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.
BEIRUT, LEBANON (5:30 A.M.) – With Saad Hariri and his Future Movement accepting General Michel ‘Aoun for the Lebanese Presidency, the need for political rapprochement with the leader of the Lebanese Forces, Samir Geagea, was a top priority for the former Prime Minister.
On Friday evening, Samir Geagea met with Saad Hariri at Beit Al-Wassat in Beirut to mend relations between their respective political parties.
During the meeting, Geagea told Hariri he was pleased with his recent acceptance of General Michel Aoun as Lebanese President, despite his long-standing feud with the latter’s Free Patriotic Movement.
“I had hoped an agreement would be reached over MP Michel Aoun before October 31; otherwise, everybody must remember that these are polls and this how we must handle the presidency,” Geagea stated after his meeting.
Geagea also confirmed that ties with Future Movement had returned to their former terms.
“Everything we have done is continue the project of Wissam Hasssan and March 14. Do not be deceived by appearances, because all what matters to us is the March 14th project.”
Samir Geagea also pledged his support for Saad Hariri as Lebanon’s next Prime Minister.
The meeting was attended by former lawmaker Ghattas Khoury, and Head of LF Media and Communication Department Melhem Riachi.
In a hacked email released by WikiLeaks on Wednesday, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, answered an innocent question from his daughter with a revealing answer about what motivates two of Clinton’s biggest supporters to stand by her candidacy: Israel.
On May 12, 2015, Podesta’s daughter, Megan Rouse, wrote:
I’ve heard a concern from some folks who care deeply about Israel that Hillary will be the president “most unfriendly to Israel in our history, worse than Obama.” Thoughts on how I might respond in conversation?
Thanks
Opponents of Hillary Clinton and groups supported by Republican megadonor and Trump supporter Sheldon Adelson have consistently attempted to paint Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as unfriendly to Israel due to their opposition to settlement expansion in the West Bank and their support of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a 2015 diplomatic agreement which constrains Iran’s nuclear program.
Podesta wrote back:
That’s a bit crazy. Obama developed a real feud with Bibi, but she has been a staunch defender of Israel since her Senate days. Probably her very best supporters are Haim Saban, and Danny Abraham who would not be with her if she wasn’t totally committed to Israeli security.
Podesta’s acknowledgement that two of Hillary Clinton’s key donors condition their support on her support of Israel’s security is a striking moment of candor from Podesta, but a statement which is consistent with her previous actions to placate the concerns of her biggest financial backers.
Previously leaked emails showed Clinton’s team coordinating with Saban, Clinton’s top donor, to leak a letter expressing her opposition to Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS), a campaign to apply economic and political pressure on Israel to end the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories.
I see zero downside to a story. Then we can circulate around right away (hopefully) in advance of Iran.
(Presumably, Mook’s reference to “in advance of Iran” regarded the upcoming finalization of the JCPOA on July 14, 2015, and/or Clinton’s support of the agreement.)
Christina Reynolds, another Clinton staffer, wrote back:
If Haim’s going to give it to the Jewish media, I think that solves our problem. Once they write, we can make sure it gets picked up by some of our beat guys.
Clinton and Saban haven’t always seen eye-to-eye. Last December, Clinton defended the Iran nuclear deal at an event moderated by the billionaire at a Saban Forum event at Brookings.
Saban initially opposed the agreement but later shifted his position, accepting the JCPOA as a “fait accompli” and “a done deal” in an August, 2015 email to The New York Times’ Julie Hirschfield Davis.
But the close coordination with Saban on matters related to Israel, his key concern according to Podesta, appears to have paid off handily for the Clinton campaign.
In August, Saban hosted a $5 million fundraiser for Clinton, one of the biggest fundraising hauls of her campaign. And Saban, alongside his wife, are the biggest donors to the pro-Clinton Priorities USA super-PAC, having contributed at least $10 million to date.
So you think Donald Trump is the biggest threat to world peace? And Barack Obama engineered America’s “pivot to Asia”?
It was actually Hillary Clinton, emphasising the necessity of a “strategic turn” for the United States, who launched the pivot to Asia in an October 2011 article titled “America’s Pacific Century”. The tone was martial: “Our military is by far the strongest and our economy is by far the largest.” The South China Sea duly featured: “Half the world’s merchant tonnage flows through this water”. Informed observers didn’t need a manual to spot Clinton’s subtle cue alerting them to the danger of China’s “nine-dashed line”.
Clinton’s essay preceded Obama’s November 2011 speech to the Australian Parliament in which he officially announced the pivot. The key theme was the US as a “Pacific nation”. The tone was mostly combative. Only after 10 long confrontational paragraphs did a meek “effort to build a cooperative relationship with China” appear.
As a presidential candidate in 2008, Clinton’s tone was way more composed. She admitted that the US budget deficit was largely funded by Chinese purchases of US Treasury bills. She then seemed to be subscribing to the widely held notion in the Beltway that the root of US global hegemony is economic.
Five years later, Clinton had substantially changed her mind to write her pivot essay. The source was none other than the intellectual/conceptual author of the pivot: Kurt Campbell, then US assistant secretary of state for Asia.
Campbell is classic revolving door material – Marshall scholar at Oxford, active duty in the navy, a job at the Pentagon under Bill Clinton, and at the State Department in the first Obama term under Hillary. It took him a full two years to “win” the bureaucracy/intellectual battle inside Foggy Bottom that resulted in Hillary Clinton’s essay and Obama’s speech.
From the beginning, the pivot’s focus was of course China – an attempt to reach a delicate balance between economic partners/strategic rivals. Obama may have been progressively swinging towards “rival”. But, already in mid-2010, the decision had actually been Clinton’s. In a conference in Hanoi, she announced that the US had a “national interest” in “respect for international law in the South China Sea”.
That was the crucial moment when the evolving US-China showdown in the South China Sea actually began – framing the whole subsequent pivot as a provocative, over-militarised gambit liable to spin out of control.
Kurt Campbell is now the CEO of an Asia-centred advisory group. He’s also associated with the Washington think tank Centre for a New American Security (CNAS), a neocon-neoliberalcon mix. It’s CNAS that came up with the geopolitical road map to be adopted by a future President Clinton. Key signatories include Campbell, the godfather of the neocons Robert Kagan, and Michele Flournoy, formerly with the Pentagon and a co-founder of CNAS.
“Extending American Power: Strategies to Expand US Engagement in a Competitive World Order”, as the report is titled, predictably peddles Exceptionalism. It extols “freedom of navigation” in the South China Sea – which is code for the US navy forever controlling the sea lanes straddling China’s supply chain. It calls for a no-fly zone in Syria – which would pit the US air force against the Russian air force. And it’s a sucker for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – the China-excluding, Nato-on-trade-style arm of the pivot.
Clinton, the real pivot champion, was of course a huge supporter of the TPP from the start. But during the presidential campaign, she flip-flopped. If elected, there’s no question the TPP will be promoted no holds barred.
Clinton’s CNAS road map made a surreptitious appearance during the first, contentious presidential debate, when she aligned no less than three of the Pentagon/US Strategic Command’s five existential “threats” to the US in the same breath.
While discussing cyberattacks on the US, Clinton managed to expand in one sweep from cyberspace to Full Spectrum Dominance – the official Pentagon doctrine since 2002.
“Whether it’s Russia, China, Iran, or anybody else, the United States has much greater capacity. And we are not going to sit idly by and permit state actors to go after our information, our private sector information or our public sector information,” she said.
The message was clear; the Pentagon is closely watching – in every domain – these three “existential threats” who happen to be the key powers closely involved in Eurasian integration: Russia, China and Iran.
The “Full Spectrum Dominance” doctrine also implies nuclear pre-eminence. The guarantee of a US first nuclear strike – arguably against one of those top Pentagon existential “threats” – is a crucial vector of this doctrine, to which the pivot to Asia is subordinated. No wonder pivot champion Clinton, during the first debate, could not reject the doctrine.
And yet Trump, in one short sentence, actually may have ruled out World War III if he becomes president. He said: “I would certainly not do first-strike”.
The CNAS report is essentially a diluted version of the Pentagon’s Full Spectrum Dominance. China, as well as Russia and Iran, are essentially seen as hostile powers bent on Eurasian integration – standing between America’s “Pacific Century” and an irreversible, tumultuous decline. This is a bipartisan, neocon/neoliberalcon feeling in Washington. And pivoting, nuclear first-strike Clinton is their Great White Hope.
The U.S. Democratic Party showed its true colors in a new ad that the Venezuelan government blasted as “racist arrogance” that puts the late Hugo Chavez in the same category as fascist dictators Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler in an effort to cast Republican presidential rival Donald Trump as a dictator-in-waiting.
The Spanish-language ad, aimed at U.S. Latino voters ahead of the Nov. 8 election, features comments by Trump that Clinton should be jailed and his vow to sue media that spread “purposely negative, horrible and false” articles.
“Remind you of anyone?” the video asks before flashing images of the popular socialist Venezuelan leader Chavez.
The clips are selectively edited to portray Chavez as authoritarian but deliberately fail to mention that Chavez and his Bolivarian Revolution won support at the ballot box in over a dozen elections which former Democratic President Jimmy Carter called “the best in the world.”
“It is an expression of racist arrogance and irrationality from a party that does not serve its constituents,” Venezuela’s Foreign Minister Delcy Rodriguez said in a statement late Wednesday.
“Chavez is a leader who transcended our time for his democratic nature, his fight for the poor and universal feeling for humanity,” she added.
The video also compares Trump and Chavez, who died in 2013, with European dictators Mussolini and Hitler, and concludes by urging voters to “protect” U.S. democracy. The ad was paid for by the Democratic National Committee in support of Clinton, and was not made by her campaign.
The clip nonetheless serves to show that the U.S. Democratic Party, despite efforts to portray their party as more reasonable than their Republican counterparts, are not beneath manipulation to help their candidate get elected.
The U.S. Department of State, under the leadership of then-Secretary of State Clinton, publicly praised the results of the 2012 Venezuelan presidential elections that saw Hugo Chavez re-elected to a third term.
In statements to the press, then-State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland said they “congratulated the Venezuelan people for the high turnout and for the generally peaceful manner in which the election was carried out.”
But while Clinton publicly welcomed improved relations with Venezuela as secretary of state, she privately ridiculed the country and continued to support destabilization efforts.
Venezuela, whose economy is heavily dependent on oil exports and has suffered due to the dramatic drop in the price of oil, has been the subject a vicious media campaign which has portrayed the country as being on the brink of collapse. The ad is an effort to piggyback off that negative press to win support from the Latino community.
However, the effort may backfire as Venezuela’s socialist government enjoys support throughout Latino communities in the United States and even reached out directly to low-income people in the United States through discounted home heating oil.
In the Democratic Party primary race, both Clinton and her opponent Bernie Sanders also tried to tie Chavez into the race, with the latter calling the Venezuelan leader a “dead communist dictator.”
The question regarding the meaning of Trump is unlike questions concerning the person of Trump or what the Republican candidates stands for.
The meaning of Trump is that, pretty much, half of the American people say enough is enough. Half of the American people are expressing a total fatigue of the system and their ruling elite.
In the last few weeks we learned that Trump left behind a score of offended women. He was disrespectful and grossly misbehaved, allegedly. This may tell us something about who Trump is; yet the fact that all those embarrassing revelations had zero impact on Trump’s popularity suggests that we are dealing with a force of nature. No one else in modern politics would have survived a fraction of such bad publicity. Trump may be a horrid and disrespectful human being, and yet, he appears to be invincible.
Trump is not as eloquent or as lucid as Hillary Clinton or President Obama but he manages to express in a just a few words the deepest and most profound philosophical ideas and criticisms of Western life. It was Trump who reminded us, once again, that true utopia is in fact nostalgia. Trump’s campaign slogan ‘Make America Great Again’ is probably the most profound existential rejection of the progressive delusional mantra. It is an essentialist admission that the prospect of a better future is actually rooted in the past, in the soil, in manufacturing and agriculture — pretty much the few things from which Wall Street’s mammonites were happy to divest.
Trump hinted in the last debate that he may challenge the result of the US presidential election if he loses. “I’ll keep you in suspense,” is how he phrased it. Once again, Trump is not a philosophy graduate, yet, he manages to unleash an existential viper into the room.
Secretary Clinton and President Obama were appalled by the man who doesn’t adhere to the great American democratic tradition. They were probably correct. Trump, puts into question the entire American or, more accurately, Western paradigm.Democracy is not sacred to him – it is a means rather than the end.
Like the vast number of his followers, Trump believes that America and its democracy are currently rotten. American democracy is set up to serve its own oligarchy. It conveys the image that the dystopia in which we live is a product of our ‘free (democratic) choice’.
While Clinton and Obama communicate persuasively within the symbolic order, Trump manages to revolutionize the discourse constantly. This is a quality that is usually associated with the artist and the Athenian spirit not with real estate moguls.
But does Trump really mean what he says? Is he genuine or is he playing a game. No one knows. But far more interesting, no one really cares and it doesn’t really matter. And this is probably the real meaning of Trump.
Donald Trump is merely a vehicle. It doesn’t really matter whether Trump will be the next president or not. The call for a radical social change has been established. It is now becoming aware of itself.
Canada’s Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, recently stated at the UN General Assembly plenary meeting on Syria that
“Canada is taking a stand at the United Nations General Assembly today to protect vulnerable Syrians and help find a solution to the conflict engulfing that country.
With the support of 70 other UN countries, Canada is applying as much diplomatic pressure as possible on the UN Security Council to break their impasse on Syria.
On behalf of the government, Minister Dion called today for an immediate cessation of hostilities, the provision of unhindered humanitarian access to the victims of the conflict – including children and women – and the resumption of political talks.
I am very proud that our mission at the United Nations, spearheaded by Ambassador Marc-André Blanchard, is leading the charge to protect the many victims of this tragic conflict.
I encourage other countries to help generate forward momentum on Syria, given UN members have a collective responsibility to protect the world’s vulnerable and weak when others cannot or will not.”
What Trudeau did not say is more important.
He did not say that the illegal regime change operation, sold under the guise of the “Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P) doctrine, completely destroyed Libya and made it into a hotbed for terrorists, including ISIS.
He did not say that Canada necessarily advances the reach and scope of terrorism by publicly supportingillegal regime change, by implementing illegal sanctions, by bombing and/or supporting bombing missions in Syria; by supporting all of theterrorists in Syria; by supporting the Wahhabi ideology and terror financiers, and by supporting all other countries, including NATO, that are trying to destroy Syria.
The list of omissions demonstrates the lie of Trudeau’s statement.
Trudeau ignored the reality that “cessations of hostilities” provide the terrorists with opportunities to regroup and rearm, and he ignored the fact that his words offer support to Canada’s terrorist proxies, and that they strengthen the West’s propaganda apparatus which presents the terrorists as the “good guys”, as amply documented by the West’s support and adoration of the terrorist-embedded White Helmets.
His words also ignore the fact that the terrorists use captive citizens as human shields. Syrian Lilly Martin Sahounie reports the following, from Syria:
“Breaking news from East Aleppo: Oct 21, 2016: a family were able to get out to safety! Yes, I watched the interview with them on local TV. The wife said they got tired of waiting so many days to evacuate to safety. They knew that snipers were shooting at people trying to leave, but decided they would take their chances, because he husband was ill and needed medicine and food. They noticed a group of likewise civilians waiting to make a dash for it. They all started running. During their sprint out, 10 civilians with her were shot dead, including a pregnant woman! Her husband said he had been 85 kilos weight, but was now 65 kilos. He was haggard and ill looking, and using one walking cane. The children also stated that they lived in fear of the terrorists. They would not allow children to attend school, they would shoot kids if they stood in the streets and stared at them. Bread had been 25 lira a packet, and was now 1,000 lira. Unbelievable hardships and suffering. I believe these stories because they were coming right out of the mouths of the people, just minutes after running to safety. If it was a reporter recounting stories, I could doubt it, but you can’t doubt their stories. I always said to myself, that once the people get out of East Aleppo, you will hear horror stories, and these stories will directly reflect on these American backed and supported terrorists. You will also hear the TRUE story later of the White Helmets, it will all be revealed.”
To be blunt, the script that the Prime Minister read advances the cancer of terrorism in the Middle East, and sets the stage for more war crimes, beneath the lie of “collective responsibility”.
Canadian citizens have the “collective responsibility” to learn the truth, and to hold our apparently propagandized politicians to account.
Canada should send a non-partisan fact-finding delegation to Syria; we should make amends for our government’s criminality; we should cease our alliance, and arms trade, with Wahhabi Saudi Arabia; we should end our illegal sanctions against Syria; we should leave NATO; and we should denounce all countries that willfully support terrorism.
Syrians have suffered enough.
The original source of this article is Global Research
Russia said Friday it was concerned over the refusal of terrorists from a former Al-Qaeda affiliate, the Fateh al-Sham Front, to leave Aleppo as Russian and Syrian forces have halted fighting.
The combatants, formerly known as Al-Nusra, and the some 250,000 civilians in terrorist-held areas, have largely avoided the eight escape corridors announced this week by Russia and Syria’s government.
“We are highly concerned at the fact that, despite the goodwill gestures of Moscow and Damascus with the aim of normalizing the situation in Aleppo, we see that Al-Nusra fighters are refusing to leave the city,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told journalists Friday that whether Russia extends the pause in fighting further “depends on how the process of fighters leaving the city — which so far is sluggish, unfortunately.”
Asked whether the decision on extending the pause would be taken daily, he said it would be made on the basis of the current situation, since “the situation is changing quite quickly, it could change for the worse.”
At a briefing in Moscow, Lavrov accused fighters from the Fateh al-Sham Front and influential extremist Ahrar al-Sham group of “sabotaging the efforts of the United Nations — with our support, with support of the Syrian government — to get humanitarian aid supplies into east Aleppo.”
He said the fighters “with threats, blackmail and brute force, are obstructing the departure of peaceful civilians from east Aleppo”, as well as that of combatants who are prepared to leave.
Russia is “ready to extend this humanitarian pause” as long as there are not “provocations” by Al-Nusra and allied groups, Lavrov said, adding that “this position was confirmed in our contacts with the United States.”
Lavrov also said Russia is “very concerned” at Turkish strikes on US-backed militias in northern Syria, including Syrian Kurdish fighters.
He said Russia expected the United States, leading a coalition that includes Turkey, to “stay within the framework of the declared aim” of fighting ISIL ‘jihadists’ and the Fateh al-Sham Front.
من ينظر الى تصريحات مسؤولي المملكة الوهابية السعودية عن الخوف على الشعب العربي من التوغل المجوسي الصفوي والموجة الفارسية والخشية على أهل السنة في سورية والعراق ولبنان واليمن من تسونامي التشيع لايقدر على تميييز الحقيقة التي تبدو مثل لعبة الكلمة الضائعة ..
فعليك أن تنقب بين مئات كلمات متداخلة بلا حدود لتعزل كلمة السر الضائعة .. وينهمك الاعلام الخليجي والسعودي والغربي في تقديم الشروح للمواطن العربي ويبذل جهدا خرافيا في محاولة ازالة الغبار والضباب عن عيون هذا المسكين الذي يشاهد العربية والجزيرة اللتين تنظفان له عقله من دخان المعارك التي شوشت عليه رادارات فطرته وتكفلت العربية والجزيرة وفضائيات الايمان والاسلام بمساعدته لوجه الله ..
لكن سنقدم اليوم للمواطن العربي البسيط الكلمة الضائعة السعودية في لعبة الكلمات المتقاطعة التي تفسر حركة المملكة السياسية وكلمة السرخلف حماية أهل السنة والغيرة عليهم .. ونقوم بالنظر الى الأجوبة أفقيا وعموديا .. هذه المساحة من الكلمات المتقاطعة يجب أن تمتد على مدى عقود .. وبتقاطع الكلمات في الأجوبة التي نجدها من وثائق التاريخ القريب والبعيد نعرف ان كانت السعودية قلقة على العروبة وعلى أهل السنة في كل هذه الدول وان كانت وضعت عباءتها السوداء النفطية من اجل أن تصنع منها مظلة كبيرة يتظلل بها أهل السنة ضحايا المؤامرة الصفوية والهلال الشيعي .. حيث لاظل الا ظل السعودية لحماية أهل السنة ..
هذه عينة من صور وعناوين لصحف المملكة في فترات الصراعات الكبرى والتفجرات التي هزت المنطقة وشكلت وعيها وروحها .. وعناوين الصحف الرسمية تعكس سياسة الدول وقناعاتها وسياساتها وهي تأريخ لمرحلة وتحدثنا كما كتب التاريخ عن أحوال منطقة وأهلها ورجالها وملوكها ..
في هذه الصور المتفرقة لصحف سعودية لايمكن الا أن نلعب لعبة الكلمات التاريخية المتقاطعة التي تتقاطع فيها الأجوبة بالدليل القاطع والبرهان الذي لايردّ ..
أحد العناوين يقوم بتكفير الرئيس المصري الراحل جمال عبد الناصر .. ويومها لم يكن جمال عبد الناصر يهدد أهل السنة ولم بكن يتهم بالسماحللمشروع الشيعي بالتغلغل في مصر .. لكنه كان كافرا كما يظهر في توجيه الصحيفة السعودية ..
ثم بعد نهاية مرحلة الزعيم عبد الناصر .. يظهر عنوان في صحيفة سعودية يعلن وقوفه الى جانب شاه ايران العدو التاريخي للعرب والرجل الذي كان يحتقر العرب .. ويحتقر العروبة .. بشقيها السني والشيعي .. بنفس الدرجة والسوية ..
وفي مرحلة لاحقة كان عنوان الصحف السعودية عن صدام حسين الكافر .. وصدام حسين لم يكن بالطبع يدفع بالمشروع الشيعي بل كان يقدم دوما على أنه بطل القادسية ومن يحرس البوابة الشرقية للعرب من الطوفان الفارسي الشيعي .. ولكنه أيضا انتهى كافرا بنظر السعودية التي تدافع عن المؤمنين وأهل السنة وشنت أربعة حروب .. دفعة واحدة من أجلهم في سورية والعراق واليمن وسابقا وحاليا مقاومة لبنان ..
أين يتقاطع هؤلاء جميعا في لعبة الكلمات المتقاطعة في السياسة السعودية .. العداء لعبد الناصر .. والعداء لصدام حسين .. والتأييد لشاه ايران .. ؟؟ وكيف صار همّ المملكة اليوم هو انقاذ أهل السنة في أربع دول .. ثم كيف يتقاطع كل هذا مع العداء للرئيس بشار الأسد والتهديد باسقاطه سياسيا او عسكريا .. والتحريض على السيد حسن نصر الله بحجة أنه رأس الحرب الشيعية ؟؟..
في لعبة الكلمات المتقاطعة .. كل الكلمات السعودية تتقاطع حول كلمة واحدة هي: اسرائيل ..
الشاه صديق اسرائيل ولذا هو حاكم شرعي وصديق ..
وجمال عبد الناصر عدو اسرائيل ولذلك هو كافر وعدو ..
وكذلك صدام حسين الذي كان صديق صديق اسرائيل (أي الشاه) ووقع معه اتفاقية شط العرب وكان رئيسا مؤمنا .. تحول الى رئيس كافرعندما التفت الى اسرائيل وضربها بالصواريخ وحضّر لها المدفع العملاق والمشروع الذري العراقي ..
ثم صارالرئيس بشار الأسد والسيد حسن نصرالله كافرين ويجباسقاطهما من أجل حماية أهل السنة .. ولكن الكلمات المتقاطعة تتقاطع عند اسرائيل أيضالأنهما عدوان لدودان لاسرائيل ..
عند تحليل التاريخ السياسي لدولة لايجب اقتطاع سنة أو سنتين من عمر أي عهد أو زمن لتلك الدولة ولا تصريحات وزير خارجية ضئيل كالقط الصغير المتشرد الذي يستأسد ويستنمر ويستذئب ويستذئب ويستدبب ويستنسر .. من أجل أهل السنة .. بل يحب اجراء مقطع عمودي وأفقي لتاريخها الطويل لمعرفة جوهرها السياسي .. والا لصدقنا أن السعودية تحارب اليوم فقط من اجل أهل السنة .. الذين من أجلهم كما تدعي فانها دمرت المجتمعات السنية في أربع دول عربية وجرتها الى الحروب الطاحنة .. ولو أنها كانت تريد محاربة ايران للدفاع عن أهل السنة لكان الأولى بالشقيقة الكبرى أن توفر على أشقائها من أهل السنة في هذه الدول هذا الخراب بحجة قطع اذرع ايران .. وكان عليها أن تتبرع باعلان الحرب مباشرة على ايران رأس الشر كما تقول لتوفر على أهل السنة في الأطراف كل هذه الحروب بدل ان تطلب منهم أن يحاربوا ايران نيابة عنها ..
ولكن كل هذه الحروب ليست من أجل سني واحد بل من أجل الكلمة الضائعة في السياسة السعودية التي وجدناها أخيرا في غبار الربيع العربي ..
هل عرفتم الكلمة الضائعة في لعبة الكلمات المتقاطعة للسياسة السعودية منذ عقود؟؟
“If you quit, I quit”, an equation used by Saudis to summarize their war on neighboring Yemen, putting aside all the slogans of determination and firmness that were enameling the Kingdom’s newspapers for over 18 months. Saudis have raised the white flag, and he who declared the war on Yemen has gotten out of his box to spoke the kingdom’s desire to stop it after not only the failure to achieve its goals, but also having retroactive results.
Finally, Adel al-Jubeir uttered: “We want to stop the war,” Saudis tweeted after that: “We have lost.”
Two days ago, Saudi foreign minister Adel al-Jubeir expressed his country’s desire for a cease-fire in Yemen and knocked the ball in the court of Yemenis. Jubeir questioned the possibility of Yemeni commitment to the ceasefire in Yemen! Careful to abide by the cease-fire was nothing more than to ease the effect of the declaration of failure.
Since the beginning of the aggression on Yemen, Saudi ignored all the voices that came out to condemn the war and called for its cessation. The fall of more than 10 thousand people dead since the beginning of the aggression – according to United Nations estimates in late August didn’t embarrass the kingdom for more than 18-month period. Finding an honorable exit was the only concern for the Saudi administration, the exit that comes at the expense of the Yemenis and their blood, which saves the face of deputy crown prince in the frantic struggle to inherit the throne of his father.
Recently, New York Times published a report about Minister Mohamad bin Salman, citing information from Saudi diplomats and princes of the royal family, in which it revealed that bin Salman’s decision to go for a war on Yemen without coordinating with any of the Saudi officials, although there was a debate among them about taking an action against Yemen.
The three major security positions in the Kingdom are occupied by Defense Minister Mohamad bin Salman, Interior Minister Mohamad bin Nayef, and Minister of National Guard Mete’b bin Abdullah. Bin Salman bypassed the security positions to unilaterally take the decision of war, believing that the success of this war would secure him to inherit the throne smoothly, and would lead him to “the global stage” at an early age, according to the British daily Financial Times.
It became clear that bin Salman claimed the aggression on Yemen from the first few hours. Upon the war started, Saudi media was mentioning bin Salman’s name as a “commander of Decisive Storm as he was taking photos with Saudi fighting forces here and there. Al-Arabiya TV Channel reported that the first strikes on Yemen led by Mohamad bin Salman, but without mentioning that the Minister of National Guard Mete’b bin Abdullah was not aware of them!
Decisively, Saudi Arabia identified goals behind the war as follows:
– To restore “legitimacy” that Saudi Arabia exclusively granted to a resigned president who does not represent the people in Yemen as far as he represents the image of Saudi influence in the country.
– To withdraw Ansarullah group from the capital Sanaa and back to Saada.
– To disarm Ansarullah.
– Not to allow any role for former President Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen’s future.
In March 26 2015, war on Yemen was declared and strikes began on Yemeni army positions. Raids of the absurd Saudi war reached popular markets and religious and touristic places. After less than a month of the aggression, Saudi Arabia declared another campaign budding it “Restoring Hope” in order to “resume the political process” to complete the “Decisive Storm” which ended after achieving its objectives,” without defining the goals that have been achieved.
What has already been achieved?
Restoring Legitimacy
After a month of the aggression on Yemen and to this day, Saudi Arabia couldn’t manage to restore Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi to Sanaa or surrounding provinces. The utmost achievement in this regard was reaching Eden province, the place from where he had fled before the offensive.
Moreover, Yemenis succeeded in lining up the Higher Political Council, which gained legitimacy to lead Yemen, presided by Saleh Al Sammad, one of the most prominent Ansarullah leaders, with his deputy Qassem Mohamad Labuza, a prominent politician in the People’s Congress party, which Saudi Arabia has pledged not to allow it to play any role in the future of Yemen.
Ansarullah: from Sanaa streets to the Saudi depth
Members of Ansarullah remained in Sanaa, and Saudi forces and its allies didn’t succeed even in confining them within the capital. Yemeni fighters who belong to the Ansarullah, the People’s Congress and other clans are still present today in Bayda’ and Lahej adjacent to Eden.
Expansion of Yemeni forces was not limited to the provinces only, but had reached the Saudi depth as Yemeni fighters managed to take control over the Saudi Al Khubah military position in Jizan. Yemeni troops stormed the Rabuah city in Assir, south of the kingdom. In late August, Popular Committees reached the outskirts of Najran province inside Saudi Arabia.
Ansarullah weapons: from Toshka to Borkan-1
What about the goal “to disarm Ansarullah”? … the answer is supported by the Saudi military assembly points and positions that are pounded daily by Yemeni Toshka and Borkan-1 rockets. In last July, Yemenis revealed a home-made Zelzal 3-type ballistic missile system, with a range up to 65 km. At the beginning of September, they announced the development of Borkan-1 missile system of a range up to 800 km, which was used in bombing Saudi Fahd Air Base in Taif.
Thus, if the Saudi kingdom did not succeed in achieving any of its objectives in aggression against Yemen, why did it launch “Restoring Hope” campaign? The announced goal of “resuming the political process” confirms that the second campaign that was announced 18 months ago, came to pave the way to stop the war in a way that saves an exit for Saudi Arabia out to be portrayed as a victory for bin Salman in his battle for the throne of his father … however, the exit didn’t appear. Saudi long war of attrition Alastzaf blow dumped the whole kingdom into the Yemeni quagmire.
What has the kingdom achieved from the war on Yemen?
After 18 months of aggression on Yemen, Saudi media reticent to mention the achievements of the Kingdom in the war. Muted Saudi media has been compensated by Saudi tweeters who commented on the recent Jubeir’s declaration in which he recalled the achievements of the Kingdom in Yemen.
Mojtahed, a Saudi activist on Twitter said: “The objectives of Decisive Storm was to take Houthis out to Saada and to hand their weapons over to the legitimate power which must return back to Sanaa, but it ended up as “if you quit, I quit.”
What Decisive Storm achieved?
– Destroying Yemen’s infrastructure.
– Killing thousands of innocent civilians.
– Draining billions of national treasury.
– Reducing salaries and stopping of bounces,” another tweet by Mojtahed read.
One of the goals made by Decisive Storm was a child dying of hunger in Yemen,” another Saudi activist tweeted.
At the beginning of Decisive Storm, Jubeir was speaking like [Georges W.] Bush when he launched Operation Desert Storm. but today, he is speaking like Mahmoud Abbas in a tone of humiliation and degradation,” Turki bin Mohamad, third Saudi activist tweeted, commenting on Jubeir’s statements.
Even today, there is no clear official figures on the number of Saudis killed by the imposed war on Yemen, but there are figures published from time to time. Four months after the start of the aggression, confidential Saudi sources revealed that the Saudi death toll reached 122 killed and about a thousand others wounded.
A New York Times report said that the Saudi toll of casualties from its war on Yemen is much more than what is declared. In late March, Mojtahed revealed that Saudi casualties from war on Yemen reached 3500 killed soldiers and 6500 wounded, in addition to 430 officers and soldiers missing.
What about the financial cost which affects heavily the economic deficit of the Kingdom. Six months after the aggression, the American “Foreign Policy” Journal revealed that Mohamad bin Salman’s war cost the Saudi treasury $ 725 billion.
On the seventh of August, the US researcher Bruce Riedel wroted an article published by The Monitor, stating that the war on Yemen will cost Saudi Arabia too much, revealing that the kingdom was ranked third in the world last year in terms of the military budget, after the United States and China. Riedel warned that a country with a population of 20 million people cannot continue endlessly with this huge military budget, especially amid falling of oil prices again.
Months of declaring war on Yemen, the Saudis was surprised by the deficit record of their budget ($ 98 million). This took the kingdom to a new era of “austerity” and affected the services provided to citizens, salaries and bonuses.
Along with strikes received by Saudi administration day after another, its tone toward Yemen was gradually retreating. One year after the start of the aggression, Saudi Defense Minister Ahmed Assiri declared that “Arab coalition leadership became convinced that the solution in Yemen would be political, through a pure national agreement between the legitimate authorities and the components of the political community, including the Houthis [Ansarullah].” This was the first Saudi statement of a kind.
The clearest expression of Saudi Arabia’s decline came by Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir, who said in a tweet published in last May: “Whether we agree or disagree with the Houthis, they remain part of the social fabric of Yemen.”
Thus, the tone toward Ansarullah was turned from “rebels” and “enemies threatening the security of the kingdom” to “part of the social fabric of Yemen.” Jubeir’s statement obviously expressed his country’s desire for a ceasefire in Yemen.
Saudi Arabia has lost its war on Yemen. More precisely, Mohammed bin Salman has failed in the war on Yemen, which he employed in his battle for the throne. For the sake of the throne war between the al-Saud princes, tens of thousands of victims lost their lives, and Yemen has been destroyed with a lot of its cultural landmarks. Bin Salman recruited Saudi and Arab media to incite against Yemenis, and managed to kill the conscience of millions of people who did not turn a hair before the scenes of massacres and horrible killings.
However, he did not succeed in the most important battle: the battle to bring the Yemeni bowing to take bin Salamn to power over their dead bodies.
Voltaire, actualité internationale, n°191
-
Outre ce site internet gratuit, nous publions une lettre confidentielle en
PDF, Voltaire, actualité internationale. Chaque jeudi soir ou vendredi
matin, vo...
A Jewish One World Government
-
A Jewish One World Government October 21 2026
___________________________________ More Vids! +BN Vids Archive! HERE!
___________________________________ Su...
The United States At A Crossroad
-
The United States At A Crossroad—An Analysis (16 Sept 2026) by Lawrence
Davidson Part I—Texas vs Minnesota Back in mid-May […]
Report on Beth Israel vigil 09-12-26
-
*Eat-a-Cheeseburger Day Approaches*
This year, EAC Day appears on Monday, September 21st. The date coincides
with the Jewish holiday called Yom Kippur. Cl...
-
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.
.jpg)
It became clear that bin Salman claimed the aggression on Yemen from the first few hours. Upon the war started, Saudi media was mentioning bin Salman’s name as a “commander of Decisive Storm as he was taking photos with Saudi fighting forces here and there. Al-Arabiya TV Channel reported that the first strikes on Yemen led by Mohamad bin Salman, but without mentioning that the Minister of National Guard Mete’b bin Abdullah was not aware of them!
What Decisive Storm achieved?
