Syria’s Assad Just Explained How America Really Works

By Brandon Turbeville

While Americans endlessly battle each other over seemingly important choices like Clinton and Trump or Democrats and Republicans, it is clear that the majority of the population has little understanding of how the U.S. government operates. Yet, for those who pay the price for the apathy and confusion of the general population of the West, it often becomes stunningly obvious that neither presidents nor political parties in America represent any discernible difference in the ongoing agenda of the Deep State and the rest of the oligarchical apparatus. Indeed, that agenda always marches forward regardless of who is president or which political party is in control.

Syria’s president Bashar al-Assad has thus had the unique position of not only being on the receiving end of American imperialism by virtue of not only being a citizen of a target country but also by being the head of the country, steeped in politics in his own right and thus understanding how certain factors come into play at the national level.

With that in mind, it is worth pointing out a recent statement made by Assad during the course of an interview regarding the opinion of the Syrian government on Donald Trump. Assad stated,

The American President has no policies. There are policies drawn by the American institutions which control the American regime which are the intelligence agencies, the Pentagon, the big arms and oil companies, and financial institutions, in addition to some other lobbies which influence American decision-making. The American President merely implements these policies, and the evidence is that when Trump tried to move on a different track, during and after his election campaign, he couldn’t. He came under a ferocious attack. As we have seen in the past few week, he changed his rhetoric completely and subjected himself to the terms of the deep American state, or the deep American regime. That’s why it is unrealistic and a complete waste of time to make an assessment of the American President’s foreign policy, for he might say something; but he ultimately does what these institutions dictate to him. This is not new. This has been ongoing American policy for decades.

Assad also addressed the Western media’s portrayal of him as a “devil” who kills and oppresses his own people. He stated,

Yes, from a Western perspective, you are now sitting with the devil. This is how they market it in the West. But this is always the case when a state, a government, or an individual do not subjugate themselves to their interests, and do not work for their interests against the interests of their people. These have been the Western colonial demands throughout history. They say that this evil person is killing the good people. Okay, if he is killing the good people, who have been supporting him for the past six years? Neither Russia, nor Iran, nor any friendly state can support an individual at the expense of the people. This is impossible. If he is killing the people, how come the people support him? This is the contradictory Western narrative; and that’s why we shouldn’t waste our time on Western narratives because they have been full of lies throughout history, and not something new.

When asked about the allegations made by the United States that the Syrian government has retained some stocks of chemical weapons, Assad responded by saying,

You and I remember well what happened in 2003, when Colin Powell showed the world in the United Nations what he claimed to be the evidence which proves that President Saddam Hussein possessed chemical, nuclear, and other weapons. However, when the American forces invaded Iraq, it was proven that all he said was a lie. Powell himself admitted that the American intelligence agencies deceived him with that false evidence. That wasn’t the first nor will it be the last time. This means that if you want to be a politician in the United States, you have to be a genuine liar. This is what characterizes American politicians: they lie on a daily basis, and say something and do something different. That’s why we shouldn’t believe what the Pentagon, or any other American institution says, because they say things which serve their policies, not things which reflect reality and the facts on the ground.

One can scarcely argue with Assad’s portrayal of the U.S. government and the position of the presidency in 2017. After all, Donald Trump campaigned on keeping America out of foreign wars and the affairs of other countries as well as the WW3 policy of Hillary Clinton. However, not even four months into his presidency, Trump launched 59 Tomahawk missiles into Syria and the United States struck a Syrian military convoy en route to liberate the southeast of the country from terrorists only days ago.

The Trump administration has repeatedly pushed the envelope even further in Syria and provoked fears that the U.S. aggression in the region and in Asia could result in a confrontation with a nuclear power much in the same way that Hillary Clinton advocated for during the campaign.

While Americans remain more divided than ever and as they ceaselessly argue over which party and political figurehead is better, the war machine marches onward not only in Syria but also in Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere. If Americans are not capable of understanding that there is more to the system in which they live than two pathetic political parties and clownish presidential personalities, that war machine will march itself clear across the globe until it comes back home.

The transcript of the interview with Bashar al-Assad is included below in this article. Assad addresses the United States involvement in the Syrian crisis, the Israeli role, and the attempt to destabilize Venezuela.

teleSUR (TS): Mr. President, thank you for receiving us.

President Bashar al-Assad (BA): I welcome you and teleSUR TV in Syria. You are welcome.

TS: Let’s start directly with the latest developments. Russia has warned that there might be other alleged chemical attacks. What are the precautionary measures that Syria has taken in order to prevent that?

BA: First of all, terrorists have used chemical materials more than once in the past several years and in more than one region throughout Syria. We have asked the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to send specialized missions to investigate what happened. And every time, the United States obstructed these investigations or prevented sending such missions in order to carry out such investigations. This is what happened last week when we called for investigations over the alleged use of chemical weapons in the town of Khan Sheikhoun. The United States and its allies prevented OPCW from taking that decision. As far as we are concerned, we still insist on an investigation, and we and our Russian and Iranian allies are trying to persuade OPCW to send a team to investigate what happened, because if it doesn’t, the United States might repeat the same charade by fabricating the use of false chemical weapons in another place in Syria in order to justify military intervention in support of the terrorists. On the other hand, we continue to fight the terrorists, because we know that the objective of all these American and Western allegations concerning chemical weapons is to support terrorists in Syria. That’s why we will continue to fight these terrorists.

TS: But the Pentagon says that Syria has chemical weapons. Is it true that Syria has kept one percent of the weapons it has committed itself to hand over and destroy four years ago?

BA: You and I remember well what happened in 2003, when Colin Powell showed the world in the United Nations what he claimed to be the evidence which proves that President Saddam Hussein possessed chemical, nuclear, and other weapons. However, when the American forces invaded Iraq, it was proven that all he said was a lie. Powell himself admitted that the American intelligence agencies deceived him with that false evidence. That wasn’t the first nor will it be the last time. This means that if you want to be a politician in the United States, you have to be a genuine liar. This is what characterizes American politicians: they lie on a daily basis, and say something and do something different. That’s why we shouldn’t believe what the Pentagon, or any other American institution says, because they say things which serve their policies, not things which reflect reality and the facts on the ground.

TS: What is the objective behind Syria’s desire to acquire the latest generation of anti-missile systems from Russia?

BA: We are already in a state of war with Israel; and Israel has been committing aggressions on the Arab states surrounding it since its creation in 1948. So, it’s natural that we should have such systems. However, the terrorists, acting on Israeli, American, Turkish, Qatari, and Saudi instructions have destroyed some of these systems. And it is natural for us to negotiate with the Russians now with a view to strengthening these systems, whether to face any Israeli threats from the air or the threats of American missiles. That has become a real possibility after the recent American aggression on al-Shairat airbase in Syria.

TS: What is the role that Israel, in particular, has played in this war against Syria? We know that Israeli attacks against the positions of the Syrian Arab Army have continued in recent weeks.

BA: It is playing this role in different forms; first, by direct aggression, particularly by using warplanes, artillery, or missiles against Syrian Army positions. Second, it is supporting terrorists in two ways: first by providing direct support in the form of weapons, and second by providing logistic support, i.e. allowing them to conduct military exercises in the areas it controls. It also provides them with medical assistance in its hospitals. These are not mere claims or assumptions. They are facts, verified and published on the internet which you can easily access as proven evidence of the Israeli role in support of the terrorists in Syria.

TS: How do you assess the current policy of Donald Trump in the world, and in Syria in particular?

BA: The American President has no policies. There are policies drawn by the American institutions which control the American regime which are the intelligence agencies, the Pentagon, the big arms and oil companies, and financial institutions, in addition to some other lobbies which influence American decision-making. The American President merely implements these policies, and the evidence is that when Trump tried to move on a different track, during and after his election campaign, he couldn’t. He came under a ferocious attack. As we have seen in the past few week, he changed his rhetoric completely and subjected himself to the terms of the deep American state, or the deep American regime. That’s why it is unrealistic and a complete waste of time to make an assessment of the American President’s foreign policy, for he might say something; but he ultimately does what these institutions dictate to him. This is not new. This has been ongoing American policy for decades.

TS: The American administration has opened a new front now with North Korea. Is it possible that this will affect the current American approach towards Syria?

BA: No, the United States always seeks to control all the states of the world without exception. It does not accept allies, regardless of whether they are developed states as those in the Western bloc, or other states of the world. Every state should be an American satellite. That is why what is happening to Syria, to Korea, to Iran, to Russia, and maybe to Venezuela now, aims at re-imposing American hegemony on the world, because they believe that this hegemony is under threat now, which consequently threatens the interests of American economic and political elites.

TS: Russia’s role in the Syrian conflict is very clear; but what is the role of China, this other great global power?

BA: There is great cooperation with Russia and China in terms of political action or political positions. Viewpoints are similar, and there is cooperation in the Security Council. As you know, the United States and its allies have tried several times to use the Security Council in order to legitimize the role of the terrorists in Syria and to legitimize their role in the illegitimate and aggressive intervention in Syria. That’s why Russia and China stood together, and China’s role, with the Russian role, was essential in this regard.

Moreover, some of the terrorists are Chinese nationals who came to Syria through Turkey. They pose a threat to us in Syria, but they pose an equal threat to China. China is aware of the fact that terrorism in any place in the world moves to any other place; and consequently, whether these terrorists are of Chinese or any other nationality, they might return to China and strike there as they have done in Europe, in Russia, and in Syria. We are now cooperating with China on security issues.

TS: Western and American media talk now about moderate terrorists and extremist terrorists. In reality, is there a difference between the two groups?

BA: For them, a moderate terrorist is that who carries out acts of beheading and slaughter but without carrying al-Qaeda flag, or without saying “Allah Akbar,” while an extremist terrorist is that who carries the flag and says Allah Akbar when carrying out acts of beheading and slaughter. This is the only difference. For the United States, all those who serve its political agenda against other states are classified as moderate opposition and not as extremist and terrorist, even if they commit the worst acts of terrorism. They are freedom fighters and not fighters in the cause of destruction and sabotage.

TS: There have been six years of war in Syria. What is Syria’s position now, particularly in the absence of statistics about human losses?

BA: The most painful loss in any war is human loss, the suffering which is inflicted any family when it loses one of its members; for the whole family is scarred for life. This is the natural feeling in a region like ours, where family ties are very strong. Nothing compensates that loss, and nothing exceeds the pain it causes. There are of course huge economic and infrastructure losses, but this infrastructure has been built for a little over 50 years by Syrian hands, not foreign hands. And we have the capacity to rebuild this infrastructure. The same goes for the economy, for the Syrian economy is based on Syrian capabilities first and foremost; and our economic ties with the West have always been limited. When the war is over, it will all be rebuilt. We do not have a problem with that. It is true that it takes time, but it is not impossible. So, the greatest and most painful loss for Syria is the human loss.

TS: Of the 86 states constituting the alliance waging war on Syria, are there any that would take part in the process of reconstruction?

BA: No, of course not. First of all, they do not want to rebuild Syria, but some companies in those countries, if they see that the wheel of the economy and rebuilding has started to turn, and since they are opportunists, they are certainly prepared to come and have a share of rebuilding Syria in order to make money. The Syrian people will certainly not accept this. All the states which stood against the Syrian people and took part in the destruction and sabotage will never take part in rebuilding Syria. That is final.

TS: But how was life during these past six years in this besieged country?

BA: Life has certainly been tough to every Syrian citizen. The terrorists have destroyed the infrastructure. In certain areas, electricity is on for one or two hours, and there are areas in which there’s no electricity at all. There are areas in which electricity has been cut off for more than two or three years. People don’t know television, children do not go to school, there are no medical clinics or hospitals, and nobody treats the ill. They live a prehistoric existence thanks to the terrorists. There are areas which did not have water for years, like what happened in Aleppo, which did not have water for many long years. Sometimes, they use polluted water for drinking, washing up, and other purposes. Life has been very tough.

TS: One of the main targets during these years has been the person of Bashar al-Assad. Have you ever felt fear during these years?

BA: When you are in the middle of the war, you do not feel fear. I believe this is something common to all people. But you have a general concern for the homeland; for what is the value of being safe, as an individual, as a citizen, while the country is under threat? You cannot feel safe. I believe that the feeling we have in Syria in general is concern for the future of Syria rather than personal fear. The evidence is that mortar shells fall anywhere, on any house; nevertheless, you see that life continues in Syria. The will to life is much stronger than personal fear. As a President, I take strength from the feelings of the general public, not from my personal feelings. I do not live in isolation from the others.

TS: Western media have been waging a media campaign against you. Am I sitting now with this devil portrayed by the media?

BA: Yes, from a Western perspective, you are now sitting with the devil. This is how they market it in the West. But this is always the case when a state, a government, or an individual do not subjugate themselves to their interests, and do not work for their interests against the interests of their people. These have been the Western colonial demands throughout history. They say that this evil person is killing the good people. Okay, if he is killing the good people, who have been supporting him for the past six years? Neither Russia, nor Iran, nor any friendly state can support an individual at the expense of the people. This is impossible. If he is killing the people, how come the people support him? This is the contradictory Western narrative; and that’s why we shouldn’t waste our time on Western narratives because they have been full of lies throughout history, and not something new.

TS: What can Syria, too, do in order to put an end to this war ahead of the sixth round of Geneva talks?

BA: We said that there are two axes: the first is fighting the terrorists; and this is not subject to any discussion, and we don’t have any other choice in dealing with the terrorists except fighting them. The other axis, the political one, includes two points: first, dialogue with the different political forces over the future of Syria; and second: local reconciliations, in the sense that we negotiate with the terrorists in a certain village or city, depending on each case separately. The objective of this reconciliation is for them to lay down their weapons and receive an amnesty from the state, and consequently return to their normal life. This approach has been implemented during the past three or four years, has succeeded, and is ongoing now. These are the axes which we can work on in order to find a solution to the Syrian crisis.

TS: From the perspective of a country in a state of war, how do you see the situation in Latin America, particularly in Venezuela, where a number of acts very similar to those which caused the conflict in Syria have emerged?

BA: Of course, they should be similar, because the party planning and implementing these acts is the same. It is the United States as a maestro and the Western states constituting the choir. Latin America in general, and Venezuela in particular, used to be the backyard of the United States for decades. Through that backyard, Western states, particularly North America, or the United States, used to secure their economic interests through the influence of the big companies in your countries. Military or political coups in Latin America during the 1960s and the 1970s aimed at perpetuating American hegemony over the interests of your people. But Latin America freed itself during the past twenty years and gained its independent decision-making. Governments started defending the interests of their peoples, which is unacceptable to the United States. That’s why they are exploiting what’s happening in the world, starting with the orange revolution in Ukraine up to the recent coup there a few years ago, and what is taking place in the Arab countries, in Libya, Syria, Yemen and others, in order to implement it in Latin America. They started in Venezuela with the objective of overthrowing the national government, and it will spread over to other Latin American countries.

TS: Some people, particularly ordinary citizens in Latin America, think that a scenario similar to what’s happening in Syria could be repeated in Latin America. What do you think?

BA: This is true. That’s why I say since the party planning and implementing is the same, it’s natural that the scenario is not only similar, but identical. Some local elements might be different. In Syria, they said in the beginning that there were peaceful demonstrations, but in fact, when these peaceful demonstrations did not spread wide enough, they implanted individuals who fired on both sides, on the police and the demonstrations, and there were casualties. They started to say that the state is killing the people, and this scenario is being repeated everywhere. The same scenario will be repeated in Venezuela. That’s why the Venezuelan people have to be very careful. There is a difference between opposing the government and being against the homeland, a huge difference. On the other hand, no foreign state can be more concerned about Venezuela’s interests than the Venezuelan people themselves. Do not believe the West, for it’s not concerned either about human rights or about the interests of states. It is only concerned about the interests of part of the governing elites in its countries. And these governing elites are not necessarily politicians, they are economic companies too.

TS: I’m talking about Latin America, Venezuela, the Bolivarian Revolution which was your strong ally. How do you remember the late Hugo Chavez?

BA: President Chavez was a world-class distinguished personality. When we talk about Latin America, we immediately remember the late President Chavez and the late leader Fidel Castro, the leader of the Cuban Revolution. They are distinguished personalities who changed the face of Latin America. But of course the leader I knew personally and whom I met more than once and had a personal relationship with was President Chavez, when he visited us in Syria and I visited him in Venezuela. He visited us twice. When you meet him, you can tell that he is the son of the people. You do not feel that you are meeting a president or a politician, but a person who lived the suffering of his people. Everything he said, and every minute of his time, was about the details related to the people of his country. And when he talked with a head of another state, or an official from another state, he always thought of how to create common interests which reflect positively on his people. He was a real and strongly charismatic leader. And he was an extremely genuine person.

TS: They demonized Chavez before; and it is clear that it is Nicolas Maduro’s turn now.

BA: Of course, as long as President Maduro is walking the same patriotic line, the line of Venezuela’s independence, and acting in the best interest of his country’s people, it is natural that he should be the first target of the United States. This is self-evident.

TS: How does Bashar al-Assad envision the end of the war?

BA: Today, foreign intervention in Syria aside, the problem is not complicated, for the majority of the Syrians are tired of the war and want a solution. They want to return to safety and stability. There is a dialogue between us as Syrians, there are meetings, and people live with each other, i.e. there is no real barrier. The problem now is that with every step we make towards a solution and regaining stability, the terrorist gangs receive more money and weapons in order to blow the situation up. That’s why I can say that the solution should be stopping outside support to the terrorists. As far as we are concerned in Syria, reconciliation among all Syrians, and forgetting and forgiving all that happened in the past throughout this war, is the way to restore safety to Syria. Rest assured that Syria will be then much stronger than it was before the war.

TS: Are you prepared to have reconciliation with those who carried arms against the Syrian people?

BA: Of course, and this has actually happened in many and different places, and some of them have fought side by side with the Syrian Army, some fell martyrs, and some returned to their cities and live in the part under government control. We don’t have a problem. Tolerance is essential to end any war. And we are proceeding on that track.

TS: Mr. President, what is your message to Latin America and the world?

BA: Keep your independence. We, in the Arab region, are celebrating independence in more than one country. But this independence used to mean, in a number of countries in the region, the mere evacuation of occupying forces. But real independence happens when you are in possession of your national decision-making. For us, Latin America was a model of independence, in the sense that occupiers were evacuated, in case there were foreign forces, but at the same time there was national decision-making, openness, and democracy. You provided the world with an important model. So, keep it, because if the countries of the third and developing world wanted to develop, they should follow the model implemented in Latin America.

TS: Mr. President, thank you for giving teleSUR this interview, and thank you for your precious time and all the information that you have provided.

BA: Thank you for coming, and once again I welcome you in Damascus.

Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 andvolume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President, and Resisting The Empire: The Plan To Destroy Syria And How The Future Of The World Depends On The Outcome

List Price: $14.95
Current Price: $14.95
Resisting The Empire: The Plan To Destroy Syria And How The Future Of The World Depends On The Outcome
Prices are accurate as of May 27, 2017 9:44 pm

. Turbeville has published over 1000 articles on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s radio show Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST atUCYTV. His website is BrandonTurbeville.com He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.This article may be freely shared in part or in full with author attribution and source link.

‘Israel’ Submits to Deal with Palestinian Prisoners on Hunger Strike

The hunger striking Palestinian detainees in various Israeli prisons have suspended their hunger strike, on Saturday at dawn, after a 20-hour session of talks, led by imprisoned legislator Marwan Barghouthi, and other senior political prisoners, with the Israeli Prison Authority. More

Palestinian prisoners

—————-

 ‘Israel’ Submits to Deal with Palestinian Prisoners on Hunger Strike

 27-05-2017 | 09:18

Zionist authorities finally submitted to a deal with the Palestinian prisoners who have been on hunger strike in ‘Israeli’ occupation prisons over the past 40 days.

 

‘Israel' Submits to Deal with Palestinian Prisoners on Hunger Strike


Issa Qaraqe, the head of the Palestinian Committee of Prisoners’ Affairs, confirmed the deal on Saturday.

Other informed sources also said that the hunger strikers had halted their protest action following the agreement.

Since April 17, more than 1,600 Palestinian prisoners had been refusing food in a protest action, dubbed the Freedom and Dignity Strike. The strike was led by Marwan Barghouti, a jailed leader of the Palestinian Fatah movement.

The hunger strikers were demanding appropriate medical care and treatment in Zionist occupation prisons, as well as an end to solitary confinement and the so-called administrative detention, which is a form of imprisonment without trial or charge.

There had lately been rising concerns about the health conditions of the Palestinian inmates; some of them had been taken to hospital with deteriorating health.

Not all of the details of the Saturday deal were immediately clear. Zionist media said that, under the agreement, Palestinian prisoners would be allowed two monthly family visits instead of one.

On Friday, Palestinian demonstrators turned out on the streets in the occupied West Bank and blockaded Gaza Strip to express their solidarity with the hunger strikers.

Some 6,500 Palestinians are currently being held in the enemy’s jails, 536 of them arbitrarily, according to figures provided by the Palestinian prisoners’ rights group Addameer in January.

Palestinian inmates complain that they have been subjected to assault and torture at ‘Israeli’ prisons.

Source: News Agencies, Edited by website team

 

Related Articles

Jewish Survival Strategies: An Interview with Gilad Atzmon

May 26, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

Introduction by GA:  In this interview, Aedon Cassiel (Counter-Currents) focuses on the most problematic and controversial aspects in my work. We spoke about Jewish power in the context of race, biology, genes and eugenics. We delved into Jewish survival strategies, controlled opposition, the identitarian dystopia and nationalist nostalgia. We also looked at The Bell Curve and cognitive partitioning. Cassiel didn’t cut me slack. He criticised my work form right wing vintage. I must admit that I had a lot of fun with his questions. 

By Aedon Cassiel

https://www.counter-currents.com

In your work, who do you consider yourself to be speaking to? If you don’t have a specific audience in mind, then my question is: if only one group of people could hear your message, who would you choose, and what would you have them do about it?

This is important to me. I do not intend to speak to people of any specific persuasion. I am not an activist and have zero interest in political involvement. I am engaged in an intellectual search. Jews fascinate me – their troubled history, their survival strategies, their overrepresentation in media, politics, banking, the Manhattan Project, the list of the one hundred worst landlords in New York City, academia, and their dominance in political lobbying. I am trying to identify the cultural roots at the core of all that. In short, I am interested in the metaphysics that forms the Jew rather than the Jew himself. I am after culture and ideology.

The final third of Being in Time focuses on the idea of “controlled opposition” – specifically, on the idea that Jews tend to both lead and manage criticism of Jews, even of criticism promulgated by other Jews, which has the effect of pushing non-Jews out of the sphere of the debate. Are your efforts another form of attempting to create a controlled opposition? Why or why not?

Thanks for raising this crucial point. If Jewish survival strategy is as sophisticated as I try to suggest, then you and others must take extra caution with Jewish ideologists and ideologies. And yes, I suppose this applies to me, too. My work must be subject to criticism, including the criticism the book itself applies, and hopefully it will stand the test of reflexivity.

Being in Time is now available on Amazon.co.uk  & Amazon.com  &  here. 

Being in Time is now available on Amazon.co.uk  & Amazon.com  &  here

What do you mean when you say that Jews “are certainly not a race, nor even an ethnicity”? What do you understand these two terms to mean? Is it that Jews consist of too many different unrelated groups to be fairly considered as a single collective, or do you mean to suggest that race and ethnicity are meaningless categories in general?

Despite the fact that many Jews insist that they belong to one race and share one father, it is more likely that Jews have not formed a single continuum as far as ancestry, genetics, or biology are concerned. However, it is clear to me that despite the fact that Jews do not form a racial continuum, their politics are always, and I really mean always, racially oriented.

You ask whether I believe that race and ethnicity are meaningless categories in general? Not at all. However, I am not an evolutionary scientist or an anthropologist, and the study of race or ethnicity isn’t my domain. I dig into some philosophical questions having to do with Jewish identification.

You discuss at length the sociological implications of extensive cognitive partitioning in Jewish society over time, and as a historical cause of this phenomena you talk about the practice of selective breeding in Jewish rabbinical culture. In fact, this is one of the key points to which your work repeatedly comes back. Yet, you seem to want to shy away from claiming that genetic influences are part of the explanation behind why these patterns persist. How could the cognitive partitioning in Jewish society involve genealogy without involving genes? It seems odd to specifically identify breeding patterns as being responsible for this development, and yet – as you seem to – deny that heredity is the method of transmission. What, then, do you think is the mechanism behind this phenomena’s historical persistence?

I have no doubt, as I state in Being in Time, that the European Jewish rabbinical meritocratic system can be understood as a eugenic project. I would be delighted to find out that an evolutionary scientist has decided to look into my theoretical model and produce a scientific study that would verify or refute my theoretical assumptions. Kevin MacDonald has produced the most important work on this topic to date, and the gross animosity he is subject to suggests that he is an Athenian truth-teller – a critical philosophical mind.

You prefer to talk about “ability” as a general term rather than using IQ as a specific instance or measurement of ability. What theories do you have about what is at the core of the superior average “ability” of Jews?

In my work I do not provide facts or statistics. I am raising issues and you, the reader, my listener, are the facts. I produce an interpretation or analysis of a given situation, a set of problems in our current reality, and it is down to you to examine it, play with the ideas, and eventually make a judgment.

I am troubled by IQ measurement without regard to scientific debate over how to measure IQ. “Ability” can be judged by a person’s achievements or merits. John Coltrane achieved more than any other saxophonist. I do not need to see his IQ results. Would Donald Trump score a higher result than Hillary Clinton on an IQ test? I doubt it somehow. Yet he was certainly more “able” to win the election. The reason I refer to ability is because for me, the crucial insight made by Richard Herrnstein and The Bell Curve was that they discerned that America was heading towards a cognitive partitioning. Herrnstein was an academic genius with significant ability. The Bell Curve could have saved the American people, but the book was effectually burned by the favorite “Left” icons: people like Noam Chomsky, academic fraudster Stephen J. Gould, and others. I allow myself to argue that Gould, Chomsky, and those others who trashed The Bell Curve bear direct responsibility for the dystopia in which we live. For me, the issues of the validity of IQ measurement and comparisons between races were side matters. The Bell Curve’s prophetic warnings about cognitive partitioning addressed a topic that has become the core of the oppressive reality in which we live.

Would you say that it’s rational for Jews of higher “ability” to want to keep their society focused towards increased cognitive partitioning?

I find it hard to verify whether it is the result of any conscious decision. What I argue in Being in Time is slightly different. I contend that since America and the West have evolved into cognitively divided environments, and since (Ashkenazi) Jews are accustomed to these conditions, it is hardly surprising that the Jewish Ashkenazi elite is prominent.

In the book, you frequently express a wish to see a return to manufacturing. I agree that this has to be a part of the picture, but presumably you wouldn’t advocate sending academics out to work in factories and fields, for example. So in your view, what precisely would the full dissolution of cognitive partitioning entail, in practical terms? What would we have to do, and how long would it take, and what would the main difficulties be?

I believe that the structure of society will change radically. I do not think that society needs millions of unemployed Gender Studies graduates. For society to be functional, production and agriculture must be reinstated. Higher education must be free for those who are qualified. A functional society must decide what are its primary needs, e.g., how many new doctors are needed, how many engineers, philosophers, feminist scholars, or saxophonists? Academia should be set to provide this education for free and at the highest possible level. This would mean planning. This also suggests that academia wouldn’t continue to operate as a self-serving industry. And yes, if industry, manufacturing, and production are starting to roll, we may find some very intelligent people involved. I do not see this as a negative development. Quite the opposite; society will once again be diverse for real. Isn’t that what the progressives have been promising us for decades?

How extensive do you think the historical influence of identity politics would have been in an American society that never invited Jews in?

Good question, but unfortunately I have no answer. However, I would mention that identity politics operates as a cosmopolitan, revolutionary ideology. In other words, you do not need to be present in a place to spread the ideology.

Would American society have freed the slaves, or given women the vote as quickly, without the influence of Jews? Would feminism have become as radical and divisive?

We have to be careful here. We have to differentiate between political acts that unite us as humans and those which break us up into tribes. The abolition of slavery was an American political project that was partially motivated by ethical reasoning. The same applies to women’s rights. However, radical feminism and lesbian separatism are as separatist as Jewish identity politics (Zionism as well as “anti”). They are biologically-oriented identitarian thoughts that are set to maintain a fragmented, sectarian social environment.

Without identity politics, would black-white relations hold as much tension as they do today? And if Jews both helped press the legitimate form of early identity politics to achieve their aims faster, and held on by the skin of their teeth as identity politics outlived its purpose and became toxic, how can we even begin to analyze the net impact of these two diverging phenomena?

I guess that this is exactly what I attempt to do in Being in Time: I try to dissect the corrosive factors that broke us into sectors.

Your analysis seems to be that Jews have been a leading force in promoting identity politics as a conscious or subconscious means to divide and fracture society in order to normalize the sense of homelessness throughout society that they feel, to ensure that no one else is allowed to have any stronger sense of “belonging” than they do. If the root behind the effort to promote this kind of division is the Jewish sense of homelessness, then why isn’t giving Jews a home – to take away that underlying feeling of homelessness – not a viable answer to the situation?

I actually believe that allocating a national homeland for the Jews was a great idea. I argue that early Zionism was a consistent and coherent movement that was highly effective in its ability to diagnose the Jewish problem and cultural symptoms. Yet, the failure of Zionism suggests that planet Earth may not be a suitable place for such a homeland. Zionism has proven that, despite its initial promise to turn the Jews into “people like all other people,” the Israelis didn’t manage to develop an empathic notion of otherness. Their treatment of the Palestinians proves this point beyond doubt. Israel also fails to love its neighbors. In fact, along with its dedicated Jewish lobbies (AIPAC, CRIFF, CFI, etc.), it relentlessly pushes for global conflicts (Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran, etc.). Let me make it as clear as I can, though I am accused by some Zionists of reopening the “Jewish question”: I fully acknowledge that I do not have a solution for the problems above, nor am I going to try to solve these problems.

Let’s talk about how intentional you think these Jewish tendencies towards fomenting division are. For instance, Tim Wise is an anti-racist activist who travels around lecturing about giving up white privilege, and challenging everyone else to give up their privileges as he has given up his own. Wise never openly identifies as a Jew, and he speaks about himself as if he were of white European origins. Is it meaningful to talk about someone like Tim Wise, who is of Jewish descent but identifies himself neither religiously nor politically as a Jew or as Jewish?

In The Wandering Who?, I restricted my analysis to those who identify themselves primarily as Jews. This was a relatively easy task, and it helped to clarify that the Zionist and the so-called “anti” are one. In Being in Time, I extended my scope. I am, once again, talking about the Athens/Jerusalem dichotomy. Jerusalemites always know what is kosher and who is treif (basket of deplorables). Progressives behave as a bunch of Jerusalemites who subscribe to secular chosenism. They attribute to themselves a special sense of superiority and at the same time look down on the so-called “reactionary.” Tim Wise and other prog-preachers should self-reflect. He should ask himself why he thinks in racial categories. He should wonder why he subscribes to binary thinking that resembles the Jew/Goy, Kosher/Treif. Can he love his “white” neighbor? While Jerusalem is a form of obedience, Athens is a task, it is a hard job. It involves constant dynamic conceptual shifting intellectually, mentally, spiritually, and ethically.

Do you think someone like Tim Wise is either consciously aware of, or consciously intending, to create the divisive outcomes caused by his style of identity politics? To what extent is any of this conscious?

I really do not know. My role as a philosopher is to refine the questions rather than dictating answers. I certainly believe that these are the kind of questions that Wise should ask himself and that others are entitled to ask of him. In fact, these are the kind of questions each of us ought to ponder.

This question isn’t as focused inside your main line of argument as my others are, but it crossed my mind as I was reading. Is there any reason why Jewish influence over divisive forms of feminism, for example, would be as significant as it was, and yet Jews have not – or to my knowledge, they haven’t yet – co-opted the so-called men’s rights movement, or men’s rights activism? Why would involvement in feminism serve Jewish interests, but not involvement in MRA ideologies?

Great question. Otto Weininger insisted that the Jewish man was actually a woman. Maybe this is the answer to your question. Maybe the reason I decided to stop being a Jew was because I didn’t want to be a woman. I probably have to look into that for a while.

 

Trump’s Art of the Deal: Selling Wars and Terrorism

The  Man 0f Shalom = Peace for JEWS

By Finian Cunningham

May 25, 2017 “Information Clearing House” – It would be funny if it were not so sickening. US President Donald Trump’s whirlwind tour through the Middle East was a “triumph” of make-believe rhetoric over reality. Donald “the peace-maker” is sowing decades of further violence in the war-torn region.

The horrific repercussions of American foreign policy are all around us, from the illegal occupation of Palestinian territories to the ongoing wars in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, to the latest terror attack in Britain where 22 people were killed in a suicide bombing at a concert in Manchester.

With a typical inane understanding of the web of international terrorism that American foreign policy has generated over many years, Trump glibly condemned the bombing atrocity in Manchester as the work of “losers.”

Trump – on his first overseas tour as president – regaled Middle East leaders with florid words about peace and prosperity and a faux pretense of historical appreciation, referring to the region as thecradle of civilization,” a sacred land and rich heritage.”

There were minimal details in how Trump would achieve peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, or defeat terrorism in the Middle East. It was all the just feel-good rhetoric that papered over the systemic causes of conflict and terrorism.

The one tangible takeaway was the American president’s mammoth arms deal signed with Saudi Arabia – $350 billion-worth over ten years. It was hailed as the biggest ever weapons contract, with an initial payment of $110 billion. Put in perspective, Trump is selling the Saudi rulers a total three times what Obama managed to achieve over his two administrations – some $115 billion in weapons to Saudi Arabia, which itself was a record high.

The proposed weapons supply is truly staggering, not least because of their destination to a regime up to its eyes in terror sponsorship.

During his next stop to Israel, Trump’s entourage visited the Wailing Wall abutting East Jerusalem, thus giving Washington’s imprimatur to the creeping annexation of the entire city by the state of Israel. Moves are underway to shift the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in what would sound the death knell for Palestinian aspirations to claim East Jerusalem (al-Quds) as the capital of a future independent state.

That would also signal the abandonment of long-standing US policy avowedly advocating a two-state solution. Something which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his rightwing Likud government are lobbying for. Everything about Trump’s kowtowing indicates he is a willing patron to Israeli expansionism.

From Jerusalem, Trump drove to the Israeli-occupied West Bank where he met with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas in Bethlehem. Families protesting the incarceration of hundreds of hunger-striking Palestinians by Israel were kept at bay, while Trump delivered the ultimatum: “Peace can never take root where violence is tolerated.

Trump would never have the integrity or understanding to deliver the same ultimatum to Saudi and Israeli leaders. Even though the admonishment of “not tolerating violence” there is manifold more pertinent and meaningful.

During the past fifty years since the Six Day War, America has condoned the relentless illegal annexation of land by Israel. The last round of futile “peace talks” ended in failure in 2014, when then US Secretary of State John Kerry adopted the usual policy of turning a blind eye to Israeli settlements and military occupation. The Trump administration is prepared to capitulate even further.

The Saudi and other Arab rulers are also jettisoning any pretense at pursuing a just peace accord for Palestinians.

They utter not a word of protest over Israel’s land grabs and moves to kill off Palestinian claims to East Jerusalem – the site of Islam’s third holy

Trump’s visit to the Middle East – ahead of his trip to the Vatican to meet Pope Francis and then NATO leaders in Brussels – is yet another sign of a geopolitical realignment. It seems an antiquated notion that Saudi Arabia and allied Arab regimes are somehow in opposition to Israel. As if the former are defenders of Arab and Muslim rights.

What’s going down is a tawdry tie-up in the region between American-backed client regimes. This has nothing to do with forging peace and all about consolidating Washington’s hegemony over the oil-rich region. That hegemony is primarily underpinned by Washington’s militarization and saturated selling of weaponry.

Significantly, the $350 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia caused no concern for Netanyahu’s government.

How can it hurt?” Amos Gilad, a former Israel defense official, told the Times of Israel. For now, there’s an alliance between the US and the Arab world against Iran, said Gilad.

The Times also quoted Yaakov Amidror, the former national security adviser to Netanyahu, as saying, Israel has no reason to worry about the massive Saudi-US arms deals.” He added that the latest Saudi arms deal could help pave the way for Israeli-Arab cooperation in the future.

Besides, Washington’s strategic doctrine is that Israel will always be given US priority to retain a so-called qualitative military edge over all other states in the region. That means US arms transfers to its Arab allies will be met with ever-more military aid to Israel, which currently clocks about $3.8 billion a year.

In other words, Trump’s arms dealing are a win-win for the US, more than ever. Mammoth sales to Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf Arab monarchies will drive up American weapons business with Israel. But a virtuous circle for Washington is a vicious cycle for the region whereby an already militarized conflict zone is being deluged with American firepower.

Given that the US-backed regimes are in various ways indelibly connected to territorial strife, sectarian conflict and in particular the sponsorship of Wahhabi terror groups it is almost certain that Trump’s reckless weapons trading will fuel more violence. It is well documented that Saudi Arabia serves as a conduit for American weaponry to Al-Qaeda-affiliated terror networks in Syria and elsewhere.

Still more ominous is how Trump’s military racket is pushing the region into a war with Iran. This fatuous president is giving full vent to Israeli and Saudi propaganda accusing Iran of “fueling the fires of sectarian conflict and terror” in the region, citing Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Yemen. This is a breath-taking inversion of reality, given the nefarious role of Saudi Arabia in those same countries.

In the Saudi capital, Riyadh, Trump called on assembled Arab regimes to stamp out terror by targeting Iran for regime change.

While in Jerusalem, Trump said:

There is a growing realization among your Arab neighbors that they have a common enemy with you in the threat posed by Iran.

Israel premier Netanyahu also remarked that

old enemies [sic] have become allies against a common enemy.

We can be sure that the “common enemy” spoken of is not terrorism, but rather Iran.

Donald Trump, the business tycoon-turned-president, never stops boasting about his prowess on boosting the “bottom line.” He may well boost the profits of American weapons manufacturers by flooding the Middle East with ever-more military arms. But the bottom line for the region and beyond is more wars, destruction, and bloodshed.

Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. Originally from Belfast, Ireland, he is a Master’s graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. For over 20 years he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Now a freelance journalist based in East Africa, his columns appear on RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation and Press TV.

This article was first published by RT

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.

Christian Zionist Movie Debuts…As Jewish Writer Debunks Myths About Six-Day War

 photo cbnmoviescene_zpsrvuoawtk.jpg

[ Ed. note – A movie produced by CBN, the Christian Zionist broadcast outlet, has just debuted in theaters. Entitled “In Our Hands: The Battle for Jerusalem,” it is touted as a “docudrama” and purports to relate the history of the 1967 Six-Day War, particularly with regard to the capture of East Jerusalem. Christian Zionists, of course, view this as a fulfillment of biblical prophecy, and the photo above is a scene from the film portraying Israeli soldiers praying at the Western Wall following the capture.

The movie’s release obviously was timed to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the Six-Day War. Here is the official trailer:

I have not seen the entire film. My biggest question is whether it makes any mention at all of the Israeli attack upon the USS Liberty. (Rotten Tomatoes has not yet posted a review, at least as of this writing.) Maybe I’ll go see the film just to find out the answer. The assault upon the Liberty occurred June 8, 1967 and resulted in the deaths of 34 US sailors. You can go here to see a list of their names along with their photos and bios. In addition to those killed, 174 were wounded. Israel has always claimed the attack was an accident. Many others, including the survivors, say it was deliberate. If the CBN has made a movie glorifying Israel’s capers in the Six-Day War, without even mentioning the Liberty attack and the deaths of 34 US servicemen that occurred in the same conflict, that would be unfortunate–although “unfortunate” is perhaps not nearly a strong enough word.

In any event, glorifying Israel does appear very much the purpose behind the film. “A story of impossible odds,” the trailer describes it. The official website offers the following elaboration:

For centuries, their nation had been in exile. For a generation, they had been without access to their ancestral city. For six days, surrounded by enemies, Israel stood alone … and changed history.

A considerably less mythical, and more reality-based, perspective on the Six-Day War is offered by Michael Lesher, who says the conquest of East Jerusalem is not something Jews should be proud of. On the contrary, Lesher views the Western Wall as a “place of shame.” Another question: Does the CBN “docudrama” mention that after East Jerusalem was seized, the Israeli Army demolished the homes of some 600 Palestinians in order to clear space next to the Western Wall for a plaza to accommodate tourists? I’m guessing probably not on that one either. But this is discussed by Lesher, who calls the wall and the plaza next to it a “crime scene.”

He also explodes the myth about Israel being “surrounded by enemies” and facing “impossible odds” at the outset of the war. The reality is that “Egypt was not ready for a war, and Nasser did not want a war.” This, at any rate, was the assessment of former Mossad Chief Meir Amit, who Lesher quotes. The additional reality, again getting beyond the myth, is that the Six-Day war was not a case of Israel “defending itself”; it was a war of aggression waged by Israel against its neighbors. Yet “popular mythology dies hard,” as the writer puts it. Indeed. In order to help perpetuate the myth, “Jerusalem Day” has been established as a national holiday in Israel and is now celebrated each year…and now CBN, for its own religious reasons, seems to be trying to further that cause.

Lesher’s article was posted a few days ago at Mondoweiss. ]

***

Wall of Shame

By Michael Lesher

It’s not easy for a religious Jew to feel civilized these days. On the streets near occupied Nablus, an Orthodox Jewish settler, earlocks waving, has just been seen handing out candy to celebrate the fatal shooting of an unarmed 23-year-old Palestinian last Thursday–whose apparent crime was getting in the way of another settler’s car. Meanwhile, one of Israel’s top politicians is publicly blaming the young Palestinian for the bullet that killed him: “Any one of us, as a parent, as a citizen, would have acted” as the gunman did, said Education Minister Naftali Bennett, another yarmulke-wearing Jew, while the Orthodox rabbinate looked on in approving silence.

After all, it’s almost “Jerusalem Day”–Israel’s annual orgy of self-congratulation over its seizure of East Jerusalem, and the West Bank, 50 years ago–and in the spirit of the day, “religious” Jews seem determined to prove Bennett’s point. Occupation? No problem. Ethnic cleansing? Fine with us. We’re all settlers now. Savagery has gone mainstream.

So please do not expect any kind words from me over the latest attempt to distract newspaper readers from the advancing flood of Israeli apartheid–I mean, the spat over whether or not Donald Trump thinks the Western Wall is in Israel. Not that The Donald–who has referred to Belgium as “a beautiful city”–is anyone’s idea of an authority on geography. The real question is why anyone would think the retaining wall of the Second Temple complex, built by Herod (not Solomon) as part of an urban renewal project meant to broadcast his own glory, was worth a war.

For that matter, who could imagine that this pile of stones, or anything like it, would ever justify 50 years of military occupation?

I know, I know. I’ve seen and heard all the kitsch there is about that spot–including the impromptu consecration of a war zone by Rabbi Shlomo Goren on June 7, 1967. Is this really supposed to be impressive? Heavily armed Israeli soldiers recited a blessing of thanksgiving when they reached the Western Wall, having just seized another piece of Palestinian property for the Jewish State. Yet the Talmud rules that a Jew who sees that site must tear his clothes in mourning for the ruined Temple–hardly a triumphal gesture. The breathless sentimentality with which Israeli propaganda has invested this bit of stolen architecture is as untraditional as it is vulgar.

Nor did anyone, before the advent of Zionism, consider the Wall a proper place for communal Jewish worship. To quote Rabbi Nathan Lopes Cardozo, “The Kotel was never a synagogue; nor should it ever become one.”

In fact, wondering aloud whether “we Jews” have “gone mad,” that honest Orthodox scholar has argued that we “must free the Western Wall of all denominations and abolish all synagogue services at the site, including bar and bat mitzva celebrations” so that the site can be reserved “solely for individual prayer and meditation, just as our ancestors treated it throughout our long history.”

I say amen; I would only add that, first and foremost, the property should be restored to its rightful owners–the indigenous Palestinian population–honoring the ethical principles that animated those same Jewish ancestors.

Yet popular mythology dies hard. When I wrote a column a year ago critical of “Jerusalem Day” festivities, the Jewish periodical the Forward was kind enough to publish it–for which I am grateful. But without my knowledge the editors rewrote a sentence, softening my insistence that the conquest of East Jerusalem shouldn’t be granted any sort of religious status. “Access to the holy sites is worth celebrating,” the revised passage reads, “but it wasn’t a miracle.”

Indeed it wasn’t. But allow me to add–for this is my actual opinion — that “access to the holy sites” isn’t worth celebrating either, if “access” means military conquest. (As early as April 1949, Jordan agreed to grant access to the religious Jewish sites in East Jerusalem, refusing to implement the agreement only when it became clear that Israel would not repatriate any of the refugees it had driven into Jordan during the war.)

I’m also repelled by the implication that “access to the holy sites” means only Jewish sites, and only access by Jews. Israel’s arbitrary and often brutal curtailment of Palestinian worship at the mosque on the same ground is a matter of record, but evidently this is not supposed to figure in the public discourse about the “reunification of Jerusalem,” as Israel’s continued occupation is typically described in Jewish media.

Speaking of Jewish media, I cannot discuss Jerusalem Day without mentioning the outright fraud that gets recycled at this time each year. In 2015, in honor of the occasion,Times of Israel blog contained this litany of myths-as-facts:

“Forty eight years ago…Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon amassed forces on their borders, getting ready to storm the Jewish State and destroy her for good. Radio broadcasts in Israel and abroad were full of the same grim tidings – cries by Arab leaders for the Jews to be driven into the Mediterranean Sea…and the especially terrifying declaration by Israeli rabanim [rabbis] that every public park in the country would be a graveyard, in an effort to prepare for the bloody onslaught.”

In fact, as scholars like Norman Finkelstein have decisively shown, the two Egyptian divisions in the Sinai (the only ones seriously in question) remained in a defensive posture, as Israel’s Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin reported at the time, and in any case “would not have been enough to unleash an offensive.” Mossad chief Meir Amit similarly concluded weeks before Israel’s attack that “Egypt was not ready for a war, and Nasser did not want a war.” Besides, both Israeli and U.S. intelligence experts predicted that even in the unlikely event that several Arab countries attacked in concert, Israel would easily defeat them all within ten days. Israel’s claim that it faced serious danger in 1967 was “a bluff,” according to General Mattityahu Peled, one of the architects of the Israeli assault.

Knowing all this, how can any decent Jew celebrate Jerusalem Day, the anniversary of that violent “bluff”? Or exult at its tragic epicenter, the Western Wall?

For the record, I visited the famous Wall on the first night of my one visit to Israel some years ago. I was unsettled by the theme-park look of the place – the beaming floodlights, the polished stone “plaza” built to accommodate crowds of tourists – and by the proximity of the elevated parapet marking off the Al-Aqsa mosque, where in 1990 Israeli soldiers massacred some 18 unarmed worshipers. Only afterward did I realize that I had literally been standing on a crime scene…

Continued here

The Beauty and the the Beast: Being in time 1st interview

May 25, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

Gilad Atzmon  Interviewed by the witty and glamorous Nedka Babliku.

We covered many of the aspect of the book: Athens & Jerusalem, controlled opposition, holocaust religion, the post political condition, Corbyn, Trump, cognitive partitioning and the bell curve and many more topics.

Being in Time is now available on Amazon.co.uk  & Amazon.com  &  here

https://youtu.be/NE0-ERPbWok

ترامب يؤكد الثوابت الاستراتيجية الأميركية ويتّجه لتجرّع كأس السمّ الأكبر

محمد صادق الحسيني

مايو 27, 2017

عندما ينظر المرء الى الضجيج الإعلامي وما يرافقه من تصريحات للمسؤولين الأميركيين، تبدو متناقضة وعصية على الفهم، يتهيّأ للمرء أن إدارة ترامب الجديدة تعاني من تخبّط في خطابها السياسي ورؤيتها الاستراتيجية عموماً، وتلك المتعلقة بالشرق الاوسط وبمنطق الأزمات الأخرى في العالم، ابتداء بأزمة القرن وأوكرانيا، مروراً بموضوع الاتفاق النووي مع إيران، وصولاً إلى الغطرسة التي يمارسها الوحش الإمبريالي الأميركي في منطقة شبه الجزيرة الكورية وبحر الصين الجنوبي.

ولكن حقيقة الأمر، أي جوهر السياسة الأميركية المتعلقة بمناطق التوتر المشار إليها أعلاه. هي أن الاستراتيجية الأميركية لم يطرأ عليها أي تغيّر على الإطلاق. إذ إن ثوابت السياسة الخارجية الأميركية التي كانت متّبعة من الإدارات الأميركية السابقة لا زالت على حالها تماماً. علماً أن هذه الثوابت او الأهداف الاستراتيجية معنى الهدف الاستراتيجي هو: الهدف النهائي لكامل مسرح العمليات في كل أنحاء ميدان الصراع أو الحرب، والذي هو في هذه الحالة في العالم بأسره… أي الهدف الذي يؤدي تحقيقه الى السيطرة الكاملة على مسرح العمليات… أي النصر على العدو . نقول إن تلك الأهداف تتمثل في ما يلي:

أولاً: الحفاظ على أمن القاعدة العسكرية الإمبريالية المقامة على أرض فلسطين والمسماة «اسرائيل»، لكونها إحدى اهم ادوات الاستعمار القديم والجديد في تفتيت العالم العربي والإسلامي وهدر إمكانياته ومنعه من التطور والتنمية، وبالتالي منعه من التحوّل كتلة دولية ولاعباً أساسياً اقتصادياً وسياسياً وعسكرياً.

ثانياً: السيطرة على منابع النفط والغاز في المنطقة الممتدة من سواحل البحر الأبيض المتوسط الشرقية وصولاً لحدود الصين الغربية. وذلك ليس لضمان تدفق النفط الى الدول الغربية واستمرار نهب ثروات الدول المنتجة لهاتين المادتين الهامتين استراتيجياً أي على صعيد كامل مسرح العمليات الدولي وإنما لاستعمال مصادر الطاقة المذكورة في الصراع الدولي الحالي وفي صراع الولايات المتحدة المقبل مع الصين. إذ إن الولايات المتحدة بشكل خاص والدول الغربية بشكل عام تخشى من التطور الاقتصادي الهائل الذي تحققه الصين خاصة بِعد ان وصل حجم اقتصادها الى حجم الاقتصاد الأميركي مما يجعل من الصين القوة الاقتصادية الاولى على صعيد العالم، والتي لا تمكن منافستها على المستوى التجاري، وذلك للعديد من الأسباب التي لا مجال لمعالجتها هنا.

ثالثاً: المحافظة على التحالف السياسي والعسكري مع الدول العربية الرجعية والعميلة للاستعمار، وذلك للحفاظ على القواعد الأميركية والغربية الأخرى الموجودة في تلك الدول منذ خمسينيات القرن الماضي… وخاصة في السعودية وجنوب اليمن قبل التحرير، وكذلك في ما أصبح يُعرف بدولة الإمارات العربية المتحدة قبل أن «تستقل» عن التاج البريطاني سنة ١٩٧١. تلك القواعد التي عادت إلى مستوى نشاطها في فترة الخمسينيات والستينيات من القرن الماضي لا بل إنها وسعت كثيراً من هذا النشاط، بحيث أصبحت تستعمل للعدوان المباشر وشن الهجمات البرية والبحرية وأجواء على العديد من الدول العربية كما حصل في غزو العراق وفي حرب تموز ٢٠٠٦ ضد لبنان، حيث قامت قيادة المنطقة الوسطى في الجيش الأميركي المسؤولة عن منطقة الشرق الأوسط بتزويد الجيش «الإسرائيلي» بكميات كبيرة من الأسلحة والذخائر، خاصة صواريخ جو أرض، المخزنة في قواعد الجيش الأميركي في العراق قبل الانسحاب الأميركي من العراق طبعاً والسعودية وقطر وصولاً الى الهجمات الاميركية الجوية والبحرية المستمرة ضد اليمن حتى قبل بدء العدوان الأميركي السعودي الواسع على هذا البلد العربي الصامد والمنتصر بإذن الله.

وليس آخراً العدوان الأميركي على الشعب الليبي ومقدراته جواً وبحراً، انطلاقاً من القواعد الاميركية إياها والتي تواصل عدوانها على سيادة الدولة السورية براً وجواً وبحراً وتمعن تقتيلاً في مواطني قلعة العروبة الصامدة سورية.

كل هذا خدمة لمصالح الولايات المتحدة والدول الغربية الاستعمارية الآنية وكذلك كحلقة في عمليات التطويق الاستراتيجي للصين من خلال تثبيت قواعدهم العسكرية في عموم منطقة غرب آسيا وصولاً إلى حدود الصين الغربية والشمالية الغربية وذلك في إطار الاستعدادات للمواجهة مع الصين مستقبلاً. فمن المعروف أن الطبيعة الامبريالية العدوانية للولايات المتحدة والدول الغربية الأخرى لا يمكنها أن تبحث وسائل للتعاون المشترك في حل المعضلات الدولية عن طريق الحوار والتفاهم وإنما تبحث دائماً عن حجج وأعذار لشنّ مزيد من الحروب التي تخدم طبيعتهم الجامحة نحو السيطرة على الشعوب وإخضاعها…

اذاً، هذه هي الاستراتيجية الأميركية الجديدة القديمة ذات الثوابت غير القابلة للتغيير، بينما أدوات تحقيق هذه الاستراتيجية هي التي تتغيّر ويتم تطويعها كي تلائم كل مرحلة من مراحل الصراع سواء في «الشرق الاوسط» او على صعيد العالم. أي أن التغيير الذي طرأ على السياسات الأميركية قد اقتصر على تعديلات على الأساليب والأدوات المستخدمة في تحقيق الأهداف الاستراتيجية الأميركية. وقد شملت هذه التعديلات المناحي التالية:

١ التحول من الدخول في حروب واسعة ومكلفة جدا، على الصعيدين البشري والمالي، وغير مضمونة النجاح كما حصل في حربي أفغانستان والعراق، الى ضربات عسكرية محدودة جوية او بحرية او باستخدام القوات الخاصة والقوات المحمولة جوا للقيام بعمليات خاطفة في ارض العدو او خلف خطوط العدو.

اي ان الولايات المتحدة لن تقوم بإرسال عشرات آلاف الجنود الأميركيين الى اي مكان في العالم بعد اليوم بل ستعتمد الأسلوب الموضح أعلاه.

٢ الاعتماد على القوى المحلية العميلة للإمساك بالأرض تحت قيادة أميركية، وبغض النظر عما إذا كانت هذه القوى العميلة «دولاً» كالسعودية ومشيخات الخليج والأردن، أو ميليشيات محلية كداعش والنصرة ومسمياتها الأخرى الى جانب ما يطلق عليه جيش سورية الجديد وجيش الجنوب وغيره من التسميات المشبوهة السائرة في مشاريع فرض السيطرة على الوطن العربي.

٣ فتنة الحرب، أي زيادة استعار الحرب بين مكونات المجتمعات العربية، كما فعلت الولايات المتحدة في فيتنام، أي تسليح فئات لتحارب فئات أخرى في مختلف الدول العربية. وهذا ما بدأته الولايات المتحدة عندما أوجدت داعش والنصرة في العراق ثم في سورية وبقية الدول العربية. وهذا هو هدفها الحالي من وراء عمليات التسليح والتدريب لقوى عشائرية بعينها في سورية والعراق وبالتعاون مع الاردن ومن دون التنسيق لا مع الحكومة السورية ولا مع الحكومة العراقية…

ولكن على الرغم من كل المؤامرات التي تقوم بها الولايات المتحدة بالتعاون مع أذنابها المحليين من صهاينة وعثمانيين جدد ورجعية عربية، إلا أن كل مشاريعهم هذه محكومة بالفشل المحتوم وذلك للأسباب التالية:

– تماسك وصمود محور المقاومة الأسطوري، وكذلك ثبات الموقف الروسي الداعم لسورية والعراق في مواجهة مشاريع الهيمنة والإخضاع القسري.

– محدودية المقدرة العسكرية الأميركية في ميادين القتال ما يؤدي الى محدودية الدور الأميركي في عملية الصراع السياسي. إذ إن الهزيمة او الهزائم المتلاحقة التي لحقت بعصابات الاٍرهاب التابعة للولايات المتحدة وأذنابها الإقليميين من داعش الى النصرة إلى آخر قائمة مسمّيات تنظيمات الجريمة والتخريب قد وصلت إلى حد أن الإدارة الأميركية الجديدة قد وجدت نفسها مضطرة للتدخل الصاروخي في الميدان السوري، على أمل ان تحافظ على دور لها في العملية السياسية السورية التي لا بد أن تتم بعد إلحاق الهزيمة الكاملة بقوى الإرهاب العميلة والدول والقوى العميلة للإرهاب في الوطن العربي.

– الوجود العسكري الروسي الكثيف والفاعل في الميدان السوري.

– وكذلك الدعم الإيراني المتعدد الوجوه للدولة والجيش السوري وما لإيران من وجود فاعل على الارض، وما لتضحيات القيادة الايرانية والعسكريين الإيرانيين وشهدائهم.

– أي أن الأميركي ورغم عنترياته وألعابه النارية من توماهوك الى غيره، والتي لا تخيف الأسود وإنما تعبر عن ارتفاع الياس والقنوط الذي يصيبه نتيجة قناعته بفشل مشاريعة الشرق أوسطية الأخرى، نقول إنه رغم ذلك مضطر للحوار ليس مع روسيا فقط وإنما مع إيران أيضاً ولو بشكل غير مباشر عندما يحين الوقت وتأزف الساعة لإسدال الستار على حقبة العصابات المسلحة في كل من سورية والعراق. وهذا يعني أن سورية وحلفاءها، وعلى عكس الوحش الرأسمالي الامبريالي الأميركي، لن يكون لديهم مانع من التوصل الى تفاهم مع العالم الجديد ينظم علاقات الحلفاء معه على أساس احترام أنظمة القانون الدولي احتراماً كاملاً.

من هنا فإن الادارة الاميركية ليست في وضع تفرض فيه شروطاً لتحقيق تسويات تخدم مصالحها، لا في «الشرق الأوسط «ولا في أي من ميادين الصراع على المستوى الكوني، لأسباب عديدة لا مجال لمعالجتها في هذا الإطار.

لذلك فإن خياراتها محدودة وتنحصر في الاحتمالات التالية:

أ الإقرار بالهزيمة النهائية ورفع يدها عن منطقتنا العربية والإسلامية التي تسميها الشرق الاوسط، وذلك تمشياً مع الحقائق التي تحكم ميادين الصراع والتي تقول بوضوح إن من يمسك الأرض هم ليسوا الولايات المتحدة وعملاءها وأذنابها وإنما ابطال محور المقاومة من جيش سورية الى الوحدات العسكرية الإيرانية الى جانب ابطال حزب الله والقوى الرديفة الأخرى ومساعدة الحليف الروسي اللامحدودة وعلى الصعد كلها.

ب استمرار التذرّع بمحاربة داعش والمضي قدماً في عمليات التمشيط المذهبي والتعبئة المقيتة ضد ايران الشقيقة، والتي تواصل دعمها للقضايا العربية، وعلى رأسها القضية الفلسطينية، ومنذ انتصار الثورة الإسلامية في ايران في العام ١٩٧٩.

– وفي ظل موازين القوى المحلية والإقليمية والدولية الحاليّة في كافة ميادين الصراع وفي ظل عجز المحور الأميركي عن حسم أي من الصراعات الدائرة منذ سنين نتيجة عجز أدواته عن إلحاق الهزيمة بمعسكر المقاومة ونتيجة مراكمة امكانيات محور المقاومة من علمية الى عسكرية الى غير ذلك، وبشكل يصعب تخيّله، فان إدارة ترامب لن تكون قادرة على إلغاء الاتفاق النووي مع ايران ولا على تعليق العمل به، خاصة أن ترامب يؤمن بنظرية الصفقة بمعنى انه سيواصل العمل بنظام الاتفاق النووي مع بعض التعديلات، اذا كان رفع العقوبات كنتيجة للالتزام الولايات المتحدة بالاتفاق أو تعليق العمل بها كلياً او جزئياً سيعود بالفائدة على الولايات المتحدة. وما صفقة البوينغ التي وقعت حديثاً مع ايران إلا مثال على حجم الفائدة التي ستجنيها الولايات المتحدة من وراء الاتفاق.

– وعليه فلا مفر لإدارة ترامب الجديدة من العودة الى سياسة الإدارات الاميركية القديمة، والأكثر حنكة في إدارة الصراعات الدولية، والتي مؤداها أن من الضروري التعاون مع العدو لتحقيق الانتصار على العدو الأكثر خطورة. فاذا أراد ترامب القضاء على العدو الأكثر خطورة على مصالح الولايات المتحدة، ألا وهو داعش، فعليه ان يتخذ العبرة من تحالف الادارة الأميركية في أربعينيات القرن الماضي مع الاتحاد السوفياتي في سبيل تحقيق النصر على المانيا النازية .اي انه لا بد من تحالفه مع روسيا وإيران وسورية في سبيل القضاء على داعش والتفاهم مع القوى المنتصرة حلف المقاومة على ضمان مصالح معينة للولايات المتحدة في الوطن العربي.

وكما يقول المثل: ما الذي يُجبرك على تجرُّع المرّ…

إلا الأمرّ منه؟

بعدنا طيّبين قولوا الله.

(Visited 155 times, 155 visits today)
%d bloggers like this: