أين هي العقول النقديّة التي حلّلت حال العجز بعد 67؟

 ناصر قنديل

يتزامن إحياء ذكرى حرب عام 67 التي هُزمَت خلالها الجيوش العربية أمام جيش كيان الاحتلال خلال أيام قليلة، وانتهت بسقوط مناطق عربيّة شاسعة ومنها القدس تحت الاحتلال، مع إحياء ذكرى رحيل الإمام الخميني قائد الثورة الإيرانية التي أسست لتحوّلات في المنطقة، كان أهمها رعاية ولادة ونمو وقوة وحضور محور المقاومة، وصولاً للانتصار الباهر للمقاومة في معركة سيف القدس التي أذلت كيان الاحتلال وجيشه، وعرضت مدنه الكبرى لصواريخ المقاومة، وفرضت عليه الهروب من مواصلة المواجهة البرية، وطلب وقف النار دون أن يحقق أي هدف يتصل بإضعاف المقاومة، وبمثل ما كشفت هزيمة عام 67 عن ضعف مشروع الدولة الوطنية في البلاد العربية، تتزامن هذه الإحياءات اليوم مع مفاوضات ندية تخوضها الدولة الإيرانية التي أنشأتها ثورة الإمام الخميني مع الدولة الأعظم في العالم التي تمثلها أميركا، عنوانها التسليم الأميركي بالفشل بإخضاع إيران، التي نجحت بتقديم نموذج مبهر للنجاح في بناء الدولة الوطنية، في عناوين الاستقلال الذي يترجمه الصمود والتمسك بدعم حركات المقاومة، والتنمية الاقتصادية والتقنية التي يمثل أعلى مراتبها الملف النووي، والاقتدار والقوة، كما يقول برنامج إيران الصاروخي.

بالقياس والمقارنة، لم نشهد أي نشاط فكري ونظري على مستوى المنطقة يدرس ويحلل هذه المفارقات، بعدما شهدنا خلال نصف قرن مئات الكتب وآلاف المقالات، تحت عنوان محاولة فهم أسباب الهزيمة عام 67، وظهر باحثون وكتاب بمراتب لامعة من التقدير كفلاسفة جدد، لأنهم صاغوا نظرياتهم على خلفيّة نقد الهزيمة، وفكر الهزيمة، وصولاً للحديث عن خلل بنيوي في الفكر الشرقي، أو العربي، او المشرقي، القومي والإسلامي، بل وصل البعض للحديث عن خلل في العقل العربيّ نفسه، مستنداً الى دراسات الشعر والأدب والأمثال والحكم، وربط كثيرون بين النهضة المنشودة والتخلص من الدين، ودعا آخرون إلى اتباع النموذج الغربي في بناء الدولة الديمقراطية واحترام معاييرها الصارمة، ونمطها في مقاربة التنمية والواقعية السياسية، كشرط للنهوض من التخلف، بينما تحدث اليسار الفكري بكل مكوّناته القومية والتقدمية، عن تغيير الأنظمة الحاكمة وبناء دولة شعبية قوية ومقتدرة، ووصل بعضه لاشتراط قيام دولة الوحدة لتوفير شروط مواجهة متكافئة مع الكيان وجيشه، وتحدّث آخرون عن السباق التربوي والتعليمي والبحثي كمعيار للفوز بسبق المواجهة مع الكيان، بينما ربطه غيرهم بالفوز بتشكيل وتمويل لوبيات عاملة على الرأي العام الأميركيّ بصفته بيضة القبان في السياسات الأميركية، التي تملك وحدها إحداث خلل في موازين القوى مع الكيان.

يأتي المثال الذي قدّمته إيران، التي يشبّهها الباحثون الغربيون بالنموذج الصيني، ويتحدّث بعضهم عن نهضتها التقنية مقارناً تجربتها بألمانيا واليابان، ليقول إن بناء الدولة القوية والإخلال بموازين القوى مع كيان الاحتلال، هدفان ممكن بلوغهما من دون المرور بالقوالب الجاهزة التي قدّمها من حملوا ألقاب المفكرين والفلاسفة خلال نصف قرن مضى، ففي لبنان نهضت المقاومة وحرّرت دون السيطرة على السلطة، بل وفي ظل الحرب الأهليّة والانقسام الوطني، ودون وحدة عربية ولا تضامن عربي، بل في ظل تآمر أغلب النظام العربي، وذلك عبر وصفة محليّة جمعت الوطني والقومي والديني بمعادلة الأولوية لدحر الاحتلال والإخلاص لأولوية غير قابلة للتعديل والتبديل هي هزيمة المحتل، وجاء مثال إيران لبناء الدولة ليقول إنه يمكن بناء دولة متقدّمة وقوية ومستقلة، بمصالحة العلم والدين والهوية القوميّة، بوصفة صنعت محلياً تضع المعيار للصدق والإخلاص في خدمة أهداف بناء دولة الاستقلال والتنمية والاقتدار، لكن لم يكلف المفكرون والمثقفون والفلاسفة الذين أهرقوا أطنان الورق والحبر على ممارسة نقد ما بعد الهزيمة، ليشتغلوا على نقد النقد بعد الانتصار، ولعل أول ما يحتاج إلى إعادة النظر هو موقع المثقفين العرب من القضايا الفكريّة الجديّة، عندما يجد بعضهم سبباً لتعظيم ديمقراطيّة غربية في ظل نظام ملكي لا يراه قيداً على تداول السلطة، ولا نتحدث هنا عن الذين يطبّلون ويزمّرون لأنظمة التطبيع العربية ويسوقونها كأمثلة على التنمية، وهي ليست بفقد الاستقلال والهوية والكرامة الوطنيّة دولاً بل مجرد شركات كما هو حال هونغ كونغ، بينما يستغرق هؤلاء وأولئك في شيطنة النموذج الإيراني وتسخيف جديته وصرامته في مواصلة العمليات الانتخابية التنافسية طوال أكثر من أربعة عقود، ويجد في ولاية الفقية سبباً كافياً للشيطنة، فيصير السؤال مشروعاً عما إذا كان نقد الهزيمة ذريعة لنقد الأنظمة الوطنية التي تجرأت على شقّ عصا الطاعة على الغرب وإعلان العداء لكيان الاحتلال، ولهذا لا تكون جريمة إيران ومحور المقاومة في عدم الانضباط بدفتر شروط الديمقراطية التي بشر بها هؤلاء المثقفون والمفكرون والفلاسفة، بل لأنهم أذلّوا كيان الاحتلال.


The Yom Kippur Syndrome Revisited

 BY GILAD ATZMON

yom kippur_edited-1.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

One of the most interesting aspects of the Yom Kippur War (1973) was that it marked a sudden switch from Israeli manic ‘hubris’ to melancholia, apathy and depression.

Following their outstanding military victory in 1967, the Israelis developed an arrogant disrespectful attitude towards Arabs and their military capabilities. Israeli intelligence predicted that it would take years for Arab armies to recover. The Israeli military didn’t believe that the Arab soldier had the ability to fight, let alone score a victory.

But on 6 October 1973, the Israelis faced a devastating surprise. This time the Arab soldier was very different. Israeli military strategy, built on air superiority and fast ground manoeuvres supported by tanks, proved ineffective within hours. Egypt and Syria, helped by new Soviet antitank and ground-to air-missiles, managed to dismantle Israel’s might. In the first days of the war Israel suffered heavy casualties. It’s leadership and high military command were in a state of despair. Yet, this type of crisis wasn’t exactly a rare event in Jewish history.

The Israeli military fiasco at the first stage of the war was a repetition of a tragic syndrome that is as old as the Jews themselves. These repetitive scenarios involve Jewish collective hubris driven by a strong sense of exceptionalism (choseness), and lead to horrific consequences. I call this ‘the Yom Kippur Syndrome.’  

In 1920s Berlin, the Jewish elite boasted of its power. Some rich Jews were convinced that Germany and its capital were their playground. At the time, a few German Jews dominated banking and influenced Germany’s politics and media. In addition, the Frankfurt School (as well as other Jewish school of thought) were openly dedicated to the cultural uprooting of Germans, all in the name of, ‘progress,’ ‘psychoanalysis,’ eroticism,’ ’phenomenology and ‘cultural Marxism.’ Then, almost ‘from nowhere,’ a tidal wave of resentment appeared, and the rest is known.

But was there really a sudden shift in German consciousness? Should 1930s German ‘anti-Semitism’ have come as a surprise? Not at all. All the necessary signs had been present for some time. In fact, early Zionists such as Herzl and Nordau correctly predicted the inevitable rise of European anti-Jewish sentiments at the end of the 19th century. It was the Yom Kippur Syndrome, that same hubris that prevented Berlin’s Jewish elite from evaluating the growing opposition around them.

What we see in Israel at the moment is obviously a tragic manifestation of the same syndrome. Once again, the Israelis have been caught unprepared. Once again mania of omnipotence is replaced by melancholia.  Once again the Israelis failed to estimate Hamas’ military capabilities. They failed to recognise the growing frustration of Israeli Arabs and acknowledge the possibility that their frustrations could escalate into street fights or even civil war.

The Israelis have succumbed to the delusional thought that the Palestinian cause had evaporated. They were convinced that cracking the BDS and starving Gazans had dismantled the Palestinian aspiration. Yet it is Hamas that has managed to win the most crucial victory uniting the Palestinians in Palestine, in the camps and in the Diaspora, alongside Muslims from around the world. This unity is significant especially in the light of Israel being politically divided heading towards a fifth election.

Once again, Israeli arrogance is replaced by deep sadness. Israel could ask itself some necessary questions: What is it that we do wrong? Why is our history repeating itself? Is there something we could do to change our destiny? Rather than this necessary introspection, Israel is actually doing the opposite. Instead of dissecting the present crisis in the light of similar events in the past, Israel repeats the same mistakes. It refers to the current crisis as just another ‘round of violence. It delves into the strategic and tactical possibilities that will ‘enforce a ceasefire on Hamas’. Israel basically speculates over the level of carnage that will bring the ‘Arabs on their knees’ once again.

Israel defines itself as the Jewish State and its tragic mistakes are naturally determined by that fact.  If Yom Kippur is a Jewish day of introspection, the Yom Kippur Syndrome is the direct outcome of a total incapacity to self-reflect. Yet one may wonder whether the Jew can be emancipated from the Jewish destiny and the Yom Kippur Syndrome in particular?  Like early Zionist Bernard Lazare,  I believe that all it takes is drifting away from exceptionalism. But once stripped of exceptionalism, not much is left of contemporary Jewish identiterianism.

I guess that we are touching upon the most devastating existential aspect of the Yom Kippur Syndrome; there is no Jewish collective ideological escape for the Jew. We are basically dealing with a cultural and spiritual limbo.

I tend to believe that the only escape route from the Yom Kippur Syndrome is individual: self-imposed exile. Leave the ghetto late in the night, crawl under the fence, dig a tunnel under the ‘separation wall’. Once out on the land of the free, proceed quietly and modestly in search of the humane and the universal.

Donate

Israeli Apartheid Confirmed

13 May 2021

About me

by Lawrence Davidson 

Part I—The Question Of Apartheid 

It was perhaps 6 or 7 years ago. I was part of a panel, debating on Israel and the Palestinians, that took place at a local (West Chester, Pa) Quaker Friends school. The school had such debates regularly until the administration caved-in to pressure from the Zionist parents of a number of Jewish students. One of these parents debated for the Israeli side. 

This particular event came to mind upon my seeing the latest Human Rights Watch (HRW) report conclusively laying out the apartheid nature of Israel. Here is the connection: just before the debate was to begin the participating Zionist parent tried to make a command decision. No one was to use the term apartheid in reference to Israel. This was because the assertion was, according to him, obviously nonsense. 

I remember at the time thinking, who gave him the right to define the terms of the debate? As it turned out, and this is quite often the case, those supporting the Palestinians knew twice as much history as did the Zionists, and could call upon twice as many facts and examples. Apartheid Israel was shown to be a matter of fact rather than nonsense. I am convinced that Zionist pressure on the school to end future debates was motivated by the additional fact that those supporting the Palestinians so readily won. 

I have run into many other cases like this. The Zionists would debate for a while, but upon realizing that they could not prevail, they opted for enforced silence—that is, attempting to deny their opposition a stage and eventually labelling them anti-Semites. I often wonder if that Zionist parent who did the one-time debate at the Friends school, ever did face the fact that he was wrong about Israel and apartheid. Not because we said he was wrong. He would never have taken our word for it despite the evidence we had at hand. Rather, because an ever greater number of humanitarian organizations, of which HRW is one, journalists and research institutions have thoroughly and repeatedly laid out the facts that make it so. To this one may now add the charge of “medical apartheid.”

And none of us could forget the ongoing campaign of ethnic cleansing if most of us were actually informed of the process.

Amidst the predictable resumption of mass resistance from Palestinians in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, The Human Rights Watch report confirming Israeli Apartheid presents the seminal context for what we now witness. 

Part II—Human Rights Watch’s 2021 Report

Here is part of the opening pages of the HRW report:

—“About 6.8 million Jewish Israelis and 6.8 million Palestinians live today between the Mediterranean Sea and Jordan River. Throughout most of this area, Israel is the sole governing power; in the remainder, it exercises primary authority alongside limited Palestinian self-rule.”

—“Across these areas and in most aspects of life, Israeli authorities methodically privilege Jewish Israelis and discriminate against Palestinians. Laws, policies, and statements by leading Israeli officials make plain that the objective of maintaining Jewish Israeli control over demographics, political power, and land has long guided government policy. In pursuit of this goal, authorities have dispossessed, confined, forcibly separated, and subjugated Palestinians by virtue of their identity to varying degrees of intensity. In certain areas, as described in this report, these deprivations are so severe that they amount to the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution.”

—“The prohibition of institutionalized discrimination, especially on grounds of race or ethnicity, constitutes one of the fundamental elements of international law … [over which] the International Criminal Court has the power to prosecute …when national authorities are unable or unwilling to pursue them.”

The report goes on to definitively prove its allegations in 213 pages of depressing detail—all laid out like a damning legal writ. Nor, as suggested above, is this the first time the apartheid nature of Israel been demonstrated. The HRW document was preceded by 16 March 2017 report submitted by UN Economic and Social Commission for West Asia demonstrating Israel’s apartheid nature. Though the report was accurate, the UN Secretary General disavowed it under pressure from the United States and Israel. In May of 2018 a

thorough examination appeared entitled Apartheid Israel, by the journalist Jonathan Cook. This was published by Americans for Middle East Understanding in their journal, The Link (April/May 2018). More recently, a 21 January 2021 report by B’Tselem, Israel’s own premier human rights organization, entitled “A regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea: This is apartheid,” proved particularly revealing. One should also take a look at the Israeli Apartheid Factsheet, published 12 January 2021 online, by War On Want. 

The Israeli government dismisses all of these fact-based reports as propaganda. This sets up a question of what is real—one that can be readily resolved, one way or another, through objective outside observers. Unfortunately, Israeli behavior over the past decades has shown that, unless you agree with the Zionist interpretation of events, Israel does not consider you objective. Thus, the HRW representative, and many others as well, have been banned from entering the country. This sort of reaction is not just an Israeli tactic. It is typical of countries in the process of undermining the rule of law and destroying human rights. In a very real way, the charge of “it is all, in this case, anti-Semitic propaganda” is itself a form of propaganda design to shut done critics. 

Part III—The Zionist Rationale

The Zionists consistently say that Israel exists to save world Jewry from persecution—from the constant threat of anti-Semitism and another Holocaust. Many still believe this is true and some of a liberal orientation now resort to this rationale to undermine the HRW report. They charge that it will cause the current wave of anti-Semitism to gain greater traction. Such greater traction always leads to a greater fear of another Holocaust. And this fear will only make the Zionists and Israelis dig in their heels. And indeed, the cries of anti-Semitism and Holocaust has always created a smokescreen behind which can be hidden all Israeli sins. Has anyone ever considered that Israel’s abominable behavior, always committed in the name of the community of worldwide Jewry, is itself a major cause of growing anti-Semitism? 

While Zionism might have started out as a strategy to save the Jews, Israel and the Zionists are no longer in the saving business. In point of fact, various Israeli authorities are constantly bickering about who is or isn’t Jewish. What they are now about is the business of national glorification and expansion—carried on in the old 19th century style of racist imperialism. In this effort the Palestinians are the major victims, but all Jews are, if you will, collateral damage. They become denigrated by the behavior of a brutalizing racist regime that simply declares itself acting in their name.

In the process another truth is also brought low—the fact that means ultimately shape ends. And here is the irony of it all: the outcome of apartheid that is now playing itself out in “greater Israel” was all but predetermined by the nature and behavior of Zionism itself.

Part IV—The Predetermined Nature Of Israeli Apartheid

Here are some of the steps and decisions that made today’s apartheid Israel inevitable:

—The aim of the Zionist movement was to found an exclusively Jewish state. Most of the early Zionists were European Jews searching for a way to escape centuries of anti-Semitism. Living in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, their reference point was the ethnically homogeneous nation state. Soon they convinced themselves that Jews could only escape anti-Semitic persecution if they had their own nation state. 

—By the beginning of the 20th century the Zionists had focused on Palestine as their future political, religious, and cultural nation state. This was due to the land’s biblical associations—and despite the fact that many Zionists were of a secular rather than religious orientation. In 1917, they made an alliance with the British government to rally Jewish support for the British war effort in World War I (WWI) in exchange for British support of a “Jewish national home” in Palestine. This alliance was spelled out in the Balfour Declaration.

—Soon thereafter, the British took Palestine from the Ottoman Turks (the Turks were allies of the Germans in WWI). They then allowed Zionist organized immigration to commence. The British told the Palestinian Arabs that Zionist investment would raise the living standards of the land’s non-Jewish residents. In the meantime, the Zionists discouraged any cooperative interaction with the Palestinian Arabs. This was particularly true when it came to use of Arab labor. Jews who had Arab employees were forcefully pressured to replace them with Jewish immigrants.

Between 1914 and 1947 both the Arab and Jewish population of Palestine grew. However, Jewish numbers, even though consistently bolstered by Zionist inspired immigration, were never more than 32% of the total population.

—Given Zionist ambitions and the demographics, the question can be asked, just how they could create a state for one group alone in a land where that favored group was a distinct minority? There were only three direct ways: (1) devising a method to get the Arab majority to move out of the country. (2) creating an unequal political and economic system that marginalized the majority, rendering them politically and economically irrelevant. (3) Committing genocide.  

—Both methods 1 and 2 were employed. The first led to the Nakba, the catastrophic removal of some 700,000 Palestinians, during the 1948 war that led to the creation of the State of Israel. Some of these people fled the fighting, but many were forced out at gunpoint by Israeli forces. In truth, the Nakba never completely came to an end as the ongoing home demolitions and evictions show. The second method followed in two stages for those Palestinians who would still find themselves under direct Israeli rule: (A) the so-called Palestinian Israelis, today numbering close to 2 million people or roughly 21% of the population of pre-1967 Israel. These Arabs have been given Israeli citizenship—actually second class citizenship. They are segregated from Jewish Israelis by  a host of discriminatory practices, among which are inferior housing, schools, and job opportunities. (B) The Palestinians who fell under Israeli control in 1967 and remain so today. These are the residents of the West Bank, Golan Heights and also the Gaza Strip, numbering roughly 5 million people. Most of these Palestinians have been denied Israeli citizenship. They are under the rule of Israeli military authorities or an allied Palestinian authority under Israeli supervision. Internal travel is made difficult for them, their ability to improve or expand their infrastructure is restricted. They are encroached upon by illegal Israeli settlements and harassed by Israeli settlers. Attempts at self-defense or counterattack are seen by the Israelis as terrorist acts.

—Means shape ends. (1) The nature of Zionist goals: the transformation of Palestine into a nation state for Jews alone, (2) undertaken with a group mentality shaped by a memories of European anti-Semitism, the outlook of racist European imperialism, and finally the trauma of the Holocaust, (3) strongly inclined the Zionists toward tactics that precluded compromise and equity with the indigenous Palestinians. (4) When the Palestinians inevitably resisted the Zionists they were cast as Arab Nazis, an image which justified the brutal tactics (suppression and expulsion) already in use. Finally, having conquered Palestine from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River, and shying away from a second mass expulsion as long as the world was watching, the Israelis inevitably fell into apartheid to neutralize the 7 million Arabs under their rule.

Part V—Conclusion

Once you have segregated away those you oppress, the average member of the dominant group can proceed with his or her life in comfortable blindness—literarily not seeing their victims, and remaining purposefully ignorant of the deformed situation that sustains their status, security and wealth. As time goes on all aspects of society (education, employment, media, social norms) come to reinforce this condition. This is the situation in today’s Israel. 

The blindspots can extend to Israel’s Zionist supporters in the diaspora, even if they are otherwise progressive liberals. Take the case of the American Jewish progressive  Peter Osnos, who fears the definitive nature of the HRW report. Why so? Because, he believes, “this report—in detail, length and tone—could be the basis for sanctions against Israel.” As the old Jewish idiom goes, “from his mouth to God’s ears.” However, that is an unlikely prospect. Western governments are so committed to Israel—and steeped in the hypocrisy this requires—that they will simply ignore the HRW revelations, as they did the earlier reports.  

Nonetheless, when you strip away all the ideologically-bred magical thinking, rationalizations, and blindspots, what you are left with is the blatant truth: you cannot impose a foreign group of people, seeking exclusive domination, into a land already populated by a different people, and not end up with a discriminatory and abusive system of rule. And if the abusive system persists something akin to apartheid becomes inevitable. So does periodic mass resistance.

The forthcoming inevitable battle for Middle-East Peace

May 05, 2021

The forthcoming inevitable battle for Middle-East Peace

by Ghassan Kadi for the Saker Blog

The alleged stray ground-to-air Syrian missile that landed near the nuclear reactor in Dimona Israel carried many messages; both overt and covert.

And, as if the fact that this missile managed to penetrate Israel’s formidable ‘Iron Dome’ was not embarrassing enough for Israel, the official Israeli report alleged that the missile was actually Iranian-made; not Russian as initially perceived by the world.

In other words, the Israeli report is saying that its ‘Iron Dome’ has been easily penetrated by a missile that is 1) not meant to hit ground targets, 2) had already spent its fuel and maneuverability and was literally on a free fall trajectory by gravitation and not propulsion, 3) yet it penetrated the allegedly most advance air defense system in the world, and 4) above all, it was made in Iran; a nation ‘crippled by sanctions and governed by ‘fundamentalist Mullas’.

Seriously, Israel has never before admitted a defense failure that is even close to such similar proportions.

Ironically, almost simultaneously, Iran revealed photos of an American aircraft carrier taken by a drone; not to forget mentioning that Iran also revealed that it has developed kamikaze drones ready to attack any target within their range in the Gulf.

But the Dimona incident alone cannot be seen in isolation of the recent Russian ‘diplomacy’ initiatives in the Middle East. I have deliberately put the word diplomacy under inverted comas, because that Russian version of diplomacy has a side that proves its worth in both traditional diplomatic ways as well as ones that are unorthodox.

Russia has thus far been very tight-lipped about its objectives in the Middle East. My own analysis of it has landed me in hot water with Russian friends and media allies, and I accept their stand. Perhaps they do not want me to ‘spoil the hidden agenda’, but my role as an analyst is not going to stop, and their views, directives, and concerns will not make me feel guilty for expressing my analyses and predictions.

In this portrayal of recent regional political events in the Middle east, I am relying on bits of pieces of information from here and there, but the analysis of it all is based on my own understanding of what makes sense in combining all what is currently taking place. My analysis does not represent the views of any blog, news agency or government. I have expressed similar views earlier, but events keep progressing, and in every step of the way, it seems that my initial prediction about the Russian initiative in the Middle East was accurate. So here is an updated summary of it all with a bit repetition of earlier material for the benefit of first-time readers.

Ever since Russia responded to Syria’s request to offer military aid, Russia responded with accepting the request under certain conditions; conditions that stipulate a Syrian-Israeli peace settlement agreement.

But this wasn’t all. Putin’s Russia is trying to reverse what Kissinger did to Russia some forty years ago when he catapulted the USSR out of Middle East politics and conned Egypt into accepting a unilateral peace deal with Israel in the so-called Camp David Accords.

Ever since then, Russia has been deprived of a role to play in the Middle East, none at all, until Putin sent troops into Syria and thereby changing the status quo not only in the Middle East, but also heralding the end of the single global superpower status of the post USSR USA.

The post-USSR world has seen Russia suffering from huge American-based NATO encroachments in Eastern Europe, and the current impasse in Ukraine is only one aspect of it. Former Warsaw Pact nations have gone full dipole away from Russia and in cahoots with their new-found Western ‘allies’. The Stalin era might have left a bitter taste in the palate of some East European countries, but this was a long time ago, and nations like Poland and Ukraine surely must understand and know who are their historic regional and global allies. With the era of Nazism and Fascism in the dust bin of history that Europe would like to forget, even Germany and France ought to realize that today’s Russia cannot be associated with Stalin’s-USSR any more than today’s Germany and France can be associated with Hitler and Petain.

And, if Poland wants to remained mentally entrenched in the Stalin era and forget about who liberated it from Nazi occupation, it should look further back in history and remember that the partition of Poland in the 19th Century was not only orchestrated by the Russian Czars, but also in collaboration with Prussia and Austria.

As discussed in the previous article, the current animosity of Eastern European nations towards Russia is not something that can be rationally explained and justified.

Back to the Middle East.

Only Russia can broker a peace deal in the Middle East, a deal that includes not only Syria and Israel, but also Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

The main sticking elements in any such deal are Israel and Turkey, and to a lesser extent Iran.

In the same previous article mentioned above, I predicted a win-win scenario that Russia will broker between Iran and Saudi Arabia; one that guarantees the mutual withdrawal of Iran from Syria and Saudi Arabia from Yemen. As a matter of fact, a few days ago Saudi Crown Prince MBS announced that he wants to have a good relationship with Iran. Is this a sign that this deal is closer than we think? Perhaps not, but I cannot think of any other reason.

Turkey will undoubtedly want a bite of the cherry, and I not sure how will Russia be able to diplomatically appease Erdogan without giving him too much more than what he has taken already. However, his recent stand on Ukraine has put him in deep hot water with Russia and in any future bargains, he will find that his Ukraine venture will be used against him. He has deliberately introduced a bargaining chip that can be used only against himself.

This leaves Israel; how to bring Israel to the negotiating table for a deal that is unlike all previous American-brokered deals.

All American-brokered deals have thus far been based on providing Israel with the lion’s share and the Arab party with very little; especially when it came to making deals with the Palestinian Authority. Furthermore, on top of the political and strategic gains that America delivered to Israel in all of those deals, America ensured that Israel continued to have military superiority and that Arabs would never be able to score a major military victory, even if united.

Despite the October 1973 (ie Yom Kippur War) and what followed it, all the way up to the July 2006 war with Hezbollah, and the humiliations that Israel suffered from all of those military engagements, Israel remains mentally entrenched in the euphoria of the huge Six-Day War win of June 1967 and what ensued afterwards, resulting in what can best be described as the invincible army complex.

Israel will not be prepared to sign a peace agreement with Syria while it believes that it continues to have this military superiority; the power to shape events in its favour. For Israel to change course and become more realistic, it needs either a new generation of political leaders who are more rational, or a reality check; a punishment if you wish.

This is why it is that, inasmuch as the corridors of negotiations are opening up and the tables are being prepared, so are the drums of war.

It is worthy to note here that major reconstructions have not begun in Syria yet. The underlying message here is that perhaps Syria is expecting more carnage, and that reconstruction will have to wait. Why reconstruct twice? In its current state of devastation, Syria has little to lose.

Israel, on the other hand, is in a very vulnerable situation, and the Dimona incident has exposed this gaping hole.

Syria has exercised great restraint in the face of the ongoing Israeli airstrikes. Even though an Israeli jet was downed a few years ago, by-and-large, Syria has remained non-respondent. We do not know exactly what is happening behind the scenes, but it seems that Israel is misreading Syria’s lack of response and seeing weakness, despite information from Russia that such is not the case. Israel will continue to act like the regional bully, refusing to sit at the negotiating table as an equal partner, unless it receives a significant hit.

This hit is not necessarily one that will cause much carnage in Israel such as civilian and military loss of life. Putin will not accept or allow such a level of devastation to be inflicted on Israel. After all, a significant fraction of Israel’s population is originally Russian. Putin, furthermore, is intent on convincing Israel that it is Russia, and not America, that can give Israel real peace with its Arab neighbours.

To this effect, Israel only needs to lose a few fighter-jets, ten, maybe twenty, finding itself unable to defend key military and strategic land targets in order for it to realize that the days of military superiority are gone.

The Dimona incident is a forewarning, but only if Israel wants to read in between the lines. Otherwise, there will be a war in the Middle East, a war that will be intended to be contained and limited to be a punch, a powerful punch, but not a knockout.

With this said, this is the Middle East, a very volatile region, with many volatile heads. A limited war aimed at showing who has muscle may end up spiraling out of control and into something very large. With experience of such unpredictability, Syria is presenting to Israel that a long war will bring more destruction upon Israel than it will on an already destroyed Syria.

What seems certain is that peace initiatives are on the table, but not all parties are yet convinced that they will attend such talks as equal partners before some arms are twisted and statures rattled.

لهذه الأسباب باتت المقاومة تشكل خطراً داهماً على الكيان الصهيوني والمشروع الاستعماري في المنطقة

حسن حردان

منذ أن غزت قوات الاحتلال الصهيوني لبنان عام 1982 كانت قيادة العدو تهدف إلى إنهاء أيّ وجود لمقاومة فيه، لبنانية أم فلسطينية، يمكن أن تعرقل تنفيذ المشروع الصهيوني في سعيه لفرض هيمنته على الوطن العربي وتصفية قضية فلسطين، من خلال العمل على تحقيق ما يلي:

اولاً، إخضاع الدول العربية الواحدة تلو الأخرى وفرض صكوك الاستسلام عليها بإجبارها على توقيع اتفاقيات الصلح والاعتراف بوجوده المصطنع على كامل أرض فلسطين.. وفي هذا السياق كان الطموح الصهيوني جعل لبنان البلد العربي الثاني الذي يوقع اتفاق صلح معه، بعد مصر… ومحاصرة سورية تمهيداً لإخضاعها وفرض الاستسلام عليها أيضاً، بما يمكن العدو من فرض الحلّ الصهيوني في فلسطين المحتلة وتصفية الحقوق الوطنية لشعبها…

ثانياً، إقامة العلاقات مع كيان العدو، على كافة المستويات، بما يكرّس هيمنته وسيطرته السياسية والاقتصادية، وتمكينه من استغلال واستثمار الثروات والموارد العربية من نفط وغاز، ويد عاملة رخيصة في خدمة المشروع الصهيوني..

ثالثاً، تحويل الكيان الصهيوني إلى المركز والمحور الرأسمالي الاستعماري الذي تدور في فلكه كلّ الدول العربية في إطار منظومة التبعية التي تفرضها الاتفاقيات الموقعة معه.

هذه الأهداف الاستراتيجية، التي يسعى العدو الصهيوني إلى بلوغها، كان يستند في العمل لتنفيذها إلى العوامل التالية:

العامل الأول، قوة الجيش «الإسرائيلي» المتفوّقة والقادرة على تحقيق وبلوغ ما تريده في ميدان الحرب، وهذه القدرة تعززت خلال العدوان الصهيوني على الدول العربية عام 1967 واحتلال جيش العدو الضفة الغربية وقطاع غزة وشبه جزيرة سيناء والجولان السوري ومزارع شبعا اللبنانية…

العامل الثاني، قوة الولايات المتحدة الأميركية الأولى في العالم، والتي تشكل الداعم الأول والاساسي، بعد الدول الغربية، لكيان العدو الصهيوني.. والتي تؤمّن له الحماية وتدعمه في حروبه لتحقيق أهدافها الاستعمارية التي أرادتها أصلاً من وراء زرع هذا الكيان في فلسطين، قلب العالم العربي.

العامل الثالث، الأنظمة العربية الرجعية التابعة للولايات المتحدة والدول الغربية.. فهذه الأنظمة لعبت دوراً خطيراً في مساعدة القوى الاستعمارية في احتلال الصهاينة أرض فلسطين وإقامة كيانهم الغاصب، وكانت هذه الأنظمة، ولا تزال، تقف وراء التآمر مع القوى الاستعمارية ضدّ الأنظمة التقدمية التحررية وحركات المقاومة لإضعاف جبهة المقاومة في مواجهة المشروع الغربي الصهيوني..

لكن من يدقق في عوامل القوة الثلاث، المذكورة آنفاً، والتي كانت في أساس نشوء كيان العدو وتمكينه من التوسع والسيطرة في فلسطين والدول العربية المجاورة، لا بدّ له أن يلاحظ أنها باتت تعاني من التراجع والعجز والضعف في القدرة على تحقيق أهدافها، مما جعل كيان العدو في حالة قلق على مستقبل وجوده في فلسطين المحتلة وحسم الصراع لمصلحته:

1 ـ دخول الكيان الصهيوني في مرحلة الانكفاء والتراجع الاستراتيجي، انطلاقاً من لبنان، حيث تحوّل غزوه له إلى وبال عليه بعد نشوء مقاومة جديدة على رأسها قيادة ثورية لا تساوم ولا تهادن وتملك الرؤية الإستراتيجية والشجاعة والعزم والتصميم على مواجهة جيش الاحتلال والحاق الهزائم المتتالية به.. والتي توّجت بهزيمته المدوية في عام 2000 بإجباره للمرة الأولى في تاريخ الصراع العربي ـ الصهيوني، وتحت ضربات المقاومة، على الرحيل عن معظم الأراضي اللبنانية التي كان يحتلها بلا قيد أو شرط أو أيّ ثمن مقابل، بعد أن أسقطت مقاومة الشعب اللبناني اتفاق الذلّ والإذعان، اتفاق 17 أيار، وأسقطت معه الحلم الصهيوني في جعل لبنان البلد العربي الثاني الذي يوقع اتفاق الصلح والاعتراف معه وتحويله إلى بلد تابع له أمنياً وسياسياً واقتصادياً…

على أنّ هذه الهزيمة القاسية التي ألحقتها المقاومة بجيش الاحتلال حطمت أسطورته وكسرت شوكته، وأسقطت الوهم الذي كان سائداً في الساحة العربية حول عدم قدرة المقاومة على مواجهة الجيش الصهيوني الذي كان يصوَّر بأنه قوة أسطورية لا تُقهر.. وقدمت المقاومة النموذج والمثال على إمكانية تحرير الأرض ودحر المحتلّ إذا ما توافرت القيادة الشجاعة والرؤية الثورية والإرادة والتصميم..

ومنذ هزيمة العدو عام ألفين بات جيش الاحتلال يعاني من عقدة اسمها لبنان، على غرار عقد أميركا في فيتنام، ولهذا حاولت القيادة الصهيونية التخلص من هذه العقدة واسترداد الثقة التي اهتزّت بقدرة الجيش الصهيوني على تحقيق أهدافه، لدى الرأي العام الصهيوني، عبر العمل للقضاء على هذه المقاومة، وإعادة بعث مناخات اليأس والإحباط والهزيمة لدى الشارع العربي.. غير أنّ هذه المحاولة مُنيت بهزيمة أكبر عندما فشلت محاولات إثارة الفتنة ضدّ المقاومة عبر اغتيال الرئيس رفيق الحريري، وتعرّض جيش العدو لهزيمة أكبر وأقسى أمام المقاومة عام 2006، كرّست هزيمته الإستراتيجية وعمّقت أزمة الثقة بقدرته على تحقيق النصر في مواجهة المقاومة الجديدة.. وبفعل ذلك دخلت القوة الصهيونية في مرحلة العجز وتآكل قدرتها الردعية التي ازدادت تآكلاً مع تحقيق المزيد من الانتصارات وتعاظم قوة المقاومة وحلفائها في غزة وسورية والعراق واليمن، وتنامي قوة الجمهورية الإسلامية الايرانية، وما الاعتراف الاخير لاستخبارات العدو بامتلاك المقاومة مئات الصواريخ الدقيقة إلا دليل جديد على مدى التطوّر الحاصل في القدرات الردعيّة للمقاومة المنتصرة في مقابل تآكل وتراجع قوة الردع الصهيونية، التي يزداد عجزها وانكفاؤها وعدم قدرتها على الذهاب إلى شنّ الحرب لعدم التيقن من تحقيق النصر من ناحية، والخوف من تحوّل الحرب الى هزيمة استراتيجية جديدة تلحق بكيان العدو وتفضي إلى نجاح المقاومة في تحرير شمال فلسطين المحتلة مما سيؤذن بانهيار المشروع الصهيوني على أرض فلسطين من ناحية ثانية…

هذا التطوّر في قوة وقدرات المقاومة التي جعلت من لبنان قوة يخافها ويهابها كيان العدو، باتت أيضاً تستند إلى تنامي قوة حلفائها في محور المقاومة.. لذلك فإنّ المقاومة في لبنان أسّست بانتصاراتها وتعاظم قوتها للهزيمة والتراجع والانكفاء الاستراتيجي للمشروع الصهيوني.

2 ـ انكسار وضعف هيمنة الإمبراطورية الأميركية، دولياً وإقليمياً، نتيجة التراجع الذي أصاب عناصر القوة الأميركية.. اقتصادياً وعسكرياً وسياسياً، وهو ما بات يتجلى بشكل واضح في التالي:

أ ـ الهزائم العسكرية التي مُنيت بها الولايات المتحدة في العراق وأفغانستان وفشل حروبها الإرهابية في تحقيق ما عجزت عنه قوتها العسكرية.. ونشوء موازين قوى عسكرية في سورية في مواجهة القوة الأميركية بفعل الحضور العسكري الروسي.

ب ـ انتهاء زمن سيطرة الاقتصاد الأميركي على الأسواق وتحكمه بها، بفعل اشتداد المنافسة الدولية للاقتصاد الأميركي، نتيجة التطور الاقتصادي الذي حققته العديد من الدول وفي مقدمها الصين التي باتت في عام 2020 تحتلّ المرتبة الأولى عالمياً في معدلات النمو الايجابي بنسبة 5.8 بالمئة، فيما الاقتصاد الأميركي يعاني من الكساد…

ج ـ تراجع تأثير الولايات المتحدة في مجلس الأمن، وظهر ذلك في العزلة التي واجهت واشنطن نتيجة المعارضة الشبة الشاملة لمشاريع قراراتها لعدم رفع العقوبات الدولية عن إيران.

3 ـ تراجع قوة الأنظمة الرجعية وانكشاف دورها التآمري مما أضعف من دورها في خدمة المخططات الأميركية الصهيونية، لا سيما المملكة السعودية التي تشكل أخطر قوة رجعية في خدمة المشروع الاستعماري، حيث غرقت في حرب استنزاف كبيرة في اليمن مما حدّ كثيراً من قدراتها المالية ومن دورها التآمري على قوى المقاومة…

انطلاقاً مما تقدّم علينا فهم لماذا تتعرّض المقاومة في لبنان الى هذا الهجوم الشرس منذ تحقيقها الانتصار التاريخي والاستراتيجي عام 2000، لأنّ هذه المقاومة الجديدة حققت ما يلي:

ـ قدمت النموذج والمثال والقدرة على إلحاق الهزيمة بجيش العدو الصهيوني، وأدخلته في مرحلة الانكفاء الاستراتيجي.

ـ أعادت إلى السطح المأزق الوجودي للكيان الصهيوني وفجرت أزمته البنيوية، وجعلته يعيش في حالة عدم استقرار على مستقبله، وعدم ثقة بقدرة جيشه على حماية المشروع الصهيوني وتحقيق النصر ضدّ المقاومة.

ـ أحيت الأمل بتحقيق تطلعات الجماهير العربية بتحرير فلسطين وكلّ الأرض العربية المحتلة، وتحقيق العزة والكرامة والتحرر من كلّ أشكال الاستعمار، وأكدت لها بالدليل الملموس بأنّ ذلك لم يعد مجرد حلم، بل بات أمراً ممكناً وواقعياً لا يحتاج سوى إلى مواصلة السير على نهج هذه المقاومة وقيادتها التي برهنت على ثوريتها وقدرتها على خوض الصراع والمقاومة المسلحة ضدّ العدو الصهيوني وتحقيق النصر تلو النصر عليه، وإجباره على التراجع والانكفاء تلو الانكفاء.

ـ لأنّ المقاومة اليوم باتت جزءاً من حلف كبير في المنطقة يحقق الانتصارات في مواجهة المشروع الأميركي الغربي الصهيوني وأدواته الرجعية العربية والإرهابية، وباتت تشكل خطراً داهماً على المشروع الاستعماري في كلّ المنطقة، كون هزيمة الكيان الصهيوني تعتبر هزيمة للمشروع الاستعماري كله، الذي يرتكز إليه في إدامة هيمنته وسيطرته..

لذلك فإنّ ما هو مطلوب اليوم التفافاً أكثر من أيّ وقت حول المقاومة، ودعماً واحتضاناً لها، والقتال معها في مواجهة كلّ أنواع الحروب التي تتعرّض لها، وعدم الوقوع في فخ التحريض عليها، تحت عناوين اتهامها بالتدخل في خارج لبنان، وبالتبعية لإيران ـ الثورة التحررية، فالمقاومة لا تتدخل في سورية إنما تشارك مع الجيش السوري في مواجهة الحرب الإرهابية التي تشنّها أميركا والتي تستهدف الدولة السورية المقاومة، ومن خلالها كلّ حلف المقاومة، ولهذا فإنّ التخلي عن سورية إنما هو تخلّ عن المقاومة نفسها، اما الجمهورية الإسلامية فإنّ العلاقة معها إنما هي من منطلقات واحدة تقوم على مواجهة الاحتلال الصهيوني والهيمنة الاستعمارية، ولهذا فإنّ إيران الثورة هي حليف استراتيجي للمقاومة وقوى التحرّر في المنطقة والعالم…

على أنّ السؤال يجب أن يطرح على نحو آخر… لماذا قوى الاستعمار والصهيونية والرجعية موحدة في شنّ الحرب ضدّ حلف المقاومة، ومطلوب ان لا يتوحّد الحلف في مواجهة الحرب التي تشنّ ضدّ طرف من أطرافه انْ في سورية أو العراق أو اليمن أو فلسطين، فالمعركة واحدة لا تتجزأ، ولا يجب بأيّ حال من الأحوال أن نقبل بتجزئتها، بل أنّ المطلوب المزيد من التنسيق والتعاون العسكري والأمني والسياسي والاقتصادي والإعلامي إلخ… في خوض المعركة ضدّ قوى الاحتلال والاستعمار وأدواتهم الرجعية والإرهابية، بذلك فقط نحبط مخططاتهم ونحقق الانتصارات ونبلغ النصر النهائي الذي لا يتحقق من دون تضحيات.. في حين انّ الاستسلام لشروط الأعداء سيكون ثمنه أكبر بكثير من مواصلة الصمود والمقاومة حتى تحقيق آمال وطموحات وتطلعات شعبنا في التحرّر من الاحتلال والاستعمار…

فيديوات ذات صلة

مقالات ذات صلة

The Assassin’s Creed: Murder As Israeli State Policy

By Jeremy Salt

Source

“If our dreams for Zionism are not to end in the smoke of assassins’ pistols and our labor for its future to produce only a new set of gangsters worthy of Nazi Germany, many like myself will have to reconsider the position we have maintained for so long in the past.” — Winston Churchill, November, 1944, from his address to the House of Commons on the murder of Britain’s Resident Minister in the Middle East, Lord Moyne, by two members of the zionist terrrorist organization, Lehi. [1]
Mohsen Fakhrizadeh Terror df757

Israel’s crimes against Iran in the past decade include the sabotage through the Stuxnet virus of the centrifuges in its nuclear development program,  the killing through missile attack of its militia members in Syria, the sabotage of its Natanz nuclear plant in July this year and the murder in recent years of five of its leading nuclear scientists,  most recently, a few days ago, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh.

Each of these attacks would have been carried out at least with the approval of the US government, if not the active involvement at some level of both the US and its puppet Iranian terrorist organization, the MEK (Mujahedin e-Khalq). In reverse,  Israel would have been closely involved in the US assassination of  Qasim Suleimani in Iraq in January this year.  These murders might be state operations but are no different in their brazen nature,  their illegality and their brutality from hits organised by Mafia gangs.  In the case of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh,  a distinguished physicist,  he was apparently dragged from his car during the attack and finished off in the middle of the road.  The crime was so heinous that even voices usually hostile to Iran (including the New York Times and former CIA director John Brennan) were appalled.

Each of these attacks is a casus belli for war. Two can play at this game, which means that by these attacks, Israel is virtually inviting the assassination of its own political leaders and military commanders, or its senior representatives abroad. That Iran does not strike back, in the same way, is not necessarily a sign that it does not have the capacity to organise such retaliation.  Apart from the criminality and violations of international law that such actions represent,  Iran is never going to strike back at a time of Israel’s choosing.

Nevertheless, the government is under pressure from its own people to deal a devastating counter-blow, not necessarily against individuals but against Israeli infrastructure such as the port at Haifa.  Each of these provocations pushes Iran closer to the edge, as intended by Israel.  The repeated refusal of the government to respond is being criticised in Iran as a sign of weakness,  as the more Israel gets away with the more it will try to get away with. At the same time, even though Israel is responsible, an Iranian reprisal would trigger off a large-scale military response by Israel and full-scale war that no one in their right mind would want. It is a further sign of the moral void at their centre that Netanyahu and many of the fanatics around him do want such a war and are prepared to drop bombs on live nuclear reactors to achieve their aims

The general view seems to be that Israel did this so Biden would not be able to sign back on to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear agreement from which Trump withdrew the US in 2018. That may be so, but Netanyahu might have calculated that this latest savagery would be the final spark igniting the war he has wanted for years.  Either of these outcomes would suit him.

There are always parallels in history and for Israel’s attempts to provoke an open war with Iran, one parallel would be Israel’s attempts to draw Egypt’s President Gamal Abd al Nasser into war in 1967.  This was no ‘preemptive’ war but another war of choice.  1948 was the first, because only through war could the zionists seize  Palestine, at least most of it.  1967 was the second,  launched to destroy Egypt’s armed forces, to destroy Nasser’s Arab world leadership, and to occupy the rest of Palestine. 

It was strikingly successful. All Palestine ended up under occupation and the Egyptian military was shattered.  Nasir’s pan Arab leadership was not destroyed but gravely weakened by Egypt’s failure to see the war coming and defend itself.

Just as Israel has been trying to draw Iran into the open through the assassination of its scientists and the sabotage of its nuclear plants,  so in the year before the 1967 war it set out to draw Nasser into the open through provocations along the Syrian armistice line.  These took the form of incursions by armored tractors into the DMZ, triggering off shelling by the Syrian army and then air attacks by Israel.  

Although Israel was determined to destroy any Arab nationalist government and to destroy Arab nationalism itself, the main target of these provocations was Nasser.  He was the foremost Arab champion and Israel wanted him where it could get at him.  It knew that sooner or he would have to respond to its provocations on the Syrian front by taking action on the Egyptian front.

When Israel shot down six Syrian planes in April 1967, the ball started to roll.  Israeli politicians talked of going further than ever before, of teaching Syria a lesson, and even of invading Syria and occupying Damascus, 15 years ahead of its invasion of Lebanon and occupation of Beirut. 

By the second week of May, war was regarded as inevitable.  Nasser moved troops and tanks into Sinai and called for the withdrawal of the UN Emergency Force (UNEF) from the armistice line.  Although Israel was the aggressor in the 1956  war, UNEF forces were inside Egypt because Israel refused to accept them on its side of the armistice line, and as usual, it got its way. 

On May 22 Nasser closed the Straits of Tiran, the entrance point to the Gulf of Aqaba, but without actually blocking them to Israeli shipping.  Under pressure,  however,  to stand up to the Israelis,  he had moved the final piece on the board that set the stage for war. 

Israel repeated the rhetoric of 1948.  İt was again being threatened with extermination and annihilation at the hands of an Arab ‘ring of steel.’ In fact,  it knew, and so did the CIA, that it would easily defeat any Arab army or combination of Arab armies.  Behind the panic deliberately set in motion among the Israeli population,  the generals could not wait to get going.   They vowed to be on the banks of the Suez Canal within a week. This was an opportunity  – one they had created – that Israel could not afford to miss. The military would deliver a knockout blow: according to Yigal Allon, “There is not the slightest doubt about the outcome of this war and each of its stages.”

And so it turned out to be.  On the Arab side, there is not the slightest doubt that Nasser did not want war. His threats were those of the Arab champion and his intended audience the Arab world,  but behind the scenes, he was looking for a way out of the crisis into which he had been maneuvered. An Egyptian delegation led by  Vice-President Zakaria Muhi Al-Din was due to fly into Washington on June 7 for talks to begin the following day on bringing the crisis to an end. On June 5, with the window of the opportunity for war about to close,  Israel attacked.

There is symmetry in all of these wars. Israel plays the role of the victim even while preparing to attack.  In 1948 Chaim Weizmann talked of extermination while assuring the Americans behind the scenes that the Arab armies counted for nothing. Israel’s arrogance was checked in the first week of the 1973 war, with humiliation at the hands of Hizbullah waiting in 2000 and 2006.  Yet if there is a learning curve Israel does not see it, an example of what long ago US Senator J. William Fulbright called the “arrogance of power.”

Israel applies the same tactics at the micro as well as the macro level.  On the West Bank and Gaza, it murders and massacres, and when there is a Palestinian response it has its rationale for more crushing blows.  On the West Bank, this usually takes the form of enlarging settlements or building new ones. 

From the Zionist point of view, this has been a good year.  Following the establishment of diplomatic relations with Israel by the UAE and Bahrain, the UAE has gone as far as blocking entry visas to the citizens of a dozen Muslim countries while allowing Israelis visa-free entry.  Talks in Saudi Arabia between Netanyahu and Muhammad bin Salman – apparently arranged without the knowledge of the king – open the way to the establishment of diplomatic relations, although for the time being this is not expected.  MBS can give Israel most of what it wants without needing to come into the open, and as the nominal custodian of the two holy places such a move would enrage Muslims around the world,  with explosive consequences possible at the time of the hajj.

Israel’s strategic advances also include the commercial,  military, and strategic relationship it is establishing in the eastern Mediterranean with Greece and the Greek government of southern Cyprus, which has already allowed Israeli military units to train on the island because of the similarity of the topography to southern Lebanon. Successfully playing off fears of Iran in the Gulf,  Israel plays off Greek rivalry with Turkey in the eastern Mediterranean.  

Able to attack from the very centre of the central Arab lands – occupied Palestine – Israel is now steadily moving into a position that will eventually enable it to threaten Arab states and Iran from the periphery, from the gulf in the southwest and from the northeastern corner of the Mediterranean.  It has pushed these doors open and on the basis of all its past behavior, it will keep pushing until it gets what it wants.

The assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh has antecedents dating back to the barrel bomb murders in Palestinian markets in the 1930s, the assassination of Lord Moyne in Cairo on November 6,  1944,  the blowing up of the King David Hotel in 1946, the assassination of Count Folke Bernadotte in 1948  and the massacres and destruction that have marked the zionist presence in the Middle East ever since.  Whether the enemy is a state, an organization, or an individual,  the enemy must be destroyed.   The standing refusal of the international ‘community’ to punish Israel for any of these crimes only encourages the zionist state to go still further.

Speaking to the House of Commons after the murder of Lord Moyne, Churchill, a strong advocate of Zionism all along,  remarked that “If there to be any hope of a peaceful and successful future for Zionism  these wicked activities must cease and those responsible for  them must be destroyed root and branch.” [2] These wicked activities have never ceased, those responsible for them have never been destroyed root and branch, the smoke of the assassins’ pistols now hangs over an entire region and Zionism has produced generations of criminals fully worthy of Nazi Germany.    

No state can endlessly endure Israel’s provocations. Iran and Hizbullah are playing the long game, compared to Netanyahu’s greed for instant satisfaction but at some point, there will be a limit to what they can endure and then there will be war,  possibly if not probably the most devastating in the modern history of the Middle East.  What will the international ‘community’ say then? It will be far too late to regret that it should have done something to stop Israel earlier.

Endnotes

[1] Catrina Stewart ‘Sir Winston Churchill: Zionist hero,’ Independent, November 3, 2012[2] ‘Palestine (Terrorist Activities) in the House of Commons at 12am on 17th November, 1944.’ theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1944-11-17a.2242.1  For more on Commons debate on the murder of Lord Moyne,  see also api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1944/nov/07/assassination-of-lord-moyne#S5CV0404PO_19441107_HOC_294  Churchill assured the House that the Zionists had lost a good friend in Lord Moyne.  According to Yitzhak Shamir, however, one of the architects of the murder, and a terrorist who later became an Israeli Prime Minister (like Menahim  Begin), Moyne was an anti-semite who did not believe in a Jewish nation or a Jewish people.  See Joanna Seidel ‘Yitzhak Shamir: why we killed Lord Moyne,’ Times of Israel, July 5, 2012. 

الأسدان: في الذكرى الخمسين للحركة التصحيحيّة الأول غاب ولم يوقّع… وحضر الثاني ليدافع عن سورية والشرق العربيّ الأسد حافظ والأسد بشار: قدر التاريخ وخيار الشعب السوريّ

من حافظ إلى بشار.. ماذا فعلت «جمهورية الأسد» في سوريا؟ | مصر العربية

بهجت سليمان

1

ـ الرّجال، عظماء التّاريخ، يولدون في إطار خطّة قدر جليلة ومحكمة، وهم يُدركون بحدسهم الموضوعيّ العبقريّ خطّة أقدارهم، وهم يتفانون لأجلها بعيداً عن العواطف ومفرزاتها من الحبّ والكراهيّة، قابلين كلّ تبعاتها المضنية والممتعة، لا فرقَ، متجاوزين كلّ ذلك إلى مأثرة الخلود. وهذا هو حافظ الأسد.

قال ريتشارد مورفي السّفير الأميركيّ الأسبق في دمشق ما بين أعوام (1974 – 1978): (يجب على المرء أن يتمتّع بالكثير من الذّكاء ليتولّى رئاسة سورية)…

وليس ذلك، فقط، بسبب خصوصيّة بعض «الأشخاص» المختلفين بالبصمة القدريّة الخاصّة في شؤون مُبهمة..

وإنّما أيضاً لسبب يتضاهى بسابقه وهو أنّ من طبيعة «الإعلام» نفسه، بمفهومه الوجوديّ، أنّه «إعلام ناقص» بالطّبيعة الفطريّة للتّعبير المحدود؛ وأضيف، أيضاً، إلى هذه الحقيقة، حقيقة أخرى وهي أنّ الأمر أكثر تحدّياً وخطورة وعبَثاً، عندما يتعلّق بالأفذاذ من الرّجال، أو عندما يتعلّق بالخالدين.

2

ـ من جانب آخر فإنّ من يحكم سورية على الطّريقة الوطنيّة المسؤولة تاريخيّاً، فإنّه يحتاج إلى أن يمدّ نفوذه إلى المكان العربيّ المحيط بسورية، ببلاد الشّام، بما فيها من سرطانٍ سياسيّ في الكيان الصّهيونيّ، وبالتّالي عليه أن يكون رجل دولة تاريخيّاً يُدرك لعبة الأمم والدّول، وأن يُلِمّ بكلّ ذلك جرّاء المسؤوليّات الكبيرة نفسها التي رتّبها القدر أو التّاريخ على هذا المكان الذي انفرد عالميّاً بصفات متنحيّة وسائدة في وقت واحد، وهي صفات العمق التّاريخيّ والتّركيب الظّرفيّ و«أسلوب الإنتاج الآسيويّ» المعقّد بتداخل تشكيلات اجتماعيّة – اقتصاديّة وسياسيّة متزمّنة ما بينها، في ما بينها، تصنع المكان كلّها في اندغام وانسجام وتواطؤ مُبهم ومؤامرات دوليّة و«حُلُمٌ عالميّ»، وخيانات نوعيّة اختصّ بها أغلب حكام شعوب المنطقة التي اعتدت على ملكيّات وأقدار المكان الكأداء و«أسواء طالعه» التي لا تنتهي.

3

ـ حكمت سياسة الرئيس حافظ الأسد، بالمطلق، همومه الخاصّة والدّفينة والمقدّسة التي تُعيد الوجه المقاوم الشّريف للمكان، في كيفيّة وفلسفة الخروج من مستنقع حزيران النّكسة، في الوقت الذي كان فيه الرّاحل الخالد، ينظر إلى هذه «الواقعة» كمستنقع شلّ الوطنيّة والعروبة وجعل منهما مجترّاً للمساومات والمزايدات والاتّهامات والعنجهيّات الصّهيونيّة والغربيّة التي جعلت نظرتها إلى سورية والعروبة، تساوي نظرتها إلى منطقة هامدة خاملة وكأنّها قطعة من أقاصي العالم يُنظر إليها على أنّها «مختبرٌ» أنثروبولوجيّ وسياسيّ نموذجيّ لدراسة نظريّات انهزام الشّعوب والأمم وامّحائها عن خارطة العالم المعاصر المحسوبة في عداد المناطق، التي تحوي شعوباً هي من خارج مكوّنات سياق التّاريخ الحيّ وأولى بالانقراض.

كانت هذه الأهجوسة تسكن عقل الرئيس حافظ الأسد وتوجّه طرائق تفكيره وطموحاته وآماله بإثبات كذب هذه «الحقيقة» والعمل على ازدرائها، كواحدة من الهامشيّات التّاريخيّة التي تحتاج إلى حذف ورمي في سلّة مهملات العالم المعاصر، واستعادة الكرامة لهذه المنطقة العربيّة، بما في ذلك العمل على إثبات حقيقة العروبة الحيّة التي تخاذلت دونها دول عربيّة وحكومات واهنة وخائنة تقف صراحة في طابور أعداء العرب والعروبة وجميع الأمم النّازعة إلى وجود حيّ معتبر ومؤثّر وفاعل، ليس على مستوى المكان وحسب، وإنّما أيضاً في المنطقة والعالم.

4

ـ كان إيمان الرئيس حافظ الأسد بنفسه كجزء من إيمانه بالحقّ الوجوديّ التّاريخيّ لأمّته، محرّكاً لأفكاره القومّية التي كان يعنيه كثيراً، من التّاريخ، أحكامه القاسية العادلة منها والجائرة، فكان عندما لا يوافق عبثُ التّاريخ طموحاتِهِ، يُعاند التّاريخ بثقة أنّ للتّاريخ فلتاته العمياء القصيرة أو الطّويلة الأجل، والتي يمكن للإرادة الوجوديّة أن تشكّل طارئاً على فقدان التّاريخ لصوابيّته وعدالته، وأن تصحّح من مجريات هذا التّاريخ الذي كان الرئيس حافظ الأسد مكظوظاً بتجنّب استعادة التّاريخ لسخريّته بالحكم على عقم العرب والسّوريين، هذا الحكم الذي هو من الأوهام التّاريخيّة التي تعزّزها خيانات بعض أصحاب القضيّة العربيّة من حكام مهزولين.

لقد عنى له التّاريخ حاكماً حازماً، فبحث له وللسّوريين وللعرب على شهادة قسريّة يصدرها التّاريخ – وقد أصدرها – على تفوّق الإنسانّية والبشريّة في هذه البقعة المنسيّة من تاريخ العالم الحديث. كانت المعاصرة بالنّسبة إلى حافظ الأسد بنظرته الشّخصيّة في الأسلوبّية التي تحوّل الضّعف إلى قوّة، ليست محلّيّة ووطنيّة فقط وإنّما عربيّة ودوليّة أيضاً. ولقد كان لحافظ الأسد ما أراد.

5

ـ كان حافظ الأسد متجاوزاً النّدّيّة لأقوى وأذكى وأفهم وأعتى رجالات الولايات المتّحدة الأميركيّة وعلى رأسهم حاخام الصّهيونيّة العالم الأكبر هنري كيسنجر، والحاخامات الصّهيونية، في وقت لم يكن لسورية ولا للعرب أيّة نأمة تندّ عنهم، غائصين في وحول الضّعف والهوان والخنوع والقهر التّاريخيّ الطّويل..

وحين يكون الحديث عن الرئيس حافظ الأسد، فلتطأطئ الرّؤوسُ كلُّها هاماتها، وليشهد التّاريخ العربيّ – الإسلاميّ أنّ حافظ الأسد قد بزّ، حتّى عتاة ودهاقنة منذ انتهاء الخلافة الرشدية حتى اليوم، كما جارى وتجاوز، وتفوّق على، شخوص حضاريّة عربيّة وسوريّة منذ (سومر) و(آشور) و(بابل) و(أكّاد)، كان لهم السّبق في وجود هذا “المكان».

6

ـ لا نتحدّث هنا عن «آراء»، ولا نقدّم رأياً شخصيّاً – مع أنّه غير مجروح، نظراً لعالميّة شخصيّة حافظ الأسد – وإنّما نحن نشير إلى مفارقة قلّما يقف عندها الآخرون بما فيهم أدعياء العدالة، وهي أنّ حافظ الأسد قد خلق «شيئاً» كبيراً في «المكان»، على مستوى الوطنيّة والعروبيّة والسّوريّة والإسلام، وذلك من واقع عربي بائس يمكن أن يكون أفضل وصف له، هو الفراغ والذّل والمؤامرة على الذّات والجهل والهمجيّة والقبليّة والطّائفيّة وجميع الموجودات الاجتماعيّة البربريّة والانقسامات العموديّة العنصريّة والفواصل الأفقيّة في التّواصل والثّقافات، وكذلك الارتهان المباشر والاستخذاء أمام الغربيّ والصّهيونيّ والعدوّ.

7

ـ وقد جسّدت مباحثات الأسد – كيسينجر أعقد مباحثات تاريخّية بين حضارتيْ الشّرق، متمثّلة بحافظ الأسد، والغرب، متمثّلة بهنري كيسينجر الذي مثّل علاوة على موقعه الحضاريّ المتقدّم المطلق، أدهى وأنكى ما تكاثف من تجربة يهوديّة – صهيونيّة على مدى ثلاثة آلاف عام.

تحدّى الأسد الولايات المتّحدة ومن خلفها زبانية حضارة الغرب الصّهيونيّة والمتصهينة وفي طليعتها ما يُعرف بدولة “إسرائيل».

وفي هذا التّفصيل الطّويل لم يعط برنامج «الميادين» عنه، الرجل حقَّه، وخاصة في إبراز دور «الشّخص» في التّاريخ عندما يعارض ويتعارض مع تاريخ «حضاريّ» يكاد يكون بلا بدايات معروفة في التّاريخ السّياسيّ، وبخاصّة عندما يكون هذا الشّخص فرداً لا يؤازره غير العقل المختلف والمنفرد والنّافذ والمحيط بالأقطار وهندسة الدّوائر المثلّثيّة السّياسيّة ومنطق التّفاضل والتّكامل ما فوق الرّياضيّ.

وتقع المسؤولية الأكبر في ذلك، على عاتق الأشخاص المشاركين في البرنامج.

8

ـ لم يكن حافظ الأسد هذا المقاتل الذي عبر تاريخيّاً، بقوّة الحقّ، وحسب؛ كما لم تكن روايته هي رواية مقاتل على خطوط التّماس السّياسيّة العالميّة، مثلما أنّه لم يكن، أيضاً، تلك الشّخصيّة التّاريخيّة التي كتبت سِفرها بأسلوبها الخاصّ المنقطع النّظير، فقط؛ بل لقد كان حافظ الأسد تاريخاً واستمراراً لتاريخ في الوقت الذي صمت فيه «المؤرّخون» الضّغائنيّون، في ما عجز فيه أولئك المتواضعو الموهبة والمعرفة التاريخية.

9

ـ أدرك حافظ الأسد الصّراع السّياسيّ بين الأضداد التّاريخيّة على أنّه استمرار لصراع حضاريّ على الاستحواذ على حكاية التّاريخ، وما هذه المقطوعة الرّوائيّة التي عاصرها سوى جزء مستمرّ ومعمِّقٍ لكتابة الحضارة العالميّة، وكان أعظم من ترك في الصّيغ والعبارات والمفاهيم والمصطلحات والممارسات، الأثر الُمكَمّلَ، المفصليّ والمحوريّ، والشّجاع، لهذا الفصل الحضاريّ في سِفر شخصيّ قلّما يكون فيه للتّاريخ نكهة البطولة في الصّراعات التّراجيديّة البشريّة، لولا أثر الأفراد العظماء والأبطال الأسطوريين فيه.

10

ـ في الحرب و«السّلام» كان لحافظ الأسد دور المجالدين الأحرار والمصارعين الأسياد، وهو ما عبّر عنه في اختزاليّة راحت مثلاً عندما أسمى ذلك الدّور بالحرب من أجل “سلام الشّجعان»، حيث قال: «حاربنا بشرف، ونفاوض بشرف، ونسالم بشرف»..

الرّجال، عظماء التّاريخ، يولدون في إطار خطّة قدر جليلة ومحكمة، وهم يُدركون بحدسهم الموضوعيّ العبقريّ خطّة أقدارهم، وهم يتفانون لأجلها بعيداً عن العواطف ومفرزاتها من الحبّ والكراهيّة، قابلين كلّ تبعاتها المضنية والممتعة، لا فرقَ، متجاوزين كلّ ذلك إلى مأثرة الخلود. وهذا هو حافظ الأسد.

11

ـ وأما الرئيس بشّار الأسد، وهو الذي لم يُفطرْ على حبّ الشّهرة… إلّا أنّ العظماء الذين يحتقرون الشّهرة الزّائفة والفارغة، غالباً ما تُدركهم شهرة من نوع آخر، وهي شهرة مَن أدرك، بالفطرة والقصد والتّقدير السّماويّ، أنّ أهمية «الأشخاص» في التاريخ، تكون بقدر تقاطع أو اندماج قدرهم الشّخصيّ بأقدار القضايا الوجوديّة العادلة لأممهم، وبأقدار الشّعوب أصحاب هذه القضايا العادلة.

لقد عبّر هيغل في زمنه عن هذه «الموضوعة» العبقريّة عندما صاغ ذلك في أنّ الأبطال التّاريخيين فيما هم يصنعون أقدارهم الواعية والمفهومة، إنّما يندمجون في ذلك، بقصد ومن غير قصد، في صناعة أقدار أممهم، وذلك مهما يكن هذا القدر وذلك التّقدير عليه من مشقّات وإن شئتَ فمن مُحالات.

كانت خطّة القدر أن يصل الأسد (بشّار الأسد) إلى القيادة التّاريخيّة لسورية وللعروبة، في زمن انهار فيه العالم وتكاثف، مُستَقطَباً، على فكرة جديدة هي إعادة صناعة العالم على طراز جديد في الألفيّة الثّالثة من حضارتنا المشهودة.

12

ـ انحسر العالم عن زمان (حافظ الأسد)، وطرحت سياسات العالم مشروعات «عالميّة» غريبة وجديدة كلّ الجدّة في تفاصيلها الموجعة، ولو أنّ الهدف هو استمرار لِـ»خطّة العالم» العتيقة في مضمونها الالتهاميّ للبشَر. وتسارعت خطى إعادة «اختلاق» الشّرق الأوسط الجديد، بواسطة أحدث ما تفتّق عنه دهاء السّياسات العالميّة العنيفة، فيما سمّي بِـ»الفوضى الخلّاقة».

تقاطرت في سبيل ذلك أمام الرئيس (بشّار الأسد)، «المستحيلات»؛ ونحن لن نعدّدها لأنّ مفاعيلها لم تكن لتقتصر عليها كأحداث عالميّة جلجلت منطقتنا، ولكنْ لأنّ مفاعيلها كانت أن حدّدت ورسمت من قبل «مهندسي» العالم، لتقلب وجه العالم كلّه مع ما ينطوي عليه هذا التّعبير من مواجهة حصريّة وشخصيّة وخاصّة تتحدّى (سورية)، حصراً، و«تتجاوزها» إلى تحدّي “الشّخص»، القائد المعاصر، (بشّار الأسد)، هذا الرّجل الذي تمّ اكتشافه بسرعة صراحة وصلابة مواقفه في حضرة «الحق»ّ، كابتسارٍ صريحٍ لتحدّيهِ العالمَ في قلب العالم وقلب «الشّرق الأوسط» وقلب «المشروع العالميّ» الذي على من أراد أن يفهمه، فليتحوّل، مباشرة، إلى إدراك أهمّيّة (“إسرائيل») في المنطقة وفي العالم.

للسّياسة، دون الكثير من «المقولات»، غايةٌ «حيويّة» عالميّة، تقع خارجها، فتختلط، بسبب ذلك، عند الكثيرين من الدّعيين، الأسباب بالنّتائج.

13

ـ الّلافتُ في الرئيس (بشّار الأسد) – ومن دون أيّة نأمة تصدر عن أيّة مقارنة من المقارنات التّاريخيّة، ذلك أنّ «الأشخاص» والقادة التّاريخيين، غالباً ما تكون المقارنات المعقودة بينهم، هي مقارنات غير واقعيّة، لأنّ المقارنة تكون، أبداً، في «الكمّ» وليس في «النّوع»! والمفارق في شخصيّته كقائد معاصر، هو أنّه، فعلاً، وفي غضون عقد واحد من الزّمان قد حلّق على صهوة المقادير والأحداث والسّياسات واهتمامات الأفراد والشّعوب في دول وأمم ومجتمعات العالم، حتّى أنّه قد علّل وسوّغ انفراديّته وعدم عاديّته، بحيث انتقل من قدره الموضوعيّ والذّاتيّ إلى أكثر رجال المعمورة اتّقاداً و«جُذْوَةً» وشُهرة بين مليارات «الكرة الأرضيّة»، ولم يزل الأمر يتطلّب المزيد.

وقف الرئيس بشّار الأسد محطِّماً ورادماً أساسات إعادة رسم «المشهد» السّياسيّ الوطنيّ والعربيّ والدّوليّ، بما كان مطموحاً إليه لإعادة تخطيط «خريطة المنطقة».

14

ـ لقد تجشّم الرئيس بشار الأسد المحاكاة الموضوعيّة للأحداث والرّجالات في «التّاريخ» العالميّ، إذ أنّ «الأمور أشباه».

لقد كان (بيريكليس) (أعظم ساسة الإغريق) (490 – 429 ق. م) هو أحبّ رجل سياسيّ إلى الشّعب الإغريقيّ في تاريخ أثينا، مع ما اشتّهر عنه من وسامة ونبل وطيبة وحزم وحسم سياسيّ، وشجاعات مختلفة ومتعدّدة في المواجهات السّياسيّة التي لا تنتهي من أمام عظماء أبطال الرّجال، بدءاً بالكلمات ونهايةً بالقتال..، وسماحة بالغة في النّصر..

هذا مع ميلنا الوجدانيّ إلى الإعجاب الممزوج بالغبطة والاغتباط بابتسامات الرئيس بشّار الأسد، عُلواً وارتفاعاً ورفعةً فوق مختلف وأصعب وأشقّ المقادير.

15

ـ ونقول لهواة المقارنة بين الرئيسين: ليس هناك فوارق شّخصيّة وقسمات خاصّة ومعالم شّاسعة تميّز، بين القائدين (الأسد حافظ) و(الأسد بشّار)، على مستوى «الفردانيّة» و«الخصوصية» التي ينفصل بها الرجلان، في ما بينهما، كقائدين تاريخيين..بل هما ظاهرتان متكاملتان، اندغمتا في تاريخ سورية والشرق والمنطقة والعالم، بحيث باتا ظاهرة واحدة، تعبر عن قوامها (المدرسة الأسدية) التي صنعاها ورسخاها وخلداها.

ولن يكون لِكلمة “الفردانية» و«الخصوصية» دلالات، عندما لا تظهر فروق بين «الظّاهرتين»، والتي تجعل كلّاً منهما «ظاهرة» يحتاج إليها تاريخ سورية المعاصر.. وتجعلهما معاً قدر التاريخ وخيار الشعب السوري، في آن واحد.

Netanyahu Boasts Overthrowing Sudan’s 3 No’s, MBS to Normalize Saudi Ties with ‘Israel’ if Trump Re-elected

Calling the US-brokered agreement between Israel and Sudan an “incredible transformation”, the Zionist Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu boasted overthrowing the three No’s of Sudan announced in 1967.

“In Khartoum, the capital of Sudan, in 1967 the Arab League adopted it’s three ‘No’s’: ‘No to peace with Israel, no to recognition of Israel and no to negotiations with Israel.’”

“But today Khartoum has said, ‘yes to peace with Israel, yes to recognition of Israel and yes to normalization with Israel.’ This is a new era. An era of true peace. A peace that is expanding with other Arab countries – with three of them joining in recent weeks,” the Israeli premier continued.

Meanwhile, the Zionist circles stressed that the Saudi Crown Prince, Mohammad bin Salman, is the main contributor to the process of Arab normalization with ‘Israel’, adding that he has not stopped receiving Israeli delegations.

Saudi is hiding its strong tendency to normalize ties with the Zionist entity behind the rush of a number of other Arab states to do that, according to the Zionist circles which added that MBS will vigorously move to sign a ‘peace’ agreement with ‘Israel’.

Source: Al-Manar English Website

الانتخابات الأميركيّة ودعم العدو الصهيونيّ!

د. محمد سيد أحمد

ليست المرة الأولى التي نتحدث فيها عن العلاقة العضوية بين الولايات المتحدة الأميركية والعدو الصهيونيّ، وليست المرة الأولى أيضاً التي نتحدّث فيها عن العلاقة التاريخية بين مجتمعاتنا العربية والعدو الصهيوني، تلك العلاقة التي اتسمت بالعداء التام حتى نصر أكتوبر/ تشرين الأول 1973 حيث بدأ الأميركان في صياغة منظومة قيم جديدة داخل مجتمعاتنا العربية يحاولون من خلالها إنهاء حالة العداء مع الصهاينة ونسج علاقة جديدة على أقلّ تقدير تقبل بالتعايش معهم وتقوم بتطبيع العلاقات. وقد كانت خطة الأميركان تعتمد على قدرتهم في التأثير على دوائر صنع القرار داخل مجتمعاتنا العربية، وقد نجحت الخطة الأميركية ذات النفس الطويل في تحقيق ما خططت له على مدار ما يقرب من نصف قرن من الزمان.

والعلاقة بين مجتمعاتنا العربية والعدو الصهيوني علاقة تاريخية تجاوزت قرناً من الزمان، وارتبطت تلك العلاقة بمنظومة القيم التي تشكلت عبر التفاعلات الاجتماعية بين الطرفين، ففي الوقت الذي نشأت فيه فكرة قيام وطن قومي لليهود وتمّ الاستقرار على أن يكون هذا الوطن هو فلسطين العربية، بدأت العلاقة تتكوّن وبدأت منظومة القيَم تتشكل، وإذا كانت الفكرة الصهيونية الأساسية ترتكز على اقتلاع شعب من أرضه حتى يتمكّن اليهود من جمع شتاتهم عبر الاستيطان في هذه الأرض الجديدة فهذا يعني أنّ القيمة الناتجة عن عملية الاقتلاع ستكون هي العداء المطلق.

وبالفعل بدأت عملية التهجير القسريّ للشعب الفلسطيني وبشكل ممنهج منذ نهاية القرن التاسع عشر وبداية القرن العشرين، وتعدّ هذه العملية من أكثر عمليات انتهاك حقوق الإنسان في تاريخ البشرية، لذلك لا عجب أن تتشكل منظومة قيم عدائية تجاه الصهاينة المغتصبين للأرض والتي تعرف في الثقافة العربية التقليدية بأنها عرض، وبالطبع وجد العدو الصهيوني في القوى الاستعمارية ضالته المفقودة، حيث ساعدته ومكّنته من عمليات التهجير القسريّ مما مكّنه من إعلان دولته المزعومة قرب منتصف القرن العشرين.

وفي أعقاب إعلان الدولة المزعومة للعدو الصهيوني كان الصراع العربي معه قد بدأ، حيث تحرّكت ستة جيوش عربية للدفاع عن الأرض الفلسطينية المغتصبة في عام 1948 وكانت هزيمة الجيوش العربيّة بداية جديدة لترسيخ قيّم العداء لهؤلاء الصهاينة ليس فقط على مستوى الشعب الفلسطيني بل على مستوى الشعب العربي بكامله من المحيط إلى الخليج، ومما زاد ووسع رقعة العداء هو مشاركة العدو الصهيوني في العدوان الثلاثي على مصر في عام 1956.

ثم كان التحرك الأكبر لتوسيع رقعة العداء وترسيخه داخل منظومة القيم العربية بالعدوان الجديد في 5 يونيو/ حزيران 1967 حيث نالت الأمة العربية هزيمة جديدة في مواجهة العدو الصهيوني، وتمّ اغتصاب أرض عربية جديدة في فلسطين ومصر وسورية والأردن ولبنان وهي دول المواجهة مع العدو الصهيوني، وبذلك تأكدت الفكرة الصهيونية التاريخية والتي تتجسّد في مقولة «دولتك يا إسرائيل من الفرات إلى النيل»، وهي العبارة المسجّلة فوق باب الكنيست والتي تجسّد الأطماع الصهيونيّة في الأرض العربية.

وتحت ضغط الشعب العربي الغاضب خاضت مصر وسورية وبدعم عربي شبه كامل حرب أكتوبر/ تشرين 1973 حيث تمكّنت من هزيمة العدو الصهيوني، الذي قرّر بعدها اتباع سياسة جديدة برعاية أميركية يسعى من خلالها لإنهاء الصراع العربي معه، وإحلال سلام مزعوم عبر تسويات عربية منفردة، وهنا جاءت كامب ديفيد والتي شكلت بداية الخلل في منظومة القيم العربية التقليدية في مواجهة العدو الصهيوني، حيث بدأ التطبيع الرسميّ مع العدو، ورغم المقاومة الشعبية إلا أنه مع الوقت بدأت تتسع دائرة المطبّعين سراً ثم جهراً.

ولم تعُد المسألة تطبيعاً رسمياً فقط بل بدأت بعض الأصوات داخل النخبة السياسية والثقافية العربية تنادي بالتطبيع مع العدو الصهيوني وهو ما ألقى بظلاله على منظومة القيّم العربية تجاه هذا العدو، حيث تأثر العقل الجمعي بشكل كبير فعندما حاول ترامب خلال فترة ولايته الأولى تقديم الدعم للعدو الصهيونيّ من أجل نيل رضا اللوبي الصهيوني بالداخل الأميركي وأعلن عن نقل سفارة بلاده إلى القدس، ثم إعلان القدس عاصمة أبدية للعدو الصهيوني، وأخيراً ضمّ الجولان واعتبارها جزءاً من دولة العدو الصهيوني المزعومة، لم نشهد تلك التحركات الشعبية الغاضبة التي كانت تنفجر في مواجهة أيّ فعل عدائي يقوم به العدو الصهيوني ضدّ مجتمعاتنا العربية، بل أصبح هناك من يرى زيارات ومقابلات المسؤولين الصهاينة أمراً عادياً لا يستدعي الغضب.

ولم تتوقف الولايات المتحدة الأميركية عند ذلك الحدّ بل لا تزال تمارس خطتها الجهنمية في تغيير منظومة القيم المطبعة مع العدو الصهيوني، حيث استغلّ ترامب قرب الانتخابات الرئاسية وقام بإقناع بعض الدول العربية بتوقيع اتفاقيات سلام مزعومة جديدة في محاولة أخيرة منه لحسم سباق الرئاسة لمصلحته عبر كسب أصوات ودعم اللوبي الصهيوني له في المجمع الانتخابي الفيصل في الانتخابات الرئاسية الأميركية.

لذلك يجب علينا أن ندعم قيَم العداء في مواجهة العدو الصهيوني، ونعيد ترسيخها داخل العقل والضمير الجمعي العربي، ونكشف زيف ادّعاءات تيار التطبيع السياسي والاجتماعي والاقتصادي والثقافي مع العدو الصهيوني والذي يرفع راية السلام المزعوم، وهو التيار الذي ترسّخ منذ كامب ديفيد وحتى اليوم واستطاع عبر السنوات الأخيرة أن يكسب أرضيّة واسعة لدى الأجيال الجديدة التي تحصل على معارفها ومعلوماتها عبر مواقع التواصل الاجتماعي التي يسيطر عليها الأميركان والصهاينة وأعوانهم داخل مجتمعاتنا العربية.

اللهم بلغت اللهم فاشهد.

مقالات متعلقة

Towards a “New Cold War” in the Middle East: Geopolitics of the Persian Gulf and the Battle for Oil and Gas

By Germán Gorraiz López

Global Research, July 21, 2020

The foundations of the great Near East were established in the Pact of Quincey (1945) following the doctrine of the Franco-British Sykes-Picot agreements of 1916 that favored the regional division of power in areas of influence and sustained on the tripod US-Egypt- Saudi Arabia. This doctrine consisted in the endemic survival in Egypt of pro-western autocratic military governments, which ensured the survival of the State of Israel (1948) and provided the US Navy with privileged access to the Suez Canal, a crucial shortcut for access direct to the United Arab Emirates, Iraq and Afghanistan, remaining as a firm bastion of US geopolitical interests in the area, especially after the fall of the Shah of Persia in 1980.

The other pillar of the agreement consisted of the privileged access of the United States to Saudi Arabian oil in exchange for preserving its autocratic regime and favoring the spread of Wahhabism (doctrine founded by Mohamed Abdel Wahab in the mid-eighteenth century with the aim of becoming a vision attractive to Islam and exportable to the rest of the Arab countries), with which the Saudi theocracy became a regional power that provided the US with the key to energy dominance while serving as a retaining wall for socialist and pan-Arab currents. Finally, after the Six Day War (1967), the geostrategic puzzle of the Middle East and the Near East was completed with the establishment of autocratic and pro-Western regimes in the countries surrounding Israel (Libya, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran), leaving the Palestinians confined in the ghettos of the West Bank and Gaza.

Iraq and the Biden Plan

The Biden-Gelb Plan, approved by the US Senate in 2007 and rejected by Condolezza Rice, Secretary of State with George W. Bush, provided for the establishment in Iraq of a federal system in order to prevent the collapse in the country after the withdrawal of US troops and proposed separating Iraq into Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni entities, under a federal government in Baghdad charged with the care of the borders and the administration of oil revenues.

Thus, we will attend the appearance of Free Kurdistan presided over by Masoud Barzani with capital in Kirkust and that would include annexed areas taking advantage of the power vacuum left by the Iraqi Army such as Sinkar or Rabia in the province of Ninive, Kirkuk and Diyala as well as all the cities of Syrian Kurdish ethnicity (except Hasaka and Qamishli) occupied by the Kurdish insurgency of the BDP.

The new Kurdistan will have the blessings of the United States and will have financial autonomy by owning 20% of the farms of all Iraqi crude oil with the “sine qua non condition” to supply Turkey, Israel and Eastern Europe with Kurdish oil through the Kirkust pipeline that empties into the Turkish port of Ceyhan. On the other hand, the Sunistan with capital in Mosul and that would cover the Sunni cities of Ramadi, Falluja, Mosul, Tal Afar and Baquba (Sunni triangle), with strong connections with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates and that would later lead to a radical pan-Islamist movement that it will use the oil weapon to strangle the western economies in the horizon of the next five-year period.

Finally, as the third leg of the tripod, we would have Iraqi Chi with capital in Baghdad that will counterbalance Saudi Wahhabism and that will gravitate in the orbit of influence of Iran, which will make Iran a great regional power in clear conflict with Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Iran, guardian of the Gulf and energy power

Iran acquired a regional power dimension thanks to the erratic policy of the United States in Iraq, (fruit of the political administration myopia obsessed with the Axis of Evil) by eliminating its ideological rivals, the Sunni Taliban radicals and Saddam Hussein with the subsequent power vacuum in the area. He also proposed a global negotiation with the contact group to deal with all the aspects that have confronted Western countries for thirty years, both the suffocating embargo that has plagued the Islamic Republic and the Iranian assets blocked in the United States, the role Iran regional cooperation and security cooperation in Iraq and Afghanistan.The Middle East: A Review of Geopolitical Structures, Vectors of Power Dynamic

President Mahmoud Ajmadinejad stretched the rope to the limit in the security that the United States would not attack and would limit any individual action by Israel (a discarded project of bombarding the Natanz plant with commercial jets), as a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz through which it passes A third of the world’s energy traffic could exacerbate the global economic recession and profoundly weaken the entire international political system. Thus, in an interview with Brzezinski conducted by Gerald Posner in The Daily Beast (September 18, 2009), he stated that “an American-Iranian collision would have disastrous effects for the United States and China, while Russia would emerge as the great winner, as the foreseeable closure of the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf where oil transportation destined for Northeast Asia (China, Japan and South Korea), Europe and the United States passes, would raise the price of black gold to stratospheric levels and would have severe repercussions on the economy global, becoming the totally crude EU dependent on Russia.

According to experts, Iran would possess the world’s third largest proven reserves of oil and gas, but it would not have enough technology to extract the gas from the deepest fields and would require an urgent multimillion-dollar investment to avoid irreversible deterioration of its facilities, which in practice it translates into a huge pie for Russian, Chinese and Western multinationals and an increase in the supply of Iranian crude oil to 1.5 million barrels / day within a year, with the consequent drop in prices. of the Brent and Texas reference crudes.

Furthermore, the revitalization of the 2010 energy cooperation agreement between Iraq, Iran and Syria for the construction of the South Pars-Homms gas pipeline that would connect the Persian Gulf with the Mediterranean Sea would relativize the strategic importance of the Trans-Adriatic Gas Pipeline Project (TAP) , (a substitute for the failed Nabucco gas pipeline designed by the US to transport Azerbaijani gas to Europe through Turkey), as well as the relevant role of the United Arab Emirates as suppliers of crude oil to the West, which would explain the eagerness of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey for torpedoing him.

America’s “Project of the New Middle East”

Ralph Peters Map: The Project for the New Middle East. Used for teaching purposes at the military academies. (“Unofficial”)  

Are Iraq and Iran the bait for the US to involve Russia and China in a new war?

Former President Carter’s National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski in a speech to the Iranian-American National Council (NIAC) stated that “I believe that the US has the right to decide its own national security policy and not follow like a stupid mule what the Israelis do. ” In addition, Brzezinski, would be faced with the neocon republican and Jewish lobbies of the USA and with his habitual biting he would have discredited the geostrategic myopia of both pressure groups when affirming that “they are so obsessed with Israel, the Persian Gulf, Iraq and Iran that they have lost from the global picture: the true power in the world is Russia and China, the only countries with a true capacity to resist the United States and England and on which they would have to focus their attention ”.

We would thus be at a crucial moment to define the mediate future of the Middle East and Middle East (PROME East), since after the arrival of Donald Trump from the White House the pressure of the pro-Israeli lobby of the USA (AIPAC) would be increasing to proceed the destabilization of Iran by expeditious methods, a moment that will be used by the United States, Great Britain and Israel to proceed to redesign the cartography of the unrelated puzzle formed by these countries and thus achieve strategically advantageous borders for Israel, following the plan orchestrated 60 years ago. jointly by the governments of Great Britain, the United States and Israel and which would have the backing of the main western allies. Thus, after the approval by the Congress and the US Senate of a declaration prepared by the Republican Senator Lindsey Graham and the Democrat Robert Menéndez, who clearly states that “if Israel is forced to defend itself and take action (against Iran), the US will be at your side to support it militarily and diplomatically”, with the Trump Administration we will assist the increase in pressure from the pro-Israeli lobby of the USA (AIPAC) to proceed with the destabilization of Iran by expeditious methods.

In a first phase of said plan, the US Senate unanimously renewed the Sanctions Against Iran Act (ISA) until 2026 and after the launch of a new ballistic missile by Iran, Trump expanded the sanctions against several Iranian companies related to ballistic missiles without violating the Nuclear Agreement signed between the G + 5 and Iran in 2015, known as the Comprehensive Joint Action Plan (JCPOA) and which would only be fireworks to distract attention from the Machiavellian Plan outlined by the Anglo-Jewish Alliance in 1960 that would include the Balkanization of Iran and whose turning point would be the recent assassination of the charismatic General Qasem Soleimani.

This war could lead to a new local episode that would be involve a return to a “recurrent endemism” of the US-Russia Cold War involving both superpowers having as necessary collaborations the major regional powers namely Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

This Cold War scenario would cover the geographic space that extends from the Mediterranean arc (Libya, Syria and Lebanon) to Yemen and Somalia and having Iraq as its epicenter (recalling the Vietnam War with Lindon B. Johnson (1963-1.969).

Thus, Syria, Iraq and Iran would be the bait to attract both Russia and China and after triggering a concatenation of local conflicts (Syria, Iraq and Lebanon), this potentially could evolve towards a major regional conflict that could mark the future of the area in the coming years.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Silent Crow NewsThe original source of this article is Global ResearchCopyright © Germán Gorraiz López, Global Research, 2020

The Six-Day War: The Myth of an Israeli David Versus an Arab Goliath

By Miko Peled

Source

The son of an Israeli General, Miko Peled reflects on the nefarious intent behind what was presented to the world as the heroic triumph of an outmatched Israel vs its aggressive Arab neighbors

June 2, 1967, was a tense day at the Israeli army headquarters in Tel Aviv. For weeks, IDF generals had been pushing the government to initiate a war and the atmosphere was tense. Israel’s Prime Minister Levi Eshkol, who also acted as minister of defense, came to see the generals at the IDF command center. All the generals who made up the IDF high command were present. This meeting became known as the showdown. Years later, some would even accuse the army of an attempted coup d’etat.

A fraud

One of the biggest frauds perpetrated by the Israeli military is the claim that the Six-Day War was initiated by Israel due to an existential threat. The reality though is that in 1967, the Israeli army faced an elected civilian government that was less excited about the prospects of war than the generals were. So, as is clearly seen in the minutes of meetings between IDF generals from those days, minutes that are available in the IDF archives, seeing that the government was hesitant, the military decided to sow fear, and they did it very effectively, claiming that the Jewish state faced an existential threat and that the army must act decisively.

The deception worked and over the following three days, Eshkol was forced to yield. He resigned his post as minister of defense and gave it to retired army Chief of Staff, General Moshe Dayan. The IDF generals got the war they so badly wanted. They initiated a massive assault against Egypt, reducing the Egyptian military to ashes and taking over the entire Sinai Peninsula. As a result, the IDF was able to capture the largest stockpile of Russian made military hardware outside of the Soviet Union.

Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshko Peled

Israel would make good use of the knowledge that came with this loot.

It also captured thousands of Egyptian soldiers who were stationed in the Sinai Desert and caught unprepared. According to the testimonies of Israeli officers, at least two thousand Egyptian prisoners of war were executed right there and buried in the dunes.

But the generals were not satisfied. They seized the opportunity that they were given and decided to make the most of it. Without any discussion, much less approval from the elected civilian government, the army proceeded to take the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and something the generals had been chomping at the bit to take for many years, the fertile water-rich Syrian Golan Heights, tripling the size of the state of Israel. They had finally completed the conquest of Palestine and pushed the eastern border of Israel all the way to the Jordan River.

The military moved like a bulldozer, destroying cities and towns both in the Golan Heights and in the West Bank. As a result, countless Syrians who lived in the Golan Heights, and hundreds of thousands of Palestinian residents of the West Bank and East Jerusalem became refugees.

The myth of the threat

As the generals themselves stated during their meetings prior to the war, the entire affair was about seizing an opportunity to start a war they knew they would win, and not about averting some existential threat. In fact, the word “opportunity” is mentioned several times in their discussions and the word “threat” is not mentioned at all.

One general who was present in the June 2 meeting was my father, General Matti Peled. According to accounts by some of his comrades who were there, accounts that I later verified by reading the minutes of the meetings, he stood up and told Prime Minister Eshkol that the Egyptian army was an ill-prepared army and therefore Israel must seize the opportunity to destroy it. He stated that the Egyptian army, which at the time was recovering from a war in Yemen, would need at least a year and a half to two years before it was prepared for war. The other generals concurred. My father then went further and said that the IDF command “demands to know why this army that has never lost a battle” is being held back. He didn’t say one word about a threat.

General Matti Peled Six-Day War

More of the minutes of the general’s meeting are included in my book, “The General’s Son,” but it is clear that Israel initiated the war, not out of concern for the safety of Israel, but out of a desire to demonstrate its power and use it to achieve territorial gains. For anyone paying attention the result of the war proved that there could not possibly have been a military threat to Israel. However, people were so moved by the story of little David defending himself from the onslaught of the evil Goliath that they let themselves be taken by the fraud.

Divine intervention

There is a story that I heard from Rabbi Moishe Beck, a revered Ultra-Orthodox Rabbi who used to live in Jerusalem and moved to New York. I asked him why he decided to leave after the Six-Day War. He told me that he was sitting in a bomb shelter in Jerusalem’s Me’a Sha’arim neighborhood and there was the sound of shelling not far from there. At one point, people could hear Israeli Air Force planes flying overhead and began referring to the IDF successes as a sign of divine intervention. He found it abhorrent that people would see the Zionist state military force, which he viewed as criminal, as divine intervention. As soon as he was able, he took his family and with very little means, left Jerusalem. He did not want his children to grow up in an atmosphere that idolized the Israeli military, or any military for that matter.

Many years later, while sitting with Ultra-Orthodox friends in New York, I was asked if it was true that the 1967 victory was so unpredictable that even people who were secular saw it as divine intervention. There was nothing divine about the Israeli assault and the theft of Arab lands. Not in 1967 and not at any other time. The Israeli army was well prepared, well-armed, and well trained and the generals knew victory was inevitable.

The writing on the wall

Israel had, in fact, intended to occupy the West Bank and the Golan Heights many years prior to 1967 and the war presented the perfect opportunity. In the memoirs of Israel’s second Prime Minister, Moshe Sharet, he describes a meeting that took place in Jerusalem in 1953 where dignitaries from around the world were present. Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, was also present.

One of the presentations given to this gathering was by my father, then a young and promising IDF officer. He gave the talk in English which he spoke well, and among other things, he stated in no uncertain terms that the IDF was prepared for the moment that the order would be given to “push Israel’s eastern border to its natural place, the Jordan River.” In other words, take the West Bank and complete the conquest of historic Palestine.

Today we know that Israel had plans in place to occupy and impose its own military rule in the West Bank as early 1964. It is also well known that Israel initiated skirmishes with the Syrian army throughout the early 1960s in the hopes that Syria would initiate a war.

The USS Liberty

On the morning of June 8, 1967, in the midst of the war, the USS Liberty was about 17 miles off the Gaza coast, in international waters. Being an intelligence-gathering ship, it had no battle capabilities and was armed only with four fifty caliber machine guns to ward off unwanted boarders. For several hours throughout that day, Israeli Air Force reconnaissance planes had been flying over the Liberty in what seemed like attempts to identify it. The crew felt no threat – quite the opposite, Israel was a U.S. ally.

The General's Son, Journey of an Israeli in PalestineThen, at 14:00 hours, (2:00 PM local time) and without any warning, Israeli fighter jets launched an attack on USS Liberty. The attack included rockets, cannon fire, and even napalm, a toxic, flammable combination of gel and petroleum that sticks to the skin and causes severe burns.

The attack ended with 34 U.S. sailors dead and 174 injured, many seriously. As the wounded were being evacuated, an officer with the Office of Naval Intelligence instructed the men not to talk to the press about their ordeal.

Within three weeks of the attack, the Navy put out a 700-page report exonerating the Israelis, claiming the attack had been accidental and that the Israelis had pulled back as soon as they realized their mistake. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara suggested the whole affair should be forgotten. “These errors do occur,” McNamara concluded. The U.S. desire to see the Soviet arms that Israel had in its possession had something to do with the ease with which the Pentagon swept this affair under the rug.

In 2003, almost forty years after the fact, the “Moorer Commission,” an independent commission chaired by retired Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, United States Navy, was established in order to investigate the attack. The commission included a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a former Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps, retired admirals, and a former ambassador. Among its findings are the following:

That Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned the Liberty’s firefighters, stretcher-bearers and the life rafts that had been lowered into the water to rescue the most seriously wounded.”

That fearing conflict with Israel, the White House deliberately prevented the U.S. Navy from coming to the defense of USS Liberty by recalling Sixth Fleet military rescue support while the ship was under attack […] never before in American naval history has a rescue mission been cancelled when an American ship was under attack.”

That surviving crew members were threatened with “court-martial, imprisonment or worse” if they exposed the truth.”

That due to continuing pressure by the pro-Israel lobby in the United States, this attack remains the only serious naval incident that has never been thoroughly investigated by Congress.”

In five days it was over. The war ended as expected, with a massive Israeli victory. The IDF destroyed the armies of the Arab countries around it. The death toll was 18,000 Arab soldiers and 700 Israeli soldiers.

In retrospect, one would do well to stop calling what took place in June of 1967 a war, but rather an Israeli assault on its neighboring countries. The name Six-Day War was no coincidence. Israel took the name from the Jewish scriptures, more specifically from the prayer book, where one sees reference after reference to the divine creation or The Six Days of creation.

%d bloggers like this: