الحريري أبلغ الفرنسيّين أنه سيغادر لبنان إذا لم يتمّ تشكيل حكومة

باريس – نضال حمادة

أبلغ الرئيس المكلف تشكيل الحكومة سعد الحريري الموفد الرئاسي الفرنسي باتريك دويل خلال زيارته الأخيرة إلى بيروت أنه قرّر مغادرة لبنان خلال فترة قريبة في حال لم يتمّ تشكيل حكومة، هذا الكلام لمصادر دبلوماسية فرنسية.

وقالت المصادر إنّ الحريري يشعر بالإحباط نتيجة الأوضاع التي وصلت إليها عملية تشكيل الحكومة، وأضافت أنّ الرئيس المكلف ينتظر خروج دونالد ترامب من البيت الأبيض حتى تتسنّى له معرفة الموقف الأميركي الحقيقي من محمد بن سلمان صاحب الفيتو على الحريري كشخص وعلى تشكيل حكومة يكون ضمنها حزب الله مباشرة أو عبر مقرّبين.

وحول حزب الله نقلت المصادر أنّ مسؤولي الحزب الذين التقوا بالمسؤولين الفرنسيين أبلغوهم أنّ حزب الله مستعدّ لتقديم ما يلزم عليه لتشكيل حكومة، فيما لو قرّر الحريري تخطي الفيتو الأميركي السعودي.

وفي السياق، وعلى وقع نتائج زيارة وزير الخارجية الأميركي الى باريس، تريد فرنسا تمرير ما تبقى من فترة حكم دونالد ترامب بانتظار وصول بايدن وربما تفهّمه للموقف الفرنسي من الأزمة الاقتصادية والسياسية التي يمرّ بها لبنان…

فيديوات متعلقة

تعليق

سعدو يعتبر نفسه بي السنة وسعدو لديه ثلاث جنسيات، هو لبناني وسعودي وفرنسي ولأن لحم كتافو وكتاف اللي ،”خلفو” من السعودية فالجنسية السعودية هي الأهم ،سعدو لا يستطيع أن يغضب ترمب كما فعل باسيل ويعلم ان حزب الله لن يخضع للشروط الامريكية ويعلم ان حكومتة العتيدة لن ترى النور بدون مشاكة الحزب.

وعليه لا بد من الهروب من لبنان ربما لباريس أو سيشل حتي خروج ترمب، ان خرج، من البيت الأسود ودخوا “المخلص” بايدن لمعرفة مصير محمد بن سلطان

أما لبنان وعياله “سنة لبنان” فليذهبوا للجحيم

The Long Goodbye of Social-Democracy

The Long Goodbye of  Social-Democracy

November 17, 2020

by Francis Lee for the Saker Blog

The ongoing process of political degeneration which has been happening in the UK Labour Party is basically part of a deep-going movement which has been taking place in all left-of-centre parties in Europe. In political/ideological terms, they have been swept away by the rampaging neo-liberal globalist forces – circa 1980 onwards and have, like good little boys and girls, trimmed their sails to the globalist agenda. This, straight betrayal has been justified by the usual TINA cliche. The roll-call of the sell-outs has included the SPD (Germany) the PS (France) Pasok/Syriza (Greece) the old ex-communist party of Italy, (now rebranded as the Democratic Party) PSOE (Spain) not forgetting the Democratic Party in the US. This historical betrayal has given the militant right a chance to attack the very real sell-out of the centre-left parties and publications which includes the Guardian, New York Times, Economist, Washington Post, . L’Express, La Figaro, Der Spiegel – the list is extensive.

THE BRITISH LABOUR PARTY

The Guardian newspaper had long been a supporter of the Labour Party but more recently has been the trend-setter in this ‘liberal turn’ if we may call it such. There has taken place an unseemly metamorphosis from centre-left to the Blairite right. Going back to earlier days the Manchester Guardian, as it was then called, steered an honest social-democratic course under the leadership of C.P.Scott famous for his catchphrase, ‘’Comment is free but facts are sacred.’’ was the ultimate statement of values for a free press and continued to under-pin the traditions of good newspapers throughout the western world, (but sadly of course this is no longer the case, not by a long shot).  Looking back, Scott and the then Manchester Guardian resolutely opposed the British war against the Dutch settlers (Boers) in South Africa (1899-1902). For his pains Scott’s home was physically attacked by jingoistic mobs and he required police protection, as did the property of the Manchester Guardian which was also attacked.

That was then, this is now.

The rot in the current Guardian newspaper began with the conversion of what was once a campaigning left-of-centre political publication into a straightforward business journal with a centre-right political orientation; this happened earlier in this century when the Scott Trust was rebranded as the Scott Trust Limited, along with the Guardian Media Group – GMG – both of whom became registered as a commercial company by decamping to the tax haven of the Cayman Islands British Overseas Territory, for tax reasons – i.e. tax avoidance.

THE CORBYN AFFAIR

As for the whole ‘anti-semitic’ brouhaha surrounding ex-leader of the Party, Jeremy Corbyn, and the Labour Party itself, this was engineered from both internal and external sources. It should be understood that anyone who is anyone in the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) and who entertains political and occupational preferment in the PLP is a member of the ‘Labour Friends of Israel’ – this is mandatory. The same is true of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats. So we have here a situation where an ostensibly sovereign state, the UK, has been penetrated by another sovereign state, Israel which in effect is selecting who and who shall not be members of the Labour Party’s policy and decision-making processes. This blatant process was caught by a mole planted by the Kuwaiti TV Station Al Jazeera and televised under the name of ‘The Lobby’ where the mole in question interviewed a member of the London Israeli embassy – Shai Masot – about the ‘taking down’ of pro-Palestinian politicians and spreading Zionist influence inside independent political groups active in the UK. This TV interview showed Mr Masot – who was blissfully unaware of being televised – discussing with his interlocutor how to cause embarrassment to pro-Palestinian politicians deemed to be detrimental to Israeli interests.

Students and campaigners told a reporter posing as a pro-Israel activist they had been given funding and support from Israel’s embassy in London to counter the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. When asked whether he had ever “built a group”, Mr Masot replied: “Yeah, I did several things like that, yeah…in Israel and here. Nothing I can share but yeah.’’

“It’s good to leave those organisations independent, but we help them actually.”

The UK National Union of Students said it was investigating alleged attempts to influence last year’s leadership election, which saw its first black, Muslim, female president Malia Bouattia voted in.

Following claims that opposing NUS members held “secret meetings” with activists supported by the Israeli embassy, a spokesperson for the union said: “The NUS takes these allegations seriously. We are looking into them and, when we have all the information available, the behaviour of NUS officers will be reviewed, and appropriate action taken.” (1)

This seemed outrageous, but such is the influence of extra-national political configurations in British politics. This was instanced in the manner in which the now ex-leader of the Labour party – Jeremy Corbyn – was subject to a relentless but bogus assault internally from the Blairites, the media and also Britain’s Jewish opponents on the basis of his ongoing support for Palestinian rights. Of course anyone who in Zionist terms is a supporter of Palestinian rights is ipso facto an anti-Semite. On absolutely no evidence Corbyn was suspended from the leadership of the party which was now under the leadership of one (Sir) Keir Starmer QC, who doesn’t seem to have any political views at all, apart from his unconditional support of Israel, which of course befits yet another political carpet bagger on the make. ‘What are my politics?’ What would you like them to be?’

Of course the same scenario also applies to the United States – a fortiori. This latter case of organized Jewish influence both internal and from outside (Israel) is so open, widespread and obvious that it barely needs mentioning. (2) Moreover, socialism in the United States, or even social-democracy, has, never, since the days of Eugene Debs been anything other than a minor curiosity and led by a leadership so venal that it collapses at the first serious challenge. Such was the fate of Bernie Sanders, who managed to capitulate to the DNC powers-that-be not once but twice.

But to return to the Labour Party, this political hollowing-out of what was once a mass and proud reformist party has by now been pretty much neutered and in keeping with centre-left conditions just about everywhere. The list does not make pretty reading. Currently there is no centre-left party, in western Europe at least, worthy of the name, the capitulation seems complete. As follows:

GREECE. THE RISE AND FALL OF SYRIZA

On its accession to power Syriza laid great emphasis on trying to convince their opponents that their proposals were financially sound and of benefit to all in the long-run. This is one of the characteristics of social-democracy. It is an approach based upon ‘the truth’, as they understood it, and rationality of their approach and compared favourably to the mistaken beliefs of their political opponents. What Syriza did not understand, however, was that the social virtues and heritage of social democratic reform was now history, buried deep under the refuse pile of new neoliberal values.

The political imperatives of SYRIZA’s position consisted of an adamantly committed policy to stay in the eurozone and the euro regime; but this was a regime of structural flaws which only benefitted the elites rather than ordinary folk. Concurrent with this the Greek people were consistently indicating in various polls taken that they did not want to leave the eurozone either. Like Syriza they wanted to end austerity and stay in Europe and keep the euro. Neither thus understood that the root of austerity lay in the neoliberal euro regime that they wanted to keep. One would have thought that following the crowd in this instance was a dereliction of duty on the part of the Syriza leadership who should have known better, but it is so much easier to take the easy way out than actually lead.

Syriza wanted a European version of the US 1930’s New Deal, but there was no FDR on the horizon, and, moreover, this was 70 years later, and history was not about to repeat itself.

The upshot of this sad historical nemesis was when Syriza took the road of least resistance. The European base of neoliberalism required the arrangement of goods and services and free movement of labour and capital which had indebted Greece (and other peripheral economies) and ensured some form of perpetual austerity. But this was precisely how the system was designed to work.

‘’Over the course of the third debt restructuring negotiations in 2015, Syriza would at first deny and then resist this reality, then concede in steps as it retreated from its positions and its Thessaloniki programme. In August 2015, it capitulated. Like its political predecessors, New Democracy in 2012, and PASOK in 2010, Syriza would also eventually settle into the ‘caretaker’ role for the neoliberal Troika.’’ (3)

FRANCE – LE PARTI SOCIALISTE – ABJECT FAILURE.

In late 2016, French President Francois Hollande became the first leader of the 5th Republic to announce that he would not seek re-election leaving his Parti Socialiste to find another candidate for the April 2017 presidential election. The five years of Hollande’s presidency had not been kind to the ruling party. Terrorist attacks, a shift to the right on domestic matters, persistent unemployment, internal party divisions, and even an illicit love affair, eroded confidence in Hollande’s government and left the Socialists with little in their playbook that remained popular with voters.

Hollande’s choice for economy minister, Emmanuel Macron, created new problems for the president right from the start. Just 36 when he was appointed in 2014, Macron was a former investment banker at a firm owned by the Rothschild family – an unusual choice for a president who once declared that the world of finance was his “enemy”.

Macron soon angered the Socialist’s left wing with his criticism  of the 35-hour work-week and by calling for the deregulation of the French economy. Socialist deputy Yann Galut spoke for many in his party when he accused Macron of “disowning all the values of the left”. But then what else from an investment banker did the party expect?

The pro-business reforms, known as the “Macron laws”, included allowing stores to remain open  on Sundays and late in the evenings. A more wide-ranging labour code 5, made it easier for firms to hire or fire and to extend employee working hours, soon followed suit. The proposed reforms prompted months of sometimes violent protests  over the summer from students and unions who were angry over diminished labour protections. Yes it was all straight from the neoliberal policy manual. Hollande’s government controversially pushed the bill  through parliament in June 2016 without holding a vote, igniting a new burst of outrage.

Macron was not the only member of Hollande’s cabinet to anger the party’s leftist base. Manuel Valls, 54 – the French Tony Blair – who served as interior minister and then prime minister before resigning to announce his own presidential run, has proved that even a Socialist Party can have a right wing.

As protests against labour reforms spread across France last summer, Valls once again took a hard line, moving to ban further demonstrations in Paris after sporadic outbreaks of violence. It was the first time since the 1960s that union demonstrations had been banned in France and it sparked outrage across the political spectrum, including within the already divided Socialist Party. After a weeklong stand-off, the unions were eventually allowed to hold a protest march via a different route.

Valls has said he wanted to ‘modernise’ the Socialist Party, even suggesting that it rename itself because the term “Socialist” is too “old-fashioned”. He says that a revitalised party could unite all of the country’s “progressive forces” into one movement. Valls’ brand of ‘right-wing Socialism’ (i.e., a neoliberal party) highlighted the quandary the party faced. If Hollande is seen as representing the traditional yet ineffectual left, its more dynamic members now look like the centre-right.

As unemployment continued to hit record highs, Valls infuriated many by saying more needed to be done to encourage the unemployed to get back to work. Macron, for his part, had said that the costly system of unemployment benefits needed to be revised, blaming the unions for deadlocking negotiations.

Statements such as these, coming as record numbers of French citizens struggled with a lack of job opportunities, have heightened resentment among much of the public and divided those within the Socialist party. And they seem more like admonishments that would come from the right-wing Les Républicains party than from the fresh new faces of France’s left. But after the erratic Hollande years, the party now faced the task of reinventing itself as a movement that combines traditional leftist values with a fresh dynamism that is ready to meet the challenges of the future. In short, the PS had to change into a neoliberal outfit. After all – TINA!

Humiliated, unloved, and threatened to be plundered by Macron’s movement, the French socialists stood shivering at a crossroad. Hardly unexpected of course. France was, after all, being corralled into the neoliberal sheep-pen.

France has predictably followed the universal neoliberal economic prescriptions and rewarded with the wholly expected failed outcomes. After growing at an estimated rate of 1.7% in 2018, GDP grew by an abysmal estimated 1.3% in 2019. Minimal growth rates needed to overcome this economic standstill needed to be at least 2% to make any impact on what has become a secular stagnation. This has had political ramifications.

The European elections of May 2019 saw the victory of the National Rally of Marine Le Pen (far right), gathering 23% of the vote, compared to 22% for the Republic in March of Emmanuel Macron. On the international scene, the president intends to strengthen the integration of the euro zone by revitalizing the Franco-German partnership. But Macron’s delusions of grandeur are simply swimming against the stream here with unemployment at 10%, trade figures all negative, private debt to GDP at 227% and Sovereign debt at 98%. Unquestionably France is in a deep structural political/economic crisis.

From Gaullism in 1945 consisting of independence and distrust of the Anglo-Saxon bloc, to the current force feeding of neoliberalism and an unquestioning loyalty to NATO. Mission accomplished? Not quite. And then comes the emergence of the Gilet Jaunes. What next for France?

GERMANY: THE SPD

The oldest, Social Democratic Party in Europe, the Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, can be traced back to the 1860s, and for much of the 20th and 21st centuries it has represented the centre-left in German politics, although not the far left politics of the pre-war KPD (Communists) and SAP (Socialist Workers’ Party’ where Willie Brandt was once a member). Nevertheless from 1891 to 1959 the Party at least theoretically espoused Marxism. Of course this all changed in the main due to Cold War but more importantly for the need for political deals and coalition governments which were made the sine qua non for the formation of governments in Germany. At the present time, the SPD is in a fragile coalition government together with the conservative CDU/CSU and the SPD, the Grand Coalition as it is called.

THE EUROPEAN POWER-HOUSE:

In economic terms Germany had always been the economic powerhouse of Europe and possibly even the world. It’s dynamism came from a globally competitive industrial base, pivoting on automobiles, chemicals, and machine tools. Its exports enabled it to command vast surpluses on current account thus providing the wherewithal to lend globally.

Whether this Teutonic pre-eminence was a conscious policy choice on the part of Germany, or merely a policy-drift due to the internal structure of Germany’s post-war policy configuration seems debatable. Germany had certainly bucked the Anglo-American trend of de-industrialisation and financialization which had become de rigueur internationally as a result of the putative ‘efficiency’ of the Anglo-American model. Germany had not deindustrialised, had a smallish stock market compared with other developed states, eschewed as far as possible a system of equity funding and maintained a traditional reliance on bank funding for industry since long term relations were easier to develop among corporations and banks and the internal structure of corporations is not driven by the desire to placate stock markets. Moreover, the German banking system had a multitiered and competitively structured organization which included a raft of smaller and medium sized banks, the Sparkassen, which operated with a local focus. This stood in stark opposition to the oligopolistic banking monoliths of the Atlantic world.

Additionally, there were further reasons why Germany emerged as the EU hegemon. Primarily, Germany did not sacrifice its world class industrial-export sector on the altar of deindustrialisation. But instead adopted and adapted its own variant of financialization while at the same time protected its industrial sector by manipulating its exchange rate to protect exports. The German manufacturing sector is highly productive, export-oriented and has maintained relatively strong union representation in the wage formation process compared to the rest of the private (domestic) sector which has modest productivity and relatively weak unions in comparison with other EU countries.

In the domestic economy, however, Germany was able to restructure (i.e., lower) wage costs and working conditions with the imposition of the Hartz reforms – a set of policies arrayed against German labour which pushed down costs through the implementation of ‘flexible’ labour markets. This gave Germany a competitive first-mover, edge in intra-European trade resulting in an ongoing surplus on its current account. And when one state achieves a (recurring) surplus on current account other states must record a deficit on current account. In this instance this was the southern periphery. If this smacked of neoliberalism –that’s because it was.

In sharp contrast to the southern periphery the eastern periphery of central Europe was not part of the eurozone which means that they were not ensnared in the Iron Cage of EMU and enabled to keep their own currencies. But heavy German investment in this area produced a core-periphery relationship where low-wage, semi-skilled assembly work was farmed out to Slovakia, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland. That is the usual pattern of FDI supply chains. High-end production, including R&D was kept at Home Base.

Additionally, Central European peripheries have come to depend heavily on Germany for technology and markets. If Germany faced a severe recession so would probably be the whole of Central Europe.

Thus, Germany was to become the overseer of an increasingly neo-liberal order precisely at the time when the 2008 blow-out was to cross the Atlantic and usher in a quasi-permanent period of instability for the whole EU project. The main actors in the future development of the EU were the ECB the EC and the IMF, the infamous Troika. The ECB in particular was the paragon of Banking, monetary and fiscal rectitude. This was underlined insofar as it was domiciled in Frankfurt as was the Bundesbank and was heavily influenced in policy terms by this particular institution.

Then came the 2020 derailment. Prior to this, however, growth rates had been zero to miniscule at less than 1% per quarter since 2018. Then came the yo-yo bounce in 2020. Ten Year Bunds Yields were at -0.53 (that’s a minus sign BTW), unemployment was beginning to rise, inflation was at -0.2% which means that it was actually deflation, interest rates were at zero, consumer confidence was at -3.1, retail sales at -2.2%, Sovereign Debt-to-GDP 68%, Private Debt-to-GDP at 154% (but these latter private figures were based upon 2018 statistics).

THE SPD VANISHING TRICK:

And where was the SPD during all this time? It was following the trend of course. The then party leader and Chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, defended his counter-reformist ‘Agenda 2010’ and praised Tony Blair’s ‘New Labour’ as a successful example of ‘modern’ social democracy. At the same time, up and down the country, some 90,000 workers responded to a call by the Trade Union Federation, the DGB, and demonstrated against attempts to dismantle the welfare state. In East Germany, 84% of all steel workers organised in the IG Metall voted in favour of industrial action for the 35-hour week which had been introduced in the West back in the 1990s.

Horrified by high unemployment (4) and fear of recession and even depression, Schroder and his think tanks were doing what they had always accused the previous Helmut Kohl government of doing: they were attacking the unemployed and not unemployment. They claimed that dismantling the welfare state and massive tax reductions were to the benefit of the employers and the rich but in general would open the path towards economic growth and a new jobs miracle. In doing this, they could count on the applause of the bourgeois media and politicians who kept pushing them further and further down that road.

But later developments in 2019 have led to a new inward turn of the SPD which will give the already rapidly changing party system a further push. Both the CDU and SPD have lost dramatically during recent European and regional elections. The winners have been the ‘woke’ Green party and the far-right Alternative fur Deutschland (AfD). The Green party, also led by a new team since January 2018, has been a clear beneficiary of the rise of the urban middle-class and the weakness of the two governing parties. The Green party is now solidly number two in the party system and highly likely to join the next government, either with the CDU or the two parties on the ‘left’, the SPD left centrist and Der Linke the old East German Communist Party.

CONCLUSION

Throughout Europe the Social-Democratic tradition has been in crisis since the 1980s onwards and is heading rapidly toward marginalization and oblivion. Having prostrated itself before the deities of neo-liberalism and globalization, and swallowed the holy dogmas whole there seems no way back. And if anything the situation in the southern and eastern peripheries are even more dire than those in Western Europe. The political structures in Europe now range from outright fascist, right and centre right, and an allegedly centre-left that acts like a centre-right, a Guardian-style liberal woke party. That’s it folks. Europe seems to be heading to a turbulent and ugly future

NOTES

(1) The Lobby – Al Jazeera – The Independent newspaper – London 12-January-2017

(2) The Israel Lobby – John J Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt – passim.

(3) Looting Greece: A New Financial Imperialism Emerges – Jack Rasmus – passim.

(4) The story of the German jobs miracle is misleading. It is true that the number of people in employment increased by more than 10 percent between 2003 and the end of 2016 from 39 to 43 million. But this was achieved mainly by replacing full-time jobs by part-time and mini jobs. In fact, actual working time did not increase at all up to 2010; the work was just spread over more people.” And also since the economic climate improved in 2011, the volume of work has been growing much more slowly than employment and is still below the levels of the early 1990s. And that is why in 2016, 4.8 million people in Germany were living entirely from mini jobs. A further 1.5 million are working against their will in part-time jobs. And then there are around 1 million contract workers and more than 2 million self-employed without employees, and most of them do not have enough work.

The “industrial reserve army“ of the unemployed, as Karl Marx once called them, “was reduced in size at the price of a growth in the reserve army of the under-employed in part-time work and the over-employed who have to do several jobs to get by.”

If US sanctions on Lebanon are about corruption, Saad Hariri should be top of list

Protesters denounce politician Gebran Bassil in downtown Beirut on 8 August (AFP)

13 November 2020 10:55 UTC |

Source

Marco Carnelos

Marco Carnelos is a former Italian diplomat. He has been assigned to Somalia, Australia and the United Nations. He has served in the foreign policy staff of three Italian prime ministers between 1995 and 2011. More recently he has been Middle East Peace Process Coordinator Special Envoy for Syria for the Italian government and, until November 2017, ambassador of Italy to Iraq.

If the US was truly concerned about corruption in Lebanon, it should have targeted the discredited prime minister

المدن - حيرة سعد الحريري: "أبو السنّة" أم "إبن التسوية"؟

The US Treasury recently sanctioned Gebran Bassil, leader of the Free Patriotic Movement party and member of parliament, for his role in corruption in Lebanon, using the Magnitsky Act. This provision is deployed when human rights abuses and corruption reach such scope and gravity that they threaten the stability of international political and economic system. 

Unfortunately, as frequently occurs with the US government’s decisions, even the application of this provision is not immune to double standards. In the case of Lebanon, for Washington, corruption is not a problem – provided that you are aligned with US policies. 

In this case, however, we are facing a real mystery. According to US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, Bassil “has helped to erode the foundation of an effective government that serves the Lebanese people”. He noted that this decision “further demonstrates that the United States supports the Lebanese people in their continued calls for reform and accountability”.

Economic mismanagement 

The overall US analysis behind this decision is essentially correct. Lebanon has long suffered from endemic corruption and economic mismanagement by its historical power brokers, who have advanced their own interests at the expense of the Lebanese people. Since October 2019, widespread protests with participation from a broad segment of Lebanese society have called for political, social and economic reforms. 

All Lebanese governments have failed to curb inflation and mounting debt, as well as to improve the country’s failing infrastructure and to ensure basic services. Socioeconomic conditions for ordinary Lebanese people have continued to deteriorate, while political leaders remain insulated from the crisis. 


The US decision remains inexplicable, to say the least. It did not target one of the top people responsible for Lebanon’s chaos

The country is experiencing an energy crisis that leaves people without electricity for hours or even days at a time, and government officials appear unable to fix the problem. The political dysfunction was exemplified by the catastrophic explosion at the Beirut port on 4 August, which many saw as a further example of the negligence and corruption that victimises Lebanese citizens.

Financially, the country has already defaulted, thanks to a Ponzi scheme run for years by its central bank, and ordinary savers have been forced to settle for highly limited access to their bank deposits, bringing many to the brink of starvation.

Yet, while long overdue, the US decision remains inexplicable, to say the least. It did not target one of the top people responsible for Lebanon’s chaos: fourth-time Prime Minister Saad Hariri, who once again returned to power after he was ousted by a popular revolt in October 2019. As though nothing had occurred in recent decades, when Hariri repeatedly served as premier with zero results, he has been supported to assume the role again by the usual power brokers.  

Christian parties marginalised

Bassil, the Christian leader who aspires to succeed his father-in-law, Michel Aoun, as the country’s next president, has this time refused to support Hariri’s comeback to power, which had been pushed by some Sunni and Shia parties, including Hezbollah. The second-most important Christian party, the Lebanese Forces, took a similar decision. 

It is probably the first time, then, that a Cabinet has been formed in Lebanon without the participation of the main Christian parties – an unprecedented development that took place as major world powers watched idly, especially France, which since the 4 August explosion had taken the lead in attempts to save the country from complete collapse. 

Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri speaks with French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris in September 2019 (AFP)
Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri speaks with French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris in September 2019 (AFP)

After the blast, French President Emmanuel Macron visited Beirut twice. He made specific, sound proposals and asked for clear commitments on reforms, but his appeals went unheeded by the traditional Lebanese power brokers. 

While France has always been proud of its strict secular approach to politics, up to the point of creating deep and probably avoidable fissures  with its Muslim minority, it has also attributed to itself the historical role of protector of the Christian minorities in the Levant. 

It is thus disconcerting how Macron has tolerated the marginalisation of Christian parties in the Lebanese decision-making process, facilitating Hariri’s disgraceful comeback. How is it possible that one of the main enablers of Lebanon’s chaos has again been assigned to rule and reform the country, amid a deafening silence from Paris?

A final disappointment

The US has maintained a similarly questionable position. After mobilising against the country’s endemic corruption and Hezbollah, the Trump administration has not objected to the fact that Hezbollah’s main power-sharing partner in recent decades, Hariri, is again in charge with the support of this same movement – which, incidentally, figures prominently in the US terrorism list, as Washington pushes its European allies to follow suit with a terrorism designation.Beirut explosion: A weapon of mass corruptionRead More »

If the targeting of Bassil really aims to show that the US “supports the Lebanese people in their continued calls for reform and accountability”, then why – considering his abysmal record – has Hariri not been sanctioned as well? If the primary US concern is the struggle against corruption, why it has decided, again, to go after a relatively small fish like Bassil instead of the bigger fish, such as Hariri, Speaker Nabih Berri or veteran politician Walid Jumblatt? 

Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri, Speaker Nabih Berri and MP Walid Jumblatt  during their meeting in Beirut on Sunday evening - ASHARQ AL-AWSAT English  Archive

Even on its way out, the Trump administration never misses an opportunity to surprise. The sad news is that this time, in serving one of its last disappointments, it is in good company with the French presidency.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

Recommended

Lebanon’s Bahaa Hariri backtracks after interview with Israeli urging peace

Covid-19: Lebanon announces second lockdown after cases spikeUS sanctions imposed on Lebanon’s Gebran Bassil

The Karabakh war is over. The crisis is not. What comes next?

Source

The Karabakh war is over.  The crisis is not.  What comes next?

First, I want to begin this analysis by posting the full translation of an article posted yesterday by the Russian webzine Vzgliad.  I materially don’t have the time to make my own translation, so what I will post is just a minimally retouched machine translation, I apologize for this.

original Russian text: https://vz.ru/world/2020/11/12/1070326.html

Five main mysteries of the second Karabakh war

by Evgenii Krutikov

The end of the second Karabakh war gave rise to many riddles and conspiracy theories. Indeed, some of the circumstances of this conflict are extremely mysterious, or at least paradoxical from the point of view of conventional military logic. Apparently, the Armenian leadership itself provoked a political catastrophe.

Let’s list which riddles raise the biggest questions and provoke the appearance of “conspiracy theories” in Armenia (and not only).

1. Why was not a full-fledged mobilization carried out in Armenia, and full-fledged military units were not deployed to the conflict area?

Despite loud Patriotic statements, there was no real mobilization in Armenia. The permanent number of the Armenian army – about 50 thousand people-was increased only by volunteers. While the conditions of the fighting required to increase the number of defenders of Karabakh to 80-100 thousand people at least. At the same time, very soon the lack of specialists (for example, artillery calculations and MLRS) began to affect the front in the Armenian army. There was no one to fill in the losses.

It is inexplicable why Yerevan did not conduct a real mobilization. The Armenian leadership simply avoids talking about this topic. If there was a mobilization plan, no one tried to implement it. As a result, there was no rotation of military personnel on the first line, in some areas people were sitting in the trenches for a month without a shift. 18-20-year-olds were on the front line, and at some point the untrained youth made up up to 80% of the personnel. The Karabakh detachments, made up of professionals and veterans, suffered heavy losses in the first week, which there was no one and nothing to make up for, since there were simply no reinforcements.

Groups of volunteers in Armenia were formed along party lines. The scandal was caused by an attempt to form a separate detachment of the prosperous Armenia party named after the oligarch Gagik Tsarukyan, who is now Pashinyan’s main opponent. The two have been in conflict for more than a decade. Now the Prime Minister openly calls Tsarukyan “the culprit of the fall of Shusha”, since his phantom squad allegedly did not have enough at the front to win. These conflicts could have been avoided simply by having a mobilization plan and a desire to implement it.

The main military forces of Armenia did not move to Karabakh. But in order to relieve the tension created by Azerbaijani UAVs, it was enough to simply relocate early detection locators to Goris. And one army corps would have been enough to cover the southern direction even at the stage when the Azerbaijanis were languidly marking time in front of the first line of defense. Proper supplies were not organized, and after a month of fighting, this led to a shortage of missiles for the MLRS and shells for the barrel artillery. And without artillery support, the infantry can only die heroically.

All this borders on sabotage, although it may be partly explained by local sloppiness and unwillingness to weaken the defense of Armenia proper. The latter is a very controversial position and it looks like the Armenian leadership has simply abandoned Karabakh to its fate.

2. Why did the Northern front behave so strangely?

In the North and North-East of Karabakh, in the area of the Kyrgyz Republic, there was a large fortified area of the Armenian defense, which included very combat-ready units. And they really put up a serious resistance to the advancing Azerbaijani group and in the end actually stopped it (losing, however, several positions and significant villages).

But after that, the elite Yehnikner battalion suddenly retreated, although its commander managed to get the “Hero of Artsakh”. Moreover, since October 3, neither “Ehnikner” nor any military unit at all was removed from the Northern front and was not transferred to help the burning South. At the same time, the Azerbaijanis only once decided to simulate an offensive in the North again, clearly for distracting purposes. There was no need to keep up to 20 thousand people in the North.

The Karabakh Leadership informally explains all this with a lack of resources. But now the” lack of resources ” in Karabakh explains everything.

3. Why did the southern front collapse?

The fact that the main blow is being inflicted by the Azerbaijanis in the South, in the steppe zone, was visible to the naked eye already in the first few days of the war. Nevertheless, resources – human and technical-began to arrive on the southern front when this front was no longer in fact there. The steppe zone was lost, and the front stopped along the edge of the mountains from Krasny Bazar to Martuni. As a result, up to 30 thousand people defending Karabakh have accumulated in this area. They were threatened with complete encirclement and death, which was one of the reasons for signing the ceasefire agreement. At the same time, before the occupation of Jabrayil, the Azerbaijani troops advanced very slowly, disrupting their own pace of attack. This gave the Armenians a small, but still a head start in order to understand the situation and engage in relocation.

After the occupation of Jabrayil, the front began to fall apart, and the advance of the Azerbaijanis sharply accelerated. The moment was lost.

For some reason, the Armenian command has not made a decision about the transfer of additional resources to the southern front? This is another mystery.

4. Why did the Armenian side limit itself to passive defense?

During the entire war, the Armenian side only twice attempted a counterattack against the advanced units of the Azerbaijanis who were running far ahead. Both times this happened opposite Lachin in a narrow gorge, with the extreme vulnerability of the Azerbaijani battalion-tactical group (BTG). Once even successfully. But these operations were simply reduced to a massive attack by the MLRS on enemy clusters. Operations to block the gorge and encircle the enemy in other sections of the southern front were suggested. But not a single Armenian unit moved. An amazing war in which one of the parties did not conduct a single offensive operation on the ground, limited only and exclusively to passive defense.

A successful counteroffensive in the gorge before Lachin would have crushed so many Azerbaijani forces in the cauldron that they would not have thought about attacking Shusha for at least a couple of weeks. And later it was quite possible to destroy the Azerbaijani infantry in the ravine Averatec. But it took a lot of effort.

There is no explanation for why the Armenian side did not even try to counterattack or use other methods to use the operational advantage that it repeatedly had. The lack of resources can only be referred to endlessly in the last stages of warfare, but passive defense has been a constant tactic since the beginning of the war.

5. Why was Shusha handed over?

The most sensitive and incomprehensible question. The first assault on the city by Azerbaijani infantry was extremely unsuccessful. Then the second column of Azerbaijanis was covered by the MLRS strike. With some effort and assistance from Armenia, the Azerbaijani group that broke through to the city could be destroyed. However, suddenly a decision is made to leave the city without a fight and not to attempt to liberate it with the favorable operational and tactical situation remaining for another day.

It is believed that the decision to leave Shusha was made by NKR President Araik Harutyunyan and Secretary of the NKR security Council General Samvel Babayan, a local legend. Now, in protest against the signing of the armistice, he left his post and renounced the title of Hero of Artsakh. The Armenian YouTube channel “Lurer” (“news”) published a recording of Babayan and Harutyunyan’s talks, from which it follows that General Babayan really considered the possibility of recapturing Shusha even after its abandonment,but the further prospect of resistance was very gloomy.

Fragment of a conversation (not translated verbatim): “Let’s calculate the (combat) task. Twenty, thirty volleys of the “Smerch” MLRS blanket Shushi. We kill everyone there. Taking the city back. What’s next? The state of the army and the civilian population does not allow for war. We gave battle, took Shushi, then what? ( … ) we Can’t fight with the NATO army, with mercenaries, fully equipped… I tried to organize an operation with three battalions yesterday. We only have four howitzers. If we are not provided with artillery, how will you ensure the offensive or cut off his (the enemy’s) tails? (…) Today we must finally negotiate with Russia that we are handing over these territories and leaving them. Or they help us. Imagine that we have two Grads for the entire army today, a dozen howitzers, for which we have no shells.”

To sum up, General Babayan believed that resistance was useless at this stage of the fighting. We must refuse to continue the war and either surrender, or ask for ten days for an organized exit of the local population and the 30 thousand soldiers of the southern front who are completely surrounded. As an alternative, it was proposed to urgently ask Russia for direct military assistance in the form of PMCs or volunteers, equipment and ammunition.

But all this does not negate the question of why a small group of Azerbaijani infantrymen without heavy equipment, who broke through to Shusha, was not destroyed before the Armenian army began to panic. The retention of Shusha created a completely different architecture of political agreements for the NKR and Armenia. If this is a political decision, then who actually made it?

* * *

This list of mysteries of the second Karabakh war is far from complete. In addition, the Armenian leadership has accumulated many similar questions about preparing for war. This war was lost before it even started, precisely because of the inaction or strange action of Yerevan.

The proceedings will continue for a long time. The situation in the region has changed so radically in these forty days that all the old approaches to resolving the conflict and its military component have died out of themselves. And the new reality will require new solutions for Armenia. And it is not yet clear who will take these decisions.  


Personally, I do not see any dark conspiracy here.  What I do see is a truly PHENOMENAL level of incompetence from the Sorosite leadership of Armenia.  Simply put, the vast majority of the truly competent Armenian leaders, civilian and military, were either jailed or, at the very least fired en masse.  There is a very simple explanation for this too.

From Pashinian’s (and, from now on, when I say “Pashinian” I mean the usual suspects: MI6, CIA, Soros, etc.) point of view, the “old guard” of Soviet trained leaders had to be removed because they could not be trusted.  But what this imbecile, and his masters, did not realize is that the “Soviet educated” leadership was far more competent than the “woke and transgender friendly democrats” which took power in 2018.

[Sidebar: Did you notice something quite interesting? The “old” and “Soviet trained” military forces in general, and their commanders especially, are systematically much better trained that those forces trained by NATO or “the most powerful military in the history of the galaxy”.  Why is it that the democratic, progressive and advanced forces like, say, the Saudis, the Israelis, the Georgians, the Yemeni or all the other many “good terrorists” always perform miserably in combat?  I will let you ponder this question :-)]

By the way, Pashinian, who is hiding in a bunker or inside the US embassy compound in Erevan, is still at it!  Yesterday he called Macron, who is under pressure from the huge Armenian immigration in France to do something, to ask for his help and Macron promised to help find a solution acceptable to all sides, implying two things:

  1. That the “Russian solution” (in reality Armenian the acceptance by Erevan of the Azeri terms) is not acceptable and that
  2. That France has some kind of magic wand that Macron can wave a few times and forever turn the entire area of operation into a peaceful land of milk and honey were everybody would hold hands, sing Kumbaya, and “feel the love” forever and ever.

As usually, the Brits are much more devious, secretive and smart: the head of MI6 is in Turkey to meet with “senior officials”.  Yeah, right!  By the way, this guy, Richard Moore, is a former UK Ambassador to Turkey.  To get a sense of what this is all about, all you need to do is look into any history book to see that the Brits have always used the Ottomans as canon-fodder against Russia.

As for the US Americans, they are basically paralyzed by the chaos in their own country.  But either one of the dummies running might try something desperate to “show the flag” and prove that he is “tough on Russia”.

So what’s next?

For years now I have been saying the following about the Western political leaders: they are unable to build anything worthwhile, but they are most definitely able to spread chaos, anarchy, violence, insurgencies, etc.  So the first thing you can be sure of is that the AngloZionists will do everything in their power to egg on the Armenians, the Azeris and even the Turks to reject an outcome which the West sees as a triumph for Russia (and for Putin personally!).

Then there is Erdogan, who is furious at the Russian categorical rejection of his demands to be part of the peacekeeping force.  All the Russians have agreed to is to create a special “monitoring post” staffed by Russians and Turks, far away from the Nagorno-Karabakh region where a joint team of observers would “monitor” the situation by looking at computers.  There will be no Turkish soldiers in the peacekeeping area (see Russian military map above).

As a fallback option, the Turks are also demanding they they be allowed to fly their own drones over the area of operations.  In response, the Armenian side has declared that Armenia and Russia have jointly declared a no-fly zone over the entire area.  As far as I know, the Russians have not confirmed that “yet”, but you can be pretty sure that they will immediately shoot down any unauthorized aircraft approaching their positions.

To get a sense of how the Russians are acting, you need to know two things:

First, the Russian liberal media is already complaining that Russia has included “undeclared” weapons systems in its peacekeeping force (MLRS and APCs).  This is hardly surprising considering the very high probability of provocations (by both sides).  Besides, the vague language of the agreement allows Russian to bring in “specialized vehicles” which could mean anything and everything.

Furthermore, I am pretty confident that the Russian 102nd Military Base is a Russian military base in Gyumri will receive reinforcements and will serve as the logistical support hub for the Russian peacekeeping force.

Lieutenant General Rustam Muradov and Vladimir Putin

Second, it is worth looking at the career of the man who will be commanding the Russian peacekeeping force, Lieutenant General Rustam Muradov.  You can check his biography here and here.  I will simply summarize this man’s career by saying two words: Donbass, Syria.

He is not some kind of pretend-general whose qualifications are mainly as organizers and politicians.  This guy is a real combat general, the kind who personally comes under fire because he makes sure to regularly be with his men on the frontlines and who has experience dealing with the Axis of Kindness and its “good terrorists” (whether local or special ops).

The West perfectly understands this and is absolutely furious about being “cheated” by Russia again!

First, the Russians stopped the bloody war in Syria, now they stopped the war in Azerbaijan.  For the Empire, this means the total loss of the axis of instability which they lovingly tried to create in the Caucasus and the Middle-East to eventually hit the Russian underbelly.  They failed.  They won’t forgive this.

Second, most Armenians worldwide are absolutely horrified at the outcome of this war, and they have my sincere sympathy.  The problem here is that many of them blame Russia, rather than their own leaders.  Furthermore, there are many truly rabid nationalists amongst the anti-Pashinian forces in Armenia.  Right now, Pashinian is hiding somewhere and he still refuses to resign (backed to the hilt by the West, of course).  But this will change, I can’t imagine anybody staying in power after such a catastrophe.

However, Pashinian gone does not at all mean that pro-Russian, or even Russia-neutral, forces will succeed him.  In fact, as in most chaotic situations, it is the extremists who are most likely to seize power.  And God only knows what they might do next!

In a paradoxical way, the best outcome for Russia would be to have Pashinian stay in power just a little longer, just long enough to create a fait accompli on the ground which no nutcases could meaningfully overturn.

Right now, two things are happening: Armenian refugees are clogging the only roads which will allow them to flee to Armenia.  These poor people will never trust the word of an Azeri or, even less so, a Turk, could say (and who could blame them?!).

This is truly a heart-breaking tragedy which could have been completely avoided had Pashinian and his Sorosites done a few, really basic, things (preparing for war and settling for an imperfect peace agreement for starters).

Armenian-NK forces are also withdrawing, and it’s not like they have much of an option here: escaping with their lives is really all these poor soldiers could hope for (and by no fault of theirs, I would add!).

The next couple of weeks will be crucial and I can only hope that the Russians are fully ready to deal with any contingency, including a complete Armenian turnaround if Pashinian is overthrown very soon.

It is now a race against the clock: on one side, the West wants Russia out at quite literally *ANY* costs in Azeri and Armenian lives while the Russians are scrambling to make the agreement a well-defended reality on the ground.  In the Ukraine they say that “the West is willing to fight Russia down the the very last Ukrainian“.  I hope and pray that this does not happen in the Caucasus.

The Saker

PS: on the really sad and tragic side, I personally can’t imagine any refugees willing to come back, in spite of all the pious promises made by all sides.  Look, let’s be honest here: during the first NK war, which the Armenians won, the Azeris were brutally expelled, there were several instances of mass murder of Azeri civilians by the triumphant Armenian forces.  This time around, the Azeris made all sorts of promises, but if I was an Armenian I would not trust a single word the Turks or Azeris say (heck, these two still deny that there was any genocide of Armenians by the Ottomans!).  Keep in mind that in this short war, about 4000 civilians have died; that is the official figure, the real one is probably even worse!

Maybe in a decade or two, and only if Russia remains the peacekeeper of the Caucases, will some refugees, or their sons and daughters return to their historical homelands.  But right now, the Russian peacekeeping force will probably end up maintaining the peace in a very empty Nagorno-Karabakh.  This is a revolting outcome which, I will repeat this, could have been avoided by Pashinian and his gang of Sorosites.  May that be a lesson to anybody else taking these evil clowns seriously!

ما هي تغييرات السياسة الأميركيّة في حال خسارة دونالد ترامب

باريس – نضال حمادة

تظهر النتائج شبه النهائية للانتخابات الرئاسية في أميركا تقدّم المرشح الديمقراطي جو بايدن على الرئيس المنتهية ولايته دونالد ترامب، وإنْ كان بفارق ضئيل يجعل ترامب يحاول عرقلة هذه النتيجة عبر الاعتراض وتقديم الشكاوى، دون أن يكون لذلك تأثير مباشر على عملية الانتقال في الحكم التي سوف تحصل بعد شهرين من الآن في حال ثبتت النتائج الحالية بفوز بايدن.

الآن ومع اقتراب موعد ذهاب ترامب كما تشير صناديق الاقتراع، ما الذي سوف يتغيّر في السياسة الأميركية في العالم وفي الشرق الأوسط بخاصة؟

لا شك في أنّ أوّل المتغيّرات سوف يكون في السعودية على صعيد صراع أطراف آل سعود على السلطة ودعم ترامب المباشر لمحمد بن سلمان الذي مكّنه من السيطرة على مقاليد الحكم في السعودية وزجّ كلّ أطراف آل سعود الأقوياء من أبناء عمومته في السجون، ودعمه لإبن سلمان في حرب اليمن التي ربما لن تغيّر إدارة بايدن الموقف منها بقدر ما سوف تسحب الدعم الكبير داخلياً لإبن سلمان في وجه أبناء عمومته الذين يتحيّنون الفرص للثأر منه.

تركيا سوف تتأثر بسبب كره جو بايدن الشخصي لأردوغان، وهو لم يتورّع (أيّ بايدن) عن التصريح مرتين أنّ أميركا يجب أن تعمل على إسقاط أردوغان من حكم تركيا، وهذا ما سوف يزيد اعتماد أردوغان على روسيا وقد يخلق أجواء إيجابية أكثر في سورية.

روسيا سوف تفتقد ترامب الذي حفلت ولايته بتعاون بينه وبين بوتين في أكثر من مكان، منها سورية التي قرّر ترامب مغادرتها لكن ضغوط الجمهوريّين عليه وأموال العرب التي دفعت له جعلته يتراجع عن قراره هذا ثلاث مرات.

إيران التي وعد بايدن بإعادة العمل بالاتفاق النووي معها، وقد تكون غلطة ترامب القاتلة إلغاء هذا الاتفاق من دون إعطاء أيّ بديل عنه للعالم ولإيران، التي ترى أنّ بايدن بعكس ترامب لن ينسحب من سورية ولا من أفغانستان ولا من العراق، وبالتالي فإنّ أجواء التوتر مع أميركا في ظلّ حكمه سوف تستمرّ، كما أنّ كلام بايدن عن ضرورة إسقاط أردوغان لا يصبّ في مصلحة إيران التي ترى أنّ أميركا سوف تعود من باب إسقاط أردوغان إلى سياسة إسقاط الأنظمة في المنطقة.

في سياسات الحصار التي عمل عليها ترامب لا شيء يوحي أنّ بايدن سوف يوقف العمل بها أو بجزء منها من دون مقابل، هو طوال حملته الانتخابية لم ينتقد قوانين الحصار التي فرضها ترامب على إيران وسورية وغيرها من البلدان، وبالتالي لن يكون التخلي عن هذه السياسات من دون مقابل.

على صعيد دول الغرب تترقب كلّ من ألمانيا وفرنسا بفارغ الصبر ذهاب ترامب الذي عمل على تفكيك أوروبا ودعم بوريس جونسون في خروج بريطانيا من الاتحاد الأوروبي، وكانت علاقات ترامب مع ماكرون وميركل سيئة على الصعيد الشخصي بعكس علاقته الشخصيّة مع بوتين مثلاً.

الصين تنظر بارتياح لخروج ترامب من البيت الأبيض وهو الذي دخل معها في حرب تجارية من دون هوادة، واتهمها بتصنيع ونشر فيروس كورونا، وكانت علاقته بها عبارة عن حفلات من الكره وتوجيه الشتائم.

أخيراً الخاسر الأكبر على الصعيد الشخصي سوف يكون بنيامين نتنياهو صنو محمد بن سلمان الذي سوف يفقد ترامب الداعم الكبير لكلّ اليمين المتطرف الأميركي و»الإسرائيلي» رغم أنّ بايدن أعلن مرة أنه صهيوني لكن علاقته بنتنياهو كانت سيئة إبان وجوده في الحكم مع باراك أوباما ولا شيء يوحي بتحسّنها لحدّ الآن…

Why Is Europe Courting Revolution?

Source

Why Is Europe Courting Revolution? - CORONA stocks

Alastair Crooke

November 2, 2020

All eyes remain on the U.S. election, and on fathoming its consequences. But in the shadow of ‘The Election’, there are other ‘moving parts’: Germany just offered Washington ‘a sweetheart deal’ in which, Europe – with Germany leading – accepts to leverage America’s full-spectrum strategy of isolating and weakening Russia and China. And in return it is asking the U.S. to acquiesce to German leadership of a ‘power-political’, European entity that is raised to parity with the U.S. That, bluntly, is to say, Germany is angling for ‘superpower’ status, atop an EU ‘empire’ for the new era. Putin recognised such a possibility (Germany aspiring to be a superpower) during his recent speech to Valdai.

But the other ‘moving parts’ to this bid are very much in motion, too: Firstly, Germany’s ploy is contingent on their hopes for a Biden win, which may, or may not, occur. And then, too, President Macron seeks for himself, and for France, the leadership of Europe – with this latter – to an extent – being contingent on a ‘no deal’ Brexit taking place at the end of the year, that would further weaken a dis-animated and fading Merkel. France rather, plots the ‘Great Reset’ of Europe: A regulatory and values enforced ‘space’, underpinned by a common fiscal and debt regime that would rebuild France’s economic infrastructure.

All this raises many questions: Should Trump win, he can be expected to puncture any German (or French) aspiration to drain away some of America’s power, however nicely the German FM wraps it, as the U.S. not so much losing power, but as gaining “a strong partner on equal terms”. Huh!

The idea that Europe can leverage this partnership through sweet-talking Germany’s commitment “to the West as a system of values”, which is “at risk in its entirety”, and which, only Germany and the U.S. together can keep strong – does seem a bit of a daydream. Even when sugar-wrapped with “defending against the unmistakable Russian thirst for power, and Chinese ambitions for global supremacy”. Firstly, there is still Trump, and secondly —

China and Russia clearly see the game. Yet European leaders seem to expect that the former will continue as if nothing is awry. Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer seems to think so (she is both Defence Minister, and Chair of the CDU, Merkel’s own party). In terms of containing “China’s aggressively controlled state capitalism”, she suggests creating a European trade sphere that is open only to those who want to strengthen and support the liberal, rules-based order – and to which other states must ‘submit’ (Macron’s words). These are the bones to how Brussels proposes to achieve ‘strategic autonomy’ (Charles Michel’s term).

Here are some extracts of Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer’s ‘deal’ given in a 23 October speech:

“… Most of all, America has given us what we call ‘Westbindung’ … Westbindung, to me, is and remains, a clear rejection of the historic temptation of equidistance. Westbindung anchors us firmly in NATO and the EU and ties us closely to Washington, Brussels, Paris and London. It clearly and rightly positions us against a romantic fixation on Russia – and also against an illiberal corporative state that rejects parties and parliaments [i.e. China] … Westbindung is the answer to the famous “German question”, the question of what Germany stands for … Only America and Europe together can keep the West strong, defending it against the unmistakable Russian thirst for power and Chinese ambitions for global supremacy … To be the giver [in a process of ‘give and take with the U.S.] would require us to take a firm power-political stance. To ambitiously play the geopolitical game. But even looking at all this, there are still some Americans who are not convinced that they need NATO. I understand that. Because there is one thing still missing: That is for the Europeans to take powerful action themselves, when push comes to shove. So that the United States can see Europe as a strong partner on equal terms, not as a damsel in distress. As you can see: the German dilemma is a European dilemma as well. We stay dependent [on the U.S.], but at the same time, we must come into our own. In strengthening Europe like this, Germany must play a key role … enabling it to operate more independently of, and more closely with, the United States at the same time …”.

Three major geo-political issues here are intersecting: Firstly, Germany is metamorphosing politically, in a way that holds disturbing parallels with its transition in the pre-WW1, European setting. In short, the ‘German Question’ is surfacing again (but not in AKK’s way): When the Berlin Wall fell, Russia supported the reunification of Germany and pinned hopes on Germany being a partner for the wider unification project: the construction of a ‘Greater Europe’.

It proved to be a chimaera: Germany, far from supporting Russia’s inclusion, instead, favoured the expansion of Europe and NATO to Russia’s borders. The EU – under U.S. pressure – was forming a Greater Europe that would eventually include all the states of Europe, except Russia.

But in so doing, West Europe absorbed into the EU the tumour of East European neuralgia on Russia. Berlin, all the while, has played on America’s visceral hostility towards Russia – more as a tool to build out its European space up to the Russian border. Germany thus has prioritised assuaging Eastern European ancient antipathies, above any real attempt at a relationship with Russia. Now Germany wants to ‘play it again’: In a July interview, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer said that the Russian leadership must be “confronted with a clear position: We are well-fortified, and in case of doubt, ready to defend ourselves. We see what Russia is doing, and we will not let the Russian leadership get away with it”.

Well: Fool me once … but fool me twice …? The Navalny episode was the last straw. It was a blatant lie. Merkel and Macron knew it to be a lie. And they knew that Moscow knew it, too. Yet they both preferred to toss the Russophobes another ‘bone’. Moscow gave up with them.

The real puzzle is why Moscow put up with this play for so long. The answer perhaps, lies with the Russian two-headed eagle, whose heads face in opposite directions: one toward Europe, and the other toward Asia. Merkel’s obvious deceit is stretching and testing social trust in Russia, just too far. The Russian élites may lean towards Europe, but their base looks East. Navalny was the humiliating straw that broke the camel’s back

Now Macron – still energised, but himself politically weakened – hopes to drain further Merkel’s strength (in mercantilist terms), through engineering a UK no-deal Brexit that would damage Germany’s huge trade surplus with Britain, at the very moment that Germany is losing markets in Russia (and now possibly in China); and when America, if Trump is re-elected, would likely embark on a trade war with Europe.

Weakening Merkel’s hand – that is – in opposing an European joint debt instrument, together with a common fiscal policies, is the aim, so that France might draw down on German fiscal resources placed within a ‘common pot’, and then deployed to revamp the French economy.

The Brussels plan for a ‘Great Reset’ – transforming the European economy, and the social sphere – through automation and technology is, as Tom Luongo has noted delusional: “[W]hat’s been pretty clear to me is Europe’s delusions that it can subjugate the world under its rubric, forcing its rules and standards on the rest of us, including China, [whilst] again allowing the U.S. to act as its proxy – [as Europe] tries to maintain its [‘power-political’] standing is delusional”.

Why?

‘Delusional’, as although China may be an “aggressively controlled state capitalism” in Euro-speak, it is also a major ‘civilisational state’, with its own distinct values. Brussels may call their regulatory space ‘open’, but it is clearly exclusionary, and not multilateral. The action of this politics is only pushing the world towards a separation of distinct regulatory spheres – and toward deeper recession.

On the practical plane, whereas first phase Covid tended to provide support to Europe’s incumbent governments, this present infection spike is shredding support for incumbents. Protests and riots are increasingly taking place across Europe. Episodes of violence have been met with horror by the authorities, which suspect that organized crime and radical groups are at work to spark a political wildfire. And that potential is very much there.

To the structural unemployment already incurred in phase one, now must be added another wave of possibly irreversible unemployment, (again) in the services sector. For small businesses and the self-employed, it is a nightmare. Not surprisingly, the anger grows as those losing their means of living observe that civil servants and the middle classes more generally, are passing through this episode, virtually unscathed.

European governments have been caught off-guard. There is absolute confusion as governments try to square keeping the economy alive, with containing the infected from overwhelming hospitals – achieving neither. This represents the cost of the ‘summer opening’ to save the tourist season. No one is on their balcony these evenings banging cooking pots in communal solidarity. Today, protests and riots have taken their place.

Into this mounting anger is inserted dark suspicion. Some may view Covid as pure conspiracy; others will not. Yet it is not ‘conspiracy’ to believe that European governments may knowingly have used the pandemic to increase their tools of social control, (despite ‘distancing’ being a genuine medical containment strategy). Was this concerted in anticipation of the changes implicit to the ‘Great Reset’? We do not know. Yet, from the outset, western governments couched their measures as ‘war’ – and as war that required war-time state-directed economics, and war-time public compliance.

Rightly or wrongly, it is becoming a culture war. Overtones of the anger on U.S. streets. Again, dark suspicions that cultural life is being closed down in order to prepare Europeans for the drowning of their cultural identities into a big Brussels-made, melting-pot. These fears may be misplaced, but they are ‘out there’, and viral.

It is Europe’s political fabric and societal cohesion that is in play – and its leaders are not just confused: They fear.

It would indeed be hubristic delusion then, were European leaders to proceed with the automation ‘Great Reset’, and add yet more structural unemployment to a pile, already threatening to topple, under its growing weight (into mass protest). Do they want revolution?

ماكرون إعتذِر وتعهّد بعدم تكرار خطئك الذي لا يُغتفر

المحامي معن الأسعد

لم تكن ردود الفعل من العالمين الإسلامي والعربي، على المواقف التي أطلقها الرئيس الفرنسي إيمانويل ماكرون، وأساء فيها إلى نبي الرحمة وأهان الإسلام، واتهمه بأنه يعيش في أزمات، بالمستوى الردعي الذي يستحقه، ويكشف زيفه وادّعاءه ومغالطاته، ويفضح جهله بالإسلام كعقيدة ورسالة سماوية إنسانية كغيرها من الأديان والرسالات التي تدعو إلى المحبة والتسامح والسلام، والحق والفضيلة، وتتصدّى للإرهاب أياً كان مصدره ومرتكبه وهويته «ومن قتل نفساً بغير حقّ كأنه قتل الناس جميعاً» هذا هو الإسلام.

إنّ الرئيس ماكرون يجب ان يعلم وأعتقد أنه يعلم، إلا إذا كان يريد تجهيل نفسه، أنّ الإرهاب لا دين له ولا طائفة ولا هوية، ونذكّره وهو حكماً يتذكّر ماذا فعلت دولته التي استعمرت دولاً بشعوبها وخيراتها في أفريقيا، في الجزائر وتونس ولبنان وغيرها، وكيف حكمتها بالحديد والنار والاعتقال والقمع والتجويع ومصادرة الممتلكات، يعني أنها مارست الإرهاب المكشوف والمقنّع.

نذكّره، ونسأله، أليست فرنسا وأميركا وأوروبا وبعض العرب هم من اخترعوا «داعش» والحركات الإرهابية المتطرفة، ودعموها سياسياً ومالياً وعسكرياً؟ هل يتذكّر الرئيس الفرنسي عندما أطلق وحلفاؤه، على الإرهابيين القتلة، لقب «مقاتلي حرية» (freedom fighters).

ألستم من موّل وسلّح ودعَم الإرهابيين، ونقلهم إلى بلادنا لقتال الدول التي رفضت الانصياع والخضوع لمشاريعكم ومخططاتكم المشبوهة إرضاء وخدمة للكيان الصهيوني الغاصب؟

ألستم أنتم من فتحتم الطريق أمام الإرهابيين تحت أيّ مسمّى كانوا ليرتكبوا المجازر ويقطعوا الرؤوس ويجزّوا الرقاب ويغتصبوا النساء، في أفظع ما تعرّضت له البشرية في العصر الحديث؟ أليسوا هم بغطاء منكم وحمايتكم قتل الإرهابيون مئات الألوف من الشعوب العربية والإسلامية البريئة، ويتّموا أولادهم وشرّدوهم في البراري في ظروف اجتماعية وإنسانية ومعيشية وصحية ومناخية أودت بعشرات الالوف منهم؟ ألستم من ساعد الإرهابيّين على تدمير بلادنا وتهجير شعوبها وتحطيم وسرقة تراثها وآثارها وطمس حضارتها التي كانت الشاهد على زيف حضارتكم؟

إنّ الذين ينحرون ويقطعون الرقاب في بلدكم فرنسا، هم من صناعتكم، وقد عادوا إلى بلادكم بعد أن أمعنوا إرهاباً وقتلاً وتدميراً وخراباً في بلادنا، يعني بكلّ بساطة بضاعتكم عادت إليكم، بعد أن نفذوا إرهابهم في العراق وسورية ولبنان واليمن.

إعتذر أيها الرئيس الفرنسي ممّن أسأت إلى دينهم ونبيّهم وقيَمهم الرسالية والإنسانية، وتعهّد بعدم تكرار ما ارتكبته من خطأ فاضح لا يغتفر…

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

أمين عام التيار الأسعدي

الإرهاب ليس إسلامياً

بثينة شعبان 

المصدر: الميادين نت

2 تشرين ثاني 00:0

عشرات الآلاف من الإرهابيين الذين عاثوا فساداً في سوريا قدموا من الدول الأوروبية
عشرات الآلاف من الإرهابيين الذين عاثوا فساداً في سوريا قدموا من الدول الأوروبية

لقد ضرب مئات الألوف من الإرهابيين، الذين قدِموا من أكثر من مائة دولة، أجزاءً مختلفةً من سوريا وساهموا في تدمير مؤسساتها ولكننا لم نتّهم دين أحد، ولا جنسية أحد منهم.

علّ الخطيئة الأكبر التي اقترفها الرئيس الفرنسي إيمانويل ماكرون في تصريحاته المتوترة حول الأحداث الأخيرة في فرنسا هي تصريحه أن “بلادنا تعرضت لهجوم من الإرهاب الإسلامي”. وسواء أكانت هذه العبارة مقصودة أو ناجمة عن جهل أثرها وانعدام صحتها، فهي لا شك خطيرة جداً وفي هذا التوقيت بالذات، ليس على المسلمين فقط، وإنما على فرنسا وأوروبا اللّتين تتشاطران الهوية المسلمة مع  وجود عدد غير قليل من المواطنين المسلمين الذين أصبحوا فرنسيين وأوروبيين، بفعل الهجرة والولادة أو تبنّي الإسلام ديناً لهم، ولا أحد يستطيع إنكار ذلك عليهم. 

أما السبب الثاني فيكمن في خطورة ارتدادات هكذا تصريح. نحن أمام رئيس أوروبي خلط بين إجرامٍ يقوم به بعض المجرمين لأسبابهم الخاصة والمختلفة وبين جنسيتهم أو هويتهم الدينية، وإذا ما تمّ تعميم هذا الأمر على البقع الجغرافية التي يضرب فيها الإرهاب، لانتهينا إلى وجود إرهاب فرنسي وألماني وهولندي وبلجيكي ومسيحي ويهودي وبوذي.. والقائمة تطول. ولذلك فإنه من المحظور أن تُلصق تهمة الإرهاب بدينٍ أو جنسية فقط لأن أحد مرتكبي الجرائم الإرهابية ينتمي إلى هذا الدين أو هذه الجنسية. إنّ الدين والجنسية براء مما يقوم به الإرهابيون. 

لقد ضرب الإرهاب يا سيد ماكرون الجمهورية العربية السورية كأبشع ما تكون به الضربات والعدوان على شعب وتاريخ وحضارة وهوية ومؤسسات، ولكنّ أحداً في العالم لم يسمع جملة واحدة نَطق بها أي سوري، جملةٌ تتحدث عن إرهاب أوروبي أو مسيحي أو ما شابه ذلك لا سمح الله، فنحن ندرك أن هؤلاء الإرهابيين شذاذ آفاقٍ لا علاقة لهم بأي دين سماوي، وأخلاق الديانات السّمحة براء منهم. 

الأكثر من ذلك، إنّ عدداً لا بأس به من هؤلاء كانوا أوروبيين وعدداً منهم كانوا فرنسيين ويتكلمون الفرنسية ويمثلون بالجثث على الأرض السورية وهم يهللون للقتل بلغتهم الفرنسية. ومع ذلك، لم نسمع ولم يسمع العالم تصريحاً سورياً واحداً يتحدّث عن إرهابٍ فرنسي أو إرهابٍ أوروبي رغم أن الأبحاث الموضوعية تُثبت أن عشرات الآلاف من الإرهابيين الذين عاثوا فساداً في سوريا قدِموا من الدول الأوروبية عبر تركيا، حاملين جوازات أوروبية بما فيها الفرنسية، والكثير منهم كان مسلحاً برشاشات لا يستخدمها غير الجيش الفرنسي، أي أن الإرهابيين في غرب دمشق كانوا مسلّحين من قبل الجيش الفرنسي مباشرة.

وما زال 600 طفل من إنجاب هؤلاء عالقين في شرق سوريا ولا تريد دولهم، وعلى رأسها فرنسا، استردادهم رغم نداءات الأمم المتحدة التي دعت هذه الدول إلى تحمّل مسؤوليتها تجاه رعاياها، ولا شك لدينا أنهم حظوا بتمويل وتسليح وتسهيلات من أجهزة المخابرات الفرنسية. ومع ذلك، فقد استهدفنا الإرهابيين أنفسهم في كلّ عملٍ وقولٍ ولم نأتِ على ذكر دينهم أو جنسيتهم ولم نوصم أياً منهما بالإرهاب. 

الفرق بين موقفنا وموقف ماكرون هو أننا نؤمن أن العالم أسرة واحدة وأنّ الإرهاب لا دين ولا وطن له وأنّ الإجرام الذي مارسته تلك العصابات على سوريا والسوريين وقبلهم على اللّيبيين والعراقيين، يمكن أن ينتقل إلى أي مكان في العالم، لأن الخطر الأساس كما أكّد السيد الرئيس بشار الأسد منذ البداية هو الإيديولوجية الإرهابية وليس وجود الإرهابيين فقط، ولذلك لابدّ من التعاون العالمي لاجتثاث جذور هذه الإيديولوجية وإلا فسيبقى الإرهاب يفاجئ الأبرياء من أفغانستان إلى العراق وسوريا وليبيا وفرنسا. ولكن أوروبا ومنها فرنسا الرسمية، عبر مخابراتها السرية، ساهمت بتغذية وتمويل وتسليح الإرهاب الذي ضرب سوريا. 

أما تركيا، فقد شكّلت ولا زالت تشكل ملاذاً آمناً للإرهابيين القادمين إلى سوريا وسهّلت لهم عبورهم وتموضعهم على الأرض السورية، وفي هذا المضمار أيضاً قال الرئيس بوتين “حين نحارب الإرهاب في سوريا فنحن ندافع عن موسكو”، وهذا صحيح ولكن الجيشين السوري والروسي لا يدافعان عن سوريا وروسيا فحسب، إنّما يدافعان عن أمن العالم برمّته في مواجهة هذه الآفة الخطيرة.

المشكلة في الموقف الفرنسي خصوصاً والغربي عموماً هو انقسام العالم إلى “هم” و”نحن”، وهنا يأتي تصريح الرئيس ماكرون ليبرهن على ذلك حين قال: “تعرضنا للهجوم بسبب قيم الحرية لدينا وعدم خضوعنا للإرهاب” متناسياً أنّ العالم كلّه يعرف أنّ المخابرات السرية الغربية والجيوش الاستعمارية القادمة من الغرب متورّطة ومنذ زمن الاستعمار القديم بالإرهاب والمجازر الوحشية. وما السبب برأيك يا سيد ماكرون بأن سوريا تعرضت لهجمات إرهابية أقسى وأعتى مما تعرّضتم له، وعلى مدى عشر سنوات، إذا كانت برأيك تفتقر إلى قيم الحرية التي تعتبرها حكراً عليك وعلى الغرب؟ إن حرية المعتقد والعيش المشترك الذي عُرفت به سوريا على مدى قرون، كان الهدف الأساس لهذه الحرب الإرهابية الظالمة التي تعرّض لها الشعب السوري، وإذا ما أردتم إصلاحاً حقيقياً وآمناً للعالم برمته، فلا بدّ أن تفكروا بطريقة مختلفة لا تُنبئ عن تفكير فوقي يكاد يصل إلى حدود العنصرية ضد الشعوب والأديان الأخرى. 

لقد ضرب مئات الألوف من الإرهابيين، الذين قدِموا من أكثر من مائة دولة، أجزاءً مختلفةً من سوريا وساهموا في تدمير مؤسساتها ولكننا لم نتّهم دين أحد ولا جنسية أحد منهم، ولم نزِر وازرةً وزر أُخْرَى، لما قامت به من شرذمة على أيدي المضلَّل بهم وشذاذ الآفاق الذين تبنّوا هذه الإيديولوجية البشعة لأسباب لا علاقة لها بالدين أو بالإنسانية. 

إنّ هؤلاء الذين يدّعون الدفاع عن الإسلام من ورثة العبودية العثمانية، هم أنفسهم الذين لعبوا دوراً أساسياً في استقدام إرهابيين من كلّ أصقاع الأرض ونظرياً من أتباع كلّ الديانات، إلى سوريا بلد الإسلام والمسيحية والعيش المشترك، فكيف يستوي ادّعاؤهم بالدفاع عن الإسلام والمسلمين مع تدمير بلد قدّم للبشرية أنموذجاً للمحبة والتآخي من بين أتباع الديانات السماوية؟ ثم ماذا عن الإرهاب الذي يضرب الأراضي الفلسطينية والشعب الفلسطيني؟ وماذا عن ذبح المسلمين وهم ساجدون في الحرم الإبراهيمي الشريف على يد المجرم باروخ غولدشتاين والذي أقام الإحتلال الإسرائيلي له نُصُباً تذكارياً؟ هل أسميتم ذلك الإرهاب إرهاباً يهودياً؟ فلماذا إذاً يتم تجريم الإسلام والمسلمين بسبب بعض المجرمين الذين لا يتورّعون عن قتل المسلمين وقتل أتباع الديانات الأخرى لأنهم لا يعرفون الدين أو الإيمان؟

من أجل التخلص من شرورهم، لا بدّ أولاً من التخلص من الموقف التمييزي الذي يقسم العالم إلى أعلى وأدنى، ويعتبر أن القيم التي يتمتع بها حكراً عليه. وما رأيه إذا كانت القيم الحضارية المغروسة في هذه الأرض والمتوارثة على مدى أكثر من عشرة آلاف عام هي القيم المؤهلة لإنقاذ البشرية ليس من خطر الإرهاب فقط، وإنما من خطر التمييز والعنصرية اللّذين يهددان بلدانكم من الداخل؛ فهل من مراجعة عاقلة ومسؤولة لهذا التخبط المفهوماتي والإعلامي الذي يصبّ الزيت على النار بدلاً من معالجة أسباب التوتر المجتمعي والسياسي بحكمة واتزان ومسؤولية؟ وهل من تشريع على مستوى عالمي يحرّم على الجميع تناول الرموز الدينية والمقدّسات لأتباع كلّ الديانات التي يؤمن بها البشر؟ حينذاك فقط، يمكن أن نعزل الإرهابيين ونقضي على شرورهم في كلّ مكان. 

ماكرون عندما ينفذأهداف خصمه أردوغان…!

باريس – نضال حمادة

بعد لعملية الإجرامية التي وقعت أمام كنيسة في مدينة نيس الفرنسية، وفي تصريح جديد له بدا الرئيس الفرنسي إيمانويل ماكرون أكثر اعتدالاً اتجاه الجالية الإسلامية في فرنسا ولأول مرة منذ بداية الأزمة عندما أعلن في خطاب له عن أزمة الدين الإسلامي ومن ثم عند حصول جريمة الأستاذ الذي قُتل بسكين شاب شيشاني بسبب الرسوم المسيئة للرسول الأكرم، للمرة الأولى تحدث الرئيس الفرنسي عن مجموعة واحدة في فرنسا هي المجموعة الوطنية، وغيّر من تعابيره عندما تكلم عن الإسلاميين ولم يتكلم عن الإسلام، فيما يبدو انه أتى نتيجة نصيحة بتغيير خطابه، وليس معروفاً لحد الآن مَن نصح ماكرون بتبني خطاب متطرّف وهجوميّ ضدّ الإسلام كدين في بداية الأزمة.

اكتشف ماكرون والمحيطين به بعد عشرة أيام من افتعال الصدام أنه قدّم للرئيس التركي رجب طيب أردوغان كل ما يريده ويتمناه عندما فتح معركة غير مفهومة الأسباب ضد الإسلام، اللهم إلا الأسباب الانتخابية.

لقد أصبح أردوغان المدافع الأول عن النبي الأكرم محمد بسبب سجالاته مع ماكرون وتصريحاته اليومية بهذا الشأن، ويبدو أنّ هناك في أوروبا من نصحه بتغيير لهجته وتعابيره في هذه المعركة، لأنّ خصمه أردوغان هو الرابح الأكبر، كما تشير معلومات صحافية إلى أنّ ألمانيا رفضت الدخول مع فرنسا في موضوع مقاطعة أوروبية لمنتجات دول قد تقاطع البضائع الفرنسية.

فرنسا التي ذهبت إلى ليبيا وأسقطت القذافي ودعمت الإسلاميين المتطرفين هناك ترى بأمّ عينها اليوم روسيا وتركيا تحتلان المشهد الليبي فيما هي غائبة كلياً عنه، وفرنسا أيضاً التي دعمت كلّ الجماعات المتطرفة في سورية لإسقاط النظام هناك وشكلت رأس الحربة في مجلس الأمن الدولي لتكرار التجربة الليبية في سورية، ترى بأمّ عينها روسيا وتركيا تحتلان المشهد السوري فيما هي خارج اللعبة تماماً، ونفسها فرنسا ترفض منذ سنوات التعاون مع الدولة السورية في المجالات الأمنية والآن تلجأ للروس للحصول على معلومات عن سلفيين حاربوا في سورية وعادوا الى أوروبا، أما في لبنان فيبدو أنّ المبادرة الفرنسية انتهت او لن تبصر النور إذا اتخذت الحرب بين فرنسا وسلفييها مساراً تصاعدياً.

في كلّ الأحوال هناك عودة الى العقلانية من جانب الرئيس الفرنسي، في مقاربة الأمور وتوجيه الاتهامات وتوزيع الهجمات يميناً ويساراً بعدما اكتشف أنّ الذي استفاد من هذه الأخطاء خصمهم اللدود تركيا وأردوغان تحديداً. وهذا أمر جيد للعلاقة الفرنسية مع مليار ونصف مليار مسلم عسى أن تستمرّ العقلانية لتنهي هذا الصراع المفتعل والمكلف للجميع…

نصرالله عصر التنوير وماكرون محاكم التفتيش

ناصر قنديل

العلمانية التي ظهرت كنظام سياسي وعقد اجتماعي للدولة الأوروبية المعاصرة، هي منتج سياسي وقانوني لثقافة أعمق نهضت على أكتاف الثورة الصناعيّة وتجسّدت في القرنين الثامن عشر والتاسع عشر بثورة العقل والمنطق. وما عُرف بعصر التنوير الذي قاده عمالقة بحجم فولتير وروسو ومونتسكيو، وتبلورت شعاراتها السياسية بالحرية والأخاء والمساواة في الثورة الفرنسية، بينما تبلورت فلسفته العميقة بالاحتكام للعقل، وكانت قطيعة مع تاريخ معاكس مثلته محاكم التفتيش الكاثوليكية التي دفع فيلسوف كبير مثل برونو وعلماء كبار مثل كوبرنيكوس وجاليلو ثمناً باهظاً لها بتهمة الهرطقة على قاعدة تحريم الاحتكام للعقل والعلم، بينما سياسياً واجتماعياً طورد الإصلاحيون باسم التبرؤ من البدع كما حدث مع الفيلسوف ميشال سيرفيه الذي أحرق حياً في جنيف بتهمة رفض عقيدة التثليث، فيما شكلت جرائمها بحق المسلمين في الأندلس أبرز ما حمله سجلها التاريخي تحت عنوان فحص الولاء لله، وشكلت فكرياً وثقافياً وجهاً من وجوه استمرار الحملات الصليبية.

في ما يشبه استعادة مناخات الحروب الصليبية يتبادل الرئيسان الفرنسي والتركي عبثاً بالعقائد والعواطف والانفعالات المنبثقة عنها، حيث يصب كل منهما من طرفه وفي البيئة التي يخاطبها زيتاً على نار حرب عبثية، لا يتورّع فيها الرئيس الفرنسي امانويل ماكرون عن التحدث عن أزمة في الإسلام، وإرهاب إسلامي، وفاشية إسلامية، أملاً بأن يتزعم جبهة تضم العلمانيين بداعي الدفاع عن حرية التعبير في شقها المتصل بالتغطية على ما يطال المقدسات الإسلامية، وتضم المتطرفين المسيحيين، الذين لا يخفون ضيقهم من تنامي حضور وتعداد المسلمين في فرنسا خصوصاً وأوروبا عموماً، وإلى الفريقين تضم اليمين الوطني الرافض لتكاثر المهاجرين من البلاد الإسلامية، أملاً بأن يشكل هذا الثلاثي مصدر زعامة تشبه زعامات بناها قادة الحروب الصليبية، بينما يسعى الرئيس التركي رجب أردوغان، وفي ظل نزاع مصلحي بين الدولتين الفرنسية والتركية، لقيادة جبهة تضم الجاليات الإسلامية المقهورة تحت ظلم سياسات عنصرية في أوروبا، وتضم التنظيمات الإرهابية التكفيرية التي تشغّلها تركيا، وكانت فرنسا شريكها في التشغيل طوال سنوات الحرب على سورية، وتضم ثالثاً الشعوب العربية من المسلمين التي تسمع بصعوبة كلاماً منخفض الصوت لحكوماتها الواقعة تحت تبعية ذليلة لحكومات الغرب، فتعجز عن التجرؤ لمخاطبة الحكومات الغربية، والرئيس الفرنسي في المقدمة بلغة شجاعة تنتقد وتصحح وتعترض. وهذه الحكومات التابعة هي شريك لحكومات فرنسا وأوروبا في رعاية الجماعات الإرهابية وتشجيع الفكر التكفيري، لكن بغرض استعمال نتاج هذه الرعاية في ليبيا وسورية وليس في أوروبا.

في هذا القحط الفكري، والانفلات القاتل للعصبيّات، يخرج رجل دين معمّم من أتباع الرسول وعشاقه ليقود الدعوة للتعقل وتحمّل المسؤولية، ووضع النقاط على الحروف، مستعيداً المعاني العميقة لشعارات الثورة الفرنسية ودعوات روسو وفولتير، حيث الحرية هي الاحترام العميق لحرية المعتقد. وهو في الأولوية معتقد الأقلية والضعفاء والمقهورين، والأخاء هو الترفّع عن منطق التمييز العنصري على اساس الدين والعرق واللون والجنس، والمساواة هي نزاهة تطبيق معيار المحاكمة العقلية للمفاهيم قبل أن تكون المساواة أمام القانون، حيث لا يستوي نص تحريم الحرية والعقل تحت شعار معاداة السامية، ولو التزما كل التحفظ العلمي والضوابط الأخلاقية، وتطلق حرية بث الكراهيّة، ولو تمت بصورة عبثية تستخف بالضوابط الأخلاقية والقيمية للأخوة الإنسانية، تحت شعار حرية التعبير، فجادل رجل الدين المعمم، بلغة عصر التنوير كوريث لمنجزات الحضارة الإنسانية، من يفترض أنه الوصي على تنفيذ منتجاتها من الموقع الدستوري والسياسي، بعدما ارتضى أن يتحول إلى قائد جيش في الحرب الصليبية أو رئيس غرفة من غرف محاكم تفتيش.

كلام السيد حسن نصرلله في ما تشهده علاقة المسلمين والجاليات الإسلامية بالقضايا المثارة على مساحة أوروبا من وحي قضية الرسوم المسيئة للرسول والجرائم الإرهابية المتذرّعة بها، مرافعة فلسفية عقلانية تستعيد روح عصر التنوير والاحتكام للعقل، والحل الذي تبنّاه ختاماً لمرافعته، مستعيداً مقترح الأزهر بتشريع عالمي لتحريم النيل من المقدسات، حجر متعدد الأهداف في يوم الوحدة الإسلامية، بينما يتساءل بعض رجال القانون في فرنسا، لماذا لا تتم محاكمة أصحاب الرسوم المسيئة للرسول تحت بند العداء للسامية، أليس الرسول من أحفاد سام بن نوح، وقد روى الترمذي أن الرسول هو القائل بأن “سام أبو العرب ويافث أبو الروم وحام أبو الحبش”؟

منظمة الجيش السريّ الفرنسيّ هل حان وقت تفكيك أوروبا!؟

"إبليس باريس" يهدد علاقة إيران بفرنسا.. فماذا عن لبنان؟

محمد صادق الحسيني

أفادت مصادر صحافة استقصائيّة، من إحدى الدول الأوروبية العظمى، حول الاتهامات التي أطلقها الرئيس الفرنسي ضدّ الدين الإسلامي قبل شهر تقريباً، واتهم هذا الدين بانه يعاني من أزمة عالمية، وما أعقب ذلك من عمليات إرهابية شبه منظمة، راح ضحيتها العديد من المواطنين الفرنسيين الأبرياء، أفاد هذا المصدر بما يلي:

أولاً: انّ جميع الجرائم الإرهابية، التي وقعت على أرض فرنسا مؤخراً بشكل خاص، هي ليست عمليات فردية بلا جذور، وإنما هي عمليات منظمة ومنسقة وتهدف الى خدمة الرئيس الفرنسي شخصياً. والعمل على تحسين شعبيته وإبعاد أنظار الفرنسيين عن الكارثة الصحية التي تعيشها البلاد، بسبب جائحة كورونا.

ثانياً: انّ الجهة الفرنسية، المدعومة من أجهزة استخبارات وقوى ضغط دولية (ماسونية)، هي تنظيم سري يتكوّن أعضاؤه من منتسبين للأجهزة الأمنية والعسكرية الفرنسية، الذين لا زالوا في الخدمة. وهو تنظيم يشبه تنظيم: منظمة الجيش السري الفرنسي ، التي أنشئت ابان حرب الاستقلال في الجزائر، بهدف منع الحكومة الفرنسية من منح الاستقلال للجزائر. وقد نفذت هذه المنظمة السرية انقلاباً عسكرياً بتاريخ 13/5/1958 كان هدفة المعلن هو منع تصويت البرلمان الفرنسي، على تشكيل الحكومة الفرنسية الجديدة (آنذاك)، برئاسة السيد پيير فليملين ، والتي يفترض أن تعرض على البرلمان، بتاريخ يوم إعلان الانقلاب للحصول على الثقة. وهي الحكومة التي كان الانقلابيّون يعتبرونها “خطراً” على المصالح القومية الفرنسية، لكونها كانت ذات توجّهات مؤيّدة لمنح الاستقلال للجزائر.

وقد انتهى الانقلاب، نتيجة مفاوضات مباشرةٍ بين مبعوث خاص للجنرال ديغول، هو السيد جاك سوستيل ، وبين قائد الانقلاب، قائد قوات المظلات، الجنرال جاك ماسّو ، والتي انتهت بالاتفاق على أن يقوم الجنرال ديغول بتشكيل حكومة جديدة. وهو الأمر الذي حدث بتاريخ 15/5/1958، والذي أعقبه إعلان الجمهورية الخامسة، من قبل الجنرال ديغول، والتي أصبح رئيساً لها، من تاريخ 8/1/1959 وحتى 28/4/1969.

ثالثاً: لكن المفارقة، في هذا السياق، ان “منظمة الجيش السري الفرنسي” الحاليّة لا تعمل على إسقاط الرئيس ماكرون وحكومته وإنما هي تعمل على تعزيز شعبيته وإنقاذه من السقوط المحتم، نتيجة فشله الذريع في إدارة أزمة الجائحة، خاصة أنّ من يديرون هذه المنظمة من الشخصيات الأمنية والعسكرية، قد وصلوا الى قناعة بأنّ الاشتباك الكلامي، الذي يديره ماكرون مع أردوغان، لم يعد كافياً لتحقيق الغرض، مما جعلهم يلجأون الى تحريك عناصر “إسلامية” خلقت وتدار من قبلهم أصلاً وبمعرفة الرئيس ماكرون وساركوزي من قبله، لتنفيذ عمليات الإرهاب الأخيرة في فرنسا، وذلك بهدف خلق او اختراع “عدو” وهمي غير موجود، للشعب الفرنسي. وهي خطوة ستؤدي بلا شك الى تعزيز التيارات الفاشية داخل فرنسا، كما أنها ستزيد انتشار الفكر اليميني المتطرف في فرنسا داخل الأجهزة الأمنية والعسكرية الفرنسية نفسها.

ثمة من يتساءل هل ما يجري حلقة من حلقات تدمير أوروبا تقودها منظمة بيلدين بيرگ المنظمة الماسونية الأخطر في العالم بعد أن استنفدوا اوراقهم في الوطن العربي وبلاد الشام!؟

رابعاً: من هنا فإن من الأولى بالرئيس الفرنسي أن يلجأ الى تفكيك هذا الجيش اليميني السري، الذي يعبث بأمن فرنسا، تنفيذاً لخطط ستيف كوهين، كبير مستشاري ترامب الاستراتيجيين سابقاً، وهو الملقب بمايسترو التخطيط للانتخابات الشعبوية في أوروبا، انطلاقاً من مقرّ قيادته العامة في بروكسل. خاصة أنّ مشكلة الاقتصاد الفرنسي، وبالتالي المشاكل الاجتماعية في فرنسا، أكبر بكثير من ان تغطي عليها حملات معادية للإسلام، لن يُكتب لها النجاح، خاصة أنّ التمادي في هذه الحملات سيفضي الى نتائج سلبية على شعبية ماكرون نفسه.

من هنا فإنّ عليه الاقتداء بالمستشارة الالمانية، انجيلا ميركل، التي أوعزت لوزيرة الدفاع في حكومتها، بتاريخ 24/9/2020، بإقالة رئيس جهاز الاستخبارات العسكرية في الجيش الألماني، السيد كريستوف غرام ، بسبب ارتباطاته بمجموعات اليمين المتطرف النازيين الذين تموّلهم السعودية وعلى علاقة مع ستيف بانون أيضاً. علماً انّ هذا لم يكن الإجراء الأول من نوعه، ضدّ عناصر وتنظيمات المانية إرهابية داخل أفرع الجيش والأجهزة الأمنية، حيث سبق أن تمّت إقالة قائد شرطة ولاية هيسين (Hessen) / وسط ألمانيا / أواسط شهر تموز الماضي، إضافة الى تسريح العديد من منتسبي الجيش والأجهزة الأمنية الألمانية في أوقات سابقة من هذا العام.

وهذا ما يؤكد انّ هناك الكثير من الوسائل والأساليب لاستعادة الشعبية عبر أسلوب نشر خطاب الحقد والكراهية الذي لجأ اليه الرئيس الفرنسي، حفيد المستعمرين الفرنسيين للجزائر، والذين قطعوا رؤوس 500 من قادة الثورة الجزائرية، قبل حوالي 170 عاماً، ولا يزال ماكرون نفسه يحتفظ بجماجمهم في المتحف الوطني الفرنسي في باريس ويرفض إعادتهم الى وطنهم الأصلي، كي يتمّ دفنهم حسب الأصول الإنسانية والإسلامية.

متحف الإنسان.. حيث تتباهى فرنسا بعرض جماجم ثوار مستعمراتها السابقة - ساسة  بوست

فكيف لمن يحتفظ بجماجم قادة جزائريين في متاحف بلاده، منذ ما يقرب القرنين، أن يطلق كلّ هذه الحملة المعادية للإسلام بذريعة ان “مسلم” قطع رأس فرنسي!؟

لقد حان الوقت لتحكيم العقل والمنطق بدلاً من مواصلة الغرور والممارسات الاستفزازية والعنصرية المقززة، التي عفا عليها الزمن…!

ولذلك نقول إنه عندما يكشر

من خلال إعادة إحياء هذا الجيش السري، ليشنّ حملته الشعواء المعادية للإسلام والمسلمين، فهو لا يأتي بشيء جديد، بل يكشف عن الوجه الحقيقي لفرنسا الاستعمارية وقبلها الصليبية، فها هي اليوم تعود إلى عادتها القديمة المتجذرة في عمق التاريخ الإسلامي، وهي الكيد لهذا الدين الحنيف.

نستطيع القول أيضاً بأنّ الفرنسيين بذلك يحاولون ايضاً تشويه سماحة الإسلام بشتى الطرق، لإظهاره أمام العالم كدين يحرّض على العنف، وهذا نابع من عداوتهم المتأصّلة للمسلمين، وهناك محطات تاريخية عديدة تقف شاهداً على هذا المكر الفرنسي، وهي عندما تستهدف المسلمين إنما تستحضر ذلك الإرث التاريخي المعادي للإسلام، بنزعة انتقاميّة.

فمن لا يعرف انّ فرنسا هي مهد الحملات الصليبية، فمنها انطلقت بهمجية لتجتاح العالم الإسلامي، وتعيث فيه فساداً وتنكيلاً بالمسلمين، وعلى يدها كان أول احتلال أوروبي صليبي تعرّضت له مصر في العهد الإسلامي، وكان البابا الفرنسي أوربان الثاني أول من أطلق دعوة للهجوم على الإسلام، وهو ما يعكس خشية الفرنسيين من عالمية الإسلام.

فى ذكرى أول حملة صليبية.. كيف اخترع البابا أوربانوس الثانى صكوك الغفران -  اليوم السابع

ولا يُخفى دورهم في إطلاق حركة “الاستشراق”، فقد بدأها المستشرق الفرنسي سلفستير دي ساسي الذي أعدّ جيشاً من المستشرقين لغزو بلاد الإسلام، وهو مَن تبنّى فكرة “علمنة” العالم الإسلامي وفصله عن الإسلام. وقد شن الفرنسيون أبشع حملة استعمار في العالم الإسلامي في العصر الحديث، وأمعنت في ارتكاب المجازر.

وليس أدلّ على ذلك مما أجرته في حق الجزائريين، ليس فقط بقتل الإنسان وممارسة أساليب وحشية في التعذيب، بل أيضاً بسعيها لطمس هويتهم الإسلامية، ومحاربة كلّ ما يمت للإسلام بصلة، ولا تزال تفتخر بتلك الجرائم جماجم في متحف الإجرام الذي سمته متحف الإنسان كما ورد آنفاً، وهو يجسد اللاإنسانية في أبشع صورها.

وفرنسا هي التي قصفت دمشق بكلّ وحشية وبشكل عشوائي لوقف مدّ الثورة السورية الكبرى أو ثورة عام 1925، الثورة التي انطلقت في سورية ضدّ الاستعمار الفرنسي في 21 تموز عام 1925 بقيادة ثوار جبل العرب في جنوب سورية، وانضمّ تحت لوائهم عدد من المجاهدين من مختلف مناطق سورية ولبنان والأردن تحت قيادة سلطان باشا الأطرش قائد الثورة العام، وقد جاءت هذه الثورة كردّ فعل على السياسات الدكتاتورية العسكرية التي اتبعتها السلطات الفرنسية والمتمثلة في تمزيق سورية إلى دويلات عدة وإلغاء الحريات وملاحقة الوطنيين وإثارة النزعات الطائفية ومحاربة الثقافة والطابع العربي للبلاد ومحاولة إحلال الثقافة الفرنسية محلها، بالإضافة إلى رفض سلطات الانتداب عقد اتفاق مع القوى الوطنية السورية لوضع برنامج زمني لاستقلال سورية.

وفرنسا التي ورثت إرثاً صليبياً ثقيلاً، لم تتوقف عند هذا الحدّ، فقد كانت أول من خطط لإقامة وطن لليهود على أرض فلسطين، بعد الحملة على الشام في عام 1799، والتي قادها نابليون بونابرت. وبحقدها الدفين للإسلام، حوّلت فرنسا الصراع مع العالم الإسلامي إلى صراع عقيدة، كما خططت لضربه عسكرياً وثقافياً. وما كانت تضمره خلال العقود الماضية، لم يعد يحتمل أن تستمر في إخفائه، وإنْ كانت تعدّ الدسائس باستمرار للنيل من الدول الإسلامية.

وبالتالي فإنّ ما يحصل حالياً من هجمة مسعورة على الإسلام هو ليس فقط مَكراً يمكره ماكرون، بل هو ايضاً انعكاس لحقد دفين لدى فرنسا، وليس مجرد زوبعة يثيرها لغايات ماكرونية فقط، فالماكرونية هي امتداد لفرنسا الصليبية وفرنسا الاستعمارية المعاديتين للإسلام والمسلمين…!

ماكرون يلعب بالنار في إطار لعبة دولية جهنمية تحيك خيوطها الماسونية والصهيونية لإثارة نزعات عنصرية و”دينية” مشبوهة تسمّيها إسلاموية هي الوجه الآخر للقوى اليمينية من النازية الجديدة في كلّ من أميركا وأوروبا، وهي من كانت وراء كلّ ما حصل لبلادنا خلال أعوام ما سمّي بالربيع العربي خلال عقد او يزيد، تحاول دوائر المنهزمين والمنكسرين الامبرياليين على بوابات عواصمنا إعادة إحيائه عبر أساليب جديدة بعد ان فشلت كلّ محاولاتهم بالمناورة ببقايا القاعدة واخواتها في ساحات متعددة…!

ومكر أولئك يبور.

بعدنا طيّبين قولوا الله…

Sayyed Nasrallah: Insulting the Prophet [PBUH] Unacceptable; US, The West to Pay the Price of Nurturing Takfirism

Sayyed Nasrallah: Insulting the Prophet [PBUH] Unacceptable; US, The West to Pay the Price of Nurturing Takfirism
Click for Video

By Zeinab Abdallah

Beirut – Hezbollah Secretary General His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah delivered a televised speech marking the birth anniversary of the Prophet of Mercy, the Messenger of Islam Muhammad bin Abdullah [PBUH] and his grandson the sixth Shia Imam Jaafar bin Muhammad al-Sadiq [AS].

After congratulating the entire Muslim world on the blessed occasions, Sayyed Nasrallah lectured France on the morale and rank of the holy prophet among his Muslim nation, and called the French authorities to reassess their measures and their standards upon which they tackle the freedom of expression.

His Eminence further elaborated on Prophet Muhammad’s [PBUH] existing miracle that will remain until the day of resurrection, which is witnessed in all times, in reference to the holy book that Allah has sent his last prophet, the Holy Quran.

“The survival of this holy book in this accurate manner is a miracle in itself despite all reasons to distort it,” His Eminence stated, adding that “The most notable achievement of Prophet Muhammad [PBUH] is the humanitarian achievement he made in the deep and huge transformation of the Arabian Peninsula community.”

All Muslims respect, sanctify, and appreciate this great prophet unlike any other human, though they love and appreciate all other prophets, Sayyed Nasrallah underscored.

“Among the most important social points for Muslims is that they believe in the greatness of Prophet Muhammad [PBUH], and they view him as the most complete human and the closest creature to Allah the almighty,” His Eminence added.

Making clear that Muslims could never tolerate any insult or humiliation directed at the great prophet, Sayyed Nasrallah added that they consider defending the dignity of their prophet among the top priorities that is above all other interests and calculations.

Elsewhere in his remarks, the Hezbollah Secretary General stated that the Nice incident is strongly condemned and rejected by Islam; the religion that forbids killing or attacking civilians. “All similar attacks are rejected in the first place from Islam’s viewpoint.”

However, he emphasized that neither the French authorities nor others are permitted to blame the religion or the community of the religion to which the perpetrator belongs.

Making the example closer to their minds, Sayyed Nasrallah asked: If a Christian man commits such a crime, which happened indeed in France, is it right to say that all world’s Christians are responsible for this crime?

“The US today commits crimes all over the world, and they admit the killing of thousands in such wars. Did any Muslim accuse Christians of those crimes just because the US President is Christian?” he then questioned.

Highlighting the importance of respecting Islam as a religion, Sayyed Nasrallah noted that the matter requires to stop using the terms of “Islamic terrorism” and “Islamic fascism.”

“If some Muslims offended Islam it doesn’t give the right to any other side to offend it too. The Takfiri terrorist ideology, which adopted killing just for ideological differences in our region, was protected by the West.”

Blaming the West for nurturing the Takfiri and terrorist ideology, Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that “The West has, in the first place, to look for its responsibility for Takfiri groups, and the US administration and the European governments supported and funded Takfiri groups in Syria and Iraq.”

His Eminence then ruled out Islam’s involvement in such terrorist acts, adding that “Prophet Muhammad [PBUH] and the Muslim nation have nothing to do with the crimes committed by the Takfiri groups.”

Sayyed Nasrallah also noted that the Americans and the Europeans should reassess their behavior of using terrorists as tools in their political schemes and wars. “Using such kind of tools must stop, otherwise you [the US and the West] will pay the prices for those mistakes.”

Referring to the origin of the Muslims’ problem with the French authorities, Sayyed Nasrallah recalled that the crisis began when the notorious French magazine Charlie Hebdo published cartoons insulting Prophet Muhammad [PBUH], and the French authorities, instead of dealing with the issue, started a war of this kind and insisted to continue publishing such sarcastic cartoons.

Instead of dealing with the repercussions, Sayyed Nasrallah advised the French authorities to deal with the reasons. “We have many evidences that they suppressed the freedom of expression in less sensitive issues that insulting the Prophet. We have many evidences that they suppressed the freedom of expression in less sensitive issues that insulting the Prophet.”

Commenting on the double standards when it comes to the freedom of expression in France and Europe, Sayyed Nasrallah noted that is not an absolute matter, but rather restricted with security and political considerations. “When it comes to ‘Israel’, this freedom stops in France, and the examples are many. Why does it stop when it comes to anti-Semitism?”

His Eminence called for reassessing the concept of the freedom of expression, especially when it harms dignities, recommending the French authorities to deal with this grave mistake.

“Do not allow the progress of this aggression, violation and sarcasm. Offending the dignities of our Prophets is not accepted by any Muslim in the world,” Sayyed Nasrallah said as he addressed the French authorities.

He also assured them that they will lose this battle that they insist to continue. “Where are France’s interests in its relations with the Muslim world if it wants to continue in this situation?”

The responsibility for dealing with what happened in France is related to the French authorities’ performance, His Eminence added.

Blasting the Arab regimes that normalize with ‘Israel’, Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that they are not allowed to remain silent and cover such offense against the sacred prophet for their people.

The resistance leader hailed the strong significances of the Yemenis’ presence in defending the Prophet [PBUH] despite all difficulties: “Despite the siege and war in Yemen, we find the Yemeni people assemble to celebrate the Prophet’s birth anniversary.”

He then urged Muslims and the entire world to read yesterday’s scene in Yemen with fidelity and religious background. “A major movement must be formed in the Arab world to press for ending this brutal war against Yemen. It is the least of our duties,” Sayyed Nasrallah emphasized.

He then called on Muslims to support the Yemeni people as the most notable thing they would present today to Prophet Muhammad [PBUH].

On the Lebanese level, Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that the country cannot continue with a caretaker government. He then assured that Hezbollah’s information say that the cabinet formation circumstances are good and acceptable, adding that: “We will cooperate and facilitate the formation. Time now is not for internal problems.”

As for the surging COVID-19 cases across Lebanon, Sayyed Nasrallah repeated and recalled that leniency in the battle with the Coronavirus is unethical, inhumane and illegitimate. “The responsibility for fighting the Coronavirus belongs to everybody; the government and people, not the Health Ministry alone,” His Eminence concluded.

Before ending his sermon, Sayyed Nasrallah noted that he will deliver a speech on November 11, the day that marks Hezbollah Martyr’s Day.

Related Videos

Related News

Instagram Blocks Imam Khamenei Account following Letter to French Youths

Imam Khamenei

Instagram blocked the French-language account of Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran Imam Sayyed Ali Khamenei, two days after his eminence addressed French youths over the French insult to Islam and Prophet Mohammad (PBUH).

Iranian media reported the move, while the American photo and video sharing social networking service has not yet commented on the matter.

In his letter to the French youths, Imam Khamenei decried the French president’s support for anti-Islamic moves while the West has criminalized doubts about the Holocaust.

“Ask your President why he supports insulting God’s Messenger in the name of freedom of expression. Does freedom of expression mean insulting, especially a sacred personage? Isn’t this stupid act an insult to the reason of the people who elected him?” the Leader said in the post.

“The next question to ask is: why is it a crime to raise doubts about the Holocaust? Why should anyone who writes about such doubts be imprisoned while insulting the Prophet (PBUH) is allowed?” Imam Khamenei said in the message.

Earlier this month, Macron pledged to fight “Islamist separatism”, which he said was threatening to take control in some Muslim communities around France.

Source: Iranian media

Cui bono from the situation in France

Cui bono from the situation in France

October 29, 2020

I won’t even bother repeating it all here, those who are interested in my views of this entire Charlie Hebdo canard can read my article “I am NOT Charlie” here: https://thesaker.is/i-am-not-charlie/

No, what I want to do is to ask a simple question: do you think the French leaders are simply stupid, suicidal or naive?  I submit that they neither stupid, nor suicidal nor naive.  In fact, they are using a well practiced technique which goes with some variation of this:

  • Infiltrate some pseudo-Islamic gang of cutthroats (literally!)
  • Keep them under close scrutiny ostensibly for counter-terrorism purposes
  • Inside the group, try to promote your confidential informers
  • Have your analysts work on the following question: “how could we best provoke these nutcases into a bloody terrorist act?
  • Once the plan is decided, simply execute it, say by organizing the posting fantastically offensive caricatures
  • Once the cutthroats strike, blame Islam and double down
  • By then, you have infuriated most of the immense Muslim world out there and you can rest assured that the process is launched and will continue on its own.  You can now relax and get the pop-corn
  • Have your propaganda machine declare that Islam is incompatible with western civilization (whatever that means in 2020, both Descartes and Conchita Wurst I suppose…)
  • Shed some crocodile tears when the cutthroats murder some completely innocent Christian bystander
  • And announce a new crusade against “Islamism” (also a vague and, frankly, meaningless term!) and crack down on true Muslim communities and ideas while continuing to lovingly arm, train, finance and direct the “good terrorists” who have now become your own, personal, cutthroats.

Cui bono?

Anybody who knows anything about the political realities in France will immediately know in whose interests this all is and who is behind that: the Zionist power structure in France (CRIF, UEJF, etc. and the Israelis).  They have a total control over Macron and over the entire political class, very much including Marine LePen.

Who else could have concocted the “beautiful” term “Islamo-Fascisme“?!

This is a new phenomenon, a new ideology and a new strategy, which Alain Soral calls “National Zionism” which I discussed in some details here: https://thesaker.is/the-great-fraud-of-national-zionism/.

In its inception (from Ahad Ha’am, Theodor Herzl,  Ze’ev Jabotinsky, etc) Zionism used to be a largely secular and nationalistic, then, later, after WWII, it became very leftist and still secular ( Ben-Gurion, Shlomo Lavi, Golda Meir).  Modern Zionism, however, is both rabidly racist and religious – the perfect example would be US neocons.  It is also a ruthless and genocidal ideology which has created something truly original: God-mandated racism, something which, as far as I know, no other religion professes (so much for the ignorant and, frankly, plain stupid notions of “Abrahamic religions” or, even worse, “Judeo-Christian values”!).  National Zionism is the next phase of Zionism – it is rabidly “conservative” (in a Neocon sense only, of course!) and it parasitically feeds on whatever nationalist ideology the local patriotic goyim are inclined towards (the best example of that being the so-called “Christian Zionists” in the USA).

But here is the demonic “beauty” of it all: in a society like the French one, the Zionists don’t even need to micromanage their false flags: given enough uneducated and murderous pseudo-Muslim cutthroats and enough rabid secularists wanted to offend the faithful – some kind of violent explosion will *inevitably* happen!

Right now, between the embarrassing Yellow Vests movement, the crumbling economy, the massive influx, wave after wave, of unwanted and un-adaptable immigrants and the resulting social tensions, the French regime is in deep trouble.  Add to this the COVID pandemic which just added to the chaos and anger and finish with a total lack of foreign policy successes and you will immediately see why this regime badly needed what could be called a “patriotic reaction”.

Finally, there is the time-proven method of scaring your own population into a state of catatonic acceptance of everything and anything in the name of “security”.

We see it all in France today, we saw it in the UK before, and also in Belgium.  And, rest assured,  we will see much more such massacres in the future.  The only way to really stop these “terrorist” attacks is to show their sponsors that we know who they are and we understand what they are doing.  Short of this, these attacks will continue.

The Saker

Sayyed Abdulmalik Al-Houthi: Macron Is Nothing But Puppet of Jewish Zionists

ٍSource

2020-10-29 21:32:15

english.almasirah.net:Sayyed Abdulmalik Al-Houthi: Macron Is Nothing But  Puppet of Jewish Zionists

The leader of the revolution, Sayyed Abdulmalik Al-Houthi, said that the Islamic nation today is fraught with problems and crises, and the occasion of the Prophet’s birthday should be a station to face these challenges.

In his speech on the occasion of Prophet Mohammed birthday (PBUH), Sayyed Abdulmalik added that the cause of all the major problems and corruption that our nation and human society suffer from is the deviation from the Prophet’s message.

Regarding the French insult to the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) and the position of the French President Emmanuel Macron towards Islam, Sayyed Abdulmalik Al-Houthi said: Macron is nothing but a puppet of the Jewish Zionists, and they push him to insult Islam and the Messenger (PBUH).

The leader stressed that the tyrants US, Israel and their alliance are an extension of the distortion of the straight path, adding that the Western regime that permits insulting God and prophets, and prevents unveiling the plots of the Zionist Jews, is a witness to the control of the Zionist lobby over Western regimes and media.

Regarding the issue of normalization and between some Arab countries with the Zionist entity, Sayyed Abdulmalik Al-Houthi explained that declaring these deals is a betrayal and participating with enemies to target the nation.

He added that the Saudi authorities allowed the Jews flights while besieging the Yemeni people and imprisoning the free Palestinian people only because of their rightful stance against the Israeli enemy. He added that the Saudi, Emirati, Al Khalifa and the Sudanese regimes are partners with US and Israel in their plots.

About the assassination of the Minister Hassan Zaid, Sayyed Al-Houthi describes it as brutal, holding the Saudi aggression coalition responsible for the crime.

Related Videos

Related News

صراع مُستعرٌ بين الفرنجة والعثمانيين على التهام العرب؟

د. وفيق إبراهيم

هذه معادلة تعيد الى المشهد السياسي للمنطقة العربية الصراع العثماني، الاوروبي الذي يعمل على السيطرة على المنطقة العربية منذ ستة قرون متواصلة وسط «غربة» كاملة من اهل المنطقة.

فما الفارق بين سليم الاول ووريثه المعاصر الرئيس التركي رجب طيب أردوغان على مستوى المشروع السياسي؟ وهل هناك من تغيير جذري في السياسات الاميركية – الاوروبية المعاصرة عن الاحتلال البريطاني الفرنسي منذ القرن التاسع؟ وهل هو مختلف عن حروب الفرنجة التي احتلت الشرق العربي 192 عاماً ولم تتركه إلا بعد هزيمة تلقتها من المماليك، على الرغم من أن صلاح الدين سبقهم في ضربها في معركة حطين، لكن أولاده أعادوا تسليم المنطقة الى الفرنجة.

بذلك ينتقل هذا الشرق من احتلال عسكري الى سيطرة اقتصادية ملتزماً صمت الضعفاء والمساكين في إطار معادلة قوامها تحالف الخارج الغربي او التركي مع أنظمة الداخل لقهر شعوب هذه المنطقة. والهيمنة عليها اقتصادياً فتصبح جزءاً من النفوذ الجيوبوليتيكي الخاص بأي منتصر.

التاريخ هنا مستمر بأسماء جديدة وبالمعادلات القديمة نفسها، سليم الاول يعود متسللاً من مرج دابق نموذج 1516 الى سورية عبر إرهابيي الاخوان المسلمين وسراج ليبيا واخوان العراق واليمن ومصر متسربلاً بقناع الرئيس التركي أردوغان انما مع المشروع التاريخي نفسه.

وها هو الرئيس الفرنسي ماكرون يستعمل حادثة قتل مروّعة قتل فيها اسلاموي شيشاني مدرساً فرنسياً، ليؤسس فرصة تاريخية لإعادة تنظيم الفرنجة الجدد، هؤلاء بحاجة الى ايديولوجيا تختبئ المصالح الاقتصادية في زواياها؛ الامر الذي دفع بماكرون الى توجيه اتهامات الى الاسلام باعتبار انه يجتاز ازمة تاريخية على حد قوله وكانت كافية لتحريض الشارع الفرنسي أولاً والأوروبي ثانياً والغربي عموماً في دفاع عنيف عن طروحات ماكرون بدت وكأنها مشابهة للتحريض الذي أطلقته المراكز الدينية في الغرب لاستيلاد فكرة «الفرنجة» الأوروبيين الذاهبين الى الشرق لتحرير «الصليب» كما كانوا يزعمون.

بدورهم رفع العثمانيون شعار الخلافة الإسلامية كتبرير لاحتلالهم للشرق وشمال افريقيا مهددين اوروبا بإدراكهم أسوار فيينا العاصمة النمساوية.

هذا الصراع انحسم لمصلحة الغرب في القرن التاسع عشر بعد هيمنة تركية دامت أربعة قرون ونيف.

لكنه يعود في هذه المرحلة عبر الصراع على البحر المتوسط وسواحل بلدانه المليئة بالغاز، فكان لا بد من شعارات تبريرية وجدها أردوغان التركي في الدفاع عن هجمات غربية مفترضة على الإسلام. ودخل فيها ماكرون الفرنسي فريقاً أوروبياً يرى أن الإسلام اصبح يشكل ازمة عالمية.

اما أصحاب المنطقة وهم الغرب فيلوذون في صمت المذعورين، موجهين رفضاً ضعيفاً لهجوم ماكرون على الإسلام ومنتقدين الأداء التركي لمحاولاته احتلال مناطق عربية.

على المستوى العملي، لا يساوي موقف الدول العربية شيئاً، لأن الطرفين المتقاتلين يعبثان بأمن العالم العربي لأسباب تتعلق بنهجيهما الاستعماريين، فلا ماكرون عائد لاستعادة الصليب ولا أردوغان يريد حماية ديار الاسلام.

هناك اذاً إصرار من الطرفين على التهام العرب بالتبريرات التاريخية وما يؤكد ذلك هي تلك الاندفاعة الهجومية من مستشارة المانيا ورؤساء النمسا وفنلندا ورئيس وزراء بريطانيا باتجاه تأييد موقف ماكرون وكأن المرحلة مماثلة لمراحل تشكيل الفرنجة قبل تسوية قرون تقريباً.

ان ما يشجع هذه الدول على التستر بغطاء ديني، هي تلك الدول العربية التي لا تعمل إلا لحماية عائلاتها المالكة ورؤساء جمهورياتها على حساب المصالح الفعلية للدول.

وسد النهضة مثال على الانكسار العربي الراهن، لأنه يحتجز 74 مليار متر مكعب من مياه النيل في هذا السد الاثيوبي متسبباً بقطع اكثر من ثلاثين مليار متر من حصة مصر من هذا النهر البالغة 55 مليار متر مكعب تشكل 90 في المئة من المياه في مصر، وتهددها بضرب 70 في المئة من قطاعها الزراعي.

للتوضيح فإن اثيوبيا ابتدأت ببناء السد منذ تسعة عشر عاماً وخاض معها عهد الرئيس السيسي مفاوضات عميقة، تبين فيها أن إثيوبيا كانت تستعمل لعبة تقطيع الوقت لاستكمال السد، وهذا ما حدث على حساب الأمن الوطني المصري المهدد بشكل فعلي وسط لامبالاة عهد السيسي.

هناك اذاً معوقات امام العرب، تحتل فلسطين رأس لائحتها الى جانب الصراعات الدولية والإقليمية الأميركية والاوروبية والتركية والاسرائيلية على مواردها والتخلف الاقتصادي العميق، والديكتاتوريات والخلافات الداخلية، هذه عوامل تؤسس لأكثر من عثماني جديد وآخر من الفرنجة مع استمرار التموضع الاستراتيجي الاميركي في عشرات القواعد على اراضي العرب.

لا بد أيضاً من لفت النظر الى أن التذرع الغربي بالإرهاب الإسلاموي هو ذريعة لتبرير الاستعمار الغربي لأن هذا النوع من الاسلام هو غربي التأسيس يرقى الى الدعم البريطاني للوهابية في مطلع القرن العشرين، والاستثمار الاميركي في منظمة القاعدة في سبعينيات القرن الماضي بالاشتراك مع المخابرات السعودية.

كما يعود الى الاستثمار الاميركي – الاوروبي التركي في منظمات داعش وأشباهها في افغانستان والعراق وسورية وليبيا ومصر.

فهل يمكن للعرب مجابهة هذه المشاريع؟

وحدها سورية القادرة على تشكيل جبهة قوية في وجه الإرهاب الذي هزمته في ميادينها اكثر من مرة ولم يعد موجوداً إلا في مناطق السيطرة التركية والأميركية.

هي اذاً سورية التي يستطيع العرب دعمها لتواصل حملة التصدي للإرهاب الذي يكمن خلفه الاميركيون والاتراك المسنودون حالياً من الفرنجة الجدد.

وكما رحلوا بالقوة قبل ثمانية قرون، فلا بد أنهم راحلون مع مشاريعهم بقوة التضامن السوري بين الدولة والجيش والشعب.

فيديوات متعلقة

مقالات متعلقة

Gaza Scholars Protest Macron’s Anti-Islam Provocation (PHOTOS)

October 26, 2020

Palestinian religious scholars in Gaza protest inflammatory anti-Islam statements by French President Emmanuel Macron. (Photo: Fawzi Mahmoud, The Palestine Chronicle)

By Palestine Chronicle Staff

On Monday, Palestinian religious scholars in Gaza joined worldwide protests condemning inflammatory anti-Islamic practices and official statements by French media and government officials. 

Like many Muslims across the world, the Gaza scholars called for an economic boycott of France in response to anti-Muslim comments made by French President Emmanuel Macron, and his decision to circulate defamatory cartoons of Prophet Mohammed.

The Gaza protest was held in front of the French Cultural Center in Gaza City and came in response to a call made by the Palestinian Scholars Union to take a stance against French provocations. 

Some of the placards that the protesters held in Arabic translate to: “Prophet Mohammed stood up against injustice, built solidarity and cooperation” and “Prophet Mohammed laid the foundation for coexistence between Muslims and Non-Muslims”, while others called for immediate “Economic boycott” of France. 

Besides the provocative Prophet Mohammed cartoons, Macron earlier this month claimed that Islam is “a religion in crisis”,  announcing plans for tougher laws to confront the alleged “Islamist separatism” in his country, Anadolu News Agency reported. 

(All Photos: Fawzi Mahmoud, The Palestine Chronicle)

Pakistan’s Imran Khan Denounces France’s Macron for Encouraging Islamophobia

Source

Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan has lambasted French President Emmanuel Macron for promoting Islamophobia by “attacking Islam,” after the latter criticized Islam and defended the publication of defamatory cartoons of Prophet Muhammad.

Khan’s comment on Sunday follows controversial remarks the French president made last week after an 18-year-old assailant, identified as Abdullakh Anzorov, beheaded history French teacher Samuel Paty outside his school in a Paris suburb.

Paty had raised controversy and provoked anger over showing the defamatory cartoons. The assailant was shot dead by the police soon after the killing.           

Macron had said about his fighting against “Islamist separatism,” which according to him threatens to take control in some Muslim communities around France. He also said that Paty was decapitated because “Islamists” wanted “our future.”

The Pakistani premier, in a number of tweets, said on Sunday that “This is a time when Pres Macron could have put healing touch & denied space to extremists rather than creating further polarization & marginalization that inevitably leads to radicalization.”

“It is unfortunate that he has chosen to encourage Islamophobia by attacking Islam rather than the terrorists who carry out violence, be it Muslims, White Supremacists or Nazi ideologists,” Khan further said.

Earlier this month, Macron also angered Muslims around the world when he said that “Islam is a religion that is in crisis all over the world.”

“By attacking Islam, clearly without having any understanding of it, President Macron has attacked & hurt the sentiments of millions of Muslims in Europe & across the world,” Khan further said.

A number of Muslim countries have so far called for a boycott of French goods over Macron’s controversial remarks.

Erdogan renews call for Macron’s mental checks

Separately on Sunday, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan once again said that his French counterpart should undergo mental checks, accusing him of being “obsessed with Erdogan day and night.”

The French president “is a case and therefore he really needs to have (mental) checks,” the Turkish leader further said.

Erdogan comments came just a day after he said Macron “needs treatment on a mental level,” in response to what the French president had said about Islam.

The Turkish president’s comments angered Paris, which called his remarks “unacceptable”, prompting it to recall its ambassador to Turkey.

Separately, Fahrettin Altun, communications director at the Turkish presidency, tweeted that “offensive caricatures” of prophet Muhammed were being used to intimidate Muslims in Europe under the guise of freedom of expression.

“The dog whistle politics of offensive caricatures, accusations of separatism against Muslims, and mosque raids isn’t about freedom of expression,” he further said.

“It’s about intimidating and reminding Muslims that they are welcome to keep the European economy going, but they will never belong — against the backdrop of lectures about integration,” Altun added.

Turkey urges “hatred” against France: French PM

French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian on Sunday said that Turkey was purportedly “trying to whip up hatred” against France, continuing a war of words between the two NATO allies over Macron’s comments about Islam.

The French premier denounced the alleged “insults” against Macron, slamming them as “unacceptable conduct” from an ally, whose “hateful, slanderous propaganda against France” revealed a desire to “whip up hate against us and in our midst.”

Erdogan says Macron has a “problem” with Islam and Muslims for his controversial and provocative defense of the right to show insulting cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed.

Press TV

Related

Macron Opens Floodgates for Muslim Backlash as He Insists on Insults

Macron Opens Floodgates for Muslim Backlash as He Insists on Insults

By Staff, Agencies

Numerous Muslim states and peoples denounced French President Emanuel Macron’s persisting support for blasphemy in his country against Prophet Muhammad [PBUH].

“We will not give in, ever,” Macron tweeted on Sunday. The tweet served to back up his earlier support for a French teacher’s displaying of cartoons insulting of the Prophet of Islam in his class under the pretext of “freedom of speech.”

“France will never renounce caricatures,” Macron had declared on Wednesday, defending the teacher for “promoting freedom.”

The teacher Samuel Paty was murdered by an 18-year-old Chechen assailant. Commenting on the attack, Macron described Islam as a religion “in crisis” worldwide, trying to suggest that the assailant had been motivated to kill the teacher by the faith rather than radicalism.

The comments have raised controversy and provoked a wave of criticism from the Muslim world.

On Sunday, the Gulf Cooperation Council [GCC] described Macron’s position as “irresponsible,” and said it was aimed at spreading a culture of hatred among peoples.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who had called on Macron to have his mental status examined for defending blasphemy, repeated the call on Sunday. Macron “is a case and therefore he really needs to have [mental] checks,” Erdogan said.

In a statement, Kuwait’s Foreign Ministry warned that attempts at linking Islam to terrorism “represents a falsification of reality, insults the teachings of Islam, and offends the feelings of Muslims around the world.”

Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan also hit out at Macron for “attacking Islam clearly without having any understanding of it.”

Khan urged Macron to rather address the marginalization and polarization that is being committed against minorities in France that “inevitably leads to radicalization.”

Jordan’s Islamic Affairs Minister Mohammed al-Khalayleh said “insulting” prophets is “not an issue of personal freedom but a crime…,” and Morocco’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said continuing publication of such “offensive” is an act of provocation.

Palestinian and Lebanese resistance movements, Hamas and Hezbollah have also condemned Macron’s position.

Protests were, meanwhile, reported in the Gaza Strip, Syria, and Libya as well as elsewhere throughout the Muslim world.

Many Muslim companies and associations, meanwhile, have stopped handling or serving French items in protest.

Hashtags such as the #BoycottFrenchProducts in English and the Arabic #ExceptGodsMessenger trended across many countries, including Kuwait, Qatar, Palestine, Egypt, Algeria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey.

The French Foreign Ministry, however, reacted angrily to the bans. “The calls for a boycott are groundless and must be stopped immediately, like all attacks against our country committed by a radical minority,” it alleged, trying to associate the protests with “radicalism.”

Related

فرنسا وسلفيّوها.. هل بدأت الحرب؟

باريس – نضال حمادة

لم يمض عشرة أيام على خطاب الرئيس الفرنسي الذي شنّ فيه حملة غير مسبوقة على ما أسماه الإسلام السياسي الانعزالي (انظر مقالة البناء يوم 6 الشهر الحالي بعنوان: ماكرون يحارب الإسلام انتخابياً) حتى وقع ما حذّر ما منه وكنا نخشاه، وحصلت جريمة ذبح أستاذ الجغرافيا والتاريخ في مدرسة في إحدى ضواحي باريس على يد مهاجر شيشاني بسبب اتهام بعض أهالي الطلاب للمعلم بالإساءة للنبي محمد عبر تخصيص حصة حول الرسوم الكاريكاتوريّة التي نشرتها صحيفة شارلي أبدو قبل أعوام.

هذه الجريمة البشعة والتي لا يمكن سوى إدانتها وشجبها، لم تأت من فراغ ولم تحصل صدفة أو لأن هناك أشخاصاً أو شخصاً قرّر ارتكابها، كما أنها ليست حالة منفردة ونخشى أنها لن تكون الأخيرة في مسلسل الصدام الذي بدأ بين فرنسا وسلفيّيها الذين طالما احتضنتهم وربّتهم وسهّلت لهم كل سبل القوة طمعاً بالأموال القطرية والسعودية التي لا تتوقف عن إمداد هؤلاء السلفيين تحت أعين الأجهزة الفرنسية ومعرفة الساسة في فرنسا، فضلاً عن سعي فرنسا للعب دور سياسي وعسكري في العالم العربي عبر استخدام مجاميعها من السلفيين في ليبيا ومن ثم على نطاق أوسع في سورية.

الآن وبعد حصول هذه الجريمة التي نكرّر إدانتنا لها، وبدلاً من أن تعمل الحكومة الفرنسية والرئيس الفرنسي على إعادة النظر في الحملة التي بدأها ماكرون على الإسلام كدين وعلى مسلمي فرنسا بحجج واهية محملاً إياهم مسؤولية وجود مجموعات سلفية في أوساطهم متناسياً أن هؤلاء السلفيين كانوا الجهة المدللة للحكومات الفرنسية المتعاقبة منذ عهد شيراك حتى اليوم. هذه الحكومة وهذا الرئيس صعّدوا من هجومهم على الإسلام وعقد الرئيس الفرنسي إيمانويل ماكرون اجتماعاً شبه عسكري وامني طارئ يوم أول أمس الأحد حضره كل من وزير الداخلية ووزير الدفاع والخارجية والتربية وقائد أركان الجيش ومدعي عام الجمهورية الخاص بقضايا الإرهاب نتج عنه قرار من الرئيس بتسريع الإجراءات والقرارات التي اتخذها قبل عشرة أيام؛ وهي في خلاصتها تضع الإسلام كدين في خانة التجريم والمسلمين كبشر في خانة الاتهام المستمر ووضعهم تحت نظام حالة طوارئ، في مسعى انتخابي واضح وفرت له جريمة الجمعة الماضية أسباب الاستغلال الرخيص والخطر.

أخشى ما أخشاه أن تكون جريمة الجمعة الماضية ليست سوى بداية الصدام بين متطرفي الحكم في فرنسا ومتطرفين سلفيين طالما عملوا سوياً وكانوا حلفاء في سورية وليبيا، والآن انقلبوا على علاقتهم القديمة لأسباب انتخابية وأمنية وسياسية سوف نشرحها في مقالات مقبلة..

%d bloggers like this: