5 times israel (apartheid state) lied that it ‘had no choice’ and then started a war

5 times Israel lied that it `had no choice` and then started a war

israel tank

© Agence France-Presse/Pedro Ugarte

Israel has no other option but to launch a “war” against Hamas, the Israeli defense minister has recently claimed, calling it the last resort. Modern history shows, however, that Israel has resorted to force quite frequently.

Wars are only conducted when there is no choice, and now there is no choice,” Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman told the Israeli Parliament on Tuesday. But it looks like Israel believed many times that it severely lacked options throughout the last two decades, as it has launched more than half a dozen major military operations since the beginning of the 21st century.

Largest incursion into West Bank since the Six-Day War

In 2002, a suicide bombing carried out by the Hamas militant group over the course of the Second Intifada, which resulted in the deaths of 30 Israelis, provoked an IDF operation called Defensive Shield. It’s the largest one in the West Bank since the 1967 Six-Day War.

rafah refugee camp destruction

© Ahmed Jadallah/Reuters
Rubble after Israeli tanks and bulldozers destroyed houses during the raid in Rafah refugee camp South of Gaza Strip May 9, 2002.

Between March and May 2002, tens of thousands of Israeli troops invaded the six largest cities of the West Bank and imposed strict curfews and restrictions on locals as well as foreigners working in the area.

The Israeli measures resulted in a partial ban on humanitarian aid and medical personnel entering the West Bank. Thirty Israelis and almost 500 Palestinians were killed, while 7,000 Palestinians were detained, according to the UN.

2004 invasions of Gaza

In 2004, the Israeli forces conducted two major operations in Gaza. The first, called Operation Rainbow, was carried out in May and was in response to Palestinian attacks in which 11 IDF soldiers were killed. Israel invaded Gaza’s southern city of Rafah, razed around 300 homes and expanded the buffer zone between Gaza and Egypt in what it called a push to destroy Palestinian smuggling tunnels. Almost 60 Palestinians, including 11 minors, were killed in less than two weeks of the military campaign, according to Human Rights Watch.

disabled palestinina gaza rubble

© Reuters
Palestinian carry a disabled boy from the rubble of his family house after the Israeli troops withdrawal from the Jabalya refugee camp northern Gaza Strip September 11, 2004.

Four months later, Israel invaded Gaza again after two children were killed as a Palestinian-launched rocket hit the Israeli town of Sderot. The Israeli operation, called Days of Penitence, targeted northern Gaza to prevent further rocket launches and claimed 129 Palestinian lives, including between 50 and 87 militants, and one Israeli soldier, according to the Israeli media.

2006 Lebanon War

In 2006, a cross-border raid by the Hezbollah militants has led to a 34-day war between Israel and its neighbor, Lebanon. Hezbollah launched rocket strikes against Israeli border towns and ambushed a military patrol, killing three soldiers. Two more were abducted, as militants sought to exchange them for Lebanese prisoners held by Israel. Tel Aviv responded with air strikes and artillery fire, targeting Hezbollah positions and Lebanese civilian infrastructure alike.

Israel imposed an air and naval blockade and invaded southern Lebanon. The conflict led to the deaths of more than 1,100 Lebanese people and 165 Israelis, including soldiers. It also displaced about a million Lebanese and over 300,000 Israelis.

Operation Cast Lead

In December 2008, Israel once again invaded Gaza with the stated goal of stopping indiscriminate rocket fire into Israeli territory. The Palestinian Hamas group said at the time that the rocket launches were a response to Israel’s violation of an Egyptian-brokered ceasefire reached six months earlier.

During the operation, called Cast Lead, the IDF struck the densely populated cities of Gaza, Khan Yunis, and Rafah. The military campaign, which lasted until January 18, 2009, claimed the lives of more than 1,400 Palestinians, most of whom were civilians, according to Palestinian sources. An Israeli NGO put the number of civilian deaths at 759, while the IDF put it at 295.

The operation became known as the Gaza War, and is sometimes even referred to as the Gaza Massacre. Israel lost 10 soldiers and three civilians during the campaign.

Operation Protective Edge

The latest large-scale IDF military campaign in Gaza – Operation Protective Edge – took place in 2014. It was carried out in response to the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers by alleged members of Hamas’ military wing.

After Israel conducted an operation to arrest Hamas military leaders, Hamas responded with rocket attacks. The Israeli airstrikes and ground campaign to put an end to Palestinian rocket attacks resulted in the deaths of thousands of people, the vast majority of them Gazans. During the 51-day assault, over 2,100 Palestinians were killed, with another 10,000 injured. The Israeli actions provoked worldwide protests and were slammed by human rights groups over the disproportionate use of force.

Israel lost 66 of its soldiers and five civilians from Hamas rocket fire. Another 469 IDF soldiers and 261 Israeli civilians were injured.

Even though Israel has not conducted any major military operations against Palestinians since 2014, its violent crackdown on Palestinian protesters in Gaza continues to take its toll. Over 200 Palestinians have been killed, including medics and journalists, and more than 22,000 injured since border protests – the Great March of Return – began in March.

 

Advertisements

How a Map of Palestine Drove the American Neo-colonial Elite Mad

By Juan Cole
Source

I mirrored a map of modern Palestinian history that has the virtue of showing graphically what has happened to the Palestinians politically and territorially in the past century.

map-story-of-palestinian-nationhood.jpg

Andrew Sullivan then mirrored the map from my site, which set off a lot of thunder and noise among anti-Palestinian writers like Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, but shed very little light. (PS, the map as a hard copy mapcard is available from Sabeel.)

The map is useful and accurate. It begins by showing the British Mandate of Palestine as of the mid-1920s. The British conquered the Ottoman districts that came to be the Mandate during World War I (the Ottoman sultan threw in with Austria and Germany against Britain, France and Russia, mainly out of fear of Russia).

But because of the rise of the League of Nations and the influence of President Woodrow Wilson’s ideas about self-determination, Britain and France could not decently simply make their new, previously Ottoman territories into mere colonies. The League of Nations awarded them “Mandates.” Britain got Palestine, France got Syria (which it made into Syria and Lebanon), Britain got Iraq.

The League of Nations Covenant spelled out what a Class A Mandate (i.e. territory that had been Ottoman) was:

“Article 22. Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory [i.e., a Western power] until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.”

That is, the purpose of the later British Mandate of Palestine, of the French Mandate of Syria, of the British Mandate of Iraq, was to ‘render administrative advice and assistance” to these peoples in preparation for their becoming independent states, an achievement that they were recognized as not far from attaining. The Covenant was written before the actual Mandates were established, but Palestine was a Class A Mandate and so the language of the Covenant was applicable to it. The territory that formed the British Mandate of Iraq was the same territory that became independent Iraq, and the same could have been expected of the British Mandate of Palestine. (Even class B Mandates like Togo have become nation-states, but the poor Palestinians are just stateless prisoners in colonial cantons).

The first map thus shows what the League of Nations imagined would become the state of Palestine. The economist published an odd assertion that the Negev Desert was ’empty’ and should not have been shown in the first map. But it wasn’t and isn’t empty; Palestinian Bedouin live there, and they and the desert were recognized by the League of Nations as belonging to the Mandate of Palestine, a state-in-training. The Mandate of Palestine also had a charge to allow for the establishment of a ‘homeland’ in Palestine for Jews (because of the 1917 Balfour Declaration), but nobody among League of Nations officialdom at that time imagined it would be a whole and competing territorial state. There was no prospect of more than a few tens of thousands of Jews settling in Palestine, as of the mid-1920s. (They are shown in white on the first map, refuting those who mysteriously complained that the maps alternated between showing sovereignty and showing population). As late as the 1939 British White Paper, British officials imagined that the Mandate would emerge as an independent Palestinian state within 10 years.

In 1851, there had been 327,000 Palestinians (yes, the word ‘Filistin’ was current then) and other non-Jews, and only 13,000 Jews. In 1925, after decades of determined Jewish immigration, there were a little over 100,000 Jews, and there were 765,000 mostly Palestinian non-Jews in the British Mandate of Palestine. For historical demography of this area, see Justin McCarthy’s painstaking calculations; it is not true, as sometimes is claimed, that we cannot know anything about population figures in this region. See also his journal article, reprinted at this site. The Palestinian population grew because of rapid population growth, not in-migration, which was minor. The common allegation that Jerusalem had a Jewish majority at some point in the 19th century is meaningless. Jerusalem was a small town in 1851, and many pious or indigent elderly Jews from Eastern Europe and elsewhere retired there because of charities that would support them. In 1851, Jews were only about 4% of the population of the territory that became the British Mandate of Palestine some 70 years later. And, there had been few adherents of Judaism, just a few thousand, from the time most Jews in Palestine adopted Christianity and Islam in the first millennium CE all the way until the 20th century. In the British Mandate of Palestine, the district of Jerusalem was largely Palestinian.

The rise of the Nazis in the 1930s impelled massive Jewish emigration to Palestine, so by 1940 there were over 400,000 Jews there amid over a million Palestinians.

The second map shows the United Nations partition plan of 1947, which awarded Jews (who only then owned about 6% of Palestinian land) a substantial state alongside a much reduced Palestine. Although apologists for the Zionist movement say that the Zionists accepted this partition plan and the Arabs rejected it, that is not entirely true. Zionist leader David Ben Gurion noted in his diary when Israel was established that when the US had been formed, no document set out its territorial extent, implying that the same was true of Israel. We know that Ben Gurion was an Israeli expansionist who fully intended to annex more land to Israel, and by 1956 he attempted to add the Sinai and would have liked southern Lebanon. So the Zionist “acceptance” of the UN partition plan did not mean very much beyond a happiness that their initial starting point was much better than their actual land ownership had given them any right to expect.

The third map shows the status quo after the Israeli-Palestinian civil war of 1947-1948. It is not true that the entire Arab League attacked the Jewish community in Palestine or later Israel on behalf of the Palestinians. As Avi Shlaim has shown, Jordan had made an understanding with the Zionist leadership that it would grab the West Bank, and its troops did not mount a campaign in the territory awarded to Israel by the UN. Egypt grabbed Gaza and then tried to grab the Negev Desert, with a few thousand badly trained and equipped troops, but was defeated by the nascent Israeli army. Few other Arab states sent any significant number of troops. The total number of troops on the Arab side actually on the ground was about equal to those of the Zionist forces, and the Zionists had more esprit de corps and better weaponry.

[The nascent Israeli military deliberately pursued a policy of ethnically cleansing non-combatant Palestinians from Israeli-held territory, expelling about 720,000 of them in 1947-48, then locking them outside, bereft of their homes and farms and penniless.

Map6_RefugeesRoutes.gif

The final map shows the situation today, which springs from the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank in 1967 and then the decision of the Israelis to colonize the West Bank intensively (a process that is illegal in the law of war concerning occupied populations).

There is nothing inaccurate about the maps at all, historically. Goldberg maintained that the Palestinians’ ‘original sin’ was rejecting the 1947 UN partition plan. But since Ben Gurion and other expansionists went on to grab more territory later in history, it is not clear that the Palestinians could have avoided being occupied even if they had given away willingly so much of their country in 1947. The first original sin was the contradictory and feckless pledge by the British to sponsor Jewish immigration into their Mandate in Palestine, which they wickedly and fantastically promised would never inconvenience the Palestinians in any way. It was the same kind of original sin as the French policy of sponsoring a million colons in French Algeria, or the French attempt to create a Christian-dominated Lebanon where the Christians would be privileged by French policy. The second original sin was the refusal of the United States to allow Jews to immigrate in the 1930s and early 1940s, which forced them to go to Palestine to escape the monstrous, mass-murdering Nazis.

The map attracted so much ire and controversy not because it is inaccurate but because it clearly shows what has been done to the Palestinians, which the League of Nations had recognized as not far from achieving statehood in its Covenant. Their statehood and their territory has been taken from them, and they have been left stateless, without citizenship and therefore without basic civil and human rights. The map makes it easy to see this process. The map had to be stigmatized and made taboo. But even if that marginalization of an image could be accomplished, the squalid reality of Palestinian statelessness would remain, and the children of Gaza would still be being malnourished by the deliberate Israeli policy of blockading civilians. The map just points to a powerful reality; banishing the map does not change that reality.

Goldberg, according to Spencer Ackerman, says that he will stop replying to Andrew Sullivan, for which Ackerman is grateful, since, he implies, Goldberg is a propagandistic hack who loves to promote wars on flimsy pretenses. Matthew Yglesias also has some fun at Goldberg’s expense. [Otherwise, like most other major US institutions, our press is corrupt on this issue.]

People like Goldberg never tell us what they expect to happen to the Palestinians in the near and medium future. They don’t seem to understand that the status quo is untenable. They are like militant ostriches, hiding their heads in the sand while lashing out with their hind talons at anyone who stares clear-eyed at the problem, characterizing us as bigots. As if that old calumny has any purchase for anyone who knows something serious about the actual views of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu or . . . Avigdor Lieberman, more bigoted persons than whom would be difficult to find…

October Liberation 2018

DAMASCUS, (ST)_ On the 45th   Anniversary of October Liberation War, the Syria Times is honored to publish the historic speech of the late President Hafez Al-Assad on this occasion:

Brotherly citizens,

Our brave soldiers and army officers,

Our great people,

I salute each and every one of you. I address in you, today, the true Arabian spirit, the spirit of courage and heroism, the spirit of sacrifice and giving.

I address in you, your love to the homeland, and your faith in the cause you have decided to defend. For more than a week, the enemy has been mobilizing  and premeditating its forces, thinking it will deal a treacherous blow to us. But we were vigilant enough to monitor its movements and cantonments, and to repel its new potential aggression.  We did not allow the enemy to take us by surprise. So, our armed forces respond appropriately  to it  . Our brothers in Egypt did  not allow  the aggression  to take them by surprise. The great army of Egypt rushed to defend the dignity of Egypt and the dignity of the Arab Nation. Greetings to our army and  to our people, and a tribute to the army of Egypt and the great Arab people of Egypt.

I must at these  crucial moments pay  another tribute  from the heart to the  brave military forces ,  who came to our  country from our  Arab brotherly country of Morocco to take part in the  battle of pride and dignity and to sacrifice their blood generously ,  shoulder to shoulder with their brothers in Syria and Egypt . Thereby, they embody the unity of the nation, the common destiny and the  sanctity of the goal.

Today , we are fighting the battle of honor and pride, in defense of our precious land, for our glorious history , and of the heritage of our forefathers. We fight  the  battle, equipped  with faith in God and in ourselves; and with the solid  and compelling determination  that victory will be on our side.

 Israel is stubborn  and is  hit  by vanity,  and arrogance filled the heads of its officials. They continued their crime  and aggression. Their hearts  are filled with black hatred  against our people and against humanity. They are fret with thirst for bloodshed. Their footsteps disregard the principles and ideals of humanitarian principles and sublime morals and the international laws and resolutions.

Such persons are, the same, like their predecessors, among  the advocates of war,  do not confine themselves  to a limit, nor get deterred , unless they are deterred  by people who believe in their own  right, and fight for their freedom and own  existence.

 While we do our duty to defend our land and the honor of our nation, we are ready to make every sacrifice and accept all challenges in order to win the right and win principles, so that  just peace would prevail.

Brotherly citizens,

Adversity is the touchstone for the nature of peoples, and a test for their authenticity. The more severe the crisis is, the more the pure  metal revealed and the entrenched originality confirmed .

You are the sons of a nation, which has been known throughout history for stances of manhood and pride, of heroism and redemption.  You are the sons of the nation that had carried the message of light and faith into all the corners of the earth, and  the  entire world was a witness to its  highest traits and noblest morals.

You are the  descendants of Abu Bakr, Omar, Othman, Ali, God bless them.  You are the  grandchildren  of Khalid, Abu Obeida, and Amre, and Saad, and Salah al-Din.  The conscience of our nation calls on us, and the souls of our martyrs ignite us as to abide by the teachings  reflected in  Yarmouk, Qadisiya, Hittin, and  Ein Jallout. The  eyes and hearts  of the masses of our nation from  the Atlantic to the Gulf are now clinging   to our great steadfastness .These masses  are all hope and  confidence  that we are proceeding towards  ultimate victory.

Dear brave soldiers and army officers,

We are the rightful  owners and the owners of a just cause, and God grant victory to the one who is  rightful defending his right. You are defending today the honor of the Arab nation, preserving its  dignity and existence, and  rendering sacrifices , so that the future generations  are to live satisfied and secure.

 By accident , it  is the  will of the Almighty God that your Jihad  is in  one of the days of  the holy month, the month of Ramadan, the month of jihad. The month of the Battle of Badr, the month of victory. A bright chapter in the history of our armed forces  to be added   to the many chapters of  heroism and sacrifice, testified by the blood of our martyrs  throughout the history of our country and   Arab nation .

Our ancestors have won victory through faith , sacrifice and  through their racing  to win martyrdom in defense of our divine religion and the rightful message . Today, through your courage  and heroism , you have revived  these  spirits alongside the  glorious  Arab tradition.

Your weapon is  but a deposit  in your hands , that you have  to use properly. The honor of the Arab soldier is your responsibility  and the future of our peoples is in your hand,  for the sake of which you  have to fight relentlessly.

Our  people whose sons  survive great  enthusiasm stand, one line,  behind you, protecting your back lines , and supporting your struggle by all means .  The masses of our Arab nation stand  behind our people. This position by the Arab nation is dedicated by national duty  in this crucial phase.  Behind our people, there also many friends in the world who stand in support of our cause and struggle.

We are not amateurs of killing and destruction, but we are repulsing murder and destruction from ourselves.

We are not the aggressors and never were   aggressors; but we were and are still defending ourselves, repulsing the aggression.

We do not want death to anyone, but we repulse death off our people.

We love freedom and we want it for ourselves and for others. We are  struggling  today ,  so that our people will  enjoy  their freedom.

 We are advocates of peace, and  we work for peace for the sake of  our people and for all the peoples of the world. And we struggle  today in order to live in peace .

Proceed with God’s blessing, when Allah render you victory, no one would defeat you.

Peace be upon you

Editor-in-Chief

Dr. Mohamad Abdo Al-Ibrahim

alibrahim56@hotmail.com

https://www.facebook.com/Mohamad.Abdo.AlIbrahim

https://twitter.com/Golan67

http://www.presidentassad.net/

Related Videos

Related Articles

Sabra and Shatila: The Secret Papers

14309080123 4b8ec98b30 m 165ef

Sabra and Shatila, September, 1982, stands as one of the worst single atrocities in modern history. Up to 3500 Palestinians were massacred when Israel’s Falangist proxies surged through the two Beirut camps in September, 1982. Israel sought to dump the blame on to the Falangists. “Goyim kill goyim and they come to blame the Jews,” Israel’s Prime Minister, Menahim Begin, complained. In fact, Israel commanded and controlled the entire operation. The punishment meted out by the Kahan commission of inquiry was derisory. Ariel Sharon, the Israeli ‘defence minister’ was demoted but remained in government, after Begin refused to sack him. Despite his own complicity, Begin was not punished and neither were any of the politicians who had agreed that the camps had to be ‘cleaned out.’ World opinion was outraged, but not even this fearful event was sufficient for Israel to be held to account. Unrestrained, Israel remained free to kill at will.

The secret annex to the Kahan commission has recently made its way into the mainstream. (See Rashid Khalidi, ‘The Sabra and Shatila Massacres: New Evidence,’ Palestine Square, Institute of Palestine Studies, September 25, 2018).   The basic facts are well established, so the interest lies in what these documents tell us about the interplay between the Israelis and the Falangists, and why, ultimately, Sabra and Shatila had to be invaded.

Even before 1948 Israel was setting out to turn Lebanon into a satellite state by playing on the fears of the country’s Maronite Christian community.   In 1958 Lebanon endured its second civil war (second to the Druze-Maronite conflict of 1860).   This war was part of a regional drama involving anti-Nasserism, anti-communism, the overthrow of the monarchy in Iraq and a planned coup attempt in Jordan. No event in Lebanon is ever simply internal, but while the collective ‘west’ and Israel had a big stake in what happened in 1958, the war developed largely as cause and effect between internal factions. By the time the US intervened, sending the Sixth Fleet and landing marines on Beirut’s beaches, these factions had for the moment resolved their differences.

In 1968, against a background of Palestinian resistance from southern Lebanon, Israel destroyed 13 commercial aircraft sitting on the tarmac at Beirut international airport. Lebanon was being warned to control the Palestinians, or else. Of course, given its highly factionalized nature, Lebanon could not control the Palestinians.

In April, 1973, the Israelis infiltrated West Beirut from the sea and killed four leading Palestinian political and cultural (Kamal Nasser, a poet) figures and by 1975 the country was right on the edge. A drive-by shooting at a Maronite church in East Beirut on April 13 pushed it off. The dead included members of the Kata’ib, the Lebanese Falange, a party founded on the Spanish model in the 1930s. Falangist gunmen struck back, shooting up a bus full of Palestinians and the war was on.

As Israel was already involved with the Falangists, as it wanted chaos in Lebanon ending in the defeat of the Palestinians and the destruction of their institutions, the church shooting was very likely a deliberate Israeli provocation. The secret annex to the Kahan commission reveals that by 1975 Israel was holding secret meetings with Falangist leaders, aimed at political and military coordination, towards which end Israel gave the Falangists $118.5 million in military aid (the figure given in the Kahan annex, the true figure possibly being much higher) and trained hundreds of Falangist fighters, in preparation for the war which Israel wanted the Falangists to launch.

Israel maintained its relationship with the Falangists through the civil war. By 1982 there was an “alliance in principle,” as described by papers in the Kahan annex. Trained in Israel up to Israeli military standards, however this is understood, Israel was confident that the Falangist tough Bashir Gemayel, the dominant figure in the Christian umbrella group, the Lebanese Forces (LF), had evolved “from the emotional leader of a gang, full of hatred, into a relatively prudent and cautious political leader.” No doubt this was how Bashir presented himself at meetings with the Israelis, but his actions in the past, and in the future, indicate that he was merely concealing the brutality that still lay within.

In January, 1976, the LF attacked the slum Karantina port district of Beirut, killing or massacring at least 1000 Palestinian fighters and civilians. In June, the Falangists, along with other LF factions, including the Lebanese Tigers of the Chamoun family and the Guardians of the Cedars, besieged the Tal al Za’atar Palestinian camp. Their military equipment included US tanks and armored cars. The camp held out for 35 days before being overrun. Up to 3000 Palestinian civilians were slaughtered.

The Kahan papers include an interesting exchange between Ariel Sharon and Shimon Peres, Minister of Defence in 1976, who asked Sharon whether an IDF officer had warned him against sending the Falangists into Sabra and Shatila. Sharon responded that “you” (the Rabin government of 1976 of which Peres was part) had established the relationship with the Falangists and maintained it even after the massacre at Tal al Zaatar:

“You [Peres] spoke of the moral image of the government. After Tal al Zaatar, Mr Peres, you have no monopoly on morality. We did not accuse you, you have accused us. The same moral principle which was raised by the Tal al Za’atar incident [sic.] still exists. The Phalangists murdered in Shatila and the Phalangists murdered in Tal Za’atar. The link is a moral one: should we get involved with the Phalangists or not? You supported them and continued to do so after Tal Za’atar. Mr Rabin and Mr Peres, there were no IDF officers in Shatila, the same way they were absent from Tal Za’atar.” What is left unsaid is that Israel had a ‘liaison office’ at Tal al Za’ater even if IDF officers were not inside the camp.

‘High stature’

The refrain constantly repeated by Israeli intelligence and military personnel in 1982 was that no-one expected the Falangists to behave so badly. They were people of high calibre, people of quality, “men of much higher personal stature than is common among Arabs,” according to the statements made to the Kahan commission.

“I interrogated the Lebanese commanders [all Lebanese ‘commanders’ operated under direct Israeli command],” said Sharon. “I asked them, why have you done it? They looked into my eyes, as I am looking at you and their eyes did not twitch. They said ‘we did not do this, it was not us.’ I am not talking about bums, we are talking about people who are engineers and lawyers, the entire young elite, an intelligentsia, and they are looking into my eyes and saying ‘we did not do it.’

In fact, not just during the long civil war but throughout its invasion of Lebanon in 1982, Israel had abundant evidence of the Falangist capacity for brutality, not just in the massacre of Muslims caught at checkpoints or the Druze in the mountains but in the statements of Falangist leaders. On September 12, two days before he was assassinated, Bashir Gemayel told Sharon that conditions “should be created” which would result in the Palestinians leaving Lebanon.

At the same meeting it transpired that the Israelis had evidence that “as a consequence of Elie Hobeika’s activities” 1200 people had “disappeared.” Hobeika, a senior and extremely brutal Falangist figure, implicated in the CIA attempt in 1985 to assassinate the Shia spiritual leader, Shaikh Muhammad Hussain Fadlallah, was assassinated in 2002 shortly after he announced he was ready to give evidence in a Belgian court about Sharon’s role in the Sabra-Shatila massacres. His car was blown up, his head landing on the balcony of a nearby apartment.

On July 8 Bashir spoke of wanting to bulldoze the Palestinian camps in southern Lebanon. At a later meeting, asked by Sharon “What would you do about the refugee camps?,” he replied “We are planning a real zoo.”

An IDF colonel gave evidence to the Kahan commission that it was “possible to surmise from contacts with Phalange leaders” what their intentions were. If Sabra would become a zoo, Shatila’s destiny was to be a parking lot.

The IDF colonel spoke of massacres of Druze villagers by Elie Hobeika and his men. A document dated June 23 refers to “some 500 people” detained by Christians in Beirut being “terminated.” Nahum Admoni, the Mossad head, who said he knew Bashir well, having met frequently with him in 1974/5, said that “When he talked in terms of demographic change it was always in terms of killing and elimination. This was his instinctive style.” The “demographic change” refers to Bashir’s concern at the size of Lebanon’s Shia population, and its high natural birth date compared to the Christians. To resolve this problem, Bashar said, “several Deir Yassins will be necessary.”

While referring to Bashir’s brutal talk, Admoni said that “at the same time he was a political human being and as such he had an extremely cautious thinking process and thus he avoided taking part in various warlike activities.” The evidence does not bear out the last part of this statement, as Bashar had a long record even before 1982 of engaging in extremely brutal “warlike activities.”

The violence during the Israeli onslaught on Lebanon ran from the Falangists at one end of the spectrum to the extreme violence of Ariel Sharon, including massacres of civilians in Gaza and the West Bank, at the other end. The two extremes met in the middle at Sabra and Shatila and the outcome was predictably catastrophic.

‘Totally subservient’

What must be reaffirmed is that the “cleaning” or “combing” out of Sabra and Shatila was planned, coordinated and commanded by the Israeli military. It was not a Falangist operation with Israel playing some loose supervisory role. It was an Israel operation, involving the intelligence agencies and approved by the Israeli government. The Falangists were trained and armed by Israel and the LF commanders were “totally subservient” to the commander of the Israeli force sent to the camps, the 96th division. The Falangists were told when to enter the camps and when to leave. The Israelis lit up the camps at night with flares so the Falangists could see what they were doing (or who they were killing) and they stood ready to provide medical assistance to wounded men and intervene if they got into trouble.

Any notion that Menahim Begin, the Prime Minister, had no idea what was going on until a later stage has to be discarded. As Sharon remarked at a Cabinet meeting on August 12, “to say that I speak with the PM five times a day would be an understatement.”

Israel had agreed in negotiations with the Americans not to enter West Beirut. The assassination of Bashir Gemayel on September 14 precipitated the invasion of West Beirut the following day, the seizure of key positions and the encirclement of Sabra and Shatila according to a well-prepared plan. The Falangists entered the camps in the early evening of September 16, on Israeli orders, and did not withdraw until September 18, again on Israeli orders.

There were no “terrorists” in the camps, let alone the 2500 Sharon claimed had been left behind after the PLO withdrawal from Beirut in August. There were only civilians and there was no armed resistance from them. The Falangists did their work silently, mostly with knives so that the next victim would not be aware of the fate of the one before him (or her – many of the dead were women and children and even the camp animals were butchered) until it was too late.

The Falangist liaison office was established in the headquarters of the 96th Israeli division, where eavesdropping yielded unspecified “important evidence,” according to the Kahan commission annex. Professional electronic tapping of the Falangist communications network inside the camps was maintained in addition to “improvised” tapping of the conversations inside the HQ of the 96th division. According to the Kahan commission’s annex, the Falangist liaison officer reported “abnormal occurrences” in the camps to several officers only a few hours after the Falangists entered them.

Clearly, statements by intelligence and military personnel that they did not know what was going, or that they did not know until it was too late cannot be taken at face value. There was no gunfire from the camps and no resistance as would have been expected from armed “terrorists.” In this deathly silence, with no bursts of gunfire, and not the slightest sign or sound of armed combat, did the Israelis really think the Falangists were only killing armed men? Furthermore, Sharon had made it clear that he wanted to break up all the Palestinian camps and disperse their inhabitants. A cruel and brutal figure, he was perfectly capable of doing it. What could be better calculated to drive Palestinian civilians everywhere into panicked flight than an even more monstrous Deir Yassin? There may be a lot more evidence about this, textual and graphic, that has not made its way even into the secret annex.

Sharon freely insulted and demeaned the two chief US representatives in Beirut, Ambassador Morris Draper, whom he accused of impudence in demanding that Israel withdraw from West Beirut, and President Reagan’s special envoy, Philip Habib. “Did I make myself clear?,” “Don’t complain all the time” and “I’m sick of this” are samples of his aggression when in their company but as he said of the Americans on another occasion, “I hate them.”

Ghost towns

This remorseless liar claimed that there were no civilians in the camps. “I want you to know that Burj al Barajneh and its vicinity and the area of Shatila and similar places are ghost towns” he insisted, according to the Kahan annex. In August, as the aerial and land bombardment of Beirut approached its peak, he told the Cabinet that “we are not striking at the area where the Sunni Lebanese population resides.” On August 18 he lied again: “Today there is no-one living in the refugee camps. Only terrorists remain in the refugee camps. That is where their positions remain, in the refugee camps. That is where their positions, bunkers and HQs were located, and all the civilians had fled.” In fact, the camps were packed with civilians who had nowhere else to go, while in West Beirut, thousands of Sunni Muslims, Christians, and anyone who was living there, were being killed in air strikes.

At the same time Sharon had the extraordinary gall to present himself as some kind of saviour of the civilian population.   After entering West Beirut he remarked that “in reality we are not looking for anybody’s praise but if praise is due, then it’s ours as we saved Beirut from total anarchy. On September 21, a few days after the Sabra and Shatila massacres, he told the Cabinet that “We prevented a bloodbath.” In fact, the invasion had been a bloodbath from the beginning. By the end of the year about 19,000 people had been killed, almost all of them Palestinian or Lebanese civilians.

Two issues take up numerous pages in the Kahan report annex. One is the speed with which the Israeli army moved into West Beirut after the assassination of Bashir Gemayel. The reason was that the assassination “threatened to bring down the entire political structure and undermine the military plan years in preparation over long months.” Having promised full support, Bashar had ultimately refused to send the Falangists into West Beirut and with this commanding figure dead, the Israelis feared that their invasion was going to fail at the critical moment. With no-one to stop them, Sharon’s imaginary “terrorists” would be free to rebuild their infrastructure.

‘Supreme value’

The other issue is why Israel did not send its own troops into the camps. As expressed in the Kahan papers, “the expected nature of the fighting in the camps did not arouse much enthusiasm for the deployment of the IDF.” There would be difficult fighting “which could result in a lot of bloodshed in a densely populated area, where terrorists who have to be located are disguised as civilians in a hostile environment.” Such an action would involve a large number of casualties and the IDF had no wish to involve itself “in such an unpleasant but necessary military move.”

The deployment of the Falangists instead caused “great relief” to the military: the “supreme value” governing the decision was the desire not to cause IDF casualties. So, Israel’s proxies were sent in to do the dirty work instead.

After being elected president, as he was in a dodgy way in August, Bashir Gemayel had shown he realised he would have to act as one, which meant putting the Lebanese consensus before the alliance with Israel. He would have to work with the Sunnis and Shia and repair the fractured relations with other Maronite factions. He would have to take the interests of Arab states into account.   He could not simultaneously be Lebanon’s president and Israel’s president.   As a senior Falangist figure, Antun Fattal, remarked to Morris Draper on December 13, 1982: “Our economy is dependent on the Arab world and we cannot sacrifice it because of a peace treaty [as demanded by Israel].”

On December 14, Bashar’s successor, and milder brother, Amin, asked Israel to stop all contact with Lebanon, saying that he intended to announce at the UN that Lebanon was occupied by Israel. Like Bashir, he knew he had to respect the Lebanese consensus. By the end of 1982 what Israel had comprehensively demonstrated was that it simply did not understand Lebanon. All it had was brute force. The invasion certainly succeeded in changing the geo-political strategic situation, but not to Israel’s advantage. Yes, the PLO went, but only for Hizbullah to take its place. By 2000 Hizbullah had driven Israel out of the occupied south, in 2006 it frustrated Israel again and by 2018 it had missiles that will cause unprecedented damage if Israel goes to war again. The country Israel regarded as the weakest link in the Arab chain had turned out to be one of the toughest.

By Jeremy Salt
Source

«إسرائيل» تخشى حرب استنزاف

 

أكتوبر 4, 2018

«إسرائيل» تخشى حرب استنزاف

على الجبهة الشمالية واختفاء الكيان!

محمد صادق الحسيني

في ظل الإحباط الشديد، الذي يسود الأوساط العسكرية والأمنية «الإسرائيلية»، نتيجة تراكم انتصارات حلف المقاومة على كامل مسرح المواجهة، خاصة انتصارات الميدان السوري، وبالرغم من الهرطقات التي يحاول نتن ياهو تسويقها على انها حقائق ومعلومات، سواء تلك الخاصة بإيران أو المسرحية الهزلية الخاصة بلبنان، وجدنا لزاماً علينا أن نطمئن جمهور المقاومة وكل الأحرار في العالم.

وكذلك تجمّع المستوطنين اليهود في فلسطين المحتلة والذين يطلق عليهم البعض تسمية «الإسرائيليين» بأن الوضع المعنوي والنفسي لجيش الاحتلال «الإسرائيلي» وقادة مختلف صنوف أسلحته ليست على ما يرام. وإليكم الأسباب:

أولاً: التصريح الصحافي، الذي ادلى به المستشار الجديد للرئيس الأميركي لشؤون سورية يوم 28/9/2018 جيمس جيفيري James Jeffrey، على هامش أعمال الجمعية العمومية للأمم المتحدة، والذي قال فيه: «ليس لدينا توجّهات لإجبار الإيرانيين على مغادرة سورية إضافة الى اننا لا نعتقد ان الروس سيستطيعون إخراج الإيرانيين من سورية» على افتراض أنهم قرروا ذلك .

وهذا الكلام واضح لا لَبْس فيه: إقرار بعجز الولايات المتحدة وأذنابها عن تغيير موازين القوى في الميدان السوري وترك جيش نتن ياهو يواجه مصيره المحتوم: الهزيمة المدمّرة في الحرب المقبلة مع قوات حلف المقاومة.

ثانياً: إن رئيس أركان الجيش «الإسرائيلي»، الجنرال غادي إيزنكوت وقائد سلاح الجو «الإسرائيلي»، الجنرال عاميكام نوركين، كانا يعتقدان أنهما من نسور الجو في السماء السورية، ولكن أحداث مساء 17/9/2018 أثبتت عكس ذلك. إذ إن طياري هذا السلاح حاولوا التغطية على فشلهم في تنفيذ مهمتهم عن طريق إسقاط الطائرة الروسية، اليوشن 20، مما أدى الى استشهاد 15 ضابطاً من خيرة الضباط الروس في مجال الاستطلاع الإلكتروني.

لكن التطورات التي شهدها الميدان السوري، خاصة في مجال التسلّح وتطوير وسائط الدفاع الجوي والحرب الإلكترونية، والتي أعقبت إسقاط الطائرة الروسية والزيارة الفاشلة لقائد سلاح الجو «الإسرائيلي» الى موسكو، وقيام وزير الدفاع الروسي، الجنرال سيرجي شويغو، بالإعلان عن تلك الإجراءات شخصياً، قد جعل الموقف «الإسرائيلي» ينزلق الى وضع دراماتيكي جداً.

ثالثاً: وهذا ما أكده تصريح مستشار مجمع الصناعات المختص بتكنولوجيا الاتصالات الراديو إلكترونية Radio- Electronic Technologies، السيد فلاديمير ميخييف Vladimir Micheyev، والذي قال فيه: «إن أنظمة الدفاع الجوي السورية وانظمة الحرب الإلكترونية السورية التي تم تشغيلها بعد إسقاط الطائرة الروسية قادرة على رصد أية طائرة «إسرائيلية» أو سعودية أو أي طائرة تنطلق من القواعد الأميركية هناك أو في الاْردن أو حتى أوروبية وهي لا زالت على الأرض. أي بمجرد أن تتحرك أي طائرة «إسرائيلية» أو أوروبية أو من القواعد الأميركية في أوروبا من العنبر باتجاه مدرج الإقلاع تقوم الرادارات وأجهزة الرصد الإلكتروني السورية بالتقاطها ورصدها وإعطائها رقماً أو رمزاً كود فيتم إدخاله إلى أدمغة بطاريات الصواريخ، الروسية والسورية، المضادة للطائرات التي تبدأ التعامل العملياتي معه قبل الانطلاق مما يجعل نسبة النجاح في أسقاط الهدف تصل إلى ما يزيد على 98 .

فهل يفهم جنرالات وضباط أركان العدو معنى هذا الكلام!؟

إنه يعني قدرة أسلحة الدفاع الجوي السورية على ضرب أي طائرة من طائراتكم قبل أن تتحرك من مكانها. أي أن أجواء كلّ من سورية ولبنان وفلسطين المحتلة وغيرها قد أصبحت منطقة حظر طيران يمنع عليكم القيام بأي نشاط جوي عملي ومؤثر فيها اللهم إلا للاستعراض..!

وهذا بالضبط هو الدافع الذي جعل مستشار ترامب لشؤون سورية يبشّركم بعدم قدرة الولايات المتحدة على إخراج إيران من سورية وبالتالي انعدام وجود أي إمكانية لديكم للتأثير في موازين القوى الميدانية في ساحات المواجهة، من باب المندب مروراً بقطاع غزة ولبنان وفلسطين وصولاً الى العراق وإيران.

رابعاً: وبالإضافة الى ما تقدم، حول قدرات الدفاعات الجوية السورية وأجهزة الحرب الإلكترونية، فإن ما يزيد الوضع الاستراتيجي «الإسرائيلي» تعقيداً وكارثية، وليس الوضع التكتيكي فقط والمتصل بإمكانيات محاولة تنفيذ عمليات إغارة جوية أو قصف صاروخي لأهداف عسكرية في الأراضي السورية، إن ما يزيد هذا الوضع تعقيداً هو تفعيل القيادتين الروسية والسورية لمنظومات الدفاع الجوي من طراز /يبشورا / ام 2 / Pechorsa M 2 والذي يسمى أيضاً: نيفا / اس 125 / Neva – S 125 والمخصص للتصدي للأهداف الجوية التي تطير على ارتفاعات منخفضة جداً، سواء كانت مروحيات أو صواريخ جوالة صواريخ كروز مثل التوماهوك أو غيرها من الأهداف الجوية التي قد تنفذ بمعنى تفلت من أو تخترق النظام من شبكة صواريخ أس 300 وأس 400 .

أي أن تكامل هذه الأنظمة أصبح يقدم حماية أو مظلة جوية قادرة، وبنسبة 100 على تأمين أجواء كافة المدن والمنشآت العسكرية والمدنية الهامة في كافة أنحاء سورية ولبنان.

خامساً: ولكل الأسباب المذكورة أعلاه، مضاف اليها خوف القادة العسكريين والمدنيين في «إسرائيل» من مفاجآت أخرى، على صعيد القدرات التسليحية لقوات حلف المقاومة، فإن وضع هؤلاء القادة يسوده الإحباط الشديد والخوف مما يخبئه لهم المستقبل، خاصة أن قادة «إسرائيل» قد تولّدت لديهم قناعة بأن الموقف الروسي تجاه كيانهم قد أصبح موقفاً معادياً ولَم يعد موقفاً متشدداً أو منتقداً فقط.

وهو بالتالي بدأ يقترب من موقف الاتحاد السوفياتي السابق من «إسرائيل» والذي كان موقفاً مؤيداً للعرب بلا تحفظ.

وبكلمات أخرى، فإن موجة الرعب التي تجتاح الكيان «الإسرائيلي» لا بد أن يكون أحد أسبابها هو القناعة «الإسرائيلية» بأن روسيا تؤسس لحرب استنزاف جديدة ضدّ الجيش «الإسرائيلي» على الجبهة الشمالية تذكر بحرب الاستنزاف التي خاضتها مصر عبد الناصر على جبهة قناة السويس ومعها قوات الثورة الفلسطينية في الأردن حتى سنة 1970 وفي الجولان السوري حتى عامي 1972/1973. تلك الحرب التي مهدت الطريق أمام انطلاق حرب تشرين 1973 والانتصار الذي تحقق خلالها.

سادساً: لا بد من القول لـ«جنرالات» الجيش «الإسرائيلي» بأنه آن الأوان لتقديم أحر التعازي لكم بـ «الجيش الذي لا يُقهر» وبسلاح الجو «المتفوق» والذي «كان يملك» السيطرة الجوية في اجواء «الشرق الأوسط «…!.

وإلى اللقاء مع صواريخ بيشورا / 2 / وما بعد بعد بيشورا /2 / Pechora 2 .

في هذه الأثناء ثمة من يسأل:

هل اقتربت نهاية «إسرائيل» كما تنقل تقارير تتحدث عن هجرة مليونية تنتظرها روسيا وأميركا من الكيان..!؟

يكفي في هذا السياق التذكير بأن يهود اميركا شكلوا أخيراً ميليشيا أسموها: سيف داود / تعدادها 300 ألف مسلّح يتم تدريبهم والإشراف على تشكيلاتهم العسكرية من قبل ضباط متقاعدين في الجيش «الإسرائيلي».

الهدف من وراء ذلك هو: حماية اليهود من حملات الإبادة في الولايات المتحدة مستقبلاً، كما يقول هؤلاء!

بعدنا طيّبين، قولوا الله.

المسرحية الإسرائيلية ضد لبنان: الخلفية والقصد والنتيجة؟

أكتوبر 2, 2018

العميد د. أمين محمد حطيط

في عمل مسرحي سيّئ الإخراج والتمثيل قدّم نتنياهورئيس وزراء العدو الإسرائيلي صوراً ادّعى أنها لمواقع في لبنان يخزّن فيها حزب الله صواريخ عالية الدقة، وتقع في الضاحية الجنوبية لبيروت، وعلى بعد عدة مئات من الأمتار من مطار بيروت الدولي، وحتى يستنفد الوقت المحدّد له على منبر الجمعية العامة للمتحدة أضاف إلى الفصل الأول من المسرحية الهزلية صوراً زعم أنها لمواقع تخزّن فيها إيران عناصر خطيرة من ملفها النووي قرب طهران.

طبعاً المسرحية كما قلت لا تستحق بذاتها النقاش لإظهار زيفها ووهنها وإسقاط أيّ عنصر من العناصر التي قد يتكئ عليها لتقريبها من المشهد المعقول القابل للنقاش، فالصور كما أظهرت بدا أنها التقطت لمكان عام يرتاده الناس بشكل عادي وعلى مدار الساعة ولا يمكن ان يكون له صلة بعملية تخزين صواريخ او شيء سري ذي صلة بعمق أو بعد أو طيف استراتيجي، ولذلك لن نهدر الوقت للرد ّعلى العدو وإظهار كذبه الفضائحي، لكن السؤال الذي لا بدّ من طرحه والاهتمام بمتعلقاته هو لماذا قام العدو بمسرحيته وهو يعرف أنها مثار السخرية والضحك وعصية على التصديق. فخلفية وسبب العرض المسرحي هو المهمّ في هذا النطاق فلماذا؟

قد يسارع البعض للقول بأنّ العدو في عرضه استكمل سياسة الاتهام بتحويل المناطق الآهلة المدنية الى مستودعات عسكرية، وهو اعتمد هذا الأمر في الأمم المتحدة ليبرّر لاحقاً العودة الى تطبيق نظرية الضاحية والاستراتيجية التدميرية التي تستهدف المدنيين وكامل البنى التحتية اللبنانية، خاصة أنه أكد في إعلانه أكثر من مرة انه لن يميّز بين جيش لبناني ومقاومة وشعب لبناني ومؤسسات رسمية وأهلية لبنانية فالكلّ في الحرب المقبلة أهداف لعدوانه، وبالتالي يختصر الموقف هنا بالقول بأنّ العرض هو تمهيد لعدوان لا يقيم وزناً او تمييزاً بين مرفق مدني ومنطقة آهلة وموقع عسكري.

لكننا هنا لن نتأخر في الردّ على هذا الرأي رغم وجاهته ونقول إنّ «إسرائيل» ليست عدواً كباقي البشر الذين لديهم شيء من حسّ إنساني، فـ «إسرائيل» أصلاً لا تنذر ولا تهدّد بل تذهب للقتل والتدمير مباشرة ولنذكر من يريد مثلاً مصداقاً لهذا القول، انّ «إسرائيل» دمّرت الأسطول الجوي المدني اللبناني في العام 1968 دون ان توجه كلمة إنذار او اتهام واحدة للبنان، وانّ «إسرائيل» اجتاحت لبنان في العام 1982 ووصلت الى بيروت دون ان تهدّد بشيء ودون ان تأبه لشيء، بل انها اخترعت مسرحية محاولة قتل سفيرها في لندن وقامت بالعدوان على لبنان. فالقاعدة لدى «إسرائيل» عندما تكون قادرة هي أن تفعل وتترك الآخرين يتحدثون عنها وعن أعمالها، اما إذا هدّدت فإنّ في الأمر كلاماً آخر فما هو.

قبل ان نفصّل في الأمر، لا بدّ من التأكيد هنا على أمر أساسي بأنّ «إسرائيل» وبسبب واقع القوة الدفاعية اللبنانية المشكلة من شعب وجيش ومقاومة، المعادلة التي فرضت معادلة ردع استراتيجي عليها، انّ «إسرائيل» هذه باتت مردوعة في مواجهة لبنان، وغير قادرة على الذهاب ضدّه إلى حرب، فللحرب شروطها الثلاثة وهي غير متحققة في الواقع «الإسرائيلي» الآن، فلا هي تملك القوة القادرة على تحقيق الإنجاز العسكري في ظلّ فقدان الحافزية العسكرية لدى جيشها وفي ظلّ قوة المقاومة بوجهها، ولا هي قادرة على استيعاب ردة فعل العدو على جبهتها الداخلية الواهنة، ولا هي قادرة على التحكم بالبيئة الاستراتيجية والسياسية الدولية لصرف الإنجاز فيها إذا تحقق، وهذه البيئة اليوم عرضة لتوازنات ليست في مصلحة «إسرائيل». لكلّ ذلك فإننا لا نربط مسرحية العدو الهزلية بالاستعداد للعدوان على لبنان وانْ كانت «إسرائيل» تشتهي العدوان على الدوام وتعمل للتحضير له على مدار فرضت عليها واقعاً حرمتها من الاستقلالية والحرية في اتخاذ قرار الحرب وجعلتها مردوعة عنها كما يصف حالها خبراؤها. وبعد هذا نسأل لما المسرحية «الإسرائيلية» اذن؟

انّ «إسرائيل» شاءت وفي ظلّ ظروف محدّدة ومستجدّة وضاغطة تتمثل في إغلاق الأجواء السورية بوجه طيرانها وصواريخها وقنابلها الذكية ما تسبّب بنكبة استراتيجية لها في وقت تتحضر فيه أميركا لاعتماد سياسة لـ «خنق إيران» في 4 تشرين الثاني المقبل مع الخشية «الإسرائيلية» من نجاح أحزمة النجاة التي تحضرها أوروبا وروسيا والصين والهند لإيران، ورداً على الموقف العلمي الاستراتيجي الكبير للعماد عون في الأمم المتحدة وقبلها في مقابلة مع جريدة «لو فيغارو» الفرنسية، شاءت «إسرائيل» ان تذهب الى حروب أخرى بديلة وتعويضية.

ولهذا كانت هذه المسرحية بمثابة التمهيد والانطلاق الى تلك الحروب التي نعتقد انّ «إسرائيل» تقترحها او تشارك فيها ضدّ لبنان وهي ثلاثة حروب غير الحرب النارية القتالية التي فرض عليها العجز عنها، فقد شاءت حرباً نفسية ترهق لبنان مستفيدة من واقع انقسام اللبنانيين حول المقاومة وهي تريد ان تغذي هذا الانقسام وتثير دخاناً في وجه المقاومة ويعيد الجدل حول وجودها واستمراريتها الى الواجهة، جدل يحجب انتصاراتها ويمنعها من الاستثمار في الداخل والإقليم. وهنا وللأسف وجدنا في لبنان من يواكبها لا بل من يتقدّم عليها لخدمتها في مواجهة المقاومة والإساءة اليها والى قوة لبنان الدفاعية.

اما الحرب الثانية التي شاءت «إسرائيل» تسعيرها بمسرحيتها فهي الحرب السياسية التي يعتبر تشكيل الحكومة المتعثر بعض وجوهها كما يشكل استهداف رئيس الجمهورية بشخصه ومواقفه جزءاً آخر منها. فالرئيس كما بات معلوماً اتخذ في رحلته الأخيرة الى الأمم المتحدة من المواقف الاستراتيجية والسياسية والعسكرية العلمية ما أكد على حق لبنان بالمقاومة وأوضح بشكل علمي انّ المقاومة وسلاحها هي نتيجة لسبب متمثل بالاحتلال التي تمارسه «إسرائيل»، وانّ هذا الاحتلال سبب مآسي للبنان والمنطقة، ومنها مسألة اللجوء والنزوح، وانّ معالجة هذه المسائل تبدأ بمعالجة الأصل. ومنطق الرئيس الذي يجسّد المنطق السليم لا يرضي «إسرائيل» المجافية لكلّ منطق والتي لا تؤمن إلا بمنطق القوة العدواني واغتصاب الحقوق، لذلك شاءت ان تساهم في حرب سياسية ضدّ لبنان ورئيسه يرفده ويواكبه أيضاً وللأسف لبنانيون يدّعون زوراً العمل لمصلحة لبنان.

أما الحرب الثالثة فهي الحرب الاقتصادية وهي الأخطر والأدهى، لأنّ لبنان في ظلّ هذه الحرب يعتبر أقلّ مناعة منه في الحروب الأخرى التي ذكرت، ولذلك كان التصويب على مطار بيروت من أجل حصار لبنان وخنقه بالقبض على رئته التي تصله بالعالم، وأيضاً وأيضاً ومن شديد الأسف نجد ان لبنانيين ومنهم مسؤولون رسميون يساهمون ويشاركون «إسرائيل» في حربها وما الذي شهده مطار بيروت مؤخراً من تصرفات لا يبرّرها منطق ولا قانون إلا تأكيد على هذه الشراكة عن قصد أو غير قصد.

إذن هي حروب نفسية وسياسية واقتصادية تريدها «إسرائيل» بدائل عن الحرب النارية القتالية العسكرية ضدّ لبنان، حروب تحوّلت اليها «إسرائيل» بعد ان أدركت عجزها عن الأخرى، وهنا يطرح التحدّي الكبير على اللبنانيين وبالأخصّ منهم المسؤولون فهل يحصّنون لبنان في وجه العدوان «الإسرائيلي» المثلث هذا والذي جاءت المسرحية الهزلية في الأمم المتحدة تمهيداً له، أم ينتفض كلّ لبنان بوجه العدوان البديل ويحمي لبنان؟

في الإجابة السريعة على السؤال نقول إننا نتمنى أن يدافع كلّ اللبنانيين عن وطنهم، ولكننا وللأسف لا نثق بتحقق هذا التمني إلا انّ ثقتنا قائمة في مكان آخر، نثق بأنّ من حرّر لبنان وكانت له المواقف الثابتة خدمة للحق اللبناني سيكون أيضاً هنا وبالمرصاد… وأنه اليوم وفي ظلّ المعادلات الدولية والإقليمية الجديدة سيكون أكثر قدرة على المواجهة وأكثر طمأنينة للانتصار.

أستاذ جامعي ـ باحث استراتيجي

Related Articles

 

S-300s in Syria

September 25, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

More-modern-system-than-s300.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu announced yesterday that Moscow will supply S-300 anti-missile systems to Syria within two weeks. This development followed the downing of a Russian reconnaissance plane by Syrian forces, who hit the plane when they tried to repel an Israeli Air Force attack.

Just a week ago, Israel shamelessly bragged that in the past two years it has carried out more than 200 strikes on Iranian-affiliated targets in Syria. This will change now. The Jewish State will think twice before it orders its pilots to carry out an attack on Syrian land.

A few days ago I published an article on the Yom Kippur Syndrome. The Syndrome, as I define it, is the chain of events that drives Jewish societies towards an extreme irrational sense of pride, arrogance, hubris, blindness toward others and the tragedy that inevitably follows.  The Yom Kippur war (1973), that is perceived by Israelis as the lowest moment in their young history, was a direct outcome of the post 1967 ‘euphoria.’ Tragically enough, Jewish history is an endless story of ‘Golden Ages’ followed by ‘sudden’ havocs, pogroms and shoas.

The Syrian anti-aircraft unit will reportedly be equipped with the latest Russian tracking and guidance systems. Russian forces will also use some advanced electronic weapons including devices intended to prevent satellite communications off the coast of Syria. Israeli pilots may have to use maps again.

Though Israel claims that its pilots are trained to deal with the S-300, they are likely to restrain Israeli aggression over Syria. It is expected that the anti air batteries will be operated, at least in the near future, by Russian military. It is pretty unlikely that Israel will take an aggressive initiative against a world super power. It is almost certain that Iran and the Hezbollah will use this window of Israeli paralysis to beef up their presence in Syria.

Once again, like a prophecy that fulfils itself, the Jewish State brings disasters on itself, succumbing to the Yom Kippur syndrome.

%d bloggers like this: