Saturday, 7 September 2019

شعب الله المختار... هل لا زال مختاراً؟



سبتمبر 7, 2019

ناصر قنديل

– من سوء حظ كيان الاحتلال القائم على التلاعب بالعقيدة الدينية لتحويلها إلى عقيدة سياسية أنه يواجه قوة تقود المقاومة اليوم تؤمن بيقين بعقيدتها الدينية وتستخلص منها عزمها على قتال كيان الاحتلال، فتصير المفردات الدينية ورمزيتها ذات أبعاد ومعانٍ تتخطى حدودها التي وردت في النص الديني المجرد، لذلك ردّد الصهاينة دائما بعد كل إنجاز وانتصار حققوه منذ نشأة كيانهم وخلال امتلاكهم للقنبلة النووية الأولى في الخمسينيات وفوزهم في حرب حزيران عام 1967، أن معجزات تتحقق، هي رسائل إلهية لشعب الله المختار على أنه ما زال مختاراً، وان الهدايا الإلهية تتدفق عليه لزيادة إيمانه ويقينه بحجم الدعم الإلهي الذي يلقاه مشروعه.

– في معارك الاستيطان في القدس والضفة الغربية ورفض الدولة الفلسطينية يستند قادة الاحتلال على النص الديني وتأويلاته، وكذلك في التمسّك بالقدس عاصمة موحّدة لكيانهم الغاصب، ولكنهم باتوا يواجهون بالمقابل تمسكاً لا يقل قوة باسترداد القدس من موقع نص ديني أشد قدرة على الإلهام، كما هو الحال منذ إعلان الإمام الخميني عام 1980 لليوم العالمي للقدس، وانتشار الإحياء المنتظم والمتعاظم على مساحة عواصم العالم وشعوبه. وجاءت حروب المقاومة من إنجاز التحرير عام 2000 وما تضمنه من كسر للمألوف، وإلزام لجيش الاحتلال بالانسخاب الذليل دون قيد أو شرط أو تفاوض، ليفتح الباب للأسئلة الوجودية حول المقولات الدينية التي تتأسس عليها عقيدة معنويات الجيش والمستوطنين، وعنوانها، هل لا نزال شعب الله المختار؟ وهل لا نزال نخوض حروب الله؟ وهل انتقل الله من ضفتنا إلى ضفة أعدائنا؟

– بعد الفشل في حرب تموز 2006 وما رافقها من وقائع يرويها حزب الله ويروي مثلها قادة جيش الاحتلال، الكثير مما يجعل الصراع على تفسير الحرب ونتائجها، صراعاً على البعد الغيبي للدين، بين مفهوم النصر الإلهي الذي يتمسك به حزب الله وأمينه العام السيد حسن نصرالله، ويعتبرونه التفسير الأمثل للنصر الذي تحقق بقوة متواضعة يمتلكونها عدداً وعتاداً، مقارنة بحجم جيش الاحتلال ومقدراته، ومقابلهم كان سيل الأسئلة الوجودية يجتاح المؤسسة الدينية الصهيونية حول الخذلان الإلهي. وبالنسبة لحزب الله الذي يتحدث بيقين عن البعد الإلهي للمواجهة والنصر، لا يشكل حسن الاستخدام للبعد الغيبي في تعميق الشكوك بقدرة الكيان على البقاء ولا جدوى الرهان على خوض الحروب، استغلالا لنقطة ضعف، بل فعل إيمان حقيقي يلتزم عقائدياً بالتركيز عليه، كنوع من أنواع الشكر لله، صانع الانتصارات وصحاب الوعد بالمزيد منها، وإن شكرتم لأزيدنّكم، وإن تنصروا الله ينصركم.

– سقوط طائرتي الاستطلاع الإسرائيلية فوق الضاحية وما قيل عن هدف ثمين كانت آتيتين لاصطياده، وليس إسقاطهما، ومعجزة اصطياد المقاومة للآلية العسكرية في أفيفيم من نقطة ميتة، ومن ثم الهروب الذي عمّ القيادتين السياسية والعسكرية للكيان من خوض المواجهة، وقائع أضافت مادة نوعية جديدة ليقين حزب الله وخطابه المستند إلى العامل الغيبي للتدخل الإلهي، وما يشكله ذلك من رافعة معنوية للحزب ومقاتليه وبيئته الشعبية، ولكنها بالمقابل كارثة وقعت على رؤوس الصهاينة ونظرياتهم الدينية عن كونهم شعب الله المختار. الشعب الذي يخذله الله كل يوم، ويرسل له الرسائل بأنه لم يعد مختاراً، وبأن الحزب الذي يحمل اسم الله ليس مجرد حامل اسم، بل إن الله يقاتل مع حزبه ويسدّد له الرمي، وما رميت إذ رميت لكن الله رمى.

Related Videos
Related Article


River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Iranian tanker previously detained in Gibraltar allegedly offloads oil in Syria

BEIRUT, LEBANON (7:15 P.M.) – The Iranian oil tanker, ADRIAN DARYA (previously Grace 1), that was previously detained in Gibraltar has allegedly offloaded its cargo in Syria, the Middle East Eye reported.
According to the Middle East Eye, the ADRIAN DARYA offloaded at least 55 percent of its cargo, a similar claim made to Al-Masdar from a Lebanese journalist that asked to remain anonymous.
The journalist added that the cargo on the ADRIAN DARYA oil tanker is worth approximately $130 million (U.S.).
At the same time, a Syrian source in Damascus told Al-Masdar that the oil was delivered using several small ships. He said the ships later moved the oil to the Syrian port-city of Baniyas in the Tartous Governorate.
Earlier this week, the ADRIAN DARYA was tracked off the coast of Baniyas; however, its fate was unknown at that time, as there were reports that it was heading to both Turkey and Lebanon.
Another Iranian ship named the SAVIOR was also tracked off the coast of Syria before it turned off its GPS. The vessel’s destination was supposed to be Port Said in Egypt.
The Iranian vessel was last tracked off the coast of Syria before it turned off its GPS.Credit: Marine Traffic
These reports remain unconfirmed at this time, as neither Iran nor Syria has made any statement on the alleged oil delivery.
Related News
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

SYRIAN WAR REPORT – SEPTEMBER 6, 2019: US SEEKS TO DESTABILIZE SOUTHERN SYRIA

Late on September 3, Idlib militants carried out an attack on Russia’s Hmeimim Airbase with armed unmanned aerial vehicles. According to the Russian Defense Ministry, the airbase’s air-defense forces intercepted all the UAVs. The attack caused no casualties or damage at the airbase.
The attack took place just a few days after the start of the ceasefire in the Idlib zone on August 31. It demonstrates that despite diplomatic efforts by the Syrian-Iranian-Russian alliance, Idlib militant groups are not very interested in a real de-escalation in the region.
On September 4, the Suqour al-Sham Brigades accused Russian special forces of attacking positions of its fighters near Ejaz in southern Idlib. The militant group said that two its members were killed and seven others were injured.
Last week, at least sixteen militants of the Ahrar al-Sham Movement were killed in southern Idlib in a similar mysterious development. That militant groups also blamed the Russians.
The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies are preparing to launch a military operation to secure Aleppo’s city center, according to reported in local media. Several units of the SAA and 1,500 Iranian-backed fighters will reportedly take part in the operation that would target militants’ positions in the districts of al-Zahra and al-Rashidin, north and northwest of the city.
Over the past year, militants in al-Zahra and al-Rashidin have fired hundreds of rockets and mortars on Aleppo’s city center, killing and injuring dozens of civilians. They even attacked the city with chlorine gas last November.
The SAA is expanding its infrastructure at the T4 airbase in the province of Homs, according to reports and satellite images appearing online. The images show that the length of the airbase’s southern runway is being expanded from 3,200 m to 3,750 m. A third runway is also apparently being built.
Pro-Israeli sources link this development with the growing Iranian presence in the country. Iran uses the T4 airbase as one of the sites involved in drone operations across Syria.
Related Videos

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

The End of the “Greater Middle East Project”: The Case of Kurdistan

By United World International
Donald Trump’s victory in the 2016 presidential elections has had dire implications for the American “Greater Middle East” project which has guided US foreign policy in the Middle East since it was first put forward in 2003. Trump’s reorientation toward internal US problems (migration, economy, protectionism), the emergence of new geopolitical rivals (China and Iran) and the turning point being reached in the war against Daesh in Syria have resulted, more or less, in a new balance of powers in the Middle East. While the situation is still rather chaotic, one fact is certainly clear: the Americans have lost their dominant position.
On top of all of this, following the events of July 2016, Turkey, one of the central players in the Middle East, headed for geopolitical rapprochement with Russia and began to distance itself from the United States. Turkish authorities accused Washington of having played a role in the attempted coup, driving a wedge in the relationship of the long-time allies. Up to this point, Turkey, together with Israel, were seen as outposts for pushing US foreign policy interests in the Middle East. However, contradictions began to emerge over the US’ reliance on the Kurdish separatists, who are locked in a state of open conflict with the Turkish government. As a result of disagreements over this issue, America began to lose one of its most important regional partners. After the coup attempt, hostilities between Turkey and the West escalated even further: Turkey openly discussed the possibility of a withdrawal from NATO, the West countered by threatening Turkey’s ongoing EU integration process.
Unsuccessful negotiations between Washington and Ankara over the extradition of accused coup leader Fethullah Gulen only complicated matters further, as did disputes over Turkey’s detention of Pastor Andrew Branson. The contradictions eventually reached their sharpest point as the US attempted to dissuade, and ultimately, threaten Turkey over their purchase of Russian S-400 missile defense systems.
In parallel with these processes, Saudi Arabia and Qatar began to adjust their foreign policy accordingly. Realizing that the West could no longer fully control the situation in the region, Qatar began to seek support from Russia, which had successfully shown the strength of its influence in Syria.
Qatar, being a traditional ally of Turkey (predominantly via the Muslim Brotherhood), began to follow Turkey’s lead, even improving relations with Iran. Saudi Arabia, a regional adversary of Qatar, was forced to follow a similar strategy… of course, not in terms of improving relations with Iran (their main regional adversary) but by establishing ties with Russia. This is evidenced in Riyadh’s attempt to buy S-400s from Moscow against Washington’s wishes.
Thus, the United States has lost most of its regional partners, with only the invariable Israel remaining a part of the Greater Middle East project. Trump has bent over backward to keep this relationship secure, even if it means finally destroy Washington’s relations with the Islamic world altogether and instead rely on the Kurds… a plan as obvious as it is failed.
Revising the Greater Middle East Strategy
The Greater Middle East project was the guiding light of US foreign policy strategy in countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia for decades. As of 2011, the project grew to include the Arab nations of North Africa and Syria in particular. On a project map designed by J. Kemp and R. Harkavy, the Republic of Turkey and Kazakhstan were also included.
The project aimed to spread and deepen “democracy” in the region. The plan had two sides: the official one, which was supposed to contribute to a rise in power for states led by pro-Western reformers (initially completely unrealistic) and the unofficial one, which was to actively destabilize existing Islamic regimes, support color revolutions, riots and even bring about regime change.
Creating controlled chaos has always been a central goal of the project. This goal was realized in Libya and Iraq, but its implementation in Syria was disrupted by the effective policy of Russia and Syria’s alliance with Iran and Turkey. In addition to these major powers, Hezbollah played a critical role in disrupting Washington’s plans.
However, the plan also involved the creation of a wider arc of instability – from Lebanon and Palestine to Syria, Iraq, the Persian Gulf and Iran – right up to the Afghanistan border, where NATO garrisons are located. The levers of the project were numerous: large-scale financial investments in the economies of the Middle Eastern countries, support for extremist groups, information warfare, alongside open provocations and false-flags operations. During the implementation of the project, many Middle Eastern countries underwent “color revolutions” backed by Western operators who induced controlled chaos and exploited social media networks in order to use various countries’ social, political, religious, ethnic and economic problems against them. During the “Arab Spring”, this strategy led to regime change in 3 states: Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, while Libya and Syria were left in a state of civil war.
The US and EU were never completely unified over the project. At one G8 summit, the Greater Middle East project was criticized by French President Jacques Chirac, arguing that Middle Eastern countries do not need this kind of forcibly exported “democracy.”
The strategy for “spreading democracy” in the region had essentially become thinly , if at all, veiled US intervention in the domestic political life of Middle Eastern states. Military assaults began in Afghanistan, Iraq, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Sudan and Syria. However, the results were less than favorable for most, resulting in floods of refugees, including representatives of terrorist organizations. Western Europe was forced to face the brunt of the backlash for Bush and Obama’s Middle Eastern adventures. The globalists and neoconservatives were united in their efforts, and although their destructive goals were achieved, the majority of Americans did not even understand why these costly and brutal operations were being prioritized.
Trump properly grasped the mood of voters and promised to curtail the Greater Middle East project. After coming to power, he at least began to move in that direction: in December 2018, he decided to withdraw all American troops from Syria.
Project Implementation Opportunities
After the wave of color revolutions and the Arab spring, some states in the Middle East realized the real threat posed by America’s evolving strategy. Before their eyes, centralized and well-ordered states were turning into ruins. It was not just a change of leadership: the very existence of entire countries was threatened. Hence, many leaders concluded the need for a new emphasis on sovereignty. For example, Turkey, an important player in the region, focused on geopolitical interaction with Russia and China, reorienting itself toward the Eurasian axis which caused a crisis in relations with the United States (the purchase of the S-400s from Russia led the United States to refuse to sell Turkey F-35 fighter jets as previously agreed).
The region around Syria was gradually cleared of extremist groups, with the remaining militants relegated to the province of Idlib and the south-east of the country. When Imran Khan became Prime Minister, Pakistan also moved further away from the United States and began to develop pro-Chinese policies while establishing strategic relations with Russia.
Looking at all of these factors, we can conclude that the Greater Middle East project has already been curtailed.
However, the American strategy only partly depends on who runs the White House. That’s why it’s important to understand the role of the so-called Deep State in US politics. The Deep State has its own logic and direction, something which Trump needs to take into account. Due to the Deep State’s influence, America continues to take advantage of a number of complex problems for the region, one critical example being its tactic of fomenting conflict through support for the forces fighting for an independent Kurdistan. This conflict in particular is shaping  up to be the “last battle” of the Greater Middle East project.
The Kurdish Map
The Greater Middle East project, according to Ralph Peters and Bernard-Henri Levy (the plan’s most important European propagandists), involves the creation of an independent “Free Kurdistan” which includes a number of territories in Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria. The creation of a single state entity through the unification of the 40 million Kurds residing in these countries could lead to a number of serious problems.
The idea of ​​creating an independent Kurdish state openly and clearly began to emerge at the end of the 19th century (the first Kurdish newspaper in Kurdish began to circulate in Cairo in 1898). At the end of the 19th century, the Kurdish people seemed as though they might actually embrace Turkey. The founder and first president of the Republic of Turkey, Kemal Atatürk, was positively greeted among the Kurds – some Alevite groups interpreted the role of Atatürk as Mahdi, the last successor of the prophet Muhammad. However, after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the Kurds did not receive their desired autonomy, which began to cause problems.
Historically, the “Kurdish map” has always been an ace-up-the-sleeve of various geopolitical powers striving for influence in the Middle East: Woodrow Wilson first supported the creation of an independent Kurdish state after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the US again supporting Kurdish forces in the 1970s in an attempt to overthrow the Iraqi Ba’ath party… in 2003, it used the Kurds to overthrow Saddam Hussein. The Iranians used the Kurds against Iraq in the 70s as well, while in more recent times the Syrians have tried to use the Kurdish issue against Turkey. Israel has strongly supported the Kurdistan project in order to weaken the Arabic States.
The fragmentation of the Kurds who live in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Turkey, as well as in the Caucasus, is one of the reasons why it is currently impossible to build a single Kurdish state. The Kurdish people have historically been prone to clan and political fragmentation. There are several factors which strongly separate the various groupings of Kurds.
One complication to the formation of an independent Kurdistan is linguistic fragmentation – Soran is spoken in eastern Iraq and Iran, while Kurmanji is spoken by Syrian, Iraqi and Turkish Kurds. Some Kurds in Iraq speak yet another dialect – Zaza.
Religious issues also hinder the unification of Kurdish tribes and clans into a single state: the majority of Kurds are Sunnis (with a large number of Sufi tariqas),  while Zoroastrian styled Yazidism is less widespread. Meanwhile, In Iran, Kurds are mainly followers of Shia Islam. Yazidism is considered the Kurdish national religion, but it is too different from orthodox Islam and even from the rather syncretic Sufi Tariqas.
Yazidism is prevalent mainly among the northern Kurds – Kurmanji.
New year celebrations in Lalish, 18 April 2017. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)
The Religion is a mixture of Zoroastrianism (manifested in the doctrine of the seven Archangels and a special attitude to fire and the sun, along with a strong caste system) with the Sufi teachings of Sheikh Abi ibn Musafir. The unexplored and closed sources of the Yazidi religion strongly complicate the Kurdish factor. The Muslim nations surrounding them often characterize the Yazidi Kurds as worshipers of Shaitan. Shiite-style Kurds (mainly residing in Iran) are a separate group, difficult to reduce to the Shiite branch of Islam as such, and are more approximately a Zoroastrian interpretation of it. Interestingly, Shiite Kurds believe that the Mahdi should appear among the Kurds, suggesting a degree of ethnocentrism.
Another important factor in assessing the chances of creating an independent Kurdistan is their cultural specificity in the Iranian context: the Kurds, unlike other Iranian peoples, maintained a nomadic lifestyle far longer than others.
We can conclude that building a unified Kurdistan is essentially a utopian idea: the rich diversity of the religious, linguistic and cultural codes would be impossible obstacles in building a traditional nation-state… and this is without taking into account the stiff opposition to the project from other states in the region, including Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria. For these countries, the implementation of the Greater Kurdistan project would actually mean the end of territorial integrity and a fundamental weakening of their sovereignty, and perhaps even their complete collapse (particularly given the fact that other ethnic minorities would likely want to follow the Kurdish path).
Although an independent state might be a pipe-dream, Turkey’s current tactical ally, Russia, could play a positive role in solving and regulating the Kurdish issue by other means. Being neutral in the conflict, despite historically positive relations with the Kurds, Russia could act as a mediator and guarantor of Kurdish rights while fighting to maintain the territorial integrity of existing states. Russia could assist in providing the Kurds with the possibility of cultural unification, protection and the development of their identity, but this implies the concept of a cultural and historical association rather than a political one. This association could grant the Kurds a certain degree of autonomy while preserving the territorial borders of the states in which they live.
In Iraq, a solution to the Kurdish issue is possible through the construction of a tripartite confederation between the Shiite majority, the Sunnis (with the rejection of Salafism and extremism and with the Sufis playing a predominant roe) and the Kurds (mainly Sunnis). It is also necessary to take into account Assyrian Christians, Yezidis and other ethnic-religious minorities of Iraq.
At present, Iraqi Kurds have the maximum autonomy and prerequisites for the implementation of the Kurdistan project under the leadership of Masoud Barzani. The origins of the relative independence of Iraqi Kurdistan are in American operations during the 2000s. It was during this period that Iraqi Kurds gained a maximum degree of autonomy. At the moment, Iraqi Kurdistan has its own armed forces, currency and even its own diplomats. Its main income comes from oil sales. Interestingly, the per capita GDP in Iraqi Kurdistan is quite high and exceeds that of Iran and Syria.
Moreover, in September 2017, the autonomous region’s leadership held a vote on secession from Iraq – 92.73% voters voted in favor of creating an independent Iraqi Kurdistan. Erbil’s plans in this direction have been met with negativity both in Iraq and in Turkey (despite Erdogan’s partnership with Barzani).
However, the situation in Iraq has its own difficulties and complications – the Barzani clan controls only half of the region, the second part of Iraqi Kurdistan, including the capital located in Sulaymaniyah, is controlled by the Talabani clan (the “Patriotic Union of Kurdistan” party is subordinate to it). Conditional partnerships have been established between the Barzani clan and the Talabani clan, but their orientations differ due to their diverging political priorities: this also manifests itself in terms of foreign policy: The Talabani clan is focused on Iran while the Barzani clan is focused on Turkey. This situation shows that even in the strongest part of Kurdistan there are heavy internal contradictions which make state-hood impossible.
In Turkey, the project faces several particularly sharp problems, a notable one being the ruling circle’s strong views on the Kurdish issue. Erdogan came to power in part by playing on the Kurdish factor (in efforts such as the Western-supported Kurdish–Turkish peace process), but, as relations with the West worsened, he began to return to a national Kemalist course, which traditionally takes a tough anti-separatist position, seeing any compromises with separatists as weakening Turkey’s national unity. As a result, Erdogan is now pursuing a policy of suppressing the movement for Kurdish autonomy – the PKK has responded in turn by carrying out terrorist attacks and issuing ultimatums.
The most stable situation for the Kurds in the Middle East is the one in Iran. The Kurds there live in four provinces – Kurdistan, Kermanshah, Western Azerbaijan and Ilam.
Source: Wikimedia Commons
The second seed of the Kurdish state is a network of associations of followers of the partisan leader Abdullah Ocalan, a left-wing politician, and the mastermind/creator of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party. Ocalan’s teachings are about creating a special political union of Kurds in the spirit of “democratic confederalism”. This project promotes the creation of a virtual Kurdish state, based on socialist ideas. The center of this teaching is currently Syrian Kurdistan (Rojava), which has raised strong concerns from Turkey who sees the Syrian Kurds as an integral part of the PKK. Consequently, Erdogan’s policy is based on the uncompromising political rejection of the Syrian Kurds political formations, which is why he is preparing for military operations in northeastern Syria.
In Ocalan’s ideas, we find the interesting postmodern political project of creating a post-national virtual state called a “confederation” which relies on disparate associations, clans and tribes rather than a formal nation. This network-based society surprisingly coincides in its general features with postmodern theories in international relations, promoting the end of the era of nation-states and the need for a transition to a virtual structure of power. In philosophical terms, the idea is inspired by left-wing French postmodernists, in particular, the Deleuzian concept of the “rhizome” – a scattered mushroom in which there is no center, but everything is still connected in a network. The idea is manifested in the Kurdish anarcho-communist project which combines leftist ideas, postmodern philosophy and feminism. Representatives of anarchist communities inspired by globalist financier George Soros also have sympathy for the idea of a virtual rhizomatic state.
The main enemies of Ocalan’s project are Turkey and Syria (in Syria, the followers of Ocalan are based in the North – they call themselves the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria). Support for the Syrian Kurds has also come from the US government… for several years, they have sent financial assistance to the Kurds to fight Daesh terrorists. In the Western media, far more attention was paid to the Kurd’s fight against Daesh than the actual large-scale victories of the Syrian and Turkish armies.
Israel is betting heavily on the Kurds in its regional policy since the Israelis are well aware that a Kurdish state would be a fundamental problem for all of their regional opponents (Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria). Although the Kurds are Muslims, and therefore hardly enthusiastic about Israeli policy toward Palestine, the pragmatic interests of Kurdish nationalism often outweigh confessional solidarity.
Following the recent strengthening of Assad’s position in Syria, Iran’s tough opposition to US policy and Turkey’s geopolitical reversal toward multipolarity, America is also increasingly putting its money on the Kurds, literally and figuratively. In 2019, the Ministry of Defense allocated $300 million to support Kurdish forces in the war against Daesh. The United States, according to UWI sources, continues to supply arms to Kurdish militants from the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) today, using them as a weapon in the struggle to overthrow Assad. A report by the Carnegie Foundation notes that Kurdish groups in Syria and Iraq that successfully conducted operations against Daesh are “key US allies.” In the Western media, the Kurds are usually portrayed as “peacekeepers.”
The Americans (who are well aware of the difficulties involved) believe that the process of trying to build a Kurdish state will weaken or destroy their Middle Eastern rivals. After all, the creation of a free Kurdistan would entail the territorial division of Syria, Iran, Iraq and Turkey, creating a wide-ranging but controlled chaos.
An Alternative to the Greater Middle East Project
It has become apparent that the Kurdish issue needs to be resolved in the framework of a new project, an alternative to the globalist’s Greater Middle East strategy. It is important to create an alternative project that could rely on Ankara, while taking into account the interests of Baghdad, Tehran and Damascus. It should be Moscow, and not Washington (at least, not the American deep state) that plays the central mediating role. The project should work to preserve the territorial integrity of existing nations and even strengthen their overall sovereignty… at the same time, it is extremely important to take into account the diversity of peoples in the Middle East, and the Kurds in particular. Within this new political framework, the Kurds should have certain powers and guarantees – but at the same time, they must not be allowed to be exploited by globalist forces looking to destabilize the region to their own advantage.
In the context of the transformation of the Middle East, powers should reorient themselves towards cooperation with the Eurasian pole. China and Russia could become the key players in resolving the Kurdish issue, ensuring a balance between real Kurdish interests and the countries seeking to maintain their territorial integrity. The only way out of the current Kurdish impasse is finding a strict, consistent and integrated approach to solving the problem of Kurdish identity.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All images in this article are from UWI unless otherwise stated

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Second Ballistic Strike in 24 Hours, Badr 1 Targets Najran Regional Airport



Rocketry Force of the Army and Popular Committees on Friday targeted Najran Regional Airport by a ballistic missile, Badr 1. It is the second operation in which the army targeted the airport, and the fourth operation targeting the Saudi depth within 24 hours.
The Armed forces spokesman Brigadier Yahya Sare’e said in a statement that “The Rocketry Force fired a ballistic missile, Badr 1, at Najran Regional Airport targeted drones hangers at the airport.”
The Brigadier confirmed that the missile hit its target with high accuracy, and caused disruption of air navigation at the airport.
“The operation is in accordance with international humanitarian law and its customary rules, where all necessary and preventive measures have been taken to protect civilians,” the spokesman said.
This is the second operation targeting Najran Regional Airport in 24 hours, in addition to two operations which were carried out by the Air Force targeting the airport and an Air Base in Aseer.
The Rocketry Force of the Army and the Popular Committees, on Thursday, launched a batch of missiles, Badr 1, at the airport and the Saudi duty force in Najran and other military targets.
After targeting Najran airport, the Air Force of the Army and Popular Committees carried out several attacks against King Khalid Air Base in Khamis Mushait, in Aseer, with a number of drones, Qasif 2K.
At dawn on Friday, the Air Force carried out attacks by a number of drones, Qasif 2K, on an important military target, in Khamis Mushait of Aseer, according to the Armed Forces spokesman, Yahya Sare’e.
It should be noted that the Yemeni operations in the Saudi depth come within the framework of legitimate response to the US-Saudi crimes against the Yemeni people.
#Yemen #Najran #Badr1
Related Videos
Related News

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

US State Secretary Threatens Lebanon With Possible Israeli Strikes On Hezbollah’s ‘Missile Factory’

US State Secretary Threatens Lebanon With Possible Israeli Strikes On Hezbollah's 'Missile Factory'
Israeli soldiers stand next to shells and a mobile artillery unit near the Israeli side of the border with Syria in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights August 26, 2019. REUTERS/Amir Cohen/File Photo
On September 5, Israeli sources claimed that US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had sent a warning letter to Lebanese President Michel Aoun, urging him to dismantle a ‘missile factory’ set up by Hezbollah in the Bekaa Valley.
According to reports, Pompeo allegedly warned Lebanon that the Israeli military would strike the supposed factory used to develop and modernize missiles.
The message was allegedly transferred directly to Lebanese Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil, who is known for his close ties to Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah.
Pompeo allegedly told Bassil that Israel had intelligence information about a second missile production plant set up by Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Lebanon should immediately dismantle the second factory, otherwise Israel will attack and destroy it in the coming days,” he said.

Israel Defense Forces
✔@IDF
Here’s a picture worth a thousand missiles:
We can now reveal that inside this Hezbollah facility is Iranian-supplied machinery used to manufacture precision guided missiles with an accuracy of less than 10 meters.
📍Nabi Chit, Lebanon

View image on Twitter
1,197 people are talking about this
On September 3rd, the Israel Defense Forces claimed that a facility north of Nabi Chit, Lebanon was used by Hezbollah to produce precision guided missiles.
“This facility is of superior importance to the Hezbollah precision-missile project, which is why Hezbollah, in fear of strikes, evacuated precious and unique equipment from the compound to civilian locations in Beirut,” the military said.
MORE ON THE TOPIC:
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Now It’s Official: US Visa Can Be Denied If You (Or Even Your Friends) Are Critical of American Policies



Image result for Now It’s Official: US Visa Can Be Denied If You (Or Even Your Friends) Are Critical of American Policies

Now It’s Official: US Visa Can Be Denied If You (Or Even Your Friends) Are Critical of American Policies

Philip Giraldi
September 5, 2019
There have been several interesting developments in the United States government’s war on free speech and privacy. First of all, the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Customs and Border Protection Agency (CBP), which is responsible for actual entry of travelers into the country, has now declared that it can legally access phones and computers at ports of entry to determine if there is any subversive content which might impact on national security. “Subversive content” is, of course, subjective, but those seeking entry can be turned back based on how a border control agent perceives what he is perusing on electronic media.
Unfortunately, the intrusive nature of the procedure is completely legal, particularly as it applies to foreign visitors, and is not likely to be overturned in court in spite of the Fourth Amendment’s constitutional guarantee that individuals should “…be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Someone at a port of entry is not legally inside the United States until he or she has been officially admitted. And if that someone is a foreigner, he or she has no right by virtue of citizenship even to enter the country until entry has been permitted by an authorized US Customs and Border Protection official. And that official can demand to see anything that might contribute to the decision whether or not to let the person enter.
And there’s more to it than just that. Following the Israeli model for blocking entry of anyone who can even be broadly construed as supporting a boycott, the United States now also believes it should deny admittance to anyone who is critical of US government policy, which is a reversal of previous policy that considered political opinions to be off-limits for visa denial. DHS, acting in response to pressure from the White House, now believes it can adequately determine hostile intent from the totality of what appears on one’s phone or laptop, even if the material in question was clearly not put on the device by the owner. In other words, if a traveler has an email sent to him or her by someone else that complains about behavior by the United States government, he or she is responsible for that content.
One interesting aspect of the new policy is that it undercuts the traditional authority of US Embassies and Consulates overseas to issue visas to foreigners. The State Department visa process is rigorous and can include employment and real property verification, criminal record checks, social media reviews and Google-type searches. If there is any doubt about the visa applicant, entry into the US is denied. With the new DHS measures in place, this thoroughly vetted system is now sometimes being overruled by a subjective judgment made by someone who is not necessarily familiar with the traveler’s country or even regarding the threat level that being a citizen of that country actually represents.
Given the new rules regarding entering the United States, it comes as no surprise that the story of an incoming Harvard freshman who was denied entry into the United States after his laptop and cellphone were searched at Boston’s Logan Airport has been making headlines. Ismail Ajjawi, a 17-year-old Palestinian resident of Lebanon, was due to begin classes as a freshman, but he had his student visa issued in by the US Embassy in Beirut rejected before being flown back to Lebanon several hours later.
Ajjawi was questioned by one immigration officer who asked him repeatedly about his religion before requiring him to turn over his laptop and cell phone. Some hours later, the questioning continued about Ajjawi’s friends and associates, particularly those on social media. At no point was Ajjawi accused of having himself written anything that was critical of the United States and the interrogation rather centered on the views expressed by his friends.
The decision to ban Ajjawi produced such an uproar worldwide that it was reversed a week later, apparently as a result of extreme pressure exerted by Harvard University. Nevertheless, the decisions to deny entry are often arbitrary or even based on bad information, but the traveler normally has no practical recourse to reverse the process. And the number of such searches is going up dramatically, numbering more than 30,000 in 2017, some of which have been directed against US residents. Even though permanent resident green card holders and citizens have a legal right to enter the United States, there are reports that they too are having their electronic media searched. That activity is the subject of an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security that is currently working its way through the courts. The ACLU is representing 10 American citizens and a legal permanent resident who had their media searched without a warrant as required by the Fourth Amendment.
It is believed that many of the arbitrary “enforcements” by the CBP are carried out by the little-known Tactical Response Team (TRT) that targets certain travelers that fit a profile. DHS officials confirmed in September 2017 that 1,400 visa holders had been denied entry due to TRT follow-up inspections. And there are also reports of harassment of American citizens by possible TRT officials. A friend of mine was returning from Portugal to a New York Area airport when he was literally pulled from the queue as he was departing the plane. A Customs agent at the jetway was repeatedly calling out his birth date and then also added his name. He was removed from the line and taken to an interrogation room where he was asked to identify himself and then queried regarding his pilot’s license. He was then allowed to proceed with no other questions, suggesting that it was all harassment of a citizen base on profiling pure and simple.
My friend is a native-born American who has a Master’s degree and an MBA, is an army veteran and has no criminal record, not even a parking ticket. He worked for an American bank in the Middle East more than thirty years ago, which, together with the pilot’s license, might be the issue these days with a completely paranoid federal government constantly on the lookout for more prey “to keep us safe.” Unfortunately, keeping us safe has also meant that freedom of speech and association as well as respect for individual privacy have all been sacrificed. As America’s Founding Father Benjamin Franklin once reportedly observed, “Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety will wind up with neither.”

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!