August 8, 2009 at 2:01 pm (Crime, Ethnic Cleansing, Illegal Settlements, Israel, Occupied West Bank, Palestine, Photography, zionist harassment)
Naharnet: "Phalange party leader Amin Gemayel on Saturday slammed Progressive Socialist Party chief Walid Jumblat for criticizing some Christian political parties."Some of the statements made by Jumblat on Christian parties do not consolidate (positive) steps taken in the Mountains and do not safeguard Lebanon against threats that Jumblat fears such as the Israeli danger or (threats) on the international tribunal," Gemayel told LBC TV network."The problem with Jumblat is extremism in everything … We (the Christians) are the basis of this country … We have preserved the country, its sovereignty and Lebanon's Arabism," he stressed.The former president told LBC that the country could only be saved through finding common grounds to face threats.He said he was among the first politicians who called for improved relations with Syria. According to Gemayel, a new page with Syria should be opened through the state and not bilateral ties between Lebanese parties and Damascus.On cabinet formation, the Phalange leader told LBC: I hope "Premier-designate Saad Hariri returns (to Lebanon) as soon as possible because things require a lot of efforts."Posted by G, Z, & or B at 3:19 PM
August 8, 2009 at 10:55 am (Associate Post, Corrupt Politics, Fatah, Israel, Palestine, Palestinian Authority)
Thousands of security personnel were deployed all over Bethlehem with the venue of the conference made inaccessible to many journalists, some of who were detained briefly for “trespassing” and “not possessing valid press credentials”.
Fatah is also facing a host of fateful crises, including a moribund peace process with Israel and an enduring rift with Hamas.
Fatah officials breathed a sigh of relief as the conference became a reality despite Hamas’s decision to bar hundreds of Gazan Fatah delegates from travelling to the West Bank. Frustrated by a manifestly vindictive crackdown by Fatah on its supporters in the West Bank, Hamas has apparently made good on its threat to prevent some 350 Fatah delegates from travelling to Bethlehem for the conference.
Israel, too, denied many Fatah leaders from abroad — and also from Gaza — entry into the West Bank, citing the “security” mantra. Hamas became even more adamant following the death on Tuesday of Kamal Abu Tiema, at a Jordanian hospital. Abu Tiema died of a massive stroke that his relatives and Hamas attribute to intensive torturing by PA security agents in Hebron more than two months ago.
The last Fatah convention was held in 1989 in Tunis under the leadership of late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. Speaking before some 2,200 delegates representing the movement’s followers at home and in the Diaspora, Palestinian Authority (PA) President and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas said Palestinians remained committed to peace talks with Israel as long as there was hope — however tiny — for a just peace.
However, he pointed out that “resistance” remained an option for Palestinians in case peace efforts failed to end the Israeli occupation. “Although peace is our choice, we reserve the right to resistance in conformity with international law.”
This was the first time in years that Abbas invoked “resistance” against Israel. Israel views all forms of Palestinian armed resistance as acts of terror even when targeting Israeli occupation troops.
However, it is widely assumed that references to resistance by the Western-backed Palestinian leader are mainly rhetorical and intended to rally to his side reluctant Fatah delegates who believe that the effective abandonment of armed struggle against the Israeli occupation is costing Fatah dearly in terms of popularity. One Fatah delegate attending the conference commented: “it seems the president wants to satisfy everyone.”
In his lengthy address, described as dull, rhetorical and self-congratulatory by some of his opponents, Abbas lashed out at “the Hamas coup mongers” for preventing Fatah delegates from attending the Bethlehem conference, accusing the Islamic movement of “seeking to derail our national Palestinian scheme.” “The mere fact that Fatah remained steadfast despite all efforts to obliterate it is in itself a miracle. As to our brothers in Gaza, I say to them ‘You are amongst us.’”
Nonetheless, Abbas spoke of the Islamic resistance movement Hamas as being “an integral part of the Palestinian people”. “With our determination and unity with Hamas, we will transform self-rule into an independent Palestinian state.”
Abbas also lambasted those “who are commercialising the blood of Yasser Arafat”, an apparent allusion to charges made last month by Fatah’s second highest ranking man, Farouk Kaddumi, accusing Abbas and former Gaza strongman Mohamed Dahlan of conniving with Israel to poison Arafat. “This talk is embarrassing, shameful, and must stop.”
Pleasantries apart, Fatah is going to have to iron out and find “balanced solutions” for a variety of contentious issues that if untreated would inflict further setbacks on the movement. These issues include: What exactly should be Fatah’s relationship with the Palestinian Authority government in Ramallah? Should Fatah coalesce into the PA or remain distinctive and separate? Indeed, can Fatah be distinctive and separate (let alone independent) if it continues to rely for financial survival on the government of Salam Fayyad?
This week, Fatah official Nabil Amr, who is also Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) ambassador to Cairo, called on the movement to be “financially independent” from the PA government. Amr, who has been selected as the chief spokesman of the Bethlehem convention, said it was difficult for Fatah to retain its freedom to differ from — and if necessary criticise — the US-backed government of Fayyad and at the same time continue to depend on its financial generosity.
As for the peace process, Fatah is most likely going to reassert erstwhile Palestinian national constants. These include total Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, and a dignified settlement of the Palestinian refugee plight in accordance with UN Resolution 194. Such sentiments would be viewed as radical by Israel and probably the Obama administration, implying that the PA would not accept any prospective deal that would allow Israel to retain huge Jewish colonies established on occupied Palestinian territories since 1967.
Israel had repeatedly proposed a “land swap” whereby it would compensate the PA for the annexation of major Jewish settlements by granting the Palestinians a “passage path” between the West Bank and Gaza Strip and a swathe of sandy terrain in the northern Negev or near Gaza. The PA hasn’t rejected the idea out of hand, but demands that the land swapped ought to be equal in both quality and quantity.
In all events, nearly 15 years after the conclusion of the Oslo Accords, Israel continues to dominate the Palestinian scene as Jewish settlement expansion continues unabated despite US and international objections. Predictably, this is creating frustration amongst Fatah leaders at home and abroad. This week, Jerusalem Fatah leader Hatem Abdel-Qader called for “forging strategic relations” between Fatah and Iran.
“The unprecedented challenges facing the Palestinian people, and the overwhelming dangers haunting the future of Jerusalem, should prompt Fatah to formulate new relations with Iran, a country that has an important strategic weight which should be utilised politically in the service of the Palestinian cause.” Abdel-Qader hinted that Fatah’s Arab allies were being perceived as unimportant assets in the confrontation between Israel and the Palestinians.
But it is highly unlikely that the PA leadership — particularly Abbas — will give Abdel-Qader’s suggestion serious consideration since a Fatah-Iranian rapprochement, let alone alliance, would deprive the PA and Fatah of Western backing and Israel’s support, however tacit that may be. Still, the frustration harboured by many in Fatah over the “futile” and “fruitless” peace process with Israel will be strongly and directly communicated to Abbas during the present conference.
According to Hani Al-Masri, a prominent Palestinian journalist, many Fatah leaders are demanding a timeframe for the peace process with Israel. “They are extremely worried about an open-ended peace process, which would be used by Israel to expand Jewish settlements and further undermine the prospects of establishing a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank.”
As the casualty figures climb in Afghanistan and dip in Iraq and support for those wars plummets, the question of troop resistance remains on the table. According to US military estimates, desertion and AWOL rates have climbed since the resistance in Iraq began its armed campaign against the US occupation. In addition, recruitment numbers dropped drastically, although they have began to climb since the economy began its collapse in Fall 2008. Soldiers and Marines have been stop-lossed and their tours of duty in the combat zones were extended. In addition, many troops serve not one, but two or three consecutive tours with as little as one month stateside between tours. All of these phenomena have created increased levels of stress and depression among the troops, leading to one of the highest known suicide rates among veterans and active duty troops ever.
Many readers know at least one man or woman who has done time in Iraq or Afghanistan. Although most vets seem to adjust to civilian life once they are through with their military duty, many others do not. indeed, even those who appear to be adjusting just fine often cause concern among their friends and relatives because of changes in their behavior. The Veteran’s Administration (VA) is notoriously inept and callous in its treatment of vets, despite the best efforts of some individuals within the organization that struggle against the overwhelming bureaucratic odds and inadequate funding endemic in the agency. Newspapers run stories regularly about veterans lacking care, lashing out at family members or others, and most tragically of all, killing themselves. Yet, the Pentagon continues to push for an escalation of the war in Afghanistan while carrying on what appears to be a heated debate over whether or not to withdraw from Iraq.
Meanwhile, the US antiwar movement founders in the wake of a substantial part of its membership giving their collective soul to the Democratic Party. Since November 2008, it’s as if the bloodshed perpetrated by US policy in Iraq and Afghanistan is okay because Barack Obama is leading the charge instead of George Bush. Besides the National Assembly’s call for local and regional protests against the Iraq occupation and Afghan war in October, there has been barely a peep from other national antiwar organizations. This is despite the fact that Congress and Obama have approved several more billion dollars for the wars and the size of the US force in Afghanistan has nearly doubled while the promised withdrawal of US forces in Iraq has not even begun.
It is the opinion of many anti-warriors that veterans have a key role to play in any organized resistance. After all, it was their presence in the movement against the Vietnam war that shook the conscience of the US public in that war’s later years. However, as Dahr Jamail and his subjects point out again and again, the strength in numbers and the political power of the GI movement against the war in Vietnam was directly related to the strength of the greater antiwar movement. So, despite the commitment of today’s GI and veteran resisters profiled in Jamail’s book, The Will to Resist: Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, that commitment is limited by the weakness of the antiwar movement as a whole.
Jamail highlights the various organizations organizing GI resistance, from the Iraq Veterans Against the War to the group Courage to Resist. He also commits a chapter to each of the primary forms of resistance and reasons for that resistance. He describes instances of individual resistance and the refusal of entire units to carry out missions. He also explores the nature of the sexist culture of the military and the immorality of the wars themselves. One of the most interesting chapters in The Will to Resist is titled “Quarters of Resistance.” It describes the mission and interior of a house in Washington, DC run by a couple veterans. The purpose of the house is to operate as a sort of clearinghouse for the GI resistance movement. At times, the house has provided shelter for veterans and GIs attending antiwar activities in DC. It is also a place that the founder of the house, Geoffrey Millard, calls a “training ground for resistance.” In addition to these quarters, Jamail discusses the beginnings of a coffeehouse movement slowly developing outside major US military bases.
Jamal’s book is also about his learning to understand and appreciate the humanity of the US soldier. Originally inclined to consider them all killers without conscience, his conversations and other interactions with the young men and women who have gone to Iraq and Afghanistan to kill in America’s name have led him to understand that many of these folks struggle with their souls on a daily basis. With this growing understanding of folks who are essentially his contemporaries, The Will to Resist becomes more than just another collective biography of troops who discover their conscience under the duress of war.
If the current commander of US troops in Afghanistan has his way, there will be more than 100,000 US troops in Afghanistan by the end of the summer in 2010. Already, Barack Obama has approved adding 20,000 more active duty troops to the 1,473,900 already on duty. Without public protest, the escalation of the war in Afghanistan is certain to continue. In addition, General Odierno in Iraq insists that US troops remain in that country, as well. Furthermore, the likelihood of combat against other foes chosen by Washington increases. Resistance is never easy, as the men and women in The Will to Resist can tell us. However, if the people who poured into the streets to protest Bush’s war are truly opposed to war, then they should also make an appearance in those same streets now that the war is Obama’s.
Ron Jacobs is the author of The Way The Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground. His most recent novel Short Order Frame Up is published by Mainstay Press. He can be reached at: rjacobs3625@charter.net.
By Jeff Gates
During the 1960 Christmas season, Americans flocked to the theaters to see Exodus, a 3-1/2 hour epic featuring romance, handsome freedom fighters and the triumph of Jewish destiny over Arab evil—all set against a Yuletide backdrop of Biblical prophecy as heroic Jews returned to their promised land.
Many moviegoers failed to realize that Exodus was not fact but fiction adapted from a 1958 Leon Uris novel, the biggest bestseller since Gone with the Wind. Directed by Otto Preminger and starring a young Paul Newman and Eva Marie Saint, the film featured Lee J. Cobb, Rat Pack member Peter Lawford and Italian crooner Sal Mineo, a teen heartthrob who received an Oscar nomination for his portrayal of a Jewish émigré.
Then as now, Americans are easily swayed by sympathetic portrayals of an extremist enclave granted nation-state recognition by Harry Truman. A Christian-Zionist who had famously read the Bible cover-to-cover five times by age 15, Truman was a True Believer in the prophecy that the Messiah could not return until the Israelites returned to their ancestral home.
Truman White House counsel Clark Clifford routinely reminded the widely unpopular president that his 1948 campaign was woefully short of funding that the Jewish-American community—with that recognition—was eager to provide. In May 1948, General George C. Marshall, Truman’s Secretary of State, argued vigorously against recognition of this Zionist enclave as a legitimate sovereign nation. Truman heard similarly strong objections from the diplomatic corps, the fledgling Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Chiefs of Staff whose analysis of the perils proved prophetic.
Marshall, the senior U.S. military officer in WWII, was outraged that Clifford, then in charge of Truman’s campaign, would put domestic political expedience ahead of U.S. foreign policy interests. Marshall assured Truman that he would vote against him if he granted the Zionists sovereign status. He also directed State Department personnel never again to speak to Clifford.
In March 1948, a Joint Chiefs paper titled “Force Requirements for Palestine” predicted that the “Zionist strategy will seek to involve [the U.S.] in a continuously widening and deepening series of operations intended to secure maximum Jewish objectives.” Those objectives included an expansionist agenda for Greater Israel that envisioned the taking of Arab land, ensuring armed clashes in which the U.S. was destined to become embroiled.
The Joint Chiefs listed the Zionist objectives as:
• Initial Jewish sovereignty over a portion of Palestine
• Acceptance by the great powers of the right to unlimited immigration
• The extension of Jewish sovereignty over all of Palestine,
• The expansion of “Eretz (Greater) Israel” into Transjordan and portions of Lebanon and Syria, and
• The establishment of Jewish military and economic hegemony over the entire Middle East.
Akin to the fictional portrayal in Exodus, those Zionists lobbying Truman assured him they would remain within the initial boundaries. We now know that was a lie. They also promised that the Zionist state would not become what it soon became: a theocratic and racist enclave—albeit widely marketed as the “only democracy in the Middle East.” To remove all doubt as to the extremist nature of the Zionist project, the Joint Chiefs assessment added ominously:
“All stages of this program are equally sacred to the fanatical concepts of the Jewish leaders. The program is openly admitted by some leaders, and has been privately admitted to United States officials by responsible leaders of the presently dominant Jewish group--The Jewish Agency.”
Deceit from the Outset
A beguiling combination of manipulated beliefs and outright lies remain at the core of the U.S.-Israeli “special relationship.” The deceit deployed to advance the Zionist project remains obscured by a pro-Israeli bias in media and reinforced by pro-Israeli influence in popular culture.
The rewards are real for those who offer aid and comfort to this trans-generational duplicity. As Truman’s whistle-stop train traversed the nation, grateful Zionists refueled his campaign coffers with a reported $400,000 in cash ($3.5 million in current dollars). Those funds helped transform his widely anticipated loss into a clear victory with support from pro-Israeli editorial boards that—after recognition—boosted Truman’s sagging popularity.
Clark Clifford was rewarded with his career goal as a top-paid Washington lawyer. As a “made man,” he remained a reliable asset. During the G.H.W. Bush presidency, his prominence provided cover for a massive bank fraud involving the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. In 2009, Hollywood released an action thriller (The International) featuring the same storyline involving the International Bank of Business and Credit.
Neither Clifford nor Altman had experience in banking when their law firm enabled what prosecutors charged was a global criminal operation. The U.S. press called the scheme the biggest bank fraud in history. This $20 billion transnational operation even included a pop culture component. Clifford’s young protégé and law partner, Robert Altman, was married to Lynda Carter, the star of Wonder Woman, a 1970s fantasy-adventure television series.
The real fantasy in this long-running fraud lies in identifying why U.S. lawmakers continue to befriend and defend a “nation” that has for so long—and so consistently—deceived and betrayed its most loyal ally. As a badly miscast Eva Marie Saint asks in her most memorable line in Exodus: “When will it ever end?”
The greatest wonder will be if, based on the well-documented history of this duplicity, those lawmakers urging continued support for these fanatics are not charged with treason. [See: "How the Israel Lobby Took Control of U.S. Foreign Policy".
To restore its national security, the U.S. must shake off its entangled alliance with this extremist enclave. “Shaking off” is the literal translation of “intifada.” Those who comprehend the trans-generational nature of this deception are quickly reaching that conclusion. The others may be waiting for the movie, American Intifada.
- Jeff Gates is author of Guilt By Association, Democracy at Risk and The Ownership Solution.
Visit: www.criminalstate.com.
"... The hostility that some Israelis feel toward Europe, she says, "is not hostile enough when one considers how hateful some European institutions are of Israel." She says she expects the members of the new body to come to European forums and "attack ferociously those who call to demonize Israel." .........Israel also needs to "attack" EU funding for NGOs that "promotes bias and prejudice," she avers. ........Apologetic tactics, she told Haaretz at her home in Gilo, Jerusalem, won't work. "You Israelis must have courage to say you are at war and how much it costs you," she proposed, despite the militaristic image of Israel that this may reinforce. ......The Arabs, she observes, have no problem admitting they are at war. "I sat with a Hamas leader in Gaza not long before a helicopter took out the organization's co founder, Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi," she recalls with a faint ironic smile. "I have covered Camp David to Annapolis. I know them. I know that Israel has no partner."
Morris talks with Gilad Atzmon in the light of current news events.
August 7, 2009 at 2:37 pm (Corrupt Politics, Ethnic Cleansing, Extremism, Human Rights, Illegal Evictions, Israel, Occupation, Status of Jerusalem, zionist harassment)
ALGIERS, (PIC)-- Farouk Al-Qaddoumi, the secretary-general of Fatah's central committee, said Wednesday that the sixth conference held in Bethlehem turned Fatah from a resistance movement into a submissive political party.
In a press statement to the Algerian Echorouk newspaper, Qaddoumi warned that this conference cast doubts over the Palestinian people's rights especially the right of return, saying that he had already warned of holding the conference in the occupied Palestinian lands.
He also highlighted that the movement of Fatah outside Palestine would not recognize any decisions issued by the conference which was held in Palestinian lands under the Israeli occupation.
As for Mahmoud Abbas's intent to close his office in Tunisia, Qaddoumi affirmed that no one could close Fatah leadership's office in Tunisia because it was elected by the national council and gained the support of all Palestinian resistance factions.
Meanwhile, strong arguments and polarization flared up between Fatah leaders on the second day of the conference of Bethlehem on Wednesday.
Informed sources attending the conference reported that members of Fatah conference raged at Tayeb Abdelrahim, a member of Fatah's central committee and Abbas's aide, and forced him to leave the platform after he defiantly declared that there was no report issued by the central committee and thus Abbas's speech at the opening session could be considered an alternative report.
Abbas, who was called in to silence the conference members, threatened the attendees with expulsion if they did not show discipline and ordered his bodyguards to force out senior Fatah official Hossam Khader after his attempt to speak and interrupt Abbas.
The first session of the conference on Tuesday also witnessed verbal argument between some Fatah leaders during which Abbas's bodyguards physically assaulted former PA intelligence director Tawfiq Al-Tirawi.
Abbas's bodyguards attacked Tirawi as he was trying to help members of the conference who came from Lebanon to enter the conference room after they faced problems in getting access cards.
The first congress in 20 years of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah has been "hijacked" by an older generation, reformers said, threatening to blunt their efforts to rejuvenate the movement.
Younger members, seeking a more transparent Fatah ahead of elections due in early 2010, said on Wednesday that the "old guard" had packed the congress with delegates loyal to them in a bid to maintain the status quo.
"The Central Committee is trying to hijack the congress by imposing what they want," Mansour al-Sadi, one of the younger Fatah members seeking more power, said on the second day of the gathering in the West Bank city of Bethlehem.
The meeting, which was initially due to run for three days but is likely to be extended, is the first convention that 44-year-old Fatah has held on Palestinian soil after long years of exile. The last one was in Tunis in 1989.
Fatah's former leader, the late Yasser Arafat, usually found reasons to postpone the party congress. His successor Abbas, in his opening speech, said it was "a miracle" that it was now taking place at all.
While many delegates said simply managing to get Fatah members to agree to hold the congress was enough of an achievement in itself, the younger guard was unimpressed.
"We have been demanding to hold this congress for many years but this is not the congress that we dreamt of," said Qaddoura Fares, an advocate of modernization.
REVIVAL IN DOUBT
Abbas and Fatah, locked in rivalry with Hamas Islamists who control the Gaza Strip, are the Western-backed interlocutors who would sign a peace deal with Israel, if one could be negotiated.
Washington is to launch a fresh peace plan in the coming weeks and anything that can be done to reinforce the authority and burnish the democratic credentials of the Palestinian leadership in the West Bank would be welcome.
Fatah's leadership has been heavily criticized for corruption, complacency and lack of transparency. Reformists saw the congress as an opportunity for a re-launch.
But on Wednesday, they said the "old guard" had added some 700 names to an initial list of 1,550 delegates, in what looked like a bid to pack the congress with likeminded people.
"They illegally keep adding new members. No one knows the actual numbers," said Sadi.
Abbas on Tuesday stressed that peace with Israel and establishment of a Palestinian state were Fatah's priorities, although "resistance" remained an option. He did not say what "resistance" entailed but he said it did not mean terrorism.
The group's political program is up for discussion, but its founding charter is not. That document calls for the destruction of Israel -- an apparent anachronism since Fatah has endorsed the 2003 Oslo Accords in which the Palestinian leadership recognized Israel's right to exist.
Some delegates also wanted the congress to hold to account those responsible for weakening Fatah to the point where it lost the trust of the Palestinian people at a 2006 parliamentary election won by Hamas, which seized the Gaza Strip a year later.
But it seemed this would not happen.
Instead, the main event will be the election of 18 members of the Central Committee and 120 of the Revolutionary Council -- Soviet-sounding institutions redolent of the movement's birth during the Cold War.
The aim is to give more say to a younger generation that grew up fighting Israeli occupation in the West Bank and to curb the dominance of older leaders who lived many years in exile. A vote will determine the extent of the change.
Some 80 Fatah members are running for the Central Committee and hundreds want seats on the Revolutionary Council.
"The congress is over," said delegate Jamil Tarifi, on the second morning of the convention. "The main point is that they will elect members and that's the end of the story."
"Egypt has expressed "concern" over the welcome that Saad Hariri's designation for the premiership received from Syria and the opposition, the Lebanese An Nahar daily reported Saturday."Egypt does not hide its preference for interim Premier Fouad Saniora to return to his position," it said.It said that Lebanese figures who had met in Cairo with one of the most prominent Egyptian officials, also an expert on the Lebanese file, "returned with impressions implying that the chances of Saniora returning to the premiership were high."The Egyptian official said that "despite the Doha agreement, Saniora stuck to managing the negotiations and did not offer any significant compromises in the formation of the present government."On another note, the Lebanese figures returned to Lebanon carrying "two messages: in the first Egypt reaffirms its support for President Michel Suleiman and stresses the significance of his role. In the second, it expressed concern over the renewed Syria role in Lebanon."
Habila's Son Memorizes the Qur'an in Just 35 Days! 
قالها سعد وسعد مشتمل ما هكذا تورد يا سعد الإبل
(نشرة “كنعان” الالكترونية ـ السنة التاسعة ـ العدد 1980)
وصلني كغيري بيان المؤسسات والأطر النسوية بشأن قرار فرض لبس الجلباب على المحاميات…الخ في قطاع غزة. فأولاً، إن صح ما في البيان، وثانياً لست من المعنيين بما ورد في البيان من عبارات مثل “حكومة مقالة”، “ومخالفة دستورية” و “مخالفة تنظيم مهنة المحاماة”، و “التناقض مع وثيقة الاستقلال”…الخ.
قد يكون دافعي للكتابة هو حماية المقاومة بما هي الطريق الوحيد للحق في الوجود وليس فقط للحفاظ على المشروع الوطني، لأن المشروع الوطني اقل بكثير من الحق في الوجود، ولأن الحق في الوجود يشتمل حرية الأشخاص فردا فرداً. صحيح ان المقاومة هي في الأساس ضد الاحتلال، ولكن حين يسيطر شخص على آخر، تضيع المقاومة ضد الاحتلال ليصبح الحق في الوجود هو هدف من يخضع للاضطهاد.
لذا، ليس المهم هنا المفاضلة بين المقاوم والتسوية، لأن هذا ما قام به الناس في الانتخابات الأخيرة التي مهما قبل فيها من غزل، هي انتخابات تحت نير الاحتلال، ديمقراطية ممنوحة من الاحتلال! وهي هديتنا المسمومة إلى شعب العراق العربي لينتخب تحت المذبحة الاحتلالية، ولكل شعب تحت الاحتلال.
ما يهم مختلف تماماً. فمن حيث المبدأ، هل انتخب الناس حركة حماس لغرض سياسي أم انتخبوها لكي تتحكم حتى في دواخل الأسرة، وشخص المرأة وربما الرجل؟ وهل كان أصلاً قرار حماس دخول الانتخابات عملا مقاوماً، أم خطوة للتساوق مع أوسلو؟ ولو كان لي أن اقول رايي، فأنا لم أنتخب في حياتي قط، ولكنني ايدت حماس، خارج الانتخابات، لأجل المقاومة.
ما هو مناخ دخول الانتخابات اصلا غير أن ما أرادته اميركا والكيان وهو إدخال كل طرف وحتى فرد فلسطيني في مطهر التسوية، وبعد مجرد الدخول، يتم تقييده ومعاقبته وقتله إن أمكن. ما أُريد من حماس هو فقط دخول الانتخابات، وبعدها يجب أن تنتهي حماس!. وكلنا يعرف ما كان بعد ذلك وحتى اليوم.
السؤال الأساسي الذي يشغلني متعلق بالحريات الفردية، لا بل الشخصية. من الذي يحق له التدخل في لباس امرأة، حتى زوجته؟ لماذا يقرر لها هذا اللباس أو ذاك؟ فما بالك بمن يتدخل في لباس نساء أخريات؟ كيف يمكن السماح لرجل أن يسأل ابنتي أو زوجتي : لماذا تلبسين هذا؟ لماذا يحق له النظر إليها وتقييم لباسها؟ من اين اتى بهذا القدر من استصدار حق الاعتداء؟ قد يكون لكل إنسان حق نصح الآخر بالكتابة او الحديث أو اي أمر آخر. أما إصدار قرارات ملزمة للآخرين دون استشارتهم ومثلا التصويت على ذلك، والأهم والأصح ترك الحريات للناس.
كيف اصدق أن من يراقب ملابس سيدة ، لا يفكر بأبعد من ذلك مستخدما الدين الذي لا نص فيه على هذا أو غيره. لست مشرعاً ولا هذا مجالي، ولكنني اؤمن أن شخصي أنا حر فيه، ولا إنسان له حق التدخل في شخصي، ومن يتدخل في الشكل يتدخل في العقل. ومن الذي أكد له انه أكثر علما ووعيا من غيره في ذلك الغير حتى يضع لغيره حدود شكله؟ وحتى لو كان اوعى، كيف له أن يرغم الآخر بقبول ما يراه هو لغيره؟ أليست إدانتنا للاستشراق بأنه يصوغنا كما يرانا هو؟ فماذا نسمي هذا الذي يحصل حين يعيد الرجل صوغ المرأة على الصورة التي يريد!
وإذا كان من يصدر هذا القرار منطلقاً من قناعة ما وربما حكمة ما، هل يدري كيف ستحمل هذا القرار مجموعات من الشباب الذين يتمنون التحكم بالآخرين معتقدين أنهم يحملون رؤوساً ملآى بالحكمة؟ وكيف سيعاملوا النساء؟
كنت ممن تمنوا لو أن حماس في غزة، دعت إلى مؤتمر عام لمناقشة آليات الحكم، والتنمية، وإدارة الموارد المحدودة، وفتح فرص التشغيل، وإشراك النساء على قدم المساواة، وتشكيل لجان لقراءة الاحتلال بسياساتنه ومخططاته ومشاريعه ل 2020 و 2050، وارتباطه بالمركز المعولم وتغلغله في القطريات العربية وخاصة التي تفرض الحجاب والاحتجاب…الخ هذا قبل الدمار، اما بعده فاصبحت إدارة الحياة بحاجة أكثر لمؤتمر شعبي عام من الجنسين، ونظراً لوجود الحصار كان يمكن تشكيل لجنة من الخبراء والأمناء لدراسة ملفات الفاسدين وانتزاع ما سرقوا لستر حياة الأسر المستورة التي ربما لا تلبس نسائها الحجاب لأنها لا تملك ثمنه. أو نشر ثقافة تجاوز الاستهلاك، الاستهلاك الواعي، والوعي بالاستهلاك، لا سيما من منتجات الدول المعادية لشعبنا ولأمتنا، خاصة في ظروف الحصار القاتل. هذا قليل مما كان يجب أن يحصل ولم يحصل!! بل ما يحصل كما يبدو هو الاستفراد بالنساء كمستضعفات. ثم يبدأ القول، إن النساء اللاتي يرفضن هذا القرار هن متغربنات سافرات وحتى “نُشَّزا”! أما والنساء هن المستضعفات، فهل يقضي الدين باستضعاف الضعيف[1]؟ كيف كان للسيدة فاطمة الزهراء أن تفرض على الإمام علي أن لا يتزوج عليها، فهل كان سيتدخل في لباسها؟ لماذا اختراع معارك صغيرة للتشاغل والانتصار فيها؟ وهناك معارك كبرى عديدة يمكن الانتصار فيها. يمكن دخول معركة التنمية والتعليم الحقيقي والثقافة والانتاج …الخ.
يكون العمل ثورياً حين يفكك أجهزة الدولة بما هي قمعية ويفتح المجال لمائة زهرة كي تتقتح. فالوصول إلى قلعة الحكم يجب ان يكون تضحية من أجل الناس. أما أن يكون من أجل وضع عدادات على أنفاس النساء فهذا في منتهى الغرابة.
قد تتمكن هذه القيادة من فرض هذا وغيره، وما النتيجة؟ فتنة مستدامة، سيبقى هناك من يرفض ويعارض ويُقتل ويُذبح، وستسقط الضحايا بتنوعاتها، وسيكون هذا على حساب المقاومة والتنمية والبناء والحريات، وسيجيء يوم يتوقف هذا، ولكن بعد ان يصبح البلد يباباً حتى بالمقارنة مع يباب اليوم! وبلا قدرة على المقاومة، فما لزوم ذلك، فهل يخسر الاحتلال والدول العربية القطرية والغرب الراسمالي ام يكسبوا!
هل حماس في غزة أكملت كل ما هو مطلوب وبقي شعر المرأة؟
إذا لم تستشر قيادة حماس، القوى الأخرى في غزة، فهل يمكنها الزعم أنها قد غيرت ما كان قبلها؟ أم أنننا انتقلنا من تفرَّد فريق التسوية والفساد والبحث عن دولة وعد بها بوش سفاح التاريخ المهووس بالقتل، إلى تفرد فريق الأُصولية ؟ لقد دافعنا كثيراً ضد تهمة الأصولية والسلفية وضد من روجوا للغرب وحتى للكيان …الخ فماذ نقول لهم اليوم؟ وكان دفاعنا أملاً في رغبة في تغير ما! لكن الوضع لم يبق حتى كما كان.
وحتى لو تم التراجع عن هذا القرار، يبقى مُداناً لأن مجرد التفكير فيه يشكل بادرة خطيرة على مستقبل داكن.
لماذا يُقاس الإنسان بلباسه؟ ولماذا يُنصب البعض أنفسهم وكلاء على غيرهم؟ لو كان الله معنياً باللباس وإخفاء العورات والملكية الخاصة لولد الإنسان بلباس كامل. اي أن الأصل في الإنسان العري النظيف، وبعدها يلبس ليتقي الطبيعة وليس أعين الآخرين.
لو كان الانضباط الأخلاقي بكمية اذرع القماش، لما عرفت البشرية كل أنواع البغاء إلا حيت هيمن نمط الانتاج الراسمالي وحده. فهل خلت مجتمعات العالم الثالث ومنها العربية من البغاء في الألفيتين الماضيتين؟ هل اكتشفنا هذا من علاقتتنا بالغرب؟ ما يضبط الإنسان وينظم علاقته بالآخرين هي قناعته أولاً. ثم لماذا لا نقرأ ولا نرحل لنرى أن المجتمعات الصناعية الغربية ليست شوارع بغاء على الأرصفة كما يصور المعاقون نفسياً الذين يثرثرون حول هذا فيشوهون عقول البسطاء؟
كان بوسع حماس أن تفكر في تشكيل مثلث التحالف التاريخي في غزة ليضم المسلمين والاشتراكيين والقوميين لتشكيل كتلة وطنية تقاوم وتبني، وخاصة أن غزة تحت الاحتلال والدمار والفقر والحصار. فلو كانت غزة بقعة وهابية نفطية، لكان هناك ما يبين اسباب الانغلاق السلفي الذي يمول نفسه. أما أن نشحذ من كل ذي مال مهما كان مصدر ماله، ومن ثم نفرض على الناس حتى ما يلبسونه؟ وماذا عن عقولهم؟ هل نقيم محاكم تفتيش لما قد يكونوا فكروا به؟
لقد استبشرنا خيراً حين تزايد الدعم أو حتى التعاطف العالمي (الشعبي طبعا) معنا، لنطلع عليه الآن بمشروع وضع الكلبشات على جسد المرأة. فما الذي نقوله لجورج جالاوي، ولغيره؟ لماذا هذا الإصرار على تجنيد العالم لاحتقارنا؟ أكل هذا كي ترضى الوهابية؟ وهل الأنظمة التي تقيد حرية النساء “فالحة” إلى هذا الحد؟ ولو كانت كذلك، لماذا نرى كل يوم محاكم وعقوبات على الاغتصاب والبغاء ,,,الخ.
مثل هذا القرار، يدفع كثيرين للانحياز والتخارج إلى الغرب، ويجعل من السهل عليهم تجنيد غيرهم لذلك. وبعدها نأتي للقول: هؤلاء متغربنون وعملاء…الخ.
ولكن، إذا كانت المقاومة قد تحولت لتقاوم حريات الناس، فمن المتوقع أن ينحرف الناس سياسياً دفاعاً عن رؤوسهم، ومن المستفيد؟ ليس فقط الاحتلال بل كذلك الذين ينشغلون في فرض القوة والسيطرة على المجتمع وهي آليات تحول دون اي تقدم اجتماعي وثقافي، وبالتالي لا يريد الاحتلال أفضل من مجتمع يعتقل فيه الرجال النساء! نصف الشعب يقاوم النصف الآخر الذي يضطهده ، وليس شرطاً كيف؟
أعرف أن كثيرين، وخاصة من أهل التسوية، واللبرالية سيستغلوا مقالة كهذه، ولكن الرائد لا يكذب أهله. لا بد من وقفة للدفاع عن الإنسان لأن ذلك حقه علينا. لا بد من نقلة وعي لمن لا يريد الوعي، أو على الأقل تجريده من سلاح إضافي لم يكن بيده وليس من حقه.
قد يصح لنا القول، إن عالم العولمة والعالمية لن يسمح لأحد أن يغلق على نفسه ابوابه، فإما أن تتحدى العالم بما لديك من قوة، وأهمها حق الإنسان، وإما أن يدخل عليك العالم بالقوة المتعددة، وليست العسكرية وحدها.
لا يمكن لثقافة إلغاء حق المواطن أن تواكب العصر. ولا يمكن للسلاح الذي قد يهزم المحتل والمستعمِر أن يهزم المواطن، ناهيك عن أن رفعه ضد المواطن، ضد شخص المواطن هو مدخل للانتحار الجماعي، واستدعاء للاستعمار بأشكال عدة ذات يوم قادم! هذا بدل أن نقول كان الاستعمار هنا ذات يوم مضى!
إن قرارات من هذا الطراز هي الهدية المثلى للكثير من القوى المهزومة والمأزومة والمرتبطة بالعدو الثلاثي التي هي ضد المقاومة، لتجعل من هذه القضية وغيرها جسراً للتكفير بكافة أنواع المقاومة، وهذا ما سيخلق لها جمهوراً رغم إفلاسها. فهل هذا ما ترجوه قيادة حركة حماس وكوادرها؟ نتمتى لا!!!
[1] جلست قبل ربما خمس عشرة سنة في دائرة من الحضور لحفل عرس في قريتنا، كانوا عشرة رجال ما بين طلبة جامعيين ومدير المدرسة وعمال. كان الحديث عن المرأة، ووجوب ضبطها والسيطرة عليها منذ ليلة الصراع الأولى، من يتفوق على الآخر…الخ. وكان كل يقول انا فعلت وفعلت. ماذا كان لي أن اقول في حفلة عنتريات من هذا الطراز! لم أزد سوى القول، إذا كنتم رجالاً حقيقيين، فالمرجلة على الاحتلال، ولا تكون على المرأة التي تعتبرونها أضعف منكم. فقط بلغة كلغتهم كان يمكن أن يسكتوا ولا يقتنعوا بالطبع. هل كانت اللحظة لحظة حوار حول المساواة وتساوي القدرات ومناقشة النوع وغيرها!
