey or Qatar,” its owner Dr Ayman Nour, the Egyptian opposition politician, told MEE. “We have not sensed any change on the Turkish side with regard to Al Sharq.”

But the axis itself is weakening and the lessons for everyone in the region are clear. Where foreign relations are based on secret pacts between leaders, each of whom have good reason to fear their own people, they are built on sand. Where they are based on the strategic interests of their peoples, they are more durable. The more national interests are based on the interests of their peoples rather than the rulers, the greater the stability of the region

Thus far it has been warm embraces one day, and stabs in the back the next.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

This article is available in French on Middle East Eye French edition.

Related

Bibi Avoided 1st Official Trip to UAE over Fears of Yemeni Missiles

Bibi Avoided 1st Official Trip to UAE over Fears of Yemeni Missiles

By Staff, Agencies

“Israeli” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he called off his first visit to the United Arab Emirates [UAE] through Saudi Arabian airspace at the last minute because he feared Yemeni missiles; the fourth time the visit was canceled.

In an interview with the “Israeli” entity’s Channel 13 on Saturday, Netanyahu said he canceled his first official visit to Gulf state of the UAE last week because there were “problems a week ago in the skies of Saudi Arabia”, referring to recent retaliatory missile attacks by the Yemeni forces against targets inside Saudi Arabia, the Associated Press reported on Sunday.

Netanyahu did not elaborate, nor did he say whether his plane was targeted by Yemeni forces.

Last week, neighboring Jordan temporarily closed its airspace to Netanyahu’s flight over a spat between Tel Aviv and Amman. Thus, the Israeli premier had no choice but to take a more southerly route across Saudi skies after bypassing Jordanian airspace, meaning that his plane could fall within the reach of the Yemeni missiles.

On Thursday, officials in Netanyahu’s office claimed that the premier had been forced to call off his visit to the UAE after Jordan delayed approving his flight path over the kingdom, implying that this was the only reason behind the cancellation.

Jordan and the “Israeli” entity share strong security ties, but political relations have soured recently over the “Israeli” regime’s policies toward the occupied al-Quds [Jerusalem].

Using domestically-developed missiles, the Yemeni forces have so far launched numerous retaliatory missile strikes against targets deep inside Saudi Arabia, including the facilities of Saudi Aramco Oil Company.

Yemeni ballistic missiles have become a nightmare for the Arab kingdom, which leads a devastating war, in cahoots with its allies, against impoverished Yemen since March 2015.

Last week, the Yemeni missiles and combat drones hit one of the world’s largest oil shipping ports and suspended air traffic toward the international airport in the Saudi port city of Jeddah.

Netanyahu had been scheduled to meet the UAE Prime Minister and Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed in his first official visit to the Persian Gulf state since Tel Aviv and Abu Dhabi forged diplomatic ties last year in a US-brokered deal amid strong opposition from all Palestinian factions.

Reports on Wednesday also suggested the “Israeli” prime minister would likely meet Saudi Arabia’s crown prince and de facto ruler, Mohammed bin Salman, and/or Sudanese Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok during the trip as well.

Netanyahu, who is in hot water in Tel Aviv over his corruption cases, had hoped to use the audience with the Emirati crown prince to boost his reelection campaign days before the regime’s March 23 parliamentary elections.

The “New Shaam” and the Detonation of Jordan الشام الجديد» وتفجير الأردن

The “New Shaam” and the Detonation of Jordan

by Nasser Kandil

Egyptian, Iraqi, and Jordanian meetings are being held to reinforce a trilateral project with an economic title failing to mask political, and possibly, strategic dimensions. This project called “The New Shaam ” does not answer how a project bearing the name of Syria (Al Shaam) could be founded while excluding Syria from its consideration. Those involved in the project are incapable of denying the reality of the role of isolator between Syria and Iran that this trio is playing, in addition to isolating Iraq and Jordan from Syria which geographically falls in the middle between those two countries. Those involved also fail to deny the declared American paternity of this project in parallel to American declared paternity of the Gulf-Israeli normalization, with both projects being complimentary and a guarantee for each other’s success.

The economic return of this “New Shaam” project is not unrelated to its political role. Egyptian electricity to Iraq compensates Egypt for the loss of Suez Canal returns resulting from Gulf-Israeli normalization, while simultaneously acting as a substitute for electricity to Iraq from Iran. Similarly the exchange of Iraqi oil and Egyptian gas via Jordan detaches Iraq from need for Iranian gas, and provides additional compensation for anticipated Suez Canal revenue loss from the reliance of the Gulf trade on Israeli ports after normalization. As for what has been promised to Jordan from this project has been financing to compensate for the halting of goods from Syria in transit via Jordan to the Gulf, and becoming a compulsory junction for the goods arriving at the Occupation’s ports and destined for the Gulf.

The Gulf-Israeli normalization built on the foundation of granting the Occupation a pivotal economic role in the region, redraws the political-economic map of the countries in the region, and markets it using appealing names such as the “The New Shaam.” The new map imposes on Egypt accepting the loss of the role which the Suez Canal has played in exchange for the crumbs meted by the designated replacement role, and imposes on Iraq the role of separating Syria from Iran, encircling Syria with an Iraqi-Jordanian siege, accepting the loss of Iraq’s natural common interests with both Iran and Syria, and placing Iraq’s internal cohesion, unity, and stability in danger. Jordan, however, will be the most vulnerable to the influences and pressures resulting from this project, irrespective of the enticements Jordan is offered to accept this role.

Jordan lies at the intersection of two fault lines portending renewed crises, namely the closed door to a resolution for the Palestinian Cause, and the wide open door to the Gulf-Israeli normalization, along with the connection to a third fault line of high tension entitled separating Syria from Iran, and separating Jordan and Iraq from Syria and besieging her. The question becomes could the delicate situation in Jordan withstand such pressures, given the weight of the Palestinian Cause and its influence on Jordan especially in light of the Palestinian united opposition to the “Deal of the Century” and Jordan’s inability to isolate herself from such Palestinian transformation, and in view of the strong Jordanian-Syrian social and political intertwinement, and the popular climate in Jordan aspiring to speeding up the natural and cooperative relationships between Jordan and Syria? Given the popular demand in Jordan for the closure of the Israeli Embassy, can Jordanians tolerate scenarios of trucks crossing Jordan with goods loaded from the Port of Haifa in transit to the Gulf?

If “The New Shaam” project does not become quadrilateral, open to and inclusive of Syria, refusing the designated role of marketing normalization at the expense of the Palestinian People and Egyptian interests, and rejecting playing the role of isolating and besieging Syria, Iraq and Egypt will pay a political and economic toll from their stability. Jordan, on the other hand, will be facing fateful and possibly existential challenges, similar to what pushed Lebanon in the eve of Camp David.

«الشام الجديد» وتفجير الأردن

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Untitled-1087.png

ناصر قنديل

للمرة الثانية ينعقد لقاء مصري عراقي أردني تأكيداً على مشروع ثلاثي بعنوان اقتصادي لا يُخفى البعد السياسي وربما الاستراتيجي وراءه، فالمشروع المسمّى بالشام الجديد، لا يملك جواباً على كيفية قيام مشروع يحمل اسم الشام ويستثني الشام من حساباته؟ بل لا يستطيع القيّمون على المشروع إنكار حقيقة أن الثلاثي الجديد يلعب دور العازل بين إيران وسورية، عدا عن كونه يعزل الأردن والعراق عن سورية بينما هي تتوسّطهما معاً، كما لا يمكن لأصحاب المشروع إنكار ما قاله الأميركيون عن أبوتهم للمشروع بالتوازي مع أبوتهم للتطبيع الخليجي الإسرائيلي، حيث يكمّل أحد المشروعين الآخر، ويضمن نجاحه.

العائد الاقتصادي للمشروع غير منفصل عن وظيفته السياسية، فالكهرباء المصرية للعراق هي من جهة تعويض لمصر عن خسائر قناة السويس الناتجة عن التطبيع الخليجي الإسرائيلي، ومن جهة مقابلة تأمين بديل كهربائي للعراق عن المصدر الإيراني، كما تبادل النفط العراقي والغاز المصري عبر الأردن فك للعراق عن حاجته للغاز الإيراني، وتأمين موارد إضافيّة بديلة عن خسائر ستحلق بقناة السويس من الاتجاه للاعتماد التجاري للخليج على موانئ كيان الاحتلال بعد التطبيع، أما العائدات الموعودة للأردن من هذا الربط فهي لتمويل يعوّض على الأردن ما سيُصيبه من خسائر توقف خط الترانزيت الى الخليج عبر سورية مقابل لعب دور المعبر الإلزامي للبضائع الواصلة إلى موانئ كيان الاحتلال والمتجهة نحو الخليج.

التطبيع الخليجي الإسرائيلي المؤسس على ركيزة منح كيان الاحتلال دوراً اقتصادياً محورياً في المنطقة، يُعيد تشكيل الخريطة السياسية والاقتصادية لدول المنطقة، ويتم تسويق هذه الخريطة بأسماء جاذبة مثل الشام الجديد، فعلى مصر وفقاً للخريطة الجديدة أن تتلقى خسارة قناة السويس لدورها وتصمت لقاء فتات دور بديل، وعلى العراق الذي يكلف بمهمة فصل سورية عن أيران وتطويق سورية بحصار عراقي أردني، أن يرتضي خسارة مصالحه المشتركة الطبيعيّة مع كل من سورية وإيران، وأن يعرّض تماسكه الداخلي ووحدته واستقراره الأمني للخطر، لكن الأردن سيبقى الساحة الأشد عرضة للضغوط والتأثيرات الناجمة عن هذا المشروع رغم العروض التشجيعيّة التي يتلقاها لقبول الدور.

الأردن الذي يشكّل خط تقاطع فوالق الأزمات المستجدّة بفعل التوتر العالي لخطَّي إغلاق أبواب الحلول أمام القضيّة الفلسطينية، وفتح الباب الواسع للتطبيع الخليجيّ الإسرائيليّ، يتم ربطه بخط توتر عالٍ ثالث عنوانه فصل سورية عن إيران، وعزل العراق والأردن عن سورية بنية حصارها، ويصير السؤال هل الوضع الدقيق في الأردن يحتمل هذه الضغوط، في ظل حجم حضور القضية الفلسطينية وتأثيرها على الأردن، خصوصاً مع وحدة الموقف الفلسطيني بوجه صفقة القرن، وعجز الأردن عن تحييد نفسه عن هذه التحولات الفلسطينية، وفي ظل حجم التشابك الاجتماعي والسياسي الأردني السوري، وتنامي مناخ شعبيّ أردنيّ يتطلع لتسريع العلاقات الطبيعيّة والتعاونيّة بين سورية والأردن، وفي ظل مطالبات أردنية بإغلاق السفارة الإسرائيلية هل يمكن للأردنيين تحمل مشاهد الشاحنات العابرة من مرفأ حيفا نحو الخليج؟

ما لم يكن مشروع الشام الجديد رباعياً يضمّ سورية، وينفتح عليها، ويرفض الدور المرسوم لتسويق التطبيع على حساب الشعب الفلسطيني والمصالح المصرية، ويرفض لعب دور العزل والحصار بحق سورية، فإن العراق ومصر سيدفعان أثماناً سياسية واقتصادية، من استقرارهما، لكن الأردن سيكون أمام تحديات مصيرية وربما وجودية، تشبه تلك التي دُفع لبنان نحوها عشية كامب ديفيد.

Palestinian rights have always been secondary to the ‘national interest’ of Arab regimes

Joseph Massad

28 December 2020 12:18 UTC 

Normalisation with Israel is just the latest example of Arab rulers advancing their own interests at the expense of Palestinians

The Arab League summit meeting held in Mecca on 31 May 2019 (AFP)

Since the First World War, the Palestinians have been used as a bargaining chip by different Arab regimes to advance their own interests by sacrificing Palestinian rights.

Yet, apologists for the Arab regimes, which recently normalised relations with Israel, defend their governments’ decision with the same arguments the earliest normalisers – Egypt and Jordan – used decades ago, namely that these countries made sacrifices since 1948 by placing Palestinian interests above their own “national”, read regime, interests.

Their decisions to normalise with Israel now, they tell us, have finally placed their own national interests first, and yet at the same time in normalising they are also helping the Palestinians!  

American propaganda

A major argument – proffered in this regard – relates to the American-sponsored ideological notion of “peace”, a cornerstone of American propaganda against peoples struggling against colonial and racist oppression, whether in the colonised world or inside the US itself.

Arab regimes have always put their own national interests first and had established ties and collaborated with Israel since 1948

“Peace”, which maintains oppressive colonial and racist relations, we are told, brings prosperity, whereas struggling against injustice and oppression, dubbed “war” in US lingo, brings destruction and poverty.

In contrast with the Arab peoples who have ceaselessly shown solidarity with the Palestinians since Britain issued the Balfour Declaration in 1917, Arab regimes, as I have written in Middle East Eye before, have always put their own national interests first and had established ties and collaborated with Israel since 1948 – in the case of the Hashemite Amir Faisal since 1919. Apologists for Sadat’s surrender to Israel claimed for decades that President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s excessive zeal to defend the Palestinians led Egypt, as  Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi put it in 2014, to sacrifice “100,000 Egyptian martyrs” for the Palestinians.  

In fact, Egypt’s losses in the 1948 war, according to Egyptian military sources, were 1,168 soldiers, officers, and volunteers killed (as mentioned in Ibrahim Shakib’s book: The Palestine War 1948, p432-433), whereas other Egyptian official sources  (noted in Benny Morris’ book, 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War, p406-407) put it at 1,400.

Moreover, King Farouk of Egypt entered the war in 1948 not because he placed Palestinian interests ahead of Egypt’s, but as analysts have shown, on account of his rivalry with the Iraqi monarchy for hegemony over the post-colonial Arab world. 

Not only did Nasser not launch a single war against Israel, but also all of Egypt’s subsequent wars were fought to defend Egypt, not the Palestinians. In 1956 and in 1967, Israel invaded Egypt and occupied Sinai.

photo taken on September 9, 1980 in Alexandria shows Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin (L) and President of Egypt Anouar el Sadate (R).
Former Israeli PM Yitzhak Rabin (L) and President of Egypt Anwar el Sadat (R) in Alexandria on 9 September 1980 (AFP)

Egyptian soldiers died in these wars defending their country, not the Palestinians. Between 1968 and 1970, Israel and Egypt fought the “War of Attrition” in which Egyptian soldiers were killed defending their country against continuing Israeli aggression, a war fought on Egyptian soil; and in 1973, Egypt launched a war to liberate Sinai, not Palestine, and Egyptian soldiers were again killed defending their country against foreign occupation.

Sacrificing Palestinians

When Sadat signed the Camp David Accords in 1978, not only did he not defend the Palestinians, he in fact sacrificed the Palestinians and their right to independence in exchange for the return of Sinai to Egypt (without full Egyptian sovereignty) and a lavish US aid package that served to enrich the Egyptian upper classes and impoverish most of the population.Arab rulers and Israel’s leaders: A long and secret history of cooperationRead More »

The Jordanian regime, whose army was led by a British colonial general, entered the 1948 war to expand its territory, which it did by annexing central Palestine (renamed the “West Bank”) after the war. In 1967, the Israelis invaded Jordan and occupied the West Bank. In both wars, Jordanian soldiers died for Jordanian regime interests, not Palestinian interests. 

When Jordan signed in 1994 its peace treaty with Israel, Palestinian interests were sacrificed yet again by Jordan’s recognition of Israel’s right to exist on stolen Palestinian land, and by securing some sort of Hashemite role over Muslim holy places in Jerusalem.

In exchange, Jordan also received a lavish US aid package benefiting the regime and the upper classes. In contrast with Egypt’s deal, Jordan’s deal was concluded without even requiring Israel to withdraw from any of the territories it occupied in 1967. Jordan’s “peace” with Israel, as a result, legitimised Israeli occupation and conquest and did not reverse any of it. 

While historically Egyptian and Jordanian soldiers might have been told they fought these wars for Palestine, the truth of the matter is that, unbeknownst to them, they fought them for their regime’s interests. As for Sudan, Morocco, Bahrain and the UAE, it remains unclear how they had ever put Palestinian interests before their own.

Peace ‘dividend’

A related argument is the so-called “peace dividend“, heavily marketed by the Americans since the 1970s, wherein we are told all the money spent on wars and armaments with Israel would now be used for economic development and prosperity.

To prove their allegiance to the anti-Palestinian policies of the US and Israel, Gulf officials have ceaselessly attacked Palestinians in the oil-families-owned Gulf media

The irony, of course, is that the military budgets of Egypt and Jordan, abetted by huge US military aid packages as a reward, skyrocketed since they normalised with Israel.  Economic development and state social benefits were in contrast reduced to unprecedented levels in both countries, bringing about massive poverty, and a decline in educational and health services. Even Jordanian officials who support the peace deal claim that Jordan has not properly cashed in on the “peace dividend”.

On the public relations front, as a result of congressional and media hostility to the Saudis and other Gulf countries after 9/11, the oil ruling families decided yet again to benefit at the expense of Palestinian interests by abandoning demands that Israel abide by international law and withdraw from the occupied territories as prerequisites to warmer relations. They quickly cosied up to Israel and its US lobby to stem the tide of such hostility by promising closer relations, which have now become open. 

 Pro-Palestinian protesters wave Palestinian flags and chant slogans against the US and Israel on December 10, 2017 in Rabat against
Pro-Palestinian protesters wave Palestinian flags and chant slogans against the US and Israel in Rabat on 10 December, 2017 (AFP)

None of this is the stuff of the past, but is part of ongoing normalisation, whereby President Trump announced huge SaudiMoroccanBahraini, and UAE purchases of US arms during the preparation and brokering of the normalisation deals in 2019 and after, which will militarise the region more than ever.

To prove their allegiance to the anti-Palestinian policies of the US and Israel, Gulf officials have ceaselessly attacked Palestinians in the oil-families-owned Gulf media and press in the last few years. Such attacks have recently become more vigorous, especially in Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

National interests

Ironically, the UAE had hoped to obtain the sophisticated F-35 fighter planes from the US in exchange for its peace with Israel. Israel and its supporters in Congress, however, refuse to allow this. Humiliated by this outcome, the UAE has suggested to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in order to assuage Israeli concerns, that Israeli fighter pilots take charge of the F-35s for a temporary period, after which they would train UAE pilots to replace them. How Gulf states became business partners in Israel’s occupation

Read More »

Morocco has also finally received US legitimisation of its takeover and annexation of the Western Sahara and Sudan was removed from the US list of terrorism-sponsoring countries. Neither country conceded nor sacrificed any part of its national interest to obtain such rewards.

Rather, like other Arab countries since 1948, they sacrificed Palestinian rights enshrined in international law to obtain benefits for themselves.  The  Arab League, an enemy of Palestinian interests since its establishment, also refused to condemn these peace deals even though they contradict its standing policy. 

Rather than sacrifice their national interests to defend the Palestinians, the Arab regimes have used every opportunity to sell out Palestinian rights to advance their own interests without respite.

Starting with the Hashemite Emir Faisal in 1919 who cooperated with the Zionists to ensure their support for his then Syrian kingdom, to King Mohammad VI’s normalisation with Israel to legitimise Morocco’s control of the Western Sahara, the Palestinians have been a God-send to Arab regimes which used and continue to use and abuse them for their own benefit.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.Joseph MassadJoseph Massad is Professor of Modern Arab Politics and Intellectual History at Columbia University in New York. He is the author of many books and academic and journalistic articles. His books include Colonial Effects: The Making of National Identity in Jordan, Desiring Arabs, The Persistence of the Palestinian Question: Essays on Zionism and the Palestinians, and most recently Islam in Liberalism. His books and articles have been translated to a dozen languages.

السلطة صمتت عن تطبيع الرباط مع الاحتلال.. وحماس اعتبرته «خطيئة سياسيّة»!؟

البناء

عُمان ترحّب باتفاق تطبيع العلاقات بين المغرب والكيان الصهيونيّ

انتقد الكاتب والمحلل السياسي الفلسطيني هاني المصري صمت السلطة الفلسطينية إزاء التطبيع المغربيّ الذي أُعلن عنه الخميس.

وقال المصري الذي يرأس مركز أبحاث السياسات والدراسات الاستراتيجية (مسارات) في رام الله: «صمت القبور رسمي فلسطيني إزاء تطبيع المغرب، بعد وصف ما قامت به الإمارات والبحرين بالخيانة وطعنة بالظهر وسحب السفراء إلى إعادتهما بعد عودة العلاقات الفلسطينية الإسرائيلية والتنسيق الأمني».

وأضاف المصري في منشور عبر صفحته على «فيسبوك»: «يوجد مكان لموقف وإجراءات بين الخيانة والصمت المريب!».

من جهتها، اعتبرت حركة «حماس» أن اتفاق تطبيع العلاقات بين المغرب والكيان الصهيوني هو «خطيئة سياسيّة».

وقال المتحدث باسم الحركة، حازم قاسم، عبر تويتر: «إن الاحتلال يستغلّ كل حالات التطبيع لزيادة شراسة سياسته العدوانيّة ضد شعبنا الفلسطيني وتوسيع تغوّله الاستيطاني على أرضنا».

وأكد أن «التطبيع يشجّع الاحتلال على استمرار تنكره لحقوق شعبنا، ولا يخدم بالمطلق قضيتنا العادلة ولا القضايا الوطنية للدول المُطبّعة».

وفي سياق متصل، رحّبت سلطنة عُمان، أمس الجمعة، باتفاق تطبيع العلاقات بين المغرب والعدو الصهيوني.

جاء ذلك وفق بيان لوزارة الخارجية العمانية، غداة إعلان الولايات المتحدة والمغرب استئناف العلاقات الدبلوماسيّة بين الرباط وتل أبيب.

وأفاد البيان بـ»ترحب سلطنة عُمان بما أعلنه جلالة الملك محمد السادس عاهل المغرب الشقيق في اتصالاته الهاتفيّة بكل من الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب ورئيس السلطة الفلسطينيّة محمود عباس».

وأضاف: «تأمل سلطنة عُمان أن يعزّز ذلك من مساعي وجهود تحقيق السلام الشامل والعادل والدائم في الشرق الأوسط».

وسلطنة عُمان رابع دولة عربية ترحّب بالتطبيع بين المغرب والكيان الصهيوني، بعد مصر والإمارات والبحرين.

ومساء الخميس، أعلن الملك المغربي استئناف الاتصالات الرسمية الثنائية والعلاقات الدبلوماسية مع الكيان الصهيوني «في أقرب الآجال»، وفق بيان صدر عن الديوان الملكي.

لكنه شدّد على أن ذلك «لا يمسّ بأي حال من الأحوال، الالتزام الدائم والموصول للمغرب في الدفاع عن القضية الفلسطينية العادلة، وانخراطه البناء من أجل إقرار سلام عادل ودائم في منطقة الشرق الأوسط».

وبإعلان اليوم سيكون المغرب الدولة المغاربية الوحيدة التي تقيم علاقات مع الكيان الصهيوني إثر قطع موريتانيا علاقاتها مع تل أبيب في 2010، وهو ما يعتبر اختراقاً صهيونياً لافتاً لمنطقة المغرب العربي.

كما سيصبح المغرب رابع دولة عربية توافق على التطبيع مع الكيان الصهيوني خلال العام 2020؛ بعد الإمارات والبحرين والسودان.

وفي 15 سبتمبر/أيلول الماضي، وقعت الإمارات والبحرين اتفاقيتين للتطبيع مع الكيان الصهيوني في واشنطن، فيما أعلن السودان، في 23 أكتوبر/تشرين أول الماضي، الموافقة على التطبيع تاركاً مسؤولية إبرام الاتفاق إلى المجلس التشريعي المقبل (لم يُنتخب بعد).

وبذلك، تنضمّ هذه البلدان الأربعة إلى بلدين عربيين أبرما اتفاقي سلام مع الكيان الصهيوني، وهما الأردن ومصر.

وكان الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترمب أعلن، أول أمس الخميس، عن تطبيع العلاقات بين إسرائيل» والمغرب في مقابل اعتراف أميركا بسيادة المغرب على الصحراء الغربية.

مقالات ذات صله

الجغرافيا السياسيّة للتطبيع – دور تركيّ في لبنان؟

ناصر قنديل

Photo of فرصة صفقة القرن لوحدة اللبنانيين

يعرف حكام الخليج أن التطبيع الذي جمعهم بكيان الاحتلال برابط مصيريّ لا ينبع من أي وجه من وجوه المصلحة لحكوماتهم ولبلادهم. فالتطبيع يرفع من درجة المخاطر ولا يخفضها إذا انطلقنا من التسليم بالقلق من مستقبل العلاقة مع إيران، والتطبيع مكاسب صافية لكيان الاحتلال اقتصادياً ومعنوياً وسياسياً وأمنياً، ولذلك فهم يعلمون أنهم قاموا بتسديد فاتورة أميركية لدعم كيان الاحتلال من رصيدهم وعلى حسابهم، ويحملون المخاطر الناجمة عن ذلك وحدهم، خصوصاً أن الأميركي الذي يمهد للانسحاب من المنطقة بمعزل عن تداعيات أزمات الانتخابات الرئاسية ونتائجها، ولذلك فقد تم إطعام حكام الخليج معادلات وهمية لبناء نظام إقليمي يشكل التطبيع ركيزته يحقق لهم توازن قوة يحميهم، فما هو هذا النظام الإقليمي وما هي الجغرافيا السياسية التي يسعى لخلقها؟

تبلورت خلال الأسابيع الماضية صورة الخرائط التي يسعى الأميركي لتسويقها كنواة للنظام الإقليمي الجديد عبر أربعة محاور، الأول محور البحر الأحمر الذي يضمّ مصر والسودان كشريكين في التطبيع، والثاني محور «الشام الجديد» الذي أعلن عنه كحلف أمنيّ اقتصاديّ يضمّ مصر والأردن والعراق، والثالث محور العبور ويضمّ الأردن والسلطة الفلسطينية، والرابع محور الطوق ويضمّ السلطة الفلسطينية والأردن والعراق، فيما يتولى كيان الاحتلال المشاغلة الأمنية لسورية والمقاومة، ويوضع لبنان تحت ضغط الأزمة الاقتصادية والسياسية والفشل الحكوميّ وضغوط ترسيم الحدود.

عملياً، يفقد النظام الإقليمي الموعود كل قيمة فعلية، إذا لم ينجح المحور الرابع الذي يتمثل بالسلطة الفلسطينية والأردن والعراق في الانضمام لخط المواجهة مع محور المقاومة، فالتعقيدات الفلسطينية أمام الجمع بين محور العبور أي حماية قوافل التطبيع العابرة من الكيان الى الخليج وبالعكس، ومحور الطوق الذي يراد منه عزل سورية، كبيرة جداً في ظل التبني الأميركي لخيارين بحدّ أعلى هو تصفية القضية الفلسطينية تحت عنوان مضامين صفقة القرن وحد أدنى هو التفاوض لأجل التفاوض من دون تقديم أي ضيغة قادرة على إنتاج تسوية يمكن قبولها وتسويقها فلسطينياً ويمكن قبولها وتسويقها إسرائيلياً، والأردن المثقل بضغوط القضية الفلسطينية من جهة وبالتشابك العالي ديمغرافياً واقتصادياً وأمنياً مع سورية معرض للانفجار بدوره في حلف عبور قوافل التطبيع في آن واحد، والعراق المطلوب فك ارتباطه العميق بإيران عبر نقل اعتماده على الغاز والكهرباء إلى مصر بدلاً من إيران، وإشراكه بحصار سورية رغم تشابك لا يقل عمقاً بينه وبينها ديمغرافياً واقتصادياً وأمنياً معرّض هو الآخر للانفجار تحت هذه الضغوط.

المشاغلة الإسرائيلية على جبهتي جنوب لبنان والجولان محاولة لرفع معنويات المدعوين للمشاركة في النظام الإقليمي الجديد، بأدوارهم الجديدة، والنجاح الأميركي بالضغط في لبنان وفي سورية يبدو قادراً على شل المبادرة على هاتين الجبهتين، لكن الأكيد أن لا تعديل في موازين القوى الميدانية التي تقلق كيان الاحتلال من جهة، ولا قدرة إسرائيلية على رفع المشاغلة الى درجة الحرب. والأميركي الذي يريد هذا النظام الإقليمي بديلاً لوجوده تمهيداً للانسحاب ليس بوارد هذه الحرب، وتجميد لبنان تحت الضغوط الأميركية يشكل مصدر استنزاف وإرباك للمقاومة، لكنه لا يعدل في مصادر قوتها ولا يعدل في مواقفها، ومزيد من الضغوط المالية والانسداد السياسي سيذهب بلبنان للانفجار وفتح الباب لخيارات تُخرج الوضع عن السيطرة.

التحدي هو في ما سيحدث عندما ينسحب الأميركيون، حيث سينهار البناء الذي يراهن عليه الأميركيون، ويتداعى وضع الأردن والسلطة الفلسطينية والحكومة العراقيّة، ويعود الوضع الى معادلة حرب كبرى لا قيمة لها من دون مشاركة أميركية في ظل العجز الإسرائيلي عن تحمل تبعاتها، أو تسوية أميركية مع محور المقاومة تبدأ من العودة للتفاهم النووي الإيراني، يصير معه ثنائي حكام الخليج وكيان الاحتلال على ضفة الخاسرين ويبدأ المدعوون للانضمام للنظام الإقليمي الحامي للتطبيع بالانسحاب هرباً من شراكة الخسائر.

جغرافيا سياسية ونظام إقليميّ على الورق ستعيش شهوراً قليلة… وتخبزوا بالأفراح.

دور تركيّ في لبنان؟

السياسات الأميركيّة التي تدخل مرحلة التخبّط والمغامرات الخطرة قبل أن تتبلور معالم سياسة جديدة مستقرة تشكل فجوة استراتيجية تتسابق على محاولات تعبئتها القوى الإقليمية التي تحمل مشاريعها المتضاربة تحت سقف السياسات الأميركية، بينما القوى المناوئة لهذه السياسات تئن تحت ضغط الأزمات والعقوبات، لكنها ثابتة على إنجازاتها من جهة، وتترقّب التطوّرات وتسابق المتنافسين على ملء الفراغ من جهة أخرى.

في سورية ولبنان وفلسطين والعراق واليمن ساحات مواجهة بين محور المقاومة وأميركا، وعلى الضفة الأميركيّة من جهة كيان الاحتلال المنخرط في حلف مع دول الخليج، ومن جهة مقابلة النظام التركيّ، لكن في ليبيا مواجهة بين الضفتين الخليجية والتركية، حيث الحلف الخليجي مدعوم بصورة مباشرة من مصر وفرنسا، بينما نجحت تركيا بتظهير حركتها كقوة دعم لموقع روسيا في حرب أنابيب الغاز الدائرة في المتوسط.

في لبنان حاولت فرنسا تظهير مساحة مختلفة عن الحركة الأميركيّة، لكن سرعان ما بدت الحركة الفرنسية تحت السيطرة، وبدا ان مشروع الحكومة الجديدة معلق على حبال الخطط الأميركية للضغط على لبنان سواء في ملف ترسيم الحدود البحرية أو في كل ما يتصل بعناصر قوة لبنان بوجه كيان الاحتلال.

الحلف الخليجيّ الفرنسيّ يبدو رغم تمايز بعض مواقف اطرافه تجاه حزب الله بالنسبة لفرنسا وتجاه سورية بالنسبة للإمارات والبحرين يبدو عاجزاً عن تخطي التمايز الشكلي، بينما نجح الأتراك في أزمتي ليبيا وناغورني قره باغ بتثبيت مواقعهم وفرض التراجع على الثنائي الخليجي الفرنسي، كما نجحوا باستمالة روسيا إلى تقديم التغطية لحركتهم وقطف ثمار الاستثمار تحت سقف الدور الروسي المتعاظم في المنطقة والعالم.

لبنان اليوم في العين التركية وبيدها بعض المال القطري والدعوات لزيارات تركيا وقطر تطال سياسيين وإعلاميين، ومحور المقاومة لم يفتح الباب لمناقشة عرض تركيّ يطال مقايضة دور في لبنان والعراق مقابل تنازلات تركية في سورية فهل ينجح الأتراك باستغلال الطريق المسدود للفرصة التي فتحت لفرنسا وفشلت بالإفادة منها بسبب خضوعها للسقوف الأميركية؟

تركيا وراء الباب طالما المعروض فرنسياً هو استتباع لبنان للسياسات الأميركية بحكومة تنفذ دفتر الشروط الأميركي، وفيه ترسيم الحدود لصالح كيان الاحتلال، والسياسة الخليجية في العراق مشروع فتنة مذهبيّة لاستتباع العراق لخطة التطبيع عبر ثلاثي مصري أردني عراقي يخدم مشروع التطبيع ويحميه ويحاصر سورية، والأتراك ينتبهون لتطلّع روسيا بحذر نحو ملف الغاز اللبناني وموقعه من حرب الأنابيب القائمة في المنطقة ولموقع العراق واتفاقات التسليح التي وقعها العراق مع روسيا وانقلبت عليها الحكومة الجديدة أسوة بالانقلاب على الاتفاق الاقتصاديّ مع الصين!

President Assad Speech to the Int’l Conference on Refugees Return

The video is also available on BitChute 

November 11, 2020 Arabi Souri

President Bashar Assad addressing Refugees Return Conference in Damascus

Damascus is hosting the International Conference on the Return of the Syrian Refugees with the participation of a number of countries in person or through video conference.

The camp led by the United States of America, the usual hypocrites for humanity, boycotting the conference and preventing the return of the Syrian refugees.

President Bashar Al Assad addressed the attendees of the International Conference on the Return of the Syrian Refugees that started today with the following speech.

Transcript of the English translation of President Assad speech:

Ladies and gentlemen, representatives of the countries participating in the conference,

I welcome you in Damascus dear guests, welcome in Syria which although, it has bled from long years of war, the cruelty of the siege, and the criminality of terrorism, it still cheers for meeting its true lovers and those who are truly loyal and who bear in their hearts, minds, and conscience the cause of humanity in every time and place.

In the beginning, I thank our Russian friends for their great efforts in supporting the convening of this conference despite all international attempts to foil it.

I also thank the Iranian friends for their efforts in this regard and for their true support which have contributed to easing the repercussions of the war and the impacts of the blockade.

I highly appreciate your coming to Damascus and your participation in this conference, and I mainly thank the states which have received Syrian refugees and embraced them, and whose people have shared their livelihood and job opportunities with the Syrians despite the economic suffering in those countries.

Dear participants, some states embraced the refugees based on ethical principles while other states in the West and in our region also are exploiting them in the ugliest way through transforming their humanitarian issue into a political paper for bargaining, in addition to making them as a source for money quenching their officials’ corruption without taking into consideration the real suffering lived by the Syrians abroad.

Instead of the actual work to create the appropriate conditions for their return, they forced them to stay through temptation sometimes or through exerting pressures on them or intimidating them, and this isn’t surprising as those governments have worked hard for spreading terrorism in Syria which caused the death of hundreds of thousands of its people, and displaced millions of them, those states can’t be logically the same ones which are the reason and the road for their return to their homeland, and their rejection to participate in this conference is the best evidence on that, the conference that seeks the goal for which they are crying falsely, which is the return of refugees.

If the issue of refugees according to the world is a humanitarian issue, it is for us, in addition to being a humanitarian issue, it is a national issue, we have managed over the past few years in achieving the return of hundreds of thousands of refugees, and today, we are still working relentlessly for the return of every refugee who wants to return and to contribute to building his/her homeland, but the obstacles are large as in addition to the pressures exerted on the Syrian refugees abroad to prevent them from returning, the illegitimate economic sanctions and the siege imposed by the US regime and its allies hinder the efforts exerted by the institutions of the Syrian state which aim to rehabilitate the infrastructure in the areas which had been destroyed by terrorism so as the refugees can return and live a decent life in normal conditions, and this is the main reason for the reluctance of many of them to return to their areas and villages due to the absence of the minimum basic requirements for life.

Despite all of that, the overwhelming majority of Syrians abroad today more than ever want to return to their homeland because they reject to be a ‘number’ on the political investment lists and a ‘paper’ in the hand of regimes which support terrorism against their homeland.

The issue of the refugees in Syria is a fabricated issue as Syria’s history and from centuries ago hasn’t witnessed any case of collective asylum, and despite that Syria, throughout its ancient and modern history, has suffered from successive occupations and continuous disturbances till the sixties of the last century, yet it has remained the place to which those who flee the disturbances and different crises resort, especially since the beginning of the twentieth century and the Ottoman massacres till the invasion of Iraq in the year 2003, and all of that history hasn’t mentioned any wars among the Syrians for ethnic, religious or sectarian reasons, neither before nor after the establishment of the Syrian state.

And as the objective conditions don’t lead to the creation of a situation of asylum, it was necessary for the Western regimes led by the American regime and the states which are subordinate to it from the neighboring countries, particularly Turkey to create fabricated conditions to push the Syrians to collectively get out of Syria, to find a justification for the interference in the Syrian affairs, and later to divide the state and transform it into a subordinate state that works for achieving their interests instead of the interests of its people.

Spreading terrorism was the easiest way, and it started by establishing the Islamic State terrorist organization in Iraq in the year 2006 under the patronage of the US which during the war on Syria joined other terrorist organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Jabhat al-Nusra, and others, and they destroyed the infrastructure and killed the innocent people, in addition to paralyzing the public services intimidating the Syrians and forcing them to leave their homeland.

In the year 2014, and when the Syrian state seemed to be on its way to restore security and stability, these countries mobilized ISIS terrorist group with the aim of dispersing the armed forces and enabling terrorists to control a large part of the Syrian territory, the largest part of which has been restored thanks to the sacrifices of our national army and the support of our friends, this support which had played a great role in defeating terrorists and liberating many areas.

Today we are facing an issue which consists of three interconnected elements; millions of refugees who want to return, destroyed infrastructure worth hundreds of billions and which were built throughout decades, and terrorism which is still tampering with some Syrian areas.

The Syrian State institutions have managed to achieve acceptable leaps compared with their potentials in dealing with such a big challenge, along with the continued war against terrorism, it has offered facilitation and guarantees for the return of hundreds of thousands of refugees to their homeland through several legislations such as delaying the compulsory military service for a year for the returnees, in addition to issuing a number of amnesty decrees from which a number of those who are inside the homeland or abroad have benefited.

In parallel with and despite the illegal siege, the Syrian state has been able to restore the minimum of the infrastructure in many areas such as water, electricity, schools, roads, and other public services to enable the returnees from living even with the minimum necessities of life.

The more the potentials increase, these steps will be faster certainly, and their increase is connected to the receding in the obstacles represented by the economic siege and the sanctions which deprive the state of the simplest necessary means for the reconstruction and leads to the deterioration of the economic and living conditions in a way that deprives citizens of the decent livelihood and deprives the refugees of the chance to return due to the decrease in the job opportunities.

I am confident that this conference will create the appropriate ground for cooperation among us in the upcoming stage for ending this humanitarian crisis which was caused by the largest barbaric Western aggression which the world has ever known in modern history. This crisis, which at every moment affects every home in Syria and the conscience of every honest person in the world, will remain for us as Syrians a deep wound which will not be healed until all those who were displaced by the war, terrorism, and siege return.

I wish for the activities of the conference success through reaching recommendations and proposals which directly contribute to the return of the Syrians to their homeland so as Syria will become, by them and by those who stayed and remained steadfast over ten years, better than ever.

Again, thank you for attending, and God bless you.

End of the transcript.
Credit: Syria news agency SANA staff contributed to the translation.

The conference is attended by 27 countries and boycotted by the USA and its stooges who do not want to relieve the Syrian refugees suffering, they want to continue to invest in that suffering by blackmailing the Syrian government to give away concessions, mainly to recognize Israel, to decrease its cooperation with Iran and Russia, to abandon the Lebanese and Palestinian people’s right for resistance and return to their homelands, and to join the US camp of aggressors against other sovereign countries, and to achieve that, the USA and through its regional stooges want to either replace the Syrian leadership and Syrian government with a puppet regime or at least install its agents in decision-making posts in the Syrian government, and those are exactly what the Syrian people refused to do and have stood up for the USA and its camp of evil satellite states and has paid and still paying a hefty price for stopping the aggressors and reversing the domino effect of the anti-Islamic Muslim Brotherhood-led colored revolutions in the Arab world dubbed the ‘Arab Spring’.

During the conference, Russia pledged 1 billion dollars to help rehabilitate Syria’s electricity and basic services, Iran suggested to establish a fund for helping Syria rebuild its infrastructure, and Lebanese ministers cried of the economic pressure the Syrian refugees have caused on their economy, yet the Lebanese Minister of Foreign Affairs through a video call from Beirut and the Lebanese Minister of Labor from within the conference hall in Damascus failed to mention the criminal contribution of former Lebanese governments and Lebanese warlords in facilitating the terrorist attacks against Syria and abusing the Syrian refugees suffering in their country.

To help us continue please visit the Donate page to donate or learn how you can help us with no cost on you.
Follow us on Telegram: http://t.me/syupdates link will open Telegram app.

Related Videos

Related News

هكذا تحاصر أميركا لبنان وسورية اقتصادياً ومالياً 1/2

باريس – نضال حمادة

مسؤول سابق في صندوق النقد الدولي يقول: احتياط مصرف لبنان 2.5 مليار دولار والباقي دولارات رقمية…

نعود بك أيها القارئ الكريم إلى مقالة «البناء» في شهر تشرين الثاني الماضي بعنوان (مسؤول سابق في صندوق النقد الدولي عشرات ملايين الدولارات تخرج يومياً من لبنان إلى أربيل). عُدنا والتقينا هذا المسؤول السابق في باريس وهو من أصل عربي ليحدّثنا عن تشاؤمه بمستقبل الوضع في لبنان، اقتصادياً وسياسياً وربما أمنياً حسب قوله، يشير إلى أن الأميركي ترك الفرنسي يتحرك قليلاً ثم وضع أمامه كل العراقيل التي يتصوّرها والتي لا يتصوّرها، وبالتالي النتيجة هي أن فرنسا وحدها لا يمكن لها ان تنقذ الوضع في لبنان من دون رضا أميركا.

يقول المسؤول المالي إن احتياطي مصرف لبنان يبلغ مليارين ونصف مليار دولار نقداً، بينما بقيت المليارات هي عبارة عن أرقام على الكمبيوتر لا أكثر، ومصرف لبنان أمام أكثر من معضلة فهو لا يمكن له أن يحوّل هذه الأرقام الى ليرة لبنانية لأنه رقمياً يكون قد خسر كل احتياطه الوهميّ من الدولارات. وهذا ما سوف يسرّع الانهيار المالي، مضيفاً أن مبلغ «الكاش» الموجود يكفي لاستيراد الحاجات الأساسية من النفط والدواء والقمح حتى آخر السنة الحالية.

الاقتصاد السوري تأثر بالانهيار اللبناني، حيث يقول المسؤول المالي الدولي السابق، هناك 40 مليار دولار تعود لرجال أعمال وتجار سوريين. وهذا كل ما يملكونه كانوا وضعوه في المصارف اللبنانية، والآن بعد اكتشاف النهب الذي تعرّضت له ودائعهم أصبحوا من دون إمكانيات للاستيراد وبالتالي انكشف الوضع السوري اقتصادياً كالوضع اللبناني على أزمات تمويل عمليات الاستيراد. وبالتالي شهدنا أزمات متزامنة من نقص في المحروقات في لبنان وسورية، وهذا كان عملاً مقصوداً ومدروساً بعناية، فالنظام المصرفي اللبناني استُخدم معبراً لسحب كميات العملة الصعبة الموجودة في لبنان وسورية تمهيداً لإسقاط البلدين في زمن الصراع على السيطرة على الشرق الأوسط.

ما يريده صندوق النقد من لبنان هو تسليم كامل لكل المرافق المربحة للدولة اللبنانية وبأبخس الأثمان. يقول المسؤول المالي الدولي معقباً أن مبلغ الاحد عشر ملياراً الموعود به لبنان من سيدر لن تسد رمق اللبنانيين إلا لفترة محدودة طالما أن فاتورة الاستيراد السنوي للبنان تعادل ستة عشرَ مليار دولار. وأضاف ان الولايات المتحدة عملت من خلال إغلاق المطالبة بإغلاق الحدود البرية بين لبنان وسورية على تفاقم الأزمة الاقتصادية وجعلها تصل الى مشارف الانهيار.

غداً الجزء الثاني: لعبة المعابر كيف حاصرت أميركا سورية ولبنان؟

حرب المعابر هكذا تحاصر أميركا سورية ولبنان

باريس – نضال حمادة

نكمل كلامنا مع المسؤول السابق في صندوق النقد الدولي، الذي قال إن أميركا أطبقت الطوق على سورية ولبنان عبر السيطرة على المعابر الحدودية في البلدين، بداية في سورية حيث عملت أميركا على منع الدولة السورية من الاستفادة من الوضع العسكري الذي أصبح لمصلحتها، وذلك عبر السيطرة او التحكم بكل المعابر بين سورية ودول الجوار بدءاً من معبر نصيب في الجنوب حيث يرفض الأردن فتحه بحجج واهية ويمدّد فترة إغلاقه دورياً من دون سبب، ويُعتبر معبر نصيب مع الأردن طريقاً مهماً لنقل البضائع السورية الى الخليج العربي واستيراد البضائع من الخارج عبر البر، في المرتبة الثانية يأتي معبر المالكية مع العراق وهو يقع في شرق سورية. هنا يقول الخبير الاقتصادي الدولي إن المعبر من الجهة العراقية يتمركز فيه ويسيطر عليه بالكامل الجيش الأميركي الذي يمنع نقل أية بضائع من سورية وإليه. ويقول إن الحكومة العراقية تخلّت عن المعبر لصالح القوات الأميركية بعد تولي مصطفى الكاظمي منصب رئيس وزراء العراق.

يقول الخبير الاقتصادي الدولي هناك أيضاً في الشرق السوري معبر التنف الذي تسيطر عليه القوات الأميركية، كما تمنع أميركا إيران والعراق وسورية من فتح معبر البوكمال، حيث تنفذ الطائرات الحربية الأميركية غارات متكررة على القوافل التجارية في المنطقة وعلى المواقع العسكرية المحيطة بالمعبر.

في لبنان يبدو الأمر أسهل بسبب وجود حدود بريه مغلقة مع فلسطين المحتلة، وبالتالي تبقى الحدود السورية اللبنانية التي تضغط اميركا لإغلاق ما تبقى سالكاً منها خصوصاً في البقاع الشمالي الذي تأتي المطالبة بإغلاق الحدود بينه وبين سورية ضمن سلم أولويات أجندة صندوق النقد الدولي، يختم المسؤول السابق في صندوق النقد الدولي كلامه.

%d bloggers like this: