Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Dear Syria: From One Refugee to Another

Link

By Ramzy Baroud
Do not ever kneel. Do not ever kiss a hand. Don’t give anyone the satisfaction to exploit your pain. (Via MEE)
Whenever the word “refugee” is uttered, I think of my mother. When Zionist militias began their systematic onslaught and “cleansing” of the Palestinian Arab population of historic Palestine in 1948, she, along with her family, ran away from the once peaceful village of Beit Daras.
Back then, Zarefah was six. Her father died in a refugee camp in a tent provided by the Quakers soon after he had been separated from his land. As a young girl, she collected scrap metal to help her family.
My grandmother, Mariam, would venture out to the “death zone” that bordered the separated and newly established state of Israel from Gaza’s refugee camps to collect figs and oranges. She faced death every day. Her children were all refugees, living in shatat – Diaspora.
My mother lived to be 42. Her life was tremendously difficult. She married a refugee, my father, and together they brought seven refugees into this world – my brothers, my sister and myself. One died as a toddler from a very curable childhood illness, but there was no medicine in the refugee camp’s clinic.
No matter where we are, in time and place, we carry our refugee ID cards, our undefinable nationalities, our precious status, our parents’ burden, our ancestors’ grief.
In fact, we have a name for it. It is called waja - aching – a characteristic that unifies millions of Palestinian refugees all across the globe. With our refugee population now dominated by second, third or even fourth generation refugees, it seems that our waja is what we hold in common most. Our geographies may differ, our languages, our political allegiances, our cultures, but ultimately, we meet around the painful experiences that we have internalised throughout generations.
My mother used to say – Ihna yalfalastinieen damitna qaribeh – “Tears for us Palestinians are always close by.” But our readiness to shed tears is not a sign of weakness, far from it. It is because throughout the years we managed to internalise our own exile, and its many ramifications, along with the everyone else’s exiles. The emotional burden is great.
We mask the unbearable aching somehow, but it is always close to the surface. If we hear a single melody by Marcel Khalifeh or Sheikh Imam, or a few verses by Mahmoud Darwish, the wound is as fresh as ever.
Most of us no longer live in tents, but we are reminded of our refugee status every single day, by the Israeli occupation, by the Gaza siege and the internally-displaced Palestinians in Israel, by the Iraq war and the displacement of the already displaced Palestinians there, by the despicable living conditions of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, and throughout the Middle East.
But for us, Syria has been our greatest waja in years. Aside from the fact that most of Syria’s half a million Palestinian refugees are on the run again, living the pain of displacement and loss for the second, third, or even fourth time, nine million Syrian refugees are now duplicating the Palestinian tragedy, charting the early course of the Palestinian Nakba, the catastrophe of 1948.
Watching the destitution of the Syrian refugees is like rewinding the past, in all of its awful details. Watching Arab states clamour to aid the refugees with ample words and little action feels as if we are living the Arab betrayal all over again.
I watched my grandparents die, followed by my parents and many of my peers. All of them died refugees, carrying the same status and the same lost hope of return. The most they ever received from the “international community” was a few sacks of rice and cheap cooking oil. And, of course, numerous tents.
With time, our refugee status morphed from being a “problem” to an integral part of our identities. Being a “refugee” at this stage means insisting on the Right of Returnfor Palestinian refugees as enshrined in international law. That status is no longer just a mere reference to physical displacement but also to a political, even a national identity.
Political division may, at times, dominate Palestinian society, but we will always be united by the fact that we are refugees with a common cause: going home. While, for the Palestinians of Yarmouk near Damascus, being a refugee is a matter of life and death – often by starvation – for the larger Palestinian collective, the meaning of the word has become more involved: it has been etched onto our skin forever.
But what can one say by way of advice to the relatively new refugees of Syria, considering that we are yet to liberate ourselves from a status that we never sought?
There can be only reminders and a few warnings:
First, may your displacement end soon. May you never live the waja of displacement to the extent that you embrace it as a part of your identity, and pass it on from one generation to another. May it be a kind of fleeting pain or passing nightmare, but never a pervasive, everyday reality.
Second, you must be prepared for the worst. My grandparents left their new blankets in their village before they fled to the refugee camps because they feared they would have been ruined by the dust of the journey. Alas, the camps became home, and the blankets were confiscated as the rest of Palestine was. Please remain hopeful, but realistic.
Third, don’t believe the “international community” when they make promises. They never deliver, and when they do, it is always for ulterior motives that might bring you more harm than good. In fact, the term itself is illusory, mostly used in reference to Western countries which have wronged you as they have us.
Fourth, don’t trust Arab regimes. They lie. They feel not your pain. They hear not your pleas, nor do they care. They have invested so much in destroying your countries, and so little in redeeming their sins. They speak of aid that rarely arrives and political initiatives that constitute mostly press releases. But they will take every opportunity to remind you of their virtues. In fact, your victimhood becomes a platform for their greatness. They thrive at your expense, thus will invest to further your misery.
Fifth, preserve your dignity. I know, it is never easy to maintain your pride when you sleep in a barren street covered in cardboard boxes. A mother would do whatever she can to help her children pass into safety. No matter, you must never allow the wolves awaiting you at every border to exploit your desperation. You must never allow the emir, or his children or some rich businessman or sympathetic celebrity to use you as a photo-op. Do not ever kneel. Don’t ever kiss a hand. Don’t give anyone the satisfaction to exploit your pain.
Sixth, remain united. There is strength in unity when one is a refugee. Don’t allow political squabbles to distract you from the greater battle at hand: surviving until the day you return home, and you will.
Seventh, love Syria. Yours is an unparalleled civilisation. Your history is rife with triumphs that were ultimately of your own making. Even if you must leave to distant lands, keep Syria in your hearts. This too shall pass, and Syria shall redeem its glory, once the brutes are vanquished. Only the spirit of the people shall survive. It is not wishful thinking. It is history.
Dear Syrian refugee, it has been 66 years and counting since my people’s dispossession began. We are yet to return, but that is a battle for my children, and their children to fight. I hope yours ends soon. Until then, please remember the tent is just a tent, and the gusts of cold wind are but of a passing storm.
And until you return home to Syria, don’t let the refugee become who you are, as you are so much more.
- Ramzy Baroud – www.ramzybaroud.net – is an internationally-syndicated columnist, a media consultant, an author of several books and the founder of PalestineChronicle.com. He is currently completing his PhD studies at the University of Exeter. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story (Pluto Press, London).

Shalom again, Barack

Phone call, the sequel.


By Marwan Bishara
avatar

BO: Shalom Bibi, I didn't expect your call so soon…
BN: We hung up on a bitter note and I was hoping we could find a middle ground.
BO: I can't see a middle ground here. Besides you have an election coming up and we cannot seem to be siding with any one side.
BN: Mr President, I am preoccupied by Iran's nuclear programme, not the elections. I am driven by the solemn commitment to Israel's security, not politics.
BO: You don't say! Unless you're planning to leak our chat, I can't see the point of this lofty talk; we're all political animals dear Bibi … no shame in that, I just prefer if you did it in your own backyard.
BN: You must believe me. I won't say it if I didn't mean it.
BO: Look, I am not questioning your sincerity, I am questioning your judgement; coming two weeks before the elections can only be perceived as exploiting the nuclear issue for narrow personal or political end. Frankly, it stinks of opportunism.
BN: Barack, I am calling out of consideration not desperation. What makes you think I am worried about the elections or the visit? I can easily make the speech and get re-elected prime minister come spring time.
BO: Judging from our diplomatic cables and the media reports, you are becoming ever more isolated, no one supports your visit, not even your friends in the Democratic Party, as well as your advisers and lobbyists, all are asking you to back off and cancel the visit.  Your gamble has clearly backfired.
BO: Judging from our diplomatic cables and the media reports, you are becoming ever more isolated, no one supports your visit, not even your friends in the Democratic Party, as well as your advisers and lobbyists, all are asking you to back off and cancel the visit. Your gamble has clearly backfired.
BN: Perhaps you and your people pay too much attention to the liberal press. I don't exactly care for the NY Times and Haaretz; their readerships aren't exactly my constituency.
BO: Benjamin, I read the signs, and yours are bleak. You've bitten off more than you can chew. If you're seeking my help to avoid choking on your own ambition, I'll happily oblige, but only if you call off the speech. That's unless you've had a sudden change of heart and decided to support our diplomacy.
BN: I couldn't and wouldn't call it off. That would be a major slap to Congress and its leadership. There should be another way out that doesn't undermine the White House or Congress and I am hoping we can explore it together.
BO: There's no way out. The only option that I can think of - one that was suggested by one of your lobbyists - is for you to postpone until well after the elections. Since you are sure of winning, I suggest you come late spring or summer. And perhaps we could also meet then.
BN: You want me to come speak to both Houses of Congress about the threat of Iran's nuclear programme after you've signed a deal with President Rouhani! Who's disingenuous now!
BO: Either way you won't get your way, Mr Prime Minister. Senator Robert Menendez and nine other Democratic senators have already sent me a letter to say they had withdrawn their support for another sanctions bill until the diplomatic process ran its course. We are betting on a peaceful resolution to the Iranian issue.  
BN: I am sure this will not stop the Republicans from going ahead with a bill. Meanwhile, I am only trying to mitigate a potential crisis and see whether we could arrive at a compromise of sort.
BO: No compromises here. I am the Commander in Chief and I've decided to pursue a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear programme. The Senate Republicans might be able to pass a bill with a thin majority, but they won't be able to override my veto power. You are on the wrong side of the issue; worse, you're on the wrong side of history.
BN: Oh, history, right. Mr President many before have bet on peace and diplomacy in the Middle East, but they failed once and again. This region and its people only understand the alphabet of intimidation and the language of force. You'll fail like any of your predecessors who reckoned they could reason with these people.
BO: These people, as you call them, are your neighbours, not ours. You might have the illusions of being western, but you are a Middle Eastern nation whether you like it or not. And, by the way, "these people" say the same about you.
BN: Israel is a country of principle; a country that's fighting for its survival. We would never compromise on that. 
BO: Your neighbours and much of the world reckon that Israel is an occupier. That it's Israel that only understands the language of force. That you've withdrawn from the Sinai, Lebanon and Gaza only under the threat of force and war.
BN: Be that as it may, look where these withdrawals have gotten us. They certainly didn't bring us security or normalisation of relations. The Arabs and Muslims are hateful and won't make peace with us. Our only protection is our military.
BO: And the United States?
BN: Well, yes.
BO: You will never feel safe or even survive in the long run until you become part and parcel of the region. You need to make peace and normalise relations with your neighbours. Agreements are always better than war.
BN: We are a democratic Jewish State in a sea of chaotic Muslim countries. And the only way we can endure it is by maintaining military superiority and total control over the autonomous Palestinian areas. History shows that the Palestinians cannot be trusted. We've tried to work with them but they're not amenable to coexistence.
BO: You want to maintain control over them and treat them as inferior and still expect them to acquiesce to your dictates! I never said it to you in the past, and I won't say it publicly even when some have speculated about my thoughts, but I think your approach towards your Arab and Muslim neighbours reminds me of the European approach to Africa, just as your treatment of the Palestinians reminds me of America's past treatment of black people. It's racist if you don't mind me saying so. 
BN: Sorry Mr President but I won't allow you to say that about us, we the Jewish people have suffered from racism more than any other people and won't tolerate such criticism. We've already told Mr Kerry how much we opposed his reference to Apartheid in the absence of peace.
BO: You forget whom you're talking to. Let's not try and compare past suffering. The challenge here is not to compete over victimhood. Rather the challenge is to draw the right conclusion; to stand for justice and equality, or to project bigotry and or justify xenophobia and racism.
BN: Thank you for another sermon, but that's hardly the issue here. It certainly wouldn't mitigate the Iranian threat. If you care so much for the Palestinians why did you leave them at our mercy, we, quote, the occupier, unquote? Why would you barter their rights for our silence on Iran?
BO: Listen, eventually you must either separate from the Palestinians into two states, or you'll have to live with them in one state, as in South Africa. Remember, Iran represents no threat, nuclear or any other, if you and the Palestinians live TOGETHER in peace and harmony. Otherwise, it's Israel that will be isolated; it's Israel that will pay the price of choosing belligerence over diplomacy.
BN: I need to go Mr President, as I am getting reports that Hezbollah has just attacked our military on the northern borders.
BO: We shall condemn it.
BN: I rest my case.
BO: So do I...
Marwan Bishara is the senior political analyst at Al Jazeera.

Current Al-Jazeera (Arabic) Online Poll


Do you expect that the confrontation between Hizbullah and Israel will escalate to an all-out war?

So far, 58% have voted no.


Information that the Syrians may not know

Dr Faisal Al-Qasim
Dr Faisal Al-Qasim





















Dr Faisal Al-Qasim

When the Wall Street Journal asked Bashar Al-Assad about the possibility of a revolution in Syria just months before its outbreak he replied, "Syria is not the same as Tunis." Some analysts believed that what he meant was that Syrians are happy with their leadership and that the regime considers itself to be a leader of resistance in the Arab world, and thus there is no way that the people would revolt against it. Today the opinion is different, with new information showing that Al-Assad meant that his regime, unlike those in Egypt and Tunisia, would not allow a revolution to spread and evolve even if it broke out; that he was ready to kill it at birth by using live ammunition on the streets and destroying whole cities over the heads of their inhabitants.

In his first speech after the outbreak of the revolution, Al-Assad was clear about what he had said to the US newspaper. He pointed out that his regime had managed to beat all conspiracies, and that he considered the revolution to be yet another conspiracy; thus, he would put an end to the domino effect of the Arab Spring and turn it around. What we are seeing now, therefore, is not an arbitrary response but something that has been planned carefully since before the beginning of the revolution.
Many had argued, naïvely I believe, that if the Syrian president had gone to Daraa, the birthplace of the revolution, and apologised for what his cousin, Atef Najib, the head of political security in the city, had done, everything would have been over there and then. Matters would not, it is said, have progressed to the current catastrophic situation in Syria.
In other words, what Najib did to the people of Daraa was an individual's error which could have been fixed with an apology. However, it is now believed that Najib was acting on the specific orders of Al-Assad. He did not pull out the finger- and toe-nails of Daraa's children or humiliate their parents on his own initiative simply because the children anti-Assad slogans on school walls. Far from it. He was ordered to punish any activity, no matter how insignificant, severely. This was what Al-Assad meant when he told the Wall Street Journal that his regime is not as gentle as Tunisia's.
Four months before the outbreak of the Syrian revolution, intelligence officials summoned a number of opposition figures to meetings where they were addressed by Tawfiq Younes, the Head of Internal Security in Damascus. He threatened them by telling them that he had strict orders from the president to shoot any Syrian who goes onto the streets to protest. The regime, he said, was ready to face any revolution, even if it had to destroy the country and kill hundreds of thousands of people in the process. Others have said that this means killing half of all Syrians if necessary.
The people cannot forget the presidential palace's infamous slogan: "Al-Assad or we will burn the country." It is clear, therefore, that there was a decision at the highest level to crush the revolution if it erupted. Al-Assad's speeches confirm that he would deal with a revolution using iron and fire, just as Iran crushed its Green Revolution of 2009.
If Najib was really guilty and had really made a mistake, the regime would have dealt with him, just as it has dealt with countless others over the years. Kinship or close relationships with the president mean nothing when the regime feels that it is threatened. It is well known that it is ready to crush those closest to it if they are a threat. Look at how Bashar's father Hafez Al-Assad dealt with his own brother Refaat when he stepped out of line; and how Ali Duba and Ali Haider were dealt with because of a word uttered before Bashar became president. Others have been assassinated for stepping out of line, but Atef Najib is still smoking his cigar at the Four Seasons Hotel in Damascus with the older governor of Daraa, Faisal Kalthoum, because Al-Assad's regime made a deal with Iran prior to the revolution; it would be dealt with the Iranian way.
This was clear from the first day of the Syrian revolution, when security officers used live ammunition on civilians and blamed "armed gangs". The military option was obvious the chosen way from the very beginning. How, then, can we believe Iran and Russia as they advocate a political solution? They are pushing for this because the situation has not gone the way that the regime wanted.
Advocates of a political solution at this point do so because the plan to crush the revolution has failed miserably, and the regime is facing defeat. Any negotiations from hereon are intended to save Al-Assad. Do not forget, though, that Bashar Al-Assad and his allies wanted to crush the revolution from the first day and end it through a military option, but failed; so why do some people want to save them from failure?
Translated from Al-Sharq newspaper, 25 January, 2015

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

اتساع مساحة التنسيق الروسي - الإيراني ودور مصري مساند

المركز العربي للأبحاث ودراسة السياسات

Link
اتساع مساحة التنسيق الروسي - الإيراني ودور مصري مساند
قام وزير الدفاع الروسي، سيرغي شويغو، بزيارةٍ إلى طهران في 19-21 يناير/كانون الثاني الجاري، وقّع في أثنائها مذكرة تفاهمٍ 
لتعزيز التعاون العسكري والدفاعي الثنائي مع نظيره الإيراني، حسين دهقان، وهي الزيارة الأولى لوزير دفاعٍ روسي منذ عام 2002. وتنص المذكرة على توسيع التعاون العسكري بين البلدين في مجال التدريب، وتنظيم مناورات مشتركة، ودعم الأمنين، الإقليمي والدولي، ومكافحة "الإرهاب والتطرف والميول الانفصالية". وذهبت وسائل إعلام محسوبة على إيران، أو قريبة منها، إلى الحديث عن نشوء تحالفٍ استراتيجي بين الطرفين، كما جرى تداول تسريبات أنه تم في الزيارة "توقيع عقود موازية لتسليم إيران بطاريات إس-300"، والتي كانت روسيا امتنعت عن تسليمها لإيران سابقًا، وطائرات مقاتلة روسية حديثة "سوخوي-30"، إضافة إلى تحديث مقاتلات "ميغ-29" و"سوخوي-24"، وبيع قطع غيار ومحركات. كما حاولت وسائل إعلام روسية إضفاء أهمية كبيرة على الزيارة التي تأتي في ظروف حساسة ودقيقة، عبر الحديث عن مصالح مشتركة كثيرة تجمع الطرفين.

تحالف استراتيجي أم لقاء مصالح عابر؟

يبدو إبراز أهمية زيارة وزير الدفاع الروسي إلى طهران مفهومًا، بسبب بعدها الإستراتيجي وخدمتها مصالح الطرفين؛ في ظل تعرّض كلٍ منهما لضغوط غربية شديدة، إيران فبسبب برنامجها النووي، وروسيا بسبب الأزمة الأوكرانية. ومع ذلك، لا تشير الاتفاقية العسكرية الأخيرة، بالضرورة، إلى حصول تغيِّر استراتيجي في العلاقة بين البلدين، بالنظر إلى تاريخٍ طويلٍ من الشكوك وانعدام الثقة؛ إذ طالما استخدمت روسيا إيرانَ ورقةَ ضغطٍ ومساومةٍ في علاقتها المعقدة مع الغرب، وهي لم تكتفِ بالسماح بفرض عقوبات قاسية في مجلس الأمن 

التابع للأمم المتحدة على طهران، بل صوّتت إلى جانب جميع القرارات ضدها بشأن برنامجها النووي؛ مثل القرارات 1737 لعام 2006، و1747 لعام 2007، و1803 لعام 2008، و1929 لعام 2010. كما امتنعت موسكو في عام 2010 عن تنفيذ التزاماتها المتعلقة بتزويد طهران بنظام "إس-300" الدفاعي الصاروخي، على الرغم من تسديد قيمته البالغة 800 مليون دولار، وقد قدمت طهران، بسبب ذلك، دعوى قضائية إلى محكمة التحكيم في باريس، طالبت فيها موسكو بتسديد أربعة مليارات دولار لعدم التزامها تنفيذ العقد الموقع بين الطرفين. كما رفضت روسيا، على الدوام، الطلب الإيراني المتكرر بصيانة الغواصات الإيرانية التي كانت ستمنح إيران، في حال إعادة تأهيلها، مناورة عسكرية واسعة في الخليج العربي والمحيط الهندي. بالإضافة إلى ذلك، ماطلت موسكو عشر سنوات، لإنهاء بناء مفاعل بوشهر النووي، وتجهيزه وتشغيله، بعد أن ظلت تستخدمه أداة للمساومة مع الغرب. وتغذي هذه المواقف الروسية وغيرها شكوك تيارٍ قوي في طهران، لا يثق بالروس، ويخشى من الإفراط في الاعتماد عليهم.
أما الروس، فلديهم هواجسهم الكبيرة، أيضًا، تجاه السياسات الإيرانية، فمن جهة لا تخفي موسكو قلقها إزاء احتمال حصول طهران على السلاح النووي. وفي هذا الشأن، تبدو المواقف الروسية أقرب إلى الغرب منها إلى طهران، كما بدا واضحًا في اجتماعات مؤتمر منظمة حظر انتشار الأسلحة النووية في موسكو في السنة الماضية. ومن جهة أخرى، يسري اعتقادٌ واسعٌ بين المسؤولين الروس بأنّ طهران سوف تبادر إلى الاستغناء عنهم، في اللحظة التي تنفتح فيها آفاق التعاون مع الغرب، خصوصًا الولايات المتحدة؛ فقد أبدت روسيا امتعاضًا شديدًا بسبب إقصائها عن المفاوضات السرية التي كانت تجري بين واشنطن وطهران في سلطنة عُمان، وأدت إلى التوصل إلى اتفاق جنيف المرحلي حول البرنامج النووي الإيراني. كما يبدي الروس شكوكًا متزايدة تجاه فتح مسار تفاوض ثنائي بين أميركا وإيران، بعيدًا عن صيغة 5+1 التي تشارك فيها الدول الخمس دائمة العضوية في مجلس الأمن، بالإضافة إلى ألمانيا. 
وعلى الرغم من عدم إبداء مخاوف علنية، فإنّ روسيا قلقة من طموحات إيران في أن تحل محلها مصدراً رئيساً للطاقة إلى أوروبا، وتعلم روسيا أنّ الطاقة هي أحد أهم أسباب انفتاح الغرب على إيران، ومحاولته التوصل إلى اتفاق بشأن الملف النووي الذي يعرقل هذا التوجه. وعلى الرغم من ذلك كله، تحولت روسيا إلى هدف لـ "الاحتواء" والعقوبات الغربية، كما جاء في خطاب حال الاتحاد، أخيراً، للرئيس الأميركي، باراك أوباما؛ ما يفتح المجال أمام تنسيق إيراني - روسي كبير، في ظل تنامي مصالح مشتركة كبيرة بينهما، في معظم ملفات المنطقة. ويختصر مدير مركز تحليل الإستراتيجيات في موسكو، روسلان بوخوف، ذكر هذه المصالح، بقوله صراحةً "إنّ إيران الشيعية تقف، مثل روسيا، ضد الحركات الإسلامية السنية المتطرفة في الشرق الأوسط. كما أنّ إيران وروسيا متضررتان من تراجع الأسعار العالمية للنفط، وتطالبان بزيادة هذه الأسعار. فضلًا عن الوضع المتوتر حول روسيا في أوروبا، بسبب أوكرانيا، وفي الشرق الأوسط حول إيران والعقوبات الغربية المفروضة عليهما".

ساحات جديدة للتنسيق
 
ومع أنه لا يخفى وجود تنسيق إيراني- روسي في الأزمة السورية بشأن دعم استمرار نظام الرئيس بشار الأسد، لأسباب تتعلق بكل منهما، ويشمل ذلك تقديم جميع أشكال المساعدة العسكرية والمادية وغيرها، فقد أدى صعود تنظيم الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام "داعش"، واحتلاله أجزاء واسعة من العراق في صيف 2014 إلى تعزيز المصالح المشتركة الإيرانية - الروسية في المنطقة؛ إذ تعتبر روسيا وإيران أنّ صعود التنظيمات الجهادية وتمدّدها يمثل تحديًا كبيرًا لسياساتهما الإقليمية ومصالحهما القومية. لكنّ الجديد في الأمر بروز مؤشرات على وجود تنسيق روسي - إيراني في الأزمة اليمنية؛ إذ يدور صراع شديد بين جماعة أنصار الله الحوثية، القريبة من إيران، وسلطة الدولة اليمنية.
وترى موسكو التي كانت تربطها علاقات وثيقة بجنوب اليمن في سنوات الحرب الباردة، في الأزمة الراهنة في اليمن فرصةً تسمح لها بعودة نفوذها إلى جنوب شبه الجزيرة العربية، عبر بوابة الحرب الأهلية، مثل المسألة السورية، لكنّ السبب الأبرز في نشوء تنسيق إيراني - روسي في اليمن هو رغبة الطرفين في تهديد المملكة العربية السعودية والضغط عليها؛ فموسكو لا تخفي امتعاضها من سياسة السعودية التي رفضت في اجتماع منظمة الدول 

المصدرة للنفط "أوبك" في نوفمبر/تشرين ثاني 2014 تخفيض إنتاج المنظمة لوقف تدهور الأسعار في الأسواق العالمية. كما ترى موسكو أنها مستهدفة، هي وطهران، مما تعتقد أنه حرب أسعار تشنها السعودية ضدهما بالتنسيق مع واشنطن، للحصول على تنازلات في ملفات إقليمية عديدة؛ وهي اتهامات رددها الرئيس فلاديمير بوتين، في حين هدَّد الرئيس حسن روحاني الذين يقودون سياسة تخفيض أسعار النفط العالمية بدفع الثمن.
ومن منظور أوسع، ترى موسكو أنّ استيلاء الحوثيين على صنعاء، وتنامي نفوذهم في عموم اليمن، يخدم مصالحها في جنوب شبه الجزيرة العربية على المدى البعيد؛ إذ تنظر موسكو إلى الحوثيين بوصفهم جزءًا من المحور الشيعي الذي تجد نفسها في تحالفٍ موضوعي معه، في مواجهة القوى السنية في المنطقة، سواء أكانت دولًا أم تنظيمات، والتي تعدها تهديدًا استراتيجيًا لها ولمصالحها. ويبرِّر هذا الموقف أنّ الحوثيين هم خصوم القاعدة الرئيسين في اليمن؛ لذلك، نجد أنّ معظم سلاحهم معدات روسية تنقلها سفن إيرانية، وتشمل صواريخ "سام 2" و"سام 3" المضادة للطائرات. ويظهر الدعم الروسي للموقف الإيراني والحوثيين في مجلس الأمن؛ إذ تعمل روسيا بهدوء على عرقلة مساعي المبعوث الخاص للأمين العام للأمم المتحدة إلى اليمن، جمال بن عمر، والحيلولة دون حصوله على دعمٍ كافٍ من مجلس الأمن لجهده الهادف إلى إبطال مفعول التغييرات التي جرت في اليمن بقوة السلاح، وتأكيده على مبدأ العودة إلى العملية السياسية، وتنفيذ اتفاق السلم والشراكة الذي تمّ التوصل إليه عشية استيلاء الحوثيين على العاصمة صنعاء في سبتمبر/أيلول 2014.
وفي موازاة تنامي مؤشرات الدعم الذي تمنحه روسيا للموقف الإيراني في اليمن، يبدو الموقف المصري مستغربًا من الأزمة السورية، والذي ينطلق من أجندة داخلية، يهيمن عليها هاجس الخوف من تيارات الإسلام السياسي، بأنواعها المختلفة، لكنه يصب، في نهاية المطاف، في خدمة المصالح الإيرانية والروسية. وبدلًا من أن تنظر مصر إلى التمدد الحوثي – الإيراني في اليمن، بوصفه تهديدًا لأمنها القومي، من خلال إمكانية السيطرة على مضيق باب المندب، ومن ثمّ التحكّم بخطوط النقل البحرية عبر قناة السويس، يبدو أنّ مصر تعمل على تحقيق الأهداف الروسية - الإيرانية في سورية، عبر ضغطها لتشكيل معارضة، تشكّل بديلًا للائتلاف الوطني لقوى الثورة والمعارضة، وتقبل بحلٍ سياسي، يتضمن القبول بمبدأ بقاء نظام الرئيس بشار الأسد، بدلًا من التمسك بنص "بيان جنيف 1" الذي يدعو إلى تشكيل جسمٍ انتقالي بصلاحيات تنفيذية كاملة، لقيادة مرحلة انتقالية في سورية، تؤدي إلى قيام نظام حكم ديمقراطي. ويكاد يتطابق الموقف المصري، في هذا الشأن، مع الموقفين الروسي والإيراني اللذيْن يسعيان إلى إنتاج "صيغة سلطة حكم" تجمع النظام والمعارضة، ويكون هدفها الأساسي محاربة الجماعات الإسلامية، جزءاً من الحرب على الإرهاب التي يستثمر الجميع فيها.

خاتمة

تعيش المنطقة العربية حالةً من السيولة الشديدة، تصل إلى حدّ الفوضى التي ينشرها المشروع الإيراني، في سعيه إلى تحقيق الهيمنة الإقليمية، فيما يبدو الدور الروسي داعمًا مرحليًا له، نتيجة نشوء مصالح مشتركة، أهمها مخاوف موسكو غير المبررة من تنامي قوى الإسلام السني، وتحيّز روسيا المبدئي لأنظمة شبيهة بنظامها السلطوي الرافض لمفهوم الثورة والتغيير. وفي الوقت نفسه، تبدو بعض القوى العربية، وفي مقدمتها النظام المصري، مشغولةً بهواجس بقائها، بدلًا من الانشغال بحماية المصالح العربية العليا التي يمثل الصعود الإيراني أحد أهم تهديداتها. 


فوز تسيبراس في اليونان يقلق الإسرائيليين

رئيس الوزراء الجديد شارك في أسطول الحرية وقاد مظاهرة ضد الحرب على غزة

Link


لندن – «القدس العربي»- من علي الصالح: يسود المؤسستين السياسية والعسكرية في إسرائيل قلق من تداعيات فوز حزب «سايرزا» اليساري برئاسة اليكسيس تسيبراس في الانتخابات التشريعية في اليونان، على العلاقات بين تل أبيب وأثينا، التي شهدت ازدهارا غير مسبوق منذ 2008 على الصعيدين السياسي والعسكري، وصل حد المناورات العسكرية المشتركة وغيرها.
في المقابل شعرت السلطة والفصائل الفلسطينية بالارتياح وعبرت عن ترحيبها وارتياحها إزاء فوز تسيبراس، وهو المعروف بتأييده الشديد للقضية الفلسطينية ومناهضته للسياسات والممارسات الاحتلالية الإسرائيلية في الأراضي الفلسطينية، وتأييده لقيام دولة فلسطينية، ومعارضته للتعاون العسكري بين بلاده وإسرائيل. وكان آخر نشاط له قيادته لمظاهرة في أثينا ضد الحرب العدوانية الأخيرة على قطاع غزة. وشارك تسيبراس أيضا في الأسطول البحري «الفلوتيلا» لكسر الحصار عن غزة في أيار/ مايو 2010.
إسرائيليا توقعت وسائل الإعلام العبرية تدهور العلاقات الإسرائيلية – اليونانية مع وصول الزعيم تسيبراس الذي تتهمه بمعاداة السامية، إلى الحكم في اليونان، رغم ترحيب تل أبيب بانتخابه.
وفلسطينيا استقبل انتخاب تسيبراس بالترحيب، فأبرق له الرئيس الفلسطيني محمود عباس، متمنيا له وللحزب التوفيق والنجاح في مهامهما السامية ومواجهة التحديات الراهنة في اليونان، «وتحقيق كل ما يرنو إليه شعب اليونان الصديق من تقدم وازدهار وعدالة اجتماعية واستقرار». وأكد الرئيس عباس ثقته بأن «الحزب ومن خلالكم سيواصل رسالته في خدمة قضايا الحق والعدل والسلام في العالم، وفي طليعتها قضية فلسطين التي نقدر عاليا مواقفكم تجاهها، ودعمكم لشعبنا ونضاله، من أجل تحقيق حريته وإقامة دولته المستقلة وعاصمتها القدس الشرقية، والتي ستكون واحة للأمن والسلام والتعايش والجوار الحسن».
من جانبها هنأت الجبهة الشعبية لتحرير فلسطين، وكذلك حركة حماس تسيبراس بالفوز. ووصفت الجبهة فوزه بـ «الانجاز التاريخي»، واعتبرته «ضربة قاسية في الصميم لقوى اليمين الفاشي والتيارات العنصرية».

Real News Video: GOP Leadership's Invitation to Netanyahu a Provocation Aimed at War with Iran

Phyllis Bennis says the invitation issued to Netanyahu to speak in the US Congress, and the call for more sanctions against Iran, is a call for war

Boycott Israel’s “Muslim Leadership Initiative,” Palestinian civil society urges

By Ali Abunimah

Link

Palestinian campaigners say delegations visiting their country should not do so in “a manner that is complicit with Israel’s regime of occupation, colonialism and apartheid.”
 (Muammar Awad / APA images)
The largest Palestinian civil society coalition has called for a boycott of the Muslim Leadership Initiative and other projects that bring international delegations to Palestine “in a manner that is complicit with Israel’s regime of occupation, colonialism and apartheid.”
The Palestinian Boycott National Committee (BNC) said in a statement today that the Muslim Leadership Initiative “is part of a broader spectrum of political tours” that are “designed to normalize and build acceptance to Israeli policies of oppression against Palestinians.”
The BNC is the steering group for the Palestinian-led international campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) on Israel and its intervention is likely to intensify the growing backlash against the Muslim Leadership Initiative.
The BNC statement calls the Muslim Leadership Initiative a “BDS bashing project” and urges “all people of conscience to boycott it.”
Under the cover of “balance,” the BNC says that “such initiatives rationalize Israel’s occupation, racism and ethnic cleansing against Palestinians as just another valid, and even ethical, perspective with complete disregard to precepts of freedom, justice and equality.”

Backed by anti-Muslim bigots

As The Electronic Intifada reported, the Muslim Leadership Initiative, run by Israel’sShalom Hartman Institute, brings US “Muslim leaders” to Israel to teach them Zionist perspectives in an effort to blunt support for Palestinian rights among North American Muslim communities.
The Jerusalem-based Shalom Hartman Institute receives millions of dollars annually from extreme anti-Muslim donors and is a major contractor to the Israeli military. It is heavily involved in Israeli government efforts to undermine the Palestine solidarity movement, especially BDS.
The Israeli-backed junkets, which have been criticized as “faithwashing,” have generated broad opposition and a backlash among North American Muslim organizations and the Palestine solidarity community.
Over recent weeks, hundreds of faith-based and solidarity groups and individuals signed on to a public letter urging people to “eschew any and all participation, facilitation, or any form of legitimization for the Muslim Leadership Initiative of the Shalom Hartman Institute and its representatives or advocates.”
The BNC statement will be seen as a significant boost to that position.

Promoting anti-Semitism

The BNC warns that the Muslim Leadership Initiative’s main tactic is “the deliberate blurring of the lines between Judaism, Zionism and the Israeli state.”
“This logic serves to perpetuate the anti-Semitic claim that Jews are synonymous to the state of Israel and bear responsibility for its policies, no matter how oppressive these policies are, and that criticism leveraged against the state of Israel is, therefore, a criticism of all Jews,” the statement says.
Such a conflation is “anti-Semitic,” the BNC says, but it has been deployed frequently “to muzzle legitimate opposition to Israel’s violations of international law and ignore growing dissent among Jews to such representations.”

Promoting solidarity and interfaith work

While denouncing the Muslim Leadership Initiative and similar efforts, the BNC takes a strong stance in favor of international solidarity and interfaith work.
It notes the joint campaigns “under the premise of shared values of equality, justice and human rights,” of a multi-faith alliance in the US including such groups as American Muslims for PalestineJewish Voice for Peace and Friends of Sabeel North America, among others.
Such work, it says, presents “an alternative to the deeply sectarian and racist establishment discourse on Israel in the US that projects Muslims and Jews as inherently antagonistic to each other.”
The BNC also “encourages visits from international delegations” that are “premised on recognition of the full Palestinian human rights and without contact or cooperation with complicit entities.”
Such visits, which included a recent delegation by US Black liberation and anti-racism activists, have “provided a valuable contribution to our struggle for freedom, justice and equality,” the BNC says.
The BNC points to the guidelines Palestinian campaigners have drawn up for a “principled and morally consistent” approach to organizing such efforts.

The silent and cold who will write presidential history

By Hamid Dabashi

Link

Comment: Barack Obama's thoughts may have turned to his legacy and the historians who will write it. But his real historians are the innocent victims from Gaza to Kandahar, who may be silent but will have their say.
Soon after he assumed office for the second time, Barack Obama, the US president, summoned a number of leading scholars who in the US are referred to as “presidential historians” to the White House and wined and dined them. From there, however, according to one report of this august gathering, these eminences "saw that the type of discussion he wanted would be different from their talks with previous Oval Office occupants."
    The memory of oppressed people is one thing that cannot be taken away.

- Howard Zinn
The US president has made a habit of meeting with his future American historians. "At three private annual gatherings during his first years in office, he asked pointed questions: How did Ronald Reagan engineer his 1984 re-election despite a poor economy? Where did the Tea Party fit in the tradition of American protest movements? Theodore Roosevelt bypassed Congress to launch progressive programs; could Mr. Obama do the same?"

The point of such presidential largesse was of course not lost on his future historians: "The president was coolly eyeing American history in order to carve his own grand place in it, the guests said in interviews later. 'It was almost as if he was writing his own history book about himself,' said David M. Kennedy, a professor at Stanford University.”

The postmodern emperor writes his own history 
The ancient and medieval worlds are of course replete with monarchs and emperors having their court jesters-come-historians assure him that he was indeed God’s gift to humanity. So this much of the story in Obama’s contemporary rendition of those bygone dark ages is not surprising. He is done politicking and before he leaves office, starts his lucrative speaking tours and oversees the establishment of his presidential library, he wants to make sure he has a lovely portrait in the halls of the White House and some nice niche in the pantheon of American presidential history.

The question of “history” (and all that that hefty word can mean) accompanied Obama when he assumed office. It looms now as he gets ready to leave. Just about a week before he delivered his penultimate State of the Union address on 20 January, the New York magazine repeated that gesture by asking 53 historians to do the same and reflect on how history will remember president Obama.

"It’s a fool’s errand you’re involved in," one such historian responded, "We live in a fog, and historians decades from now will tell their society what was happening in 2014. But we don’t know the future. No one in 1952, for example, could have predicted the reputation of Truman a half-century or so later."

Most of these historians thought (in different ways) that being the first black president would matter in one way or anther when this still amorphous “history” turns its attention to him. Others thought his presidency was more a continuation of his predecessors rather than a transformation.

It was not just the physical location of these historians (whether at a White House dinner table or around a question posed by an American periodical) that seemed somewhat parochial: their colectedvantage point was domestic to American history. When these historians did turn their attention to such global issues as Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, etc., they mostly saw the matter from the angle they consider "American foreign policies". In the US, this seems a perfectly legitimate and straightforward perspective for president Obama or other Americans to wonder how will he be remembered.

Who gets to write history? 

But is American history is just American history? Is the writing of the history of a US president only the task of American presidential historians? I was two years old when US president Dwight D. Eisenhower ordered a military coup that toppled a democratically elected prime minister in Iran and re-installed a runaway tyrant to power. The incident changed the course of history of an entire nation, my life included. Do I and my generation of Iranians have a say in President Eisenhower’s history? What about the Vietnamese about Presidents Kennedy and Nixon? What about Afghans and Iraqis about the presidents Bush, or Palestinians about every US president since 1948?

In this day and age, with the chief executive officer and Commander-in-Chief of the most deadly military machinery on planet earth, is an American president only an American president? Can a man sit in a house in Washington DC and command the unfathomable power to send deadly force—ranging from conventional army to death squads to snipers to drones—around the globe with the push of one proverbial bottom or the stroke of a presidential pen, and then imagine his history written only by those he can invite for dinner?

The answer is of course an unqualified no. These "presidential historians", all without exception American, are not the only ones who will write that history, with the memories and souvenirs of their White House dinner sitting at their writing desk. There is a different constellation of memories that is also at work in writing such presidential histories. "The memory of oppressed people," as the late American historian Howard Zinn put it, "is one thing that cannot be taken away." He then added: "and for such people, with such memories, revolt is always an inch below the surface." But "such people, with such memories" also have a say about "the presidential history" of US presidents.

The history of president Obama (and his immediate predecessors) will also be written by the dead bodies of Afghan, Iraqi, and Palestinian children, and by other dead children in Somalia and Yemen, and wherever else a bomb or a bullet with the stamp "made in the US" marks its point of departure.

From behind their cold graves, these children are the silent historians of President Obama and all the other US presidents before him. What US historians call President Obama’s “foreign policies” is domestic to the graves marking a landscape from Gaza to Baghdad to Kandahar.

As Israeli warlords were dropping bombs on defenceless Palestinian children, slaughtering them even when they were playing soccer, what did President Obama do? He replenished those bombs apace so Israel would not run out. Does he not think those dead children have a say about his “history”? Just because they are dead, it does not mean they cannot speak, sing, read, or write. They may not speak or write their stories and President Obama’s history in English or in Hebrew, the two languages that he and his closest confidantes and allies can read. But they do write. They may write only in Arabic, or Dari or Pashtu or Somali, or Urdu. But they do write.

The real historians

It is foolhardy for Obama to think that by inviting a handful of “presidential historians” to the White House and wining and dining them he can assure a dignified place for himself in history. The mild liberal criticism he might get from American historians pales in comparison to the much harsher judgment of the real historians of his presidency: the silent graves of innocent Afghan, Pakistani, Iraqi and Palestinian children. On those page his fate would be not that different from such murderous dictators as Saddam Hussein or Bashar al-Assad, the murderous Islamic State, al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

The silenced voices of innocent children murdered by his drones are much more accurate “presidential historians” of who Obama was and what he did, than those compromised scholars who attend dinners with him at the White House. You cannot play an emperor around the globe and then summon a handful of American presidential historians to your table and ensure your place in history. No sir! The writing of that history has long been wrested from those pens and laptops and made global by virtue of your own global and planetary military might, your own drones, your own “kill list” and by virtue of that satellite settler colony you keep arming to murder more Palestinians and steal more of Palestine.

Here are only four of your future historians, Mr President: Ismail Mahmoud Bakr (9), Ahed Atef Bakr (10), Zakariya Ahed Bakr (10), Mohammad Ramiz Bakr (11). Four historians just from one Palestinian family who were playing soccer on a Gaza beach when Israeli naval boats with perfect accuracy cold-bloodedly murdered them. Don’t you think they and their kindred souls from one end of the Arab and Muslim world to another have something to say about your “history” sir?

So next time you invite American presidential historians to the White House, quietly whisper into an ear or two nearby if they can read Arabic, Dari, Pashto, Somali or Urdu?

Those dead and silenced Palestinian, Afghan, or Iraqi children for whom you never uttered even a word of sympathy: they too are your historians, and they alas are beyond the reach of any White House guest list, sir. The sighs of their young mothers, the mourning of their bereaved fathers, young brides whose husbands are buried with their living dreams, they too have a way of writing your history, sir. The interrupted lullabies of mothers for infants murdered in Shujaiyya in Gaza, juvenile joys buried in Kandahar... dead poets from Baghdad will have a lot to say about you and your predecessors, Mr. President.