A century of colonialism crushed at the feet of Resistance

By Myriam Charabaty
Source: Al Mayadeen English
9 Dec 2023 08:00
16 Shares

Amid a critical juncture that could sink US influence worldwide, thinktanks look for Arab Peace Initiative II, but the armed Resistance has since October 7 made it clear that its demands are for a free Palestine. But how does this all come together?

The US global influences gets shaken in the depths of this critical juncture and Palestine sits at the center of its demise. (Al Mayadeen English; Illustrated by Zainab Termos)

Shimon Peres’ "New Middle East" crumbles at the feet of a victorious Arab Resistance. The former Israeli Prime Minister, whose legacy is entrenched in the blood of the murdered children of Qana, wrote a book about a new so-called "peaceful" Middle East back in 1993. At the time, it was rarely ever stated that the word "peace" was code for "subjugated" and "occupied". However, after "Israel’s" resounding failure in achieving its goals in the Gaza Strip, despite the genocide it has perpetrated, "the world" reared its teeth, defending "Israel's right" to commit genocide after being once hidden in sheep’s clothing, "bringing democracy" to the world for decades, rather for an entire century.

Today, after the purpose of the Camp David agreement has objectively failed due to the sequential victories of the armed Resistance, and to secure "Israel" its much-needed role as a barrier state through the attempted establishment of "Grand Israel" and "Greater Israel", Western thinktanks are suggesting an Arab Peace Initiative II.

Liberation: Resistance does not negotiate with terrorists

These suggestions remind us of Henry Kissinger’s diplomacy in the so-called Middle East [which, if liberated from its colonial position would be referred to as the Arab world] which was based on myth-building that would offer Arab leaders apparent gains, a tiny piece of cake, but would ultimately serve US interests and strengthen the Israeli position in the region.

However, this approach was shattered when the Resistance proclaimed liberation as its ultimate goal, and refused to accept a tiny piece of a cake being presented to it with numerous conditions, from a cake that was entirely its own.

Here we speak of the victory of 2000 in Beirut after the Israeli Occupation Forces were left with no choice but to retreat to the withdrawal line to South Lebanon. We also speak of the Secretary General of Hezbollah Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah announcing the end of "Grand Israel" in a speech following the 2006 victory, which imposed new deterrence equations against the Zionist enemy in occupied Palestine.

Significantly, much of the analysis on the topic has often separated Israeli-led wars from US-led wars across the Arab world while combining Israeli and Arab interests in the region through processes such as the normalization accords.

This analysis will not repeat such a mistake and will include the wars of Syria and Iraq as part of the Resistance’s path toward liberation, as "Israel" and its interests are but a means to secure US influence and interests in the region.

It is worth noting that this region is the US’ most significant sphere of influence, and if lost, the empire’s influence will inevitably be questioned across Asia and Africa, prompting a European call to reassess Europe's positioning and the purpose of NATO amid the emergence of a new world order.

Doublespeak no more: the myths have shattered

Claims of "peace", "non-violence", "democracy", and "human rights", have taken over speeches and campaigns launched by the US, NATO, and their most valuable asset, "Israel", for decades. Just like that, "peace" replaced "occupation" and "subjugation", "intervention" replaced "invasion", and "security operation" replaced "genocide" and "massacres". We saw these same practices in Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, and even in Kosovo and Rwanda, as well as multiple other countries.

The collective West, led by NATO, and including "Israel", have sought after their own interests at the cost of human life in multiple countries across the world, forgetting that just like "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet," it remained that genocide, ethnic cleansing, subjugation, and plunder were colonial and occupation practices, no matter how often they are called "peace".

Today, it is without a doubt that without liberation, there cannot be peace, because there can be no dignity under occupation, no liberty under siege, and no right to life and property under settler-colonialism.

But ever since October 7, the historic policy of the US, which drives both NATO and Israeli decision-making and policy, has been revealed to be what it has always been: a policy built on genocide, plunder, and enslavement.

War hawk #HillaryClinton, who had voted in favor of the US invasion of #Iraq, stands once again in favor of bloodshed and genocide.

"I believe in coercive diplomacy," Clinton said in a 2008 Presidential debate, and today she reaffirmed that despite the blood on her hands in… pic.twitter.com/mz4g5lF2ZR
— Al Mayadeen English (@MayadeenEnglish) October 30, 2023

To this note, Israeli occupation President Isaac Herzog said on MSNBC "This war is not only a war between Israel and Hamas, it's a war that is intended, really, truly, to save Western civilization. To save the values of Western civilization."

President of the occupation state Isaac Herzog on MSNBC: "This war is not only a war between Israel and Hamas, it's a war that is intended, really, truly, to save Western civilization. To save the values of Western civilization." pic.twitter.com/qRiAA1Rhn1
— Quds News Network (@QudsNen) December 5, 2023

What Herzog is saying is not false. The American defeat in Israel and the success of the Resistance will result in the faltering of US influence in the region. This war for liberation in Palestine is also the war for the unmaking of the Sykes-Picot agreement which divided the region and its people in such a way that it established a well-developed system of plunder that has been sustained for a century. This is Western civilization, and the liberation of Palestine will, without a doubt, be another nail in its coffin.

The most honest description: Cards on the table

Back in 1999, Samuel Berger, who then served as the US assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, stressed, in an address titled The Middle East On The Eve Of The Millennium: Building Peace, Strengthening America's Security, that "How the Middle East evolves matters," adding that "it matters, of course, most directly, to the people of the Arab world."

However, Berger, in what could have possibly been one of the most straightforward speeches in the history of the US, further explained that the "Middle East" matters not only to the Arab people who live there but also "matters to the American people as well, because of the strategic, political and economic interests that are at stake."

After the US interests in the Arab world, Berger emphasized that the region "also matters - profoundly -- to the people of Israel," justifying that argument by saying, "For them, the difference between a Middle East focused on economic development and looking to the future and a region mired in poverty and in hatreds inherited from the past is the difference between peace and conflict...lasting security and...perpetual threat...a normal life and the lives they have been forced to live."

US foreign policy could not have been any clearer in an era that preceded the "war on terror".

On one condition: Right of Return

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, in its Arab Peace Initiative II proposal, has set six conditions for success:

Palestinian and Jewish national identities should be recognized as legitimate and in need of institutional expression. Individual human rights in both communities need to be protected.
Antisemitic, Islamophobic, and racist rhetoric and actions must be explicitly and unconditionally repudiated by all actors.
Any targeting of civilians should not be merely rejected but actively combated by all actors.
Settlement activities in the Palestinian territories and forced displacement of Palestinians to Egypt, Jordan, or anywhere else should be considered outlawed actions that all actors commit to fight against.
Full diplomatic, political, and economic relations among participating states should be an outcome of the negotiation process.
No stateless people should be left behind at the conclusion of any set of agreements.

These conditions are inherently flawed and dismiss the Palestinian cause at its core, as they deny Palestinians the Right of Return and liberation from occupation, and force them to accept occupation as an allegedly unchanging 'reality' they have to deal with and can do nothing about.

This is happening at a time when the Axis of Resistance, extending from Tehran to Sanaa, and passing through Damascus, Baghdad, and Beirut, has proven to be stronger than ever and capable of imposing deterrence equations and altering previous colonially imposed realities in favor of liberation.

In other words, occupied al-Quds, the primary concern of the Arab world, and the Arab capital of occupied Palestine, has no business negotiating a piece of the cake when Operation Al-Aqsa Flood has proven that a fully functioning and well-coordinated Axis with a successful strategy could, despite the hefty human cost (noting that the price of surrender would not only exceed the human cost but would also incur the added cost of people losing their dignity) result in liberating the entire cake.

The US policy and approach have historically been grounded in the idea that the US is a supreme nation with unwavering and far-reaching influence. Today, this influence has been brought to a test in Ukraine, Africa, Europe, and today, in the Arab world.

The Arab world is the crown jewel of US influence, and losing influence in this geographic location would culminate in the demise of US influence worldwide, and result in significant strategic and geopolitical changes that would directly impact US, and inevitably NATO, interests globally.

An Arab Peace Initiative II that would disregard the right of Palestinians to self-defense and return cannot be put forward at a time when armed Resistance factions have made it clear they would not be held back by another Oslo Agreement, and certainly not when they have proven militarily both willing and capable of achieving gains, despite the hefty price.