Israel must choose between civil war or regional war : Senior Lebanese Analyst

JUNE 14, 2021

Editorial Comment from The Saker Blog for updated information only:  Since this interview took place, and just this past weekend, there are changes in the Israeli government.  Despite these changes, the comments from senior Lebanese political analyst Nasser Qandil hold true to the situation in the main, and the change in the Israeli government does not negate Mr. Qandil’s commentary.  In short, these changes are:  Right-wing nationalist Naftali Bennett has been sworn in as prime minister, leading a coalition “government of change” that was approved with a razor-thin one-vote majority and in a power-sharing deal with the centrist Yesh Atid under the leadership of Yair Lapid.  Mr. Netanyahu will remain head of the right-wing Likud party and will become the leader of the opposition.
Israel must choose between civil war or regional war : Senior Lebanese Analyst

Description: 

In a recent appearance on a political talk show, senior Lebanese political analyst Nasser Qandil said that Israel is currently going through a sensitive and dangerous period of its history, in which it must choose between “civil war or regional war”.

Source:  Al Mayadeen TV

Date:  June 8, 2021

(Note: Please help us keep producing independent translations by contributing a small monthly amount here )

Transcript:

Nasser Qandil, Editor-in-chief of the Lebanese newspaper Al-Binaa:

I personally do not believe that Netanyahu is capable of taking any major action at this stage. The main test (of Israel’s power) was the (recent) Sword of al-Quds (battle). I mean, we would not have never seen a ceasefire if the steadfastness of the (Israeli) occupation entity – in terms of its army, institutions, and society – was strong enough during the battle to bear the burden and the weight of Netanyahu’s decisions.

We have to look back at the image of what happened before the ceasefire: the missiles raining down on the cities of the (Israeli) occupation entity. This has never happened before in the history (of the Israeli entity). They were heavy missiles with explosive heads capable of bringing down buildings. Now you have this new scene. The missile fire (on Israel) continued, and (Israel) could not stop it. Before the ceasefire, (Palestinian resistance forces) had no land access (to outside world), no air force, nor an Iron Dome. Therefore, (Israel) accepting a cease-fire is its acceptance of helplessness, it is a request for US protection.

I believe, according to my personal assessment and readings, that with the ceasefire and its aftermath, since that day, the era of the independence of the (Israeli) occupation entity has ended. The (Israeli) occupation entity has fallen under an American mandate. Even in terms of (forming) the new (Israeli) government, how was this government born? Its (forming) was not even on the table. The government was suddenly born. The US today goes into details. Since (the US) holds the future of the (Israeli) entity in its hands, (it follows this policy:) “I protect you and I fund your (government), therefore, I control your politics.”

Host:

Forgive me for interrupting, but what I meant by the ‘developments on the ground’ is that today Benjamin Netanyahu and the extreme right are talking with insistence about holding, for example, the Flag March on its original date. This may call for action at the grass-roots level. Therefore, the (Palestinian) resistance may take action. We are not confirming anything; we are (just) studying scenarios. However, due to these developments on the ground, the situation might deteriorate.


Qandil:

Let us first rule out the military scenarios, meaning sabotage, security operations, military action, targeting (individuals and locations) and igniting a war. This is beyond (the Israeli entity’s) power because it lacks internal harmony; an entity in which the US is a partner, whether at the intelligence level, or in terms of the Chief of Staff, or the Ministry of Defense. I mean, (the Israeli entity) cannot make its decision on its own.

Regarding the situation on the ground, well, the (original) date of the march was on Thursday, but now (the march) has been postponed to Tuesday by a decision from Netanyahu and his team to avoid taking any risks. (Next) Tuesday, they are talking about 500 (participants) and 500 flags. We know that this march is usually attended by at least 50,000 people every year. Therefore, Netanyahu and his team are now discussing ways to both deprive the (Palestinian) resistance from the opportunity to talk about its success in canceling the march altogether, and not crossing the red line drawn by the US.

Netanyahu explains the (current political) equation by saying: “you (Israelis) are going to either clash with Gaza, Hamas, and the (Palestinian) resistance forces, or experience Israeli bloodshed”, meaning that (Israeli) settlers and demonstrators will come out and clash with the police. I believe that Netanyahu’s assessment is correct. The future of the (Israeli) entity will look like one of two options: either a comprehensive war that begins with any action that would trigger conflict, or the other option, which is a Jewish-Jewish civil war because it is impossible to restrain the (Israeli) settlers.

It is possible that the march goes by with minimal provocations by avoiding sensitive areas and deploying the police and the army. However, since the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin (former Prime Minister of Israel), the only vital force that has a meaningful political activity in the occupation entity is the (Israeli) settlers and extremists. The rest are empty structures. Thus, if they (settlers and extremists) took the initiative out of their certainty that the political establishment has become impotent, we will hear about confrontations and clashes every day.

On the one hand, protecting the (Israeli) entity will require that a part of the army, the police and security forces face the (Israeli extremists). On the other hand, if (Israel) lets (the extremists) loose, this will trigger regional wars. The (Israeli) entity today is going through a delicate, dangerous and sensitive period of its life as it faces a stark choice: either civil war, or regional war.


Subscribe to our mailing list!

Related Posts:

هل يمارس لبنان المقاومة السياسيّة والاقتصاديّة؟

11/06/2021

 العميد د. أمين محمد حطيط _

لم يشهد لبنان في تاريخه الحديث كمّاً من الأزمات يتوالد ويتفاقم بسرعة وعمق بالشكل الذي يشهده اليوم. وصحيح أنّ بنية النظام الاقتصادي اللبناني واهنة والإدارة اللبنانية فاسدة والتبعية قاتلة، لكن هذا ليس بجديد فنظام الاحتكار والوكالات الحصرية غير المبرّرة قديمة العهد ولم تقوَ حكومة أو مسؤول على الإطاحة بها، لا بل كان رأس المسؤول يتدحرج عندما كان يتجرّأ على طرحها (كما حصل مع وزير الصحة البيطار عندما فكر بمعالجة موضوع الدواء وضبطه بعيداً عن المحتكرين) أما الرشوة والنهب وكلّ وجوه الفساد المالي والإداري فهي متلازمة مع هذا النظام السياسي القائم على العشائرية والطائفية والمحاصصة الأنانية وسلطة الزعيم في الطائفة، ونختصر الأمر بالقول إنّ الواقع الرديء للبنان من حيث السياسة والإدارة والاقتصاد أمر غير مستجدّ، لا بل هو قديم قدم النظام اللبناني ولا ننسى أنّ أول رئيس جمهورية في لبنان أطيح به بتهمة الفساد. وهنا يطرح السؤال لماذا وصلنا اليوم إلى هذا الواقع المرير إذن رغم أنّ الأسباب الداخلية قديمة؟

قد نجد الردّ منطقياً بالقول إنها الشعرة التي قصمت ظهر البعير، أو إنها النقطة التي فاض بها الكأس، أو إنها اللحظة التي تفصل الموت عن الحياة، وإنّ الطريق الخاطئ الذي سلكه لبنان منذ تأسيسه عامة ومنذ العام 1992 خاصة كان لا بدّ من أن يؤدي به إلى ما هو عليه اليوم من بؤس وعوز وفقر بعد أن نهب المال وسخرت الدولة لمصلحة طبقة سياسية سارقة دخلت إلى الدولة ولا تملك ليرة واحدة ووصلت عبر السلطة إلى امتلاك مليارات الدولارات التي بلغت عند بعضهم 16 مليار دولار لم يجنها إلا نهباً وسرقة واغتصاباً من الدولة.

وعلى وجاهة هذا التبرير والتفسير، يبقى السؤال لماذا لم يتعرّض لبنان في ظلّ مراحل سبقت وكانت ظروفها أشدّ قسوة وتعقيداً، لماذا لم يتعرّض لربع ما هو عليه اليوم، إذ رغم حرب السنتين في العام 1975 لم تهدّد الودائع المصرفية بالتبخر ولم يتدهور سعر صرف الليرة، ورغم العدوان “الإسرائيلي” في العام 1982 وما تبعه من حروب خاصة كحرب الجبل وحرب إسقاط اتفاق 17 أيار لم تفقد المواد الغذائية والأدوية والمحروقات من السوق رغم ارتفاع أسعارها، وفي الحروب الداخلية ضمن الطوائف والمذاهب وتعاظم الخطر والمخاطر الأمنية في كلّ بيت في تلك الطائفة أو المذهب أو ذاك لم نشهد ما نراه اليوم من ذعر وخوف على حليب الأطفال ودواء المرضى و… و… إلخ…؟ فلماذا نحن الآن هنا إذن؟

أعود وأكرّر وأؤكد أنّ بنية الاقتصاد اللبناني الذي أقيم بشكل خاص بعد العام 1992 ليكون اقتصاداً ريعياً غير إنتاجي واقتصاد خدمات واهن تابع، معطوفة على فساد في الحكم والإدارة وكلّ شيء في الدولة التي يعمل فيها بقاعدة “الوظيفة العامة ملكية استثمار وليست خدمة ولا مسؤولية”، وان نجاح المسؤول في وظيفته يُقاس بمقدار ما يسرق وما ينهب من المال العام وأموال الناس لنفسه ولجماعته، وأنّ ذلك يشكل أسباباً كافية للوصول بنا إلى حيث نحن من كوارث جعلت الدولة وشعبها في سحيق الانهيار وخطر الزوال، لكن مقارنة ما نحن فيه مع ما سبق من مراحل وحالات سيئة بل أسوأ يثير السؤال هل الفساد الداخلي وطبيعة الاقتصاد اللبناني وحدهما هما سبب ما نحن فيه أم هناك عوامل أخرى.

في موقف جريء وبعد أن لمس الحقيقة لمس اليد، صرح رئيس حكومة تصريف الأعمال حسان دياب بأنّ “لبنان يتعرّض لحصار خارجي مطبق”، وهي حقيقة كان على المسؤول أن يواجهها منذ أن اعتمدت وهنا نذكر بأننا كنا من أوائل من نبّه إلى هذا الأمر وفصلناه في العام 2019 عندما جاء وزير خارجية أميركا وأطلق من بيروت خطة انهيار لبنان لإسقاط المقاومة التي أطلقنا عليها تسمية “خطة بومبيو” والتي قلنا مؤخراً إنها لا تزال سارية المفعول حتى الآن، وهي الخطة التي أُرسيت على حلقات خمس، تبدأ بالفراغ السياسي، ثم الانهيار المالي، ثم الانهيار الاقتصادي وصولاً إلى الانفجار الأمني، تمهيداً لعدوان “إسرائيلي” ينفذ اذا تمّ النجاح في الحلقات الأربع السابقة.

ولكن بدل المواجهة رأينا كيف أعان المسؤولون في لبنان وفي مختلف المواقع أميركا على تنفيذ خطتها، التي تسبّبت بالفراغ السياسي الذي يتخبّط به لبنان منذ أن استقال سعد الحريري بشكل فاجأ شركاءه في تشرين الأول 2019، ولا يزال هذا الفراغ قائماً حتى اليوم بعد أن حُمل حسان دياب على الاستقالة وتعثرت كلّ مساعي تشكيل الحكومة من 10 أشهر وهي لن تتشكل حتى تمتلك جرأة إسقاط القرار بالفراغ السياسي. أما الانهيار الاقتصادي مقروناً بالنقدي فقد نجح سياسيون وإداريون وموظفون وطبقة مصرفية واقتصادية ومالية مرتبطة بأميركا وتسير على الإيقاع والتوجيه الأميركي نجحوا في إحداثه بشكل يفوق ما توقعت أميركا نفسها، حيث إنهم وبكلّ وقاحة وخلافاً للأنظمة والقوانين والدستور وضعوا اليد على ودائع الناس في المصارف وتحكموا بها وحرموا أصحابها منها وألقوهم في دوائر العوز والضيق دون أن يرفّ لهم جفن.

وفاقم الأوضاع سوءاً ما أسمي العقوبات الأميركية على سورية وما جاء في قانون قيصر الأميركي بصددها، فنال لبنان من الحصار والعقاب أكثر ما تأثرت به سورية نفسها والسبب عائد لاختلاف طبيعة الاقتصاد في البلدين والأداء الرسمي لدى الحكومتين.

والنتيجة أنّ أزمة لبنان الاقتصادية والضيق النقدي والمالي الحالي عائد لفئتين من الأسباب فئة داخلية تتعلق بطبيعة الاقتصاد والفساد الداخلي في الدولة وعلى شتى الصعد، وخارجية وتتعلق بالحصار الاقتصادي لا بل الحرب والعدوان الاقتصادي الذي تشنّه أميركا مع أتباعها ضدّ لبنان وهو ما قصده رئيس الحكومة بالحصار المطبق على لبنان.

وبالتالي تكون المواجهة للخروج من الكارثة النازلة بلبنان اليوم عبر العمل على خطين، عمل داخلي ويركز على الإصلاح الذي يجب أن يكون شاملاً ويتناول كلّ الأسباب الداخلية ويستوجب حكومة وطنية حقيقية وليس مجلس إدارة يمارس عملية النهب التحاصصي، ومواجهة مع العدوان الخارجي، مواجهة قد تتردّد الدولة أو يتعذر توفر الشجاعة والجرأة لدى المسؤولين فيها لاتخاذ قرار المواجهة كما حصل في مسائل كثيرة سبقت، وهنا يكون على الشعب أن يظهر مقاومته للعدوان وكما انبرت أقلية شعبية في الماضي لتنظيم مقاومة ضدّ العدوان والاحتلال “الإسرائيلي” للجنوب ونجحت في فرض التحرير فإنّ الشعب اللبناني مدعو اليوم إلى ممارسة المقاومة الاقتصادية وهي حق مشروع للدفاع عن النفس من باب لقمة العيش، ومن هنا يجب أن يفهم موقف سيد المقاومة في لبنان أو بالأحرى سلسلة مواقفه التي بدأت بشعار لن نجوع ولن نركع، ووصلت في محطته الأخيرة إلى الإعلان عن الاستعداد لاستيراد المحروقات من إيران إنْ استمرّت الدولة في عجزها عن ذلك.

وهنا وعلى سبيل التذكير نقول انه في العام 1982 عجزت الدولة عن منع العدوان ومنع الاحتلال وقبله عجزت عن تطبيق القرار 425 وتحرير الشريط المحتلّ في الجنوب فانبرت المقاومة وحرّرت ممارسة لحق تكفله كلّ الشرائع والمواثيق الدولية، واليوم إذا استمرت الدولة في عجزها عن تأمين احتياجات العيش للمواطنين بسبب حصار يريد تركيع جمهور المقاومة، فليس من حق أحد أن ينتقد مبادرة لمنع الجوع والمرض.

وبهذا… وبكلّ تأكيد يكون السيد في مواقفه في المحطات المتسلسلة منذ سنتين تاريخ العمل بخطة بومبيو لانهيار لبنان، يكون السيد قد مارس المقاومة السياسية في رفضه للفراغ السياسي بدءاً من رفضه لاستقالة الحكومة وصولاً إلى رفضه حلّ مجلس النواب الحالي، ويكون مارس المقاومة المالية رفضاً للانهيار المالي ونهب ودائع الناس عبر إدارة أموالهم من خلال مؤسسة القرض الحسن التي يقصفها أعداء المقاومة بشتى النعوت والتهم الباطلة، والآن يمارس المقاومة الاقتصادية لتأمين حاجات المعيشة. انها المقاومة التي شعارها لأهلها “سنخدمكم بأشفار العيون”.

*أستاذ جامعي – خبير استراتيجي

A Brief History of Israeli Interventionism in Lebanon

Source

in World — by Yanis Iqbal — April 30, 2021

Israel has a long-standing interest in Lebanon. These interests have periodically manifested themselves in bloody attacks against the small Arab state. Two important sources on the Zionist plans for Lebanon are the diary of Moshe Sharett, who was the Prime Minster of Israel in 1954-1955 and who was considered a “soft Zionist”, and Livia Rokach’s “Israel’s Sacred Terrorism: A study based on Moshe Sharett’s Personal Diary, and other documents”. In the latter we find some very important information, and it is worth quoting at length:

“Then he [Ben Gurion] passed on to another issue. This is the time, he said, to push Lebanon, that is, the Maronites in that country, to proclaim a Christian State. I said that this was nonsense. The Maronites are divided. The partisans of Christian separatism are weak and will dare do nothing. A Christian Lebanon would mean their giving up Tyre, Tripoli, and the Beka’a. There is no force that could bring Lebanon back to its pre-World War I dimensions, and all the more so because in that case it would lose its economic raison-d’etre. Ben Gurion reacted furiously. He began to enumerate the historical justification for a restricted Christian Lebanon. If such a development were to take place, the Christian Powers would not dare oppose it. I claimed that there was no factor ready to create such a situation, and that if we were to push and encourage it on our own we would get ourselves into an adventure that will place shame on us. Here came a wave of insults regarding my lack of daring and my narrow-mindedness. We ought to send envoys and spend money. I said there was no money. The answer was that there is no such thing. The money must be found, if not in the Treasury then at the Jewish Agency! For such a project it is worthwhile throwing away one hundred thousand, half a million, a million dollars. When this happens a decisive change will take place in the Middle East, a new era will start. I got tired of struggling against a whirlwind.”

The next day Gurion sent Sharett a letter which contained the following argument:

“It is clear that Lebanon is the weakest link in the Arab League. The other minorities in the Arab States are all Muslim, except for the Copts. But Egypt is the most compact and solid of the Arab States and the majority there consists of one solid block, of one race, religion and language, and the Christian minority does not seriously affect their political and national unity. Not so the Christians in Lebanon. They are a majority in the historical Lebanon and this majority has a tradition and a culture different from those of the other components of the League. Also within the wider borders (this was the worst mistake made by France when it extended the borders of Lebanon), the Muslims are not free to do as they wish, even if they are a majority there (and I don’t know if they are, indeed, a majority) for fear of the Christians. The creation of a Christian State is therefore a natural act; it has historical roots and it will find support in wide circles in the Christian world, both Catholic and Protestant”.

Sharett responded a few weeks later:

“As far as I know, in Lebanon today exists no movement aiming at transforming the country into a Christian State governed by the Maronite community…This is not surprising. The transformation of Lebanon into a Christian State as a result of an outside initiative is unfeasible today… I don’t exclude the possibility of accomplishing this goal in the wake of a wave of shocks that will sweep the Middle East… will destroy the present constellations and will form others. But in the present Lebanon, with its present territorial and demographic dimensions and its international relations, no serious initiative of the kind is imaginable.

 [I should add that] I would not have objected, and on the contrary I would have certainly been favorable to the idea, of actively aiding any manifestation of agitation in the Maronite community tending to strengthen its isolationist tendencies, even if there were no real chances of achieving the goals; I would have considered positive the very existence of such an agitation and the destabilization it could bring about, the trouble it would have caused the League, the diversion of attention from the Arab-Israeli complications that it would have caused, and the very kindling of a fire made up of impulses toward Christian independence. But what can I do when such an agitation is nonexistent?…In the present condition, I am afraid that any attempt on our part would be considered as lightheartedness and superficiality or worse-as an adventurous speculation upon the well being and existence of others and a readiness to sacrifice their basic good for the benefit of a temporary tactical advantage for Israel…Moreover, if this plan is not kept a secret but becomes known a danger which cannot be underestimated in the Middle Eastern circumstances-the damage which we shall suffer… would not be compensated even by an eventual success of the operation itself”.

Civil War

The opportune moment for Israeli machinations arrived when a civil war broke out in Lebanon, involving a sectarian battle between Christians, who had monopolized politico-economic power, and Muslims, who lived in poverty and deprivation. These internal imbalances were exacerbated by the large presence of Palestinian refugees who – fearing a repeat of the September 1970 massacre in Jordan at the hands of Christians – were compelled to ally with the Muslims and their allies, namely Baathists, Communists, Nasserites and others. On April 9, 1976, the Syrian military intervened to fight against the National Movement (NM) and Palestinians. Kamal Jumblatt – the leader of the NM – was too radical for the liking of Damascus. With his anti-Zionist leanings, he could easily provoke Israel into invading Lebanon – increasing the strategic vulnerability of Syria. Thus, Hafez al-Assad proceeded to thwart any possibility of a leftist regime coming to power in Beirut.

Israel interposed itself in this cauldron of conflicts in early 1976 to begin a policy of open borders with some of the small Maronite villages in the far south that wished to have contact with the few Maronites still living along the border in northern Israel. Israel also armed and trained Christian militias who were driving their Muslim (mostly Palestinian) opponents from the towns along a strip between Tyre and Marjayoun. The Syrians, while issuing a statement refusing to bow to Israeli pressure, withdrew their troops from the posts they held furthest south, including those they held near the Greek Orthodox center of Marjayoun. These Israeli initiatives were just one step in a strategy of supporting those dissidents in south Lebanon who would eventually cooperate with the Israelis in the creation of a buffer jurisdiction. Major Sa’ad Haddad (followed by Colonel Antoine Lahoud) established the South Lebanese Army (SLA), allying himself with Israel.

Even before Menachem Begin became Prime Minister in May 1977, the Israelis had begun transporting Maronite militiamen from Junieh harbor to Haifa for training so that they could fight with Haddad’s forces in the southern enclave. After Begin-headed Likud government came to power in 1977, Israel’s troops provided sustained and overt assistance to the SLA, often crossing over into Lebanese territory to conduct their own operations. A massacre of 37 Israelis by a Fatah armed group that crossed into Israel for the purpose set the stage for the first large-scale Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) entry into Lebanon. The Litani Operation of 1978 was launched on March 14 and saw IDF forces advancing across southern Lebanon to the Litani River, occupying this area for a week-long period.

The operation involved 25,000 troops. It was intended to dislodge the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) from the border area, destroy the PLO bases in southern Lebanon from where the attacks on northern Israel were emanating, and to extend the area of territory under the control of Haddad’s militia. In the course of the operation, the PLO was pushed back north of the Litani River, and a number of refugees headed for the north. 22,000 shells killed 2000, destroyed hundreds of homes and forced 250,000 to flee their homes. Israeli forces withdrew after the passing of United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSC) 425. The resolution called for immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon and established a UN military presence in southern Lebanon. IDF forces departed southern Lebanon in the following weeks, handing over positions to the SLA of Major Haddad. The entry of United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) did not usher in a period of quiet.

Operation Peace for Galilee

Barely ten months later, on June 6, 1982, Israel launched a massive land, sea and air invasion of Lebanon code-named “Operation Peace for Galilee”. It was given covert consent by the US. In a speech given before the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations on May 28, 1982, then Secretary of State Alexander M. Haig Jr. said: “Lebanon today is a focal point of danger…and the stability of the region hangs in the balance…The Arab deterrent force [instituted in 1976 to end Syrian killings of Palestinians and Muslim forces], now consisting entirely of Syrian troops, with its mission to protect the integrity of Lebanon, has not stabilized the situation…The time has come to take concerted action in support of both Lebanon’s territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders and a strong central government capable of promoting a free, open, democratic and traditionally pluralistic society.” With the ostensible goal of destroying Palestinian infrastructure, Israel invaded Lebanon with 60,000 troops, 800 tanks, attack helicopters, bombers and fighter planes, supported by missile boats, and spread pure terror in Muslim-inhabited areas. Over 15,000 Lebanese perished in the invasion, mostly civilians. Israel claimed portions of Lebanese territory and placed militias within Lebanon.

Upon reaching Beirut, the IDF began a nine-week siege, including saturation bombing and intermittent blockades of food, fuel, and water. On June 26, the US vetoed a UNSC resolution for an end to hostilities (saying it was “a transparent attempt to preserve the PLO as a viable political force.”) But sensing the siege’s impact on public opinion, former US President Ronald Reagan had Philip Habib begin talks for a cease-fire. Habib demanded that the PLO leave Lebanon. Even after this was agreed to, the IDF continued bombing, killing 300 on August 12, 1982. Reagan then told Begin to halt the “unfathomable and senseless” raids. Even the Israeli Cabinet was taken aback and stripped Sharon of the right to activate forces without higher approval.

Importantly, Israel used the invasion to place its own stooge Bashir Jumayil – a major leader of pro-Zionist Christian forces – at the presidential palace. Jumayil’s elevation was accomplished in the Fiyadiya barracks, just outside Beirut, where Phalangist militiamen formed an inner cordon, with Israeli soldiers just behind them. It had not been an entirely foregone conclusion; Ariel Sharon and his company had been obliged to exert themselves on his behalf with pressure, threats, cash – and even the helicoptering of one elderly parliamentarian from an isolated village in the Beqa’a before the Syrians could get at him. With its foremost ally elected to the highest office in Lebanon, Israel was basking in the glory of its military muscles. However, this period of grandeur proved to be fleeting. On September 14, 1982, he and 26 others died when a remote-controlled bomb went off in the Phalange party headquarters. This event precipitated an extremely murderous bloodbath of innocent Lebanese civilians.

On September 16, 1982, the day after Israeli forces had taken up positions overlooking the Palestinian camps, Phalangists entered the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps and carried out a revenge massacre. This pogrom was carried out by members of Bashir’s own militia, reportedly led by Elie Hobeika and joined by members of Haddad’s SLA militia. Although the IDF officials seemed to have taken responsibility for security in the area, they did nothing to stop the slaughter. Entire families were indiscriminately slaughtered. People were killed with grenades hung around their necks, others raped and disemboweled. Infants were trampled with spiked shoes. Throughout, high-ranking Israeli officers listened on radios to Phalangists discussing the carnage. After 3 days of butchery, the news began to leak out. Nearly 2,000-3,000 people were killed, mostly women, children, and the elderly.  The massacre created fractures in the intra-Israeli consensus over the war, leading to a rally of 400,000. Sharon’s only punishment, however, was to be shuffled to another cabinet post.

Increasing Resistance

With its main Maronite ally dead, Israel attempted to work with Bashar’s brother Amin Jumayil and to move forward toward a peace agreement under US mediation. Amin proved not strong enough to play the role envisioned for him according to this idea. Instead, Israel became increasingly concerned with protecting the lives of its own soldiers amid angry calls for the withdrawal of IDF forces. In August 1983, the slow process of withdrawal began, with Israel removing its forces unilaterally from the area of the Shuf mountains where it had been seeking to mediate between the Phalange and Druze forces loyal to Walid Jumblatt. Jumblatt at the time was allied to Syria and his forces were the clearest threat to Amin’s attempt to consolidate control over the country. When Souk al-Grarb – a town commanding the road from the mountains to the Presidential Palace, Defense Ministry and East Beirut – was nearly captured by Jumblatt’s militia, Amin appealed to the US for help, which had to withdraw in late 1983 due to growing resistance from Lebanese Muslims.

Meanwhile, an anti-Jumayil, anti-Israel and anti-American alignment was now emerging as the key political force in Lebanon. Among the various elements involved in this alignment, little noticed at first, were pro-Iranian Shia militants who had organized under the auspices of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards (IRG) in the Biqa. Israel’s withdrawal to the Awali river line removed the IDF from Beirut. But it left Israel entrenched as an occupying force in the Shia-dominated south of Lebanon. The result was that in the next period, Israel found itself the unexpected target of Shia attacks. A number of incidents deriving from Israel’s mistreatment of Shia Muslims contributed to the deterioration of the situation. The Shia violence against the Israeli forces was carried out by two organizations – the Amal militia, which had constituted the main political force among the Lebanese Shia since its establishment in the 1970s, and the smaller, pro-Iranian Hezbollah that would eventually eclipse Amal.

The IDF remained deployed along these lines for the next two years, in the course of which Hezbollah grew in popularity as a force combining opposition to Israeli occupation with a wider Shia Islamist ideology totally opposed to Israel’s existence and to the West. Israel’s peace treaty with Lebanon – signed in May 1983 – was abrogated in 1984. Israeli forces remained deployed along the Awali river line, under increasing attack from Hezbollah and Amal. In June 1985, the IDF again redeployed further south – leaving all of Lebanon save a 12-milewide “security zone” close to the Israeli border, which was maintained in cooperation with the SLA. In 1993, and again in 1996, the IDF undertook major operations beyond the security zone and deeper into southern Lebanon. Both operations – Accountability in 1993 and Grapes of Wrath in 1996 – were undertaken in order to weaken Hezbollah.

The maintenance of the security zone exacted a cost from IDF personnel. Israeli public discontent with the seemingly endless conflict in southern Lebanon began to increase after a helicopter accident claimed the lives of 73 soldiers in the security zone in 1997. An incident on September 5, 1997, in which 12 members of the IDF’s naval commando unit were killed, further helped to erode the Israeli public’s willingness to see the IDF stay in southern Lebanon. Ehud Barak was elected prime minister in 1999 with a clear promise to withdraw Israeli forces to the international border. Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from the security zone began on May 22, 2000. In its final phase, it turned into a humiliating rush for the border as the SLA collapsed. A considerable amount of military equipment, including armored vehicles, was left behind and fell into Hezbollah hands. Some of this equipment may still be seen in southern Lebanon, where Hezbollah has converted it into monuments for its victory. At the entrance to Bint Jbayl, for example, an ancient SLA tank may be seen, with a cardboard statue of Ayatollah Khomeini standing on it. By 2000, Hezbollah had claimed its first victory as Israel withdrew from Lebanon, although it insisted on occupying two areas, the Seven Villages and the Shebaa Farms.

Hezbollah’s victory solidified its legitimacy among a sizeable section of the Lebanese populace who had suffered greatly under the Israeli occupation. Prior to the Israeli withdrawal, Lebanese prisoners continued to be detained outside any legal framework in the Khiam detention centre where conditions were cruel, inhuman and degrading, and torture was systematic. After the Israeli withdrawal, the residents of Khiam village stormed the detention centre and released all the remaining 144 detainees. The horrendous treatment of these detainees is evident, for example in the case of Suleiman Ramadan who was arrested in September 1985. One of his legs was amputated as a result of lack of medical care after his arrest. During his interrogation he was beaten and given electric shocks. He was detained without charge or trial until his release in May 2000.

2006 Attack

In 2006, Israel launched another attack on Lebanon; the central goal of the onslaught was to destroy Hezbollah. The campaign aimed at cutting Hezbollah’s road of supplies, destroying much of its military infrastructure (stocks of rockets, rocket launchers, etc.), eliminating a large number of its fighters, and decapitating it by assassinating Hassan Nasrallah and other key party leaders. The Israeli generals opted for an offensive that was intended to be both rapid and powerful. Their idea was to sweep away all that they found in their path, clean up any remaining pockets of resistance and then pull back. To facilitate the ground offensive they subjected Lebanon to an air and sea blockade, while aircraft bombarded bridges and roads to isolate the enemy, sowing death and destruction in the towns and villages of South Lebanon, and devastating the southern suburbs of the Capital.

The aerial campaign massacred hundreds of Lebanese civilians. But it did not seriously reduce the operational capacity of the Hezbollah fighters. Not only did they continue to fire rockets into Israel, but the rocket campaign increased in intensity up to the final day. At the same time, the land incursions of Israeli units met with a resistance of ferocity and efficiency not expected by the Israeli commanders, incurring unusually heavy losses among the Israeli troops. Israel was not able to secure a significant part of Lebanese territory, even within the narrow strip of territory separating the Litani River from the Israeli-Lebanese border. Shaken by their lack of success, the military chiefs and the Israeli government hesitated between prolonging the phase of the aerial campaign and limited incursions, with the risk of further losses for little gain, and the option of staging a large scale ground offensive. A large scale offensive would mean moving into the Beka’a Valley – where the resistance of Hezbollah would be even more stronger than in the frontier zone – and then on to Beirut. The “grand” offensive was finally ordered. It turned out to be a face-saving operation. Its scope and duration were very limited. The attack did not reach any further than various points along the Litani River and its launch coincided with the declaration of a cease-fire within 48 hours. In the final analysis, while the Israeli attack caused heavy destruction – the death of more than 1,100 people, the displacement of over a quarter of the population, and an estimated $2.8 billion in direct costs with more than 60% of the damage affecting the housing sector – it failed to make a political impact upon Lebanon. Hezbollah shattered the invincibility of Israel and put an end to its interventionism in Lebanon.

Yanis Iqbal is an independent researcher and freelance writer based in Aligarh, India and can be contacted at yanisiqbal@gmail.com.

حملة إعلاميّة على كلام السيد… من دون خطاب إعلاميّ

ناصر قنديل

خلال سنتين يمكن إحصاء انخراط عشرات المنابر الإعلاميّة القديمة والجديدة والمستجدة في حملات مبرمجة تستهدف موقف حزب الله وتسعى إلى شيطنته، ربطاً بكلام قاله سابقاً وزير الخارجية الأميركية السابق مايك بومبيو، عن تحميل حزب الله مسؤولية كل أزمات لبنان، وإقفال الطريق على كل الحلول، وكلما كان للحزب موقف لافت تجاه الشأن الداخليّ خصوصاً على لسان أمينه العام السيد حسن نصرالله، تنطلق موجة من الصخب الإعلامي والسياسي، تحت عناوين تصل حد المبالغة في تضخيم أو تحجيم الوقائع التي ترد في الخطاب، للوصول الى نظرية محورها، أن حزب الله يرهن مستقبل لبنان وأوضاعه خدمة لعلاقته بإيران ومصالحها، ودائماً من دون تقديم أي دليل مقارن علمياً، بين حجم التدخل الأميركي وحجم التدخل الإيراني، طالما أن القضية تدور على توظيف النفوذ في لبنان ضمن مفاوضات طرفها الأول طهران وطرفها الآخر هو واشنطن، من دون أن ينتبه الذين يقولون إن طهران هي المشكلة وإن واشنطن هي الحل، فهم بذلك أول من يربط مستقبل لبنان يهذا التفاوض، ويجعل لبنان ورقة قوة لأحد الفريقين.

يترافق ذلك مع استنتاجات من نوع، التحذير من خطورة الحملة الإعلامية وقوتها واتساع مداها، بالاستناد إلى حجم المجندين فيها من سياسيين وإعلاميين ومنابر، لتأتي محطة حدث لاحق لتقول إن موازين القوى الإعلامية والسياسية لم تتغير، وإن حملة جديدة تنطلق، فيظهر ان حلفاء حزب الله لا زالوا حلفاءه، وأن بيئة حزب الله الشعبية لا تزال بيئته المتماسكة، وهنا تبدو دعوات جلد الذات التي يقوم بها بعض المؤيدين للحزب والمقاومة، تحت عنوان اختلال التوازن الإعلامي بين المقاومة وخصومها، في غير مكانها، بل يصحّ الحديث عن فشل الحملات، خصوصاً عندما يكون معيار النجاح والفشل، هو في مدى القدرة على تغيير الاصطفافات سواء للتحالفات، أو للبيئة المحيطة بالمقاومة. وهذا ما تقول أحداث السنتين رغم كثافة الحملات، إن شيئاً فيها لن يتغيّر، وإن حدث تغيير فهو باتجاه شدّ عصب البيئة الحاضنة للمقاومة لتتمسّك أكثر بخياراتها، وهذا يعني نجاحاً في الإعلام المقاوم، الذي يشكل كلام السيد نصرالله صواريخه الدقيقة، التي لا تصمد أمامها لا جبهة داخلية ولا جليل ولا قبة حديدية لدى الخصوم، تماماً كما لا تصمد الإمكانات الهائلة لجيش الإحتلال أمام التحدّي الذي تمثله المقاومة بإمكانات متواضعة قياساً بما لدى كيان الاحتلال.

كما هو الفارق بين جيش الاحتلال والمقاومة هو في الروح، وهو الذي يرتب نتائج معاكسة لموازين الإمكانات، يبدو الفارق بين كلام السيد نصرالله والحملات المنظمة ضده، هو في أن كلام السيد يقدم خطاباً إعلاميّاً تفتقده الحملات التي تستهدف خطابه، ونبدأ بالخطاب الأخير، أعلن السيد قبوله والتزامه بتعهّده السابق لجهة تسهيل حكومة اختصاصيين معلناً تفضيله حكومة تكنوسياسيّة أو حكومة سياسيّة، فقامت حملة ترى في كلامه تخلياً عن المبادرة الفرنسيّة، وتراجعاً تمهيداً للتعطيل، ونسي أصحاب الحملة ان يصيغوا خطاباً يجيب عن حقيقة أن الحكومة التي نصّت عليها المبادرة الفرنسيّة قامت على حكومة من غير السياسيين رئيساً وأعضاء، وأن هذه المبادرة تحورت إلى تكنوسياسيّة عندما صار رئيسها سياسياً ومن الصف الأول، وكل دعوة السيد تقوم على مواءمة تركيبة الحكومة مع هوية رئيسها، من دون جعل ذلك شرطاً. فهل هذا تعطيل ام تسهيل، أن يقول السيد رغم ان الحكومة صارت تكنوسياسية بشخص رئيسها فنحن لا نمانع ببقاء أعضائها من غير السياسيين ولا نعتبر ذلك ضرباً للمبادرة الفرنسيّة وتخلياً عن حكومة الاختصاصيين ونقترح توازناً يتيح شراكة سياسية أوسع تحمي الحكومة، لا تنحصر برئيسها فقط، لكننا لا نضع ذلك شرطاً مساهمة في تسهيل الحكومة.

في الماضي قال السيد إن داعش موجودة في عرسال، فقامت القيامة كما اليوم، وخرج وزير الدفاع يومها فايز غصن يتحدّث عن تقارير أمنية يؤكد ذلك، فنالته سهام الاتهام، وطبعاً قالت الأحداث بعدها إن كل الحملات كانت متواطئة مع وجود داعش ضمن رهانات ضيقة الأفق. واليوم عندما يحذّر السيد من حرب أهلية ويخرج وزير الداخلية ويقول إن هناك تقارير تؤكد وجود مخططات إسرائيليّة لتعميم الفوضى وإشعال حرب أهلية، يتذاكى البعض فيتهم السيد بالسعي للحرب الأهليّة، وهو نفسه يتهم الحزب بالسيطرة على مفاصل القرار في البلد، والاتهامان لا يستقيمان، بحيث يفرط حزب ممسك بالبلد بإنجازه بالذهاب الى حرب أهلية، وبالتوازي يخرج اتهام الحزب بالسيطرة على الدولة، وفي الدولة جيش يقولون عنه إنه جزيرة خارج سيطرة الحزب يدعمونها، وأجهزة أمنية تتباهى السفارات الغربية برعايتها والتعاون معها، ومصرف لبنان الذي قيل عنه خط دولي أحمر، وهو الممسك بالوضعين المالي والنقدي، وكلها خارج سيطرة الحزب، وبجانبها قضاء يُفرج عن العملاء، فأين تقع جزيرة نفوذ حزب الله في الدولة؟

بعض الحملات ارتكز على اللغة التي خاطب من خلالها السيد نصرالله، المعنيين في حالتي الارتفاع غير المبرّر في سعر الصرف، وقطع الطرقات، وحاول البناء عليها استنتاجات من نوع التصرف بلغة الحاكم مرة وبلغة التهديد مرة، والتدقيق في كلام السيد نصرالله يوصل لنتيجتين، الأولى أنه في شأن قطع الطرقات شرح وأوضح أنها ليست جزءاً من أي عمل ديمقراطي وان مظلة الحماية التي جيب توفيرها لكل احتجاج لا تطالها، وأنها عمل تخريبي وتحضيري للحرب الأهلية وإثارة الفتن الطائفية، ليصل الى مطالبة القوى الأمنية والعسكرية بمعاملتها على هذا الأساس، ولم نسمع أحداً من الوزراء او المراجع الأمنية يقول إن قطع الطرقات تعبير ديمقراطي سلمي، ما يطرح سؤالاً عن كيفية التصرف مع هذا الخطر إذا لم تقم القوى الأمنيّة بواجبها، بغير التعبير عن الغضب، وإعلان الاستعداد لتحمل المسؤوليّة، لمنع شرارة فتنة وليس سعياً لفتنة، ومن يريد الفتنة يشجع استمرار الاحتقان الناتج عن قطع الطرقات بدلاً من أن يحذّر منه، ومن لا يريدها هو من يحذّر وبالتالي فإن تصرّفه سيكون محكوماً بتفادي الوقوع في الفتنة، ومثله موضوع سعر الصرف الذي جنّ جنون الناس بسببه، فهل يعتبر التحذير من خطورته تجاوزاً؟ وهل تحميل مصرف لبنان وحاكمه المسؤوليّة تجاوز للأصول، أم ترك الناس تقتحم المصرف والمصارف هو الالتزام بالأصول؟

هناك حملات وليست حملة، لكن ليس هناك خطاب إعلاميّ، ولذلك تتحول الحملات الى مجرد صخب وضجيج وصراخ، لكنها في النهاية زبد، والزبد يذهب جفاء وما ينفع الناس يمكث في الأرض.

مقالات متعلقة

نصرالله: ماذا لو فشلت مساعي الحلول؟

ناصر قنديل

فتح الأمين العام لحزب الله السيد حسن نصرالله الباب واسعاً لنجاح مساعي ولادة حكومة جديدة من اختصاصيين غير حزبيين ومن دون ثلث معطّل، وفقاً لرؤية الرئيس المكلف سعد الحريري، رغم الشرح الذي قدّمه حول أسباب الأزمة وحجم الأعباء التي يفرضها الحلّ الإنقاذيّ واستحالة أن تقوم به حكومة غير سياسيّة، لكن الأهم في كلمة السيد نصرالله يبقى في بدء شرحه للخطة “ب” وملامح الخطة “ج”، ماذا لو لم تنجح مساعي تأليف الحكومة الجديدة، وماذا لو استعصى التفاهم على حل دستوريّ راهن لقضية استعصاء التأليف، سواء عبر وضع مهلة للتأليف أو ربط البت بالثقة بالحكومة الجديدة إذا رفض رئيس الجمهورية صيغة الرئيس المكلف، عبر إرسالها إلى مجلس النواب والتصويت عليها بأغلبية الثلثين، وكلها حلول تتوقف على حجم من الوفاق السياسي يشمل كل القوى السياسية من حلفاء حزب الله والشركاء وصولاً للخصوم؟

يجيب السيد نصرالله على السؤال بعرض الخطة “ب”، وتقوم على تفعيل حكومة تصريف الأعمال، بكامل معاني التفعيل، والاجتهادات الدستوريّة واضحة لجهة إمكانية عقد اجتماعات لحكومة مستقيلة، خصوصاً في زمن الأزمات الكبرى، وأكثر من ذلك يقول الوزير السابق الدكتور بهيج طبارة أن حدود تصريف الأعمال هي حدود القرارات اللازمة لمواجهة هذه الأزمات، وهذا يعني أن بمستطاع الحكومة المستقيلة ليس أن تجتمع فقط، بل أن تقوم بإقالة موظفين وتعيين موظفين، من الفئة الأولى وغيرها، وإعلان حالة الطوارئ، وعقد اتفاقات مالية داخلية وخارجية، ورسم خطط إنقاذ لمواجهة أي خطر لا يمكن إرجاء مواجهته، وكلفة الزمن في التعامل معه تصل حد التسبب بكارثة.

الدعوة لحكومة تصريف الأعمال تتضمّن دعوتها للتعامل مع أربعة ملفات حيوية، الأول إصدار الأوامر للجيش والقوى الأمنية بفتح الطرقات، والثاني التعامل مع حاكم مصرف لبنان بصفته مسؤولاً عن ضبط أسعار الصرف، وحماية النقد الوطني وودائع اللبنانيين، وصولاً إلى إقالته وتعيين بديل عنه إذا اقتضى الأمر، والثالث اعتماد آلية تتيح الإفادة من العرض الإيراني لتأمين الفيول اللازم لكهرباء لبنان، والمشتقات النفطية التي تحتاجها الأسواق، مقابل سداد قيمتها بالليرة اللبنانية وبأسعار تشجيعيّة، والآلية قد تكون فتح باب استيراد الفيول والمشتقات النفطية أمام الشركات اللبنانية من دون المرور بوزارة الطاقة، إذا طابقت المواصفات وسدّدت الرسوم وأمنت أسعاراً منافسة بالليرة اللبنانية، بمعزل عن هوية المصدر على أن تتحمل هذه الشركات تبعات اختيارها للمصدر، أما الملف الرابع فهو ملف التفاوض مع صندوق النقد الدولي وفقاً لأرقام الخطة الحكومية الأصلية، وتوزيعها للخسائر على مصرف لبنان والمصارف، سعياً لاتفاق يلائم المصلحة اللبنانية.

يفترض السيد نصرالله أن هذا الحل الذي تقوم عليه الخطة “ب” يحتاج إلى توافق الحلفاء فقط، وهم المشاركون في حكومة تصريف الأعمال، قد لا يبصر النور هو الآخر. فما هو العمل؟ يجيب السيد أن هناك خطة “ج”، تتضمّن حلاً سيضطر الى سلوكه كخيار لفتح الطرقات، وحلاً آخر لعدم ترك الناس للجوع والبلد للانهيار إذا لم تقم الدولة بما عليها كدولة، وبين السطور نقرأ، أنه سيطلق للناس حق الغضب على إغلاق الطرقات، إذا لم تتحمّل الدولة مسؤوليّتها، وأنه سيفتح الباب لاستيراد المشتقات النفطية والأدوية والمواد الغذائية وتأمينها إلى الأسواق لكل اللبنانيين، من دون المرور بالدولة ومؤسساتها إذا وقعت الواقعة وصار الجوع والانهيار تحدّياً داهماً.

Sayyed Nasrallah: Hezbollah Won’t Let Lebanese People Starve

Marwa Haidar

Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah offered on Thursday a number of suggestions that can be considered a roadmap to the current political and economic crisis in Lebanon.

In a televised address on the occasion of Hezbollah’s Wounded Fighter Day, Sayyed Nasrallah vowed that the Resistance party won’t abandon its people and will defend them against starvation.

He stressed that the priority in this regard is for the state to solve the current crisis, but noted that if the state fails to deal with the crisis, Hezbollah won’t keep away and will stand by the Lebanese people.

Highlighting importance of defining the nature of the economic and financial crisis in Lebanon, Sayyed Nasrallah noted that the situation is a result of long years and can’t be solved in one or two years.

His eminence stressed that the first step to deal with the crisis is to form the new government. In this regard, he called on PM-Designate Saad Hariri to review his plan in forming a technocrat government, noting that the situation in Lebanon needs a techno-political government that is capable of taking national decisions.

Sayyed Nasrallah warned that foreign powers through their embassies in Lebanon have been plotting to drive Lebanon into a civil war, stressing that such scenario is a red line according to Hezbollah.

The Resistance leader also slammed those who have been blocking roads in the country, calling on the Lebanese Army to assume its responsibility in preventing such acts that destabilize Lebanon.

Hezbollah’s Wounded Fighter Day

Starting his speech by talking about the occasion, Sayyed Nasrallah said that Hezbollah chose the birth anniversary of Al-Abbas (a.s.) on the fourth of Shaaban holy month to mark the Wounded Fighter Day since this figure represents all of loyalty, devotion and courage.

“Al-Abbas (a.s.) insisted to stay and fight beside his brother Imam Hussein (a.s.) despite major injuries that he sustained during the battle of Karbala.”

His eminence praised Hezbollah wounded fighters, likening them to Al-Abbas (a.s.).

“Just like Al-Abbas (a.s), Hezbollah wounded fighters insisted to stay on path of Jihad despite their injuries and all forms of difficulties.”

Sayyed Nasrallah, meanwhile, pointed to the US ties with Takfiri groups like ISIL and Al-Qaeda.

“Day after another, the reality of Takfiri groups is revealed, as well as the identity of their operators and those who back them. I think it is important to be aware of a report on a request by former CIA chief (George Tenet) to ex-president Ali Abdallah Saleh to release Al-Qaeda member in Yemen.”

“We are not before an Islamic group, but rather we are before a Takfiri terrorist group that is formed, operated and backed by the US intelligence service in a bid to destroy our people and our armies.”

Chaos and Civil War

Shifting to the local issue in Lebanon, Sayyed Nasrallah said that the crisis has political and economic aspects, noting that it can also be described as a crisis of the establishment.

“In light of the rage over the dire economic situation we don’t have to forget that we must act responsibly and wisely,” his eminence said, stressing that the chaos taking place in Lebanon is aimed at driving the country in to a civil war.

Sayyed Nasrallah revealed that foreign powers have been plotting to create chaos aimed at diring the country into a civil war, stressing that such scenario is a red line for Hezbollah.

“We have reliable information that foreign powers, through their embassies in Lebanon have been working to sue sedition and create chaos in a bid to make Lebanese people go for internal fighting. A civil war is a red line for Hezbollah.”

Sayyed Nasrallah hit back at those who say that Hezbollah is the only Lebanese party that has weapons.

“Such rhetoric is baseless, for the civil war can be erupted by light arms. Those who fight can use Kalashnikovs in a civil war, they don’t need long-range rockets and precision missiles in such kind of fighting.”

In this regard, Sayyed Nasrallah said it clear: “Hezbollah has no intention to resort to his weapons in a bid to form a government or to deal with the economic and financial crisis.”

Lebanese Government Formation

Talking about the reasons behind the economic crisis in Lebanon, Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that it is deep rooted and a result of long years.

“The main reasons behind the current crisis are the corruption, loans which have been with high interest rate, money laundering, freezing of deposits, Beirut Port blast and many others causes.”

“The current crisis is result of long years of wrong policies and can’t be solved in one or two years.”

Sayyed Nasrallah said there have been fears in Lebanon to allow China, Russia or Iran to invest in Lebanon, noting that the US has been preventing the country from heading towards these countries.

“Even more, the US has been also blockading Lebanon in a bid to force our country to subdue to their conditions. The US wants Lebanon to starve and I said it clear before: we won’t starve!”

On the issue of government formation, Sayyed Nasrallah said Hezbollah had agreed on what Hariri called a technocrat government. Meanwhile, the Hezbollah S.G. advised Hariri to form a techno-political government warning that the government of specialists would be unable to take political and national decisions like clinching deals with Russia, China or Iran.

“We in Hezbollah announced that we don’t reject forming a government of specialists. However, my advice is to form a techno-political government that will be capable of taking national decisions.”

Sayyed Nasrallah meanwhile, called on the outgoing government, which resigned following Beirut Port blast last August to assume its responsibility in case the formation of the new government is delayed.

“We wait till Monday and see the meeting between Hariri and President (Mishel) Aoun. But if the government formation is delayed again, caretaker PM Hassan Diab and his government must assume responsibility and deal with the current crises facing the country.”

BDL Governor and Blocking Roads

Elsewhere in his speech, Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that the Riad Salameh, Governor of Banque Du Liban (BDL)- the country’s central bank- bears responsibility in failing to defend the national currency from falling in exchange for the US dollar.

“You can prevent the collapse of the Lebanese pound. Your presence in such post is to do this task. What’s going on is not acceptable, and you have to assume your responsibility,” Sayyed Nasrallah addressed Salameh.

His eminence, meanwhile, lashed out at bandits who have been in the latest weeks cutting off roads across the country, stressing that such acts don’t solve the crisis, but rather they complicate it and drive Lebanon into civil war.

“Blocking roads is unacceptable and immoral. I am one of the people who are fed up with such behavior.”

“You are suspicious and contributing to a scheme aimed at driving Lebanon into a civil war,” Sayyed Nasrallah said, addressing those who have been blocking roads.

“It’s the Lebanese Army’s duty to prevent such acts, and if the bandits don’t refrain from blocking roads then this discussion is to be continued,” Sayyed Nasrallah said in a clear message that Hezbollah won’t keep mum regarding this issue.

Hezbollah Plan of Social Solidarity

Hitting at those who slam Hezbollah environment for gaining salaries in US dollars, Sayyed Nasrallah clarified that 80% of Hezbollah’s incubation are volunteer people who are not paid.

He also noted that not all the organized members of Hezbollah are paid in US dollars.

In this context, Sayyed Nasrallah called on Hezbollah servicemen who are paid in US dollars to help all those who are in need, announcing a plan to organize such aids.

“A few years ago, those people who are slamming now our brothers and sisters, they were mocking at Hezbollah fighters who were monthly paid $400 or $500.”

Sayyed Nasrallah concluded his speech by assuring that Hezbollah won’t abandon its people and won’t let Lebanese people starve.

“The priority to solve the current crises is through Lebanese state, but if the state fails to do so we won’t stay away. I will not elaborate on this issue, but I say: we have several options in this regard.”

Source: Al-Manar English Website

The ‘Cancel Culture’ phenomenon: kind of hate-hush all over the world

The ‘Cancel Culture’ phenomenon: kind of hate-hush all over the world

March 01, 2021

by Ghassan and Intibah Kadi for the Saker Blog

Who remembers the Herman’s Hermits and their 1967 song ‘There’s a Kind of Hush’? The hush the song speaks of is a hush of love, and it was a world of dreams in the sixties in the West, despite the Vietnam War, the Civil Rights protests in the USA and other global conflicts. The peace movements were strong and vibrant, and there was hope that the peace-loving youth will have their way and make a difference; because they genuinely believed in the slogan that ‘all you need is love’.

Alas, the love-hush seems now to be replaced with a hate-hush, and it is engulfing the world, particularly the West, with unprecedented anger and vile displays of demeanour, and this seems to be part of the ‘New Normal’ that some are pushing down our throats.

Not long ago, inspired by another song of the 1960’s, the article pondered where have all the flowers and peace movements gone. In such a short period since, discord and trouble has steeply risen to unprecedented levels, where we are witnessing now an ominous step forward into the abyss and a huge fall in the trajectory of humanity.

In comparison and as an example, when the Lebanese civil war erupted in 1975, it didn’t really come as a surprise to anyone as the specter of such calamity had always hung in the air and sat on the agendas of opposing political groups, as well as on the narrow minds of religious groups that held back unsettled sectarian scores for decades, even centuries.

In hindsight, it seems unfathomable as to how did the German people become so brainwashed and vulnerable to Nazi propaganda. They incrementally discarded all the humane values they had known before, replacing them with nationalist, exclusionist and supremacist values, eventually engaging, wittingly or unwittingly, in supporting or perpetrating injustices on minority groups including Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, the disabled, just to mention a few. Shockingly, when the civil war began in Lebanon, the Lebanese people actually saw a similar phenomenon happen right in front of their eyes. The world witnessed town turning against town, suburb against suburb, neighbour against neighbour, inflicting the most horrendous crimes of maiming, sniping, torturing and killing each other. The same happened again in Yugoslavia as it fell apart.

In more ways than one, latent hatred was expected to eventually manifest itself. If and when old sentiments are not dealt with and brought to closure, such an outcome of a build-up and explosion is to be expected.

But what we are witnessing today, in the West, is something quite different; a case where many people develop boiling, seething, foaming and frothing rage and hatred against others for no apparent reason or history at all.

In America at least, there are a number of actual issues that cause rage and dismay, such as unresolved racial tensions and injustices, perceptions of stolen elections, mishandling of the Corona Virus, the economy and so on. However, these issues are dealt with so vehemently, often with grave, unjust, illegal and disproportional measures, leaving many wondering if America is teetering on the brink of a civil war.

Most striking is the alarming phenomenon of other Western countries taking on board many of the divisive American-specific issues, all with the rage and social divisions that define America’s social status quo. People make ‘all or nothing’ stands and polarity on so many issues, reaching new frenetic levels each day. Even when a legitimate reason for anger exists, the expressions of these can be increasingly extreme and irrational and treated as a defining issue, one worthy of labelling, whether in America or elsewhere.

The authors observed that many people from all different sides of the political divide, within and outside the USA, when asked, are unable to rationally express the reason behind their extremely heated stands. Such a psychological situation can destroy the West; or what is left of it. Close friends, friends who have known and loved each other for decades accuse each other of the most heinous of ‘crimes’, attach labels to each other, just because they ask simple questions, trying to understand the rationale behind their feelings.

And feelings they are, because they are not well-conceived and fact-finding-based views, and their answers provided are merely emotionally based.

In the very near past, people and friends in particular, used to have deep political discussions with peers. They disagreed quite often, but such diverse views were discussed in a civil manner with the assumption that people had the right to have different views and opinions.

In the West today however, it seems that the ‘agree-to-disagree’ principle is no longer. The current rule is ‘you are either with me or against me’. Where have we heard this before? Instead of ‘me’ it was ‘us’?

Not only are we witnessing extreme and unwarranted actions between disagreeing individuals, we are also witnessing this on a collective level, one we often refer to as ‘thought-policing’. Its repercussions in recent times are rapidly morphing into what can only be described as torture ‘techniques’ such as the likes of ‘Cancel Culture’. This is exactly synonymous to the act of ‘banishment’ during the Spanish Inquisition days and the Witch-Hunt eras. Nothing much has changed, or perhaps things have gone full-circle.

In that time, ‘banishment’ meant that the banished ones lost their jobs, became socially isolated, prohibited from trading or buying goods, and quite often, this preceded being burnt alive at the stake. And, now it appears that ‘Cancel Culture’ means virtually the same thing. Whilst the victim may still be lucky enough to trade and buy commodities online, it still generally involves losing one’s job, stature, friends, memberships of associations, and facing humiliation and defamation among many other things. The only basic difference today is the absence of being put to death.

Prior to any banishment or ‘Cancel Culture’ being implemented, just like in the past where such people were branded as heretics, they are now given labels such as ‘denialists’ (disagreement with climate change theory), ‘anti-vaxxers’ (questioning the effectiveness and safety of COVID vaccines) and others. What is interesting here in all this madness, is that a person could be labelling another, only to end up themselves being labelled for something else. Someone who labels another as a ‘denialist’ may find him/herself branded as an ‘anti-vaxxer’.

What is most sinister perhaps is that, on one hand we see this violent, unexplainable, unwarranted irrational level of anger, but on the other hand, we see the West endorsing and accepting other irrational policies that can destroy it, but yet no one is batting an eyelid. Any keen observer can see that a whole myriad of changes have been imposed on the Western society, each of them alone can destroy the Western culture. Without much effort, we can see many such changes, but it suffices to mention the following:

  1. Political correctness that has gone way too far and continues to erode personal freedom of expression.
  2. The climate change debacle/hoax that elevated Greta to the level of becoming Time Magazine’s person of the year.
  3. The destruction of Western family values.
  4. The over-emphasis on LBGTI rights and all the changes imposed on the mainstream society, including such things as banning the use of words like mother and father.
  5. The COVID-thing; lockdowns, conflicting information, the vaccines that we know little about, the presence of nefarious people of influence like Fauci and Gates in decision-making.
  6. Confusing young school children with gender issues and almost encouraging them to become homosexual and/or transgender.
  7. The silence of the public regarding the censorship regulations of Facebook and Twitter.
  8. The silence of the public about the plans of the WEF’s ‘Great Reset”.
  9. The growing acceptance of thought policing and compliance to the state and media.
  10. The public indifference towards the groundless sanctions against Russia and their possible effect on global stability and peace.
  11. The public lack of knowledge and indifference about the support of their governments to Neo-Nazis in Ukraine.
  12. The West losing its industrial base under the watchful eyes of Western Governments.
  13. The West suffering from a huge drop in number of students majoring in STEM subjects.
  14. The West suffering from a growing lack of desire of young adults to have children and raise families.
  15. Giving blanket and unconditional support to abortion, even in the absence of any medical, psychological and justifiable reasons, including late-term abortion, and considering it (ie abortion) as a human right.

When people in the West are asked, why do those who do not agree with the above or accept it say nothing? The response is invariably fear, fear of being targeted and being subjected to the ‘Cancel Culture’.

Coerced to endorse the revolution of anger and phantom ideology, Westerners, especially the youth, have been socially engineered to become the corner stones of ‘controlled opposition’, all the while, they seem to have been conditioned to ‘unsee’ the real issues that threaten their survival in the future.

Coming to the crunch question; with what appears as increasing irrationality and insanity all around, have people been recently, or maybe incrementally, subjected to systemic brainwashing that renders them into such a state of irrationality, anger, volatility and blindness? If that is the case, then how was this achieved?

This brings to mind the tactic of subliminal advertising, a technique developed as early as in the 1950’s in which a person is subjected unknowingly to an advertisement. It can be sound-based or visual. A visual one is based on techniques like inserting a single advertisement frame, say of a bag of popcorn, into a movie. Movies show motion by playing a series of still frames, around twenty per second. In a single frame it is not noticeable by the conscious mind, but is picked up by the subconscious, and in this example given, will create a stimulus to buy popcorn. There is much evidence of more sinister or politically motivated subliminal messages inserted into Hollywood movies. Legal questions arose around this technique.

From such a simple, unsophisticated technique, in the same decade, a secretive project on behaviour modification was undertaken named Project MKUltra, eventually becoming the subject of an American Senate Intelligence Hearing . Mind-control technology took off, reaching ever new heights (or lows?), not just enhancing business and socio-political agenda, but becoming a crucial component of warfare, even with special strategies for social media, to target the public and their perceptions, making them compliant or malleable and even activating them to the extent this discussion indicates. Intibah Kadi’s work on this is cited in the preceding link to an academic paper.

The question is where else, apart from media and social media, have such techniques been used? What kind of technology and to what extent and what ends has this been taken to? And has such systemic brainwashing that we suggest, been ramped up in these last few years when Trump was President of the USA? This is predicated on the suspicion of Trump acting at times as the ‘disruptor” of a particular set of the ‘establishment’, or ‘swamp’ as he named it, one that either rejected him or he alienated.

This also brings to mind an old movie in 1977 by the name of Telefon, a fiction based on a few people who on the surface appear to lead a normal life, but in reality, are a team of professional assassins designated to kill certain individuals upon receiving a vocal message they had been hypnotized to respond to like robots.

Have we actually reached such days of a ‘New Normal’ in terms of the evident, debased level of social discourse, labeling, shaming and damning? Ironically, ‘New Normal’ is a term we hear every day, courtesy of world leaders, various officials and, of course, from the head of the World Economic Forum. Or is it ironic? Will brainwashing and behaviour modification techniques go far beyond that of what we commonly understand and well into the realms of Artificial Intelligence and Electromagnetism? And in these new realms, what extent, if any, do these play a role in these shocking days of ‘Cancel Culture’, the suspension of critical thinking and general mob-rule behaviour permitted for some in the West in recent years?

But above all, did the Western mind deteriorate naturally as a result of attrition or did social engineering cause it to devolve in a manner that fires it up chasing red herrings all the while being totally blind to what really matters? Or has it been manipulated by a devious master plan that makes any science fiction movie look like a Batman Comic?

The 1776 Commission Repor

31 January 2021)

by Lawrence Davidson

About me
Lawrence Davidson is a retired professor of history from West Chester University in West Chester PA. His academic research focused on the history of American foreign relations with the Middle East. He taught courses in Middle East history, the history of science and modern European intellectual history. He has been publishing his analyses of topics in U.S. domestic and foreign policy, international and humanitarian law and Israel/Zionist practices and policies since 2010.

Part I—National Ideals

One of Donald Trump’s efforts to restructure, or maybe de-structure, the U.S. was the establishment of a 1776 Commission. Its job was to recast American history in an extravagantly patriotic fashion so as to assert U.S. exceptionalism. There is a Platonic correlate to this: the ideal is more real than the actual. Thus, ideals laid down in the nation’s founding documents are presented as more real, more instructive, than actual policies of U.S. national and state governments, and the behavior of their citizens.

The actual Donald Trump, of course, does not care about history, of which he knows little. Maybe that is why he did not bother to put any professional historians of U.S. history on the commission. But as president, he knew who his allies were, and if they wanted to prioritize myth and canonize ideals, it was all right with him. And so the major premise of the 1776 Report is that the United States was founded upon, and remains an expression of, “universal and eternal principles.” For instance, the Declaration of Independence’s assertion “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” would be one such.

As far as the report’s authors are concerned, these basic yet universal “founding principles” of the nation should be front and center in the teaching of national history. The authors are angered by the fact that, in their eyes, this is not being done. Quite the opposite. They believe that what is being taught are the shortfalls from such eternal ideals. How is that a problem? Well, to dwell on the actual, inequitable and often unjust national behavior of Americans is to undermine the unity of the nation and bring low its image. And, for the 1776 Report authors, that is not what education is all about.

Part II—Education

The authors of the 1776 Report believe that “the primary duties of schools are twofold: 1. teach students “practical wisdom.” That is, teach “the basic skills needed to function in society, such as reading, writing, and mathematics.” In other words, education should prepare the student for the job market. This has actually been a recognized goal of schooling since children ceased following in the careers of their parents and home-learned skills consequently no longer sufficed.

Then there is the other “essential” goal of schools: 2. the passing on of “transcendent knowledge.” This too is a
long-recognized goal which, the report says, was endorsed by the founding fathers of the nation. “Educators must convey a sense of enlightened patriotism that equips each generation with a knowledge of America’s founding principles, a deep reverence for their liberties, and a profound love of their country.” Put the two educational goals together and you get the transmission of “transcendent knowledge and practical wisdom that had been passed down for generations and which aimed to develop the character and intellect of the student.”

For the authors, all of this sums to nothing less than “teaching the truth about America.” To be clear, the authors of the report do not want us to so much ignore “the faults of our past” as to “stand up to the petty tyrants in every sphere who demand that we speak only of America’s sins while denying her greatness.” It should be noted that the authors do not address the problem that for those born and bred in poverty, say either in Harlem or Appalachia, the nation’s greatness might not be so real.

Part III—Universal and Eternal Tenets?

The report’s repeated use of the words “universal and eternal,” along with “transcendent,” in describing the founding documents of the United States, transforms those documents into sacred texts existing beyond critique. To use such “eternal” references as teaching points—as necessary attributes of what is really “true” about the United States—is to trade history for a semi-religious faith. Granted, this sort of substitution is not original to American conservatives. However, in this case, one gets a strong impression upon reading the 1776 Report that the hidden message is the cultural and religious superiority of a white Christian version of America.

You don’t have to be a professional historian to recognize that there is no perfection in human history, America’s or anybody else’s. There are no eternal and universal tenets, either, when seen in the light of actual historical events. For example, the alleged “eternal and universal” rights to “liberty and happiness” had not been recognized, at least not formally, in thousands of years of human history prior to 1776, and even then, in the emerging United States, they proved immediately unachievable.

As the report concedes, the “eternal” principle cited above from the Declaration of Independence had to be set aside in 1776 just to keep the thirteen confederated American states together. That was done specifically in reference to slavery. The founding fathers were able to find the necessary escape clause in another, more pragmatic, but still semi-sacred principle that the government should be based on the consent of the governed. It turned out that a lot of the (white) governed favored slavery.

It is in this way that the 1776 Report gets off on an illogical and ahistorical foot. Its authors confuse “transcendent” things wished for with things as they have historically been and continue to be. They can do this because, in the end, they believe in the following Platonic-like maxim: “We must first avoid an all-too-common mistake. It is wrong to think of history by itself as the standard for judgment. The standard is set by focusing on unchanging principles that transcend history.”

Part IV—Progressive Enemies

Who actually believes that we should make judgments on the basis of actual history while ignoring the “the unchanging principles” that supposedly “transcend history”? It turns to be the same “petty tyrants” who “speak only of America’s sins while denying her greatness.” Specifically, the 1776 Report points to “progressive reformers” who are also mixed together with “activists of identity politics.” But aren’t these the folks who demand change so that the United States might more closely conform to its ideals? Not according to those who say history is not a good standard for judgment.

For the report’s authors the progressive reformers’ approach is just a hunt for someone to blame for social ills. And the hunt divides Americans into “oppressed and oppressor groups.” As an aside, one might point out that long-term injustice resulting from institutionalized social ills inevitably does the same thing. The report claims that the real aim of the progressives is to make the original oppressed into new oppressors, and the former oppressors into new oppressed. While one can imagine such a flip taking place against the backdrop of revolutionary upheaval, to assign such a reversal to “progressive reformers,” most of whom seek not revolution but rather policy reforms, is gross exaggeration.

If the report’s authors are afraid of reform, what do they have to offer in its place? As best I can make out, they want us all to be patient and nice to each other because the “American people have ever pursued freedom and justice, though not perfectly.” If we really have faith in the nation’s “eternal and universal” ideals, things should work out in the end. What if this seems to take forever? Well, it might be that the imperfection has no real cure and so it must be accepted and lived with lest attempts at reform lead to the destruction of society—echos of Edmund Burke.

Part V—Other Problems

There are other problems with the report. Here are just some of them:

—The report tells us that for a republic to endure, the people must “share a commonality in manners, customs, language and dedication to the common good.” But, of course, the United States has never been such a place. It has always been a land of immigrants with a constant underpinning of many manners, customs and languages. As for the common good, there has never been any agreement on that. While the report claims that “the Constitution has proven sturdy against narrow interest groups,” this is simply inaccurate. The nation’s governing practices rest on a longstanding, if often corrupt, foundation of interest group politics.

— The report’s authors make the common historical mistake of pointing fingers at the British crown, that is, King George III, for the “tyranny” to which the colonies were allegedly subjected. But in 1776, for all practical purposes, the king did not make policy for the British Empire. Parliament did that. The founding fathers decided it would be too awkward to blame a representative body, somewhat similar to the one they were going to create, of the crime of “tyranny.” So they blamed the monarch.

—Then there is the ahistorical assertion that “the world is still and always will be divided into nations.” Gee whizz! What about all those multicultural empires both of the past and present? What of the constant fluctuation of boundaries? Look at all the peoples once encapsulated within the Habsburg and Ottoman Empires, or more recently the Soviet Union and China.

—Finally, there is the problematic statement, “the right to keep and bear arms is required by the natural and fundamental right to life.” Well, perhaps, if we were all living in a Hobbesian jungle. This, along with praise for the anti-abortion cause, certainly confirms where on the political spectrum the authors of the 1776 Report are coming from.

Part VI—Conclusion

There has been much criticism of the 1776 Commission and its conclusions. Newly elected President Joe Biden did away with the commission on his first day in office and removed its report from government websites. His spokesperson observed that it “erased” America’s history of racial injustice. Well, perhaps it hadn’t erase it, but it certainly equivocated about it.

It should be noted that some of this criticism was nearly as naive as the report’s conclusions. For instance, David Blight, a Civil War historian from Yale, said that the report was “an insult to the whole enterprise of education” which “is supposed to help young people to learn to think critically.” Perhaps that is Professor Blight’s educational purpose, and all the more power to him. However, both historically and contemporaneously, the “enterprise of education” has never given more than lip-service to such a goal. Maybe this is because independent and critically thinking kids scare their parents.

Finally, as an indicator of the nation’s deep divide, both supporters and opponents of the report accused the other of coming from “ideologically driven positions” and aiming at producing “political propaganda.” Such mutual recriminations are by now part and parcel of a larger social civil war.

The role of Musa al-Sadr in shaping national identity of Lebanese Shias الصدر ودوره في تأصيل الهوية الوطنية للشيعة في لبنان

The role of Musa al-Sadr in shaping national identity of Lebanese Shias

February 01, 2021

The role of Musa al-Sadr in shaping national identity of Lebanese Shias

Description: 

Lebanese university lecturer in history, Talih Kamal Hamdan, explores the role of the late Imam Musa al-Sadr in shaping a sense of national belonging and identity within the Shia sect in Lebanon, specifically during the 1960s and 1970s.

Understanding the historical formation of the national and political identity of the Shia of Lebanon is particularly relevant today, as contemporary Lebanese Shia Muslims are highly influential actors not only within Lebanon, but on the regional level as well. This is especially the case when viewed from the lens of Hezbollah, a group which considers itself an extension of the general political paradigm shaped by al-Sadr.

Source:  Al Akhbar Newspaper

Date:  September 8, 2015

(Important Note: Please help us keep producing independent translations for you by contributing as little as $1/month here )


Transcript:

Imam al-Sadr and his role in instilling a sense of national identity in Lebanese Shia

Talih Kamal Hamdan

This year marks the 37th anniversary of the disappearance of Imam Musa al-Sadr and his two companions, (an anniversary that) comes at the height of internal, regional and international conflicts; takfirism; and discrimination against sectarian and ethnic minorities in the Arab world, where Shias are the main target of Takfiri groups. The role of Shias in the Lebanese political reality is also being increasingly targeted by way of distorting their nationalist struggles, for which Imam al-Sadr laid solid foundations, and for which thousands of martyrs (of Shia origin) sacrificed their lives. (Many Shias) gave their lives (within these nationalist struggles) in order to free (their) land (from Israeli occupation), fighting (the occupation) as members of national and Islamic resistance groups successively (established) between 1975 and 2006.

The government’s neglect of the villages in the South (of Lebanon), the Beqaa, and Beirut suburbs; together with the deplorable conditions that farmers and their families lived under; and the overwhelming dominance of feudal families who had great political, economic and social influence in these areas, all these were starting points for (the establishment of) left-wing and progressive parties beginning in the mid-50s. These parties sought to fight deprivation, unilateralism of southern political representation, and the blatant denial of the rights of workers and farmers. However, these parties failed to establish social justice. Due to their fragmentation, differing frameworks and (political/ideological) poles, and their ordering of priorities that favored politics over other issues, these parties were not able transform their social standing into influence in the government, thus preventing them from turning the family structure into a national institutional structure. They chose cosmetic changes over (real) change, and social struggles with political and power-based objectives over a comprehensive social revolution. Then came the civil war in 1975 and toppled the social and national, non-sectarian movements, thus giving the upper hand to the 1943 (sectarian) formula only with new faces.

Since the mid-1960s, there had been growing social demand (for the rights of) marginalized groups, especially the Shia community who was suffering from the lack of institutions, jobs and services, and the scattering of its skilled individuals between left-wing parties and Palestinian organizations on the one hand, and opportunistic feudal leaderships on the other. As a result, unlike other Lebanese social groups, (the Shia community) lacked a specific identity.  Therefore, the objective conditions made room for another kind of leadership, (a leadership) that seeks change, and mobilizes its resources to lift (people) from fragmentation to unity, and from a feeling of deprivation to a feeling of power; (a leadership that grants) the right to participate in the government and its administrative and functional departments, (the right to) social development, and (the right to) participate in local, regional and international political decision-making of the Lebanese state. All this on the basis of both a religious identity and a unified national vision. Thereafter, Imam Musa al-Sadr’s movement emerged to call for social and political reform as a priority, on the basis of the “Lebanization” of Shia decision-making, and (the Shia sect’s) integration into the Lebanese state, whom Shias had always felt abandoned by.

Initially, the influential feudal and religious families did not have a negative reaction to the emergence of Imam al-Sadr. However, (with time) his reform movement against traditional feudalism gained strength as he gained large public support. His work was culminated in the adherence of young secular individuals to his project thanks to his undermining of the religious legitimacy granted to the feudal leaderships. (He) took advantage of the political and social situation in the South, the Beqaa and the Beirut suburbs, to begin the process of comprehensive change of the role of Shias in Lebanon.

Imam al-Sadr took the social dimension as a priority, and fought for “ending the deprivation (of basic rights) in the Beqaa and the South”. He started by confronting his opponents from the traditional feudal leaderships, notably Kamel al-Assaad, and left-wing parties, especially the Communist Party, in order to prevent them from “manipulating the Shia youth ideologically and on the basis of party-loyalties.” (1)

Even though (Imam al-Sadr) held firm to his religious foundations, yet he used religion to sharpen the sense of belonging to a national identity, and worked on establishing a social identity that – similar to other sects – combined both patriotism and the exaltation of the (Shia) sect. He replaced family loyalty with religious sectarian loyalty, thus attracting various segments (of society) who had previously adhered to the (powerful) feudal families, or adhered to the left-wing parties with their (various) slogans.  (Imam al-Sadr) also brought back the idea of ​​institutionalizing religious identity by reviving the “Al Ber wal Ehsan” Charity (جمعية البر والإحسان) founded in 1948 by Sayyed Abd al-Hussein Charafeddine in (the city of) Tyre, making it a starting point for his social service activities, and a project similar to the Amel Association (الجمعية الخيرية العاملية) in Beirut. He then established the Supreme Islamic Shia Council in Lebanon in 1969, which was a major turning point (that struck at) the core of the traditional authoritarian leadership (of Lebanese Shias). He was also able to establish educational, professional and social institutions, after they were absent for many decades because of the (Lebanese) state’s failure (to provide) services and (build) institutions in the South and the Beqaa. By raising the awareness of Shias regarding their sectarian and national identity, (Imam Musa) wanted to stress that they are citizens who have the right to consistent development, to be relieved from deprivation, and protected against Israeli attacks (2).

He built multiple relations with many national and southern actors, and showed an outstanding leadership and a strong ability to influence Lebanese elites and the Lebanese people. Therefore, Sayyed (Musa) was granted Lebanese nationality in 1963 by President Fouad Shehab, and became a permanent guest at the Lebanese symposium, which was composed of Lebanese political and intellectual elites. Therefore, Sayyed Musa was described by Michel Asmar as a “man of the coming time”. He also established relations with famous media figures, especially Ghassan Tueni. However, despite his wide network of internal and external political relations (that he established) on the basis of supporting his reform project, he tried to make sure that his political line stays as independent as possible.

(Imam al-Sadr) was known for his boldness in objecting to the excesses of the (Lebanese) state against southern citizens who were suffering daily from Israeli attacks. As such, he declared a general strike to support the people of the South, and consequently, he established the Southern Council, then the Commission for Southern Support in cooperation with Cardinal Anthony Khreish and a large group of Muslim and Christian scholars and clerics. He also confronted the Palestinian resistance, despite his alliance with it, after its multiple excesses against the southerners. He addressed Abu Ammar (i.e. Yasser Arafat, Former Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization) saying: “Abu Ammar, I (am ready to) protect the Palestinian resistance (even) with my turban, but I will not be silent about its transgressions against people in the South” (3).

Accordingly, Imam al-Sadr is indeed the true father of “Lebanese political Shiism”, which considers the national dimension a priority in its internal movement, and which believes that Lebanon is the permanent home for all its sons and various other social groups, and (a country) that must be defended by all means and at all costs, not on the basis of hegemony and partisanship, but rather partnership and national belonging. This explains the (contemporary) Shia urgency and seriousness to protect Lebanon from both Israeli aggression and the Takfiri threat.

References

1- Abd Al-Raouf Sunno: “The Lebanese War 1975-1990: The Dismemberment of the State and the Rift within the Society”, Volume One, ibid, pg. 145.

2- Talal Atrissi: “The conditions of the Shiites of Lebanon have changed,” in: “The Shiites in Lebanon from marginalization to active participation,” ibid., pg. 245

3- “The Supreme Islamic Shiite Council and the Rights of the Sect,” a special booklet issued by the Supreme Islamic Shiite Council, January 1974, pg. 10.

——

Subscribe to our mailing list!

Related Posts:

الصدر ودوره في تأصيل الهوية الوطنية للشيعة في لبنان

The role of Musa al-Sadr in shaping national identity of Lebanese Shias

الأخبار

طليع كمال حمدان الثلاثاء 8 أيلول 2015

تأتي الذكرى السابعة والثلاثون لتغييب الإمام موسى الصدر، ورفيقيه، هذا العام، في ذروة التناقضات الداخلية والإقليمية والدولية، وفي ظلّ تصاعد موجات التكفير، والعنصرية الدينية، تجاه الأقليات المذهبية والعرقية في المنطقة العربية، حيث يقع الشيعة العرب على رأس الاستهداف التكفيريّ، وتعاظم استهداف دور الشيعة في الواقع السياسي اللبنانيّ، من خلال تشويه نضالهم الوطني، الذي أرسى أسسه المتينة الإمام الصدر، وعمّدته دماء الشهداء، الذين سقطوا بالآلاف على طريق تحرير الأرض، بعد تعاقب مجموعات المقاومة الوطنية والإسلامية بين 1975- 2006.


شكّل الإهمال الرسمي لقرى الجنوب، والبقاع، والضواحي البيروتية، والأوضاع المزرية للمزارعين وعوائلهم، واستحكام قبضة العائلات التقليدية النافذة سياسياً، واقتصادياً، واجتماعياً على تلك المناطق، منطلقاً للأحزاب اليسارية والتقدمية، منذ منتصف الخمسينيات، لمحاربة الحرمان، وأحادية التمثيل السياسيّ الجنوبيّ، والإجحاف اللاحق بحقوق العمّال والمزارعين، لكنّها أخفقت في إرساء العدالة المجتمعية، بحيث لم تستطع تجيير مكاسبها على الصعيد الاجتماعي نفوذاً في السلطة الرسمية، نتيجة تشرذمها، وتعدّد أطرها وأقطابها، وتقدّم الجانب السياسيّ على ما عداه من قضايا، ما منعها من قطف التحوّلات الاجتماعية في البنية العائلية، وتحويلها إلى بنية مؤسساتية وطنية، فآثرت التجميل على التغيير، والنضالات الاجتماعية ذات المغزى السياسي، والسلطوي، على الثورة الاجتماعية الشاملة، فجاءت الحرب الأهلية، عام 1975، لتطيح الحراك الاجتماعي والحركة الوطنية اللاطائفية، لصالح تركيبة 1943 بوجوهها الجديدة.

فمنذ منتصف الستينيات، أخذت المطالب الاجتماعية تتصدّر واقع الفئات المهمّشة، وعلى رأسها الطائفة الشيعية، التي كانت تعاني من الحرمان على مستوى المؤسسات، والوظائف والخدمات، ومن توزّع طاقاتها بين أحزاب اليسار، والمنظمات الفلسطينية من جهة، وبين الزعامة التقليدية الانتهازية من جهة أخرى، ما جعلها تفتقر إلى هوية محددة، على غرار بقية المكوّنات الاجتماعية في لبنان، فأضحت الظروف الموضوعية أكثر اتساعاً لقيادة من نوع آخر، تحمل سمات التغيير، وتسخّر الإمكانات للارتقاء من التشرذم إلى الوحدة، ومن الشعور بالحرمان إلى الشعور بالقوّة، والحق بالمشاركة في السلطة، وتقسيماتها الإدارية والوظيفية، والتنمية الاجتماعية، والمشاركة في الخيارات السياسية للدولة اللبنانية المحلية والإقليمية والدولية، على أساس مركّب بين هوية دينية، وبعد وطني واحد. فجاءت حركة الإمام موسى الصدر لتحمل عناوين التغيير الاجتماعي، والسياسيّ، كأولوية على أساس «لبننة» الخيار الشيعي، وإدماجه في الدولة اللبنانية، التي لطالما شعروا بأنها تخلّت عنهم لعبث التهميش والإهمال.

أظهر مقدرة كبيرة
على القيادة والتأثير بالنخب اللبنانية والجماهير

لم يشكل ظهور الإمام الصدر، في البداية، صدمة سلبية بين العائلات التقليدية والدينية النافذة، لكنه مع تصاعد حركته التغييرية في وجه الإقطاع التقليدي، واتساع تأييده الجماهيري، ما سهّل إطلاق حركته التغييرية، فتوّج نشاطه بصهر العناصر العلمانية الشابة في مشروعه، من خلال تقويض الشرعية الدينية الممنوحة للزعامة التقليدية، مستفيداً من الواقع السياسي والاجتماعي، في الجنوب والبقاع والضواحي البيروتية، لتبدأ مسيرة التغيير الشامل لدور الشيعة في لبنان.

اتخذ الإمام الصدر من القضية الاجتماعية أولوية، وحمل شعار «رفع الحرمان عن الجنوب والبقاع» مرتكزاً لمواجهة خصومه من الزعامات الإقطاعية التقليدية، وعلى رأسهم كامل الأسعد، ثمّ الأحزاب اليسارية، وعلى رأسها الحزب الشيوعي، لمنعها من «التهام الشباب الشيعيّ أيديولوجياً وحزبياً (1).»

فهو على الرغم من تمسّكه بالثابت الديني، فقد سخّره لخدمة الانتماء إلى الهوية الوطنية، وعمل على تأسيس هوية اجتماعية تجمع ما بين إعلاء شأن الطائفة والتمسك بالوطن، على غرار بقية الطوائف. وبذلك استبدل العصب العائلي بالعصب المذهبي الديني، واستطاع من خلاله أن يستقطب شرائح متعددة، كانت مشرذمة الولاءات بين العائلة التقليدية وخياراتها المتعددة، والأحزاب اليسارية وشعاراتها، فضلاً عن إعادة إحيائه فكرة مأسسة الانتماء والهوية الدينية، فأعاد إحياء «جمعية البرّ والإحسان» التي أسسها السيد عبد الحسين شرف الدين عام 1948 في صور، لتكون منطلقاً لنشاطه الاجتماعيّ والخدماتي، وفي ذلك إعادة لتجربة الجمعية الخيرية العاملية في بيروت، ثمّ جاء تأسيسه للمجلس الإسلامي الشيعي الأعلى في لبنان، عام 1969، ليشكّل نقطة تحول رئيسة، في جوهر الزعامة التقليدية المطلقة. كما استطاع بناء مؤسسات تعليمية ومهنية واجتماعية، بعدما غابت لعقود طويلة، في ظل تقصير الدولة مؤسساتياً، وخدماتياً في الجنوب والبقاع، فأراد من تثبيت وعي الشيعة بهويتهم الطائفية والوطنية التأكيد على كونهم مواطنين لهم الحق في التنمية المتوازنة، ورفع الحرمان، والدفاع عنهم أمام الاعتداءات الإسرائيلية (2).

وقام بنسج علاقات متعددة مع جميع الأطراف الفاعلة وطنياً وجنوبياً، وأظهر مقدرة كبيرة على القيادة والتأثير بالنخب اللبنانية والجماهير، فقد منحه الرئيس فؤاد شهاب الجنسية اللبنانية عام 1963، وأضحى ضيفاً دائماً على الندوة اللبنانية، التي ضمّت في صفوفها النخب السياسية والفكرية اللبنانية، فوصفه ميشال أسمر بـ»رجل الزمن الآتي»، وربطته علاقات مع رجالات الصحافة الكبار، وعلى رأسهم غسّان تويني، وحاول قدر الإمكان الاستقلالية في خطّه السياسيّ، رغم تشبيكه مروحة من العلاقات السياسية الداخلية والخارجية على قاعدة دعم مشروعه التغييريّ.

اتّصف بالجرأة على الاعتراض على تجاوزات السلطة بحقّ مواطنيها الجنوبيين، الذين كانوا يتعرّضون يومياً للاعتداءات الإسرائيلية، فأعلن الإضراب العام لدعم أهل الجنوب، ونشأ نتيجة ذلك «مجلس الجنوب، وشكّل هيئة نصرة الجنوب مع الكاردينال أنطونيوس خريش، ومجموعة كبيرة من علماء ورجال دين مسلمين ومسيحيين، كما أنه اعترض على المقاومة الفلسطينية، رغم تحالفه معها، بعدما زادت تجاوزاتها ضدّ الجنوبيين، فخاطب أبا عمّار قائلاً: «يا أبا عمّار، بعمامتي أحمي المقاومة الفلسطينية، لكن لن أسكت عن تجاوزاتها ضدّ الناس في الجنوب (3).»

وعليه، فالإمام الصدر هو الباعث الحقيقي «للشيعية السياسية اللبنانية»، التي تجعل من البعد الوطني أولوية في حركتها الداخلية، وتجعل من لبنان وطناً نهائياً لجميع أبنائه ومكوناته المختلفة، يجب الدفاع عنه بكل الوسائل حتى لو غلت التضحيات، على قاعدة الشراكة لا الهيمنة، والمشروعية الوطنية لا الفئوية، وهذا ما يفسر الاندفاعة الشيعية في حماية لبنان من الاعتداءات الإسرائيلية، والخطر التكفيري.

هوامش

1ـ عبد الرؤوف سنّو: «حرب لبنان 1975-1990، تفكّك الدولة وتصدّع المجتمع»، المجلد الأول، مرجع سابق، ص: 145.
2 ـ طلال عتريسي: «تغيّر أحوال شيعة لبنان»، في: «الشيعة في لبنان من التهميش إلى المشاركة الفاعلة»، مرجع سابق، ص: 245
3 ـ انظر: «المجلس الإسلامي الشيعي الأعلى وحقوق الطائفة»، كتيّب خاص صادر عن المجلس الإسلامي الشيعي الأعلى، كانون الثاني 1974، ص: 10.
* أستاذ جامعي

Joe Biden-Administration may focus only on internal issues

Joe Biden-Administration may focus only on internal issues

January 26, 2021

by Zamir Awan for the Saker Blog

Congratulations! Joe Biden has been taken oath as the 46th U.S. president, terminating one of the most intense political transitions in modern American history. Due to various internal threats, heavy deployment of troops has turned Capital Washington into a military Garrison. The security measured taken never witnessed in the past. Donald Trump – who has not formally acknowledged the presidency to Mr. Joe Biden – ridiculed the inaugural ceremony, in a departure from longstanding precedent, Vice-President Mr. Pence handed over the Presidency to Mr. Joe Bidden. Mr. Trump has become the first president not to attend his successor’s inauguration since 1869. He left the White House early on Wednesday and flew to the nearby Andrews Air Force base.

President Joe Biden, 78, was born in Scranton, Pennsylvania, in 1942. At the young age of only 29, in 1972, he became one of the youngest persons ever elected to the U.S. Senate. He went on to serve as a six-term senator from Delaware. A well-versed, mature politician, having served under several US-administrations, having gained an in-depth understanding of state affairs, received greetings from all around the world and messages of good wishes. He is a ray of hope for many Americans and hopes for the rest of the world.

Trump-era was full of controversies, chaos, and unrest, especially during the last couple of months, he has created an enormous mess. The hate, turmoil, and internal drive he has left behind him, are an inheritance to President Joe Biden.

Many questions are arising in the minds of many Americans as well as around the globe. Like: Who is the real threat to the U.S. national security? It has been propagated often that the U.S. is facing external threats, especially from China and Russia. These are a phenomenon of the cold war era and vanished long ago. However, the chaotic Capitol riots on January 6 have set an alarming message to the world as a new food for thought. The internal clashes and civil unrest of the U.S. Capitol’s type have switched external military aggression as the primary source of threats to human lives and state stability. It directly affects the collapse of the internal system and the erosion of “democracy” and the typical capitalistic system. Failure of state rit and helplessness of state institutions means a destruction.

President Biden has frequently stressed the term “unity” in his opening address, precisely what’s needed in present China-US relations. Because over the past four years, a small number of anti-China politicians in the United States have misled and lied too much out of their political interests and prompted too much hatred and division, and the people of both countries have all been hurt because of it. Many people of vision from China, the United States, and the international community hope China-US-Russia relations will get back to the right path at an early date. All sides can work together to meet the significant persistent challenges facing the world today. The same is valid in the case of Russia-US relations. President Biden said in his opening address; democracy allows disagreement, and “Disagreement must not lead to disunion”. It is hoped this should also be revealed in his foreign policy. Countries with different political & social systems, cultural backgrounds, and ideologies should and are fully capable of coexisting in harmony, engaging in dialogue and collaboration, and collectively work for world peace, stability and prosperity. President Biden also mentioned that the United States “has too much to heal, much to restore.”

The world welcomes the United States’ return to the Paris Agreement and looking onward to its positive contributions to fighting climate change. The Paris Agreement is an outcome of multilateralism, which united together countries worldwide, reinforces the implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and is an essential legal instrument to guide post-2020 international collaboration on climate change.

U.S. withdrawal from WHO, it is well-known that WHO is a specialized organization in international health and plays a vital leading and coordinating role in international anti-epidemic collaboration. In particular, against the grim situation of the raging COVID-19 Pandemic, the International community welcome the United States’ return to WHO and wishing to strengthen cooperation with the United States and other countries.

The Capitol riots have exploded unprecedented U.S. political and social anarchy like a spark falling into an oil container. Especially while the U.S. claimed global superpower and claimed its leadership role for the whole world, such mishaps were never expected. It has irreversibly, irrecoverably, and unforgettable damaged the reputation and image of the U.S. internationally. Although the chaos dragged the country into its darkest moment was controlled temporarily, it might take decades to restore completely. The FBI is cautioning that it has received information of “armed protests” in all other states in the days to come. It is expected that the departed President Trump may not sit idly, but continue to create more hurdles for President Joe Biden, and ultimately bleeding America. The hate and divide, which he has made in American society, is not easy to mend.

The Capitol invasion, the anti-racism protests that brushed the U.S., and the rapid-growing and uncontrolled epidemic are sufficient to prove that the U.S. is decaying speedily and badly sick. The ailing economy has also impacted adversely and aggregated in the radicalization of the situation. The U.S., punctured with deep flaws, is now being plagued by ongoing internal crises. It’s rational to say the country’s internal division has touched the level where it’s hard to mend. The political and social divergence has produced hatred, high risks of violence, and unrest. Civil war could be ignited at any moment. A country is mostly known for its gun culture, the legislation over guns and ammunition is another factor to endanger the risk of the civil war-like situation.

Americans are known for planting sabotage, subversion, and conspiracies around the world. But due to the Pandemic, they could not travel abroad, and finally, they have to stage it on their soil. It is time for a typical American to feel the pain of such crimes committed in other countries. It is hoped that such things will not be repeated in any part of the world, and human rights must be respected irrespective of race, religion, or ethnicity.

Will American society be restored or continue to be torn apart? Will the U.S. see more turmoil or keep its stability? If the U.S. still can’t sort out the real threat to its national security and flops to diagnose that the biggest enemy of the U.S. is itself, the scenarios of the country will be even miserable. In fact, Americans are the victim of superiority complex and feel shame to acknowledge their weaknesses or flaws. They are reluctant to learn from others and have closed all options to improve their thinking or political system.

Why has the U.S. been stuck in such grave internal crises? One of the reasons is that, for a long time, Washington has spared little interest in addressing domestic problems but has been more excited about shaping ideological adversaries, engaging in geopolitical competition, and provoking major power confrontations. The 2017 U.S. National Security Strategy declared “inter-state strategic competition” as a significant national security concern. Over some time, the domestic problems kept on compiling, and finally, the volcano has to burst one day.

The U.S. sets itself as a “firm” protector of national security and interests by creating a hype about the “China threat” or “Russia threat.” For example, U.S. Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe in December 2020 branded China as “national security threat No.1,” blaming China for posing the greatest threat to America, as well as to democracy and freedom around the globe. U.S. president-elect Joe Biden termed Russia as Washington’s most severe global threat during his election campaign.

The U.S., since the Cold War, has been the single superpower in the world. No matter how hard it tries to expose alleged foreign foes, no external forces can cause such a big country to flop.

But can shaping alleged foreign adversaries bring American unity? Should the U.S. have dedicated more resources and energy to resolving its domestic flaws, getting liberated from ideological prejudice and a sense of supremacy over its political system, and converging more on major power collaboration rather than rivalry, it may have encountered a different domestic situation.

The only element that can cripple the country is its internal crunches. The domestic dilemma the U.S. is facing demonstrations the country’s biggest enemy is itself. The question is: Who dares to speak this out in the U.S.? It is hoped the scholars, intellectuals, politicians, and visionary individuals and professionals may think neutrally and realize their faults and formulate policies to rectify things in the best interest of humankind worldwide.


Author: Prof. Engr. Zamir Ahmed Awan, Sinologist (ex-Diplomat), Editor, Analyst, Non-Resident Fellow of CCG (Center for China and Globalization), National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad, Pakistan. (E-mail: awanzamir@yahoo.com).

Related Articles

Israel seeks sectarian divide of Lebanon and Christians to leave region: Gebran Bassil

by News Desk

2021-01-10

Latest map update of southeast Deir Ezzor

BEIRUT, LEBANON (10:00 P.M.) – The head of the Lebanese Free Patriotic Movement, Gebran Bassil, said on Sunday that “the blockade imposed on Lebanon is the result of the choices the country took to confront Israel, and that is why Israel declared itself a Jewish state.”

According to Bassil, Israel “wants to see sectarian states around it, and wants Christians to leave the region.”

He continued: “What is being asked of us is surrender, not peace. What is presented is a recipe for an internal war and the fragmentation of the surrounding countries, especially Lebanon, because of its Islamic-Christian coexistence.”

Regarding his view of peace, Bassil explained, “Who says that we do not want peace? We are children of the peace doctrine, and peace without justice is a dedication to injustice, and we are with a just, comprehensive and lasting peace, in accordance with the initiative of King Abdullah.”

Bassil previously served as the Lebanese Foreign Minister, but has since come under fire over accusations of corruption and nepotism, as his father in-law is President Michel Aoun.

السيرة الذاتيّة لأمين الجميّل: عندما يصبح الارتهان للخارج «مقاومة» [١]

الأخبار

 أسعد أبو خليل السبت 9 كانون الثاني 2021

السيرة الذاتيّة لأمين الجميّل: عندما يصبح الارتهان للخارج «مقاومة»  [١]
(هيثم الموسوي)

يبدو أنّ السيرة الذاتية باتت موضة متّبعة عند الكثير من سياسيّي لبنان، والبعض يستعين بكتّاب – لكن من دون تسميتهم على الغلاف أو في مقدمة الكتاب (يُسمّونهم هنا “الكتّاب الأشباح”، لكنهم يحظون بتنويه في الكتاب، على الغلاف، أو في المقدمة، وذلك اعترافاً بجهودهم). لا ندري إذا كان أمين الجميّل قد كتبَ الكتاب (أمين الجميّل، “الرئاسة المقاوِمة، مذكرات”) بنفسه، أم انه كتبه بالفرنسيّة واستعان بمترجم، لأنّ الكتاب يبدو أنه مُوجّه للقارئ الغربي أكثر من العربي (هو يشرح لنا مثلاً أنّ رفيق الحريري كان رئيساً لحكومة لبنان أو أنّ “ياسر عرفات المعروف بـ”أبو عمّار”، ص، ٣٠). لكن إذا كان الجميّل يظنّ أنّ كتابه سيلقى صدًى في دول الغرب، فهذا يعني أنّ أمين الجميّل لم يتعلّم بعد من دروس تجربته الرئاسيّة الفاشلة والكارثيّة، والتي كلّفت شعب لبنان الآلاف من الضحايا، وفي زمن لم يعد هناك من مجال لتحميل الشعب الفلسطيني ومقاومته المسؤوليّة عن الحرب الأهليّة. إذا كان الجميّل يظنّ أنه سيكون لكتابه تأثير في الغرب، فهذا يعني أنه لم يفقْ بعد من سكرة تنصيبه رئيساً من قبل جيش الاحتلال الإسرائيلي (لا تعنيني موافقة نواب الرشوة، باستثناء نجاح واكيم وزاهر الخطيب). وأمين الجميّل مملٌّ جداً كمتحدّث، ومملّ أيضاً ككاتب. وهو ينقل أحياناً في سيرته مقاطع من مدوّنته الخاصة، والمقاطع كفيلة بعلاج مرض الأرق. كان عناء القراءة سيقلّ لو أنه لم يستشهد من مدوّناته (المكتوبة بالفرنسيّة).

الكتاب لم يعدّه مؤلّفه وناشره للقراءة. هذا كتاب علاقات عامّة. لا يمكن للمؤلّف الذي وافق على هذا الحجم الكبير للكتاب ووزنه (وهو يُصنَّف هنا بأنه «كتاب طاولة القهوة»، أي الكتب التي يعرضها الناس على طاولة كبيرة في الصالون بغرض الزهو وتكون عادة عن تاريخ الفنون أو الهندسة المعمارية) أن يتوقّع قراءة الكتاب. ووجدتني أجد صعوبة وأنا أحمل الكتاب مستلقياً على الأريكة، لأنّ وزن وحجم الكتاب كانا مزعجيْن جداً، وتقليب الصفحات لم يكن مريحاً البتّة. أراده الجميّل كتاباً يوزّعه على الأمراء والشيوخ والسفراء الذين يزهو بمعرفتهم في متن الكتاب.

المشكلة في الكتاب أننا نتعامل مع كاتب له تاريخ طويل في العمل السياسي وله سمعة غير عطرة في الحقل العام. ومن الصفات التي ارتبطت بالجميّل صفة انعدام المصداقيّة والتحايل والكذب. وبناءً عليه، فإنّ الكثير ممّا جاء في الكتاب يسهل دحضه وتكذيبه وتفنيده. أعطي مثالاً شخصيّاً: يستفيض المؤلّف في كتابه بالاستعانة بشفيق الوزّان للتدليل على أنّ قراراته لم تكن فرديّة أو صادرة فقط عن رئيس الجمهوريّة، كأنّ رئيس الجمهوريّة قبل «الطائف» لم يكن حاكماً مستبدّاً يفعل ما يشاء ولم يكن رئيس الوزراء – خصوصاً في حالة شفيق الوزان – إلا ديكوراً فقط. قابلتُ أمين الجميّل عندما كان رئيساً، في منتصف الثمانينيات، بمبادرة من والدي الذي كان على معرفة به (المحرّر: والد الزميل أسعد هو إحسان أبو خليل الذي شغل منصب الأمين العام لمجلس النواب سابقاً). وكنتُ أجري مقابلات مع سياسيّين في معرض كتابة الأطروحة، واقترح والدي أن أقابل شخصاً اعتبره عدوّاً، واصطحبني إلى قصر بعبدا لهذا الغرض. والذي علّقَ بذهني من مقابلته والحوار الذي جرى (واحتدّ) أنه كان يشيدُ بشفيق الوزان ويزعم أنه يُشركه في كلّ قراراته. وبعد اللقاء، قابلت الوزّان كي أسأله عن ذلك، فما كان من الأخير إلّا أن نفى ذلك بانكسار، وأذكر لهجته الحزينة وهو يقول لي: لم أكن أعلم بما يُدار ولم يتم إشراكي بأيّ من القرارات. طبعاً، الوزان لم يكن رجلاً نزيهاً أو بريئاً، لأنّ فريق الجميّل استماله بطرق لا تختلف عن طرق استمالة رفيق الحريري لأفراد الطبقة الحاكمة في لبنان. كما أذكر من هذا اللقاء لهجة الجميّل عن خصومه عندما قال لي: لا نبيه برّي ولا وليد جنبلاط «يغبّر على صباطي». وعندما تجادلتُ معه كان يقول لوالدي متبرّماً إنني متأثّر بالدعاية الأميركيّة ضدّه.

الكتاب يعتمد على محاضر ووثائق يصنّفها المؤلّف بـ«المحفوظات الشخصيّة»، وبعض هذه هي «مدوّنات خاصّة في سجل اليوميّات». لكنّ هذا التوثيق لا يكفي أو لا يُعوَّل عليه – خصوصاً في حالة الجميّل – إلا إذا فتح الجميّل أرشيفه أمام الباحثين وجعل هذه المحفوظات الشخصيّة متاحة للعموم كي يتسنّى لنا مقارنة الأصل (مثل محاضر اجتماعات) بالفرع، الذي يرد في الكتاب والذي يخضع حكماً لتفسيرات الجميّل المؤاتية له. وهذا ضروري في حالة الجميّل، لأنّه شخص يفتقر إلى الحدّ الأدنى من «التأمّل الداخلي» كي لا نقول إلى نقد الذات الذي هو أبعد ما يكون عنه. هذا رجل عمل في السياسة، أو ورثها مع منزل العائلة في بكفيا، من دون أن يعترف بخطأ واحد له، أو حتى هفوة. هذا رجل مُصاب بعقدة لوم العالم كلّه على أخطائه والكوارث التي تسبّبَ بها. لم يكن يمكن أن يرتكب رئيس جمهوريّة وأن يتسبّب بإراقة دماء كما ارتكب وتسبّب أمين الجميّل (الاستثناء الوحيد قد يكون أخاه بشير لو تسنّى له الحكم). العالم كلّه خذله، في الغرب والشرق، وكلّ الأطراف في لبنان خذلته، في المقلبَيْن، وهو وحده المحق. خذوا شعاره المُضحك: «أعطونا السلام وخذوا ما يدهش العالم» (والشعار وُضع بالإنكليزيّة – هناك تكملة للشعار وهي «مرّة أخرى»، أي أنّ لبنان أدهش العالم من قبل. والشعار هو ببساطة طلب الجميّل من دول الغرب أن تسلّم له لبنان على طبق من فضّة (أو ذهب إذ أنه يفضّل الأنفس)).

يبدأ نسج الأساطير في الكتاب مبكراً، فتصبح هجرة العائلة من لبنان إلى مصر مجرّد طلب للحريّة (المضرّجة، على قول أحمد شوقي). هذه كما يحب الأميركيّون أن يردّدوا مقولة إنّ الهجرة إلى أميركا هي دائماً طلبٌ للحريّة. أي أنّ الفقراء اللبنانيّين الذين توافدوا، قبل وبعد المجاعة، إلى «العالم الجديد» كانوا ينشدون الحريّة. تقرأ ذلك وتظنّ أنّ كلّ مهاجر لبناني وأفراد عائلة الجميّل، هم أمثال هادي العلوي أو غسان كنفاني أو جورج حجّار، كتّاب راديكاليون ثوريّون لا تتّسع البلدان لهم بسبب ثوريّتهم ومجاهرتهم بطلب التغيير الجذري. الهجرة اللبنانية هي بهدف تحسين الوضع المادي وطلب الرزق. يقول إنّ هجرة جدّه كانت بسبب مطالبته بالاستقلال، لكن ليس هناك من مصدر أو دليل على أنّ هجرة جدّ أمين وشقيق جدّه كانت بسبب نشاطات نضاليّة لهما (ص. ١٩). ثم إنّ سبب مطاردة السلطات العثمانيّة لبعض اللبنانيّين كانت أحياناً لأنّ هؤلاء كانوا من دعاة الاستعمار الأوروبي وليسوا من دعاة الحرّية والاستقلال الناجز.

يبدأ نسج الأساطير في الكتاب مبكراً فتصبح هجرة العائلة من لبنان إلى مصر مجرّد طلب للحريّة


ويبلغ الطموح بأمين حدّاً يجعله يحاول أن يُقنع القارئ أنّه أديب ومفكّر. لكن، يا أمين: أنتَ في العمل السياسي منذ السبعينيّات، والناس يعرفونك ويسمعونك وقد خبِروك عن كثب في النيابة وفي قصر بعبدا. فيقول لنا إنّه تأثّر بشيشرون قبل أن ينتقل إلى جبران وتيار دو شاردان (استشهاد كمال جنبلاط بالأخير جعله مُحبَّذاً من من متصنّعي الثقافة في لبنان). ويزيد أمين أنّه تأثّر بالأدب العربي من ابن الرومي إلى الجاحظ إلى وليّ الدين يكن. لكنّ الجميّل يسمّي الأخير – الذي أحبَّ فيه تمرّده وشجاعته – «نور الدين يكن» (ص. ٢٠). هذا كأن يقول المرء إنّه تأثّر بكتابات جبران سمير جبران. ويحشو الكاتب في نصّه استشهادات لمفكّرين بمناسبة وغير مناسبة: واضح أنّ المؤلّف اقتنى مجلّداً من مجلّدات «كتاب الاستشهادات»، وهو الكتاب الذي يستعمله رجال أعمال وسياسيون من أجل حشو خطبهم باستشهادات لمشاهير الكتاب والمفكّرين، لإضفاء طابعٍ عميق على أنفسهم. ثمّ، إذا كان أمين قد تأثّر بالأدب العربي وبالفلاسفة، فلماذا ليس هناك من أثر لذلك، لا في خطبه ولا في أحاديثه، وحتماً ليس في هذا الكتاب.
وفي روايته عن علاقة رياض الصلح بوالده، تخال أنّ المثياق الوطني – على شناعته كتركيبة نفاق وطني – لم يكن بين الصلح وبشارة الخوري، بقدر ما كان بين الصلح وبيار الجميّل، وهذا يتناقض مع المعروف عن الظروف التي أحاطت بالميثاق (راجع كتاب باسم الجسر عن الميثاق، مثلاً). يدخل تعظيم شأن بيار الجميّل في نطاق المبالغات التي يتّصف بها الكتاب. ويشيد بكميل وزلفا شمعون، لأنّهما «كأنهما ينتميان إلى طبقة النبلاء، وأنّهما خير من يمثّل بلدنا» ويعتزّ بـ«المظهر البريطاني» الذي ورثته زلفا عن جدّتها (ص. ٢٣). هذه معايير أمين. ويزعم في روايته الموجزة عن حرب ١٩٥٨ الأهليّة في لبنان، أنّ عبد الناصر كان يريد إلحاق لبنان بالجمهوريّة العربيّة المتحدة (ص. ٢٣). الحقيقة أنّه كان هناك قطاع كبير في لبنان يريد الوحدة مع الجمهورية الواعدة، لكنّ عبد الناصر رفض حتى مناقشة الموضوع وكان دائماً يصدّ الوحدويّين اللبنانيّين بالقول إنّ للبنان «وضعه الخاص». وهو يعترف في ما بعد في الكتاب بأنّ عبد الناصر رأى أنّه من ««الحكمة» إبعاد لبنان عن النزاع المسلّح» (ص. ٣٠)، وفي الحقيقة أنّ عبد الناصر كان يعلم أنّ نصف لبنان على الأقل (كما اليوم) أقرب إلى إسرائيل منه إلى أعداء إسرائيل، وكان يخشى أن تؤدّي مشاركة لبنان إلى تفجيره.

أطرف ما يمكن أن يمرّ على القارئ في هذا الكتاب هو هذا المقطع: «تضاعفت اتصالاتي ولا سيّما مع جامعة هارفرد التي أصبحت «مربط خيلي»، وما زلتُ أحتفظ معها بعلاقات ودّية» (ص. ٢٥). دعني أوضّح للقارئ: طبعاً، يحقّ للقارئ أن يتساءل عن سبب إقامة جامعة هارفرد علاقة مع أمين الجميّل، غير المعروف بالعلم والمعرفة والفكر. هناك في جامعة هارفرد، كما في بعض الجامعات، أقسام غير أكاديميّة: مثل «كليّة كنيدي» للسياسة أو «مركز العلاقات الدوليّة». و«كليّة كنيدي» مثلاً، تمنح وريقات (سيرتفيكيت) وليس شهادات أكاديميّة يُعتدّ بها، ويستطيع الذي يريد أن يدفع أقساطاً باهظة مقابل شهر أو فترة دراسيّة صيفيّة (كما فعل نجيب ميقاتي أو سامي الجميّل) أن يحصل على هذه الورقة كي يضعها على سيرته الذاتيّة ويوهم الناس أنه يحمل شهادة أكاديميّة من جامعة هارفرد وهذا تزوير طبعاً. أما «مركز العلاقات الدولية» الذي تحدّث عنه أمين هنا، فهو يستضيف دوريّاً مجرمي حرب وزعماء ميليشيات وحكّاماً بصفة «مسؤولين رفيعين» من العالم. وأذكر أنني في عام ١٩٨٩، عندما كنتُ أعمل في التدريس في مدينة بوسطن كنتَ أرى مجرم الحرب الإسرائيلي، أميرام ميتزنا (وكان الحاكم العسكري في الضفة زمن الانتفاضة الأولى) في مترو محطة جامعة هارفرد، وقد يكون أمين تزامن معه هناك. أما أن يقول إنّ جامعة هارفرد هي «مربط خيله»، فهذا يعطيكم فكرة عن عقليّة هذا الرجل. لا، ويزهو أنه تعرّف إلى الأكاديمي العنصري، صامويل هانتغتون، والذي أصبح اسمه منبوذاً في الأكاديميا الأميركيّة والعالميّة. لكن أمين صافحه، كما صافح ألان ديلون وخوليو إيغليسياس عندما زارا لبنان أثناء رئاسته عندما بشّرنا بنهاية الحرب الأهليّة.

سرديّة أمين عن الحرب الأهليّة هي النمط الكلاسيكي للرواية الانعزاليّة بحذافيرها. يُقال لنا إنّ الشعب اللبناني كان يعيش بوئام ومحبّة مع الشعب الفلسطيني، قبل أن تنطلق ثورته (ص. ٣٠). طبعاً، الحقيقة هي مغايرة لما يقوله آل الجميل عن تاريخ لبنان (المعاصر أو السحيق، لا فرق). التاريخ عند هؤلاء هو أسطورة لا تمتّ بصلة للعلم، كما أنّ إيمانهم بالسيادة لا يتعارض عندهم مع التحالف مع إسرائيل. الشعب الفلسطيني كان يعيش سجيناً في مخيّمات تحت وطأة النعل العكسري لـ«المكتب الثاني» الذي لم يمانع في تطبيق عقيدة فؤاد شهاب، والتي كان مفادها أن يتآمر لبنان سرّاً مع إسرائيل ضدّ عبد الناصر وضدّ المقاومة الفلسطينيّة في ما بعد. والشعب اللبناني لم يكن يكنّ التعاطف مع الشعب الفلسطيني لأنّ السخرية من المعاناة الفلسطينيّة والتشكيك في وجع النكبة كانا سائديْن (كانت البرامج الكوميدية التلفزيونيّة تسخر من البرنامج الإذاعي الذي كان يتبادل فيه أبناء الشعب الفلسطيني في مخيّمات لبنان مع الأقارب تحت الاحتلال التحيّات والتطمينات) وبين كلّ الدول العربيّة، كان لبنان هو الأقسى من دون استثناء في تعاطيه مع اللاجئين الفلسطينيّين (يمكن مراجعة كتاب لوري برند «الفلسطينيّون في العالم العربي»). بوقاحة شديدة، يقول عضو الحزب الذي كان منذ الخمسينيّات (على الأقل) يتلقّى الدفوعات من إسرائيل لتمويل حملاته الانتخابيّة إنّ الشعب اللبناني كان يشاطر الفلسطينيّين «أحلامهم باستعادة وطنهم السليب». هل كان الجميّل وصحبه يشاطرون شعب فلسطين هذه الأحلام وهم يتلقّون التمويل من العدوّ؟

ويستشهد أمين الجميّل بمقاله لجدّه أمين الجميّل في مجلّة «البشير»، في عام ١٩٣٠، كأنّ ذلك يشفع للتحالف الذي عقده حزب «الكتائب» مع العدو بعد سنوات. وفي غياب النص الكامل للمقالة لا يمكن إلّا التعليق على الاستشهاد الذي نشره أمين في الكتاب، وفيه يظهر حرصٌ على المستوطنين اليهود إذ يقول أمين (الجد) إنّ وعد بلفور يمكن أن يكون عثرة أمام «راحة اليهود وهناء جيرانهم العرب»، ويضيف: «لم نكتم اليهود خوفنا على مستقبلهم» (ص. ٣١). لكن يجب تعليق الحكم بانتظار قراءة النص الكامل. ويقول أمين (المؤلّف): «عندما بدأت المخيّمات الفلسطينيّة بالغليان، اعترانا الذهول والحيرة» (ص. ٣١). لماذا؟ لم يكن غليان المخيّمات متوقّعاً، على ضوء القمع الذي كان يتعرّض له شعب فلسطين والاعتداءات على نسوة المخيّمات من قبل زعران المكتب الثاني، أو التنكيل والاعتقال والتعذيب التي كان يتعرّض لها الشعب الفلسطيني عندما يتظاهر دعماً لحقوقه؟ ولا يخفي أمين نزعة الاستعلاء الطبقي على أهالي المخيّمات فيعبّر عن استفظاعه قائلاً: «إذا بمستخدم أو عامل فلسطيني عادي كنا نعرفه منذ فترة طويلة يتحوّل فجأة تحت أنظارنا إلى مغوار متغطرس يتقلّد رشاش كلاشينكوف» (ص. ٣١). كان يريد من الشعب الفلسطيني في المخيّمات أن يبقى عاملاً وأن تبقى النسوة عاملات في المنازل وأن يقبل اللاجئون بتواطؤ السلطة اللبنانية مع عدوّهم.

وتبلغ الوقاحة بالجميّل في تزويره لتاريخ الحرب الأهليّة حدّ اتهام ضحايا اعتداءات «الكتائب» بما كان أوغاده يقومون به على «كوع الكحّالة». ومن المعروف أنّ ميليشيا «الكتائب» كانت ظاهرة الوجود في الكحّالة ولها مآثر طويلة في التجاوزات والجرائم ضدّ المارّين في الطريق الذي لا مفرّ منه بين لبنان وسوريا. وتعرّضت قوافل وسيّارات فلسطينيّة إلى اعتداءات دوريّة كما تعرّضت شاحنة تحمل نسخاً من القرآن إلى الحرق. كان الكوع هو المنبر الذي أراد حزب «الكتائب» أن يُعلن فيه خروج ميليشياه السرّية إلى العلن. والحزب تخصّص في تاريخه في تجنّب مواجهة الفدائيّين وجهاً لوجه، وفي التركيز على الكمائن وعلى المجازر ضدّ المخيّمات الفلسطينيّة. لا، يزعم الجميّل في كذبة صفيقة بأنّ الفدائيّين كانوا يتوجّهون إلى الكحّالة – التي هي معقل أوغاد «الكتائب» – وذلك فقط من أجل استفزازهم (ص. ٣٤). هل يُعقل أن يصدِّق المرء ذلك؟ قد تسري هذه الكذبة على القارئ الفرنسي الفاشي من أصدقاء الجميّل عندما يقرأ الكتاب بنسخته الفرنسية، لكن أيّ قارئ عربي يمكن أن يصدّقه؟ هذه الكذبة لا تختلف عن الكذبة الانعزاليّة المألوفة التي يكرّرها الجميّل عن أن مخيّم تل الزعتر المُحاصر (من كلّ الجهات من قبل مناطق ذات نفوذ كتائبي وشمعوني) كان يقوم باستفزاز محيطه، لا العكس. والأكيد أنّ هذه الصيغة من البروباغندا كان العدوّ الإسرائيلي يزوّد «الكتائب» بها كي يستعين بها للتحضير للمجازر التي توالت ضدّ المخيّمات الفلسطينيّة – وكانت هذه المجازر تتزامن مع مجازر لسلاح الطيران الإسرائيلي الذي أحرق في مطلع الحرب الأهليّة مخيّم النبطيّة عن بكرة أبيه – لم يعد لهذا المخيم من وجود اليوم.

وعندما يتطرّق الجميّل إلى الحملة الوحشيّة التي شنّها الجيش اللبناني ضدّ المخيّمات الفلسطينيّة في أيّار / مايو ١٩٧٣ (وكان ذلك بالتأكيد بالتنسيق مع سلطات العدو وكانت رئاسة الجمهوريّة تنسّق مع العدو في حينه، كما اكتشفنا من وثائق أميركيّة أُفرجَ عنها – ثم إنّ الحملة أتت بعد أسابيع فقط من إنزال قوات العدو في قلب الرملة البيضاء والتوجّه نحو فردان من أجل اغتيال قادة في المقاومة، ثم المغادرة عن طريق البحر ومن دون إطلاق رصاصة واحدة من قبل الجيش اللبناني الذي كان يقوده إسكندر غانم، الذي كان قائد منطقة بيروت في عام ١٩٦٨ عندما أحرق العدو طائرات لبنانية مدنيّة بالرغم من ورود تحذيرات إلى لبنان حول هذا العدوان قبل حدوثه). وتلك الحملة (في عام ١٩٧٣) كانت محاولة لتكرار أيلول الأسود في لبنان، لكن الذي منع ذلك – بالإضافة إلى الكفاءة القتاليّة للمقاومة – هو الانشطار الطائفي اللبناني بالإضافة إلى تأييد واسع للمقاومة من قبل قطاعات كبيرة للشعب اللبناني (وليس المسلمون فقط كما توحي دعاية الفرق الانعزاليّة). ويهتم الجميّل في هذا الصدد بإيراد عدد «ضحايا» الجيش اللبناني (كيف يكون الجيش ضحيّة وهو كان المعتدي؟) من دون إيراد عدد ضحايا، ليس فقط المقاومة الفلسطينيّة، بل أيضاً المدنيّين العزّل في المخيّمات (ص. ٣٩). ويؤيّد الجميّل خيار الاستعانة بطيران الجيش اللبناني الذي لم يُستعمل يوماً ضدّ العدو الإسرائيلي. ويحرص (على عادة الفكر الطائفي للحزب الذي يمثّله) على ذكر اسم عزيز الأحدب في تلك الحملة ضدّ المخيّمات، فقط لأنّه سنّي وهو يريد أن يقول إنّ هذا المسلم السنّي كان مشاركاً. طبعاً، لم يكن الأحدب (ذو الفكر الانعزالي الفينيقي) يصنع القرار في ذلك الحين، ولكنّه كان حليفاً لليمين الانعزالي، لكن ذلك لم يمنعه في عام ١٩٧٦ من التعاون مع حركة «فتح» عندما أعلن انقلابه (التلفزيوني) الشهير.
(يتبع)

* كاتب عربي (حسابه على «تويتر» asadabukhalil@)

Right-Wing Generals Calling for a Military Coup: A Long History

Photo: Flickr/The White House

By Wayne Madsen
Source: Strategic Culture

History books record that there were a mere handful of cases in which generals plotted the overthrow of a far-right regime to institute moderate or leftist government. In the vast majority of cases, however, generals’ putsches are fascist affairs having dire consequences for the rule of law and human rights. Retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, the former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and Donald Trump national security adviser, circulated an on-line petition calling for Trump to suspend the U.S. Constitution, declare martial law, and have the Pentagon oversee a “re-vote” of the presidential election, one that would assuredly have Trump “win” over the current President-elect, former Vice President Joe Biden.

The Flynn petition also warned of a “civil war” if his demands were not carried out. The petition stated: “Failure to [suspend the Constitution, declare martial law, and conduct a re-vote] could result in massive violence and destruction on a level not seen since the Civil War.” The petition adds, “Limited Martial Law is clearly a better option than Civil War!” Flynn was recently pardoned by Trump for his criminal conviction of lying to federal investigators.

Flynn’s dangerous anti-constitutional rhetoric has not been seen in the United States since the Civil War. To be sure, there have been right-wing generals who defied various post-Civil War administrations in the past – Army General Douglas MacArthur, Army Major General Edwin Walker, Air Force General Curtis LeMay, and Army Major General John Singlaub are four of the most notorious in that respect – none have come close to Flynn in advancing insubordination to outright insurrection and sedition.

MacArthur had his showdown with President Harry S Truman during the Korean War and Truman fired him. Walker violated the Hatch Act by persuading troops in his command to vote against Democrats and distributing material published by the far-right John Birch Society to his troops. President John F. Kennedy sought and received Walker’s resignation of his officer’s commission in 1961. Walker came the closest to committing outright insurrection when he participated in white segregationist violent upheaval at the University of Mississippi over the admission of a black student in 1962. Walker was arrested by U.S. Marshals in Oxford, Mississippi and charged with four federal criminal counts, including inciting insurrection against the United States and conspiracy to overthrow the laws of the United States. The charges were later dropped. Walker’s political career ultimately ended after his arrest on two occasions, in 1976 and 1977, for “lewdness” in public men’s toilets in his hometown of Dallas, Texas.

Strategic Air Command chief LeMay clashed with President Kennedy over LeMay’s insistence that the United States launch a nuclear bombing campaign against Cuba during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. President Lyndon Johnson forced LeMay to retire in 1965. LeMay served as vice presidential running mate on the extreme right-wing American Independent Party presidential ticket of candidate George Wallace in 1968. The ticket, which was endorsed by General Walker, received 46 electoral votes. Singlaub, the chief of staff for U.S. Forces in Korea, publicly argued with President Jimmy Carter in 1977 over U.S. troop withdrawals from the Korean Peninsula. As a result, Carter relieved Singlaub of his command and ultimately forced him to retire. Singluab associated himself with the far-right activities of the John Birch Society and other extremist groups.

As far right as were the politics of Walker, LeMay, and Singlaub, for the most part and unlike General Flynn, they tended to work within the political system. Flynn’s calling for a free and U.S. presidential election to be overturned and a military regime to take over running a new election is straight out of the playbook of every novel and film that dealt with a right-wing military coup seizing control over America’s instruments of political power from civilian leadership. These include the novel and film “Seven Days in May,” the television movie “Shadow on the Land,” and the film noir black comedy “Dr. Strangelove.”

Military coups are almost never operations designed to preserve or enact democratic rule. In only three cases have coups been designed to move politics to the center or left: the July 20, 1944 unsuccessful plot by German military commanders to assassinate and overthrow Adolf Hitler’s Nazi government in Germany (Operation VALKYRIE), the 1974 Carnation Revolution in Portugal that ousted a right-wing dictatorship and replaced it with a democratic Socialist-Communist coalition government, and the 1981 military counter-coup that successfully put down the 23-F Francoist military putsch attempt in Spain.

Flynn’s call for a coup in the United States places him in the camp of some of the vilest military fascist tyrants who have seized power in nations around the world. Such regimes were supported by civilian paramilitaries that acted as street vigilantes and thugs against pro-democracy opposition parties and leaders. Such would-be “enforcers” for a Trump/Flynn dictatorship today routinely issue death threats against public health officials, health care workers, state governors, mayors, municipal and county council and board members, and election officials around the United States. Fascist enablers like Trump and Flynn have encouraged their supporters to see those trying to ensure free and fair elections and those trying to protect the health of the public as a common enemy to be dealt with by intimidation and violence.

The world has seen the blood-soaked results of paramilitaries and civilian vigilantes teaming up with military dictators to enforce fascist rule. Trump and his supporters are encouraging a similar alliance in the United States. This unholy alliance comprises neo-Nazis, white nationalists, police officers and sheriff’s deputies, and other various social misfits and dead enders. These are the shock troops for the fascist ideology of Trumpism.

Every fascist regime requires its violent enforcers. For Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany, the enforcers were the SA (“Sturmabteilung” – the Storm Troopers or “Brownshirts”), the SS (“Schutzstaffel”), and the Gestapo (“Geheime Staatspolizei” or “secret state police”).These paramilitaries were aided by the civilian police. Spanish dictator Francisco Franco had his Falange Militia or “Blueshirts.” Italian fascist leader Benito Mussolini’s power was bolstered by his Voluntary Militia for National Security or “Blackshirts.” Haitian dictator Francois Duvalier, also known as “Papa Doc,” was backed by his personal militia, the “Tonton Macoute.” Chilean dictator General Augusto Pinochet had his Patria y Libertad (PyL) militia. For the Brazilian military junta, vigilante police death squads carried out targeted political assassinations of opponents of the regime (these vigilante police gangs have reformed and now support the far-right president, Jair Bolsonaro). Nicaragua’s fascist dictator Anastasio Somoza relied on his National Guard militia to retain power until the 1979 Sandinista Revolution. Other tyrants and dictators around the world were supported by their own militias and paramilitary brigades of civilians and on-duty and off-duty police.

Trump has cobbled together a similar violent force to intimidate his opponents and public officials. They include the fascist Proud Boys, the white nationalist “Boogaloo Bois,” the Ku Klux Klan, the American Nazi Party, Atomwaffen Division, White Aryan Resistance, American Identity Movement/Identity Evropa, Patriot Prayer, Light Foot Militia, Forza Nuova – USA, National Policy Institute, Oath Keepers, 3 Percenters, and various regional and state militias and groups, such as the Michigan Militia, Wolverine Watchmen, Virginia Militia, Georgia 229 Militia, Pennsylvania Volunteer Militia, Wisconsin Kenosha Guard. Through the auspices of criminally charged former Trump chief strategist Steve Bannon, the embryonic Trump militias have been able to coordinate their activities with likeminded groups in Europe, Latin America, Australia, and South Africa.

With General Flynn and his confederates calling for a military coup in the United States, Trump’s paramilitary militia-in-formation is waiting for the call to arms to wage civil war and draw blood on America’s streets. That is the enemy every loyal American now must face and deal with swiftly and with certitude.

Trump declares civil war for voter integrity in breaking (or broken) USA

Trump declares civil war for voter integrity in breaking (or broken) USA
Ramin Mazaheri is currently covering the US elections. He is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. He is the author of ‘Socialism’s Ignored Success: Iranian Islamic Socialism’ as well as ‘I’ll Ruin Everything You Are: Ending Western Propaganda on Red China’, which is also available in simplified and traditional Chinese.

December 05, 2020

by Ramin Mazaheri and crossposted with PressTV

by Ramin Mazaheri and crossposted with PressTV

The idea that Donald J. Trump could be (even the guy cleaning up behind the horse of) a white knight acting in favor of integrity is laughable, hypocritical and certainly controversial, but that is what a disaster United States political culture truly is.

The man who has been nationally lampooned as a rich buffoon and denigrated as a real estate shark for decades prior to 2016 is now being held up by half the country as a moral leader and living “founding father”. In the American context these persons may somehow even be proven somewhat right, but that is what a disaster United States political culture truly is.

Since the November 3rd vote we’ve all been asking: Where’s Donald? Only future historians can tell us if Trump was right to wait a month before finally formally declaring that he would litigate in order to ensure a judicial verification of a highly- and long-disputed vote. That’s a long time for moral reflection, but in the context of today’s hyper-hyper-polarised US politics it’s been half a lifetime.

In the disputed election of 2000 Al Gore conceded, allegedly for the good of the country, on December 13th – the day before the Electoral College voted that year. This year the College must also cast their ballot on December 14th. On December 2nd Trump gave a 45-minute speech in which he promised to not concede, also allegedly for the good of the country.

What Trump’s speech means is that the US constitution insists that the nation’s political drama is about to explode.

Probably even sooner than December 14: December 8th is known as the “safe harbor” date, because all states must have resolved their disputes by then. Justified or not, they do not currently appear to be resolved satisfactorily for scores of millions of Americans.

For the average Bidenite the blinders are completely on – perhaps they never even could see anything “over there” in Trumpland, which for some reason is a foreign country to many Bidenites. They insist that, “It’s over”. That’s fine – nobody is paying them to give objective, hard-news, daily journalism. They’re free to editorialise all they want. However, saying, “It’s over, Biden won,” is gypsy future-telling, a way to censor political conversation and it also ignores the historical gravity of Trump’s speech – this election is not “over” in any sort of historically-normal way whatsoever: What US election has ever been “over” like this?

Maybe Trump’s speech will deserve to be ignored in the history books? Maybe it will go down as the day history was changed? As this is my editorial I’m entitled to make whatever wild prediction I like, but I’d rather use it to point out just how badly my US journalist colleagues are performing at the craft (not profession) of journalism.

It was certainly quite a speech, indeed

The sitting US president publicly blasted the nation’s electoral process as having allowed, “fraud and abuse to occur on a scale never seen before”.

To my American journalist colleagues: that’s news.

Countless top American journalists refused to report on it. I’ll pass on a couple highlights:

“As president I have no higher duty than to defend the laws and the constitution of the United States,” said Trump, relating a political fact. “That is why I’m determined to protect our election system, which is now under coordinated assault and siege,” said Trump, making a claim for which he’ll have to provide overwhelming evidence, and quickly. “This is not just about honouring the votes of 74 million Americans who voted for me – it’s about ensuring that Americans can have faith in this election and in all future elections,” said Trump, in a statement which is seen in America as either patriotism or shameless partisan duplicity.

Trump listed a litany of alleged offences made across the country and claimed to have massive amounts of evidence to support him – these claims will have to be decided in court, definitively. Initially, however, they are decided in the court of public opinion.

However, the problem here is that US corporate media (and the tiny amount of state media) was so flagrantly biased against Trump’s speech that we probably can’t find 12 untainted people to fill a jury for one the many, many trials Trump seems to demand.

Acting crazy”, “Propaganda”, “My God, He’s Completely Insane” – this all journalistically-false but very real headlines from the very top US media. This is truly treatment reserved for foreign leaders who are currently threatening war on your country, not your own president.

Amazingly, CNN wouldn’t even air the speech. Is that the last pound on the head of the 2016-begun nail in the coffin for viewing them as “America’s television media of record”? The problem is: what other US corporate entity is a better alternative?

The reason I – for the first time – feel comfortable using the term “civil war” to describe the modern US is: 74 million Trump voters may now see themselves as being attacked and violated. Any sober analysis shows that the November 3rd vote (like it or not) was a concretisation and not a repudiation of “Trumpism” – they prevailed at the state legislative and executive levels, they made gains in the House of Representatives, they will likely hold on to Senate, judges at both the Supreme Court and local level are dominated by conservatives – they won everywhere but the US presidency, in fact. Therefore, anyone with a sense of fair play and tolerance realises that they deserve to be taken seriously; anyone with a survival instinct may realise that trying to push them around may find that they are quickly outnumbered in many areas.

But media opinion and public opinion don’t have any real weight in court. However, a fatal mistake often being made abroad is assuming that US public opinion is as anti-Trump as media opinion is. One merely needs to refer to the November 3rd results to see how incorrect that idea is. Seventy-four million Trumpers do have their media, but it is certainly not read outside of the US and must be searched for domestically.

One doesn’t have to like Trump or Trumpism, but calling them all “insane” is a way to start a fight, no?

I have never given much credence to the idea that the US is going to explode in election-related violence – above all, this was a sensationalistic US media ploy to demonise Trumpism, to distract from real issues, to get ratings and to increase Democratic turnout – but the events of this week definitely push the US further along that path. It is still very far off, I must add.

Conclusion: the current state of two different battles – the electoral and the cultural

Electorally: I am not going to waste your time by falsely claiming all of Trump’s allegations have either no merit or much merit – only a hysterical partisan is doing that. We should assume that those making false election claims in court will be punished for daring to make false claims.

I will note that I don’t believe US elections can withstand serious scrutiny, and that they were repeatedly ranked by places like Harvard as the worst of the core Western democracies. Allegations of widespread voter fraud – like here in Chicago – laughingly go back to the time of Kennedy, and all Americans know this.

On the other hand, I also note that if Joe Biden’s projected victory is reversed due to proven election fraud this would be not just a “once in a century” story but even more astounding than even that, in the American context. I’m not one to bet on the longest of long shots, unless I feel like wasting some money.

Anyway, that is all just journalistic hot air: courts have to decide on evidence, which is allegedly not all presented – we should not declare prematurely. After Gore conceded prematurely they found that 14% of African-American Floridians had their ballots questionably tossed – that’s not exactly “voter fraud”, but it certainly does render the 2000 American presidential results “fraudulent”.

Nobody here cares about though, strangely? Maybe not even African-American Floridians?

Maybe it’s the media, which now includes the appallingly censorious Twitter and Facebook?

But the inexorable, oppressive, inescapable (and undoubtedly pro-Bidenite) mantra here is “we need to quickly move on”, exactly as it was in America exactly 20 years ago.

Since 2000 nothing is learned; nothing is paid for; no reparations are given; no apologies are made; if America does it or wants it no rules apply because everything they do is exceptional, but only because they live in a vacuum divorced from history and just consequences.

Electorally: The rest of the world is advised to keep waiting – who knows what whims an imperial hegemon will take?

Culturally: I believe it might somewhat explode here given the content of Trump’s speech, the seeming impossibility of coordinating a proper & broadly-accepted judicial review of the vote before the upcoming Electoral College procedures (these dates are prescribed in the US Constitution and would require an already do-nothing Congress to modify), as well as the total war against it from the US media class.

But the math is simple: Two-thirds of the country voted. That means one-third of the country doesn’t care and probably wants it over. One third went to Biden. So it’s fair to guess that for almost 70% of the voting eligible population, “It’s over”. Really. Any talk of civil war must include this endemic American apathy, caused by the atrociousness inequality of their antiquated and aristocratic system, which implicitly sides with the status quo in its irresponsible sloth.

A reversal of Biden’s projected win implies, as I wrote, something of a revolution. In history civil wars have been launched by one-third of the population, but winning them without recourse to secession is certainly rare, and a change installed by only one-third of the population is not a revolution at all. Certainly, any Trumper “explosion” would have to be entirely grassroots, as the media wouldn’t cover it any more than they covered Trump’s historic speech, and it would have to be nearly clandestine, as Facebook and Twitter are now so incredibly and heavily censored. Finally, the US is imperialist and thus there is no revolution possible at all – Trumper or otherwise – they are barely able to have a functioning “democracy with imperialist characteristics”.

I can report that despite what a disaster United States political culture truly is the US system – like it or not – certainly seems to be democratically supported by the (highly propagandised) majority, therefore the world is obligated to respect its processes and results.

The problem for the entire world is that many inside the US do not or will not support the processes surrounding this 2020 presidential election, and that implies either broken processes or a broken culture.

When the imperial hegemon’s culture is broken that is either cause for concern or celebration, depending on your class. And maybe the US is not broken, but just breaking?

*************************************************************

Results are in: Americans lose, duopoly wins, Trumpism not merely a cult (1/2) – November 5, 2020

Results are in: Americans lose, duopoly wins, Trumpism not merely a cult (2/2) – November 6, 2020

4 years of anti-Trumpism shaping MSM vote coverage, but expect long fight – November 7, 2020

US partitioned by 2 presidents: worst-case election scenario realized – November 9, 2020

A 2nd term is his if he really wants it, but how deep is Trump’s ‘Trumpism’? – November 10, 2020

CNN’s Jake Tapper: The overseer keeping all journalists in line (1/2) – November 13, 2020

‘Bidenism’ domestically: no free press, no lawyer, one-party state? (2/2) – November 15, 2020

Where’s Donald? When 40% of voters cry ‘fraud’ you’ve got a big problem – November 17, 2020

The 4-year (neoliberal) radicalisation of US media & Bidenites’ ‘unradical radicalism’ – November 22, 2020

80% of US partisan losers think the last 2 elections were stolen – December 3, 2020

Trump will continue political civil war to maintain his relevance: analyst

November 20, 2020 – 21:12

By Amir Mohammad Esmaeili

 TEHRAN – Jim W. Dean, the managing editor of Veterans Today, tells the Tehran Times that Donald Trump is going to continue the American political civil war to maintain his relevance, and also to help protect himself from prosecution. 

“There are many, even in U.S. intelligence, who have considered him a national security threat, and who fully expect him to profit from selling U.S. classified material for his personal interest and attempt to rebuild himself after he leaves office as the ideology enforcer of the Republican party, as a big Mafia Don, even those running in primary elections must kneel and kiss the ring of ‘Don’ Trump,” notes Dean, who comes from an old military family going back to the American Revolution.

Here is the full text of the interview:

Q: How do you analyze the U.S. presidential election and its following consequences? 
 
A: It is both a relief and a torment. The thought of four more years of an autocratic Trump regime would have put 79 million Americans into a depression. And not the least of that would be because we have been looking forward to his losing his presidential immunity so the legal cases, including criminal ones, can proceed against him and his family. 

“There are many, even in U.S. intelligence, who have considered him (Trump) a national security threat, and who fully expect him to profit from selling U.S. classified material for his personal profit.”Hundreds of retired ex-prosecutors are ready to assist in this process, people who have served both Republican and Democratic administrations. They are joined in the belief that Trump should be made an example of to dissuade any future autocratic new president thinking that he can follow in Trump’s shoes.

There are many, even in U.S. intelligence, who have considered him a national security threat, and who fully expect him to profit from selling U.S. classified material for his personal profit and attempt to rebuild himself after he leaves office as the ideology enforcer of the Republican party, as a big Mafia Don, even those running in primary elections must kneel and kiss the ring of ‘Don’ Trump.

Q: How do you see the current chaotic situation in the U.S.?

A: The chaos in the election count is subsiding. The Washington Post, three months prior to the election had revealed the White House plan to contest the election due to Trump being so behind in the polls. It has turned into a circus that will stain the Republican party for years. 

Their original plan was focused on challenging a close election, but Rudy Giuliani is now viewed as taking a wrecking ball to that strategy. He chose to flood the courts with scores of election fraud claims, many of them based on Twitter social media platform reports alone. 

That, combined with Trump’s tweeting about “The Steal”, blew up the original plan with almost all of the early challenge cases being thrown out for lack of evidence. Some judges hinted that the attorneys presenting them might have their law licenses taken away. Pro-Trump law firms have begun backing off filing any more cases, including in Pennsylvania.

The political strategy now seems to be focused on challenging the vote count with nitpicks as a way to operate a fundraising scam that will fund a Trump supporter PAC called Save America. Trump is thinking of revenge and needs to be able to control his base to intimidate the Republican leadership and to be a critic of the Biden presidency.

The man wants to continue hogging the media spotlight with his endless false claims to keep his base riled up, the biggest of which will be that the election was stolen from him, and them.

Q: How do you assess the reaction of the U.S. political and security apparatus to the political unrest? 

A: There had been months of preparation for election unrest, both for street protests and rioting. But there was also contingency planning for the possibility that an angry Trump might do some crazy things, including starting a conflict somewhere. 

“Trump is thinking of revenge and needs to be able to control his base to intimidate the Republican leadership and to be a critic of the Biden presidency.”This planning even involved a high alert being put out for any possible false flag attack being planned which could justify a Trump “retaliatory” strike. The scenarios included a possible nuclear event where Trump could call a national emergency. 

On the political end, we know from White House leaks via the Washington Post, that Trump asked his staff to consider the nuclear option of demanding the Republican State legislatures take the step of casting their respective state Electoral College votes for Trump, under a Constitutional pathway that has never been used.

The consensus, so far, is that the Republican Party going forward would not want that on their record. The Supreme Court has already hinted it does not want to get involved in an election court case and is letting some items on its docket just run out of time. It does not want its reputation besmirched by a desperate Trump.

Q:  Will U.S. foreign policy towards West Asia change in Biden’s presidency? 

A: Biden has sent some early signals, such as the unipolar Trump foreign policy mania seems to be history. The EU will be the first benefactor for renewing better relations. This triggers some early responses inside the EU that it is time to take responsibility for its own defense, which will be popular with American taxpayers. 

Biden has indicated the U.S. rejoining the JCPOA, but then later attached some conditions to it, which could doom that move. 

Expect Biden to be a hawk with Russia, China, and North Korea, but trying to bring a coalition along with him so he does not follow the Trump lead of talking one game and then doing another.

US debate debacle shows Democrats will adopt Trumpian self-interest globally

Thursday, 01 October 2020 7:02 PM  [ Last Update: Friday, 02 October 2020 3:47 AM ]

US Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) (L) talks with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) during a rally with fellow Democrats before voting on H.R. 1, or the People Act, on the East Steps of the US Capitol on March 08, 2019 in Washington, DC. (AFP photo)
US President Donald Trump (L) and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden participate in their first 2020 presidential campaign debate held on the campus of the Cleveland Clinic at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, September 29, 2020. (Via Reuters)
US debate debacle shows Democrats will adopt Trumpian self-interest globally

By Ramin Mazaheri

Politics is life or death (for the barest illustration of this reality just look at medicine sanctions on Iran, Cuba, etc.), so it’s hard for many of us to get too worked up over Joe Biden telling Donald Trump that he was a “clown” who should “shut up” at their first presidential debate, which is now known as the worst debate ever.

However, in the United States such things truly cause more domestic shock than any footage of the latest US bombing of a wedding party in Afghanistan.

Yes, the most violent and imperialistic society paradoxically has these informal codes which actually demand a rigorous politeness: one does not talk politics or religion in polite society here, but when they are cornered into honestly discussing their moral outlooks a Queen Elizabeth-level formality is de rigueur.

Trump, with the buffoon-sized ego required of anyone who applies to go on a reality show, upended this expectation four years ago and many middle-class Americans still nearly faint at his unthinkable lack of a “presidential demeanor.” This lack, one regularly hears from the countless talk-show idiots in the US, was enough for an impeachment by itself. The underlying cry is, “Won’t anyone think of the children!” Not dead Afghan children, of course.

That’s what makes the first debate so vital: Trump was not the only clown on the stage, and that is not how it used to be in US politics.

Pelosi attacks Trump over questioning election's integrity, says elections results must be respected
Pelosi attacks Trump over questioning election’s integrity, says elections results must be respected

US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has criticized the US President Donald Trump over his comments during the presidential debate over the integrity of the Nov. 3 election, saying the results must be respected.

Trump has obviously altered the expectations for how American politicians can behave – it is now a circus of buffoons who rudely steamroll anyone to get their way, whereas they used to be characterized by an unflappable and deadly focus: ice queen Hillary Clinton, smooth-faced and infamously unemotional Obama, ex-CIA ringleader George Bush I, etc. Even rural/southern/Texan presidents – Bill Clinton and Dubya Bush – quickly knocked off the folksy shenanigans, straightened up and actually started reading something for a change.

Buffoonery is not a competition, we should remember: we might laugh at one clown more than others, but when we go to a circus we laugh at all the clowns, just as the world laughed at the first presidential debate. There could not have been a more urgent illustration of what it will mean to follow the lead of Washington from 2020 to 2024: amid a corona pandemic, a once-in-a-century domestic economic catastrophe, a never-ending pandemic of police bullets finding Black backs, widespread rebellions and less-widespread looting – this is the apex choice of American leadership?

If anything, it’s a case for even more indirect democracy safeguards – politics is life or death, and we need serious, responsible people with established moral, society-first codes making these excruciating decisions.

Independent journalist: US 2020 election 'rigged in favor of Trump'
Independent journalist: US 2020 election ‘rigged in favor of Trump

‘The US 2020 presidential election is rigged as US president Donald Trump acknowledges but it will end up “in his favor,” says a political commentator.

But there’s a better alternative – any democracy except “democracy with US characteristics”. This requires honestly discussing the structural underpinnings of the American system: imperialism, the most rightwing form of capitalism, cultural arrogance, a tolerance for public depravity that is only exceeded by a tolerance for shocking inequality amid enormous wealth, and – above all – total freedom and irresponsibility for those who can afford to pay for such things.

I don’t think we should give up on them so easily, but perhaps we should consider this reality: is that the system the average American wants, and Trump was the first to grasp this? Maybe the average American does truly want what Trump offers – buffoonery and spectacle instead of serious and responsible politics – and this explain why Biden willingly degraded himself down to Trump’s level at the debate: Biden felt that he had to emulate Trump in order to win votes.

What other conclusion could we logically draw? That Biden just took leave of his senses repeatedly?

Everybody knew the debate would be full of Trumpian off-the-cuff observations/outbursts, but Biden willingly played Trump’s game and for that he has totally lost global respect, by all foreign media accounts. Here in the US Democrat supporters – who never saw an Afghan wedding party bombing they were outraged about (mainly because, via the same smothering informal censorship and faux-sensitivity which produces fainting at “shut up”, bloody photos of American war crimes are never published by US media) – are willing to excuse anything Biden does because it’s allegedly “not as bad as Trump”, but this myopic hypocrisy only plays domestically.

Biden looked terrible to the world’s eyes – he could not master himself, nor master the situation. He is not much of a leader – that is the best-case scenario. Contrarily, as I assert, Biden decided to copy Trump’s behavior because he saw that Trumpian buffoonery gets one elected.

What if Trump loses but refuses to leave office?
What if Trump loses but refuses to leave office?

America will face mass public unrest if either Donald Trump or Joe Biden refuses to accept the result.

This reality that Biden is going to happily carry the torch of Trumpism was illustrated in a recent editorial from the extremely popular and openly anti-Trump website Politico: The Trump foreign policies Biden might keep.

It’s a pretty staggering douse of cold water to anyone who expects major changes from Washington and the Pentagon if the Democrats win in November: Expect the same policies regarding Jerusalem al-Quds, Venezuela, China, Russia, and – yes – Iran.

But the author goes even further, explicitly asserting that Trump’s brazenness has given Biden new latitude to boss around NATO, the World Health Organization, the World Trade Organization, the United Nations Human Rights Council and the UN Security Council.

“Trump’s overt hostility toward multilateral institutions could present Biden with an opportunity to push through reforms to some international bodies.”

“While Biden is not likely to be so crude, don’t be surprised if he at times takes a more forceful position toward both allies and adversaries than he did when he served as Barack Obama’s vice president.” Translation: Biden won’t openly tell other people to “shut up”, but he will do so privately.

Trump has revealed to US leaders that brashly and unilaterally throwing their weight around in order to get what they want works, so not even the anti-Trump Politico expects Biden to inaugurate a new policy of mutually-beneficial cooperation. Above all, naked Trumpian self-interest works to win a US government post in domestic elections – that is the essence and importance of Trump’s victory, which pulled the sheet off an American fascism (which is not only about racism, but more about aligning corporate power with individual power, as opposed to grassroots democratic power structures) which Biden will continue to apply in foreign policy, even if he takes down a few domestic statues of Confederate generals and Columbus.

Poll: Both Democrats and Republicans believe election will be rigged
Poll: Both Democrats and Republicans believe election will be rigged

A new poll has revealed that both Democrat and Republican voters in the United States believe there is a possibility that the 2020 presidential election will be rigged.

Biden was not pulled down to Trump’s level at the first debate – he willingly jumped down.

Maybe he doesn’t have age-related dementia after all, because Trump’s success indicates it’s a savvy domestic election move which could win him some voters who view him as weak.

That view must be the case over here: Immediately after the election US televisions were full of Trump-sponsored ads (disgustingly) trumpeting the assassination of Iranian anti-terror hero Qassem Soleimani: the point of the ad was to openly accuse Biden of being “weak.” Biden clearly sought to pre-empt these accusations and perceptions by “standing up” to Trump in a “show of strength” in the debate, no?

“Strongman” politics – this is what Americans want, or so their leaders just told the world via their actions at the debate, no?

The recent first debate showed that Democrats agree: Trumpism works. After four years of faux-fainting at Trump’s crude behavior what did Democrats do when they were finally confronted with him face to face? They joined him, even perhaps seeking to outdo Trump.

Non-Americans should take note. Even with a Biden victory we should not expect a rollback of Trump’s foreign policy – we should expect even further encroachments on national and international dignities and human rights.

However, historians have already taken copious notes and are not surprised by Politico’s admission that Biden will do what Trump did – try to dominate the whole world via (an allegedly new) Trumpian self-interest, as this is just a repeat of Dubya Bush’s “US versus the world” approach following 9/11.

That was a repeat of Ronald Reagan’s “leader of the free world (and we’ll attack/blockade if you aren’t free enough to our tastes), which was a repeat of the continent-dominating concept of “Manifest Destiny,” which was a repeat of the South America-dominating “Monroe Doctrine,” and – noticing a pattern, yet?

To answer a previous question: I don’t think the average American wants what Trump offers – I think they elected Trump as a protest against the structural corruption of the establishment “Swamp.” It was both a desperate move as well as a furiously empowered demand for major change. What Politico is telling us is that Joe Biden took all the wrong lessons from the election of Trump, which we also saw on display at the first debate, and apply them globally.

The underlying ideology of buffoons and clowns is that nothing matters or deserves seriousness. All that truly matters is that they get what they want – clowns and buffoons usually just want attention and laughs, but US leaders want power and control. Biden just proved to the world how low he is willing to go get it – down to the level of Trump, after four years of decrying such behaviors.

Ramin Mazaheri is currently covering the US elections. He is the chief correspondent in Paris for PressTV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. He is the author of ‘Socialism’s Ignored Success: Iranian Islamic Socialism’ as well as ‘I’ll Ruin Everything You Are: Ending Western Propaganda on Red China’, which is also available in simplified and traditional Chinese.

(The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of Press TV.)


Press TV’s website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:

www.presstv.ir

www.presstv.co.uk

www.presstv.tv

المبادرة الفرنسيّة باب للحلّ أم للحرب؟

ناصر قنديل

تمّ تسويق تدريجيّ لمقولة الوصول للحضيض المالي والاقتصادي كمدخل لتسويق ما يليها من مطالبات بات لها صدى شعبيّ بضرورة تلبية مطالب أي مسعى إنقاذي مهما كانت، حتى لو كان بعضها في السابق سبباً كافياً للتمترس وراءه، وجرى تصوير كل مطلب سياسي بصفته عرقلة، وكل دعوة لمراعاة التوازنات بصفتها تخريباً، وسبق ذلك جهد مبرمج لشيطنة كل سياسة، لتفرغ الساحة أمام سياسة واحدة، هي السياسة التي تزعم أنها غير سياسية، لأنها تلبس ثوب كيس المال، الذي يحتاجه اللبنانيون بعدما جرى الضغط الأقصى على لبنان لتجفيف موارده، سواء عبر تغطية فساد مستديم، أو عبر ترك الدين العام يتضخّم ويكبر ليصير سبباً للاسترهان وفرض الشروط، فما هو السياق الذي تفتحه المبادرة الفرنسيّة التي جاءت بثوب الإنقاذ ولاقت ترحيباً من الجميع، خصوصاً بعد تأكيد تمسك الرئيس الفرنسي أمانويل ماكرون باستبعاد قضايا الخلاف والتركيز على الإصلاحات الاقتصادية، والتعبير عن تجاوزه للحظر الأميركي على المقاومة؟

عشية تبلور صورة حكومة الرئيس المكلف بتشكيل الحكومة الذي ولدت تسميته في كنف المبادرة الفرنسية، تبدو الصورة سوداويّة، حيث نشأ عن الحركة الأميركية تعديل في التوجه الفرنسي، أو تظهيرا لنيات فرنسية مبيّتة منسقة، لكن في الحصيلة طرح على السطح بدلاً من تأجيل قضايا الخلاف، مشروع ينتقي من القضايا الخلافية المتصلة بالإصلاح السياسي عنوان المداورة ويريد تطبيقه جزئياً في تشكيل الحكومة، ومعه السعي لحسم أمر توازنات التوقيع السياسي الطائفي على المراسيم، الذي تمّ التعامل معه خلال الحكومات السابقة بمنطق تجاوز الخلاف وتأجيل الحسم، انطلاقاً من أن للمداورة معايير تطال الرئاسات إذا طالت المناصب السيادية غير المذكورة في الدستور ضمن التوزيعات الطائفية، وتبدأ بوظائف الفئة الأولى التي نصت المادة 95 على عدم تخصيصها بطائفة، ومن ضمنها حاكم مصرف لبنان ورئيس مجلس الإنماء والإعمار وقائد الجيش ومديرية قوى الأمن الداخلي والأمن العام وسواها، بحيث جاءت مفاجأة الإصرار على حسم الأمر من ضمن تشكيل الحكومة، مع دعوات لإطلاق يد الرئيس المكلف بصورة تعيد التذكير بصلاحيات رئيس الجمهورية وفقاً لصيغة 43، حيث يمارس السلطة رئيس الجمهورية يعاونه وزراء يختارهم، لتظهر محاولة فرض صيغة تمنح هذه الصفات لرئيس الحكومة في نظام طائفي هشّ، يفترض تغييره تمرير الحكومة بأقل التشنجات الطائفية، وصولاً للحوار الوطني حول عقد سياسي جديد، يأمل الكثيرون أن يكون الدولة المدنية من باب قانون انتخاب جديد خارج القيد الطائفي.

المشهد الثاني الذي يرتسم عشية تبلور التشكيلة الحكومية، هو مع الإصرار على التلاعب بالتوازنات الطائفية، بدلاً من التمهيد لتجاوزها وتخطيها، الاستعداد لعزل كتلتين نيابيتين كبيرتين عن المشهد الحكومي، تقع المقاومة في قلب تكوينهما، ومعهما حلفاء، ينتمون لخيار المقاومة، فتصير المبادرة الفرنسية بالحصيلة الواقعية مشروعاً شبيهاً بمرحلة حكم الرئيس أمين الجميل، سواء لجهة الهوية الطائفية للجهات التي تم إحراجها لإخراجها، أو لجهة هويتها السياسية المقاومة، وهذه مخاطرة تستدرج نحوها المبادرة الفرنسية أو تذهب المبادرة إليها عمداً، ما يضع الأسئلة الكبرى حول ما هو أبعد من الحكومة والوعود المالية التي تبدو مربوطة بشروط سياسيّة تنفذها حكومة موضبة سلفاً، والشروط تبدأ من ترسيم الحدود ولا يعرف أحد أين تنتهي، والتاريخ يقول إن مثل هذه المخاطرة لا تفتح إلا أبواب جهنم على لبنان، سواء كان ذلك عاجلاً أو آجلاً، فواحدة من النتائج تبشر بمشروع حرب أهلية، وثانية تبشر بفرضية حرب إقليمية، وكأن المطلوب استدراج 6 شباط ثانية أو حرب تموز 2006 أخرى؟

هل يستدرك ماكرون المخاطرة خلال الساعات الأخيرة؟

Related

Why Does The World Ignore «Israeli» Violations of Lebanese Sovereignty?

Why Does The World Ignore «Israeli» Violations of Lebanese Sovereignty?

By Denijal Jegic, TRT

Last week, civilians in several towns on Lebanon’s southern border were faced with illumination flares and phosphorus munitions fired by the “Israeli” army into Lebanese territory.

The “Israeli” regime initially spoke of a “security incident” and later announced it was conducting strikes on “Hezbollah posts” without presenting any evidence.

Numerous international media outlets adopted official “Israeli” statements as headlines. It became breaking news that “Israel” took action “in response” to fire coming from Hezbollah. Lebanese narratives remain absent, as does “Israel’s” structural aggression.

But Tuesday’s incident and the reactions to it are part of a familiar pattern.

While international media focuses on the tense situation at the border every once in a while, “Israeli” incursions into Lebanon are neither new nor accidental. “Israel” violates Lebanese sovereignty several times a day, as the “Israeli” military infiltrates Lebanon by land, sea, and air.

Within the first five months of 2020, the Lebanese government registered over 1,000 “Israeli” violations of Lebanese sovereignty by land, sea, and air. The “Israeli” army has also repeatedly used Lebanese airspace to launch airstrikes on Syria.

“Israeli” military jets and spy drones are omnipresent. In fact, they have become part of the landscape in the south of Lebanon and are often heard and felt in Beirut as well. “Israeli” incursions include mock raids and reconnaissance flights.

Whether “Israel” intends to scare or intimidate civilians, collect intelligence, or provoke a reaction from Hezbollah, “Israeli” violations of Lebanese sovereignty are a form of state violence that affects millions of people daily – in particular the country’s south with its majority Shia population.

Lebanon has, on several occasions filed complaints at the United Nations, to no avail. Lebanon’s Supreme Defense Council condemned the latest Israeli assault and announced it would bring the issue again to the UN.

“Israeli” violations of Lebanese sovereignty and international law are a continuous component of “Israel’s” structural aggression towards Lebanon. This aggression needs to be viewed within the colonial and expansionist nature of the “Israeli” regime in Palestine and its role as a US proxy whose supremacy is guaranteed by its Western allies.

“Israeli”-Lebanese tensions precede the formation of Hezbollah by more than three decades. Lebanon and “Israel” have been officially at war since 1948 when the Zionist movement proclaimed the “state of ‘Israel’” in Palestine and forcefully expelled the majority of Palestinians into neighboring countries.

“Israel” has had a destabilizing and destructive impact on Lebanon and played a significant role in the Lebanese Civil War. “Israel” kept South Lebanon under military occupation until the year 2000, with help from its local proxies. In 2006, “Israel” launched another war against Lebanon, targeting civilians and the country’s infrastructure.

Hezbollah, which in the 1980s emerged as a resistance and liberation movement against the “Israeli” occupation and “Israeli” proxies in south Lebanon, has naturally been labelled a “terrorist organization” by “Israel” and its allies.

The “Israeli” threats continue today. Genocidal provocations accompany “Israeli” military jets in Lebanese skies. In the past years, some “Israeli” officials have threatened to destroy Lebanon altogether and bomb Lebanon back to the Middle Ages or the Stone Age.

On social media, “Israeli government-linked accounts continue to ridicule Lebanese in general, and the country’s Shia population, in particular. Israel made clear it would target all of Lebanon – not only Hezbollah.

Meanwhile, several Western journalists and correspondents in Beirut rarely address this issue in detail. While the daily incursions of the “Israeli” military in Lebanon are nearly entirely absent from foreign media coverage, there seems to be a significant emphasis on Hezbollah’s reactions.

When Hezbollah shot down an “Israeli” drone that was illegally infiltrating South Lebanon last week, there was some “breaking news.” But, like with Tuesday’s incident, there is a tendency among many Western media outlets to base their headlines on official “Israeli” statements.

This is in line with “Israel’s” colonial tactic of dehumanizing indigenous peoples, which is shared by “Israel’s” Western allies.

Tel Aviv usually presents any “Israeli” attack against Lebanon as a necessary self-defense against “terrorism.” This is not different from “Israel’s” violence in Gaza or the West Bank, where every Palestinian victim is either in advance or posthumously rhetorically converted into a terrorist, i.e., a legitimate target. Resistance is terrorism, and civilian homes are terrorist strongholds.

In Lebanon, those that “Israel” warplanes target are rarely presented as human beings, civilians, as survivors of previous “Israeli” violence, but rather as part of terrorist infrastructure. Sometimes even their indigeneity in Lebanon and loyalty to the country is questioned, as supporters of Hezbollah are referred to as “Iranian” agents.

There is of course, also a strategic component to “Israel’s” ongoing violations of Lebanese sovereignty. Hezbollah remains “Israel’s” nearest threat. Tel Aviv has, along with other US proxies and partners, aggressively pushed for a broader conflict against Hezbollah, Iran, and their allies.

The “Israeli” army has also seemed nervous about a potential retaliation by Hezbollah, ever since the IOF [“Israeli” Occupation Forces] killed Hezbollah member Ali Kamel Mohsen through an airstrike in Syria in July.

Following the assassination, the IOF has shown increased activity at the Lebanese border. On several occasions, “Israeli” residents have been ordered to stay indoors, and roads have been closed heightening fear that there may be an escalation.

We also have to pay attention to the ongoing protests against “Israeli” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is on trial for corruption. An increasingly desperate Netanyahu keen on presenting himself as a hero defending “Israel” may well like to see a skirmish with Hezbollah or increase violations of Lebanese sovereignty to sure up his beleaguered position at home.

One thing is for sure the so-called Hezbollah threat is a potential lifeline for Netanyahu one that he is likely to grasp firmly with grave consequences for Lebanon.

Will Hillary and the Dems get the civil war they are trying to provoke?

If you have not already seen this, check out this video of Hillary Clinton stating that, quote, “Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances“:

“Any” means “any”. That would include the (admittedly hypothetical) case of Trump clearly winning by a landslide. Again, “any” means “any”.

The direct implications of that is that the Dems should re-take the White House by any and all means and under any and all circumstances.

That is also a direct appeal to sabotage the US democracy which, as flawed as it is, is the only rule of law based option currently available to the people of the USA.

Will that result in a civil war?

That is rather unlikely, because for a civil war you need to have at least two credible parties which can coordinate attacks and defensive operations on, at least, a regional scale. I don’t see that in the USA.

But I don’t see how local/regional violence (at times severe) and political chaos can be avoided.

We already know that the Dems will never accept a Trump victory.

We also know that the Trump supporters will claims that the USPS cannot be trusted with mail voting (I totally agree with them, the USPS is one of the worst postal services of any developed country on the planet).

Then there is the following issue: as police departments are “defunded” and cops are resigning en masse (and I sure can’t blame them!), simple citizens will have to increasingly protect themselves, which many of them can do, but the problem here is that these citizens are then charged while the surviving BLM and/or Antifa thugs walk free, even if they attacked first.

In some US states (like Florida, thank God for that!), the local Sheriffs will stand by their citizens and the local DAs will not prosecute those who used lethal force to defend themselves against a short list of forcible felonies (including home violations, carjackings, rapes, etc.). Just listen to this selection of FL sheriffs:

I have been a Florida resident since 18 years now and I can sincerely say that I don’t recommend BLM/Antifa try to loot or riot in Florida, because they will be met with a lot of force and a legal system which strongly favors the law abiding citizen, including in cases of self-defense.

But in northern states?!

So far, if I am not mistaken, most of the riots so far have taken place in northern states (Atlanta is in the south, but it is also not truly a “southern city” since it is run by BLM/Antifa sympathizers; the same could be said about Miami, FL, by the way).

This is probably not a coincidence. And this has nothing to do with “southern racism” (in my experience southerners are no more racist than northerners), but much more with a culture of self-defense, rooted in the land, which makes southern people much more likely to “circle the wagons” and act together.

And while I never bought the (rather silly) arguments that “guns protect the people from tyranny” (tyrants typically have trained and professional forces which can make minced meat of any armed civilians!), I do believe that armed citizens can very effectively stop rioting thugs (just remember how the Koreans of L.A. defended themselves and their stores during the L.A. riots).

Luckily, southern states are much more faithful to the US Constitution than those northern states which have “castrated” the 2nd Amendment “by a thousand (legislative) cuts” (there are, exceptions, of course).

This is not widely known, but in about 25%-30% or so of cases or armed robbery by thugs, their guns either don’t work, or they are fake. Their ammo often sucks too (either bad condition, or completely inadequate). Why? Because criminals are too stupid and too cheap to invest in quality firearms and training. As a result, if BLM/Antifa thugs try to storm a residential neighborhood or some small town in the South, they might be “greeted” by a lot of very competent firepower.

I think that it is pretty clear that the US deep state and the Dem Party are using BLM/Antifa as footsoldiers to create chaos and prepare for even worse violence should Trump win. There are also some signs that the Dem leadership does not want to let the (totally senile) Joe Biden go against Trump in a debate. Here is an excerpt from a ZeroHedge report:

I don’t think that there should be any debates,” Pelosi said on Thursday, one day after President Trump demanded Biden take a drug test before the two square off. “I wouldn’t legitimize a conversation with him – nor a debate in terms of the presidency of the United States,” she added. Pelosi said that Trump was “disgraceful” when he ‘stalked‘ Hillary Clinton during the 2016 debate by walking near her, and that he will probably “act in a way that is beneath the dignity of the presidency.”

The message is clear: we do not recognize Trump as a legitimate opponent and should he win, this will be because of Chinese interference and/or and Russian interference and/or “Republican bullying” (whatever that is supposed to mean). Bottom line: we will under no circumstances accept another defeat.

Dunno about you, but to me this sounds like sedition. Here is how Wikipedia defines this concept:

Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent toward, or resistance against, established authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interest of sedition.

I don’t see any evidence that Trump and/or the GOP leadership are guilty of sedition, at least not inside their own country – outside, of course, they are currently the single most subversive force on the planet. In fact, I would argue that in spite of all the many major differences, Trump is facing a situation not dissimilar to what Lukashenko faces in Belarus. The biggest difference is that Trump is not backed by Putin. In fact, he is backed by nobody (besides bone fide nutcases like Jair Bolsonaro and Ivan Duque Marquez or cheap prostitutes like Andrzej Duda or Dalia Grybauskaite).

I do see overwhelming evidence that the Clinton Gang & the US deep state & (pseudo-) “liberal” “elites” are all guilty of sedition. As a result of this egging on of rioting thugs, things happen which would have been quite unthinkable just a year ago.

For example: a US Senator and his wife almost got lynched by a mob just outside the White House. Is that even possible? Yes it is, see for yourself:

Friends, this is not Afghanistan or the Central African Republic. And a senator is one of the highest possible offices any man or woman can achieve. Yet in this country capital city, right outside the White House, cops were unable to protect a senator from a mob. Yet this is how the mainstream media presented this: “Protesters confront Rand Paul outside White House after Republican convention“. Since when are criminal thugs who attempt to lynch a senator and his wife called “protesters”?! And does “confront” not suggest that Senator Paul somehow deserved to be “confronted”.

Can you imagine what the media would have said if this had happened to a black senator?

Does this kind of mainstream “reporting” not show that this country’s political system is collapsing?

Conclusion

I don’t see a civil war happening in the US. But I do think that this country can, and probably will, break-up into different zones so to speak. In some regions, law and order will be maintained, by force is needed, while in others something new will appear: what the French call “des zones de non-droit“, meaning “areas of lawlessness” in which law enforcement will be absent (either because the political leaders will refuse to engage them, or because they will simply have to withdraw under fire). Typically, such zones have a parallel “black” economy which can make the gangs which control such zones very wealthy (think of Russia in the 1990s). Eventually, a lot of people will flee from such zones and seek refuge in the safer areas of the country (this process has already begun in New York).

Right now, there are a little over two months before the election, and I think that it is safe to say that the situation will deteriorate even faster and much worse. By November 2nd the country will be “ready” (so to speak) for a massive explosion of violence followed by months of chaos.

Many will probably vote Trump just because they will (mistakenly) believe that he is the only politician who will stand against what the Dems promise to unleash against the majority of “deplorables” who want to keep their country and traditions. At the core, the conflict we are now witnessing is a conflict about identity, something which most people deeply care about. Sooner or later, there will be push-back against the Dems attempt to turn the USA into some kind of obese transgender liberal Wakanda run by crooks, freaks and thugs.

The Dems won’t get their civil war – but they will suffer the blowback for their attempts to destroy the United States.

الكورة ودم القوميّين خط دفاع أول

ناصر قنديل

الدكتور ناصر قنديل - Home | Facebook

ليست المرة الأولى التي تنزف خلالها منطقة الكورة دماً نقياً خالصاً دفاعاً عن الوطن، وقد بات ثابتاً أن الجماعات التي استهدفتها هي جماعات إرهابية كما تقول التحقيقات، ما يعني أن الكورة التي قدّمت دماء بنيها وهي تسهر على أمن الوطن كشفت كما هي مهمة كل حراس الكرامة، وجود مخطط إرهابي وحده يفسر هذا التجوال الليلي المسلح لجماعات إرهابية، لن يصدق أحد محاولة ربطه بعمليات سرقة لا تفسّر المسافة التي قطعها الإرهابيون وصولاً إلى الكورة ولا يمكن أن تجيب عن سؤال هويتهم وتاريخهم وفقاً للسجلات الأمنية لكل منهم، فالسجلات الشخصية لعصابات السرقة سجلات إجرامية، وسجلات الجماعات الإرهابية المنظمة سجلات أعمال إرهابية، وكفانا من تفجير المرفأ عبرة أن يعلمنا نتائج الاستخفاف بالأسباب والعواقب والميل للتفسيرات التي تسهل المهام.

خلال الحرب الأهلية عندما بلغت المواجهات مراحلها المتقدمة، صار مشروع التقسيم علنياً وعنوان الحلقة الأخيرة من الحرب، وقفت الكورة، ووقف القوميون لمواجهة هذا المشروع، وشكلت الكورة الشوكة التي صعب على أصحاب مشروع التقسيم بلعها او كسرها، وشكلت الكورة قاعدة صلبة للتمسك بالوحدة الوطنية ورفض كل أشكال الأمن الذاتي ومشاريع التفتيت، ودفعت الكورة الثمن من أبنائها ضريبة تمسكها بوحدة لبنان، لتكون على عهدها بأن تكون حارس الوطن، وجرس الإنذار بوجه المشاريع التي تستهدف أمنه ووحدته وسلمه الاجتماعي.

خلال الاجتياح الإسرائيلي وسيطرة قوات الاحتلال على أجزاء أساسية من لبنان تحولت الكورة إلى قاعدة ارتكاز ونقطة خلفية للقوميين الذين أخذوا مسؤوليتهم القومية بشجاعة، ولم يتردّدوا في تقديم كل التضحيات لمواجهة الاحتلال وحمل راية المقاومة بطليعية كتبتها دماء الشهداء من العاصمة بيروت ودم الشهيد خالد علوان، وكانت الكورة تحمي القوميّين المقاومين الذين تطاردهم أجهزة النظام التابع والحامي لمشروع الاحتلال، وكان أهلها يفتحون بيوتهم لهؤلاء المقاومين، وكان شبابها ينضمون لصفوف المقاومة، ويخوضون مهامهم بصمت، ودماؤهم كما قال زعيمهم انطون سعادة ليست لهم، بل ملك للأمة أمانة يؤدّونها عندما تناديهم.

عندما عصفت موجة الإرهاب مستهدفة سورية وعبرها كل المنطقة، أدّى القوميون مسؤوليتهم في الصفوف الأولى، وكانت قناعتهم أنهم يدافعون عن لبنان ولا يقومون بتوريطه كما يزعم الذين وصفوا الإرهابيين بالثوار، ودعوا لدعمهم ومنحهم الامتيازات، وما هي إلا شهور قليلة حتى ظهرت المخطّطات التي تستهدف لبنان لتنصف القوميين، في صحة موقفهم ووطنيته ووقوفهم في خط الدفاع الأول عن لبنان، لتأتي معارك الجرود، ويكون القوميّون قوة استنهاض للمجتمع مع قوى المقاومة شرق لبنان لمواجهة الخطر، كما هم دائماً حراس الكرامة الوطنيّة والمدافعون عن وحدة الوطن وأمنه وسلامته.

يستهدف القوميون وتستهدف بيئتهم الحاضنة والكورة في قلبها، لأنهم ولأنها حجر العثرة بوجه مشاريع التفتيت، الذي يريد من مسيحيي لبنان إعلان سقوط العيش المشترك والتبرؤ من المقاومة وسلاحها، فتستهدف الكورة بخيرة شبابها، وهي تحرس أمن الوطن، لتستفز وتستغضب وتضمّ صوتها للداعين للأمن الذاتي، وترى الخطر على المسيحيين من المسلمين، وتشترك في شيطنة السلاح الذي يرمز عبره كمفردة إلى سلاح واحد مستهدف هو سلاح المقاومة. وهذا معنى رد الكورة على الجريمة بإعلان رفض الأمن الذاتي ودعوة الدولة للقيام بمسؤولياتها، وأداء واجبها بإقناع اللبنانيين أنهم مواطنون في دولة تتولى مؤسساتها حماية أمنهم، وملاحقة المعتدين على هذا الأمن، والمسؤولية تتعدى مجرد نشر النقاط الأمنية والعسكرية، ومواصلة التحقيق لكشف المجرمين، على أهميتهما، إلى حد المطالبة باعتبار ما شهدته الكورة جرس إنذار بوجود مخطط يستهدف الأمن الوطني، تعميماً للفوضى وتمهيداً للأمن الذاتي، فهل يستحق الأمر اجتماعاً لمجلس الدفاع الأعلى، بعدما كشفت لنا الكورة بدماء شبابها أن تنظيم داعش لا يزال موجوداً بخلاياه النائمة، ويضرب في عتمة الليل والغياب، وصولاً للفراغ والفوضى؟

فيديوات متعلقة

مقالات متعلقة

%d bloggers like this: