Saturday 5 July 2014

Israel’s ridiculous “victimhood” claims in regards to Hamas

Special Report

What “Destruction of Israel”?

By John V. Whitbeck
When, in response to the threat of potential Palestinian reconciliation and unity, the Israeli government suspended “negotiations” with the Palestine Liberation Organization on April 24 (five days before they were due to terminate in any event), Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s office issued a statement asserting: “Instead of choosing peace, Abu Mazen formed an alliance with a murderous terrorist organization that calls for the destruction of Israel.”
In a series of related media appearances, Netanyahu hammered repeatedly on the “destruction of Israel” theme as a way of blaming Palestine for the predictable failure of the latest round of the seemingly perpetual “peace process.”
The extreme subjectivity of the epithet “terrorist” has been highlighted by two recent absurdities—the Egyptian military regime’s labeling of the Muslim Brotherhood, which has won all Egyptian elections since the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak, as a “terrorist” organization, and the labeling by the de facto Ukrainian authorities, who came to power through illegally occupying government buildings in Kiev, of those opposing them by illegally occupying government buildings in eastern Ukraine as “terrorists.” In both cases, those who have overthrown democratically elected governments are labeling those who object to their coups as “terrorists.”
It is increasingly understood that the word “terrorist,” which has no agreed definition, is so subjective as to be devoid of any inherent meaning, and that it is commonly abused by governments and others who apply it to whomever or whatever they hate in the hope of demonizing their adversaries, thereby discouraging and avoiding rational thought and discussion and, frequently, excusing their own illegal and immoral behavior.
Netanyahu’s assertion that Hamas “calls for the destruction of Israel” requires rational analysis as well.
He is not the only guilty party in this regard. The mainstream media in the West habitually attaches the phrase “pledged to the destruction of Israel” to each first mention of Hamas, almost as though it were part of Hamas’ name.
In the real world, what does the “destruction of Israel” actually mean? The land? The people? The ethno-religious-supremacist regime?
There can be no doubt that virtually all Palestinians—and probably still a significant number of Native Americans—wish that foreign colonists had never arrived in their homelands to ethnically cleanse them and take away their land, and that some may even lie awake at night dreaming that they might, somehow, be able to turn back the clock or reverse history.

“Destruction” sounds much less reasonable and desirable than “democracy.”

However, in the real world, Hamas is not remotely close to being in a position to cause Israel’s territory to sink beneath the Mediterranean, or to wipe out its population, or even to compel the Israeli regime to transform itself into a fully democratic state pledged to equal rights and dignity for all who live there. It is presumably the latter threat—the dreaded “bi-national state”—that Netanyahu has in mind when he speaks of the “destruction of Israel.”
For propaganda purposes, “destruction” sounds much less reasonable and desirable than “democracy,” even when one is speaking about the same thing.
In the real world, Hamas has long made clear, notwithstanding its view that continuing negotiations within the framework of the American-monopolized “peace process” is pointless and a waste of time, that it does not object to the PLO’s trying to reach a two-state agreement with Israel; provided only that, to be accepted and respected by Hamas, any agreement reached would need to be submitted to and approved by the Palestinian people in a referendum.
In the real world, the Hamas vision (like the Fatah vision) of peaceful coexistence in Israel/Palestine is much closer to the “international consensus” on what a permanent peace should look like, as well as to international law and relevant U.N. resolutions, than the Israeli vision—to the extent that one can even discern the Israeli vision, since no Israeli government has ever seen fit to publicly reveal what its vision—if any exists beyond beyond maintaining and managing the status quo indefinitely—actually looks like.
As the Fatah and Hamas visions have converged in recent years, the principal divergence has become Hamas’ insistence (entirely consistent with international law and relevant U.N. resolutions) that Israel must withdraw from the entire territory of the State of Palestine, which is defined in the U.N. General Assembly resolution of Nov. 29, 2012, recognizing Palestine’s state status as “the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967” (including, significantly, the definite article “the” missing from “withdraw from territories” in the arguably ambiguous U.N. Security Council Resolution 242), in contrast to Fatah’s more flexible willingness to consider agreed land swaps equal in size and value.

An Establishment Party

After winning the last Palestinian elections and after seven years of responsibility for governing Gaza under exceptionally difficult circumstances, Hamas has become a relatively “moderate” establishment party, struggling to rein in more radical groups and prevent them from firing artisanal rockets into southern Israel, a counterproductive symbolic gesture which Israeli governments publicly condemn but secretly welcome (and often seek to incite in response to their own more lethal violence) as evidence of Palestinian belligerence justifying their own intransigence.
Netanyahu’s “destruction of Israel” mantra should not be taken seriously, either by Western governments or by any thinking person. It is long overdue for the Western mainstream media to cease recycling mindless—and genuinely destructive—propaganda and to adapt their reporting to reality, and it is long overdue for Western governments to cease demonizing Hamas as an excuse for doing nothing constructive to end a brutal occupation which has now endured for almost 47 years. 

John V. Whitbeck is an international lawyer who has advised the Palestinian negotiating team in negotiations with Israel.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

The Strange Case of Nouri al-Maliki

While the world’s attention has been fixated on the rapid advance and conquering of territory by ISIS/ISIL in Iraq, a clear shift has taken place in the rhetoric against, and analysis of, Prime Minster Nouri al-Maliki and his government. Though he was praised up and down by Washington while US troops remained on Iraqi soil, in the nearly three years since their exit he has transmogrified into a brutal sectarian autocrat evoking the worst aspects of both Saddam’s regime and that of his Shia neighbors and allies in Iran. What could possibly account for such a dramatic about-face?
6565444The question then becomes: Is it simply that the world has finally taken notice of Maliki’s dictatorship against the backdrop of the war against ISIS/ISIL? Or could it be that the narrative has changed because the US agenda and interests have changed, and thus, so too has the image of Maliki. From democratic representative of the religious/ethnic majority to vicious tyrant bent on the destruction of Sunni and Kurdish minorities, Maliki has undergone a shocking political makeover.
Indeed, Maliki is not the first, nor is he likely to be the last, leader propped up, armed, and supported politically and militarily by the US, only to then become the proverbial “greatest threat to peace and stability in the region.” Such was Saddam’s fate. So too was it the fate of Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti. And it seems now that Maliki, like countless other would-be US puppets who suddenly discovered their own national interests, has magically become the center of evil in Iraq and the region.
It should be noted that an examination of how the narrative on Maliki has shifted should not be taken as a de facto endorsement of all his actions or policies. Quite the contrary, such an analysis is rooted in an examination of the facts and material conditions, rather than an emotional appeal to “pick a side” and “support the people.” These and other hollow phrases have adorned the writing of many analysts on this issue in recent weeks without thoroughly examining the real forces at play. As such, the hollow phrases turn into shallow analysis which leads to the confusion about Iraq today.
Washington, Tehran, and Maliki’s “Sins”
It should come as no surprise to anyone who is even moderately aware of how US foreign policy and propaganda has historically operated, that the demonization of Maliki is directly linked to the inability of Washington to control him or, to put it another way, his refusal to accept US diktats. Consequently, he has been made into a villain, rather than a leader attempting to establish independent institutions in a country in which all institutions were created by the authority of a military occupation. So, the question then becomes, is Maliki simply trying to consolidate all power to himself? Or has Maliki been attempting to purge his government of US agents, clients, puppets, and other assorted front men? As is so often the case, the answer will lie somewhere in the middle.
To listen to the talking points of the State Department, news pundits, and “security experts,” you’d think that everyone in the Obama administration and the US political elite was in agreement that Maliki is an autocratic dictator. However, Obama himself revealed quite the opposite when the Iraqi Prime Minister came to the White House less than two and half years ago. On December 12, 2011, just weeks before the ultimate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, President Obama stood next to Maliki and made the following remarks:
Today, I’m proud to welcome Prime Minister Maliki — the elected leader of a sovereign, self-reliant and democratic Iraq… Iraq faces great challenges, but today reflects the impressive progress that Iraqis have made.  Millions have cast their ballots — some risking or giving their lives — to vote in free elections.  The Prime Minister leads Iraq’s most inclusive government yet.  Iraqis are working to build institutions that are efficient and independent and transparent.
In examining these and other comments made by Obama, and Bush before him, it becomes clear that a tectonic shift has occurred in how Maliki is viewed by Washington. Once seen as a pliable, compliant client regime, Maliki has now become the embodiment of corruption, sectarianism, and lust for power. What could possibly have motivated such a drastic change?
First and foremost are Maliki’s attitudes and policies towards the US occupation and the presence of military and non-military personnel. In fact, it was Maliki’s refusal to grant the US request to maintain US military bases in the country after the withdrawal which prompted the first round of attacks on him and his government. And it was then that the image of Maliki as Iranian puppet truly became popularized, at least in Western media. Indeed, as The Guardian noted at the time, “The Pentagon had wanted the bases to help counter growing Iranian influence in the Middle East. Just a few years ago, the US had plans for leaving behind four large bases but, in the face of Iraqi resistance, this plan had to be scaled down this year to a force of 10,000. But even this proved too much for the Iraqis.”
Maliki also took the absolutely monumental step of closing down Camp Ashraf and killing or expelling its inhabitants. Far from being a camp for “Iranian political exiles” as Western media have attempted to portray, Ashraf was the base of the Iranian terrorist organization Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), an organization supported wholeheartedly by neocons (as well as most “liberals”) in its continued terror war against Iran. Of course, because Maliki dared to cleanse Iraq of these US-sponsored terrorist thugs, he was immediately convicted in the court of US public opinion which described the operation as an assault on Iranian “freedom fighters.” We know all too well what the US means when it describes terrorists as freedom fighters.
7778And so, by refusing basing rights, refusing to extend immunity and legal protections to US contractors operating in Iraq, and wiping out Camp Ashraf and MEK members, Maliki became a villain. More to the point, it was his refusal to allow Iraq to be used by the US and its allies as a military and political bulwark against Iran that earned him the West’s ire. Far from wanting a “sovereign, self-reliant and democratic Iraq” as Obama eloquently proclaimed, Washington needed the country to remain a client state to be used as a weapon of US foreign policy in the region. By rejecting this, Maliki, almost overnight, became “a dictator.”
But the Maliki-as-dictator meme has become a powerful device for shaping the narrative about Iraq. One of the primary methods of this narrative-building is establishing, and constantly reiterating, that Maliki has consolidated all power to himself by purging his government of political rivals. While there is undoubtedly some truth in the fact that Maliki has sought to sideline certain political figures who were unwilling to “play ball” with his regime in Baghdad, this is only half the story, the only half western media wants you to hear.
The other side of that story is the fact that Maliki was left by the US with a government rife with factions and individuals who represented not Iraq, but Western political and financial interests. One of the patterns to which Maliki’s accusers point as an example of his dictatorship is his purging of key figures in major Iraqi institutions. However, these same accusers never mention exactlywho was purged, and why.
One of the principal examples of such purging was Maliki’s sacking of two key figures in the banking establishment in Iraq. Specifically, Maliki dismissed Sinan al-Shabibi, Governor of Iraq’s Central Bank, and Hussein al-Uzri, former head of the state-owned Trade Bank. These dismissals were reported as a power grab. However, for the most part, they fail to mention the critical fact that these two very powerful individuals in Iraq’s financial establishment are very close friends and associates of Ahmed Chalabi. This name should ring a bell for those who have followed the Iraq tragedy for these last twelve years; Chalabi was the darling of Bush, Cheney, and the neocons. A close political ally, Chalabi was originally envisioned by Cheney and Co. as the leader of the new Iraq, an Iraq which would be amenable to US political and corporate interests in the country.
Though Chalabi was rejected by the Iraqi people, and was never able to establish political power for himself at the time, he and his neocon friends were able to embed their people in Iraq’s banking institutions, thereby giving the US effective control over credit in the country. As has always been known, power over finances is de facto political power and authority. So, was Maliki seeking to consolidate all power to himself? Or was he attempting to rid Iraq’s banks of corrupt agents of Western finance capital who had been undemocratically put in place by precisely those same forces who eagerly championed the destruction of Iraq?
Another of Maliki’s grave crimes was taking on Western oil companies looking to make massive profits off of Iraq’s vast energy deposits. Perhaps the most well known instance occurred in 2012 when ExxonMobil signed an oil exploration deal with the semi-autonomous Kurdistan region in northern Iraq. Maliki rejected the validity of the deal, noting that any oil contracts must be negotiated with the central government in Baghdad, rather than Barzani’s US-aligned government in Arbil. Maliki’s spokesman noted at the time that:
Maliki views these deals as representing a very dangerous initiative that may lead to the outbreak of wars… [and] breaking up the unity of Iraq…Maliki is prepared to go to the highest levels for the sake of preserving the national wealth and the necessary transparency in investing the wealth of the Iraqis, especially oil… [He] sent a message to American President Barak [sic] Obama last week urging him to intervene to prevent ExxonMobil from going in this direction.
It is no secret that Maliki’s strong-willed resistance to this deal, in addition to his refusal to pay ExxonMobil upwards of $50 million to improve production at one major southern oil field, led directly to the oil company pulling out of the lucrative West Qurna-1 project. Essentially then, Maliki took on the very powerful oil corporations (BP is no friend of Maliki either), seeking to get a better deal for Iraq. It would be safe to assume that the endemic corruption in Iraq would have made it easier for Maliki and his associates to enrich themselves by skimming off the top and/or receiving payouts from other oil interests. However, this is secondary to the primary “crime” of challenging the hegemony of oil companies in Iraq. Doesn’t Maliki realize that the US fought a war in Iraq to protect and further the interests of oil companies, among others?
Undoubtedly, Maliki’s greatest sin in the eyes of US-NATO-Israel-GCC has been his steadfast support for Syria and Assad. Maliki refused to abandon Assad when the US-NATO war machine was gearing up to bomb Syria. He loudly proclaimed his support for Assad and his resistance to any attempts to coax and cajole Iraq into allying against him. In this way, Maliki affirmed the alliance of Tehran-Baghdad-Damascus-Hezbollah against the US-NATO-Israel-GCC axis of power, and in doing so put himself at the top of Washington’s enemies list.
In late 2013, Maliki, along with Assad and Iranian authorities, participated in continued negotiations over the proposed Iran-Iraq-Syria gas pipeline, which would bring Iranian and Iraqi gas to the Mediterranean via Syria, thereby giving those countries direct, overland access to the European market. Naturally, this was seen as a direct challenge to US ally Qatar and its dominance of the Middle Eastern gas trade to Europe. It should be noted that it is no mere coincidence that the eruption of the war in Syria coincided perfectly with the initial negotiations over the proposed pipeline.
So, rather than a leader defending national interests and attempting to engage in independent economic development outside the hegemony of Western political and corporate powers, Maliki has been portrayed as a corrupt and brutal tyrant bent on destroying Sunnis, Kurds, and anyone else who stands in his way. Might it not have something to do with Maliki not being a willing puppet for a war on Syria?
Almost as an afterthought are still other reasons why Maliki has been demonized. He has purchased significant military hardware from Russia, including attack helicopters, rather than being solely reliant on US military assistance. Maliki allowed Iraqi Vice President Hashemi, a politician known to be close with Qatar and the US, to be indicted and tried for running an assassination-for-hire operation. Maliki moved to reorganize Iraqi political life by breaking some of the deliberately dysfunctional political institutions created by the US occupiers after the initial war. He sought to use loans and credit to rebuild some of the destroyed infrastructure. He refused to allow Shia politics to be the sole territory of the Sadrists and others. These and countless other actions obviously demonstrated to the US and its allies that “Maliki must go,” as they are so fond of saying.
Is the US Really Supporting Maliki?
One of the more pernicious aspects of the coverage of the conflict in Iraq has been the propagandistic talking point from both mainstream and some non-mainstream outlets that the US is “supporting” and “propping up” Maliki. Dozens of articles and interviews have appeared in recent weeks in which experts espouse the notion that the Obama administration is trying to keep Maliki in power. Despite flying in the face of both logic and the facts, this narrative has taken root in many quarters, and has become the basis upon which many have provided de facto support to ISIS/ISIL and the Sunni insurgents allied, however tenuously, with them.
It would seem that those who argue that the US wants to preserve Maliki’s position in Iraq have not been paying attention. Indeed, headlines such as “US leaders want Iraq’s Nouri al-Maliki to step down in return for US airstrikes on ISIS: Report” from the International Business Times, or “Iraq must form new government, Kerry warns in Baghdad” from the Financial Times, call into question that very assertion. In fact, it is not Maliki that the US is trying to preserve, it is its own influence in Iraq. This is the point that many so-called experts have utterly failed to grasp; Maliki is not doing what he’s told, so the US wants to put in his place someone who will. And they are using the ISIS/ISIL takeover as a convenient pretext for this sort of regime change.
And whose name keeps coming up in discussion about who the US might want to see replace Maliki? It’s none other than good old Ahmed Chalabi, the same puppet who Bush and Co. tried to install in the first place. Ayad Allawi, another Iraqi politician with close ties to the US, is also on the short list. So, two failed US political proxies are now being promoted as the “democratic” and “inclusive” future of Iraqi politics. It’s enough to make anyone laugh, or be sick.
It is also amusing to hear so-called experts discussing how the US has sent troops to Iraq to help Maliki. Such a superficial analysis reveals a complete lack of understanding of both military matters and the way in which the US operates abroad. The authorization for the deployment of 300 military personnel to Iraq is evidence not of an attempt to save Maliki, but to preserve certain key political, financial, and energy infrastructure for Western interests.
The US is not protecting Maliki, but protecting itself and its investments from Maliki, should he attempt to cling to power. Those troops have been protecting the US embassy, advising key figures in regards to securing the oil fields, and providing protection for foreign oil workers among others. This cannot be mistaken for military support for Maliki, unless of course it is the goal of those espousing this nonsense to convince the world that Maliki is the “US man in Iraq.”
Today Iraq is at war, and in danger of breaking apart. With Islamist militants and Sunni insurgents fighting a war against the government in Baghdad, the country is headed for total collapse and partition. But this war did not start with ISIS conquering Mosul. It did not start with Maliki consolidating power. It began before the last US troops ever left Iraq. It began when Maliki decided that he would not be cowed by US threats and diktats. It began the second Iraq tried to assert itself independently. And for this, Iraq is paying the ultimate price.

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

Lebanese Army Discovers Explosive Belts in Fneideq, Detonators in Beirut

Lebanon security: Explosives discovered in Fneideq

Local Editor

The Lebanese army raided for the third time on Thursday the north eastern Lebanese town of Fneideq as a result of the investigation with the terrorists arrested lately.

Lebanon: arrested womanThursday's raid comes in the light of confessions made by the terrorist Mahmoud Khaled, following the seizure of a large quantity of projectiles and ammunitions dumped in a piece of Land that he owns.

After discovering a bomb ready for detonation in a cave of Fneideq town, Khaled confessed to dumping a quantity of explosive materials that he used to manufacture bombs and explosive belts in a farm land called Al-Azar in Fneideq highlands.

However, military investigating judge, Imad Al-Zein, sentenced the Syrian woman, Samia Shawali, to death for holding detonators used in bomb blasts.

Judicial sources told Al-Manar TV that an anti-drug patrol apprehended Shawali in North Lebanon around a month ago, seizing drugs and number of detonators in her car.

Lebanon: terrorist Bilal Kayed KayedDuring investigations, Shawali confessed to that "a Syrian friend" handed the detonators over to her in the northern city of Tripoli and asked her to deliver them to Beirut's Hamra neighborhood in the next day, yet she was apprehended by the Lebanese security agencies in the same night.

Zein filed a complaint of research and investigation to know the full ID of the "Syrian man", and continued investigating the arrested terrorist Bilal Kayed Kayed.

Kayed said during investigations that Twfiq Taha, a leader of Abdulla Azzam Brigades, dispatched him to Syria in 2011, where he engaged in battles for around two years. He also confessed to his knowledge about the bombings carried out by Takfiri groups in Lebanon.

Lebanon: Al-Nusra Front voice recordKayed said that he heard takfiri members in Qalamoun talking about their plans to target Lebanon.

The voice record of the so-called Abu Malik Al-Shami of Al-Nusra Front, circulated online, promised the "Muslim prisoners" jailed in Roumyeh and in other cells of freedom soon.

Although it has being reiterated over the last three years, this promise coincides now with security information indicating that a terrorist plan is being planned to liberate those prisoners on one hand, while another information reveals that some of those arrested have key roles in running terrorist cells operating inside Lebanon behind bars.

Source: Websites
04-07-2014 - 17:23 Last updated 04-07-2014 - 17:23

Related Articles

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

The American Fall and Ayoub's Surprises خريف أميركا ومفاجآت أيوب!

وكالة أوقات الشام الإخبارية
محمد صادق الحسيني

مخطئ من يظن أنّ معركة الخليل هي غير معركة الموصل بالجوهر، ومخطئ اكثر من يظن انّ أيّ معركة أخرى حصلت منذ ما يُسمّى بـ«الربيع العربي» الزفت، او ستحصل في القادم من الأيام على وقع تداعيات اكتشاف جثث المقتولين الثلاثة لا علاقة لها بما حصل ويحصل في العراق وبلاد الشام.

كنت ولا أزال من القائلين بترابط حوادث المنطقة على قاعدة نظرية «المؤامرة». بلى، نظرية المؤامرة، لسبب بسيط وبسيط جداً، هو أنني لا أعتقد، وأرفض رفضاً قاطعاً، مقولة ان يحصل شيء في الحياة بمحض المصادفة.

اولاً لأن لا شيء في الكون يحصل من دون تخطيط، ما هو خير يكون من عند الله، وما هو شرير على يد البشر، وكله مرتبط بمنظومة كونية تتحرك باذن الله وعلمه و«استخباراته».

وثانياً لأن ما يجري على يد البشر ايضاً مثل ما يجري على يد الله، انما يحصل بخطة وتدبير وتخطيط، وهذا يعني التآمر.

مجرد استدراك: هذا لا يعني البتة أن الإنسان لا يقوم إلا بفعل الشر، بل إنما أردنا مما سبق ان ننّزه الخالق منه، وإنْ كان بعلمه وضمن نطاق كينونته.

أزعم أنّ حوادث العراق التي انطلقت من غزوة الموصل إنما حصلت رداً على هزيمة الأميركيين في إفشال الاستحقاق الانتخابي السوري، وكذلك في إشعال الساحة اللبنانية.

وأزعم أنهم بعد نحو ثلاثة أشهر من غزوة الموصل، إذا حققنا إفشال أهدافها نحن في جبهة المقاومة معاً، وهذا ما اتوقعه، إنْ لم يكن أبكر فإنهم سيتوجهون مرة أخرى الى ساحة بلاد الشام، وهذه المرة تحديداً الى المعركة حول إصبع الجليل، أي شمال إقليم فلسطين.

وأزعم أيضاً أنّ التصعيد المتسارع لحركة جنونهم، وإعلانهم الخلافة الصهيونية المهزلة، إنما يحصل بسبب ضعفهم وتخبّطهم وضياعهم وتيههم وليس بسبب قوتهم اأو تماسك مؤامرتهم.

وإلاّ عن أي دولة وأي خلافة وأي أرض وأي شعب وأي جيش يتحدثون؟ وهم العارفون قبل غيرهم بأنهم لا يملكون أياً من مقومات الدولة على الاطلاق!

ولما كانوا يأتمرون بأوامر واشنطن و«تل أبيب» بالمعلومات وليس بالتحليل والزعم والحدس والتخمين هذه المرة، فإنهم يريدون تحقيق نصر لأوباما المتوجّع من ألم كؤوس السمّ التي شربها في السنة الأخيرة في الانتخابات الفرعية في الكونغرس الأميركي في الخريف المقبل.

صدّقوني أنهم مجرّد بنادق للإيجار ومرتزقة، ومشغّلوهم الإقليميون إنما هم من يدفع الأجر مرتين، مرة للمرتزق الصغير ومرة خدمة للسيد الذي يحافظ على عرشه، أي للساكن في ما يُسمّى البيت الابيض.

رحم الله الإمام روح الله الموسوي الخميني في موقفه حول الحرب العراقية – الإيرانية، التي سمّاها صادقاً بالمفروضة على الشعبين الإيراني والعراقي، مبدياً استغرابه يومذاك حيال هؤلاء العابثين بالإقليم قائلاً: «أعرف أجراء كثراً يأخذون أجراً من سيدهم لقاء خدمة يسدونها إليه… لكنني استغرب من أجراء يدفعون هم الأجر لسيّدهم كي يستعبدهم!؟

عود على بدء، مع الموصل والخليل، لأقول إن معركة الموصل حصلت لإنقاذ العدو الصهيوني وإخراجه من دائرة الضعف والهوان والتيه الذي أصابه بعد نجاحات بوابات الشام وأسوار الضاحية.

بلى بالتكتيك والاستراتيجيا… فاقتناص كركوك وتحرك الناقلات النفطية نحو موانئ العدو الصهيوني من كردستان العراق عبر الوسيط التركي الغدار إنما هو جزء من تكتيكات المؤامرة.

فيما إشغال ايران وسورية ولبنان بالعراق بعيداً من القدس والخليل ورام الله وبيت لحم والجليل إنما هو الجزء الاستراتيجي من المؤامرة.

من هنا كانت عملية الخليل، كأنها رد الفعل الطبيعي لجزء من جسم الأمة على استراتجية العدو.

أما الإعداد الذي يجري على قدم وساق من جانب أطراف جبهة المقاومة لتحرير أرض العراق من دنس «الدواعش» وممارساتهم الصهيونية فهو الجزء التكتيكي من معركة المنازلة الكبرى.

هكذا ويعتقد أن ساحة لبنان ستبقى مشدودة أشد ما يكون من الآن حتى نهاية الخريف المقبل، حتى يتبيّن الخيط الأبيض من الخيط الأسود في ما يعد للمنطقة من قبل الصهاينة والاميركيين على خلفية وجوب ربحهم لمعركة الكونغرس من ناحية، ومنعنا من إكمال الاستعدادات اللازمة لمعركة تحرير الجليل من ناحية ثانية.

ما يهمّه في التكتيك من الآن حتى ذلك الحين أن يربحوا معركة الكونغرس.

ما يهمّنا نحن في التكتيك هو أن نربح معركة تحرير العراق رغم أنفهم.

ما يهمّهم في الاستراتيجيا هو إخراج اليهودي الصهيوني من تيهه وضياعه ليتمكن السيد الأكبر، أيّ الشرّ المطلق ايّ أميركا، من استعادة زمام المبادرة على المسرحين الإقليمي والدولي يعني تصفية القضية الفلسطينية.

ما يهمّنا نحن في الاستراتيجيا هو طرد الوهم الذي يريد لنا تجزئة المعارك وتصغير ما يجري وتسطيحه وتصويره مرة كأنه خلاف مذهبي أو ديني هنا أو هناك، ومرة كأنه حزبي او «فصائلي» هنا او هناك.

إنها المؤامرة بعينها بلى، المؤامرة، أيّ المخطط، بلى المخطط الذي يحاول ان يجرّنا الى معارك مجزأة فيما هو يوجه نيرانه الواقعية إلى الكل من دون استثناء.

لذا يعتقد القائلون بهذا التحليل أنّ الأميركيين والصهاينة أبلغوا مجدداً، أي بعد اكتشاف جثث المستوطنين الثلاثة، وعلى نحو لا يقبل الشك والتردد:

لا تنازل أو تراجع عن عراق مستقل واحد لا يقبل القسمة، لا على اثنين ولا على ثلاثة، يحكم بأهله وهم من يحددون الرئيس ورئيس الوزراء ورئيس البرلمان.

ولا تنازل أو تراجع عن لبنان المقاوم وسلاح المقاومة الذي يحمي المقاومة وأهلها وحلفاءها ومرشحها الذي لا يمكن أن يقبل أي طعن بظهر المقاومة او سلاحها ولو بلغ ما بلغ.

وأخيراً وليس آخراً، «الجائزة الكبرى» والتعبير لبوش الابن، أي إيران الثورة والإسلام وحامية المقاومة وان سمّيتموها بـ«بنك الإرهاب» لن تكون إلاّ لأهلها ولحلفائها وأشقائها وأصدقائها في سورية ولبنان واليمن والبحرين وكل أرض عربية، وبخاصة في فلسطين من النهر الى البحر.

هذه الإيران لن يغريها لا جنيف ولا فيينا ولا الذي خلف جنيف أو فيينا. لأنّ معركتها الحقيقية هي أن تظلّ رافعة رأسها دولة مستقلة وحرة وقوية مسلحة بالعيون الأربع العقيدة والعزيمة والعلوم والعقل. وما النووي سوى القسم الناتئ او الظاهر من جسم هذا الفيل، أو الأسد الذي لا يمكن ان تهزموه لا بالتكتيك وقطعاً لا بالاستراتيجيا، لأنّ صبره من صبر أيوب وتجارب أيوب وخبراته، وما أدراك ما أيوب.

ومن لا يعلم فإن في الأفق «أيوب» لو كشف الغطاء عنه لعميَ بصر «إسرائيل» مرة أخرى وهذه المرة ستكون أخطر من الأولى.

في انتظار المزيد من مفاجآت أيوب ولعنات الحاج عماد عليهم وبركاته علينا…!

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

Iraq Army Retakes Saddam’s Birthplace from ISIL Terrorists

Local Editor

Iraq: Mosul cityThe Iraqi army drove terrorirts insurgents out of late dictator Saddam Hussein's home village, state media and police said, part of a campaign to retake wide areas of northern and western Iraq overrun by the armed terrorists.

Government forces along with armed volunteers backed by helicopter gunships recaptured the village of Awja on Thursday night, according to state media, police and local inhabitants.

They said three insurgents were killed in an hour-long battle, and the main body of militant forces had fled south along the eastern bank of the Tigris River across from Awja.

State television quoted the prime minister's military spokesman, Qassem Atta, as saying that Awja had been "totally cleansed" and 30 militants had been killed. No casualty figures could be independently verified.

The army said it now held the 50 km (30-mile) stretch of main highway running north from the city of Samarra - which is 100 km (60 miles) north of Baghdad - to Awja.

But the city of Tikrit a few km north of Awja remained in the grip of insurgents after falling early in the lightning offensive last month that gave militants led by the so-called 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant' (also dubbed as ISIL), control of most regions north of Baghdad.

Among the armed terrorists Iraqi forces repelled from Awja were members of the Naqshbandi Army, made up of former army officers as well as loyalists of Hussein's old Baathist party.
Though militants and old Baathists have banded together to fight their common foe - the government of Nuri al-Maliki - cracks are showing in their loose bloc.

In the town of Hawija near the northern city of Kirkuk, 15 people were killed when fighting broke out a fortnight ago between ISIL and members of the Naqshbandi Army.

Iraq: former Speaker Osama NujaifiPolitically, former Iraqi parliament speaker Osama al-Nujaifi, a major political foe of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, said he would not nominate himself for another term to make it easier for the Shi'ite political parties to replace the premier.

"I appreciate the demands of the brothers in the National Alliance who see that Maliki will insist on holding on to the premiership if I nominate myself for speaker of the Council of the Representatives," he said, according to a text of the speech published on his Facebook page late on Thursday.

The National Alliance is a bloc comprising the country's biggest Shi'ite parties.
"Out of respect for them and in order to achieve the interests of the people and the country and to defend the oppressed and those who hold rights, I have decided not to nominate myself," said Nujaifi.

Iraqi politicians have been deadlocked over the formation of a new government despite pressure from the United States, Iran, the United Nations, and Iraq's own clerics to overcome their differences to face a major insurgency.

Source: Websites
04-07-2014 - 18:36 Last updated 04-07-2014 - 18:36 


Syrian Army Restores Industrial City of Aleppo

كيف سقطت المدينة الصناعية؟ وماذا بعد؟

Syrian Army Restores Industrial City of Aleppo

Local Editor

Syrian armyThe Syrian army seized full control on Friday over the industrial city in Aleppo province after clearing its three blocks of the armed pockets, Al-Manar TV correspondent reported.

The national military also took control over Sheikh Najjar neighborhood and Ma'badiya region  in northern and eastern Aleppo respectively, amid huge collapse within the militants' ranks.

Clashes renewed between armed terrorists of the so-called 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant' (also dubbed as ISIL) and the 'Army of Islam' groups in eastern Ghouta of Damascus countryside.

Dooma city witnesses fierce clashes between the two sides.

In the meantime, state-run SANA news agency reported that Syrian army units continued operations against terrorist groups on Friday, razing their dens in several areas and foiling their attack attempts in others.

In rural Homs, units of the armed forces killed and injured many members of armed terrorist groups in the areas of Kafrlaha, al-Serhaniyeh, Khirbet al-Tahta, Wadi Mira, al-Breij, Um Sharshouh.

The terrorists’ weapons and equipment were also destroyed.

Meanwhile, other army units thwarted an attempt by an armed terrorist group to attack Jabourin village, leaving its members dead and wounded.

The army units also targeted terrorists’ dens in al-Kahef valley in the southern countryside of al-Qseir in Homs countryside, eliminating many of them, in addition to destroying their equipment.

In rural Hama, a military source told SANA that an army unit destroyed a terrorists’ den in the northeastern countryside of the city, killing and injuring scores of them, in addition to destroying their weapons and ammunition.

In rural Daraa, the army units killed and injured a number of terrorists in Jbaib and Om Walad towns in the eastern countryside of the city, destroying a lot of terrorists’ dens in the towns of Jasim, Da’el and Enkhil in Daraa countryside.

A military source told SANA that an army unit targeted an armed terrorist group’s members to the west of Bilal al-Habashi Mosque in Daraa al-Balad, killing and injuring many of them, in addition to destroying their equipment.

In Idlib, the army units targeted terrorists’ dens and gatherings to the west of Ma’aret Masreen, Bdama, Jadraiyeh, al-Burnos, Baidar Shamo at al-Zaowiyeh mountain and to the west of Abu Dahour, inflicting heavy losses upon them.

In rural Latakia, the army units killed and injured a number of terrorists in Ein Samour Village in the northern countryside of the city, in addition to destroying a car loaded with ammunition and explosive devices.

A military source told SANA that other army units stormed terrorists’ gatherings in the villages of Qastal al-Sheikh Nouri, al-Dwra and al-Hilweh, destroying 4 cars equipped with heavy machine guns.

Source: Websites
04-07-2014 - 18:03 Last updated 04-07-2014 - 18:03 

Related Video

Related Articles

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

Media Silence

Palestinian blood

Media Silence

Three Jewish youngsters are killed, and there is uproar throughout the western media. Since 2000 a Palestinian child has been killed by Israel once every three days. Nothing is heard. Since the bodies of those teenagers has been found there has been a kidnapping attempt on one Palestinian and another has been kidnapped and murdered. A third, a visiting US citizen, was beaten up by the Israeli army. Media silence. It seems Palestinian lives are cheap.    
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

ISIL making mockery of Islamic principles, concepts

Leader of ISIL Takfiri terrorist group Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi
Leader of ISIL Takfiri terrorist group Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi
The Muslim Ummah is faced with many problems but often Muslims themselves are to blame. Consider the latest phenomenon of the thug al-Baghdadi and his declaration of the Khilafah. The noble concept of the Khialfah is being ridiculed by mass murderers and rapists using Islamic terms. The ill-conceived project is bound to collapse soon and with it will die the misplaced hopes of thousands of Muslim youth.

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s (real name Ali Ibrahim al-Badri al-Samarrai) proclamation of the Khilafah (Islamic State) and declaring himself the Khalifah has evoked widespread revulsion and derision. It is clear that the leader of a gang of mass murderers, plunderers and rapists is out of his mind.

Even his closest ideological allies in the Jabhat al-Nusra have rejected his call, not to mention the opportunist Iraqi Ba‘athists and greedy tribal leaders that have used this bunch of thugs to advance their own narrow interests.

Far from accepting al-Baghdadi’s claim to being a khalifah, al-Nusra Front has compared the group to the Khawarij, a band of extremist rejects during the time of Imam Ali (ra) who were responsible for his killing and spreading much fitna in the Ummah. The Khawarij have been roundly condemned in Islamic history as outcasts.

Al-Baghdadi’s thugs are no different and behave no differently even if they hoist the black flag with the kalima written on it.

It is not surprising that he has attracted alienated youth from Europe—Britain, France, Germany etc—that cannot fit in those societies and extremists elements from Muslim countries because they are frustrated with the prevailing order there.

No doubt, the rulers of most Muslim countries are corrupt and incompetent people and beholden to imperialism and Zionism but the solution to Muslims’ problems does not lie in throwing one’s lot with mass murderers and plunderers.

They will bring nothing but death, destruction and shame to the Muslim Ummah even if they couch their proclamations in Islamic terms using verses from the Qur’an and hadiths of the noble Messenger (saws).

After all, this is precisely what the Khawarij also did only to bring disaster to the Muslim Ummah.

One can almost predict what will happen now. After killing a lot of innocent people, the thugs led by Baghdadi will be defeated. Their misguided romantic notion of the Khilafah will collapse and die with perhaps Baghdadi’s gory death sometime soon.

This will cause great disillusion among most Muslim youth that are already alienated from society. They will lose faith in the noble concept of the Khilafah and will turn their backs on Islam.

This will be a real tragedy for the Ummah since Muslims do need to strive and struggle for the restoration of the Khilafah. Living in the Islamic State is an Islamic obligation but such a state would not be established by perpetrating crimes against innocent people.

We need to study the Sunnah and the Seerah of the noble Messenger (saws) who was the embodiment of mercy and compassion. The thugs led by al-Baghdadi are filled with hate that is far removed from the teachings of the Qur’an and the Sunnah and Seerah of the beloved Prophet of Allah.

The alienated Muslim youth need guidance and hope for the future. Their lives must not be wasted for the advancement of such criminal enterprises.
Source: Crescent International

- See more

Related News

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