Saturday, August 16, 2014

بين مقاومتين

AN EXCELLENT PIECE

علي الظفيري
17 أغسطس 2014 
بين مقاومتين
لا شكّ أن فكرة المقاومة، والأسئلة المثارة حولها، مسألة محورية في حياتنا العربية المعاصرة، وفي هذه الظروف الصعبة 
والاستثنائية التي نعيشها. وبالمناسبة، لطالما كانت ظروفنا صعبة واستثنائية. أحاول، الآن، أن أتذكر متى كانت الظروف خلاف ذلك، ولا أنجح، ربما يسعفني أحدهم بظرفٍ عربي "طبيعي" وغير استثنائي. والمقاومة عملية وثيقة الارتباط بما نحن عليه، وما نطمح إليه، لها علاقة بمسألة الهوية العربية، وفهمنا ومعالجاتنا المختلفة لها، ومرتبطة بشرعية النظام العربي الرسمي القائم، وبقضية حاولنا مراراً، ولم ننجح، في تهميشها، أو إيجاد حلول غير عادلة لها، أو حتى الادعاء بأنها لا تعنينا بالشكل الذي يجب أن تكون عليه.

قبل الربيع العربي، وتحديداً في العقد الأخير، انتظمت حركتان رئيسيتان مقاومتان، هما حزب الله وحماس، في حلف الممانعة العربي، طهران ودمشق بشكل رئيسي، وقريباً منهما تركيا وقطر، وقد فتح ذلك شهية الاستفهام والاستنكار العربية في وجه الحركتين القويتين، حماس وحزب الله. أسئلةٌ بعضها منطقي، والأخرى ما أنزل الله بها من سلطان، والأسئلة "الهجومية"، وكأنها تفترض في معسكر الاعتدال العربي خندقاً قومياً عربياً ديمقراطياً مسانداً للمقاومة، فترى مَن يقول: كيف تكون المقاومة أداة في اليد الإيرانية؟ وكيف تتحالف المقاومة مع النظام المستبدّ في دمشق؟ فيما الطرف الآخر غير ديمقراطي بالمرّة، ولا مستقلاً عن الأجنبي وأجندته.

الجمهور العربي داعم للمقاومة، وهو واعٍ وغير طائفي، ولم يكن يفرّق بين حماس وحزب الله، مع وجود فوارق كبيرة بينهما، وكان الجمهور قابلاً لخياراتٍ سلبية اتخذتها حركات المقاومة، لسبب بسيط: هذه أفضل الخيارات المتاحة في ظل أجواء عربية رسمية معادية لفكرة المقاومة من أساسها. ولكن هذا الموقف الجماهيري الداعم، لم يكن مطلقاً وبلا شروط، بل موقفاً عقلانياً منطقياً غير مدفوع بالعاطفة، كما يُصَوَّر في الخطاب المناهض للمقاومة. والدليل، الفرز الذي حصل بعد ثورات الربيع العربي بين مقاومةٍ حقيقيةٍ، عبّرت عنها حركة حماس وفصائل المقاومة الفلسطينية، وبين حزب الله. لا يستطيع حزب الله، ولا المؤيدون له بشكل مطلق ومن دون نقاش، لومنا على موقفنا المناهض للحزب بعد الثورة السورية. فنحن، كجمهور عربي، وقفنا مع الحزب قلباً وقالباً قبل الثورات العربية، وعلى الرغم من كل التحفظات التي كانت تشوب تكوينه وأداءه، ليس لأننا لا نتمتع بحس النقد، ولا لنقص في المعلومات عنه، إنما لقناعتنا الكاملة بعدم وجود الخيارات الكافية للمقاومة، مَن يحمل البندقية ويواجه عدواً شرساً بهذه القوة، لا بدّ من تحالفٍ ما يحميه ويسانده.

وماذا تغيّر اليوم؟ هناك أشياء كثيرة تغيّرت، أولها أن حركة حماس لم تقبل الاستمرار في منظومةٍ تدعمها بشروط، وعلى حساب مبادئها وقيمها وجمهورها. خرجت من دمشق وقطعت مع طهران، لا يمكن الاستمرار في تحالفٍ عدوٍّ للإنسان العربي وحياته وحريته وكرامته، وهذا ما لم يفعله حزب الله الذي انخرط في عملية المواجهة مع العربيِّ ومشروعه لصالح الإيراني. نعم، كل مشروع حزب الله تم تجييره لصالح العدو، وما هي الحجة؟ إنها ضرورات حماية المقاومة وتأمينها، وهو ما أسقطته فصائل المقاومة الفلسطينية، الشهر الماضي، الأمر الذي نبّهنا إليه عزمي بشارة في حواره التلفزيوني أخيراً، وقد فات الكثير منا، إذ طرح الاستفهام الكبير حول مبرّر حماية المقاومة وتأمينها، وكيف أن حركتي حماس والجهاد الإسلامي قادتا المواجهة بشكل غير مسبوق، ومن دون دمشق وحزب الله وطهران، وبوجود نظام السيسي المعادي لها بشكل يفوق عداء النظام السابق في مصر أيام مبارك، كان حزب الله يؤمن دوره ووظيفته، لا مقاومته كما يدعي.

المقاومة في وجه إسرائيل قضية مركزية، وكل محاولات تهميشها وتسخيفها وعرض أضرارها لم ولن تنجح. سقط حزب الله من المعادلة بشكل كبير، لكن المقاومة وحركاتها وجمهورها لم يسقط، ولا أعرف إن كان لدى الحزب فرصة العودة والتكفير عن الجرائم التي ارتكبها، كل ما أعرفه أن الفكرة لن تموت، وكل محاولاتنا للتغيير لن تكون بدون المقاومة، أو بعيداً عنها.

غزة تنتصر: غموض حول وقف دائم لإطلاق النار بغزة

Listen: “Love in the Time of Genocide” performed by Haidar Eid

In this video, the Palestinian intellectual and activist Haidar Eid, in Gaza, performs “Love in the Time of Genocide,” adapted from a poem by the late Egyptian poet Abdul Rahim Mansour.
The words are unadorned, but Eid’s performance is haunting, set against images from Israel’s most recent massacre in Gaza:
Between contractions and pain
We will be reborn
Between contractions and pain
Wisdom will be born
The song of freedom will be born
All that has passed and gone
Is still being born in your eyes
At the end of the video are these words from Eid himself:
The Palestinian people, and Gazans in particular, have been living an unending massacre since 1948. We can no longer negotiate about improving the conditions of oppression; it is either the full menu of rights, or nothing. And that means the end of occupation, apartheid and colonialism.

The Palestinian Asshole Shows His True Colors, Again!

عباس يطالب مشعل بتأييد "الورقة المصرية": يهمنا وقف القتال

أكد الرئيس الفلسطيني، محمود عباس، يوم السبت، تمسّك القيادة الفلسطينية بضرورة التوصل إلى وقف لاطلاق النار بين المقاومة 
والاحتلال، وتطبيق المبادرة المصرية، مشدداً على أهمية التمسّك بمصر كطرف وليس مجرد وسيط في المفاوضات، فيما علم "العربي الجديد" أن عضو اللجنة التنفيذية لمنظمة التحرير صائب عريقات، التقى السبت، رئيس المكتب السياسي لحركة "حماس" خالد مشعل في الدوحة، وأوصل له رسالة من عباس بضرورة الموافقة على الورقة المصرية.

وكشفت مصادر لـ"العربي الجديد" أن عريقات، أبلغ مشعل برسالة من عباس تؤكد ضرورة الموافقة على تثبيت وقف إطلاق النار، والموافقة على الورقة المصرية.

وقالت المصادر إن "رسالة عباس كانت واضحة ودعت مشعل لعدم إدخال القضية الفلسطينية في تجاذبات إقليمية، كما أن الرئيس الفلسطيني شدد لمشعل على أنه سيتابع مؤتمر إعمار قطاع غزة بنفسه".
"
عباس طالب مشعل بضرورة الموافقة على تثبيت وقف إطلاق النار وعلى الورقة المصرية

"

يأتي هذا في وقت أعلن فيه عباس أن "أكثر ما يهمنا هو وقف القتال والدم والتدمير، وحتى هذه اللحظة سقط ألفي شهيد و10 آلاف جريح، وأحياء وقرى بكاملها قد دمرت، وما حصل في هذه الحرب الرابعة لم يحصل إطلاقاً في الحروب السابقة".

كلام عباس جاء قبل اجتماع للقيادة الفلسطينية في مقر الرئاسة في رام الله، خُصص للاستماع إلى الوفد الفلسطيني الذي يشارك في مباحثات القاهرة، والذي سيعود الليلة إلى مصر، حسب تصريح عباس.

وشدد الرئيس الفلسطيني في كلمته، على أن "التدمير لا يفيد معه الإصلاح أو التصليح، وإنما إزالة الركام كله من أجل إعادة البناء، وهذا ما قاله لي الأخوة الذين ذهبوا إلى غزة".

وأضاف قائلاً: "نحن منذ اليوم الأول، وقبل أن تأتي المبادرة المصرية بناءً على طلبنا، كان مطلبنا الأساسي كيف يمكن أن نوقف القتال، وفي ذلك الوقت لم يتعدَ الشهداء 60 شهيداً، بينما اليوم هم ألفان وفي كل يوم هناك المزيد".

ولفت الى أنه "بعد وقف القتال، يأتي موضوع المساعدات العاجلة التي بدأت برعاية الحكومة، ومن مختلف الجهات، خاصة المياه والكهرباء، إضافة للبيوت والخيم التي يحتاجها الناس للإيواء، ولا سيما أن المدارس والمستشفيات كلها دُمرت".

وأكد عباس التمسك بالمبادرة المصرية، وبمصر "التي هي طرف وليست وسيطاً، وسنستمر بالتمسك بها، لن نحيد عنها، ولن نقبل أن يحل محلها أحد".

وأعلن أن مؤتمر المانحين سيُعقد مطلع الشهر المقبل في مصر، داعياً "كل الدول المعنية بالمؤتمر ولا سيما العربية، لتقدّم الدعم السريع، لأننا نتذكر أن مؤتمراً حصل في شرم الشيخ لكنه لم يقدّم شيئاً يذكر وانتهت مهمته في ذلك الوقت".

وأشار إلى أن "الحرب الأخيرة على قطاع غزة، تختلف في حجم الدمار عن سابقاتها عام 2008-2009 وعام 2012".

وحول الانضمام للمنظمات الدولية، اعترض عباس على ما يقوله البعض بأن توقيعه عليها يأتي من باب الإشاعات، وقال: "هذه ليست إشاعة، المنظمات الفلسطينية جميعها، باستثناء بعضها، وقّعت على عريضة من أجل الذهاب إلى المحاكم الدولية"، في اشارة إلى المحكمة الجنائية الدولية.

ورفض عباس التقسيم الزماني والمكاني لمدينة القدس المحتلة، قائلاً: "هذا خط أحمر لا يمكن أن نقبل به، مهما كانت الظروف".

“THEY PULLED ME BACK IN…”

By Eric Margolis

16 August 2014
Armed humanitarianism 2.0. That’s our new western version of old-fashioned 19th century imperialism, now feminized by President Barack Obama’s lady advisors, painted pink and accompanied by the kind of soft piano music you hear in ads for women’s products.
Last week, the Obama administration latched onto the plight of Iraq’s Yazidis who were being persecuted by those awful ISIS folks – just in jolly good time to divert attention from the massacre in Gaza.
How handy. All three US networks and the increasingly shackled BBC were ordered to drop Gaza reporting and refocus their camera teams on the suffering Yazidis and, all of a sudden, Iraq’s fleeing Christians.
This was a brilliant media ploy. The world, which was furious at the US for enabling Israel’s savaging of Gaza and killing of almost 2,000 Palestinians, switched its attention to the hitherto unknown Yazidis, and to Iraqi Christians. No one in the US had ever heard of Yazidis but that was ok. Uncle Sam to the rescue.
No mention was made that Iraq’s Christians had been safe and sound under President Saddam Hussein – even privileged – until President George Bush invaded and destroyed Iraq. We can expect the same fate for Syria’s Christians if the protection of the Assad regime is torn away by the US-engineered uprising. We will then shed crocodile tears for Syria’s Christians.
The US and Europe suddenly cheered the ostensible US-French-British `rescue mission.’ Interestingly, those old colonialists, the French and British, were so quick to get involved in oil-rich Iraq: the Brits sent in some of Her Majesty’s Killers, the renowned Special Air Service, or SAS. France and Britain are sending arms to the Kurdish militia known as `pesh merga.’ Australia, now under a hard right government, may follow suit.
Around 1900, Imperial Britain, France and Russia all claimed the right to intervene in the Levant to supposedly protect its Christians. Such a useful excuse.
America thrilled to see the US Air Force dropped food and water to Yazidi refugees. Even this cynical writer was cheered to see US military power helping the oppressed.
But what of the 1.8 million oppressed Palestinians in Gaza, cut off by Israel and Egypt from food, water, medical supplies and power? What about the millions of refugees in Syria created by western attempts to overthrow its Assad dynasty for backing Iran? What of millions of internal refugees from the Afghan and Iraq Wars?
Well, Washington did just announced a temporary halt in resupplying deadly US-made Hellfire air to ground missiles to Israel, which has used up its once large supply blowing apart Palestinians in Gaza. Like the fake arms-delivery suspension by the US to Egypt’s brutish regime, it will soon be lifted when public attention has turned elsewhere.
There are 5.5 million Palestinian refugees. What are a handful of Yazidis compared to this sea of homeless? The number and plight of those Yazidi refugees were wildly exaggerated by the western powers to justify their re-intervention in Iraq.
Lurid reports of ISIS cruelty may well be true, but this old cynic suspects they are being used and exaggerated to justify intervention. After all, we saw the similar untruths about Saddam’s regime and al-Qaida’s “threat to the entire globe.”
This kind of stuff, much loved by the British, goes back to bogus stories from 1914 of German soldiers spiking Belgian babies on their bayonets. Or, remember the baloney about Kuwaiti babies thrown from their incubators by beastly Iraqis?
Now, the biggest dolts in the US Republican Party like John McCain, Lindsey Graham and my hometown’s own Peter King, claim the US homeland is threatened by pipsqueak ISIS while they try to provoke a real war with Russia over Ukraine.
To show just how bizarre US Mideast policy has become: US warplanes are dropping aid to Iraq’s Yazidis (considered devil worshippers by many Iraqi), while they bomb Zaidi tribesmen in northern Yemen who are battling its US-installed military junta in Sa’ana. Yazidis, Zaidis, it’s all very confusing, like those pesky Slovaks and Slovenes.
Meanwhile, the White House has ousted its Shia sock puppet in Baghdad, Nuri al-Maliki, in favor of a newer, even more obedient satrap. Maliki was foolish enough to actually believe he was prime minister of Iraq and refused to allow US troops to stay there indefinitely.
Big mistake, Nuri. But shed no tears for him: his vicious death squads murdered and tortured large numbers of Sunni. One of their favorite interrogation tools was an electric drill applied to the kneecap. US generals in Iraq used Shia death squads (patterned on those of El Salvador, a war I covered) to crush Sunni resistance. Now, it’s payback for the Sunnis.
Iraq’s next leader is another CIA-blessed politician who will be expected to make his nation safe for western oil companies. We see the same process in Afghanistan where CIA central casting has produced two ‘candidates’ for president.
As for de facto autonomous Kurds, they have been a western protectorate since 2003 and would be fully independent today were not for fear of a violent reaction by the irritable Turks. Israel has supplied the Kurds with arms since 1970.
Interestingly, the Kurds are now exporting oil directly to Israel though a Turkish pipeline and tanker while the regime in Baghdad, cut out of payments, fumes. There’s long been talk of an Israeli air base in Kurdistan.
“Just when I though I was out, they pulled me back in.” Michael Corleone’s plaintive line from the “Godfather” is Obama’s tune today. He’s only returning to Iraq for purely humanitarian reasons, a story that markets well to female (mainly Democratic) voters. And because the ISIS Saracens will overrun the Bible Belt soon unless Obama acts.
Never mind that the US armed and trained ISIS in Jordan to overthrow Syria’s regime. Now they have gone rogue and must be stopped by a new humanitarian crusade.
So back go American troops into the hellhole of Iraq, an act that defies both military and political logic. But US elections are on the horizon and Hillary Clinton is out there blasting Obama for having left Iraq in the first place. Hillary has just fully aligned herself with Israel’s PM Benjamin Netanyahu and asserts US troops should have stayed in Iraq…..she who is married to a notorious wartime draft dodger. Republicans are beating the same drum.
Remember the ‘tar baby’ from Uncle Remus’s slave stories of the Deep South. All who touch him get stuck. Well, that’s Iraq for you – in spades. Instead of tar, it’s sticky oil. Obama should have stayed out of Iraq. But politics forced him back in.

Current Al-Jazeera (Arabic) Online Poll


Do you support the Palestinian insistence on meeting all their demands in the negotiations in Cairo in return for a permanent cease fire?

So far, 95% have voted yes.

حرب مصر على المقاومة الفلسطينية في عيون الصهاينة

صالح النعامي


لم تعد النخب الصهيونية قادرة على مواكبة "المفاجآت" التي يصدرها النظام المصري، والتي تتمحور بشكل خاص حول أنماط سلوكه العدائي تجاه المقاومة الفلسطينية وانحيازه الفج للجانب الصهيوني. 
ومن يتابع الجدل الصهيوني الداخلي فسيلحظ ببساطة أن مستوى وحجم رهانات تل أبيب على مصر في عهد السيسي أكبر بكثير من الرهانات التي عقدتها على نظام مبارك، الذي وصفه وزير الحرب الصهيوني الأسبق بنيامين بن إليعازر بأنه "كنز إستراتيجي" لإسرائيل. 

وقد عبر رئيس الدائرة السياسية والأمنية في وزارة الحرب الصهيونية الجنرال عاموس جلعاد عن طابع الموقف المصري من المقاومة الفلسطينية وإسرائيل، حيث قال "نحن لا نتحدث فقط عن تطابق مطلق في المصالح بيننا وبين المصريين بشأن الحاجة إلى القضاء على حركة حماس، بل إن الدوافع التي تحث الجانب المصري على تحقيق هذا الهدف أكثر تشعبا وأعمق من الدوافع التي تحركنا" (قناة التلفزة الإسرائيلية العاشرة، 25/7/2014).
"من يتابع الجدل الصهيوني الداخلي فسيلحظ ببساطة أن مستوى وحجم رهانات تل أبيب على مصر في عهد السيسي أكبر بكثير من الرهانات التي عقدتها على نظام مبارك "كنز إسرائيل الإستراتيجي" كما وصفه بن إليعازر "
وتذهب وزيرة القضاء تسيفي ليفني إلى حد القول "هناك تفاهم بيننا وبين المصريين على خنق حماس، ونحن متفقون على أن هذه نتيجة أي مفاوضات على وقف إطلاق نار دائم بيننا وبين غزة" (القناة الثانية، 7/8/2014).

استنزاف حماس
يسترسل المعلقون الصهاينة في توصيف محاولات الجانب المصري ابتزاز المقاومة الفلسطينية ودفعها لتقديم تنازلات للجانب الصهيوني بدون مقابل، حيث إن هناك إجماعا بين النخب الصهيونية على أن النظام المصري غير معني تماما بأن تحصل المقاومة على أي إنجاز في أعقاب صمودها الأسطوري خلال الحرب.
ويقول الجنرال يسرائيل حسون -الذي شغل منصب نائب رئيس جهاز المخابرات الداخلية (الشاباك)، والمعروف بعلاقاته الوثيقة بالمؤسسة الأمنية المصرية- إن "إسرائيل تدرك أن هناك حاجة للتخفيف عن الفلسطينيين في قطاع غزة وتحسين أوضاعهم الاقتصادية، على اعتبار أن الأمر قد يقلص من دافعية الشباب الفلسطينيين للانضواء تحت لواء المنظمات الإرهابية، لكن المصريين غير متحمسين لهذا التوجه ويبدون تشددا أكثر" (الإذاعة العبرية، 28/7/2014). 

ويشبه المعلق العسكري في صحيفة "يديعوت أحرنوت" الغرفة التي تُجرى فيها المفاوضات على وقف إطلاق النار في القاهرة بأنها "صالة سيرك" تستخدم فيها مصر كل الوسائل من أجل "ترويض" حماس. 

وفي مقال نشرته الصحيفة بتاريخ 9/8/2014 كتب فيشمان "المصريون هم الذين ينكلون بحماس في القاهرة ويرفضون كل مطالبها على نحو فظ، لكن حماس لن تتجرأ على إهانة صاحب السيرك (السيسي) ولهذا تطلق النار على إسرائيل كي تضغط هذه على المصريين". 

ولا خلاف بين المعلقين الصهاينة على أن دور المفاوضات -كما يراه المصريون- يتمثل في استنزاف حركة حماس ودفعها للقبول بوقف إطلاق النار بأقل قدر من الإنجازات. ويقول  كبير المعلقين في قناة التلفزة الثانية أمنون أبراموفيتش "مصر رفضت في بداية الحرب التدخل، حيث اعتقد صناع القرار في القاهرة أن الجيش الإسرائيلي سيكفيهم مهمة القضاء على حركة حماس، ولكن بعدما تهاوت آمالهم وآمالنا في تحقيق هذا الهدف تدخل المصريون لحرمان حماس من إنجازات يمكن أن تقدمها للشعب الفلسطيني" (6/7/2014).


إطالة أمد الحرب
وعلى الرغم من الاحتفاء بالدور المصري المساند لتل أبيب فإن عددا من المعلقين الصهاينة باتوا يضيقون ذرعا بهذا الدور، على اعتبار أنه لا يسهم في تحقيق الهدف الذي أعلنه رئيس الوزراء الصهيوني بنيامين نتنياهو للحرب، وهو استعادة الهدوء والأمن لعموم المستوطنين. 

وقد انتبه عدد من المعلقين الصهاينة إلى حقيقة أن الضغوط التي تمارسها مصر على حماس لم تفضِ حتى الآن إلا إلى مزيد من المعاناة للمستوطنين، تحديدا في جنوب الكيان الصهيوني. وقد تساءلت الصحفية كيرين نويبخ بعفوية "نحن نريد إنهاء الحرب، والسيسي يريد إطالة أمدها، فماذا نستفيد نحن من ذلك؟". 

وخلال تقديمها برنامج "سيدر يوم" -الذي بثته شبكة الإذاعة العبرية الثانية بتاريخ 5/8/2014- واصلت نويبخ التعبير عن تبرمها من السلوك المصري، قائلة إن مصلحة إسرائيل تتمثل في وقف إطلاق النار حتى يتمكن سكان المستوطنات في الجنوب من العودة لبيوتهم.
"فيشمان: المصريون هم الذين ينكلون بحماس في القاهرة ويرفضون كل مطالبها على نحو فظ، لكن حماس لن تتجرأ على إهانة صاحب السيرك (السيسي) ولهذا تطلق النار على إسرائيل كي تضغط هذه على المصريين"
ولكي يصور حقيقة أن الموقف المصري هو الذي يمنع وقف إطلاق النار، فإن معلق الشؤون الخارجية في قناة التلفزة العاشرة نداف إيال يقول إن كل طرف معني بأن يتم التوصل لاتفاق بين إسرائيل وحركة حماس يتوجب عليه الضغط على مصر من أجل تحقيق هذا الهدف. 

وفي محاولته تصوير مدى تجند الجانب المصري للضغط على "حماس"، وسعي المسؤولين المصريين لحرمان الحركة من أي إنجاز، قال مراسل الشؤون الفلسطينية في الإذاعة العبرية يغآل بيرغير "لا يحمل المصريون عصا في غرفة المباحثات مع حماس، بل مدفعا، ويمارسون كل الضغوط عليهم من أجل إجبارهم على القبول بوقف إطلاق نار بدون أي مقابل". 

وخلال تحليل قدمه صباح 6/8/2014 أشار بيرغير إلى أن إصرار الجانب المصري على عدم مناقشة مسألة معبر "رفح" من جانب، ورفضه مجرد مناقشة طلب حركة حماس تدشين ميناء أو مطار في قطاع غزة يهدف بشكل أساس لتقليص هامش المناورة المتاح للحركة، في الوقت الذي تواصل فيه إسرائيل توجيه الضربات لقطاع غزة. 

ويوضح المعلق السياسي في قناة التلفزة الصهيونية الثانية أودي سيغل أن "ماكينزمات" (آليات) التفاوض المصري مع حركة حماس تقوم على التحايل على الحركة، مشيرا إلى أن الجانب المصري يعرض "صيغا فضفاضة" تسمح لإسرائيل بعدم احترامها في المستقبل. 
وخلال مشاركته في برنامج "أستوديو الجمعة" بتاريخ 7/8/2014 يشير سيغل إلى أن ممثلي جهاز المخابرات المصرية حرصوا على "توبيخ" ممثلي حركة "حماس" لأنهم "تجرؤوا" على رفض المبادرة المصرية، ويتهمونهم بالمسؤولية عن الدماء الفلسطينية التي سالت خلال العدوان الصهيوني على القطاع.


إن أكثر ما يجسد عمق الرهانات الصهيونية على ما يعرف بـ"محور الاعتدال العربي" هو العبارة التي باتت الوزيرة الصهيونية تسيفي ليفني تكررها دائما خلال الحرب، حيث تقول "عندما أقول "نحن" فأنا أقصد إسرائيل ومصر والأردن والسعودية والسلطة الفلسطينية". ويتضح من خلال خطة ليفني بشأن تغيير الواقع السياسي في قطاع غزة -التي أعلن عنها الأسبوع الماضي- أنها تراهن على دور كبير لمحور "الاعتدال" العربي ليس فقط في التخلص من حكم حماس في غزة، بل وفي تمهيد الظروف أمام عودة السلطة الفلسطينية لقطاع غزة. 

ويذهب الجنرال عاموس يادلين -الرئيس السابق لشعبة الاستخبارات العسكرية الصهيونية (أمان)- إلى حد القول إن بإمكان إسرائيل أن تعتمد على الدعم العربي الرسمي، وأن تواصل الحرب حتى إسقاط حكم حركة حماس في القطاع. 

وخلال مشاركته في برنامج حواري بثته قناة التلفزة الصهيونية العاشرة بتاريخ 7/8/2014 رفض يادلين التقديرات الصادرة عن هيئة أركان الجيش الصهيوني والتي على أساسها تجنبت حكومة نتنياهو اتخاذ قرار بإعادة احتلال قطاع غزة وإسقاط حكم حركة حماس. واعتبر يادلين أن التحولات في البيئة الإقليمية تمنح إسرائيل هامش مرونة كبير لاستنفاد كل الخيارات العسكرية في مواجهة المقاومة في قطاع غزة.
"يوضح المعلق السياسي في قناة التلفزة الصهيونية الثانية أودي سيغل أن "ماكينزمات" (آليات) التفاوض المصري مع حركة حماس تقوم على التحايل على الحركة، مشيرا إلى أن الجانب المصري يعرض "صيغا فضفاضة" تسمح لإسرائيل بعدم احترامها في المستقبل"
وحتى وزير الخارجية الصهيوني أفيغدور ليبرمان -الذي صرح مؤخرا بأنه مل من الاجتماعات السرية التي يعقدها مع كبار المسؤولين في الدول التي لا تقيم علاقات دبلوماسية مع إسرائيل- اعتبر أن "القواسم المشتركة" بين إسرائيل ودول "الاعتدال" العربية تسمح بتوفير أرضية صلبة للقضاء على حركة حماس. 
وحسب منطق ليبرمان، فإن الدول العربية السنية ترى في جماعة "الإخوان المسلمين" تهديدا لأنظمة الحكم فيها، وبالتالي اعتبرتها تنظيما "إرهابيا" وحظرت أنشطتها. 

ويرى ليبرمان أن هذا السبب هو الذي يفسر تشجيع الدول العربية الصامت لإسرائيل للقضاء على حماس التي تمثل فرعا من فروع "الإخوان المسلمين". 

أما وزير الحرب الصهيوني الأسبق شاؤول موفاز فيواصل الترويج لخطته الهادفة إلى نزع سلاح المقاومة في قطاع غزة بالتعاون مع الأنظمة العربية، وعلى وجه الخصوص مصر. 

وخلال مقابلة أجرتها معه إذاعة الجيش الصهيوني بتاريخ 3/8/2014 قال موفاز "ما فشلت الحرب في تحقيقه يجب السعي لبلوغه عبر تحرك دبلوماسي كبير، نحن محظوظون بسبب التحولات التي يشهدها العالم العربي لأنها تكرس حلف المعتدلين الذي يضم مصر والأردن ودول الخليج، ولنا مصلحة مشتركة تتمثل في القضاء على الإسلام السني المتطرف". 

قصارى القول، إسرائيل شنت حربها على قطاع غزة في ظل ظروف إقليمية مثالية، وهذا يبرز دور صمود المقاومة الفلسطينية واستبسالها في إجهاض التحالف المشين بين الصهاينة وبعض أنظمة الحكم العربي الذي سمحت به النجاحات التي حققتها الثورة المضادة في العالم العربي. 

إن نجاح المقاومة الفلسطينية في إفشال أهداف الحرب قد يمثل نقطة تحول فارقة نحو تراجع الثورة المضادة وصولا إلى هزيمتها المطلقة.


Sisi and the Curse of Rabaa

By David Hearst
The King Abdulaziz necklace is the highest honor the Saudi Kingdom can bestow on international statesmen. It has graced the necks of such "men of high standing" as George W Bush, Vladimir Putin, and Bashar al-Assad. On Sunday, the Custodian of the Two Mosques placed the ultimate honor around the balding head of Egypt's Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, the man whom Human Rights Watch today says should be investigated for crimes against humanity.
The timing of the accolade accorded to Sisi by his paymaster could be accidental. More likely, it is a nervous reflex action to a larger and more ominous event. This week sees the first anniversary of two massacres in the centre of Cairo which HRW say will go down in history as one of the world's largest killings of demonstrators on a single day -- more than massacre in Tiananmen Square and on a par with Andijan in Uzbekistan. That is a big claim and this organization has some experience of the subject.
HRW does not pull its punches. An exhaustive year-long inquiry into massacres which occurred when the military coup authorities forcefully dispersed two mass sit-in of protesters at Rabaa al-Adawiya and al-Nadha squares on 14 August last year names Sisi and two others as having direct command responsibility. Not only that, these massacres were premeditated, Human Rights Watch charge. Interior ministry officials revealed in a meeting with human rights organizations nine days before the dispersal that they anticipated a death toll of up to 3,500.
As defense minister at the time, Sisi held a command role over the armed forces and acknowledged spending "very many long days to discuss all the details" of the Rabaa dispersal. Interior Minister Mohamed Ibrahim formulated the dispersal plan and admitted ordering special forces to "advance and purify" key buildings in the square. Medhat Menshawy, head of special forces and commander of the Rabaa operation boasted that he told Ibrahim that "we will attack whatever it costs us."
The head of the General Intelligence Services, Mohamed Farid Tohamy, eight ministry of interior deputies, three army leaders and several high-ranking civil servants are all implicated in the HRW report.
Extensive witness evidence established that the number of firearms used by members of the sit-in was limited. Ibrahim himself said that 15 guns had been seized. If this is true, it would corroborate evidence that police gunned down hundreds of unarmed demonstrators, firing indiscriminately into the crowds by standing on the top of APC's and rooftops, behavior which did not indicate fear of being fired on themselves. The Egyptian government both planned for, and executed, a violent dispersal that would result in widespread killings of protesters without any serious effort to implement warnings or safe exits, HRW says.
The importance of this report is three-fold. This is the first time the chain of command, and command responsibility -- both key factors of a successful prosecution in the International Criminal Court in The Hague -- have been investigated and identified by an international human rights organization of this size and reputation. While Egypt is not a state party to the ICC, and the ICC itself has set obstacles in the way of a prosecution, HRW reports are credible and may prompt national jurisdictions to bring charges against members of the Egyptian government. It is also the first time that the Egyptian government's excuse, that they were replying to force used against them, has been thoroughly exposed as hollow. Third, it establishes the continuing culpability of those governments who continue to arm and deal officially with Sisi's regime in Egypt.
Sisi's human rights abuses are not over by a long chalk. The killing of more than 1,000 protesters in August last year proved to be only the start of a reign of terror visited on the whole spectrum of political opposition, secular as well as Islamist, including  even those  groups which initially supported the violent overthrow and imprisonment of the former president Mohamed Morsi. Mass killings followed on October 2, 2013 and on January 25 this year. At least 22,000 people have been arrested in the crackdowns. 
Despite statements criticizing the mass killings as disproportionate, both the EU and US continue to actively support this blood-soaked regime. Washington suspended a portion of its military aid in October last year, but in April this year announced its intention to release 10 Apache helicopters and $650m in aid on the basis that it aids US counter-terrorism and national security interests.
Sarah Leah Whitson, the HRW Middle East director -- who with Kenneth Roth, the HRW executive director, was banned from entering Egypt this week -- hoped the report would form the basis of a ban on all military aid to Egypt by the US Congress. She said:
We are making a very clear recommendation that we do not want to see weapons being used for domestic repression to be provided by the international community, particularly the US. We have already called on [Secretary of State John] Kerry to make clear that Egypt does not meet the requirements for military aid.
There is a wider point. The people who committed crimes against humanity are still attempting to gain international currency. Tohamy, for instance, is the man in charge of efforts to negotiate a truce between Israel and the Palestinian resistance groups in Gaza. Sisi can travel to the US without fear of arrest, and yet the crimes for which he should be investigated are grave enough to fall under the universal jurisdiction of domestic US, European and British courts.
HRW's case is simply put. If Egypt's response to massacres is to award bonuses to the people who committed them and erect monuments in their honor, it is time the international community acted, be that in the form of a UN commission, or the Arab League or African Union. Nothing will happen, of course, because the bottom line is that, like a generation of Latin American dictators before them, these men are western allies, whom the US and the EU protect by their silence. They will enjoy this protection even though they could easily become involved in other conflicts like Libya, using helicopters supplied by the US. As long as he continues to enjoy impunity for his crimes, Sisi is in fact a major destabilizer of the Middle East.
The battle to establish the truth of what happened in Cairo on 14 August last year has only just begun. Although Sisi's road to perdition may be a long one, the HRW report will ensure that the Egyptian leader will be haunted by the ghosts of his victims at Rabaa. 

The caliphate vs. everyone else

The Islamic State is managing to unite once divided global interests
In the endless geopolitical realignments of the Middle East, the caliphate of the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) seems to have frightened just about everyone else involved in Middle Eastern politics into a de facto geopolitical alliance. All of a sudden, we find Iran and the United States, the Kurds (both in Syria and Iraq) and Israel, Turkey and Bashar al-Assad's Syrian government, western Europe (Great Britain, France, and Germany) and Russia all pursuing in different ways the same objective: stop the caliphate from expanding and consolidating.
This hasn't yet altered significantly other loci of geopolitical conflicts such as Israel/Palestine and Ukraine, but it is sure to have an impact on them. Of course, all these actors are pursuing middle-term objectives that are quite different. Nonetheless, look at what has happened in just the first half of August.
Nouri al-Malaki has been ousted as Premier of Iraq under the combined pressure of the United States, Iran, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, and the Kurds, primarily because he resisted including a significant role for Sunnis in the Iraqi government. And why was that important? Because, for all these actors, it seemed the only way to undermine the caliphate from within.
The United States has committed its drones and a new force of circa 1,000 Marines and Special Forces to safeguard Yazidis and Iraqi Christians from their slaughter (an operation requiring de facto assistance by Bashar al-Assad), stopping the advance of the caliphate on Irbil — the Iraqi Kurdish capital, where there is a U.S. consulate and a significant number of other U.S. citizens — and probably other things after a currently ongoing assessment in the field. President Barack Obama refuses to indicate an end date for this operation and therefore almost certainly will have left unfulfilled his signature promise for a total withdrawal from Iraq during his presidency.
The Turkish government has closed down the open border for anti-Assad forces into Turkey, previously a key element in their Syrian policy. Former Senator Joseph Lieberman, a known hawk and ardent supporter of Israeli policies, has publicly praised Obama for what he has just done, while the Iranians have abstained from criticizing him. The Saudis, who can't seem to decide on their Syrian strategy, have apparently decided that silence and mystery is the best tactic.
This military effort will soon expose once again the limits of U.S. military abilities as well as the inconsistency of their public positions concerning Iraq, Palestine and Ukraine.
So what is next? And who is profiting from this realignment? There appear to be three obvious short-term winners. The first is the caliphate itself. The re-entry of the United States into the Iraqi military struggle enables the caliphate to portray itself as the major force defying the devil incarnate, the United States. It will serve to bring many additional recruits, especially from the western world. And one can expect that it will try to engage in hostile activities within the United States as well as western Europe. Of course, this short-term advantage would collapse, were the caliphate to suffer serious military reverses. But it would take some time for this to occur, if ever. The army of the caliphate appears still to be the most committed and trained military force in the region.
A second major winner is Bashar al-Assad. The outside support for anti-Assad forces has always been far less than decisive, and it is likely to dry up even further in the short term, as more and more Syrian opponents line up with the caliphate.
The third major winner is the Kurds, who have consolidated their position within Iraq and improved their relations with the Kurds in Syria. They will now be receiving more arms from western countries and possibly from others, making their military, the peshmerga, into an ever-stronger military force.
Are there clear losers? One, I suspect, is the United States. Unless the caliphate were to crumble in the near future (something that seems most unlikely), this military effort will soon expose once again the limits of U.S. military abilities as well as the inconsistency of their public positions concerning Iraq, Palestine and Ukraine. And Obama will have lost his biggest claim to geopolitical achievement. The U.S. public supports success, not a quagmire.
And there are at least three groups whose immediate future as winners or losers remains unclear. One is Iran. If the United States and Iran are on the same side both in Iraq and Afghanistan, can the United States refuse to come to some compromise agreement with Iran on the issues of nuclear energy? The Iranian position in this negotiation is at least strengthened.
A second is Hamas. The Israelis are already under heavy international pressure to reformulate their positions concerning Palestine. Will this emphasis on the dangers of the caliphate serve as additional pressure? Most probably, but the Israelis will stall as long as they can.
The third is Russia. As I write this, the Kiev government is resisting the entry of Russian trucks that the Russians say is a humanitarian mission to aid the trapped and suffering inhabitants of Lugansk, which is surrounded by Ukrainian troops seeking to starve them into surrender. Is this truly different from the efforts of the caliphate to starve the Yazidis on their mountain top into submission? If the United States and western Europe are in favor of humanitarian aid in one place, can they sustain the position of being against it in the other?
We are living in interesting times.

Friday, August 15, 2014

نهاية صدام و نهاية المالكي / الرسام عماد حجاج

Another War in Iraq Won’t Fix the Disaster of the Last

By Seumas Milne
August 14, 2014 "ICH" - "The Guardian" -- They couldn’t keep away. Barely two years after US forces were withdrawn from Iraq, they’re back in action. Barack Obama has now become the fourth US president in a row to launch military action in Iraq.

We’re now into the sixth day of US air attacks on the self-styled Islamic State, formerly known as Isis – the sectarian fundamentalists who have taken over vast tracts of Sunni Iraq and are carrying out vicious ethnic cleansing against minorities in the north.
The media and political drumbeat is growing louder for Britain to move from humanitarian aid drops to join the military campaign. France has announced it will be arming Iraqi Kurdish forces. There are already 800 US troops back on Iraqi territory.
Without a trace of irony, Colonel Tim Collins, who famously claimed on the eve of the 2003 invasion that British troops were occupying Iraq to “liberate” it, yesterday led the call for yet another military intervention.
If ever there was a case for another Anglo-American bombing campaign, some say, this must surely be it. Graphic reports of the suffering of tens of thousands of Yazidi refugees on Mount Sinjar and the horrific violence that has driven the Christians of Qaraqosh from their homes have aroused global sympathy.
The victims of this sectarian onslaught need urgent humanitarian aid and refuge. But the idea that the states that invaded and largely destroyed Iraq at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives should claim the cause of humanitarianism for yet another military intervention in Iraq beggars belief.
If the aim were solely to provide air cover for the evacuation of Yazidis from Sinjar, there are several regional powers that could deliver it. The Iraqi government itself could be given the means to do the job – something its US sponsors have denied it until now. In fact, the force that has done most so far to rescue Yazidis has been the Kurdish PKK, regarded as a terrorist organisation by the US, EU and Turkey.
But after decades of lawless unilateralism, any armed intervention for genuine humanitarian protection clearly has to be authorised by the United Nations to have any credibility. As the Labour MP Diane Abbott put it, that’s what the UN is for – and authorisation could be quickly agreed by the security council.
But of course it’s not just about the Yazidis or the Christians. As Obama has made clear, they’re something of a side issue compared with the defence of the increasingly autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan – long a key US and unofficial Israeli ally – and American interests in its oil boom capital Irbil, in particular.
The US is back in Iraq for the long haul, the president signalled, spelling out that his aim is to prevent IS establishing “some sort of caliphate through Syria and Iraq” – which is exactly what the group regards itself as having done.
The danger of the US, Britain and others being drawn again into the morass of a disintegrating state they themselves took apart is obvious. IS, then known as al-Qaida in Iraq, itself effectively arrived in the country in 2003 on the backs of US and British tanks.
The idea that the states responsible for at least 500,000 deaths, 4 million refugees, mass torture and ethnic cleansing in Iraq over the past decade should now present themselves as having a “responsibility to protect” Iraqis verges on satire.
The majority of Iraq’s million-strong Christian community was in fact forced out of the country under US-British occupation. The state sectarianism that triggered the Sunni revolt and rise of IS in Iraq – the ultimate blowback – was built into the political structures set up by George Bush.
Britain and the US – which didn’t want to “take sides” when Egypt’s coup leaders carried out one of the largest killings of demonstrators in a single day in history last summer – are the last countries on Earth to bring humanitarian relief to Iraq.
That doesn’t mean that they don’t have a responsibility to provide aid. But the record of western humanitarian intervention over the past two decades isn’t a happy one. In 1991, no-fly zones in Iraq allowed massacres of Shia rebels in the south and only functioned with thousands of troops on the ground in Kurdistan, followed by 12 years of bombing raids.
In 1999, Nato’s air campaign in Kosovo, also without UN authorisation, triggered a massive increase in the ethnic cleansing it was meant to halt. In Libya, in 2011, Nato’s interventionratcheted up the death toll by a factor of about 10 and gave cover for rampant ethnic cleansing and indiscriminate killing. Its legacy today is complete state breakdown and civil war.
It might be said that the latest US bombing campaign in Iraq has greater legitimacy because the Iraqi government appealed for support. But it did so back in June, after which Obama stayed his hand until the prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, could be replaced with someone more acceptable to the US.

At the same time, US arms are now being supplied directly to Kurdish forces, independently of the central government, fuelling the disintegration of the Iraqi state. And IS – whose sectarian ideology is in reality only a more violent version of the Saudi regime’s, the west’s most important ally in the Arab world – is consolidating its hold on western Iraq and eastern Syria, where it is in effect allied with the US and its friends.
Its rise is a tragedy for both peoples. But another round of US and British military intervention would only strengthen IS and boost its credibility – as well as increase the risk of terror attacks at home. The likelihood is that it can only be overcome by a functioning state in both Iraq and Syria. That in turn demands a decisive break with the sectarian and ethnic politics bequeathed by a decade of war and intervention.
The urge to play the role of self-appointed global policeman retains its grip on the western world, but experience shows that will do nothing to rescue the people of Iraq. Far more important would be agreement between the regional powers, including Turkey and Iran, on a settlement to allow Iraq to escape from its existential crisis.
Selective humanitarian intervention without UN and regional authorisation is simply a tool of power politics, not solidarity. To imagine that the solution to the disastrous legacy of one intervention is to launch yet another is delusional folly.
Twitter: @SeumasMilne

From Gaza to Brazil: Stop Financing Drones That Kill Our Children

Tear gas in Bil’in. (Supplied)
Tear gas in Bil’in. (Supplied)
By Haidar Eid – Gaza
As I write this, bombs are falling around us. Electricity is severely restricted and water is hardly available. The loud and frightening sounds of missiles, drones, constant shelling are everywhere. Awake at night, fearfully waiting for the bombing; awake during the day, assisting the injured and searching the ruins of what were once family homes.gave refuge from this harsh world). Awake during the day to search for food and medicine, to bury our dead, and to wait for the night when they will destroy it all again. The death toll has reached 1813 killed (398 children, 207 women, 74 elderly) and 9370 injured (2744 children, 1750 women, 343 elderly). 0.1 percent of the total population of Gaza has already been killed.. During the month-long Israeli assault, a child was both born and later killed.
An entire generation of children in the Gaza Strip have grown up experiencing repeated massacres and the wholesale destruction of the infrastructure that supports life in the 21st century. The recent series of massacres against the Gaza Strip, which Israel occupied in 1967, started in 2006, continued in 2008/9 and 2012 and has been made unbearable by an eight year long inhumane siege. This massacre did not start with the killing of three Israeli settlers a few weeks ago, as has been falsely claimed by many Western media outlets. These killings might have not even been committed by a Palestinian, and yet we hear this falsehood repeated uncritically by the media supposed to be unbiased and independent.
This isn’t a war between Israel and Hamas. I am a secular university professor who remembers the time before Israel hermetically locked all the entrances and exits to Gaza. The 398 children that have been killed were not Hamas fighters, the three UN schools that Israel bombed were not Hamas facilities. This isn’t even a war against the population of Gaza, for the majority of those living in Gaza are refugees displaced by Israel in 1948. This isn’t even against the Palestinian people, this is a war against humanity itself.
In recent weeks, Israeli politicians such as the deputy speaker of the Knesset Moshe Feiglin explained what might be the real aim of the military aggression, when he said that Israel should “turn Gaza into Jaffa, a flourishing Israeli city with a minimum number of hostile civilians.” In the same speech, Feiglin explained the war ethics of the Israeli military as “woe to the evildoer, and woe to his neighbor”. According to Feiglin, the surviving population from Gaza would be moved to tent encampments in the southern Sinai border “until relevant emigration destinations are determined.”
These thoughts and actions are being televised, tweeted and shared online in real time. Unlike in 1948 and 1967, or even in 2006, 2009, and 2012, no one can argue that they didn’t know what Israel intended to do. Nevertheless, governments around the globe have failed to respond, and are therefore failing humanity.
Our brothers and sisters in Latin America truly understand the urgency of our needs, and   once again bring us hope. In recent weeks, five countries recalled their ambassadors, not including Venezuela and Boliva who have already cut diplomatic ties with Apartheid Israel following previous massacres on Gaza. Argentina called for an end to Israeli impunity, Chile suspended negotiations for a Free Trade Agreement with Israel, and Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff called what’s happening to us a massacre. Each one of these acts has restored a bit of the humanity that Israel tries to strip from us with the daily assaults. These statements affirm our human rights and our humanity. They remind us that we have some value in the hearts of other human beings in the world; that all is not as dark as it feels here in Gaza.
But Palestinians today need more than hope, we need concrete and sustained action to stop the massacres. 1.5 million people have signed a global petition to divest from corporations involved in Israeli war crimes. Many millions more are out on the streets asking for a military embargo. 80 Brazilian civil society organizations have been working together for years demanding that their government stop financing the Israeli apartheid regime and call for the imposition of a military embargo and end to free trade agreements.
While bombs are being dropped on our homes, shelters and infrastructure by drones and airplanes manufactured by Israeli military companies such as Elbit Systems, Israeli Airspace Industries, our lives are being used as a testing ground and instruments of propaganda for their profit. With that being said, I have to ask: Why did Brazil announce a contract with an Elbit Systems subsidiary on the very day that apartheid Israel army launched its massacre on Gaza? Why does thegovernment of Rio Grande do Sul insist on maintaining a contract that essentially aims at channeling public funding and Brazilian academic know- how to Elbit Systems, a company boycotted by public and private institutions in numerous countries around the world?
Finally, how is it that Brazil has recalled their ambassador from Tel Aviv for consultation, but at the same time, the Minister of Defence Celso Amorim – the same person who as Foreign Minister fought for the Palestinian right to a Palestinian State – reportedly keeps an office of the Brazilian Air Force in Tel Aviv to liase with the same Israeli military that is currently killing and maiming us?
Brazil held the presidency of the UN General Assembly and sided with the colonial interests at the moment the decision to create the Zionist state of Israel on Palestinian land was made, in 1947. Over sixty years later it has turned to play a key role in promoting the recognition of the state of Palestine by the same General Assembly. The Brazil of today has both economic and political clout to act independently and influence the post-Cold War world order. With political and economic power comes responsibility, and action weighs as heavily as inaction. The days Brazil could blame the United States or Russia for failing world peace are long gone. During funerals in Gaza, Brazil’s political position on the massacre against us is being praised. However, this contradicts their economic decisions which are less visible to the Palestinian public. Now that we know, we have a question to ask of Brazil: when will you stop financing the drones and planes that bomb us?