TRUMP'S SHOW-ME-THE-MONEY WORLD TOUR: By Ghassan Kadi, 2 June 2017

 TRUMP'S SHOW-ME-THE-MONEY-WORLD TOUR: By Ghassan Kadi, 2 June 2017

Recently Ghassan has written many articles and some of them were seen as more urgent than others for publication on The Saker. This one was in the queue but keeps dropping out! It's here for anyone interested.

TRUMP’S SHOW-ME-THE-MONEY WORLD TOUR:
By Ghassan Kadi

2 June 2017

In my previous article titled “Al-Saud’s Only Gamble Option”, the focus of the analysis was Saudi Arabia, and how it was coerced to pave for Trump a golden highway or face dire consequences. But the game that Trump has more or less successfully played in Riyadh (pending Congress approval to the huge arm’s deal), is only a single act in a multi-act play that Trump is trying to enact with the rest of the world. For some reason however, the world does not seem to be reading Trump correctly.

As more evidence emerges, it is becoming increasingly clearer that the twists and turns that we have learned to experience from Trump are all financially motivated. The odds that favour any other speculation do not stack up in a manner that forms a comprehensive view.

Certainly, some analysts and observes are happy to simply see Trump as a madman and that he doesn’t know what he is doing. I beg to differ, and I see clear and obvious footprints in Trump’s recent overseas tour, and which should for fairness be dubbed; Trump’s show-me-the-money world tour.

It wasn’t by accident that Trump made of Riyadh his first stop. That strategy boosted the pathetic vulnerable ego of the Saudis. On the negative flipside of this, they were put on the spot, unable to gauge what reaction to give to his request of a whole third of a trillion dollar arm’s deal other than submission, with a smile, because they need those weapons to finish the war in Yemen and be able to stand up against Iran. 

In choosing Saudi Arabia as his first stop, Trump was also using his unsuspecting hosts to send a message to his future hosts; EU/NATO partners. The message was: You’re next.

His request that other NATO members lift their contributions was not received very warmly. The fact that Merkel was quick to announce that the EU should rely more on itself for its own defence, comes with a clear message that behind the scenes; Trump’s price was higher than a home-grown force to replace NATO down the track.

Then came Trump’s renegement of the Paris climate deal. This is yet another mere economic decision that will give American industries and economy the benefit of unfair advantage. But Trump cares only about money. This is how he led his life and succeeded in business.

Certainly, the EU/NATO leaders are not as foolish and/or desperate as their Saudi counterparts. They can and did give Trump the cold shoulder.

In every stop he made, every step he takes and every promise he breaks, every twist he makes, Trump’s actions and inactions are all centered on one single issue; financial pragmatism as perceived by the eyes of a businessman. This again points to the state of desperation of the American economy and its uncompetitive status quo.

America is no longer able to excel on a level playing field in its trading with other nations. It must therefore capitalize on its remaining edge; military prowess and hardware industry. It will use those advantages to put itself in positions of unfair advantage, and to bully other nations into doing military business with them.

It is for this reason and this reason alone that America sees Russia as a huge threat, not because Russia is interfering in Ukraine and/or American elections as alleged, but because America can only bully its way in by means of maintaining what is left of its status as the single superpower of the post USSR ‘New World Order’. But that order is no more, and the USA must always conjure up new ways to stay on top of the military industries.

China is Trump’s other huge nightmare, because China is not only an emerging military giant, but certainly an economic one. 

It is most ironic that America’s stand on South China Sea is done in the name of protecting trade routes. No nation on earth has a vested interest in protecting those particular routes more than China itself; after all, they are China’s trade routes, and for every shipping container that moves across those waters into China, at least ten move the other way, brining China wealth and more global significance.

To be fair to Trump, if he deserves any fairness at all, he has come to the stark realization that the innovative nature of American industrial economy is a thing of the past, and for him to stick to the election promise of jobs, jobs, jobs, he has to play dirty. With a decaying infra-structure, rusted factories and insufficient number of highly qualified and self-motivated young technicians, an American techno resurgence is unfathomable, and for Trump to create jobs and put the economy back on track, the only trick up his sleeve is to be a bully.

Given that America has no concrete reason for its anti-Russia and anti-China moves, it must create some to feed the media and the masses. This is a new-age unprecedented form of piracy. In the past, up till recently, nations were at least more transparent in demonstrating their reasons for war against each other, and the rule of the game was always for the stronger and more advanced nation to be in the position of having the upper hand. America however is not in a position to make admissions that it is in the process of conjuring up stories against Russia and China because it has lost its competitive edge; not whilst Trump is claiming to be making America great again. Such an admission would be tantamount to an athlete admitting that he cannot win without performance enhancement drugs. But such actions are actions of desperation and they cannot go very far. 

A few years ago, I wrote an article titled “How Far Will a Desperate Radical America Go?”
(http://intibahwakeup.blogspot.com/2013/09/how-far-will-desperate-radical-america.html). I predicted that such an America will likely blackmail other nations in a manner that coerces them to do business under the threat of nuclear attacks should they refuse. We have not seen this come to pass, but down the track, with more audacious advances from Trump and future presidents, this possibility cannot be zeroed out, because America will not sit down and watch its economy and world domination fall to pieces.

A few years ago also I predicted that one day America will elect a president that will make George W. Bush look like mother Teresa. I am not sure if Trump is that president, perhaps close. And now, it is not hard to predict that one day America will elect a president that will make Trump look like Socrates.
Editor's note:
Hear Trump for yourself

https://twitter.com/SamiRamadani1/status/879467761398943745

A MUSLIM SPRING By Ghassan Kadi 12 June 2017

A MUSLIM SPRING
By Ghassan Kadi
12 June 2017

Ghassan’s take on the fallout of the Qatar crisis and its possible wider implications

http://thesaker.is/a-muslim-spring/

A Muslim spring

19443 ViewsJune 12, 2017 41 Comments

by Ghassan Kadi

As the world citizens watch with horror the escalation between the USA and Russia on one hand and with China on the other hand, and as they fear the worst; a nuclear holocaust, citizens of the Muslim World watch the escalation between Saudi Arabia and Iran and fear the “regional worst”, and that is an all-out Sunni Shiite strife.

It must be remembered that even though Muslim Sunnis and Shiite never really liked each other, they had been living together in peace, though uncomfortably, for many centuries. The last recorded battle between the two was the battle of Karbala, in which Imam Hussein, son of Ali (founder of Shiite Islam) and grandson of Prophet Mohamed was killed. But that was in 680 AD.

It wasn’t till towards the end of the 20th Century that the feud between the two major Islamic sects resurfaced. The rise of Imam Khomeini to power in Iran spelt bad news for his Sunni Saudi rivals, and the presence of the oil wealth in the region has only helped lubricate the crisis.

That feud was restricted to exchanges of words and accusations, and blood was not spilt until after the infamous “Coalition of the Willing” invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam. The biggest battlefield, thus far, has definitely been in Syria, in which tens of thousands of Sunni Jihadis flooded in to kill the Alawite (Shiite sect) “infidels”. Even though they killed many Sunnis, Christians and others along the way, their prime objective was to stamp out anyone who stood against their fundamentalist version of Sunni Islam.

With all the atrocities committed thus far, the “big one” hasn’t happened. In the scale of things, they have been mere skirmishes that will either lead to an all-out war between Sunni states and Shiite states, or die out.

The Muslim World has been living this nightmare for centuries, and never before has it seemed to be so close, possible and even tangilbe. And after the Saudi attack on Shiite Houthis in Yemen and the support of Iran to the Houthis, Iran and Saudi Arabia grew a step closer towards a direct confrontation.

With the current escalation between Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the Muslim World has moved yet another notch towards an Iranian-Saudi war; especially that Qatar is allegedly seen to be, or at least accused of flirting with Iran.

However, as we wake up almost every morning to unfathomable news reports, some we would not expect to hear in our wildest of imaginations, we must brace and prepare ourselves for more to come, in the most unexpected manner, when least anticipated and predicted, and events unfolding quicker than we ever thought.

The Middle East is undergoing a huge and rapid change that even the world of the Internet and its social media is finding hard to keep up with. Once the dust settles, when it does, the political map of that part of the world will never be the same as it was back in 2011.

It has already changed. Libya is now at least two Libyas, or may be three. Not officially and internationally recognized, they remain to be factual and real.

In Syria and Iraq, as the territory of ISIS is shrinking, no one is to know yet what will be the final border lines between what is left of ISIS. What is clear about Syria and Iraq however, is that the new dividing lines, ie borders between them and any other implant state that the USA is trying so hard to create, is not going to be a sectarian divide. If the USA succeeds in creating further subdivisions to Greater Syria, this time the division will be drawn on ethnic grounds; not sectarian.

The creation of a Kurdish state, God forbid, would be a devastating blow for Syria, but its ramifications and repercussions will not go as far as Jakarta and Nouakchott as a Sunni-Shiite war can.

In between the mess and mental rubble however, there seems to be a faint glimmer of light. To this effect, it seems that we are about to witness a significant politico-strategic change in the Middle East. Old lines of defence and alliance seem to be beginning to fade away and become redundant, all the while new ones are just beginning to push their noses out of the water and emerge.

Even though the last few years leading up to this particular moment in time have given the premonition that the new dividing line was going to be a Muslim sectarian Sunni/Shiite divide, one that could bring out a massive blood bath that the Muslim World has not seen the likes of at all, in a twist of fate, events of the last week are possibly pointing at a change in direction; and this could mean good news down the track.

In his recent infamous visit to Saudi Arabia and clinching a third of a trillion dollar arms deal with Saudi Arabia, a deal that is aimed at extorting the most possible out of Al-Saud and pouring oil on fire, American President Trump has in fact dug the first nail in the coffin of the Sunni-NATO-to-be before its inception.

Ironically, as the Sunni-NATO is meant to be placed into the incubator, NATO itself seems to be on its way to the intensive care unit.

With the EU leaders steadfastly defiant to Trump’s attempts for extortion, there is enough reason to foresee what can come next. But let us stay in the Middle East and leave the USA/EU relationships alone, or can we?

Turkey, both a NATO member and a Middle Eastern nation, is a Sunni Muslim nation, a major regional power, and no regional deal is going to pass without its endorsement or at least tacit support. At the present time however, Turkey, embodied by its hardline Islamist nationalist “sultan” Erdogan, does not know if its relationship with NATO is coming or going. Judging by his actions, Erdogan seems to be prepared to accept that it is “going”, and he is making all the provisions, lining up his troops and options, and preparing himself and Turkey for a divorce from NATO, should he see this necessary. To this effect, Erdogan and his current NATO partners all know that unlike the time when Turkey joined NATO out of need, NATO now needs Turkey more than Turkey needs NATO and the decision for Turkey to be in NATO or to leave is one that is Turkish.

The once joint American-EU-Turkish-Israeli-Saudi-Qatari plot against Syria has failed as a result of the resolve of the Syrian Army, Syrian leadership, and friends of Syria; mainly Russia and Iran. Erdogan, who once aimed to pray at the Omayad Mosque in Damascus now sees himself getting bullied into accepting a Kurdish state south of his border; courtesy of his former anti-Syrian Allies, and existing NATO partners.

To deaf Obama ears, and more deaf Trump ears, Turkey has screamed loud that America has to choose between its partnership with Turkey and the Kurds, but to no avail.

It is not by accident therefore that Turkey has decided to send troops to Qatar. Erdogan is trying to present a new redline for the USA (his partner) and the Saudis (his friends) after his first Kurdish redline has been breached, or almost.

But there is more to Erdogan’s move towards Qatar. He is replacing Iran as a supporter for the now besieged Principality that exports gas and imports everything else; including water. In doing this, he (the Sunni) is absolving Iran (the Shiite) from coming to Qatar’s (Sunni) aid with its conflict against (Sunni) Saudi Arabia.

Is this the beginning towards a new direction of a religious-political Middle Eastern paradigm in which alliances take precedence over sectarianism? Does this mean that the worst dreaded of all Middle Eastern all-out Sunni/Shiite wars is going to be put to bed and that the potentially warring members are now going to see reality from a new pragmatic and rational vantage point?

If we are indeed witnessing the birth of a new wave of political alliances in the Middle East, we must brace ourselves to expect what was yesterday the least expected.

The way events are shaping up now, and this can change before this article gets published or even before its proverbial ink dries, in the not too distant future, new alliances are beginning to take form, and if they do, we are likely to end up with the following ideologically and strategically united teams:

1. Team One: America/NATO, Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE and perhaps Egypt.

2. Team Two: Russia, Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, Turkey, Qatar and perhaps Egypt.

The emergence of such alliances is wrought with danger and potential conflict, but nothing could be worse for the Muslim world than an open ended sectarian war and a license for Sunnis and Shiites to exterminate each other.

Egypt is likely to be the wild card that can go either way. The biggest shock in all of this will be, if it happens, a Turkish rapprochement in terms of finding the right balance in between being a regional power and former colonial, a Sunni regional major power, a defiant party in accepting the establishment of a Kurdish state (or two) to the south of its borders, a NATO member, a Muslim Brotherhood supporter, a friend of Saudi Arabia, a good neighbour and trading partner of Iran, a friend of Russia, a prime mover in the “War on Syria” in many more ways than one, and a sovereign state. These are too many balls to juggle. Is maverick Erdogan up to the task?

Erdogan is a very stubborn man, but he will soon need to realise that his long-term interests are in coming down from his ivory tower and making peace with Assad, if Assad accepts him.

In reality, Erdogan deserves to be left out in the cold, just like Qatar, and Assad perhaps should not accept any of the leaders coming back for redemption even if they come back on their knees and pleading. But sometimes, political pragmatism may dictate otherwise.

If Erdogan and some Muslim Arab leaders are indeed waking up to the need of abandoning their sectarian associations, there is little evidence that they are replacing them with rationality and an intention to reform their own minds and the minds of the masses who follow them. However, any step away from sectarian divisions and a sectarian bloodbath is a move in the right direction.

Irrespective of the intentions of Arab and Muslim leaders, in the confusion they are creating, the mess and contradictions, they are inadvertently presenting to their followers and the world the invalidity and danger of their argument. They are giving the message for those who have minds to think among their flocks that the sectarian rhetoric has failed. Such a revelation should be most revealing for members of the masses who never were able to think outside that sectarian square that was impregnated in their minds by their leaders and the preachers that their leaders appointed and paid handsomely to brainwash them.

At the end of the day, what seems to be an impending Sunni-Shiite holocaust is not necessarily an unavoidable future fact. It can be avoided, and even Sunni fundamentalists like Erdogan are beginning to see that his interests are not necessarily aligned with his “Sunni brothers”.

Will Muslims take heed and learn from the religious wars of Europe? Are we seeing he early signs of an awakening? Within and around the trouble-stirring state of Qatar, that was quick to send its air-force to ravage Libya and to herald the failed Arab Spring, will the current events be fated to instigate a “real” Muslim spring? Time will tell.

SYRIA’S REDLINES AND GREYLINES By Ghassan Kadi 11 June 2017

SYRIA’S REDLINES AND GREYLINES:
By Ghassan Kadi
11 June 2017

When President Assad and the gallant Syrian Army decided that Syria was to stand up against the multi-national conspiracy against her, fought against all odds, certain of victory but preferred to risk to go down standing rather than surrendering long before she earned the respect and support of friends who eventually came to her aid, she had nothing up her sleeve other than her redlines.

Those redlines were and still are underpinned by her sovereignty and integrity, and her laws that reflect those principles.

Like all other nations and states, it is up to Syria and Syria alone to decide what her redlines are, and in times of crisis, when friends come to one’s aid, Syria is not alone in expecting her friends and supporters to know and understand what her redlines are; otherwise, how on earth can those friends and supporters discern where the defence lines would be drawn and what to uphold?

Not even Syria’s President would cross those redlines, and the very reason why he received so much popular support, why the overwhelming majority of Syrians stood by him and regarded him as the voice, the embodiment of all of what is good in Syria, why the Syrian Army remained defiant against all odds, and why Syria won her war, was because President Assad has set the precedent, the perfect example as he cherished and symbolized Syria’s unwavering principles, redlines, and the laws that define those principles and redlines.

It is therefore most unacceptable for patriotic Syrians to see supposed supporters trying to impose what their own redlines are; not only on other people who are meant to be supporters, but on the nation as a whole.

Until the laws of Syria change, if they change by the natural course of the democratic process that is in place, those laws need to be respected and adhered to, just like the laws of any other nation. And if and when those laws change, they will change in accordance with the will of the people; not in accordance with the fantasies and agendas of couch activists, personal profile builders, fund-thirsty opportunists, gate-keepers, propagandists and religious freaks and zealots of different descriptions.

And when any of such suspicious characters are not Syrian, if they have any integrity at all, they must understand that there is a bigger onus on them to stay away from the law-making process of Syria; because this is a matter for Syrians and not for them. And if they truly support Syria, they should be demanding to stay out of imposing their own vision, but do they?

The true friends of Syria do, and they are highly appreciated for their unconditional support, but those who pretend to be friends are in a totally different paradigm.

Some alleged supporters of Syria, alleged Syrian patriots or otherwise, think that they have a mandate to decide how to stretch the laws of Syria and put themselves in a position to decide what laws can be stretched and broken. Among other things, they believe that they have the right to decide what constitutes a breach of Syrian laws even when it comes to matters relating to national security; including matters that relate to the steadfast position of Syria against Israel.

What is more ironic and most audacious is that those same people accuse anyone, including genuine Syrian patriots, who question their self-given mandate to break Syrian law as enemies of Syria. Inadvertently and perhaps subconsciously, they are referring to those patriots as personal enemies, only and simply because they feel challenged by them as they expose their agendas.

But redlines can only be seen by people of colour vision and those who are able to discern red from black. But those with colour blindness are only able to see a reflection of their own shades of grey and confusion.

It is not within the power or mandate of anyone to make claims about what Syria should accept, who to allow on her soil, what should be deemed acceptable and not acceptable by Syria; outside what is stipulated within Syrian law.

To those who believe they are above Syria’s law, we say: Hands off Syria.

QATAR AND THE FORTY THIEVES By Ghassan Kadi 8 June 2017

QATAR AND THE FORTY THIEVES
by Ghassan Kadi

8 June 2017

This article analyses the events leading up to the underlying reasons and ironies of the farcical situation of Qatar being declared a terrorist state.

"The sudden, unprovoked and coordinated outrage of Middle East regional powers, as well as international powers, against Qatar is something akin to a story in “Fables de La Fontaine”. With a bit of a twist, it resembles the story of “The Animals Seized with the Plague”."QATAR QQQQ

http://thesaker.is/qatar-and-the-forty-thieves/

Qatar and the forty thieves

26435 ViewsJune 08, 2017 42 Comments

by Ghassan Kadi

The sudden, unprovoked and coordinated outrage of Middle East regional powers, as well as international powers, against Qatar is something akin to a story in “Fables de La Fontaine”. With a bit of a twist, it resembles the story of “The Animals Seized with the Plague”.

For the benefit of those who are unfamiliar with this fable, the animals convened to find out why they were struck by the plague. One by one, the big predators made their confessions about their hunting, killing and ravaging adventures, but they were forgiven and vindicated. Then a donkey admitted that he once a mouthful of grass from someone’s pasture, and for this act, the donkey was named as THE culprit, killed and sacrificed to save the rest of the animals from the wrath of the gods.

Qatar is not as innocent as La Fontaine’s donkey, but who are those who are passing judgement?

The Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohamed Bin Salman (MBS) clearly has his eyes on the ailing Saudi economy and stature. An invasion and takeover of Qatar can put Saudi Arabia in the position of being on par with Russia in terms of having the world’s largest reserves of both petrol and gas combined, and not petrol alone. This is a badly needed stripe on the shoulder that MBS can use, and this on its own is a very lucrative prospect. But has Trump given him the go ahead to march his troops into Qatar? If the crisis keeps escalating at its current rate, we shall find out the answer to this question in the not too distant future.

Let us get this straight. The conflict between Saudi Arabia and Qatar is not ideological. Even though Qatar supports the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and helped former Egyptian MB President Mursi and continues to support and fund the now outlawed MB within Egypt (and Saudi Arabia), in principle, the ideology of the MB is not drastically different from the Saudi Wahhabi version.

And at the time that Qatar’s Al-Jazeera was allowing Muslim clerics like Egyptian-born Qardawi to call for Jihadi recruits to go and fight in Syria, Saudi Arabia was allowing Syrian-born Ar’our alongside many other Saudi clerics to use Saudi televised media to do just the same. As a matter of fact, many Saudi clerics have used Al-Jazeera to vent their hatred for Syria and for canvassing recruitments.

What is interesting in all of this is the following current amazing political mosaic:

1. Qatar and Saudi Arabia are both pushing for different forms of Muslim fundamentalism, but they are emerging as mortal enemies.
2. Qatar and Saudi Arabia have both supported and sponsored terrorism that became known as Islamic terrorism, despite the Saudi accusation that the sponsorship was only Qatar-based.
3. Qatar is principally one of the nations that form the Saudi-led anti-Yemen coalition.
4. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are just a tad away from engaging in a war, but they have united views about being enemies of Syria.
5. Erdogan is a friend of Saudi Arabia, but a supporter of Qatar and of the Egyptian MB.
6. Qatar is a dedicated enemy of Syria, but accused to be close to Iran, Syria’s friend.
7. Qatar and Saudi Arabia are both allies of the USA and the USA has a base in Qatar that it used as a launch pad against Iraq.
8. Trump, who has a base in Qatar, now says that Qatar has been sponsoring terrorism.
9. Hamas supports the MB and remains close to Qatar, even though under MB President Mursi, the Egyptian siege of Gaza was intensified.

One could add more to that interesting mosaic, especially if other players are to be included in the equation. Such is the “logic” of the Middle East, but the West is not any better or more rational; allegedly fighting terrorism with one hand and feeding it with the other.

What is most ominous in the sudden and virtually global anti-Qatar stance is the stark similarity with previous situations. Gaddafi and Assad were never really regarded as friends of the West, but there was a time when Gaddafi was accepted and established good relationships with Britain, France and Italy before they suddenly joined the anti-Gaddafi tsunami and decided to join the plot. Likewise, Assad was accepted by the West, and has in fact partaken in international events like the funeral of the late Pope John Paul II. He was also on very good terms with Erdogan before Erdogan decided to stab him in the back. And how can we mention Assad and Gaddafi without remembering Saddam and Mubarak?

What is different in those scenarios was that the fate of Assad was sealed by his people, and the support he received from his people and friends of Syria, but what is the likelihood of the Qatari Royals receiving such a support from their popular base? In any event, the whole population of Qatar is in the vicinity of a quarter million, they never had any clout in the past, and they won’t have any in the future.

What is also of interest is that long before the discovery of oil and gas in the region, “states” like Qatar and Bahrain depended mainly on the pearl trade, and a quick search on any Internet search engine reveals a long history of tribal wars and rivalries between them as well as with Al Saud during the early days of the birth of Saudi Arabia.

Who is fighting who in the Middle East and for what reason exactly is not a question that many political leaders want to answer. The bottom line here is that as the world is getting more materialistic and audacious, principles and ideologies grow increasingly marginalized, and the struggle for power is becoming more transparent. Admittedly, this struggle is as ancient as ancient Rome and beyond, but today’s society is meant to be developed and civilised. Humanity has formed the United Nations with international law to supposedly be the watchdog for the activities of nations who breach its charter on human rights and world peace issues, but it has sadly become a ploy in the hands of big powers.

Ancient Romans did what was good for Rome, without having to apologize about it. Trump has gone the full circle in his “America first” doctrine, but he shamelessly declares war on terror from the financial capital of terror; Riyadh.

Qatar is definitely no angel. The small young state which is much closer to being a big corporation, an outpost more than being a nation, seems to have run its course towards self-destruction. It played big, and with fire, and the fire it lit is now turning back to burn it.

But neither the whole of Saudi Arabia nor the young ambitious prince MBS seem to be learning. With all the upheaval around them, the rise and fall of Arab leaders, the conspiracies they have played with their American partners against other Arab and Muslim leaders, the Saudis are totally oblivious to the scenario of an impending premonition that they themselves could be next when their chips are down. If anything, it is a question of time.

Fact remains that Qatar and its former allies and growing number of enemies are like Sinbad’s infamous forty thieves; they are all partners in crime. And just like the former “Anti-Syrian Cocktail” was predicted to crumble and crash, and it did, so will the forty thieves. Even FIFA seems now to be reconsidering its decision for Qatar to host the World Cup in 2020! Since when, we must ask, did FIFA respond in such manner to political squabbles and Saudi statements and accusations of other states? And if FIFA’s concern is principled, then why didn’t FIFA act responsibly when rumours of corruption were raised regarding the manner in which Qatar won the World Cup bid?

But unlike the few green bottles standing on the wall that fall one after another, the forty thieves can sometimes rebirth themselves and wear a different hat, or in this case a different Koufia and headband, but just like La Fontaine’s donkey, there is nothing that Qatar can do to get off the hook. A decision seems to have already been made that the royal Qatari headband will soon bite the dust, but not many tears will be shed.

THE SIX-DAY WAR HALF A CENTURY ON: WINNERS AND LOSER By Ghassan Kadi 6 June 2017

The Six-Day War Half a Century on: Winners and Losers
By Ghassan Kadi

6 June 2017

A 50 year commemoration and look at who the real winners were in this all.

http://thesaker.is/the-six-day-war-half-a-century-on-winners-and-losers/

The Six-Day war half a century on: winners and losers

18458 ViewsJune 06, 2017 25 Comments

by Ghassan Kadi

Like all Arabs of my age group, we all remember this war like it was yesterday. We remember how we huddled glued to our radios listening to military news reports and watching military parades and war songs on black and white TV screens, believing that the Arab armies of Egypt, Syria and Jordan were on a winning streak, not knowing that the war was really over before we tuned in to our radios and TV sets on day one.

What happened during those infamous six days was well recorded in history, and half a century on, the region is still reeling from the consequences of this war, at many different levels, and in various ways, recognized and unrecognized.

Nearly a decade after his monumental win in the 1956 conflict and the nationalization of the Suez Canal, in 1967 Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, aka Nasser, was at his zenith. He was certain of scoring a military victory, and in a speech he gave a few days before the war, as I sat down in my family home watching my parents listen and listened with them, I remember him saying that “should Israel decide to go to war with us, we tell her you are welcome, should Britain decide to go to war with us, we tell her you are welcome, and even should America decide to go to war with us, we shall also say you are welcome”, a statement met by huge applause by his audience. But Nasser was the mega demagogue, who knew what to say to stay popular on one hand, and keep the masses motivated on the other hand. He knew he could not fight and win against the USA, but he did want to take Israel on, and he was determined to win, and after all, the 1967 war was one that he instigated.

To wind back the clock to 1964 for a moment, a time when Arab nationalism and to a lesser extent Communism were the passions overwhelming the Arab street. Fundamentalist Muslims saw big danger. It was in that year that Saudi Prince Faisal forced his older half-brother Saud to abdicate and grabbed the throne. Saud, the first king to assume the throne after the death of the founding father Abdul-Aziz, was renowned for his womanizing and wild parties. He indulged heavily in lavishing the new-found petrol wealth and did not care much about ideology. But by the time his Muslim-devoted brother Faisal had him deposed in 1964, and with Arab nationalism and Nasser’s popularity at their peak, Faisal was determined to make his mark in an attempt to gain the minds and souls of Muslim youth.

It was at that time, with the tacit support of the USA, that Saudi Arabia began to export its Wahhabi ideology to the rest of the Arab World, Muslim World, and the West.

Faisal realized that the only way for him to curb the spread of secularism in its national and communist forms was by means pulling the wallet out and spending money on Islamic education abroad, teaching the most fundamentalist of all Muslim systems to the world, the Wahhabi doctrine. He did, and his wallet was bottomless.

Back again to the Six-Day war. Its loss was a result of gross miscalculation and lack of planning. Much is said in the Arab World about treason having played a factor. The Arab street is quite conspiratorial in its thinking, but even if treason were indeed a contributing factor, it doesn’t change the fact that by the end of the war, the morale of Arabs had sunken to its lowest point in history ever.

The demise of Nasser began with that war, and with his eventual untimely death at the age of 48 three years later, the Arab World changed, or should I say regressed, to seemingly the point of no return.

Nasser was not an ordinary leader. He was a giant, a visionary and a nation-builder with progressive ideology that aimed to develop the Arab World and put it on par with the rest of the world, but his big dreams were shattered the moment that war was lost.

The loss of the war was Nasser’s loss more than that of any other leader or person, but his loss was a bonanza not only for his Israeli enemy, but also for his domestic archrivals; the Egyptian Islamists -or rather the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) as they were back then the only fundamentalist Muslim organization- and also to king Faisal across the Red Sea.

The Islamists used Nasser’s loss to imply that it was a direct failure of secularism and started their recruitment drive claiming and promising the shocked Muslim youth that only by abandoning secularism, which has failed, and upon returning to Islam, that Muslims and Arabs can avert such humiliation in the future. This statement is not based on analysis. It is based on actual personal recollection of the mantra of Islamist recruiters in the late 60’s and early 70’s.

In reality however, the loss of the 1967 war had nothing to do with secularism, but the MB members and Saudi recruits and their supporters made it look like a sign from heaven and did not waste a single minute to wage a war against secularism to make it look as if it was the culprit.

It was as if the destiny of the Arab World took a diversion after this war. It was as if it hit a wall and made a ricochet hitting deep skeletons and reaching out for demons of the past, forcing a change, a change that the so-called Arab Spring is but a single link in the chain of.

But of course we cannot analyze the entire after effects of the Six-Day War without looking at its long term effect on Israel; the victor.

The war elevated the then Israeli Defence Minister, Moshe Dayan, instantly to the level of a national hero. The West regarded him as a military genius and he was well received as a speaker at different forums thereafter until he had his own political demise. The Israeli army (IDF) was elevated to the level of the “undefeatable army”, and the mention of word Israel sent waves of fear and terror in the hearts and minds of all Arabs.

For many years to come after that, Arabs lived with the notion that it was only a matter of time before Israel took the next step to expand further, and further, until it reached its Biblical dream of a “kingdom” from the Euphrates east to the Nile west.

The emergence of the Palestinian Resistance caused a significant change to the superiority-inferiority formula, but not enough to upset the balance of power; especially with the unconditional and unrelenting American support to Israel at many levels. The partial victory of Egypt and Syria combined in the Yom Kippor War made a dent, but again not enough to upset the apple cart in an irreversible way.

Ironically, what did eventually dethrone Israel from its position as being undefeatable were the two most unlikely powers; Palestinian people and Lebanese people.

After many incursions into Lebanon under the guise of containing the PLO, and later on invading and occupying South Lebanon, Israel had to retreat defeated by a local resistance movement; Hezbollah. And within the regions of Palestine taken by Israel during the Six-Day War, the uprising (Intifada), in all of its phases and rebirths, made it virtually impossible for Israel to control that land it once occupied by force. After all, it is the boots on the ground that rule, not the fighter jets in the skies.

In effect, Israel’s great military victory in 1967 has turned into a nightmare, and to date, Israel is still unable to deal with its aftermath. It can fairly be said that the only thus far long term “achievement” for Israel was the series of events that led to peace with Egypt following the return of Sinai.

Fifty years on, Israel sees itself surrounded by “rogue” enemies with fire power and rockets that can hit any target in Israel as far as Eilat. The regional super power is no longer, and the name of the IDF and the sight of its fighters in the skies do not send waves of terror and panic on the ground anymore. The psychological war that Israel once won is over, done and dusted.

So as we look back at what happened half a century ago and today, who were really the winners and the losers of the infamous Six-Day War?

The Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza have lost their sovereignty, but despite all odds, they are slowly but surely making big marks on the score board when it comes to integrity, popular global sympathy and support.

People of South Lebanon have won strategically and militarily and do not fear Israel anymore. If anything, it seems that it is Israel who is more concerned about the outcome of another confrontation with Hezbollah after its defences failed to stop the onslaught of Hezbollah rockets back in July 2006.

For the initial victor in that war therefore, as one event led to another, Israel’s swift win has turned into a hellish quagmire.

But the biggest loser of them all was the hope of what the reforms of secularism were going to bring into the minds of people in the Arab World. As Islamists managed to capitalize on Nasser’s defeat and as mini-skirts began to be replaced by Hijab and Niqab in the streets of Cairo, Damascus and Beirut, it was clear that the Muslim Arab World decided to take a shift, a shift that was later on mirrored in all Muslim nations and by many Muslims who live in the West.

In hindsight, with the death of Nasser, secularism in the Arab World died with him. Ironically however, the rise of Nasser to prominence was not only opposed domestically and regionally by his fundamentalist rivals, but by other secular movements that swept through the Middle East, and in retrospect, had they joined efforts, they might have achieved their common objectives. However, not even today, half a century later and more, does any of them see in the Nasser era and the aura and charisma of the person a missed opportunity.

Today, Israel remains bogged down in both the West Bank and Gaza, and surrounded by states that are under direct threat of turning radical. The current state of accord between the state of Israel and many of the Islamic terrorist movements that are operating in Syria and other locations cannot and will not survive the ravages of time. It is bound to collapse as soon as the interests of both sides diverge, and this divergence will happen if and when any of those organizations, God forbid, assumes power in any of the Arab states on Israel’s borders. The sweeping military victory of 1967 has caused nothing for Israel but problems and bigger problems down the pipeline.

It seems that humanity insists not to learn from the benefit of hindsight and experience because policy and decision makers have blinkered vision and are always looking for short-term gain and they do not seem to take into account the consequential factor. Had the West known what Nasser really stood for ideologically, not politically or strategically, it should have supported him rather than push him down and destroy him like it did. After all, even though he was “dictatorial” in his hold of power, he was the closest thing to Western style democracy that could ever happen in the Arab World.

At the end, when we combine all the miscalculations and failures, short-sightedness and complacency, arrogance and denials, the Six-Day War half a century on has produced a number of partial winners and losers, and just as secularism was the biggest loser, the biggest winner was none but the Jihadi Islamists, and all of those who contributed to this outcome are partly responsible.

THE RISE, FALL AND BETRAYAL OF THE ONLINE FIGHT FOR SYRIA By Ghassan Kadi 5 June 2017

THE RISE, FALL AND BETRAYAL OF THE ONLINE FIGHT FOR SYRIA

By Ghassan Kadi

5 June 2017

Initially, when the online social media-based Syrian defence groups took off, they were meant to fill-in the social media gap that the Syrian Government was not prepared for. For this reason, concerned and responsible Syrian citizens took upon themselves the task of using the new communication medium to do their bit in defending the homeland.

In the beginning it was monumental, and reached out to the world, and most importantly, the English-speaking world.

It was perhaps because of this initial success that the movement was soon to be attacked and become subject to information warfare. It would be foolish to think otherwise and believe that the enemies of Syria would leave this very successful movement alone.

Before too long, that online social media-based Syrian defence movement, especially the English-speaking version of it, turned into a forum for implants and weak links of a multitude of motivations including, but not restricted to, the following:

1. Hired (ie paid) trolls who were planted into the online Syrian defence front just like the terrorist militants were hired and paid to go and fight inside Syria.

2. Individuals who jumped on the band-wagon in order to gain personal accolade for their own gratification and satisfaction.

3. Money-hungry opportunists who capitalized on crowd-funding for their own personal benefit, and did so repeatedly without showing any evidence of passing on any portion of those funds to needy Syrians.

4. Religious zealots, mainly Christian Zionists, who grabbed the opportunity of the rise of Jihadi Islamism to promote their own doctrine and their own version of Christianity and presenting it as a religion that is better than Islam.

5. Highly suspicious Syrians who have allowed enemies of Syria to infiltrate into social media groups, allowed them to become admins of such groups, and defended them against Syrian patriots.

6. Corrupt and complacent Syrian government personnel who did not properly vet out would be Western visitors to Syria and ignored warnings about the above repeatedly and did nothing about it.

7. Orientalists, ie Westerners who believe that nothing good can and will happen in the East in general, the Levant to be specific, without their involvement and seal of approval.

8. Well-intentioned Syrians with bad judgement who were deluded enough to follow wolves in sheep’s clothing.

9. Weak Syrians who were unable to see the forest from the trees and followed their enemies against their own compatriots.

10.Corrupt Syrians who were prepared to sell their souls to the highest bidder, be prepared to lie, fabricate stories, and attack other Syrians for no reason other than being told to do so by their sponsors.

Six years, going on seven, after the “War on Syria” started, a good look at what is left of the online English–speaking defence groups makes one wonder; where are the genuine indigenous Syrian patriots? There seems to be none left!

But this is not all.

The moment a Syrian stood up to expose the truth, any truth about any of the above culprits, despite their vast differences, they all rallied up together to call that Syrian an enemy of Syria. They used everything in their power to defame him, destroy him, and shone the spotlights on themselves as THE defenders of Syria and the custodians of her war. Many of the non-Syrians among them even dared call genuine Syrian patriots as enemies of Syria, and the weak Syrians and corrupt Syrians and personnel shamelessly danced to their drum beats, seemingly unmoved by the blood of tens of thousands of Syrian soldiers and many more tens of thousands of civilians who have perished defending the homeland.

Eventually, many Syrians who joined that online movement initially have either been bullied out, walked away in disgust, or have been destroyed. But as time goes by, the tides have been turning.

History is recording everything and once exposed, the non-Syrian trolls, ego-trippers, money-grabbers, Zionist-church-builders and other enemies of Syria will be temporarily put in a specific basket and then forgotten and relegated to the rubbish bin of history.

The ones who will not be forgotten or forgiven will be the Syrians who took up arms to fight against Syria.

In this particular context herein however, the ones who will not be forgiven the most are Syrians who have betrayed the online Syria defence movement. After all, it was them who have allowed the enemies of Syria to infiltrate the online social media-based Syrian defence groups despite all evidence that was presented to them. They are not any better than those who carried guns. They are in fact two of a kind. The first group gave the militants the key into Syria and the second group gave the key to the media infiltration agents.

Those Syrians who are at best spineless, perhaps shameless, but most probably deliberate troll-admins, who knowingly and deliberately covered up for the enemies of Syria, have eventually driven away Syrian patriots, and even had the audacity to appoint Christian Zionists who clearly belong to Churches that endorse Israel, against evidence provided, to be admins in online social media-based Syrian defence groups. Furthermore, they defended them when they were exposed, and turned the attack against the Syrian patriots who highlighted the evidence. Their actions are akin to treason, and they know it.

The once biggest online Facebook Syrian defence group “The Syrian Revolution; The Untold Story” which I was a proud member of for many years, and had written many articles for, has turned into a group run by Christian Zionists and Syrians of highly suspicious agendas who endorse their actions.

Moreover, those Syrian admins have even knowingly allowed the Christian Zionist admins to perpetrate lies, slander, endanger and defame Syrian patriots. And when they were given the benefit of the doubt and alerted to what they were doing, knowingly or unknowingly, they remained defiant and steadfast on their path of destruction. This can only indicate that they knew exactly what they were doing, and they knew that it is against Syria’s interest.

They do not need to be named at this stage, but a time will come when they will be named and shamed, and this time is coming soon, and eventually they will face justice.