WORLDMuslim Brotherhood Mob Boss Qaradawi Dies

September 30, 2022

Declan Hayes

The only tragedy about the death at 96 years of age of Youssef al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, the world’s deadliest terrorist grouping, is that the Muslim Brotherhood did not die along with him.

The only tragedy about the death at 96 years of age of Youssef al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, the world’s deadliest terrorist grouping, is that the Muslim Brotherhood did not die along with him.

Qaradawi was the Egyptian born spiritual head of the Muslim Brotherhood murder gang. Typical of the beliefs Qaradawi espoused was that Hitler went too easy on the Jews, that the world’s 100 million Shia, along with all apostates from Sunni Islam, must be exterminated and that his Islamic Caliphate should rule over us all. He lived in Qatar and, when not spewing out misogynistic, Shiaphobic, anti Semitic bile from that excuse for a country on al Jazeera’s top rating TV show. this hateful, Hitler loving demagogue issued fatwas to the Muslim Brotherhood faithful to slaughter Syria’s minorites and “apostates”.

The Muslim Brotherhood, its strong links with Western intelligence forces and dubious Trotsykist groups notwithstanding, is the Arab world’s original, most subversive, and most dangerous terrorist organization. It strongly believes in imposing the Caliphate and, as their countless atrocities in Egypt and Syria show, murdering or subjugating all who resist them. There will be no peace in the Arab or Western worlds until the Muslim Brotherhood is crushed in its Egyptian and Syrian spawning grounds and in those areas of the Western world NATO has allowed it colonize. Syria’s former ruler, the late Hafez el Assad, accurately described these NATO aligned devils in this video.

Following their failed 1982 coup, most Syrian Muslim Brotherhood terrorists fled into safe haven bolt holes from where they built a network of dedicated and highly professional cadres to spew their toxins. Though the Muslim Brotherhood Support Network in the West deserves a lot more scrutiny to determine why supposed left wing groups support these sectarian cut throats, they are, from my experience at least, protected by MI5 and allied intelligence agencies.

Take the case of Omar Gabbar, who shared a platform with prominent child sex jihad proponent Muhammed al-Arefe. Not only did Gabbar’s Hand in Hand for Syria front group secure one of the world’s top child sex jihadist recruiters in their first month of operation “from a Leicester kitchen table” but their original posters were designed by Turkish-based hacks of the terrorist Free Syrian Army, whose flag is emblazoned on the logo of Hand in Hand for Syria. Gabbar should, together with the legal hounds and British armed response units he set on me, consider that decent people, who are not members of the Muslim Brotherhood or any of its satellites, have got very lengthy prison tariffs for much less. Though al-Arefe is now barred from Britain, Omar Gabbar remains there and, like many others, who brought al-Arefe to Britain, is allowed work, as a hospital consultant in his case, where he has access to the young and impressionable children al-Arefe expects to do sex jihad.

The Muslim Brotherhood are allowed leverage the professional status of operatives like Gabbar not only to bring sex jihadist recruiting sergeants like Al Arefe to England to help the Canadian secret service ferry child brides like Shamima Begum to their Syrian caliphate but to collect tens of millions of dollars for the Caliphate under false pretenses thanks, in large part to the control MI5 have over the Charity Commission which can be seen, inter alia, by the example of Samara’s Appeal, a dodgy Anglican cult charity focused on Syria, which is exempted from having to list its trustees.

Gabbar is not the Muslim Brotherhood’s only well placed British asset. Dr Rola Hallam is the daughter of Mousa al Kurdi, one of the head honchos in the supposedly moderate wing of Syria’s Murder Inc; she can drive through ISIS checkpoints at will, as this website based on BBC Panorama’s farcical puff piece plainly illustrates.. Though Hand in Hand for Syria’s collusion with ISIS, as evidenced by their ability to sail through ISIS checkpoints and to work in ISIS strongholds, is a further indication that the moderate and less moderate wings of Syria’s Murder Inc are in bed together and that the British and Irish authorities should consider rounding up the flotsam working with them, that will not happen because Qaradawi’s Muslim Brotherhood are so well engrained at the heart of British and Irish political life.

At the center of the effort to hijack Ireland’s traditional tolerance stand the extremists of the Clonskeagh Mosque aka The Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland, which Wikileaks’ leaked U.S. cable and all informed writers say, have embedded ties to the most extreme elements of the Muslim Brotherhood murder gang. The mosque or “cultural center”, which gets massive subsidies from the opaque Dubai-based Al Maktoum foundation and sources linked to other totalitarian Gulf states, regularly hosts such “scholars” as Saudi cleric Salman al Awda, who calls for the total extermination of all Americans, and Egyptian demagogue Wagdy Ghoneim, whose views likewise make him an international pariah in places where the writ of the Muslim Brotherhood does not run as deeply as it does in Ireland.

The “cultural center’s” head religious figure is Hussein Halawa, an Egyptian blow-in, who has lived in Ireland for decades but who cannot speak either English or Irish. Halawa reported directly to Yusuf al-Qaradawi through The European Council for Fatwa and Research (ECFR) which al Qaradawi controlled. Although the arch-bigot Qaradawi was eventually banned from Ireland, Halawa not only remains at large but his children, who were arrested on Muslim Brotherhood related terror charges in Egypt, became a cause célèbre amongst Ireland’s media and large sections of Ireland’s political class, despite Halawa being a leading supporter of Qaradawi and his cut throats. If Halawa was just an otherwise parasitical, functionally illiterate Egyptian blow-in and if female Irish “reverts” were not ending up in accident and emergency wards after “honor beatings”, some of this idiot’s utterances might be tolerable but the fact that his children felt compelled to rush to aid Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood as they persecuted Copts and lynched Shias should be definite warning flags even if an alarmingly large number of Irish politicians and other useful idiots opportunistically support him.

In an earlier piece on MI5 subversion in Iran, I cited the great Gamal Nasser mocking the Muslim Brotherhood over their attempts to destroy secular Egypt. Qaradawi and the Muslim Brotherhood could claim to have got the last laugh both in Egypt and Syria, thanks both to their outright terrorism and the massive support they have received from the intelligence agencies of the United States, Canada, Britain, Israel, Ireland and a host of other countries with no more regard to the harm they do than have any other comparable bunch of sociopaths. Although Syria’s current President has repeatedly warned the West against the spill over effects of Muslim Brotherhood terrorism, Western leaders do not care because it is not how they are hard wired.

As long as the Biden, Obama, Clinton, Cheney, Blair and Bush families, together with their minions, can benefit from promoting the Zelenskys and Qaradawis of this world, innocents will continue to die in Armenia, Syria, Yemen, Russia or anywhere else, Western Europe included, they choose to make a wasteland. So, to conclude, grieve not for Qaradawi but only that the Muslim Brotherhood and all its obnoxious tentacles have survived him.

Declassified Mossad document reveals military collaboration with Lebanese Christian militias

The report establishes 1958 as the year when contact between Lebanese officials and the Israeli military establishment was first initiated

September 09 2022

ByNews Desk- 

Almost a week before the 40th anniversary of the Sabra and Shatila massacre, a document submitted to the Israeli High Court of Justice has revealed Israel’s role in Lebanon’s bloody conflicts, dating back to the 1950’s.

The report establishes 1958 as the year when contact was first made between Lebanese Christian leaders and the Israeli military establishment.

Then-Lebanese President Camille Chamoun requested armed assistance from the Israeli army to counter the 1958 power struggle against groups influenced by Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser.

“In the 1950s in the framework of ‘Khalil’ there was a discussion between us about the need to support Christians in Lebanon. Chamoun was in danger of losing his rule,” the declassified Israeli document adds.

In response, the Israeli army and Mossad agreed to prepare an Iranian plane sent by the Shah of Iran Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to transport weapons from Israeli stocks to the Lebanese Christian militias.

Decades later in 1975-1976, these same Christian officials reestablished contact with Israel to purchase weapons in preparation for Lebanon’s civil war. A delegation from Mossad’s operational and intelligence branches next visited Lebanon to understand “what is happening in the war between those sects.”

The document narrates how the Mossad “visited command posts of the [right-wing, Christian militias] Phalangists and Chamounists and met with Bachir Gemayel at his parents’ home in the village.”

Israel then took the decision to provide these Lebanese militias with weapons for a fee in a bid to leverage the assistance later on.

“The first shipment went out in the middle of November 1975, after weapons were prepared and loaded at a naval base [in Israel]. The meeting [with the Lebanese] was perfectly fine – we shook hands, we received an envelope with money, we counted the money, and then helped load them to their ship.”

According to Israeli newspaper Haaretz, the office of the Israeli prime minister, which oversees and directs the Mossad, released the dateless document that implicates the intelligence agency in the atrocities carried out by right-wing Lebanese Christian militias.

Earlier in 2020, a petition was filed to declassify these documents, but the Mossad staunchly objected, initially claiming they were not able to locate the historical papers.

However, in an unexpected turn of events this week, the intel agency agreed to declassify the documents, despite a court dismissal of the petition last April.

Israeli human rights lawyer and activist Eitay Mack announced that “the [Israeli] clandestine affair [in Lebanon] must come to light and enable discussion that might prevent continued support by the Mossad and the State of Israel for security forces and militias that commit atrocities.”

Mack reveals that despite previous knowledge of the massacres, executions, terrorism, and atrocities carried out by the Lebanese, the Mossad and the Israeli army believed it was acceptable to resume support and conceal information from the public.

Israel’s ‘Christian militias’ massacre civilians

The document in question, which has been translated by Ronnie Barkan, was an intelligence brief written by the Mossad for the Israeli political and military echelon. It exposes the Mossad’s role in, and facilitation of, weapon transfers that were used in the two-day, round-the-clock massacre of Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps.

The bloody massacre took place in 1982, between 16-18 September at a camp under siege by the Israeli army, leaving thousands of Lebanese and Palestinian civilians dead, raped, and injured by the militias to whom Israeli occupation forces provided passage, weapons, and protection.

As a result of the widespread condemnation and magnitude of the event, Israel launched its own investigation into the incident by establishing the Kahan commission, which conveniently concluded that only Ariel Sharon, Israel’s defense minister at the time, bore “indirect personal responsibility.”

The commission suggested that Sharon be fired from his position as defense minister for failing to safeguard Beirut’s civilian population, which had fallen under Israeli authority. However, Sharon refused to resign, and the prime minister at the time Menachem Begin refused to fire him.

“Goyim killing Goyim,” Begin is famously quoted as saying in a bid to disavow any Israeli role in the events.

However, as Pultizer prize-winner Patrick J. Sloyan revealed in his book When Reagan Sent the Marines, Sharon met with the Phalangist militia leaders the day after the assassination of president Bachir Gemayel, and abetted them in avenging his death.

Sharon told the commander of the Lebanese Forces Militia Elie Hobeika: “I don’t want a single one of them left,” in reference to the Palestinians in the camps in Beirut.

As a result, the Israeli army set up command posts overseeing the Sabra and Shatila camp and besieged it with tanks, calling on either the Lebanese army or Phalangists to come in and “clear it.”

“They’re thirsting for revenge. There could be torrents of blood,” warned then Israeli chief of staff Rafael Eitan in response to Sharon’s plans to use the Mossad-trained and armed militias.

During the war, the Phalanges were behind numerous other crimes aside from the Sabra and Shatila massacre, such as the Karantina massacre that left 1,500 dead.

The Mossad document further reveals that the Israeli army and military establishment dictated the agency’s activities in Lebanon, rather than the Israeli government.

“This is the asset (Lebanese militias) that we have, now tell us what to do with it. Because the state (Israel) isn’t at all that organized in its decision-making. The government isn’t telling us what to do with the asset, but rather the military,” the document reads.

Sabahi: ‘Israel’ is hated in Egypt, resistance noblest thing in nation

June 28, 2022

Source: Al Mayadeen Net

By Al Mayadeen English 

The Secretary-General of the Egyptian Popular Current tells Al Mayadeen that “Every nation that does not resist is a nation that is in danger of defeat.

The Secretary-General of the Egyptian Popular Current, Hamdeen Sabahi

The Secretary-General of the Egyptian Popular Current, Hamdeen Sabahi, affirmed Monday that every Arab is eager to restore Egypt to its role in the Arab nation and in defending the resistance.

In an interview for Al Mayadeen, Sabahi considered that the opposition in Egypt has been exhausted for years as a result of the restrictions imposed on it.

Sabahi acknowledged that a number of political prisoners were released in Egypt, but with a smaller number than what was expected.

The Egyptian politician called for the release of every political prisoner who was not a partner or instigator of violence, considering that if the Muslim Brotherhood movement wants to participate in a dialogue, they must initiate and request that, which means that they recognize the existing authority.

The Secretary-General of the Egyptian Popular Current pointed out that one of the things that threaten Egyptian national security is terrorism, in addition to depriving Egypt of its rights to the waters of the Nile.

Sabahi stressed that “Israel” is hated in Egypt as it was before the Camp David accords, affirming that every nation that does not resist is a nation that is subject to defeat, and resistance is the noblest thing in the Arab nation.

He added that when the Secretary-General of Hezbollah Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah takes up arms against the Israeli occupation, he raises the banner of late Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser.

He also pointed out that when the popular demands in Syria turned into confrontations that endanger the unity of Syria, the decision was to stand with the unity of this country.

Sabahi indicated that if Saudi Arabia had spent money on Arab development projects rather than spending it on weapons, the life of the Arabs would have been better.

Robert Inlakesh: How Israel’s 1967 war paved the way for the turmoil in today’s Middle East

On the anniversary of the Six-Day War, RT looks at how the conflict shaped the region

5 Jun, 2022

Robert Inlakesh: How Israel’s 1967 war paved the way for the turmoil in today's Middle East
FILE PHOTO. Israeli Centurion tank corps prepare for battle during the Six-Day War. © Getty Images / Three Lions
Robert Inlakesh is a political analyst, journalist and documentary filmmaker currently based in London, UK. He has reported from and lived in the occupied Palestinian territories and currently works with Quds News. Director of ‘Steal of the Century: Trump’s Palestine-Israel Catastrophe’. 

On the 5th of June, 1967, a conflict which lasted only six days would go on to re-shape the entire Middle East, overthrow secular Arab Nationalism and unite Tel Aviv with Washington. All of which would pave the way for Israel to be handed carte blanche by the world’s most powerful country and prompt a US policy that would go on to tear the entire region to pieces.

The Six-Day War of 1967 is often misconstrued in popular Western discourse as having represented a victory for liberal democracy.

Often presented as a battle between good and evil, the Jewish David and Arab Goliath, the real story of the third Arab-Israeli war was one of a shrewd, but brutal, political power play on the part of Israel.

One that for better, or for worse, caused a re-structuring of Middle Eastern resistance to the West, as well as of the US-led bloc’s policy in the region. 

Israel based its argument for what it deemed a necessary and “pre-emptive war” on Cairo’s decision to amass its military forces in the Sinai Peninsula, and Egyptian President Gamal Abdul-Nasser’s announcement that he would close the Gulf of Aqaba. These events were enough to convince many that Tel Aviv genuinely feared a military offensive coordinated by President Nasser, with the participation of Syria. Damascus had also re-enforced its military presence near the border, with Soviet backing.

The reality was, however, that Egypt was engaged in a grueling war in Yemen, deploying three quarters of its military into the country and had lost nearly 10,000 men in the process. It was so catastrophic for Nasser that the intervention there was later referred to by historians as “Egypt’s Vietnam.” The Egyptian president clearly wasn’t ready to confront Israel and had amassed his troops in the Sinai as a show of force, in order to save face at a time when he faced pushback over the other conflict. 

As for the closure of the Gulf of Aqaba, Nasser never properly followed through on blocking the Straits of Tiran and despite the rhetoric, they were never closed for much more than a day.

Come June 5, 1967, Israel launched ‘Operation Focus’, an aerial attack which wiped out the near entirety of Egypt’s air force in a matter of minutes, ensuring what would become an overwhelming victory for the Israelis. Prior to the war, the assessment previously offered to Israel, by US President Lyndon Johnson, was that US intelligence believed that the United Arab Republic (Egypt) would not attack, and that if it did, Israel would “whip the hell out of them.”

Leonid Brezhnev, then leader of the Soviet Union, had stated in a brief, prior to the Six-Day War of 1967, that Israel had received huge amounts of armaments from the West. Brezhnev went on to express his government’s fear that the weakening of Arab nations could lead to the collapse of the anti-Colonialist movement in the Middle East. Following the war, Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Palestine had been decisively defeated. However, it didn’t stop the anti-Colonialist movement in the Middle East, but instead paved the way for its reformation.

The US was thrilled with Israel’s defeat of its Arab neighbors and considered the war to have served its own interests in putting Nasser in his place and weakening Soviet allies. Washington now valued Israel as an essential part of its Cold War strategy against the USSR. What ensued was the inevitable tightening of the Israel-US relationship, which paved the way for the alliance we see today. Israel had earned its place amongst Western Nations and would go on to aid in implementing the subsequent “Kissinger Doctrine” that the US would employ in the Middle East. 

The 1967 victory was a stunning one for Israel, cementing its place in the region, but it also represented a catastrophe for the Arabs, known as the “Naksa” (Setback). Over 300,000 Palestinians had been forced from their homeland, as Israel occupied the entirety of historic Palestine, in addition to the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula and the Syrian Golan Heights. Furthermore, the war had largely defeated secular Arab Nationalism and represented a death blow to the Egyptian President’s brand of it, known as Nasserism. 

Up until that point, the most popular political ideologies in the Middle East had been Arab Nationalism, Socialist Pan-Arabism and Communism. The Egyptian President, who would die of a heart attack a few years later in 1970, was the primary influencer of Arab revolutionaries that existed in the region. With the perceived failure of Arab Nationalism, there would then emerge a number of competitor ideologies with which Arab movements and leaders would choose to fight their enemies. The most prominent of which would later become revolutionary Islamism, something that Nasser had actually helped to suppress, as it manifested itself in the form of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. 

As for Palestine, the future negotiations for Palestinian statehood would go on to be based upon reclaiming the 22 percent of the country – the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza Strip – that Israel occupied during the 1967 war. Israel would emerge as major power that would primarily serve a US agenda in the region and could act at that point, seemingly, with impunity against its enemies. 

Today, over 1,000 Palestinians are being forced out of their homes, as Israeli forces bulldoze a collection of West Bank villages known as Masafer Yatta. This is the single largest act of ethnic cleansing, ordered by Tel Aviv against Palestinians, since the 1967 war. The position that the US began to take in 1967, unconditional support for Israel, hasn’t changed and the country’s utility for Washington’s agenda in the region, and its powerful lobby in America, means its human rights violations are ignored. 

Therefore, 55 years after the Six-Day War, there is no barrier to Tel Aviv’s behaviour, and it seems to have a free pass to deal with its enemies in whatever manner it chooses, even if that ends up contradicting US policy.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Related

عن سماح إدريس مجدداً.. نفتقدك هذه اللحظات

2022 السبت16 نيسان

المصدر: الميادين.نت

رشاد أبو شاور 

لماذا يا صديقي نفقد كبارنا الآن، ونحن أحوج ما نكون إليهم. وقضايانا، وفي مقدمتها فلسطين، في حاجة إليهم؟

أعطى سماح إدريس كثيراً في عمره القصير نسبياً، وترك رحيله صدمة وحسرة في قلوب كل من عرفوه، ورافقوه، واتفقوا معه، أو خالفوه أحياناً، كثيراً أو قليلاً، فهو اتَّسَم بالصدق، والنزاهة، والأمانة، والوضوح، والثبات.

لا أُخفي أنني أكتب وأنا مرتبك، بل عاجز عن ترتيب أفكاري، ففي رأسي تدوّي عبارة ذلك الصديق البيروتي.

قبل تلقّي نبأ رحيله، كنت اتصلت بأحد الأصدقاء في بيروت لأطمئن على وضعه، فجاءني صوت الصديق حزيناً: المرض تفشّى في كل بدنه، يا صديقي!

عرفت عندئذ ما هو ذلك المرض، فداهمتني نوبة حزن وإحباط، لكنني منيّت النفس بأنه “سينفد” من هذا المرض اللعين الشرس!

لكن المثقف والكاتب والناشر المقاوم والميداني رحل، فلقد خذله جسده في معركته مع ذلك المرض اللئيم، على الرغم من أن سماحاً ظلّ يقاوم حتى وهو يتلقى العلاج، وهذا يتجلّى في افتتاحية “الآداب” الإلكترونية الوداعية – الوصية، والعهد والوعد.

لا أُخفي أنني أكتب وأنا مرتبك، بل عاجز عن ترتيب أفكاري، ففي رأسي تدوّي عبارة ذلك الصديق البيروتي: لماذا يا صديقي نفقد كبارنا الآن، ونحن أحوج ما نكون إليهم. وقضايانا، وفي مقدمتها فلسطين، في حاجة إليهم؟!

فُجِع الفلسطينيون، مثقفين، ومواطنين مقاومين، برحيل سماح إدريس، كواحد من أبرز كتّابهم، ومثقفيهم، ومقاوميهم الكبار، وأبّنوه بحزن وحسرة وشعور فاجع بالفقدان، داخل فلسطين، وفي الشتات القريب والشتات البعيد.

كنت على تواصل في ندوة عبر الزُّوم مع الأهل في مخيم الدهيشة، جار مدينة بيت لحم، مساء الـ29 من شهر تشرين الثاني/نوفمبر، فافتُتحت الندوة بالوقوف دقيقة وتلاوة الفاتحة على روح الكاتب العربي الكبير المقاوم سميح إدريس، مع آخر شهيد سقط في منطقة بيت لحم، وضجّت القاعة بالتصفيق.. وارتجلت أنا كلاماً أردته لائقاً بسماح، وبأسرة سماح، بوالد سماح ووالدته، وبشقيقتي سماح، وبأسرة آل إدريس…

أنا واثق بأن بعض شوارع فلسطين سيحمل اسم سماح إدريس، فشعب فلسطين وفيّ ولن ينسى رفاق الطريق. ولعلّي أتذكر هنا، في هذا المقام، أن واحداً من أوائل الفدائيين الشهداء الفلسطينيين بعد هزيمة حزيران/يونيو 67 في معارك الأغوار، فاجأنا بأنه يحمل اسم “سهيل إدريس”، وأذكر أن هذا الأمر دفع الدكتور سهيل، رحمه الله، إلى الاستفسار عن هذا الفدائي، ومعرفة كل شيء عنه، وعن ثقافته. وكنت يومها برفقة صديقي الشاعر أحمد دحبور، عندما نقلنا المعلومة إلى الدكتور سهيل.

وُلِدَ سماح لأبوين عروبيين تقدميين ديمقراطيين، حملا باستمرار راية فلسطين، وبشّرا بحتمية تحريرها بالمقاومة، ولم ييأسا عند وقوع هزيمة حزيران/يونيو، بل جعلا مجلة “الآداب” منبراً لأدب المقاومة، وثقافة المقاومة، وشجعا المبدعين العرب على الكتابة الملتزمة ثقافةَ المقاومة رداً على الهزيمة المرّة في حزيران/يونيو 67.

سماح إدريس وُلِدَ لأسرة حملت مشروعاً ثقافياً قومياً منذ أسس المعلم سهيل إدريس مجلة “الآداب” عام 1953. ومع رفيقة عمره السيدة عايدة مطرجي إدريس واصلا مشوارهما المُشرّف، والذي أغنى المشهد الثقافي العربي، وساهم في تحديثه، بالترافق مع التزام هموم الأمة من محيطها إلى خليجها؛ من ثورة الجزائر إلى ثورة عدن؛ من إدانة سياسة الأحلاف إلى فضح العدوان الثلاثي على مصر؛ من تأميم قناة السويس إلى بناء السد العالي؛ من وحدة مصر وسوريا إلى إدانة الانفصال عام 1961 وتجريمه…

في أسرة بنت عالياً “دار الآداب” للنشر لتعزز دور ثقافة مجلة “الآداب”، وُلد سماح إدريس، وانطلق في فضاء حر، بتربية ديمقراطية حقّة بنت شخصيته.. وأطلقتها لتشق طريقها في نهل العلم والمعرفة والثقافة التي تمضي في آفاق لا حدود تنغلق في وجهها، أو تحدّ قدراتها.

رحل المعلم سهيل إدريس، فتقدَّم سماح وأخذ دوره مواصلا رسالة “الآداب”. وحين أغلقت أبواب الرقابة الحدود في وجه “الآداب”، واستشرت محاولات الترويض، انتقل سماح بـ”الآداب” إلى زمن التكنولوجيا، فأصدر “الآداب” إلكترونياً، واجتذب اقلاما مبدعة شابة – ولم يُدِر الظهر لمن رافقوا “الآداب” في زمن الأب المعلم، وأنا منهم – فكتب إلي وإلى آخرين، طالباً أن نشارك في قصصنا ومقالاتنا، وبهذا كسر الحدود التي أُغلقت، وملأ فضاء الوطن العربي على الرغم من الحدود المفتعلة، والرقابة الضيّقة الأفق. وهكذا وصلت “الآداب” الإلكترونية إلى أقصى الأرض في حلّة أنيقة حديثة، وبأقلام تنمّ عن مواهب، وبتجدد يمضي بـ”الآداب” إلى آفاق فسيحة.

عندما دُعيت إلى تقديم ندوة في “المنتدى العربي” في عمّان، بعنوان “هل يمكن تجديد الناصرية؟”، يوم الـ28 من أيلول/سبتمبر 2021، في ذكرى رحيل القائد جمال عبد الناصر، وضعت أمامي كتاب أخي وصديقي ورفيقي سماح، “المثقف العربي والسلطة: بحث في روايات التجربة الناصرية”، وكنت قرأت الكتاب وأنا في تونس بعد أن أهدانيه سماح، وكتب كلمة ذات معنى عميق استعدته من جديد: إلى الأخ والصديق الروائي والقصّاص الفلسطيني العربي.. كيف نكون ناصريين حقاً؟ وديمقراطيين حقّاً أيضاً؟ مع حبي واحترامي. وتوقيعه، بتاريخ 7.5.93.

كان السؤال: كيف نكون ناصريين حقّاً، وديمقراطيين حقاً، حضر في تلك المحاضرة، وحضر سماح صاحب السؤال، والكتاب الغني بحثاً وإبداعاً، والصادر عن منشورات “الآداب” في عام 1992.. وهذا يعني أن سماحاً كان في حدود الثلاثين من عمره آنذاك!

عملياً، ناقش سماح بعمق أزمة الناصرية في العلاقة بالمثقفين، من اختلفوا، ومن نافقوا، ومن خلال أعمالهم الروائية، وأيضاً وضع محددات لدور المثقف العربي، وما يحميه من السقوط في شراك السلطة، أي سلطة، في الماضي والحاضر و… المستقبل.

هذا الكتاب حضر معي في تلك الندوة التي تحدثت فيها عن أهمية تجديد الناصرية، لا بتقديسها والولاء لقائدها الراحل جمال عبد الناصر، لكن بنقدها، والوقوف أمام سلبياتها، وعدم المجاملة والتغطية على أمراضها وأسباب هزيمة حزيران/يونيو 67.

سماح المفكر المقاوم، الروائي الذي انتقل برواياته وقصصه إلى “عوالم” الشباب والفتيان، وذهب إليهم في المخيمات والأحياء الشعبية، مخاطباً العقول، موقظاً الوعي، فاتحاً البصائر على ما ينتظرهم، مُمتعاً ككاتب، مُدهشاً كحكّاء بارع.

سماح الغني الحضور مُترجماً، وناسج الصداقات عالمياً، وهو يخوض معركة “المقاطعة” مع شرفاء مقاومين، عربياً وعالمياً، مُساهماً ببسالة في فضح جوهر الكيان الصهيوني.

حمل سماح بين جنبيه حكمة الكبار- لِنَقُلْ: من الشيخ سهيل إدريس، والوالدة عايدة – والشبّان الذين انتمى إليهم عمراً وعقلاً، فكتب أعمالاً روائية رائعة تتقدمها “خلف الأبواب المقفلة”، والتي بعد أن قرأتها وأخبرته بقراءتي لها، سألني: هل أعجبتك؟

أجبته: يا سماح.. أنت تكتب عن شبّان لا نعرف عنهم سوى القليل، لأنك منهم. صحيح أنك تكتب لهم، لكنك تكتب عنهم، وعن هواجسهم، ومشاغلهم. لذا، فأنت تعرّفنا بهم، وتساهم في تمكيننا من الاقتراب منهم، فضلاً عن أنك روائي بحق…

سماح كان مَرِحاً، جذّاباً، مؤثراً، بعيداً عن الحقد، محاوراً عنيداً، يعمل طوال الوقت، لا في المكاتب، لكن مع الناس، مع الفتيان، وفي التجمعات، والأفعال المقاومة، لأنه عرف دوره وحدده والتزمه: مقاوماً في الميدان، وليس منظّراً يرسل كلماته عبر البريد الإلكتروني، وفي صفحات الصحف والمجلات، لكن عبر الانخراط ميدانياً.. في معركة الثقافة الجادة المنتمية، وفي مواجهة التطبيع، وشحذ الهمم في نشر ثقافة المقاطعة والمقاومة وفي تعميقها.

كتب سماح افتتاحية غاضبة عن “حثالات” الخراب في لبنان، وثبّت خّط “الآداب”، المجلّة، ودار النشر، كأنما كان يترك وصية وعهداً.

في افتتاحية “الآداب”، بتاريخ 29ـ7ـ2021، يفضح من يفسدون الحياة في لبنان، ويعيّشون بيروت وأخواتها في العتمة، والحاجة إلى البنزين والمازوت، المُستجدين للحماية، ومن يرهنون كرامات الوطن ومصيره، ويبيعونه بأثمان بخسة.. وينهبون ثرواته، ويصرخ بهم علّهم يتعلمون فيرتدعون، وهو عارف بأنهم لن يتغيّروا كـ”حثالات”.

ولأنه يعرفهم جيداً، ويحتقرهم جداً، يكتب: مع حثالة سارقة قاتلة وحقيرة كهذه، قد لا تبدو للكلمة التغييرية المستقلة سطوة. حتى إحراج هذه الحثالة قد لا يحصل.. ببساطة لأن لا أخلاق ولا قيم لها كي تشعر بأي إحراج!

فكيف إذا كانت تلك الكلمة تواجه اكتساحاً متنامياً لإعلام مقايضة الكهرباء والماء والمكيّف والمازوت والبنزين… ببيع كل المبادئ الأخلاقية والقومية والوطنية والتقدمية؟

لكن، هل من باع ذلك كله حصل على الرفاه الموعود؟ اسألوا مصر السادات ما بعد “كامب ديفيد”!

وفي زمن “الحثالات”، المطبّعين واللصوص، وباعة الدم والضمير، ومغرقي الفضاء والورق بإعلام التخدير والتزوير وتغييب الوعي، فسماح المؤمن بقيم حملها بثبات، يكتب وهو يواجه المرض الذي فتك بجسده، بكل يقين، وبكبرياء، معاهداً.. وواعداً، باسمه، وبمن سيواصل رسالة “الآداب” من بعده:

ومع ذلك، فنحن لا نملك مهنة غير الكتابة والنشر المستقلَّيْن، وسنواصل هذه المهنة، مهما صعبت الظروف، ومهما تعثرنا، أو تأخرنا، أو كبونا.

وسنكون إلى جانب كل من يعمل، بكّد وتفانٍ، وحب، على الخلاص من سارقي أحلام شعبنا في الحياة الكريمة الحُرّة.

هذه وصية سماح، وهذه مدرسة “الآداب” التي أنجبته، وتربّى ونشأ على قيمها، وهذا هو المسار الذي ستواصله “الآداب”…

يثق سماح بمن بقوا بعده، بمن صانوا “الآداب” المجلة، و”الآداب” دار النشر، بشقيقته الناشرة المعروفة، عربياً وعالمياً، رنا إدريس، ومعها شقيقته رائدة، وبحضور الأم عايدة التي تبارك آل إدريس الذين أنجبوا جيلاً ثالثاً يكبر برعاية “روح” الأسرة، وقيمها، وثقافتها، وتراثها…

لروحك السلام، أيها المقاوم المثقف والمفكّر الميداني، سماح إدريس.

سيبقى اسمك مرفوعاً في الميادين، ومع رايات فلسطين، وفي أناشيد المقاومين ووعودهم في كل بلاد العرب، وملهما لكل المثقفين الصادقين والشرفاء والمستقلين حقاً.

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

فيديوات متعلقة

مقالات متعلقة

Hiding behind one’s Mecca: Israeli-Saudi covert normalization

February 18, 2022

Source: Al Mayadeen Net

By Karim Sharara 

Saudi Arabia has constantly claimed that it is on the side of the Palestinian people against “Israel”. However, an examination of history reveals a darker side to the kingdom, as it shows that it has had secret dealings with the Zionist regime since 1962, extending up to the beginning of low-level public relations in 2015.

Saudi Arabia’s relations with the Israeli regime go back decades before the 2015 meeting between ex-intelligence heads

For the longest time, it’s been touted that Saudi Arabia was and is not a proponent of normalization, with people citing its past stances in support of Palestine and condemnation of Israeli violations against the Palestinian people. This is all well and good, but Saudi Arabia’s real-world practices reveal another dimension of its relationship with “Israel”, one of an increasing intersection of interests that is leading up to public normalization.

It would not be without benefit to detail the history of Saudi Arabia’s dealings with the Israeli apartheid regime, if for nothing else but to show the Kingdom’s dual standards in dealing secretly with the enemy of the Palestinian people, while at the same time using Palestine as a front in its rhetoric, in order to show its commitment to Arabhood and to advance its regional interests without arousing the anger of the Arab world.

The Kingdom’s history with “Israel” extends far before 2015, when Prince Turki Al-Faisal, the former head of the Saudi General Intelligence Directory, took part in a high-profile panel with the former Israeli Commander of the IOF’s Military Intelligence Directorate, hosted by the General Marshall Fund think tank. Some, like Alexander Bligh, the Chief Scientist at the Israeli Ministry of Science, found that the relationship between the two dates back to 1962.

The history

“In the early 1960s, following the 1962 revolution in the Yemen, ‘Israel’ and Saudi Arabia maintained continuous contacts aimed at depriving their common enemy – Egypt – of victory.” During the time of King Saud and then-prince Faysal, this cooperation proved feasible. [1] The reason was largely caused by Saudi Arabia’s concerns of Egypt becoming a powerful actor among Arab peoples, as Gamal Abd al-Nasser held high the mantle of pan-Arabism, and managed to rally Arab countries against Israeli presence in the region, and against Western imperialist influence. 

This is where Saudi and Israeli interests began to intersect. Although the Israeli lobby had up to then repeatedly attempted to block US weapons sales to the Saudi Kingdom, they were largely unsuccessful in doing so in the first few decades after 1948. In Egypt’s influence and Yemen, and its support of the Yemeni revolution in 1962, “Israel” and Saudi Arabia found each other to be unlikely bedfellows in order to prevent their then-common enemy, Egypt, from declaring victory in Yemen. 

It was then that contact between the two regimes was initiated outside of the region. This cooperation, which proved feasible at one time on account of the Saudis’ perception that Egypt was becoming a threat to its regional dominance, could prove feasible again whenever actors in the Kingdom perceive an external threat to its interests. Not only that, but Abdel Nasser’s popularity in the Arab world ran counter to both Israeli and Saudi interests if Egypt was to become the leader of the Arab world and rival Saudi Arabia for dominance.

Moreover, Israeli declassified documents also show that “Israel” was also secretly involved during the war, and supplied the royalists with military weapons and equipment against the republicans.

Yemen’s Ali Abdallah Saleh also revealed documents in 2017, showing a letter sent by then-Saudi King Faisal bin Abdel Aziz, asking US President Lyndon Johnson to support an Israeli war on Egypt in order to weaken Egypt’s influence with Yemen’s republicans (The Jerusalem Post also covered the leak with an article in English, which you can find here).

New Middle East

There is largely no information on any meeting between the Saudis and the Israelis after that date, though there is a lot of reason to think that a number of clandestine meetings security meetings took place before 2006, as after “Israel’s” 33-day war on Lebanon, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert secretly met with a high-ranking Saudi official in September, but Olmert said at the time that he did not meet the Saudi king, and sources later clarified that he met someone close to the king instead in a third country.

“I did not meet with the Saudi king and I did not meet with anyone who should cause a sensation in the media,” Olmert was quoted as saying at the time by Ynet news, and also said that Saudi Arabia showed “responsibility and judgment” during the war with Lebanon.

“Israel’s” history of relations with Saudi Arabia was again brought up in a May 2021 interview that Russia Today conducted with Olmert, wherein he said that “Israel” has held steady relations with Saudi Arabia since 2006, and that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman is very interested in changing the status of relations between “Israel” and Saudi Arabia.

“I can tell you that there has been communication between the Saudis and ‘Israel’ that dates back 15 years, and all throughout this period. They are not enemies.”

Intersecting interests

Putting aside public meetings between ranking Saudi and Israeli officials, there have been numerous reports over the years of intersecting interests between the colonial regime and Saudi Arabia (as evidenced by their interests against Egypt), particularly with regards to the resistance’s growing influence in the region, with both regimes showing similar concern of what they perceive to be a threat posed by Iran and its allies.

The horrible torture and murder of Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi by the order of Saudi Arabia’s de facto leader, Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, had global implications on Saudi Arabia’s standing; Moreover, it severely harmed business in the Kingdom, with international companies being hesitant to invest in it, lest their doing so is seen as support for the Kingdom that horribly murdered and dismembered a journalist.

Nevertheless, amidst all this, Netanyahu voiced support for Saudi Arabia, citing the primacy of the ‘Iran threat’, which necessitates that there be stability in the Kingdom so that it can use its regional power to counter the resistance.

“What happened at the Istanbul consulate was horrendous and it should be duly dealt with. But at the same time, it is very important for the stability of the region and the world that Saudi Arabia remain stable,” Netanyahu said during a visit to Bulgaria. The ex-PM, now on trial, added “I think that a way must be found to achieve both goals. Because the larger problem I believe is Iran.” Not only that but Netanyahu also lobbied for MbS and pushed the White House to maintain its support for him.

Even before Khashoggi’s murder, Israeli commentator Barak Ravid leaked a cable on Israeli Channel 10 in November 2017, in which the Israeli Foreign Ministry instructs its diplomats to lobby in favor of Saudi Arabia against Iran and Hezbollah.

Moreso, in June 2017, renowned journalist David Hearst published an article for the Middle East Eye, wherein he said that “Israel” and Saudi Arabia have forged an alliance against the resistance in Gaza, and that the Kingdom is financing “Israel’s” weapons build-up against Iran

The Saudi Ambassador to the UK released a statement denying that an alliance has been forged between his country and the Israeli regime, but did not deny that the meetings took place, and in fact stated that “any dealings by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with ‘Israel’ have been limited to attempts to bring about a plan for peace.”

Beginning of public relations

Public meetings between ranking Saudi Arabian and Israeli figures, however, have also been occurring over the past few years, just as clandestine relations between the two countries are increasing (like secret trade talks that took place in 2017, in a first). 

The first such meeting, as mentioned at the beginning of this article, took place in 2015, between Prince Turki Al-Faisal, the former head of the Saudi General Intelligence Directory, and Amos Yadlin the former Israeli Commander of the IOF’s Military Intelligence Directorate, who were brought together in a high-profile and public panel hosted by the General Marshall Fund.

Although the prince was invited for a visit to Al-Quds by the retired Major General, he turned it down, as no official could perform such a visit before a “comprehensive peace deal”. This entailed an indication of the Saudi rhetoric at the time that the Kingdom would not normalize with “Israel”, unless a comprehensive agreement was reached with the Palestinian factions. 

However, Turki Al-Faisal managed to keep the atmosphere chummy, replying to the former Mossad spy chief “Yeah, absolutely not,” as the attendance laughed, “and the general knows that.” To perform such a visit before a “peace deal” was “putting the chicken before the egg.” 

This visit by such a high-ranking Saudi official, who was the head of the Saudi General Intelligence Directory for 24 years, effectively broke the taboo on meetings with Israeli officials, allowing a delegation of Saudi academics and businessmen – led by retired Saudi General Anwar Eshki, who was a former advisor to the Saudi government – to visit the occupied territories in July 2016. 

Knesset Member Issawi Frej, one of the other MK members who took part in the meeting, said “The Saudis want to open up to ‘Israel’…It’s a strategic move for them. They want to continue what former Egyptian president Anwar Sadat started (with the 1979 Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty). They want to get closer with ‘Israel’, and we could feel it clearly.”

If that wasn’t enough, the Editor of Haaretz’s English Edition Avi Scharf revealed in November 2020, meaning when Trump and Netanyahu were both still in power, that a visit had occurred for the first time between former Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, during the time Mike Pompeo was visiting Saudi Arabia.

Netanyahu’s associates later leaked that a meeting indeed took place between the two, for which the Israeli PM received some flak from Defense Minister Benny Gantz, who called the leak “irresponsible”.

The history of relations between the two regimes showed that intersecting regional interests, allieviated by both of them being allies with the Western camp, was the basis on which they were able to build their covert relations. From, Israeli support for the war on Yemen, to Saudi Arabia’s inching towards increasingly overt security cooperation, and up to its outright criticism of the Palestinian leaderships and their stance against the normalization process adopted by the UAE, Bahrain and Morocco, as evidenced by ex-spy chief Bandar bin Sultan’s interview on Saudi Arabia’s official Al-Arabiya TV, all show that both regimes are drawing increasingly closer to normalizing ties.

It is one thing to be with normalization, or to have secret dealings with “Israel”, but it’s something else when Saudi Arabia claims to be on the side of the Palestinian people against “Israel” while holding and advancing relations with the apartheid regime, only to later stab Palestine in the back. 

Additional reference:

[1] Bligh, Alexander. 1985. “Towards Israel-Saudi co-existence?” Jerusalem Quarterly, no. 35, 24 – 35.

How normalization with “Israel” assassinated Egypt’s economy

February 16, 2022

Source: Al Mayadeen

By Mona Issa

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

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

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

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

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

“Peace” negotiations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s talk about the costs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

السعودية: تكفير وإرهاب من

الخميس 6 يناير 2022

 شوقي عواضة

لم يكن نشوء الكيان السّعودي أقلّ دمويّةً وإرهابيّةً من قيام أميركا التي قامت على أنقاض الهنود الحمر ولا أقلّ إجراماً من نشوء الكيان الصّهيوني الذي قام على أجساد الفلسطينيين، بل كان أكثر إرهاباً وإجراماً وقتلاً وتمثيلاً وتنكيلاً بالبشر. وما يميّزه عن الكيانين الأميركي «والإسرائيلي» يجعله أكثر خطورةً على الأمّة حيث أنّ آل سعود المنحدرين من أصلٍ يهوديٍّ يعود لجدّهم مردخاي بن ابراهام بن موشي الدونمي من يهود الدونمة وفق ما أثبته الكاتب الشّهيد ناصر السعيد في كتابه «تاريخ آل سعود». وعليه فإنّ هؤلاء اليهود الذين أسّسوا الكيان السّعودي بدعمٍ بريطاني تكمن خطورته في الحقائق التّاريخية الآتية:

أولا ـ تبنّيهم للهوية العربيّة وهم يهود في الأصل واتخاذ الإسلام ستاراً للحكم وقيام كيانهم الوظيفي والحليف للكيان الصّهيوني.

ُثانياـ اغتصابهم لشبه الجزيرة العربيّة بدعم بريطانيا التي دعمت قيام الكيان الصّهيوني الذي اغتصب فلسطين.

ثالثا ـ قيام الكيان السّعودي على الغزوات وارتكاب المذابح والمجازر بحقّ القبائل العربيّة كما حصل في فلسطين من غزواتٍ ومذابحَ على يد عصابات الهاغاناه وشتيرن وغيرها.

رابعا ـ ضرب واستهداف كلّ عناصر القوّة في الأمّة لا سيما تيّارات المقاومة وتشتيتها وتحويل مسار الصّراع مع الكيان الصّهيوني إلى صراعاتٍ وحروبٍ داخل الأمة.

عبر التاريخ أثبت الكيان السعودي بكلّ ملوكه وحكّامه الذين توالوا على الحكم هذه الحقائق. فالسعوديّة التي استدرجت الرئيس جمال عبد النّاصر للحرب في اليمن لم تكن مهمّتها سوى إشغال الرئيس المصري عن استكمال المواجهة مع العدو الصّهيوني

وثائق الدور السعودي في حرب يونيو

فقد كشفت وثائق للمخابرات الأميركيّة والبريطانيّة و»الإسرائيليّة» نشرت مؤخّراً عن حقائق هامّة تتعلّق بدورٍ خطيرٍ قام به الملك فيصل بالتنسيق مع أميركا قبل حرب 1967 للتآمر على عبد النّاصر وهزيمته، وكشفت عن اتصالاتٍ سرّيةٍ أجراها السعوديون بالإسرائيليين بهدف دعمهم مباشرة أو من خلال واشنطن لضرب عبد الناصر وتحجيم دوره القومي، وفرض الهزيمة المعنويّة عليه بعد الهزيمة العسكريّة عام 1967 وهو ما جرى فعلياً…

كذلك الأمر اليوم أعادت السّعودية نفس السيناريو من خلال ما يسمّى بالرّبيع العربي لاستنزاف سورية قلعة المقاومة وحصنها وإشغال المقاومة بعد انتصاري 2000 و2006 ومحاولة تفتيت قدراتها لكنّها فشلت وأسقط مشروعها، ومحاولة استعادة العراق من محور المقاومة، والسّيطرة على اليمن الذي أذلّ طواغيت آل سعود وحلفائهم. لم تتغيّر مسلكية آل سعود منذ نشوء كيانهم الوظيفي حتى اليوم وهذا ليس تحليلاً ولا توقعاً بل وقائع تاريخيّة موثّقة عبّر عنها الزّعيم الراحل :جمال عبد النّاصر في محطاتٍ كثيرةٍ. فمن خطاب له في الثالث والعشرين من كانون الأول/ ديسمبر عام 1962 قال

سقط لنا 136 ضابطاً وعسكريّاً جزمة كلّ واحد منهم أشرف من تاج الملك سعود والملك حسين

وفي الثّاني والعشرين من تموز/ يوليو من العام نفسه كشف عبد الناصر عن التّعاون بين الاستعمار والنظام السّعودي قائلاً «لاحظنا في السنة الأخيرة تعاوناً مطلقاً بين الرجعية العربيّة وقوى الاستعمار ويوجد تعاونٌ وتضامنٌ بينهم في العمل ضدّ القومية العربيّة وقوى الثّورة والتّحرر العربي. صفقات السّلاح التي تستهدف العرب ولا تستهدف عدو العرب».

أمّا عن قضية فلسطين وآل سعود فكان للزعيم عبد الناصر رأي يقول

«أنا لا أتصوّر بأيّ حال من الأحوال أن المملكة السعودية تستطيع أن تحارب في فلسطين وفيها قاعدة أميركية وفيها قاعدة بريطانيّة.

لم تكن مواقف الرئيس جمال عبد الناصر حينها طائفيّةً ولا مذهبيةً ولا عشائريةً أو عنصريّةً وهو العربي الذي عمّد عروبته بالدّم، وهو المسلم الذي تقدّم لمقاومة المحتلّ الصهيوني لأرض فلسطين، وهو السني الذي ثار في وجه الظالمين والمستبدّين وفي مقدمتهم آل سعود.

تلك المواقف لم تكن إلا تعبيراً عن واقعٍ وحقيقة دامغة كشفت دور آل سعود ومؤامراتهم على الأمّة. وما قاله الأمين العام لحزب الله السيّد حسن نصر الله في خطابه الأخير في ذكرى الشّهيدين قاسم سليماني وأبي مهدي المهندس هو نفس الحقيقة التي عبّر عنها الرئيس عبد الناصر منذ أكثر من خمسين عاماً، ولا يزال نفس الكيان يتآمر على الأمة ولكي لا يعطي البعض صبغةً طائفيةً أو مذهبيّة لكلام السّيد نصر الله نقول لهم راجعوا مواقف الرّئيس عبد الناصر التي ردّ عليها آل سعود بتكفيره في الثالث والعشرين من كانون الأول/ ديسمبر من عام 1962 حيث نشرت صحيفة «عكاظ» السّعودية على صفحتها الأولى وبالخط العريض فتوى لفقهاء البلاط الملكي تقول (جمال عبد الناصر كافر بالإجماع) عنوان يختصر عقليّة الكيان السّعودي وحكّامه المستعربين الذين لم ولن يتغيّروا. اليوم يكفّرون الشّرفاء ويتهمونهم بالإرهاب وكلّ ذلك لن يغيّر من حقيقة تقول بأنّ الكيان السعودي الذي قام على المذابح والقتل هو أصل الإرهاب وليس أقلّ خطورة من إرهاب العدو الصّهيوني، وأنّ الوهابيّة التي غزت بدواعشها دمشق وبغداد لا تقلّ عدوانية عن عصابات الهاغاناه وشتيرن، وان شيوخ الوهابيّة هم كفقهاء التلمود، وأنّ كيانكم السرطاني سيزول كما سيزول الكيان الصّهيوني والآتي من الأيام سيُنبّئ بذلك.

When Gamal Abdel Nasser Screamed: We will Never Surrender!

22 Dec 2021

Source: Al Mayadeen Net

When Gamal Abdel Nasser Screamed: We will Never Surrender!

Hussam AbdelKareem

Faced with the danger and gravity of the situation, Gamal Abdel Nasser did not collapse and stood steadfast. He did not lose faith in his people and in the justice of his cause.

The circumstances were very difficult and the situation could hardly be graver. Gamal Abdel Nasser headed to Al-Azhar Mosque in Cairo, the historic base of Islam in Egypt, ascended its pulpit and addressed his people passionately from his heart and said  “We will fight to the last drop of blood! We will never surrender”. 

That was the way in which the young leader, 38 years old, responded to the developments of the crisis that escalated to the point of brutal military invasion which Egypt was facing. Eighty thousand was the number of British and French troops attacking Egypt, in addition to the army of “Israel”. All that was a result of Nasser’s decision to nationalize the Suez Canal a few months earlier.

The Invaders Have Arrived

At the time when Nasser was delivering his speech in Al-Azhar, the huge British Royal Navy fleet consisting of aircraft carriers, battleships, destroyers and speedboats, together with the French Navy ally, were already at the shores of northern Egypt attacking and targeting the cities of Port Said and Port Fouad and their surroundings. The forces of aggression paved the way for their attack on the Suez Canal area with concentrated air raids on Cairo and Alexandria that targeted many places, including the Egyptian radio station.

The situation was frightening. It was no less than a comprehensive attack on Egypt, whose army has not yet recovered from the effects of defeat in the 1948 Palestine War. On the other hand “Great Britain”, the lead attacker, had emerged victorious a few years ago from World War II.

Faced with the danger and gravity of the situation, Gamal Abdel Nasser did not collapse and stood steadfast. He did not lose faith in his people and in the justice of his cause. He decided that the best response to the challenge was to revert back to his people for whose sake he led the revolution in 1952. Nasser addressed the Egyptians urging them to be strong, united with no despair, and assuring them of the inevitability of victory over the forces of aggression.

In light of the disparity in military power, Nasser called on his people to engage in paramilitary resistance and guerrilla war to confront the British-French enemy forces that began landing in Port Said. The President decided to open the Egyptian army’s storehouses for the people to obtain weapons that would enable them to confront the invaders, and began organizing the activity of the resistance brigades.

Nasser’s belief in his people and his resort to them was not surprising. All the actions that he had taken since the success of the July Revolution (1952) were directed towards his quest to advance Egypt and promote its proper place in the world away from colonialism and subordination. That includes his decision in June 1956 to nationalize the Suez Canal and transfer its ownership and management to the Egyptian people after it had been owned by Britain for 70 years since Ismail, Egypt’s ruler from the Mohammad Ali dynasty, “sold” it to the British at cheap when he went through some financial hardship and needed cash!

Nasser’s Decision: A Risk Worth Taking

Gamal Abdel Nasser knew he was taking a great risk because he’s depriving “Great Britain” of controlling the sea route to its colonies and interests in the east, and in this case, the British wouldn’t let Nasser’s decision pass. Nasser acted intelligently and thoughtfully when nationalizing the canal, declaring Egypt’s willingness to pay for Britain’s share in the Suez Canal Company, using at the same time Egypt’s sovereign right to nationalize a water canal that is part of its territory, thus depriving Britain of the legal justification for launching aggression or even rejecting the decision. 

In fact, the nationalization of Suez Canal was Gamal Abdel Nasser’s last arrow in his encounter with Britain and Western powers. Since the first day of the success of the July Revolution (1952) and the overthrow of King Farouk, the British position was hostile towards Nasser’s Free Officers regime and the renaissance measures they took in Egypt, their determination to achieve independence and get rid of British hegemony, and their insistence on the withdrawal of all British forces from Egypt (which finally took place in 1956).

When Britain along with the rising power, the US,  failed to “contain” the Free Officers movement led by Nasser, and to take Egypt back to their camp, they showed their true colonial face and began working to thwart all of Nasser’s ambitious development projects; the most important of which were two: modernization and arming of the Egyptian army, and building the “Aswan High Dam” in Southern Egypt to generate electricity for the country and control the flooding of the Nile.

Despite lengthy negotiations and requests, Britain and the US did not agree to supply Egypt with modern weapons that would enable it to defend its borders against Israeli attacks and threats. They wanted Egypt to remain weak with outdated and obsolete weapons, but Nasser succeeded in making an important breakthrough and a major achievement when he managed, for the first time in the Arab region, to obtain Russian weapons through Czechoslovakia. Britain and the US felt the seriousness of what happened and that the Soviet communist opponent had gained a foothold in their area of influence! They looked at Nasser as an enemy who must be punished and brought down.

As for the vital project for Egypt, the Aswan High Dam, on which all of Nasser’s development plans were based (it became a matter of life or death to him), it reached a deadlock when the US Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, informed the Egyptian ambassador to the US of Washington’s final decision: We will not finance the High Dam and we will not support you to build it because the project is “bigger than Egypt’s capabilities!” All the efforts made by Egypt to obtain funding from Western countries to build the dam were suddenly gone with the wind! Even worse; the US and Britain used their influence in the World Bank to obstruct Egypt’s funding request!

That’s how Britain and the US dealt with Egypt very arrogantly. They did not agree to sell advanced weapons to Egypt, and they did not want Egypt to obtain them from any other source! They did not agree to fund the High Dam, and did not allow the World Bank to do that! In conclusion, Egypt, in the eyes of Britain, France and the US, must remain a weak, dependent and backward country in order be satisfied! Of course, this situation cannot be accepted by a young and devoted national leader like Gamal Abdel Nasser, who decided to respond in a way that hurts them: the nationalization of Suez Canal.

The Israeli Element 

And here appeared “Israel”! It decided to show its usefulness as an advanced base for the British Empire (Britain originally established it for this purpose). Although the Suez Canal problem has nothing to do with it, “Israel” quickly conveyed to London and Paris its full readiness to participate in any Anglo-French aggression against Egypt.

A secret meeting was held in Paris (France was very interested in bringing down Nasser because of his support for the Algerian revolution) that included British Prime Minister Anthony Eden, French President Guy Mollet, and Prime Minister of “Israel” Ben Gurion, during which the war scenario on Egypt was agreed upon; “Israel” will launch an invasion against Egypt through the Sinai under the pretext of stopping the attacks of the Palestinian guerrillas in Gaza supported by Egypt. On the next day, Britain and France have issued an ultimatum to the Egyptian and Israeli sides to stop the fighting for the purpose of protecting the Suez Canal and the international navigation. Then, if the fighting wouldn’t stop, the British-French military intervention will begin and the reoccupation of all the Suez Canal area will be justified and “legal”! The assessment of the three parties was that this military action would lead to the humiliation of Nasser and his downfall into hostile hands inside Egypt, and perhaps the return of the old monarchy.

The plan was actually executed according to the secret agreement. “Israel” attacked Egypt on October 29. On the following day, a joint British-French ultimatum was issued to the two sides demanding ceasefire and allowing British-French forces to control the canal from Port Said in the north to Suez in the south. As expected, Nasser rejected the ultimatum and request. They attacked on October 31, and the tripartite Israeli-British-French aggression against Egypt was in its full might.

Back to Nasser’s “resistance speech” at Al-Azhar Mosque, the Egyptians responded to the call of their leader and declared their rejection of the return of colonialism. In Port Said, a national epic began to resist the occupation forces that  faced relentless street wars and guerrillas from house to house.

The Conflicting Interests of World’s Super Powers

Despite the intensity of the bombing and the extent of destruction caused by the aggression forces in Port Said, the tripartite alliance faced great difficulty in controlling the city, in which fighting continued for several days, and that hindered the march of the invading forces to the south to reach the city of Suez (as planned), so they were only able to advance for a distance of only 17 kilometers south of Port Said. During those days, large-scale political movements took place in the world, the most important of which were two:

The first was the (rare) US-British rift. The United States, which had already ascended to the leadership of Western world as heir to Great Britain, did not like Britain’s unilateralism in dealing with the Suez problem and its war- inclined approach, which could lead to the “loss of Egypt” and push indirectly Nasser to throw completely himself into the arms the Soviets. US President Eisenhower took a tough stance and asked Britain to stop its offensive and ordered “Israel” to withdraw from Sinai.

The second was the Soviet Union’s intrusion into the crisis and its strong support for Egypt, which amounted to the Soviet leader Khrushchev’s threat to use nuclear weapons against Western countries!

The result of all this was the issuance of a United Nations resolution to stop the war and ordered the withdrawal of the attacking forces. Indeed, by the end of December 22, the last invading Anglo-French forces withdrew from Port Said. As for the Israeli forces, they stayed for another three months before withdrawing from Sinai and Gaza as well.

“Great Britain” Humiliated 

What happened was a political earthquake in every sense of the word, from which Egypt emerged victorious with its head held high. It succeeded in consolidating the decision to nationalize the canal, which became an important source of income to help Egypt in its renaissance projects. Removing the huge statue of De Lesseps at the entrance to the Suez Canal was a symbolic blow to the old colonial powers.

The invaders’ forces withdrew after they failed to achieve any goal. Gamal Abdel Nasser appeared as a rising national leader and turned into a symbol of the Arab and international liberation movement from Western colonialism. The biggest disappointment was for British Prime Minister Anthony Eden, who was forced to resign in the wake of the failure and humiliation suffered by Britain (which was no longer great!) at the hands of Nasser.

The old lion realized that he became old, and could do nothing of real value, so he contented himself with action-less roaring and babbling. Britain’s media and major newspapers launched a terrible smear campaign against “Colonel Nasser” that amounted to comparing him to Hitler! And that was the most they could do after 1956. 

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

الفيلم الوثائقي “جمال عبد الناصر- الأسطورة والزعيم

Algeria Battling “Israel” in Africa

10 Nov 2021

Source: Al Mayadeen Net

Hussam AbdelKareem

Due to the strong Algerian opposition, “Israel”‘s accession is almost impossible.

Argelia lucha contra "Israel" en África | Al Mayadeen Español

On October 16th, 2021, the Executive Council of the African Union announced the postponement of its decision on approving or rejecting the “observer status” of “Israel” in the Union to the next African summit scheduled for February 2022. This decision is in fact the culmination of a great effort made by Algeria politically and diplomatically over the course of three months among the African countries to oppose and confront the sudden decision taken by the Chairperson of the African Union Commission, Moussa Faki, to accept the application of “Israel” to join the African Union as an observer member, and the subsequent presentation by the Israeli ambassador to Ethiopia (the headquarters country) of his credentials to the Union on the 22nd of June 2021.

From the first day of the decision of Moussa Faki, a French-educated former Chadian prime minister, Algeria went into something like a state of emergency, and a decision was taken at the highest levels to launch a comprehensive diplomatic campaign and to use all of Algeria’s weight and political capabilities to confront Faki’s personal decision. The Algerian Foreign Ministry announced its total rejection of “Israel’s” admission to the ranks of the African Union and said that the Chairperson of the Commission had not consulted the member states in this regard.

Algeria began to move and succeeded in persuading six Arab African countries (not including Morocco and Sudan, who are involved in a process of normalization), namely Tunisia, Egypt, Mauritania, Djibouti, Libya, and the Comoros Islands to announce their opposition to Faki’s decision in a statement on August 3rd. Moussa Faki quickly felt that he is being targeted by the pressures of Algerian diplomacy, represented by Minister Ramtan Lamamra, so he issued an official statement on August 6th in which he responded to Algeria and affirmed that his decision to accept “Israel” as an observer member is indeed within his authorities.

The Algerian campaign against “Israel” in Africa did not stop (South Africa, who had reservations about Moussa Faki’s decision from the first day, cooperated with it), and succeeded in persuading Sudan to join the countries opposing Faki’s decision in a statement issued by the Sudanese Foreign Ministry on October 15th. And in the next day, Algeria succeeded in leading a group of 24 African countries who also announced their objection to Faki, which prompted the Executive Council to finally decide to postpone the decision on accepting the membership of “Israel” until the next summit. This is an important diplomatic victory for Algeria because it actually means, almost certainly, the failure of the project of “Israel”‘s accession, as approving it in the African summit; due to the strong Algerian opposition, “Israel”‘s accession is almost impossible.

This Algerian activity and efficiency are due, in part, to its desire to compensate for the years of relative inaction that characterized the Algerian diplomacy during the rule of the ailing former president, Abdelaziz Bouteflika, which allowed “Israel” to penetrate into African circles that it did not reach before. Benjamin Netanyahu intensified contacts with West African and sub-Saharan countries in 2016 and hosted an agricultural conference in “Israel” in which 15 countries participated. He also made several visits to the region and was feeling so triumphant to the extent that he publically said, during his visit to Liberia “Israel is returning strongly to Africa!”. “Israel” succeeded in establishing diplomatic relations with a record number of African countries (46 countries out of 55 members of the African Union).

Historically speaking, the late Gamal Abdel Nasser took charge, in the fifties and sixties of the last century, of combating the Israeli penetration into the African continent. And he took advantage of Egypt’s weight at the time and its relations with the national liberation movements in the continent to besiege the Israeli presence and keep it within minimum limits (most notably with the apartheid racist regime in South Africa). In the aftermath of the October 1973 war, “Israel” was having diplomatic relations with only four African countries. But Sadat’s coup in Egypt and the Camp David Accords opened the African doors to “Israel” once again. The banner of combating Israeli expansion in Africa then passed to Colonel Gaddafi in Libya, who paid great attention to the countries of the continent and built a network of close relations with them and provided them with financial support and contributed to a large extent in keeping most African countries, especially its western and sub-Saharan countries, out of Israeli influence until he was killed in 2011.

The growing Moroccan-Israeli relations are one of the reasons for this Algerian activity at the African level. Algeria no longer considers “Israel” as a Pan-Arab danger, but has become a direct threat to it on its borders. When “Israel” and Morocco crowned decades of their unofficial relations by announcing the establishment of full diplomatic relations in December 2020, Algerian President Abdelmajid Tabboun said, “We notice a kind of rush towards normalization. We will not participate in it or bless it. The Palestinian Cause is sacred to us here in Algeria, and it is the mother of all causes”. His Prime Minister Abdelaziz Jerad followed with a strong statement in which he said that “Algeria is being targeted” and that there is a foreign will for Zionism to reach Algeria’s borders.

That is, Algeria’s leadership has come to consider “Israel’s” relations and activities in neighboring Morocco as a direct security and strategic threat, which has caused great tension in the Algerian view of the Moroccan ruling regime. The Algerian newspaper “Al-Shorouk” published an article titled “For these reasons, the Zionist entity targets Algeria.” And what made matters worse was the intelligence information that “Israel” had helped Morocco establish a military base near the Algerian border. Things crossed its red lines when Algeria felt that “Israel”, through Morocco, was trying to interfere with the internal Algerian affairs. And recently, Algerian television announced that the separatist “MAK” movement has ties to “Israel” and Morocco and that those involved in it were in contact with Israeli parties under the cover of “civil society organizations.” In the end, Algeria decided to cut diplomatic relations with Morocco last August.

“Israel”, in turn, responded to Algeria, accusing it of being part of an axis that includes Iran. Its foreign minister, Meir Lapid, from Casablanca, expressed concerns “about Algeria’s role in the region, its rapprochement with Iran, and the campaign it led against Israel’s admission as an observer member of the African Union”.

Today we are witnessing a great Algerian rise to combat and thwart the Zionist expansion in Africa. This is not surprising for a country with a glorious history of revolution and resistance to colonialism, who, since the days of its great revolution sixty years ago, has been associated with Palestine, its revolution, and its cause, and considered it the twin of its soul and struggle, and is still in the same position.

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

Che Guevara’s 54th Martyrdom Commemoration: The Revolution Continues

October 8, 2021

See the source image

Source: Al Mayadeen

By Ahmad Karakira

54 years after his martyrdom, Guevara’s historic visit to the Palestinian Gaza in 1959 continues to stand as a token of resilience for liberation and resistance movements in Palestine and the world.

Visual search query image
Che’s visit to Palestine came in support of Palestinian national liberation and revolutionary movements against imperialism and colonization

Mohammed was 13 years old when Marxist revolutionary Ernesto Che Guevara paid his first visit to the Gaza Strip that was, at the time, administered by Egypt.

Little did he know that he will become a resistance icon and nicknamed “Gaza’s Guevara” for his tremendous role in the resistance against the Israeli occupation in Gaza and his continuous revolt against injustice and colonialism, as well as his ability to hide and confuse the enemy.

Originally, Mohammed al-Aswad, or “Gaza’s Guevara” was born in the coastal city of Haifa in 1946. Later, the boy and his family sought refuge after they were displaced from their city as a result of the 1948 Nakba and eventually ended up in a refugee camp in Gaza.

Al-Aswad grew up to become a resistance activist against “Israel,” and was jailed for two years. After his release in 1970, he joined the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and gradually got promoted to commander of the PFLP military wing in the Gaza Strip.

During that time, he focused on training and educating resistance forces, as well as organizing demonstrations and strikes against the occupation, applying Martyr Bassel al-Araj’s doctrine: “If you don’t want to be engaged (in fighting oppression), your intellect is pointless.”

His integrity made Moshe Dayan, former Israeli occupation Minister of Security, say, “We run Gaza by day, and Guevara and his comrades run it at night.”

Three years later, “Gaza’s Guevara” was martyred during a heroic battle in the Strip.

Ernesto Che Guevara’s visit to Gaza

Martyr Mohammed al-Aswad’s story is vivid proof of the significant and strong relationship between Che Guevara and the Palestinian cause, which Gaza has become the symbol of.

In fact, Che Guevara’s visit to the Strip on June 18, 1959, at the invitation of the late Egyptian President and leader Gamal Abdel-Nasser, came to establish a state of solidarity and harmony between Cuba and the Palestinian cause.

His visit to Gaza transformed the cause from regional to global and reflected his famous phrase: “Solidarity is a condition that must always be practiced.”

The Israeli occupation of Palestine and the systematic ethnic cleansing against its population triggered the establishment of Palestinian Resistance forces and the emergence of freedom fighters, legitimized by Abdel-Nasser, who was considered a leader against colonialism and imperialism.

To break the determination and resilience of the Resistance, Israeli occupation forces, led by Ariel Sharon, Prime Minister from 2001 till 2006, continuously attacked the Gaza Strip and its refugee camps, committing horrible massacres against many Palestinians and Egyptian soldiers, with no reaction from the international community that simply turned a blind eye to the Israeli atrocities.

A historic visit by all means

Che’s visit came in support of Palestinian national liberation and revolutionary movements against imperialism and colonization.

It was an exceptional visit that was met enthusiastically by resistance leaders and Palestinians.

He was accompanied to al-Bureij Camp, where Israelis committed some of the most horrible massacres, and saw the poverty and hardship that Palestinians were living in, advised Palestinian leaders to pursue the path of resistance, which they tread through their people’s resilience and steadfastness.  

During the visit, he addressed the camp leader Mustafa Abu Midyan, saying, “You should show me what you have done to liberate your country. Where are the training camps? Where are the arms manufacturing factories? Where are the people’s mobilization centers?” With these words, Guevara was trying to lay out the foundations necessary for any resistance movement. 

At the same time, he urged Palestinian refugees to continue their struggle in order to liberate their land from the occupation, offering to supply the Palestinian resistance with arms and training.

In an interview for Al Mayadeen, his daughter, Dr. Aleida Guevara, quoted her father as saying, “The Middle East is considered, with all of its contradictions, a region that is boiling, and it is not possible to predict how far the war between Israel – which is supported by imperialists – and progressive countries in the region will go.”

And the impact still echoes

Following the historic visit, Cuba offered scholarships, granted citizenships, and organized many conferences all in support of Palestine and the Palestinian people.

In addition, the island of Cuba was one of the first countries to recognize the Palestine Liberation Organization when it was founded in 1964.

Soon after his visit, the Marxist doctor became an icon for the Palestinian resistance and fighters and a symbol of revolution, especially for leftist movements.

Hasta Siempre

On this occasion, on the 54th anniversary of his martyrdom, it goes without saying that Che’s resistance, integrity, and solidarity is what we are in need of to liberate the oppressed nations, such as Palestine, Yemen, and any country in the world from Western imperialism, colonialism, and military occupation. His memory still brings forth devoted revolutionary resistance figures such “Gaza’s Guevara”, Mohammed al-Aswad. 

Armed with his forwardness and valor, he would have been on the frontlines in Gaza fighting the Israeli siege. He would have been digging, using a tool as simple as a spoon, alongside the other six, the freedom tunnel that liberates the whole of Palestine from the operators of the Gilboa Prison. 

Aleida Guevara to Al Mayadeen: “We Must Fight Alongside the Palestinians, as Che Believed”

The revolutionary commander’s daughter spoke about a multitude of subjects on her father’s 54th assassination anniversary, notably the Palestinian cause and the dangers of Arab division.

The revolutionary commander’s daughter spoke about a multitude of subjects on her father’s 54th assassination anniversary, notably the Palestinian cause and the dangers of Arab division.

Visual search query image
Aleida Guevara, daughter of Che

“My father would have always stood on the side of oppressed nations,” said Elaida Guevara, daughter of famed revolutionary Che Guevara on the 54th anniversary of his assassination.

In an interview with Al Mayadeen, Aleida revealed her belief that had her father remained alive, things would have been different in Bolivia and Argentina, as he most assuredly would not have surrendered due to his belief of “fight for the oppressed or die fighting.”

Che’s visit to the Middle-East was also recalled, with Aleida describing his conscious realization of the boiling nature of the region due to colonization, the harsh circumstances surrounding its populations, and the endless pressures performed by major powers trying to steal its resources, “notably its oil.”

Linking the current divisions of the Arab world with the Marxist revolutionary’s experience in Cuba, she stressed the importance of “people’s unification”, notably as the sectarian rifts sowed by European colonial powers are dangerously threatening the Arab World’s unity and ability to progress.

On Palestine

In this context, Aleida mentioned her father’s visit to Palestine in 1959. She decreed her love for Palestine, whom her father visited which she considers not only to be a historical nation but a major cause, as she decried “Israel’s” plan to colonize the whole of the Middle East and not simply the Palestinian lands illegally handed over by the UN.

Further diving into the cause, Che’s daughter assured that Lebanon, Syria, and Iran are the only regional countries actively championing a righteous stance towards Palestine, whilst the rest appear to apply a palliative treatment. She mentioned Cuba in this context, which despite being distant from the region, still recently severed all diplomatic relations with “Israel” in solidarity with the Palestinian people.

Regarding the 6 Palestinian prisoners who liberated themselves from the maximum-security Gilboa prison, Aleida considered the operation an “unusual heroism.”

“If you go to the South of Lebanon, you will find remains of Israeli prisons, where you can see with your own eyes what an Israeli prison means, let alone one with extreme security measures,” she added.

She called for the commandment of the prisoners, whose deed should be applauded, supported, and preserved given the historical nature of their struggle, notably under the occupation’s inhumane prison conditions.

Aleida Guevara concluded that the Palestinian people should be supported and that “we must fight with them side by side,” which is an extension of Che’s motto of “solidarity not only being the act raising our voices, but also coming to the aid of our comrades when they need us.”

El Commandante’s daughter has previously sent a letter to Al Mayadeen, on the occasion of the launch of its new website in English, in which she urged the world and the website to “defend the truth above anything else,” and stressing that “correct information, truthful information are essential, and that is what Al Mayadeen does with the stories it gives us every day.”

Who Really Runs the Middle East?

September 25, 2021

Who Really Runs the Middle East?

By Cynthia Chung for the Saker Blog

Afghanistan is on many people’s minds lately, though the sentiment is rather mixed. Some think of it as a cause for celebration, others for deep concern, and then there are those who think it an utter disaster that justifies foreign re-entry.

Most of the western concern arises out of 9/11 and the Taliban’s supposed connection to this through Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, however, as Scott Ritter (who was the lead analyst for the 7th Marine Amphibious Brigade on the Soviet war in Afghanistan) wrote:

The entire Afghan conflict must be examined considering this reality – everything is a lie. Every battle, every campaign, every contract written and implemented – everything was founded in a lie…

Admiral McRaven, when speaking of the operation to kill Bin Laden, noted that there wasn’t anything fundamentally special about that mission in terms of the tactics. ‘I think that night we ran 11 or 12 [other] missions in Afghanistan,’ McRaven noted. Clearly there was a military focus beyond simply killing Bin Laden. It was secretive work, reportedly involving the assassination of Taliban members, that often resulted in innocent civilians beings killed.

It should be noted that, as of 2019, McRaven believed that this kind of special operations activity should be continued in Afghanistan for years to come. So much for the US mission in Afghanistan being defined by the death of Bin Laden. The mission had become death, and the careers that were defined by those deaths.

The fact is the war in Afghanistan did not need to be fought. We could have ended the threat posed by Bin Laden simply by negotiating with the Taliban in the aftermath of 9/11, providing the evidence we claimed to have linking Bin Laden to the terrorist attacks on the United States. Any student of Afghanistan worth their salt knows the fundamental importance of honor that is enshrined in the concepts of Pashtunwali, the unwritten ethical code that defines the traditional lifestyle of the Pashtun people. If, as we claimed, Bin Laden carried out an attack on women and children while he was living under the protection of Pashtunwali, then his dishonor is that of the Pashtun tribes. To clear their honor, they would seek justice – in this case, evicting Bin Laden and his followers from Afghanistan.

In fact, the Taliban made precisely this offer.

For America, however, this would have been an unsatisfying result. We needed blood, not justice, and we sent our troops to Afghanistan to stack bodies, which they did, in prodigious numbers. Most of these bodies were Taliban. We excused this by claiming the Taliban were providing safe haven to Bin Laden, and as such were complicit in the 9/11 attacks.

Which was a lie.

Scott Ritter (who was a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq from ’91-98) had also played a leading role in bringing to the public’s attention the lies told to justify the illegal war in Iraq, which was based off of cooked British intelligence.

It was not just based on the illusion of “justice,” there was a deeper and much more disturbing agenda under the patriotic trumpet blaring.

In this light, Afghanistan is indeed an incredible American “failure,” not only in failing to install their puppet government; it has also failed the American people, however, not in the way most are talking about.

The 20 year, some say occupancy others say terrorizing, of Afghanistan, is estimated at $1-2 trillion. This is only for the case of Afghanistan, it does not account for the total cost thus far of the War on Terror. Such extravagant spending with really nothing to show for it but destruction, the slaughter of innocents, instability and chaos; you would think the United States must be a very rich country to afford such a budget with no clear goal or objective. Instead, what we find is that the American economy is tanking and the living standard is plummeting, while drug use and overdose rates are sky-rocketing and suicide is among the top causes of death in the United States, especially among their youth.

What is going on here? Have the Americans gone mad? Or is there something much much more sinister afoot?

This situation cannot just be explained away as incompetence or the money-making business of war, or even the crazed end-of-world ideologies of neo-conservatives or Zionists, although these are all major factors.

The reason for this is because there has been something operating within the Middle East for much longer, it is even the reason why we call the Middle East and the Far East by such a name, it is the reason for why many countries in this region have the boundaries they do, and was the originator of the Palestine/Israel conflict.

It is also found at the center of the origin and funding of Islamic terrorism as we see in its modern form today.

Whose “Arab Awakening”?

The renunciation will not be easy. Jewish hopes have been raised to such a pitch that the non-fulfilment of the Zionist dream of a Jewish state in Palestine will cause intense disillusionment and bitterness. The manifold proofs of public spirit and of capacity to endure hardships and face danger in the building up of the national home are there to testify to the devotion with which a large section of the Jewish people cherish the Zionist ideal. And it would be an act of further cruelty to the Jews to disappoint those hopes if there existed some way of satisfying them, that did not involve cruelty to another people. But the logic of facts is inexorable. It shows that no room can be made in Palestine for a second nation except by dislodging or exterminating the nation in possession.” [emphasis added]

– the concluding paragraph of George Antonius’ “The Arab Awakening” (1938), graduate from Cambridge University, civil servant in the British Mandate of Palestine

Much of what is responsible for the war and havoc in the Middle East today has the British orchestrated so-called “Arab Awakening” to thank, led by characters such as E.G. Browne, St. John Philby, T.E. Lawrence of Arabia, and Gertrude Bell. Although its origins go as far back as the 19th century, it was only until the early 20th century, that the British were able to reap significant results from its long harvest.

The Arab Revolt of 1916-1918, had been, to the detriment of the Arab people, a British led rebellion. The British claimed that their sole interest in the affair was the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire and had given their word that these Arab territories would be freed and allowed independence if they agreed to rebel, in large part led and directed by the British.

It is a rather predictable feature of the British to lie and double cross and thus it should be of no surprise to anyone that their intentions were quite the opposite of what they had promised and thanks to the Sykes-Picot Russian leak, were revealed in their entire shameful glory.

Once the Arab Revolt was “won” against the Ottoman Empire, instead of the promised Arab independence, the Middle East was carved up into zones of influence under British and French colonial rule. Puppet monarchies were created in regions that were considered not under direct colonial subjugation in order to continue the illusion that Arabs remained in charge of sacred regions such as Mecca and Medina.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/sc15062101.jpg

In central Arabia, Hussein ibn Ali, Sharif of Mecca, the puppet leader of the Arab Revolt laid claim to the title Caliph in 1924, which his rival Wahhabite Abdul-Aziz ibn Saud rejected and declared war, defeating the Hashemites. Hussein (British Cairo Office favourite) abdicated and Ibn Saud (British India Office favourite), was proclaimed King of Hejaz and Najd in 1926, which led to the founding of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

The Al Saud (House of Saud) warriors of Wahhabism were a formidable strike force that the British believed would help London gain control of the western shores of the Persian Gulf.

Hussein ibn Ali’s son Faisal (under the heavy tutelage of T.E. Lawrence, Cairo Office) was bestowed as King of Iraq and Hussein’s other son, Abdullah I was established as the Emir of Transjordan until a negotiated legal separation of Transjordan from Britain’s Palestine mandate occurred in 1946, whereupon he was crowned King of Jordan.

While the British were promising Arab independence they simultaneously were promising a homeland in Palestine to the Jews. The Balfour Declaration of November 2nd, 1917 states:

“His majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object…”

Palestine had been seized by the British during the so-called “Arab Revolt” on December 11th, 1917 when General Allenby marched into Jerusalem through the Jaffa Gate and declared martial law over the city. Palestine has remained occupied ever since.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/sc15062102.jpg

Britain would receive the mandate over Palestine from the League of Nations in July 1922.

Throughout the 1920s and 1930s violent confrontations between Jews and Arabs took place in Palestine costing thousands of lives. In 1936 a major Arab revolt occurred over 7 months, until diplomatic efforts involving other Arab countries led to a ceasefire. In 1937, a British Royal Commission of Inquiry headed by William Peel concluded that Palestine had two distinct societies with irreconcilable political demands, thus making it necessary to partition the land.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/sc15062103.jpg

The Arab Higher Committee refused Peel’s “prescription” and the revolt broke out again. This time, Britain responded with a devastatingly heavy hand. Roughly 5,000 Arabs were killed by the British armed forces and police.

Following the riots, the British mandate government dissolved the Arab Higher Committee and declared it an illegal body.

In response to the revolt, the British government issued the White Paper of 1939, which stated that Palestine should be a bi-national state, inhabited by both Arabs and Jews. Due to the international unpopularity of the mandate including within Britain itself, it was organised such that the United Nations would take responsibility for the British initiative and adopted the resolution to partition Palestine on November 29th, 1947. Britain would announce its termination of its Mandate for Palestine on May 15th, 1948 after the State of Israel declared its independence on May 14th, 1948.

The Rise of the Muslim Brotherhood

“We do not cut the head of religion except by sword of religion.”

– Jamal al-Din al-Afghani

In 1869, a man named Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, the intellectual founder of the Salafiyya movement, went to India where British led colonial authorities welcomed him with honors and graciously escorted him aboard a government owned vessel on an all-expenses paid voyage to the Suez. [1]

In Cairo he was adopted by the Egyptian prime minister Riad Pasha, a notorious enemy of the emerging nationalist movement in Egypt. Pasha persuaded Afghani to stay in Egypt and allowed him to take up residence in Cairo’s 900 year old Al Azhar mosque considered the center of Islamic learning worldwide, where he received lodging and a monthly government stipend (paid for by the British).[2]

While Egypt was fighting its nationalist fight from 1879-1882, Afghani and his chief disciple Muhammad Abduh travelled together first to Paris and then to Britain, it was in Britain that they would make a proposal for a pan-Islamic alliance among Egypt, Turkey, Persia and Afghanistan against Czarist Russia.[3]

What Afghani was proposing to the British was that they provide aid and resources to support his formation of a militant Islam sect that would favour Britain’s interest in the Middle East, in other words, Afghani was offering to fight Islam with Islam to service British interests, having stated in one of his works “We do not cut the head of religion except by sword of religion.[4]

Although it is said that the British refused this offer, this is not likely considering the support Afghani would receive in creating the intellectual foundation for a pan-Islamic movement with British patronage and the support of England’s leading orientalist E.G. Browne, the godfather of twentieth century Orientalism and teacher of St John Philby and T.E. Lawrence.

E.G. Browne would make sure the work of Afghani would continue long beyond his death by lionising him in his 1910 “The Persian Revolution,” considered an authoritative history of the time.

In 1888, Abduh, the chief disciple of Afghani, would return to Egypt in triumph with the full support of the representatives of her Majesty’s imperial force and took the first of several positions in Cairo, openly casting his lot with Lord Cromer, who was the symbol of British imperialism in Egypt.

Abduh would found, with the hold of London’s Egyptian proconsul Evelyn Baring (aka Lord Cromer) who was the scion of the enormously powerful banking clan (Barings Bank) under the city of London, the Salafiyya movement.[5]

Abduh had attached himself to the British rulers of Egypt and created the cornerstone of the Muslim Brotherhood which dominated the militant Islamic right throughout the twentieth century.

In 1899, Abduh reached the pinnacle of his power and influence, and was named mufti of Egypt.

***

In 1902, Riyadh fell to Ibn Saud and it was during this period that Ibn Saud established the fearsome Ikhwan (translated as “brotherhood”). From the 1920s onward, the new Saudi state merged its Wahhabi orthodoxy with the Salafiyya movement (which would be organised into the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928).

William Shakespear, a famed British agent, forged the first formal treaty between England and Saudi Arabia which was signed in 1915, which bound London and Arabia for years before Saudi Arabia became a country. “It formally recognized Ibn Saud as the independent ruler of the Nejd and its Dependencies under British protection. In return, Ibn Saud undertook to follow British advice.[6]

Harry St. John Bridger Philby, a British operative schooled by E.G. Browne and father to the legendary triple agent Kim Philby, would succeed Shakespear as Great Britain’s liaison to Ibn Saud under the British India Office, the friendly rival of the Cairo Arab Bureau office which was sponsoring T.E. Lawrence of Arabia.

In Egypt 1928, Hassan al-Banna (a follower of Afghani and Abduh) founded the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan al-Muslimeen), the organization that would change the course of history in the twentieth century Middle East.

Banna’s Muslim Brotherhood was established with a grant from England’s Suez Canal Company[7] and from that point on, British diplomats and intelligence service, along with the British puppet King Farouq would use the Muslim Brotherhood as a truncheon against Egypt’s nationalists and later against Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser. (For more on this refer to my paper.)

To get the Muslim Brotherhood off the ground, the Suez Canal Company helped Banna build the mosque in Ismailia that would serve as its headquarters and base of operation.[8] The fact that Banna created the organization in Ismailia is itself worthy of note. For England, the Suez Canal was the indispensable route to its prize possession, India, and in 1928 the town Ismailia happened to house not only the company’s offices but a major British military base built during WWI. It was also, in the 1920s a center of pro-British sentiment in Egypt.

In the post-WWI world, England reigned supreme, the flag of the British Empire was everywhere from the Mediterranean to India. A new generation of kings and potentates ruled over British dominated colonies, mandates, vassal states, and semi-independent fiefdoms in Egypt, Arabia, Iraq, Transjordan and Persia. To varying degrees those monarchies were beholden to London.

In the half century between 1875 and 1925 the building blocks of the militant Islamic right were cemented in place by the British Empire.

Islamic Banking Made in Geneva/London

Islamic banking [that is the banking system dominated presently by Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States] was born in Egypt and financed by Saudi Arabia and then spread to the far corners of the Muslim world. Eventually the Islamic banking movement became a vehicle not only for exporting political Islam but for sponsoring violence. However, Islamic banking did not get off the ground on its own, as Ibrahim Warde (a renowned scholar of international finance) explains in his book “Islamic Finance in the Global Economy,” Islamic banking:

operates more out of London, Geneva, or the Bahamas than it does out of Jeddah, Karachi or Cairo…Ideologically, both liberalism and economic Islam were driven by their common opposition to socialism and economic dirigisme…Even Islamic Republics have on occasion openly embraced neo-liberalism…In Sudan, between 1992 and the end of 1993, Economics Minister Abdul Rahim Hamdi – a disciple of Milton Friedman and incidentally a former Islamic banker in London – did not hesitate to implement the harshest free-market remedies dictated by the International Monetary Fund. He said he was committed to transforming the heretofore statist economy ‘according to free-market rules, because this is how an Islamic economy should function.’ ” [emphasis added]

Perhaps the best case study to this phenomenon is the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI).

BCCI was an international bank founded in 1972 by Agha Hasan Abedi, a Pakistani financier. The bank was registered in Luxembourg with head offices in Karachi and London. A decade after opening, BCCI had over 400 branches in 78 countries in excess of $20 billion USD, making it the seventh largest private bank in the world.

In the 1980s investigations into BCCI led to the discovery of its involvement in massive money laundering and other financial crimes, and that the BCCI had illegally and secretly gained the control of a major American bank, First American, according to Robert Morgenthau (Manhattan DA) who had been investigating the bank for over two years.

BCCI was also to be found guilty for illegally buying another American bank, the Independence Bank of Los Angeles, using a Saudi businessman Ghaith Paraon as the puppet owner. The American depositors lost most of their money when BCCI was forced to foreclose since it was essentially operating a Ponzi scheme to fund illegal activity of all sorts.

According to Elizabeth Gould and Paul Fitzgerald’s book “The Valediction”:

Afghanistan offered the opportunity for BCCI to migrate the lucrative heroin business from Southeast Asia [Laos/Cambodia/Vietnam] to the Pakistani/Afghan border under the cover of destabilization. President Carter supported Brzezinski’s provocations into Soviet territory from the minute they got into the White House. He then sanctioned Brzezinski’s plan to use Afghanistan to lure the Soviet Union into its own Vietnam and lied to the public about it when they fell into the trap on December 27, 1979.

…The destabilization kills three birds with one stone. It weakens the Soviets…It acts as a cover for moving the heroin business out of Vietnam/Laos and Cambodia to a safe haven on the Pakistan frontier with Afghanistan – a trade that propped up the British Empire financially for over a hundred years.

…Afghan drug dealer and CIA asset Gulbuddin Hekmatyar…[then organizes] a deal with the renegade gangster, Afghan prime minister, and possible CIA asset Hafizullah Amin…to make Kabul the center of the world heroin trade…pays for the off-the-books operation with drug money brought in by Hekmatyar and laundered through a Pakistani bank…known as BCCI. Everything goes smoothly until the new US Ambassador Adolph Dubs launches a campaign against the destabilization…

US Ambassador Adolph Dubs was assassinated, just seven months after taking his post, under an extremely suspect situation, on February 14, 1979, to which Gould and Fitzgerald do a superb investigation of, as well as what really happened in Afghanistan in 1979, in their book “The Valediction.

Investigators in the United States and the UK determined that BCCI had been “set up deliberately to avoid centralized regulatory review, and operated extensively in bank secrecy jurisdictions. Its affairs were extraordinarily complex. Its officers were sophisticated international bankers whose apparent objective was to keep their affairs secret, to commit fraud on a massive scale, and to avoid detection.[9]

This is an incredibly sophisticated operation, and interestingly, uses the very same methods that the City of London has been using for centuries and presently operates to a diabolical perfection today. There is no way that a solo Pakistani financier, even if he was financed by the Sheik of Abu Dhabi, could rise in less than a decade, operating on the turf of ancient banking channels that go back several centuries, to rise to become the seventh largest bank in the netherworld of finance without a little help from the big boys.

On July 29th, 1991, a Manhattan grand jury indicted BCCI on twelve accounts of fraud, money laundering and larceny. Robert Morgenthau (Manhattan DA), who was in charge of the investigation, has described BCCI as “the largest bank fraud in world financial history.”

Through the Rabbit Hole and Out Again

Today, the actions of the United States can best be understood in the context of the Anglo-American Empire, with Wall Street operating as an extension of the ancient banking channels of the City of London and Geneva.

The disastrous foreign policy of namely Britain and the United States in the War on Terror Crusade has been exposed multiple times. That is, that the very governments who have been shouting the loudest against Islamic extremism and for stability in the Middle East, are the very ones who have been weaponising, training and funding such terrorist groupings. The Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, ISIS (and all its viral variants) would not exist today if it were not for namely Britain’s age old strategy.

So what is the goal?

Well, what does any empire seek? Global domination.

In this light, the War on Terror is exposed for what it truly is. It is meant to impoverish and destroy the national sovereignty of the people, not only of the Middle East (or more accurately Southwest Asia), but as we are seeing clearly today, it has also acted as a slow blood-letting of the western people, whose economies are much weaker today than they were 20 years ago.

While western countries are increasingly unable to provide a proper standard of living, with mass unemployment, lack of healthcare, increased crime and suicide rates, and increased overdoses and homelessness, and pretty much everything you would expect to rise during a Dark Age straight out of a Goya painting, these “first-world” governments are applying further austerity measures on the people, even after prolonged lockdowns, while openly pumping trillions of dollars into wars that not only fund the destruction of entire nations, but funds the global drug, arms and sex-trafficking trade. All of this dirty money then circles back into the London-Geneva fondi, benefitting a select class that has existed and thrived for centuries on this sort of backdrop.

Nobody has benefitted from this War on Terror except the global elite.

So stop getting sucked into the same old same old lies; stop being a slave to the system and let us finally unite and stand up against the true common enemy of the people of the world.

The author can be reached at https://cynthiachung.substack.com/

  1. Elie Kedourie, “Afghani and Abduh: An Essay on Religious Unbelief and Political Activism in Modern Islam” 
  2. Ibid. 
  3. The proposal to London from Jamal al-Din al-Afghani was reported by a British Orientalist and author W.S. Blunt, a friend of Afghani’s. It is cited in C.C. Adams, “Islam and Modernism in Egypt.” 
  4. Elie Kedourie, “Afghani and Abduh: An Essay on Religious Unbelief and Political Activism in Modern Islam.” 
  5. Ibid. 
  6. David Holden and Richard Johns, “The House of Saud.” 
  7. Richard P. Mitchell, “The Society of the Muslim Brothers.” 
  8. Ibid. 
  9. John Kerry “The BCCI Affair: A Report to the Committee on Foreign Relations.” 

سدّ النهضة: من تهديد إلى فرصة؟

Visual search query image
*باحث وكاتب اقتصادي سياسي والأمين العام السابق للمؤتمر القومي العربي
 زياد حافظ 

الملاحظة الأولى هي أنّ ما وصلت اليه الأمور هو نتيجة تراكم الإهمال المصريّ خلال العقود التي تلت رحيل القائد الخالد الذكر جمال عبد الناصر. فمصر خلال الخمسينيات والستينيات كانت منصة حركات التحرّر الأفريقية تجسيداً وتطبيقاً للرؤية الجيوستراتيجية التي بلورها القائد جمال عبد الناصر في “فلسفة الثورة” حيث الأمن القومي المصري يكمن في دوائر ثلاث: الدائرة العربية والدائرة الإسلامية والدائرة الأفريقية. كم كانت رؤيته الجيوستراتيجية ثاقبة آنذاك وكما هي صحيحة اليوم وفي الغد! لكن بعد رحيله أتيحت الفرصة للكيان الصهيوني التوغل في أفريقيا وبناء علاقات لم تكن ممكنة في وجوده وسياسته. الانكفاء المصري يعود إلى خروج مصر من دائرة الصراع العربي الصهيوني ما سمح للحضور الصهيوني بقوة في القارة الأفريقية.

ونلاحظ أيضاً أن بعد رحيل جمال عبد الناصر تحوّلت منصة حركات التحرّر من القاهرة إلى الجزائر مع الرئيس هواري بومدين. لكن رحيل الرئيس الجزائري سنة 1978 في ظروف تثير الريبة والشكوك تلت زيارة السادات للقدس في تشرين 1977 ومن بعد ذلك دخول الجزائر في العشرية الدامية فقدت الحركة التحررية الأفريقية منصة مؤثرة في نموها. حاولت ليبيا في ما بعد حمل العباءة الأفريقية، لكن مع خروج مصر من دائرة الصراع العربي الصهيوني غاب الدور العربي في أفريقيا وحيّدت محاولات القذافي للإمساك بالورقة الأفريقية. هذه الملاحظات تأتي للتأكيد على أنّ التوغّل الصهيوني في القارة الأفريقية لما كان لولا الغياب القسري العربي بشكل عام والمصري بشكل خاص. فمن الواضح أنّ أعداء الأمة العربية في الغرب وفي الكيان وفي بعض الدوائر العربية يمنعون أيّ دور عربيّ في أفريقيا يساهم في تنمية القارة من جهة ويمكّن استقلال وسيادة الدول المكوّنة من جهة أخرى وأخيراً لحماية الأمن القومي العربي وفقاً لرؤية جمال عبد الناصر. كما أنّ تقسيم السودان وبناء سدّ النهضة استهدف السودان في مرحلة أولى تمهيداً لاستهداف مصر. فالمطامع الصهيونية في مياه النيل معروفة والحذر من قبل بعض الدول العربية من مصر تقاطعت لفرض الضغوط على مصر وترويضها.

على صعيد خاص، كنا شاهدين على نتائج الغياب العربي في أفريقيا وذلك من خلال عملنا في التسعينيات في إحدى مؤسسات البنك الدولي حيث كنا نغطّي أفريقيا الغربية. لاحظنا امتعاض نخب أفريقيّة من التوغل الصهيوني فيما بينما كانت تذكر لنا فضائل مصر في دعم حركات التحرّر في البلدان المعنية. ما نريد أن نقوله إنّ الرأس المال المعنوي الذي كوّنته مصر كان محفوراً في ذاكرة الدول الأفريقية سواء في دعم حركة التحرر وفي ما بعد في دعم الاقتصاد والتعليم. هذا الرأس المال بدّدته سياسات اللامبالاة بعد كامب دافيد المدمّرة التي تحصد نتائجها مصر اليوم وكأن مستلزمات كامب دافيد قضت بالتخلّي عن الدور الأفريقي لمصر كما تخلّت عن دورها في الصراع العربي الصهيوني.

الملاحظة الثانية هي أن المواجهة الحقيقية في موضوع السد ليست مع الشعب الإثيوبي الشقيق ولا حتى مع حكومته. أحد المتكلّمين في الندوة الدكتور محمد حسب الرسول وهو نائب أمين عام المؤتمر القومي العربي أعطى إضاءات هامة حول المشتركات والروابط المصرية والسودانية مع الشعب الإثيوبي. فهناك حوالي 70 بالمئة من سكان اثيوبيا من المسلمين وأن الكنيسة الإثيوبية من أعرق الكنائس ولها ارتباطات مع الكنيسة المصرية، وحيث كادت اللغة العربية تكون لغة رسمية تجعلها مرشحة للانضمام إلى الدول العربية. ما نريد أن نقوله هو أن المواجهة ليست مع الإثيوبيين شعباً وحكومة بل مع رأس الأفعى الحقيقي وهو الكيان الصهيوني الذي ساهم على أكثر من صعيد في بناء ذلك السد. وإذا كان سد النهضة يشكّل تهديداً واضحاً للأمن القومي المصري والسوداني وبالتالي العربي فإن المواجهة هي مع العدو الصهيوني المحتلّ أولاً وأخيراً.

التخلّي عن الدور الريادي المصري في الشأن الأفريقي مبني على نظرية تمّ ترويجها أن 99 بالمئة من أوراق اللعبة تملكها الولايات المتحدة وأن البوّابة للولايات المتحدة هي الكيان الصهيوني المحتل. بغض النظر عن صحة ذلك التقدير آنذاك، أي في السبعينيات من القرن الماضي، فإن موازين القوّة الدولية والإقليمية الحالية والمرتقبة تدحض تلك النظرية وبالتالي الخيارات والسياسة المبنية عليها يجب أن تخضع لمراجعة. فمصر مهدّدة شرقاً وشمالاً من الكيان الصهيوني والخلايا الإرهابية المدعومة من الولايات المتحدة والكيان الصهيوني، وغرباً من أيضاً من جماعات التعصّب والغلو والتوحّش، واليوم من الجنوب عبر خطر التعطيش، وجميع هذه المخاطر مرتبطة بالكيان الصهيوني المحتلّ وداعمه الأساسي الولايات المتحدة. ألم يحن الأوان لمراجعة تلك السياسات لمواجهة التهديدات؟ بل نقول أكثر من ذلك ونعتبر أنه بإمكان تحويل التهديد إلى فرصة انطلاقة جديدة عبر قلب الطاولة على الكيان وجعل من سد النهضة منفعة مشتركة لكلّ من مصر والسودان وبطبيعة الحال إثيوبيا عبر تشبيك إقليمي بين دول وادي النيل والقرن الأفريقي لا مكان للكيان الصهيوني فيه.

الملاحظة الثالثة هي أنّ التشبيك الاقتصادي بين بلاد وادي النيل والقرن الأفريقي يتكامل مع التشبيك المرتقب بين بلاد الرافدين وبلاد الشام من جهة، ومع مشروع التشبيك في دول المغرب الكبير من جهة أخرى. والتكامل بين هذه المكوّنات الأربعة يساهم في وجود كتلة عربية وإقليمية تتكامل مع مشروع الطريق والحزام الواحد الصيني والمشروع الأوراسي الروسي. المستقبل هو في الشرق وليس في الغرب والأفول الغربي هو أفول استراتيجي لا يستطيع أحد إيقافه أو حتى إبطاءه. والمشروع العربي النهضوي الذي نناضل من أجله هو في صميم المواجهة مع الكيان الصهيوني حيث بوجود الكيان لا شيء غير التجزئة والضعف والتخلّف والانقراض. أما المواجهة فهي تأتي بالوحدة وبالوحدة تأتي القوّة وبالقوة تأتي النهضة.

تونس: تصحيح مسار أم انقلاب؟

July 26, 2021

تونس: تصحيح أم ثورة مضادة؟

ينطلق الرئيس التونسي قيس سعيّد من خلفيته كأستاذ للقانون الدستوريّ ليجعل النقاش حول دستورية قراراته بتجميد البرلمان ورفع الحصانات وحل الحكومة غير قابل للحسم، بين كون ما وصفه بعدم ممانعة الدستور لما قام به رغم عدم وجود نصوص تشرّع ذلك، مشيراً الى الفارق بين الشرعية والمشروعية، بينما يستند خصومه وفي مقدمتهم رئيس المجلس النيابي ورئيس حركة النهضة التي تمثل الإخوان المسلمين في تونس، راشد الغنوشي، الى عدم دستورية خطوات الرئيس سعيّد، فيما ينقسم رجال القانون في تونس بين الرأيين، ما ينقل النقاش من البعد الدستوري إلى البعد السياسي.

في السياسة يحفل سجل حركة النهضة بما يكفي لوصفها بواحدة من عناوين تصدير الإرهاب الى سورية، ووقوفها مع التدخل التركي في ليبيا، ومسؤوليتها عن اغتيال قادة ورموز نضالية وطنية في تونس، وتكوينها لميليشيات مسلحة تمارس الإرهاب على معارضيها، بينما يمثل الرئيس قيس سعيّد النخب التونسية المعتدلة التي لم تستطع التأقلم مع تطلعات النهضة وشهوة السلطة التي تدفعها لوضع اليد على تونس بطرق غير مشروعة، وصولاً لتصفية الخصوم، وارتباطها بالمشروع الذي بدأ مع ما عُرف بالربيع العربي وما تركه من مشاريع حروب أهلية وخراب في كثير من البلاد العربية، رغم محاولة الرئيس سعيّد البحث عن نقاط وسط للتعايش مع النهضة، التي دأبت بقيادة الغنوشي على إسقاط كل فرص الحلول الوسط.

يمثل موقف الاتحاد العام التونسي للشغل، وهو أكبر تجمع شعبي وطني تونسي، تعبيراً عن موقف مؤيّد للرئيس سعيد بالتوازي مع مطالبته بضمانات للمسار الديمقراطي، وبقياس الموقف من قضيتي الحرب على سورية والتطبيع مع كيان الاحتلال، يتفوق قيس سعيّد على النهضة بأشواط، ما يجعل الأمل بنجاحه في إعادة الاستقرار إلى تونس ورد الاعتبار لموقع تونس العربيّ من القضايا الكبرى وفي مقدمتها العلاقات التونسية السورية وموقع تونس من القضية الفلسطينية، حيث هناك غالبية تونسية دافعة بالاتجاهين، يلمس حضورها كل من يزور تونس متفاعلاً مع نخبها وشارعها، بمثل ما يلمس النقمة على النهضة وسياساتها والمخاطر التي جلبتها على الشعب التونسي، وفشلها في تقديم إدارة ناجحة لمشاكل تونس الصحية والاجتماعية والاقتصادية في الحكومات المتعاقبة التي شكلت قوتها الرئيسية والمهيمنة.

فيديوات متعلقة

المسائية | تونس.. هل يحسم الرئيس؟

الاتحاد التونسي العام للشغل يحسم المشهد إنحياز لسعيد وإدانة صريحة لحكومات النهضة، أي صورة للاصطفافات؟ بعد إقالة رئيس الحكومة وتعطيل العمل في الإدارات المركزية، ومنع الغنوشي من دخول البرلمان، هل ترضخ النهضة للقرارات الرئاسية، أم تذهب للمواجهة؟ وهل من تدخلات إقليمية ودولية في المشهد المستجد؟ وكيف تميل الاتجاهات وتتأثر التوازنات؟

إزاحة النهضة.. آخر قلاع حركات الإسلام السياسية؟
26 تموز 18:00

قرارات الرئيس التونسي تغير المشهد في البلاد، بعد أزمة سياسية طويلة، إزاحة النهضة من الحكم إن حسمت سقوط آخر قلاع الحركة الإسلامية السياسية؟ وهل فشل التجربة ناتج عن مشروع مواجه أم ضعف في الرؤية السياسية؟

محافظات تونسية تشهد تظاهرات للمطالبة بحلّ البرلمان ورحيل حكومة هشام المشيشي

فيديوات متعلقة

الاخوان المسلمون الطاعون الاسلامي .. أول الهولوكوست في مدرسة المدفعية في حلب

 2021/06/17 

 naram.serjoonn

صار من الخطأ ألا يتم ادخال تاريخ الاخوان المسلمين في المناهج الدراسية وان تكون هناك اصدارات دورية لكتب ومذكرات وبرامج وثائقية في كل سنة .. لأن الانتصار في المعركة عسكريا هو مؤقت .. وكما هي الزواحف كلما قطعت ذيلها نما لها ذيل جديد .. والتجربة علمتنا ان هذا الطاعون يعيد انتاج جائحاته او يدفع به العدو لاعادة انتاجه منا هي العبوات الناسفة في طريق السيارات والسكك الحديدية .. كلما تقدم قطار النهضة انفجرت المسألة الاسلامية عبر الاخوان المسلمين وتعطلت الرحلة .. وانقلب القطار وكل مايحمل من مسافرين انتظروا الرحلة طويلا ..


حدث هذا في مصر ايام الراحل عبد الناصر .. وفي سورية بعد وصول البعثيين الى السلطة في الستينات .. ثم في السبعينات والثمانينات .. وأخيرا في الربيع العربي .. وهم يظهرون للمفارقة فقط في الجمهوريات العربية التي تحاول النهوض .. ولم يظهر لهم نشاط في الممالك والامارات والمشيخات النفطية التي يجب ان تكون هدفا مشروعا وسهلا .. ولكن هذا الغياب عن المصالح الغربية والخصور في الدول القومية يدل على حقيقتين .. الاولى هي ان القيادة العميقة للاخوان موجودة في الغرب وغالبا في احد مكاتب المخابرات .. والثانية هي ان علاج هذا الطاعون لم يكن ناجحا .. فهو موجود في المدارس الدينية وفي بعض الكتب التراثية الاشكالية .. ولكن هل هو الجهل فقط ام ان عياب الخطة المضادة هو السبب ؟؟ وهل هو غياب المواجهة الثقافية والفكرية المتواصل معهم ورصد مايكفي لاطلاق الاعداء الطبيعيين للاخوان في المجتمع .. فالحركة الثقافية والفنية هي اكثر مايخشاه الاخوان المسلمون .. وخاصة اذا ماوصلت الى الارياف حيث الخزان الاخواني من البسطاء ..


السينما والدراما والوثائقيات والمدارس كلها يجب ان تعمل بحركة واحدة متناسقة .. ولايكفي تقرير صحفي كل سنة كي يتذكر الناس هذا الخطر .. وسيكون من الخطأ جدا ان تتجاهل الدولة هذا الجانب وهذه المراحل من تربية الاجيال على ان الدين يتحول الى مرض بيد الاخوان المسلمين .. ويجب الا نكون ساذجين بالتغاضي عما حدث بحجة ألا ننكأ الجراح .. لان الجراح التي ننام عليها ونتناسها ستتعفن .. ولن تشفى دون ان نعقمها عدة مرات .. والتعقيم يكون بذكر المصائب والجرائم والكوارث التي ارتكبوها .. فكيف لاينسى اليهود مثلا قصة الهولوكوست ويعيدون انتاجها وتوزربعها وكل يوم قصة وكل يوم خبر وكمل يوم فيلم وكل يوم وثائقي .. حتى صارت حزءا من التعليم والمناهج الرسمية في الغرب .. مهما قلنا عنها وعن حقيقتها .. الا ان العقل العربي تمت برمجته على ان الهولوكوست عمل حقيقي له ضحاياه وآلامهم لاتتوقف لأنه يتم توارث الالم ..


نحن الاولى بالالم .. ونحن الاولى بالوجع .. والطاعون يفتك بنا .. وكل نكسة تتلوها نكسة .. ولذلك يجب ان يجيب الجيل عن هذا المرض الذي يصيب أمتنا واسمه الحركات الدينية الاخوانية وهم سبب لجوءها للعنف الذي يستدرج العنف المضاد .. ماهذه الكراهية .. وماهذا الحقد المريض .. وكيف لايفهم هؤلاء ان الكراهية ليست حلا ..
كيف يفسر هؤلاء لأطفالهم انهم فصلوا الطلبة في مدرسة المدفعية وهم شبان بعمر الورد .. ثم قتلوهم بوحشية .. ماذا استفاد الله من هذا القتل؟؟ ماهذا الله الذي يسعد بقتل الناس بوحشية؟؟ ماالفرق بين هؤلاء القتلة وبين تعاليم التلمود التي ينتقدها المسلمون لانها عنيفة وتدعو الى قتل كل من ليس يهوديا .. ؟؟ كيف ننتقد الغرب على مجازره بجق المسلمين وعنصريته تجاههم ونحن لانحترم دماء بعضنا بل ونمارس بفعل الكراهية أعلى درجات الفصل العنصري ..


كيف يتعلم هؤلاء الجهلة والمرضى ان القتل المذهبي الذي بدأ منذ 1500 سنة لم ينتج الا القتل .. وانه لم يحل المشكلة .. ولن يحلها ..

في ذكرى هولوكوست مدرسة المدفعية في حلب .. الرحمة لأولئك الشهداء الفتيان والمهار السورية والطيور البيضاء التي قتلتها الافاعي والجرذان المحملة بالبراغيث والطاعون .. ولاشك ان لعناتنا ستلاحق الاخوان المسلمين الى يوم تقوم الساعة .. ولن نسامحهم .. ولن نغفر لهم .. ولن ترتاح الأرواح الا بعد موت هذا الطاعون ونهاية مواسم الكوليرا .. كما ماتت الاوبئة القديمة والجدري والطاعون ..

On Nasser’s Fight for Arabic Independence and a Free Palestine

Visual search query image

Cynthia Chung

June 15, 2021

Nasser became the catalyst for an Arab Revolution for independence, a revolution that remains yet to be finished, Cynthia Chung writes.

In the 1950s the so-called enemy of the West was not only Moscow but the Third World’s emerging nationalists, from Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt to Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran. The United States and Britain staged a coup d’état against Mossadegh, and used the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist movement and the grandfather organization of the militant Islamic right, in an attempt to remove Nasser, the leader of the Arab nationalists.

In the 1960s, left wing nationalism and Arab socialism spread from Egypt to Algeria to Syria, Iraq and Palestine. This emergence presented a threat to the old imperialist game of Great Britain, to which the United States was a recent recruit of, and thus they decided to forge a working alliance with Saudi Arabia intent on using Wahhabi fundamentalism as their foreign policy arm in the Middle East, along with the Muslim Brotherhood.

This paper will go through the carving up of the Middle East under Sykes-Picot, the British creation of Saudi Arabia and Israel and the British occupation of Palestine, the origin of the Muslim Brotherhood and Nasser’s fight for Arab independence. In a follow-up paper, I will discuss the role of the City of London in facilitating the bankroll of the first Islamic fundamentalist state Saudi Arabia, along with the Muslim Brotherhood and its terrorist apparatus.

An “Arab Awakening” Made in Britain

The renunciation will not be easy. Jewish hopes have been raised to such a pitch that the non-fulfilment of the Zionist dream of a Jewish state in Palestine will cause intense disillusionment and bitterness. The manifold proofs of public spirit and of capacity to endure hardships and face danger in the building up of the national home are there to testify to the devotion with which a large section of the Jewish people cherish the Zionist ideal. And it would be an act of further cruelty to the Jews to disappoint those hopes if there existed some way of satisfying them, that did not involve cruelty to another people. But the logic of facts is inexorable. It shows that no room can be made in Palestine for a second nation except by dislodging or exterminating the nation in possession.”

– the concluding paragraph of George Antonius’ “The Arab Awakening” (1938)

Much of what is responsible for the war and havoc in the Middle East today has the British orchestrated so-called “Arab Awakening” to thank, led by characters such as E.G. Browne, St. John Philby, T.E. Lawrence of Arabia, and Gertrude Bell. Although its origins go as far back as the 19th century, it was only until the early 20th century, that the British were able to reap significant results from its long harvest.

The Arab Revolt of 1916-1918, had been, to the detriment of the Arab people, a British led rebellion. The British claimed that their sole interest in the affair was the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire and had given their word that these Arab territories would be freed and allowed independence if they agreed to rebel, in large part led and directed by the British.

It is a rather predictable feature of the British to lie and double cross and thus it should be of no surprise to anyone that their intentions were quite the opposite of what they had promised and thanks to the Sykes-Picot Russian leak, were revealed in their entire shameful glory.

If the Sultan of Turkey were to disappear, then the Caliphate by common consent of Islam would fall to the family of the prophet, Hussein ibn Ali the Sharif of Mecca, a candidate which was approved by the British Cairo office as suitable for British strings. T.E. Lawrence, who worked at the Cairo bureau is quoted as saying:

If the Sultan of Turkey were to disappear, then the Caliphate by common consent of Islam would fall to the family of the prophet, the present representative of which is Hussein, the Sharif of Mecca….If properly handled the Arab States would remain in a state of political mosaic, a tissue of jealous principalities incapable of cohesion…” (1)

Once the Arab Revolt was “won” against the Ottoman Empire, instead of the promised Arab independence, the Middle East was carved up into zones of influence under British and French colonial rule. Puppet monarchies were created in regions that were considered not under direct colonial subjugation in order to continue the illusion that Arabs remained in charge of sacred regions such as Mecca and Medina.

In central Arabia, Hussein, Sharif of Mecca, the puppet leader of the Arab Revolt laid claim to the title Caliph in 1924, which his rival Wahhabite Abdul-Aziz ibn Saud rejected and declared war, defeating the Hashemites. Hussein abdicated and ibn Saud, the favourite of the British India Office, was proclaimed King of Hejaz and Najd in 1926, which led to the founding of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

The Al Saud warriors of Wahhabism were a formidable strike force that the British believed would help London gain control of the western shores of the Persian Gulf.

Hussein ibn Ali’s son Faisal (under the heavy tutelage of T.E. Lawrence) was bestowed as King of Iraq and Hussein’s other son, Abdullah I was established as the Emir of Transjordan until a negotiated legal separation of Transjordan from Britain’s Palestine mandate occurred in 1946, whereupon he was crowned King of Jordan. (For more on this history refer to my paper.)

While the British were promising Arab independence they simultaneously were promising a homeland in Palestine to the Jews. The Balfour Declaration of November 2nd, 1917 states:

His majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object…

Palestine had been seized by the British during the so-called Arab Revolt on December 11th, 1917 when General Allenby marched into Jerusalem through the Jaffa Gate and declared martial law over the city. Palestine has remained occupied ever since.

Britain would receive the mandate over Palestine from the League of Nations in July 1922.

Throughout the 1920s and 1930s violent confrontations between Jews and Arabs took place in Palestine costing hundreds of lives. In 1936 a major Arab revolt occurred over 7 months, until diplomatic efforts involving other Arab countries led to a ceasefire. In 1937, a British Royal Commission of Inquiry headed by William Peel concluded that Palestine had two distinct societies with irreconcilable political demands, thus making it necessary to partition the land.

The Arab Higher Committee refused Peel’s “prescription” and the revolt broke out again. This time, Britain responded with a devastatingly heavy hand. Roughly 5,000 Arabs were killed by the British armed forces and police.

Following the riots, the British mandate government dissolved the Arab Higher Committee and declared it an illegal body.

In response to the revolt, the British government issued the White Paper of 1939, which stated that Palestine should be a bi-national state, inhabited by both Arabs and Jews. Due to the international unpopularity of the mandate including within Britain itself, it was organised such that the United Nations would take responsibility for the British initiative and adopted the resolution to partition Palestine on November 29th, 1947. Britain would announce its termination of its Mandate for Palestine on May 15th, 1948 after the State of Israel declared its independence on May 14th, 1948.

The Rise of the Muslim Brotherhood

In 1869, a man named Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, the intellectual founder of the Salafiyya movement, went to India where British led colonial authorities welcomed him with honors and graciously escorted him aboard a government owned vessel on an all expenses paid voyage to the Suez. (2)

In Cairo he was adopted by the Egyptian prime minister Riad Pasha, a notorious enemy of the emerging nationalist movement in Egypt. Pasha persuaded Afghani to stay in Egypt and allowed him to take up residence in Cairo’s 900 year old Al Azhar mosque considered the center of Islamic learning worldwide, where he received lodging and a monthly government stipend (paid for by the British). (3)

In 1879, Cairo nationalists in the Egyptian Army, led by the famous Egyptian hero Ahmed ‘Urabi, organised an uprising against the British role in Egypt. Afghani was expelled from Egypt by the Egyptian nationalists that same year.

Ahmed ‘Urabi served as prime minister of Egypt briefly, from July 1882 to Sept 1882, however, his movement for Egyptian independence was eventually crushed by the British with the shelling of Alexandria in July 1882 followed by an invasion which resulted in a direct British occupation of Egypt that would last until 1956. It would be Gamal Abdel Nasser who would finally end British colonial rule of Egypt during the Suez Crisis, whereupon the Suez canal was nationalised and the British military bases expelled.

While Egypt was fighting its nationalist fight from 1879-1882, Afghani and his chief disciple Muhammad Abduh travelled together first to Paris and then to Britain, it was in Britain that they would make a proposal for a pan-Islamic alliance among Egypt, Turkey, Persia and Afghanistan against Czarist Russia (4).

In addition, the crisis in Sudan, was in the middle of a tribal religious rebellion against the British led by a man named Mohammed Ahmad a Sudanese sheikh who proclaimed himself the Mahdi, or savior, and was leading a puritanical Islamic revolt. (5)

What Afghani was proposing to the British was that they provide aid and resources to support his formation of a militant Islam sect that would favour Britain’s interest in the Middle East, in other words, Afghani wished to fight Islam with Islam, having stated in one of his works “We do not cut the head of religion except by sword of religion.”(6)

Although it is said that the British refused this offer, this is not likely considering the support Afghani would receive in creating the intellectual foundation for a pan-Islamic movement with British patronage and the support of England’s leading orientalist E.G. Browne, the godfather of twentieth century Orientalism and teacher of St John Philby and T.E. Lawrence.

E.G. Browne would make sure the work of Afghani would continue long beyond his death by immortalising him in his 1910 “The Persian Revolution,” considered an authoritative history of the time.

In 1888, Abduh, the chief disciple of Afghani, would return to Egypt in triumph with the full support of the representatives of her Majesty’s imperial force and took the first of several positions in Cairo, openly casting his lot with Lord Cromer, who was the symbol of British imperialism in Egypt.

Abduh would found, with the hold of London’s Egyptian proconsul Evelyn Baring (aka Lord Cromer) who was the scion of the enormously powerful banking clan (Barings Bank) under the city of London, the Salafiyya movement. (7)

Abduh had attached himself to the British rulers of Egypt and created the cornerstone of the Muslim Brotherhood which dominated the militant Islamic right throughout the twentieth century.

In 1899, Abduh reached the pinnacle of his power and influence, and was named mufti of Egypt.

***

In 1902, Riyadh fell to Ibn Saud and it was during this period that Ibn Saud established the fearsome Ikhwan (translated as “brotherhood”). He collected fighters from Bedouin tribes firing them up with fanatical religious zeal and threw them into battle. By 1912 the Ikhwan numbered 11,000 and Ibn Saud had both central Arabia’s Nejd and Al-Ahsa in the east under his control.

From the 1920s onward, the new Saudi state merged its Wahhabi orthodoxy with the Salafiyya movement (which would be organised into the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928).

William Shakespear, a famed British agent, forged the first formal treaty between England and Saudi Arabia which was signed in 1915, which bound London and Arabia for years before Saudi Arabia became a country. “It formally recognized Ibn Saud as the independent ruler of the Nejd and its Dependencies under British protection. In return, Ibn Saud undertook to follow British advice.” (8)

Harry St. John Bridger Philby, a British operative schooled by E.G. Browne and father to the legendary triple agent Kim Philby, would succeed Shakespear as Great Britain’s liaison to Ibn Saud under the British India Office, the friendly rival of the Cairo Arab Bureau office which was sponsoring T.E. Lawrence of Arabia.

In Egypt 1928, Hassan al-Banna (a follower of Afghani and Abduh) founded the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan al-Muslimeen), the organization that would change the course of history in the twentieth century Middle East.

Banna’s Muslim Brotherhood was established with a grant from England’s Suez Canal Company (9) and from that point on, British diplomats and intelligence service, along with the British puppet King Farouq would use the Muslim Brotherhood as a truncheon against Egypt’s nationalists and later against Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser.

To get the Muslim Brotherhood off the ground, the Suez Canal Company helped Banna build the mosque in Ismailia that would serve as its headquarters and base of operation. (10) The fact that Banna created the organization in Ismailia is itself worthy of note. For England, the Suez Canal was the indispensable route to its prize possession, India and in 1928 the town Ismailia happened to house not only the company’s offices but a major British military base built during WWI. It was also, in the 1920s a center of pro-British sentiment in Egypt.

In the post-WWI world, England reigned supreme, the flag of the British empire was everywhere from the Mediterranean to India. A new generation of kings and potentates ruled over British dominated colonies, mandates, vassal states, and semi-independent fiefdoms in Egypt, Iraq, Transjordan, Arabia and Persia. To varying degrees those monarchies were beholden to London.

In the half century between 1875 and 1925 the building blocks of the militant Islamic right were cemented in place by the British Empire.

Nasser Leads the Fight for Arab Independence

In 1942, the Muslim Brotherhood would earn their well-deserved reputation for extremism and violence by establishing the “Secret Apparatus,” an intelligence service and secret terrorist unit. This clandestine unit functioned for over twelve years almost entirely unchecked, assassinating judges, police officers, government officials and engaging in goon squad attacks on labor unions and communists.

Throughout this period the Muslim Brotherhood worked for the most part in an alliance with King Farouq (and thus the British), using their clandestine forces on behalf of British interests. And throughout its entire existence it would receive political support and money from the Saudi royal family and the Wahhabi establishment (more on this in part 2 of this series).

The Secret Apparatus would be smashed into pieces by Nasser in 1954.

After WWII, the faltering Farouq regime lashed out against the left in an intense campaign of repression aimed at the communists. The Cold War was beginning. In 1946, prime minister Isma’il Sidqi of Egypt who was installed as head of the government with the support of Banna, openly funded the Muslim Brotherhood and provided training camps for its shock troops used in a sweeping anti-left campaign. Sidqi resigned in Dec 1946 after less than one year as PM due to massive unpopularity.

As King Farouq began to lose his grip on the Egyptian people, the Brotherhood distanced itself while maintaining shadowy ties to the army and to foreign intelligence agencies and always opposed to the left.

The Palestine War (1947-1949) resulted in the establishment of the State of Israel at the cost of 700,000 displaced Palestinian Arabs and the destruction of most of their urban areas.

The territory that was under British administration before the war was divided between the State of Israel (officially formed May 14th, 1948), which captured about 78% of it. In opposition to Israel, the Kingdom of Jordan captured and later annexed the West Bank, and Egypt captured the Gaza Strip, with the Arab League establishing the All-Palestine Government, which came to an end in June 1967 when the Gaza Strip, along with the West Bank, were captured by Israel in the Six-Day War.

The Egyptian people were furious over these developments, and the reign of British puppet King Farouq who had done nothing to prevent the dismantling of Palestine was on extremely shaky ground. In response to this, Farouq’s accord with the Muslim Brotherhood broke down, and in December 1948, the Egyptian government outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood. Weeks later a Brotherhood assassin murdered prime minister Mahmoud El Nokrashy.

Two months later, in Feb. 1949, Banna was assassinated in Cairo by the Egyptian secret police.

For Arab nationalists, Israel was a symbol of Arab weakness and semi-colonial subjugation, overseen by proxy kings in Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia.

On the night of July 23, 1952, the Free Officers, led by Muhammad Naguib and Gamal Abdel Nasser, staged a military coup that launched the Egyptian Revolution of 1952, overthrowing the British puppet monarch. The Free Officers, knowing that warrants had been issued for their arrest, launched the coup that night, storming the staff headquarters in Cairo.

Cairo was now, for the first time, under the control of the Arab people after over 70 years of British occupation.

The seizure of power by the Free Officers in Egypt came during an era when the entire Arab world from Morocco to Iraq was locked in the grip of imperialism. Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia were French colonies; Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE, Oman and Yemen were British colonies. Iraq, Jordan and Saudi Arabia were kingdoms ruled by monarchies installed by London. And Egypt under King Farouq was the political and economic center of the Arab world.

A growing surge of Arab nationalism arose in response to the Free Officers’ actions in Egypt. The powerful Voice of the Arabs radio in Cairo was reporting to the entire Arab world that they had found their independence movement, and that Nasser was at its helm.

From 1956 to 1958 Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon underwent rebellions, Iraq’s king was toppled, and Syria united with Egypt in Nasser’s United Arab Republic, part of Nasser’s strategy to unify the Arab world.

In Algeria, moral and material support was given from Cairo towards the Algerian revolution that finally won them independence from French colonial rule in 1962.

That same year, Yemen underwent a Nasser-inspired revolt, triggering a proxy war pitting Saudi Arabia against Egypt, with Nasser stating in a 1962 speech, “Yemen’s fight is my fight. Yemen’s Revolution is our Revolution.”

Nasser’s leadership and the inspiration he stirred were so strong that even as late as 1969 the year before Nasser’s death, Libya’s king was overthrown and Sudan’s right-wing regime was eliminated by military leaders loyal to Nasser.

Nasser had managed to threaten the very heart of Anglo-America’s post-WWII strategy in the Middle East. Nasser understood, that if the vast oil fields in Saudi Arabia were under Arab control, the potential for an economic boom would be enormous for all Arab states, such that the old game of imperialism by Britain and France could no longer retain its chokehold on Arab independence.

Not only was Egypt a military rival to Saudi Arabia, not only did Cairo clash with Riyadh in a shooting war in Yemen, not only did Nasser inspire Arabs in Saudi Arabia with republican ideals but the Egyptian leader even won over some of Saudi Arabia’s royal family. This group was led by Prince Talal to form the ‘Free Princes’, which defected to Egypt demanding the establishment of a republic in Saudi Arabia!

What was really going on during the period of 1954 to 1970, under Nasser’s leadership, was a war between two competing visions for the future of the Middle East; an Arab world of independent but cooperative Arab republics utilising their natural resources to facilitate an economic boom in industrialisation vs a semi-feudal scattering of monarchies with their natural resources largely at the West’s disposal.

The real reason why the British and Anglo Americans wanted Nasser removed, was not because he was a communist or because he was susceptible to communist influence; it was because he refused to obey his would-be foreign controllers and was rather successful in this endeavour, bringing their shadowy actions uncomfortably close to the light and inspiring loyalty amongst Arabs outside of Egypt including those sitting on top of the oil.

What especially worried London and Washington was the idea that Nasser might succeed in his plan to unify Egypt and Saudi Arabia thus creating a major Arab power. Nasser believed that these oil wells were not only for the government of those territories to do with as they wished but belonged to all Arab people and thus should be used for the advancement of the Arab world. Afterall, most Arabs are aware that both the monarchies themselves and the artificial borders that demarcate their states, were designed by imperialists seeking to build fences around oil wells in the 1920s.

Nasser understood that if Cairo and Riyadh were to unite in a common cause for the uplifting of the Arab people, it would create a vastly important new Arab center of gravity with worldwide influence.

In 1954 Egypt and the United Kingdom had signed an agreement over the Suez Canal and British military basing rights. It was a short lived. By 1956 Great Britain, France and Israel concocted a plot against Egypt aimed at toppling Nasser and seizing control of the Suez Canal, a conspiracy that enlisted the Muslim Brotherhood.

In fact, the British went so far as to hold secret meetings with the Muslim Brotherhood in Geneva. According to author Stephen Dorrill, two British intelligence agents Col. Neil McLean and Julian Amery, helped MI6 organize a clandestine anti-Nasser opposition in the south of France and in Switzerland, (11) in his book he writes “They also went so far as to make contact in Geneva…with members of the Muslim Brotherhood, informing only MI6 of this demarche which they kept secret from the rest of the Suez Group [which was planning the military operation via its British bases by the Suez Canal]. Amery forwarded various names to [Selwyn] Lloyd, [the British foreign secretary].”

British prime minister Anthony Eden, Churchill’s handpicked successor, was violently anti-Nasser all along and considered a British coup d’état in Cairo as early as 1953. Other than such brash actions, the only political force that could mount a challenge to Nasser was the Muslim Brotherhood which had hundreds of thousands of followers.

Nasser’s long postponed showdown with the Muslim Brotherhood occurred in 1954, this was timed to add pressure during the rising frustration concerning the British-Egyptian negotiations over the transfer of the Suez Canal and its military bases to Egypt. The British, after over 70 years of direct occupation in Egypt, were not going to give up on one of their most prized jewels, their gateway to the Orient, so easily.

From 1954 on, Anthony Eden, the British prime minister was demanding Nasser’s head. According to Stephen Dorrill’s “MI6: Fifty Years of Special Operations”, Eden had ranted “What’s all this nonsense about isolating Nasser or ‘neutralising’ him, as you call it? I want him destroyed, can’t you understand? I want him murdered…And I don’t give a damn if there’s anarchy and chaos in Egypt.”

Nasser would not back down, and in the first few months of 1954 the Muslim Brotherhood and Nasser went to war, culminating in Nasser outlawing them as a terrorist group and a pawn of the British.

On Oct. 1954, a Muslim Brotherhood member Mahmoud Abdel-Latif attempted to assassinate Nasser while he was delivering a speech in Alexandria, which was live broadcasting to the Arab world by radio, to celebrate the British military withdrawal.

Panic broke out in the mass audience, but Nasser maintained his posture and raised his voice to appeal for calm, and with great emotion he exclaimed the following:

My countrymen, my blood spills for you and for Egypt. I will live for your sake and die for the sake of your freedom and honor. Let them kill me; it does not concern me so long as I have instilled pride, honor, and freedom in you.”

The crowd roared in approval and Arab audiences were electrified. The assassination attempt backfired, and quickly played back into Nasser’s hands. Upon returning to Cairo, he ordered one of the largest political crackdowns in the modern history of Egypt, with the arrests of thousands of dissenters, mostly members of the Brotherhood.

The decree banning the Muslim Brotherhood organization said “The revolution will never allow reactionary corruption to recur in the name of religion.” (12)

In 1967, there was a Six-Day War between Israel and the Arab states Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq, which was started by Israel in a coordinated aerial attack on Egypt, eliminating roughly 90% of Egyptian air forces that were still on the ground, followed by an aerial attack on Jordan, Syria and Iraq. Israel then went on to conduct a ground attack with tanks and infantry, devastating whole Arab regions.

Despite the disastrous loss to Israel, the people of Egypt refused to accept Nasser’s resignation and took to the streets in a mass demonstration calling for Nasser’s return. Nasser accepted the call of the people and returned to his position as president where he remained as until his death in Sept 1970.

Five million people turned out on the streets of Egypt for Nasser’s funeral, and hundreds of millions more mourned his death throughout the world.

Although Nasser had devastatingly lost a battle, the Egyptian people along with their Arab compatriots understood that the fight for Arab independence was not lost. The dream of dignity and freedom, in forever opposition to the shackles of tyranny could not be buried now that it had been stirred to its very core. Nasser would be the catalyst for an Arab Revolution for independence, a revolution that remains yet to be finished.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is chung_1-175x230.jpg

Also by this author

Cynthia CHUNG

Cynthia Chung is a lecturer, writer and co-founder and editor of the Rising Tide Foundation (Montreal, Canada).

A Damned Murder Inc: Kennedy’s Battle Against the Leviathan

The U.S. Pivot to Asia: Cold War Lessons From Vietnam for TodayReturn of the Leviathan: The Fascist Roots of the CIA and the True Origin of the Cold WarBeyond Oil: How the UAE’s HOPE Mars Mission Is Breaking the Arab World Out of the Crisis of Scarcity

Newspeak in the 21st Century: How to Become a Model Citizen in the New Era of Domestic Warfare

Marwa Osman on Israel’s genocide of Gaza, and the new precedent of united regional Resistance

moi

Eva Bartlett 

A very informative discussion with Beirut-based journalist and political analyst Marwa Osman, on the litany of Israeli crimes against Palestinians in Gaza during Israel’s horrifying bombardment of the besieged and densely inhabited Gaza Strip.

Note: as of May 19: Ministry of Health in Gaza: 219 Palestinians massacred, including 63 children, 36 women and injuring 1530

Marwa also speaks of the unity not only among Palestinian resistance groups, but also Resistance movements throughout the region.

“Myself as a Shia Muslim, I believe that when there are people who are oppressed, it’s not only my duty, but if I don’t help that people, then I’m complicit.

This ideology has surpassed the Shi’ism ideology and has passed to a pan-Arabism ideology, the same ideology Gamal Abdel Nasser used to reiterated and emphasize when he was president of Egypt. That pan-Arabism is now being mirrored at the different factions, the different resistance, the allied forces of the resistance across west Asia, from Sana’a to Maghreb, up to Baghdad to Mosul, to the border between Iraq and Syria, to Damascus, Aleppo, to Daraa, down to Quneitra, down to south Lebanon, not forgetting the Islamic republic of Iran. This is very important, and historic.

What we are seeing is the same people that the Imperial powers, starting from WW2 to today, tried to dismantle, disintegrate, and break apart, they are coming all together to stand in the face of this cancer that was prepared for us in the late 1800s….”


Imperative listening.


Follow Marwa at:

Her Twitter

Her Youtube

السفينة الانتحارية ومحاولة اغتيال قناة السويس .. الرومانسية الناصرية والحلم

نُشرت بتاريخ 2021/03/28 بواسطة naram.serjoonn

لن عرف الحكاية اذا عرفت بدايتها فقط او نهايتها او جزءا منها .. ومن يظن ان حكاية السفينة العالقة في قناة السويس عابرة فليعلم انه لايعلم .. فحكاية السفينة الانتحارية ايفرغرين التي انتحرت في وسط القناة – مثل اي انتحاري ارهابي يفجر حزامه الناسف لالحاق الاذى بخصومه – لتخريب فكرة قناة السويس .. يعود سرها الى عام 1956 عندما انتحرت سفينة استشهادية لغاية أخرى يقودها الاستشهادي ضابط البحرية السوري المسيحي جول جمال في بورسعيد .. ذلك العمل الاستشهادي كان دفاعا عن قناة السويس المصرية ابان العدوان الثلاثي على مصر .. وكان ذلك اعلانا لاغلاق قناة السويس الى اشعار آخر الى ان تصبح مصرية بالكامل ..


في تلك اللحظة عام 56 ظهرت أسرار القناة .. فالقناة تبين انها عزيزة على قلب بريطانيا وانها احدى اهم جواهر التاج البريطاني .. ولكن أخطر الأسرار ظهرت عندما تبين ان الجغرافيا هي التي تقرر ملكية الطرق الدولية .. في تلك اللحظة المصرية المصيرية الناصرية تنبه البريطانيون الى حقيقة الجغرافيا وهي ان هذه القناة ليست في انكلترة بل في مصر .. ومن يملك الجغرافيا يملك القرار على الجغرافيا .. ولذلك فان البريطانيين لم يمانعوا في ان تقفل او تقتل قناة السويس وتردم اذا لم تكن لبريطانيا او فلتخلق قناة سويس بديلة او استنساخ القناة في النقب الفلسطيني .. وهذا ماكان في صلب التخطيط الغربي .. لذلك ظهرت فجأة منذ الستينات مشاريع شق قناة بديلة من العقبة (ايلات) الى البحر المتوسط عبر النقب في فلسطين المحتلة تحت رعاية اسرائيل ..


العالم الغربي لايحب النوم في العسل كما بعض البسطاء من السياسيين في الشرق .. لأن قرار قتل قناة السويس ظهر ووضع أخرى تحت رعاية اسرائيل يعني ان القناة ستكون نقلت وكأنها صارت في بريطانيا .. لأن اسرائيل مربوطة بالسلاسل الى الغرب ولاتقدر الا ان تكون طوع بنان الغرب لحاجتها اليه .. فهي مخفر متقدم ونواطير من المستوطنين اليهود الذين يرتبط مصيرهم بجرة قلم من أوروبة .. واذا فكرت اسرائيل في التمرد فان الغرب سيتركها لمصيرها في هذا البحر العربي الهائل بل وسيوجهه لتحطيمها .. واذا كان الرئيس الامريكي يقول للملك السعودي انك لن تبقى اسبوعين اذا تخلينا عن دعمك فان نفس الكلام يقال لاسرائيل .. فهذه الاسرائيل ستقع في خمسة ايام اذا قرر الغرب تركها لمصيرها ..
هذه بداية الحكاية .. اي منذ لحظة تحرير القناة وظهور ضابط بحري انتحاري يحول سفينته الى سفينة انتحارية وتغلق القناة الى اشعار آخر .. ولكن مابعد هذه البداية نصل الى وسط الحكاية الذي يبدو مشطوبا وخفيا وجزءا لايراه أحد ولايلتفت اليه أحد بسبب زحمة الاحداث التي غطت بضجيجها على صوت الحكاية الحقيقية .. ففي وسط الحكاية حدثت بداية الانتقام من قناة السويس وبداية الجريمة لاغتيالها .. الى ان نصل الى نهاية القصة التي ظهرت منذ أشهر ..


مشكلة اي جريمة اغتيال انها تحتاج تحضيرا .. وجريمة اغتيال قناة السويس والانتقام منها كانت تحتاج تحضيرا جيدا لمسرح واسع .. وتحضير المسرح يعني تدمير السيطرة المصرية على منظومة الفكر الناصري والقومي التي صنعت ظاهرة جول جمال المواطن المشرقي الذي يستميت من اجل الدفاع عن كل الشرق وهي الظاهرة التي صنعها زمن الضباط الاحرار والرومانسية الناصرية .. وتم كسر الرومانسية الناصرية عام 1967 لاحلال الحلم الساداتي محلها والذي هو باختصار النوم في العسل .. الحلم الساداتي كان يحلم بالرفاه ودولة اللاحرب ولذلك كان عليه تفكيك المنظومة الفكرية الناصرية القومية المشاغبة بطموحها بكل رومانسيتها والتخلص من تلك التركة في مصر وحول مصر .. وبناء منظومة كامب ديفيد .. ونجح الحلم الساداتي في استئصال النزعة العسكرية من نفوس المصريين بمعاهدة كامب ديفيد التي كانت مخدرا قويا فيما يتم انجاز العمل بصمت لتجريد مصر من كل اسلحتها التي كانت تحمي قناة السويس .. وأهم أسلحتها كان القومية العربية التي جعلت ضابطا سوريا مسيحيا يفجر نفسه في سفينة فرنسية (مسيحية) والذي كان يعني ان قناة السويس صارت محمية ب 200 مليون عربي .. وهذا هو رعب الغرب الذي وجد نفسه ان الحلم الرومانسي المصري وضعه وجها لوجه مع كتلة 200 مليون عربي مستعدين للموت..


وبعد 12 سنة فقط من كامب ديفيد تم ضرب العراق حيث تدربت القوات الامريكية في الصحراء المصرية بتسهيلات كامب ديفيد عبر كثير من المناورات على حروب الصحراء في ماسمي بسلسلة (مناورات النجم الساطع) والتي كانت تحاكي حربا في الصحراء وفيها عرفت مشاكل الحروب الحديثة في الصحراء وتم تجنبها كلها في حرب عاصفة الصحراء التي كانت تدريباتها تتم في صحراء مصر .. والمصريون لايعرفون انهم يحضرون مسرحا لقتل العراق ومن ثم اضعاف مصر واغتيال قناة السويس ونهر النيل ..

وبعد عشر سنوات اخرى تم الاجهاز على العراق نهائيا في احتلال مباشر .. فيما محبو منظومة كامب ديفيد في مصر ينامون في العسل ويسمع شخيرهم الى المريخ وهم يحمدون الله ان السادات كان فطنا وذكيا انه جنبهم هذه الصراعات والحروب .. فرغم كل ماقيل عن أسباب حرب العراق فان هناك سببا لم يتم التركيز عليه وهو ان التجارة القادمة من الصين تفكر في طريق بري على طريق الحرير من ايران الى العراق الى سورية .. وهذه قد تكون قناة سويس برية ..

ولذلك وضع اميريكا داعش في وسط الطريق .. وكان المراد قطع الطريق البري .. ليس من أجل قناة السويس بل من أجل الا تموت القناة البديلة الاسرائيلية التي صارت تتحضر بمشروع مدينة نيوم السعودي .. الذي لايوجد اي سبب لبنائها الا انه ليخدم مشروعا اسرائيليا ما ..

بعد تدمير طريق الحرير بما يسمى (الثورة السورية) .. وميناء بيروت .. وتعطيل قناة السويس .. صار الحل الوحيد لتجارة أسيا والغرب في اسرائيل فقط .. فكل الطرق الدولية تمر من اسرائيل .. طريق حيفا – دبي البري .. وقناة ايلات -المتوسط .. وهذه الطرق كلها بيد الغرب طالما هي بيد اسرائيل حيث لايوجد ناصر ولارومانسية ناصرية .. والغرب موجود في الخليج المحتل والذي تم نشر جاليات غير عربية بشكل واسع فيه لاعلان هوية جديدة لاعلاقة لها بمنظومة الناصريين والقوميين العروبيين الذين قد يهددون الطرق الدولية ..


من جديد سيخرج علينا أصحاب النوم في العسل ويسخرون من نظرية المؤامرة لان وظيفتهم هي تطبيع المؤامرة .. اي جعل المنظر التآمري منظرا طبيعيا لا يد للانسان فيه .. فهم يرون ان داعش ليست مؤامرة امريكية لقطع التواصل الجغرافي وقاعدة التنف التي تجثم على الطريق الواصل من العراق الى سورية ليست الا بالصدفة .. والربيع العربي ليس مؤامرة بل بسبب توق الشعوب العربية الى الكرامة والحرية .. وليس لان الشعوب البسيطة صارت لها وظيفة تنفيذ المشاريع الغربية دون ان تدري .. والقذافي قتل بسبب غضب الجماهير وليس لأنه اراد تحقيق فكرة نكروما بالولايات المتحدة الافريقية وصك عملة ذهبية لها ..
واليوم وبعد مرور 130 سنة على افتتاح قناة السويس يتقرر ان باخرة عملاقة تنفذ عملية انتحارية في قناة السويس .. لأن السفن تحركها الامواج وليس الرياح .. فاين هي الامواج في قناة السويس كي تجنح بها سفينة .. ولايمكن ان تحرك الرياح هذا الجبل العملاق الذي طوله 400 متر ويحمل مايعادل 100 الف سيارة .. ليجنح بهذه الزاوية مالم تكن عملية انتحارية للسفينة التي ارتطمت بالضفة الشرقية للقناة .. فما هذه الصدفة في انها حدثت بعد تفجير ميناء بيروت وبعد تفعيل الاتفاق التجاري بين دبي وحيفا؟؟ وبعد تعطل طريق الحرير السوري؟؟
ماذا سيحل المصريون اليوم من مشاكل خلقها لهم الوهم الساداتي والحلم الساداتي الذي كان نوما في العسل؟؟ سد النهضة يسرق مياههم وقناة السويس تسرق منهم ..

النيل سرق في اثيوبية .. وقناة النيل كثرت سكاكينها .. بين حلمين تصارعا .. بين سفينتين انتحاريتين .. سفينة قادها جول جمال الضابط البحري السوري من أجل قناة السويس في الحلم الرومانسي الناصري .. وسفينة انتحارية صنعها زمن الحلم والنوم في عسل كامب ديفيد .. سفينة نعلم ان من أرسلها هو نفسه من أرسل الانتحاريين الى بغداد ودمشق والى ابراج نيويورك .. ونسف موكب الحريري .. ونسف ميناء بيروت .. ومن أراد ان يكسر الشرق .. ويقيد كل جرائمه ضد مجهول ..

=============================

يذكرني هذا الحدث بفيلم مصري لمحمود ياسين (بعنوان وقيدت ضد مجهول) كأنه نبوءة عن اليوم لنوستراداموس .. كان يلعب فيه دور شرطي بسيط للحراسة ولكن في كل حي يحرسه كانت تزداد السرقات فقرر رئيسه وضعه لحراسة الاهرامات .. فلاشيء يسرق هناك .. ولكن الهرم الاكبر يختفي ويسرق .. فيقرر رئيسه وضعه في مناوبة حراسة على كورنيش النيل .. فماذا سيسرق هناك ؟؟ ولكن ينتهي الفيلم بتلفون مفاجئ لرئيس الشرطة ليبلغه بأن نهر النيل سرق !! في رمزية عن سرقة رمزية مصر ..

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

%d bloggers like this: