How normalization with “Israel” assassinated Egypt’s economy

February 16, 2022

Source: Al Mayadeen

By Mona Issa

Economic prosperity? Anything but. After 40+ years, “peace” negotiations with “Israel” turned Egypt into a sluggish, aid-dependent rent economy.

At the bottom: 17 September, 1978: Anwar Sadat, Jimmy Carter, and Menachim Begin signing on the Camp David Accords. At the top: The 2013 Egyptian bread crisis, a result of economic assassination. 

There is no war without Egypt, and no peace without Syria – words Henry Kissinger, Nixon’s Secretary of State, uttered in the depiction of the strategic importance of Egypt to US interest in West Asia. Its manpower, resources, geographical position on the map are alone enough to make or break any project in the region. 

Egypt, in the critical years between the 1960s and the 1970s, moved from being the first industrial power in the Arab world, enjoying self-sufficiency and economic independence, to a country whose entire decision-making mechanism depends on receiving “humanitaqizqirian” aid from Washington.

How did this drastic jump, which put Egypt on a catheter mount, come to happen?

“Peace” negotiations.

Just one month after the 1973 October war – or, what’s known by the Israelis as the “Yom Kippur War,” there was a radical realignment process which brought Egypt and the US together. This was a process which initially started in 1971, the year when Anwar Sadat, Egypt’s president, invited the first US Secretary of State to visit Cairo since 1953. In the war of 1973, Egypt lost Sinai, and Sadat wanted to reclaim “self-respect”: a dream unattainable after Abdel Nasser’s death, unfound in what was coming for Egypt. 

When it came to reclaiming Palestinian land back to the Palestinians – and Sinai back to Egypt – to Sadat, the only way to negotiate with the Israelis was through the United States, in a political settlement, if you may. He thought that turning to Washington would help him solving problems unsolvable by military means, whether it was on the annexation of Sinai, or an economic crisis. 

The so-called political settlement came at the expense of the Egyptian economy, human rights and security for years to come.

The Egyptian economy enjoyed minimal imports (in 1961, with Abdel Nasser’s economic reforms, food imports to Egypt were only at 7%), redistribution of land and resources that isolated and diminished the power of traditional Egyptian landowners, the nationalization of the Suez Canal, protective policies against international inflation, and restrictions on foreign investment. Nasserism won its pioneer a substantial fan base and popularity after the 1952 Revolution.

However, his successor, a shameless lackey for the US, was determined to reverse all that revolution had done for the Egyptian people: Sadat, between 1971 and 1973, launched talks with Henry Kissinger. Sadat’s economic policies donned an ‘Open Door’ policy, which opened Egyptian markets to foreign investors and corporations without restrictions.

However, what he really got was a society lamb to the slaughter of foreign and private interest, dependent on food aid, and subject to US-Israeli policies.

Sadat wanted to be sure that Washington would come to Egypt’s rescue, so he required real, tangible evidence from the US that they will support Cairo. If such evidence was available, Sadat was willing to make Egypt undergo the necessary economic changes for US’ aid and the so-called ‘comprehensive peace plans.’ 

The evidence was provided: a basic tenant for Egypt to ride the American aid bandwagon was the normalization of relations with “Israel”, which consolidated in 1978. The free trade agreements, the astronomical numbers of foreign aid, and other agreements isolated Egypt from its neighbors, Arab and non-Arab. However, not only were both Sadat and the US eager to drive Egypt away from Soviet influence in the Cold War, but “Israel” also sought to plant itself on Arab soil, seeking Arab acceptance, which Sadat was so willing to do. 

The US seduced the Egyptian elite, by offering billions in aid, into signing on the Camp David Accords.

Let’s talk about the costs.

An Israeli official once called US aid “narcotic” – not too surprising considering that Washington is “Israel’s” godfather in West Asia, taking unconditional billions in aid and weapons to push common interests.

Between the years 1946 and 2011, the United States gave Egypt a total of $71.7 billion in bilateral foreign aid.

With Sadat’s economic liberalization, US’ conditions for aid were to integrate Egyptian and Israeli economies and boost foreign investments which would supposedly strengthen the economy. The public sector accounted for 75% of all Egypt’s outputs. However, Sadat’s laissez-faire policies only diminished them, placing them at the mercy of private companies and trade deals, such as the Qualified Industrial Zones.

The investments which Sadat was hoping for were not meant for productivity but were rather oriented towards banking and tourism. However, the banking sector, under what was called Infitah (Open Door policy), was not doing what it was supposed to do. With only 6 banks existing in 1974, Sadat allowed the influx of seventy-five banks – several of those were American, which abused the vulnerability of the situation in Egypt. The foreign banks, not to much surprise, laundered Egyptian money to the West rather than benefiting the people. 

With a deteriorating economy where the cost of production of basic goods such as rice, wheat, sugar, flour, oil, and gas was skyrocketing, many locals had left to oil-producing countries to make a living.

In Egypt, this meant one thing: bend to US interest or starve.

By 1981, Egypt was importing 60% of its food into the country: much of that was provided by Washington, in addition to Arab oil-producing countries. After normalization in 1978, Arab investors withdrew their investments; to Sadat’s convenience, the US was able to compromise.

Where has this led Egypt? Egypt today has a workforce participation rate of approximately 48%. Governmental spending exceeds the total revenue. Egypt is hideously indebted to the International Monetary Fund, its debt representing 92% of its Gross Domestic Product.  

Sadat attempted to convince the population that normalization with “Israel” would bring economic well-being and prosperity to the average Egyptian, though what it really did, with Washington’s shuttle diplomacy, is sell it to capitalists, and create a bread crisis in 1977, which was initiated by IMF and World Bank pressures to remove subsidies on bread.

Furthermore, along with the millions of dollars in US aid, a large project was initiated by the Nixon administration on March 1, 1975, to reconstruct the cities along the Suez Canal after three wars – the cost of which was to maintain peace with the Israeli neighbor. Disarmament was on the agenda, meaning that Egypt, on par with the accords, was prohibited from any military confrontation with “Israel”; however, even the Egyptians, given US-Israeli threats against them, knew that “Tel Aviv” would not be complying with the Sinai Disengagement Agreement.

As for economic growth, from the 1980s till recently, Egypt’s gross domestic product per capita has barely doubled, when emerging economies such as South Korea were able to multiply their GDP by ten times (the two countries’ economies, during the 1950s, had similar developmental conditions). Poverty rates in Egypt today hover around 30%, sustaining a high unemployment rate, last 10.4% in 2020.

As if turning to “Israel” once was not enough, wait till you see the “second Camp David Accords.” 

Despite the population’s adamant rejection of Sadat’s policies and the normalization, a greedy leader,a successor, looked for the preservation of the system at the expense of the nation’s interest. Another case taken into account is the US’ Qualified Industrial Zone (QIZ) economic proposal, which ultimately meant to expand economic cooperation between “Israel” and “Egypt.”

QIZ deal, signed in 2004 by Hosni Mubarak, was deemed by many as a “second Camp David,” and it was the most important economic deal between the two in 20 years, according to a US representative who attended the signing event.

Just a few months after that was sealed, Egypt and “Israel” signed another deal where Egypt would provide ‘Israel” with $2.5 billion worth of gas at a low price at a time when the country’s economy was running into the ground.

Those agreements came just a few days after Israel shot and killed 3 Egyptian soldiers at the border.

“One would have anticipated that with the ongoing carnage in Iraq, constant US threats against Iran and Syria, and Israel’s recent killing of three Egyptian border police, Egypt would have taken a tougher stance. But the exact opposite happened,” wrote K. Kamel, in Egypt and Israel: From Cold Peace to Warm Embrace. 

The trade agreement stipulated that the US would allow the exporting of Egyptian products free of duty and customs to the US, given that at least 11.7% of the total exports are manufactured in “Israel.”

Mubarak, though rejecting the agreement in 1994 through 2004, promoted the agreement on purely economic terms: Egypt’s textile-export agreement with the US would soon lose effect, China and India will replace Cairo in the market, and there is no choice other than to accept the QIZ agreement.

Officials in the Egyptian government told their people that the agreement will create a million jobs and that foreign direct investment will reach $5 billion in the next 5 years – both unrealistic and exaggerations.

Gamal Mubarak, Hosni’s son, defended the agreement, saying it serves the Palestinian cause.

However, facts on the ground proved otherwise. Many things were wrong with this deal, which was falsely marketed and heavily oriented towards “Israel.”

The first issue is that the deal breached World Trade Organization’s free trade conditions since the agreement gives “Israel” the power to enjoy a monopoly over Egyptian manufacturers.

Secondly, and even worse: to ensure the 11.7% quota, Israeli companies marginalized small and medium-sized businesses that supply larger textile factories with parts, as they forced them out of their jobs. The deal was heavily biased towards “Israel,” Egypt was not allowed to export its goods to the US duty-free without exporting Israeli goods, despite countries like China, India and Turkey engaging in it freely so. 

There was no real guarantee that the products will be exported to the US, prompting analysts to say that the agreement sort of resembles a Trojan horse, allowing Israel to flock into Arab markets, hence the “second Camp David.”

As some countries resist pressures to normalize relations with the psychopath ‘state’ (you can read Farah Haj Hassan’s article on Asian nations that said ‘No’ to normalization), others have not read much history on the first example of normalization in West Asia, and still deem normalization as an end to conflict, a yes to economic boom and a gateway to acceptance in both the region and the international community. 

To look West, after all their history in the West Asian region alone, should not deceive anyone anymore. Other than the fact that normalization is a human rights issue against fellow Arabs (not even just Palestinians! The US used Egyptian waters and airspace to bomb Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003), it’s suicide for any country looking to flourish with sovereignty. 

When Gamal Abdel Nasser Screamed: We will Never Surrender!

22 Dec 2021

Source: Al Mayadeen Net

When Gamal Abdel Nasser Screamed: We will Never Surrender!

Hussam AbdelKareem

Faced with the danger and gravity of the situation, Gamal Abdel Nasser did not collapse and stood steadfast. He did not lose faith in his people and in the justice of his cause.

The circumstances were very difficult and the situation could hardly be graver. Gamal Abdel Nasser headed to Al-Azhar Mosque in Cairo, the historic base of Islam in Egypt, ascended its pulpit and addressed his people passionately from his heart and said  “We will fight to the last drop of blood! We will never surrender”. 

That was the way in which the young leader, 38 years old, responded to the developments of the crisis that escalated to the point of brutal military invasion which Egypt was facing. Eighty thousand was the number of British and French troops attacking Egypt, in addition to the army of “Israel”. All that was a result of Nasser’s decision to nationalize the Suez Canal a few months earlier.

The Invaders Have Arrived

At the time when Nasser was delivering his speech in Al-Azhar, the huge British Royal Navy fleet consisting of aircraft carriers, battleships, destroyers and speedboats, together with the French Navy ally, were already at the shores of northern Egypt attacking and targeting the cities of Port Said and Port Fouad and their surroundings. The forces of aggression paved the way for their attack on the Suez Canal area with concentrated air raids on Cairo and Alexandria that targeted many places, including the Egyptian radio station.

The situation was frightening. It was no less than a comprehensive attack on Egypt, whose army has not yet recovered from the effects of defeat in the 1948 Palestine War. On the other hand “Great Britain”, the lead attacker, had emerged victorious a few years ago from World War II.

Faced with the danger and gravity of the situation, Gamal Abdel Nasser did not collapse and stood steadfast. He did not lose faith in his people and in the justice of his cause. He decided that the best response to the challenge was to revert back to his people for whose sake he led the revolution in 1952. Nasser addressed the Egyptians urging them to be strong, united with no despair, and assuring them of the inevitability of victory over the forces of aggression.

In light of the disparity in military power, Nasser called on his people to engage in paramilitary resistance and guerrilla war to confront the British-French enemy forces that began landing in Port Said. The President decided to open the Egyptian army’s storehouses for the people to obtain weapons that would enable them to confront the invaders, and began organizing the activity of the resistance brigades.

Nasser’s belief in his people and his resort to them was not surprising. All the actions that he had taken since the success of the July Revolution (1952) were directed towards his quest to advance Egypt and promote its proper place in the world away from colonialism and subordination. That includes his decision in June 1956 to nationalize the Suez Canal and transfer its ownership and management to the Egyptian people after it had been owned by Britain for 70 years since Ismail, Egypt’s ruler from the Mohammad Ali dynasty, “sold” it to the British at cheap when he went through some financial hardship and needed cash!

Nasser’s Decision: A Risk Worth Taking

Gamal Abdel Nasser knew he was taking a great risk because he’s depriving “Great Britain” of controlling the sea route to its colonies and interests in the east, and in this case, the British wouldn’t let Nasser’s decision pass. Nasser acted intelligently and thoughtfully when nationalizing the canal, declaring Egypt’s willingness to pay for Britain’s share in the Suez Canal Company, using at the same time Egypt’s sovereign right to nationalize a water canal that is part of its territory, thus depriving Britain of the legal justification for launching aggression or even rejecting the decision. 

In fact, the nationalization of Suez Canal was Gamal Abdel Nasser’s last arrow in his encounter with Britain and Western powers. Since the first day of the success of the July Revolution (1952) and the overthrow of King Farouk, the British position was hostile towards Nasser’s Free Officers regime and the renaissance measures they took in Egypt, their determination to achieve independence and get rid of British hegemony, and their insistence on the withdrawal of all British forces from Egypt (which finally took place in 1956).

When Britain along with the rising power, the US,  failed to “contain” the Free Officers movement led by Nasser, and to take Egypt back to their camp, they showed their true colonial face and began working to thwart all of Nasser’s ambitious development projects; the most important of which were two: modernization and arming of the Egyptian army, and building the “Aswan High Dam” in Southern Egypt to generate electricity for the country and control the flooding of the Nile.

Despite lengthy negotiations and requests, Britain and the US did not agree to supply Egypt with modern weapons that would enable it to defend its borders against Israeli attacks and threats. They wanted Egypt to remain weak with outdated and obsolete weapons, but Nasser succeeded in making an important breakthrough and a major achievement when he managed, for the first time in the Arab region, to obtain Russian weapons through Czechoslovakia. Britain and the US felt the seriousness of what happened and that the Soviet communist opponent had gained a foothold in their area of influence! They looked at Nasser as an enemy who must be punished and brought down.

As for the vital project for Egypt, the Aswan High Dam, on which all of Nasser’s development plans were based (it became a matter of life or death to him), it reached a deadlock when the US Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, informed the Egyptian ambassador to the US of Washington’s final decision: We will not finance the High Dam and we will not support you to build it because the project is “bigger than Egypt’s capabilities!” All the efforts made by Egypt to obtain funding from Western countries to build the dam were suddenly gone with the wind! Even worse; the US and Britain used their influence in the World Bank to obstruct Egypt’s funding request!

That’s how Britain and the US dealt with Egypt very arrogantly. They did not agree to sell advanced weapons to Egypt, and they did not want Egypt to obtain them from any other source! They did not agree to fund the High Dam, and did not allow the World Bank to do that! In conclusion, Egypt, in the eyes of Britain, France and the US, must remain a weak, dependent and backward country in order be satisfied! Of course, this situation cannot be accepted by a young and devoted national leader like Gamal Abdel Nasser, who decided to respond in a way that hurts them: the nationalization of Suez Canal.

The Israeli Element 

And here appeared “Israel”! It decided to show its usefulness as an advanced base for the British Empire (Britain originally established it for this purpose). Although the Suez Canal problem has nothing to do with it, “Israel” quickly conveyed to London and Paris its full readiness to participate in any Anglo-French aggression against Egypt.

A secret meeting was held in Paris (France was very interested in bringing down Nasser because of his support for the Algerian revolution) that included British Prime Minister Anthony Eden, French President Guy Mollet, and Prime Minister of “Israel” Ben Gurion, during which the war scenario on Egypt was agreed upon; “Israel” will launch an invasion against Egypt through the Sinai under the pretext of stopping the attacks of the Palestinian guerrillas in Gaza supported by Egypt. On the next day, Britain and France have issued an ultimatum to the Egyptian and Israeli sides to stop the fighting for the purpose of protecting the Suez Canal and the international navigation. Then, if the fighting wouldn’t stop, the British-French military intervention will begin and the reoccupation of all the Suez Canal area will be justified and “legal”! The assessment of the three parties was that this military action would lead to the humiliation of Nasser and his downfall into hostile hands inside Egypt, and perhaps the return of the old monarchy.

The plan was actually executed according to the secret agreement. “Israel” attacked Egypt on October 29. On the following day, a joint British-French ultimatum was issued to the two sides demanding ceasefire and allowing British-French forces to control the canal from Port Said in the north to Suez in the south. As expected, Nasser rejected the ultimatum and request. They attacked on October 31, and the tripartite Israeli-British-French aggression against Egypt was in its full might.

Back to Nasser’s “resistance speech” at Al-Azhar Mosque, the Egyptians responded to the call of their leader and declared their rejection of the return of colonialism. In Port Said, a national epic began to resist the occupation forces that  faced relentless street wars and guerrillas from house to house.

The Conflicting Interests of World’s Super Powers

Despite the intensity of the bombing and the extent of destruction caused by the aggression forces in Port Said, the tripartite alliance faced great difficulty in controlling the city, in which fighting continued for several days, and that hindered the march of the invading forces to the south to reach the city of Suez (as planned), so they were only able to advance for a distance of only 17 kilometers south of Port Said. During those days, large-scale political movements took place in the world, the most important of which were two:

The first was the (rare) US-British rift. The United States, which had already ascended to the leadership of Western world as heir to Great Britain, did not like Britain’s unilateralism in dealing with the Suez problem and its war- inclined approach, which could lead to the “loss of Egypt” and push indirectly Nasser to throw completely himself into the arms the Soviets. US President Eisenhower took a tough stance and asked Britain to stop its offensive and ordered “Israel” to withdraw from Sinai.

The second was the Soviet Union’s intrusion into the crisis and its strong support for Egypt, which amounted to the Soviet leader Khrushchev’s threat to use nuclear weapons against Western countries!

The result of all this was the issuance of a United Nations resolution to stop the war and ordered the withdrawal of the attacking forces. Indeed, by the end of December 22, the last invading Anglo-French forces withdrew from Port Said. As for the Israeli forces, they stayed for another three months before withdrawing from Sinai and Gaza as well.

“Great Britain” Humiliated 

What happened was a political earthquake in every sense of the word, from which Egypt emerged victorious with its head held high. It succeeded in consolidating the decision to nationalize the canal, which became an important source of income to help Egypt in its renaissance projects. Removing the huge statue of De Lesseps at the entrance to the Suez Canal was a symbolic blow to the old colonial powers.

The invaders’ forces withdrew after they failed to achieve any goal. Gamal Abdel Nasser appeared as a rising national leader and turned into a symbol of the Arab and international liberation movement from Western colonialism. The biggest disappointment was for British Prime Minister Anthony Eden, who was forced to resign in the wake of the failure and humiliation suffered by Britain (which was no longer great!) at the hands of Nasser.

The old lion realized that he became old, and could do nothing of real value, so he contented himself with action-less roaring and babbling. Britain’s media and major newspapers launched a terrible smear campaign against “Colonel Nasser” that amounted to comparing him to Hitler! And that was the most they could do after 1956. 

The opinions mentioned in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Al mayadeen, but rather express the opinion of its writer exclusively.

الفيلم الوثائقي “جمال عبد الناصر- الأسطورة والزعيم

The second coming of Ben-Gurion

Source

April 5, 2021 – 17:44

The reasons behind capsizing the Taiwanese cargo ship “Ever Given”, on the 24th of March, have become clear.

The cargo ship capsized in the Suez Canal for more than 6 days. Failing to float the ship is not the news, or that the reasons behind the accident were a human failure. But the real news behind it is the reviving of the old-new plans that were and are still alive in the dreams of the Zionist entity which is enlivening the “Ben-Gurion Canal” project. Yes, Ben-Gurion Canal has surfaced once more.

The project aims to connect the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea through the Gulf of Aqaba to the Mediterranean through the Negev desert. The idea of digging a canal opposite the Suez Canal began in 1963. It is recommended in a memo submitted by Lawrence Livermore Patriot Laps in the United States of America. The memorandum was proposed as a response to the decision taken by President Gamal Abdel Nasser to nationalize the Suez Canal in 1956. 

The memorandum suggested: In order to ensure the flow of navigation in the Red Sea, an alternative canal should be opened in the Gulf of Aqaba. It will be drilled through the Negev desert, which was described as an empty area that can be dug using nuclear bombs: Firstly, the project was halted due to the radiation that nuclear bombs could cause; and secondly due to the opposition that the project would face by the Arab countries, led by Nasser.

Today, political alliances have changed the face of the region, particularly after the implementation of the Abraham Accords by several Arab countries. Therefore, a political atmosphere is compatible. Hence, serious deliberations of the project, after the Ever-Given capsizing, provide the idea that the accident was contrived. It was intended as a new window for the return of the talks over finding an alternative to the Suez Canal. 

In principle, that the accident was premeditated is a fair assumption. In an article I previously published on the Al-Ahed website, I talked about Israel’s attempt to control and expand access to the gates of the water routes to the Mediterranean through the Abraham Accords. It was not a peace agreement. Rather, it was actually an economic treaty with Morocco, the Emirates, and Sudan. Once Oman signs it, Israel will be able to control the water routes from the Strait of Gibraltar to the Persian Gulf, and finally control the Red Sea through the upcoming Ben-Gurion Canal, which will provide enormous income for Israel.

Firstly, Israel and the United States are in dire need of the project to compensate for the severe economic contraction due to the Coronavirus pandemic and unstable conditions. The treaties were signed between Israel and the Arab countries so as to guarantee Israel’s political and economic stability, and to maintain its presence in the region.  

And secondly, the project is driven by the need to restrain the rise of the economic power of China, and to hold back its ongoing project known as “One Road, One Belt”. The Chinese project aims to build a train line that starts from the provinces of China in the west towards West Asia and secure water routes around the world. It is a multi-billion-dollar investment project. For example, before the Corona pandemic, several parties in Lebanon hosted the Chinese ambassador, who explained the benefits of the project, which will employ tens of thousands of workers, employees, and specialists along the train line, which will be used mainly to transport goods between China and Europe. Therefore, the U.S. is trying to hamper the Chinese trade route by creating an alternative route to compete with. So, the new stage of struggle will witness an economic war aiming to control seaports and global trade routes.

This American-Israeli project has overlapped with joining several agreements and draft agreements. For example, the United States and the United Arab Emirates have joined the Eastern Mediterranean Gas Forum as observers. And starting Monday, March 29th, the Military Cooperation Agreement between Jordan and the United States will take effect, which probably aims to find an alternative place for the American forces outside Iraq and Syria.

Thirdly, preparations are underway for the implementation of the New Levant Project, which extends from Iraq to Jordan to Palestine across the Arabian Peninsula to the Sinai Desert. The project aims to create a new trade route that does not pass through Syria and Lebanon, but rather through the New Levant lands extending from the Persian Gulf in the south to the Mediterranean in the north, and through it will pass new oil and gas pipelines from Iraq to Jordan, which will replace the Tab line.

The New Levant project might forfeit Syria’s geostrategic importance for the Americans as one of the most important global and historical trade lines between the north and the south throughout history. However, the project lost its momentum at this stage because of Israel’s drive to be part of it, which forced the Iraqi government to cease working on it.

The secrecy of the canal project’s memorandum was revealed in 1994. It was waiting in the drawers for new conditions to revive it. It seems that the capsizing of the ship was the perfect plan. The capsizing oddly coincided with the signing of the 25-year comprehensive strategic partnership between Iran and China. The current events are evidence that the need to change alliances has become inevitable in the region. This explains the economic pressure on Syria and Lebanon and the continued decline in the price of lira in the sister countries. The Americans hoped that through sanctions they would impose conditions for reconciliations with “Israel”, impose the demarcation of borders between the Palestinian and Lebanese borders to the best interest of Israel, and prevent Hezbollah and its allies from participating in the coming government. Eventually, the U.S. would have the upper hand to prevent the Chinese route from reaching its ultimate destination to the Mediterranean Sea. However, the reasons behind Biden’s escalating tone towards China and Syria were revealed once Iran and China signed the document for cooperation. The protocol also revealed the hidden options Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah spoke of in his speech on the 18th of March.

The developments in the region may change the course of the Syrian crisis.  The “One Belt and One Road” project will not achieve its real success until it reaches the port of Latakia, or/and the port of Tripoli, if the Lebanese desire, in exchange for the ports of Haifa and Ashkelon in Palestine. However, this cannot be achieved as long as Syria is still fighting its new independence war against America and Turkey. Yet, the coming of the Chinese dragon to Iran may mark a new era. Syria constitutes one of the main disputes between China and the United States. It seems that the withdrawal of the latter to Jordan under the new military cooperation agreement has become imposed by the new coming reality. The Americans can manage from there any new conflicts in the region or prolong the life of the crisis and thus obstruct the Chinese project without any direct clashes.

The construction of the Ben-Gurion Canal may take several years. However, the project is now put into action. Thanks to “Ever Given” capsizing, the canal building is now scheduled around May 2021. It is clear now who is the main beneficiary of this calamity, which hit one of the most important global navigation points, namely the Suez Canal.

Normalization agreements were primarily aimed to expand Israeli influence over waterways. The disastrous consequences on the region are starting to be unwrapped.  The major target is going to be Egypt. Egypt’s revenue from the Suez Canal is estimated to be 8 billion dollars. Once Ben-Gurion is activated it will drop into 4 billion dollars. Egypt cannot economically tolerate the marginalization of the role of the Suez Canal as one of the most important sources of its national income, especially after the completion of the construction of the Renaissance Dam in Ethiopia. Confinement of the Nile water behind the water scarcity will cause the Egyptians to starve. It will have disastrous consequences on Egypt and Europe. Since the latter will receive most of the Egyptian immigrants; however, this is another story to be told.
 

جمال عبد الناصر.. في ذكراه الخمسين: لا صلح.. لا تفاوض.. لا اعتراف

محب للجميع Twitterren: "من اقوال هذا الرجل ( اذا وجدتم امريكا راضية عني  فاعلموا اني اسير في الطريق الخطا ) http://t.co/ipHCFfZUeE"

د. جمال زهران

يأتي يوم 28 سبتمبر/ أيلول 2020، ليذكرنا بالذكرى الخمسين لرحيل الزعيم جمال عبد الناصر، أيّ نصف قرن من عمر الزمن والتاريخ، وذلك وسط متغيّرات وظروف بيئية في منتهى القسوة إقليمياً ودولياً، بل ومحلياً داخل الأقطار العربيّة. فنحن نعيش عصر التدهور العربي خاصة في محور الرجعية العربية، مقابل تصاعد محور المقاومة الذي يواجه ضغوطاً غير مسبوقة، ومع ذلك يحقق الانتصارات تباعاً.

ومن أهمّ المتغيّرات التي يواجهها الإقليم والقضية الفلسطينية، ما حدث من اختراق رسمي وعلني صهيوني لدول الخليج التي كانت عربية، لتسقط الدولة تلو الأخرى في براثن الكيان الصهيوني (إسرائيل)، بإعلان التطبيع وتأسيس العلاقات بينهم وبين “إسرائيل”. وفي المقدّمة رسمياً (الإمارات – البحرين)، والبقية في الطريق بقيادة رأس الرجعية العربية وهي المملكة السعودية، وذلك عدا دولة الكويت التي أعلنت رفضها القاطع للتطبيع مع الكيان الصهيوني.

تلك الإشارة هي التي تتعلق بالذكرى الخمسين لرحيل عبد الناصر الذي كان يمتلك رؤية كاملة وشاملة وواضحة إزاء العداء لهذا الكيان الصهيوني منذ بداية قيامه ورفاقه بثورة 23 يوليو 1952، ولعلّ السبب الرئيسي الذي ساهم في بناء رؤيته، هو مشاركته في حرب 1948، التي كانت بداية لتفتح ذهنه وعقله وإدراكه حقائق القضية، وعاد منها مكسوراً، حيث رأى أنّ الطريق لتحرير فلسطين هو تغيير الداخل في مصر والثورة عليه، لتكون البداية لقيادة مصر للصف العربي في مواجهة الاستعمار. فكيف نقضي على الاستعمار الصهيوني في فلسطين، والاستعمار الإنجليزي موجود في مصر، ورأس الحكم (الملك) يتحالف معه ضدّ الشعب والحركة الوطنية؟! فلا بد إذن من تحرير مصر أولاً، وهو ما حدث وقامت ثورة 23 يوليو/ تموز 1952، بقيادة جمال عبد الناصر.

فقد كان عبد الناصر، طبقاً لما هو وارد في “فلسفة الثورة”، وأكده في الكثير من خطبه، أنّ الأعداء السياسيين لمصر والوطن العربي كله، هم: (الاستعمار العالمي – الصهيونية – الرجعية العربية)، وأنّ الطريق للمواجهة الشاملة مع هؤلاء الأعداء تكون بتحقيق الاستقلال الوطني والتنمية المستقلة والشاملة لتحقيق النهضة الحقيقية بالاعتماد على الذات وتحقيق التقدم من خلال التعليم الواسع والصحة والثقافة والإعلام الجيد. فضلاً عن تبنّي مشروع تنموي حقيقي عموده الفقري “الصناعة والزراعة”. ولذلك أنجز بعد التمصير والتأميم، نهضة صناعية قوامها مشروع الـ (1400) مصنع، شاملاً الصناعات الاستراتيجية كالحديد والصلب والفوسفات والسيارات، وغيرها كما أنه في مواجهته للاستعمار خاض معركة بناء السدّ العالي الذي رفض تمويله البنك الدولي وصندوق النقد، فقرر الاعتماد على الذات ودعم الصديق الدولي (الاتحاد السوفياتي)، وتمّ بناء السدّ في (10) سنوات (1960 – 1970م).

حيث إنّ السدّ العالي، ساهم في توليد الكهرباء وهي أساس مشروع النهضة الحديثة في الصناعة والزراعة، وتوصيل الكهرباء للريف المصري وكلّ أنحاء مصر. كما أنّ كلّ ذلك – حسبما رأى وفعل – مهدّد إذا ما لم يتأسّس على تحقيق العدالة الاجتماعية وبناء طبقة وسطى، ودعم الكادحين، وعمودها الفقري العمال (صناعيين وزراعيين)، وموظفو الدولة والقطاع العام.

ولذلك، فقد أصدر جمال عبد الناصر، قانون الإصلاح الزراعي في 9 سبتمبر/ أيلول 1952، بوضع الحدّ الأقصى للملكية (200 فدان – صارت بعد ذلك إلى (50) فدانا، وقام بتوزيع الباقي على الفلاحين ليتحوّلوا من أجراء إلى ملاك، فيتم إصلاح حال البناء الطبقي في مصر في ضوء ذلك تدريجياً، وأعاد بذلك توزيع الدخل القومي والثروة لصالح الأغلبية.

ثم خاض معركة تأميم قناة السويس في 26 يوليو/ تموز 1952، ويستردّها للشعب، بعدما طرد الاستعمار الإنجليزي، وذلك بعقد اتفاقية الجلاء، وبعد رفض البنك الدولي والصندوق تمويل السدّ العالي، كعقبة أمام استقلال واستقرار مصر، فكان ردّه العاجل والمباشر هو تأميم قناة السويس، واستعادة ملكيتها للشعب المصري، فكان ردّ فعل الاستعمار هو العدوان الثلاثي (بريطانيا – وفرنسا – “إسرائيل”) على بور سعيد، والذي فشل، وانتصرت مصر التي أدركت ما وراء وجود هذا الكيان الصهيوني في المنطقة العربية كخنجر في ظهر الأمة العربية.

ولم يهدأ الاستعمار والصهيونية والرجعية، وذلك بافتعال أزمة، أسهمت في نكسة 1967، وكان عبد الناصر يتمتع بحسّ المسؤولية، حيث أعلن عن مسؤوليته وتنحى عن منصبه، إلا أنّ جماهير مصر الواعية أدركت عمق المؤامرة على مصر وفلسطين والعرب، وتمسكوا به، وأجبروه على التراجع فما كان منه إلا أن أعاد بناء القوات المسلحة بنفسه، وأدار حرب الاستنزاف على مدار (1000) يوم وأكثر من (1400) عملية عسكرية ضدّ “إسرائيل”، وأعدّ خطط الحرب النهائية (جرانيت1، جرانيت2، والخطة 200). ولكن القدر لم يمهله حتى يحقق النصر الكامل على الأعداء، ولكن ما حققه كان المقدمة لحرب أكتوبر 1973، بحسم.

وفي أعقاب النكسة، دعا عبد الناصر لعقد لقاء قمة عربية في الخرطوم، ليعلن اللاءات الثلاث وهي: (لا.. للصلح، لا.. للتفاوض، لا.. للاعتراف).

هذه هي مكونات الموقف العربي الشامل ضد الكيان الصهيوني ومن ورائه من استعمار ورجعية عربية متآمرة حذرنا جمال عبد الناصر، كثيراً، من خطورتها باعتبارها عميلة الاستعمار الأميركي.

فقد عرضت عليه مشروعات للتصالح مع “إسرائيل”، يستردّ بها كل سيناء مقابل الصلح، ورفض معلناً أنّ “فلسطين قبل سيناء”. إلا أنّ القوى المضادة لعبد الناصر ومشروعه، بدأت خطواتها من داخل مصر في عهد السادات. فلم يكن السادات ينوي الحرب لتحرير الأرض التي احتلتها “إسرائيل”، والدليل طرحه لمبادرة فتح جزئي لقناة السويس، في 4 فبراير/ شباط 1971، وفتح قنوات الاتصال بالمخابرات الأميركية وإدارتها، عبر المخابرات السعودية ومديرها آنذاك كمال أدهم، فضلاً عن قيامه بتأزيم العلاقات مع الاتحاد السوفياتي وطرد خبرائه في يوليو/ تموز 1972! لكن كان للقوات المسلحة المصرية بالتنسيق مع القوات المسلحة السورية (الجيش الأول)، والقيادة السورية، الكلمة الفصل وممارسة الضغوط عليه، حتى قبل الدخول في الحرب ووافق على قرار الحرب، وبعد العبور وتدمير خط بارليف في (6) ساعات، وفي اليوم نفسه (6) أكتوبر/ تشرين الأول بدأ فتح قناة الاتصال مع الأميركان للتراجع للأسف! وازدادت ضراوة القوة المضادة للناصرية بقيادة السادات، بعد حرب أكتوبر، إيذاناً بعصر الانفتاح، والرأسماليّة، وعودة الإقطاع، والتصالح مع الرجعية العربية، والتواصل مع أميركا.. لتصل الأمور لقمتها بالذهاب للقدس 1977، ثم كامب ديفيد 1978، ثم المعاهدة المصرية الإسرائيلية عام 1979! كمحاولة لطوي صفحة الصراع العربي الصهيوني، إلى صفحة “السلام الوهمي”! وكان الهدف هو تعبيد الأرض لسلامات وانكسارات باتفاقيات مشبوهة في وادي عربة وأوسلو، إلى أن تمّ مؤخراً مع الإمارات والبحرين، والبقية الخليجية في الطريق كما هو معلن للأسف مع الكيان الصهيوني، رسمياً، والداعم أو الراعي الرئيسي له وهو ترامب، الرئيس الأميركي، في محاولة لإنقاذه من الرسوب في الانتخابات المقرّر لها بعد شهر وأيام من الآن، وإنقاذ نتنياهو من السجن والعزل!

ختاماً: فإنه في ظلّ الذكرى الخمسين لرحيل الزعيم جمال عبد الناصر، مؤسّس فكر المقاومة الحقيقي، يمكن القول بأننا سنظلّ على الطريق مقاومين للتبعية، ومقاومين للكيان الصهيوني حتى الزوال وتحرير كلّ فلسطين من النهر إلى البحر.

وسنظلّ متمسكين باللاءات الثلاث، (لا صلح.. لا تفاوض.. لا اعتراف).

كما سنظلّ مقاومين لتحقيق الاستقلال الوطني والتقدم والحرية والاعتماد على الذات وتحقيق الديمقراطية، حتى بلوغ الوحدة العربية قريباً إنْ شاء الله…

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

*أستاذ العلوم السياسية والعلاقات الدولية، والأمين العام المساعد للتجمع العربي الإسلامي لدعم خيار المقاومة، ورئيس الجمعية العربية للعلوم السياسية.

فيديوات متعلقة

مقالات متعلقة

%d bloggers like this: