Moroccans Rally Calling For End to Rabat’s Normalization with ‘Israel’

Dec 1, 2021

By Staff, Agencies

Angry Moroccans against the butchers of the Palestinian children and those normalizing the savagery in the garb of lucrative military deals on Monday took to the streets in several cities across the country to protest Rabat’s normalization of ties with the Zionist regime and recent military agreements signed between the two sides.

The protesters, including activists and ordinary people, took part in large-scale protests in the cities of Oujda, Berkane, Ben Slimane, Beni-Mellal and Oulad Teima on Monday.

The demonstrators chanted vociferous anti-‘Israel’ slogans, calling for an end to normalization of relations between Rabat and Tel Aviv and voicing their support for the Palestinian cause.

The Moroccan police, however, foiled a similar protest by pro-Palestinian groups in the capital Rabat on Monday, using brute force, according to reports.

The demonstrations protested under the banner of “The Moroccan Front to Support Palestine and against Normalization”, denouncing recent bonhomie between the ‘Israeli’ occupation regime and Morocco.

They also condemned the visit of Benny Gantz, the Zionist war minister, to Morocco and rejected any collaboration with “the enemies of the Palestinian people.”

The pro-Palestine demonstrators said any cooperation with the Tel Aviv regime constitutes a threat to Morocco and the whole region.

Gantz visited Rabat last week, his first known visit to one of the Arab states that normalized ties last year, during which the two sides signed a military agreement and a pact that would see the occupation regime sell drones and weapons to Morocco.

In a statement, Gantz said that the agreement was “very significant and will allow us to exchange ideas, enter joint projects and enable ‘Israeli’ military exports here.”

Morocco, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Sudan signed agreements to normalize relations with Tel Aviv in 2020 as part of the so-called ‘Abraham Accords’, brokered by the previous US administration.

The normalization deals sparked widespread protests in these countries, pointing to the overwhelming divide between the rulers and the people, and have also been condemned by all Palestinian political factions, who have termed it a betrayal of their cause.

Monday’s protests coincided with the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, an annual day dedicated to expression of solidarity with the oppressed people of Palestine.

Algeria Battling “Israel” in Africa

10 Nov 2021

Source: Al Mayadeen Net

Hussam AbdelKareem

Due to the strong Algerian opposition, “Israel”‘s accession is almost impossible.

Argelia lucha contra "Israel" en África | Al Mayadeen Español

On October 16th, 2021, the Executive Council of the African Union announced the postponement of its decision on approving or rejecting the “observer status” of “Israel” in the Union to the next African summit scheduled for February 2022. This decision is in fact the culmination of a great effort made by Algeria politically and diplomatically over the course of three months among the African countries to oppose and confront the sudden decision taken by the Chairperson of the African Union Commission, Moussa Faki, to accept the application of “Israel” to join the African Union as an observer member, and the subsequent presentation by the Israeli ambassador to Ethiopia (the headquarters country) of his credentials to the Union on the 22nd of June 2021.

From the first day of the decision of Moussa Faki, a French-educated former Chadian prime minister, Algeria went into something like a state of emergency, and a decision was taken at the highest levels to launch a comprehensive diplomatic campaign and to use all of Algeria’s weight and political capabilities to confront Faki’s personal decision. The Algerian Foreign Ministry announced its total rejection of “Israel’s” admission to the ranks of the African Union and said that the Chairperson of the Commission had not consulted the member states in this regard.

Algeria began to move and succeeded in persuading six Arab African countries (not including Morocco and Sudan, who are involved in a process of normalization), namely Tunisia, Egypt, Mauritania, Djibouti, Libya, and the Comoros Islands to announce their opposition to Faki’s decision in a statement on August 3rd. Moussa Faki quickly felt that he is being targeted by the pressures of Algerian diplomacy, represented by Minister Ramtan Lamamra, so he issued an official statement on August 6th in which he responded to Algeria and affirmed that his decision to accept “Israel” as an observer member is indeed within his authorities.

The Algerian campaign against “Israel” in Africa did not stop (South Africa, who had reservations about Moussa Faki’s decision from the first day, cooperated with it), and succeeded in persuading Sudan to join the countries opposing Faki’s decision in a statement issued by the Sudanese Foreign Ministry on October 15th. And in the next day, Algeria succeeded in leading a group of 24 African countries who also announced their objection to Faki, which prompted the Executive Council to finally decide to postpone the decision on accepting the membership of “Israel” until the next summit. This is an important diplomatic victory for Algeria because it actually means, almost certainly, the failure of the project of “Israel”‘s accession, as approving it in the African summit; due to the strong Algerian opposition, “Israel”‘s accession is almost impossible.

This Algerian activity and efficiency are due, in part, to its desire to compensate for the years of relative inaction that characterized the Algerian diplomacy during the rule of the ailing former president, Abdelaziz Bouteflika, which allowed “Israel” to penetrate into African circles that it did not reach before. Benjamin Netanyahu intensified contacts with West African and sub-Saharan countries in 2016 and hosted an agricultural conference in “Israel” in which 15 countries participated. He also made several visits to the region and was feeling so triumphant to the extent that he publically said, during his visit to Liberia “Israel is returning strongly to Africa!”. “Israel” succeeded in establishing diplomatic relations with a record number of African countries (46 countries out of 55 members of the African Union).

Historically speaking, the late Gamal Abdel Nasser took charge, in the fifties and sixties of the last century, of combating the Israeli penetration into the African continent. And he took advantage of Egypt’s weight at the time and its relations with the national liberation movements in the continent to besiege the Israeli presence and keep it within minimum limits (most notably with the apartheid racist regime in South Africa). In the aftermath of the October 1973 war, “Israel” was having diplomatic relations with only four African countries. But Sadat’s coup in Egypt and the Camp David Accords opened the African doors to “Israel” once again. The banner of combating Israeli expansion in Africa then passed to Colonel Gaddafi in Libya, who paid great attention to the countries of the continent and built a network of close relations with them and provided them with financial support and contributed to a large extent in keeping most African countries, especially its western and sub-Saharan countries, out of Israeli influence until he was killed in 2011.

The growing Moroccan-Israeli relations are one of the reasons for this Algerian activity at the African level. Algeria no longer considers “Israel” as a Pan-Arab danger, but has become a direct threat to it on its borders. When “Israel” and Morocco crowned decades of their unofficial relations by announcing the establishment of full diplomatic relations in December 2020, Algerian President Abdelmajid Tabboun said, “We notice a kind of rush towards normalization. We will not participate in it or bless it. The Palestinian Cause is sacred to us here in Algeria, and it is the mother of all causes”. His Prime Minister Abdelaziz Jerad followed with a strong statement in which he said that “Algeria is being targeted” and that there is a foreign will for Zionism to reach Algeria’s borders.

That is, Algeria’s leadership has come to consider “Israel’s” relations and activities in neighboring Morocco as a direct security and strategic threat, which has caused great tension in the Algerian view of the Moroccan ruling regime. The Algerian newspaper “Al-Shorouk” published an article titled “For these reasons, the Zionist entity targets Algeria.” And what made matters worse was the intelligence information that “Israel” had helped Morocco establish a military base near the Algerian border. Things crossed its red lines when Algeria felt that “Israel”, through Morocco, was trying to interfere with the internal Algerian affairs. And recently, Algerian television announced that the separatist “MAK” movement has ties to “Israel” and Morocco and that those involved in it were in contact with Israeli parties under the cover of “civil society organizations.” In the end, Algeria decided to cut diplomatic relations with Morocco last August.

“Israel”, in turn, responded to Algeria, accusing it of being part of an axis that includes Iran. Its foreign minister, Meir Lapid, from Casablanca, expressed concerns “about Algeria’s role in the region, its rapprochement with Iran, and the campaign it led against Israel’s admission as an observer member of the African Union”.

Today we are witnessing a great Algerian rise to combat and thwart the Zionist expansion in Africa. This is not surprising for a country with a glorious history of revolution and resistance to colonialism, who, since the days of its great revolution sixty years ago, has been associated with Palestine, its revolution, and its cause, and considered it the twin of its soul and struggle, and is still in the same position.

The opinions mentioned in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Al mayadeen, but rather express the opinion of its writer exclusively.

Jewish-American Group Visits Saudi Arabia to Advance Normalization with ‘Israel’

Nov 5, 2021

Jewish-American Group Visits Saudi Arabia to Advance Normalization with ‘Israel’

By Staff, Agencies

A Jewish-American group visited the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia recently to advance the normalization of ties between the kingdom and the ‘Israeli’ occupation regime, with a member of the group predicting a deal in the coming months or year.

The delegation, consisting of 20 Jewish-American leaders, met with senior Saudi officials, including at least six government ministers and top representatives of the Saudi royal house, according to Zionist media.

The visit came at the invitation of the Saudis and with the support of the Biden administration, after a visit to the UAE – the first Arab country that normalized its relations with the occupation regime in 2020 – in order to strengthen bilateral ties.

“The Saudis are preparing their citizens for normalization with ‘Israel’,” said Jewish-American businessman Phil Rosen, a member of the delegation, ‘Israeli’ Ynet news website reported.

Rosen also said he “would not be surprised if we see normalization between Saudi Arabia and the Tel Aviv occupation regime in the coming months or year.”

Under US-pushed normalization deals, a number of Arab countries, including the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco, have agreed to establish official diplomatic ties with the apartheid entity.

The normalization accords, however, have been denounced by Palestinians the people of the region as “treacherous”, and sparked protests in the countries that signed them.

In recent weeks, the Zionist regime has approved plans for more than 1,700 new illegal units in the East al-Quds settlements of Givat Hamatos and Pisgat Zeev.

In a statement on Wednesday, UN experts condemned the regime’s illegal expansion of settlements in the West Bank and East al-Quds as “the engine of the occupation” and hold the Zionist entity responsible for a wide range of rights violations against the Palestinian people.

Al-Manar, Al-Masirah Channels Launch Friday Extensive Documentation of Saudi-led Aggression Massacres on Yemen: Video

October 28, 2021

Al-Manar and Al-Masirah TV Channels are scheduled to launch an extensive documentation project which records all the massacres committed by the US-Saudi-led forces and mercenaries in Yemen.

An interactive map will come-to-light on the official websites of the two TV channels at 8 p.m. and reveal in an innovative way the massacres committed by the aggression with all the available data and figures.

The interactive map is aimed at preserving and perpetuating the sacrifices of the Yemeni civilians before the Saudi-led aggression.

“So as Rights Remain Preserved,” was the motto of the documentation that represents a reference for right activists, academicals, media outlets and public opinion, using photos, videos and demonstration tools.

Al-Manar English Website is also part of the project and will display the interactive map with data translated in English. Click here.

Yemen has been since March 25, 2015 under aggression by the Saudi-led coalition in a bid to restore power to fugitive president Abd Rabbu Mansour Hadi, who is Riyadh’s ally.

Tens of thousands of Yemenis have been killed or injured by US-Saudi-led airstrikes.

The Arab impoverished country has been also under harsh blockade by the coalition which includes in addition to the Kingdom, the UAE, Jordan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Egypt, Morocco and Sudan.

Source: Al-Manar English Website

Documentation Project of Yemen Massacres

Saturday – October 29, 2021

Massacres Map of the Saudi-American aggression on Yemen

Introduction:

This work is one of the largest documentation projects that records massacres committed since the start of the Saudi-US aggression on Yemen, on March 26, 2015, based on information released by well-known sources.

We assure, through this project, that the blood of Yemen’s oppressed martyrs and injured will persist in the conscience of the free people. This blood will also constitute a mark of disgrace for all who contributed to the bloodshed in Yemen.

Objective:

Documentation of widespread massacres perpetrated by the Saudi-US aggression across Yemen through an interactive and innovated map that can be considered a reference to rights activists, media outlets and journalists as well as to specialists and public opinion.

Definition of a Massacre:

A killing is considered a massacre in this project when at least one civilian gets martyred by Saudi-led aggression fire.

Map Characteristics:

  • Every dot on the map represents a massacre
  • Dots are classified by colors, every color refers to a year
  • The color of dots gets bolder as per the number of martyrs
  • Every massacre is recorded according to:
    • Date of the massacre
    • Place of the massacre
    • News summary
    • Link of the news story
    • Number of martyrs
    • Number of injured
    • Related photos and video (if available)
  • The map allows the search feature according to:
    • Place of the massacre (mainly provinces)
    • Date of the massacre
    • Keywords
  • Yemeni Center for Human Rights was considered the main source regarding the number of victims. Hence, there would be an overlap between the toll which appears on the map and the news summary
  • Areas where the massacre occurred are approximate

Characteristics of the Interactive Frontpage:

  • Represents statistical reference to massacres
  • The map is the source for figures on the frontpage

Notes:

We don’t claim that this project has covered all massacres committed by the US-Saudi aggression on Yemen. Therefore, we are glad to receive any addition, either on the level of massacres or the visual material at: yemen-map@almanar.com.lb

Thanks to all who contributed to this work.

من هو عبد الفتاح البرهان وما دوره في حرب اليمن واتفاق التطبيع؟

2021, 25 , تشرين اول

المصدر: الميادين نت

عبد الفتاح البرهان، القائد العسكري في السودان، يتردّد اسمه اليوم مع إعلانه حلَّ المجلس السيادي والحكومة، وفرضه حالة الطوارئ في البلاد. فمن هو؟ وما هي المناصب التي تقلّدها في حياته السياسية؟

'سنحرص على تنفيذ الاتفاق'
عبد الفتاح البرهان

يجسّد الفريق أول ركن عبد الفتاح البرهان، الذي أعلن اليوم الإثنين حلّ المؤسسات الانتقالية وحالة الطوارئ في السودان، عودةَ الحكم العسكري، وسط ترحيب من البعض، ورفض مطلق من آخرين ندّدوا بما وصفوه بأنه “انقلاب”.

ظهر البرهان اليوم الإثنين، عبر شاشة التلفزيون، في بزّته العسكرية. وأعلن، في نبرة حازمة، أنه يريد “تصحيح الثورة” التي أطاحت عمر البشير عام 2019. وأكّد إعفاء الوزراء ووكلاء الوزراء من مهماتهم، علماً بأن جزءاً كبيراً من هؤلاء اعتُقلوا منذ الفجر على أيدي قوى عسكرية.

في الشارع، يهتف متظاهرون ضده منذ أيام، رافضين “حكم العسكر”، لكن آخرين يطالبون بحكومة عسكرية، ويعتبرون أن الجيش هو المنقذ الذي سيحل كل مشاكل البلاد الاقتصادية والسياسية.

قبل إطاحة البشير، أدّى البرهان دوراً رئيساً بعيداً عن الأضواء في مشاركة السودان في التحالف العسكري الذي تقوده السعودية ضد اليمن، ثم أصبح في دائرة الضوء حين تولى قيادة المجلس العسكريّ الانتقالي في أعقاب إطاحة الرئيس السابق عمر البشير على يد الجيش، في 11 نيسان/أبريل 2019، في إثر تظاهرات حاشدة استمرت خمسة أشهر.

في 12 نيسان/أبريل، أدّى البرهان اليمين رئيساً للمجلس العسكري، الذي تولّى السلطة بعد البشير. تقلّد البرهان منصبه بعد أن تنازل الفريق أول ركن عوض بن عوف عن رئاسة المجلس العسكري بعد أقل من 24 ساعة من تسلّمه السلطة، تحت ضغط الشارع الذي كان ينظر إلى ابن عوف على أنه من داخل النظام، وحليف مقرّب من الرئيس السابق.

من الظلّ إلى المنصب الأول

تحوّل البرهان من شخصية تعمل في الظل إلى رئيس للبلاد بحكم الأمر الواقع. وقال عنه في حينه ضابطٌ في الجيش، طلب عدم الكشف عن هويته، إنه “ضابط رفيع المستوى في القوات المسلحة.. لم يكن يوماً تحت الأضواء كما هي الحال بالنسبة إلى ابن عوف (الذي كان وزيراً للدفاع) والفريق أول ركن كمال عبد المعروف (الذي كان رئيس أركان الجيش)”.

في آب/أغسطس 2019، وبعد عنف في الشارع ومفاوضات مع “ائتلاف قوى الحرية والتغيير”، الذي قاد الاحتجاجات الشعبية، وقّع المجلس العسكري اتفاقاً مع الائتلاف عُرِف بـ”الوثيقة الدستورية”، نصّ على مرحلة انتقالية يتقاسم خلالها المدنيون والعسكريون السلطة لقيادة البلاد نحو انتخابات وحكم مدني.

ترأّس البرهان، بموجب هذا الاتفاق، مجلسَ السيادة الذي كُلِّف الإشرافَ على إدارة المرحلة الانتقالية. ويتكوّن مجلس السيادة من 11 شخصاً: خمسة عسكريين يختارهم المجلس الانتقالي، وخمسة مدنيين يختارهم “تحالف قوى التغيير”، بالإضافة إلى مدني يتفق الجانبان على اختياره.

بعد سنتين من المرحلة الانتقالية، بات البرهان معتاداً على الأضواء، وبات يتصرف ويعامَل على أنه رئيس دولة، فلقد تلقى، الأربعاء الماضي، دعوةً إلى المشاركة في قمة بشأن ليبيا ستُعقَد في باريس في منتصف تشرين الثاني/نوفمبر. وهو يستقبل بانتظام المسؤولين والمبعوثين الأجانب الذين يزورون السودان.

يظهر، بصورة عامة، في بزّته العسكرية مع أوسمته، وغالباً برفقة نائب رئيس مجلس السيادة محمد حمدان دقلو، المعروف بـ “حميدتي”، وهو قائد قوات الدعم السريع المتهمة بقمع انتفاضة عام 2019.

علاقات بالخارج

خلال المفاوضات بين الجيش والمحتجين بشأن تركيبة الحكم، قام البرهان بزيارات لمصر والإمارات والسعودية. والأخيرتان من أبرز المانحين للسودان.

أمضى البرهان فترة من حياته المهنية ملحقاً عسكرياً لدى بكين. ويقول الضابط السوداني عن البرهان إنه “ضابط كبير يعرف كيف يقود قواته”، مضيفاً “ليست لديه ميول سياسية، إنه عسكري”.

وُلد البرهان عام 1960 في قرية قندتو شماليّ الخرطوم، ودرس في الكلية الحربية، ولاحقاً في مصر والأردن. وهو متزوج وأب لثلاثة أبناء. وكان قائداً لسلاح البر، قبل أن يعيّنه البشير في منصب المفتّش العام للجيش.

حرب اليمن

يشير محلّلون ووسائل إعلام سودانية إلى أن البرهان تولّى عملية تنسيق إرسال جنود سودانيين إلى اليمن في إطار “التحالف السعودي” في الحرب ضدّه.

أرسل البشير قوات سودانية إلى اليمن عام 2015 في إطار تحوّل رئيسي في السياسة الخارجية، شهد تخلّي الخرطوم عن علاقاتها المستمرة منذ عقود بإيران، عبر الانضمام إلى “التحالف” الذي تقوده الرياض.

وتقول ويلو بيردج، مؤلفة كتاب “الانتفاضات المدنية في السودان الحديث”، وأستاذة التاريخ في جامعة نيوكاسل، إن البرهان عمل عن كثب مع قوات الدعم السريع، بموجب تولّيه الملف اليمني، من دون أن تستبعد أن يكون دعم هذه المجموعة ساهم في إيصاله إلى السلطة.

عبد الفتاح البرهان و”إسرائيل”

أشارت وسائل إعلام إسرائيلية اليوم إلى أن التطورات في السودان “تمثل سبباً في قلق إسرائيل وإدارة جو بايدن، على حدّ سواء”، معلِّلة ذلك بأنه يعود إلى ترسيخ اتفاق التطبيع مع الخرطوم. 

وقالت إن “استمرار الاحتجاجات سيصعّب دفع عملية التطبيع قُدُماً في السودان، ويجب الأخذ في الحسبان أن رئيس حكومة السودان عبد الله حمدوك لم يكن هو من دفع إلى تطبيع العلاقات بإسرائيل، بل كانت القيادة العسكرية برئاسة عبد الفتاح البرهان”.

وفي السياق نفسه، انتقد مصدر إسرائيلي موقف واشنطن مما يجري في السودان، وقال لصحيفة “إسرائيل هيوم” إنه “في الوضع الحالي يفضّل دعم الجيش وقائده رئيس المجلس الانتقالي عبد الفتاح البرهان، لا رئيس الحكومة عبد الله حمدوك”.

يُشار، في هذا السياق، إلى أن البرهان قال، رداً على علاقته بـ “إسرائيل”، إنّ “لا عداء بين السودان وأيّ طائفة أو دين أو جهة”.

وأرجع عبد الفتاح البرهان توقيع حكومته اتفاقات “أبراهام” مع الولايات المتحدة و”إسرائيل” إلى “اقتناع الحكومة بأهمية نشر قيم التسامح والتعايش بين الشعوب، في مختلف أديانهم وأعراقهم”، بحسب الإذاعة الإسرائيلية.

وكان الرئيس الأميركي السابق دونالد ترامب أعلن، في تشرين الأول/أكتوبر الماضي، توصُّل السودان و”إسرائيل” إلى اتفاق من أجل تطبيع العلاقات بينهما.

وأدّت السعودية دوراً في دفع عملية التطبيع بين السودان و”إسرائيل”، عبر دفعها 335 مليون دولار إلى الولايات المتحدة من أجل تسريع تطبيع العلاقات بين الخرطوم و”تل أبيب”، بحسب ما ذكرت “ميدل إيست مونيتور”.

فيديوات متعلقة

مقالات متعلقة

‘Normalization’: Betrayal of Palestine by Arab Regimes No Easy Road

October 1, 2021

Anti-normalization protest in Tunisia. (Photo: Via Twitter)

By Iqbal Jassat

Pinning Palestinians down while applying harsh measures of violent repression accompanied by a fanatical settler movement of arch-racists given free rein to attack and plunder, is a notorious game Israel has elevated to a daily ritual.

In fact, the routine of inflicting war crimes has all the hallmarks of a rogue regime entirely caught up in a misplaced belief that to engage in ethnic cleansing is a religious obligation.

Conflating Judaism with a racist political ideology of Zionism has been part of a strategy designed to deceive, distort and divert. It has its roots in the First Zionist Congress held on the eve of the 19th century.

That this is well documented and widely known is not in dispute. Indeed, awareness of Zionism’s goal to dismember and dislodge Palestinians from their centuries-old homeland, and forcibly impose thereon a foreign entity known as Israel, has always been a bedrock for resistance.

Israel has thus always been considered an enemy thrust upon a native population through the most horrific forms of terrorism. The memories of Deir Yassin remind the world of bloody massacres committed by Zionist terrorists who didn’t spare hundreds of villages to colonize Palestine.

That more than seven decades later the expansionist goals of Zionism are still being pursued at a great human cost to successive generations of the indigenous Palestinian population, is reflected in daily atrocities.

None of these facts, as attested to by historians as well as organs of the United Nations, are contested, although Israel and its supporters seek to distort and malign commentators who speak truth to power as antisemitic.

Yet, against this background of terrorism and current conditions siege, occupation, killings and mass imprisonment – recorded and broadcast via mainstream media for all the world to witness – it is bizarre that a handful of Arab regimes have broken rank with Palestine’s freedom struggle.

And at a time when even Haaretz describes atrocities by Israel as a pogrom:

“Residents of the Palestinian communities in the southeastern West Bank have experience with settler attacks – when they graze their flocks, work their fields, or even have a picnic on their own land. But they cannot recall an attack like the one experienced Tuesday by the small communities of Khirbat al-Mufkara, al-Rakiz and al-Tuwani. On Simhat Torah, dozens of young Jews, most of them masked, conducted what can only be described as a pogrom.”

The treachery associated with what has become known as “normalization” is an outrageous manifestation of betrayal and collaboration. Limited to the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco, these regimes have in effect confessed that the protection of their shaky thrones counts for more than legitimate rights of the Palestinians.

As unelected self-imposed despots fearful of democratic values, they have bargained that “normalization” with the usurper of Palestine will “guarantee” safety and protection for them. In other words, just as Egypt has done, these oligarchs have outsourced their intelligence networks and security apparatus to Israel, knowing full well that in doing so, they have abandoned Palestine.

Though the abnormality of implicit recognition of an illegal colonial enterprise has been in sharp contrast to countless Arab League resolutions, the deal of “normalization” pushed by Trump and vigorously backed by the Biden administration has exposed these leaders as surrogates of western imperialism.

The case of Bahrain’s role in the “Abraham Accords” reveals the soft underbelly of Arab dictatorships. Besides being financially dependent on its neighbors, especially the UAE and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain’s alliance with Israel is designed to entrench its power and crush any resistance to authoritarianism or efforts towards freedom and democracy.

In 2011, during the onset of the Arab Spring uprisings, Saudi Arabia sent troops to Bahrain to suppress anti-government protests. This trend continues today by Israel equally committed to maintaining the status quo and preventing the success of any popular uprisings.

In this context, one may justifiably condemn Bahrain’s gross insensitivity and abject abdication of Palestine’s freedom struggle as treacherous.

Showcasing Israeli war criminal Lapid’s visit to Manama, where he is set to open the embassy flying Israel’s flag, is utterly outrageous. This follows the opening of a Zionist embassy in Abu Dhabi; another embassy will likely be established in Rabat. Sudan thus far has reportedly said that it has no plans yet to open an embassy in Khartoum.

Not surprising therefore that the Arab street across these capitals have vowed to end “normalization”. The iron-fisted grip held by Arab despots notwithstanding, human rights movements (many banned and leaders exiled) have declared their outright rejection of America’s much-vaunted Abraham Accords.

Stirrings in Sudan are becoming more vocal despite Khartoum’s attempts to silence critics. In Bahrain the main opposition group, al-Wefaq National Islamic Society declared Lapid’s trip as a “threat”, saying, “This is provocative news and this trip is completely rejected, and he (Lapid) should not set foot on Bahraini soil.”

Their message is clear: “Any (Israeli) presence on Bahraini soil means incitement.”

– Iqbal Jassat is an Executive Member of the South Africa-based Media Review Network. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle. Visit: www.mediareviewnet.com

الفشل الذريع للإسلام الأطلسي


الجمعة 10 أيلول 2021

مقالات

Visual search query image

موفق محادين

ما من تجربة أصابها الفشل الذريع كلما اقتربت من فكرة الدولة والاقتصاد والحداثة والمجتمع المدني، مثل تجربة الإسلام الأطلسي، والأدق التوظيف السياسي لهذا الإسلام.

اعتقد البعض أن الإسلام الأطلسي، البريطاني- الأميركي، في طريقه للسيطرة على الوطن العربي، محمولاً بقرارات أميركية وبـ”حنفيات” مالية وإعلامية من الغاز المسال، حيث يتحول هذا الإسلام إلى حصان طروادة بحقبة جديدة من الاحتلال العثماني. 

وبنى البعض أوهامه على أحلام مريضة بسقوط سوريا واستمرار الحدث العابر في تاريخ مصر ثم عبر تونس والمغرب وقبلهما السودان والعشرية السوداء في الجزائر. 

تأسيس هذا النمط من الإسلام السياسي لم يكن بعيداً منذ لحظته الأولى عن أصابع الاستخبارات البريطانية ثم الأميركية.

بيد أن هذه الأوهام سرعان ما تبخرت وراحت أحجار الدومينو الإسلاموية الأطلسية تتداعى الواحد تلو الآخر: سوريا، ثم مصر، ثم السودان، فتونس، وأخيراً السقوط المدوّي لهذا التيار في الانتخابات البرلمانية والبلدية المغربية. وقريباً من الوطن العربي؛ تتجه مؤشرات الانتخابات البلدية في تركيا وسقوط حزب إردوغان في المدن الكبرى إلى أن تركيا العثمانية قاب قوسين أو أدنى من غروبها وغروب مشروع اليهودي الأميركي برنارد لويس الذي نظّر مبكراً للانبعاث العثماني في تركيا. 

والأدعى إلى السخرية هنا أن تبدو طالبان التي تجسد ثلاثية المفكر المغربي، الجابري، القبيلة- العقيدة- الغنيمة كرمق أخير لإسلام أطلسي أنفقت عليه مئات المليارات. 

ولنا أن نقول، ما من تجربة أصابها الفشل الذريع كلما اقتربت من فكرة الدولة والاقتصاد والحداثة والمجتمع المدني، مثل تجربة الإسلام الأطلسي، والأدق التوظيف السياسي لهذا الإسلام. 

والأخطر هنا هو أن تأسيس هذا النمط من الإسلام السياسي لم يكن بعيداً منذ لحظته الأولى، حتى اليوم، عن أصابع الاستخبارات البريطانية ثم الأميركية، بل إن أول من دافع عن الدولة العثمانية في بداية انحطاطها ومنع سقوطها على أيدي الجيوش المصرية في القرن التاسع عشر، الثنائي اليهودي الذي كان يتحكم في بريطانيا: رئيس الوزراء دزرائيلي، ورجل المال روتشيلد. 

وقد تم توظيف هذا النمط من هذا الإسلام بحسب كل مرحلة، فمن الوهابية النجدية والقطرية وعلاقتها بقلم الاستخبارات البريطانية كما يعترف بيركهارت، إلى توظيف هذا الإسلام ضد حركات التحرر الوطني العربية وغير العربية، إلى استراتيجية تطويق روسيا السوفياتية ثم البوتينية والصين كحزام أخضر إسلاموي تحت سيطرة مطابخ الاستخبارات الأطلسية وأقلامها. 

ومن الوثائق والمراجع حول ذلك: 

–  مذكرات بيركهارت.

–  مارك كورتيس، التاريخ السري لتحالف بريطانيا مع الأصوليين. 

–  ستيفن هات، لعبة بعمر الإمبراطورية. 

–  روبرت درايفوس، لعبة الشيطان. 

–  مذكرات جيمس وولي، مدير الاستخبارات الأميركية الأسبق. 

–  ثروت الخرباوي، سر المعبد. 

–  ايان جونسون، مسجد في ميونخ

–  شاريل بينارد، الإسلام الديموقراطي. 

–  نوح فيلدمان، تدهور الدولة الإسلامية ونهوضها. 

–  بيرنارد لويس، لغة السياسة في الإسلام. 

–  عبد العظيم حماد، الوحي الأميركي. 

–  لوي شتراوس، أعلام الفلسفة السياسية. 

أما في التطبيق، فمن ذلك: 

1- في تونس والمغرب، فضلاً عن الفشل الاقتصادي الاجتماعي، فإن الأخطر هو التغطية على التطبيع مع العدو الصهيوني؛ ففي عهد الحكومة الإسلامية في المغرب، تم التوقيع على العديد من الاتفاقات مع العدو الصهيوني، وفي تونس رفض نواب حركة النهضة التصويت على تجريم التطبيع. 

2- في مصر، فضلاً عن محاولة الإسلاميين المذكورين وضع اليد على مصر وخصخصة ما تبقى من مؤسسات الدولة لنهبها بـ”تراب المصاري”، كما حدث في السودان، واصل حكم مرسي السابق سياسات التطبيع مع العدو وتبادل معه البرقيات بمناسبات مختلفة، وقمعت شرطته أكبر تظاهرة حاولت اقتحام سفارة العدو في القاهرة. 

3- في السودان، وبعد الانقلاب العسكري الدموي للإخوان (تصفية عشرات الضباط)، دخل الإسلام السياسي أسوأ أيامه، من كل النواحي الاقتصادية والاجتماعية والسياسية، وصار من أكثر الدول فساداً ومديونية، رغم خيرات السودان الكثيرة، وذلك فضلاً عن الصراعات الداخلية بين الأجنحة الإسلامية نفسها (الترابي- البشير) وأخيراً المجموعة الحالية التي دشّنت عهدها بالتطبيع مع العدو الصهيوني. 

ولعل الوجه الأخطر في تجربة السودان الإسلاموية تمزق الدولة نفسها بين ولايات انفصالية، مثل دارفور، والموافقة على سلخ الجنوب كمحمية إسرائيلية. 

4- في سوريا والعراق، وإضافة إلى استراتيجية تدمير الدول باسم مواجهة الأنظمة، قدم الإسلامويون للعدو الصهيوني والامبريالية واليهودية العالمية أخطر ذريعة لاتهام العرب والمسلمين بالتخلف والإرهاب الدموي المسلح، وإعادة إنتاج المعزوفة الاستشراقية العنصرية الصهيونية (إعادة الاستعمار لـ تمدين المتوحشين). 

5- ويشار كذلك إلى دور الميليشيات الإسلاموية في دعم عميل الاستخبارات الأميركية في إندونيسيا، سوهارتو، الذي يصنّف من أكثر الرؤساء فساداً ودموية في العالم، والذي نظّم مع الميليشيات الإجرامية المذكورة مذابح تقشعر لها الأبدان بحق الأرياف والطبقة العاملة والمثقفين، راح ضحيتها مليون شخص، كثالثة كبريات المذابح في القرن العشرين، بعد المذبحة التركية ضد الأرمن، والمذابح الأميركية النووية ضد المدن اليابانية. 

6- أما تركيا التي يسوّقها الإسلاميون كنموذج للتنمية، فهي ليست دولة إسلامية بل توظف الإسلام خارجها وفي المحيط العربي والآسيوي لغايات طورانية وأجندة أطلسية. فإضافة إلى وجود أكبر سفارة للعدو الصهيوني فيها، ومستوى واسع من التنسيق العسكري والأمني معه، ووجود كبرى القواعد العسكرية الأميركية مثل إنجرليك، وعضويتها في حلف الأطلسي، الذراع العسكرية الأمنية للإمبريالية العالمية، فإن اقتصادها اقتصاد رأسمالي في كل تفاصيله وليس اقتصاداً إسلامياً، ويقوم على ما يعرف بالتقسيم العالمي للبلدان المتوسطة التطور التي تحل بعد الدول الصناعية الكبرى في سياق استيعاب خطوط الإنتاج والصناعات التي تتخلى عنها البلدان الكبرى تحت تأثير الثورة المتواصلة للتكنولوجيا، مثلها في ذلك مثل البرازيل والمكسيك والهند وجنوب أفريقيا والنمور الآسيوية. 

وليس بعيداً عن ذلك، “الموديل” الاجتماعي لهذه الدول، وعلى رأسها تركيا، وهو “موديل” غير إسلامي إطلاقاً، بالنظر إلى ترخيص البغاء والمشروبات الكحولية، بل إن تركيا تعد مع كولومبيا وآذربيجان وجنوب أفريقيا من بلدان المافيا العالمية، وكذلك من أكبر مستوردي الويسكي في العالم، ومن أكبر مستهلكي المخدرات وطرقها (ممراً ومقراً). 

7- ويشار هنا إلى أن البيئة الاقتصادية عموماً لرجال الأعمال المسلمين ليست بعيدة عن بيئة (يوسف ندا) خصم جمال عبد الناصر والمتورّط في محاولة اغتياله وصاحب الاستثمارات الكبيرة في جزر غسل العملة والتهرب من الضرائب، مثل جزر المارشال، العذراء البريطانية، ومناطق مثل بنما، وفي وسع المهتمين أكثر العودة إلى كتاب ستيفن هات (لعبة بعمر الإمبراطورية) حول بنك BCCI وعلاقته بغاسلي العملة الإسلاميين، وكتاب كورتيس السابق الذكر، وخاصة حول بنك الائتمان وعلاقته بغسل العملة، وكذلك العودة إلى فيلم “التسلل” حول بنك الاعتماد ودور إسكوبار وناشطين إسلاميين. 

سدّ النهضة: من تهديد إلى فرصة؟

Visual search query image
*باحث وكاتب اقتصادي سياسي والأمين العام السابق للمؤتمر القومي العربي
 زياد حافظ 

الملاحظة الأولى هي أنّ ما وصلت اليه الأمور هو نتيجة تراكم الإهمال المصريّ خلال العقود التي تلت رحيل القائد الخالد الذكر جمال عبد الناصر. فمصر خلال الخمسينيات والستينيات كانت منصة حركات التحرّر الأفريقية تجسيداً وتطبيقاً للرؤية الجيوستراتيجية التي بلورها القائد جمال عبد الناصر في “فلسفة الثورة” حيث الأمن القومي المصري يكمن في دوائر ثلاث: الدائرة العربية والدائرة الإسلامية والدائرة الأفريقية. كم كانت رؤيته الجيوستراتيجية ثاقبة آنذاك وكما هي صحيحة اليوم وفي الغد! لكن بعد رحيله أتيحت الفرصة للكيان الصهيوني التوغل في أفريقيا وبناء علاقات لم تكن ممكنة في وجوده وسياسته. الانكفاء المصري يعود إلى خروج مصر من دائرة الصراع العربي الصهيوني ما سمح للحضور الصهيوني بقوة في القارة الأفريقية.

ونلاحظ أيضاً أن بعد رحيل جمال عبد الناصر تحوّلت منصة حركات التحرّر من القاهرة إلى الجزائر مع الرئيس هواري بومدين. لكن رحيل الرئيس الجزائري سنة 1978 في ظروف تثير الريبة والشكوك تلت زيارة السادات للقدس في تشرين 1977 ومن بعد ذلك دخول الجزائر في العشرية الدامية فقدت الحركة التحررية الأفريقية منصة مؤثرة في نموها. حاولت ليبيا في ما بعد حمل العباءة الأفريقية، لكن مع خروج مصر من دائرة الصراع العربي الصهيوني غاب الدور العربي في أفريقيا وحيّدت محاولات القذافي للإمساك بالورقة الأفريقية. هذه الملاحظات تأتي للتأكيد على أنّ التوغّل الصهيوني في القارة الأفريقية لما كان لولا الغياب القسري العربي بشكل عام والمصري بشكل خاص. فمن الواضح أنّ أعداء الأمة العربية في الغرب وفي الكيان وفي بعض الدوائر العربية يمنعون أيّ دور عربيّ في أفريقيا يساهم في تنمية القارة من جهة ويمكّن استقلال وسيادة الدول المكوّنة من جهة أخرى وأخيراً لحماية الأمن القومي العربي وفقاً لرؤية جمال عبد الناصر. كما أنّ تقسيم السودان وبناء سدّ النهضة استهدف السودان في مرحلة أولى تمهيداً لاستهداف مصر. فالمطامع الصهيونية في مياه النيل معروفة والحذر من قبل بعض الدول العربية من مصر تقاطعت لفرض الضغوط على مصر وترويضها.

على صعيد خاص، كنا شاهدين على نتائج الغياب العربي في أفريقيا وذلك من خلال عملنا في التسعينيات في إحدى مؤسسات البنك الدولي حيث كنا نغطّي أفريقيا الغربية. لاحظنا امتعاض نخب أفريقيّة من التوغل الصهيوني فيما بينما كانت تذكر لنا فضائل مصر في دعم حركات التحرّر في البلدان المعنية. ما نريد أن نقوله إنّ الرأس المال المعنوي الذي كوّنته مصر كان محفوراً في ذاكرة الدول الأفريقية سواء في دعم حركة التحرر وفي ما بعد في دعم الاقتصاد والتعليم. هذا الرأس المال بدّدته سياسات اللامبالاة بعد كامب دافيد المدمّرة التي تحصد نتائجها مصر اليوم وكأن مستلزمات كامب دافيد قضت بالتخلّي عن الدور الأفريقي لمصر كما تخلّت عن دورها في الصراع العربي الصهيوني.

الملاحظة الثانية هي أن المواجهة الحقيقية في موضوع السد ليست مع الشعب الإثيوبي الشقيق ولا حتى مع حكومته. أحد المتكلّمين في الندوة الدكتور محمد حسب الرسول وهو نائب أمين عام المؤتمر القومي العربي أعطى إضاءات هامة حول المشتركات والروابط المصرية والسودانية مع الشعب الإثيوبي. فهناك حوالي 70 بالمئة من سكان اثيوبيا من المسلمين وأن الكنيسة الإثيوبية من أعرق الكنائس ولها ارتباطات مع الكنيسة المصرية، وحيث كادت اللغة العربية تكون لغة رسمية تجعلها مرشحة للانضمام إلى الدول العربية. ما نريد أن نقوله هو أن المواجهة ليست مع الإثيوبيين شعباً وحكومة بل مع رأس الأفعى الحقيقي وهو الكيان الصهيوني الذي ساهم على أكثر من صعيد في بناء ذلك السد. وإذا كان سد النهضة يشكّل تهديداً واضحاً للأمن القومي المصري والسوداني وبالتالي العربي فإن المواجهة هي مع العدو الصهيوني المحتلّ أولاً وأخيراً.

التخلّي عن الدور الريادي المصري في الشأن الأفريقي مبني على نظرية تمّ ترويجها أن 99 بالمئة من أوراق اللعبة تملكها الولايات المتحدة وأن البوّابة للولايات المتحدة هي الكيان الصهيوني المحتل. بغض النظر عن صحة ذلك التقدير آنذاك، أي في السبعينيات من القرن الماضي، فإن موازين القوّة الدولية والإقليمية الحالية والمرتقبة تدحض تلك النظرية وبالتالي الخيارات والسياسة المبنية عليها يجب أن تخضع لمراجعة. فمصر مهدّدة شرقاً وشمالاً من الكيان الصهيوني والخلايا الإرهابية المدعومة من الولايات المتحدة والكيان الصهيوني، وغرباً من أيضاً من جماعات التعصّب والغلو والتوحّش، واليوم من الجنوب عبر خطر التعطيش، وجميع هذه المخاطر مرتبطة بالكيان الصهيوني المحتلّ وداعمه الأساسي الولايات المتحدة. ألم يحن الأوان لمراجعة تلك السياسات لمواجهة التهديدات؟ بل نقول أكثر من ذلك ونعتبر أنه بإمكان تحويل التهديد إلى فرصة انطلاقة جديدة عبر قلب الطاولة على الكيان وجعل من سد النهضة منفعة مشتركة لكلّ من مصر والسودان وبطبيعة الحال إثيوبيا عبر تشبيك إقليمي بين دول وادي النيل والقرن الأفريقي لا مكان للكيان الصهيوني فيه.

الملاحظة الثالثة هي أنّ التشبيك الاقتصادي بين بلاد وادي النيل والقرن الأفريقي يتكامل مع التشبيك المرتقب بين بلاد الرافدين وبلاد الشام من جهة، ومع مشروع التشبيك في دول المغرب الكبير من جهة أخرى. والتكامل بين هذه المكوّنات الأربعة يساهم في وجود كتلة عربية وإقليمية تتكامل مع مشروع الطريق والحزام الواحد الصيني والمشروع الأوراسي الروسي. المستقبل هو في الشرق وليس في الغرب والأفول الغربي هو أفول استراتيجي لا يستطيع أحد إيقافه أو حتى إبطاءه. والمشروع العربي النهضوي الذي نناضل من أجله هو في صميم المواجهة مع الكيان الصهيوني حيث بوجود الكيان لا شيء غير التجزئة والضعف والتخلّف والانقراض. أما المواجهة فهي تأتي بالوحدة وبالوحدة تأتي القوّة وبالقوة تأتي النهضة.

COMBAT FOOTAGE: HOUTHIS RAID POSITIONS OF SUDANESE FORCES IN YEMEN’S HAJJAH

South Front

16.04.2021 

Combat Footage: Houthis Raid Positions Of Sudanese Forces In Yemen’s Hajjah
Screen grab from the Houthis’ video.

On April 16, the Houthis (as Ansar Allah is known) released a video of a recent attack by their fighters on Sudanese forces in the northwestern Yemeni province of Hajjah.

The 18-minute video shows Houthi fighters attacking the Sudanese Armed Forces west of Harad. The Houthis storm a network of forward positions, mortar posts as well as a small village that was occupied by Sudanese soldiers.

The Houthis bold attack forced Sudanese troops to withdrew from their positions without showing any real resistance. Houthi fighter used assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades only.

During the attack, several Sudanese soldiers were killed. The Houthis also captured loads of weapons including heavy machine guns, automatic grenade launchers, mortars, recoilless rifles and rocket-propelled grenades.

The Sudanese military is the second biggest contributor to the Saudi-led coalition after the Saudi military itself. Earlier this year, the Houthis revealed that 4,416 Sudanese service members have been killed in Yemen, so far.

Despite the heavy losses and the 2011 Sudanese coup d’état, Khartoum is yet to leave the Saudi-led coalition. In 2019, a plan to withdrew 10,000 Sudanese troops from Yemen was announced. However, the withdrawal has never happened.

MORE ON THIS TOPIC:

The Myth of Peace in the Middle East: Deconstructing the Naturalization Narrative

April 16, 2021Articles,

American-Israeli delegation visit to Morocco in December 2020. (Photo: US Embassy Jerusalem, via Wikimedia Commons)

By Mohamed El Metmari

This critical essay deconstructs the political narrative surrounding the naturalization agreements that have occurred between some Arab countries and Israel formally known as the Abrahamic Accords or Jared Kushner’s plan for peace in the Middle East. It offers unique perspectives and analysis of these accords and their true geopolitical intentions. Primarily, it argues how the peace promised by these newly established ties remains just a myth as it explores the true objectives behind them. Interestingly enough, it also highlights the true goals behind the U.S’ mediations in these Accords.

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is one of the hottest yet unresolved political issues of today. Whereas this conflict is not heading towards any resolutions soon, the recent naturalization agreements that have occurred between some Arab regimes and the apartheid state of Israel may mark a future shift in Middle East’s political scene.

Earlier to these agreements, boycotting Israel was these Arab nations’ approach to show support for Palestinians and their claims. Before 2020, only two bordering countries have had diplomatic ties with Israel; that is, Egypt and Jordan. This number has risen to six as the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco have set full diplomatic and economic relations with Israel as part of Jared Kushner’s plan for peace in the Middle East known formally as the Abrahamic Accords.

Celebrating the first occurrence of the Abrahamic Accords, Trump hosted a signing ceremony in the White House and had the following rash statement to announce: “We’re here this afternoon to change the course of history. After decades of division and conflict, we mark the dawn of a new Middle East.” By this politically immature statement, Trump seemed as if he had finally found a solution to the conflict in the region.

As for peace in the region is concerned, Jared Kushner’s peace plans do not make any sense. Apart from Sudan, none of the countries involved with these accords are in conflict with Israel. On the opposite, Morocco and so the Gulf States have retained very healthy diplomatic relations with Israel, even if they were undeclared publicly. For instance, Morocco has had a fair share of intelligence-sharing with Israel since the mid-sixties. On top of that, the two countries had liaison offices in Tel Aviv and Rabat from Sept. 1, 1994, to Oct. 23, 2000. Not to mention Morocco’s contribution in populating Israel by handing over its Jewish population to the newly established Jewish state during the reign of the Moroccan king Hassan II.

Granted, Israel supports the totalitarian regimes of the region mainly because these totalitarianisms do not demand accountability for its human rights and international law violations. Hence, most Arab dictatorships have been dealing with Israel on political and security levels; especially after the outbreak of the Arab spring where these regimes had to obtain the latest spying and security tech to topple every dissident in their population who desires regime change. Whereas the case of the Washington Post’s correspondent Jamal Khashoggi remains the most covered case, Amnesty International has reported that Moroccan journalist Omar Radi’s phone has also been infected with the Israeli Pegasus spyware.

The Myth of Peace: Deception, Expansion and Dispossession.

Each time an Arab country initiates full diplomatic relations with Israel, its local propaganda machine makes it look as a major historical event that has occurred in the country. Some media outlets have gone far with this. For example, they take the religious tolerance preached in the Muslim faith as a pretext for setting these normalization agreements with this ‘Jewish’ nation. Other media platforms, however, have beautified the image of Israel’s apartheid regime via elaborate historical descriptions of Jewish culture and heritage. This is not wrong at all, but what is wrong is to evoke this history only at this particular event ignoring Israel’s present violations of International Law and Human rights and most of all occupation of Palestinian lands. This is why it is easy to deconstruct the naturalization narrative and prove that it is just a myth.

First of all, the context of these agreements was preceded and controlled by the 2020 US elections. Trump’s administration had tried to convince the American public that it will be the first administration that ends the conflict in the Middle East and thus planning on gaining a potential leverage in the election race. But despite the occurrence of the Abrahamic Accords last year and even Trump’s administration’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital on December 6, 2017, it still was not enough to win Trump the approval of the devastated American public. This is mainly because Americans wanted Trump out of the White House at any cost; even if it meant choosing the lesser evil of the two candidates in the elections.

Meanwhile, these events come as a perfect opportunity to boost the reputation of the Likud party and more specifically the reputation of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu whose image has been stained by his corruption and monopoly of the Israeli political scene. Unlike Trump, the chances of him getting replaced in the upcoming Israeli elections are relatively low because of his firm grip on power and the lack of his equal in the Israeli political arena. Furthermore, with the massive press coverage that comes with such events, Netanyahu, similarly to Trump, wanted the spotlights on him to distract the public from his administration’s terrible handling of Covid-19 and thus gaining significant leverage in the elections.

Second, the biggest gain for Israel from these new ties with the Arab States and Morocco is that it reinforces its political influence in the Middle East. Not only this, but unlocking Israel’s geo-political isolation in the region as well. And since this newly granted influence to Israel is an approved one, it gives it freedom to expand and occupy more without any opposition. Of course, if Israel is gaining a legitimate influence in the region, this means that Palestine’s position will exacerbate. And thus the Palestinian cause will no longer have the leverage it has on the Middle Eastern political scene.

Furthermore, Israel’s decision to create ties with the Gulf countries in specific is not arbitrary. This move was motivated by economic reasons. As it is known, the Khaleeji people are the biggest consumers in the region. Hence the khaleeji market becomes a perfect destination for Israeli goods. Israeli products, foods in specific, can even replace other products coming from other countries because of the close distance and the low shipping costs. Additionally, Sudan may not offer much as markets are concerned, but it is definitely a great source of agricultural imports for Israel. Being the mediator between Israel and its “new” allies, the US benefits from these agreements as well since it is Israel’s biggest ally. After all, any ongoing political conflict between Israel and any of the Middle Eastern countries is primarily endangering US’ political and economic interests in the region. In other words, the mediation of the US in these so-called Peace agreements is not out of a sort of altruism because the US is only after its share of the pie.

Third, to say that these newly established ties will bring “peace” to the region is ludicrous and rash but not totally wrong. But for whom this peace is served; for Palestine, for the Arab States, or for Israel? To give a rather simple and short answer, it is apt to say it remains just a myth for the Palestinians in specific, but it means more security and power for the Israeli side in particular. To put it differently, with Israel having full diplomatic ties with these Arab countries and Morocco, it becomes easy for it to carry its annexation plans and dispossession of Palestinian lands without being held accountable. And the Palestinians are likely to be displaced gradually and implicitly to one of these countries. Apparently, Morocco and the rich Gulf states are the biggest fish that Israel could ever come to terms with. Since they provide financial comfort and political stability, some Palestinians may choose these destinations over their currently Israeli-occupied and war-inflected homes.

However, it is worth mentioning that the Emiratis as well as the Saudis despise the Palestinians. Hence, the Palestinians will never accept the reality of being displaced to one of these two countries. Meanwhile, this does not apply to either Kuwait or Oman in which do not have a strong political influence in the region. Apart from Morocco, they maybe the desired destination Israel is looking for to displace the Palestinians to after annexing their lands. Whether the two countries agree to normalize relations with Israel in the future or not, it does not really matter as long they are subservient to UAE and Saudi Arabia. Apparently, the Palestinians are likely to resist as they usually do.

Concurrently, Israel is likely to pressure them to accept this bitter reality as it has been doing for the last decades. Hence, Israel will possibly seek not only to increase its siege and pressure on the borders and checkpoints, but it may also instigate a war with Hamas as a pretext for a military escalation. Hamas, on the other hand, will be, as always, scapegoated for the whole thing especially that it is classified as a terrorist organization. Therefore, the peace that Israel is seeking is a peace with the Palestinians out of Palestine.

However, Israel is not the only benefactor from these agreements. Clearly, the Gulf States have paid for US military protection by signing these accords. But UAE in specific have had further arms deals and gained even more political protection against the Iranian influence in the Arab peninsula. Nonetheless, when a country signs a peace deal, it does not instantly demand acquirement of advanced F-35 stealth Jet, which is what this Gulf State did, because the two are paradoxical. Therefore, in opposition to the classic definitions of peace treaties, the brokered peace from these agreements is a purchased one like many peace agreements that have been signed before it in the region. After all, Sudan agreed to normalize relations with Israel so it is de-listed from the state-sponsors of terror, the Gulf States signed them as a payment for US military protection and Morocco got support for its sovereignty over Western Sahara.

Therefore, as all the purchased peace agreements the Middle East has witnessed over modern history- whether it is peace for land, peace in exchange of monopoly or what have you- this one is also doomed to be broken by conflict since it is not based on a balanced compromise where two equal parties meet in the middle. Rather, it is a political move towards accumulation of power where the main side of this conflict, meaning the Palestinians, is not even included in these agreements.

The US, Morocco, and Israel: A Geopolitical Chess Game over Africa

The fact that Israel has pursued diplomatic relations with Morocco- a country so far away from the Middle East’s political discourse- is by no means for peace as it is claimed by any of the Accords’ orchestrators. The moment it was announced that Morocco was to resume relations with Israel, Moroccan propaganda machines overshadowed the controversies that come with this event by preaching to the public about the Moroccan Jewish heritage and the coexistence of the Abrahamic religions in this homogeneous sphere. This normalization was depicted as a win-win situation for Morocco especially that Trump has rewarded Morocco’s approval of its resumption of relations with the apartheid regime by signing a presidential proclamation that recognizes Morocco’s sovereignty over Western Sahara.

The celebrations following this recognition covered up totally for the naturalization. This proclamation has even become an independent narrative of its own. The official discourse in Moroccan media has asserted that this recognition is the fruit of long-lasting diplomatic ties between Morocco and the US and not as a part of the Abrahamic Accords. Moreover, many factors influence politics, but altruism is not one of them. Taking the fact that Morocco was the first country to recognize the independence of the US in 1777, and the two countries long diplomatic relations, it stands as a surprise that it took so much time for the US to recognize Morocco’s sovereignty over Western Sahara or at least support its claim diplomatically.

Meanwhile, political terminology is important here because Moroccan media had it intentionally mixed up to alleviate the Moroccan public’s rage. Trump’s presidential proclamation does not recognize the Western Sahara region as a Moroccan entity as they have claimed, but it only recognizes Moroccan sovereignty over it. These are two different things, because Morocco has already been practicing sovereignty over the region although with some difficulties mainly caused by intense altercations with the Algerian-backed Polisario Front. The only thing that Morocco has needed is legitimacy and this proclamation happens to be it. Obviously, this is a simple treat from the US for Morocco’s acceptance of the resumption of relations with Israel.

Nevertheless, the majority of the Moroccan public welcomed Trump’s move, but they abhorred Morocco’s establishment of ties with Israel. Nasser Bourita, the Moroccan Minister of Foreign Affairs, has refused to call this an act of “naturalization” of relations. For him, normalization is a Middle Eastern term that does not apply to Morocco which is not a neighboring country to Israel. Indeed, Morocco’s North African location and its large indigenous Amazigh population make it hard to proclaim the country as purely Arab.

Bourita has preferred using the term “resumption” of relations instead. As mentioned earlier, Morocco and Israel had Liaison offices in Tel Aviv and Rabat before Morocco had to close their office in response to Israeli repression of the second Palestinian Intifada in 2000. Not to mention, there is a number of almost 800.000 Jews of Moroccan decent living in Israel right now.

Obviously, Israel remains the biggest benefactor from these naturalization agreements. However, the US did not take part in them without purpose. The existence of Israel in the Middle East protects American interests in the region. That is why Zionist lobbies in the US always do their best to empower this regime. And this is what AIPAC is doing and what Christians United for Israel and other Zionist lobbies are doing. As a result, this support for the apartheid regime enables the US to retain its firm grip on Middle East’s political and economic affairs. These are all facts now. But the case of Morocco is still a uniquely dubious one. Pressing Morocco – a country so far away from The Middle East’s frenzy and even terminology to sign these deals seems confusing to say the least; especially that Morocco is not a rich country like the Gulf States.

However, ever since Morocco’s rejoining the African Union in 2017, many countries and the US particularly have started to look for ways to intensify their relations with this African country more than before. To illustrate, Morocco’s main weapon supplies come from the US. Granted, the influence of the US embassy in Rabat has surpassed diplomatic lines to influencing Moroccan cultural context and even influencing Moroccan academia via its grants and many programs and English learning courses. This soft pressure changes the structure of Moroccan society with time. As of now, although French is the official second language in Morocco, the majority of Moroccan youth, many of whom have benefited from US grants and programs, speak English. This is not bad at all, but again, politics is the game of interests and not altruisms. Implemented in these courses and grants are soft ideologies that create sympathy and acceptance of US values and democracy in the Moroccan community. In the long run, acceptance of the US image rises even if its intentions in the region are not necessarily benevolent.

To connect this to the question at hand, Morocco remains the US’ key holder to the African Union and African countries. This strategic move to invest in Morocco politically and economically and then support its sovereignty over its full territorial land comes as the price for infiltrating a fertile network of rising African economies. Hence, these countries become perfect investment destinations for the US. And although China is the biggest player in Africa as economy is involved, not counting the previous colonial powers of Africa, the US is doing the best it can to take this role in the near future. After its degrading failure to do so under pretexts of humanitarian aid and war on terror, the UShas finally chosen this diplomatic direction to overtake Russian and Chinese influences in Africa. It is hence a perfectly played chess game over geopolitical expansion and power. Peace and human rights preached in these agreements however, are turned into industries that are used to further their dominance and hegemony.

Additionally, what makes Morocco exceptional is its officials’ diplomatic maturity and its political stability in comparison to the Middle East and other African countries. Also, Morocco’s ability to repay its debts boosts foreign investors’ confidence to embark on the Moroccan market. Not to mention, Morocco itself needs this kind of political and economic partnership and support as it seeks to take the lead as an African power. However, this pursuit remains far-fetched without having full sovereignty over its lands or without having strong allies.

Meanwhile, Moroccan King Mohamed VI has confirmed that Morocco’s position on Palestine remains unchanged. He has also affirmed that he places his country’s territorial issue and the Palestinian cause at the same level, and that the kingdom will use its new position to push for a conflict resolution in the region. Thus, Morocco is playing it as safe as it could as it is placing itself neither with the current, nor against it.

All in all, Morocco and the Arab regimes’ decision to normalize relations with Israel is not promising of any lasting peace between Palestine and Israel simply because Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories will gain significant legitimacy from the establishment of these diplomatic ties. Especially that these Arab States are not democratic themselves so they can account it for its infringement of international law and human rights. Granted, since the Palestinian question, the right of self-determination and the right of return are not included in the official discourse of these peace agreements, a resolution for the Palestinian- Israeli conflict remains just a myth that appears to be tangible with propaganda and exclusionary media narratives.

– Mohamed El Metmari is an independent writer and researcher affiliated with the faculty of Letters and Humanities of Abdelmalek Essaadi University, Martil, Morocco. He is an Open Hands Initiative’s Conflict Resolution alumnus. Currently, he is conducting a Master’s thesis centered on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. His articles have appeared on Aljazeera Arabic, SasaPost, and Countercurrents. He contributed this essay to The Palestine Chronicle.

THE SIX-YEAR EPIC FAILURE: RIYADH’S CRUSADE ON SANA’A

22.03.2021

South Front

Six years of the Saudi-led war have passed in Yemen, and it keeps going with no sign of a peaceful solution on the horizon.

The “occasion” was “commemorated” with a briefing by Ansar Allah, or as they are popularly known – the Houthis. Some impressive numbers were shared.

Houthi spokesperson Yahya Sari said that the Saudi-led coalition carried out more than 266,150 airstrikes throughout these 6 years. The predominant number of those strikes targeted Yemeni citizens, homes, cities and other infrastructure.

On the side of the Houthis, at least 1,348 separate missile operations were launched, with nearly 500 being behind enemy lines on key military facilities of the Kingdom and the UAE. In total, the Houthi Air Force carried out 12,623 raids with drones. In 2021 alone, Ansar Allah has carried out 1,464 operations, including 124 attack operations, and the rest reconnaissance.

The Ansar Allah ground forces carried out 12,366 combat operations throughout the years. When it comes to losses, the Houthis didn’t share theirs. They claimed that over the 6 years, the Saudi-led coalition had suffered some significant losses. In total, more than 240,000 fighters were either killed or injured.

This includes UAE forces, Sudanese mercenaries, Saudi armed forces, as well as the troops of the Yemen puppet government.

As expected, the update focuses more on what the Houthis achieved and what Saudi Arabia has lost, but it has been an open secret that Riyadh’s intervention in Yemen hasn’t been a glowing example of success.

In just the past few days, leading up to March 22nd, the Houthis carried out a significant attack on Aramco oil facilities. A refinery was struck by 6 suicide drones. The Saudi Ministry of Energy claimed that the attack caused a fire that was “quickly” controlled by the refinery’s staff. Satellite imagery, however, showed the damage to be much more extensive than Riyadh let on.

Saudi Arabia, on its part, released footage of its airstrikes on Ansar Allah in the Marib province. The videos presented 17 pinpoint airstrikes by Riyadh warplanes on vehicles and positions on several fronts of the province. The Saudi-led coalition also released a video showing precision airstrikes on a cave supposedly used by the Houthis to store suicide drones. It is purportedly located near Yemen’s capital Sana’a.

In spite of these videos, and the Saudi attempt to present the situation in a somewhat positive light, the Saudi-led coalition has been slowly retreating in Marib.

Six years of war have passed in Yemen, in which massive amounts of funds were “invested” by Riyadh to fight a war that it still can’t even go near winning.

Related Videos

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

Israel is an advanced garrison for U.S. in the region: Moroccan analyst

By Mohammad Mazhari

December 28, 2020 – 18:15

TEHRAN – A Moroccan journalist describes Israel as an “unnatural entity” which is “planted” in the region to represent U.S. interests and cause escalations.

“Israel is an unnatural entity based on expansion, and it does not have standards of a state,” Driss Addar tells the Tehran Times. “It is an advanced military garrison for America, which is the hidden state of the Jews of Khazaria.”
The Moroccan journalist calls Israel an arrogant regime that is established based on expansionism.
Following is the text of the interview: 

Q: How do you see the decision of some Arab states like the UAE, Bahrain, and Sudan to normalize ties with Israel? 

A: There are multiple reasons for each government, although the context that paved the way for Arab states to normalize their relationship with Israel was apparently the same.

But before answering your question, I would like to point out that regarding Morocco the step of normalization of ties was taken within the framework of joint Arab action and settlements based on the two-state solution. 

The Moroccan step differs in terms of context and historical motives and also even the content of the statement issued in this context.

That is why the Palestinian Authority treated the Moroccan decision differently, in contrast to its position on the Abraham Accords, which was rejected by Morocco too. 

The Arabs today are pushed into a corner, and their interaction with their geopolitics is limited to be a spectator or the functional tool for other powers.

So the Emirates’ normalization of ties with Israel is based on promised goals within the framework of building an Israeli-(Persian) Gulf coalition to confront Iran after America portrayed Tehran as an enemy.

In this concept, the previous friend becomes the enemy and the enemy becomes a close friend who is welcomed.

Israel and the United States are aware that geography in the East is senseless after the creation of chaos, breakup plans, and proxy wars, and today they are investing in this reality, with the certainty that the idea of a new Middle East has become impossible after Syria’s victory over a terrorist war that was imposed on it.

 With the emergence of Russia as a new international power and Iran as a large regional power, the current U.S. administration wants to cripple the next administration by forming an Israeli-(Persian) Gulf alliance to prevent a U.S. return to the nuclear deal or laying landmines for Biden.

Q: Why did Morocco accept to normalize relations with Israel? It seems that there were informal relations with Israel before the announcement of normalization.

A: Morocco provides an explanation and justification for this normalization step and this agreement is limited to the transfer of the Moroccan community and a set of exchanges between the two sides.

 Not to mention America’s recognition of the Moroccan Sahara, it contributed to this step while other countries do not have these incentives, which makes the Moroccan situation different.

Morocco has been playing a mediatory role in the past and wants to continue it now. In the context of the change in the regional system and the escalations over the Palestinian issue, Morocco adopted a different viewpoint that sees itself as more capable for mediation than Egypt or Jordan.

Here Morocco has determined an agenda, including finding a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Here we are not talking about the best way to achieve consensus within the framework of an official Palestinian demand; the point here is related to Morocco, as it started from the beginning and after the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on a political solution and in the same framework that was agreed upon in the Arab world and in the (Organization of) Islamic Cooperation, that is the two-state solution.

So, Morocco has set an agenda realizing that the people reject the normalization of ties with Israel. So it did not call it normalization, but a statement that all wait for the implementation of the demands mentioned in it.

Morocco does not want to exclude the Palestinian cause but rather stated that this issue is equal to its national causes.

The issue is explained clearly in detail. So it is a conditional agreement that pledges a just solution to the Palestinian issue.

Moroccans are monitoring the progress of the agreement. Hence, unlike other forms of normalization, there is no signal of disregard or humiliation for the Palestinian cause in Morocco. 

The agreements between the Arabs and the Israeli regime were raised under initiatives and joint actions, while this is a conditional initiative and not a blank check.

Morocco hopes that all parties in the conflict succeed in finding an opportunity for a fair settlement approvable by international, Arab, and Islamic communities, otherwise it will not be applicable. Any initiative needs to take into account the Palestinians’ rights to succeed. 

I guess what is expected from this agreement is something greater than what is carried out by states that have fully normalized ties with Israel.

Over the years of conflict, the Israeli regime neither abides by UN resolutions nor Arab initiatives, and the siege on the Palestinian people is continuing. 

This is something that cannot be overlooked. Morocco had officially closed the contact office during the second Palestinian uprising (Intifada) in 2000.

The issue here is not who will join the normalization process or not. We must seek the possible conditions to facilitate a comprehensive and complete peace in the Middle East (West Asia).

What distinguishes Morocco is that it has a large community within Israel and also officials in the Israeli government are still associated with their Moroccan origins. 

Therefore, Rabat considers it an opportunity to resolve the conflict in a context that is under regional and international pressure.

Arabs are living in a difficult situation and Morocco is part of the Arab world and is concerned with resolving the Palestinian issue and considers it as a red line.

What happened is a conditional connection to mediate between Israel and Palestine. It is not a full normalization, because it would not be possible before settling the Palestinian issue. 

Here we had to pause at the difference between contact mechanism, which is a pre-condition for any mediation, and full normalization that cannot be achieved in the absence of a solution. 

Rabat says that the agreement does not compromise on the Palestinians’ legitimate rights.

Official Moroccan position has not changed as it sticks to a two-state solution. However, Morocco accepted conditional contact, clearly and within an agenda that approves the Palestinian cause in the context of its first national priority, which is contrary to the content of the Abraham Accords.

Q: Do you think that the normalization will benefit the Islamic and Arab worlds? Do you expect Israel to give up its expansion plans after the normalization of relations?

A: What I said is an explanation and not a justification, and therefore it falls within the framework of understanding the political possibilities.

But strategically it will not change the situation at all, because the problem is very deep, as we face a blockage in the proposed solutions.

Even the two-state solution is a long story presented a long time ago, but it is not practically possible. Given the Israeli rejection and the impossibility of the two states’ existence in this small geography, in which this Israeli regime was planted, this small area cannot host two states in terms of history and religion.

Therefore, it is not possible to expect significant results from normalization unless we go beyond the limits of the current static situation.

Israel is an unnatural entity based on expansion, and it does not have standards of a state. It can even be said that it is an advanced military garrison for America, which is the hidden state of the Jews of Khazaria, according to Tatiana Grachova, the Russian writer and author of the book “Hidden Khazaria”.

Consequently, this regime is established on expansionism, and this is the main reason for escalations in the region. 

Despite Israeli arrogance, in the political process, one can only talk about an attempt to besiege and embarrass this regime.

Q: Don’t you think that Saudi Arabia would join others to normalize ties with Israel sooner or later? What will be its impact on the rest of the Arab countries?

A: The recent signals hint that Saudi Arabia will join the normalization process.

I don’t think that the Saudi normalization will create a different atmosphere or will have more serious repercussions rather than the previous steps in normalization. The main goal of these countries is forming an alliance with Israeli to surround Iran. The rest of the Arab countries, especially those close to the conflict zone, are in a different position. With the exception of Syria, whose position is clear on Israel as an enemy, the rest of neighboring Arab countries not only prefer to support normalization of ties with Israel but also support aggression against the resistance axis and occupied Palestine.

Q: Now how would you describe the position of Arab countries, governments, and people toward the Palestinian cause?

A: It is no longer possible to address the path and options of Arab policies.

But no one is against the right of the Palestinian people to resist the occupation, especially in its difficult circumstances.

Now the question here is how can the demands of the Palestinian people be fulfilled to confront Israeli malicious policies?

If you focus only on the dark reality of our region, you will see that the Palestinian cause is in its worst condition, but a strategic vision will say that the facts suggest important changes in favor of the Palestinian cause.

Rather, the victory of Syria, and the achievements of the resistance axis, is the most important cards that can hinder the deal of the century.

This deal cannot be passed without eliminating the Lebanese resistance and overthrowing the Syrian state, the two goals that were not achieved by the resistance of the nations of the region.
 

RELATED NEWS

MBS said he would be killed by his ‘own people’ if Riyadh normalised ties with Israel: Report

Billionaire Haim Saban claims crown prince made remarks after UAE and Bahrain’s deals with Israel, Haaretz reports

Mohammed bin Salman is the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia
US President Donald Trump has suggested Saudi Arabia may recognise Israel (AFP/File photo)

By MEE staff
Published date: 23 October 2020

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman told Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban he would fear for his life if he struck a normalisation deal with Israel, Haaretz reported.

The Saudi crown prince, also known by his initials MBS, said following in the steps of the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain would get him “killed by Iran, by Qatar and my own people”, Saban said.

The entertainment mogul made the claim at a pro-Biden online campaign event on Wednesday entitled “Israel’s Security and Prosperity in a Biden White House”, hosted by Florida for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, Haaretz reported.

The UAE and Bahrain, which closely coordinate their foreign policies with Saudi Arabia, normalised relations with Israel in August, cementing the move with a signing ceremony at the White House last month.

Saban, a billionaire who founded the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, was one of the few Democrats present when the agreements, dubbed the Abraham Accords, were signed on 15 September.

On Friday, US President Donald Trump said he expected Saudi Arabia to also agree to closer ties with Israel in the coming months.Arab populations continue to oppose normalisation with Israel, survey shows

Read More »

His comments came shortly after Sudan became the third Arab country in recent months to normalise ties with Israel.

Earlier this month, Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan al-Saud said the kingdom would not recognise Israel until there was a return to Israel-Palestine negotiations.

Saban, a longtime donor to the Democratic party, also used his platform at Wednesday’s online event to praise presidential hopeful and former Vice President Joe Biden’s “47 years of commitment” to Israel.

“All Jews in America that care about the US-Israel alliance know they can sleep peacefully under a Biden presidency,” he said.

The normalisation deals have largely been met positively among both Democrats and Republicans.

The billionaire also claimed that President Donald Trump played a minor role in securing the Abraham Accords, while most of the credit should go to his son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner.

“All of the credit should be going to Jared Kushner and [his aide] Avi Berkowitz, who worked really hard on it,” said Saban.

Trump has highlighted the Arab normalisation deals with Israel as major achievements as he seeks another term in 3 November elections, with his evangelical Christian base widely supportive of Israel.

Still, the normalisation deals have outraged Palestinians, who have called them “a stab in the back”, pointing out that they reward Israel and allow it to continue its illegal occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, as well as its siege of Gaza.

recent survey found that, despite the moves by the UAE and Bahrain, a majority of Arab populations continue to strongly oppose normalisation with Israel.

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

Rocking the boat – Sudan

Rocking the boat – Sudan

November 20, 2020

by Nat South for the Saker Blog

Not the trendiest of breaking news, swamped by the turmoil of the U.S. Elections, but the Russian government announced (1) work under progress on a draft agreement (2) for setting up of a naval logistics hub (in Russian – see map) in Port Sudan.

This announcement is bound to make Western Russia ‘watchers’ twitch, others laugh at the location, (not exactly Havana’s bustle of the Soviet era), and some pundits may have another severe bout of futile angst. This piece of news will not make waves and certainly will not make a difference to either the U.S. or NATO member countries, particularly as the U.S. has an overwhelming number of military bases dotted around the world. Essentially, the one Russian naval base will be a drop in the ocean. Having said that, it will be highly significant incremental increase in Russian naval power, to have a warm water base to call in, a bit closer to the Indian Ocean, which will free the Russian Navy of a number of constraints:

  1. limited scope and length of dedicated maritime missions (e.g. Horn of Africa anti-piracy, Indian Ocean);
  2. limited inter-fleet missions across the board, (Northern, Black and Baltic Fleets)
  3. need or wish to call into Cyprus, Malta or Ceuta if the political situation doesn’t allow it;
  4. making unnecessary transit passages across the Mediterranean Sea to home ports.

The issue of a Russian warm water naval base has been mooted both by the Russian government and also other governments many times before for two decades, from discussions in 2002 for a presence in Djibouti, to an offer by the Somaliland government earlier in 2020.

The quest for a presence in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden region has regularly featured in news articles. After many years of rumours, tentative discussions & clickbait type of articles suggesting that Russia was going to create a naval base in various countries, (Lebanon, Libya, Mozambique, Egypt, Cuba and Venezuela) finally some preliminary confirmation that the first candidate is in fact set to be Sudan.

The need for naval bases overseas started in earnest with the arrival of coal powered ships, with the development of strategic coaling stations for navies such as the UK, Germany and France. This then transformed into oil depots, logistics and maintenance bases. All of which ensures a wider footprint of naval power.

The Soviet Union was no exception to this rule, with a whole host of overseas bases in which to call in: from Cienfuegos, (Cuba), Egypt, Libya, Tartus (Syria), and also took over Cam Ranh from the U.S., 1979 – 2002 (Vietnam), amongst others. Some historical insights are given in this RT article. In particular, the Soviet Navy had a presence, in the Red Sea region for several decades, under the remit of the 8th Squadron:

Logistics bases: Berbera:1964 -1977 (Somalia); Dahlak:1977-1991 (Ethiopia)

Port or mooring locations: Al Hudaydah & Socotra (Yemen).

Other than Tartus, the Russian Navy does not currently have dedicated overseas bases. The creation of the Sudanese bases will thus the first new Russian base situated in Africa after the fall of the Soviet Union. By re-establishing a presence regionally, Russia will nevertheless have a tiny footprint compared to that of the U.S. Navy or even the PLA(N).

So why the Red Sea, firstly it is an internationally important transit for commercial traffic, notably oil and gas shipments (to Europe & the U.S.). To put this into context, according to the U.S. EIA: “In 2018, an estimated 6.2 million barrels per day (b/d) of crude oil, condensate, and refined petroleum products flowed through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait toward Europe, the United States, and Asia”

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=41073

Although the Russian LNG exports to Asia mostly to go through the Northern Sea Route, there are certain shipments of Russian oil and LNG that also transits through the Red Sea, especially in winter. Secondly, a significant amount of international container volumes passes through the Red Sea and the Suez Canal. Similarly, the Russian Navy in 2020 has escorted several ships connected to the Nord Stream 2 project. Although the pipe-laying vessel Akademik Cherskiy went round the cape of Good Hope (due the height of the crane), a Baltic Fleet based the Neustrashimyy-class frigate, the ‘Yaroslav Mudry’ was tasked with escorting it. Later, the SCF supply vessels Ostap Sheremet and Ivan Osipenko sailed via the Red Sea from Vladivostok to Kaliningrad, with apparently a Russian Navy escort too.

Thirdly, the Red Sea is also important for the likes of the US Navy, as a vital transit route to the Indian Ocean, (every aircraft carrier transit takes the Suez Canal).

On the whole I am not going to dwell more on why the Yemen, the Bab-el-Mandeb strait is of significance geopolitically, other to note that this has been extensively written about back in August.

Much in the same way as to why China stepped up their naval base footprint in Djibouti, this ensures that there is naval visibility close to the chokepoint of Bab el Mandeb, (given the significant Chinese maritime exports that also transit the Red Sea). Intriguingly, Djibouti is also home to the US Navy and French Navy.

With this global geopolitical tussle taking place, it is worth mentioning that at the end of October, the US Navy Secretary, Kenneth Braithwaite, suggested creating another “fleet closer to the border of the Indian and Pacific Oceans. The proposed 1st Fleet could likely be based out of Singapore, to alleviate the operations of the 7th Fleet.

If the modest Russian naval base becomes operational, the Russian military will have better means of monitoring the ongoing conflict in Yemen and the as well enhance anti-piracy patrols in the north western part of the Indian Ocean. A military presence will somewhat also provide a potential counterbalance to Chinese military presence in the region. A Russian navy presence will potentially stymie further moves by Turkey to establish a presence in the Red Sea region. Turkey had signed an agreement in 2017 with Sudan to boost Turkish military and economic presence in Sudan, (principally in relation to Suakin island). The creation of a military base was subsequently rejected by the Sudanese government in 2019, largely due to positions taken in the Libyan conflict.

The base and ships

The plans for a naval base are still at a very initial stage and could go the same way as the 2017 Sudanese-Turkish military agreement, if the Sudanese government should scrap it. If the plans for the base do get achieved, it will need to be built from scratch and it will be capped to just 4 ships and 300 personnel. Of particular interest is that the likely base will be also capable of having nuclear-powered (surface?) vessels. Regardless of the eventual size of the port infrastructure, the importance rests with the fact that it is a first step in securing a logistics foothold in a busy sea route. The Port Sudan will be set up and operated in the same way as Tartus has been, with anti-sabotage boats (Raptors), air defence unit and repair workshops, (initially a floating ‘PM’ repair ship, but with time, better to have land-based workshops, given the limit of 4 ships).

Frequent visitors will be likely the auxiliary ships, in particular fleet tankers and ocean-going tugs that accompany the long-distance deployments. By having a resupply and logistics base in the Red Sea, the Russian Navy will be able to operate in the region and across the Indian Ocean more often. This latest move by Russia ties into a previous article written on Russian Navy presence in the Indian Ocean.

1.Enhance scope and length of dedicated maritime missions (e.g. Horn of Africa anti-piracy, Indian Ocean):

Crew exchanges can take place, routine maintenance can be done without having a ship returning to the Black or Baltic Sea for instance. Essentially, the Russian Navy will be able to do what the US Navy and Royal Navy have done for decades, but only to a limited extent.

2.Increase in inter-fleet missions across the board, (Northern, Black and Baltic Fleets) and thus the overall maturity of the Russian Navy:

Various units and ships will be able to operate jointly, without the need of having to call into Tartus or Sevastopol, thus breaking up the tempo of long-distance missions.

According to the agreement Russia will operate the base lease-free for an initial 25 years, however there will be infrastructure costs to pay. Additionally, Russia will undertake to provide military equipment at no cost and also provide training to the Sudanese military and help develop further the Sudanese navy. The Sudanese navy recently received a training ship from Russia, as part of 2019 bilateral defence agreements.

Likely infrequent visitors could be Moskva (Project 1164); anti-submarine destroyers, such as the Vice-Admiral Kulakov or Admiral Tributs, (Project 1155) as they have been the mainstay of anti-piracy & Indian Ocean missions in the recent past. Calling into a base for resupply would make Indian Ocean deployments much easier overall and also in a small measure extend the operational life of older ships. Nuclear powered missile cruisers such as ‘Pyotr Veliky’ and the ‘Admiral Nakhimov’ may also call in. Another aspect is that the latest Karakurt (or even at a push the Buyan class) ship could forward deploy from such a base, to potentially carry out anti-piracy missions, which is what they (the Karakurt class) were originally developed for. Naval commentors in the Wes have derided the transformation and modernisation of the Russian Navy into a small-ship fleet, yet the use of small bases such as Tartus and eventually port Sudan have amply demonstrated the wider and greater use of the smaller class of ships, especially the Kalibr carrying combat ships.

Deployment of such class of ships would not be as far-fetched as it seems, because this would enable the larger combat ships to go for longer periods farther away. Additionally, auxiliary ships such as intelligence gathering ships will be able to redeploy quickly and for longer in important areas such as the Arabian Sea or the Gulf for instance.

The development and active use of a base in the Red Sea is also a reflection of the growing maturity of the Russian Navy, still a tiny shadow of the Soviet Navy. The precedence has been set by the sustained activities of the 5th Mediterranean Squadron based out of Tartus. Although its remit and composition are actually quite small and localised in influence, the continued operations demonstrate quiet assertion of focused regional naval projection.

To summarise, the creation of a naval base in the Red Sea is another visible result from the re-establishment and operation of the 5th Squadron, as well as the trickle-down effect of long-distance missions that has been taking place in the last 5 years. The Russian Navy is modestly gaining confidence in increasing by a notch, single or double combat ship deployments further afield as well as their duration.

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!

Expert explains Yemen’s global strategic value & why US/Saudis want it

Source

Description:

An expert on Yemen, Hassan Shaaban, explains the global strategic importance of Yemen and its Bab al-Mandeb waterway, and thus underlines the motives of the American-Saudi military campaign in the impoverished country.

Source: Al-Manar TV via Kalam Siyasi (YouTube Channel)

Date: Oct 25, 2020

(Important Note: Please help us keep producing independent translations for you by contributing as little as $1/month here)
https://www.youtube.com/embed/JtTiaZ73oqU?feature=oembed

Transcript:

Hassan Shaaban, Expert in Yemeni Affairs:

Ever since the bourgeoisie – which originated in Europe right after the fall of the feudal system – decided to colonize the (rest of the) world; extract its wealth; gain control over its (natural) resources; and turn its people into consuming animals; ever since that moment, the Western political psyche, which believes in power-based realism, has come to target every country that stands in its way, and every country that has any degree of influence.

Yemen is situated here, (next to) the Bab al-Mandeb (Strait). (This Strait) is located in a (strategically) vital region. 60% of Europe’s energy supply and one eighth of the global economy flows through (it). Millions of barrels of oil pass through (Bab al-Mandeb) every day.

You are talking about a country that has a grip over (the movement of trade) anywhere in the world, in any region of the world. (For that same reason), the British dug the Suez Canal to form a (direct shipping) route to India and Asia.

Well, Bab al-Mandab is naturally created by God. Britain paid a fortune to build the Suez Canal, and Egypt sacrificed the lives of thousands of its people who died during its construction. (Thus, imagine) how much (the West) is willing to sacrifice to (gain control over) Bab al-Mandeb?

Which (countries) are located near the Bab al-Mandab (Strait). What countries border this (connecting) canal and this line that links Bab al-Mandab to the Suez Canal and the Red Sea?

(First, there is) Saudi Arabia, the Arab Zionist entity that mirrors the Israeli Zionist entity and has a significant influence (in the region).

Host:

We will talk about the benefits that Saudi Arabia (would gain from controlling the Strait)…

Shaaban:

(Second), there is Egypt, historically the oldest and most powerful Arab state. Third, we have Sudan, the richest (in natural resources) and the largest country at some point in history.

Host:

The country that was split, they managed to partition it…

Shaaban:

And here (pointing to the location on the map) are Eritrea, Ethiopia – which used to border the Red Sea – Somalia and Djibouti..

Well, what is there in the Red Sea? Go back to what (Israeli) Zionists have written about the significance of this Sea. Did you know – I am  sure you do – that Eilat (a port city), known as “Umm Al-Rashrash” (in Arabic), is Israel’s only maritime outlet towards Asia? Linking (Israel) to the Red Sea – or as some Israeli strategists call it, “Lake David”, this outlet is vital for the survival of the (Israeli) Zionist entity.

———

Look at the incredible location of Yemen. The Yemeni coastline stretches for around 1,900 miles, equivalent to 2,400 or 2,500 km along the Red Sea and the Arabian Sea.  

Host:

That is 2,500 km along the two seas.

Shaaban:

Yes, (equivalent to) around 1,900 miles.

Did you know that successive Yemeni governments did not form a naval military power despite the important and strategic location of Yemen along the sea?

Host:

What is the reason for that? Why?

Shaaban:

The reason goes back to Yemeni political decision-making…

 Host:

(Decision-making) controlled by the US?…

Shaaban:

(Nods his head) (The absence of a naval force) was an order. When the martyr Yemeni president Ibrahim al-Hamdi came to power in the 1970s, when he started planning and called a conference to discuss the security of the Red Sea, he was assassinated, he was murdered. And the party responsible for the assassination was Saudi Arabia.

The vital location (of Yemen) is significantly important for the colonially-created Gulf entities , and for the (Israeli) Zionist entity, which represents probably the West’s largest global investment. (Yemen) overlooks all of Asia all the way to China, and has this huge region (east Africa) within its reach. (In other words), (Yemen) is (in the region) where Asia and Africa meet. This is where Yemen is located.


Host
:

Do you mean that having control over the Bab al-Mandeb (Strait) is equivalent to having control over global trade (between) continents?

Shaaban:

Yes. It (also) means having control over the strait classified as the third most important worldwide.

Host:

What does the control over the Bab al-Mandeb Strait mean?

Shaaban:

As you have just mentioned in the report, having control over the Bab al-Mandab (Strait) means having control over the movement of the world’s economy, global oil transportation, and the route connecting Europe to India and China, and thereby to Asia. Even if we turn the opposite way, and focus on China and the port that it is trying to build in Pakistan in order to extend its maritime reach, (we will see that…)

Host:

(…that the route) will pass through Yemen and the (Bab al-Mandeb) Strait.

Shaaban:

It is a must. (China’s) “Belt and Road Initiative” passes through (the Strait).

Host:

China’s strategic project will only be completed if…

Shaaban:

(If) it goes through Bab al-Mandeb. Let me tell you something about Bab al-Mandeb. If you zoom in on it, you will see an island that divides it into…

Host:

(into) two channels…

Shaaban:

Exactly. The first (channel) is next to Djibouti, and is not suitable for deep-sea shipping. The other (channel) is about 12 km (in width) on the Yemeni (side). Yes, it is subject to international law, but it falls under Yemen’s sovereignty. (Not to mention that) it is the only channel (among the two) that is navigable. Therefore, what you called the bottleneck is the Yemeni (side of) Bab al-Mandeb.

Host:

The Yemeni (Bab al-Mandeb) not the Djiboutian for example..

Shaaban:

Exactly. Accordingly, if you also take into account (the importance of) Socotra and the group of islands. For example, look, roughly in this region, above Bab al-Mandab, there are groups of islands such as Zuqar, Perim and Hanish. In fact, the Hanish Islands have always been under dispute between Eritrea and Yemen. A confrontation (between the two countries) took place in the nineties because of this issue. The mountain in Zuqar Island rises to 600 meters, or approximately 624 meters. Do you know what this means?

Host:

It means that it overlooks the whole region..

Shaaban:

What if I told you that there are Israeli military bases in Eritrea? There are corvettes and naval vessels navigating in the Red Sea. They are docked at Eretria. What if I told you that there is a French military base in Djibouti, and an American military presence as well?

Host:

There is also a Chinese military base in Djibouti.

Shaaban:

I am going get to that (topic). Djibouti was established only to be rented like hotel. The US, Israel and other countries maintain (military) presences in Somalia. If you go up towards Sudan, you would notice that the Turks recently entered the sea area. The whole world is fighting over this area.

Then in 2014, the Yemenis, despite all that we have talked about, started a revolution, i.e. the revolution of September 21, 2014 under the leadership of Sayyed Abdulmalik Badr al-Din al-Houthi. Sayyed Abdulmalik, who forms (a strong) leadership, project and vision said: “Yemen will not be divided into regions”. Notice that after they (Saudi-led coalition) divided Mahra, Socotra, Abyan – I think – and Hadramout, (Ansarullah) brought them together as one region. In other words, Saudi Arabia wanted (to gain control over) some regions. However, this great Yemeni leader (Sayyed Abdulmalik) came and said: “we will not allow this”.  Saudi Arabia said…

Host:

The question we are seeking to answer is: “why did they wage a war (on Yemen)? Why did they start an aggression against Yemen?”

Shaaban:

Yes. Saudi Arabia said that it wants to (build) an oil pipeline that will pass through here. Furthermore, a Saudi magazine once wrote about (building) a marine channel that will also pass through Hadramout, thus connecting Saudi Arabia to the Arabian Sea. Here is the Indian Ocean and here is the Arabian Sea. What is the idea? Saudi Arabia, and others parties hiding behind it, want to avoid (the Strait of) Hormuz (controlled by) Iran, the great power that they cannot clash with. The solution for (Saudi Arabia) is to flee to the South (to Bab al-Mandeb).

Therefore, unlike what the (Saudis) say, their war in Yemen is not a war against Iran, it is a war to get away from Iran’s influence over the Strait of Hormuz. But unfortunately for them, there is a large force in Yemen called “Ansarullah”, a force with national vision unlike what they try to portray. (Ansarullah forces) have a Yemeni national project. They want to preserve the unity (in Yemen), the unity that the Emirates wants to destroy by dividing (the country). We can get into more details (about that) later. The Yemeni revolution led by Sayyed Abdulmalik gained influence and control over Ma’rib and the channels that we talked about, and thereby saying that “Yemen will not be any country’s backyard”. Yemen is not a territory that anyone can manipulate. It is an independent, sovereign state that has policies, that has the right to be present in this strategic region of the world.

How did (Saudi Arabia and its allies) perceive this issue? They believe that these Yemeni forces (Ansarullah), in one way or another, serve the interest of the Islamic Republic (of Iran) because they do not support America, they do not support Israel, nor are they tools like the (leaders who governed) before the (2014) revolution, before Sayyed Abdulmalik, before Sayyed Hussein’s project, the Quranic project based on the Quranic path.  They are not tools. They are not venal. They do not accept bribes as did many politicians who historically controlled Yemen’s political decision-making.

They will not be assassinated like they assassinated the martyr (President Ibrahim) al-Hamdi, even if they assassinated Sayyed Hussein (al-Houthi). The assassin of Sayyed Hussein got the order directly from these countries (Saudi Arabia and its allies), (who ordered the killing) of Sayyed Hussein because he chanted the slogan: “Death to America, Death to Israel”. What does “Death to America, Death to Israel “mean? (It means) death to the interests of those (who govern) this region of the world, death to their entities in this region of the world, death to their policy in this region of the world, and life to Yemen.

When Sayyed (Hussein al-Houthi) came up with the strategic slogan of Ansarullah, i.e. “Victory to Islam”, (he meant) the Islam that represents the identity and the independence of a nation. Yes, in this case, Yemen with its (strategic) geographical location and its rich history turned into a strategic political project. (Therefore,) it was necessary for (Saudi Arabia and its allies) to wage a war, to start this aggression. It was necessary for them to do what they are currently doing.

Host:

It was also a must for Ansarullah to fight them.

Shaaban:

(They fought) in defense (against the Saudi aggression)

Host:

We will show the outcomes of the (Saudi) aggression (on Yemen) in a quick report, then we will continue…

—-

Subscribe to our mailing list!

Related Posts:

PREVIOUS

Arab analysts predict ‘action-packed’ & ‘dangerous’ end to Trump presidency

التطبيع مأزوم لاهتزاز تغطياته فإلى أين المفرّ؟

د.وفيق إبراهيم

كان متوقعاً ان يرتفع عديد الدول العربية والإسلامية الذاهبة الى التطبيع الكامل مع الكيان الإسرائيلي ليسجل ارقاماً كبيرة بعد مرحلة الانتخابات الرئاسية الأميركية مباشرة.

انتهت هذه الانتخابات الى غير المرتجى منها، لان القائد الأميركي للتطبيع الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب خسرها، محاولاً تفجير الداخل الاجتماعي الأميركي باستثارة العصبيات العرقية والدينية والجهوية والطبقيّة آملاً الدفع نحو فوضى شعبية داخلية، قد تبقيه حسب ما يعتقد رئيساً لمدة اضافية طويلة.

لم يكتف هذا السعار الترامبي بهذا القدر من التوتير، فكلَّف فريقاً من المحامين والقضاة والمتخصصين بدهاليز الانتخابات بتقديم اعتراضات للمحاكم متهماً فيها منافسه الفائز جو بايدن بتزويرها، بمشاركة حزبه الديموقراطية.

إلا أن حظوظ ترامب في هذا المسار باتت في قلب الإفلاس ولن يتأخر طويلاً عن هزيمته لا سيما أن هناك شبه اعتراف سياسي داخلي أميركي بفوز بايدن وإقرار عالمي بذلك.

المسألة إذاً لن تطول أكثر من كانون الثاني المقبل حيث يشهد العالم التسلم والتسليم بين رئيسين أحدهما مهزوم والآخر منتصر، لكنهما لا يختلفان على المشروع المنحصر بتأمين أكبر قدر ممكن من النفوذ الأميركي العالمي، بل يتباينان في الأساليب المعتمدة.

إن تداعيات هذه الأساليب ترمي عادة برذاذها على العالم بأسره، لما للأميركيين من نفوذ عميق، اقتصادي وعسكري وسياسي وثقافي يشمل كافة الدول، لكنه يُمسك بشكل أكثر فاعلية الدول الضعيفة سياسياً والقوية بإمكاناتها الاقتصادية.

واحدة من هذه المناطق هي الدول العربية التي تشكل منذ تأسيسها المصطنع في النصف الاول من القرن العشرين، مجرّد آليات، صنعها الاستعمار البريطاني والفرنسي، لإدارة مناطق تختزن نفطاً وغازاً ومواقع استراتيجية وقدرة على الاستهلاك لأنها لا تصنع شيئاً.

كانت الاستراتيجية الأميركية بالتعامل مع هذه المنطقة تقدم على دعم الأنظمة العربية في وجه شعوبها على اساس الإمساك بالتاريخ ضمن القرون الوسطى، اما على مستوى الخطر الخارجي، فهو غير موجود لأن هذه الأنظمة تشكل حتى اليوم جزءاً من الجيوبولتيك الأميركي الذي لم يتجرأ أحد على مهاجمته في أي من مناطق نفوذه. باستثناء إيران التي تدافع عن نفسها وتحالفاتها في الإقليم لمنع الأميركيين من إلحاقهم بالقرون الوسطى.

هذا الرئيس المهزوم ترامب ذهب بعيداً في أساليبه في المنطقة العربية، مرغماً الإمارات والبحرين والسودان على التطبيع مع «إسرائيل» في إطار خطبة تدريجيّة كانت تضم السعودية وباكستان والمغرب وجزر القمر وقطر وعمان.

هناك سببان يضعان خطة ترامب في حجر زمنيّ قابل للتدمير، الأول هو باكستان التي فاجأ رئيسها عمران خان الأميركيين والسعوديين معاً برفض أي تطبيع لبلاده مع الكيان الإسرائيلي، مؤكداً أن هذا الأمر لا يتحقق إلا بعد إنشاء دولة فلسطينية، وقبول الفلسطينيين بها.

ألا يشكل هذا الموقف صفعة لترامب شخصياً وسياسته المطبقة في الشرق الأوسط، موجّهاً في الوقت نفسه ركلة لكل عرب التطبيع في الإمارات والبحرين والسودان، ومسدداً في العمق ضرباً مبرحاً لأداة الضغط الأساسية في العالم الإسلامي وهي السعودية، التي توزع الرشى والتحشيد من اجل دفع العرب والدول الإسلامية نحو التطبيع.

عمران خان اذاً بطل في زمن محنة، ولأنه استثنائي فلم يُعِرْه الاعلام الغربي أي أهمية مكتفياً بعرض موقفه بشكل موجز وهذا يشمل أيضاً الاعلام العربي، وإعلام المقاومة!!

لجهة السبب الثاني فهو فشل ترامب في الانتخابات الرئاسية، وهذا يعني ظهور أساليب أميركيّة جديدة خاصة بالرئيس بايدن الفائز وحزبه الديموقراطي.

لماذا هذا التغيير في الأساليب الأميركية في الشرق الأوسط العربي أكثر من ضرورة؟

عندما بدأ ترامب رئاسته في 2016، كانت المنطقة العربية، ملتهبة بمئات آلاف الإرهابيين تضرب الدول في المدن والقرى وتحاصر الانظمة السياسية في عواصمها.

لقد ورث ترامب هذه المميزات عن السياسة الأميركية التي دعمت هذا الإرهاب منذ 1990، ووضعت في ذلك التاريخ مشروع الشرق الأوسط الكبير، لذلك استعمل هذه المميزات في خطة فرض التطبيع العربي مع «إسرائيل». لكن ما يجري اليوم أصبح مختلفاً لأن هذا المشروع الأميركي متراجع بشكل كبير، ويتسلم بايدن الحكم في ظل موازنات جديدة في إطار الصراع على القطبية العالمية. فالصين لا تنفك تصعد فيما تُمسك روسيا بمنزلة أقوى قوة عسكرية تقليدية ونووية، هذا بالاضافة إلى أن الاقتصاد الأميركي لا ينفكّ يسجل الخسائر المتصاعدة، بسبب المنافسات الدولية من جهة والكورونا من جهة ثانية، والتي تسببت بضمور كبير في التفاعلات الاقتصاديّة.

هذا يعني أن بايدن متّجه الى تبني أساليب بعيدة عن نهج ترامب القتالي غير المحترف والغوغائي.

فبايدن بحاجة الى التخفيف من الصراعات العسكرية والسياسية لمصلحة جذب عناصر اقتصادية من الخارج بوسعها ترميم اقتصاده الأميركي المتعثر وكبح الصعود الصيني ـ الروسي. بنظام تحالفات جديد يضيف على ما يسيطر عليه الأميركيون حالياً.

هذا يؤشر الى إمكانية أميركية لتعامل جديد مع ايران التي برهنت أنها قوة أساسية في الشرق الأوسط، وذلك لأنها تمسك بالموقع الاستراتيجي ومعظم موارد الثروة والنفوذ السياسي في الإقليم.

فهل هذا ممكن؟

هذا ممكن، إذا توقف الأميركيون عن مسلسل الضغط من أجل التطبيع مع الانسحاب من العراق وسورية وفك الحصار عن إيران.

انها العناوين المقبلة للحوار المفترض الأميركي ـ الإيراني الذي قد يؤدي الى أساليب أميركية جديدة تعمل ايضاً من اجل المصالح الأميركية، الأحادية انما من خلال اساليب مختلفة جذرياً من أساليب البائد ترامب التزاماً فقط بموازنات القوى الجديدة.

RUSSIA RETURNS TO POWER GAME IN RED AND ARABIAN SEAS

South Front

For the first time since the collapse of the USSR, Russia is establishing a naval base close to vital maritime supply lines.

The Russian government revealed on November 11 that Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin approved a draft agreement on creating a naval logistics base in Sudan and gave instructions to submit a proposal to the president on signing the document.  The draft deal was submitted by the Defense Ministry, approved by the Foreign Ministry, the Supreme Court, the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Investigative Committee of Russia and was preliminarily agreed to by the Sudanese side.

According to the agreement, the Russian Navy’s logistics facility in Sudan “meets the goals of maintaining peace and stability in the region, is defensive and is not aimed against other countries.” The base can be used for carrying out repairs and replenishing supplies and for the crewmembers of Russian naval ships to have a rest. The logistics base is expected to embrace the coastal, water and mooring areas.” The Sudanese side has the right to use the mooring area upon agreement with the authorized body of the Russian side,” the document reads.

The text says that a maximum of four warships may stay at the naval logistics base, including “naval ships with a nuclear propulsion system on condition of observing nuclear and environmental safety norms.” Also, Russia will reportedly deliver weapons and military hardware to Sudan in order maintain the air defense of the Port Sudan area, where the Russian naval facility would be located.

The military-technical and security cooperation between Russia and Sudan has significantly increased since 2017. The creation of the Russian naval base there is a logical step to develop this cooperation. It should be noted that the Russian base in Syria’s Tartus also had the name of a ‘logistical facility’ before it was transformed into a fully-fledged naval base.

If this project is fully implemented, this will contribute to the rapid growth of Russian influence in Africa. Russian naval forces will also be able to increase their presence in the Red Sea and in the area between the Gulf of Aden and the Gulf of Oman. Both of these areas are the core of the current maritime energy supply routes. The naval facility will allow Russians to resupply their naval group in the region more effectively and increase the strength of their forces. For example, at least one Russian naval group regularly operates as a part of the anti-piracy mission near Somalia and in the Indian Ocean in general.

The new base will also serve as a foothold of Russia in the case of a standoff with naval forces of NATO member states that actively use their military infrastructure in Djibouti to project power in the region. The increased presence of the Russians in the Red Sea is also a factor that could affect the Saudi-Houthi conflict. If the Russian side opts to indirectly support the Iranian-Houthi coalition, the situation for the Saudi Kingdom will become even more complicated. Its operations to block and pressure the Houthi-controlled port of al-Hudaydah would become much less effective.

It is expected that the United States (regardless of the administration in the White House) will try to prevent the Russian expansion in the region at any cost. For an active foreign policy of Russia, the creation of the naval facility in Sudan surpasses all public and clandestine actions in Libya in recent years. From the point of view of protecting Russian national interests in the Global Oceans, this step is even more important than the creation of the permanent air and naval bases in Syria.

Related News

One ‘NO’ Instead of Three! Sudanese Against Normalization

One ‘NO’ Instead of Three! Sudanese Against Normalization

By Zeinab Abdallah

Beirut – News would read that Egypt and Jordan were the first to normalize ties with the enemy of the Arab and Muslim nation, and were then followed by the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Sudan.

No! It is not the right way to report this particular ‘achievement’. It was the regime in each of Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, Bahrain and Sudan that started cozying up with the occupying regime. When it comes to peoples, they are not the same as their governors.

Peoples are usually blamed for what their rulers commit. However, it is certain for those who refuse to submit that they are capable of making the change despite the ruler’s will. Those people who reject humiliation and submission are ready to clean up the dirt they were forced to be covered with, and reverse the conspiracies made by their heads of states.

Those same peoples are ready to pay their lives for the freedom of Palestine. They are motivated by Muslim’s first Qibla, the holy al-Aqsa Mosque.

Commenting on the Sudanese regime’s normalization with the ‘Israeli’ entity, Deputy Head of [Reform] al-Islah Now Party, and former Sudanese minister Hassan Rizk emphasized that Sudan has been backing the Palestinian cause since 1948, had fought next to the Palestinians and Arabs in all their wars.

It was Sudan that unified the nation and raised the three No’s against peace, recognition and negotiations with ‘Israel’, he added. His comment comes in reference to the fourth Arab League summit that was held in Khartoum on August 29, 1967.

The summit took place in wake of the Arab defeat against the Zionist military in the same year, and it came up with the famous Khartoum Resolution that provides three No’s: No peace with ‘Israel’, no recognition of ‘Israel,’ and no negotiations with ‘Israel’ unless everybody’s right is returned.

Rizk referred to this event as historic and made by great leaders such as al-Mahjoub and al-Azhari, however, he explained: “After 72 years of steadfastness and challenge, there came weak leaders who wasted the cause, followed the collaborators and the colonials, and sold the al-Aqsa Mosque, Palestine, and the nation’s dignity.”

Adding that the normalizers will remain with the Arab nation’s betrayers, the former minister stressed that the Sudanese people won’t abandon their principles, but will definitely abandon their betrayers: “We will keep defending Palestine, its lands, and people, and we will be the first to liberate and enter the al-Aqsa Mosque at the end of the day.”

Mr. Rizk made clear that there isn’t any advantage from normalizing ties with the Zionist enemy, explaining that it was tried previously by other Arab and Muslim nations which didn’t achieve anything. “After Camp David, we lost the African nations that were supporting Palestine and boycotting the occupation entity. Those countries normalized ties and became markets for the enemy.”

The Sudanese minister elaborated on the repercussions of the normalization harming those who were stuck in its mud, recalling how Egypt has lost its agriculture, health, security and leadership, and how the Palestinians have lost their unity, arms, and a lot of lands, not to mention their loss of al-Quds, the construction of settlements, razing their houses, and killing and detaining their women and children.

Rizk underscored that the lack of advantage is also applied for Jordan, Mauritania, Central Africa, Eritrea, and South Sudan… among the many countries that normalized ties with the occupation entity. He then added that the ‘Israelis’ are cheap and don’t pay for the favors made for them.

For his part, member of the General Secretariat of the Arab and Islamic Gathering in Support of the Choice of Resistance, and Sudan branch coordinator, Mr. Idriss Abdul Qadir Ayess stressed that Sudan didn’t stop being the reservoir for anti-Zionist enemy rallies, noting, however, that the ruling regime has stabbed the people in  the back, fallen in the arms of the Gulf states and operated upon their orders. He then outlined that this is rejected by the people although the stance of the transitional government has affected a noticeable part of the people.

Therefore, the Islamic researcher and political activist says: “We find that the Sudanese people today are divided due to the crumpling economy. Most of them believe that it is due to the American blockade and sanctions against the nation; however, they still believe that the Palestinian cause is the main reason to resist normalization.”

Mr. Ayess added that most of the Sudanese people are resisting and rejecting normalization, citing the general gatherings made against normalization and the people’s rejection and embarrassment of this step as an example.

Commenting on the country’s opposition groups, the Sudanese political activist considered that the “Islah” Party is unheard among the people because its symbols have participated in Omar al-Bashir’s government, explaining why they are not listened to by the people.

Relatively, he noted that the anti-normalization individuals today are working strongly to make the government retreat its step through media, popular, and legal pressure. He then reiterated that the people of Sudan won’t submit to the regime’s normalization, will reject it in all means, won’t abandon Palestine and the holy al-Aqsa Mosque.

“The people will strongly operate to put the government in front of two choices. The first is that the government retreats its heinous step, and the other is to topple it,” he added.

Between the two choices stand the only “NO” that sums up the ultimate rejection of any relationship with the occupier of Palestine. There is no need to three No’s! Only one “NO for normalization” is sufficient to save the nation from this disappointment and unite it behind the first and last cause: Palestine!

Related Video

Sayyed Abdulmalik Al-Houthi: Macron Is Nothing But Puppet of Jewish Zionists

ٍSource

2020-10-29 21:32:15

english.almasirah.net:Sayyed Abdulmalik Al-Houthi: Macron Is Nothing But  Puppet of Jewish Zionists

The leader of the revolution, Sayyed Abdulmalik Al-Houthi, said that the Islamic nation today is fraught with problems and crises, and the occasion of the Prophet’s birthday should be a station to face these challenges.

In his speech on the occasion of Prophet Mohammed birthday (PBUH), Sayyed Abdulmalik added that the cause of all the major problems and corruption that our nation and human society suffer from is the deviation from the Prophet’s message.

Regarding the French insult to the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) and the position of the French President Emmanuel Macron towards Islam, Sayyed Abdulmalik Al-Houthi said: Macron is nothing but a puppet of the Jewish Zionists, and they push him to insult Islam and the Messenger (PBUH).

The leader stressed that the tyrants US, Israel and their alliance are an extension of the distortion of the straight path, adding that the Western regime that permits insulting God and prophets, and prevents unveiling the plots of the Zionist Jews, is a witness to the control of the Zionist lobby over Western regimes and media.

Regarding the issue of normalization and between some Arab countries with the Zionist entity, Sayyed Abdulmalik Al-Houthi explained that declaring these deals is a betrayal and participating with enemies to target the nation.

He added that the Saudi authorities allowed the Jews flights while besieging the Yemeni people and imprisoning the free Palestinian people only because of their rightful stance against the Israeli enemy. He added that the Saudi, Emirati, Al Khalifa and the Sudanese regimes are partners with US and Israel in their plots.

About the assassination of the Minister Hassan Zaid, Sayyed Al-Houthi describes it as brutal, holding the Saudi aggression coalition responsible for the crime.

Related Videos

Related News

%d bloggers like this: