Search This Blog


Thursday, 27 October 2016

Senator speaks of Middle East’s true ‘axis of evil’

Wed Oct 26, 2016 3:30AM
Republican member of the Virginia State Senate Richard Hayden Black talks to Press TV about ties between Washington and Daesh, further exposing the true “axis of evil” in the Middle East.
The American official said in a Tuesday interview that the war in Syria would have been over by now if the US had put an end to its intervention when Russia entered the war-ravaged country.
A handout picture released by (SANA) on April 27, 2016 shows Republican member of the Virginia State Senate Richard Hayden Black visiting the Syrian city of Homs.
“If the United States had just stayed out of it at that point, the war would be over by now; people would be rebuilding, refugees would be returning back to Syria, but the United States rushed anti-Tank missiles, and we used these so-called moderate rebels as a conduit to supply al-Nusra, which is al-Qaeda in Syria,” he noted.
“If we were not supporting the war in Syria, I believe that the Syrians, combined with their allied forces from Iran, Lebanon and Russia… would move very steadily and restore the borders of Syria.”
Moderates vs. Takfiris
The senate member refused to distinguish between the so-called moderate rebels and the Takfiri terrorists fighting the government of President Bashar al-Assad, saying, the two are “thoroughly integrated.”
A handout picture released by (SANA) shows President Assad (L) meeting with Republican member the Virginia State Senate Richard Hayden Black in the capital Damascus on April 28, 2016.
“They really are one and the same; they’re part of the same army,” he said, citing a US defense intelligence agency’s investigation in 2013, which showed Washington’s ties with the Takfiris.
The state senator referred to plans by the CIA to transfer arms from Libya to Turkey and from there to Syria to supply the moderate rebels, noting that the move “evolved into an indiscriminate program of supplying all rebels, including specifically ISIS (Daesh) and al-Qaeda.”
“We do it indirectly because it’s unlawful to do it directly,” he said, adding that the US keeps “extremely violent organizations… off the terrorist watch list because these are the agents that take our weapons and then distribute them to ISIS (Daesh) and al-Qaeda.”
Syria’s fall threat to US
In response to a question by Press TV host Kaveh Taghvai on why Iran and Russia are portrayed as the “bad guys,” while they are the ones really fighting terrorism there, as put recently by GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, Black said the Republican candidate has a “clear understanding of what’s happening over there.”
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during a rally at the Antique Car Museum property on October 25, 2016 in Tallahassee, Florida.
“Sometimes, his rhetoric has to match the political mood of the moment… but I know a number of his advisers and they believe that our determination to topple the government in Syria is suicidal, that it threatens not only the entire Middle East but literally the entire world.”
He further warned that the US itself could be “threatened,” arguing that, “if Syria falls, it will be dominated by some al-Qaeda-related organization; Lebanon will fall; Jordan will fall and the entire area will be destabilized.”
Turkey threatens the West
The Vietnam war veteran also elaborated on his personal definition of the Middle East “axis of evil,” naming Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and “particularly” Turkey over their support for terrorism.
“Probably, three quarters of the rebels are not Syrian at all; they are mercenaries recruited by Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia,” he asserted, describing the three countries as “the primary force behind the terrorist movement.”
Syrian government forces guard a lookout point in the strategic area of the Bazo hilltop, north of Khan Tuman on the southern outskirts of the northern city of Aleppo on October 25, 2016.
“Turkey has invaded Iraq and Syria with heavy military forces. Turkey has really become a rogue nation,” he added, referring to a 1923 treaty that set the border between Turkey and Greece, saying that was even being questioned by President Rececp Tayyip Erdogan.
“And now you see this emerging threat against Western Europe by Turkey,” he noted, further adding that Erdogan “has made it clear that he looks to resurrection of the Ottoman Empire.”
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan delivers a speech during 28th Mukhtars (local administrators) meeting at the Presidential Complex in Ankara on October 19, 2016.
“He has become more and more aggressive; he’s crushed the military, the free press; every powerful institution of the Turkish government has come under his iron fist and he’s now a total dictator. He’s a man who has said that he wants the constitution amended so that he will have power similar to those of Adolf Hilter… This is our great ally; we’re allied with a man who would be Hitler.”
Mercenaries of Wahhabism
The outspoken US official also blasted Washington’s alliance with Saudi Arabia, “where women are not allowed to walk out in the front yard to pick up the newspaper without a man’s permission; they can’t drive a car!”
“Somehow, this is part of the liberalization that we seek to impose on the Middle East,” he said ironically, calling it “bizarre.”
He also praised the resistance against the Saudi aggression by the people of Yemen, saying, “God bless them! The Yemenis are giving the Saudis a bloody nose,” despite being a “tiny little, poor nation.”
Yemeni children fill empty jerrycans with water from a donated source amid ongoing widespread disruption of water supplies in an impoverished coastal village on the outskirts of the Yemeni port city of Hudaydah on October 18, 2016.
“I think the world recognizes that Saudi Arabia has just embarked in massive war crimes in Yemen,” he said, voicing regret over the US support for the monarchy.
“We don’t pay too much attention to them [while engaged in war crimes] because they’re our good allies,” he said, concluding that Washington is on a “suicidal course of action.”
“Saudi money pays the very top politicians in many Western nations. And they really have co-opted the American military into acting as mercenaries for Wahhabism.”
A handout picture provided by the Saudi Royal Palace on October 4, 2016 shows Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz (L) arriving to welcome the President of the Republic of Maldives (unseen) upon the latter’s arrival to Riyadh. (AFP photo/Saudi Royal Palace /Bandar al-Jaloud)
Black referred to the Western media’s portrayal of Iran as a supporter of terrorism, saying, “The fact of the matter is that if you really look at global terrorism, it all emanates from Saudi Arabia.”
He exemplified various terrorists attack, including the 9/11, the Boston bombing, and the Brussels attacks, noting that they are all a “reflection of the Wahhabi philosophy.”

