The Illegitimacy of Mahmoud Abbas: Complicity and Accountability in Banat’s Killing

July 1, 2021

Prominent Palestinian activist Nizar Banat. (Photo: via Social Media)

By Ramona Wadi

In the international community’s narrative of illusory state-building in Palestine, the Palestinian Authority’s security services are dissociated from violence. Whether such violence is meted out according to PA Leader Mahmoud Abbas’s directives, or in terms of security coordination with Israel, the EU and the US prefer to retain a distant approach and one that is deeply rooted in the dynamics of the two-state paradigm.

Never mind that the EU and the US are directly funding and training the PA’s security services to turn against Palestinian civilians.

The killing of Nizar Banat at the hands of the PA’s security services last week ignited protests across the occupied West Bank. Simmering beneath the immediate protests is the Palestinian people’s awareness of security coordination with Israel, treacherous collaboration with Israel’s colonial violence that has targeted Palestinians with dissenting voices or involved in resistance activities.

At a time when Abbas is descending into a chaos of his own making, notably his refusal to hold democratic elections, Palestinians are protesting against the intricate web of violence which has so far sustained his “authority”.

US State Department Spokesman Ned Price’s statement is indicative of how Washington absolves itself of any role in creating the PA’s security services and their violence. “We have serious concerns about Palestinian Authority restrictions on the exercise of freedom of expression by Palestinians and harassment of civil society activists and organizations,” said Price. Anyone else for dodgeball?

However, the US exhibits no concern whatsoever that it trains the PA’s security services to commit acts that lead to the murder of Palestinian civilians. Once again, Palestinian lives are expendable in view of the international commitment, to which the US is bound by consensus, to keeping the Palestinian people tethered to the two-state compromise and protecting the occupation, apartheid state.

The EU’s statement recognized the PA’s “increasingly persistence practice” of targeting its opponents, yet it hesitated to describe Banat’s death as politically motivated. “Apparently” allows the PA to remain on the EU’s agenda, for no other reason than the two-state compromise and the humanitarian agenda forced upon the Palestinian people. In this context, how can the EU’s calls for there to be accountability for Banat’s killing have any meaning?

If scrutiny is projected onto the donors, namely the EU and the US, an additional process of accountability must be taken into consideration; one that calls into question the Oslo Accords, the two-state compromise, and the international oppression which forced Palestinians to bend under PA rule.

In November 2020, Banat was arrested for a video denouncing the PA’s resumption of security coordination with Israel, a betrayal by the PA at the news that Joe Biden had won the US presidential election. Security coordination, therefore, is the main issue. Banat’s dissent threatened what remains of the PA’s repressive power. Without security coordination, the PA risks political dissolution and accountability.

These are two truths that it tries to stave off, even as Palestinians are clearly more emboldened in their protests and less willing to fit within the parameters imposed by the international community in its quest to legitimize Abbas, despite the clear illegitimacy of his political position and absence of a mandate to govern.


Palestine: Old Policy of Divide and Rule Continues

By VT Editors -June 14, 2021

By Sajjad Shaukat Pak VT

After martyring more than 300 Palestinians, including 100 children and 80 women, injuring more than 3000 innocent civilians in Gaza Strip through airstrikes and ground shelling, Israel agreed on a ceasefire with Hamas, which ended the 11 days war.

Unmatched with Israeli arms, freedom fighters of Hamas and the Islamic Jihad group Abu Ubaida had no option except firing rockets inside Israel.

Very tensions had started when Israeli police stormed the Al-Aqsa Mosque in occupied East Jerusalem and attacked the Palestinians. Thousands of Palestinians staged protests in the Al-Aqsa Mosque complex.

In an emergency meeting of the foreign ministers, the OIC had called for an immediate halt to Israel’s barbaric attacks on Gaza.

Earlier, called by China, the UNO Security Council held an urgent meeting on the unrest in Jerusalem. The three sessions of the UN body failed after the US’s moves to block a joint statement that would condemn Israel for the violence and call for a cease-fire.

Like the past administrations, the US President Joe Biden reiterated that Israel has the right to defend itself.

Biden also sent Linda Thomas-Greenfield—the US’s UN envoy to de-escalate tensions. However, it was part of the double game of Washington. When American President Biden seriously pressured Netanyahu to prevent a full-scale war, Tel Aviv agreed for ceasefire.

But, Israeli Premier Netanyahu has not accepted the two-state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute which was stressed by the US and some major Western countries.

In fact, international bodies such as the UNO Security Council, OIC and the US-led West failed to present a solution to end the Israeli state terrorism on the Palestinians, which have continued from time to time.

Notably, like the United States, Ottoman Empire of Turkey was a large multi-ethnic state. In order to maintain their control, one of the British strategies was divide and rule which was being practiced through various tactics like arrangement of rebellions, manipulation of ethnic and sectarian differences. The Britain provided soldiers, weapons and money to the Arab subjects against that Empire. According to the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the British and French agreed to divide the Arab world between them. The Britain took control of what are now Iraq, Kuwait, and Jordan. The French were given modern Syria, Lebanon and southern Turkey. Thus, they brought about the end of the Ottomans and the rise of the new states, with borders, running across the Middle East, dividing Muslims from each other.

Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917 which was a conspiracy of the American and the British rulers against the Palestinians was implemented. On May 14, 1948, the UNO acted upon the 1947 UN Partition Plan and established the state of Israel.

Israel occupied East Jerusalem and Syrian Golan Heights during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war and annexed the entire city in 1980 in a move that has never been recognized by the UNO and international community.

Once Henry Kissinger stated “legitimacy is not natural or automatic, but created.”

Under the cover of the 9/11 attacks, the US President George W. Bush started global war on terror. Occupation of Afghanistan by the US-led NATO, Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, like the creation of Al-Qaeda by the CIA, the Islamic State group (ISIS), proxy wars in Libya, Syria and Yemen, and elsewhere in the world were part of the same anti-Muslim campaign to continue old divide and rule policy.

Henry Kissinger had suggested the split of Iraq into three independent regions, ruled by Kurds, Shias and Sunnis. In this regard, the Asia Times Online reported in 2005: “The plan of balkanizing Iraq into several smaller states is an exact replica of an extreme right-wing Israeli plan…an essential part of the balkanization of the whole Middle East. Curiously, Henry Kissinger was selling the same idea even before the 2003 invasion of Iraq…this is classic divide and rule: the objective is the perpetuation of Arab disunity.”

Similarly, during the partition of the Sub-continent, the people of the state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) which comprised Muslim majority decided to join Pakistan according to the British formula. But, Dogra Raja, Sir Hari Singh, a Hindu who was ruling over the J&K in collusion with the Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Governor General Lord Mountbatten joined India.

The Security Council adopted resolution of April 21, 1948, which promised a plebiscite under UN auspices to enable the people of Jammu and Kashmir to determine whether they wish to join Pakistan or India. On February 5, 1964, India backed out of its commitment of holding plebiscite. Instead, Indian Parliament declared Kashmir-an integral part of the Indian union.

Indian cruel actions against the Kashmiris reached climax on August 5, 2019 when Indian extremist government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the leader of the fanatic ruling party BJP revoked articles 35A and 370 of the Constitution, which gave a special status to the disputed territory of the Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK). New Delhi unilaterally annexed the IIOJK with the Indian Federation to turn Muslim majority into minority.

Implementing the ideology of Hindutva ((Hindu Nationalism), Indian prejudiced rulers have Issued over 1.8 million domicile certificates to non-Kashmiris to change the demographic structure of the IIOJK.

And deployment of more than 900,000 military troops in the IIOJK, who have martyred thousands of the Kashmiris through brutal tactics-extrajudicial killings—non-provision of basic necessities of life and medicines for the coronavirus patients prove worst form of India’s state terrorism. Now, almost 21 months have been passed. But, Indian strict military lockdown in the IIOJK continues.

Besides, the Indian Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC) further exposed the discriminatory policies of the Modi-led government against the Muslims.

It is mentionable that Article 42 of the 1907—Hague Regulations states that a territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.

Moreover, in its resolution 3314, the United Nations General Assembly prohibits states from any military occupation. Article 2(4) of the UN charter explicitly prohibits the use of force.

In addition, General Assembly’s resolution 1541 adopted in 1960 accepts the legitimacy of the right of self-determination and opposes repressive measures of all kinds against the freedom fighters by the colonial powers.

Nevertheless, the US-led major Western countries continue old policy of divide and rule to create division among the Islamic countries.

In this respect, on the directions of the US ex-President Donald Trump, some Muslim countries’ various moves such as recognition of the state of Israel, opening of Israeli embassies in their countries, Shia-Sunni sectarian split, manipulation of Iran-Saudi Arabia differences, encouragement to Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, lack of practical action against the Modi-regime etc. might be cited as some instances. Undoubtedly, it is due to lack of unity in the Islamic Ummah that the Muslim countries have become easy target of this old policy.




VT EditorsVeterans Today



Sanctions against Israel, anyone?


UK-Israel symbiosis

By Stuart Littlewood -June 10, 2021

…from Stuart Littlewood, Britain

First published June 10, 2021

An online petition was recently sent to the British Government demanding sanctions against Israel. It said: “The Government should introduce sanctions against Israel, including blocking all trade, and in particular arms. Its disproportionate treatment of Palestinians and settlements that are regarded by the international community as illegal are an affront to civilised society.” 385,225 signed.

The Government promises a debate on the petition on 14 June. But its response includes this statement from the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office issued yesterday (my comments in italics):

The UK is firmly opposed to boycotts or sanctions against Israel. Our close and varied relationship means we are able to express clearly when we disagree.

HM Government has made its position on sanctions clear. While we do not hesitate to express disagreement with Israel whenever we feel it necessary, we are firmly opposed to boycotts or sanctions. We believe that open and honest discussions, rather than the imposition of sanctions or supporting anti-Israeli boycotts, best supports our efforts to help progress the peace process and achieve a negotiated solution.

• Open and honest discussion with Israel has never worked. You happily slap other nations with sanctions.

HM Government takes its export control responsibilities very seriously and operates one of the most robust arms export control regimes in the world. We consider all export applications thoroughly against a strict risk assessment framework. We continue to monitor the situation in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories and keep all licences under careful and continual review as standard.

• Clearly your risk assessments aren’t strict enough.

The UK welcomed the recent announcement of a ceasefire in Israel and Gaza on 20 May, which is an important step to ending the cycle of violence and loss of civilian life.

During the Foreign Secretary’s visit to the region on 26 May he reiterated the UK’s firm commitment to the two-state solution as the best way to permanently end the occupation, deliver Palestinian self-determination and preserve Israel’s security and democratic identity. The UK will continue our intensive diplomatic efforts in the region, focussed on creating the conditions for a sustainable peace.

• The cycle of violence and loss of civilian life didn’t end after previous ceasefires. Israel continued ‘mowing the lawn’. Why are you committed to the two-state solution when you’ve allowed Israel to establish facts on the ground that make a viable Palestinian state impossible? What do you think a Palestinian state will look like when you eventually get around to recognising one?

Haven’t you yet understood that Israel doesn’t want peace until it has annexed the whole of Palestine and that your stance simply aids the Zionists’ criminal ambition? Haven’t you heard Israeli leaders repeated say they will never allow a Palestinian state? And by the way Israel has no “democratic identity”, it’s a deeply unpleasant ethnocracy.

Israel is an important strategic partner for the UK and we collaborate on issues of defence and security. Our commitment to Israel’s security is unwavering. The UK unequivocally condemns the firing of rockets at Jerusalem and locations within Israel.

We strongly condemn these acts of terrorism by Hamas and other terrorist groups, who must permanently end their incitement and rocket fire against Israel. We are also concerned by reports that Hamas is again using civilian infrastructure and populations as cover for its military operations.

• As long as we are a strategic partner of Israel we will never be trusted in the Middle East. We have no enemies in the region, not even Iran, so why provoke hostility? And given Israel’s track record how can anyone feel comfortable swopping defence and security secrets? You persistently accuse Hamas of incitement when it is the Palestinians who are under illegal military occupation and blockade.

You complain about Hamas firing garden-shed rockets but never condemn the Israelis for bombarding tightly-lacked Gaza with devastating state of the art ordnance deliberately mis-aimed to cause horrendous slaughter of civilians. Also check the definition of terrorist and consider whether it fits the Israeli regime better than Hamas.

We are clear that all countries, including Israel, have a legitimate right to self-defence, and the right to defend their citizens from attack. In doing so, it is vital that all actions are proportionate, in line with International Humanitarian Law, and are calibrated to avoid civilian casualties.

• Israel has no comprehension of “proportionate” and no right of self defence against the people it illegally occupies, murders and dispossesses. It has never complied with international Humanitarian Law, whereas the Palestinians have every right under international law to mount an armed resistance, makeshift though it is, against the occupier.

The UK is strongly opposed to the Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions Movement against Israel, just as we oppose any calls for boycotts which divide people and reduce understanding.

 It is nonsense to claim the UK as a whole is opposed to sanctions against Israel. Only self-serving supporters of the apartheid regime oppose sanctions.

The UK position on evictions, demolitions, and settlements is longstanding and clear. We oppose these activities. We urge the Government of Israel to cease its policies related to settlement expansion immediately, and instead work towards a two state solution. Settlements are illegal under international law, and present an obstacle to peace.

We want to see a contiguous West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as part of a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, based on 1967 borders. Our position was reflected in our support for UN Security Council Resolution 2334 and we continue to urge Israel at the highest level to halt settlement expansion immediately.

• You may well oppose these things but that’s not enough. Haven’t you noticed – the Israelis don’t give a damn? What HM Government wants to see doesn’t matter to them. Their expansion programme is unstoppable except by applying firm and effective consequences. UNSCR 2334 was adopted four and a half years ago. It says Israel’s settlement activity constitutes a “flagrant violation” of international law and has “no legal validity”.

It demands that Israel stop such activity and fulfill its obligations as an occupying power under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Is Israel biting its nails thinking the sky is about to fall in on them? No, it laughs in the UN’s face. What has the British government and other members of the Security Council done in that time to concentrate Israel’s mind and ensure compliance?

We advise British businesses to bear in mind the British Government’s view on the illegality of settlements under international law when considering their investments and activities in the region. Ultimately, it will be the decision of an individual or company whether to operate in settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, but the British Government would neither encourage nor offer support to such activity.

• Nevertheless you continually reward Israel for its crimes against humanity with favoured trading deals and special collaboration agreements.

We have also made clear our concerns about the increasing rate of demolitions and evictions of Palestinians. The UK is focused on preventing demolitions and evictions from happening in the first place through our legal aid programme, which supports Palestinians facing demolition or home eviction.

• The demolitions and evictions have been going on for 73 years. You haven’t in the least been focused on preventing them. And using UK taxpayers’ money to sustain Israel’s criminal policy is utterly gross.

As a strong friend of Israel, and one which has stood up for Israel when it faces bias and unreasonable criticism, we are continuing to urge Israel to not take steps such as these, which move us away from our shared goals of peace and security.

• Why are you “a strong friend” of this apartheid entity in the first place? You shame us all. Israel’s idea of peace and security is far removed from anyone else’s. It’s shocking to hear that you (implying we) “share” their goals.

The occupation will not end and peace will not be achieved by symbolic measures, but by real movement towards renewed peace negotiations which create a viable Palestinian state, living in peace and security side-by-side with Israel.

We will continue to press Israel and the Palestinians strongly on the need to refrain from taking actions, which make peace more difficult. And will continue to encourage further confidence building steps towards meaningful bilateral peace negotiations between the parties.

 What, more lopsided ‘negotiations’ overseen by the most dishonest broker on the planet? Are you SERIOUS? The occupation will end and peace will be achieved only when justice is done and seen to be done. International law has spoken. Now deliver it, please, instead of endless shaming us with your dangerous delusions.

The entire British Government would do well to recall George Washington’s wise words: “The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave… a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils.”

Yes, “slave” fits Israel’s stooges at Westminster admirably.

Stuart Littlewood
9 June 2021


Stuart Littlewood


The worm turns: US port workers refuse to unload Israeli ship

Gosh, It couldn’t happen to a more deserving country

By Jim W. Dean, Managing Editor -June 5, 2021

…from PressTV, Tehran

[ Editor’s Note: This could be the beginning of something. The Israelis, to counter this movement, will have to put ‘assets’ in play here, which means they have to expose themselves as such, which is alway just wonderful when they do that.

Cross your fingers that this will spread to other countries and their dock workers. The politicians in those countries will then also have to choose between Israel and their own unions. This could get very interesting.

I would suggest that this dockworkers union should get a lot of thank you calls. Despite the possibility of getting rid of having to listen to Bibi as PM, the new one is fully committed to taking over the West Bank and there never being a Palestinian state.

If the Zionist have the right to make the Palestinians stateless, then the work has the right of looking at putting Israel in a similar situation. The Israelis plan to impose their will with military and financial power, which hence gives the rest of the would permission to use the same tools.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander, as the old saying goes… Jim W. Dean ]

Jim’s Editor’s Notes are solely crowdfunded via PayPal

First published … June, 05, 2021






— GGJ (@ggjalliance) June 4, 2021





— AROC #BlocktheBoat (@AROCBayArea) June 4, 2021










Jim W. Dean, Managing Editor

Managing Editor


Read Full Complete Bio >>>

Jim W. Dean Archives 2009-2014

ما تخافوش

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is %D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%82-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%8A.jpg


خلال الشهر الماضي وما شهدته مدينة القدس والأحياء العربية فيها بصورة خاصة من مواجهات، ظهر أن الشباب الفلسطيني في القدس والأراضي المحتلة عام 48 الذي يُعرف بالجيل الثالث، أي الجيل الذي ولد في ظل الاحتلال، يُسقط الرهان على الأسرلة التي شكلت خياراً عمل عليه الكيان ضمن خطة تذويب القضية الفلسطينية والهوية العربية للسكان الأصليين للمناطق المحتلة، واستثمر الكيان الزمن الفاصل منذ مسيرة التفاوض واتفاق أوسلو لتوفير فرص التغاضي عن خطته والاستفراد بأبناء القدس والمناطق المحتلة عام 48.

الذين نهضوا بالانتفاضة الفلسطينية الجديدة التي أسست لجولة الحرب الأخيرة وعنوانها القدس، هم شباب وصبايا فلسطين الذين ولدوا بعد الانتفاضة الأولى، ورافقوا وهم صغار انتفاضة الأقصى وانتصار جنوب لبنان عام 2000، وواكبوا مسار التفاوض البائس، ومسار التطبيع المشين، وأحداث المنطقة سواء في سورية أو في ظهور محور المقاومة، ومقابله تحالف يجمع حكومات الخليج وكيان الاحتلال تحت عنوان الخطر الإيراني المشترك، فقرّروا ودون امتلاك أدوات حزبيّة، ودون الانتماء للتشكيلات السائدة فلسطينياً، وفي مواجهة دعوات للانضواء تحت سقف اللعبة الداخليّة للكيان، عبر انتخابات الكنيست وقبول هوية «عرب إسرائيل»، كما تفرض حصيلة أية تسوية وفق حلّ الدولتين، ستكون أحياء بعيدة عن القدس تحمل تسمية القدس كعاصمة لها، مثل حي أبو ديس، ولن يكون لأبناء مناطق الـ 48 اي مكان فيها، وشق خيار هذا الجيل طريقه وفرض حضوره، وصار عنوان الحدث.

جوهر سياسة الكيان تجاه هذا الجيل قام على الترغيب ومشروع الدمج والتذويب، وقد فشل فشلاً ذريعاً، فقد تكفلت الطبيعة العنصرية للكيان ومشاريع التهجير والاستيلاء على المنازل والأراضي، والإبعاد عن الوظائف، والتضييق في المعاملات الرسمية، عناصر تذكير مستمرة بالاحتلال، وبالهوية الفلسطينية بالمقابل، بينما ظهر بوضوح فشل أي رهان على حماية أو إنجاز يمكن أن تحققهما المشاركة في الانتخابات، وسقف ما بلغته هذه الانتخابات هو توفير حجر شطرنج يمكن التلاعب به في التحالفات الحكوميّة في الكيان، يتمّ حذفه فور انتهاء ترتيب اللعبة، فقرر هذا الجيل خوض المواجهة في الشارع بالصوت والكلمة، مستفيداً من ثورة المعلوماتيّة والاتصالات، ومن كفاءات ومهارات لغويّة وتواصليّة أتقنها الشباب والصبايا الفلسطينيون يخاطبون العالم على مدار الساعة شارحين قضيّتهم وعدالتها.

جاءت المواجهة الأخيرة لتكشف طبيعة الحرب على الوعي، والمعادلة التي صاغها الجيل الثالث بمواجهة معادلة بن غوريون القائمة على زرع الخوف، هي الكلمة التي قالتها الناشطة منى الكرد التي مثلت رمزاً لشباب حي الشيخ جراح في القدس لحظة اعتقالها، «ما تخافوش»، وبعد حرب الأيام العشرة وإعلان السيد حسن نصرالله أن القدس تعادل حرباً إقليمية، زادت ثقة هذا الجيل بأنه يُمسك مفاتيح الحرب في المنطقة. ومن خلال هذا الإمساك بمفاتيح الحرب، تستنفر واشنطن على مدار الساعة لتتابع كل حدث، ويستنفر بنيامين نتنياهو ومن خلفه المستوطنون والمتطرفون لخوض معركة القدس بتصعيد الاعتقالات والتحضير لمسيرة الأعلام الصهيونية في القدس، أملاً بتفجير المنطقة، وتصير بيد هذا الجيل دفة القيادة على معادلات إقليمية ودولية، لتنتصر معادلة «ما تخافوش».

After the slaughter, Raab tells Netanyahu: “You can always count on us”

Then he assures Abbas the UK supports the Palestinians

By Stuart Littlewood -June 5, 2021

…by Stuart Littlewood, Britain

[ Editor’s Note: Stuart has many years on the ground observing the British-Israeli relationship, and has brought us a timely review of its evolution. While reading his carefully selected quotes I put myself in the shoes of a new observer reading on the subjet for the first time.

I found myself wondering whether Israel was part of Britain, or was Britain part of England, or had they contrived to pretend they were two countries so they would have two UN votes, including one on the Security Council.

Meanie Jim Dean might suggest that it is way past time the UN formed an Insecurity Council for ‘problem members, so as to eliminate any confusion between the two. And ‘no’, a country could not be on both, but which I am sure Israel would demand such and if rejected would claim as uber proof on anti-semitism, and demand reparations.

Meanwhile, back on the Zionist ranch, Stuart tells us that the potential new Prime Minister Mr. Bennett thinks that Palestinian prisoners must always be killed. If that became the case it might trigger the thinking that maybe uncaptured Zionist terrorists should be killed, also.

I think that would complicate the situation Mr. Bennett would not like… Jim W. Dean ]

Anti-Zionist Neturie Karta Jews

First published … June 05, 2021

When UK foreign secretary Dominic Raab visited Israel immediately after the 11-day onslaught against Gaza which killed some 250 Palestinians, including 66 children and 39 women, Israeli prime minister Netanyahu told him:

Dominic Raab – Zionist apologist

“Thank you and Prime Minister Boris Johnson, for the staunch, unwavering support of our right to self-defence during the recent operation. It’s much appreciated.”

Mr Raab responded: “You can always count on us.”

Raab then met with Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah and tweeted: “I reiterated UK support for the Palestinian people and expressed condolences for civilians killed in recent hostilities.”

He said the UK remains committed to the two-state solution “as the best way to permanently end the occupation, deliver Palestinian self-determination and preserve Israel’s Jewish and democratic identity”.

For one thing, Israel doesn’t have a democratic identity – it’s an extremely unpleasant ethnocracy.

For another, the so-called two-state solution hasn’t solved anything since 1947 and is long dead. No-one these days promotes it except to buy more time for the Zionist regime to complete its annexation and dispossession programme.

And for another, what gives Raab the right to pledge that the odious Netanyahu can always count on us? Who is “us”. You and me? Maybe a handful of twisted stooges among the Westminster establishment?

Certainly not the millions of decent citizens of Britain who are sickened by Israel’s greed and murderous intent on stealing another people’s land, Palestine, to which they have no ancestral claim.

Nor do respectable British people have any truck with Israel’s brutal, decades-long military occupation, cruel 14 year blockade of Gaza and daily contempt for international law and the norms of decent behaviour.

It seems only stooges of the Westminster swamp, like Raab and his insufferable boss Johnson, love the Zionist regime and its twisted leaders enough to pledge undying support. But they splash it around to make it sound like all Brits are adoring followers of the racist delinquents who have trashed the Holy Land for over 70 years.

Bifurcated Benny Gantz

During Raab’s visit The Times of Israel reported that he met with Defence Minister Benny Gantz.

“Gantz stressed to Raab the importance of tight and effective monitoring of Iran’s nuclear sites and said Israel maintains the right to act in self-defense against any threat, a hint that the Jewish state could act alone in a military strike against Iranian nuclear sites.”

Raab tweeted: “Recognised Israel’s right to self-defence and discussed UK Israel bilateral relationship in my meeting with @gantzbe today.” The joke here is that Israel refuses to submit to inspection of its own nuclear facilities never mind the imposition of safeguards but endless bangs on about inspections and curbs on Iran’s embryonic programme.

And what is Raab doing recognising Israel’s “right” to self-defence? Israel isn’t illegally occupied. On the contrary Israel is the aggressor illegally occupying Palestine. Has he ever recognised the Palestinians’ right to self-defence and with it the right under international law to put up an armed resistance? Let’s hear it, Mr Raab!

It’s strange to see someone who won the Clive Parry Prize for International Law at Jesus College, Cambridge, and who led a team at The Hague to bring war criminals the justice, getting it so wrong. Jeez, doesn’t he see Netanyahu as a war criminal?

In 1998 Raab was in the West Bank studying the Israel-Palestine conflict and working for a principal Palestinian negotiator, but he seems to have learned little given his actions today. On the other hand he had a Jewish father and spent time during his formative years at a kibbutz.

“They’ll never get a state”

Meanwhile Netanyahu’s 12 year reign as the apartheid entity’s leader looks like coming to an end now that opposition leader Yair Lapid’s cobbled-together coalition registers an overall 1-seat advantage. The plan is to form a new government with Naftali Bennett as prime minister initially.

Bennett is opposed the creation of a Palestinian state, saying: “I will do everything in my power to make sure they never get a state.”

In 2010 Bennett was appointed director-general of the Yesha Council and led the fight against the settlement freeze in 2010. In November 2016 he said that the election of Donald Trump as president of the United States gave him hope that the two-state solution would no longer be considered viable, claiming “the era of the Palestinian state is over”.

The Geneva Conventions refers to four treaties (1864, 1906, 1929, and 1949) establishing international law on humane treatment during warfare of … Civilians. Wounded. POW. Applies to all nations agreeing to the treaty.

In 2013 Palestinian officials denounced him saying “Bennett’s calling for the murder of Palestinian captives is in blatant disregard of international law and the Third Geneva Convention, which delineates the protections entitled to prisoners by international law upon their capture.

It is extremely alarming that a public Israeli official at the ministerial level calls for murder and utters explicitly racist remarks without being held accountable.”

Bennett had made the remark at a cabinet discussion when opposing the release of Palestinian prisoners in order to enable the resumption of peace talks.

He reportedly said: “If you capture terrorists, you simply have to kill them.” When National Security Adviser Yaakov Amidror told him that was illegal Bennett replied: “I already killed lots of Arabs in my life, and there is absolutely no problem with that.”

In Israel you get rid of one racist lunatic and there are plenty more waiting to pop up. No doubt Raab and Johnson will waste no time giving this one a rapturous welcome to London.

Stuart Littlewood
3 June 2021


Stuart Littlewood


’Israel’s’ Last US Protection Support


’Israel’s’ Last US Protection Support

By Ihab zaki

After Hezbollah Secretary General His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah’s speech on the Day of Resistance and Liberation, it became impossible to speak of purely localities, since what he said about the idea of having a regional war, in the event that al-Quds is exposed to change the status quo, is a pillar of action that transcends existing borders and makes events, no matter how local it seems, with a regional and international dimension.

For example, the results of the Syrian elections can no longer be seen far from the control of dozens of Saudi military positions in Jizan by the Yemeni army and commissions. And the martyrdom of Muhammad al-Tahan on the Lebanese-Palestinian border by the Zionist enemy forces is no longer seen as far from the Hashed al-Shaabi battle in Iraq to drive out American forces. As the regional war between the axis of resistance and “Israel” requires more than coordination between the countries and organizations of the axis, and may require victory arenas within their borders. The enemy has often worked with some of its followers to raise awareness that these are homelands rather than arenas, and that in order for it to be viable, ‘Israel’ must be peaceful as a necessary step for stability and peace.

After “al-Quds Sword” battle ended, Yehya al-Sinwar, the leader of the Hamas movement in Gaza, spoke about the same content that of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, which is making ‘Israel’s’ options seem very narrow and limited. The outbreak of the regional war has no consequences, whether long or short, other than the demise of the occupying entity from existence. This certainty can be seen in US policy more than that in ‘Israeli’ policy, or rather in the policy of Netanyahu.

Netanyahu’s personal aspect dominates his policy, which has recently entered a hysterical phase, making it difficult to distinguish between the policy of the entity and his desires. While the US policy seems more apprehensive and more aware of the fate of the entity, it realized after “al-Quds Sword” battle the limitations of the ‘Israeli’ capability to achieve a clear and decisive victory against the besieged and small Gaza. Some Zionist analysts even went further when they said that what happened in “Guard of the Wall,” according to their name, “is nothing for what will happen in the event of a war with Hezbollah.” So, what will the situation be like when a regional war breaks out with all the parties of the axis of resistance combined?  This war would last for hours, not days or weeks.

Therefore, the US is now preoccupied with the active shuttle diplomacy in order to return the situation back to before the outbreak of “al-Quds Sword” battle, where the temptation of financial aids and reconstruction, the rehabilitation and restoration of the so-called two-state solution and the revival of the negotiation track. This may require drifting Netanyahu out of the picture.  “It’s time for a unity government with Netanyahu”, Bennett said during the aggression on Gaza. Today, he is coalescing with Yair Lapid to form a so-called national unity government. If this behavior is at the behest of the Americans, Bennett will be able to accomplish his government, and Netanyahu will go to prison.

Therefore, Netanyahu will be out of the picture within the framework of an American strategy we discussed previously, which emphasizes protecting ‘Israel’ from itself first. However, if Bennett and Lapid act according to internal political rules, Netanyahu may pull a rabbit out of his hat, leading to a fifth election. America, which plans to move out of the region, still needs the existence of the entity, and that presence requires it to work hard to curb “Israeli” behavior, especially in al-Quds.

These behaviors have become a powder keg that threatens the existence of the entity when it explodes, but the fatal mistake was if Netanyahu’s government is the fire needed to detonate the powder keg in a short term. The Bennett government is a more dangerous thunderbolt in both average and long term, since Netanyahu does not need to prove his extremism and racism, unlike Bennett and his Government. Thus, what the United States temporarily gains, may explode in its face later.

So what is happening today in our region, in short, is that the situation is heading towards a regional war, with American attempts to cut it off, or at least postpone it for as long as possible. The United States is not in the process of engaging in direct military war, nor is it in the process of abandoning the entity’s survival, so today’s work to postpone or cut off the territorial war is to return to the nuclear agreement with Iran. It can also try to work the internal arenas in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen for as long as possible, along with providing an economic relief in Gaza with the even formalistic return of the so-called peace process or rather the negotiation process.

This, in turn, will give an enormous boost to the normalization process and the “Israelization” that was under way before the aggression against Gaza, and this American strategy may work, but it would be a temporary success; Since the survival of the entity requires more than just cooling and heating other arenas, and more than changing the faces of the entity’s leadership. In fact, as a first step it requires dismantling the axis of resistance, and it requires disarming it with decisive military operations by ‘Israel’ in Gaza first, and then in Lebanon; which has become as impossible as the survival of the entity is. That’s why the success of the United States in this endeavor to protect “Israel” from itself would be the last way of protection offered by America to the entity, after much protection support over five decades.

What to Know About Naftali Bennett, the Zionist PM in the Making?


Designed by: Rabab al-Husseini


Europe’s Failure Over Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Due to Germany’s Nazi Guilt and EU’s Subservience to United States

June 1, 2021

See the source image

Finian Cunningham

The international community has to end its support for the apartheid state of Israel and must stop the genocide of the Palestinian people, says MEP Mick Wallace in an interview with Finian Cunningham.

Mick Wallace, an independent Irish Member of the European Parliament, speaks his mind to Strategic Culture Foundation about the recent violence in Gaza where 248 people were killed by the Israeli military. Among the dead were 66 children during 11 days of bombardment of the Palestinian territory. Nearly 2,000 were injured in airstrikes on the densely populated coastal strip where two million people live in appalling deprivation. Hundreds of homes and civilian infrastructure were destroyed by the Israeli forces armed with U.S. warplanes and munitions. Rockets fired by Palestinian militant group Hamas killed 12 Israelis, including two children. Yet the United States and the European Union stridently declared support for Israel’s “right to self-defense” while not categorically denouncing the slaughter of Palestinians. Mick Wallace condemns what he calls the complicity of America and the European Union in Israeli war crimes. He says the oppression of Palestinians will continue tragically because, effectively, the U.S. and EU are sponsoring genocide. However, he notes, Western governments are increasingly out of step with public opinion horrified by Israel’s wanton occupation of Palestinian territory.

Wallace was elected to the EU parliament in 2019. He is an independent MEP who is affiliated with the European Party of the Left. He is an outspoken critic of American imperialism and European complicity in NATO aggression towards Russia. His weekly podcast frequently explores and condemns Russophobia in EU foreign policy which he says is due to the bloc’s subservience to Washington. Wallace’s outspoken internationalism and anti-imperialism have gained him much popular support in Ireland and abroad.


Question: American and European politicians commonly declare their support for Israel’s “right to self-defense”. However, you have stated that Israel does not have such a right. Many people would condemn your statement given the barrage of rockets fired at Israel by the Palestinian militant group Hamas. Can you explain why you think Israel does not have a right to self-defense?

Mick Wallace: Gaza is the largest concentration camp in the world. Do concentration camp guards have the right to self-defense? The indigenous people, the Palestinians, have the right to self-defense, not the colonizer. Does Israel have the right to self-defense? Does Israel have the right to commit crimes against humanity?

Question: During the recent eruption of hostilities between the Israelis and Palestinians, the European Union showed little leadership in calling for a ceasefire. Why is the EU so ineffective in resolving a conflict which is on Europe’s periphery?

Mick Wallace: It would probably be fair to say that when it comes to foreign policy, the European Union has never been so weak.

Question: European leaders aspire for the EU to be a global political force. But the EU is all too often seen as subordinate to the United States. With regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Europe seems too deferential to Washington. Is that a fair criticism?

Mick Wallace: Yes, the EU does not have the courage to challenge the United States on these matters.

Question: You have been especially critical of Germany and the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who was formerly the German minister of defense, for their appeasement of Israel by not criticizing its illegal occupation of Palestinian territories. You have made the point that Germany’s historical guilt from Nazism and the Holocaust is a factor. Can you elaborate on that point?

Mick Wallace: Von der Leyen is a weak European Commission president but her statement on the conflict emphasizing Israel’s supposed right to self-defense was a new low. Sixty-six Palestinian children were killed by the illegal occupier, Israel, while Hamas killed two Israeli children. And yet Von der Leyen could only condemn Hamas. Germany backs Israel because of its guilt over Nazi horror. Yet in appeasing Israel, German politicians are complicit today in crimes against humanity akin to those of Nazi Germany.

Question: Other European countries were also complicit in Nazi crimes against Jews, such as France and the Baltic states, Austria, Romania, and Hungary. During the latest violence, Austrian public buildings were draped with the flag of Israel. Does the specter of the past Nazi horrors and European guilt account for the EU’s failings with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

Mick Wallace: There’s no doubt that German guilt for the terrible atrocities committed against European Jews is a factor. The failure of so many German Members of the European Parliament to criticize Israeli war crimes is shocking, but other forces are also at play. Israel is a vital part of the United States Empire, and that’s reflected in EU subservience to the Americans.

Question: Out of 705 European parliamentarians, a sizable majority seems to be supportive of Israel whereas among European citizens there is strong sympathy for the Palestinians suffering from illegal occupation and oppression. How do you explain such a discrepancy between elected representatives and the general public with regard to views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

Mick Wallace: Politicians rarely represent their citizens.

Question: Is European guilt over Nazism and fascism a factor in the European Parliament’s attempts at World War Two revisionism whereby the Soviet Union is equated with the Nazi Third Reich?

Mick Wallace: I believe it’s more a case of the European Union, at America’s beckoning, trying to undermine and isolate Russia.

Question: Russia has offered to act as a mediator between the Israelis and Palestinians, claiming to have credible relations with both sides. The American mediation efforts have been a failure as has been shown by the chronic impasse and erosion of Palestinian rights over several decades. Do you think Russia could help find a resolution?

Mick Wallace: I wouldn’t be confident of Russia playing a neutral and fair role – the Kremlin also tolerates much of the lawless behavior of Israel.

Question: What, in your view, is a viable solution to the decades-old conflict?

Mick Wallace: That’s a big question. The two-state solution is long dead. The international community has to end its support for the apartheid state of Israel and must stop the genocide of the Palestinian people. All Palestinians are entitled to live a dignified life in their homeland. But this is unlikely to happen until the international community stops supporting U.S. imperialism, and the sovereignty of all nations is respected.

“المونيتور”: هل عاد “حل الدولتين” إلى الأجندة الإسرائيلية؟ Is two-state solution back on Israel’s agenda?

الكاتب: مزال معلم

المصدر: المونيتور

يتعين على القيادة الإسرائيلية أن تفهم أن حل الدولتين، الذي أبعده ترامب، قد عاد إلى جدول أعمال إدارة بايدن.

نتنياهو وبلينكن خلال محادثاتهما الأخيرة في القدس المحتلة.
نتنياهو وبلينكن خلال محادثاتهما الأخيرة في القدس المحتلة.

كتبت الصحافية الإسرائيلية مزال معلم مقالة في موقع “المونيتور” الأميركي تناولت فيه عودة “حل الدولتين” إلى أجندة الإدارة الأميركية مع الرئيس جو بايدن. وقالت إن الاجتماع  الذي عقد بين رئيس الوزراء الإسرائيلي بنيامين نتنياهو ووزير الخارجية الأميركي أنتوني بلينكين في القدس المحتلة في 25 أيار / مايو الجاري قد كشف عن التغييرات الكبيرة التي تحدث في المنطقة، منذ ترك الرئيس الأميركي السابق دونالد ترامب منصبه.

وأضافت أن الاجتماع كان جيداً جداً إذ بذل بلينكين أقصى جهده “لإظهار الصداقة الوثيقة بين الدولتين، مع التركيز على التزام الرئيس جو بايدن الطويل الأمد بحق “إسرائيل” في الدفاع عن نفسها ضد منظمة (حماس) تطلق الصواريخ على مواطنيها.. فخلال الأسبوعين الماضيين، خلال عملية “حارس الأسوار”، أثبتت تصرفات بايدن أنه يقف مع “إسرائيل”. لقد حافظ على اتصالات منتظمة وودية مع نتنياهو، في حين أن دعواته لوقف إطلاق النار كانت تتم بهدوء، وبلباقة دبلوماسية محسوبة. كما أبدى بايدن احتراماً لنتنياهو إذ لم يوجه البيت الأبيض أي تهديدات له كما حدث في أكثر من مناسبة خلال إدارة أوباما.

وقالت الكاتبة إنه برغم كل هذه الدبلوماسية الأميركية اللبقة، فإن الأسبوعين الماضيين أظهرا أن ثمة تغيرات كبيرة في المواقف الأميركية تجاه “إسرائيل”، وخاصة بشأن علاقة “إسرائيل” بالفلسطينيين. فما فعله بايدن هو إعادة المفاوضات مع الفلسطينيين، بهدف تحقيق حل الدولتين، إلى الصدارة، بعد أن تم تجميد الحل إلى أجل غير مسمى في عام 2014، بعدما شعر بايدن بأنه مضطر للتدخل نتيجة للصراع الأخير في غزة. 

وأوضحت الكاتبة أن المثال الأكثر وضوحاً على هذا التغيير هو قرار إدارة بايدن إعادة فتح القنصلية الأميركية في القدس الشرقية، والتي أغلقتها إدارة ترامب. وأبلغ بلينكين نتنياهو بهذا القرار خلال لقائهما، وجدد السياسة الجديدة خلال لقائه بالرئيس الفلسطيني محمود عباس في رام الله. ورأت الكاتبة أن هذا الأمر هو أكثر من عمل رمزي. فعلى مدى العقود الثلاثة الماضية، كانت القنصلية بمثابة التمثيل الدبلوماسي للولايات المتحدة لدى السلطة الفلسطينية. تم إغلاقها في تشرين الأول / أكتوبر 2018، عندما نقل ترامب السفارة الأميركية في الكيان الإسرائيلي من تل أبيب إلى القدس. وتقرر أنذاك دمج المكتبين الدبلوماسيين في القدس. ما يعنيه ذلك عملياً هو أن القنصلية، التي كانت في يوم من الأيام مسؤولة عن جميع الاتصالات مع السلطة الفلسطينية، كانت تابعة للسفير الأميركي لدى “إسرائيل”، أي فقدت القنصلية وضعها المستقل.

وأضافت أن قرار إغلاق القنصلية كان إظهار للعلاقة الدافئة بين ترامب ونتنياهو والتي أدت إلى شطب أي مساعٍ لتحقيق حل الدولتين من جدول أعمال الإدارة الأميركية. اعتبر الفلسطينيون ذلك عملاً عدوانياً وجزءاً من سياسة أوسع أظهرت تفضيلاً للمصالح الإسرائيلية على أي تطلعات قومية لديهم. لذلك، فإن إعادة إدارة بايدن فتح القنصلية في القدس الشرقية تعتبر خطوة مهمة في الجهود المبذولة لتجديد العلاقة بين الولايات المتحدة والفلسطينيين. كانت لفتة تصالحية من إدارة بايدن تجاه الرئيس عباس، الذي تعرض لموقف عدائي من ترامب.

وقالت الكاتبة إنه كان لدى بلينكن المزيد من المفاجآت للفلسطينيين. فقد أبلغ نتنياهو وعباس أن الولايات المتحدة تخطط لإرسال 75 مليون دولار إلى غزة في عام 2021 للمساعدة في إعادة بناء القطاع بعد جولة العنف الأخيرة. وخلصت إلى أن بلينكن قدم في زيارته الرسمية الأولى لـ”إسرائيل” والشرق الأوسط سياسة أميركية جديدة تجاه المنطقة تختلف بشكل ملحوظ عن سياسة الإدارة السابقة. فالتأمل في صيف  2020، عندما بدأ توقيع اتفاقات أبراهام، يظهر مدى جدية هذا التغيير حيث أن ترامب قد ألغى عاملين رئيسيين حاول الرئيس السابق باراك أوباما دفعهما إلى الأمام: الاتفاق النووي مع إيران الذي انسحبت منه الولايات المتحدة، والمحادثات بين “إسرائيل” والفلسطينيين ، والتي أزيلت عن الطاولة. وقد عاد كلاهما كمسألة بارزة على الأجندة الأميركية، حتى لو كان الأسلوب المستخدم للنهوض بهما مختلفاً.

وأضافت: كأن بلينكين أراد مخاطبة الجمهور الإسرائيلي مباشرة. كان يعلم أنهم معجبون بترامب، وكانت هذه فرصته لتعريفهم بأجندة بايدن الجديدة. فقد أراد أن يؤكد الالتزام المطلق للولايات المتحدة بالمصالح الإسرائيلية، وفي الوقت نفسه، أراد أن يبث حياة جديدة في حل الدولتين للصراع الإسرائيلي الفلسطيني.

وخلال مقابلة له مع القناة 12 الأخبارية الإسرائيلية، عندما سئل عما إذا كانت هناك محاولة لإحياء عملية السلام الإسرائيلية الفلسطينية، أجاب بلينكن قائلاً: “لا نزال نؤمن بأن حل الدولتين ليس فقط أفضل طريقة، ولكنه ربما الطريقة الوحيدة للتأكد من أن إسرائيل لديها مستقبل كدولة يهودية وديمقراطية آمنة، وأن الفلسطينيين لديهم دولة يستحقونها. لذلك أعتقد أننا نريد الوصول إلى ذلك. لكن ينصب التركيز حالياً على التعامل مع العنف الأخير، ومحاولة البناء على وقف إطلاق النار، ..، ثم معرفة ما إذا كانت الظروف لاحقاً توفر بيئة أفضل للسعي لمتابعة حل الدولتين”.

وتابعت الكاتبة: لقد اعتاد الإسرائيليون على أن يكونوا مستفيدين من هدايا ترامب السخية. فقد نقل السفارة الأميركية إلى القدس، واعترف بالضم الإسرائيلي للجولان السوري وعزز معاهدات السلام مع الدول العربية “المعتدلة”. الآن، بدأ الإسرائيليون يدركون أن شيئاً جديداً ومختلفاً يجري.. لكنهم يدركون كذلك أن بايدن يختلف عن أوباما، الذي كان يعتبره العديد من الإسرائيليين مؤيداً للفلسطينيين. ينجح بايدن في تقديم نفسه كشخص يتفهم حقاً المزاج السائد في إسرائيل، ويحب إسرائيل كثيراً”.

حتى الآن، تمكن نتنياهو ، وهو سياسي متمرس، من اجتياز هذه المعضلة سالماً. على عكس تعاملاته الحادة مع أوباما، ليس لنتنياهو خلافات عامة مع بايدن حالياً. لكن كل هذه التغييرات القادمة من واشنطن تضع “إسرائيل” في حالة من عدم الاستقرار السياسي. ومن المحتمل جداً أن تنتهي فترة حكم نتنياهو الطويلة قريباً. الآن وبعد أن أصبح هناك ائتلاف إسرائيلي جديد لتأليف الحكومة، مؤلف من أحزاب من اليسار واليمين، فإن السؤال المطروح هو ما هي السياسات التي سيتبناها هذا الائتلاف في التعامل مع الفلسطينيين؟

وقالت الكاتبة إنه من المحتمل أن يكون رئيس وزراء هذه الحكومة الجديدة هو السياسي اليميني نفتالي بينيت، الذي يدعو إلى ضم المستوطنات الإسرائيلية في الضفة الغربية، بينما يدعم رئيس الوزراء البديل، يائير لابيد، حل الدولتين. فيما تعتبر أحزاب اليسار، وعلى رأسها حركة ميرتس، المستوطنات رمزاً للاحتلال الإسرائيلي. تعرض رئيس حزب ميرتس، نيتسان هورويتز، لهجوم من اليمين في آذار / مارس الماضي، عندما أعرب عن دعمه للمحكمة الجنائية الدولية في لاهاي، التي أعلنت أنها تحقق مع “إسرائيل” في جرائم حرب. في 27 أيار / مايو، قال هورويتز في مقابلة إذاعية إنه يؤيد استئناف المفاوضات بين “إسرائيل” والفلسطينيين. تكمن أهمية ذلك في أنه إذا تم تشكيل حكومة تغيير جديدة، فلن يكون هناك إجماع داخلها حول كيفية تعاملها مع الصراع الفلسطيني الإسرائيلي. كان الوضع في قطاع غزة هادئاً نسبياً عندما اتفق الطرفان على تشكيل مثل هذه الحكومة بهدف واضح هو عزل نتنياهو من منصبه. لذلك كان لديها مجال للزعم بأنها ستتجنب القضية الفلسطينية وتركز على قضايا مدنية وعسكرية أخرى. لكن الأسبوعين الماضيين أعادا الوضع الأمني ​​إلى صدارة الأجندة الإسرائيلية وأعادا إمكانية حل الدولتين إلى مركز الصدارة.

نقله إلى العربية بتصرف: الميادين: الآراء المذكورة في هذه المقالة لا تعبّر بالضرورة عن رأي الميادين وإنما تعبّر عن رأي الصحيفة حصراً

مقالات متعلقة

Is two-state solution back on Israel’s agenda?

Israel’s leadership must understand that as far as the Biden administration is concerned the two-state solution is back on the agenda.

May 27, 2021

The meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken in Jerusalem May 25 offered insight into the enormous changes taking place in the region, ever since President Donald Trump left office. 

On the one hand, it was a very good meeting. Blinken made every effort to showcase the close friendship between the two countries, with an emphasis on President Joe Biden’s longstanding commitment to Israel’s right to defend itself against a terrorist organization firing rockets on its citizens. This was more than just rhetoric, too. Over the last two weeks, during Operation Guardian of the Walls, Biden’s actions proved that he stood with Israel. He maintained regular and cordial contacts with Netanyahu, while his calls for a cease-fire were made quietly, with calculated diplomatic tact. Biden made a point of respecting Netanyahu. The White House made no threats, nor did it bully him, as happened on more than one occasion during the Obama administration.

On the other hand, despite all the elegant diplomacy, the last two weeks show that there have been enormous changes to American attitudes toward Israel, particularly when it comes to Israel’s relationship with the Palestinians.

What Biden effectively did was return negotiations with the Palestinians — with the goal of achieving a two-state solution — back to center stage, after they were frozen indefinitely in 2014. This happened when Biden felt forced to intervene as a result of the recent conflict in Gaza. What made his new policy notable was that it consisted of more than just rhetorical flourishes. It had a number of operative components, too.

The most obvious and immediate example of this is the Biden administration’s decision to reopen the US Consulate in East Jerusalem, which was shut down by the Trump administration. Blinken informed Netanyahu of this decision during their meeting, and reiterated the new policy during his meeting with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah.

This is, of course, much more than some symbolic act. Over the last three decades, the consulate served as the United States’ diplomatic representation to the Palestinian Authority (PA). It was shut down in October 2018, when Trump moved the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. It was decided at the time to merge the two diplomatic offices in Jerusalem. What this meant in practical terms was that the consulate, which was once responsible for all contact with the PA, was subordinated to the ambassador to Israel. In other words, it lost its independent status.

The decision to shut down the consulate was a highlight of the unusually warm relationship between Trump and Netanyahu. Inevitably, it led to any efforts to achieve a two-state solution being removed from the agenda. The Palestinians considered this an act of belligerence and part of a larger policy that showed preference to Israeli interests over any national aspirations they had.

That is why the reopening of the consulate is considered to be an important step forward in the effort to renew the relationship between the United States and the Palestinians. It was a conciliatory gesture to Abbas, who had been subjected to a chilly and sometimes hostile attitude from Trump.

And Blinken had even more surprises for the Palestinians. He informed both Netanyahu and Abbas that the United States plans to send $75 million to Gaza in 2021 to help rebuild the enclave after the current round of violence.

There is no doubt that in his first official visit to Israel and the Middle East, Blinken presented a new American policy toward the region, which differed markedly from that of the previous administration. Reflecting back on the summer of 2020, when the Abraham Accords began to emerge, shows how serious this change is. Trump eliminated two key factors that President Barack Obama tried to advance: a nuclear deal with Iran, from which the United States withdrew, and talks between Israel and the Palestinians, which were taken off the table. Both of these are, once again, prominent points on the American agenda, even if the style used to advance them is different.

It looked like Blinken wanted to address the Israeli people directly. He knew that they were enamored with Trump, and this was his chance to introduce them to the new Biden agenda. On the one hand, he wanted to highlight the absolute nature of the US commitment to Israeli interests, while at the same time, he wanted to breathe new life into the two-state solution to the conflict.

Before leaving Israel for Egypt and Jordan, Blinken gave an exclusive primetime interview to Israel’s main news broadcast on Channel 12. When asked if there would be an attempt to revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, he responded, “We continue to believe very strongly that a two-state solution is not just the best way, but probably the only way to really assure that going forward Israel has a future as a secure Jewish and democratic state, and the Palestinians have a state to which they’re entitled. So I think we want to get to that. But right now, the focus is on dealing with the aftermath, the recent violence, trying to build on the cease-fire, address the immediate needs and concerns, and then see if over time the conditions are such that there’s a better environment for trying to pursue a two-state solution.”

Israelis had gotten used to being the beneficiaries of Trump’s generous gifts. He moved the embassy to Jerusalem, recognized Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights and fostered peace treaties with moderate Arab states. Now, Israelis are beginning to realize that something new and different was happening.

At the same time, however, they also recognize that Biden is unlike Obama, who was considered by many Israelis to be decidedly pro-Palestinian. Biden succeeds in presenting himself as someone who really understands the mood in Israel, and who loves Israel dearly.

So far, Netanyahu, an experienced politician, managed to get through this baptism by fire unscathed. In contrast to his heated dealings with Obama, Netanyahu had no public disputes for the moment with Biden.

All these changes coming from Washington catch Israel in a state of political instability. It is very possible that Netanyahu’s long term in office will soon end. Now that a new coalition made up of parties from the left and the right is on the table yet again, the question being raised is what policies it will adopt in dealing with the Palestinians.

The prime minister of this new government would probably be Yamina party Chairman Naftali Bennett, who advocates the annexation of Israeli West Bank settlements, while the alternative prime minister, Yair Lapid, supports a two-state solution. Furthermore, the left-wing parties, headed by Meretz, consider the settlements to be a symbol of the Israeli occupation, with all the corruption this engenders. Meretz party Chairman Nitzan Horowitz came under attack from the right last March, when he expressed support for the International Criminal Court in The Hague, which announced that it was investigating Israel for war crimes. On May 27, Horowitz said in a radio interview that he supports renewing negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

The significance of this is that if a new government of change is, in fact, formed, there would be no consensus on how it will handle the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The situation in the Gaza Strip was relatively quiet when the parties agreed to form such a government with the express purpose of removing Netanyahu from office. It therefore had the leeway to claim that it would avoid the Palestinian question and focus on other civil and military issues. The last two weeks have restored the security situation to the top of the national agenda and returned the possibility of a two-state solution to center stage.


Abbas Statements are Complicit with Israeli Settler-Colonialism

April 22, 2021

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. (Photo: Kremlin, via Wikimedia Commons)

By Ramona Wadi

Known for belatedly spouting known truths, Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas was true to form in his address to the J Street conference recently, which revealed the extent of his collaboration with the international community over Palestine’s loss, and his complicity with Israeli settler-colonialism.

Mentioning “apartheid” as he did cannot gloss over the fact that Abbas is still championing a paradigm that has facilitated Israel’s colonial expansion and de-facto annexation of Palestinian land.

US President Joe Biden’s two-state policy is still unclear. The strategy has worked well for Israel, while advocates of the internationally-imposed paradigm can once again make themselves useful. But the two-state “solution” has already been declared dead in the water and pressuring the US administration to heed a matter of international consensus that still harms Palestinians should not be deemed “the only solution”, as Abbas is fond of claiming. In doing so, he is on the same page as UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres who insists that “There is no Plan B.”

If Abbas thought that by mentioning the A word he would be doing a service to the Palestinians, he is wrong. Not only has the Israeli NGO B’Tselem beaten him to it declaring that the colonial state has already passed the apartheid threshold, but Palestinians have also been trying to raise awareness regarding Israel’s apartheid policies for years. The PA, meanwhile, was busying itself with the international community’s state-building illusions and tacitly approving Israel’s settlement expansion.

“Moving away from the two-state solution will eventually lead to a de facto one-state solution, an apartheid state, and this is something neither, we nor the entire world would accept,” Abbas said. “A one-state solution will only perpetuate the conflict.”

This is not necessarily true. Moving away from moribund two-state politics can give a chance to the Palestinian people, but only if they have a leadership worthy of the name and cause. The two-state solution, remember, came back into vogue with the announcement of the so-called Abraham Accords, which saw some Arab countries normalize relations with Israel in return, they claimed, to halt Israel’s annexation plans.

Annexation, as Israel has made clear, was simply “postponed”. Nevertheless, the UN had no qualms about endorsing the diplomatic game that facilitated the de-facto annexation of the occupied West Bank.

The Trump administration’s “deal of the century” shifted focus on what would happen if Abbas and the international community keep insisting upon the two-state compromise. Saying that the one-state solution would entrench apartheid is valid only because Palestinians have not been given the political freedom to construct their own independence and liberation process.

Israel has leverage over the one-state concept because it has secured its narrative within the international community. The Palestinian people, though, are burdened with a leadership whose main interest is to impose the international paradigm and call it a “solution”.

So what is the use of the PA participating in such seminars, if it only serves to strengthen the Israeli narrative and colonial expansion? Abbas had the opportunity to speak to J Street — a “pro-Israel, pro-peace” liberal US advocacy group — about the Palestinian concept of a single, democratic state, but he did not take it. It is possible, of course, that his invitation to address the group was conditional upon his promotion of the two-state compromise because there is purportedly no other option for the Palestinian people.

To speak where the funding lies is to maintain two-state politics, now defunct in terms of implementation yet favorable for Israel and its de-facto annexation — aka theft — of Palestinian land. The Palestinian leadership embarked yet again upon another spectacle that revealed its allegiance to external entities over and above the people of occupied Palestine.


بعد تدخل أردوغان في إنتخاباتها حركة حماس إلى أين فهَل تصبح نصفين؟

مجلة تحليلات العصر الدولية – إسماعيل النجار


حركَة المقاومة الإسلامية حماس، واحدة من أكبر الحركات التحررية الإسلامية في فلسطين وخارجها، بَرَز إسمها على الساحة الفلسطينية في شهر ديسمبر ١٩٨٧ مع إنطلاق الإنتفاضة الفلسطينية الأولى، وكانت قدَ عَرٍَفَت عن نفسها كجناح من أجنحة الإخوان المسلمين في فلسطين ولكنها في الحقيقة أحد أشكال المقاومة التي قرر الفلسطينيون تبنيها ضمن مشوار العمل المقاوم التاريخي الطويل لهم.
**عَرَّفَت حماس عن هويتها الأيديولوجية وطرحها السياسي والفكري أنها حركة جهادية تستند إلى تعاليم الإسلام وتراثه الفقهي، وتؤمن بتوسيع دائرَة الصراع ضد المشروع الصهيوني ليشمل الإطارين العربي والإسلامي إيماناً منها بأن فلسطين هيَ قضية كل الشرفاء في العالم مسلمين ومسيحيين وأن القدس هي مهد الأديان الثلاث التي يحاول الصهاينة تحويلها إلى مدينة يهودية صهيونية فاقدة لحلاوة العيش المشترك بين أطراف الأديان السماوية الثلاث.

**تؤمن الحركة بأن الصراع مع العدو الصهيوني هو صراع حضاري مصيري ذات أبعاد عقائدية وجودية،

وحدَّدَت أهدافها الرئيسية والإستراتيجية أهمها تحرير كافة الأراضي الفلسطينية من البحر إلى النهر وإقامة دولة إسلامية على تراب فلسطين،
**لَم تؤمن حركة حماس بالعمل السياسي من داخل منظمة التحرير الفلسطينية رغم إحترامها الكبير لها، ورفضت الإنضمام إليها إلَّا بشَرط إذا وقعَت منظمة التحرير معها إتفاقاً تتعهد فيه بعدم التفريط بأي شبر من أرض فلسطين التاريخية ورفض الإعتراف بالكيان الصهيوني الأمر الذي رفضته قيادة منظمة التحرير التي تعهدت بالتفاوض مع الكيان الغاصب وتبني حَل الدولتين.

**إهتَمَّت الحركة بقوَة بعمقها الإسلامي والعربي وجاهدت للحفاظ على هويتها الإسلامية والعربية وأجرَت إتصالات مع دُوَل مجلس التعاون الخليجي الذي فَرَضَ عليها شروطاً قاسية مقابل تبنيها كحركة إسلامية تحررية وكان لا بُد للحركة من التنازل قليلاً لكي لا تتعرَّىَ من محيطها التي طالما أعتبرته ثوبها الدافئ ومظلتها الدولية الشرعية،

**تَبَنَّت الجمهورية الإسلامية الحركة ودعمتها بكُل ما أؤتيَت من قوَّة وقدمت لها كل أشكال الدعم المادي والسياسي والعسكري والإعلامي، من دون أي قَيد أو شرط،
[أيضاً تَلَقَّت حماس دعماً واسعاً من دمشق التي إحتَضَنت كبار قياداتها وفتحت لها أبواب سوريا على مصراعيها من دون أي قيد أو شرط، وبقيَت الأمور على حالها حتى عام ٢٠١١ وإنطلاق شرارة الخريف الصهيوني العربي وكانت دمشق واحدة من بين أهدافه الرئيسية حيث تساقطت الأنظمة العربية وهَوَت خلال ثلاثة شهور وأصبحَ قادتها الدكتاتوريين بين قتيلٍ وسجينٍ ولاجئ خارج البلاد.

إلَّا سوريا الأسد التي قررَ رئيسها الحفاظ على الدولة وأمن المواطنين وسلامة المؤسسات التي أستهدفها الإرهابيون وإندلعت المعارك في شوارع دمشق ومحيطها، فكان لحركة حماس موقفاً سلبياً من اللذين إحتضنوهم وأعطوهم الأمان فقرروا الوقوف مع المشروع القطري السعودي الأميركي وساهموا بقتال الجيش العربي السوري على الأرض السورية من خلال وجود المخيمات الفلسطينية داخل العاصمة وخارجها وكان مخيم اليرموك أحد ساحة القتال سيطرت حركة حماس على قسم كبير منه.
*تراجعَت درجة حرارة العلاقات بين طهران وحماس وبيروت وحماس من دون أن تنقطع الإتصالات كلياً بسبب تواصل الكثير من القيادات الحمساوية مع الطرفين الإيراني واللبناني رافضين إنخراط الحركة في الصراع السوري الداخلي ومواقف رئيس الحركة {خالد مشعل} المقيم في قطر، *بينما إنقطعت العلاقات كلياً مع دمشق وأصبَحَت الأمور معقدة جداً بين الطرفين.

**لَم تَكُن تتوقَّع حماس بعد مغادرتها دمشق وإحتضار العلاقة مع طهران وحزب الله أنها ستكون في موقفٍ صعب من خلال الضغوطات الخليجية التي مورِسَت على الحرَكَة بهدف تقديم تنازلات والقبول بحَل الدولتين الذي يعني بقاموسها إعتراف بإسرائيل، ثمَ تأكدَت بإن مشروع التطبيع قائم فحاولت أن تخرج من أزمتها من خلال التوازن بين المحورين العدوين تُبقي من خلاله حماس قدماً في طهران وأُخرَى في الرياض لكن الأخيرة كانت قاسية بما يكفي لإخراج الحركة من بلادها واعتقال مسؤوليها الأمر الذي تلقفته أنقرة بإستقبال قادتها وتبني دعمها سياسياً،
بدأت الأمور تتحسن تدريجياً مع طهران بعد عزل خالد مشعل وتعيين إسماعيل هنية، فتقبلت طهران وحزب الله الأمر لكن سورية بقيت على موقفها الرافض لعودة الحركة الى دمشق رغم وساطة السيد حسن نصرالله، فتُرِك الأمر للأيام ولتغيير الظروف السياسية والعسكرية في المنطقة.

 بعد الدخول التركي إلى قطر إثر الخلاف السعودي مع الدوحَة وإخراج الرياض من معادلة الحل في سوريا، ودخول اردوغان الساحة الليبية كلاعب رئيسي بقوة،
وبعد المصالحة السعودية القطرية (المسيارة) والتقارب السعودي المصري التركي، وإحتدام الصراع بين إسرائيل والجمهورية الإسلامية الإيرانية وإحتمال حصول مواجهة مباشرة شاملة بينهما، فوجئ الجميع بإنتخاب خالد مشعل مسؤولاً لحركة حماس خارج فلسطين بالكامل،
وتسربَت معلومات عن ضغوط تركية كبيرة لأجل ذلك الأمر الذي يشير إلى أن صراعاً سياسياً متحكماً بقيادة الحركة في الداخل والخارج بين طرفين بارزين يشكل محمود الزهار ويحي السنوار وصالح العاروري وغيرهما أحد صقور طهران الأقوياء داخل الحركة، الأمر الذي يشير إلى توجُه حماس نحو قرارين متناقضين خارجي وداخلي بعد إنتخاب مشعل مسؤولاً عن الحركة في الخارج،
فهل تذهب أنقرة من خلال مشروعها لشق صفوف حركة حماس وإضعافها؟

 الأمر يعود إلى شرفاء الحركة اللذين نضع بين أيديهم أمانة وحدة الحركة والفصائل كمواطنين مؤيدين للقضية الفلسطينية.

Biden and the Middle East: Misplaced optimism

Khalil al-Anani

25 November 2020

The Arab region in general will not rank high on the list of foreign priorities for the incoming US president

US president-elect Joe Biden speaks in Wilmington, Delaware, on 19 November (AFP)

There has been a state of optimism in the Arab world since the announcement of Democratic candidate Joe Biden’s win in the US presidential election.

Even if the optimism is justified, especially in light of the disasters and political tragedies that the Arab region has witnessed and lived through over the past four years under President Donald Trump, this optimism is somewhat exaggerated. Some believe that the region under Biden will witness radical changes, breaking with Trump’s negative legacy – but I don’t think that will happen.

We need to dismantle the various issues that Biden is expected to engage with over the next four years in order to understand whether the situation will remain as it is, or undergo radical change. 

During the Biden era, the Arab region in general is not expected to rank high on the list of US foreign priorities. There are many reasons for this, including Biden’s vision, which does not stray far from the view of former US President Barack Obama on global issues and international conflicts, with Asia and the Pacific given priority over all other matters. 

The US relationship with China is an important file for any US administration, whether Republican or Democratic. As the rise of China represents an economic and security threat to the US, the Obama administration moved its foreign-policy compass towards China and the Pacific region. For Biden, China will continue to represent a top priority. 

The issue has become even more urgent in the wake of Trump’s more hostile policies towards China over the past four years. Observers will be watching as to whether Biden can put an end to what the average US citizen sees as Chinese encroachment and hegemony in global markets, at US expense. Some saw Trump’s China policies as a historic victory, due to the imposition of tariffs on US imports from China. 

The importance of accountability for China might be one of the few issues that has consensus among Americans of all orientations, but there are differences in how the issue is approached and handled. While Republicans, especially under Trump, use the confrontational method through the well-known strategy of “maximum pressure”, the Democrats prefer dialogue and cooperation with Beijing.

Iran, Israel and Arab authoritarians

In the Arab region, the three issues expected to dominate Biden’s agenda are the US relationships with Iran, Israel and the authoritarian regimes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

We may witness an important shift in US policy towards Iran, especially on the nuclear file and Trump-era sanctions, which resulted in unprecedented levels of pressure on Tehran since the unilateral US withdrawal from the nuclear deal in 2018.

It is expected that Biden will bring the US back to the nuclear deal, but with new conditions – unless the Trump administration, in alliance with Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, launches military strikes, as Trump has reportedly contemplated.

Biden and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meet in Jerusalem in 2010 (Reuters)

As for the US-Israel relationship, and in particular the issue of a two-state solution and normalisation with Arab countries, we can expect the status quo to continue. Despite Biden’s embrace of the two-state solution and rejection of Israeli attempts to impose a fait accompli on Palestinians, Biden is not expected to prevent Israel from annexing parts of the occupied West Bank.

US pressure on more Arab countries to normalise with Israel, as Trump pushed with the UAE, Bahrain and Sudan, may diminish. But this does not mean the Biden administration would impede any such normalisation. On the contrary, Biden welcomed the Gulf normalisation deals with Israel.

The issue of Israel’s security and qualitative superiority is a subject of agreement among Republicans and Democrats alike; none can imagine this changing under the Biden administration.

Condemnation without action

As for the US relationship with Arab authoritarian regimes, particularly with respect to support for human rights and democracy, while Biden may not support human rights violations – especially in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE – he is not expected to exert great pressure on these countries if the violations continue.

A Biden administration, for example, would not likely cut off military aid to Egypt, or halt arms sales to Saudi Arabia or the UAE as an objection to the Yemen war or their miserable record on issues of democracy and human rights – despite Biden’s pledge to the contrary during his election campaign. 

Statements and condemnations may be issued from time to time, but it is unlikely that they will translate into real policies and actions. While Biden will not consider someone like Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi his “favourite dictator”, as Trump did, he will not likely sever the relationship or punish Sisi seriously for his flagrant violations of human rights in Egypt.

Perhaps optimists in the Arab world should be wary of getting too hopeful about the incoming Biden administration and the potential for regional change. If it is true that the number of bad guys around the world will decrease due to Trump’s departure from power, this does not necessarily mean that the good guys will make a comeback with Biden coming to power.

Khalil al-AnaniKhalil al-Anani is a Senior Fellow at the Arab Centre for Research and Policy Studies in Washington DC. He is also an associate professor of political science at the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies. You can follow him on Twitter: @Khalilalanani.

شركاء جدد للعدوان الخليجيّ على اليمن؟

 د. وفيق إبراهيم

تراجع الحلف السعوديّ – الإماراتيّ ومرتزقتهم في حربهم على اليمن والأزمات التي يتخبّط بها حليفهم الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب تضع حكام السعودية والإمارات في مأزق تاريخيّ.

فلا هم قادرون على الانسحاب بعد خمس سنوات على هجوم قواتهم على اليمن بدعم أميركي بريطاني بالتسليح والتخطيط والتدريب ومرتزقة من السودان وبعض بلدان العالم العربي والإسلامي، مع شراء مفتوح للسلاح من بلدان أوروبية ومشاركات إسرائيليّة متنوّعة ودعم مصري بحريّ.

هؤلاء لم يعد بوسعهم إكمال حربهم التي ادركت في جوانب منها مرحلة الخسارة المتدحرجة، فها هو جيش دولة صنعاء على وشك تحرير منطقة مأرب بما يعنيه من انهيار الدور العدوانيّ السعوديّ في كامل اليمن، والقضاء على طموحه في الاستيلاء على حضرموت والجوف.

كذلك الإمارات التي لم تتمكن حتى الآن من توطيد احتلالها لمدينة عدن وبعض أنحاء الجنوب وجزر سقطرى.

ما أدى الى ولادة معادلة تقوم على ان الانسحاب من حرب اليمن ممنوع بقرار أميركي والانتصار فيها مستحيل لقوة المدافعين عن بلادهم في دولة صنعاء.

هذا الى جانب الذعر الذي أصاب حكام الخليج بسبب تراجع حظوظ وليهم الأميركي ترامب في الانتخابات الرئاسية الأميركية في الثالث من تشرين الثاني المقبل.

هناك الآن فارق يزيد عن ثلاث عشرة نقطة تؤكد مكاتب استطلاعات الرأي الأميركية ان منافسه بايدن يحوز عليها، وقد تزداد في مقبل الأيام لتخوف الأميركيين من الحالة الصحية المتفاقمة لترامب التي يحاول إخفاءها بالتهريج والضجيج والادعاء انه تمكن من القضاء على وباء الكورونا المصاب به.

لذلك يجب الربط بين الانسداد العسكري للعدوان على اليمن ونجاح الحُديدة في إجهاض كل محاولات إسقاطها من قبل السعوديين والإماراتيين، وأزمات ترامب هي من العوامل التي دفعت مفتي السعودية آل الشيخ لمطالبة المسلمين عموماً بالدعاء لشفاء ترامب.

إلا أن السفير الاميركي في «اسرائيل» ديفيد فريدمان كشف المستور مسقطاً التوريات الدينية، فأعلن أن فوز بايدن على ترامب يمثل خطراً كبيراً على جهود واشنطن وحلفائها في حرب اليمن من جهة والتطبيع الإسرائيلي – الخليجي العربي من جهة ثانية.

فإذا كان الأميركيون أنفسهم يتوجّسون على مشاريعهم الاستعمارية، فماذا حال أدواتهم في الشرق الأوسط وهل لديهم سياسات بديلة؟

ليس لدى السعودية والإمارات إلا العمل لإنجاح ترامب بضخ كميات وافرة من المساعدات لحملاته الانتخابية والإعلامية، علماً ان الفوارق في الأهداف بين الحزبين الأميركيين الجمهوري والديموقراطي هي في اسلوب التطبيق وليس في الأهداف، فالطرفان يعملان على السطو على موارد بلدان الشرق الاوسط وافريقيا وآسيا، لكن الحزب الديموقراطي يميل الى الربط بين الدبلوماسية والنفوذ الجيوبوليتيكي والصفقات الاقتصادية، فيما يسطو الحزب الجمهوري على اقتصاد المرتبطين به بشكل مباشر ومن دون حوارات على الطريقة الترامبية المليئة بالغطرسة والاستكبار.

كما أن الحزب الديموقراطي يميل الى حل الدولتين في فلسطين المحتلة مع تسويات لمصلحة الكيان المحتل، فيما يريد الحزب الجمهوري منح «إسرائيل» كامل فلسطين والجولان والأراضي اللبنانية المحتلة، معززاً فرصها في علاقات كاملة مع العالم الغربي على اساس حل بينهما معادٍ لإيران وروسيا والصين.

فأين المهرب الذي قد يفر اليه الخليج لإجهاض التداعيات المحتملة لخسارة ترامب الانتخابات الرئاسية؟

يبدو ان الخليج ذاهب الى تعميق تطبيعه مع العدو الإسرائيلي الى درجة تقديم دعم مالي مفتوح لهذا الكيان مقابل خدمات عسكرية جوية وبحرية وتقنية وتدريبية ويريد السعوديون والإماراتيون التعجيل في التطبيع السوداني مع «اسرائيل» لهدفين: الاول هو الكسر المعنوي لجبهة الأول الرافضة للعلاقات مع «اسرائيل» فيما يذهب الهدف الثاني إلى مسارعة الكيان الإسرائيلي إلى تدريب قوات سودانية بأعداد كبيرة قد تصل الى ثمانين الف جندي، يعمل نصفها تقريباً على حماية العائلات الحاكمة في السعودية والإمارات فيما يجري زج القوات الباقية داخل معارك اليمن للمحافظة على الأقل على «الستاتيكو» القائم في مأرب وبعض الوسط والجنوب وللدفاع ايضاً عن الجهة السعودية في نجران وجيزان المواجهتين لأعالي صنعاء.

هناك ايضاً محاولات سعودية – إماراتية لطلب مساعدات عسكرية أوروبية لها ميزتان: الاحتراف العسكري والتغطية السياسية لحرب الخليج على اليمن، الأمر الذي يزيد من مناعة النظامين السعودي والإماراتي في الاتحاد الاوروبي والامم المتحدة بالإضافة الى الدور العسكري، فهل تنجح هذه المساعي الشديدة الكلفة في زمن يتراجع فيه استهلاك البترول والغاز، وتختفي موارد الحج والعمرة ومختلف انواع العلاقات الاقتصادية؟ الصمود اليمني المتحول الى هجوميّ لن يتيح لكل هؤلاء فرصة ترقب تحولات ميدانيّة لمصلحتهم. لكن عملية طرد الغزاة السعوديّين والإماراتيّين من اليمن أصبحت مسألة وقت بانتظار تشكل موقف جنوبي يمني يلتقي مع الشمال والوسط المحرّر لإنقاذ بلادهم والمحافظة على ثرواتها ودورها اليمني والإقليمي وبالتالي العربي.

Jewish Settler Chief: ‘Palestinians have no right to a state, Bible says Israel for the Jews’

Via The saker


September 23, 2020

Middle East Observer

In an extended interview with the Israeli i24News Arabic channel, Jewish settler leader Daniella Weiss says that Palestinians have no right to establish a state, and that the land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people as proclaimed by the ‘eternal words of the Bible’.

Weiss also expresses her disappointment with the UAE for demanding that the annexation plan for parts of the West Bank be frozen in exchange for Emirati peace with Israel. Weiss wondered, “I don’t understand why for peace, we, the settlers in Judea and Samaria (i.e. the West Bank), are expected to stop developing ourselves!”

Source: i24NEWS Arabic (YouTube)

Date: Sep 4, 2020(Important Note: Please help us keep producing independent translations for you by contributing as little as $1/month here:



Welcome, dear viewers, to a new episode of “Hadith Akhar”.

Her settlement activity in the West Bank began in the early 1970s. She was the secretary general of the most hardline settlement movement. She was imprisoned for rioting in the West Bank. In past years she has also been active in a movement that supports the establishment of illegal settlement outposts.

We talk to Daniella Weiss in “Hadith Akhar”.

TV report:

Daniella Weiss was born in Bnei Brak, just east of Tel Aviv in 1945. During the period 1984-1988, she was the General Secretary of the Gush Emunim settlement movement. In 1987, she was arrested and convicted with respect to rioting in the city of Qalqilya (located in the north of the West Bank). During the period 1996-2007, she was elected head of the local council of the Kedumim settlement, just near Qalqilya. In 1992, she failed to reach the Knesset on a ticket supported by settlers.


Welcome Ms. Daniella. Let us start from the latest developments in the (Israeli) political arena.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu froze the annexation plan (to annex the West Bank, or parts thereof, to Israel territory)in exchange for establishing ties with the United Arab Emirates (UAE). First, how do you view this step by Netanyahu?


Greetings. I think that this step is a big mistake on the part of our Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to stop the development of the Jewish community in Judea and Samaria (i.e. the Israeli government term for the West Bank). But, I’m not sure that he specifically said that he will “freeze” (the annexation plan), I think he said that he will ‘stop the process of annexation of declaring Israeli law on the Jewish community (in that region). But if you’re telling me that it’s even worse (than this), then I’ll be disappointed with him, since (Netanyahu) is a great leader and I, as a member of the Jewish community in Judea and Samaria, always expect more from him.


This is a controversial topic (cancelation of annexation plan); Netanyahu says that he “halted” or “froze” (the annexation plan). In contrast, the Emirati state says that this plan is “canceled and is now off the table” in exchange for ties with the UAE. So, was it peace in exchange for (cancelling) this Israeli (annexation) plan?


I must say that I am very much disappointed also from the Emirati side, that they demand stopping the annexation or the development of the Jewish community (in exchange) for peace. Well, I was planning to show you what is the stage of (sic) – these black spots (on the map) show what is planned for the Palestinian state, and the white color refers to Jewish settlement. This means that the Israeli state is threatened by a Palestinian state which doesn’t express love or support for the Jewish state.

For this reason, I don’t understand why for peace, we, the settlers in Judea and Samaria (i.e. the West Bank), we are expected to stop developing ourselves. It doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t sound like a step towards peace, it sounds like leaving us, the settlers in Judea and Samaria, and leaving the state of Israel with a narrow strip (of land), if they were (indeed) to take off part of this land for the sake of a Palestinian state.

This is (most) unreasonable. And I am looking forward to seeing how (Netanyahu) sees this peace agreement, because there doesn’t seem to me much peace in this agreement. It seems to be an intersection of interests, which is good for the Emirates, good for the US, but not good for Israel.


Yet peace (between Israel) and the Arabs, and several Arab states, considering that many of (these states) had mutual enmity with Israel, isn’t Israel’s sense of security and safety in relation to neighbouring Arab states, isn’t this worth giving up the annexation plan and settlement expansion in the West Bank?


I think I am trying to explain. There is a reason to give away the annexation (plan).  But there is a map which shows that the narrow waist of the Israeli state is an impossible situation for (Israel) to live long with. I think we should be more careful, since some say that the Sinai Peninsula that was given to the Egyptians poses some threat to Israel. But (for me) it is livable. Certain parts from the borders that were given to Jordan were small. Gaza was a catastrophe, but we can live with it. But can we live without our heart? The center of our homeland? This makes no sense. I know there is a high level of celebration but I am not celebrating. I am warning. I warn if the condition was to stop Jewish life in the heart of our homeland for what is defined as a peace, then this is not a peace.


Yet you had your own stance in relation to the annexation plan. When this plan was proposed and put into implementation, it faced opposition due to ideological reasons that considered (the plan) destructive for the Israeli state and for the settlement project. On the other hand, the world and the majority of the world view it as being destructive for the two-state solution. What threatens this plan? What threatens your (settlement) project in this regard?


You did very good homework. Not many people in Israel know exactly what the stance of some settlers was. It is correct that I was in the settler camp which was very much against the annexation plan which went by the plan which is called the “Trump Plan” or the “Deal of the Century”. Why was I against it? Because it was directly connected with building a Palestinian (home) state, and here it’s not just about giving 30% (of the area) for the settlers and the rest is for the Palestinians It was a formal recognition that gives the possibility for the establishment of a Palestinian state in the heart of the homeland of the Jews. Why would I agree with it? Do you know why some did agree with it? Because we were under so much stress – I mean we the settlers – for so many years, with the freezing (of the settlements) in Obama’s time, in addition to the redlines even during Trump’s term.

So some people were thinking that there will be (positive) change; that we (as settlers in certain outposts) will become considered a part of the Israeli state, and that this will be in our favor. Usually, I see life in its positive fold. This time though, I saw that Trump, Kushner, and their team pledged that 70% of this area be for a Palestinian state that will be established. I believe that this is impossible. There is a Palestinian Authority that has the democratic ability to run life for Palestinians in a democratic way, but not through an independent state.


You oppose Trump’s Deal of the Century; don’t you feel concerned that you will lose such an American ally who backs Israel? Don’t you fear that Israel and the settlers may lose this supportive friend of Israel?


Mohammad, you are asking me this question on the day of the first ever flight from Israel to Abu Dhabi into the Emirates. It’s not just about this tiny thing, i.e. what is going to happen in Judea and Samaria. It is a global interest. More than Israel needs the US, the US needs Israel. Because it is a global interest. It is the ongoing struggle between Russia and US; it’s about natural resources; about oil; about the world fight against terror; about the Iran threat; about the conflict between Iran (on the one hand), and Saudi Arabia, the Emirates and the US (on the other). It is a global thing.

I was planning to to tell (Netanyahu), who’s going to deliver an address in 20 minutes, that he shouldn’t be afraid of the US. Trump is an ally of Israel. And since the (US) has (shared) interests with Israel and interests in the Middle East, (Netanyahu) knows well that the US can rely on Israel (which serves its interests). It is time for Netanyahu to demand from Trump the growth of the Jewish community in Judea and Samaria, and not the freezing of such construction. We must be brave and not bow down.  (Netanyahu) is a brave man, but the freezing (of settlement construction) in Judea and Samaria is not a brave step from him.


You are against the establishment of a Palestinian state and the freezing of settlement construction in the West Bank as well. If we want to talk about the borders of the state of Israel as far as you’re concerned, where do the borders of the state of Israel extend to? You have shown your map (to the viewers), kindly show us the Israeli state borders (on your map), as far as you’re concerned.


From the political point of view, the state of Israel, in the current political situation, is located between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, including the entire Golan Heights, the Galilee and the Golan (regions). Regarding the Jewish religion and its creed, we can (then) speak the language of the religion and creed; we have the ‘promised land’ from the Bible. The Middle East in WWI and WWII was different from now. Some day, according to the Bible, a change may occur in this land. But in this current political situation, (Israeli) borders are between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.


What about the Palestinians for whom you deny the right of statehood? Where should they go? Is the solution, as you use to say, to encourage (the Palestinians) to migrate?


Let’s start from the first part of your question. The Palestinians have the ‘Palestinian Authority’. This authority has the right to have its own democratic elections; it has the right to have its own institutions and departments; however, it is not a state of its own. The only state in Israel is Israel. This is its name, Israel, coming from our forefathers. So there’s no option to build another state within France or the United Kingdom, just as there is no option to establish another state within Israel. Israel is for the Jews. ‘Israel’, meaning Jacob, this is the beginning of our nation.

Today, what will happen? (The Palestinians) have an Authority, they have independent lives, but they have no ability to vote for the Knesset. They can vote for their own institutions, not as (institutions) of a state, but rather institutions belonging to the (Palestinian) Authority.


However, more than 5 million Palestinians live in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Don’t they have the right to have an independent state in which they can live?


I think that – and we will not debate now whether there are four or five million (Palestinians), four million is still a good number – let’s continue from this point: the fact that the Jewish state was established, and even before this, the fact that the Jewish pioneers came from all over the world and began to revive the holy land of Israel once again, which was a desolate country at the end of the Ottoman Empire.

Then it attracted – and this is a well-known fact – it attracted many Arabs, Bedouins, tribes, from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt, they all came to the land of Israel, and this is how (this land) was developed. It was the result of the Jews who came to this land; the new cities and towns that were established by Jewish pioneers, who revived the desolate land, and made it an attractive place for people all over the Middle East.

That does not mean that we – that the Jews – have to give up and say: ‘well, we have to share the only state that the Jews have in the world, to share it with another country’. They should have taken this into consideration, and we said it at the appropriate time, that we will never divide up our homeland in Israel (with other people). By the way, and here I made a mistake: there was a partition plan in 1947, and the Jewish leadership did agree (to it), to share the western part of the land of Israel. This proposal was rejected by the Arabs, and I (personally) was not in support of this proposal either.

Bahrain Rejects US Push for Normalization Deal with Israel


August 27, 2020

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo lands in Bahrain to push normalization with Israel. (Photo: via Social Media)

Bahrain said Wednesday it was committed to the creation of a Palestinian state in talks with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, implicitly rejecting his push for Arab countries to swiftly normalize ties with Israel.

Pompeo was in Manama as part of a Middle East trip aimed at building more ties between the Jewish state and the Arab world after a landmark US-brokered deal with the United Arab Emirates.

However, Bahrain’s King Hamad bin Isa Al-Khalifa said he told Pompeo that his country remains committed to the Arab Peace Initiative – which calls for Israel’s complete withdrawal from the Palestinian territories occupied after 1967, in exchange for peace and the full normalisation of relations.

“The king stressed the importance of intensifying efforts to end the Palestinian-Israeli conflict according to the two-state solution… to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital,” the official Bahrain News Agency (BNA) reported.

The US chief diplomat has said he is hopeful other nations will follow the UAE, which earlier this month became only the third Arab country to agree to normalize relations with the Jewish state.

Manama, whose contacts with Israel date back to the 1990s, was the first Gulf country to welcome the UAE move and was considered a front-runner to follow in its footsteps.

On August 13, Israel and the UAE have reached a deal that is expected to lead to “full normalization of relations” between the Arab nation and Israel in an agreement that US President Donald Trump reportedly helped broker.

The agreement is considered a severe blow to Palestinian efforts aimed at isolating Israel regionally and internationally until it ends its military occupation and apartheid-like system in occupied Palestine.

(Palestine Chronicle, Al-Araby Al-Jadeed, Social Media)

How Two Seemingly Unrelated Events Laid Israel’s Racism Problem Bare

A viral video showing an Israeli family mocking impoverished Palestinian children and a controversial New York Times editorial by famed Zionist commentator Peter Beinart have exposed the racist underpinning of the so-called Jewish state.

Source: MintPress News

by Miko Peled

Protesters attend a rally against Israel plans to annex parts of the West Bank, in Tel Aviv, June 6, 2020. Sebastian Scheiner | AP

Two seemingly unrelated items hit social media recently and both received a lot of attention. The first was an article by Peter Beinart that was published in the New York Times where Beinart claims he no longer believes in a Jewish State and calls for a binational state with equal rights in Palestine. The other, a video clip showing an Israeli family riding in a car when two children approach them. The car window opens and we hear the father ask the children in Hebrew, “Who wants to feed a Bedouin?” While these two seem unrelated, there is something equally disturbing about both of them.

A Jewish home in Palestine

One might think that the epiphany experienced by yet another liberal Zionist, and one that has access to the mainstream media, should be celebrated. After all, another well known Jewish American has reached the conclusion that Palestinians deserve equal rights in their own country. However, as we read this article there are several disturbing elements that dampen the excitement.

Beinart shares with the readers, “I knew that Israel was a source of comfort and pride to millions of other Jews.” He explains that this is why he believed in the Jewish state. One could argue that slavery was a source of comfort and pride for millions of white Americans, yet to support slavery is still abhorrent.

Peter Beinart
Peter Beinart, center, talks to people after speaking at the University of Washington Hillel, October 23, 2014. Photo | Joe Mabel

He goes on to describe a sentiment that one hears from many liberal Zionists. “One day in early adulthood, I walked through Jerusalem, reading street names that catalog Jewish history, and felt that comfort and pride myself.” Jerusalem was an Arab city for over a thousand years. In 1948, Palestinians in Jerusalem were subjected to a total and complete ethnic cleansing, and not a single Palestinian was allowed to remain in the city. Jerusalem then became the capital city of the state of Israel and the street names, which used to catalog the long and magnificent Arab history of the city, were changed.

“I knew Israel was wrong to deny Palestinians in the West Bank citizenship, due process, free movement and the right to vote in the country in which they lived.” What about the rights of millions of Palestinians languishing in refugee camps? This country that gave him, and Jews like him, such pride is denying millions of Palestinians their right to return to the lands and homes from which they were expelled.

“But the dream of a two-state solution that would give Palestinians a country of their own let me hope that I could remain a liberal and a supporter of Jewish statehood at the same time.” That was precisely what the scam of the Two State Solution was set to do. To allow liberal Zionists to support the crimes of Zionism and the creation of a racist state in Palestine while still feeling good about themselves.

The idea that the Two State Solution would give Palestinians “a country of their own,” is puzzling. Palestinians have a country of their own, it is Palestine. According to historian Nur Masalha, it has been Palestine for thousands of years before the establishment of the Zionist state on May 15, 1948.

The epiphany experienced by liberal Zionists who suddenly realize they can’t have it both ways is really not an epiphany at all. It is a compromise that allows them to continue to justify their patronizing attitude towards Palestinians. Beinart is not unlike another liberal Zionist, Avram Burg. Burg, a staunch Zionist who served as speaker of the Knesset and chairman of the Jewish Agency, and in between, profited greatly from peddling Israeli weapons. He is a Zionist through and through, and yet, he too claims it is time for a single state. In a piece he authored in 2018, he writes, “Since 1967 Israel had occupied Palestinian territory.” Not unlike Beinart, he sees only the West Bank as Palestinian territory.

To feed a Bedouin

A disturbing video clip was recently shared on TikTok by Roy Oz, also known as Roy Boy, an Israeli entertainer who hosts various programs for children. In the clip, an Israeli family is driving comfortably in what appears to be an SUV, with young children in the backseat and the parents in front. The father, Roy Oz, is driving. As they drive, two young children approach the car. The children in the car are white, the children outside are brown. The landscape is barren, like a desert, and we can safely assume it is the Naqab region in southern Palestine.

The father opens the window and hands a cookie to the children outside and says to his children in Hebrew, “Who wants to feed a Bedouin?” He speaks to the children outside in Arabic and then turns to his children again, asking in Hebrew, “You don’t want to feed a Bedouin, Ariel?” One of the two children outside is older than the other and hands the cookie to the younger child. Then, the father turns the camera, showing his children’s faces and asks again, “Do you want to feed a Bedouin? You don’t?” We hear him also saying to himself, “they are so cute,” referring to the children outside.

The father then turns to the children outside and asks in Arabic how much money they want. “One thousand shekel?” He asks. “No, just ten” one of the children answers. “Only ten?” The father asks at which point the mother reaches out of the car and hands one of the children a coin.

Expressions of Shock

Expressions of shock came fast from Palestinian communities, who demanded an apology and an explanation. Some even said this was the worst expression of racism they had ever seen. But there is nothing shocking about this clip because this was a normal Israeli middle-class family expressing what countless Israelis express all the time. The appalling racism and patronizing colonial attitude toward Palestinian Bedouin children, as we see in the video, is the foundation upon which the state of Israel was established and exists throughout Israeli society.

Without structural, systemic, deeply ingrained racism, Israel would not exist. Furthermore, without this white supremacist attitude, no Israeli pilot would be able to push the button that releases the bombs which then burn and rip Palestinian children in Gaza to shreds. No sniper would be able to pull the trigger and kill and maim Palestinians. It is an essential part of Zionist education.

Many Israelis had expressed their displeasure at this expression of racism. However, their displeasure aside, this is nothing new or abnormal. It is not unlike the incident where an Israeli army medic, who is charged with saving people’s lives and had taken an oath to do so, executed a wounded Palestinian laying on the ground. The incident was caught on video and went viral, resulting in the medic being court-martialed and receiving a slap on the wrist. This medic also acted as he was trained, as he was taught, that a Palestinian life does not matter.

Recognizing that Palestinians have rights within a Zionist construct is a symptom of Zionist racist supremacy. This racism is what allows a family to drive by Palestinian children and treat them like animals in a safari. It is how the state of Israel is able to continue the Naqba, the systemic, catastrophic destruction of Palestine and its people for close to one hundred years.

Feature photo | Beinart speaks at a 2012 event in Atlanta after being banned from a Jewish book festival over his criticism of Israel. David Goldman | AP


The PA’s ‘Counter-Proposal’ Facilitates Its Colonial Collaboration with Israel

June 16, 2020

Palestinian PM Mohammad Shtayyeh . (Photo: via Facebook)

By Ramona Wadi

Further proof that the Palestinian Authority will not attempt to safeguard what remains of Palestine, let alone insist on decolonization, is the plan submitted to the Middle East Quartet which does nothing other than confirm subjugation to the two-state compromise. Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammed Shtayyeh is reportedly calling the plan “a counter-proposal” to the US deal of the century.

Scant details are available at the moment. The PA’s proposal, however, puts forth the creation of “a sovereign Palestinian state, independent and demilitarised,” while allowing for “border modifications”.

According to a senior official of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), Wasel Abu Yousef, “No Palestinian leader can agree to the American and Israeli conditions to give up the right of return of Palestinian refugees, agree to the annexation of Jerusalem or allow Israel to annex parts of the West Bank where it has built its illegal Jewish settlements.”

However, the Palestinian leadership sees no contradiction in abiding by the earlier plans to colonize Palestine which were determined by the international community. As long as the PA remains entrenched within the two-state framework, it cannot claim that it is countering the “deal” concocted for Israel’s benefit by US President Donald Trump.

The PA has no allies in the Quartet, which consists of the UN, the EU, Russia, and the US. The US, despite departing from international consensus with its slavish gifts to Israel, is still part of the group. Trump’s plan does not truly contradict the two-state paradigm’s aims; it hastens the process to bring the international community’s intentions to fruition. From the illusion of state-building, the deal of the century moves towards eliminating the idea, which puts the Quartet’s insistence upon the two-state diplomacy on a par with Trump’s plan. The PA is acquiescing, once more, to the colonization of what remains of historic Palestine.

At a time when Palestinians need an alternative that departs from further colonization, the PA is strongly emphasizing what UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres is fond of describing as “no Plan B”. The PA is rejecting the deal of the century, as it should, to uphold a defunct imposition that actually supports Trump’s plan. Or perhaps the PA’s concept of “Plan B” is to facilitate Israeli colonization by championing the international community’s violent political blunders.

A sovereign, demilitarized Palestinian state is not politically independent but an entity which, in theory, and in fact will please Israel and the international community. The PA’s purported counter-proposal supports Israeli colonization and presents another obstacle to the legitimate anti-colonial struggle which should be guiding Palestinian politics. Palestinians have long ceased to believe that the PA’s propaganda will produce any results, yet its representatives will continue to exploit the people of Palestine to ensure that Israel can complete its colonial project.

Far from opposing Trump’s deal, the PA is entrenching its corrupt stance and strengthening the international community, at the cost of the Palestinian cause disintegrating politically on a permanent basis. If the PA’s notion of a counter-proposal is aiding the international actors to implement the final phase of the Zionist colonization process, it would do better to stop its pompous posturing and admit that it is an ally of the collective that seeks to destroy Palestine forever.


خطاب الرئيس وأسئلة المواطن

هكذا يقوم العميل الصهيوني الخائن أبو مازن بتسليم المقاومين للسلطات ...

سعاده مصطفى أرشيد

أخيراً وبعد طول انتظار اجتمعت القيادة الفلسطينية في رام الله (مع غياب حركتي حماس والجهاد الإسلامي والقيادة العامة والصاعقة) مساء الثلاثاء، وأعلنت على لسان الرئيس الفلسطيني محمود عباس عن سبعة قرارات وملاحظة ختامية لافتة للانتباه، هذه النقاط السبع يمكن إجمالها في ثلاثة محاور.

المحور الأول: أنّ منظمة التحرير الفلسطينية والسلطة الفلسطينية في حلّ من الاتفاقيات والتفاهمات والالتزامات المعقودة مع الإدارة الأميركية و»إسرائيل»، وأنّ على «إسرائيل» منذ اللحظة اعتبار نفسها قوة احتلال مسؤولة عن الضفة الغربية بموجب اتفاقية جنيف الرابعة عام 1949 وأكد على اعتبار الإدارة الأميركية شريكة لـ «إسرائيل» في عدوانها على الشعب الفلسطيني.

المحور الثاني: إنّ منظمة التحرير الفلسطينية والسلطة الفلسطينية ملتزمتان بقرارات الشرعية الدولية وبحلّ الدولتين ومكافحة الإرهاب (أي كان مصدره أو شكله).

المحور الثالث: هو الاستنجاد بالموقف الدولي من خلال الطلب من الدول التي تعارض إجراءات الضمّ باتخاذ إجراءات عقابية رادعة ضدّ «إسرائيل» في حال نفذت تهديداتها والطلب من الدول التي لم تعترف بفلسطين لأنّ تسارع بإعلان اعترافها، وقد ذكر الرئيس عباس الدول الأوروبية بالاسم، في حين تمّ تغييب البعد العربي، كما أعلن الرئيس أنه وقع وسيوقع طلبات انضمام لاتفاقيات ومنظمات دولية.

أما الملاحظة الأخيرة في الخطاب فهي الحديث عن وحدانية ومشروعية تمثيل الشعب الفلسطيني، وكأنّ لدى الرئيس المعلومات أو الشعور بأنّ هناك مَن يحاول سلب منظمة التحرير مشروعيتها ووحدانيتها في تمثيل الكلّ الفلسطيني.

يبدو أنّ الرئيس عباس والقيادة من حوله في رام الله، لديهم التصوّر انّ هذه القرارات بالتنسيق مع جهات عربية من شأنها الضغط على الإدارة الأميركية لتأجيل تنفيذ قرار الضمّ، بما يسمح بشراء الوقت، إلى أن ينقضي موعد الثالث من تشرين الثاني المقبل – الاستحقاق الانتخابي الرئاسي الأميركي، حيث أنّ التفكير الرغائبي يميل للاعتقاد بأنّ حظوظ المرشح الديمقراطي جو بايدن هي الأقوى في الفوز بالانتخابات، وبجرعة رغائبية إضافية فإنّ الرئيس الأميركي الجديد حكماً هو جو بايدن الذي لن يوافق على ضمّ المناطق، تذهب التصورات والتحليلات إلى ما هو أبعد من ذلك لترى أنّ الرئيس ترامب في موقف ضعيف، وأنّ قوى عديدة نافذة وقوية داخل الولايات المتحدة تعمل ضدّه، منها وزارة الدفاع والجيش، ومنها المخابرات المركزية وكذلك الكونغرس الذي خصّه الرئيس عباس بالذكر في خطابه. شراء الوقت سيستمرّ إلى السابع عشر من تشرين الثاني عام 2021، موعد تسلم بني غانتس رئاسة الحكومة الإسرائيلية من رئيسها الحالي بن يامين نتنياهو (هذا بالطبع إنْ عاشت الحكومة حتى ذلك التاريخ). حيث من الممكن العودة للتفاوض مع غانتس بصفته أقلّ غلواً وتطرفاً من نتنياهو، وانه – حسب التصوّر الفلسطيني – رافض لفكرة الضمّ وإنما أُكره عليها عند تشكيل الحكومة. من الجدير التذكير بأنّ الجنرال بني غانتس رئيس أركان سابق وخريج المؤسسة العسكرية هو وشريكه في حزب أزرق – أبيض جنرال آخر ورئيس أركان أسبق غابي أشكنازي، كلاهما مؤمن بالعقيدة العسكرية والأمنية للجيش الإسرائيلي تجاه الأغوار والتلال المشرفة عليها من الناحية الغربية، فهي مصيدة الدبابات التي لا يمكن التخلي عنها تحت أيّ ظرف من الظروف باعتبارها ضرورة ماسّة من ضرورات الأمن القومي، والموقف ذاته ينطبق على مستوطنات وسط الضفة.

صرّح الجنرال غابي اشكنازي في حفل تسلّمه منصبه الجديد وزيراً للخارجية الاثنين الماضي، أنّ رؤية الرئيس ترامب (صفقة القرن) تمثل فرصة تاريخية لترسيم حدود «دولة إسرائيل» وضمان مستقبلها لعقود مقبلة، وانه سيدفع باتجاه ضمّ الأغوار وشمال البحر الميت والتلال المشرفة على الأغوار وأراضي المستوطنات، وذلك بالتنسيق مع الإدارة الأميركية، والحوار مع الجيران والأصدقاء الذين تجمعهم بـ «إسرائيل» اتفاقيات السلام والصداقة (والصداقة تشمل دولاً غير مصر والأردن).

الحكومة الإسرائيلية لم تبدِ اكتراثاً بالخطاب، ولم يصدر عنها ما يشير إلى الخوف أو القلق من تداعيات ما ورد فيه، أو حتى من مدى جديته، ولم تبد أنها بصدد مراجعة موقفها وقراراتها باتجاه الضمّ، بقدر ما تبدي إصراراً وتأكيداً عليه ولكن يمكن ملاحظة بعض ما ورد في الصحافة الإسرائيلية خاصة المقرّبة من رئاسة الحكومة وعلى ذمة مراسليها من أخبار لم يتمّ نفيها، تنقل صحيفة «هايوم إسرائيل» عن مسؤولين كبار في السلطة الفلسطينية، أنّ الخطوة الفلسطينية ليست إلا خطوة كلامية (بيانية) فقط. وهي في الوقت ذات رسالة إلى نائب رئيس الحكومة الجنرال بني غانتس تقول ما سلف ذكره في المقال، إنّ السلطة الفلسطينية جاهزة للتفاوض معه عند تسلمه رئاسة الحكومة من بن يامين نتنياهو بعد سنة ونصف السنة (بالطبع إنْ طال عمر الحكومة حتى ذلك الوقت)، وعادت «هايوم إسرائيل» للقول إنّ مسؤولين فلسطينيين كباراً، ولكن في هذه المرة من الجانب الأمني، أبلغوها أنّ التعليمات صدرت لهم من مكتب الرئيس الفلسطيني، تنصّ على تقليص التنسيق الأمني مع الطرف الإسرائيلي إلى حدّه الأدنى، وهي التعليمات ذاتها المعمول بها من أيام الرئيس الراحل ياسر عرفات عام 2000 عند اندلاع الانتفاضة الثانية.

يملك «الإسرائيلي» والأميركي مصادر القوة التي تمنحهم القدرة على تنفيذ رؤاهم وخططهم، ووضع مروحة واسعة من الخيارات والبدائل، في حين لا يملك الفلسطيني هذا الترف وأحياناً بإرادته عندما يضع العراقيل أمام محاولات إنهاء الانقسام أو الوحدة الوطنية القائمة على برنامج حدّ أدنى من التوافق، وأحياناً أخرى رغم إرادته بسبب تداعي الوضع العربي وما يجري من حروب عبثية واقتتال، وكما بسبب الأزمات المتلاحقة في الضفة الغربية وغزة السابقة لوباء الكورونا واللاحقة له.

يتساءل الفلسطيني حول جدية هذه القرارات ومفاعيلها وهو الذي لم يستشعر أنّ السلطة الفلسطينية قد استحوطت لهذا الوضع إلا باستدانة مبلغ ثمانماية مليون شيكل من العدو، وقد أصبحت الآن ترفض السداد بموجب البند الثاني الوارد في خطاب الرئيس الذي ينص أنّ على «إسرائيل» تحمّل مسؤولياتها كقوة احتلال، وهل تبلغ السذاجة بالحكومة الإسرائيلية لأن تقرض من يعلن رفضه للسداد؟

كما يتساءل الفلسطيني مَن هي الجهة التي أراد الرئيس عباس إيصال الرسالة لها في ختام خطابه والتي تريد أو تحاول سرقة وحدانية ومشروعية تمثيل منظمة التحرير للشعب الفلسطيني؟

ليس من الحصافة وسداد الرأي الحكم المبكر على الخطاب أو الجزم بمسائل سياسية متحركة، ولكنها أسئلة برسم الإجابة، وإنّ غداً لناظره قريب.

*سياسي فلسطيني مقيم في الضفة الغربية

The Worst Deal of the Century for Palestine

Tim KirbyFebruary 22, 2020

Trump is full of surprises and no one in the punditry was expecting anything like his “Deal of the Century”. It promises to solve the Israel/Palestine situation in a way that is fair to both sides and end a political crisis that has gone on for generations with a few pen swipes. Bold moves and showmanship are to be respected in politics, but is this really some new grand answer or a means for Israel-loyal Trump to trick the Palestinians? Well, on the surface it certainly looks like a great step forward if you are on the Israeli side of things.

It is important to note that if one geopolitical “wedge issue” exists, then it is most certainly Israel. The narrative surrounding Israel’s 20th century restoration divides people into two bitter raging camps. For many (Socialists, the Left) the European looking Israelis cutting out space for themselves in a foreign land while pushing the brown people back looks like some sort of microcosm of Western Imperialism. On the other hand, for those in the West who actually like their civilization (Republicans, the Right) they see Israel as a shining Democratic/Western light on a hill surrounded by barbarians. In many ways today’s Israel is like a living satire of the Old West in America – for some it is Manifesting Destiny and taming wild lands but for others it looks more like apartheid/genocide. Although it is unprofessional to mention oneself in a piece of analysis it is important to say that I personally subscribe to neither of these narratives. I can see them, understand them, but I do not believe in them. Meaning, as you will see I think the Deal of the Century is bad for the Palestinians not because they are victims of Jewish pioneers in the Wild Wild Middle-East but simply because accepting the deal means their side loses. This is not a deal but a request for capitulation.


At first glance the “two-state solution” style deal sounds very attractive for the Palestinian side. Being a recognized state, even if very poor and cut up into awkward chunks is still much better than being an “in name only” pseudo state within the official borders of another. If Palestine was more like a state it could control is territory and engage in trade much more easily with nations that are sympathetic to their cause giving them breathing room. The problem is that the Deal of the Century only offers two-state flavour and not the two-state substance that could woo the Palestinians into signing it.

One of the key clauses of the proposition is to disarm the Palestinian Authorities, Hamas and whomever else may be on their side in Israel… and this is where the deal falls apart before it even begins. Disarmament as part of any deal is coded language for capitulation. If your tribe lays down its arms and my tribe does not, guess who is going to be the Helots and who is going to be the Spartans. Strategically speaking if the Palestinians give up their ability to fight they have obviously lost.

Another aspect of this Deal of the Century that works only in Israel’s favour is the clause that the Palestinians must acknowledge Israel as a “Jewish State”. If the deal was to create a true two-state solution with real borders between them this would not be such a problem, but since ultimately the Palestinians would still technically be within Israel’s borders acknowledging that this region is the property of a different religious group would be a huge mistake. If the United States officially acknowledged the “Russianess” of Alaska you could see how that would really not be in America’s interests. It would essentially mean that Russia would by logic have the “right” to this territory and that is why America would and should never ever acknowledge any claim by a foreign power over U.S. territory. As they say in Russian “it was yours, now it’s ours”. If you do not follow this type of policy then you are asking for succession and strife.

This is why Palestine, if it wants to survive cannot sign off on Israel being Jewish. The second they do this it will mean that bureaucratically they have no place in this country and lose any claims to it.

The Palestinians are unlikely to say that all of Israel is “Jewish”.

Other aspects of the deal also force the Palestinians into a submissive state like demanding that they have to end “all programs, including school curricula and textbooks, that serve to incite or promote hatred or antagonism towards its neighbors” when the Israelis do not. Furthermore the Palestinians must have an open and free press, which in reality, means that as a desperately poor region they must open their press up to being bought up or overwhelmed by Western Mainstream Media.

Again as an Orthodox Slav I have no horse in this race, the core narratives in support of the Israelis and Palestinians do not speak to me, but objectively taking a look at the terms, if the Palestinians take this “deal” then they have ultimately capitulated. A completely helpless and yet completely “open” Palestine that may have to give up even more territory officially will erode even faster. No break-away movement in any nation on Earth could agree to similar terms and yet still desire independence.

If I were in Trump’s shoes and very deeply tied to support for Israel I would not have offered some sort of deal between the two sides, but instead offered the Israeli Jews the chance to become the 51st state, which in some ways it already is. Although the bureaucratic realization of this idea would be tough to say the least, it would be good PR within the Beltway and beyond even if the idea was completely rejected. This peace attempt which will get shot down for the reasons stated above and will be yet another blow to Trump’s competency like not knowing where Kansas City actually is. More than anything I hate farces and if the U.S. is so tied to Israel why not just take it? If Israel really is the shining light on the hill in the Middle-East or at least the “beachhead” America needs in the region then just absorb it. Strategically this is really the best option for a pro-Israel America. If they really want to defend it then they should just extend the border around it, which would justify the U.S. to take any actions it deems necessary to secure the territory including ones that would be quite “rough” towards the Palestinians.

In summation…

  • For the Palestinians this deal is a form of capitulation, they must say “no”.
  • For the Israelis this is yet another step to ending the Palestinian problem, they must say “yes”, and blast the other side for rejecting the offer.
  • The United States has such heavy interesting in Israel that they may as well just absorb it, which would ultimately solve all problems for the Israeli Jews that the Beltway claims to want to protect/support.
%d bloggers like this: