- Editorials
- Posted
Kassioun Editorial 1047: Confrontation is Less Costly than Surrender!
It can be said with some approximation, that the Zionist project has gone from 1948 until now through three main phases:
The military phase: 1948-1974, during which the conflict was predominantly military. This does not negate the existence of the political dimension, especially under the table, but the priority was given to the military side of things.2
The political-military phase: 1974-2019, during which the conflict in its military form had not ended, but it began to decline, and became more confined to the conflict at an individual level, unlike the conflicts during the October war and prior to that. The overt political side began to emerge, escalate, and dominate, with the Camp David Accords, then the Oslo Accords, the Wadi Araba Agreement, and then the preparations for the wave of the new “normalization” agreements.
The economic phase: 2019 onward, and with the launching of the first parts of the “Deal of the Century”, in mid-2019, the Zionist project entered its third phase. The so-called “normalization” became an entry point for economic hegemony over the entire region. This trend is the literal translation of Shimon Peres’ plans, which he explained in his book “The New Middle East” published in 1993, in which he talked about what he called four belts that must be worked on to tighten the region and dominate it: disarmament; water, transportation, and energy; and tourism. Moreover, Peres clearly talks about several stages for the formation of the belt, the culmination of which is reaching what he called a regional central administration for all these affairs. More clearly, he talked about a central administration of a regional system dominated by “Israel” with the tools of the economy and moving it in any direction it wants.
If we look at what the economic and political promises achieved thus far for the normalizing countries, the scene will be very clear. There is Morocco, which was promised the prize of American recognition of its sovereignty over Western Sahara, then this prize came booby-trapped; it was not completed, but rather turned into a basis for escalating tension with Algeria, with public “Israeli” support. Then there is Sudan, which is accumulating crises upon crises in all directions, especially economic. Next is Egypt, which displays its pharaonic history while hiding economic disasters exposed by numbers and statistics, and is threatened with crises from all directions, internal and external. Then the Transjordan Protectorate, which has gone to great lengths to act as an agent and transit corridor for “Israeli” electricity, gas, and policies, all of which the Jordanian people pay for with steadily rising prices of all basic materials, further privatization, and the depredation of foreign and local capitals. All the way to the Gulf Protectorates that opened the new “normalization” path and started to pay its price quickly through huge arms deals and deepening regional tension within an alignment in which they stand with the Zionists in the face of the “Iranian threat”.
The most important thing that the Zionist entity hopes to jump over through economic tools are two main things: the issue of the occupied Golan and the issue of the Palestinian state, once and for all. Ending this and that requires extending “normalization” to include everyone, without any exceptions.
The frantic Zionist endeavor to complete the third phase as soon as possible, motivated by the fact that international balances have changed dramatically, and that the stage of world stability based on new balances and realities is not that far off. These are balances that are definitively not in the Western interest in general and the “Israeli”-Zionist implicitly.
On the other hand, completion of the third phase will be disrupted if one country remains outside the project, and therefore we see the ongoing and intense play on Syria, as well as Algeria, and even Lebanon and Iraq.
The project must not get through, and it will not, but that requires effective resistance and moving from resistance to confrontation, because the cost of confrontation is far less than the cost of surrender.
An effective confrontation by today’s standards, begins with ending the crisis quickly, and implementing a comprehensive political solution based on UNSC Resolution 2254, which allows for the removal of foreign forces, the restoration of Syria’s unity and the sovereignty of Syrians over their country and their decision.
