Saturday, July 2, 2016

AS A RESPITE FROM ALL THE INSANITY AND MAYHEM OF THE MIDDLE EAST, ENJOY DVORAK's SYMPHONY NO. 8

Herbert Von Karajan Conducting

عن لقالق المعارضة السورية

ميشيل كيلو
عن لقالق المعارضة السورية
Link

لا أعتقد أنه بقي غير عدد جد قليل من السوريين من لم يتصل بأجانب، أو من لم يتصل به أجانب. صار السوريون، في معظهم، كائنات دولية تتخطى اهتماماتها ومواقفها هموم بلدها الصغيرة إلى معضلات العالم الكبرى التي تعتقد أنها لن تحلّ من دون جهودها، وأن لقاءاتها مع المسؤولين الأجانب تتم بقصد توجيههم ومساعدتهم على اتخاذ قراراتٍ استراتيجية صائبة. أو للإشراف على تنفيذها، يستوى في ذلك إن كان السوري صاحب خبرة حزبية، أو من الذين "هوبروا" حتى بعد الثورة لمخابرات "أسدهم الأبدي"، أو انهمك، بعد الثورة، في اختلاق تاريخ شخصي، ثوري ومجيد، ينظف به ماضيه و"يبردخه" بمفعول رجعي، مستفيداً من الكلامولوجيا الشعبوية السائدة التي تلعب دوراً إرهابياً، يقوم على تخوين دعاة الواقعية كطريقة في فهم الأمور والعقلانية سبيلاً لمعالجتها، وعدداً كبيراً من الذين قاوموا الأسدية وعرفوا سجونها، ثم غمرهم ديماغوجيوها الفطريون بثورجيّةٍ جعلت منهم مستحاثاتٍ فات زمانها، يجب شطبها من ذاكرة الشعب، بالطرق التي طالما تعلمها الثورجيون الحاليون من ثورجيّة نظام البعث، إبّان فترة خنوعهم له. 

كيف نفسر، من دون أوهام هذا النمط الواسع الانتشار من الثورجيين، إسداء الذين غرقوا من ممثليه، وأغرقوا الثورة في شبر ماء، النصح طوال الأعوام المنصرمة للأميركيين هنا، وللروس هناك، حول أفضل سبل تلبية مصالحهم، ووضع سورية وثورتها في جيوبهم، وتصحيح ما قد ينشأ من سوء تفاهم بين واشنطن والثورة السورية، قد يضعف ما بينهما من وحدة. والحل إن عدداً كبيراً من معارضي الخارج لم يتوقف إلى اليوم عن تقديم النصح للأميركيين حول أفضل سياسات تخدم مصالحهم، في بلادنا وكل مكان، ولم يصدّق أنهم ليسوا أوفى أصدقاء قضيتهم، وأنه لا يقلق نومهم إن بقي النظام والأسد في السلطة، ولا يدافعون، بالأفعال والأقوال، عن حق كل سورية وسوري في الحرية والكرامة. في المقابل، يعتقد عدد كبير من معارضي الداخل أن الاتحاد السوفييتي لم يسقط، كل ما في الأمر أنه غيّر اسمه وحسب، وأن بوتين هو لينين زماننا الذي علينا الثقة به والسير في ركابه، مهما ناقضت أقواله وأفعاله آمالنا، إن كنا نريد لنضالنا ضد بشار الأسد أن يحقّق نتيجةً ما. 


في "كليلة ودمنة" قصة عن طائر لقلق نصح حمامة ألا تلقي فراخها إلى الثعلب الذي يهدّدها، كل صباح، بصعود الشجرة والتهام فراخها، إن رفضت إلقاء واحدٍ منهم إليه. قال الطائر للحمامة: لا يستطيع الثعلب بلوغ عشّك في أعلى الشجرة، فلا تلقي بفراخك إليه. بسؤالها، قالت الحمامة: إن طائر اللقلق هو الذي أعلمها بعجزه عن ارتقاء الأشجار. بحث الثعلب عن الطائر. عندما وجده، امتدح جماله، وأبدى إعجابه بضخامة جناحيه، وسأله أين يضع عنقه الطويل، حين تهب عليه العواصف من جميع الجهات. أجاب الطائر المنتشي بالإطراء: أضعه بين ساقي. طلب الثعلب منه أن يريه كيف يفعل ذلك، وحين طوى عنقه وأخفى رأسه بين ساقيه، انقضّ الثعلب عليه، وأمسك به، وهو يقول له: يا غبي، ترى الرأي لسواك، ولا تراه لنفسك


تلك كانت نهاية لقلقٍ غبي أسكره المديح الكاذب، فمتى تكون نهاية لقالق معارضتنا الذين يرون الرأي لأميركا وروسيا، ولا يرونه لشعبهم، ويقدمون النصح لمن لا يحتاج إلى نصحهم، بينما يرتكبون أخطاء كارثية تضرّ بشعبهم ووطنهم. وكما كانت الحمامة تلقي بفراخها إلى الثعلب الماكر، يلقون هم مواطنيهم إلى أعداء يستمتعون برؤيتهم وهم يتخبطون في مأزقهم، أو يقتلونهم، أو إلى غزاة احتلوا بلادهم، وحوّلوها إلى مكانٍ تسرح فيه ضوارٍ من شتى الأصناف والدول، تشارك الأسد في نهش لحم شعبهم ولعق دمائه.
يا لقالق المعارضة: متى ترون الرأي لشعبكم، ولا ترونه لأعدائه وخصومه؟ 


ماوراء الخبر-لماذا تصر القاهرة على مخالفة حلفائها الخليجيين؟

How Turkey’s Reconciliation Deal with Israel Harms the Palestinians

By signing the reconciliation agreement with Israel, Turkey has betrayed the Palestinians and made itself complicit in Israel’s occupation regime.
By Jeremy R. Hammond
With Israel and Turkey having announced a reconciliation agreement this week, Turkey is portraying itself as a protector of the oppressed by arguing that it will allow greater aid to the people of Gaza. The truth, however, is that, far from helping the Palestinians, Turkey’s deal with Israel serves to reinforce the occupation regime in place since the June 1967 Israeli-Arab War.
The mainstream media, as ever, is failing to properly report the significance of the reconciliation agreement. Here’s what you need to know.
The Context
Relations between Turkey and Israel came under strain as a result of Israel’s 2008-09 massacre in Gaza (dubbed “Operation Cast Lead”, in which over 1,300 Palestinians were killed, mostly civilians). Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan famously confronted Israeli President Shimon Peres at the 2009 World Economic Forum, publicly criticizing him for Israel’s war crimes before storming off the stage.
Relations were severed in May 2010 when the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) attacked a civilian ship on a humanitarian mission in international waters, murdering nine Turkish peace activists on board (one of whom was also an American citizen).
The ship, the Mavi Marmara, was part of a flotilla aiming to break Israel’s illegal blockade of the Gaza Strip, a policy of collectively punishing the entire civilian population for the crime of having Hamas as governing authority.
Hamas had taken over control of Gaza in the summer of 2007 after Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas conspired with the US and Israel to overthrow the Hamas government that was democratically elected in early 2006.
The coup effort failed, and Hamas’s main opposition, Abbas’s Fatah party, was expelled. Ever since, Hamas has ruled in Gaza while the West Bank remains under the thumb of Abbas, whose term long ago expired, and who remains in office illegitimately.
Israel responded to Hamas’s election victory by drastically escalating its policy of blockading Gaza with the goal of collectively punishing the civilian population—a violation of international law.
After IDF forces murdered the activists aboard the Mavi Marmara, Turkey cut diplomatic ties to Israel in protest, and Israel followed suit.
The new agreement is designed to re-establish cozy relations.
The Terms
Under the agreement, Turkey will give the military arm of Hamas the boot, such as banning its use of Turkish soil to train new recruits. Hamas, which has praised the deal, may still carry out political activities there.
Both countries agree to lift diplomatic sanctions to normalize relations, with a hope of possibly returning to the lucrative cooperation Israel and Turkey have previously enjoyed in the military and “security” sectors, as well as sectors like tourism and energy.
While not explicitly mentioned, the agreement will pave the way for Turkey to become a portal for Israeli gas exports to Europe, with a pipeline deal in the works.
But there are two other terms of the agreement that warrant particular attention…
Turkey has also committed under the deal to help Israel ensure that there will be no justice for the families of the victims of Israel’s attack on the flotilla.
Israel will put a paltry $20 million into a fund to be transferred to victims’ families. Israel’s special envoy during negotiations with Turkey, Joseph Ciechanover, hailed the deal on the grounds that it would “generate achievements for Israel worth far more than $20 million.”
Moreover, the money will not be transferred until Turkey passes a law helping to make sure that the perpetrators of the crime—least of all those at the highest levels of the Israeli government—will not be held accountable. Turkey agrees under the deal to bar its court system from hearing any claims against Israelis for the attack on the Mavi Marmara.
But the travesty of justice doesn’t end there.
The government of Turkey is emphasizing that the deal will allow it to deliver an immediate shipment of 20,000 tons of humanitarian aid to Gaza. It has also highlighted its plans for development projects in Gaza, including a new hospital, a power station, and a desalinization plant—all of which are badly needed.
But the real meaning of the deal is that Turkey is agreeing to help Israel sustain its illegal blockade of Gaza, thus making itself complicit in Israel’s collective punishment of the Palestinians in order for certain crony sectors of its economy to profit from the prolonged misery of Gazans through partnership with the occupation regime.
Instead of demanding that Israel must cease its illegal policy, Turkey has instead acted to legitimize the collective punishment of 1.8 million Gazans.
The US Role
In the backdrop of all this is the role of the US government. Israel is Washington’s closest partner in the Middle East, and Turkey is, of course, a NATO ally.
From the beginning, the US has sought to get its partner regimes to reconcile with each other, so as to be able to carry on with business as usual.
The US has also played an important role in helping to ensure that Israel is not held accountable for its continuous violations of international law—a task in which the Western mainstream media has also played a key role.
After its murder of nine Turkish civilians, Israel came under intense international pressure to end its illegal blockade. Instead, it merely lifted some of its restrictions on goods permitted into Gaza—such as juice, spices, and shaving cream.
The US naturally praised the Israeli government for continuing its slightly-eased illegal blockade regime, taking credit for persuading Israel to do so—and the media played along in its usual role of manufacturing consent for government policy.
Mark Lynch in Foreign Policy, for instance, at the time hailed the “good deal” that Gazans were getting under the arrangement—in which Israel agreed to allow slightly more goods into Gaza “in exchange for American support for a whitewash of the investigation of the flotilla incident.”
To that end, the US also had a willing partner in crime: UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon…
The UN Secretariat’s Role
The United Nations organization, too, has long played the game of paying lip service to the rights of the Palestinians while in truth acting with great duplicity, from the conflict’s origins to today.
In the aftermath of Israel’s attack on the flotilla, there was a UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) fact-finding mission to investigate the incident. Its conclusions were uncontroversial. It reiterated the international consensus that Israel’s blockade constituted collective punishment and hence violated international law. Consequently, it found Israel’s attack on the flotilla and murder of nine civilians on board to be an additional violation of international law. Even had Israel’s blockade been legitimate, international law required Israel to allow the safe passage of humanitarian aid to the civilian population and forbade Israel from attacking a civilian vessel on the high seas.
The US naturally opposed that report every step of the way while seeking to undermine its findings and recommendations designed to seek justice for the victims.
Behind the scenes, the US colluded with the UN Secretariat to undermine the cause of justice. At the same time the fact the Fact-Finding Mission was underway, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon authorized his own inquiry into the attack—to be headed up by former New Zealand Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer and Colombia President Alvaro Uribe, along with one delegate each from Israel and Turkey.
The representative for the Israeli point of view was none other than Mr. Joseph Ciechanover—the same special envoy who helped negotiate the recent reconciliation agreement with Turkey.
Apologists for Israel’s illegal blockade have loudly trumpeted the report of Ban Ki-moon’s Panel of Inquiry—popularly known as the Palmer Report—since its chairs expressed their opinion that Israel’s blockade was legal. (Mr. Ciechanover naturally concurred with that view.)
The Palmer Report also judged Israel’s attack on the Mavi Marmara to be “excessive and unreasonable” (which Mr. Ciechanover naturally registered his objection to), yet stopped short of drawing the unavoidable corollary that it constituted a violation of international law.
What the apologists fail to mention is that the Palmer Report’s opinion lacked all authority. In fact, the report itself emphasized that it had no mandate to express any legal opinion—something its two chair members lacked any qualifications to give, anyhow.
Moreover, the mandate the Panel did receive was a political one: the explicit goal was to establish a framework for Israel and Turkey to be able to reestablish relations, in accordance with the will of Washington. To that end, the Panel went to great lengths to avoid inquiring into the legality of Israel’s blockade and simply adopted as its premise that it was not illegal—despite self-contradictorily acknowledging that one effect was the deprivation amongst the civilian population of Gaza.
The report was riddled with factual errors and logical fallacies, as well as willful deceptions, such as deliberate mischaracterizations of what international law has to say about it. For example, the Panel claimed that Israel’s sole purpose must be to starve Gazans outright or otherwise deny them goods essential for their survival in order for it to constitute a violation; the truth being that anticipated harm to civilians in excess of the military advantage sought renders a blockade illegal—a criteria incontrovertibly met in the case of Gaza and the perpetual humanitarian crisis that has existed since the siege began.
As Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s senior adviser Dov Weissglass explained it at the time, the blockade was intended to be “like an appointment with a dietician. The Palestinians will get a lot thinner, but won’t die.”
The purpose of the blockade is perfectly understood in Washington. On November 3, 2008, the US embassy in Tel Aviv cabled to then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that “Israeli officials have confirmed to Embassy officials on multiple occasions that they intend to keep the Gazan economy functioning at the lowest level possible consistent with avoiding a humanitarian crisis”—with “humanitarian crisis” defined by Israel as the point at which Gazans start dropping dead from outright starvation.
The goal was “to keep the Gazan economy on the brink of collapse without quite pushing it over the edge.”
For the Palmer Panel, that the blockade was legitimate was a pre-drawn conclusion designed to further a political aim at the expense of ensuring Israeli impunity for its criminal actions. It was contrary to a clear international consensus that Israel’s blockade is illegal—a consensus expressed in the immediate aftermath of the Mavi Marmara attack by every single member of the UN Security Council other than the US, by the authoritative findings of the UN fact-finding mission, by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and by international human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, not to mention Israeli rights groups like B’Tselem and Gisha.
The Mainstream Media’s Role
In short, it is a simple point of fact under international law that the blockade is illegal.
Yet here’s an example of how the US media explained the legality of Israel’s blockade following the release of the Palmer Report: Isabel Kershner writing in theNew York Times informed readers of Israel’s position that its blockade was “in accordance with international law” and that its position was “backed up by the Palmer report”.
That’s it. No mention of the consensus view of the rest of the planet. Just Israel’s position and the non-authoritative opinion of two former politicians with no qualifications in legal jurisprudence whose stated purpose was to advance a political agenda and who adopted false premises and engaged in demonstrably willful deceptions in order to arrive at the desired conclusion.
Here’s the BBC explaining the context for the recent reconciliation agreement: “Israel maintains its blockade of Gaza to try to prevent weapons or materials reaching Palestinian militants … while allowing humanitarian aid into the territory. Palestinians say the policy is tantamount to collective punishment, and UN and aid officials have warned of deteriorating conditions in Gaza.”
So Israel’s blockade, according to the lying BBC, is aimed solely at the military sphere, without blocking goods for the civilian population. That the blockade is illegal is relegated by the BBC to merely the Palestinians’ point of view—rather than the view of every country on the planet other than Israel itself and its superpower benefactor. UN and aid officials warn of a worsening situation, but fall short of condemning the blockade’s illegality, in the fantasy world painted by the British news agency.
With regard to the question of whether IDF commandos began using live fire against passengers before or after landing on the deck of the Mavi Marmara by rope from helicopter above, the BBC article adds, “A UN inquiry was unable to determine at exactly which point the commandos used live rounds.”
That’s a most peculiar statement, in light of the fact that the UN fact-finding inquiry into Israel’s attack on the flotilla rather determined that “live ammunition was used from the helicopter onto the top deck prior to the descent of the soldiers.” The evidence indicated that most of the victims were executed at close range, including Furkan Doğan, the youngest person killed and an American citizen of Turkish descent.
Such is the nature of the mainstream media’s coverage of international affairs, which serves the goal of manufacturing consent for Western government’s complicity in Israel’s perpetual trampling of Palestinians’ human rights.
Conclusion
This week’s reconciliation deal certainly isn’t the first time Turkey has betrayed the Palestinians and their just cause.
Following the Mavi Marmara attack, Turkey declared that its military would escort future flotillas in order to protect them from Israeli attack and see their humanitarian mission through to Gaza.
Turkey also vowed to pursue legal recourse through the International Court of Justice (ICJ)—which in 2004, relevantly, had issued an advisory opinion affirming the illegality of Israel’s settlements, including in occupied East Jerusalem, as well as of the annexation wall Israel was constructing in the West Bank.
That was all meaningless talk, of course—empty promises of solidarity with the Palestinians in their plight to be free from Israeli oppression.
Turkey’s true colors were revealed in full display this week with its reconciliation agreement with Israel—a deal that, far from helping the people of Gaza, makes Turkey Israel’s partner in perpetuating the occupation regime.
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan declared that his governmentconsulted with the Palestinians “every step” of the way during its negotiations with Israel.
What he meant, however, is that he consulted with the Palestinian Authority (PA) under Abbas’s illegitimate leadership. The PA’s acquiescence to the agreement is simply a reflection of the role defined for it under the Oslo Accords: that of Israel’s collaborator in the occupation regime. (Turkey also apparently consulted with Hamas, whose reasons for approval are more ambiguous, but presumably attributable to a belief among its leadership that they will benefit politically, and perhaps also financially, irrespective of the long-term detriment to the civilian population living under Hamas’s thumb.)
The Palestinian people, on the other hand, who don’t enjoy the same elite status as Abbas and his cronies, certainly weren’t consulted on the matter.
What the people of Gaza need isn’t more charity. What they really need is their freedom and dignity, to be able to have the means and opportunity to provide a living for themselves—for the world community to cease turning their backs on them and to stop participating in the perpetual violation of their human rights.
Turkey, through its reconciliation agreement with Israel, has chosen to commit itself to helping Israel sustain the status quo of oppression that has kept the people of Gaza in need of so much humanitarian aid in the first place.
 (This article was originally published at Foreign Policy Journal and is largely drawn from material in the author’s new book Obstacle to Peace: The US Role in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Click here to read the entire first chapter now for free.)
– Jeremy R. Hammond is an award-winning analyst and publisher and editor ofForeign Policy Journal. Described by Barron’s as “a writer of rare skill”, he is the author of The Rejection of Palestinian Self-Determination: The Struggle for Palestine and the Roots of the Israeli-Arab Conflict (2009), Ron Paul vs. Paul Krugman: Austrian vs. Keynesian Economics in the Financial Crisis (2012), andObstacle to Peace: The US Role in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (2016). He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com. Visit: JeremyRHammond.com.

Al-Jazeera Cartoon

كاريكاتير: الخيار السلمي

WE HATE THE SYRIAN PEOPLE......BUT WE LOVE ASSAD!

//كاريكاتير//

Friday, July 1, 2016

تركيا الجديدة

A GOOD POST
حسام كنفاني
حسام كنفاني
Link

لم تكن إطاحة أحمد داود أوغلو من رئاسة الحكومة التركية مجرد عملية داخلية في إطار حزب العدالة والتنمية، أو إعادة توزيع مهام تمنح الرئيس التركي، رجب طيب أردوغان، مزيداً من السيطرة على قواعد الحزب وسياسات الحكومة. يبدو أن المشهد أوسع من ذلك بكثير، وهو ما تظهره التحولات البارزة في السياسة التركية في أكثر من ملف. تحولات توحي بأننا أمام تركيا جديدة، مختلفة كلياً عما كانت عليه قبل خمس سنوات، يوم اصطفت بالكامل إلى جانب الثورات العربية، وتحديداً السورية، ورسمت سياستها على قاعدة موالاة هذه الثورة ومعاداتها. 
قد لا يعني المشهد، اليوم، خروج تركيا بالكامل عن هذه القاعدة، إلا أنه من الواضح أنها لم تعد محدّداً أساسياً في رسم السياسات التركية التي يبدو أنها تعود تدريجياً إلى قاعدة "تصفير المشكلات" التي رسمها داود أوغلو قبل توليه رئاسة الحكومة، وقبل الغوص التركي في أزمات المنطقة واصطفافاتها. 
تحولات سريعة جداً عرفتها السياسة التركية في أقل من شهر، بعد تولي بن علي يلدريم رئاسة الحكومة. تحولات عنوانها الأساس المصالحات، والتي من الواضح أنها بدأت تضع تركيا على مسار جديد من التحالفات الإقليمية والدولية. البداية كانت مع إسرائيل. وعلى الرغم من أن الخبر لم يكن مفاجئاً إلى حدٍّ ما، على اعتبار أن المصالحة توّجت سلسلة طويلة من المفاوضات كان بدأها داود أوغلو، إلا أن ختامها كان أقل بكثير من المتوقع، ولا سيما بعدما رفعت أنقرة سقف المطالب في مفاوضاتها، وتحديداً في ما يخصّ رفع الحصار عن قطاع غزة، وإنشاء ميناء بحري يمثّل متنفساً للقطاع. اختفت هذه المطالب فجأة من لائحة تركيا التي بات من الواضح أنها مستعجلة في إغلاق الملف، وفتح صفحة جديدة في العلاقات الإقليمية والدولية. 
خيبة الأمل من المصالحة التركية - الإسرائيلية، والتي يمكن القول إنها دون المستوى المأمول، لم تتوقف عند هذا الحد، بل توسّعت مع مراقبة توجهات أنقرة الجديدة نحو روسيا، والاعتذار الذي قدمه أردوغان إلى الرئيس الروسي فلاديمير بوتين، برعايةٍ من رئيس الوزراء الإسرائيلي بنيامين نتنياهو. اعتذار بات واضحاً أنه ليس فقط لإعادة العلاقات الاقتصادية، وخصوصاً السياحية، بين البلدين، بل يفتح على ما هو أبعد، ولا سيما مع الإعلان عن تنسيقٍ عسكريٍّ في ما يخص الوضع في سورية. من الغريب أن يكون "التنسيق العسكري" بين بلدين من المفترض أنهما على طرفي نقيض من الوضع في سورية، إلا إذا كان هناك نوع من إعادة التموضع بالنسبة لأحدهما. ومن الواضح أن الحديث لا يتم عن إعادة تموضع روسي، بل عن توجهات تركية جديدة لا تزال في بداية تحولاتها، ولا يزال من المبكر الحديث عن تأثيراتها، وتحديداً على الساحة السورية، والتي ترى فيها تركيا خطراً وجودياً متمثلاً في التوسع الكردي المحمي من روسيا بالدرجة الأولى. هذا الخطر جزء أساسي من التحولات التركية الجديدة، والتي قد تدفع أنقرة نحو مزيد من التنسيق، ليس فقط مع روسيا، بل ربما مع النظام السوري نفسه الذي ناصبته العداء خلال السنوات الخمس الماضية.
هذا الكلام تدعمه تصريحات بن علي يلدريم، في لقاء مع صحافيين أتراك عقد في 17 يونيو/ حزيران الماضي، حين شدّد على ضرورة إعادة العلاقات بين تركيا وكل من سورية ومصر وإسرائيل وروسيا من جهة أخرى إلى مستواها الطبيعي، قائلاً "إسرائيل، سورية، روسيا، مصر... لا يمكن البقاء في حال عداء دائم مع هذه الدول المحيطة بالبحر الأسود والبحر الأبيض المتوسط".


تصريحات تؤكد أن تركيا جديدة بدأت تظهر، وأن مشهداً جديداً من التحالفات الإقليمية والدولية في طريقه إلى التشكل. مشهد سيكون له ضحايا كثيرين، لعل المعارضة السورية أولهم

Thursday, June 30, 2016

Brexit: The English gamble

What are the chances the bet on Britain will pay off?


A GOOD ANALYSIS

By Marwan Bishara

Link

There has been no shortage of commentary on the British vote to leave the European Union; mostly angry, vengeful, and even apocalyptic, or spiteful and celebratory. Little by way of sober analysis has come to the fore.
Both sides are talking, but neither is listening. The losers focus on the deception before the vote and the blowback after it, while the winners focus on the need to heed the voice of the people, and for all to help to mitigate any potential harm to British interests.
Brexit: EU says no compromise on freedom of movement
Beyond the badgering, however, there should be little doubt that Brexit is a protest vote; it has shown that the majority of people are alienated and angry with their establishment and governing elites. The working class in Britain, much like in Europe and the United States, feels alienated by their leaders and estranged in their countries.
Convinced they've got little to lose and much to gain from change, the especially older, poorer and less educated English seem willing to take the risk and wish for the better. Wishful thinking?

A gambling nation

The English are, for lack of a better word, compulsive gamblers. And they gamble on anything and everything from the Lottery, bingo and scratchcards to horse races and sports, notably football.


The largest bookmaker in Britain, William Hill, estimates that the gambling industry will rack up wagers of £500m ($670m) on the European Championship tournament this year. And it's all legal.
Rupert Murdoch's The Sun has been accused of spreading misinformation in support of the Brexit vote [Al Jazeera]
It's the leading entertainment activity next to going out. A 2003 study showed that nine out of 10 English gambled at least once; the majority did it twice or three times a week.
They also gamble on politics.
When almost all Brits were anxious in the days before last week's vote, uncertainty only excited the bookmakers.
By June 23, the English had placed millions of pounds in bets, and the Brexit turned to be "the biggest political betting event of all time, anywhere".
But if you think about it, what's this referendum, in and of itself, if not a historic gamble on the future of the country?  

No more hedging

Ever since it joined the EU four decades ago, England has been wary of EU influence, and the leading Conservative Party has been highly suspicious of the EU's plans for a federal state that would dilute British sovereignty.
The outcome of the vote was determined in no small part by the Brexiters' success in framing the choice in terms of Britain or the EU.

That's why London has been extra-cautious in its approach to EU integration; with every new commitment it made, London took exception to another.
In that way, England agreed to free trade and free movement of people in the EU, but stayed out of the single currency and out of the Schengen agreement that allows for open borders between its European signatories.
The one-step-forward, one-step-back approach seemed to work fine as long as the relationship was beneficial.
But then came the 2008 financial crisis. It exposed the EU's fragility, inefficiency and weaknesses, and led to an increased European immigration to Britain, especially from Eastern Europe.
All of this was combined with deepening instability and insecurity on the continent.
The populist, nationalist anti-European camp took advantage of the European crisis to push for exit, using cliches, lies and half-truths.


And when it came to choosing between the status quo and change, the English chose change.

Britain vs the EU

The outcome of the vote was determined in no small part by the Brexiters' success in framing the choice in terms of Britain or the EU.
To my mind, that sealed the deal and rendered most other considerations superfluous.
Throughout the campaign, supporters of the Leave camp were pumped up, proud, and passionate about "their Britain" and about regaining its liberty and independence, while the Remain supporters were hazy, hesitant, and half-hearted in their support for the European Union, at times even hostile to it.
Indeed, the Leave camp seemed far more convinced of their arguments about British sovereignty and greatness than was the Remain camp on the European Union.
If Remain's arguments were wonky and wobbly, the Brexit plans for the morning after have been no less vague and elusive.

But if Remain's arguments were wonky and wobbly, the Brexit plans for the morning after have been no less vague and elusive.

Casino politics

Brexit has already triggered a major crisis in the financial markets. And it promises to exact a greater economic, political, and geopolitical cost on both the UK and the EU.  
It might also lead to contagion of secessions both within the UK (Scotland, Northern Ireland) and the EU (take your pick).
And finally, it could potentially lead to chaos with a spillover effect throughout Europe and beyond.
And yet, the leading politicians behind Brexit don't seem prepared with a short or long-term strategy for the country without Europe.
They speak in general terms about continued good relations with the EU, but they provide no answers to the challenges of the morning after ending their membership.


The Council of Europe has already made clear that any future trade deal with England will necessitate accepting the free movement of people and the very EU regulations long detested by the English.
For years, the English have hedged their bets between Britain and the EU, ie, on their special membership in the Union, and the country has grown faster and more secure than the rest of the bloc. 
But the vote is about to change all of that. And it promises to be difficult. The Economist Intelligence Unit forecasts that after "Brexit has plunged the UK into political, economic and market turmoil"; the turmoil will be "sustained".
So now the English have three options:
Either they embrace the challenge with open arms or, to paraphrase one pundit, the task might be onerous, grim, and confounding, but which worthwhile endeavour was ever anything else?
Or, they sober up, procrastinate, renegotiate and eventually backtrack before the actual divorce takes hold.
And they can always go with the flow, along the lines of the late English romantic rebel John Lennon: "Everything will be OK in the endIf it's not OKit's not the end."
Marwan Bishara is the senior political analyst at Al Jazeera. Follow him on Facebook.

بلا حدود - قردش: مصلحة تركيا أثمرت الاتفاق مع روسيا وإسرائيل (English Version)

Russian Cluster Munitions Have Literally Made Syria a Minefield



Link

© 2016 Firas Abdallah

Fragment pattern typical of the detonation of a submunition seen in the asphalt in Douma, Damascus, after a cluster munition attack on February 3, 2016. © 2016 Firas Abdallah
It is a striking sight: Dozens of brightly burning objects light up the night, slowly descending to the ground. It looks like a magnificent display of fireworks, but the burning objects are incendiary weapons designed to destroy infrastructure and inflict excruciatingly painful thermal and respiratory burns on their victims.
Nonetheless, incendiary weapons have been raining down on a strategic area just north of the city of Aleppo, Syria almost daily for the last few weeks. The attacks came as Syrian ground forces and their allies, supported by Russian air power, have attempted to encircle the city to drive out opposition forces there.
A total of 113 countries including Russia (but not Syria) have ratified a treaty prohibiting the use of air-delivered incendiary weapons in areas with a "concentration of civilians." And in a recent letter to Human Rights Watch in response to calls to strengthen international law on incendiary weapons, Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov acknowledged the "significant humanitarian damage" caused by incendiary weapons in Syria, which he blamed on their "improper use."
Syrian government forces have used the same kind of incendiary weapons against the opposition in Syria since 2012.
But on June 18, Russia Today published a video on YouTube filmed at Khmeimim, the Russian airbase in Syria, that included footage showing a Russian Air Force SU-34 jet armed with RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM incendiary weapons. The footage indicates that Russia is using incendiary weapons in Syria as well.
Because of the ongoing fighting it is difficult to establish the exact impact of the recent use of incendiary weapons on civilians, but a hospital administrator in Anadan has said that he believes such weapons struck and damaged his hospital on June 16. Hitting a functioning hospital, a violation of the laws of war with any weapon, surely qualifies as "improper use."
The recent use of incendiary weapons in Syria and Russia Today's release of footage showing Russia using the weapon has attracted media attention and scrutiny from the United Nations, as well as expressions of concern from Turkey, the United States and Britain.
But incendiary weapons are just one of the types of weapons threatening civilians in northern Aleppo. Since Russia entered the air campaign at the end of September 2015, there has been a significant increase in the use of cluster munitions, especially in recent weeks. A total of 119 countries have prohibited cluster munitions under a 2008 treaty, but not Russia or Syria. For weeks we have daily recorded reports of cluster munition attacks in several governorates of Syria, particularly Aleppo and Idlib.
One reason cluster munitions have been banned is that their submunitions fall over a wide area during the attack, posing an immediate threat to civilians in the area. Because they can't be used in a way that distinguishes civilians from combatants, they are inherently indiscriminate. The other problem is that many of the submunitions fail to explode and become de facto land mines that might explode if disturbed, by children picking them up, for example.
Based on the daily posting of photos and videos showing explosive remnants of war from the fighting in Syria, there are many of these unexploded submunitions. Syria Civil Defense, a volunteer search-and-rescue organization operating in opposition-held areas, has destroyed more than 600 unexploded submunitions since they started clearing unexploded ordnance systematically in late March. Many more are probably still lying in streets or buried in fields, posing a threat to civilians.
As with incendiary weapons, photographs and videos from the Russian airbase, some of them from October and November 2015, have convincingly shown that, despite denials, Russia is also using these weapons.
And finally, we have documented significant civilian harm from regular aerial bombs — as well as the unlawful killing of civilians by armed opposition groups — in Aleppo. In just two days in early June, airstrikes killed at least 32 civilians in opposition-controlled territory and rocket attacks killed at least 22 civilians in government-controlled territory.
In a May 9 statement, the United States and Russia promised to carry out a joint assessment of attacks in Syria "leading to significant civilian casualties" and to share the results with the members of the International Syria Support Group Ceasefire Task Force and the UN Security Council. In a May 3 resolution, the UN Security Council strongly urged countries to conduct, in an independent manner, "full, prompt, impartial and effective investigations" of violations of the laws of war related to attacks on health, such as hospitals and medical centers.
So far we are not aware of any such investigations.