Long gone the days when the U.S.-led so-called “Friends of Syria” could plausibly claim that two thirds of Syria was controlled by rebel forces, that Syrian capital Damascus was under siege and its fall was just a matter of time and that the days of President Bashar al-Assad were numbered and accordingly he “should step down.”

The war on Syria has taken a U-turn during the past year. Assad now firmly holds the military initiative. The long awaited foreign military intervention could not take off; it was prevented by the emerging multi-polar world order. Syrian and non-Syrian insurgents are now on the run. Assad stands there to stay.

The thinly veiled UN legitimacy, which was used to justify the invasions of Iraq and Libya under the pretexts of the responsibility to protect on humanitarian grounds, failed to impose no-fly zones, humanitarian corridors and other instruments of foreign intervention; they foundered on the borders of Syrian national sovereignty.

The official Syrian Arab Army (SAA), which was strategically organized and stationed to fight a regular war in defence against the Israeli occupying power in the western south of the country, was taken by surprise by an internationally and regionally coordinated unconventional attack on its soft civilian backyard where it had zero presence.

Within a relatively short period of time the SAA succeeded in containing the initial attack, in adapting trained units to unconventional guerrilla war in cities and in winning over the support of the civilian population, without acceding any ground of its defence vis-à-vis Israel.

Ever since, the SAA was gaining more ground, liberating more civilian centers from insurgent terrorists, closing more border crossing points used for infiltration of foreign fighters into the country, cutting of their supply lines and besieging pockets of their presence in inner old cities and in their isolated concentrations in the countryside. The capital Damascus, more than 95% of the common borders with Lebanon and the central heart of Syria around Homs are now secured. Except the northern city of Raqqa, no where in Syria the insurgents can claim exclusive control. The SAA is winning all its battles.

The declared goal now of the U.S., Saudi, Qatari and Turkish financial, military and logistical support for the insurgents is no more the “regime change,” but creating a balance of power aimed at improving their standing in future negotiations with the regime. To do so, they claim they are extending their support to what they describe as the “moderate” insurgents.

However, “moderate” rebels are a rare species in Syrian insurgency. Entering its fourth year now, the war on Syria has created a highly polarized war zone that has left no room for any moderates. Combatants are fighting now to death in a battle of life or death.

The fighting lines are strictly drawn between homeland defence and foreign intervention, between national forces and international terrorists and between an existing secular and civil state and a future state perceived to be governed by an extremist or, at the best, a moderate version of Islamist ideology supported by the most backward, tribal and undemocratic regional states with similar sectarian ideologies.

During his testimony at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on last September 3, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry denied that the “moderate” Syrian rebels are infiltrated by the al-Qaeda terrorists as “basically not true.”

The Syrian “opposition has increasingly become more defined by its moderation, more defined by the breadth of its membership, and more defined by its adherence to some, you know, democratic process and to an all-inclusive, minority protecting constitution, which will be broad-based and secular with respect to the future of Syria,” Kerry testified.

However, hard facts on the ground in Syria as well as statements by other U.S. high ranking officials challenge Kerry’s testimony as a politically motivated, far from truth and misleading statement.

Last March, General David Rodriguez, head of the U.S. Africa Command, testified before the House Armed Services Committee that “Syria has become a significant location for al-Qaeda-aligned groups to recruit, train, and equip extremists.”

The previous month, James Clapper, the U.S. director of national intelligence, called Syria a “huge magnet” for Islamic extremists in testimony prepared for the Senate intelligence committee.

Last January, Clapper also told a Senate intelligence hearing that “training complexes” for foreign fighters were spotted in Syria and chair of the Senate intelligence committee Dianne Feinstein described Syria as “the most notable new security threat in the year” since the committee’s last meeting.

Matthew Olsen, director of the U.S. government’s National Counterterrorism Center, was on record to say that “Syria has become really the predominant jihadist battlefield in the world.”

Also on record was Jeh C. Johnson, Secretary of Homeland Security, who stated that the Syria war “has become a matter of homeland security,” former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell who identified Syria as “the greatest threat to U.S. national security,” FBI Director until last September Robert Mueller who “warned that an increasing flow of U.S. citizens heading to Syria and elsewhere to wage jihad against regional powers could end up in a new generation of home-grown terrorists.”

All these and other high level U.S. conclusions do not testify to the existence of “moderate” insurgents in Syria and vindicate the official Syrian narration as much as they refute Kerry’s statement about the “democratic,” “secular” and “moderate” Syrian “opposition.”

“Moderate” rebels are either marginal or a rare species in Syrian insurgency and if they do exist they are already increasingly concluding “reconciliation” agreements with the Syrian government, according to which they disarm, join the government anti terror and anti “strangers” military and security campaign or simply recurring to attending to their personal lives.

The Americans and their Saudi and Turkish bullies are left with the only option of artificially creating artificial “moderates,” whom they unrealistically and wishfully dream of turning into a credible leading force on the ground.

As part of his efforts to mend fences with Saudi Arabia, a persistent advocate of war and militarization in Syria, U.S. President Barak Obama seems to have pursued recently a two-pronged diplomatic and military policy.

Diplomatically, he closed the Syrian embassy and consulates in the United States and restricted the movement of the Syrian envoy to the United Nations as a “down payment” ahead of his visit to the kingdom on last March 28.

Militarily, he promised more arms to Syrian “moderate” rebels during his visit. After the visit he was reportedly considering arming those “moderate” rebels with more advanced weaponry, including anti-aircraft missiles or MANPADs.

While providing those “moderates” with MANPADs is yet to be confirmed, Israel’s Debkafile website on this April 7 reported that two moderate Syrian rebel militias - the Free Syrian Army and the Syrian Revolutionary Front - have been supplied with advanced US weapons, including armour-piercing, optically-guided BGM-71 TOW missiles, which enter the Middle East for the first time. Images of rebels equipped with these arms have begun to circulate in recent days. Both militias are coordinating and cooperating with the al-Qaeda offshoot the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) and the al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra, both listed as terrorist groups by the U.S., Saudi Arabia Syria and Iraq.  

About Time for U.S. to Reconsider

Within this context, the existing CIA-led program in Jordan for training pre-approved “moderates” will reportedly be expanded to raise the number of trainees from one hundred to six hundred a month.

At this rate, according to Charles Lister, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Center in Qatar, writing on this April 3, “it would take close to two years to produce a force” that could numerically rival the extremist “Ahrar al-Sham” group and “it would take seven years” to create a force that could rival the extremist “Islamic Front,” let alone the mainstream groups of terrorist insurgents like the ISIS and the al-Nusra.

Going ahead with such a U.S.-Saudi training program in Jordan is tantamount to planning an extended war on Syria until such time that the regime changes or the country becomes a failed state, as the planners wishfully hope.

Moderate Syrian rebels are a U.S. mirage. With logistical vital help from Turkey, the Saudi and Qatari U.S. allies were determined to successfully militarize and hijack legitimate popular protests for change lest they sweep along their own people and spill over into their own territories.

It’s about time that the U.S. policy makers reconsider, deal with the facts on the ground in Syria and stop yielding to the bullying of their regional allies who continue to beat the drums of war only to survive the regional tidal wave of change.

To contain this tidal wave of change, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey have sponsored an Islamist alternative as a counterrevolution. The Muslim Brotherhood International (MBI) was a version of this alternative. Unfortunately the U.S. got along with it. The MBI plan in Egypt has proved counterproductive. Its failure in Egypt pre-empted for good any hope for its success in Syria. The ensuing rift among the anti-Syria allies doomed the plan regionally.

President Assad’s statement on this April 7 that the “project of political Islam” has failed was not overoptimistic or premature. Neither was the statement of his ally, the leader of Lebanon’s Hezbullah, Hassan Nasrallah, on the same day that “the phase of bringing down the regime or bringing down the (Syrian) state is over… They cannot overthrow the regime, but they can wage a war of attrition.”         

The U.S. campaign for more than three years now for a “regime change” in Syria has created only a “huge magnet” for international terrorism, thanks to Saudi, Qatari and Turkish military, financial and logistical support.

Peaceful protesters were sidelined to oblivion. More than three years of bloodshed left no room for moderates. “Regime change” by force from outside the country, along the Iraqi and Libyan lines, has proved a failure. U.S. and western calls for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down is now a faint cry that can hardly be heard.

All world and regional indications as well as military developments on the ground refer to one fact: Assad is there to stay. Change will come only under his leadership or his guidance. Understanding with him is the only way to internal and regional stability. More or less he has succeeded in turning the “huge magnet” for international terrorists into their killing field. His final victory is only a matter of time. Arming rebels, “moderates” or terrorists regardless, will only perpetuate the Syrian people’s plight and fuel regional anti-Americanism.

The sooner the United States act on this fact is the better for all involved parties.

* Nicola Nasser is a veteran Arab journalist based in Bir Zeit, West Bank of the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories. 

nassernicola@ymail.com

Dear readers, what my pen will line up now is not new, I have already written about the two subjects which I will re-write some excerpts from them:

The first theme: an article titled "Thoughts," and "Call of the revolution in response to the thoughts of Mr Anthony Wilson," and "to the front of the Union of Middle East Communities."

* The article of "Thoughts" was published in the Lebanese newspaper "An-Nahar (the day)", which is published in Australia, on 10/08/1995.

* And the article "Call of the revolution in response to the thoughts of Mr Anthony Wilson" was published in the Lebanese newspaper "An-Nahar" on 09/11/1995.

* My response was published in an article entitled "to the front of the Union of Middle East Communities" in the Lebanese newspaper "An-Nahar" on 14/12/1995.

These articles are documented within the other articles in the second part of the book series "Al-Mughtarib (the expatriate)" published in 1997.

The second theme: an article titled "Dr Ayman Nour a strange and rare phenomenon and worth to stop at."

* The article has been published in each of the Lebanese newspaper "Al-Mustaqbal (the future)", which is published in Australia, and the Egyptian newspaper "Al-Masri (the Egyptian)" which is published in Australia on 31/03/2005.

This article is documented within the other articles in Part VI of the book series "Al-Mughtarib" published in 2006.

The motive for the carriage of these extracts and republishing is what was referred to by the media consummate Ms. Amani Khayat, the presenter of the program "Sabah (Morning)" in a channel on TV "and her dialogue with her guest in an episode on Tuesday, 1/4/2014, and her referral by saying "what does a Muslim doctor mean!; also her talking about Dr Ayman Nour the fugitive in Lebanon.

I begin with the section particular to Al-Azhar University from the article "Thoughts” which I referred to.

* ... From the Arabic program, which was broadcast from Melbourne on "last Thursday".  I listened to an interview conducted by fellow Hossam Shabo with Dr. Jamal Badawi, visiting from Canada. 

Dr Badawi’s conversation raised my worries as an Egyptian who believes that light should be shed on all aspects of life experienced by Egypt and the Arab world.  

If Dr Badawi, in his lectures and television programs in Canada and the United States is trying to show the bright and beautiful side of the religion of Islam, and rejects the Islamised thought that makes of Islam a means to an end which is in fact a far cry from the tolerant Islamic religion. I say to Dr Badawi with all my heart, I congratulate you on your efforts and wish you and each guide and religious reformer conciliation. And I also say that it is the right of all heavenly religions and none heavenly beliefs to work on clarifying their identities and missions in a beautiful literary and scientific style.

Here, too, I ask, if a Christian comes from any Arab country, and tried to talk about what ails Christianity in our Arab countries of the problems and denied rights in some countries; will he be allowed to speak so at all levels of the media? The answer may be yes, or may be no.

I go back and ask a question of Dr. Jamal Badawi that I made before, and it is “is it equality for the people of one nation for the existence of a governmental educational body that has faculties of medicine, engineering, chemistry etc, to accept the sons and daughters of one part of the people of the country and does not accept the children of the other part, however small their number is, because of religion? Will he himself accept that his children be deprived in Canada of scientific studies at universities in Canada because they are Muslims?

I do not think that he or anyone else would be satisfied, and this is what is happening in the Al-Azhar University in Egypt.

* Call of the revolution in response to the thoughts of Mr Anthony Wilson.  

You, Mr Anthony Wilson, asked for the opening of Al-Azhar University in Egypt for all students, including Christians? 

Is this a request to unite the lot or to sow discord among them? Of course, Muslims and Christians are brothers and sons of the one people, no one of them is entitled to something denied to the other, but the demand is very strange coming from an educated and cultured author who is supposed to know and understand the limits of religious practices and belief and prohibitions and allowances in them.

We, Mr Anthony Wilson, have to think about the achievement of the possible and stay away from the improbable or even impossible so that our words would not become askew, deviant and fire splinters and shrapnel and shells thrown unconsciously to demolish and destroy the temple on us all.

And if you may have accompanied with your strange request, a similar request to open Christian theological colleges’ doors for Muslims, the aim of this proposal, would have been clear and innocent, unification willingly.

And finally, I wish on behalf of all Muslim and Christian brothers, members of the front of the Union of Middle East Communities and outside it of the sons of our Arab nation to stop creating discord among brothers. We are against any intolerance or discrimination or sectarianism, seeking and striving for national unity and nationalism, union of conscience, thought and public and common interest as much as possible and capable to, in order to return the Arab human rights to exist and remain free, generous and enjoying life, progress and comfort, in light of their wealth and the riches and potential, provided by God to him on their land. 

  

God help a nation sold by her children and abdicated its rights and so everyone in it and whoever is from it hurried to hold the pick to dig her grave before the promised time, to escape from and banish the torment of conscience, which died and ended with treason and treachery and meanness and surrender.

Dear readers, I have quoted to you some of what was responded by the front of the Union of Middle East Communities, by Mohamed Abdel Halim.

Here’s my response to them:

*To the front of the Union of Middle East Communities.

Mr. Mohamed Abdel Halim for the front of the Union of Middle East Communities and all the members of the front in Australia and beyond, I thank you for your response to what I wrote in the corner of "Al-Mughtarib (expatriate)" under the title "Thoughts." 

My thanks to you are based on the literary style that you came forward with and wrote your response to me without threat or menace. 

Let me start with the second paragraph where you say I asked that Al-Azhar University in Egypt to become open to all, including Christians. 

In that article and in that part of it in particular, I had listened to an interview with Dr. Jamal Badawi, and I was impressed with him and wrote, "... I go back and ask Dr. Jamal Badawi, a question that I made before, and it is “is it equality for the people of one nation for the existence of a governmental educational body that has faculties of medicine, engineering, chemistry etc, to accept the sons and daughters of one part of the people of the country and does not accept the children of the other part, however small their number is, because of religion? Will he himself accept that his children be deprived in Canada of scientific studies at universities in Canada because they are Muslims? I do not think that he or anyone else would be satisfied, and this is what is happening in the Al-Azhar University in Egypt.”

Gentlemen, I think you did not read what I wrote quietly enough, for if you did that, you wouldn’t have written what you wrote!

Dear Gentlemen, what I asked for is the cancellation of the attachment of secular colleges (medicine, engineering, etc.) to the University of Al-Azhar, and to keep the university of Al-Azhar as a university to teach religious doctrine and the Islamic religious sciences that are so many. Of course, I cannot call on the sons of Christians to attend or to allow them to attend this university, where there is no place for them in it. Whoever among them, who wants to study the Islamic religion and Islamic jurisprudence, can do so by enrolling at colleges of Arts, sections of the Arabic language and literature and Islamic jurisprudence.

If the Christian son is prevented from entering the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Al-Azhar for he is a Christian, and maybe he would have obtained the top marks in the HSC higher than the son of a Muslim who is eligible to enrol at the Faculty of Medicine, University of Al-Azhar, even if his total is less than the Christian. I see in that a clear discrimination that does not accept any argument or debate, because the University of Al-Azhar is a government university funded by the taxes from the people of one nation living on its land, are supposed to have common duties and equal rights. That was the reason for my questioning of Dr. Jamal Badawi, if he would accept that the Canadian government close the doors of one of the universities in the face of his sons because they are Muslims. If it is a private university with private sections spending on it, this is different.

As for the Christian theology colleges, they are private colleges to teach all aspects of the Christian religion whose graduates later work in the religious sphere only. You might find a doctor monk, an engineer priest, etc. This means that the monk was a doctor and graduated from one of the colleges of medicine, but he chose religious work, or what we say "The Lord has chosen him for the glory of his name." So he leaves this world, including his career as a doctor or engineer or any other profession, even if he was a professor at the university to answer the divine call.

Of course, a Muslim would not accept to specialize in the study of Christian theology, but a Christian hopes to study medicine in a college or public university, the same as a Muslim.  

So why does not AL-Azhar Al-Sharif return to its former reign and teach language and Sharia and the origins of Islamic religion and its vast and deep seas, and the secular colleges, medicine etc. would turn to the normal position like any other colleges and universities?

But in what I talked about, does it fall under the request for achieving the possible, or does it fall under the improbable or impossible? And thus will my words, as you said, "... become askew, deviant and fire splinters and shrapnel and shells thrown unconsciously to demolish and destroy the temple on us all…”.

Here, I challenge you, if you actually believe in freedom, socialism, equality and unity, that the situation in Egypt does not continue like this, nor in any other country, and that the state is the faithful sponsor for all of its children, regardless of gender and religion, as long as they are all sons of one homeland. 

  

I conclude this section on the Al-Azhar University and add to what I wrote at the time about what is happening at the University of Al-Azhar these days by saying this: 

Has the idea of ​​graduation of a Muslim doctor, for example, been successful? Is Al-Azhar University, which was the light that guided every Muslim in any country in the world as it was happening before the integration of the secular section with the religious part, working with the same power and ability? Will we wake up to what the Brotherhood group wants to do to Al-Azhar and its true and moderate teachings and replace it with its own Islam that it wants to spread by force? I leave the answer to you, dear readers.

As for what I wrote about Dr Ayman Nour, and which was referred to by Ms. Amani Khayat, the media consummate and distinctive in her love for Egypt and the Egyptian people, I promise her and you, dear readers, to re-publish it very soon.

Subjugated peoples are always and ever looking for a figure of a person in whose hand he holds the magic stick to achieve their dreams and make their days rosy and their lives full of happiness and enjoyment. They would have a home, a car, a job and live well. This is our situation in Egypt and the Arab world with great regret.   

Egypt and the Arab region passed through volatile conditions and rulers who did not have fidelity and loyalty to their own people even after every one of them swore the oath of allegiance to God, the country and the people. Loyalty then became to the governing self. The people would suffice by charismatic fascination, "a new label for the ruler’s mightiness" enjoyed by His Excellency the President or the king or the governor. Thus they lived, and so will they live, since the days of pre-Islamic era, where they made their gods of "pressed dates" and when they did not find their food, they ate "their gods, made from dates."

The Arab region is experiencing the worst stages which it does not have any option in it; either it is to be or not to be.

If it chooses to be, it will begin the search for a leader who will achieve this entity. They will look for him, unfortunately, the same way they made their gods a little differently, whereas modern Gods are not made of “pressed dates" but must have the prestigious "charisma" and personality feared by the enemy who would start working a thousand accounts and one more account. This is what is happening these days when we started to think about choosing the gallant leader who can save them from where they are after the rule of the None-Brotherhood.

Attention was directed to a military figure who has been credited with saving Egypt and the "Arab Spring" area that America wanted it converted to the "Arab Ruin", so she chose this faction of humans whose hands are stained with the blood of innocent people throughout their existence since their inception in 1928 until today.

It is natural that we know that this military personality is the Field Marshal Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. And in order to emphasize that he is the saviour of choice for Egypt and the region, we started comparing him to the late President Gamal Abdel Nasser. But the truth is that the similarities between them are very few.

Because Sisi is not Abdel Nasser.

Let's revisit the time of Abdel Nasser and the current time for Sisi.

First, the similarities.

* Both graduated from the military, "the Egyptian armed forces", a body known for their competence and loyalty to the homeland and their forces defend the country and sacrifice their blood in order to preserve the safety of the nation and the people.

* Both come from an Egyptian family of moderate means, each was born and grew up among ordinary Egyptians.

* Both have dreams and aspirations for his native Egypt and the Egyptian people. The first, Nasser tried to achieve them, and certainly the second, Sisi would do his utmost to achieve what can be achieved for Egypt and the Egyptian people, with the completion of what Nasser failed to achieve.

* Both faced strong opposition from the United States. Nasser for his presidency. For Sissy, fear of his assumption of power.

* Abdel Nasser was influenced by the 1948 war and what caught up with the Egyptian army as a result of what has been called at that time "corrupt arms" that were used by the Egyptian army when it faced the Zionist enemy in a losing battle.

* Sisi also was influenced by events that were experienced by Egypt after the Brotherhood took over the country, and began to think seriously for the salvation of Egypt.

* Abdel Nasser formed a team of loyal officers of the armed forces in secret, the so-called "free officers" to work on the rebellion against the king and the government in a military coup that would enable them to achieve good for Egypt.

* Sisi waited for the popular initiative at the hands of Egypt's youth to revolt against the rule of Non-Brothers.

After the success of the young people in the campaign to collect millions of consents of the people of Egypt; men, women, and young men and women and their desire to overthrow the ruling regime, which diverged from the legitimacy granted by the people to serve Egypt and the Egyptian people. Sisi and his fellow leaders of the branches of the armed forces were  encouraged on the cohesion with the legitimate demands of the people and which the "armed forces" empowered them the right to stand with the people and isolate former President Mohamed Morsi and his removal from power, and not to seize power."

Second; aspects of the difference between them.

* Gamal Abdel Nasser found it difficult to join the armed forces because of his social status at the time.

* Sisi was not hindered by his middle social status to join the armed forces.

"But with great regret, the Egyptian Christian is still hampered by his Christianity from entering the armed forces. In the case on his enlisting, he is moved away from the performance of his national role in some military tasks." I apologize for diverging from the subject, but a thing is remembered with its alternative

* Gamal Abdel Nasser executed a coup when he was only a Major in the army.

* Sisi was able to progress up in military ranks and the military intelligence service which qualified him to see much of what is going on around him inside and outside the armed forces, which raised the fears of the Brotherhood when Morsi took the helm. Their fears were undoubtedly revolved around dismantling the strength and ability of the armed forces in responding to any attempts against Egypt. And Sisi’s military status had its fears for them.

* The Brotherhood paved the way for Abdel Nasser and his colleagues to move quickly after the events of a fire in Cairo on January 26, 1952. So he selected Wednesday, July 23rd, as the day of action to get rid of the reign of the King. Nasser was able to reach the helm of power after the overthrow of General Mohamed Najib, the first of the Egyptian presidents. 

* What was done by the Muslim Brotherhood after the inauguration of Morsi as president of the country, made Sisi fidget of what he saw, heard and lived. But he kept silent waiting for the legal and legitimate opportunity that would be given to him by the people to get rid of the rule of the Brotherhood. The people did give him through a rebellion movement which is considered rightfully a popular referendum to isolate Morsi; as well as the cohesion of the people with Sisi on 3 of July 2013. But the people are waiting for his official candidacy for the presidency or knowledge of his role in the near future.

After the Tripartite Attack, "England, France and Israel" on Egypt, and the U.S. President Eisenhower at the time stopping them and ordering them to withdraw; Nasser began to aspire to a greater role for him outside Egypt. He participated in many conferences and helped rebellious states on their rulers. A "joke" was launched at the time that Abdel Nasser was informed of a revolution on the ship "Bounty", so he declared siding with the rebels of the ship "bounty".

Furthermore, he wanted the Arab leadership, but the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia confronted him, sparking his rage, so he attacked King Saud in one of his speeches. And he even helped with Egyptian Armed Forces to enter the war in Yemen, despite that Egypt did not have any business in that war between Yemen and Saudi Arabia. The costs of that war were a million Egyptian pounds per day, which made an impact on the state budget and overturned the standards of living for middle-income earners.

* Notably, Egyptian relationship with the Arabian Gulf began to take a completely different shape, especially after the events of isolating Morsi and the emergence of Sisi on the political arena. The fact cannot be ignored that in the Sadat era the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed to the pumping of huge sums of money to buy the weapons needed by Egypt for the war against the Zionists in what came to be known as the glorious October war on the 6th of October 1973, and which I declared the day of the sad victory. I will come back to the Gulf countries currently and their cooperation with Egypt that it may be that Sisi would be the next Egyptian president if he ran for presidency; making the Egyptian Arab unity return back to the reality that had a crack in Nasser’s days and during the rule of the Brotherhood. This is evident in spite of the existence of the rogue State of Qatar so afar from the Gulf states, and weaving conspiracies against Egypt and the Egyptian people, and not wishing that Sisi would get to power and this in itself is a risk index for Egypt and the rest of the Gulf states.

And do not forget those war games between Egypt and the United Arab Emirates and Sisi going in military uniform to watch those manoeuvres. It rocked the chair of the U.S. administration making Obama prepare for a visit to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Egypt is at a critical and dangerous stage. Egypt is surrounded by enemies ready to destroy it and the elimination of the Egyptian people, steadfast against all the attempts of the Non-Brotherly to subjugate Sisi and the Egyptian people to return to the rule of Egypt even though they destroy it. America, the mother sponsoring them is up and ready with the necessary funding to carry out their wicked dream.

We ask ourselves, what happens if Egypt fell, God forbid? And also what is the return on the Gulf States for their solidarity with Egypt, especially if  Sisi accepts to run and wins in the elections? These questions are of great importance, I think.

There is no doubt that the fall of Egypt means Obama's success in breaking the Egyptian rock, the only drawback for him and his non-Muslim brothers. And installing the Brotherhood feet in the Arab Spring area, and therefore comes the role upon the Arabian Gulf and the Arab presence is erased from the map of the Middle East, which will become "the Dirtiest East" at the hands of the traitors, the blood traders. Israel would rejoice and the Hamasites in Gaza would beat the drums and trill, and it remains that Safwat Hijazi and his entourage would meet me if they thought of Jerusalem where they are going in their millions.

The answer to the second question, and also what is the return on the Gulf States for their solidarity with Egypt, especially if Sisi accepts to run and wins in the elections? 

I will tell your honours what is the return in my humble opinion.

The Gulf countries have aspirations like the developing countries which have the potential whether with the oil or the construction and reconstruction in the latest modern technology. Youth and young girls of the Gulf states are learning in the best universities in the world, and obtaining academic degrees in all branches of science, literature and scientific on the same level.

The people of the Gulf know Egypt’s educational value in the region, and appreciate the learned Egyptian and respect him, especially seeing right among them a lot of the greatest minds of Egyptians who migrated and worked in the Diaspora that had opened their arms and they gave it their knowledge and their scientific and practical ability. And this way, it returns back to the Arabian Gulf, and the Arab Spring after its upswing and the expulsion of the Brotherhood and their rule, to a scientific strength to be reckoned with.

Hence, a new Middle East will be generated; its Arabs not being ignorant and have no one to direct them to where they don’t want to. And to Egypt would return its Egyptian, and to the Egyptian people their ability that was neglected by each of the eras of "Brotherhood / Sadat / Mubarak", the shadowy eras.

Writing in The Washington Post on February 27, 2011, Rachel Bronson asked: “Could the next Mideast uprising happen in Saudi Arabia?” Her answer was: “The notion of a revolution in the Saudi kingdom seems unthinkable.”

However, On September 30 the next year, the senior foreign policy fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy Bruce Riedel concluded that the “revolution in Saudi Arabia is no longer unthinkable.”

To preempt such a possibility, the kingdom in March 2011, in a “military” move to curb the tide of the Arab popular uprisings which raged across the Arab world from sweeping to its doorsteps, the kingdom sent troops to Bahrain to quell similar popular protests.

That rapid reactive Saudi military move into Bahrain heralded a series of reactions that analysts describe as an ongoing Saudi-led counterrevolution.

Amid a continuing succession process in Saudi Arabia, while major socioeconomic and political challenges loom large regionally, the kingdom is looking for security as far away as China, but blinded to the shortest way to its stability in its immediate proximity, where regional understanding with its geopolitical Arab and Muslim neighborhood would secure the kingdom and save it a wealth of assets squandered on unguaranteed guarantees.

In his quest to contain any fallout from the “Arab Spring,” Saudi King Abdullah Ben Abdel-Aziz selectively proposed inviting the kingdoms of Jordan and Morocco to join the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf, known as the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), leading The Economist on May 19, 2011 to joke that the organization should be renamed the “Gulf Counter-Revolutionary Club.” For sure including Iraq and Yemen would be a much better addition if better security was the goal.

Ahead of US President Barak Obama’s official visit to the kingdom by the end of this March, Saudi Arabia was looking “forward to China as an international magnate with a great political and economic weight to play a prominent role in achieving peace and security in the region,” according to Defense Minister and Crown Prince Salman Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud who was in Beijing from March 13 to 16 “to enhance cooperation with China to protect peace, security and stability in the region.” He was quoted by a statement from the Saudi Press Agency.

Prince Salman was in Japan from 18-21 last February, hopefully to deepen bilateral cooperation “in various fields.” On February 26, India and Saudi Arabia signed an agreement to strengthen co-operation in military training, logistics supplies and exchange of defense-related information. On last January 23, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia signed a defense cooperation agreement,  the first of its kind.

While a strong Saudi-Pakistan defense partnership has existed for long, it has been upgraded recently. Princes Salman and Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal arrived in Pakistan on February 15. Pakistani army chief General Raheel Sharif was in Saudi Arabia earlier. Director of South Asia Studies Project at the Middle East Media Research Institute, Washington DC, Tufail Ahmad, wrote on this March 11 that “the upswing in the relationship marks a qualitative change,” hinting that the kingdom could be seeking Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities to “counter a nuclear-capable Iran” despite Islamabad’s denial, which “is not reliable.” The kingdom is moving “to transform itself as a regional military power,” Sharif wrote.

On this March 14, the Financial Times reported that Saudi Arabia has given $1.5 billion (Dh5.5 billion) to Pakistan. In February a senior Pakistani intelligence official told the Financial Times that Saudi Arabia was seeking “a large number of [Pakistani] troops to support its campaign along the Yemeni border and for internal security.” The official confirmed that Pakistan’s agreement, during Prince Salman’s visit, to support the establishment of a “transitional governing body” in Syria was an important aspect of the deal.

On this March 5, the kingdom led two other members of the six-member GCC, namely the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, to withdraw their ambassadors from Qatar, risking the survival of the GCC.

Hunting two French and Lebanese birds with one shot, the kingdom early last January pledged a $3 billion royal grant, estimated to be two-time the entire military budget of Lebanon, to buy French weapons for the Lebanese Army.

The Saudi multi-billion dollar support to the change of guards in Egypt early last July and the kingdom’s subscription to Egypt’s make or break campaign against the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) inside and outside the country following the ouster of the MB’s former president Mohammed Morsi reveal a much more important Saudi strategic and security unsigned accord with Egypt’s new rulers.

On the outset of the so-called “Arab Spring,” the kingdom also bailed out Bahrain and the Sultanate of Omen with more multi-billion petrodollars to buy the loyalty of their population.

More multi-billion petrodollars were squandered inside the country to bribe the population against joining the sweeping popular Arab protests.

Yet still more billions were squandered on twenty percent of all arms transfers to the region between 2009-2013 to make the kingdom the world’s fifth largest importer of arms while more Saudi orders for arms are outstanding, according to a new study released on this March 17 by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

While the United States will continue to “guarantee Israel’s qualitative military edge” over all the twenty two Arab nations plus Iran, Iran is developing its own defense industries to defend itself against both the US and Israel, rendering the Saudi arms procurement efforts obsolete.

Had all of those squandered billions of petrodollars spent more wisely they could have created a revolution of development in the region.

Not Assured by US Assurances

Ahead of Obama’s visit, the Saudi message is self-evident. They are looking, on their own, for alternative security guarantees, or at least additional ones. They don’t trust their decades - long American security umbrella anymore. The US sellout of close allies like the former presidents of Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen shed doubt on any “assurances’ Washington would be trying to convey during Obama’s upcoming visit.

President Obama is scheduled to be in Riyadh by the end of this March to assure Saudi Arabia of what his Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns on last February 19 told the Center for Strategic and International Studies that the United States takes Saudi security concerns “seriously,” “US-Saudi partnership is as important today as it ever was” and that the “Security cooperation is at the heart of our agenda” with the GCC, reminding his audience that his country still keeps about 35,000 members of the US military at 12 bases in and around the Arabian Gulf.

However, “the Saudi voices I hear do not think that what they see as the current lack of American resolve is merely a short-term feature of the Obama Presidency: They spot a deeper trend of Western disengagement from their region,” Sir Tom Phillips - British Ambassador to Saudi Arabia 2010-12 and an Associate Fellow at the Chatham House Middle East and North Africa Programme - wrote on last February 12.

Obviously, the Saudis are not assured, neither internally, regionally or at the international level because as Burns said on the same occasion: “We don’t always see eye to eye” and it is natural that Gulf states would “question our reliability as partners” given US efforts to achieve energy independence and US warnings that traditional power structures, such as the gulf monarchies, are “unsustainable.”

Obama’s upcoming visit to the kingdom has been described as a “fence-mending” one. Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al Faisal, at a joint press conference alongside visiting US Secretary of State John Kerry last November, hinted that fences might not be mended because “a true relationship between friends is based on sincerity, candor, and frankness rather than mere courtesy.”

What Prince Al Faisal described as “frankness” is still missing: His brother, prince Turki al-Faisal, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal last December, blasted the Obama administration for keeping his country in the dark on its secret talks with Iran: "How can you build trust when you keep secrets from what are supposed to be your closest allies?"

“The Saudis have good reason to feel besieged and fearful,” Immanuel Wallerstein, director emeritus of the Fernand Braudel Center at Binghamton University and senior researcher at Yale University and Maison des Sciences de l’Homme in Paris, was quoted as saying by AlJazeera America on this March 1.

Senior associate of Carnegie’s Middle East program Frederic Wehry on this March 10 wrote that, “There is a growing sense in Gulf capitals … led by Saudi Arabia” that “the United States is a power in retreat that is ignoring the interests of its steadfast partners, if not blithely betraying them.”

What Burns described as “tactical differences” with Saudi Arabia and its GCC co-members, the Saudis are acting on the premise that those differences are much more strategic than “tactical” and accordingly are overstretching their search for alternative security guarantees worldwide because they seem to disagree with Burns that “our Gulf partners know that no country or collection of countries can do for the Gulf states what the United States has done and continues to do.”

Pressured between Two ‘Crescents’

Three threatening developments have led to Saudi distrust in US security assurances. The first was the selling out of a US ally like the former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, the second was the Qatari, Turkish and US coordination with the Muslim Brotherhood regionally and the third was the assumption to power of the MB in Egypt. The first development set the precedent of selling out of a long regional US ally against the fervent public advice of the kingdom. Mubarak’s ouster set the red lights on in Riyadh of a possible similar scenario in Saudi Arabia.

The second development put the kingdom on alert against the emerging MB, Turkey, Qatar and the US axis that would have encircled Saudi Arabia had the kingdom allowed this axis to hand the power over to the Brotherhood in Syria in the north and in Egypt in the west. The MB is influential in Jordan, the kingdom’s northern neighbor, and in Yemen, its southern neighbor. The Hamas’ affiliation to the MB in the Palestinian Gaza Strip would complete what a Saudi analyst called the “Brotherhood crescent” in the north, west and south, to squeeze the kingdom between the rock of this “Brotherhood crescent” and the hard place of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the east.

The third development surrendered the western strategic backyard of the kingdom to the MB, which has become untrustworthy politically in view of its membership in the emerging US-led ““Brotherhood crescent” after decades of sponsoring the MB leaders who found in the kingdom a safe haven from their suppression in Syria and Egypt and using them against the pan-Arab regimes in both countries and against the pan-Arab and communist political movements.

Unmercifully pressured between the “Brotherhood crescent” and what King Abdullah II of Jordan once described as the “Shiite crescent” extending from Iran through Iraq and Syria to Hezbullah in Lebanon, let alone the al-Qaeda offshoots, which have deep roots inside the kingdom and in its immediate surroundings and have emerged as a major threat to regional as well as to internal stability, in addition to what the Saudis perceive as the withdrawal or at least the rebalancing of the US power out of the region, the kingdom seems poised to find an answer to the question which Bruce Riedel asked on September 30, 2012 about whether or not the “revolution in Saudi Arabia is no longer unthinkable.”

The Saudi answer so far has been reactive more than proactive. “It is difficult to avoid the impression that Saudi policy is more re-active than pro-active,” Sir Tom Phillips - British Ambassador to Saudi Arabia 2010-12 and an Associate Fellow at the Chatham House Middle East and North Africa Programme - wrote on last February 12.

Proactive Shorter Path Overdue

Following the lead of the United States and Europe who have come to deal with the fait accompli that Iran as a pivotal regional power is there to stay for the foreseeable future, a more Saudi proactive regional policy that would engage Iran and Syria would be a much shorter and cheaper route to internal security as well as to regional stability, instead of reacting to their alliance by engaging in a lost and costly battle for a “regime change” in both countries.

Or much better, the kingdom could follow the lead of the Sultanate of Oman, which risked to break away from the GCC should they go along with the Saudi proposal late in 2011 for transforming their “council” into an anti-Iran military “union.” Regardless of what regime rules in Tehran and since the time of the Shah, Oman has been dealing with Iran as a strategic partner and promoting an Iranian-GCC regional partnership. Qatar takes a middle ground between the Saudi and Omani positions vis-à-vis Iran. On this March 17, the Qatar-Iran joint political committee convened in Tehran.

Feeling isolated, besieged and threatened by being left in the cold as a result of what it perceives as a withdrawing US security umbrella, the kingdom’s new experience of trying to cope on its own is indulging the country in counterproductive external policies in the turmoil of the aftermath of the shock waves of  the Arab popular uprisings, which have raged across the Arab world since 2011, but its tide has stopped at the Damascus gate of the Iranian – Syrian alliance, which is backed internationally by the emerging Russian and Chinese world powers.

At the end of the day, the kingdom’s recent historical experience indicates that the Saudi dynasty lived its most safe and secure era during the Saudi-Egyptian-Syrian trilateral understanding, which was developed as a regional axis of stability, as the backbone of the Arab League regional system and was reinforced by the trilateral coordination in the 1973 Arab – Israeli war.

The revival of the Saudi coordination with Egypt in the post-Morsi presidency was a crucial first step that would lead nowhere unless it is completed by an overdue Saudi political U-turn on Syria that would revive the old trilateral axis to defend Arabs against Israel. A partnership with Iran would be a surplus; otherwise the revival of the trilateral coordination would at least serve as a better Saudi defense against Iran as well.

However such a Saudi U-turn would require of course a strategic decision that would renege on the kingdom’s US-inspired and ill-advised policy of dealing with Syria and Iran as “the enemy,” while dealing with Israel, which still occupies Palestinian, Syrian and Lebanese territories, as a possible “peace partner” and a co-member of an anti-Iran and Syria “front of moderates,” which the successive US administrations have been promoting.

It would first require as well a change of foreign policy decision-makers in Riyadh, but such a change will continue to be wishful thinking until a man of an historic stature holds the wheel at the driving seat at the helm of the Saudi hierarchy. Until that happens, it might be too late. Meanwhile, it is increasingly becoming a possibility that the “revolution in Saudi Arabia is no longer unthinkable.”

* Nicola Nasser is a veteran Arab journalist based in Bir Zeit, West Bank of the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories. nassernicola@ymail.com

When Gandhi was studying law at the University College of London, there was a professor, whose last name was Peters, who felt animosity for Gandhi, and because Gandhi never lowered his head towards him, their "arguments" were very common. 

One day, Mr. Peters was having lunch at the dining room of the University and Gandhi came along with his tray and sat next to the professor. The professor, in his arrogance, said, "Mr Gandhi: you do not understand... a pig and a bird do not sit together to eat ", to which Gandhi replies, "You do not worry professor, I'll fly away ", and he went and sat at another table.

Mr. Peters, green with rage, decides to take revenge on the next test, but Gandhi responds brilliantly to all questions. Then, Mr. Peters asked him the following question, "Mr Gandhi, if you are walking down the street and find a package, and within it there is a bag of wisdom and another bag with a lot of money; which one will you take?"

Without hesitating, Gandhi responded, "the one with the money, of course".

Mr. Peters, smiling, said, "I, in your place, would have taken the wisdom.”

"Each one takes what one doesn't have", responded Gandhi indifferently.

Mr. Peters, already hysterical, writes on the exam sheet the word "idiot" and gives it to Gandhi. Gandhi takes the exam sheet and sits down. A few minutes later, Gandhi goes to the professor and says, "Mr. Peters, you signed the sheet, but you did not give me the grade."

In the Palestinian West Bank town of Birzeit early last February 27, the Israeli (IDF) Occupation Forces (IOF) acted determinedly, under the media spotlights, to feed Amnesty International with a show case study to vindicate the report it released only hours earlier, entitled “Trigger-happy: Israel’s use of excessive force in the West Bank,” and to refute the Israeli official diplomatic denial of the contents thereof.

Under the command of Col. Yossi Pinto, a Nahal infantry force of the Binyamin Territorial Brigade, joined by the Border Police’s elite Counterterrorism Unit, Yamam, according to Israeli The Jerusalem Post on the same day and “200 Israeli soldiers, dozens of jeeps, two (military) bulldozers and many Shin Bet [internal security] officers” according to Amira Hass of Haaretz on this March 3, including some 28 – more than thirty army patrol armored vehicles according to the count of Arab natives of Birzeit who spoke to this writer, were amassed in this Birzeit University town, raising a hell of explosives and gunfire and disrupting its peaceful countryside early spring morning.

Amira Hass was on the scene. Wondering what was all that military mobilization for, a former mayor of Birzeit told this writer that he heard her asking in repudiation, “Was it (the late al-Qaeda founder Osama) Bin Laden inside?!”

Their mission, according to Israeli military spokespeople, was to arrest a “wanted individual” who, according to the Shin Bet internal security agency, quoted by Hass, had “intended” to carry out an “aggressive operation” against Israeli targets. An Israeli army spokeswoman said the man was “suspected” of “terror activity.” www.israelnationalnews.com on the same day quoted “the IDF Spokesman's Unit” as saying that he was “a wanted man suspected of terror activity.” Gideon Levy in Haaretz on this March 2 quoted “the military correspondents” as repeating what the “IDF claimed” that the man “had the intention to carry out a terror attack in the near future.”

Hass wrote: “In the unofficial Israeli law code, unproved “terrorist intentions” are enough to be punishable by death. In Hebrew, “terror attack” is a magic phrase that exempts the Israelis from wondering why an arrest needs so many troops and fanfare, and has such a murderous end.”

Gideon Levy sarcastically repeating the self-described as “the most moral army in the world” wrote that the Israeli army “is also an army that reads intentions,” but Levy did not add that this army has had it as a rule to act accordingly as well.

An Israeli army spokeswoman said: “After the suspect was called to turn himself in, he barricaded himself inside his house, effectively resisting arrest. Under the premise that he had weapons in his possession, the forces used different means to complete the arrest, including live fire.”

The “suspect” was 24-year old Muatazz Abdul-Rahim Washaha, an unemployed Palestinian native of Birzeit.

Hass questioned the accuracy of this statement. Claiming that the victim had “barricaded himself” in would make people “think he built a fortress and surrounded himself with explosives. This is very inaccurate,” she wrote.

The IDF Spokesman’s Office said that the “troops forcibly entered the building and found his body.” Hass said that “this is a lie.” “The elite police unit had shot Washaha at point-blank range dozens of times, according to the pieces of brain that covered the room, not to mention his legs, arms and fingers that were nearly severed from his body,” she added. Washaha's head was split open after being struck by a projectile, a doctor at the Palestinian Ramallah Hospital told AP on the same day.

It was left to Levy and others to specify the details of “live fire.”

Levy reported that “the most moral army in the world fired an (M72 LAW) anti-tank missile at the house in which a wanted young Palestinian was hiding … ran a bulldozer over the top of the house and destroyed it,” using “a drill it calls a ‘pressure cooker’ – a rather disgusting drill it invented for itself.”

When the tactic of “pressure cooker,” which involves shooting at the walls of the house that is surrounded, failed to persuade the suspect to come out and turn himself in, the IOF troops at around 7 AM bulldozed part of the outer wall of the house and fired projectiles into the building. Fire erupted in the house. At 11 AM, they issued an ultimatum, “giving Muatazz two minutes to surrender, without result. As the ultimatum expired, the army fired several artillery shells from close distance. They then stormed the burning house, killing Muatazz,” Jan Walraven reported in the Palestine Monitor on this March 3.

The four – apartment building was bulldozed and shelled out of use and its contents burned and vandalized. Four families suddenly found themselves on the street, waiting for charities.

Washaha did not “resist” his arrest; he simply refused to give himself in. Released from an IFO jail only a few months ago, he knew very well what being imprisoned by the IOF meant. “I will be free here. Leave and do not worry about me. I will stay here and not surrender. I will not return to prison,” he told a Palestinian civil defense worker who rushed in to extinguish the fire caused by the Israeli projectile. Those were his last words, quoted by The Electronic Intifada on last February 28.

“They could have taken him as a prisoner, but they did not want him as a prisoner they wanted to kill him,” his father Mr. Abdul – Rahim said. Similarly, his mother, Mrs. Eitzaaz Washaha, told Anadolu Agency: “Israeli forces could have arrested Washaha, but they were determined to kill him. My son wasn't armed. He was killed after the house was bombed.”

An Israeli Shin Bet officer, who goes under the name of Alon, gave permission to kill Muatazz because he refused to appear for an interview with him, according to Hass. “This was regarded as a personal affront by Alon,” she wrote. The victim’s brother, Tha’er Washaha, told Haaretz he implored Alon for permission to go inside and convince his brother to come out; Alon refused.

However, despite the officially acknowledged “suspicion,” an official army tweet, quoted by Los Angeles Times on the same day, convicted him as a “terrorist who resisted arrest.”

Pro – Israeli media and Israeli media, the latter being subjected to well – known strict military censorship, echoed this unconfirmed conclusion; for example, www.algemeiner.com on the same day headlined its report to conclude that a “Wanted Terrorist (was) Shot Dead by Israel Defense Forces.”

Disinformation was demonstrated by Israel Hayom, reportedly close to prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office; on the same day Hayom reported that “a firefight broke out” between the holed in victim and the besieging army brigade, but the witnesses on the site confirmed the Reuters’ report that “no shots were heard from inside the home before the Israeli forces opened fire,” a fact that is confirmed by the other fact that the raiding Israeli forces did not suffer the slightest casualty, which also refutes the IOF’ claim that the man had an AK-47 rifle, another “story” that “Israel accepted … with a yawn,” according to Levy of Haaretz.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) in a statement condemned Washaha’s killing as an “assassination,” a “crime” and a “deliberate” killing. PA’s spokesman, Ihab Bsaiso, said it was an “example of the violence perpetrated on a daily basis against our population.” In a letter sent to the UN Secretary-General, the President of the UN Security Council and the President of the UN General Assembly, Palestinian Ambassador Feda Abdelhady – Nasser said Washaha’s killing indicates Israel’s “pre-meditated intention of killing him.”

Israeli journalist Hass agrees further that his killing was a “cold-blooded assassination”; “The Israeli army did this deliberately,” she wrote. “Israel's goal” was “to embarrass the Palestinian Authority and undermine its status” among its own people and Israel was “successful” as the “Palestinian Authority officials were absent from Washaha's funeral” the next day to avoid the angry crowds, estimated at more than five thousand, who were demanding an end to peace negotiations and to PA’s security coordination with Israel.

Gideon Levy had another interpretation for the motives of “The most moral army in the world,” which was the title of his opinion column in Haaretz; “The Israel Defense Forces has also created a heartwarming name for all this: the “Tool of Disruption” – storming a civilian community for the purpose of causing panic and fear, and to disrupt its life,” or “Sometimes these operations are conducted …  as a training routine in order to preserve the readiness of the forces and a demonstration of sovereign power” toward the Palestinians living under the Israeli military occupation since 1967, he wrote.

Amnesty’s Report Vindicated

Washaha’s extrajudicial execution came on the same day the Amnesty International (AI) released its 87-page report recommending that the U.S., EU and the rest of the international community should suspend all transfers of military aid to Israel because “without pressure from the international community the situation is unlikely to change any time soon,” Amnesty’s Middle East and North Africa Director Philip Luther said. “Too much civilian blood has been spilled … (and Israel’s) unlawful killings and unnecessary use of force must stop now,” he added.

The AI reported it had documented the killings of 22 Palestinian civilians in the West Bank in 2013 and in all the cases the Palestinians did not appear to have been posing a direct and immediate threat to life: “The circumstances of all their deaths point to them having been victims of unlawful killings, including — in some cases — possible willful killings.”

“Several victims were shot in the back suggesting that they were targeted as they tried to flee and posed no genuine threat to the lives of members of Israeli forces or others,” the report said. “In several cases, well-armored Israeli forces have resorted to lethal means to crack down on stone-throwing protesters causing needless loss of life” and “there is evidence that some individuals were victims of willful killings, which would amount to war crimes,” it added.

Since the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry succeeded in resuming the Palestinian – Israeli peace talks on last July 29, the IOF killed more than 42 Palestinian civilians; Washaha was among the latest.

Using “excessive force,” “arbitrary and abusive force against peaceful protesters” and displaying "callous disregard" for human life, Israeli soldiers and police officers have been operating with “near total impunity,” in a “harrowing pattern of unlawful killings and unwarranted injuries,” “as a matter of policy,” while the Israeli investigative system is “woefully inadequate,” said Luther.

The AI report accused Israel of “war crimes and other serious violations of international law.”

Israel's Ambassador to the UK, Daniel Taub, said that Amnesty was “obsessive” with a “focus on Israel” and accused the London – based rights organization of having “an agenda that has more to do with politics than human rights.” His embassy in London told The Jewish Chronicle that the AI’s report was merely a “stunt” filled with “unverifiable and often contradictory accounts.”

In Birzeit on that sad morning of last February 27, the elite military disproportionate force which the IOF used to liquidate Washaha acted as if it was intentionally determined to undermine the credibility of Israel’s official diplomacy, represented this time by ambassador Taub, and to vindicate the contents of Amnesty’s report which he tried to deny or at least to question.

Ironically, Israeli PM Netanyahu, less than a week later, was in Washington D.C. lecturing a receptive American audience at the annual conference of AIPAC about drawing a “clear line … between life and death, between right and wrong” and about the “moral divide!”

* Nicola Nasser is a veteran Arab journalist based in Bir Zeit, West Bank of the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories. nassernicola@ymail.com

“Happy mother’s day sweetheart,” He stood calmly in his place anticipating her feedback, as she stared back at him with a gracious smile, knitting tools still in her hand.

“Thank You darling.”

As he placed down the beautiful roses their terrific aroma spread all around enchanting the atmosphere abundantly. “I know during last mother’s day you were upset from me because I married her, but mommy believe me I was in love with her.”

            “Don’t you worry son, I have forgiven you, but I just thought that you could have chosen someone more suitable for you. She was GM of a big firm in her late thirties and seemed so independent for a future wife for you.”

            He smiled back and commented, “We have beautiful understanding now. All our differences are over. She is even pregnant and due in two months.”

            The beautiful smile on his mother’s face never left her as she answered, “What are you going to call him or her,”

            “Well if it’s a boy Layth. If it’s a girl Maria.”

            “I hope it’s a boy for your sake, your wife could cross forty and still not bear for you another time.”

            A frown clouded his face a little bit as he replied, “Oh mommy, you still haven’t changed a bit.” Tears dropped from Elias’s eyes. He pulled a tissue from his pocket and wiped the rivers of tears as a drop fell and softly splashed on the green soil underneath his feet. “I promise you that there will be at least three children before we call it quits.”

            “Suit yourself. Are you still leaving in the morning without breakfast…”

            “No mommy I can assure you she is making breakfast for me, I am the only GM that exists in my family, believe me…”

            “Because if she isn’t you have to give her a good talking to on how a woman should respect her husband.”

            He giggled a bit and answered, “Mommy enough of worrying about me, and how about you sweet heart?”

            “I’m really comfortable where I am thank you. It’s so silent though. I rarely get visitors and on some occasions I hear footsteps in the near distances.”           

“I come and see you when I can mother. It’s so busy where I work and sometimes I travel a lot. Your son is now a regional sales supervisor with a handsome salary. My wife pulled a few strings. See, Karen isn’t so bad as you anticipated.”

            “Well that will house some joy in my spirit. It’s all what I got so far. I wish I was near you so I can see you more often.”

             “Don’t worry mother, you will always be close to me and living in my heart where ever I go. Oh mommy I miss you so much.” He kissed her. His eyes filled with tears again and part of her cheek got drenched from his tears.

            “I have to leave again. My plane flies in a few hours and I have to rest for a while.”

            He almost caught glimpse of his mother move her head sideways in disapproval, “When are you coming back? Next month? You rascal. Your father always said that when a young man loves a wife he forgets his parents.”

            “No mommy, I will always love you and not even the sexiest woman will make me forget you. Have you forgiven me completely for marrying Karen? I have totally forgiven you for not attending my wedding. I love you so much.”

            “How many times do I have to tell you son. Yes I have forgiven you. No matter what you do you will always be my beloved son.”

            He picked up the roses and spread them all around where she rested silently and peacefully underneath the grounds. The exquisite aromas permeated the entire atmosphere about. There was perfect silence aside the soft shuffles of his shoes over the green grass.

            “Rest in peace sweetheart. I couldn’t hand you roses last mother’s day because you were still mad at me for marrying Karen. We consoled with each other a long time afterwards. But I promise you that I will make it up to you and hand you Roses on every mother’s day till my hair goes grey and I die. Rest in peace mother and happy Mother’s Day.” He kissed her photograph once more and departed silently towards the nearby parking lot of his car thinking, “Even if it’s only voices in my mind, I know my mother really well, a hot temper but a big heart. I know deep within you mother that you forgave me a long time ago for all the things that I might have upset you with, way deep in your big heart.”

The story events, characters, places and some cities are totally imaginary and created by the author of this article.  Any resemblance to any real life situations and characters is totally unintended.