‘Israeli’ Occupation Leaves 41 Children Homeless After Razing Palestinian Village

Israel Demolishes 11 Palestinian Homes in West Bank

November 4, 2020

Palestinian women stand in front of their demolished house, in Jordan Valley. (Photo: via ActiveStills.org)

Israeli military bulldozers yesterday demolished 11 homes in the northeastern part of the occupied West Bank over “lack of construction permits”.

Moataz Bisharat, a Palestinian official responsible for monitoring Israeli settlement activity in the Jordan Valley, told Anadolu Agency that an Israeli force had raided “the Hamsa bedouin community in the east of Tubas town, and demolished Palestinian homes there.

Bisharat added that the community was inhabited by “23 Palestinian families living in corrugated iron houses.”

The head of the Ibziq village council in the Jordan Valley region, Abdul Majeed Khdeirat, told the agency that the Israeli army had seized agricultural tractors, solar cells, and water tanks from the village.

Palestinian residents in the Jordan Valley region are continuously subjected to the demolition of their homes, and seizure of their property by the Israeli army. The 1.6 million dunam region currently accommodates around 13,000 Israeli settlers in 38 illegal settlements, and some 65,000 Palestinians scattered across 34 communities.

(MEMO, PC, Social Media)

After Razing The Village

By Staff, Agencies

Zionist forces in the occupied West Bank have razed a Palestinian village, leaving 73 people – including 41 children – homeless, in the largest forced displacement incident for years, the United Nations warned.

Excavators escorted by military vehicles were filmed approaching Khirbet Humsa and proceeding to flatten or smash up tents, shacks, animal shelters, toilets and solar panels.

“These are some of the most vulnerable communities in the West Bank,” said Yvonne Helle, the UN humanitarian coordinator for the ‘Israeli’-occupied Palestinian territory.

Three-quarters of the community lost their shelters during Tuesday’s attack, she said, making it the largest forced displacement incident in more than four years. However, by the number of destroyed structures, 76, the raid was the largest demolition in the past decade, she added.

On Wednesday, families from the village were seen rifling through their wrecked belongings in the wind, with some of the first rain of the year arriving the same day. The UN published a photo of a bed and a cot in the open desert.

The village is one of several Bedouin and sheepherding communities in the Jordan Valley area that is located within Zionist-declared army training “firing zones” where people there often face demolitions for a building without an alleged ‘permission’ from the occupying regime.

“Palestinians can almost never obtain such permits,” said Helle. “Demolitions are a key means of creating an environment designed to coerce Palestinians to leave their homes,” she said, accusing the Zionist entity of “grave breaches” of international law.

Nearly 700 structures have been demolished across the West Bank and occupied al-Quds in 2020 so far, she said, more than any year since 2016, leaving 869 Palestinians homeless.

Lebanon’s FM Vehemently Condemns Interception of Civilian Airliner by American Jets

Lebanon’s FM Vehemently Condemns Interception of Civilian Airliner by American Jets

By Staff

Beirut – In his first comments on an incident involving two US fighter jets that intercepted an Iranian civilian aircraft with Lebanese nationals on board, Lebanon’s Foreign Minister Nassif Hitti expressed his condemnation of the dangerous episode to Al-Ahed News.

Hitti blasted and protested the harassment of a civilian passenger aircraft because it endangers the safety of civilians.

He described any attempt to intercept a civilian plane with a military aircraft as unacceptable, noting that Lebanon adheres to and respects international norms and laws.

Moreover, Lebanon’s top diplomat condemned and rejected all attempts to intercept civilian aircraft.

“Even if there were no Lebanese on board, we would still protest,” Hitti added and noted that the presence of Lebanese nationals only reinforces the existing position. The issue, in Hitti’s view, is not political but rather related to international standards and norms.

In response to a question about whether Lebanon lodged a complaint or made international contacts due to the presence of Lebanese passengers on board, Hitti indicated that the airliner has the right to make the calls.

The foreign minister also shed light on the issue of extending the stay of UNIFIL forces operating in southern Lebanon until the end of next August. He affirmed that there are attempts by some to redefine the tasks of the peacekeeping forces in the south, and “we confirm our position that we do not want to change their numbers and reject any attempt to change UNIFIL’s task.”

“We have received support from some countries in this context, including Italy, where the Italian foreign and defense ministers assured us that the Italian force is committed to not compromising the tasks,” Hitti added.

“It is true that maintaining security and stability in the south is in Lebanon’s interest, but also in the interests of the region and the world. We welcome UNIFIL, and there is continuous coordination between it and the Lebanese army.”

Hitti also underscored Lebanon’s commitment to both Resolution 1701 and the current framework that UNIFIL operates in. 

On a separate topic, Hitti expressed his concerns regarding the annexation of the Jordan Valley, an issue he labeled as important.

In his opinion, this is one of the top issues, and the attempt by “Israel” to annex even a part of the Jordan Valley has not been halted, but postponed.

“This matter has great repercussions on the region, and we must be alert,” Hitti warned and stressed the need for caution about this matter because the danger of annexation still exists.

“We all need to be alert about this flagrant violation and its repercussions, and this is not new, as all ‘Israeli’ policies are based on breaching international resolutions and legitimacy.”

Forging Greater Israel: Annexation by Any Other Name

Source

by JENNIFER LOEWENSTEIN

JULY 15, 2020

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Photograph Source: Ralf Roletschek – GFDL 1.2

July 1st came and went and Netanyahu made no formal statement regarding annexation. That left many journalists, politicians, activists, and others feeling abandoned to speculation. Declarations of support or opposition went forward accompanied by an air of uncertainty and the frustration of trying to second guess the objectives of those whose actions would determine the coming months.

Palestinians living in the occupied territories slated for absorption would have scoffed cynically at those seeking to imagine how this might affect their daily routines as well as the dynamics of regional politics. Israel’s purported intention is to annex 30% of the West Bank where Jewish population density and “security” considerations make this a “natural” consequence of the decades’ long illegal settlement strategy and a “necessity” for the “survival” of the geographically “besieged” Jewish State.

Muhammad, a young man from Hebron who gives virtual tours of Palestine, showed his viewers a debris-strewn street where hostilities had broken out a day earlier over the proposed annexation. His explanation for the urgency of these protests adds a layer of irony to the grim reality of occupied life. Israel retains ultimate control over the land and lives of the Palestinians living here after all. The Palestinian Authority (PA) is its willing subcontractor. It serves primarily as a buffer between the commands of its overlord and the will of its people. “We have to make it clear that annexation is illegal,” Muhammad says in earnest, though he understands – and his work underscores this – the critical value of US public opinion.

The Master’s voice will become louder and clearer with official annexation. Most Palestinians recognize this instinctively. Those who will be living peacefully within the latest official state boundaries will awaken to find the question of their residency looming ever nearer, a matter of whim; a gamble the state might act upon with relatively little risk based on the world’s record of indifference.

With or without a declaration of intent, annexation creeps over the lives of these people hour by hour. Across 43 villages, approximately 107,000 people – who will, in all likelihood, still be nominal subjects of the PA—will conceivably face another Nakba, this one orchestrated in silence and with discretion, aimed at fulfilling the Zionist myth of a “land without a people.”

A rise in the rate of Israeli abuses has already signaled the changes to come. In the Jordan Valley, for example, more land has been expropriated, more homes have been destroyed, more property damaged, and more olive trees uprooted, than has happened for some time. On June 8, a report noted that Israel has started implementing annexation plans by “sending electricity bills directly to municipal councils…and removing signs” that designated certain areas as Palestinian. A violent military campaign launched on June 1st “targeted water networks, confiscated equipment and destroyed and confiscated 15 vegetable stalls in Bardala in the northern Jordan Valley. It also destroyed 800 meters of water lines that supply water to citizens.”

…[P]olice notified several Bardala and Ain al-Baida inhabitants in the Jordan Valley on June 2nd to settle their legal situation as they would soon be under Israeli laws. Israeli authorities also removed banners they had set up at the entrances of some villages… or at the military Tayasir checkpoint that warned settlers not to enter because they were Palestinian areas. In a first of its kind incident, the Israeli Civil Administration delivered to some village councils in the Jordan Valley direct financial requests to increase the electric current feeding the village. [Ahmad Melhem; June 8, 2020]

Israeli journalist Gideon Levy documented the expulsion of a Bedouin family from its home behind the Greek Orthodox Monastery of Saint Gerasimos in the Jordan Valley. Abu Dahuq’s is not the first or only Bedouin family to suffer this fate. Residents of the now infamous Khan al-Ahmar community “have been living with the pervasive fear of demolition and expulsion for several years.” Its fate won enough media attention to become an issue in recent Israeli elections.

Abu Dahuq’s family lived relatively undisturbed for 17 years, Levy tells us. Then, at the beginning of June, Israeli troops demolished and confiscated all of Abu Dahuq’s possessions. “They took the water containers, his six coolers, the solar panels and the canvas that had covered the shacks. The rest was bulldozed. The heaps of ruins tell the whole story: Tin walls with insulation material in them, a crushed children’s bike, a torn painting, pipes rolling about, and so on.” Abu Dahuq was told to move to (Palestinian controlled) Area A from (Israeli controlled) Area C, but he claims there is no space there for him to live. His saga of arbitrary expulsion from territory Israel intends formally to annex would almost certainly have gone unnoticed without Levy’s article.

Why provoke a media and political relations’ storm by making public the controversial West Bank annexation plan when that process can be carried forward in a gradual, step by step manner, ‘in the dark’, far from the damning eye of international condemnation? Netanyahu could still, for whatever reasons, decide it is in his interest to create another political firestorm. It might, however, be more politically expedient to keep his audience guessing as facts on the ground roll forward like tank treads. Greater Israel has come a long way over the decades using this very technique. Like the proverbial frog in its pot on the stove, by the time the water is boiling it’ll be too late to hop out.

When God forges the destiny of a devout people, it is carried forth with zeal. Whether that god is a secular or religious deity, fervent believers will remove the obstacles impeding their progress even if they are people. They will be conveniently demoted from “human” to something like “merciless Indian savages” (US Declaration of Independence) those relics of the unsaved world who threatened to block the advance of civilization across the North American continent.

Palestinians may yet prove fortunate that their history is unfolding on such a public stage and under the often unblinking eyes of media and video surveillance. Native Americans had no such luck, a fact that cost them approximately one hundred million lives over a period of 400 years. The United States bloomed out of the bloody ground of genocide. Greater Israel has had to find more creative ways to eliminate a people without their collective physical death.

In 1845, calling for the annexation of Texas, a little known American columnist –John O’Sullivan—coined the phrase, “manifest destiny” giving voice to the subconscious shared belief that the white pioneers of America had a divine mission to colonize, civilize, and create a new world, “…to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federated self-government entrusted to us.”

Israel’s manifest destiny derives both from a biblical and modern belief that the land of Zion belongs to the Jews. In its current incarnation, such a destiny contains within itself the insidious notion of organic and exclusive nationhood; the idea that only those bound by blood and a historic, quasi-religious bond to the land of their alleged origin can ever be a part of this whole. Contemporary Zionism absorbed the toxic nationalist beliefs of 19th and 20th century Europe and has applied them mercilessly in its quest for political and territorial supremacy.

This has not stopped people such as outgoing Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, from resorting to the Bible alone to justify Israel’s actions. According to him, “You cannot annex something that belongs to you” referring to the West Bank – or Judea and Samaria – bequeathed in the Bible by God to the Jewish People.

When Israel passed the Nation State Law of July 2018 it reinforced the defining principles of modern Zionism. These were not novel ideas; they were the codification of the national chauvinist beliefs at the core of its existence. Jews alone have the right to self-determination within the deliberately unspecified boundaries of the state, one of whose primary objectives is Jewish settlement of the land. Hebrew alone must be the official language. ‘Natural’, ‘religious’, and ‘historic’ qualifications promote Jewish status only and make expansion a national value.

The slated annexation of 30% of the West Bank will take place whether or not it is formally announced. It is taking place as I write. Equally so, it is neither the final nor the most serious step in the process of expansion that has defined Israel’s behavior since its creation.

On a sultry midsummer evening in August 1968 then Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan told a group of kibbutzniks gathered around him that it was Israel’s fate “to live in a permanent state of fighting against the Arabs.” His words reflected the times he was living in, the post-1967 euphoria and confidence of the young Jewish State that had, in six days, crushed the combined forces of Arab nationalism as they attacked from Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. The 3-year-old Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) had barely begun its struggle to liberate Palestine; the nascent Palestinian National Movement scarcely underway.

Israel’s advance across the region, territorially and politically, represents an extension of American manifest destiny and its complement within Zionism. Dayan outlined Israel’s path to his listeners in his famous speech, “We Are Fated”:

For the hundred years of the Return to Zion we are working for two things: the building of the land and the building of the people. That is a process of expansion, of more Jews and more settlement. That is a process that has not reached the end. …It is not your duty to reach the end. Your duty is to add your layer to expand the settlement to the best of your ability, during your lifetime… [and] not to say: this is the end, up to here, we have finished. (Uri Avnery)

The process of settling the land and creating a Jewish nation is one that must never cease. To determine the final borders of the state would be sacrilegious; a sin against Israel’s destiny; its will to expand. “Before [the Palestinians’] very eyes we are possessing the land and the villages where they and their ancestors have lived,” Dayan explained. “We are a generation of settlers, and without the settle helmet and the gun barrel, we shall not be able to plant a tree or build a house.”

The military conquest, piecemeal annexation, killing with impunity, dispossession by decree and expulsion under Israeli law that has been underway for nearly a century, is continuing before our eyes today. There is no end in sight.Join the debate on FacebookMore articles by:JENNIFER LOEWENSTEIN

Jennifer Loewenstein is a human rights activist and member of Amnesty International’s Young Leadership Group, The Arms Control Association, the Arizona Palestine Solidarity Alliance, the Tucson Samaritans, & Palestine Chronicle. She is an independent researcher and freelance journalist who has lived and worked in cities across the Middle East. She is the former Associate Director of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Associate Lecturer in Middle Eastern and Native American Studies. Jennifer currently lives and works in Tucson, AZ & can be reached at sarinj111@gmail.com.

وسائل إعلام إسرائيلية تكشف عن خريطة الضم التي اقترحتها “إسرائيل”

المصدر: الميادين نت

وسائل إعلام إٍسرائيلية تكشف عن خطة الضم التي اقترحتها
إعلام إسرائيلي: خريطة الضم الإسرائيلية تقتضي ضمّ 30% من المناطق

خريطة الضمّ التي اقترحتها “إسرائيل” على الإدارة الأميركية تقتضي ضمّ 30% من الأراضي الفلسطينية، وتتضمن حوالي 20 نقطة استيطانية كحزام واسع من المستوطنات المعزولة.

كشفت وسائل إعلام إسرائيلية عن خريطة الضمّ التي اقترحتها “إسرائيل” على الولايات المتحدة، مشيرةً إلى أنها تعديل لخطة الرئيس “الأميركي بفرض السيادة على نقاط استيطانية، مقابل تبادل مناطق مع الفلسطينيين”. 

وتشمل الخارطة الإسرائيلية تعديلات أدخلتها “إسرائيل” على الخطة الأميركية الأصلية المعروفة بـ”صفقة القرن”.

وذكرت قناة “كان” الإسرائيلية أن الفارق بينها وبين المقترحِ الأميركي، هو أن المستوطنات المعزولة أصبحت أحزمةً واسعةً جداً، تتضمن حوالي 20 نقطة استيطانية، لم تظهر في الخُطة السابقة.

وأشارت القناة إلى أن الحفاظ على الموقف الذي قدّمه الأميركيون، “سيقتضي ضمّ 30% من المناطق، وإعطاء 70% للفلسطينيين”.

وفي سبيل ذلك، اقترح رئيس الحكومة الإسرائيلية بنيامين نتنياهو، منح الفلسطينين “تعويضاً” عبارة عن “قطاع من الأراضي بالمنطقة المعروفة باسم صحراء يهودا بالضفة”.

كذلك نقلت القناة عن مصادر سياسية إسرائيلية أن نتنياهو يسعى لضم مستوطنتين “تنطويان على أهمية دينية”، هما بيت إيل (قرب رام الله وسط الضفة) و”شيلو” (بين رام الله ونابلس)، لافتة إلى أن فرض السيادة على تلك المناطق يمثل “أهمية للوبي الإنجيلي (الداعم لإسرائيل والرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب) في الولايات المتحدة”.

وكانت وكالة “أسوشيتد برس”، قد نشرت تقريراً قالت فيه إن “كبار مساعدي الأمن القومي للرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب لم يتمكنوا من التوصل إلى قرار بشأن ما إذا كان سيتم دعم خطة إسرائيلية لضم أجزاء كبيرة من الأراضي”.

وعارض الاتحاد الأوروبي خطة الضم، المزمع الإعلان عنها غداً الأربعاء، فيما حذرت المفوضية السامية لحقوق الإنسان”إسرائيل” من المضي قدماً في خططها لضم مساحة غير مشروعة من الأراضي الفلسطينية. 

PA Political Circus: Why Abbas Must Hand the Keys over to the PLO

Source

June 24, 2020

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh in Ramallah. (Photo: via Facebook)

By Ramzy Baroud

The painful truth is that the Palestinian Authority of President Mahmoud Abbas has already ceased to exist as a political body that holds much sway or relevance, either to the Palestinian people or to Abbas’ former benefactors, namely the Israeli and the American governments.

So, when the Palestinian Authority Prime Minister, Mohammed Shtayyeh, announced on June 9, that the Palestinian leadership had submitted a ‘counter-proposal’ to the US’ Middle East peace plan, also known as the ‘Deal of the Century’, few seemed to care.

We know little about this ‘counter-proposal’, aside from the fact that it envisages a demilitarized Palestinian state within the pre-1967 borders. We also know that the Palestinian leadership is willing to accept land swaps and border adjustments, a provision that has surely been inserted to cater for Israel’s demographic and security needs.

It is almost certain that nothing will come out of Shtayyeh’s counter-proposal and no independent Palestinian state is expected to result from the seemingly historical offer. So, why did Ramallah opt for such a strategy only days before the July 1 deadline, when the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to launch its process of illegal annexation in the occupied West Bank and the Jordan Valley?

The main reason behind Shtayyeh’s announcement is that the Palestinian leadership is often accused by Israel, the US and their allies of supposedly rejecting previous ‘peace’ overtures.

Rightly, the Palestinian Authority rejected the ‘Deal of the Century’, because the latter represents the most jarring violation of international law yet. The ‘Deal’ denies Palestine’s territorial rights in occupied East Jerusalem, dismisses the right of return for Palestinian refugees altogether, and gives carte blanche to the Israeli government to colonize more Palestinian land.

In principle, Netanyahu also rejected the American proposal, though without pronouncing his rejection publicly. Indeed, the Israeli leader has already dismissed any prospects of Palestinian statehood and has decided to move forward with the unilateral annexation of nearly 30% of the West Bank without paying any heed to the fact that even Trump’s unfair ‘peace’ initiative called for mutual dialogue before any annexation takes place.

As soon as Washington’s plan was announced in January, followed by Israel’s insistence that annexation of Palestinian territories was imminent, the Palestinian Authority spun into a strange political mode, far more unpredictable and bizarre than ever before.

One after another, Palestinian Authority officials began making all sorts of contradictory remarks and declarations, notable amongst them Abbas’ decision on May 19 to cancel all agreements signed between Palestinians and Israel.

This was followed by another announcement, on June 8, this time by Hussein Al-Sheikh, a senior Palestinian Authority official and Abbas’ confidante, that if annexation takes place the Authority would cut off civil services to Palestinians so that Israel may assume its legal role as an Occupying Power as per international norms.

A third announcement was made the following day by Shtayyeh himself, who threatened that, if Israel claims sovereignty over parts of the West Bank, the Authority would retaliate by declaring statehood within the pre-1967 borders.

The Palestinian counter-proposal was declared soon after this hotchpotch of announcements, most likely to offset the state of confusion that is marring the Palestinian body politic. It is the Palestinian leadership’s way of appearing pro-active, positive, and stately.

The Palestinian initiative also aims at sending a message to European countries that, despite Abbas’ cancellation of agreements with Israel, the Palestinian Authority is still committed to the political parameters set by the Oslo Accords as early as September 1993.

What Abbas and Shtayyeh are ultimately hoping to achieve is a repeat of an earlier episode that followed the admission of Palestine as a non-state member of the United Nations General Assembly in 2011. Salam Fayyad, who served as the Authority Prime Minister at the time, also waved the card of the unilateral declaration of statehood to force Israel to freeze the construction of illegal Jewish settlements.

Eventually, the Palestinian Authority was co-opted by then-US Secretary of State, John Kerry, to return to another round of useless negotiations with Israel, which won the Authority another ten years, during which time it received generous international funds while selling Palestinians false hope for an imaginary state.

Sadly, this is the current strategy of the Palestinian leadership: a combination of threats, counter-proposals and such, in the hope that Washington and Tel Aviv will agree to return to a by-gone era.

Of course, the Palestinian people, occupied, besieged, and oppressed are the least relevant factor in the Palestinian Authority’s calculations, but this should come as no surprise. The Palestinian leadership has operated for many years without a semblance of democracy, and the Palestinian people neither respect their government nor their so-called President. They have made their feelings known, repeatedly, in many opinion polls in the past.

In the last few months, the Authority has used every trick in the book to demonstrate its relevance and its seriousness in the face of the dual-threat of Trump’s ‘Deal of the Century’ and Netanyahu’s annexation of Palestinian lands. Yet, the most significant and absolutely pressing step, that of uniting all Palestinians, people and factions, behind a single political body and a single political document, is yet to be taken.

Considering all of this, it is no exaggeration to argue that Abbas’ Authority is gasping its last breath, especially if its traditional European allies fail to extend a desperately needed lifeline. The guarded positions adopted by EU countries have, thus far, signaled that no European country is capable or even willing to fill the gap left open by Washington’s betrayal of the Palestinian Authority and of the ‘peace process’.

Until the Authority hands over the keys to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) so that the more democratically representative Palestinian body can start a process of national reconciliation, Netanyahu will, tragically, remain the only relevant party, determining the fate of Palestine and her people.

– Ramzy Baroud is a journalist and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of five books. His latest is “These Chains Will Be Broken: Palestinian Stories of Struggle and Defiance in Israeli Prisons” (Clarity Press, Atlanta). Dr. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA), Istanbul Zaim University (IZU). His website is www.ramzybaroud.net

جيفري و2011… أم برّي و1982؟

ناصر قنديل

وضع رئيس مجلس النواب نبيه بري الأزمة المالية التي تزداد وطأتها على اللبنانيين، في قلب مقاربة يتجاهلها الكثير من السياسيين، ويرغب الكثير من المسؤولين مواصلة حالة الإنكار في النظر إليها؛ وجوهرها أن صراعاً استراتيجياً يدور من حول لبنان، وتتداخل فيه محاولات الاستحواذ على موقع لبنان الحساس في هذا الصراع المثلث الأبعاد، لدرجة تحوله إلى الموقع المقرر في رسم مستقبل الوجهة التي سيسلكها الوضع من حوله في ضوء الموقع الذي يرسو عليه لبنان، والصراع المثلث الذي تحدّث عنه بري، هو الصراع على قوس النفط والغاز في الساحل الشرقي للبحر المتوسط، وفي قلبه محاور الممرات المائية نحو أوروبا، والصراع على سورية ومن حولها من بوابة قانون قيصر، وموقع دول الجوار السوري فيه، والصراع على أمن كيان الاحتلال ومستقبل القضية الفلسطينية، من بوابة صفقة القرن، ضمن محاولة تفتيت المنطقة إلى كيانات عنصريّة متناحرة.

التدقيق في خريطة بري، يُظهر نقاط الضعف والقوة في المشهد الاستراتيجي، كما يظهر الموقع الحاسم لتموضع لبنان في رسم مستقبلها، بصورة تفسر استعارته لتشبيه الوضع بما كان عليه عام 1982، مع اجتياح جيش الاحتلال للعاصمة اللبنانية، فمن جهة تقف مصر سداً أمام الأطماع التركية في نفط وغاز ليبيا، لكنها شريك في أنبوب غاز مع كيان الاحتلال يستهدف شق الطرق المائية نحو أوروبا، تمنعه اتفاقات تركيا مع حكومة فائز السراج في ليبيا، فتحمي عملياً أحادية الأنبوب الروسي التركي نحو أوروبا، ومن جهة مقابلة، يقف العراق في ظل حكومته الجديدة برئاسة مصطفى الكاظمي على ضفة التمسك بالاستثناءات من العقوبات الأميركية على إيران، فيما تسعى واشنطن مقابل ذلك لضمان مشاركته في إغلاق حدود الجوار السوري ضمن مفاعيل قانون قيصر، ومن جهة ثالثة يشكل الأردن المتضرّر الأكبر من صفقة القرن، سواء بضم القدس وغور الأردن إلى كيان الاحتلال، أو أصلاً بإحياء نظرية الوطن البديل للفلسطينيين، الرئة التي يراد إقفالها على سورية، وهو الشريك في أنبوب الغاز المشترك بين مصر وكيان الاحتلال.

وفقاً لخريطة بري يبدو لبنان حلقة الترجيح في ظل تعقيدات محاور الاشتباك الساخن الدائر من حول لبنان، كما عام 1982، فرفض رفع الراية البيضاء أمام المشروع المثلث لكيان الاحتلال، بعناوين أميركية، لخنق المقاومة وسورية وتمرير أنبوب الغاز إلى أوروبا، سينتج خريطة جديدة. وتبدو صيغة بري للمواجهة هذه المرة من موقع الدولة خلافاً لمواجهة عام 82 في الميدان، ولذلك فهي تقوم على تمسك لبنان بحقوقه في النفط والغاز، في المفاوضات التي يمسك بري بإدارتها، غير القابلة لإعادة النظر، ويتكامل مع سورية لتشكيل أنبوب ثالث لثروات المتوسط، يتطلع لضمّ الأردن ومصر إليه، وبناء علاقة تعاون مع روسيا من موقع عربي مستقلّ عن تركيا وكيان الاحتلال. ونقطة القوة اللبنانية هنا يكشفها الربط الأميركي الذي كشف عنه معاون وزير الخارجية الأميركية ديفيد شينكر بين ترسيم حدود لبنان البحرية بما يُرضي كيان الاحتلال وأزمة لبنان المالية، من جهة، وبين هذا الترسيم وقدرة كيان الاحتلال على استثمار ذي قيمة تجارية لكيان الاحتلال لثروات الغاز، من جهة موازية، تفسر الإلحاح الأميركي، وفي المسارات الموازية لا تبتعد خطة بري عن سعي لسوار لبناني عراقي أردني يخاطب العقوبات على سورية بلغة المصالح الوطنية لدول الجوار السوري، وعن سعي لموقف مصري سوري أردني عراقي لبناني موحّد من صفقة القرن الهادفة لتصفية مصالح الفلسطينيين وقضيتهم، وإصابة مصالح حيوية للبنان بتصفية حق العودة، وللأردن بجعله وطناً بديلاً للفلسطينيين، وتصيب مصالح العراق ومصر باستقرار إقليمي سيتكفل بتفجيره حصار سورية وانهيار لبنان، وانفجار فلسطين.

تقابل دعوة بري، دعوة أميركية أطلقها المبعوث الأميركي الخاص حول سورية، جيمس جيفري، كاشفاً الإدراك الأميركي لتغير الموازين، بإعلان هدف الضغوط الأميركية الجديدة، تحت عنوان العودة إلى ما قبل 2011، لجهة التسليم بانتصار الدولة السورية، مقابل سحب وجود قوى المقاومة من سورية. بينما العودة إلى ما قبل العام 2011 في روزنامة بري تعني، العودة إلى ما قبل خط هوف المقترح أميركياً لترسيم الحدود البحرية للبنان بمنظار مصالح كيان الاحتلال، وما قبل صفقة القرن والاعتراف الأميركي بضم الجولان، وما قبل العقوبات المشددة على إيران، وما قبل حرب اليمن، فهل غابت عن العقل الأميركي استحالة العودة إلى العام 2011 على قدم واحدة، وما يمكن أن يفتحه العنوان من أبواب موازية، تلاقيها دعوة بري التي تنتظر لتكتمل معالمها نضجاً لبنانياً، وانتباهاً مصرياً وعراقياً وأردنياً؟

روسيا والصين وكسر حاجز الصمت

لزمن طويل كانت الدوائر الدبلوماسية في الصين وروسيا تفضل البقاء في دائرة الدفاع عن سياساتهما الرسمية القائمة على عناوين عريضة من نوع رفض الحروب والتدخلات والاحتكام إلى القانون الدولي والمساعي الأممية بحثاً عن الحل السياسي. وبعد التموضع الروسي في سورية رفع الروس وتيرة المشاركة في السجال الذي تمتهنه واشنطن لتسويق سياساتها، لكنهم بقوا عند حدود الدفاع عن نزاهة الدور الروسي وقانونيته وشرعيته والحرص على عدم توجيه الاتهامات المباشرة لواشنطن حرصاً على عدم التورط في الرد والرد على الرد.

أظهرت الأيام الأخيرة تطوراً نوعياً في السجال الأميركي الروسي الصيني حول لبنان، فخرج السفير الروسي على قناة المنار يصف اتهامات معاون وزير الخارجية الأميركية ديفيد شنكر لحزب الله بالمسؤولية عن الأزمة الاقتصادية بدفاع مستغرَب عن الفساد ومسؤوليته في تخريب الاقتصاد اللبناني ومحاولة تسييس يائسة للملف الاقتصادي، مؤكداً اهتمام الشركات الروسية بلبنان، واضعاً محاولات واشنطن إبعاد روسيا والصين عن لبنان في دائرة السعي لوضع اليد على لبنان كحلقة في النفوذ الحساس في منطقة الشرق الأوسط من زاوية جيواستراتيجية بينما روسيا والصين تؤمنان بأن لبنان بلد توازنات يجب أن يتعاون مع الجميع.

كلام السفير الصيني، الذي نادراً ما يدخل على الملفات الخلافية، ونادراً ما يتحدث عن السياسات الدولية واللبنانية خارج إطار العموميّات، جاء بسقف عالٍ في رده على شينكر، وصولاً لحد نصيحة الدبلوماسي الأميركي بالاهتمام برفاه شعبه وصحته في ضوء تعثر إدارته بمواجهة وباء كورونا مفصلاً في رده كل النقاط التي اثارها شينكر في محاولة التشويش على أي انفتاح لبناني صيني. واللافت هو اللغة العالية النبرة التي استخدمها السفير الصيني قياساً بتحفظه التقليدي، وبالطريقة الصينية المعتمدة بتفادي السجالات.

الواضح أن روسيا والصين قررتا كسر جدار الصمت أمام الحملات الأميركية، لكن الأوضح من خلال اللغة الأميركية القاسية في التطاول على روسيا والصين، والردود الروسية الصينية الأشد قسوة، ولو من موقع الدفاع، هو أن لبنان بات نقطة صراع مفصليّة على ساحل المتوسط، وأن التبعية الثقافية للعديد من السياسيين والمسؤولين اللبنانيين التي تعميهم عن رؤية حجم تراجع القدرة الأميركية على الاستئثار بالنقاط الجيواستراتيجية على ساحل المتوسط، ستجعل الصراع أشد وطأة على لبنان واللبنانيين.

مقالات متعلقة

‘Israel’ Fears Annexation May Trigger a Multi-front War within Weeks

‘Israel’ Fears Annexation May Trigger a Multi-front War within Weeks

By Staff, Agencies

Out of its endless fears of the axis of resistance’s growing might, ‘Israel’ is studying all possible scenarios regarding its ploy to annex lands in the occupied West Bank and the Jordan valley.

The Zionist entity stands before one of the most difficult periods it has ever known, just about a perfect storm.

The political and judicial crisis surrounding its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s trial has barely begun, with the premier conducting an unbridled campaign to undermine the judicial system.

According to Haaretz, ‘Israel’ stands before a number of challenges, some self-made, which threaten to change the face of the region, greatly exacerbate the Zionist entity’s already severe international isolation and de-legitimization, and lead to the precipice of war, possibly beyond. The fundamental pillars of the Zionist regime’s ‘security’ will be severely tried.

Annexation will also make an escalation with Hezbollah quite possible. Just weeks from now, ‘Israel’ could find itself in the midst of an unprecedented multi-front confrontation with the axis of resistance. Hezbollah, alone, has an arsenal of 130,000 rockets.

‘Israel’s’ ties with Jordan and Egypt will suffer, its treaties with them will be put to a severe test

Also for Iran, annexation will provide an unexpected opportunity to strengthen the axis of resistance.

Meanwhile, the need for consensus may prevent the European Union from imposing comprehensive EU-wide sanctions on ‘Israel’, but this is no longer assured and, in any event, individual member states have already informed the Zionist entity of their intention to adopt unilateral punitive measures, should this prove necessary. ‘Israel’s’ high-tech industry, its growth engine, will be undercut, as will its scientific and other academic capabilities.

Jacob Cohen: “The Zionists Have Become Masters in The Art of Propaganda”

By Mohsen Abdelmoumen

Source

Jacob Cohen 54dba

Mohsen Abdelmoumen: What is your analysis of the annexation of the West Bank this July 1?

Jacob Cohen: The Zionist regime is not crazy enough to annex the entire West Bank, because then it would have to naturalize all Palestinians. It only wants to annex the “useful” West Bank, i.e. the Jordan Valley, thus preventing a possible Palestinian State to control its own borders and the large Jewish settlement blocs. It would thus continue to have a submissive and cheap labor force at its disposal, and the cooperation of a docile Palestinian police force to maintain colonial order.

It is not sure that this annexation will take place on July 1. Zionists are pragmatic people and know how to step back to jump better.

But in any case, annexation or not, the Zionists will never give up these territories they claim. The Jordan Valley is already implicitly recognized to them by all the great powers, even Russia, to ensure “the security of Israel”. And no one can imagine that the Zionist regime would bring 700,000 settlers below the Green Line.

These are the main lines of a possible Israeli-Palestinian agreement, and the Palestinian Authority pretends to believe, madly or stupidly, that it could recover the whole of the West Bank.

How do you explain that twenty ministers of the Israeli government are of Moroccan origin? Israeli security and defense companies are based in Morocco. How do you analyze these facts? Is not Morocco a real launching pad for the normalization policy advocated by the Zionist entity of Israel?

Only ten ministers have a distant connection with Morocco, which they do not care about. It is the Judeo-Zionist lobby in Morocco, led by the “sayan” (Mossad agent) André Azoulay, advisor to the monarchy for forty years, who does everything to maintain the illusion of perfect understanding between Morocco and its former Jewish citizens. Everything is done in Morocco to rekindle an almost extinguished flame. This to allow the visit of Israelis to Morocco, tourists, artists, businessmen, to push towards an official normalization of Israeli-Moroccan relations.

It is true that Morocco, since the installation of Mossad in that country in the 1950s to send Moroccan Jews to Israel, and the agreement obtained from Hassan II in 1961 for this purpose, is Israel’s de facto ally and support for its legitimization in the Arab world. In 1986, in the middle of the Intifada, the King received with great pomp the Israeli leaders Rabin and Peres.

Furthermore Morocco, on the other hand, which needs American diplomatic support to ensure its stranglehold on Western Sahara, does everything possible to please Israel, whose influence on American institutions is known.

How do you explain the strategic redeployment of the Zionist entity of Israel throughout Africa?

This redeployment had begun in the fields of construction and agriculture as early as the 1960s, after African independences. A redeployment stopped by the June 1967 war and the military occupation of vast Arab territories. The non-aligned movement at the time was still very influential.

The Oslo Accords restored some good repute to the Zionist regime, because it was assumed that it would give a State to the Palestinians in the long run.

Africa from the 1990s was no longer this non-aligned bloc sensitive to a form of international justice. It had joined the globalist circuit and security issues had become paramount.

Israel had become an important and feared partner. Did it not contribute to the amputation of the southern part of Sudan? Its networks in East Africa are very active and their strike force is well known.

Finally, little by little, the Zionist regime has managed, something inconceivable 20 years ago, to win the diplomatic support of many African countries in crucial votes in international institutions.

Algeria is one of the few countries that does not recognize Israel. Doesn’t Algeria still remain a permanent target of the Zionist entity of Israel?

All Arab countries are a permanent target of the Zionist entity. Even countries that submit are not definitively spared. Thus, even Morocco is not immune to Mossad’s attempts to stir up separatism in the Berber areas. If for no other reason than to keep the pressure on this country and make it understand that it has an interest in keeping its nose clean.

Let us remember the fate of Iraq and Syria, which the Zionist regime contributed to destroying.

Algeria will not escape the Zionist vindictiveness, which will try to reach it in one way or another. But this country is far away, not very sensitive to foreign influence, sitting on a large income, with a long history of national resistance, and a strong sense of patriotism. This is what makes it one of the few countries to stand up to the Zionist entity. And because of its geographical position and size, it is a country that is essential to regional security and therefore preserved.

We know the weight of the Zionist lobby in the United States through AIPAC. What is the weight of the Zionist lobby in Europe?

No difference except from a formal point of view. In the United States, the Zionist lobby has a legal existence, with its recognized networks of influence, its buildings in Washington and elsewhere, its congresses, where any candidate for an important post, be it senator or president, must appear and express his support to Israel.

Whereas in Europe, the lobby is more discreet but no less effectivePractically all European countries have banned the BDS movement, and adopted the definition of anti-Semitism proposed by a Jewish organization fighting against the “Shoah”. With this in particular that any criticism of Israel is equated with anti-Semitism. European countries have not even been able to implement their resolution to label products that come from the Zionist settlements in the West Bank.

In France, at the CRIF (note: Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France) dinner, the entire establishment of the French Republic, including the President, bowed down and received instructions from the Judeo-Zionist lobby.

The European Union has set up a body to combat anti-Semitism headed by the German Katharina Von Schnurbein. How do you explain the fact that the European Union is setting up a body to defend Israel’s interests with European taxpayers’ money and that there is no hesitation in condemning all those who are against the criminal and fascist policies of Israel by calling them anti-Semites?

“Antisemitism” has been an extraordinary discovery of the Judeo-Zionist lobby in Europe. Of course, we know the history of the Second World War. But for the past 30 years or so, this lobby has been working hard to make it the greatest scourge of the 21st century. A few arranged or staged attacks, a few so-called verbal aggressions, a few desecrations that come in at the right time, a swastika lost here or there, and all the media networks are being used to make it look like there’s a resurgence of anti-Semitism. European governments are under pressure. They cannot afford any weakness.

But from criticism of Israel, we move on to anti-Semitism. The argument is fallacious, but it works. When you criticize Israel, you stir up “hatred” against that country and European Jewish citizens, and thus anti-Semitic aggression. Therefore, Israel should not be criticized. Anti-Zionism becomes an offense because it is equated with anti-Semitism. Pro-Palestinian demonstrations are banned because they lead to anti-Semitism.

Anti-Semitism has become a kind of blank cheque given to the Zionists to do whatever they like in Palestine without being worried, condemned or criticized.

You are a great anti-Zionist activist and a defender of the just cause of the Palestinian people. In your book “Le printemps des Sayanim” (The Spring of the Sayanim), you talk about the role of the sayanim in the world. Can you explain to our readership what sayanim are and what exactly is their role?

The “sayanim”, in Hebrew “those who help”, are Jews who live outside Israel and who, by Zionist patriotism, collaborate with the Mossad in their fields of activity.

They were created as early as 1959 by the Mossad chief at the time, Méir Amit. They’re probably between 40,000 and 50,000. Victor Ostrovsky, a former Mossad agent and refugee in Canada, talks about it for certain cases. He estimated that in the 1980s, in London alone, there were 3,000 sayanim.

What is their utility? Mossad recruits sayanim who work voluntarily in all major areas. For example, the media: these Jewish journalists or press bosses around the world will orient information in such a way as to favor Israel at the expense of Arabs.

In the United States, the Jewish power in the film industry is well known. Just an example. In 1961, Hollywood produced the film “Exodus” with Paul Newman, which tells the story of the birth of Israel in 1948 from a Zionist point of view. This film has shaped Western consciousness for at least a generation.

The same could be said for the financial institutions based in New York and dominated by Judeo-Zionists.

In France, advertising, publishing, the press, television, university, etc. are more or less controlled by “sayanim”.

It is therefore easy to understand the Zionist lobby’s strike force, a strike force that remains moreover invisible.

Isn’t Zionism, which is the direct product of the Talmud and the Jewish Kabbalah, an ideology that is both racist and fascist?

If we take Zionism in its political sense, that is, in the nationalist vision of the political movements of the 19th century, it was a secular and progressive ideology. It had seduced tens of thousands of activists, particularly in Russia and Poland, who sought to realize their revolutionary ideal outside the progressive movements of the time. They wanted to transform the Jewish people, to make it “normal”.

Despite these characteristics, these activists, upon arriving in Palestine, had excluded the Arabs from their national project from the outset. The seeds of racism were already planted. The Arabs had to be expelled or got rid of somehow. Even the kibbutzim, the flagships of “Zionist socialism”, did not admit Arabs within them.

Wars and conquests, especially of the “biblical” cities in the West Bank, have plunged Israeli society into a messianic fascism and racism that no longer even hide. The latest “Law on the Nation of the Jewish People” clearly establishes racist elements, such as the possibility for a Jewish municipality to refuse Arab inhabitants, even though they have Israeli nationality.

Doesn’t the just cause of the Palestinian people need a more intense mobilization in the face of the criminal offensives of the fascist Israeli colonial army? Don’t you think that the role of BDS is very important to counter Israeli fascism?

For the reasons I mentioned earlier, the Zionist regime has managed to stifle, at least in part, the legitimate demands of the Palestinian people. As far as the media and relations with the governments of the major powers are concerned, the balance is tipped in favor of Zionism. That’s a fact. Even the majority of Arab countries, for reasons that cannot be confessed, are turning away from it.

BDS is an extraordinary weapon, but as I said, it is increasingly banned in the West because it is considered as an ” anti-Semitic ” movement. It’s absurd, sure, but it’s so. Example: Germany withdrew a European prize from a woman writer because she had tweeted pro-BDS a few months before.

How do you explain that at a time when freedom-loving Westerners support BDS, Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia, Emirates, Qatar, etc. are normalizing their relations with the Zionist entity of Israel as part of the “deal of the century” spearheaded by Jared Kushner?

Historically, these monarchies have never supported the Palestinians, or at least with lip service, because they feared the revolutionary potential of the Palestinian movements in the 60s and 70s. The Arab world was then divided between “conservatives” and “progressives”. Following the example of Hassan II mentioned above, these monarchies were just waiting for the historic opportunity to normalize their relations with the Zionist regime. It is in their interest, the interest of the castes in power. We have seen what could happen to nationalist or progressive Arab regimes (Iraq, Syria, Libya). They were given a choice: fall in line and collaborate with Israel or some “Daesh” or separatist movements will drop on them. These monarchs do not have the suicidal instinct for a Palestine that has become an increasingly evanescent myth.

What is your opinion about the infamous blockade that the Palestinian people are suffering in Gaza while the world is in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic?

The Zionist regime is submitting the people of Gaza to a concentration camp quasi-regime. Why quasi? Because the Zionist conqueror remains just below, cynically and intelligently, the level that could no longer leave the world indifferent. The blockade is not hermetic, allowing to pass through it in dribs and drabs at the occupant’s discretion, just enough to not sink. The fishing area is reduced or increased so as to keep this sword of Damocles on any fisherman who dares to go out. Electricity is limited to a few hours a day. Information from the inside is reduced, travels are limited. Israel even took the liberty about two years ago of banning European parliamentarians from entering the Gaza Strip. All the more so as Egypt’s complicity makes it possible to maintain this situation, and the Palestinian Authority withhold all payments to officials in Gaza. The world is given the impression that the Gazans are struggling, indeed, but that they had something to do with it, because they launch a few rockets from time to time and Hamas is considered a “terrorist” organization. The Zionists have become masters in the art of propaganda, with the complicity of Western governments. And Gaza is paying a terrible price.

You have been threatened and attacked on several occasions, including by the LDJ (Jewish Defense League), for supporting the cause of the Palestinian people and for being anti-Zionist. How do you explain the fact that in France, a country that prides itself on being a State governed by the rule of law and which is a champion of human rights and freedom of speech, fascist militias like Betar (note: radical Zionist Jewish youth movement), LDJ, CRIF, which defend the interests of Israel can act with impunity?

First there is the history of the Second World War and the Vichy regime, which leaves a sense of guilt, a feeling cleverly exploited by the Judeo-Zionist lobby with the multiplication of films on the Shoah which are shown over and over again on French channels.

Then there is the action of the “sayanim” very presents in the media and other institutions, and who terrorize, the word is not too strong, all those who deviate even a little. Take Dieudonné (note: French humorist, actor and political activist), he has been made the devil to such an extent that he can be assassinated with impunity. On the other hand, saying two or three wrong words to Eric Zemmour (note: French political journalist, writer, essayist and polemicist) in the street, and the President of the Republic calls him on the phone for 40 minutes.

Finally, there is great cowardice on the part of French intellectuals, journalists and politicians who do not say what they think. The fear of the CRIF is paralyzing them. Remember Etienne Chouard, a very famous intellectual who became well known during the referendum on Europe in 2005 and for his support for Yellow Vests. He was summoned to explain himself about the gas chambers on the site “Le Média“. The unfortunate man tried to clear out. He’s been bombarded with insults. He went to apologize on “Sud Radio“. He has since lost all credibility.

How do you explain the fact that all the media remain silent about the crimes of the Zionist entity of Israel and do not give voice to people like you? Where is the freedom of speech those western countries brag about? In your opinion, doesn’t the mass media serve an oligarchy?

Modern media are not supposed to track down the truth and proclaim it. See the way they treated covid19 and big-pharma. See also the coverage of Presidents Trump and Putin by these media, or the Syrian case. The major media belong either to the State (public radio and television) or to the financial oligarchies, all of which are, as I have shown, close to the interests of the Zionist lobby. So, when they boast about being free and promoting freedom of speech, they’re just self-promotion by brazenly lying. Moreover, the tendency in the name of this “freedom to inform” is to track down the so-called fake news, in fact the information that don’t fit the mould. And as long as this balance of power lasts, the crimes of the Zionist entity will be silenced or diminished, and the rights of the Palestinian people will be ignored.

In your opinion, weren’t the Oslo Accords a big scam that harmed the Palestinians by depriving them of their rights?

The Oslo Accords were one of the finest diplomatic scams of the century. With the Palestinians’ consent. In a SM (sadomasochistic) relationship, the master and the slave freely assume their role. The Zionist master found in Arafat the ideal slave to play the role.

I say this with great sadness and rage. But the reality is there. Arafat disappeared from the international scene in 1992. When Rabin beckons him, he no longer holds back. He was about to come back into the limelight.

It’s Rabbi’s stroke of genius. Israel was in a very difficult, let’s say catastrophic situation. The Intifada showed an over-armed and brutal army of occupation in the face of stone-throwing kids. The Palestinian cause was at the top. If Rabin had contacted Barghouti, the leader of the Intifada, the latter would have had strict and inflexible demands: Independence or nothing.

Arafat has given up everything. On all the sensitive issues, the refugees, Jerusalem, the settlements, the borders, the independent State, Rabin told him: “we will see later”. And Arafat agreed.

And furthermore, he delivered 60 % of the West Bank under the total sovereignty of Israel. This is the Zone C, on which the major cities of occupation are built.

Ultimately, Arafat could have realized after 2 or 3 years that he had been manipulated, that the Zionists will never give him a State, and slam the door, and put the occupier back in front of his responsibilities. But no, he continued until his death and Mahmoud Abbas is continuing along the same path, which lead to the progressive strangulation of what remained of Palestine.

But for Rabin, and the Zionist regime, the gain was fantastic. Israel was no longer the occupant. The whole world was pretending to proclaim the need for 2 States. It was just a matter of being patient and negotiating. The Zionist regime has thus restored much of its international credibility and legitimacy.

We saw the United States and the whole world shocked by the way George Floyd was murdered by a police officer. However, Palestinians suffer the same abuses on a daily basis, as this hold (a technique known as strangulation) is often used by the Israeli army, Tsahal. How do you explain the fact that nobody protests this? The world was rightly moved by the murder of George Floyd, why does it not react when Palestinians are murdered?

We keep coming back to the same problem. It is the media that make the news. And who controls the media? The Palestinians do not have a voice for the reasons mentioned above. Because when the media decides to inflate a problem, they do.

Interview realized by Mohsen Abdelmoumen

Who is Jacob Cohen?

Jacob Cohen is a writer and lecturer born in 1944. Polyglot and traveler, anti-Zionist activist, he was a translator and teacher at the Faculty of Law in Casablanca. He obtained a law degree from the Faculty of Casablanca and then joined Science-Po in Paris where he obtained his degree in Science-Po as well as a postgraduate degree (DES) in public law. He lived in Montreal and then Berlin. In 1978, he returned to Morocco where he became an assistant lecturer at the Faculty of Law in Casablanca until 1987. He then moved to Paris where he now focuses on writing. He has published several books,

Quds Day: Reminder of Palestinian struggle

By Salman Parviz

May 21, 2020 – 14:5

Originating in Iran with the victory of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Imam Khomeini declared the last Friday of the holy month of Ramadan as Quds Day with the aim of forging unity among the Muslims and Arab nations so that they will unanimously express their backing for the Palestinian nation each year.

To mark the occasion amid the novel coronavirus pandemic the International Quds Day Conference was held online May 18 and 19.

This year’s Quds Day has special significance in the denunciation of the so-called “Deal of the Century” and proposed annexation of Jordan Valley and occupied West Bank, a display of shocking disregard for international law. The deal has given green light to Israeli sovereignty on the illegal settlements built since the 1967 war, which is now colonized by more than 600,000 Israeli Jews.

Protests in the region on May 15 marked the 72nd anniversary of the Nakba or “catastrophe”, when hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were forced into exile following creation of the Zionist state in 1948. It was another opportunity to denounce the policies of U.S. President D. Trump’s ultra-right policies and alliance with Israel.

While successive U.S. presidents and administrations have supported Israel, none has done as much in such a short time to embolden its right-wing settler-led colonialist government than Trump whose administration recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in 2017, stalling the road map for a two-state solution.

Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner worked closely with former U.S. special envoy for the Middle East, Jason Greenblatt, to design the “Deal of the Century”. The plan was announced in January after several months of delay. What Palestinians saw as a “surrender note”, referred in one of the Tehran Times’ headlines as the “Highway to Hell” and what many consider “Heist of the Century”.

After three inconclusive elections in the Zionist state a three-year power-sharing agreement was announced in April which allows Netanyahu first bite at leading before handing power to Benny Gantz. At the heart of that agreement is the illegal annexation of large swathes of the West Bank, including the Jordan Valley and the Northern Dead Sea.

Israel is 21st century’s Middle East version of apartheid-era South Africa, the only remaining apartheid state where Palestinians remain, at best, second class citizens in Israel, under occupation in Gaza, East Jerusalem and West Bank.

Of historical significance is the plight of residents of Gaza Strip. In January 2006, Hamas won a sweeping majority in the Palestinian Legislative Council elections ending more than 40 years of domination by Fatah, the political faction built by the late Yasir Arafat.

Following the elections U.S., EU and Canada cut off funding to the Palestinian Authority despite Canada having helped to facilitate and monitor the elections. Worth mentioning is that the Israel-Hezbollah conflict ensued during the summer of 2006.

Gaza Strip was put under Israeli and Egyptian blockade in 2007 when the Hamas resistance movement started controlling the enclave. As a result of Israel’s stifling measures the UN has warned in the past that the Gaza Strip would become “uninhabitable” by 2020.

More than two million people cramped up in a 362 square kilometer area, deprived of their fundamental human rights including freedom of movement. Under strict air, sea and ground siege imposed by Israel and Egypt for the last thirteen years, Gaza Strip is considered the largest open-air prison in the world.

This prison verdict is backed by international community, mainly the Western powers and the U.S. During the siege the coastal enclave has undergone three major Israeli offensives.

Today around 6.5 million Palestinians live abroad as refugees or members of the diaspora.

Quds day is a reminder of the plight of Palestinian people.
 

RELATED NEWS

Jordanian PM threatens to reconsider relations with Israel over West Bank annexation

BEIRUT, LEBANON (1:30 P.M.) – Jordanian Prime Minister Omar Al-Razzaz said that the Hashemite Kingdom will not accept unilateral Israeli measures to annex Palestinian lands in the occupied West Bank, “and we will be forced to reconsider the relationship with Israel.”

Al-Razzaz stressed that “His Majesty was clear, decisive and in harmony with the Jordanian constants, which he reiterates repeatedly in any international forum that talks about global peace and security.”

“The king always reminds the international community, that without a just solution to the Palestinian issue preserving the rights of the Palestinian people, we should not talk about peace without this file,” he continued.

“Jordan, with the king’s words, is clear: We will not accept this, and our opportunity will be to reconsider the relationship with Israel in all its dimensions, but without rushing and anticipating things,” Al-Razzaz said, pointing out that the Hashemite Kingdom is hoping that Israel will reconsider these measures.

Al-Razzaz expressed his hope that “a unified Arab position will be formed and that the international community will fulfill its duty to protect peace not only in this region but also at the world level.”

ALSO READ

خطرُ حكومة الرأسين الإسرائيليّة: كيف يواجَه؟

العميد د. أمين محمد حطيط

بعد نيّف وسنة وبعد 3 انتخابات عامة توصّل نتنياهو إلى تشكيل حكومة ائتلاف مع حزب «أزرق أبيض» ضمن فيه رئاسة الحكومة في الكيان الصهيوني لـ 18 شهراً تعقبها 18 شهراً أخرى يكون فيها رئيس حكومة بديلاً. فترة يظنها كافية لتصفية ملفاته القضائية التي إذا فعلت ووصلت إلى منتهاها فإنها تقوده إلى السجن بعيداً عن أيّ منصب رسمي.

في المقابل ضمن بني غانتس رئيس «أبيض أزرق» والذي فشل في تشكيل حكومة بمفرده بعيداً عن الليكود ورئيسه نتنياهو، الوصول لأول مرة إلى منصب «رئيس حكومة بديل» الآن ورئيس حكومة أساسي بعد 18 شهراً أيّ بعد انتهاء مدة رئاسة نتنياهو. ومع تشكل هذا الائتلاف الحكومي ذي الرأسين في كيان العدو تطرح أسئلة كثيرة حول الأداء الإسرائيلي في الإقليم بشكل عام وتنفيذ «رؤية ترامب للسلام» والمسماة «صفقة القرن» التي قد تستوجب من الثنائي الإسرائيلي الأميركي عمليات عسكرية تلزمها لإزالة العوائق من أمامها.

قبل مناقشة هذه الأسئلة والإجابة عليها، لا بدّ من استعادة مقولة قديمة تفيد بأنّ «إسرائيل» في كلّ مرة يتعاظم فيها مأزق داخلي أو يشتدّ بتصورها خطر خارجي أو يتزامن الاثنان معاً فإنها تلجأ إلى حكومة ائتلاف تسمّيها «حكومة وحدة وطنية» تذهب بها لمواجهة المأزق أو الخطر بفتح جبهة حرب تنسي جمهورها المأزق او تبعد او تعالج الخطر.

وصحيح أنّ تشكيل الحكومة الراهنة أملته ظواهر عجز أيّ من الطرفين عن تشكيل حكومته الخاصة رغم محاولات تكرّرت بعد 3 دورات انتخابية، إلا انّ الواقع الإسرائيلي من حيث التحديات الداخلية وما تتصوّره من مخاطر خارجية يوحي بأنّ مثل هذه الحكومة ذات الرأسين الأساسي والاحتياط المتناوبين على رئاستها هي حكومة تشكل مصلحة لـ «إسرائيل» الآن، في ظلّ ما تضخمه حكومة نتنياهو الراحلة من خطر خارجي محدق يتمثل حسب زعمها بالوجود الإيراني في سورية وبتنظيم المقاومة في جبهة الجولان بالتعاون والتنسيق بين سورية وحزب الله الذي بات يملك حسب الزعم الإسرائيلي 150 ألف صاروخ متفاوتة المدى فضلاً عن 1000 صاروخ ذات رؤوس الدقيقة. وهذه ترسانة تغطي كامل مساحة فلسطين المحتلة. وكلّ ذلك لا يعالج برأيهم إلا بالعمل العسكري الذي يجهض هذا الخطر بتدمير هذا السلاح.

أما التحدي الآخر ففيه أيضاً ما يستحق «جمع الكلمة» على حدّ قول أحد خبرائهم الاستراتيجيين حيث إنّ من مصلحة «إسرائيل» أن تبدأ بتنفيذ «رؤية ترامب للسلام» المسماة «صفقة القرن» بما فيها من ضمّ أرض وإطاحة حلم الدولة الفلسطينية، وصولاً إلى التصفية النهائية للقضية الفلسطينية كلياً بإسقاط حق العودة وتشكيل «دولة إسرائيل» نهائياً على أساس أنها «وطن قومي لليهود» أو كما جاء في قانونهم الأخير «دولة يهودية». ومن أجل ذلك وفي غضون 48 ساعة من إعلان الاتفاق على تشكيل حكومة ائتلاف اعلن نتنياهو انه «آن الأوان لتضمّ إسرائيل نهائياً مستعمرات الضفة الغربية وغور الأردن» التي تشكل مساحة 30% من الضفة الغربية.

إذن أمام حكومة الرأسين الإسرائيليين ملفان وتحديان كبيران، فكيف ستعالجهما أو كيف ستتصرف حيالهما؟

بالنسبة للموضوع الأول أيّ إيران وحزب الله، تتمنّى «إسرائيل» ان تواكبها الولايات المتحدة في قرار مشترك للذهاب إلى حرب تدميرية واسعة وخاطفة تفرض على إيران الخروج من سورية، وتدمّر ترسانة صواريخ حزب الله. فهل هذا في متناول يد حكومة الرأسين؟

في الإجابة نقول إنّ الزمن الذي كانت الحرب في المنظور الإسرائيلي بمثابة مناورة تحدّد هي وقتها ومدّتها ونطاقها وحجم المغانم التي تريدها، ثم تذهب إليها وتنفذها كما خططت أو بأفضل مما خططت، إنّ هذا الزمن ولى إلى غير رجعة حيث كانت الصورة الأخيرة لها في العام 1982 في لبنان، أما بعدها فقد رسمت صورة جديدة في العام 2006 وفي لبنان أيضاً حيث كسرت المقاومة التي يقودها وينظمها حزب الله كلّ معادلات «إسرائيل» وتصوّرات قادتها وحطمت مقولة الجيش الذي لا يُقهر، ثم كانت الحرب العدوانية على سورية وتطورات رافقت هذه الحرب لتعزز مقولة الردع الاستراتيجي المتبادل ومقولة ان «إسرائيل يمكن ان تطلق الطلقة الأولى إيذاناً ببدء الحرب لكنها لن تستطيع التحكم بشيء من مجرياتها».

فـ «إسرائيل» اليوم وفي مواجهة محور المقاومة المتماسك والمتكامل في قدراته العسكرية الميدانية تبدو عاجزة عن شنّ حرب تحقق لها ما تشاء وتتحمل فيها الخسائر التي تنزلها بها قوات العدو. نعم «إسرائيل» تملك القوة العسكرية التدميرية الهامة لكنها لا تملك القدرة الكافية لتحقيق الإنجاز العسكري الذي حدّدته أيّ إنهاء الوجود الإيراني في سورية وتدمير سلاح حزب الله، كما أنها غير قادرة على احتواء ردة الفعل على جبهتها الداخلية التي فشلت في الارتقاء إلى مستوى «شعب يعمل تحت النار» رغم كلّ الجهود التي بذلت من أجل ذلك. ونشير أيضاً إلى انّ الوجود الإيراني في سورية ليس من الطبيعة التي يعالج بها بحرب من دون ان تصل إلى مستوى احتلال شامل، فهو وجود مستشارين موزعين هنا وهناك يصعب تحديدهم وإحصاؤهم.

وفي ظلّ استبعاد لجوء «إسرائيل» بمفردها إلى شنّ حرب على الجبهة الشمالية تبقى مناقشة فكرة حرب الثنائي الأميركي الإسرائيلي ضدّ محور المقاومة، وهنا أيضا نقول إنّ أميركا وقبل 6 أشهر من انتخاباتها وفي ظلّ الظروف الدولية المعقدة وبائياً ومالياً واقتصادياً وعسكرياً بالنسبة لها ليست في وارد فتح جبهة في الشرق الأوسط وهي التي تتحضّر للمواجهة الأخطر في الشرق الأقصى الذي قد يفرض عليها حرباً مع الصين قبل ان تستكمل انزلاقها إلى بحرها.

وعليه نصل إلى استنتاج أول بن الحرب التي ترى فيها «إسرائيل» علاجاً للخطر الإيراني والصاروخي من حزب الله هي حرب ليست في متناول يدها ويبقى لديها أن تنفذ عمليات عسكرية استعراضية إعلامية في سورية ليست لها أي قيمة عملانية او استراتيجية لتؤكد جدية مواكبتها للخطر المزعوم، رغم انّ جلّ ما تدعيه كاذب ومنافٍ للحقيقة.

أما الأخطر في مواجهة المقاومة وسورية ولبنان فهو ممارسة أميركا وإسرائيل الضغوط في إطار الحرب الاقتصادية الإجرامية التي تشن عليهم، ولذلك تضع أميركا «قانون قيصر» الإجرامي موضع التنفيذ لخنق سورية اقتصادياً، وتثار مسألة الحدود بين لبنان وسورية لخنق لبنان والمقاومة. هنا على لبنان بشكل خاص أن يتوجه إلى الميدان الاقتصادي المشرقي عبر سورية، ويعتمد خطة التكامل الاقتصادي من نواة أربع دول (لبنان سورية والعراق وإيران) لتتسع إلى عمق اقتصادي دولي يصل إلى الصين، فتتعطل بذلك خطة الإجرام الاقتصادي او الإرهاب الاقتصادي التي تمارسها عليه لإخضاعه.

أما التحدي الآخر والذي فيه ضمّ مزيد من الأراضي الفلسطينية في الضفة الغربية وغور الأردن فإنّ هذا الأمر يبدو لـ «إسرائيل» سهلاً ومتاحاً رغم «إشارات القلق» التي يبديها حيناً الجانب الأميركي متهما «إسرائيل» بالتسرع او بيانات الاستنكار الخجولة من هنا وهناك، ونعتقد ان ترامب الذي أعطى «إسرائيل» في رؤيته فوق ما تطلب لن يمنعها من هضم ما قدّمه لها، ولن تأبه «إسرائيل» لمواقف الرفض والاستنكار الإعلامي العربية والدولية لتتوقف عن عمليتها الإجرامية بضمّ الأراضي، لكنها حتماً ستنظر إلى ردود الفعل الأردنية والفلسطينية التي تؤثر عليها جدياً فيما لو اتخذت.

وعليه نرى أنّ وقف خطة «حكومة الرأسين» الإسرائيلية بصدد ضمّ الأراضي يتطلب موقفاً أردنياً فلسطيناً حازماً يؤذي «إسرائيل» كلّ على صعيده وفي نطاقه، فبإمكان الأردن لعب ورقة التنسيق الأمني وورقة التعاون الاقتصادي والمناطق الصناعية وحركة البضائع وأنبوب الغاز وغيرها من مسائل التبادل التجاري والسياحي والأمني مع «إسرائيل» وصولاً إلى وضع مصير اتفاقية وادي عربة على الطاولة، هنا تجد «إسرائيل» ان توسّعها في الأرض يؤدي إلى انحسار في المصالح وبالمقارنة ستضطر لاختيار المصالح فتتوقف.

أما الموقف الفلسطيني فيكفي أن يتمثل بأمرين اثنين: وقف التنسيق الأمني كلياً، ووقف تدابير القمع التي تمنع الشعب من إطلاق انتفاضته المباركة المتنظرة التي تهز الأرض في الضفة تحت أقدام المحتلّ، عندها نستطيع القول بأنّ هناك موقفاً جدياً يواجه العدوان الإسرائيلي ويوقف تنفيذ صفقة القرن فلسطينياً.

*أستاذ جامعي – خبير استراتيجي.

“Greater Israel”: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East

The Infamous “Oded Yinon Plan”. Introduction by Michel Chossudovsky

By Israel Shahak and Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, May 16, 2020

Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc. 3 March 2013

Introduction

The following document pertaining to the formation of “Greater Israel” constitutes the cornerstone of powerful Zionist factions within the current Netanyahu government,  the Likud party, as well as within the Israeli military and intelligence establishment. 

President Donald Trump has confirmed in no uncertain terms, his support of Israel’s illegal settlements (including his opposition to UN Security Council Resolution 2334, pertaining to the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank). In recent developments, the Trump administration has expressed its recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. 

Trump’s Deal of the Century is “Greater Israel”

It denies the Palestinians all its territorial rights. Israel intends to annex the entire Jordan River valley as well the illegal settlements in the West Bank.

“Greater Israel” will also be part of the forthcoming March 2020 election campaign.  Netanyahu has pledged to annex large parts of the occupied West Bank.

“Today [September before second 2019 elections]I announce my intention, with the formation of the next government, to establish Israeli sovereignty on the Jordan Valley and the northern Dead Sea.” (emphasis added)

Despite his indictments on grounds of corruption, Netanyahu’s leadership win will contribute to consolidating anti-Arab sentiment within the Likud party. 

Trump’s “Deal of the Century” is supportive of the “Greater Israel” project, which also consists in the derogation of Palestinians’ “right of return” by “naturalizing them as citizens of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere regionally where they reside”.

Bear in mind: The Greater Israel design is not strictly a Zionist Project for the Middle East, it is an integral part of US foreign policy, its strategic objective is extend US hegemony as well as fracture and balkanize the Middle East.

Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is intended to trigger political instability throughout the region.  

According to the founding father of Zionism Theodore Herzl, “the area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.”  According to Rabbi Fischmann,  “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”

When viewed in the current context, including the siege on Gaza, the Zionist Plan for the Middle East bears an intimate relationship to the 2003 invasion of  Iraq, the 2006 war on Lebanon, the 2011 war on Libya, the ongoing wars on Syria, Iraq and Yemen, not to mention the political crisis in Saudi Arabia.  

The “Greater Israel” project consists in weakening and eventually fracturing neighboring Arab states as part of a US-Israeli expansionist project, with the support of NATO and Saudi Arabia. In this regard, the Saudi-Israeli rapprochement is from Netanyahu’s viewpoint a means to expanding Israel’s spheres of influence in the Middle East as well as confronting Iran. Needless to day, the “Greater Israel” project is consistent with America’s imperial design. 

“Greater Israel” consists in an area extending from the Nile Valley to the Euphrates. According to Stephen Lendman,

A near-century ago, the World Zionist Organization’s plan for a Jewish state included:

• historic Palestine;

• South Lebanon up to Sidon and the Litani River;

• Syria’s Golan Heights, Hauran Plain and Deraa; and

• control of the Hijaz Railway from Deraa to Amman, Jordan as well as the Gulf of Aqaba.

Some Zionists wanted more – land from the Nile in the West to the Euphrates in the East, comprising Palestine, Lebanon, Western Syria and Southern Turkey.”

The Zionist project supports the Jewish settlement movement. More broadly it involves a policy of excluding Palestinians from Palestine leading to the eventual annexation of both the West Bank and Gaza to the State of Israel.

Greater Israel would create a number of proxy States. It would include parts of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, the Sinai, as well as parts of  Iraq and Saudi Arabia. (See map).

According to Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya in a 2011 Global Research article,  The Yinon Plan was a continuation of Britain’s colonial design in the Middle East:

“[The Yinon plan] is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli regional superiority. It insists and stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the surrounding Arab states into smaller and weaker states.

Israeli strategists viewed Iraq as their biggest strategic challenge from an Arab state. This is why Iraq was outlined as the centerpiece to the balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World. In Iraq, on the basis of the concepts of the Yinon Plan, Israeli strategists have called for the division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunni Muslims. The first step towards establishing this was a war between Iraq and Iran, which the Yinon Plan discusses.

The Atlantic, in 2008, and the U.S. military’s Armed Forces Journal, in 2006, both published widely circulated maps that closely followed the outline of the Yinon Plan. Aside from a divided Iraq, which the Biden Plan also calls for, the Yinon Plan calls for a divided Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria. The partitioning of Iran, Turkey, Somalia, and Pakistan also all fall into line with these views. The Yinon Plan also calls for dissolution in North Africa and forecasts it as starting from Egypt and then spilling over into Sudan, Libya, and the rest of the region.

“Greater Israel” requires the breaking up of the existing Arab states into small states.

“The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation…  This is not a new idea, nor does it surface for the first time in Zionist strategic thinking. Indeed, fragmenting all Arab states into smaller units has been a recurrent theme.” (Yinon Plan, see below)

Viewed in this context, the war on Syria and Iraq is part of  the process of Israeli territorial expansion. 

In this regard, the defeat of US sponsored terrorists (ISIS, Al Nusra) by Syrian Forces with the support of Russia, Iran and Hizbollah constitute a significant setback for Israel.  

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, September 06, 2015, updated September 13, 2019, December 28, 2019


The Zionist Plan for the Middle East 

Translated and edited by

Israel Shahak

The Israel of Theodore Herzl (1904) and of Rabbi Fischmann (1947)

In his Complete Diaries, Vol. II. p. 711, Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, says that the area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.”

Rabbi Fischmann, member of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared in his testimony to the U.N. Special Committee of Enquiry on 9 July 1947: “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”“Greater Israel” and the Balkanization of the Middle East: Oded Yinon’s “Strategy for Israel”

from

Oded Yinon’s

“A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties”

Published by the

Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc.

Belmont, Massachusetts, 1982

Special Document No. 1 (ISBN 0-937694-56-8)

Table of Contents

  Publisher’s Note1

The Association of Arab-American University Graduates finds it compelling to inaugurate its new publication series, Special Documents, with Oded Yinon’s article which appeared in Kivunim (Directions), the journal of the Department of Information of the World Zionist Organization. Oded Yinon is an Israeli journalist and was formerly attached to the Foreign Ministry of Israel. To our knowledge, this document is the most explicit, detailed and unambiguous statement to date of the Zionist strategy in the Middle East. Furthermore, it stands as an accurate representation of the “vision” for the entire Middle East of the presently ruling Zionist regime of Begin, Sharon and Eitan. Its importance, hence, lies not in its historical value but in the nightmare which it presents.

2

The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation.

3

This is not a new idea, nor does it surface for the first time in Zionist strategic thinking. Indeed, fragmenting all Arab states into smaller units has been a recurrent theme. This theme has been documented on a very modest scale in the AAUG publication,  Israel’s Sacred Terrorism (1980), by Livia Rokach. Based on the memoirs of Moshe Sharett, former Prime Minister of Israel, Rokach’s study documents, in convincing detail, the Zionist plan as it applies to Lebanon and as it was prepared in the mid-fifties.

4

The first massive Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1978 bore this plan out to the minutest detail. The second and more barbaric and encompassing Israeli invasion of Lebanon on June 6, 1982, aims to effect certain parts of this plan which hopes to see not only Lebanon, but Syria and Jordan as well, in fragments. This ought to make mockery of Israeli public claims regarding their desire for a strong and independent Lebanese central government. More accurately, they want a Lebanese central government that sanctions their regional imperialist designs by signing a peace treaty with them. They also seek acquiescence in their designs by the Syrian, Iraqi, Jordanian and other Arab governments as well as by the Palestinian people. What they want and what they are planning for is not an Arab world, but a world of Arab fragments that is ready to succumb to Israeli hegemony. Hence, Oded Yinon in his essay, “A Strategy for Israel in the 1980’s,” talks about “far-reaching opportunities for the first time since 1967” that are created by the “very stormy situation [that] surrounds Israel.”

5

The Zionist policy of displacing the Palestinians from Palestine is very much an active policy, but is pursued more forcefully in times of conflict, such as in the 1947-1948 war and in the 1967 war. An appendix entitled  “Israel Talks of a New Exodus” is included in this publication to demonstrate past Zionist dispersals of Palestinians from their homeland and to show, besides the main Zionist document we present, other Zionist planning for the de-Palestinization of Palestine.

6

It is clear from the Kivunim document, published in February, 1982, that the “far-reaching opportunities” of which Zionist strategists have been thinking are the same “opportunities” of which they are trying to convince the world and which they claim were generated by their June, 1982 invasion. It is also clear that the Palestinians were never the sole target of Zionist plans, but the priority target since their viable and independent presence as a people negates the essence of the Zionist state. Every Arab state, however, especially those with cohesive and clear nationalist directions, is a real target sooner or later.

7

Contrasted with the detailed and unambiguous Zionist strategy elucidated in this document, Arab and Palestinian strategy, unfortunately, suffers from ambiguity and incoherence. There is no indication that Arab strategists have internalized the Zionist plan in its full ramifications. Instead, they react with incredulity and shock whenever a new stage of it unfolds. This is apparent in Arab reaction, albeit muted, to the Israeli siege of Beirut. The sad fact is that as long as the Zionist strategy for the Middle East is not taken seriously Arab reaction to any future siege of other Arab capitals will be the same.

Khalil Nakhleh

July 23, 1982

Foreward

by Israel Shahak

1

The following essay represents, in my opinion, the accurate and detailed plan of the present Zionist regime (of Sharon and Eitan) for the Middle East which is based on the division of the whole area into small states, and the dissolution of all the existing Arab states. I will comment on the military aspect of this plan in a concluding note. Here I want to draw the attention of the readers to several important points:

2

1. The idea that all the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units, occurs again and again in Israeli strategic thinking. For example, Ze’ev Schiff, the military correspondent of Ha’aretz (and probably the most knowledgeable in Israel, on this topic) writes about the “best” that can happen for Israeli interests in Iraq: “The dissolution of Iraq into a Shi’ite state, a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part” (Ha’aretz 6/2/1982). Actually, this aspect of the plan is very old.

3

2. The strong connection with Neo-Conservative thought in the USA is very prominent, especially in the author’s notes. But, while lip service is paid to the idea of the “defense of the West” from Soviet power, the real aim of the author, and of the present Israeli establishment is clear: To make an Imperial Israel into a world power. In other words, the aim of Sharon is to deceive the Americans after he has deceived all the rest.

4

3. It is obvious that much of the relevant data, both in the notes and in the text, is garbled or omitted, such as the financial help of the U.S. to Israel. Much of it is pure fantasy. But, the plan is not to be regarded as not influential, or as not capable of realization for a short time. The plan follows faithfully the geopolitical ideas current in Germany of 1890-1933, which were swallowed whole by Hitler and the Nazi movement, and determined their aims for East Europe. Those aims, especially the division of the existing states, were carried out in 1939-1941, and only an alliance on the global scale prevented their consolidation for a period of time.

5

The notes by the author follow the text. To avoid confusion, I did not add any notes of my own, but have put the substance of them into this foreward and the conclusion at the end. I have, however, emphasized some portions of the text.

Israel Shahak

June 13, 1982


A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties

by Oded Yinon

This essay originally appeared in Hebrew in KIVUNIM (Directions), A Journal for Judaism and Zionism; Issue No, 14–Winter, 5742, February 1982, Editor: Yoram Beck. Editorial Committee: Eli Eyal, Yoram Beck, Amnon Hadari, Yohanan Manor, Elieser Schweid. Published by the Department of Publicity/The World Zionist Organization, Jerusalem.

1

At the outset of the nineteen eighties the State of Israel is in need of a new perspective as to its place, its aims and national targets, at home and abroad. This need has become even more vital due to a number of central processes which the country, the region and the world are undergoing. We are living today in the early stages of a new epoch in human history which is not at all similar to its predecessor, and its characteristics are totally different from what we have hitherto known. That is why we need an understanding of the central processes which typify this historical epoch on the one hand, and on the other hand we need a world outlook and an operational strategy in accordance with the new conditions. The existence, prosperity and steadfastness of the Jewish state will depend upon its ability to adopt a new framework for its domestic and foreign affairs.

2

This epoch is characterized by several traits which we can already diagnose, and which symbolize a genuine revolution in our present lifestyle. The dominant process is the breakdown of the rationalist, humanist outlook as the major cornerstone supporting the life and achievements of Western civilization since the Renaissance. The political, social and economic views which have emanated from this foundation have been based on several “truths” which are presently disappearing–for example, the view that man as an individual is the center of the universe and everything exists in order to fulfill his basic material needs. This position is being invalidated in the present when it has become clear that the amount of resources in the cosmos does not meet Man’s requirements, his economic needs or his demographic constraints. In a world in which there are four billion human beings and economic and energy resources which do not grow proportionally to meet the needs of mankind, it is unrealistic to expect to fulfill the main requirement of Western Society, 1 i.e., the wish and aspiration for boundless consumption. The view that ethics plays no part in determining the direction Man takes, but rather his material needs do–that view is becoming prevalent today as we see a world in which nearly all values are disappearing. We are losing the ability to assess the simplest things, especially when they concern the simple question of what is Good and what is Evil.

3

The vision of man’s limitless aspirations and abilities shrinks in the face of the sad facts of life, when we witness the break-up of world order around us. The view which promises liberty and freedom to mankind seems absurd in light of the sad fact that three fourths of the human race lives under totalitarian regimes. The views concerning equality and social justice have been transformed by socialism and especially by Communism into a laughing stock. There is no argument as to the truth of these two ideas, but it is clear that they have not been put into practice properly and the majority of mankind has lost the liberty, the freedom and the opportunity for equality and justice. In this nuclear world in which we are (still) living in relative peace for thirty years, the concept of peace and coexistence among nations has no meaning when a superpower like the USSR holds a military and political doctrine of the sort it has: that not only is a nuclear war possible and necessary in order to achieve the ends of Marxism, but that it is possible to survive after it, not to speak of the fact that one can be victorious in it.2

4

The essential concepts of human society, especially those of the West, are undergoing a change due to political, military and economic transformations. Thus, the nuclear and conventional might of the USSR has transformed the epoch that has just ended into the last respite before the great saga that will demolish a large part of our world in a multi-dimensional global war, in comparison with which the past world wars will have been mere child’s play. The power of nuclear as well as of conventional weapons, their quantity, their precision and quality will turn most of our world upside down within a few years, and we must align ourselves so as to face that in Israel. That is, then, the main threat to our existence and that of the Western world. 3 The war over resources in the world, the Arab monopoly on oil, and the need of the West to import most of its raw materials from the Third World, are transforming the world we know, given that one of the major aims of the USSR is to defeat the West by gaining control over the gigantic resources in the Persian Gulf and in the southern part of Africa, in which the majority of world minerals are located. We can imagine the dimensions of the global confrontation which will face us in the future.

5

The Gorshkov doctrine calls for Soviet control of the oceans and mineral rich areas of the Third World. That together with the present Soviet nuclear doctrine which holds that it is possible to manage, win and survive a nuclear war, in the course of which the West’s military might well be destroyed and its inhabitants made slaves in the service of Marxism-Leninism, is the main danger to world peace and to our own existence. Since 1967, the Soviets have transformed Clausewitz’ dictum into “War is the continuation of policy in nuclear means,” and made it the motto which guides all their policies. Already today they are busy carrying out their aims in our region and throughout the world, and the need to face them becomes the major element in our country’s security policy and of course that of the rest of the Free World. That is our major foreign challenge.4

6

The Arab Moslem world, therefore, is not the major strategic problem which we shall face in the Eighties, despite the fact that it carries the main threat against Israel, due to its growing military might. This world, with its ethnic minorities, its factions and internal crises, which is astonishingly self-destructive, as we can see in Lebanon, in non-Arab Iran and now also in Syria, is unable to deal successfully with its fundamental problems and does not therefore constitute a real threat against the State of Israel in the long run, but only in the short run where its immediate military power has great import. In the long run, this world will be unable to exist within its present framework in the areas around us without having to go through genuine revolutionary changes. The Moslem Arab World is built like a temporary house of cards put together by foreigners (France and Britain in the Nineteen Twenties), without the wishes and desires of the inhabitants having been taken into account. It was arbitrarily divided into 19 states, all made of combinations of minorites and ethnic groups which are hostile to one another, so that every Arab Moslem state nowadays faces ethnic social destruction from within, and in some a civil war is already raging. 5 Most of the Arabs, 118 million out of 170 million, live in Africa, mostly in Egypt (45 million today).

7

Apart from Egypt, all the Maghreb states are made up of a mixture of Arabs and non-Arab Berbers. In Algeria there is already a civil war raging in the Kabile mountains between the two nations in the country. Morocco and Algeria are at war with each other over Spanish Sahara, in addition to the internal struggle in each of them. Militant Islam endangers the integrity of Tunisia and Qaddafi organizes wars which are destructive from the Arab point of view, from a country which is sparsely populated and which cannot become a powerful nation. That is why he has been attempting unifications in the past with states that are more genuine, like Egypt and Syria. Sudan, the most torn apart state in the Arab Moslem world today is built upon four groups hostile to each other, an Arab Moslem Sunni minority which rules over a majority of non-Arab Africans, Pagans, and Christians. In Egypt there is a Sunni Moslem majority facing a large minority of Christians which is dominant in upper Egypt: some 7 million of them, so that even Sadat, in his speech on May 8, expressed the fear that they will want a state of their own, something like a “second” Christian Lebanon in Egypt.

8

All the Arab States east of Israel are torn apart, broken up and riddled with inner conflict even more than those of the Maghreb. Syria is fundamentally no different from Lebanon except in the strong military regime which rules it. But the real civil war taking place nowadays between the Sunni majority and the Shi’ite Alawi ruling minority (a mere 12% of the population) testifies to the severity of the domestic trouble.

9

Iraq is, once again, no different in essence from its neighbors, although its majority is Shi’ite and the ruling minority Sunni. Sixty-five percent of the population has no say in politics, in which an elite of 20 percent holds the power. In addition there is a large Kurdish minority in the north, and if it weren’t for the strength of the ruling regime, the army and the oil revenues, Iraq’s future state would be no different than that of Lebanon in the past or of Syria today. The seeds of inner conflict and civil war are apparent today already, especially after the rise of Khomeini to power in Iran, a leader whom the Shi’ites in Iraq view as their natural leader.

10

All the Gulf principalities and Saudi Arabia are built upon a delicate house of sand in which there is only oil. In Kuwait, the Kuwaitis constitute only a quarter of the population. In Bahrain, the Shi’ites are the majority but are deprived of power. In the UAE, Shi’ites are once again the majority but the Sunnis are in power. The same is true of Oman and North Yemen. Even in the Marxist South Yemen there is a sizable Shi’ite minority. In Saudi Arabia half the population is foreign, Egyptian and Yemenite, but a Saudi minority holds power.

11

Jordan is in reality Palestinian, ruled by a Trans-Jordanian Bedouin minority, but most of the army and certainly the bureaucracy is now Palestinian. As a matter of fact Amman is as Palestinian as Nablus. All of these countries have powerful armies, relatively speaking. But there is a problem there too. The Syrian army today is mostly Sunni with an Alawi officer corps, the Iraqi army Shi’ite with Sunni commanders. This has great significance in the long run, and that is why it will not be possible to retain the loyalty of the army for a long time except where it comes to the only common denominator: The hostility towards Israel, and today even that is insufficient.

12

Alongside the Arabs, split as they are, the other Moslem states share a similar predicament. Half of Iran’s population is comprised of a Persian speaking group and the other half of an ethnically Turkish group. Turkey’s population comprises a Turkish Sunni Moslem majority, some 50%, and two large minorities, 12 million Shi’ite Alawis and 6 million Sunni Kurds. In Afghanistan there are 5 million

Shi’ites who constitute one third of the population. In Sunni Pakistan there are 15 million Shi’ites who endanger the existence of that state.

13

This national ethnic minority picture extending from Morocco to India and from Somalia to Turkey points to the absence of stability and a rapid degeneration in the entire region. When this picture is added to the economic one, we see how the entire region is built like a house of cards, unable to withstand its severe problems.

14

In this giant and fractured world there are a few wealthy groups and a huge mass of poor people. Most of the Arabs have an average yearly income of 300 dollars. That is the situation in Egypt, in most of the Maghreb countries except for Libya, and in Iraq. Lebanon is torn apart and its economy is falling to pieces. It is a state in which there is no centralized power, but only 5 de facto sovereign authorities (Christian in the north, supported by the Syrians and under the rule of the Franjieh clan, in the East an area of direct Syrian conquest, in the center a Phalangist controlled Christian enclave, in the south and up to the Litani river a mostly Palestinian region controlled by the PLO and Major Haddad’s state of Christians and half a million Shi’ites). Syria is in an even graver situation and even the assistance she will obtain in the future after the unification with Libya will not be sufficient for dealing with the basic problems of existence and the maintenance of a large army. Egypt is in the worst situation: Millions are on the verge of hunger, half the labor force is unemployed, and housing is scarce in this most densely populated area of the world. Except for the army, there is not a single department operating efficiently and the state is in a permanent state of bankruptcy and depends entirely on American foreign assistance granted since the peace.6

15

In the Gulf states, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Egypt there is the largest accumulation of money and oil in the world, but those enjoying it are tiny elites who lack a wide base of support and self-confidence, something that no army can guarantee. 7 The Saudi army with all its equipment cannot defend the regime from real dangers at home or abroad, and what took place in Mecca in 1980 is only an example. A sad and very stormy situation surrounds Israel and creates challenges for it, problems, risks but also far-reaching opportunities for the first time since 1967. Chances are that opportunities missed at that time will become achievable in the Eighties to an extent and along dimensions which we cannot even imagine today.

16

The “peace” policy and the return of territories, through a dependence upon the US, precludes the realization of the new option created for us. Since 1967, all the governments of Israel have tied our national aims down to narrow political needs, on the one hand, and on the other to destructive opinions at home which neutralized our capacities both at home and abroad. Failing to take steps towards the Arab population in the new territories, acquired in the course of a war forced upon us, is the major strategic error committed by Israel on the morning after the Six Day War. We could have saved ourselves all the bitter and dangerous conflict since then if we had given Jordan to the Palestinians who live west of the Jordan river. By doing that we would have neutralized the Palestinian problem which we nowadays face, and to which we have found solutions that are really no solutions at all, such as territorial compromise or autonomy which amount, in fact, to the same thing. 8 Today, we suddenly face immense opportunities for transforming the situation thoroughly and this we must do in the coming decade, otherwise we shall not survive as a state.

17

In the course of the Nineteen Eighties, the State of Israel will have to go through far-reaching changes in its political and economic regime domestically, along with radical changes in its foreign policy, in order to stand up to the global and regional challenges of this new epoch. The loss of the Suez Canal oil fields, of the immense potential of the oil, gas and other natural resources in the Sinai peninsula which is geomorphologically identical to the rich oil-producing countries in the region, will result in an energy drain in the near future and will destroy our domestic economy: one quarter of our present GNP as well as one third of the budget is used for the purchase of oil. 9 The search for raw materials in the Negev and on the coast will not, in the near future, serve to alter that state of affairs.

18

(Regaining) the Sinai peninsula with its present and potential resources is therefore a political priority which is obstructed by the Camp David and the peace agreements. The fault for that lies of course with the present Israeli government and the governments which paved the road to the policy of territorial compromise, the Alignment governments since 1967. The Egyptians will not need to keep the peace treaty after the return of the Sinai, and they will do all they can to return to the fold of the Arab world and to the USSR in order to gain support and military assistance. American aid is guaranteed only for a short while, for the terms of the peace and the weakening of the U.S. both at home and abroad will bring about a reduction in aid. Without oil and the income from it, with the present enormous expenditure, we will not be able to get through 1982 under the present conditions and we will have to act in order to return the situation to the status quo which existed in Sinai prior to Sadat’s visit and the mistaken peace agreement signed with him in March 1979. 10

19

Israel has two major routes through which to realize this purpose, one direct and the other indirect. The direct option is the less realistic one because of the nature of the regime and government in Israel as well as the wisdom of Sadat who obtained our withdrawal from Sinai, which was, next to the war of 1973, his major achievement since he took power. Israel will not unilaterally break the treaty, neither today, nor in 1982, unless it is very hard pressed economically and politically and Egypt provides Israel with the excuse to take the Sinai back into our hands for the fourth time in our short history. What is left therefore, is the indirect option. The economic situation in Egypt, the nature of the regime and its pan-

Arab policy, will bring about a situation after April 1982 in which Israel will be forced to act directly or indirectly in order to regain control over Sinai as a strategic, economic and energy reserve for the long run. Egypt does not constitute a military strategic problem due to its internal conflicts and it could be driven back to the post 1967 war situation in no more than one day. 11

20

The myth of Egypt as the strong leader of the Arab World was demolished back in 1956 and definitely did not survive 1967, but our policy, as in the return of the Sinai, served to turn the myth into “fact.” In reality, however, Egypt’s power in proportion both to Israel alone and to the rest of the Arab World has gone down about 50 percent since 1967. Egypt is no longer the leading political power in the Arab World and is economically on the verge of a crisis. Without foreign assistance the crisis will come tomorrow. 12 In the short run, due to the return of the Sinai, Egypt will gain several advantages at our expense, but only in the short run until 1982, and that will not change the balance of power to its benefit, and will possibly bring about its downfall. Egypt, in its present domestic political picture, is already a corpse, all the more so if we take into account the growing Moslem-Christian rift. Breaking Egypt down territorially into distinct geographical regions is the political aim of Israel in the Nineteen Eighties on its Western front.

21

Egypt is divided and torn apart into many foci of authority. If Egypt falls apart, countries like Libya, Sudan or even the more distant states will not continue to exist in their present form and will join the downfall and dissolution of Egypt. The vision of a Christian Coptic State in Upper Egypt alongside a number of weak states with very localized power and without a centralized government as to date, is the key to a historical development which was only set back by the peace agreement but which seems inevitable in the long run. 13

22

The Western front, which on the surface appears more problematic, is in fact less complicated than the Eastern front, in which most of the events that make the headlines have been taking place recently. Lebanon’s total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precendent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula and is already following that track. The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unqiue areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target. Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi’ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbor, and the Druzes who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan, and certainly in the Hauran and in northern Jordan. This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run, and that aim is already within our reach today. 14

23

Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel’s targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi’ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north. It is possible that the present Iranian-Iraqi confrontation will deepen this polarization. 15

24

The entire Arabian peninsula is a natural candidate for dissolution due to internal and external pressures, and the matter is inevitable especially in Saudi Arabia. Regardless of whether its economic might based on oil remains intact or whether it is diminished in the long run, the internal rifts and breakdowns are a clear and natural development in light of the present political structure. 16

25

Jordan constitutes an immediate strategic target in the short run but not in the long run, for it does not constitute a real threat in the long run after its dissolution, the termination of the lengthy rule of King Hussein and the transfer of power to the Palestinians in the short run.

26

There is no chance that Jordan will continue to exist in its present structure for a long time, and Israel’s policy, both in war and in peace, ought to be directed at the liquidation of Jordan under the present regime and the transfer of power to the Palestinian majority. Changing the regime east of the river will also cause the termination of the problem of the territories densely populated with Arabs west of the Jordan. Whether in war or under conditions of peace, emigration from the territories and economic demographic freeze in them, are the guarantees for the coming change on both banks of the river, and we ought to be active in order to accelerate this process in the nearest future. The autonomy plan ought also to be rejected, as well as any compromise or division of the territories for, given the plans of the PLO and those of the Israeli Arabs themselves, the Shefa’amr plan of September 1980, it is not possible to go on living in this country in the present situation without separating the two nations, the Arabs to Jordan and the Jews to the areas west of the river. Genuine coexistence and peace will reign over the land only when the Arabs understand that without Jewish rule between the Jordan and the sea they will have neither existence nor security. A nation of their own and security will be theirs only in Jordan. 17

27

Within Israel the distinction between the areas of ’67 and the territories beyond them, those of ’48, has always been meaningless for Arabs and nowadays no longer has any significance for us. The problem should be seen in its entirety without any divisions as of ’67. It should be clear, under any future political situation or military constellation, that the solution of the problem of the indigenous Arabs will come only when they recognize the existence of Israel in secure borders up to the Jordan river and beyond it, as our existential need in this difficult epoch, the nuclear epoch which we shall soon enter. It is no longer possible to live with three fourths of the Jewish population on the dense shoreline which is so dangerous in a nuclear epoch.

28

Dispersal of the population is therefore a domestic strategic aim of the highest order; otherwise, we shall cease to exist within any borders. Judea, Samaria and the Galilee are our sole guarantee for national existence, and if we do not become the majority in the mountain areas, we shall not rule in the country and we shall be like the Crusaders, who lost this country which was not theirs anyhow, and in which they were foreigners to begin with. Rebalancing the country demographically, strategically and economically is the highest and most central aim today. Taking hold of the mountain watershed from Beersheba to the Upper Galilee is the national aim generated by the major strategic consideration which is settling the mountainous part of the country that is empty of Jews today. l8

29

Realizing our aims on the Eastern front depends first on the realization of this internal strategic objective. The transformation of the political and economic structure, so as to enable the realization of these strategic aims, is the key to achieving the entire change. We need to change from a centralized economy in which the government is extensively involved, to an open and free market as well as to switch from depending upon the U.S. taxpayer to developing, with our own hands, of a genuine productive economic infrastructure. If we are not able to make this change freely and voluntarily, we shall be forced into it by world developments, especially in the areas of economics, energy, and politics, and by our own growing isolation. l9

30

From a military and strategic point of view, the West led by the U.S. is unable to withstand the global pressures of the USSR throughout the world, and Israel must therefore stand alone in the Eighties, without any foreign assistance, military or economic, and this is within our capacities today, with no compromises. 20 Rapid changes in the world will also bring about a change in the condition of world Jewry to which Israel will become not only a last resort but the only existential option. We cannot assume that U.S. Jews, and the communities of Europe and Latin America will continue to exist in the present form in the future. 21

31

Our existence in this country itself is certain, and there is no force that could remove us from here either forcefully or by treachery (Sadat’s method). Despite the difficulties of the mistaken “peace” policy and the problem of the Israeli Arabs and those of the territories, we can effectively deal with these problems in the foreseeable future.

Conclusion

1

Three important points have to be clarified in order to be able to understand the significant possibilities of realization of this Zionist plan for the Middle East, and also why it had to be published.

2

The Military Background of The Plan

The military conditions of this plan have not been mentioned above, but on the many occasions where something very like it is being “explained” in closed meetings to members of the Israeli Establishment, this point is clarified. It is assumed that the Israeli military forces, in all their branches, are insufficient for the actual work of occupation of such wide territories as discussed above. In fact, even in times of intense Palestinian “unrest” on the West Bank, the forces of the Israeli Army are stretched out too much. The answer to that is the method of ruling by means of “Haddad forces” or of “Village Associations” (also known as “Village Leagues”): local forces under “leaders” completely dissociated from the population, not having even any feudal or party structure (such as the Phalangists have, for example). The “states” proposed by Yinon are “Haddadland” and “Village Associations,” and their armed forces will be, no doubt, quite similar. In addition, Israeli military superiority in such a situation will be much greater than it is even now, so that any movement of revolt will be “punished” either by mass humiliation as in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, or by bombardment and obliteration of cities, as in Lebanon now (June 1982), or by both. In order to ensure this, the plan, as explained orally, calls for the establishment of Israeli garrisons in focal places between the mini states, equipped with the necessary mobile destructive forces. In fact, we have seen something like this in Haddadland and we will almost certainly soon see the first example of this system functioning either in South Lebanon or in all Lebanon.

3

It is obvious that the above military assumptions, and the whole plan too, depend also on the Arabs continuing to be even more divided than they are now, and on the lack of any truly progressive mass movement among them. It may be that those two conditions will be removed only when the plan will be well advanced, with consequences which can not be foreseen.

4

Why it is necessary to publish this in Israel?

The reason for publication is the dual nature of the Israeli-Jewish society: A very great measure of freedom and democracy, specially for Jews, combined with expansionism and racist discrimination. In such a situation the Israeli-Jewish elite (for the masses follow the TV and Begin’s speeches) has to be persuaded. The first steps in the process of persuasion are oral, as indicated above, but a time comes in which it becomes inconvenient. Written material must be produced for the benefit of the more stupid “persuaders” and “explainers” (for example medium-rank officers, who are, usually, remarkably stupid). They then “learn it,” more or less, and preach to others. It should be remarked that Israel, and even the Yishuv from the Twenties, has always functioned in this way. I myself well remember how (before I was “in opposition”) the necessity of war with was explained to me and others a year before the 1956 war, and the necessity of conquering “the rest of Western Palestine when we will have the opportunity” was explained in the years 1965-67.

5

Why is it assumed that there is no special risk from the outside in the publication of such plans?

Such risks can come from two sources, so long as the principled opposition inside Israel is very weak (a situation which may change as a consequence of the war on Lebanon) : The Arab World, including the Palestinians, and the United States. The Arab World has shown itself so far quite incapable of a detailed and rational analysis of Israeli-Jewish society, and the Palestinians have been, on the average, no better than the rest. In such a situation, even those who are shouting about the dangers of Israeli expansionism (which are real enough) are doing this not because of factual and detailed knowledge, but because of belief in myth. A good example is the very persistent belief in the non-existent writing on the wall of the Knesset of the Biblical verse about the Nile and the Euphrates. Another example is the persistent, and completely false declarations, which were made by some of the most important Arab leaders, that the two blue stripes of the Israeli flag symbolize the Nile and the Euphrates, while in fact they are taken from the stripes of the Jewish praying shawl (Talit). The Israeli specialists assume that, on the whole, the Arabs will pay no attention to their serious discussions of the future, and the Lebanon war has proved them right. So why should they not continue with their old methods of persuading other Israelis?

6

In the United States a very similar situation exists, at least until now. The more or less serious commentators take their information about Israel, and much of their opinions about it, from two sources. The first is from articles in the “liberal” American press, written almost totally by Jewish admirers of Israel who, even if they are critical of some aspects of the Israeli state, practice loyally what Stalin used to call “the constructive criticism.” (In fact those among them who claim also to be “Anti-Stalinist” are in reality more Stalinist than Stalin, with Israel being their god which has not yet failed). In the framework of such critical worship it must be assumed that Israel has always “good intentions” and only “makes mistakes,” and therefore such a plan would not be a matter for discussion–exactly as the Biblical genocides committed by Jews are not mentioned. The other source of information, The Jerusalem Post, has similar policies. So long, therefore, as the situation exists in which Israel is really a “closed society” to the rest of the world, because the world wants to close its eyes, the publication and even the beginning of the realization of such a plan is realistic and feasible.

Israel Shahak

June 17, 1982 Jerusalem

About the Translator

Israel Shahak is a professor of organic chemistly at Hebrew University in Jerusalem and the chairman of the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights. He published The Shahak Papers, collections of key articles from the Hebrew press, and is the author of numerous articles and books, among them Non-Jew in the Jewish State. His latest book is Israel’s Global Role: Weapons for Repression, published by the AAUG in 1982. Israel Shahak: (1933-2001)

Notes

1. American Universities Field Staff. Report No.33, 1979. According to this research, the population of the world will be 6 billion in the year 2000. Today’s world population can be broken down as follows: China, 958 million; India, 635 million; USSR, 261 million; U.S., 218 million Indonesia, 140 million; Brazil and Japan, 110 million each. According to the figures of the U.N. Population Fund for 1980, there will be, in 2000, 50 cities with a population of over 5 million each. The population ofthp;Third World will then be 80% of the world population. According to Justin Blackwelder, U.S. Census Office chief, the world population will not reach 6 billion because of hunger.

2. Soviet nuclear policy has been well summarized by two American Sovietologists: Joseph D. Douglas and Amoretta M. Hoeber, Soviet Strategy for Nuclear War, (Stanford, Ca., Hoover Inst. Press, 1979). In the Soviet Union tens and hundreds of articles and books are published each year which detail the Soviet doctrine for nuclear war and there is a great deal of documentation translated into English and published by the U.S. Air Force,including USAF: Marxism-Leninism on War and the Army: The Soviet View, Moscow, 1972; USAF: The Armed Forces of the Soviet State. Moscow, 1975, by Marshal A. Grechko. The basic Soviet approach to the matter is presented in the book by Marshal Sokolovski published in 1962 in Moscow: Marshal V. D. Sokolovski, Military Strategy, Soviet Doctrine and Concepts(New York, Praeger, 1963).

3. A picture of Soviet intentions in various areas of the world can be drawn from the book by Douglas and Hoeber, ibid. For additional material see: Michael Morgan, “USSR’s Minerals as Strategic Weapon in the Future,” Defense and Foreign Affairs, Washington, D.C., Dec. 1979.

4. Admiral of the Fleet Sergei Gorshkov, Sea Power and the State, London, 1979. Morgan, loc. cit. General George S. Brown (USAF) C-JCS, Statement to the Congress on the Defense Posture of the United States For Fiscal Year 1979, p. 103; National Security Council, Review of Non-Fuel Mineral Policy, (Washington, D.C. 1979,); Drew Middleton, The New York Times, (9/15/79); Time, 9/21/80.

5. Elie Kedourie, “The End of the Ottoman Empire,” Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 3, No.4, 1968.

6. Al-Thawra, Syria 12/20/79, Al-Ahram,12/30/79, Al Ba’ath, Syria, 5/6/79. 55% of the Arabs are 20 years old and younger, 70% of the Arabs live in Africa, 55% of the Arabs under 15 are unemployed, 33% live in urban areas, Oded Yinon, “Egypt’s Population Problem,” The Jerusalem Quarterly, No. 15, Spring 1980.

7. E. Kanovsky, “Arab Haves and Have Nots,” The Jerusalem Quarterly, No.1, Fall 1976, Al Ba’ath, Syria, 5/6/79.

8. In his book, former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin said that the Israeli government is in fact responsible for the design of American policy in the Middle East, after June ’67, because of its own indecisiveness as to the future of the territories and the inconsistency in its positions since it established the background for Resolution 242 and certainly twelve years later for the Camp David agreements and the peace treaty with Egypt. According to Rabin, on June 19, 1967, President Johnson sent a letter to Prime Minister Eshkol in which he did not mention anything about withdrawal from the new territories but exactly on the same day the government resolved to return territories in exchange for peace. After the Arab resolutions in Khartoum (9/1/67) the government altered its position but contrary to its decision of June 19, did not notify the U.S. of the alteration and the U.S. continued to support 242 in the Security Council on the basis of its earlier understanding that Israel is prepared to return territories. At that point it was already too late to change the U.S. position and Israel’s policy. From here the way was opened to peace agreements on the basis of 242 as was later agreed upon in Camp David. See Yitzhak Rabin. Pinkas Sherut, (Ma’ariv 1979) pp. 226-227.

9. Foreign and Defense Committee Chairman Prof. Moshe Arens argued in an interview (Ma ‘ariv,10/3/80) that the Israeli government failed to prepare an economic plan before the Camp David agreements and was itself surprised by the cost of the agreements, although already during the negotiations it was possible to calculate the heavy price and the serious error involved in not having prepared the economic grounds for peace.

The former Minister of Treasury, Mr. Yigal Holwitz, stated that if it were not for the withdrawal from the oil fields, Israel would have a positive balance of payments (9/17/80). That same person said two years earlier that the government of Israel (from which he withdrew) had placed a noose around his neck. He was referring to the Camp David agreements (Ha’aretz, 11/3/78). In the course of the whole peace negotiations neither an expert nor an economics advisor was consulted, and the Prime Minister himself, who lacks knowledge and expertise in economics, in a mistaken initiative, asked the U.S. to give us a loan rather than a grant, due to his wish to maintain our respect and the respect of the U.S. towards us. See Ha’aretz1/5/79. Jerusalem Post, 9/7/79. Prof Asaf Razin, formerly a senior consultant in the Treasury, strongly criticized the conduct of the negotiations; Ha’aretz, 5/5/79. Ma’ariv, 9/7/79. As to matters concerning the oil fields and Israel’s energy crisis, see the interview with Mr. Eitan Eisenberg, a government advisor on these matters, Ma’arive Weekly, 12/12/78. The Energy Minister, who personally signed the Camp David agreements and the evacuation of Sdeh Alma, has since emphasized the seriousness of our condition from the point of view of oil supplies more than once…see Yediot Ahronot, 7/20/79. Energy Minister Modai even admitted that the government did not consult him at all on the subject of oil during the Camp David and Blair House negotiations. Ha’aretz, 8/22/79.

 10. Many sources report on the growth of the armaments budget in Egypt and on intentions to give the army preference in a peace epoch budget over domestic needs for which a peace was allegedly obtained. See former Prime Minister Mamduh Salam in an interview 12/18/77, Treasury Minister Abd El Sayeh in an interview 7/25/78, and the paper Al Akhbar, 12/2/78 which clearly stressed that the military budget will receive first priority, despite the peace. This is what former Prime Minister Mustafa Khalil has stated in his cabinet’s programmatic document which was presented to Parliament, 11/25/78. See English translation, ICA, FBIS, Nov. 27. 1978, pp. D 1-10.

According to these sources, Egypt’s military budget increased by 10% between fiscal 1977 and 1978, and the process still goes on. A Saudi source divulged that the Egyptians plan to increase their militmy budget by 100% in the next two years; Ha’aretz, 2/12/79 and Jerusalem Post, 1/14/79.

 11. Most of the economic estimates threw doubt on Egypt’s ability to reconstruct its economy by 1982. See Economic Intelligence Unit, 1978 Supplement, “The Arab Republic of Egypt”; E. Kanovsky, “Recent Economic Developments in the Middle East,” Occasional Papers, The Shiloah Institution, June 1977; Kanovsky, “The Egyptian Economy Since the Mid-Sixties, The Micro Sectors,” Occasional Papers, June 1978; Robert McNamara, President of World Bank, as reported in Times, London, 1/24/78.

 12. See the comparison made by the researeh of the Institute for Strategic Studies in London, and research camed out in the Center for Strategic Studies of Tel Aviv University, as well as the research by the British scientist, Denis Champlin, Military Review, Nov. 1979, ISS: The Military Balance 1979-1980, CSS; Security Arrangements in Sinai…by Brig. Gen. (Res.) A Shalev, No. 3.0 CSS; The Military Balance and the Military Options after the Peace Treaty with Egypt, by Brig. Gen. (Res.) Y. Raviv, No.4, Dec. 1978, as well as many press reports including El Hawadeth, London, 3/7/80; El Watan El Arabi, Paris, 12/14/79.

 13. As for religious ferment in Egypt and the relations between Copts and Moslems see the series of articles published in the Kuwaiti paper, El Qabas, 9/15/80. The English author Irene Beeson reports on the rift between Moslems and Copts, see: Irene Beeson, Guardian, London, 6/24/80, and Desmond Stewart, Middle East Internmational, London 6/6/80. For other reports see Pamela Ann Smith, Guardian, London, 12/24/79; The Christian Science Monitor 12/27/79 as well as Al Dustour, London, 10/15/79; El Kefah El Arabi, 10/15/79.

 14. Arab Press Service, Beirut, 8/6-13/80. The New Republic, 8/16/80, Der Spiegel as cited by Ha’aretz, 3/21/80, and 4/30-5/5/80; The Economist, 3/22/80; Robert Fisk, Times, London, 3/26/80; Ellsworth Jones, Sunday Times, 3/30/80.

 15.  J.P.  Peroncell  Hugoz,  Le  Monde,  Paris  4/28/80;  Dr.  Abbas  Kelidar,  Middle  East  Review,  Summer  1979;

Conflict Studies, ISS, July 1975; Andreas Kolschitter, Der Zeit, (Ha’aretz, 9/21/79) Economist Foreign Report, 10/10/79, Afro-Asian Affairs, London, July 1979.

 16. Arnold Hottinger, “The Rich Arab States in Trouble,” The New York Review of Books, 5/15/80; Arab Press Service, Beirut, 6/25-7/2/80; U.S. News and World Report, 11/5/79 as well as El Ahram, 11/9/79; El Nahar El Arabi Wal Duwali, Paris 9/7/79; El Hawadeth, 11/9/79; David Hakham, Monthly Review, IDF, Jan.-Feb. 79.

 17. As for Jordan’s policies and problems see El Nahar El Arabi Wal Duwali, 4/30/79, 7/2/79; Prof. Elie Kedouri, Ma’ariv 6/8/79; Prof. Tanter, Davar 7/12/79; A. Safdi, Jerusalem Post, 5/31/79; El Watan El Arabi 11/28/79; El Qabas, 11/19/79. As for PLO positions see: The resolutions of the Fatah Fourth Congress, Damascus, August 1980. The Shefa’amr program of the Israeli Arabs was published in Ha’aretz, 9/24/80, and by Arab Press Report 6/18/80. For facts and figures on immigration of Arabs to Jordan, see Amos Ben Vered, Ha’aretz, 2/16/77; Yossef Zuriel, Ma’ariv 1/12/80. As to the PLO’s position towards Israel see Shlomo Gazit, Monthly Review; July 1980; Hani El Hasan in an interview, Al Rai Al’Am, Kuwait 4/15/80; Avi Plaskov, “The Palestinian Problem,” Survival, ISS, London Jan. Feb. 78; David Gutrnann, “The Palestinian Myth,” Commentary, Oct. 75; Bernard Lewis, “The Palestinians and the PLO,” Commentary Jan. 75; Monday Morning, Beirut, 8/18-21/80; Journal of Palestine Studies, Winter 1980.

 18. Prof. Yuval Neeman, “Samaria–The Basis for Israel’s Security,” Ma’arakhot 272-273, May/June 1980; Ya’akov Hasdai, “Peace, the Way and the Right to Know,” Dvar Hashavua, 2/23/80. Aharon Yariv, “Strategic Depth–An Israeli Perspective,” Ma’arakhot 270-271, October 1979; Yitzhak Rabin, “Israel’s Defense Problems in the Eighties,” Ma’arakhot October 1979.

 19. Ezra Zohar, In the Regime’s Pliers (Shikmona, 1974); Motti Heinrich, Do We have a Chance Israel, Truth Versus Legend (Reshafim, 1981).

 20. Henry Kissinger, “The Lessons of the Past,” The Washington Review Vol 1, Jan. 1978; Arthur Ross, “OPEC’s Challenge to the West,” The Washington Quarterly, Winter, 1980; Walter Levy, “Oil and the Decline of the West,” Foreign Affairs, Summer 1980; Special Report–“Our Armed Forees-Ready or Not?” U.S. News and World Report 10/10/77; Stanley Hoffman, “Reflections on the Present Danger,” The New York Review of Books 3/6/80; Time 4/3/80; Leopold Lavedez “The illusions of SALT” Commentary Sept. 79; Norman Podhoretz, “The Present Danger,” Commentary March 1980; Robert Tucker, “Oil and American Power Six Years Later,” Commentary Sept. 1979; Norman Podhoretz, “The Abandonment of Israel,” Commentary July 1976; Elie Kedourie, “Misreading the Middle East,” Commentary July 1979.

 21. According to figures published by Ya’akov Karoz, Yediot Ahronot, 10/17/80, the sum total of anti-Semitic incidents recorded in the world in 1979 was double the amount recorded in 1978. In Germany, France, and Britain the number of anti-Semitic incidents was many times greater in that year. In the U.S. as well there has been a sharp increase in anti-Semitic incidents which were reported in that article. For the new anti-Semitism, see L. Talmon, “The New Anti-Semitism,” The New Republic, 9/18/1976; Barbara Tuchman, “They poisoned the Wells,” Newsweek 2/3/75.The original source of this article is Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc.Copyright © Israel Shahak and Prof Michel Chossudovsky, Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc., 2020

السياسة كما الطبيعة تكره الفراغ

سعادة مصطفى أرشيد

يوم الأحد المقبل سيعلن بن يامين نتياهو عن تشكيلته الحكومية الجديدة، بالاشتراك مع حزب ازرق – ابيض، ويبدأ إجراءات الثقة البرلمانية بها، وذلك بعد طول انتظار، إذ إن المفاوضات الوزارية بين طرفي الإتلاف قد أخذت وقتاً طويلاً في نقاشات مستفيضة حول حصص كل حزب من المقاعد الوزارية والإدارات العليا في الدولة، وذلك أكثر مما اخذ الجانب السياسي من وقت وجهد. فالجانب السياسي وهو الأهم والأبرز سيكون في إعلان الحكومة عن إقرار عملية الضم لمناطق الأغوار وشمال البحر الميت والمستوطنات وبرية الخليل والشروع الفوري في تنفيذها سواء على مراحل متقاربة أم دفعة واحدة، الأمر الذي لن تواجهه صعوبات. فالمسألة تكاد أن تكون إجماعية في المجتمع العنصري المنزاح يميناً، ولن تنال الاثنين وسبعين صوتاً في الكنيست فقط وإنما سيؤيد هذه القرارات لفيف من الأطياف المعارضة للحكومة مثل نفتالي بينت الذي أعلن أنه ومن صفوف المعارضة سيدعم الحكومة بكل قوة في إجرائها، هذا وبالطبع سيصوت لصالح الضم لبرمان الذي لطالما كان من المبشرين والسباقين لهذا التوجه، ومثله الأحزاب الحريدية واليمينية الأخرى.

في هذه الأثناء أتت زيارة وزير الخارجية الأميركي السريعة لتل أبيب وهي الأولى له خارج الولايات المتحدة منذ بدء سريان قرار منع السفر الذي اتخذته واشنطن اثر انتشار وباء الكورونا، البيان المشترك الذي صدر عقب جولة المحادثات بين نتنياهو وضيفه ذكر في البيان انّ الحوار دار حول نقطتين :

الأولى حول قرار الضم المذكور والذي هو في الأساس البند المحوري في صفقة القرن والذي تدور حواليه ما يسميه الأميركان رؤية الرئيس ترامب لعملية السلام. وأشارت بعض المصادر إلى أن المحادثات أكدت دعم الإدارة الأميركية لعملية الضم، فيما مصادر أخرى ذكرت أن الوزير الأميركي طلب من نتنياهو أو( تمنى) عليه التريث قليلا في إعلانه عن الضم، ربما بسبب رجاء أردني بتأخير إعلان القرار وبتنفيذه على مراحل ريثما تستطيع الحكومة الأردنية تمريره، ولكن ذلك يذهب في مذاهب الظن، أما بشكل رسمي فلم توضح المصادر الأسباب، وهو ما ستكشفه الأيام المقبلة، لكن الوقائع والتصريحات المتلاحقة الصادرة عن البيت الأبيض أو على لسان بومبيو شخصياً تعتبر الضمّ مسألة داخلية اسرائيلية، أو في مقابلة السفير الأميركي دافيد فريدمان لصحيفة «إسرائيل هيوم» مؤخراً لا تشير إلى أنّ ضغطاً أو تمنياً قد تقدّم به الوزير الأميركي لتأجيل والتريث في قرار الضمّ.

الثانية في محادثات بومبيو – نتنياهو كانت حول مخاطر النشاط الإيراني وضرورة تقويضه وقطع موارد إمداده، وهو أمر يشمل الدور الإيراني في سورية والعراق وبالطبع حزب الله، وسبق ذلك قرار أميركي بسحب وحدات عسكرية أميركية من الخليج، ثم ما تردّد عن رغبة أميركية بالانسحاب من المشاركة في قوات حفظ السلام المرابطة في سيناء منذ توقيع اتفاقية السلام المصرية – الإسرائيلية عام 1978 (معاهدة كامب دافيد). وقد أشارت مراكز أبحاث أميركية مقربة من سياسة بلادها ودوائرها الحاكمة أن أسباب الانسحاب لها أسبابها المالية، فيما رأت مراكز أخرى أنّ الانسحاب من المنطقة هو بسبب انهيار سعر النفط وانخفاض الطلب عليه، الأمر الذي جعل أهمية المنطقة تتدنّى استراتيجياً، ولكن مراكز ثالثة وجدت السبب في نتائج الحصار الطويل الذي تعاني منه إيران وأنه قاد إلى متاعب داخلية ثم إلى أكلاف التورّط الإيراني في الملف السوري، وأخيراً إلى الانخفاض الحادّ بأسعار البترول، فذلك يعني بحساباتهم أنّ إيران قد ضعفت إلى الحد الذي جعلها غير قادرة على أن تمثل تهديداً استراتيجياً للمصالح الأميركية أو تهديداً وجودياً لـ «إسرائيل».

تضرب «إسرائيل» في سورية منذ مطلع نيسان الماضي بشكل شبه متواصل فهي مطلقة اليد أميركياً، فيما الحكومة السورية تبدو مكبلة اليد روسياً، ومع أنّ الضربات تستهدف الإيرانيين في سورية، إلا أن ذلك يتمّ على الأرض السورية ويمسّ سيادتها وأمنها ومصالحها، والإيرانيون في سورية ليسوا من فئة السياح والمتنزّهين وإنما هم خبراء قد يكونون عسكريين وقد لا يكونون، ولكنهم في كلّ الأحوال موجودون في سورية لدعم جهود الدولة في محاربة الإرهاب، وقد بدأ الإسرائيلي وصحافته يذهبون في تصوّراتهم الى أنّ هذه الضربات ستضطر إيران إلى الانسحاب من سورية.

عود إلى محادثات بومبيو – نتنياهو، في الملف الأول لا يبدو أنّ السلطة التي تقترض 800 مليون شيكل بصدد الرحيل أو حلّ نفسها أو الخروج من الاتفاقات مع الأميركي أو الإسرائيلي، وإلا فكيف يمكن للحكومة التي تعلن صبحاً ومساء أنها ستقوم بعمليه الضم أن تقرض السلطة التي تعلن قبل تسلم المبلغ أنها لن تقوم بسداده لأنها راحلة أو لأنها في حلّ من أية اتفاقات أو التزامات مع الإدارة الأميركية أو «إسرائيل»، وان رحلت السلطة فإنّ الأرض باقية بمن عليها ولا أظن أنّ هناك من سيملأ فراغها سوى «إسرائيل» وعساكرها، حقاً أنّ الأمور في فلسطين تغيظ الصديق وتسرّ العدو.

في الملف الثاني فمع ما تشيعه الصحافة الإسرائيليّة وشقيقاتها من بعض الصحف العربية، فمن الواضح أنّ إيران باقية في سورية ما دامت الدولة السورية تجد الحاجة لبقائها، وإيران تدرك أهمية الملفات السورية والعراقية لأمنها القومي، واعتبارات الأمن القومي هي محركها وآلتها الدائمة الدوران، ولكن المسألة الأهمّ والأخطر هي أن الانسحاب الأميركي من الخليج يتمّ في غياب تنسيق عربي إيراني وفي غياب استراتيجية عربية لملء الفراغ الناشئ عن الانسحاب الأميركي، وذلك سيجعل من «إسرائيل» المدعومة أميركياً تهرول لملء الفراغ… فالسياسة مثل الطبيعة تكره الفراغ.

*سياسي فلسطيني مقيم في الصفة الغربية.

Ex-Qatari PM Talks About Prospective Agreement Between Arab States, «Israel»

Ex-Qatari PM Talks About Prospective Agreement Between Arab States, «Israel»

By Staff, Agencies 

The former Qatar Prime Minister, Hamad bin Jassim Al Thani, said that a non-aggression agreement will be signed between Arab countries and the “Israeli” entity, as a next step to the American announcement of the so-called “peace” plan in the Middle East region, known as the “Deal of the Century”.

In a series of tweets on Sunday evening, Bin Jassim said, that he had previously posted on December 14 of last year about the “deal of the century”, and he expected that the deal would announced at the beginning of this year.

Indeed, US President Donald Trump announced it at the end of last January, stressing that “now it will be followed by a non-aggression agreement between ‘Israel’ and the Gulf Cooperation Council countries in addition to Egypt, Jordan and possibly Morocco.”

He continued: “Today, as the ‘deal of the century’ has been announced, as its enemies call it, I must first repeat, as I have always said, that I am not against a just ‘peace’, and then I am not against signing a non-aggression after reaching clear results in the ‘peace’ process.”

He added, “However, I followed up on the rejection of the deal in the Arab League, although there are Arab countries that promised the American side that they would take a positive position on the deal, but they did not, and justified it by saying that it was unable because of the media.”

Bin Jassim pointed out that “these countries want those promises to come closer to America, even though they know that the deal will be held up by the majority in the Arab League, and that they benefit when they appear as America wants, and they renounce, as they imagine, the burdens of opposing or rejecting the deal, and bear it to states. The other rejects, but this is a short-term policy that is open to the American side”.

The former Qatari prime minister stressed that “America and ‘Israel’ need what will result from the announcement of the deal from a beneficial electoral momentum for Trump and Netanyahu, which may add to both an external victory that would enhance the chances of winning the upcoming elections,” explaining that “the Arab side follows a policy based on short-term tactics. Meanwhile, the ‘Israeli’ side places its policies on long-term strategic foundations”.

He asked about the possibility of the Arab countries adopting, as well, an actual and deliberate policy and tactics that benefit from it by exploiting the need of “Israel” and the US for what they want the deal to achieve, “instead of being just tools that others use to achieve their goals.”

According to Trump and Netanyahu, the “deal of the century” will recognize the “Israeli” entity as a Jewish “state”, in addition to working on a “two-state” solution, considering al-Quds [Jerusalem] as an “indivisible” capital for the “Israeli” entity; and thus recognizing the entity’s “sovereignty” over the Jordan Valley, and making investments worth 50 billion dollars to the Palestinian state.

مخاطر الأزمة

سعادة مصطفى ارشيد

يخوض الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب معركة الدعاية الانتخابية للرئاسة الأميركية مبكراً وقبل موعدها بكثير، مكرهاً على ذلك ومن موقع الضعف واختلال الثقة، فليس من دعاية انتخابية معاكسة له او مؤيدة لمنافسه سواء كان بايدن او غيره خير من الواقع الملموس الذي تعيشه الولايات المتحدة، أولاً بسبب وباء الكورونا وسياسات ترامب الخرقاء في إدارة الأزمة داخلياً وخارجياً، وثانياً بسبب تهافت أدائه خلال سنوات توليه الرئاسة، في الشكل والمضمون، الأمر الذي دعا المفكر الصديق فاضل الربيعي لأن يقارنه بالرئيس الروسي الأسبق بوريس يلتسين، وأن يقارن اللحظة الأميركية الراهنة باللحظة السوفياتية في عهد يلتسين وقبيل الانهيار الكبير للاتحاد السوفياتي.

على الصعيد الداخلي فقد بدا ترامب على حقيقته الفظة المتوحّشة. وهذه الحقيقة وانْ كان لا يخجل من إبدائها في السابق، لكنه كان يطلقها باتجاه خارجي، تجاه أوروبا وروسيا وإيران والصين، وحتى باتجاه أصدقائه السعوديين الذين لا يرى منهم إلا أموالهم ونفطهم، لكنه في هذه الأزمة فقد بدا على القدر ذاته من الانحطاط حتى في داخل بلاده وتجاه شعبه وجمهور ناخبيه، رجل بلا أخلاق، بلا مشاعر، مسعور جشع، لا يهمّه سوى المال والاقتصاد والبورصات والأسهم والسندات، ولكن فضيلة وباء الكورونا – إنْ كان لدى الوباء من فضائل – هي أنها فضحت تلك الايدولوجيا الرأسمالية وأزاحت عنها ستار ما تدّعيه من أنها مجتمع الرفاه والاستهلاك والترف، فبدت عارية من مساحيق التجميل، لئيمة وقذرة ومتوحشة. فالإنسان مهمّ بقدر ما هو قادر على العمل الذي يزوّد خزائنها بالمال، لذا تعقد هذه النظرية المقارنة على شكل معادلة رياضية: أيهما يعود بالنفع والمال أكثر، مكافحة الفيروس والقضاء على الوباء أم ترك الفايروس طليقاً ليدور دورته ويقتل الفائض عن حاجات الإنتاج من كبار السنّ وذوي الإعاقة والمرضى بأمراض مزمنة، مَن الذين يثقلون على صناديق الرعاية الصحية والمجتمعية بأكلاف علاجهم ورعايتهم، وهم لا يقومون مقابل ما يُصرَف عليهم بأيّ عمل منتج؟

على الصعيد الخارجي لا يجد ترامب وإدارته عيباً في السطو على مئتي قناع طبي كانت في طريقها من بانكوك إلى ألمانيا، بعد أن اشترتها الحكومة الألمانية ودفعت ثمنها، فمن يتابع التصريحات الأميركية لفظاً والمسلكيات عملاً، لا يجد وصفاً سياسياً لها وإنما يلجأ الى مستوىً متدنٍّ من الوصف، إنه سلوك الأزعر الذي يمارس البلطجة في الحواري والأزقة التي لا تصل إليها أيدي القانون، غير آبه بعيب او حرام، بقيم او بأخلاق.

في مجال خارجي آخر، فإنّ ترامب يرى من حقه توزيع الاتهامات لأيّ كان إلا لإدارته، مرة على الصين وأخرى على منظمة الصحة العالمية التي اتهمها بحجب معلومات عن الوباء في مدينة ووهان الصينية والتي لو توفرت حسب ما يقول لمنعت انتشار الوباء ووصوله الى بلاده، وتواترت الأنباء أثناء كتابة هذا المقال أنّ ترامب قد اتخذ قراره بوقف مساهمة بلاده في ميزانية منظمة الصحة العالمية.

احتمال لا يزال قائماً لدى عقلية كهذه في الهروب الى الأمام، فقد يجد ترامب في الحرب او المواجهات العنيفة مخرجاً من فشله، فها هو يلوح بالحرب حيناً على إيران وحيناً آخر على فنزويلا والصين بذرائع واهية لم يعد يحتملها حلفاؤه قبل أعدائه، ولكن تلك الدول بطبيعتها ليست لقمة سائغة او مكسر عصا، الأمر الذي قد يجعل من مواجهتها مغامرة غير محسوبة وتعود عليه بأفدح الخسائر. الأمر الذي قد يدعوه لتجربة حظه مع إحدى جمهوريات الموز في أميركا الوسطى أو إحدى أشباه الدول المنسيّة في أرخبيل الجزر في البحر الكاريبي وخليج المكسيك.

في مشرقنا وفي فلسطين، لا زال بن يامين نتنياهو يتصرّف كساحر ومقامر يقف الحظ الى جانبه، تخدمه الظروف والمصائب والأوبئة حتى اليوم، وهو باقٍ في مكانه رئيساً للحكومة الحالية، وليس في عجلة من أمره لتشكيل الحكومة اللاحقة، لذلك فهو يطيل من أمد المشاورات والمفاوضات مع الأحزاب والكتل البرلمانية، يستدرج بعضها ويفتّت بعضها ويهمل بعضها، وهو يعلن بصريح القول: “سنطبق السيادة الإسرائيلية على غور الأردن وبدعم أميركي كامل. هذه الأرض أرضنا، أرض إسرائيل، أرض التوراة، أرض الآباء والأجداد، عدنا إليها لنبقى لا لنغادر”. هذه التصريحات أصبحت مكان إجماع بينه وبين خصمه السابق وربما شريكه اللاحق بني غانتس وغيره من المرشحين لدخول الحكومة، لقد فرض عليهم ذلك دون عناء، فهم بالأصل يملكون النظرة ذاتها؛ الأمر الذي لا يثير استغراب المتابع للأحوال السياسية في “إسرائيل”، فما كانوا قد اختلفوا عليه لم يكن ولا مرة واحدة مسائل تتعلق بالسياسات الخاصة بما تبقى من أرض فلسطين وشعب فلسطين، وإنما خلافات حول تقاسم الوظائف والمواقع، وقد صرّح ناطق رفيع باسم حزب “أزرق أبيض” مؤخراً: “بغضّ النظر عن تفاهمنا مع نتنياهو حول مسألة السيادة الإسرائيلية على المستوطنات والأغوار، إلا أننا على غير استعداد لتقديم أدنى تنازل في مسألة اختيار القضاة”.

بهذا يكون بن يامين نتنياهو مرتاحاً في سيره البطيء، فموضوع الحكومة وإنْ تعثر فهو في النهاية من نصيبه، ومسألة ضمّ أراضي المستوطنات والأغوار قرار قد اتخذه وبقي إعلانه وتطبيقه على أرض الواقع، فهو مطلق اليدين معطى الحرية ليفعل ما يريد، أمامه وأمام دولة الاحتلال فرصة قد لا تتكرّر وتمتدّ الى الثالث من تشرين الثاني موعد الانتخابات الرئاسية في الولايات المتحدة.

صحيفة “التايم” الانجليزية العريقة والمحافظة تنشر مقالاً تتساءل فيه عن شكل العالم الجديد الذي هو قيد التشكل وتستطرد في السؤال هل سنشهد نهاية العهد الأميركي؟ الأمر الذي تؤكده وتضيف انّ العالم سيشهد تشكيل هياكل عالمية جديدة، هذه الأخطار التي تواجه العالم عموماً وتواجهنا خصوصاً ذات علاقة بتداعيات الوباء، ولا تقلّ خطراً علينا من الوباء نفسه، فعلينا الاستعداد لأيام مقبلة لا تقتصر على تحدي الكورونا وإنما تتجاوزه بكثير…

*سياسيّ فلسطينيّ مقيم في الضفة الغربية.

Israeli Forces Demolish Emergency Coronavirus Clinic for Palestinians

Monday, 30 March 2020 17:52

Israeli forces on Thursday entered a Palestinian village in the northern Jordan Valley to confiscate materials designated to build a clinic to deal with the novel coronavirus outbreak. 

Officials from the Israeli Civil Administration came to the village of Khirbet Ibziq with a military escort, bulldozer and two trucks equipped with cranes on Thursday morning to demolish community clinic and emergency housing, according to Israeli human rights monitor Btselem. 

The group reported that Israeli officials seized poles and sheeting designated to form eight tents, two for a field clinic, two for a mosque, and four for emergency housing for people evacuated from their homes. 

A power generator, as well as supplies of sand, cement and cinder blocks to be used for the floor of the tents, were also confiscated. Btselem said the villagers were building a first-aid community initiative to deal with the Covid-19 crisis which has paralyzed large parts of the southern West Bank. 

There are 91 confirmed cases so far in the Palestinian territories, with one death reported on Wednesday. 

The Jordan Valley covers an area of about 1.6 million dunams (1,600 km2) and constitutes around 30 percent of the total occupied West Bank. According to a previous government report, the Valley includes about 280,000 dunams of arable land, 50,000 of which are still used by Palestinians and 27,000 by illegal Jewish settlers. 

The majority of the Jordan Valley is under full Israeli military control, despite being within the West Bank. Meanwhile, at least 44 percent of the total land in the Jordan Valley has been reappropriated by Israeli forces for military purposes and training exercises. 

Source: The Palestine Chronicle 

Israel’s Plan to Overthrow the King of Jordan, Annexing the West Bank and the Jordan Valley

Countdown to Achieve the ‘Alternative Homeland’ in Jordan Begins

By Adnan Abu Amer

Global Research, January 03, 2020

Middle East Monitor 1 January 2020

The Israeli right is preparing to present a plan to overthrow the Jordanian king after annexing the Jordan Valley in the West Bank to realise the dream of Jordan being converted to Palestine. They aim to establish a confederation between the PA and “Palestinian Jordan” because the Israeli right is interested in annexing the West Bank without the millions of Palestinians within it. Forcing them to head to Jordan.

Israel’s Haaretz newspaper revealed in late December the Israeli right-wing’s approaches and plans, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This is based on the claims that Israel has major plans for Jordan, but these plans do not include the same king. This is evidenced by several articles and reports written by right-wing Israeli writers this month who all present similar justifications and results, the main of them all is to destroy the peace treaty with Jordan.

Right-wing Israelis believe that annexing the Jordan Valley is a tactical operation aimed at hitting two Israeli birds with one stone: the first is to work to annex the West Bank and cancel the peace agreement with Jordan, and the second is to topple the Hashemite royal family and to embody the dream of Jordan being Palestine.

It is interesting that this dream is shared by all the Israeli right, with all its components and currents, because they are enthusiastic supporters of the idea that Jordan is Palestine. The ruling Israeli right has begun to detest King Abdullah II.

When King Abdullah is shamefully toppled, Israel will be able to complete its annexation of the West Bank and establish a confederation between the Palestinian Authority and “Palestinian Jordan”.Palestine: 50 Years of Occupation

Moreover, according to the Israeli perception, when that happens, the Palestinians in the West Bank will obtain political rights in Jordan.

According to this Israeli theory, when the Palestinian state is established in Jordan, the Palestinians can resolve their issue, put an end to their suffering and stop using armed operations against Israel, because since 1988, Palestinians in the West Bank have been able to obtain temporary Jordanian passports.

It is worth noting that the Israeli approach may contradict Jordan’s interest in reducing the total number of Palestinians in the kingdom because it refuses at the moment to receive Palestinian refugees from Syria in the way it allowed Syrian and Iraqi refugees to seek refuge on its soil.

Perhaps such aspirational Israeli calls towards Jordan are encouraged by the fact that the two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is no longer practical or realistic. Meanwhile, there are claims that the alternative solution is the establishment of an Arab Palestinian state east of the Jordan River, which will achieve peace between Israel and Palestine. They also claim that the river can be used to transport goods and products from either side, with the Israeli Jewish state on one side and the Arab Palestinian country on the other, side by side.

There is another Israeli scenario of Jordan hosting more Palestinians and instead of the kingdom becoming a Palestinian republic, they become citizens with full rights in the Hashemite Kingdom.

The return of Gilad Sharon after a long absence was noteworthy. He is the son of the late Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who had strong relations with the late King Hussein, King Abdullah’s father. Gilad Sharon returned to claim that the current Jordanian ling would not dare to oppose the annexation of the Jordan Valley by Israel, because Israel has him by his weak spot and the continuation of his rule depends on Israel. He also said that if the king opened his mouth, Israel would turn off the water tap and leave the kingdom to go thirsty.

All these are efforts to drive the king to cancel the peace agreement with Israel and allow Tel Aviv to remove him.

King Abdullah finds himself caught between the anger of the Jordanian public and Israel. The situation of his government has become really difficult because his country’s budget is suffering, the sources of income are declining, the Gulf states, which have always been a source of support for Jordan, have reduced their aid, and millions of Arab refugees have flocked to the kingdom in recent years.

In spite of the increase of tensions between Jordan and Israel over the past year, security coordination between them continues as usual and the intelligence cooperation is at its best. This raises questions about the king failing to use this card to pressure Israel unless this cooperation serves him and not the kingdom.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image: Jordan bans Israelis from entering Al-Baqura‏ area – Cartoon [Sabaaneh/MiddleEastMonitor]The original source of this article is Middle East MonitorCopyright © Adnan Abu AmerMiddle East Monitor, 2020

‘Israel’ Betting on Protests in Lebanon, Iraq & Iran to Siege Resistance Forces: Zionist Media

Capture

December 5, 2019

The Zionist media outlets highlighted the outcomes of the meeting between the premier Benjamin Netanyahu and the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in Lisbon, pointing out the two sides concentrated on taking the advantage of the ongoing protests in Lebanon, Iraq and Iran to oblige Tehran to attend the negotiation table on the basis of their conditions.

Netanyahu considered that the protests help reducing the Iranian support to the resistance movements in the region, underscoring Washington’s role in sanctioning and besieging Tehran, according to the Zionist reports.

The Israeli analysts stressed that Netanyahu raised, during his meeting with Pompeo the two issues of annexing Jordan Valley to the occupation entity and signing a joint defense treaty, adding that the Israeli premier aims at preseting himself as the man of the great achievement in ‘Israel’.

Source: Al-Manar English Website

Israeli Apartheid Made Official: Annexation is the New Reality in Palestine

Annexing Palestinian land has officially moved from the right-wing fringe of Israeli politics to a centrist talking point and campaign promise.

September 17th, 2019

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is moving quickly to alter the political reality in Palestine, and facing little or no resistance.

On September 10, Netanyahu declared his intentions to annex swathes of Palestinian land adjacent to the Jordan River, an area that covers 2,400 square kilometers, or nearly a third of the Occupied West Bank. That region, which extends from Bisan in the north to Jericho in the south, is considered to be Palestine’s food basket, as it accounts for an estimated 60 percent of vegetables that are produced in the West Bank.

A Palestinian shepherd herds his flock near the Israeli settlement of Tomer in the Jordan Valley, April 2, 2017. Oded Balilty | AP

While Israel has already colonized nearly 88 percent of the entire Palestinian Ghoor (or Jordan Valley), dividing it between illegal agricultural settlements and military zones, it was always assumed that the militarily occupied region will be included within the border of a future Palestinian state.

Netanyahu’s announcement has been linked to Israel’s general elections of September 17. The Israeli leader is desperate, as he is facing “unprecedented alliances” that are all closing in to unseat him from his political throne. But this cannot be all. Not even power-hungry Netanyahu would alter the political and territorial landscape of Israel and Palestine indefinitely in exchange for a few votes.

Indeed, talks of annexation have been afoot for years and have long preceded the September elections or the previous ones in April.

A sense of euphoria has been felt among Israel’s rightwing officials since the advent of Donald Trump to the White House. The excitement was not directly linked to Trump but to his Middle East team, like-minded pro-Israel US officials whose support for Israel is predicated on more than personal interests, but religious and ideological beliefs as well.

White House senior adviser, Jared Kushner, selected his team very carefully: Jason Greenblatt as special envoy for Middle East peace, David Friedman as United States Ambassador to Israel, and layers of other second-tier officials whose mission was never aimed at resolving conflict or brokering peace, but supervising a process in which Israel finalizes its colonization of Palestine unhindered.

Kushner’s master stroke is epitomized in the way he presented his objectives as part of a political process, later named “Deal of the Century”.

In all fairness, Kushner’s team hardly labored, or even pretended to be, peacemakers, especially as they oversaw the US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and of the occupied Golan Heights as Israeli territories. Indeed, none of these officials tried to hide their true motives. Just examine statements made by the just-resigned Greenblatt where he refused to name illegal Jewish settlements as such, but as “neighborhoods and cities”; and Friedman’s outright support for the annexation of parts of the Occupied West Bank, and much more.

The US political discourse seemed in complete alignment with that of Israel’s right-wing parties. When right-wing extremist politicians, the likes of Naftali Bennett and Ayelet Shaked, began floating the idea of annexing most or all of the Occupied West Bank, they no longer sounded like marginal and opportunistic voices vying for attention. They were at the center of Israeli politics, knowing full well that Washington no longer had a problem with Israel’s unilateral action.

It could be argued, then, that Netanyahu was merely catching up, as the center of gravity within his right-wing coalition was slipping away to younger, more daring politicians. In fact, Israel, as a whole, was changing. With the Labor Party becoming almost entirely irrelevant, the Center’s political ideology moved further to the right, simply because supporting an independent Palestinian state in Israel has become a form of political suicide.

Therefore, Netanyahu’s call for the annexation of Palestinian land east of the Jordan River must not be understood in isolation and only within the limited context of the Israeli elections. Israel is now set to annex large parts of the West Bank that it deems strategic. This is most likely to include all illegal settlement blocks and the Jordan Valley as well.

Israel Palestine Jordan Valley

An activist is surrounded by Israeli soldiers during a protest against Jewish settlements in the Jordan Valley, Nov. 17, 2016. Majdi Mohammed | AP

In fact, Netanyahu said on September 11 that he was ready to annex the Jordan Valley region even before the election date, but was blocked by the Attorney General’s office. Netanyahu would not have taken such a decision if it represented a political risk or if it faced pushback from Washington. It is, then, sadly, a matter of time.

Suspiciously absent in all of this are the Palestinian Authority (PA), the Arab League, the European Union and, of course, the United Nations and its many outlets and courts. Aside from a few shy statements – like that of the spokesperson of the UN, Stéphane Dujarric, decrying that “unilateral actions are not helpful in the peace process” – Israeli leaders are facing little or no hindrance whatsoever as they finalize their complete colonization of all Palestinian land.

Unable to stage any kind of meaningful resistance against Israel, the Palestinian leadership is so pathetically insisting on utilizing old terminologies. The official Palestinian response to Netanyahu’s annexation pledge, as communicated by Prime Minister Mohammed Shtayyeh, came only to underscore the PA’s political bankruptcy.

“Netanyahu is the chief destroyer of the peace process,” Shtayyeh said, warning that annexing parts of the West Bank would have negative consequences.

For his part, the PA leader Mahmoud Abbas resorted, once more, to empty threats. Abbas said in a statement, “All agreements and their resulting obligations would end if the Israeli side annexes the Jordan Valley, the northern Dead Sea, and any part of the Palestinian territories occupied in 1967.”

Neither Abbas nor Shtayyeh seem troubled by the fact that a “peace process” does not exist, and that Israel has already violated all agreements.

While the PA is desperately hanging on to any reason to justify its continued existence, Netanyahu, with the full support of Washington, is moving forward in annexing the West Bank, thus making apartheid an official and undisputed reality.

The Palestinian leadership must understand that the nature of the conflict is now changing. Conventional methods and empty statements will not slow down the Israeli push for annexation nor Tel Aviv’s determination to expand its apartheid to all of Palestine. If Palestinians continue to ignore this reality altogether, Israel will continue to single-handedly shape the destiny of Palestine and its people.

Feature photo | Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a press conference in Tel Aviv, Israel, Sept. 10, 2019 where he vowed to begin annexing West Bank settlements if he wins national elections. Oded Balilty | AP. Editing by MintPress News

Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and editor of The Palestine Chronicle. His last book is ‘The Last Earth: A Palestinian Story’, and his forthcoming book is ‘These Chains Will Be Broken: Palestinian Stories of Struggle and Defiance in Israeli Prisons’. Baroud has a Ph.D. in Palestine Studies from the University of Exeter and is a non-resident research fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA) at Zaim University in Istanbul. Visit: www.ramzybaroud.net.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect MintPress News editorial policy.

%d bloggers like this: