بهاليلنا ومهرجونا وحمقانا .. انتظروا الاعترافات والمذكرات السياسية

بقلم نارام سرجون

أتمنى أن أقرأ يوما مذكرات ساسة العالم الذين سيكتبون عن هذه المرحلة .. سيبحث البعض عن الأسرار والمخططات السرية والاتصالات بين أجهزة المخابرات والرؤساء والبرقيات الديبلوماسية العاجلة والسرّية للغاية ..

ولكنني ساترك ذلك لأنني لست بحاجة لأن أعرف اسرار هذه المرحلة فليس فيها اسرار على الاطلاق لأن العملاء يتحركون بلا أقنعة وفي وضح النهار .. ولكني سابحث عما سيدوّنه ساسة العالم في مرحلة الربيع العربي في مذكراتهم عن شخصيات هذه المرحلة التي نفخ فيها الاعلام الغربي والمعارض وجعل كل واحد من أصحابها بحجم غيفارا ومانديلا بل وأكثر ..

وكان الاعلام الغربي كل يوم يقدم لنا شخصيات تافهة للغاية ومحدودة الكاريزما وكاريكاتيرية وكثيرا ماتكون مثيرة للسخرية والضحك مثل شخصية الأبله المرزوقي التونسي ويقول أنها قيادات الحرية والثورات العالمية ..

ولكن انا أعرف أكثر من غيري كم ينظر الغربيون الى المعارضين العرب باحتقار شديد غير مسبوق لسبب بسيط هو أن العقل الغربي يعرف أن المعارض العربي لايجد قوّته في الشارع العربي بل في الدعم الغربي وعلاقاته مع وزارات الخارجية الغربية ووسائل اعلامها فيبدو حريصا على ارضائها أكثر من ارضاء عقيدته وجمهوره الذي يقوده كما فعل المعارضون السوريون الذين تباروا للتخلص من فلسطين والجولان والعداء لاسرائيل وتنافسوا في ابداء الكارهية لايران وحزب الله وفي اشعال الكراهية بين الشيعة والسنة .. وهذا وحده كقيل بازدراء اي شخص طالما انه يربط مصير مشروعه السياسي بقوة غربية لابقوة الشعب الذي ينتمي اليه .. ولذلك سترون العجائب في تلك الاعترافات القادمة والاحتقار الذي سترونه في مذكرات ومراسلات الساسة الغربيين الذي سيخصون به شخصيات الربيع العربي والمعارضات العربية رغم انني على يقين ان اكثرها انحطاطا واحتقارا هي المعارضات السورية على اختلاف أشكالها وألوانها ..

ولمن لم يصدق مااقول فما عليه الا أن يقرأ هذه المقاطع من كتاب (السادات) للكاتب الفرنسي روبير سوليه وفيها يورد بعض افادات وأوصاف وصف بها الرئيس المصري أنور السادات من قبل سياسيين غربيين وكتاب عرب ومشاهير ضمن اعترافات وأحاديث لم تنشر .. بالرغم من أن شخصية السادات كانت تقدم في الاعلام العالمي والعربي على أنها خارقة وقادرة على أن تقرأ المستقبل ولها حنكة ودهاء تمكنت من استثمارها لاسترداد سيناء من اسنان بيغين وكارتر .. فان الحقيقة هي أن السادات كان في نظر صناع السياسة والمثقفين مجرد مهرج ..

وماأنتجه عقل المهرج هو كامب ديفيد بحيث أن سيناء التي استردها منذ أربعين سنة لايستطيع الجيش المصري الى الآن التحرك فيها بحرية لضرب بعض الارهابيين الذين يرتكبون المجازر بحق الجيش المصري لانهم بجوار اسرائيل التي تؤمن لهم الحماية في تقسيمات مناطق سيناء (أ – ب – ج) حسب كامب ديفيد التي قبل بها عقل المهرج .. وحولت كامب ديفيد مصر الى دولة تنتظر المساعدات حتى من دولة مثل السعودية ويسرق منها نهر النيل وسيباع لها ماء النيل يوما في زجاجات وعبوات بلاستيكية من قبل أضعف دول افريقيا ..

لكن هذا السادات العظيم البطل والعبقري كان يوصف دون مجاملات وبلا رتوش في السهرات وعلى موائد العشاء حيث الأحاديث التي لاتخشى الكاميرات والصحافة والراي العام .. فكان وصف السادات بأنه الأحمق والمهرج والبهلول في الأحاديث الصادقة والسرية في نظر من كان يصفه أمام الكاميرات بأنه الرجل الشجاع وصانع معجزة السلام وبطل الحرب وصاحب نوبل ..

وبالمقارنة مع البهلول المهرج نجد أن مذكرات العالم التي تتحدث عن نقيضه عبد الناصر الذي وصف بالديكتاتور المهزوم لكنها لم تتفوه بكلمة اهانة واحتقار عن جمال عبد الناصر الذي رغم انها تكن له الكراهية والبغض الا أن الحديث عنه خلف الكواليس يتحدث عن رجل يتحدى ورجل طموح ومغامر ومخيف للغرب ..

ماذا سنقرأ ياترى عن مهرجينا وحمقانا وبهاليلنا الزعماء العرب والمعارضين العرب والسوريين .. والمحاربين .. والمفاوضين .. والاعلاميين .. والمثقفين .. وبهاليلنا الاسلاميين؟؟ .. الذين قدمهم الغرب يوما على أنهم نماذج مبدعة وخلاقة وبطولية .. مثل البهلول أردوغان والبهلول سلمان والبهلول حمد أبو البهلول تميم .. ومثل بهاليل ومهرجي الائتلاف السوري ومجالي الحكم الانتالية على امتداد الوطن .. ومهرجي المعارضة والثقافة والاعلام .. ماأكثر بهاليل ومهرجي وحمقى المعارضة الذين سنقرأ عنهم في كتب السنوات القادمة .. أعدكم أننا سنتسلى كثيرا .. وسنضحك كثيرا .. وسنختنق بالقهقهات على كل بهلول ومهرج ..

 

المجرم الرومانسي “أردوغان يغني” .. والمسامح كريم

 

بقلم نارام سرجون

يثبت لي أردوغان دوما أنه موهوب في كل أشكال الفنون والتلون .. فهو ممثل مسرحي من طراز رفيع ويشهد له بذلك مسرحية دايفوس الشهيرة عندما خرج غاضبا من شيمون بيريز واعتقدنا أنه سيصل فورا الى استانبول ليطلب من الجيش الانكشاري الاستعداد لاقتحام القدس أو على الأقل لكسر الحصار عن أطفال غزة ..

ولكن الرجل عاد الى استانبول ليطلق مسرحية بحرية اسمها سفينة مرمرة في حين أن الجيش الكبير الذي اطلقه كان داعش والنصرة لتحرير دمشق وبغداد اللتين كانتا لاتزالان تصفقان بحرارة للمشهد في دايفوس بعد أن أغلقت الستالئر ولم تدريا ماذا دار بين بيريز واردوغان خلف الستائر .. واحتجنا الى 100 ألف غارة روسية و100 ألف غارة سورية لاقتلاع جزء من هذا الجيش الذي اعتقدنا أنه ذاهب الى القدس .. وليس الى حلب ودير الزور ..

ثم لعب الرجل دور الرجل المحارب الغاضب الذي لم يعد يتحمل رؤية معاناة السوريين وصار يبحث عن ذريعة ليقاتل الجيش السوري ويثار للاجئين السوريين في مخيماته ويخلصهم من الأسد ..

وكان يرتدي دروعه وثيابه العسكرية كلما صفرت قذيفة سورية قرب السياج التركي .. ولكنه ارتدي ثيابه العسكرية وخلعها مئات المرات ولم يجرؤ على أن يعلن الحرب .. وتبين انه كان يريد بحركاته المسرحية أن يدفع المجانين من الثورجيين الى اليقين بأن الجيش التركي آت والغضب الساطع العثماني آت .. فيقاتلون ويموتون بالمئات فيما هو يقايض ويفاوض .. واذا به بعد كل جولة لايظهر على الحدود السرية حيث ينتظره عشاقه ومريدوه بل يظهر كالأرنب من قبعة الساحر اما في طهران حيث يخرج من تحت عمامة السيد الخامنئي أو من عباءته .. أو يظهر في موسكو من جيب فلاديمير بوتين ليبرد الأجواء ويلطف العلاقات ..

كل هذا التلون يبدو مقنعا لأن السياسي المتلون والقادر على التلاعب بعواطف جمهوره يجب أن يجبد مهنة التمثيل والخطابة مثل الرئيس أنور السادات الذي كان حلم حياته ان يقبل في أحد معاهد التمثيل ليكون نجما من نجوم السينما ليمثل الى جانب سعاد حسني أو عمر الشريف أو فاتن حمامة أو حتى ليكون السفرجي أو البواب .. ولكنه وجد نفسه على مسرح مصر يمثل أمام الرئيس الراحل جمال عبد الناصر على أنه ناصر آخر بلون اسمر بل وأشد من ناصر على الأعداء واشد من غيفارا على الامبريالية حتى خشي البعض أنه سيضرب هنري كيسنجر على قفاه اذا التقاه ..

وما ان رحل ناصر وتولى الممثل السادات حقيبة الناصرية حتى خلع أقنعته المسرحية وخرج علينا بمفاجاة كامب ديفيد وضرب الروس والعرب على قفاهم وأمسك بيد كسينجر وذهبا في رحلة الى كامب ديفيد .. وأخذ هذا الممثل مصر الى رحلة مجهولة لم تعد منها حتى اليوم ولانعرف الى اين ستأخذها مياه كامب ديفيد التي لاتقل مفاجاة انجازها عن مفاجأة نتائج مسرحية دايفوس التي كادت تنتهي بابتلاع الشرق بين أهم عاصمتين في الشرق هما بغداد ودمشق ..

كل هذا مفهوم من ممثل محترف كأردوغان .. ولكن الحيرة تصيبنا عندما نعرف أن لأردوغان مواهب فنية متعددة وخاصة الغناء .. فالرجل يغني وله حس رومانسي مختلف عن لهجة الخطابات الحماسية .. ولاعلاقة له بخطاب (المآذن رماحنا والقباب خوذاتنا) الشهير ..

وهو ان غنى فانه يتمايل ويفيض حنانا .. ولا عبد الحليم في رومانسيته ..

أنا لاأدري متى غنى أردوغان هذا اللحن الرومانسي .. ولكنني كنت حريصا على معرفة الدوافع التي دفعت برجل داعش الدموي الى هذه الرومانسية وبزعيم الاخوان وزعيم خالد مشعل واسماعيل هنية وقائد الحمساويين الجدد الى هذه الخلاعة التي لاتليق بزعيم ارهابي قد تذهب بهيبته ..

البعض قال ان الأغنية كانت في الحقيقة موجهة الى أمينة زوجته اثر بعض الخلافات الزوجية .. وخاصة بشأن فتوى جهاد النكاح .. والبعض قال انها أغنية حديثة وقد وجهها الى سورية والقيادة السورية لعل القيادة السورية تشمله بمشروع المصالحات الوطنية وتعفو عنه وتستقبله مثل أي لاعب كرة تائب في قاعة الشرف .. وذهب البعض الآخر للقول بأنها آخر تقليعات الافلاس في السياسة .. فالرجل لم يعد لديه عمل حقيقة لأن عمله كان تغيير نظام الحكم في سورية وادارة أعمال داعش والنصرة .. فداعشه الذي كان يقوده من غرف العمليات في الاستخبارات التركية احترق وانتهى أمره .. واغلق المشروع على خسارة .. والنصرة صديقته وخليلته تنتظر في غرفة الاعدام في ادلب أن يتم تنفيذ الحكم في أي فجر .. وتخرصاته عن الالتحاق بالاتحاد الاوروبي انتهت وصار أكثر شخص مكروه في اوروبة حتى أن القادة الاوروبيين لايستحون من التندر عليه وابداء القرف من العلاقة معه .. أما علاقته بالروس فقد تحولت الى علاقة مذنب مع القاضي منذ حادثة الطائرة السوخوي .. ناهيك عن الكابوس الكردي والكيان الموازي الذي ينام معه على الوسادة بينه بين أمينة .. وربما في ثيابها .. ليكتشف أن أمينة أيضا ربما من الكيان الموازي ..

وأمام كل هذا لم يجد أردوغان من عمل أمامه الا أن يتسلى بالغناء الرومانسي الحزين عله ينسى همومه .. فالغناء ربما هو آخر مهنة قد تفيده في مسرح الواقع الرهيب الذي وصل اليه ..

لاأدري ان كان الرجل سيستمر في مفاجآته فنجده يرتدي بزة حمراء ويتجول في عربة تجرها الأيائل ليكشف أنه بابا نويل الذي يوزع الهدايا للأطفال .. أو يظهر في برنامج الرقص .. والباليه .. والأخ الأكبر .. ومسابقة المليون .. وقد يظهر في برنامج جورج قرداحي الشهير (المسامح كريم) كضيف ويطلب بصفاقة الغفران من الرئيس الأسد ومن الشعب السوري .. ويتوسل من جورج قرداحي أن يتوسط لدى الشعب السوري ليبلغه رسالة رقيقة من صديقه القديم أردوغان تقول: (المسامح كريم) ..

في النهاية .. سواء غنى أم لم يغن .. مثّل ام لم يمثل .. مسرح أم لم يمسرح .. حارب أم لم يحارب .. لايسعنا الا أن نقول .. اننا ننتظر فقط مشهد النهاية .. ولحن النهاية .. كل الدموع والدماء والوجع والخراب والثكالى واليتامى والأيامى في هذه المنطقة .. كلهم ينتظرون لحن النهاية .. وأغنية النهاية .. ومشهد النهاية .. لهذا المجرم الرومانسي المريض .. الفنان رجب طيب أردوغان ..

هيثم المناع في حافظ الاسد: انت الاعظم Haitham al-Mana on Hafiz al-Asad: You are the greatest

تونس – الاخبارية – عالمية – عرب – متابعات الاخبارية

في مقال مزلزل , تجدونه في الرابط اسفل المقال , بمناسبة ذكرى رحيل الرئيس السابق حافظ الاسد اعلن القيادي السوري المعارض والحقوقي هيثم المناع عن خيبة امله من الثورة الحادثة في بلاده. وعبر عن تحسره لوقوعها اصلا مؤكدا ان خيارات الرئيس الراحل الذي وصفه ب“الاعظم” هي الاعمق والانسب في ادارة الشان السوري ( مقال هيثم المناع)… ولئن لم يكن ما صرح به هيثم المناع جديدا من حيث السخط على ما وصلت اليه الاوضاع في سوريا والتعبير عن الخيبة من ثورة علق عليها العديدون امالا كثيرة ,والتأكيد على ان نظريات الديمقراطية وحقوق الانسان بالمفهوم الغربي لا تتناسب مع الحالة الراهنة للمجتمعات العربية التي ما زالت تحتاج الى انساق الزعامة والمستبد المستنير العادل …مع ان مثل هذا الموقف من الشائع المألوف عند فئات عديدة عربية وغير عربية , فان اهمية ما قاله المناع تتأتى من الجوانب التالية

اولا هو مثقف عربي درس الطب وعلوم الاجتماع ومتحصل على الدكتوراه في الانتروبولوجيا , كما الف العديد من الكتب والدراسات واشتغل مع عدة مؤسسات عالمية لحقوق الانسان والمجتمع المدني …وبالتالي فهو منطقيا يستند في نظرته وتقييمه للاشياء الى تجربة قيمة و كفاءة بحثية وعمق اكاديمي لا يستهان به

ثانيا انه احد القياديين السياسيين المشرفين على الثورة السورية , انخرط عن قرب في مطابخها الداخلية واطلع على خوافيها وما يدور حولها لا سيما وهو الذي تقلد خطة رئيس هيئة الانفاذ المعارضة .

ثالثا , وهذا هام جدا حسب عديد المتابعين , وهو ان ما قاله هيثم المناع لا ينطبق على الحالة السورية فحسب , بل يستقيم مع اكثر من وضع من اوضاع ثورات بلدان الربيع العربي على غرار الحالتين الليبية واليمنية تحديدا ثم الحالة التونسية الاقل هلاكا نسبيا رغم تعثرها الواضح..

لاشك ان العناصر السالفة الذكر تجعل مما كتبه هيثم المناع (وهو صديق مقرب للمنصف المرزوقي) اكثر من مجرد ردة فعل غاضبة , او مزاج متعكر من الثورات وارتداداتها..لان القيمة العلمية والاعتبارية للرجل لا تسمح له بذلك ..وهو اكثر مما يردده العوام في السر وفي الجهر..فيفهم منه اذن محاولة اولى من نوعها لنقد ذاتي , لا شك انه سيهز النخب القاعدة التي تقف عليها النخب الفكرية والسياسية الجديدة في بلاد ما يسمى ب”الربيع العربي”

اضغط على الرابط :

(انقلاب ب180 درجة) – شاهد ماذا كتب ابرز معارض سوري في الاسد :”انت الاعظم”

تونس-الاخبارية-عرب-نزاعات-رصد

كتب د. هيثم المناع احد ابرز معارضي النظام السوري و رئيس هيئة الانفاذ المعارضة بذكرى رحيل حافظ الأسد النص التالي

img
 رسالة إلى حافظ الأسد من كاره للنظام

بعد كل ما جرى .. وبعد التعرف على شعبي السوري .. وعلى مثقفيه وفئاته وحدود تفكيرها..أقر أنا الكاره السابق للنظام.. و الهارب من الخوف والذل.. والعائد إليه لاحقا بإرادتي.. أن حافظ الأسد أعظم رجل في التاريخ السوري..فهو أفهم من الأدباء والمثقفين بأنفسهم.. أدرى من المتدينين بربهم وأعلم من الخونة… والقتلة بما في صدورهم.

حافظ الأسد عرف السوريين جيدا.. وعرف أفضل طريقة ممكنة لسياستهم ..فحاسب كلا كما يستحق تماما بحسب أثره في المجتمع دون أدنى ظلم..عرف كيف يرضي المتدينين ويضحك على عقولهم ويكسبهم..أجبر الدين أن يبقى حيث يجب أن يبقى.. في البيت والجامع..فلا يخرج إلى الحياة السياسية.. وأشرك بالمقابل كل الطوائف في الحكم

طهر الأرض من المجرمين والقتلة.. وجفف منابعهم الطائفية بالقوة..وكسب البيئات الدينية المعتدلة التي تسمح لغيرها بالحياة..و إندمج فيها فأحبته من قلبها وأغلبها لا تزال مخلصة له حتى الآن

لم أكن عرف ما هي الطائفية على أيامه و قضيت أغلب سني عمري لا أجرؤ على التلفظ بأسماء الطوائف حتى بيني وبين نفسي..كم كان ذلك جميلا .. أن يقمع رجل عظيم الشر الكامن فينا حتى قبل أن ينبت

عرف نوعية المثقفين لديه.. فعامل كل منهم كما يستحق..إحترم بعضهم وقال له أفكارك لا تنفع هنا فاص

مت أو ارحل وعد متى شئت..مثل نزار قباني والماغوط وممدوح عدوان وأدونيس..ومن لم يفهم أو كان حالما وربما كان سيستسبب بالبلبلة فقد جنى على نفسه وسجن حتى لو كان من طائفته فلا فرق عند هذا الرجل العادل.. مثل عارف دليلة وعبد العزيز الخير و مئات أخرين

ميز المثقفين الطائفيين والحاقدين المخربين للمجتمع كما أثبت الزمن اللاحق فسجنهم..و  إن لم يكونوا قد استحقوا سجنهم وقتها -و لا أعتقد – فقد استحقوه بجدارة لاحقا..مثل ياسين الحج صالح وميشيل كيلو وحازم نهار وفايز سارة ولؤي حسين وأمثالهم

طوع المثقفين الدنيئين الذين يبحثون عن مستأجر..ووجد لهم عملا يتعيشون منه طالما هم تحت الحذاء..حيث مكانهم المستحق.. مثل حكم البابا وعلي فرزات وأمثالهم

إهتم بالفنانين والشعراء السوريين والعرب الذين يستحقون الاهتمام ..مثل مصطفى نصري والجواهري والرحباني. وغيرهم

حصر الدعارة في أماكن مخصصة لها بدل أن تنتشر في الشوارع والمقاهي وأماكن العمل والصحف

عرف كيف يستقر الحكم ويتوازن دون مشاكل .. استعمل الوطني كالشرع ..والوطنيين المؤلفة قلوبهم..أي من يحتاج للمال حتى يبقوا وطنيين كخدام والزعبي وأمثالهم

أطعم الفاسدين بميزان دقيق.. وصرامة.. فكانوا لا يجرؤون على القضم أكثر مما يسمح لهم..أرضى التجار والعائلات الكبيرة

كان رجلا ترتعد له فرائص أعدائه وأصدقائه في الداخل والخارج.. فحكم أطول مدة في التاريخ السوري الحديث

كان حافظ الأسد الحل الأمثل لسورية مع الأخذ بعين الاعتبار طبيعة الشعب وثقافته وظروف البلد والأخطار المحيطة به..فبنى سورية الأمن والأمان..سورية المنيعة في مواجهة أعدائها.. سورية المدارس والمستشفيات المجانية .. سورية السلع المدعومة ..سورية الفقر الموزع بالتساوي بين الجميع.. ولو كان الغنى ممكنا لوزعه بالتساوي..عاش بسيطا فقيرا.. ومات فقيرا لا يملك شيئا..

كان رجال دولته يتمتعون بالنساء والمال والاستجمام في أجمل مناطق العالم وهو يعيش في شقته المتواضعة.. لا يفكر إلا بمصلحة الشعب.

عرف كيف يضع حذائه في فم إسرائيل والغرب وأعوانهم ملك الأردن وعرب البعير والميليشيات اللبنانية..

عادى عرفات والسادات وكل من فرط بشبر من أرض فلسطين

ضبط الميليشيات الفلسطينية بالقوة و بنى مقاومة لبنانية و دعم الفلسطينية ووجهما تجاه العدو و بنى توازن رعب يعمل الأعداء وعملاؤهم في الدخل والخارج منذ سنوات على تفكيكهما..

بنى لسورية قيمة أكبر من مساحتها وقدراتها قبل أن ينقض عليها أعداؤه بعد مماته لاعنين روحه

فعل كل ذلك باللين والحب عندما كان ينفع.. وبالشدة والبطش تارة أخرى

لا يزال كارهوه يخشونه حتى الآن..لن يستطيعوا هزيمته في رؤوسهم.. ومهما حدث سيبقى ذلا أبديا لهم.. لن يستطيعوا تجاوزه..

كثير كثير .. لا مجال يتسع لتعداد مناقب هذا العظيم العظيم..كان رجل دولة من أرفع طراز.. لا يتكرر إلا كل بضعة قرون

أقول هذا.. أنا مناصر الإنسانية والحريات وحقوق الإنسان..بعد تجربتي مع شعبي السوري ومثقفيه وموالاته ومعارضته..لاقتناعي أن سياسة حافظ الأسد هي السياسة الأمثل التي تخفف الألم السوري الكلي إلى حده الأدنى..والدليل ما يحدث الآن

وأعلن أني مستعد للعيش في سورية تحت حكم رجل مثله بغض النظر عن طائفته طالما أنه على عهده لا يجوع فقير ولا يجرؤ أحد على استباحة دم أحد .. ولا تستطيع الكلاب أن تفلت في الشوارع

تعلم أنك ولدت في المكان الخطأ والزمن الخطأ بين الناس الخطأ.. عش بسلام كما يليق بك بين الانبياء

هيثم مناع

Related Videos

Related Articles

Terrorist supporting states, israel & Saudi, fostering closer ties

Latest on Tel Aviv-Riyadh Links: Saudi General Meets Officials in ‘Israel’

A well-connected retired Saudi General Anwar Eshki visited the Zionist entity this week and met with Israeli officials, in the latest indication of a growing link between Tel Aviv and Riyadh which has come to light in recent months.

Saudi general in Israel

Eshki, who headed a delegation of Saudi academics and business people, met with Foreign Ministry Director-General Dore Gold and Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories Maj.-Gen. Yoav Mordechai and with a group of Knesset members, the daily Ha’aretz reported.

The daily called the visit “a highly unusual one” as Eshki couldn’t have traveled to ‘Israel’ without approval from the Saudi government.

Eshki and Gold raised an uproar first in June 2015 when they held a publicized joint event in Washington, after meeting privately several times over the preceding year. Gold attended the event a few days before assuming the role of director general of the Israeli foreign ministry.

Israeli legislator Esawi Freige, who organized Eshki’s meeting with his fellow members of Knesset, shed some light on the trip. “The Saudis want to open up to Israel,” he said.

“This is a strategic step for them. They said they want to continue what former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat started. They want to get closer to Israel. This is clearly evident,” Fregie noted.

He was referring to the former Egyptian president’s negotiations with ‘Israel’, which culminated in the Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty in 1979 – the first between an Arab state and Tel Aviv at the time.

Lying about the past and justifying every cruelty in the present, israel is poisoning itself

Zionist Ideology and Where it has Led Israel

Lying about the past and justifying every cruelty in the present, Israel is poisoning itself. (Photo: File)

Lying about the past and justifying every cruelty in the present, Israel is poisoning itself. (Photo: File)

By Jeremy Salt

Is Israel beyond redemption? Should we conclude, after seven decades of worsening behavior, that while there’s life there’s hope – life for the Zionists and Israel, of course, and, in fact, no hope for Palestine and the Palestinians, at least as far as the state of Israel is concerned.

The binary divide is marked on the 68th anniversary of Israel’s ‘independence’. While the Zionists celebrated with street parties and flyovers, the Palestinians in the West Bank were put under lockdown. This was no more a war of ‘independence’ than it was the ‘Unilateral Declaration of Independence’ (UDI) by the Rhodesian white minority leader, Ian Smith, in the 1960s.  It was a war of colonial conquest, the most extreme ever waged, even worse than the French invasion of Algeria. It ushered in the Nakba, the takeover of Palestine which has proceeded in stages ever since.

The war of 1967 was another war of colonial conquest, based on the lie of a ‘pre-emptive’ attack.  Nasser had no intention of attacking Israel and both the Israelis and the Americans knew it.  Egyptian Vice-President, Zakariya Muhi al Din, was on his way to Washington to negotiate a peaceful end to a crisis which Israel had generated through military provocations across the DMZ on the Syrian front. Threatened not by war but by peace, Israel struck before he could get there.  Talk of extermination and an Arab ‘ring of steel’ was deceptive and aimed at Israelis, with the aim of keeping them in a state of permanent preparedness for the next war.

“….. retaliation actions are our vital lymph”, Moshe Dayan remarked in 1955. “Above all, they make it possible for us to maintain a high tension among our population and in the army.  Without these actions we would have ceased to be a combative people, the settlers would leave the settlements…It is necessary to convince our young people that we are in danger.”

This is the way it has been since the establishment of the State of Israel.  The Jewish people of Israel have to be kept on edge permanently.   They must live in fear of someone or something – the ‘Arabs’, Hizbullah, Iran, anti-semitism – for Zionism to be able to prevail.

In 1967 the ‘international community’ again did nothing as hundreds of thousands more people – this time Syrians as well as Palestinians – were evicted from their homeland. The world remained silent as Israel destroyed the ancient Magharibah quarter in the middle of Jerusalem to make way for a ‘plaza’ outside the walls of the Haram al Sharif.

The annexation of Jerusalem was followed by the colonization of the West Bank and in 1981, by the annexation of the occupied Golan Heights. Palestinian resistance was crushed in the newly occupied territories and in Lebanon.  ‘Incursions’ into Lebanon were followed by large-scale invasions in 1978 and 1982.  Real-time television enabled the world to see with its own eyes what Israel was really like behind the clichés of the Middle East’s only democracy and the world’s most moral army.  The bombardment of Beirut and the massacres of Sabra and Shatila opened eyes formerly sympathetic to the Zionist super colony and its brutality during the first and second intifadas, even wider.

The war of 1967 is likely to be remembered not just as a war of conquest but as the war that marked the peak of Israel’s military prowess (within the context of conventional war). In 1973 Israeli forces were being routed in Sinai when Sadat unilaterally stopped the war.  Had he not betrayed Assad the Zionists could have been driven out of Egypt and off the Golan Heights.  Sadat’s treachery and the rapid resupply of weaponry and ammunition by the US enabled Israel to stage a comeback but the myth of its invincibility had finally been shown up for what it was.

During the land invasion of Lebanon in 1982 small contingents of Palestinian guerillas and Syrian soldiers repeatedly blocked the Zionist advance. The logistics of the land campaign were a mess but there was no answer to Israel’s rampage from the air.  The final death toll was close to 20,000.  The vast bulk of the dead were civilians, crushed or buried alive in their collapsed apartment buildings and slaughtered on the streets by indiscriminate missile strikes and artillery fire.  Retreating from Beirut after the outrage of Sabra and Shatila, the Zionists held on to southern Lebanon and no doubt would still be there had Hizbullah not forced them out in 2000. This was their first real defeat since 1948 and was administered by a guerilla army.

The humiliation left Israel thirsting for revenge, yet when it tried to destroy Hizbullah in 2006 it was humiliated again. Its ground forces proved incapable of advancing more than a few kilometers beyond the armistice line.  Its soldiers were repeatedly trapped and saved from annihilation only by air power.  Its prized Merkeva tanks were destroyed and one of its warships crippled by a Hizbullah sea-to-air missile.

The salt in the wound was that it was Hizbullah’s part-time reserves – basically young men who pick up weapons when required – stopped the Israelis in their tracks despite the complete imbalance in firepower and number of fighting men on the ground.   The professional Hizbullah core stayed north of the Litani River which was why after taking a beating for weeks the Zionists did not dare cross it.

In their frustration the Zionists lashed out with their air power. They killed 1,400 civilians, about 400 of them children, and many from the Shia suburbs of south Beirut, with planes and missiles provided by the US.   Apartment buildings, roads, bridges and power stations were obliterated in what was to become the ‘Dahiya strategy’, named after the Shia southern suburb of Beirut where Israeli warplanes wreaked the most damage.  The next time around, the Zionist generals threatened that the ‘Dahiya strategy’ would be applied to the whole of Lebanon.  In readiness for this seemingly inevitable event Hizbullah has been stocking up with missiles which it says can reach any part of occupied Palestine.  It knows as does its mortal enemy, that if Zionist air power is ever neutralized the state of Israel is going to be in serious trouble.

These wars highlight some home truths about the so-called ‘IDF’.  None of its wars have been about ‘defence’ but rather about seizing more land or ‘defending’ land already stolen.  Israel is ‘defending’ what does not belong to it.  It is ‘defending’ its denial of the rights of another people. It has fought wars against regular armies on very few occasions.  In Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon the bulk of its victims have not been fighting men but civilians.  Far from being a righteous army it has a long track record of the most despicable massacres of civilians. Far from condemning these massacres – allowing for such exceptions as the mass protest in Tel Aviv following the IDF-supervised Sabra and Shatila atrocities – a large number of Israel’s Jewish citizens support them.  During Israel’s numerous onslaughts on Gaza, Jewish colonialists on the other side of the fence cheer and jump for joy every time another apartment building crowded with families is hit by missiles or tank-fire.

Hatred of ‘the Arabs’  (the Zionists can scarcely bring themselves to call them ‘Palestinians’) is now more openly expressed than ever. The point has been reached where civilians join in the killing of Palestinians – even looking like a ‘terrorist’ was enough for an Eritrean to be beaten to death by bystanders in a bus terminal. The mother of the soldier who recently murdered a young Palestinian in Hebron was not horrified that her darling boy cocked his rifle and casually put a bullet through the head of a wounded man as he lay on the road.   No, what concerned her was that he had been arrested.  “Is it appropriate that a fighter who neutralizes a terrorist at the site of an attack be detained almost a whole month”, she complained to Netanyahu.  “Manslaughter, for God’s sake, for neutralizing a terrorist?  Is it conceivable that a dedicated, moral fighter be accused of manslaughter on [Netanyahu’s] for shooting a terrorist?” Of course, the ‘terrorist’ had already been ‘neutralized’ and the soldier should have been charged not with manslaughter but murder.

Polls showed that nearly 60 percent of Jewish Israelis supported the murder of the Palestinian.  In other words, it might be said that nearly 60 percent of Jewish Israelis are certifiable sociopaths. It was for this reason that an Israeli general recently drew a parallel between Israel and Germany in the early 1930s:   “It is scary to see horrifying developments that took place in Europe begin to unfold here.”  In Tel Aviv supporters of the soldier who murdered the Palestinian in Hebron held a rally in defense of the murderer, dancing, wrapping themselves in the Israeli flag and blowing the twisted ram’s horn known as the shofar. The Palestinian-hating settler politician, Avigdor Lieberman: “I would prefer a soldier who made a mistake and stayed alive over a soldier who hesitates and is murdered by a terrorist” – a mistake, shooting a wounded man in the head in cold blood?

These murderous feelings are the outgrowth of decades of institutionalized and deliberately inculcated racism. The decline is charted in one survey of public opinion after another. Asked whether the ‘Arabs’ should be transferred or expelled from Israel (Pew Research Centre 2014/15), 21 percent strongly agreed, 27 percent mostly agreed.  Expulsion or transfer was supported by 71 percent of the religious community. This poll was taken before the recent wave of stabbings so the number of Jewish Israelis who want the ‘Arabs’ out would probably now be significantly higher. Asked whether they would live in the same building as ‘Arabs’ (Israel Channel Two poll April 2015), 49 percent said they would not (compared to 42 percent not opposed). An October 2012 poll (Dialog) found that 59 percent of Jewish Israelis think Jews should be given preference over ‘Arabs’ in admission to government jobs.  Forty-nine percent thought the state should treat Jews better than ‘Arabs’ (which of course it does already at every level); 42 percent did not want to live in the same building as ‘Arabs’; 30 percent would support a law barring ‘Arabs’ from voting in the Knesset; 69 percent would oppose ‘Arabs’ being given the vote if Israel annexed the West Bank; 74 percent favored separate roads for Jewish Israelis and ‘Arabs’ on the West Bank; and 47 percent would like to see Israel’s pre-1967  ‘Arab’ population transferred to areas under the control of the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank.

A 2010 poll (Israel Democracy Institute) found that one third of Jewish Israelis would favor putting the Palestinians in internment camps during time of war. Another survey held in March the same year by the Maagar Mochot Institute found that nearly half of Israeli Jewish high school children (15 to 18) believed ‘Arabs’ were not entitled to the same rights as Jews. More than half (56 percent) would deny ‘Arabs’ the right to vote; 49.5 percent believed ‘Arabs’ should not be given the same rights as Jews (82 percent among religious students).   Going as far back as 1963, a poll of 1000 children aged from eight to 14, drawing on Biblical accounts of the destruction of Jericho, ‘and all that was in it, men and women, young and old, ox and sheep’ – the same treatment being given to the inhabitants of another nearby city, found that 600 of them totally approved of the destruction of these cities and their non-Jewish inhabitants.

Rabbis, politicians and even some academics have been complicit in the build-up of this hatred, calling the ‘Arabs’ tumors, snakes, ‘two-legged beasts’ (Menahim Begin), ‘cockroaches in a bottle’ (Rafael Eytan) and wild animals who need to be caged (Benny Morris). In 2007 the former chief Sephardi rabbi, Mordechai Eliyahu, ruled that there was no moral prohibition against the killing of civilians during a military offensive.  His son Shmuel, chief rabbi of Safad, followed on, saying that if they [the ‘Arabs] “don’t stop after we kill 100, then we must kill 1000, even a million, whatever it takes to make them stop.”  In January this year, during the ‘stabbing intifada’, he said Israel should execute wounded ‘Arabs’ rather than leave them alive.

In October 2015 Rabbi Yisrael Rosen, director of the Tzomet Religious Institute, quoting from the Torah, repeated this genocidal injunction against the enemies of Israel: “Annihilate the Amalekites from the beginning to the end. Kill them and wrest them from their possessions. Show them no mercy. Kill continuously one after the other, leave no plant or tree.  Kill their beasts from camels to donkeys.”  The word ‘Amalekite’ was used by Ben-Gurion against ‘the Arabs’ in the 1950s and directed recently by Netanyahu against Iran: “The new Amalek is making an appearance on the stage of history.”

In November 2015, 29 Orthodox and Chabad rabbis signed a letter calling for the ‘execution’ of all Palestinians who hurt Jews.  The signatories included the settler fanatic, Dov Lior, Yitzhak Grinsburg and Yitzhak Shapira, the author of the Torat Ha Melech (The King’s Torah) which rules that in times of war soldiers can kill babies in their cribs because one day they will grow up to harm Jews.   These readings of the Torah are as hateful and as murderous as the Islamic State’s reading of the Quran.   It will be argued that these people are ‘extremists’ and of course they are, murderous, relentless genocidal extremists, but what the polls show is how deeply these sentiments have worked their way into the mainstream.

The ultimate source of these attitudes is an ideology based on theft and dispossession under the cover of the lie that this is ‘our’ land.  For such criminality to succeed the Palestinians (the ‘Arabs’) had to be stripped of their dignity as human beings.  They had to be portrayed as uniformly lazy, brutal, rapacious,  addicted to violence and bent on killing Jews for no other reason other than being Jews. There could be no letup: these images had to be continually reinforced for the Zionist project to succeed.  The suppression of the best human instincts – compassion, empathy, understanding and the capacity to acknowledge wrongs done – was essential, accounting for how people who can be decent human beings in other areas of their lives can express such contemptuous, hateful and even murderous views when it comes to the Palestinians.

These deliberately created splits in the personality are far from uncommon. Racism was a powerful motivating force in both imperialism and extreme nationalism.  The Nazi state encouraged hatred of the Jews amongst otherwise ‘decent’ Germans – the doctrines of apartheid South Africa shaped hateful attitudes towards the black population among the otherwise ‘decent’ white minority population; and seven decades of propaganda and indoctrination through ‘education’ has had the same insidious effect on Israeli Jewish attitudes towards the Palestinians.

Israel’s ‘strength’ feeds off the financial and political support of the US, and the refusal of the ‘international community’ to hold it to account. The pandering of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump to the Zionist lobby has been shameless.  Trump intends to move the US embassy to Jerusalem if elected and has urged Israel to continue building settlements in the West Bank.  Israel is now planning the annexation of 60 percent of the West Bank: no doubt the State Department has said or will say that this will not help the ‘peace process’ as if anyone seriously believes there is one. Only recently Netanyahu held an open-air cabinet meeting on the Golan Heights as a signal to the world – a raised finger to the world – that Israel has no intention of ever handing them back to a country which it hopes will soon no longer exist. Yet, even against these challenges to international order, Israel is still rewarded, most recently by being taken into the NATO fold.   Turkey allowed this by lifting its veto against Israel, thus opening a permanent mission in Brussels; Turkey’s president has called Israel a terrorist state and has taken a high profile as a defender of the Palestinians.

After nearly 70 years it is clear that diplomacy has completely failed or, to put it another way, that it is not going to succeed in bringing about any kind of ‘just’ settlement.  King Hussein of Jordan spent decades talking to the Zionists behind closed doors and had to admit shortly before he died that it was all for nothing.  For all the risks he took  – including the signing of a peace treaty – the Zionists gave him nothing back except, from time to time, a promise not to bomb him. The Palestinians are not back where they started but worse off than when the PLO eschewed violence for the diplomatic track back in the early 1970s.   Diplomacy and an interminable  ‘peace process’ simply enabled Israel to continue its war on the Palestinians by alternative means.

Every coin has two sides and the loss of Palestine is no different. One side is Zionist and the other Arab. By the time of the 1967 war the ‘Arab idea’ was fading fast.  Now there is nothing but fragmentation, confusion, discord and sectarian hatred. Arabs are too busy killing each other to worry about Israel.  Saudi Arabia has its war in Yemen and, with Qatar, has poured billions of dollars into the effort to bring down the government in Damascus. Qatar took the lead in providing an Arab face for NATO’s destruction of Libya, a project backed by the Arab League. Israel is not even the common enemy any longer. Collusion by Arab states with the Zionists is scarcely covert.

It is in these stinking waters that Israel swims.  What it wants is for the Arab world not to be what it is (or what it was or what it thinks it was). It wants the Arab idea dead and buried and with Arab help it is succeeding in achieving this objective. It wants the geography and political landscape of the Middle East rearranged and it is achieving this objective as well. Arab governments apparently cannot see (or do not care) that they are putting their signatures to the end of the ‘Arab world’ as any kind of collective entity.  They have colluded in bringing the forward movement of ‘Arab’ history to a dead halt. Surely this cannot have been the region that produced some of the greatest warriors and thinkers in history. The fall from great heights to such sleazy depths is simply too great.  Obviously, Arab history was not history at all but a mere fairy tale, an entertainment for children before they fall asleep, no different than Hay ibn Yaqzan or the stories in Qalilah wa Dimna.

The Palestinians have tried everything.   It is not they who have ‘never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity’ as Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban once remarked but Israel.  It has never been willing to trade land for peace.  It wants land and peace and seems to hope that time will resolve the inherent contradictions in this formula.

The outlook is terribly bleak but is it beyond hope? There are reasons to think not.  If Israel does annex the West Bank and refuses to grant citizen rights to the Palestinians, it will openly be turning itself into an apartheid state and even more of a pariah state on the world stage.  The global BDS campaign university is gathering more support every day. Corporations, faculties, churches and other social groups are all disinvesting. The invective pouring out of the Israeli government and its lobbyists and their attempts to criminalize BDS are a sure measure of its success.

In the US John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt broke a taboo with the publication in 2007 of their book The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy.   They were not wild-eyed lefties but conservative mainstream academics at two of the best universities in the world – Chicago and Harvard.  The fact that a book questioning the nature of the ‘special relationship’, on moral as well as political grounds, could even find a mainstream publisher was itself an indication that public opinion was shifting.

Since then there have been further setbacks for Israel, most recently the failure of the lobby to block the agreement with Iran. Meanwhile, on campuses Jewish students are just as likely to sign up for the BDS campaign as to oppose it.  They no doubt support Israel’s ‘right to exist’ but they do not support what it has become.  Their support is no longer uncritical – as it might have been back in the 1960s – and can no longer be taken for granted.

In the directly political sphere Bernie Sanders criticized Israel, not very harshly but he did criticize it and in a presidential campaign this is an absolute first.  The Europeans are taking a tougher line. The EU is blacklisting Israeli companies and blocking the funding of any Israeli entity operating in the West Bank. Both the EU and the US government are prohibiting goods manufactured in the West Bank from being labeled ‘made in Israel.’ In European parliaments and amongst the general public Israel is steadily losing ground.

The wheel of history turns slowly but it does turn and it is turning against Israel all the time.  It is often impossible for people or for empires and states who have great power to imagine the day coming when they will be devoid of that power.  Israel has made lots of enemies and has only one ‘friend’. Even that friendship is doubtful: if Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are declaring undying love for Israel it is not out of love but out of fear, of the damage the lobby can do if they dare say anything else.   The US is certain to go through its own upheavals.  The day may come when it can no longer afford to give Israel four or five billion dollars a year – the day may come when for moral and political reasons it does not see why it should.

The final element in this mix is the Jewish people of Israel.  What do they want – a real peace or an ersatz peace based on occupation and the permanent oppression of another people? Netanyahu, Naftali Bennett, Avigdor Lieberman, the settlers and fanatical rabbis are holding out the second option as if Israel has no other choice.  Lying about the past and justifying every cruelty in the present, Israel is poisoning itself.  What greater threat to its future could there be than this?

– Jeremy Salt taught at the University of Melbourne, at Bosporus University in Istanbul and Bilkent University in Ankara for many years

Is Israel America’s Friend? Or America’s Enemy?

Global Research, May 21, 2015

Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has selected as his Minister of Justice a woman who has expressed hatred against all Palestinians, and he has appointed as his negotiator with the Palestians a man who said, and who has always followed though with, “We are all against a Palestinian state, there is no question about it.”

These policies are direct rejections of the U.S.-overseen 1978 Camp David Accords, and of consistent U.S. policy since. The Camp David Accords were so bad for the Palestinians that the signatory on their behalf, Egypt’s leader Anwar Sadat, was despised by virtually all Muslims and was assassinated for having done this. But Egypt abided by the Accords, while Israel for decades since has been constantly hemming and hawing about when they will some day fulfill their obligations under them; and, now, we finally have been given the answer: It’s never. They signed an agreement that was so bad for Palestinians it was rejected by them and by the U.N., but now it’s finally clear: to Israel, it’s not bad enough to Palestinians. So: Israel insists upon continued (and now upon never-ending) military occupation.

Netanyahu has proven by actions, not mere words, that Israel is America’s enemy, refusing to do even what Israel had signed an American-sponsored accord in 1978 promising to do — and, now, at last, installing a government that is deeply committed to never complying with it.

In 2011, someone posted to facebook an article, “List of Politicians with Israeli Dual Citizenship,” and gave no links to sources but merely his own untrustworthy allegations, that the following U.S. Government officials possess dual U.S. and Israeli citizenships:

Elliott Abrams, Kenneth Adelman, Stuart Bernstein, Brad Blakeman, Lincoln Bloomfield, Samuel Bodman, John Bolton, Joshua Bolten, Nancy Brinker, Michael Chertoff, Bonnie Cohen, Eliot Cohen, Ruth Davis, Douglas Feith, Ari Fleischer, Lawrence Franklin, David Frum, Christopher Gersten, Joseph Gildenhorn, Adam Goldman, Steve Goldsmith, Marc Grossman, Richard Haass, Henry Kissinger, Daniel Kurtzer, Frank Lavin, Jay Lefkowitz, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Edward Luttwak, Ken Melman, Michael Mukasey, Richard Perle, Robert Satloff, James Schlesinger, Mel Sembler, Martin Silverstein, Cliff Sobel, Mark Weinberger, Ron Weiser, Paul Wolfowitz, David Wurmser, Dov Zakheim, Robert Zoellick.

Subsequently, other (and some even lengthier) lists with equally undisclosed souces, were published.

Such lists circulate mainly in right-wing circles, like Joseph R. McCarthy’s lists of “communists in the State Department” did in the 1950s. Yet most of the names on these alleged dual-citizenship lists are themselves right-wing and far-right, not left-of-center.

The very idea of dual-citizenship, for a government official, is repugnant in any real democracy. Certainly, there ought to be a requirement for all individuals who are employed by the U.S. Government or by any U.S. Government contractor, to publicly renounce any other citizenship before being hired. That’s just basic.

But, in any case, now that we know that Israel is an outright enemy of the United States, the public should be demanding the U.S. President and Congress to side with the Palestinians against Israel.

Countries throughout history have changed from allies to enemies and back again. Nothing is permanent in history. Israel is now an enemy, and apparently has been for a long time, and should be treated as such. They’ve been given more than enough time to cease being an apartheid State like South Africa used to be. Whereas South Africa evolved to a democracy, Israel remains racist. Unless the United States wishes to return to the era of Reagan and before — the era of accepting racism as State policy in an allied country — the U.S. has no moral choice but to switch to supporting, openly, the Palestinians. The Palestinians have every right to reject, and rebel against, Israel’s racism. Israel’s clear determination to continue the military occupation over them gives the Palestinians the right to do what they must to establish their own state, even to take over all of Israel if that’s the only option that the military occupiers offer as an alternative to permanent military occupation and oppression.

Even if it were the case that this would not be the best thing for Jews who live in Israel, the U.S. is obliged only for the welfare and decency of Americans. We are not responsible for the welfare or decency of the people of any other country. This doesn’t mean that we can’t be concerned about that; we’re concerned about a lot of things that aren’t our basic national obligations to be concerned about. But Israel is now clearly an enemy country, and should be treated as such.

There should be such consequences for any country that has lied to the United States for so long a time, and finally shown that they intend to remain permanently non-compliant with a U.S. treaty or U.S.-sponsored treaty. That’s like a declaration of war against the U.S. It’s a declaration by means of action, not by means of mere words. Israel’s mere words, to the United States, are now clearly shown to have been lies, for decades. Actions are what matter. Actions are what show authentic intentions. Israel’s authentic intentions are now clear — and extremely hostile.

Israel has declared itself an enemy not only of the Palestinians, but of the Americans. If there are any dual-citizenship U.S. Government officials, they should be fired, even if they cannot be prosecuted. And, if any of those dual-citizenships are with Israel, then they’ve been foreign agents all long and are now agents of an enemy nation.

Or, is the United States instead itself occupied by Israel? Let’s hope that that’s not the case. We’ll soon know if it is, and has been.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

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

YEHUDI ARABIA FINANCIAL AID TO TWIN SISTER ISRAEL

wahhabizionism

Ed-note (Sabba) –  This article asks whether money sealed israeli-saudi alliance. No, it did not. What sealed their alliance is far deeper and weighs much heavier than some billions of US Dollars.

Sheikh Imran Hosein rightly points out that these 2 states are sisters. It is the same power which acted as a midwife at their birth (Britain), it is the same power which is nurturing them, protecting them, defending them (the USA ).

The similarities between wahhabism and orthodox judaism are so striking that it is impossible not to see thru this ‘Mask of Zion’: wahhabism is nothing more than judaism with an islamic mask.

Wahhabis impose on their women what is called ‘niqab’ or the full veil: the only other people who impose on their women a full ‘niqab’ are some orthodox jews.

Wahhabis forbid their women to drive – like some of their brethren within the orthodox jewish community.

Wahhabis forbid their men to wear trousers that fall down to the heels/ankles: the maximum length of men’s trousers should be somewhere between the ankle and the calf muscles – like their orthodox jewish cousins.

Wahhabi law has death penalty for the victims of rape – as ordained by the Torah and as forbidden by Islam (Islam teaches the opposite: it is the rapist who is condemned to death).

Wahhabis use lapidation method, mainly against women, for adulterers and fornicators – as ordained in the Torah and again forbidden by the Quran.

Wahhabis like their jewish brethren have a profound hatred for Shia Muslims so much that they, for the first time in Islamic history, publicly declared them ‘unbelievers’ (while jews are OK because they are ‘people of the Book’).

Wahhabis like their jewish brethren also share the same hatred for Christians.

Etc. etc. etc.

In fact, not only are these 2 states sisters, but Yehudi Arabia, being the older sister, is in truth the main protector of the jewish state. They had to first create the jewish state of yehudi Arabia before they could create the jewish state in Palestine (cut off the head of the Islamic Ummah by putting their own men – the ibn saud – in charge of Mecca and Medina and in the process completely paralyzing the entire world of Islam).

And just like they created saudi arabia before they could create israel, the Holy Land and the world at large will not be free until Arabia is freed first. As long as the Arabian Peninsula is occupied, Palestine will remain occupied. Once Saudi Arabia falls, everything else will fall because Yehudi Arabia is perhaps the strongest shield israel has.

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/04/15/did-money-seal-israeli-saudi-alliance/

Did Money Seal Israeli-Saudi Alliance?

Special Report: The odd-couple relationship between Saudi Arabia and Israel may have been sealed with more than a mutual desire to kiss-off Iran. According to an intelligence source, there was a dowry involved, too, with the Saudis reportedly giving Israel some $16 billion, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

For more than half a century, Saudi Arabia has tried to use its vast oil wealth to build a lobby in the United States that could rival the imposing Israel Lobby. At top dollar, the Saudis hired law firms and PR specialists – and exploited personal connections to powerful families like the Bushes – but the Saudis never could build the kind of grassroots political organization that has given Israel and its American backers such extraordinary clout.

Indeed, Americans who did take Saudi money – including academic institutions and non-governmental organizations – were often pilloried as tools of the Arabs, with the Israel Lobby and its propagandists raising the political cost of accepting Saudi largesse so high that many people and institutions shied away.

President Obama and King Salman Arabia stand at attention during the U.S. national anthem as the First Lady stands in the background with other officials. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

But Saudi Arabia may have found another way to buy influence inside the United States – by giving money to Israel and currying favor with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Over the past several years, as both Saudi Arabia and Israel have identified Iran and the so-called “Shiite crescent” as their principal enemies, this once-unthinkable alliance has become possible – and the Saudis, as they are wont to do, may have thrown lots of money into the deal.

According to a source briefed by U.S. intelligence analysts, the Saudis have given Israel at least $16 billion over the past 2 ½ years, funneling the money through a third-country Arab state and into an Israeli “development” account in Europe to help finance infrastructure inside Israel. The source first called the account “a Netanyahu slush fund,” but later refined that characterization, saying the money was used for public projects such as building settlements in the West Bank.

In other words, according to this information, the Saudis concluded that if you can’t beat the Israel Lobby, try buying it. And, if that is the case, the Saudis have found their behind-the-scenes collaboration with Israel extremely valuable. Netanyahu has played a key role in lining up the U.S. Congress to fight an international agreement to resolve a long-running dispute over Iran’s nuclear program.

Urged on by Netanyahu, the Republican majority and many Democrats have committed themselves to destroying the framework agreement hammered out on April 2 by Iran and six world powers, including the United States. The deal would impose strict inspections and other limits to guarantee that Iran’s nuclear program remains peaceful.

By crashing the deal, Israel and Saudi Arabia would open the door to more punitive sanctions on Iran and possibly clear the way for Israeli airstrikes, with Saudi Arabia granting over-flight permission to Israeli warplanes. The Saudi-Israeli tandem also might hope to pull in the U.S. military to inflict even more devastation on Iranian targets.

Neither the Israeli nor Saudi governments responded to requests for comment on Saudi payments into an Israeli account.

Congressional Acclaim

The reported Saudi-to-Israel money transfers put Netanyahu’s March 3 speech to a cheering joint session of the U.S. Congress in a different light, too. The Prime Minister’s bitter denunciations of Iran before hundreds of transfixed American lawmakers could be viewed as him demonstrating his value to the Saudi royals who could never dream of getting that kind of reaction themselves.

Indeed, as Congress now moves to sabotage the Iranian nuclear agreement, the Saudis could be finding that whatever money they invested in Israel is money well spent. The Saudis seem especially alarmed that the nuclear agreement would prompt the world community to lift sanctions on Iran, thus allowing its economy – and its influence – to grow.

To prevent that, the Saudis desperately want to draw the United States in on the Sunni side of the historic Sunni-Shiite conflict, with Netanyahu serving as a crucial middleman by defying President Barack Obama on the Iran deal and bringing the full force of the Israel Lobby to bear on Congress and on the opinion circles of Official Washington.

If Netanyahu and the Saudis succeed in collapsing the Iran nuclear framework agreement, they will have made great strides toward enlisting the United States as the primary military force on the Sunni side of the Sunni-Shiite sectarian divide, a dispute that dates back to the succession struggle after Prophet Muhammad’s death in 632.

This ancient feud has become a Saudi obsession over the past several decades, at least since Iran’s Shiite revolution overthrew the Shah of Iran in 1979 and brought to power the Islamic government of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Upset with the ouster of a fellow monarch, the Shah, and fearing the spread of Khomeini’s ascetic form of Shiite Islamic governance, the Saudi royals summoned Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, a fellow Sunni, to Riyadh on Aug. 5, 1980, to encourage him to invade Iran.

According to top secret “Talking Points” that Secretary of State Alexander Haig prepared for a briefing of President Ronald Reagan after Haig’s April 1981 trip to the Middle East, Haig wrote that Saudi Prince Fahd said he told the Iraqis that an invasion of Iran would have U.S. support.

“It was … interesting to confirm that President [Jimmy] Carter gave the Iraqis a green light to launch the war against Iran through Fahd,” Haig wrote, in the document that I discovered in U.S. congressional files in 1994. Though Carter has denied encouraging the Iraqi invasion, which came as Iran was holding 52 U.S. diplomats hostage, Haig’s “Talking Points” suggest that the Saudis at least led Hussein to believe that the war had U.S. blessings.

Haig also noted that even after the overthrow of the Shah and the establishment of the Islamic state under Khomeini, Israel sought to maintain its clandestine relations with Iran by serving as an arms supplier. Haig reported that “Both [Egypt’s Anwar] Sadat and [Saudi Prince] Fahd [explained that] Iran is receiving military spares for U.S. equipment from Israel.”

Those Israeli weapons sales continued through the eight bloody years of the Iran-Iraq War with some estimates of the value reaching into the scores of billions of dollar. The Israelis even helped bring the Reagan administration into the deals in the mid-1980s with the so-called Iran-Contra arms shipments that involved secret off-the-books bank accounts in Europe and led to the worst scandal of Reagan’s presidency.

Rise of the Neocons

In the 1990s – with the Iran-Iraq war over and Iran’s treasury depleted – Israeli attitudes cooled toward its erstwhile trading partner. Meanwhile, American neocons – juiced by the demonstration of U.S. military supremacy against Iraq during the Persian Gulf War in 1991 and the collapse of the Soviet Union leaving the U.S. as “the sole superpower” – began advising Netanyahu on employing “regime change” to alter the Mideast dynamic.

During Netanyahu’s 1996 campaign, prominent neocons including Richard Perle and Douglas Feith outlined the plan in a policy paper entitled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” The document argued that “Israel can shape its strategic environment … by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq – an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.” [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The Mysterious Why of the Iraq War.”]

The overriding point of this neocon strategy was that by imposing “regime change” in Muslim nations that were deemed hostile to Israel, new friendly governments could be put in place, thus leaving Israel’s close-in enemies – Hamas in Palestine and Hezbollah in Lebanon – without outside sponsors. Starved of money, these troublesome enemies would be forced to accept Israel’s terms. “The Realm” would be secured.

The neocons first target was Sunni-ruled Iraq, as their Project for the New American Century made clear in 1998, but Syria and Iran were next on the hit list. Syria is governed by the Assads who are Alawites, an offshoot of Shiite Islam, and Iran is governed by Shiites. The neocon plan was to use U.S. military force or other means of subversion to take out all three regimes.

However, when the neocons got their chance to invade Iraq in 2003, they inadvertently tipped the Mideast balance in favor of the Shiites, since Iraq’s Shiite majority gained control under the U.S. military occupation. Plus, the disastrous U.S. war precluded the neocons from completing their agenda of enforced “regime change” in Syria and Iran.

With the new Iraqi government suddenly friendly with Iran’s Shiite leaders, Saudi Arabia became increasingly alarmed. Israel was also coming to view the so-called “Shiite crescent” from Tehran through Baghdad and Damascus to Beirut as a strategic threat.

Saudi Arabia, working with Turkey, took aim at the center of that crescent in 2011 by supporting a Sunni-led opposition to the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a set of protests that quickly spiraled into bloody terrorist attacks and harsh military repression.

By 2013, it was clear that the principal fighters against Assad’s government were not the fictional “moderates” touted by the U.S. mainstream media but Al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front and a hyper-brutal Al-Qaeda spinoff that arose in resistance to the U.S. occupation of Iraq and evolved into the “Islamic State of Iraq and Syria” or simply the “Islamic State.”

Israeli Preference

To the surprise of some observers, Israel began voicing a preference for Al-Qaeda’s militants over the relatively secular Assad government, which was viewed as the protectors of Alawites, Shiites, Christians and other Syrian minorities terrified of the Saudi-backed Sunni extremists.

In September 2013, in one of the most explicit expressions of Israel’s views, Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren, then a close adviser to Netanyahu, told the Jerusalem Post that Israel favored the Sunni extremists over Assad.

“The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc,” Oren told the Jerusalem Post inan interview. “We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran.” He said this was the case even if the “bad guys” were affiliated with Al-Qaeda.

Oren expanded on his position in June 2014 at an Aspen Institute conference. Then, speaking as a former ambassador, Oren said Israel would even prefer a victory by the Islamic State, which was massacring captured Iraqi soldiers and beheading Westerners, than the continuation of the Iranian-backed Assad in Syria.

“From Israel’s perspective, if there’s got to be an evil that’s got to prevail, let the Sunni evil prevail,” Oren said.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

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

Haikal’s Vision of the world in 2015

رؤية هيكل للعالم في عام 2015

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

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

Egypt and Gaza: The tale of two Rafahs

A ball of fire is seen following an Israeli air strike, on July 11, 2014 in Rafah, in the southern of Gaza Strip. Israeli warplanes kept up deadly raids on Gaza but failed to stop Palestinian militants firing rockets across the border, as the United States offered to help negotiate a truce. (Photo: AFP-Said Khatib)
Published Thursday, August 7, 2014
Om Mohammed Zaarab is an Egyptian woman of Palestinian descent. She has been living in the Salahuddin neighborhood in Sinai’s Rafah since before the division of the town into an Egyptian side and a Palestinian side.
Sinai – It was shortly after 2 pm when Om Mohammed Zaarab, a woman in her fifties, was seen standing on the balcony of her house located on the border of the Salahuddin neighborhood in Sinai’s Rafah. She prayed to God to ease the suffering of people in Gaza and her relatives living on the Palestinian side of Rafah.
Speaking to Al-Akhbar Om Mohammed said, “We did not sleep at all during the night, we kept hearing the sounds of Israeli jets bombing the region that separated the two Rafahs. They targeted the houses of my relatives and my cousins on the Palestinian side.”
“I could see their homes from my balcony, I saw it with my own two eyes as the planes bombarded their houses and turned them into piles of rubble,” she recounted.
“I saw the dead bodies of children and adults of the Zaarab family on TV, but all I could do was to pray to God to bring destruction upon the Israelis and all those supporting them… Here I am, standing a few steps away and I cannot join them, or even attend the funerals of the deceased,” she sighed.
Om Mohammed was not the only one hit by the tragedy. It was a feeling she shared with many Egyptian families of Palestinian origin who are today living on the Egyptian side of Rafah.
This town and its famous crossing were at the heart of the peace initiative launched by late Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat who visited Israel and signed a “peace accord” that involved redrawing the borders and dividing Rafah, hence separating families that lived on both sides of the borders.

“I could see their homes from my balcony, I saw it with my own two eyes as the planes bombarded their houses and turned them into piles of rubble,” – Om Mohammed

 

In his shop located on the corner of a Salahuddin’s side street, Hajj Moussa Qashta sat with a friend watching the news of the Israeli aggressions on Gaza.
 “We are sad about the massacres we see on TV that are being committed against our cousins and our relatives in Gaza, and targeting neighborhoods in Palestinian Rafah where our families are living,” he said.
Mahmoud al-Akhrassi, an Egyptian man from Rafah explained that “there are family ties linking people from the Palestinian side to those on the Egyptian side, my sister-in-law is Palestinian and her nephew was killed in the recent Israeli aggression.”
“We received condolences at our house, from both our relatives and from the relatives of the martyr, who are members of Egyptian families of Palestinian origin,” he said.
Meanwhile, an emotional Ibrahim al-Qomboz said, “We wished that Egypt would open the Rafah crossing so we can visit Gaza, especially Rafah, but there is nothing we can do.”
“We see them crying and yelling for help and we cannot even go bury them or participate in the funerals of our loved ones,” he added.
Om Khaled, who has been living in Rafah for over 30 years, is a Palestinian woman married to an Egyptian man.
She says she will never stop mourning her relatives. Constantly worried because of the Israeli war on Gaza, she said, “May God [take our revenge on] the Israelis, they do not distinguish between anyone, they kill children, mothers and old men, may God deprive them of everything they cherish.”
As we walked through the town, we reached a house in the Ahrash neighborhood. Iman Zaareb, 27, was covered in black as she sat at her parents’ house, holding the picture of a man in his thirties.
When asked about the man in the picture, she broke down in tears. She calmed down a few minutes later as her mother comforted her, and she was finally able to share her pain with us.
“This is my husband Iyad Zaarab, he visited us in Rafah when the borders were opened, we got married and I went with him to the Palestinian side where we lived what I thought was the most beautiful life,” she said.
She described her husband as “a compassionate man, who did his best to make me and our three children happy.”
“Two weeks after the Israeli aggression, some shells and missiles fell near our house and some of our neighbors were martyred,” she said, recounting her story. “My husband asked me to travel with my children to Rafah and to stay at my parents’ house until the end of the war, when the situation stabilizes. I insisted on staying there and told him we either live together or die together, but he refused and demanded that I leave.”
“In the end, I did as he wished and I came to my parents’ house,” she said with deep sorrow.
“He used to call us every day to check on me and on the kids but four days ago, Rafah was targeted with intense Israeli shelling, and dozens were martyred, including my husband,” she continued.
“He did not answer when I called him on his phone and I found out from his brother that he was martyred in the shelling,” she sighed.
“I headed to the Rafah crossing on the same day, trying to enter Gaza to see my husband before he was buried, I wept and did everything I could but the Egyptian security refused to let me in. But God is sufficient for us, for he is the best disposer of [our] affairs. He will deal with those who killed him and those who prevented me from seeing him as a martyr before he was buried,” she lamented.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Nayef Hawatmeh: On Arab Spring, Saddam, PLO and Arafat

نايف حواتمة _ ساعة حوار / الاتجاه 23 10 2013

Egypt .. Revolution continues مصر .. الثورة مستمرة

محمد شبانة _ مصر .. الثورة مستمرة _ مع الحدث / المنار 27 09 2013

Peres: Syria Is Punished for Refusing Peace with ’Israel’

Local Editor

Zionist President Shimon Peres

 

In significant remarks made by the president of Zionist entity Shimon Peres he stated that what is happening in Syria today is to punish the Arab state for refusing to compromise with ‘Israel’.In statements published by the Zionist daily Yediot Ahronoth on Sunday, Peres said that “the 1973 war had brought peace in spite of its brutality.”

“One of the 1973 war outcomes was signing the Peace-Treaty with Egypt, through which (Mohammad) Sadat could bring security and peace to his people, contrary to (Hafez) Assad, who refused to participate in Sadat’s settlement as he participated in his war,” the Zionist president elaborated.

“Today, Syria lives internal war and the Syrian people pay for it over Assad’s refusal to compromise. Today he is punished for his refusal,” he said.

Peres’s remarks came during his participation in the commemoration of Zionist soldiers who had been killed in the 1973 war. The ceremony was also attended by Zionist Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other military and security officials.

These statements made it clear that what is happening in Syria is not a revolution but a foreign schema, analysts and observers say, noting that these statements indicate the beneficiary of the Syrian crisis and its maestro.

Source: Websites
16-09-2013 – 15:34 Last updated 16-09-2013 – 15:34

Yom Kippur, War and the Power Of Deterrence

By Gilad Atzmon

Today is Yom Kippur and the 40th anniversary of the 1973 Arab–Israeli (Yom Kippur) War. That war caught Israel totally on the hop. In the first days of the conflict, both the IDF and the IAF were defeated and humiliated. Moshe Dayan, the legendary Israeli defence minister, contemplated out loud the ‘destruction of the 3rd Temple’ and, according to different intelligence sources, Israel was close to using its ‘Samson option’ – a nuclear strike against Egypt.

Interestingly, neither the Egyptians nor the Syrians had any plans to ‘throw the Jews to the sea.’ In fact, their military objectives were rather limited – liberating land occupied by Israel in 1967.  The Egyptians attempted to secure a narrow bridge-head over the Suez Canal and the Syrians hoped to free the Golan Heights or at least part of it.

But driven by pre-Traumatic Stress (Pre-TSD), Israeli army generals and the government managed to recast this joint Arab operation as nothing less than an emerging Shoa. Consequently, at least for the first days of the war, they panicked and unnecessarily and critically exhausted Israeli military assets and force.

I believe that when judging Israeli contemporary politics, we need to bear in mind that the current Israeli political and military leadership were low and medium ranking front-line military commanders in that war 40 years ago. In 1973 Benjamin Netanyahu led special forces operations in Syria and Egypt. Ehud Barak, then a Lieutenant-Colonel, led an Israeli tank battalion through some of the toughest battles in the war. Israel’s defence minister Moshe “Bogie” Ya’alon fought the war as a reservist commando soldier while former Israeli Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi was an infantry soldier at the time of the war and fought in the Sinai Peninsula.

Nor does it take a genius to realise that these Israeli leaders’ decisions would have been shaped by their 1973 experience. In that war they mistakenly saw themselves as the last defenders of the newly founded Jews-only state. Like all Israeli front-line combatants in that war, they interpreted the powerful but limited Syrian/Egyptian attack as a serious attempt at genocide. As any pop-psychologist will tell you, they projected their own symptoms onto their Arab adversaries. Clearly Netanyahu and his government still fall into the same trap. Time after time, they assume that the Iranians, Syrians and Palestinians are driven by murderous inclinations and are led by people who are as murderous as they are.

In the last week the Israeli papers have been saturated with articles and commentaries on Yom Kippur and the trauma that never fades away. Ynet and Haaretz both reflect on that event that shook Israel’s confidence and, for the first time, challenged its image of military omnipotence.

Two days ago I came across a very interesting story on Ynet (Hebrew edition). Apparently, just before hostilities began on October 6th 1973, Israel became aware of a vast Soviet delivery of long range Scud missiles to the Egyptian army.  Seemingly, this piece of intelligence deterred Israel from its intention to raid Egyptian governmental and civilian infrastructure in Egyptian cities.

Ynet Writes:

“Three days later, on 9 October, the [Israeli] Air Force (IAF) launched a series of deep raids on Damascus military headquarters in an attempt to put pressure on the Syrian government and leadership. One would expect the IAF to launch similar air raids on Egypt’s capital. Yet despite the Egyptian initial assault, and despite the tremendous pressure exerted by Egyptian armies on the Israeli forces in the Suez Canal, Israel was careful. It was fearful. Policy makers in Israel, headed by Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, repeatedly rejected IDF’s suggestions to conduct deep raids against Egypt. It was the Soviet Scud missiles in Egypt that deterred Israel from conducting such aerial bombardments.”

I guess the meaning of this paragraph is simple yet crucial for the understanding of Israel and its politics. Israel restrained itself from pounding Egypt only because it was aware that the Egyptians had the means to retaliate. In other words, Israeli leaders knew all along that Egypt possessed the capacity to inflict pain to Israel’s cities. They must have realised that Egyptian objectives were not genocidal – but it also means that Israel’s enemies: Arab countries, as well as Iran, must pursue every possible means to posses the kind of weaponry that deters Israel.

It seems this is the only way to bring Israeli aggression to an end.

The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity Politics, available on Amazon.com  & Amazon.co.uk

An American Coup in Egypt?

 
What is happening in Egypt warrants historical contextualization. When Sadat first took over after Nasser in 1970, his chances of survival in power were nil. He had no political stature and no power base of his own. He began to build up his power in 1971 when he announced the existence of a wide leftist conspiracy by Nasser’s chief advisors (he called them “marakiz al-qiwa” – centers of power).

His case was based on secret tapings of phone conversations. It was never before revealed whether the US government supplied Sadat’s with the “evidence” in order to help him eliminate his Nasserist rivals. It was only a year later that Sadat ordered the Soviet advisers out of Egypt, probably as a payback to the US government. The rest of the history of Sadat and Mubarak is too well-known: the US government helped construct and supervise the repressive security state in Egypt, which would become a cornerstone of US-Israeli policies in the Middle East.

It is too early to analyze the nature of the Egyptian regime of Mubarak, but there are some clear signs and indications. The US government has reached the conclusion that it (and Israel) can do business with the Muslim Brotherhood as long as they don’t touch or interfere in the foreign policies of Sadat-Mubarak.

Egyptian intelligence service has been constructed by the US and operates as an extension of the CIA station in Egypt.
I t is fair to say that the Muslim Brotherhood has basically allowed the intelligence service to retain control over the foreign policies of Egypt. The top appointments at the foreign ministry have been undertaken by the mukhabarat apparatus, and the foreign ministers in the new Egypt are graduates of Sadat ‘s school of diplomacy. The American administration and Congress have made it very clear that the only criterion that matters to the US is the preservation of the Egyptian-Israeli treaty.

But the Muslim Brotherhood needed time to prove their loyalty and subservience to US security interest and orders. The US was watching closely and it was very clear to Arab watchers that the Ikhwan underwent a swift makeover. Gone were all the speeches about jihad with its grotesque anti-Semitic rhetoric and the standard Islamist references to “the descendants of apes and monkeys,” and in was a new insistence on the necessity of respect for “the international treaties and obligations.” Of course, the redundant references by the new Egyptian government to the respect for “international treaties” were in no way related to Egypt’s bilateral treaties with African and Asian countries. It became a euphemism or a code language of sorts for the new government of the Ikhwan: it was sent as a signal to the US that they are willing to preserve the same foreign policies of Mubarak-Sadat in return for support in power.

The Brotherhood sent emissaries to Washington, DC and held talks with prominent members of the Zionist establishment in the city.

Senator John McCain (a man to the right of Ariel Sharon), became a sudden champion of the Ikhwan in the US and went regularly on Fox News to promote the notion of a “moderate Muslim Brotherhood.” The IMF (a mere tool of US foreign policy) quickly joined in and promised a generous loan in return for good behavior.

But the Gaza war was the golden opportunity: it would be years before we really know how the Gaza war erupted and how it was managed, but the Ikhwan earned the trust of the US and Israel very quickly. After the savage Israeli war on Gaza, the Muslim Brotherhood and preachers of holy war against Jews – this is the classical rhetoric of the Ikhwan – argued that the Mursi government’s recall of the Egyptian ambassador to Israel is the strongest possible response, very much along the lines of Mubarak’s foreign policy argument. The Brotherhood worked very closely with the Obama administration, and Zionists in the US showered praise on the Mursi government and on the new responsible behavior of the Muslim Brotherhood.

It was only days after the Gaza war that Mursi produced his decrees. And the US reaction was quite similar to its reaction when any of its repressive clients in the region resorts to repressive measures. Worse, the US government reacted in the same way it reacted when protesters first took to the streets against the Mubarak regime. Just as the Obama administration early condemned the “violence” of the Egyptian protesters against Mubarak (and not vice versa), the Obama administration again warned the protesters (and not the regime) against the resort to violence.

Egypt's President Mohamed Mursi speaks to supporters in front of the presidential palace in Cairo November 23, 2012. REUTERS/Egyptian Presidency/Handout
Egypt’s Mursi faces judicial revolt over decree

Zionist media quickly followed suit.

The New York Times carried a front page picture of a Muslim Brotherhood activist rescuing an injured person: Arabs widely ridiculed the picture because the Arabic press on the same day carried various pictures of Ikhwan thugs beating peaceful demonstrators in Cairo. And the New York Times has been so pleased with Mursi’s behavior vis-à-vis Israel that it considered the mounting of tents and the scribbling of anti-Mursi graffiti as acts of violence by the opposition.

There is no evidence as of yet that the US was involved in Mursi’s coup, but there is clear evidence that the two governments have been working closely together. Various emissaries of Mursi were dispatched to Washington DC, and Mursi notified the US government of his decision before the decree was announced to the Egyptian public. It is not unlikely that the US has colluded with Mursi in order to reconstruct the repressive security state that has been so helpful to Israel over the decades. It is possible that the US will adjust its relationship in the region in order to incorporate the Ikhwan regimes into the established pro-US regional repressive system.

The suspicion of a US role in the Mursi government is widely shared among Egyptians, and its explains why many protesters went to the US embassy to protest but were turned away by Mubarak-Mursi’s security goons.

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

Is it a date with a new Sadat?

 

بهدوء | أهو موعد مع «سادات» جديد؟

 
أحدث العدوان الإسرائيلي على غزة ــ وردّها الشجاع ــ الكثير من الخلط والتخليط في المشهد الإقليمي. الخلط مفهومٌ لكونه يرتبط بتعقيدات موضوعية؛ غزة ليست كلها حماس، وحماس ليست كلها قَطرية، ولا يزال هناك حسابات أمنية وسياسية لا بد من تسويتها مع القطاع المضطرب بين مشروعين: مشروع إقامة «دبي» فلسطينية متصلة بمصر ـــ كجزء من تسوية الانفصال عن ضفة غربية متصلة بالأردن ـــ ومشروع المقاومة.

والمفارقة أن كلا المشروعين يستلزمان الرد العملي نفسه؛ فالذاهبون إلى مناخات التسوية يحتاجون إلى تحسين شروط الهدنة الطويلة المدى (واقعياً = التسوية) بما يكفل الإطار الأمني والسياسي لإمارة غزة المزدهرة، بينما المصرّون على بناء القطاع المقاوم تحيّنوا الفرصة لتقديم النموذج المستقبلي الذي يريدونه. وهكذا، قامت على الأرض المشتركة لهدفين متناقضين، «غرفة عمليات موحدة» ضمّت التيارات والفصائل المتصارعة سياسياً.

«النصر» في غزة قد يقود إلى سادات فلسطيني آخر أو إلى تجربة تقارب تجربة حزب الله في لبنان. صوت حماس حتى الآن هو صوت خالد مشعل الذي أعاد التأكيد، مجدداً، على خياراته السياسية مع الحلف الخليجي التركي الأميركي، بما في ذلك تكرار التذكير بالخلاف مع إيران في الملف السوري. يعيدنا موقفه هذا إلى السادات الذي كان يصنع «نصره» في «اكتوبر» الـ 73 بالأسلحة الروسية، بينما يشتم موسكو، ويغازل واشنطن، ويرتّب للصفقة المقبلة معها.
«السادات» شخصية محببة لدى الإخوان المسلمين. وليس بالمصادفة أن الرئيس الإخواني المصري، محمد مرسي ـــ الذي قاطع ذكرى جمال عبد الناصر ـــ منح ذكرى السادات، أعلى وسام مصري. وليست مأثرة «الرئيس المؤمن» الرئيسية، عند الإخوان، أنه أعادهم إلى مصر ومكّن لهم في منتصف السبعينيات، وإنما تكمن مأثرته الكبرى في نموذجه السياسي «البلدي»، شبه الأمي، المحافظ في الثقافة والنيوليبرالي في الاقتصاد، و«الواقعي» ـــ الفهلوي في السياسة، والشعبوي في الأداء. وهذا هو، في النهاية، ما يصبو إليه مرسي وما يُلهم مشعل.


هنا، نأتي إلى التخليط الذي انحدرت إليه مواقف وفضائيات وصحافة قوى الممانعة؛ حفلة تستخدم اللحظة الساخنة الراهنة لإلغاء العقل والحس النقدي والسعي الجبان لتجاهل التناقضات أو تمييعها بين معسكرين تحددا بالدم في مأساة سورية؛ معسكر المقاومة ومعسكر الرجعية.

مرة أخرى، عادت المواقف ووسائل الإعلام التابعة لخط المقاومة لتروّج الأوهام حول مصر الإخوانية ودورها الإقليمي، وتبيعنا رجعيين من أزلام قَطر، كـ«مقاومين» يعطوننا دروساً في «الربيع العربي» وأثره في دعم مقاومة الشعب الفلسطيني ضد إسرائيل، بل وفي تمجيد الدوحة والتعريض بدمشق، وفي أحسن الأحوال، السعي إلى عزلها جانباً كملفّ خلافي مع إيران وحزب الله!

لن نتوقف، هنا، طويلاً عند الحقيقة البسيطة المتجاهَلة المتمثّلة في أن قدرات المقاومة الغزية، جميعها، جاءتها من إيران وسوريا وحزب الله، لا من الإخوان أو قَطر أو تركيا، لكننا سنضع النقاط على الحروف في ما يتصل بثلاثة عناصر رئيسية؛ (1) إن القدرات التسليحية ـــ حتى المتاحة منها في السوق ـــ لا تنتظم وتتراكم ـــ للحركات كما للدول ـــ إلا في سياق سياسي. وقد حدد مشعل وسواه من المتحدثين باسم حماس، سياقهم السياسي في عباءة قطر، وقَطر حدّدته، بدورها، كحظيرة «نعاج»، (2) إن مصر الإخوانية لا تختلف، نوعياً، عن مصر المباركية، فجميع الإجراءات الدبلوماسية والإنسانية التي أقدم عليها مرسي كان مبارك سبّاقاً إليها. الفارق بالرئاسة المصرية، كما يصفه قيادي حمساوي (علي بركة على الميادين)، هو كالآتي: «مبارك كان ينقل رأي إسرائيل إلى حماس، أما مرسي فملتزم بنقل رأي حماس إلى إسرائيل». يا للهول! أصبحت القاهرة، بعد ربيعها الهادر، وسيطاً نزيهاً بين الإسرائيليين والفلسطينيين! (3) إن تيار المقاومة داخل حماس والجهاد الإسلامي لم يعبّر عن نفسه سياسياً حتى الآن، ولا أظنه بقادر على التعبير عن نفسه وسط السُّعار المذهبي الحاصل. ولقد رأيته مهيناً التغني من قبل وسائل إعلام المقاومة، بتصريح يتيم ومبتور لقيادي في الجهاد الإسلامي، يقدم فيه الشكر لإيران على دعمها العسكري، ولا يذكر، في هذا المقام، سوريا أو حزب الله. معنى ذلك أن تيار المقاومة في غزة جهاز عسكري وليس تياراً سياسياً. إنه محكوم، إذاً، بالتراجع. فالمقاومة، قبل كل شيء، هي انحياز سياسي استراتيجي.

وحده، حسن نصر الله، نجا من الخلط والتخليط، لكن بحياء لا بحسم. صحيح أنه رسم الخط الفاصل بين استراتيجية «النعاج» التي تتبناها الرجعية، واستراتيجية «الأسود» التي تتبناها المقاومة، لكنه استحى أن يواجه القيادات الغزيّة بالاختيار بين الاستراتيجيتين. وصحيح أن نصر الله طالب بالاعتراف الصريح بدور محور المقاومة، إيران وسوريا وحزب الله، في تمكين غزة من الصمود والمواجهة، لكنه وضع مطالبته هذه في مقاربة أخلاقية، من دون أن يوضّح جوهرها السياسي.


آه… أكلّ هذا التخليط المهين والحياء الرصين حدث بسبب أن محور المقاومة صادف أنه «شيعي»، فهو مضطرٌ، إذاً، للتسلل والاعتذار والجلوس في المقعد الخلفي وانتظار نعمة الشكر، وربما الخازوق؟



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

 

What Really Happened in the “Yom Kippur” War?


Moscow
Here in Moscow I recently received a dark-blue folder dated 1975. It contains one of the most well-buried secrets of Middle Eastern and of US diplomacy. The secret file, written by the Soviet Ambassador in Cairo, Vladimir M. Vinogradov, apparently a draft for a memorandum addressed to the Soviet politbureau, describes the 1973 October War as a collusive enterprise between US, Egyptian and Israeli leaders, orchestrated by Henry Kissinger. If you are an Egyptian reader this revelation is likely to upset you. I, an Israeli who fought the Egyptians in the 1973 war, was equally upset and distressed, – yet still excited by the discovery. For an American it is likely to come as a shock.


Vladimir Vinogradov
According to the Vinogradov memo (to be published by us in full in the Russian weekly Expert next Monday), Anwar al-Sadat, holder of the titles of President, Prime Minister, ASU Chairman, Chief Commander, Supreme Military Ruler, entered into conspiracy with the Israelis, betrayed his ally Syria, condemned the Syrian army to destruction and Damascus to bombardment, allowed General Sharon’s tanks to cross without hindrance to the western bank of the Suez Canal, and actually planned a defeat of the Egyptian troops in the October War. Egyptian soldiers and officers bravely and successfully fought the Israeli enemy – too successfully for Sadat’s liking as he began the war in order to allow for the US comeback to the Middle East.
He was not the only conspirator: according to Vinogradov, the grandmotherly Golda Meir knowingly sacrificed two thousand of Israel’s best fighters – she possibly thought fewer would be killed — in order to give Sadat his moment of glory and to let the US secure its positions in the Middle East. The memo allows for a completely new interpretation of the Camp David Treaty, as one achieved by deceit and treachery.
Vladimir Vinogradov was a prominent and brilliant Soviet diplomat; he served as ambassador to Tokyo in the 1960s, to Cairo from 1970 to 1974, co-chairman of the Geneva Peace Conference, ambassador to Teheran during the Islamic revolution, the USSR Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation. He was a gifted painter and a prolific writer; his archive has hundreds of pages of unique observations and notes covering international affairs, but the place of honor goes to his Cairo diaries, and among others, descriptions of his hundreds of meetings with Sadat and the full sequence of the war as he observed it unfold at Sadat’s hq as the big decisions were made. When published, these notes will allow to re-evaluate the post-Nasser period of Egyptian history.
Vinogradov arrived to Cairo for Nasser’s funeral and remained there as the Ambassador.
He recorded the creeping coup of Sadat, least bright of Nasser’s men, who became Egypt’s president by chance, as he was the vice-president at Nasser’s death. Soon he dismissed, purged and imprisoned practically all important Egyptian politicians, the comrades-in-arms of Gamal Abd el Nasser, and dismantled the edifice of Nasser’s socialism.
Vinogradov was an astute observer; not a conspiracy cuckoo. Far from being headstrong and doctrinaire, he was a friend of Arabs and a consistent supporter and promoter of a lasting and just peace between the Arabs and Israel, a peace that would meet Palestinian needs and ensure Jewish prosperity.
The pearl of his archive is the file called The Middle Eastern Games. It contains some 20 typewritten pages edited by hand in blue ink, apparently a draft for a memo to the Politburo and to the government, dated January 1975, soon after his return from Cairo. The file contains the deadly secret of the collusion he observed. It is written in lively and highly readable Russian, not in the bureaucratese we’d expect.
Two pages are added to the file in May 1975; they describe Vinogradov’s visit to Amman and his informal talks with Abu Zeid Rifai, the Prime Minister, and his exchange of views with the Soviet Ambassador in Damascus. Vinogradov did not voice his opinions until 1998, and even then he did not speak as openly as in this draft. Actually, when the suggestion of collusion was presented to him by the Jordanian prime minister, being a prudent diplomat, he refused to discuss it.
The official version of the October war holds that on October 6, 1973, in conjunction with Hafez al-Assad of Syria, Anwar as-Sadat launched a surprise attack against Israeli forces.
 
They crossed the Canal and advanced a few miles into the occupied Sinai. As the war progressed, tanks of General Ariel Sharon crossed the Suez Canal and encircled the Egyptian Third Army.
The ceasefire negotiations eventually led to the handshake at the White House.
For me, the Yom Kippur War (as we called it) was an important part of my autobiography. A young paratrooper, I fought that war, crossed the canal, seized Gabal Ataka heights, survived shelling and face-to-face battles, buried my buddies, shot the man-eating red dogs of the desert and the enemy tanks. My unit was ferried by helicopters into the desert where we severed the main communication line between the Egyptian armies and its home base, the Suez-Cairo highway. Our location at 101 km to Cairo was used for the first cease fire talks; so I know that war not by word of mouth, and it hurts to learn that I and my comrades-at-arms were just disposable tokens in the ruthless game we – ordinary people – lost. Obviously I did not know it then, for me the war was a surprise, but then, I was not a general.


Vinogradov dispels the idea of surprise: in his view, both the canal crossing by the Egyptians and the inroads by Sharon were planned and agreed upon in advance by Kissinger, Sadat and Meir. The plan included the destruction of the Syrian army as well.

 
 
At first, he asks some questions:

how the crossing could be a surprise if the Russians evacuated their families a few days before the war? The concentration of the forces was observable and could not escape Israeli attention. Why did the Egyptian forces not proceed after the crossing but stood still? Why did they have no plans for advancing? Why there was a forty km-wide unguarded gap between the 2d and the 3d armies, the gap that invited Sharon’s raid? How could Israeli tanks sneak to the western bank of the Canal? Why did Sadat refuse to stop them? Why were there no reserve forces on the western bank of the Canal?”

Vinogradov takes a leaf from Sherlock Holmes who said: when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. He writes:

“These questions can’t be answered if Sadat is to be considered a true patriot of Egypt. But they can be answered in full, if we consider a possibility of collusion between Sadat, the US and Israeli leadership – a conspiracy in which each participant pursued his own goals. A conspiracy in which each participant did not know the full details of other participants’ game. A conspiracy in which each participant tried to gain more ground despite the overall agreement between them.”

Sadat’s Plans

Before the war Sadat was at the nadir of his power: in Egypt and abroad he had lost prestige. The least educated and least charismatic of Nasser’s followers, Sadat was isolated. He needed a war, a limited war with Israel that would not end with defeat. Such a war would release the pressure in the army and he would regain his authority. The US agreed to give him a green light for the war, something the Russians never did. The Russians protected Egypt’s skies, but they were against wars. For that, Sadat had to rely upon the US and part with the USSR. He was ready to do so as he loathed socialism.

He did not need victory, just no defeat; he wanted to explain his failure to win by deficient Soviet equipment. That is why the army was given the minimal task: crossing the Canal and hold the bridgehead until the Americans entered the game.

Plans of the US

During decolonisation the US lost strategic ground in the Middle East with its oil, its Suez Canal, its vast population. Its ally Israel had to be supported, but the Arabs were growing stronger all the time. Israel had to be made more flexible, for its brutal policies interfered with the US plans. So the US had to keep Israel as its ally but at the same time Israel’s arrogance had to be broken. The US needed a chance to “save” Israel after allowing the Arabs to beat the Israelis for a while. So the US allowed Sadat to begin a limited war.

 

Israel

Israel’s leaders had to help the US, its main provider and supporter. The US needed to improve its positions in the Middle East, as in 1973 they had only one friend and ally, King Feisal. (Kissinger told Vinogradov that Feisal tried to educate him about the evilness of Jews and Communists.) If and when the US was to recover its position in the Middle East, the Israeli position would improve drastically. Egypt was a weak link, as Sadat disliked the USSR and the progressive forces in the country, so it could be turned. Syria could be dealt with militarily, and broken.
 

The Israelis and Americans decided to let Sadat take the Canal while holding the mountain passes of Mittla and Giddi, a better defensive line anyway. This was actually Rogers’ plan of 1971, acceptable to Israel. But this should be done in fighting, not given up for free.

As for Syria, it was to be militarily defeated, thoroughly. That is why the Israeli Staff did sent all its available troops to the Syrian border, while denuding the Canal though the Egyptian army was much bigger than the Syrian one. Israeli troops at the Canal were to be sacrificed in this game; they were to die in order to bring the US back into the Middle East.
However, the plans of the three partners were somewhat derailed by the factors on the ground: it is the usual problem with conspiracies; nothing works as it should, Vinogradov writes in his memo to be published in full next week in Moscow’s Expert.
Sadat’s crooked game was spoiled to start with. His presumptions did not work out. Contrary to his expectations, the USSR supported the Arab side and began a massive airlift of its most modern military equipment right away. The USSR took the risk of confrontation with the US; Sadat had not believed they would because the Soviets were adamant against the war, before it started. His second problem, according to Vinogradov, was the superior quality of Russian weapons in the hands of Egyptian soldiers — better than the western weapons in the Israelis’ hands.
As an Israeli soldier of the time I must confirm the Ambassador’s words. The Egyptians had the legendary Kalashnikov AK-47 assault rifles, the best gun in the world, while we had FN battle rifles that hated sand and water. We dropped our FNs and picked up their AKs at the first opportunity. They used anti-tank Sagger missiles, light, portable, precise, carried by one soldier. Saggers killed between 800 and 1200 Israeli tanks. We had old 105 mm recoilless jeep-mounted rifles, four men at a rifle (actually, a small cannon) to fight tanks. Only new American weapons redressed the imbalance.
 
Sadat did not expect the Egyptian troops taught by the Soviet specialists to better their Israeli enemy – but they did.
 
They crossed the Canal much faster than planned and with much smaller losses.

Arabs beating the Israelis – it was bad news for Sadat. He overplayed his hand. That is why the Egyptian troops stood still, like the sun upon Gibeon, and did not move. They waited for the Israelis, but at that time the Israeli army was fighting the Syrians. The Israelis felt somewhat safe from Sadat’s side and they sent all their army north. The Syrian army took the entire punch of Israeli forces and began its retreat. They asked Sadat to move forward, to take some of the heat off them, but Sadat refused. His army stood and did not move, though there were no Israelis between the Canal and the mountain passes.
 
Syrian leader al Assad was convinced at that time that Sadat betrayed him, and he said so frankly to the Soviet ambassador in Damascus, Mr Muhitdinov, who passed this to Vinogradov. Vinogradov saw Sadat daily and asked him in real time why he was not advancing. He received no reasonable answer: Sadat muttered that he does not want to run all over Sinai looking for Israelis, that sooner or later they would come to him.
The Israeli leadership was worried: the war was not going as expected. There were big losses on the Syrian front, the Syrians retreated but each yard was hard fought; only Sadat’s passivity saved the Israelis from a reverse. The plan to for total Syrian defeat failed, but the Syrians could not effectively counterattack.
This was the time to punish Sadat: his army was too efficient, his advance too fast, and worse, his reliance upon the Soviets only grew due to the air bridge. The Israelis arrested their advance on Damascus and turned their troops southwards to Sinai.

The Jordanians could at this time have cut off the North-to-South route and king Hussein proposed this to Sadat and Assad. Assad agreed immediately, but Sadat refused to accept the offer. He explained it to Vinogradov that he did not believe in the fighting abilities of the Jordanians. If they entered the war, Egypt would have to save them. At other times he said that it is better to lose the whole of Sinai than to lose a square yard on the Jordan: an insincere and foolish remark, in Vinogradov’s view. So the Israeli troops rolled southwards without hindrance.
During the war, we (the Israelis) also knew that if Sadat advanced, he would gain the whole of Sinai in no time; we entertained many hypotheses why he was standing still, none satisfactory. Vinogradov explains it well: Sadat ran off his script and was waited for US involvement. What he got was the deep raid of Sharon.
This breakthrough of the Israeli troops to the western bank of the Canal was the murkiest part of the war, Vinogradov writes. He asked Sadat’s military commanders at the beginning of the war why there is the forty km wide gap between the Second and the Third armies and was told that this was Sadat’s directive. The gap was not even guarded; it was left wide open like a Trojan backdoor in a computer program.
Sadat paid no attention to Sharon’s raid; he was indifferent to this dramatic development. Vinogradov asked him to deal with it when only the first five Israeli tanks crossed the Canal westwards; Sadat refused, saying it was of no military importance, just a “political move”, whatever that meant. He repeated this to Vinogradov later, when the Israeli foothold on the Western bank of became a sizeable bridgehead. Sadat did not listen to advice from Moscow, he opened the door for the Israelis into Africa.
This allows for two explanations, says Vinogradov: an impossible one, of the Egyptians’ total military ignorance and an improbable one, of Sadat’s intentions. The improbable wins, as Sherlock Holmes observed.
The Americans did not stop the Israeli advance right away, says Vinogradov, for they wanted to have a lever to push Sadat so he would not change his mind about the whole setup. Apparently the gap was build into the deployments for this purpose. So Vinogradov’s idea of “conspiracy” is that of dynamic collusion, similar to the collusion on Jordan between the Jewish Yishuv and Transjordan as described by Avi Shlaim: there were some guidelines and agreements, but they were liable to change, depending on the strength of the sides.

Bottom line

The US “saved” Egypt by stopping the advancing Israeli troops. With the passive support of Sadat, the US allowed Israel to hit Syria really hard.
The US-negotiated disengagement agreements with the UN troops in-between made Israel safe for years to come.
(In a different and important document, “Notes on Heikal’s book Road to Ramadan”, Vinogradov rejects the thesis of the unavoidability of Israeli-Arab wars: he says that as long as Egypt remains in the US thrall, such a war is unlikely. Indeed there have been no big wars since 1974, unless one counts Israeli “operations” in Lebanon and Gaza.)
The US “saved” Israel with military supplies.
Thanks to Sadat, the US came back to the Middle East and positioned itself as the only mediator and “honest broker” in the area.
Sadat began a violent anti-Soviet and antisocialist campaign, Vinogradov writes, trying to discredit the USSR. In the Notes, Vinogradov charges that Sadat spread many lies and disinformation to discredit the USSR in the Arab eyes.
 
His main line was:

“the USSR could not and would not liberate Arab soil while the US could, would and did.”

 
Vinogradov explained elsewhere that the Soviet Union was and is against offensive wars, among other reasons because their end is never certain. However, the USSR was ready to go a long way to defend Arab states. As for liberation, the years since 1973 have proved that the US can’t or won’t deliver that, either – while the return of Sinai to Egypt in exchange for separate peace was always possible, without a war as well.
After the war, Sadat’s positions improved drastically. He was hailed as hero, Egypt took a place of honor among the Arab states. But in a year, Sadat’s reputation was in tatters again, and that of Egypt went to an all time low, Vinogradov writes.
The Syrians understood Sadat’s game very early: on October 12, 1973 when the Egyptian troops stood still and ceased fighting, President Hafez el Assad said to the Soviet ambassador that he is certain Sadat was intentionally betraying Syria. Sadat deliberately allowed the Israeli breakthrough to the Western bank of Suez, in order to give Kissinger a chance to intervene and realise his disengagement plan, said Assad to Jordanian Prime Minister Abu Zeid Rifai who told it to Vinogradov during a private breakfast they had in his house in Amman. The Jordanians also suspect Sadat played a crooked game, Vinogradov writes. However, the prudent Vinogradov refused to be drawn into this discussion though he felt that the Jordanians “read his thoughts.”
When Vinogradov was appointed co-chairman of the Geneva Peace Conference, he encountered a united Egyptian-American position aiming to disrupt the conference, while Assad refused even to take part in it.
 
Vinogradov delivered him a position paper for the conference and asked whether it is acceptable for Syria. Assad replied: yes but for one line. Which one line, asked a hopeful Vinogradov, and Assad retorted:

“the line saying “Syria agrees to participate in the conference.”

Indeed the conference came to nought, as did all other conferences and arrangements.
Though the suspicions voiced by Vinogradov in his secret document have been made by various military experts and historians, never until now they were made by a participant in the events, a person of such exalted position, knowledge, presence at key moments. Vinogradov’s notes allow us to decipher and trace the history of Egypt with its de-industrialisation, poverty, internal conflicts, military rule tightly connected with the phony war of 1973.

A few years after the war, Sadat was assassinated, and his hand-picked follower Hosni Mubarak began his long rule, followed by another participant of the October War, Gen Tantawi.



Achieved by lies and treason, the Camp David Peace treaty still guards Israeli and American interests. Only now, as the post-Camp David regime in Egypt is on the verge of collapse, one may hope for change. Sadat’s name in the pantheon of Egyptian heroes was safe until now. In the end, all that is hidden will be made transparent.

Postscript. In 1975, Vinogradov could not predict that the 1973 war and subsequent treaties would change the world. They sealed the fate of the Soviet presence and eminence in the Arab world, though the last vestiges were destroyed by American might much later: in Iraq in 2003 and in Syria they are being undermined now. They undermined the cause of socialism in the world, which began its long fall. The USSR, the most successful state of 1972, an almost-winner of the Cold war, eventually lost it. Thanks to the American takeover of Egypt, petrodollar schemes were formed, and the dollar that began its decline in 1971 by losing its gold standard – recovered and became again a full-fledged world reserve currency. The oil of the Saudis and of sheikdoms being sold for dollars became the new lifeline for the American empire.

Looking back, armed now with the Vinogradov Papers, we can confidently mark 1973-74 as a decisive turning point in our history.
ISRAEL SHAMIR has been sending dispatches to CounterPunch from Moscow.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Palestinian Refugees: From the Frying Pan into the Fire

The Palestinians were in trouble twice over. They were Sunni, and they were ‘Saddam’s pets (AFP – Moussa Al Shaer)
 
Published Wednesday, June 6, 2012
Forced to flee, denied entry to Arab countries, and unable to return to their homeland, former Palestinian residents of Iraq are on the Iraqi-Syrian border, still waiting for somewhere to go.
The appeal arrived via Facebook. It was like a message in a bottle thrown into the sea with little hope. The sender said he was living in a camp on the Iraqi-Syrian border along with some 200 other Palestinian refugees. They had been left stranded on the dangerous frontier between a country that is facing a combined civil war and foreign onslaught, and another that has been occupied and now persecutes them as “Saddam remnants.”

The place is called al-Hol camp. The Palestinian embassy in Lebanon said it knew nothing about these Palestinians. UNRWA said they were not registered with it. How come?

We contacted the young man, named Firas Saidam, to ask. A few days later – the web in Syria is not in good shape – we succeeded. He replied that after Israel occupied Palestine in 1948, the Iraqi government undertook to care for Palestinians in its territory, in return for not contributing to UNRWA.
And so it was.

In the 1970s, after the Baath party came power, the Palestinians were accommodated at public expense in state-owned housing in the al-Baladiyat district and some other parts of Baghdad. But after Iraq was subjected to sanctions in 1990, Firas explained, living conditions worsened badly for Iraqis. Yet Saddam continued to boast of his support for the Palestinians, publicly pledging in 2002, for example, to donate one billion euros to Palestine, at a time when Iraqis were going hungry. “People became very poor,” he said, “and so they started hating us.”

Then came the American occupation, followed by anarchy and the outbreak of sectarian violence, especially after the bombing of Shia shrines. “The Palestinians were in trouble twice over. They were Sunni, and they were ‘Saddam’s pets.’ Either way, we had to escape,” he said.

Did they flee in fear, or actually face reprisals? He sighed and replied: “My dear, out of the two hundred people currently here, 90 percent have had relatives kidnapped or killed.”

Three refugee camps were initially established on the Iraqi-Syrian border: Al-Waleed camp on the Iraqi side; al-Tanf camp in the no-man’s land in between the two countries’ territories, and al-Hol some ten kilometers inside Syria and 50 kilometers east of the town of al-Hasaka.

“We are the left-over people from al-Tanf,” said Firas. He was referring to the closure of the al-Tanf camp by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in early 2010, after it arranged for the resettlement of most of the inhabitants to third countries. Others were moved to al-Hol, where 215 people remain today, including around 100 who have no solution to their cases in sight, according to Firas.

As Firas and fellow Palestinian refugees in Iraq were not placed under UNRWA’s jurisdiction in 1948, they are being dealt with by UNHCR. It provides refugees with one of three possible solutions: return to the country they came from, settlement in the host country, or resettlement in a third. Many of the displaced Palestinians in the border camps opted for the third option after 2006, when the Arab League signed an agreement with UNHCR stating that this would not prejudice their right of return to Palestine. But according to Firas, the resettlement program was discontinued when there were only some 200 cases left to process, due to a change of priorities at UNHCR.

What about returning to Iraq? “That would be impossible,” Firas said. “We heard news just a couple of days ago that they were still raiding our homes in al-Baladiyat and other areas … Our lives are still in danger there. We cannot.”

How about settling in Syria? “We are grateful to the Syrians for hosting us for seven years even though they were not obliged to,” he said. “But Syria in its current state is not a solution.” Al-Hol camp is adjacent to a Syrian army base that recently came under attack from gunmen (on the night of April 28). Residents are in real danger, and living conditions are poor, with plastic sheets used as roofing. They feel abandoned by UNHCR.

According to Firas, the Commission only began paying serious attention to the plight of the refugees at al-Hol after they staged a strike in 2008. Resettlement then began to places like Canada, Australia and Sweden – as no nearer country was prepared to take them. A handful of the al-Hol camp’s residents have been there since 2006, and are still waiting for countries to accept them.

But with the issue of the Iraqi-Palestinian refugees fading from the media and the international public eye, fewer potential host-states countries have been prepared to consider taking them in. More than two thirds of the 215 remaining at al-Hol are women and children.

UNHCR reportedly tried to promote the idea of arranging for them to be moved permanently to Damascus. But this fell through as a result of events in Syria. While it is unclear if the Commission is indeed still seeking such a solution, it is one the remaining refugees themselves strongly oppose – for legal, practical, personal reasons.

Firas charged that the UNHCR had conveyed the false impression that all the cases in the camp had been resolved. In 2010, it offered some of them a chance of going to the United States, but many turned that down because they had been detained by US forces during the occupation, and for other reasons related to immigration procedures. He said the refugees had tried to reason with UNHCR, but facing an unknown future and worsening conditions, they decided to stage an open-ended protest, possibly leading to a hunger strike.

Their principal demand is to be resettled in countries where they have relatives – mostly outside the Arab world, as the supposedly “fellow” Arab states have refused to receive them, and they cannot go back to their occupied homeland.

In the meantime, they want to be moved to a safe location outside Syria, where having already fled persecution and death in Iraq, they now face new dangers.

Their case, incidentally, has not been taken up by any Palestinian agency, official or unofficial.

This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.

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

Sadat’s War on Israel: A heroic or a Collusive Act

Worth reading, but keep in mind that the victory achieved in 1973 by the Egyptian Army, rebuilt by Naser, and don’t forget that Sadat, the CIA agent, poisoned Naser.
May 1, 2012

“Conciliation between Cairo and Tel Aviv was not Kissinger’s idea, besides he never expected the bold diplomatic move by Sadat whom he never took seriously. But all that was to change after the October war 1973″

Dr. Ashraf Ezzat

Anwar el-Sadat the former Egyptian president (1970-1981) who launched a daring military war against Israel to liberate the occupied land of the Sinai Peninsula in 1973, whose military commanders and valiant soldiers made an astonishing crossing of the Suez Canal and took over the impregnable Bar Lev line and who also surprised the whole world with his visit to Jerusalem in 1977 and later with his peace treaty with Israel in 1979 was not a hero of war and peace, as he is dubbed in Egypt, rather he was a conniver , a co-conspirator with the Americans and Israelis and a traitor to his Syrian allies and Arab friends.

According to one of the most controversial articles that has been circulating the web since last February, president Sadat got into conspiracy with the Israelis, betrayed his ally Syria, condemned the Syrian army to destruction and Damascus to bombardment, allowed General Sharon’s tanks to cross without hindrance to the western bank of the Suez Canal, and actually planned a defeat of the Egyptian troops in the October War 1973.

Vladimir Vinogradov
The author of that unsubstantiated article talks of some secret file, written by the Soviet Ambassador in Cairo at the early 1970s, Vladimir M. Vinogradov, apparently a draft for a memorandum addressed to the Soviet politbureau, describes the 1973 October War as a collusive enterprise between US, Egyptian and Israeli leaders and orchestrated by Henry Kissinger.
Though such a memorandum was never published by the former soviet ambassador nor confirmed by the Russian diplomatic circles, nevertheless, and for the sake of shedding more light on this highly important war, I thought we might delve into the historical records of the October 1973/ yum Kippur war and reexamine the chronicles of the ferocious three week- military confrontation between Egypt and Israel, and see if the alleged story of Mr. Vinogradov held any water.

October 6 /Yom Kippur War

The war was initiated by Egypt and Syria on Oct. 6, 1973, on the Jewish holy day of Yom Kippur and during Ramadan, the holy month of fasting in Islam, and continued until Oct. 25, 1973.

The war, which eventually drew both the United States and the Soviet Union into indirect confrontation in defense of their respective allies, was launched, above all by president Sadat, with the diplomatic aim of convincing a chastened—if still undefeated—Israel to negotiate on terms more favorable to the Arab countries and especially Egypt.

“It was aimed as a limited operation; the land was not my aim, at all. I wanted only to prove to the whole world that the Israeli theory of security would collapse and we could cross the Suez Canal and capture the Bar Lev line.” declared Sadat in a 1974 documentary by (abc)

I believe we should bear that goal of Sadat clearly in mind before we carry on with our reexamination of the October war for this rationale will help us understand some of the shadowy chronicles of the war.

Six-Day War 1967

The previous Arab-Israeli war, the Six-Day War (1967), was perhaps more than a just war for the Arabs and for Egyptians in particular. The 1967 defeat was so unexpected and bitter that the Egyptians dubbed it “Naksa” – the grave setback.

The withdrawal from Sinai in that humiliating manner has plunged the Egyptian nation and its army into a deep psychological trauma near to defeatism.

The most strategic outcomes of this war was not the land Israel grabbed over the six-day attack, rather it was the breakdown of president Nasser’s project of pan-Arabism along with his rejection to acknowledge the existence of Israel.

President Nasser
The Arabs under Nasser’s leadership believed they could easily settle the conflict with Israel militarily. The 1967 war proved them wrong.
President Nasser was an outright socialist who made his opposition to the neo-imperialism represented in the United States and the neo-colonialism embodied by Israel no secret.
And since his popularity in the Arab world was indeed unprecedented and unshakable, the United States had to give credit to Israel for the eclipse of his glory in the Middle East. And from then on, Israel has touted its place as the indispensable ally of the United States in the Middle East.

When Sadat took over after Nasser died in 1970, he actually inherited a heavy burden. Egypt was a broken nation suffering from a failing economy, haunted by the shameful Naksa and aspiring to restore its pride by a military revenge no matter how long it took or how much sacrifices it required.

As 80% of Egypt military capability was destroyed in 1967, the Israelis, according to most military experts, agreed that Egypt would need at least another 10 years before it could engage in any military confrontation with Israel especially after Israel had fortified its positions in Sinai behind the infamously formidable Bar Lev line that stretched along the eastern coast of the Suez canal.

Unlike Nasser, Sadat despised socialism and in a way anticipated that the Soviets’ influence in the Middle East would recede, in that respect he was a true visionary, and he firmly believed that the United States, according to his own perspective, would want to step in and take the place of the Russians.

Sadat’s initiative

Embarking on his presidency, it didn’t take Sadat long before he managed to set his priorities straight. He knew he needed to get rid of the old guards of Nasser’s era, he knew he should begin weaning Egypt from relying solely on the Soviet Union and he wanted from his first day in office to, believe it or not, go to Israel and sign a peace treaty with the Jewish state. Watch Walter Cronkite, CBS anchorman, remembering Sadat’s early initiative.

Anwar Sadat with Golda Meir in Israel 1977
Yes, shaking hands with the Israelis was Sadat’s own idea to spare Egypt long years of backbreaking military confrontations, restore the Egyptian sovereignty over Sinai and hopefully his opportunity to get into a new alliance with the white house.
In other words, the conciliation between Cairo and Tel Aviv was not the idea of Kissinger who never expected such a diplomatic move. Sadat for two years hoped that the white house would take notice of his new initiative by any means even if it meant sending a message with the American actress Shirley Temple when she was in Cairo 1972

Just as Nasser made no secret of his animosity to the Americans and the Israelis, Sadat was making it loud and clear from the very beginning, especially to the western main stream media, that he was embarking on a brand new path in the Arab-Israeli conflict and that the white house should take notice, for he really meant business.

But unfortunately, President Nixon never lent him enough attention and Kissinger himself, whom the alleged report accuse of choreographing the 1973 war, never took Sadat seriously and instead thought that he was just bluffing.

With diplomacy stalemated, during 1972 and 1973, Sadat’s decision to launch a joint attack with the Syrians on the Israeli forces occupying Sinai and the Golan heights was not based on merely retaliatory motives or only aimed at settling the score with the Israelis, rather it was his last resort to get the Israeli diplomacy into negotiating a withdrawal from Sinai under the auspices of the Americans.

The surprise of the October war

President Sadat
The war began with a massive and astonishing Egyptian crossing of the Suez Canal during the first three days – according to the plan of Marshal Saad Shazly, Egypt’s chief of staff, after which the Egyptians dug in a territory (12 km deep east of Suez Canal) that was protected by the powerful Egyptian air defense (soviet SAM missile) umbrella and settled into a semi-stalemate.
On the other hand, the Syrians coordinated their attack on the Golan Heights to coincide with the Egyptian offensive and initially made threatening gains against the greatly outnumbered Israelis. Within a week and after the massive American airlift of reinforcement and resupply of munitions Israel recovered and launched a four-day counter-offensive, driving deep into Syria.

To relieve this pressure on the Syrian front and bending to the Syrians and Russians, the Egyptians went back on the offensive and operated outside the range of SAM missiles- so much to the furious opposition and dismay of marshal Shazly, and the Egyptian forces were decisively overpowered; an Israeli armored division then counterattacked at the gap between the second and third Egyptian armies headed by General Ariel Sharon, crossed the Suez Canal, and advanced southward and westward in over a week of heavy fighting.

On October 22 a United Nations-brokered ceasefire quickly unraveled, with each side blaming the other for the breach. By October 24, the Israelis had improved their positions considerably and completed their encirclement of Egypt’s Third Army.

This development led to tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union and consequently U.S. military raised their alert levels to DEFCON (Defense Condition) III. Eventually, a second ceasefire, closely monitored by Kissinger, was imposed cooperatively on October 25 to end the war.

Back to Vinogradov’s alleged memorandum. In conclusion, he asks some questions: how the Egyptian crossing of Suez Canal could be a surprise if the Russians evacuated their families a few days before the war? Why did the Egyptian forces not proceed after the crossing but stood still? Why did they have no plans for advancing? Why there was a forty km-wide unguarded gap between the 2d and the 3d armies, the gap that invited Sharon’s raid?

A military accomplishment and a prelude to peace

Egyptian forces crossing Suez Canal and seizing Israeli Bar Lev line, October 1973
The published memoirs of Marshal Saad Shazly along with the recently declassified U.S. archival material, unearthed by the National Security Archive, provide critically important information on policies, perceptions, and decisions of the parties involved in the October War 1973.
During the late winter and spring of 1973, Henry Kissinger held several secret meetings on Middle East issues in New York and France with Muhammad Hafez Ismail, Sadat’s national security adviser. In one of the meetings Kissinger told Ismail “don’t expect to win on the negotiating table what you lost on the battlefield.” In other words, Washington could do little to help as long as Egypt was the defeated power.
So according to Kissinger and considering the then stalemated status quo, Sadat had no alternative but to start a sudden and swift war with the element of deception/surprise as one of his most strategic tools for, if not winning the whole war, securing at least the first phase of crossing the Suez Canal into Sinai.

Document 7 of the declassified American national security archive stated “Neither Israeli nor U.S. intelligence recognized the imminence of war in early October 1973. AMAN, the Israeli military intelligence organization, and the leadership generally assumed that national military power would deter war and downplayed the possibility of conflict until 1975 when Egypt and Syria had better air capabilities. Moreover, Israeli military and political leaders had a condescending view of Arab fighting abilities”

During the weeks before the war, the Soviets believed that the situation was growing more dangerous, but like the Americans and the Israelis they did not see the resumption of fighting [as] at all likely. Yet, they had begun to evacuate dependents because they had learned of the decision for war, but not its exact timing.

A suspected Russian Intelligence Services (RIS, or KGB) official, Leo Yerdrashnikov (whose official cover was deputy director of the local Tass office in Cairo) also sheds light on when the Soviets learned of Sadat’s decision. On 3 October, Sadat told Soviet Ambassador Vladimir Vinogradov that war was imminent. Moscow did not, however, learn when the war would start until the morning of 6 October. (Note 19)

And as the Russians knew that the war was imminent, so did the Israelis whom were tipped off by an Egyptian Top Source (who may have been a double agent) Moreover, in late September Jordan’s King Hussein warned Prime Minister Golda Meir that Syrian forces were taking an “attack position.” These developments concerned the Israelis but AMAN ruled out major war.

The received wisdom in the American intelligence establishment was that the Arabs would not initiate war as long as the military balance favored Israel. In other words, Tel Aviv’s preponderant military power deterred war. This was the prevailing view of Israeli intelligence and U.S. intelligence bought into it. A few weeks later, Assistant Secretary of State Intelligence and Research Ray Cline observed, “Our difficulty was partly that we were brainwashed by the Israelis, who brainwashed themselves.” (Note 24)

As for the reluctance of the Egyptian army to advance deeper into Sinai after crossing the canal, it was simply, and according to Shazly’s plan (The High Minarets) a suicidal tactic to operate out of the cover range of the SAM anti-craft missile especially that the Israelis had the superiority in the air forces and outnumbered the Egyptian tanks on the ground.

And wasn’t it for the Syrians’ plea for the Soviet Union to interfere and urge Sadat to advance into Sinai, the Egyptian armored divisions wouldn’t have pressed on.

Sadat believed that, with the miraculous crossing of the Suez Canal and the seizing of Bar Lev line and the whole eastern coast of Sinai, he got all he ever needed to start maneuvering diplomatically.

Debunking the Israeli invincibility, under the nose of the Americans, was indeed Sadat’s idea of winning the military conflict in October 1973

As for the gap that showed up in the Egyptian lines along the western side of the canal, a game changer in the war, was easily detected by the Israelis once the two armored units – the 4th&21st – were ordered by Sadat on October 12, to thrust deeper into Sinai and try to reach the strategic Mitla and Gidi Passes.
Expanding the military operations beyond the protective range of the SAM umbrella was absolutely a wrong military decision by Sadat. But I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that Kissinger and the Russians, trying to break the stalemate on the battlefield, influenced Sadat’s decision.
And while the Russians and the Americans helped Sadat to put an end to the O
ctober war, they both had no say in how or when it started. Let’s make no mistake about that.


Almost 40 years have gone since October war during which the Israeli side got the security, the recognition and the peace they needed, while the Egyptian side got back all of its occupied land and above all restored the pride they lost in 1967.

To most analysts and observers this sounds as a fair deal but actually it isn’t, not for many Egyptians any way. And nobody could sum it up better than the man who fought the war himself, Marshal Saad Shazly.
Shazly looked back at how the October war started and how it ended up in a way that led to the Camp David treaty and eventually neutralized Egypt in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and concluded
“This brilliant military victory was turned into a political defeat, when Egypt was removed from the camp of resistance, to Israeli occupation of Arab lands to the camp of appeasement.

This shift in the balance of power in the region and the vacuum created by the absence of Egypt, allowed Israel to try to eliminate resisters one by one, starting with Lebanon, Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon again, Iraq again and now current rhetoric indicates that Iran and Syria are next.”

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

From Nasser to Tantawi: The Myth of ‘Sixty Years of Oppression’

While making pious new friends at home, Nasser’s successors also radically overhauled Egypt’s foreign relations. (Photo: Reem Abou-El-Fadl)
Published Monday, October 24, 2011

This is the revolution’s understanding of religions: love, fraternity, equality. With equality we can create a strong homeland that knows no sectarianism, only patriotism… We as a government, and I as president, carry responsibility for everyone in this country, whatever their religion, whatever their origins…

These were the words of President Gamal Abdel Nasser at the dedication ceremony of the St Mark Cathedral at Abbasiya on 25 June 1968. Nasser personally supervised its construction, offering Pope Kyrillos VI access to state contractors, and funds from the public works budget to build it. It is a landmark in Coptic architecture, the largest cathedral in Africa and the Middle East. And it was beneath its high domed ceilings that cries of grief rang out at the funerals of Egypt’s latest martyrs earlier this month, their violent deaths the responsibility of a very different military leadership. At least 25 were killed after military police opened fire on a demonstration which had gathered at the Maspero state television building to protest the burning of a Coptic church in Aswan.

Nasser’s speech came almost two decades after Egypt’s Free Officers Movement staged a coup to overthrow a defunct monarchy, launching the July Revolution of 1952. Sixty years later, many have connected the July Revolution with this year’s popular uprising in Egypt, which brought down another failed regime, and launched the January Revolution of 2011. Some draw parallels between the emphases of both on ‘dignity, freedom and social justice’. Others vehemently blame the Free Officers for the legacy of military rule that empowered Mubarak and now the ruling military council. This has reinvigorated refrains of ‘sixty years of oppression’, heard often in recent months.

Yet today’s generals are protecting an entirely different set of interests from those important to the Free Officers. They have presided over months of delay in the trials of Mubarak and his aides, and have stalled and bargained with the revolutionary forces over every aspect of constitutional and electoral reform. They have thrown over 8000 people in military prisons, and have even turned their tanks and guns on peaceful demonstrators at Maspero. The generals’ statements in support of the January Revolution can no longer conceal their connections with the old regime and their return to the worst of its tactics.

Certainly, the Free Officers Movement brought the army to power and ruled a one-party state with its own share of political prisoners. But both partisans and detractors of the July Revolution also agree on its orientation towards Egypt’s millions of poor at home, and towards pan-Arabism and liberation movements abroad. Phasing in land reform, improved labor conditions, free education and healthcare, Nasser argued that the road to democracy had to begin with freedom from poverty and colonialism. Today, six decades on, Egypt’s ruling military council is part of a coalition with big business, Islamist organisations and politicians from the Mubarak era, while abroad, it is only American interests that count. How did this change occur?
What is often forgotten in rooting all of Egypt’s contemporary ills to the July Revolution is the systematic undoing of most of its economic, social and foreign policy programmes soon after Nasser’s death.

Sadat’s Makeover: The ‘Open Door’ Policy

Egypt’s military elite today is the product of the infitah (openness) economic liberalisation policies and the Israeli peace treaty of the 1970s. Both of these are the legacies of president Anwar Sadat, preserved and entrenched by Hosni Mubarak. As Camp David came into effect, Egypt was rewarded with massive financial assistance from Washington, surpassed only by Israel’s allowance over the years. The largest portion went straight into army coffers, whose budget was kept secret. The army grew into part of a formidable military-industrial complex, and later became fully complicit in the crony capitalism of Mubarak Inc.

Today’s military council criminalised the right to strike as early as March, and is openly disdainful of workers’ grievances, while the government continues to dodge demands to fix a reasonable minimum and maximum wage. Until a cabinet reshuffle in July, prompted by renewed popular protests, the council had even retained the last Minister of Finance appointed by Mubarak, Samir Radwan. The state media broadcast misinformation about ‘sectoral’ strikes and their purported harm to Egypt’s ‘production wheel’, while faithfully replaying footage of General Tantawi mingling with employees at a chemicals factory. The military council propagates the myth that it guaranteed the success of the January Revolution. But it is increasingly clear that the generals helped maneuver Mubarak out in order to contain the competition coming from his son Gamal and his business associates in the ruling party, all with non-military backgrounds, all with similar ambitions.

The Internal Islamist Alliance

Alongside the economic turn-around of the 1970s, Sadat and his military elite forged a strong alliance with Islamist groups in Egypt, in stark contrast to the secular style of rule under Nasser. Sadat pumped funds into particular groups specifically to counter Nasser’s supporters as well as the left, while repressing any which would not fall into line. One of these factions eventually killed Sadat, and Mubarak reigned in the rest, but superficial religious discourse continued to be fostered in state media, and Islamist groups kept their place in public debate. It is telling that while millions of Egyptians, Muslim and Christian, demonstrated and prayed together in January, most of the organised Islamist ‘opposition’ were absent. Matters are coming full circle today as the military council appears to be encouraging the Muslim Brothers once more, in a bid to neutralise the liberal and left-leaning forces of the new revolution. And the Brothers’ leadership, despite imprisonment at the hands of successive military rulers, have rushed to prove their loyalty to the new authorities. Some analysts explain this in terms of caution and insecurity; others see a recurrent opportunism.

The military council’s own stances reveal an Egyptian chauvinism reminiscent of the Sadat and Mubarak eras.

Several times since January, Islamist voices have criticised the democracy movement’s challenge to the military council. In the March referendum, they counselled a ‘yes’ vote that preserved the status quo. In July, just as the latest military communiqué targeted the 6th April Movement, members of al-Gama‘a al-Islamiyya vowed to ‘purge Tahrir’ of its ‘loose’ and ‘disrespectful’ youth. The Muslim Brothers, as well as al-Gama’a and the Salafis, have stayed away from Tahrir’s “million” marches – which have rallied around the revolution’s original, consensual demands – and instead organised their own demonstrations calling for religious rule. Any tussles between the Islamists and the generals have stayed within the realm of debates on the electoral law.
Egypt’s military rulers appear to be returning the blessing. Hours of state television airtime are today devoted to Islamist politicians of all stripes who seem immune from official criticism. After churches were attacked at Imbaba in May and Aswan in October, the iron hand of the military council – seen crushing multiple demonstrations since January – did not come down on the perpetrators. In September, when Christian schoolgirls in Minya were sent home from school for not covering their hair, this was not declared a matter of national concern. There has been an eerie silence from prominent Islamist quarters on these issues. With important exceptions such as Noha el-Zeiny, this silence was deafening after last week’s vicious attack on Christian and Muslim demonstrators at Maspero.

From Pan-Arabism to ‘Egypt First’

While making pious new friends at home, Nasser’s successors also radically overhauled Egypt’s foreign relations. In the early 1970s, Sadat sought refuge in total US allegiance, freezing ties with the Soviet Union and Egypt’s fellow non-aligned states, before negotiating a peace treaty with Israel. These moves overturned all the foreign policy tenets of the July Revolution, which had championed autonomy, Arab solidarity and positive neutralism. Sadat’s policy isolated Egypt amongst the Arabs, and even when Mubarak rehabilitated these ties, Egypt never recovered its leading role. It was overtaken by regional rivals such as Saudi Arabia, while its role and influence in Africa also receded. The current January 25 Revolution reintroduced a strong Arab dimension. Its demonstrators invoked their inspiration from Tunisia, their determination to liberate Palestine, and expressed solidarity with all sister movements for democracy in the Arab world.

Yet the ruling generals seem aloof from this, and more inclined to reassure and take the lead from the conservative monarchies of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the Emirates, while receiving regular nods from Washington. For months this year, it was understood that the generals had succumbed to heavy pressure from Saudi not to try Mubarak. Many also believe that US pressure reigned in the regional activism of the new Foreign Minister Nabil el-Arabi. After his decision to permanently open the Rafah crossing in March, passage through it became heavily constrained yet again, and el-Arabi was re-posted to head the Arab League in May.

The military council’s own stances reveal an Egyptian chauvinism reminiscent of the Sadat and Mubarak eras. In July, General Hassan al-Ruwaini denounced well-known Egyptian-Palestinian poet Tamim al-Barghouti as a meddling foreigner, in a tone also reminiscent of former Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit’s wanton dismissal of the Palestinians, Lebanese Shia and Algerians on different occasions. These positions highlight a stark difference between the army that built a revolution in 1952 – albeit top-down – and earned respect across the Arab world, and the army that is trying to contain a revolution, or rather foil it, in 2011.

The ‘sixty years of oppression’ mantra then, seems to reflect a rather selective reading. Indeed, the effaced priorities of July 1952 were among those upheld, alongside the call for democracy, in January 2011: rejection of foreign interference and dependency, and the promotion of social justice and equality. Further comparisons are also possible. Today both the army and the Muslim Brotherhood are run by an old guard who appear out of touch with younger generations. Both younger officers and the Muslim Brothers Youth famously broke ranks to participate in this year’s January Revolution. It was also disgruntled younger officers who plotted the coup of July 1952, six decades ago this summer. This is perhaps the aspect of the July Revolution that is most thought-provoking when considering the fortunes of the democracy movement today.

Reem Abou-El-Fadl is a Junior Research Fellow in Middle East Politics at Oxford University, UK.
The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect al-Akhbar’s editorial policy.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Bibi: ‘Why Egyptian hate Israel?’

Jews do not have a common origin, that their Semitic origins are a myth. Jews have no origin in Palestine whatsoever, and therefore their act of so-called ‘return’ must be realised as pretext for a tribal expansionist invasion,” Gilad Atzmon in his new book ‘The Wandering Who?‘,

On Friday hundreds of Egyptian protesters attacked Israeli embassy in Cairo. The protesters tore down part of the 9-ft. high cement security wall built by the military junta around the embassy since the first attack on the embassy last month. They removed Israeli flag on top of the 15-storey building and replaced it with Egyptian flag for the second time in two weeks. The protesters also clashed with police in streets which resulted in the death of three civilian and over 1000 injured.

The Israeli ambassador, Yitzhak Levanon, his family and most of the staff and their dependents some 80 people were evacuated out of the country by military aircraft overnight, the official added. Only the deputy ambassador remains in Egypt.

Obama talked to Benji Netanyahu on Friday to discuss situation at Israeli embassy in Cairo. Benji has asked Obama’s help in securing the embassy building which has been evacuated. Both agreed to stay in touch until the Cairo-Tel Aviv tension is resolved.

As expected, the Jewish controlled mainstream media outlets, blamed delayed reforms, unemployment and search for scapegoat which have turned Egyptians against Israel. None of them even bothered to mention Jewish soldiers killing of five Egyptian policemen at Israel-Sinai border last month and Benji Netanyahu’s refusal to apologize for the crime – which triggered the current riots.


The 1979 Camp David Accords (aka peace treaty) between Cairo and Tel Aviv was a secret deal cut between US Presiden Jimmy Carter, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, a former leader of Jewish millitant terrorist group Irgun – and Egyptian President Anwar Sadaat (murdered in 1981) in return for annual US bribe of $1.3 billion to Egyptian military rulers. The pact was never accepted by the vast majority of Egyptian people in the first place.

Presidential candidate Hamdeen Sabahy, leader of Al-Karama Party, has called for the ruling junta to take a “serious stance matching the public anger” towards Israel. However, the ruling military council lead by US-Israel favorites, Omar Suleiman, Hosni Mubarak’s Intelligence Chief and Mohamad Hussain Tantawi – under the US, EU and Israeli pressure has announced to prosecute the protesters in military courts. According to US State Department cabbles released by Wikileaks in February 2011, Suleiman had directed Egyptian policies on Israel-Palestine which are inline with Israeli agenda; weakening Hamas, continuing blockade of Gaza and halting Tehran’s influence in the region.

Benji Netanyahu says that despite Egyptian provocations, Israel will abide by the peace-treaty with Cairo. Why? Because every Zionist politician knows that a friendly Egypt is far more important for the security of the Zionist entity than Turkey. Egypt not only has joint border with Israel but also is the most armed and populated (81 million) Arab country. Cairo has protected Israel by enforcing embargo on Palestinian receiving foreign military aid for the last three decades.

It looks the so-called anti-Israel protests at Israeli embassy in Cairo are part of the US-Israel-Egypt plan to to sabotage Egyptians’ desire to free themselves from Zionist-grip by creating lawlessness in the country in order to give military junta an excuse to extend emergency law and cancel the coming elections. Israeli leaders are on record saying that they prefer kings and dictators in Arab world than democratic rulers who always have turned out to be anti-Israel.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

%d bloggers like this: