Uprooted Palestinians are at the heart of the conflict in the M.E Palestinians uprooted by force of arms. Yet faced immense difficulties have survived, kept alive their history and culture, passed keys of family homes in occupied Palestine from one generation to the next.
alia however, was a centrepiece to Paris’s strategy for European ‘strategic autonomy’. Macron believed France and the EU had established a position of lasting influence in the heart of the Indo-Pacific. Better still, it had out-manoeuvred Britain, and broken into the Anglophone world of the Five Eyes to become a privileged defence partner of Australia. Biden dissed that. And Commission President von der Leyen told CNN that there could not be “business as usual” after the EU was blindsided by AUKUS.
One factor for the UK being chosen as the ‘Indo-Pacific partner’ very probably was Trump’s successful suasion with ‘Bojo’ Johnson to abandon the Cameron-Osborne outreach to China; whereas the big three EU powers were perceived in the US security world as ambivalent towards China, at best. The UK really did cut links. The grease finally was Brexit, which opened the window for strategic options – which otherwise would have been impossible to the UK.
There may be a heavy price to pay though further down the line – the US security establishment are really pushing the Taiwan ‘envelope’ to the limit (possibly to weaken the CCP). It is extremely high risk. China may decide ‘enough is enough’, and crush the AUKUS maritime venture, which it can do.
The second ‘leg’ to this global inflection point – also triggered around the Afghan pivot into the Russo-Chines axis – was the SCO summit last month. A memorandum of understanding was approved that would tie together China’s Belt and Road Initiative to the Eurasian Economic Community, within the overall structure of the SCO, whilst adding a deeper military dimension to the expanded SCO structure.
Significantly, President Xi spoke separately to members of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (of which China is not a part), to outline its prospective military integration too, into the SCO military structures. Iran was made a full member, and it and Pakistan (already a member), were elevated into prime Eurasian roles. In sum, all Eurasian integration paths combined into a new trade, resource – and military block. It represents an evolving big-power, security architecture covering some 57% of the world’s population.
Having lifted Iran into full membership – Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Egypt may also become SCO dialogue partners. This augurs well for a wider architecture that may subsume more of the Middle East. Already, Turkey after President Erdogan’s summit with President Putin at Sochi last week, gave clear indications of drifting towards Russia’s military complex – with major orders for Russian weaponry. Erdogan made clear in an interview with the US media that this included a further S400 air defence system, which almost certainly will result in American CAATSA sanctions on Turkey.
All of this faces the EU with a dilemma: Allies who cheered Biden’s ‘America is back’ slogan in January have found, eight months later, that ‘America First’ never went away. But rather, Biden paradoxically is delivering on the Trump agenda (continuity again!) – a truncated NATO (Trump mooted quitting it), and the possible US shunning of Germany as some candidate coalition partners edge toward exiting from the nuclear umbrella. The SPD still pays lip service to NATO, but the party is opposed to the 2% defence spending target (on which both Biden and Trump have insisted). Biden also delivered on the Afghanistan withdrawal.
Europeans may feel betrayed (though when has US policy ever been other than ‘America First’? It’s just the pretence which is gone). European grander aspirations at the global plane have been rudely disparaged by Washington. The Russia-China axis is in the driving seat in Central Asia – with its influence seeping down to Turkey and into the Middle East. The latter commands the lions’ share of world minerals, population – and, in the CTSO sphere, has the region most hungry and ripe for economic development.
The point here however, is the EU’s ‘DNA’. The EU was a project originally midwifed by the CIA, and is by treaty, tied to the security interests of NATO (i.e. the US). From the outset, the EU was constellated as the soft-power arm of the Washington Consensus, and the Euro deliberately was made outlier to the dollar sphere, to preclude competition with it (in line with the Washington Consensus doctrine). In 2002, an EU functionary (Robert Cooper) could envisage Europe as a new ‘liberal imperialism’. The ‘new’ was that Europe eschewed hard military power, in favour of the ‘soft’ power of its ‘vision’. Of course, Cooper’s assertion of the need for a ‘new kind of imperialism’ was not as ‘cuddly’ liberal – as presented. He advocated for ‘a new age of empire’, in which Western powers no longer would have to follow international law in their dealings with ‘old fashioned’ states; could use military force independently of the United Nations; and impose protectorates to replace regimes which ‘misgovern’.
This may have sounded quite laudable to the Euro-élites initially, but this soft-power European Leviathan was wholly underpinned by the unstated – but essential – assumption that America ‘had Europe’s back’. The first intimation of the collapse of this necessary pillar was Trump who spoke of Europe as a ‘rival’. Now the US flight from Kabul, and the AUKUS deal, hatched behind Europe’s back, unmissably reveals that the US does not at all have Europe’s back.
This is no semantic point. It is central to the EU concept. As just one example: when Mario Draghi was recently parachuted onto Italy as PM, he wagged his finger at the assembled Italian political parties: “Italy would be pro-European and North Atlanticist too”, he instructed them. This no longer makes sense in the light of recent events. So what is Europe? What does it mean to be ‘European’? All that needs to be thought through.
Europe today is caught between a rock and a hard place. Does it possess the energy (and the humility) to look itself in the mirror, and re-position itself diplomatically? It would require altering its address to both Russia and China, in the light of a Realpolitik analysis of its interests and capabilities.
Well, we heard that, what, 10’000 times already? Probably.
But is this a reason to simply ignore yet another tsunami of hysterics coming out of Kiev?
I mean, I get it: North Stream 2 has been completed today, all that’s left is a bunch of paperwork (which the Poles and Ukies are still trying to sabotage by offering to “participate” in the bureaucratic processes). Barring any last-minute “creative solutions” by the 3B+PU gang, the gas itself should start flowing on October first. And since the “Turkish stream” is already working, it is true that Russia has successfully bypassed all the crazies and is now offering its energy to Europe directly.
As for the “West” and its values, well, let’s just say that greed is far more sacred to the West than its own propaganda. How do we know that? Nobody offered the Ukies any “compensation” or, even less so, “security guarantees”.
The US/NATO/UK/EU have clearly shown that while they love to act like the infamous “civilized” “White Man” with his famous “burden”, they have no stomach for screwing around with Russia for real, not in the Black Sea, not in the Ukraine, not in the Baltic and not in the North or anywhere else.
In other words, the Ukronazis feel ditched and are watching the events in Afghanistan in utter horror.
Also, since the Ukronazis always said that Russia will attack the Ukraine as soon as NS2 is completed, so in a way, there is a logic here: since NS2 was completed today, therefore Russia must attack today. Especially since the Zapad 2021 military maneuvers have started (and they are involving a bigger and much more capable military force than the entire military power of the 3B+PU countries).
In the Ukie logic, this all means that Russia will attack today or tomorrow at the latest, from both Belarus and Russia. BTW – Lukashenko was in Moscow yesterday and the two countries signed 28 documents further integrating Russia and Belarus economically and militarily. As for political integration, Putin and Lukashenko both said that first, the two countries must align their economies before going into stuff like a single currency or even a single Parliament. So that is for the (not too far away) future.
Then there are the various statements from top Ukro officials.
Zelenskii declared that a war is now inevitable. He also stated that the Ukronazi armed forces were now amongst the most formidable on the planet and that NATO would “lose” without the Ukraine and the EU would become very weak (he was not joking).
The head of the Ukronazi Security Council, Danilov, not only agreed, but he said that if the Ukies see an impending Russian attack, the Ukies would attack first and “liberate” the Donbass. He got a standing ovation from the Ukronazi corner.
The head of the Ukrainian military admitted that he daydreamed about, listen to this, a Ukrainian military parade on the Red Square in Moscow, with Ukie flags and all (that old Polish wet dream again…).
Remember the other “NATO candidate” Saakashvili who lost a war against a small Russian military force in 3 days only? He now declared that if Russia attacks the Ukraine, all the US would send, at best, is warm blankets and inflatable boats. He is right. Welcome to reality Ukies!
As for the official Ukie media (all non-regime-run TV channels have now been banned), let’s just say that they “further amplified” the feelings of Ukie politicians and leave it at that.
Foreign Minister Lavrov reacted to all that by saying that the folks in Kiev were “schizophrenics”. Peskov also spoke of mental problems.
So, will we have a full-scale war in Europe today or tomorrow?
Probably not. HOWEVER
First, never say never, especially when dealing with schizophrenics. Normal deterrence theory assumes what is called “a rational actor” on all sides. The one thing which the Ukronazis sure ain’t is “rational”!
Second, you have to stop thinking like you normally do and imagine yourself in, say, Ze’s skin. Objectively, for them, a continuation of, well, maybe not “peace”, that has not happened since the Ukronazi coup, but at least “low simmering” war might well be WORSE than a full-scale war with Russia. The kind of “non-full-war” which the Nazi-occupied Ukraine has been (barely) surviving is a surefire way to a final, total, collapse. Not only that, but Ze & Co. probably do realize that even if Russia does openly intervene, it would at most be to liberate the rest of the Donbass and probably move towards the Mariupol direction. Sure, the Russians would probably do to the Ukies something similar to what they did to Saakashvili and basically defang the Ukraine, but remember that in 08.08.08 the Russians were already advancing on Tbilissi and stopped not because the “invincible Georgian army” stopped the invader, but because the Russians have ZERO need for anything Georgian once their fangs have been removed, least of all any need to enter their capital. In fact, the Russians quickly packed and left, leaving just enough forces in South Ossetia and Abkhazia to make darn sure that they would never be attacked again. This is most likely what the Russians would do in case of a war with the Ukraine, only at a larger scale. But now think like Ze: Saakashvili himself is not in power, but he is alive, got plenty of money and basically is living a good life (in their minds, at least). He did not get lynched by angry Georgians (who did put him on an international wanted list for many of his crimes). Ze would much rather be the future Saakashvili than the future Mussolini, and that goes for a lot of them. Sure, the Ukronazi true believers will all be killed by Russians, but the top folks will do what ex-President Ashraf Ghani did and pack their money and run.
Third, dumb and desperate (D&D) rulers always see war as a solution to get the flag-waving kind to blindly support them. I vividly remember how Argentinian General and dictator Galtieri pulled off exactly that with his ill-fated liberation of the Malvinas/Falklands from the Brits (which, of course, I support 110% on principle, but the execution was nothing short of terrible, by the fault of Argentinian politicians and Galtieri himself (and the local commander too, Mario Menendez). And that is a trick which every President except Trump pulled at least once while in office (and he basically also did that with the murder of Soleimani which was an act of war).
The Neocons still seem to be dreaming of attacking somebody, anybody, but following the monumental faceplant in Afghanistan, there are very few nations out there that the US can seriously take on (Monaco? Lichtenstein? Costa Rica (which has no military to begin with)? Grenada (no military either, but lots of very bad and even traumatic memories for the US)? Not the Vatican, the ceremonial Swiss guard might do what it did during the insurrection of 1792 and declare “We are Swiss, the Swiss do not part with their arms but with their lives. We think that we do not merit such an insult. If the regiment is no longer wanted, let it be legally discharged. But we will not leave our post, nor will we let our arms be taken from us” (yes, tiny Switzerland had a proud and very interesting history, and she only became the Empire’s cheap prostitute in 1990). And today’s Swiss guards at the Vatican could change their (rather silly) ceremonial uniforms, but on real fatigues and fight to the end. I don’t see these genius super-warriors taking them on
So – war later today or tomorrow?
No, probably not.
But the fact is that the Ukies simply have no other choice than to try all they can to trigger a war sooner or later (but preferably sooner). For these Nazi schizophrenics war is, REALLY, preferable to peace. Remember for all the butthurt crazies on other websites who were going into hysterics every time I spoke of “Nazis” in the Ukie context, the fact remains that while Ze initially came to power as a total NON-Nazi (while Poroshenko’s gang was “the real deal”), the fact that Ze is, literally, a clown and has no real power base other than the pro-peace Ukrainians whom he totally betrayed, resulted into the Ukie Nazis taking de facto control of the Ze regime.
Just like the Neocons are a minority in the USA, but one which sets the agenda no matter who is in power in the White House, so are the Ukronazis: a minority, but one which sets the agenda. And “their” Ukraine is, truly, an anti-Russia, something which Putin publicly declared a “red line” which Russia will never allow.
See any venues for compromise here?
Me neither.
Finally, a war would allow the Ukronazis to “consolidate” their power in the western regions of the (historically real) “Ukraine” which Russians will certainly stay away from (Lvov, Ivano-Frankovsk, etc.). Most of the locals *truly* are non-Russians and have never been Russians in the past. The Ukronazi ideology is still popular there, so the Ukronazis can create their little and landlocked “Nazi Taiwan” and give up a country they cannot control, if only because it is entirely artificial, and accept a smaller country, but once which makes more sense and which they can control.
So “something” is definitely coming. It might be a stupid stunt like trying to pass under the bridge to Crimea or some major terrorist attack (that is the one thing which the SBU is actually pretty darn good at, we should not dismiss them too quickly!). Or this, the Ukies are regularly flying all types of drones over the Donbass and even over Crimea. What if they sent a manned aircraft of some kind? It will be shot down for sure (even over the LDNR). They can also set off a false flag very very easily (just like the Czechs recently did): blow up some major civilian infrastructure object which the cannot be maintained (no money, all the specialists gone) anyway and blame it on Putin and, of course, “Petrov and Boshirov”.
I think of that as a “home made MH-17” (the initial one was clearly a US operation like KAL007 many years ago).
We cannot predict what “it” will be, but we can be sure that will be 1) very visible 2) very ugly 3) very bloody.
Yes, the Russians are as ready as can one can be. But the Ukies will have the advantage of choosing the time and place. This means that the SVR/GRU must now carry the burden of making darn sure that the Ukronazis authorities are chock full with SVR/GRU agents and even officers: it is vital for Russia to make sure that the Kremlin gets any such Ukie plans even before they are finalized in Kiev. Удачи вам, ребята! (good luck guys!).
When the world system was still in its infancy in that appendix of the Eurasian continent we know today as Europe, Babur, the King of Kabul, entered India from the northwest to establish the Mughal Empire in 1526, outlining an empire that would later be consolidated by his grandson Akbar (1556 – 1605).
The splendor of the great Eastern civilizations took place in a historical period when the world’s economy, cultural activities, and military power were concentrated in places such as China, India, and the ancient Persian Empire, now known as Iran.
The strategic withdrawal of China of the Ming – the most advanced civilization among the great pre-modern empires – from the great expansionist game, may have been the delimiting point between the before and the after of the geopolitical rise of those, as historian Paul Kennedy would say, “dispersed and relatively unsophisticated peoples who occupied the western part of the Eurasian landmass”, namely, the Europeans.
The Chinese vacuum still remains a great mystery to many historians: Why would Admiral Cheng Ho have withdrawn his fleet and that great rising civilization have given up its expansion toward an undisputed hegemonism in the Eurasian world system?
More than five hundred years after these events, we see the current hegemon of the modern world system, heir to the violent and predatory expansionism invented by the Europeans, withdrawing in an impromptu manner from that territory that in the past was part of the great Mughal Empire of King Babur and his grandson Akbar, Afghanistan.
According to most Western media analysts, the US withdrawal from Afghan territory should have been done in a coordinated manner with the puppet government, allies, and after all the Afghans who collaborated with the invasion and occupation had already left the scene.
It so happens that both the abrupt exit from Afghanistan, and Biden’s first speech justifying the exit, would confirm something that analyses centered on an American leadership of the past no longer follow.
The current expansive explosion of the world system, which began in the 1970s and shaped itself into imperial contours after the collapse of the Soviet Union, seems to be at a unique moment and certainly generated by pandemic chaos.
It is true that even before the Covid-19 crisis the increase in competitive pressure was already visible, reflecting the entry into the game of the new emerging powers, especially Russia and China.
The intensification of interstate competition, therefore, would have led the United States to give up its global leadership based on the diffuse values of the so-called “Liberal Order” instituted after World War II.
The 2017 national security strategy published during the Trump administration, which in practice had already been outlining and deepening since the first incursion into Iraq in 1991, would now reveal itself without masks.
The tearing of the fantasy of the old benevolent hegemon had come true.
The big news of what happened in Afghanistan would be revealed at the last G7 meeting, when the European leaders demanded from the United States a more responsible posture in its global leadership.
However, what is still hard for the European allies to understand, or accept, is that the United States has given up any global leadership, and in this new strategic configuration – which was not a point out of the curve created by the erratic Trump administration – the national interest, and only the national interest of the United States, will be the priority.
This being so, and taking into consideration that the United States’ military presence in Afghanistan, paradoxically, would not be negatively affecting the Chinese economic projects, and, on the contrary, favored them by guaranteeing stability in the region, it is absolutely plausible the line of reasoning that would justify the way out: to establish chaos in a region where the Eurasian enemies would be interested in stability.
The fourth expansive explosion of the world system reveals itself in frightening appearances by indicating, besides the increase in competitive pressure and the escalation of conflicts in itself, a displacement of what the professor of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, José Luís Fiori, would call a “black hole” of destructive force.
The black hole, therefore, would be at this very moment moving to a new war epicenter, which would probably be the Indo-Pacific, as well as previously unthinkable regions such as South America itself.
In a recent poll, USA Today indicated a rise in Joe Biden’s unpopularity rating after what happened in Afghanistan, which could have erroneously indicated a possible step backwards in the American exit. However, what is likely to happen is just the opposite: the bid for more systemic chaos and global destabilization.
The world system feeds on the permanent expansion of power, and this becomes even clearer when those at the top of the system find themselves challenged and losing ground to their adversaries.
More than ever perhaps the time has come for the Eurasians to fill that void left by Admiral Cheng Ho’s squadron in 1433.
Fabio Reis Vianna, lives in Rio de Janeiro, is a bachelor of laws (LL.B), MA student in International Relations at the University of Évora (Portugal), writer and geopolitical analyst. He currently maintains a column on international politics at the centennial Brazilian newspaper Monitor Mercantil.
لم يعد مهماً النقاش مع الذين حاولوا بحسن نية ومخاوف مشروعة، أو بسوء نية لتجميل صورة الهزيمة الأميركية، بالقول انّ واشنطن انسحبت من أفغانستان ضمن خطة هجومية لتفجير ألغام بوجه روسيا والصين وإيران، فكل ما جرى منذ الإعلان الأميركي بدء الإنسحاب يظهر حجم الارتباك الأميركي، وحجم الانهزام السياسي الذي تتحرك تحت وطأته، وجاء المثال غير المسبوق في كيفية التعامل الأميركي مع ما بعد تفجيرات مطار كابول وسقوط الجنود الأميركيين بين قتلى وجرحى، وخروج القيادة الأميركية بعدها لتسريع الإنسحاب غير آبهة بمعنويات جيشها وسمعتها ومهابتها، التي كانت إصابتها بأضرار أقلّ مما حدث في مطار كابول كافية لغزو دول وإشعال حروب، ونصف النفوذ في العلاقات الدولية يقوم على المعنويات والمهابة، ويظهر في المقابل أنّ الثلاثي الروسي الصيني الإيراني يتفاعل إيجاباً مع ما بعد الانسحاب الأميركي من أفغانستان، ورغم كل الحذر الذي حكم تاريخ العلاقة بحركة طالبان، تبدو علاقات الثلاثي مع طالبان وأفغانستان ما بعد الإنسحاب مفتوحة على المزيد من الإيجابية، ويكفي كمثال، بقاء السفارات العائدة لهذه الدول في كابول تقوم بمهامها، في ظل سيطرة طالبان وعدم شعورها بالذعر الذي اجتاح السفارات الغربية، وتالياً الامتناع الروسي الصيني عن التصويت على المشروع الفرنسي البريطاني الذي أقرّه مجلس الأمن، والذي يخاطب طالبان بلغة التحذير والشروط.
–
لم تعد واشنطن تخفي الخلاصة الرئيسية التي حكمت قرارها بالانسحاب من أفغانستان، وتحملها الجراح المعنوية لتبعات الانسحاب، والجراح المادية التي رافقته، وجوهر هذه الخلاصة كما بكرر الرئيس الأميركي جو بايدن، أن القوة العسكرية لم تعد أداة صالحة للتأثير في نوعية أنظمة الحكم في الدول التي كانت تلجأ واشنطن الى الحرب لإلحاقها بمعسكر التبعية، وفرض المثال الغربي عليها، ورسم سقف جديد لمبررات التدخلات العسكرية يجعل الأمن القومي الأميركي هدفاً وحيداً تستخدم القوة العسكرية في حمايته، والمقصود هو حماية الداخل الأميركي من أي خطر حصراً، وهو هدف وجود القوة العسكرية في الدول الصغرى، بعكس كلّ نظريات المدى الحيوي للمصالح الذي قامت عليه نظريات التوسع والهيمنة، وتمييز الدول الكبرى والدول العظمى عنها، واللجوء الى الأدوات السياسية والاقتصادية والحروب الناعمة لتحقيق المصالح الاستراتيجية الأميركية، وفقا لما يرسمه بايدن وإدارته، في الحديث عن مواجهة قادمة مع الصين أو مع روسيا، وخصوصا مع إيران، وبالبداهة فإن من عجز عن تغيير أفغانستان بالقوة لا يمكن أن يفكر بالحرب مع إيران.
–
يثير المنهج الجديد لرسم الأولويات الأميركية عاصفة من التداعيات، لدى أقرب الحلفاء لواشنطن، ولا يحتاج المرء الى التنقيب عن المواقف الصارخة والمتكررة في دول حلف الناتو الأهم، سواء بريطانيا أو فرنسا أو سواهما، ليكتشف مصطلح الخيانة الأميركية، أو أن واشنطن ظهرت حليفاً لا يمكن الاعتماد عليه، أو حليفاً غير جدير بالثقة، والوصول لاستنتاجات من النوع الذي صاغه جوزيب بوريل مفوض السياسة الخارجية للاتحاد الأوروبي عن الحاجة لبناء قوة عسكرية أوروبية مستقلة عن واشنطن والناتو للدفاع عن المصالح الخارجية لدول الاتحاد، وهو كلام كاف للتعبير عن الذعر الذي يصيب الحلفاء الذين بنوا سياسات دولهم على الاستثمار المشترك في الحروب تحت الراية الأميركية، ويسمعون بالتغيير الأميركي من الإعلام، وهو ما قصده بوريل بعدم سؤال أوروبا عن رأيها، والقصد ابعد من قرار الانسحاب من أفغانستان، وهو جوهر التخلي عن الرهان على القوة العسكرية لفرض المصالح السياسية، وهذا يكشف حجم الذعر الأوروبي من الاستراتيجيات الأميركية الجديدة، بمعزل عن مدى قدرة أوروبا على بلورة تدخلات عسكرية مؤثرة دون الاستناد على القوة الأميركية، وهو ذعر لا يخص أوروبا وحدها، بل يصيب كل الحلفاء الذين بنوا علاقتهم بواشنطن، على حجم تأثير قوتها العسكرية، وبنوا سياساتهم وعدواتهم وصداقاتهم على إعتبار هذه القوة وتأثيرها عاملاً غير قابل للتغيير.
–
في طليعة المذعورين في المنطقة، ثلاثة، كيان الاحتلال الذي سارعت نخبه السياسية للحديث عن قلق مصيري ووجودي في ضوء الاستراتيجية الأميركية الجديدة، التي عبر عنها قرار الانسحاب من أفغانستان، والذي يتوقع «الإسرائيليون» أن تليه انسحابات، ولو تأخرت قليلا، من العراق وسورية، ويبشرون بمرحلة مقبلة عنوانها «إسرائيل» وحيدة، أمام موازين قوى تغيّرت بعكس صالحها في المحيط القريب والبعيد، الطرف الثاني الذي بدأ يستشعر بالخطر هو القيادات الكردية التي عملت في سورية تحت راية الاحتلال الأميركي، وقطعت كل جسور التواصل مع الدولة السورية بوهم أبدية الحماية الأميركية، أما الطرف الثالث الذي لا يخفي ذعره فهم عرب التطبيع الذين يشعرون بأنهم قد يكون عليهم دفع فواتير سيرهم وراء النصائح الأميركي بالتطبيع، فيما الأميركي غير مستعد لحماية توقيعه وموقعه في الصور التذكارية، مستعيدين تجربة الانسحاب الأميركي من لبنان وما رافقه من تداعيات يرويها الرئيس السابق أمين الجميّل في مذكراته، وتركه يواجه وحيداً التركة الأميركية المسماة بإتفاق السابع عشر من أيار الذي لم يصمد طويلاً بعد هذا الانسحاب، بعدما صار إلغاؤه شرطاً لاستعادة الحدّ الأدنى من الاستقرار مع الداخل اللبناني والجار والشقيق السوري الذي أخذ الأميركي على عاتقه تحجيمه لحماية الاتفاق، كما وعد دول التطبيع بتحجيم إيران.
–
البعض يضع قمة بغداد بين قوسين، بصفتها قمة المذعورين، لوصل منخفض مع إيران استعداداً للآتي، كي لا يكون أعظم، بعد انسحابين متوقعين للقوات الأميركية من كلّ من سورية والعراق.
There is little mystery as to why the Taliban took over Kabul so quickly, Alastair Crooke writes.
Nation-building in Afghanistan arrived in 2001. Western interventions into the old Eastern bloc in the 1980s and early 1990s had been spectacularly effective in destroying the old social and institutional order; but equally spectacular in failing to replace imploded societies with fresh institutions. The threat from ‘failed states’ became the new mantra, and Afghanistan – in the wake of the destruction wrought post-9/11 – therefore necessitated external intervention. Weak and failed states were the spawning ground for terrorism and its threat to the ‘global order’, it was said. It was in Afghanistan that a new liberal world vision was to be stood-up.
At another level, the war in Afghanistan became another sort of crucible. In very real terms, Afghanistan turned into a testbed for every single innovation in technocratic project management – with each innovation heralded as precursor to our wider future. Funds poured in: Buildings were thrown up, and an army of globalised technocrats arrived to oversee the process. Big data, AI and the utilization of ever expanding sets of technical and statistical metrics, were to topple old ‘stodgy’ ideas. Military sociology in the form of Human Terrain Teams and other innovative creations, were unleashed to bring order to chaos. Here, the full force of the entire NGO world, the brightest minds of that international government-in-waiting, were given a playground with nearly infinite resources at their disposal.
This was to be a showcase for technical managerialism. It presumed that a properly technical, and scientific way of understanding war and nation-building would be able to mobilize reason and progress to accomplish what everyone else could not, and so create a post-modern society, out of a complex tribal one, with its own storied history.
The ‘new’ arrived, as it were, in a succession of NGO boxes marked ‘pop-up modernity’. The 18th century British statesman Edmund Burke, of course, had already warned in Reflections on the Revolution in France, as he witnessed the Jacobins tearing down their old order: “that it is with infinite caution” that anyone should pull down or replace structures that have served society well over the ages. But this managerial technocracy had little time for old ‘stodgy’ ideas.
But, what last week’s fall of the western instituted regime so clearly revealed is that today’s managerial class, consumed by the notion of technocracy as the only means of effecting functional rule birthed instead, something thoroughly rotten – “data-driven defeat”, as one U.S. Afghan veteran described it – so rotten, that it collapsed in a matter of days. On the extended blunders of the “system” in Afghanistan, he writes:
“A retired Navy SEAL who served in the White House under both Bush and Obama reflected,[that] “collectively the system is incapable of taking a step back to question basic assumptions.” That “system” is best understood, not simply as a military or foreign policy body, but as a euphemism for the habits and institutions of an American ruling class that has exhibited an almost limitless collective capacity for deflecting the costs of failure.
“This class in general, and the people in charge of the war in Afghanistan in particular, believed in informational and management solutions to existential problems. They elevated data points and statistical indices to avoid choosing prudent goals and organizing the proper strategies to achieve them. They believed in their own providential destiny and that of people like them to rule, regardless of their failures”.
Whatever was not corrupt before America arrived, became corrupt in the maelstrom of that $2 Trillion of American money showered on the project. American soldiers, arms manufacturers, globalised technocrats, governance experts, aid workers, peacekeepers, counter-insurgency theorists and lawyers – all made their fortunes.
The flaw was that Afghanistan as a liberal progressive vision was a hoax in the first place: Afghanistan was invaded, and occupied, because of its geography. It was the ideal platform from which to perturb Central Asia, and thus unsettle Russia and China.
No one was truly committed because there was really no longer any Afghanistan to commit to. Whomsoever could steal from the Americans did so. The Ghani regime collapsed in a matter of days, because it was ‘never there’ to begin with: A Potemkin Village, whose role lay in perpetuating a fiction, or rather the myth of America’s Grand Vision of itself as the shaper and guardian of ‘our’ global future.
The true gravity for America and Europe of the present psychological ‘moment’ is not only that nation-building, as a project intended to stand up liberal values been revealed as having ‘achieved nothing’, but Afghanistan débacle has underlined the limitations to technical managerialism in way that is impossible to miss.
The gravity of America’s present psychological ‘moment’ – the implosion of Kabul – was well articulated when Robert Kagan argued earlier, that the ‘global values’ project (however tenuous its basis in reality) nonetheless has become essential to preserving ‘democracy’ at home: For, he suggests, an America that retreats from global hegemony, would no longer possess the domestic group solidarity to preserve Americaas ‘idea’, at home, either.
What Kagan is saying here is important – It may constitute the true cost of the Afghanistan débacle. Every élite class advances various claims about its own legitimacy, without which a stable political order is impossible. Legitimating myths can take many forms and may change over time, but once they become exhausted, or lose their credibility – when people no longer believe in the narrative, or the claims which underpin that political ‘idea’ – then it is ‘game over’.
Swedish intellectual, Malcolm Kyeyune writes that we may be “witnessing the catastrophic end of this metaphysical power of legitimacy that has shielded the managerial ruling class for decades”:
“Anyone even briefly familiar with the historical record knows just how much of a Pandora’s box such a loss of legitimacy represents. The signs visibly have been multiplying over many years. When Michael Gove said, “I think the people in this country have had enough of experts” in a debate about the merits of Brexit, he probably traced the contours of something much bigger than anyone really knew at the time. Back then, the acute phase of the delegitimization of the managerial class was only just beginning. Now, with Afghanistan, it is impossible to miss”.
There is therefore, little mystery as to why the Taliban took over Kabul so quickly. Not only did the project per se lack legitimacy for Afghans, but that aura of claimed expertise, of technological inevitability that has protected the élite managerial class, has been exposed by the sheer dysfunctionality on display, as the West frantically flees Kabul. And it is precisely how it has ended that has really drawn back the curtain, and shown the world the rot festering beneath.
When the legitimating claim is used up, and people no longer believe in the concepts or claims that underpin a particular system or claim to rule, the extinction of that particular élite, Kyeyune writes, becomes a foregone conclusion.
President Biden should reset in the Marshall mode and concentrate on forging amity and cooperation while combating the real enemies of humanity
Following World War Two, Europe was reeling from the devastation of so many years of savagery that it seemed it might never recover. The casualty figures are staggering, with, in addition to the Soviet Union’s some 25 million, about seven millions were killed in each of Germany and Poland, and 800,000 in France, 1.7 million in Yugoslavia, and half a million in each of Austria, Italy and Greece. The majority of these people were civilians and the surviving citizens of all these countries were suffering gravely from the catastrophe, not the least hazard being actual starvation.
The United States had only a handful of civilian casualties and prospered greatly from the commercial demands of war. In consequence it was in a position of immeasurable economic and military ascendancy and fortunately was governed by an administration that, by and large, was sympathetic and prepared to be supportive in alleviating the misery of the countless millions in Europe who seemed to have nothing in their future but endless hardship.
President Truman and his State Department brought their considerable talents to bear and constructed a scheme whereby shattered Europe could be best assisted. As noted by the Historywebsite, the 1948 European Recovery Plan was “The brainchild of Secretary of State George C Marshall, for whom it was named.” It was “crafted as a four-year plan to reconstruct cities, industries and infrastructure heavily damaged during the war and to remove trade barriers between European neighbours — as well as foster commerce between those countries and the United States.” In its final essence it didn’t entail a great deal of actual sacrifice on the part of the U.S., and in fact benefitted the agricultural community and the economic furnace that had been so effective in winning the war.
Nevertheless it was based on good will, charitable feeling, and concern for humanity, as expressed by Marshall himself in June 1947 in a speech delivered at Harvard University where he declared “It is logical that the United States should do whatever it is able to do to assist in the return of normal economic health in the world, without which there can be no political stability and no assured peace. Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine but against hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos. Its purpose should be the revival of a working economy in the world so as to permit the emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist.”
If only there had been more Marshalls in later years, the world would be a better place. Certainly, the United States would be in a position of international economic supremacy — but it wouldn’t have invaded and almost destroyed Afghanistan and Iraq and blitzed Libya into an even worse shambles than it created further east.
And as the U.S.-Nato military alliance staggers out of Afghanistan, defeated but grovelingly defiant, it should be giving thought to what has happened in that benighted country and planning for the future on the basis of what it has learned. The problem is that Nato doesn’t seem to have learned anything by its absurd foray, and is indeed intent on widening its horizons in order to attempt to justify its existence. The best lesson from Nato’s Afghanistan debacle (and its eight month bombing fandango that destroyed Libya’s economic infrastructure and encouraged home-basing of terrorist groups where none had formerly dared set a foot) is that it would be globally beneficial if Nato were to disband, but we have to be realistic and accept that common sense will not prevail in that regard.
Along the same lines, it would be sensible for Washington to objectively assess the value of the vast number of U.S. military bases around the globe, and inform U.S., openly and without qualifications or caveats, exactly what benefit their existence is supposed to offer to the U.S. and to the rest of the world. But again the signs are not good, as indicated on August 16 when an anonymous White House official spoke about a visit to Singapore and Vietnam by Vice President Kamala Harris and told the Washington Post that in spite of the concurrent Taliban takeover in Afghanistan she would continue with her trip because “Given our global leadership role, we can and we must manage developments in one region while simultaneously advancing our strategic interests in other regions on other issues. The United States has many interests around the world, and we are well-equipped to pursue them all at the same time.”
When will they ever learn?
Does President Biden genuinely believe that his Administration is “managing developments” in Afghanistan? Why is he determined to continue pursuing the supposed strategic interests of the U.S. by deploying increasing numbers of troops and ships and planes and missiles all round the globe to confront China and Russia and provoke them to react against the “global leader”?
The Washington establishment may have heard or read the latest pronouncement from the European Union concerning the wider effects of the Afghanistan debacle, but unfortunately it is unlikely it will prompt an objective analysis. On August 19 Josep Borrell, the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs, affirmed to the European Parliament and the world at large that “this is a catastrophe… Let me speak clearly and bluntly: This is a catastrophe for the Afghan people, for Western values and credibility, and for the developing of international relations.”
What the rest of the world is waiting for is an alternative use of the word “reset” by the Administration in Washington. Instead of conducting another “reset” aimed at military domination and increasing confrontation with China and Russia, President Biden should reset in the Marshall mode and concentrate on forging amity and cooperation while combating the real enemies of humanity as a whole. An Economist/YouGov poll in early 2021 indicated that “Most Americans think of China and Russia as our country’s greatest enemies. Of the two, China is the most frequently mentioned threat, followed closely by Russia”, and it is disconcerting that the U.S. President appears to be making no effort whatever to reduce international tensions.
President Biden should reflect on the civilised declaration by General George Marshall that “our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine but against hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos” and consider how much better a world he could help forge if he concentrated the mightiness of the United States against the challenges presented by so many desperate problems besetting the peoples of the world.
Imagine what a Marshall Plan could achieve today.
But it seems unlikely that the U.S. Administration will consider any such thing, and it is painfully evocative of the 1960s folk-song “Where have all the flowers gone” which contains the evocative phrase “When will they ever learn?” When, indeed?
Adopted and opened for joining on August 23, 2021, Kyiv, Ukraine
The Participants in the International Crimea Platform,
being guided by the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Paris Charter for a New Europe, as well as rules and principles of international law, including international human rights law and international humanitarian law, taking into consideration the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262 “Territorial Integrity of Ukraine” and subsequent resolutions on the human rights situation in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, Ukraine, and on the problem of the militarization of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, Ukraine, as well as parts of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov,
recalling that the United Nations General Assembly in its resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, entitled “Definition of aggression” states, inter alia, that no territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognized as lawful,
taking into account the provision of the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 75/192 which calls upon Member States to engage constructively in concerted efforts, including within international frameworks on Crimea,
emphasizing the universal and unified character of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and reaffirming that the Convention sets out the legal framework within which all activities in the oceans and seas must be carried out,
taking into consideration the order, delivered on 19 April 2017 by the International Court of Justice on the request submitted by Ukraine for the indication of provisional measures, while the case is pending, in the case concerning the Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), which imposes on the Russian Federation the obligation to refrain from maintaining or imposing limitations on the ability of the Crimean Tatar people to conserve their representative institutions, including the Mejlis, and to ensure the availability of education in the Ukrainian language,
taking into consideration the decision, given on 14 January 2021 by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) (application nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18), which concludes that Russia exercised effective control over Crimea as to the period from 27 February to 18 March 2014 and in respect of the period after 18 March 2014,
reaffirming commitment to the sovereignty, political independence, unity and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders, extending to its territorial waters,
reiterating that the Participants in the International Crimea Platform do not recognize and continue to condemn the temporary occupation and illegal annexation of Crimea, which constitutes a direct challenge to international security with grave implications for the international legal order that protects the territorial integrity, unity and sovereignty of all States,
The Participants in the International Crimea Platform condemn
the continued violations and abuses and systematic undue restrictions of human rights and fundamental freedoms that residents of Crimea face, such as the right to peaceful assembly, the rights to freedoms of expression and opinion, religion or belief, association, restrictions on the ability to seek, receive and impart information, as well as interference and intimidation that journalists, human rights defenders and defence lawyers face in their work,
the ongoing militarization of Crimea that undermines security and stability in the wider Black Sea region,
impediments to navigational rights and freedoms exercised in accordance with international law, including obstructing free passage of ships through the Kerch Strait to and from the Sea of Azov, and underlining that such impediments have negative economic consequences for Ukraine’s ports in the Sea of Azov and international trade flows,
the continued change of the demographic structure in the occupied peninsula by the resettlement of Russian citizens to Crimea,
The Participants in the International Crimea Platform decided
to establish the International Crimea Platform as a consultative and coordination format with the aim of peacefully ending the Russian Federation’s temporary occupation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol and to restore control of Ukraine over this territory in full accordance with international law,
to continue implementing the policy of non-recognition of the illegal annexation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol by the Russian Federation,
to consider further political, diplomatic and restrictive measures towards the Russian Federation, if provided for by the legal jurisdiction of each Participant and in line with respective procedures, when appropriate and should Russia’s actions so require,
to address emerging challenges and evolving hybrid threats resulting from the ongoing militarization of Crimea and to support joint efforts to strengthen resilience to those threats in the context of growing threats to security and stability in the Black Sea region,
to recommit to strongly opposing any unilateral attempts to challenge and change an international order based on the rule of law, and express determination to protect, maintain and strengthen the rules-based international order, including a legal order for seas and oceans, based on respect for the international law of the sea including as reflected in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,
to urge the Russian Federation to comply with its obligations as an occupying power under international humanitarian law and other applicable international law, to urge the Russian Federation to bring an immediate end to all violations and abuses of human rights of residents of Crimea and to provide full and unimpeded access to Crimea for established regional and international monitoring mechanisms, in particular the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine and the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine, as provided for in their existing mandates, which cover the entire territory of Ukraine, including Crimea, as well as for human rights non-governmental organizations,
to unite efforts aimed at protecting the rights and freedoms of the civilian population living in the occupied Crimea and achieving the immediate and unconditional release of Ukrainian citizens unlawfully detained or convicted for political reasons by Russia and its state agents, both in the territory of the occupied Crimea and in the territory of the Russian Federation,
to urge the Russian Federation to ensure that all persons belonging to ethnic and religious communities in the peninsula, including ethnic Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars, are fully able to enjoy their human rights and given the possibility to maintain and develop their culture, education, identity and cultural heritage traditions, which are currently severely threatened by the temporary occupation,
to use appropriate mechanisms of the UN, the Council of Europe, the OSCE, other international and regional organizations to address issues related to the temporary occupation, to consider implementation of other mechanisms, as appropriate, and to consult, exchange and coordinate their efforts within international organizations as appropriate, at international conferences, forums and other events where Crimea is discussed,
to consider supporting economic, infrastructure and environmental projects that would contribute to the further development of Ukraine’s regions adjacent to the temporarily occupied Crimean peninsula,
to establish a network of constant and rapid communication between the representatives of the Ministries of Foreign Affairs (to set up Crimea focal points),
to recognize the role of national parliaments in addressing the temporary occupation of Crimea and to encourage the coordination of activities on Crimea between national parliaments as well as within inter-parliamentary assemblies,
Participants finally
welcome necessary joint diplomatic efforts aimed at restoring Ukraine’s territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders,
underline that any alteration of the status of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol as an integral part of the sovereign territory of Ukraine is not and will not be recognized, and that Russia’s efforts to legitimize the temporary occupation and illegal seizure are unacceptable,
reiterate their commitment to maintaining pressure on Russia to end the temporary occupation by Russia of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol and to restore Ukraine’s control over the territory,
welcome the establishment by Ukraine of the national Office of the Crimea Platform,
welcome the establishment of the International Crimea Platform Expert Network with a view to supporting its activities, and invite international and national non-governmental organizations, think-tanks and the expert community to contribute to the network’s activities,
look forward to the eventual return of the temporarily occupied territories of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol to Ukraine and restoration of their autonomous status as stipulated in the Constitution of Ukraine, and pledge their support to the residents of this territory with regard to restoring their rights and freedoms, enshrined within the Constitution of Ukraine, and improving the socio-economic situation in the peninsula,
call on the Russian Federation to engage constructively in the activities of the International Crimea Platform aimed at ending the temporary occupation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol.
Ed: It is difficult to find a definitive list of participants by name and country. The following was reported: Forty-four foreign delegations will take part in the inaugural summit of the Crimea Platform.Fourteen foreign delegations will be led by heads of state and government.
“On August 23, 44 countries and international organizations, including 14 heads of state, government, and the European Union, will become the founders of the Crimea Platform,” Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Dmytro Kuleba said at an online briefing on Thursday, an Ukrinform correspondent reports.
In particular, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Moldova, Slovenia, and Finland will be represented at the level of presidents. The President of the European Council will also take part in the Crimea Platform.
Romania, Georgia, Croatia, and Sweden will be represented at the level of prime ministers.
Two countries – Switzerland and the Czech Republic – will be represented by the speakers of parliaments.
Fourteen countries will attend the summit at the level of foreign ministers: Turkey, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Austria, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Ireland, Denmark, Bulgaria, Montenegro, and North Macedonia.
Britain and Portugal will be represented by defense ministers, while the United States will be represented by the transportation secretary, a special envoy of President Joe Biden.
Norway will be represented by the Secretary of State to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The European Commission will be represented by Vice President Valdis Dombrovskis, NATO – the Deputy Secretary General, the Council of Europe and GUAM will be represented at the level of the Secretary General.
Seven countries – New Zealand, Malta, Japan, Australia, Cyprus, Canada, and Greece – will be represented by ambassadors.
“So, a total of 44 foreign delegations and 45 participants together with Ukraine. I want to emphasize that these countries become the founders of the Crimea Platform regardless of the level of representation,” the Ukrainian minister emphasized.
He also noted that the Crimea Platform had already surpassed all previous international events hosted by Ukraine in the number of high-level delegations represented at the summit.
“Ukraine has never hosted such an international event before,” Kuleba said.
The Crimea Platform is a new consultative and coordination format initiated by Ukraine to step up the efficiency of international response to the occupation of Crimea, respond to growing security challenges, increase international pressure on Russia, prevent further human rights violations, protect victims of the occupation regime, and achieve the main goal: to de-occupy Crimea and restore Ukraine’s sovereignty over the peninsula.
The Platform is to operate at several levels: heads of state and government, foreign ministers, inter-parliamentary cooperation, expert network.
The activity of the Crimea Platform will be officially launched at the inaugural summit in Kyiv on August 23, 2021.
Moscow views the so-called Crimea Platform summit that opened in Ukraine as an unfriendly act towards Russia, Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Monday.
“We regard this event as extremely unfriendly towards our country. We absolutely do not accept such assertions relative to the Russian region, to Crimea. In this regard, the attitude is absolutely clear: we view it as an anti-Russian event,” the Kremlin spokesman affirmed.
After the Western-backed state coup that occurred in Ukraine in February 2014, the authorities in Crimea and the city of Sevastopol held a referendum, in which 96.7% of Crimeans and 95.6% of Sevastopol voters chose to secede from Ukraine and reunite with Russia.
On March 18, 2014, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed the treaty on the reunification of the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol with Russia, which was ratified by Russia’s Federal Assembly (parliament). Despite the convincing results of the referendum, Kiev refused to recognize Crimea as part of Russia.
Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky who spoke at the UN General Assembly in September 2020 revealed his plan to establish this so-called Crimea Platform. According to Kiev’s intent, the forum must become a platform “for coordinating international efforts aimed at returning Crimea to Ukraine.” As its organizers announced, delegates from about 40 countries and international organizations had agreed to come to the forum.
Commenting on the gathering initiated by Ukraine, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov lambasted it as “a coven where the West will continue to groom neo-Nazi and racist attitudes of the current Ukrainian authorities.”
Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova stated on August 21 that Russia will “take note” of the position of the countries that would take part in the forum and “will make corresponding conclusions.”.
Missile finds patrons
-
“Iran War: Axios Reports US, Iran Agree to Ceasefire Within Ceasefire, Doha
Meeting on Strait of Hormuz as Iran Stands Up US on Technical Talks; Ship
Trans...
Hell Is Heaven For Jews
-
Hell Is Heaven For Jews June 23 2026 ___________________________________
More Vids! +BN Vids Archive! HERE! ___________________________________
Support The...
Is Rolex Quietly Retiring the GMT-Master II Pepsi?
-
Few Rolex rumors spread faster than whispers about the GMT-Master II
“Pepsi.” It happens almost every year. Someone claims production is ending,
Reddit lig...
Report on Beth Israel vigil 02-21-26
-
*Vigils continue, non-stop*
Just because we don’t get Vigil Reports out at the same rate as years'
past, we remind readers that we show up every Saturday ...
-
Hello all,
It is with great sadness that I share with you the passing of our beloved
sister, Mother, and Grandmother, the individual that you all knew ...
Best Horror Podcast
-
Best Horror Podcast Introduction: Horror podcasts […]
The post Best Horror Podcast appeared first on Copper Shock Horror Podcast.
Ikhras Endorses Muntadhar Al-Zaidi
-
“Oh parties of banditry and sectarianism and corruption, we have come and
our goal is to destroy you.” Ikhras formally endorses Muntadhar al-Zaidi,
Iraqi j...
Prince Charles: Foreign Jews behind bloodshed in ME
-
In May, 2017, British Crown Prince Charles declined an invitation from
Zionist entity’s president Reuven Rivlin‘s to attend the 100th anniversary
of the no...
Palestinian Women – One for All, All for One
-
Honouring All Palestinian Women by Honouring Three: Hanin Zoabi, Ahed
Tamimi, Samah Sabawi Vacy Vlazna “Palestinian women have always stood side
by side ...
US’s Saudi Oil Deal from Win-Win to Mega-Lose
-
By F. William Engdahl Who would’ve thought it would come to this? Certainly
not the Obama Administration, and their brilliant geo-political think-tank
neo-...
-
*Mordechai Vanunu wins human rights prize of Brazilian Press Association *
* http://www.alternativenews.org/english/index.php/features/updates/7038-mordechai...
Abdul Aziz Rantissi:
"My ultimate wish, my God, is to attain martyrdom,"...God granted him his wish on April 17, 2004, at the hands of Israeli assassins.
