On Nasser’s Fight for Arabic Independence and a Free Palestine

Visual search query image

Cynthia Chung

June 15, 2021

Nasser became the catalyst for an Arab Revolution for independence, a revolution that remains yet to be finished, Cynthia Chung writes.

In the 1950s the so-called enemy of the West was not only Moscow but the Third World’s emerging nationalists, from Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt to Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran. The United States and Britain staged a coup d’état against Mossadegh, and used the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist movement and the grandfather organization of the militant Islamic right, in an attempt to remove Nasser, the leader of the Arab nationalists.

In the 1960s, left wing nationalism and Arab socialism spread from Egypt to Algeria to Syria, Iraq and Palestine. This emergence presented a threat to the old imperialist game of Great Britain, to which the United States was a recent recruit of, and thus they decided to forge a working alliance with Saudi Arabia intent on using Wahhabi fundamentalism as their foreign policy arm in the Middle East, along with the Muslim Brotherhood.

This paper will go through the carving up of the Middle East under Sykes-Picot, the British creation of Saudi Arabia and Israel and the British occupation of Palestine, the origin of the Muslim Brotherhood and Nasser’s fight for Arab independence. In a follow-up paper, I will discuss the role of the City of London in facilitating the bankroll of the first Islamic fundamentalist state Saudi Arabia, along with the Muslim Brotherhood and its terrorist apparatus.

An “Arab Awakening” Made in Britain

The renunciation will not be easy. Jewish hopes have been raised to such a pitch that the non-fulfilment of the Zionist dream of a Jewish state in Palestine will cause intense disillusionment and bitterness. The manifold proofs of public spirit and of capacity to endure hardships and face danger in the building up of the national home are there to testify to the devotion with which a large section of the Jewish people cherish the Zionist ideal. And it would be an act of further cruelty to the Jews to disappoint those hopes if there existed some way of satisfying them, that did not involve cruelty to another people. But the logic of facts is inexorable. It shows that no room can be made in Palestine for a second nation except by dislodging or exterminating the nation in possession.”

– the concluding paragraph of George Antonius’ “The Arab Awakening” (1938)

Much of what is responsible for the war and havoc in the Middle East today has the British orchestrated so-called “Arab Awakening” to thank, led by characters such as E.G. Browne, St. John Philby, T.E. Lawrence of Arabia, and Gertrude Bell. Although its origins go as far back as the 19th century, it was only until the early 20th century, that the British were able to reap significant results from its long harvest.

The Arab Revolt of 1916-1918, had been, to the detriment of the Arab people, a British led rebellion. The British claimed that their sole interest in the affair was the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire and had given their word that these Arab territories would be freed and allowed independence if they agreed to rebel, in large part led and directed by the British.

It is a rather predictable feature of the British to lie and double cross and thus it should be of no surprise to anyone that their intentions were quite the opposite of what they had promised and thanks to the Sykes-Picot Russian leak, were revealed in their entire shameful glory.

If the Sultan of Turkey were to disappear, then the Caliphate by common consent of Islam would fall to the family of the prophet, Hussein ibn Ali the Sharif of Mecca, a candidate which was approved by the British Cairo office as suitable for British strings. T.E. Lawrence, who worked at the Cairo bureau is quoted as saying:

If the Sultan of Turkey were to disappear, then the Caliphate by common consent of Islam would fall to the family of the prophet, the present representative of which is Hussein, the Sharif of Mecca….If properly handled the Arab States would remain in a state of political mosaic, a tissue of jealous principalities incapable of cohesion…” (1)

Once the Arab Revolt was “won” against the Ottoman Empire, instead of the promised Arab independence, the Middle East was carved up into zones of influence under British and French colonial rule. Puppet monarchies were created in regions that were considered not under direct colonial subjugation in order to continue the illusion that Arabs remained in charge of sacred regions such as Mecca and Medina.

In central Arabia, Hussein, Sharif of Mecca, the puppet leader of the Arab Revolt laid claim to the title Caliph in 1924, which his rival Wahhabite Abdul-Aziz ibn Saud rejected and declared war, defeating the Hashemites. Hussein abdicated and ibn Saud, the favourite of the British India Office, was proclaimed King of Hejaz and Najd in 1926, which led to the founding of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

The Al Saud warriors of Wahhabism were a formidable strike force that the British believed would help London gain control of the western shores of the Persian Gulf.

Hussein ibn Ali’s son Faisal (under the heavy tutelage of T.E. Lawrence) was bestowed as King of Iraq and Hussein’s other son, Abdullah I was established as the Emir of Transjordan until a negotiated legal separation of Transjordan from Britain’s Palestine mandate occurred in 1946, whereupon he was crowned King of Jordan. (For more on this history refer to my paper.)

While the British were promising Arab independence they simultaneously were promising a homeland in Palestine to the Jews. The Balfour Declaration of November 2nd, 1917 states:

His majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object…

Palestine had been seized by the British during the so-called Arab Revolt on December 11th, 1917 when General Allenby marched into Jerusalem through the Jaffa Gate and declared martial law over the city. Palestine has remained occupied ever since.

Britain would receive the mandate over Palestine from the League of Nations in July 1922.

Throughout the 1920s and 1930s violent confrontations between Jews and Arabs took place in Palestine costing hundreds of lives. In 1936 a major Arab revolt occurred over 7 months, until diplomatic efforts involving other Arab countries led to a ceasefire. In 1937, a British Royal Commission of Inquiry headed by William Peel concluded that Palestine had two distinct societies with irreconcilable political demands, thus making it necessary to partition the land.

The Arab Higher Committee refused Peel’s “prescription” and the revolt broke out again. This time, Britain responded with a devastatingly heavy hand. Roughly 5,000 Arabs were killed by the British armed forces and police.

Following the riots, the British mandate government dissolved the Arab Higher Committee and declared it an illegal body.

In response to the revolt, the British government issued the White Paper of 1939, which stated that Palestine should be a bi-national state, inhabited by both Arabs and Jews. Due to the international unpopularity of the mandate including within Britain itself, it was organised such that the United Nations would take responsibility for the British initiative and adopted the resolution to partition Palestine on November 29th, 1947. Britain would announce its termination of its Mandate for Palestine on May 15th, 1948 after the State of Israel declared its independence on May 14th, 1948.

The Rise of the Muslim Brotherhood

In 1869, a man named Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, the intellectual founder of the Salafiyya movement, went to India where British led colonial authorities welcomed him with honors and graciously escorted him aboard a government owned vessel on an all expenses paid voyage to the Suez. (2)

In Cairo he was adopted by the Egyptian prime minister Riad Pasha, a notorious enemy of the emerging nationalist movement in Egypt. Pasha persuaded Afghani to stay in Egypt and allowed him to take up residence in Cairo’s 900 year old Al Azhar mosque considered the center of Islamic learning worldwide, where he received lodging and a monthly government stipend (paid for by the British). (3)

In 1879, Cairo nationalists in the Egyptian Army, led by the famous Egyptian hero Ahmed ‘Urabi, organised an uprising against the British role in Egypt. Afghani was expelled from Egypt by the Egyptian nationalists that same year.

Ahmed ‘Urabi served as prime minister of Egypt briefly, from July 1882 to Sept 1882, however, his movement for Egyptian independence was eventually crushed by the British with the shelling of Alexandria in July 1882 followed by an invasion which resulted in a direct British occupation of Egypt that would last until 1956. It would be Gamal Abdel Nasser who would finally end British colonial rule of Egypt during the Suez Crisis, whereupon the Suez canal was nationalised and the British military bases expelled.

While Egypt was fighting its nationalist fight from 1879-1882, Afghani and his chief disciple Muhammad Abduh travelled together first to Paris and then to Britain, it was in Britain that they would make a proposal for a pan-Islamic alliance among Egypt, Turkey, Persia and Afghanistan against Czarist Russia (4).

In addition, the crisis in Sudan, was in the middle of a tribal religious rebellion against the British led by a man named Mohammed Ahmad a Sudanese sheikh who proclaimed himself the Mahdi, or savior, and was leading a puritanical Islamic revolt. (5)

What Afghani was proposing to the British was that they provide aid and resources to support his formation of a militant Islam sect that would favour Britain’s interest in the Middle East, in other words, Afghani wished to fight Islam with Islam, having stated in one of his works “We do not cut the head of religion except by sword of religion.”(6)

Although it is said that the British refused this offer, this is not likely considering the support Afghani would receive in creating the intellectual foundation for a pan-Islamic movement with British patronage and the support of England’s leading orientalist E.G. Browne, the godfather of twentieth century Orientalism and teacher of St John Philby and T.E. Lawrence.

E.G. Browne would make sure the work of Afghani would continue long beyond his death by immortalising him in his 1910 “The Persian Revolution,” considered an authoritative history of the time.

In 1888, Abduh, the chief disciple of Afghani, would return to Egypt in triumph with the full support of the representatives of her Majesty’s imperial force and took the first of several positions in Cairo, openly casting his lot with Lord Cromer, who was the symbol of British imperialism in Egypt.

Abduh would found, with the hold of London’s Egyptian proconsul Evelyn Baring (aka Lord Cromer) who was the scion of the enormously powerful banking clan (Barings Bank) under the city of London, the Salafiyya movement. (7)

Abduh had attached himself to the British rulers of Egypt and created the cornerstone of the Muslim Brotherhood which dominated the militant Islamic right throughout the twentieth century.

In 1899, Abduh reached the pinnacle of his power and influence, and was named mufti of Egypt.

***

In 1902, Riyadh fell to Ibn Saud and it was during this period that Ibn Saud established the fearsome Ikhwan (translated as “brotherhood”). He collected fighters from Bedouin tribes firing them up with fanatical religious zeal and threw them into battle. By 1912 the Ikhwan numbered 11,000 and Ibn Saud had both central Arabia’s Nejd and Al-Ahsa in the east under his control.

From the 1920s onward, the new Saudi state merged its Wahhabi orthodoxy with the Salafiyya movement (which would be organised into the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928).

William Shakespear, a famed British agent, forged the first formal treaty between England and Saudi Arabia which was signed in 1915, which bound London and Arabia for years before Saudi Arabia became a country. “It formally recognized Ibn Saud as the independent ruler of the Nejd and its Dependencies under British protection. In return, Ibn Saud undertook to follow British advice.” (8)

Harry St. John Bridger Philby, a British operative schooled by E.G. Browne and father to the legendary triple agent Kim Philby, would succeed Shakespear as Great Britain’s liaison to Ibn Saud under the British India Office, the friendly rival of the Cairo Arab Bureau office which was sponsoring T.E. Lawrence of Arabia.

In Egypt 1928, Hassan al-Banna (a follower of Afghani and Abduh) founded the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan al-Muslimeen), the organization that would change the course of history in the twentieth century Middle East.

Banna’s Muslim Brotherhood was established with a grant from England’s Suez Canal Company (9) and from that point on, British diplomats and intelligence service, along with the British puppet King Farouq would use the Muslim Brotherhood as a truncheon against Egypt’s nationalists and later against Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser.

To get the Muslim Brotherhood off the ground, the Suez Canal Company helped Banna build the mosque in Ismailia that would serve as its headquarters and base of operation. (10) The fact that Banna created the organization in Ismailia is itself worthy of note. For England, the Suez Canal was the indispensable route to its prize possession, India and in 1928 the town Ismailia happened to house not only the company’s offices but a major British military base built during WWI. It was also, in the 1920s a center of pro-British sentiment in Egypt.

In the post-WWI world, England reigned supreme, the flag of the British empire was everywhere from the Mediterranean to India. A new generation of kings and potentates ruled over British dominated colonies, mandates, vassal states, and semi-independent fiefdoms in Egypt, Iraq, Transjordan, Arabia and Persia. To varying degrees those monarchies were beholden to London.

In the half century between 1875 and 1925 the building blocks of the militant Islamic right were cemented in place by the British Empire.

Nasser Leads the Fight for Arab Independence

In 1942, the Muslim Brotherhood would earn their well-deserved reputation for extremism and violence by establishing the “Secret Apparatus,” an intelligence service and secret terrorist unit. This clandestine unit functioned for over twelve years almost entirely unchecked, assassinating judges, police officers, government officials and engaging in goon squad attacks on labor unions and communists.

Throughout this period the Muslim Brotherhood worked for the most part in an alliance with King Farouq (and thus the British), using their clandestine forces on behalf of British interests. And throughout its entire existence it would receive political support and money from the Saudi royal family and the Wahhabi establishment (more on this in part 2 of this series).

The Secret Apparatus would be smashed into pieces by Nasser in 1954.

After WWII, the faltering Farouq regime lashed out against the left in an intense campaign of repression aimed at the communists. The Cold War was beginning. In 1946, prime minister Isma’il Sidqi of Egypt who was installed as head of the government with the support of Banna, openly funded the Muslim Brotherhood and provided training camps for its shock troops used in a sweeping anti-left campaign. Sidqi resigned in Dec 1946 after less than one year as PM due to massive unpopularity.

As King Farouq began to lose his grip on the Egyptian people, the Brotherhood distanced itself while maintaining shadowy ties to the army and to foreign intelligence agencies and always opposed to the left.

The Palestine War (1947-1949) resulted in the establishment of the State of Israel at the cost of 700,000 displaced Palestinian Arabs and the destruction of most of their urban areas.

The territory that was under British administration before the war was divided between the State of Israel (officially formed May 14th, 1948), which captured about 78% of it. In opposition to Israel, the Kingdom of Jordan captured and later annexed the West Bank, and Egypt captured the Gaza Strip, with the Arab League establishing the All-Palestine Government, which came to an end in June 1967 when the Gaza Strip, along with the West Bank, were captured by Israel in the Six-Day War.

The Egyptian people were furious over these developments, and the reign of British puppet King Farouq who had done nothing to prevent the dismantling of Palestine was on extremely shaky ground. In response to this, Farouq’s accord with the Muslim Brotherhood broke down, and in December 1948, the Egyptian government outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood. Weeks later a Brotherhood assassin murdered prime minister Mahmoud El Nokrashy.

Two months later, in Feb. 1949, Banna was assassinated in Cairo by the Egyptian secret police.

For Arab nationalists, Israel was a symbol of Arab weakness and semi-colonial subjugation, overseen by proxy kings in Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia.

On the night of July 23, 1952, the Free Officers, led by Muhammad Naguib and Gamal Abdel Nasser, staged a military coup that launched the Egyptian Revolution of 1952, overthrowing the British puppet monarch. The Free Officers, knowing that warrants had been issued for their arrest, launched the coup that night, storming the staff headquarters in Cairo.

Cairo was now, for the first time, under the control of the Arab people after over 70 years of British occupation.

The seizure of power by the Free Officers in Egypt came during an era when the entire Arab world from Morocco to Iraq was locked in the grip of imperialism. Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia were French colonies; Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE, Oman and Yemen were British colonies. Iraq, Jordan and Saudi Arabia were kingdoms ruled by monarchies installed by London. And Egypt under King Farouq was the political and economic center of the Arab world.

A growing surge of Arab nationalism arose in response to the Free Officers’ actions in Egypt. The powerful Voice of the Arabs radio in Cairo was reporting to the entire Arab world that they had found their independence movement, and that Nasser was at its helm.

From 1956 to 1958 Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon underwent rebellions, Iraq’s king was toppled, and Syria united with Egypt in Nasser’s United Arab Republic, part of Nasser’s strategy to unify the Arab world.

In Algeria, moral and material support was given from Cairo towards the Algerian revolution that finally won them independence from French colonial rule in 1962.

That same year, Yemen underwent a Nasser-inspired revolt, triggering a proxy war pitting Saudi Arabia against Egypt, with Nasser stating in a 1962 speech, “Yemen’s fight is my fight. Yemen’s Revolution is our Revolution.”

Nasser’s leadership and the inspiration he stirred were so strong that even as late as 1969 the year before Nasser’s death, Libya’s king was overthrown and Sudan’s right-wing regime was eliminated by military leaders loyal to Nasser.

Nasser had managed to threaten the very heart of Anglo-America’s post-WWII strategy in the Middle East. Nasser understood, that if the vast oil fields in Saudi Arabia were under Arab control, the potential for an economic boom would be enormous for all Arab states, such that the old game of imperialism by Britain and France could no longer retain its chokehold on Arab independence.

Not only was Egypt a military rival to Saudi Arabia, not only did Cairo clash with Riyadh in a shooting war in Yemen, not only did Nasser inspire Arabs in Saudi Arabia with republican ideals but the Egyptian leader even won over some of Saudi Arabia’s royal family. This group was led by Prince Talal to form the ‘Free Princes’, which defected to Egypt demanding the establishment of a republic in Saudi Arabia!

What was really going on during the period of 1954 to 1970, under Nasser’s leadership, was a war between two competing visions for the future of the Middle East; an Arab world of independent but cooperative Arab republics utilising their natural resources to facilitate an economic boom in industrialisation vs a semi-feudal scattering of monarchies with their natural resources largely at the West’s disposal.

The real reason why the British and Anglo Americans wanted Nasser removed, was not because he was a communist or because he was susceptible to communist influence; it was because he refused to obey his would-be foreign controllers and was rather successful in this endeavour, bringing their shadowy actions uncomfortably close to the light and inspiring loyalty amongst Arabs outside of Egypt including those sitting on top of the oil.

What especially worried London and Washington was the idea that Nasser might succeed in his plan to unify Egypt and Saudi Arabia thus creating a major Arab power. Nasser believed that these oil wells were not only for the government of those territories to do with as they wished but belonged to all Arab people and thus should be used for the advancement of the Arab world. Afterall, most Arabs are aware that both the monarchies themselves and the artificial borders that demarcate their states, were designed by imperialists seeking to build fences around oil wells in the 1920s.

Nasser understood that if Cairo and Riyadh were to unite in a common cause for the uplifting of the Arab people, it would create a vastly important new Arab center of gravity with worldwide influence.

In 1954 Egypt and the United Kingdom had signed an agreement over the Suez Canal and British military basing rights. It was a short lived. By 1956 Great Britain, France and Israel concocted a plot against Egypt aimed at toppling Nasser and seizing control of the Suez Canal, a conspiracy that enlisted the Muslim Brotherhood.

In fact, the British went so far as to hold secret meetings with the Muslim Brotherhood in Geneva. According to author Stephen Dorrill, two British intelligence agents Col. Neil McLean and Julian Amery, helped MI6 organize a clandestine anti-Nasser opposition in the south of France and in Switzerland, (11) in his book he writes “They also went so far as to make contact in Geneva…with members of the Muslim Brotherhood, informing only MI6 of this demarche which they kept secret from the rest of the Suez Group [which was planning the military operation via its British bases by the Suez Canal]. Amery forwarded various names to [Selwyn] Lloyd, [the British foreign secretary].”

British prime minister Anthony Eden, Churchill’s handpicked successor, was violently anti-Nasser all along and considered a British coup d’état in Cairo as early as 1953. Other than such brash actions, the only political force that could mount a challenge to Nasser was the Muslim Brotherhood which had hundreds of thousands of followers.

Nasser’s long postponed showdown with the Muslim Brotherhood occurred in 1954, this was timed to add pressure during the rising frustration concerning the British-Egyptian negotiations over the transfer of the Suez Canal and its military bases to Egypt. The British, after over 70 years of direct occupation in Egypt, were not going to give up on one of their most prized jewels, their gateway to the Orient, so easily.

From 1954 on, Anthony Eden, the British prime minister was demanding Nasser’s head. According to Stephen Dorrill’s “MI6: Fifty Years of Special Operations”, Eden had ranted “What’s all this nonsense about isolating Nasser or ‘neutralising’ him, as you call it? I want him destroyed, can’t you understand? I want him murdered…And I don’t give a damn if there’s anarchy and chaos in Egypt.”

Nasser would not back down, and in the first few months of 1954 the Muslim Brotherhood and Nasser went to war, culminating in Nasser outlawing them as a terrorist group and a pawn of the British.

On Oct. 1954, a Muslim Brotherhood member Mahmoud Abdel-Latif attempted to assassinate Nasser while he was delivering a speech in Alexandria, which was live broadcasting to the Arab world by radio, to celebrate the British military withdrawal.

Panic broke out in the mass audience, but Nasser maintained his posture and raised his voice to appeal for calm, and with great emotion he exclaimed the following:

My countrymen, my blood spills for you and for Egypt. I will live for your sake and die for the sake of your freedom and honor. Let them kill me; it does not concern me so long as I have instilled pride, honor, and freedom in you.”

The crowd roared in approval and Arab audiences were electrified. The assassination attempt backfired, and quickly played back into Nasser’s hands. Upon returning to Cairo, he ordered one of the largest political crackdowns in the modern history of Egypt, with the arrests of thousands of dissenters, mostly members of the Brotherhood.

The decree banning the Muslim Brotherhood organization said “The revolution will never allow reactionary corruption to recur in the name of religion.” (12)

In 1967, there was a Six-Day War between Israel and the Arab states Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq, which was started by Israel in a coordinated aerial attack on Egypt, eliminating roughly 90% of Egyptian air forces that were still on the ground, followed by an aerial attack on Jordan, Syria and Iraq. Israel then went on to conduct a ground attack with tanks and infantry, devastating whole Arab regions.

Despite the disastrous loss to Israel, the people of Egypt refused to accept Nasser’s resignation and took to the streets in a mass demonstration calling for Nasser’s return. Nasser accepted the call of the people and returned to his position as president where he remained as until his death in Sept 1970.

Five million people turned out on the streets of Egypt for Nasser’s funeral, and hundreds of millions more mourned his death throughout the world.

Although Nasser had devastatingly lost a battle, the Egyptian people along with their Arab compatriots understood that the fight for Arab independence was not lost. The dream of dignity and freedom, in forever opposition to the shackles of tyranny could not be buried now that it had been stirred to its very core. Nasser would be the catalyst for an Arab Revolution for independence, a revolution that remains yet to be finished.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is chung_1-175x230.jpg

Also by this author

Cynthia CHUNG

Cynthia Chung is a lecturer, writer and co-founder and editor of the Rising Tide Foundation (Montreal, Canada).

A Damned Murder Inc: Kennedy’s Battle Against the Leviathan

The U.S. Pivot to Asia: Cold War Lessons From Vietnam for TodayReturn of the Leviathan: The Fascist Roots of the CIA and the True Origin of the Cold WarBeyond Oil: How the UAE’s HOPE Mars Mission Is Breaking the Arab World Out of the Crisis of Scarcity

Newspeak in the 21st Century: How to Become a Model Citizen in the New Era of Domestic Warfare

الكيان الصهيوني: من طور التأسيس إلى طور النَّزْع الأخير

12/06/2021

Visual search query image
This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 2021-03-03_12-47-07_966596.jpg

عمرو علان

المصدر: الميادين نت

الكيان الصهيوني كيانٌ وظيفيٌ، أُنشئ بالتعاون مع قوى الاستعمار القديم من أجل إدامة السيطرة على المنطقة العربية، بصفتها قلب العالم الإسلامي، كما أنه كِيانٌ توسعيٌّ في أصل نشأته.

حصيلة معركة “سيف القدس” تمثَّلت باضطرار كيان الاحتلال إلى الرضوخ لقواعد الاشتباك الجديدة

المتأمِّل المشهد الصهيوني أن يرى الأزمات المتعدِّدة التي يمرّ الكيان فيها، في أكثر من صعيد. وبينها، على سبيل المثال لا الحصر، أزماته السياسية، وأبرزها الاستعصاء الحكومي الممتد منذ شهور.

يُعَد هذا الكيان، في أصل وجوده جيشاً استيطانيّاً متستِّراً في ظل “دولة”. لذا، فإن معضلته الكبرى تتمثّل بفقدان قواته البرِّية فعاليتَها القتالية، الأمر الذي أفقدها القدرة على إنجاز المهمات المَنوطة بها، ولاسيما في مواجهة الحركات المقاوِمة، التي تُعَدّ منظمات غيرَ حكوميةٍ ذات قدراتٍ تسليحيةٍ تفوق في بعض النواحي القدرات التي تمتلكها دولٌ وازنةٌ في العالم، كما هي حال القدرة الصاروخية التي يحوزها حزب الله، على سبيل المثال، والتي تفوق القدرة النارية للدول الأوروبية الأعضاء في حلف شمال الأطلسي مجتمعةً، وذلك بحسب تقارير مراكز أبحاث صهيو- أميركية.

ناهيكم عن الفارق الواضح بين معنويات مقاتلي محور المقاومة المرتفعة، ومعنويات جنود الاحتلال شبه المنهارة.

بدأ هذا العجز لدى جيش الكيان في الظهور في إثر انسحابه من جنوبي لبنان في أيار/مايو 2000، وتجلّى في حرب تموز/يوليو 2006، ليزداد بعد ذلك عمقُ مأزق سلاح البر لديه، في حروبه الثلاث اللاحقة، والتي شنّها على قطاع غزة في الفترات 2008-2009 و2012 و2014، وصولاً إلى معركة “سيف القدس” الأخيرة، والتي لم يجرؤ فيها على استخدام قواته البرِّية للقيام بعمليةٍ برِّيةٍ على الأرض تواكب عمليات سلاحه الجوي. ويؤكد هذا الفهمَ الكاتبُ الصهيوني يوآف ليمور عقب انتهاء معركة “سيف القدس”، بحيث قال “هذا الخط الخطير – الذي سيطر على الجيش منذ انتهاء وجوده في جنوبي لبنان، وفي جوهره الخوف من القتلى والمخطوفين – يقود باستمرار إلى مخطَّطات تضخّم الجو على البر، وبالتالي قلة الاستثمار في الجيش البرِّي، وانعدام الثقة، وعدم العمل به في الوقت الحقيقي”.

من الضرورة بمكان أن نلتفت إلى ما يشير إليه هذا العجز من محدودية نتائج عملية المراجعة وتطوير استراتيجياتٍ قتاليةٍ جديدةٍ، والتي عكف عليها رئيس أركان جيش الكيان أفيف كوخافي خلال العامين الماضيين، والتي تهدف إلى إعادة صَوغ مفهوم “تصوُّر النصر” لدى جيش الاحتلال. 

وفي هذا الخصوص، صدر مؤخراً، عقب معركة “سيف القدس”، مقالٌ مهمّ وتفصيليٌّ عن “معهد القدس للاستراتيجيات والأمن”، في كيان الاحتلال، بعنوان “تصور النصر: الحاجة إلى مفهوم مُحَدَّث للحرب”، بحيث شرح المقال الأفكار الأساسية للأمن القوميّ “الإسرائيليّ”، والتي قام عليها مفهوم “تصوُّر النصر” لدى الكيان الصهيوني منذ بداياته، والتي صاغها رئيس الوزراء الصهيوني الأسبق ديفيد بن غوريون؛ تلك الأفكار الأساسية التي تم تحويلها بعد ذلك إلى قدراتٍ عمليةٍ وعقيدةٍ عسكريةٍ، نجح من خلالها جيش الكيان الصهيوني – في حقبةٍ خلت – في تحقيق انتصاراتٍ حاسمةٍ ضد الجيوش العربية، على أساس الحرب السريعة، والتي اعتمدت، بالإضافة إلى تفوّق سلاح الجوّ على قوةٍ برِّيةٍ ضاربةٍ وقادرةٍ على القيام بمناوراتٍ برِّيةٍ خاطفةٍ، بهدف الاقتحام السريع لأراضي العدوّ، وتحييد قوته العسكرية. 

لكننا نجد، من خلال دراسة نتائج الحروب التي خاضها كيان الاحتلال منذ عام 2006 – في أقلّ تقدير – أن هذه القوة البرِّية لم تَعُدْ موجودة في الصيغة نفسها التي كانت عليها. ويقرّ بهذا المقال المذكور ضمن ثنايا النقاش، إذ قال: “مفهوم النصر” لا يحلّ الخلل القائم بين الذراعين الاستراتيجيتين، الجويّة والأرضيّة فحسب، بل يديمه أيضاً، ويصبح مبدعاً في الواقع”. ويضيف المقال إلى ذلك، من خلال انتقاد “مفهوم النصر” المحَدَّث، والذي يعكف الكيان الصهيوني على صياغته، بالقول “يستمر مفهوم النصر في الواقع، سواء أكان بطريقةٍ معقدةٍ، أم وفق الأفكار نفسها التي تمت تجربتها مراراً وتكراراً، من دون نجاحٍ، طوال العقود الأربعة الماضية”. 

وتوضح خلاصة النقاش التفصيلي، والذي أتى عليه المقال، أن جيش الاحتلال اعتَمَد، خلال العقود الأربعة الماضية، على نحو متصاعدٍ، على سلاح الجوّ، في مقابل تراجع مكانة القوة البرِّية لديه، على الرغم من الالتزام اللفظي في الكيان بالأفكار الأساسية للأمن القومي “الإسرائيلي”. ويستنتج المقال أن هذا الالتزام اللفظي ينسحب على “تصور النصر” المستجدّ، والذي تغنَّى به كثيراً أفيف كوخافي، ويعمل مع فريقه على صياغته، الأمر الذي يطرخ تساؤلات بشأن مدى نجاعة “تصور النصر” الجديد هذا.

وهنا، يبرز سؤالٌ جانبيٌّ، على قدرٍ بالغٍ من الأهمية، إذ كيف ستكون الحال إذا أخذنا في الحسبان أنه في أيّ حربٍ مقبلةٍ مع حزب الله سيكون من الوارد تعرض سلاح الجوّ الصهيوني لأضرارٍ تحدّ فعاليته بقدر ما؟ فلا يمكن تجاهل حقيقة تطوير إيران أنظمة دفاعٍ جويٍّ فعالةً ومحلية الصنع، يمكن أن تكون قد نُقِلت فعلاً إلى حزب الله. ولا يمكن إغفال عملية إعادة تأهيل أنظمة الدفاعات الجوية لدى الجيش العربي السوري، بالتعاون مع القوات الروسية المسلّحة، بعد أن كانت المجموعات المسلّحة، المسماة “معارضةً سوريةً”، خرَّبت تلك الأنظمة لحساب كيان العدو الإسرائيلي في بدايات الحرب على سوريا.

وإمعاناً في انتقاد جيش الاحتلال بعد معركة “سيف القدس”، تتالت الانتقادات في داخل أوساط الكيان الصهيوني، سواء أكانت “المدنية” منها، أم داخل بعض القطاعات العسكرية، تجاه قيادة جيش الاحتلال، في إثر عدم توظيفه سلاحَ البر في أثناء المعركة. حتى إن يوآف ليمور ذهب، في صحيفة “إسرائيل اليوم”، إلى حد القول إن “النتيجة هي عكسٌ للمعادلة: الجبهة الداخلية تحمي الجيش، وليس العكس. وبدلاً من تعريض جنودها للخطر لحماية المدنيين، يُعرِّض المواطنون أنفسهم للخطر من أجل حماية الجنود”.

وفي مقالٍ مهمّ آخر، نُشِر قبل معركة “سيف القدس”، في مجلة “الأنظمة” الصهيونية، ذهب كلٌّ من نائب رئيس أركان جيش العدوّ الأسبق، يائير غولان، والباحث العسكري غال بيرل فينكل من “معهد دراسات الأمن القومي” الصهيوني، إلى أنه لا يوجد بديلٌ عن قيام جيش الاحتلال بمناورةٍ برِّيةٍ لتحقيق النصر في أيّ حربٍ مقبلةٍ مع حزب الله. ويضيف المقال أن الوضع الراهن لجيش الكيان، والذي يجعل المناورة البرِّية مكملاً للقوة النارية الجوية، هو وضعٌ غيرُ صحيحٍ.

يرى البعض أنه على الرغم من دقة الانتقادات، التي ساقها المقالان المهمَّان الآنِفا الذكر لأداء جيش الاحتلال الصهيوني، فإنهما تجاهلا أمرين جوهريين. الأول: العطب البنيوي الذي أصاب الروح القتالية للجندي الصهيوني. عطبٌ لا يبدو أنه قابل للترميم، بدليل فشَل المناورات العسكرية التي يقوم بها جيش الاحتلال منذ ما يزيد على خمسة عشر عاماً، بغية استعادة الروح القتالية لجنوده، التي لم تعطِ أيّ نتائجَ ملموسةٍ. وندَّعي القول إن لا قوة برِّيةً فاعلةً من دون جنديٍ عقْديٍ مستعدٍّ لبذل الدماء، ولاسيما في مواجهة مقاتلٍ صاحب حقٍ، مؤمنٍ، ذي عقيدةٍ صلبةٍ، ومستعدّ للشهادة في سبيل عقيدته وقضيته المحقة، كما هي حال المقاوم المجاهد ضمن صفوف قوى محور المقاومة.

أما الأمر الثاني، فيتمثّل بالسِّياق الذي أفضى بجيش الاحتلال إلى الاعتماد المتزايد على سلاح الجوّ. ويرى البعض، في هذا السياق، أمراً أساسياً في قراءة الطَّور الذي وصل إليه الكيان الصهيوني من دورة حياته، كما سنجادل.

الكيان الصهيوني كيانٌ وظيفيٌ، أُنشئ بالتعاون مع قوى الاستعمار القديم من أجل إدامة السيطرة على المنطقة العربية، بصفتها قلب العالم الإسلامي، كما أنه كِيانٌ توسعيٌّ في أصل نشأته. فمنذ بداياته، كان قادراً على التوسع جغرافياً على حساب شعوب المنطقة، وكان يفعل من دون ترددٍ، معتمداً على قوتِه البرِّية.

وكانت تلك حِقبته الطامحة إلى إقامة “إسرائيل الكبرى”. لكن هذه الحقبة انقضت بعد أن أُجبر على الانسحابين الأُحاديي الجانب من جنوبيّ لبنان في أيار/مايو 2000، ثم من قطاع غزة في أيلول/سبتمبر 2005. وبهذا، ثَبُت للعدو أنه ربما يكون قادراً على دخول أراضٍ عربيةٍ جديدة واحتلالها، لكنه لن يكون في استطاعته إدامة وجوده فيها، إذا جوبه بمقاومةٍ جادةٍ ومصممةٍ، وذات نفَسٍ طويل.

وهنا، دخل كيان الاحتلال في طورٍ جديدٍ، يعتمد، في صورة رئيسية، على تفوُّقه الجويّ وقدرتيه، النارية والتدميرية، الكبيرتين، من السماء، وذلك بهدف إنفاذ إرادته السياسية على دول المنطقة، إمّا بالحرب من الجوّ على نحو أساسي، وإمّا حتى بمجرد التهديد بحربٍ مدمِّرةٍ، يبتزّ بها دول الإقليم. وبهذا، يستمر في تلبية متطلبات أصل وجوده ككيانٍ وظيفيٍ، وكذراعٍ ضاربةٍ بالنيابة عن القوى الإمبريالية، ضمن استراتيجيات تلك القوى.

إلاّ أن هذه النظرية كُسِرت في حرب تموز/يوليو 2006، عندما أخفق الكيان في تحقيق أيٍّ من أهدافه في تلك الحرب. فلا استطاع القضاء على حزب الله في الميدان، بفعل تفوقه العسكري: جويّاً ونارياً. ولا قدِر على فرض إرادته السياسية على حزب الله، وإجباره على إعادة الجنود الصهاينة الأسرى لديه عبر تلك الحرب، التي اعتمدت، في الأصل، على قوة سلاح الجوّ، قبل أن يُضطر الكيان إلى محاولة تنفيذ مناورةٍ برِّيةٍ داخل الأراضي اللبنانية من أجل تحقيق أي مكسبٍ – ولو شكليٍّ – من أجل حفظ ماء الوجه.

وتتالت بعد ذلك إخفاقات نظرية الكيان هذه في حروب غزة، في الفترات 2008-2009 و2012 و2014، ناهيكم عن إخفاقه المستمر في إجبار سوريا على الدخول في اتفاقيات تطبيع، أو إرهابها لدفعها إلى التخلي عن عقيدتها الراسخة في دعم حركات المقاومة، أو التنازل عن ثوابتها القومية والعربية.

ثمّ جاءت معركة “سيف القدس”، التي رسَّخت، بما لا يدع مجالاً للشكّ، عجزَ سلاح الجوّ الصهيوني عن تحقيق النصر، عبر تحييد قدرات العدوّ  من الجوّ، أو عبر إنفاذ كيان الاحتلال إرادتَه السياسية على الفلسطينيين، عبر قَبول انتهاكات الاحتلال الممارَسة في المسجد الأقصى والقدس المحتلة، وتبعاً المقدسات المسيحية في فلسطين.

أما في البر، فمجدداً، لم يجرؤ كيان الاحتلال على تنفيذ أي مناورةٍ برِّيةٍ جديةٍ داخل قطاع غزة، مُثبتاً مرةٍ أخرى عدم جهوزية جيشه لتحمل الخسائر البشرية، أو قدرته على القيام بمناوراتٍ برِّيةٍ حاسمةٍ.

بل قام، في المقابل، باللجوء إلى مناورةٍ برِّيةٍ وهميةٍ فاشلةٍ، سُمّيت “مترو حماس”. وكتب تال ليف رام في “معاريف” العبرية، مقالاً بعنوان “مسؤولون أمنيون بشأن هجوم (المترو): كان يجب إدخال القوات البرية للقطاع”، قال فيه: “هناك انتقاداتٌ متزايدةٌ من القادة الميدانيين للجيش الإسرائيلي، وعلامات استفهامٍ بشأن استعداده لاستخدام القوات البرية في أثناء القتال”. وأشار، في المقال ذاته، إلى وجود ادعاءاتٍ مفادها أن جيش الاحتلال لم يفكّر حتى في إمكان إدخال قواتٍ برِّيةٍ لقطاع غزة، مؤكداً بذلك الفكرتين الرئيسيتين، واللتين خلص إليهما استراتيجيو كيان الاحتلال في المقالين المذكورين في مطلع نقاشنا هنا، وهما تراجع فعالية سلاح البر الصهيوني، وأن سلاح الجوّ لا يمكنه تحقيق النصر مهما كان “مفهوم النصر” المعتمَد.

لذا، فإن حصيلة معركة “سيف القدس” تمثَّلت باضطرار كيان الاحتلال إلى الرضوخ لقواعد الاشتباك الجديدة، التي فرضتها عليه قوى المقاومة الفلسطينية في الميدان، وعنوانها “إن عُدتم عدنا”، طلباً للهدوء وتفادياً لمزيد من الخسائر، بدلاً من نجاحه في تلبية متطلبات أصل وجوده التي ذُكِرت سابقاً، بصفته كياناً وظيفيّاً.

لعلّ هذا المستجِدّ هو ما جعل نتائج معركة “سيف القدس” تحولاً استراتيجياً، يوازي أو يفوق التحول الاستراتيجي الذي فرضته حرب تموز/يوليو 2006، بحيث يمكن القول بشأنها إنها كانت خاتمة الطَّور الثاني في دورة حياة الكيان الصهيوني، وباكورة الطَّور الثالث من عمره، والذي يبحث فيه الكيان الصهيوني عن تحقيق الأمن لمستوطنيه، ولعله يكون الأخير في دورة حياة هذا الكيان المصطنَع.

لقد أكد الأمين العام لحزب الله السيد حسن نصر الله، في كلمته يوم 25 أيار/مايو 2021، في معرض تقييم نتائج معركة “سيف القدس”، أن أهم الإنجازات العسكرية والأمنية والميدانية، كانت في شلّ الكيان وأمنه ومجتمعه. ففي كثير من الدول القديمة والحقيقية، يمكن أن تحدث اختلالاتٌ أمنيةٌ أو حروبٌ أهليةٌ، لكن تبقى الدولة ولا تنهار. أمّا في الكيانات المصطنَعة – كما هي حال الكيان الإسرائيلي – فالأمن بالنسبة إليها هو شرط وجودٍ، وليس شرط كمالٍ. فإنِ انتفى الأمن تَنْهَر الدولة. الإسرائيلي، إذا أحس بضياع الاقتصاد وذهاب الأمن وفقدان رفاهية العيش، فأهونُ ما عليه هو العودة من حيث أتى. وهذا هو الفارق بين كيان “إسرائيل” وأيّ دولةٍ أخرى. وكان هذا إنجازاً لمعركة “سيف القدس”، لا سابق له. وهذا التقييم ورد على لسان أحد أهم قادة عصرنا الحالي واستراتيجييه، بشهادة العدوّ قبل الصديق.

مقالات سابقة

Sheikh Qaouk: Cooperation between Lebanese, Palestinian Resistance Strategic

14/06/2021

Sheikh Qaouk: Cooperation between Lebanese, Palestinian Resistance Strategic

By Staff

Member of Hezbollah’s Central Council, Sheikh Nabil Qaouk, warned that “The ‘Israeli’ entity is surrounded today by missiles that can affect all its cities and settlements.”

In a speech during his meeting with a delegation of Arab parties who toured the Lebanese-Palestinian border, Sheikh Qaouk stressed that the priceless strategic asset of the nation is the cooperation and complementarity between the resistance in Lebanon and in Palestine. “This is ‘Israel’s’ real and existential nightmare and the guarantee for the Arab’s dignity.”

He further underscored that “The ‘Israeli’ enemy has come to feel that it is trapped in every battle, that it is still at the bottom of defeat, that equations and calculations have been changed, and that it is at a time when we feel that al-Quds is closer to liberation than ever before.”

Sheikh Qaouk also noted that, “Al-Quds has proven that it is resistant to the occupation, and that the only and real enemy is the ‘Israeli’ enemy.”

“It has also emphasized that Iran is the strategic depth of the Palestinian resistance, and the primary supporter of Palestine, al-Quds, al-Aqsa and the resistance in Gaza, led by the Leader, Imam Ali Khamenei,” he concluded.

Israel must choose between civil war or regional war : Senior Lebanese Analyst

JUNE 14, 2021

Editorial Comment from The Saker Blog for updated information only:  Since this interview took place, and just this past weekend, there are changes in the Israeli government.  Despite these changes, the comments from senior Lebanese political analyst Nasser Qandil hold true to the situation in the main, and the change in the Israeli government does not negate Mr. Qandil’s commentary.  In short, these changes are:  Right-wing nationalist Naftali Bennett has been sworn in as prime minister, leading a coalition “government of change” that was approved with a razor-thin one-vote majority and in a power-sharing deal with the centrist Yesh Atid under the leadership of Yair Lapid.  Mr. Netanyahu will remain head of the right-wing Likud party and will become the leader of the opposition.
Israel must choose between civil war or regional war : Senior Lebanese Analyst

Description: 

In a recent appearance on a political talk show, senior Lebanese political analyst Nasser Qandil said that Israel is currently going through a sensitive and dangerous period of its history, in which it must choose between “civil war or regional war”.

Source:  Al Mayadeen TV

Date:  June 8, 2021

(Note: Please help us keep producing independent translations by contributing a small monthly amount here )

Transcript:

Nasser Qandil, Editor-in-chief of the Lebanese newspaper Al-Binaa:

I personally do not believe that Netanyahu is capable of taking any major action at this stage. The main test (of Israel’s power) was the (recent) Sword of al-Quds (battle). I mean, we would not have never seen a ceasefire if the steadfastness of the (Israeli) occupation entity – in terms of its army, institutions, and society – was strong enough during the battle to bear the burden and the weight of Netanyahu’s decisions.

We have to look back at the image of what happened before the ceasefire: the missiles raining down on the cities of the (Israeli) occupation entity. This has never happened before in the history (of the Israeli entity). They were heavy missiles with explosive heads capable of bringing down buildings. Now you have this new scene. The missile fire (on Israel) continued, and (Israel) could not stop it. Before the ceasefire, (Palestinian resistance forces) had no land access (to outside world), no air force, nor an Iron Dome. Therefore, (Israel) accepting a cease-fire is its acceptance of helplessness, it is a request for US protection.

I believe, according to my personal assessment and readings, that with the ceasefire and its aftermath, since that day, the era of the independence of the (Israeli) occupation entity has ended. The (Israeli) occupation entity has fallen under an American mandate. Even in terms of (forming) the new (Israeli) government, how was this government born? Its (forming) was not even on the table. The government was suddenly born. The US today goes into details. Since (the US) holds the future of the (Israeli) entity in its hands, (it follows this policy:) “I protect you and I fund your (government), therefore, I control your politics.”

Host:

Forgive me for interrupting, but what I meant by the ‘developments on the ground’ is that today Benjamin Netanyahu and the extreme right are talking with insistence about holding, for example, the Flag March on its original date. This may call for action at the grass-roots level. Therefore, the (Palestinian) resistance may take action. We are not confirming anything; we are (just) studying scenarios. However, due to these developments on the ground, the situation might deteriorate.


Qandil:

Let us first rule out the military scenarios, meaning sabotage, security operations, military action, targeting (individuals and locations) and igniting a war. This is beyond (the Israeli entity’s) power because it lacks internal harmony; an entity in which the US is a partner, whether at the intelligence level, or in terms of the Chief of Staff, or the Ministry of Defense. I mean, (the Israeli entity) cannot make its decision on its own.

Regarding the situation on the ground, well, the (original) date of the march was on Thursday, but now (the march) has been postponed to Tuesday by a decision from Netanyahu and his team to avoid taking any risks. (Next) Tuesday, they are talking about 500 (participants) and 500 flags. We know that this march is usually attended by at least 50,000 people every year. Therefore, Netanyahu and his team are now discussing ways to both deprive the (Palestinian) resistance from the opportunity to talk about its success in canceling the march altogether, and not crossing the red line drawn by the US.

Netanyahu explains the (current political) equation by saying: “you (Israelis) are going to either clash with Gaza, Hamas, and the (Palestinian) resistance forces, or experience Israeli bloodshed”, meaning that (Israeli) settlers and demonstrators will come out and clash with the police. I believe that Netanyahu’s assessment is correct. The future of the (Israeli) entity will look like one of two options: either a comprehensive war that begins with any action that would trigger conflict, or the other option, which is a Jewish-Jewish civil war because it is impossible to restrain the (Israeli) settlers.

It is possible that the march goes by with minimal provocations by avoiding sensitive areas and deploying the police and the army. However, since the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin (former Prime Minister of Israel), the only vital force that has a meaningful political activity in the occupation entity is the (Israeli) settlers and extremists. The rest are empty structures. Thus, if they (settlers and extremists) took the initiative out of their certainty that the political establishment has become impotent, we will hear about confrontations and clashes every day.

On the one hand, protecting the (Israeli) entity will require that a part of the army, the police and security forces face the (Israeli extremists). On the other hand, if (Israel) lets (the extremists) loose, this will trigger regional wars. The (Israeli) entity today is going through a delicate, dangerous and sensitive period of its life as it faces a stark choice: either civil war, or regional war.


Subscribe to our mailing list!

Related Posts:

The Washington Post Details US, ‘Israel’, Saudi Role in Coup Plot Against Jordan King

14/06/2021

The Washington Post Details US, ‘Israel’, Saudi Role in Coup Plot Against Jordan King

By Staff, Agencies

The Zionist entity, Saudi Arabia and the US joined forces to pressure Jordan’s King Abdullah II to partake in the US-sponsored “normalization deals” with Tel Aviv, according to the Washington Post.

The Jordanian monarch resisted the attempts, leading to a plot to “destabilize” the country, that ensnared the king’s half-brother Prince Hamza and former senior officials Bassem Awadallah and Sharif Hassan bin Zaid.

According to the report, Saudi crown prince Mohammad bin Salman [MBS], former Zionist PM Benjamin Netanyahu and former US President Donald Trump were at the center of the intrigue.

“It became a belief of Trump that the king was a hindrance” to his plan, a former senior CIA official was quoted as saying.

The report noted the close relations that Trump and his son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner had forged with MBS, Saudi Arabia’s de-facto ruler.

Abdullah was said to be concerned those expanded ties came at Jordan’s expense, because of his reservations over the US proposal for the Middle East.

Abdullah is recognized as the custodian of the Haram esh-Sharif and the al-Aqsa Compound, and other Muslim sites in the Old City, which the Zionist regime occupied in the 1967 Six Day War.

The newspaper wrote that Abdullah felt the US, ‘Israel’ and Saudi Arabia were trying to push him out as custodian.

As Kushner’s campaign to advance Trump’s plan picked up last year, he also hoped to help facilitate a normalization pact between the Zionist entity and Saudi Arabia, according to the report. However, Abdullah was seen as an obstacle to such a rapprochement.

A key figure in the report was Awadallah, one of the former senior officials implicated in the alleged recent plot. Awadallah, a cabinet minister and onetime head of the royal court, moved to Saudi Arabia in 2018 and became close with the Saudi crown prince.

“A sticking point for us is al-Aqsa. The king [Abdullah] uses that to browbeat us and keep his role in the Middle East,” Awadallah was reported to say regarding the US plan.

An unnamed former US official, according to the report, said he was told by Awadallah that “MBS is upset because he can’t get a deal because he can’t handle the reactions of Palestinians if the king holds his position” on occupied al-Quds.

The Post also quoted from a Jordanian investigative report on the coup plot.

“Awadallah was working to promote the ‘deal of the century’ and weaken Jordan’s position and the King’s position on Palestine and the Hashemite Custodianship of Islamic and Christian holy sites in al-Quds,” the Jordanian report said.

According to the same report, bin Zaid, the other senior Jordanian official implicated alongside Awadallah, met in 2019 with two officials from a foreign embassy in Amman “to inquire about their country’s position on supporting Prince Hamzah as an alternative to the King.”

The Post said an unnamed Western official who gave him the report believes the embassy was likely the US mission in the Jordanian capital.

The Mossad Spy in Yemen (English subtitles)

هكذا بدأ تنفيذ الاتفاق النوويّ مجدّداً

12/06/2021

ناصر قنديل

يتمهّل الأميركيون والإيرانيون في إعلان العودة إلى الاتفاق النوويّ، فليس من عجلة في الإعلان، لأن هناك ملفات تستدعي الترتيب قبل الإعلان، خصوصاً في الاستعجال الأميركي لترتيب الأوراق في كيان الاحتلال والسعودية، حيث لا يريد الأميركي الإعلان عن العودة إلى الاتفاق قبل التحقق من نزع صلاحيات رئيس حكومة الاحتلال بنيامين نتنياهو على ارتكاب أية حماقة في تصعيد الأوضاع في المنطقة بهدف جر الأميركيين الى حرب، وينتظرون نتائج التصويت على نيل الحكومة الجديدة بالثقة، ووضع ضمانات نقل صلاحيات رئيس الحكومة في حال فشل الثقة الى المجلس الوزاري المصغّر حيث وزير الدفاع ورئيس الموساد ورئيس الأركان، شركاء في القرار وشركاء لواشنطن في السعي لخفض التصعيد. وعلى الضفة السعودية يرغب الأميركيون أن يسبق إعلان العودة الى الاتفاق التوصل الى تفاهم ثابت يضمن وقف النار وفتح باب التفاوض السياسيّ في اليمن، وبالرغم من المحاولة الأميركية لترجيح كفة السعودية وكيان الاحتلال في كل صيغ التهدئة التي يشتغلون عليها، فهم يدركون أنهم لم يعودوا لاعباً وحيداً، وأنهم في لحظة معيّنة مجبرون على الاختيار بين التهدئة وشروطهم لها. والقبول بالتالي بشروط لا تناسبهم ولا تناسب حليفهم في السعودية والكيان، لكنها تضمن تهدئة مديدة، وقد بات واضحاً أن عنوانها اليمنيّ فك الحصار وعنوانها الفلسطيني منع الانتهاكات في القدس.

في فترة التريّث الأميركيّ لا يجد الإيرانيون سبباً لتخفيض إجراءاتهم التي تقلق الأميركيين وحلفاءهم الأوروبيين في الملف النووي، فهي إجراءات دفاعيّة اتخذتها إيران رداً على الانسحاب الأميركي غير القانوني من الاتفاق وما لحقه من عقوبات أميركية منافية للقانون الدولي بمعاقبة كل مَن يطبّق قرار مجلس الأمن برفع العقوبات، ولذلك لن يسجل الإيرانيون سابقة يُساء فهمها كعلامة تعطش للعودة للاتفاق، ويقدمون على وقف خطواتهم الدفاعية أو تخفيضها، حتى لو كانوا مقتنعين بأن الأميركيين يرتبون أوراقهم للعودة للاتفاق، لأنه ما دام الباب مفتوحاً للتفاوض فكل خطوة لها تأثيرها على موازين التفاوض، لذلك يقرأ الإيرانيون النداءات التي تدعوهم لوقف الإجراءات التصعيدية، وهم بلغوا مرحلة قريبة من امتلاك ما يكفي لإنتاج قنبلة، كما يقول الأميركيّون، لكنهم يجيبون بأن الحلّ يكون شاملاً أو لا يكون، ورغم المحاولات الدبلوماسية التي جرت مع إيران من أصدقاء ووسطاء للاستجابة لهذه النداءات بقي الموقف الإيراني على حاله، والوقت الحرج نووياً، كما يقول الأميركيون، بات بالأيام وربما بالساعات.

وصل الوسطاء إلى صيغة تقوم على بدء تنفيذ الاتفاق قبل الإعلان عنه، عبر اختيار بنود من الاتفاق تقع في روزنامة المرحلة الأولى، وتتضمّن رفعاً لعدد من العقوبات الأميركية عن أشخاص وكيانات إيرانية، منها شركات تصدير للنفط وشركات بحرية لنقل النفط، مقابل أن تقدم إيران على القيام ببعض الخطوات المقابلة، ولم تجب إيران على المقترح، إلا بالجواب التقليدي، يكون الحل شاملاً أو لا يكون، فبادرت واشنطن لتطبيق بنود العرض قبل الحصول على استجابة إيرانية بفعل المثل، على أمل أن يفعل الإيرانيّون شيئاً ولو لم يعلنوا عنه، وهذا ما أمله الوسطاء من إيران، فيما يجري تسريع العمل على تجاوز التعقيدات من طريق التهدئة في فلسطين واليمن، والطريق واضح للأميركيين ولا يحتمل المناورات، القبول بربط وقف النار في اليمن برفع الحصار وفتح الميناء والمطار، والقبول بربط وقف النار في غزة بوقف الانتهاكات في القدس، وصولاً لتبادل الأسرى ورفع الحصار عن غزة.

الذين يتابعون مسار فيينا عن قرب يقولون إن أمر الاتفاق انتهى، وإن ما يجري حالياً هو تطبيق بعض بنوده قبل الإعلان عن توقيع

فيديوات متعلقة

مقالات متعلقة

Zionist Academics Take The Side Of State Power

About me

11 June 2021

by Lawrence Davidson

Part I—Tensions in Academia

The growing divide in the United States between Zionists and supporters of Palestinian rights has led to pronounced tensions in academia. Much has been said about increasing pro-Palestinian student protests as well as the activities of pro-Israel boards of governors, presidents, deans, etc. The latter try to guard their campuses from pro-Palestinian faculty, student clubs, invited speakers and the like.

These tensions have found yet another academic front on which to contest. There are two historical associations in the U.S. for scholars of Middle East studies reflecting opposing attitudes toward Israel and its behavior toward the Palestinians. And this divide presents us with a dichotomy of values at the professional academic level.

The oldest of these is the Middle East Studies Association (MESA). It was founded in 1966 and currently has a membership of more than 2700. It also serves as a “constituent society of thirty-six affiliated organizations.” It puts out a quarterly journal and has an active Committee on Academic Freedom. MESA is a very successful learned society. Its scholars cover all of the Middle East and North Africa. It is dedicated to high standards of scholarship and diversity of interpretation.

By the 2000s the debate within academia over the expansionist nature of Israel and its treatment of conquered Palestinians was heating up. Because most of MESA members have a broad knowledge of the area, a sense of local perspectives, and also know the history of the Arab Israeli conflict, their positions tend to be critical of Israeli behavior and American support for it. And that led to an organizational split.

In 2007 two scholars, Bernard Lewis and Fouad Ajami, decided to start a rival organization, the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa (ASMEA). They did so because, according to them, MESA was “dominated by academics who have been critical of Israel and America’s role in the Middle East.”

One might wonder why the position taken by many MESA members upset Lewis and Ajami. After all, debating issues from an historical perspective is, in part, what academics are supposed to do. If MESA was allegedly “dominated” by those critical of Israeli behavior, Lewis and Ajami’s answer was to establish a “politicized” organization “dominated” by Zionists. It made little sense in terms of dialog, but tactically it fit right in with how Zionists—those who uphold the legitimacy of a Jewish state in Palestine—react to criticism.

Over the last quarter century, a common tactic of Zionists has been to withdraw from public debate and, where they can, bring about enforced silence of anyone who is critical of Israel. That, of course, is what those pro-Israeli academic administrators and boards were and are doing. Part of this effort entails labelling those critical of Israel as anti-Semites. This stratagem is generally used to shut down negative assessments in the West. Seeking to expand the scope of this effort, ASMEA’s much lauded founder, Bernard Lewis, who died in May of 2018, sought to defame Islam with the same charge. That approach is carried on by ASMEA. The organization awards a Bernard Lewis Prize, a description of which quotes Lewis, “to an astonishing degree, the ideas, the literature, even the crudest inventions of the Nazis and their predecessors have been internalized and Islamized.” In competition for this award, young Middle East scholars are encouraged by ASMEA to identify Muslim Arab opposition to Israel with anti-Semitism.

Part II—Expressing Values

The two organizations have recently shown where this tension has taken them in terms of human rights. This was occasioned by the recent outbreak Palestinian resistance caused by threats of evictions (ethnic cleansing) of Arab families in Jerusalem, and aggressive Israeli actions at the site of Al-Aqsa Mosque. The latter actions, in particular, triggered rocket attacks from Gaza.

Here is part of a long and detailed MESA statement. The shorter ASMEA statement is given in full:

MESA (21 May 2021) Issued by the organization’s Board of Directors.

“The Board of Directors of the Middle East Studies Association of North America condemns the ongoing and intensified Israeli government assault on the Palestinians of East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip and those who are Israeli citizens. During May 7–20, 2021, Israeli military attacks on the occupied Gaza Strip damaged at least 51 educational facilities, including 2 kindergartens, 46 schools, 1 university, 1 vocational training center, and 1 Ministry of Education facility—among other vital infrastructure. Israeli air strikes and tank shells directly hit a number of these buildings. The deadly conditions created by the Israeli military attacks in Gaza forced all schools to remain closed for at least five days after the end of the Eid al-Fitr holiday, affecting the lives and access to education of 591,685 students. In addition, Israeli military strikes internally displaced at least 66,000 Palestinians who then sought refuge in 58 schools run by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), causing further disruptions to the population’s education–indeed, to their lives. …

“There is little doubt that successive Israeli governments across the political spectrum have carried out a decades-long attack on Palestinian students, teachers, and educational facilities. Indeed, this attack is part of a broader political, administrative, and legal system of racial discrimination and domination—regularly enforced through violence—that has defined the Israeli government’s treatment of the Palestinian people. And, as the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem and the international non-governmental organization Human Rights Watch have found, the Israeli government’s purposeful and systematic privileging of Jewish Israelis while dominating and oppressing the Palestinian people amounts to apartheid.”

ASMEA (25 May 2021) Issued by the organization’s Chairman, Professor Norman Stillman

“The recent wave of violence in the ongoing struggle between Israel and Hamas has left many members of our community of scholars deeply concerned. While we hope and pray no harm befalls any of our members, anywhere, and their loved ones, ASMEA remains committed to our founding principles as an academic association.

“As scholars, we believe in the pursuit of objective truth when studying and teaching the issues and topics affecting the regions of our academic concern. We recognize that these principles can create division and disagreement, but so long as scholarship contributes to the body of knowledge, we welcome and encourage vigorous debate.

“We stand behind and support our members in Israel and deride those more intent on infusing the academic landscape with pointless over-politicization and rank partisanship than restoring balance to the Academy and protecting academic freedom in Middle East and African studies, and related disciplines.”

There are a couple of things to note about these two statements: (1) The MESA statement is issued in support of the Palestinians, and specifically their collective human right to education. It contains assertions about the Israeli violations of that right—assertions that can be fact checked. The statement also references the reports of international organizations concerned with civil and human rights. (2) The ASMEA statement claims objectivity and a willingness to debate, but then proceeds to defame and trivialize those who disagree with their position—“those more intent on infusing the academic landscape with pointless over-politicization and rank partisanship.” Actually, one can characterize this charge as a psychological projection of the statement’s author who, being a Zionist stalwart must be, by definition, both politicized and partisan. The statement also makes no reference to the Palestinian situation under Israeli rule and reduces the struggle to one between Hamas and Israeli—an objectively incorrect and thus untrue assertion. This reductionist gambit is used by almost all contemporary supporters of Israel.

Part III—Crossing the Rubicon

There is a Rubicon (a fundamental crossing point) that all Jewish intellectuals are now confronting. Whether or not one crosses this line reveals the nature of their values. To cross it is to take the side of human rights and the rule of law. To refuse to cross is to take the side of state power—in this case, to align with the power of a proven apartheid state.

To add context to this choice, consider the case of Eva Illouz, a professor of sociology at Hebrew University. On 14 April 2014, she wrote an essay for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz entitled, “Is It Possible to be a Jewish Intellectual?” In this piece she sets forth two opposing positions: one is the Zionist/Israeli demand for the primacy of “ahavat Israel,” or the “love of the Jewish nation and people”–-the claim that all Jews have a “duty of the heart” to be loyal to the “Jewish nation.” The other position is that of the lone intellectual (here her model is the philosopher Hannah Arendt), whose obligation is to maintain the “disinterested intelligence” necessary to “speak truth to power.”
 
Illouz explains that Zionists have a “suspicion of critique” and use “the memorialization of the Shoah” (the Holocaust) and “ahavat Israel” to mute it. “The imperative of solidarity brings with it the injunction to not oppose or express publicly disagreement with official Jewish bodies.” It is within this context that she can ask if it is still possible to be a Jewish intellectual. Illouz’s conclusion is that it has become exceedingly difficult to be so because the demands for Jewish solidarity are particularly “brutal.” And then she makes her choice and, if you will, crosses the Rubicon. “In the face of the ongoing, unrelenting injustices toward Palestinians and Arabs living in Israel, his/her moral duty is to let go, achingly, of that solidarity.”

It is not difficult to recognize that ASMEA stands at the bank of this Rubicon and refuses to cross. The organization’s values do not reflect any devotion to universal principles such as human rights and the rule of law, much less “objective truth.” Their leadership, at least, has no interest in critiquing the use of power but rather is dedicated to protecting and enhancing the interests of a specific power. The values exalted here are the parochial codes those intellectuals (among others) use to rationalize service to a state even when it turns criminal. The independent-minded, outspoken intellectuals, such as Eva Illouz, demanding broader moral integrity and responsibility from their contemporaries, are rarities.

Part IV—Conclusion

Any speculation about which side of the Rubicon line “History” favors is really silly. Historical prediction, like the weather, is a short-range affair. However, one might sense a present shift in sentiment in the U.S. and the Western world generally. It is an apparent shift in favor of the Palestinians and against apartheid Israel. One might even hazard a guess that the shift will continue to grow. Why so? The reason is straightforward and quite simple. It should continue to grow just as long as Israel does not stop. That is, as long as it continues to evolve as a racist state—simultaneously destroying human rights and international law.

«الشرق الأوسط الإسلاميّ» مركز ثقل العالم بين بكين وطهران…The “Islamic Middle East” is the center of the world’s gravity between Beijing and Tehran…

**Please scroll down for the Adjusted English Machine translation**

«الشرق الأوسط الإسلاميّ» مركز ثقل العالم بين بكين وطهران

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is %D9%85%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF-%D8%B5%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%82-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%B3%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%8A-780x470.jpg
 محمد صادق الحسيني

كلّ المؤشرات والقرائن والوقائع الميدانيّة على أكثر من صعيد إقليمي ودولي باتت تؤكد انعدام الرؤية الاستراتيجية لدى الدولة التي كانت يوماً الأعظم في العالم وهي الولايات المتحدة الأميركية…!

بايدن يطلب اللقاء مع بوتين على عجل لوقف تدهور العلاقات بين بلديهما، وإجراء تهدئة تمنع تقدم الحليفين الاستراتيجيبن الصين وروسيا على حساب الدولة التي تهشّمت صورتها في أكثر من ساحة دولية رغم ظاهرها المخادع كدولة عظمى!

محاولة بايدن هذه لا تحمل أيّ معالم صفقة او اتفاقيات بين البلدين، بل تهدف اساساً الى منع موسكو من توظيف كل من الصين والهند وايران كمجال حيوي لتنشيط المقدرات الروسية الهائلة في هذه البلدان بديلاً عن أوروبا التي تحاول واشنطن إغلاقها بوجه موسكو قدر الإمكان…

وفي سياق مثل هذه الأولوية الاستراتيجية فقط يمكن فهم محاولات واشنطن المتعثرة لكنها المصرّة على وقف تهوّرات حليفيها التاريخيين جنوب وغرب إيران، ايّ الكيانين السعودي و»الإسرائيلي»!

وقف حرب اليمن حتى على سبيل الخدعة والمناورة تحتاج اليها واشنطن حتى تتمكن من وقف التمدّد الإيراني الذي يزداد اندفاعه مع كلّ يوم يمرّ على تخبّط إدارة محمد بن سلمان الغارقة في مستنقع حرب اليمن الآسن والذي لم يعد يجلب للرياض سوى سرعة أفول القبيلة السعودية الحاكمة، وإنْ على مراحل…

هكذا تفهم أيضاً خطوات حكومة بايدن التي تتخلّى شيئاً فشيئاً عن تهوّرات نتن ياهو وتحاول استبداله بالثنائي بينيت – ليبيد الأميركيّي النزعة والجنسية الثانية…

ثمّة رعب خفي يحكم كلّ تصرفات إدارة بايدن من أمر تعتبره ربما نهاية التاريخ الأميركي الحقيقية وليست نهاية تاريخ فوكوياما الشهيرة.

فمركز ثقل العالم يُسرع في الانتقال من الغرب الى الشرق وكلّ العلائم في المعلوماتية والتقنيات وحروب الجيل الخامس والاقتصاد والثقافة والفنون وعالم ما بعد الدولار تفيد بأنّ الغرب لم يعد مركز العالم ولا حتى النموذج المحبّب أو الجاذب لغالبية سكان الكرة الأرضية كما كان في القرن الماضي.

إنّ القرن الذي أنهينا عشريّتين منه بات قرن الصين وروسيا وإيران بامتياز، وكلّ قوى الحرية والتمرّد على الهيمنة الغربية في العالم لا سيما الهيمنة الأميركية منها باتت ترنو لرؤية عالم ما بعد أميركا.

حتى ربيبة أميركا الصهيونية في حرب الـ 11 يوماً الأخيرة على فلسطين – سيف القدس – لم تتمكّن من تحقيق ولو صورة نصر بل على العكس تماماً، 4 أيام متتالية تقوم نحو 200 طائرة عسكرية إسرائيلية (ايّ نحو ثلثي الطيران الحربي) بقصف شريط لا يتجاوز نحو 30 كلم من البحر غرباً حتى الشجاعية شرقاً، ولا نتيجة تذكر سوى تهديم أبنية وقتل أطفال ونساء وفشل عسكري تامّ، وانقلاب الصورة لدى الرأي العام حتى الغربي ضدّ تل أبيب ووضعها في صورة قاتلة المدنيين ولا غير…

كلّ هذا من علامات جغرافيا آخر الزمان وانحطاط القوة الغربية وضياع الرؤية لدى الأميركي الذي ظنّ يوماً انه سيد العالم، فإذا به يكتشف انه بات محاطاً بقوى تفوقه بكلّ شيء تقريباً إلا القتل والمخاتلة والخديعة طبعاً!

حتى الاتفاق النووي وليالي الأنس في فيبنا باتت سراباً في سراب بالنسبة للأميركي فلا هو قادر على إعادة إحياء الاتفاق كما يريد ولا هو قادر على إعادة إيران الى المربع الذي يرغب…

إيران الجديدة القادمة بسرعة خلال الأشهر الثلاثة المقبلة لم تعد أصلاً بحاجة الى إحياء الاتفاق النووي، بعد أن دخل في دور المحاق داخلياً في زمن انتخابات مصيرية ستنقل إيران مباشرة الى نادي الدول العظمى من دون حتى رفع العقوبات…

تذكروا ماذا قال الإمام السيد علي الخامنئي في أكثر من خطاب:

إنّ مفتاح اقتصاد إيران ليس في لوزان ولا جنيف ولا نيويورك… إنه في داخل إيران…

جاء الوقت لتتمّ ترجمة هذا الشعار على يد الرباعي (رئيسي – جليلي – زاكاني – قاضي زاده هاشمي)، في إطار حكومة شبابية ثورية مبدئية هي أيضاً جزء من تحالف «شرق أوسطي إسلامي» يقف خلفه سور الصين العظيم وسيف القيصر الروسي.

ووجهته القدس دائماً وأبداً…

في مثل هذه الأجواء والفضاءات يمكن فهم ما تفضّل به القائد التاريخيّ المشرقيّ الشجاع سماحة السيد حسن نصر الله في ثلاثينية المنار لتحرير فلسطين عندما قال :

استيراد البنزين والمازوت والفيول من الجمهورية الإسلامية في إيران من قبل حزب الله مباشرة أو شركات خاصة تابعة هو خيار سياسي واقتصادي واجتماعي للأكثرية اللبنانية التي تعاني المذلة لأنّ بعض السياسيين يؤثرون رضى الأميركي على مصلحة المواطنين، والشروع بهذا الخيار سيؤدّي إلى جهود أميركية علنية لمنع وصول البواخر، وبالتالي سيفضح كلّ الدعاية السخيفة والكاذبة التي تقول إنّ أميركا تقف إلى جانب الشعب اللبناني، ولذلك قد يؤدي التهديد وحده إلى حلّ المشكلة ولو بشكل جزئي…

ولكن يبقى خيار الاتجاه الفعلي إلى الشرق هو الحلّ الجذري لكلّ مشكلات دول وقوى التحرر العربية والإسلامية من جبال الأطلس الكبير غرباً الى سور الصين العظيم شرقاً…

قد نرى تقلب وجهك في السماء فلنولينك قبلة ترضاها.

بعدنا طيّبين قولوا الله…


The “Islamic Middle East” is the center of the world’s gravity between Beijing and Tehran…

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is %D9%85%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF-%D8%B5%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%82-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%B3%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%8A-780x470.jpg

Mohamed Sadek Al , Husseini

All indicators, evidence and facts on the ground on more than one regional and international level now confirm the lack of strategic vision of the country that was once the greatest in the world, the United States of America…

Biden urgently requests a meeting with Putin to stop the deterioration of relations between their two countries, and to conduct a calm that prevents the progress of the two strategic allies, China and Russia, at the expense of the country, whose image has been shattered in more than one international arena, despite its deceptive appearance as a superpower!

Biden’s attempt does not bear any features of a deal or agreements between the two countries, but rather aims mainly to prevent Moscow from employing China, India and Iran as a vital area to stimulate Russia’s enormous capabilities in these countries as an alternative to Europe, which Washington is trying to close to Moscow as much as possible…

It is only in the context of such a strategic priority that it is possible to understand Washington’s faltering attempts, but it is determined to stop the recklessness of its two historical allies, south and west of Iran, that is, the Saudi and “Israeli” entities!

Stopping the Yemen war, even as a trick and maneuver, is needed by Washington in order to be able to stop the Iranian expansion, which is getting more and more motivated with each passing day, as the Mohammed bin Salman administration floundered in the bitter quagmire of the Yemen war, which no longer brings Riyadh only the speed of the demise of the ruling Saudi tribe, albeit in stages…

This is also how to understand the steps of the Biden administration, which is gradually abandoning Netanyahu’s stinking recklessness and trying to replace him with Bennett-Lapid American duo of American Behavior and second nationality.

There is a hidden horror governing all the actions of the Biden administration from something it considers perhaps the true end of American history, not the end of Fukuyama’s history.

The center of weight of the world is accelerating the transition from west to east and all the signs in informatics, technology, 5G wars, economy, culture, the arts and the post-dollar world indicate that the West is no longer the center of the world, nor is it even the beloved or attractive model of the majority of the earth’s population as it was in the last century.

The century from which we have finished is the century of China, Russia and Iran with distinction, and all the forces of freedom and rebellion against Western hegemony in the world, particularly American hegemony, are now looking forward to seeing the post-American world.

Even the Zionist America’s 11-day war on Palestine , the Sword of Jerusalem, has not been able to achieve even a victory image, quite the contrary, four consecutive days in which some 200 Israeli military aircraft (about two-thirds of the military aviation) bomb a strip not more than 30 km from the sea west to Shujaiya to the east, and the result is little but the destruction of buildings and the killing of children and women and a complete military failure, and the reversal of the image in public opinion even western against Tel Aviv and putting it in the form of a deadly civilian and nothing else…

All this is a sign of the geography of the end of time, the decline of Western power and the loss of vision of the American, who once thought he was the master of the world, so he discovers that he is surrounded by forces that surpass him with almost everything but killing, imagination and deception of course!

Even the nuclear deal and the nights of the people of Our Country have become a mirage for the American, he is not able to revive the agreement as he wants and he is not able to return Iran to the square he wants…

The new Iran coming quickly over the next three months no longer needs to revive the nuclear deal, after it entered the role of internal catch-up in the time of crucial elections will move Iran directly to the club of the great powers without even lifting sanctions…

Remember what Imam Ali Khamenei said in more than one speech: The key to Iran’s economy is not in Lausanne, Geneva, nor New York… It is inside Iran…

The time has come for this slogan to be translated by the Quartet (Main – Jalili- Zakani – Qazizadeh Hashemi), within the framework of an initial revolutionary youth government that is also part of the “Middle Eastern Islamic” alliance behind which the Great Wall and the Sword of the Russian Tsarstand.

Jerusalem is always and never directed…

In such an atmosphere and space, it is possible to understand what the courageous, levantine historical leader, His Eminence Hassan Nasrallah, preferred in the 1930s to liberate Palestine when he said:

The import of gasoline, gasoline and fuel from the Islamic Republic of Iran directly by Hezbollah or private subsidiaries is a political, economic and social choice for the lebanese majority, which suffers humiliation because some politicians influence the satisfaction of the American on the interest of the citizens, and initiating this option will lead to public U.S. efforts to prevent the arrival of ships, and therefore will expose all the silly and false propaganda that says that America stands with the Lebanese people, so the threat alone may solve the problem even partially…

But the option of the actual direction to the east remains the radical solution to all the problems of arab and Islamic liberation countries and forces from the Great Atlas Mountains to the Great Wall to the east…

We may see your face flip in the sky.

we are still alive, say god

مسيرة الأعلام والقدس: معادلة إن عدتم عدنا

8/6/2021

منذ سيطرة الاحتلال على شطري القدس عام 67 والتنظيمات المتطرفة والكتل الاستيطانية تتشارك في تنظيم مسيرة تضمّ عشرات الآلاف تُعرَف بمسيرة توحيد القدس ويرمز اليها بمسيرة الأعلام، لحشد الإعلام الذي تتميّز به، ومنذ أكثر من نصف قرن لم يحدث أن اضطر منظمو المسيرة لجعلها موضع أخذ ورد واعتبار القيام بها موضوعاً للنقاش. وكان الهدف من المسيرات المنتظمة سنوياً التحضير للمزيد من خطوات الاستيطان في القدس ودعم سياسات تهجير السكان الأصليين والتحريض لقرب ساعة هدم المسجد الأقصى تحت شعار بناء الهيكل المزعوم.

للمرة الأولى تتأرجح المسيرة على حبال الإلغاء، بعدما فرضت حرب سيف القدس تأجيلها. والسبب واضح وهو المعادلة التي وضعتها المقاومة مع وقف النار، إن عدتم عدنا، وكل تصعيد في القدس يشعل حرباً، وما تلاه من معادلة رسمها السيد حسن نصرالله وأكدها السيد عبد الملك الحوثي، بأن تهديد القدس يعني حرباً إقليميّة، وليس خافياً أن الغاء المسيرة كان موضع نقاش في زيارة وزير دفاع الكيان بني غانتس لواشنطن، التي تسعى لتفادي التصعيد ومن خلفه خطر الحرب الإقليمية، بينما بدا واضحاً بالمقابل رهان رئيس حكومة الاحتلال المهدَّد بالترحيل بنيامين نتنياهو على المسيرة لتعبئة المناخات ضد الحكومة الجديدة من جهة، وأخذ المواجهة في القدس الى أبعد مدى تصعيدي ممكن من جهة أخرى.

القرار الذي اتخذته شرطة الاحتلال بإلغاء المسيرة يعبر عن موازين القوى الجديدة بعد سيف القدس، سواء موازين القوى بين الكيان ومحور المقاومة من جهة، أو موازين القوى الحاكمة لعلاقة الكيان بالحماية الأميركية، التي ظهرت حاجة حيوية بعد الفشل العسكري والأمني اللذين أظهرتهما الحرب، وللحماية كلفة هي الوصاية.

المعادلة الجديدة مع المقاومة، فلسطين حرة والكيان يفقد الاستقلال، وفلسطين تتحدّى والكيان يتراجع.

‘Israel’ Begged US to Broker Gaza Ceasefire – Yedioth

06-06-2021

‘Israel’ Begged US to Broker Gaza Ceasefire - Yedioth

By Staff, Agencies

‘Israeli’ newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth said Tel Aviv begged the US to mediate a ceasefire during the 11-day military aggression on the besieged Gaza Strip that prompted the Palestinian resistance to retaliate with a massive rocket barrage.

Contrary to what is believed, ‘Israel’ was the side trying to achieve a truce during the war, Yedioth reported on Saturday.

According to the report, Tel Aviv repeatedly contacted the administration of US President Joe Biden to broker “a dignified ceasefire” by putting pressure on Egypt and some other countries.

After the Biden administration did not show much interest in intervening in the matter, Tel Aviv sent a message to Cairo calling on the North African state to intervene with the US approval, it added.

Tel Aviv launched the bombing campaign against Gaza on May 10, after Palestinian retaliation against violent raids on worshipers at the al-Aqsa Mosque and the regime’s plans to force a number of Palestinian families out of their homes at Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of occupied East al-Quds.

The Gaza-based resistance groups did not sit idly by in the face of the ‘Israeli’ onslaught. Appearing noticeably stronger than before, the Palestinian fighters took the occupation entity by surprise with massive barrages of rockets.

Hamas and Islamic Jihad fired 4,300 rockets towards different cities in the occupied lands during the war, which ended on May 21 after ‘Israel’ announced a unilateral ceasefire that the resistance movements accepted with Egyptian mediation.

The Palestinian resistance struck the Red Sea port of Eilat, over 190 kilometers away using a new Ayyash-250 rocket.

Zionist media admitted at least 13 Zionist settlers were killed in the panic-stricken occupied territories and 357 others were injured, suggesting that the regime’s much-publicized “Iron Dome” missile system had failed in the face of the massive rocket fire.

Gaza’s Health Ministry said 253 Palestinians lost their lives in the ‘Israeli’ offensive, including 66 children and 39 women, and 1948 others were wounded.

ما تخافوش

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is %D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%82-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%8A.jpg

07-06-2021

خلال الشهر الماضي وما شهدته مدينة القدس والأحياء العربية فيها بصورة خاصة من مواجهات، ظهر أن الشباب الفلسطيني في القدس والأراضي المحتلة عام 48 الذي يُعرف بالجيل الثالث، أي الجيل الذي ولد في ظل الاحتلال، يُسقط الرهان على الأسرلة التي شكلت خياراً عمل عليه الكيان ضمن خطة تذويب القضية الفلسطينية والهوية العربية للسكان الأصليين للمناطق المحتلة، واستثمر الكيان الزمن الفاصل منذ مسيرة التفاوض واتفاق أوسلو لتوفير فرص التغاضي عن خطته والاستفراد بأبناء القدس والمناطق المحتلة عام 48.

الذين نهضوا بالانتفاضة الفلسطينية الجديدة التي أسست لجولة الحرب الأخيرة وعنوانها القدس، هم شباب وصبايا فلسطين الذين ولدوا بعد الانتفاضة الأولى، ورافقوا وهم صغار انتفاضة الأقصى وانتصار جنوب لبنان عام 2000، وواكبوا مسار التفاوض البائس، ومسار التطبيع المشين، وأحداث المنطقة سواء في سورية أو في ظهور محور المقاومة، ومقابله تحالف يجمع حكومات الخليج وكيان الاحتلال تحت عنوان الخطر الإيراني المشترك، فقرّروا ودون امتلاك أدوات حزبيّة، ودون الانتماء للتشكيلات السائدة فلسطينياً، وفي مواجهة دعوات للانضواء تحت سقف اللعبة الداخليّة للكيان، عبر انتخابات الكنيست وقبول هوية «عرب إسرائيل»، كما تفرض حصيلة أية تسوية وفق حلّ الدولتين، ستكون أحياء بعيدة عن القدس تحمل تسمية القدس كعاصمة لها، مثل حي أبو ديس، ولن يكون لأبناء مناطق الـ 48 اي مكان فيها، وشق خيار هذا الجيل طريقه وفرض حضوره، وصار عنوان الحدث.

جوهر سياسة الكيان تجاه هذا الجيل قام على الترغيب ومشروع الدمج والتذويب، وقد فشل فشلاً ذريعاً، فقد تكفلت الطبيعة العنصرية للكيان ومشاريع التهجير والاستيلاء على المنازل والأراضي، والإبعاد عن الوظائف، والتضييق في المعاملات الرسمية، عناصر تذكير مستمرة بالاحتلال، وبالهوية الفلسطينية بالمقابل، بينما ظهر بوضوح فشل أي رهان على حماية أو إنجاز يمكن أن تحققهما المشاركة في الانتخابات، وسقف ما بلغته هذه الانتخابات هو توفير حجر شطرنج يمكن التلاعب به في التحالفات الحكوميّة في الكيان، يتمّ حذفه فور انتهاء ترتيب اللعبة، فقرر هذا الجيل خوض المواجهة في الشارع بالصوت والكلمة، مستفيداً من ثورة المعلوماتيّة والاتصالات، ومن كفاءات ومهارات لغويّة وتواصليّة أتقنها الشباب والصبايا الفلسطينيون يخاطبون العالم على مدار الساعة شارحين قضيّتهم وعدالتها.

جاءت المواجهة الأخيرة لتكشف طبيعة الحرب على الوعي، والمعادلة التي صاغها الجيل الثالث بمواجهة معادلة بن غوريون القائمة على زرع الخوف، هي الكلمة التي قالتها الناشطة منى الكرد التي مثلت رمزاً لشباب حي الشيخ جراح في القدس لحظة اعتقالها، «ما تخافوش»، وبعد حرب الأيام العشرة وإعلان السيد حسن نصرالله أن القدس تعادل حرباً إقليمية، زادت ثقة هذا الجيل بأنه يُمسك مفاتيح الحرب في المنطقة. ومن خلال هذا الإمساك بمفاتيح الحرب، تستنفر واشنطن على مدار الساعة لتتابع كل حدث، ويستنفر بنيامين نتنياهو ومن خلفه المستوطنون والمتطرفون لخوض معركة القدس بتصعيد الاعتقالات والتحضير لمسيرة الأعلام الصهيونية في القدس، أملاً بتفجير المنطقة، وتصير بيد هذا الجيل دفة القيادة على معادلات إقليمية ودولية، لتنتصر معادلة «ما تخافوش».

Hamas Chief in Gaza: Palestinian Resistance Used Only 50% of its Military Power During Al-Quds Sword Battle السنوار عن الرشقة الأخيرة في معركة سيف القدس: “وما خفيّ أعظم”

Source

manar-06674190016224720967

June 5, 2021

Hamas Chief in Gaza, Yahya Sinwar, indicated on Saturday that the Palestinian resistance used only 50% of its military power during Al-Quds Sword battle, highlighting the military readiness to face any Zionist aggression.

Addressing the academicians in Gaza, Sinwar stressed that if the confrontation erupts again, the entire Middle East will change, underlining that there are great surprises in this regard.

Sinwar pointed out that 130 missiles were fired by the Palestinian resistance at Tel Aviv, adding that the Zionist enemy could not destroy more than 3% of Gaza tunnels.

On the other hand, Sinwar said that the Palestinian resistance will reject any attempt to keep Gaza affected by the destruction caused by the Israeli war, adding that all who plan to support the Gazans or invest in the Strip are welcomed.

Sinwar, also, noted that the PLO must be reorganized in order to be joined by Hamas and the resistance factions, emphasizing that all the political concepts that were adopted by the PLO figures before Al-Quds Sword have become useless.

 Al-Manar English Website

السنوار عن الرشقة الأخيرة في معركة سيف القدس: “وما خفيّ أعظم”

 الميادين نت

05/06/2021

رئيس المكتب السياسي لحركة حماس في قطاع غزة يحيى السنوار يؤكد أنه “إذا تفجرّت المواجهة مع “إسرائيل” مجدداً، فإن شكل الشرق الأوسط سيكون مختلفاً عما هو عليه الآن”.

رئيس المكتب السياسي لحركة حماس في قطاع غزة يحيى السنوار (أرشيف)

رئيس المكتب السياسي لحركة حماس في قطاع غزة يحيى السنوار (أرشيف)

أعلن رئيس المكتب السياسي لحركة حماس في قطاع غزة يحيى السنوار، أنه “إذا تفجرّت المواجهة مع “إسرائيل” مجدداً، فإن شكّل الشرق الأوسط سيكون مختلفاً عما هو عليه الآن، فالمقاومة قادرة على تحقيق الردع واستطاعت أن تصنع من المستحيل القوة المتراكمة”.

ولفت خلال لقاء مع الكتّاب والأكاديميين والأساتذة في جامعات بغزة، إلى أن”انتفاضة أهل الضفة الغربية والداخل شكلّت عامل ضغط أكبر من صواريخ المقاومة في العدوان على غزة، فيما الهرولة العربية للتطبيع والانقسام الفلسطيني والوضع الدولي شجعّت إسرائيل على عدوانها”. 

وكشف السنوار أن “ما خفيّ كان أعظم، ففي في الرشقة الصاروخية الأخيرة التي أعددناها، كان القرار بإطلاق كافة الصواريخ القديمة”، موضحاً أن “العدو لن يستطيع فرض واقعه المزعوم في القدس والشيخ جرّاح مستغلاً حالة الانقسام والتطبيع”.

وتابع السنوار قائلاً: “مقاومتنا المحاصرة من العدو والأقربون، تستطيع أن تدك تل أبيب بـ130 صاروخاً برشقة واحدة، والرشقة الأخيرة بمعركة “سيف القــدس” كان القرار أن تدك بكل صواريخها القديمة، وما خفيّ أعظم”، مؤكدا أن “تل أبيب التي أصبحت قبلة الحكام العرب، حولناها إلى ممسحة وأوقفتها المقـاومة على رجل واحدة”.

وأشار السنوار إلى أن “الاحتلال لم يدمّر إلا كسوراً من أنفاق المقـاومة في قطاع غزة، وفشل في تحطيم “مترو حمـاس” لأننا نعشق هذه الأرض كما هي تعشقنا، كما فشل بتحطيم قدرات المقـاومة وفي تنفيذ خطته التي تقضي بقتل 10 آلاف مقاتل من المقاومة، ولم يدمروا أكثر من 3% من الأنفاق، مضيفا أنه “إستعملنا فقط نصف قوتنا”.

وشدد على أنه “لا يمكن أن نقبل دون انفراجة كبيرة يلمسها أهلنا في قطاع غزة، ونحن بعد أيار/مايو 2021 لسنا كما كنا قبله”، مؤكداً بسياق المناسبة أن “المعركة الأخيرة أثبتت أن المقاومة الفلسطينية تضم بين صفوفها عدداً كبيراً من حملة الشهادات العليا”.

انتخابياً، كشف السنوار عن ” تقديم كل تنازل ممكن وأبدينا مرونة عالية جداً من أجل الوصول لحالة تنهي شتاتنا وتنهي الانقسام، لكن الانتخابات ألغيت، وأي شخص يريد الإستثمار بقطاع غزة أو يقدم الدعم لغزة سنفتح له الباب ولن نأخذ أي شيء للمقاومة، والأيام القادمة ستكون  اختباراً حقيقياً للاحتلال وللعالم وللسلطة لترجمة ما تم الاتفاق عليه”.

وأكمل: “أمامنا فرصة لإنهاء حالة الانقسام وترتيب البيت الفلسطيني ونقول كل ما كان يطرح قبل 21 أيار لم يعد صالحاً”، معتبراً أن “منظمة التحرير بدون حركة حمـاس وفصائل المقـاومة هي مجرد صالون سياسي، وأمامنا استحقاق فوري لترتيب المنظمة لتمثّل الجميع ولنضع استراتيجيتنا الوطنية لإدارة الصراع لتحقيق جزء من أهداف شعبنا”.

The Horror of the North…

05-06-2021

The Horror of the North… 

By Staff

The “Israeli” entity remains in a state of horror against any possible escalation in the Northern Front, considering that “the next battle in the north will be dozens of times more difficult than what happened with the Gaza Strip during the past month.”

In this context, the mayor of the “Nesher” settlement, Roi Levy, said during the Contractors’ Conference in the occupied city of Haifa, “Several days after the ‘Guardians of the Wall Operation’, which killed 14 ‘Israelis’, thousands of rockets were fired into ‘our territory’ and hit mainly those who did not have adequate fortification.”

He also expected that “The next battle in the north will be dozens of times more difficult, with thousands of missiles a day to be fired into our region.”

According to the “Haifa News”, Levy considered that “Those who did not realize what happened in Ashkelon, Ashdod and Yavne last month, apparently live on another planet.”

“What we have witnessed in Gaza’s operation in days, will happen here in Haifa by Hezbollah in Lebanon in one single day,” he added.

“You know just like us how many unfortified homes there are, and how many people don’t have access to shelters… And that doesn’t change anything if we’re working with the Home Front and if we care about shelters, but that’s not the case, “he stated, noting that “Those who don’t have a safe room inside their house will not be immune from missile attacks.”

Defamation (השמצה‎‎) anti-Semitism

Posted May 30, 2021

Source

Must Watch

Documentary examines anti-Semitism, and its affect on Israeli and U.S. politics.

Defamation (השמצה‎‎) is a 2009 documentary film by award-winning filmmaker Yoav Shamir. It examines antisemitism and, in particular, the way perceptions of antisemitism affect Israeli and U.S. politics. Defamation won Best Documentary Feature Film at the 2009 Asia Pacific Screen Awards.

See also

“I’m hopeful now, and I haven’t been hopeful in a long time. What’s happening now is putting a check on Israel. They have a problem now.”

Jewish-American political analyst Dr Norman Finkelstein speaks to MEE about his views on Israel’s latest offensive in #Gaza pic.twitter.com/Xw3ZOwT7on— Middle East Eye (@MiddleEastEye) May 16, 2021

Now it’s ‘antisemitic’ to say that Israel practices ‘apartheid’

Jonathan Cook: Jewish groups that aid Israel’s war crimes can’t deny all responsibility for those crimes

Hamas Puts Marwan Barghouti on List of Prisoners to Be Freed

 June 2, 2021

Marwan Barghouti

Hamas included Marwan Al-Bargouthi on the list of Palestinian prisoners whom the movement calls for their release as part of prisoner swap deal with the occupation authorities, a report said on Wednesday.

Russia Today quoted a Hamas official as saying that Hamas is keen to free all prisoners who have life terms.

The official noted that this round of talks has not discussed so far numbers and names of prisoners who are likely to be freed.

Barghouti, a popular Fatah leader, is serving a five life sentences plus 40 years. He is dubbed “Palestine’s Nelson Mandela.”

Earlier on Monday, Egyptian security chief Abbas Kamel arrived in the Gaza Strip through Erez Crossing point on the borders with the occupied territories to hold talks with leaders of Palestinian factions, including the Hamas.

One of the discussed issues was the possible prisoner swap deal with the Israeli occupation authorities.

During Monday meetings, Hamas officials informed Kamel that the Resistance movement rejects linking the process of the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip with reaching the prisoner swap deal.

Source: Al-Manar English Website

«حماس» وضعت البرغوثيّ على قائمة تبادل الأسرى

أكد مصدر في «حماس» أن الحركة حريصة على خروج جميع الأسرى الفلسطينيين من سجون الاحتلال وفي مقدمتهم القادة والمحكومون بأحكام مرتفعة ومدى الحياة والمؤبدات.

وشدّد المصدر على أن هناك حرصاً من الحركة على إخراج هؤلاء القادة وتم دائماً طرح أسمائهم في صفقة «شاليط»، كاشفاً عن «فيتو صهيوني أو حتى من تدخّلات من قبل البعض خصوصاً حول مروان البرغوثي».

وأضاف: «حتى اللحظة في هذه الجولة من المفاوضات، لم يتم التوصل إلى نقطة الحديث حول مَن وعدد الذين سيخرجون من السجون»، مشيراً إلى أن «الاحتلال ما زال يماطل ولم يستجب للذهاب إلى مفاوضات غير مباشرة في هذا الموضوع».

وفي السياق، كشف موقع «واينت» العبري نقلاً عن مسؤول صهيوني كبير، أن الاحتمالات لإبرام صفقة تبادل أسرى مع حركة «حماس» ارتفعت.

وبحسب «واينت»، أفاد المسؤول بأن «إسرائيل» تنتظر حالياً عرضاً من قبل الوسطاء المصريين لصفقة من هذا القبيل»، التي ستشمل الإفراج عن سجناء فلسطينيين أمنيين مقابل إعادة جثماني الجنديين الصهيونيين، أورون شاؤول وهدار غولدن، واطلاق سراح المواطنين أبرا منغرسة، وهشام السيد، اللذين تحتجزهما «حماس» في قطاع غزة.

كما أوضح المسؤول الصهيوني أن «المصريين مهتمون بالقضية، ويفهمون أنه بدون حل قضية الأسرى والمفقودين لن تكون هناك إعادة إعمار، بعد الدمار الذي حدث في العملية العسكرية الأخيرة».

The Palestinian keffiyeh: All you need to know about its origins

A closer look at the origins of Palestine’s iconic headscarf and how it transcended borders

Palestinian women masked with traditional keffiyeh near Ramallah in the occupied West Bank (AFP/Abbas Momani)

By Indlieb Farazi Saber

28 May 2021 13:53 UTC 

A distinctly Palestinian black-and-white chequered piece of cloth, the keffiyeh is described by some as the nation’s unofficial flag.

Long synonymous with the Palestinian cause, the simple square-metre fabric, traditionally folded diagonally into a triangle and worn draped over the head of rural Palestinian men, is today securely fashioned around the necks of human rights activists, anti-war protesters, sports stars and celebrities; transcending gender, religion and nationality.

Muhammad Walid, 49, from Jerusalem says he remembers seeing his father and uncles wear the keffiyeh in his earliest memories.

“The older generations would wear it on their heads,” he says. “I started wearing it as a teenager, but around my neck. For me, it represents the Palestinian struggle and cause.”

It’s a similar story for Riad Halak, 62, also from Jerusalem, who says: “It’s a tradition of Palestine. I started wearing one when I was 11 years old, and I still wear it today on special days like the Nakba. It’s part of my identity.”

While the keffiyeh’s status as an icon of Palestinian nationhood is undisputed, its origins lie further east, in what is now Iraq.

Keffiyeh Mural
A mural depicts the Dome of the Rock and a woman wearing the keffiyeh (AFP/Jaafar Ashtiyeh)

The word itself means “relating to Kufa,” a reference to the Iraqi city south of Baghdad that sits along the Euphrates river, but little else is known about the roots of the keffiyeh. One account suggests it came about in the seventh century, during a battle between Arab and Persian forces near Kufa. The Arabs were said to have used cords made from camel hair to secure their headdresses and in order to recognise their comrades in the heat of battle. After their victory, the headgear was kept on as a reminder of their triumph. 

Others say the fabric, sometimes called the hata in the Levant, has origins that pre-date Islam and can be traced back to Mesopotamia, when it was worn by Sumerian and Babylonian priests around 5,000 years ago. 

“Its origins are open to speculation,” Anu Lingala, author of A Socio-political History of the Keffiyeh, tells Middle East Eye. “Until very recently, these types of designed objects were not taken seriously as subjects of academic research. The exception was for designed objects that were associated with elite status and wealth, whereas the keffiyeh was traditionally associated with working classes.”

Shorthand for the struggle

Although no longer linked to social status, the keffiyeh’s modern roots in Palestine are among the fellah, or rural workers, as well as the Bedouin. The two groups would wear the garment over their heads to cover the backs of their neck and protect themselves from the heat of the summer sun and the cold during the winter.

According to Lingala: “Covering one’s head was an important principle in traditional Palestinian culture.

Israel-Palestine: British media coverage ‘skewed’ and ‘biased’, report finds

“[The keffiyeh] afforded breathability through air pockets created by folds in the fabric,” she says.

The more educated, urban Palestinians, or effendi, would wear the fez or tarboush, a deep-red felt hat popularised by Ottoman ruler Mahmud II and adopted by locals as a standard form of dress. 

Cultural historian Jane Tynan has written about the scarf’s significance in the book Fashion and Politics. She says: “The Ottoman Empire’s dress codes had the effect of erasing ethno-religious identities, but would have been worn as a norm by urban dwellers.”

After the Turkish empire’s loss of its Near Eastern territories during the First World War, and the Arab Revolt against British colonial rule in 1936, Palestinian nationalists also used the keffiyeh as a means of covering their faces to hide their identity and avoid arrest, spurring unsuccessful calls among the British to ban the headscarves. Instead, in a “pivotal moment in Palestinian culture,” Palestinians united in adopting the fabric as a sign of solidarity. The symbol remained a staple icon of Palestinian nationhood after the Nakba and the establishment of the state of Israel.

“Palestinians of all social classes abandoned the fez and united around wearing the keffiyeh, making it difficult to identify the revolutionaries,” Maha Saca, head of the Palestinian Heritage Centre in Bethlehem, tells Middle East Eye.

Tynan, an assistant professor in design history and theory at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, says that “from its function in the revolt as a tool to disguise the identity of the wearer from British authorities, the keffiyeh became shorthand for the Palestinian struggle”. 

Yasser Arafat lead the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) from 1969 until his death in 2004 (AFP)
Yasser Arafat, the late leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, is said to have arranged his keffiyeh to resemble the map of pre-1948 Palestine (AFP)

Lingala makes a similar point: “As Palestinians’ collective identity and right to the land continued to be increasingly threatened… they sought to hold onto items that represented ‘cultural continuity’.”

Years later, in the 1960s, the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat popularised the garment among a global audience. According to Saca: “Abu Ammar [Arafat] would never be seen at any event without it.”

His keffiyeh was always carefully positioned on his head, with the longer end of the fabric placed over his right shoulder – some say it was laid out to resemble a map of pre-1948 Palestine. 

Muhammad Walid says his keffiyeh represents the Palestinian struggle and cause (Muhammad Walid)
Muhammad Walid, from Jerusalem, says his keffiyeh represents the Palestinian struggle (Muhammad Walid)

When Israeli occupation authorities banned the Palestinian flag from 1967 until the Oslo Accords in 1993, the scarf took on a potent symbolism, according to Ted Swedenburg, professor of anthropology at Arkansas University.

“Portable and visible symbols” were important to Palestinians, Swedenburg says, adding that with the flag banned by the occupation for alomost 30 years, the keffiyeh, “to which so much rich symbolism and history was attached, served as an everyday, portable, visual expression of Palestinian identity”. 

Wheat, olives and honey

The distinct black stitching on the white cotton keffiyeh is said to have many symbolic meanings, and although none have been verified, Palestinians have no shortage of interpretations.

It has been described by some as “a fishing net, a honeycomb, the joining of hands, or the marks of dirt and sweat wiped off a worker’s brow”. Others suggest the design represents ears of wheat, in reference to Jericho, one of the first known cities to cultivate the grain.

Palestinian performance artist Fargo Tbakhi adds “barbed wire” to the list, explaining the pattern could depict “that ever-present symbol of the occupation,” although he relates most to the fishing net design, also called the fatha (opening).

“[I see it] as a symbol of our identity, a model for being Palestinian, it articulates one possible futurity for our people,” he writes in the Los Angeles Review of Books.

“A fishnet is an image of collectivism, of entanglement and dependence: in a net, singular strands become something larger, stronger. As one strand, I am always yearning to be knotted together with others, so that we are better able to hold, to catch.”

Palestinian author Susan Abulhawa tells Middle East Eye that the patterns on the keffiyeh “speak to Palestinian lifeblood, in the same way that the patterns of tatreez [Palestinian embroidery] is a language unto itself, telling stories of location, lineage, occasion, and historic significance”.

The black stitching is sometimes also referred to as a honeycomb design, in recognition of the region’s beekeepers; some rural Syrians (where the cloth is also worn) say the pattern symbolises the joining of hands and the marks of dirt and sweat wiped off a worker’s brow. 

A recent tweet included another interpretation of the design, a representation of Palestine’s olive trees, which show “strength and resilience”:

Share this post to educate people on our traditional Kuffieyeh 🇵🇸 pic.twitter.com/R3jvs0DWp1— mars | FREE PALESTINE (@peachesfrompali) May 17, 2021

Abulhawa agrees: “The ‘bird-like’ motifs along the border are interconnected olive leaves, referring to the significance of the olive tree in Palestinian life.” 

Olives, in all forms – olive oil, olive-oil products (such as soap), and olive wood – were hugely important aspects of Palestinian culinary, social and economic life, Abulhawa explains. 

‘Israeli’ Expert: Hezbollah Is 10 Times the Threat that Hamas Has Been with up to 200,000 Missiles

28/05/2021

Source

‘Israeli’ Expert: Hezbollah Is 10 Times the Threat that Hamas Has Been with up to 200,000 Missiles

By Staff, CBN News

For eleven days, Hamas tried to paralyze central and southern ‘Israeli’-occupied territories by firing thousands of rockets from Gaza, says Chris Mitchell in CBN News. Now, strategists are looking for other potential threats and an ‘Israeli’ expert points to the north as a much bigger threat.

Prof. Boaz Ganor, the executive director of the International Institute for Counter Terrorism, told CBN News his main concern after the recent ‘Israeli’ war on Gaza.

“I have to admit that as an ‘Israeli,’ this is not the only front that I’m concerned of. I look north and I see Lebanon and I see Hezbollah,” he explained. 

Ganor estimates Hezbollah could have as many as 200,000 missiles – an amount that represents a far greater threat than Hamas.

“If you ask me what concerns with Hezbollah?  Everything that concerns me with the Hamas, but big-time, much more than what we had. So, everything we have seen in the last two weeks, we should multiply that in 10 and that’s going to be the challenge that we would face from Hezbollah.”

After studying the recent war, Ganor believes Hezbollah would try to overwhelm the Zionist entity’s number one ‘defense,’ the Iron Dome. Ganor also points out Hezbollah possesses not just rockets but missiles.

What’s the difference a missile and a rocket? A missile is a guided rocket. You can guide it. You can direct it to the targets, so they have guided missiles with much, much bigger warheads… and they cover all the ‘Israeli’-occupied territory. They can launch rockets from Lebanon and hit Eilat, which is the most southern part of the ‘Israeli’ entity.

Ganor, like most ‘Israelis,’ takes Iran at its word regarding the desire to eradicate the ‘Israeli’ occupation entity.

Ganor adds that Hezbollah represents an unprecedented challenge to ‘Israel’ and that any war against it would dwarf the recent conflict with Hamas.    

“I believe that Hezbollah would cause much more damage and much more casualties in ‘Israel’ in the numbers of hundreds, not thousands, of casualties in ‘Israel.’ In that case, no doubt in my mind, that the ‘Israeli’ government and the ‘Israeli’ military and the ‘Israeli’ public would expect the ‘Israeli’ government to do whatever they can in order to prevent those ‘atrocities’ against ‘Israel’ in a much lesser restrictive manner than ‘Israel’ in Gaza.”

Hezbollah Military Victories in 2000 & 2006 Paved Way for All Axis of Resistance to Crush ‘Israel’

 May 25, 2021

Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah

It is a mere coincidence that the victory of the Palestinian resistance over the Israeli enemy in Gaza synchronized the 21st anniversary of the liberation of most of the Zionist-occupied Lebanese territories.

After the Israeli invasion in 1982, the various factions of the Lebanese resistance engaged directly in fighting the occupation troops, expelling them from most of the cities, including Beirut. Hezbollah then mastered the fight against the Israeli enemy in Southern Lebanon and Western Bekaa, inflicting heavy losses upon the occupation troops. On May 25, 2000, the Israeli occupation army was forced by the Resistance to withdraw from most of Lebanese territories, except Shebaa Farms and KfarShuba Heights.

What Were the Strategic Consequences of 2000 Victory?

In addition to liberating the Lebanese people, territories and resources which had been under the Zionist occupation, the Lebanese resistance managed to achieve a strategic goal in 2000.

The Israeli military leader and politician Moshe Dayan once boasted that the musical band in the Israeli army can invade and occupy Lebanon. However, Hezbollah refuted Dayan’s claim and consecrated the notion that all the Zionist military units cannot occupy Lebanon.

Hezbollah even struck the renowned slogan that the Israeli army is invincible by showing the Lebanese, Arabs and the rest of the world populations that the Zionist military can be defeated.

In other words, ‘Israel’ which used to arrogantly boast its military superiority, was humiliated in Lebanon.

Humiliation of ‘Israel’ Was Complemented in 2006

Six years after the Zionist army withdrew from Lebanon, its command thought that Hezbollah was satisfied with the liberation victory and its moral as well as psychological aspects. The Israeli command fancied that Hezbollah would not develop its military capabilities.

On July 12, 2006, the Israeli enemy waged a destructive war on Lebanon. However, Hezbollah confronted the aggression and maintained a new balance of deterrence with the Zionists.

Hezbollah managed to shake more of the Israeli basic creeds and military theories. Before 2006, the Zionist home front used to be away from all the military confrontation which the occupation army engaged in. Moreover, the Zionist military used to settle any battle within few days.

On the contrary, Hezbollah managed to involve the Israeli home front in the war by firing thousands of missiles at the occupation settlements in upper and lower Galilee and steadfastly prevented the enemy from settling the battle within few days.

Consequently, the entire military creed of the Zionist enemy was shaken, which complemented the defeat in 2000.

In the recent confrontation in Gaza, the Palestinian resistance benefited from all the lessons it learnt from 2000 and 2006 victories and implemented them thoroughly to achieve a new victory by showing field steadfastness in face of the Zionist enemy despite the sacrifices and firing thousands of missiles at the Israeli settlements.

In this context, the Zionist media described the recent confrontation in Gaza as the worst, indicating that rocketry power in the Strip will remain a threat to the Israeli security.

Israeli analysts stressed Hezbollah managed to humiliate the Israeli power in 2000 and 2006, adding that the Palestinian resistance is following Hezbollah pattern with all its military details.

The Zionist aggression on Gaza Strip, which started on May 10 and ended on May 21, killed 232 Palestinians and injured more than 1900 others. In response, the Palestinian resistance fired around 4500 missiles at the Zionist cities and settlements inflicting heavy losses upon the Israelis. On Friday, May 21, a ceasefire agreement, mediated by the Egyptian government, took into effect after 11 days of a fierce confrontation between the Zionist enemy and the Palestinian resistance.

Based on several Zionist studies, the axis of resistance poses a major threat to ‘Israel’. Thus, by following the basic rules and formulas Hezbollah has maintained in its confrontation with the enemy, the axis of resistance will be able to wipe out ‘Israel’.

Source: Al-Manar English Website

“الغارديان”: الفلسطينيون، الذين تخلت عنهم الحكومات، يعتمدون على دعم الغرباء Abandoned by governments, Palestinians rely on the kindness of strangers

“الغارديان”: الفلسطينيون، الذين تخلت عنهم الحكومات، يعتمدون على دعم الغرباء

نسرين مالك
المصدر: لغارديان

24/5/2021

حتى تشدق الحكومات العربية بالقضية الفلسطينية تراجع في الفترة التي أعقبت توقيع اتفاقية كامب ديفيد، وتمت إزالة الفلسطينيين ببطء من الوعي العام العربي منذ التسعينيات.

الفلسطينيون توافدوا على المسجد الأقصى فجراً بتكبيرات العيد
الفلسطينيون يعتمدون على أنفسهم في حماية المسجد الأقصى.

تناولت نسرين مالك في عمودها في صحيفة “الغارديان” البريطانية واقع القضية الفلسطينية في أعقاب العدوان الإسرائيلي الأخير على غزة. وقالت إنه كان هناك زمن كان العرب يرضعون دعم القضية الفلسطينية مع حليب أمهاتهم. 

وأوضحت الكاتبة أنها من جيل نشأ في ظل اتفاقية كامب ديفيد واغتيال الرئيس المصري أنور السادات لما اعتبر خيانة للفلسطينيين. حتى معاهدة كامب ديفيد عام 1978، كانت مصر الحليف الرئيسي لفلسطين وأقوى قوة عسكرية في المنطقة بعد “إسرائيل”. وقد أعادت معاهدة السلام سيناء إلى مصر مقابل اعترافها بـ”إسرائيل”. ونتيجة هذا التطبيع، أغلقت مصر الباب أمام أي نوع من المساعدة العسكرية العربية للفلسطينيين، بحسب الكاتبة.

وتابعت: لقد ورثنا خيبة الأمل المريرة لتلك الحقبة. كانت فلسطين جزءاً لا يتجزأ من الهوية العربية لفترة طويلة وأصبحت تُعرف باسم “القضية” وهي قضية ملحة لم يتم حلها، تحولت بعد اتفاقية كامب ديفيد، من دعوة مثيرة للتضامن إلى أمر أكثر حزناً وتشتتاً.

وأضافت مالك أن انهيار الاتحاد السوفياتي والثورة الإيرانية دفعا الحكومات العربية والخليجية إلى التودد إلى الولايات المتحدة، وهو أمر لن ينجح إذا بقيت “إسرائيل” العدو الأول لهذه الحكومات. لذلك حتى تشدق هذه الحكومات بالقضية الفلسطينية تراجع في الفترة التي أعقبت توقيع اتفاقية كامب ديفيد مباشرة، وتمت إزالة الفلسطينيين ببطء من الوعي العام العربي ابتداء من تسعينيات القرن العشرين إلى اليوم.

وتابعت الكاتبة أنه حتى الأشعار عن فلسطين قد أوقفت في كتبنا المدرسية وفي وسائل الإعلام. وغنّت الفنانة اللبنانية فيروز ذات مرة، “الغضب الساطع آتٍ وأنا كلي إيمان”، في أغنية شعبية عن عودة الفلسطينيين الذين طردوا من القدس. لكن هتافها لم يعد على يبث على موجات الأثير العربية. وكتب الشاعر الأكثر شهرة في العالم العربي، نزار قباني، عن القدس يقول:

“غدًا، غدًا، سيزهر الليمون 

وتفرحُ السنابلُ الخضراءُ والزيتونْ 

وتضحكُ العيونْ 

وترجعُ الحمائمُ المهاجرةْ 

إلى السقوفِ الطاهرةْ 

ويرجعُ الأطفالُ يلعبونْ 

ويلتقي الآباءُ والبنونْ 

على رباك الزاهرةْ 

يا بلدي يا بلد السَّلام والزَّيتونْ”.

وقالت الكاتبة “لكنهم لم يعودوا إلى القدس.

وأوضحت الكاتبة أن القضية أضحت أصبح أمراً لم تعد الحكومات تعشر بالحاجة إلى الاهتمام به بعد الآن. وصار تصوير فكرة أن أي دعم نشط للفلسطينيين أمر ساذج، أو مخلفات من الماضي، أو أنه جزء لا يتجزأ من أجندة دينية متطرفة. فمن خلال سحب حتى دعمها المعنوي للفلسطينيين، “ساعدت الأنظمة الاستبدادية الضعيفة في جميع أنحاء المنطقة في جعل القضية تبدو وكأنها قضية هامشية، وهو الأمر الذي تمسك به الرومانسيون والراديكاليون فقط”.

وأشارت مالك إلى ان الشكوك نفسها تخيّم على الدعم لفلسطين في الغرب. إذ يترافق مع هذا الشك اتهام بأن هناك ترسيخاً غير معقول للقضية الفلسطينية. وثمة سؤال يحوم حول التضامن مع فلسطين، لماذا التركيز على هذه الأزمة في حين أن هناك الكثير من الآخرين حول العالم يطالبون بنفس مستوى الغضب تجاه قضاياهم إن لم يكن أكثر؟ ماذا عن الأويغور في الصين أو الروهينغا في ميانمار؟ 

ورأت مالك أن الإجابة على هذا السؤال هي أن السياسيين الغربيين ربما يفعلون القليل جداً في ميانمار أو الصين، لكنهم بالتأكيد يقومون بما يكفي للاعتراف بحدوث انتهاكات لحقوق الإنسان. فقد أعلن نواب بريطانيون عن وجود إبادة جماعية في الصين. وتخضع ميانمار لعقوبات. حتى حليفة الغرب الآخر في الشرق الأوسط، المملكة العربية السعودية، تتعرض للرقابة، حيث علق الرئيس الأميركي جو بايدن مبيعات الأسلحة إلى السعودية في وقت سابق من هذا العام. بينما فشل مجلس الأمن الدولي في تمرير حتى بيان يدين الهجوم العسكري الإسرائيلي في غزة ويدعو إلى وقف إطلاق النار.

وقالت الكاتبة إن الرأي القائل بأن فلسطين تجتذب درجة غير متناسبة من الغضب الأخلاقي لا يفسر حقيقة أن القليل من هذا الغضب يأتي من الأماكن المهمة – مناصب وزراء الحكومة والنخب السياسية ووسائل الإعلام. ولأن هذه الحملة المتضامنة مع الفلسطينيين لا يُسمح لها إلا بالازدهار خارج التيار السائد المعتبر، فمن الأسهل بعد ذلك تأطيرها على أنها سيئة السمعة، مثل اتهامها بأنها “استفراد شرير لإسرائيل”.

وأضافت أن الحقيقة الثابتة هي أن الفلسطينيين مميزون. لقد حرموا، على عكس معظم الشعوب المضطهدة، من لغة الشرعية. إذ إن وقائع الاحتلال الذي يخضعون له ومقاومتهم والتمييز العنصري (نظام الأبارتايد) الذي يتعرضون له قد غُيّبت أو تم جعلها غامضة. أصبحت القضية الفلسطينية مشكوكاً فيها من خلال نوع من عكس الأدوار في سرد ​​الصراع. أصبح الضحايا هم المعتدون، وتم التخلي عن الفلسطينيين لمصيرهم، ثم تم تأطيرهم لأجله. 

وأشارت الكاتبة إلى أن الفلسطينيون تحمّل مسؤولية الأعمال الفردية العسكرية التي توصف في الغرب بـ”الإرهابية” وعوقبوا على ردود حركة حماس الانتقامية. ولم يكن هناك أي إجراء دفاعي يمكنهم اتخاذه بشكل شرعي، سواء رداً على الإخلاء من منازلهم أو الهجمات على المدنيين. وأوضحت أن الخطاب، الذي تم التدرب عليه جيداً وألقاه ببراعة سياسيون ذوو مصداقية، هو الذي حدد الوضع وهو القائل “إن لإسرائيل الحق في الدفاع عن نفسها. أي نوع من الأشخاص هو من لا يدعم حق إسرائيل، أو حق أي دولة، في الدفاع عن نفسها؟”. وتم تنميط كل من يرفض هذا الخطاب بأنه “ربما يكون شخصاً يتعاطف مع الإرهاب، أو شخصاً معادياً للسامية، وربما شخصاً مؤمناً غريب الأطوار يجمع القضايا المفقودة وليس لديه فهم للقانون الدولي أو تاريخ المنطقة”.

ورأت مالك أن شيئاً ما يتغير. فهذا المظهر السلبي لداعم فلسطين، الذي صوّر بأنه شخص كريه، يتعرض للتشكيك. ويبدو أن الهجوم الأخير على غزة، الذي قوبل مجدداً بنفس الأعذار الروبوتية لأفعال “إسرائيل”، قد غيّر التوازن. قد تكون الجغرافيا السياسية هي نفسها، لكن قدرة الحكومات (الغربية) على الاحتفاظ باحتكارها لتفسير ما يحدث على الأرض في “إسرائيل” وفلسطين تضعف. فقد تحدث حجاي العاد، المدير التنفيذي للمجموعة الحقوقية الإسرائيلية “بتسيلم”، مباشرة إلى أولئك الذين ربما يشككون الآن في الخط الرسمي، قائلاً: “صدق عينيك. اتبع ضميرك. والسبب في أنه يبدو وكأنه فصل عنصري هو ببساطة لأنه فصل عنصري”.

وخلصت الكاتبة إلى أن المزيد من الناس يصدقون ما تراه أعينهم. فالأفراد الذين يدعمون الفلسطينيين يتزايدون من حيث عددهم ودرجة ثقتهم بالقضية، وهم يتخلصون من الصورة النمطية لـ”الناشط الهامشي”. فوسائل التواصل الاجتماعي وصعود حركة احتجاجية مناهضة للمؤسسة في الصيف الماضي تعمل على إخراج القضية الفلسطينية من الجمود. لقد بدأ مناصروها في العثور على بعضهم البعض، لتبادل المعلومات واللقطات، لإضفاء الشرعية على القضية مع كل تواصل جديد. وقالت مالك إن هؤلاء المناصرين ليسوا متعاطفين مع الإرهاب، ولا معادين للسامية أو متطرفين، على الرغم من أن أي تعبئة جماهيرية ستجذب حتماً بعض الموتورين والمشاغبين. لكن لا ينبغي السماح لهم بتشويه حركة متنامية من مقدمي الرعاية من أجل القضية، أولئك الذين يرون ظلماً جسيماً يقع على الفلسطينيين يومياً، ولا يرون أي تعهد أو وعد من قادتهم بأن أي شيء سيتم القيام به حيال ذلك. وختمت بالقول إن الناس يأتون من أجل فلسطين ليس لأن سياساتهم مراوغة أو لأن شخصياتهم مشكوك فيها، ولكن لأن الحكومات في العالم العربي والغربي لم تترك لهم أي خيار آخر”.

نقله إلى العربية بتصرف: هيثم مزاحم


Abandoned by governments, Palestinians rely on the kindness of strangers

Nesrine Malik a Guardian columnist

The fight for justice has been left to individuals to champion – but we’re growing in number

A pro-Palestine demonstration in Athens, Greece, on 22 May 2021.
A pro-Palestine demonstration in Athens, Greece, on 22 May 2021. Photograph: Nikolas Georgiou/ZUMA Wire/REX/Shutterstock

Mon 24 May 2021 06.00 BST

There was a time when support for the Palestinian cause was fed to Arabs with their mothers’ milk. I am of a generation that grew up in the shadow of the Camp David agreement and the assassination of the president of Egypt, Anwar Sadat, for what was seen as a betrayal of the Palestinians. Until Camp David in 1978, Egypt had been Palestine’s main ally and the strongest military power in the region after Israel. The peace treaty returned Sinai to Egypt in exchange for recognition of Israel. With that normalisation, Egypt closed the door to any sort of Arab military assistance to the Palestinians for ever.

We inherited that era’s bitter disappointment. Palestine had been such an integral part of Arab identity for so long that it came to be known as “the case” or “the file” – an urgent unresolved issue at the heart of our world. After the Camp David agreement, “the case” went from being a rousing call for solidarity to something more melancholy and scattered.Advertisement

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the Iranian revolution motivated Arab and Gulf governments to ingratiate themselves with the US, and that wouldn’t work if Israel remained their public enemy number one. So even the lip service paid to the Palestinian cause in the period immediately after Camp David fell away, and the Palestinians were slowly rubbed out of the public consciousness from the 1990s onwards.

Poems about Palestine stopped appearing in our Arabic-language textbooks and in the media. The Lebanese singer Fairuz once sang, “The striking anger is coming and I am full of faith”, in a popular song about the return of the Palestinians driven out of Jerusalem. But her chant was no longer on the airwaves. The Arab world’s most celebrated poet, Nizar Qabbani, wrote, “The migrant pigeons will return/ To your sacred roofs/ And your children will play again”, again about Jerusalem. But they did not.

Eventually, the cause became something governments didn’t even feel the need to namecheck any more. The idea that was subtly passed down, via erasure and silence, was that any active support for the Palestinians was naive, a hangover from the past, or part and parcel of an extremist religious agenda. By the time Donald Trump announced he was moving the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, Al Jazeera noted the muted response from Arab governments and asked, “Why would Arabs not forget the Palestinian cause, now that they have themselves a thousand causes?” By withdrawing even their moral backing of the Palestinians, weak despotic regimes across the region helped make the cause seem a fringe issue, something only romantics and radicals held on to.

This same suspicion hangs over support for Palestine in the west. And with that suspicion comes an accusation – that there is an unreasonable fixation with the issue. A question hovers over solidarity with Palestine – why focus on this crisis when there are so many others around the world that demand the same, if not more, outrage? What about the Uyghurs in China or the Rohingya in Myanmar? The answer to that question is that western politicians may be doing too little in Myanmar or China, but they are certainly doing enough to acknowledge that human rights abuses are taking place. British MPs declared a genocide in China. Myanmar is under sanctions. Even the west’s other coddled ally in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, is coming under censure, with Joe Biden suspending arms sales to Saudi Arabia earlier this year. Meanwhile, the UN security council failed to pass even a statement condemning Israel’s military response in Gaza and calling for a ceasefire.

The view that Palestine attracts a disproportionate degree of moral outrage fails to account for the fact that so little of that outrage comes from the places that count – the ranks of government ministers, political elites and the mass media. And because that advocacy is only allowed to thrive outside the respectable mainstream, it is easier then to frame it as disreputable, as a sinister singling out of Israel, or special pleading for a not-so-special cause.

But the stubborn reality is that the Palestinians are special. They have, unlike most other oppressed peoples, been denied the language of legitimacy. The facts of their occupation, their resistance and the apartheid they are subjected to have been annulled or made ambiguous. The Palestinian cause has been rendered dubious through a kind of reversal of roles in the narration of the conflict. The victims became the aggressors. The Palestinians were abandoned to their fate, and then framed for it.

Palestinians were held responsible for the crimes of individual terrorists and punished for the retaliations of Hamas. There was no defensive action they could legitimately take, whether in response to eviction from their homes or attacks on civilians. A well rehearsed line, slickly delivered by credible politicians, defined the situation – Israel had the right to defend itself. What kind of person doesn’t support the right of Israel, or indeed, any country, to defend itself? Perhaps someone with terrorist sympathies, perhaps someone who is antisemitic, perhaps someone who is a crank conspiracist who collects lost causes and has no grasp of international law or the region’s history.

But something is changing. That negative profile of the unsavoury Palestine supporter is being challenged. The latest assault on Gaza, met once again with the same robotic excuses for Israel’s actions, seems to have shifted the balance. The geopolitics may be the same, but the ability of governments to maintain a monopoly on explaining what is happening on the ground in Israel and Palestine is weakening. Hagai El-Ad, the executive director of human rights group B’Tselem, spoke directly to those who might now be questioning the official line. “Believe your eyes. Follow your conscience. The reason that it looks like apartheid is simply because it is apartheid.”

More and more people are believing their eyes. The individuals who support the Palestinians are growing in number and confidence, shaking off the “fringe activist” stereotype. Social media and the rise of an anti-establishment protest movement last summer are bringing in the Palestinian cause from the cold. Its advocates are beginning to find each other, to share information and footage, to draw legitimacy for the cause with every new connection. They are not terrorist sympathisers, antisemites or radicals, though any mass mobilisation will inevitably attract its share of cranks and thugs, who should be vigorously called out. They should not be allowed to taint a growing movement of foster carers for the cause, those who see a gross injustice visited on the Palestinians every day, and see no pledge or promise from their leaders that anything will be done about it. People are showing up for Palestine not because their politics are dodgy or their characters questionable, but because governments across the Arab and western worlds have left them with no other choice.

%d bloggers like this: