– ليس من رئيس أو ملك أو أمير في بلاد العرب يستطيع القول إن بلده يتعرّض لمؤامرة تقسيم ويواجه تحديات احتلال أجنبيّ، بينما يستطيع الرئيس السوريّ بشار الأسد أن يقول ذلك. وما من رئيس أو ملك أو أمير في بلاد العرب يستطيع القول إن نظامه ومنصبه أمام مشروع دوليّ إقليميّ لإسقاط النظام والقيادة واستهدافهما، بينما يستطيع الرئيس السوريّ أن يقول ذلك. وما من بلد أو مجتمع بين بلاد العرب ومجتمعاتها نزف دماً مثل سورية، ويعاني في تأمين سبل الحياة مثل سورية، ويعيش تحت حصار تقوده واشنطن يمنع عن سورية الغذاء والدواء فيما تقوم قوات الاحتلال الأميركيّ بسرقة غازها ونفطها، والخوف من أميركا وما تستطيعه من تعريض البلاد العربيّة للمخاطر وتعريض حكوماتها لمواجهة المؤامرات، وتعريض شعوبها للمعاناة هي ذرائع نسمعها لامتناع الحكومات العربية عن اتخاذ موقف سياسي واضح، يُنصف المقاومة في فلسطين، إن لم يكن قادراً على تقديم أكثر من ذلك، ورغم كل ذلك لا يفعل أي حاكم عربيّ. ووحده الرئيس السوري بشار الأسد، حيث هذه الفرضيات وقائع وحقائق ممتدة على سنوات ومستمرة، ويملك حق اتخاذها أعذاراً، لكنه يتجرأ على قول كلمة الحق بلا مناورة ومداورة.
– رغم كل الحديث عن ذرائع حكومات عربيّة تتهرّب من قول كلمة، ولو كلمة إنصاف لفلسطين وغزة والمقاومة. كمثل الحديث عن خلاف مع حركة حماس، واتخاذ خلفيتها الإخوانية سبباً لتبرير هذه الخلافات، وبالتالي تبرير التهرّب من قول كلمة لنصرة فلسطين وغزة والمقاومة. فإن كل هذه الحكومات العربيّة مجتمعة لم تتعرّض لنسبة بسيطة من اختبار الأذى الذي لحق بسورية ونظامها ورئيسها، من استخدام عنوان حماس لتخديم الحرب على سورية لحساب الأجندة الأميركيّة برعاية تركيّة قطريّة، لكن سورية وحدها تجاوزت هذه الذاكرة المؤلمة واستعادت حرارة العلاقة بحركة حماس على خلفيّة كون هويّتها الأصليّة هي أنها حركة مقاومة، تدافع عن فلسطين، وطوت مع حماس تلك الصفحة لاستئناف التعاون على أعلى المستويات، لأن فلسطين تستحقّ ذلك والمقاومة توجب ذلك.
– فيما لا نسمع صوتاً عربياً رسمياً مشرّفاً الى جانب المقاومة وفلسطين، باستثناء حكومة صنعاء المقاومة، التي انتقلت من القول إلى الفعل، وفعلت ما سلب العقول والألباب، وأصاب الصديق والعدو بالذهول. وإذا اعتبرنا المواقف المبدئيّة لحكومات العراق والجزائر وتونس كسراً لجدار الصمت العربي الرسميّ، فإن سورية الجريحة والمحاصرة والموجوعة والمستهدفة، لم تتردّد عن إتاحة جغرافيتها أمام قوى المقاومة لتنفيذ عمليات استهداف القواعد الأميركيّة، وإطلاق صواريخ من الأراضي السوريّة على مواقع الاحتلال في الجولان السوريّ المحتل، وتتحمّل سورية بجيشها ومنشآتها العسكريّة والمدنيّة، نتائج هذه العمليات بردود أميركيّة وغارات إسرائيليّة، لكنها لا تتراجع.
– ما قاله أمس، الرئيس السوري بشار الأسد جدير بأن يُقرأ حرفياً، لأنه التعبير الأوفى عن مفهوم الشجاعة الأدبيّة التي يندر أن يتمتع بمثلها السياسيّون والحكام إلا إن كانوا من طراز رفيع من القادة، يقول الرئيس الأسد إن «مقارنة واحد من أقوى الجيوش في العالم، مع مجموعات من المقاتلين المقاومين الذين لا يتجاوزون بضعة ألوية في هذا الجيش، هو فضيحة بالنسبة للجيش الإسرائيليّ بالمعنى العسكريّ، ليس بالمعنى الأخلاقيّ، «مرّغوا أنفه في التراب» بكل بساطة». وأوضح: «النقطة الأخرى هي التفوّق الفلسطينيّ في نشر الحقيقة ونشر المعلومة، بالرغم من أن حتى الكهرباء والإنترنت والاتصالات ممنوعة عنه، ولكنه قام بعمل إعلامي فعلاً كان مذهلاً لنا جميعاً، مقابل خسارة الرواية الصهيونيّة، وهي التي تتحكّم في الرواية العالميّة، يعني كل أفلام هوليوود على مدى قرن من الزمن وأكثر توجّه العالم كله باتجاه رواية واحدة، وتمكن المقاومون من كسر الهيمنة الصهيونيّة على هذه الرواية، حتى في الساحة الأهم، وهي أميركا». وأضاف: «المقارنة الأهم هي المقارنة الأخلاقيّة، نلاحظ كيف تعامل الصهاينة جيشاً ومستوطنين مع الأسرى الفلسطينيين كباراً وصغاراً، مدنيّين وعسكريين، أطفالاً، شيوخاً، رجالاً، نساءً لا يهم، بشكل وحشيّ، مقابل التعامل الأخلاقيّ للفلسطينيّ مع الأسرى الصهاينة، لدرجة أن هذا التعامل أرعب المؤسسات الإسرائيليّة التي حاولت بشتى الطرق أن تعتّم على ردود أفعال الأسرى الصهاينة، ولكنها لم تتمكن. وهذه المقارنة هي ليست مقارنة صعبة بل مستحيلة، وهي التي تثبت بأن الطرف الأول، الصهيونيّ هو ليس شعباً، أو شعباً وهمياً وكاذباً ومزيفاً، والطرف الآخر هو الطرف الأصيل الحقيقيّ. وهذا الانتصار هو انتصار حضاريّ». وشدّد الرئيس السوريّ على أن «المقاومة اليوم تدافع عن كل الدول العربية، وأن حرب فلسطين أثبتت بالمحصلة والمقاومات، أن التكنولوجيا أهم من السلاح، وأن العقيدة أصلب من قسوة الإرهاب والإجرام، وأن الهجوم أفضل وسيلة للدفاع، وأن ما أُخذ بالقوة لا يُستردّ إلا بالقوة، وأن الانبطاح أمام الأعداء هو ليس خياراً وإنما انتحار».
– من الطبيعي أن يخاف كثير من الحكام العرب من كلمات الرئيس السوريّ، لأن قولها من قبله، رغم كل ما مرّ ويمرّ على سورية وعلى نظامها ورئيسها، يعني أن بمستطاع سواه من الحكام الذين لا يعانون ما يعاني ولا تعيش بلادهم التحديات التي تعيشها سورية، أن يقولوها، وفي حرب الوعي الكلمة سلاح. وشجاعة الرئيس الأسد لقول الحق واستخلاص المعاني وتعميمها وتعميقها في الوعي العربي، تُحرج الذين يخشون من هذا الوعي أن ينتصر، لذلك كان جمال عبد الناصر رؤيوياً عندما قال «إن سورية قلب العروبة النابض».
The Palestinian Resistance’s revolutionary determination grows more fervent with Israeli violation of what the resistance takes to be dear: their nation, their land, and their sanctities.
Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us
– Former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir.
We will liberate every inch [of Palestine] even if on every inch there lied a martyr
– Late President of the United Arab Republic Gamal Abdul Nasser
Disproportionality is characteristic of every liberation movement fighting colonialism. Disproportionate military capacity in favor of the colonizer, and consequently disproportionate casualties against that of the indigenous nation.
The sharply <1 kill-death ratio (colonizers killed/ indigenous dead) was often capitalized on by the pacifists condemning armed struggle and promoting defeatism.
In the case of Palestine, almost every round of confrontation against the Israeli occupation had a kill-death ratio favoring “Israel”. However, this didn’t deter the Palestinian resistance from persevering.
Despite the massive casualties and little resources, the resistance persevered, and it was this perseverance that yielded the current victories being consolidated.
Certainty of ultimate liberation from colonialism despite disproportionate military capacity isn’t just a romantic prospect but traces its roots to materialism. Colonialism, as a military occupation fostering a settler society leeching off an indigenous nation and its resources, is a manifestation of imperialism. Imperialism, as an advanced stage of capitalism, proliferates through the accumulation of profits.
The colonizer fights according to a cost-benefit calculus. Once the colonizer can no longer yield benefits for imperialist oligarchs, the raison d’etre of the colonial enterprise is undermined.
The resistance, however, doesn’t fight according to an arbitrary cost-benefit calculus, but rather in accordance with ideological revolutionary determination.
This revolutionary determination grows more fervent with Israeli violation of what the resistance takes to be dear: their nation, their land, and their sanctities.
This revolutionary determination output through armed struggle makes life exceedingly difficult for Israelis and more costly than comfortable for their colonialist enterprise, thus paving the way for liberation.
تحل اليوم الذكرى الـ 53 على رحيل قائد ثورة 23 يوليو وصاحب النهضة المصرية الحديثة الزعيم الخالد جمال عبد الناصر، توفى في 28 سبتمبر سنة 1970.
ينشر “اليوم السابع”، عددا من الصور النادرة للزعيم جمال عبد الناصر مع عائلته وأبنائه، وفي مناسبات عائلية.
وأوضحت الصور العائلية مدة علاقته و حبة لزوجته وأبنائه وأحفاده، ورغم انشغال الرئيس الراحل ولكن هذا لم يمنعه على أن يحضر عيد ميلاد أورده بشكل دائم حتى وفاته، ويقف وهم يطفون الشمع ويتحدث مع أصحابهم الذين يحضرون عيد الميلاد، كما كان يحضر حفلات المدرسة التي تقام نهاية العام الدراسي بشكل دائم، فقد كان إنسان متواضع وأب حنون وكان دائما ما يطلب من أبنائه أن يكونوا متواضعين ولا يطلبون أي امتيازات بحكم منصب أبيهم.
الرئيس جمال عبد الناصر مع أحفادة
الزعيم الراحل يلعب مع أحفادة فى حديقة منزلة
الرئيس جمال عبد الناصر مع أحفادة
الزعيم جمال عبد الناصر
الزعيم فى حديقة منزلة
الزعيم و زوجتة و أحد أحفادة
جمال عبد الناصر مع أحد أحفادة
جمال عبد الناصر مع أحفادة
جمال عبد الناصر مع حفيدته
جمال عبد الناصر مع زوجته
جمال عبد الناصر مع هدى أبنته و حفيدة
جمال عبد الناصر يقوم بفريضه الحج
جمال عبد الناصر يلعب التنس
حفل زفاف إبنة جمال عبد الناصر
حفل عيد ميلاد أحد أحفاد الرئيس الراحل جمال عبد الناصر
Egyptian Prime Minister Nasser cheered in Cairo. (Photo: via Wikimedia Commons)
– Ilan Pappé is a professor at the University of Exeter. He was formerly a senior lecturer in political science at the University of Haifa. He is the author of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, The Modern Middle East, A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples, and Ten Myths about Israel. Pappé is described as one of Israel’s ‘New Historians’ who, since the release of pertinent British and Israeli government documents in the early 1980s, have been rewriting the history of Israel’s creation in 1948. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.
Nasser miscalculated Israel’s reaction. Though the Israeli government knew full well that Nasser did not intend to go to war, they used his brinkmanship as a pretense to start a war of their own, with the aim of building a mini-empire, a greater Israel.
June is the month when one recalls the June 1967 war.
Historians re-evaluate an event not only based on new evidence. Their analyses are also influenced by the passage of time, which enables them to reconsider different aspects of formative events such as this one.
And when you probe into history and use documents and solid evidence, you sometimes disappoint friends and enemies alike.
In this piece, I would like to revisit the role of former Egyptian President Gamal Abdul Nasser in that war. His role, I think, does not always match everyone’s perceptions of this great leader, and maybe disappoints perceived evaluations of his contributions to the struggle.
Nasser, Palestine and Israel
Here, I write from a Palestinian perspective, in the sense that I am less interested in what happened to Egypt because of Nasser’s role in Palestine – undoubtedly a worthy topic. Instead, I am interested in the Egyptian leader’s impact on the history of modern Palestine.
Nasser came to power as part of the Free Officers movement in the July 1952 Revolution. Very soon after, he settled in his office as deputy leader of the movement, before taking over the leadership from Muhmad Naguib.
Even as a deputy, he was interested in negotiating with Israel. He used a senior diplomat in France to initiate talks with the Israelis. His counterpart was Moshe Sharett, at the time Israel’s Foreign Minister.
Nasser saw the Nakba, indeed, as a catastrophe. He believed strongly in the right of the Palestinian refugees to return and deemed Israel as a huge threat to the Arab world. But Nasser was also a pragmatist who understood well how Israel became an essential part of the American imperialist set-up in the Arab world, thus sought ways to limit its potential danger.
Back then in 1952, Nasser did not necessarily deem the United States as the arch-enemy of progressive Arab regimes and was hoping that a realistic approach towards Israel would curry favor with the Americans.
In 1952, he made reasonable twin demands, and was surprised to learn that both Britain and the US found acceptable: An unconditional return of Palestinian refugees; and a land bridge through the south of the Naqab (the Negev) linking Jordan and Egypt. In return, he was willing to agree to a non-aggression pact with Israel and, eventually, peace.
Ben Gurion and His Two Cronies
The Israeli Prime Minister at the time, David Ben Gurion, categorically rejected any contact with the Egyptian leader. In fact, from the moment it was clear that Nasser would be the leader of Egypt, Ben Gurion searched for a way of toppling him.
Sharett, on the other hand, was more forthcoming; not that he agreed to Nasser’s conditions, but he valued the very idea of negotiations and hoped to find a compromise.
For a brief period, a compromise seemed possible, when Sharett replaced Ben-Gurion as prime minister of Israel for a year and a half, between 1954-1955.
Although he was no longer in government, Ben-Gurion left behind two cronies, who, like him, believed Nasser had to be overthrown. This belief was itself an outcome of a rooted ideology according to which only a display of Israel’s ruthlessness could tame the Arabs and obliterate any pan-Arabist agenda that could be of help to the Palestinians.
One of the two cronies was the Minister of Defense, Pinchas Lavon, and the other was the Chief of the General Staff, Moshe Dayan.
The three plotted a series of actions to defeat Sharett’s desire to reach an agreement with Nasser. It began by violating the armistice agreement with Egypt by building an illegal colony on no man’s land, followed by the infamous massacre in the village of Qibyah in the West Bank.
The Qibyah massacre was carried out by an Israeli commandos unit headed by Ariel Sharon in 1953. 65 villagers were murdered, partly by blowing up their houses while they were still sleeping inside.
But the peak of this campaign was the setup of a terrorist organization of Egyptian Jews that was ordered to plant bombs in cinemas and libraries associated with Western culture, to increase the mistrust of Nasser in the eyes of the Americans.
The terrorists were caught before they were able to carry out their actions.
Ben Gurion Back in Power
Ben Gurion returned to power after a relatively brief absence. In February 1955, he sent his army into the Gaza Strip to carry out a military operation, which resulted in the killing of 37 dead Egyptian soldiers. Until that very moment, as he indicated by Nasser himself in his memoir, the Egyptian leader was open to negotiations with Israel, sticking to a position that the Americans and the British still regarded as common-sensical and doable.
When Nasser understood that the West was unwilling to exert pressure on Israel and would not lift a finger to stop Israel’s colonial, annexationist ambitions towards the Arab world, he changed course. He now believed that Israel would attack both Syria and Jordan to expand its geographic boundaries. That called for a new way of thinking.
Nasser’s New Strategy
Then, Nasser embarked on a new strategy, which included more visible support for the nascent Palestinian guerrilla resistance efforts against Israel, attempts at pan-Arab unity, the creation of a non-alignment bloc with India and Yugoslavia, and purchasing more modern arms for his army.
On top of all these policies, he opted for what is known as brinkmanship policy – using war rhetoric and seemingly preparation for war, with the hope that this would be enough to force the West to exert pressure on Israel to cease its aggression.
This strategy included the closure of the Tiran straits connecting the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aqaba, concentrating an army in the Sinai Peninsula, and asking the UN to withdraw from the border between Egypt and Israel.
But Nasser miscalculated Israel’s reaction. Though the Israeli government knew full well that Nasser did not intend to go to war, they used his brinkmanship as a pretense to start a war of their own, with the aim of building a mini-empire, a greater Israel.
The rest, as the saying goes, is history.
Declassified Documents
Recently declassified documentation from the Israeli cabinet meetings shows clearly that the Israeli leaders understood that war was not imminent and that much depended on their own actions.
In fact, one did not need to wait for the opening of the archives to reach such a conclusion. Several Israeli leaders admitted as much. One of them was Menachem Begin, who was part of the government at the time, and who told senior officers in the Israeli army:
“In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”
Israel’s Need for War
As in 1948, in 1967, Israel also needed wars to fulfill the typical objectives of any settler colonial movement: having more geographical space with less native population living in it.
Since 1963, Israel had prepared comprehensive plans, waiting for the perfect movement to initiate its ‘greater Israel’ project. But Israel failed because it erroneously believed that the demographic imbalances resulting from the creation of such an entity can easily be solved by oppressing, for decades, millions of Palestinians. Since it was not possible for Israel to replicate the ethnic cleansing campaign of 1948, it opted to treat the newly occupied peoples as inmates in a huge, and ever-growing prison.
The Palestinian resistance to this monstrous policy continues to this very day.
The lesson is that, even with a leftist, Labor government, which ruled Israel between 1948 to 1977, Israel did not seek peace. To the contrary, Tel Aviv hoped to impose its will on the Arab world, by allying itself closely to the West.
The consequences of this strategy were felt beyond Palestine, whose people were the main victims of this Israeli intransigence. In fact, it impacted drastically and detrimentally the whole of the Arab World.
Unfortunately, we are still witnessing the bitter fruits of this aggression, which can only be stopped by the liberation of Palestine and the creation of a democratic state over the whole of historical Palestine, which would ensure the return of its refugees.
Only this would enable us to close this dangerous and sorrowful chapter in the history of the Arab World and, hopefully, allow all of us to begin a new and more hopeful chapter.
Amidst ongoing regional diplomatic activity, the major missing piece in the diplomatic jigsaw is the normalization between Cairo and Tehran; can they set aside differences, end decades of tensions, and write a new chapter in West Asia-North Africa relations?
Forty-four years after severing relations, amid an uptick of diplomatic activities across the region, Egypt and Iran are finally taking cautious steps towards rapprochement. For decades, the two countries have followed divergent paths on foreign policy.
Yet, recent developments in West Asia, following reconciliations between several countries, have prompted talk of a potential breakthrough.
These developments include Saudi Arabia and Iran’s Beijing-brokered rapprochement, Syria’s return to the Arab League, Riyadh’s resumption of ties with Damascus, a thaw in Turkiye’s relations with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt, in addition to the onset of direct talks with the Ansarallah-led government in Yemen.
‘Silence from Egypt is a position’
The prospect of a rapprochement between Iran and Egypt has stirred different responses from the two nations. Tehran has openly expressed its willingness to mend ties with Cairo, even from the highest levels of authority.
In contrast, Egypt’s silence has been deafening – literally. In mid-May, Egyptian media quoted one source saying, “The ongoing official silence from Egypt is a position.” This steadfast silence by the Egyptian government is reminiscent of its stance towards Turkiye.
That lull was eventually broken when Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan unexpectedly shook hands in Doha during the FIFA World Cup in Qatar.
This surprising gesture raises the question: Could an Iranian-Egyptian handshake be on the horizon as well? The diplomatic landscape seems to be shifting, leaving room for speculation and optimism over a potential reconciliation between these two geostrategic regional states.
On 14 May, Fada Hossein Maleki, a member of the Iranian parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, revealed that negotiations between Iran and Egypt were underway in Iraq, with the intention of re-establishing relations between and reopening embassies.
But the most important Iranian announcement was made by the Islamic Republic’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei himself, who welcomed the restoration of relations with Egypt during his meeting on 29 May with the Sultan of Oman Haitham bin Tariq, whose country traditionally plays the role of regional mediator.
Shadi Ibrahim, a researcher in international relations and security studies at Istanbul University, informs The Cradle that the differences between Tehran and Cairo differ from Egyptian-Turkish disputes, as the issues with Iran “are primarily external and not internal, unlike Ankara, which Cairo sees as a competitor for influence and wealth in the region.”
According to Ibrahim, Egyptian-Iranian rapprochement was not initially on Cairo’s agenda due to these external reasons that date back to the Iranian revolution. However, with Arab Persian Gulf capitals – that sought to isolate Iran since 1979 – now mending ties at breakneck speed with Tehran, the process of reconciliation with Egypt is now also beginning to take shape.
A chequered history
Historically, the relationship between Egypt and Iran has experienced alternating phases of close alliance and intense hostility. A connection between the two regional states was solidified in 1939 when then-Iranian Crown Prince Mohammad Reza Pahlavi married Princess Fawzia, the daughter of King Fuad I of Egypt and Sudan. However, their subsequent divorce in 1945 led to a crisis between the two nations when her brother, King Farouk of Egypt, insisted on the divorce and refused Princess Fawzia’s return to Iran.
As relations thawed, the Free Officers Revolution overthrew King Farouk in July 1952, and Egypt raised the banner of Arab nationalism and confrontation against Israel. Given pre-revolutionary Iran’s recognition of Israel in 1960, relations deteriorated once again and remained uneasy until the death of President Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1970.
Under the leadership of Nasser’s successor, President Anwar Sadat, Egypt, and Iran experienced a resurgence in ties. However, the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran, led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, shattered the progress as it toppled the pro-western and pro-Israel Shah, who subsequently sought refuge in Egypt, where he remained until his death in 1980.
Iran’s revolution stood in hostile opposition toward the Zionist occupation state – just as Egypt was finalizing its Camp David peace treaty with Tel Aviv. The same reasons that drove Abdel Nasser to sever ties with Iran in 1960 were echoed in Khomeini’s decision to do the same with Egypt in 1979.
Decades of frozen relations between Egypt and Iran finally started to warm up with the January 2011 uprising that toppled President Hosni Mubarak. In a significant step, Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi visited Tehran in April 2012, marking the first visit by an Egyptian president to Iran in three decades.
This was followed by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to Cairo in February 2013, signifying a new chapter in their relationship and the announcement of embassy reopenings.
However, the subsequent Sisi-led and Saudi/Emirati-backed coup against Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood-dominated government in July of the same year halted the progress of relations with Tehran, albeit with a reduced level of hostility. Egypt, thereafter, adopted a strategy of “neither hostility nor friendship.”
Post-Camp David
Since the 1978 signing of the Camp David Accords, Cairo has aligned itself with US policy against Iran. Any shifts in relations between the two regional states today “come in the context of bilateral polarization and the competition of regional powers among themselves,” political analyst Abd al-Rahman Adel tells The Cradle.
In recent years, Egypt’s status has diminished in light of regional changes, which shifted the balance of power to favor wealthy Persian Gulf sheikhdoms. This transformed Cairo from an “active power” into a “state affiliated with the new forces in the region.”
During this period, the polarization between Persian Gulf Arab states and Iran – as well as among the Gulf states themselves – ignited unrest and conflict. An economically strained Egypt, reliant on the Gulf’s largesse, positioned itself as a reliable ally in its geopolitical struggle against Iran, aiming to achieve a sense of balance, particularly in Yemen.
Though with time, “these countries discovered that Egypt’s role was modest and its participation was limited, contrary to expectations,” Ibrahim explains to The Cradle. Aid to Egypt from the Gulf was severely curtailed as a result.
Impact of Saudi-Iran normalization
The rise of new global powers like Russia and China coincides with the declining US status in West Asia and Washington’s shift of focus to the Ukraine war and China’s backyard. Then in March, a significant development occurred with implications for Egyptian-Iranian relations.
Tehran and Riyadh agreed to normalize their relations in Beijing, China, after seven years of estrangement. This breakthrough served as a green light for countries in the wider region, including Egypt, to engage in dialogues with Iran. Prior to that, in August 2022, Kuwait and the UAE had agreed to restore full diplomatic relations with the Islamic Republic.
In February of last year, Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian announced that a new page had opened in Iran’s relations with the countries of the region, saying “our hand is open to our neighbors,” and stressing that “strengthening relations with neighbors, especially Arab countries, is a key priority in Iranian politics.”
In May, Amir-Abdollahian expressed hope that Tehran and Cairo will resume relations, stating: “We have always welcomed the development of relations between Tehran and Cairo,” adding, “The heads of our missions – interests sections – in Tehran and Cairo have good meetings. There is good access to the authorities of both countries.”
Iraqi mediation efforts
Multiple sources claim that Iraq has been hosting talks between representatives from Iran and Egypt since March, with Iraq’s Prime Minister Muhammad Shia al-Sudani leading mediation efforts. Despite all the positive speculation, however, Iraqi sources say that the communication has not yet led to understandings to start normalizing relations. Sources point out that Cairo is still not enthusiastic about normalizing ties for reasons that have not yet been disclosed.
Iraqi political sources tell The Cradle that Sudani aims to establish himself as a key interlocutor between Iran and Arab countries, as his predecessor Mustafa al-Kadhimi sought to do. While the Iraqi president has informed Riyadh of his intention to mediate between Cairo and Tehran, the Saudis have reportedly not shown much enthusiasm.
The sources emphasize that Cairo is unlikely to take serious steps toward improving relations with Iran until the relationship between Tehran and Riyadh reaches a more favorable level.
It is expected that Egyptian President Sisi would require clear support from his Saudi and Emirati patrons – Mohammed bin Salman and Mohammed bin Zayed – before restituting Egyptian-Iranian relations.
Simultaneously, the Sultanate of Oman is playing an important role in facilitating negotiations between Cairo and Tehran. Iranian president Ebrahim Raisi disclosed that Omani Sultan Haitham bin Tarik had conveyed a message from Cairo expressing its desire to improve relations. However, Arab diplomatic sources indicate that Oman’s efforts are still in their infancy, and have not yet resulted in significant progress.
Limited gains; minimal impact on Israel
Researcher Ibrahim believes that the restoration of relations between Egypt and Iran may not lead to much more than “the economic benefit of the Egyptian regime and breaking the isolation imposed on Iran.” In any case, this economic openness is likely to remain limited, with little room for substantial growth and expansion, particularly in light of Israel’s presence along the borders.
Ibrahim and Adel agree that “the Egyptian-Iranian rapprochement will be on a limited scale and will not in any way harm the Egyptian partnership with Israel, nor will it contradict American policy.”
According to Shadi, “Iran will benefit more from these relations.” Transforming relations from negative to positive, even if it is limited to the economic or religious tourism sector, “may represent a step towards a greater role in the future in issues important to Iran, such as the conflict with Israel.”
However, Shadi points out that Cairo is well aware of this, and “will not allow Tehran to compete with it in the Palestinian file.” Cairo benefits here from its geographical location and the fact that Egyptian lands are the only passage to the world for the Iranian-backed Palestinian resistance factions in Gaza. This reality reinforces Egypt’s position and ensures that it remains a pivotal, albeit passive player in the Palestinian context.
As the situation continues to unfold, it is unclear how Egypt’s relationship with Iran will develop and whether it will lead to a broader transformation in regional dynamics or primarily serve as a limited and pragmatic engagement.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.
Sabahi, the leader of Egypt’s Dignity Party describes his meeting with the Secretary General of Hezbollah as hope-inspiring.
In an exclusive interview with Al Mayadeen, Hamdeen Sabahi, head of the Egyptian Nasserist “Dignity Party” and the Secretary-General of the Arab National Congress, discussed his recent meeting with the Secretary General of Hezbollah, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, in which the two discussed recent events of Arab rapprochement and the internal situation in Egypt.
Sabahi described the meeting as hope-inspiring, as “Sayyed Nasrallah, through his high stature, spearheads anti-zionist resistance in defending the central cause of our Arab nations, which is liberating Palestine. Sayyed Nasrallah as a visionary and resilient leader is capable of setting the path of liberation,” Sabahi said.
Sabahi also expressed his joy in meeting Sayyed Nasrallah, pointing out that the meeting discussed the prospect of “the ummah’s resisting powers to reach its end goal, and to add to such efforts by facing the occupation, and finally accomplish the liberation of Palestine from the river to sea.”
"السيد #نصرالله كرمز للمقاومة نال مكانته عن استحقاق وجدارة، بتضحيات حقيقية قدّمها وحزبه، يبقى في مقدّمة الصفوف التي يسعى المؤتمر القومي العربي لا أقول لدعمها بل لشراكتها".
“Sayyed Nasrallah is an icon of resistance and he has deservedly earned this title with the sacrifices made by him and his party,” he added.
“The sacrifices of the Resistance remain at the forefront, and the [Arab National] Congress seeks to share the burden of these sacrifices in an effort to achieve its goals which are the goals of the Resistance against the Zionist enemy.”
“There is a vast common ground between us, one that is too great to define, and the path that the path that expresses this Ummah’s sincere hope and its wishes.”
“The meeting with the Secretary-General of Hezbollah renewed these issues, while also discussing present developments, and touching on the prospects of this great mission that we share, and its fulfillment.”
During the meeting, Sayyed Nasrallah discussed with Sabahi affairs in the Arab world in general, while focusing specifically on occupied Palestine, and the duties of the Ummah’s forces toward this sacred cause. The two also discussed the importance of empowering these forces in order to better serve this goal.
Rapprochement heralding Arab Unity
“The Arab National Congress calls for the widest consensus and concerted efforts. [We] believe that dialogue and settling the differences of the Ummah among ourselves is necessary to resolve discord among the Arab nations which wastes our resources on infighting,” Sabahi said.
“The Ummah is being reconciled even if to a limited extent. This rapprochement deserves our support, and we have repeatedly called for it. We are happy with it, and we have praised every step of it, the latest of which is the return of Syria to its natural place in the Arab League.”
“We notice that there is a sense of rationality in dealing with Arab affairs now; which we support and favor, such that it saves our energy for the sake of devoting ourselves to confronting our enemies.”
“This sense of sophistication among the Arab people is the result of the struggle of our Palestinian brothers and sisters [against the occupation] within the occupied territories, their steadfastness of Gaza, and their valiance in Al-Quds in defending Al-Aqsa Mosque,” Sabahi added.
On the subject of the normalization agreements, Sabahi pointed out that these agreements were conducted by the rulers, and that they do not reflect the will of the Arab people. He further referred to the heroic operation by Egypt’s Mohammad Salah as an exemplary case of popular resistance against the normalization agreements.
“The normalization agreements, from the first agreement concluded by Sadat in 79 to the so-called Abraham Accords with some Gulf countries, are all stillborn and doomed to fail such that they do not reflect the will of the people. all of these agreements are not worth the ink with which they were signed.”
Sabahi pointed out that Mohammad Salah was not the first Egyptian to be martyred in resistance against the normalization deals. Saad Idris Halawa was martyred on the day the Zionist enemy’s embassy was opened in Egypt. Suleiman Khater and Ayman Hassan. As well as the Egyptian Revolution Organization led by the late leaders Khaled Gamal Abdel Nasser and Mahmoud Noureddine.
"اتّفاقيات التطبيع منذ الاتّفاق الأوّل الذي عقده السادات في الـ 79 إلى ما سُمّي بالسلام الإبراهيمي مع بعض بلدان الخليج كلّها اختيارات خاسرة بائسة لا تعبّر عن الشعوب".
“After a year’s worth of work arrangements for the frame of the dialogue between the government and the opposition has been achieved, and we also expect the liberation of prisoners of conscience .”
He noted that the dialogue has begun, and it is hard to judge it so soon because it will be assessed consequentially.
The first demand raised by this dialogue is that of the day-to-day lives of Egyptians in light of the pertinent economic crisis which calls for a change in the economic policies, and the opposition has alternatives that it has proposed and will bring to the table during the negotiations.
The second point has to do with civil and political liberties in Egypt: anybody that doesn’t share the state’s stance is prosecuted and cornered. This however is starting to change Sabahi points out.
“We in the civil democratic movement, which represents the Egyptian opposition, accepted this dialogue with guarantees. We insist that Egypt must be a homeland free of prisoners of conscience.”
He also pointed out that Egypt needs a law for parties, such as civil society and its associations, to guarantee their freedom and independence and to ensure that they play their role in serving society.
“We need a new election law based on the principle of proportional list elections, not a closed list that produces only one-color, non-democratic parliaments, and a new law on pretrial detention that ends its use as a punishment.”
Speaking to Al Mayadeen English, Sayed Shibl, Egyptian writer and researcher in political affairs, says Al-Awja crossing operation reflects “the true expression of the collective public opinion of Egyptians.”
Perhaps Mohammad was one of the 2000s generation in Egypt, whose parents and grandparents repeatedly told them on different occasions about the defeat of the Arab forces by the Israeli occupation and the loss of Arab lands such as Sinai, the Golan, the West Bank, Gaza, and Al-Quds and lamented the departure of a great Arab leader like Gamal Abdel Nasser, who united the Arab nation, supported the oppressed, and stood in the face of Western imperialism.
Perhaps he was taught that, as Abdel Nasser said, “What was taken by force can only be restored by force” and was reminded that under Operation Badr in 1973, the Egyptian army’s heroic resistance was able to cross the Suez Canal, capture the “Bar Lev Line”, and liberate a part of Sinai.
Maybe the 23-year-old is from this Arab generation that has not yet forgotten the scenes of killing and trail of destruction left behind by the Israeli occupation in its repeated aggressions against the Palestinians in the besieged Gaza Strip for 16 years, and perhaps the images of “Israel” committing the worst massacres against the Lebanese in 2006 were planted in his memory.
But for sure, he was a witness to the daily crimes committed by the occupation forces against the Palestinians who are defending their land, sanctities, and dignity across Palestine.
During the Israeli aggression on Gaza in May 2021, Mohammad wrote on his Facebook page, “Allah stands by Palestine,” in response to a post by Mike Pence saying: “America stands with Israel,” during Seif Al-Quds Battle.
We have the right to consider that the operation carried out by Mohammad Salah against the occupation forces expresses the will of every free and honorable person who rejects the occupation, makes it suffer, takes away its security and its settlers’ comfort, and takes revenge for the oppressed, the blood of the martyrs, and all the prisoners in occupation prisons.
In confirmation of that, Israeli occupation Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the operation as “serious and unusual.” The chief of staff of the Israeli occupation forces, Herzi Halevi, admitted that the operation was “a difficult incident,” during which three of the Israeli occupation forces’ “best” soldiers were killed on the border with Egypt.
Israeli media also considered that the Egyptian conscript’s operation, which succeeded despite its simplicity, exposed the complete collapse of the security system of the Israeli occupation army in this particular area, admitting that the results of the operation were indeed difficult, painful, and dealt a blow to occupation forces who suffered a serious failure in preventing “infiltration” into “Israel”.
Touching on the latest operation, Sayed Shibl, Egyptian writer and researcher in political affairs, told Al Mayadeen English that Al-Awja crossing operation “is certainly not an individual one, but rather the true expression of the collective public opinion of Egyptians who reject the Israeli presence.”
Shibl said the evidence for this is the amount of support Mohammad Salah received on social media.
“It is very rare to find an Egyptian comment on Facebook that rejects armed action directed against Israel, and if an Egyptian happens to have this anomalous opinion, he will stop it because of how strong the public opinion stands against Zionism,” he indicated.
The Egyptian writer and researcher considered that the importance of the operation “lies in the fact that it came at a time when the Israeli entity feels threatened from all borders, except the western border with Egypt where it feels safe.”
He added that the operation “reinforces the concern of the occupation government and deprives the settlers of any sense of safety.”
“It is a message to the leaders of the entity calling on them to retreat from their aggressive path against the Arab people in occupied Palestine.”
Shibl underlined that what is certain is that there is a message that reached everyone today: normalization is possible with Arab governments, but it is impossible with the Arab people.
Despite the absence of precise figures on the percentage of Egyptians who reject normalization with the Israeli occupation, a 2019-2020 survey conducted by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies found that 85% of Egyptians refuse diplomatic recognition of “Israel”, while only 13% support it.
According to Shibl, Egyptians expressed their happiness in public streets, in cafes, and on social media. He noted that despite not witnessing marches or demonstrations due to the security conditions in the country, anyone who lives among ordinary Egyptians during the past few days can touch their joy over the recent operation due to their rejection of the continued Israeli occupation of Arab lands, as well as the longing of Egyptians for acts of resistance, especially if it was carried out by an Egyptian — a factor related to national pride.
Asked whether the timing of Mohammad Salah’s operation might be linked to the 1967 Naksa anniversary, Shibl said, “Maybe it has something to do with the June 5 setback anniversary, or maybe not.”
The Egyptian writer pointed out that it is natural for every young Egyptian under the age of 30 to have a father or uncle who tells them about Egypt’s wars with the Israeli enemy and the martyrs who rose during it, which plants in them “a desire for revenge,” especially since the effects of the 1967 aggression remain apparent in Palestine and Syria, and even in Egypt, under the so-called “Peace Treaty”, which still restricts the full movement of the Egyptian army inside the Sinai Peninsula.
Shibl recalled that in the aftermath of the 2011 revolution, the position of the various political currents was to reject “Israel” and organize demonstrations against its embassy, which culminated in the September 2011 storming of the occupation’s embassy in the Egyptian city of Giza, which led to its evacuation in the summer of the same year.
In conclusion, the Israeli occupation, as usual, will present hundreds of arguments and justifications related to martyr Mohammad Salah, including that he suffers from a psychological disorder or that he does not represent the official Egyptian position on “Israel”, but there is no doubt that the last operation will remain stuck in the minds of the new Egyptian generation.
And who knows, we might see another Mohamed Salah in the coming days.
Breaking the link between the oil and the dollar is a project that has been in the making for quite some time.
Breaking the link between the oil and the dollar is a project that has been in the making for quite some time
On March 10, China brokered a peace agreement between rivals Iran and Saudi Arabia, a move which left the West baffled. Some suggested that the world had witnessed the slow and gradual collapse of the old world order. Although the deal may not necessarily achieve full normalization, still points of contact were restored. Such had vexed policymakers while at the same ushering in an era of Chinese diplomatic victory in the area most crucial to US global dominance. The implications of such an agreement are multiple, but the potential loss of Saudi to the US, and the gradual dissolution of their institutional ties, especially the long-standing agreement by which Saudi sells its oil for dollars, may yet prove to be a world significant event.
This detente is a breakthrough in terms of heralding peace and development in the region. It comes at a time when relations between China and the US have reached all-time lows. After several months of provocations aimed at disrupting Beijing through provocations around Taipei, it appears that China had turned the tables on the US’ most sensitive point, which is its hegemony over the gulf. The ramifications are too broad, but here I address the implications of the petrodollar system.
The petrodollar system was born of an agreement between the US and Saudi Arabia to peg the sales of oil in exchange for security guarantees and Saudi assistance with US foreign policy missions. Aside from petrodollar recycling, the benefit of pricing oil in dollars has all to do with increasing US indebtedness in the dollar, which in turn increases its wealth, since the US prints the ‘paper dollars’ as the equivalent of world wealth. This also means that the US must lay control not only over current world assets, but must also own the future work and assets of humanity to underwrite its massive wealth. For this, The US must be in control of the world’s strategic resources, choke points, and foremost the ideological production that cripples anti-systemic thought. On a more concrete level, since OPEC entities get paid in none other than the dollar, the profits earned from oil revenues are re-invested in US treasuries and other instruments so as to avoid the loss of value in times of economic downturns. The constant flow of dollars channeled into bonds, allows the US to finance its deficits and to be in a position to trade debts against their future values.
The depth of the US financial market, and the ability of the dollar to be a world medium of savings in addition to world means of exchange, are tied to the global demand for dollars. If the dollarization of oil lessens, then demand for dollars lessens, and the dollar as a safe refuge from financial turmoil abroad also lessens. As can be seen, the US must reconstitute its powers in the military and ideological fields to reinstall the dollar and siphon world wealth through it. Incidentally, the China-sponsored deal represents an image or ideological blow to the US because it has shown China as a peace-maker and the US as war monger. The implications of slow de-dollarisation are that the US may no longer be able to build its wealth by borrowing against a world it controls.
Pricing oil to the US dollar has proved efficient to underwrite the wealth of the US-allied financial class. The equation more control equals more wealth meant that the US’s engagement in imperialist politics has always been about power first, especially ideological power wrought by beating and sanctioning people abroad. The US hegemony is first a hegemony over the global mind of defeated people. As the Arab proverb goes, one makes a friend out of beating him first.
The Saudis were pivotal in the ascent of the US. In addition to the many examples, like aiding the contras to fight Abdel-Nasser in Yemen, and the list goes on, they essentially helped the US win the Cold War because the dollarization of oil permitted them to financially contain Eastern European countries as they overburdened them with dollar debts. Lending to cripple an economy is just as good a weapon as any. Not to forget, the Saudis also allowed the price of oil to be listed on the commodity market by weakening OPEC at the behest of the US. Direct producers of oil lost control of oil prices. Saudi pumped oil earned fewer profits than it should have as a part of the power game with the Soviet Union then. This was owed to a meeting held in 1985 between King Fahd and William Casey, the former CIA director, in which both agreed to increase oil production from 2 billion bpd to 10 billion bpd, leading oil prices to fall from $30 to $10 and eventually resulting in the fallout of the Soviet economy.
In the region, the Saudis assisted US aspirations through the numerous wars against more autonomous states across the region. The proliferation of Salafism and the financing of disruptive militias instigated wars that were a win-win situation for the US. It weakened opposing regimes and made money off military spending.
Yet with war waged on Yemen, tensions with Iran, and a balance of forces tilting in favor of the axis of resistance, it is only rational for the Saudis to forfeit the US and seek longer-term stability through negotiated dialogue. The deal that the US provides Saudi with security as Saudi prices its oil in the dollar seems to be no longer valid. The US is retreating around the globe, and while it cannot afford Saudi security, the Saudis will rethink their pricing oil only in dollars. Add to that the personal vilification of MBS and the openly anti-Arab racism practiced daily in Western media and other channels.
On a more detailed level, Saudi security demands are threefold: first, to grant a major non-NATO ally status; second, to receive additional sales of advanced US weapons; and third, to receive US support for a civilian nuclear energy program. With the first condition fulfilled and the second being contested, the third would evoke the possibility for Saudi authorities to develop their own fissile material, hence enabling the capacity of building a nuclear weapon. The US is less concerned with nuclear proliferation than the military autonomization of Saudi Arabia as this would jeopardize the agreement that safeguards the petrodollar system. US reluctance to respond to Saudi Arabia’s security needs was made obvious when Democrat lawmakers urged US President Joe Biden to discourage Saudis from enhancing their own ballistic missiles and drone capabilities in 2022. A letter was issued just a few days prior to Biden’s visit to Saudi Arabia in June 2022, and highlighted concerns from the Pentagon that the Gulf state was planning to manufacture solid fuel missiles with assistance from China.
Another relevant factor to consider is threats issued by the US that it would pull away military support following the announcement of the OPEC cut in October 2022, as well as the introduction of the NOPEC bill which would enable lawsuits to be filed against Saudi Arabia and OPEC entities for controlling oil prices. If such a bill would come to pass, it would highlight the possibility of Saudi Arabia being slapped with sanctions. With the Iran-Saudi deal announced, it appears that China has rocked the foundations on which the petrodollar system rests. This was further evidenced by the introduction of a Privileged Resolution by Senators Murphy and Lee calling for a complete halt of US military assistance to Saudi Arabia, noting that “US weapons do not belong in the hands of human rights abusers.”
Breaking the link between the oil and the dollar is a project that has been in the making for quite some time. Both Russia and China have been buying immense amounts of gold to rid their foreign reserves in US dollars and back their own currencies on the gold standard. With their BRICS allies, they are contemplating a common currency that would shift away from transactions carried out in US dollars. Although many signs seem to be pointing out the gradual decline of the petrodollar system, it is unlikely that it may happen in the short run.
The petrodollar will remain the dominant currency as long as the dollar is recognized as the world reserve currency. As we speak, the global share of foreign reserves denominated in US dollars currently fell to slightly below 60%. States and companies across the world are still required to own dollars in order to purchase oil – the most strategic commodity on the global market. After all that is said and done, the decline of the dollar is tied to the decline of the US’s control of the planet, which until now was de-facto ownership of the planet.
I talk with Syrian journalist and analyst Kevork Almassian about the recent seismic events in Syria starting with the earthquake on February 6th and culminating in some unexpected and positive geopolitical shifts towards a new Pan-Arabism in the region.
We discuss what the US, UK and Israel can do to prevent normalisation of trade and economic relations between Syria and former US/UK/Israel-allies in the destabilisation project that began in 2011. The US occupation will end sooner or later and while Israel flexes its military muscles for war it knows it is faced with an unprecedented Resistance unity and military prowess in the region that threatens its existence. Turkey is painting itself into a very tight corner – which way will it turn, East or West? All these questions are discussed in depth.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak admits that “Israel” possesses nuclear weapons despite “Tel Aviv” claiming otherwise.
This Sept. 29, 1971, spy satellite photograph later declassified by the US government shows what now is known as the Shimon Peres Negev Nuclear Research Center near Dimona, occupied Palestine (AP)
Former Israeli occupation Prime Minister Ehud Barak admits that the occupation possesses nuclear weapons through a tweet he made on Tuesday.
“[…] political parties in the West are deeply concerned about the possibility that, if the coup in Israel succeeds, a messianic dictatorship will be established in the heart of the Middle East with nuclear weapons in its possession,” Barak said on Twitter.
Various statements have previously come from Israeli officials condemning the occupation as having or aiming to acquire an arsenal of nuclear weapons, such as former Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, who addressed Jewish scientists leaving Germany and called on them to put their minds to nuclear research and “do everything possible to provide the desired Jewish state with nuclear weapons.”
Furthermore, former Israeli Prime Minister and President Shimon Peres addressed the Knesset in 1966, saying: “I see no reason why Israel sought to reassure [Egyptian President Gamal] Abdel Nasser through this platform and allow him to know what we are and are not doing. I know that the Arabs have their doubts about our nuclear ambitions, and I know that this is a means of deterrence. Why would we mitigate these concerns? Why would we work on clarifying that?”
Over the years, the Israeli occupation has adhered to a policy of ambiguity when it comes to its nuclear sector, but the most prominent thing that was leaked was a team of reporters from The Sunday Times saying in the early 90s that Mordechai Vanunu, the technician who was sentenced to 18 years in prison in “Israel”, confirmed through photographs and government documents that the occupation had between 100 and 200 nuclear warheads with a variety of destructive capabilities.
Moreover, the Israeli Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper in 1977 quoted French General Georges Bouet as saying during an interview with the French Europe 1 radio that the occupation possessed at the time the means required to produce two atomic bombs a year, revealing that it also had 13 atomic bombs, as well as the means to get them to their targets.
Yedioth Ahronoth reported in 1978 that a New York radio station broadcast a classified documented report on September 4, 1974, prepared by the CIA, which stated: “We believe that Israel has indeed manufactured nuclear weapons.”
Maariv also confirmed the report on March 2, 1978, citing a high-ranking CIA official, that then-US President Lyndon Johnson was informed that the Israeli occupation had nuclear weapons, and the head of state ordered that the whole thing remains under covers.
The Israeli occupation challenged the UN Security Council Resolution 487 of June 1981, which required “Tel Aviv” to urgently submit all of its nuclear facilities to the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The IAEA on September 18, 2009, issued a resolution calling on the occupation to sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, as well as open its facilities to international inspection, though the occupation did not express any interest in the matter.
Again the UN General Assembly invited the occupation to become a treaty member in December 2009 following UNGA Resolution “Establishment of a Nuclear Weapon Free Zone in the Region of the Middle East”. Though 167 countries voted in favor of the resolution, the Israeli occupation refused to acquiesce in it. Furthermore, “Tel Aviv” skipped the 2010 nuclear summit in Washington.
On an almost daily basis, Israeli occupation officials attack the Iranian nuclear program despite its pacifist nature. Meanwhile, reports indicate that the occupation has nuclear weapons, which was confirmed today by “Israel’s” former premier.
The First Committee of the UN General Assembly ruled in October 2022 in an initial 152-5 decision that “Israel” must destroy all its nuclear weapons and submit its nuclear facilities to the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Four countries – Canada, Micronesia, Palau, and the United States – as well as the Israeli entity, opposed Friday’s resolution on the “risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.” Another 24 countries abstained, including European Union members.
A proposal for a Middle East nuclear-free zone was also accepted by the First Committee with 170 votes, including Iran. “Israel” was the only entity to object to the text. The United States, Cameron, Comoros, and Tanzania were the only four nations to abstain.
According to the report, the NPT is only as meaningful as the level of compliance, according to Israeli Deputy Ambassador to the UN Michal Maayan, and it is not a solution to the “specific security challenges” of the Middle East region.
سنبقى نراوح مكاننا إذا لم تقم تجربة جديدة لبناء القوس المصري – السوري، كرافعة تاريخية مناهضة بالضرورة للتحالف الإمبريالي – الصهيوني- الرجعي – العثماني.
شكّلت مصر وسوريا، أهم قوس استراتيجي في تاريخ الأمة التي اعتمد نهوضها في كل مرة على هذا القوس وتكامله ضمن خطاب سياسي – اجتماعي متصادم بالضرورة مع موجات الغزو المتتالية، من أوروبا الإقطاعية، مرحلة ما يعرف بالحملات الصليبية، إلى أوروبا الرأسمالية ثم المنظومة الإمبريالية العالمية ومن يتصدّرها في كل حقبة.
إضافة إلى الأدبيات الناصرية وخاصة فلسفة الثورة والميثاق لجمال عبد الناصر، وكتابات نديم البيطار وأنور عبد الملك وعصمت سيف الدولة وسمير أمين وياسين الحافظ، فإن كتابات المفكّر المصري، جمال حمدان، شكّلت ولا تزال الخلفية الاستراتيجية لبناء تصوّرات جيوبولوتيكية تدعم وتؤطر فكرة القوس المصري السوري وأهميته الحيوية لاشتباك تاريخي مع الغزاة وللتأسيس للرافعة الكبرى لنهوض الأمة ووحدتها.
وليس بلا معنى أن محاولات الاقتراب من هذا القوس، اتسمت بملامح وقواسم مشتركة على الصعيدين الإقليمي والدولي، بصرف النظر، أولاً، عن السمات الاجتماعية والطبقية للقوى السياسية النافذة التي تتطلّع إلى دور إقليمي انطلاقاً من هذا القوس، وثانياَ بصرف النظر عن المرحلة التاريخية.
التجربة الأولى.. محمد علي
في العقود الأولى من القرن التاسع عشر، اصطدم حاكم مصر القوي، محمد علي باشا، بقوى محلية وإقليمية ودولية لم ترق لها نهضة مصر وترجمة هذه النهضة بدور محوري، يتكامل مع بلاد الشام من موقع الشوكة والاستقلال في مواجهة الغزاة.
بداية، وبالتقاطع مع مخاوف الباب العالي العثماني من التحالف الوهابي – السعودي (آل السعود وآل الشيخ) اندفعت القوات المصرية إلى الحجاز ثم إلى نجد وخاصة الدرعية وتمكّنت من تصفية الحركة الوهابية، التي كانت قد ارتبطت مع قلم الاستخبارات في شركة الهند الشرقية البريطانية، وفق اعترافات بيركهارت، الذي تحوّل من عالم آثار سويسري إلى مبعوث للمخابرات البريطانية باسم الشيخ عبد الله اللوزاني، وكان من أهم قنوات الاتصال مع الوهابيين وتزويدهم بالمال والبنادق الحديثة.
في مرحلة لاحقة، وبعد أن استشعر محمد علي ضعف الاحتلال العثماني وسلاطينه في إسطنبول، دفع قواته إلى سوريا الطبيعية (سوريا الحالية أو الشام بلغة القوميين السوريين، فلسطين، الأردن ولبنان)، وتمكّنت القوات المصرية بقيادة إبراهيم باشا من سحق الجيوش العثمانية وقتل وأسر عشرات الآلاف منها، ثم الزحف إلى إسطنبول وضرب حصار عليها مقدّمة لإنهاء السلطنة فيها ونقل المركز إلى القاهرة.
خلال هذه السنوات، أطلق المصريون مشروعاً جديداً في المناطق التي حرّروها من الاحتلال العثماني ومن ربقة التحالف السعودي الوهابي، ومن ذلك تحديث الإدارة والجيش وسك العملة، وفرض نمط من الضرائب الحديثة بدل الجباية العثمانية الإقطاعية، وكذلك توسيع البيمارستانات وإقامة العديد من مدارس التجهيز الإعدادية، كما أطلقوا موجة واسعة من التسامح بين المذاهب والطوائف وحوّلوا الأزهر إلى مرجعية فقهية ضمن التوجّه الجديد.
بالطبع وبالتأكيد وبسبب الطبيعة الطبقية للحكم الجديد ونزعاته الرأسمالية المبكرة بالتعاون مع الفرنسيين، ترافقت هذه الإدارة مع أساليب وسياسات استخدمت من قبل خصوم محمد علي للتحريض عليه.
في المقابل، أثارت استراتيجية القوس المصري – السوري أحقاد ومخاوف الاستعمار البريطاني إضافة إلى الباب العالي العثماني، وكذلك قوى عديدة عشائرية وطائفية منها الحركة الوهابية، فتجمّعت كل هذه القوى حول البعثات البريطانية ومعظمها من الجواسيس وشكّلت (جبهة) واسعة ضد المصريين، ومن ذلك:
– تحريض تجار الشام وبيروت والقبائل في فلسطين وشرق الأردن ضد محمد علي وشن حملة واسعة في الصحافة البريطانية نفسها، ويشار هنا إلى حصار إبراهيم باشا، قائد الجيوش المصرية لقلعة الكرك في شرق الأردن، بعد أن هرب إليها عدد من قادة التمرد في جبال نابلس المدعومين من المخابرات البريطانية، ومن المؤسف أن هناك من اعتبر التحالف بين قادة التمرد في نابلس والكرك ضد توحيد مصر وسوريا جزءاً من التاريخ الوطني.
– بيد أن الأخطر من كل ذلك هو مؤتمر لندن الذي عقد بدعم ورعاية عائلة روتشيلد اليهودية وبالتنسيق مع رئيس وزراء الإمبريالية البريطانية آنذاك، وهو دزرائيلي (من أصول يهودية). وقد شارك في المؤتمر إضافة إلى ممثلي الحكومة البريطانية وروتشيلد نفسه، ممثلون عن إمبراطورية النمسا – المجر، وروسيا القيصرية، وقرّروا حشد قوة بحرية وبرية لإجبار محمد علي على فك الحصار عن إسطنبول والانسحاب من سوريا. وعندما أدرك محمد علي صعوبة هذا الموقف بعد تخلّي فرنسا عنه، انصاع لمطالب مؤتمر لندن.
التجربة الثانية.. عبد الناصر
بعد أقل من قرن على تجربة الوحدة المصرية السورية الأولى، تشكّلت ظروف شبيهة إلى حد ما من حيث، ظهور زعيم قوي بكاريزما تاريخية هو جمال عبد الناصر، ومن حيث الدور البريطاني ومعه القوة الإمبريالية الجديدة ممثلة بالولايات المتحدة، ومن حيث الدور التركي، وكذلك دور الوهابية وجماعات التجار وأوساط من القبائل وتجار الدين.
بعد سنوات قليلة من ثورة تموز/يوليو 1952 في مصر، وجدت الثورة نفسها بقيادة جمال عبد الناصر في مواجهة تحديات داخلية وخارجية متشابكة: الكيان الصهيوني، رواسب الإقطاع، وشركة قناة السويس البريطانية وأصابعها من البرجوازية الطفيلية وبقايا حكم الملكية الفاسدة وجماعات حسن البنا مؤسس الإخوان المسلمين والإسلام السياسي المموّل من هذه الشركة.
فكان تأميم قناة السويس في الداخل والتصدي لحلف بغداد في الخارج (الحلف هو الذراع العسكري الجنوبي لحلف الأطلسي ومركزه الإقليمي، التركي – العراقي)، كما أدركت الثورة الناصرية مبكراً أن المعركة في بر مصر شديدة الصلة بالمعركة في بر سوريا والأمة عموماً، بل أن المتروبولات الإمبريالية وخاصة لندن وواشنطن سرعان ما راحت تطوّق الثورة المصرية من خلال محاولات الاستحواذ على الشرق العربي وخاصة سوريا.
وعندما فشلت في جر دمشق إلى حلف أنقرة – بغداد، دفعت القوات التركية إلى احتلال شمال سوريا 1957 وشق الجيش السوري (الفتي) بمجموعات منشقة تحت عنوان (الجيش الحر) مرتبطة بحكومة انتقالية تديرها بريطانيا والولايات المتحدة من تركيا (النسخة الأصلية لما شهدته سوريا في العشرية السوداء)، وقد شارك في حكومة الائتلاف العميلة آنذاك بقايا الرواسب الإقطاعية والبرجوازيات الطفيلية وأوساط ليبرالية وجماعة الإخوان المسلمين والإرهاصات الأولى للوهابية خارج حدود السعودية وقطر.
في هذه اللحظة التاريخية، أصرت القوى الوطنية السورية بكل تياراتها على إقامة وحدة كاملة مع مصر برئاسة جمال عبد الناصر، ومع أن مصر لم تكن مستعدة تماماً لهذه التجربة، فقد تجاوبت معها بسرعة.
وكما في مشهد القرن التاسع عشر، وجدت الوحدة المصرية السورية الجديدة (1958 – 1961) نفسها أمام قوى وأساليب وأدوات وتحالفات وسياسات تشبه سابقتها: بريطانيا من جديد ومعها الولايات المتحدة، تركيا المحمولة من الغرب الرأسمالي الاستعماري، والوهابية بثوبها الجديد، إضافة إلى رشوة وتحريض واسعين في أوساط قبلية وطائفية تحت العنوان نفسه (التخلص من الاستعمار المصري).
أيضاً، إذا كانت اليهودية العالمية قد تحرّكت ضد محمد علي من خلال روتشيلد وبيوتاته المالية في القرن التاسع عشر، فقد عادت في التجربة الجديدة من خلال الروتشيلدية الجديدة وأداتها الكولونيالية الاستياطنية باسم الكيان الإسرائيلي، بل إن هذا الكيان وبتوصية روتشيلد من خلال ما عرف بصندوق اكتشاف فلسطين لتمويل الاستيطان اليهودي، هو الذي نصح بريطانيا والغرب بإقامة “بافر ستيت” يهودي في فلسطين بعد احتلالها، يفصل مصر عن سوريا الطبيعية ولا يسمح بتكرار تجربة محمد علي.
ومن المؤسف أن مصير الوحدة الجديدة لم يكن أفضل من سابقتها بعد الانفصال الذي شاركت فيه قوى متعددة، ولم تشكّل أخطاء الوحدة مبرّراً حقيقياً للانفصال الذي يعود في حقيقته إلى التآمر الخارجي ودور المخابرات البريطانية والأميركية وأعوانهما السياسيين وقوى البرجوازية التي تضرّرت من قوانين التأميم والإصلاح الزراعي. ومن المؤسف كذلك أن مواقف قوى محسوبة على الحركة الوطنية قدّمت غطاء لهذا الانفصال، إضافة إلى رفض جمال عبد الناصر الدفاع عن الوحدة بالقوة، متجاهلاً أنه ما من وحدة قومية في التاريخ قامت بطريقة سلمية ومن دون شلال من الدم.
وما زلنا وسنبقى نراوح مكاننا إذا لم تقم تجربة ثالثة لبناء القوس المصري – السوري كرافعة تاريخية مناهضة بالضرورة للتحالف الإمبريالي – الصهيوني- الرجعي– العثماني، فإما هذا القوس التاريخي وإما كيانات برسم التشظي إلى هويات قاتلة وكانتونات طائفية وجهوية ومجالات حيوية يتقاسمها العدو الصهيوني والعثمانيون الجدد تحت سقف الإمبريالية العالمية.
إن الآراء المذكورة في هذه المقالة لا تعبّر بالضرورة عن رأي الميادين وإنما تعبّر عن رأي صاحبها حصراً
These ‘third-world’ nationalist forces were identified by the UK as an extension of the ‘Soviet threat’, as well as an occurrence of Cold War dynamics that needed to be reverted.
In this June 18, 1956 file photo, Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser waves as he moves through Port Said, Egypt, during a ceremony in which Egypt formally took over control of the Suez Canal from Britain (AP Photo, File)
A recent report published by Declassified UK details a somewhat exhaustive timeline of the UK’s involvement in plotting coups across the world, both overt and covert, and in most cases conducted with the collaboration of the CIA to depose or assassinate democratically elected leaders.
The report counts a total of 47 coups put into action in 27 different countries since 1945, but the numbers could her higher.
The point in doing so is obvious: as a former colonial empire, the UK is structurally and historically pre-disposed to impede all signs of democratic and socioeconomic developments across the Global South.
After WWII, the Soviet Union supported the massive wave of anti-colonial wars to gain national independance.
These ‘third-world’ nationalist forces were identified by the UK as an extension of the Soviet threat, as well as an occurrence of Cold War dynamics that needed to be reverted.
Some of the most prominent coups orchestrated against leaders include the overthrow of democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in Iran in 1953.
They also include the assassination of the former Prime Minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo Patrice Lumumba who was killed in the most tragic way one could possibly think of.
But the UK did not always succeed in effecting a regime change, as it did in Iran, Egypt, Indonesia, and so many African countries.
For instance, in the 1950s, the British regime tried to draw two consecutive uprisings against the government in Syria – the first in 1956 and the second in 1957 – which were both unsuccessful.
Another covert operation that foiled was one conducted in 1957 against Indonesia’s Sukarno, the leader of the Indonesian struggle for independence from the Dutch colonialists who propelled Indonesia out of morbid poverty.
Sukarno was ousted a decade later in what appeared to “one of the 20th century’s worst bloodbaths” with the purge of communists and socialists by the Indonesian military under Suharto – an event which was later revealed to have been backed by the UK in 1965-1966.
Other countries which have been targeted during the 1950s and 1960s include Brazil, British Guiana, Egypt, and several countries in the Gulf region.
One leader took about four decades for the UK to take down, namely Muammar Gaddafi, who nationalized British oil operators as soon as he seized power in 1969.
After several failed attempts to kill the strongman leader, the UK finally managed to rid of him in 2011 with the assistance of NATO.
Other leaders that were targeted for assassination include Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic in 1992, Ugandan President Milton Obote in 1969, and his successor Idi Amin in the late 1970s.
The list also includes countries of the former Soviet Union, namely Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
It further includes Italy because the Communist Party “looked as if it might win or influence the next government,” the report states.
The most recent coup attempts include failed attempts to depose Syrian President Bashar el-Assad during the Arab Spring, as well as several attempts to depose leaders in Latin American countries, namely lithium-rich Bolivia and oil-rich Venezuela.
Venezuela recently joined the ranks of failed coups after Juan Guaido was ousted and his government dissolved.
The report is relevant to the modern context because the West has recently tried to push for regime change in Iran and Peru.
In the case of Peru, former President Pedro Castillo had charges fabricated against him to justify his impeachment and imprisonment.
All-in-all, the UK’s habitus of conducting coups across the Global South is always motivated by strategic interests. These include a wide range of interests but almost always concern the privatization of oil resources.
In the case where no oil is involved, the UK intervenes to simply ward off the presence of progressive ideologies that strengthen the people against the will of the West.
The only tragedy about the death at 96 years of age of Youssef al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, the world’s deadliest terrorist grouping, is that the Muslim Brotherhood did not die along with him.
The only tragedy about the death at 96 years of age of Youssef al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, the world’s deadliest terrorist grouping, is that the Muslim Brotherhood did not die along with him.
Qaradawi was the Egyptian born spiritual head of the Muslim Brotherhood murder gang. Typical of the beliefs Qaradawi espoused was that Hitler went too easy on the Jews, that the world’s 100 million Shia, along with all apostates from Sunni Islam, must be exterminated and that his Islamic Caliphate should rule over us all. He lived in Qatar and, when not spewing out misogynistic, Shiaphobic, anti Semitic bile from that excuse for a country on al Jazeera’s top rating TV show. this hateful, Hitler loving demagogue issued fatwas to the Muslim Brotherhood faithful to slaughter Syria’s minorites and “apostates”.
The Muslim Brotherhood, its strong links with Western intelligence forces and dubious Trotsykist groups notwithstanding, is the Arab world’s original, most subversive, and most dangerous terrorist organization. It strongly believes in imposing the Caliphate and, as their countless atrocities in Egypt and Syria show, murdering or subjugating all who resist them. There will be no peace in the Arab or Western worlds until the Muslim Brotherhood is crushed in its Egyptian and Syrian spawning grounds and in those areas of the Western world NATO has allowed it colonize. Syria’s former ruler, the late Hafez el Assad, accurately described these NATO aligned devils in this video.
Following their failed 1982 coup, most Syrian Muslim Brotherhood terrorists fled into safe haven bolt holes from where they built a network of dedicated and highly professional cadres to spew their toxins. Though the Muslim Brotherhood Support Network in the West deserves a lot more scrutiny to determine why supposed left wing groups support these sectarian cut throats, they are, from my experience at least, protected by MI5 and allied intelligence agencies.
Take the case of Omar Gabbar, who shared a platform with prominent child sex jihad proponent Muhammed al-Arefe. Not only did Gabbar’s Hand in Hand for Syria front group secure one of the world’s top child sex jihadist recruiters in their first month of operation “from a Leicester kitchen table” but their original posters were designed by Turkish-based hacks of the terrorist Free Syrian Army, whose flag is emblazoned on the logo of Hand in Hand for Syria. Gabbar should, together with the legal hounds and British armed response units he set on me, consider that decent people, who are not members of the Muslim Brotherhood or any of its satellites, have got very lengthy prison tariffs for much less. Though al-Arefe is now barred from Britain, Omar Gabbar remains there and, like many others, who brought al-Arefe to Britain, is allowed work, as a hospital consultant in his case, where he has access to the young and impressionable children al-Arefe expects to do sex jihad.
The Muslim Brotherhood are allowed leverage the professional status of operatives like Gabbar not only to bring sex jihadist recruiting sergeants like Al Arefe to England to help the Canadian secret service ferry child brides like Shamima Begum to their Syrian caliphate but to collect tens of millions of dollars for the Caliphate under false pretenses thanks, in large part to the control MI5 have over the Charity Commission which can be seen, inter alia, by the example of Samara’s Appeal, a dodgy Anglican cult charity focused on Syria, which is exempted from having to list its trustees.
Gabbar is not the Muslim Brotherhood’s only well placed British asset. Dr Rola Hallam is the daughter of Mousa al Kurdi, one of the head honchos in the supposedly moderate wing of Syria’s Murder Inc; she can drive through ISIS checkpoints at will, as this website based on BBC Panorama’s farcical puff piece plainly illustrates.. Though Hand in Hand for Syria’s collusion with ISIS, as evidenced by their ability to sail through ISIS checkpoints and to work in ISIS strongholds, is a further indication that the moderate and less moderate wings of Syria’s Murder Inc are in bed together and that the British and Irish authorities should consider rounding up the flotsam working with them, that will not happen because Qaradawi’s Muslim Brotherhood are so well engrained at the heart of British and Irish political life.
At the center of the effort to hijack Ireland’s traditional tolerance stand the extremists of the Clonskeagh Mosque aka The Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland, which Wikileaks’ leaked U.S. cable and all informed writers say, have embedded ties to the most extreme elements of the Muslim Brotherhood murder gang. The mosque or “cultural center”, which gets massive subsidies from the opaque Dubai-based Al Maktoum foundation and sources linked to other totalitarian Gulf states, regularly hosts such “scholars” as Saudi cleric Salman al Awda, who calls for the total extermination of all Americans, and Egyptian demagogue Wagdy Ghoneim, whose views likewise make him an international pariah in places where the writ of the Muslim Brotherhood does not run as deeply as it does in Ireland.
The “cultural center’s” head religious figure is Hussein Halawa, an Egyptian blow-in, who has lived in Ireland for decades but who cannot speak either English or Irish. Halawa reported directly to Yusuf al-Qaradawi through The European Council for Fatwa and Research (ECFR) which al Qaradawi controlled. Although the arch-bigot Qaradawi was eventually banned from Ireland, Halawa not only remains at large but his children, who were arrested on Muslim Brotherhood related terror charges in Egypt, became a cause célèbre amongst Ireland’s media and large sections of Ireland’s political class, despite Halawa being a leading supporter of Qaradawi and his cut throats. If Halawa was just an otherwise parasitical, functionally illiterate Egyptian blow-in and if female Irish “reverts” were not ending up in accident and emergency wards after “honor beatings”, some of this idiot’s utterances might be tolerable but the fact that his children felt compelled to rush to aid Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood as they persecuted Copts and lynched Shias should be definite warning flags even if an alarmingly large number of Irish politicians and other useful idiots opportunistically support him.
In an earlier piece on MI5 subversion in Iran, I cited the great Gamal Nasser mocking the Muslim Brotherhood over their attempts to destroy secular Egypt. Qaradawi and the Muslim Brotherhood could claim to have got the last laugh both in Egypt and Syria, thanks both to their outright terrorism and the massive support they have received from the intelligence agencies of the United States, Canada, Britain, Israel, Ireland and a host of other countries with no more regard to the harm they do than have any other comparable bunch of sociopaths. Although Syria’s current President has repeatedly warned the West against the spill over effects of Muslim Brotherhood terrorism, Western leaders do not care because it is not how they are hard wired.
As long as the Biden, Obama, Clinton, Cheney, Blair and Bush families, together with their minions, can benefit from promoting the Zelenskys and Qaradawis of this world, innocents will continue to die in Armenia, Syria, Yemen, Russia or anywhere else, Western Europe included, they choose to make a wasteland. So, to conclude, grieve not for Qaradawi but only that the Muslim Brotherhood and all its obnoxious tentacles have survived him.
Almost a week before the 40th anniversary of the Sabra and Shatila massacre, a document submitted to the Israeli High Court of Justice has revealed Israel’s role in Lebanon’s bloody conflicts, dating back to the 1950’s.
The report establishes 1958 as the year when contact was first made between Lebanese Christian leaders and the Israeli military establishment.
Then-Lebanese President Camille Chamoun requested armed assistance from the Israeli army to counter the 1958 power struggle against groups influenced by Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser.
“In the 1950s in the framework of ‘Khalil’ there was a discussion between us about the need to support Christians in Lebanon. Chamoun was in danger of losing his rule,” the declassified Israeli document adds.
In response, the Israeli army and Mossad agreed to prepare an Iranian plane sent by the Shah of Iran Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to transport weapons from Israeli stocks to the Lebanese Christian militias.
Decades later in 1975-1976, these same Christian officials reestablished contact with Israel to purchase weapons in preparation for Lebanon’s civil war. A delegation from Mossad’s operational and intelligence branches next visited Lebanon to understand “what is happening in the war between those sects.”
The document narrates how the Mossad “visited command posts of the [right-wing, Christian militias] Phalangists and Chamounists and met with Bachir Gemayel at his parents’ home in the village.”
Israel then took the decision to provide these Lebanese militias with weapons for a fee in a bid to leverage the assistance later on.
“The first shipment went out in the middle of November 1975, after weapons were prepared and loaded at a naval base [in Israel]. The meeting [with the Lebanese] was perfectly fine – we shook hands, we received an envelope with money, we counted the money, and then helped load them to their ship.”
According to Israeli newspaper Haaretz, the office of the Israeli prime minister, which oversees and directs the Mossad, released the dateless document that implicates the intelligence agency in the atrocities carried out by right-wing Lebanese Christian militias.
Earlier in 2020, a petition was filed to declassify these documents, but the Mossad staunchly objected, initially claiming they were not able to locate the historical papers.
However, in an unexpected turn of events this week, the intel agency agreed to declassify the documents, despite a court dismissal of the petition last April.
Israeli human rights lawyer and activist Eitay Mack announced that “the [Israeli] clandestine affair [in Lebanon] must come to light and enable discussion that might prevent continued support by the Mossad and the State of Israel for security forces and militias that commit atrocities.”
Mack reveals that despite previous knowledge of the massacres, executions, terrorism, and atrocities carried out by the Lebanese, the Mossad and the Israeli army believed it was acceptable to resume support and conceal information from the public.
Israel’s ‘Christian militias’ massacre civilians
The document in question, which has been translated by Ronnie Barkan, was an intelligence brief written by the Mossad for the Israeli political and military echelon. It exposes the Mossad’s role in, and facilitation of, weapon transfers that were used in the two-day, round-the-clock massacre of Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps.
The bloody massacre took place in 1982, between 16-18 September at a camp under siege by the Israeli army, leaving thousands of Lebanese and Palestinian civilians dead, raped, and injured by the militias to whom Israeli occupation forces provided passage, weapons, and protection.
As a result of the widespread condemnation and magnitude of the event, Israel launched its own investigation into the incident by establishing the Kahan commission, which conveniently concluded that only Ariel Sharon, Israel’s defense minister at the time, bore “indirect personal responsibility.”
The commission suggested that Sharon be fired from his position as defense minister for failing to safeguard Beirut’s civilian population, which had fallen under Israeli authority. However, Sharon refused to resign, and the prime minister at the time Menachem Begin refused to fire him.
“Goyim killing Goyim,” Begin is famously quoted as saying in a bid to disavow any Israeli role in the events.
However, as Pultizer prize-winner Patrick J. Sloyan revealed in his book When Reagan Sent the Marines, Sharon met with the Phalangist militia leaders the day after the assassination of president Bachir Gemayel, and abetted them in avenging his death.
Sharon told the commander of the Lebanese Forces Militia Elie Hobeika: “I don’t want a single one of them left,” in reference to the Palestinians in the camps in Beirut.
As a result, the Israeli army set up command posts overseeing the Sabra and Shatila camp and besieged it with tanks, calling on either the Lebanese army or Phalangists to come in and “clear it.”
“They’re thirsting for revenge. There could be torrents of blood,” warned then Israeli chief of staff Rafael Eitan in response to Sharon’s plans to use the Mossad-trained and armed militias.
During the war, the Phalanges were behind numerous other crimes aside from the Sabra and Shatila massacre, such as the Karantina massacre that left 1,500 dead.
The Mossad document further reveals that the Israeli army and military establishment dictated the agency’s activities in Lebanon, rather than the Israeli government.
“This is the asset (Lebanese militias) that we have, now tell us what to do with it. Because the state (Israel) isn’t at all that organized in its decision-making. The government isn’t telling us what to do with the asset, but rather the military,” the document reads.
The Secretary-General of the Egyptian Popular Current tells Al Mayadeen that “Every nation that does not resist is a nation that is in danger of defeat.
The Secretary-General of the Egyptian Popular Current, Hamdeen Sabahi
The Secretary-General of the Egyptian Popular Current, Hamdeen Sabahi, affirmed Monday that every Arab is eager to restore Egypt to its role in the Arab nation and in defending the resistance.
In an interview for Al Mayadeen, Sabahi considered that the opposition in Egypt has been exhausted for years as a result of the restrictions imposed on it.
Sabahi acknowledged that a number of political prisoners were released in Egypt, but with a smaller number than what was expected.
The Egyptian politician called for the release of every political prisoner who was not a partner or instigator of violence, considering that if the Muslim Brotherhood movement wants to participate in a dialogue, they must initiate and request that, which means that they recognize the existing authority.
The Secretary-General of the Egyptian Popular Current pointed out that one of the things that threaten Egyptian national security is terrorism, in addition to depriving Egypt of its rights to the waters of the Nile.
Sabahi stressed that “Israel” is hated in Egypt as it was before the Camp David accords, affirming that every nation that does not resist is a nation that is subject to defeat, and resistance is the noblest thing in the Arab nation.
Secretary-General of the Egyptian Popular Current Hamdeen Sabahi to #AlMayadeen: "Israel is hated in #Egypt as it was before the Camp David Accords." https://t.co/xrqk0BlTe2
— Al Mayadeen English (@MayadeenEnglish) June 27, 2022
He added that when the Secretary-General of Hezbollah Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah takes up arms against the Israeli occupation, he raises the banner of late Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser.
He also pointed out that when the popular demands in Syria turned into confrontations that endanger the unity of Syria, the decision was to stand with the unity of this country.
Secretary-General of the #Egyptian Popular Current Hamdeen Sabahi to #AlMayadeen: When the Secretary-General of Hezbollah Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah takes up arms against the Israeli occupation, he raises the banner of late Egyptian Gamal Abdel Nasser. @HamdeenSabahy#Egypthttps://t.co/jZbzmbZZR0
— Al Mayadeen English (@MayadeenEnglish) June 27, 2022
Sabahi indicated that if Saudi Arabia had spent money on Arab development projects rather than spending it on weapons, the life of the Arabs would have been better.
Robert Inlakesh is a political analyst, journalist and documentary filmmaker currently based in London, UK. He has reported from and lived in the occupied Palestinian territories and currently works with Quds News. Director of ‘Steal of the Century: Trump’s Palestine-Israel Catastrophe’.
On the 5th of June, 1967, a conflict which lasted only six days would go on to re-shape the entire Middle East, overthrow secular Arab Nationalism and unite Tel Aviv with Washington. All of which would pave the way for Israel to be handed carte blanche by the world’s most powerful country and prompt a US policy that would go on to tear the entire region to pieces.
The Six-Day War of 1967 is often misconstrued in popular Western discourse as having represented a victory for liberal democracy.
Often presented as a battle between good and evil, the Jewish David and Arab Goliath, the real story of the third Arab-Israeli war was one of a shrewd, but brutal, political power play on the part of Israel.
One that for better, or for worse, caused a re-structuring of Middle Eastern resistance to the West, as well as of the US-led bloc’s policy in the region.
Israel based its argument for what it deemed a necessary and “pre-emptive war” on Cairo’s decision to amass its military forces in the Sinai Peninsula, and Egyptian President Gamal Abdul-Nasser’s announcement that he would close the Gulf of Aqaba. These events were enough to convince many that Tel Aviv genuinely feared a military offensive coordinated by President Nasser, with the participation of Syria. Damascus had also re-enforced its military presence near the border, with Soviet backing.
The reality was, however, that Egypt was engaged in a grueling war in Yemen, deploying three quarters of its military into the country and had lost nearly 10,000 men in the process. It was so catastrophic for Nasser that the intervention there was later referred to by historians as “Egypt’s Vietnam.” The Egyptian president clearly wasn’t ready to confront Israel and had amassed his troops in the Sinai as a show of force, in order to save face at a time when he faced pushback over the other conflict.
As for the closure of the Gulf of Aqaba, Nasser never properly followed through on blocking the Straits of Tiran and despite the rhetoric, they were never closed for much more than a day.
Come June 5, 1967, Israel launched ‘Operation Focus’, an aerial attack which wiped out the near entirety of Egypt’s air force in a matter of minutes, ensuring what would become an overwhelming victory for the Israelis. Prior to the war, the assessment previously offered to Israel, by US President Lyndon Johnson, was that US intelligence believed that the United Arab Republic (Egypt) would not attack, and that if it did, Israel would “whip the hell out of them.”
Leonid Brezhnev, then leader of the Soviet Union, had stated in a brief, prior to the Six-Day War of 1967, that Israel had received huge amounts of armaments from the West. Brezhnev went on to express his government’s fear that the weakening of Arab nations could lead to the collapse of the anti-Colonialist movement in the Middle East. Following the war, Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Palestine had been decisively defeated. However, it didn’t stop the anti-Colonialist movement in the Middle East, but instead paved the way for its reformation.
The US was thrilled with Israel’s defeat of its Arab neighbors and considered the war to have served its own interests in putting Nasser in his place and weakening Soviet allies. Washington now valued Israel as an essential part of its Cold War strategy against the USSR. What ensued was the inevitable tightening of the Israel-US relationship, which paved the way for the alliance we see today. Israel had earned its place amongst Western Nations and would go on to aid in implementing the subsequent “Kissinger Doctrine” that the US would employ in the Middle East.
The 1967 victory was a stunning one for Israel, cementing its place in the region, but it also represented a catastrophe for the Arabs, known as the “Naksa” (Setback). Over 300,000 Palestinians had been forced from their homeland, as Israel occupied the entirety of historic Palestine, in addition to the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula and the Syrian Golan Heights. Furthermore, the war had largely defeated secular Arab Nationalism and represented a death blow to the Egyptian President’s brand of it, known as Nasserism.
Up until that point, the most popular political ideologies in the Middle East had been Arab Nationalism, Socialist Pan-Arabism and Communism. The Egyptian President, who would die of a heart attack a few years later in 1970, was the primary influencer of Arab revolutionaries that existed in the region. With the perceived failure of Arab Nationalism, there would then emerge a number of competitor ideologies with which Arab movements and leaders would choose to fight their enemies. The most prominent of which would later become revolutionary Islamism, something that Nasser had actually helped to suppress, as it manifested itself in the form of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.
As for Palestine, the future negotiations for Palestinian statehood would go on to be based upon reclaiming the 22 percent of the country – the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza Strip – that Israel occupied during the 1967 war. Israel would emerge as major power that would primarily serve a US agenda in the region and could act at that point, seemingly, with impunity against its enemies.
Today, over 1,000 Palestinians are being forced out of their homes, as Israeli forces bulldoze a collection of West Bank villages known as Masafer Yatta. This is the single largest act of ethnic cleansing, ordered by Tel Aviv against Palestinians, since the 1967 war. The position that the US began to take in 1967, unconditional support for Israel, hasn’t changed and the country’s utility for Washington’s agenda in the region, and its powerful lobby in America, means its human rights violations are ignored.
Therefore, 55 years after the Six-Day War, there is no barrier to Tel Aviv’s behaviour, and it seems to have a free pass to deal with its enemies in whatever manner it chooses, even if that ends up contradicting US policy.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
لماذا يا صديقي نفقد كبارنا الآن، ونحن أحوج ما نكون إليهم. وقضايانا، وفي مقدمتها فلسطين، في حاجة إليهم؟
أعطى سماح إدريس كثيراً في عمره القصير نسبياً، وترك رحيله صدمة وحسرة في قلوب كل من عرفوه، ورافقوه، واتفقوا معه، أو خالفوه أحياناً، كثيراً أو قليلاً، فهو اتَّسَم بالصدق، والنزاهة، والأمانة، والوضوح، والثبات.
لا أُخفي أنني أكتب وأنا مرتبك، بل عاجز عن ترتيب أفكاري، ففي رأسي تدوّي عبارة ذلك الصديق البيروتي.
قبل تلقّي نبأ رحيله، كنت اتصلت بأحد الأصدقاء في بيروت لأطمئن على وضعه، فجاءني صوت الصديق حزيناً: المرض تفشّى في كل بدنه، يا صديقي!
عرفت عندئذ ما هو ذلك المرض، فداهمتني نوبة حزن وإحباط، لكنني منيّت النفس بأنه “سينفد” من هذا المرض اللعين الشرس!
لكن المثقف والكاتب والناشر المقاوم والميداني رحل، فلقد خذله جسده في معركته مع ذلك المرض اللئيم، على الرغم من أن سماحاً ظلّ يقاوم حتى وهو يتلقى العلاج، وهذا يتجلّى في افتتاحية “الآداب” الإلكترونية الوداعية – الوصية، والعهد والوعد.
لا أُخفي أنني أكتب وأنا مرتبك، بل عاجز عن ترتيب أفكاري، ففي رأسي تدوّي عبارة ذلك الصديق البيروتي: لماذا يا صديقي نفقد كبارنا الآن، ونحن أحوج ما نكون إليهم. وقضايانا، وفي مقدمتها فلسطين، في حاجة إليهم؟!
فُجِع الفلسطينيون، مثقفين، ومواطنين مقاومين، برحيل سماح إدريس، كواحد من أبرز كتّابهم، ومثقفيهم، ومقاوميهم الكبار، وأبّنوه بحزن وحسرة وشعور فاجع بالفقدان، داخل فلسطين، وفي الشتات القريب والشتات البعيد.
كنت على تواصل في ندوة عبر الزُّوم مع الأهل في مخيم الدهيشة، جار مدينة بيت لحم، مساء الـ29 من شهر تشرين الثاني/نوفمبر، فافتُتحت الندوة بالوقوف دقيقة وتلاوة الفاتحة على روح الكاتب العربي الكبير المقاوم سميح إدريس، مع آخر شهيد سقط في منطقة بيت لحم، وضجّت القاعة بالتصفيق.. وارتجلت أنا كلاماً أردته لائقاً بسماح، وبأسرة سماح، بوالد سماح ووالدته، وبشقيقتي سماح، وبأسرة آل إدريس…
أنا واثق بأن بعض شوارع فلسطين سيحمل اسم سماح إدريس، فشعب فلسطين وفيّ ولن ينسى رفاق الطريق. ولعلّي أتذكر هنا، في هذا المقام، أن واحداً من أوائل الفدائيين الشهداء الفلسطينيين بعد هزيمة حزيران/يونيو 67 في معارك الأغوار، فاجأنا بأنه يحمل اسم “سهيل إدريس”، وأذكر أن هذا الأمر دفع الدكتور سهيل، رحمه الله، إلى الاستفسار عن هذا الفدائي، ومعرفة كل شيء عنه، وعن ثقافته. وكنت يومها برفقة صديقي الشاعر أحمد دحبور، عندما نقلنا المعلومة إلى الدكتور سهيل.
وُلِدَ سماح لأبوين عروبيين تقدميين ديمقراطيين، حملا باستمرار راية فلسطين، وبشّرا بحتمية تحريرها بالمقاومة، ولم ييأسا عند وقوع هزيمة حزيران/يونيو، بل جعلا مجلة “الآداب” منبراً لأدب المقاومة، وثقافة المقاومة، وشجعا المبدعين العرب على الكتابة الملتزمة ثقافةَ المقاومة رداً على الهزيمة المرّة في حزيران/يونيو 67.
سماح إدريس وُلِدَ لأسرة حملت مشروعاً ثقافياً قومياً منذ أسس المعلم سهيل إدريس مجلة “الآداب” عام 1953. ومع رفيقة عمره السيدة عايدة مطرجي إدريس واصلا مشوارهما المُشرّف، والذي أغنى المشهد الثقافي العربي، وساهم في تحديثه، بالترافق مع التزام هموم الأمة من محيطها إلى خليجها؛ من ثورة الجزائر إلى ثورة عدن؛ من إدانة سياسة الأحلاف إلى فضح العدوان الثلاثي على مصر؛ من تأميم قناة السويس إلى بناء السد العالي؛ من وحدة مصر وسوريا إلى إدانة الانفصال عام 1961 وتجريمه…
في أسرة بنت عالياً “دار الآداب” للنشر لتعزز دور ثقافة مجلة “الآداب”، وُلد سماح إدريس، وانطلق في فضاء حر، بتربية ديمقراطية حقّة بنت شخصيته.. وأطلقتها لتشق طريقها في نهل العلم والمعرفة والثقافة التي تمضي في آفاق لا حدود تنغلق في وجهها، أو تحدّ قدراتها.
رحل المعلم سهيل إدريس، فتقدَّم سماح وأخذ دوره مواصلا رسالة “الآداب”. وحين أغلقت أبواب الرقابة الحدود في وجه “الآداب”، واستشرت محاولات الترويض، انتقل سماح بـ”الآداب” إلى زمن التكنولوجيا، فأصدر “الآداب” إلكترونياً، واجتذب اقلاما مبدعة شابة – ولم يُدِر الظهر لمن رافقوا “الآداب” في زمن الأب المعلم، وأنا منهم – فكتب إلي وإلى آخرين، طالباً أن نشارك في قصصنا ومقالاتنا، وبهذا كسر الحدود التي أُغلقت، وملأ فضاء الوطن العربي على الرغم من الحدود المفتعلة، والرقابة الضيّقة الأفق. وهكذا وصلت “الآداب” الإلكترونية إلى أقصى الأرض في حلّة أنيقة حديثة، وبأقلام تنمّ عن مواهب، وبتجدد يمضي بـ”الآداب” إلى آفاق فسيحة.
عندما دُعيت إلى تقديم ندوة في “المنتدى العربي” في عمّان، بعنوان “هل يمكن تجديد الناصرية؟”، يوم الـ28 من أيلول/سبتمبر 2021، في ذكرى رحيل القائد جمال عبد الناصر، وضعت أمامي كتاب أخي وصديقي ورفيقي سماح، “المثقف العربي والسلطة: بحث في روايات التجربة الناصرية”، وكنت قرأت الكتاب وأنا في تونس بعد أن أهدانيه سماح، وكتب كلمة ذات معنى عميق استعدته من جديد: إلى الأخ والصديق الروائي والقصّاص الفلسطيني العربي.. كيف نكون ناصريين حقاً؟ وديمقراطيين حقّاً أيضاً؟ مع حبي واحترامي. وتوقيعه، بتاريخ 7.5.93.
كان السؤال: كيف نكون ناصريين حقّاً، وديمقراطيين حقاً، حضر في تلك المحاضرة، وحضر سماح صاحب السؤال، والكتاب الغني بحثاً وإبداعاً، والصادر عن منشورات “الآداب” في عام 1992.. وهذا يعني أن سماحاً كان في حدود الثلاثين من عمره آنذاك!
عملياً، ناقش سماح بعمق أزمة الناصرية في العلاقة بالمثقفين، من اختلفوا، ومن نافقوا، ومن خلال أعمالهم الروائية، وأيضاً وضع محددات لدور المثقف العربي، وما يحميه من السقوط في شراك السلطة، أي سلطة، في الماضي والحاضر و… المستقبل.
هذا الكتاب حضر معي في تلك الندوة التي تحدثت فيها عن أهمية تجديد الناصرية، لا بتقديسها والولاء لقائدها الراحل جمال عبد الناصر، لكن بنقدها، والوقوف أمام سلبياتها، وعدم المجاملة والتغطية على أمراضها وأسباب هزيمة حزيران/يونيو 67.
سماح المفكر المقاوم، الروائي الذي انتقل برواياته وقصصه إلى “عوالم” الشباب والفتيان، وذهب إليهم في المخيمات والأحياء الشعبية، مخاطباً العقول، موقظاً الوعي، فاتحاً البصائر على ما ينتظرهم، مُمتعاً ككاتب، مُدهشاً كحكّاء بارع.
سماح الغني الحضور مُترجماً، وناسج الصداقات عالمياً، وهو يخوض معركة “المقاطعة” مع شرفاء مقاومين، عربياً وعالمياً، مُساهماً ببسالة في فضح جوهر الكيان الصهيوني.
حمل سماح بين جنبيه حكمة الكبار- لِنَقُلْ: من الشيخ سهيل إدريس، والوالدة عايدة – والشبّان الذين انتمى إليهم عمراً وعقلاً، فكتب أعمالاً روائية رائعة تتقدمها “خلف الأبواب المقفلة”، والتي بعد أن قرأتها وأخبرته بقراءتي لها، سألني: هل أعجبتك؟
أجبته: يا سماح.. أنت تكتب عن شبّان لا نعرف عنهم سوى القليل، لأنك منهم. صحيح أنك تكتب لهم، لكنك تكتب عنهم، وعن هواجسهم، ومشاغلهم. لذا، فأنت تعرّفنا بهم، وتساهم في تمكيننا من الاقتراب منهم، فضلاً عن أنك روائي بحق…
سماح كان مَرِحاً، جذّاباً، مؤثراً، بعيداً عن الحقد، محاوراً عنيداً، يعمل طوال الوقت، لا في المكاتب، لكن مع الناس، مع الفتيان، وفي التجمعات، والأفعال المقاومة، لأنه عرف دوره وحدده والتزمه: مقاوماً في الميدان، وليس منظّراً يرسل كلماته عبر البريد الإلكتروني، وفي صفحات الصحف والمجلات، لكن عبر الانخراط ميدانياً.. في معركة الثقافة الجادة المنتمية، وفي مواجهة التطبيع، وشحذ الهمم في نشر ثقافة المقاطعة والمقاومة وفي تعميقها.
كتب سماح افتتاحية غاضبة عن “حثالات” الخراب في لبنان، وثبّت خّط “الآداب”، المجلّة، ودار النشر، كأنما كان يترك وصية وعهداً.
في افتتاحية “الآداب”، بتاريخ 29ـ7ـ2021، يفضح من يفسدون الحياة في لبنان، ويعيّشون بيروت وأخواتها في العتمة، والحاجة إلى البنزين والمازوت، المُستجدين للحماية، ومن يرهنون كرامات الوطن ومصيره، ويبيعونه بأثمان بخسة.. وينهبون ثرواته، ويصرخ بهم علّهم يتعلمون فيرتدعون، وهو عارف بأنهم لن يتغيّروا كـ”حثالات”.
ولأنه يعرفهم جيداً، ويحتقرهم جداً، يكتب: مع حثالة سارقة قاتلة وحقيرة كهذه، قد لا تبدو للكلمة التغييرية المستقلة سطوة. حتى إحراج هذه الحثالة قد لا يحصل.. ببساطة لأن لا أخلاق ولا قيم لها كي تشعر بأي إحراج!
فكيف إذا كانت تلك الكلمة تواجه اكتساحاً متنامياً لإعلام مقايضة الكهرباء والماء والمكيّف والمازوت والبنزين… ببيع كل المبادئ الأخلاقية والقومية والوطنية والتقدمية؟
لكن، هل من باع ذلك كله حصل على الرفاه الموعود؟ اسألوا مصر السادات ما بعد “كامب ديفيد”!
وفي زمن “الحثالات”، المطبّعين واللصوص، وباعة الدم والضمير، ومغرقي الفضاء والورق بإعلام التخدير والتزوير وتغييب الوعي، فسماح المؤمن بقيم حملها بثبات، يكتب وهو يواجه المرض الذي فتك بجسده، بكل يقين، وبكبرياء، معاهداً.. وواعداً، باسمه، وبمن سيواصل رسالة “الآداب” من بعده:
ومع ذلك، فنحن لا نملك مهنة غير الكتابة والنشر المستقلَّيْن، وسنواصل هذه المهنة، مهما صعبت الظروف، ومهما تعثرنا، أو تأخرنا، أو كبونا.
وسنكون إلى جانب كل من يعمل، بكّد وتفانٍ، وحب، على الخلاص من سارقي أحلام شعبنا في الحياة الكريمة الحُرّة.
هذه وصية سماح، وهذه مدرسة “الآداب” التي أنجبته، وتربّى ونشأ على قيمها، وهذا هو المسار الذي ستواصله “الآداب”…
يثق سماح بمن بقوا بعده، بمن صانوا “الآداب” المجلة، و”الآداب” دار النشر، بشقيقته الناشرة المعروفة، عربياً وعالمياً، رنا إدريس، ومعها شقيقته رائدة، وبحضور الأم عايدة التي تبارك آل إدريس الذين أنجبوا جيلاً ثالثاً يكبر برعاية “روح” الأسرة، وقيمها، وثقافتها، وتراثها…
سيبقى اسمك مرفوعاً في الميادين، ومع رايات فلسطين، وفي أناشيد المقاومين ووعودهم في كل بلاد العرب، وملهما لكل المثقفين الصادقين والشرفاء والمستقلين حقاً.
إن الآراء المذكورة في هذه المقالة لا تعبّر بالضرورة عن رأي الميادين وإنما تعبّر عن رأي صاحبها حصراً
Saudi Arabia has constantly claimed that it is on the side of the Palestinian people against “Israel”. However, an examination of history reveals a darker side to the kingdom, as it shows that it has had secret dealings with the Zionist regime since 1962, extending up to the beginning of low-level public relations in 2015.
Saudi Arabia’s relations with the Israeli regime go back decades before the 2015 meeting between ex-intelligence heads
For the longest time, it’s been touted that Saudi Arabia was and is not a proponent of normalization, with people citing its past stances in support of Palestine and condemnation of Israeli violations against the Palestinian people. This is all well and good, but Saudi Arabia’s real-world practices reveal another dimension of its relationship with “Israel”, one of an increasing intersection of interests that is leading up to public normalization.
It would not be without benefit to detail the history of Saudi Arabia’s dealings with the Israeli apartheid regime, if for nothing else but to show the Kingdom’s dual standards in dealing secretly with the enemy of the Palestinian people, while at the same time using Palestine as a front in its rhetoric, in order to show its commitment to Arabhood and to advance its regional interests without arousing the anger of the Arab world.
The Kingdom’s history with “Israel” extends far before 2015, when Prince Turki Al-Faisal, the former head of the Saudi General Intelligence Directory, took part in a high-profile panel with the former Israeli Commander of the IOF’s Military Intelligence Directorate, hosted by the General Marshall Fund think tank. Some, like Alexander Bligh, the Chief Scientist at the Israeli Ministry of Science, found that the relationship between the two dates back to 1962.
The history
“In the early 1960s, following the 1962 revolution in the Yemen, ‘Israel’ and Saudi Arabia maintained continuous contacts aimed at depriving their common enemy – Egypt – of victory.” During the time of King Saud and then-prince Faysal, this cooperation proved feasible. [1] The reason was largely caused by Saudi Arabia’s concerns of Egypt becoming a powerful actor among Arab peoples, as Gamal Abd al-Nasser held high the mantle of pan-Arabism, and managed to rally Arab countries against Israeli presence in the region, and against Western imperialist influence.
This is where Saudi and Israeli interests began to intersect. Although the Israeli lobby had up to then repeatedly attempted to block US weapons sales to the Saudi Kingdom, they were largely unsuccessful in doing so in the first few decades after 1948. In Egypt’s influence and Yemen, and its support of the Yemeni revolution in 1962, “Israel” and Saudi Arabia found each other to be unlikely bedfellows in order to prevent their then-common enemy, Egypt, from declaring victory in Yemen.
It was then that contact between the two regimes was initiated outside of the region. This cooperation, which proved feasible at one time on account of the Saudis’ perception that Egypt was becoming a threat to its regional dominance, could prove feasible again whenever actors in the Kingdom perceive an external threat to its interests. Not only that, but Abdel Nasser’s popularity in the Arab world ran counter to both Israeli and Saudi interests if Egypt was to become the leader of the Arab world and rival Saudi Arabia for dominance.
Moreover, Israeli declassified documents also show that “Israel” was also secretly involved during the war, and supplied the royalists with military weapons and equipment against the republicans.
Yemen’s Ali Abdallah Saleh also revealed documents in 2017, showing a letter sent by then-Saudi King Faisal bin Abdel Aziz, asking US President Lyndon Johnson to support an Israeli war on Egypt in order to weaken Egypt’s influence with Yemen’s republicans (The Jerusalem Post also covered the leak with an article in English, which you can find here).
New Middle East
There is largely no information on any meeting between the Saudis and the Israelis after that date, though there is a lot of reason to think that a number of clandestine meetings security meetings took place before 2006, as after “Israel’s” 33-day war on Lebanon, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert secretly met with a high-ranking Saudi official in September, but Olmert said at the time that he did not meet the Saudi king, and sources later clarified that he met someone close to the king instead in a third country.
“I did not meet with the Saudi king and I did not meet with anyone who should cause a sensation in the media,” Olmert was quoted as saying at the time by Ynet news, and also said that Saudi Arabia showed “responsibility and judgment” during the war with Lebanon.
“Israel’s” history of relations with Saudi Arabia was again brought up in a May 2021 interview that Russia Today conducted with Olmert, wherein he said that “Israel” has held steady relations with Saudi Arabia since 2006, and that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman is very interested in changing the status of relations between “Israel” and Saudi Arabia.
“I can tell you that there has been communication between the Saudis and ‘Israel’ that dates back 15 years, and all throughout this period. They are not enemies.”
Intersecting interests
Putting aside public meetings between ranking Saudi and Israeli officials, there have been numerous reports over the years of intersecting interests between the colonial regime and Saudi Arabia (as evidenced by their interests against Egypt), particularly with regards to the resistance’s growing influence in the region, with both regimes showing similar concern of what they perceive to be a threat posed by Iran and its allies.
The horrible torture and murder of Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi by the order of Saudi Arabia’s de facto leader, Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, had global implications on Saudi Arabia’s standing; Moreover, it severely harmed business in the Kingdom, with international companies being hesitant to invest in it, lest their doing so is seen as support for the Kingdom that horribly murdered and dismembered a journalist.
Nevertheless, amidst all this, Netanyahu voiced support for Saudi Arabia, citing the primacy of the ‘Iran threat’, which necessitates that there be stability in the Kingdom so that it can use its regional power to counter the resistance.
“What happened at the Istanbul consulate was horrendous and it should be duly dealt with. But at the same time, it is very important for the stability of the region and the world that Saudi Arabia remain stable,” Netanyahu said during a visit to Bulgaria. The ex-PM, now on trial, added “I think that a way must be found to achieve both goals. Because the larger problem I believe is Iran.” Not only that but Netanyahu also lobbied for MbS and pushed the White House to maintain its support for him.
Even before Khashoggi’s murder, Israeli commentator Barak Ravid leaked a cable on Israeli Channel 10 in November 2017, in which the Israeli Foreign Ministry instructs its diplomats to lobby in favor of Saudi Arabia against Iran and Hezbollah.
4 The cable said: "You need to stress that the Hariri resignation shows how dangerous Iran and Hezbollah are for Lebanon's security"
Moreso, in June 2017, renowned journalist David Hearst published an article for the Middle East Eye, wherein he said that “Israel” and Saudi Arabia have forged an alliance against the resistance in Gaza, and that the Kingdom is financing “Israel’s” weapons build-up against Iran.
The Saudi Ambassador to the UK released a statement denying that an alliance has been forged between his country and the Israeli regime, but did not deny that the meetings took place, and in fact stated that “any dealings by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with ‘Israel’ have been limited to attempts to bring about a plan for peace.”
Beginning of public relations
Public meetings between ranking Saudi Arabian and Israeli figures, however, have also been occurring over the past few years, just as clandestine relations between the two countries are increasing (like secret trade talks that took place in 2017, in a first).
The first such meeting, as mentioned at the beginning of this article, took place in 2015, between Prince Turki Al-Faisal, the former head of the Saudi General Intelligence Directory, and Amos Yadlin the former Israeli Commander of the IOF’s Military Intelligence Directorate, who were brought together in a high-profile and public panel hosted by the General Marshall Fund.
Although the prince was invited for a visit to Al-Quds by the retired Major General, he turned it down, as no official could perform such a visit before a “comprehensive peace deal”. This entailed an indication of the Saudi rhetoric at the time that the Kingdom would not normalize with “Israel”, unless a comprehensive agreement was reached with the Palestinian factions.
However, Turki Al-Faisal managed to keep the atmosphere chummy, replying to the former Mossad spy chief “Yeah, absolutely not,” as the attendance laughed, “and the general knows that.” To perform such a visit before a “peace deal” was “putting the chicken before the egg.”
This visit by such a high-ranking Saudi official, who was the head of the Saudi General Intelligence Directory for 24 years, effectively broke the taboo on meetings with Israeli officials, allowing a delegation of Saudi academics and businessmen – led by retired Saudi General Anwar Eshki, who was a former advisor to the Saudi government – to visit the occupied territories in July 2016.
Knesset Member Issawi Frej, one of the other MK members who took part in the meeting, said “The Saudis want to open up to ‘Israel’…It’s a strategic move for them. They want to continue what former Egyptian president Anwar Sadat started (with the 1979 Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty). They want to get closer with ‘Israel’, and we could feel it clearly.”
If that wasn’t enough, the Editor of Haaretz’s English Edition Avi Scharf revealed in November 2020, meaning when Trump and Netanyahu were both still in power, that a visit had occurred for the first time between former Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, during the time Mike Pompeo was visiting Saudi Arabia.
Netanyahu’s associates later leaked that a meeting indeed took place between the two, for which the Israeli PM received some flak from Defense Minister Benny Gantz, who called the leak “irresponsible”.
The history of relations between the two regimes showed that intersecting regional interests, allieviated by both of them being allies with the Western camp, was the basis on which they were able to build their covert relations. From, Israeli support for the war on Yemen, to Saudi Arabia’s inching towards increasingly overt security cooperation, and up to its outright criticism of the Palestinian leaderships and their stance against the normalization process adopted by the UAE, Bahrain and Morocco, as evidenced by ex-spy chief Bandar bin Sultan’s interview on Saudi Arabia’s official Al-Arabiya TV, all show that both regimes are drawing increasingly closer to normalizing ties.
It is one thing to be with normalization, or to have secret dealings with “Israel”, but it’s something else when Saudi Arabia claims to be on the side of the Palestinian people against “Israel” while holding and advancing relations with the apartheid regime, only to later stab Palestine in the back.
Economic prosperity? Anything but. After 40+ years, “peace” negotiations with “Israel” turned Egypt into a sluggish, aid-dependent rent economy.
At the bottom: 17 September, 1978: Anwar Sadat, Jimmy Carter, and Menachim Begin signing on the Camp David Accords. At the top: The 2013 Egyptian bread crisis, a result of economic assassination.
There is no war without Egypt, and no peace without Syria – words Henry Kissinger, Nixon’s Secretary of State, uttered in the depiction of the strategic importance of Egypt to US interest in West Asia. Its manpower, resources, geographical position on the map are alone enough to make or break any project in the region.
Egypt, in the critical years between the 1960s and the 1970s, moved from being the first industrial power in the Arab world, enjoying self-sufficiency and economic independence, to a country whose entire decision-making mechanism depends on receiving “humanitaqizqirian” aid from Washington.
How did this drastic jump, which put Egypt on a catheter mount, come to happen?
“Peace” negotiations.
Just one month after the 1973 October war – or, what’s known by the Israelis as the “Yom Kippur War,” there was a radical realignment process which brought Egypt and the US together. This was a process which initially started in 1971, the year when Anwar Sadat, Egypt’s president, invited the first US Secretary of State to visit Cairo since 1953. In the war of 1973, Egypt lost Sinai, and Sadat wanted to reclaim “self-respect”: a dream unattainable after Abdel Nasser’s death, unfound in what was coming for Egypt.
When it came to reclaiming Palestinian land back to the Palestinians – and Sinai back to Egypt – to Sadat, the only way to negotiate with the Israelis was through the United States, in a political settlement, if you may. He thought that turning to Washington would help him solving problems unsolvable by military means, whether it was on the annexation of Sinai, or an economic crisis.
The so-called political settlement came at the expense of the Egyptian economy, human rights and security for years to come.
The Egyptian economy enjoyed minimal imports (in 1961, with Abdel Nasser’s economic reforms, food imports to Egypt were only at 7%), redistribution of land and resources that isolated and diminished the power of traditional Egyptian landowners, the nationalization of the Suez Canal, protective policies against international inflation, and restrictions on foreign investment. Nasserism won its pioneer a substantial fan base and popularity after the 1952 Revolution.
However, his successor, a shameless lackey for the US, was determined to reverse all that revolution had done for the Egyptian people: Sadat, between 1971 and 1973, launched talks with Henry Kissinger. Sadat’s economic policies donned an ‘Open Door’ policy, which opened Egyptian markets to foreign investors and corporations without restrictions.
However, what he really got was a society lamb to the slaughter of foreign and private interest, dependent on food aid, and subject to US-Israeli policies.
Sadat wanted to be sure that Washington would come to Egypt’s rescue, so he required real, tangible evidence from the US that they will support Cairo. If such evidence was available, Sadat was willing to make Egypt undergo the necessary economic changes for US’ aid and the so-called ‘comprehensive peace plans.’
The evidence was provided: a basic tenant for Egypt to ride the American aid bandwagon was the normalization of relations with “Israel”, which consolidated in 1978. The free trade agreements, the astronomical numbers of foreign aid, and other agreements isolated Egypt from its neighbors, Arab and non-Arab. However, not only were both Sadat and the US eager to drive Egypt away from Soviet influence in the Cold War, but “Israel” also sought to plant itself on Arab soil, seeking Arab acceptance, which Sadat was so willing to do.
The US seduced the Egyptian elite, by offering billions in aid, into signing on the Camp David Accords.
Let’s talk about the costs.
An Israeli official once called US aid “narcotic” – not too surprising considering that Washington is “Israel’s” godfather in West Asia, taking unconditional billions in aid and weapons to push common interests.
Between the years 1946 and 2011, the United States gave Egypt a total of $71.7 billion in bilateral foreign aid.
With Sadat’s economic liberalization, US’ conditions for aid were to integrate Egyptian and Israeli economies and boost foreign investments which would supposedly strengthen the economy. The public sector accounted for 75% of all Egypt’s outputs. However, Sadat’s laissez-faire policies only diminished them, placing them at the mercy of private companies and trade deals, such as the Qualified Industrial Zones.
The investments which Sadat was hoping for were not meant for productivity but were rather oriented towards banking and tourism. However, the banking sector, under what was called Infitah (Open Door policy), was not doing what it was supposed to do. With only 6 banks existing in 1974, Sadat allowed the influx of seventy-five banks – several of those were American, which abused the vulnerability of the situation in Egypt. The foreign banks, not to much surprise, laundered Egyptian money to the West rather than benefiting the people.
With a deteriorating economy where the cost of production of basic goods such as rice, wheat, sugar, flour, oil, and gas was skyrocketing, many locals had left to oil-producing countries to make a living.
In Egypt, this meant one thing: bend to US interest or starve.
By 1981, Egypt was importing 60% of its food into the country: much of that was provided by Washington, in addition to Arab oil-producing countries. After normalization in 1978, Arab investors withdrew their investments; to Sadat’s convenience, the US was able to compromise.
Where has this led Egypt? Egypt today has a workforce participation rate of approximately 48%. Governmental spending exceeds the total revenue. Egypt is hideously indebted to the International Monetary Fund, its debt representing 92% of its Gross Domestic Product.
Sadat attempted to convince the population that normalization with “Israel” would bring economic well-being and prosperity to the average Egyptian, though what it really did, with Washington’s shuttle diplomacy, is sell it to capitalists, and create a bread crisis in 1977, which was initiated by IMF and World Bank pressures to remove subsidies on bread.
Furthermore, along with the millions of dollars in US aid, a large project was initiated by the Nixon administration on March 1, 1975, to reconstruct the cities along the Suez Canal after three wars – the cost of which was to maintain peace with the Israeli neighbor. Disarmament was on the agenda, meaning that Egypt, on par with the accords, was prohibited from any military confrontation with “Israel”; however, even the Egyptians, given US-Israeli threats against them, knew that “Tel Aviv” would not be complying with the Sinai Disengagement Agreement.
As for economic growth, from the 1980s till recently, Egypt’s gross domestic product per capita has barely doubled, when emerging economies such as South Korea were able to multiply their GDP by ten times (the two countries’ economies, during the 1950s, had similar developmental conditions). Poverty rates in Egypt today hover around 30%, sustaining a high unemployment rate, last 10.4% in 2020.
As if turning to “Israel” once was not enough, wait till you see the “second Camp David Accords.”
Despite the population’s adamant rejection of Sadat’s policies and the normalization, a greedy leader,a successor, looked for the preservation of the system at the expense of the nation’s interest. Another case taken into account is the US’ Qualified Industrial Zone (QIZ) economic proposal, which ultimately meant to expand economic cooperation between “Israel” and “Egypt.”
QIZ deal, signed in 2004 by Hosni Mubarak, was deemed by many as a “second Camp David,” and it was the most important economic deal between the two in 20 years, according to a US representative who attended the signing event.
Just a few months after that was sealed, Egypt and “Israel” signed another deal where Egypt would provide ‘Israel” with $2.5 billion worth of gas at a low price at a time when the country’s economy was running into the ground.
Those agreements came just a few days after Israel shot and killed 3 Egyptian soldiers at the border.
“One would have anticipated that with the ongoing carnage in Iraq, constant US threats against Iran and Syria, and Israel’s recent killing of three Egyptian border police, Egypt would have taken a tougher stance. But the exact opposite happened,” wrote K. Kamel, in Egypt and Israel: From Cold Peace to Warm Embrace.
The trade agreement stipulated that the US would allow the exporting of Egyptian products free of duty and customs to the US, given that at least 11.7% of the total exports are manufactured in “Israel.”
Mubarak, though rejecting the agreement in 1994 through 2004, promoted the agreement on purely economic terms: Egypt’s textile-export agreement with the US would soon lose effect, China and India will replace Cairo in the market, and there is no choice other than to accept the QIZ agreement.
Officials in the Egyptian government told their people that the agreement will create a million jobs and that foreign direct investment will reach $5 billion in the next 5 years – both unrealistic and exaggerations.
Gamal Mubarak, Hosni’s son, defended the agreement, saying it serves the Palestinian cause.
However, facts on the ground proved otherwise. Many things were wrong with this deal, which was falsely marketed and heavily oriented towards “Israel.”
The first issue is that the deal breached World Trade Organization’s free trade conditions since the agreement gives “Israel” the power to enjoy a monopoly over Egyptian manufacturers.
Secondly, and even worse: to ensure the 11.7% quota, Israeli companies marginalized small and medium-sized businesses that supply larger textile factories with parts, as they forced them out of their jobs. The deal was heavily biased towards “Israel,” Egypt was not allowed to export its goods to the US duty-free without exporting Israeli goods, despite countries like China, India and Turkey engaging in it freely so.
There was no real guarantee that the products will be exported to the US, prompting analysts to say that the agreement sort of resembles a Trojan horse, allowing Israel to flock into Arab markets, hence the “second Camp David.”
As some countries resist pressures to normalize relations with the psychopath ‘state’ (you can read Farah Haj Hassan’s article on Asian nations that said ‘No’ to normalization), others have not read much history on the first example of normalization in West Asia, and still deem normalization as an end to conflict, a yes to economic boom and a gateway to acceptance in both the region and the international community.
To look West, after all their history in the West Asian region alone, should not deceive anyone anymore. Other than the fact that normalization is a human rights issue against fellow Arabs (not even just Palestinians! The US used Egyptian waters and airspace to bomb Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003), it’s suicide for any country looking to flourish with sovereignty.
لم يكن نشوء الكيان السّعودي أقلّ دمويّةً وإرهابيّةً من قيام أميركا التي قامت على أنقاض الهنود الحمر ولا أقلّ إجراماً من نشوء الكيان الصّهيوني الذي قام على أجساد الفلسطينيين، بل كان أكثر إرهاباً وإجراماً وقتلاً وتمثيلاً وتنكيلاً بالبشر. وما يميّزه عن الكيانين الأميركي «والإسرائيلي» يجعله أكثر خطورةً على الأمّة حيث أنّ آل سعود المنحدرين من أصلٍ يهوديٍّ يعود لجدّهم مردخاي بن ابراهام بن موشي الدونمي من يهود الدونمة وفق ما أثبته الكاتب الشّهيد ناصر السعيد في كتابه «تاريخ آل سعود». وعليه فإنّ هؤلاء اليهود الذين أسّسوا الكيان السّعودي بدعمٍ بريطاني تكمن خطورته في الحقائق التّاريخية الآتية:
أولا ـ تبنّيهم للهوية العربيّة وهم يهود في الأصل واتخاذ الإسلام ستاراً للحكم وقيام كيانهم الوظيفي والحليف للكيان الصّهيوني.
ُثانياـ اغتصابهم لشبه الجزيرة العربيّة بدعم بريطانيا التي دعمت قيام الكيان الصّهيوني الذي اغتصب فلسطين.
ثالثا ـ قيام الكيان السّعودي على الغزوات وارتكاب المذابح والمجازر بحقّ القبائل العربيّة كما حصل في فلسطين من غزواتٍ ومذابحَ على يد عصابات الهاغاناه وشتيرن وغيرها.
رابعا ـ ضرب واستهداف كلّ عناصر القوّة في الأمّة لا سيما تيّارات المقاومة وتشتيتها وتحويل مسار الصّراع مع الكيان الصّهيوني إلى صراعاتٍ وحروبٍ داخل الأمة.
عبر التاريخ أثبت الكيان السعودي بكلّ ملوكه وحكّامه الذين توالوا على الحكم هذه الحقائق. فالسعوديّة التي استدرجت الرئيس جمال عبد النّاصر للحرب في اليمن لم تكن مهمّتها سوى إشغال الرئيس المصري عن استكمال المواجهة مع العدو الصّهيوني
فقد كشفت وثائق للمخابرات الأميركيّة والبريطانيّة و»الإسرائيليّة» نشرت مؤخّراً عن حقائق هامّة تتعلّق بدورٍ خطيرٍ قام به الملك فيصل بالتنسيق مع أميركا قبل حرب 1967 للتآمر على عبد النّاصر وهزيمته، وكشفت عن اتصالاتٍ سرّيةٍ أجراها السعوديون بالإسرائيليين بهدف دعمهم مباشرة أو من خلال واشنطن لضرب عبد الناصر وتحجيم دوره القومي، وفرض الهزيمة المعنويّة عليه بعد الهزيمة العسكريّة عام 1967 وهو ما جرى فعلياً…
كذلك الأمر اليوم أعادت السّعودية نفس السيناريو من خلال ما يسمّى بالرّبيع العربي لاستنزاف سورية قلعة المقاومة وحصنها وإشغال المقاومة بعد انتصاري 2000 و2006 ومحاولة تفتيت قدراتها لكنّها فشلت وأسقط مشروعها، ومحاولة استعادة العراق من محور المقاومة، والسّيطرة على اليمن الذي أذلّ طواغيت آل سعود وحلفائهم. لم تتغيّر مسلكية آل سعود منذ نشوء كيانهم الوظيفي حتى اليوم وهذا ليس تحليلاً ولا توقعاً بل وقائع تاريخيّة موثّقة عبّر عنها الزّعيم الراحل :جمال عبد النّاصر في محطاتٍ كثيرةٍ. فمن خطاب له في الثالث والعشرين من كانون الأول/ ديسمبر عام 1962 قال
وفي الثّاني والعشرين من تموز/ يوليو من العام نفسه كشف عبد الناصر عن التّعاون بين الاستعمار والنظام السّعودي قائلاً «لاحظنا في السنة الأخيرة تعاوناً مطلقاً بين الرجعية العربيّة وقوى الاستعمار ويوجد تعاونٌ وتضامنٌ بينهم في العمل ضدّ القومية العربيّة وقوى الثّورة والتّحرر العربي. صفقات السّلاح التي تستهدف العرب ولا تستهدف عدو العرب».
أمّا عن قضية فلسطين وآل سعود فكان للزعيم عبد الناصر رأي يقول
«أنا لا أتصوّر بأيّ حال من الأحوال أن المملكة السعودية تستطيع أن تحارب في فلسطين وفيها قاعدة أميركية وفيها قاعدة بريطانيّة.
لم تكن مواقف الرئيس جمال عبد الناصر حينها طائفيّةً ولا مذهبيةً ولا عشائريةً أو عنصريّةً وهو العربي الذي عمّد عروبته بالدّم، وهو المسلم الذي تقدّم لمقاومة المحتلّ الصهيوني لأرض فلسطين، وهو السني الذي ثار في وجه الظالمين والمستبدّين وفي مقدمتهم آل سعود.
تلك المواقف لم تكن إلا تعبيراً عن واقعٍ وحقيقة دامغة كشفت دور آل سعود ومؤامراتهم على الأمّة. وما قاله الأمين العام لحزب الله السيّد حسن نصر الله في خطابه الأخير في ذكرى الشّهيدين قاسم سليماني وأبي مهدي المهندس هو نفس الحقيقة التي عبّر عنها الرئيس عبد الناصر منذ أكثر من خمسين عاماً، ولا يزال نفس الكيان يتآمر على الأمة ولكي لا يعطي البعض صبغةً طائفيةً أو مذهبيّة لكلام السّيد نصر الله نقول لهم راجعوا مواقف الرّئيس عبد الناصر التي ردّ عليها آل سعود بتكفيره في الثالث والعشرين من كانون الأول/ ديسمبر من عام 1962 حيث نشرت صحيفة «عكاظ» السّعودية على صفحتها الأولى وبالخط العريض فتوى لفقهاء البلاط الملكي تقول (جمال عبد الناصر كافر بالإجماع) عنوان يختصر عقليّة الكيان السّعودي وحكّامه المستعربين الذين لم ولن يتغيّروا. اليوم يكفّرون الشّرفاء ويتهمونهم بالإرهاب وكلّ ذلك لن يغيّر من حقيقة تقول بأنّ الكيان السعودي الذي قام على المذابح والقتل هو أصل الإرهاب وليس أقلّ خطورة من إرهاب العدو الصّهيوني، وأنّ الوهابيّة التي غزت بدواعشها دمشق وبغداد لا تقلّ عدوانية عن عصابات الهاغاناه وشتيرن، وان شيوخ الوهابيّة هم كفقهاء التلمود، وأنّ كيانكم السرطاني سيزول كما سيزول الكيان الصّهيوني والآتي من الأيام سيُنبّئ بذلك.
UPROOTED PALESTINIANS: SALAM ALQUDS ALAYKUM 