Israel's National Bill

JANUARY 03, 2020BY GILAD ATZMON

Source: https://www.presstv.com

The Education Ministry in Israel has published a new civics teacher’s guide. According to it, all students taking the matriculation exam in civics will be tested on their knowledge of the details of the controversial nation-state law. Tel Aviv’s nation-state law that was passed by the Knesset in 2018 has been labeled as “apartheid” due to its marginalization of the indigenous Arab population. This episode touches on this subject and more.

Video here

Quo Vadis, Lebanon?

Global Research, December 03, 2019

Good bye, Lebanon, metaphorically and truly.

Good bye to a country which, many believe, actually has already ceased to exist.

For five long years I have been commuting between the Asia Pacific and the Middle East.And Beirut, for all that time, was one of my homes.

I arrived in Beirut when the situation in the region was beginning to be unbearable; when destabilized, tortured Syria commenced losing its children in large numbers. They were forced to leave their homeland, heading for Beirut and the Beqaa Valley, and in fact, to all parts of the world. I arrived when Syrian refugees were freezing to death, exploited and brutalized in ancient, godforsaken villages lost in the deep, lawless Lebanese valleys.

I was not supposed to write about it, but I did. I was not supposed to see what I saw. It was the UN’s shame, a well-hidden and well covered one, obscured by technical jargon. Refugees were not called refugees, and camps were not really officially registered as camps. What you had clearly seen with your own eyes, you were told, was actually totally something else. But it wasn’t. Eyes hardly lie.

Lebanon’s mirages, sandcastles and myths. If you live here, they surround you, suffocate you, choke you, all the time.

I arrived when the Palestinians began rebelling inside the horrific camps; hopeless, monstrous places where tens of thousands of human beings have been forced to live, for decades, without help, with hardly any rights.

And I left when the country collapsed. When the gap between the haves and have nots reached such enormous proportions, that it often began to appear that there were actually two different countries, even universes, on the same tiny geographical territory that is called Lebanon.

*

But before I left, there was an uprising.

Of course, periodically, there are rebellions here, which are misleadingly called “revolutions”. The“revolution” of 2005, of 2015, and now again, in 2019.

I worked in the center of Beirut, in the squares packed with the protesters. I tried to understand, to analyze, to find context.

And what did I witness? Huge clenched fists, those of the Serbian “Otpor”, a CIA-Serbian (extreme right-wing) ‘organization’, which forced the government of Slobodan Milosevic out of power, and which later infiltrated and destroyed genuine revolts all over the Middle East; revolts cynically called by the Western mass media – “Arab Spring”.

I actually saw many signs of Otpor, a sister group of Canvas, and when I asked protesters in Beirut whether they knew what these organizations represented, they replied that “no”, they didn’t but “they’d definitely ask their designers”.

There was a lot of waving of flags, plenty of singing, and even dancing. Rebellion Lebanese-style. One big party. Smiles, laughter, even when things get desperate.

Protesters have many grievances, and they are willing to discuss them, openly: corruption, hardship, almost non-existent social services, and hardly any future.

But do not look for any signs of ideology here, in 2019: this is not a communist, or even a socialist, rebellion, although historically, Lebanon has vibrant socialist and communist movements, both of them.

One thing is certain: protesters “do not like ‘elites’”, but you will search in vain for slogans denouncing capitalism; something that is so common in Chile and of course, in Bolivia (but not in Hong Kong, where the riots are clearly backed by the West and by some local ‘elites’).

Protesters do not like electricity blackouts, water shortages, filth accumulated everywhere because of the failed garbage collection and recycling. The protesters hate the high prices, and traffic jams.

But what do they want, really?

*

They want a “better Lebanon”. But what is that?

A Lebanon free of racism, for instance? No, I never saw any signs denouncing racism.

When I first began living here, I was horrified by the bigotry of the locals.

A driver working for one of the UN agencies, did not even try to hide his ‘beliefs’:

“The Turkish nation has improved. In the past, they only screwed Asian women, and as a result, they all looked like dogs. After they conquered the Balkans, and began screwing European women, their stock got better.” 

Arriving at Rafik Hariri International Airport, I often saw humiliated Philippine, Ethiopian, or Kenyan women, locked in crowded rooms, guarded by Lebanese security forces. They looked like slaves, treated like meat. Unhurriedly, their “owners” would come to fetch them, signing release papers, leading them away.

The abuse of domestic workers in Lebanon is horrific; torture, rape and death are common. Foreign workers are regularly committing suicide. While there is hardly any legal protection for them.

Is this going to change? Are protesters demanding a “better Lebanon” which would once and for all finish with this sort of discrimination?Again, I have never heard about such demands.

And what has been sustaining Lebanon, financially, for decades?

All over West Africa, unscrupulous, racist and brutal Lebanese businesspeople have been exploiting local folks, while plundering natural resources. The things that I heard in Ivory Coast, would shock even the most hardened readers. But are there any slogans in Beirut demanding theplunder of West Africa stop?

Another fabled source of income are the narcotics, grown and processed in the Beqaa Valley. If it were to be marijuana, who cares? But Lebanon is producing heroin and cocaine, but above all, so-called “combat drugs”, including Captagon, which is used on the battlefields of Syria and Yemen. Captagonis regularly smuggled out of the country by the Saudis, and used in jihadi operations, as I have reported.

Is this going to end? Are Lebanese protesters demanding a “better Lebanon” without drugs that are helping to kill and torture tens of thousands of innocent people, all over the region?

What are the other sources of income here? Banking, of course. Banks that operate all over the Middle East, and the Gulf.

And, of course, “foreign aid”. Aid which is supposed to “help the immigrants”, as well as the poor Lebanese who are “suffering from the waves of refugees”, arrivingfrom countries destabilized by the West. These funds regularly disappear, fully or partially”,into the deep pockets of the Lebanese elites, who make sure to generate profits no matter what: when the refugees keep arriving, and even when they leave.

Before I departed, I spent one week wandering all around Beirut, day and night, searching foranswers, looking for signs that the protesters were really determined to change the country. Not just for themselves, but for everyone in Lebanon, and for the entire Arab world.

I encountered too many abstract slogans, most of them of Western origin. Not even a trace of Syrian Pan-Arabism. Nothing that would even remotely resemble internationalism. This was clearly a “European-style” rebellion.

*

As always, the Lebanese security forces were intimidating me and many others.

Coming to Martyr’s Square, at night, I only pointed the lens of my camera in the direction of a group of lazy, cynical looking soldiers, and it propelled them immediately into action. They tried to force me to delete the images, to apologize. I did not budge. I had no problem photographing police in Hong Kong, or in Paris, Chile or other places. And I have had enough, after 5 years here, of these inept and arrogant brutes.

But here, the armed forces are “unique”; not much is expected from them. It is Hezbollah which comes to the rescue of Lebanon whenever it is attacked by Israel. Hezbollah fighters are well trained, and they are disciplined. While the Lebanese army (and its various “forces”) is manned by those who cannot find a decent job. If it protects somebody or something, it is the Lebanese regime, sustained by the West and Saudi Arabia.

I refused to hand over my phones and cameras to them.

Arrest me,” I offered, extending both my hands.

They did not. It would be too much effort, and paperwork.

Later, the protesters hugged me:

“It is great that you did not surrender your material to them. You see, if it was us, the Lebanese, they would beat us up, and smash our cameras.” 

A lady protester added:

“You never know what they are hiding, but they are hiding something, always. Perhaps they did not want the world to see how lazy they are. They stand here, in clusters, doing nothing, chatting. Then, when they get tired of doing nothing, they mobilize and attack us. They are unpredictable.”

A couple of months ago, during the short conflict between Israel and Lebanon (Israeli drone attack and Hezbollah retaliation), I managed to drive to the border, as I had on several previous occasions.

Almost the entire defense of Lebanon has been resting on the shoulders of Hezbollah, with UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) troops, consisting of Indonesian, South Korean, Italian, Ghanaian and others forces, patrolling the frontier in armored vehicles, and providing mostly psychological deterrence from the large fortified bases, including the one at Naqoura.

Lebanese armed forces have very little ability to defend their country. That includes the Lebanese Air Force, which mainly counts on things that could be described as toy airplanes, with converted Cessna models.

Now, theLebanese army and police are facing and confronting their own people, protecting the regime in Beirut, as well as foreign, mainly Western and Saudi, interests.

*

But back to the main question which is, surprisingly, very rarely asked by the Western mass media outlets: “What do Lebanese people really want? What is the goal of the uprising?”

Rebellion began on October 17, against proposed tax on WhatsApp calls. It soon turned into call for resignation of the entire government; call for total overhaul of the Lebanese system. Prime Minister, Saad Hariri, resigned. Others stayed, but country has been paralyzed for weeks.

Some Lebanese call what is happening on the streets of Beirut, Tripoli and other cities, an “October Revolution”, but in reality, this uprising has very little to do with the iconic Russian Bolshevik Revolution of 1917.

However, one positive thing is that many Lebanese people are now calling for direct democracy, and for a people’s parliament.

Alessandra Bajec recently wrote for The New Arab newspaper:

“Protests and strikes are not the only nationwide thing dominating Lebanon. Open discussions held by groups of citizens is the latest phenomenon happening on the streets of Lebanon. 

A series of open discussions led by a variety of groups of citizens are held daily around Lebanon helping to feed the hearts and minds of the revolutionary movement since the start of the country’s so-called “October Revolution”. 

I witnessed those gatherings in Beirut. It is an impressive idea, in a way far more advanced than what has been observed in Europe, during the recent protests in France and elsewhere.

It is clear that Lebanese rebels have had enough of the sectarian politics, of savage capitalism (although, this is not being pronounced as such), and of the endemic corruption.

For decades, after the devastating Lebanese Civil War (1975-1990), thecountry remained bitterly divided. Again, it is actually something that is not supposed to be discussed, even mentioned, but allegiances in this nation of (officially) 4.4 million, have been commonly pledged toreligious leaders and movements, and not to the state.

David Morrison wrote in Labor & Trade Union Review:

“Lebanon’s political system has a uniquely confessional character, which has its origin in the National Pact of 1943.  Under this unwritten Pact, the President of the Republic must be a Christian, the Prime Minister a Sunni Muslim and the President (Speaker) of the Parliament a Shiite Muslim. 

What is more, 50% of the 128 seats in the Parliament are allocated to Christians, and 50% to Muslims, and these allocations are further sub-divided for Christian and Muslim sects.  In total, seats are allocated to each of 18 sects.  Nationally, the 64 Christian seats are allocated as follows: Maronite 34, Greek Orthodox 14, Greek Catholic 8, Armenian Orthodox 5, Armenian Catholic 1, Protestant 1 and Others 1; and the 64 Muslim seats are allocated as follows: Sunni 27, Shiite 27, Druze 8 and Alawite 2. 

So, in total Christians have 50% of the seats, and the Sunni and Shiite communities just over 20% each. 

There was no provision in the National Pact for altering these allocations to reflect demographic changes.  And there is still none today.  These allocations may have corresponded to the proportion of each sect in the electorate at one time, but they certainly don’t today.  But it’s impossible to say with any precision what they should be, since there hasn’t been a national census since 1932.  This is a very sensitive issue within Lebanon, an issue that has the potential to trigger civil conflict.” 

Naturally, this sclerotic and stale system of secretive divides and coalitions, led to outrageous corruption. Religious and family clans managed to amass tremendous wealth, while enjoying almost absolute impunity.

Discussing sensitive political issues with various Lebanese protesters and activists in 2015 (“You Stink” movement), as well as during the recent uprising of 2019, I came to the clear understanding that most of the educated protesters (and Lebanon is without any doubt one of the most educated nations in the Arab world), have been totally rejecting the sectarian system. In fact, they were thoroughly disgusted with it.

As early as in 2015, one of the main demands was to “unite Lebanon”; to make sure that it gets governed by people elected based on their virtues and excellence, instead of religious beliefs.

Particularly young people have had enough of those escapes to Cyprus (in order to get married), if a couple belonged to two different religions, or if one or both individuals had no religion at all. They were revolted by the fact that their child could no be registered in their own country, if there was no official Lebanese marriage certificate.

And most of the people I spoke to, understood that the shocking lack of transparency on which the Lebanese regime has been thriving, only serves those very few extremely rich individuals and families. The economy of the country is shattered, debt is at 150% GDP, basically unserviceable, and the divide between the rich and poor, monstrous. For millions, leaving the country became the only option. But luxury marinas are full of lavish yachts, while Maserati sport cars and Range Rover SUVs are parked all over the capital, in front of luxury restaurants and bars.

The Lebanese revolutionaries are organizing open discussions, but that is not all – they want a totally new political system.

The problem is, they are not sure, which one.

But, they are certain that by holding open forums and public meetings,they will, eventually, find out what precisely it is they want.

Alessandra Bajec continues witha description of direct-democracy groups:

Rachad Samaha, a social activist and core member of the free discussions group adds, “We were talking among ourselves about how we could be more involved in the revolution… not just by joining protests, but through helping to bring people together to discuss issues that we are all fighting against. We can then reach some common ground.” 

Centering such group discussions over the need to change the current political system, and put an end to sectarianism, and possible ways to fix the country’s rapidly declining economy has been the leading drive for prompting exchanges of views between people from within the largest protest movement. 

The major matters of national concern voiced by citizens taking part in the talks include the accelerating economic crisis, the embezzlement of public funds, the decades-long ruling political elites who are being held responsible for the deepening crisis, and the confessional system, where power is divided among sects and has created patronage networks and clientelism at the detriment of the population.” 

All this is true. But this is Lebanon, the Middle East, where nothing is really simple.

Here, the West has a tremendous influence, and so do the best allies of Washington in the region, the Saudis. All this money ‘wasted’, all that eye-closing, simply ought to have guaranteed certain allegiances.

Under the surface, the West, Israel and Saudi Arabia are all after Iran, and Iran is allied with Hezbollah, and Hezbollah is the only true and powerful social force in Lebanon, where almost everything public has been already privatized, or stolen, or both.

Hezbollah is also the only true protection that Lebanon has, against Israel. While the West does not want anyone to be protected against Israel.

Predictably, Hezbollah is on the “terrorist list” of the United States, and on the lists of several of its allies.

Hezbollah had a strategic alliance with the previous government of Hariri, who resigned several weeks ago (and Hezbollah was warning against pushing for the collapse of the government, and even tried to clear the roadblocks erected by the protesters).

Now, what will really happen if the protesters win? Who will be benefiting? What if the old regime collapses; what if there is no more Hezbollah, and no more protection against the “Southern Neighbor”?

*

What kind of Lebanon can replace this present, terribly inefficient, even brutal and corrupt state?

If you are in Achrafieh neighborhood, the richest place in Lebanon, where the old Christian money resides, you would be told, by many, things that you would most likely not want to hear.

You’d be “explained” that Lebanon was supposed to be a Christian country, that the French created it as the only Christian state in the Middle East. You would hear Palestinians being insulted, horribly, and you would see posters of extreme-right-wing political leaders.

Once, there, I had a haircut, and an old barber parted with me, by raising his right hand into the air, and shouting: “Heil Hitler!” (After that, I quickly switched to a Syrian barber).

A neighbor once told me:

“French imperialism? Oh, but we would love to have the French back! That would be brilliant, to be colonized by them, again, no?” 

It was not a joke. He meant it. Each and every word, that he uttered.

These things are not supposed to be written about, at least not in the mainstream press. But this is not the mainstream press, and I believe that without understanding these nuances, it is impossible to understand Lebanon, and what could happen if the revolution wins.

Who is singing and dancing at the center of Beirut? Who is demanding for the resignation of the entire regime? Are these mainly Christians or Muslims? I am not sure. Judging by the number of headscarves, most likely, the majority are not Muslim. But again, I am not sure. This is not a question that one can present, to the protesters.

This is definitely not a revolution that would advance the interests of the Muslim-socialist Iran. And the same could be said about what is going on, simultaneously, in Iraq.

Can Western-backed “secularism” convert Lebanon into a Western outpost in the Middle East? Could it further hurt, even damage, Syria? Theoretically, yes. Could it hurt the interests of non-Western, anti-imperialist countries like Russia and China? Most definitely.

Is that what is happening? Could this be another shade of the “Color Revolutions”, or a continuation of the so-called Arab Spring?

No one can answer these questions, yet. But the situation has to be monitored, extremely carefully. Given the history of Lebanon, given its position in the world, its political and economic orientation, as well as education, the country can go either way. Given the choice, people could opt for a socialist state, or of returning to the Western colonial realm.

The West is doing all it can to bring Lebanon into its orbit. The clenched fists of Otpor are clear proof and warning of it. It is a well documented fact, that Canvashas been operating here at least since 2005.

 

*

Leaving Beirut, at the gate, I was once again stopped by anofficer of the security forces. He was rude. They always search for Israeli stamps or for exit stamps, or something, in the passports. And I had enough of him. Here, at Rafik Hariri, I saw them, for years, humiliating Ethiopian women, crushing Syrians, while treating like gods, white visitors from Europe and the United States.

“Why not fight Israelis, instead of women and children?” I suggested to him, grinning.

And all hell broke loose. And they dragged me away from the gate. And the giant Boeing 777-300 had to wait, as Air France refused to back down and download my luggage and leave me behind.

They called some generals back in Beirut. They were jumping around, shouting something, bluffing. I couldn’t care one single bit. My work here was finished. In Paris, I had nine days to kill, writing, before departing for South America. Waiting there, or in some filthy jail in Lebanon, made very little difference to me. I would have liked to be in Damascus, but my visa had already expired. So, I just waited.

In the end, they let me go. Prisoners who are not scared, are not fun to hold.

The airplane maneuvered towards the runway, then the engines roared, and we took off. Halas.

My memory cards are holding hours of footage from all corners of Lebanon. I was not sure what will I do with it.

Above all, I was not sure what the Lebanese will do with their own country.

A giant clenched fist was stickingout from the Martyr’s Square. Was this a foreign implant, a well-planned sabotage, or a genuine symbol of resistance?

On Independence Day, the fist was burned down, destroyed. Vandals!, screamed foreign media. I am not sure: this is extremely complex country.

The country was collapsing. Perhaps it has already collapsed. People were talking, shouting, singing. Some were living in dire misery. Others were driving Ferraris and torturing imported maids.

The country has been desperately trying to go forward. But forward could mean many, many different directions. In Lebanon, for each person, for each group: forward is towards somewhere else!

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Andre Vltchek

Andre Vltchek is philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He’s a creator of Vltchek’s World in Word and Images, and a writer that penned a number of books, including China and Ecological Civilization. He writes especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published.

All images in this article are from the author

The Jewish Progressive Agenda according to Bernie Sanders

 

sanders final.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

In the 2016 Democratic primaries, Bernie Sanders presented himself as an American who happened to be Jewish.  Now, in a radical shift, Sanders identifies as “a proud Jewish American.” The progressive politician went from speaking in a universalist voice to defining himself as a 3rd category Jew, i.e., a person who identifies politically as a Jew (as opposed to identifying religiously:1st category, or ancestrally: 2nd category). In his new capacity as a proud Jew, Sanders has declared all out war on Anti Semitism on behalf of his people and in the name of what he describes as ‘multicultural progressive values’.

In his recent extended article titled How to Fight Antisemitism, published by the purportedly ‘Left’ Jewish Currents, Sanders takes up the same line you’d expect from an ADL spokesman, ticking every Hasbara box from the Jewish right of ‘self determination ‘to the primacy of Jewish suffering.

It is hard to miss the echo of Zionist propaganda in Sanders’ drivel. Understandably, Sanders doesn’t like Anti-Semitism. In that he isn’t alone. I would venture that no one, including antisemites, likes anti-Semitism. However, fighting anti Semitism is pretty simple. All it takes is self-reflection. This is exactly what early Zionists did and it was pretty effective. Early Zionism promised  to introduce a new Hebrew: civilized, proletarian, universalist and ethical. Some of the worst anti-Semites were impressed with the idea, for a while even Hitler supported that Jewish nationalist project. At the time, Zionists were so popular that they were largely forgiven their 1948 racist ethnic cleansing crimes. Their introspective project was perceived as genuine.

Now, Sanders informs us, “antisemitism is rising in this country. According to the FBI, hate crimes against Jews rose by more than a third in 2017 and accounted for 58% of all religion-based hate crimes in America.”  Does the ‘progressive’ presidential wannabe bother to ask himself why an ethnic group that comprises only 2% of the American population is subject to the vast majority of religion based hate crimes?

Sanders doesn’t advocate that Jews reflect on whether there is something they do that provokes such crimes,  he prefers to blame everyone else and White identitarians in particular. He argues that antisemites such as the Pittsburgh Synagogue murderer “acted on a twisted belief that Jews were part of a nefarious plot to undermine white America. This wave of violence is the result of a dangerous political ideology that targets Jews and anyone who does not fit a narrow vision of a whites-only America.”

Although I am a harsh critic all forms of identitarianism,  Sanders seems to want it both ways, he identifies himself as a “proud Jewish American” and yet he is hostile to those who identify as White and to their political and identitarian agenda. In reading Sanders’ piece, one can’t miss the fact that the so-called ‘progressive’ seems to support all forms of identitarianism except the White one. “This wave of violence” he writes, “is the result of a dangerous political ideology that targets Jews and anyone who does not fit a narrow vision of a whites-only America.”

Politicians who explore ideas in a manner that is ignorant, uneducated and clumsy are now a universal Western symptom. However, Sanders manages to form a category of his own. “The antisemites who marched in Charlottesville don’t just hate Jews. They hate the idea of multiracial democracy.”

What is multiracial democracy? Are we supposed to know or should we guess? Are there any voices that should be excluded from this type of diverse democracy?

 “They [presumably, the White Identitarians] hate the idea of political equality.”

Is this true? Perhaps ‘they,’ rightly or wrongly, just see themselves as among the oppressed and want their plight addressed?

“They hate immigrants, people of color, LGBTQ people, women, and anyone else who stands in the way of a whites-only America.”

Does Sanders understand that ‘hating people’ (women, migrants, people of color, LGBTQ etc,) is not the same as opposing the identity politics that divides nations into a manifold of discrete identities?

Sanders accuses the anti-Semites of being conspiratorial. “this is the conspiracy theory that drove the Pittsburgh murderer—that Jews are conspiring to bring immigrants into the country to “replace” Americans.”

I feel obliged to remind Mr. Sanders it is hardly conspiratorial to acknowledge the fact that Jewish politics in the West and in America in particular, is pro-immigration. It is well documented and is actually rational. As opposed to the Jewish State that performs some of the most brutal anti immigration policies, Diaspora Jews tend to prefer to live in a society that is made of an amalgam of many groups and ethnicities. Sanders who identifies himself as a ‘proud Jew’ should ask himself why he supports ‘multicultural democracy’ and what he means by that. Sanders ought to look into the work of HIAS and decide for himself how well it reflects his own political sentiments.

 Bernie Sanders sees anti-Semitism as “a conspiracy theory that a secretly powerful  (Jewish) minority exercises control over society.”

Someone should ask Sanders to explain the peculiar phenomenon at work when Israeli PM Netanyahu received  29 standing ovations during his hard line speech in Congress. Mr. Sanders, who believes that pointing at Jewish power arises from ‘conspiratorial’ inclinations may want to ask himself what drove him to declare war against anti Semitism instead of joining battle against all racism. Does Sanders plan to speak at AIPAC or J-Street as part of his presidential campaign or does he intend to deny himself the support of the most influential political lobbies in Washington?

Sanders writes that “like other forms of bigotry—racism, sexism, homophobia—antisemitism is used by the right to divide people from one another and prevent us from fighting together for a shared future of equality, peace, prosperity, and environmental justice.” But if Sanders is genuine here and his objective is ‘unity,’ why does he single out  White identitarians? Shouldn’t he invite the Whites to join his phantasmic identitarian ‘unity’ as equal partners? And more to the point, if “like other forms of bigotry—racism, sexism, homophobia—antisemitism is used by the right to divide people” why not simply oppose all racism and bigotry in a universal manner?

According to the “proud Jewish American” who wants to be the next  president, “opposing antisemitism is a core value of progressivism.” Is it?  I would have thought that progressivism is about opposing all forms of racism in the largest and least discriminatory manner.

To illustrate his alliance with what is currently the most racist state on the planet, Sanders delves into nostalgic memories of his Zionist youth. “I have a connection to Israel going back many years. In 1963, I lived on a kibbutz near Haifa. It was there that I saw and experienced for myself many of the progressive values upon which Israel was founded.”

Mr Sanders forgets to mention that Sha’ar Haamakim, the Kibbutz he briefly dwelled in, was founded on the land of a Palestinian village; Al Zubaidat that had been the home of 60 Palestinian families. In 1925 a Zionist organisation purchased the village land from a rich Beiruty family and beginning in 1931, the Jewish Agency struggled to evict the Palestinians of  El Zubeidat. A few years later, in 1935,  Kibbutz Sha’ar HaAmakim was founded by Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe. In short, the place Sanders describes as embodying  ‘progressive values’ was in fact, part of the vile racially driven, Zionist ethnic cleansing project.

The intellectually compromised Sanders goes on to describe a criminal state with a very odd use of the term ‘progressive.’  “I think it is very important for everyone, but particularly for progressives, to acknowledge the enormous achievement of establishing a democratic homeland for the Jewish people after centuries of displacement and persecution.” I find this confusing.  Unless the words ‘progressive’ and ‘Jewish’ have morphed into synonyms, I do not understand what is ‘progressive’ about the process of violent racist ethnic cleansing.

I guess even Sanders must realise that his pro Israeli screed is easily ridiculed.

  “We must also be honest about this: The founding of Israel is understood by another people in the land of Palestine as the cause of their painful displacement.”

According to Sanders the Palestinian plight is simply a matter of a subjective perception, that  it was merely ‘understood’ by the Palestinians that the founding of Israel resulted in their own painful displacement.  Sanders dismisses reality, ignoring the chain of massacres of Palestinians in 1948, and the clear agenda of the Israeli military to cleanse the indigenous people of Palestine from their land. I can’t think of anything more disgusting and duplicitous than Sanders’ fake humanism.

 Sanders finds that “some criticism of Israel can cross the line into antisemitism, especially when it denies the right of self-determination to Jews…” I allow myself to assert that no one out there denies Jews or anyone else’s right of self-determination but self determination becomes a serious problem when executed at the expense of others, whether this takes place in Palestine, in North America or anywhere else.

Bernie Sanders, a declared non universalist ‘progressive,’ uses a Jewish outlet to vow to his people “I will direct the Justice Department to prioritize the fight against white nationalist violence. I will not wait two years to appoint a Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, as Trump did; I will appoint one immediately.”

If America intends, as it should, to fight racism and to heal its wounds it could be that Bernie Sanders is the worst possible candidate as he clearly expresses that what he cares about is the hatred of the one group that happens to be his own. Maybe president of  the ADL is the more fitting post for the pretentious self confessed “proud Jewish American.” Leading the American people and the world should be left to a proper universalist and a genuine ethical character assuming that such a person is available and willing to commit.


 My battle for truth and freedom involves some expensive legal and security services. I hope that you will consider committing to a monthly donation in whatever amount you can give. Regular contributions will enable me to avoid being pushed against a wall and to stay on top of the endless harassment by Zionist operators attempting to silence me and others.

Donate

 

Israel’s Supreme Court — Upholding “Targeted Assassinations” and Torture

Global Research, November 08, 2019

Time and again, Israel’s high court upholds human and civil rights abuses committed by the state.

In 2006, the court upheld its targeted assassinations policy, claiming they’re OK when no other choices exist to protect against dangers to national security — that don’t exist it failed to say.

The policy contravenes Israeli law, the laws of war, and human rights law. Time and again, Israel falsely calls legitimate self-defense by Palestinians “terrorism,” unjustifiably justifying its lawless actions, most often upheld by its high court.

In Public Committee against Torture in Israel et al v. the Government of Israel et al (1999), Israel’s Supreme Court banned the practice it earlier OK’d, ruling “psychological pressure (and) a moderate degree of physical pressure” are permissible.

Israel’s 1987 Landau Commission condemned harsh interrogations amounting to torture, but approved the practice to obtain evidence for convictions in criminal proceedings, saying these tactics are necessary against “hostile (threats or acts of) terrorist activity and all expressions of Palestinian nationalism.”

Despite calling the 1984 UN Convention against Torture “absolute (with) no exceptions and no balances,” Israel’s high court OK’d coercive interrogations in three cases.

It permitted violent shaking, painful shackling, hooding, playing deafeningly loud music, sleep deprivation, and lengthly detainments.

Loopholes in the high court’s 1999 ruling OK’d abusive practices amounting to torture despite banning the practice.

It notably allowed physical force in so-called “ticking bomb” cases, giving Israeli interrogators and others wide latitude on their actions.

The court effectively ruled both ways, approving torture and other abusive practices despite banning it.

International law is clear and unequivocal on this issue, banning it at all times, under all circumstances with no allowed exceptions.

In 2015, Israel’s Supreme Court rejected a petition by human rights groups and political movements that called for overturning the Anti-Boycott Law.

At the time, the Global BDS Movement and Coalition for Women for Peace called the bill “one of the most dangerous anti-democratic laws promoted” by Knesset members, adding:

“Boycott is a nonviolent, legal and legitimate means to promote social and political aims that are protected in civil rights of freedom of expression, opinion and assembly. The bill constitutes a fatal blow to all these civil rights.”

The police state law punishes entities or individuals that call for boycotting Israel, or an economic, cultural, or academic boycott of its illegal settlements.

According to the Adalah Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, Israel’s Supreme Court “ignored the chilling effect of this law, and missed the opportunity to tell legislators that there are limits to their anti-human rights actions. This law encourages discrimination against the Arabs in Israel.”

The 2012 Nakba Law “harms both the freedom of expression and the civil rights of Arab citizens, even before its implementation.”

“Because the law’s formulation is so broad and vague, many institutions have already begun and will self-censor in order not to risk incurring penalties.”

Israel’s high court upheld the law, falsely claiming it “does not raise difficult and complex questions.”

It violates Arab history, culture, heritage, and the right to express, teach, or disseminate it freely.

Arab intellectual Constantin Zureiq earlier called the Nakba “the worst catastrophe in the deepest sense of the word, to have befallen the Arabs in their long and disaster-ridden history.”

Compromising their ability to publicly denounce what happened compounds the high crime against them.

Speech, press, and academic freedoms in Israel are gravely endangered. In 2017, legislation was enacted that banned foreign nationals who support BDS from entering the country.

Last April, Israel’s Jerusalem district court ruled against Human Rights Watch’s Israeli office director Omar Shakir, a US citizen, ordering him deported for supporting the global BDS movement, his lawful free expression right.

HRW appealed the ruling, petitioning Israel’s Supreme Court to overturn the injustice. It got an injunction to let Shakir stay in the country until the high court heard his case.

On Tuesday, the court ruled against him, Shakir tweeting:

“Breaking: Israeli Supreme Court upholds my deportation over my rights advocacy. Decision now shifts back to Israeli gov; if it proceeds, I have 20 days to leave…(W)e won’t be the last.”

Critic of Israeli human rights abuses Amnesty International said

“the court has made it explicitly clear that those who dare to speak out about human rights violations by the Israeli authorities will be treated as enemies of the state.”

Israel’s Supreme Court ruled against free expression. Without it, all other rights are jeopardized.

Compromising speech, press, and academic freedoms is the hallmark of totalitarian rule — the new normal in the US, other Western societies and Israel, affirmed by its high court.

Is is just a matter of time before Western ones rule the same way?

Is digital democracy in the West and Israel endangered?

Are abuses against Chelsea Manning, other whistleblowers, Julian Assange, and other independent journalists prelude for much more severe crackdowns against fundamental freedoms ahead?

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from IMEMC


Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page

Become a Member of Global Research

Forever Pure

A film review by Eve Mykytyn

https://youtu.be/MBHnx6RmJJI

Forever Pure, a riveting documentary by Maya Zinshtein currently available on Netflix, reports on the 2012-3 season of Israel’s Beitar football team.  In 2005, Arcadi Gaydamak, a Russian born billionaire and convicted arms dealer, bought the team and used it as a propaganda tool in his unsuccessful 2008  run for mayor of Jerusalem (he got less than 4% of the vote). In 2012 Gaydamak took the team to Chechnya for an exhibition game. Ahead of the trip, one of the players worried that:”there will be Muslims there who hate us.” Instead what awaited them in Chechnya was a tie game, a banquet and dancing to Israeli songs. A Chechen official said he wanted  to develop ties to Israel, following his prophet who said he should “develop economic ties with the Jews – not kill them.”

Perhaps in response to the enthusiastic reception, Gaydamak  hired 2 young Chechen football players to join his team, then the only soccer team in the Israeli league that had never had an Arab Muslim player. The Chechens were met from their first practice by Beitar fans who shouted “war” and ‘death to the Arabs.” At first the Chechens seem bewildered, one said “someone should explain we are not Arabs.” Even the athlete’s mother naively coaches him, to “make sure you play well, then the fans will love you.”

The team is named for the Beitar movement, a revisionist Zionist movement that fought with Irgun against the British mandate. Among the team’s fans are a vocal group of right wing, mostly working class Mizrahi (Arab) Jews called the “familia” who see the team as their own. Politicians such as Lieberman and Netanyahu regularly attend Beitar’s games, pandering to the team’s supporters, one of whom boasts, “Today we are the country. The second Israel has become the first Israel.”

As the hostility against the Muslim players escalates, some Israelis tell the filmmaker that the familia are only a small percentage of Beitar’s fans. The  familia demonstrate outside the players’ and coaches’ homes, and at one point scream obscenities and threats at the chairman, including a repeated threat to rape his 6 year old daughter.

At Beitar’s Teddy stadium, the familia displays a huge sign that reads “Beitar Forever Pure.” The team’s chairman begs for tolerance, and says that Jews should not hold such a sign given the parallels between the sign’s racism and the racism Jews have faced. Gaydamak’s reaction to the familia’s blatant racism is the claim that he invited the Chechen players, not because of their soccer skills, but to “show this society (Israel) as it really is.”

Following news that bombing suspects in Boston are Chechen, the familia calls for a boycott of Beitar. The stadium, usually packed with tens of thousands, has only a few hundred guests. Some on the team wonder what happened to all the Israelis who claimed that the racists were only a small group. Beitar’s offices and its museum of trophies, apparently a feature in many bar mitzvah pictures, are destroyed by a bomb.

The pressure on the team is evident, and a player whose brother is part of the familia honors the boycott.  Distracted and disheartened, Beitar begins a long losing streak.

At the end of the season, the familia calls off the boycott for one game only;  the last crucial game, ironically against the only Arab team in the Israeli league, to determine which of the teams will qualify to remain in their league. After a  tied score favors Beitar, its season ends and the Chechens go home. Gaydamak cedes ownership, literally giving Beitar away. By the following year the manager and the chairman  have been fired, and the player who joined the boycott becomes the youngest captain in the league.

In a fitting coda to the story, in 2018, Beidar’s owner Moshe Hogeg, hired a Nigerian player named “Ali Mohammed.” When the familia begins its protests, chanting “Mohamed is dead” and “Ali is dead,” Hogeg demands apologies and threatens lawsuits.  Apparently because Ali Mohamed is a Christian, the familia  decides to accept him although they vow to “make sure that his name is changed so that Mohamed is not heard at Teddy Stadium.”

“Forever Pure” was funded in part by the  liberal “New Israel Fund,” that uses its website to claim that chanting has been reduced and racism has been kicked out of the soccer field. Others may be less sanguine.

Source: https://www.evemykytyn.com/

Like this:

Filed under: Racism | Tagged: , , , | Comments Off on Forever Pure

The Texas Death Penalty as it Applies to a Jewish man

Posted on by samivesusu

 

david elec.jpg

by Eve Mykytyn*

The New York Times recently ran a story entitled “Texas Stays Execution of Jewish Man After Judge is Accused of Anti Semitism.”  The headline and the story imply that Randy Halprin, was, although possibly guilty, the victim of anti Semitism.

Let’s look at the story a little more carefully. (To the extent this is a disclaimer of bias, I am generally opposed to capital punishment and have wasted much time unsuccessfully working to keep the state from killing convicted criminals.)

First the Crimes:

In 2000, seven prisoners, the “Texas 7,” escaped and went on a crime spree in which they killed a young policeman. They were captured and in 2003 six of the seven were tried in front of a jury, convicted (the seventh killed himself) and sentenced to death. Four of the Texas 7 have been executed.

The two remaining Texas 7 alums, Halprin and Patrick Murphy each claim not to have actually shot the officer, although the group also ran over the officer after they shot him. In any case,  the jury did not have to decide who fired a gun, all six men were convicted under a Texas statute, similar to laws in  forty five other states for ‘felony murder’  that hold a defendant who commits a serious felony liable for any deaths that result from that felony.

When he escaped Halprin was serving a 30-year sentence for killing an infant.

The Buddhist

Murphy’s attorneys argued that Murphy, a Buddhist,  could not be executed without a Buddhist spiritual advisor present. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with Murphy  and issued a rare stay of execution on the basis of religious discrimination. Justice Kavanaugh wrote for the court: “The choice of remedy going forward is up to the State. What the State may not do, in my view, is allow Christian or Muslim inmates but not Buddhist inmates to have a religious adviser of their religion in the execution room.” That is, the state need not provide a religious advisor, but if it does, it must provide such an advisor for all faiths. The cure for this constitutional defect in Texas law is clear and not unduly burdensome on that state.

The Jew

Halprin  claimed his conviction was tainted by the trial judge’s racism and anti Semitism as first discovered in an interview Judge Cunningham gave to the Dallas Morning News. In it, the judge admitted he had offered a reward to his own children if they married a White, Christian member of the opposite sex.

Halprin’s claims of judicial racism were buttressed by claims made by individuals who knew the Judge that: shortly after the trial he had described Halprin as “a fuckin’ Jew” and “goddamn kike” and had said that Jews had to be “shut down,”  had called some of Halprin’s co-defendants “wetbacks, ” said that people of color would “go down” in his courtroom and had made other racist remarks about African Americans, Jews and Latinos.

Judge Cunningham has denied using racist language and said his personal views never affected his decisions during court proceedings.

Claiming newly discovered evidence, Halprin’s lawyers appealed to the Federal district and appeals courts, claiming to have been unaware of Cunning­ham’s racism until 2018. The issue of potential anti Semitism provoked 100 of Texas’ Jewish attorneys to be named as supporters and to sign Halprin’s appeals brief. The Washington Post supported the appeal and helped their case by misstating that his original conviction was for “injury to a child.” The ADL was even inspired to file an amicus, or  “friend of the court” brief to provide historical context for the anti-Semitic terms attributed to the judge.

The Federal court ruled that the claim that Cunningham had been a racist in 2003 did not constitute ‘new’ grounds, but even if it did, it did not matter. The court said that a new trial can be granted only upon evidence of bias sufficient to make it likely a jury would change its verdict; as the Austin Chronicle stated, “the judges ruled that Halprin’s jury would still have found him guilty even if they’d known of Cunningham’s bigoted view.” Halprin filed an appeal to the US  Supreme Court for October 2019.

But on October 4th, the highest court in Texas found that Judge Cunningham was an anti Semitic racist and issued a stay of execution.

A trial court will now have to decide whether Halprin is entitled to a new trial.

The action of the Texas High Court is problematic for a number of reasons, and I find the widespread support among the Jewish legal community and the Jewish press for a double murderer equally troubling. Texas executes more of its citizens than any other state (565 since 1976), that alone ought to be grounds to be wary of a Texas death penalty case.

Assuming, for argument’s sake,  that Judge Cunningham is a racist, no finding was made or even alleged that Cunningham’s personal views had an  impact on his courtroom. Halprin’s lawyers explicitly granted that they saw no such effect by their claim that Cunningham’s beliefs constituted new evidence ‘discovered’ fifteen years after the trial.

Halprin was convicted with six others, all of whom should have an equal claim under this finding except that 4 of them have already been executed. And if Cunningham’s racism in 2018 tainted an otherwise sufficient trial in 2003, what of all the other trials over which Cunningham has presided? Should anyone convicted in such a trial be entitled to a new trial? Or is a new trial to be granted only to Blacks, Latinos and Jews, or only to Jews? Is it now the rule that discrimination is a problem only against an ethnicity that has a powerful voice in government? Do the 100 Jewish lawyers who signed the brief regularly sign such briefs for non Jewish defendants?

How are we to go about treating the personal racist views of a public employee? Perhaps in obnoxious cases we should seek their removal from office, but will appeals courts be forced to review all of the trials over which such a judge has presided? Shouldn’t the law require a racist effect, or are we to subject all judges (and jury members?) to a test for political correctness?

Capital punishment lawyers love to find successful grounds for a new trial, especially grounds that may have the effect of delaying or stopping other executions. Here, the grounds of a ‘racist’ judge without observable impact are wide indeed: its effects are by definition unknowable, its cure elusive and it will likely throw a large number of verdicts (and not just for death penalty cases) into question. I will certainly cite this case in Texas, and since Texas has more executions and therefore more capital punishment law than any other state,  I will try it as possibly persuasive in other states as well.

الكسندر دوغين فيلسوف الجيل الرابع

Posted on by martyrashrakat

سبتمبر 28, 2019

ناصر قنديل

تشكل الجيل الأول للفلاسفة المعاصرين بعد الجيلين الإغريقي والإسلامي، أمثال سقراط وأرسطو وأفلاطون، وابن رشد والغزالي وابن عربي وابن خلدون، في ألمانيا وفرنسا بالتوازي مع صعود الثورة الصناعية. وظهر أمثال روسو وفولتير وكانت وهيغل وكثيرون من ورائهم يبشّرون بالفلسفة كخلفية للعلم والسياسة والاقتصاد والعلوم الإنسانية. وجاء الجيل الثاني مع كارل ماركس وفريدريك أنغلز وفلاديمير لينين وروزا لوكسمبورغ وليون تروتسكي يتوزّعون بين ألمانيا وروسيا، ليتشكل الجيل الثالث من فرنسا مجدداً في محاولات لرد الروح للفلسفة كمرجعية للسياسة والاستراتيجية، بمفهوم النظرية الكاملة، القادرة على تشكيل معادلات تصلح في العلوم الإنسانية والتطبيقية وفي قراءة التاريخ وصناعة السياسة وإدارة الاقتصاد، فكان جون بول ساتر ولويس التوسير.

بقيت الليبرالية التي شكلت عنوان صعود الثورة الصناعية بلا فلسفة، تصرّ على اعتماد البراغماتية التي تأسست على معادلات الواقعية والتجريبية والبحث عن المصلحة، وعند انهيار الاتحاد السوفياتي، وسيادة نظرية نهاية الفلسفة، دخلت الليبرالية على عالم الفلسفة، فكان صموئيل هنتنغتون ونظرية صدام الحضارات، وفرانسو فوكوياما ونهاية التاريخ، لتعلن الليبرالية اكتمال مهمتها بالتزامن بين السيطرة على العالم الواقعي والسيطرة على الفلسفة أو الانتقام منها، خصوصاً أن الفلسفة الوحيدة التي قيّض لها أن تبني نموذجها السياسي والاقتصادي كانت الماركسية بنسختيها اللينينة والماوية. وقد تسنى لليبرالية أن تحسم معركتها مع واحدة وراحت تستعدّ للبطش بالثانية.

تشكل من ثلاثي قطبه الأول انتصار الثورة الإيرانية عام 1979 ونموذجها المنتمي للخلفية الإسلامية وبروح ثوريّة عالية، وقطبه الثاني انتصار المقاومة التي مثلها حزب الله على كيان الاحتلال لمرتين وهو الكيان الذي يختزن كل مصادر قوة الغرب السياسية والاقتصادية والعسكرية والثقافية ويشكل طليعته المتقدّمة في الحوض الآسيوي الأفريقي، وقطبه الثالث صمود نموذج الدولة الوطنية المستقلة القائمة على اقتصاد وطني ونظام خدمات صحي وتعليمي شبه مجاني، الذي قدّمته سورية بوجه مشاريع العولمة المتوحشة وجوهرها الخصخصة، مصادر لرسم استراتيجية نهوض روسيا على يد فلاديمير بوتين، لينتكس مشروع نهاية التاريخ ونهاية الفلسفة. وفي منتصف الطريق مع الحرب التي شنت على سورية في قلب السعي للتقرب من موسكو وبكين، والسعي لإطلاق رصاصة الرحمة عليهما كقوتين عالميتين، بعد الفوز باسترداد أوروبا من بوابة حرب اليوغوسلافيا، وتطويعها في حرب العراق، كان اللقاء الروسي مع قوى المثلث الجديد الصاعد الذي يثبت قدرته وأهليته على تحدي زعامة القرن الحادي والعشرين التي بشّر بها المحافظون الجدد، كعنوان للهيمنة الأميركية الكاملة على العالم، وعبر النهوض الروسي كان الاستشعار الصيني لضرورة مواجهة الخطر، لكن السياسة بقيت دون فلسفة، تفسّر التاريخ وترسم مستقبل الصراع بأدوات غير سياسية، وغير براغماتية. يحاول الفيلسوف وأستاذ التاريخ الروسي إطلاق موجة جديدة في الثقافة والفكر داعياً لفلسفة جديدة، لا يدّعي امتلاك مفاتيحها بتواضع الأساتذة الكبار، لكنه يعتبرها حاجة ملحة لمنح معنى حقيقي لمشروع مواجهة الهيمنة، والاستعداد لمنازلة الليبرالية التي يراها تحتضر كمدرسة فلسفية، تعجز عن الإجابة على تساؤلات قامت هي بوضع أسسها، حتى باتت سمتها الأصلية هي اللاليبرالية، وتحوّلت إلى ما يشبه فرق التبشير الديني والعنصري التي شهدتها القرون الوسطى، ويُعيد دوغين الاعتبار للجغرافيا السياسية في حديثه عن البعد الأوراسي، وينبش تاريخ الأعراق والأديان، لتفسير تلاقي الكتلة التاريخية للأوروآسيوية، متطلعاً لنظام متعدّد الأقطاب يُعيد لكتابته عنه والتنظير له الدور في جعله منتجاً سياسياً روسياً في التداول، لكنه يراه ضبابياً يحتاج لمزيد من التوضيح، والتحديد، وأسس التشكيل.

يفتح دوغين نظريته عن الحقيقة الرابعة كمدخل للنقاش حول الفلسفة الجديدة، حيث يقول، مقابل الليبرالية خصمان تتقن منازلتهما هما الشيوعية والفاشية، فكل ما ليس ليبرالي هو فاشي أو شيوعي، ومصدر ارتباكها اليوم أنها لا تتقاتل مع شيوعيين ولا مع فاشيين، بل مع الناس وحاجاتهم الطبيعية للكرامة والاستقلال والحق بالعيش الكريم. والناس ليست تعبيراً عابراً عند دوغين، بل هي مفردة يصر دوغين على تمييزها عن مفاهيم الوطنية والعرقية التي أسست للفاشية، أو الفرد الذي تقيم الليبرالية هندستها الفكرية على محوريّته، أو الطبقة التي تتشكل منها قاعدة النظرية الشيوعية. والحقيقة الرابعة هي حقيقة مناهضي مشروع الهيمنة، بالاستناد إلى حقائق قائمة وصارخة تجمعهم، وهم ليسوا ليبراليين ولا فاشيين ولا شيوعيين، عليهم الانطلاق من هذا التعريف السلبي لجمعهم التاريخي، باباً لصياغة تعريف إيجابي، قادر على تفسير التاريخ ويلاقي الحركات المناهضة للمشروع الليبرالي في الغرب نفسه.

في الغرب معركة ضروس ضد دوغين، مقالات في الواشنطن بوست والنيويورك تايمز، وحظر كتبه في أمازون، وتهجّمات عليه كعنصري وفاشي وشيوعي في آن واحد، ورأس بوتين الجديد، تلميحاً لقربه من الرئيس بوتين، ولدور راسبوتين كاهن العهد القيصري، ويخشى الكثيرون من المتابعين في منطقتنا من تركيز دوغين على تاريخ الإمبراطوريات كأرضيّة للعالم الجديد بنيت ركائزها في العالم القديم، بصورة قد تضعه في حال وهم حول دور تركيا أو سعي لاستنهاض حركات أصولية دينية من نوع جديد،، كركيزة لمعادلات العالم الجديد، لكن دوغين ينفي تمسكه بأي تعصب نظري، مؤكداً انفتاحه على أي أجوبة وتحديدات قابلة للفوز في تقديم التفسيرات والوصفات الأكثر غنى ودقة، معتبراً أن المهمة مطروحة على جمع فلسفي ونخبوي مناضل، يجب أن يولد من قلب هذه الجبهة المقاتلة بوجه مشروع الهيمنة.

في بعض قراءات دوغين قد تحسّ بعضاً من نبض أنطون سعاده، سواء لجهة الارتكاز على تاريخ تشكل الجماعات الإنسانية في أمم تاريخية، رغم تمسكه بالبعد الإسلامي لحضارة شعوب الشرق، أو لجهة دعوته لرفض وضع الفلسفة والدين في مواجهة يراها مفتعلة، واعتباره لمفهوم الدولة كصيغة للحكم قادراً على الجمع بين التصالح مع الديانات التي تفقد بدونها الشعوب روحها وذاكرتها، وبين الإطلالة على كل مخرجات العلم الحديث، لتجديد ماهية وكيفية إدارة شؤون الحكم بين الناس بمعزل عن دياناتهم، داعياً للتساؤل الجدي حول صلاحية الديمقراطية كأساس لشكل نظام الحكم الجديد، دون ادعاء امتلاك البديل. الفيلسوف بعرف دوغين هو صاحب أسئلة، والمناضلون أصحاب أجوبة عملية في جبهات الاشتباك، والمؤرخون يصوغون النظريات من وحي حركات الصراع كأجوبة قادرة على حمل تفسير للتاريخ ووصفة للمستقبل.

في اللقاء الذي جمعنا في زيارته لصحيفة البناء ، قدّم دوغين نموذجاً عن تواضع الفلاسفة، وشرحاً للكثير من معتقداته وقناعاته، وجذبنا إلى مشاركته التفكير بصوت عالٍ بحثاً عن أجوبة على الأسئلة الكبرى.

Related Posts

Next Page »
%d bloggers like this: