Saturday, 23 February 2013

Syrian Government Insists: No Conditions on Dialogue

Official photo of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad speaking at the Opera House in Damascus, Jan. 6, 2013, when he presented a new peace initiative, which his opponents dismissed as a ploy. (photo by REUTERS/Sana)

By: Jean Aziz for Al-Monitor Lebanon Pulse. Posted on February 22.
Read in Arabic

A high-level Syrian official has confirmed that the government in Damascus is open to dialogue initiatives to resolve the ongoing crisis, in particular because Moscow continues to advise Syrian authorities that they must respond to international initiatives in order to improve the regime’s image abroad and to provide their allies with something with which to endorse them. The Russians have also been emphasizing that the armed Syrian opposition faces a dilemma regarding whether to engage the regime in dialogue: agreeing to a compromise — thus forfeiting their call for toppling the regime and therefore possibly further dividing their ranks — or refusing to compromise, which could lose them diplomatic clout.

Despite recognizing the benefits of dialogue, the Syrian official, during a brief visit to Beirut, said that there are two considerations determining the way to deal with such initiatives.The first involves what the regime refers to as "sovereign issues." For instance, the same official stresses that by agreeing to negotiate with only a single, specific Syrian official, the opposition is undermining the dialogue before it even starts, or rather, is confirming that the opposition has no intention of seriously engaging in dialogue. It is obvious that the Syrian official is referring to a statement by Moaz al-Khatib, head of the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, suggesting Syrian Vice President Farouk al-Sharaa as an acceptable negotiator for a dialogue with the regime.

The official asserted that “this cannot happen, we can never agree on any preconditions to negotiate,” especially since the regime settled that issue at the time of the current government’s formation. Former UN envoy Kofi Annan — on July 8, 2012, during his last meeting with President Bashar al-Assad — suggested a dialogue between the conflicting parties and that Assad nominate a representative for it. On that same day, Assad told Annan that Ali Haidar, minister of national reconciliation, had been tasked with the mission. Since Haidar is the head of a wing of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, he is (from the Baath Party’s point of view) a member of the internal opposition that agreed to take part in parliamentary elections held on May 7, 2012, and to participate in the current Syrian government. Sources have confirmed that Annan had at the time questioned Assad about Haidar’s ability to accomplish his mission. Assad replied that Haidar was completely capable of representing the government as well as the Syrian president, since their relationship goes back to the early 1990s, when they were classmates as ophthalmology students. Syrian officials did not, of course, reveal a hidden element behind selecting Haidar: On May 2, 2012, his son was killed by jihadists, which given the implied sensitivities, complicates Haidar being suggested as a negotiator.

The Syrian official asserted, "The importance of the issue is not limited to the fact that we reject any conditions imposed by insurgents, but that we also want to make sure that those negotiating with us are powerful on the ground or are capable of actualizing whatever may result from dialogue. This very point seems intractable. It is very well known that the regime in Syria makes decisions, commits to them and compels others. But who is responsible on the other side of the conflict? Who is capable of showing commitment and compelling militants? These questions are yet to be answered.” He also revealed that an aide to Lakhdar Brahimi, Annan's successor, had told Syrian officials that his team had to that point counted 134 armed groups in Syria, all working independently of each other, without any group having authority over the other. “Who would we negotiate with?” he mused.

According to the official, the second consideration — the balance of power on the ground — will determine the boundaries of any negotiation between the parties to the conflict. "Since the conflict began, the Syrian army has not been led to any confrontation at any point or time. It has been the one to call the shots and to initiate strikes and confrontations. Therefore, what some may see as a setback or loss in a specific location is actually part of planned and studied military tactics on the part of our army," the official contended.

He then asserted, "With the exception of a narrow strip on the Syrian-Turkish border, where direct intervention by Ankara led to obvious security and military chaos, the remaining Syrian territory is still under the control of the regime in Damascus, despite the fact that there are armed opposition strongholds in many areas. The Syrian army, however, is capable of taking care of them at any moment, should it decide to do so."

Does this tactic aim at degenerating the ranks of the opposition on the one hand, while trying to prove to the West and the international community on the other that the jihadist elements are dangerous? The Syrian official abstained from answering but confirmed, however, that the regime "is still in control of the military situation, and this is what has been witnessed in Daraya, in the southeastern suburbs of Damascus."

The official explained that more than 10,000 gunmen had gathered in a densely populated residential area in which about 300,000 citizens live. This situation prompted "the Syrian army to quietly work on limiting the insurgents and then isolating them from the civilian population in preparation for the third step, which consists of resolving the situation in Daraya. This will constitute a significant change in the security and military scene in Damascus, thus affecting other Syrian areas in which insurgents are spread."

As the official left Beirut, the information being received from his country contradicted much of the military scenario he had tried to craft, a contradiction that only proves one point — the conflict in Syria is not likely to end anytime soon.

Jean Aziz is a contributing writer for Al-Monitor’s Lebanon Pulse. He is a columnist at the Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar and the host of a weekly political talk show broadcast on OTV, a Lebanese station.

Read more:
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 this Blog!

French war on Mali to clinch warplane mega deal

French war on Mali to clinch warplane mega deal
France’s Rafale warplanes
France’s Rafale warplanes
Thu Feb 21, 2013 7:31AM
The Rafale has spearheaded the French war on Mali and has been hailed by French President Francois Hollande for its successful air strikes against the impoverished desert African country. Four weeks after the French offensive began in Mali, Hollande flew to India last week in a bid to finalize what is reputedly the biggest military aviation deal in history, centered on the Rafale.”
France’s claim of combating terrorism in Mali does not add up. Re-conquest of this former French colony and control of rich natural resources in West Africa are some of the more plausible reasons for this criminal offensive that began on 11 January.

Yet another plausible reason is to showcase the Rafale, France’s new fighter-bomber.

The Rafale has spearheaded the French war on Mali and has been hailed by French President Francois Hollande for its successful air strikes against the impoverished desert African country. Four weeks after the French offensive began in Mali, Hollande flew to India last week in a bid to finalize what is reputedly the biggest military aviation deal in history, centered on the Rafale.

In other words, the whole war may have been staged to showcase the Rafale with the precise purpose of sealing a deal worth $12-14 billion with India and to fend off a rival tender from Britain’s state-of-the-art Typhoon.

Here’s the background.

Another week, another UN Security Council member comes to India to flog weapons of mass destruction. Just as tensions are boiling between nuclear-powered India and Pakistan over the incendiary Kashmir dispute - soldiers have been killed on both sides in cross-border firefights in recent weeks - along come the leaders of France and Britain to push multi-billion-dollar weapons sales.

Last week, it was French President Francois Hollande who led a delegation of four government ministers and some 60 industrial chiefs to India.
Arriving on 14 February and greeted by Indian Premier Manmohan Singh, French English-language broadcaster France 24 reported the importance of Hollande’s purpose in no uncertain terms: “The two-day visit will be dominated by trade issues, including a $12-billion contract for Rafale fighter jets, dubbed ‘the deal of the century’ in France.”
That deal - still to be finalized, perhaps next year - involves the sale of 126 French-made Rafale fighter-bombers and a potential follow-up of 63 more. It is reckoned to be the biggest-ever military aviation contract between two countries. The bombers are designed to deliver nuclear warheads - a feature that no doubt lends a selling edge on the Indian sub-continent.

This week, however, it was British Prime Minister David Cameron’s turn. Cameron flew to India for a three-day visit to shore up the “special relationship” with Britain’s former colony and past imperial “jewel in the crown.” It was Britain’s biggest overseas trade delegation, according to spokesmen in Downing Street. Accompanying Cameron were four government ministers, nine parliamentarians and representatives of over 100 British industries and businesses, including British Aerospace.

The latter company is particularly relevant since the main objective for Cameron was to dissuade India from finalizing the French fighter jet deal and to award the contract instead to the British-made Eurofighter Typhoon.

“PM in last-ditch bid for India fighter deal,” headlined the Financial Times, which added that Cameron was trying to snatch the contract “from under the nose of French President Francoise Hollande.”

The irony is a little hard to take of UN Security Council members engaged in a dog fight to fuel an arms race between India and Pakistan - the two states, both nuclear powers, have fought four wars since their foundation in 1947. The irony of Britain’s nefarious role is especially bitter. It was Britain’s malevolent partition of India that created the long-running dispute between newly formed India and Pakistan over the mainly Muslim territory of Kashmir. Three of the four wars fought by India and Pakistan have been over Kashmir - that is, as a result of British imperialist meddling. And now Britain is seeking to make billions of dollars from the bellicose tensions that it bequeathed to the region.

To call this a cynical business is a gross understatement. As the adage goes: war sells, war is good for business. And both France and Britain in recent years have done their utmost in pushing wars across the Middle East and North Africa, which in turn have helped push up sales of their state-of-the-art warplanes. The latest sales promo is France’s war on Mali - but more on that later.

The British-French rivalry for the Indian fighter jet bonanza can be traced to NATO’s war on Libya during 2011, which culminated in the overthrow and murder of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. On 17 March 2011, the UN Security Council voted a resolution to set up a no-fly zone in Libya, ostensibly under the pretext of “responsibility to protect” civilians in an apparent uprising by militants in the east against the government of Tripoli. Two days later, on 19 March, the no-fly zone quickly turned into a seven-month aerial bombing campaign by NATO against Gaddafi forces. Many legal experts opine that the NATO bombardment of Libya, which was instrumental in the overthrow of the Libyan government, was not mandated by the UNSC Resolution 1973. That is, NATO acted illegally.

The two NATO powers that led the bombing onslaught in Libya - involving more than 10,000 air sorties - were France and Britain. The air war was a showcase for the new Rafale, built by French company Dassault, as well as British Aerospace’s Typhoon. Indeed, it was Rafale fighter jets that first opened NATO fire on Gaddafi forces outside Benghazi.

Before NATO’s bombing spectacle in Libya got underway, the Rafale and Typhoon had already been short-listed by India from out of six tenders for the record $12-14bn fighter jet contract. This aerial campaign served as the air force for Libyan militants to bring about Western regime change. But it also had the added benefit of showcasing French and British warplanes that were fresh off the production line and poaching for international customers.

Eight months after NATO’s blitzkrieg on Libya finished, the government of India announced that it was opting for the Rafale.

The Financial Times on 7 July 2012 reported: “For Dassault’s Rafale and Eurofighter’s Typhoon, the conflict to unseat Libyan dictator Colonel Muammar Gaddafi helped to decide the biggest jet fighter tender ever.” The paper went on blandly: “In fact, the Typhoon and Rafale both performed well over Tripoli, bolstering confidence on both sides that they are the better aircraft. In the end, the French [warplanes] were quicker and that, say analysts, helped nudge India’s decision towards Dassault’s Rafale.”

That’s not the end of the affair. Even though the French seemed to clinch the fighter jet mega deal with India last July, the British have not given up hope on snatching the prize from their rival.

Indeed, hot on the heels of Hollande’s visit last week to New Delhi, British Prime Minister David Cameron was in India precisely to convince Premier Singh on the benefits of the Typhoon.

The Guardian quoted a Downing Street spokesman as saying: “We respect [sic] the fact that the Indians have chosen their preferred bidder and are currently negotiating with the French. Of course, we will continue to promote Eurofighter [Typhoon] as a great fast jet, not just in India but around the world.”

Given the magnitude of the aviation deal with India and other potential buyers, it can be safely assumed that the British have not been “respecting” the French rival, but rather have been lobbying New Delhi intensely to steal the deal ever since the Indian government signaled last year that it was opting for the Rafale.

The war on Libya may have launched the Rafale on the world stage as a lean fighting machine, winning over New Delhi in particular, but perhaps the French felt compelled subsequently to go to war in Mali with the aim of closing the Indian deal. Bear in mind that Hollande’s Rafale-selling delegation to India comes one month after the beginning of the French offensive in its former West African colony.

With British rival pressure bearing down on the French, it is not inconceivable that deployment of the Rafale in the challenging environment of Mali was contrived as a timely reminder to India of the aircraft’s military capabilities.

It should be recalled that France’s military intervention in Mali on 11 January - as with NATO’s bombing of Libya - was not authorized by the UN Security Council. The latter only gave a qualified approval last December for the deployment of an African-led mission to Mali under the auspices of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), which was envisaged to take place in September later this year. The French jumped the gun for an urgent reason. Why?

The official French rationale for launching its sudden offensive in West Africa - defending Europe’s security from terrorism - does not quite ring true. After all, the radical militants it is supposedly combating in Mali are the same, or are closely related to, the Mujahideen militants in Libya that the Rafale fighter jets were providing air cover for in 2011. These same elements are also linked to extremists that France and other NATO states are supporting in Syria to overthrow the Assad government in Damascus. Clearly, the official French rationale for its military intervention in Mali spearheaded by the Rafale fighter jets does not add up.

But a “sale of the century” hanging in the balance involving fighter jets to India worth $12-14 billion? Now, that does make sense.

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 this Blog!

“Syrian Rebels too Weak to Target Hezbollah”

Local Editor

Lebanese analyst Amin HutaitThe situation in Syria has escalated lately since terror groups are trying to counter any negotiations that could lead to a peaceful solution to the ongoing conflict, strategic expert Ameen Hutait told RT Arabic website.

In a new turn in the nearly two-year-old civil war, Syrian rebels warned the Lebanese Hezbollah to stop the shelling of Free Syrian Army-controlled territories in Syria or face consequences. The group posted its statement on its page on a popular social networking service and gave Hezbollah a 48-hour deadline to stop the attacks.

However, Beirut-based analyst Ameen Hutait believed these threats are not likely to be fulfilled and are rather linked to the events in neighboring Lebanon.

On the intense fighting in Damascus, bombing and casualties, Hutait stressed that “events in Damascus reflect clearly how desperate the terror groups are as they saw the peaceful solution to the crisis - which is led mainly by Russia, which is keen to achieve a peaceful solution - has started to move forward.”

“This is because these terrorists will not have a place in any future peaceful settlement,” he added.
“That’s why they (militant opposition groups) have carried out these desperate attacks on the capital Damascus, hoping to stop any possible negotiations that might lead to a peaceful solution for the crisis,” Hutait noted.

Syria: violent blast (Archive)“Also they aimed at punishing the Syrian people for their steadfastness and for their rejection of any form of fighting and terrorism,” he further pointed out.

Answering a question about how serious are the threats by the so-called Free Syrian Army to target Hezbollah sites, Hutait stated that these threats are not linked at all to the Syrian crisis. Rather, “they are linked to the current events in Lebanon such as the elections law.”

“We know that these threats came from a supporter and a comrade of Ukab Saqar, member of al-Mustaqbal party. Moreover, Saad Al-Hariri, who has lost control over the legislative process and is now facing an election law which will not secure majority for him in the parliament, wanted to threaten Hezbollah and send a message to him that a security chaos might take place in Lebanon in order to stop the elections.”

“The so-called Free Army is too weak to carry out such actions,” the Lebanese analyst stressed.
Moreover, Hutait made it clear that all the broadcast news about the participation of Hezbollah in fighting alongside the Syrian army is a fabricated lie: “Hezbollah has the courage enough to announce its plans and actions. Hence, it is all fabrications.”

“Everybody knows that there are 23 Lebanese villages on the Lebanese-Syrian border, but they are inside Syrian territory, and these villages are inhabited by Shiite Lebanese. Those Shiite Lebanese, who support the Resistance of Hezbollah, are being targeted by An-Nusra front fighters and the Free Army. These people are defending themselves; and they cannot allow the Free Army to invade them and kill their families,” he elaborated.

“This would never happen,” Hutait concluded.
Source: Websites
22-02-2013 - 16:19 Last updated 22-02-2013 - 17:22

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 this Blog!

Spielberg v. Tarantino

Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 9:07AM

Gilad Atzmon
Hollywood and the Past

History is commonly regarded as an attempt to produce a structured account of the past. It proclaims to tell us what really happened, but in most cases it fails to do that. Instead it is set to conceal our shame, to hide those various elements, events, incidents and occurrences in our past which we cannot cope with. History, therefore, can be regarded as a system of concealment. Accordingly, the role of the true historian is similar to that of the psychoanalyst: both aim to unveil the repressed. For the psychoanalyst, it is the unconscious mind. For the historian, it is our collective shame.

Yet, one may wonder, how many historians really engage in such a task? How many historians are courageous enough to open the Pandora Box? How many historians are brave enough to challenge Jewish History for real? How many historians dare to ask why Jews? Why do Jews suffer time after time? Is it really the Goyim who are inherently murderous, or is there something unsettling in Jewish culture or collectivism? But Jewish history is obviously far from being alone here: every people’s past is, in fact, as problematic. Can Palestinians really explain to themselves how is it that after more than a decade of struggle, they wake up to find out that their current capital has become a NGO haven largely funded by George Soros’ Open Society? Can the Brits once and for all look in the mirror and explain to themselves why, in their Imperial Wars Museum, they erected a Holocaust exhibition dedicated to the destruction of the Jews? Shouldn’t the Brits be slightly more courageous and look into one of the many Shoas they themselves inflicted on others? Clearly they have an impressive back catalogue to choose from.

The Guardian vs. Athens
The past is dangerous territory; it can induce inconvenient stories. This fact alone may explain why the true Historian is often presented as a public enemy. However, the Left has invented an academic method to tackle the issue. The ‘progressive’ historian functions to produce a ‘politically correct’, ‘inoffensive’ tale of the past. By means of zigzagging, it navigates its way, while paying its dues to the concealed and producing endless ad-hoc deviations that leave the ‘repressed’ untouched. The progressive subject is there to produce a ‘non- essentialist’ and ‘unoffending’ account of the past on the expense of the so-called ‘reactionary’. The Guardian is an emblem of such an approach, it would, for instance, ban any criticism of Jewish culture or Jewishness, yet it provides a televised platform for two rabid Zionist so they can discuss Arab culture and Islamism. The Guardian wouldn’t mind offending ‘Islamists’ or British ‘nationalists’ but it would be very careful not to hurt any Jewish sensitivities. Such version of politics or the past is impervious to truthfulness, coherence, consistency or integrity. In fact, the progressive discourse is far from being ‘the guardian of the truth’, it is actually set as ‘the guardian of the discourse’ and I am referring here to Left discourse in particular.
But surely there is an alternative to the ‘progressive’ attitude to the past. The true historian is actually a philosopher – an essentialist – a thinker who posits the question ‘what does it mean to be in the world and what does it take to live amongst others’? The true historian transcends beyond the singular, the particular and the personal. He or she is searching for the condition of the possibility of that which drives our past, present and future. The true historian dwells on Being and Time, he or she is searching for a humanist lesson and an ethical insight while looking into the poem, the art, the beauty, the reason but also into the fear. The true historian is an essentialist who digs out the concealed, for he or she knows that the repressed is the kernel of the truth.

Leo Strauss provides us with a very useful insight in that regard. Western civilization, he contends, oscillates between two intellectual and spiritual poles – Athens and Jerusalem. Athens — the birthplace of democracy, home for reason, philosophy, art and science. Jerusalem — the city of God where God’s law prevails. The philosopher, the true historian, or the essentialist, for that matter, is obviously the Athenian. The Jerusalemite, in that regard, is ‘the guardian of the discourse’, the one who keeps the gate, just to maintain law and order on the expense of ecstasies, poesis, beauty, reason and truth.

Spielberg vs. Tarantino

Hollywood provides us with an insight into this oscillation between Athens and Jerusalem: between the Jerusalemite ‘guardian of the discourse’ and the Athenian contender – the ‘essentialist’ public enemy. On the Left side of the map we find Steven Spielberg, the ‘progressive’ genius. On his Right we meet peosis itself, Quentin Tarantino, the ‘essentialist’.

Spielberg, provides us with the ultimate sanitized historical epic. The facts are cherry picked just to produce a pre meditated pseudo ethical tale that maintains the righteous discourse, law and order but, most importantly, the primacy of Jewish suffering (Schindler’s List and Munich). Spielberg brings to life a grand epic with a clear retrospective take on the past. Spielberg tactic is, in most cases, pretty simple. He would juxtapose a vivid transparent binary opposition: Nazis vs. Jews, Israeli vs. Palestinians , North vs. South, Righteousness vs. Slavery. Somehow, we always know, in advance who are the baddies and who are the goodies. We clearly know who to side with.

Binary opposition is indeed a safe route. It provides a clear distinction between the ‘Kosher’ and the ‘forbidden’. But Spielberg is far from being a banal mind. He also allows a highly calculated and carefully meditated oscillation. In a universalist gesture of courtesy he would let a single Nazi into the family of the kind. He would allow the odd Palestinian to be a victim. It can all happen as long as the main frame of the discourse remains intact. Spielberg is clearly an arch guardian of discourse – being a master of his art-form, he will certainly maintain your attention for at least 90 minutes of a historic cinematic cocktail made of factual mishmash. All you have to do is to follow the plot to the end. By then the pre-digested ethical message is safely replanted at the hub of your self-loving narcissistic universe.

Unlike Spielberg, Tarantino is not concerned with factuality; he may even repel historicity. Tarantino may as well believe that the notion of ‘the message’ or morality are over rated. Tarantino is an essentialist, he is interested in human nature, in Being and he seems to be fascinated in particular in vengeance and its universality. For the obvious reasons, his totally farfetched Inglorious Bastards throws light on present Israeli collective blood thirstiness as being detected at the time of Operation Cast lead. The fictional cinematic creation of a revengeful murderous WWII Jewish commando unit is there to throw the light on the devastating contemporary reality of Jewish lobbies’ lust for violence in their relentless push for a world war against Iran and beyond. But Inglorious Bastards may as well have a universal appeal because the Old Testament’s ‘eye for and eye’ has become the Anglo American political driving force in the aftermath of 9/11.

Abe’le vs. Django

What may seem as a spiritual clash between Jerusalemite Spielberg and Athenian Tarantino is more than apparent in their recent works.

The history of slavery in America is indeed a problematic topic and, for obvious reasons, many aspects of this chapter are still kept deeply within the domain of the concealed. Once again Spielberg and Tarantino have produced a distinctively different accounts of this chapter.
In his recent historical epic Lincoln, Spielberg, made Abraham Lincoln into a Neocon ‘moral interventionist’ who against all (political) odds, abolished slavery. I guess that Spielberg knows enough American history to gather that his cinematic account is a crude Zigzag attempt, for the anti slavery political campaign was a mere pretext for a bloody war driven by clear economical objectives.

As one may expect, Spielberg peppers his tale with more than a few genuine historical anecdotes. He is certainly paying the necessary dues just to keep the shame shoved deep under the carpet. His Lincoln is cherished as a morally driven hero of human brotherhood. And the entire plot carries all the symptoms of contemporary AIPAC lobby assault within the Capitol. Being one of the arch guardians of the discourse, Spielberg has successfully fulfilled his task. He added a substantial cinematic layer to ensure that America’s true shame remains deeply repressed or shall we say, untouched.

Needles to mention that Spielberg’s take on Lincoln has been cheered by the Jewish press. They called the president Avraham Lincoln Avinu (our father, Hebrew) in The Tablet Magazine. ‘Avraham’, according to the Tablet, is the definitive good Jew. “As imagined by Spielberg and Kushner, Lincoln’s Lincoln is the ultimate mensch. He is a skilled natural psychologist, an interpreter of dreams, and a man blessed with an extraordinarily clever and subtle legal mind.” In short, Spielberg’s Lincoln is Abe’le who combines the skills, the gift and the traits of Moses, Freud as well as Alan Dershowitz. However, some Jews complain about the film. “As an American Jewish historian, writes Lance J. Sussman, “I’m afraid I have to say I am somewhat disappointed with the latest Spielberg film. So much of it is so good, but it would have been even better if he had put at least one Jew in the movie, somewhere.”

I guess that Spielberg may find it hard to please the entire tribe. Quentin Tarantino, however, doesn’t even try. Tarantino is, in fact, doing the complete opposite. Through a phantasmic epic that confesses zero interest in any form of historicity or factuality whatsoever, he manages, in his latest masterpiece Django Unchained, to dig out the darkest secrets of Slavery. He scratches the concealed and judging by the reaction of another cinematic genius Spike Lee, he has clearly managed to get pretty deep.

By putting into play a stylistic spectacle within the Western genre Tarantino manages to dwell on every aspect we are advised to leave untouched. He deals with biological determinism, White supremacy and cruelty. But he also turns his lens onto slaves’ passivity, subservience and collaboration. The Athenian director builds here a set of Greek mythological God like characters; Django (Jamie Fox), is the unruly king of revenge and Schultz (Christoph Waltz) the German dentist turned bounty hunter is the master of wit, kindness and humanity with a giant wisdom tooth shining over his caravan. Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) is the Hegelian (racist) Master and Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson) is the Hegelian Slave, emerging as the personification of social transformation. To a certain extent, the relationships between Candie and Stephen could be seen as one of the most profound yet subversive cinematic takes on Hegel’s master-slave dialectic.

In Hegel’s dialectic two self-consciousness’ are constituted via a process of mirroring. In Django Unchained, Stephen the slave, seems to convey the ultimate form of subservience, yet this is merely on the surface. In reality Stephen is way more sophisticated and observant than his master Candie. He is on his way up. It is hard to determine whether Stephen is a collaborator or if he really runs the entire show. And yet in Tarantino’s latest, Hegel’s dialectic is, somehow, compartmentalized. Django, once unchained, is clearly impervious to the Hegelian dialectic spiel. His incidental liberation induces in him a true spirit of relentless resilience. When it comes to it, he kills the Master, the Slave and everyone else who happens to be around, he bends every rule including the ‘rules of nature’ (biological determinism). By the time the epic is over, Django leaves behind a wreckage of the Candie’s plantation, the cinematic symbol of the dying old South and the ‘Master Slave Dialectic’. Yet, as Django rides on a horse towards the rising sun together with his free wife Broomhilda von Shaft (Kerry Washington), we are awakened to the far fetched cinematic fantasy. In reality, I mean the world out of the cinema, the Candie’s plantation would, in all likelihood, remain intact and Django would probably be chained up again. In practice, Tarantino cynically juxtaposes the dream (the cinematic reality) and reality (as we know it). By doing so he manages to illuminate the depth of misery that is entangled with the human condition and in Black reality in America in particular.

Tarantino is certainly not a ‘guardian of the discourse.’ Quite the opposite, he is the bitterest enemy of stagnation. As in his previous works, his latest spectacle is an essentialist assault on correctness and ‘self-love’. Tarantino indeed turns over many stones and unleashes many vipers into the room. Yet being a devout Athenian he doesn’t intend to produce a single answer or a moral lesson. He leaves us perplexed yet cheerful. For Tarantino, I guess, dilemma is the existential essence. Spielberg, on, the other hand, provides all the necessary answers. After all, within the ‘progressive’ politically-correct discourse, it is the answers that determine, in retrospective, what questions we are entitled to raise.

If Leo Strauss is correct and Western civilization should be seen as an oscillation between Athens and Jerusalem, truth must be said – we can really do with many more Athenians and their essentialist reflections. In short, we are in a desperate need of many more Tarantinos to counter Jerusalem and its ambassadors.

Gilad Atzmon’s latest book is: The Wandering Who? A Study of Jewish Identity Politics latest book is: The Wandering Who? A Study of Jewish Identity Politics

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 this Blog!

Israel instructs Obama: “Iranian and Syrian Sanctions are Not Painful Enough!”

….impose an international blockade now!

Franklin Lamb
Graphics by Alex

On 3/26/2013 Iran is expected to meet with other world powers in Astana, Kazakhstan to discuss its nuclear program. Discussions that the occupiers of Palestine fervently hope will not be successful. It is toward this end that their key demand this week to the US Congress, the White House and the European Union is “to cast responsibility on the Iranians by blaming them for the talks’ failure in the clearest terms possible.”

According to the Al-Monitor of 3/19/13, Israel also demands that the countries meeting in Kazakhstan“make it perfectly clear that slogans such as ‘negotiations can’t go on forever’ are their marching orders to the White House, and they want the Kazakhstan attendees to act “so severely that the Iranians realize that they face a greater threat than just Israeli military action.” 

“The message must be that this time the entire west, behind Israel’s leadership, is contemplating the launch of a massive military action.” Unsaid is that “the entire West” is expected to confront Iran militarily while Tel Aviv’s forces will mop up Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Syria if necessary.
Pending the above arrangements, Israel this week is further demanding that the Obama White House issue another Executive Order dramatically ratcheting up the US-led Sanctions against Iran and Syria while it prepares for a hoped for “ game changing international economic blockade, including no-fly zones enforced by NATO.

To achieve yet another lawyer of severe sanctions, and at the behest of AIPAC, a “legislative planning” meeting was called by Congressman Eliot Engel, who represents New Yorks 17thDistrict (the Bronx) and who is the Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Rep. Ros-Lehtinen (Florida’s 27th District), Chair of the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa. The session was held in a posh Georgetown restaurant and participant’s included representatives from AIPAC, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain plus half a dozen Congressional staffers.

Congressman Engel has co-sponsored virtually every anti-Arab, anti-Islam, anti-Palestinian, anti-Iran, and anti-Syrian Congressional broadside since he entered Congress a quarter-century ago. His campaign literature last fall stated: “I am a strong supporter of sanctions against those who repeatedly reject calls to behave as responsible nations. (Israel excepted-ed). I have authored or helped author numerous bills which have been signed into law to impose sanctions against rogue states including Iran and Syria.” Ros-Lehtinen and Engel led all members with AIPAC donations on the House side in last fall’s Congressional elections. They are ranked number one and two respectively as still serving career recipients of Israel-AIPAC’s “indirect” campaign donations.

 Some Congressional operatives accuse Rep. Ros-Lehtinen of being a bit lazy and neglecting the bread and butter needs of her Florida constituents. But others argue that it depends on which constituents one has in mind. Her election mailings and her Congressional website claim that the Congresswoman “led all Congressional efforts tirelessly to generate votes to block what she views as anti-Israel resolutions offered at the former UN Commission on Human Rights.”

A big fan of US-led sanctions against Iran and Syria, Rep. Ros-Lehtinen introduced the Iran Freedom Support Act on January 6, 2005, which increased sanctions and expanded punitive measures against the Iranian people until the Iranian regime has dismantled its nuclear plants. Rep. Ros-Lehtinen also introduced H.R. 957, the Iran Sanctions Amendments Act, which she claims “will close loopholes in current law by holding export credit agencies, insurers, and other financial institutions accountable for their facilitation of investments in Iran and sanction them as well.” In addition, H.R. 957 seeks to impose liability on parent companies for violations of sanctions by their foreign entities. She also co-sponsored H.R 1357 which requires “U.S. government pension funds to divest from companies that do any business with any country that does business with Iran.” Her campaign literature states that, “She was proud to be the leading Republican sponsor of H.R. 1400, the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act. This bill applies and enhances a wide range of additional sanctions.”
In addition, last year Illeana introduced H.R. 394, which enlarges US Federal Court Jurisdiction regarding claims by American citizens their claims in U.S. courts. Unclear is whether she realizes that one consequence of her initiative would be to open even wider US courtroom doors to Iranian-Americans and Syria-Americans who today are being targeted and damaged by the lady’s ravenous insatiable craving for civilian targeting economic sanctions.
But Ileana and Elliot appear to be fretting.

So is Israel.

The reasons are several and they include the fact that the US-led sanctions have failed to date to achieve the accomplishments they were designed to produce. These being to cripple the Iranian economy, provoke a popular protest among the Iranian people over inflation and scarcity of food and medicines, weaken Iran as much as possible before adopting military measures against it, and, most essentially, achieving regime change to turn the clock back to those comfortable days of our submissive, compliant Shah.

Zionist prospects for Syria aren’t any better at the moment. Tel Aviv’s to intimidate the White House into invading Syria have not worked. Plan A has failed miserably according to the Israeli embassy people attending the Engel-Ros Litinen’s informal conflab. Neither did the “how about we just arm the opposition” plan that originated last year with David H. Petraeus and was supported by Hillary Clinton while being pushed by AIPAC. The goal was to create allies in Syria that the US and Israel could control if Mr.Assad was removed from power. Moreover, the White House believes thatthere are no good options for Obama. It has vetoed 4 recent Israeli proposals including arming the rebels and is said to believe that Syria is already dangerously awash with “unreliable arms.”
The recent shriveling in Israeli prospects for a dramatic Pentagon intervention in Syria reflect White House war weariness. And also Israel’s predilection to bomb targets itself in Syria, as it did recently to assassinate a senior Iranian officer in the Quds force of the Revolutionary Guards, Gen. Hassan Shateri. Contrary to the false story that Israel attacked a missiles convoy, some unassembled equipment was damaged but that was not the primary target according to Fred Hof, a former U.S. State Department official. Gen. Shateri was.
Golani Brigade soldier Osher Maman
posts photos of himself playing with weapons in irresponsible ways
Making matters worse for Tel Aviv, the Israeli military is reportedly becoming skittish due to its deteriorating political and military status in the region and its troops have recently completed subterranean warfare drills to prepare them for a potential clash with Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, the Jerusalem Post reported on 2/20/13.

“Today during training, we simulated a northern terrain, that included what we might encounter,” Israeli Lt. Sagiv Shoker, commander of a military Reconnaissance Unit of the Engineering Corps, based at the Elikim base in northern Israel near the border with Lebanon explained. Shoker added that his units spent a week focused on how to approach Hezbollah’s alleged underground bunkers and tunnels in South Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley quietly and quickly. 

Israeli forces commander Gantz has been complaining recently to the Israeli cabinet that Hezbollah Special Forces are gaining much valuable experience in Syria fighting highly skilled and motivated al Nusra jihadists and his troops may not be prepared to face them on the battlefield if a conflict erupts. It has been known since 2006 that Israeli soldiers “are having motivation deficits” as Gantz and others have complained.

Ordinary citizens in Iran and Syria with whom this observer met recently, including some with whom he has shared lengthy conversations while posing many questions, cannot ignore the burden of the US-led sanctions in various aspects of their lives. Nor can the Iranian or Syrian governments or their economic institutions. At the beginning of the summer of 2010, and even more so since the summer of 2012, the US-led civilian targeting sanctions imposed were significantly tightened by the Obama administration and its allies.

The administration realized that the sanctions imposed on Iran until then were ineffective and understood that Iran’s steady progress toward nuclear power capability would quickly leave the US with no alternative than the acceptance of a nuclear Iran. But the administration, according to former State Department official Hof, believed that unless it took more drastic measures against Iran, Israel would launch a military strike against Iran which would likely destroy Zionist Israel- a prospect not every US official and Congressional staffer privately laments. Congressional sources report that the White House now feels that Iran has achieved deterrence and that Israel would be dangerously foolhardy to attack the country.
While Israel advocates an economic blockade of Iran and Syria, under binding rules of international and US law, economic blockades are acts of war. They are variously defined as surrounding a nation with hostile forces, economic besieging, preventing the passage in or out of a country of civilian supplies or aid. It is an act of naval warfare to block access to a country’s coastline and deny entry to all vessels and aircraft, absent a formal declaration of war and approval of the UN Security Council.
All treaties to which America is a signatory, including the UN Charter, are binding US law. Chapter VII authorizes only the Security Council to “determine the existence of any threat to the peace, or act of aggression (and, if necessary, take military or other actions to) restore international peace and stability.” It permits a nation to use force (including a blockades) only under two conditions: when authorized by the Security Council or under Article 51 allowing the “right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member….until the Security Council has taken measures to maintain international peace and security.”
As International law Professor Francis Boyle reminds us, Customary International Law recognizes economic blockades as an act of war because of the implied use of force even against third party nations in enforcing the blockade. Writes Boyle,“Blockades as acts of war have been recognized as such in the Declaration of Paris of 1856 and the Declaration of London of 1909 that delineate the international rules of warfare.” America approved these Declarations, thereby are became binding US law as well “as part of general international law and customary international law.” US presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Jack Kennedy, called economic blockades acts of war.
So has the US Supreme Court.
In Bas v. Tingy (1800), the US Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of fighting an “undeclared war” (read extreme economic sanctions). It ruled the seizure of a French vessel (is) an act of hostility or reprisal. The Court cited Talbot v. Seaman (1801) in ruling that “specific legislative authority was required in the seizure. In Little v. Barreme (1804), the Court held that “even an order from the President could not justify or excuse an act that violated the laws and customs of warfare. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that a captain of a United States warship could be held personally liable in trespass for wrongfully seizing a neutral Danish ship, even though” presidential authority ordered it.
“The Prize Cases” (1863) is perhaps the most definitive US Supreme Court ruling on economic blockades requiring congressional authorization. The case involved President Lincoln’s ordering “a blockade of coastal states that had joined the Confederacy at the outset of the Civil War. The Court….explicitly (ruled) that an economic blockade is an act of war and is legal only if properly authorized under the Constitution.”

Iran and Syria pose no threat to the US or any peaceful law abiding nation. Imposing a blockade against either violates the UN Charter and settled international humanitarian laws as well as US law. It would constitute an illegal act of aggression that under the Nuremberg Charter is the designated a “supreme international crime”above all others. It would render the Obama administration and every government of other participating nations criminally liable.
IRGC: Key Stage of “Great Prophet 8” Kicks Off
Contrary to what the occupiers of Palestine may fantasize, if the White House wants an economic blockade of Iran or Syria it must declare war, letting the American people be heard on the subject and convince the UN Security Council to pass a UNSCR under Chapter 7.
The White House cannot legally, morally or consistently with claimed American humanitarian values continue to target civilian populations with economic sanctions on the cheap.

Franklin LambFranklin Lamb is doing research in Syria and can be reached c/o

He is the author of The Price We Pay: A Quarter-Century of Israel’s Use of American Weapons Against Civilians in Lebanon.
He contribute to Uprooted Palestinians Blog
Please Sign
Beirut Mobile: +961-70-497-804
Office: +961-01-352-127

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 this Blog!

Erdogan will drink the poison in the same cup that he wanted Assad to drink

بقلم: سعيد سليمان سنا
دام برس:
كرّرها الناتو طويلا .. سورية ليست ليبيا وكان فعلاً يقصد ما يقول لأن سورية فعلاً ليست ليبيا . لكن في السر وتحت الطاولة كان الناتو ( الأمريكي ) يقول لحلفائه ( قطر ، وتركيا ) سورية مثل ليبيا ، وجسر الشغور وإدلب مثل بنغازي ، وكم راهن ( الأتراك و القطريون ) على إقامة منطقة عازلة ، وكانت تدرك واشنطن أن المنطقة العازلة ستكون مثل دارفور وليس مثل بنغازي ، على عكس ما وعد الناتو حلفاؤه حين حاول توريطهم بورطة كبيرة يفاوض فيها على رؤوسهم ، لأن الناتو يدرك تماماً أن الحظر الجوي على سورية يعني احتراق الشرق الأوسط وربما العالم .
الناتو كان يريد من منطقة جسر الشغور أو إدلب أن تتحوّل إلى دارفور مشتعلة يتمّ التفاوض مع السوريين عليها ، وأن تُستعمل هذه المنطقة لجر أسماء كبار الضباط والقادة إلى محكمة الجنايات الدولية للتفاوض مع سورية ،
يبقى السؤال بعد صمت طويل وطول انتظار : هل سيعود أوغلوا و أردوغان إلى التحدث بشؤون سورية قبل الإفطار وبعده وقبل الغداء وبعد الحمّام .
إن ما حدث في المناطق السورية وجبل الزاوية تحديدا أثبت لهم أن : جلّ ما سيقدمه الناتو هو القليل من المرتزقة ، ونعتقد أن الأتراك قد فهموا الرسالة ، ولكن القطريين ربما الأمر ليس بيدهم أن يفهموا الرسالة .
فالحملة التي تشنها فرنسا وإسرائيل ودول الخليج على تركيا تدل على أن الأتراك فهموا تماماً ألرسالة بل وفهموا أنّ الروس ربّما قد يقبلوا بخط غاز ( I T G I ) ولكن يستحيل أن يمر خط غاز ( NAPCO ) في المدى القريب ، والأتراك يدركون أنّ الغرب إذا ما ورّطهم فهم محاصرون ، ولكن إذا عاقبهم فلهم محيطهم ، نعم العالم يرسم من جديد وملوك النفط يحلمون بالبقاء في الماضي .

الساسة الأتراك اندفعوا صوب سوريا بطريقة غريبة خصوصا بعد فشل سياساتهم بتقاسم النفوذ مع إيران في العراق ، وبعد يأسهم من الدخول كعضو فاعل في الاتحاد الأوربي ، فقرروا التدخل في سوريا لإحراج إيران وإذلال أوربا في المستقبل . كانوا يظنون بأن القضية السورية مجرد أسابيع أو أشهر بسيطة وتنتهي الحكاية ، وتصبح سوريا من حصّة تركيا ، وحينها تساوم إيران في سوريا ولبنان وصولا للعراق أو تعرض صفقة ما على الإيرانيين أدواتها طائفية واقتصادية .

ومن الجانب الآخر كان في خلد تركيا إذلال أوربا و أنها ستكون ألجابي الذي لن يرحم ، والذي سيفرغ جيوب الجميع بضمنهم قادة الخليج ، والأوربيين ،
وفي نفس الوقت تذل الروس سياسيا من خلال سلاح الاقتصاد .
لقد ظن الساسة الأتراك بأن تركيا ستصبح الاب الروحي والأخ الأكبر " العراب " للقادة الجدد في سوريا ، وبالتالي ستمسك الخيوط كلها ،وسوف تقف بوجه جميع الخطوط الإستراتيجية وفي طريق جميع المخططات الإقليمية والدولية ،
وحينها تعلن بأنها الشرطي صاحب الهراوة في المنطقة فتخيل الساسة الأتراك بأمرهم سوف : 
  • لن تمر أنابيب الغاز القطرية إلى المتوسط إلاّ بموافقة تركية .
  • ولن يمر خط الحرير الاستراتيجي النازل من أفغانستان مرورا ببحر العرب فالخليج فالعراق فسوريا وصولا لمياه البحر المتوسط فأوربا . إلا بموافقة تركية .
  • ولن يمر ويصمد " الهلال الشيعي " من إيران نحو لبنان مرورا بسوريا بفعل الهلال السني الذي سترعاه تركيا .
  • ولن يبقى في لبنان نفوذا للسعودية وسوريا .
  • ولن يتحقق لها النفوذ السني في المثلث العراقي إلا بمشاركة تركية .
  • ولن يمر أنبوب الغاز العربي من مصر عبر سوريا والأردن إلا بقرار تركي .
  • ولن تحصل علي غاز أوربا منخفض الأسعار ، إلا من خلال الموافقة التركية ، وبعد دفع الرشاوى والرسوم الى تركيا .
فكل ما ورد أعلاه حفز الروس ليرموا بثقلهم خلف النظام السوري لأنها حرب اقتصادية شرسة وقذرة بالضد من روسيا ورأس حربتها دولة قطر وتركيا ومن ورائهما الولايات المتحدة ،
لأن وصول الغاز القطري الى مياه البحر المتوسط قبالة الساحل السوري سوف يصل لأوربا وبأسعار مخفضة فيعني كساد الغاز الروسي الذي تعتمد عليه أوربا .
وهذا ما دفع الأوربيين لدعم تركيا وبقوة بالضد من النظام في سوريا لأنهم أرادوا استعمال تركيا كشرطي وناطور ،

وحال اكتمال المخطط ستشاهد تكون المساومة بعضوية الإتحاد الأوربي أومن خلال تغيير النظام في تركيا وبأساليب كثيرة وبدعم واشنطن .

أما الصين فهي حليف رئيسي لإيران ، وأن أي ضعف لإيران يعني الضعف للصين ، وأن أي انهيار لإيران سيكون عاملا مهددا بل انهيارا قادما نحو الصين ، فسارعت لتقف الى جانب روسيا بدعم النظام السوري لأن الصين عرفت وتيقنت بأن ما يدور في سوريا هو مقدمة لما سيدور في إيران ،
وعرفت وتيقنت وأسوة بروسيا وإيران بأن بقاء الرئيس الأسد هو الذي يمنع تحقيق تلك الآمال التركية والأوربية والأمريكية ، ولهذا اصطفت أنقرة والدوحة والرياض وواشنطن والقاهرة وأوربا لتطالب بإسقاط الرئيس بشار الأسد خروجه من الحكم ،
أما السعودية فوجدتها الفرصة الذهبية لإبعاد الخلايا المتطرفة بعيدا ونحو سوريا ، ووجدتها فرصة ذهبية لتجامل واشنطن ومن جديد برفدها بالمسلحين وبالخلايا المتطرفة والوهابية لدعم المشروع الأميركي في سوريا ، وفرصة لتحسين جبهتها الداخلية وتعطيل المشاريع التغييرية في المملكة ،
والأهم وجدتها فرصة ذهبية لإسقاط " الهلال الشيعي " من خلال الخلايا المتطرفة والوهابية وفلول القاعدة، وكذلك من خلال تركيا .
ولدى السعودية أمنية أخرى وهي إسقاط حزب الله لتعود الحاكم الفعلي في لبنان .
كل هذا عرفته طهران فرسمت خططها على ضوء هذا الصراع ومن خلال النفس الطويل والصبر الجميل .
ولكن المتضرر ولحد هذه الساعة فهو ليس النظام السوري بل هي تركيا والخلايا المسلحة المتحالفة مع الإرهابيين في داخل سوريا والتي تمولها السعودية وقطر عبر تركيا وأطراف لبنانية ،
وأن الأطراف المحرجة ليست العراق أو إيران أو النظام السوري ، بل هي الجامعة العربية " العبريّة " و قطر والسعودية ودول الخليج وجميع الأطراف المؤججة للصراع ! ..
الولايات المتحدة آمنت بنظرية المغامرة والتخريب ونشر الفوضى ،
فليس من مصلحة الدول الأوروبية وبعض الدول العربية من مرافقة الولايات المتحدة نحو صياغة خطوات الشر ضد سوريا
" وليس كل مرة تسلم الجرّة " .
ويجب على الحكام العرب الذين لا زالت تطير من أراضيهم الطائرات الأميركية أن : يخجلوا ، ويضعوا حدا لهذا التمادي والاشتراك بالجريمة الإنسانية الكبرى ..!
فبعد نجاح الجيش السوري بصد الحرب الكونية في سوريا ، والتي اهم الحركات الجهادية والإرهابية أدواتها ومن مختلف التسميات .
وكذلك بعد نجاح الإدارة السورية في أدارة الأزمة في سوريا وعدم الانجرار نحو التهور راحت الدول الداعمة للإرهاب في سوريا لتفتضح أمام شعوبها ، وأمام الرأي العام العربي والإقليمي والدولي .
والأهم بعد أن عرفت الولايات المتحدة بأن ما يجري في سوريا قد يكون الكود السري لحرب إقليمية أو حتى حرب عالمية ثالثة وحينها سيكون أول الخاسرين وأول الضحايا هي إسرائيل والمصالح الأميركية في المنطقة بأسرها ولمصلحة تنظيم القاعدة ، وتنظيمات الجهاد الإسلامي وقوى أخرى مناوئة لواشنطن. خصوصا عندما برزت حقيقة ماثلة للعيان وهي أن :
بقاء الرئيس السوري بشار الأسد هو الذي يمنع الحرب الأهلية وهو الذي يقف بوجه " أفغنة " سوريا ،
لأن هناك مؤامرة لاستنزاف الدولة السورية وتهديم صرح الدولة وتحويل سوريا الى جمهورية موز فقيرة تتصارع فيها المافيات وزعماء الحرب .
وأن إسرائيل شعرت ولأول مرة بأن مقولة " الرمي في البحر " باتت شبه حقيقة وتقترب شيئا فشيئا من إسرائيل ،
ولكن بعد تدمير المنطقة بأسرها وللأبد فيما لو حسبنا أعداد الصواريخ النووية والأسلحة الذرية التي بحوزة إسرائيل ......
فالجيش السوري وعندما إستمات في الدفاع عن سوريا وعن نفسه يعرف جيدا أن بانتظاره : سيناريو الجيش العراقي بعد سقوط نظام صدام ، وأنه يعرف بأن الولايات المتحدة والغرب يريدان فرض ثقافة عسكرية جديدة في سوريا على أنقاض الثقافة السائدة ، ستكون مهمة الجيش السوري هي حماية إسرائيل والمشاركة بدعم واشنطن في حربها ضد ما يسمى بالإرهاب ومن خلال تأسيس جيش سوري هجين وجديد! وأن قادة الجيش السوري والقادة السياسيين والأمنيين وحتى كبار العلماء والمثقفين السوريين باتوا يعرفون بأن مصيرهم الاجتثاث والقتل والتهجير والسجن وأسوة بما حدث في العراق . وفي أحسن الأحوال إجبارهم على العمل في دول الخليج والأردن ضمن مؤامرة خليجية استعملت بالضد من علماء وكفاءات العراق وليبيا ،

والشعب السوري بات يعرف بأن ما يحدث هي مؤامرة كبيرة جدا وليس لها علاقة بالإصلاح ، وأن من يريد الإصلاح لا يدمر المدن والمنشآت والعملة والبنية التحتية في سوريا . فصار هناك وعيا بأن هناك حرب كونية في سوريا ومن مصلحة السوريين الصمود وإفشالها .

فحتى المعارضة السورية ليس لها رابط، وليس لها قيادة ، وحتى أن هناك جماعات تذبح وتفجر وتقتل وتنهب وتحتل القرى والنواحي وهي لا تعرف لماذا تعمل هكذا ؟ . ولا تعرف لمصلحة من ؟ . خصوصا هؤلاء الغرباء الوافدين للقتل والتفجير والذبح فأن كانوا يريدون الشهادة فلماذا لا يذهبون صوب إسرائيل ! .

لهذا فالجيش السوري وحسب المعلومات التي حصلنا عليها من اطراف سورية رفيعة قادر علي إنهاء التمرد تماما ، وفي غضون أسبوع ولكنه قرر تأجيل الحسم لما بعد الانتخابات الأميركية ، ويبدو أن هناك تفاهم سري بين " واشنطن و موسكو عبر دمشق " ومن خلال الهندسة الإيرانية بأن : لا يتم زيادة وتيرة الصراع في سوريا، خصوصا عندما أنذرت واشنطن الدول التي تمد المسلحين السوريين بالسلاح والعتاد والمال .

فحتى وأن أجبر الرئيس السوري جبرا على الدخول في : المشاريع الطائفية " التي يرفضها الأسد جملة وتفصيلا " سوف يجد وطنا جاهزا ، وهو أهم منطقة في سوريا ، وهي الساحل السوري ، بحيث سوف تمر عليه جميع خطوط الطاقة التي سببت الصراع في سوريا . ]] أي من يريد إسقاط الأسد في دمشق بسبب أمداد خطوط الغاز القطري والمصري ، سوف يظهر لهم الأسد في الساحل السوري وسوف يقف بوجه خطوط الغاز من جديد . [[ وخصوصا عندما نجح السوريون بربط الشريط الساحلي السوري مع الجنوب اللبناني حيث " حزب الله "

خلال الشهر الأخير ، وهي الرسالة الاستراتيجية والبالغة الأهمية التي أرسلها الرئيس الأسد والسيد نصر الله معا آلي واشنطن وباريس وبروكسل ولندن والى الدوحة وأنقرة والقاهرة والرياض والتي مفادها ] ها نحن أغلقنا الطريق على مخططاتكم أيضا [ .
من هنا سارعت الاستخبارات الدولية لتتخلص من رجل أمريكا في لبنان و رئيس فرع المعلومات في لبنان اللواء " وسام الحسن " لكي تصبح للدول الأوربية حجة للتدخل في لبنان ، وهذا ما حصل فعلا ، لا بل راحت تلك الدول لتقف بوجه أمنيات المعارضة اللبنانية التي يقودها فريق 14 آذار بزعامة الحريري ، وأعلنت دعمها لحكومة ميقاتي أي الدول الأوربية ، لا بل راح وليد جنبلاط ليبتعد عن سعد الحريري ، ويرسل الإشارات الودية لطهران وحزب الله . وكلها توسلات استباقية لحزب الله وطهران .
واستجداء أوربي أن لا ينفجر لبنان وتخسر أوربا كل شيء ومعها واشنطن التي دفعت بالأوربيين الى هذه المواقف .
السؤال :
  • أين ستتجه الحركات والمجاميع الإرهابية بعد دحرها من قبل الجيش السوري قريبا ؟ .
  • أين يتجه الغرباء الذين شحنتهم تركيا بأموال قطرية وسعودية نحو العمق السوري بعد دحرهم قريبا ؟ .
  • أين سيذهب السلفيون المتشددون الذين اشترتهم الرياض وقطر من السجون الأردنية والمغاربية ؟ .
  • أين سيذهب فلول القاعدة التي أتت بها تركيا وقطر والرياض من ليبيا والشيشان والعراق والمغرب العربي ؟ .
لن تدوم الفرحة التركية باستقطاب المستثمرين من السعودية وقطر والدول الخليجية ، فسوف تهرب المليارات الخليجية من تركيا قريبا وربما تعود للاستثمار في سوريا نفسها ! . ولن تنفع السياسة المذهبية التي يتبعها أردوغان في المدن العلوية ، بل ستكون سببا بخروج المارد " العلوي " والذي سيتشاطر مع المارد " الكردي " ضد النظام التركي بزعامة حزب العدالة والتنمية . فتركيا وحتى وأن بدأت عمليات الإعمار والترميم في سوريا فلن تحصل تركيا على شيء .
أما في العراق فهناك توجه رسمي وشعبي بعدم التعامل مع الشركات التركية بعد اكتشاف أن تلك الشركات التركية مليئة بالعيون الاستخبارية في جميع الدول التي تعمل فيها بضمنها العراق .

فتركيا ومثلما يقال باللهجة الشعبية : " بلعت الخازوق " . وسقط شعارها الذي رفعته : " صفر مشاكل " نحو شعار فرضته وستفرضه الظروف على تركيا هو " ألف مشاكل " فتركيا بانتظار عودة ما صدرته الى سوريا من إرهاب وموت ! .

لقد سقطت الأقنعة ، ومن أسقطها هو الجيش العربي السوري البطل و صمود القيادة السورية وحنكة في ادارة الأزمة .
عندما تغرق تركيا في مستنقع الخراب والتفجيرات والدماء هذا يعني إنهاء الأحلام التركية وللأبد بأن تصبح دولة عضو في الاتحاد الأوربي وسوف تصبح دولة شرق اوسطية بامتياز . أي سوف تصبح بيد الأوربيين حجة بعدم قبولها بينهم ، وهذا يعني أن الاستراتيجية الإسرائيلية بالضد من تركيا تخدم المخططات الأوربية بالنسبة لتركيا .

وهنا نستطيع القول سوف يشرب أردوغان سما بنفس الكأس الذي أراد أن يسقي به الأسد ! . أي سوف يعود الإرهاب الذي أشرفت عليه الحكومة التركية بزعامة أردوغان وأوغلو الى الحضن التركي وسوف يحرق أصابعهما ! .
التاريخ يعيد نفسه في سوريا ،
ولا ندري هل لسر الحروف التي تجمع : " روسيا بـ : سوريا " هي السر ، أم أن هناك سر أخر ؟ .
من يتابع سير الأحداث في العالم العربي ومنطقة الشرق الأوسط يشعر بأن ما يجري : شبيه بسير الأحداث والسيناريوهات التي أعقبت الغزو السوفيتي لأفغانستان ، حيث عمليات التجميع للحشد الهائل لما يسمى بالمجاهدين والحركات الجهادية والسلفية وإرسالها للدول العربية بحجة الجهاد وتحرير الشعوب من الطغاة والديكتاتوريين ، وكل هذا بتمويل سعودي وخليجي ، وبتخطيط أميركي غربي إسرائيلي .

الخداع والغش والاحتشاد غير المسبوق ضد سوريا،
وكأننا نستذكر احتشاد الدول الخليجية والخلايا المتطرفة والجماعات الجهادية وأمريكا والغرب ضد الاتحاد السوفيتي في أفغانستان .

ما لذي حصل ويحصل ؟ .
ومن قال أن بن علي ، ومبارك ، وصالح ، والقذافي ، والأسد أكثر ديكتاتورية من حكّام الخليج وبعض الدول العربية التي ساندت عمليات الغزو و التغييرات التي حصلت في تلك الدول ، والأخرى الدائرة بطريقة بربرية في سوريا ؟
سوريا تجيد وأجادت التفرّج على الخصوم والأعداء ، ليس من باب الخوف أو الإٍستكانة ،ولكن من باب الحكمة ، ومن باب أن لا تكون هي البادية بأمر قد لا تحمد عقباه ، وهي المبادئ الأخلاق الإسلامية في زمن الصراع والحروب ، والتي تنصح بالتروي مع الاستعداد للصد والتوغل وأخذ زمام المبادرة ، وأنّ هذا التفرّج أتعب إسرائيل والولايات ألمتحدة ، و أتعب خصوم سوريا من اللبنانيين وغيرهم ،
الذين يتمنون أن يشاهدوا أعمدة الدخان والحرائق تنبعث من دمشق لا سمح الله ، وعلى طريقة خصوم العراق من الكويتيين سابقا ولاحقا ، ولكن هذا لا يعمم على الشعب اللبناني وعقلاء لبنان ، وكذلك لا يعمم على الشعب الكويتي وعقلاء الكويت .
وبقيت الخصلة الأخرى أو السياسة الأخرى أو الحكمة الأخرى التي أجادها السوريون وهي الكتمان المحمود للخصوم وللأعداء ،
فقد قالها السوريون : " كل ما يخص الأمن لن نعلن عنه " . وأنّ الكتمان هنا ليس كتمان الأشرار واللصوص والذين يقطعون الطرقات ، والذين يغيّرون جغرافياتهم بين فترة وأخرى ، بل أنّه كتمان محمود تحركه اليقظة ، وفي جغرافية واحدة وهي سوريا ،
ولهذا أصبحت الولايات المتحدة ومن معها ، وإسرائيل ومن معها يحسبون ألف حساب قبل الشروع بأية مغامرة أو محاولة لجس النبض السوري ، ومعرفة ردة الفعل السورية بل معرفة الكمائن السورية .
 ولقد جرّبوا من قبل وفشلوا .
ودون أن تكشف سوريا أسرار قوتها نتيجة الغضب وردة الفعل والتي اعتادوا عليها من خصومهم العرب ،وعبر تاريخ الصراع العربي الإسرائيلي ، ولهذا صعّدت صحفهم العبرية ، ومنابرهم السياسية والخطابية ومنذ العدوان الإسرائيلي على لبنان " حرب تموز " ولحد هذه اللحظة ضد سوريا ، بأنّها :
  • تصّنع سلاحا فتاكا ،
  • وأنّها تهرب الأسلحة صوب لبنان ،
  • وأنّها استوردت سلاحا سريا من روسيا ،
  • وأنّها شريكة لطهران في صنع الصواريخ ،
  • وأنّها هرّبت السلاح عبر تركيا ،
وتهم كثيرة ومختلفة ، بحيث أصبحنا عاجزين من اللحاق بها كي ندونها ونناقشها .... علما أنّها وسيلة من وسائل الاستفزاز والحرب النفسية . لهذا يسرنا أن ننضم الى طابور الناصحين والمحذرين
قالوا لا يكفي أن تكون في النور لترى ، بل يجب أن يكون ما تراه في النور، ونحن السوريون نقول ساخرين : " قد يكفي أن تملك مناظير ليلية ، وترى أينما كنت . "  
.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 this Blog!