It’s clear the US and israel (apartheid state) favoured Abbas. It’s also clear he failed.


US President Donald Trump with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in the Oval Office of the White House on May 3, 2017 in Washington, DC. [Thaer Ganaim/Apaimages
By Dr Mohammad Makram Balawi | MEMO | September 18, 2018

A few years after Arafat assumed the leadership of the Palestinian national movement he tried to tempt the West to offer him something in return for what he called peace. Many people still remember him with his white sweater, in the United Nations General Assembly in 1974, saying: “I come bearing an olive branch in one hand, and the freedom fighter’s gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand.”

As one Fatah former leader and Arafat companion once told me, Arafat and his group always thought that liberation should happen within their lifetime and that they should enjoy its fruits. They were convinced from the early stages that they cannot beat the Zionists with all the American and Western support behind them. They were ready from the beginning for something other than complete liberation, unlike most Palestinians. It was not a surprise to my friend that Arafat ended up trapped with a lousy agreement, the Oslo Accords, engineered secretively by Mahmoud Abbas, his successor.

Almost all Palestinian factions, including those who are members of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), rejected it and many Fatah and Palestinian National Council (PNC) members resigned in protest against the agreement, including Mahmoud Darwish, Ibrahim Abu Lughod and Edward Said, who accused Arafat of treason.

The attempts of Fatah to lead the Palestinian national movement led eventually to the complete monopoly of the Palestinian national decision. All other factions who used to get their financial support and annual budget from the PLO had to concede to Arafat’s decisions even if they opposed them, and for those who refused to do so Arafat used to smear, intimidate and in many cases use brutal force against them, including assassination if necessary.

Although the PLO’s institutions and other Palestinian bodies had elections, most of the time they were decorative. Most of the Palestinian leadership, including Arafat, did not believe in leadership succession and democratic transition. Opposition was never allowed unless it was superficial and could beautify the face of the PLO and give legitimacy to the “historical leadership”, as Arafat and his group used to be called by their supporters.

In the eighties, after Hamas and Islamic Jihad (IJ) became serious contenders, Fatah tried to combat them. In the beginning Arafat refused to recognise that these movements ever existed. Then he spread a rumour, which many still believe in, that these movements were the creation of Israel to divide the national Palestinian decision. Fatah and its members used to assault members of Hamas and IJ, in universities, Israeli detention camps, mosques and wherever they could.

In 1993 the Oslo Accords were signed and from that moment on a deep rift was created between the Palestinian people, who were once always united behind resistance. Arafat believed, and made many Palestinians believe, that through diplomacy Palestinians could have their independent state. This sweet dream was a mere illusion, which Arafat eventually realised before his mysterious death.

The “peace process” – which was supposed to yield according to Oslo a Palestinian state within six years – continued for about two decades and managed only to consolidate Israeli control of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Arafat eventually realised that the United States and Israel had turned him into a policeman whose duty it is to keep his own people calm and accept the gradual annexation of land and the looting of resources.

By the beginning of the second intifada, which was triggered by Ariel Sharon’s intrusion into Al-Aqsa Mosque, Arafat started local resistance groups in secret and released many Hamas leaders and members from his prisons. Sharon and George W. Bush decided that it was time to get rid of him and the Israeli Army destroyed almost all the infrastructure Arafat managed to build with European aid in the West Bank, surrounded his headquarters in Ramallah, and imposed Mahmoud Abbas on him as a prime minister.

It was by then very clear that the Americans and the Israelis despised Arafat and favoured Abbas. Arafat’s health gradually and mysteriously deteriorated, he finally died and Abbas took over. Abbas did not believe in pressurising Israel using armed resistance, nor with peaceful resistance, as is evident in the way he runs the areas under his jurisdiction. He seems to believe that the only way to implement his plans of having a state is to convince the Americans and reassure the Israelis, which seems a very naïve approach.

Yet there were some serious obstacles to overcome. First was the armed Fatah groups Arafat founded and financed, which Abbas could liquidate quickly. The second is groups like Hamas, which Arafat, with all his might, could not contain. Abbas chose a new tactic; elections. Abbas managed to convince Hamas’ leadership to take part in the general elections in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, inaccurately estimating that it would not get more than 30 per cent of the seats of the Legislative Council, and he would emerge victorious and impose his views on Hamas through democracy.

Abbas found no other way except to recognise the results of the elections but worked to undermine the work of the government which was formed by Hamas, and boycotted by most of the other Palestinian factions due to Abbas’ pressure. Through Fatah armed groups and PA security agencies, Abbas started with the help of people like Mohmmed Dahlan – who was then the head of the Preventive Security Force in Gaza – an armed revolt. Abbas made the work of the government almost impossible.

Local Hamas leaders got fed up of the situation and with their smaller and less equipped forces, kicked Dahlan and the armed leaders of Fatah out of the Gaza Strip, and Abbas in return cracked down on Hamas in the West Bank. From that time on Abbas and his group monopolised Palestinian representation under the pretext that Hamas carried out a coup in Gaza and unless it surrenders and hands over everything to Abbas there will be no reconciliation, which gave Abbas all the liberty he wanted to go on his way undisputed.

Yes, Abbas ruled undisputed, but it is very clear that he failed. Abbas worked for three decades to make the Oslo Accords a reality but ended up cursing his partners, the Americans and the Israelis, in a vulgar way, for he has nothing else he could do. Abbas lacks the courage to declare that he led the Palestinian people into a disaster, apologise and give way to a new leadership. One day, most probably soon, Abbas like Arafat will pass away, and leave his people face to face with his disastrous heritage.


Oslo Paved the Way to Deal of Century: “It Was A Mistake To Have Negotiated With Israel At All”

I Advised The Palestinian Negotiating Team. It Was A Mistake To Have Negotiated With Israel At All

Israel's Prime Minister Yitchak Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat conferring after being awarded, together with Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo

Buoyed by the Oslo Accords, I moved to the West Bank as a legal adviser to the PLO team. I was wrong. 25 years since that iconic Arafat-Rabin handshake, it’s clear talks are futile – and Palestinians are no closer to freedom

By Diana Buttu

September 13, 2018 “Information Clearing House” –    Twenty-five years ago this month, on the White House lawn, the lives of a generation of Palestinians changed forever when the late Palestinian leader,Yasser Arafat, shook hands with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. That handshake marked the start of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, with promises of a new era of peace, freedom and prosperity.

25 years later, Palestinians are no closer to freedom, as Israel has further entrenched, rather than lessened, its now 51-year military occupation.

Like countless others at the time, I was optimistic that the negotiations would finally lead to Palestinian liberty as promised and based on this, I decided to move to the West Bank to work as a legal advisor to the Palestinian negotiating team. During that period, I met with countless diplomats, worked on scores of proposals and even began a house-to-house campaign to speak to Israelis about ending Israel’s military rule.

But while I and others worked to end occupation others worked to entrench it, including the Israeli government and its settlers: within the first seven years after the negotiations began, Israel used incentives to nearly double its settler population. Today, the settler population is more than three times the size it was in 1993, with nearly 700,000 settlers living in the West Bank.

Back in 1993, settlements were, for the most part, confined to hilltops, with Israeli settlers considered to be fringe. Far from being ostracized, today, some Israel’s largest cities are settlements, settlers have taken over homes in the heart of Palestinian towns and settlers command positions on the Israeli cabinet and on the Supreme Court. In short, settlers are the norm, not the exception. Today, Israeli settlers speak openly about annexing the West Bank or expelling Palestinians.

I am often asked why the negotiations process failed. It is easy to point to the rise of right-wing Israeli governments, poor leadership or weak or uninterested U.S. presidents. But the real reason for failure lie beyond these factors.

It is because the parties should not have started negotiating in the first place.

To demand that Palestinians – living under Israeli military rule – negotiate with their occupier and oppressor is akin to demanding that a hostage negotiate with their hostage taker. It is repugnant that the world demands that Palestinians negotiate their freedom, while Israel continues to steal Palestinian land. Instead, Israel should have faced sanctions for continuing to deny Palestinians their freedom while building illegal settlements.

Twenty-five years later, rather than living the joys of freedom, we mark each day, by thinking about how to maneuver the maze of Israel’s more than 500 checkpoints, put in place to accommodate Israeli settlements, just to be able to get to work or to school. A 25 year-old in the West Bank has likely never been able to visit the sea – a few miles away – while a 25 year-old in Gaza has never been able to leave the Gaza Strip, to visit friends and family in the West Bank and Jerusalem or even abroad.

It isn’t just movement of people that is affected. Palestinians have not been able to take advantage of technological progress for “security reasons” for example, as cancer treatment advances throughout the world, Palestinian hospitals are barred from acquiring radiation equipment. Even our postal system remains hostage to Israel’s whims.

But, rather than recognize the mistake of negotiations, the world continues to demand that we continue the facade even though negotiations irrevocably broke down more than a decade ago. The negotiations process has, in effect, served as cover for the world to do nothing – while giving Israel the cover to build and expand settlements.

If peace is to be achieved, it must entail costs – and this time, not shouldered by the Palestinians. Rather, Israel must receive the strong message, the first in its history, that settlements will no longer be tolerated but rather reversed, and that Palestinians must be free.

I am under no illusions that the Trump Administration will put into place such sanctions. While previous administrations tried to maintain a semblance that they were helping “both sides,” Trump has come decidedly in support of Israel’s right-wing pro-settler movement.

Whether by declaring Jerusalem as Israel’s capital or by attempting to extinguish the right of return, President Trump has shown that his “deal of the century” will undoubtedly accommodate Israeli settlements, take away Palestinian rights and reward Israeli wrongs. The closure of the PLO office in Washington D.C. this week is yet another check on Israel’s wish list.

For Israel and its supporters, the past 25 years have been a victory. With Trump at the helm, Israel’s settlers are at an all-time high, Palestinians are confined to bantustans and the U.S. is cracking down on Palestinians for demanding their freedom.

But this short-term fix has long-term implications. While Oslo changed the lives of a generation of Palestinians, this generation and the next have certainly learned its lessons: that negotiating is futile, and that our rights cannot be compromised. With this, it is only a matter of time before we begin struggling for equal rights in a single state, rather than press for statehood.

Diana Buttu is a Ramallah-based analyst and activist, and a former adviser to Mahmoud Abbas and the negotiating team of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. Twitter: @dianabuttu 

This article was originally published by Haaretz 

Related Videos

Related Articles

Transcending ‘Chosenness’: Journey of an ‘ex-Jew’

September 11, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon


GA: TRT published yesterday this extensive interview. Those who struggle with my ideas or fail to understand where I come from, may want to read this article. It clarifies where I stand on most relevant issues.

Transcending ‘Chosenness’: Journey of an ‘ex-Jew’

An interview By Nafees Mahmud

How a former Israeli citizen Gilad Atzmon left Israel and how becoming a musician helped him understand Palestinian suffering.


LONDON — If you are despised by both conservative Zionists and liberal anti-Zionists, it can only mean one thing: you are Gilad Atzmon.

Born in Israel in 1963 into a Zionist household, he saw his birthplace as the Jewish promised land and says he was expected to serve and cement the Israeli ideology of Jewish supremacy.

However, at age 17, he was mesmerised by the sounds of African American jazz musician Charlie Parker. As a passionate Israeli, this challenged what he’d believed up until that point: only Jews produce greatness.

Serving as a paramedic and musician in the Israeli military during the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, he witnessed the immense suffering of Arabs.

At this point, he says, he began to view life “from an ethical, rather than a Zionist point of view.”

Years later he moved to Britain to study philosophy and launched his career as a jazz musician. Today, he attempts to enlighten and unite people through his art.

Yet his work as a writer examining Jewish identity has seen him described as a peddler of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. He argues that this is an attempt to censor honest analysis of, and reflection upon, Jewishness’ immense impact on mass culture, politics and global economics through the likes of The Frankfurt School and Milton Friedman.

As Israel increasingly meets international criticism and boycott, Atzmon believes his former homeland can only be seriously challenged for its injustices, if it is understood in the wider context of Jewish identity politics – a context he is trying to remove himself from. TRT World spoke to him to find out why.


TRT WORLD: As a musician, how do you feel about Lana Del Ray and many others cancelling their performances at the Meteor Festival in Israel following pleas from the BDS campaign?

Gilad Atzmon: It’s a beautiful thing.

I don’t support BDS mounting pressure on artists, but I think it is well appreciated when artists refuse to perform in states where there are so many crimes against humanity. I myself decided to boycott Israel a long time before the BDS movement was born. Since 1996, I haven’t visited my home country.

There have been major stories in the news this year regarding Israel. One of the most significant was the Jewish nation-state bill. What do you make of that?

GA: It confirms what we’ve known for more than a while: Israel is the Jewish state and everything that is happening in Israel should be understood within the context of its Jewishness. It confirms what I’ve been saying for many years. We must dig into the notions of Jews, Jewishness and Judaism to understand the difference between these three and the relationship between them.

Break that down for us.

GA: I make a clear differentiation between Jews, the people, which I regard as an innocent category; Jewishness, the ideology; and Judaism, the religion.

I argue that both Jews and Judaism are innocent categories. The fact you are born a Jew doesn’t make you a war criminal or a supremacist. Also, Judaism is a relatively innocent notion. We know the only genuine Jewish collective who really operate actively for Palestine are Torah Jews, Orthodox Jews.

When it comes to Jewishness, this is complicated.  I had a debate about this with a supremacist Jew yesterday and his argument was there is no such thing as Jewishness – it changes along the years. I couldn’t agree more, elasticity is inherent to Jewishness.  One thing that remains constant is the exceptionalism. Jewishness is different explorations of the notion of “chosenness.

” Some Jews feel they are chosen because they are elected by God, some Jews feel they are chosen because they are Bolsheviks, and a week later they can feel chosen because they are supporting a free market – like Milton Friedman. They can feel chosen because they are religious, and they can feel chosen because they are secular. It is this exceptionalism that is the core of “chosenness,” that is racially driven, that I believe is the common ground for all Jewish cultures.

This is why I have never in my life referred to Jews biologically, nor as a race, nor ethnicity. But I believe supremacy is something that is essential to Jewishness. This is why instead of talking about “Jews” I talk about the people who identify “politically” as Jews.

Gilad Atzmon (Tali Atzmon/)

You’ve made a 180 degree turn from what Israel represents, but tell us about your childhood during which you say you were heavily influenced by your Zionist grandfather.

GA: I don’t think you can talk in my case about 180, 45 or even 360 degree turns. I see my role as a philosopher, and as a philosopher, my job is to refine questions rather than subscribe to or recycle slogans. I’m working now on Zionism, and I find – this is interesting – you’ll be the first one I explore this idea with. I grew up in a society that saw itself as a revolutionary society. I was subject to an ultranationalist upbringing driven by complete contempt towards the diaspora Jew, something I didn’t understand because I was growing up in Israel and I didn’t know any diaspora Jews. But the diaspora Jews were seen by us as a bunch of capitalists, unsocial abusers of the universe, and we were born to become ordinary people – workers. My father was a hard-working man, my mother was a hard-working woman and I was raised to be a hard-working Israeli.

Unlike the diaspora Jews who went like lambs to the slaughter in Auschwitz, we were raised to fight and, accordingly, I was happy and looking forward to dying in a war. This was my upbringing. Let me tell you: when the war came, I wasn’t sure if I wanted to die for Israel. I started to understand that something wasn’t right.

Now, I never understood what the problem was with the diaspora Jews. All I knew was that when you immigrate to Israel, we called it aliyah. Aliyah means ascending. If you leave Israel and become a diaspora Jew, it is called yerida descending. So here, you already see within Zionism an internal concept of “chosenness;” so the Israelis are the “uber-chosen.”  What I do understand, nowadays, looking at the shift that happened in Israel after 1967, Israel gradually stopped seeing itself as the Israeli state and more and more as the Jewish state. The dichotomy between “us” the special emancipated Israelites and the diaspora Jews started to disappear.

As we became a Jewish state, we started to adopt more and more Jewish symptoms. We became victims, we started to cry about the Holocaust. When I was young, we looked at the Holocaust with contempt. We looked at the Jews who went like lambs to the slaughter with contempt. If you don’t believe me, read Tom Sergev: The Seventh Million. It’s about the million who survived the Holocaust, how badly they were treated in Israel. There are films about it. My parents tell me, and you can hear it from a lot of people, that they were not allowed to play with or bring home young survivors of the Holocaust. They were looked upon by the Israelis at the time as sub-humans. There is a film about it: Aviya’s Summer.

What I understood recently is that I was initially very enthusiastic about this Israeli revolution. I agreed with it.

I just wanted to be an ordinary human being. But as Israel was transforming into a Jewish state, I had to leave the country.

What were you taught at school about the creation of Israel?

GA: We were misled. We were told the Palestinians left willingly. I didn’t hear the word nakba until the late nineties. However, when I was in Lebanon in 1982, I started to see all the refugee camps. I started to dig into it and I realised the scale of the ethnic cleansing.

Can you share some of the things you saw?

GA: I don’t like to talk about it. But when I saw the Israeli army in Lebanon, I understood that we were not as righteous as we claim to be and this was the beginning of my transition in the early 1980s. My journey really started there.

What was the tipping point that made you leave?

GA: Very simple – the Oslo Agreement of 1993. Until that point, there was a common belief that we, the Israelis, wanted peace. When I look at the peace deal that was imposed on the Palestinians, I realised by then the Palestinians were the ones expelled from the country that I believed to be mine. I understood then that we don’t mean peace, that what Israel means by peace is security for the Jews.

This is why I am not hopeful. You will not hear me talking about resolution. Israel will be defeated into a solution by the facts on the ground.

How did music change you? It’s part of your journey away from Israel, isn’t it?

GA: It was the first time I understood that I can join a discourse that is universal – aiming at beauty – rather than being a part of an ultranationalist tribal ethos. If jazz was the music of the oppressed, I gladly joined the oppressed and learned their language and I made it into quite a successful career.

How does being a jazz musician aid your philosophical work?

GA: In my thirties, I tried to integrate Arabic music into my jazz. By then I could pretty much play any kind of music, but I realised how difficult it is for me to play Arabic music which is surprising because I grew up with Umm Kulthum, the Egyptian singer, all around me.

I found it really difficult. But then I realised that in Arab music it’s all about the primacy of the ear, as opposed to Western musical education where they put you in front of notes and you have to learn to translate the primacy of the eye. The West is obsessed with the primacy of the eye but humanity is all about the primacy of the ear.  Primacy of the ear is where ethics starts. We have to listen to each other. I made a huge effort to listen to the Palestinians and understand their plight. If you were a Jewish journalist you would say: “What about listening to the Jews?” I say listening to the Jews is not necessary because you get it all over – from the media to the Holocaust museums. But Gaza, Syria, Iraq, Libya is the holocaust that is most relevant for us now.

Tell us about some of the thinkers, philosophers and activists who have influenced you?

GA: I am disgusted by most forms of activism and I think activists have very little to contribute to our understanding. This is why they achieve nothing.  They are part of the controlled opposition. I ended up learning German philosophy. I started with Immanuel Kant and what I took from him is the ability to refine questions. Then Hegel, Nietzsche and most important, Heidegger who is the ultimate master in refining questions, and this is what I do. By refining questions, I can see the answers are flexible. They are changing as the questions are shifting.

Heidegger was about “being,” right?

GA: Obviously, but being is the goal. How do you reach the understanding of “being,” if ever? Through questioning. What is “being?” What is that thing that is unique, most fundamental to us human beings? What he called dasein. This “Being,” with a capital B, that we can never touch.

So, what were you told “Being” was when you were growing up in Israel?

GA: I guess that being an Israeli meant, at the early stage of my upbringing, being forceful, being determined, fighting for what you believe in and the willingness to sacrifice for that goal. Believe it or not, in that sense, I am 100 percent Israeli and I had to leave Israel because Israel was not Israel anymore. It stopped being Israeli. It became Jewish, and Jewishness is celebrating victimhood which is something that I would never do. I prefer to die than be a victim.

How do you describe yourself now?

GA: I aim at a universal understanding of humanism. To be a universal humanist is a challenge for everyone, it’s a task rather than a state of being. It is being inspired by the ability to see yourself as an ordinary creature. To remove yourself from any sense of privilege.

Universal humanism is not the human rights declaration, not a set of commandments. It’s an organic thing that is changing all the time and is finding itself to be more and more inclusive, and this is why you can only aspire to become one and work on it twenty-four seven rather than declare yourself to be one.

Is universal humanism not part of the cultural Marxist doctrine, which you find impedes human flourishing?

GA: On paper, yes. But in reality, definitely not. The new left, cultural Marxists – the Frankfurt School – are all people in the open who define who is in and who is out.  They invented no platforming. How can people who adhere to no platforming be universalists?

Aren’t you still seeing the world from a Jewish perspective despite trying to move beyond this?

GA: I hope not, you know. Some people would argue they see some Jewish traits in my thinking, and I accept that. The one thing that I would admit to you is that the one thing I learnt from Otto Weininger – he’s one of the people who inspired me – is that in art, self-realisation is the realisation of the world. So while a scientist looks at the world and tells us something about the world, artists close their eyes and write a poem, and through this poem we understand the world, or through a symphony – and this is the most important thing. So when I look at myself, I occasionally deconstruct the Jew that is left in me. It’s not a privilege, it’s an instrument towards developing a better understanding and a better world.

This interview has been edited for clarity

Trump Administration Reiterates US Backing of israel’s Illegal Gaza Blockade



Trump Administration Reiterates US Backing of Israel’s Illegal Gaza Blockade

The US has long supported Israel’s illegal Gaza blockade, a policy of collectively punishing the civilian population of Gaza for living under Hamas’s rule
Key members of the team chosen by US President Donald Trump to revive the effectively defunct “peace process” have written an op-ed in the Washington Post backing Israel’s illegal blockade of the Gaza Strip.

Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner, special representative Jason Greenblatt, and US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman penned the column, published in the Post on July 19, which blames Hamas for “needlessly prolonging the suffering of the Palestinian people in Gaza.”

The Trump team pointed out that 53 percent of the people residing in Gaza live below the poverty line, and 49 percent of Gazans are unemployed — consequences of the crippling illegal blockade Israel has imposed on Gaza since shortly after Hamas won legislative elections in 2006.

Without mentioning the blockade, the team argued that Hamas was solely to blame for its consequences, thus effectively endorsing Israel’s policy of collectively punishing the entire civilian population for living under Hamas’s rule.

The collective punishment of civilian populations is a violation of international law and amounts to a war crime.

The Trump team suggested that in order for Gazans’ suffering to come to an end — meaning for Israel’s illegal blockade to end — the Hamas government must either be replaced or acquiesce to Israel and the US’s demands within the framework of the US-led so-called “peace process”.

The US has long demanded that Hamas recognize the state of Israel, abide by the Oslo Accords and other agreements under the “peace process”, and renounce violence.

The US does not demand that Israel recognize the state of Palestine, cease its perpetual violations of the prior agreements as well as international law, or renounce violence, which it routinely resorts to in order to suppress the Palestinians struggling to gain their freedom.

The “peace process” has been sold to the public as a means to achieve peace, but in reality is the means by which Israel and the US have long blocked implementation of the two-state solution.

This solution is premised in international law and calls for Israel to fully withdraw from the occupied Palestinian territories, envisioning a viable independent state of Palestine alongside Israel and a just solution for Palestinian refugees.

Israel has rejected the two-state solution since its inception, favoring persistent military occupation of the West Bank in order to facilitate its illegal colonization project.

Israel invaded and occupied the West Bank during the June 1967 war and has ever since been illegally building Jewish settlements there. US government officials have often rhetorically opposed the settlements, but in actual deed have supported their construction, despite the fact that they violate international law.

Israel’s expansion of Jewish settlements also violates the Oslo Accords — the same agreement consecutive US executive administrations have demanded that Hamas uphold.

Whereas the two-state solution is premised in international law, the framework for the Oslo “peace process” is premised on a rejection of the applicability of international law toward a resolution. Instead, under this process, the Palestinians must negotiate with their occupier over how much of their own land they will be permitted to exercise some measure of sovereignty over.

This US insistence on rejecting international law was even more loudly pronounced when Trump declared in December 2017 that Jerusalem was the capital of Israel and that the US would move its embassy there.

Under international law, all of Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are “occupied Palestinian territories”.

Most of the world has already recognized Palestine as a state, as has the United Nations organization since November 2012.

The UN Security Council, of which the US is a permanent member, has also forbidden member nations from establishing their embassies in Jerusalem due to Israel’s illegal measures to annex occupied East Jerusalem. Under international law, these measures are null and void, and the US embassy move, too, is a violation of UN Security Council Resolution 478 of 1980, the resolution that forbade member states from establishing Israel embassies in Jerusalem due to fact that Israel’s illegal annexation measures prejudice the rights of the Palestinians.

Trump’s declaration about Jerusalem effectively sealed the fate of the “peace process” as defunct. While he has assembled a team to try to restart the process, so far, it has gone nowhere, and there is little prospect of a revival given how Trump’s action undermined the perception of credibility his predecessor, Barack Obama, had striven hard to maintain with respect to the “peace process”.

While rhetorically expressing support for a Palestinian state, the Obama administration, too, backed Israel’s criminal policies with financial, military, and diplomatic support.

Prior to Obama, the Bush administration, too, lent US backing to Israel’s criminal policies against the Palestinians. After Hamas legitimately won elections in 2006, taking over control of the Palestinian legislature, the US conspired with Israel and Fatah, the party of the illegitimate president of the Palestinian Authority (PA), Mahmoud Abbas, to overthrow the democratically elected Hamas government.

Abbas’s legal term as president expired in 2009, but he has remained in office, with US and Israeli approval, as a result of his largely successful coup against Hamas. The PA itself was established under the Oslo Accords essentially to serve as Israel’s collaborator in enforcing its occupation regime.

The result of the US-backed coup attempt in 2007 was a civil conflict in Gaza and the expulsion of Fatah by Hamas. Whereas the legitimately elected Hamas government remained as governing authority in Gaza, Abbas illegally replaced the Hamas Prime Minister, Ismael Haniyeh, with Salaam Fayyad.

After the failure of the US-backed coup to overthrow the Hamas government in Gaza, Israel responded by escalating its blockade policy, in place since the 1967 war, by closing land crossings and implementing a virtual siege of the Strip, strictly limiting the movement of goods and people into and out of the territory.

In November 2008, the US embassy in Tel Aviv cabled Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to explain how the goal of Israel’s blockade policy was “to keep the Gazan economy functioning at the lowest level possible consistent with avoiding a humanitarian crisis” — which the Israeli government has defined as nothing short of outright starvation of the population.

Israel’s purpose, the cable reiterated, was “to keep the Gazan economy on the brink of collapse”.

By blaming Hamas for the consequences of Israel’s illegal blockade, the Trump administration is communicating to the Israeli government that it has the full support of the US government for its collective punishment of the civilian population of Gaza.

لن ينالوا من بندقية شعبنا ولا إسفين بينها وبين الشعب

مايو 31, 2018

صابرين دياب

ودائماً، كلّ شيء مُسخَّر لاجتثاث المقاومة المسلحة وبعديد الأساليب، بالسلاح، بالثقافة، بالسياسة، بالحرب النفسية، بالاختراق المخابراتي، بالصهاينة العرب، بالتطبيع الفلسطيني، بالأنجزة ، بالمقاومة «السلمية السلبية»، قل ما شئت، اطلب ما تشاء، وما نريده فقط هو… لا مقاومة! هذا هدف الأعداء أو إنْ شئتَ، «الثورة المضادة.»

لن نعود طويلاً ولا تفصيلاً إلى الوراء، يكفي فقط أن نعيد للذاكرة بعض المحطات من جانب العدو:

«مبادرة» بيريس عام 1976 لإقامة كيان سياسي في الضفة وغزة، وقد تمّ رفضه.

بعد خروج قيادة م.ت.ف. من لبنان 1982 باستثناء بعضها، قال «جورج شولتس»، وزير خارجية العدو الأميركي وقتذاك: حان الوقت لـ «تحسين شروط معيشة الفلسطينيين»، أيّ أنّ القضية مجرد مسألة إنسانية، وليست قضية وطنية قومية سياسية، لكن أتت لاحقاً الانتفاضة، لتنسف كلّ هذا اللغو والتشفي.

ما كتبه نائب رئيس بلدية القدس المحتلة «ميرون بنفنستي» قبل اشتعال الانتفاضة الأولى عام 1987 : «إننا في ربع الساعة الأخير من انتهاء المقاومة، وعلى إسرائيل ان تعمل على هذا الأساس تجاه الضفة وغزة»، أيّ الابتلاع، واندلعت الانتفاضة الأولى بعد أيام، إذ قلبت المعادلة تماماً، ولم تكن الانتفاضة نضالاً سلمياً على نهج الأنجزة التي تباركها وتدعمها «السلطة الفلسطينية»، لا سيما في ريف رام الله وبيت لحم، وتصنيع رموز لها، بل النضال الجماهيري الحقيقي لا الشكلاني، الذي حلّ مؤقتاً محلّ نضال النخبة المسلحة، ولعب دور رافعة للكفاح المسلح.

Image result for ‫سلام الشجعان عرفات‬‎

كانت اتفاقات أوسلو تحت تسمية سلام الشجعان! وإنما هي «سلام المستجدّين»، ولكن الشعب ابتكر أساليب كفاحية عدة، سواء العمليات الاستشهادية، أو العمليات المسلحة الفنية الفردية الموجعة، أو الإضرابات المديدة عن الطعام في باستيلات الاحتلال، وجميعها كانت روافع للكفاح المسلح، إنه جدل الموقف الجمعي الشعبي مع نضال المفارز المسلحة، كطليعة.

ثم كانت الانتفاضة الثانية، والتي كُتب الكثير من الإدانة لممارستها الكفاح المسلح! وتمّت تسمية ذلك بـ «عسكرة الانتفاضة»، بغرض تقزيم النضال المسلح من قبل مثقفي الطابور السادس، وتنفير الناس منه وتكفيرهم به، لأنّ المطلوب دوماً، الذراع التي تطلق النار!

هذا إلى أن كان الخروج النسبي الصهيوني من قطاع غزة تحت ضغط المقاومة، او إعادة الانتشار الصهيوني على حواف القطاع، الأمر الذي حوّل غزة إلى بُندُقة يصعب كسر بندقيتها.

وأما التالي، فأطروحات متضادّة… بالضرورة :

منذ اتفاقات اوسلو على الأقلّ، والتي هي بمثابة ضمّ الضفة الغربية بالتدريج، مقابل رشى مالية ريعية، لشريحة من الفلسطينيين، أيّ ريع مالي مقابل مساومات سياسية. وهذا أحد المشروعات التصفوية، ثم تبع ذلك الضخ الإيديولوجي الهائل، في مديح «السلام العادل»! ولم تتورّط في هذا، قيادة م.ت.ف. وحدها، بل الكثير من المثقفين الفلسطينيين او الطابور السادس الثقافي، من ليبراليين وما بعد حداثيين ومتغربنين ومتخارجين، ناهيك عن كثير من المثقفين العرب وكثير من الحكام طبعاً، وتواصل تسويق الفلسطيني «كمؤدّب، ناعم، حضاري إلخ…»، وجرى ضخّ أموال كثيرة في الضفة الغربية، كي تُطفئ الشحنة الوطنية في الجماهير، لدفع المجتمع نحو الشره الاستهلاكي، ولو حتى بالوقوع تحت عبء القروض وفوائدها، وخاصة قروض الرفاه والاستعراض الاستهلاكي، وعامل تقليد الفقير للغني، والعالمثالثي للغربي!

زُرعت في رحم الوطن مئات منظمات الأنجزة، وتمتعت بإمكانيات هائلة، وامتصّت العديد من اليساريين الجذريين ليصبحوا دُعاة سلام! وينضمّوا إلى شريحة تعتمد على الريع الأجنبي كتحويلات من الخارج، لتصبح شريحة العائدات غير منظورة، وجرى تسويق أطروحة الحزب الشيوعي الإسرائيلي والجبهة الديمقراطية للسلام والمساواة المنبثقة عنه، عن «السلام العادل»، وحل الدولتين، واحدة سيدة استعمارية وأخرى مسودة وتابعة، وأطروحات لآخرين مثل «دولة لكلّ مواطنيها» لصاحبها عزمي بشارة وحزبه،

ووصل الأمر إلى طرح مشروع الدولة الواحدة بين المستعمِر والمستعمَر، وهي ليست سوى دولة لكلّ مستوطنيها! وترافق مع كلّ هذا الضخ الإعلامي لصالح ما تسمّى «المقاومة السلمية».

لكن المقاومة السلمية، لها مضمونان:

الاول.. المضمون الاستسلامي، الذي يرفض ويعاقب ويقمع أية مقاومة مسلحة، والذي يمكن تلخيصه في ما كتبه د. صائب عريقات «الحياة مفاوضات»،

Image result for ‫«الحياة مفاوضات»، صائب عريقات‬‎

وردّ عليه أحد العروبيين «الحياة مقاومة»، ولا يُخفى، انّ المفاوضات لم تصل فقط إلى طريق مسدود، بل تمّ انتزاعها من أيدي الفلسطينيين لصالح الأنظمة العربية المعترفة بالكيان الصهيوني، بل بعضها متآمر على القضية. بإيجاز، وقف هذا النهج ضدّ أيّ كفاح مسلح فلسطيني في أيّ مكان كان، والتوجه حتى الآن، إلى أمم العالم للتضامن مع هذا النمط الاستسلامي من المقاومة! في محاولة للتبرّؤ، بل ونفي، الكفاح المسلح ليبدو كما لو كان إرهاباً!!

والثاني.. المضمون المقاوم، الذي يرفض المفاوضات، ويرفد الكفاح المسلح، ويضاد الأنجزة، ويتبادل الأدوار، طبقاً للتكتيك مع الكفاح المسلح، ويعتبر نفسه جزءاً من محور المقاومة، ويعمل على شق مسارات جديدة، سواء في تحشيد الشارع العربي أو التضامن الأممي، لتكريس حقيقة، أنّ التحرير هو الطريق للمقاومتين الرديفتين، الشعبية السلمية والكفاح المسلح.

يمكننا اعتبار معركة خلع البوابات الإلكترونية في القدس، التي هدفت الى أسر المسجد الأقصى، مثالاً على المقاومة الشعبية السلمية، ذات الطابع التضحوي والصدامي. وقد أخذت هذه المقاومة تجلّيها الأوضح والأوسع، في الحراك الشعبي السلمي في قطاع غزة منذ شهر ونصف الشهر، ولم تتوقف الا بتحقيق مطالبه، ولكن، بينما المقاومة الشعبية السلمية تبتكر أنماطاً جديدة لمواجهة العدو، يقوم دُعاة المقاومة السلمية السلبية، بتلغيم هذه المقاومة بشعاراتهم التصفوية مثل «السلام العادل»، و»حلّ الدولة الواحدة»، و»حلّ الدولتين» ويتظاهرون إعلامياً انتصاراً لغزة !!..

وعليه، فإنّ اللحظة الراهنة الساخنة، تشترط الوقوف في وجه تمييع المقاومة الشعبية السلمية الحقيقية والجذرية، ومحاولات امتطائها وتطويعها لصالح الاستسلام، وخاصة حيث أخذت تنجز هذه المقاومة الحقيقية تضامناً في العديد من بلدان العالم على المستوى الشعبي خاصة.

لقد أعاد حراك غزة، مسألة التحرير إلى الأجندة الكفاحية بعد أن تمّ خصي النضال الفلسطيني، في استعادة المحتلّ 1967، وتبني الاستدوال بدل التحرير، وفي تبني شعار العودة فقط تحت راية الكيان الصهيوني، وهي الخديعة التي تورط فيها الكثير منذ عام 1948.

وعود على بدء، فإن إطراء المستوى السلبي من المقاومة السلمية مقصود به، التكفير بالمنظمات المسلحة والتطاول عليها، ونفي اية إيجابية للكفاح المسلح، وإطراء المقاومة الناعمة ضد العدو، وهي جوهرياً، استجدائية إحباطية لا تخرج عن إيديولوجيا استدخال الهزيمة.

ما من شك، في أنّ ثمة شهوة وغاية للمحتلّ، بتشويه صورة الكفاح السلمي الحقيقي الذي يمقته ويبغضه هو وكثير من العرب وبعض الفلسطينيين للأسف، لأنه ظهر الكفاح المسلح القوي، ولعل ما اقترفه الاحتلال بحق سفينة الحرية امس الاول، يؤكد مدى خشيته من مسألة التضامن العالمي مع الشعب الفلسطيني، ومن ناحية أخرى، تجري محاولات لسرقة حراك غزة على أيدي الاستسلاميين والأنجزة، وتوجيه النقد للمنظمات المسلحة المقاومة، بيد أن ما حدث في اليومين الأخيرين، قد أكد أنّ الحراك السلمي في غزة وهو شعبي لا شك، في أنه رديف بل من اشتقاقات الكفاح المسلح، ولا سيما بعد رشقات الصواريخ ضد الجزء الجنوبي المحتل من فلسطين، وصولاً إلى عسقلان.

حتى كتابة هذه المقالة، راجت أخبار عن دور رسمي مصري «لإطفاء النار»! ليس هذا موضوع نقاشنا، ولكن هذا الدور، هو الشرح البليغ للحال الرسمي العربي، وهو ما يجدر أن يحفزنا لاستعادة الشارع العربي، الذي حُرم من التقاط واحتضان الانتفاضة الأولى، حيث تمّ الغدر بها قبل أن تكون بداية ربيع عربي حقيقي، فهل سينجحون في اغتيال حراك غزة؟ يجب أن تُفشِل غزة ذلك.

بقي أن نشير إلى أنّ المقاومة الشعبية السلمية الحقيقية، اللاشكلانية واللاتمييعية للنضال الوطني، هي رافد المقاومة المسلحة، وهما معاً جناحا حرب الشعب، ضمن محور المقاومة، وهكذا، لن يتمكنوا من كسر فوهة البندقية.

مناضلة وكاتبة فلسطينية في الأراضي المحتلة

الأنجزة – ngo مصدر الاشتقاق اللغوي – وهي منظمات مموَّلة من الغرب «أوروبا وأميركا»، باسم خبيث – منظمات غير حكومية – كي تخفي علاقتها بالغرب، وتدّعي التنمية كذباً وتبتلع الثوريين بالمال. وتسميتها الكاملة بالانجليزية:

non govermental organizaition

معركة الجنوب ونباح الكلاب .. هل كشف أول أسرار لقاء بوتين والاسد؟؟ ….بقلم نارام سرجون

Image result for ‫لقاء بوتين والاسد‬‎

بقلم نارام سرجون

عجيبة هذه الاقدار .. ولاشبيه لها الا مسائل الرياضيات .. تحل المسألة على صفحات دون أي خطأ .. وفي السطر الأخير ترتكب الخطيئة الوحيدة والأخيرة برقم صغير أو فاصلة .. وتخسر كل المسألة .. فالجواب خاطئ .. وربما تخسر كل عمرك ..

وفي رياضيات المفاوضات بين سورية وكيان اسرائيل كان المتر الأخير في الجولان هو المتر الذي جعل مسألة الاتفاق مستحيلة حيث تمسك به الرئيس حافظ الأسد وكان هذا المتر يعادل كل الجولان وفلسطين .. وكان بامكانه أن يقبل بالتنازل عن المتر الاخير دون أن يبلل قدميه في ماء طبرية ويمشي على خطا السادات

Image result for bill clinton assad geneve

.. ولكنه كان يعلم ان السادات لم يأخذ من سيناء مترا واحدا بل سمح له بوضع محافظين وبلديات وفنادق .. وكان ماحصل عليه السادات مثلما حصل عليه ياسر عرفات ومحمود عباس في اوسلو .. مجرد بلديات بلا حرية ولاسيادة .. فكامب ديفيد هي طبق الاصل عن أوسلو .. سلام بلا أرض ..

فالأسد لم يحس بجاذبية عرض كامب ديفيد .. لأن الارض لاتتحرر اذا بقي للاحتلال مسمار واحد فيها .. ومسامير اسرائيل في سيناء ومصر كثيرة جدا .. في حركة القوات ونوع سلاحها وفي الاقتصاد والغاز والنفط والزراعة .. ولكن لايحس بها الناس كما يحسون بها في الضفة الغربية .. فالتنسيق الامني وشروط دخول السلاح وتحرك القوات في الضفة وفي سيناء واحدة ويجب ان توافق اسرائيل على كل فقرة وكل حركة في كلتا المعاهدتين .. ولايمكن ابرام اي اتفاقية دفاعية مع اي دولة قد يمس اسرائيل سوء منها .. وهذا مسمار ضخم في السيادة .. أي ليس المتعاهدون أحرارا الا اذا وافقت اسرائيل .. وغير ذلك لايهم اسرائيل من يكون محافظا في مدن سيناء ولايهم من يرأس البلديات والمخافر فيها أو في الضفة ولا الأعلام والصور والشعارات التي ترفع .. ولكن الاستقلال قطعة واحدة ولاتستطيع ان تكون حرا في السياحة ولست حرا في السلاح والتجارة والدفاع والاتفاقات ..

Image result for arafat sadat

ولذلك فان كامب ديفيد واوسلو اتفاقيتان تشبهان الأواني المستطرقة ولافرق بينهما اطلاقا الا ان كامب ديفيد ترتدي اقنعة أكثر وتختفي مخالبها تحت قماش كثيف من القفازات الديبلوماسية .. وستظهر هذه المخالب في مشروع نيوم وتيران وصنافير وسد النهضة ..

الجولان لايمكن أن يتذوق مأدبة كامب ديفيد ولا أوسلو ولن يمد يده الى اي شيء في هاتين الوليمتين ولن يلبي الدعوة اليهما .. ولاشيء يناسب الجولان الا مائدة جنوب لبنان ووليمة النصر .. وهو سيسير في ذات الطريق وسيلتقي مع جنوب لبنان المحاذي له ..

ربما كانت كل الحرب على سورية في كفة والمتر الأخير فيها في كفة أخرى .. فالحرب على سورية اذا اردنا تحليلها كما نحلل الكيمياويات في المخابر تقول ان الحرب على سورية كانت من أجل ان تنتهي آخر عقبة في وجه اسرائيل لابتلاع فلسطين والجولان حتى آخر متر .. حيث تتفكك سورية ويتفكك جيشها وشعبها .. وتفكك الامم يعني ان الكيانات الوليدة لاتعرف من منها يحق له ان يرث تركة الأمة الكبرى .. بل ويرمي كل كيان وليد عن كاهله عبء مسؤولية وراثة وجع الامة وخساراتها ويعتبر نفسه أنه أمة جديدة لاشأن له بما ورثته بقية الكيانات .. فعندما تم تقسيم بلاد الشام عبر سايكس بيكو كانت الفكرة ان يكون هناك امة أردنية وأمة فلسطينية وأمة لبنانية .. بحيث الأردن لايهمه من كل تركة سورية الا ان يستعيد وادي عربة وليس فلسطين ولا الجولان ولا جنوب لبنان .. وينشأ في لبنان “فينيقيون” يقولون ان فلسطين للفلسطينيين ولبنان للبنانيين .. وفي سورية من يقول سورية اولا ..

ولذلك فان الحرب على سورية كانت من اجل تفكيك سورية وعندها سيكون السؤال على المفككات والقطع المتناثرة والشظايا السكانية والدويلات الوليدة: من سيرث همّ الجولان او غيره مثل لواء اسكندرون؟؟ ومن يجب عليه حق التحرير أو حتى واجبه أو المطالبة به أو التفاوض عليه؟؟ .. أهي دولة حلب العثمانية أم دولة دمشق أم دولة الساحل أم دولة حوران وجبل العرب أم دولة الاكراد.. ؟؟ النتيجة ان لاأحد سيجد ان عليه وحده واجب حمل هذه التركة .. ويصبح الجولان مثل الولد اليتيم الذي ماتت عائلته كلها وتشتت من بقي من أبناء عمومته .. ويصبح ملكا طبيعيا لمن سرقه ووضعه في ملجأ وميتم الأمم المتحدة .. فقد أمسى مشاعا ولا مالك له الا من وجده وسرقه .. اي اسرائيل .. ومن نافلة القول ان فلسطين كلها ستصبح نسيا منسيا ..

وكنا نلاحظ ن اسرائيل استماتت لخلق شريط عازل وجيش لحدي من جبهة النصرة .. ودخلت المعارك جوا وبرا والكترونيا .. وأحيانا كيماويا .. وكانت تستقبل المعارضين وتعالجهم وتدعوهم الى مؤتمرتها مقابل شيء واحد هو أن يعلنوا ان الجولان هو ثمن تقدمه الثورة راضية لاسرائيل مقابل مساندتها للمعارضة لاحتلال دمشق .. وكان أكثر مايهمها هو ألا يتصل الجولان بعد اليوم بالارض السورية ويبقى منطقة عازلة واسعة تسمح لها باقامة مشاريعها النفطية والسياحية وهضم هذه الهضبة في معدة التوراة ووعدها .. في الطريق لهضم مايبقى بين الفرات والنيل في هذا القرن ..

اليوم صارت احلام اسرائيل في مهب الريح .. الجيش السوري وحلفاؤه لايحتاجون كثيرا لاجتياح الارهابيين في الجنوب السوري والوصول الى ان يكونوا مع الاسرائيليين وجها لوجه من جديد .. ووجوه السوريين الجديدة شديدة البأس لاتسر عيون اسرائيل .. والمعركة مع الارهابيين ستكون من اسهل المعارك .. وسيكون طيران نتنياهو في خطر شديد اذا قرر التدخل في المعركة .. بل ان القوات البرية الاسرائيلية المرابضة في الجولان صارت في مرمى الصواريخ وسينالها الجحيم اذا تدخلت في المعركة كما بدا واضحا من العشاء الصاروخي الاخير في الجولان .. ولذلك تم الاستنجاد باميريكا وترامب وصارت اسرائيل ترسل رسائل التهديد عبر وزارة الخارجية الاميريكية .. ان المنطقة الجنوبية خط أحمر .. وانها تخضع لشروط خفض التصعيد التي ترعاها روسيا .. بل وتطالب اسرائيل بحماية اميريكية لاعلان ضم الجولان رسميا ..

ولكن اسرائيل تعرف وأميريكا تعرف ان المتر الاخير في المعركة هو المتر الأهم .. وتحرير سورية كلها مع بقاء الجولان رهينة في اسرائيل مسورة بمقاتلين ارهابيين في حزام آمن يعني أن معظم اهداف اسرائيل تحققت في ابعاد الجولان أكثر عنا وسيطرتها اللامباشرة عليى المزيد من الاراضي حوله عبر تنظيمات اسلامية .. وهذا يعني ان الحرب على سورية حققت أهم ماتريده اسرائيل .. فاسرائيل تدرك ان المدن السورية مدمرة ولكن سيتم اعمارها .. وتدرك ان ادلب عائدة قريبا .. وان بقاء الاميريكيين في الشرق مزحة ثقيلة .. لأن الاميريكيين سيهربون عندما يبدا جسر جوي من النعوش الوصول من الرقة الى واشنطن .. ولكن انهيار المعارضة في الجنوب السوري يعني لاسرائيل (انك ماغزيت ياابو زيد) وعادت الامور الى ماكانت عليه .. والأسوأ قادم .. لأن السوريين لن يعودوا الى المفاوضات وهم يعلمون ان المفاوضات كانت وسيلة اسرائيلية لكسب الوقت .. وكلما فاوضنا أكثر كانت اسرائيل تملك هامشا لاطلاق مؤامرات جديدة كان أولها اسقاط بغداد ثم اخراجنا من لبنان وآخرها الربيع العربي .. ولذلك فان محور سورية وايران وحزب الله سيبدا العمل مباشرة في نطاق الجولان .. لأن كسر هيبة اسرائيل في الجولان سيكون اهم انجاز .. وسيكون خطرا جدا .. واضطرارها للانسحاب منه بعد انسحابها من جنوب لبنان بقوة المقاومة والسلاح من بعد شعار المعارضة وذريعتها (40 سنة بلا رصاصة) سيعني نهاية لمشروع اوسلو وكل مشاريع السلام في الاردن وحتى في مصر لأن الجولان من نتائح هزيمة 67 التي استندت عليها ذريعة كامب ديفيد .. فاذا ماعاد الجولان بالقوة سقطت كامب ديفيد وغيرها معنويا واخلاقيا .. لأن مايحمي هذه الاتفاقيات هو هيبة اسرائيل وقوتها .. وسقوط الهيبة هو أول النهاية .. وأن شعار (99% من اوراق الحل في امريكا) سينتهي ببساطة لأنه سيكشف ان 99% من اوراق الحل بأيدي الشعوب التي لاتستكين .. وهذا ماتعمل عليه ايران وسورية وحزب الله .. كسر هيبة اسرائيل في معركة تحرير .. الجليل أو الجولان ..

وهنا نفهم كيف ان ترامب ألغى الاتفاق النووي مع ايران ليس لانه يريد الغاءه بل لأنه يريد ان يعيد التفاوض بشأن أمن اسرائيل .. أي الجولان يعود الى مرحلة المفاوضات الماراثونية .. وتنكفئ ايران وحزب الله عن سورية وتبتعد عن خط الجولان الأحمر ولايتم اتخاذ تحرير الجنوب اللبناني نموذجا .. وبدا الاميريكيون والاسرائيليون يهاجمون الجيش السوري في الشرق والوسط للايحاء ان لديهم القدرة على طعنه في الخلف اذا توجه جنوبا أو حاول التلاعب بالاستقرار الحالي في الجنوب والشرق الى ان تنتهي المفاوضات غير المباشرة عبر الروس .. وهي رسائل تحذير من ان الجنوب خط أحمر .. غير قابل للتفاوض .. وان روسيا نفسها ستكون في خطر الاصطدام اذا لم “تلجم” حلفاءها عن الجنوب ..

يقولون ان الكلاب التي تنبح تموت وهي تنبح ولاتتعلم ان النباح لايقدم ولايؤخر .. الكلاب نبحت عند تحرير حلب .. والكلاب نبحت عند تحرير حمص .. والكلاب نفسها نبحت عند تحرير الغوطة .. والكلاب نفسها نبحت عند تحرير القلمون .. وعند تحرير تدمر .. ولكن ماذا انت فاعل مع مخلوق خلق لينبح ولم يتعلم ان النباح لم ينفع الكلاب منذ آلاف السنين .. الكلاب نبحت .. وكل قوافل الدنيا تابعت مسيرتها .. وقافلة التحرير .. ستصل الى الجنوب السوري شاءت الكلاب السوداء الأوبامية أو الكلاب الشقراء الترامبية ..

ويتوجب على ترامب ان يعرف كتاجر ورجل صفقات ان السياسة مثل التجارة أيضا .. فليس كل الزبائن لهم نفس الطباع وليس كل من يمر بالسوق يشتري كل مايعرضه عليه .. وأن في السوق أحرارا لايشترون من اللصوص وسوق الحرامية الذي تديره عصابة البيت الأبيض والكنيست.. والاهم ان دكان ترامب الذي افتتح له فروعا في كل الشرق الاوسط لبيع منتجاته الصهيونية عبر قرارات لارصيد لها .. لم يسمح له بدخول دمشق .. لبيع منتجاته ونباحه .. فيمكن لترامب ان يبيع السعوديين والخليجيين نباحه .. ووبره .. ولهاثه .. ويمكنه أن يبول في كل ركن من الخليج كما تفعل الكلاب التي تبول في كل الزوايا وجذوع الاشجار والجدران لتحديد الاقليم الذي تسيطر عليه وتكون مثل رسائل التهديد والوعيد للكلاب الأخرى كيلا تقترب من نطاق ملكوتها .. وهناك زبائن خليجيون لايرفضون أن يشتروا النباح .. وبول الكلاب .. ويستحمون ببول الكلاب التي تبول على وجوههم .. لأنها تعتبر ان بعض الوجوه جدران واعمدة تحمل رسائل الكلاب وتحدد نطاق اقليمها ..

وأستطيع اليوم أن أستنتج أن لقاء الأسد وبوتين كان لبحث السياسة والدستور وانهاء الملفات الحساسة الديبلوماسية .. ولكن انذارات الاميريكيين من الاقتراب السوري من الجنوب وتحميل روسيا مسؤولية ذلك تعني أن الكلاب الاميريكية تشممت أنوفها رائحة معركة قادمة في الجنوب .. رائحة المعركة كانت تنطلق من سوتشي حيث التقى الأسد .. وبوتين .. وربما هذا هو السر الذي كنا نفتش عنه عن لقاء سوتشي الاخير ولم نهتد الى اي سر من أسراره الى أن سمعنا نباح الكلاب الاميريكية ..

والكلاب التي تنبح اليوم .. تعلم أنها نبحت .. في دير الزور .. وفي حلب .. وفي حمص .. وفي البوكمال .. وفي تدمر .. وفي الغوطة والقلمون .. وفي دوما .. وكلما ازداد النباح .. نعلم أن هناك حجرا سيلقم في أفواه الكلاب ..

   ( الأحد 2018/05/27 SyriaNow)

Muhammad & Friends with Gilad Atzmon

%d bloggers like this: