Land Day 2020 in the Time of the Coronavirus

March 30, 2020

Samidoun issued a call for a rally in New York City to commemorate the second anniversary of the Great Return March in Gaza, that has been transformed into a virtual event. (Photo: via Samidoun)

By Benay Blend

On March 3, 2020, Samidoun: Palestinian Prisoner Network issued a call for a rally in New York City to commemorate the second anniversary of the Great Return March in Gaza.

Plans were to hold the march in conjunction with the Palestine Writes Festival (March 27-29), but due to the Coronavirus the literary gathering has been postponed, and the march, like so many other events, has been transformed into a virtual event.

Two years ago, on March 30, 2018, Palestinians in the besieged Gaza Strip launched the Great March of Return in order to demand an end to Israel’s closure of the Gaza Strip and the right of return for millions of Palestinian ethnically cleansed from their homes.

Despite Israel’s ongoing use of live ammunition, tear gas and rubber-coated steel bullets, Palestinians continue to use every legitimate means possible—including armed resistance, general strikes, Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaigns, and the Great Return March—in their struggle for national liberation.

This year, in the words of Tamara Nassar: “Palestinians face two enemies: occupation and pandemic.” As Nassar notes, their struggle against the virus entails the same precautions as the rest of the world, while, in addition, Israel “continues to demolish structures, conduct night raids, arbitrarily arrest children and routinely harass civilians.”

For example, palinfo.com reports that on March 27, 2020, Israeli occupation soldiers invaded several areas in the West Bank city of al-Khalil where they “deliberately spat” at Palestinian homes and cars. After their departure, Palestinian workers sterilized the places where the soldiers spat in order to reduce the chances of infection.

Moreover, while the West Bank and Jerusalem are quarantined, the Palestinian Center for Human Rights last week recorded that Israelis undertook 59 home raids and 51 arrests.

All of these atrocities and more are unique to the Occupation. Nevertheless, there is a larger framework that makes it possible to place the Palestinian struggle within a broader context. As stated in Samidoun’s decision to transform the various rallies in support of Gaza into virtual events:

“Protecting each other’s health at this critical time is essential to continuing the struggle against the forces of oppression and exploitation that deny people health care or price it with a profit motive.”

For many in the labor force, this is not an option. In countries under the rule of right-wing capitalist leaders, workers are being told that they have a choice between staying home without a paycheck, thus placing their families under economic hardship, or going to workplaces that put them at risk for serious infection with the virus.

For example, the lieutenant governor of Texas Dan Patrick suggested that older Americans would surely sacrifice themselves in return for guaranteeing their grandchildren’s economic future. He also advocated that the country should be opened up for business in weeks, not months as health professionals propose.

President Donald Trump’s call to open up the country for business by Easter echoed a similar prioritizing of business and mega-church religious leaders over the lives of workers and their families.

In Palestine, too, Akram Al-Waara reports that workers face a similar dilemma, though aggravated by realities of the Occupation. For those working in Israel, new restrictions related to the Coronavirus mean that they have a choice between sacrificing a “much-needed income,” or taking the chance of being apart from their families for months.

As the virus continued to extend across Israel and the West Bank, Israeli Defense Minister Naftali Bennet, who had already closed the borders around Bethlehem, announced that only workers in “essential” fields—construction, healthcare, and agriculture—would be granted entry; everyone else would be quarantined at home.

“While the Israelis are staying inside their homes, they are putting us to work so that things don’t collapse,” Kareem, a Palestinian construction worker, told Middle East Eye, all “for the sake of saving their economy.” Though the situation is different within the context of the Occupation, the paradigm of profit over people is inevitable wherever there is a capitalist economy. In New Mexico, where I live, Indian reservations make up expendable labor pools, much like Palestinians are today.

In the preface to Simon Ortiz’s Fight Back: For the Sake of the People, For the Sake of the Land (1980), historian Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz explains that “Indians have a basis of unity with non-Indians,” and it is there, “in the fields and on the picket line, that they may see through the smokescreen of racism” to pinpoint the real cause of their oppression: capitalism.

She continues:

“For the Indian and non-Indian worker in the United States and most of the hemisphere, their exploited labor provides the profits for those who claim to own the land and the factories and have armies to back their claim.”

Dunbar-Ortiz’s analysis is more important today than ever as we see workers around the world faced with the choice of watching their families starve without a paycheck or bringing sickness home from their workplace.

As Italians called for a General Strike on March 25 under the slogan “Our lives are worth more than your profits,” and requests for a nationwide rent strike erupt in the U.S., it seems an excellent time for international solidarity among the working class, Indigenous, immigrants and all other oppressed groups of people.

Meanwhile, news sources such as NPR are using fears over the Coronavirus to air the following message: “Israelis and Palestinians now have a common enemy: the Coronavirus.”

Described by +972 Magazine as “ ‘colonization of the mind,’ whereby the oppressed subject comes to believe that the oppressor’s reality is the only ‘normal’ reality that must be subscribed to, and that the oppression is a fact of life that must be coped with,” “normalization” never sleeps. Neither does colonialist oppression, even during the height of the pandemic.

As Akram Al-Waara relates, Palestinian workers in Israel who are suspected to have the virus are “dumped…like trash” near the most convenient checkpoints. “This is the true face of the Israeli occupation,” Ibrahim Abu Safiya told Middle East Eye. “They kill us on a daily basis, so this isn’t any different for them.” No cooperation here over a “common enemy to battle,” as Daniel Estrin of NPR termed it, only the continuation of the Palestinian struggle for liberation.

In Israel, the United States, and around the world, exploited groups of people are expendable, thrown away when no longer serving the needs of the elite. As a community activist and scholar Oliver Baker wrote on Facebook, this is how “whiteness in capitalism works. It expects you to consent to give it your labor and enforce empire. But it cares nothing about your life. It’s time to betray it, or if not, you’ll be in the way of people trying to free themselves from these conditions, and you don’t want to be in the way of that right now.”

Nevertheless, the message of Land Day 2020 remains one of sumoud (steadfastness) and creativity, as Palestinians from Gaza to Bethlehem mobilize collectively to fight the virus.

“If we can overcome Coronavirus, we can overcome the occupation,” writes Suha Arraf, a sentiment echoed by Lucy Thaljiyeh, a city council member and feminist political activist: “The solidarity between people has returned, the solidarity we had during the First Intifada which somehow disappeared in the Second Intifada. We are together once again, trapped; we are taking care of each other.”

As support gathers around the world in the coming days for Land Day 2020, it seems fitting to end with the words of Palestinian American activist and scholar Steven Salaita:

“I find myself thinking about the Gaza Strip, Attica, Wounded Knee, the Warsaw Ghetto, not because our situation is analogous, and not because suffering must be exceptional to have meaning, but because they’re examples of incredible strength amid hardship and insecurity and therefore provide a radical vision of fortitude in which victims of power, not its beneficiaries, serve as inspiration for survival.”

– Benay Blend earned her doctorate in American Studies from the University of New Mexico. Her scholarly works include Douglas Vakoch and Sam Mickey, Eds. (2017), “’Neither Homeland Nor Exile are Words’: ‘Situated Knowledge’ in the Works of Palestinian and Native American Writers”. She contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.

Sayyed Nasrallah Calls for Comprehensive Confrontation with The Arrogant Trump Administration: Boycott American Goods

Sayyed Nasrallah Calls for Comprehensive Confrontation with The Arrogant Trump Administration: Boycott American Goods

Zeinab Essa

Hezbollah Secretary General His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah delivered on Sunday a speech in which he tackled various regional and internal topics.

Addressing tens of thousands of Resistance lovers commemorating Hezbollah Martyr Leaders and 40 days on the martyrdom of Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi Al Muhandis, Sayyed Nasrallah congratulated the Iranian people on the 41 anniversary of the Islamic Revolution. “The revolution in Iran has remained strong despite all wars and sieges, thanks to the presence of its people in all fields and all stages.”

His Eminence further recalled that “The enemy was betting on the collapse of the regime in Iran.”

Congratulating the oppressed Bahraini people on the ninth anniversary of the revolution, led by loyal scholars, particularly Sheikh Isa Qassem; His Eminence highlighted that “The Bahraini people are fighting today to restore Bahrain to its natural position in the nation, after its rulers has turned it into a base for normalization and conspiracy on the Palestinian cause.”

“The martyrs Soleimani, Al-Muhandis, Sayyed Abbas al-Moussawi, Sheikh Ragheb Harb and Hajj Imad Mughniyeh shared common features. They had faith, loyalty and honesty and they were loved by the people. One of the main traits of the martyr leaders is that they were responsible, along with the constant willingness to sacrifice without limits,” he added.

Urging people to read Martyr Soleimani’s will, Sayyed Nasrallah underscored that “When we read the will of martyr Soleimani, we find that we are in front of a knowledgeable Mujahid commander who was concerned for his country and people.”

“The resistance is neither based on speeches nor on words that are disconnected from reality. These leaders embodied it on the ground,” His Eminence stated, noting that “With the martyrdom of each of our leaders, we move from one phase into another and this is the case with the martyrdom of Hajj Qassem”

On this level, the Resistance Leader confirmed that “[US President Donald] Trump’s administration recently committed two horrible crimes resembled by the uncovered assassination of Martyrs Soleimani and Al-Muhandis as well as announcing the so-called ‘Deal of the Century’.”

“Trump’s unilateral ‘Deal of century’ isn’t a deal but an “Israeli” scheme to end the Palestinian cause,” he said, pointing out that “The two crimes are in the service of American and “Israeli” hegemony, tyranny, and looting to our goods and sanctities.”

Sayyed Nasrallah further mentioned that “The US isn’t an inevitable destiny, and the American administrations have always presented schemes, but they have failed because the peoples and states decided to confront them.”

Describing the ‘Deal of Century’ as a crime committed in the White House, His Eminence hailed the fact that “There is no Palestinian group or faction that accepts to give up the Palestinian cause and Al-Quds.”

“Today, no one supports Trump’s ‘Deal of Century’. No influencing country has shown any approval of this scheme,” he clarified, lauding the Lebanese unity and solidarity in rejecting Trump’s scheme as they [the Lebanese] are aware of its danger.”

As His Eminence warned that Trump’s scheme hands the occupied Lebanese territories to “Israel” in addition to settling the refugees, Sayyed Nasrallah wondered “Who guarantees that these stances will remain the same in the future, especially if the Gulf stance changes.”

“There are Gulf countries that say that Trump’s scheme is capable of being studied, and this is how defeat and surrender begin,” he stated, pointing out that “The positions that followed Trump’s announcement of his ‘Deal of century’ were full of strong rejection.”

On another level, Sayyed Nasrallah viewed that “The new stage requires from our people in the region to go and not to escape the primary confrontation.”

“When Trump kills our leaders in a public and brutal manner, he declares war and we are still in the stage of slow response,” His Eminence declared, calling the peoples in the region to move to the main confrontation, which is inevitable, as the other party is on the offensive.

In this context, Sayyed Nasrallah said: “Our people are urged to go to the confrontation with the arrogance symbol resembled by Trump’s administration. Awareness away from fear of America and confidence in our ability are a must as the US is responsible for all “Israel’s” wars and practices.”

“We are not taking anyone into a confrontation with America,” he added, pointing out that “America has imposed a confrontation on the nation.”

Sayyed Nasrallah went on to explain that “We need a comprehensive confrontation with this brutal authoritarian monster, resembled by Trump’s arrogant administration. Daesh [Arabic Acronym for the terrorist “ISIS/ISIL” group] has taken control of provinces in Syria and Iraq, committed massacres, and the Americans are responsible for these atrocities.”

Stressing that “Boycotting US goods is painful for the Americans,” Hezbollah Secretary General wondered “Why don’t we resort to this choice?”Sayyed Nasrallah: I call on all the elites, scholars and thinkers to set programs and plans as part of a major confrontation with the American administration

“In order to impose its hegemony and plans, The US uses all available means, including proxy wars and assassinations,” he underlined, stating that “All forms of resistance are required: the legal, judicial, economic, and other levels.”

According to His Eminence, His Eminence cautioned that “The US is using the weapon of economic sanctions against people. The US supports the ongoing war against the Yemeni people to benefit economically from selling weapons to the countries of the aggression.”

In response, Sayyed Nasrallah declared that “All the peoples of the region will carry the weapons in face of the US arrogance, and America left no choice to us.”

To the Iraqi people, Sayyed Nasrallah sent a message of love and advice: “The beloved Iraqi people know Hajj Abu Mahd Al-Muhandis, who spent his life in jihad leaving his home, family and children. Abu Mahdi fought in all Iraqi provinces and carried his blood on his palm and shroud on his shoulder. The primary responsibility of the Iraqi people is preserving the Popular Mobilization Forces as well as strengthening it and its spirituality.”

On the same level, His Eminence confirmed that “Martyr Soleimani was interested in seeing the dear Iraq as capable, independent and present in the issues of the region, not isolated.”

“I tell the dear, loyal and aggrieved Iraqi people that the first responsibility for responding to the assassination of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis and Qasem Soleimani falls on their shoulders,” He confirmed.

Regarding the current Lebanese internal situation, he cautioned that “We have a clear financial and economic crisis in Lebanon, and there is concern that this crisis will affect the security situation in Lebanon.”

Sayyed Nasrallah warned that “There is concern for the state’s health, social and development services, which will be negatively affected.”

Reiterating that “We, in Hezbollah do not fear for the future of the resistance and its men,” Hezbollah Secretary General stressed that “Our concern is for Lebanon and the Lebanese.”

“Hezbollah will not escape the responsibility,” he said, announcing that “We, in Hezbollah, do not think in a partisan way and think for ourselves. Rather, we are concerned for the people in all Lebanese regions.”

In addition, His Eminence underlined that “The financial and economic situation needs to be addressed, and we are ready to take and share the responsibility for solving the crisis.”

“We lost our dignity because we did not compliment so that we prevent the country from going into chaos and civil war,” Sayyed Nasrallah explained, warning that “We are facing a very difficult economic situation, and there is no discussion about that, but the discussion is about bankruptcy or not.”

Urging all Lebanese sides to separate the financial and economic file from the political conflict in the country and to leaving aside settling of scores, His Eminence viewed that “Naming the government as “Hezbollah’s government” harms Lebanon’s Arab and international ties.”

To the Lebanese, he said: “Help the government, because should it manage to stop the collapse, it would be offering a great service to all Lebanese and those who live in Lebanon.”

Being Ahead of Time

 BY GILAD ATZMON

By Gilad Atzmon

https://www.unz.com/

In my recent book, Being in Time, I analyse Jewish controlled opposition. I argue that some self-identified Jews end up being on both polar extremes of every debate that is even mildly relevant to Jewish existence: Those who have recently been disturbed about the Jews who are at the centre of the impeachment trial have also found that Jews hold key positions on Trump’s defense team. Those who accuse Jews of pushing immigration and multiculturalism can’t deny that Trump’s senior policy advisor on immigration is Stephen Miller and that breitbart.com was “conceived in Jerusalem.” The Palestinians’ solidarity movement is dominated by a few well organized Jewish solidarity groups that do little but divert the discourse from the Palestinian right of return and exhaust the movement in their relentless witch-hunting of truth speakers and seekers.

In Being in Time, I point out that as soon as an issue or event is identified as a potential Jewish problem, a Jewish satellite dissent emerges to ‘calm things down.’ As soon as Corbyn became the modern Amalek (‘existential threat’), Jews for Jeremywas formed to dismantle the idea that Jews hate Corbyn collectively. Those who view Capitalism as a Jewish construct are similarly reminded that Marx was also a Jew. In Being in Time I argue that none of this is necessarily conspiratorial. It is only natural for Jews to denounce the crimes that are committed on ‘their behalf’ by a state that defines itself as ‘The Jewish State.’ The same applies to Jews who are genuinely tormented by the vast over representation of Jews in some problematic spheres. Yet, the outcome of all this is potentially volatile: every crucial debate regarding the West and its future; Globalism, Neocons wars, capitalism, immigration, multiculturalism, Israel and so on, is too frequently reduced into an internal Jewish exchange.

It was therefore just a matter of time before some Jews would admit that the involvement of a few prominent Jewish celebrities in some spectacular sex crimes is becoming rather embarrassing and even dangerous for the Jews.

It seems as if Jonah Goldberg has launched the ‘Jews against pedophilia’ campaign. Today, The Jewish World Review published an article titled “French pedo flap a cautionary tale for OUR cultural aristocrats.” In the commentary, Goldberg digs into the activities of Jewish radical ideology, along with those of the notorious paedophile, Gabriel Matzneff.

Goldberg was triggered by a New York Times article that examined the rise and fall of the paedophilia devotee. Matzneff is 83, an old man now, but he has been the darling of the French literary world and media for decades: his work was supported by leading newspapers and literary publications. “He’d appear on highbrow TV shows,” Goldberg writes, where he’d “regale interviewers and audiences with the sublime pleasures of having sex with children in France and on sex tours of southeast Asia.”

In his book “Under 16 Years Old,” Matzneff wrote, “To sleep with a child, it’s a holy experience, a baptismal event, a sacred adventure.”

But the contrast Goldberg draws between Jeffrey Epstein and Matzneff is surprisingly clumsy: “The well-connected billionaire spent vast sums to keep his sexual abuses at least somewhat secret. Matzneff not only confessed to his crimes, his confessions were celebrated as literary contributions.” I feel the need to remind Goldberg that nicknaming one’s plane the “Lolita Express” is hardly an attempt to hide one’s sexual morbidity and crimes. If anything Matzneff is like Epstein in that both celebrated a peculiar sense of impunity. Needless to mention, no Jewish outlet denounced either of them or their not very secretive activities before they were caught and charged.

Jewish Radicals and the role of the Orgasm

Next comes the ‘rationalisation.’ “Matzneff was a Child of 68,” Goldberg writes, “a product of the left-wing ‘May 68’ movement that shook France in the 1960s. These radicals subscribed to the idea that anything smacking of traditionalism or bourgeois morality was backward. Conventional sexual morality was part of the same rotten edifice as imperialism and racism.”

Goldberg doesn’t approve of the ‘Jewish radicals and their ideology. He reminds us that “a few years ago, Daniel Cohn-Bendit (a.k.a. Dany le Rouge), the famous former radical and leader of the European Green movement, got in hot water for his earlier writings and statements about “erotic” encounters with 5-year-olds. He (Cohn-Bendit ) dodged major consequences by disavowing his own words, saying they were merely intended to provoke.”

Goldberg is a well-known and successful writer, he could have published his criticism of Matzneff and Jewish radicals in numerous national American news outlets but, presumably he made the decision to use a Jewish outlet. Whether intentionally or not, Goldberg provides an insight into Jewish survival strategy in general and Jewish controlled opposition in particular. Criticizing radical philosophy and the advocacy of pedophilia on ideological grounds by Jews in a Jewish media outlet conveys the image that Jews can deal with their problems. The goyim should let it go or, even better, move on.

But Goldberg’s account is either mistaken or misleading. The sex revolution that branched into advocating paedophilia wasn’t invented in 1968. Its radical Jewish roots take us back to the 1920-30s and, in particular, to the early work of Wilhelm Reich.

The Following is an excerpt from Being in Time in which I delve into Wilhelm Reich and his ‘genital utopia.’

In his 1933 work, The Mass Psychology of Fascism, Jewish Marxist and Freudian psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich attempted to explain the striking victory of ‘reactionary’ Fascism over ‘progressive’ Communism. Reich was desperate to rescue the relevance of revolutionary Marxism. In order to do so he formed a new ‘post Marxist’ theoretical outlook to explain why the Germans of his time favoured ‘authoritarianism’ over a ‘preferable’ communist revolution.

According to Reich, the attraction of reactionary and conservative politics and the inclination towards fascism is driven by a long history of rigid, authoritarian patriarchy which affects the family, parenting, primal education and eventually, society as a whole.
Of course, the remarkable popularity of fascism in Europe could have provided the scientifically-orientated Reich with a clear refutation of Marxist working class politics, theories and predictions. After all, dialectical Marxism had failed as a social theory as well as a methodical prophecy. But for some reason, he, like many other Jewish intellectuals of his time, decided to stick with Marx. Hoping to rescue what was left of dialectical materialism, and insisting that true communist political revolution would prevail once sexual repression was overthrown, Reich synthesized Marx and Freud into a ‘Sex Revolution.’

Wilhelm Reich posited that sexual liberation on a mass scale would save Marxist dogmatism and working people as well. In chapter five of The Mass Psychology of Fascism, he declared war on the patriarchal and conservative family which he saw as being at the core of mass conservatism: “From the standpoint of social development,” Reich wrote, “the family cannot be considered the basis of the authoritarian state, only as one of the most important institutions which support it.” The traditional family is a “central reactionary germ cell, the most important place of reproduction of the reactionary and conservative individual. Being itself caused by the authoritarian system, the family becomes the most important institution for its conservation.”

In the eyes of the neo-Marxist affection, both romanticism and traditional family values were obstacles to socialist reform and Reich’s vehicle towards the new world order was … orgasm! In his 1927 study, The Function of the Orgasm, he came to the conclusion that: “there is only one thing wrong with neurotic patients: the lack of full and repeated sexual satisfaction.” In the hands of Reich, the Marx-Freud hybrid was leading to what some critical cynics dubbed “genital utopia.”

Reich believed that for women within the patriarchal society, sex was within the realm of duty and/or restricted to procreation. “The maintenance of the authoritarian family institution requires more than economic dependence of wife and children on husband and father. This dependence can be tolerated only under the condition that the consciousness of being a sexual being is extinguished as far as possible in women and children. The woman is not supposed to be a sexual being, only the producer of children.”(The Mass Psychology of Fascism, Wilhelm Reich pg 56 37. Ibid pg 56)

Within the traditional society, the woman was robbed of any libidinal consciousness: “This idealization of motherhood is essentially a means of keeping women from developing a sexual consciousness and from breaking through the barriers of sexual repression, of keeping alive their sexual anxieties and guilt feelings. The very existence of woman as a sexual being would threaten authoritarian ideology; her recognition and social affirmation would mean its collapse.” Women were mere baby factories, who had only an instrumental role because: “Imperialistic wars require that there be no rebellion in the women against the function that is imposed on them, that of being nothing but child-bearing machines.” This description of the woman and the family fits the traditional Jewish orthodox family rather better than, say, the German, French, Italian or Spanish family cell.

But Wilhelm Reich wasn’t only a dialectic social revolutionary, he was also a pragmatist. He invented the Orgone Energy Accumulator, a wooden box about the size of a telephone booth, lined with metal and insulated with steel wool. The Orgone itself was a vague concept: an esoteric energy, a universal life force that was massless yet omnipresent and promised to charge up the body with the life force that circulated in the atmosphere and which he christened “orgone energy.” His Orgone box promised to improve “orgastic potency” and, by extension, physical and mental health Thus, the newly liberated Western subject was invited to experience the true meaning of Marx and Freud through sweating towards full emancipation by means of accumulating ‘Orgone energy’ in this wooden box.

Those who watched Woody Allen’s comedy film Sleeper (1973) probably remember the Orgasmatron – the orgasm inducing machine. In Allen’s satirical take on Reich’s Orgone box, it is actually the authoritarian regime that encourages its citizens to emancipate themselves by means of their genitalia. In Allen’s prophetic movie, the orgasm, like consumerism is a reward from the oppressive regime that diverts the masses’ attention from their existential misery.

The ‘authoritarian’ Germans, both fascist and communist, quickly expelled Reich from their ranks. By 1934, even Freud didn’t want anything to do with Reich. The progressive Americans however, tolerated his ideas, at least for a while. Reich was eventually arrested and died in an American prison leaving behind some radical minds, still convinced that the Orgone box was acting as a greenhouse for cosmic, libidinal energy. Within the free-ranging pornographic realm in which we live, the universe has become an extended Orgone container: pornography is free to all; genital sex is deemed almost Victorian; heterosexuality, at a certain stage, was on the verge of becoming a marginal adventure. And yet authoritarianism hasn’t disappeared. Quite the opposite; to borrow Marx’s metaphor – it is sex and pornography rather than religion that have become the opium of the masses. And yet, this ‘progressive’ universe in which we live didn’t defeat the inclination towards violence. We are killing millions by proxy in the name of moral interventionism and Coca Cola.

Donate

Sayyed Nasrallah: Trump’s Two Recent Crimes Usher Direct Confrontation with Resistance Forces

Image3

Mohammad Salami

Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah stressed Sunday that the United States of America has recently committed two major crimes, the assassination of the head of IRGC’s Al-Quds Force general Qasem Suleimani as well as the deputy chief of Iraq’s Hashd Shaabi Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis and the announcement of Trump’s Mideast plan.

Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that those two crimes had ushered a direct confrontation with the axis of resistance in Lebanon, calling for forming a comprehensive (political, economical, cultural and legal) resistance front,  against the United States all over the world.

The military choice will never be abandoned, according to the Resistance Leader who pointed out that the US tyrant has not left for the regional peoples except holding guns to fight it.

Delivering a speech during Hezbollah’s “Martyrdom & Insight” Ceremony which marks the anniversary of the martyrs Sheikh Ragheb Harb, Sayyed Abbas Al-Moussawi and Hajj Imad Mughniyeh and the 40th day after the martyrdom of General Suleimani and Hajj Al-Muhandis, Sayyed Nasrallah emphasized that in this confrontation with the United States, we have to trust God’s help, keep hopeful for a bright future and challenge our fear.

Sayyed Nasrallah considered that the confrontation between the United States and the forces which reject to surrender to its will is inevitable, adding that Washington is who has led the region to this conflict, not the resistance.

All the regional peoples must be prepared for the key confrontation, according to Sayyed Nasrallah who added that Trump’s administration is the most arrogant, unjust, Satanic and corrupt in the US history.

Sayyed Nasrallah held the United States responsible for all the Zionist crimes against the Arab people “because it provides the occupation entity”, adding that Washington supports and protects the Saudi-led war on Yemen in order to sell arms for the coalition forces.

“US is responsible for the ISIL’s atrocities in Iraq and Syria. Thank God, the terrorist group was confronted and blocked on Lebanon’s border.”

Sayyed Nasrallah clarified that the US may resort to direct or proxy wars, assassinations, sanctions, and financial as well as legal pressures in order to carry out its schemes, adding that “we have to employ the same means in the comprehensive resistance across the Arab and Islamic World.”

Hezbollah Chief suggested boycotting all the US goods or at least the products of some (e.g. Trump’s) firms, adding that the US point of weakness is its economy.

“The Israeli enemy has a major weakness which is the human losses; similarly, the Americans have their economic and financial situation as a point of fragility.  Hezbollah hit the Israeli enemy at its weakness, so, likewise, we can concentrate on the US economic interests.”

Sayyed Nasrallah called on the elites, scholars, companies and governments in the region to get involved in this comprehensive confrontation with the United States, suggesting that lawyers file lawsuits against the US officials accused of committing crimes.

Sayyed Nasrallah pointed out that the so-called “deal of the century” cannot be described as a ‘deal’ because it refers merely to the plan of the US president Donald Trump’s plan to eradicate the Palestinian cause.

All the Palestinian forces have rejected and may never approve Trump’s scheme, according to Sayyed Nasrallah who considered that this is basic in frustrating the US plan.

Sayyed Nasrallah noted that consistency of stances which reject Trump’s plan is required to frustrate it, adding that the US will is not an inevitable destiny and citing previous cases of Washington’s failure when opposed by resistance.

No one approved the US plan except Trump and Netanyahu, according to Sayyed Nasrallah who underscored the Palestinian, Arab and international rejection of the scheme.

Hezbollah leader hailed the consensus of the Lebanese political parties which have rejected Trump’s plan, attributing this attitude to the recognition of the dangers of the scheme to Lebanon and the entire region.

Sayyed Nasrallah noted that Trump’s Lebanon affects Lebanon because it grants the occupied Shebaa Farms, Kfar Shuba hills and the Lebanese part of Al-Ghajar town to the Zionist entity, stipulates naturalizing the Palestinian refugees and impacts the border demarcation.

“The spirit of Trump’s plan will be decisive in the issue of demarcating the land and sea borders with occupied Palestine and will affect Lebanon’s oil wealth.”

Sayyed Nasrallah pointed out that what reassures the Lebanese about the rejection of the naturalization of the Palestinian refugees is the consensual attitude of all the parties in this regard and the prelude of the Constitution, calling for respecting certain groups’ fears related to this issue.

We should not be outraged by the fears and concerns of some Lebanese parties about the naturalization, the farms and hills, and oil resources, according to Hezbollah Chief who also asked about the guarantees for the consistency of the stances which reject Trump’s deal.

“Who can guarantee that the attitude of certain Lebanese parties may not change in favor of Trump’s plan, especially if their approval gets linked to financial aids to Lebanon which is facing a serious economic crisis?”

“Trump plan does not guarantee Palestinian refugees the right of return to their homeland, instead calling for them to be granted citizenship in the states they currently reside in.”

Sayyed Nasrallah considered that the Arab attitude towards Trump’s plan is excellent, adding but some said that it can be studied being the only choice.

“This is how surrender begins. It is scary that some Arab, especially Gulf, regimes may individually approve Trump’s deal.”

“It’s right to say that Trump’s deal was born dead, but it’s also right to say that Trump insists on implementing it.”

Meanwhile, Sayyed Nasrallah fraternally addressed the Iraqi people, calling on them to respond to the US crime of assassinating the two martyrs Hajj Al-Muhandis and General Suleimani, preserve the Popular Mobilization (Hashd Shaabi) in spite of the US scheme to eradicate it, expel the US forces of Iraq, and strengthen the Iraqi role in the region.

Sayyed Nasrallah started his speech with felicitations on the birthday of Sayyeda Fatima Al-Zahraa (P), the daughter of Prophet Muammad (PBUH).

Hezbollah leader also congratulated Imam Khamenei and all Iranians on the 41st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution’s victory, adding that Iran has remained strong and will never stop supporting the oppressed people all over the world and recalling the enemy’s bets on the collapse of the Islamic regime.

Sayyed Nasrallah further felicitated the Bahraini people, led by Sheikh Issa Qassem, on the ninth anniversary of their peaceful revolution which seeks democracy and freedom

Sayyed Nasralah highlighted the sacrifices made by the Bahrainis (martyrs, wounded and arrestees) against the unjust regime, “which turned Bahrain to a treachery platform conspiring against the Palestinian cause and normalizing ties with the Zionist entity.”

Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that the martyrs General Qasem Suleimani, Hajj Abu Mahdi Al-Muhanidis,  Al-Muhandis, Sayyed Abbas al-Moussawi, Sheikh Ragheb Harb and Hajj Imad Mughniyeh had faith, loyalty and honesty as common traits, adding that they assumed responsibility and showed willingness to make limitless sacrifices.

Sayyed Nasrallah highlighted that the resistance is not a matter of speeches separate from the reality, calling for reading the will of martyr Suleimani who used to assume the responsibility of his people and Umma.

It is worth noting that the ceremony started with a blessed recitation of Holy Quranic verses before Lebanon’s and Hezbollah’s anthems were played.

February 16 is the martyrdom anniversary of Hezbollah’s Leaders, Sheikh Ragheb Harb, Sayyed Abbas Al-Mousawi and Hajj Imad Mughniyeh, all were assassinated by the Zionist enemy throughout different years of confrontation, but in the same week.

Sheikh Ragheb Harb was assassinated by an Israeli agent on February 16, 1984.

Late Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Abbas al-Mousawi was martyred, along with his wife and son, when an Israeli airstrike attacked his convoy as he was attending the commemoration anniversary of Sheikh Harb on February 16, 1992.

Later on February 12, 2008, Hezbollah’s top military commander Hajj Imad Moghniyeh was martyred in a car bomb attack carried out by Israeli Mossad agents.

On January 3, 2020, a US drone attack targeted a vehicular convoy for the head of the IRGC Al-Quds Force General Qassem Suleimani and the deputy chief of Hasd Shaabi Committee Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis, claiming both of them in addition to a number of their companions.

Source: Al-Manar English Website

Related Videos

Related Articles

6 شباط: إسقاط 17 أيار…. وإسقاط صفقة القرن!

صفقة القرن.. طريق للتحرير

ناصر قنديل

يتعامل الكثيرون باستخفاف مع التزام قوى وحكومات محور المقاومة بإسقاط صفقة القرن، ويستعينون بكل ما لديهم من وسائل التعجب للقول إنها أميركا يا جماعة، ومعها الغرب والعرب، وما تقوله ثمرة دراسة وتوظيف مقدرات، وليس من الواقعية توقع سقوط صفقة القرن بعدما أعلنها الرئيس الأميركي، بل يمكن الاكتفاء بإعلان الاعتراض عليها، ويستعينون بالذاكرة ليستحضروا مثال كامب ديفيد، ليضيفوا أن أربعة عقود مضت على توقيعه ولا يزال على قيد الحياة، ورغم وجود معارضة واسعة له بقي أمراً واقعاً. وكي يكون النقاش مبسطاً وسهلاً على هؤلاء، لن نغوص في الفوارق الكبيرة بين حالتي كامب ديفيد وصفقة القرن، حيث لا وجود لشريك فلسطيني في صفقة القرن مقابل وجود رئيس مصري يزور القدس ويعلن استعداده للتوقيع في كامب ديفيد، وحيث الموضوع في صفقة القرن يتصل بالقدس ومستقبلها، بينما يتعلق الأمر بسيناء في كامب ديفيد، ومقابل تضمين صفقة القرن منح القدس لكيان الاحتلال، قامت تفاهمات كامب ديفيد على عودة سيناء لمصر، لكننا سنتخطى كل ذلك ونخفض مستوى النقاش بالعودة إلى الذاكرة فقط والمقارنة مع مخزونها.

عندما اجتاحت قوات الاحتلال العاصمة اللبنانية بيروت، وكشفت بوضوح عن تفاهمات دولية وعربية سبقت الاجتياح مضمونها أن يكون لبنان الدولة العربية الثانية التي توقع اتفاق سلام مع “إسرائيل” بعد مصر، جاءت القوات الأميركية إلى بيروت من ضمن تشكيل إطار قوات متعدّدة الجنسيات شاركت فيها فرنسا وإيطاليا وبريطانيا وتمركزت في العاصمة بيروت. وقام الخبراء الأميركيون بإعادة بناء وتسليح وتنظيم الجيش اللبناني لمواجهة أي اعتراض قد يواجه مشروع الاتفاق المطلوب بين لبنان و”إسرائيل”. وبدأت المفاوضات فوراً، برعاية أميركية تولاها المبعوث الرئاسي الأميركي من أصل لبناني فيليب حبيب، وخلال شهور قليلة أنجز الاتفاق الذي عرف بتاريخ إقراره في 17 أيار 1983، وصادق عليه وزير الخارجية الأميركية آنذاك جورج شولتز، وخلال عشرة شهور امتدت حتى 6 شباط 1984 كان الأميركيون يتلقون الضربات القاتلة، وكان الجيش الذي بنوه يتشقق وينهار، وكانت المقاومة بوجه الاحتلال تبلغ مراحل متقدّمة تفرض انسحابات على جيش الاحتلال بعد الانسحاب الأول من بيروت، وخلال أسابيع رحل الأميركيون وبدأ مسار سياسي انتهى بإسقاط اتفاق 17 أيار.

ما أشبه اليوم بالأمس، لكن مع فوارق الغلبة لليوم، فـ”إسرائيل” تواجه اليوم في فلسطين والمنطقة ما لم يكن موجوداً يومها، حيث تقع منشآتها الحيوية في مرمى صواريخ المقاومة الفلسطينية واللبنانية والعراقية واليمنية، ومحور المقاومة يخوض مواجهة عنوانها إخراج الأميركيين من المنطقة، وأين مقدرات الذين أخرجوا الأميركي من لبنان قياساً بمقدرات الذي يسعون لإخراجه اليوم، ويومها كانت أميركا و”إسرائيل” في مرحلة صعود القوة، وهما اليوم في مرحلة الانحدار، أما الموقف العربي فيكفي أن نستعيدَ دعم قمة الدار البيضاء لتوقيع لبنان على الاتفاق باستثناء سورية ورئيسها الراحل حافظ الأسد الذي تعهّد بإسقاط الاتفاق، كما تعهّد السيد علي الخامنئي اليوم بإسقاط صفقة القرن وموتها تحت عين الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب وهو على قيد الحياة. وموضوع 17 أيار كان لبنان بينما موضوع صفقة القرن هو القدس والعودة وفلسطين، واللبنانيون كانوا منقمسين حول الاتفاق بينما يتوحّد الفلسطينيون في رفض الصفقة، وأميركا هي التي تدرس كل شيء وتخطّط وتحسب الاحتمالات، وتجهز الفرضيات وتصدر الأوامر للعرب، فلماذا لم يتجرأ أحد منهم على إعلان التأييد لصفقة القرن وقرّروا رفضها في الجامعة العربية، بينما أيدوا اتفاق 17 أيار قبل أن يولد، وكيف فاجأتهم الأحداث واضطروا للهرب بحراً، وترك الاتفاق يسقط؟

الشيء بالشيء يُذكَر، لأنها أميركا، التي طوت الصفحة ومضت عندما تحققت من أن شيئاً لن يغير المعادلة ويعيد الاتفاق إلى الحياة، فتركت الذين راهنوا عليها يواجهون مصيرهم وحدهم، وتتمة الحكاية المعلومة جديرة بالتذكّر للذين يقعون في وهم الرهان اليوم، وما أشبه الأمس باليوم، ونحن في ذكرى انتقاضة 6 شباط، التي ربما ينظر إليها بعض اللبنانيين كفصل من فصول الحرب الأهلية، وننظر إليها كبوابة عبور من زمن الاحتلال إلى زمن المقاومة، ومن بوابتها ننظر بعين التقدير والإجلال والإكبار لرمزها الرئيس نبيه بري، وننتظر نبيه بري عراقي يستثمر تضحيات كل المقاومين ليخرج الأميركيين، ونبيه بري فلسطيني يقود وحدة سياسية وعسكرية بوجه مشروع الاحتلال ليسقط صفقة القرن.

مقالات متعلقة

Al-Quds Car Ramming Op.: 14 «Israelis» Injured, 1 in Critical Condition

By Staff, Agencies

“Israeli” military claimed a car-ramming had left 14 people, mostly soldiers, injured, including one in a serious condition, in central al-Quds [Jerusalem].

The incident occurred early on Thursday near al-Quds’ First Station, a popular entertainment hub.

The “Israeli” army said the soldiers targeted were from the Golani Brigade and were making their way to the Buraq Wall in the Old City of al-Quds [Jerusalem].

Police said the driver of the vehicle had fled the scene and “a large force of officers were carrying out searches.”

“We saw three young people lying down on the sidewalk and around nine others who were also hit were standing,” Magen David Adom medic Oz Faulk said. “One person was unconscious. A 20-year-old who suffered from head and body injuries told us a car had come and run them over.”

The situation is also tense in the “Israeli”-blockaded Gaza Strip.

“Israeli” warplanes attacked what they claimed were Hamas targets in the besieged coastal sliver early on Thursday.

The “Israeli” army claimed that its airstrikes came “in response to mortars and explosive balloons launched from Gaza” into the occupied territories.

Violence has surged in the occupied lands following the release of US President Donald Trump’s self-proclaimed “deal of the century,” which all Palestinian groups have unanimously rejected.

Trump’s Middle East scheme largely meets the “Israeli” entity’s demands in the decades-old conflict while creating a Palestinian state with limited control over its own security and borders.

It also enshrines al-Quds as to so-called “capital” of the “Israeli” entity and allows the regime to annex settlements in the occupied West Bank and the Jordan Valley.

The proposal further denies the right of return of Palestinian refugees into their homeland, among other controversial terms.

Hamas, Islamic Jihad Hail Car Ramming Attack: Practical Response to “Deal of The Century”

February 6, 2020

Hamas and Islamic Jihad Palestinian Resistance movements hailed on Thursday a car ramming attack in Al-Quds in which 14 Israelis were injured.

Islamic Jihad said the operation in Al-Quds represents a new phase of confrontation with the Zionist entity that aims at foiling US President Donald Trump’s so-called “Deal of the Century” and defending holy sites.

“The one who carried out the operation knows well what he wants. He targeted group of well-armed soldiers,” the group said in a statement.

The operation comes at a time the Israeli occupation intensifies its raids against Palestinians in West Bank and refugee camps, the Islamic Jihad said stressing that such operations prove that the Palestinian people won’t surrender and will firmly defend its country.

Hamas also hailed the attack, describing it as a “practical response” to the “Deal of the Century.”

Spokesman Hazem Qassem said the operation was part of resistance operations, including a series of demonstrations in the occupied West Bank.

“The resistance acts throughout the West Bank — the clashes between our people from the far south of the West Bank to the north, and the resistance operation in the heart of occupied Jerusalem — are a practical response by our people to Trump’s announcement of the liquidation deal,” Qassem said.

Source: Al-Manar and AFP

Related Videos

Related News

حكام العرب في مأزق وليس لبنان… فلا تبتزّوا دياب!

ناصر قنديل

– تتعرّض حكومة الرئيس حسان دياب، التي لا تتبنّى انحيازاً مسبقاً لأي رأي أو محور إقليمي، للابتزاز تحت عنوان، إياكم وأن تُغضِبوا حكام الخليج، فلبنان في مأزق ويحتاج إلى عطف ورحمة هؤلاء الحكام، عساهم يمنّون عليه ببعض مما لديهم من المال. وينطلق أصحاب التحذير من معطىً معلوم وهو حاجات لبنان المالية ومعطيين خاطئين، الأول أن قرار دفع المال للبنان من العرب ليس عربياً، بل هو قرار تتخذه واشنطن، بمعزل عن كيفية تعامل لبنان مع الحكومات الخليجيّة، والثاني هو أن الحكومات العربية والخليجية خصوصاً مرتاحة لوضعها، وآخر همها ما يفعله وما يقوله لبنان واللبنانيون؛ بينما واقع الحال وما يجري في المنطقة يعبر عن ارتباك خليجي خصوصاً وعربي عموماً، سواء تجاه التجاذب الأميركي الإيراني ومخاوف دفع فواتيره، أو تجاه صفقة القرن وكيفيّة التعامل مع الإحراج الذي تسبّبت به لهم، وهم في السرّ شركاء وفي العلن خصوم.

– لبنان عموماً وحكومة الرئيس دياب خصوصاً، رغم ضغط الوضع المالي الصعب في وضع وصفه السفير الأميركي الأسبق جيفري فيلتمان، إن أفرج العرب والخليجيون خصوصاً عن بعض المال اللازم، ليس لديهم سبب ليكونوا في موقع سياسي مناوئ ولا يبحثون عن خصام. وإن لم يفعلوا، وقد ذكر فيلتمان السعودية بأن ديون لبنان بالعملات الصعبة تبلغ 35 مليار دولار أي أقلّ مما تنفقه السعودية على حرب اليمن في عام واحد، فعندها سيسلك لبنان بدائل لا تُفرح واشنطن وربما دول الخليج، ويفتح أبواب التفاوض مع روسيا والصين، سيتغيّر الوضع إلى غير رجعة، وللذين يقولون إن المال عند العرب والغرب ويختصرون الحديث عن المقارنة بروسيا فيتذاكون بالسؤال، وهل روسيا لديها مال لتعطيه؟ لا بد من إجابتهم أننا في النفط والغاز والخيارات الاستراتيجية نتحدث عن روسيا، أما في المال والشركات الناجحة في مجالات الاتصالات والموانئ والسكك الحديدة والمطارات والكهرباء، وهي تنفذ أهم المشاريع في الغرب نفسه، فالحديث هو عن الصين وليس عن روسيا، ويجب أن يقترن بالتذكير أن أكبر حامل لسندات الخزينة الأميركية هي الصين، بما يزيد عن 3,6 تريليون دولار. ومعلوم أن لا الصين ولا روسيا ستُبديان الاهتمام بلبنان إذا لم يكن لهما فيه نصيب سياسي، ولهما عنده مكانة مميزة. وهذا إن حدث يعرف العرب أن لبنان ليس في مأزق، على ذمة فيلتمان، الذي نصح حكومة بلاده والحكام العرب بتمويل لبنان وعدم الدفع بالأزمة أكثر، كي لا تذهب الأمور إلى خيارات يصعب التراجع عنها.

– في السياسة جاء اجتماع وزراء الخارجية العرب وما بعده الإسلامي، ليقولا إن الخطاب اللبناني كان الأكثر انسجاماً مع نفسه. فلبنان مناهض لصفقة القرن تمسكاً منه بالقضية الفلسطينية وإدراكاً منه أنها قلب قضايا المنطقة وأزماتها، وكل حل لها على حساب حقوق الشعب الفلسطيني سيزيد من التأزم والتوتر. وفوق ذلك لإجماع اللبنانيين على أن الصفقة تنهي حق العودة للاجئين الفلسطينيين وتستبدله بتوطينهم في بلدان اللجوء، وهو ما يرفضه اللبنانيون ويعرفون مدى تأثيره السلبي على توازناتهم وسلمهم الأهلي. بينما أغلب الحكام العرب الواقفين في خندق واشنطن فقلوبهم مع الصفقة، لكنهم يدركون بعقولهم أن ما سبق وقالوه لشعوبهم تبريراً للتهرّب من مسؤولياتهم نحو فلسطين قد صار اليوم قيداً عليهم، فهم أصحاب شعار، نكون وراء الفلسطينيين في ما يختارون وما يقبلون وما يرفضون. وها هم الفلسطينيون يقولون لا مدوية لصفقة ترامب. فوجد العرب أنفسهم في الجامعة وفي المؤتمر الإسلامي ملزمون بقول ما لا ينسجم مع ما فعلوا لتصير الصفقة مشروعاً على الطاولة. وحكام العرب يحتاجون لبنان المناوئ للصفقة والذي يملك مقدرات ودور بقوة مقاومته يحسب له الإسرائيليون ألف حساب، ويشكل إلى جانب الفلسطينيين عقبة كبيرة بوجه مرور الصفقة. ولبنان الذي سيذهب إلى سورية من باب مصلحته الوطنية والاقتصادية منسجم مع نفسه، بينما أغلب الحكام العرب في مأزق فهم يدركون حاجتهم أمس قبل اليوم واليوم قبل الغد لإعادة أفضل العلاقات مع سورية، لكنهم ممنوعون بقوة القرار الأميركي من فعل ذلك، فيستطيعون تحميل المسؤولين اللبنانيين الذاهبون إلى دمشق التحيات والاعتذارات، ويراهنون على القول لاحقاً، نحن شجّعنا اللبنانيين للذهاب إلى دمشق، أو إلى بغداد.

– المواجهة الدائرة في المنطقة بين إيران ومعها محور المقاومة من جهة، وأميركا من جهة مقابلة، ليست معركة قابلة للتحوّل إلى حرب كبرى، وإن حدث ذلك فستكون دول الخليج مسرحها أكثر من لبنان، لكن كما يبدو فنهايتها تسوية تضمن خروج الأميركيين، وحفظ ماء وجههم، وترتيبات جديدة في المنطقة. وهذه الترتيبات تؤكدها الخطوات الأميركية نحو إعلان صفقة القرن وهي تدرك استحالة تحولها مشروعاً عملياً لتكون إبراء ذمة تجاه كيان الاحتلال، لأن واشنطن تدرك أنها كي تذهب إلى التسوية مع إيران ومحور المقاومة يجب أن لا تحمل “إسرائيل” معها ولا تحمل مطالبها، ولذلك فعليها أن تمنح لـ”إسرائيل” ما تستطيع كي تتمكّن من الذهاب للتسوية ولا تتّهم بخيانة “إسرائيل” والتخلّي عنها، لكن في النهاية سيربح دوراً من يملك رصيداً في المحور الذي ستكون له الكلمة العليا في المنطقة، ومن حظ العرب أن يمنحوا لبنان اليوم بعضاً من مال، أملاً بأن يمنحهم لاحقاً بعضاً من نتائج الدور.

فرصة صفقة القرن لوحدة اللبنانيين

ناصر قنديل

عانى لبنان خلال قرن كامل من أولوية الخيارات الإقليمية والخارجية على الخيارات والشؤون الداخلية في رسم الاصطفاف السياسي، بخلاف كل دول العالم التي توحّدها رؤية مشتركة في المفاصل الكبرى لرسم المصالح الوطنية تحتوي اصطفافات داخلية في مواقع متباينة؛ بينما لبنان منذ انقسام اللبنانيين حول الانضمام لدولة الملك فيصل في دمشق، كما قالت مؤتمرات الساحل، أو الاحتفال بلبنان الكبير كما كان خيار زعماء جبل لبنان، منقسم حول الخيارات الإقليمية، بين الدخول في حلف بغداد أو الوقوف مع جمال عبد الناصر، وبين الوقوف مع المقاومة الفلسطينية أو اعتبارها خطراً على السيادة اللبنانية، حتى عندما وقع الاحتلال الإسرائيلي انقسم حوله اللبنانيون، وخلال مسيرة المقاومة تواصل الانقسام ولو تغيّرت الشعارات، وبعد التحرير تغيّرت مرة أخرى الشعارات وتعمق الانقسام، وبقي لبنان عندما ينتصر يشعر بعض الداخل بمرارة الهزيمة، وعندما يسقط صريعاً يشعر بعض الداخل بنشوة النصر، ودائماً كانت القضايا التي تتشكّل منها السياسة في أي بلد تصير ثانوية في لبنان بسبب هذا التشوّه البنيويّ.

ما حملته صفقة القرن من تحدٍّ وجودي للبنان واللبنانيين، أظهر جملة إشارات لفرصة لبنانية تحمل بعض الأمل بتغير قواعد الاشتباك بين القوى السياسية الوازنة، فتلاقى موقف رئيس الجمهورية ورئيس مجلس النواب ورئيس الحكومة مع مواقف أطراف الغالبية وأغلب المعارضة. ويجب النظر بتمعن في موقف تيار المستقبل بصفته القوة الوازنة في الجبهة المقابلة للحكومة، الذي عبر عن تشخيص مخاطر الصفقة وحتميّة مواجهتها، والتمسك بحقوق الشعب الفلسطيني، ودعم نضاله لإسقاط الصفقة، والتمسك بحق العودة ورفض التوطين، والذي ختم بالقول إن الصفقة لن تمرّ، وبالتوازي شهدت ساحات الحراك رغم جفاف الحشود الذي تعانيه منذ أسابيع حركة لافتة لمجموعات خرجت بهتافات تضامنيّة مع الشعب الفلسطيني وقضيته، وهي تهتف “تسقط تسقط إسرائيل”، والحراك هو الضفة الثانية التي يهمّ رصد حركتها لرسم المشهد السياسي المقبل.

بين الشعور بالخوف والقلق من أن تشكل الانقسامات اللبنانية من لبنان الخاصرة الرخوة التي تتلقى كل العائدات السلبية للتحولات الإقليمية، والخوف من ضغوط مالية لفرض تحوّلات بنيوية تفجر الداخل اللبناني بعنوان التوطين، وتجعل الطوائف في حال استنفار ديمغرافي وجودي تتهم بعضها بعضاً بالتواطؤ والتآمر، والقلق من استغلال الوضع المالي لفرض إملاءات لتعديل الحدود الدولية للبنان التي تجاهلتها خرائط صفقة القرن ودعت لتفاوض على ترسيمها، وفي قلبها ثروات النفط والغاز، تتوافر فرصة هامة لتصويب مسار السياسة في لبنان المختلّ منذ قرن، فيلتقي اللبنانيون لحماية المصالح العليا لدولتهم ووطنهم، ويحفظون حق الاختلاف على شؤون السياسة المحلية، كتعبير عن استقامة فهمهم للسياسة بعد طول غياب، لأن لا أحد يدعو للربط بين المسؤوليّة الوطنية عن موقف جامع بوجه صفقة القرن ومخاطرها، وبين الخلافات السياسيّة الداخلية المشروعة، والتي يترتب على فصلها عن مساعي التوظيف في الاصطفاف التصادمي على ضفاف السياسات الخارجية، وضعها في إطارها الطبيعي وإدارتها تحت سقف الأمن الوطني بمفهومه الكبير، القائم على قواعد اللعبة الديمقراطية واحترام أصولها.

الاختبار الحقيقي لصدقيّة هذه الفرصة يتمثل بعدم الاكتفاء بموقف يتيم يليه صمت القبور، بل بقدرة الأطراف السياسية على التصرف كجبهة موحّدة في التصدي للمخاطر التي تستهدف لبنان، وقد باتت محدقة وواضحة المصدر والأهداف، والفصل بينها وبين الخلاف السياسي الداخلي، الذي يمكن إدارته على نار هادئة إذا توحّدت الخطوات التي تعمل جدياً على مواجهة الخطر الداهم. وهذا هو المفهوم الديمقراطي العميق لتداول السلطة الذي لا يعني في غير لبنان إخلالاً بالثوابت الوطنية وتغييراً في التوجهات من المسائل الوطنية، وإذا اجتاز لبنان هذا الامتحان بنجاح سيفتح الباب لتداول السلطة بطريقة سلسة في استحقاقات مقبلة.

فيديوات متعلقة

ردود فعل رسمية وشعبية في غزة رافضة لصفقة القرن
إستمرار فعاليات الاحتجاج في الأردن ضد صفقة القرن

مقالات متعلقة

فوائد صفقة القرن أكثر من أضرارها

ناصر قنديل

أمام الصخب والضجيج الذي نسمعه عن مخاطر صفقة القرن واعتبارها تحوّلاً مفصلياً نحو تصفية القضية الفلسطينية، نحاول التدقيق في الإجابة على سؤال، هل سيغيّر الإعلان الأميركي عن منح كيان الاحتلال التصديق على اغتصاب فلسطين والقدس وإسقاط حق العودة للاجئين في الوضع القانوني الدولي لهذه الركائز التي تتكوّن منها القضية الفلسطينية. فنسأل هل سيغيّر إعلان الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب من موازين القوى السياسية والعسكرية بصورة تتيح لكيان الاحتلال سحق إرادة الشعب الفلسطيني بالقوة وفرض قبول هذا الذل والاستسلام؟ ثم نسأل هل يوجد أي احتمال لإمكانية قبول سياسي وشعبي بالعرض الأميركي يمنح مشروعية للصفقة لتصير صفقة، سواء في السلطة الفلسطينية أو خارجها، هل يوجد مَن هو قادر على قبول مقايضة الهوية والقضية بالمال واتحاد بلديات، مقابل سوبر دولة لكيان الاحتلال، ومنح هذا القبول نسبة وازنة من الشرعية الشعبية والسياسية والحماية لفرضها كأمر واقع؟

عندما يأتي الجواب على كل هذه الأسئلة بالنفي، أي أن لا قدرة أميركية على جعل القرار الأميركي قراراً أممياً يغيّر من الوضع القانوني للأراضي المحتلة وللقدس ولحق اللاجئين بالعودة، وأن لا قدرة إسرائيلية مع الدعم الأميركي المفترض على فرض هذا الحل بالقوة، وأن لا وجود لفرضيّة إيجاد شريك فلسطيني يمنح المشروعيّة الشعبية والسياسية للصفقة ويمهّد لفرضها كأمر واقع، يصير ممكناً القول إن لا أخطار وجودية على القضية الفلسطينية من إعلان ترامب، وأن حدود النتائج المؤذية هي في إقدام كيان الاحتلال على المزيد من إجراءات الضمّ والاستيطان، بتغطية ودعم أميركيين، وأن ما سيترتب على الإعلان الأميركي بالمقابل، إنهاء عقود من الوهم تحت عنوان التسوية السياسية للقضية الفلسطينية، وعقود من الزيف بتسويق واشنطن كوسيط نزيه بين فلسطين وكيان الاحتلال، وإسقاط مزيد من الأقنعة التي عاشت عقوداً على وجوه حكام عرب أدمنوا النفاق بادعاء التمسّك بالحق الفلسطيني وهم يدمنون الولاء والخضوع للمشيئة الأميركية، فهل في هذا ضرر يُصيب القضية الفلسطينية؟

ما سيترتّب على الإعلان الأميركي هو أنه يضع القيادات العربية بين خياري، التمسك بالولاء والخضوع لواشنطن أو التمسك بالحقوق الفلسطينية، وهذا يعني الحكام والنخب والأحزاب، وكذلك يضع القيادات الفلسطينية أمام خيار حصرية المقاومة الشعبية والمسلحة كطريق لحفظ الحق الفلسطيني، والدفاع عن وجود القضية والهوية، والتخلّي عن أوهام التسوية وعن نظرية 99% من أوراق اللعبة بيد أميركا، لأن ما بيد أميركا هو بيد “إسرائيل”، وما سيترتب هو أن الفلسطينيين سيعرفون مَن هم حلفاؤهم بين العرب وفي العالم، ومَن هم المتآمرون عليهم. وهذا سيقضي على أخطر مرض يجتاح البلاد العربية وهو المذهبية والطائفية، وأن المنطقة ستنقسم سياسياً بين جماعة “إسرائيل” تدعمها أميركا، وجماعة فلسطين تدعمها شعوب المنطقة ومقاوماتها.

كانت دائماً مهمة واشنطن في تقديم الحماية الحقيقية لكيان الاحتلال تتجسّد بإدامة وجود وهم لحل القضية الفلسطينية عن طريق التفاوض، وإدامة وهم التمايز بين واشنطن وتل أبيب، لمنح القيادات العربية والفلسطينية التي تدور في الفلك الأميركيّ، فرصة تحييد النسبة الأغلب من الشعوب عن طريق المقاومة، بداعي انتظار نتائج التفاوض، وما يفعله ترامب هو التخلّي عن هذا الدور، والقول بالفم الملآن، ليس هناك واشنطن وتل أبيب. فواشنطن هي تل أبيب وتل أبيب هي واشنطن. وهذه فرصة لوحدة عظيمة لصفوف الشعب الفلسطيني، وفرز تاريخي للخيارات في المنطقة، ونتيجة حتميّة ترفع من شأن خيار المقاومة، وتجعل الصراع مع مشروع الهيمنة الأميركية الإسرائيلية واحداً، وتجعل القوى الحيّة على مساحة المنطقة في الحكومات والأحزاب والنخب والشعوب في جبهة واحدة.

كانت صفقة القرن لتخيفنا، لو كانت في زمن الانكفاء والانكسار في الموقف الروسي، وقدرة واشنطن على فرض رؤيتها على مجلس الأمن الدولي لإسقاط الغطاء القانوني عن مقاومة الشعب الفلسطيني الرافضة للتنازل عن الحقوق. وكانت لتخيفنا لو أننا نعيش زمن صعود القوة العسكرية الأميركية والإسرائيلية وبالتالي قدرتها على سحق قوى المقاومة في فلسطين والمنطقة. وكانت لتخفينا لو أنه بقوة الحضور الدولي الأحاديّ لواشنطن وقدرة القوة العسكريّة على سحق قوى المقاومة، تولّدت حالة من اليأس والخضوع على الساحة الفلسطينية توفر للصفقة شرط اكتمالها بشريك فلسطينيّ وازن، يشتري ويبيع، أما وأن كل هذا ليس في دائرة الممكن فلماذا التفجّع؟

التفجّع على وقوع كارثة اسمها صفقة القرن، يناسب الذين ربطوا مصيرهم السياسي بوهم التسويات والتفاوض والوساطة الأميركيّة، فيجدون أنفسهم في مأزق وجودي بين السير في مشروع ترامب الذي يعادل الانتحار، أو الانتقال إلى معسكر المقاومة مرغَمين. والتفجّع يناسب الذين لبسوا أقنعة الدفاع عن القضية الفلسطينية وتخندقوا في واشنطن، لأنهم يجدون أنفسهم أمام صعوبة الحفاظ على توازنهم وكل قدم في خندق. والمسافة تتسع بين الخندقين وقد بات عليهم حسم أمورهم، وإسقاط أقنعتهم. والتفجّع يناسب الذين أمضوا حياتهم يرسمون الخرائط لتوليفة يرضاها الأميركي ويقتنع بها الإسرائيلي، وهم يظنّون أن التسوية آتية ومشكلتها تقنية، أما الذين يؤمنون بأن فلسطين لأهلها من البحر إلى النهر، ويؤمنون بأن القدس الموحّدة عاصمتها، ويؤمنون بحق شعب فلسطين في الشتات بالعودة إلى أرضه وتقرير مصيره وبناء دولته، فيجدون بما يجري تأكيداً لما أفنوا العمر وهم يردّدونه على مسامع الأرض، بأن لا أمل يرتجى من الرهان على أميركا، وأن لا حلّ مع هذا الكيان ولا عودة للحقوق إلا بالمقاومة، ويجدون بما يجري مزيداً من الروافد لتأكيد منطقهم وصواب خياراتهم، ودفعاً لها للتقدّم لتصير خيار الشعوب في المنطقة بعد سنوات من التخدير تحت عنوان الوسيط الأميركي النزيه والخيار التفاوضي الممكن وانتظار التسوية الآتية.

فيديوات متعلقة

تغطية خاصة | 2020-01-28 | صفقة القرن
تغطية خاصة | 2020-01-28 | إعلان ترامب لبنود صفقة القرن
المشهديّة | 2020-01-28 | ترامب يعلن صفقة القرن
خطة ترامب واستراتيجية اسقاطها
نشرة الأخبار | المسائية | 2020-01-2020
صفقة ترامب وخيار الرد

مقالات متعلقة

Hezbollah Slams Trump’s ‘Deal of Century’, Arab Regime’s Involvement, Says People Can Overthrow it Soon

Translated by Staff

Hezbollah issued the following statement:

Hezbollah condemns and strongly rejects the deal of shame tabled by the savage Trump administration at the expense of the Palestinian people, their land, sanctities and legitimate natural rights. It regards the deal as a very dangerous step that carries serious repercussions for the region’s future and its peoples.

Hezbollah’s view is that the satanic American administration completed the ‘Israeli’ aggression today by trying to eliminate the historical and legitimate rights of the Palestinian people after decades of supporting the enemy, its occupation, its aggressions and massacres against the Arab peoples.

This deal would not have taken place had it not been for the complicity and betrayal of a number of Arab regimes secretly and publicly involved in this conspiracy. The people of our nation who believe in the Palestinian cause will never forgive those rulers who, for the sake of their tenuous thrones, wasted a long history of martyrs, suffering and resisting the occupation at the expense of truth and dignity.

The resettlement project that is part of this deal is one of the most visible dangers aimed at stamping out the right of return and depriving the Palestinian people of their rights to their lands, eliminate the Palestinian cause from the memory of its sons and work to create social and demographic tensions as well as evolving sedition that only serve the enemy’s interests and goals in expansion.

What happened today in Washington confirms that resistance is the only option to liberate the land and restore the sanctities. All the other negotiating options do not return the land nor liberate prisoners but rather push the enemy towards further aggression and arrogance.

We applaud the Palestinian people, leaders and resistance factions for being at the forefront rejecting and confronting, with full force, the so-called deal of the century. Their brave stances have become the compass for our Arab and Islamic peoples, which have lost confidence in many of their regimes and rulers. And they believe that the Palestinian people will be the beacon of hope at this stage as they have been in the past.

Affirming that all conspiracies, deals and betrayals cannot eradicate the Palestinians’ right to their lands and sanctities and the right of return to their villages and cities, Hezbollah stresses that our nation and its vigilant people are able to overthrow this deal soon and thwart its effects, God willing.

Hezbollah

Lebanon’s Senior Officials Condemn ‘Deal of the Century’

The Lebanese President Michel Aoun on Wednesday contacted the PA Chief Mahmoud Abbas, voicing Lebanon’s solidarity with the Palestinians against “Deal of the Century.

President Aoun stressed that Lebanon holds upon Palestinians’ right to return to their homeland and establish their state whose capital will be Al-Quds (Jerusalem).

Speaker of the House, Nabih Berri, said in a press release issued by his press office that “the deal of the century” has dashed the Palestinians’ little hope of building a country of their own, with Jerusalem its capital.

“This agreement is just a bribe to sell the rights, sovereignty, dignity, and Palestinian Arab lands with Arab money,” Berri said.

“We reconfirm that Lebanon and the Lebanese will not be false witnesses in the new death penalty against the Palestinian people and their legitimate rights, including their right to return home. We will not accept, regardless of the conditions, to be an accomplice in the sale or exchange of these rights,” the statement read.

Finally, Berri called on Arab and Muslim countries, especially the Palestinian people, to strengthen national unity and resistance in order to free up the occupied land and preserve the little remaining Arab dignity.

For his part the Prime Minister Hassan Diab highlighted via Twitter that Al-Quds will remain the destiny, the (central) cause.

Source: NNA

Related Videos

Related Articles

Trump deal will fell peace process house of cards

Omar Karmi Power Suits 24 January 2020

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu on the campaign trail.
 Gili YaariZUMA Press

Brace yourselves, here it comes.

After years of mounting excitement, the time is finally ripe. The US administration is going to show its hand and unveil the “closely-held” Ultimate Deal of the Century™ before the main contenders for Israel’s leadership go to Washington on Tuesday.

Maybe.

It’s “a great plan,” according to man-of-the-hour Donald Trump, the US president, neatly dispelling any complaints from moaning snowflakes who keep harping on about rights and history and justice and truth and sustainability and blah, blah, blah.

But what exactly is this great plan?

According to Trump, it’s not what you’ve read already.

What you may have read already comes courtesy of unnamed “senior Israeli officials.” According to them, the plan will see Israel annex all of Jerusalem as well as between 30-40 percent of Area C of the West Bank (the 60 percent of the West Bank already under full Israeli control). This includes the Jordan Valley and thus access to the outside world.

The plan would also give Israel a green light to annex all but 15 settlements in the occupied territory – illegal under international law, but no longer in the eyes of the US administration.

Israel will maintain uncontested military control over all the territory of historic Palestine and Palestinians will have to disarm Hamas and demilitarize the Gaza Strip.

Just words

But what do the Palestinians get? As anyone with any sense knows, a deal can only be “great” if all parties walk away feeling they’ve gained something.

Business mogul handbook 101.

Palestinians get statehood. Apparently. Some Israelis are not happy about that, so maybe not. Who knows? But according to “senior Israeli officials,” part of a plan that “really would work” is Palestinian statehood.

Over what? Not clear. Whatever is left, presumably, once Israel has had its fill. Territory-wise there would apparently be some land swaps, though with whom, where and how much has not been divulged.

Jerusalem? “Symbolic access,” whatever that means.

Sovereignty? No army, no control over borders, no control over airspace. So no.

Right of return for refugees? None. The US administration has made its own calculations, determining that the number of Palestinian refugees is roughly equivalent to Jews who fled Arab countries, therefore negating any right of return or even right to compensation.

Oh and Palestinians get $50 billion from “Sunni countries.” Thanks, guys.

Why now?

Palestinians have rejected the plan out of hand.

What else is the Palestinian Authority going to do? There is nothing in the plan, as outlined above, that any Palestinian leader could ever accept.

But that may be to miss the point.

Partly, this administration wants to ride roughshod over international law. After all, superpowers should not feel restrained by things such as rules. That’s what makes them powerful.

No better place to signal such intent than with Palestinians, whose case in international law is clear, open and shut.

But also, of course, this is about helping a friend in his time of need.

Benjamin Netanyahu, the incumbent prime minister, is trying to ward off corruption prosecution, a prosecution that will be brought should he fail to ensure immunity for himself.

He may not secure immunity if he does not form the next government. Trump is simply trying to help.

And with two Israeli elections already last year, Trump has had plenty of chances to prove his generosity.

First, he granted US blessing to Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem. Next, he recognized Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights.

Then he reversed the US position on settlements in occupied territory.

Cognizant of this, Benny Gantz, Netanyahu’s main rival, has been falling over himself to promise that his annexation will be bigger than Netanyahu’s.

Not only is he trying to win votes, he is also showing that he knows how to play along with a US president who seems to appreciate sycophancy.

What now?

The plan is yet to be published. Many stalwart supporters of Israel have in the past cautioned against publishing such an obviously imbalanced deal.

There’s a good reason. This forces the hand of the Palestinian Authority. It ends its very reason to exist, namely in preparation for statehood. Real statehood. It crosses every “red line” the PA has ever marked out, whether on refugees, territory, sovereignty, Jerusalem, etc, and so on.

It pulls down the whole peace process charade.

Too many institutions, businesses and industries have been built and too many livelihoods are at stake for the PA to disband itself with immediate effect, however advisable that might be.

Indeed, it may well be that the PA leadership will try to simply sit tight and wait Trump out.

But there really is no time for that. The land is disappearing beneath the Palestinians’ feet.

Trump’s Ultimate Deal is the end of the PA.

Finally the USA Supports the One State Solution

 

One State .jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced yesterday that the US is softening its position on Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Secretary Pompeo repudiated the 1978 State Department legal opinion that stated that Jewish settlements in the occupied territories are “inconsistent with international law.”

 It is hard to determine whether the move was intended to rescue Benjamin Netanyahu’s political career or to buy the Jewish Lobby’s support for President Trump at a critical time. It is reasonable to assume that the policy was put forth to advance both aims.

 Pompeo’s declaration was, predictably, welcomed by PM Netanyahu and denounced by Palestinian officials and anyone else who still advances the delusional Two State Solution. Like Secretary Pompeo, I am far from an expert on international law, but it seems the notion of international law is vague or elastic enough to allow the secretary to (mis) interpret it in a radical manner. Yet, unlike most Palestinian solidarity campaigners, I see Trump, his administration and the recent move as a positive development.

 However inadvertently, Trump has finally committed the USA to the One State Solution. It is hard to deny that the area between the ‘River and the Sea’  is a single piece of land. It shares one electric grid, one pre-dial code (+972) and one sewage system. Ay present, the land is ruled over by a racist, tribal and discriminatory ideology through an apparatus that calls itself  ‘The Jewish State;’ and declares itself home for every Jew around the world; yet, is abusive, lethal and some would say genocidal toward the indigenous people of the land.

Yesterday’s move may buy Netanyahu some time and it may save Trump from being evicted from his current residence, but what it did most clearly was to redeliver a message to the Palestinians: In the battle for your liberation you are alone. America is not a negotiator, it has never been one. The USA has a side in the conflict and it is not your side.

In categorical terms Pompeo’s declaration repeats Trump’s earlier decision to move the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. On December 6, 2017, President Trump announced that the United States recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and ordered the relocation of the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. No doubt, the move bought Trump support from the Jewish Lobby in America, and political gain for Netanyahu in the Jewish State, it was also an unambiguous message to the Palestinians: there is no prospect of a  harmonious and peaceful solution for your plight.

 For the Palestinians, the move also exposed the misleading and dangerous nature of their ‘solidarity’ movement. Jewish ‘anti’ Zionist institutions have undertaken a relentless effort to suppress the Palestinian’s Right of Return and replace it with watery alternatives such as ‘End of occupation’ or  ‘the Right to BDS.’ Trump’s move forced the Palestinians to accept that they were alone in their battle and finally  accept that The Right of Return is the core and the essence of their plight. Less than four months after Trump’s Jerusalem decision, on 30 March 2018,  thousands of Gazans gathered on the Israeli border to demand a return to their land.

That clumsy decision by Trump made to serve some immediate political purpose to do with Jewish support has matured into a vast awakening for the Palestinians.  Week after week, for almost three years, Gazans have arrived at the Gaza border in the thousands to bravely confront the IDF’s merciless snipers, tanks and air force.  The Hamas owes a big thank you to Trump who has managed to fuel and unite the Palestinians with a renewed spirit of fearless resistance. Israeli military analysts and commanders admit that the situation at the Gaza border is pretty much out of control. They agree that Israel’s power of deterrence is literally a matter of  nostalgia. Accordingly, Palestinian resistance organizations do not hesitate to retaliate against  Israel. Last week Israel was hit by the rain of 400 rockets fired over the course of only two days in response to  Israel’s assassination of a Palestinian Islamic Jihad militant.

 Pompeo’s declaration provides an explicit and necessary message to the Palestinians in general and in the West Bank in particular. The conflict is not progressing toward a peaceful resolution. Those amongst the Palestinians who advocated the ‘Two States Solution’ will have to hide now.  Pompeo has affirmed that there is one Holy Land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. From now on the battle over this disputed land is whether it will be subject to the racist discriminatory ideology implied by the notion of “The Jewish State” and its ‘National Bill,’ or if it will transform itself into a ‘State of its Citizens’ as is inherit in the notion of One Palestine.

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

Global Research, November 16, 2019
Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc. 3 March 2013

Introduction

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

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

“Greater Israel” is de facto part of the election campaign.  Netanyahu has pledged to annex large parts of the occupied West Bank if he wins in the forthcoming September 17 elections.

Netanyahu, who is fighting for his political life after an inconclusive vote in April [2019], said that Israel will “apply Israeli sovereignty to the Jordan Valley and the northern Dead Sea immediately” if he secured a fifth term in the September 17 polls. (Al Jazeera, September 11, 2019

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

“Greater Israel” consists in an area extending from the Nile Valley to the Euphrates. According to Stephen Lendman, “A near-century ago, the World Zionist Organization’s plan for a Jewish state included:

• historic Palestine;

• South Lebanon up to Sidon and the Litani River;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The Zionist Plan for the Middle East

Translated and edited by

Israel Shahak

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

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

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

from

Oded Yinon’s

“A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties”

Published by the

Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc.

Belmont, Massachusetts, 1982

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

Table of Contents

 Publisher’s Note1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

Khalil Nakhleh

July 23, 1982

Foreward

by Israel Shahak

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

Israel Shahak

June 13, 1982


 

A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties

by Oded Yinon

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

29

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

30

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

31

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

Conclusion

1

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

2

The Military Background of The Plan

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

3

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

4

Why it is necessary to publish this in Israel?

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

5

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

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

6

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

Israel Shahak

June 17, 1982 Jerusalem

About the Translator

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

Notes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Wandering Israelis?

 

yeridda.jpg

By Eve Mykytyn*

One of Israel’s founding myths was that it would provide a homeland to a “people without a home.”  Before and especially after World War II, Zionists claimed that the countries in which Jews lived and were citizens were not a homeland.  Jews, like others, the argument went, were entitled to a homeland populated by Jews. Even at its peak, this argument never convinced a majority of Jews to move to Israel, although especially after 1967, many supported Israel from afar. It seems that some Israelis are also not convinced that they need to live in their ‘homeland.’

A PhD thesis by Omri Shafer Raviv, reported on recently by 972, documents the ‘professors committee’  formed by the Israeli government in 1967 in response to Israel’s sovereignty over the ousted Palestinians in conquered territories.  The committee explored how to limit resistance from and encourage the out migration of Palestinians. The professors were surprised by their findings that the Palestinians, the indigenous people of the land, did not want to leave even if promised a better life in, for instance, Kuwait.  The professors, who were among the first generation of Jews to live in their newly declared ‘homeland,’ seemed not to understand what it meant to be tied to a homeland. How else could they have failed to predict that what Palestinians wanted most was to return to their homes, their land, their villages? Over fifty years on, and despite the horrendous living conditions many of them suffer, the Palestinians refuse to disappear.

Emigration has been a continuing issue in Israel, and one that undermines the notion of Israel as a homeland. Initially scorned by Israelis, outward migration was dismissed, as by former Israeli Prime Minister Rabin, as “a fallout of cowards.” But, from its inception, some immigrants chose to leave Israel, in 1942 of the 4,000 Jews who settled in mandatory Palestine, 450 left.  And even in the 1950s, when Israel had one of its greatest increases in population from immigration, outward migration was recognized as a problem. In 1953 the governor of the central bank of Israel, David Horowitz, argued that economic conditions would have to improve for the trend [of emigration] to change, implicitly recognizing that the pull of the homeland was weaker than the prospect of economic success. The discussion of emigration was and is perhaps a sign of Zionist insecurity. If Israel is truly the Jewish homeland, why do so many Jews and Israelis fail to see it that way? The Jerusalem Post notes a more practical concern, “Israelis are acutely aware that the future of Israel as both a Jewish and democratic country depends on maintaining a solid Jewish majority.”

How significant is the issue of outward migration? Despite a plethora of articles (see for ex.) trumpeting a decline in emigration, the number of Israelis who leave exceeds new immigration. The statistics  are opaque,  Israel doesn’t record or perhaps doesn’t  know the intent of those leaving. Recent analysis suggests that Israeli immigration to the UK surpassed British immigration to Israel by a ratio of three to two. Israel’s US Embassy estimates that between 750,000 and one million Israelis live in the United States.

But what is more important is that almost 40% of young  Israelis have expressed an interest in moving their lives elsewhere. They live in a Jewish homeland, and yet they want to wander.

The primary reason young Israelis give for leaving is their inability to earn a decent living. Some cite Israel’s cronyism and shady business deals, they either can’t or don’t choose to participate in a job market that is ‘fixed.’  One can hope that these young ex Israelis, having seen the corrosive effects of tribal rule, will be less inclined to treat the rules of their adopted countries with contempt.

One mother whose sons emigrated opined that it is the ‘finest’ who are leaving. “They are good, high-quality people who can contribute….who are leaving… They stand out abroad. They are considered smart and successful compared to the Canadians.” (Apparently supremacism is present in Israel.) Available statistics support her claim that more educated Israelis leave in greater numbers and this may be because they are the most able to find good jobs elsewhere. In 2017, 5.8% of Israelis with undergraduate degrees had been living abroad for at least three consecutive years. For Israelis with PhDs, it was 11%, a loss of one in nine PhDs. See for more details on the disproportionate Israeli brain drain phenomenon.

To counteract this trend, in 2011 Israel launched “The Israel Brain Gain Program” to help overseas Israelis find jobs at home. Apparently the targeted Israelis were not amenable to returning to their ‘homeland’ and the program was abandoned as a failure.

Does the lack of a Jewish identity cause young Israelis to make decisions based on economics?  Tomer Treves writes that people are leaving  “because of what became of the Zionist idea. The moment the tie with Israel is weakened, the point of remaining is measured by the quality of life, and Israel is not in a good place from that point of view…” Treves posits that the most important factor in loyalty to Israel is  “where on our scale of identity we place Jewish identity. [When the] decision to live in Israel is no longer based on values,” by which he means ‘identifying as Jewish’ “economic parameters enter the equation.” But this argument assumes that loyalty to Israel and a Jewish identity are the same. Those who leave are not renouncing their identity as Jewish, instead they are rejecting the notion that to be Jewish means living in Israel.

Do these recently departed Israelis retain their ties to Israel?  There was an interesting attempt to answer this question by the right wing organization, American Israel Council. AIC sent a questionnaire to Israeli immigrants in the United States that asked who they would support in the event of an Israeli/American rift, whether American Jews (even if they disagreed with Israel’s policies) had an obligation to defend Israel publicly and the extent to which they believed American Jews influenced America’s policies.

Haaretz noted that “two sensitive and potentially explosive” issues have “plagued” American Jews and their relationship to Israel. “The first relates to claims of  dual allegiance” to both Israel and the United States; the other “concerns the pro-Israel, American Jewish lobby.” The now widely utilized IHRA definition of anti Semitism provides that accusations of dual loyalty are anti Semitic. Yet a pro Zionist body asked about these issues  in a manner designed to elicit responses showing loyalty to Israel. Perhaps insecurity about the extent to which present day emigrants support Israel was the impetus for the AIC survey.

Israeli Professor Tamar Hermann worries that the children of Israeli emigrants will not be Israeli, instead they “become Americans, Canadians or Europeans… Israeliness is generally not sustained in the second generation.”  It is not only ‘Israeliness’ that is not sustained in the second generation. This is a hallmark of immigration in general, and in Israel itself. See, for ex. Is there something about Israel that makes it troublesome that the children of those who leave will likely identify with their new land?

Initially, Israel as a homeland was an attractive concept for Jews who felt victimized by widespread anti Semitism. Now it seems that emigrating Israelis are following in the steps of their ancestors, and not the mythical ones to whom God supposedly gave title to land. In the past, and despite the efforts of some to assimilate that were ultimately unsuccessful, the Jews maintained tribal rather than national ties. Young Israelis who move in search of better opportunities may have similarly limited loyalty to their ‘homeland’  and are simply behaving as wanderers.

* – https://www.evemykytyn.com/writing/wandering-israelis

Gulf Concessions to «Israel» Have Yielded Nothing in Return

Gulf Concessions to «Israel» Have Yielded Nothing in Return

By Kamel Hawwash, TRT

The utopia of the Middle East free from conflict is not within reach at the moment. Conflict is likely to characterize the region for years if not decades to come. The people of the region are the victims, especially the youth, who in many countries were born into conflict, and it is the only life they’ve known.

“Israel” is at the heart of several conflicts. It remains in occupation of Palestinian, Syrian and Lebanese land. In recent months, it has attacked targets in Syria, Lebanon and even Iraq. The justification this time was that it was countering Iran’s presence.

In previous decades, it attacked targets in Tunisia and Sudan. “Israel’s” planes attacked both Iraqi and Syrian nuclear facilities and its operatives killed nuclear scientists in Syria, Iran and Iraq.

It is also worth remembering that its operatives killed a Palestinian, Mahmoud Al Mabhouh, in a hotel in Dubai in 2010. In 2016, “Israel” was thought to have killed Mohammed Al Zawari, a Tunisian drone expert, who it claimed worked with Hamas’ al-Qassam brigade. In 2018, Palestinian academic Fadi Al Batsh was killed in Malaysia and “Israel” was again the prime suspect.

Its repeated attacks on the beleaguered Gaza strip have left thousands dead, tens of thousands wounded and scores of homes destroyed. It has annexed illegally occupied East Jerusalem [al-Quds] and the Syrian Golan Heights.

“Israel” has not only denied Palestinian refugees the right to return in accordance with international law, but it has also been working to remove their status as refugees and to close down UNRWA.

“Israel” claims the UNRWA, which provides jobs and relief to the Palestinian refugees, perpetuates the conflict with the Palestinians. However, this is a conflict that started when it was created through violence, resulting in the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians to neighboring Arab states, in which they continue to languish in desperate conditions.

“Israel” also continues to settle its population illegally on occupied land in Palestine and the Golan Heights.

“Israel” is likely the most destabilizing and aggressive state in the region, which the international community needs to reign in, rather than treat it with kid-gloves. None of its aggressive actions has led to any accountability, either by individual states or the international community.

Now, the most aggressive state in the Middle East is developing a “non-aggression pact” with some Gulf States.

The claim comes from “Israel’s” so-called Foreign Minister, Israel Katz, who further claimed that he met with several foreign ministers from Arab Gulf states on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly last month, as reported by Channel 12 news recently.

The TV channel claimed that Katz presented his Gulf counterparts with a draft text of the intended pact, which was drawn up by the so-called “Israeli” Foreign Ministry.

It reportedly highlights the opportunity to advance common interests in the context of the threat posed by Iran and is drafted in accordance with the principles of international law. Yes, you read that correctly. The Middle Eastern country responsible for serial breaches of international law when it comes to conflicts with its neighbors, especially the Palestinians, suddenly sees international law as a reference point for this ‘pact’.

“Israel” currently sees an opportunity to make gains it could only have only dreamt about just a few years ago. The Trump Administration has handed it not only significant wins that it can offer but pushed the narrative to “Israel’s” neighboring states that the greatest threat they pose is not from “Israel”, but Iran.

This has all been allowed by the United States’ unilateral decisions recognizing Jerusalem [al-Quds] as “Israel’s” so-called capital and recognizing “‘Israeli’ sovereignty” over the Golan Heights. The US Special Envoy for negotiations, Jason Greenblatt presented the “Israeli” prime minister with a map showing the Golan Heights as part of “Israel”. While these recognitions were only made by the US and the rest of the world has rejected it, Netanyahu is happy to bank these for now and to push for others to follow the American lead.

Next on the list is likely to be the annexation of vast swathes of the West Bank, which one can be relatively confident in thinking would then be endorsed by US President Donald Trump. This would be an act of political aggression that will deal a fatal blow to any possibility of “peace” between the “Israelis” and the Palestinians.

In the past few years, some Gulf States have warmed relations with “Israel”, allowing sporting teams to compete on Arab soil and “Israeli” ministers, including the prime minister himself to visit these countries.

However, what has “Israel” offered in return to convince these states that further normalization and a “non-aggression pact” would help bring stability and peace nearer? The answer is a resounding nothing.

In other words, “Israel” takes and never gives. It wants to see the “Israeli” flag fly over Gulf capitals but will not recognize the Palestinian people’s rights.

Before racing to sign a “non-aggression pact” with “Israel”, Gulf States should insist it first ends its status as the most aggressive state in the region. Until then, they should pour cold water on their normalization efforts. The time for normalization and pacts is not now.

A peaceful Middle East is more out of reach now than it’s ever been in recent history.

خمسة عناوين من دون اجتماعها… البحث في السلاح معصية Updated

 

أغسطس 23, 2019

ناصر قنديل

– يشكّك البعض في خلفيات الذين يدافعون عن سلاح المقاومة ويتمسّكون بما هو أكثر من بقائه، فيستنكرون مجرد وضعه في التداول ويستغربون أن يصدر ذلك عن أي وطني عاقل، لا تحرّكه حسابات خارجية لا علاقة لها بالمصالح الوطنية اللبنانية. ويحاول هذا البعض تشويه خلفية الموقف المتمسك بالسلاح والداعي لسحب الجدل حوله من التداول، لأنه تداول لن يكون بمنأى من الاستغلال الإسرائيلي، فيصوّرون الخلفية ذات صلة بمحاور إقليمية أو ترجيح موازين قوى محلية، بعكس ما تقول تجربة سلاح المقاومة على الأقل منذ أن اكتشف خصومه أنه أهم بكثير مما كانوا يتخيّلون، عندما كانوا يشككون بفاعليته في إجبار إسرائيل على الانسحاب من الجنوب اللبناني بعدما سقطت وصفاتهم البديلة و الجميلة تباعاً بضربات المكر الدولي والحماية المفتوحة الممنوحة لـ إسرائيل ، كما فاعليته في ردع إسرائيل عن العدوان وتوفير الحماية للبنان.

– إذا توقفنا عن تبادل الاتهامات وفكرنا بعقل بارد لبناني صرف، ونسينا التزامنا الأخلاقي والوطني والإنساني والعربي بفلسطين والقضية الفلسطينية، فإن بيننا وبين إسرائيل أربعة عناوين عالقة لا يمكن لعاقل أن يبحث في مصير سلاح المقاومة بدون اجتماعها كلها محققة ومنجزة على الطاولة، أولها الأراضي المحتلة، وثانيها تثبيت وتكريس الحق اللبناني في استثمار ثرواته المائية والنفطية والغازية، وثالثها ضمان عودة اللاجئين الفلسطينيين المقيمين في لبنان، ورابعها وقف الانتهاكات البحرية والبرية والجوية للسيادة اللبنانية، وكلها اليوم قضايا ساخنة وراهنة، يشعر الإسرائيلي والأميركي بوطأة قوة سلاح المقاومة في منعه من فرض رؤيته لها، ولا يمكن فهم تناول مستقبل السلاح المقاوم في ظل هذه المعادلات الضاغطة، إلا كامتداد لطلب أميركي هادف لتوفير شروط أكثر ملاءمة لـ إسرائيل في التفاوض على ترسيم الحدود البرية، خصوصاً في مزارع شبعا، وترسيم الحدود البحرية خصوصاً في مناطق النفط والغاز، والسير بحلول لقضية اللاجئين الفلسطينيين ليس بينها العودة تطبيقاً لمندرجات صفقة القرن التي يرفضها الفلسطينيون ويفترض أن لبنان يرفضها أيضاً. فكيف يتعرّى لبنان من أهم مصادر قوته، وبماذا يمكن له التعبير عن حضوره في معادلات الرفض والقبول؟

– بالمعيار الوطني البسيط يصير مفهوماً بعض الكلام عن السلاح المقاوم، لو كنا أمام قوى سياسية قاتلت لسنوات لمواجهة الخطر الصهيوني، وأنتجت بناء دولة قوية وقادرة وجيش مجهّز بكل أسباب القوة والسلاح والمقدرة على منع العدوان وحماية الحدود والحقوق. والتحذير من هذا الخطر موجود منذ قرن في الأدبيات اللبنانية، كما وصفه مؤسسو اليمين الكياني اللبناني، ولا نتحدث هنا عن تحذيرات الزعيم أنطون سعاده أو مفكّري اليسار والقومية العربية، او الإمام السيد موسى الصدر، بل عن شارل مالك وميشال شيحا وموريس الجميل. ولذلك فالعنوان الخامس الذي لا تستقيم وطنية دعاة نقاش مصير السلاح من دونه هو جيش مجهّز على الأقل بقدرة دفاع جوي وقدرة ردع صاروخي، والمانع أمامهما هم أصدقاء واشنطن من اللبنانيين، لأنهم يمنعون الجيش من التزوّد بسلاح روسي تزوّد به الكثير من حلفاء واشنطن وأعضاء الناتو، وها هي تركيا مثال، لكنه ممنوع على لبنان.

– أيّها السادة، حديثكم عن السلاح اليوم معصية موصوفة، وإن ارتكبتم المعاصي فاستتروا!

Related Videos

أجتماع جيد جدا”  لحلف المهزومين”

Related News

 

يخطئ من يظنّ أنّ رفض التوطين يعني حرمان الفلسطينيين من حقوقهم المدنية والاقتصادية والاجتماعية والثقافية

أغسطس 23, 2019

حريدة البناء

نظمت عمدة التربية والشباب في الحزب السوري القومي الاجتماعي وتجمع المنظمات الشبابية الفلسطينية شبابنا اعتصاماً أمام وزارة العمل، تزامناً مع انعقاد جلسة مجلس الوزراء اللبناني، وذلك احتجاجاً على إجراءات التضييق على شعبنا الفلسطيني ودعماً لحقوقه المشروعة الإنسانية والاجتماعية، وتأكيداً على رفض صفقة القرن والتمسك بحق العودة ورفض مؤامرات التوطين والتشريد.

شارك في الاعتصام من الحزب السوري القومي الاجتماعي عضو المجلس الأعلى سماح مهدي، وكيل عميد التربية والشباب إيهاب المقداد، منفذ عام منفذية المتن الجنوبي محمد عماشة وأعضاء هيئة المنفذية ومدراء مديريات الرويس والشياح وبرج البراجنة وحي السلم وصحراء الشويفات والغبيري وحشد من القوميين.

كما شارك ممثلون عن المكاتب التربوية والشبابية للمنظمات الفلسطينية ومسؤولو تجمع «شبابنا» وحشد من القوميين والمواطنين وأبناء المخيمات.

المقداد

وألقى وكيل عميد التربية والشباب في الحزب السوري القومي الإجتماعي إيهاب المقداد كلمة في الاعتصام جاء فيها:

منذ نكبة فلسطين التي مرّ عليها واحد وسبعون عاماً، وحتى اليوم، لا يزال ابن شعبنا الفلسطيني المقيم في لبنان محروماً من أبسط حقوقه الحياتية، وتزداد هذه الصعوبات تعقيداً تلو تعقيد وصولاً إلى القرار الأخير لوزير العمل في الحكومة اللبنانية .

جميعنا يعلم تعقيدات النظام اللبناني الطائفي المذهبي، لكننا ما تصوّرنا يوماً أن ينجرّ هذا النظام من جراء قرار صادر عن وزير في الحكومة اللبنانية إلى صفة العنصري، خاصة تجاه أبناء شعبنا الفلسطيني في لبنان .

ألا يكفينا ذلك الحصار المفروض على الفلسطيني بمنعه من تملك حتى مسكن واحد يأوي فيه عائلته، فيما يسمح لكلّ حملة باقي الجنسيات المعترف بها من الدولة بالتملك، حتى جاء القرار الأخير لوزير العمل اللبناني ليزيد من حرمان الفلسطيني من حقوقه المدنية والاجتماعية والاقتصادية .

جاء القرار المذكور ليشكل عنصراً أساسياً في خدمة الإدارة الأميركية لجهة تحقيق غايتها بتصفية المسألة الفلسطينية والإطباق على حق العودة تحت عنوان ما يسمّى «بصفقة القرن».

ما يثير الاستغراب أكثر، أنّ وزير العمل اللبناني يعلل قراره وما رافقه من إجراءات بتطبيق القانون، ولكنه حرف النظر عن أنّ هناك سبعين مهنة محظور على الفلسطيني ممارستها، وبالتالي كيف يمكنه الحصول على إجازة عمل لممارسة مهن ممنوعة؟

وسأل: لماذا يتغاضى وزير العمل اللبناني عن أنّ القانون الذي أقرّه مجلس النواب اللبناني في العام 2010 يحتاج إلى مراسيم تطبيقية في مجلس الوزراء. وهذه المراسيم ستعالج بعضاً من حقوق الفلسطينيين لجهة العمل والضمان الصحي.

ما هو السبب الذي جعل وزير العمل اللبناني يتجاوز لجنة الحوار الفلسطيني – اللبناني التي كانت على وشك إصدار رؤية تحاكي الوضع الخاص للعامل الفلسطيني؟ خاصة أنّ هذه اللجنة تتبع لمجلس الوزراء، وهي في انعقاد دائم ولديها توصيات ستسهم في الخروج من هذه الأزمة .

لقد أظهرت دراسة قامت بها الجامعة الأميركية في بيروت، بالتعاون مع وكالة غوث وتشغيل اللاجئين الفلسطينيين الأونروا شملت 32 مخيماً وتجمعاً فلسطينياً، أنّ ما بين 260 ألفاً إلى 280 ألف فلسطيني ما زالوا يقيمون في لبنان من بين عدد اللاجئين الإجمالي المسجل لدى «أونروا»، وهو 425 ألف لاجئ، تقطن نسبة 62 منهم في المخيمات، فيما يعاني ثلثا اللاجئين الفلسطينيين من الفقر، وتعاني نسبة 7,9 منهم من الفقر المدقع.

وتقدّر قوة العمل الفلسطينية بحوالي 75 ألف عامل يتركزون في مجالات العمل الصعبة والشاقة كالزراعة والبناء والأفران ومحطات الوقود. وهذا يعني أنّ المهن التي يشغلها الفلسطينيون تعتبر مكملة لتلك التي يمتهنها اللبنانيون، ما يدلّ بوضوح أنّ اللاجئ الفلسطيني لا يشكل أيّ خطر على فرص العمل للبنانيين .

وإذا استطاع العامل الفلسطيني الحصول على عمل، فإنه يصطدم بمزاجية أرباب العمل لناحية حرمانه من حقه في الضمان الاجتماعي والصحي والتعويض والأجر، ويبقى معرّضاً للصرف التعسّفي في أية لحظة بدون أيّ غطاء قانوني.

أما حملة الشهادات العلمية فمشكلتهم لا تختلف كثيراً عن كلّ ما سبق، فالمهندس الفلسطيني يقوم بكلّ أعباء المهندس لجهة الإشراف والمتابعة والتنفيذ، لكن الصيغة النهائية تكون بإسم مهندس لبناني، وعقد العمل لا ينص على اعتبار المهندس الفلسطيني مهندساً بل عاملاً عادياً.

ومن الملاحظ أنّ الدولة اللبنانية لا تمانع أن يقوم الأطباء الفلسطينيون بتقديم امتحان الكولوكيوم، لكن من يستطيع النجاح في هذا الامتحان من الأطباء الفلسطينيين لا يمكنه العمل سوى في مؤسسات الأونروا ومستشفيات الهلال الأحمر الفلسطيني .

فضلاً عن ذلك، فإنّ التقارير الطبية الصادرة عن أطباء فلسطينيين لا يعترف بها من قبل الدولة اللبنانية ما لم تكن مغطاة بتوقيع طبيب لبناني.

وعلى الرغم من قساوة ذلك الوضع، فقد بيّنت الدراسات أنّ اللاجئين الفلسطينيين ينفقون حوالي 340 مليون دولار سنوياً، وهذه مساهمة كبيرة في الاقتصاد اللبناني، وخصوصاً في المناطق النائية، حيث تتركز التجمعات والمخيمات الفلسطينية .

هذا فضلا عن مساهمات «الأونروا» وما تنفقه المؤسسات الفلسطينية والفصائل والتحويلات المالية من الجاليات الفلسطينية في الخارج التي تبلغ حوالي 62 مليون دولار شهرياً.

إلى أولئك الذين ظنوا أنهم نجحوا في تقديم صورة اللاجئ الفلسطيني على أنه الطامع الجشع الذي يريد انتزاع لقمة العيش من اللبناني، نذكرهم بأنّ اللاجئ الفلسطيني له إسهامات كبيرة في الاقتصاد اللبناني نذكر منها تأسيسه للعديد من المصارف الأساسية، ومساهماتهم في خلق فرص عمل، وفي توسيع الاقتصاد اللبناني .

يخطئ من يظنّ أنّ رفض التوطين يعني حرمان الفلسطينيين من حقوقهم المدنية والاقتصادية والاجتماعية والثقافية. فلبنان أكد في مقدمة دستوره على احترامه للإعلان العالمي لحقوق الإنسان الذي يكفل حق العمل والحياة الكريمة، إلا أنّ واقع الحال يشير إلى خلاف ذلك.

إننا نجتمع اليوم، أمام وزارة العمل لنؤكد على إدانتنا لقرار وزير العمل اللبناني، مطالبين إياه بضرورة التراجع عن هذا القرار لما فيه من خدمة جليلة لصفقة القرن الهادفة إلى حماية كيان الاغتصاب اليهودي المسمّى «إسرائيل»، ولمناقضة القرار المذكور للإعلان العالمي لحقوق الانسان.

كما نطالب مجلس النواب اللبناني بتعديل المادة 59 من القانون رقم 129 الصادر عام 2010 بحيث يستثنى الأجراء الفلسطينيون اللاجئون المسجلون وفقاً للأصول في سجلات وزارة الداخلية والبلديات – مديرية الشؤون السياسية واللاجئين – من شروط المعاملة بالمثل ومن شرط الحصول على إجازة عمل .

إنّ زيادة الضغط على شعبنا الفلسطيني يهدف إلى تهجيره إلى الخارج، ويتزامن هذا مع تسهيل من السفارات الأجنبية بإعطاء الفلسطينين تأشيرات سفر وهجرة وهو مخطط لمنعهم من حق العودة إلى وطنهم «فلسطين» خدمة للعدو اليهودي.

ونحن في الحزب السوري القومي الإجتماعي ندين ونستنكر هذا الأداء المشبوه من بعض من في السلطة وخارجها.

وختم المقداد مؤكداً أنّ فلسطين ستبقى بوصلة اتجاهنا.

يونس

بعدها تحدث علي يونس باسم تجمع «شبابنا» فقال:

في ظلّ التطورات التي تشهدها المنطقة والتطورات التي تجلت على مستوى صفقة القرن، تمرّ القضية الفلسطينية في مرحلة في غاية الدقة والخطورة، إذ يتعاظم فيها حجم التحديات والمخاطر فبالأمس القريب بدأو بالقدس وأعلنوها عاصمة لكيان الاحتلال، واليوم يريدون أن ينهوا قضية اللاجئين وحق العودة عبر التضييق على اللاجئين الفلسطينين لإجبارهم على الهجرة، فحركت أميركا أدواتها واستخدمت نفوذها للضغط على الفلسطينين في دول اللجوء، وتزامنت قرارات وزير العمل مع هذا الحراك الهادف الى شطب القضية الفلسطينية.

لذلك جئنا اليوم وبعد مرور أكثر من شهر على الحراك اللبناني الفلسطيني الرافض لهذه الإجراءات لنجدّد رفضنا لأيّ قرار أو إجراء يصبّ في خدمة مشروع التوطين أو التهجير وعلى رأسها صفقة القرن وكلّ ما يندرج تحتها من عناوين وتفاصيل ونشدّد على مواقفنا بضرورة إلغاء ايّ إجراء يضرّ باللاجئين الفلسطينيين ويفيد حقوقهم الإنسانية والاجتماعية.

ولنوجه رسالة الى الحكومة اللبنانية المجتمعة الآن لتتحمّل مسؤولياتها وتنفذ وعودها بتجميد هذا القرار بإعلان صريح عن وقف الإجراءات الأخيرة بحق اللاجئين الفلسطينيين، ونذكر دولة الرئيس نبيه بري ودولة الرئيس سعد الحريري بكلامهم خلال جلسة مجلس النواب بأنّ الأمر قد انتهى.

أما الرسالة الثالثة فهي لوزير العمل الذي قال إنّ الاحتجاجات بدأت تتبدّد جئنا لنقول له بأننا مستمرون وان الاحتجاجات ستتمدّد وتتوسع حتى إسقاط هذا القرار أو السماح لنا بنصب خيام على حدود بلادنا بانتظار عودتنا إلى فلسطين.

ونقول له ألم تسمع شبابنا وهم يهتفون «لا تهجير ولا توطين بدنا العودة عفلسطين».

ولعلك كنت خارج البلاد سنة 2011 عندما خرجت المخيمات الفلسطينية بشبابها ونسائها ورجالها بالآلاف الى حدود الوطن في مارون الراس حيث سطر شبابنا أروع مشاهد البطولة والتمسك بالأرض وروى عشرة شهداء تراب بلدة مارون الراس الحدودية بدمائهم. فشعبنا الفلسطيني لا يستجدي الكرامة من أحد، الشعب الفلسطيني انتزع كرامته من خلال دماء الشهداء.

الرسالة الرابعة نوجّهها الى القوى والأحزاب اللبنانية الصديقة حيث نتوجه بالتحية لكم على الوقوف إلى جانبنا عبر مواقفكم، وندعوكم الى ترجمة هذه المواقف الداعمة للحق الفلسطيني عبر منحنا الحقوق الإنسانية والاجتماعية وأهمّها حق العمل والتملك.

خامساً: نوجه الدعوة للجنة الحوار اللبناني الفلسطيني برئاسة الوزير حسن منيمنة لاستكمال جلسات الحوار، ومراعاة الملاحظات الفلسطينية على الوثيقة الصادرة عن اللجنة، لتقديم وثيقة نهائية تعبّر عن الرؤية اللبنانية الفلسطينية المشتركة لإقرار كافة الحقوق التي تضمن للفلسطيني العيش بكرامة لحين العودة.

سادساً: ندعو مجلس النواب اللبناني لاتخاذ خطوة جريئة وإصدار قوانين تنصف اللاجئ الفلسطيني في لبنان وتعينه على الصمود إلى حين العودة.

ختاماً نؤكد أننا ماضون ومستمرون في تحركاتنا حتى ننال حقوقنا ونصون كرامتنا وأننا لم نأت إلى هذا البلد مختارين أو سائحين ولا باحثين عن عمل.. ولكننا جئنا لاجئين وبقينا متمسكين بحقّ لم ولن نفرط فيه هو حق العودة إلى فلسطين.

وختم: مستمرون معاً حتى إزالة الظلم ونيل الحقوق.

مهدي

وعلى هامش الاعتصام صرّح عضو المجلس الأعلى في الحزب السوري القومي الاجتماعي سماح مهدي لعدد من وسائل الإعلام فأكد أنّ هذا الاعتصام هو واحد من سلسلة نشاطات يقوم بها الحزب القومي في سبيل تثبيت حق أبناء شعبنا الفلسطيني المقيمين في لبنان بالعمل دونما حاجة إلى الاستحصال على إجازة عمل، خاصة أنّ القانون يحظر عليهم تعاطي 70 مهنة حصرها بالمواطنين اللبنانيين.

كما أكد مهدي على أنّ فرض إجازة العمل على اللاجئ الفلسطيني يسقط عنه صفة اللجوء ويسهم في خسارته لحق العودة إلى أرضه وقريته ومنزله في فلسطين .

ورأى مهدي أنّ قرار وزير العمل في الحكومة اللبنانية بفرض إجازة العمل على اللاجئ الفلسطيني يعدّ خطوة تخدم صفقة القرن التي تهدف إلى إسقاط حق العودة حماية لكيان العدو «الإسرائيلي».

وطالب مهدي وزير العمل بالتراجع عن قراره، كما طالب مجلس النواب بتعديل نص المادة 59 من القانون رقم 129 الصادر عام 2010 بحيث يعفى اللاجئ الفلسطيني من موجب الاستحصال على إجازة عمل.

Axis of Resistance Frustrated Three Phases of the Project for a ‘New Middle East’

Trump Kushner

Al-Manar Website Editor

August 13, 2019

The first phase of the so-called New Middle East was just after ‘the Summit of Peacemakers’ in 1996, when former Israeli premier Shimon Peres applied his New Middle East vision by declaring the “Operation Grapes of Wrath” on Lebanon for 16 days in April 1996.

During the 2006 Lebanon war, former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced the beginning of the New Middle East. After almost one decade of political attempts to resolve the Arab- Israeli conflict, the US decided to use a brute force to eliminate what it saw an impediment to the ‘peaceful’ resolution of the conflict by pushing ‘Israel’ to attack Lebanon, destroying its infrastructures.

The first phase of the above mentioned project has fallen after the US-Israeli failure to impose their conditions for the 2006 ceasefire agreement on Lebanon. It was Lebanon which emerged victorious after a 33-day war, as declared by Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. It was the resistance of Hezbollah that turned the table on the New Middle East project, said the Winograd Commission report, after the investigation of the causes of failure in the 2006 war.

In 2011, the second phase of the scheme has started, Syria was the battlefield. However, the US-backed terrorists failed to overthrow the Syrian government, and the second phase was over. Then, the old Shimon Peres vision was revitalized and there was the third phase of the so-called New Middle East project.

The US administration proposed an economic approach, allegedly to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, in a bid to gain in politics what it couldn’t achieve in the war.

US President Donald Trump sent Jared Kushner, his son-in-law, who is presented as the godfather of the ‘Deal of Century’, to the region. Kushner decided to replace the well-known slogan of “land for peace” principle with his own one: “peace to prosperity”.  He believes that such a slogan could reduce the conflict to an economic problem that can be resolved by improving the living standards of the Palestinians.

The absence of a draft solution for major political issues, particularly Palestinian statehood, the status of Al-Quds (Jerusalem), and the Palestinians’ right to return to their land, turns Kushner proposal to be a mere attempt to bribe the Palestinians into giving up self-determination.

The funding issue is also a significant factor of disruption for that deal, especially that EU, the traditional donor, did not participated in the workshop in Bahrain, neither Russia, nor China.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, which has shown an extreme enthusiasm for the deal, has been already facing an economic problem and the war in Yemen, which has cost it billions of dollars. The US, where the proposal was launched, certainly would not spend that much money, particularly under Trump administration, who prides himself on extracting monetary concessions from other countries, including Saudi Arabia by extortion, or by the arm sales.

The development and prosperity that Kushner is heralding can only happen if the Israeli occupation is ended.

In contrast, the Trump administration has already made major steps in strengthening the pillars of the occupation, including recognizing Israeli annexation of Al-Quds and the Golan Heights.

With all these major flaws, it was hardly surprising that the Bahrain Workshop failed to jump-start the deal process.

The Axis of Resistance is accomplishing important steps in the warfare in Syria, Yemen and Iraq, preventing Trump and his allies to step forward for the announcement of the “Deal of Century” that could eradicate the Palestinian cause in favor of the Israeli occupation. Hence, the third phase of the New Middle east has also failed.

A flashback to Madrid conference in 1990: the peace process had been built on the principle of “land for peace”, where ‘Israel’ withdrew from occupied Arab land in 1967 in exchange for peace and normalization of ties with the Palestinians and Arabs.

The 1993 Oslo Accord provided a political vision for Shimon Peres’s plan – a two-state solution – which was followed by the 1994 Paris Protocol that established rules regulating economic relations between the Palestinians and Israelis.

This vision was also the core of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative proposed by Saudi Arabia in Beirut Arab League summit.

Needless to say, all past proposals have failed for one simple reason: They were all in favor of the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

Source: Al-Manar English Website

The Peoples’ Will is Stronger Than the US Arrogance

ST

The Peoples’ Will is Stronger Than the US Arrogance

The game of destructive chaos in the region is the only policy pursued by the United States for years in the belief that it serves its interests without realizing that this policy which it calls “creative”, undermines security and stability in the region and the world, as well as the US’s interests.

Today, this unproductive policy dips into the depths of the maze that has placed itself in the neck of its glass. In the case of the Arab-Israeli conflict, this policy tries to impose alternative means of settlement away from the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, away from the two-state solution and the restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people, the first of which is the right of return.

As if the case in Washington is a business deal and not rights of an oppressed people. The US struggled at the Bahrain conference and then at the Bahrain workshop to accomplish what it calls the “deal of the century”, or in a clear sense the liquidation of the Palestinian cause and putting the poisons of American economy into the honey of the so-called peace. The same applies to its escalating policy in the Arab Gulf to ignite new wars that generate thousands of billions of dollars from the vast open-monarchies treasury.

In Syria, Washington is pursuing its destructive colonialist approach under the pretext of fighting the alleged terrorism and maintaining the security of its tools on the Syrian territory as (Qasad)militia that has committed the worst crimes against civilians returning from Baguoz after being destroyed by the American coalition under the pretext of bombing the extremists (Da’ish).

Washington is doing every conceivable effort to calm down the Israeli entity over its alleged security trying to legitimize its settlements and whitewash its occupation of the Arab territories, once by facilitating its direct aggression and once by granting it the alleged sovereignty over the occupied Golan and Jerusalem. The US exercises all this aggression without realizing that the peoples’ will of the region is stronger than all its arrogance.

The “deal of the century” has showed the real size of Washington, just a tool in the hands of the Zionist lobby, seeking to recruit billions to impose a “political solution” on the size of the Zionist entity. Both Trump and Netanyahu will give nothing to the Palestinian people and their bloody history and illegitimate settlement are present, recalling the occupation of Jerusalem, ignoring international laws and agreements, and the Zionist entity’s persistence in building settlements. The main objective is to swallow Palestine, erase its borders from the map, expel its people and end the file of the right of return for all Palestinians.

The current international developments against a background of the fires ignited by the policy of American arrogance indicate that many of the adverse results will return to the Trump administration whose poles are floundering between escalation once, reducing tension and begging dialogue and negotiation at other times to contain the accumulation of failures in the face of a lot of files and international issues that Washington wanted to rotate the corners in the direction that serves the agenda of domination that it wants to impose on the world.

With this American failure, the Trump administration is now making every effort to please the American interior ahead of the upcoming presidential election bazaar. Despite the counterproductive results of the Bahrain Workshop and the clear message that the policy of dictation, threats and intimidation, the “deal of the century “will not be translated into reality, even if the Arabs drowned to their ears in free normalization projects with the Zionist enemy.

Even though Trump, who implicitly admitted to the failure of the conspiracy of the era before disclosing its political side, continues striking the chord of illusion, and he himself wishes the implementation of the “deal of the century” in his presidential term, or it will never get because the wills of the axis resistance countries are much stronger than the military arsenals of Trump, and the bluster of the Arab- Zionists.

Sharif Al -Khatib
Editor-in-Chief
sharifalkh@gmail.com

 

Trump/Kushner Deal of the Century: ‘Money, Money, Money, It’s A Rich Man’s World’

Trump/Kushner Deal of the Century: ‘Money, Money, Money, It’s A Rich Man’s World’

Former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir said that Palestinians did not exist, but if they did, she claimed that Jews always had a ‘supreme morality.’ Her infamous contention, ’Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us’ displayed a belief that Palestinian Arabs were barely human.

Cruelty by discrimination became explicit in the Jewish Nation State Law of August 2018, which says this state actualises its national, religious and historical rights for self-determination. The distinguished Israeli journalist Gideon Levy concluded that through this law, Israel had adopted apartheid as a form of government, bolstered by the ‘moral rot’ of a ‘legal system far removed from fundamental principles of equality and justice.’

The latest demand to maintain the superiority of one people over another comes from the Israeli Ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon. In a New York Times Opinion piece, he wrote as a leader of a master race. Armed with his assumptions about the merits of top down abuses of power, about humiliation as a policy, and cruelty to inferiors taken for granted, he advised that the best the Palestinians could do is surrender. They should negotiate without any prospect of a State. ‘A national suicide of Palestinians’ current political and cultural ethos is what is needed for peace.’

Danon associated himself with what he calls Western Liberalism, as illustrated by the ‘natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate in their own sovereign state.’ By contrast, an inferior people such as Palestinians could not have rights to self-determination, even though those rights are made clear in Article 1 of the Charter of the UN.

Consistent with a New York real estate agent’s technique for softening up powerless tenants before evicting them, Trump had already humiliated Palestinians, yet asked them to accept his deal. The US Embassy in Israel had been moved to Jerusalem, Palestinian diplomatic offices in Washington were closed, most funds for the refugee agency UNRWA terminated, so too crucial financial support for Palestinian hospitals in East Jerusalem; then the Golan was annexed and renamed Trump Heights.

The New York Real Estate agency had become Cruelty Inc. There would be no withdrawal of settlements, no end to Israeli control of Palestinians’ lives and nothing to address the injustices to refugees. The Bahrein workshop was told the Palestinians could not secure a better offer.

Deception is another key ingredient in the cruelty mix. Kushner made fraudulent claims even as he appeared to be generous. Fifty billion dollars would generate recovery of the Palestinian economy even though any Palestinian economic development has been restricted by the occupation of the West Bank, the siege of Gaza and other military controls. The $50 billion would be pledged largely by Arab States but no pledges had been made.

In Bahrein, Kushner delivered his father-in-law’s notion that life is about deals and deals are about money. He spoke the Abba lyrics, ‘Money, money, money, must be funny…All the things I could do, If I had a little money, It’s a rich man’s world, It’s a rich man’s world.’ To Palestinians, nothing sounded funny.

Fragile but significant Lebanon could receive $6 billion from a plan geared mostly towards connecting Lebanon with Gaza and the West Bank but the Lebanese rejected this as a shameless bribe. They know that money will come and go whereas Palestinians will always pursue their human rights and ownership of their lands.

Hidden in the offer to the Lebanese was the long held Israeli view that by making Palestinians citizens of other countries, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, they could be made to disappear. Lebanon could be bullied, yet as home to 450,000 Palestinian and 1.5 million Syrian refugees, the Lebanese know that without politically just solutions to conflict, no economic initiatives could succeed.

Like fraudulent advertising to increase prospective home owners’ interests, the Kushner deal was presented as the carrot to attract all prospective buyers, even though Palestine was not for sale. Bill Law in the Journal Middle East Eye says that as with other Trump frauds, the deal of the century was not meant to work. The purpose was to pretend peace until more land had been stolen, more checkpoints erected, more night raids made on Palestinians’ homes and more weapons tested over Gaza. Ghassan Khatib from the Jerusalem Media and Communication Centre says,

‘It’s purpose was to buy time, kick dust, shift blame and thereby guarantee permanent Israeli control of the West Bank.’

In this post truth era when ideas about US domestic and foreign policy flow from a President’s tweets, there’s an inherent cruelty in a deal of the century which ignored decades old injustices, the occupation of Palestinian lands, the siege of Gaza, the continued containment of millions of refugees.

To pursue peace with justice for Palestinians and Israelis, politicians and other policy makers should cease being intimidated by a toxic Zionist lobby, and instead ponder Dr. Hanan Ashrawi’s judgement that the Kushner plan is ‘… totally divorced from reality. The elephant in the room is the occupation itself.’

In addition, we could all learn from Palestinian delegations’ reasons for boycotting the Bahrein workshop. They know that you don’t fight for freedom by giving it up.

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