Nasrollah and the distance between the recognition of victory, its causes, and its consequences نصرالله والمسافة بين الاعتراف بالنصر وبأسبابه ونتائجه

 

Nasrollah and the distance between the recognition of victory, its causes, and its consequences

أغسطس 21, 2017

Written by Nasser Kandil,

The Secretary-General of Hezbollah Al Sayyed Hassan Nasrollah presented in the speech of victory in the memory of the war of July a series of methodological issues in the evaluation of the experience of Hezbollah as a title of the choice of resistance in Lebanon and the region, and a number of the current political issues and titles. Regarding the methodological issues he conducted an intellectual debate, avoiding nominating the parties which it intended in the international, regional, and the growing Lebanese movement, a movement that recognizes the victory of Hezbollah, and a movement that tries to avoid the recognition of victory’s causes and meanings, or it tries to distort and to change its contents, and maybe it tries to employ the recognition of victory in order to wage a war of concepts against Hezbollah and its victory and what they represent at the level of the resistance forces as an ideology, concept, and choice. At the forefront of this war the attempt to make virtual goals with which the victory is related and around which the animosities, considerations, and the contrived sensitivities are created.

The first statement of account in the consideration of Al Sayyed Nasrollah is the logical sequence of the recognition of the meaning of Hezbollah’s growing force. This phrase is used by everyone to indicate to the various aspect of its victory from the Israelis and some of the international, Arab, and Lebanese analysts to take them to an equation that requires their recognition that their speech means that the war of July has failed, so say it frankly as long as you said the contrary at that time, say it clearly that the war of July has failed, because it aimed to what is more important than the weakening. Hezbollah’s force has increased by your recognition. It is not something marginal to say that clearly and without ambiguity, because on your words the fall of the threat of new war launched by Israel on Hezbollah and Lebanon which was possible depends. As long as the war of July failed in the light of less power, so how will Israel take the risk in the light of the greatest power? From these two facts we conclude that the recognition of the system of incitement against Hezbollah since the year 2000 and the liberation of the south have lost their meaning. The recognition of the failure of the war of July and the inability of Israel to repeat it led to the fall of the theory that based on considering the presence of Hezbollah’s weapons a burden on Lebanon that will lead to wars which are unbearable by Lebanon and the Lebanese. So the fall of this system coincided with the fall of the system of the animosity to Hezbollah, its weapons, and the resistance before the liberation, Thus this leads to a question; which is better to achieve the liberation by depending on the bet of the resistance or the bets of others, as the strategy of silence and the waiting for the strategy of negotiation? Lebanon has experienced both of them with the obsessive failure and the waste of sovereignty while it has experienced the resistance and the outcome was the liberation.

The one who does not have the courage to admit of the sequence of regularity of the growing force of Hezbollah away from his explanation of reasons is hypocrite in his recognition of the growing force and the victory, his speech is political, he tries to undermine the content of truth which he claims that he recognizes, So let the one who has a problem with this sequence make it as a pretext to evade and to escape from the full recognition, while the one who completes the recognition according to what is related to him has to admit that we are in front of a methodology that wins and proves its validity during four decades versus a methodology that falls and fails in approaching the same events and challenges. In the two decades before the liberation, the debate was true about the feasibility, effectiveness, and the credibility of the choice of resistance in making the liberation, along with non-liberation goals, once to enhance the negotiating status of Syria, and once to enhance the regional position of Iran, or to doubt of its ability to achieve, but after it was proven the lack of questioning of the credibility of the goal and the validity of the ability the debate has become real too about the usefulness of the weapons of the resistance and their role in confronting the threat of aggression or the danger of terrorism. In both cases it was said clearly that these weapons bring calamities and cause disasters. But now the results are clear by those who recognize Hezbollah’s growing force that its weapon protects, deters, and strengthens.

The recognition of this second series of concepts means the recognition that the matter is not a comparison between two lines or between two sources of arming and funding; however between two projects that stem from two different readings of the challenges, goals, and means. Those who were hostile towards Hezbollah during the four decades are the same; the advocates of negotiation, the advocates of disarmament, the advocates of the recognition of the fall of Syria, and the advocates of the recognition of the democracy through the Saudi and Qatari Arab Spring, the absolute divinity of America, their permanent issue is the complaint from the effeteness that they attributed once to the American and once to the Israeli and once to the Saudi  through the lack of stubbornness and stability as Iran and Russia do, evading from the recognition of the truth that they belong to defeated project, they escape from obligations which they are aware that they are inescapable facts, they con on the essence of the conflict with Israel, mock at  the idea of liberating Palestine and they belittle what they called as a wood language which believes that there are still major issues that worth the sacrifice and waging the war defending them, if they just check what the countries of Gulf spent to overthrow Syria alone or to appease America in their Gulf war, as well as the degree of stubbornness to the extent of brutality in the war in Yemen then they will confess that the matter is not related to the degree of support or the degree of stubbornness but the appositeness of the winning project and the credibility of its owners and the disappointment of the defeated project and the opportunism and the hypocrisy of its owners.

The one who has the courage to admit the two sequences worth the appreciation for the self-criticism and the search for the truth by linking the victory and the growing force with the winning of project that is transient of the twentieth and the twenty-first centuries and linking this victory with the honesty of its owners and the credibility of their positions. Therefore the question about the real goals of the resistance becomes far from factionalism and sectarianism. The resistance did not and will not invest its victory neither in the liberation, nor in the deterrence, nor in the war on terrorism nor in purging of Lebanon, nor in the support of Syria’s rise, nor in its recovery, nor in ending any dispute with its local opponents, nor in getting authoritarian gains in favor of a party or a sect. it concerns only about how to invest these victories in fortifying the national structure about its choice as a choice for the widest national alignment in the face of whom the Lebanese, the Levant, and the Arabs meet on considering them enemies  even at least in media. The value of the field victories infect the enemies while their political value is not through having gains that most of them will be achieved in a negotiation with the enemies’ camp in on authoritarian projects as the size of region in exchange of putting the resistance option on table, where the opponents of the resistance will not have neither a role nor a place nor a status which they suggest that they are constants. The issue of the resistance is not in this point, however it is in attracting them to its choice and the participation in the revenues of its victories, moreover, making the enemy understand that the resistance whose its military force is growing, its political and popular force is growing too and the bet on fragmenting its internal front has become from the past. So the one who refuses this call has to say one thing that while he is in full consciousness he decided to be the center of bet on the enemy to weaken the resistance after the enemy has lost the means to get rid of it. Every debate with the resistance is nothing more than presenting credentials to the enemy, and every talk about the growing force of the resistance is out of warning the enemy not the recognition to the friend

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

 

نصرالله والمسافة بين الاعتراف بالنصر وبأسبابه ونتائجه

أغسطس 14, 2017

ناصر قنديل

– عرض الأمين العام لحزب الله السيد حسن نصرالله في خطاب النصر في ذكرى حرب تموز لمجموعة من القضايا المنهجية في تقييم تجربة حزب الله كعنوان لخيار المقاومة في لبنان والمنطقة، وعدد من القضايا والعناوين السياسية الراهنة، وفي القضايا المنهجية أدار سجالاً فكرياً، متفادياً تسمية الجهات التي يقصدها، مع التيار الدولي والإقليمي واللبناني المتعاظم، الذي يسجل اعترافه بانتصار حزب الله. تيار يحاول تحاشي الاعتراف بأسباب ومعاني هذا النصر، أو تشويهه وتحوير مضامينه عن سياقها الطبيعي، وربما محاولاً توظيف الاعتراف بالنصر للترسمل في شنّ حرب مفاهيم ضدّ الحزب ونصره، وما يمثلان على مستوى قوى المقاومة كفكر ومفهوم وخيار. وفي طليعة هذه الحرب تصنيع سلة أهداف افتراضية يربط بها النصر وتخلق حولها العداوات والحسابات والحساسيات المفتعلة.

– أول كشف الحساب في حساب السيد نصرالله هو التسلسل المنطقي لسياق الاعتراف لمعنى تعاظم قوة حزب الله، العبارة التي يستخدمها الجميع للدلالة المختلفة الأوجه على نصره، من «الإسرائيليين» وبعض المحلّلين الدوليين والعرب واللبنانيين، ليأخذهم إلى معادلة تستدعي حكماً الاعتراف بأنّ هذا يعني قولهم إنّ حرب تموز قد فشلت، فقولوها بصراحة إذن، طالما قلتم العكس في حينها، فقولوا اليوم إنّ حرب تموز قد فشلت بالعبارة الواضحة، لأنّها هدفت إلى ما هو أهمّ من الإضعاف وقد زاد حزب الله قوة باعترافكم اليوم، بينما كانت الحرب تهدف لسحقه، وليس شيئاً ثانوياً أن تقولوا ذلك بوضوح وبلا التباس، فمنه يمتلك كلامكم عن تعاظم قوة حزب الله معناه، وعليه ينبني سقوط خطاب بُني على اعتبار خطر حرب جديدة تشنّها «إسرائيل» على الحزب ولبنان واردة، طالما أنّ حرب تموز فشلت في ظلّ قوة أقلّ، فكيف ستخاطر «إسرائيل» بمثلها في ظلّ القوة الأعظم؟ ومن هاتين، يأتي الاعتراف بأنّ منظومة التحريض ضدّ حزب الله منذ العام 2000 وتحرير الجنوب، قد فقدت معناها. فالاعتراف بفشل حرب تموز والعجز عن تكرار «إسرائيل» لمثلها يسقط نظرية قامت على اعتبار وجود سلاح حزب الله عبئاً على لبنان يستجلب حروباً لا طاقة للبنان واللبنانيين عليها، وسقوط هذه المنظومة يتلازم مع سقوط منظومة الخصومة للسلاح ولحزب الله وللمقاومة، قبل التحرير ومحورها الجواب عن سؤال، أيّهما الأجدى لتحقيق التحرير رهان المقاومة أم رهانات الآخرين من استراتيجية الصمت والانتظار إلى استراتيجية التفاوض، وقد خبرهما لبنان معاً بالفشل المتمادي وتضييع السيادة، بينما خبر المقاومة وكان القطاف هو التحرير.

– مَن لا يملك شجاعة الاعتراف بهذه الصراحة بتسلسل انتظام استنتاج تعاظم قوة حزب الله، بمعزل عن تفسيره للأسباب، منافق في اعترافه بتعاظم القوة والنصر، فكلامه سياسي، انحناءة أمام عاصفة ساطعة لمحاولة التسلل للنيل من مضمون الحقيقة التي يدّعي الاعتراف بها، ومَن لديه نقطة ضعف في هذا التسلسل فليبيّنها كذريعة للتهرّب والتملّص من الاعتراف الكامل، بحلقات هذه السلسلة المترابطة، أما مَن يستكمل الاعتراف بالاعترافات المترابطة به عضوياً، فعليه أن يقرّ بأننا أمام منهج يربح وتثبت صوابيته خلال أربعة عقود مقابل منهج يسقط ويفشل في مقاربة الأحداث والتحديات نفسها، ففي عقدي ما قبل التحرير كان السجال حقيقياً حول جدوى وفعالية وصدقية خيار المقاومة في صناعة التحرير، سواء بنسبته لأهداف غير التحرير، مرة لتعزيز مكانة سورية التفاوضية ومرة لتعزيز وضع إيران الإقليمي، أو بالتشكيك في قدرته على الإنجاز، وبعدما ثبت بطلان التشكيك في صدقية الهدف ومصداقية القدرة، صار السجال حقيقياً أيضاً حول جدوى سلاح المقاومة ودوره في مواجهة خطر العدوان أو خطر الإرهاب، وفي القضيتين قيل بوضوح إنّ هذا السلاح جاذب للمصائب وسبب للكوارث، وها هي النتائج واضحة صارخة باعتراف المعترفين بتعاظم قوة حزب الله، بأنه سلاح يحمي ويردع، ويقوى.

– الاعتراف بهذه السلسلة الثانية من المفاهيم تعني اعترافاً بأنّ الأمر ليس مقارنة بين حذاقتين، أو بين خطتين، أو بين مصدرَيْ تسليح وتمويل، بل بين مشروعين ينطلقان من قراءتين مختلفين للتحديات والأهداف والوسائل، والذين خاصموا حزب الله، خلال العقود الأربعة هم أنفسهم، دعاة نهج التفاوض ودعاة نهج إلقاء السلاح، ودعاة التسليم بسقوط سورية، ودعاة التسليم بالديمقراطية على صهوة الربيع العربي القطري والسعودي، وبالألوهية المطلقة للأميركي، وقضيّتهم دائماً الشكوى من تخاذل ينسبونه للأميركي تارة ولـ»الإسرائيلي» تارة وللسعودي تارة، في عدم العناد والثبات كما تفعل إيران وروسيا، تهرّباً من الإقرار بحقيقة أنهم ينتمون لمشروع مهزوم، لأنه يتهرّب من موجبات يدرك أنها حقائق لا يمكن الهروب منها، فيحتال على جوهر الصراع مع «إسرائيل» ويهزأ من فكرة تحرير فلسطين، ويسخّف ما يسمّيها باللغة الخشبية التي تؤمن ولا تزال بوجود قضايا كبرى تستحق التضحية لأجلها وخوض الحروب دفاعاً عنها، ولو دققوا بما أنفقته دول الخليج لإسقاط سورية وحدها، أو لاسترضاء أميركا في حربهم الخليجية، ودرجة العناد إلى حدّ التوحّش في حرب اليمن، لاعترفوا بأنّ الأمر ليس في درجة الدعم ولا في درجة العناد، بل في صوابية المشروع المنتصر وصدق ومصداقية أصحابه، وخيبة المشروع المهزوم وانتهازية أصحابه ووصوليتهم ونفاقهم.

– مَن يملك شجاعة الاعتراف بالسلسلتين، يستحق التقدير بشجاعة النقد الذاتي والوقوف على ضفة البحث عن الحقيقة، بربط النصر وتعاظم القوة بسياق انتصار مشروع عابر للقرنين العشرين والحادي والعشرين، وربط هذا النصر بصدق أصحابه ومصداقية مواقفهم، ليصير السؤال عن الأهداف الحقيقية للمقاومة منزّهاً عن الفئوية والطائفية. فالمقاومة لم تستثمر ولن تستثمر نصرها في التحرير ولا في الردع ولا في الحرب على الإرهاب ولا في تطهير لبنان منه، ولا في الوقوف مع قيامة سورية حتى تعافيها، وها هي تتعافى، في تصفية حساب مع خصومها المحليين، ولا في نيل أو طلب مكاسب سلطوية لحزب أو طائفة، ولا يؤرقها إلا كيف تستثمر هذه الانتصارات لتصليب النسيج الوطني حول خيارها بصفته خياراً لأوسع اصطفاف وطني وقومي في مواجهة مَن يُجمِع اللبنانيون والمشرقيون والعرب، على اعتبارهم أعداء، ولو إعلامياً على الأقلّ، فقيمة الانتصارات الميدانية تفعل فعلها على جبهة الأعداء، أما قيمتها السياسية فليست بالحصول على مكاسب سيحقق أكثر منها مفاوضة معكسر الأعداء على مشاريع سلطوية بحجم المنطقة، مقابل وضع خيار المقاومة على الطاولة، وعندها لن يبقى لخصوم المقاومة دور ولا مكان ولا مكانة، حتى حيث يتوهّمون أنهم ثوابت. لكن قضية المقاومة ليست هنا، بل بأن تستجلبهم إلى الالتفاف حول خيارها والمشاركة بعائدات نصرها، وإفهام العدو بأنّ المقاومة التي تتعاظم قوتها العسكرية تتعاظم قوتها السياسية والشعبية، وأنّ الرهان على تفتيت جبهتها الداخلية صار في عالم الأوهام، ومَن يرفض هذه الدعوة يقول شيئاً واحداً، إنه بكامل وعيه قرّر أن يكون محور رهان العدو على إضعاف ظهر المقاومة، بعدما فقد العدو سبله للنيل منها، وكلّ سجال مع المقاومة هنا هو مجرد تقديم أوراق اعتماد للعدو ليس إلا. وكلّ كلام عن تعاظم قوتها هو مِن باب التحذير للعدو لا الاعتراف للصديق.

Related Videos

مقالات مشابهة

 

لماذا يدفع دحلان ديّات شهداء قتلتْهم حماس؟

حماس لن تفتح الأبواب على مصاريعها لدحلان، وأحسب أنه يعرف – وقد لا يعرف!- بأن”

حماس، وهي تربية الإخوان المسلمين لا تشارك أحداً في أي شيء، وإن كانت تلتقي مؤقتاً وتكتيكياً مع أي أحد، فهي تبيعه عند أول مفترق. أننسى ما فعلته مع سورية التي فتحت لها الأبواب، كما لم تفعل لأي طرف فلسطيني، مع معرفتها بإخوانيتها؟ ماذا فعلت مع إيران؟ ماذا فعلت مع حزب الله؟ وماذا تفعل مع الجهاد الإسلامي.. والجهاد لا تصارع على سلطة، ولا تنافس على نفوذ، وليس لها هدف سوى المقاومة؟! وهل تحتاج تجربة كل الفصائل “الفلسطينية مع حماس في القطاع إلى تذكير؟!

لماذا يدفع دحلان ديّات شهداء قتلتْهم حماس؟! 

أغسطس 21, 2017

رشاد أبو شاور

هذا السؤال يُشغلني منذ سمعت، وتأكدت بدفع محمد دحلان عضو اللجنة المركزية السابق في حركة فتح ديّات للشهداء الذين قتلتهم حماس في انقلابها منتصف حزيران عام 2007، وأغلبهم من فتح نفسها؟!

مَن يزوّد دحلان بالمال؟ وما مصلحته؟

أسئلة تتوالد منها أسئلة، وبفضل هذه الأسئلة يمكن تفكيك ما يشبه اللغز ، وما هو باللغز!

ونحن في تونس عرفت أن محمد دحلان مقرّب من القيادي الأسير المحرّر الفتحاوي أبوعلي شاهين ، بل إنه بمثابة تلميذ له، وأنه ناشط ومبعَد، وأثناء إقامته في تونس كان مع أبوعلي شاهين يتابعان أوضاع تنظيم فتح، ويديران صراعات فتح مع حركة حماس الدامية في قطاع غزة.

بعد أوسلو برز دحلان كمسؤول في الأمن الوقائي، وبصراعاته مع جبريل الرجوب – على السلطة طبعاً – وانتصر في النهاية على الرجوب، وتكرس كعضو لجنة مركزية، ومن بعد كوزير للداخلية، وبات نجماً ، حتى أن الرئيس الأميركي جورج بوش الإبن سأل عنه.. وحيّاه بيده ملوّحاً له في مؤتمر عقد على البحر الأحمر تحت عنوان: محاربة الإرهاب!

انهار حضور دحلان بعد انقلاب حماس، وسقطت أوراقه لدى الرئيس أبو مازن، ومع ذلك فقد عاد في مؤتمر فتح في بيت لحم، وكرّس عضويته في اللجنة المركزية، بل وبرز بحضور مؤثر في المؤتمر وبات له أتباع ومناصرون!

أبو مازن، وبعد خلافات عصفت بصداقتهما، أصدر بياناً بفصله من الحركة، ولكن دحلان لم يركن إلى الهدوء والاستسلام، فأخذ في التنقل بين عمان والقاهرة وأبي ظبي، هذا ناهيك عن نشاطاته في «البزنسة» مع شريكه محمد رشيد المعروف بخالد سلام، وما يُقال عن «البزنسة» لصالح أمراء في دولة الإمارات يتمتع بحظوة لديهم! يمكن لمن يريد أن يعرف مَنْ هو خالد سلام أن يقرأ مقالتي المطوّلة المنشورة عام 2002 المعنونة بـ: خالد سلام أو محمد رشيد.. مَن هو؟ وهي متوفرة على الغوغل، وعلى كثير من المواقع.

في وقت مبكر سمعت عن دعم دولة الإمارات لدحلان، وهذا ما عزّز نشاطه في التجمعات الفلسطينية، لا سيما في أوساط فتح، حيث يخوض صراعاً على الهيمنة عليها بهدف أن يكون البديل لأبي مازن، والقائد المكرّس فلسطينياً!

ينطلق دحلان من حقيقة يراها ثابتة وأكيدة، وهي أن مَن يقود فتح سيقود الساحة الفلسطينية أسوة بالرئيسين عرفات وأبي مازن، وأنه سيتكرّس رئيساً لمنظمة التحرير الفلسطينية، ورئيساً للسلطة سلطة أوسلو، والمهيمن فلسطينياً على كل المؤسسات.

إذاً عينُ دحلان مركّزة على فتح، ووضع اليد على قيادتها، وبالمال. فبدون المال لا يملك دحلان شيئاً، فكل الضجة المثارة حوله لا تفيد الفلسطينيين بشيء، فهو لا يقدّم البديل الوطني، وخياره ليس المقاومة بديلاً عن خيار أبي مازن: المفاوضات.. والتنسيق الأمني!

يعرف دحلان أن الفلسطينيين محتاجون بخاصة في قطاع غزة – وفي ضيق وعسرة، وأنهم ينتظرون مَن يسعفهم، خاصة وهم لا يلمسون فرقاً بين المتصارعين داخل فتح وعلى قيادتها.

هنا لا بدّ من السؤال: لماذا تموّل دولة الإمارات محمد دحلان بملايين الدولارات؟ هل تفعل هذا نكاية بقطر التي لها علاقات وطيدة مع حماس، وبهدف زحزحتها من القطاع؟

هل تدفع الأموال لزيادة الشروخ في حركة فتح، وإسقاط سلطة أبي مازن؟

هل تموّل دحلان خدمة لمخطط أميركي «إسرائيلي»؟!

هل تخوض صراعاً مع إيران على «الورقة» الفلسطينية؟!

هل تموّله، لأنها ترى فيه البديل الثوري عن قيادة هرمت وتكلست، وما عادت قادرة على الخروج من المأزق الأوسلوي؟!

هل تموّل الإمارات محمد دحلان لتصفية القضية الفلسطينية، لأنها ترى فيها خطراً دائماً تستخدمه القوى الثورة القومية التقدمية، ويتهدّد الدول الرجعية العربية، سيما دول النفط والغاز، وتستفيد منها قوى إقليمية؟!

كل الأسئلة مباحة، ومطلوبة، ولذا نسأل.

أي فلسطيني متابع للشأن الفلسطيني يعرف تماماً أن محمد دحلان ليس ثورياً تقدمياً جذرياً، وأنه يسعى لمصلحته وطموحه الشخصي، وأنه سبق ونسق مع الاحتلال، ونسج علاقات مع الجهات الأمنية الأميركية، ولذا رضيت عنه إدارة بوش، بل وبشّرت به.

يعرف الفلسطينيون أن «قيادياً» يشتغل بالتجارة و«البزنسة» بالشراكة مع أمراء الإمارات لا يمكن أن يحمل الكلاشنكوف ويتقدم إلى الميدان ليقاتل الاحتلال الذي لم يقدم تنازلات حقيقية لأبي عمار وأبي مازن اللذين قدّما تنازلات كبيرة، ورغم مرور 24 عاماً على توقيع أوسلو في البيت الأبيض، فإنه لا أمل بدولة، وعرفات قتل مسموماً، وأبو مازن رغم تشبثه بالمفاوضات فالاستيطان يلتهم الأرض ويهود القدس، ويزج بالألوف في السجون.. فبماذا يمتاز دحلان عن قائدين «تاريخيين» تنازلا عن كثير من الجغرافيا الفلسطينية؟!

يركز محمد دحلان في تحرّكه على قطاع غزة الفقير المحتاج المحاصر، ومع اشتداد أزمة الكهرباء، وقطع الرواتب، وتسريح وتقعيد كثيرين…

وهو يعرف مدى أزمة حماس مع مصر، وخسائرها مع تفاقم خسائر الإخوان المسلمين في ما سُمّي بثورات الربيع العربي، وعزلتها!

يعرف دحلان أن حماس تحتاج لمن يُسهم في تخفيف معاناة أهلنا في قطاع غزة مع مصر، وهو يعمل من خلال علاقاته مع مصر على تخفيف المعاناة، ويضخّ الأموال أيضاً في القطاع، وهذا يخفّف الأعباء على حماس نفسها.

آخر تصريح لسمير المشهراوي، وهو أحد أتباع دحلان، قال فيه: دولة الإمارات العربية ستوظف 15 مليون دولار بمشاريع في القطاع بهدف تشغيل يد عاملة وتخفيف البطالة!

ترويج دعاية خدمة للإمارت.. وأين؟ في القطاع حيث ملعب قطر راعية حماس والإخوان!

ولكن: هل تثق حماس بمحمد دحلان؟ وهل يثق دحلان بحماس؟ لا، لأن بينهما دماً كثيراً، وتصفيات، وسجوناً ومطاردات…

هي علاقات مصالح.. غير دائمة.. وبلا مبادئ!

عندنا مثل فلسطيني يقول: قال له: لا بد لك.. قال: عارف لك!

حماس لن تفتح الأبواب على مصاريعها لدحلان، وأحسب أنه يعرف – وقد لا يعرف!- بأن حماس، وهي تربية الإخوان المسلمين لا تشارك أحداً في أي شيء، وإن كانت تلتقي مؤقتاً وتكتيكياً مع أي أحد، فهي تبيعه عند أول مفترق.

أننسى ما فعلته مع سورية التي فتحت لها الأبواب، كما لم تفعل لأي طرف فلسطيني، مع معرفتها بإخوانيتها؟ ماذا فعلت مع إيران؟ ماذا فعلت مع حزب الله؟ وماذا تفعل مع الجهاد الإسلامي.. والجهاد لا تصارع على سلطة، ولا تنافس على نفوذ، وليس لها هدف سوى المقاومة؟! وهل تحتاج تجربة كل الفصائل الفلسطينية مع حماس في القطاع إلى تذكير؟!

حماس تستخدم دحلان في مواجهة أبي مازن، وبهدف إضعاف حركة فتح، وإن أمكن إدخالها في صراعات تمزقها، وتبدّد قدراتها، بحيث لا يبقى طرف قوي سواها فلسطينياً.

دحلان هو «حصان» طروادة بالنسبة لحكام الإمارات الذين يخوضون أكثر من صراع، ولهم أكثر من هدف: مصارعة قطر في القطاع. إضعاف أي تأثير لإيران فلسطينياً. تقديم أنفسهم كأصحاب نفوذ فلسطينياً.. أي يتنفذون فلسطينياً بمحمد دحلان لتقديم تنازلات «إسرائيلياً» وأميركياً، على طريق إنهاء القضية الفلسطينية!

يغيب عن بال محمد دحلان وحكام الإمارات.. وغيرهم، أن الشعب الفلسطيني لا يحترم أي فلسطيني يتبع لأي دولة عربية، أو نظام حكم عربي، وأن المال لا يصنع قادة، فالشعب الفلسطيني ليس في معركة انتخابات، ولكنه في معركة تحرير، وهو يخوض مقاومة عارمة أصيلة منذ مطلع القرن العشرين حتى يومنا.. وإلى أن تتحرّر فلسطين.. أذكّركم بصبري البنا أبو نضال.. ونهايته .

لقد ثبت أن مسار «التسوية» و«سلام الشجعان» قد ضيّع الأرض الفلسطينية، وسمح للمحتل الصهيوني أن يهوّد القدس، وأن أوسلو قد ضلّل الفلسطينيين، وها هو بعد ربع قرن من الأوهام يتكشف عن «نكبة» حقيقية.

لقد اتصل بي أصدقاء من غزة وقالوا لي: نحن رضينا بأخذ «ديّة» من دحلان، لأنها ليست من حماس، ونحن نحتفظ بحقنا بالثأر لشهدائنا.. ونعرف مَن اغتالوهم!

الشعب الفلسطيني يخوض ثورة تخفت أحياناً، وتتأجج أحياناً، ولكن نارها لا تنطفئ أبداً.. ودرس هبّة الأقصى في شهر تموز أكبر برهان!

شعب فلسطين يقوده دحلان!!

يا للمسخرة والسذاجة والاستهبال!

وأخيراً: على فتح أن تنتفض على واقعها، وتعيد بناء نفسها، فهي بضعفها وتفككها تضعف أوضاعنا الفلسطينية، وتفسح المجال لدحلان، ولغيره، بهذا الطموح المهين للشعب الفلسطيني وتراثه الثوري.

ولا بدّ أن تفصح الفصائل، وما تبقى منها، والشخصيات الوطنية، والفكرية والثقافية، عن رأيها، وتقول كلمتها الفصل، فالأمر يهمنا، وسيؤثر على مستقبل قضيتننا، ومقاومتنا، ووحدة شعبنا.

إذا كان دحلان يتلمظ شبقاً للسلطة، فهناك في لجنة مركزية فتح من يشتغلون ليل نهار لـ «خلافة» أبي مازن على سدّة «الرئاسة»!!

أمر يدعو للغضب حقاً.. فكأننا نشهد «مؤامرات» قصور!!

لا: الشعب الفلسطيني لن يقبل بتابع لنظام عربي، ولن يقبل بأشخاص يستمدون «قوتهم» الموهومة من رضى أعداء الشعب الفلسطيني: الاحتلال، وأميركا، ودول عربية متآمرة، مطبّعة، تشتغل ليل نهار لتدمير وإنهاء القضية الفلسطينية.

في وجوه هؤلاء جميعاً يرفع شعبنا العربي الفلسطيني «كرتاً» أحمر.. وسيطردهم من «الميدان». ففلسطين ليست لعبة للتسلية والشهرة و«البزنسة».

 

Related Articles

Mahmoud Darwish and the Jews

August 9th marks the ninth anniversary of the death of the great Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish. Poems that eloquently capture the essence and spirit of the Palestinian struggle for independence–this is what Darwish gave to the world.

Born on March 13, 1941 in the village of Al-Birwa, Darwish published his first book of poetry at the age of 19. His home village, Al-Birwa, no longer exists, by the way. Located in western Galilee near the border with Lebanon, it was destroyed in 1948. Darwish was seven years old at the time. He and his family and other villagers were forced to flee. A kibbutz and the Jewish town of Ahihud occupy the land today.

A week ago I put up a post entitled Solzhenitsyn and the Jews, the purpose of which was to mark the ninth anniversary of the death of the famed Russian writer, Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The parallels between Solzhenitsyn and Darwish are striking. For one thing, both men died within a week of each other–Solzhenitsyn on August 3, 2008, and Darwish on August 9, 2008. Both of course were also great writers. But perhaps most striking of all is both spent a major portion of their lives living under a brutal system of government imposed by Jews–and in both cases the experience powerfully shaped their writing.

Here is what I wrote in my article on Solzhenitsyn:

The Soviet Union, at least in its earlier years, seems very much to have been an example of Jewish power gone berserk.

The same of course can be said of Israel.

You can kind of sense that power gone berserk in what follows. It’s one of Darwish’s most famous poems–“I Come from There.”

I Come From There

I come from there and I have memories
Born as mortals are, I have a mother
And a house with many windows,
I have brothers, friends,
And a prison cell with a cold window.
Mine is the wave, snatched by sea-gulls,
I have my own view,
And an extra blade of grass.
Mine is the moon at the far edge of the words,
And the bounty of birds,
And the immortal olive tree.
I walked this land before the swords
Turned its living body into a laden table.
I come from there. I render the sky unto her mother
When the sky weeps for her mother.
And I weep to make myself known
To a returning cloud.
I learnt all the words worthy of the court of blood
So that I could break the rule.
I learnt all the words and broke them up
To make a single word: Homeland…..

On June 8, 1987, Darwish published an essay entitled, “The Cruelest of Months.” The essay marked the twentieth anniversary of the 1967 war, a war in which Israel, in addition to bombing the USS Liberty, further extended its control over Palestinian land, capturing East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

In his essay, Darwish employs the rhetorical device of repetition, repeating the words “June is the cruelest of months,” throughout the piece. He may have intended it as a literary allusion to T.S. Eliot’s “The Wasteland,” whose  opening line consists of the immortal words, “April is the cruelest month.” At any rate, the piece jumps straight into the poet’s portrayal of June’s agony:

No one is safe from the pain of memories, or from psychological collapse. June is the cruelest of months. June is an abyss which tries to ascend from its own depths to improve the conditions within it. A strained hand is raised to prevent the wall from collapsing and a strained cry rings out: let whatever is collapsing collapse–let our internal pain complete its twentieth year. The passing of twenty years startles us as we ponder what time can and cannot do. Twenty years of pain that we try to forget, but which pursues us. Whoever was born then, in June, is now twenty years old–children familiar with rocks and small rockets, with prisons, children who have lived abnormal lives. We see to what extent we have been further scattered and to what extent the homeland has narrowed. Twenty seasons of burned wheat.

And as we bid the years farewell, the ideas of youth fade. They would have remained young if night had not been confounded with day. June is the cruelest of months. Because we are witnesses of the event. And turning back to that part of this age which has already ended, this age which defies proper description, does not enable us to escape the fever or to ascertain its origins: is it the past that has taken with it the memory of the defeat and gone away; or is it the present, incapable of separating itself from the spectacle of the defeat and its history so that the past remains capable of repeating itself as long as the reality of the defeat is present in the form of the occupation?

The line about night being “confounded” by day is perhaps the most powerful of all. In an obscene world of cruelty and madness, darkness is preferable to the light of day. Darkness at least brings us a sense of respite from the murderous depravities.

The essay also addresses Israel’s tiresome and incessant demands from one and all–including the very people it has displaced–for recognition of its “right to exist.” And there is also a backhanded slap at Arab governments which, in exchange for cordial relations with the Zionist state, have all but abandoned the Palestinian struggle (other than the payment of occasional lip service).

Here a June question arises: if the decision to make war was an Arab decision, why should the decision to make peace be based on a Palestinian agreement to absent himself? Here the Greek tragedy and the Shakespearean tragedy are completed: the Palestinian is expected to absent himself from his homeland, from his problem, from his case, and from himself. He is requested to appear on  stage only once. He who is absent is asked to appear to witness that he is absent, invisible; he is supposed to come only to recognize Israel’s existence, Israel which is present only on the condition that the Palestinian is absent. Then the Palestinian is supposed to disappear. He is also supposed to present himself before the Arab ruler to acknowledge that he does not represent himself, to admit that he is absent from the stage in the presence of the one who has requested him to attend once for the sake of permanent absence.

But Darwish foresaw, even then, way back in 1987, that the Palestinians were not going to give up, that the struggle for justice would go on:

We must realize again that June did not come from outside as much as it sprang from within. Is June still alive within us? We have witnessed twenty years of occupation. But also twenty years of steadfastness of a people surrounded and besieged by occupation. Twenty years of embers springing from the ashes. Twenty years of the crystallization of the Palestinian national identity. Twenty years of shaping the miracle.

That essay, as I say, was published in June of 1987. Six months later, in December of 1987, the first intifada broke out.

A tribute to Darwish has been published at the website Palestine Square. The article tells a little of his personal story and also provides links to a number of writings–these consist of Darwish’s own writings as well as articles that have been written about him. One of the articles linked to is a commentary Darwish himself wrote on the 9/11 attack. Here is a brief excerpt from it:

No cause, not even a just cause, can make legitimate the killing of innocent civilians, no matter how long the list of accusations and the register of grievances. Terror never paves the way to justice but leads down the shortest path to hell. We deplore this horrendous crime and condemn its planners and perpetrators with all the terms of revulsion and condemnation in our lexicon. We do this not only as our moral duty, but also in order to reassert our commitment to our own humanity and our faith in human values that do not differentiate between one people and another. Our sympathy with the victims and their families and with the American people in these trying times is thus an expression of our deep commitment to the unity of human destiny. For a victim is a victim, and terrorism is terrorism, here or there; it knows no boundaries nor nationalities and does not lack the rhetoric of killing.

A Palestinian girl lights candles in tribute to Darwish.

That article, condemning the horrendous attacks, was published in a Palestinian newspaper on September 17, 2001. As was the case with most people in the world at that time, it obviously had not occurred to Darwish that 9/11 may well have been a false flag, with Israel as the possible principle perpetrator. In any event, the marked sympathy he shows for Americans should be noted–it is a distinctly humanist perspective, coming from one of the leading intellectuals in Palestinian society, this despite America’s ongoing support for Israel.

In 2001, America truly had the sympathy of the entire world. We managed to squander it. Our response to 9/11 was to bomb and invade one country after another–in wars that were relentlessly advocated by Jewish neocons and the Zionist-owned media.

***

Remembering Mahmoud Darwish

Palestine Square

It is difficult to overstate the legacy of Mahmoud Darwish, Palestine’s iconic poet, whose passing on 9 August 2008 has left behind a literary treasure. His was a voice that touched every Palestinian, and with it, Darwish delivered the Palestinian experience to a global audience. His poems have been translated into more than 20 languages, and continue to ring true for many Palestinians who long to return home. Indeed, exile was the central thread of Darwish’s poetic journey. And, while exile is often regarded as a political reality, Darwish’s experience reveals a far broader concept. As he said in a 1996 landmark interview featured in this month’s Special Focus below, “Exile is a very broad concept and very relative. There is exile in society, exile in family, exile in love, exile within yourself.” It began with an exile from his natal village in the Galilee, where Darwish lived under military rule along with 150,000 other Palestinians after Israel’s establishment in 1948. Then, came Moscow, Paris, Cairo, Tunis, Beirut, Amman, and finally Ramallah, where he was buried. This fragmented living resonated with a broader Palestinian experience of displacement and dispersion.

Yet, for all his collective significance, Darwish was often reserved and his poetry was born from very personal experiences. For instance, he grew up convinced he was unloved by his family, especially his mother. But, when he was jailed in Israeli prison in 1956, he wrote “I Long For My Mother’s Bread,” which has become a Palestinian classic in the voice of Marcel Khalife.

“I wanted to atone for my feelings of guilt toward my mother for thinking she hated me—as a poem of national longing. I didn’t expect that millions would sing it,” Darwish said. Indeed, for countless Palestinians estranged from place and family, this particular poem was embraced as a national resistance poem, where the mother symbolizes Palestine.

Continued here

You can follow the link to access the full tribute to Darwish. At the bottom of the article you will find the links to the other articles. These include a link to the essay, “The Cruelest of Months.” Take note, however, that the articles are in PDF format and will only be available for the duration of the month of August. So if you wish to read them, do so now.

North Korea Does Not Threaten World Peace, the US Does

Source

By William Boardman,

Petulant leadership risks war to what end?

President Donald Trump is 71 and Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un is 33 [35 according to DPRK sources], but if they ever met, would there be a grown-up in the room?

One of them knows full well that North Korea is not a threat to world peace and is not even a serious threat to South Korea. The one who knows that is not Donald Trump. Or if he does know it, he’s choosing to inflate the North Korean “threat” even more than some of his predecessors.

But wait, didn’t North Korea just fire a missile in the general direction of the United States? Yes indeed, and like every other North Korean missile (except the ones that blew up on launch), it hit smack dab in the Sea of Japan, unpleasantly for aquatic life but a danger to no one else. This is, after all, exactly what the US does periodically to the Pacific Ocean from California’s Vandenberg Air Force Base, generally causing yawns around the world.

Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work witnessed just such a US test (the 15th or so in five years) in February 2016, after telling reporters the purpose was to demonstrate an effective US nuclear arsenal to Russia, China, and North Korea:

That’s exactly why we do this. We and the Russians and the Chinese routinely do test shots to prove that the operational missiles that we have are reliable. And that is a signal … that we are prepared to use nuclear weapons in defense of our country if necessary.

Not only is that perspective less than comforting, it includes a major tell. For reasons that may be obvious but unspoken, North Korea is not allowed to do what the US, Russia, and China do. That’s the price of being a member of the US-determined Axis of Evil. That may be a stupid foreign policy position (Exhibit A: Iraq), but it’s American stupidity, not Korean stupidity. The North Koreans are well aware that they do not have “operational missiles that … are reliable.”

Do as US says, not as US does

US-imposed rules forbid other countries like North Korea or Iran from following rational patterns of self-defense, even in the face of overt US threats. And when North Korea ignores US rules and hits the ocean with another rocket, the US ratchets up the hysteria as if the North Korean launch were a hostile act while the Vandenberg launches are only benign peace-keeping splashes. The US framing of the world is clearly nuts, but we’re so used to it we hardly notice anymore.

Not only does North Korea pose no serious threat now, its hypothetical future threat is largely imaginary. Whatever military might North Korea has is unlikely to be used outside its own country unless the US or someone else attacks it first. That might well lead to all hell breaking loose, but it’s the only thing that will as far as North Korea is concerned. Washington is baffled: What doesn’t North Korea understand about its duty to do what the US tells it to do?

Fear-mongering over North Korea hasn’t worked — ever

Assessed objectively, North Korea’s missile tests demonstrate a missile program proceeding haltingly, with frequent failures as well as “terrifying” successes. What terrified Washington about the July 3 North Korean missile launch is the presently imaginary threat that the Independence Day ICBM prototype could deliver a nuclear warhead to the United States. It can’t. That’s a pure future threat, if it’s a threat at all.

Capturing the widely proclaimed fear with merely modest hype, Business Insider led its report on the new North Korean missile with this: “North Korea claims that it has launched its first intercontinental ballistic missile, or ICBM, which experts say could have the ability to reach Alaska.” (Reuters upped the ante, reporting that “some experts believe [the missile] has the range to reach Alaska and Hawaii and perhaps the U.S. Pacific Northwest.” As with other reports, these experts go unnamed and unchallenged.)

Unpack all that and what do you have?

A North Korean claim, inflated by anonymous experts, selling a worst-case scenario. The North Koreans also claimed that the missile could hit any location on the planet. So nobody’s even trying to tell the truth here. The missile actually went about 580 miles, which isn’t even close to qualifying as an ICBM. The nearest point in Alaska (not target, just rocks) is about 3,000 miles away. Any point on the planet is 12,000 miles away, give or take a few thousand.

But the North Koreans have nuclear weapons. Yes they do, maybe even 20 of them, all smaller than the one the US dropped on Hiroshima. At this point there’s no evidence North Korea can deliver its nuclear weapons anywhere by any technology much more advanced than donkey cart. By comparison, the US nuclear arsenal, which was once over 31,000 warheads, is now down to 4,000, with about 1,900 methods of delivery to anywhere on the planet, and almost all those warheads are many times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. For all that some worry about aging nuclear weapons, the US is not even close to being an inviting target to attack with impunity.

Not to minimize nuclear weapons of any sort, but seriously, some sense of proportion is expected of mature leadership. Chicken Little cluckings of impending doom is not mature leadership.

Isn’t 64 years long enough to get a peace treaty?

The Korean War began June 27, 1950, when North Korea invaded the south. The armistice was signed July 27, 1953, ending hostilities, but not the war. There is a cease-fire but no peace treaty. The US entered the war under UN auspices. Congress never declared war, but supported the war with appropriations. Currently, some in Congress are seeking legislation to prevent the president from taking any military action against North Korea without explicit permission from Congress. That hardly seems to matter.

The new president of South Korea wants to negotiate with North Korea, but that hardly seems to matter either. South Korea engaged in perennial massive war games with the US that North Korea deems threatening, as would any neighboring country facing the same reality. Worse, the US has introduced anti-missile weapons into South Korea without telling the South Korean president.

And President Trump publicly blames China for not bringing North Korea to heel, as if China had either that responsibility or ability. China has increased trade with North Korea by a reported 40 percent, which should be a stabilizing factor, especially over the long term. But the US is demanding short-term results.

What could the world community do to reverse this growing threat, real or imagined, from North Korea? It would help to allow North Korea to feel safe and unthreatened, maybe even as safe and unthreatened as Vermont. That, as Korea expert Christine Ahn argued on Democracy NOW, would require President Trump to do what he claims to be good at: negotiating, making a deal. Something very like this view was formally articulated to President Trump in a June 28 letter from such policy experts as former secretary of state George Schultz, former defense secretary William Perry, and former senator Richard Lugar:

As experts with decades of military, political, and technical involvement with North Korean issues, we strongly urge your administration to begin discussions with North Korea…. Talking is not a reward or a concession to Pyongyang and should not be construed as signaling acceptance of a nuclear-armed North Korea. It is a necessary step to establishing communication to avoid a nuclear catastrophe. The key danger today is not that North Korea would launch a surprise nuclear attack. Kim Jong Un is not irrational and highly values preserving his regime. Instead the primary danger is a miscalculation or mistake that could lead to war. [emphasis added]

A more colloquial way of saying much the same thing might be that you don’t control a bratty child by burning down the house, unless you’re another bratty child yourself, and you don’t really care all that much about the house.

William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

Featured image from Medium

Isaac Herzog: Netanyahu and I Visited Arab Leaders

Local Editor

03-07-2017 | 15:29

‘Israeli’ opposition leader Isaac Herzog confirmed that he, along with Zionist Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited leaders in the Arab world, saying: “I met with leaders that have never been seen by ‘Israeli’ eyes. The political process I was in charge of was huge, and it gives hope of building a Palestinian state,” ‘Israel’ Hayom reported.

Isaac Herzog: Netanyahu and I Visited Arab Leaders


Herzog, however, said he was “not ready for any one-sided step,” the newspaper added. “There is an alternative coalition in our hands. Proper work might defragment Netanyahu’s coalition,” he added.

Herzog’s remarks were made on the eve of the preliminary elections of the Zionist “Labor” Party which will take place on Tuesday to elect a new president.

Estimations, however, show that none of the candidates will win 40% of the votes, the required percentage for someone to win, expecting to hold another round next Monday.

Source: Zionist Media, Edited by website team

Balfour’s Shadow – A Century of British Support for Zionism and Israel

A review of the book authored by David Cronin

By Jim Miles GlobalResearch,

July 01, 2017

The Balfour Declaration, currently accepted by many as the founding legal statement for the establishment of Israel is really nothing more than a letter. It was a letter of policy between government personnel and became a major part of foreign policy then, and its shadow effects have continued on rather effectively to now. Balfour’s Shadow is a well written outline of the history of events after the letter: the immediate short term effects on British policy after WW I; the medium range policies that continued until after WW II; up to Britain’s current policy of advocating for and dealing with Israel. It is not a pretty story.

The letter was not necessarily well intended. Balfour himself was anti-Semitic. Yet the letter offered support to the Zionists for the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine. Several factors accounted for this, one of them being this very anti-Semitism, as many British felt that Jews would never assimilate into their society.

Several other factors came into play: Jewish support in the war effort was considered necessary; the British wanted to protect the Suez Canal as the main route through to its then colonies of south Asia, mainly India; and natural resources, oil, became a major interest after oil was discovered in abundance in the Middle East. A colonial outpost would, Britain believed, help consolidate control of the region against Arab interests in an era when British racism ran rampant throughout its colonial networks.

From that beginning, Cronin highlights the major factors in the relationship between Zionists, Jews, and the British government. He deals specifically with events pertaining to the government, and does not detail all that transpired during Britain’s occupation via the Palestinian Mandate. But the general thread of the history is exposed throughout the work, accessible to both those with a strong background in the history and those just entering into the discovery process of Middle East history. For the latter, Balfour’s Shadow provides enough detail that a reader should be motivated to research more information through other works (of which there are many).

Author David Cronin

(Source: @dvcronin / Twitter)

In general, Cronin reveals that the methods used by the British to control the indigenous population of Palestine laid the foundation for the ethnic cleansing and later suppression of the Palestinian people. Much history has been written about the Haganah, Stern, and Irgun ‘gangs’ fighting against the British, but the general trend of British behaviour was to support the increasing settlement patterns, evictions, and land grabs of the Zionist settlers.

After the nakba, Britain continued to supply Israel with military support ranging from hundreds of tanks, many planes, up to and including nuclear systems, in particular the sale of heavy water through Norway. This period was a transition from British global power to U.S. global power: after the fake war for the Suez Canal and the later pre-emptive war of 1967, the U.S. had clearly taken the lead in supporting Israel. Britain however did not let go.

Indeed, Britain became one of the strongest voices in support of Israel as military trade and financial/corporate interests continued with mostly behind the scenes activities.

Additional information is provided showing how the British worked to sideline the PLO by effectively recruiting Arafat as leader of a recognized PLO ‘government’, leading to the false promises of the Oslo accords and the continued annexation, settlement, and dispossession of the Palestinians.

For contemporary events, Cronin highlights the bizarre career of Tony Blair. At this point in time Blair was truly a “loyal lieutenant” for the U.S., adopting and promulgating U.S. policy for Israel and the Middle East in general. Bringing the work up to current events, “Partners in Crime” outlines the corporate-military ties between Britain, Israel, and the U.S.. Most of the corporate interest is military procurement going both directions – hardware to Israel, spyware and security ware to Britain. As always, these corporations (Ferranti, Affinity, Elbit, Rafael, Rokar, Lockheed-Martin) changed British views – at least of the elites – from tentative support to solidarity. These friendly relations also helped tie Israel into the EU more strongly.

Today, official British policy remains as an ardent supporter of Israel, with a lasting pride in Israel’s founding. The British colonial heritage rages on in the Middle East.

This is an excellent work most specifically for its focus on British attitudes concerning the development of Zionism/Israel, a history of war crimes and apartheid. Kudos to Cronin for his extensive use of many personal diaries and notices and of official records from War and Colonial office files as well as Foreign and Commonwealth files for more recent materials. It is concise and direct, an accessible read that can serve as a prerequisite for Middle East studies/Zionist studies and as a general guide to British policy for Israel. [1]

***

Image result

Title: Balfour’s Shadow – A Century of British Support for Zionism and Israel

Author: David Cronin

Publisher: Pluto Press, London

Click here to order.

Notes

[1] Many books cover the development of Zionism and the creation of Israel. For a more highly detailed development of the historical situation preceding and leading up to the Balfour letter itself, the best I have read is: The Balfour Declaration – The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Jonathan Schneer. Anchor (Random House), Canada. 2012.

This review was first published in Palestine Chronicle, June 29, 2017.

Featured image from Book Depository

From the horse’s mouth– Syrian Rebels: ‘We Want Peace With Israel, Real Enemy Is Iran’

 

Breaking Israel News

A leading member of Syria’s political opposition said most Syrians view Iran as the real enemy and not Israel, adding that Israel could do more to help the Syrian people.

“We want peace with Israel, and today, among the opposition in Syria, most people understand that the enemy is Iran and not Israel, so there is a good chance that there will be peace in the future,” said Salim Hudaifa, a former Syrian military officer who serves as a political representative of the opposition’s Free Syrian Army, at the Eurasian Media Forum in Kazakhstan.

Hudaifa is a former intelligence officer who abandoned Syria’s military in the 1990s and eventually gained asylum in Denmark. During the Syrian Civil War, Hudaifa was recruited by the U.S. to head a program to train the Free Syrian Army, but the program was eventually abandoned by the U.S. Defense Department.

“Israel needs to do more and help the rebels. People here are disappointed [with Israel]. There are also quite a few who think that [the Israelis] are helping [Syrian President Bashar] Assad, because they see that the Israeli-Syrian border is quiet,” Hudaifa said during a forum attended by Israeli dignitaries such as Gilead Sher, the Jewish state’s former chief peace negotiator.

“I think [Israel] can be more proactive and help us,” added Hudaifa. “Regarding the treatment of the wounded in your hospitals, it certainly improved Israel’s image in the eyes of Syrians, but only in a limited way. The reason is that the Arab media does not report it.”

Israel is secretly supporting Syrian rebel groups along its border with Syria in the Golan Heights, providing rebels with funds, food, fuel and medical supplies, The Wall Street Journal reported last week.

While Israel has largely refrained from getting involved in the six-year-long civil war, it has periodically carried out airstrikes in Syria when its interests are threatened. These strikes have mainly been against the Lebanese terror group Hezbollah, which is significantly involved in supporting Assad’s regime in the conflict.

%d bloggers like this: