US Jews disappointed that 150 bomb threats in USA since early January were fake & made by an israeli jew

US Jews wrestle with arrest of Jew in bomb threats case
Jewish groups had pointed to scores of bomb threats against their communities as the most dramatic example of what they considered a surge in anti-Semitism. Some blamed a far-right emboldened by President Donald Trump. Now, that picture has been complicated by the arrest of an Israeli Jewish hacker who authorities say is responsible for the harassment.

Israeli police said the motive behind the threats was unclear. An attorney for the 19-year-old man, who was arrested Thursday, said her client had a “very serious medical condition” that might have affected his behavior. Earlier this month, U.S. law enforcement had arrested a former journalist in St. Louis, Juan Thompson, on charges he threatened Jewish organizations as part of a bizarre campaign to harass his former girlfriend. But Israeli police say the Jewish teen is the primary suspect in the more than 150 bomb threats in North America since early January.

Previously, Jonathan Greenblatt, chief executive of the Anti-Defamation League, which fights anti-Semitism and monitors extremism, had partly blamed Trump for creating an atmosphere that fueled the bomb threats and vandalism of Jewish cemeteries, among other recent harassment. “His well-documented reluctance to address rising anti-Semitism helped to create an environment in which extremists felt emboldened,” Greenblatt wrote last month.

On Feb. 28, in a meeting with state attorneys general, Trump had suggested the phoned-in bomb threats may have been designed to make “others look bad,” according to Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro. The remark raised concerns that Trump was downplaying bigotry. That same night, Trump opened his address to Congress with a strong condemnation of the threats and vandalism of Jewish cemeteries, which occurred in suburban St. Louis, Philadelphia and elsewhere.

In a phone interview Thursday from Washington, where Greenblatt was discussing anti-Semitism with members of Congress, he said, “It’s not the identity of the culprit that’s the issue,” but the outcome of threats themselves, which terrified Jews and disrupted Jewish life.

He said anti-Semitism remained a serious concern, pointing to other recent incidents around the country. Swastikas were drawn throughout a New York City subway car with messages such as “Jews belong in the oven.” In South Carolina, a white supremacist with felony convictions was charged with plotting an attack on a synagogue that officials said was inspired by the massacre at Emanuel AME Church in Charleston. A Seattle synagogue was vandalized with a spray-painted message, “The Holocaust is fake history.”

Steven Goldstein, executive director of the Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect, a civil rights and social justice group based in New York, said the arrest in Israel doesn’t change Trump’s record of being slow and insufficiently forceful in condemning anti-Jewish prejudice and bigotry in general. The center had repeatedly pointed to the bomb threats as evidence of “a national emergency of anti-Semitism” and accused Trump of failing to recognize the “real evidence” behind the problem.

“Nobody has said that Donald Trump himself has spray-painted swastikas or tipped over gravestones or that he picked up the phone and made bomb threats,” Goldstein said. “What we were condemning was the silence. Organizations had to shame Donald Trump into responding.”

The White House has not commented on Thursday’s arrest.

Melissa Plotkin, director of community engagement and diversity at the York Jewish Community Center in Pennsylvania, which was the target of a bomb threat last month, said it was “troubling” to find out the suspect was Jewish. “I’m trying to make sense of it and wonder what was going through the mind of the person when they were carrying this out,” Plotkin said. The Jewish Federations of North America called the case “heartbreaking.”

Rabbi Joshua Hammerman of Temple Beth El in Stamford, Connecticut, said the case was an uncomfortable reminder of what he had been through. In 1999, medical waste marked with swastikas was left in his synagogue parking lot. The incident prompted an outpouring of support from religious leaders and others in the community. But then police charged a member of his congregation, an outcome Hammerman described as “somewhat embarrassing” and “difficult.”

The rabbi expressed concern that the arrest of the Israeli-American teen would fuel denial of anti-Semitism and the Holocaust. Goldstein said his office had received emails Thursday claiming all reports of anti-Semitism were “fake news.”

“I think we should never jump to conclusions as to who did a particular act and allow the process of investigation to play itself out,” Hammerman said in a phone interview. “On the other hand, we should be equally vocal in calling out those who seem to condone such activity or at least don’t explicitly condemn it.”

Andrew Rehfield, chief executive of the Jewish Federation of St. Louis, said “finding out this guy was Jewish was baffling to us.” Rehfield was among local leaders who organized the community’s response to the cemetery vandalism last month, which drew donations and offers of help from Christians and Muslims, and political leaders from around the country. Some Jewish institutions in Missouri had also received bomb threats.

Rehfield worried that efforts to combat anti-Semitism would be undermined not only by the identity of the bomb threat suspect, but also the partisan prism through which such incidents are viewed. Rehfield had been criticized by opponents of Trump for accompanying Vice President Mike Pence on a visit to the vandalized cemetery. Then on Thursday, Rehfield said a Jewish Trump supporter distributed an email demanding Jewish leaders apologize to the president now that police say a Jew was responsible for the threats.

“I think it does speak to the extremism on either side and the lack of charity and the lack of nuance,” Rehfield said. “None of us attributed this to Trump. None of us attributed this to (White House chief strategist Steve) Bannon. None of us attributed it to David Duke. I’m not going to apologize for wanting the administration to clearly condemn anti-Semitism.”

 

“Israel maintains a regime of apartheid over Palestinians” 

“Israel maintains a regime of apartheid over Palestinians” — UN report

Report by the UN Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) 2017
Palestine and the Israeli Occupation, Issue №1
Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid

UN group cowers to Israeli & US complaints – takes down report finding Israel guilty of apartheid

United Nations

“The report concludes that the weight of the evidence supports beyond a reasonable doubt the proposition that Israel is guilty of imposing an apartheid regime on the Palestinian people, which amounts to the commission of a crime against humanity, the prohibition of which is considered jus cogens in international customary law.”

This report was commissioned by the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) from authors Mr Richard Falk and Ms Virginia Tiley.

This report examines, based on key instruments of international law, whether Israel has established an apartheid regime that oppresses and dominates the Palestinian people as a whole. Having established that the crime of apartheid has universal application, that the question of the status of the Palestinians as a people is settled in law, and that the crime of apartheid should be considered at the level of the State, the report sets out to demonstrate how Israel has imposed such a system on the Palestinians in order to maintain the domination of one racial group over others.

A history of war, annexation and expulsions, as well as a series of practices, has left the Palestinian people fragmented into four distinct population groups, three of them (citizens of Israel, residents of East Jerusalem and the populace under occupation in the West Bank and Gaza) living under direct Israeli rule and the remainder, refugees and involuntary exiles, living beyond. This fragmentation, coupled with the application of discrete bodies of law to those groups, lie at the heart of the apartheid regime. They serve to enfeeble opposition to it and to veil its very existence. This report concludes, on the basis of overwhelming evidence, that Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid, and urges swift action to oppose and end it.


Executive Summary

This report concludes that Israel has established an apartheid regime that dominates the Palestinian people as a whole. Aware of the seriousness of this allegation, the authors of the report conclude that available evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that Israel is guilty of policies and practices that constitute the crime of apartheid as legally defined in instruments of international law.

The analysis in this report rests on the same body of international human rights law and principles that reject anti-Semitism and other racially discriminatory ideologies, including: the Charter of the United Nations (1945), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965). The report relies for its definition of apartheid primarily on article II of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1973, hereinafter the Apartheid Convention):

The term “the crime of apartheid”, which shall include similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practiced in southern Africa, shall apply to… inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.

Although the term “apartheid” was originally associated with the specific instance of South Africa, it now represents a species of crime against humanity under customary international law and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, according to which:

“The crime of apartheid” means inhumane acts… committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.

Against that background, this report reflects the expert consensus that the prohibition of apartheid is universally applicable and was not rendered moot by the collapse of apartheid in South Africa and South West Africa (Namibia).

The legal approach to the matter of apartheid adopted by this report should not be confused with usage of the term in popular discourse as an expression of opprobrium. Seeing apartheid as discrete acts and practices (such as the “apartheid wall”), a phenomenon generated by anonymous structural conditions like capitalism (“economic apartheid”), or private social behaviour on the part of certain racial groups towards others (social racism) may have its place in certain contexts. However, this report anchors its definition of apartheid in international law, which carries with it responsibilities for States, as specified in international instruments.

The choice of evidence is guided by the Apartheid Convention, which sets forth that the crime of apartheid consists of discrete inhuman acts, but that such acts acquire the status of crimes against humanity only if they intentionally serve the core purpose of racial domination. The Rome Statute specifies in its definition the presence of an “institutionalized regime” serving the “intention” of racial domination. Since “purpose” and “intention” lie at the core of both definitions, this report examines factors ostensibly separate from the Palestinian dimension — especially, the doctrine of Jewish statehood as expressed in law and the design of Israeli State institutions — to establish beyond doubt the presence of such a core purpose.

That the Israeli regime is designed for this core purpose was found to be evident in the body of laws, only some of which are discussed in the report for reasons of scope. One prominent example is land policy. The Israeli Basic Law (Constitution) mandates that land held by the State of Israel, the Israeli Development Authority or the Jewish National Fund shall not be transferred in any manner, placing its management permanently under their authority. The State Property Law of 1951 provides for the reversion of property (including land) to the State in any area “in which the law of the State of Israel applies”. The Israel Lands Authority (ILA) manages State land, which accounts for 93 per cent of the land within the internationally recognized borders of Israel and is by law closed to use, development or ownership by non-Jews. Those laws reflect the concept of “public purpose” as expressed in the Basic Law. Such laws may be changed by Knesset vote, but the Basic Law: Knesset prohibits any political party from challenging that public purpose. Effectively, Israeli law renders opposition to racial domination illegal.

Demographic engineering is another area of policy serving the purpose of maintaining Israel as a Jewish State. Most well known is Israeli law conferring on Jews worldwide the right to enter Israel and obtain Israeli citizenship regardless of their countries of origin and whether or not they can show links to Israel-Palestine, while withholding any comparable right from Palestinians, including those with documented ancestral homes in the country. The World Zionist Organization and Jewish Agency are vested with legal authority as agencies of the State of Israel to facilitate Jewish immigration and preferentially serve the interests of Jewish citizens in matters ranging from land use to public development planning and other matters deemed vital to Jewish statehood. Some laws involving demographic engineering are expressed in coded language, such as those that allow Jewish councils to reject applications for residence from Palestinian citizens. Israeli law normally allows spouses of Israeli citizens to relocate to Israel but uniquely prohibits this option in the case of Palestinians from the occupied territory or beyond. On a far larger scale, it is a matter of Israeli policy to reject the return of any Palestinian refugees and exiles (totalling some six million people) to territory under Israeli control.

Two additional attributes of a systematic regime of racial domination must be present to qualify the regime as an instance of apartheid. The first involves the identification of the oppressed persons as belonging to a specific “racial group”. This report accepts the definition of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination of “racial discrimination” as “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life”. On that basis, this report argues that in the geopolitical context of Palestine, Jews and Palestinians can be considered “racial groups”. Furthermore, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination is cited expressly in the Apartheid Convention.

The second attribute is the boundary and character of the group or groups involved. The status of the Palestinians as a people entitled to exercise the right of self determination has been legally settled, most authoritatively by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in its 2004 advisory opinion on Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. On that basis, the report examines the treatment by Israel of the Palestinian people as a whole, considering the distinct circumstances of geographic and juridical fragmentation of the Palestinian people as a condition imposed by Israel. (Annex II addresses the issue of a proper identification of the “country” responsible for the denial of Palestinian rights under international law.)

This report finds that the strategic fragmentation of the Palestinian people is the principal method by which Israel imposes an apartheid regime. It first examines how the history of war, partition, de jure and de facto annexation and prolonged occupation in Palestine has led to the Palestinian people being divided into different geographic regions administered by distinct sets of law. This fragmentation operates to stabilize the Israeli regime of racial domination over the Palestinians and to weaken the will and capacity of the Palestinian people to mount a unified and effective resistance. Different methods are deployed depending on where Palestinians live. This is the core means by which Israel enforces apartheid and at the same time impedes international recognition of how the system works as a complementary whole to comprise an apartheid regime.

Since 1967, Palestinians as a people have lived in what the report refers to as four “domains”, in which the fragments of the Palestinian population are ostensibly treated differently but share in common the racial oppression that results from the apartheid regime. Those domains are:

1. Civil law, with special restrictions, governing Palestinians who live as citizens of Israel;

2. Permanent residency law governing Palestinians living in the city of Jerusalem;

3. Military law governing Palestinians, including those in refugee camps, living since 1967 under conditions of belligerent occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip;

4. Policy to preclude the return of Palestinians, whether refugees or exiles, living outside territory under Israel’s control.

Domain 1 embraces about 1.7 million Palestinians who are citizens of Israel. For the first 20 years of the country’s existence, they lived under martial law and to this day are subjected to oppression on the basis of not being Jewish. That policy of domination manifests itself in inferior services, restrictive zoning laws and limited budget allocations made to Palestinian communities; in restrictions on jobs and professional opportunities; and in the mostly segregated landscape in which Jewish and Palestinian citizens of Israel live. Palestinian political parties can campaign for minor reforms and better budgets, but are legally prohibited by the Basic Law from challenging legislation maintaining the racial regime. The policy is reinforced by the implications of the distinction made in Israel between “citizenship” (ezrahut) and “nationality” (le’um): all Israeli citizens enjoy the former, but only Jews enjoy the latter. “National” rights in Israeli law signify Jewish-national rights. The struggle of Palestinian citizens of Israel for equality and civil reforms under Israeli law is thus isolated by the regime from that of Palestinians elsewhere.

Domain 2 covers the approximately 300,000 Palestinians who live in East Jerusalem, who experience discrimination in access to education, health care, employment, residency and building rights. They also suffer from expulsions and home demolitions, which serve the Israeli policy of “demographic balance” in favour of Jewish residents. East Jerusalem Palestinians are classified as permanent residents, which places them in a separate category designed to prevent their demographic and, importantly, electoral weight being added to that of Palestinians citizens in Israel. As permanent residents, they have no legal standing to challenge Israeli law. Moreover, openly identifying with Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territory politically carries the risk of expulsion to the West Bank and loss of the right even to visit Jerusalem. Thus, the urban epicentre of Palestinian political life is caught inside a legal bubble that curtails its inhabitants’ capacity to oppose the apartheid regime lawfully.

Domain 3 is the system of military law imposed on approximately 6.6 million Palestinians who live in the occupied Palestinian territory, 4.7 million of them in the West Bank and 1.9 million in the Gaza Strip. The territory is administered in a manner that fully meets the definition of apartheid under the Apartheid Convention: except for the provision on genocide, every illustrative “inhuman act” listed in the Convention is routinely and systematically practiced by Israel in the West Bank. Palestinians are governed by military law, while the approximately 350,000 Jewish settlers are governed by Israeli civil law. The racial character of this situation is further confirmed by the fact that all West Bank Jewish settlers enjoy the protections of Israeli civil law on the basis of being Jewish, whether they are Israeli citizens or not. This dual legal system, problematic in itself, is indicative of an apartheid regime when coupled with the racially discriminatory management of land and development administered by Jewish-national institutions, which are charged with administering “State land” in the interest of the Jewish population. In support of the overall findings of this report, annex I sets out in more detail the policies and practices of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory that constitute violations of article II of the Apartheid Convention.

Domain 4 refers to the millions of Palestinian refugees and involuntary exiles, most of whom live in neighbouring countries. They are prohibited from returning to their homes in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory. Israel defends its rejection of the Palestinians’ return in frankly racist language: it is alleged that Palestinians constitute a “demographic threat” and that their return would alter the demographic character of Israel to the point of eliminating it as a Jewish State. The refusal of the right of return plays an essential role in the apartheid regime by ensuring that the Palestinian population in Mandate Palestine does not grow to a point that would threaten Israeli military control of the territory and/or provide the demographic leverage for Palestinian citizens of Israel to demand (and obtain) full democratic rights, thereby eliminating the Jewish character of the State of Israel. Although domain 4 is confined to policies denying Palestinians their right of repatriation under international law, it is treated in this report as integral to the system of oppression and domination of the Palestinian people as a whole, given its crucial role in demographic terms in maintaining the apartheid regime.

This report finds that, taken together, the four domains constitute one comprehensive regime developed for the purpose of ensuring the enduring domination over non-Jews in all land exclusively under Israeli control in whatever category. To some degree, the differences in treatment accorded to Palestinians have been provisionally treated as valid by the United Nations, in the absence of an assessment of whether they constitute a form of apartheid. In the light of this report’s findings, this long-standing fragmented international approach may require review.

In the interests of fairness and completeness, the report examines several counterarguments advanced by Israel and supporters of its policies denying the applicability of the Apartheid Convention to the case of Israel-Palestine. They include claims that: the determination of Israel to remain a Jewish State is consistent with practices of other States, such as France; Israel does not owe Palestinian non-citizens equal treatment with Jews precisely because they are not citizens; and Israeli treatment of the Palestinians reflects no “purpose” or “intent” to dominate, but rather is a temporary state of affairs imposed on Israel by the realities of ongoing conflict and security requirements. The report shows that none of those arguments stands up to examination. A further claim that Israel cannot be considered culpable for crimes of apartheid because Palestinian citizens of Israel have voting rights rests on two errors of legal interpretation: an overly literal comparison with South African apartheid policy and detachment of the question of voting rights from other laws, especially provisions of the Basic Law that prohibit political parties from challenging the Jewish, and hence racial, character of the State.

The report concludes that the weight of the evidence supports beyond a reasonable doubt the proposition that Israel is guilty of imposing an apartheid regime on the Palestinian people, which amounts to the commission of a crime against humanity, the prohibition of which is considered jus cogens in international customary law. The international community, especially the United Nations and its agencies, and Member States, have a legal obligation to act within the limits of their capabilities to prevent and punish instances of apartheid that are responsibly brought to their attention. More specifically, States have a collective duty: (a) not to recognize an apartheid regime as lawful; (b) not to aid or assist a State in maintaining an apartheid regime; and © to cooperate with the United Nations and other States in bringing apartheid regimes to an end. Civil society institutions and individuals also have a moral and political duty to use the instruments at their disposal to raise awareness of this ongoing criminal enterprise, and to exert pressure on Israel in order to persuade it to dismantle apartheid structures in compliance with international law. The report ends with general and specific recommendations to the United Nations, national Governments, and civil society and private actors on actions they should take in view of the finding that Israel maintains a regime of apartheid in its exercise of control over the Palestinian people.


The original report was deleted from the UN website. Alternative source here

The full report: (download pdf here)

Related Video

Jim Crow is alive and well in Israel

caged but undaunted

{Originally published March 1, 2017 at Al Jazeera}

Jim Crow is alive and well in Israel
Long before Israel erected separate communities, the United States perfected the art of the artificial divide.

by Stanley L Cohen

For years, Israel has sold, and we in the United States have bought, the cheap peel-away sticker that it is the “lone democracy” in the Middle East.

It has a nice, assuring ring to it, sort of like “opportunity” or “peace”, whatever these chants may, in practice, mean. But, like beauty, it remains very much in the eye of the beholder, and like reality, sooner or later the truth surfaces, no matter how well its fiction is packaged.

We in the US are damn good at packaging ourselves, and our charade of equality and justice is second to none. We sell stuff; lots of it. Much of it false. Very much like a willing…

View original post 2,421 more words

What is going on under the table between Moscow and Washington? ماذا يجري تحت الطاولة بين موسكو وواشنطن؟

What is going on under the table between Moscow and Washington?

Written by Nasser Kandil,

مارس 7, 2017

In the moments of the strategic ambiguity, and when the effective forces and the major players keen to maintain this ambiguity in responding to the requirements of politics the followers and the analysts wait for a tactic articulated event that allows them to read the strategic plans and to reveal a lot of the ambiguity that surrounds them.. This is exactly what can be applied regarding the issue of the deployment of the Syrian army in Manbej, by focusing on the backgrounds of the US strategy in Syria between proceeding in the strategy of the former President Barack Obama by concentrating on being away from any serious coordination with Russia, and the bet on the cooperation with the two stubborn allies Turkey and the Kurds, or to proceed in this cooperation silently, including the willingness to be opened to a broader role of the Syrian army in the next cooperation especially toward Raqqa.

The Syrian progress in the northeast of Syria imposed a new equation, as the Turkish entry to Al Bab city imposed an imminent event. The two events are associated with the Kurds who are under a Turkish threat, but the Syrian army opens for them a punch of hope, so the Kurds decided to call the Syrian army to enter to the threatened areas. The question was at that time; could the Kurds do that without the Americans, and if they did that can they fulfill the demand and open the way without the Americans who are deployed there? Russia announced an agreement with the Turks about that deployment, but the Turks denied that, then they announced their acceptance, so the matter became above the discussion and the question. Without the Americans it is impossible to achieve the Kurdish-Turkish acceptance of the arrival of the Syrian army to Manbej at the same time.

Did the Americans have another choice? A question is asked in front of the difficulty of the Turkish-Kurdish relationship, the obstinacy of the two teams, their concern about their future, and the important shift of the Syrian army with a rare strategic cleverness. The answer is that the Syrian step has achieved its goals, because it formed a test by fire to the US intentions. What was achieved by the Syrians was possible by the Americans if they wanted to dismiss the battle of Raqqa, and be sufficient with just the disengagement between the two allies, by putting one of the their units in Manbej surrounded by the Arab units which they trained, and considering it an area for the US leadership, so this can save the Kurds and the Turks’ face, but it means going on in the strategy of sharing Syria as dominance areas, one for ISIS, and one for Al Nusra, as well as ignoring the war on ISIS during the absence of the ability to combine the Turks and the Kurds in one unified front and the inability of each one of them individually to provide the battlefield requirements. But what was wanted by the Syrian army has revealed the extent of the presence of that choice within their plans.

The Americans know that the progress of the Syrian army in the northeast of Syria and the recapturing of Palmyra is a part of a plan that approaches from Raqqa, and its mobilizing in Deir Al Zour is a part of a battle plan, and that Russia and Iran are parts of this plan. ISIS and Al Nusra will not be allowed to remain in the Syrian territories whether the Americans cooperate or no, because this will make the Turkish presence and the US one an occupation, there is no justification for its presence outside the battle which justifies its presence and which is the fighting of ISIS. The US decision was by favoring a compromise for the deployment of the Syrian army in Manbej as the first transition in the war course, where the Syrian army is separating between two allies of the Americans with the consent of the three parts the Kurds, the Turks, and the Americans.

With the approval of their allies the Americans have cooperated with the Syrian army in the war on ISIS, and the Russians have facilitated for them the task on the Kurdish-Turkish- Syrian banks.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh.

ماذا يجري تحت الطاولة بين موسكو وواشنطن؟

مارس 6, 2017

ناصر قنديل

– في لحظات يسود خلالها الغموض الاستراتيجي وتحرص القوى المؤثرة واللاعبون الكبار على الحفاظ على هذا الغموض خدمة لمقتضيات السياسة، ينتظر المتابعون والمحلّلون حدثاً تكتيكياً مفصلياً يتيح لهم قراءة الخطط الاستراتيجية وكشف الكثير من الغموض فيها. وهذا بالضبط ما يمكن أن توضع في إطاره قضية انتشار الجيش السوري في منبج، في إلقاء الضوء على الظلال المحيطة بالاستراتيجية الأميركية في سورية، بين المضي في استراتيجية الرئيس السابق باراك أوباما بالتركيز على الابتعاد عن كل تنسيق جدّي مع روسيا، والرهان على التعاون مع الحليفين اللدودين، الأتراك والأكراد، أو الذهاب لهذا التعاون بصمت بما في ذلك الاستعداد للانفتاح على دور أوسع للجيش السوري في التعاون المقبل، خصوصاً نحو الر قة.

– فَرَض التقدّم السوري شمال شرق سورية معادلة جديدة، كما فرض الدخول التركي إلى مدينة الباب استحقاقاً داهماً، وكل من الحدثين يرتبط بالأكراد الذين يضغط عليهم تهديد تركي، ويفتح لهم الجيش السوري نافذة أمل، فقرّر الأكراد مناداة الجيش السوري لدخول المناطق المهدّدة، وكان السؤال حينها: هل يمكن أن يفعل الأكراد ذلك من دون الأميركيين؟ ثم لو فعلوا هل يمكنهم تنفيذ الطلب وفتح الطريق من دون الأميركيين المنتشرين قرب المنطقة؟ ثم جاء الإعلان الروسي عن اتفاق مع الأتراك على هذا الانتشار ونفي تركي لحدوثه، ثم إعلان تركي بالقبول، فصار الأمر فوق النقاش والتساؤل، من دون الأميركيين يستحيل تحقق قبول كردي وتركي في آن واحد بوصول الجيش السوري إلى منبج.

– هل كان بيد الأميركيين بديل؟ سؤال يطرحه البعض أمام صعوبة العلاقة التركية الكردية، وعناد الفريقين ووضع مستقبل معنوياتهما في الميزان، والنقلة المحسوبة للجيش السوري بذكاء استراتيجي نادر، الجواب هو بأن الخطوة السورية حققت أهدافها، لأنها شكلت اختباراً بالنار للنيات الأميركية، فما فعله السوريون كان يمكن للأميركيين لو أرادوا صرف النظر عن معركة الرقة والاكتفاء بمجرد فك اشتباك بين حليفين، أن يلجأوا إلى الالتفاف عليه بتركيز إحدى وحداتهم في منبج محاطة بالوحدات العربية التي درّبوها، واعتبارها منطقة للقيادة الأميركية، ما يحفظ للأتراك والأكراد ماء الوجه، لكنه يعني السير باستراتيجية تقاسم سورية مناطق نفوذ بينها منطقة لداعش وأخرى للنصرة وصرف النظر عن الحرب على داعش، بغياب قدرة جمع الأتراك والأكراد في جبهة قتال موحّدة وعجز كل منهما منفرداً عن توفير متطلبات المعركة، ومما أراده الجيش السوري كشف مدى وجود هذا الخيار ضمن خططهم.

– يعرف الأميركيون أن تقدّم الجيش السوري شمال شرق سورية واسترداد تدمر من ضمن خطة تقرّب من الرقة، وتحشيده في دير الزور من ضمن خطة معركة، وأن روسيا وإيران جزء من هذه الخطة، فداعش والنصرة لن يسمح لهما بالبقاء في الأراضي السورية، تعاون الأميركيون أم لم يتعاونوا، وأن ذلك سيجعل الوجود التركي ومثله الأميركي احتلالاً، لا يملك مسوّغ البقاء لوجوده خارج المعركة التي تبرر وجوده، وهي قتال داعش. فكان القرار الأميركي بتفضيل حل انتشار رضائي للجيش السوري في منبج كأول تحوّل من نوعه في مسار الحرب، حيث الجيش السوري يفصل بين حليفين للأميركيين برضى الثلاثة، الأكراد والأتراك والأميركيين.

– قطع الأميركيون برضى حلفائهم جسر الحرج نحو التعاون مع الجيش السوري في الحرب على داعش، وسهّل لهم الروس المهمة على الضفاف الكردية والتركية والسورية!

(Visited 3٬718 times, 3٬718 visits today)
Related Articles

Tulsi Gabbard again calls for the USA to stop aiding terrorists like al-Qaeda and ISIS

Tulsi Gabbard: To Solve Refugee Crisis, Stop Funding Terrorism

Via Darius Shahtahmasebi of TheAntiMedia.org, — Zero Hedge March 3, 2017

Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, the politician who previously accused the U.S. of arming ISIS, is still calling on the U.S. government to stop its disastrous regime change policies in the Middle East.

Tulsi gabbard refugees

According to a press release made public on Tuesday, Gabbard has again called for the U.S. to stop aiding terrorists like al-Qaeda and ISIS. Gabbard’s guest at the presidential address to Congress, a Kurdish refugee activist, also called for an end to the U.S. policy of “regime change in Syria.”

Gabbard said:

“In the face of unimaginable heartbreak, Tima has been a voice for the voiceless, a champion for refugees worldwide, and a strong advocate for ending the regime change war in Syria. I am honored to welcome her to Washington tonight as we raise our voices to call on our nation’s leaders to end the counterproductive regime change war in Syria that has caused great human suffering, refugees, loss of life, and devastation. We urge leaders in Congress to pass the Stop Arming Terrorists Act and end our destructive policy of using American taxpayer dollars to provide direct and indirect support to armed militants allied with terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria, who are fighting to overthrow the Syrian government.”

 .

Gabbard also reportedly told Russian state-owned news station RT:

“For years, our government has been providing both direct and indirect support to these armed militant groups, who are working directly with or under the command of terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, all in their effort and fight to overthrow the Syrian government.”

The activist, Tima Kurdi, is more widely known as the aunt of a three-year-old boy who drowned on the shores of Turkey in September 2015. The image went viral on social media and was easily manipulated by the mainstream media to further the United States’ agenda in the region, never once laying blame to the U.S. military establishment for spending over $1 billion a year arming Syrian rebels.

According to the press release, Kurdi said the following:

“I am proud to stand with Tulsi and support her work to end regime change war in Syria. My people have suffered for more than six years—enough is enough. Tulsi understands that arming the so-called “rebels” in Syria has only led to more bloodshed, more suffering, and created more refugees. A military solution in Syria is not the answer. I hope that President Trump will stop arming terrorists and commit to a political solution in Syria—it is the only way to restore peace.”

Gabbard came under fire earlier this year when she took a secretive trip to Syria and met with President Assad, as well as a number of other people on the ground. The fact that her proposed policies have the backing of the relative of the drowned Syrian refugee — whose images the media exploited in 2015 to advance the western narrative against Assad — should speak volumes about the efficacy of Gabbard’s approach. Despite this, the media hardly pays heed to Gabbard’s ideas.

In 2014, PBS ran a report in which they interviewed Syrian rebels who had been trained by the CIA at a camp in Qatar. According to one of the fighters:

“They trained us to ambush regime or enemy vehicles and cut off the road…They also trained us on how to attack a vehicle, raid it, retrieve information or weapons and munitions, and how to finish off soldiers still alive after an ambush.” [emphasis added]

The latter emboldened section is a blatant war crime and is also the standard operating procedure for ISIS. Regardless of the banner these rebels operate under, this is a terrorist tactic, and it is ultimately what American taxpayer dollars have been doing in Syria.

Source

Syrian Army liberates three villages in rural Aleppo, fights off Turkish Army assault

On Monday morning, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) captured a new batch of villages in the eastern Aleppo countryside amid fierce clashes with ISIS militants in the region.

The advance was secured solely by the SAA’s Tiger Forces that have now imposed full control over the villages of Zarurah, Jubb al-Sultan, and Jubb al-Hamam.

Yesterday, the SAA captured a handful of villages from ISIS in the region but were mostly preoccupied with fighting off a Turkish Army assault on Tadef. The latter town is still under government control despite some reports to the contrary.

Due to today’s advance, the Tiger Forces are less than 5 kilometers from linking up with the Kurdish-led ‘Syrian Democratic Forces’ (SDF) near Manbij.

Both the SDF and SAA have clashed with the Euphrates Shield forces and ISIS in recent days; thus, a pragmatic alliance may be established.

Meanwhile, the Turkish Army are heavily shelling villages and towns held by the SDF in the region. Artillery strikes are ongoing on Al-Arimah and Sheikh Issa while some reports suggest the Turkish Armed Forces will soon begin an offensive to capture Manbij.

العمليات وآفاقها بعد تحرير بلدة تادف

الأحد 26 شباط , 2017 18:48

عمر معربوني – بيروت برس –

بعد توقف استمر حوالي الأسبوع عند مدخل بلدة تادف جنوب مدينة الباب، تقدمت وحدات الجيش السوري نحو البلدة وحرّرتها من تنظيم “داعش” ولترسم خط تماس اضافي مع القوات التركية وقوات “درع الفرات”.

تقدم الجيش السوري في شرق مدينة حلب لم يقتصر على بلدة تادف، حيث حرّر الجيش قرى فيحة وتلة فيحة وتلة الحوارّة وخان قيار وابو جبار، وهي قرى جنوب شرق تادف ما يعني أنّ الجيش بات على بعد 13 كلم ليغلق المنطقة امام اي تقدم محتمل للقوات التركية على هذا المحور، حيث من الضروري التقدم شرقًا وتحرير قرى بيرقدار وجب ناسان ومزارع السكرية والسكرية. إضافةً الى أنّ الجيش السوري تقدم في المحور الأوسط نحو قرى شنهصة والشامي ورويدة الباب بعد ان سيطر على جبل سويلم، ليصبح على بعد 26 كلم من بلدة الخفسة ما يعني أنّ الوصول الى بحيرة الأسد سيكون سهلًا وسريعًا الآن، بحيث يتم رسم خط قطع ثانٍ امام القوات التركية ويبدأ العمل على تأمين حلب واريافها بالمياه بعد اجراء عمليات التأهيل اللازمة.

المحور الثالث هو نحو دير حافر التي بات الجيش السوري بعيدًا عنها حوالي 4 كلم فقط، وهو محور هام ويمثل خط قطع ثالث وقاعدة ارتكاز في الوقت نفسه بالنسبة لاستئناف العمليات نحو منطقة مسكنة مفتاح محافظة الرقة بمحاذاة نهر الفرات.

*ضابط سابق – خريج الأكاديمية العسكرية السوفياتية.

معادلة القرن ترامب والسيد: مَن يمنع الوهم ومَن يردع الحقيقة؟

معادلة القرن ترامب والسيد: مَن يمنع الوهم ومَن يردع الحقيقة؟

ناصر قنديل

– في الفوارق بين مدرستين في الحرب النفسية ظهرتا في حرب تموز عام 2006 جهد الباحثون والعلماء المختصون بعلوم الحرب، خصوصاً الحرب النفسية لتمييز الفوارق بين المدرستين، واحدة هي المدرسة «الإسرائيلية» التي ذاع صيتها خلال خمسين عاماً سبقت الحرب بصفتها من أقوى المدارس العالمية، حتى بدأت تدرّس في كليات الحرب الغربية بصفتها المدرسة النموذجية، التي حلّت مكان المدرسة الألمانية النازية ونجمها غوبلز الذي ذاع صيته في الحرب العالمية الثانية وكيف كانت خططه الإعلامية تنجح بإسقاط عواصم ودول بإطلاق إشاعة أو خبر، حتى صار غوبلز مدعاة سخرية بفعل الدعاية «الإسرائيلية» التي استهدفته كمنافس في علوم الحرب النفسية، ولم يبقَ من مدرسته إلا نظرية «اكذب حتى يصدقك الآخرون»، ونجح «الإسرائيليون» بتسخيف مدرسة غوبلز وتبوأوا الصدارة مكانها ما بعد الحرب العالمية الثانية. حتى جاءت المدرسة الثانية، مدرسة المقاومة في الحرب النفسية التي يمثل الأمين العام لحزب الله السيد حسن نصرالله بطلها الأول، ومؤسسها وصانع إنجازاتها، وجاء انتصارها في حرب تموز ليمنحها صفة المدرسة المتفوّقة على المدرسة «الإسرائيلية». وبدأت البحوث تسعى لتبيان الفوارق ومصادر القوة الجديدة التي نجحت بالتفوق على المدرسة التي نظر إليها العالم بإعجاب كأولى مدارس العالم المتفوقة في خوض الحرب النفسية وتحقيق النصر فيها.

– كان التفوّق الذي تختزنه المدرسة «الإسرائيلية» يقوم على فلسفة كيّ الوعي التي أطلقها مؤسس الكيان المحتلّ ديفيد بن غوريون، وقوامها اللجوء للقوة المفرطة بوحشية التدمير والقتل لتعميم ثقافة الموت كثمن لكل مَن يفكّر في مقاومة الاحتلال، ولاحقاً في استعمال كل مصادر القدرة الحربية والنارية في مناطق الألم لكل دولة تفكر باللجوء للحرب على «إسرائيل»، ومواكبة هذا السلوك الميداني بالرسائل الإعلامية والنفسية التي ترسخ فكرة العجز عن المواجهة والقدر المحتوم بالهلاك والفناء لمن يفكّر فيها أو ينوي سلوك طريقها، فيصير تصريح «إسرائيلي» صحافي كافياً لتراجع دولة عن بناء منشأة مدنية، مثل مشروع جر مياه الوزاني في لبنان عام 1964، ويصير اللجوء لإحراق طائرات شركة طيران الشرق الأوسط اللبنانيّة فوق مدرجات مطار بيروت، رسالة كيّ وعي كافية عام 1968 للقول إن كلفة الوجود الفلسطيني المقاوم لـ«إسرائيل» أكبر بكثير من كلفة مواجهته. وتنطلق حضانة لبنانية لحرب على الوجود الفلسطيني المقاوم من وحي هذه الرسالة.

– بعد ظهور المقاومة وتناميها في جنوب لبنان وصولاً للتحرير العام 2000 دخل اللاعب الجديد المنتصر في الحرب الواقعية التي حدثت فعلاً، ليصير شريكاً على ساحة خوض الحرب النفسية، بينما «إسرائيل» تواصل ما كانت عليه من دون أن تقوم بتقييم مدى صلاحية مدرستها على مواصلة الطريقة التقليدية ذاتها التي نجحت في الماضي من دون التحقق وفحص مدى صلاحيتها للحاضر والمستقبل. وقد ظهر من نتاج الحرب «الإسرائيلية» مع المقاومة أن كيَّ الوعي قد أخفق في ردع مئات من اللبنانيين صاروا ألوفاً عن تشكيل حركة مقاومة والسير بها حتى نهاية التضحيات وأعلاها كلفة، وصولاً لجعل المسار معكوساً بإيصال رسالة قوامها، «لا جدوى من مواصلة احتلالكم أرضنا»، بدلاً من لا جدوى من تفكيركم في المقاومة». وفي الواقع تلقت «إسرائيل» رسالة المقاومة وسارت في النهاية بموجبها عبر انسحابها عام 2000، فيما تعطلت الرسالة «الإسرائيلية» عن الوصول والفعل، ولم تنفع المكابرة «الإسرائيلية» والمضي قدماً في المدرسة نفسها في منع نمو المدرسة الجديدة للمقاومة، التي رسمت معادلتها الذهبية في ساحة بنت جبيل بالكلمة الشهيرة لسيد المقاومة التي لا زال صداها يتردّد «إسرائيل أوهن من بيت العنكبوت». وجاء كل شيء بعد هذا التاريخ لحرب إرادات يجب أن تحسم النتيجة لصالح تأكيد المعادلة أو نفيها، وبالتالي تثبيت أي من المدرستين أبقى. وكانت حرب تموز عام 2006 هي اللحظة التي ستحسم، كيّ الوعي أم وعي الكيّ وكيّه بوعي جديد. بعد الحرب أمكن للمقاومة أن تخرج وتقول مجدداً بلسان سيّدها، «نعم إسرائيل أوهن من بيت العنكبوت»، بعدما أضافت إلى مخزونها في الحرب النفسية معادلات من نوع، «أردتموها حرباً مفتوحة فلتكن حرباً مفتوحة»، وانتظرونا «لقد أعددنا لكم من المفاجآت ما سيغيّر وجهة الحرب».. وهكذا كان تفجير المدمّرة ساعر وسواها من المفاجآت، وصولاً إلى الرد على معادلة تدمير صواريخ المقاومة بمعادلة «حيفا وما بعد حيفا وما بعد ما بعد حيفا».

– تميّز التفوق الجوهري في مدرسة المقاومة بكونها لم تطلق معادلات تراهن على التهويل والخوف والردع النفسي في تجنيبها الاختبار العملي، بل تجنّبت إطلاق أي معادلة تخشى اختبارها الفعلي في الميدان، وربّما حرصت على جعل معادلاتها المعلنة أدنى مستوى من قدراتها الفعلية دائماً، فصارت قوة الردع النفسي مضاعفة. فعندما تقول المقاومة ما بعد حيفا لا يصل لعقل العدو التحسّب ليافا بل للنقب وإيلات، لأن المقاومة دائماً لديها مفاجآت. بينما بقيت مدرسة «إسرائيل» تقوم على توظيف ميراثها السابق من التفوق واستحضار ذاكرة أمجاد الحروب التي خاضتها لترمي معادلات أعلى من قدرتها على خوض اختبارها العملي، كما حدث مع معادلة «ما بعد الليطاني» في حرب تموز، أو «سحق حزب الله»، أو «تدمير القدرة الصاروخية وإسكاتها»، وكلها معادلات أثبتت الحرب أنها فوق قدرة «إسرائيل». بينما بدأ سيد المقاومة الحرب بمعادلة قوامها، لسنا كحركة مقاومة معنيين بالدفاع عن خط جغرافي معيّن، فقد يصل العدو إلى الليطاني وما بعد الليطاني، لكننا نعده بحرب يحمل فيها على ظهور جنوده أشلاء قتلاه ودباباته، وفرقه العشرة التي يقول إنه أعدّها لنا ستعود أشلاء مقطّعة. وانتهت الحرب عند خط الحدود وقد مُنع «الإسرائيليون» من التقدّم شبراً داخل الأراضي اللبنانية إلا كأشلاء رجال ودبابات، والخاتمة بنصر مدوٍّ لمدرسة المقاومة في الحرب النفسية.

– تظهر خطابات الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب، أن المدرسة «الإسرائيلية» للحرب النفسية هي مولود من رحم المدرسة الأميركية، وأن ترامب يخوض حرباً نفسية، عنوانها كيّ الوعي، تهدف لتحقيق منجزات سياسية وميدانية بالرهان على الرعب والذعر من خروج أميركا للحرب، والرهان على التلويح بها لتحقيق أهدافها، من دون خوضها. ويبدو التركيز على إيران كقلعة لحركات المقاومة في المنطقة وسندٍ لها، هدفاً مباشراً للتحدي الأميركي الذي يسعى ترامب للتعامل معه، ويجهد مع شريكه بنيامين نتنياهو لوضعه تحت مجهر التصويب. ووفقاً لخطة مايكل فلين الذي رحل قبل أن يفرح باستقبال نتنياهو من موقعه كمستشار للأمن القومي، فالتصعيد الكلامي على إيران يجب أن ينتهي برسالة مضمونها أن على إيران أن تختار بين انسحاب حزب الله من سورية أو المواجهة المفتوحة. وهذا يعني تأمين متطلبات الأمن «الإسرائيلي» من الجبهة الشمالية الشرقية مقابل أمن الملف النووي الإيراني.

– تعاملت إيران بالتجاهل التام مع الرسائل الأميركية، وأرسل الإمام الخامنئي ردوداً من العيار الثقيل على التهديدات الأميركية، فعندما قال ترامب إنه سيلغي الاتفاق النووي، قال السيد الخامنئي إن كنتم ستلغون الاتفاق فنحن سنحرقه. وعندما قال الأميركيون إن الخيار العسكري على الطاولة ردّ السيد الخامنئي لماذا تبقونه على الطاولة هاتوه لنختبره في الميدان، ووصل تصاعد الاشتباك بمفهوم الحرب النفسية إلى الذروة، حيث لقاء نتنياهو ترامب يقترب، فخرج ترامب بمعادلة قوامها، سنمنع إيران من امتلاك السلاح النووي مهما كلّف الثمن، وهو يعلم أنه يقاتل وهماً، لأن الامتناع عن امتلاك السلاح النووي هو قاعدة الاتفاق الذي هدّد بإلغائه أولاً، ولأن الامتناع هو فعل طوعي معلَن من إيران ثانياً، ويصير التهديد الأميركي هنا كالتهديد للرئيس السوري ما لم يقبل بحلّ سياسي، وهو صاحب الدعوة الأصلية للحلّ السياسي، بينما كانت واشنطن صاحبة الدعوة للحل العسكري، ومنع المعارضة من قبول التفاوض، أو تهديد موسكو ما لم تقبل وقف التجارب النووية، وموسكو هي مَن يدعو لذلك. وهذا الحال هو التعبير عن هزال الحرب النفسية وتدنّي مفاعيل القوة إلى أدنى مستوياتها.

– في الذروة يسقط ترامب ومعه نتنياهو، وفي الذروة يخرج سيد المقاومة إلى حربه النفسية وهما يجتمعان ليقطعا اجتماعهما ويستمعا للمعادلة الجديدة، ليس على «إسرائيل» تفريغ مستودعات الأمونيا من حيفا فقط، بل تفكيك مفاعل ديمونا، لأن الحرب المقبلة ستتيح للمقاومة استعمال السلاح الكيميائي بتفجير مستودعات الأمونيا واستعمال السلاح النووي بتفجير ديمونا. والمعادلة هي أن إيران التي تقاتلونها وتهدّدونها لأجل خوفكم من دعمها لحزب الله، لأنه الواقف على الحدود وخطوط الاشتباك مع «إسرائيل»، وتريدون الشعور بالأمان إلى أنها لن تمتلك سلاحاً نووياً، وبالتالي لن يصير السلاح النووي جزءاً من معادلة الردع لدى المقاومة، فها نحن نبلغكم من الآن أن سلاحكم النووي الحقيقي، سيكون سلاحنا النووي لتدميركم به، من دون الحاجة لامتلاك سلاح نووي لا نحتاجه، ولن نحتاج لسماع تهديداتكم لمنع امتلاكنا له، فهو بين أيدينا ما دام مفاعلكم النووي في مرمى صواريخنا.

– في التوقيت والمضمون والدقة، رسم السيد معادلة الردع لترامب ونتنياهو معاً، معادلة حرب نفسية للقرن الحادي والعشرين.

(Visited 2٬245 times, 231 visits today)
 
Related Video
 




%d bloggers like this: