نتنياهو يستنفر لإبن سلمان: حلف الخاسرين

 

نوفمبر 3, 2018

ناصر قنديل

– كما ظنّ وروّج الكثيرون لمقولة إن روسيا لا تتخلى عن «إسرائيل»، في ذروة الكلام الروسي عن نشر صواريخ الأس 300 في سورية وتسليمها للجيش العربي السوري، معتقدين أنهم أساتذة يعلمون ما لا يعلمه سواهم، يروّجون لنظرية أن واشنطن لن تتخلّى عن سعودية إبن سلمان، وأن طلب «إسرائيل» بهذا الخصوص في واشنطن لا يُردّ، وهم يظنون أنهم أيضاً اساتذة يعلمون ما لا يعلم سواهم. وكما سقطت نظريتهم السطحية في فهم الموازين الاستراتيجية التي تحكم الدول التي تديرها عقول المؤسسات وحسابات المصالح في الحالة الروسية، ستسقط مزاعم ما يدعونه من عمق الفهم والتحليل وتظهر الحقائق الجديدة التي ترسم الحسابات والمصالح الأميركية.

– يبدو أن رئيس حكومة الاحتلال بنيامين نتنياهو أكثر مَن يستشعر خطورة الوضع، ويدرك وقوفه على ضفة الخسارة التي يقف عليها إبن سلمان بأن واشنطن دخلت مرحلة إعادة رسم الخرائط، وأن مكانة الحلفاء يُعاد تحديدها، وأن خطة صفقة القرن التي سقطت بصمود الشعب الفلسطيني ورفضه السماح لأي من قادته بالجلوس في مقاعد البازار المفتوح على مستقبل القدس، ستأخذ معها الوكيل الذي وقف وراء التورط الأميركي في الانسحاب من التفاهم النووي مع إيران وفي الخروج الأميركي من قيادة التفاوض حول القضية الفلسطينية وفق حل الدولتين، ولو كان تفاوضاً للتفاوض يستمر عقوداً بلا نتائج، فوجدت واشنطن نفسها بين خياري قبول الخسارة ودخول المعارك الفاشلة مع روسيا وإيران، أو دخول حرب كبرى لا قدرة لها على تحمّل تبعاتها، ولا مصلحة لها بفتح ملفاتها، وإلا فعليها أن تفعل ما تفعله الآن، وهو إعادة ترتيب خريطة الحلفاء ومن خلالهم خريطة المنطقة، وعلى أحد هؤلاء على الأقل أن يدفع فاتورة الأثمان التي تترتب على إقفال ملفات الحروب التي انتهت بهزائم، من اليمن إلى سورية وأوكرانيا وغيرها من إنصاف حروب في العراق ولبنان، وخصوصاً المواجهة مع إيران، وهي عشية جولة جديدة انتهت قبل أن تبدأ مع إعلان أميركي بإعفاء نصف زبائن النفط الإيراني من العقوبات.

– يتدخّل نتنياهو علناً ويسانده وزير خارجية البحرين، في إطلاق الدعوة لعدم سلخ الجلد السعودي كما تمّ سلخ جلد وجه جمال الخاشقجي، وهما ومَن معهما يدركون أن قضية جمال الخاشقجي ليست إلا الذريعة والعنوان، لكن كل شركاء الحقبة السعودية يتحسّسون رقابهم كي لا ينالهم بعضٌ من الفاتورة السعودية، وهم يعرفون أن وقف حرب اليمن بقرار أميركي ليس عقاباً للسعودية على قضية الخاشقجي، بل تموضع جديد عنوانه الاعتراف بالفشل في إقامة تحالف إقليمي وزان بوجه إيران في المنطقة، ركيزته صفقة القرن المقبورة، كما يعرفون أن صراخهم تحت عنوان طلب الرحمة بالسعودية، بعنوان أن الحفاظ على استقرارها وعبرها على استقرار المنطقة، دعوة لعدم رسم خرائط جديدة باشرت واشنطن بفتح ملفاتها، وخشية من أن ينالهم من شظايا التغيير في وضع السعودية فقدان الكثير من أوراق القوة، فيصير الصراخ تحت عنوان التضامن مع السعودية وطلب عدم تدفيعها ما لا تتحمّل دفعه، طلباً لتحييدهم عن الثمن الناجم عن الوضع الجديد للسعودية، وهو أمر يصعب التحكم به بالتأكيد.

– بين المتحدّثين من حلفاء السعودية وحده كلام نتنياهو له قيمة في واشنطن، أما الخليجيون المتحدثون من جماعة الفلك السعودي فيعرفون أن ساعتهم آتية، خصوصاً في البحرين واليمن والإمارات، ولو بنسب مختلفة. وأن قطر وعمان والكويت سينالون بعضاً من أثمان وعائدات التغيير، ونتنياهو يدرك خطورة اللحظة بعد سقوط مشروع صفقة القرن لجهة ما رآه من تأقلم أميركي مع الموقف الروسي الرادع لـ»إسرائيل» في سورية، كما يدرك أن التراجع الأميركي خطوة إلى الوراء عن صفقة القرن سيعني نيل «إسرائيل» جوائز ترضية بالتطبيع الذي يعنيها كثيراً، لكنه لا يجلب لها أمنها المفقود، لذلك يدخل على الخط الساخن مع واشنطن لمحاولة تعديل الخريطة بضمان بقاء المشروع على قيد الحياة ومنحه بعض الأوكسجين إن أمكن، بتسويات موضعية منفصلة لكل من الملفات، لكن يبدو أن ما كُتب قد كُتب، وقمة باريس بين الرئيسين الأميركي والروسي تفتتح مسار قمم تليها في واشنطن وموسكو، حيث سترسم الخرائط والمشاريع وتصنع التسويات، وتحدّد الأثمان والفواتير، ولو كان الدفع بشيكات مؤجلة منعاً للانهيارات التي تخرج عن السيطرة.

Related Videos

Related Articles

Advertisements

Khan Al-Ahmar Exposes the Misplaced Priorities of the PA and the International Community

Residents of Khan al-Ahmar block Israeli bulldozers to stop the demolition of their village. (Photo: Oren Ziv, Activestills.org)

October 20, 2018

By Ramona Wadi

The Palestinian Authority and the international community made a PR spectacle out of Khan Al-Ahmar and its impending demolition. Suffice to say that when facing human rights violations which are listed as war crimes, protocol is given precedence and the media follows suit. Two recent statements testify to this collective experimentation upon the Palestinian people.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor warned that Khan Al-Ahmar’s demolition would constitute a war crime under the Rome Statute. Fatou Bensouda will, she added, “continue to keep a close eye on the developments on the ground.” It is worth noting that the situation in Palestine has been under preliminary investigation at the ICC since 2015 and the rhetoric remains stagnant in concordance with the bureaucratic procedures that allow war crimes to be committed rather than prevented.

Meanwhile, PA Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah paid a so-called “solidarity visit” to the threatened village in which verbal distinction between the people and the politicians was blurred.  “Our presence here today in Khan Al-Ahmar carries a message that says we are going to fight to defeat the deal of the century,” Hamdallah declared.

Whose presence was he referring to? The PA’s presence is a symbol devoid of any symbolism, diplomatic or otherwise; it’s an authority without authority. There will be no official PA presence in Khan Al-Ahmar when the Israeli bulldozers roll in and rhetoric about fighting the deal of the century will be spouted forth at another opportune time and place.

While the fate of the Bedouin village has indeed attracted international attention, there is a constant failure to note that all such forced displacements from 1948 onwards are part of Israel’s plan to colonize all of historic Palestine. The insistence on framing this eviction as detrimental only to the two-state compromise is not only inaccurate but also dangerous.

To what extent is Khan Al-Ahmar important to the international community? Is it because there is a commitment to uphold human rights — if so, why are they not being upheld? — or is there some value to be derived from maintaining the clearly obsolete two-state rhetoric? It is not difficult to guess that human rights have little to do with what is happening. This should prompt collective outrage at the international community’s own abuse and exploitation of Palestinian rights depending on whether they concur with the accepted paradigm.

The PA and the international community have tethered Palestinians to future hypothetical support. Furthermore, there is an adamant refusal to view Khan Al-Ahmar’s demolition as another macabre chapter in a long history of forced displacement of the Palestinian people. Historically, the villagers’ struggle is not unique, yet we are forced to view it as an isolated incident.

The difference lies beneath the perception. Palestinian communities targeted with forced displacement are aware of their solitary predicament in relation to the political unraveling of their cause. The PA’s alignment to Israel and the international community, on the other hand, leaves it with little choice other than to continue the charade of allegedly protecting Palestinian rights while failing, more than ever, to find a foothold for its survival beyond what is dictated to, and implemented by, itself as an institution created to defend Israel. Like the international community, PA officials have attempted to tie Khan Al-Ahmar to the two-state delusion in vain, while the community has persisted in its resistance within the framework of historic Palestine.

– Ramona Wadi is a staff writer for Middle East Monitor, where this article was originally published. She contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com.

Related Videos

Jeremy Corbyn and Britain’s Largest Political Party Stand Strong with Palestine at Annual Liverpool Conference

As soon the conference began, one thing was clear: Palestine was going to have a significant place in the discussions and resolutions. What was also clear was that there is a segment within the U.K. Labour Party that is deeply Zionist, opposes Corbyn, and works within the party to undermine him.

by Miko Peled

 

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — The 2018 U.K. Labour conference held in Liverpool, September 23-26, will be remembered as a turning point in U.K. relations to the Palestinian issue. Britain, which is rightfully accused for its role in promoting the Zionist takeover of Palestine, now seems prepared to make amends. In his final speech, on the final day of the conference and following many events and votes on the Palestine issue, Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn made it clear that a Labour government led by him would hold Israel responsible for its human-rights violations, killing of unarmed protesters, and detention of children. Labour also made it clear it is ready to review the sales of British-made arms to Israel. All of this was achieved in spite of the fact that elements within the Labour Party have been striving to undermine Corbyn’s leadership.
Liverpool’s diversity is unique among European cities: it is home to the oldest Black African community in the United Kingdomand the oldest Chinese community in all of Europe. After the famine in Ireland between 1845 and 1852, over 2 million Irish migrated to the city in a single decade. The nickname “scouser” for people of Liverpool comes from an old Irish stew. Liverpool is home to England’s first mosque, established in 1889; and the Princess Road synagogue, which is one of England’s oldest and most beautiful Jewish synagogues.

During the Thatcher years, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher is known to have ordered a “managed decline” to bring Liverpool to ruin, which it succeeded in doing. It wasn’t until the year 2000 that a £1 billion grant from the European Union helped the city to rebuild and regenerate itself, and today it is a beautiful and prosperous town. The EU also helped fund the cleaning of the Mersey River, which was at one point one of the most polluted rivers in Europe; as a result of an £8 billion clean-up of the sewage that once polluted the river, today it is one of the cleanest.

Struggle within U.K. Labour Party

As soon the conference began, one thing was clear: Palestine was going to have a significant place in the discussions and resolutions. What was also clear was that there is still a segment within the U.K. Labour Party that is deeply Zionist, opposes Corbyn, and works within the party to undermine him. In fact, an entire anti-Semitism and holocaust denying campaign against Corbyn was fabricated by Zionist groups.

One meeting I had was with Ben Bradshaw, MP from Exeter, whose record includes supporting the war on Iraq and opposing Jeremy Corbyn as leader. Bradshaw told me that BDS was too extreme, that we must not compare Israel to apartheid South Africa and that “you cannot impose a single state with an Arab majority on Israel.” He went on to insist that “it will never happen.”

Having been wrong twice already on major issues, it is not surprising Bradshaw is wrong again. It was Israel that had imposed a single state on Palestine and declared it to be exclusive, not the other way around. An Arab majority was inevitable because Palestinians, who love large families, have more children that Israeli Jews. When I asked him which of the three demands of the BDS call he did not agree with — the right of return, ending the occupation of 1967, or the demand for equal rights — he admitted he agreed with all of them. “But” he said, “BDS is too extremist and unbalanced because it doesn’t guarantee Israel’s security.”

A historic vote

On September 25 the conference held a historic vote on Palestine. The excitement in the conference hall was immense and one had to remind oneself that this was not a rally of a Palestine solidarity group but the conference of the U.K. Labour Party, which today is the largest political party in Western Europe. The support for Palestine among members and guests was made evident by the thousands of Palestinian flags held by members and delegates.

The motion that was voted and carried at the conference was unprecedented in its condemnation of Israel and reads as follows:

Conference condemns

This aggressive attempt to rewrite history, and erase the victims of the 1948 war, who were expelled or fled from their homes in Palestine.

Conference supports

Developing solidarity with Palestinian refugees, especially young refugees, and [exploring] developing links with UNRWA schools, its training centres, and its local staff serving across the Middle East.

Conference urges

The British government to increase its level of annual assessed contributions to UNRWA, providing much needed reassurance and stability to Palestinian refugees, and to encourage other member states to do the same.

This conference resolves

To call for an independent international investigation into Israel’s use of force against Palestinian demonstrators; a freeze of U.K. government arms sales to Israel; and an immediate unconditional end to the illegal blockade and closure of Gaza.

Two points of weakness

The party and its leader renewed their commitment to two things that on their face may seem like support for the Palestinian cause but in fact are counterproductive. The first is a commitment to the Two-State Solution — or, in other words, a Palestinian State in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. And the second is recognition of the State of Palestine.

The Two-State Solution is a Zionist idea that has allowed Israel to advance its policies while blaming Palestinians for rejecting peace. History shows that, contrary to popular belief, it was Israel that consistently rejected any compromise that would have led to a partition of Palestine into two states. The November 29, 1947 UN resolution 181 called for a partition of Palestine into two states and was extremely favorable to the Zionist community in Palestine. However, immediately after the resolution was passed, the Zionist militia in Palestine began its campaign of ethnic cleansing and destruction, a campaign that lasted over a year and is now called “The Naqba,” or catastrophe.

In 1967 a second opportunity arose for a two-state solution, this time under conditions even more favorable to Israel. Again, Israel reacted with a massive a operation of forced exile, the destruction of Palestinian towns and villages in the West Bank, and the building of cities and towns exclusively for Jews, thus destroying any chance for a Palestinian state to be established. It seems that the declarations of support for this so-called solution are a sort of lip service given to Zionists so as not to “go too far,” as it were, and demand equal rights for all people who live in what was once Mandatory Palestine.

The recognition of a Palestinian state is also a form of lip service –recognizing, as it were, a state that does not exist. This creates the illusion that all Palestine needs is recognition of its status as a state rather than recognition that all of Palestine is occupied, that its people live under a violent oppressive regime and that BDS — boycott, divestment and sanctions — are required to bring about change.

The Hareidi Community stands up

A rare and extremely fruitful collaboration that I experienced during the conference was with the U.K. Haredi, or Ultra-Orthodox, Jewish community. In a statement published before the conference, Shraga Stern, a local Londoner and a member of the Haredi community wrote,

We believe that the anti-Semitism smear and witch hunt against Jeremy Corbyn is a Zionist agenda and has all the footprints leading to that direction. It is being promoted by the Board of Deputies and by the self-made unelected JLC, who are a well-known pro-Israel bodies-  and it’s completely cruel and unjustified.”

Leaders of this community came out to stand against false accusations of anti-Semitism in the U.K. in general as well as in the Labour Party. The Haredi community, which makes up over 20 percent of the 265,000 Jewish people who live in the U.K., came out with a clear message refuting the claims that Jewish people in the U.K. fear for their lives. Regardless of any individual’s political leanings, they said, it was clear that Jeremy Corbyn has always been a friend of U.K. Jewish people and is not in the slightest way a racist or anti-Semite, and that Jewish people live well and have no fear of anti-Semitism.

I had the honor of sharing a stage with Rabbi Ahron Cohen, who drove up from Manchester for the final day of the conference, and to stand with Rabbi Beck, who drove up from London to express support. In answer to a question regarding Israel’s right to exist, Rabbi Cohen replied, “what is Israel doing there to begin with?” and he went on to discuss the trouble that was brought on the indigenous communities in Palestine, both Arab and Jew, as a result of the ZIonist occupation of Palestine and the creation of Israel.

Rabbi Beck put it in another way,

I live in the U.K. over 30 years and I never saw a British soldier. In Israel every child sees armed soldiers all the time. How can anyone claim that life for Jews in Israel is better or safer than [in] the U.K.?”

IMG_5401_edited-1145x644.jpgRight to Left, Rabbi Beck, Miko Peled, Jack Thomas and another member of the Haredi community at the U.K. Labour conference in Liverpool, England, Sept 26, 2018. Photo | Miko Peled

The presence of the Haredi community, as well as their unwavering support, was a tremendous boost to Corbyn and to those in the party who know the anti-Semitism charges are false. It was an enormous step for the rabbis of this community — who made the effort to attend the conference, even though it was held during the Jewish High Holidays. It was a real pleasure to stand outside the conference hall on a sunny day in Liverpool with these fine people and to see the tremendous support we were getting from conference attendees as they were leaving the hall.

Even with its shortcomings, one must admit that the conference was an enormous boost to the cause for justice in Palestine. Furthermore, Jeremy Corbyn, who has been attacked by Zionist and neo-liberal groups working in unison, is as unwilling to bend as ever. In fact, one could argue that the U.K. may soon have a prime minister who is a truly a decent and honest man, and a true socialist who also cares deeply for Palestine.

Source

 

Two-state hypocrisy

Imagine the following scenario: In response to the peaceful African-American civil rights movement in the United States, led by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. during the 1960s, a large segment of white Americans figured that the best solution to the issue would be to form a new country on a small part of US territory in the north, where African-Americans would be segregated and live on their own.

Any of these African-Americans who lived for generations in the American South, but at some point had to flee to the American North (or to Canada or Mexico) because of violence and discrimination perpetrated against them, would not be able to return to their homes in the South. They would only be permitted to “return” to this new African-American state.

Any of the African-Americans already in the South could stay there, but would become second-class citizens, facing institutionalized discrimination in a country dominated politically, economically and socially by white Americans – much as was the case during the Jim Crow era following centuries of enslavement.

On top of this, any of the white Americans who recently colonized parts of African-American territory could stay and continue to exploit the natural resources, whether the African-American population liked it or not. This new country would also be demilitarized, landlocked (or denied a port) and would have no true sovereignty over its territory.

In other words, the fate of this predominantly African-American country would largely remain in the hands of the white American one.

Unless one is a racist or white supremacist, this scenario would sound preposterous not only to most Americans, but also to most people in the world. Sadly, this imaginary situation is very similar to the one that many Israeli, and more disappointingly, American Zionists would like to impose on Palestinians – the so-called two-state solution.

Leading to peace?

One might ask, what is the problem with a two-state solution, if it will lead to peace between Palestinians and Israelis?

For one, Israel is unwilling to fully evacuate from the West Bank territory that it seized during the 1967 war, despite its obligation to do so under UN Security Council Resolution 242. This is land that Palestinians would expect for their own state.

However, since 1967, Israel established more than 200 settlements on tens of thousands of hectares of Palestinian land in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, with a total population of more than 600,000Israeli settlers.

Due to these “facts on the ground,” Israel would demand to keep much of this occupied land in a two-state solution scenario. But according to international law, as outlined by the principle that territory cannot be acquired by force, Israel has no right to one square inch of Palestinian land in the West Bank.

In a two-state solution, Palestinians would expect their capital to be East Jerusalem, which was seized by Israel during the 1967 war. However, Israel considers the entire city of Jerusalem to be its “eternal and undivided” capital and it has remained firm on this position.

It has been reported that Israel would try to make the nearby neighborhood of Abu Dis the future Palestinian capital. This would be completely unacceptable to Palestinians as Jerusalem has tremendous religious, cultural and historical significance for them.

Neutered state

Another major problem with a two-state solution is that Israel would agree to a Palestinian state only under the condition that it is demilitarized. This has been emphasized by numerous Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Even former US President Bill Clinton proposed in 2000 that Israel be able to maintain some military facilities in Palestine and to deploy military forces in cases involving a “national security” threat to Israel. In other words, Palestine would be a neutered state with no true sovereignty, and Israel would always maintain significant control over Palestinians.

Last but not least, a two-state solution would almost certainly be the final nail in the coffin for the issue of the right of return for Palestinian refugees. This right is a cornerstone of the Palestinian struggle.

Palestinian refugees who were forced to flee, both in 1948 and in 1967, have an inalienable right to return to their homeland as do their descendants.

This right is enshrined in international law. The UN General Assembly in December 1948 adopted Resolution 194, and in June 1967, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 237, both of which call on Israel to allow the return of refugees.

Yet Israel continues to violate its obligations under international law. It has no intention of correcting its historic injustices that created the Palestinian refugee problem.

The right of return has been one of the key issues preventing a just settlement of the conflict. In the rare instances that Israel even considers Palestinian statehood, it regards the right of return as out of the question, save for return to a new hypothetical – and truncated – state of Palestine rather than to the areas where refugees once lived.

Inherently intolerant

The problems with a two-state solution mentioned above lead to an obvious question: Why not form one democratic state where both Palestinians and Israelis could live with equal rights?

This would be the most fair and equitable solution.

The answer to this question is quite simple. Zionism, the political ideology that is the basis of the state of Israel, is inherently intolerant of equality. Its main goal was to create a Jewish state in Palestine, where Jews would be the majority and dominate all others.

Jews would receive special rights and treatment. For example, a Jewish person from China who has no connection to Palestine has the right to emigrate there and become an Israeli citizen, while a Palestinian refugee whose family lived there for generations has no right to do so.

If that seems racist or discriminatory, it’s because it really is.

One might assume that such a prejudiced ideology is primarily espoused by a small segment of hard-line, right-wing Jews. Unfortunately, this is far from the truth.

A perfect example is J Street, which is a supposedly liberal lobbying organization that “mobilizes pro-Israel, pro-peace Americans who want Israel to be secure, democratic and the national home of the Jewish people.” The organization indicates that its policies reflect the views of the majority of American Jews.

But J Street is not shy about its support of the discriminatory philosophy of Zionism, as can be seen in its official policy regarding the two-state solution:

“With the Jewish and Arab populations between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea at near-parity, demographic trends preclude Israel from maintaining control over all of Greater Israel while remaining a democratic state and a homeland for the Jewish people. As then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in November 2007, ‘If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights, then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished.’”

It might seem unbelievable, but J Street is in fact stressing that equality for Palestinians and Israelis would spell disaster for Israel. It also adds that “there is no such thing as a ‘one-state solution,’ only a ‘one-state nightmare.’”

If this is the “liberal” Zionist position, and the position of Americans who theoretically should be more democratically minded, one can only imagine how bigoted the hard-line conservative Zionist view is. Indeed, hardcore right-wing Zionists would like nothing more than to permanently annex the West Bank and proceed with the “transference” of Palestinians to Jordan.

These people do support a one-state solution, but it is one that involves ethnic cleansing and no equality whatsoever.

Ironically, President Donald Trump made a remark that fittingly illustrates why Zionists are so opposed to a one-state solution. During a recent meeting in June, Trump half-jokingly told King Abdullah of Jordan that a one-state solution would lead to an Israeli prime minister named Muhammad.

This is the “demographic threat” that motivated Netanyahu to warn Israeli voters in 2015 that “Arab voters are heading to the polling stations in droves.” And this is the nightmare scenario that a former director of the Mossad, Israel’s foreign spy agency, referred to when he warned that the “Jewish and Palestinian populations in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip are nearly equal, and Israel must act to separate itself.”

Zionism simply cannot stand the idea of equality between Jews and non-Jews.

The fact of the matter is that Israel was established at the expense of the non-Jewish indigenous Palestinian population – Muslims, Christians, and others – and it continues to subjugate and discriminate against them. This is precisely what Israel started in 1948, when at least 750,000 Palestinians were expelled and denied their right to return.

Since then, it has methodically engaged in the near starvation of Palestinians in Gaza, occupied and oppressedthose in the West Bank and Jerusalem, and imposed institutional discrimination against the Palestinian citizens of Israel. Through other tactics, such as the confiscation of Palestinian property and the demolition of homes, Israel has forced many Palestinians to emigrate, resulting in subtle ethnic cleansing.

As long as Israel remains committed to this racist, Zionist system, there will never be a truly just solution, no matter the number of states.

By Mohamed Mohamed
Source

Understanding the ‘Hebrew prophet’ from Palestine: Gilad Atzmon and His Philosophy

 

By  Adriel Kasonta

Source:  American Herald Tribune   

As we currently see, the Israeli-Palestinian relations have shifted from very bad to worse, giving very little hope (or non) for the two-State solution.

With Israel passing Jewish ‘nation state’ law (which is seen by many as a major shift towards legislated apartheid), the rising concerns of an anti-Semitic sentiment within the political ranks of the Labour Party in Britain, a struggle of the Jewish diaspora from all over the world to reject associating condemnation of Israel with antisemitism, and visible lack of interest of the MSM to acknowledge the right of ALL Jews and non-Jews to participate in those debates (which often results in prevention of the dissent voices from reaching the broader public), I wholeheartedly believe that it is desired to discuss these very important (and often inconvenient) topics with people of various opinions – but at the same time those who have deep understanding of the subject matter.

In this regard, I have approached probably the most accomplished and controversial jazz saxophonist, philosopher, novelist and anti-Zionist writer of our times – Gilad Atzmon.

Born in a secular Jewish family in Tel Aviv and grew up in Jerusalem, by some he is accused of being antisemitic and by others is perceived as the last ‘Hebrew prophet’.

Who is Gilad Atzmon? What does it mean to him to be an ex-Jew? What are, and what has shaped, his views? How looked his life in Israel and what has changed since that time? What can be done to end suffering of the Palestinian people? Does freedom of speech really exist?

These questions – and many others – were answered by my guest, so tune in!

Listen to Adriel Kasonta interviewing Gilad Atzmon here:

Part 1

Part 2

Filed under: "Peace with Israel", anti-semitism, AZZ, Britain, British Jews, Choseness, Colonialism, Freedom of Speach, Gilad Atzmon, Goyim, History, Holocaust, Jewish Crimes, Jewish culture, Jewish terror state, Jewishness, Labour Party, Nakba and ROR, Palestine, Palestinian Holocaust, self-hating Jew, Shalom, Two States Solution, Uprooted Palestinians, Zionism, Zionist entity | Comments Off on Understanding the ‘Hebrew prophet’ from Palestine: Gilad Atzmon and His Philosophy

«إسرائيل» المحاصَرة تحاصِرُ نفسَها

Posted on by martyrashrakat

يوليو 21, 2018

ناصر قنديل

– لا يحتاج القانون الإسرائيلي الخاص بتثبيت الهوية اليهودية لكيان الاحتلال إلى شرح بصفته قانونا عنصريا، أو بصفته قانوناً عدوانياً على الوجود العربي الفلسطيني في الأراضي المحتلة عام 1948 يمهّد لتهجيرهم كفائض سكاني مقلق لنقاء الهوية اليهودية، ويُسقط في آن أي حديث عن مبرر لقبول فلسطيني وعربي بمفهوم الدولتين كإطار للتسوية، الذي قام أصلاً على توافق ضمني بحقوق مدنية وسياسية للعرب الفلسطينيين في الأراضي المحتلة العام 48 مساوية للمستوطنين الصهاينة، حتى كان المتطرفون الصهاينة يبررون رفضهم قيام دولة فلسطينية، بالقول إن الفلسطينيين سيربحون دولة ونصفاً، دولة فلسطينية، ونصف دولة بمشاركة العرب الفلسطينيين في الكيان المقام على الأراضي المحتلة عام 48، بحيث صار ما بعد القانون الجديد يعني أن القبول الفلسطيني والعربي بتسوية الدولتين تتضمّن قبولاً بتهجير العرب الفلسطينيين من الأراضي المحتلة عام 1948، ليضاف هذا القانون لاعتماد القدس كعاصمة موحدة لكيان الاحتلال، واستبعاد مطلق للتفاوض على عودة اللاجئين، وحصر التفاوض بحجم السيادة في مدن الضفة وغزة، ما يعني شرحاً كاملاً لمفهوم عروض التسوية الإسرائيلية للقضية الفلسطينية المتبناة أميركياً وخليجياً مشروع مذبحة مفتوحة بشرياً وثقافياً وتاريخياً ودينياً ووطنياً.

– فهم خطورة القانون من جهة، والموقف المناهض له بقوة من جهة ثانية، وفضح مضمون صفقة القرن المذلّة والمهينة التي يتّجه حكام الخليج إلى تبنيها علناً، شيء، وتفسير الخلفية الفعلية للموقف الإسرائيلي شيء آخر. فهو حاجة ملحّة لفهم الموازين الحقيقية الحاكمة للصراع مع المشروع الصهيوني، بعد حرب مفتوحة منذ العام 2000، يخوضها محور المقاومة تسبّبت بتصدع هيبة كيان الاحتلال، وإفقاده القدرة على الذهاب لحرب، وأسقطت قوة ردعه التقليدية، لنقرأ ما إذا كان القانون الجديد عنصر تزخيم للقوة الإسرائيلية، وعلامة على نهوض جديد لمصادر قوة المشروع الصهيوني، أم هو واحدة إضافية من علامات المأزق الاستراتيجي، الذي دخله ولا يعرف كيف يخرج منه، والجواب يقدّمه المشهد المحيط بكيان الاحتلال، حيث في ما يخصّ المواجهة مع المقاومة على جبهة جنوب لبنان إجماع إسرائيلي على عدم اللعب بالنار، وتحذيرات إسرائيلية للحكومة والجيش من أن ارتكاب أي حماقة قد تنتهي بحرب مدمرة وهزيمة مدوية. وعلى الجبهة السورية التي كانت محور رهان إسرائيلي استراتيجي للخروج من المأزق بقيام حكم جديد لسورية يسيطر عليه حلفاء إسرائيل، وقد تبخّر الحلم و«إسرائيل» تعترف بأن انتصار الرئيس السوري بخياراته المعروفة صار كالقدر لا يردّ، ومحاولات الاستعانة بالصديق الأميركي تفشل بنيل ضمانة روسية بإخراج المقاومة وإيران من روسيا. وسقف الممكن هو نشر مراقبي الأندوف ضمن صيغة تمهّد لإنعاش الحراك نحو انسحاب إسرائيلي من الجولان بدلاً من ضمه، وفي غزة مع كل تصعيد تسقط القذائف على المستوطنات الصهيونية، وتذهب «إسرائيل» لنصف حرب، يأتي التراجع الإسرائيلي نحو هدنة، لأن قرار الحرب صعب ومكلف، وربما فوق طاقة «إسرائيل».

– إسرائيل المحاصرة من كل اتجاه، تقوم بحصار نفسها، بقوة الأيديولوجيا، والخوف من التاريخ والجغرافيا، بقانون الهوية اليهودية يُنقل الحصار إلى داخل الأراضي المحتلة العام 1948، ويوحّد النضال الوطني للعرب الفلسطينيين في كل الجغرافيا الفلسطينية ويفضح تفاهة ووضاعة كل مَن يتحدّث عن فرص للتسوية وجدوى للتفاوض، وفي أي مواجهة مقبلة، وهي مقبلة، سيجد كيان الاحتلال الذي فرح بالقدس عاصمة يعترف بها الأميركي، كما فرح بقانون الهوية اليهودية، ويفرح بصفقة العصر، أنه لا يفعل سوى تفخيخ الأرض التي يقف فوقها. فالأرباح على الورق شيء، والخسائر في الجغرافيا والديمغرافيا شيء آخر.

Related Videos

Related Articles

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

Posted on by michaellee2009

Source

By 

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.

Next Page »
%d bloggers like this: