The Battle of Rafah: a short step to regional war

MAR 22, 2024

(Photo Credit: The Cradle)

Tawfik Chouman

All eyes are on Rafah as Israel prepares to mount an invasion to expel Palestinians or decimate them. It is this pivotal battle that will either force Israel into a ceasefire or thrust the region into an all-out, multi-front war.

The temporary truce struck on 24 November between the Hamas resistance movement and the Israeli government could have paved the way toward successive truces and potentially a sustainable ceasefire in the Gaza Strip. 

But the opportunity was squandered by Tel Aviv, who viewed the continuation of its genocidal war as a means to reshape Gaza’s political and security landscape under the guise of ‘restoring deterrence’ and mitigating domestic fallout from Hamas’ 7 October Al-Aqsa Flood Operation.

Now, nearly six months since the commencement of what Israel calls a ‘war of survival and existence’ against Gaza, it has become clear that the occupation state’s military aggression cannot unseat Hamas from either the Strip or the broader Palestinian political arena. 

The recent flurry of indirect Hamas–Israel negotiations held in Paris, Cairo, and Doha have revealed a stark political reality: Hamas is the primary Palestinian negotiating party where Gaza is concerned. This tacit acknowledgment by Tel Aviv marks the strategic failure of one of Israel’s dual objectives set forth last October, aimed at eradicating Hamas and its allied resistance factions in the Strip.

Bibi’s political interests v domestic backlash

This reality raises questions about the potential pathways available to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as he struggles with immense international pressure to stop the carnage. Will he persist with the war on Gaza and risk global pariah status, or will he be compelled to pursue a politically costly settlement? The latter option, it should be noted, will not be an easy fix. It could potentially unleash a storm of domestic backlash within Israel, with various political factions eager to hold him accountable from multiple angles.

Since Netanyahu abandoned the truce in November, prominent Israeli political commentators and even former prime ministers have been surprisingly unanimous in their assessment. They argue that Netanyahu’s decision to prolong the war serves mainly his personal political interests, allowing him to project an illusion of victory while evading political, security, and judicial scrutiny.

Accordingly, Netanyahu’s stance remains firmly opposed to a war settlement. He has instead doubled down on the necessity of eliminating the military capabilities of Hamas and its allies, and is ostensibly pursuing an ‘absolute victory’ through total war. 

The prime minister’s roadmap hinges on continuing the ethnic cleansing of Gaza. In this scenario, he envisions the Battle of Rafah as the decisive climax that will definitively render the already terminal ‘two-state solution’ obsolete and permanently sever any ties between Gaza and the occupied West Bank.

The Battle of Rafah thus emerges as a pivotal juncture, delineating two competing trajectories: one driven by regional and international efforts towards a negotiated settlement, and the other dictated solely by Netanyahu’s ambitions. 

Regional ramifications and Egypt’s dilemma 

This raises complex questions about whether Netanyahu can prolong the war and influence regional and international actors – to buy time, if you will – all while factoring in the delicate balance of power involving Egypt and the wider regional war against other members of the Axis of Resistance. 

Indeed, the Battle of Rafah presents a multi-level challenge for Egypt, encompassing political, security, and popular dimensions. Should the Israeli army invade Rafah, it will have significant implications for Cairo’s relations with Tel Aviv, in addition to severely impacting Egypt’s domestic security landscape. 

A recent poll by the Washington Institute for Near East Studies revealed that three-quarters of Egyptians view Hamas positively. This popular sentiment influences Egyptian policy regarding potential Israeli actions in Rafah.

On 10 March, The New York Times and Wall Street Journal reported warnings from Egyptian officials on the potential suspension of the Camp David Accords if Israel were to attack Rafah. 

Diaa Rashwan, head of the Egyptian Information Service, emphasized the seriousness of Israel’s occupation of the Philadelphi Corridor – a buffer zone on the Sinai–Gaza border designated by the Camp David agreement – stating it poses a grave threat to Cairo–Tel Aviv relations.

Dealing with the potential mass influxes of Gazan civilians seeking refuge and Palestinian fighters crossing into Egyptian territory also poses significant logistical and security challenges. This scenario also raises questions about the Israeli army’s potential incursions into Egyptian territory and how the Egyptian military would respond.

Moreover, any intensification of pressure on Rafah or a full-scale Israeli invasion will lead to widespread regional ramifications, potentially including the unraveling of the Abraham Accords. The Axis of Resistance has made it clear that the elimination of Hamas is unacceptable and, if threatened, may trigger a regional war. 

Complicating matters further is the lack of substantive US pressure on Israel to halt its actions in Gaza. While the Biden White House seeks a ‘credible operational plan,’ it has not unequivocally opposed an attack on Rafah. This ambivalence enables and even emboldens Netanyahu to continue his military operations.

Rafah could reshape the region 

Regardless of the outcome of the Battle of Rafah, both Israeli and US perspectives interpret it as a campaign directed against Hamas, which they view as an extension of Iranian influence in the region. This narrative aligns with what Thomas Friedman, writing for the New York Times, referred to as the new “Biden Doctrine,” which emphasizes confronting Iran and its allies in West Asia. This marks a significant shift in US strategy since 1979.

The convergence of US and Israeli interests casts suspicion on ongoing efforts to bring about a long-term ceasefire, with all eyes focused on the current round of talks in Doha. Amos Harel, writing for Haaretz, frames the discussions as a race toward either a negotiated ceasefire or a potentially expansive regional conflict involving multiple fronts.

Yemen’s Ansarallah movement, which last week expanded its naval operations into the Indian Ocean, has issued a stark warning against a Rafah invasion, threatening a sharp escalation in both sea and air operations, including the closure of the Bab al-Mandab Strait. 

Similarly, the Lebanese front remains sensitive to developments in Rafah. Despite the northern front’s expansion since the onset of 2024, recent Israeli attacks targeting Baalbek, over 100 kilometers from the southern border, suggest Tel Aviv’s misguided willingness to escalate. 

This possibility could spill over into reality if Israel invades Rafah, as the occupation army may resort to preemptive actions to mitigate perceived threats from Lebanese resistance forces.

Overall, the Battle of Rafah will likely reshape the regional conflict, adding new layers to existing pressure fronts. Importantly, it challenges the notion that Hamas stands alone, abandoned in Rafah, as various regional actors, including Iran and its allies, are closely watching and prepared to intervene.

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.

Egyptian police officer kills two Israeli tourists in Alexandria

OCT 8, 2023

Source

Back in June, an Egyptian border guard killed three Israeli soldiers on the Israeli-Egyptian border

(Photo Credit: Flickr)

News Desk

An Egyptian police officer opened fire on a group of Israeli tourists in Alexandria on 8 October, killing at least two Israelis and an Egyptian, reported Al-Jazeera.

According to RT Arabic, the police officer fired his weapon at the Israeli group of tourists around the area of Amoud al-Sawari, near Pompey’s Pillar Site. 

A statement by the Egyptian Interior Ministry said that an additional person was also injured in the attack but gave no further details. However, the Israeli Foreign later identified the injured person as an Israeli who suffered moderate wounds. 

The suspected assailant has reportedly been detained, according to Egyptian television channel Extra News. 

All crossings at the Egyptian-Israeli border have reportedly been halted following the attack. 

As operation Al-Aqsa Flood rages on in southern Israel, Palestinians have set fire to the infamous Jalameh checkpoint north of Jenin in the occupied West Bank. pic.twitter.com/46PCBfijm2— The Cradle (@TheCradleMedia) October 8, 2023

As operation Al-Aqsa Flood rages on in southern Israel, Palestinians have set fire to the infamous Jalameh checkpoint north of Jenin in the occupied West Bank. pic.twitter.com/46PCBfijm2

— The Cradle (@TheCradleMedia) October 8, 2023

This comes as events between Palestinian resistance factions and Israel continue to escalate for the second day, after Hamas launched a massive offensive on the occupied territories under the name ‘Operation Al-Aqsa Flood’ on 7 October, catching the Israeli security and military establishment off guard.

Resistance fighters infiltrated the settlements of the occupied territories by land, air, and sea, descending on them using motorized paragliders. 

In the process, Hamas took dozens of soldiers, settlers, and civilians as prisoners.

Hamas’ military wing, the Qassam Brigades, has launched thousands of rockets into Israel as its fighters infiltrated the settlements of the occupied territories, advancing while taking soldiers, settlers, and civilians as captives. 

The number of prisoners held by the resistance is said to exceed 100. 

Israel has declared war on Hamas, launching unrelenting airstrikes on densely populated residential areas in the besieged Gaza Strip. 

Despite the outcome of the Camp David Accords, which saw Egypt normalize relations with Israel in 1979, strong anti-Israeli sentiment is shared by the large majority of the country. 

Since the signing of the Camp David Accords, Egypt has played the role of mediator between Israel and the Palestinian resistance in Gaza. 

Back in June, an Egyptian border guard killed three Israeli soldiers on the Israeli-Egyptian border. 

THE CONTROVERSIAL US-SAUDI-ISRAEL ALLIANCE: FRIEDMAN’S FOLLY AND NETANYAHU’S DILEMMA

JULY 28TH, 2023

Source

Miko Peled

he Israeli press is abuzz following a “New York Times” piece by Thomas Friedman in which he discusses U.S. President Joe Biden’s attempt at forging a strategic U.S.-Saudi alliance, including a crucial normalization clause with Israel.

Recently, President Biden granted an interview to Friedman, during which this strategic alliance was a topic of discussion. As per Friedman, a delegation led by Secretary of State Anthony Blinken is currently in Riyadh, engaged in efforts to establish this alliance.

Biden has given the go-ahead for his team to explore the possibilities with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, seeking to determine the feasibility and terms of such a deal. As Friedman puts it, Biden “gave a green light for his team to probe with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia to see if some kind of deal is possible and at what price.”

THE ISSUE(S) WITH THOMAS FRIEDMAN

The issue with Thomas Friedman extends beyond his patronizing tone towards anyone other than Israelis and Americans; it lies in his depiction of a world that seemingly exists solely within the confines of Washington, DC.

In his piece, Friedman writes:

A U.S.-Saudi security pact that produces normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and the Jewish state — while curtailing Saudi-China relations — would be a game changer for the Middle East, bigger than the Camp David peace treaty between Egypt and Israel.”

What Friedman overlooks is that the absence of peace and stability in the Middle East is not an enigma; it is a consequence of Israel’s apartheid policies. Moreover, the so-called peace between Israel and Egypt is widely regarded as a compromised pact between a traitorous Egyptian President, Anwar Sadat – who paid with his life for this agreement – and the occupying forces of Palestine, commonly known as Israel.

However, Friedman thinks this strategic alliance – which would provide more weapons and nuclear energy to a dictatorship that chops up dissenters – would be an achievement. It means throwing the Palestinians under the bus for good, and, to Friedman, this is good because “peace between Israel and Saudi Arabia, the custodian of Islam’s two holiest cities, Mecca and Medina, would open the way for peace between Israel and the whole Muslim world, including giant countries like Indonesia and maybe even Pakistan. It would be a significant Biden foreign policy legacy.”

Now here is where Friedman really gets it wrong, either out of ignorant or because he is out of touch. He writes,

If the U.S. forges a security alliance with Saudi Arabia — on the conditions that it normalizes relations with Israel and that Israel makes meaningful concessions to the Palestinians — Netanyahu’s ruling coalition of Jewish supremacists and religious extremists would have to answer this question: You can annex the West Bank, or you can have peace with Saudi Arabia and the whole Muslim world, but you can’t have both, so which will it be?”

Asked and answered, counselor! Consecutive Israeli governments and Israeli society have had this conversation many times, not the least of which was after the Saudis presented their peace plan at the Arab League summit in Beirut in 2002.

Israel does not want peace unless it is on its own terms. That means Palestinians get nothing, Arabs get nothing, Muslims get nothing, and Christians get spat on.

Still, he goes on,

I’d love to see Israel’s far-right finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, go on Israeli television and explain to the Israeli people why it is in Israel’s interest to annex the West Bank and its 2.9 million Palestinian inhabitants — forever — rather than normalize ties with Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Muslim world.”

First of all, there are 3.5 million Palestinians in the West Bank, not 2.9 million. And as for Smotrich, if Friedman had been paying attention, he would know that Smotrich and the entire Netanyahu cabinet are little more a messianic hate group.

The members of the Israeli government don’t care about peace or Arab or Muslim countries. They want to see one thing: Palestinians dying or leaving, and to this end, they are doing everything they can. Appeasing Biden’s ambitions for a foreign policy victory is of no interest to them.

FRIEDMAN’S FOLLY

Here is how Friedman explains what the Saudis will want and how they view the Palestinian issue:

The Saudis would demand of Israel to preserve the prospect of a two-state solution — the way the United Arab Emirates demanded that Netanyahu forgo any annexation of the West Bank as a price for their Abraham Accords.”

Upon closer examination, the phrase “preserve the prospect of a two-state solution” is either an unrealistic or intentionally misleading statement. Such a claim can only be made by someone who is either uninformed, disingenuous or completely disconnected from the reality on the ground. The truth is, there has never been a genuine prospect of a two-state solution. The Zionist entity has historically opposed the establishment of a Palestinian state, and today, Israel’s Nation-State law explicitly grants the right to self-determination solely to Jews in Palestine.

Then the “expert” Friedman explains, “The Saudi leadership is not particularly interested in the Palestinians or knowledgeable about the intricacies of the peace process.” Aha! Never mind the part where the Saudis are not interested in the Palestinians for now but to claim that they are not “knowledgeable about the intricacies of the peace process.” Where does anyone have the conceit to write such absolute garbage? The only serious and well-thought-out peace plan that was ever presented was the Saudi Peace Plan of 2002.

An excerpt from the Saudi plan reveals the Saudis’ profound understanding of the intricacies while simultaneously exposing Israel’s myopic stance. This is what Israel declined:

Calling for full Israeli withdrawal from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967, in implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, reaffirmed by the Madrid Conference of 1991 and the land-for-peace principle, and Israel’s acceptance of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, in return for the establishment of normal relations in the context of a comprehensive peace with Israel.

This comprehensive proposal showcases the Saudis’ astuteness in grasping the complexities of the situation while underscoring the unfortunate refusal of Israel to embrace a path toward genuine peace and lasting stability.

Israel had no substantive response to this deal. On April 21, 2009, Israeli Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Avigdor Lieberman dismissed the plan as “a dangerous proposal, a recipe for the destruction of Israel.” Likewise, Prime Minister Netanyahu categorically declared that Israel would never accept the Arab Peace Initiative.

NETANYAHU’S FUTURE

Thomas Friedman ends his piece by saying that if this “would force Netanyahu to abandon the extremists in his cabinet and make common cause with the Israeli center left and center right, well, wouldn’t that just be the cherry on top?” A cherry on top, well, isn’t that just so cute?

Clearly lacking the most basic idea of the realities of Israeli politics, Friedman doesn’t understand that there are two important reasons why Netanyahu will never abandon the extremists in his cabinet. The first reason is that he agrees with them ideologically. They are the foot soldiers that turn his ideology into practice. The is that he needs them to stay in power and out of jail.

Between silence and speculation: An Egypt-Iran reconciliation

June 26 2023

Photo Credit: The Cradle

Amidst ongoing regional diplomatic activity, the major missing piece in the diplomatic jigsaw is the normalization between Cairo and Tehran; can they set aside differences, end decades of tensions, and write a new chapter in West Asia-North Africa relations?

By The Cradle’s Egypt Correspondent

Forty-four years after severing relations, amid an uptick of diplomatic activities across the region, Egypt and Iran are finally taking cautious steps towards rapprochement. For decades, the two countries have followed divergent paths on foreign policy.

Yet, recent developments in West Asia, following reconciliations between several countries, have prompted talk of a potential breakthrough.

These developments include Saudi Arabia and Iran’s Beijing-brokered rapprochement, Syria’s return to the Arab League, Riyadh’s resumption of ties with Damascus, a thaw in Turkiye’s relations with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt, in addition to the onset of direct talks with the Ansarallah-led government in Yemen.

‘Silence from Egypt is a position’

The prospect of a rapprochement between Iran and Egypt has stirred different responses from the two nations. Tehran has openly expressed its willingness to mend ties with Cairo, even from the highest levels of authority.

In contrast, Egypt’s silence has been deafening – literally. In mid-May, Egyptian media quoted one source saying, “The ongoing official silence from Egypt is a position.” This steadfast silence by the Egyptian government is reminiscent of its stance towards Turkiye.

That lull was eventually broken when Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan unexpectedly shook hands in Doha during the FIFA World Cup in Qatar.

This surprising gesture raises the question: Could an Iranian-Egyptian handshake be on the horizon as well? The diplomatic landscape seems to be shifting, leaving room for speculation and optimism over a potential reconciliation between these two geostrategic regional states.

On 14 May, Fada Hossein Maleki, a member of the Iranian parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, revealed that negotiations between Iran and Egypt were underway in Iraq, with the intention of re-establishing relations between and reopening embassies.

But the most important Iranian announcement was made by the Islamic Republic’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei himself, who welcomed the restoration of relations with Egypt during his meeting on 29 May with the Sultan of Oman Haitham bin Tariq, whose country traditionally plays the role of regional mediator.

Shadi Ibrahim, a researcher in international relations and security studies at Istanbul University, informs The Cradle that the differences between Tehran and Cairo differ from Egyptian-Turkish disputes, as the issues with Iran “are primarily external and not internal, unlike Ankara, which Cairo sees as a competitor for influence and wealth in the region.”

According to Ibrahim, Egyptian-Iranian rapprochement was not initially on Cairo’s agenda due to these external reasons that date back to the Iranian revolution. However, with Arab Persian Gulf capitals – that sought to isolate Iran since 1979 – now mending ties at breakneck speed with Tehran, the process of reconciliation with Egypt is now also beginning to take shape.

A chequered history

Historically, the relationship between Egypt and Iran has experienced alternating phases of close alliance and intense hostility. A connection between the two regional states was solidified in 1939 when then-Iranian Crown Prince Mohammad Reza Pahlavi married Princess Fawzia, the daughter of King Fuad I of Egypt and Sudan. However, their subsequent divorce in 1945 led to a crisis between the two nations when her brother, King Farouk of Egypt, insisted on the divorce and refused Princess Fawzia’s return to Iran.

As relations thawed, the Free Officers Revolution overthrew King Farouk in July 1952, and Egypt raised the banner of Arab nationalism and confrontation against Israel. Given pre-revolutionary Iran’s recognition of Israel in 1960, relations deteriorated once again and remained uneasy until the death of President Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1970.

Under the leadership of Nasser’s successor, President Anwar Sadat, Egypt, and Iran experienced a resurgence in ties. However, the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran, led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, shattered the progress as it toppled the pro-western and pro-Israel Shah, who subsequently sought refuge in Egypt, where he remained until his death in 1980.

Iran’s revolution stood in hostile opposition toward the Zionist occupation state – just as Egypt was finalizing its Camp David peace treaty with Tel Aviv. The same reasons that drove Abdel Nasser to sever ties with Iran in 1960 were echoed in Khomeini’s decision to do the same with Egypt in 1979.

Decades of frozen relations between Egypt and Iran finally started to warm up with the January 2011 uprising that toppled President Hosni Mubarak. In a significant step, Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi visited Tehran in April 2012, marking the first visit by an Egyptian president to Iran in three decades.

This was followed by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to Cairo in February 2013, signifying a new chapter in their relationship and the announcement of embassy reopenings.

However, the subsequent Sisi-led and Saudi/Emirati-backed coup against Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood-dominated government in July of the same year halted the progress of relations with Tehran, albeit with a reduced level of hostility. Egypt, thereafter, adopted a strategy of “neither hostility nor friendship.”

Post-Camp David

Since the 1978 signing of the Camp David Accords, Cairo has aligned itself with US policy against Iran. Any shifts in relations between the two regional states today “come in the context of bilateral polarization and the competition of regional powers among themselves,” political analyst Abd al-Rahman Adel tells The Cradle.

In recent years, Egypt’s status has diminished in light of regional changes, which shifted the balance of power to favor wealthy Persian Gulf sheikhdoms. This transformed Cairo from an “active power” into a “state affiliated with the new forces in the region.”

During this period, the polarization between Persian Gulf Arab states and Iran – as well as among the Gulf states themselves – ignited unrest and conflict. An economically strained Egypt, reliant on the Gulf’s largesse, positioned itself as a reliable ally in its geopolitical struggle against Iran, aiming to achieve a sense of balance, particularly in Yemen.

Though with time, “these countries discovered that Egypt’s role was modest and its participation was limited, contrary to expectations,” Ibrahim explains to The Cradle. Aid to Egypt from the Gulf was severely curtailed as a result.

Impact of Saudi-Iran normalization

The rise of new global powers like Russia and China coincides with the declining US status in West Asia and Washington’s shift of focus to the Ukraine war and China’s backyard. Then in March, a significant development occurred with implications for Egyptian-Iranian relations.

Tehran and Riyadh agreed to normalize their relations in Beijing, China, after seven years of estrangement. This breakthrough served as a green light for countries in the wider region, including Egypt, to engage in dialogues with Iran. Prior to that, in August 2022, Kuwait and the UAE had agreed to restore full diplomatic relations with the Islamic Republic.

In February of last year, Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian announced that a new page had opened in Iran’s relations with the countries of the region, saying “our hand is open to our neighbors,” and stressing that “strengthening relations with neighbors, especially Arab countries, is a key priority in Iranian politics.”

In May, Amir-Abdollahian expressed hope that Tehran and Cairo will resume relations, stating: “We have always welcomed the development of relations between Tehran and Cairo,” adding, “The heads of our missions – interests sections – in Tehran and Cairo have good meetings. There is good access to the authorities of both countries.”

Iraqi mediation efforts

Multiple sources claim that Iraq has been hosting talks between representatives from Iran and Egypt since March, with Iraq’s Prime Minister Muhammad Shia al-Sudani leading mediation efforts. Despite all the positive speculation, however, Iraqi sources say that the communication has not yet led to understandings to start normalizing relations. Sources point out that Cairo is still not enthusiastic about normalizing ties for reasons that have not yet been disclosed.

Iraqi political sources tell The Cradle that Sudani aims to establish himself as a key interlocutor between Iran and Arab countries, as his predecessor Mustafa al-Kadhimi sought to do. While the Iraqi president has informed Riyadh of his intention to mediate between Cairo and Tehran, the Saudis have reportedly not shown much enthusiasm.

The sources emphasize that Cairo is unlikely to take serious steps toward improving relations with Iran until the relationship between Tehran and Riyadh reaches a more favorable level.

It is expected that Egyptian President Sisi would require clear support from his Saudi and Emirati patrons – Mohammed bin Salman and Mohammed bin Zayed – before restituting Egyptian-Iranian relations.

Simultaneously, the Sultanate of Oman is playing an important role in facilitating negotiations between Cairo and Tehran. Iranian president Ebrahim Raisi disclosed that Omani Sultan Haitham bin Tarik had conveyed a message from Cairo expressing its desire to improve relations. However, Arab diplomatic sources indicate that Oman’s efforts are still in their infancy, and have not yet resulted in significant progress.

Limited gains; minimal impact on Israel

Researcher Ibrahim believes that the restoration of relations between Egypt and Iran may not lead to much more than “the economic benefit of the Egyptian regime and breaking the isolation imposed on Iran.” In any case, this economic openness is likely to remain limited, with little room for substantial growth and expansion, particularly in light of Israel’s presence along the borders.

Ibrahim and Adel agree that “the Egyptian-Iranian rapprochement will be on a limited scale and will not in any way harm the Egyptian partnership with Israel, nor will it contradict American policy.”

According to Shadi, “Iran will benefit more from these relations.” Transforming relations from negative to positive, even if it is limited to the economic or religious tourism sector, “may represent a step towards a greater role in the future in issues important to Iran, such as the conflict with Israel.”

However, Shadi points out that Cairo is well aware of this, and “will not allow Tehran to compete with it in the Palestinian file.” Cairo benefits here from its geographical location and the fact that Egyptian lands are the only passage to the world for the Iranian-backed Palestinian resistance factions in Gaza. This reality reinforces Egypt’s position and ensures that it remains a pivotal, albeit passive player in the Palestinian context.

As the situation continues to unfold, it is unclear how Egypt’s relationship with Iran will develop and whether it will lead to a broader transformation in regional dynamics or primarily serve as a limited and pragmatic engagement.

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.

Leader of Egyptian Nasserist Party meets with Sayyed Nasrallah

June 15, 2023

Source: Al Mayadeen

The Leader of Egypt’s Dignity Party Hamdeen Sabahi meets with Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, June 14, 2023.

By Al Mayadeen English

Sabahi, the leader of Egypt’s Dignity Party describes his meeting with the Secretary General of Hezbollah as hope-inspiring.

In an exclusive interview with Al Mayadeen, Hamdeen Sabahi, head of the Egyptian Nasserist “Dignity Party” and the Secretary-General of the Arab National Congress, discussed his recent meeting with the Secretary General of Hezbollah, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, in which the two discussed recent events of Arab rapprochement and the internal situation in Egypt. 

Sabahi described the meeting as hope-inspiring, as “Sayyed Nasrallah, through his high stature, spearheads anti-zionist resistance in defending the central cause of our Arab nations, which is liberating Palestine. Sayyed Nasrallah as a visionary and resilient leader is capable of setting the path of liberation,” Sabahi said. 

ما الذي قاله رئيس حزب "الكرامة" في #مصر والأمين العام للمؤتمر القومي العربيّ حمدين صباحي عن لقائه بالسيد حسن #نصرالله؟ @HamdeenSabahy pic.twitter.com/5EDO94J6Io

— قناة الميادين (@AlMayadeenNews) June 14, 2023

Sabahi also expressed his joy in meeting Sayyed Nasrallah, pointing out that the meeting discussed the prospect of “the ummah’s resisting powers to reach its end goal, and to add to such efforts by facing the occupation, and finally accomplish the liberation of Palestine from the river to sea.” 

"السيد #نصرالله كرمز للمقاومة نال مكانته عن استحقاق وجدارة، بتضحيات حقيقية قدّمها وحزبه، يبقى في مقدّمة الصفوف التي يسعى المؤتمر القومي العربي لا أقول لدعمها بل لشراكتها".

رئيس حزب "الكرامة" في #مصر والأمين العام للمؤتمر القومي العربيّ حمدين صباحي لـ #الميادين.@HamdeenSabahy pic.twitter.com/ieTTGwrJbx

— قناة الميادين (@AlMayadeenNews) June 14, 2023

“Sayyed Nasrallah is an icon of resistance and he has deservedly earned this title with the sacrifices made by him and his party,” he added. 

“The sacrifices of the Resistance remain at the forefront, and the [Arab National] Congress seeks to share the burden of these sacrifices in an effort to achieve its goals which are the goals of the Resistance against the Zionist enemy.”

“There is a vast common ground between us, one that is too great to define, and the path that the path that expresses this Ummah’s sincere hope and its wishes.”

“The meeting with the Secretary-General of Hezbollah renewed these issues, while also discussing present developments, and touching on the prospects of this great mission that we share, and its fulfillment.” 

During the meeting, Sayyed Nasrallah discussed with Sabahi affairs in the Arab world in general, while focusing specifically on occupied Palestine, and the duties of the Ummah’s forces toward this sacred cause. The two also discussed the importance of empowering these forces in order to better serve this goal.

Rapprochement heralding Arab Unity

“The Arab National Congress calls for the widest consensus and concerted efforts. [We] believe that dialogue and settling the differences of the Ummah among ourselves is necessary to resolve discord among the Arab nations which wastes our resources on infighting,” Sabahi said. 

“The Ummah is being reconciled even if to a limited extent. This rapprochement deserves our support, and we have repeatedly called for it. We are happy with it, and we have praised every step of it, the latest of which is the return of Syria to its natural place in the Arab League.”

“We notice that there is a sense of rationality in dealing with Arab affairs now; which we support and favor, such that it saves our energy for the sake of devoting ourselves to confronting our enemies.”

“This sense of sophistication among the Arab people is the result of the struggle of our Palestinian brothers and sisters [against the occupation] within the occupied territories, their steadfastness of Gaza, and their valiance in Al-Quds in defending Al-Aqsa Mosque,” Sabahi added. 

On the subject of the normalization agreements, Sabahi pointed out that these agreements were conducted by the rulers, and that they do not reflect the will of the Arab people. He further referred to the heroic operation by Egypt’s Mohammad Salah as an exemplary case of popular resistance against the normalization agreements. 

“The normalization agreements, from the first agreement concluded by Sadat in 79 to the so-called Abraham Accords with some Gulf countries, are all stillborn and doomed to fail such that they do not reflect the will of the people. all of these agreements are not worth the ink with which they were signed.”

Sabahi pointed out that Mohammad Salah was not the first Egyptian to be martyred in resistance against the normalization deals. Saad Idris Halawa was martyred on the day the Zionist enemy’s embassy was opened in Egypt. Suleiman Khater and Ayman Hassan. As well as the Egyptian Revolution Organization led by the late leaders Khaled Gamal Abdel Nasser and Mahmoud Noureddine. 

"اتّفاقيات التطبيع منذ الاتّفاق الأوّل الذي عقده السادات في الـ 79 إلى ما سُمّي بالسلام الإبراهيمي مع بعض بلدان الخليج كلّها اختيارات خاسرة بائسة لا تعبّر عن الشعوب".

رئيس حزب "الكرامة" في #مصر والأمين العام للمؤتمر القومي العربيّ حمدين صباحي لـ #الميادين.@HamdeenSabahy pic.twitter.com/WLerUyosdL

— قناة الميادين (@AlMayadeenNews) June 14, 2023

The Situation in Egypt

“After a year’s worth of work arrangements for the frame of the dialogue between the government and the opposition has been achieved, and we also expect the liberation of prisoners of conscience .”

He noted that the dialogue has begun, and it is hard to judge it so soon because it will be assessed consequentially. 

The first demand raised by this dialogue is that of the day-to-day lives of Egyptians in light of the pertinent economic crisis which calls for a change in the economic policies, and the opposition has alternatives that it has proposed and will bring to the table during the negotiations. 

The second point has to do with civil and political liberties in Egypt: anybody that doesn’t share the state’s stance is prosecuted and cornered. This however is starting to change Sabahi points out. 

“We in the civil democratic movement, which represents the Egyptian opposition, accepted this dialogue with guarantees. We insist that Egypt must be a homeland free of prisoners of conscience.”

He also pointed out that Egypt needs a law for parties, such as civil society and its associations, to guarantee their freedom and independence and to ensure that they play their role in serving society.

“We need a new election law based on the principle of proportional list elections, not a closed list that produces only one-color, non-democratic parliaments, and a new law on pretrial detention that ends its use as a punishment.”

Related Stories

• Any blunder will snowball into all-out regional war: Sayyed Nasrallah
• Sayyed Nasrallah: Resistance factions’ unity foiled enemy’s goals
• Iran welcomes revival of relations with Egypt: Sayyed Khamenei

Egyptian soldier’s bold kill operation shatters Israel’s security illusions

June 06 2023

By The Cradle’s Egypt Correspondent

Mohamed Salah’s audacious operation, which involved infiltrating Israeli-occupied territory and eliminating three of its soldiers has sparked debate surrounding the vulnerability of Israel’s southern frontier, the underlying motives behind the attack, and its far-reaching implications for relations between Cairo and Tel Aviv.

At dawn on 3 June, the young Egyptian soldier Mohamed Salah left his service point on Egypt’s border with Israeli-occupied territories in the Sinai Desert. Armed with an old Kalashnikov, he crossed the border, reportedly through an existing emergency corridor between the two sides.

There, he encountered an armored vehicle carrying two Israeli soldiers, daringly opened fire and shot them down, before continuing to a depth of five kilometers inside occupied Palestine.

As the hours ticked by, an Israeli force arrived on the scene, only to meet the same fate as their fallen comrades, with Salah claiming one more enemy kill and wounding another before he ran out of ammunition and was fatally shot. It wasn’t long before images of his lifeless body began circulating on social media. His remains have since been repatriated, likely to an unsanctioned hero’s welcome by an Egyptian public who overwhelmingly approve of the operation.

The audacity of Salah’s operation at the Auja (Nitzana) crossing caught Israel completely off guard, shattering Tel Aviv’s illusion of seamless security coordination between the two nations decades after its peace treaty with Cairo. The contrasting accounts of the incident from both sides further add to the intrigue surrounding this individual operation.

Pick a narrative: ‘Terrorism’ or a drug deal gone bad?

Israeli political and military leaders were quick to label Salah’s actions as “terrorism,” “subversive infiltration,” and an “exceptional security operation.” Regardless of the semantics, one thing was undeniable – this operation was “painful for Israel.” However, Tel Aviv’s official version of events has remained elusive, as Salah was initially declared a member of the Egyptian military, and later characterized as a border police officer.

Meanwhile, Cairo presented its own, almost apologetic narrative, describing the incident as an “unintentional” occurrence where “chance” played a significant role and offered “sincere condolences” to the families of the soldiers. Notably, it was Israeli media that first revealed Salah’s name.

According to Egyptian military spokesman Gharib Abdel Hafez, “one of the security personnel tasked with securing the international border line chased down drug smuggling elements … During the chase, the security officer breached the security barrier and exchanged fire.”

Yet several Egyptian sources familiar with military affairs in Sinai disagree with the official version of events, telling The Cradle that the explanation lacks logic and coherence, especially given the fact that Salah had ventured deep into the occupied territories and awaited the arrival of further Israeli forces.

According to the Egyptian account, the soldier found himself unexpectedly on the Palestinian side of the border while allegedly chasing the smugglers. In a fateful decision, he decided to confront and shoot the two Israeli soldiers who were inside a military vehicle.

The Egyptian version of the incident is “flimsy and incoherent,” says Egyptian military researcher Ahmed Mawlana, drawing attention to the facts of the incident:

“The two Israeli soldiers were in a military vehicle and wearing military uniforms when they came under fire. Salah’s incursion into the occupied territories for hours waiting for the [Israeli] support force to come denies the idea that he was chasing drug traffickers.”

Safwat al-Zayat, a military researcher and former officer in the Egyptian armed forces, agrees with Mawlana’s skepticism:

“The incident did not take place, as some say, in a security-dwelling area, but in a very sensitive area at the strategic level of the Israeli side. This area is within the strategic triangle Beersheba-Dimona-Raymond, where the three largest air bases form the long-range strategic strike force against Iran’s nuclear program facilities as well as the Dimona Nuclear Research Center.”

He adds that “the incident revealed a wide shortcoming of the Israeli military and security services,” one of the biggest indications of which is “the time difference between the time of neutralization of the observation point in Auja-Nitzana by the Egyptian policeman, and the Israelis’ detection of it after more than two hours.” This, taking into account that “all border control points are linked to an intelligence information network that operates around the clock audio, visual and electronically.”

A security and communications breakdown

Israeli army spokesman Daniel Hagari told reporters that they are investigating why there was no alert following the Egyptian soldier’s infiltration into Israeli territory:

“Between 6 and 7 in the morning, there were a number of shots in the area. We estimate that the incident happened somewhere at that time. The soldiers were together near the post, not dozens of meters away from each other,” he said, adding the soldiers did not fire their weapons and that their bodies were discovered at 9 a.m., as radio contact, which normally occurs on an hourly basis, did not take place.

Hagari also reiterated the claim that the matter was drug-smuggling related, and that there had been a smuggling incident on Saturday morning, hours before the first shooting incident, that he says was thwarted by the Israeli army. But he also admitted that the military “did not know how to link the smuggling attempt at around 2:30 am, about 3 kilometers (1.8 miles) north of the attacked military site, to the fatal incident that occurred there four or five hours later.”

Egyptian sources agree that the link to the failed smuggling operation on Saturday morning is nothing but a spin exercise by the Egyptian government. In addition, Cairo concealed Salah’s identity and censored media coverage of and public access to his funeral, fearing his transformation into an icon for both his colleagues and Egypt’s population. That effort failed when Israel revealed his identity: Overnight, Salah become a celebrated Arab.

Yossi Yehoshua, a military affairs commentator, wrote the following day in the Hebrew newspaper Yediot Ahronot: “The Israeli defenses collapsed.” As the Israeli military “enjoyed real superiority in terms of manpower, daylight visibility conditions, and auxiliary troops,” the incident should have ended without Israeli casualties, he argued.

Nevertheless, some reports in Hebrew media suggest that the 22-year-old Salah “carried out a pre-planned attack as he knew the area very well.”

Mawlana agrees. He says the operation’s precision, Salah’s strategic handling of obstacles, and his calculated execution of the mission indicate that it was planned.

Blasts from the past

Mawlana also points to “several historical precedents for such operations,” which include the exploits of celebrated Egyptian soldiers Suleiman Khater and Ayman Hassan.

On 5 October 1985, Suleiman Khater killed 5 Israelis and wounded 7 who tried to bypass his border guard post, then surrendered to the Egyptian authorities. A year and three months later, newspapers published Khater’s “suicide” in the military prison hospital, amid widespread skepticism over his fate.

In fact, parallels between Salah and Khater were being made on social media this week, with the latter’s name trending on Arabic Twitter.

Another remarkable operation was undertaken by Egyptian soldier Ayman Hassan on 26 November, 1990, known as the “Ras al-Naqab” operation in a border area between Egypt and Israel. Hassan targeted and killed 21 Israelis while injuring approximately 20 others, including a senior official responsible for securing the Dimona nuclear reactor and Israeli officers at the Negev military airport.

His initial plan was to retaliate against an Israeli soldier desecrating his country’s flag, but upon learning about the Al-Aqsa Mosque massacre the month before, his anger intensified, leading him to modify his plan and maximize the number of Israeli casualties.

For nine days, Hassan meticulously studied vehicle movements along the border, identified security vulnerabilities, and carefully analyzed the geography of the area. He identified five key targets, with the most significant being a passenger bus carrying officers from the Ras al-Naqab Military Airport. During the following month and a half, he rigorously trained, running 15 kilometers daily – equivalent to the distance between his base and the potential target.

On the eve of the operation, Hassan prepared 450 rounds of ammunition acquired from his military unit’s arsenal. At approximately 5 a.m., he crossed the Israeli border, executing the operation in an area roughly 13 kilometers north of Eilat, on an asphalt road connecting it to the city of Rafah. After completing his mission, he swiftly retreated into Egyptian territory, sustaining a minor head injury. He then turned himself in to the military district command.

Widespread public support

The Egyptian sources insist that Cairo “is trying to absorb Israeli anger by pre-empting the issuance of the statement and suggesting that the incident was not planned.”

However, the Israeli side is aware that even under tight security coordination with Egypt, such operations can continue to take place. As the former head of Military Intelligence Division Chief Major General Amos Yadlin points out, “the Egyptian people were not raised on peace with Israel, and from time to time, an attack will come out against us from this side.”

A 2022 poll conducted by the Arab Index Foundation supports Yadlin’s claim, revealing that over 84 percent of respondents, which included Egyptian citizens, refuse to acknowledge the state of Israel. Despite official Egyptian-Israeli relations witnessing high-level meetings between their leaders, these do not reflect improved popular sentiment.

The results of the 2022 Arab Index clearly demonstrate that over half of Arab respondents consider Israel and the US as the greatest threat to Arab security. Additionally, over 75 percent believe that the Palestinian cause is not only a Palestinian issue but also the primary concern for all Arabs.

Backtracking on Camp David

In this context, Israeli and pro-Israel voices have raised concerns about the increasing presence of the Egyptian military in the Sinai Peninsula, which violates the military annex agreements of the Camp David Accords.

In June 2022, David Schenker, a former US State Department official affiliated with an Israel lobby think tank, warned that any future changes in Egypt could directly threaten Israel’s security, particularly in the Sinai Peninsula, which has been steadily re-militarized.

The growing threat posed by ISIS in the region has led to an influx of Egyptian military forces, surpassing the limits set by the security clauses of the Israeli-Egyptian peace agreement signed in 1979.

Although the agreement was amended in 2021 to allow for an increase in forces for Egyptian Border Security, Schenker argues that the current situation violates the original terms of the Camp David peace agreement, which prohibits the free movement of the Egyptian army in Sinai, except in narrow areas with light weapons and prior Israeli approval.

He also expressed concerns that Israel and the US would be unable to alter Egypt’s military presence in the event of political changes within the country.

Could the recent operation and the relocation of Egyptian forces in Sinai reopen the debate on this issue? The aforementioned sources agree that this is unlikely. Both sides recognize that their mutual interests outweigh such considerations, despite the significant, popular, public influence on the matter. The Egyptian sources tell The Cradle that:

“The incident may prompt the parties to intensify the security presence at observation points and seek a real-time information exchange mechanism at the lower (tactical) levels with joint contact, as in the case of the two observation points in Israeli Nitzana and Egyptian Auja.”

Despite Cairo’s cold peace with Israel, it is becoming clear that Israel’s continued occupation and attacks on the Palestinian people and holy Muslim sites are leading many Arabs to increase support for Palestinian resistance and retaliatory actions against Israeli aggression. Similar sentiments can be found among other West Asian and North African countries that have normalized relations with Israel, signed peace agreements, or are rumored to be in the process of normalization.

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.

Hamas, PIJ leaders meet with Egyptian intelligence to discuss Gaza truce

June 05 2023

(Photo Credit: AFP)

The high-level meeting came one day after an Egyptian soldier ambushed and killed three Israeli border guards

By News Desk

The head of the political bureau of Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh, and the leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), Ziad al-Nakhala, on 4 June met with Egyptian intelligence officials in Cairo to discuss the truce between the Israeli government and the Palestinian resistance in the Gaza Strip.

According to sources familiar with the talks that spoke with UK-based Qatari news outlet Al-Araby Al-Jadeed, the resistance leaders reviewed “highly sensitive files” during talks described as “the first of their kind regarding the situation in the Gaza Strip.”

The new truce arrangements would reportedly include a “broader role for Cairo in terms of presence in Gaza,” something that requires the approval of the resistance groups.

A fragile ceasefire has been in effect in the besieged Gaza Strip since mid-May. The deal was reached after five days of battle that saw the PIJ fire hundreds of rockets into Israeli settlements in response to the targeted assassination of the group’s leaders.

Egyptian security officials are reportedly discussing the Gaza crisis with their Iranian counterparts.

Last week, Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi ordered the foreign ministry to actively pursue the resumption of diplomatic relations with Egypt.

Raisi’s order was given one day after Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei told Oman’s Sultan Haitham bin Tariq in Tehran that the Islamic Republic has “no objection” to normalization with Egypt.

In 1979, following the success of the Iranian revolution, Tehran severed diplomatic relations with Egypt over the signing of the Camp David Accords the year earlier, which saw Cairo and Tel Aviv end decades of hostility between them.

Relations were further damaged in 1980 when Egyptian President Anwar Sadat hosted Iran’s former Shah, the western-backed Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. Following this was Egyptian support for Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war.

The talks between Palestinian resistance leaders and Egyptian intelligence came one day after an Egyptian soldier ambushed and killed three Israeli border guards.

The unprecedented attack spiked fears among Israeli commentators that the attack was part of a “multi-front war” being waged by resistance forces in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon, and supported by Iran, which “weakens Israeli deterrence.”

Keywords

ceasefire PalestinePIJ

جثمان محمد صلاح إلى القاهرة: مصر تصوغ روايتها

 الأخبار  الإثنين 5 حزيران 2023

(أ ف ب )

القاهرة | تسلّمت مصر، من السلطات الإسرائيلية، جثمان الجندي محمد صلاح الذي قَتل 3 جنود إسرائيليين بعد عبوره الشريط الحدودي، في وقت لا تزال فيه التحقيقات جارية بشكل موسَّع مع قادة الجندي وعائلته وأصدقائه المقرّبين، من قِبَل الجهات المصرية المعنيّة، سواءً العسكرية أو التابعة لوزارة الداخلية. وأبلغت السلطات الأمنية، عائلة صلاح، بأن عملية الدفن ستتمّ بشكل سريع ليلاً، وبحضور عدد محدود للغاية، فيما جرى توقيف شقيقه وعمّه، وطُلب من باقي أفراد عائلته عدم الحديث مع وسائل الإعلام وعدم الإدلاء بأيّ معلومات حول حياته. وكان أَوقف جهاز الأمن الوطني عدداً من أصدقاء الشهيد المقرَّبين، بعد وقت قصير من وقوع الحادث، من دون أن يفصح عن أيّ معلومات أو تفاصيل حول الجهة التي نُقلوا إليها، بينما يُتوقّع الإفراج عنهم خلال ساعات، مع انتهاء التحقيقات التي تُركّز بشكل أساسي على محاولة فهم دوافع صلاح إلى العملية، وما إن كانت هناك إشارات قد تحدّث بها مع أصدقائه وزملائه في الوحدة ومركز التدريب الذي تلقّى فيه تدريبات قبل الانتقال إلى نقطة عمله.

ووفق المعلومات الأوّلية المتوفّرة عن الشهيد، فالأخير هو من عائلة متواضعة تعيش في ضاحية عين شمس في القاهرة. والده كان يعمل سائقاً، ولديه شقيقان، وهو التحق بالتجنيد العام الماضي، وكان يُفترض أن يستمرّ فيه لمدّة 3 سنوات كفرد شرطة في الأمن المركزي، وتحديداً عند العلامة 47 على الحدود الدولية، والتي يتواجد فيها أفراد شرطة وفق «اتفاقية كامب ديفيد» بأسلحة خفيفة. وبينما كانت آخر زيارة تواجَد فيها وسط عائلته منتصف الشهر الماضي، خلصت التحقيقات التي تقودها المخابرات الحربية بمشاركة الأمن الوطني وعدد من القطاعات المعنيّة بالحادث، إلى صياغة سيناريو رسمي متّسق مع البيان الصادر عن القوات المسلّحة على الفور. وإذ جرى التشديد على ضرورة غلق الملفّ بشكل سريع وفوري، وتسوية جميع الأمور الخاصة به داخلياً، فقد صدرت قرارات بإيقاف ضباط في وزارة الداخلية معنيّين بالأمر، وإحالتهم على التحقيق على الفور، وإبلاغهم بالتقاعد في الحركة المقبلة للوزارة، والتي ستشهد تغييرات على مستوى واسع في هذه المنطقة. ودانت التحقيقات الأوّلية عدم متابعة المسؤولين عن ترشيح الجندي للخدمة في هذه المنطقة لصفحته على «فيسبوك»، والتي تحدّث فيها عن دعمه الفلسطينيين في مواجهة إسرائيل، وهي عبارة نشرها قبل التحاقه بالجيش بعام تقريباً، الأمر الذي كان «يستوجب» إبعاده عن هذه المنطقة.

وصاغت مصر سيناريو للحادث سيكون هو الرواية الرسمية خلال الأيام المقبلة، عنوانه أن العملية لم تكن استهدافاً مقصوداً للجنود الإسرائيليين على الحدود، وإنّما حادث عابر مرتبط بعمليات مطاردة قام بها الجندي لمهرّبين بعد مشاهدته إيّاهم خلال خدمته، وأن الخطأ الذي وقع فيه هو استمراره في المطاردة خارج الحدود المصرية. ووفق هذا السيناريو، فإن صلاح قام بملاحقة المهرّبين، وسعى للاشتباك معهم، فيما عملية تبادل إطلاق النار مع الجنود الإسرائيليين جرت خلال محاولته الدفاع عن نفسه، وبسبب عدم التنسيق والعلم المسبق بوجوده في هذه المنطقة وتجاوزه الحدود. وفيما جرى التشديد في الأروقة المصرية على إعادة النظر في التعليمات الصادرة لكافة الجنود الموجودين في هذه المنطقة خلال الفترة المقبلة، سرّعت عملية التنسيق بين الجانبَين المصري والإسرائيلي تسليم جثمان الشهيد، الذي جعلت عمليته من مراجعة معايير المتابعة والمراقبة على الشريط الحدودي، أولوية لدى الإسرائيليين في الفترة المقبلة.

فيديوات متعلقة

مقالات ذات صلة

• “إسرائيل” تسلم مصر جثمان الشهيد محمد صلاح منفذ عملية الحدود
• المفاجأة المصرية تشغل تل أبيب: استثناء أم بداية مسار؟
• عملية معبر العوجة.. وهشاشة التطبيع بين مصر و”إسرائيل”
• نشوة شعبية و«حرج» رسمي: مصر تلملم «الذيول»
• أسطورة الحدود تنهار من مجدو إلى حدود مصر
• مصر نحو تقديم موعد الرئاسيات
• مصر | «الإدارية الجديدة»: عاصمة بلا سكان

Martyr Sheikh Ragheb Harb Anticipated Danger of Normalization with ‘Israel’: Handshake is Recognition (Video)

 February 15, 2023

Mohammad Salami

Hezbollah Martyr Leader Sheikh Ragheb Harb, who returned from the Holy City of Al-Najaf in Iraq in 1974 to carry out religious and humanitarian projects, was one of the founders and basic supporter of the Islamic Resistance in face of the Zionist occupation in Southern Lebanon and Western Bekaa.

Sheikh of the martyrs of the Islamic Resistance was, thus, arrested and imprisoned Israeli occupation forces in 1983. The martyr played a vital role in the resistance against the Israeli occupation since 1982 invasion till he was assassinated by the collaborators with the Zionist enemy in his town Jibsheet.

During his noble Jihad years, his eminence consecrated the principle of resorting to the armed resistance against the Zionist occupation, stressing that any handshake with the representative of the enemy is considered as a recognition of its existence.

The Islamic Resistance in Lebanon has always rejected the choice of holding negotiations and concluding ‘peace’ deals with the Zionist enemy regardless of all the circumstances. However, the Egyptian regime, during that stage, was involved in the path of surrender.

In 1978, Egypt signed a peace agreement sponsored by the United States of America, disengaging concerns and causes with the Arab countries, especially Palestine.

US President Jimmy Carter sponsoring agreement between Egyptian President Anwar Al-Sadat and Israeli PM Menahem Begin

Based on the Egyptian stance, Sheikh Ragheb Harb anticipated the danger of abandoning the resistance path and normalizing of ties with the Israeli enemy, affirming that normalization will legitimize the illegitimate existence of the occupation entity.

In 1994, Jordan followed the Egyptian path and signed a ‘peace’ agreement with Israeli enemy, which reinforced the importance of the Sheikh Harb’s warning against such deals.

The catastrophic collapse of the Arab attitude towards the conflict with the Zionist enemy was in 2020 when Bahrain, Emirates and Morocco concluded deals to normalize ties with the Zionist entity. In 2023, the military regime in Sudan also expressed readiness to normalize the relations with the Israeli enemy.

Consequently, the Palestinian cause is abandoned by certain Arab regimes; however, the armed resistance, as consecrated by the martyr cleric, has reached several achievements.

The resistance parties in Lebanon and Palestine have liberated the occupied territories in Southern Lebanon, Western Bekaa and Gaza and defeated the Israeli military arrogance in 2006 war and other confrontations.

Even the Palestinian youths and children have carried out attacks on the Zionist settlers and soldiers in the occupied West Bank, inflicting heavy upon them.

In other words, the Resistance in Lebanon and Palestine has ridiculed the occupation as said by Martyr Sheikh Ragheb Harb.

Source: Al-Manar English Website

Were It Not for Iran, Where Would Palestine Be?

 November 23, 2022

Ahmad Farhat, Translated and Edited by Mohammad Salami

Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah stressed, during a speech last month, that , the most important factor of strength in the axis of resistance is the Islamic Republic of Iran, wondering where Palestine would be without the Iranian role.

The signing of Camp David Accords crowned the US-brokered Egyptian concessions to the Israeli enemy, knowing that the most prominent event in this context was the visit of the Egyptian President Anwar Al-Sadat to the Zionist entity in November, 1977.

Signing of Camp David Peace Accord (President Jimmy Carter, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin)

Since the end of the 1973 war and the advent of Egypt’s settlements era, the military formulas in the region had changed. The Arab countries, consequently, could not fight on one front against the Israeli enemy which managed to hold bilateral ‘peace’ agreements with the Arab countries in order to avoid facing them altogether.

The Arabs suffered then from a wide case of frustration amid the collapse of the Common Arab Security.

With respect to the Zionist entity, the Arab countries would no longer be able to attack ‘Israel’ without the participation of Egypt despite the fact that the Israeli enemy continued carrying out its occupation and expansion schemes. In this regard, the Zionist enemy invaded Lebanon in 1978 and 1982 and struck the Palestinian resistance.

The following video shows the Palestinian resistance fighters leaving Lebanon in 1982:

Hope Rising in the East

Amid the tragic developments, Imam Ruhollah Khomeini led the Islamic Revolution in Iran to a historic victory in 1979. Just 8 days later, the Islamic Republic identified its foreign policy, granting the keys of the Israeli embassy in Tehran to Yasser Arafat, the late head of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. This established a new epoch of a strategic Iranian support to the Palestinian cause.

Since its victory, the Islamic Revolution in Iran rejected and confronted all the schemes which targeted the Palestinian cause, providing all the possible means of support to the Palestinian resistance and intifada. The Iranian authorities have been also supporting and funding the Palestinian camps in the diaspora in order to maintain the steadfastness of the refugees.

On August 7, 1979, late founder of the Islamic Revolution, Imam Ruhollah Mousavi Khomeini designated the last Friday of Ramadan holy month as the International Al-Quds Day. Since then, Al-Quds Day has become a day all Muslims and oppressed people across the world rally for Al-Quds and Palestine against the Zionist occupation.

The Islamic Republic in Iran has been also supporting the Palestinian resistance factions which have committed to the rules of Islam.

Axis of Resistance

The axis of resistance led by the Islamic Republic of Iran engaged in several wars in Lebanon and Palestine. Iran supported founding Hezbollah Islamic Resistance that cooperated with the Palestinian resistance to reach victories.

This cooperation appeared clearly during Al-Quds Sword battle in 2021 between Gaza resistance and the Israeli enemy when Hezbollah, IRGC, and Hamas established a chamber of military operations in Beirut during the recent Israeli aggression on Gaza.

This axis, which has sacrificed a large number of martyrs crowned by the former head of IRGC’s Al-Quds Force martyr General Qassem Suleimani, has set praying at Al-Aqsa Mosque as a strategic target.

The video that follows the huge support demonstrated by the Iranian people to the Palestinian cause on various occasions, including mainly Al-Quds Day.

Source: Al-Manar English Website

Saudi Arabia to Grant the Zionist Enemy Ultimate Freedom of Navigation

July 1, 2022

By Staff

The United States, “Israel”, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt are reportedly close to clinching a deal over two strategic islands in the Red Sea, Tiran and Sanafir. That’s according to Barak Ravid, a political affairs commentator for “Israel’s” Walla! website.

Ravid quotes three senior “Israeli” officials who claim that the parties are inching towards finalizing a set of agreements, understandings, and guarantees ahead of an upcoming visit to the region by US President Joe Biden.

Ravid argues that the deal “will constitute an important achievement for the Biden administration in the Middle East.” He also thinks that it may pave the way for a gradual process of normalization between Saudi Arabia and “Israel.”

Ravid points out the obvious: “Israel” and the Saudis don’t have official diplomatic relations, and therefore, cannot directly sign a formal agreement regarding the two islands.

As such, the participating sides are trying to come up with creative legal and diplomatic solutions to close the agreement through indirect contacts. Ravid adds that in recent months, the Biden administration mediated quiet negotiations between Saudi Arabia, “Israel” and Egypt over a deal that would complete the transfer of the two islands from Egypt to Saudi Arabia.

According to Ravid, the question was raised at the heart of the negotiations about how to respond to Saudi Arabia’s request to remove international observers from the two islands while at the same time maintaining the security arrangements and political guarantees requested by “Israel.”

For their part, the “Israelis” wants to ensure that Egyptian guarantees in the context of the so-called “peace” agreement bind the Saudis as well, especially with regard to an agreement allowing “Israeli” ships to freely sail through the Strait of Tiran to and from the port of Eilat.

Two senior “Israeli” officials told Walla! that Saudi Arabia agreed to take upon itself all Egyptian guarantees, including the obligation to preserve freedom of navigation.

“Israeli” officials said that the outgoing Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, the new Prime Minister Yair Lapid, and War Minister Benny Gantz were briefed in recent days about the details of the plan to complete the agreement and agreed on its principles.

According to the plan, Saudi Arabia will sign an agreement with Egypt regarding the two islands, and in return, it will send a memorandum to the United States detailing its commitment to freedom of navigation and security arrangements.

The Biden administration will then transfer to “Israel” a memorandum detailing the Saudi commitment to freedom of navigation and will provide American guarantees to monitor the level of compliance.

An “Israeli” official said that Gantz and relevant parties within the security establishment believe that the plan preserves “Israel’s” security interests in the Red Sea and support the move.

“Parallel to finalizing the agreement on the two islands, it is expected that Saudi Arabia will announce that it will allow planes belonging to “Israeli” shipping companies to use Saudi airspace on their way to the east, especially to India and China,” the source adds.

But Ravid clarifies that while the negotiating parties are close to inking a deal, the plan has not been finalized and the agreement and guarantees are still being worked out.

• Biden Says His Visit Is Meant to Integrate The ‘Israeli’ Entity In the Region

التطبيع الرسمي فلسطينياً وأردنياً: قراءة في مقدمات الاتفاقات “الإبراهيمية”

الثلاثاء 17 أيار 2022

المصدر

إبراهيم علوش 

التطبيع لا ينجح إن لم تضمن “إسرائيل” قطع شرايين الحياة عن الدول المطبِّعة، إن هي قررت تغيير رأيها.

تسلسل الاتفاقات والمعاهدات زمنياً مهمّ جداً، لأنه يدخلنا في الأبعاد الإقليمية للتطبيع مع العدو الصهيوني.

يتيح مرور عقود على توقيع المعاهدات والاتفاقات مع العدو الصهيوني سجلاً زمنياً طويلاً نسبياً لتقييم أثرها ومسارها وصيرورتها، بدءاً من اتفاقات كامب ديفيد التي وُقِّعت عام 1978، ومعاهدة السلام المصرية – الإسرائيلية التي وُقِّعت عام 1979، ودخلت حيز التنفيذ عام 1980، حتى معاهدة وادي عربة، أو معاهدة السلام الأردنية – الإسرائيلية، التي وُقِّعت عام 1994، والتي سبقها “إعلان واشنطن” بثلاثة أشهر بالضبط، والذي نص على إنهاء حالة العداء والبدء بمفاوضات لتوقيع معاهدة بين الأردن والكيان الصهيوني.

سبقت معاهدة وادي عربة عام 1994 اتفاقية أوسلو التي وُقعت عام 1993، وتأسست بناءً عليها قانونياً “السلطة الفلسطينية” عام 1994. وتبعت اتفاق أوسلو اتفاقات متعدّدة، مثل اتفاق أوسلو – 2 (يسمى أيضاً اتفاق طابا) عام 1995، والذي قسم الضفة الغربية إلى المناطق “أ”، و”ب”، و”ج”.  

وكان اتفاق أوسلو – 2 جاء تتويجاً لاتفاق “غزة – أريحا” عام 1994، الذي قضى بانسحاب “إسرائيلي” جزئي من أريحا وغزة لتأسيس السلطة الفلسطينية، وما يسمى برتوكول باريس عام 1994 أيضاً، والذي “نظم” علاقة السلطة الفلسطينية اقتصادياً بالكيان الصهيوني، وكلاهما (اتفاق غزة – أريحا، وبرتوكول باريس) أصبح جزءاً من اتفاق أوسع، هو أوسلو – 2.  

ثم جاء اتفاق الخليل عام 1997 الذي أعطى الاحتلال الصهيوني 20% من مدينة الخليل H2. ثم جاء اتفاق “واي ريفر” عام 1998 الذي كرس مؤسسة التنسيق الأمني رسمياً مع “إسرائيل” والولايات الولايات المتحدة الأميركية، كما كرس دور “السلطة الفلسطينية” في محاربة “الإرهاب” ضد العدو الصهيوني.  ثم جاء “اتفاق واي ريفر الثاني” عام 1999 ، والذي فسر بعض نقاط اتفاق “واي ريفر” الأول، ويسمى أيضاً اتفاق شرم الشيخ، وكان الاتفاق الأول مع نتنياهو والثاني مع إيهود باراك، وبعده جاء اتفاق تنظيم المعابر (معابر السلطة الفلسطينية) عام 2005.

يُضاف إلى تلك الحزمة من الاتفاقات المتناسلة البيانات المشتركة (كما في أنابوليس عام 2007)، وسلسلة اللقاءات التفاوضية مثل كامب ديفيد عام 2000، و”خريطة السلام” عام 2002، و36 جلسة تفاوضية بين محمود عباس وإيهود أولمرت بين عامي 2007 و2009، والمفاوضات المباشرة عام 2010 تحت وعد من إدارة أوباما بإيجاد “دويلة فلسطينية” خلال عام واحد، ثم محادثات تسيبي ليفني وصائب عريقات في الفترة 2013-2014… إلخ. 

ولا يشمل ما سبق عشرات المبادرات الموازية لـ”السلام”، مثل اتفاقية جنيف غير الرسمية بين ياسر عبد ربه ويوسي بيلين عام 2003 لتأسيس “سلام دائم”، وخطة الحاخام بنيامين إيلون للسلام، والتي جرى طرحها وترويجها بين عامي 2002 و2008، والتي تقوم على تجنيس الفلسطينيين في الضفة الغربية بالجنسية الأردنية، والسماح لهم بالبقاء ضيوفاً في الضفة الغربية بعد ضمها إلى “إسرائيل”، وخطة “إسرائيل الثنائية القومية” التي طرحها إدوارد سعيد ابتداءً، وتبناها عزمي بشارة وروّجها بقوة… إلخ.

كل ما سبق مهمّ لأن كثرة العناوين والمبادرات والجلسات التفاوضية وامتدادها عبر عقود، هو أمر مثير للاهتمام بمقدار ما هو مثير للملل، لأنه يقول كثيراً عن انعدام جدوى تلك الاتفاقات والمفاوضات، ولاسيما في ضوء ما تمخضت عنه على الأرض من تزايدٍ للاستيطان وتغولٍ لمشروع التهويد وتطرفٍ متصاعدٍ في المشهد السياسي الإسرائيلي وضلالة الحالمين بـ”حل سياسي للصراع”.

معاهدة كامب ديفيد: الخطيئة الأصلية في السياسة العربية

كذلك، فإن تسلسل الاتفاقات والمعاهدات زمنياً مهمّ جداً، لأنه يدخلنا في الأبعاد الإقليمية للتطبيع مع العدو الصهيوني. فمعاهدة السلام المصرية – الإسرائيلية عام 1979 أخرجت مصر من حلبة الصراع العربي – الصهيوني، ولاسيما أن المادة السادسة من تلك المعاهدة تنص حرفياً على أن الأحكام الواردة فيها تُعَدّ ملزمة ونافذة في حال تعارضها مع أي التزامات أخرى (مثل معاهدة الدفاع العربي المشترك لعام 1950 مثلاً؟!)، وهو ما ساهم في تحجيم دور مصر الإقليمي فعلياً باعتبارها الشقيق العربي الكبير، وأكبر الدول العربية المحيطة بفلسطين، وهو ما يعني موضوعياً فتح الباب للتمدد الإسرائيلي إقليمياً، وكان من عواقب ذلك غزو لبنان واحتلاله عام 1982.

بعد معاهدة السلام مع مصر وقرار الجامعة العربية مقاطعتها ونقل مقر الجامعة العربية من مصر إلى تونس، راح النظام الرسمي العربي يدخل أكثر فأكثر في صيرورة اختلال التوازن والتفسخ والصراعات الداخلية، وكان ذلك كله نتيجة طبيعية لتحييد مصر سياسياً من جانب العدو الصهيوني، وتوهمها أنها يمكن أن تقتنص السلام والازدهار في مصر بمفردها إذا نأت بنفسها عما يجري في محيطها.

العبرة هنا أن تقسيم الوطن العربي إلى دولٍ وسياساتٍ قُطريةٍ متنابذة ليس تاريخاً قديماً أو مشكلة عقائدية يتداولها القوميون العرب فحسب، بل تحمل تجزئة الوطن العربي دلالاتٍ جغرافيةً – سياسيةً عميقةً وراهنةً. وبالتالي، فإن إزالة عمود مركزي، مثل مصر، من معادلة الصراع، كان يفترض بها أن تؤدي إلى انهيار الأقطار الأخرى كأحجار الدومينو، لولا المقاومة والرفض في الشارعين العربي والفلسطيني من جهة، وحالة الصمود والتصدي التي نشأت على الصعيد الرسمي العربي في مواجهة مشروع كامب ديفيد من جهة أخرى. وثبت، بعد عقودٍ من التجربة، أن هذا ليس خطاباً ديماغوجياً أو “لغة خشبية”، كما يهذر البعض، بل إنه يشكل قيمة جغرافية – سياسية ملموسة كحائط صد أعاق الانجراف والانهيار في الوضع العربي على مدى عقود، وإن كان العدو انتقل سياسياً إلى حالة الهجوم. 

بعد التجربة المصرية في السلام مع العدو الصهيوني، برزت عقدة “السلام الشامل” في مقابل “السلام المنفرد”، والتي أعاقت المشروع الأميركي للإسراع قدماً في فرض مسلسل المعاهدات والتطبيع على الصعيد الرسمي العربي، على الرغم من سعي المحور الخليجي لفرض مبادرة الأمير فهد في القمة العربية في فاس في تشرين الثاني/نوفمبر 1981، والتي رفضتها سوريا آنذاك وأفشلتها (عن وجه حق، وإدراك ووعي تامّين لما تعنيه من تجريفٍ للوضع العربي وإلحاقٍ له بصيرورة كامب ديفيد من خلال الاعتراف الرسمي العربي جماعياً بحق الكيان الصهيوني في الوجود، على أساس مبدئي على الأقل). 

بعد العدوان الصهيوني على لبنان عام 1982 وعقابيله، انعقدت قمة عربية استثنائية في فاس مجدداً في أيلول/سبتمبر 1982، أُقرت فيها مبادرة الأمير فهد رسمياً، والتي أصبحت تعرف بعدها بمقررات قمة فاس 1982، وهي تعادل، بالنسبة إلى الجامعة العربية، برنامج “النقاط العشر” بالنسبة إلى منظمة التحرير الفلسطينية، كما سيأتي.

المدخل الفلسطيني لتعميم مشروع كامب ديفيد عربياً

كانت العقدة المركزية في الإصرار على “السلام المنفرد” هي القضية الفلسطينية والمسؤولية العربية إزاءها، مع أن القصة ليست قصة مسؤولية إزاء القضية الفلسطينية، بمقدار ما هي قصة مسؤولية إزاء الذات في مواجهة خطر المشروع الصهيوني على المنطقة برمتها. ولنا عودة إلى تلك النقطة، لكن كان لا بد من “فرط” العقدة المركزية، المتمثّلة بالموقف الرسمي الفلسطيني؛ أي موقف منظمة التحرير الفلسطينية، من أجل تعميم مشروع كامب ديفيد على كل الأقطار العربية، وصولاً إلى الاتفاقيات المسماة “إبراهيمية”.

كان يوجد داخل منظمة التحرير الفلسطينية، منذ بداية السبعينيات (وبعض الكتّاب والمعاصرين لتلك المرحلة يقول إنه وُجد منذ نهاية الستينيات) تيارٌ يرى ضرورة التفاهم مع “إسرائيل” والإدارة الأميركية لتأسيس “دولة فلسطينية” وفق حدود عام 1967.  أبرز رموز ذلك التيار، في ذلك الوقت، كان ياسر عرفات ومَن حوله في قيادة المنظمة والجبهة الديمقراطية لتحرير فلسطين.  

جاء الانقلاب الرسمي في موقف منظمة التحرير الفلسطينية في المجلس الوطني الفلسطيني في القاهرة عام 1974، والذي أقر ما يسمى “برنامج النقاط العشر”، والذي مثّل نقطة التحول الجوهرية في برنامج التحرير إلى برنامج تأسيس “سلطة وطنية فلسطينية على أي جزء يتم تحريره من فلسطين”. ومنذ ذلك الوقت، بدأ الانجراف الرسمي الفلسطيني في اتجاه تأسيس الدويلة مع التخلي بالتدريج عن الشروط والضوابط التي وُضعت لها، فالمهم هو تثبيت “المبدأ”، وبعد ذلك تتم زحزحة الشروط والضوابط باللتدريج بفعل عوامل النحت والتعرية السياسيَّين، وكانت تلك هي الرحلة التسووية التي قادت قيادة منظمة التحرير الفلسطينية إلى أوسلو وما تلاها.

جرت المصادقة فوراً على هذا التوجه التسووي في مقررات القمة العربية المنعقدة في الرباط عام 1974: “إن قادة الدول العربية يؤكدون حق الشعب الفسطيني في إقامة سلطة وطنية مستقلة بقيادة منظمة التحرير الفلسطينية، بصفتها الممثل الشرعي الوحيد للشعب الفلسطيني، على كل أرض يتم تحريرها”، والعبرة تكمن في تمرير خطاب “سلطة وطنية فلسطينية على كل أرض…”.

للتاريخ، لم يصوّت إلّا ثلاثة أعضاء في المجلس الوطني الفلسطيني عام 1974 ضد برنامج النقاط العشر، أحدهم ناجي علوش (أبو إبراهيم)، والثاني محمد داوود عودة (أبو داوود)، والثالث سعيد حمامي (الذي عدّه متشدداً أكثر من اللزوم لأنه ربطه آنذاك بشروط صعبة!). 

شكلت مفاوضات جنيف بعد حرب أكتوبر عام 1973، واعتقاد قيادة منظمة التحرير أنها “على وشك” أن تتمخض عن “دويلة فلسطينية” بموافقة أميركية – إسرائيلية، خلفيةَ الانجراف الرسمي الفلسطيني نحو وَهْم المشروع التسووي.   

لكنّ صيرورة مشروع كامب ديفيد هي الصلح المنفرد، وبالتالي نشأت مشكلة “الصلح المنفرد” في مقابل “السلام الشامل”، فكان لا بد من تذليل تلك العقبة عبر إقامة صلح منفرد مع منظمة التحرير ذاتها من أجل نزع الذريعة من أيدي رافضي “الصلح المنفرد”.

كان ذلك يتطلب “إعادة تأهيل” منظمة التحرير الفلسطينية ذاتها على نحو يتوافق مع متطلبات الطرف الأميركي – الصهيوني. وأدت حرب لبنان عام 1982، فيما أدت إليه، إلى إخراج منظمة التحرير الفلسطينية من لبنان. وفي الأعوام التي تلت، أشرفت قيادة منظمة التحرير الفلسطينية على ورشة كبرى لإعادة صياغة العقل السياسي الفلسطيني في اتجاه قبول دولة ضمن حدود عام 1967، وصولاً إلى “إعلان استقلال” وهمي في المجلس الوطني الفلسطيني في الجزائر عام 1988، تم الاحتفاء به كثيراً، كان من صاغه الشاعر محمود درويش، ووافقت عليه كل التنظيمات المنضوية في منظمة التحرير وقتها.

جاء الوصول إلى اتفاقية أوسلو بعدها عام 1993 تحصيلاً حاصلاً لتراكمات النهج التسووي، لأن البحث عن دويلة وعن “السلام” و”الازدهار” بالتفاهم مع “إسرائيل” والإدارة الأميركية، بعيداً عن “الشعارات الفارغة”، وعن العرب “الذين تخلوا عنا”، كما شاع في الخطاب السياسي الفلسطيني آنذاك، هو المعنى الحقيقي لشعار “يا وحدنا” الذي رفعه ياسر عرفات، كما أنه لا يزال المآل الحقيقي لكل من يرفع شعار “يا وحدنا” في أي قُطر عربي: التفاهم مع “إسرائيل”.. فالحس القُطري ليس مشروعاً نهضوياً للقطر، بل هو مشروع تسييد الكيان الصهيوني على المنطقة، وبالتالي تدمير القطر ذاته وتفكيكه.

لكنّ تيار البحث عن “الذات القُطرية” في الحالة الفلسطينية بالذات، وتحقيقها في “دويلة”، بعد التخلي عن مشروع التحرير، بالتفاهم مع الطرف الأميركي -الصهيوني، هو مكسب كبير لمشروع كامب ديفيد (الصلح المنفرد)، لأنه يجرح صدقية من رفضوه باسم “السلام العادل والشامل”. وما دام أصحاب القضية الرسميين ساروا في ركبه، فإنه لا تبقى لغيرهم ذريعة، باستثناء موقف أصحاب العلاقة وأولياء الدم: الشعب العربي، من مسألة التطبيع. ولا تزال هذه هي أهم جبهة في مقاومة التطبيع اليوم.  

صيرورة التطبيع على الصعيد الرسمي الأردني

بعد توقيع اتفاقية أوسلو، بات استكمال كسر حلقة دول الطوق مرهوناً بموقف سوريا ولبنان، لأن العلاقات التطبيعية بين النظام الأردني والعدو الصهيوني أقدم من أوسلو، بل أقدم من كامب ديفيد ومن أي مفاوضات بعد حرب أكتوبر 1973. وبحسب مقالة في صحيفة “واشنطن بوست” الأميركية للصحافيين الإسرائيليين، يوسي ميلمان ودان رفيف، في الـ27 من أيلول/ سبتمبر 1987، فإن الملك حسين بن طلال أرسل رسالة عام 1963 إلى رئيس الوزراء الإسرائيلي آنذاك، ليفي أشكول، فأرسل أشكول مدير مكتبه الخاص من أجل لقاء الملك في لندن في منزل طبيب الملك حسين الشخصي، اليهودي إيمانويل هربرت، في شهر أيلول/سبتمبر 1963. 

في عام 2014 نشر الكاتب الإسرائيلي يوسي ميلمان بعض المعلومات، وردت في صحيفة “معاريف” الإسرائيلية، تتعلق بعلاقة الملك حسين التاريخية بالساسة الإسرائيليين وجهاز الموساد. وورد ضمن المعلومات أن “إسرائيل” أنقذت حياة الملك حسين عدة مرات، إحداها – يقول ميلمان إنه كان شاهداً عليها – كانت بداية “لمواجهة سوريا حين استجابت “إسرائيل” لمساعدته بتركيز قوات من الجيش مكّنته من مهاجمة سوريا التي كانت تنوي مساعدة الفلسطينيين في أيلول/ سبتمبر 1970″.

وتحدث الكاتب عن “مئتي ساعة من المكالمات أو المحادثات للملك مع الزعماء الإسرائيليين، وأن رؤساء الموساد أحبّوا لقاء الملك، وهو ما تم في مقر الموساد في إسرائيل، وفي قصر الملك في عمّان، وفي القارب الملكي في ميناء العقبة، وفي منازل خاصة في لندن وباريس”.

وبحسب الكاتب، فإن “اللقاء الأول تم عام 1963 بين الملك حسين ويعقوب هرتسوغ، الذي كان آنذاك نائب مدير مكتب رئيس الحكومة، في منزل طبيب في لندن، بهدف تنسيق المواقف وفحص إمكان وجود تعاون سري”.

وفي هذا اللقاء – يزعم الكاتب – “جدد الملك حسين، بتأخير 16 عاماً، العلاقة التي كانت بين جده الملك عبد الله الأول بالصهيونية، بحيث أقام عبد الله الأول هذه العلاقات في الثلاثينيات من القرن العشرين”.

وليس الأمر في حاجة إلى كثير من التمحيص، إذ إن قصة العلاقات القديمة بين العدو الصهيوني والملك حسين وردت بالتفصيل في كتاب “أسد الأردن: حياة الملك حسين في الحرب والسلام”، بالإنكليزية، للكاتب الإسرائيلي آفي شلايم عام 2009.  واسم الكتاب بالإنكليزية هو Lion of Jordan: The Life of King Hussein in War and Peace.

باختصار، لا تحتاج قصة الوصول إلى معاهدة وادي عربة إلى تحليل سياسي أو تاريخي مفصّل، مثل الحالتين المصرية والفلسطينية، اللتين مرّ كلٌّ منها في نقطة انقلابٍ ما، من الناصرية إلى الساداتية في حالة مصر، ومن ثقب إبرة “برنامج النقاط العشر” في الحالة الفلسطينية، وإنما هي حالة إخراجِ السر إلى العلن بعد أن أتاحت اتفاقية أوسلو ذاتها ذلك، وكان الأمر “مطبوخاً” أصلاً على الصعيد الرسمي الأردني.  

العِبْرة هي أن اتفاقية أوسلو ذاتها أتاحت الصلح المنفرد للنظام الأردني، بكسرها محظور “السلام الشامل” الرسمي العربي، على نحو يجعل التطبيع “الإبراهيمي” اليوم تحصيلاً حاصلاً، لولا أن معاهدات دول الطوق لم تكتمل بتوقيع مثيلاتها من جانب سوريا ولبنان. وكان يُفترض، على ما يبدو، أن تكتمل في دول الطوق أولاً، وهذا أحد أهم أسباب الحرب المستمرة على سوريا، وعلى المقاومة في لبنان، وتورط الطرف الأميركي – الصهيوني المباشر فيها.

التطبيع يمأسس لإلحاق الأردن بالفضاء الصهيوني

لكن فيما يتعلق بعواقب وادي عربة، لا بمقدماتها الواضحة، يجب أن نذكر أنها كرست قانونياً صيغتين أساسيتين للعلاقة الأردنية – الإسرائيلية:

–       أولاً: السعي لتحقيق تكامل إقليمي، تبلور في خمس عشرة مادة من أصل ثلاثين تتألف منها المعاهدة، غطت كل أوجه الحياة بين الطرفين، مدنياً واقتصادياً.

–       ثانياً: السعي لتحقيق تنسيق رفيع المستوى، أمنياً وسياسياً، أصبح الأردن الرسمي عبره ملزماً بالتعاون ضد أي شكل من أشكال العداء لـ”إسرائيل”، حتى لو كان ذلك على مستوى التحريض اللفظي فحسب، كما جاء مثلاً في المادة الحادية عشرة من تلك المعاهدة.

–       ونضيف أن المادتين الخامسة والعشرين والسادسة والعشرين، من معاهدة وادي عربة، نصّتا على أنها تسمو على كل ما عداها تماماً كما في معاهدة السلام المصرية – الإسرائيلية.

غير أن ذلك كله لم يُعفِ النظام الأردني من دفع ثمن كبير، بعد أن بات من الواضح أن مشروع ضم الضفة الغربية، في ظل “صفقة القرن”، يعني تصدير “المشكلة الفلسطينية” سياسياً إلى الأردن، وحلها على حساب ذاته القُطرية. وبذلك، فإن الاتفاقيات “الإبراهيمية”، كابنة شرعية للاتفاقيات ما قبل “الإبراهيمية”، انقلبت على أمها، وهذا طبيعي، لأن التفاهم مع العدو الصهيوني يعني تفاقم الصراعات العربية الداخلية. لقد دخلت السلطة في فلسطين والأردن في ترتيبات مع العدو تؤدي إلى تجاوزهما، ولولا أن البلاد تدفع ثمن التطبيع، لقلنا: على نفسها جنت براقش!

اتخذ التطبيع في الأردن، بحكم كونه دولة طرفية، وامتلاكه أطول حدودٍ مع العدو الصهيوني، وثقل التأثير الغربي فيه، وفقدان نظامه تراثاً استقلالياً وطنياً (في مقابل تراث وطني استقلالي عريق لشعبه)، صيغةً أكثر طغياناً مما اتخذه في مصر كدولة مركزية، تفصلها صحراء سيناء عن “دولة” العدو، وتملك إرثاً ناصرياً، وتملك قبله إرث دولة مركزية عريقة، على الرغم من استخزاء الأنظمة التي حكمت مصر بعد جمال عبد الناصر للطرف الأميركي – الصهيوني.

فُرِض التطبيع في الأردن بالقوة في كثيرٍ من الحالات، كما قُمِعت الاحتجاجات ضده في كثيرٍ من الحالات الأخرى، مثل اعتصام “جك” السلمي ضد السفارة الصهيونية في عمان، وهو أطول اعتصام في تاريخ الأردن، واستمر أسبوعياً منذ نهاية أيار/مايو 2010 حتى بداية عام 2016، وتم سحقه بالقوة في النهاية. 

وتكريساً لفكرة التكامل الإقليمي، جرى في عز الحرب على سوريا تحويل مرفأ حيفا إلى بوابة تصدير واستيراد، عبر الأردن، إلى الدول العربية. وكتبت صحيفة “جيروزاليم بوست”، في تقرير لها في الـ21 من شباط/ فبراير 2016، تحت عنوان “ارتفاع ضخم في المنتوجات الأوروبية المارة عبر إسرائيل إلى الدول العربية”، أن المنتوجات التركية والبلغارية بصورة خاصة تأتي على متن عبّارات تحمل شاحنات أو في حاويات إلى ميناء حيفا، ليتم شحنها براً إمّا إلى الأردن، وإمّا عبر الأردن إلى العراق والدول الخليجية، وأن عدد الشاحنات التي نقلت منتوجات تركية وبلغارية عبر الكيان بلغ نحو 13 ألفاً في عام 2015، دفع كلٌّ منها رسوماً إل العدو الصهيوني عند دخوله فلسطين العربية المحتلة وخروجه منها، وأن عدد تلك الشاحنات ارتفع بمقدار 25% عن عام 2014، إذ بلغت آنذاك 10.300 شاحنة. وهو ما يشكل، في رأينا المكتوب والمنشور، أهم عائق في فتح الحدود البرية على مصاريعها مع سوريا من جانب قوى الشد العكسي المستفيدة من مرفأ حيفا، في الأردن وخارجه.    

وفي شهر تشرين أول/أكتوبر 2016، أعلن الكيان الصهيوني تدشين خط سكة حديد بيسان – حيفا بتكلفة مليار دولار، الذي كان جزءاً من سكة حديد الحجاز قبل ذلك بقرنٍ ونيف. وقال بوعز تسفرير، المدير العام لشركة قطارات “إسرائيل”، بمناسبة التدشين وقتها، “إن خط قطار حيفا – بيسان سوف يربط ميناء حيفا بجسر (الشيخ حسين)، الواقع في منطقة الأغوار الشمالية، ثم سوف يواصل مسيره إلى الأردن، حيث مدينة إربد وصولاً إلى العاصمة عمَّان. وهو سيكون أيضاً قطاراً لشحن البضائع، وسوف يخدم سكان منطقة وادي الأردن، ويعزّز حركة التجارة لميناء حيفا، كما سيتم تعزيز عمل خط القطار الجديد خلال الأعوام المقبلة”. 

قبل التطبيع “الإبراهيمي” المعلن بأعوام، في 3/2/2017 تحديداً، نشرت وسائل الإعلام تصريحات لوزير المواصلات الصهيوني، يسرائيل كاتس، آنذاك، يقول فيها إنه يدفع في اتجاه تعزيز تبادل المعلومات بين الكيان الصهيوني والدول الخليجية، بسبب ما لذلك من تأثير إيجابي “في خطة التواصل البريّ المزمع إنشاؤها من إسرائيل مع دول الخليج”. كما أشار إلى أنّه، بصفته أيضاً وزيراً للمواصلات، يعمل على الدفع قُدُماً في هذا الاتجاه، وهناك “موافقة من رئيس الحكومة الإسرائيليّة بنيامين نتنياهو، على توسعة خط القطار بين إسرائيل والأردن، ليصل إلى المملكة العربيّة السعوديّة”، مُعتبراً أنّ “الأردن سيكون حلقة الوصل بين إسرائيل ودول الخليج في قضية السكك الحديديّة التي تربط بينهما”.  

وكان رشح، في صيف عام 2015، أن “الإدارة المدنية” للضفة الغربية، والتابعة للجيش الصهيوني، قرّرت المصادقة على مخطط لمدّ شبكة سكك حديدية في جميع أنحاء الضفة الغربية، وأن المخطط يشمل 473 كيلومتراً من السكك الحديدية، و30 محطة قطار في 11 خط سكة حديدية، “يتجاهل الحدود السياسية القائمة”، بحيث ستربط السكك الحديدية بين المدن الفلسطينية، كما ستربط هذه المدن بالمدن في “إسرائيل”، وبالأردن و”سوريا أيضاً”، “وستخدم جميع سكان المنطقة”. وبسبب الطبيعة الجبلية للضفة، فإن المخطط يشمل عشرات الجسور والأنفاق، بحسب مواقع متعددة عبر الإنترنت.

ليس الأردن والسلطة الفلسطينية، إذاً، إلّا منطقتين طرفيتين تمثّلان موطئ قدم للوصول إلى العراق وسوريا والدول الخليجية. وبالتالي، فإن مشروع “الكونفدرالية الثلاثية” (بين الأردن والدويلة الفلسطينية والكيان الصهيوني)، والذي يبرز بين الفينة والأخرى، ليس إلّا صيغة سياسية لتسهيل التغلغل الصهيوني في المشرق العربي.  

أسست معاهدة وادي عربة قاعدة لربط البنية التحتية في الأردن بالكيان الصهيوني من خلال عدد من المشاريع، مثل اتفاقية الغاز مع العدو الصهيوني بقيمة 10 مليارات دولار لمدة 15 عاماً لتوليد الكهرباء عام 2016، والتي أصدرت المحكمة الدستورية قراراً في أيار/مايو 2020 أنها لا يمكن أن تُلغى على الرغم من الاحتجاجات، ولا حاجة إلى عرضها على مجلس النواب… ومن تلك الاتفاقيات أيضاً مشروع قناة البحرين (الميت – الأحمر) لتحلية المياه وإنقاذ البحر الميت، بسبب سرقة “إسرائيل” مياه نهر الأردن، والذي لم يتم إعلان صيغة نهائية له بعد.. وهناك أيضاً المناطق الصناعية المؤهلة Qualified Industrial Zones (QIZ’s) والتي يتم بموجبها التصدير إلى الولايات المتحدة منذ التسعينيات من دون جمرك ما دام يوجد فيها مُدخل “إسرائيلي”، وأغلبية الشركات والعمالة فيها غير أردنية أصلاً.. ناهيك بتقارير كثيرة عن تطوير وادي الأردن ومشاريع مناطق حرة وصناعية ثلاثية مع السلطة الفلسطينية.

التطبيع لا ينجح إن لم تضمن “إسرائيل” روافع تمكّنها من قطع الكهرباء والماء والحياة الاقتصادية عن الدول المطبّعة إن هي قررت تغيير رأيها.  فلا أمان للكيان الصهيوني مع رأي شعبي عربي يمكن أن يمارس ضغوطاً تدفع في اتجاه وقف التطبيع. لذلك، فإن النموذج الأردني لإنتاج الكهرباء بغاز فلسطيني مسروق يضع كل مواطن أمام خيار صعب: إمّا أن يقبل التكامل الإقليمي مع “إسرائيل”، وإمّا أن يقبل العيش بلا كهرباء وماء واقتصاد… إلخ. ثم يقال له: إن شئت ألّا تطبّع، فلا تطبِّعْ!  

وستكون لنا عودة إلى البعد الاقتصادي للتطبيع، في مقالات مقبلة، إن شاء الله.

إن الآراء المذكورة في هذه المقالة لا تعبّر بالضرورة عن رأي الميادين وإنما تعبّر عن رأي صاحبها حصراً

Normalization between Arabic countries and “Israel”: Proven record of failure

16 Feb 2022

Source: Al Mayadeen Net

Hussam AbdelKareem 

“Israel” knew that it would never settle in the Arab region unless it gets recognized by its people as a “normal state”.

Normalization Between Arabic Countries and “Israel”: Proven Record of Failure

An Advanced Outpost for Colonial Powers

“Israel” had been created in 1948 as an advanced outpost for the colonial-imperial powers keen on dominating the Middle East region and keeping it under control. That’s the plain fact proven at different stages in recent history. And since the announcement of “Israel” as a state on the land of Palestine, it acted exactly like that: a militarized compound disguising in a state’s attire! In 1956 “Israel” was called to service by the then-great Britain and France when they decided to attack Egypt in an attempt to prevent it from liberating itself and nationalizing its Suez Canal. “Israel” joined the evil plot willingly and attacked Egypt without any provocation, showing to its old colonial masters that their investment was paying off. Later, when the British Empire was doomed to demise, “Israel” moved on and joined the camp of the rising star, America, which inherited the old lion. From the sixties of the last century onwards, “Israel” took part in the US’ global efforts in combating national liberation movements, communist-socialist regimes, and people’s revolutions.

When “Israel” was announced in 1948, it was met with unanimous Arab rejection. All Arab nations, many of them still under British – French control, refused to recognize it. Absolutely no Arab felt “Israel” belonged to the region, not culturally nor politically. Nobody was ready to deal with it in any way. Arab People looked at it not as a neighbor but as a group of usurpers who took over Palestine by force and displaced its Arab brothers who became refugees. A solid barrier of rejection and contempt was surrounding “Israel” who stayed in the heart of the Arab region as a bastard state.      

That’s why the normalization of relations with Arabic countries has always been of utmost importance for “Israel”. Even the smallest gesture from anywhere in the Arab world was being warmly welcomed by Israelis if they sense it could create a narrow crack in the rejection wall. “Israel” knew that it would never settle in the Arab region unless it gets recognized by its people as a “normal state”. “Israel” needed recognition more than anything else. “Israel” knew that no matter how strong its army is or how long its occupation of Palestinian lands lasts, it’s Arab recognition that gives it legitimacy and long-term future.

Three Old Normalization Accords

Before the new wave of Arab normalization with “Israel” in 2020, there were three normalization agreements between “Israel” and the Arabs:

-Camp David peace treaty with Egypt (1979)

-Oslo peace agreement with Palestine Liberation Organization (1993)

-Wadi Araba peace treaty with Jordan (1994)

Decades of formal normalization on three fronts resulted in nothing! It is true that written recognition from Arab governments was obtained by “Israel”. However, that can hardly be the real goal that “Israel” was after.

Let’s elaborate:

Egypt and Jordan are both sovereign independent states who were having occupied territories under Israeli control. So they had duty to restitute their lands from “Israel”. That, restitution the occupied land, was the basis for their peace treaties with “Israel”. The governments of Egypt and Jordan presented the matter to their people like that: we have to sign a peace treaty, we have to recognize “Israel” because there is no other way to get our lands back. We, as responsible governments, have to do that, but you, as people, as individuals, as society, have the freedom to make your own decision whether to normalize or not! And it seemed that logic was accepted by most of the people who “excused” their governments and took their own different path.

After four decades of Egyptian normalization, and three decades of Jordan’s, there is no people-to-people relations, no social contacts established, no community initiatives between the sides. The public opinion in Egypt and Jordan is still very much against any dealings with the Israelis. Anyone who “dares” to announce friendly relations with Israelis will be socially isolated and abandoned, swiftly. Civil society, political parties, unions and associations, intellectuals, writers, artists, cinema and sports stars … etc. all refusing to have anything to do with “Israel”. Cultural and economic boycott. The relations between Egypt and Jordan from one side and “Israel” on the other, remain official and limited to political meetings and border security arrangements. This kind of “normalization” can hardly be satisfactory to the Zionists of “Israel”.

The PLO is another story. Palestine is still under Israeli occupation. It’s neither liberated nor independent. Yasser Arafat wanted to have a base at home from which he may continue the struggle towards independence, so he signed an “interim” agreement. The Oslo Accord was supposed to be just a starting point and that’s what made Arafat accept all the unfair and un-advantageous terms imposed by Israelis. Well, Arafat was wrong, and the Israelis turned the “interim” agreement into an ever-lasting one! There are many relations between the Palestinians under occupation and “Israel” but that is, in no way, considered as “normalization” between the peoples. Matters related to borders crossing, transport of goods, water and electricity … are merely living conditions and requirements.

The failure of the decades-long official normalization speaks volumes. “Israel” has not shown any real appreciation of Arab concerns and aspirations. In short, they wanted “peace and normalization” with Arabs as a token of surrender. Palestine land will have to remain under Israeli occupation and Palestinian refugees will have to remain away from home. 

Will the new normalizers have better luck?

In 2020 new Arab normalizers jumped in, under Trump’s patronage, and signed the so-called Abraham Accords (it is telling that the Biden administration keenly avoids the term “Abraham” and refers to the “normalization agreements” instead, intentionally ignoring the religious implications of the term). Unlike Egypt, Jordan and the PLO, the new Arab normalizers are very far away from “Israel”, thousands of miles away! Moreover, the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan have no “bilateral” or direct conflict with “Israel” and are therefore under no pressure to conclude any deal with “Israel” whatsoever.

The new normalizers were unable to use the “solving pressing problems” excuse to justify their rush towards “Israel” to their people (who were never consulted about the matter!). So they started talking about modernization, civilization and “peace in the region” and other similar broad ideas. They began a faked kind of “heart to heart” normalization that has an artificial element of passion and love towards “Israel” in it! Sudan in particular talked about improving the economy (lifting the US sanctions and getting World Bank loans) as an excuse.

The new wave of normalization will not succeed, not because the signing parties don’t want that, but because there is no real basis for success in these deals. “Israel” is still the same old Zionist entity that Arabs know very well, and Al-Quds still under occupation, Palestinians still deprived of their homeland and “Israel” is still posing a constant threat to Arab nations. Even history tells us that the economic benefits of normalization won’t work! If anybody has doubt about that, a mere look at Egypt’s and Jordan’s economic hardships – after decades of normalization- will be enough to prove that: NORMALIZATION WON’T WORK.

The opinions mentioned in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Al mayadeen, but rather express the opinion of its writer exclusively.

Parasite in action: How ‘Israel’ exploits normalizing Arab states?

February 17, 2022

Source: Al Mayadeen

By Ali Jezzini

“Israel” not only benefits more its security relations with normalizing Arab countries but ends exploiting these relations and causing damage to the security interests of the country in question.

According to the “peace treaty of 1979” between Egypt and “Israel”, the Sinai Peninsula, an Egyptian land, shall be divided into 4 zones, 3 of them extending on Egyptian soil

It is rare to find in the Israeli literature a concept that influenced the formation and fate of the Zionist project on the land of Palestine, as did the Iron Wall concept created by Ze’ev Jabotinsky, who was a Russian-born Zionist. Jabotinsky is one of the first theorists of the so-called “Zionist Right-wing”. The concept does not mean physically building a wall of iron around occupied Palestine; instead, it invasions a wall that must depend mainly on forming a potent military organization on one hand, and creating an illusory psychological wall in the mind of the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular on the other hand.

The stones of this imaginary wall are ought to be made of Arab despair and frustration, according to Jabotinsky. While sometimes military defeats can contribute to Israeli plans of building such a wall, forcing normalization on Arab people does create the same effect. 

The wall in that regard is not just a mere protective barrier for the Israeli settlers, but a gateway to achieving Israeli colonial interests in the region. Not only do these interests go – naturally – against those who oppose the Israeli project but also against its supposed allies who expected to reap benefits from such actions, especially in the security sector. In this case, the Israeli alleged superiority in the military, as well as its advancement in the security technology domain, becomes a burden rather than a benefit to the normalizer. 

How come?

Egypt, when it all started

Map of the “1979 peace treaty” between “Israel” and Egypt (source: Palestineinarabic.com)

Perhaps the most significant setback of the Arab struggle against the Israeli occupation of Palestine was when Anwar Al-Sadat decided to turn his back on his Arab and Palestinian brethren and on what Jamal Abdel Nasser had accumulated for a noble prize and a fistful of nothing in exchange for “peace”.

While a colleague’s article had previously discussed the negative economic and political aspects that accompanied such an action made by Sadat, this article will focus on the security aspects.

According to the “peace treaty of 1979” between Egypt and “Israel”, the Sinai Peninsula, an Egyptian land, shall be divided into 4 zones, 3 of them extending on Egyptian soil while only one in occupied Palestine. In Zone A, Egypt shall maintain no more than one mechanized division of its army numbering no more than 22,000 soldiers. In Zone B, no more than 4 infantry battalions shall be deployed to support the local police, in military terms, meaning no more than 2000 soldiers for such a huge swath of Egyptian land. In Zone C, only local police are allowed inside this area and UN peacekeepers (they were not sent later on due to fear of Soviet veto).

On the other hand, despite Israeli military superiority, they were allowed to keep 4 infantry battalions, in a land strip extending parallel to the borders – its width is only a few Kilometers in contrast to the Egyptian tens of kilometers wide multiple zones. Without the need for an explanation, the treaty obviously limits Egypt’s sovereignty over a huge part of its lands, as any further deployment of Egyptian forces needs to be discussed thoroughly with the Israeli side before receiving an approval that might not come.

Starting from 2011, an insurgency launched by ISIS militants left more than a thousand deaths for the Egyptian army as well as more than 1500 civilians. Despite the fighting receding in the last few years, the insurgency wreaked havoc on the already poor Egyptian region, with the Egyptian army failing to take action since only local police were available at zone C. The militants knew that pretty well and made every use of it.

“Israel” allowed Egypt to send a limited number of troops on occasions to chase the terrorists from one zone to the adjacent one. The New York Times even claims that Israeli warplanes conducted raids inside the Eygptian national territories with Egypt’s consent on some occasions. Spokespersons for both the Israeli and Egyptian militaries declined to comment on such a claim. “Israel” says it allegedly allows Egypt to send forces based on the security needs of the latter, but still tangible results could have been different and many Egyptian soldiers coming from the least able social classes of Egypt would be still alive if it were not for the “peace agreement.”

A poison dealer: ‘Israel’ with Morocco 

On November 24, “Israel” and Morocco inked a “historic security pact“. The MoU, signed by Israeli security minister Benny Gantz and Moroccan counterpart Abdellatif Loudiyi, is said to be aimed at “collaboration and strengthening Israeli-Moroccan relations.” That MoU comes after both parties signed a cooperation agreement with Morocco, the first of its kind in the cyber security domain since the normalization of ties between Morocco and the Israeli occupation in 2019.

Morocco is also buying a new set of Israeli-made weapons and military hardware believing that it would increase its security, namely to counter Algeria. Several media reports, including those published before Gantz’s, detailed the Israeli-Moroccan arms sales. According to The Jerusalem Post Israeli newspaper, the Moroccan army is now deploying three Heron unmanned aircraft made by Israeli Aerospace Industries (IAI), which were obtained through a French business to avoid any link with “Israel.”

Israeli made Heron drone

Morocco is also operating smaller drones purchased from the Israeli company BlueBird. Moroccan security forces got unmanned patrol vehicles from Robotim, an Israeli company that is partly owned by Elbit. Morocco has also purchased anti-drone systems from “Israel’s” Avnon company, which are built by Skylock.

According to Israeli media, Israeli Aerospace Industries (IAI) will provide advanced air defense and anti-missile defense systems to Morocco as part of a $500 million deal. IAI will offer the Barak MX system, which uses surface-to-air (SAM) missiles to intercept all types of aircraft and missiles. According to Israeli Channel 12, the contract began with Israeli Security Minister Benny Gantz’s travel to Morocco in late 2021.

Barak MX Israeli missile system

While all these systems can considerably increase the military capabilities of the Western equipped Moroccan armed forces, a problem arises when discussing military topics usually, since weapons are usually bought with the intention of pointing them in the direction of someone at one point, namely Algeria, whose stagnating relations with Morocco suffered even more after the latter’s normalization with the Israeli occupation. 

Algeria, an Arab state that never ceased to stand by the Arab and Palestinian cause, already announced that it finds itself targeted by Gantz’s visit in November, as well as by the increasing Israeli military support to its neighbor. Algeria faces even more challenges along its 1,427 km border with Morocco since “Israel” is increasing its intelligence presence in the latter, an action that Algeria is probably not going to tolerate as it threatens its national security.

The two North African countries share strong ties at all levels, as even some of them treat each other as one community and one people. Opening a gateway to the Israeli presence in the region is only going to increase the threat of an escalation between Algeria and Morocco. Whose interests such an escalation might serve? Most probably foreign powers that will seek to exploit such events to have a firmer foothold in the region, namely the European Ex-colonial powers.

A castle of glass: “Israel” and UAE

“Israel” did not wait long before it tried to exploit the war on Yemen, Naftali Bennet, the Israeli PM offered the UAE “security and intelligence support” after the Ansar Allah retaliatory attack on facilities in Abu Dhabi. According to The Times of Israel, “Israel” even offered the UAE to export its “battle-tested” system, namely the Iron Dome, except that the system won’t only be to protect the UAE from Yemeni retaliatory attacks, but its radar system, the EL/M-2084, can be also used as an early warning system against Iran.

EL/M-2084 Iron Dome system radar

On January 31, some Israeli media even said that the UAE is “Israel’s” front in the Gulf region, adding that “If detection and warning systems are deployed in the UAE, they will be a cornerstone for a regional air defense system.” Israeli security minister Benny Gantz said that “Israel has a huge opportunity if it is able to sell the UAE detection and warning systems,” adding that if such systems were deployed in the UAE, they would detect any attack from the South (Yemen) and the East (Iran), “And this would be a cornerstone for a regional air defense system.”

The previously mentioned  EL/M-2084 radar system is a short-range radar system if compared to its bigger brother the EL/M-2080 Green Pine radar that possesses a greater potential to spot heavy ballistic targets, relaying information directly to the Israelis via data link.

EL/M-2080 Green Pine radar

On February the second, The UAE reached out to the Israeli Security Ministry through its embassy in “Tel Aviv” to explore how a formal request for delivering an advanced Israeli radar to Abu Dhabi would be received. The Green Pine Radar, according to its manufacturer, Elta, a subsidiary of “Israel Aerospace Industries,” will be able to detect and track dozens of missiles at vast ranges. The ELM-2090s, a more sophisticated version of the Green Pine, is said to be of interest to the UAE.

Such acquisition might prove destructive to UAE’s security, why is that?

Despite the ongoing nuclear talks in Vienna with Iran, “Israel” has hinted several times about it being ready to “act alone” regarding the Iranian nuclear program, hence conducting a military strike. The problem with that rhetoric is that it is almost impossible to conduct such a complex and resources intensive operation alone, not only due to the Iranian active and passive defense systems but also because of the retaliatory second-strike capability that Iran possesses. Iran has a large and advanced arsenal of ballistic missiles aimed at “Israel,” deterring the Israeli occupation from conducting such non-calculated moves.

Early warning systems and radars in the UAE, can grant “Israel” a wider time frame between the launch time of a supposed retaliatory second strike and the moment they hit. The curvature of the earth prevents radar systems from over-the-horizon spotting of such missiles at the time of launch in Iran, which added to the land distance that degrades the effectiveness of radars, limits Israeli capabilities. So deploying a radar system in the UAE would address these security concerns right?

Radar horizon explained

The problem with deploying Israeli radar systems and early warning systems is not only that these systems can push the other party to target such systems that degrade the ongoing deterrence, but also put the UAE facilities hosting such systems in the crosshairs of any legitimate response.

After many years of avoiding confrontation with Iran, the UAE just painted a bull’s eye on its military facilities hosting Israeli manpower and hardware if any escalation is to happen in the future. How does is that supposed to provide more security to the fragile, foreign investment and tourism-dependent Emirate? 

Read: How normalization with “Israel” assassinated Egypt’s economy 

How normalization with “Israel” assassinated Egypt’s economy

February 16, 2022

Source: Al Mayadeen

By Mona Issa

Economic prosperity? Anything but. After 40+ years, “peace” negotiations with “Israel” turned Egypt into a sluggish, aid-dependent rent economy.

At the bottom: 17 September, 1978: Anwar Sadat, Jimmy Carter, and Menachim Begin signing on the Camp David Accords. At the top: The 2013 Egyptian bread crisis, a result of economic assassination. 

There is no war without Egypt, and no peace without Syria – words Henry Kissinger, Nixon’s Secretary of State, uttered in the depiction of the strategic importance of Egypt to US interest in West Asia. Its manpower, resources, geographical position on the map are alone enough to make or break any project in the region. 

Egypt, in the critical years between the 1960s and the 1970s, moved from being the first industrial power in the Arab world, enjoying self-sufficiency and economic independence, to a country whose entire decision-making mechanism depends on receiving “humanitaqizqirian” aid from Washington.

How did this drastic jump, which put Egypt on a catheter mount, come to happen?

“Peace” negotiations.

Just one month after the 1973 October war – or, what’s known by the Israelis as the “Yom Kippur War,” there was a radical realignment process which brought Egypt and the US together. This was a process which initially started in 1971, the year when Anwar Sadat, Egypt’s president, invited the first US Secretary of State to visit Cairo since 1953. In the war of 1973, Egypt lost Sinai, and Sadat wanted to reclaim “self-respect”: a dream unattainable after Abdel Nasser’s death, unfound in what was coming for Egypt. 

When it came to reclaiming Palestinian land back to the Palestinians – and Sinai back to Egypt – to Sadat, the only way to negotiate with the Israelis was through the United States, in a political settlement, if you may. He thought that turning to Washington would help him solving problems unsolvable by military means, whether it was on the annexation of Sinai, or an economic crisis. 

The so-called political settlement came at the expense of the Egyptian economy, human rights and security for years to come.

The Egyptian economy enjoyed minimal imports (in 1961, with Abdel Nasser’s economic reforms, food imports to Egypt were only at 7%), redistribution of land and resources that isolated and diminished the power of traditional Egyptian landowners, the nationalization of the Suez Canal, protective policies against international inflation, and restrictions on foreign investment. Nasserism won its pioneer a substantial fan base and popularity after the 1952 Revolution.

However, his successor, a shameless lackey for the US, was determined to reverse all that revolution had done for the Egyptian people: Sadat, between 1971 and 1973, launched talks with Henry Kissinger. Sadat’s economic policies donned an ‘Open Door’ policy, which opened Egyptian markets to foreign investors and corporations without restrictions.

However, what he really got was a society lamb to the slaughter of foreign and private interest, dependent on food aid, and subject to US-Israeli policies.

Sadat wanted to be sure that Washington would come to Egypt’s rescue, so he required real, tangible evidence from the US that they will support Cairo. If such evidence was available, Sadat was willing to make Egypt undergo the necessary economic changes for US’ aid and the so-called ‘comprehensive peace plans.’ 

The evidence was provided: a basic tenant for Egypt to ride the American aid bandwagon was the normalization of relations with “Israel”, which consolidated in 1978. The free trade agreements, the astronomical numbers of foreign aid, and other agreements isolated Egypt from its neighbors, Arab and non-Arab. However, not only were both Sadat and the US eager to drive Egypt away from Soviet influence in the Cold War, but “Israel” also sought to plant itself on Arab soil, seeking Arab acceptance, which Sadat was so willing to do. 

The US seduced the Egyptian elite, by offering billions in aid, into signing on the Camp David Accords.

Let’s talk about the costs.

An Israeli official once called US aid “narcotic” – not too surprising considering that Washington is “Israel’s” godfather in West Asia, taking unconditional billions in aid and weapons to push common interests.

Between the years 1946 and 2011, the United States gave Egypt a total of $71.7 billion in bilateral foreign aid.

With Sadat’s economic liberalization, US’ conditions for aid were to integrate Egyptian and Israeli economies and boost foreign investments which would supposedly strengthen the economy. The public sector accounted for 75% of all Egypt’s outputs. However, Sadat’s laissez-faire policies only diminished them, placing them at the mercy of private companies and trade deals, such as the Qualified Industrial Zones.

The investments which Sadat was hoping for were not meant for productivity but were rather oriented towards banking and tourism. However, the banking sector, under what was called Infitah (Open Door policy), was not doing what it was supposed to do. With only 6 banks existing in 1974, Sadat allowed the influx of seventy-five banks – several of those were American, which abused the vulnerability of the situation in Egypt. The foreign banks, not to much surprise, laundered Egyptian money to the West rather than benefiting the people. 

With a deteriorating economy where the cost of production of basic goods such as rice, wheat, sugar, flour, oil, and gas was skyrocketing, many locals had left to oil-producing countries to make a living.

In Egypt, this meant one thing: bend to US interest or starve.

By 1981, Egypt was importing 60% of its food into the country: much of that was provided by Washington, in addition to Arab oil-producing countries. After normalization in 1978, Arab investors withdrew their investments; to Sadat’s convenience, the US was able to compromise.

Where has this led Egypt? Egypt today has a workforce participation rate of approximately 48%. Governmental spending exceeds the total revenue. Egypt is hideously indebted to the International Monetary Fund, its debt representing 92% of its Gross Domestic Product.  

Sadat attempted to convince the population that normalization with “Israel” would bring economic well-being and prosperity to the average Egyptian, though what it really did, with Washington’s shuttle diplomacy, is sell it to capitalists, and create a bread crisis in 1977, which was initiated by IMF and World Bank pressures to remove subsidies on bread.

Furthermore, along with the millions of dollars in US aid, a large project was initiated by the Nixon administration on March 1, 1975, to reconstruct the cities along the Suez Canal after three wars – the cost of which was to maintain peace with the Israeli neighbor. Disarmament was on the agenda, meaning that Egypt, on par with the accords, was prohibited from any military confrontation with “Israel”; however, even the Egyptians, given US-Israeli threats against them, knew that “Tel Aviv” would not be complying with the Sinai Disengagement Agreement.

As for economic growth, from the 1980s till recently, Egypt’s gross domestic product per capita has barely doubled, when emerging economies such as South Korea were able to multiply their GDP by ten times (the two countries’ economies, during the 1950s, had similar developmental conditions). Poverty rates in Egypt today hover around 30%, sustaining a high unemployment rate, last 10.4% in 2020.

As if turning to “Israel” once was not enough, wait till you see the “second Camp David Accords.” 

Despite the population’s adamant rejection of Sadat’s policies and the normalization, a greedy leader,a successor, looked for the preservation of the system at the expense of the nation’s interest. Another case taken into account is the US’ Qualified Industrial Zone (QIZ) economic proposal, which ultimately meant to expand economic cooperation between “Israel” and “Egypt.”

QIZ deal, signed in 2004 by Hosni Mubarak, was deemed by many as a “second Camp David,” and it was the most important economic deal between the two in 20 years, according to a US representative who attended the signing event.

Just a few months after that was sealed, Egypt and “Israel” signed another deal where Egypt would provide ‘Israel” with $2.5 billion worth of gas at a low price at a time when the country’s economy was running into the ground.

Those agreements came just a few days after Israel shot and killed 3 Egyptian soldiers at the border.

“One would have anticipated that with the ongoing carnage in Iraq, constant US threats against Iran and Syria, and Israel’s recent killing of three Egyptian border police, Egypt would have taken a tougher stance. But the exact opposite happened,” wrote K. Kamel, in Egypt and Israel: From Cold Peace to Warm Embrace. 

The trade agreement stipulated that the US would allow the exporting of Egyptian products free of duty and customs to the US, given that at least 11.7% of the total exports are manufactured in “Israel.”

Mubarak, though rejecting the agreement in 1994 through 2004, promoted the agreement on purely economic terms: Egypt’s textile-export agreement with the US would soon lose effect, China and India will replace Cairo in the market, and there is no choice other than to accept the QIZ agreement.

Officials in the Egyptian government told their people that the agreement will create a million jobs and that foreign direct investment will reach $5 billion in the next 5 years – both unrealistic and exaggerations.

Gamal Mubarak, Hosni’s son, defended the agreement, saying it serves the Palestinian cause.

However, facts on the ground proved otherwise. Many things were wrong with this deal, which was falsely marketed and heavily oriented towards “Israel.”

The first issue is that the deal breached World Trade Organization’s free trade conditions since the agreement gives “Israel” the power to enjoy a monopoly over Egyptian manufacturers.

Secondly, and even worse: to ensure the 11.7% quota, Israeli companies marginalized small and medium-sized businesses that supply larger textile factories with parts, as they forced them out of their jobs. The deal was heavily biased towards “Israel,” Egypt was not allowed to export its goods to the US duty-free without exporting Israeli goods, despite countries like China, India and Turkey engaging in it freely so. 

There was no real guarantee that the products will be exported to the US, prompting analysts to say that the agreement sort of resembles a Trojan horse, allowing Israel to flock into Arab markets, hence the “second Camp David.”

As some countries resist pressures to normalize relations with the psychopath ‘state’ (you can read Farah Haj Hassan’s article on Asian nations that said ‘No’ to normalization), others have not read much history on the first example of normalization in West Asia, and still deem normalization as an end to conflict, a yes to economic boom and a gateway to acceptance in both the region and the international community. 

To look West, after all their history in the West Asian region alone, should not deceive anyone anymore. Other than the fact that normalization is a human rights issue against fellow Arabs (not even just Palestinians! The US used Egyptian waters and airspace to bomb Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003), it’s suicide for any country looking to flourish with sovereignty. 

One Year of Normalization between “Israel” and Morocco: Remembering the Old Love Story!

22 Dec 2021

Source: Al Mayadeen Net

One Year of Normalization between “Israel” and Morocco: Remembering the Old Love Story!

Hussam AbdelKareem

This Moroccan dash towards normalization with “Israel” is not surprising to those who know the old love story between Hassan II, the father of the current king, and “Israel”, which dates back to more than 60 years ago.

A year ago, the normalization agreement between Morocco and “Israel” was officially signed. After that, the relations between the two sides jumped in all directions, from the exchange of ambassadors, to tourism and flights, to exports and economic relations, to visits of high-level minsters, until it reached security and defense cooperation.

This Moroccan dash towards normalization with “Israel” is not surprising to those who know the old love story between Hassan II, the father of the current king, and “Israel”, which dates back to more than 60 years ago.

In Commemoration of…

On July 9th, 2020, the “’Israel’ Speaks Arabic” Facebook page enumerated the honors that the “State of Israel” paid to commemorate Hassan II on the 91st anniversary of his birth, and wrote:

A monument was erected to his memory in “Petah Tikva” city.

His name was given to one of the main streets in the town of “Kiryat Ekron”.

A park was established to commemorate him in Ashdod city.

A walkway was built in his name in the city of “Kiryat Gat”.

Upon his death, “Israel” issued a postage stamp bearing his picture and with Arabic writing which read: His Majesty King Hassan II, King of Morocco.

The notorious Israeli postage stamp commemorating Hassan II

Long History of Secret Relations

These Israeli honors to Hassan II did not come out of the blue. The services he offered to “Israel” throughout the years cannot be summarized in just one or two articles. It is a long history of cooperation, coordination, and even alliance, dating back to the beginnings of his accession to the throne of the Kingdom of Morocco in 1961, when the young king found himself in a turbulent environment where communist and socialist revolutions were invading many parts of the world and national liberation movements continued nonstop in Africa, Asia and Latin America to get rid of the old colonialism along with its local affiliates of submissive monarchies, tribal rulers, and agents.

Next to him in Algeria was the great revolution against France at its height, which received unlimited support from the Nasser regime in Egypt, the enemy of all Arab monarchies. The threat to Hassan II was grave and the Moroccan people were not immune to the “revolutionary wave” whose storms were intensifying with the successive fall of the Arab monarchies from Egypt to Iraq to Yemen.

Hassan II turned his eyes to the east to find “Israel”, the pariah, bastard state forcibly planted in the region, which is completely hostile to all revolutionary movements, progressive regimes, Arab nationalist parties and left organizations in the region.

Hassan II saw in “Israel” a potential ally that could be trusted and relied upon when needed.

The Israeli temptation was great, especially with the young king’s knowledge of the Jewish state’s high status in the major countries in the West, which could facilitate matters and open closed doors for him to reach decision-making centers in Paris, London and Washington, which are, in his view, the strongest and best guarantee of his rule and throne.

Hassan II wasted no time. Between 1961 and 1964, he began working with “Israel” secretly, helping it to displace and transfer 97,000 Moroccan Jews – through Europe – to occupied Palestine (the immigration of Moroccan Jews to “Israel” had stopped in 1956). And in 1965 he made a deal with it, allowing the Israeli Mossad to spy on the Arab summit conference that was hosted by him in Morocco and to record all the deliberations and discussions, including the secret and closed ones. In return, the Mossad helped him track down, kidnap and kill the most prominent and dangerous Moroccan opponent, Mehdi Ben Barka, in Paris.

Despite the close secret relations that Hassan II had with “Israel”, he, with his innate intelligence, did not lose sight of the importance of appearing before his people as a supporter of the Arab right in Palestine. Thus, he took the decision to send two infantry brigades that included dozens of soldiers, one to the Egyptian front and one to the Syrian front, to participate in the war of October 1973 against “Israel”. Furthermore, he repeatedly spoke publicly about Al-Aqsa Mosque in occupied Al-Quds and displayed his concern as the Commander of the Muslim Faithful (the title that he gave to himself) regarding its status and safety. When the Organization of the Islamic Conference established the “Al-Quds Committee” in 1975, its chairmanship was entrusted to Hassan II.

Hassan II played an important role in bringing Egypt and “Israel” closer by facilitating and encouraging secret contacts between the two parties. When Anwar Al-Sadat began his preparations for the “peace journey”, he could not find a better friend than the king to help him convey his ideas to “Israel” and communicate with its leaders. Indeed, Hassan II arranged the most important secret meeting that took place prior to Sadat’s visit to Al-Quds in 1977 between the Israeli Foreign Minister, Moshe Dayan, and Sadat’s close advisor, Hassan Al-Tohamy, when they met in Morocco under the king’s sponsorship. 

Then Came the Public Contacts

In the eighties of the last century, Hassan II considered that the time had come and the conditions were ripe to uncover his relationship with “Israel” and to break more “psychological barriers” between the Arabs and “Israel”. In 1986, he received the Israeli Prime Minister at his palace in Rabat, and the King allowed news about that visit and the meeting he had with Shimon Peres* to be published. On that day, the Moroccan media said that the meeting took place “in order to support the Palestinian people”.

In 1990 Hassan II appointed Andre Azoulay, a highly educated French-Moroccan Jew, as his special adviser. Azoulay remained close to the king, constantly giving him “advice” until he died in 1999. Azoulay was among the “legacy” that Mohammed VI inherited and he is still with him to this day. “Israel” sent a huge delegation that included 200 officials to participate in his funeral and offer condolences on his death.

And it’s no wonder the son follows father’s footsteps.

P.S*:

One of the anecdotes of the Arab summit that was held in Algeria in 1988 was that Colonel Gaddafi wore white gloves on his hands. when asked about the reason, he said that he did not want his hand to touch the hand of the person who shook hands with the criminal, Arab killer, Shimon Peres, in case he had to shake hands with Hassan II. 

The opinions mentioned in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Al mayadeen, but rather express the opinion of its writer exclusively.

الغمغمة السياسية

أكتوبر 11, 2021

المصدر: الميادين نت

ثينة شعبان

إلى متى نستمر في بيع الأوهام، ونحن نشهد واقع هذه الأمة يتراجع، سواء محلياً، أو إقليمياً، أو دولياً؟

الغمغمة السياسية

 في خطابه، في الذكرى الـ 34 لانطلاق حركة “الجهاد الإسلامي”، دعا الأمين العام للحركة زياد نخالة إلى وحدة الصف الفلسطيني، والتراجع عن أوهام السلام التي اختلقها العدو الإسرائيلي، والابتعاد عن الغمغمة السياسية. وفي هذه الدعوة الأخيرة بلسمٌ لجراح متعدّدة، يعاني جرّاءها الشعبان الفلسطيني والعربي منذ عقود، لأن الغمغمة السياسية هي الحاجز الأخطر بين الحق وأصحابه وبين التاريخ الحقيقي الذي يجب أن يُدرَّس للأجيال وبين ما يدرسونه اليوم من نصوص تُولي اهتماماً لمشاعر أصحاب الشأن والقرار، بدلاً من إيلاء الاهتمام للوطن وسلامته وتعزيز أُسس قوته ومنعته.

 مرّت، منذ أيام، ذكرى حرب تشرين التحريرية، لكنْ لم تُكتب حقيقة تلك الحرب ومجرياتها، إلى حدّ اليوم، ولم يتمَّ التوصل إلى الاستنتاجات العلمية والمؤكَّدة، والتي تسمي الأشياء بأسمائها، على الرَّغم من أن اتفاقات “سيناء 2″، واتفاق كامب دافيد، وزيارة السادات للقدس المحتلة، دكّت إسفيناً في جسد العالم العربي، ما زلنا نشهد تداعياته الخطيرة ونعيش تبعاته على الأجيال، من دون أن يتمكن أحد من عكس هذا التيار، والإقلاع من جديد في اتجاه مُغاير مقاوم.

 وفي الإطار نفسه، حقّق اتفاق أوسلو للعدو الصهيوني ما لم يتمكن من تحقيقه خلال عقود، وأفشل ذاك الاتفاق عمليةَ سلام كانت مبنية على أُسس سليمة ووَفق إجماع وتنسيق عربيين، ومكّن الصهاينة من خوض معركة علاقات عامة بعشرات الدول لمصلحتهم، وفتحَ الأبواب لهم من جانب بلدان لم تكن لتعترف بالكيان الصهيوني لولا الاتفاق الفلسطيني معه. ومع ذلك، لا تنص الكتب المدرسية أو غيرها على حقيقة ما جرى ويجري، ولا تُسَمّي الأشياء بأسمائها، ولا توجِّه اللوم إلى من يستحقون. وهنا، أستذكر قول الله، عز وجل، “يا أهل الكتاب لِمَ تَلْبِسُون الحقَّ بالباطل وتَكْتُمون الحقَّ وأنتم تَعْلَمون”. لكنْ، هذه المرة، تشملنا هذه الآية حين نغمغم ولا نفصح عن الحقيقة. 

   أن يلبس الحق بالباطل؛ أي أن يغمغم الحق، أو أن يكتمه، وكلاهما خطرٌ على الحقيقة وقول الصدق، لأن الحقيقة هي التي تهدي إلى القرار السليم، وهي التي تختصر الطُّرُق، وتستثمر الوقت، بدلاً من هدره وإضاعته، أو ما زال البعض يعتبر أن أشخاصاً ما وسمعتهم ومكانتهم أهم من التاريخ وأهم من الأوطان؟ لا قيمة يجب أن تعلو فوق قيمة الوطن وقول كلمة الحق، من أجل مصلحة الوطن وإعلاء شأنه، لأن الكلَّ موقَّتون وعابرون، إلاّ الأوطان والحقائق الناصعة المرتبطة بها.

هناك من يعرضون بعض أحداث تاريخنا بصدق شفوياً، وحين نطلب منهم أن يسجّلوا ما قالوه، يقول البعض منهم: لن يصدّقنا أحد، لأن كل ما نقرأه مخالف للحقائق التي نعرفها بعمق ونتحدث بشأنها.

إلى متى نستمر في بيع الأوهام، ونحن نشهد واقع هذه الأمة يتراجع، سواء محلياً، أو إقليمياً، أو دولياً؟ ومتى سنمتلك الجرأة الأكيدة على أن نؤيّد ما قاله السيد زياد نخالة، وفحواه أن “المشروع الرسمي الفلسطيني”، وأُضيفُ إليه “المشروع الرسمي العربي”، هما أقصرُ من قامات الشهداء، وأقلّ كثيراً من تضحيات الأسرى والجرحى، على امتداد أرض هذا الوطن العربي الكبير، في كلّ أقطاره”؟ 

في الوقت الذي تنشغل أغلبية دول العالم بإعادة حساباتها بشأن موقعها، إقليمياً ودولياً، والدور الذي يمكن لها أن تؤدّيه أو تطوّره في أحداث تعيد تشكيل العالَم من جديد، نجد الكتلة العربية مبعثرةَ الجهود بين مع من يريد أن يَستبدل بالسيد الأميركي السيدَ العثماني، “كالمستجير من الرمضاء بالنار”، وبين من يعقد آمالاً على الأوهام، التي يسوّقها له الكيان الصهيوني، فيرتمي في حِضنه سراً أو علانية، غيرَ متّغظ من مآل الأمور في دول عقدت آمالها على العلاقة بهذا الكيان، فلم يكتفِ بالغدر بها، بل سخّر كلّ علاقاته وإمكاناته ليُقنع دولاً أخرى باتخاذ خطوات، وبناء سدود، تنغّص عليها مصدر الحياة الذي ترتوي من نسغه. وبين هذا وذاك دول عربية تمتثل لقرارات هي في العمق ضدها، بقدر ما هي ضدّ الأخ الشقيق، لأنها تكرّس الفرقة والانقسام والعزلة، في الوقت الذي يدرك أعداء العرب، قبل حكام العرب، أن فتح حدودهم والتعاون والتنسيق بينهم هي طريق الخلاص الوحيد لهم جميعاً.

البعض، في عالمنا العربي، مزهوّ بانكسار الولايات المتحدة في أفغانستان، وتراجُع الدور الغربي في الإقليم والعالم، بينما ما زال بعض مَن يراهنون على السيد الغربي يتوسّلون كلمة منه يعتقدون أنها قادرة على تغيير مصائرهم ومصائر أوطانهم. وهؤلاء يذكّرونني ببداية الحرب على سوريا، حين احتفل بعض المأجورين بدعوة أوباما الرئيسَ الأسد إلى أن يرحل، معتقدين أن كلمته قَدَرَ لن يتمكّن أحد من تغييره. وفي كِلتا الحالتين الرهان هو على الآخر: إمّا أن ينكسر، وإمّا أن يشكّل منقذاً، ولا هو بباعث الحياة في بلداننا إن انكسر، ولم ولن يشكّل منقذاً لمن لا يعمل ويضحّي، ويُسرع الخطى في بناء وطنه.

مع التسليم طبعاً بأنّ الغرب بعد أفغانستان ليس كما قبلها، وأنّ القطب الغربي يشهد حالة تفكّك وتراجع، يقابلها صعود متسارع للصين وروسيا والهند وإيران، ومنظومات تفكير تؤمن بعالم متعدّد الأقطاب، وبإعادة النظر في العلاقات الدولية، وتقف ضدّ التدخّل في شؤون الدول. وعلى الرغم من ذلك كلّه، فإنّ الوحش الغربيّ المتربّص بالعرب اليوم جاثمٌ على الضفة الأخرى من المتوسّط، حالمٌ بإعادة بناء الإمبراطورية العثمانية على أُسس تنظيم “الإخوان المسلمين” للوصول إلى أهدافه. فالخطر اليوم الذي يهدِّد سوريا والعراق وليبيا وتونس والجزائر، وحتى مصر واليمن ودول الخليج، كما يهدِّد إيران وأرمينيا وعدداً من دول آسيا الوسطى، هو الخطر العثماني الإخواني، الذي يحاول مراكمة أوراقه من خلال ألاعيبه الخبيثة، قبل أن تنكشف نِيّاته الحقيقية. والخوف هو من الانتظار إلى أن تصبح نياته واضحة للجميع، فيكون قد تمدّد واحتلّ وتمركز، واستخدم أدواته ضدّ البلدان والشعوب. 

لقد أصبح واضحاً اليوم أنّ الخطر العثماني والخطر الإسرائيلي على أمتنا صنوان. لكن الأخطر من كلّ شيء، بالنسبة إلى هذه الأمة، هو عدم وضوح الرؤية، وعدم الاقتناع بأنّ عوامل القوة أو الضعف تنبع من الداخل، ولا يمكن لأيّ قوّة، مهما عَتَت، أن تنال من بنيان صلب متماسك يُحْسن صانعوه الدفاع عنه. كما أصبح واضحاً أنّ كلّ ادعاءات العثماني بشأن الحرص على فلسطين والذَّود عنها هي ادّعاءات كاذبة من أجل ذرّ الرماد في العيون، بينما يتعاون مع الصهيوني في شبكة علاقات سياسية واقتصادية وعسكرية، تمتدّ من الشرق الأوسط إلى القوقاز وآسيا الوسطى. 

مصيبتان كُبْرَيان في تاريخنا العربي هما الخيانة والغمغمة السياسية، والسبب الكامن وراء الاثنتين هو عدم الصدق مع الذات والآخر، وعدم المكاشفة الصريحة، وعدم الجرأة في إعلاء كلمة الحقّ والوطن. لا شكّ في أنّ الوقت أصبح متـأخراً جداً، وأنّ إعادة البناء تتطلّب وقتاً وجهداً وتفكيراً نيّراً وغيرَ تقليديّ. لكن، هل هناك أيّ خِيار آخر متاح من أجل مستقبل أفضل لأُمّة تهدّدها تطوّرات الأحداث في العالم بأن تُبقيَها خارج التاريخ؟

XXI Century: The Abolition of Israeli Expansionist Colonial Anachronism

13 Nov 2021

Source: Al Mayadeen Net

Susana Khalil

There will be no free and peaceful Arab-Persian world as long as the Israeli colonial Euro-Zionist regime exists.

I. By way of dialogue

1907      

ABDALLAH: Mustafa, British colonialism prepared a scientific report (Bannerman), in order to prolong itself as an empire. The report says that the Arab world is an obstacle to the European colonial order, and for this, it is necessary to articulate our disintegration, division, and separation. Imposing politicians to serve imperial interests. To combat any movement of unity, whether intellectual, cultural, ethnic, historical, political, religious, economic, scientific, military, etc. And to achieve this it must be through the establishment of an “agent state”, with a foreign population affectionate to Europe and its interests.

MUSTAPHA: That is absurd, it is impossible to achieve that, and even less so within the Arab idiosyncrasy. It’s ridiculous, it’s nonsense.

1915

ABDALLAH: Mustafa, the French and British colonialists are making a secret agreement called Sykes Pico. Creating borders to divide our Arab lands between them.

MUSTAFA: Let’s abolish any colonizing savage.

1917

ABDALLAH: Mustafa, you remember when in 1907 I told you about the Bannerman Report. British colonialism has just passed The Balfour Declaration. It is for the establishment of a Jewish “Home” here, in our Palestine.

MUSTAFA: Home? It’s a trap and they will never, never achieve it. The Arab spirit will never allow these Europeans to impose colonialism under the mantle of the Jewish religion in our Palestine. Today we must free ourselves from this British colonial yoke and our Palestine will be free.

1947

ABDALLAH: Mustafa, do you remember when in 1917 I told you about the Balfour Declaration? A newly created international organization, I think it’s called the UN, the United Nations. It has voted a resolution for the creation of the “State of Israel” in our Palestine. They gave it 64% of our homeland.

MUSTAFA: I don’t believe that a newly created international organization has that power. It is absurd and impossible.

May 14, 1948

ABDALLAH: Mustafa my love, I knew your sister was beheaded. The European Zionist movement has proclaimed, The Declaration of the Creation of the “State of Israel”. Terror, panic, macabre killings, this is genocide, Al-Nakba. The British handed over our Palestine to the Jewish Europeans.

MUSTAFA: We will go to war, we will liberate our Palestine. The Arab world will rise up. Long live Arab love.

1967

ABDALLAH: Mustafa, Israeli colonialism in 1948 took away part of our Palestine, and today, they have colonized all of our historic Palestine. And they have also taken territories from Egypt and Syria.

MUSTAFA: We must continue to fight my beloved Abdallah.

1978

ABDALLAH: Mustafa, the dictator of Egypt, Anwar El Sadat, has recognized the colonial regime of “Israel” in exchange for the return of the Egyptian territories in the Sinai that were taken by colonization in 1967.

MUSTAFA: Abdallah, Anwar El Sadat is a traitor and all these Arab dictators are traitors, that’s why they are in power. We must fight and we will win.

1987

ABDALLAH: Mustafa my love…The Intifada…how beautiful and divine is this popular uprising against colonialism. It’s a popular uprising, it has no leaders, it comes from the entrails of the people. It is magical, it is wonderful, it is loving… Mustafa my love. It must not stop, it must go on until victory until the liberation of our Palestine.

MUSTAFA: Yes, the Intifada must not stop. How divine is the Revolution, how sweet is this love, Palestine, Palestine, Palestine! My two great-grandchildren are imprisoned and they destroyed my brother’s house. The world is watching our pain. When Israeli colonialism falls, all the Arab dictatorships will fall, and above all the bloody Gulf dictatorships.

1993

ABDALLAH: Mustafa they have stopped the Intifada. The PLO in Oslo recognizes the colonial regime of “Israel”. They talk about two states. They do not talk about the right of return of Palestinian refugees. They only give us 22% of our homeland. It is a hoax, it is a trap.

2000

MUSTAFA: Abdallah, Israeli expansionist colonization has been defeated in Lebanon, it has had to withdraw from Lebanon. This is a victory for our Lebanese people. They withdrew without imposing any conditions. Long live Hezbollah and long live the armed resistance! This is the greatest victory we have achieved.

ABDALLAH: Yes Mustafa, it is a victory, it is the unquenchable faith and determination in the struggle. And thanks to the union, the union between Hezbollah and Iran, we Palestinians, in Oslo, accepted humiliating conditions. Colonialism was supposed to give us 22% of the territory and far from withdrawing, they have taken more of our homeland.

2003      

ABDALLAH: Mustafa, the Zionist lobby is asking the United States to invade Iraq, they created the attacks of September 11 to justify this cruel invasion, slandering that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction.

MUSTAFA: It is about dismembering the Arab world bit by bit.

2010

ABDALLAH: Mustafa, there is a popular revolt in Tunisia against the tyrant Ben Ali, that puppet of France. This is going to have a domino effect in the Arab world. Oh, I have fear and hope.

MUSTAFA: Abdallah, remember that the Intifada was popular and then it was hijacked and now we are worse with this Palestinian Authority which is a collaborator of colonialism. We have to be very careful, we cannot be naïve.

2020

ABDALLAH: Mustafa, the Gulf monarchies already shamelessly recognize the colonial “state of Israel”, they do it to perpetuate themselves in power, they are making astronomical economic investments. The shedding of our Palestinian blood is the throne of these macabre Arab traitors. They are falsifying Islam and making it look like the enemy is Iran. These traitors do not see that by defending Palestine they are protecting their own nation, as colonialism will come after for them, they are putting the sovereignty of the Arab peoples at risk. I thought these traitors were smarter.  

MUSTAFA: Yes, I also thought these miserable traitors were smarter.

2062

MUSTAFA: Abdallah, our noble cause of Palestinian liberation is no longer in the conscience of the international community, as it once was. Today we are a tourist attraction of the Israeli colonial regime. In Jerusalem we sell Tatriz (embroidery), we dance Dabke, we sell our typical culinary dishes, as typical of the colonial regime of “Israel”. Arabs come from the Gulf and say they are happy to be in “Israel”, in the land of their “cousins”.  

2073

MUSTAPHA: Abdallah, “Israel’s” expansionist colonialism has occupied part of Jordan…

II. The Mutilated Arab-Persian History

Walking through the streets of Damascus, Syria.

– Uncle, uncle, Habibi, good morning, where is the train station? I have to go to Jerusalem for a few days. Then I have to go to Baghdad and Iran. By train, it is cheaper and I will be able to see all those landscapes and villages…

III. Zionism, radiography of the end of the Arab-Persian world. This is impossible, absurd, nonsensical, and ridiculous.

“When the truth is too weak to defend itself, it will have to go on the attack.”

 

– Bertolt Brecht 

At this stage of the Zionist colonial process, in its advance to put an end to the original Palestinian people, there are two aspects that I want to point out in this article: the return to armed struggle as an alternative for national liberation and the end of “Israel’s” colonial regime.  

After the imposition of “Israel’s” colonial regime in Palestine from Europe, which was seen and felt like an impossible, absurd, nonsensical, and ridiculous project from the point of view of logic; today, from logic, the same will be said when it is considered that the Arab-Persian and Kurdish world and culture can be plundered, falsified… modalities of dispossession for its disappearance.

It could be said that there will be no free and peaceful Arab-Persian world as long as the Israeli colonial Euro-Zionist regime exists. But that is not the point, the point is that the Arab-Persian world is threatened to disappear.

Since the Oslo accords, fewer Palestinians are talking about the liberation of Palestine, about the independence of historic Palestine. Fewer Palestinians are expressing their struggle against the colonial yoke and anachronism of “Israel”. And especially the Palestinians in the Diaspora, because Western repression is so strong. The Palestinians have submitted and are dragging themselves to the Western Euro-Zionist agenda by only debating on one or two states. While colonialism has it clear and is moving to put an end to the original Palestinian people.

There are honest Western souls devoted to solidarity with the Palestinian people, sincere beings, but I am opposed to them, I’m opposed to the ones who demand the right for “Israel” to exist in our historical Palestine. The concept of peace does not come from the comfort, fear, functionalism, immediacy, and naivety of a trade unionist, feminist, academic, intellectual, politician, student, artist, activist. There is implicit colonialism there, even if they act in good faith.  

Every native people has the dignified right to abolish their respective colonizer and that is always a contribution to humanity.

This would be an artificial and dead struggle, if it is not fought from the raison d’être of the Palestinian cause, from the essence and root of the Palestinian cause, that is, the struggle of a native people against a colonial yoke, today, in the 21st century.

As anti-Zionists, we must be a philosophical and moral challenge to the obscurantism of the academic-intellectual priesthood.  

I find it degrading, contrary to the spirit of the human thinking verb, to exclude, ban, censor, repress, and silence from the world of debate the end of “Israel’s” colonial regime in Palestine, on the pretext that we must think about peace. One has to be realistic, especially because of the fear of not being accused of anti-Semitism. Everyone has the right to express his or her belief that this colonial regime should exist in Palestine. What should not be accepted is that this point should be banned from the universe of debate. 

In the liberation of the Palestinian people against the colonial yoke and anachronism of “Israel”, it is intrinsic to never, ever expel the so-called Israeli, otherwise, it would be a philosophical and moral betrayal. The figure known as an Israeli would become a Palestinian citizen. That is what the statutes of the extinct League of Nations demanded, where thousands of thousands of Jews applied.

If you tell me that this is impossible and that I must be realistic, I say: don’t be creative people with complex and articulate cowards. Let us be able to position justice, to transcend intellectuality.  And as Ernesto Guevara said: Let’s be realistic, let’s do the impossible.The opinions mentioned in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Al mayadeen, but rather express the opinion of its writer exclusively.

Nasrallah’s Timing

September 18, 2021

By Ahmed Fouad

In the past, present, and future, timing is everything in both life and politics. When an actor is good at choosing the appropriate timing for his decision, success is all but guaranteed. This applies to the vast ocean of politics, and relates to every human act, even the most ordinary ones.

There is greatness in choosing the right timing to revolt against a far-reaching siege – a choice made and implemented by the master of the resistance and the Secretary-General of Hezbollah, His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah.

It broke the cycle of the siege on Lebanon and Syria forever and threw all the plans of the United States and the Zionist entity to isolate the two countries in the dustbin of history. It was a divine timing; it came during one of the manifestations of the meeting between heaven and earth – Ashura, the memory of ideals and unique heroism throughout history.

Sayyed crowned the most pivotal event during the last decade with his resounding historical speech about the arrival of fuel tankers from the Islamic Republic of Iran to Lebanon via sister Syria. The arrival comes on a memory that also carries many noble meanings – the martyrdom anniversary of Sayyed Hadi. This sends a dual message to friends, close ones, and the enemies.

The first, and loudest, truth about the convoys breaking the siege on Lebanon is that they are coming from those who led the liberation of the land. They are repeating that, but this time, by liberating the ordinary citizen from neediness and crises and giving every Arab a sign for the only way to a solution. Hezbollah did not resort to the IMF, nor did it borrow from the West. Rather, it brought production and mobilization tools from the East. This is one.

As for the other, it was achieved by the long-term sacrifices of the Islamic Republic, Syria, and Hezbollah together, in a region already in crisis. Finally, you find an example of achievement and success, completely outside the American sphere, which opens the door to a further shattering of dependency on the US and loosening the American collar around the necks of everyone in the Arab region.

 The American equation that was presented to the rulers of Arab countries has existed since the mid-1970s. It is as follows: Sign a peace agreement with the Zionist entity, and American investments would guarantee you prosperity and growth; unlimited American support would provide you with all the leadership roles you desire.

This was the first thing that was said to Sadat, for example, about the milk and honey that were waiting for him as soon as he signs the Camp David Accords. When the game ended, Sadat took a piece of paper in exchange for giving away his entire country to the Americans and Zionists. Right before he was killed by the hero Khalid Al-Islambouli, he realized that he fell for the trick in a barren desert and all that he wished for was a mirage.

Only now, the solution came from outside in a fully cooperative manner that enhances the value of the local currencies of the three countries and deprives the American giant of its absolute ability to act, punish, and move; thus, breaking the prestige of the Zionist entity and the American power to the same degree.

In the end, the Iranian solution presented something greater than the spectacle of diesel and gasoline convoys and better than just meeting the needs of a country that was already suffocating. The Iranians did so by using a method chosen by Hezbollah in its jihad work since its glorious first day on the Arab land.

With all faith, Sayyed restored Ashura to our daily reality. It became an approach not an epitaph, a renewed victory over the enemy, blood that never goes to waste, and a firm commitment to the slogan “Zainab will not be taken captive twice.” Let everyone see the transfer of the party’s slogans from the arena of jihad against the enemy to the jihad of building, serving, and cutting the continuous and long chain of suffering against the citizens of Lebanon.

Perhaps one of the most important points in Sayyed’s remarks about the muted media coverage regarding the arrival of Iranian ships to Syria is to set a new rule that achieving the greatest possible success is linked to doing the least amount of talking possible.

The multiple speeches only reveal locations and goals. Therefore, a lot of words narrow the possibility of movement, freedom of action, and most importantly, the flexibility required in a troubled area, which is as effervescent as the hopes of the actors or those who are greedy.

Sayyed’s speech, which is actually historic and not descriptive, was not a dedication to celebration or joy in the achievement of an unparalleled glory for the entire Arab nation. Rather, it was a new promise to continue the opposite approach to the submissive Arab march during recent decades and to turn the page on the old, dull, and impotent policies. Sayyed painted his speech with a victorious, confident smile after succeeding in presenting a new integrated solution away from the poor imagination that drives all our miserable rulers.

التوقيت: المسار الإبراهيمي

مفكرة عربية

أغسطس 9 2021

المصدر: الميادين نت

بثينة شعبان

مراجعة متأنية لتاريخنا العربي، وخاصة لتاريخ الصراع العربي الإسرائيلي، تُري أن العدو أحكم استخدام التوقيت بينما لم يحسن العرب ذلك.

لا شك أن الوقت هو هبة الله للإنسان، لأنّ الإنسان في النهاية هو بضعة أيام على هذه الأرض، ولكن إتقان التوقيت هو الذي يجعل هذا الوجود مفيداً أو متميزاً أو مثمراً.

بما أننا لا نستطيع أن نغير شيئاً في الأحداث التي مضت، يتوجب علينا الاستفادة منها لقراءة ما يحاك لنا اليوم

وقد عبّرت الأمثلة التي تطرحها شعوب مختلفة عن أهمية التوقيت؛ فالمثل الإنكليزي يقول “التوقيت هو الجوهر”، والمثل الأميركي يقول “التوقيت هو كل شيء”. وقد لاحظتُ من خلال متابعتي لأمور شتّى أن الإنسان يمكن أن يخسر رهانات هامة في الحياة نتيجة عدم اهتمامه بالتوقيت رغم توفر كافة المؤهلات والشروط التي تمكّنه من كسب الرهان فقط لو أحسن التوقيت.  

ولاحظتُ حيوية ومصيرية التوقيت وخصوصاً في الإعلام والسياسة؛ فحين تتناقل وكالات الأنباء خبراً تعتبره الخبر الأول؛ حينذاك يمكن لك أن تدلي بدلوك وأن تجد آذاناً صاغية لأنها متعطشة لسماع أي شيء يتعلق بهذا الخبر، ولكن إذا انتظرت لليوم الثاني لن تجد من يستقبل خبرك حتى وإن كان أكثر مصداقية وقيمة من كل ما قيل في اليوم الأول. وهذا ذاته ينطبق على السياسة والأعمال أيضاً.

إن مراجعة متأنية لتاريخنا العربي، وخاصة لتاريخ الصراع العربي الإسرائيلي، تُري أن العدو أحكم استخدام التوقيت بينما لم يحسن العرب ذلك، لأنهم لم يعملوا من منطلقات استراتيجية واضحة وكانوا في غالب الأحيان يعالجون ظواهر الأحداث بدلاً من مسبباتها الحقيقية.

وبما أننا لا نستطيع أن نغير شيئاً في الأحداث التي مضت، يتوجب علينا على الأقل الاستفادة منها لقراءة ما يحاك لنا اليوم قراءة معمقة وواعية، لكي نتعامل معها في الوقت المناسب وقبل فوات الأوان.

لقد صدّر الغرب لنا ومنذ القرن التاسع عشر مصطلح “ميثاق إبراهيم” الذي يجمع بين المؤمنين قبل أن يتحول في القرن العشرين إلى حقل دراسات مستقلة للديانات الإبراهيمية، وطبعاً المقصود فيها اليهودية والمسيحية والإسلام وقبل أن تصدر تفرعاته عن مؤسسات أهلية ثقافية وسياحية في الغرب تتحدث عن الأخوة الابراهيمية العابرة للديانات والشعوب والبلدان، إلى أن انطلقت في العام 2004 رسمياً في جامعة هارفارد “مبادرة مسار الحج الابراهيمي” بدعم من مشروع التفاوض الدولي في كلية الحقوق في جامعة هارفارد وبمشاركة عالمية لباحثين ورجال دين وأعمال وخبراء في السياحة البيئية وآخرين.

وهدف المبادرة هو افتتاح مسار سيراً على الأقدام يسلك مواقع ثقافية ودينية وسياحية يتتبع خطى النبي إبراهيم عليه السلام منذ أكثر من أربعة آلاف عام، ويبدأ المسار من مدينة أور العراقية مروراً بإيران وسوريا وصولاً إلى مدينة الخليل الفلسطينية حيث يعتقد أن قبر النبي إبراهيم الخليل هناك.

وبدأت منظمات أميركية أهلية وغربية تدعو إلى إحياء هذا المسار ثقافياً وسياحياً وروحياً وتتحدث عن فوائده الاقتصادية بينما ركز القادة الأميركان على استغلاله لأهداف أخرى؛ إذ حين أشرف الرئيس جيمي كارتر على اتفاق كامب ديفيد بين مصر والكيان الصهيوني قال في كلمته “دعونا نترك الحرب جانباً، دعونا الآن نكافئ كلّ أبناء إبراهيم المتعطشين إلى اتفاق سلام شامل في الشرق الأوسط، دعونا الآن نستمتع بتجربة أن نكون آدميين بالكامل وجيراناً بالكامل وحتى أخوة وأخوات”.

وفي عام 1993 حين أشرف الرئيس بيل كلينتون على توقيع اتفاق أوسلو بين إسحق رابين وياسر عرفات قال: “إن أبناء إبراهيم؛ أي نسل إسحق وإسماعيل، انخرطوا معاً في رحلة جريئة، واليوم مع بعضنا بكل قلوبنا وأرواحنا نقدّم لهم السلام”.

وفي عام 1994 وخلال اتفاقية وادي عربة التطبيعية بين الأردن والكيان الصهيوني قال الملك حسين: “سوف نتذكر هذا اليوم طيلة حياتنا لأجل أجيال المستقبل من الأردنيين والإسرائيليين والعرب والفلسطينيين، كل أبناء إبراهيم”.

وفي إطار توظيف الابراهيمية سياسياً برز في الغرب مصطلح “الدبلوماسية الروحية” وتم تعريفه بأنه مسار من مسارات التفاوض تستهدف حل النزاع أو منع حدوثه من أجل بناء سلام ديني عالمي عبر تقارب الديانات الإبراهيمية أو الدين العالمي الواحد.

وفي هذا الإطار ذاته أتت زيارة قداسة بابا الفاتيكان لمدينة أور الأثرية وللمرجعية الشيعية في النجف السيد السيستاني كي يتم إدخال المرجعية الشيعية في هذا المسار بعد أن طبّعت دول عربية أخرى مع الكيان الصهيوني. ولكن اللافت في تلك الزيارة أن قداسة البابا قد اصطحب معه عشر بعثات أثرية للتنقيب عن الآثار في مدينة أور العراقية؛ فما هي علاقة الآثار بهذا المسار؟

تقول الدكتورة هبة جمال الدين مدرس العلوم السياسية في القاهرة، إن الهدف النهائي لهذا المسار هو الكشف عن آثار تُثبت أن الشعوب الأصلية لهذه المنطقة ليسوا العرب بل اليهود الذين تم تهجيرهم من البلدان العربية، والمطالبة بتعويضات لهم ومحو الثقافة العربية وتأسيس اتحاد الأرض الإبراهيمية المشتركة مع رموز دينية جديدة وثقافة جديدة باشروا بالتأسيس لها من خلال تسجيل “المحكي” أو “الحكي”؛ أي توثيق تاريخ جديد من أفواه من يختارون ليحلّ مكان التاريخ الموجود والمعتمد في المنطقة، وقد كتبت الدكتورة هبة جمال الدين كتاباً عن “المسار الإبراهيمي الملغوم” فنّدت فيه الأهداف السياسية البعيدة لهذا المشروع ألا وهي إزالة الحدود وإزالة الانتماء للدول كما نعرفها اليوم، وتقويم المواطنين كمواطنين ينتمون فقط للديانة الإبراهيمية والتي دون شك سيكون الغرب والكيان الصهيوني هما المشرفان على وضع أسس هويتها والانتماء لها.

وقد تبنى الرئيس الأميركي ترامب هذه التسمية في الوثائق الأميركية، ولكن ومنذ فترة أصدر الرئيس بايدن أمراً بشطب مصطلح الإبراهيمية من الوثائق واستبداله بـ “التطبيع “؛ إذ نتذكر أن الاتفاقات الأخيرة التي عقدت بين الإمارات العربية المتحدة والبحرين من جهة وبين “إسرائيل” من جهة ثانية تمت تسميتها بـ”اتفاقات أبراهام”، والسبب أن الرئيس بايدن أمر بحذف هذا المصطلح لأن هوية المشروع بدأت تتكشف للباحثين والمناهضين له فخاف عليه أن يتم إجهاضه واعتبر أن الوقت لم ينضج بعد للإفصاح عن هذا المشروع الخطير والترويج له.

ويأتي هذا المشروع نتيجة فشل الكيان بالتطبيع مع الشعب العربي في مختلف أقطاره رغم أنه وقّع اتفاقيات مع حكومات متعاقبة في دول عربية مختلفة إلا أن هذه الاتفاقيات لم تحظ بتأييد الشعب ولم تترجم على أرض الواقع ولذلك فإن المسار الإبراهيمي يهدف إلى التطبيع الشعبي مستخدمين غطاء دينياً وسياحياً وإنسانياً للحديث عن المحبة والأخوة في الوقت الذي يتم الإبقاء على احتلال الأرض وقتل أهلها الأصليين ونهب الثروات وابتلاع الحقوق.

إن المطلوب اليوم من المرجعيات البحثية والدينية والسياسية في وطننا العربي هو مقارعة هذا التيار بالفكر والحجة والمنطق والحقوق وعدم إغفاله أو السكوت عنه، والتوقيت هو البارحة واليوم وغداً. وألا يُسمح لمثل هذه الأفكار والرؤى أن تصبح جزءاً من المناهج التعليمية حيث تعمل منظمات مختلفة لدسّ هذه المفاهيم في مناهج عربية، وأن يتمّ تفنيد خطورة الاسم والمسمى والأهداف الملغومة المبطنة لمشروع يستهدف عروبتنا ووجودنا وحقوقنا في حضارتنا وتاريخنا وأرضنا ومستقبل أجيالنا.