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

America's Ironic "Two-Faced" War on Terror

October 23, 2016 (Joseph Thomas – NEO) – Rarely ever does hypocrisy align so succinctly as it does within the pages of American policy and media coverage. US policy think tank, the Brookings Institution, recently provided an extreme example of this in a paper titled, “A convenient terrorism threat,” penned by Daniel Byman.

The paper starts by claiming:
Not all countries that suffer from terrorism are innocent victims doing their best to fight back. Many governments, including several important U.S. allies, simultaneously fight and encourage the terrorist groups on their soil. President George W. Bush famously asked governments world-wide after 9/11 whether they were with us or with the terrorists; these rulers answer, “Yes.”

Some governments—including at times Russia, Egypt, Turkey, and Pakistan among others—hope to have it both ways. They use the presence of terrorists to win sympathy abroad and discredit peaceful foes at home, even while fighting back vigorously enough to look plausible but not forcefully enough to solve the problem. This two-faced approach holds considerable appeal for some governments, but it hugely complicates U.S. counterterrorism efforts—and the U.S. shouldn’t just live with it.
Byman then begins labelling various nations; Somalia as a “basket-case,” Iran as a “straightforward state sponsors of terrorism” and attempts to frame Russia’s struggle against terrorism in Chechnya as somehow disingenuous or politically motivated.
Byman also attempts to claim Syrian President Bashar Al Assad intentionally released terrorists from prison to help escalate violence around the country and justify a violent crackdown, this despite reports from Western journalists as early as 2007 revealing US intentions to use these very terrorists to overthrow the governments of Syria and Iran specifically, the New Yorker would reveal.

The US is as Much a Sponsor of Terrorism in Reality as Byman Claims Others are in Fiction
 But worse than Byman’s intentional mischaracterisations and lies of omission regarding US allies like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel’s overt, global-spanning sponsorship of terrorism, is the fact that not only is the US itself engaged in sponsoring terrorism as it poses as fighting against it globally, the Brookings Institution and Byman have specifically and publicly called for the funding, training and arming of designated foreign terrorist groups in pursuit of self-serving geopolitical objectives.
(Daniel Byman of the Brookings Institution.)
Indeed, Daniel Byman is one of several signatories of the 2009 Brookings Institution report, “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran.”
The report not only reveals the blueprints of using supposedly “peaceful” and “democratic” protests as cover for violent, US sponsored subversion (as was precisely done in Syria beginning in 2011), it specifically lists a US State Department-designated foreign terrorist organisation as a potential US proxy in violently rising up against, and eventually overthrowing the government in Tehran.
The report would explicitly state (our emphasis):
Perhaps the most prominent (and certainly the most controversial) opposition group that has attracted attention as a potential U.S. proxy is the NCRI (National Council of Resistance of Iran), the political movement established by the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq). Critics believe the group to be undemocratic and unpopular, and indeed anti-American. 

In contrast, the group’s champions contend that the movement’s long-standing opposition to the Iranian regime and record of successful attacks on and intelligence-gathering operations against the regime make it worthy of U.S. support. They also argue that the group is no longer anti-American and question the merit of earlier accusations. Raymond Tanter, one of the group’s supporters in the United States, contends that the MEK and the NCRI are allies for regime change in Tehran and also act as a useful proxy for gathering intelligence. The MEK’s greatest intelligence coup was the provision of intelligence in 2002 that led to the discovery of a secret site in Iran for enriching uranium.
The report then admits MEK’s status as a designated foreign terrorist organisation and that it has targeted and killed both American officers and civilians in the past (our emphasis):
Despite its defenders’ claims, the MEK remains on the U.S. government list of foreign terrorist organizations. In the 1970s, the group killed three U.S. officers and three civilian contractors in Iran. During the 1979-1980 hostage crisis, the group praised the decision to take America hostages and Elaine Sciolino reported that while group leaders publicly condemned the 9/11 attacks, within the group celebrations were widespread.
The Brookings Institution also admits in its report that undoubtedly MEK continues to carry out undeniable terrorist activity against political and civilian targets within Iran, and notes that if MEK is to be successfully used as a US proxy against Iran, it would need to be delisted as a foreign terrorist organisation (our emphasis):
Undeniably, the group has conducted terrorist attacks—often excused by the MEK’s advocates because they are directed against the Iranian government. For example, in 1981, the group bombed the headquarters of the Islamic Republic Party, which was then the clerical leadership’s main political organization, killing an estimated 70 senior officials. More recently, the group has claimed credit for over a dozen mortar attacks, assassinations, and other assaults on Iranian civilian and military targets between 1998 and 2001. At the very least, to work more closely with the group (at least in an overt manner), Washington would need to remove it from the list of foreign terrorist organizations.
And eventually, that is precisely what was done. MEK would be delisted by the US State Department in 2012, announced in a US State Department statement titled, “Delisting of the Mujahedin-e Khalq,” which noted:
With today’s actions, the Department does not overlook or forget the MEK’s past acts of terrorism, including its involvement in the killing of U.S. citizens in Iran in the 1970s and an attack on U.S. soil in 1992. 

The Department also has serious concerns about the MEK as an organization, particularly with regard to allegations of abuse committed against its own members. The Secretary’s decision today took into account the MEK’s public renunciation of violence, the absence of confirmed acts of terrorism by the MEK for more than a decade, and their cooperation in the peaceful closure of Camp Ashraf, their historic paramilitary base.
MEK’s inability to conduct violence in the decade preceding the US State Department’s decision was not because of an ideological commitment to nonviolence, but a matter of strategic limitations placed on the terrorist organisation by Iraqi and Iranian security forces who were determined to liquidate it and who forcibly disarmed the group.
(Members of the MEK terrorist organisation in Camp Ashraf, Iraq)
And even if the 2012 US State Department decision was based on an alleged decade of nonviolence, the policymakers at the Brookings Institution who signed their names to “Which Path to Persia?” including Daniel Byman, certainly did not apply the same criteria in suggesting its use as an armed proxy.
In all likelihood, had Iraq and Iran not successfully cornered and disarmed the group, it would be fighting America’s proxy war against Tehran on both sides of the Iran-Iraq border. MEK fighters would be carrying out US-backed armed violence against Iran and Iraq side-by-side other US-backed terrorist groups operating across the region as part of America’s current proxy war against Syria, Russia and Iran.
Daniel Byman of the Brookings Institution’s latest paper even at face value is disingenuous, full of intentional mischaracterisations meant to direct attention away from the US and its closest allies’ own sponsorship of terrorism amid a very much feigned “War on Terror.” Understanding that Byman quite literally signed his name to a policy paper promoting the arming and backing of a US State Department designated foreign terrorist organisation makes his recent paper all that more outrageous.
What is also as troubling as it is ironic, is that Byman not only signed his name to calls for arming a listed terrorist organisation, he was also a staff member of the 9/11 Commission, according to his Georgetown University biography. A man involved in sorting out a terrorist attack who is also advocating closer cooperation with listed terrorist organisations is truly disturbing.
The political and ethical bankruptcy of American foreign policy can be traced back to its policy establishment, populated by unprincipled hypocrites like Byman and co-signatories of Brookings’ “Which Path to Persia?” The US certainly cannot convince other nations to abandon an alleged “two-faced” policy of promoting and fighting terrorism simultaneously when it stands as a global leader in this very practise.
Joseph Thomas is chief editor of Thailand-based geopolitical journal, The New Atlas and contributor to the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Soul mates: ISIS Declares It Will kill Palestinians “One By One”’, Yet Remains Quiet on israel

ISIS has declared war on Palestine, threatening genocide against the Palestinian people, following the murder of Hamas’ senior commander Saber Siam
ISIS militants said that Siam was killed due to the fact he was “a partner in a declared war against religion and against Muslims, working for the heretical government in Gaza”. report:
The attack was conducted by ISIS-affiliated Salafist rebels who have also warned local residents to stay away from Hamas offices and buildings as it plans to carry out more attacks.
The conflict between Hamas and ISIS in Gaza started when Palestinian forces demolished a makeshift mosque used by Ansar al-Bayt al-Maqdis in early May.
Ansar al-Bayt al-Maqdis is an Egyptian Islamist group that has pledged allegiance to ISIS and has been recruiting Palestinians for the Islamic State.
After demolishing the Almtahabin mosque, Hamas then arrested seven men, including a local Salafist Sheikh Yasser Abu Houli.
ISIS claims it will kill Palestinians “one by one” and that it knows the names and addresses of all the officers working for the Palestinian Intelligence agency.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Syria’s Allies Warn Turkey against Any Aleppo Advance

Allied forces in Syria warned Turkey on Wednesday against any advance towards their positions to the north and east of Aleppo, saying any such move would be met “decisively and with force”.
Ally forces fighting in Syria
The field commander of the ally forces made the comments during a tour of frontlines to the north of Aleppo in a written statement sent to Reuters by an official from the same alliance.
The commander, who was not identified by name, nationality or affiliation, said any such advance would be seen as a breach of “the red lines”.
“We will not let anyone use the excuse of fighting Daesh [Arabic acronym for “ISIS” / “ISIL”] to advance and attempt to draw near to the defenses of the allies forces,” he said.
Source: News Agencies, Edited by website team
26-10-2016 | 11:45

Related videos

Related Articles
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Saudi Commits Crimes on Global Scale with US Green Light: Sayyed Houthi

October 26, 2016
The leader of Yemen’s Ansarullah movement Sayyed Abdul-Malik al-Houthi
The leader of Yemen’s Ansarullah movement says Saudi Arabia commits crimes across the globe with the US green light.
Sayyed Abdul-Malik al-Houthi said on Wednesday that the Al Saud family has adopted a hypocritical approach in the Muslim world, the proof of which is Takfiri violence gripping the region.
“When Washington gives the Riyadh regime the green light, sedition sparks in all countries, with the Saudi offensive being in line with such a trend,” he added.
The Houthi leader also warned that Saudi Arabia is seeking to damage security in some Arab countries such as Egypt, Yemen, Syria and Iraq through petrodollars and deceptive propaganda works.
Instead of countering the enemies of Islam, including the US and Israel, the kingdom has been engaged in spreading Takfiri ideology and arming terrorists, Houthi noted.
‘Saudi has Yemenis’ blood on its hands’
On October 8, in one of the deadliest attacks Yemen, Saudi warplanes bombarded a funeral hall packed with mourners in Sana’a, killing over 140 people and injuring at least 525 others.
Human Rights Watch, a New York-based rights group, said that the Sana’a bombing constitutes an apparent war crime, while Amnesty International said the attack is a reminder of the need for the suspension of arms sales to Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia committed crimes by the Sana’a attack, but it tried to acquit itself of the assault, Sayyed Houthi said, adding that there was no clear sign suggesting an end to the Saudi offensive.
He also stressed that Yemenis cannot rely on the United Nations as the world body has not adopted a position regarding the Saudi attack in Sana’a.
Sayyed Houthi further wished victory for the Palestinian nation and the resistance front in Lebanon and Syria as well as the Iraqi people in their anti-terror operation in the city of Mosul.
The Riyadh regime resumed its deadly airstrikes on Yemen on Sunday hours after a three-day truce in the conflict-ridden country expired.
Yemen has seen almost daily military attacks by Saudi Arabia since late March 2015, with the UN putting the toll from the aggression at more than 10,000.
The offensive was launched to crush the Houthi Ansarullah movement and its allies and reinstate the former Yemeni government. The US has been providing logistic and surveillance support to the kingdom in the bloody military campaign.
Source: Press TV

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

The international regional victory and the local losses cannot be achieved together انتصار دولي إقليمي وخسائر محلية لا يستقيمان

Written by Nasser Kandil,
No one can prevent Hezbollah from its right in celebrating the victory which it achieved by imposing the nomination of the General Michael Aoun for the presidency of the Republic on Saad Al-Hariri, and making this nomination a compulsory way to fill the presidential vacancy and reactivating the processes of the country and its institutions, because the presidential elections in Lebanon have occurred at a moment of a negative balance in the balances of the regional and the international forces which rule the bloody existential  conflict between two campaigns, Hezbollah is on the forefront of one of them, while the Prime Minister Saad Al-Hariri is heading the local team which is originally related and which is totally involved in the war in which Hezbollah is at its opposite bank, just for that was the confrontation between two presidential candidates, who every one of them represents the eagle in the front of his allies.
The General Michael Aoun was versus the Head of the Lebanese Forces Samir Geagea, but after the balances have changed in favor of the front which Hezbollah represents its additive value, two shifts have been changed in his favor, the first one is that Al- Hariri has withdrawn his nomination from the Geagea’ nomination in favor of one of Hezbollah’s closest allies; the Deputy Suleiman Franjieh, hoping to achieve a balance of losses; the nomination of Franjieh the ally of Hezbollah was by Al-Hariri, where Hezbollah withdraws its support from its candidate the General Michel Aoun versus Al-Hariri withdraws his nomination from his candidate Geagea.
The second development is the transferring of Geagea to the bank of the supporters of the nomination of the General Aoun to prevent the arrival of Franjieh to the presidency, thus was the insistence of Hezbollah stubbornly on continuing its sticking to the nomination of Aoun and considering him a compulsory way for the Lebanese presidency, bearing bleeding and suffering in the campaign of its alliances by refusing going on with a reliable important ally for the presidency, and bearing the lack of concern of its allies who have found according to the local considerations that the nomination of Franjieh is an opportunity for Hezbollah to achieve what it wants at the regional level and an opportunity  for them to cooperate with a convenient presidential candidate compared with their tense relations with Aoun, at the forefront of those the Head of the Parliament the speaker Nabih Berri. But after the steadfastness that lasts for months, the pressures and the bets of many people of the impossibility of the arrival of Al-Hariri to the stage of the ” political suicide” by accepting Aoun, something happened was not taken into account, so Hezbollah has achieved what it wanted, while the Prime Minister Al-Hariri has surrendered to the specific request, by announcing the nomination first then starting to overcome the obstacles.
It is not discussable that the surreal Lebanese scene internally which is full of riddles and puzzles of the positions of the teams toward the presidential elections cannot hide the fact that the resounding victory which was achieved by Hezbollah equals half of its victory in the war of July amid the international and regional absence of the equation of the Lebanese presidency, the decline of the alliance which Al-Hariri is standing in it, and the attainment of the crises of this alliance limits that made Al-Hariri  choose the bitter instead of the most bitter, in addition to the consequences of the defeat of his allies and their financial bankruptcy,  especially after what has affected Saudi Arabia politically, militarily, and financially, while Hezbollah feels the victories of its allies in Yemen, Iraq, and Syria since signing the understanding on the Iranian nuclear issue and devoting the first ally of Hezbollah a regional authority that is taken into consideration, as well as a devotion  of Russia’s status as a strong critical international ally in the policies of the basin of the Mediterranean Sea.
Furthermore the good selection of Hezbollah of its presidential candidate has contributed a lot in granting the elements of the internal steadfastness in this battle, waiting the regional international equation which Hezbollah’s opponents have linked their position toward the presidency with it, since the famous Al ‘Hariri’s speech in the beginning of the Syrian crisis that he does not want to return to Beirut but only from the Damascus Airport after the fall of the Syrian country and its president.
This selection has ensured superior standard in favor of Hezbollah by depending on representing the sects in the positions which depend on the wider representation of their leaders, so this has granted the equation of nominating Aoun positive objective reasons that can be defended strongly. Aoun as well has been granted the opportunity of the negotiation with Al –Hariri because he is his opportunity to return back to the presidency of the government according to his same nomination’s standard, and since he has the wider representation in his community. But these factors would not lead to the victory of Hezbollah without the disciplined dealing with ethics by the local partners of Hezbollah specially the ones who are mainly concerned with the presidential elections. So neither the Deputy Franjieh who has great fortunes as a candidate that the majority can grant him the opportunity to win has accepted to abandon or to gamble with his alliance with Hezbollah in exchange of the temptation of presidency, nor the Head of the Parliament who supports Franjieh and who objects the arrival of Aoun has accepted to take this adventure. Thus the victory of Hezbollah which the General Michael Aoun is celebrating today is the outcome of the steadfastness of Hezbollah and its stability, as it is the outcome of the steadfastness of the General Aoun and his stability; it is also the outcome of the keenness and loyalty of the two allies Berri and Franjieh.
Hezbollah ends the regional international victory today with the announcement of Al-Hariri of the nomination of Aoun, in order to start the path of preventing the turning of the unprecedented regional international victory of a president “Made in Lebanon” who is a trusted ally president by the resistance and a friend of Syria into losses that affect the alliance of the resistance from the inside, and thus the relation of Hezbollah with the political, military, demographic, social, and cultural partner  will be affected with distress and tension, and this strategic partnership between Hezbollah and the Speaker Berri will be affected also with disinclination, if Hezbollah does not have the same attitude due to the refusal of going on in presidency but in partnership, as the political background of the allies of Hezbollah will be affected internally with many losses due to the internal understandings which surround the arrival of the General Aoun to presidency, As the understanding with Al-Hariri on one hand, and the understanding with the Lebanese forces on other hand, thus Hezbollah finds itself in front of an entitlement that is not of less importance than what has passed, how it can turn the victory  after what it achieved of regional and international profits into profits that are shared by the allies of the same options, not profits for some and losses for others.
The turning of the regional and the international profit into local profits provided the continuation of this profit has started with the ally who standstills as a candidate and has got the support of Hezbollah due to his representative magnitude and his political steadfastness, he feels today that he has become closer than any  other day to enter Baada Palace as a President of the Republic, and the current challenge how can Hezbollah from this balance re-gather the profits and distribute them on the allies rather than the distribution of losses. The matter is not mere reassuring against the groups of the two or three despite their importance, but by the real partnership in the form of the rule that shows the values of the coalition in which Hezbollah has presented an example of their practicing according to the standards of loyalty and altruism. The General Aoun the presidential candidate is proceeding from his new position thus this led to the dispelling of the doubts and the misgivings of the partnership’s offers that cannot be refused by the allies who doubt, and whom their positions are not compared with what they say against him today. So the happy advocates of the General Aoun raises against them vilification campaigns, some consider them enemies, for example, Al-Hariri who was an enemy of yesterday or Geagea who was an enemy before have become friends. Their position is measured by looking deeply in the question what if Berri and Franjieh decide to attend the session of presidential election without a partnership with Hezbollah, as was the nomination of Franjieh supported by Al-Hariri and the Deputy Walid Jumblatt, and there was not a problem of ensuring the quorum or the majority, so was that possible without their position?
The example of the winning president by the force of the stability of the resistance and the loyalty of their allies, even if it is against their interests is achieved by making the victory inclusive to the allies, and by giving up of the profits and sharing them among the allies as well as by refusing the temptation of monopolies which Al-Hariri will encourage Aoun to commit them to obtain alike. While the stability, prosperity, and starting from a strong era are able to stop any collective rule in which the profits are in parallel with the roles and the sacrifices in achieving the victory, not with the oral positions toward the nomination. So the form of rule which the General Aoun will present its example to the allies as partners in drawing the choices and making decision not as consolation prizes offered to them will determine whether the internal resistance alliance is capable of accommodate its regional and international victory.
So this openness to the balanced equal partnership alone can deny what is said about understandings under the table, or groups of two or three and will reassure the souls and the concerns and will be a base for the era of stability, prosperity, and the establishment of a country.
Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

انتصار دولي إقليمي وخسائر محلية لا يستقيمان

ناصر قنديل– لا يمكن لأحد أن يحجب عن حزب الله حقه في الاحتفال بالنصر الذي حققه بفرض ترشيح العماد ميشال عون لرئاسة الجمهورية على الرئيس سعد الحريري، وجعل هذا الترشيح ممراً إلزامياً لملء الفراغ الرئاسي وإعادة تحريك عجلة الدولة ومؤسساتها، فقد وقع الاستحقاق الرئاسي في لبنان على لحظة توازن سلبي في موازين القوى الإقليمية والدولية التي تحكم صراعاً دموياً وجودياً بين معسكرين، يقف حزب الله كرأس حربة في مقدّمة أحدهما، ويتربع الرئيس سعد الحريري على رأس الفريق المحلي المرتبط عضوياً والمتورّط كلياً في خنادق القتال في الحرب التي وقف حزب الله على ضفتها المقابلة، ولذلك كانت بداية المواجهة بمرشحين رئاسيين يمثل كلّ منهما الصقور في جبهة حلفائه، فتقابل العماد عون ورئيس حزب القوات اللبنانية سمير جعجع، ومع دوران الموازين دورة أولى لصالح الجبهة التي يمثل حزب الله قيمتها المضافة حدث تحوّلان لصالحه: الأول سحب الحريري لترشيح جعجع لحساب أحد حلفاء حزب الله المقرّبين، النائب سليمان فرنجية أملاً بتحقيق توازن خسائر يأتي بفرنجية حليف حزب الله بترشيح من الحريري، وبسحب حزب الله دعمه لمرشحه العماد عون مقابل سحب الحريري لمرشحه جعجع، والتطور الثاني انتقال جعجع إلى صفوف داعمي ترشيح العماد عون منعاً لوصول فرنجية. فكان إصرار حزب الله بعناد أشدّ على مواصلة التمسك بترشيح عون واعتباره ممراً إلزامياً للرئاسة اللبنانية، متحمّلاً نزفاً وآلاماً في معسكر تحالفاته برفض السير بحليف موثوق ووازن للرئاسة، وتحمّل فتور مع حلفائه الذين وجدوا للاعتبارات المحلية أنّ ترشيح فرنجية فرصة تحقق لحزب الله ما يريده على المستوى الإقليمي وتشكل لهم فرصة تعاون مع مرشح رئاسي مريح مقارنة بعلاقاتهم المتوترة بعون. وفي مقدمة هؤلاء رئيس المجلس النيابي نبيه بري، وبعد صمود لشهور وتحمّل للضغوط ورهان الكثيرين على استحالة بلوغ الحريري مرحلة «الانتحار السياسي» بالقبول بعون حدث ما لم يكن في الحسبان، وتحقق لحزب الله ما أراد ورضخ الرئيس الحريري وسار وفق الطلب المحدّد، يعلن الترشيح أولاً ثم نبدأ بالعمل لتذليل العقبات.

– ليس ثمة فرصة للنقاش في أنّ المشهد اللبناني السريالي داخلياً، والمليء بالألغاز والأحجيات بمواقف الأطراف من الاستحقاق الرئاسي لا يستطيع أن يحجب حقيقة النصر المدوّي الذي حققه حزب الله، والذي يعادل نصره في حرب تموز، وسط غياب دولي وإقليمي عن معادلة الرئاسة اللبنانية، وتراجع في الحلف الذي يقف الحريري على خطوط تماسه، وبلوغ أزمات هذا المحور حدوداً جعلت الحريري يختار المرّ بدلاً من الأشدّ مرارة، مع تداعيات هزيمة حلفائه وإفلاسهم المالي، خصوصاً ما يصيب السعودية سياسياً وعسكرياً ومالياً، فيما يشعر حزب الله ويتلمّس معالم انتصارات حلفائه في اليمن والعراق وسورية، منذ توقيع التفاهم على الملف النووي الإيراني وتكريس الحليف الأول لحزب الله مرجعاً إقليمياً يُحسَب له الحساب، وما تلاه من تكريس لمكانة روسيا كحليف دولي قوي صانع حاسم للسياسات في حوض البحر المتوسط. ولا شك في المقابل أنّ حسن اختيار حزب الله لمرشحه الرئاسي ساهم كثيراً في توفير مقومات الصمود الداخلي في هذه المعركة، بانتظار أن تفعل المعادلة الإقليمية الدولية التي ربط خصومه موقفهم من الرئاسة بها، منذ خطاب الحريري الشهير بعزمه ألا يعود إلى بيروت إلا من مطار دمشق بعد سقوط الدولة السورية ورئيسها، مع بداية الأزمة السورية. وقد وفر هذا الاختيار معياراً متفوّقاً لصالح حزب الله هو اعتماد تمثيل الطوائف في المناصب التي تقع من نصيبها التمثيلي بين الرئاسات للأوسع تمثيلاً من زعمائها، ما منح معادلة ترشيح عون أسباباً موجبة موضوعية يمكن الدفاع عنها بقوة ومنح عون المرشح فرصة التفاوض مع الحريري بصفته فرصته للعودة إلى رئاسة الحكومة، وفقاً لمقياس ترشيحه ذاته، بصفته الأوسع تمثيلاً في طائفته. لكن ما كان لهذه العوامل أن تثمر هذا النصر لحزب الله لولا التعامل المنضبط بأدبيات التحالف من شركاء حزب الله المحليين، خصوصاً المعنيين الأساسيين منهم بالاستحقاق الرئاسي، فلا النائب فرنجية كمرشح ذي حظوظ كبيرة في مرحلة تبلور أكثرية قابلة لمنحه فرصة الفوز رضي بالتخلي أو المقامرة بحلفه مع حزب الله لقاء إغراء الرئاسة، ولا رئيس المجلس النيابي المؤيد لفرنجية والمعترض على وصول عون رضي بخوض هذه المغامرة. فكان نصر حزب الله الذي يحتفل به العماد ميشال عون اليوم، ثمرة صمود الحزب وثباته كما هو ثمرة صمود العماد وثباته، لكنه أيضاً ثمرة حرص الحليفين بري وفرنجية ووفائهما.

– يُنهي حزب الله ترصيد النصر الإقليمي الدولي اليوم مع إعلان الحريري لترشيح عون، ليبدأ مسيرة منع تحوّل النصر الإقليمي الدولي غير المسبوق برئيس «صنع في لبنان»، هو رئيس حليف موثوق للمقاومة وصديق لسورية، إلى خسائر يتشظّى معها حلف المقاومة في الداخل، فتصاب علاقة حزب الله بالشريك السياسي والعسكري والديمغرافي والاجتماعي والثقافي بالتأزم والتوتر، وتصاب هذه الشراكة الاستراتيجية بين حزب الله والرئيس بري بالجفاء إذا لم يبادله حزب الله بالمثل موقفاً من رفض السير بالرئاسة إلا بالتشارك، كما تُصاب البيئة السياسية لحلفاء حزب الله في الداخل بخسائر متعدّدة من شظايا التفاهمات الداخلية المحيطة بوصول العماد عون للرئاسة، كالتفاهم مع الحريري من جهة والتفاهم مع القوات اللبنانية من جهة أخرى، ليجد حزب الله نفسه أمام استحقاق لا يقلّ أهمية وخطورة عما مضى. كيف يعيد تدوير النصر بما حققه من أرباح إقليمية ودولية، كأرباح يتقاسمها الحلفاء في الخيارات الواحدة، لا كأرباح للبعض وخسائر للبعض الآخر، فلا يتحوّل عرس في مكان إلى مأتم في مكان آخر.

– تحويل الربح الإقليمي والدولي إلى أرباح محلية شرط استمرار هذا الربح ووهجه. وقد بدأ مع تكريس رصيد الرابح الأول، الحليف الذي صمد كمرشح واستحق دعم الحزب بجدارة حجمه التمثيلي وصموده السياسي، الذي يشعر اليوم أنه بات أقرب من أي يوم آخر لدخول قصر بعبدا رئيساً للجمهورية. والتحدي الراهن كيف يتمكن حزب الله من خلال هذا الرصيد إعادة تدوير أرصدة الأرباح وتوزيعها على الحلفاء بدلاً من توزيع الخسائر. والأمر ليس مجرد طمأنة ضدّ الثنائيات والثلاثيات، على أهميتها، بل بالتشارك الحقيقي في نموذج للحكم يجسّد قيم التحالف التي قدّم حزب الله مثالاً على ممارستها بمعايير الوفاء والإيثار، فيقدّم العماد عون المرشح الرئاسي الأوحد، من موقعه الجديد، ما يبدّد الشكوك والهواجس بعروض للشراكة لا يمكن رفضها من الحلفاء المتوجّسين، والذين لا يقاس موقفهم منه بما يقولونه ضدّه اليوم، ويثير جمهور مؤيدي العماد الفرحين بترشيحه ضدّهم حملات التشنيع، فيراهم بعض هؤلاء المؤيدين أعداء ويصير الحريري الذي كان عدو الأمس أو جعجع الذي كان عدو أول أمس صديقاً. يقاس موقف هؤلاء بالتمعّن في سؤال، ماذا لو ارتضى بري وفرنجية النزول إلى جلسة انتخاب رئاسية بدون شراكة حزب الله يوم كان ترشيح فرنجية مدعوماً من الحريري والنائب وليد جنبلاط وما كان ثمة مشكلة بتوفير النصاب ولا بتأمين الأغلبية، وهل كان يمكن وصول الأمور إلى ما وصلته اليوم لولا وقوفهما هذا الموقف؟

– نموذج الرئيس المنتصر بقوة ثبات المقاومة ووفاء حلفائها لها، ولو ضدّ مصالحهم، يتجسّد بجعل النصر جامعاً للحلفاء، ليس بتبويس اللحى بل بالتنازل عن المكاسب وتدويرها بين الحلفاء، ورفضاً لإغراء احتكارات سيشجع الحريري عون على ارتكابها لينال مثلها، بينما الاستقرار والازدهار والانطلاق بعهد قوي قادر وقف على تركيبة حكم جامع، تتوازى فيه المكاسب مع الأدوار والتضحيات في بلوغ النصر وليس مع المواقف الكلامية بحق الترشيح، فصيغة الحكم التي سيعرض نموذجها العماد عون على الحلفاء ومدى اتساعها لأحجامهم كشركاء كاملين في رسم الخيارات واتخاذ القرارات، لا كجوائز ترضية تعرض عليهم، هو الذي سيقول ما إذا كان حلف المقاومة الداخلي قادراً على استيعاب نصره الإقليمي والدولي، بعدما دخل هذا النصر إلى البيت وجلب معه رياحه إلى الاستحقاق الرئاسي. وهذا الاتساع المفتوح الصدر للشراكة المتوازنة والمتكافئة وحده ينفي ما يُقال عن تفاهمات تحت الطاولة وعن ثنائيات وثلاثيات، ويطمئن النفوس والهواجس ويؤسّس لعهد الاستقرار والازدهار وقيام الدولة.


حتى لا يُسْرَقَ الانتصار ولا يُشوَّه

العميد د. أمين محمد حطيطمن المسلم به أنّ المقاومة وحزب الله تحديداً فرض مرشحه لرئاسة الجمهورية اللبنانية العماد ميشال عون مرشحاً وحيداً قادراً على الوصول الى سدة الرئاسة، إنْ لم يكن بإجماع نيابي يحوز على أصوات جميع النواب الذين مُدّد لهم في مجلس انتهت ولايته، فأقله بإجماع وطني شكّلته مروحة المؤيدين والداعمين المتنوّعة، والتي تشمل كلّ الطوائف والمناطق اللبنانية. وانحصرت معارضة البعض لهذا الترشيح في إطار من طبيعة مصلحية شخصية ونظرة الى مستقبل وضعه وكيانه السياسي لا علاقة لها بالمصلحة الوطنية من أيّ وجه من الوجوه.

ومنذ البدء التزم حزب الله بترشيح العماد عون للرئاسة التزاماً مبنياً على قواعد أخلاقية وقواعد سياسية. وقال بالفم الملآن إنْ شئتم رئيساً، فهذا هو مَن يستحق المنصب، وإنْ رفضتم فانتظروا، ولكن لن تأتوا برئيس غيره ، مؤكداً التزامه بمرشح رآه هو المؤهّل والمتقدّم عن سواه. ولو استجاب الفريق الآخر لهذا الموقف يومها لانتخب العماد عون منذ 29 شهراً. والآن وبعد ان استجاب باتت الطريق سالكة الى انتخاب بشروط حزب الله والفريق الوطني المتحالف معه، وفي طليعته التيار الوطني الحر.

لقد التزم حزب الله أخلاقياً بترشيح العماد عون وفاء لوعد قطعه على نفسه بلسان أمينه العام في ساحة النصر في العام 2006 بأنّ في رقبة الحزب ديناً إلى يوم القيامة لكلّ من وقف معه في لحظة المحنة أثناء العدوان الإسرائيلي على لبنان، وميشال عون كان في طليعة مَن وقف مع المقاومة وآمن بانتصارها ودعا الى احتضان جمهورها الذي هُجّر، قام بذلك رغم انّ هذا الموقف كان شبه انتحار سياسي له ولتياره السياسي، خاصة أنه وعلى بعد 3 كلم من منزله وفي عوكر كان سياسيون لبنانيون يتحلّقون حول مائدة السفير الأميركي يتلقّون التعليمات كيف يتصرّفون عندما يُهزم حزب الله، وأيّ السكاكين يستعملون لتقطيع جسده. وبعد الـ 2006 كان العماد عون مؤيداً صلباً للمقاومة ومدافعاً عنها بكلّ ما أوتي من قوة وبيان.

أما في السياسة وقد تكون عند البعض أهمّ من الأخلاق، لكننا لا نراها كذلك، فقد رأى حزب الله أنّ وصول العماد عون الى الرئاسة يعني له ما يلي:

1 ـ وصول القيادي المسيحي الأول الى المقعد المسيحي الأول، أو بصيغة أخرى وصول المسيحي ذي القوة التمثيلية المسيحية الأعلى او المطلوب من أغلبية المسيحيين الى المقعد المسيحي الأول. وفي ذلك تحقيق للعدالة الخاصة بلبنان الذي لا يعرف الديمقراطية الحقيقية، بل يعتمد نظام فيدرالية الطوائف ويسمّيها الديمقراطية التوافقية. وهذا النظام يفرض أن يمثل الطائفة في السلطة أقواها تمثيلاً واعتماداً من قبلها. وهذا ما فعله الشيعة في مجلس النواب وما فعله السنة في الحكومة، فلماذا يكون المسيحيون والموارنة استثناء على القاعدة؟

2 ـ وصول الشخص الذي رفعت المملكة العربية السعودية الفيتو بوجهه وحاولت أن تفرض عبر موقفها وصاية على لبنان، والكلّ يعلم أنه عندما آذن مقعد الرئاسة للشغور ورشح العماد عون للمقعد وبدأ سبر أغوار القوى المحلية والإقليمية، كان قول وزير الخارجية السعودي سعود الفيصل يومها قاطعاً لمن سأله: عون مرشح إيران ممنوع وصوله الى الرئاسة . ثم رفضت السعودية أيّ محاولة لفتح قناة معها لإعادة النظر بهذا الموقف مذكرة دائماً بأنّ عون حليف حزب الله وهي عدوة الحزب، فكيف تقبل بحليفه؟ ودفع عون مرة أخرى ثمن تحالفه مع الحزب الذي أبرم تفاهماً معه في شباط 2006… لكن نجاحه في الوصول اليوم يُعتبر تجاوزاً لذاك الفيتو ونجاحاً لحزب الله.

3 ـ وصول شخصية سياسية قوية مستندة الى قاعدة شعبية وقاعدة نيابية وقاعدة تحالفية وطنية عريضة، ما يمكنها من تقويم الاعوجاج في الحكم ومحاربة الفساد في الدولة، خاصة أنه صاحب فكر وتيار إصلاحي. وبالتالي يكون وصوله بمثابة الفرصة لوضع حدّ لعملية النهب المبرمج لثروات الدولة وتعطيل مرافقها العامة لصالح الجيوب الخاصة. ولإحياء النصوص المعطلة ووضع حدّ للتحريف والانحراف عن القانون والدستور والاجتهادات البدع التي راجت في الأشهر الأخير حول تطبيقهما.

وبالتالي رأى حزب الله أنّ وصول العماد عون لرئاسة الجمهورية يشكل انتصاراً له على الصعد كلها الأخلاقية والسياسية والاستراتيجية والوطنية وحتى الإدارية، وفرصة لتصحيح تطبيق الطائف أو حتى تعديل ما يستوجب التعديل من نصوصه حتى لا يُضطر لبنان لاحقاً الى 7 أيار جديد من أجل مواجهة الانحراف. ومن أجل هذا الانتصار رفع حزب الله شعاراً بسيطاً كبيراً: تريدون رئيساً انتخبوا عون او انتظروا الى… شعار تمسّك به حتى أذعن الرافضون وسقطت الاعتراضات المانعة وباتت طريق عون الى الرئاسة سالكة وبطمأنينة. ولكن بدأ الفريق المهزوم في خياراته المذعن لخيارات المقاومة يحاول أن يشوّه الانتصار او حتى يسرقه، وللأسف ظهر البعض في فريق دعم المقاومة ومن غير قصد يعين هؤلاء في سعيهم التخريبي من غير أن يدري.

انّ انتخاب العماد عون رئيساً للجمهورية اللبنانية يشكل وبدون أدنى شك انتصاراً للمقاومة، لأنها فرضت خيارها، وصحيح انها اضطرت للتضحية بقبول مَن هو سعودي الجنسية والسياسة مع جنسيته اللبنانية رئيساً لحكومة العهد الأولى، إلا انّ الواقعية تفرض القول بأنّ الانتصار المستقرّ القابل للاستثمار هو ما يمكن للخصم احتماله من هزيمة، وعملاً بهذا المنطق كان على المقاومة أن تضحّي بشيء يمكّنها من تحقيق الانتصار هذا ويمكّنها من استثماره. ووجود ميشال عون في سدة الرئاسة مع وفائه وقوته يشكل ضمانة رسمية لسلاح المقاومة تضاف الى الضمانة الأساسية التي يشكّلها السلاح بذاته. وهذا هو بيت القصيد على صعيد الفريق الآخر.

والآن، ولأنّ المقاومة انتصرت راح المتسلّقون على الانتصار وبوقاحة كلية يحاولون تجريد حزب الله من انتصاره. مرة بالقول إنه لا يريد رئيساً، ومرة أنه لا يريد عون رئيساً، ومرة بأنّ نواب الحزب لن يصوّتوا لعون، ومرة بالقول إنّ تظاهرات سينظمها الحزب لقطع الطريق على انتخاب عون رئيساً في 31 10 2016… إلى ما هنالك من اختلاقات وأكاذيب عرف مطلقوها أصلاً بالإجرام والفتنة ويصرّون اليوم على تاريخهم. وهنا كان الموقف الحاسم والردّ الذي واجههم به السيد حسن نصرالله في خطابه الأخير ضرورياً لإفشال المسعى الإجرامي الاغتصابي هذا.

اما في مجتمع المقاومة، فصحيح انّ لمكوناته الحق بأن يكون لهم رأيهم السياسي وموقفهم، ويجب أن يحترم لهم ذلك، لكن الصحيح أيضاً ان لا يتجاوز الموقف والممارسة حدود اللعبة السياسية ضمن الفريق الواحد وألا يصل الى التسبّب بالشرذمة والانقسام، إذ ليس معقولاً ان يكون تبني ترشيح عون من قبل الخصوم موحداً لهؤلاء الخصوم ومفرّقاً للفريق الذي رشحه ودعمه وتمسك به حتى فرضه على الجميع. وليعلم الجميع في الصف الوطني المقاوم انّ قطار الانتصار الذي يسير بثقة في لبنان والإقليم لصالح محور المقاومة يتسع للجميع، فلا يخطئوا الحسابات ويضيّعوا مقاعدهم فيه من غير مبرّر او دون إدراك…

أستاذ في كليات الحقوق اللبنانية

Related Videos
Related Articles

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!