لماذا سمحت روسيا وإيران بتدمير سوريا؟

د. فيصل القاسم

DECEMBER 6, 2013

سنتفق جدلاً مع القائلين إن هناك ‘مؤامرة كونية’ على سوريا لتدميرها، وتشريد شعبها، وإضعاف جيشها وتفكيكه، وتجريدها من سلاحها التقليدي والاستراتيجي. وسنتفق أيضاً أن المؤامرة نالت من سوريا فعلاً، حيث تمت تسوية العديد من المدن والقرى السورية بالأرض على الطريقة الروسية في الشيشان، فيروي سكان الريف في محافظة إدلب وحدها فقط أن عدد القرى المدمرة هناك يزيد على ألف قرية، بحيث بدأ الناس يمرون بجانب تلك القرى ويتساءلون: ‘ماذا كان اسم تلك القرية؟’.
ولا داعي للحديث عن ريف دمشق وحلب ومحافظة حمص بأكملها، التي تشكل مساحتها فقط ثلث مساحة سوريا، ناهيك عن تدمير دير الزور والرقة وريف حماة ودرعا. وحدث ولا حرج عن مئات الألوف من القتلى، ناهيك عن مئات الألوف من المعتقلين والمفقودين. أما عدد النازحين واللاجئين فقد زاد عن نصف سكان سوريا. والجيش السوري لم يكن له ليستعين بالميليشيات العراقية واللبنانية والإيرانية والباكستانية والأفغانية واليمنية والروسية والكورية لو كان ما زال قادراً على القتال. زد على ذلك أن سوريا تجردت من سلاحها الكيماوي الاستراتيجي لتصبح بلا أنياب. وهناك حديث عن تجريدها من الصواريخ والسلاح البيولوجي، لكن بالتدرج. بالإضافة إلى ذلك أصبح النسيج الوطني السوري، والجغرافية السورية ذاتها مهددة بالتفكك، إذا لم تكن قد تفككت. وحدث ولا حرج عن الاقتصاد السوري الذي يحتاج لعشرات السنين كي يعود إلى ما كان عليه عام 2010.
ماذا يريد حلفاء النظام السوري كروسيا وإيران أكثر من هذه الكوارث الإنسانية والعسكرية والاقتصادية والاجتماعية؟ لماذا تركوا سوريا تصل إلى هذه المرحلة من الدمار والخراب والانهيار إذا كانتا فعلاً حليفتين للنظام في سوريا؟
لنتفق مع النظام أن هناك قوى كثيرة عربية وإقليمية ودولية تريد الإجهاز عليه وعلى سوريا، فأين كان حلفاؤه من كل هذه المؤامرات؟ وإذا كانت سوريا مهمة جداً لروسيا وإيران، فلماذا سمحتا بتدميرها وإنهاك جيشها وتجريدها من أسلحتها الاستراتيجية وإضعاف قوتها العسكرية؟ 
لو اتفقنا جدلاً أن ‘الإرهابيين’ والمتآمرين هم من دمروا سوريا، فلماذا سمحت حليفتا النظام روسيا وإيران بنجاح مخطط التدمير منذ البداية؟ هل كانت روسياوإيران لتسمحا بذلك لو لم تكن لديهما مصلحة في ذلك؟
إذا كنت تحب شخصاً لا بد أن تغار على مصالحه وتحميها، فهل فعلت إيران وروسيا ذلك في سوريا التي تدعيان الغيرة عليها؟ من يحب شخصاً لا يسمح بقتله أو على الأقل بإضعافه وتقطيع أوصاله وإنهاكه، لكن روسيا وإيران سمحتا بتخريب سوريا. 
أتباع النظام في سوريا يتهمون كل من انتقد النظام مجرد انتقاد بأنه مشارك في تدمير سوريا. لكن لماذا لا يوجهون الاتهام أيضاً لحلفاء النظام الكبار؟ لماذا لا يسألون موسكو وطهران، لماذا لم تحبطا مشروع تخريب سوريا إذا كانتا تريدان مصلحتها ومصلحة النظام فعلاً؟ أليس الروس والإيرانيون أكبر المستفيدين من دمار سوريا؟
لقد أثبتت الأيام أنهم كأعداء سوريا، كانوا يتاجرون بها بصفاقة. ولعل ما كتبه أحد الكتاب الذي يقتبس اقواله دائماً مؤيدو النظام في ‘مدونة هاني’ أكبر إدانة لروسيا وإيران اللتين استخدمتا المحنة السوريا لأغراض خاصة جداً. 
يقول هاني: ‘الصفقة الكيماوية الخاصة بسوريا هي مجرد جزء من التفاهم الشامل الأميركي- الإيراني (هي كانت بداية هذا التفاهم). أنا توقعت مسبقا أن إيران في النهاية ستتنازل، وستقبل بتقديم ضمانات لإسرائيل في مقابل التوصل إلى تسوية مع الأمريكان، وهذا هو ما حصل بالفعل. الصفقة الكيماوية الخاصة بسوريا كانت الضمانة التي قدمتها إيران لإسرائيل. 
سوريا لم تكن طرفاً في الصفقة الكيماوية أبداً. هذه الصفقة هي ظاهرياً صفقة أمريكية- روسية، ولكنها في العمق صفقة إيرانية – إسرائيلية. والروس والأمريكان ليسوا أكثر من وسطاء في ما يتعلق بهذه الصفقة تحديداً. وقد طلبت أمريكا من إيران قبل أي شيء آخر نزع السلاح الكيماوي السوري. وهي لم تقبل أن تتفاهم مع إيران قبل نزع الكيماوي. 
والسبب هو أن أمريكا أرادت تقديم ضمانات وتطمينات استراتيجية لإسرائيل، لأن الأمريكان يعتقدون أن التفاهم مع إيران غير ممكن دون تقديم ضمانات استراتيجية لإسرائيل، ولهذا السبب هم أصروا على تدمير سوريا ونزع كل أسلحتها قبل الشروع في التفاهم مع الإيرانيين، وإيران وافقت. 
باختصار، فإن الصفقة الكيماوية السورية هي ربح استراتيجي صاف لإسرائيل. أما الصفقة النووية الإيرانية فهي الثمن الذي قبضته إيران مقابل تسهيل الصفقة الكيماوية السورية!
لا يوجد تشابه بين ‘الصفقتين’. الصفقة الكيماوية هي تنازل من سوريا للغرب لحساب إيران، والصفقة الثانية هي تنازل من الغرب لإيران. ما حصل هو أنالغرب خفف حربه على إيران في مقابل الضمانات التي قدمتها إيران ـ بالوساطة الأمريكية ـ الروسية على حساب سوريا لإسرائيل.
باختصار، لقد اتفقت ايران مع امريكا على تدمير سوريا، وتجريدها من سلاحها الكيماوي، وإنهاك جيشها كضمان لأمن إسرائيل مقابل الاتفاق مع الغرب على النووي وإعادة تأهيل إيران دولياً واقتصادياً.
الكلام أعلاه ليس صادراً عن المعارضة السورية كي نشكك في مصداقيته، أو نقول إنه مغرض، بل صادر عن مدونة معروفة بأنها مؤيدة، أو متعاطفة مع النظام السوري. ولذلك فهي تفضح إيران وروسيا اللتين تتشدقان بالدفاع عن سوريا. ويذهب أحد المدافعين عن النظام السوري إلى القول بحسرة إن ‘أول شعار طرحه الرئيس الإيراني الجديد روحاني بعد وصوله إلى السلطة كان شعار: ‘إيران أولاً’. وقد طبقه بحذافيره على حساب سوريا’. 
لقد استغلت إيران وروسيا المحنة السورية أسوأ استغلال على الطريقة ‘الماكيافيلية’ الانتهازية، مثل أعداء سوريا وأكثر، خاصة وأن الطريق كان سالكاً أمام الإيرانيين والروس أكثر من أعداء سوريا بفضل ارتباطهم بالنظام. 
باختصار، فإن ‘المتآمرين’ على سوريا ليسوا فقط خصوم النظام، بل أقرب حلفائه المزعومين الذين استغلوا الأزمة السورية لعقد الصفقات وتمرير الاتفاقات وإعادة رسم المنطقة على أشلاء ودماء السوريين ووحدة وطنهم.
والأيام ستكشف مدى خطورة اتفاق ‘كيري – لافروف’ حول سوريا الذي يشبهه البعض باتفاقية ‘سايكس-بيكو’ سيئة الصيت، إن لم يكن أخطر. 
أخيراً علينا الاعتراف بعد كل ما حصل في سوريا أن الرابحين الوحيدين من مأساتها هم إسرائيل وأمريكا وروسيا وإيران. أما السوريون نظاماً وشعباً ومعارضة فهم أكبر الخاسرين. 
وإذا كان حلفاء النظام سمحوا بكل هذا الدمار، وتاجروا بسوريا ‘على عينك يا تاجر’، فكيف نلوم أعداء سوريا والمتآمرين عليها؟ لك الله يا سوريا! لقد كنت فريسة تناهشها الحلفاء والأعداء على حد سواء

THE PHONY PULLOUT FROM AFGHANISTAN

By Eric Margolis

December 7, 2013

"Those wondering what lies in store for Afghanistan need only look at the way the British Empire ruled Iraq in the 1920’s. As Shakespeare wrote, “what is past is prologue.”

Imperial Britain created the state of Iraq after World War I to secure Mesopotamia’s vast oil deposits that had become vital for the Royal Navy. To control this artificial nation seething with unrest, Britain imposed a puppet king, Faisal, and created a native army commanded by British officers.

Britain’s colonial rule was formalized by the 1930 Anglo-Iraq Treaty, a deal between puppet and master.

But real power in Iraq was held by the Royal Air Force, which was “granted” two permanent bases at Habbaniyah and Basra. The RAF ruled supreme over the open wastes of Iraq.

Winston Churchill, patron saint of today’s war-lusting neoconservatives, authorized the RAF to use poison gas against “unruly” tribesmen in Iraq and Afghanistan. Britain created public institutions and sham political parties in Baghdad that had no links at all to Iraq’s population, which mostly hated their British rulers.

British Iraq was the prologue to today’s Afghanistan. The British Empire’s heir, the American Imperium, plans to duplicate the Iraqi Brittanica in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan’s US-installed current ruler, Hamid Karzai, a former CIA “asset,” may stay on after 2014 or be replaced by another US-designated president. Change the title of president to king, and, voila!, Iraq’s puppet king, Faisal.

Washington says it will withdraw all US combat troops from Afghanistan by 2014. But read the fine print. As of now, 14,000-16,000 US troops will remain on so-called “anti-terrorism” missions and for “training” – though Washington admits there are not more than 50 al-Qaida members in Afghanistan.

In other words, the old British system of white officers commanding native troops. A good $4-5 billion annually from the US and allies will go to hiring up to 400,000 pro-government troops (under US command).

These mercenaries will fight half-heartedly for the Yankee dollar, not ideology. CIA will maintain another mercenary force of about 2,000, and a fleet of killer drones. Add commandos from the shadowy US Special Ops Joint Command (JSOC), a copy of Her Majesty’s assassins, Britain’s famed SAS.

The ongoing US stealth occupation of Afghanistan will be enshrined by a new US-Afghanistan security treaty (read 1930 Anglo-Iraq Treaty), another deal between puppet and string-puller, made respectable by rigged elections and bribed chieftains and a big dose of drug money.

The Soviets did the same thing after they invaded Afghanistan. It’s good old imperialism 101.

US public relations firms will keep up a steady drumbeat of happy news about the US-run government building girl’s schools and improving public health.

Not a peep will come about the US-backed and paid tribal and government chiefs who run Afghanistan’s ever growing export business in morphine and heroin. Under US control, Afghanistan has become the world’s leading exporter of heroin and opium. Drug output rose 50% last year according to the UN. Drug money and laundering it has corrupted the entire Afghan government and provides most of Kabul’s
revenue, aside from US handouts.

Most important, just like the British in Iraq, the US will retain 2-4 key airbases. Bagram, built by the Soviets, will be the nerve center of the US control of Afghanistan. In Afghanistan’s arid, treeless terrain, air power is decisive. Without its total, 24-7 control of the air, the US would not be able to sustain bases in Afghanistan. The US Air Force, the primary tool of US global power, will police the skies of South Asia and defend the puppet regime in Kabul. India is expected to lend discreet support for the ongoing US occupation of Afghanistan.

That’s Plan A. But Afghanistan, rightly known as the “Graveyard of Empires,” has a way of frustrating grand imperial designs. That nation’s fierce Pashtun tribesmen, with whom this writer took the field in the 1980’s anti-Soviet struggle, have withstood the full might of US military power and its panoply of high-tech weapons, armed with nothing more than AK-47’s rifles and dauntless courage.

The British Empire, which invaded Afghanistan four times, also sought to maintain garrisons there – and utterly failed. The ongoing US occupation, re-labeled “reconstruction,” will also likely fail. So far, America’s longest war – some 12 years -
has cost nearly $1 trillion, 2,000 US dead, 17,000 wounded and innumerable Afghan dead and wounded.

Taliban – a coalition of Pashtun tribes – will fight on as they always have. America faces another decade of war unless it finally decides to admit failure and depart.

So why then will the US continue to occupy and run Afghanistan? Geopolitics. US bases deep in Afghanistan will overwatch the vital energy-rich Caspian Basin. Oil has the same effect on America policy-makers as catnip does on felines.

Washington can’t bring itself to admit it was defeated in Afghanistan – and by lightly-armed tribesmen. Better to stay on and pretend victory, though supporting a US occupation garrison in Afghanistan costs billions annually.

What’s more, western politicians can’t face their voters and admit the Afghan war was an idiotic folly, a waste of a trillion dollars and the lives of their soldiers. Or admit that Taliban was never involved in the 9/11 attacks, that were mounted from Europe, and knew nothing about them. The truth is too painful and dangerous."

Egypt: Dangerous Message for Protesters

Harsh Sentences for Pro-Morsy Women, Girls Violate Rights

"(New York) – The conviction on November 27, 2013, of 21 peaceful pro-Morsy female protesters violates their right to freedom of assembly. Prosecutors should immediately drop the charges and withdraw their challenge of the women’s appeal, which the Sidi Gaber Minor Offenses Court in Alexandria will hear on December 7.

The convictions come amid a nationwide crackdown on Muslim Brotherhood supporters, including mass arrests of protesters demonstrating against the army’s ouster of Mohamed Morsy, and the authorities’ refusal to hold security forces accountable for killing protesters. Human Rights Watch’s review of the court’s judgment and evidence found that the defendants’ rights to a fair trial appear to have been violated by the failure to allow any witnesses to testify in their defense. There also appeared to be no credible evidence in the court’s ruling that any of the 21 were engaged individually in the alleged crimes.

“Egypt’s courts have sent a dangerous message that they will sentence Muslim Brotherhood supporters to long prison terms if they dare to protest,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director. “Prosecuting these young women for participating in a demonstration, while security forces who killed hundreds of protesters roam free, should shock our collective conscience.”

The Sidi Gaber Minor Offenses Court convicted the women and girls, all but three between the ages of 15 and 19, in a single four-hour hearing. They were charged with vandalism, thuggery, and rioting; illegal public gathering; and the use of weapons during an early morning protest on October 31 against Morsy’s ouster as president.

After refusing to allow the defendants’ lawyers to call any witnesses, the court sentenced each of the 14 women over age 18 to 11 years and one month in prison. The seven younger girls were sentenced to be held in a juvenile facility until they turn 18, at which point their cases will be re-evaluated. Six men accused of calling for the protest were sentenced in absentia to 15 years in prison each......."

Middle East politics: End of an era

Resuming relations with Iran is complicated by Egypt's reliance on Saudi economic support [Reuters]

It feels like 1979 all over again, with Iran, under a new president, playing a central role. Amira Howeidy Al-Jazeera "The recent appeal by Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif to Arab Gulf states to "overcome their differences" and work together for regional stability is likely to fall on deaf ears. It, however, raises questions about the new regional order and Iran's place in it following its historic nuclear accord with the West. When viewed through the prism of Middle Eastern regional politics, the four-page joint Plan of Action, signed in Geneva on November 24  between Iran and the six world powers, should be assessed with caution. It's not final, and its critics in the US Congress, Israel and Saudi Arabia, will do their best to sabotage a permanent agreement that would ostensibly end 30 years of enmity in the region. But the magnitude of its political possibilities overpowers its volatility. Indeed the Geneva plan was also signed by France, Britain, Germany, China and Russia, but we now know that it materialised only because of secret Iranian-American meetings since March, which, driven by political will on both sides, went a long way before arriving in Switzerland. For long, regional alliances and politics have been largely shaped by mutual hostility between Tehran and Washington The new 1979? This changed the dynamics of the post-1979 era, defined by two major turning points in that year: TheIslamic revolution in Iran, which toppled the US-backed Shah, and the signing of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, better known in the Arab political lexicon as Camp David. By breaking ranks with the Arabs - united for three decades of conflict with Israel  - Egypt first emerged isolated and stigmatised, but as it was swiftly pacified, the rest eventually toed the line. US President Barack Obama's administration wants to move forward in its strategic pivot from the Middle East to East Asia, while still maintaining US interests in the region. What followed rewrote the political map of the region: Iraq's invasion of Iran in 1980, and the subsequent 8 years of war which saw US, Egyptian and Arab support for Saddam Hussein's regime; the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat in 1981 by army officers in retaliation to Camp David Accords; Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982, which prompted the creation of the Iran-backed Shia resistance movement in Lebanon, Hezbollah, in 1985. In 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait in an attempt to address the economic crisis of its war with Iran, from which it emerged defeated. A broad coalition force of 34 countries allied against Iraq in the first Gulf War, culminating most importantly in the shape of the new Arab order - with Saudi Arabia and Egypt as leading contributors alongside the US. Right after this war, an established, but weakened, Arab front began talks with Israel in Madrid, paving the way for the 1993 Oslo process between Tel Aviv and the Palestinians which, despite its spectacular failure, continues to this day. And in the next decade, the US invaded Iraq as Arab governments, by now practically led by Riyadh, watched as events unfolded. The legacy of the rhetoric that marked this era - George W Bush's "axis of evil", the post 9/11 "war on terror", and Jordanian King Abdullah's  "Shia crescent" (in reference to Iran's growing influence from Damascus to Tehran) - still resonates in the Middle East. Pax Americana and Asia pivot As the regional ancien regime still struggles with the ongoing impact of the Arab revolutions, the political foundations that shaped it over three decades are additionally being challenged with the Iran deal. In line with the regional balance of power calculations, this was the year Washington was supposed to bring down Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime through military intervention, and strike Iran, triggering a new regional war. Instead US President Barack Obama's administration wants to move forward in its strategic pivot from the Middle East to East Asia, while still maintaining US interests in the region. Now with the Iran detente, Washington is focused on Asia again, as US Vice President Joe Biden visits the continent to prepare the ground for Obama's visit next spring. It's not entirely coincidental that Pax Americana is waning in a region undergoing turbulent changes against US-backed regimes starting with the Tunisian revolution in 2011. It is, however, ironic that Egypt's revolution and the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak in February 2011, which garnered so much hope for grand changes and a revival of Cairo's leading role, has eventually withered to complete peripherality almost three year later, while Tehran rises as a regional force to be reckoned with. Save for Riyadh, every Gulf country, in addition to Jordan, has officially welcomed the Geneva deal. Mubarak's legacy and Riyadh Egypt, which under Mubarak willingly waived its regional role to Saudi Arabia, but remained hostile to Tehran, has reacted to the interim deal with a diplomatic nod - which few have noticed. Flooded in its explosive domestic woes, Cairo can only offer so much, although it had its small chance to normalise relations with Tehran after Mubarak's ouster. An attempt under former President Mohamed Morsi to resume direct flights to Iran, was halted for unclear reasons, then cancelled in October. This speaks volumes about Mubarak's legacy which still dominates the powers that be, specifically within the security and intelligence sectors. The fleeting moment of symbolic Egyptian-Iranian rapprochement when Morsi visited Tehran in August 2012, which his counterpart, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad returned in February by visiting Cairo, demonstrated, if only briefly, the many political possibilities such a detente could bring. The calculations that thwarted this were exacerbated because of the military-backed regime's economic dependence on Riyadh. So even if diplomatic Cairo believes that it is in Egypt's interest to restore ties with Iran, especially now, post-Geneva, it is overpowered by the Saudi factor. At the same time, its wrong to assume that Tehran will accept the status quo and not pursue efforts with Cairo now that it has a different, less provocative, leadership under President Hassan Rouhani. Save for Riyadh, every Gulf country, in addition to Jordan, has officially welcomed the Geneva deal. The United Arab Emirates, Riyadh's key regional ally which, since 1974, is in a territorial dispute with Iran over three islands in the Gulf, was quick to send its minister of foreign affairs to Tehran four days after the Geneva agreement, where he met with Rouhani and inaugurated a new embassy building. That's not to say the Gulf monarchies are not perturbed by the ripple effects of a rehabilitated Iran on their Shia population.  Such is the regional order almost three years into the Arab Spring, plus one historic deal with Iran. All the axioms are threatened and a new order will only have to take shape when the harbingers of change settle. Iran's Islamic Republic which thrived under "death to America" slogans and unconditional support for the Palestinian question, is at risk, similar to 1979 Egypt, of being pacified. There are no ready answers for Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, or the settlement Tehran seeks for Syria. And despite Israel's outburst over the Iran deal, it makes Tehran less of a threat whether Tel Aviv's politicians are willing to admit this or not. This, rather than Israel's war on Lebanon in the summer of 2006, carries the birth pangs of a new Middle East. What direction it will take remains to be seen."

Al-Jazeera Video: تعثرات دول الربيع العربي

Jailed Islamist women to go free, Egyptian court rules

1 OF 12. Mona al-Beltagy, who was found guilty along with other women and girls of obstructing traffic during a pro-Islamist protest in October, smiles during an appeal hearing at a court in the Mediterranean city of Alexandria, 230 km (143 miles) north of Cairo December 7, 2013.

CREDIT: REUTERS/STRINGER

(Reuters) - Fourteen Islamist women jailed for 11 years for demonstrating in Egypt will be released after a court slashed their sentences in a case that had outraged opposition groups and human rights campaigners, judicial sources said on Saturday.

Seven girls aged under 18 had also been sent to juvenile prison in the same case last month for obstructing traffic and damaging property during a pro-Islamist protest in October.

An appeals court in Alexandria has now reduced the sentences of the 14 women to one-year suspended terms, while a juvenile court put the teenagers on probation for three months. Once the paperwork is completed, they will all be released.

Security forces have tried to crush the Muslim Brotherhood since the army ousted Egypt's first freely elected leader, Islamist President Mohamed Mursi, on July 3. His supporters have staged frequent protests calling for his reinstatement.

The army-backed authorities accuse the Brotherhood of violence and terrorism, charges it denies. Hundreds of Mursi supporters have been killed and thousands arrested. Mursi and other Brotherhood leaders are on trial for inciting violence.

Gamal Eid, a human rights activist, said the sentences against the female protesters had been politically motivated.

"There is no independent judiciary in Egypt," he told Reuters. "They (the judges) were looking at the girls' background instead of their actions. Now they have tried to fix the first decision and it makes more sense."

In a separate case, a court acquitted 155 Mursi supporters of committing violent acts and damaging property in protests on Egypt's October 6 national holiday, the state news agency reported.

Protests are a sensitive issue in the country of 85 million people where people power has helped topple two presidents in less than three years. Veteran autocrat Hosni Mubarak was ousted after a popular uprising in 2011, while the army removed Mursi following mass protests against his one-year rule.

The army-backed interim government passed a law last month tightly restricting protests by requiring police permission for any public gathering of more than 10 people.

The army's roadmap for political transition could lead Egypt to presidential and parliamentary elections next year."

Current Al-Jazeera (Arabic) Online Poll

Do you believe the French report that attributed Arafat's death to old age and considered poisoning not likely?

So far, 96% of respondents have voted no.

عزمي بشارة: إسرائيل تدمر حل الدولتين وليس من واجب الضحية تقديم الحلول أصلا

Arabs48.com

اعتبر المفكر العربي الدكتور عزمي بشارة اليوم، السبت، أن إسرائيل تدمر عمليا وفعليا حل الدولتين، قائلا إنه لا يعتقد أن من واجب الضحية حاليا أن تطرح حلولا أصلا، فطرح مثل هذه الحلول في المرحلة الحالية كبديل عن النضال السياسي هو هروب للأمام.

جاءت أقوال د. عزمي بشارة هذه في المحاضرة الافتتاحية للمؤتمر السنوي الثاني للمعهد العربي للأبحاث ودراسة السياسة المنعقد في العاصمة القطرية، الدوحة، تحت عنوان: "قضية فلسطين ومستقبل المشروع الوطني الفلسطيني"، وذلك بمشاركة نخبة من الباحثين والمثقفين من مختلف أنحاء الوطن العربي.

استهل المفكر العربي د. بشارة كلمته بضرورة التأكيد على الواجب الوطني باعتماد المعرفة العلمية لتحليل الواقع بأدوات عملية سليمة تجيد تشخيص الحال القائم وسبل مواجهته. وقال في هذا السياق: من واجبنا أن نسترشد بالتحليل العلمي لما يدور من حولنا في خدمة قضية عادلة، ولهذا تم عقد مؤتمر أكاديمي عنوانه "قضية فلسطين ومستقبل المشروع الوطني الفلسطيني".

وبعد أن استعرض بشارة في كلمته تاريخ التحولات التي طرأت على مشروع المقاومة، وتدرجه من خيار وحيد لتحرير فلسطين، وصولا إلى خيار إستراتيجي دفاعي عن النفس، قال إن المشروع الوطني الفلسطيني المتمثل بالدولة الفلسطينية أصبح رهين عملية سياسية تفاوضية يرافقها توسع استيطاني إحلالي مذهل ينجم عنه، على الأرض، حصر كيان فلسطيني في يسمى بالمناطق "أ" و"ب"، وهو كيان منقوص السيادة. ولا مانع لدى إسرائيل أن يسمى دولة. لكنها تريد مع ذلك ثمنا في المقابل. وسيعيش هذا الكيان في حالة انفصال عن المجتمع الإسرائيلي وتفاعلاته كي لا يؤثر في بيئته الديموغرافية والاقتصادية والسياسية، ولكي لا يسمح له من جهة أخرى بأن يتحول إلى دولة ذات سيادة على أرضها. ولا حل لقضية اللاجئين، ولا امتداد عربي لمحيطه".

وفيما يخص الصراع والانشقاق الفلسطيني الداخلي اعتبر المفكر عزمي بشارة أن الخلاف القائم: "ليس خلافا على قراءة الواقع للأسف، فالجميع يدرك المأزق. وإنما الخلاف الفلسطيني الفلسطيني حاليا هو صراع على السلطة. إنه الصراع الذي يمنع من رؤية الواقع الفلسطيني الواحد والموَحد. والسياسات الإسرائيلية الواحدة: والمشكلة أنه صراع على السلطة قبل مرحلة الدولة".

ورأى بشارة أن "إسرائيل سعت منذ انسحابها من طرف واحد من جنوب لبنان ثم من قطاع غزة بعد ذلك بأربع سنوات إلى تحويل المقاومة إلى سبب للحرب. كانت هذه إستراتيجية إيهود براك وأريئيل شارون في الانسحابات من طرف واحد، من جنوب لبنان ومن قطاع غزة. وكانت هذه إضافة جدية للعقيدة العسكرية الإسرائيلية في بداية هذا القرن".

و"بالتالي وبعد الانسحابات الإسرائيلية والحرب على لبنان عام 2006 وعلى غزة عام 2008 تحولت المقاومة الفلسطينية إلى خيار إستراتيجية الدفاع عن النفس أمام احتمال أي عدوان مستقبلي إسرائيلي مقبل". ورصد بشارة في محاضرته أن ما يُطلق عليه اليوم اسم "مقاومة" هو ليس ما سمي بالمقاومة في السابق، فقد كانت المقاومة سابقا إستراتيجية للتحرير ثم تحولت إلى خيار "مقاومة الاحتلال"، وباتت اليوم إستراتيجية دفاع عن الذات وعن الإقليم الذي تسيطر عليه، وهذا  لا يقلل من أهميتها".

لكن بشارة أشار أيضا إلى أن هذا الخيار الذي بات دفاعيا يُستخدم مؤخرا في خدمة أغراض أخرى، ويضيف أن لهذا الاستخدام "تقليدا في السياسات العربية، وأقصد استخدام العمليات ضد إسرائيل لتسجيل نقاط سياسية داخلية، أو في الصراع بين الفصائل والأنظمة". وفي هذا الإطار تم تحويل قضية فلسطين إلى أداة لتكريس وشرعنة أنظمة استبدادية فاسدة، وهو ما أضر بالقضية الفلسطينية فعليا وليس فقط أخلاقيا".

وتوقف بشارة في محاضرته عند المأزق الذي يعصف اليوم بالخيار السياسي تماما مثلما تحولت المقاومة إلى إستراتيجية دفاع ذاتي، فقال إن هذا الأمر يقود إلى محاولة التفكير في المشروع الوطني الفلسطيني مستقبلا، لكن ذلك يتطلب العودة إلى الأساسيات الرئيسية، وفي مقدمتها التناقض القائم أصلا بين الإنسان الفلسطيني على أرضه وبين الممارسات الاستيطانية الإسرائيلية حاليا. وهو يرى أن العملية الاستيطانية الجارية في القدس مثلا تهدف إلى تحويل مدينة القدس العربية إلى ما يشبه ما جرى ليافا العربية التي تحولت إلى حي/جيتو داخل تل أبيب. كما تجري عملية استيطان مكثفة لضم ما سمي في عملية أوسلو بالمنطقة "ج" إلى إسرائيل في الواقع وبالفعل. وهو يتم بموازاة إعلان إسرائيل عن نقل أملاك اللاجئين عام 48 من "القيم على أموال الغائبين" إلى أياد خاصة يهودية واستثمارية، وهو ما يعني في الواقع إنهاء قضية اللاجئين، وتتويج ذلك بمطلب الاعتراف العالمي بإسرائيل كدولة يهودية.

وفي هذا السياق قال د بشارة إن "إسرائيل تهدد أي سلطة، وهي رهن ترتيبات وتسهيلات إسرائيلية بدرجات متفاوتة، وأن لجوءها إلى خيارات نضالية، حتى من نوع حملات المقاطعة والضغط على إسرائيل، سوف يهدد امتيازاتها كسلطة"

Mandela: a Dissenting Opinion

Victorious Over Apartheid, Defeated by Neoliberalism

A VERY GOOD COMMENT

by JONATHAN COOK

CounterPunch

Nazareth.

"Offering a dissenting opinion at this moment of a general outpouring of grief at Nelson Mandela’s death is not likely to court popularity. It is also likely to be misunderstood.

So let me start by recognising Mandela’s huge achievement in helping to bring down South African apartheid, and make clear my enormous respect for the great personal sacrifices he made, including spending so many years caged up for his part in the struggle to liberate his people. These are things impossible to forget or ignore when assessing someone’s life.

Nonetheless, it is important to pause during the widespread acclamation of his legacy, mostly by people who have never demonstrated a fraction of his integrity, to consider a lesson that most observers want to overlook.

Perhaps the best way to make my point is to highlight a mock memo written in 2001 by Arjan el-Fassed, from Nelson Mandela to the NYT’s columnist Thomas Friedman. It is a wonderful, humane denunciation of Friedman’s hypocrisy and a demand for justice for the Palestinians that Mandela should have written. [http://www.keghart.com/Mandela-Palestine]

Soon afterwards, the memo spread online, stripped of el-Fassed’s closing byline. Many people, including a few senior journalists, assumed it was written by Mandela and published it as such. It seemed they wanted to believe that Mandela had written something as morally clear-sighted as this about another apartheid system, an Israeli one that is at least the equal of that imposed for decades on black South Africans.

However, the reality is that it was not written by Mandela, and his staff even went so far as to threaten legal action against the author.

Mandela spent most his adult life treated as a “terrorist”. There was a price to be paid for his long walk to freedom, and the end of South Africa’s system of racial apartheid. Mandela was rehabilitated into an “elder statesman” in return for South Africa being rapidly transformed into an outpost of neoliberalism, prioritising the kind of economic apartheid most of us in the west are getting a strong dose of now.

In my view, Mandela suffered a double tragedy in his post-prison years.

First, he was reinvented as a bloodless icon, one that other leaders could appropriate to legitimise their own claims, as the figureheads of the “democratic west”, to integrity and moral superiority. After finally being allowed to join the western “club”, he could be regularly paraded as proof of the club’s democratic credentials and its ethical sensibility.

Second, and even more tragically, this very status as icon became a trap in which he was required to act the “responsible” elder statesman, careful in what he said and which causes he was seen to espouse. He was forced to become a kind of Princess Diana, someone we could be allowed to love because he rarely said anything too threatening to the interests of the corporate elite who run the planet.

It is an indication of what Mandela was up against that the man who fought so hard and long against a brutal apartheid regime was so completely defeated when he took power in South Africa. That was because he was no longer struggling against a rogue regime but against the existing order, a global corporate system of power that he had no hope of challenging alone.

It is for that reason, rather simply to be contrarian, that I raise these failings. Or rather, they were not Mandela’s failings, but ours. Because, as I suspect Mandela realised only too well, one cannot lead a revolution when there are no followers.

For too long we have slumbered through the theft and pillage of our planet and the erosion of our democratic rights, preferring to wake only for the release of the next iPad or smart phone.

The very outpouring of grief from our leaders for Mandela’s loss helps to feed our slumber. Our willingness to suspend our anger this week, to listen respectfully to those watery-eyed leaders who forced Mandela to reform from a fighter into a notable, keeps us in our slumber. Next week there will be another reason not to struggle for our rights and our grandchildren’s rights to a decent life and a sustainable planet. There will always be a reason to worship at the feet of those who have no real power but are there to distract us from what truly matters.

No one, not even a Mandela, can change things by him or herself. There are no Messiahs on their way, but there are many false gods designed to keep us pacified, divided and weak."

The Egyptian Military’s Lost Bet on the Police

A False Sense of Security

by WAEL ESKANDER
CounterPunch

"Recently the regime, personified in the entity of the police, lead an attack on Egypt’s activists who opposed the protest law and the military trials of civilians. The attack on 26 November 2013  was brutal, vindictive and lacked professionalism. The police violently assaulted protesters in a manner that violated the law they were implementing and furthermore targeted women through beatings and physical assaults during arrests and while in custody.

The attack on these activists who are greatly related to the January 25 revolution can be simplistically described as an attack on revolutionaries. The attack on a legitimacy already gained by revolutionaries is a move that may cost the regime much if not corrected. At the end of the day, the legitimacy of a regime is determined by its perceived integrity, even when taking extraordinary or unlawful measures. This may explain why unlawful attacks on the Muslim Brotherhood were widely supported and did not negatively impact the regime’s popularity at least among the wider section of the public opposed to the Muslim Brotherhood.

However, the recent attacks on the revolutionary class may prove problematic to the regime. Despite numerous efforts,  accusations against the revolutionary activists were never solidified. As a matter of fact, the regime reversed its positions several times with regards to past events. Most recently, they acknowledged the Mohamed Mahmoud protesters as martyrs who died for a legitimate cause, even though the killings were performed by the police and supported by the army in November of 2011.

The acknowledgement took the form of a press statement by the police and a cheap monument erected in the middle of Tahrir square on 18 November, the anniversary of the events. They  may have thought that such a shallow gesture would be enough to placate the revolutionary class that had restrained its opposition to the regime for some time. The gesture failed to bring about desired results, mainly because there was more at stake for the revolutionary class than a memorial. The activists remain searching for accountability and real change in style of governance which never really took form.

The recent retaliation can perhaps be explained as frustration from the current regime because of failure to placate the revolutionary class. The attempt ended in a huge political triumph for the revolutionaries on 18 November 2013. This is perhaps why the police reverted to what they are accustomed to, attempting to provide a security solutions to what is essentially a political and social problem. Police have reverted to Mubarak era practices in order to bring about stability. The current regime spearheaded by the military is perhaps counting on its current popularity in the hopes that police may find a solution to the constant instability in the country.

It is my assessment that such measures will not work. The economic situation is far too dire and the alliances formed by the current regime representatives are too fragile for such oppressive measures. The regime is counting on a false sense of strength derived from their controlled media, security apparatus, judiciary system, army supporters and MB haters. Despite military fervor, the tide can still turn against them.

While at first glance, such institutions and tools seem to translate into formidable power, the government cannot continue to exert its hegemony over society without the consent of the numerous factions of society such as workers, students, activists, lawyers, and so forth. That is where the failure will come about – unless the regime can quickly undo the damage. This remains unlikely to happen considering how incompetent Egypt’s political class proved to be. The military, however, seems to have become more sensitive to public sentiments. There is a chance they may understand the potential shift in society that will be caused by the retaliation of revolutionary activists.

Despite the confrontational nature of these activists and their mistrust of the generals who they believe are ruling the country behind the scenes, the military’s worst enemy is its own police force charged with the country’s internal security. It is the corruption and incompetence of this police that will more likely eat away at whatever legitimacy the current regime has drawn from mass protests (which they now want to hamper).

At the end of the day, the military may soon realize that they  have no possible path for stability and consensus except through reforming the police, which they, not the activists, will need to do.  With such an obvious conclusion, the question remains whether the military itself is free enough of corruption to take such measures, and whether its own network of interests and false sense of security will burn the political class it is trying to build."

Another Great Cartoon by Khalil Bendib: Socialist Pope?

A Great Cartoon by Khalil Bendib: Arab Winter!

With Leaders Like These: Yet a New Threshold for Gaza’s Misery

Mohammed Dahlan, a Fatah commander who was defeated by Hamas in 2007.

By Ramzy Baroud

"It is impossible to predict the future. But one can state with a degree of certainty that little good can possibly be awaiting Palestinians when their political leadership seems to value their ties with Israel more than the fate of Gaza and all of its inhabitants. An exaggeration? Hardly.

In an interview with Voice of Russia, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas replied to an ‘invitation’ by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak at the Israeli Parliament (Knesset). “If (Netanyahu) wants me to come and say the things I want to say, then I am ready to do it,” Abbas said, according to YNet and other media on Nov 23. However, he had no response to a call for unity by Gaza Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh.

“Let’s have one government, one parliament and one president,” Haniyeh said in a recent speech, as quoted by Reuters. A spokesman for Hamas’ rival, Fatah, Ahmed Assaf, dismissed the call for it “included nothing new.”

Sure, Hamas and Fatah have been engaged in a terrible factional conflict that continues to undermine Palestinian national unity, and the Palestinian cause altogether. But the timing of Haniyeh’s call and Fatah’s dismissal is particularly sensitive, for Gaza is suffering its worst energy crisis since the Israeli-Egyptian siege of 2007.

For weeks, Gaza has been flooded with sewage as a result of a severe energy crisis caused mainly by Egypt’s systematic destruction of hundreds of tunnels that served as Gaza’s economic lifeline. The cheap diesel fuel which normally helps 1.8 million people survive a very harsh and relentless siege and boycott isn’t being smuggled in from the tunnels anymore. Israel has ensured that there can be no alternative to the Egyptian fuel, thus the Gaza government was forced to shut down the strip’s only power station.

Gaza has high threshold to suffering, so for a place as poor as Gaza to be hurting, this additional agony means that the humanitarian crisis is at its worst. Even before the most recent crisis, a comprehensive UN report last year said that if no urgent action were taken, Gaza would be ‘unlivable’ by 2020. Since the report was issued in August 2012, the situation has grown much worse. Considering the sea of sewage, one would argue that Gaza is already ‘unlivable’.

But for nearly one year, many had hoped that the dramatic political changes in Egypt could in fact bode well to Palestinians in general and Gaza in particular. Gaza was still bleeding from Israel’s so-called Operation Cast lead – the 22-day war of 2008-9 that killed over 1,400 Palestinians and wounded over 5,500 more. The war had destroyed much of Gaza’s poor infrastructure, and the siege made a complete recovery impossible.

Then there was the war of Nov 2012 – eight days of fighting that killed 167 Palestinians and six Israelis. As strange as it may sound, the second war was a source of hope for Palestinians. Back then, Egypt had a democratically elected president. Sure, Morsi at times seemed to behave as a lame duck president, but he sided with the Palestinians against Israel, and helped craft a ceasefire agreement that met more of Hamas’ terms than Israel’s. It was the first time that Palestinians felt that the Egyptian government was truly on their side since the Camp David agreement in 1979.

Morsi was under severe pressure from the US and his own military, generously funded by the US, to isolate Hamas. Although he didn’t do so, he was too weak to offer Gaza a sustainable solution to break the Israeli siege. The Rafah border crossing, however, was mostly open, and relations were in constant improvement.

But the ousting by General Abdel Fatah al-Sisi of Morsi on July 3 changed all of that. The Egyptian military cracked down with vengeance by shutting down the border crossing and destroying 90-95 percent of all tunnels, which served as Gaza’s main salvation. The strip became more vulnerable than ever before. Its haggard infrastructure began falling apart, as Egypt, Ramallah and Israel watched, preparing for various outcomes. Cairo found in Ramallah a willing ally who never ceased colluding with Israel in order to ensure that their Hamas rivals were punished, along with the population of the strip.

The New York Times reported on Nov 21 that 13 sewerage stations in the Gaza Strip have either overflowed or are close to overflowing, and 3.5 million cubic feet of raw sewage find their way to the Mediterranean Sea on a daily basis. “The sanitation department may soon no longer be able to pump drinking water to Gaza homes,” it reported. Farid Ashour, the Director of sanitation at the Gaza Coastal Municipalities Water Utilities, told the times that the situation is ‘disastrous’. “We haven’t faced a situation as dangerous as this time,” he said.

Gaza’s only power plant has been a top priority target for Israeli warplanes for years. In 2006 it was destroyed in an Israeli airstrike, to be opened a year later, only to be destroyed again. And although it was barely at full capacity when it operated last, it continued to supply Gaza with 30 percent of its electricity needs of 400 megawatts. 120 megawatts came through Israel, and nearly 30 megawatts came through Egypt. The total fell short from Gaza’s basic needs, but somehow Gaza subsisted. Following the ousting of Morsi and the Egyptian military crackdown, the shortage now stands at 65 percent of the total.

It was precisely then that Haniyeh tried to reach out to Abbas. This time, his call for unity had a particularly urgent humanitarian dimension. Although willing to speak at the Knesset, Abbas had no consolatory words for Haniyeh. Instead, it was time for some cruel politics. The PA decided to end its subsidy on any fuel shipped to Gaza via Israel, increasing the price to $1.62 per liter from 79 cents. According to Ihab Bessisso of the PA, the decision to rescind Gaza’s tax exemption on fuel was taken because sending cheap fuel to Gaza “was unfair to West Bank residents,” according to the times.

Reports by the Economist, Al Monitor and other media speak of Egyptian efforts to reintroduce Gaza’s former security chief and Fatah leader Mohammed Dahlan to speed-up the projected collapse of the Hamas government. Al Monitor reported on Nov 21 that Dahlan, a notorious Fatah commander who was defeated by Hamas in 2007, had met with General al-Sisi in Cairo. Evidently, the purpose is to oust Hamas. But the question is how? Some “suggest that a Palestinian brigade mustered in al-Arish could march on Gaza and, with Egyptian support, defeat the broad array of Hamas forces created in the last decade.”

No words can describe the deterioration of the moral standards of the Palestinian political elites. Even during particularly disgraceful episodes of their history, things had never sunk so low. In the meantime, Palestinians in Gaza continue to subsist in an atrocious reality, while pondering future possibilities. And with leaders like Abbas and Dahlan, little good can be expected."

Nuclear chutzpah

Iran has agreed to full inspections of its nuclear facilities by the IAEA [AP]

Marwan Bishara examines claims and counter-claims by Israel and Iran regarding their nuclear and regional policies "The unwritten rule in US and other Western capitals regarding nukes is: Don't mention Israel's nuclear programme. Even journalists in the mainstream media don't, or won't, ask the Israeli or Western officials simple and direct questions about Israel's nukes. There seems to be an "unspoken understanding" that Israel's bombs are best left unmentioned, even when, as Micah Zenko writes in Foreign Policy, "Israeli officials routinely hint at missions where they would be used - specifically for deterrence or to threaten deeply buried targets in Iran." Ever since it was built with France's help in the 1950s, Israel has rejected any international inspections or oversight of its reactor in the southern part of the country. Any leaks from this decades-old reactor in Dimona could affect millions of Israelis and Palestinians. Meanwhile, the world's powers have signed an agreement with Iran, which allows them access to most of the country's nuclear sites. They also put to rest the possibility that Iranian possession of nuclear weapons would have been a major blow to nuclear non-proliferation and would have had disastrous implications for the region and world security. A balance of nuclear terror between Israel and Iran wouldn't have necessarily led to the same result as the Cold War between the US and Soviet Union. According to some Western estimates, a worst case scenario of future nuclear confrontation between Israel and Iran would lead to (wild as it may seem) some 27 million Iranian deaths and two million Israeli deaths. But thanks to the recent rounds of negotiations, the Iranian programme is about to be fully transparent, inspected and contained to ensure its use is limited to peaceful purposes. However, the Israeli government and its supporters in Washington contend that Iran cannot be trusted; that it's dangerous, unpredictable, and is adamant on destroying Israel.  To confirm or contradict such assertions, one needs to look at the facts, judge them by studying the historical record, and look at Iran's behaviour since 1979 and how it contrasts and conflates with Israel's. Iran has made it abundantly clear on countless occasions that it stands against nuclear weapons and considers them un-Islamic. Enriching difference The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that Iran signed in 1968, and ratified in 1970, allows for inspections of its facilities. Israel has refused to sign the NPT and rejects any inspection or oversight by any international body. Iran has made it abundantly clear on countless occasions that it stands against nuclear weapons and considers them un-Islamic. Israel maintains opacity - or "transparent ambiguity" regarding its nuclear status; so transparent, in fact, that anyone in the world is privy to the idea that Israel is committed to its nuclear deterrence. Iran insists on its right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under the supervision of the IAEA. Israel insists on its right to enrich weapon-grade plutonium outside the framework of the NPT. Iran has been accused of concealing parts of its programmes and failing to meet its obligation under the NPT treaty. Israel has fully concealed its nuclear weapon programme and rejected any international authority or safeguards of its reactor. Iran has joined 19 rounds of negotiations on its nuclear programme over the last ten years. Israel has rejected negotiations and any mention or discussion about them. Iran arrived at three agreements in 2003 and 2004, to freeze its uranium enrichment. Israel reached no agreements and condemned any dealings with Iran. Iran secretly negotiated with the US to get rid of uranium enriched above 20 percent. Israel has reportedly been covertly assassinating Iranian scientists. Iran agreed to subject its programme to strict international supervision without insisting that Israel do the same. Israel maintains that Iran must dismantle its entire nuclear programme without any mention of its own nuclear programme. Iran's non-existent nuclear weapons have been the obsession of Western media, which has all too wilfully ignored Israel's existent arsenal. The world referred to the agreement as a "historic deal". Israel referred to it as a "historic mistake" that will be regretted. Iran's foreign minister Talks To Al Jazeera Pragmatic Ayatollahs Iran has finally reached an interim agreement with the world's leading powers, which in short, meets their demands on a number of fronts including serious inspections, and diluting the 20 percent uranium enrichment to five percent. Regionally, the nuclear issue has several strategic dimensions. Iran wants Western recognition of its central role as a regional intermediary. Israel has used Western help to establish its military hegemony. Iran, a country of 70 million and long a regional power and empire over thousands of years, is reclaiming its role in the Middle East. Israel, a country of seven million and a 60-year history, has been aggressively pursuing regional hegemony for decades. Israel claims that Iran is dangerous and unpredictable. But the Iranian leaders have shown over the last four decades to be terribly pragmatic, as well as survivalists, who carefully calculate their steps all of which run into criticisms of irrationality. Israel asserts that Iran is headed by a fundamentalist and apocalyptic leadership. The Ayatollahs have long chosen expediency over recklessness and are quite the appeasers in the interests of safeguarding their control and influence. Iran boasts regional influence from Lebanon to Afghanistan. Israel is reportedly prepared to use an atomic bomb if faced with military defeat. Should we expect an attack on Gaza or Lebanon soon? Iran claims that Israel is isolated and weakened and would be tamed. Israeli officials and supporters have cynically accused the West of appeasing Iran like they appeased the Nazis in Czechoslovakia in 1938. Speaking of the West and cynicism: What has come out of President Barack Obama's commitment in Berlin towards "bold reductions" in US and Russian tactical nuclear weapons in Europe? In his 2008 speech, didn't he call for "a world without nuclear weapons"? The NPT also obliges nuclear powers to seek reduction and eventually the elimination of their nuclear arsenal, a process that entices other states like Iran to sign on to the NPT. But the record shows that while some reduction has taken place, it has been too slow, while these powers have been modernising their nuclear programmes. According to the Federation of American Scientists, the US and Russia have several thousand nuclear warheads each, while France has 300 warheads, China 240, Britain 225. India, Pakistan and Israel are estimated to have 100 each. In Israel, as in Iran, militant leaders have shown political tenacity and a capacity for survival that dwarfs any perception of sentimentality or principle. For them all means seem to justify their political ends. Eerie similarities Iranian and Israeli leaders have long been useful to one other. They tend to repeat their respective populist declarations as demonstrative revelations for the purpose of inflaming the national sentiment to garner public support. Framing their national and strategic antagonism in theological terms further complicates and deepens their differences. Former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call for "ending the Zionist regime" has been used by the Israeli right, just as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's call for punishing Iran has been used by the Ayatollahs in Tehran. Likewise, the recent statement by Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei that Israel is a "rabid dog", served Netanyahu internally, just as Netanyahu's claim that "Iran is getting everything and giving nothing", has been used by the Ayatollahs to underline their claims of no compromise. Despite the populist and inflammatory rhetoric of many in the Iranian and Israeli leadership, in practice, they've been more preoccupied by power politics than any greater principle. They've also long given up on their slogans of "revolution for the weak", or a "nation of survivors", in return for embracing cold calculated strategies aimed at strengthening their grip on power and advancing their national interests in the region and beyond. Their strategic calculus in Syria and Lebanon goes a long way to underline a cynical and outright contemptuous approach to human rights.   In Israel, as in Iran, militant leaders have shown political tenacity and a capacity for survival that dwarfs any perception of sentimentality or principle. For them all means seem to justify their political ends. Having long dramatised their plight and inflamed their supporters, taming or reversing their habitual dramas could prove to be a huge challenge."