Sibel Edmonds Predicted The Coup 6 Months Ago

July 19, 2016  /  Gilad Atzmon

In the following 6 month old Corbett Report episode, former FBI Sibel Edmonds analyses events in Turkey and  predicts the recent coup. This  video is a must watch. Edmonds’ understanding of Turkey and politics involved is with no comparison.

Turkey Crackdown Against Coup Suspects, Thousands of Police Officers Suspended

Turkey Presses Crackdown Against Coup Suspects Despite Concern 

Turkish security forces launched fresh raids Monday in a relentless crackdown against the suspected plotters of a coup that left over 290 dead, as President Recep Tayyip Erdogan mooted reintroducing the death penalty to punish them.

Erdogan faced down the coup bid late Friday by elements in the military disgruntled with his 13-year rule. But Turkey’s allies have warned him against excessive retribution as the authorities round up the perpetrators.Erdogan

The justice minister has said around 6,000 people have been detained so far in the investigation into Friday’s coup which Erdogan has blamed on his arch-enemy, US-based preacher Fethullah Gulen.

Early Monday, special Istanbul anti-terror police units raided the prestigious air force military academy in the city in search of new suspects, the state-run Anadolu news agency reported.

Meanwhile, authorities have also detained General Mehmet Disli, who conducted the operation to capture Turkey’s chief-of-staff Hulusi Akar during the stand-off, an official said.

Reports had said that a total of 36 generals had been detained so far. The Dogan agency reported Monday that 10 of them had now been remanded in custody by the courts.

Erdogan has urged citizens to remain on the streets even after the defeat of the coup, in what the authorities describe as a “vigil” for democracy.

New demonstrations of support were held throughout the country on Sunday night, AFP correspondents said.

Thousands of pro-Erdogan supporters waving Turkish flags filled the main Kizilay Square in Ankara while similar scenes were seen in Taksim Square in Istanbul, AFP photographers said.

According to Anadolu, 1,800 additional elite special police forces have been drafted in from surrounding provinces to ensure security in Istanbul.

Eleven soldiers suspected of involvement in the coup were detained Sunday at Istanbul’s Sabiha Gokcen airport, with authorities firing warning shots in the air, a Turkish official said.

Clashes also erupted at an air base in the central city of Konya between security forces and putschists trying to evade arrest.

‘Pay The Price’
Leaders including US President Barack Obama and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have urged Turkey to follow the rule of law in the wake of the coup.

EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini stressed on Monday that the rule of law needed to be protected for the sake of the country.

And French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault warned Erdogan against using the failed putsch as a “blank cheque” to silence his opponents.

But Erdogan added fuel to the fire late on Sunday when he told supporters that Turkey could consider re-introducing the death penalty which it had abolished as part of its longstanding EU membership bid.

“In democracies, decisions are made based on what the people say. I think our government will speak with the opposition and come to a decision,” he said, reacting to crowds in Istanbul calling for the death penalty.

“We cannot delay this anymore because in this country, those who launch a coup will have to pay the price for it,” he told supporters.

Source: AFP

18-07-2016 – 12:03 Last updated 18-07-2016 – 12:03

 

Turkey Coup Attempt: Thousands of Police Officers Suspended

Local Editor

Turkish officials say that nearly 8,000 police officers have been suspended, reportedly on suspicion of having links to the failed coup attempt at the weekend.

Turkish anti riot police officers escort Turkish soldiers who allegedly took part in a military coup

Some 6,000 members of the judiciary and military, including generals, have been detained in connection with the coup.

Meanwhile, authorities have also detained General Mehmet Disli, who conducted the operation to capture Turkey’s chief of staff Hulusi Akar during the stand-off, a Turkish official said.

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan vowed to purge state bodies of the “virus” that caused the revolt.

The EU’s foreign policy chief says the rule of law in Turkey needs protection.

The Turkish government claims cleric Fethullah Gulen was behind the plot.

Gulen lives in the United States and strongly denies any involvement.

Eight Turkish military officers who fled to Greece by helicopter are appearing in court in the Greek border city of Alexandropouli charged with entering the country illegally.

President Erdogan told a crowd on Sunday that Turkey would consider reinstating the death penalty.

Capital punishment was abolished in 2004 as part of Turkey’s bid to join the European Union. Nobody has been executed in the country since 1984.

The EU’s foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, was speaking ahead of a meeting of EU foreign ministers and the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, in Brussels, at which the events in Turkey are likely to be high on the agenda.

She said there would be no excuse for any steps that would take Turkey away from the rule of law and that the foreign ministers would be sending a “strong message” on that.

Source: News Agencies, Edited by website team

18-07-2016 | 13:16

 

Related Videos

Related Articles

The Zio-con Who Bought Disaster to Libya is Doing it Again

March 25, 2016  /  Gilad Atzmon

 

By Gilad Atzmon

Bernard-Henri Lévy (BHL), the ultra Zionist who declared that ‘as a Jew’ he liberated Libya, is again campaigning for more immoral interventionist wars. He insists that the current terror in Europe comes from Syria and Iraq. His solution- let’s drop more bombs on Muslim and Arab cities- as if we haven’t been doing just that for decades.  I would expect nothing less from a Hasbra merchant, but why does the BBC feature such a clumsy Zio-con, one who is barely able to articulate an idea?

The Jewish so-called ‘philosopher’ tells lies on camera. He argues that the West had washed its hands of Syria’s uprising and didn’t want to intervene. Is that true?  In fact, throughout the war we have identified precisely those militias and the rebels that were working with Israel and the West.

Despite the obvious fact, widely accepted by Western analysts, that Asad and Iran hold the key to stability in the region, BHL continues to campaign against Bashar Assad.

Like his brethren Zionists, BHL also insists upon imposing a false demarcation between the ‘kosher Muslims’ and the ‘bad ones.’  In support, Levy recycles the false Zionist dichotomy between ‘Islam’ and ‘Islamism.’ But there is no such dichotomy. As in Judaism, in Islam there is no separation between the civil and the religious. Yet unlike the Jews, in Islam there is no such thing as a secular Muslim. Jews often drop God but retain their Jewish identity. When a Muslim stops believing in Allah, he or she stops being a Muslim. Thus the delusional dichotomy between Islam and Islamism is nothing but a Jewish projection–an attempt to Zionise the Muslim.

BHL reckons that Europe is dying.  If he is right, he can blame himself and Jewish lobbies that pushed us into so many criminal wars in devastating succession. But I believe that BHL is wrong; Europe will emerge from the present crisis in a stronger position. It will learn to identify its true roots in Athens and will drift away from Jerusalem and the destructive influence exerted by Zionist politics, such as BHL, Lord Cashpoint Levy, LFI, CFI and The Crif.

Daesh has a mother: the invasion of Iraq. But it also has a father: Saudi Arabia and its religious-industrial complex.

 

Saudi Arabia, an ’ISIS’ That Has Made It

Kamel Daoud

Black Daesh, white Daesh. The former slits throats, kills, stones, cuts off hands, destroys humanity’s common heritage and despises archaeology, women and non-Muslims. The latter is better dressed and neater but does the same things. 
 
The “ISIS”; Saudi Arabia. In its struggle against terrorism, the West wages war on one, but shakes hands with the other. This is a mechanism of denial, and denial has a price: preserving the famous strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia at the risk of forgetting that the kingdom also relies on an alliance with a religious clergy that produces, legitimizes, spreads, preaches and defends Wahhabism, the ultra-puritanical form of Islam that Daesh feeds on.
 
Saudi Arabia, an
 
Wahhabism, a messianic radicalism that arose in the 18th century, hopes to restore a fantasized caliphate centered on a desert, a sacred book, and two holy sites, Mecca and Medina. Born in massacre and blood, it manifests itself in a surreal relationship with women, a prohibition against non-Muslims treading on sacred territory, and ferocious religious laws. That translates into an obsessive hatred of imagery and representation and therefore art, but also of the body, nakedness and freedom. Saudi Arabia is a Daesh that has made it.
 
The West’s denial regarding Saudi Arabia is striking: It salutes the theocracy as its ally but pretends not to notice that it is the world’s chief ideological sponsor of Islamist culture. The younger generations of radicals in the so-called Arab world were not born “jihadists”. They were suckled in the bosom of Fatwa Valley, a kind of “Islamist” Vatican with a vast industry that produces theologians, religious laws, books, and aggressive editorial policies and media campaigns.
 
One might counter: Isn’t Saudi Arabia itself a possible target of Daesh? Yes, but to focus on that would be to overlook the strength of the ties between the reigning family and the clergy that accounts for its stability – and also, increasingly, for its precariousness. The Saudi royals are caught in a perfect trap: Weakened by succession laws that encourage turnover, they cling to ancestral ties between king and preacher. The Saudi clergy produces Islamism, which both threatens the country and gives legitimacy to the regime.
One has to live in the Muslim world to understand the immense transformative influence of religious television channels on society by accessing its weak links: households, women, rural areas. “Islamist” culture is widespread in many countries – Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Mali, Mauritania. There are thousands of “Islamist” newspapers and clergies that impose a unitary vision of the world, tradition and clothing on the public space, on the wording of the government’s laws and on the rituals of a society they deem to be contaminated.
 
It is worth reading certain “Islamist” newspapers to see their reactions to the attacks in Paris. The West is cast as a land of “infidels.” The attacks were the result of the onslaught against Islam. Muslims and Arabs have become the enemies of the secular and the Jews. The Palestinian question is invoked along with the rape of Iraq and the memory of colonial trauma, and packaged into a messianic discourse meant to seduce the masses. Such talk spreads in the social spaces below, while up above, political leaders send their condolences to France and denounce a crime against humanity. This totally schizophrenic situation parallels the West’s denial regarding Saudi Arabia.
 
All of which leaves one skeptical of Western democracies’ thunderous declarations regarding the necessity of fighting terrorism. Their war can only be myopic, for it targets the effect rather than the cause. Since “ISIS” is first and foremost a culture, not a militia, how do you prevent future generations from turning to “jihadism” when the influence of “Fatwa Valley” and its clerics and its culture and its immense editorial industry remains intact?
 
Is curing the disease therefore a simple matter? Hardly. Saudi Arabia remains an ally of the West in the many chess games playing out in the Middle East… And there’s the trap. Denial creates the illusion of equilibrium. “Jihadism” is denounced as the scourge of the century but no consideration is given to what created it or supports it. This may allow saving face, but not saving lives.
 
Daesh has a mother: the invasion of Iraq. But it also has a father: Saudi Arabia and its religious-industrial complex. Until that point is understood, battles may be won, but the war will be lost. “Jihadists” will be killed, only to be reborn again in future generations and raised on the same books.
 
The attacks in Paris have exposed this contradiction again, but as happened after 9/11, it risks being erased from our analyses and our consciences.
 
Source: The New York Times, Edited by website team
 
21-11-2015 | 14:01

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian 

  

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

A History of Wahhabism and the Hijacking of the Muslim faith

A History of Wahhabism and the Hijacking of the Muslim faith

Image source: vimeo.comImage source: vimeo.com

“In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act” – George Orwell

Our century so far has been overshadowed by a plague which roots, western powers have proclaimed, can be found in Islam and its practice. And though politicians have been careful not to publicly brand all Muslims terrorists, the narrative has nevertheless been one of suspicion and assumption. The words terror and Islam have been juxtaposed too many times in the media for anyone to believe that it was not by “design.”  There has been a war of words against both Islam and Muslims. Its aim is rather simple and only too predictable since it falls within an equation of greed and cynicism.

By ridiculing Islam and dehumanizing its followers, western powers have essentially laid the ground for intervention – positioning their armies within a narrative of moral salvation and liberation when their aims are everything but.

Iraq serves a perfect example. Even though US soldiers committed heinous crimes against Iraqis, despite the rapes, the raids and the mass massacres; in the face of systematic tortures and aggravated human rights violations, Washington still claimed moral high ground, arguing the greater good required decisive actions.

Truth is, from the moment the towers of the Trade Center tumbled down to the ground in great swirls of smoke and ashes, the MENA and with it all Muslims within it, have been lined up as sacrificial lambs to the altar of imperialism.

If anyone and anything has benefited from this grand war on terror, it is surely weapons dealers and all those behind who feeds corporate America its fill of blood. The signs are everywhere for those who care to see!

And if speaking the truth is conspiratorial theorism then so be it!

Terror was engineered and unleashed as a weapon of mass destruction and a political trojan horse. What better way to control the narrative and outcome of wars but by creating the very crisis, one intends to find solutions to, while keeping a hand in both pots?

If not for 9/11 Afghanistan and subsequently Iraq would not have been invaded. Arguably, without the war on terror Americans would still enjoy some of their civil liberties, and terminologies such as rendition and institutionalized torture might not have become generic terms. But then again corporations would not have seen their bottom lines explode under the influx of billions of dollars in weapon sales, security deals, and oil concessions the way it did.

The terms “follow the money” takes on a completely different meaning when correlated to terror.

But if corporate America has indeed played the terror card to forward its own very selfish and radical form of capitalism, it did not invent the ideology of terror per se – it only rebranded and repackaged it to fit its purpose.

It is again in history we must look to understand how this evil – Wahhabism, came to be in the first place; and under whose influence it first sparked into life. There too, the shadow of imperialism lurks …

It is crucial to understand though that ISIS, terror’s modern manifestation and expression, carries no tie with Islam. NONE!

Actually both Prophet Muhammad and Imam Ali warned us against this black plague.

In Kitab Al Fitan – a compilation of hadiths (Islamic tradition) relating to the end of times put together by prominent scholar Nuyam bin Hammad in 229 AH – Imam Ali recalled the Prophet saying,

“If you see the black flags, then hold your ground and do not move your hands or your feet. A people will come forth who are weak and have no capability, their hearts are like blocks of iron. They are the people of the State (literally the people of Al Dawla), they do not keep a promise or a treaty. They call to the truth but they are not its people. Their names are (nicknames like Abu Mohammed) and their last names (are the names of town and cities, like Al Halabi) and their hair is loose like women’s hair. (Leave them) until they fight among themselves, then Allah will bring the truth from whoever He wills.”

In another reference to a period of intense religious, political and social confusion Imam Ali  warned,

“If you are against a group of ‪Muslims and the kuffar (unbelievers) are against them too, then know that you have aligned yourself with the kuffar against your own brothers. And know that if that is the case, then there is definitely something wrong with your view. If you want to know where the most righteous of Muslims are then look to where the arrows of the kuffar are pointing.”

In this extract, Imam Ali clearly refers to a time when Muslims will cross swords with other Muslims while in alliance with non-Muslims. And because western powers are undeniably colluding with those radicals they claim to want to destroy – training them and funding them in plain view, one can legitimately ponder.

Looking at events currently unfolding in the Middle East such warnings have found a deep echo within the Muslim community and religious leaders, among whom most prominently Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Both have mapped their decisions within such religious parameters. And whether one agrees with those men or not is not the point – understanding where they are coming from and where they stand however, is.

And if we can agree that not all is as it seems, then could it not be that those enemies we have imagined are indeed – not?

If ISIS has certainly been sold as an Islamic movement, everything it professes and teaches stands against Islam and its teachings. This divide actually goes beyond Islam’s great schism – which schism it needs to be noted remains part of this myth Saudi Arabia has been so eager on selling the world.

If indeed religious disagreements have occurred over the centuries and if Muslims have in truth fought and argue over the legitimacy, legality and religious superiority of their schools of thoughts and judicial principles, scholars did so in the knowledge and express belief that while men are flawed, Islam is perfect.

Islam’s disagreements came about out from a desire to walk better on God’s path, not to obliterate people with an implacable and merciless truth.

Looking back at the long line of prophets, from Adam to Noah, Ibrahim, Jesus, Yehia and Muhammad, all shared in the Oneness which is God’s ultimate command, God’s boundless mercy onto His creation and His injunction of peace. And if those holy messengers came at different times and places in our history, the essence of their message has been as permanent and immovable as God’s will. From Adam’s first cries of remorse and calls for forgiveness, to Prophet Muhammad’s last breath, God’s message onto us has always been Islam – as Islam means submission. In truth, the only real freedom which was ever given to us is that to submit, body and soul to The Creator of All things.

Islam did not start at Prophet Muhammad, rather it was reborn with him and through him; a last call before the sunset, a last mercy and guidance for us to follow – or not – a last ray of hope before evil can get its fill and the last chapter of our fate written down.

Islam was on the first day as it will be on the last day – it is us which have called it many things in our need to possess and label the divine. It is us again which have strayed and plotted, coveted and perverted to serve very earthly ambitions.

Wahhabism is no more than an engineered perversion, a division, an abomination which has but spread like a cancer onto the Islamic world and now threatens to destroy all religions.

Wahhabism and its legions: Al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, are but the manifestations of a reactionary atheist movement which seeks the death of all faiths.

Wahhabism is not of Islam and Islam will never be of Wahhabism – it is a folly to conceive that Islam would ever sanction murder, looting and atrocious barbarism. Islam opposes despotism, injustice, infamy , deceits, greed, extremism, asceticism – everything which is not balanced and good, fair and merciful, kind and compassionate.

If anything, Wahhabism is the very negation of Islam. As many have called it before – Islam is not Wahhabism. Wahhabism is merely the misguided expression of one man’s political ambition – Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, a man who was recruited by Empire Britain to erode at the fabric of Islam and crack the unity of its ummah (community).

As Wahhabism began its land and mind grab in Hijaz – now known as Saudi Arabia – one family, Al Saud saw in this violent and reactionary school of thought a grand opportunity to claim and retain power. This unholy alliance has blotted the skies of Arabia for centuries, darkening the horizon with its miasms.

Wahhabism has now given birth to a monstrous abomination – extreme radicalism; a beast which has sprung and fed from Salafis and Wahhabis poison, fueled by the billions of Al Saud’s petrodollars; a weapon exploited by neo-imperialists to justify military interventions in those wealthiest corners of the world.

But though those powers which thought themselves cunning by weaving a network of fear around the world to better assert and enslave are losing control over their brain-child, ISIS and its sisters in hate and fury, as they all have gone nuclear, no longer bound by the chains their fathers shackled them with.

ISIS’s obscene savagery epitomises the violence which is inherent and central to Wahhabism and Salafism – its other deviance. And though the world knows now the source of all terror, no power has yet dared speak against it, instead the world has chosen to hate its designated victim – Islam.

In July 2013, the European Parliament identified Wahhabism as the main source of global terrorism, and yet the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, condemning ISIS in the strongest terms, has insisted that “the ideas of extremism, radicalism and terrorism do not belong to Islam in any way”. But then again the Grand Mufti might remain oblivious to the history of Wahhabism or what Wahhabism actually professes.

Wahhabism 101

During the 18th century, revivalist movements sprang up in many parts of the Islamic world as the Muslim imperial powers began to lose control of peripheral territories. In the west at this time, governments were beginning to separate church from state, but this secular ideal was a radical innovation: as revolutionary as the commercial economy that Europe was concurrently devising. No other culture regarded religion as a purely private activity, separate from such worldly pursuits as politics, so for Muslims the political fragmentation of society was also a religious problem. Because the Quran had given Muslims a sacred mission – to build a just economy in which everybody is treated with equity and respect – the political well-being of the ummah was always a matter of sacred import. If the poor were oppressed, the vulnerable exploited or state institutions corrupt, Muslims were obliged to make every effort to put society back on track.

If 18th-century reformers were convinced that should Muslims ever regain lost power and prestige, they would have to return to the fundamentals of their faith, ensuring that God – rather than materialism or worldly ambition – dominated the political order, Wahhabism would come to pervert such desires.

There was nothing militant about this “fundamentalism”; not yet, rather, it was a grassroots attempt to reorient society and did not involve jihad.

Only, if the idea of going back to the root of Islam at a time when society had strayed from the path was indeed laudable, Wahhabism would work to betray such ideal by twisting on its head Islam’s most sacred pillars, perverting Islamic law and the interpretation of its Scriptures to serve the mighty and enslave the weak.

Under Wahhabism’s interpretation of Islam, women reverted to being objectified. Those many great women Islam saw rise under the strict protection of the Quran, those models Muslim women came to look up to and aspire to become – Maryam, Khadijah, Fatimah, Zaynab; Muhammad ibn Abdel Wahhab would have had locked up in chains in their home.

When Islam gave women their rightful place within society, Wahhabism denied them everything.

And for those of you who continue to live under the premise that Islam is profoundly unfair against women, do remember it is not Islam but rather men’s interpretations of it which is the source of your ire.

Islam secured women’ status according to God’s will. Islam poses both men and women on equal footing in terms of their faith – it is only in their duties and responsibilities which they differ, not worthiness. Islam calls on men to provide for women and offer them security, both financial and physical. Under Islam women are free to marry, divorce and work. Under Islam women cannot be bought, bartered or oppressed. Under Islam women enjoy more freedom than most western women have been given. It is society and cultural deviations which have denied them those rights, not Islam.

Women rights are forever imprinted in the Quran – this reality will never change, no matter how men chose to interpret it and falsify it.

Like Martin Luther, ibn Wahhab claimed he wanted to return to the earliest teachings of Islam and eject all later medieval accretions. To achieve such ambitions he opposed Sufism and Shia Islam, labelling them as heretical innovations (bidah) as both opposed tyranny in faith. He went on to urge all Muslims to reject the learned exegesis developed over the centuries by the ulema (scholars) and interpret the texts for themselves, or rather under his guidance.

This naturally incensed the clergy and threatened local rulers, who believed that interfering with these popular devotions would cause social unrest. Eventually, however, ibn Wahhab found a patron in Mohammed Ibn Saud, a chieftain of Najd who adopted his ideas. Ibn Saud quickly used Wahhabism to support his military campaigns for plunder and territory, insisting such violence was all in the name of the greater good.

To this day Al Saud’s house is following in such bloody footsteps.

Although the scriptures were so central to ibn Wahhab’s ideology, by insisting that his version of Islam alone had validity, he distorted the Quranic message in the most violent way. The Quran firmly states that “There must be no coercion in matters of faith” – Quran 2:256.

It rules that Muslims must believe in the revelations of all the great prophets (3:84) and that religious pluralism was God’s will (5:48). Until Wahhabism came knocking, Muslims remained traditionally wary of takfir, the practice of declaring a fellow Muslim to be an unbeliever (kafir). Hitherto Sufism, which had developed an outstanding appreciation of other faith traditions, had been the most popular form of Islam and had played an important role in both social and religious life. “Do not praise your own faith so exclusively that you disbelieve all the rest,” urged the great mystic Ibn al-Arabi (d.1240). “God the omniscient and omnipresent cannot be confined to any one creed.” It was common for a Sufi to claim that he was a neither a Jew nor a Christian, nor even a Muslim, because once you glimpsed the divine, you left these man-made distinctions behind.

After ibn Wahhab’s death, Wahhabism became more violent, an instrument of state terror. As Al Saud sought to establish an independent kingdom, Abd al-Aziz Ibn Muhammad, Ibn Saud’s son and successor, used takfir to justify the wholesale slaughter of resistant populations. In 1801, his army sacked the holy Shia city of Karbala in what is now Iraq, plundered the tomb of Imam Hussain, and slaughtered thousands of Shias, including women and children. A few years later,  in 1803, in fear and panic, the holy city of Mecca surrendered to the Saudi leader, wary of that his army would do to the population.

Little do we remember the sacking of the holy city of Medina, when Al Saud’s legions ransacked mosques, schools and homes. Al Saud’s army murdered hundreds of men, women and children, deaf to their screams. As imams pleaded for the most sacred relics of Islam to be protected, Al Saud’s men pillaged and looted, setting fire to Medina’s library. Al Saud made an example out of Medina, the very city which proved so welcoming to Islam. On the ground which saw rise the first mosque of Islam, Al Saud soaked the earth red with blood.

Where the footsteps of the last Prophet of God still echo, Al Saud filled the air with ghastly cries of horrors.

But such terror has been erased from history books. Such tales of blood and savage betrayals have been swallowed whole by Al Saud as this house attempted to re-write history and claim lineage to the house of the prophet.

Eventually, in 1815, the Ottomans despatched Muhammad Ali Pasha, governor of Egypt, to crush the Wahhabi forces and destroy their capital. But Wahhabism became a political force once again during the First World War when the Saudi chieftain – another Abd al-Aziz – made a new push for statehood and began to carve out a large kingdom for himself in the Middle East with his devout Bedouin army, known as the Ikhwan, the “Brotherhood”.

In the Ikhwan we see the roots of ISIS. To break up the tribes and wean them from the nomadic life which was deemed incompatible with Islam, the Wahhabi clergy had settled the Bedouin in oases, where they learned farming and the crafts of sedentary life and were indoctrinated in Wahhabi Islam. Once they exchanged the time-honoured ghazu raid, which typically resulted in the plunder of livestock, for the Wahhabi-style jihad, these Bedouin fighters became more violent and extreme, covering their faces when they encountered Europeans and non-Saudi Arabs and fighting with lances and swords because they disdained weaponry not used by the Prophet. In the old ghazu raids, the Bedouin had always kept casualties to a minimum and did not attack non-combatants. Now the Ikhwan routinely massacred “apostate” unarmed villagers in their thousands, thought nothing of slaughtering women and children, and routinely slit the throats of all male captives.

In 1915, Abd Al-Aziz planned to conquer Hijaz (an area in the west of present-day Saudi Arabia that includes the cities of Mecca and Medina), the Persian Gulf to the east of Najd, and the land that is now Syria and Jordan in the north, but during the 1920s he tempered his ambitions in order to acquire diplomatic standing as a nation state with Britain and the United States. The Ikhwan, however, continued to raid the British protectorates of Iraq, Transjordan and Kuwait, insisting that no limits could be placed on jihad. Regarding all modernisation as bidah, the Ikhwan also attacked Abd al-Aziz for permitting telephones, cars, the telegraph, music and smoking – indeed, anything unknown in Muhammad’s time – until finally Abd Al-Aziz quashed their rebellion in 1930.

After the defeat of the Ikhwan, the official Wahhabism of the Saudi kingdom abandoned militant jihad and became a religiously conservative movement.

But the Ikhwan spirit and its dream of territorial expansion did not die, instead it gained new ground in the 1970s, when the Kingdom became central to western foreign policy in the region. Washington welcomed the Saudis’ opposition to Nasserism (the pan-Arab socialist ideology of Egypt’s second president, Gamal Abdel Nasser) and to Soviet influence. After the Iranian Revolution, in 1979 it gave tacit support to the Saudis’ project of countering Shia Islam by Wahhabizing the entire Muslim world.

Just as Nasserism posed a threat to both the Saudis and the US in that it entailed independence and a supranational sense of belonging and solidarity, in opposition to colonialism and feudalism, Iran Shia democratic movement presented too much of a pull for countries in the region to follow to be allowed to shine forth.

And so the wheels of propaganda were set in motion and Iran became western powers and its allies’ designated enemy. Right alongside Soviet Russia, Iran became the source of all evil, while all the while Saudi Arabia was left to industrialize radicalism on a mass scale.

The soaring oil price created by the 1973 embargo – when Arab petroleum producers cut off supplies to the U.S. to protest against the Americans’ military support for Israel – gave the Kingdom all the petrodollars it needed to export its idiosyncratic form of Islam.

The old military jihad to spread the faith was now replaced by a cultural offensive. The Saudi-based Muslim World League opened offices in every region inhabited by Muslims, and the Saudi ministry of religion printed and distributed Wahhabi translations of the Quran, Wahhabi doctrinal texts and the writings of modern thinkers whom the Saudis found congenial, such as Sayyids Abul-A’la Maududi and Qutb, to Muslim communities throughout the Middle East, Africa, Indonesia, the United States and Europe. In all these places, they funded the building of Saudi-style mosques with Wahhabi preachers and established madrasas that provided free education for the poor, with, of course, a Wahhabi curriculum.

Slowly Muslims’ understanding of Islam became polluted by Wahhabism and Sunni Muslims began to think and breath Wahhabism, no longer in tune with its own religious tradition, cut off from free-thinking Islam, moderate Islam, compassionate Islam and non-violent Islam.

At the same time, young men from the poorer Muslim countries, such as Egypt and Pakistan, who had felt compelled to find work in the Gulf to support their families, associated their relative affluence with Wahhabism and brought this faith back home with them, living in new neighbourhoods with Saudi mosques and shopping malls that segregated the sexes. The Saudis demanded religious conformity in return for their munificence, so Wahhabi rejection of all other forms of Islam as well as other faiths would reach as deeply into Bradford, England, and Buffalo, New York, as into Pakistan, Jordan or Syria: everywhere gravely undermining Islam’s traditional pluralism.

WRITER

The Dirty War on Syria

dirty
Global Research, November 27, 2015

The following text is the introductory chapter of  Professor Tim Anderson’s forthcoming book entitled The Dirty War on Syria

Although every war makes ample use of lies and deception, the dirty war on Syria has relied on a level of mass disinformation not seen in living memory. The British-Australian journalist Philip Knightley pointed out that war propaganda typically involves ‘a depressingly predictable pattern’ of demonising the enemy leader, then demonising the enemy people through atrocity stories, real or imagined (Knightley 2001). Accordingly, a mild-mannered eye doctor called Bashar al Assad became the new evil in the world and, according to consistent western media reports, the Syrian Army did nothing but kill civilians for more than four years. To this day, many imagine the Syrian conflict is a ‘civil war’, a ‘popular revolt’ or some sort of internal sectarian conflict. These myths are, in many respects, a substantial achievement for the big powers which have driven a series of ‘regime change’ operations in the Middle East region, all on false pretexts, over the past 15 years.

Dr. Tim Anderson

This book is a careful academic work, but also a strong defence of the right of the Syrian people to determine their own society and political system. That position is consistent with international law and human rights principles, but may irritate western sensibilities, accustomed as we are to an assumed prerogative to intervene. At times I have to be blunt, to cut through the double-speak. In Syria the big powers have sought to hide their hand, using proxy armies while demonising the Syrian Government and Army, accusing them of constant atrocities; then pretending to rescue the Syrian people from their own government. Far fewer western people opposed the war on Syria than opposed the invasion of Iraq, because they were deceived about its true nature.

In 2011 I had only a basic understanding of Syria and its history. However I was deeply suspicious when reading of the violence that erupted in the southern border town of Daraa. I knew that such violence (sniping at police and civilians, the use of semi-automatic weapons) does not spring spontaneously from street demonstrations. And I was deeply suspicious of the big powers. All my life I had been told lies about the pretexts for war. I decided to research the Syrian conflict, reading hundreds of books and articles, watching many videos and speaking to as many Syrians as I could. I wrote dozens of articles and visited Syria twice, during the conflict. This book is a result of that research.

Dirty wars are not new. Cuban national hero Jose Martí predicted to a friend that Washington would try to intervene in Cuba’s independence struggle against the Spanish. ‘They want to provoke a war’, he wrote in 1889 ‘to have a pretext to intervene and, with the authority of being mediator and guarantor, to seize the country … There is no more cowardly thing in the annals of free people; nor such cold blooded evil’ (Martí 1975: 53). Nine years later, during the third independence war, an explosion in Havana Harbour destroyed the USS Maine, killing 258 US sailors and serving as a pretext for a US invasion.

The subsequent ‘Spanish-American’ war snatched victory from the Cubans and allowed the US to take control of the remaining Spanish colonial territories. Cuba had territory annexed and a deeply compromised constitution was imposed. No evidence ever proved the Spanish were responsible for the bombing of the Maine and many Cubans believe the North Americans bombed their own ship. The monument in Havana, in memory of those sailors, still bears this inscription: ‘To the victims of the Maine who were sacrificed to imperialist voracity and the desire to gain control of the island of Cuba’ (Richter 1998).

The US launched dozens of interventions in Latin America over the subsequent century. A notable dirty war was led by CIA-backed, ‘freedom fighter’ mercenaries based in Honduras, who attacked the Sandinista Government and the people of Nicaragua in the 1980s. That conflict, in its modus operandi, was not so different to the war on Syria. In Nicaragua more than 30,000 people were killed. The International Court of Justice found the US guilty of a range of terrorist-style attacks on the little Central American country, and found that the US owed Nicaragua compensation (ICJ 1986). Washington ignored these rulings.

With the ‘Arab Spring’ of 2011 the big powers took advantage of a political foment by seizing the initiative to impose an ‘Islamist winter’, attacking the few remaining independent states of the region. Very quickly we saw the destruction of Libya, a small country with the highest standard of living in Africa. NATO bombing and a Special Forces campaign helped the al Qaeda groups on the ground. The basis for NATO’s intervention was lies told about actual and impending massacres, supposedly carried out or planned by the government of President Muammar Gaddafi. These claims led rapidly to a UN Security Council resolution said to protect civilians through a ‘no fly zone’. We know now that trust was betrayed, and that the NATO powers abused the limited UN authorisation to overthrow the Libyan Government (McKinney 2012).

Subsequently, no evidence emerged to prove that Gaddafi intended, carried out or threatened wholesale massacres, as was widely suggested (Forte 2012). Genevieve Garrigos of Amnesty International (France) admitted there was ‘no evidence’ to back her group’s earlier claims that Gaddafi had used ‘black mercenaries’ to commit massacres (Forte 2012; Edwards 2013).

Alan Kuperman, drawing mainly on North American sources, demonstrates the following points. First, Gaddafi’s crackdown on the mostly Islamist insurrection in eastern Libya was ‘much less lethal’ than had been suggested. Indeed there was evidence that he had had ‘refrained from indiscriminate violence’. The Islamists were themselves armed from the beginning. From later US estimates, of the almost one thousand casualties in the first seven weeks, about three percent were women and children (Kuperman 2015). Second, when government forces were about to regain the east of the country, NATO intervened, claiming this was to avert an impending massacre. Ten thousand people died after the NATO intervention, compared to one thousand before. Gaddafi had pledged no reprisals in Benghazi and ‘no evidence or reason’ came out to support the claim that he planned mass killings (Kuperman 2015). The damage was done. NATO handed over the country to squabbling groups of Islamists and western aligned ‘liberals’. A relatively independent state was overthrown, but Libya was destroyed. Four years on there is no functioning government and violence persists; and that war of aggression against Libya went unpunished.

Two days before NATO bombed Libya another armed Islamist insurrection broke out in Daraa, Syria’s southernmost city. Yet because this insurrection was linked to the demonstrations of a political reform movement, its nature was disguised. Many did not see that those who were providing the guns – Qatar and Saudi Arabia – were also running fake news stories in their respective media channels, Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya. There were other reasons for the durable myths of this war. Many western audiences, liberals and leftists as well as the more conservative, seemed to like the idea of their own role as the saviours of a foreign people, speaking out strongly about a country of which they knew little, but joining what seemed to be a ‘good fight’ against this new ‘dictator’. With a mission and their proud self-image western audiences apparently forgot the lies of previous wars, and of their own colonial legacies.

I would go so far as to say that, in the Dirty War on Syria, western culture in general abandoned its better traditions: of reason, the maintenance of ethical principle and the search for independent evidence at times of conflict; in favour of its worst traditions: the ‘imperial prerogative’ for intervention, backed by deep racial prejudice and poor reflection on the histories of their own cultures. That weakness was reinforced by a ferocious campaign of war propaganda. After the demonisation of Syrian leader Bashar al Assad began, a virtual information blockade was constructed against anything which might undermine the wartime storyline. Very few sensible western perspectives on Syria emerged after 2011, as critical voices were effectively blacklisted.

In that context I came to write this book. It is a defence of Syria, not primarily addressed to those who are immersed the western myths but to others who engage with them. This is therefore a resource book and a contribution to the history of the Syrian conflict. The western stories have become self-indulgent and I believe it is wasteful to indulge them too much. Best, I think, to speak of current events as they are, then address the smokescreens later. I do not ignore the western myths, in fact this book documents many of them. But I lead with the reality of the war.

Western mythology relies on the idea of imperial prerogatives, asking what must ‘we’ do about the problems of another people; an approach which has no basis in international law or human rights. The next steps involve a series of fabrications about the pretexts, character and events of the war. The first pretext over Syria was that the NATO states and the Gulf monarchies were supporting a secular and democratic revolution. When that seemed implausible the second story was that they were saving the oppressed majority ‘Sunni Muslim’ population from a sectarian ‘Alawite regime’. Then, when sectarian atrocities by anti-government forces attracted greater public attention, the pretext became a claim that there was a shadow war: ‘moderate rebels’ were said to be actually fighting the extremist groups. Western intervention was therefore needed to bolster these ‘moderate rebels’ against the ‘new’ extremist group that had mysteriously arisen and posed a threat to the world.

That was the ‘B’ story. No doubt Hollywood will make movies based on this meta-script, for years to come. However this book leads with the ‘A’ story. Proxy armies of Islamists, armed by US regional allies (mainly Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey), infiltrate a political reform movement and snipe at police and civilians. They blame this on the government and spark an insurrection, seeking the overthrow of the Syrian government and its secular-pluralist state. This follows the openly declared ambition of the US to create a ‘New Middle East’, subordinating every country of the region, by reform, unilateral disarmament or direct overthrow. Syria was next in line, after Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. In Syria, the proxy armies would come from the combined forces of the Muslim Brotherhood and Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi fanatics. Despite occasional power struggles between these groups and their sponsors, they share much the same Salafist ideology, opposing secular or nationalist regimes and seeking the establishment of a religious state.

However in Syria Washington’s Islamists confronted a disciplined national army which did not disintegrate along religious lines, despite many provocations. The Syrian state also had strong allies in Russia and Iran. Syria was not to be Libya Take Two. In this prolonged war the violence, from the western side, was said to consist of the Syrian Army targeting and killing civilians. From the Syrian side people saw daily terrorist attacks on towns and cities, schools and hospitals and massacres of ordinary people by NATO’s ‘freedom fighters’, then the counter attacks by the Army. Foreign terrorists were recruited in dozens of countries by the Saudis and Qatar, bolstering the local mercenaries.

Though the terrorist groups were often called ‘opposition, ‘militants’ and ‘Sunni groups’ outside Syria, inside the country the actual political opposition abandoned the Islamists back in early 2011. Protest was driven off the streets by the violence, and most of the opposition (minus the Muslim Brotherhood and some exiles) sided with the state and the Army, if not with the ruling Ba’ath Party. The Syrian Army has been brutal with terrorists but, contrary to western propaganda, protective of civilians. The Islamists have been brutal with all, and openly so. Millions of internally displaced people have sought refuge with the Government and Army, while others fled the country.

In a hoped-for ‘end game’ the big powers sought overthrow of the Syrian state or, failing that, the creation of a dysfunctional state or dismembering into sectarian statelets, thus breaking the axis of independent regional states. That axis comprises Hezbollah in south Lebanon and the Palestinian resistance, alongside Syria and Iran, the only states in the region without US military bases. More recently Iraq – still traumatised from western invasion, massacres and occupation – has begun to align itself with this axis. Russia too has begun to play an important counter-weight role. Recent history and conduct demonstrate that neither Russia nor Iran harbour any imperial ambitions remotely approaching those of Washington and its allies, several of which (Britain, France and Turkey) were former colonial warlords in the region. From the point of view of the ‘Axis of Resistance’, defeat of the dirty war on Syria means that the region can begin closing ranks against the big powers. Syria’s successful resistance would mean the beginning of the end for Washington’s ‘New Middle East’.

That is basically the big picture. This book sets out to document the A story and expose the B story. It does so by rescuing some of the better western traditions: the use of reason, the maintenance of ethical principle and the search for independent evidence in case of conflict. I hope it might prove a useful resource. Here is a brief overview of the chapters.

Chapter 2, ‘Syria and Washington’s ‘New Middle East’’ puts Syria in context of the US plans for a ‘New Middle East’, the latest chapter in a longer history of US attempts to dominate the region.

Chapter 3, ‘Barrel Bombs, Partisan Sources and War Propaganda’ addresses the problem of reporting and reading the Syrian crisis. Media channels have shown a hyper-reliance on partisan sources, committed to the war and denigrating the Syrian Army. This is the key barrier to understanding the controversies around chemical weapons, civilian massacres and the levels of support for or opposition to President Assad.

Chapter 4, ‘Daraa 2011: Another Islamist Insurrection’ reconstructs, from a range of sources, the Saudi-backed Islamist insurrection in Daraa in March 2011. Those armed attacks were quite distinct from the political reform rallies, which the Islamists soon drove off the streets.

Chapter 5, ‘Bashar al Assad and Political Reform’ explains the political reform movement from the time Bashar assumed the presidency in the year 2000 to the beginning of the crisis in 2011. From this we can see that most opposition groups were committed to reform within a Syrian context, with virtually all opposing attacks on the Syrian state. The chapter then reviews the role of Bashar as a reformer, and the evidence on his popularity.

Chapter 6, ‘The Empire’s Jihadis’ looks at the collaboration between Salafist political Islam and the imperial powers in the Middle East. Distinct from the anti-imperial Islamic currents in Iran and south Lebanon, Salafist political Islam has become a sectarian force competing with Arab nationalism across Egypt, Palestine and Syria, and drawing on long standing collaborative relations with the big powers. This history provides important background to the character of Syria’s Islamist ‘revolution’, and its various slogans.

Chapter 7, ‘Embedded Media, Embedded Watchdogs’ identifies the propaganda techniques of media channels and the network of ‘human rights’ bodies (Human Rights Watch, Avaaz, etc) which function as megaphones and ‘moderators’ for the Washington agenda. Many have become fierce advocates for ‘humanitarian war’. A number of newer western NGOs (e.g. The Syria Campaign, The White Helmets) have been created by Wall Street agencies specifically for the dirty war on Syria. A number of their fabrications are documented here.

Chapter 8, ‘The Houla Massacre Revisited’ considers in detail the evidence from the first major massacre designed (following success of the technique over Libya) to influence UN Security Council consideration of military intervention. While the first UN inquiry group, actually in Syria, found contradictory evidence on this massacre, a second UN group outside Syria and co-chaired by a US diplomat, tried to blame the Syrian Government. Yet more than a dozen witnesses blamed Farouq FSA Islamists, who killed pro-government villagers and took over the area, holding it for some months. Several other ‘false flag’ massacres are noted.

Chapter 9, ‘Chemical Fabrications: the East Ghouta Incident’ details the second major ‘false flag’ incident of international significance. This incident in August 2013, which nearly sparked a major escalation involving US missile attacks on Syria, was used to accuse the Syrian Government of killing hundreds of civilians, including children, with chemical weapons. Within a fairly short time multiple sources of independent evidence (including North American evidence) disproved these accusations. Nevertheless, Syria’s opponents have repeated the false accusations, to this day, as though they were fact.

Chapter 10, ‘A Responsibility to Protect and the Double Game’ addresses a recent political doctrine, a subset of ‘humanitarian intervention’ popularised to add to the imperial toolkit. The application of this doctrine in Libya was disastrous for that little country. Fortunately the attempts to use it in Syria failed.

Chapter 11, ‘Health and Sanctions’ documents the NATO-backed Islamist attacks on Syria’s health system, linked to the impact of western economic sanctions. These twin currents have caused great damage to Syrian public health. Such attacks carry no plausible motive of seeking local popular support, so we must interpret them as part of an overall strategy to degrade the Syrian state, rendering it more vulnerable to outside intervention.

Chapter 12 ‘Washington, Terrorism and ISIS: the evidence’, documents the links between the big powers and the latest peak terrorist group they claim to be fighting. Only evidence can help develop informed opinion on this contentious matter, but the evidence is overwhelming. There is little ideological difference between the various Salafi-Islamist groups, and Washington and its allies have financed and armed every one of them.

Chapter 13, ‘Western Intervention and the Colonial Mind’ discusses the western cultural mindset that underlies persistent violations of the rights of other peoples.

Chapter 14 ‘Towards an Independent Middle East’, considers the end-game in the Syrian crisis, and its implications for the Middle East region. At tremendous cost the Syrian Arab Republic, its army and its people, have successfully resisted aggression from a variety of powerful enemies. Syria’s survival is due to its resilience and internal unity, bolstered by support from some strong allies. The introduction of Russian air power in late September 2015 was important. So too were the coordinated ground forces from Iran, Iraq and Lebanon, in support of an independent Syria.

When the attacks on Syria abate the Middle East seems set to be transformed, with greater political will and military preparedness on the part of an expanded Axis of Resistance. That will signal the beginning of the end for Washington’s 15 year spree of bloodshed and ‘regime change’ across the entire region.

Notes:

Edwards, Dave (2013) ‘Limited But Persuasive’ Evidence – Syria, Sarin, Libya, Lies’, Media Lens, 13 June, online:http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/735-limited-but-persuasive-evidence-syria-sarin-libya-lies.html

Forte, Maximilian (2012) Slouching Towards Sirte: NATO’s War on Libya and Africa, Baraka Books, Quebec

ICJ (1986) Case concerning the military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) Merits’, International Court of Justice, Judgement of 27 June 1986, online: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/?sum=367&p1=3&p2=3&case=70&p3=5

Knightley, Phillip (2001) ‘The disinformation campaign’, The Guardian, 4 October, online:http://www.theguardian.com/education/2001/oct/04/socialsciences.highereducation

Kuperman, Alan J. (2015) Obama’s Libya Debacle’, Foreign Affairs, 16 April, online:https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/libya/2015-02-16/obamas-libya-debacle

Martí, Jose (1975) Obras Completas, Vol. 6, Editorial de Ciencias Sociales, La Habana

McKinney, Cynthia (Ed) (2012) The Illegal War on Libya, Clarity Press, Atlanta

Putin, Vladimir (2015) ‘Violence instead of democracy: Putin slams ‘policies of exceptionalism and impunity’ in UN speech’, RT, 28 September, online: https://www.rt.com/news/316804-putin-russia-unga-speech/

Richter, Larry (1998) ‘Havana Journal; Remember the Maine? Cubans See an American Plot Continuing to This Day’, New York Times, 14 February, online: http://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/14/world/havana-journal-remember-maine-cubans-see-american-plot-continuing-this-day.html

Dr Tim Anderson is a Senior Lecturer in Political Economy at the University of Sydney. He researches and writes on development, rights and self-determination in Latin America, the Asia-Pacific and the Middle East. He has published many dozens of chapters and articles in a range of academic books and journals. His last book was Land and Livelihoods in Papua New Guinea (Australian Scholarly Publishing, Melbourne, 2015).

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  

 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Blast in Arsal Targets Meeting of Lebanon’s Qalamoun Scholars, Kills 5 at Least

Local Editor

At least five people were killed and others were wounded in an explosion that went off in the eastern Lebanese town of Arsal on the border with Syria on Thursday, a security source told Al-Manar TV reporter.

Local news networks stated that chairman of Qalamoun Muslim Scholars Committee, Sheikh Othman Mansour,  was killed in the bombing.

Field reporter in Hermel said Arsal explosion was due to an IED [improvised explosive device] placed in a commercial shop for Rayed Family, near the municipal building, the National News agency reported.

“There was an explosion inside the town of Arsal. We don’t know what caused it, but there are a number of dead or wounded,” a security source told AFP.

Six people were also wounded in the bombing that occurred outside the office of a local council of Muslim scholars, the source added.

He could not specify how many were killed in the town, the enclave that hosts many Syrian refugees where operatives of Al-Nusra Front terrorist group and other takfiri organizations take refuge from the blows of Hezbollah fighters and the Syrian army forces.

Source: Al-Manar Website

05-11-2015 – 14:33 Last updated 05-11-2015 – 14:49

Related Video

Related Articles

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Did Turks Vote to Become an Islamic State?

EDITOR’S CHOICE | 03.11.2015 | 11:54

The most pivotal election in modern Turkish history was held on Sunday November 1st, and it has transformed Turkey from being the least religiously dominated of all Islamic-majority nations, as Turkey had been ever since Mustafa Kemal Ataturk had established Turkey’s independence as a secular nation in 1922, to being now not only Islamic but Sunni Islamic, which means that it will be firmly allied with the Sunni Arabic oil-and-gas aristocracies, especially the Saud clan that owns Saudi Arabia, and the Thani clan that owns Qater. Both clans run Islamic states; the Thanis finance the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood, and the Sauds finance the jihadist Al Qaeda; both the Thanis and the Sauds finance ISIS and are helping ISIS to self-fund by assisting ISIS to sell on the black market the oil being pumped in ISIS’s captured territories.

Approximately 90% of Turks are Sunni, but Ataturk had established Turkey as entirely secular; so, this huge Sunni Turkish majority was politically neutered from 1922 until the conservative Sunni President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan became elected Prime Minister in 2003. It could happen only because Ataturk hadn’t really understood how to separate church and state, in any enduring way. As Alex Tate of Georgetown University has noted, the system in education in Turkey is that “religion classes are mandatory in schools and teach the tenets of Sunni Islam. The Ministry of Religious Affairs, a branch of the central government that is at least officially autonomous, oversees religious education as well as all of the mosques and imams in the country.” In other words: Sunni propaganda is taught to Turkish children, even to non-Sunni children. This has continued to be the case even after Ataturk. Therefore, at the psychological level, Turkey has actually remained a Sunni Islamic state, even though at the political level, it hasn’t been Islamic at all (after 1922). The nearly a century of generations of Sunni-propagandized Turks, even after 1922, have produced the cultural foundation on which Erdoğan has been skillfully building, to re-establish the Sunni Turkish Islamic state.

Erdoğan had actually entered politics during a time when the institutionally secular Turkish military was becoming increasingly worried about growing public demands for Turkey to return to religion-based rule. (After all of that pro-Sunni propaganda in Turkey, it’s not hard to see why this sentiment was rising.)

Erdoğan started in politics in 1976, with the Islamist National Salvation Party. The military carried out a coup in 1980 to reassert Ataturk’s secular vision for the country. This ended that Party. Erdoğan and many of his colleagues then created the Islamist Welfare Party. In 1998, a Turkish court declared that Party to be inconsistent with Turkey’s non-sectarian Constitution, and therefore ruled the Party to be unconstitutional. Like many of his colleagues, Erdoğan was banned from participating in national elections, but he still could run for local offices. However, sensing the rising Islamist tide in his country, Erdoğan established in 2001 the new Justice and Development Party (AKP), and it won the parliamentary elections in a landslide in 2002. Erdoğan would have become Prime Minister, but a court ruled that the existing ban didn’t allow that.

During this time, Ataturk’s party, the Republican Peoples Party, was becoming weaker and weaker. In 2002, even they supported the right of Erdoğan to become Prime Minister. Erdoğan’s AKP party won the parliamentary elections in a landslide, and he became Prime Minister. Then, in 2014, he was elected Turkey’s President. 

Based on news-reports and wikileaks releases of diplomatic cables, Erdoğan sides with the Thanis of Qatar and not with the Sauds, in their specific preferences for whom the leaders of Syria should be. Erdoğan wants it to be the Muslim Brotherhood, whom the Thanis likewise favor. Al-Monitor headline, “Erdogan’s Saudi Dilemma,” and reports that Erdoğan is dissatisfied with the Saudi King’s favoring other jihadists than the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, but that Erdoğan “incessantly blasts the West for supporting Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi,” whose militant secularism rejects all jihadists, and therefore enrages Erdoğan. This news-report shows friction between Erdoğan and the Saudi King because the Sauds support instead Al Qaeda (called Al Nusra in Syria). By contrast, a wikileaked cable suggests a close personal bond between the Thani Emir and Erdoğan. The cable described the day on which Erdoğan was operated on to remove a pre-cancerous tumour; and it ended: “The prime minister’s office on Wednesday also said Erdogan is in good health and released photographs of him smiling and meeting with visiting Qatari ruler Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani on the same day. Al-Thani and Erdogan met at Erdogan’s U:sku:dar home in Istanbul for one-and-a-half hours.”

As a result of Erdoğan’s sweeping victory on 1 November 2015, he might now finally be able to establish the religious state that he has (if one is to judge by his background as cited here) been spending his entire political career to produce. Turkey’s Zaman newspaper modestly headlined October 31st on the eve of the election, “Turkish Election to Shape Political Landscape for a Decade,” and reported: “Erdoğan has made no secret of his ambition to create a presidential system, a constitutional change almost impossible unless the Islamist-rooted AK Party he founded regains the majority it lost in June’s election and dominates parliament.” On November 1st, the headline there became “AK Party Regains Majority for Single-Party Rule,” and the newspaper reported that, “Despite pursuing divisive language and showing authoritarian tendencies through repressive policies over the country’s dissenting voices, the AK Party, which played the nationalism card by waging war against the country’s Kurds after it declared the end of the Kurdish settlement process, seems to have reached its goal to rule the country single-handedly. … Winning back the parliamentary majority, the AK Party, however, seems to have failed to obtain the votes [50%+] that will enable it to amend the Constitution in line with President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s wishes to place a presidential system in Turkey by replacing … the current parliamentary system, paving the way for a one-man rule.” Erdogan was less than 1% shy of passing the 50% threshold.

That “divisive language” (plus all the Sunni propaganda coming from Turkey’s schools and clerics) won the day.

Wayne Madsen interprets Erdoğan’s motives as being mainly racist Turkish or actually Turanian (the international imperial form of that). He provides no links or other citations to document his claim, and therefore it should be considered to be speculative at present. However, even Madsen says that, “When the array of nations being threatened by pan-Turanism is examined closely, it is clear that Erdogan has secretly made common cause with the enemies of Russia, that is, the Uralo-Altaic countries of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, as well as pro-Western elements in Hungary.” So: even he views Erdoğan as being focused against Russia.

Since the Turanist-racist interpretation of Erdoğan is (at least at present) speculative, nothing can be said about it here. However, what Erdoğan has been doing in Syria seems, on the basis of the evidence, unquestionably to indicate him to be a committed enemy of Russia, and thus an ally of the Sauds, Thanis, and America’s aristocracy.

As regards America’s aristocracy, they seem to prefer the Muslim Brotherhood and thus to be on the Qatari side of the anti-Russia alliance. In fact, the U.S. was condemnatory of al-Sisi for the vigor with which he banned the Muslim Brotherhood.

As happens in any alliance, there are points on each side where the participants have disagreements. But what unites the aristocracies in the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Japan, most EU nations, and actually all nations that are allied with the United States (basically NATO and CENTCOM), is their war against Russia. Erdoğan’s electoral victory on November 1st solidifies not only Turkey’s Sunni Islamicism, but Turkey’s position as a key ally of the U.S. and enemy of Russia.

—————

Related Videos





River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Sayyed Nasrallah: We All Bear Responsibility of Facing Today’s Soft War

Local Editor

Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan NasrallahHezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah said on Friday that the Middle-eastern region has been subjected to a multi-phase soft war which everyone of this area must shoulder the responsibility to face it.

During his speech on the third eve of Muharram Hijri month, Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that the major cause of the soft war is the evolution of communication means that opens the opportunity for such an attack more than any time ever.

“This soft war works in accordance with several stages regarding the general responsibility and the general affairs,” his eminence said.

Sayyed Nasrallah elaborated that in the first stage, the enemies of the region started to exploit the geographical demarcation, by stressing that every national citizen should only tackle his country’s affair without interfering in other countries’, he elaborated.

“This stage greatly managed to achieve its goal in the Arab and Muslim world, with the help of difficulties, frustration, limitations, and the feel of disability to obtain victory. This is how every state and every people started to think of themselves only.”

In the second stage, the enemies entered into each country, one by one, and divided the responsibilities and concerns, he stated, adding that “after we were talking about the Lebanese concern or the national concern, we started to talk about Shiite, Christian, Druze, and Sunni concerns.”

“They divided the national responsibilities in Lebanon. After Sectarianism, they dragged us to regionalism, and every community says that it has nothing to with the other community.”

“The most horrible illustration of this stage is the level of decadence that we have reached in the country following the trash crisis, where landfills turned into a confessional and sectarian affair,” Sayyed Nasrallah said.

His eminence indicated that the fourth stage is the goal of Satan, in which every individual’s concern will be his own affairs “which is the greatest catastrophe that a man can ever suffer.”

“We are in the middle of the clearest intellectual, mental and religious battle, yet the infiltration of media and the tyrant powers has reached our minds and is messing up with our axioms.

“They are presenting ideas that are contrary to humanity, because a man has responsibilities toward other people regardless of their color or ideologies. These responsibilities may increase or decrease, but they exist,” he added.

“On the religious level, Islam is a religion of reason and common sense, and the biographies of the prophets show that they fought for humanity and the removal of injustice. Islam is a religion which provides that followers assume the responsibility towards others,” Sayyed Nasrallah highlighted, pointing that everyone of the Arab and Muslim world must pay attention to this fraud that is not related to the mind or religion.

Moreover, his eminence stressed that “the most significant ratification of bearing the overall responsibility is the sacrifice of Imam Hussein (AS) when he faced the biggest threat then to Islam and Muslims, i.e. the presence of Yazid. Thus the absolute priority of Imam Hussein (AS) became to confront this tyrant.”

“Among his goals was saving Islam and the nation, and revealing the fact that if that ruler who would have caused a disaster if he ruled Muslims for decades,” he went on to say.

“Imam Hussein (AS) achieved this goal through his martyrdom,” Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah concluded.

Source: Al-Manar Website

16-10-2015 – 23:06 Last updated 16-10-2015 – 23:25


Related Videos


Related Articles

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

ISIL in Syria Uses Mosques as Shelters, Civilians as Shields

Militants of the so-called ‘Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’ (ISIL) takfiri group are hiding in mosques and using locals as human shields because they know that Russian jets would never target civilian areas, the Russian Defense Ministry revealed at two briefings on Tuesday.

“ISIL forces are sheltering in mosques and trying to hide their vehicles around them, Russian Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov told reporters Tuesday, citing video evidence.

“Knowing our careful, respectful attitude to mosques they understand that we would never – under any circumstances – carry out airstrikes against civilian facilities,” he said, following a meeting with Defense press attachés from several countries, with a US representative among them.

Later in the day, Igor Konashenkov, spokesman for the Russian Defense Ministry, also warned that terrorists may be preparing provocations such as bombing mosques to accuse the Russian Air Force of committing war crimes.

“As this example clearly shows, ‘moderate rebels’ would not hide behind civilians as human shields or, moreover, concentrate armored vehicles under the arches of religious institutions. All of these actions can only be the calling card of terrorists,” the Ministry of Defense commented on the issued video.

Antonov also emphasized that Russia uses data from space and air surveillance – not only information gathered from the Syrian Army.

“We check the data a hundred times. Our decisions are well balanced, deliberate and calculated. We carry out airstrikes only if we are 100 percent sure that we are hitting the right target,” Antonov said.

Moscow launched its military operation against ISIL and other terrorist groups at the request of the Syrian government on September 30 and has already targeted a number of the ISIL infrastructure units hitting command centers, ammunition depots and explosive production sites, among others.

Source: Websites

07-10-2015 – 15:23 Last updated 07-10-2015 – 15:23


Related Videos




Related Articles

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Maj. Gen. Ibrahim: Assir Operation was Purely Lebanese

Maj. Gen. Ibrahim:

The successful operation that resulted in the arrest of terrorist Ahmad al-Assir was “purely Lebanese,” with no international or Palestinian intelligence agencies playing a role, General Security chief Abbas Ibrahim said.

“We are never embarrassed to say we cooperate with regional agencies in our operations, and this is what occurred when we arrested [extremist militant Shadi] Mawlawi,” Ibrahim was quoted as saying. “But this time, [the operation] was purely Lebanese and fully carried out by the General Security… from A to Z.”

He dismissed as “false” media reports that claimed Palestinian factions or foreign intelligence agencies helped Lebanese authorities identify Assir, who was arrested at Beirut’s airport Saturday morning.

According to Ibrahim, the operation was the result of close monitoring of the fugitive by the General Security.

Ibrahim also denied that General Security was able to identify Assir, who was wearing a disguise, through a retina scanning machine. “We have no such technology,” he said.

Source: Websites

16-08-2015 – 16:51 Last updated 16-08-2015 – 16:51 |

Fugitive Terrorist Ahmad al-Assir Arrested in Beirut

Local Editor

The Lebanese security forces managed on Saturday to arrest the fugitive terrorist Ahmad al-Assir at Beirut International Airport.

General Security sources confirmed his arrest to Al-Manar TV.

Assir fled justice in June 2013, after deadly clashes against the Lebanese army in Abra region in the southern city of Sidon.

He was an extremist preacher used to take Abra mosque a coverage for his terrorist actions.

Army stormed the mosque and found a warehouse of heavy and medium ammunitions inside it.

Lebanese forces still chase fugitive terrorist Fadel Shaker who was a key player in Abra clashes.

In a video posted on YouTube, Shaker boldly confessed of killing two army soldiers.

Source: Al-Manar Website

15-08-2015 – 13:16 Last updated 15-08-2015 – 13:16

Related Videos

حوار اليوم | المحامي جوزيف ابو فاضل ~ ليندا مشلب

مع الحدث | جبران عريجي | المنار

Related Articles

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  

 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Terrorism from Damascus’s perspective

President al-Assad_1

 

Jul 27, 2015, What’s Left

Below are excerpts from a July 26, 2015 speech Syrian president Bashar al-Assad delivered in Damascus.

On the West’s double standards on terrorism

[Western powers] call it terrorism when it hits them, and call it revolution, freedom, democracy, and human rights when it hits us. There, its perpetrators are terrorists, and here, they are rebels and moderate opposition. They scream at the top of their voices whenever they are touched by a spark of fire while they fall deathly silent when we are burned by it.

On humanitarian intervention

Let them permit the opposition in their countries to bear arms and kill and destroy and keep calling them opposition, or permit them to become proxies or let other states decide what is the ruling system for them should be, then we will believe and accept their old recipes that have always been used to justify an aggression or interference in states’ affairs under humanitarian slogans like human rights, freedom, democracy, and so on.

On the West’s relationship with militant Islamists

What they want is to keep this monster in check and not eliminate it. All their military, political and media campaigns are in fact smoke screens, and what the West has done so far has led to a growth of terrorism instead of eliminating it, and this is confirmed by reality, not personal analysis, as terrorism has spread geographically, its material resources have increased, and its manpower has doubled.

An observation a propos of Assad’s comments: Western newspapers talk of the Egyptian army’s fight in the Sinai against militant Islamists, but of the Syrian army’s fight against militant Islamists in Syria as “regime forces” waging a “brutal” war to crush a “rebellion”.

Recent Posts

Related Video

CRIMES OF TERRORISTS IN SYRIA

فيلمٌ عن جرائم الإرهاب التكفيري في سورية .. واستهداف كافة مناحي الحياة في سورية .

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  

 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

“الوطن لمن يحميه ويدافع عنه وليس لمن يحمل جواز سفره”

الماء الثقيل في البيان والتبيين السوري .. وطعنة من آخر العمر

قد يكون أحدنا قد قرأ منذ بداية الحرب على سورية كمّا من الكتابات تفوق ماقرأه الجاحظ من كتب في مكتبته التي انهارت عليه فقتلته محتوياتها من الكتب التي اختنق تحت ثقلها وقد سحقت أضلاع صدره .. 

لأن معظمنا سيكون الآن قد قرأ مالم يقرأه في حياته كلها ومالن يقرأه في كل ماهو في العمر الباقي ولو طال .. وصار واحدنا جاحظا بعينيه من كثرة ماأدهشته الأحداث وتقلبات المتقلبين والمنافقين والكذابين ورحيل الراحلين .. ولكنه صار “جاحظا” بالأزمة السورية أي خبيرا بها كما كان الجاحظ خبيرا بشؤون عصره من كثرة ماقرأ .. ولو أن ماقرأه أحدنا صار ورقا سقط عليه لمات كما مات الجاحظ تحت أطنان الورق ..

 وقد يكون أحدنا سمع منذ بداية المؤامرة آلاف الحوارات وسمع لمئات المحللين حتى صار ماء رأسه ثقيلا يشبه الماء الثقيل الذي يشغل المفاعلات الذرية .. وقد يكون مارآه من قصص وحكايات يكفي شهرزاد لتحكي مليار ليلة وليلة وربما حتى ينتهي الزمان .. ولكن استطيع ان اقول بأنني يمكنني الآن الاستغناء عن كل ماقرأت وماسأقرأ .. وكل ماسمعت وماسأسمع .. وكل مارأيت وماسأرى .. ويمكنني الآن ان أستغني عن مكتبة الجاحظ وأثقال الكتب التي قتلته .. وأن أكون في مأمن من الموت تحت مكتبتي .. لأن ماسمعت بعد خطاب الرئيس الأسد وماقرأت من آراء الخصوم والاعداء يجعلني ادرك أين هي الورطة السورية ..
 وانا في الحقيقة لم أكن ادرك حجم الورطة السورية حتى انتهيت من سماع الرئيس بشار الأسد في خطابه الأخير .. فالرئيس الأسد – سامحه الله – وضعني في ورطة حقيقية وفي شك من عيني وأذني .. لأنني كدت أحس أنه يجب علي أن أعرض نفسي على فريق طبي بعدة اختصاصات .. لفحص عيني وأذني وقلبي وذاكرتي .. فربما تعرضت الى غارة من آخر العمر .. أو طعنة من آخر العمر أصابت أول العمر .. أو خيانة من “خيانات الجسد” ..
 فبعد سماعي للخطاب الذي كان بمثابة “البيان والتبيين” من شدة وضوحه تجولت على منصات الأعداء والخصوم .. بكل الوانهم وتصنيفاتهم ولغاتهم .. الغربيين والعرب .. الاسلاميين والليبراليين .. الدواعش في قلوبهم والدواعش في سلوكهم .. ولكن بدا أن الجميع يتحدثون عن خطاب آخر ليس له وجود على الاطلاق ولاينتمي الى عالم الوجود بالرغم من أن الخطاب الرئاسي يمكن بكل ثقة ان يعتبر بمثابة الخطاب “الأشد وضوحا” .. فالرئيس الأسد يتحدث دوما بمنتهى الصراحة والشفافية ولايناور بالكلام ولايكثر من كلمات ربما أو من المحتمل أو من الجائز .. حتى أنني أحيانا أضع يدي على قلبي من فرط صراحته .. صراحة بلغت به حدا أن حثنا يوما على أن نشجع المنشقين على الانشقاق بدل ابقائهم بيننا أو حبسهم كخونة .. لكن هذا الخطاب اتسم بأنه خطاب مكتوب على لوح من زجاج يراه كل من يتأمل فيه من كل الزوايا من كثرة شفافيته ..
 الأسد تحدث في “البيان والتبيين” عن سورية “الواحدة الموحدة” دون مواربة .. وقال أجمل ماسمعت من تعبير في حياتي بأن “حصة كل سوري من سورية هي سورية كلها” .. وبأن “الوطن لمن يحميه ويدافع عنه وليس لمن يحمل جواز سفره” .. وتحدث عن الجيش القوي المقتدر على ادارة الصراع بارتياح ولكنه تحدث عن مجمل الحرب حيث يغيّر الجيش بحيوية استراتيجيته ومواقعه حسب متطلبات المعركة والميدان والعدو .. وان مايقال عن ضعف الموارد البشرية هراء لأن مايحدث من تراخي بعض الشرائح المحدودة بالالتحاق هو وضع طبيعي جدا تمر به كل جيوش العالم المتطورة نتيجة الطبيعة البشرية والظروف السكانية المتداخلة .. وأن الولاء للدولة والوطن متشابه في قوته ولكن الانخراط في القتال يتفاوت من منطقة لأخرى كما كل تفاوتات الحياة والمناطق .. وبدا الخطاب يهيء الناس للاستعداد لمرحلة النصر والتحرير ..
وتحدث الرئيس في “البيان والتبيين” عن أن ايران ليس لها مشاركة الا بالخبرات العسكرية الا أن حزب الله جبل دمه بدمنا وشارك بأقصى مايستطيع .. وأن لاحلول سياسية تبدو في الأفق لأن من يدير الدمى في المعارضة لم يأذن لها بعد بالتجاوب مع اي مبادرة تعرضها الدولة أو تقبل بها ..
ولكن عندما مررت على منصات المعارضة في تركيا والسعودية والخليج المحتل والمنصات الأوروبية اعتقدت أنني لم اسمع الخطاب جيدا .. أو ان بعضه قد فاتني أو غاب عني أو انني سهوت عنه بل بدا الخطاب حسب تلك المنصات نصا جديدا ممسوخا وينسخ كل ماسمعته أذناي .. فأعدت سماع الخطاب وقد جزعت أن أكون قد وصلت الى أرذل العمر حيث أصابني وهن الذاكرة وقلة التركيز وبعض الخرف ففقدت بعضا من وظائف دماغي .. ولكني لم أجد شيئا مما قالته تلك المنصات التي جعلتني أشكك بما اسمع .. حيث كان حالي يشبه حال من سمع عزفا سيمفونيا أو كونشيرتو على البيانو و الكمان فيقدم له الطفيليون والنصابون الذين يدعون أنهم ضالعون في الموسيقا “ربابة” بدوية على أنها كمان تعزف “ضوء القمر” .. 

عجبت كيف يتحول خطاب هو البيان والتبيين في وضوحه الى الضلال والتضليل في شروحات فضائيات الغرب وفضائيات العرب والمعارضين .. وكيف يكسر كتاب من زجاج وتقتل البلاغة المولودة في الكلام منذ ساعة وينسب كلام آخر لقيط الى البلاغة وعائلات البيان العريقة ..

فمثلا: كتب برهان غليون بسرعة البرق بأن “الخطاب هو اعلان التقسيم بالتخلي عن الجزء الأكبر من سورية والاحتفاظ بمناطق الموالاة وأن الخطاب تأكيد على التطهير العرقي للبلاد واحلال المرتزقة والأجانب محل السوريين في ملكية البلاد والدولة .. وأن الأسد يرفض الحل السياسي” .. فيما أسهب آخرون بأن “الخطاب قد حمل إقرارا بالهزيمة العسكرية ونقص الموارد البشرية وحمل استسلاما كاملا لسيده الإيراني وحمل طمأنة لمؤيديه بأن التقسيم سيكون حاضرا لينجو بجرائمهم كما حمل تأكيدا على خياره العسكري المدمر حتى النهاية” ..

ووصل الهذيان ببعضهم أنه كتب “عن حدود التقسيم والدويلة العلوية التي حدد معالمها الخطاب .. أما آخر فعصر عقله وقال: “الأسد يقول أنه عجز عن قيادة وحماية سورية ولكنه بقي في صلفه وغروره مهوناً من هزيمته العسكرية الماحقة واعترف بعجزه السياسي المطلق ورضاه عن ضياع أكثر بلادنا” ..

هل يمكن لعاقل أن يجد اي تشابه بين ماقاله الأسد وبين هذه الشروح من المعارضين؟؟

أكتفي بهذا القدر من مكتبة المعارضة الغنية بهذا المنطق الأصم والضرير والذي يشبه قمامة بيروت هذه الايام التي أجزم أنها تحوي خطابات المعارضة السورية وشروحها وتصوراتها وشعاراتها وكتبها وأوراقها ورائحتها .. وفي بعض أكياس القمامة شهادات علمية وثقافية ومؤلفات لمفكرين لاقيمة لها ولاتستحق الا مكانها العميق من أكوام قمامة بيروت التي سأضيف اليها كل ماورد في محطات الخصوم والأعداء في الخليج المحتل من تحليلات خطاب الأسد الاخير وقراءاته ..

الذي لفت نظري هذه المرة أن الجميع من جهابذة المعارضة ومن أصحاب مسرح العرائس لم يقدروا على مواجهة الصراحة في الخطاب وتفنيدها لأن الخصم السياسي الذكي هو الذي يجد في كلام خصمه فرصة لاتفوّت لممارسة مايسمى (المنطق المقارن) لعرض كلامه هو للمقارنة مع خطاب الخصم واظهار جودة مالديه وعبقرية النظرة السياسية التي يحملها للشعب فيحيل كلام خصمه الى كلام غير واقعي وضئيل القيمة الواقعية ..

 ويكفي النظر الى هذا الانفعال والعجز حتى عن نقل الخطاب كما هو دون تغيير والرد عليه لفهم الورطة السورية الكبيرة في أن فيها طرفا اسمه المعارضات التي لاترى ولاتسمع ولاتقرأ ولاتحلل ولاتفكر الى درجة صار معها العجز عن التعامل مع بيان صريح وواضح يضطرها الى اختراع خطاب ليس له وجود على الاطلاق وتأليف خطاب مغاير كليا ونسبه الى الخصم ..

المشكلة في الخطاب الذي ألفه المعارضون واخترعوه ونسبوه للاسد أنه خطاب محمل بما تفكر فيه المعارضة وتحلم فيه وتعمل جاهدة عليه كأمل وحيد باق ..

المعارضة لم تعد تسعى لسورية الواحدة الموحدة لأنه لامكان لها فيها بعد أن أظهرت الثورة عداءها لثلاثة أرباع الشعب بسبب انتمائه المذهبي او المناطقي أو العرقي او السياسي .. فجميع الأقليات المذهبية والدينية عدوة للثورة .. والأكراد أعداء الثورة من اجل اردوغان .. والبعثيون والقوميون والمقاومون والعروبيون والاشتراكيون والاسلاميون الذين يريدون نهج المقاومة .. كلهم أعداء الثورة ولايمكن العيش معهم .. وبالتالي فان بقاء المعارضة يعتمد 100% على فكرة التقسيم الذي سيوجد للمعارضة مكانا تحكمه وقطعا ممزقة من البلاد تتصارع فيها على الحكم والاسلاب والغنائم .. وهي بذلك تشجع عمليات التطهير العرقي لأنها السبيل الوحيد لتفكيك البلاد نفسيا .. بل ان اصرار بعض المعارضين على التبشير بدويلة في الساحل بناء على استنتاجات الخطاب واقتباسات غير موجودة فيه يشي بأن المعارضة تدفع بترويج هذه الفكرة لتتحول الى بذرة جذابة لدى ابناء بعض المناطق لأن المعارضة اكتشفت اكتشافا خطيرا هو أن جميع سكان سورية دون استثناء لايقبلون بالتخلي عن اي جزء أو انفصال اي جزء لكن أكثر مجموعة تصمم على فكرة الالتحام بسورية الواحدة الموحدة هم ابناء الساحل السوري الذين كانت الحرب فرصة لاتقاس بثمن لابداء ميولهم للانفصال وهم موعودون بالنفط والغاز في البحر ولكنهم أبدوا التحاما بالوطن السوري الموحد لايضاهيه التحام وبادلتهم كل سورية هذا الحب والوطنية والاعجاب بالرجولة .. ولذلك تحاول المعارضة بذر تلك البذور بترويج فكرة التقسيم التي تنسبها الى خطاب الأسد عل نسبها الى خطاب الأسد يجهل الأوهام حقيقة ويبعث من في القبور من موتى المشاريع .. 

المعارضة غير قادرة على التعامل مع كلمة واحدة بشكل علمي ومنطقي ومسؤول .. وماتقوله المعارضة هو تصاعد بخار افكارها الانفصالية عن نيتها وأحلامها ومهماتها ..

أنا بصراحة لايعنيني كيف تصرفت المعارضة ولاكيف فكرت بعد هذا التفكير المبتذل الرخيص ولاكيف يرد عليها لأن الرد لايكون الا في الميدان .. لكن سأصارحكم بسبب انشغالي بما قالت .. فأنا لاأخفيكم كنت أخشى دوما أن يتقهقر الموت عني ويتراجع قبل أن يقطفني قويا عنيفا معتدا بنفسي وينتهي بي العمر الى أرذل مافيه من ضعف البصر والسمع وانهيار القوى والعزم .. لأنني أريد ان أموت قويا عنيفا لاأبالي بالعمر ولاأمنحه فرصة اذلالي وسلبي مااعطتني اياه الحياة من بأس وكبرياء وتوق لتحدي المستحيل .. ولكني مع هذا أعترف أن خطاب المعارضين المزور واللاواقعي وشطحاتهم في التفسير السياسي لخطاب الأسد قد أصابني بالرعب من أن يكون أرذل مافي العمر قد وصل أو جاء اليّ فعلا دون أن أذهب اليه وأنا في ذروة العنفوان لأشكو ضعف سمعي وبصري ووهن قوتي وأترنح فوق مفاصلي اليابسة حيث لاأسمع ولاأرى ولاأعي .. فلا أفهم مايقال مهما كان بيّنا.. 

ولكن أصدقكم القول بأني عرفت اليوم أن أرذل مافي العمر ليس الوهن والضعف وتراجع البصر والسمع والبديهة وهزيمة النفس المتوثبة .. بل أن تعيش حتى تسمع خطابا مسموما تصنعه المعارضة السورية .. يضعف الابصار .. ويوهن الأسماع .. ويجعل الموت عذبا في عنفوان الشباب ..

 ان أرذل مافي العمر أيها القارئ فعلا هو أن تعيش لتسمع هذه المعارضة وهذه الثورات وهذا النباح من ثوار ومن ملوك للرمل ومن مثقفين مسوخ ليسوا الا رملا للملوك .. بل ان ارذل مافي العمر أيها العربي هو أن لاتعرف ان كان كتاب “الحيوان” للجاحظ قد أسقط فصلا عن “المعارض العربي” الذي لايستحق مكانا آخر يكتب عنه فيه بانصاف .. كما أسقط “البيان والتبيين” سهوا فصلا قادما من خطابات الأسد ونصرالله .. سيضيفه التاريخ شاء من شاء وأبى من أبى ..

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  

 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

تحذير ونصيحة لكل المعارضين والمجاهدين الاسلاميين .. تجنب هذا الفيديو

عندما رأيت هذا الفيديو اقشعر بدني وأحسست أنني سأكون في منتهى القسوة والعنف وانا أعرضه لأنه من المؤكد أن كثيرا من المعارضين والثورجيين وخاصة الاسلاميين منهم سيصابون بنوبة من الصراع مع الذات وسيصابون بالهستيريا لأنه يتحدى الضميرأو مابقي من ثمالة من عقل لديهم أو صبابة من ذكاء .. مهما اختلفنا مع الخصم والعدو فان هناك حدودا لتعذيبه والافراط في عصر قلبه وأعصابه .. ولذلك لابد أن نتعاطف مع خصمنا وعدونا مهما قسونا عليه .. وخاصة اذا كان التعذيب بهذه السوية التي لاتعرف الرحمة ويتجلى في عرض مشاهد قاسية أو تتحداه .. وتتحدى ضميره وذكاءه ودينه ..

 يتحدث الدكتور الجعفري في هذا المشهد عن شيء اسمه “الجولان السوري المحتل” .. وهو مصطلح لن يتذكر الثوار ماذا يعني وكيف يترجم الى لغتهم لأنه من اللغات القديمة المسمارية وربما احدى اللغات القديمة القادمة من القارة الهندية .. وقد يعتقدون أنه سلاح كيماوي خطير .. وسيجن البعض منهم عندما لايهتدي الى شيء ولايدري كنه هذا الشيء الذي يسميه الجعفري (الجولان السوري المحتل) وأن من اعتقل فيه لثلاثة عقود اسمه (المناضل صدقي المقت) .. ولايفهمون ماذا يقصد بمصطلح يسمى فلسطين أو نكبة .. 


وسيخالون اسم اسرائيل الوارد في كلام الجعفري شيئا من حكايات ألف ليلة وليلة وربما سيعتقدون أنها اسم صحابي مؤمن أو من أمهات المؤمنين لأنها تداوي جرحى المجاهدين ..

ولذلك اذا مااشتدت معاناة المعارض والثوري الذي يعصر ذاكرته ورأسه الكبير المليء بالشعارات الضخمة الثقيلة فيمكن أن تذكروه أن الجولان هي الأرض التي ورثها كمال اللبواني من أبيه التي أعطاه اياها والي الشام العثماني جد اردوغان والتي تبرع بها اللبواني الى نتنياهو في هرتسيليا منذ فترة عربون مودة بين الشعبين الشقيقين السوري والصهيوني .. حيث جاهد اللبواني بأمواله كما كان عثمان بن عقان يجاهد بماله من أجل الدعوة المحمدية .. مع فارق بسيط وهو أن اللبواني مجاهد سويدي الجنسية وتحبه النساء السويديات .. 

 ويمكنكم تذكير المعارض السوري الذي تشوشت ذاكرته تماما واختلطت عليه المسميات بأن الجولان هي الأرض التي كان الثوار يقولون انها النظام باعها عام 67 مقابل الوصول الى الحكم ولكنه حتى اليوم لم يتنازل عنها لمخلوق على الأرض ولايزال يطالب بها .. وأن من تنازل عنها فعلا هو الائتلاف السوري وشلة المعارضة التي كان بامكانها أن تعلن أن أول نقطة خلاف مع النظام هي أنها ستلغي عقد البيع المزعوم وستعيد الجولان .. عند ذكر ذلك سيعرف الثوري والمعارض ماذا يقصد الجعفري بالجولان السوري المحتل .. 
واذا حار الثوار في اسم فلسطين التي لايمل الجعفري من تكرار اسمها فقولوا لهم انها الأرض التي استشهد في سبيلها عشرات آلاف العرب ولم يستشهد فيها خليجي واحد .. وانها الأرض التي يريد خالد مشعل تحريرها وهو يمارس الرياضة والرشاقة بين حيطان قاعدة العيديد .. وبمساعدة الناتو في تركيا الذي سيقرر تحريرها وفق الفصل السابع وأن الفيلدمارشال أردوغان هو من سيقود حملة (عاصفة الحزم التركية) .. 

 وأضيفوا منعا للبس .. فلسطين هي التي من أجلها رفع المؤمن خالد مشعل علم الثورة السورية وأرسل اسماعيل هنية ورائد صلاح المجاهدين الى الثوار السوريين الذين تساعدهم اسرائيل في تحرير مخيم اليرموك من الاحتلال السوري .. 

واذا أراد الثوري أو المعارض علامة فارقة فذكروه بعبارة قالها المحكوم بالاعدام فيصل القاسم (هلكتو ربنا بفلسطين) لأنه كان “يعاتب” فيها الثوار على اصرارهم على تذكر فلسطين ولذلك نال عقوبة الاعدام من النظام السوري الذي يريد تدمير فلسطين من أجل الهلال الشيعي !!! ..

عندها سيقول الثوري وهو فاغر فاه وقد جحظت عيناه مندهشا: آآآآآه .. الآن فهمت .. 

 نصيحة من القلب ايها الثائر المعارض والاسلامي المؤمن .. وحذار حذار من هذا الفيلم المرعب خاصة عندما يسخر الجعفري من المندوبة الأميريكية ويبدي امتعاضه من نفاقها ولايبالي بغضبها وأنت تعتبرها لاتقهر ولايرد لها طلب وبالذات اذا تحدثت عن الأيام المعدودة .. لاتتابع هذا البيان السوري كيلا يتوجع قلبك ويتفجر عقلك من شدة التفكير دون ان يصل الى نتيجة .. التفكير موبقة لاكفارة لها .. وملامسة الضمير تفسد الوضوء وتستوجب الغسل .. 

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

فيما يلي نص البيان لمن لايطيق سماعه

بيــــــان

السفير د. بشار الجعفري

المندوب الدائم للجمهورية العربية السورية

أمام

مجلس الامن

الحالة في الشرق الأوسط

السيد الرئيس،

لقد سادت بيانات بعض الوفود اليوم مسحة من السوريالية واللاواقعية حيث لم تراعي تلك البيانات احترام مرجعيات هذا البند وفقاً للولاية الممنوحة للمنسق الخاص لعملية السلام في الشرق الاوسط. ومن المؤسف أن المنسق الخاص نفسه قد وجد من المناسب أن يخرج عن ولايته ويتحدث عن اليمن والعراق وليبيا، وتجاهل الحديث بكلمة واحدة عن الجولان السوري المحتل الذي يقع في صلب ولايته وفي صلب هذا البند، والتي حددها الأمين العام له كالآتي، وأقتبس باللغة الانكليزية:

“The Special Coordinator will encompass previous functions, and also be the focal for overall UN assistance to the Middle East Peace Process… The Special Coordinator’s dual diplomatic and UN development assistance coordination functions will principally cover, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority areas.”

وفي سياق تشويه البند وتخفيف الضغط عن اسرائيل لم تجد الزميلة المندوبة الدائمة للولايات المتحدة الامريكية حرجاً في الابتعاد عن قواعد الدبلوماسية وتحويل بيانها الى مايشبه “بيان صحفي” عدائي ضد بلادي حافل بالمغالطات والادعاءات المستقاة من مصادر مشبوهة معروفة لدى أجهزة استخبارات بلادها هي فقط، بدلاً من التركيز على جوهر البند ألا وهو قضية احلال السلام وانهاء الاحتلال الاسرائيلي للأراضي العربية المحتلة واقامة الدولة الفلسطينية. وأجدها فرصة سانحة لتذكير زميلتي الأميركية بما قاله نائب رئيس بلادها، جو بايدن، مؤخراً في لقاء له مع طلاب احدى الجامعات الأميركية من أن مشكلة الولايات المتحدة في سوريا تكمن في رعاية حلفائها في المنطقة للارهاب في سوريا. 

السيد الرئيس،

تتحمل الأمم المتحدة مسؤولية تاريخية وقانونية وأخلاقية تجاه إعمال قراراتها ذات الصلة بتسوية الصراع العربي-الإسرائيلي وجوهره إقامة الدولة الفلسطينية المستقلة ذات السيادة الكاملة على كامل ترابها الوطني استناداً للقرار رقم 181 لعام 1947، والقرار رقم 273 لعام 1949 الذي حدد شروط قبول عضوية اسرائيل في الأمم المتحدة بأن تلتزم بالقرار 181 القاضي بإنشاء الدولة الفلسطينية وأن تلتزم بأحكام القرار 194 لعام 1948 القاضي بعودة اللاجئين الفلسطينيين إلى ديارهم. لكن ما حدث بعد ذلك كان، للأسف، العكس تماماً، فقد نفذت الأمم المتحدة نصف قرارها رقم 181 من حيث الترخيص بإنشاء إسرائيل فقط في فلسطين وتخلت تماماً عن تنفيذ قرارها رقم 194 القاضي بعودة اللاجئين الفلسطينيين الى وطنهم، وهو الأمر الذي جعل الظلم الذي لحق بالشعب الفلسطيني مضاعفاً، وبقي مصيره رهن احتلال شرس وعنصري لا مثيل له في التاريخ الحديث. هذا في الوقت الذي شنت فيه اسرائيل العدوان تلو العدوان ضد شعوب ودول المنطقة، وذلك بدعم عسكري وسياسي واقتصادي غير مسبوق من حماتها ورعاتها من دعاة الحرية والديمقراطية والعدالة المزيفة. كما اقترفت الحكومات الاسرائيلية المتعاقبة جرائم حرب وجرائم ضد الإنسانية كما بينت تقارير الأمم المتحدة نفسها. ومن المعلوم أن النشاطات الاستيطانية الإسرائيلية قد شكلت دائماً أولوية قصوى في سياسات جميع الحكومات الاسرائيلية على الرغم من أن هذه النشاطات الاستيطانية تقوّض، باعتراف الجميع بما في ذلك رعاة اسرائيل أنفسهم، أي فرصة لإنشاء دولة فلسطينية متواصلة جغرافياً وقابلة للحياة ويقوّض حق الشعب الفلسطيني في تقرير المصير. 

السيد الرئيس،

إذا أردنا أن نمنع فرص الحرب ونوقف سفك الدماء ونعزز فرص السلام في منطقتنا، ونحارب الارهاب في تحالف دولي جاد، يجب أن تعمل الأمم المتحدة بجدية مع الدول الراعية لعملية السلام على إنعاشها وإحيائها من حيث توقفت، فمنطقتنا لن تنعم بالاستقرار الا اذ تم التوصل الى اتفاق سلام عادل وشامل مبني على قرارات الأمم المتحدة ذات الصلة وعلى مبدأ الأرض مقابل السلام. 

السيد الرئيس، 

لقد تسابقت وفود بعض الدول التي تدعي حرصها على حقوق الشعب السوري، إلى طلب عقد مؤتمرات وجلسات واجتماعات جانبية للترويج لروايات مضللة حول الوضع في بلادي، كما أسرف ممثلو هذه الدول في التباكي بشكل مسرحي مبتذل على حقوق الشعب السوري ولكنهم لم يتطرقوا ولو بكلمة واحدة لمسألة انهاء الاحتلال الإسرائيلي للجولان السوري المحتل الذي اعتمد هذا المجلس بشأنه القرار رقم 497 في العام 1981؛ وكأن استعادة الجولان ليست من حقوق الشعب السوري، وكأن الجولان ليس أرضاً سورية محتلة يصدر حولها سنويا العديد من القرارات التي تطالب اسرائيل بالانسحاب منها حتى خط الرابع من حزيران لعام 1967!. أين حديث تلك الوفود عن قانون حقوق الإنسان والقانون الدولي الإنساني عندما يأتي الأمر إلى حملات الاستيطان الإسرائيلية في الجولان ومعاناة المواطنين السوريين الرازحين تحت الاحتلال في الجولان منذ ما يناهز النصف قرن؟ أين رفضهم لسياسات القمع والتمييز العنصري الإسرائيلية ولسرقة موارد الجولان الطبيعية، بما في ذلك النفط والغاز والمياه؟ وأين إدانتهم لاعتقال المواطنين السوريين وزجهم في السجون الإسرائيلية بشكل تعسفي في انتهاك لاتفاقيات جنيف كما حدث مؤخراً عندما اعتقلت السلطات الاسرائيلية المناضل صدقي المقت، مانديلا سوريا، وهو من أهالي الجولان، لا لشيء إلا لأنه كان يعمل على توثيق علاقة قوات الاحتلال الإسرائيلي بالمجموعات الارهابية في منطقة الفصل في الجولان السوري؛ علماً بأن السيد المقت كان قد قضى 27 عاما في معتقلات الاحتلال الاسرائيلي دون أن يرتكب أي جرم قانوني، اللهم إلا التمسك بانتمائه لوطنه الأم، سوريا، ورفضه حمل الهوية الاسرائيلية… 

السيد الرئيس،

لقد أضافت اسرائيل، خلال الأزمة الحالية في سوريا، فصلاً جديداً إلى سجل انتهاكاتها، ألا وهو دعم الإرهابيين من جبهة النصرة في منطقة الفصل في الجولان السوري، بما في ذلك عبر علاج مصابي هؤلاء الإرهابيين في المشافي الاسرائيلية، وذلك في انتهاك لاتفاق فصل القوات لعام 1974 وبشكل عرض حياة قوات الأندوف للخطر، وكذلك في خرق لاتفاق الهدنة لعام 1948. وهذا ما أثبتته تقارير الأمين العام الأخيرة حول الأندوف وكذلك تقارير إعلامية اسرائيلية…. وقد وصل الأمر بالاسرائيليين إلى حد إطلاق يد “جبهة النصرة” ضد سكان قرى الجولان وقتل 21 مواطناً سورياً في بلدة حضر، وذلك بهدف ابتزازهم ودفعهم إلى التخلي عن دعمهم للحكومة السورية. لقد أدى هذا الدعم الذي أتحدث عنه إلى ازدياد حرية حركة المجموعات الارهابية في منطقة فصل القوات في الجولان، بما في ذلك تنظيم “جبهة النصرة” المرتبط بالقاعدة، في منطقة الفصل، وقيام هذه المجموعات بشكل مستمر بخطف حفظة سلام تابعين للأندوف ونقلهم إلى الأراضي الأردنية بشكل علني ثم السماح لهؤلاء الإرهابيين بالعودة إلى منطقة الفصل حيث ينتشرون فيها بحماية ورعاية إسرائيليتين! وتمويل قطري. ولذلك أكرر دعوتي إلى ضرورة التعامل مع هذا الواقع الخطير بما يستحقه من جديّة واهتمام ودونما أي إبطاء.

السيد الرئيس،

إننا نهنئ الجمهورية الاسلامية الايرانية بالتوصل إلى الاتفاق النهائي مع مجموعة “خمسة زائد واحد”. إنّ هذا الاتفاق التاريخي يؤكد على أهمية انتهاج الدبلوماسية والحلول السياسية الودية لمعالجة الخلافات الدولية بعيداً عن لغة التهديد بالحرب والعدوان وفرض العقوبات غير الشرعية التي استهدفت الشعب الايراني على مدار سنوات عدة لحرمانه من الحق في امتلاك المعرفة واستخدام التكنولوجيا وتسخيرهما لرفاهه وازدهاره. وفي هذا المجال تؤكد بلادي سوريا على الحق غير القابل للتصرف للدول الأطراف في معاهدة عدم الانتشار، وفقاً لأحكام المادة الرابعة من تلك المعاهدة، بالحصول على التكنولوجيا النووية وتطويرها واستخدامها للأغراض السلمية.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Yemeni Sources Refute Rumors Hadi, Qaeda Militiamen Control Aden

Local Editor

Yemeni sources have refuted rumors that the militiamen of al-Qaeda and fugitive president Abd Rabbu Mnasour Hadi had controlled the southern city of Aden.

The sources told al-Manar that fierce clashes are taking place between the militiamen and the army backed by the popular committees.

Aden mapThe militiamen were backed by intensified Saudi-led air strikes, the sources said, noting that the raids aim at achieving what the battlefield could not do.

“Al-Qaeda and Hadi militiamen did not advance but in the international airport. Elsewhere, the militiamen advanced towards the bridge in Khormakser, but they did not manage to enter the town as circulated by pro-Saudi media,” the sources said.

Meanwhile, dozens of al-Qaeda terrorists were killed near Aden International Airport, according to the sources.

The killed militants are from different nationalities, the sources added.

Source: Al-Manar Website

17-07-2015 – 17:48 Last updated 17-07-2015 – 17:48



Yemeni Army, Committees Deny Fall of Aden Port As Saudi-US Strikes Continue

Local Editor

Sources from the Yemeni army and the Popular Committees (PC) fighting against the Saudi-US aggression and allied al-Qaeda terrorist operatives have denied on Thursday claims that the port of Aden city had fallen in the hands of pro-aggression militiamen, while confirming that a large part of Khor Maksar area was restored.

The army and the Committee forces continued their progress in Al-Mansoura district in Aden province, south of Yemen, and took control of the areas bordering the district.

In the meantime, the missile unit of the Yemeni army and the Committees pounded the Saudi military posts, by shelling the communications center in Dhahran-Asir with six Grad rockets.

The national Yemeni forces also fired five rockets at the hostile Saudi Al-Malhama military post in Jizan province.

In a separate development, warplanes  of the Saudi-US aggression launched on Thursday aerial raids against the headquarters of the Yemeni Foreign Ministry in Sanaa. No casualties have been reported by far.

Earlier in the day, the Saudi-led coalition launched nine air raids on the province of Saada in northern Yemen, targeting a house, a school and a number of civic farms in the areas of Al-Autef and Al-Bahlan.

Moreover, huge shipments of food aid arrived in the capital Sanaa coming from Russia on board of two planes.

Acting Russian Chargé d’Affaires in Yemen voiced hopes that the aid would reach those affected by the Saudi-US aggression.

More than 2,800 people have been killed since the Saudi-US military campaign began on March 26.

More than 21.1 million people – over 80 percent of Yemen’s population – need aid, with 13 million facing food shortages, while access to water has become difficult for 9.4 million people.

The UN says the Saudi-US war on Yemen has killed more than 3,200 people so far.

Source: Al-Manar Website

16-07-2015 – 11:42 Last updated 16-07-2015 – 11:45



Related Videos

 قناة الساحات الفضائية | برنامج ما وراء الحدث | د جمال وكيم 14 7 2015

سقط القناع 15 07 2015 #قرن_الشيطان_سينكسر

في دائرة الضوء 15 07 2015 مع محمد غروي وعبدالله صبري #قرن_الشيطان_سينكسر

تغطية مفتوحة 15 07 2015 مع حميد رزق والشيخ نجف ميرزائي وحسين ريوران #قرن_الشيطان_سينكسر

عين على الأحداث 15 07 2015 #قرن_الشيطان_سينكسر

الرابعة | محمد نزال ~ هبة العبد الله | نبأ الفضائية

قضية ساخنة | هجوم عدن .. الابعاد والاهداف | الكوثر 16 07 2015


Related Articles

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

The Road to Palestinian Liberation Lies…Where? – Riyadh.

Posted on July 5, 2015 by Alexandra Valiente

Via In Gaza
11659298_10153069667332857_7686013058182225238_n
I’ve expressed the similar sentiments to these below in the past, but the subject came up again today on social media and, as it is of utmost importance, I’m posting the commentaries here.
Navid Nasr began the needed exchange with these words:
“Apparently, for a lot of both Palestinian and non-Palestinian advocates for Palestine and the Palestinian people, the road to Palestinian liberation lies through the destruction of Libya, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, Tunisia, and now Egypt. Good to know.” – Eva Bartlett
“Islamist Palestinians… and that’s a direct outcome of Saudi indoctrination, this is in fact a very familiar tune that we’ve all heard before during that woebegone cold war era when, at the time, the road to Palestine essentially went through “communist Afghanistan”; except that Palestine was never at any point intended to be the destination of their GCC/CIA-sponsored jihad after the “liberation of Kabul” just as it will never be their destination after their intended “liberation of Damascus”; that was basically one of Saudi arabia’s (and other gulf reactionary regimes’) main calling cards to recruit thousands of “Arab mujahideen” to fight the soviet presence in Afghanistan on behalf and at the behest of the Reagan administration, and at the same time ensure the continued deliberate marginalization of Palestine as a central cause for the Arab and Islamic worlds.


it’s the same brand of insidious indoctrination that prevails today and relegates palestine to the back burner while giving credence and urgency to whatever rotten cause that the Saudi ruling dynasty chooses (or is instructed) to champion in their ever onward quest to serve the imperial interests of the west; everything takes a back seat to their unrelenting efforts to plant the seeds of discord and fan the flames of an all-out sectarian war across the region.” 

“Not to mention the destruction of their own Palestinian Authority, which they all seem to be co-morbidly interested in…. The common factor in all the cases is hugely networked, powerful NGOs and ‘human rights’ organizations that are all funded by NATO member countries. Since occupied Palestine is completely at the mercy of these organizations for basic socio-economic survival (as they are not allowed to have an economy of their own), it follows that they would be hopelessly at the mercy of their benefactors’ agendas.”


“Egyptian army is facing a neocolonial death squad offensive in Sinai right now (I fully support their mission against the death squads), and Sinai is fundamental to neocolonial and zionist state policy as is Libya, Syria and Iraq (and also even Yemen, Algeria, Mali, Nigeria, etc with a view to Central Asia and China), hence the strategic downgrading of those states and their army’s which was always a central strategic aim of the white colonial settler state, as is explained in this interview.


All the while, we have the western liberals favourite death squad advocate Moazzam Begg suggesting to the british tory govt (!, nice of Moazzam to give such advice to the enemy) that they team up with the death squad ‘Jabhat Nusra’ as a counterweight to the other nearly same death squad ‘Isis’! See here this line, printed by the Qatari death squad monarchy financed Middle East Eye:

Moazzam might be a useful fool and tool for the British state, but he knows very well that the British state are in a direct relationship of collusion with these death squads (of which he is an integral part, having at least one secret meeting with the British Intel services who green lighted his death squad work in Libya and then in Syria) and seeks to continue the British state de jure strategy of leaning towards Jabhat Nusra death squads amongst others. But of course, the British state is also in collusion with ‘Isis’ as is clear by the cases of Adebalajo (Re: lee rigby etc) and ‘Jihadi John’/Mohamed Emwazi and hundreds of ‘Isis’ recruits facilitated and watched over as they leave Britain to go and join the armed gangs in Syria and Libya and further afield.”

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  

 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Israel’s Dangerous Game with Syrian “Freedom Fighters”

Recently, Israeli TV aired an interview (Hebrew, at the 2:00 mark) with a wounded Syrian fighter who was treated in Israel after being evacuated from the combat zone.  As I, and many other journalists have reported, Israel, despite the false claim of neutrality in the civil war, has frequently intervened in the conflict on behalf of forces opposed to Bashar al-Assad.  It does this less because it opposes Assad himself, than because its arch-enemies, Iran and Hezbollah, are the regime’s strongest allies.

In the Golan, Israel has cultivated an alliance with Islamist forces it falsely claims to detest: the al-Nusra Front.  It has built a camp to house fighters and their families on Israeli-held territory.  It conducts regular meetings with Islamist commanders and provides military and other critical supplies to them.  All of this is documented in written UN reports and images captured by journalists and activists on the armistice line (between Syria and Israel).

In my writing about this, I’ve not only criticized the hypocrisy of Israel joining forces with the very forces it claims are destroying the Middle East and the world; I’ve also noted the likelihood that today’s allies will turn into tomorrow’s enemies.  Maariv journalist Jacki Hugi said it well:

…Jerusalem must ask itself some difficult questions: can its bet on the rebels pay off?  Or does stability on the northern border depend on the continuation of the regime?  Support for these sectarian groups carries many dangers.  Their trustworthiness fluctuates, as do the figures who lead them.  He who today will not act against Israel may change his spots [literally “shed his skin”] tomorrow.

…Israeli policy over the past few decades has been characterized by a series of bad bets.  At the end of the 1980s, it enabled Hamas to rise from the midst of Gaza’s Islamist groups.  It did this out of the flawed assumption that this was the proper way to weaken Fatah…As a result [Israel] created its own Trojan Horse [within Palestine].

With the IDF’s entrance [sic] into Lebanon in 1982, Israel disregarded the Shiites and rushed to ally itself with those it saw as the most powerful in the land: the Christians.  So it paved the way for Tehran to offer protection to the disadvantaged and enable the rise of Hezbollah.

Something very similar happened in Afghanistan when the mujahedeen were first our friends, and then morphed into the Taliban and became our sworn enemies.

So far, the Syrian Islamists have deliberately not targeted Israel.  This is no doubt due to the aid it offers them on the battlefield.  Further, al-Nusra knows that Hezbollah is Israel’s primary opponent.  The Lebanese militia constantly probes in this sector and mounts attacks against Israeli forces.  Al-Nusra doesn’t seek or need to compete with Hezbollah in that regard.  It would rather confine is efforts to the Syrian theater, than expand to attack Israel itself.

But lately, al-Nusra has mounted attacks in a new Syrian sector: the Druze-populated Golan.  This new offensive, which has threatened several Druze villages, led to the death of 20 Druze villagers last week.  The Syrian Druze are generally loyal to the Assad regime.  Their religion, though an offshoot of Islam, is considered heretical by fundamentalist Islamists.  The Druze under threat, rightly believe that they and their ancient religious traditions are in grave jeopardy.

This might not mean much to Israel, except for a single complicating factor: when it conquered the Golan in 1967, it began an occupation of former Syrian territory which contained tens of thousands of Syrian Druze.  Though an armistice line now separates the Druze in Syrian and Israeli-occupied zones, both communities are deeply intertwined.  It is no different than Diaspora Jews felt in 1967 before the war broke out.  Millions rallied around the world concerned about Israel’s fate.  Now the Druze in Israeli-held Golan are fearful for the fates of their brothers and sisters.

druze al nusra battle

TV interview: “What would you do if you captured a Druze?” “It depends.”

In this context, the interview I mentioned above was a lightning bolt through the Druze community.  The interviewer asked the fighter (who was affiliated with the FSA):

Interviewer: [What would u do] if you caught an Alawite?

A: I would kill him

I: And if you caught a Druze?

A: It depends

I: And if you caught a Shiite?

A: I would kill the Shiite

This answer didn’t go down well among the Druze.  Sandwiched between this vow of murder directed at Syrian Alawites, the Druze normal ally, is a temporizing claim that he might or might not kill a captured Druze.  This, with the backdrop of 20 Druze murdered only a few days earlier.  It was enough to mount a mini-revolt among Golani Druze.

Israel regularly evacuates Islamist fighters (and some civilians as well) wounded in the fighting against the regime in the region.  Angry local Druze intercepted an IDF ambulance carrying two wounded fighters (the IDF claims they were civilians).  They beat the army medics, who were forced to flee.  They then beat one of the wounded Syrians to death and severely wounded the other, before the authorities intervened and rescued him.

The Israeli military is aghast at this infringement on its right to meddle in Syrian internal affairs unmolested.  Defense minister Yaalon called the killing a “lynch.”  This is Israeli code for ‘Arab savagery.’  It is used to differentiate Israeli behavior, supposedly civilized and humane, from that of Palestinian militants.

In the case of the Golan killing, the IDF is attempting to paint the Golani Druze as uncivilized beasts when, in fact, they are legitimately angry at Israel’s new alliance with their enemies, the al-Nusra Front.  The Druze are now demanding that Israel intervene in the civil war to save their brethren under attack from al-Nusra.  This is the sort of insanely complex strategic dilemma that comes from playing with fire.  If Israel continues its “arrangement” with al-Nusra and the latter conquers Syrian Druze villages and imposes fundamentalist Islam replete with revenge killings and beheadings, then it risks igniting a tinderbox inside Israeli-occupied Golan.  If it takes the side of the Druze against al-Nusra it risks the leverage it has with the only viable force opposing Israel’s most dangerous enemies, Hezbollah and Iran.

When you play with matches, you’ll get burned.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Israel’s Alliance with al-Qaeda

By Asa Winstanley

Global Research, May 30, 2015

al qaeda-Israel

Since January, I have been ploughing a lonely furrow in this column by covering what is certainly one of the most under-reported stories in the world right now: Israeli involvement in the war in Syria. 

Almost unnoticed by the mainstream media, Israel’s occupation forces in the Golan Heights have been in alliance with the Nusra Front, al-Qaeda’s official franchise in Syria. This alliance certainly includes logistical support and may even extend as far as arming al-Qaeda rebels in south-western Syria.

In January, I showed how the reports of UN peacekeepers in the Golan had talked of regular contacts between rebel forces in that Israeli-occupied sector of Syria. They also observed, according to a June report, Israeli soldiers “handing over two boxes to armed members of the opposition” from the Israeli-occupied side to the Syrian-controlled side.

According to further reports by UN peacekeepers, such interactions continued after Quneitra (a town containing a key checkpoint between the Israeli-occupied and Syrian-controlled sectors of the Golan) was overrun by the Nusra Front.

In March, I wrote on how an Israeli army spokesperson had now confirmed these reports. He clarified that this extended to logistical support in the form of medical aid to al-Qaeda rebels. “We don’t ask who they are, we don’t do any screening,” the unnamed Israeli military official told the Wall Street Journal. “Once the treatment is done, we take them back to the border [sic – ceasefire line] and they go on their way [in Syria],” he said.

For several years now there have been propaganda reports in the Israeli press about how Israel is supposedly playing a purely “humanitarian” role in the Syrian war, by treating civilians and sending them back. But this has now been exposed as propaganda. If that were really the case, Israel would be treating combatants from all sides in the Syrian war and furthermore it would arrest suspected al-Qaeda militants. But in reality, all reports confirm that the Israelis are treating only the “rebel” side, including the al-Qaeda militants that lead the armed opposition in that area of Syria (as indeed they do in much of the country). The key difference that disproves the propaganda line, and proves an active Israel-al-Qaeda alliance is that, after treatment, instead of arresting them, the al-Qaeda fighters are sent back to fight in Syria. There is no chance at all that, in the event that Israel captures injured Hamas, Hizballah or Iranian combatants alive, it would send them back to Gaza or Syria to “go on their way”, as the unnamed Israeli official put it.

After all, Israeli forces in that area have, during the course of the war, made several air-strikes on what they claimed were Hizballah targets in Syria. If Israel were genuinely opposed to al-Qaeda, it would hit their positions too. But it seems that Israel prefers al-Qaeda over Hizballah and Iran.

In April, I reported how Israel had started to cover up its alliance with al-Qaeda. It seems that the propaganda line about their humanitarianism had not been bought by many, so they took measures to stop too much being revealed. Sedqi al-Maqet, a pro-government Syrian activist from the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, was arrested, with a military gag-order initially banning the Israeli press from reporting the case. Al-Maqet had used his residence in the Golan to report from his Facebook account in Arabic about contacts he said he had witnessed between Israeli armed forces and what he termed terrorists active in the Syrian-controlled sector of the Golan. One of these videos, aired on Syrian state TV, was used to charging him with “spying”.

Since those reports, there have been further confirmations of the Israeli-al-Qaeda alliance. The most oblique of these came from David Ignatius, the Washington Post associated editor and foreign affairs columnist. Earlier this month he wrote that ”Jordan and Israel have developed secret contacts with members of the Jabhat al-Nusra group along their borders.”

The second new confirmation came from the Israeli press in the form of Ron Ben Yishai, an Israeli war reporter for Yediot Ahronot, a popular Israeli tabloid. The report, which included video (vetted by the Israeli military) of a hospitalised Syrian rebel (possibly an al-Qaeda militant) with a obscured face, mostly took the usual propaganda line, singing the praises of the wonderful morality of the glorious Israeli army.

In the video, Lieutenant Colonel Dr. Itzik Malka claims of the 1,600 wounded he said have arrived in Israel from Syria, “the majority are women, children and elderly people” (my emphasis). That’s another implicit acknowledgement that Israel is treating wounded militants from Syria (the majority of whom in that area are al-Qaeda). And Ben Yishai himself in the article accompanying the footage states that “wounded Syrians have been arriving almost daily to the security fence, seeking medical help. It is likely that most if not all of these nationals are rebels from the rival jihadist Islamic State and al-Nusra Front groups”.

All this would be a massive scandal were an official “enemy” of the West, like Iran, or the Syrian government, credibly reported to have aided a terrorist group like al-Qaeda. We would have been bombarded with headlines about it, much like we are currently bombarded with headlines about the evils of the “Islamic State”.

But why has all this been pretty much ignored by the mainstream press? Last month, I tried to draw some of the strands together, and suggest how this Israeli-al-Qaeda alliance fits into the wider fight in Syria and the region, especially the latest al-Qaeda offensive in Syria.

We can say with confidence that the mainstream press in the West supports Israel, and so does not find it convenient to report on this scandalous Israeli-al-Qaeda alliance in Syria. But it’s crucial to understand that this is part of a wider pattern in which the West’s alliances with (to say the least) morally-dubious regional actors are ignored, downplayed or actively disguised by the media.

As I have argued previously, the US and the UK were in large part to blame for the rise of the forces that eventually became the “Islamic State”. They can be said to have created “Islamic State,” since the 2003 invasion of Iraq (and especially the very consciously sectarian policy of divide and rule that the occupation regime enforced there) created the swamp in which al-Qaeda in Iraq (which later became the “Islamic State in Iraq,” which in turn re-branded and became the “Islamic State of Iraq and Sham” when it expanded into Syria and is now know as just the “Islamic State”) was born.

But, reports the sterling investigative journalist Nafeez Ahmed, a newly-declassified Pentagon report has now proven that Western intelligence agencies were aware, as far back as August 2012, that “Islamic State” could arise and furthermore they even wanted it to happen.

The Defense Intelligence Agency report stated that “there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist Principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime”. Today, the so-called Islamic State’s power base is in the east and north of Syria, and it controls most of the regions around Deir al-Zor, the regional capital of that eponymous eastern region. The city itself is still contested between regime and ISIS forces.

The report (revealed by an American conservative group’s freedom of information request) clarifies in a preceding paragraph that “supporting powers” is a reference to “Western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey”. The term “western countries” here is likely supposed to include Israel. In any event, such intelligence is likely to have been shared with Israel.

So with Israel aware that the West was engaged in such cynicism with al-Qaeda-type groups in Iraq and Syria, it’s no wonder Israel feels itself permitted to engage in an active alliance with al-Qaeda in Syria.

An associate editor with The Electronic Intifada, Asa Winstanley is an investigative journalist who lives in London.

Hariri is Returning to the Grand Serail

Former Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri waves at the crowd at a 2011 event for the March 14 political coalition. Al-Akhbar/Haitham Moussawi

Published Monday, February 23, 2015

The progress made so far indicates that the situation is much better than what is being disseminated. Thus, it is fair to say that the Future Movement is seemingly intent on yielding results, and is demonstrating a willingness to make compromises, which may be a source of embarrassment to the movement if its supporters discover the meetings’ details. This is not a case of betrayal or disregard on Future’s part, but rather a direction that differs from the line it has followed over many years. Certainly, this new direction contradicts all the boisterous talk by some of its leaders, which are described by some as the party’s “hawks,” although it is a modest party that can accommodate neither hawks nor doves.

Former Prime Minister Saad Hariri is keen to avoid anything that may lead to the cessation of the dialogue. Thus, he reminded his team that the dialogue does not cover the Resistance’s weapons or Hezbollah’s fighting in Syria, but is limited to resolvable internal issues, such as personal weapons in the cities, security plans that need to be applied equally in all areas, and other contentious issues concerning the capital, the cities and regions. Thus, all parties hope to reach an understanding on matters that may ease tension, such as toning down media campaigns and provocation, cooperating through the ministries, and agreeing on mechanisms to manage government action and related legislative activities.

Hariri wants the dialogue to result in an agreement, which would allow the resolution of various internal issues and resumption of government activity irrespective of regional events. Regarding external issues, Hariri’s main concern is Hezbollah’s participation in the conflict in Syria and its handling of the southern issue. In this regard, an informed politician close to Hariri says that the latter, “without saying so, is counting on Hezbollah’s wisdom in handling these issues.”

As for Hezbollah, the party is required to clarify its position in advance, which is that the party’s strategic arms and involvement in Syria are not subject to discussion. Concerning the presidential file, the party delegation should explicitly say the following: “We want to see the election of a president, today before tomorrow. We know that the state needs a head, and that the presence of a president facilitates the work of the government and helps regulate the work of institutions. We also know that there are external and internal effects, which play a major role in the election of the new president. For things to be clear from our side, and despite our keenness on the election of a new president, we express our firm position — which is not an attempt at maneuvering — that General Michel Aoun is our sole presidential candidate, and we will not accept any other [candidate]. And should Aoun decide to take another course, we have a clearer position, which is that we will not accept a president Aoun does not approve of. To avoid any controversy, with regards to the presidential file, we stand behind Michel Aoun. It would be best for the rest of the parties to approach him to discuss this matter. We are going to support whatever he decides.”

As for the other issues, Hezbollah has exhibited openness towards all proposals. The party proposed steps to facilitate the implementation of agreements pertaining to the removal of political symbols and flags; the end of all forms of armed manifestations; the complete cessation of media campaigns; helping to hand over wanted persons, including a member of the (Hezbollah-affiliated) Lebanese Resistance Brigades; and providing the adequate popular and operational ground to enable the implementation of permanent security plans in areas where the party enjoys influence.

Why is the dialogue now productive?

What will not be said at the dialogue table, nor in statements and fiery speeches, is that Hariri — in his capacity as the main Sunni leader — is considering what needs to be done to prevent further losses at the Lebanese level, based on a clear decision backed by the United States and Britain (excluding France) to maintain stability in Lebanon. He is also relying on a change, albeit a slow one, on the part of Saudi Arabia in the it deals with the regional issues.

Hariri’s approach is informed by the fact that Saudi Arabia and its allies have refrained from getting directly involved in managing the battle. So far, Riyadh has opted to rely on parties with which it has no direct association, and which it would not be compelled to openly support against other parties. This is what happened in Iraq and Syria through its support of armed groups, including the Islamic state in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), al-Nusra Front, the Army of Islam, and the Free Syrian Army (FSA) factions. The same happened in Yemen, through its support of various political forces, which can be easily denied when necessary. In Lebanon, the Saudis followed the same approach by adopting a prime minister who does not directly represent them, but is unable to act beyond their authority.

Saudi Arabia’s approach differs from that of its opponents. Some, even in the Future Movement, see the situation as follows: Iran is fighting directly and playing its strongest hands, such as former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the popular forces in Iraq, President Bashar al-Assad and his supporters in Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, not to mention its allies in Bahrain and other Arab countries.

The Future Movement received signs of a Saudi change of policy, whereby Future is required to act directly through its powerful elements. In Lebanon, this would call for bringing Hariri back to the forefront. Thus, the primary mission today is Hariri’s return as prime minister and his direct management of these issues. This requires many steps, most notably reaching an understanding with Hezbollah, considering that it is the other party that has the power to veto ministerial decisions. It is also the party that removed Hariri from power, and holds the key to his return to the Grand Serail.

Hariri’s return to Beirut is intended to pave the way for his return to power. He will be obliged to make many compromises — regarding his party’s ties with Islamic groups, the situation within the Future Movement itself, and the relationship with the March 14 forces, particularly the Christian factions. In this regard, Hariri will be obliged to form a clear relationship with the Lebanese Forces, taking into account the reaction of the other Christian figures who fear being excluded.

On the other hand, Hariri knows that he is required to extend the dialogue to other parties: with General Aoun to resolve the issue of the presidential void; with House Speaker Nabih Berri and the broad political alliance that would allow the formation of a wide consensus government; with MP Walid Jumblatt to mend ties with him, even if temporarily; and with Hezbollah, who have the final say. Therefore, Hariri is dealing with the potential results of the dialogue with Hezbollah in a realistic manner. If his goal is to return to head the cabinet, he should sidestep the mines that can blow up everything.

On the return trip to the cabinet, a price should be paid before reaping the big gift. These prices and sacrifices are in his team’s hands. The fate of MP Khaled Daher may just be the beginning.

Ibrahim al-Amin is the Editor-in-Chief of Al-Akhbar.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect Al-Akhbar English’s editorial policy. If you would like to submit a thoughtful response to one of our opinion pieces, send your contribution to our submissions editor.

This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.

Related Articles

Related Videos

 الحدث | النائب نبيل نقولا | الجديد
 

حوار اليوم | نقولا ناصيف | ليندا مشلب

 

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Hamas Military Chief Condole Sayyed Nasrallah on Hezbollah Martyrs

Local Editor

Senior commanders of the Palestinian resistance movement Hamas condole with Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah on the martyrdom of six Hezbollah fighters by an Israeli raid in Syria’s Quneitra.

In a letter sent to the Lebanese resistance leader, the commander in chief of Hamas’ military wing, Mohammad Daif, called on the unity of the resistance against the Zionist enemy.

The blood of these martyrs is a “powerful blow” at the face of the submissive people that the real enemy of the nation is the Zionist enemy, Ddaif said.

He stressed on the importance of unity among all resistance factions against the Zionist scheme.

For his part, the head of Hamas movement in the Gaza strip, Ismail Haniyeh offered condolences to Sayyed Nasrallah, and expressed sympathy with the families of the martyrs.

“The Zionist enemy thinks that through killing and terror can break the will of the nation…. However, this policy is doomed to fail, as we will stick to the rights of this nation,” Hnaiyeh said in the letter.

An Israeli raid on Syria’s Quneitra killed six Hezbollah fighters earlier on Sunday. The fighters were going on a reconnaissance mission in the Golan.

Source: Hezbollah Media Relations

22-01-2015 – 10:21 Last updated 22-01-2015 – 10:23


JAN 22, 2015

 

حماس تحسم امرها وتعود الى معسكر “الممانعة” وتعيد حلفها مع ايران و”حزب الله” الى عهده الذهبي.. وجناحها العسكري اصبح صاحب “اليد العليا”.. والتنسيق لاعمال عسكرية وربما حرب وارد جدا.. وهذه اسبابنا

atwan ok

  عبد الباري عطوان

 ليس من عادة السيد محمد ضيف القائد العام لكتائب القسام، الجناح العسكري لحركة “حماس″ ان يوجه رسائل، او يدلي بتصريحات، او يظهر على وسائل الاعلام المرئية، ولذلك فإن كسره لهذه القاعدة، ولو جزئيا، وتوجيهه رسالة تعزية الى السيد حسن نصر الله امين عام “حزب الله” باستشهاد ستة من مقاتلي الحزب بينهم الشهيد جهاد مغنية ينطوي على الكثير من المعاني التي تستحق التوقف عندها وتحليل دوافعها واهدافها وقراءة ما بين سطورها.

بداية لا بد من العودة الى الوراء قليلا والاشارة الى ان العلاقة بين حركة حماس، وجناحها السياسي على وجه الخصوص، وقيادة “حزب الله” في لبنان، والقيادة الايرانية في طهران ايضا، اتسمت بنوع من الفتور في السنوات الاربع الماضية بسبب تأييد حركة “حماس″ للمعارضة السورية المسلحة التي تقاتل لاسقاط النظام السوري، وبلغ هذا “الفتور” ذروته عندما  قرر السيد خالد مشعل رئيس مكتبها السياسي، نقل مقر قيادة الحركة الرسمي في الخارج من دمشق الى العاصمة القطرية الدوحة في 12 شباط (فبراير) عام 2012، معلنا القطيعة، والانضمام الى المعسكر الآخر، (كانت قطر في حينها تقود الحرب لاسقاط النظام السوري سياسيا وعسكريا واعلاميا)، واعتقادا منه، وبتشجيع من السلطات القطرية، بأن المعارضة السورية منتصرة لا محالة، وايام النظام السوري باتت معدودة، وعليه “ان لا يكرر خطأ الرئيس الشهيد ياسر عرفات في ازمة الكويت، ويقف في خندق المهزومين”.

وفي الوقت الذي “كظم” حزب الله الغيظ وامتنع مسؤولوه عن توجيه اي نقد لحركة “حماس″ وقيادتها، وابقى على علاقاته مع ممثلها في بيروت (مقره في الضاحية الجنوبية) دون اي تغيير، تصرف بعض المسؤولين في حركة “حماس″ بطريقة مغايرة تماما، ولا نريد ان ننكأ الجراح ونسرد بعض الحقائق الموثقة في هذا المضمار.

Hamas Joke: Al-quds waiting for “men”, the half-men fighting Syria

***

لم يعد خافيا على احد، وجود جناحين متضادين في حركة حماس، الاول يتماهى بالكامل مع حركة “الاخوان المسلمين” وموقفها المؤيد، دون تحفظ، للمعارضة للسورية المسلحة في وجه النظام، ووصل هذا التأييد لدرجة مباركة دعوة الرئيس المصري محمد مرسي للجهاد في سورية الذي اعلنه قبل الانقلاب العسكري الذي اطاح به باسبوع، وسط حشد من رجال الدين بينهم الدكتور يوسف القرضاوي، واغلاق سفارتها في القاهرة،

اما الجناح الثاني الذي شكل الاقلية فكان يطالب بموقف متوازن، اقرب الى الحياد، والحفاظ على العلاقات الوثيقة مع ايران وحزب الله في لبنان، عرفانا للجميل، وقناعة بأن معسكر “الاعتدال” العربي الذي تتزعمه المملكة العربية السعودية وتدعمه واشنطن، لا يمكن ان يدعم المقاومة الفلسطينية للاحتلال الاسرائيلي، وقد صدقت نبوءة هذا الجناح ووضوح رؤيته في نهاية المطاف.

 الحصار العربي الخانق، من قبل دول محور الاعتدال العربي على قطاع غزة، وتجويع مليوني فلسطيني، ومنع وصول اي اموال او مساعدات من الحكومات العربية الداعمة للمعارضة السورية المسلحة، واغلاق معبر رفح لاشهر متواصلة، كلها عوامل صبت في مصلحة تعزيز الجناح الثاني الذي يقوده السيد محمد ضيف، ويدعمه الدكتور محمود الزهار الذي خسر موقعه في المكتب السياسي للحركة، خاصة ان من الحقائق الثابته ان جميع الاسلحة والصواريخ وخبرات التدريب التي اكتسبتها قوات الحركة، بما في ذلك هندسة الانفاق يعود الفضل فيها لايران وحزب الله، بينما لم تقدم حكومات دول “الاعتدال” طلقة واحدة واغلقت ابوابها في وجه مسؤولي حماس باحكام، وبفضل هذه الاسلحة وتكنولوجيا الصواريخ والانفاق، صمدت حركات المقاومة في القطاع 51 يوما، وحققت انتصارا عسكريا ومعنويا كبيرا.

اقدام السيد الضيف على توجيه رسالته هذه الى السيد نصر الله معزيا، وليس خالد مشعل رئيس المكتب السياسي لحركة “حماس″ وزعيم الحركة، تقول الكثير ليس على صعيد الدعوة التي تضمنتها الى “توحيد” قوى المعارضة لمواجهة اسرائيل” فقط، وانما على صعيد التوجه السياسي والعسكري للحركة في الاشهر وربما السنوات المقبلة، ويمكن ايجاز قراءتنا للتحول الجديد للحركة في النقاط التالية:

اولا: من الواضح ان رسالة تعزية السيد ضيف توجه رسالة واضحة الكلمات والمعالم وتؤكد ان حركة “حماس″، حسمت امرها وعادت الى المعسكر السوري الايراني، او معسكر “دول الممانعة” الذي خرجت منه قبل ثلاثة اعوام، بقرار من قيادتها السياسية.

ثانيا: في ظل الانقسام الواضح في المكتب السياسي للحركة، والذي تحاول القيادة اخفاءه او نكرانه، باتت الكلمة العليا الآن، وبالتحديد منذ العدوان الاخير على قطاع غزة، لكتائب عز الدين القسام، وكان اول مؤشر في هذا الخصوص اشادة السيد ابو عبيدة الناطق الاعلامي الرسمي باسم “القسام”، صوتا وصورة، بايران ودعمها للمقاومة الاسلامية في القطاع الذي مكنها من الصمود في وجه العدوان.

ثالثا: “اعتدال” حركة “حماس″، وتنازلها عن السلطة في القطاع للرئيس محمود عباس، وقبولها بحكومة “وفاق” لم يكن لها دور في تشكيلها، على امل رفع الحصار عن القطاع، واعادة الاعمار، كلها اعطت نتائج عكسية تماما ولم تغير من الاوضاع على الارض، بل زادتها سوءا وقهرا.

رابعا: بروز تيار اسلامي متشدد تقوده “الدولة الاسلامية” في قطاع غزة، وهو تيار عبر عن نفسه علنا وللمرة الاولى في المظاهرة التي نظمها انصار “الدولة” اما المركز الثقافي الفرنسي في مدينة غزة، اثار القلق في اوساط حركة “حماس″ وعزز احتمالات اضعاف سيطرتها على القطاع، وفلتان السلطة من يديها، الامر الذي حتم عليها تغيير مواقفها، والعودة بقوة خندق الى المقاومة لاستعادة قبضتها على الشارع الغزي، او ما خسرته منها، لصالح الجماعات الاسلامية المتشددة التي تتسع دائرة التأييد لها في اوساط شباب القطاع خاصة، وانضمام بعض كوادر حماس اليها.

 ***

في ضوء كل ما تقدم يمكن القول اننا امام حلف مقاوم ضد اسرائيل يبرز بقوة، او يعود للبروز مجددا يتمثل في حزب الله في الشمال، وحركة حماس في الجنوب الفلسطيني، ومن غير المستبعد ان يشترك الطرفان في تنفيذ عملية انتقامية ضد قوة الاحتلال الاسرائيلي كرد على اغتيال ستة من كوادر حزب الله، وستة من القيادات العسكرية الايرانية على رأسهم جنرال محمد علي دادي مساعد السيد قاسم سليماني رئيس جيش القدس في منطقة القنيطرة قبل اسبوع.

لا نستغرب، ولا نستبعد، ان تشهد الايام المقبلة هجمات دموية تكون اسرائيل هدفها، من جنوب لبنان وربما سورية ايضا، من ناحية وجنوب فلسطين من ناحية اخرى، فليس هناك للطرفين ما يمكن خسرانه في ظل العربدة الاسرائيلية والتواطؤ العربي الذي بات علنيا معها.

رسالة السيد الضيف يجب ان تدرس بعناية فائقة، لانها ربما تكون الاهم التي تصدر عن حركة حماس في السنوات العشر الماضية ان لم يكن اكثر، فهذا الرجل يزن كلماته بميزان الايمان والشهادة، ونأمل ان لا نكون مخطئين.

بنيامين نتنياهو أثار عش الدبابير باغتياله كوادر “حزب الله”، وربما لا نبالغ اذا قلنا انه فتح على نفسه ومستوطنيه ابواب جهنم، وقطعا سيدفع ومستوطنيه ثمنا باهظا جدا.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: