Another UN veto by the U.S. in support of the jewish terror state

United States Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley speaks during a UN Security Council emergency session on Israel-Gaza conflict at United Nations headquarter on May 30, 2018 in New York City. (Photo by AFP)United States Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley speaks during a UN Security Council emergency session on Israel-Gaza conflict at United Nations headquarter on May 30, 2018 in New York City. (Photo by AFP)

The United States has vetoed an Arab-backed UN draft resolution calling for measures to protect the Palestinians but failed to win any backing for its own text condemning Hamas for the violence in Gaza.

The two failed votes at the Security Council came a few hours after a young Palestinian woman was shot dead by Israeli soldiers near the Gaza border fence.

At least 123 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli fire since the protests began at the end of March. No Israelis have been killed.

US Ambassador Nikki Haley declared that “it is now completely clear that the UN is hopelessly biased against Israel,” saying council members were “willing to blame Israel, but unwilling to blame Hamas.”

Ten countries, including China, France and Russia voted in favor of the draft put forward by Kuwait on behalf of Arab countries. Four countries — Britain, Ethiopia, the Netherlands and Poland — abstained.

Kuwait’s Ambassador Mansour al-Otaibi said the US veto “will increase the sense of despair among the Palestinians,” fuel further violence and “feed the sentiments of hatred and extremism.”

The Kuwait-drafted text had called for “measures to guarantee the safety and protection” of Palestinian civilians in Gaza and the occupied West Bank, and requested a UN report on proposals for an “international protection mechanism.”

Haley told the council the measure was “wildly inaccurate in its characterization of recent events in Gaza” by condemning Israel for the violence and failing to mention Hamas, which rules Gaza.

“The terrorist group Hamas bears primary responsibility for the awful living conditions in Gaza,” she told the council ahead of the vote.

No support for US draft

During a second vote, the United States failed to win support for its own rival measure calling on Palestinian militants to halt their protests in Gaza and condemning Hamas.

Eleven countries abstained, while Russia and two others opposed it.

A draft resolution requires nine votes to be adopted in the 15-member council and no veto from the five permanent members — Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States.

The outcome deepened the deadlock at the top UN body over how to respond to the flareup of violence in Gaza that a UN envoy has warned is close to the brink of war.

“This session was another missed opportunity for this council,” French Ambassador Francois Delattre said, deploring an “increasingly deafening silence” from the United Nations on the Israeli-Palestinian crisis.

A barrage of rocket and mortars into Israel from Gaza on Tuesday was followed by Israeli strikes on 65 militant sites in the Gaza Strip in the worst flareup since the 2014 war.

Israel has fought three wars in Gaza against Hamas, which the United States considers a terrorist organization.

After the failed votes, Arab diplomats said they were considering turning to the UN General Assembly to win adoption for the US-vetoed resolution.

It was the second time that Haley has resorted to US veto power to block a UN measure on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In December, Haley vetoed a draft resolution that rejected President Donald Trump’s decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem after all 14 other council members supported it.

 

Advertisements

President Lahoud to Al-Ahed: Liberation One of the Most Beautiful Days in My Life

Fatima Salameh

25-05-2018 | 08:49

It would not be a “Resistance and Liberation” holiday without hearing from him. He holds the title of the pro-resistance president and the “man” – described as such by the master of victory.

Emile Lahoud

His national and historic positions, which never abandoned the resistance, testify to that. The path of President Emile Lahoud, the nationalist, is full of honorable stances that carried Lebanon from the age of dependency to liberation. He defended the resistance before he knew them. It is enough that he is one of those who sought to liberate the land. The historic victory of 2000 was the pride of his reign and the result of his courageous positions that supported the path of Jihad at a time when the entire world stood against him. He was offered a lot in exchange for abandoning this path. He chose to work with conscience and in accordance with his convictions, which are not bought and sold.

In an interview with al-Ahed, President Lahoud recalls many stages, from his time as commander of the Lebanese army to the time he took over the presidency. His does not conceal his “joy” with the liberation of the land during his reign. He describes this event with pride. He tells how he learned about Hezbollah and its leader for the first time and how very proud he was of meeting him [the leader]. He often expresses his happiness that he is living in the time of the resistance fighters, who have returned Lebanon’s stolen dignity.

Emile Lahoud

Below is the script of the interview:

Eighteen years after liberation, what does President Emile Lahoud remember from that era?

It is the most beautiful day of my life. Before that date, there was no hope that we would be able to regain our dignity. Our land has been occupied for 22 years. All the officials who inherited the government were accustomed to this issue until it became obvious. Truthfully, I never heard of Hezbollah. When I took over as army commander, I was living in Rayak. The atmosphere was charged against Hezbollah. When I wanted to visit my family in the north, they used to send me telegrams asking me to be careful and watch out for Hezbollah members who intended to kill me. However, the teaching inside the house, which does not know a path of sectarianism, made me not interested in the matter, even though the picture in my mind drawn about Hezbollah is that it was a Takfiri group. When did I learn of Hezbollah? It was in 1991, when I took over the army command. A decision was issued by the Lebanese state to position the army in the South. I went to Tyre. One of the officers told me: “For 22 years, I was deployed here. I was a company commander and we received instructions that ‘if a militant is caught, we must hand him over to the intelligence services, who in turn will imprison him.’ You are a new army commander, what are your instructions for me in such a case?”

I asked him, what is their nationality, are they Palestinians? He said no, they are Lebanese who want to return to their villages, which are occupied by the “Israelis”, and they carry out operations against them. Sometimes we catch them before they arrive as they are on their way to the valleys. What do you want us to do in such a situation? I told him: “Lebanese who want to return to their villages that are occupied by the Zionists are resistance fighters. You have to support them.” He told me, “appreciated” and he rejoiced. It was the first time an officer thought in this way. ” To me, as Emile Lahoud, any nationalist army commander should not ask permission from anyone to issue such an order. Should I stand in the face of those who seek to liberate the land! On the contrary, I should be an absolute support for them.

Then I returned to Beirut and the President of the Republic, Elias Hrawi, told me:

“Emile are you crazy? You are supporting people who are causing trouble at the border. Tomorrow an “Israeli” soldier will be killed and [“Israel”] will attack all of Lebanon.” Do you want to ‘destroy’ Lebanon?

I told him:

“Have you ever heard of an army commander whose land is being occupied and he gives an order to his officers that whoever liberates the land should be imprisoned? We must support them. He told me: I give you an order to confront them. I told him: I will not obey.

In 1993, the resistance became stronger than before. The Zionists were annoyed and exerted pressure on the Americans, who in turn pressured the Lebanese state and the Security Council. The latter took a decision to get rid of Hezbollah. The Lebanese state at the time issued a decision. I remember an incident that took place at the time. Members of the army spoke to me. They told me that a Zionist tank bombed a Lebanese area and killed a woman. What do you want us to do? It was the first experience with “Israel”. I asked them: is there a Lebanese tank in range? They said yes. I said, what are you waiting for? Respond. At this point, the President of the Republic summoned me and told me: “Emile, what is happening? How could you do that and give an order to respond? I told him this is what I must do. He asked me more than once to eliminate Hezbollah with the support of the UNIFIL forces. I told him: You are not understanding me, I will not do it. He told me: ‘Tomorrow is the meeting of the Supreme Council of Defense and you have to attend.’ I said, ‘I will not attend.’ He replied, ‘then we will take the decision without you. Someone else will be the army commander.’ I told him: let him come. I am doing my duty and what my conscience tells me. The next day I came late to the meeting. I found them meeting with the UNIFIL commander. They designed a map for the elimination of Hezbollah. I told them: what are you doing? Fold this map. The commander of the UNIFIL forces replied: ‘they have taken the decision in the Security Council.’ I told him: let them take whatever they want. I will not comply. Let them bring another army commander to carry out what they want. What right does the Lebanese state have to order a national army to strike its people because the “Israelis” are annoyed?

Emile Lahoud

All this and you had no interaction with Hezbollah. When was your first direct contact with them?

After all these years, there was no contact between us. But there was absolute support on my part.

The first contact in which I got to know Hezbollah was in 1997 when I got a call saying that Hadi, the son of the Secretary General of the party, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, was martyred. I told them, this is the first time that an Arab leader presents his son as a martyr. I want to get to know him. Indeed, the measures were taken. I found him relaxed although the news of his son’s martyrdom was announced an hour before my visit. We spoke for about ten minutes as I consoled him. I felt that we would win and triumph with this leader. Days passed, and we did not meet. In 2000, at the time of the liberation, Sayyed Nasrallah asked me to meet him. So we met and he presented me with an “Israeli” rifle. After that, I never saw him until I left the presidency. At the time, we sat for about three hours and talked about everything. He told me, ‘I do not know you.’ I told him, ‘We met in good conscience.’

What does to Emile Lahoud that the land was liberated during his reign as you have always described this event with pride?

It means my dignity. I take pride in this event very much. I am glad that the dignity of the Lebanese had been restored during my days. Is it possible that the “Israelis” occupy our land for 22 years and no one is shaken. Only a handful of resistance fighters met and liberated the land and defended us. Without them, “Israel” would have been among us.

How did the liberation of the land contribute to your military experience?

We can achieve the impossible. Many asked me what I was doing. No one can resist “Israel”. I told them, you will see. The resistance is the immunity of Lebanon. I am surprised how some people speak after the conclusion of the elections on the need to disarm the resistance, after all that it has done! They certainly get money from their masters who incite them to do so.

How do you perceive the golden equation, which you supported early on?

Without the golden equation, Lebanon would no longer exist, especially after the events that took place in Syria and Iraq, which made Lebanon strong and able to stand up to “Israel”. Unfortunately, we did not learn that we must preserve it through national action and not through sectarianism.

Today, the Palestinians are doing all they can to liberate their land. What is your advice for them given the experiences with the liberation of Lebanese lands?
There is no talk with “Israel” except in the language of force. I do not want to criticize, but when I hear some Palestinian officials talking about the need for a settlement, this does not return the land. The solution is only by force, just as we did in Lebanon. Here, I recall an incident. At one of the closed summits of the Arab heads of state in Khartoum, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said ‘how can I possibly pay for the salaries for the ‘Strip’ when the Zionists are not allowing the funds to arrive. I ask you Arabs to mediate with the concerned parties to put pressure on “Israel” so that the money can reach us. I told him, ‘Abu Mazen, behave like we did in Lebanon. It is shameful to beg for our salaries. We have to attack them by force. If you acted like Lebanon, you will not be here right now.’

You have always said that the the crisis in Syria will conclude with a victory. How do you describe the situation seven years after the crisis started?

Syria triumphed. The losers including the Zionists and the Arabs are coveting a winning card. That is why they are pressing in the last quarter. But they will not triumph. The crisis will soon be over and with it the conspiring mentality in Lebanon will end.

A final word

How lucky we are that we have lived in the time of the resistance and the men who sacrificed themselves for the homeland.

Source: Al-Ahed

Related Articles

israel, US Try to Block International Force for Gaza Strip

Israel, US Try to Block International Force for Gaza Strip

US intends to veto measure at UN Security Council

A draft resolution backed by Kuwait and by the Palestinian Authority is headed to the UN Security Council this week, seeking the creation of an international force in the Gaza Strip to prevent further Israeli attacks on the area.

The Security Council resolution likely will have a majority of votes, but the US has signaled that they will veto it. Both the US and Israel are feverishly working to try to kill any support for the resolution. Israeli envoy Danny Danon claims the resolution would be a violation of Israel’s sovereignty, and amounts to a support of war crimes.

The draft is unlikely to die in the Security Council, however, with Palestinian officials saying they intend to advance the matter to the UN General Assembly after a US veto. A General Assembly vote would be non-binding, but still significant.

Earlier this month, the US vetoed a resolution calling for an independent international probe of civilian deaths in the Gaza Strip. The UN Human Rights Council subsequently announced such a probe despite the veto.

Growing international disquiet over the civilian deaths in Gaza seems lost on the US and Israel, who are insisting that not only were the killings legally permissible, but that any questioning of the deaths is tantamount to terrorism itself.

UN Observer Calls for Probe into israeli Crimes in Gaza as US Blocks UNSC Statement

UN Observer Calls for Probe into Israeli Crimes in Gaza as US Blocks UNSC Statement

 

.singleblog-contan .summary-image:not(:first-child){
display: none;
}

15 May
8:39 PM

 

 

 

 

Permanent observer to the UN, Riyad Mansour, Tuesday, called for a transparent and independent investigation into the deadly violence in the Gaza Strip, and said that Palestinians will endorse the results of the investigation in advance.

He told the 15 members of the Security Council that Israel is the main source of violence in the region and any attempt to forge this fact is not consistent with reality.

“We ask those who have different accounts; why are you obstructing a transparent and independent investigation? We accept in advance the results of this investigation called for by 14 members of the Council and the Secretary-General of the United Nations.”

He affirmed, according to WAFA, that Palestinians accept the results in advance and asked if the countries blocking the investigation are ready to accept it along with its consequences.

The United Nations Security Council met on Tuesday, to discuss violence along the border between Israel and the Gaza Strip, following the deadliest day during which dozens of Palestinians have been killed by Israeli armed forces.

Nikolay Mladenov, UN Special Coordinator addressed the council members and said the killing acts in Gaza don’t serve the peace process. He strongly condemned the events in the Gaza Strip and held Israel responsible for the use of lethal force, which led to the high death toll.

He said that Palestinians in Gaza are protesting because of poverty and for living in a large prison with no future. Palestinians in Gaza are frustrated and angry. If their voices are not heard, more destruction will happen, he explained.

Kuwait called for the session after 60 Palestinians were killed and thousands wounded by Israeli gunfire amid mass protests, on Monday, against opening the US embassy in Jerusalem.

Mansour Al-Otaibi, Kuwait’s ambassador to UN condemned the killing of over 60 Palestinians and said that Israel’s violation of International law would not have continued if it wasn’t for the lack of action by the Security Council.

He added that moving embassies to the city of Jerusalem is a violation of all decisions adopted by the Security Council and affirmed his country’s support of any Palestinian move on the national and the international level to solidify its sovereignty in the occupied city of Jerusalem.

Al-Otaibi said he would circulate a draft resolution to the 15-member council on Wednesday calling for the provision of international protection for the Palestinian people.

Sacha Sergio, the representative of Bolivia to the Security Council said “We must demand that the UN Security Council implement its commitments, as it will not achieve anything for the Palestinians.”

He added that the international community and the UN Security Council have completely failed the Palestinians and the world must work to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and stop the illegal occupation of Palestine.

Sergio condemned the transfer of the US Embassy to occupied Jerusalem, “because this is a violation of the resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly, and the United States, which supports the occupation has become an obstacle to peace and part of the problem and not part of the solution.”

He called for an independent investigation into what happened in the Gaza Strip and to work to end the occupation and establish a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders in line with UN resolutions and the UN Security Council.

PNN further reports that the Trump administration, on Monday, blocked a statement by the UN Security Councilthat was intended to call for an investigation of the events on the Israel-Gaza border.

The statement, circulated by Kuwait, included an expression of rage and sorrow on behalf of the Security Council over Israel killing more than 50 Palestinians on Monday. However, the US blocked the statement from being adopted and published.

The Kuwaiti statement also included a call for the creation of an “independent and transparent investigation” into Israel’s actions on the border.

It wasn’t the first time that the U.S. has blocked an action at the Security Council related to Israel’s actions in Gaza, but was notable in light of the high death toll yesterday in Gaza – the highest since the end of the 2014 war between Israel and Hamas

israel Withdraws From Race for UN Security Council Seat

Israel Withdraws From Race for UN Security Council Seat

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) – Israel withdrew on Friday from a race against Germany and Belgium for two seats on the United Nations Security Council in 2019-20.

FILE PHOTO: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attends the weekly cabinet meeting at the Prime Minister’s office in Jerusalem April 15, 2018. Gali Tibbon/Pool via Reuters/File Photo

The 193-member U.N. General Assembly is due to vote next month on five new members for a two-year term starting on Jan. 1, 2019. Israel, Germany and Belgium were competing for two seats allocated to the Western European and Others Group.

Germany and Belgium are now running uncontested, but they still need to win more than two-thirds of the overall General Assembly vote to be elected.

“It was decided that we will continue to act with our allies to allow for Israel to realise its right for full participation and inclusion in decision-making processes at the U.N.,” Israel’s mission to the United Nations said in a statement.

Regional groups generally agree upon the candidates to put forward and competitive races for seats are increasingly rare. Each year the General Assembly elects five new members.

Richard Grenell, who was sworn in as the U.S. ambassador to Germany on Thursday, said in March that the United States had brokered a deal in the 1990s with countries in the U.N.’s Western European and Others Group to allow Israel to run uncontested for a seat.

Grenell, who was the U.S. spokesman at the U.N. from 2001 to 2009, tweeted about the issue on March 14. “Israel has waited 19 years! The US must demand that Europe keep its word,” he said.

German diplomats denied any such agreement was made. The Israeli mission to the U.N. declined to comment at the time on Grenell’s tweet.

The council, on which the five permanent members – the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia – hold veto powers, is the only U.N. body that can make legally binding decisions, as well as imposing sanctions and authorizing the use of force.

To ensure geographical representation on the council, there are five seats for African and Asian states; one for Eastern European states; two for the Latin American and Caribbean states; and two for Western European and other states.

Indonesia and the Maldives are competing for one Asia-Pacific seat in 2019-20, while South Africa and the Dominican Republic are running uncontested for the African and Latin American and Caribbean group seats.

ماذا بعد هزيمة العدوان الثلاثيّ الصاروخي الفاشل؟

أبريل 17, 2018

العميد د. أمين محمد حطيط

وضعاً للأمور في نصابها نقول إن قرار العدوان الثلاثي على سورية اتخذ في الأيام الأولى لنجاح الجيش العربي السوري في اختراق الغوطة وشقها الى جزءين ثم ثلاثة، في مشهد يؤكد أن منظومة الدفاع الإرهابي في المنطقة قد سقطت وأن المواقع الحصينة المحضّرة بإتقان فوق الأرض وتحتها لم تجدِ أصحابها نفعاً ولم تدفع عنهم خطر العمليات العسكرية التي ينفّذها الجيش العربي السوري وحلفاؤه وفقاً لاستراتيجية محكمة وخطة تنفيذية عالية الإتقان وأداء ميداني محترف قلّ نظيره.

لقد راهن معسكر العدوان بقيادة أميركا للاحتفاظ بالغوطة الشرقية كورقة استراتيجية هامة على أمرين:

الأول الوضع الميداني لمسرح العمليات، حيث تمّ ترتيبه وتعزيزه وتجهيزه وتحصينه بشكل مميّز يصعب على أي جيش مهما كانت قدراته اقتحامه من دون أن يتكبّد خسائر لا تُحتمل. ففي 120 كلم2 من الأرض المبنية التي تكاد تكون في معظمها غابة من الباطون من المسلح فوق الأرض وتحولّت مواقع قتال حصينة ثم جهّزت بالأنفاق ومراكز القتال على مساحة 80 كلم2 تحت الأرض وزوّد الإرهابيون الـ 25 ألفاً فيها بأفضل منظومات القيادة والسيطرة والأسلحة والذخائر، وتولّى إدارة العمليات العسكرية فيها 300 خبير أطلسي وإقليمي وكلّف الطيران الإسرائيلي بتقديم الإسناد الجوي عند الاقتضاء.

أما الثاني، فقد كان رهان على «الهيبة» الأميركية والقدرات السياسية والدبلوماسية التي ستمنع الجيش العربي السوري من اقتحام المنطقة وتطهيرها من الإرهاب حتى آخر شبر منها، لقد توقّعوا عمليات محدودة على حدود الغوطة لا تتجاوز الكلم من العمق. وظل رهانهم هذا قائماً بعد سقوط رهانهم الأول حتى وصلت طلائع الجيش العربي السوري الى دوما التي فيها 12 الفاً من إرهابيي منظمة جيش الإسلام الذين هم الأفضل تنظيماً وتسليحاً من باقي الإرهابيين ويعملون في مدينة يتطلّب قتال الشوارع فيها لتطهيرها أشهراً طويلة من غير شك.

بيد أن رهانات الغرب سقطت بوجهيها السياسي والعسكري وأكدت سورية وحلفاؤها امتلاكهم قدرة مركبة في الميدان والسياسة، فضلاً عن الاقتدار في الحرب النفسية وقرّروا المضيّ في العملية العسكرية لتطهير الغوطة من دون أن يكون في الأمر تراجع أو بديل.

هنا أدرك الغرب القرار السوري وهاله أن يُنفذ، ولأنه يعرف تداعياته الاستراتيجية على مسار الازمة السورية برمّتها بوجهيها العسكري والميداني، فإنه اتخذ القرار بالتدخل العسكري ليس لوقف تنفيذ القرار السوري وقد بات مستحيلاً، بل لمنع سورية وحلفائها من استثمار الانتصار الاستراتيجي هذا، ورسم مشهد يعيد التوازن الى الميدان ويفتح الطريق إلى عملية سياسية متكافئة بين المعتدي والمدافع المعتدى عليه تتجاوز مكتسبات سورية في السنوات الأخيرة.

وعلى هذا الأساس خطّط للعدوان العسكري الأطلسي ليحقق أهدافاً استراتيجية كبرى تمر عبر إنجازات عسكرية مؤكّدة أما الأهداف فقد كانت كما تسرّب صراحة أو مداورة أو من فلتات اللسان، تتضمّن إلزام إيران والقوى المقاومة المتحالفة معها بالخروج من سورية ووقف مسارات استنا وسوتشي والعودة إلى العملية السياسية، وفقاً لمسار جنيف بصيغته الأولى أي بيان 30 حزيران 2012 وهذا ما أكدت عليه القمة العربية في الظهران والتي لم تقرأ ما حصل وقرّرت كما كانت تتمنّى، وكما خططت أميركا على أساس أن العدوان حقق أهدافه . لقد خطّطوا للأمر على أساس تجاوز كل انتصارات سورية خلال السنوات الثلاث الماضية. وهو حمق لا يقاربه حمق، لكنهم كانوا يعوّلون على العمل العسكري الذي سيلزم سورية بالإذعان، حسب ظنهم.

اما العملية العسكرية التي كان مخططاً لها فقد كانت تشمل عمليات تدمير أهداف عسكرية وسياسية وإدارية تؤدي إلى شل قدرات الدولة السورية وتنفذ خلال أيام لا تقلّ عن أسبوع. وقد تتجاوز عشرة أيام بقليل، عملية تكون دون الحرب الشاملة المفتوحة وفوق العملية المحدودة السريعة. ولهذا أسميناها يومها بعملية متوسطة الشدّة.

ومع وضع القرار العدواني موضع التنفيذ بدأت الصعوبات تظهر وبدأت العوائق تتشكل بسبب المواقف الصلبة والحازمة التي اتخذتها سورية وحلفاؤها في محور المقاومة وروسيا، مواقف فرضت هذا التراجع على المخطط الى درجة حشر فيها في زاوية الإحراج الشديد.

كان التراجع الأول في التوقيت، فبعد أن كانت الخطة تقضي بشن شبه حرب نحتفظ بمصطلح الحرب للخيار الثالث تنطلق في مطلع الأسبوع وتستبق جلسة مجلس الأمن التي دعت اليها روسيا، اجل الامر لما بعد الجلسة والذي تابع مجريات جلسة الثلاثاء وإقفال باب الدبلوماسية فيها بعد إسقاط 3 مشاريع قرارات تتعلق بسورية خرج بانطباع أن بدء العمليات العسكرية سيكون خلال ساعات من إغلاق مجلس الامن في نهاية الجلسة، لكن الإطلاق لم يحصل. وهذا ما حاول تبريره ترامب عندما قال أنا لم أحدد موعداً لبدء العمليات بعد.

أما التراجع الثاني، وهو الأخطر والأهم، فقد كان في طبيعة العملية بذاتها، وهنا كان الانقلاب المفصلي وكانت الصفعة المدوية التي سفّهت أحلام بولتون في الشهر الأول لتوليه منصبه مستشاراً للأمن القومي الأميركي. فبعد أن كانت العملية مخططة لتكون من فئة العمليات الاستراتيجية المؤثرة على قدرات سورية العسكرية وتقلب موازين القوى تبدّلت لتصبح من طبيعة العمليات المنخفضة الشدة لا بل في الدرجة الأدنى من الانخفاض الأقرب الى الاستعراضية، وإلا كيف نفسّر اقتصار الأهداف على أربعة، فيها اثنان من الأهداف المدمّرة أو المقصوفة سابقاً. وبالتالي يمكن القول إن العملية التي هدد بها لم تنفذ، وان الضربة العدوانية التي لجئ اليها هي فعل ضرورة لحفظ ماء الوجه وتحديد الخسارة المعنوية والحدّ من تآكل الهيبة الأطلسية. ما يعني أن بإمكاننا القول إن تهديد أميركا بالضربة لم ينفذ، بل نفّذ عمل آخر لا صلة له به.

أما النتيجة فقد كانت مشرّفة لسورية وحلفائها وكارثية على حلف العدوان الثلاثي. ففي حين لم تحقق الضربة شيئاً على الإطلاق بما في ذلك الخسائر المادية ذات الأثر الموجع، رسمت عمليات التصدي وردود الفعل صورة مشرقة لسورية في أبعادها الأربعة، البعد العسكري وفيه الاقتدار والشجاعة والكفاءة العالية التي يتمتّع بها الجيش العربي السوري في تصديه للعدوان وإسقاط صواريخه كالفراش المبثوث، والبعد القيادي وتكفي فيه الصورة المزلزلة لأصحاب العدوان والتي ظهر فيها الرئيس الأسد يحمل حقيبته وفيها ملفاته، ويدخل صباحاً مكتبه ليبدأ العمل باكراً كالمعتاد،

والبعد السياسي وفيها التشبث بكل ثوابت سورية من دون الميل عنها قيد أنملة، كما عبر بيان الخارجية السورية، وأخيراً البعد الشعبي الذي يشكّل بحد ذاته صدمة تُذهل المعتدي. وهو يرى ساحات المدن السورية تغصّ منذ الصباح بالسوريين المبتهجين بالنصر والهازئين بصواريخ العدو.

هذه اللوحات من المشهد السوري أنتجت كارثة للثالوث المعتدي في كارثة سيُبنى عليها بدون أدني شك في ما تبقى من مواجهة خاصة، حيث إن هذه القوى تأكدت من خسارتها المتشعبة وعلى الشكل التالي:

ميدانياً: خسرت الغوطة وهي أخطر وأهم ورقة استراتيجية كانت تمسك بها للضغط الأمني والسياسي على دمشق وتحتاجها لخدمة استراتيجية إطالة امد النزاع الأميركية.

عسكرياً: خسرت الهيبة وورقة التهديد بالحرب الشاملة، حيث إن قوى العدوان لمست بالمحسوس الملموس أن التهديد بالحرب المفتوحة لم يعد مجدياً لأنها غير مستعدة لها أصلاً ولأنها لا تستطيع اتقاء مخاطرها مؤكداً.

سياسياً: خسرت في هذا الكثير وتكفي مراجعة جلسات مجلس الأمن والتعلق السوري والروسي فيها، مقابل المراوغة والعجز الغربي الذي لجأ أصحابه الى الكذب لنقول كم كانت الخسارة الغربية فادحة.

استراتيجياً: خسرت فرصة أو إمكانية استعادة التوازن الى المشهد السوري. وهو أمر تحتاج اليه لتدخل الى مفاوضات الحل السياسي النهائي للأزمة الذي يحفظ لها مكاسب ومصالح في سورية، كما تبتغي.

والآن نعود الى السؤال ماذا بعد هذه المواجهة، ونرى أن الرد بسيط، من هُزم وفشل لا يستطيع أن يملي شروطه، وبالتالي لا نرى أن ما طالبت به دول العدوان واتباعها من العودة إلى جنيف الآن ممكناً، لأن مسار جنيف أصيب بشظايا توماهوك أميركي فجّر بصاروخ أس 200 سوري من صنع روسي، فسدّ مسار جنيف ليبقى مفتوحاً مسارا استنه وسوتشي سياسياً وطرق الميدان عسكرياً لاستكمال استعادة الأرض مطهّرة بلا إرهاب.

أستاذ جامعي وباحث استراتيجي.

Alas, this is far from over!

Alas, this is far from over!

April 15, 2018

Let’s begin by a short summary of events.

  • About a month ago Nikki Haley announces to the UNSC that the USA is ready to violate the rules of this very self-same UNSC should a chemical attack happen in Syria
  • Then the Russians announced that they have evidence that a chemical false flag is being prepared in Syria
  • Then a chemical attack (supposedly) takes place (in a location surrounded and, basically, controlled by government forces!)
  • The OPWC sends investigators (in spite of western powers loudly proclaiming that no investigation was needed)
  • The AngloZionists then bomb Syria
  • Next, the UNSC refuses to condemn the violation of its own rules and decisions
  • Finally, the US Americans speak of a ‘perfect strike’

Now tell me – do you get a sense that this is over?

If you tell me that 32/103 is hardly perfect, I will reply that you are missing the point.  In fact, if anything, 32/103 is further incentive to bomb again!

Let’s look at the differently for a second and ask this: what has the AngloZionist attack actually demonstrated?

  • The western general public is so terminally zombified that false flag attacks can now be announced 4 weeks in advance
  • The Europeans now live by the motto “my honor is called solidarity” (a variation of the SS motto “my honor is loyalty“)
  • Lead by the USA, western countries have no objections to wars started in violation of their own national laws
  • The UN Security Council has no objections to wars started in violation of the UN Charter and International Law
  • The PRC leaders, in their infinite wisdom, act as if they have nothing personal at stake and act like bystanders
  • The Israelis, via the UN Neocons, are now in total control of the Empire and use it to “clean house” next door

Oh, I hear the objections.  They go something like this:

– But the attack was a dismal failure!
– So what? the Empire did not pay any price for executing it.
– But the US Americans did blink! The attacked from Jordanian airspace and from the Red Sea! They avoided the Russians completely!  They are afraid of them!
– So what? They still bombed a Russian ally with total impunity.
– But, surely you are not suggesting that the Russians should have started a war against the USA over a strike which did not even kill a single person?
– No, of course not, but by not taking any action the Russians also failed to deter any future attacks.
– But what could the Russians have done?

Now *that* is the right question!

Let’s look at it a little closer.  Roughly speaking, the Russians have a choice of 3 types of retaliatory measures: political, economic and military.  However, each one of them has a specific set of prerequisites which are currently problematic to say the least:

Measures Political Economic Military
Prerequisites Assumes a minimal amount of decency, integrity and respect for the rule of law by the rest of the planet. Assumes that other countries, especially China, would be willing and able to support such measures. Assumes that Russia has the military capability to defeat the AngloZionist “coalition”.
Current reality Russia can moan, bitch, complain, protest, appeal to higher values, logic or facts – nobody gives a damn. The Chinese and the rest of them are not willing to do anything at this time to support Russia. Russia can militarily defeat the AngloZionists, but only by risking the future of our planet.

This really can be summarized a simple sentence: the AngloZionist Hegemony is a threat for the entire planet, but nobody besides Russia and Iran is willing to take it on.  Ain’t that an irony!

The so-called “Christian West” has become a willing host for its Zionist parasite and the only ones with the courage and moral integrity to take it on are Orthodox Christians and Muslims! Sic transit gloria mundi indeed…

But what is even more important is this: while it is true that the US Neocons did not succeed in delivering the kind of massive attack they would have wanted to, and while it is true that the US attack was just about as lame as can be, you need to completely forget about these facts.  Facts simply don’t matter.  And neither does logic.  All that matters are perceptions!

And the perception is that “we” (the AngloZionist rulers and their serfs) “kicked” Assad’s “ass” and that “we” will “do it again” if “we” feel like it.  That is all that matters in the Empire of Illusions which the AngloZionist Hegemony has become.

As soon as you understand that, you also will have to agree that Trump was right: it was a “perfect strike” (again, not in reality, but in the world of illusions created around it).

So now we come full circle.

The AngloZionist Hegemony demands that the entire planet bows down and worships it.  Except for Russia and Iran, everybody meekly goes down on their knees or, at most, meekly looks away.  In their own delusional reality, the ‘Mericans feel empowered to smack down Russia or Iran at anytime.  There is nothing Iran can do to stop them, and while Russia can, she can only do that at the risk of the future of our entire planet.

Now you tell me – do you really think this is over?

The Saker

%d bloggers like this: