متى كانتْ مُساعداتُكُم مجانيةً يا حضْرة السفيرة «المَصون»؟!

السيد سامي خضرا

هكذا وبكلّ بساطة تُواصل السفيرة الأميركية لدى لبنان سفاهَتَها التي بدأتْها منذ اليوم الأول لوصولها إلى لبنان.

فهي تقوم بزيارات ونشاطات وتُكثر من التصريحات بكلّ فظاظة ووقاحة بحيثُ أنها لا تجرؤ على فعل ذلك لو كانت في بلدٍ آخر يحرص على احترام شعبه وصيانة كرامته ومراعاة قوانينه وخطوطه الحمر.

أما في لبنان فـ «السِّت المصون» تسرحُ وتمرح وتتمادى من دون ضوابط ولا حدود وهي مُطْمئنة أنّ أحداً لن يمنعها أو يُغضبها والعياذ بالله، لأنّ غاية ما يمكن أن يكون ردَّ الفعل على تصرفاتها أن يتمّ تنسيق زيارة لها، من بعد إذنها طبعاً، لمسؤول رسمي تُسمَّى «عزيمة على فنجان قهوة» على الطريقة اللبنانية، وهو مصطلح يستعمله الجبناء لمجاملة الأقوياء للضحك على الأغبياء!

فبالأمس صرَّحت حضرة السفيرة بأن «لا مساعدات مجانية للبنان بعد اليوم»!

واعجباً:

فهي تعلم ونحن نعلم وتعلم أننا نعلم كما الكلّ يعلم أنه في كلّ تاريخ السياسة الأميركية في لبنان لم يكن هناك أيّ مساعدة أو قرار أو خطوة أو تحرّك أو موقف مجاني قط بل نتعامل مع دولةٍ مُتسلطة باغية كلّ همّها تأمين سياستها الاعتدائية العدوانية على البلدان المُستعمَرَة أو المُتَسلَّط عليها لِما فيه حفظ الكيان الصهيوني الدخيل وتأمين تدفُّق النفط دون أن يكون لنا نصيب من لقمة أيتام على مائدة اللئام!

نعم:

لا شيء تُقدِّمه أميركا مجاناً لا للبنان ولا لغيره لا اليوم ولا أمس ولا غداً، ولطالما دَفَعْنا أثماناً غالية من دمائنا ودموعنا وأَرَقِنا وأَمْننا وراحتنا… صيانة لكرامتنا وسُمُو شرفنا.

لم تُقدِّمْ شيئاً مجاناً لكن المُجاهرة من السفيرة بهذا الكلام هو وقاحةٌ زائدة عن الوقاحة السائدة، فهي تتحدَّى كلّ اللبنانيين فرداً فرداً بِمَنْ فيهم الذين يعملون عبيداً بين يديها، ففي تصريحها إهانة علنية ومُباشرة للمؤسَّسات التي تَتلقَّى مساعداتها فهي تقول لهم:

إنَّ مساعدتنا ليست مجانية بل هي مقابل شيء وثمن ومواقف معنوية ومادية ترهنكم وتستنزِفكم جميعاً.

إذاً…

كلّ من يتلقى أي مساعدة عن طريق السفارة الأميركية وُجِّهَت له إهانة من الحجم الثقيل والمباشر.

فإلى متى تبقى هذه الفوضى من دون موقفٍ يُعبِّر عن كرامة لبنان واللبنانيين الذين يتحمَّلون كلّ هذه التصرفات المُشينة والتي لم تكن الأولى!

فقبل أسبوعٍ فقط وعندما فُرِضت العقوبات المعروفة على رئيس التيار الوطني الحر الأستاذ جبران باسيل عَقَّبت السفيرة مباشرةً «أنّ عندها دلائل لن تُفرِجَ عنها»!

وذلك في أغرب موقف يمكن أن تراه في عالم الإِدِّعاء أو القضاء أو المرافعة!

وأما إذا أردنا أن نستحضر كافة مواقف هذه الدبلوماسية والتي كانت تخدم في الكيان الغاصب لاحتجنا إلى مقالات عديدة لكن نكتفي بتذكير وتحذير في أنّ الأوضاع لا يمكن لها أن تستمرّ على هذا المنوال، وإلاَّ لن تُرجى لنا قيامة أو أمل بإصلاح ما دامت أمثالُ هذه النماذج تتحرك بمثلِ هذه العقلية السائبة التي لا تعتبرنا بشراً يستحقون المعاملة اللائقة!

والمطلوب فوراً لا أقلّ من وقفة عزّ يصحو بها الغافلون وينتفض لها الغيورون لنكون جديرين بعزّ لا يُميته زمان ونُوَرِّثه للأجيال…

If US sanctions on Lebanon are about corruption, Saad Hariri should be top of list

Protesters denounce politician Gebran Bassil in downtown Beirut on 8 August (AFP)

13 November 2020 10:55 UTC |

Source

Marco Carnelos

Marco Carnelos is a former Italian diplomat. He has been assigned to Somalia, Australia and the United Nations. He has served in the foreign policy staff of three Italian prime ministers between 1995 and 2011. More recently he has been Middle East Peace Process Coordinator Special Envoy for Syria for the Italian government and, until November 2017, ambassador of Italy to Iraq.

If the US was truly concerned about corruption in Lebanon, it should have targeted the discredited prime minister

المدن - حيرة سعد الحريري: "أبو السنّة" أم "إبن التسوية"؟

The US Treasury recently sanctioned Gebran Bassil, leader of the Free Patriotic Movement party and member of parliament, for his role in corruption in Lebanon, using the Magnitsky Act. This provision is deployed when human rights abuses and corruption reach such scope and gravity that they threaten the stability of international political and economic system. 

Unfortunately, as frequently occurs with the US government’s decisions, even the application of this provision is not immune to double standards. In the case of Lebanon, for Washington, corruption is not a problem – provided that you are aligned with US policies. 

In this case, however, we are facing a real mystery. According to US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, Bassil “has helped to erode the foundation of an effective government that serves the Lebanese people”. He noted that this decision “further demonstrates that the United States supports the Lebanese people in their continued calls for reform and accountability”.

Economic mismanagement 

The overall US analysis behind this decision is essentially correct. Lebanon has long suffered from endemic corruption and economic mismanagement by its historical power brokers, who have advanced their own interests at the expense of the Lebanese people. Since October 2019, widespread protests with participation from a broad segment of Lebanese society have called for political, social and economic reforms. 

All Lebanese governments have failed to curb inflation and mounting debt, as well as to improve the country’s failing infrastructure and to ensure basic services. Socioeconomic conditions for ordinary Lebanese people have continued to deteriorate, while political leaders remain insulated from the crisis. 


The US decision remains inexplicable, to say the least. It did not target one of the top people responsible for Lebanon’s chaos

The country is experiencing an energy crisis that leaves people without electricity for hours or even days at a time, and government officials appear unable to fix the problem. The political dysfunction was exemplified by the catastrophic explosion at the Beirut port on 4 August, which many saw as a further example of the negligence and corruption that victimises Lebanese citizens.

Financially, the country has already defaulted, thanks to a Ponzi scheme run for years by its central bank, and ordinary savers have been forced to settle for highly limited access to their bank deposits, bringing many to the brink of starvation.

Yet, while long overdue, the US decision remains inexplicable, to say the least. It did not target one of the top people responsible for Lebanon’s chaos: fourth-time Prime Minister Saad Hariri, who once again returned to power after he was ousted by a popular revolt in October 2019. As though nothing had occurred in recent decades, when Hariri repeatedly served as premier with zero results, he has been supported to assume the role again by the usual power brokers.  

Christian parties marginalised

Bassil, the Christian leader who aspires to succeed his father-in-law, Michel Aoun, as the country’s next president, has this time refused to support Hariri’s comeback to power, which had been pushed by some Sunni and Shia parties, including Hezbollah. The second-most important Christian party, the Lebanese Forces, took a similar decision. 

It is probably the first time, then, that a Cabinet has been formed in Lebanon without the participation of the main Christian parties – an unprecedented development that took place as major world powers watched idly, especially France, which since the 4 August explosion had taken the lead in attempts to save the country from complete collapse. 

Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri speaks with French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris in September 2019 (AFP)
Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri speaks with French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris in September 2019 (AFP)

After the blast, French President Emmanuel Macron visited Beirut twice. He made specific, sound proposals and asked for clear commitments on reforms, but his appeals went unheeded by the traditional Lebanese power brokers. 

While France has always been proud of its strict secular approach to politics, up to the point of creating deep and probably avoidable fissures  with its Muslim minority, it has also attributed to itself the historical role of protector of the Christian minorities in the Levant. 

It is thus disconcerting how Macron has tolerated the marginalisation of Christian parties in the Lebanese decision-making process, facilitating Hariri’s disgraceful comeback. How is it possible that one of the main enablers of Lebanon’s chaos has again been assigned to rule and reform the country, amid a deafening silence from Paris?

A final disappointment

The US has maintained a similarly questionable position. After mobilising against the country’s endemic corruption and Hezbollah, the Trump administration has not objected to the fact that Hezbollah’s main power-sharing partner in recent decades, Hariri, is again in charge with the support of this same movement – which, incidentally, figures prominently in the US terrorism list, as Washington pushes its European allies to follow suit with a terrorism designation.Beirut explosion: A weapon of mass corruptionRead More »

If the targeting of Bassil really aims to show that the US “supports the Lebanese people in their continued calls for reform and accountability”, then why – considering his abysmal record – has Hariri not been sanctioned as well? If the primary US concern is the struggle against corruption, why it has decided, again, to go after a relatively small fish like Bassil instead of the bigger fish, such as Hariri, Speaker Nabih Berri or veteran politician Walid Jumblatt? 

Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri, Speaker Nabih Berri and MP Walid Jumblatt  during their meeting in Beirut on Sunday evening - ASHARQ AL-AWSAT English  Archive

Even on its way out, the Trump administration never misses an opportunity to surprise. The sad news is that this time, in serving one of its last disappointments, it is in good company with the French presidency.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

Recommended

Lebanon’s Bahaa Hariri backtracks after interview with Israeli urging peace

Covid-19: Lebanon announces second lockdown after cases spikeUS sanctions imposed on Lebanon’s Gebran Bassil

The US Plan for Weakening Hezbollah: a Civil War and the Exodus of the Christians

Hezbollah and its differences with the Christians of Lebanon

By Elijah J. Magnier: @ejmalrai

The Christian political and religious leaders of Lebanon are theologically distant from Twelver Shia; they have political and ideological objectives that fundamentally differ from those of Hezbollah. Gebran Bassil, the Leader of the larger Christian Parliamentary Group “Al tayyar al-watani al-Hurr” (Free Patriotic Movement – FPM) made this clear last Sunday in a televised statement in response to US sanctions over alleged corruption and his close political alliance with Hezbollah. However, these differences of ideology are a kind of insurance, a guarantee which prevents civil war in Lebanon and the exodus of Christians from the Middle East. “This (a civil war in Lebanon and the exodus of Christians) is what Israel wishes to see, a desire expressed overtly by US officials during private meetings,” Bassil revealed. Thus, questions have to be asked: what are the fundamental differences between Lebanese Christians and Hezbollah, and what does the US want from the Christian Lebanese so as to weaken Hezbollah?

Just after the day of the Presidential election, on the fourth of November, the US administration announced- in a move that seemed incomprehensible and without strategic or tactical benefit either to Israel or the US- that it was sanctioning the MP Gebran Bassil. Bassil said that the US ambassador to Lebanon, Dorothy Shea, visited him to give him an ultimatum and warned him of the start of US sanctions if he didn’t terminate the Hezbollah FPM alliance. Bassil rejected the threat, and President Donald Trump’s administration sanctioned him. Bassil decided to reveal the content of his meetings with the US officials to strike a balance between his relationships with Hezbollah and with the west. The Christian leader detailed the points of difference with Hezbollah in terms of “thinking, language and ideology”.

The Shia Hezbollah consider the US as “the great Satan, the head of the snake”, and as far as Israel is concerned, their objective is to end its existence. Hezbollah’s aim is clearly stated: to liberate Palestine. The Christians are not the only group who don’t share the same goal as Hezbollah in Lebanon. The Shia group of Amal led by Speaker Nabih Berri, considered to be the closest ally of Hezbollah, doesn’t share Hezbollah’s slogans and objectives. Berri, unlike Hezbollah, has excellent relationships with the west and with the Gulf states.

Furthermore, Bassil has said that the Christians of Lebanon believe the relationship with the US is essential- and that it should be treated accordingly. He said that he believes that Israel has the right to live in security when the guaranteed safety of Arab territories is also provided for, and the rights of the Palestinians are guaranteed based on King Abdallah of Saudi Arabia’s peace plan. Bassil here meant the return of the Syrian occupied Golan Heights and Lebanese territories, the right of return of the Palestinian refugees, and a state for Palestine in exchange for normalisation with Israel, as stated in the Saudi King’s initiative.

This same initiative was agreed to by the late President Hafez Assad prior his meeting with Prime Minister Ehud Barak in the year 2000 but it failed at the last minute.

Syrian History - President Hafez al-Assad and US President Bill Clinton in  Geneva in March 2000
The Syrian side, from right to left: National Security Adviser Abdul Raouf al-Kassem, President Assad, his interpreter Bouthaina Shaaban, Foreign Minister Farouk al-Shara, the presidential note-taker Iskandar Luka. The US side, from left to right: Middle East envoy Dennis Ross, Secretary of State Warren Christopher, President Clinton, National Security Advisor Sandy Berger

(FACT: Hafez Assad never met with Barak. Hafez Assad met with CLINTON in Geneva in March 2000, not with Barak as the author claimed)

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Lebanese President Emil Lahoud, both close allies of Hezbollah, agreed on King Abdallah’s peace plan initially proposed in December 2002.

(FACT: King Abdulla and others failed to pass the so called Arab initiative without ROR. Thanks for Presidents Lahoud and Bashar who insisted that the initiative Must contain the RIGHT OF RETURN, moreover, Lahoud prevented Arafat from addressing the SUMMIT, as planned, to declare Palestinian approval of the initiative as written by US ). Related Video

The Palestinian Authority (PLO) and Hamas are both calling for the right of return of refugees and two states in Palestine to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

It is clear that Bassil doesn’t want to look as if he is totally in the arms of Hezbollah, nor does he accept a conditional relationship with the West when the stated conditions could lead to civil war in Lebanon. What Bassil did not share was the US Ambassador to Lebanon’s request to join, in one coalition, the Christian “Lebanese Forces” of Samir Geagea and the Kataeb, and the Druse of Walid Jumblatt- thus isolating Hezbollah.

The FPM believes the US request to isolate the Shia would divide Lebanon into two parts wherein one part Christians will be on one side of the country (with the US-supporting Lebanese Druse as allies) and Sunni and Shia on the other side. It would be effortless to create a Sunni-Shia sectarian conflict to keep Hezbollah busy. In this case, Israel could hit the Shia villages, and the western community would applaud a partition of Lebanon under the excuse of protecting the Christian of Lebanon. The Christian area would be financed and supported by the west. If the borders between the two sides were to be broken and Hezbollah had the upper hand, the Christians would be rushed outside the country, an ideal situation for the west. It would force the migration of the Christians, and leave Lebanon to a sectarian conflict between Sunni and Shia Muslims, as in Iraq and Syria in the last decade. In fact, in reality, this is what French President Nicholas Sarkozy proposed to the Christian Patriarch when asking for support for the community in Lebanon back in 2011.

Gebran Bassil rejected the US offer even though the Christians of Lebanon are by nature close to the west. Bassil wants a relationship with the US and Europe: he is not ready to exchange it for relations with Iran, Russia or China. The US requests from the Lebanese Christians include the naturalisation of the Palestinians and the Syrian refugees. That would create a vast demographic imbalance in Lebanon where the majority would then be Sunni, followed by the Shia in the second place. In consequence, it would no longer be feasible or justified to give the reduced minority Christians half of the total share in all institutional positions of the state, Parliament, cabinet and security forces as stipulated by the Taef agreement.

One of the most significant differences between Hezbollah and Gebran Bassil is not only ideological but concerns the Speaker Nabih Berri, accused of corruption along with Prime Minister Saad Hariri, the Druse Leader Walid Jumblat, the governor of the Central Bank Riyad Salame and others. Gebran accuses Hezbollah of protecting his closest Shia ally Berri who, along with Hariri, protects Riyad Salame. The Central Bank governor is accused of facilitating the transfer of dozens of billions of dollars to Lebanese officials, accumulated from corruption and abuse of power over decades. Hezbollah understands Bassil’s accusation and finds itself powerless due to the limited choices available. Berri is the Leader of Amal who may not hesitate to confront Hezbollah if left alone or even go as far as an inter-Shia conflict. The price would be very high, mainly when the US and Israel are waiting for every opportunity to weaken Hezbollah from within, or through its allies.

Bassil also spoke about a plan thwarted by the local security services – who arrested several militants – to revive the terror group “Islamic State” (ISIS) in the north of Lebanon where a group of 40 militants linked to Idlib (Syria where the base of al-Qaeda is established) were uncovered. The Christians understand that their separation from Hezbollah would render them without protection, particularly when the ISIS card is still on the table and can manifest whenever the opportunity presents itself. This is why Bassil can’t break with Hezbollah: it is its guarantee and protection from radical Islamists who amply demonstrated how brutal they could be against all religions and sects in Syria and Iraq. In reality, the only political friend Bassil has in Lebanon today is Hezbollah, since all the other groups – including Maronite Christians, Sunni and Druse –have demonised him and are trying to isolate the FPM and its Leader.

In fact, being a Christian in Lebanon is not the privileged position it would be in the West. The only advantage it confers is facilitating a visa to change residence. Moreover, the US clearly doesn’t interact with Lebanese politicians on a humanitarian or « favour for favour » basis, but on the grounds of interests (theirs). Indeed, despite facilitating the departure of Amer Fakhoury to the West, Bassil didn’t win popularity with the US. On the contrary, events confirm that when the US administration considers the time has come to sacrifice Lebanon’s Christians as wood for a civil war fire, it will not hesitate. For the US, the interests of Israel come first. This is unfortunately unlikely to change with the new administration.

The US and Israel tried to confront Hezbollah face-to-face but failed to defeat or weaken the group. They tried to divide Iraq and Syria to cut the supply road to Hezbollah, but to no avail. Their last attempt was to impose “maximum pressure” on Iran. The result was that Tehran did not submit and Hezbollah continued to pay wages to tens of thousands of militants in US currency even when this is largely missing in Lebanon. No other choices remain for the US /Israeli side but the possibility of a civil war in Lebanon, and to dispose of the Christians in order to relieve Israel from the pressure applied by Hezbollah, with its growing strength and effectiveness.

Hezbollah is not expected to fall into this trap despite their Christian ally having significant differences in ideology and objectives. Differences can be managed when it is in the mutual interest of both sides to stick together. On the contrary, far from weakening him, the US sanctions on Bassil have boosted his position and freed the young Christian Leader to claim his right representation in the new government he was previously denied. But that puts the elected Prime Minister Saad Hariri – who holds the minority in Parliament – into a weaker position: he was counting on French President Emmanuel Macron’s initiative to overlook the Parliamentary results and form his government without Bassil. The US sanctions, predictably, produced a counter effect, giving wings to Gebran Bassil and making him stronger than ever.

Note:

A. King Abdullah’s initiative: the Arab states were to call upon Israel to affirm a full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the lines of June 4, 1967, as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territory in the south of Lebanon. It includes a just solution to the Palestinian refugee question on the basis of UNSC Resolution 194. There is also a request for the acceptance of the establishment of a sovereign independent state on the Palestinian territories occupied since 4 June 1967, in the West Bank and Gaza, with East Jerusalem as its capital. Consequently, the Arab states will do the following: One, consider the Arab-Israeli conflict to be completely over; two, establish normal relations with Israel in the context of comprehensive peace. It also called upon the government of Israel and the Israelis to accept this initiative in order to safeguard the prospect for peace and stop further shedding of blood in the region. These are the key issues. They have been described as peace for withdrawal, as a normalisation for a normalisation: the Arab states are asking Israel to be a normal state. In return, they would normalize their relationship with Israel – economic, cultural and otherwise.

B. During the 1982 Israeli occupation of Lebanon, Amer al-Fakhoury was a commander at the Israeli-established Kiyam detention camp and was responsible for the killing and torture of many members of the resistance. Lebanese authorities exerted pressure on the head of the military court to release Israeli collaborator Amer al-Fakhoury as requested by President Donald Trump.  Al-Fahkoury was then delivered to the US embassy and smuggled out of the country. The release order was carried out following pressure from the Chief of Staff and the President Michel Aoun, Gebran Bassil’s father-in-law.

C. Amal Shia Leader and Speaker Nabih Berri said in a statement.: “UNIFIL welcomes today’s announcement on the framework agreement to launch negotiations between the two states of Lebanon and Israel on demarcating the maritime borders between the two countries.”

Sayyed Nasrallah: Response Fast to Any “Israeli” Aggression, Axis of Resistance must Be Ready for Any US Stupidity

Zeinab Essa

Beirut-Hezbollah Secretary General His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah delivered on Wednesday a speech on Hezbollah Martyrs Day.

Sayyed Nasrallah: Response Fast to Any “Israeli” Aggression, Axis of Resistance must Be Ready for Any US Stupidity

As His Eminence offered condolences to “the Syrian brothers and sisters for the martyrdom of His Eminence Sheikh Muhammad Al-Afyouni”, he also condoled “the Yemeni people over the martyrdom of the Minister Hassan Zaid.”

On another level, Sayyed Nasrallah congratulated the Palestinian detainee Maher Al-Akhras, who emerged victorious over the “Israeli” jailer.

Regarding the occasion, he recalled that “The operation of the Emir of the martyrs, Ahmed Qassir, remains the largest against the “Israeli” enemy.”

“We chose this day to commemorate all our martyrs, by remembering the great self-sacrifice martyr operation when the Emir of the martyrs stormed the “Israeli” military ruler’s headquarters in Tyre,” he added, hailing the sacrifices of the martyrs’ pure and great souls.

According to His Eminence, “After learning the grace given by Allah the almighty, we should learn the value and greatness of these martyrs, as well as the security, power and presence they offered us in the regional equations.”

Commenting on the maritime border negotiations with the “Israeli” entity, Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that “Since the 2000 liberation, we announced that we have nothing to do with demarcating borders because this task is the responsibility of the state that decides where the Lebanese land and sea borders are.”

“The resistance is committed to what the state determines regarding the demarcation issue, and thus it helps the Lebanese army in liberating any occupied land,” he viewed, noting that “The Lebanese state is the one that announces the borders, and it is the one that announced that Shebaa Farms, Kfarshouba hills and part of Ghajar are Lebanese.”

In parallel, His Eminence highlighted that “The talk about oil in the Lebanese water dynamically initiated the move towards demarcating the maritime borders with occupied Palestine,” noting that Lebanese “House Speaker [Nabih] Berri was the one who was heading the negotiations, and we as a resistance had agreed to allow demarcation so that oil drilling starts.”

“The negotiations are only limited with demarcating borders away from any other file,” he said, recalling that “We stressed previously that the border demarcation should be only limited to the technical level.”

Explaining that “Recently, a special American interest has emerged over demarcating the borders with the “Israeli” side,” Sayyed Nasrallah underlined that “Speaker Berri was negotiating for 10 years until the American appeared interested in the file.”

Moreover, he confirmed that “Speaker Berri prepared what was called the framework for negotiations, and the responsibility was transferred to President Aoun, and the practical negotiations began. Some have tried to link the issue of border demarcation with normalization with “Israel”. This useless talk aims at covering up some Arab countries’ normalization with the “Israeli” entity.

Sayyed Nasrallah further lamented the fact “Since Berri announced the framework of the negotiations in September, many political parties and the media, especially those of the Gulf, started to link the talks with the normalization agreements of other Arab countries in the region with Israel the talks coincided with.”

“The talk about Hezbollah’s move towards normalization with “Israel” is mere lies and forgery. It does not deserve to be denied by us,” His Eminence said, noting that “Claims that the border talks will lead to a peace agreement or normalization with “Israel” are baseless and out of the question for Hezbollah and Amal.”

In addition, Sayyed Nasrallah emphasized that “Leading the negotiation file is in the hands of [Lebanese] President [Michel] Aoun, and we have full confidence in His Excellency, especially that we know his toughness and his keenness on national safety and Lebanon’s rights.”

On this level, His Eminence explained that Hezbollah “disagreed with President Aoun regarding the issue that the Lebanese delegation must be military, as well as the “Israeli” delegation, in order there won’t be any suspicion.”

“The Lebanese delegation must know that it attains elements of strength and is not in a position of weakness,” he stressed, noting that “Whoever wants to prevent us from benefiting from our oil, we can prevent it in return.”

Reiterating Hezbollah’s confidence with the president, Hezbollah Secretary General assured that “The Lebanese delegation is committed to the limits. President Aoun directs it in his own way, and we care that Lebanon gets its rights.”

On another aspect, Sayyed Nasrallah tackled the last “Israeli” military drill as “talks emerged of “Israel’s” readiness to do something in Lebanon or the Golan.”

“For the first time, the Lebanese resistance made “Israel” move from the offensive side to the defensive one. Some of the resistance’s units had been on alert over the past days during the “Israeli” military drill and we meant to let “Israel” know this,” he unveiled.

His Eminence also affirmed that ““Israel” is wary of attacking Lebanon, as its ambition in the field is limited, and it has moved to the ‘defensive’ thinking,” noting that “The enemy’s insistence on drills confirms what the “Israeli” generals have always talked about- the “Israeli” ground forces are suffering from a real and deep crisis, when it comes to readiness as well as the psychological and spiritual level.”

“If the “Israelis” think of waging any aggression, our response will be very fast,” The Resistance Leader asserted, explaining some of “Israel’s” point of military weaknesses: “In any coming war, the “Israeli” navy will be powerless than before. The “Israeli” Air Force alone is not able to win. Rather, the ground forces are essential and decisive, and the “Israeli” army has fundamental problems in this matter.”

On the same level, Sayyed Nasrallah unveiled that “The Syrian leadership took maximum precautions during the “Israeli” military drills,” noting that “The resistance was on alert without making the Lebanese people in the villages and towns feel anything, and this is what specializes this resistance.”

Commenting on the US elections, His Eminence called for learning “lessons from the American elections in order to really study what is being promoted as a US ideal sample. What happened in the American elections is an exposition of democracy, and the matter does not concern Trump only, but the Republican Party.”

Denouncing US President Donald Trump’s administration as among the worst US administrations, he underlined that “It was the most brutal, criminal and bleak one.”

However, he expected no change when things come to the apartheid “Israeli” entity. “[Joe] Biden’s election will not alter the US support for “Israel”.”

“With Trump’s exit, one of the Deal of the Century’s triangle sides has been broken. There remains [Benjamin] Netanyahu and [Mohammad Bin Salman] MBS,” His Eminence reiterated, expressing rejoice over Trump’s loss due to his crimes all over the world. “On the personal level, I rejoice for Trump’s humiliating fall, and we have the right to rejoice, especially after the crime of the era that Trump had committed by assassinating the great leader Hajj Qassem Soleimani and the Iraqi commander Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis.”

In addition, the Resistance’s Leader praised “the region’s people and the axis of resistance who have stood firm in face of the American attack. Under an aggressive American administration, the axis of resistance has withstood and managed to fail and prevent schemes.”

On the replacement of US War secretary ark Esper, Sayyed Nasrallah warned that “Trump might do anything during his remaining two months.”

“The axis of resistance must be highly prepared to respond to any American or “Israeli” stupidity,” he confirmed, pointing out that “The “Israeli” enemy is anxious and Lebanon is secured by the golden equation, the army, people and resistance.”

Meanwhile, Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that “America is not a destiny.”

Moving to the internal Lebanese front, Hezbollah Secretary General hailed the fact that “All schemes targeting the resistance from 2005 until today have failed,” noting that “Over the past 15 years, the Americans have explored ways to get rid of Hezbollah.”

“After their sedition attempts have failed, the Americans began their schemes 3 years ago to incite the environment of resistance against it,” he uncovered as he went on to state: “All events proved that the US embassy was the one that managed and financed the NGOs.”

According to His Eminence, “Faced with the failure of all their tracks, there is nothing left for the Americans but the path of sanctions against Hezbollah’s friends and allies.”

In his first comments on the US sanctions against the head of the Free Patriotic Movement [FPM] former minister Gibran Bassil, Sayyed Nasrallah said “I told Minister Bassil that we did not wish him any harm and asked him to take the stance he sees appropriate.”

In addition, he viewed that “The response to the US sanctions should be improving the relation between Hezbollah and the FPM. I advised him to take any position to avoid getting harmed as we offered to help him in any way we can.”

Narrating some of his discussions with Bassil, His Eminence underscored that “Bassil came to inform me and told me the US gave him two choices and that he wouldn’t comply with the demand [to break ties with Hezbollah], because it would compromise Lebanon’s independence and freedom.”

Praising Bassil’s position as “courageous and patriotic”, Sayyed Nasrallah urged Lebanese sides to stand in unity and solidarity in face of US tyranny. “With what legal and moral right does the US classify who is corrupt or not? A country that is the leader in terrorism and corruption. We won’t be happy if our opponents were sanctioned or listed as terrorists, as this forms a violation to Lebanon’s sovereignty.”

To the allies, His Eminence sent a message of assurance: “In the event you find yourselves under US pressure, you’re are fee to act as you wish. Think of your interests and Lebanon’s interest and act accordingly, and we in Hezbollah will understand.”

To the Americans, he raised the question: “If you are saying that Bassil is corrupt, if he breaks ties with Hezbollah will he stop being corrupt? You are contradicting yourself.”

Regarding the delay in the formation of the Lebanese government, or the delay in the cabinet formation process, Sayyed Nasrallah viewed that “the discussions need further consultations between President Aoun and PM-designate Saad Hariri, hoping that “the talks will be expedited.”

Related Videos

«باسيل عرض علينا الانفصال عن حزب الله»: السفيرة الأميركية تكذب

«باسيل عرض علينا الانفصال عن حزب الله»: السفيرة الأميركية تكذب

الأخبار 

الثلاثاء 10 تشرين الثاني 2020

حاولت السفيرة الأميركية صياغة رد ملائم لما كشف عنه رئيس التيار الوطني الحر جبران باسيل، فخلصت الى تعميق حفرة «الكذب» الأميركي لتبرير كل الموبقات المرتكبة بحق الأفراد والشعوب والدول، على شكل عقوبات. وفيما لم تذلل هذه العقوبات العقبات امام الإسراع في تأليف حكومة وطنية، اختلفت الأجواء العونية والحريرية حول لقاء رئيس الحكومة المكلف برئيس الجمهورية أمسلم تكد تمر الساعة الرابعة والعشرون على مؤتمر رئيس التيار الوطني الحر جبران باسيل رداً على إعلان الادارة الأميركية فرض العقوبات عليه، حتى أتى الرد من السفيرة الأميركية في بيروت دوروثي شيا. حاولت الأخيرة الموازنة بين ما كشفه باسيل عن طريقة الترغيب والترهيب الأميركية في إخضاع من يعارض أوامرها، وبين تلميع صورة إدارتها التي تدّعي الدفاع عن حقوق الانسان والحريات في كل أنحاء العالم. كان لا بد لشيا من التعليق على كلام باسيل الناري، فأتى مضمون خطابها هزيلاً، وبدت عاجزة عن إيجاد تفصيل صغير يبرر العقوبات الأميركية، لتؤكد مرة أخرى أن أسبابها لا تمت الى الفساد بصلة. جلّ ما صدر عنها نتيجة ما سمّته مطالبة الجميع بالاطلاع على الأدلة التي كانت في الملفات والتي أدت الى فرض العقوبات، قولها «إننا نسعى لجعل القدر الاكبر من المعلومات متاحاً عند الإعلان عن التسميات، ولكن، كما هي الحال في كثير من الأحيان، فإن بعض هذه المعلومات غير قابل للنشر». العبارة تلك كفيلة بكشف الكذب الأميركي، وهي الحجة الدائمة لتبرير الحروب على دول والاجتياحات لدول أخرى وحصار وتجويع شعوب. بررت السفيرة الأميركية العقوبات في وقت حصول الانتخابات الأميركية بأن «عملية التسمية وصلت إلى النقطة التي أصبحت فيها جاهزة للتنفيذ، وتمت بناءً على تعليمات من واشنطن». وأضافت أنها «على سبيل المجاملة، قامت بمتابعة هذا الأمر من خلال مكالمات هاتفية رفيعة المستوى حيث تمت مناقشة هذا الموضوع».

وفي سعي منها لدحض ما فضحه باسيل عن عدة العمل الأميركية والضغوط والمغريات التي قدمت له لفك تحالفه مع حزب الله، قالت شيا إن باسيل هو الذي «أعرب عن الاستعداد للانفصال عن الحزب بشروط معينة». كذلك «أعرب عن امتنانه لأن الولايات المتحدة جعلته يرى كيف أن العلاقة هي غير مؤاتية للتيار، حتى إن مستشارين رئيسيين أبلغوني أنهم شجّعوا باسيل على اتخاذ هذا القرار التاريخي». هنا أيضاً بدا كلام السفيرة منافياً للمنطق ولكل ما تحاول أميركا تحقيقه سياسياً في لبنان منذ الاعلان عن وثيقة التفاهم بين التيار والحزب، وما تلاها من أحداث أسهمت في توطيد العلاقة بين الطرفين بما يحبط الأجندة الاسرائيلية لتطويق المقاومة في الداخل. لكن كان لدى شيا من الوقاحة ما سمح لها بأن تختم خطابها بالقول إن «الولايات المتحدة اتخذت هذا الإجراء تضامناً مع الشعب اللبناني».
في المقابل، أصدر المكتب الاعلامي لرئيس التيار الوطني الحر بياناً حول ما صدر عن شيا، لفت فيه إلى أن كلام السفيرة «برهان على عدم وجود إثباتات على الاتهامات الموجهة لباسيل ‏بالتورط في الفساد (…) ‏فإذا كانت هذه المعطيات متوافرة ولا تريد نشرها، فإن النائب باسيل يطالب أقله بأن تقوم الجهة الأميركية المعنية بتسليمها للسلطات اللبنانية المختصة». وأعاد البيان تأكيد أن «موضوع الفساد لم يطرح لا من قريب ولا من بعيد في النقاشات التي حصلت، لا لناحية وروده في العقوبة ولا لناحية أي مطالب لواشنطن ‏بخصوصه، بل دارت المباحثات حول التفاهم مع حزب الله والمواضيع المرتبطة به، ولم يكن من موجب للنائب باسيل أن يسأل أو يعتب أو يهتم لنوع العقوبة». ولفت البيان الى أن فشل السياسة الأميركية حتى الآن في فك التفاهم بين التيار وحزب الله، «على الرغم من كل الضغوط التي مارستها واشنطن عبر السنين، وبالرغم من كل التهديد والترغيب، فإن محاولة دق الإسفين بينهما من خلال بيان إعلامي، يتكلم عن شروط معينة بدل الكلام عن مسار حواري وطني شامل، هي محاولة ظريفة ولكنها لن تنجح بهذه الطريقة حتماً».

تنقل المصادر عن الحريري تسليم عون له أسماء مرشحين لكل من وزارتي الداخلية والدفاع


في موازاة العقوبات الأميركية وما فرضته من تطورات على المشهد الحكومي من ناحية عودة باسيل الى ساحة التفاوض من الباب العريض، زار رئيس الحكومة المكلف سعد الحريري، يوم أمس، رئيس الجمهورية ميشال عون. ثمة روايتان هنا لما حصل خلال الاجتماع: من جهة تشير المصادر العونية الى أن اللقاء اتسم بالسلبية ربطاً باستمرار الحريري في رفع سقف شروطه وإصراره على تسمية الوزراء المسيحيين، إضافة الى تراجعه عمّا تم الاتفاق عليه بشأن تسمية العونيين، وبالتحديد رئيس الجمهورية، لوزير الداخلية. كذلك الأمر في ما خص وزارتَي الاتصالات والطاقة. ما سبق أسهم في عدم إصدار القصر الجمهوري أي بيان حول الاجتماع، علماً بأن مستشار الرئيس الفرنسي باتريك دوريل يصل الى بيروت غداً موفداً من الرئيس الفرنسي ايمانويل ماكرون، في إطار إعادة تفعيل مبادرة الإليزيه، فيما أجواء الحريري تنقض الرواية العونية، وتؤكد إيجابية فائقة في المشاورات الحكومية التي حصلت يوم أمس بينه وبين عون. لا بل تكشف أن رئيس الجمهورية سلّم الحريري أسماء مرشحين اثنين لوزارة الداخلية، ومرشحين اثنين آخرين لشغل وزارة الدفاع. وبالتالي تسير الأمور «على نحو ممتاز، ويفترض أن تصل قريباً الى خواتيمها السعيدة».

مقالات مرتبطة

فيديوات مرتبطة

Existential issues in Basil’s speech, Stop silly discussion قضايا وجوديّة في خطاب باسيل فلا تسَخّفوا النقاش

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Untitled-341.png

Existential issues in Basil’s speech, Stop silly discussion

Nasser Kandil

Some will go to the U.S. indictment of Bassil for corruption, ignoring that Bassil opened a challenge to the U.S. administrations concerned to present any detailed incident outside of the structural speech to prove the corruption charges, and presented to the official negotiations with him to avoid sanctions and their interlocutors have nothing to do with corruption files. Others will want to focus the light on Bassil’s talk about elements of disagreement with Hizbullah and the differentiation from it, especially in the concept of conflict with the entity of occupation, and the ideological position of the existence of the entity, knowing that these positions are not new and have nothing to do with the time of sanctions, and they belong to a general Lebanese culture excluding the resistance team alone, b These positions have accompanied the experience of the resistance since its inception, and its demand that all Lebanese support its choice to liberate the land and defend the rights of without requiring them to share the ideological view of the entity. This was the basis for the birth of the Mar Mikhael understanding between Hizbullah and the Free Patriotic Movement and continues..

In the words of Bassil, what deserves to be much more illuminated than these two cases, and at the forefront of what is interesting, is that for the first time in the case of U.S. sanctions for corruption, in a country hungry for reform, it is the leader of a balanced team in Lebanese society, from the Christian environment that did not bear arms either with the occupation army or against it, the target, here is Mp Bassil, the content of the negotiations conducted with him by U.S. officials, from the level of secretary of state to the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. This content is a resounding scandal in itself, where there are no corruption files put on the negotiating table to seek clarification or correction, but penalties for corruption without files, ready to be issued without hesitation in exchange for clear political barter offers that are not acceptable to interpretation, to stand with the U.S. policy hostile to The interests of Lebanon, and in matters not related to direct U.S. interests, but to Israeli interests, from breaking the relationship with Hezbollah to accepting the settlement of Palestinian refugees and retreating from calling for the return of displaced Syrians and lowering the negotiating ceiling in the demarcation of the border. Material and moral, or reject, in which case your material interests and moral reputation will be mercilessly targeted under the heading of corruption, independent of the validity and credibility of this charge..

– The message that the Americans brought to Bassil is a scandalous, revealing message that is not limited to him, and it should not be viewed through the portal of personalizing it in the meaning directly, for it is the message of the American policy towards Lebanon and the Lebanese political leaders, which affects the most prominent Christian politician in Lebanon, which affects more than all other Christian leaders, and the Christian leader more severely affects all Muslim leaders. This means that everyone in Lebanon is interested in reading the message, America is not interested in corruption or reform in Lebanon except in the point of view of installing files for those who do not adhere to their policies aimed at establishing the priority of Israeli interests, which threaten Lebanon existentially, and who calls for appeasement of America as the savior and savior, he must openly declare during the day that he has no objection to settlement and abandonment of Lebanese wealth and sovereign rights, and that he is ready to accept what Basil rejected, and that the Lebanese have the right to ask those who are excluded from sanctions.

– Those who say that what Bassil says about the positive reasons, whether the negotiations conducted by the Americans with him or the decision of sanctions without any files related to corruption, or the offers of barter, should be aware that the issue is very important what deserves the opposite American responses, and Basil raised the challenge, and the lack of an American answer to the scale of the challenge drops their logic, and they say the validity of the words of Basil, but they call under the slogan of realism to acclimatize, although this is America and we have to accept it as it is indispensable, to pay attention to the extent that they are aware of the scale of the challenge, and the lack of an American answer to the scale of the challenge drops their logic, and they say the validity of the words of Basil, but they call under the slogan of realism to adapt even though this is America and we have to accept it as it is indispensable, to pay attention to the extent that it is not necessary to What the Americans want is clear and there is no room for the Maronites in it, and the essence of resolving the issue of Palestinian asylum by settlement, even if it leads to the displacement of Christians, and accepting The Israeli conditions for the demarcation of the border, even if it leads to the loss of the most prominent lebanese wealth promising, and the abandonment of the most prominent source of strength for Lebanon can create a negotiating balance that protects lebanon’s interest in these two files, which is the force of resistance and its weapons, and for this reason focused on dismantling the alliance with it, and for these we say that there is no problem with us to accept the American conditions, provided that they have the courage to declare it, and not to To  be surrounded by camouflaged words such as calls for neutrality, the decision of war and peace, and so on..


– It is the right of any Lebanese to disagree with Representative Basil in many positions, but the national and moral duty requires recognition of his courage, patriotism and solidity of his position, and the declared solidarity with him is the least duty in the face of this scandalous targeting of American policies and their moral and legal downfall, in contrast to the honorable national position of Bassil, and realizing that The demonization campaign that focused on it under the slogan “Hey hey, he” was nothing but an echo of the American barter movement.

– Any Lebanese has the right to disagree with Mp Bassil in many positions, but the national and moral duty requires recognition of his courage,  patriotism and the solidity of his position, and the solidarity proclaimed with him is less necessary in the face of this scandalous targeting of American policies and its moral and legal fall, as opposed to the national position honorable of Bassil, and the realization that the campaign of demonization that focused on him under the slogan«Hela  Hela ho» was only some echo of. the American movement of barter.

قضايا وجوديّة في خطاب باسيل فلا تسَخّفوا النقاش!

ناصر قنديل

سينصرف البعض لتركيز الضوء على جانبين من كلام رئيس التيار الوطني الحر النائب جبران باسيل، في مرافعته ضد قضية العقوبات الأميركية التي صدرت بحقه. فالبعض سوف ينصرف لعنوان الاتهام الأميركي لباسيل بالفساد، متجاهلاً أن باسيل فتح تحدياً للإدارات الأميركية المعنية بتقديم أي واقعة تفصيليّة خارج الكلام الإنشائي لإثبات تهم الفساد، وعرض للمفاوضات الرسميّة التي خاضها معه المسؤولون الأميركيون لتفادي العقوبات ومحاورها لا علاقة لها من قريب أو بعيد بملفات الفساد. والبعض الآخر سيريد تركيز الضوء على حديث باسيل عن عناصر تباين مع حزب الله والتمايز عنه خصوصاً في مفهوم الصراع مع كيان الاحتلال، والموقف العقائدي من وجود الكيان، علماً أن هذه المواقف ليست جديدة ولا علاقة لها بزمن العقوبات، وهي تنتمي لثقافة لبنانية عامة يُستثنى منها فريق المقاومة وحده، بقواه العقائدية الرافضة للاعتراف بكيان الاحتلال، وما عداها لا يتخطى سقفه العدائي للكيان، ما يسمّيه الدفاع عن الحقوق اللبنانية، والتزام المبادرة العربية للسلام، وهذه مواقف رافقت تجربة المقاومة منذ انطلاقتها، ومطالبتها لكل اللبنانيين دعم خيارها لتحرير الأرض والدفاع عن الحقوق من دون اشتراط مشاركتها النظرة العقائدية للكيان. وكان هذا الأساس لولادة تفاهم مار مخايل بين حزب الله والتيار الوطني الحر ولا يزال.

في كلام باسيل ما يستحقّ الإضاءة أكثر بكثير من هاتين القضيتين، وفي طليعة ما هو مثير للاهتمام، أننا للمرة الأولى في قضية عقوبات أميركيّة بالفساد، في بلد متعطش للإصلاح، وهي تطال زعيماً لفريق وازن في المجتمع اللبناني، من البيئة المسيحية التي لم تحمل السلاح لا مع جيش الاحتلال ولا ضده، يكشف المستهدّف فيها، وهو هنا النائب باسيل، عن مضمون المفاوضات التي أدارها معه مسؤولون أميركيون، من مستوى وزير الخارجية إلى مستوى السفارة الأميركية في بيروت. وهذا المضمون فضيحة مدوّية بذاته، حيث لا ملفات خاصة بالفساد وضعت على طاولة التفاوض طلباً لتوضيحها أو تصحيحها، بل عقوبات بتهمة الفساد بلا ملفات، وجاهزة للصدور من دون تردّد مقابل عروض مقايضة سياسية واضحة لا تقبل التأويل، أن تقف مع السياسة الأميركية المعادية لمصالح لبنان، وفي شؤون لا تتصل بمصالح أميركية مباشرة، بل بالمصالح الإسرائيلية، من فك العلاقة بحزب الله الى قبول توطين اللاجئين الفلسطينيين والتراجع عن الدعوة لعودة النازحين السوريين وتخفيض السقف التفاوضيّ في ترسيم الحدود. وفي هذه الحالة ستفتح لك جنات النعيم الأميركي المادي والمعنوي، أو أن ترفض؛ وفي هذه الحالة فستكون مصالحك المادية وسمعتك المعنوية عرضة للاستهداف بلا رحمة تحت عنوان الفساد، بمعزل عن صحة وصدقية هذه التهمة.

الرسالة التي حملها الأميركيون لباسيل هي رسالة كاشفة فاضحة، ليست محصورة به، ولا يجب النظر إليها من بوابة شخصنتها بالمعني بها مباشرة، فهي رسالة السياسة الأميركية تجاه لبنان والقيادات السياسية اللبنانية، فما يطال أبرز سياسي مسيحي في لبنان يطال بصورة أقوى كل ما عداه من الزعماء المسيحيين، وما يطال الزعيم المسيحي يطال كل الزعماء المسلمين بصورة أشدّ. وهذا يعني أن الجميع في لبنان معني بقراءة الرسالة، أميركا لا يهمها الفساد ولا الإصلاح في لبنان إلا من زاوية تركيب ملفات لمن لا يلتزم بسياساتها الهادفة لتثبيت أولوية المصالح الإسرائيلية، والتي تهدد لبنان وجودياً، ومَن يدعو لاسترضاء أميركا باعتبارها المنقذ والمخلص عليه أن يعلن جهاراً نهاراً أن لا مانع لديه بالتوطين والتخلي عن الثروات اللبنانية والحقوق السيادية، وأنه مستعد لقبول ما رفضه باسيل، ومن حق اللبنانيين أن يسألوا الذين تستثنيهم العقوبات هل قبلوا بما رفضه باسيل؟

– الذين يقولون بعدم صحة ما يقوله باسيل عن الأسباب الموجبة سواء بخلو المفاوضات التي أجراها الأميركيون معه أو لقرار العقوبات من أي ملفات تتعلق بالفساد، أو بعروض المقايضة، أن ينتبهوا الى ان القضية على درجة عالية من الأهمية ما يستحق ردوداً أميركية معاكسة، وباسيل رفع سقف التحدّي، وعدم صدور جواب أميركيّ بحجم التحدي يسقط منطقهم، والذين يقولون بصحة كلام باسيل لكنهم يدعون تحت شعار الواقعية الى التأقلم مع أن هذه هي أميركا وعلينا أن نقبلها كما هي ولا غنى لنا عنها، أن ينتبهوا الى أن ما يريده الأميركيون واضح ولا مجال للمواربة فيه، وجوهره حل قضية اللجوء الفلسطيني بالتوطين، ولو أدّى لتهجير المسيحيين، وقبول الشروط الإسرائيلية لترسيم الحدود، ولو أدّى لضياع أبرز ثروة لبنانية واعدة، والتخلي عن أبرز مصدر قوة للبنان يمكن أن تخلق توازناً تفاوضياً يحمي مصلحة لبنان في هذين الملفين، وهي قوة المقاومة وسلاحها، ولهذا تمّ التركيز على فك التحالف معها، ولهؤلاء نقول إن لا مشكلة عندنا بأن يقبلوا بالشروط الأميركية، شرط أن يمتلكوا شجاعة إعلان ذلك، ولا أن يلتحفوا بكلمات مموّهة مثل دعوات الحياد، وقرار الحرب والسلم، وسواها.

من حق أي لبناني أن يختلف مع النائب باسيل في الكثير من المواقف، لكن الواجب الوطني والأخلاقي يقتضي الاعتراف بشجاعته ووطنيّته وصلابة موقفه، والتضامن المعلن معه هو أقل الواجب بوجه هذا الاستهداف الفضائحي للسياسات الأميركية وسقوطها الأخلاقيّ والقانونيّ، مقابل الموقف الوطني المشرف لباسيل، وإدراك أن حملة الشيطنة التي تركزت عليه تحت شعار «الهيلا هيلا هو» لم تكن إلا بعض الصدى للحركة الأميركيّة للمقايضة.

فيديوات متعلقة

مقالات متعلقة

%d bloggers like this: