Adonis Diaries

Archive for the ‘Book Review’ Category

Deal of the Century Adds “New” to the Four Thousand Year Old Name “Palestine”

The apartheid regime we know as “Israel” was built on the very ruins of Palestine and imposed a brutal regime on those who still live in their country. Millions of Palestinians still languish in refugee camps in and around Palestine, yet Israel and its allies around the world celebrate “Israeli independence.”

JERUSALEM, PALESTINE — Nakba Day — the day when Palestinians commemorate the destruction of their country and the mass killing and forced eviction of their people — is coming up, and with each passing day, another disturbing story unfolds.

Perhaps the most disturbing story so far is the plan to present Palestine with a new name, “New Palestine.” (How imaginative)

This, according to a rumored leak, is what Donald Trump and Jared Kushner are going to present to an anticipating world as part of the so-called “Deal of the Century.”

Also according to the leak, aside from a demand for Palestinians to accept a new name as part of the “Deal of the Century” — forgoing the name “Palestine,” which has been used to describe their land since the Bronze Age — the Palestinian people will have to accept that their heritage and their history will be erased and their land will be taken away for good.

In other words, what Palestinians are going to receive, according to the leak, is a new name but no country, and they will be expected to accept this or else they will be denied access to foreign aid, not only from the U.S. but other countries as well.

From elections to Gaza to Independence Day

Things move fast on the Israeli side of occupied Palestine.

Israel recently held elections, then — within a few weeks and before a new government was even formed — Israel lashed out with a deadly attack on Gaza.

Then, Israel recognized a few solemn days, the first one Holocaust Remembrance Day and the second, a day to commemorate Israeli soldiers who had fallen in battle. Then Israelis were off to celebrate “Israeli Independence.”

On the Palestinian side, no sooner does one tragedy end than a second one follows, no time for the fresh blood on the ground to dry before more is spilled.

The lovely face of 16-year-old Fatima Hijazi, shot by an Israeli sniper, is still fresh in people’s hearts when more, even younger casualties are reported. Palestinians go from mourning to mourning with no end in sight.

Over the past several years, a new phenomenon has risen, a joint memorial service where Israelis and Palestinians join together to commemorate their fallen loved ones.

While the idea of such an event may seem appealing to some, the moral equivalency it tries to create between the victims of the violence and those who lost their lives while perpetuating the violence is troubling.

However, in the political climate that now exists among Israelis, this is considered progressive. While this event was permitted to proceed, right-wing gangs came by to protest the initiative and lashed out with obscenities at the participants: “Sons of whores, may God take all of you stinking lefties! Death to Arabs!” and on and on.

Celebrating independence

A custom that can only be described as insensitive, if not outright cruel, and which has been in place since Palestine was destroyed, is the celebration of Israeli independence. Just as Israeli elections were held on the day that Palestinians commemorate the massacre at Deir Yassin, Israel callously celebrates a day of independence at the same time as Palestinians mourn the loss of their country.

The apartheid regime we know as “Israel” was built on the very ruins of Palestine and imposed a brutal regime on those who still live in their country. Millions of Palestinians still languish in refugee camps in and around Palestine, yet Israel and its allies around the world celebrate.

Israel Memorial Day

A young Israeli girl plays on a tank during an Israeli Memorial Day ceremony in Latrun, Israel, May 8, 2019. Oded Balilty | AP

Israelis are not the indigenous people of Palestine. What we know today as “Israelis” are people who came to colonize mostly during the time of the British Mandate in Palestine, and they did so largely with the assistance of the British government.

The British mandate over Palestine, which was, in reality, an occupation of the country, facilitated the creation of the Zionist apartheid regime in Palestine. The Jews who came to colonize and settle in Palestine were never oppressed or occupied; in fact, they were privileged. The Jewish settlements in Palestine had services like running water and electricity long before many of the Palestinian communities did, and they were assisted by the British in every possible way.

The biblical Zionist narrative

The name “New Palestine” becomes even more absurd in light of the fact that the name Palestine was, “first documented in the late Bronze Age, about 3,200 years ago.”

Furthermore, according to a new book by historian Nur Masalha, “the name Palestine is the conventional name used between 450 B.C. and 1948 A.D. to describe the geographical region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.” These quotes are from Masalha’s Palestine, A Four Thousand Year History, published by Zed Books in 2018.

Palestine: A Four Thousand Year HistoryMasalha — professor of history at the London University School of Oriental and African Studies, or SOAS — takes on the difficult task of seriously, scientifically, and one may add successfully, challenging the prevailing narrative regarding Palestine.

This is clearly no simple feat but it is one in which the historian Masalha succeeds in a manner that is both admirable and convincing. (Just peruse the old pictures of Palestinians and Palestine before and after British mandated power)

Unfortunately, odds are neither Jared Kushner or Benjamin Netanyahu — the two men who are most likely to be behind the “New Palestine” and the “Deal of the Century” — will ever read this important history book.

Revealing aspects of Palestinian history that Zionists would prefer remain in the dark, Masalha’s book is essential reading. Until the history of Palestine is told and the cruel reality in which Palestinians live today is exposed, Palestine will never be free.

Miko Peled is an author and human rights activist born in Jerusalem. He is the author of “The General’s Son. Journey of an Israeli in Palestine,” and “Injustice, the Story of the Holy Land Foundation Five.”

Note: I posted many articles on Palestine and Palestinians on my blog


Hojarasas (Hurricane): the mass transfer of working people everywhere

Gabriel Garcia Marquez wrote this novel when he was 18 and it was published years later, before he expanded on the story in “100 years of Solitude”.

Marquez could Not at this age write an epic story of the phenomena as John Steinbeck did in the Dust Bowl, the thousands who left their land to move to California during the financial crush of 1929.

This mass transfer of people following the trail of multinational companies, carrying them to where is their next exploitation of land and downtrodden people has been practiced in ancient civilizations but started actively and documented in the 19th century. People who learned to live for the “present” and could no longer take roots anywhere.

I figured out that this phenomena started after USA civil war when the urgency of linking East and West with train rails and the mushrooming of temporary villages along the way.

As the the company moves on, the people moves along, and the residents are left with an environment much degraded, in landscape and older people down on their fate, not able survive on their own toil and resigned to State subsidies, if any.

All the colonial powers performed the same “feat”, first with their poorer classes at home and then transferred to their colonies at a vast scale.

The older ugly face of slavery has mutated into a mass moving slavery, transferred everywhere where multinational companies settled for a while.

This phenomenon is the same, , even today, everywhere multinationals decide to exploit an under-developed country, or a country reeling after a civil war, or a pre-emptive war, planned, funded and executed by the colonial powers.

In the Hojarasas, Marquez mentions the Great War. I guess it is the period that started in 1880’s of endless civil wars in Latin America. Panama was part of Columbia and the USA wanted to conquer Panama and fomented most of these civil war. And also to pave the way for its agro-multinationals (Banana companies) to exploit the land and people in Latin America.

Marquez opted Not to give names of his major protagonists. There are the colonel, the doctor, the cleric El Cachorro (the Savage who was a terrible rebel, joined the army, rose to grade of colonel before reverting to be a man of religion). Even the daughter of the colonel has no name, neither his grand son. Names are totally irrelevant in period of calamities.

So many colonels in civil wars and so many captains, even today.

The author even asks questions, repeatedly, and never offer answers.

For examples: the second wife of the colonel, Adelaide, suspected she recognized a resemblance of the doctor with someone when he first visited them. She threw a lavish dinner in his honor. She got totally disappointed when he didn’t match her conservative attitudes or offered any explanation on who he is. The doctor said: “I eat only grass, like what the donkey eats”

The doctor and El Cachorro have many resemblance. So many half brothers and half sisters are generated in civil wars and when the hojarasas are on the move. Martin, the husband of the colonel’s daughter moved away when the Banana company folded, never to return, and left behind a son and his wife.

The doctor and El Cachorro arrived to Macondo on the same day and same hour. I doubt that was a coincidence: Some one must have dispatched them to Macondo, hoping they meet and link up. Probably it was colonel Buendias who was still fighting in Panama and who must have had many illegitimate sons and daughters.

We don’t know anything of the origin of the doctor or how he lived before he arrived to Macondo, as this small village experienced the mass transfer of workers to join the banana company.

The doctor lived in the colonel house for 8 years: he was allocated a room that opened to the street. He practised from his room and ate after the household finished eating. He never paid any dues to his room or the food he ate and waited  Saturday for the maid to come a clean up his filthy room.

The doctor got even more recluse when the company sanitary services robbed him of his clients.

There was a period when he decided to get out on evenings, trying his best to look presentable and smelling of cheap cologne. He sat outside the barber shop. Was he trying to find a hapless girl to marry and follow the trail of the company? Possibly, the doctor must have experienced before the hojarasas phenomenon and was willing to undertake another exodus?

The doctor was unable to explain the complex disaster and calamities of that period to non-educated or cultured people, which also would open wide the reasons for multiple questions on his former life.

Actually, it is the doctor who pronounced the term hojarasas to the colonel, as the village flourished for a while and he expected the coming calamities when the company moves on to “greener pastures”

Meme’, the Indian girl, a guajira, who lived in the colonel household since childhood had secret sexual relationship with the doctor. She got pregnant once and the doctor helped her abort. She got pregnant again and this time she wanted to keep the child.

The colonel demanded explanation and the doctor had to move to the corner house with Meme’ in order to save the “honor” of the colonel, since they were not married. Did Meme’ gave birth? Probably not: the doctor had funded a shop for Meme’ and she was never seen holding a baby to feed for 4 years.

The doctor doesn’t lie, and doesn’t respond when he has to lie, kind of observing his right of the “fifth”. The doctor told the colonel that Meme’ had left him, 4 years after she barricaded herself with him in the small house. The municipality broke into his house and dug the garden, hoping to find the body of a “murdered” Meme’ and found nothing.

Militias had entered the village and many residents were injured. The residents deposited the injured in front of the doctor door, but he refused to open or tend to the injured. He said: “I know nothing anymore to care for them and it is no longer my business”.  I guess he was frank and didn’t want to get involved in anything or get in touch with the community.

The community decided not to bury him after he dies and when once they wanted to burn the house, El Cochorro intervened and calmly told them: “No one is to approach this house”.

The doctor finally hanged himself and only the colonel came and did the necessary arrangement to be bury the doctor. The colonel asked his daughter to join him, and the daughter brought along her 8 year-old son to the deceased house.

The colonel had promised the doctor to bury him when the doctor saved his life after he seriously fell and broke his leg. The doctor told him “you cannot bury me if you die before me”

Note 1: The Hojarasas is fraught with repetitions and redundancies. I doubt an 18 year old would use this style: Marquez must have edited his original to mark the repetitious tendency in conversations in Latin America literature, or mainly in Columbia

Note 2: The oldest main colonial powers were Spain, Portugal, then England, France and the USA. Later on Germany abused of the people in Namibia and East Africa, Belgium in the Congo (over 5 million were mutilated for not satisfying the daily quota of rubber collection off the trees), the Netherlands in Indonesia, Italy in Ethiopia and Libya, Japan in Korea and China, and Russia and China with their own citizens.

All these “prosperous” nations got their wealth on the blood, sweat and suffering of the indigenous people and their own downtrodden citizens.  The price of adopting the “Capitalism” system was pretty high for the poorer classes everywhere in the world. And communism refused to be left behind in cruelty and humiliation of its own citizens.


What made violent crime drop sharply in the last two decades?

Is Legalized abortion law the main factor in the decline in violent crimes?

In the first half of the century, incidence of violent crimes in the USA was fairly steady. Why?

Infantile mortality was very high due to lack of vaccination and treatments for curable diseases.  All those unwanted children from single parent families died prematurely. and the pool of potential criminals, living in poor and uneducated families and in poor neighborhoods was manageable.

By 1960, violent crime rate increased steadily, so did the economy and the employment rates.

During the period of the civil rights movement, in the 60′s and early 70′s, conviction rates declined, as were sentences duration for most of the crimes committed. Why?

Judges and political climate didn’t want to be labelled racist or believing in apartheid (fear of being viewed as racist and backward) since more crimes, proportionally, were committed by Blacks and Hispanics living in poor neighborhoods.

Between 1980-2000, the period witnessed a 15-fold increase in the number of convicts on drug charges, and sentence duration increased accordingly.

By 2000, the US prison system had more than 2 million convicts, a 4-fold increase as of 1972.  Mind you that a prisoner costs $25,000 per year to keep him behind bars and away from the streets…

As of early 1990, crime rates of all categories, especially violent crimes, started to decline sharply and steadily. Criminology experts had warned that crime epidemics will get out of control, and they needed so time to realize that it was the opposite trend that was taking its steady course.

Between 1991 and 2001, crime experts extended many explanations for this aberrant trend of crime decline. Here are a few of the explanations with frequency of citations in the media:

1. Innovative policing strategies:  52 citations

2. Increased reliance on prison: 47

3. Changes in crack and other drug markets: 33

4. Aging population: 32

5. Tougher gun-control laws: 32

6. Strong economy: 28

7. Increased number of police force: 26

8. Increase use of capital punishment: 24

9. Concealed-weapon laws

10. Gun buybacks policies…

Only 3 of the above 10 explanations had significant effects on crime decline, mainly factors 2, 3, and 7.

There are strong correlation, if not causative explanation, among the trends of increased reliance on prison, prison duration, increase conviction rates and the number of law and order effective in order to round-up, capture, process, and prosecute criminals.

Consequently, it can be said that the increase in police forces was associated with a political policy of increasing conviction rates and expanding the prison system. These factors accounted for almost one-third of the crime drop.

In that period, cocaine and heroine prices dropped, and it was no longer worth sacrificing years in prison for small returns on crimes…

The main factor that was behind the decline and accounted for two-third was never mentioned or even contemplated.

This factor needed about 17 years of incubation (gestation) before it generated its powerful effect, and it is the legalized abortion law that took effect in 1973 in all US States.

A few large cities in States such as New York, Illinois, California… that had legal abortion laws before 1973, all had witnessed decline in crime rates before all other States.

All those unwanted children, born from single mothers or living in single families in poor neighborhoods and uneducated parents, were not born and had not to be raised to emulate their predecessors, as highly potential criminals in the waiting and the making.

That is what the analysis of Steven Levitt showed from torturing huge data-bases on the subject. Read Freakonomics.

Hezbollah of Lebanon: Alternatives and facts

د. لبيب قمحاوي Labib Kem7awi posted on Fb a section of his book

حزب الله: الحقيقة والخيارات

بقلم : د. لبيب قمحاوي

بغض النظر عن رأي البعض في ماهية حزب الله كإطار سياسي نضالي ذا صبغة دينية ، وبغض النظر أيضاً عن قبول البعض بمُسمَّى الحزب أو إعتراضهم عليه ، فإن محتوى وبرنامج الحزب ونهجه النضالي يبقى هو الأساس في تعريف الحزب وتصنيفه وتحديد هويته .

فإن حزب الله قد نجح في ترجمة ما ينادي به وفي تحويله من أقوال إلى أفعال ، وهو بذلك قد إكتسب مصداقية عجز الآخرون عن مقاربتها أو حتى على الحصول على جزء منها خصوصاً في زمن لم يشهد فيه العرب سوى إنهياراً تلو إنهيار .

من الخطأ التعامل مع حزب الله أو ما يتعلق بحزب الله بإعتباره شأناً لبنانياً محلياً ، فالأمر أكبر من ذلك وأهم بكثير . وسياسات الحزب المحلية أصبحت مرتبطة في معظمها بحماية وجوده في هذه الحاضنة اللبنانية ، أكثر منها رغبة في اقتسام كعكة السياسية اللبنانية أو الإنغماس في صغائر أمور السياسة المحلية .

برنامج حزب الله أكبر من لبنان ، وهو الوطن العربي العزيز والغالي ، ودور حزب الله الإقليمي في الظروف الحالية أكبر وأخطر وأكثر تأثيراً من دور الدولة اللبنانية التي تعاني من عوامل التفكيك الداخلي بما يكفي لإضعاف أي دولة وشَلّ مسارها .

لقد أصبح حزب الله جزأً من معادلة إقليمية مُعقَّدة تُشَكِّل في أبعادها السياسية نقطة وثوب إلى الأعلى عِوضاً عن الإنهيارات التي تعج بها أوساط وثنايا أنظمة الحكم والدول في الوطن العربي .

فحزب الله يمتلك رؤيا سياسية تعكس قناعات راسخة تكاد تقترب في قوة الإلتزام بها من الأيدويولوجيات المتشددة التي حكمت مسار العديد من الأحزاب والدول في القرن الماضي . وهذه الرؤيا ترتبط بشكل رئيسي بالقضية الفلسطينية والإحتلال الإسرائيلي وأطماعه الإقليمية .

يتعرض حزب الله منذ فترة طويلة لمسلسل من المؤامرات التي تستهدف القضاء عليه أو إضعافه إلى الحد الذي قد يُفقده التأثير على مجرى الأحداث المحلية والإقليمية .

وهذه المؤامرات قد أخذت أشكالاً سياسية وعسكرية وإقتصادية مختلفة . ويبدو أن نجاح حزب الله في تجاوز كل أشكال التآمر تلك قد حصر الخيارات أمام إسرائيل ومِن خلفها أمريكا وبعض العرب بالخيار العسكري . وخطورة هذا الخيار تكمن في أبعاده الإقليمية كونه سوف يشمل في آثاره أكثر من دولة ، وسوف يؤثر بشكل مباشر على موازين القوى الإقليمية السائدة .

تزداد خطورة الخيار العسكري نتيجة لإفتقاد أي طرف للقدرة على السيطرة منفرداً على مسار ذلك الخيار أو نتائجه إذا ما إبتدأ فعلاً .

ولكن من الواضح أن الخيارات المختلفة ضمن البعد العسكري سوف تكون خيارات صعبة ومُدمرة في نتائجها على كافة الأطراف . وهذا يعني وجود حالة من الردع النسبي المتَبادَل بين إسرائيل والسعودية وحلفاءهم من جهة وحزب الله وإيران وحلفائهم من جهة أخرى، خصوصا بعد فشل أمريكا والسعودية في حسم الوضع السوري لصالحهم .

حزب الله لا يسعى بالتأكيد إلى حرب إنتحارية بقدر ما يسعى إلى فرض ضوابط على جموح القوة العسكرية الإسرائيلية المتفوقة وإلى الحد الذي يسمح لها بالعربدة العسكرية في أي سماء عربي تختاره دون أن تحسب حساب أحد .

وحزب الله يسعى بذلك إلى تعبئة الفراغ الكبير الذي خلقه تدمير العراق وسوريا وعزوف الأنظمة العربية حتى عن التلويح بإمكانية الصدام مع إسرائيل فيما لو تجاوزت حدودها في انتهاك السيادة أو الحقوق العربية . وهذا المسار يسعى إلى فرض ما يسمى باللغة العسكرية ” ردعاً ” حتى ولو كان نسبياً ، للتفوق العسكري الإسرائيلي والضعف والإستسلام العربي الذي وصل إلى حد إستجداء القبول والرضا الإسرائيلي .

لقد إستجلب هذا الموقف عداء أمريكا المتزايد لحزب الله ومغالاتها في استعمال آليات الحصار الإقتصادي من جهة والتصنيف الإرهابي من جهة أخرى كوسائل لإنهاك الحزب لصالح إسرائيل .

وتُشارك بعض الأنظمة العربية أمريكا وإسرائيل عداءَهما لحزب الله سواء بالسر أو بالعلن وتحت عناوين ويافطات مختلفة تسمح بإلتقاء مصالح تلك الأنظمة بمصالح أمريكا وإسرائيل في عدائهما لحزب الله وإيران.

ما نحن بصدده لا يهدف إلى إيلاء حزب الله دعماً لا يستحقه بقدر ما يهدف إلى الإقتراب من الحقيقة بأوضح ما يمكن خصوصاً وأن مسار الأمور يشير إلى قرب شن حرب إسرائيلية في الظاهر وإسرائيلية – أمريكية – عربية في الباطن لتدمير حزب الله ومن ورائِه فلسفة المقاومة للإحتلال الإسرائيلي لفلسطين العربية. فالعدوان على حزب الله يهدف من المنظور الإسرائيلي إلى القضاء على نهج المقاومة بغض النظر عن الملابسات التي تحيط بعلاقة حزب الله مع إيران،

وإستعمال تلك العلاقة كعذر لبعض الدول العربية للتطبيع مع إسرائيل بل والتحالف معها في حرب لا يؤمن أحداً بوجاهتها أو بمنطقيتها من منظور المصالح العربية .

لقد نَقلَ سلاح الصواريخ طبيعة الصراع العسكري القادم مع إسرائيل إلى مستويات وآفاق جديدة لم تعهدها المنطقة من قبل . والتفوق العسكري الإسرائيلي أصبح الآن على المحك بعد أن تمكن حزب الله من إمتلاك مخزون ضخم من الصواريخ المختلفة في مداها وقوتها تجاوز في مجموعه 130 ألف صاروخ، والأهم أنه تمكن من الإحتفاظ بهذا المخزون سالماً معافاً .

ولكن ما الذي تغير وجعل خطر الحرب يلوح الآن في الأفق مع أن إمتلاك حزب الله للصواريخ ليس بأمر جديد؟

لقد فشلت كافة المساعي والضغوطات في إضعاف حزب الله أو كسر عقيدته السياسية وإرادة الصمود والتحدي لديه أو في تدمير مخزونه من العتاد العسكري والصواريخ . وفي هذه الأثناء تمكن حزب الله وبمساعدة ملحوظة من إيران من تطوير مخزونه الصاروخي من صواريخ تقليدية إلى صواريخ ذكية ( Smart ) مما يعني دقة أعلى في إصابة الهدف وقدرة تدمير أكثر كفاءة .

وبالرغم من المحاولات الإسرائيلية المتعددة لضرب مواقع التعديل تلك في سوريا ، إلا أن حزب الله نجح في نقل تلك المواقع وإستمر في تعزيز قدرة صواريخه التقليدية وتحويلها إلى صواريخ ذكية ، الأمر الذي شَكَّل بالنسبة لإسرائيل تجاوزاً على الخط الأحمر كما تراه .

من أهم الأسباب وراء إحجام إسرائيل عن ضرب حزب الله حتى الآن هو قناعتها بأن مثل تلك العملية ستؤدي إلى خسائر بشرية إسرائيلية كبيرة ، وإلى تدمير أهدافٍ إستراتيجية ومدنية عديدة في الكيان الإسرائيلي .

صحيح أن إسرائيل سوف تستعمل أقصى ما لديها من قوة عسكرية ودعم أمريكي لضرب حزب الله وتدمير قواعده في لبنان ، إلا أنها نفسها سوف تتعرض لحجم هائل من الدمار الصاروخي وربما إحتلال بعض المناطق المتاخمة للحدود في الجنوب اللبناني وهو أمر قد تكون له آثار ضخمة على الروح المعنوية الإسرائيلية بغض النظر عن طول فترة ذلك الإحتلال ، وهنا مربط الفرس .

إسرائيل تبحث عن طرق ووسائل مضمونة لتخفيف آثار الدمار المتوقع عليها من صواريخ حزب الله ، وإلى أن تصل إلى نتيجة مرضية ومقبولة فإنها سوف تفكر ملياً قبل أن تُقْدِم على شن حربها على حزب الله .

الحرب الإسرائيلية المقبلة على حزب الله قد تكون المرة الأولى التي سيتعرض فيها جسم الدولة الإسرائيلية وسكانها إلى القصف المباشر والمؤثر ، وهو بالتالي سيكون قراراً خطيراً بالنسبة لأي حكومة إسرائيلية كونه قد يؤدي إلى إغضاب الرأي العام الإسرائيلي إذا كانت الخسائر المادية والبشرية كبيرة والأسباب لم تكن مقنعة والنتائج غير مرضية . الخيارات ستكون صعبة بالنسبة لكل الأطراف والنتائج قد تكون مُدَمِرَّة على الجميع وإن بدرجات متفاوته .

لقد أصبحت روسيا الآن لاعب أساسي ومباشر في الشرق الأوسط ، ولها مصالح في سوريا مُعتَرف بها من قبل أمريكا والعالم ولها حق الدفاع عنها . وفي ظل التواجد المادي لحزب الله وإيران على الأراضي السورية ،

فإن إسرائيل تسعى الآن إلى التوصل إلى تفاهم أو صفقة مع روسيا تسمح لها بضرب قواعد ومخازن حزب الله وإيران في سوريا . وروسيا ، بالرغم من علاقاتها الخاصة مع إسرائيل ، إلا أنها لن تسمح بزعزة الإستقرار في سوريا خصوصاً إستقرار النظام . وهذا الموضوع خطير بالنسبة للمخططين العسكريين الإسرائيليين الذين لا يريدون أن يكون لدى حزب الله مَنفذ سوري للتخلص من الضغط العسكري الإسرائيلي على لبنان في حال شنت إسرائيل حربها المتوقعة ضد حزب الله ،

ناهيك عن أن الروس لا يريدون إرتكاب الخطأ الأمريكي بالتورط في مستنقع نزاعات الشرق الأوسط خصوصاً العسكرية منها ، كما أن الإسرائيليين لا يريدون إستثارة الغضب الروسي لأن ذلك قد يُقَلِّص بالنتيجة خيارات إسرائيل العسكرية .

من الواضح أن الروس لا يوافقون على الإنتهاك الإسرائيلي الأهوج للأجواء السورية ، مما حصر بالتالي مصدر الضربات الإسرائيلية لقواعد حزب الله في سوريا إما بالبحر أو بالأجواء اللبنانية المجاورة . وهذا الوضع قد لا يُمكِّن إسرائيل من توجيه ضربات قاتلة لحزب الله مقارنة بحجم الدمار الذي يمكن لصواريخ ذلك الحزب أن تلحقه بالإسرائيليين في حال نشوب حرب .

الإقليم إذاً في طريقه إلى مواجهات عسكرية حيث لا يمكن حسم ما هو مُخطط له إسرائيلياً وأمريكياً ضد حزب الله إلا من خلال الحرب .

وفشل مؤتمر وارسو قد أضعف خيار تدويل الحرب على حزب الله وإيران وأعاده إلى المربَّع الأول الإسرائيلي – الأمريكي – السعودي .

وحزب الله ، وإن كان يُشكل خط الدفاع الأول ضد ذلك المخطط كونه هو المقصود أصلا ، إلا أنه وضمن المعطيات السائدة ، قد يكون أيضاً خط الدفاع الأخير خصوصاً في ظل غياب جبهة فلسطينية فاعلة ومؤثرة على مجرى الأمور .

ان الحفاظ على حزب الله وعافيته ، والتخلص من السلطة الفلسطينية ومسارها الانهزامي ، هما طرفي المعادلة اللازمة لإنجاح أي مسعى حقيقي للحفاظ على مصالح الأمة العربية وعلى قدرتها على مقاومة الوجود الصهيوني على أرض فلسطين .

2019 / 03 / 03


Part 10. Ten Myths on Israel: Not how a “Democratic State” behave (by Ian Pappe)

No, Israel Is Not a Democracy

Destroying Palestinians’ Houses Is Not Democratic

By lan Pappe

From Ten Myths About Israel, out now from Verso Books.

June 12, 2018 “Information Clearing House” –  Israel is not the only democracy in the Middle East. In fact, it’s not a democracy at all.

In the eyes of many Israelis and their supporters worldwide — even those who might criticize some of its policies — Israel is, at the end of the day, a benign democratic state, seeking peace with its neighbors, and guaranteeing equality to all its citizens.

Those who do criticize Israel assume that, if anything went wrong in this democracy, then it was due to the 1967 war.

Destroying Palestinians’ Houses Is Not Democratic

House demolition is not a new phenomenon in Palestine. As with many of the more barbaric methods of collective punishment used by Israel since 1948, it was first conceived and exercised by the British Mandatory government during the Great Arab Revolt of 1936–39.

This was the first Palestinian uprising against the pro-Zionist policy of the British Mandate, and it took the British army three years to quell it. In the process, they demolished around two thousand houses during the various collective punishments meted out to the local population.

Israel demolished houses from almost the first day of its military occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The army blew up hundreds of homes every year in response to various acts undertaken by individual family members.

From minor violations of military rule to participation in violent acts against the occupation, the Israelis were quick to send in their bulldozers to wipe out not only a physical building but also a focus of life and existence. In the greater Jerusalem area (as inside Israel) demolition was also a punishment for the unlicensed extension of an existing house or the failure to pay bills.

Another form of collective punishment that has recently returned to the Israeli repertoire is that ofblocking up houses. Imagine that all the doors and windows in your house are blocked by cement, mortar, and stones, so you can’t get back in or retrieve anything you failed to take out in time. I have looked hard in my history books to find another example, but found no evidence of such a callous measure being practiced elsewhere.

Crushing Palestinian Resistance Is Not Democratic

Finally, under the “enlightened occupation,” settlers have been allowed to form vigilante gangs to harass people and destroy their property. These gangs have changed their approach over the years.

During the 1980s, they used actual terror — from wounding Palestinian leaders (one of them lost his legs in such an attack), to contemplating blowing up the mosques on Haram al-Sharif in Jerusalem.

In this century, they have engaged in the daily harassment of Palestinians: uprooting their trees, destroying their yields, and shooting randomly at their homes and vehicles. Since 2000, there have been at least one hundred such attacks reported per month in some areas such as Hebron, where the five hundred settlers, with the silent collaboration of the Israeli army, harassed the locals living nearby in an even more brutal way.

From the very beginning of the occupation then, the Palestinians were given two options: accept the reality of permanent incarceration in a mega-prison for a very long time, or risk the might of the strongest army in the Middle East. When the Palestinians did resist — as they did in 1987, 2000, 2006, 2012, 2014, and 2016 — they were targeted as soldiers and units of a conventional army. Thus, villages and towns were bombed as if they were military bases and the unarmed civilian population was shot at as if it was an army on the battlefield.

Today we know too much about life under occupation, before and after Oslo, to take seriously the claim that nonresistance will ensure less oppression. The arrests without trial, as experienced by so many over the years; the demolition of thousands of houses; the killing and wounding of the innocent; the drainage of water wells — these are all testimony to one of the harshest contemporary regimes of our times.

Amnesty International annually documents in a very comprehensive way the nature of the occupation. The following is from their 2015 report:

In the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Israeli forces committed unlawful killings of Palestinian civilians, including children, and detained thousands of Palestinians who protested against or otherwise opposed Israel’s continuing military occupation, holding hundreds in administrative detention. Torture and other ill-treatment remained rife and were committed with impunity.

The authorities continued to promote illegal settlements in the West Bank, and severely restricted Palestinians’ freedom of movement, further tightening restrictions amid an escalation of violence from October, which included attacks on Israeli civilians by Palestinians and apparent extrajudicial executions by Israeli forces. Israeli settlers in the West Bank attacked Palestinians and their property with virtual impunity. The Gaza Strip remained under an Israeli military blockade that imposed collective punishment on its inhabitants. The authorities continued to demolish Palestinian homes in the West Bank and inside Israel, particularly in Bedouin villages in the Negev/Naqab region, forcibly evicting their residents.

Let’s take this in stages. Firstly, assassinations — what Amnesty’s report calls “unlawful killings”: about fifteen thousand Palestinians have been killed “unlawfully” by Israel since 1967. Among them were two thousand children.


Imprisoning Palestinians Without Trial Is Not Democratic

Another feature of the “enlightened occupation” is imprisonment without trial. Every fifth Palestinian in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip has undergone such an experience.

It is interesting to compare this Israeli practice with similar American policies in the past and the present, as critics of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement claim that US practices are far worse. In fact, the worst American example was the imprisonment without trial of one hundred thousand Japanese citizens during World War II, with thirty thousand later detained under the so-called “war on terror.”

Neither of these numbers comes even close to the number of Palestinians who have experienced such a process: including the very young, the old, as well as the long-term incarcerated.

Arrest without trial is a traumatic experience. Not knowing the charges against you, having no contact with a lawyer and hardly any contact with your family are only some of the concerns that will affect you as a prisoner. More brutally, many of these arrests are used as means to pressure people into collaboration. Spreading rumors or shaming people for their alleged or real sexual orientation are also frequently used as methods for leveraging complicity.

As for torture, the reliable website Middle East Monitor published a harrowing article describing the two hundred methods used by the Israelis to torture Palestinians. The list is based on a UN report and a report from the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem. Among other methods it includes beatings, chaining prisoners to doors or chairs for hours, pouring cold and hot water on them, pulling fingers apart, and twisting testicles.

Israel Is Not a Democracy

What we must challenge here, therefore, is not only Israel’s claim to be maintaining an enlightened occupation but also its pretense to being a democracy. Such behavior towards millions of people under its rule gives the lie to such political chicanery.

However, although large sections of civil societies throughout the world deny Israel its pretense to democracy, their political elites, for a variety of reasons, still treat it as a member of the exclusive club of democratic states. In many ways, the popularity of the BDS movement reflects the frustrations of those societies with their governments’ policies towards Israel.

For most Israelis these counterarguments are irrelevant at best and malicious at worst. The Israeli state clings to the view that it is a benevolent occupier. The argument for “enlightened occupation” proposes that, according to the average Jewish citizen in Israel, the Palestinians are much better off under occupation and they have no reason in the world to resist it, let alone by force. If you are a noncritical supporter of Israel abroad, you accept these assumptions as well.

There are, however, sections of Israeli society that do recognize the validity of some of the claims made here. In the 1990s, with various degrees of conviction, a significant number of Jewish academics, journalists, and artists voiced their doubts about the definition of Israel as a democracy.

It takes some courage to challenge the foundational myths of one’s own society and state. This is why quite a few of them later retreated from this brave position and returned to toeing the general line.

Nevertheless, for a while during the last decade of the last century, they produced works that challenged the assumption of a democratic Israel. They portrayed Israel as belonging to a different community: that of the nondemocratic nations. One of them, the geographer Oren Yiftachel from Ben-Gurion University, depicted Israel as an ethnocracy, a regime governing a mixed ethnic state with a legal and formal preference for one ethnic group over all the others. Others went further, labeling Israel an apartheid state or a settler-colonial state.

In short, whatever description these critical scholars offered, “democracy” was not among them.

Ilan Pappe is an Israeli historian and socialist activist. He is a professor with the College of Social Sciences and International Studies at the University of Exeter, director of the university’s European Centre for Palestine Studies, and co-director of the Exeter Centre for Ethno-Political Studies. Most recently, he is the author of Ten Myths About Israel.

This article was originally published by “Jacobin 

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.


Richard Boyd Barrett | Israeli slaughter of Palestinian protestors was cold-blooded murder

300 prominent global figures accuse Israel of committing ‘war crimes’

Join the Discussion

The Israel Lobby,” by John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt

The Israel Lobby was one of the most controversial articles in recent memory. Originally published in the London Review of Books in March 2006, it provoked both howls of outrage and cheers of gratitude for challenging what had been a taboo issue in America: the impact of the Israel lobby on U.S. foreign policy.

Now in a work of major importance, Mearsheimer and Walt deepen and expand their argument and confront recent developments in Lebanon and Iran.

They describe the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the United States provides to Israel and argues that this support cannot be fully explained on either strategic or moral grounds.

This exceptional relationship is due largely to the political influence of a loose coalition of individuals and organizations that actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction.

Mearsheimer and Walt provocatively contend that the lobby has a far-reaching impact on America’s posture throughout the Middle East―in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, and toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict―and the policies it has encouraged are in neither America’s national interest nor Israel’s long-term interest. The lobby’s influence also affects America’s relationship with important allies and increases dangers that all states face from global jihadist terror.

Writing in The New York Review of Books, Michael Massing declared, “Not since Foreign Affairs magazine published Samuel Huntington’s ‘The Clash of Civilizations?’ in 1993 has an academic essay detonated with such force.”

The publication of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is certain to widen the debate and to be one of the most talked-about books in foreign policy.




July 2019
« Jun    

Blog Stats

  • 1,302,980 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by

Join 675 other followers

%d bloggers like this: