Sabra and Shatila: The Secret Papers

14309080123 4b8ec98b30 m 165ef

Sabra and Shatila, September, 1982, stands as one of the worst single atrocities in modern history. Up to 3500 Palestinians were massacred when Israel’s Falangist proxies surged through the two Beirut camps in September, 1982. Israel sought to dump the blame on to the Falangists. “Goyim kill goyim and they come to blame the Jews,” Israel’s Prime Minister, Menahim Begin, complained. In fact, Israel commanded and controlled the entire operation. The punishment meted out by the Kahan commission of inquiry was derisory. Ariel Sharon, the Israeli ‘defence minister’ was demoted but remained in government, after Begin refused to sack him. Despite his own complicity, Begin was not punished and neither were any of the politicians who had agreed that the camps had to be ‘cleaned out.’ World opinion was outraged, but not even this fearful event was sufficient for Israel to be held to account. Unrestrained, Israel remained free to kill at will.

The secret annex to the Kahan commission has recently made its way into the mainstream. (See Rashid Khalidi, ‘The Sabra and Shatila Massacres: New Evidence,’ Palestine Square, Institute of Palestine Studies, September 25, 2018).   The basic facts are well established, so the interest lies in what these documents tell us about the interplay between the Israelis and the Falangists, and why, ultimately, Sabra and Shatila had to be invaded.

Even before 1948 Israel was setting out to turn Lebanon into a satellite state by playing on the fears of the country’s Maronite Christian community.   In 1958 Lebanon endured its second civil war (second to the Druze-Maronite conflict of 1860).   This war was part of a regional drama involving anti-Nasserism, anti-communism, the overthrow of the monarchy in Iraq and a planned coup attempt in Jordan. No event in Lebanon is ever simply internal, but while the collective ‘west’ and Israel had a big stake in what happened in 1958, the war developed largely as cause and effect between internal factions. By the time the US intervened, sending the Sixth Fleet and landing marines on Beirut’s beaches, these factions had for the moment resolved their differences.

In 1968, against a background of Palestinian resistance from southern Lebanon, Israel destroyed 13 commercial aircraft sitting on the tarmac at Beirut international airport. Lebanon was being warned to control the Palestinians, or else. Of course, given its highly factionalized nature, Lebanon could not control the Palestinians.

In April, 1973, the Israelis infiltrated West Beirut from the sea and killed four leading Palestinian political and cultural (Kamal Nasser, a poet) figures and by 1975 the country was right on the edge. A drive-by shooting at a Maronite church in East Beirut on April 13 pushed it off. The dead included members of the Kata’ib, the Lebanese Falange, a party founded on the Spanish model in the 1930s. Falangist gunmen struck back, shooting up a bus full of Palestinians and the war was on.

As Israel was already involved with the Falangists, as it wanted chaos in Lebanon ending in the defeat of the Palestinians and the destruction of their institutions, the church shooting was very likely a deliberate Israeli provocation. The secret annex to the Kahan commission reveals that by 1975 Israel was holding secret meetings with Falangist leaders, aimed at political and military coordination, towards which end Israel gave the Falangists $118.5 million in military aid (the figure given in the Kahan annex, the true figure possibly being much higher) and trained hundreds of Falangist fighters, in preparation for the war which Israel wanted the Falangists to launch.

Israel maintained its relationship with the Falangists through the civil war. By 1982 there was an “alliance in principle,” as described by papers in the Kahan annex. Trained in Israel up to Israeli military standards, however this is understood, Israel was confident that the Falangist tough Bashir Gemayel, the dominant figure in the Christian umbrella group, the Lebanese Forces (LF), had evolved “from the emotional leader of a gang, full of hatred, into a relatively prudent and cautious political leader.” No doubt this was how Bashir presented himself at meetings with the Israelis, but his actions in the past, and in the future, indicate that he was merely concealing the brutality that still lay within.

In January, 1976, the LF attacked the slum Karantina port district of Beirut, killing or massacring at least 1000 Palestinian fighters and civilians. In June, the Falangists, along with other LF factions, including the Lebanese Tigers of the Chamoun family and the Guardians of the Cedars, besieged the Tal al Za’atar Palestinian camp. Their military equipment included US tanks and armored cars. The camp held out for 35 days before being overrun. Up to 3000 Palestinian civilians were slaughtered.

The Kahan papers include an interesting exchange between Ariel Sharon and Shimon Peres, Minister of Defence in 1976, who asked Sharon whether an IDF officer had warned him against sending the Falangists into Sabra and Shatila. Sharon responded that “you” (the Rabin government of 1976 of which Peres was part) had established the relationship with the Falangists and maintained it even after the massacre at Tal al Zaatar:

“You [Peres] spoke of the moral image of the government. After Tal al Zaatar, Mr Peres, you have no monopoly on morality. We did not accuse you, you have accused us. The same moral principle which was raised by the Tal al Za’atar incident [sic.] still exists. The Phalangists murdered in Shatila and the Phalangists murdered in Tal Za’atar. The link is a moral one: should we get involved with the Phalangists or not? You supported them and continued to do so after Tal Za’atar. Mr Rabin and Mr Peres, there were no IDF officers in Shatila, the same way they were absent from Tal Za’atar.” What is left unsaid is that Israel had a ‘liaison office’ at Tal al Za’ater even if IDF officers were not inside the camp.

‘High stature’

The refrain constantly repeated by Israeli intelligence and military personnel in 1982 was that no-one expected the Falangists to behave so badly. They were people of high calibre, people of quality, “men of much higher personal stature than is common among Arabs,” according to the statements made to the Kahan commission.

“I interrogated the Lebanese commanders [all Lebanese ‘commanders’ operated under direct Israeli command],” said Sharon. “I asked them, why have you done it? They looked into my eyes, as I am looking at you and their eyes did not twitch. They said ‘we did not do this, it was not us.’ I am not talking about bums, we are talking about people who are engineers and lawyers, the entire young elite, an intelligentsia, and they are looking into my eyes and saying ‘we did not do it.’

In fact, not just during the long civil war but throughout its invasion of Lebanon in 1982, Israel had abundant evidence of the Falangist capacity for brutality, not just in the massacre of Muslims caught at checkpoints or the Druze in the mountains but in the statements of Falangist leaders. On September 12, two days before he was assassinated, Bashir Gemayel told Sharon that conditions “should be created” which would result in the Palestinians leaving Lebanon.

At the same meeting it transpired that the Israelis had evidence that “as a consequence of Elie Hobeika’s activities” 1200 people had “disappeared.” Hobeika, a senior and extremely brutal Falangist figure, implicated in the CIA attempt in 1985 to assassinate the Shia spiritual leader, Shaikh Muhammad Hussain Fadlallah, was assassinated in 2002 shortly after he announced he was ready to give evidence in a Belgian court about Sharon’s role in the Sabra-Shatila massacres. His car was blown up, his head landing on the balcony of a nearby apartment.

On July 8 Bashir spoke of wanting to bulldoze the Palestinian camps in southern Lebanon. At a later meeting, asked by Sharon “What would you do about the refugee camps?,” he replied “We are planning a real zoo.”

An IDF colonel gave evidence to the Kahan commission that it was “possible to surmise from contacts with Phalange leaders” what their intentions were. If Sabra would become a zoo, Shatila’s destiny was to be a parking lot.

The IDF colonel spoke of massacres of Druze villagers by Elie Hobeika and his men. A document dated June 23 refers to “some 500 people” detained by Christians in Beirut being “terminated.” Nahum Admoni, the Mossad head, who said he knew Bashir well, having met frequently with him in 1974/5, said that “When he talked in terms of demographic change it was always in terms of killing and elimination. This was his instinctive style.” The “demographic change” refers to Bashir’s concern at the size of Lebanon’s Shia population, and its high natural birth date compared to the Christians. To resolve this problem, Bashar said, “several Deir Yassins will be necessary.”

While referring to Bashir’s brutal talk, Admoni said that “at the same time he was a political human being and as such he had an extremely cautious thinking process and thus he avoided taking part in various warlike activities.” The evidence does not bear out the last part of this statement, as Bashar had a long record even before 1982 of engaging in extremely brutal “warlike activities.”

The violence during the Israeli onslaught on Lebanon ran from the Falangists at one end of the spectrum to the extreme violence of Ariel Sharon, including massacres of civilians in Gaza and the West Bank, at the other end. The two extremes met in the middle at Sabra and Shatila and the outcome was predictably catastrophic.

‘Totally subservient’

What must be reaffirmed is that the “cleaning” or “combing” out of Sabra and Shatila was planned, coordinated and commanded by the Israeli military. It was not a Falangist operation with Israel playing some loose supervisory role. It was an Israel operation, involving the intelligence agencies and approved by the Israeli government. The Falangists were trained and armed by Israel and the LF commanders were “totally subservient” to the commander of the Israeli force sent to the camps, the 96th division. The Falangists were told when to enter the camps and when to leave. The Israelis lit up the camps at night with flares so the Falangists could see what they were doing (or who they were killing) and they stood ready to provide medical assistance to wounded men and intervene if they got into trouble.

Any notion that Menahim Begin, the Prime Minister, had no idea what was going on until a later stage has to be discarded. As Sharon remarked at a Cabinet meeting on August 12, “to say that I speak with the PM five times a day would be an understatement.”

Israel had agreed in negotiations with the Americans not to enter West Beirut. The assassination of Bashir Gemayel on September 14 precipitated the invasion of West Beirut the following day, the seizure of key positions and the encirclement of Sabra and Shatila according to a well-prepared plan. The Falangists entered the camps in the early evening of September 16, on Israeli orders, and did not withdraw until September 18, again on Israeli orders.

There were no “terrorists” in the camps, let alone the 2500 Sharon claimed had been left behind after the PLO withdrawal from Beirut in August. There were only civilians and there was no armed resistance from them. The Falangists did their work silently, mostly with knives so that the next victim would not be aware of the fate of the one before him (or her – many of the dead were women and children and even the camp animals were butchered) until it was too late.

The Falangist liaison office was established in the headquarters of the 96th Israeli division, where eavesdropping yielded unspecified “important evidence,” according to the Kahan commission annex. Professional electronic tapping of the Falangist communications network inside the camps was maintained in addition to “improvised” tapping of the conversations inside the HQ of the 96th division. According to the Kahan commission’s annex, the Falangist liaison officer reported “abnormal occurrences” in the camps to several officers only a few hours after the Falangists entered them.

Clearly, statements by intelligence and military personnel that they did not know what was going, or that they did not know until it was too late cannot be taken at face value. There was no gunfire from the camps and no resistance as would have been expected from armed “terrorists.” In this deathly silence, with no bursts of gunfire, and not the slightest sign or sound of armed combat, did the Israelis really think the Falangists were only killing armed men? Furthermore, Sharon had made it clear that he wanted to break up all the Palestinian camps and disperse their inhabitants. A cruel and brutal figure, he was perfectly capable of doing it. What could be better calculated to drive Palestinian civilians everywhere into panicked flight than an even more monstrous Deir Yassin? There may be a lot more evidence about this, textual and graphic, that has not made its way even into the secret annex.

Sharon freely insulted and demeaned the two chief US representatives in Beirut, Ambassador Morris Draper, whom he accused of impudence in demanding that Israel withdraw from West Beirut, and President Reagan’s special envoy, Philip Habib. “Did I make myself clear?,” “Don’t complain all the time” and “I’m sick of this” are samples of his aggression when in their company but as he said of the Americans on another occasion, “I hate them.”

Ghost towns

This remorseless liar claimed that there were no civilians in the camps. “I want you to know that Burj al Barajneh and its vicinity and the area of Shatila and similar places are ghost towns” he insisted, according to the Kahan annex. In August, as the aerial and land bombardment of Beirut approached its peak, he told the Cabinet that “we are not striking at the area where the Sunni Lebanese population resides.” On August 18 he lied again: “Today there is no-one living in the refugee camps. Only terrorists remain in the refugee camps. That is where their positions remain, in the refugee camps. That is where their positions, bunkers and HQs were located, and all the civilians had fled.” In fact, the camps were packed with civilians who had nowhere else to go, while in West Beirut, thousands of Sunni Muslims, Christians, and anyone who was living there, were being killed in air strikes.

At the same time Sharon had the extraordinary gall to present himself as some kind of saviour of the civilian population.   After entering West Beirut he remarked that “in reality we are not looking for anybody’s praise but if praise is due, then it’s ours as we saved Beirut from total anarchy. On September 21, a few days after the Sabra and Shatila massacres, he told the Cabinet that “We prevented a bloodbath.” In fact, the invasion had been a bloodbath from the beginning. By the end of the year about 19,000 people had been killed, almost all of them Palestinian or Lebanese civilians.

Two issues take up numerous pages in the Kahan report annex. One is the speed with which the Israeli army moved into West Beirut after the assassination of Bashir Gemayel. The reason was that the assassination “threatened to bring down the entire political structure and undermine the military plan years in preparation over long months.” Having promised full support, Bashar had ultimately refused to send the Falangists into West Beirut and with this commanding figure dead, the Israelis feared that their invasion was going to fail at the critical moment. With no-one to stop them, Sharon’s imaginary “terrorists” would be free to rebuild their infrastructure.

‘Supreme value’

The other issue is why Israel did not send its own troops into the camps. As expressed in the Kahan papers, “the expected nature of the fighting in the camps did not arouse much enthusiasm for the deployment of the IDF.” There would be difficult fighting “which could result in a lot of bloodshed in a densely populated area, where terrorists who have to be located are disguised as civilians in a hostile environment.” Such an action would involve a large number of casualties and the IDF had no wish to involve itself “in such an unpleasant but necessary military move.”

The deployment of the Falangists instead caused “great relief” to the military: the “supreme value” governing the decision was the desire not to cause IDF casualties. So, Israel’s proxies were sent in to do the dirty work instead.

After being elected president, as he was in a dodgy way in August, Bashir Gemayel had shown he realised he would have to act as one, which meant putting the Lebanese consensus before the alliance with Israel. He would have to work with the Sunnis and Shia and repair the fractured relations with other Maronite factions. He would have to take the interests of Arab states into account.   He could not simultaneously be Lebanon’s president and Israel’s president.   As a senior Falangist figure, Antun Fattal, remarked to Morris Draper on December 13, 1982: “Our economy is dependent on the Arab world and we cannot sacrifice it because of a peace treaty [as demanded by Israel].”

On December 14, Bashar’s successor, and milder brother, Amin, asked Israel to stop all contact with Lebanon, saying that he intended to announce at the UN that Lebanon was occupied by Israel. Like Bashir, he knew he had to respect the Lebanese consensus. By the end of 1982 what Israel had comprehensively demonstrated was that it simply did not understand Lebanon. All it had was brute force. The invasion certainly succeeded in changing the geo-political strategic situation, but not to Israel’s advantage. Yes, the PLO went, but only for Hizbullah to take its place. By 2000 Hizbullah had driven Israel out of the occupied south, in 2006 it frustrated Israel again and by 2018 it had missiles that will cause unprecedented damage if Israel goes to war again. The country Israel regarded as the weakest link in the Arab chain had turned out to be one of the toughest.

By Jeremy Salt
Source

Advertisements

صبرا و شاتيلا: إبادة مُعلنة

1

هكذا خطّط بشير الجميّل مع إسرائيل لإبادة شعب فلسطين1

حقائق جديدة حول جريمة مدبرة

وليد شرارة

    • كان الهدف المعلن للاجتياح الصهيوني للبنان عام 1982، بحسب التصريحات والبيانات الصادرة عن حكومة بيغن-شارون آنذاك، هو «تدمير البنى التحتية لمنظمة التحرير الفلسطينية»، أي جميع منظمات المقاومة الفلسطينية والمؤسسات السياسية والاجتماعية والإعلامية والثقافية المرتبطة بالمنظمة. لكن مجريات الاجتياح، التي تخللتها عمليات استهداف واسعة النطاق للمخيمات الفلسطينية عبر القصف التدميري وارتكاب المجازر، التي وصلت إلى ذروتها مع مجزرة صبرا وشاتيلا، كشفت أن الغاية الفعلية لهذا الأخير تتجاوز القضاء على منظمة التحرير إلى القضاء على وجود الشعب الفلسطيني في لبنان. المشروع الصهيوني الذي قام على التطهير العرقي في فلسطين حاول تكرار جريمته في لبنان. لكن إرادة الصمود الأسطورية لدى الفلسطينيين في لبنان، الذين تعرضوا لعمليات قتل وتنكيل وحصار طوال عقد ثمانينات القرن الماضي وليس خلال الاجتياح وحده، منعته من بلوغ غايته. اليوم، بعد مرور أكثر من سبعين عاماً على النكبة في فلسطين، وستة وثلاثين عاماً على مجزرة صبرا وشاتيلا، قرّر الكيان الصهيوني، عبر تصويت الكنيست على قانون القومية اليهودية، الإعلان رسمياً عن طبيعته الاستيطانية الإحلالية. بحسب هذا القانون، «إسرائيل» هي الوطن التاريخي «للشعب اليهودي» حصراً، حيث يمارس «حقه في تقرير المصير». وكما في جميع حالات الاستعمار الاستيطاني الإحلالي التي سبقت، كالولايات المتحدة وأستراليا ونيوزلندا، لا مكان للسكان الأصليين إلا في المقابر الجماعية أو معازل القتل البطيء. وقد اعتقد الصهاينة بعد النكبة أنهم نجحوا في التخلص من الفلسطينيين، كما أكد أحد قادتهم، أبا إيبان، عندما جزم أن «الكبار سيموتون والصغار سينسون». كذّب الفلسطينيون أبا إيبان وانطلقت من مخيمات البؤس والتشرد والبطولة والفداء ، خارج فلسطين، الثورة الفلسطينية المعاصرة. ومع مضي أكثر من عقد ونصف على انطلاقتها وتمركز قواتها في لبنان، قرّر الصهاينة تكرار محاولة الإجهاز عليها واستكمال ما بدأوه عام 1948.

اجتياح بحجم نكبة

المقاومة الفلسطينية وحلفاؤها أدركوا بوضوح أهداف الاجتياح، وكذلك أعداء هذه المقاومة، من ميليشيات اليمين الفاشي اللبناني، التي كان وصول مرشحها إلى السلطة أحد هذه الأهداف. وتكفلت التطورات الميدانية والسياسية خلال الاجتياح وبعده بتبيانها لمن كان متعامياً عنها وأولها إلحاق نكبة جديدة بالشعب الفلسطيني واقتلاعه من الجزء الأكبر من لبنان. هذا ما يفسر التدمير المتعمد والمنهجي، الكامل أو شبه الكامل، لمعظم المخيمات الواقعة ضمن نطاق الاجتياح كالرشيدية والبرج الشمالي وعين الحلوة وهو ما يفسر طبعاً مجزرة صبرا وشاتيلا. لم يرحل الفلسطينيون. بقوا بين أنقاض منازلهم وأعادوا إعمارها تدريجاً على رغم تعرضهم للقتل والخطف والاعتقال والتنكيل في المخيمات الواقعة تحت الاحتلال في الجنوب آنذاك وثبتوا في أزقة صبرا وشاتيلا التي تحولت ليومين متتاليين إلى مسلخ بشري مكتظ بجثث أهلهم وأحبتهم. من أراد المزيد من الإطلاع على وقائع تلك المرحلة وعلى تجربة الفلسطينيين المريرة في لبنان في ثمانينات القرن الماضي، من منظور المعنيين أي الفلسطينيين، عليه مراجعة الكتاب الهام لروز ماري صايغ «أعداء كثر» (Too Many enemies) الصادر بالإنكليزية والذي لم يترجم للعربية لأسباب «غير مفهومة».

حَرص الطرف الإسرائيلي، بعد مجزرة صبرا وشاتيلا والاستنكار العالمي الذي سببته، على الترويج لسردية لخصها مناحم بيغن بقوله أمام الكنيست: «غوييم (أغراب من غير اليهود) قتلوا غوييم، لكن العالم يتهم اليهود». لم تكن إسرائيل تتوقع، بحسب السردية المذكورة، أن يقدم حلفاؤها في القوات اللبنانية، وقوات سعد حداد التي جيء بها من الجنوب، على ارتكاب مجزرة ضد المدنيين. وزير دفاعها آنذاك آرييل شارون اعترف بأنه من أعطى الأمر لهذه القوى الرديفة بدخول المخيمات «لتطهيرها من الإرهابيين» لكنه نفى علمه بنيتها ارتكاب مجازر، وعزا سلوكها إلى رغبتها بالانتقام لاغتيال زعيمها بشير الجميل. بعض قادة القوات اللبنانية برّروا أيضاً ما جرى على أنه رد فعل من عناصرها بدافع الانتقام من عملية الاغتيال. أحد قادتها، فؤاد مالك، وفي مقابلة مع إذاعة كورتوازي (Radio Courtoisie) اليمينية المتطرفة الفرنسية في الثمانينات، زعم بأن ما جرى في صبرا وشاتيلا معركة وليس مجزرة وبأنه شارك شخصياً فيها!

لم تصمد هذه السرديات والمزاعم أمام الشهادات والوثائق والتحقيقات التي تثبّت بشكل حاسم أن المجزرة اندرجت ضمن سياق مخطط مشترك بين إسرائيل والقوات اللبنانية لاقتلاع الوجود الفلسطيني من لبنان. آخر الوثائق الشديدة الأهمية هي تلك التي كشف عنها الباحث الأميركي سيت أنزيسكا في مقال في مجلة نيويورك رفيو أوف بوكس، خصصه لنشر بعض الصفحات المختارة من كتابه المرجعي «تغييب فلسطين، التاريخ السياسي من كامب ديفيد إلى أوسلو»، الصادر أخيراً عن دار نشر جامعة برنستون في الولايات المتحدة. يبرز الكتاب حقيقة تواطؤ جميع الإدارات الأميركية المتعاقبة، من إدارتي فورد ونيكسون، إلى إدارة ترامب، مع السياسة الإسرائيلية التي عملت بجميع السبل لمنع الفلسطينيين من حقهم بتقرير المصير وإقامة دولة مستقلّة على أي جزء من أرض فلسطين التاريخية وكيفية توظيف هذه السياسة لما سمي بعملية السلام منذ اتفاقية كامب ديفيد لإخراج أطراف عربية وازنة كمصر من الصراع مع إسرائيل وعزل الفلسطينيين تمهيداً للإجهاز على حركتهم الوطنية وإتمام عملية الاقتلاع والضم والاستيطان. ويفرد الكتاب حيزاً هاماً للاجتياح الإسرائيلي عام 1982، ومجازر صبرا وشاتيلا، باعتباره محطة مفصلية في مسار الإبادة السياسية و«تغييب فلسطين». خلال عمله على إعداد الكتاب، حصل أنزيسكا من وليم كوانت، عضو مجلس الأمن القومي الأسبق في عهد الرئيس الأميركي جيمي كارتر والخبير البارز في شؤون الشرق الأوسط الناقد للسياستين الأميركية والإسرائيلية، على الملحقات السرية لتقرير لجنة كاهان، اللجنة الإسرائيلية المكلفة بالتحقيق في مجزرة صبرا وشاتيلا. تنقسم هذه الوثائق إلى محاضر اجتماعات بين القيادات العسكرية والأمنية الإسرائيلية وقيادتي القوات اللبنانية وحزب الكتائب وإلى محاضر جلسات استماع أمام الكنيست لمسؤولين إسرائيليين ومحاضر مقابلات بينهم وبين لجنة كاهان. اختارت «الأخبار» أن تنشر أبرز محاضر الاجتماعات بين القيادات الإسرائيلية واللبنانية التي تفصح عن تفاهم كامل على غايات الاجتياح وفي مقدمها الخلاص من «الديموغرافيا» الفلسطينية في لبنان. وقد شارك قائد القوات اللبنانية بشير الجميل في أغلب هذه الاجتماعات المصيرية. يتضح في أكثر من محضر أن الطرف الإسرائيلي، للحفاظ على صورته وسمعته أمام العالم، لزّم أمر المخيمات للميليشيات الفاشية اللبنانية المتحمسة لذلك. هذه الأخيرة، على غرار غيرها من فرق الموت الفاشية عبر العالم، تخصصت خلال الحرب الأهلية بعمليات «التطهير الاجتماعي» لأحزمة الفقر عبر القتل الجماعي والتشريد كما فعلت في النبعة والكرنتينا ومخيمي تل الزعتر وجسر الباشا. كانت الطرف الأمثل لإنجاز المهمة.

مجزرة صبرا وشاتيلا ليست كغيرها من مجازر الحرب الأهلية اللبنانية. لم يكن رد فعل على مجزرة أخرى أو عملاً انتقامياً تلا معركة كما حصل خلال الحرب. هي أتت تنفيذاً لقرار إسرائيلي مشترك مع رديف رُفع إلى مرتبة الحليف لاعتبارات سياسية، كحلقة في مخطط واسع هدف إلى إعادة صياغة التوازنات السياسية والديموغرافية في لبنان وفي المنطقة. ومن يشك في صحة هذه الخلاصات عليه بمراجعة محاضر الاجتماعات بين الشركاء في الجريمة المتعمدة التي تبدأ «الأخبار» بنشرها اليوم.

شارون: ماذا ستفعلون بشأن مخيمات اللاجئين؟ بشير: نخطّط لحديقة حيوان حقيقية

شارون: ماذا ستفعلون بشأن مخيمات اللاجئين؟ بشير: نخطّط لحديقة حيوان حقيقية

عنوان الوثيقة:

محضر الاجتماع بين بشير الجميّل وكمحي وتامير، مكتوب بخطّ اليد

1 – كان بشير راضياً بعدما تلقّى المعدات التي أرسلناها إليه.
2 – كان مهتماً بمعرفة مصير الفلسطينيين في لبنان بعد إجلاء منظمة التحرير الفلسطينية، أو ما يسمّيه «المشكلة الديموغرافية». قلنا له إنّ مشكلة السكان المدنيّين هي مشكلتكم (هم الذين دعوهم إلى الدخول، لذلك فإنّ التخلص منهم من مسؤوليتهم).
بالمقارنة، إنّ مشكلة منظمة التحرير الفلسطينية مشكلة مركّبة: إما أن ينسحبوا وفق الاتفاق السياسي، أو أن يُخرَجوا بالقوّة.
طرح بشير النقاش المعهود، وقال إن الوقت ينفد، كذلك فإنّه بات يشكّل عائقاً أمامنا، وإن شيئاً لن يتحقّق جرّاء العملية السياسية. وقال إنه إذا جرى غزو المخيمات أو عزلها، فإنّ المدينة ستسقط كثمرةٍ ناضجة، لأنّ الأحياء السنيّة ستستسلم، كذلك فإن المسيحيين سيزيدون الضغوط.
(ملاحظة مكتوبة بخط اليد من دون عنوان بتاريخ 10 تموز/ يوليو 1982: بشير الجميّل يقترح إضافة قوّة سعودية إلى القوات الدولية المقرَّر أن تدخل بيروت).

***

21 آب/ أغسطس 1982 (قبل يومين من انتخاب بشير الجميل رئيساً للجمهورية)

عنوان الوثيقة: محضر اجتماع بين وزير الدفاع (أرييل شارون) وبيار وبشير الجميّل في مكتب بشير

المشاركون: رجال بشير، ممثلون عن الموساد، أوري دان، الميجور شامير وزير الدفاع: لقد وضعنا الخلفية، نحن هنا في بيروت بحسب اتفاقنا في كانون الثاني/ يناير هذا العام. كيف تتحضّرون لحكومة قوية ومستقرّة؟

بيار: إن الله أرسلكم إلينا. خلال السنوات السبع أو الثماني الماضية، خذَلَنا الجميع. الأميركيون والأوروبيون كانوا يخافون حرق أيديهم هنا. كان ضرورياً أن تفعلوا ما فعلتم. لقد أتيتم وأنقذتمونا. خلال العامين الماضيين، انتظرنا بيأس. من دون مساعدتكم، لكنّا اختفينا.
أشعر بأنكم لستم راضين عن موقفنا. ربما توقعتم تعبيراً أكبر عن الفرح وحماسة أكبر لدى وصولكم. على الرغم من أننا لم نعبّر عن ذلك ظاهرياً، أريدك أن تعرف أن قلوبنا تطير من الفرح. حتى لو أنّكم تعملون وفقاً لما تقتضيه مصلحتكم، فإنّكم قدّمتم لنا خدمة. كما نتفهّمكم، يجب أن تتفهمونا، من أجل مصلحتنا ومصلحتكم. لبنان هو الجسر الأفضل لدخولكم إلى العالم العربي. هذا في مصلحتكم أيضاً. من المستحيل أن نحيا، حاملين السلاح إلى الأبد. يجب أن تبقى إسرائيل إلى الأبد، ويجب إيجاد حلّ للوجود السلميّ. أنتم جُدد في هذه المنطقة. صراعنا من أجل الاستقلال عمره 400 عام. أعتقد أننا نجحنا في ذلك. لذلك – أتمنّى أن تتفهّم – سعادتنا كبيرة، حتى لو لم نستطع إظهار ذلك بشكل واضح. نحن نفهم الوضع بشكل أفضل في العالم العربي، لذا نعتقد أن التعبير الواضح عن فرحنا سيكون مؤذياً. (يهمس بشير في أذنه حينها)، لقد عدتم بعد مئات السنين. نحن بقينا هنا، لكنّنا نتصارع مع المشاكل ذاتها تقريباً. يمكننا النجاة والبقاء هنا بفضل وجودكم في المنطقة.

بشير الجميّل يقترح إضافة قوّة سعودية إلى القوات الدولية المقرَّر أن تدخل بيروت

أودّ أن أشكركم مجدداً وأؤكّد اعترافنا بكل شيء فعلتموه من أجلنا. من دونكم، كان لبنان سيتفكّك. نحن أصدقاؤكم الحقيقيون، ومصالحنا متشابهة. إذا كان لديكم أيّ ملاحظات بشأن سلوكنا، فمن المهم أن تبلغونا بها، خصوصاً أن صداقتكم ضرورية بالنسبة إلينا.

وزير الدفاع: شكراً لقدومك. كفتىً، أذكرك بصراعك من أجل لبنان حرّ. كان يجب أن آتي لأراك، وأنا ممتنّ لحضورك هنا.

بيار: لقد زرت إسرائيل مرّات عدّة. تأثّرت كثيراً. خلال إحدى زياراتي، زرت مدرسة أثارت إعجابي جداً. كانوا يعلّمون الأولاد هناك عن جمال الحياة.

وزير الدفاع: إن الامتحان الأكبر يكمن في كيفية خلق القوة وكيفية نقلها. عددنا 18 مليوناً، ستة ملايين أبيدوا. وبعد 40 عاماً، بتنا أقرب إلى 15 مليوناً. لقد تعلّمنا كيف نستخدم القوة التي لدينا، ولكننا لسنا نحن بعد. استخدام القوة هو ما أوّد أن أناقشه معك. أودّ أن أشير إلى الظروف الخاصة التي في متناولنا. نفهم مشاكلكم، وسنتوصّل إلى تفاهم أفضل. لديّ مشاعر صداقة دافئة تجاهكم، وأؤمن بإقامة العلاقات بين لبنان الحرّ وإسرائيل.

مع ذلك، عليكم أن تفهوا أنه من أجل أن نواصل مساعدتنا لكم، نحتاج إلى تعاونكم – هذا بحاجة إلى إصرار. المناورات والألعاب لم تؤدّ إلى أي مكان. كان هناك فرص عديدة. قبل شهرين، كان هناك فرصة أمامكم لتحرير عاصمتكم. ذلك لم يحصل. كان أسهل بالنسبة إلينا. لم يحصل ذلك، لكننا فهمنا لماذا. برأيي، كان موقفكم أفضل لو أنكم قد تصرّفتم.

بيار: اسمح لي أن أقاطعك. ماذا كنّا سنفعل؟ كان ذلك سيكون مزعجاً أكثر منه مفيداً. لست عسكرياً، لكنّي أعتقد أن موقفنا خدم الهدف المشترك بنحو أفضل مما لو كنّا تورّطنا.

وزير الدفاع: عليك أن تفهم أنّ إسرائيل دولة ديموقراطيّة. هناك أشخاص يعملون هنا منذ 60 يوماً، ووضعهم الاقتصادي مدمّر.

الضغوط في إسرائيل تتراكم. مضمون الضغوط يأتي على النحو الآتي: «لقد حقّقنا ما حققنا، لنعود إلى بلادنا. الجنود هنا مدنيون. لقد تركوا عائلاتهم وأعمالهم. هذا سبّب ضغطاً على الرأي العام الإسرائيلي. خلال أيام سنتعرّض لضغوط دولية على شكل «أنتم أردتم إخراج الإرهابيين من بيروت. ها قد خرجوا. أخلوا المباني الآن». لن يكون لدينا ردّ على ذلك. علينا أن نجيب لماذا نحتفظ بقطاع في جنوب لبنان مساحته بين 40 – 50 كلم. هذا حزام أمان. مع ذلك، لن يكون لدينا إجابة ترضي الرأي العام المحلّي والدولي. ولكن، قد يساعدنا تعهّد لا لبس فيه بأن (اللبنانيين) سيوقّعون اتفاق سلام مع إسرائيل. خلافاً لذلك، لن يكون لدينا حجّة. ما لم يجرِ التصريح بأوضح العبارات بأنه سيُوقَّع اتفاق سلام من قبل إسرائيل، فلن نتمكّن من البقاء في منطقة بيروت. في سيناء، انتظرنا السلام لسنوات، ولكن بقاءنا هنا من دون أن تُعلن القيادة المُحرِّرة أن اتفاق سلام سيُوقّع مع إسرائيل، سيشكّل لنا وضعاً صعباً.

لقد سألتم سابقاً عن مصير مخيّمات الفلسطينيين بعد انسحاب الإرهابيين. إذا لم تنتظموا من أجل دخول هذا المكان، فستواجهون المشكلة ذاتها. من غير المعقول أن تعودوا إلينا وتقولوا لنا إننا ارتكبنا خطأً، يجب أن ندخل إلى المخيمات ونتولّى أمرهم. حال الانتهاء من إجلاء الإرهابيين، لن نتمكّن من فعل شيء، وسيكون من الخطأ أن تطلبوا منّا ذلك. عليكم أن تتصرّفوا.
حتى نتمكّن من الصمود أمام الضغوط العلنيّة في إسرائيل، عليكم أن تعلنوا على الفور إبرام معاهدة سلام مع إسرائيل، وحتى تتخلّصوا من الإرهابيين، عليكم تطهير المخيمات. بحيث يكون من الممكن إقامة علاقات موثوقة تقوم على الاحترام المُتبادل. بعد أن نتكبّد 2500 ضحيّة، عليكم أن تفعلوا شيئاً، اقرعوا الأجراس! صرّحوا عن الالتزامات. (……) ربما قلت أشياء صعبة، ولكنّها تخرج من قلبي، بين الأصدقاء. هذا ما أشعر به وما أؤمن به. قلت هذه الأشياء مع علمي بالموقفين الداخلي في إسرائيل، والدولي.

بيار: أنا أفهم خطابك تماماً، وأشكرك على هذه الكلمات. نحن على علم بردود الفعل داخل إسرائيل. من المهمّ أن يفهم شعب إسرائيل أننا نقف إلى جانبه. سجّلنا موقفكم. أودّ أن تفهموا موقفنا السياسي والدبلوماسي. نحن في خضمّ عمليّة سياسية وانتخابات رئاسيّة، ونؤمن بأن كل شيء سيتغيّر. بشير هو المرشّح. في حال انتخاب بشير، سيُعلَنُ عصرٌ جديد في المنطقة. على العرب أن يفهموا أننا نريد أن نكون لبنانيين. سياستنا ستتغيّر برمّتها. نحن لبنانيون أولاً، وعرب ثانياً. عندما تنبثق جمهورية جديدة، كل شيء سيتغيّر، كل شيء سيكون ممكناً. حين ندخل المرحلة الجديدة، نريد التوصّل إلى اتفاق شامل معكم. نحن في خضمّ الحملة الانتخابية. من المهم جداً المحافظة على الهدوء. مصالحنا متطابقة.

وزير الدفاع: شكراً لك على خطابك. أنا أفهمك. من المهم جداً أن تقدّروا المشاكل المحليّة والدولية التي نواجهها.

بيار: عليكم أن تفهموا موقفنا أيضاً. مصالحنا متطابقة. أطلب مجدداً إن كان لديكم ملاحظات، من المهم بالنسبة إلينا أن نسمعها بصراحة تامة.

بيار يغادر الاجتماع، ويتبع ذلك حوار مع بشير.

بيار الجميّل لشارون: لبنان هو الجسر الأفضل لدخولكم إلى العالم العربي

وزير الدفاع: ماذا عن الأميركيين؟

بشير: هناك تفهّم كامل الآن، لقد رتَّبت لنا ذلك منذ نحو عام.

وزير الدفاع: والسعوديون؟ هل هم منخرطون؟

بشير: كلا، لقد استخدموا نفوذهم في ما يتعلّق بالمسلمين في بيروت. الأميركيون يستغلّون ذلك أكثر. الأميركيون يفعلون ذلك. حبيب أخبر صائب سلام، في أكثر من مناسبة، أنه يلعب بالنار.
السوريون منعوا دخول أعضاء في البرلمان. لذا، كانت هناك خشية من ألّا يكتمل النصاب. أردت طرح هذه المسألة عليك، وسؤالك عمّا ينبغي فعله في حال حصول ذلك؟ هل أطلب من سركيس الاستقالة؟ ماذا عن المدنيين الذين يخضعون للنفوذ السوري؟ كيف ستتواصل العملية السياسية؟ لكن علينا أن نناقش ذلك بعد يوم الاثنين.

وزير الدفاع: ماذا ستفعلون بشأن مخيمات اللاجئين؟

بشير: نخطّط لحديقة حيوان حقيقية.

وزير الدفاع: هل تعتزمون الدخول إلى بيروت الغربية؟

بشير: هناك مشكلة بشأن «المرابطون». لقد عرضوا للتوّ بيع 40 ألف بندقية كلاشنيكوف. تخيّل ما نجده في المدينة. وبخصوص الزيارة لإسرائيل، إذا فشلنا، يجب أن نناقش ذلك. ربما هذا ليس وقتاً مناسباً. ليس هناك أمر طارئ على جدول الأعمال. إذا جرى انتخابي يوم الاثنين، فسندير شؤون الدولة.

ناحيك: نطلب منكم مجدداً ألّا تفعلوا شيئاً من شأنه أن يعقّد إجلاء (الإرهابيين). جدولكم الزمني يسمح لكم بتأجيل الأنشطة إلى ما بعد إجلائهم.

وزير الدفاع: لا تتّخذ أي إجراء من دون التنسيق معنا.

بشير: أعدك بذلك.

In Memory of Philip Roth

May 26, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

Introduction by GA: I wrote the following  book review a decade ago. 10 years later, Israel and its subservient English Speaking Empire are still mounting pressure on Iran,  the Middle East is bleeding and peace looks like a remote fantasy. Pre TSD is the medium in which we operate and a prospect of a better future seems like a delusional dream. A decade ago I concluded this review wiring that “the current plot isn’t just against America. It is a plot against humanity and human dignity.” Sadly, nothing really changed.

6_13_025.jpg

The Plot Against America – a book report and a reality check

by Gilad Atzmon

…Roth is no doubt an astonishing writer but somehow he has always failed to convince me. I always had the feeling that Roth is just too aware of his enormous talent; something that made him slightly technical and pretentious at times. Being a prolific writer, Roth can be slightly impersonal to my taste and yet, in his latest book he is free from that. No literary imposed tactics or strategies can be traced. In his latest book, Roth is overwhelmingly personal. Astonishingly enough, the fictional reality he conveys is so convincing that I found myself totally captivated from beginning to end. So enthralled was I, that I even managed to forget how depressing the world is out there. I avoided the anti-Iranian media blitz. I switched it off for three days and let the international community attack the Iranian president in a single Judeified voice.

‘The Plot Against America’ is a fictional tale that unwinds like a historical document enriched with personal detail. Its theme is: what would have happened if ace pilot Charles Lindbergh, the man who made the first solo transatlantic flight in 1927, the man who later called Hitler ‘a great man’, and was decorated by the Führer for his services to the Reich, had run for the American presidency against Roosevelt in 1940 and managed to win? Lindbergh’s message to the American nation is a classic Republican isolationist one. ‘No more war! Never again will young Americans die on foreign soil’. The year is obviously 1940 and Lindbergh is referring to Europe and the Pacific rather than Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria or Iran. In Roth’s book, instead of Roosevelt being elected for an unprecedented third term, Lindbergh wins in a landslide victory. He then signs non-aggression treaties with Germany and Japan. Soon enough the charismatic Lindbergh is cheered by American society as a whole. Every American loves him except of course the Jews who are far from being happy with a ‘peace loving’ president who happens to make business with the enemies of the Jewish people. But in fact this isn’t entirely true, a single prominent liberal Rabbi named Bengelsdorf positions himself right behind the new president.

The narrator is Philip Roth himself, a seven-year-old Jewish Ghetto boy from Newark, New Jersey. He tells a story of a Jewish family encountering a major disastrous political shift. Young Phil is telling the story of father Herman, mother Bess and brother Sandy. It is a story of collective fear, a story of a Jewish family’s reaction to the rise of anti-Semitism. However, throughout the book it is very hard to determine whether anti-Semitism constitutes a real objective threat or rather something the Jews bring on themselves. This very confusion is in my opinion the greatest literary asset of the book.

Roth is sketching a very deep and complex narrative in which each family member responds differently to the ‘devastating’ historical circumstances. Once again, Roth managed to convey an interesting image of the difficult amalgam of the Jewish identity both psychologically and sociologically. Like most American Jews, Herman the father is overtly pessimistic from the very beginning. He wouldn’t give Lindbergh even a single day of mercy. However, he is a proud patriotic American. He demands his civil rights. Were he in our midst, he would criticise the emerging catastrophic reality applying to the American liberal ideology. The mother Bess is far more practical, she tries to maintain the family’s sanity, behaving as if life must go on. More than anything else, she must calm down her righteous husband. Phil’s brother Sandy is a gifted painter and assumes a very interesting role. In the summer he disappears for an “apprenticeship” with a tobacco farmer in Kentucky. In a way he makes it into the heart of America. Later he is joining a new assimilation scheme by encouraging Jewish city boys to follow his example. This program is put together by Rabbi Bengelsdorf, the devoted supporter of Lindbergh. Sandy is doing very well, eventually he is invited to a reception at the White House. This is obviously far more than Herman can take. For Herman, the democratically elected American president is nothing but an enemy of the Jews and he refuses to give his son permission to go to Washington. The tension between family members threatens the stability of the family itself, which is on the brink of falling apart. However, all that time,  America has been kept out of the war. American boys aren’t dying in a far away country. American people are very happy but somehow the Jewish Americans aren’t.

All the way through the book father Herman is portrayed as a paranoid Ghetto Jew. He is totally single minded in interpreting reality, he is overly tragic. But he isn’t alone in his obsession. Alongside his Newark Jewish Ghetto neighbours he draws a lot of support from the famous Jewish journalist and broadcaster Walter Winchell who is spreading his anti-Lindbergh poison to the nation. It doesn’t take long before Winchell is stripped of his positions as a journalist, first in the printed press and later in his prime time radio slot. But Winchell won’t surrender; once he loses his job, he decides to run for the presidency. Winchell, the Jew, decides to reshape the American future. In other words, he is determined to take America into war in Europe. Within a short time into his campaign, Winchell is assassinated. Again, the reader may wonder whether the assassination is an anti-Semitic act or rather a punishment Winchell and the Jews insist upon bringing on themselves.

All the way through most of the book I couldn’t make up my mind whether the plot against America is a Jewish or rather a Nazi one. Clearly most of America into war that may serve their cause or if it was Hitler who employs an agent in the very centre of the American administration as the mastermind behind the plot. When time is ripe, young Phil provides us with a shadow of an answer.

Towards the very end of the book Lindbergh disappears with his private fighter plane without leaving a trace. Mysteriously, the wreckage of his plane has never been found. No forensic evidence can suggest what happened to him. Foreign governments volunteer their versions: the Brits blame the Nazis for kidnapping the president, the Nazis suggest that it was ‘Roosevelt and his Jews’ who abducted the American hero. These suggestions are all highly charged, unfounded gossip that are there to serve an international political cause. However, Roth deliberately decides to leave us with a very personal account. We hear Rabbi Bengelsdorf’s account told by his wife Evelyn who happens to be Philip’s aunt. Brilliantly, Roth’s historical narrative takes the shape of modern ‘Jewish history’. History is then reduced to a mere personal account in the shape of gossip devoid of any factual or forensic reference.

Following Rabbi Bengelsdorf’s account, we are entitled to assume that Lindbergh was indeed a Nazi agent. Anyhow, this is the time to remind us that Roth’s President Lindbergh is a fictional character. In fact Lindbergh, the real man, was an American hero, a man who ended the Second World War as a P38 combat pilot at the age of 42. ‘The Plot Against America’ is a fictional tale, Lindbergh wasn’t a traitor, he was an American patriot who happened, like many others, to have admired Hitler for a while. Lindbergh was an American nationalist who loved his people and truly believed that his country should stay out of the ‘Jewish War’. Roth’s Lindbergh is indeed imaginary, but the Jewish collective paranoia isn’t. It is very real. Moreover, the Jewish intent upon shaping American reality is more than real.  Most importantly, while the Nazi plot to run America is totally fictional, the Jewish Plot to run America is now more vivid than ever. Nowadays, when the American army is acting as an Israeli mission force in the Middle East, when Syria and Iran are just about to be flattened by Anglo-American might, it is rather clear what the real meaning of the ‘Plot Against America’ may be.

I read Philip Roth’s book while the entire international community was standing shoulder to shoulder behind the war criminal Sharon. While in Roth’s book the Herman Roths and the Walter Wichells were expecting  America to sacrifice its best sons on the Jewish altar, we are now watching the entire world joining the Jewish war against Islam. It is rather depressing to see our Western politicians enthusiastically adopting the most corrupt version of Jewish morality: a totally blind worldview based on supremacist endorsement of the justice of the stronger. Clearly, there is no isolationist Lindbergh to save us all. Unfortunately, there is not even a single Rabbi Bengelsdorf to suggest an alternative friendly human Jewish morality.

By the time I put Roth’s book down, the storm around the Iranian president subsided somehow. The Jewish world and the Jewish state had another great victory to be cheerful about. The UN’s General Assembly has passed a resolution designating 27 January as the annual ‘Holocaust Memorial Day’ throughout the world.

Why the 27th of January? Because this is the day Auschwitz was liberated. The resolution also rejects any denial that the Holocaust was a historical event in which the mass murder of six million Jews and other victims by Nazi Germany during World War II took place. Seemingly, the UN has a new role, while for years it has been engaged in securing world peace, now it is mainly concerned with securing Jewish history.  No doubt, a very nice present for the Jewish state, a state that holds the highest record for failing to comply with UN resolutions.

By the time I put Roth’s book down I am more or less ready to learn my lesson. Once again I failed to acknowledge that suffering is an exclusive, internal Jewish affair. No one is allowed entry, neither the Palestinians of Gaza’s concentration camp, nor the massacred inhabitants of Fallujah and Tikrit. One million victims of Rwanda are obviously out, three million in Vietnam are out as well, so are the innocent civilians of Hamburg, Hiroshima, Dresden and Nagasaki and millions of others who were killed in the name of democracy. By the time Roth’s ‘Plot Against America’ finds its way onto my bookshelf, I agree with myself at least: A young Rabbi Begelsdorf is long overdue. If we are being Judeified, we may as well take the best of Judaism rather than its supremacist brutality, namely Zionism. By the time Roth’s tome is resting I realise as well that the current plot isn’t just against America. It is a plot against humanity and human dignity

من المذبحة نبت مجد المقاومة

صابرين دياب

سبتمبر 18, 2017

هكذا دورات التاريخ، من حدث الموت يكون نبت الحياة، ربما تصحّ لنا قراءة مذبحة صبرا وشاتيلا بهذه الأداة التي ابتكرها الإنسان الفلسطيني لفهم الحياة وإنجاز الاستمرار وتخليد فلسطينيته بالعمل والإنتاج.

لكن القناع الآخر المختلف للبشرية، أيّ القتل، قد واكب الجوهر الحقيقي للبشرية – وجه الإنسان – وبينهما كان وسيبقى التناقض، ولعلّ الفاشية اللبنانية، الكتائب ولفيفها، والصهيونية والسلطة الأميركية، خاصة المحافظين الجدد، هم التعبير الحقيقي عن القناع، في مواجهة وجه التاريخ.

شعبنا الفلسطيني وأحرار لبنان ومختلف الأمم، التي تعرّضت للمذبحة الممتدّة على مرّ تاريخ البشرية، وكانت مذبحة صبرا وشاتيلا المذبحة الشاهد الأشدّ وحشية على امتداد المذبحة ضدّ فلسطين، من دير ياسين والدوايمة والطنطورة وكفر قاسم والحرم الإبراهيمي، إلى العديد العديد، وهي التأسيس للفوضى الخلاقة في ثوب القاعدة وداعش والوهابية بالطبع، حيث فتح الوحش الغربي فكّيْه لتبيّن أنيابه الداعشية وتنغرس في بدن الأمة.

في صبرا وشاتيلا وقف الطفل الفلسطيني الأعزل والمرأة والشيخ، بين فيض دموع ترحيل الفدائيين، غيلة وغدراً ومساومة، وبين سكين شارون وعملائه، الممتدّة بطول المكان من البنتاغون وحتى الكنيست!

ورُوي للأجيال اللاحقة عن كثير من الكذب، حول التعاطف والعواطف! لم يبكِ على الفلسطيني أحد! الا أهلُه في الدم والإنسانية الصافية، فأيّ مشهد عجيب هذا؟ قبل المذبحة ويوم المذبحة وحتى اللحظة، مطلوب رأسك أيها الفلسطيني، لأنّ المطلوب أرضك! حتى اليوم بل اليوم، وهذا الأهمّ، يرتجف الصهيوني أمام هول المقاومة، فيأتيه الوهابي راكعاً طائعاً متطوّعاً، ليغدر بالقديس الذي نبت على أرض المذبحة!

غادرت المقاومة، وحبلت الأرض بالمقاومة، وجاء الجديد أعلى وأشدّ عزيمة من القديم، ولم يتغيّر شيء، لا يزال جعجع يبكي شارون، ويستورد أدواته للقتل، وقد اندمج كلاهما في شخص واحد، وحين لا تقوى يده النجسة على فعل القتل المباشر، يلجأ للغدر!

وفي النهاية، إنه لبنان الذي يضمّ بين جنباته أشدّ التناقضات تناحرية وحِدَّةً: سيد المقاومة وأداة المذبحة جعجع وأضرابه! لبنان أصغر بقعة جغرافية تتكثف فيها أشدّ التناقضات تناحراً، بقعة تتعايش فيها نقائض لا يُحيط بفهمها أعتى الفلاسفة، وجه وجوهر التاريخ الحياة مقاومة، وقناع التاريخ…

الفاشي لا يتعايش، بل يركع للقوة والحذر والوعي، يطعن في الإعلام المريض لأنه لا يقوى، وحين يقوى سيقتل، وبين كونه لا يقوى وحتى يقوى يلدغ، ولا بدّ أن يغدُر.

المجد لدماء صبرا وشاتيلا…

المجد للدم الفلسطيني الذي لن تشربه الأرض!

كاتبة وناشطة فلسطينية

Related

Ave Maria

The music is by Franz Schubert, sung by Dolores O’Riordan, while the images are from the film The Passion of the Christ.

Ave Maria, gratia plena,
Maria, gratia plena
Maria, gratia plena
Ave Ave Dominus
Dominus tecum,
Benedicta tu in mulieribus,
et benedictus
et benedictus fructus ventris
ventris tui, Iesus.
Ave Maria.
Ave Maria, full of thanksgiving
Maria, full of thanksgiving
Maria, full of thanksgiving
Ave Ave God
Your God
Be blessed among the women
And blessed
And blessed be the product of your womb
Your womb, Jesus.
Ave Maria.

The Passion of the Christ came out in 2004 and was immediately labeled as “anti-Semitic” by its detractors. Though it never won an Academy Award, it holds the all time box office record for an R-rated film, having grossed $370,782,930 in the US and a whopping $611,899,420 worldwide. To the surprise of many, it became a major hit among audiences in the Arab world:

Mel Gibson’s controversial movie “The Passion of the Christ,” is breaking box office records across the Middle East. With the approach of Easter, Arab Christians identify primarily with the religious message. But it’s the film’s popularity among Muslims – even though it flouts Islamic taboos – that’s turning it into a phenomenon.

Islam forbids the depiction of a prophet, and Koranic verses deny the crucifixion ever occurred. For those reasons, the film is banned in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Bahrain. It’s also banned in Israel – but for other reasons.

“Banned in Israel–but for other reasons.” The above is from an article about The Passion that was published in the Christian Science Monitor on April 9, 2004. You’ll notice that the countries which banned the film–Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain–are today all allied with each other in the support of terrorists in Syria…where the film was not banned.

But to get back to the Christian Science Monitor piece. The article includes a quote from an Israeli Jew, who damns the film as anti-Semitic “both in intent and effect.”

“I have no doubt that the film is anti-Semitic both in intent and effect, but I’m very wary of some Jewish organizations’ reactions to it,” said Yossi Klein Halevi, who is identified as being affiliated with the Shalem Center in Jerusalem.

“It needs to be more nuanced,” Halevi complained. “When an evangelical in Colorado Springs sees it, he doesn’t see anti-Semitism. But when Yasser Arafat sees it and calls it an important historic event, he’s responding to that anti-Semitism. And the fact that it’s becoming a major hit in the Arab world, that has consequences… ‘The Passion’ is where Mel Gibson and Yasser Arafat meet, and it isn’t bound by a love of Jesus.”

As alluded to in Halevi’s quote, The Passion was commented upon by former Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, who is said to have attended a screening of the film along with Christian leaders. After the screening, an aide to Arafat remarked, “The Palestinians are still daily being exposed to the kind of pain Jesus was exposed to during his crucifixion.”

Here again, the passage of history is deeply significant. In October of 2004, Arafat came down with a severe illness, and on November 11 he died at a hospital in Paris. There was suspicion the death was not due to natural causes, but it wasn’t until 2013 that a team of Swiss scientists released the results of a months-long investigation showing Arafat most likely had died of polonium poisoning. Many today speculate that Israel was behind the assassination.

Ariel Sharon, who himself came to a bad end, was the leader of Israel at the time Arafat was poisoned. The former Israeli prime minister suffered from obesity and weighed 254 pounds, and on January 4, 2006, he was overcome by a hemorrhagic stroke. The last eight years of his life were spent in a coma.

“The Palestinians are still daily being exposed to the kind of pain Jesus was exposed to during his crucifixion.” When we recall what the people of Gaza in particularly have endured over the years, the analogy has validity. While I am not comparing Yasser Arafat to Jesus, the latter’s words from the Gospel of John, chapter 15, are worth recalling:

“This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. I do not call you servants any longer, because the servant does not know what the master is doing; but I have called you friends, because I have made known to you everything that I have heard from my Father.  You did not choose me but I chose you. And I appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that will last, so that the Father will give you whatever you ask him in my name. I am giving you these commands so that you may love one another.

Jesus was sent by God to teach humanity how to live in peace. He was born among the Jews not because Jews are “chosen” by God, but because Jews especially were in need of hearing this message. Jesus was the long-awaited Jewish messiah, but because he preached a message of peace rather than war and conquest, the Jews rejected him. Here are the words of Mary in the first chapter of Luke–a passage that is often referred to as the “song of Mary.”

My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
for he has looked with favor on the lowliness of his servant.
Surely, from now on all generations will call me blessed;
for the Mighty One has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
His mercy is for those who fear him
from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with his arm;
he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts.
He has brought down the powerful from their thrones,
and lifted up the lowly;
he has filled the hungry with good things,
and sent the rich away empty.
He has helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy,
according to the promise he made to our ancestors,
to Abraham and to his descendants forever.

Ave Maria, gratia. And if you think about it, you’ll notice another deeply significant sequence of events. Mary’s words that God “helped his servant Israel,” is of course an allusion to the Old Testament narrative. But then came the birth of Jesus; his rejection and the calls for his crucifixion in 30 A.D.; followed by a stupendously stunning Jewish downfall just 40 years later–in 70 A.D.–when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the temple. One wonders if a somewhat similar type downfall may await the modern Jewish state.

My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior. Here is another rendition of Ave Maria sung by Dolores O’Riordan, this time accompanied by Luciano Pavarotti:

Ave Maria, gratia. Gratia.

The Speech That Killed Sharon الكلمة التي قتلت شارون

Sharon Letter to Saudi King Revealed as Crown Prince Slams «Israel» at UN

 
In the most recent revelations of Saudi-“Israel” normalization and alliance, a letter written by Ariel Sharon ten years ago has been revealed as the Saudi Crown Prince in an attempt to wash his hands of barbarity, slammed the entity’s brutal measures in the Occupied Palestine.

Ariel Sharon

Though the stain of shame haunts the Saudi regime, its Crown Prince Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef addressed the UN General Assembly on Wednesday.

In a bid to wash away that taint, the crown prince first excoriated the “Israeli” entity before discussing the situation in Syria, Yemen or Iran.

Even more, he disregarded the Syrian crisis and the dire situation in Yemen, which had cost the lives of thousands of innocent civilians by the US-backed Saudi-led aggression on Yemen.

The Saudi Prince bin Nayef pointed out that progress in the Palestinian-“Israeli” conflict “seems impossible in the light of the continuation of the ‘Israeli’ settlement policy, the tampering with the holy city of al-Quds [Jerusalem], ruining the Arab, Islamic and Christian identity of the city, and the heartless policy of repression practiced against the Palestinians people.”

Little did he know that by slamming the “Israeli” entity, he would be dooming Riyadh and its ties to the entity!

Early in the month, at a ceremony in a museum in the Tel Aviv district of “Or Yehuda”, the “Israeli” entity’s former consul in Boston and ambassador to Egypt, Yitzhak Levan, mentioned Ariel Sharon’s letter to then Saudi King Abdullah.

A framed copy of the letter was presented to the Babylonian Jewry Heritage Museum.

Levan hailed the letter as an “important historical document,” and proof that the “Israeli” entity worked behind the scenes to move the so-called “peace process” forward. He also said the letter confirms that there were ties with the Saudis.

The spirit of those ties, and of reports of a growing but still discreet relationship between Tel Aviv and Riyadh was in no way evident, but the letter shed light on the relation of the two regimes that goes back a long way.

“In light of Saudi Arabia’s central status in this region, and your Majesty’s political wisdom and foresight, we believe that your country can make an immense contribution to the success of this [‘peace’] process,” Sharon wrote to the Saudi king in reference to the diplomatic process with the Palestinians.

Sahron further wrote to the Saudi King,

” It is our hope that Saudi Arabia, under your Majesty’s strong leadership, will exert its power and influence to encourage the moderate forces in this region and advance the prospects of peace, stability and prosperity.”

“I offer my hand in friendship and hope to have the opportunity to cooperate and work with you personally to advance our mutual goal of peace. I look forward to receiving your response,” Sharon concluded the letter of friendship.

Ariel Sharon wrote these words on November 27, 2005, and had a Jew born in Iraq who lived abroad named Moshe Peretz to deliver the letter to the Saudi King Abdullah, thanks to a good relationship he developed with the king’s brother-in-law.

Peretz turned to the “Israeli” Prime Minister’s Office and offered his services in relaying a message to the king. On December 3, 2005, the king’s brother-in law-called Peretz and said the letter was personally delivered.

Source: JPost, Edited by website team 

24-09-2016 | 14:07

 

Related Articles

 

%d bloggers like this: