Egypt

محنة المرأة الأفغانية

الاهرام

الأثنين 13 من ربيع الأول 1446 هــ 16 سبتمبر 2024 السنة 149 العدد 50323

د. عزة رضوان صدقى

ماذا يحدث لمجتمع يصبح نصف أفراده بلا دور ولا هوية مرئية؟ ما هى النتيجة بالنسبة لبقية المجتمع عندما يحدث ذلك: النسل، والنسيج العائلى، والاستقرار الاجتماعى؟ وكيف يبدو مستقبل هذا المجتمع؟

كانت حياة المرأة الأفغانية فى عقود سابقة بعيدة كل البعد عن حياتها اليوم. لقد كانت محمية بموجب القانون، وكان بإمكانها التصويت، وكانت تتمتع بالمساواة، ولم يكن تعدد الزوجات مسموحا به، ولا تتم الزيجات حتى تبلغ الفتيات 21 عامًا، وعلى الرغم من شيوع الملابس التقليدية، اختارت بعض النساء الملابس القصيرة والأزياء الغربية. وكانت المرأة الأفغانية تشكل نسبة كبيرة من القوى العاملة. كانت القاضيات ووكلاء النيابة والمحاميات عضوات ناشطات فى المجتمع، وكان عدد كبير منهن ممرضات، وطبيبات، ومعلمات، ويعملن فى الجامعات، والشركات الخاصة، وشركات الطيران. واختارت أخريات أن يكنّ شاعرات وفنانات. هذه كانت المرأة الأفغانية

لكن اضطربت الحياة فى أفغانستان لأكثر من أربعة عقود، حيث تحملت المرأة الأفغانية وطأة قمع تمرد المجاهدين وغزو الاتحاد السوفيتى. ولم يكن المجاهدون، الذين تحولوا فيما بعد إلى تنظيم القاعدة والطالبان، أقوياء للغاية، ولكن الولايات المتحدة ودولا أخرى زوّدتهم بكميات كبيرة من الأسلحة عبر باكستان للإطاحة بالسوفيت، وفى عام 1989 انسحب السوفيت بالفعل من أفغانستان، لكن استمر وجود المجاهدين

اندلعت الحرب الأهلية بعد الانسحاب، ولكن بحلول عام 1996، كان المجاهدون المعروفون أيضًا بالطالبان فى السلطة الكاملة. وهنا بدأ تقليص دور النساء وتم تجريدهن ببطء، ولكن بثبات من هوياتهن وحقوقهن الإنسانية الأساسية، ليتم محوهما من المجتمع بشكل واضح مستفز

لقد وفر الغزو الأمريكى لأفغانستان فترة راحة وبعض الأمل للنساء والفتيات، ولكن بعد عشرين عاما، انسحبت القوات المسلحة الأمريكية من أفغانستان فى عام 2021. وعاد الطالبان بقواعدهم الصارمة عندما استولوا على البلاد مرة أخرى. ارتدوا عن أى وعود قطعوها على أنفسهم، ولجأوا إلى طرقهم الأصلية، وحينئذ فقدت النساء الأفغانيات هوياتهن مرة أخرى

واليوم تشاهد أفغانستان تحت حكم الطالبان أسوأ سجلات حقوق الإنسان فى العالم، والحرب ضد المرأة مروعة بشكل خاص. وتحت رعاية وزارة الأمر بالمعروف والنهى عن المنكر الأفغانية، يتم تجريد المرأة من كل حقوقها الإنسانية

ووفقا للطالبان، ينبغى للمرأة ألا تتعلم؛ ومع هذا الحكم القمعى، تلاشت فرص المرأة فى أن تعيش حياة طبيعية: يرتدين الشادور الذى يغطيهن من الرأس إلى أخمص القدمين، ولا يستطعن الذهاب إلى العمل أو السفر بحرية دون ولى أمر. فى الواقع، فهن مسجونات فى منازلهن ويُحرمن من الحصول على الرعاية الصحية الأساسية والتعليم والتنقل ومستبعدات من الحياة العامة ويواجهن خطرا كبيرا بالتعرض للاستغلال أو سوء المعاملة أو الزواج المبكر

تتحدث طالبة لجوء إلى الولايات المتحدة لشبكة تليفزيونية عن وضع المرأة فى أفغانستان وتقول: «توقفت عن الذهاب إلى المدرسة فى عام 2007 عندما كنت طفلة أبلغ من العمر 11 عامًا.. جاء مجموعة رجال إلى بابنا وهددوا والدى، إذا واصلت الذهاب إلى المدرسة، فسوف يقومون بإلقاء الحمض على وجوهنا أو اختطافنا». أمضت سنوات حبيسة منزلها. على مر السنين، لم تغادر المنزل إلا مرتين فى السنة

وإذا أخذنا بعين الاعتبار أن الاستثمار فى تعليم المرأة يعزز مجتمعا أكثر توازنا وازدهارا، فماذا يحدث لمجتمع نصف أعضائه عاطلون عن العمل؟ ماذا سيحدث لمجتمع تظل نساؤه مهمشات؟

ويتبادر إلى ذهنى قول حافظ إبراهيم الشاعر المصرى: الأم مدرسة إذا أعددتها أعددت شعبًا طيب الأعراق. وبالتأكيد تعليم المرأة هو بمثابة تعليم المجتمع ككل، وإذا افتقد المجتمع هذا العمود الصلب فالتعثر والعوائق ستصيبه وتصيب ذريته

الخاسر الأول هو الأسرة، وفى المقام الأول الأطفال. فالمرأة المتعلمة تعطى الأولوية لتعليم أطفالها، وتتخذ لهم خيارات صحية واجتماعية أفضل، وتقدم لهم التوجيه والمشورة السليمة. وعندما تعجز الأم عن توفير هذه الضروريات، تكون النتيجة مجتمعا يفتقر إلى الأساسيات

ولا تعانى الأسرة فحسب، بل المجتمع ككل. ففى المجتمع الذكورى يصبح الرجال هم صناع القرار حتى فى خيارات المرأة وحقوقها. وتواجه النساء أيضًا، بسبب ضعفهن، العنف والاعتداء الجنسى والإساءة، ولا يتمكنّ من اتخاذ قرارات بشأن صحتهن الجنسية والإنجابية أو حقوق أطفالهن

تحاول العديد من النساء فى أفغانستان سرًا تثقيف أنفسهن وتثقيف النساء والفتيات الأخريات، لكن الأغلبية يقعن ضحية القواعد القمعية التى وضعها الطالبان. قد تحاول أقلية الدراسة، لكن لسوء الحظ، لا يمكنهن أداء الامتحانات أو الاستفادة بما قد تعلمنه

دعونا نأمل ألا يصل ما تعيشه النساء الأفغانيات إلى النساء فى أى مكان آخر، فالبرهان واضح الآن عن الفشل الذريع والتفكك الكامل الذى يصيب المجتمع بفقد النساء التعليم

Renowned Egyptologist Zahi Hawass launches int'l petition to repatriate Bust of Nefertiti from Berlin

Ahram Online

Nevine El-Aref , Saturday 7 Sep 2024

Renowned Egyptologist and former antiquities minister Zahi Hawass has revived an initiative to repatriate the 3400-year-old Bust of Queen Nefertiti, launching an international petition calling for the return of the iconic bust to its homeland after decades of being on display in Berlin, Germany.

The Bust of Queen Nefertiti.

The link to the petition, launched during Hawass’ seminar at Nefertiti Cultural Salon in Prince Taz Palace in Historic Cairo, will be published on Sunday on Hawass’ website and Instagram account for all the international community to sign in a step toward taking more steps to repatriate the queen.

“I am writing on behalf of Egyptians – and everyone who is strongly advocating for Egypt’s heritage to be restored to its home – to submit a request for the repatriation of the painted limestone bust of Nefertiti, accessioned in the Neues Museum as Inventory No. AM 21300,” said Hawass.

He added: “This bust, remarkable and unrivalled in history for its historical and aesthetic merit, is now in Germany, but it is time for it to come home to Egypt.”

Hawass pointed out that it was planned to ask for the Bust of Nefertiti and the Rosetta Stone in 2011 but the circumstances at that time impeded their immediate return.

He noted that the two pieces left Egypt illegally and they need to be returned. 

The new state-of-the-art Grand Egyptian Museum (GEM) is waiting for them to return home, Hawass said. 

“Returning these two iconic artefacts to Egypt would be an important acknowledgment of the commitment of Western museums to decolonize their collections and make reparations for the past,” Hawass pointed out. 

“With countless countries demanding their cultural heritage to be repatriated, Egypt is no exception and no less deserving,” he said, calling on the international community to demand the repatriation of the Queen Nefertiti’s bust through signing and sharing this petition.

For more than 100 years, he explains in the petition, Egypt has been deprived of many of its most significant ancient Egyptian artifacts – one of which is the 18th Dynasty Bust of Queen Nefertiti, which has never failed to gather innumerable visitors to Berlin’s famed Neues Museum.

“Despite many ignored calls for meaningful dialogue as well as requests for acknowledgment of how this unique artifact ended up in Germany, this petition today is meant to re-ignite that conversation, inspire the return of the bust to Cairo, and elicit a dignified response from German authorities.”

“For the last twenty years, Egypt’s repatriation efforts have been commendable,” Hawass asserted, adding that from as far as the USA to as close as Europe, Egyptian authorities, with the help of international policing and diplomatic bodies, have retrieved and repatriated thousands of artefacts taken out of the country illegally. 

“This request, therefore, is a logical outcome of our nation's longstanding policy of demanding the return of any historical and archaeological artefacts that have been unlawfully removed from the nation, particularly those that are thought to be unique,” Hawass wrote in the petition.

He noted that contemporaneous and subsequent records documenting the excavation and distribution of finds of the collection of artefacts comprising the Bust of Nefertiti verify that the bust was removed from Egypt against the letter and the spirit of the Egyptian laws in effect at the time.

Since the first full publication of the Bust of Nefertiti, which did not appear until over a decade after its discovery in 1912 by Ludwig Borchardt, Egypt has made a number of attempts to repatriate this priceless sculpture.

In the petition, Hawass writes that in terms of legal frameworks, article 13(b) of the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (1970) calls on all states party to the convention – ratified by  Germany in 2007 and accepted by Egypt in 1973 –  to “ensure that their competent services cooperate in facilitating the earliest possible restitution of illicitly exported cultural property to its rightful owner.”

This convention was further amplified by the “Plea for the return of an irreplaceable cultural heritage to those who created it” by Mr. Amadou-Mahtar M'Bow, former Director-General of UNESCO, in 1978. 

It calls upon “those responsible for preserving and restoring works of art to facilitate, by their advice and actions, the return of such works to the countries where they were created.”

Rightfully, the petition also underscores a “return of at least the art treasures which best represent their culture.” 

Decades-old effort

The new petition campaign is not the first time that Hawass has asked for the return of these artefacts to their homeland.

In 2005, as secretary-general of the Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA), he noted at a meeting of the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin, held at the UN cultural agency UNESCO in Paris, that Egypt has been deprived of five key items of the country’s cultural heritage and that these should be handed over to their homeland.

The bust is ranked first on these key elements exhibited abroad that Egypt hopes to see returned.

The other four artefacts are the Rosetta Stone, now in the British Museum in London; the statue of Hemiunnu, architect of the Great Pyramid, in the Roemer-Pelizaeus Museum in Hilesheim; the Dendara Temple Zodiac in the Louvre in Paris; and the Bust of Kephren's pyramid builder Ankhaf in the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston.

In 2011, Hawass sent an official request to Germany asking for the return of the magnificent 3400-year-old Bust of Queen Nefertiti, now on display at the Neues Museum in Berlin.

In 2022 he launched a portion for the return of the Rosetta Stone from the British Museum.

The plight of Afghan women

 What happens to a society when half its members become obsolete, with no public role and no visible identity? What is the upshot to the rest of the society when that occurs: the offspring, the family fabric, and the society at large? What does the future look like then? This is the story of the obliterated women of the Afghan society.

Life for Afghan women in the 60s and 70s was a far cry from their lives today. They were protected under the law, were able to vote, enjoyed equality, and formed a considerable percentage of the workforce. Female judges, prosecutors, and lawyers were active members of the Afghan judicial system. According to Medica Mondiale, a site that supports women and girls in crisis zones, “With the help of a quota regulation, before the Taliban regime took power, women formed 27 per cent of the Members of Parliament in Afghanistan. Across the country, 21 per cent of all defence counsel were women and 265 judges were female out of a total of 1951.”

Polygamy was not allowed, and marriage age was raised from 18 to 21. A significant number of Afghan women were nurses, doctors, and educators, and many were employed by universities, private corporations, and airline companies. Others chose to be poets and artists.

Photos of Afghan women then depicted a liberal form of dress code. Though traditional clothes were common, some women opted for miniskirts and Western outfits.

However, Afghanistan has had a tumultuous history for more than four decades, with Afghan women bearing the brunt of the calamities their country faced. They suffered the most becoming underprivileged and disadvantaged.

To bolster a newly established communist regime and suppress the Mujahideen rebellion, the Soviet Union invaded and occupied Afghanistan in 1979. The Mujahideen, who later mutated to become Al Qaeda and the Taliban, were not very powerful, but the US and other countries supplied them with large quantities of weapons via Pakistan to overthrow the Russians. The Russians were indeed overthrown and withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989, but the Mujahideen held on.

Civil war raged after the withdrawal, but by 1996, the Mujahideen aka the Taliban were in full power. This was when curtailment of women began. Slowly but surely Afghan women were stripped of their identities and fundamental human rights only to be erased from society visibly and actively.

The US invasion of Afghan provided a respite and some hope for women and girls, but, after 20 years, the US Armed Forces withdrew from Afghanistan in 2021. The Taliban returned with their Draconian rules as they took over the country once more, and they rebounded on any promises they had made and have resorted to their original ways. A gruesome picture emerged where Afghan women lost their identities yet again.  

Afghanistan under the Taliban rule have had one of the worst human rights records in the world with the war against women particularly appalling. Under the auspices of the infamous Ministry for Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of vice, women were stripped of all their human rights.

According to the Taliban, women must not be educated; with that oppressive rule, the chances of women leading normal lives disappeared. They wear the chador that covers them from head to toes, and they cannot go to work or travel freely without a male guardian. In fact, they are imprisoned in their homes and are denied access to basic health, education, and mobility. They are excluded from public life and face a high risk of being exploited, abused, or married off early.

An NBC report on the status of women in Afghan speaks of an asylum seeker to the US who stopped going to school in 2007 when she was an 11-year-old child. “A group of men, they came to our door and threatened my father, that if you continue to go into school, they will throw acid on our face or kidnap,” she recalled. She spent years confined to her home doing domestic chores. “Over the years, I left home only a couple of times a year.”

Bearing in mind that investing in women’s education fosters a more balanced and flourishing society, what becomes of a society whose half of its members are idle? What becomes of a society whose women remain marginalized?

The words of Hafez Ibrahim, the Egyptian poet, come to mind: The Mother is a school; if you prepare it well, you will prepare a people with solid foundation. And Malcolm X confirms this: If you educate a man, you educate an individual, but if you educate a woman, you educate a nation.

The first loser is the family, primarily the children. An educated woman prioritizes education for her children, makes better health and social choices for them, and provides sound guidance and counselling. When a mother is unable to provide these necessities, the result is a society that lacks fundamental basics.

Not only the family but the society at large suffers. It is reduced to a patriarchal one with men becoming the decision makers even in women’s choices and rights. Disempowered, women also face violence, sexual assault, and abuse, and they are unable to make decisions about their sexual and reproductive health or the rights of their children.

Many women in Afghanistan are secretly trying to educate themselves and educate other women and girls, but the majority fall victim to the oppressive rules the Taliban set. A minority may try to study but, unfortunately, they can’t sit exams.

The whole society will ultimately disintegrate if Afghan women aren’t allowed some freedom to education.

التضليل الموجّه

الاهرام

الأثنين 29 من صفر 1446 هــ 2 سبتمبر 2024 السنة 149 العدد 50309

د. عزة رضوان صدقى

المعلومات المضللة هى معلومات يتم تقديمها بقصد الخداع المتعمّد، وبإمكانها خلق تداعيات مروِّعة والتسبب فى اضطرابات فى المجتمع الذى تستهدفه. ومن الأمثلة على ذلك ما حدث فى بريطانيا مؤخرا، فى مذبحة شرسة طعن وقتل شابٌ فى بلدة ساوثبورت الساحلية ثلاث فتيات صغيرات وأصاب عشرة آخرين. ولأن القانون البريطانى لا ينشر أسماء المشتبه بهم الذين تقل أعمارهم عن 18 عامًا، فقد أثارت كذبة على موقع إكس البلبلة، وصنفت الجانى بأنه مهاجر مسلم، وفى غضون ساعات قليلة، تضاعفت المعلومات مرات. كان الجانى فى الواقع شابًا يبلغ من العمر 17 عامًا، وُلد فى كارديف ببريطانيا لأبوين من رواندا، وليس له أى صلة بالإسلام. أثارت المعلومة المضللة غضبًا مناهضًا للهجرة، وتسببت فى أعمال شغب يمينية متطرفة ضد المسلمين وطالبى اللجوء. حتى بعد أن عُرف أصل الجانى، استمر مثيرو الشغب فى استهداف المساجد والمنازل التى تؤوى طالبى اللجوء، ولا تزال أصداء التضليل محسوسة حتى اليوم

المعلومات المضللة تتعمد نشر الأكاذيب والتأثير على الرأى العام. يمكن أن تشمل الأمثلة الشائعات التى يتم تمريرها كحقائق، أو القصص الملفقة، أو التشهير المستهدف، أو الخداع، ولكن القصد واحد: نشر السخط، وتشويه الشخصيات، وتشويه السلطات. فى معظم الأحيان. تعمل المعلومات المضللة على تعزيز أجندات وعقليات معينة وتتلاعب بالضحايا للتفكير بطريقة سلبية محددة

ازدهرت المعلومات المضللة مع وجود وسائل التواصل الاجتماعى. لا يستخدم الأفراد فقط، بل أيضًا الوكالات والحكومات، المعلومات المضللة لصالحهم. أحد تكتيكات التضليل هو نشر عدد هائل من الرسائل ذات المحتوى نفسه. فمثلا لمخطط التضليل الإسرائيلى للدعاية الإسرائيلية أهداف عديدة أحدها هو تحسين صورة جيش الدفاع الإسرائيلى. التغريدات التى تضع هذا الهدف فى الاعتبار تغمر القراء: «جيش الدفاع الإسرائيلى هو الجيش الأكثر أخلاقية فى التاريخ الحديث، ويفعل كل شيء لحماية المدنيين»؛ «لقد قام جيش الدفاع الإسرائيلى بتنفيذ فترات توقف تكتيكية يومية فى مناطق محددة لتحقيق أقصى قدر من الإخلاء الآمن للمدنيين»؛ «أجرى جيش الدفاع الإسرائيلى 20 ألف مكالمة، وأسقط 1.5 مليون منشور، وأرسل 4.4 مليون رسالة نصية قصيرة و6 ملايين رسالة صوتية فى شمال غزة لحث المدنيين على الإخلاء حفاظاً على سلامتهم»؛ و«إن الجيش الإسرائيلى يفعل أكثر من أى جيش فى تاريخ الحرب لحماية المدنيين». توجد الآلاف من التغريدات المماثلة على وسائل التواصل الاجتماعى، لخداع الآخرين للاعتقاد بأن جيش الدفاع الإسرائيلى بريء، بينما يقتل بوحشية الفارين المدنيين الأبرياء ويجوِّع الآخرين حتى الموت

تواجه مصر المعلومات المضللة التى تهدف إلى إحداث الفوضى عن طريق نشر القصص الملفقة عبر وسائل التواصل الاجتماعى. المواضيع المشار إليها لا نهاية لها، لكن الهدف واحد: إثارة السخط. قد تتطرق القصص إلى احتجاجات مزيفة، أو تباطؤ فى إنجاز الأعمال، أو خسائر أوليمبياد باريس، أو زيادة أكيدة فى أسعار السلع، أو إبادة الأشجار التى تسببت فى درجات الحرارة هذا الصيف. وقد خلقت إسرائيل حصتها من الأكاذيب عن مصر مثل: وجود الأنفاق بين غزة وسيناء، وتهريب الأسلحة من سيناء إلى غزة، والجانب المصرى أغلق المعبر إلى غزة وموافقة مصر على بقاء القوات الإسرائيلية فى معبر صلاح الدين (فيلادلفيا)، وجميعها كذب وافتراء

إذن، كمتلقين للأخبار، كيف نتعامل مع هذا الكم الهائل من المعلومات المضللة؟ أولاً، يجب أن نكون على دراية بالافتراءات التى تغلف محيطنا بالفعل، ونحاول بذل قصارى جهدنا فى تحديد المعلومات المضللة مقابل المعلومات الموثّقة، وأن نتعلم كيفية تجنب الوقوع ضحايا لمخالبها. الأهم يجب التحقق من صحة المعلومة عن طريق المواقع الإخبارية الرئيسية، وإذا كانت القصة التى تقرؤها تظهر فى مصدر واحد ولم تظهر فى مصادر أخرى، فهى مختلقة. يجب أن تكون المصادر الموثوقة، مثل جريدة الأهرام، مصدر التحقق الخاص بك

إن الكثير مما نقرؤه أو نشاهده ليس أخبارًا، بل أشكال أخرى من المعلومات. كمتلقين للأخبار، يجب علينا أن نتعلم التعرُّف على الفرق. يوجد خط ضبابى بين المعلومات مقابل مقالات الرأى، أو الإعلانات، أو الترفيه، أو الدعاية، أو المعلومات المضللة البحتة. فلنتعلم التمييز بين الأخبار الموثوقة والإعلانات التسويقية، أو الصورة التى حُرِّفت بالفوتوشوب، أو اللقطات المصممة بتقنية الذكاء الاصطناعى. كما يجب التأكد من أن القصة حديثة وليست قصة تُشاع من جديد. كما أن بعض القصص عبارة عن دعابة أو محاكاة ساخرة وعلينا أن نميزها ولا نعيد نشرها كقصص حقيقية، والأهم من ذلك، التحقق والتأكد قبل المشاركة

لن تختفى المعلومات المضللة؛ بل على العكس تمامًا. والأمر متروك لنا، كمتلقين مطلعين على الأخبار، لفك رموز ما نتلقاه بأفضل ما فى وسعنا

لمزيد من مقالات د. عزة رضوان صدقى

رابط دائم: 

 

 

 

AIPAC and the US elections

Al Ahram Weekly (Excerpt: AIPAC and the US Election)

Sahar Zahran in Washingtom DC , Wednesday 21 Aug 2024

The Jewish vote will be one of the factors in this year’s US presidential elections, with the lobby group the American Israel Public Affairs Committee putting pressure on both candidates to support Israel.

As the presidential elections approach in the US in November, increasing attention is focusing on Jewish-American voters and lobbying organisations such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) as potential determinants of the results of the polls.

The US Jewish community, though small and making up only around two per cent of the population, is one of the most influential groups in US politics, in part because of its concentration in crucial states such as New York and Florida and in part because it tends to have higher than average rates of political participation.

As the campaigns heat up, the candidates are making pitches for the “Jewish vote.” That was obviously the purpose of Republican Party candidate Donald Trump’s recent remark about Israel being “so tiny” and suggesting it should be made bigger.

He also claimed that his Democratic Party rival Kamala Harris had received $5 million from AIPAC for her campaign. While the claim has not been corroborated, it has fed the growing focus on the connection between US politicians and pro-Israel lobbies and, specifically, the role of AIPAC in US elections.

Historically, Jewish-American voters have leaned towards the Democratic Party out of sympathy with its liberal outlook. In the 2020 presidential elections, about 71 per cent of Jewish voters supported the Democratic Party candidate. However, with divisions sharpening within the party over Washington’s support for Israel and its policies on other Middle East issues, there have been signs of a shift among Jewish voters towards the Republican Party.

This trend is not new, but it became more pronounced during Trump’s first term in office because of his strong pro-Israel bias, as reflected in his decisions to move the US Embassy in Israel to Occupied Jerusalem and to recognise the Occupied Golan as part of Israel.

While those policies were welcomed by conservative and Orthodox Jewish groups in the US, many of whom favour Republican outlooks in general, the majority of the US Jewish community continued to support the Democratic Party because of its positions on domestic concerns, especially with regard to social and economic issues.

Since its establishment in 1951, AIPAC has become one of the most powerful lobby groups in Washington. Its aim is to strengthen US-Israel relations by influencing US policies and supporting candidates who show a strong commitment to Israel.

It exercises its influence through a broad network of donors who make sizeable contributions to financing the campaigns of favoured politicians. The organisation also hosts annual fundraising events and arranges private meetings with politicians. These and other activities are designed to ensure that Israel remains a top priority for decision-makers in Washington. In short, AIPAC is a key player in US elections.

In the opinion of Mark Millman, a prominent US Jewish political analyst, remarks like those made by Trump could rebound against his campaign as they could be perceived as simply gambits to exploit the question of Israel for political ends. He believes that their effect will be to increase divisions within the US Jewish community rather than increase support for Trump.

Aaron David Miller, a political analyst and former US State Department adviser, noted that Trump’s jab at Harris regarding the alleged millions of AIPAC dollars that have gone into her campaign’s coffers may signal a shift in his political rhetoric on Israel.

Trump may be trying to downplay his support for Israel during his presidency if he is elected in November in order to appeal to voters who are frustrated at the Biden administration’s current policies towards the Middle East, Miller suggested. He believes that if this is indeed Trump’s strategy, it could backfire and alienate many Jewish voters, especially liberals.

According to the Washington Post newspaper, Harris could neutralise the impacts of Trump’s remarks among US Jewish voters if she strengthens her image as a candidate who can defend Israeli interests without having to rely on AIPAC funding. However, increased pressure from the Trump camp could force her to rethink her strategy and reaffirm her unwavering commitment to supporting Israel.

Paul Salem, president of the Middle East Institute in Washington, believes that Trump is positioning himself as the staunchest supporter not just of Israel, but also of the Israeli right, as indicated by his recent remark suggesting his support for a “Greater Israel.”

At the same time, Trump is trying to portray Harris and the Democratic Party as “anti-Israel” and “far left,” Salem said. But he doubts that this strategy will succeed in drawing many American Jews away from the Democratic Party, which they have traditionally supported.

Salem has observed a slight shift in the political leanings of Jewish voters in the US, with their support for the Democratic Party dropping by three to four percentage points, however, something which he attributes in part to the impact of the current Israeli war on Gaza.

Nevertheless, while the numbers suggest a small gain for the Republicans, they may also reflect another phenomenon. Many young Jewish voters in the US are disaffected not just with the Biden administration’s policies towards the conflict in Gaza but also by the unquestioning support Israel receives from both the Democratic and Republican parties.

This year’s presidential elections in the US may be the first in which the question of Palestine has played a significant role in influencing the outcome, Salem told Al-Ahram Weekly.

The state of Michigan, for example, has a large percentage of Arab and Muslim voters who for the most part support Democratic Party candidates. However, this year, many of them joined a campaign using the slogan “uncommitted” signifying that they would not commit to vote for the Democratic Party candidate until they get genuine pledges that she will not continue the current administration’s policies on Gaza.

Even though representing only a small percentage of voters, this campaign could make or break a candidate’s prospects in a swing state such as Michigan.

Hamas has put the Palestinian cause at the forefront of the presidential election campaigns in the US, Salem said. Its action last October triggered a brutal Israeli response that has since precipitated an international outcry not just against the injustices inflicted against Palestinian civilians but also against Washington’s political and material support for the war on Gaza.

The US presidential election candidates are therefore being compelled to address the Palestinian question in their campaigns and as part of the complex relationship between domestic and foreign policies in the US, Salem said.

AIPAC is another part of this relationship. However, according to Dennis Ross, who served as a political adviser to former president Barack Obama and is a former US Middle East envoy, the influence of the pro-Israel lobby is often exaggerated in the US.

Ross said that its impact is felt more at the local level during Congressional elections than during presidential ones. In Congressional elections in the US, AIPAC chapters and donors typically fund candidates who support Israel or campaigns against candidates who criticise it.

Democratic Congressman Jamaal Bowman and Democratic Congresswoman Cori Bush both lost the primaries in their respective constituencies after AIPAC intervened in support of other candidates. Bowman and Bush, the incumbents, were both members of the “Squad,” an informal grouping of members of Congress who represent the progressive left wing of the Democratic Party.

Members of the “Squad” have continuously voiced their support for Palestine in the ongoing Israeli war on Gaza. Bowman lost his primary election in New York’s 16th district to George Latimer, who received over $20 million from AIPAC to unseat the pro-Palestine incumbent, making it the most expensive congressional race in history.

It was also the first electoral battle fought openly along lines newly drawn up in US politics by the war on Gaza, according to Ben Davis, a former member of the data team for Democratic Congressman Bernie Sanders’ 2020 campaign for the party’s nomination in the presidential elections and an active member of the Democratic Socialists of America.

 

Read on here.

Debunking disinformation

Al Ahram Weekly

Azza Radwan Sedky

Tuesday 20 Aug 2024

Disinformation can have horrendous repercussions and create unrest in the communities it targets, writes Azza Radwan Sedky

A case in point about the dangers of disinformation is what happened in Britain recently when a knifeman went on a stabbing campaign in the seaside town of Southport killing three young girls and injuring ten others.

British law does not name suspects under the age of 18, so a tweeted lie triggered the kerfuffle. A post on X pinned the perpetrator as Ali Al-Shakati, a migrant of Muslim faith. Within a few hours, disinformation on social media had spun into 30,000 mentions on X alone when in fact a 17-year male born in Cardiff to parents from Rwanda and with no links to Islam had been the culprit.

The disinformation on the tragedy went on to spark anti-immigration fury and far-right riots against Muslims and asylum seekers in Britain.

Despite having been told who the real culprit was, the rioters persisted in targeting mosques and hostels housing asylum seekers. There was no turning back for them, for the disinformation had sunk in and could not be deflated. The reverberations are still being felt today.

Disinformation is in no way equivalent to misinformation. It is far worse. Misinformation, though harmful, can occur accidentally or with no intended malice, while disinformation is deliberate in its intent to propagate lies and inaccuracies and sway public opinion.  

Examples can include rumours passed off as facts, downright lies, fabricated stories, targeted defamation, hoaxes, and pranks. But the intention is always the same: to spread disgruntlement, tarnish characters, and discredit the authorities.

Most of the time disinformation also advances certain agendas and mindsets and manipulates victims to think in a particular way and even to react in a certain way, as was seen with the far-right rioters in Britain.

Social media has allowed online disinformation to flourish, and when innocent souls rely on disinformation, the choices they make are faulty and not in their or others’ best interests. This is especially the case if they pass such disinformation along to others, only to allow it to spread even further.

Both “trolls” and “bots” are utilised to spew disinformation. Trolls are persons who intentionally antagonise others by posting offensive and inflammatory content on the Internet for the sole purpose of spreading lies and fake news. “Bots” are automated engines that generate fake news to simulate the behaviour of human beings.

According to the Centre for Information Technology and Society (CITS), a US research centre based in California, “social media platforms (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.) have become home to millions of social bots that spread fake news… There were 23 million bots on Twitter (around 8.5 per cent of all accounts), 140 million bots on Facebook (up to 5.5 per cent of accounts) and around 27 million bots on Instagram (8.2 per cent of the accounts),” it says.

Not only individuals but also agencies and governments employ disinformation to their benefit. One disinformation tactic is to post an overwhelming number of messages with the same content. Israel’s disinformation schemes, for instance, do exactly that. Israeli propaganda has many objectives, but one is to improve the image of the Israel defence Forces (IDF). Tweets with that purpose in mind therefore may inundate readers.

They include messages such as the “IDF is the most moral army in modern history, does everything to protect civilians,” “the IDF has put in action daily tactical pauses in designated areas to maximise the safe evacuation of civilians,” “the IDF has made 20,000 calls, dropped 1.5 million leaflets, sent 4.4 million SMS and 6 million voice messages in northern Gaza urging civilians to evacuate for their safety,” and “the IDF says they’ve done more than any army in the history of warfare to protect civilians.”

Thousands of similar tweets exist on social media, there to deceive people into believing that Israel’s IDF is innocent while it viciously kills innocent civilians in Gaza and starves others to death.

Egypt has also faced disinformation wars aimed to cause mayhem: a wide range of fabricated stories have been spewed across social media in the hopes of triggering dissatisfaction and adverse moods. The disinformation fluctuates in shape and form and touches upon an endless score of topics, but the aim is one: to evoke discontent.

Stories may touch on fake or unrealised protests, unproven Covid-19 infection numbers, a malfunction in a major means of productivity or transportation, a tree-chopping vendetta and how it brought this year’s unbearable heat, or inefficient or procrastinating lawmakers.

Israel has also created its share of disinformation regarding Egypt, saying that tunnels exist between Gaza and Sinai, that weapons are smuggled from Sinai to Gaza, and that the border crossing between Sinai and Gaza is closed on the Egyptian side.

So, as news recipients, how do we handle disinformation? We must first be aware of the fabrications that fill our surroundings and do our best to identify disinformation versus information or credible facts and to learn to avoid falling victims to it.  

The most important advice is to become a scrutinising news recipient by checking mainstream news websites for verification. This can be the best way to decipher what is logical versus what is contrived. If the story you are reading appears in one source and does not appear in others, then believe me, it is made up.

Credible sources, such as Al-Ahram Weekly and Al-Ahram Arabic daily, should be your verifying source. Better yet, read or watch the news on the websites it originated from and not those that are reporting information found elsewhere.

Much of what we read or watch today is not news but other forms of information. As news recipients, we must learn to identify the difference. Today, a blurred line exists between information versus opinion pieces, advertising, entertainment, propaganda, or pure disinformation. Learn to differentiate between credible news and tweets by an unidentified person, a marketing ad, a photoshopped photograph, or AI-designed footage.

Other minor but thoroughly important tactics may help us identify disinformation. Make sure that the story is current and not regurgitated from years past. Some stories are jokes or parodies; don’t fall for these and read them as real stories. Most importantly, check and verify before you share.

Disinformation will not go away; quite the contrary, it is here to stay. It is up to us as informed recipients of news to decipher what we receive to the best of our ability.

The writer is a former professor of communication who is based in Vancouver, Canada.

* A version of this article appears in print in the 22 August, 2024 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly

Short link:

 

دلالات خطاب نيتانياهو فى الكونجرس الأمريكى

الاهرام

الأثنين 14 من صفر 1446 هــ 19 أغسطس 2024 السنة 149 العدد 50295

د. عزة رضوان صدقى

 

أعضاء الكونجرس الأمريكى صفقوا بحرارة ووقفوا 58 مرة للتعبير عن امتنانهم لبنيامين نيتانياهو فى أثناء حديثه فى الكونجرس يوم 24 يوليو. بدون شك هؤلاء المهللون متواطئون فى الإبادة الجماعية الناجمة عن الحرب فى غزة

 

وعلى الرغم من انقسام العديد من المشرعين بشأن دعوة نيتانياهو، فإن رئيس مجلس النواب مايك جونسون مضى قدما ودعا نيتانياهو للتحدث. ومن الجدير بالذكر أن لجنة الشئون العامة الأمريكية الإسرائيلية (إيباك)، كانت أكبر جهة مانحة لجونسون فى عام 2023، الذى بدوره قاد الكونجرس للموافقة على مبلغ قدره 14 مليار دولار لإسرائيل، وتمت مكافأته على الفور من قبل اسرائيل بتبرعات بقيمة 95 ألف دولار، مما يجعل دعوته لنيتانياهو قابلة للتفسير

لنكن عادلين، ليس جميع أعضاء الكونجرس متواطئين مع إسرائيل، فلم يحضر الخطاب نصف الأعضاء الديمقراطيين وعضو جمهورى واحد. وعلى الرغم من أن الديمقراطيين ما زالوا يدعمون إسرائيل بأغلبية ساحقة، فإنهم ينتقدون نيتانياهو وعدم مبالاته للخسائر البشرية الفلسطينية ومقاومته للدعوات الأمريكية للسماح بدخول المزيد من المساعدات الإنسانية إلى غزة. كما أن صبرهم بدأ ينفد بشكل متزايد إزاء تقلباته فى مفاوضات وقف إطلاق النار، التى تشير إلى نيته الواضحة بعدم الالتزام بها

ولم تحضر نائبة الرئيس الأمريكى كامالا هاريس أو نانسى بيلوسى رئيسة مجلس النواب السابقة الخطاب بسبب تضارب جدول أعمالهما وهى أعذار واهية لتجنب حضور الخطاب. بيرنى ساندرز سناتور فيرمونت الديمقراطى قال فى تغريدة على تويتر: لا ينبغى الترحيب بنيتانياهو فى الكونجرس الأمريكى. على العكس يجب إدانة سياساته فى غزة والضفة الغربية ورفضه دعم حل الدولتين بشدة. وانتقدت بيلوسى خطاب نيتانياهو ووصفته بأنه أسوأ خطاب لأى شخصية أجنبية رفيعة المستوى تم دعوتها وتكريمها بامتياز مخاطبة الكونجرس الأمريكى. ورفعت النائبة رشيدة طليب، من ميشيجان، لافتة خلال خطاب نيتانياهو كُتب عليها مجرم عالمى من جهة ومذنب بارتكاب إبادة جماعية من جهة أخرى

لكن دعونا الآن نتعمق فيما حدث من قبل باقى أعضاء الكونجرس خلال الخطاب وما إذا كان تصرفهم يؤكد تواطؤهم فى الكارثة. كملاحظة جانبية، لنتخيل لو تمت دعوة الرئيس الروسى فلاديمير بوتين للتحدث أمام الهيئة التشريعية الرئيسية فى بلد ما، وقد صفق له الحاضرون تصفيقًا حارًا ووقفوا امتنانا لكلماته 50 مرة، كيف كان سينظر الغرب إلى مثل هذا الحدث؟ إن المعايير مزدوجة والنفاق علنى وساحق

لدى دخوله القاعة، استُقبل نيتانياهو بصيحات الاستحسان، وهلل الحاضرون وصفروا، وسارع النواب لمصافحته ولتحيته. وقد حظى نيتانياهو بترحيب حار من رئيس مجلس النواب مايك جونسون، الذى قال: اليوم وكل يوم، يجب على أمريكا أن تقف جنبا إلى جنب مع إسرائيل. وحضر إيلون ماسك، الرئيس التنفيذى لشركة تسلى ومالك تويتر الخطاب وجلس بجانب زوجة نيتانياهو

وصفق الحاضرون لانتقادات نيتانياهو للأمريكيين الذين احتجوا ضد الحرب، ووصفهم بأنهم عملاء إيران وأغبياء ويجب أن يخجلوا من أنفسهم. وحاول إقناع المشرعين الأمريكيين بأن معركتنا هى معركتكم! انتصارنا سيكون انتصاركم! وطلب المزيد من الدعم قائلا امنحونا الأدوات بشكل أسرع وسننهى المهمة بشكل أسرع، وتعهد بمواصلة الحرب حتى النصر الكامل

خلاصة القول إن نيتانياهو مُنح فرصة التحدث لأكثر من ساعة إلى هذه الهيئة الموقرة لتعزيز دعمهم لهجومه على غزة وعندئذ هتف الحاضرون له. واستفاد نيتانياهو كثيرا لأن حضور الأغلبية الساحقة من الأعضاء سمح له بالقول بأنه حصل على دعم أمريكى واسع لجهوده الحربية المستمرة التى يمكن أن تساعده فى تهدئة المعارضة الشديدة داخل إسرائيل، وبالتالى فقد مُنح نيتانياهو الضوء الأخضر للاستمرار فى الإبادة الجماعية

ولم يوضح خطاب نيتانياهو طريقا واضحا للتوصل إلى اتفاق لإنهاء الحرب، وهو أمر كان أى شخص لديه ذرة من الإنسانية يرغب فى سماعه. ولم يتناول الانتقادات الموجهة إليه للطريقة الشرسة التى اتبعها فى الحرب التى أراقت الدماء وتسببت فى المجاعة. ولم يفصح نيتانياهو عن أى تنازلات، بل قدم بدلاً منها سلسلة من الكليشيهات المصاغة للاستهلاك هذا ليس صراع الحضارات، هذا صراع بين البربرية والتحضر

وادعى أنه بعد هزيمة حماس ستظهر غزة جديدة، وهو تعليق مثير للسخرية إلا إذا كان يقصد غزة إسرائيلية، لأن نيتانياهو لن يقدم شبراً واحداً من الدعم لغزة الفلسطينية

وعلى الرغم من أن العديد من أعضاء الكونجرس لم يتواجدوا لسماع الخطاب، وأن آخرين وجهوا كلمات انتقاد قاسية لنيتانياهو، فإن حقيقة دعوته للتحدث فى المقام الأول، فى حين يواصل الجيش الإسرائيلى قتل الأطفال والنساء أمر يثير الاشمئزاز. أما تهليل المشرعين فى أثناء حديثه فيؤكد عماهم ولا مبالاتهم ويجعلهم متواطئين فى الإبادة الجماعية

لمزيد من مقالات د. عزة رضوان صدقى

رابط دائم: 

 

As a former IDF soldier and historian of genocide, I was deeply disturbed by my recent visit to Israel

The Guardian, Excerpt (As a former IDF soldier and historian of genocide, I was deeply disturbed by my recent visit to Israel)

By Omer Bartov

The Hamas attack on 7 October came as a tremendous shock to Israeli society, one from which it has not begun to recover. It was the first time Israel has lost control of part of its territory for an extended period of time, with the IDF unable to prevent the massacre of more than 1,200 people – many killed in the cruellest ways imaginable – and the taking of well over 200 hostages, including scores of children. The sense of abandonment by the state and of ongoing insecurity – with tens of thousands of Israeli citizens still displaced from their homes along the Gaza Strip and by the Lebanese border – is profound.

Today, across vast swaths of the Israeli public, including those who oppose the government, two sentiments reign supreme.

The first is a combination of rage and fear, a desire to re-establish security at any cost and a complete distrust of political solutions, negotiations and reconciliation. The military theorist Carl von Clausewitz noted that war was the extension of politics by other means, and warned that without a defined political objective it would lead to limitless destruction. The sentiment that now prevails in Israel similarly threatens to make war into its own end. In this view, politics is an obstacle to achieving goals rather than a means to limit destruction. This is a view that can only ultimately lead to self-annihilation.

The second reigning sentiment – or rather lack of sentiment – is the flipside of the first. It is the utter inability of Israeli society today to feel any empathy for the population of Gaza. The majority, it seems, do not even want to know what is happening in Gaza, and this desire is reflected in TV coverage. Israeli television news these days usually begins with reports on the funerals of soldiers, invariably described as heroes, fallen in the fighting in Gaza, followed by estimates of how many Hamas fighters were “liquidated”. References to Palestinian civilian deaths are rare and normally presented as part of enemy propaganda or as a cause for unwelcome international pressure. In the face of so much death, this deafening silence now seems like its own form of vengefulness.

Of course, the Israeli public long ago became inured to the brutal occupation that has characterised the country for 57 out of the 76 years of its existence. But the scale of what is being perpetrated in Gaza right now by the IDF is as unprecedented as the complete indifference of most Israelis to what is being done in their name. In 1982, hundreds of thousands of Israelis protested against the massacre of the Palestinian population in the refugee camps Sabra and Shatila in western Beirut by Maronite Christian militias, facilitated by the IDF. Today, this kind of response is inconceivable. The way people’s eyes glaze over whenever one mentions the suffering of Palestinian civilians, and the deaths of thousands of children and women and elderly people, is deeply unsettling.

Meeting my friends in Israel this time, I frequently felt that they were afraid that I might disrupt their grief, and that living out of the country I could not grasp their pain, anxiety, bewilderment and helplessness. Any suggestion that living in the country had numbed them to the pain of others – the pain that, after all, was being inflicted in their name – only produced a wall of silence, a retreat into themselves, or a quick change of subject. The impression that I got was consistent: we have no room in our hearts, we have no room in our thoughts, we do not want to speak about or to be shown what our own soldiers, our children or grandchildren, our brothers and sisters, are doing right now in Gaza. We must focus on ourselves, on our trauma, fear and anger.

In an interview conducted on 7 March 2024, the writer, farmer and scientist Zeev Smilansky expressed this very sentiment in a manner that I found shocking, precisely because it came from him. I have known Smilansky for more than half a century, and he is the son of the celebrated Israeli author S Yizhar, whose 1949 novella Khirbet Khizeh was the very first text in Israeli literature to confront the injustice of the Nakba, the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians from what became the state of Israel in 1948. Speaking about his own son, Offer, who lives in Brussels, Smilansky commented:

Offer says that for him every child is a child, no matter whether he is in Gaza or here. I don’t feel like him. Our children here are more important to me. There is a shocking humanitarian disaster there, I understand that, but my heart is blocked and filled with our children and our hostages … There is no room in my heart for the children in Gaza, however shocking and terrifying it is and even though I know that war is not the solution.

I listen to Maoz Inon, who lost both his parents [murdered by Hamas on 7 October] … and who speaks so beautifully and persuasively about the need to look forward, that we need to bring hope and to want peace, because wars won’t accomplish anything, and I agree with him. I agree with him, but I cannot find the strength in my heart, with all my leftist inclinations and love for humanity, I cannot … It is not just Hamas, it’s all Gazans who agree that it’s OK to kill Jewish children, that this is a worthy cause … With Germany there was reconciliation, but they apologised and paid reparations, and what [will happen] here? We too did terrible things, but nothing that comes close to what happened here on 7 October. It will be necessary to reconcile but we need some distance.

This was a pervasive sentiment among many left-leaning, liberal friends and acquaintances I spoke with in Israel. It was, of course, quite different from what rightwing politicians and media figures have been saying since 7 October. Many of my friends recognise the injustice of the occupation, and, as Smilansky said, profess a “love for humanity”. But at this moment, under these circumstances, this is not what they are focused on. Instead, they feel that in the struggle between justice and existence, existence must win out, and in the struggle between one just cause and another – that of the Israelis and that of the Palestinians – it is our own cause that must be triumphant, no matter the price. To those who doubt this stark choice, the Holocaust is presented as the alternative, however irrelevant it is to the current moment.

This feeling did not appear suddenly on 7 October. Its roots are much deeper.

وتتوالى الأحداث فى الانتخابات الأمريكية

الاهرام

الأثنين 30 من محرم 1446 هــ 5 أغسطس 2024 السنة 149 العدد 50281

د. عزة رضوان صدقى

منذ اللحظات الأولى كان السباق الرئاسى الأمريكى محفوفا بالمخاطر والتناقضات. اليوم نرصد اللحظات المحورية التى شكلت السباق والتى أدت إلى الوضع يومنا هذا

السباق كان محاطًا بالدراما، وأسابيع من الشد والجذب تحكمت فى المشهد السياسى. أصبح الرئيس ترامب أول رئيس سابق تتم إدانته ليس فى قضية جنائية واحدة، بل فى أربع قضايا جنائية. وقد اتُهم بمجموعة واسعة من الجرائم التى ارتُكبت قبل وفى أثناء وبعد رئاسته. تبع ذلك المناظرة بين بايدن وترامب التى تلعثم بايدن فيها ولم يتمكن من السيطرة على أفكاره لبضع ثوانٍ.كان أداؤه مدمرا للغاية، حتى إن بعض أعضاء حزبه طالبوه بالتخلى عن السباق الرئاسى، ثم ازداد أعداد الديمقراطيين والداعمين الذين طالبوه بعدم تكملة السباق. كما أن حكم المحكمة العليا بشأن كيفية حصانة الرئيس الأمريكى من الملاحقة القضائية كان بمثابة ضربة أخرى. القانون يعرض الديمقراطية للخطر لأنه يفلت الرئيس من جميع التهم القانونية الخطيرة، ولا يمكن محاكمته على أفعال تقع ضمن صلاحياته فى أثناء توليه الرئاسة

بالفعل السباق الرئاسى كان يواجه محنًا هائلة، ومع ذلك فإن محاولة اغتيال ترامب أغرقت السباق فى أشد المحالك. محاولات اغتيال الرؤساء الأمريكيين والمرشحين الرئاسيين وقادة الحقوق المدنية فى الولايات المتحدة قد حدثت من قبل، من اغتيال الرئيس لينكولن عام 1865، إلى عشرات المحاولات الأخرى، تعكس محاولات الاغتيالات هذه بعضًا من أحلك اللحظات فى التاريخ الأمريكى. على سبيل المثال لا الحصر، تم اغتيال جون كيندى، وروبرت كيندى، ومارتن لوثر كينج، ومالكولم إكس فى أثناء الحملات الانتخابية أو التجمعات. فى بلد يسهل فيه الوصول إلى الأسلحة ويعتبر إطلاق النار أمرا شائعا، لا تصبح حوادث اغتيال القادة حوادث معزولة. وقال الرئيس بايدن منتقدا حادثة ترامب: «لا يمكننا أن نسمح بحدوث ذلك. إن فكرة وجود عنف كهذا فى أمريكا لم يسمع بها من قبل». الحقيقة أن هذا العنف شائع فى الولايات المتحدة

ندد الجميع بالهجوم، الجمهوريون والديمقراطيون منهم. وندد الرئيسان السابقان أوباما وبوش بحادثة إطلاق النار على ترامب، وأدانها زعماء العالم أيضًا. لكن الكثيرين ألقوا باللوم على خطاب الطرفين باعتباره السبب الرئيسى وراء الهجوم، ومع تزايد حدة الانقسام العميق بين الجمهوريين والديمقراطيين اعتبر كلا الطرفين الآخر تهديدًا وجوديًا. فقد أكد الديمقراطيون أن الفوضى ستسود إذا فاز ترامب، وانضم الكثير من وسائل الإعلام، خاصة «سى إن إن» وصحيفة «نيويورك تايمز»، فى تشويه ترامب، لكن ترامب نفسه كان مهينا بشأن بايدن وأدائه أيضا واعتبره ضعيفًا وفاشلًا، ووصفه بـ «بجو النعسان» بين مصطلحات مهينة أخرى

لكن اليوم، عقب إطلاق النار، تغير الخطاب مؤقتًا. وطالب كثيرون بالكياسة و«خفض درجة الحرارة». ودعا الحزبان إلى «الوحدة الوطنية والهدوء». قد يكون التغيير رد فعل فوريًاعلى محاولة اغتيال ترامب، لكننى أشك فى أنه سيستمر، لأن محاولة الاغتيال تم استغلالها بالفعل من قبل وسائل الإعلام والطرفين، فألقى البعض باللوم بشكل صارخ على بايدن فى الهجوم بسبب اعتبار الرئيس دونالد ترامب فاشيا استبداديا ويجب إيقافه بأى ثمن

والأهم من ذلك أن حملة ترامب استفادت كثيرا من المأساة التى كادت تنهى حياة ترامب. أولا، نجا ترامب من المحاولة، حتى لو كان الحظ لعب دورا استثنائيا، ثانيا، وفقا لبلومبرج، «فجأة بدا أن السرد الذى صاغه ترامب على مر السنين حول كيفية سعى الجميع للنيل منه قد تم التحقق منه». ثالثا، سوف يستغل القائمون على حملة ترامب كل قطرة ممكنة من المكاسب من إطلاق النار. فى كل مرة يثير فيها الديمقراطيون نقطة ضارة ضد ترامب، سيزعم الجمهوريون أنهم يعرضون حياة ترامب للخطر. وفى كل مرة يتم ذكر تمرد السادس من يناير عندما اقتحم حلفاء ترامب مبنى الكابيتول هيل، سيتهمهم الجمهوريون بالتحريض على العنف فى 13 يوليو ومحاولة قتل ترامب

ترتب على كل هذا تغيير جذرى فيما قد استجد فى الانتخابات: قبل شهر من انعقاد المؤتمر الوطنى الديمقراطى وقبل أشهر قليلة فقط من توجه الأمريكيين إلى صناديق الاقتراع لانتخاب رئيسهم المقبل 2024، انسحب الرئيس جو بايدن من السباق الرئاسى ودعم نائبته كامالا هاريس للمنصب. وبين عشية وضحاها تمكنت هاريس من الحصول على عدد كاف من الداعمين لتأمين ترشيح الحزب الديمقراطى،وأثارت طفرة فى جمع التبرعات وضبطت أحوال الحزب الذى بدا أنه يتجه نحو الهزيمة

واليوم بعد هذا الكم من الشد والجذب من الذى سيقنع المنتخبين بأنه الأفضل؟ من الذى سيمتلك زمام القوة ليجنى الرئاسة؟ إنها الانتخابات الأمريكية يا سادة ولابد أن تغمرها التقلبات والمنعطفات

لمزيد من مقالات د. عزة رضوان صدقى

رابط دائم: 

 

 

 

Israel woos the US

Al Ahram Weekly

 

Azza Radwan Sedky

Tuesday 30 Jul 2024

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent speech before the US Congress saw some members effectively complicit in crimes of genocide during the Israeli war on Gaza, writes Azza Radwan Sedky

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu received 58 standing ovations during his speech to a joint session of Congress in Washington on 24 July, which adds to his record for the most speeches in front of Congress by any invited foreign leader.

Those Congressmen and Congresswomen who cheered him on as he spoke are enabling Israel’s actions in the war on Gaza and are complicit in this ongoing and horrendous war.

Though many lawmakers were divided over inviting Netanyahu, House Speaker Mike Johnson went ahead and invited him to speak anyway.  

It is worth noting that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a major powerbroker in Congress, was Johnson’s top donor in 2023. Johnson had led the House in approving an extra $14 billion of US money for Israel, and he was immediately rewarded with $95,000 in donations, making his invitation to Netanyahu more explicable.

Let’s be fair, though. The Congress is not totally complicit in Israel’s actions in Gaza, and we will start off by naming the non-complicit, non-partisan members. Half of the Democrats in both the House and the Senate, and one single Republican, did not attend the speech, citing frustrations with Netanyahu’s actions.

Though they are still overwhelmingly supportive of Israel, the Democrats are increasingly critical of Netanyahu and his inability to consider Palestinian human losses and his resistance to US calls to allow more humanitarian aid into Gaza. They are also increasingly impatient with his flipflopping in the cease-fire negotiations, indicating his clear intention not to commit to it.

US Vice-President Kamala Harris did not attend the speech since she had a conflicting schedule, and neither did Nancy Pelosi, a former House speaker, as she was in a listening session with the Israeli families of hostages held by Hamas. Both were rather flimsy excuses to avoid attending Netanyahu’s speech.

Congress members Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez also skipped the speech. “No, Netanyahu should not be welcomed into the US Congress,” tweeted Sanders. “On the contrary, his policies in Gaza and the West Bank and his refusal to support a two-state solution should be roundly condemned.”

Pelosi criticised Netanyahu’s speech on X as being by far “the worst presentation of any foreign dignitary invited and honoured with the privilege of addressing the Congress of the United States.”  

Representative Cori Bush reiterated the same thoughts. “By bestowing Prime Minister Netanyahu with a joint address, Congress is not only continuing to green-light genocide; it is actively celebrating the man at the forefront of that genocide,” she said.

Thomas Massie, the one Republican who missed the speech, tweeted in an explanation that the Congress was undertaking “political theatre on behalf of the State Department, and I don’t feel like being a prop, so I won’t be attending.”

Representative Rashida Tlaib of Michigan held up a sign during Netanyahu’s speech that read “World Criminal” on one side and “Guilty of Genocide” on the other.

Senator Chuck Schumer of New York did not shake Netanyahu’s hand as the latter entered the chamber but merely nodded to him, and Representative Jerry Nadler of New York mouthed “bullshit” when Netanyahu said he was focused on bringing home the Israeli hostages.

But now let’s delve into what happened during what the Western media said was a defiant and aggressive speech and if it in any way confirms the Congress’ complicity. As a side note, imagine if Russian President Vladimir Putin had been invited to speak to the principal legislative body of any country and those present had given him over 50 standing ovations as he spoke. How would the West have looked upon such an event? The double standards and hypocrisy are overwhelming.

The bottom line is that Netanyahu was invited and given the opportunity to speak to this esteemed body to bolster support for his genocidal assault on Gaza, tell unconvincing lies, and beat around the bush with unattainable promises for over an hour, as those attending cheered him on and implicated not only the Congress but also the US at large in the war.

As he entered the chamber, Netanyahu was greeted with a roar of approval. The attendees cheered and whistled, and he shook hands with several lawmakers who rushed to greet him and pay their respects.

He received a warm welcome from House Speaker Mike Johnson who said that “today and every day, America must stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel.” Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and X, attended the address as Netanyahu’s guest and sat next to Netanyahu’s wife.

Netanyahu drew shouts of applause for slamming Americans who have protested against the war, describing them as “agents of Iran” and “useful idiots” and saying that they “should be ashamed of themselves.” Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona, a frontrunner as Harris’ pick for Vice- President in the November US presidential elections, clapped at this point.

Netanyahu warned of an alleged nuclear threat from Iran and went after the International Criminal Court (ICC), which has issued an arrest warrant for him. He tried to convince the US lawmakers that “our fight is your fight! Our victory will be your victory!” And he asked for more support, saying “give us the tools faster and we’ll finish the job faster” and vowed to press on with the war until “total victory.”

According to the US website the Huffington Post, Netanyahu gained much from his address. “The presence of an overwhelming majority of Congress will let Netanyahu accurately say he secured broad, bipartisan US support for his ongoing war effort. That could help him quell intense opposition at home over matters like his slow-rolling of a cease-fire agreement that could help free Israeli hostages captured during the 7 October attacks,” it said.

Netanyahu’s speech did not lay out a clear path for a deal to end the war, something anyone with an iota of humanity would have wanted to hear. It did not address criticisms of the way Netanyahu is handling the war, which has led to unbelievable levels of bloodshed and starvation.

Netanyahu did not emphasise any deliverables or concessions but instead delivered a series of cliches. “This is not a clash of civilisations. It’s a clash between barbarism and civilisation. It’s a clash between those who glorify death and those who sanctify life for the forces of civilisation to triumph. America and Israel must stand together,” he said.

He claimed that after defeating Hamas “a new Gaza could emerge,” a ludicrous comment unless he meant “a new Israeli Gaza” since Netanyahu will not give an inch of support to a Palestinian Gaza.

Though many members of Congress skipped the address and others had harsh words to say about Netanyahu, the fact that he was invited to speak in the first place, as the Israeli army continues to kill innocent children and women in Gaza, is bizarre. The fact that many lawmakers cheered him on as he spoke underscores their blindness to his aggression, leaving them complicit with acts of genocide.

The writer is a former professor of communication who is based in Vancouver, Canada.

* A version of this article appears in print in the 1 August, 2024 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly

Short link: