A DESPERATE HUMANITARIAN MESSAGE.......

I finally visited Palestine. This is my experience in the Israeli prison after my arrest and the arrest of my colleagues in the “Resilience Flotilla”...

Written by Dr. Lina Al-Tabbal, Lebanese academic and researcher/France

... Yes, I finally visited Palestine, a painful and beautiful visit, a crossing between two wounds..

I saw the Negev desert stretching out before me in endless stillness. I watched it for two hours from a narrow opening in a closed metal truck, not even suitable for transporting damaged goods. However, the occupation decided to test our ability to remain silent under pressure, the intense heat, the cold and noise of their air conditioners… But seeing the land of Palestine made time stop and there was no more of the occupation’s favorite torture rituals… And when the truck stopped in front of the airport to deport us, they threatened to re-arrest us if we raised the victory sign…

A heavily armed army, the fourth largest in the world, and a nuclear state afraid of raised fingers! What kind of power is this that would be terrified by a symbol??

We left quietly, our heads held high, singing a quiet song about Palestine, and chanting slogans and victory signs.

Then I saw the mountains ahead of me... the Ramon Mountains stretching to the horizon. That moment was one of stillness, calm, and a spiritual feeling like nothing I'd ever experienced before...

And I assure you, yes, seeing Palestine...is worth everything.

Search for Mount Ramon on Google, then close your eyes... and imagine them in front of you.

We are a group that wanted to set sail and break the siege of Gaza on a non-violent humanitarian mission. We carried flour, medicine, and what remained of our conscience and humanity. You know the rest of the story: We were kidnapped in international waters, under the sun and at sea, but we approached Gaza. We saw Gaza at dawn: yes, we saw it while we were kidnapped, and above us was the sky of Palestine.

The interception operation was “professional,” as the Israeli military likes to describe its crimes, meaning illegal, inhumane, but justified, as usual.

They took us to the port of Ashdod, and there the usual Israeli show began: insults, threats... the same hatred that hadn't changed for decades, the same language, the same arrogance, and the same racist depravity.

They threw us into trucks… those that were not fit to transport anything, not people, not even damaged goods. A policewoman pushed me into a metal cell no more than a meter and a half, barely large enough for four human breaths. I banged my head against the metal wall of the truck, and for a moment I thought she'd shot me… Sitting next to me was Rima Hassan, the European Parliament member. She turned to me and said, “They beat me too. They'll probably put us in solitary confinement, but at least we're together.” We laughed, because fear, when it tires, turns into cold sarcasm.

A short while later, the policewoman threw a seventy-year-old Algerian woman named “Zubaida,” a former parliamentarian, into the cell, along with “Sirine,” a young activist.

Four women from three continents in one cage, barely large enough to hold their breath. The atmosphere was stifling, and the air the truck exhaled was a mixture of violence and threats. Our bodies were drenched with sweat, and when the heat burned them completely, they decided to turn on the air conditioning, not out of mercy, but as part of a precise engineering of torture. The occupation is an expert in torture: they alternate the temperatures from cold… then hot… then cold.

They took us to the detention center, to our rooms in sections 5 and 6… The women were divided into 14 cells. As for me, I was placed in cell number seven. A nice number, but it brought me bad luck on the first night, specifically at four in the morning, “Itamar Ben Gvir,” the Minister of Evil Spells, entered. He said, with all his stupidity, “I am the Minister of National Security.” He came with his army and police dogs to the middle of the cell to threaten sleeping women. He asked me about my nationality, I remained silent. What if I said Lebanese? No… I would rather sleep now than start a fight.

Didn't I tell you, Ben-Gvir, before you move or speak, consult artificial intelligence? It at least has "intelligence."

If your stupidity were renewable energy, it would illuminate the entire Negev desert, and perhaps the darkness of your mind as well.

In the morning they woke us up for a repeated count: 14 women, yes every morning and evening and every time they counted the number did not change... They came again but the number did not change, they insisted on counting a lot, especially at night... We would laugh at every count and go back to sleep.

Food is almost non-existent, water is non-existent, and the threat of death and gas are ever-present. We have no rights, no lawyer, no doctor, no medicine. Not even paracetamol is available.

Every day, we were taken to the cage, which resembled the cages in Guantanamo. It was 15 square meters, and around 60 women were crammed into it under the Negev sun for five or seven hours, under the pretext of going to see a judge who sometimes never showed up. Once, a policeman pointed his gun at my head because I wouldn't put my hands behind my back. "I'll kill you," he said with pitiful seriousness. I smiled at him.

Our favorite game was to challenge them as one: “Come on, kill me!”… “Kill us”… Words with which we extinguished fear as one would blow out a candle and then relight it. The Israeli police didn’t understand which planet we came from??? We tired them out. We sang and chanted “Long live Palestine”, and stared straight into their eyes with a steely gaze and a smile that perhaps made them ashamed of themselves… One of the policemen told me, “What you are doing is good.”

I don't deny my fear: I was scared, nervous, and tired throughout my detention, and the possibility of the worst-case scenario was ever-present. But he who has the right is not afraid to demand it again and again, right, my friend?

We kept screaming and chanting, then they would come with weapons, tear gas and dogs, and as soon as they left we would start again.

The most beautiful thing I've ever read was written on the walls of this prison's cells... names engraved with fingernails and a bullet from a pen that we found behind the window... Abu Iyad, Abu Mamoun, Abu Omar, Abu Muhammad from Beit Lahia, Jabalia, Hayy al-Amal, Shuja'iyya, and northern Gaza. They wrote the dates of their arrests on the walls, the last of which was September 28th. They said they deported us from here today... perhaps they emptied and prepared the cells for us.

In cell number 7 was Judit, the youngest of us, a young German woman no more than eighteen years old; alongside Lucia, the Spanish parliamentarian; Marita, the Swedish activist; Jona, the American politician and singer; Zoubida, the Algerian parliamentarian; Hayat, the Al Jazeera correspondent; Patty, the Greek parliamentarian; Dara, the Greek filmmaker, and others. All of us, from different cultures, became one voice behind bars: “Long live Palestine!”

I decided to deal with the jailers as a human rights lawyer deals with facts: first by documenting, then by classifying. There is the “good one,” the one who smuggles news to me as if it were secret messages—the date of release, the consuls’ visit. Then there is the “evil one,” the one who fires fire with his eyes every morning to remind us that hatred exists. And finally, the “indifferent one,” the one who neither hates nor loves, who simply carries out… He is a kind of administrative robot that revolves around without a conscience.

Then came the time for cultural entertainment: They forced us to watch a propaganda film about “October 7.” We simply refused and shouted, “Stop the genocide in Gaza.” They went crazy, and we refused again and shouted again. This was our last little battle, and we won it too.

I forgot to tell you that we were in a detention center called the Negev. In Hebrew, they call it "Ketziot," and during the first intifada, it was called "Ansar 2 Detention Center." My cell window overlooked a playground, and there was a giant billboard of destroyed Gaza. Under it, they wrote "New Gaza." On the wall was a huge, arrogant Israeli flag.

This was my visit to Palestine: a party of torture, threats, and temporary imprisonment in an occupied territory. But I saw the mountains, I saw Gaza from afar, and I saw Israeli fear up close.

Yes, finally... I visited Palestine,

There's more to the story... Wait for us in December, the ships stop for a while but keep sailing.

All reactions:

The brilliantly told story of Dr. Al-Tabbal, a Lebanese/French researcher who bravely joined the Sumud flotilla with humanitarian aid to Gaza, the rest is self explanatory, plus the news, media and social media coverage. A humanitarian message focused on reducing suffering, protecting human dignity, and promoting action in times of crisis. The message emphasizes the courage of aid volunteers and workers and calls for greater protection for them, respect for international law, and an end to impunity for those who harm them.

As always, my many thanks to all.

 

A GLOBAL MESSAGE ....

 

The broadcaster stopped him and asked:   Do you love the president of the country?
He replied: I will ask you the same in another way: Do you like the railway authority?
She asked in surprise: What does this have to do with that?
He said: I am sure that if you asked a European citizen if he loves the president of his country, he would look at you as an extremely crazy and stupid, miss...!!
- Madam, the President, the government, the parliament, the army, the police, the Ministry of Energy, the Ministry of Transport, etc., etc., are not entities with which relationships of love, hate, cohesion and attachment can be built. These are institutions in any country, that are supposed to carry out their duties to the fullest extent. And for that reason only they deserve their salaries, not our love. If they fall short in their duties, they must be held accountable and the corrupt ones must be punished. This does not constitute hatred, just as drumming and trumpeting does not constitute love. Therefore, Madam, your question is out of place and there is no issue of love and hate in this regard. Please stop making idols and establishing pagan statues. Unfortunately, time has passed you by and the state of institutions continues, while the state based on individuals is destined to disappear.

The moral: When you applaud an official because he built a school or a hospital or paved a road with public money, it is as if you are applauding an ATM machine when it gives you money from your own account. So, respect your mind, because the media in all countries of the world is the fourth estate, except in Arab countries, where it is the fourth wife.
 
To all my sisters and brothers on all continents, nationalities, religions and sects
This message is the eternal message
It is not the message of Lenin, Stalin and Putin
"The oligarchs" are millionaire communists and socialist opportunists.
Not the message of the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party
Nor the message of Trump, Biden, and Obama...
Because the socialist and capitalist opportunist leaders, especially the Arab populist coup leaders with high-sounding slogans, are the ones who became millionaires in the blink of an eye.
They are the ones who own entire countries and pass them on to their children, brothers, or even comrades in arms, as is the case in Egypt. The heirs are the army officers (Nasser, Sadat, Mubarak, Sisi, etc....) while the people are getting poorer.
Class inequality, corruption and nepotism, it can't get any worse than this in history.
For the Arab coup plotters, the Palestinian cause is added to the opportunism, to liberate it, from the last Palestinian in their different camps.
The poor people are tenants of the state that owns everything without accountability.
And the remains are for the left behind patients....

Yes, we must respect the righteous official if and when he or she unites, because he is performing his duty to the fullest extent, and the rest are just fine, except in the case of those who benefit from corruption, religious trade, and hateful sectarianism, and those who benefit from double standards or more, and from those who say “God, I ask you for my soul.” without any concern for the public interest.

That's why our country has become a place of destruction, poverty and displacement.
Under the pretext of religions, sects and purely material interests, "and after me the flood."

A good universal message to all political leaders and their oligarchies, originally received in Arabic, for Arabic audiences, from an unknown author,  translated and adjusted for the suitability and benefit of the blog and its readers, as it is a message applicable to all everywhere.

Publishing this translated article, originally destined to a different audience on our American "No kings day" demonstrations all across the country is purely coincidental.

As usual, all my thanks to all. 

THE EXCITING 21st CENTURY.......

 

*"When engineers run a nation,
When lawyers control a country

A controversial book titled... has recently been published.

China's Quest to Engineer the Future,

Or "China and the Quest to Build the Future",
By Chinese-American writer Dan Wang.

This book does not limit itself to a superficial comparison between the United States and China,

Rather, it delves into the depths of the intellectual and institutional differences that shape the two states' decisions in the twenty-first century.

The author's gist of the idea seems both shocking and simple:

- China is a nation led by engineers.

The United States is a nation ruled by lawyers.

China: Managing with an Engineer's Mindset:
In China, the vast majority of decision-makers graduated from engineering or applied science colleges. Beijing is governed by a mindset that views problems as mathematical equations, which can be solved through precise equations, system design, or the construction of a massive project.

It is therefore no wonder that the state moves like a machine: opening a valve here, closing another there, and everything is precisely calculated like a giant irrigation system.

This mindset may sometimes lack human flexibility or open dialogue, but it produces long-term plans that are implemented without disruption.

Thus, we see China building new cities in a matter of years, constructing thousands of kilometers of high-speed train lines, and making tremendous strides in the electronics industries, renewable energy, artificial intelligence, and even in space exploration.

United States: Managing with a Lawyer's Mentality:
The United States, however, is a completely different story. Most presidents, members of Congress, and Supreme Court justices studied law or practiced law.

Even those who did not graduate from law schools -
Like Donald Trump, they have mastered the "lawyer's tricks": filing lawsuits, exploiting legal loopholes, and turning any case into an arena for endless conflict.

Thus, every step turns into a legal or political battle.

Infrastructure projects are discussed for years before being implemented, and even if they are implemented, they are hindered by lawsuits from pressure groups, human rights organizations, or affected economic interests. The result:
- Repeated postponement,
- Cost inflation,
Loss of ability to perform quickly.
As Congress engages in debates over issues of identity, minority rights, the environment, and animal rights, the United States' ability to build a long-term, inclusive national project is eroding.

Technical and scientific comparison:
The book presents concrete examples from industry and technology:

In artificial intelligence, Chinese companies like Byte Dance, Huawei, and Tencent are leading research and applications that sometimes outpace their American counterparts.

In telecommunications, China was the first to launch a widespread 5G network, while the West was mired in controversy over privacy and security.

In renewable energy, China annually builds solar and wind power plants with capacities exceeding those built by Europe and America combined.

The Weapon: America's Last Cracked Fortress:
Weapons remain the one area where the United States has undisputed superiority.

But the author reveals how this industry has deteriorated over the past decade.

Fighter development projects like the F-35 have become a symbol of delay and high cost.

- Warships that take the United States a decade to build, while China launches between 30 and 50 similar ships during the same period.

- US ammunition depots appeared nearly empty during the war in Ukraine and military support for Israel, as Washington was unable to quickly replace the losses.

What's even worse is that America has begun importing some essential materials and spare parts from Southeast Asian countries, and even from China itself.

Between the dollar and the weapon:
America has nothing left but the dollar bill,

Which forces the world to accept it as an international currency, even though it is just printed papers with no real value.
But with the rise of China and the growing role of the yuan in international trade, even this prestige may no longer be held by the dollar.

Lesson from history:
The book concludes with a call for reflection:
The twentieth century was an American century.
- The nineteenth century saw Britain and France extend their influence.
- The sixteenth century was Ottoman.
And before that, there were successive empires: Mamluk, Mongol, Abbasid, Umayyad, Roman, and Persian.
This is how God's laws operate on earth: a never-ending cycle of civilizations, and days that alternate among nations.
Today, the scene appears to be shaping up to be a distinctly Chinese 21st century.

With the trade war reigniting, and the probable cancellation of any meetings between the leaders of both countries, all eyes are again on the vulnerability of each side, the weaknesses and the strong sides of each camp, America being more vulnerable than what is generally thought and accepted, or with the same situation couple decades ago, the world itself is changing rapidly, and China and its partners are definitely changing systematically and methodically.

Translated from a forward in Arabic, a good analysis of a very factual situation, still developing between China and America, involving the entire world, it's all happening and taking place during our few years nowadays and in the coming years. 

Maybe this should be obvious, but I link and forward articles I find provocative and significant, helping to better understand certain situations. Generally reflecting my ideas, but not necessarily always ones I entirely agree with.   

My many thanks to all, stay safe and well.  

A LOOK ONTO THE PEACE PLAN FOR GAZA.....

 
Tony Blair and the Denial of Palestine

Chronic

Jean-Pierre Filiu
University Professor at Sciences Po

The former British prime minister's close ties to Benjamin Netanyahu make him a central player in Donald Trump's plan for Gaza, writes historian Jean-Pierre Filiu in his column

The Palestinian people have learned, throughout their painful history, that their fate can be discussed far, far away from Palestine, and without even a hint of consultation. And it was to the White House on August 27 that US President Donald Trump invited his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and his golf and business partner, Steve Witkoff, to discuss Gaza. The former was his special envoy for the Middle East during his previous term, and the latter is his current emissary for the region.

Also invited was Tony Blair, British Prime Minister from 1997 to 2007, whose consulting firm, the Tony Blair Institute, has been working for months with Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff on the political packaging of the project to transform Gaza into the "Riviera of the Middle East . " And when Donald Trump revealed his plan for Gaza on September 29, he affirmed that Tony Blair would sit alongside him on a "peace committee" charged with managing the Palestinian enclave. Tony Blair's commitment to such an American design is a continuation of decades of hostility towards Palestinian nationalism.

By mobilizing the United Kingdom alongside the United States in 2003, Prime Minister Blair not only made a decisive contribution to the disastrous invasion of Iraq. He also subscribed to the equally devastating vision of the American neoconservatives who had convinced George W. Bush that "the road to Jerusalem will pass through Baghdad." These ideologues of the "global war on terror" asserted that the overthrow of the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein would lead to a virtuous cycle of democratization first in Iraq and then in the rest of the Arab world, hence an irresistible dynamic of peace with Israel, according to the axiom that "two democracies do not go to war."

The European alibi of American neoconservatives.

Rather than relaunching the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, it was therefore better to work towards this future partnership between Israel and the Arab states, a reasoning that would be found again, two decades later, in the "Abraham Accords", which were also supposed to provide a settlement to the Palestinian question.

The disastrous results of such a caricatured vision, however, forced President Bush to form a Quartet for the Middle East. The United States retained the dominant position in this Quartet, which included Russia, the European Union, and the United Nations. But it thus maintained the illusion of international consultation on what remained an exercise tightly controlled by Washington.

The Quartet's special envoy was the American-Australian James Wolfensohn, until then president of the World Bank. In 2005, at the G8 summit, chaired by Tony Blair, he proposed an ambitious plan to support the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, including the reopening of the airport and the development of the port, for a total of 3 billion dollars. But the success of such a plan depended on freedom of movement between Gaza and the West Bank, with a view to a Palestinian state, while Israel was determined to maintain the division between the two territories. James Wolfensohn, disheartened by his failure, resigned, while Hamas gradually established itself behind closed doors in Gaza, from which it expelled the Palestinian Authority in 2007, now confined to the West Bank.

Economic development rather than national rights.

It was in this context that George W. Bush appointed Tony Blair as the Quartet's special envoy, a prestigious consolation prize after ten years at the head of the British government. Tony Blair put his undeniable communication skills to the service of an economic development program for the West Bank alone, whose relative prosperity was supposed to convince the population of Gaza to get rid of Hamas.

However, he did not get involved in the promising negotiations between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in 2008. Benjamin Netanyahu took over the Israeli government in 2009 and was pleased that Tony Blair was content to ease the occupation of the West Bank (by reducing, but not removing, military roadblocks), while establishing a stock exchange in Nablus and encouraging tourism in Bethlehem.

Tony Blair, during his eight years as special envoy, from 2007 to 2015, never questioned the very principle of the colonization of the West Bank or the blockade imposed on Gaza. It is this deep compatibility with Benjamin Netanyahu that makes him the ideal candidate to assist Donald Trump in the trusteeship of a Gaza Strip "liberated" from Hamas. The reflections of the Tony Blair Institute are also reflected in Donald Trump's invocation, on September 29, of "a new Gaza, entirely dedicated to building a prosperous economy and peaceful coexistence with its neighbors." 

The American president is pushing back to a horizon as distant as it is indefinite. "the opening of a credible path towards self-determination and the creation of a Palestinian state." But this matters little to Tony Blair, who is willing to provide European support for an American plan already endorsed by Benjamin Netanyahu, thus replaying in a minor key his 2003 performance. While the United Kingdom has just recognized Palestine, its former prime minister is still in denial.

Jean-Pierre Filiu (Professor at Sciences Po)

Originally in French, copied from an email forward, and very factual and lucid analysis of the negotiations between the Palestinians and Israel, and a franc discussion of the possibility later of appointing a very controversial figure,(Tony Blair) with a very dubious and questionable past and relations covering the area.
As always, my many thanks to all.  

A NEW TREND REIGNING WORLD WIDE.....

 

Wes J. Bryant.

 

In the wake of the recent deployment of US Navy warships to the coastal waters of South America, pinnacling with two airstrikes on alleged drug-trafficking vessels, including one today that President Donald Trump said killed three people and an earlier attack that killed all 11 on board, Americans need to take pause. We must take a hard look at the implications of using lethal US military capabilities against drug cartels while casting aside our sacred and constitutionally born belief in the right of due process and dedication to the time-honored principles of international law. And we must hold Trump to the fire as he blindly leads America into conflicts that he is wholly unprepared to confront – and that will last far beyond his own presidency.

There are a number of extremely troubling precedents for using military force to combat drug cartels, and the dangers in rapidly expanding the utilization of the US military by the Trump administration, both at home and abroad, are plentiful. But the most prescient of these is the mounting potential for an armed conflict with Venezuela. A conflict which, quite clearly, the Trump administration has not thought through.

Following the Sept. 2 strike on the boat in the Caribbean, Trump released a clip of the footage stating that the operation had been carried out against “narcoterrorists” of the Tren de Aragua (TdA) drug cartel, which, per a Jan. 20 executive order, is now designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. He said that the vessel – hundreds of miles from the US mainland and reportedly turning around – had been in the process of transporting illegal narcotics to the United States, and declared that the TdA is “operating under the control of [Venezuelan President] Nicolas Maduro” and is “responsible for mass murder, drug trafficking, sex trafficking, acts of violence and terror across the United States and Western Hemisphere.” In his short statement, he used the word “terror” or “terrorist” five times in a clear attempt to assert moral righteousness and legal justification for the strike. In the announcement about today’s strike, he used the words three times, describing illegal narcotics as “deadly weapons” being used to deliberately poison Americans and adding “BE WARNED — IF YOU ARE TRANSPORTING DRUGS THAT CAN KILL AMERICANS, WE ARE HUNTING YOU!”

In what should not come as a surprise, Venezuela responded to the perceived aggression outside its borders with a show of force. In a twist of irony, a flight of US-supplied F-16s from the Venezuelan air force twice overflew one of the US Navy destroyers in international waters earlier this month. In response, Trump warned that the Venezuelan jets could be “shot down” and directed that military commanders could “do anything [they] want” if the Venezuelan military did the same again.

Trump has consistently touted the catchphrase “No New Wars” as a cornerstone of his foreign policy stance. But Americans are seeing quite the opposite unfold in both the words and actions of this administration. Last month, when questioned on the initial build-up of US military presence in the region, press secretary Karoline Leavitt declared, “The Maduro regime is not a legitimate government,” and stated that the Trump administration is “prepared to use every element of American power” against it.

Despite Trump’s public denial that the administration is pursuing regime change in Venezuela, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth recently forewarned, “President Trump is willing to go on offense in ways that others have not seen.” He called President Maduro a “kingpin of a drug narco state,” and advised that the Venezuelan leader “should be worried.” He stated that lethal US military actions “won’t stop with just this strike.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed the same and emphasized, “The president of the United States is going to wage war on narcoterrorist organizations.” Combined with the actions already carried out by this administration, this hardly reflects any genuine intent toward no new wars. To the contrary – war seems to be exactly what the Trump administration is working to realize.

Revel in Using Military Might

Trump and Hegseth seem to revel in the use of America’s military power, and they make no secret of that. This is seen, most recently, in Trump’s executive order to rebrand the Department of Defense as the “Department of War” along with Hegseth’s amplification of the intent as being for “maximum lethality – not tepid legality.” As I’ve previously written, it is my belief that the principles of restraint and temperance in the use of military force form the moral foundations for the US military and reflect core American values that separate us from our adversaries. But Trump and Hegseth tend to show little regard for these values.

This is exemplified in the swift moves to cut my office at the Pentagon dedicated to the evolution of precision warfare capabilities and more effective safeguarding of civilians in conflict. It is shown in the enduring provision of weaponry and unconditional political support to Israel, even as its military systematically slaughters tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians under the banner of “self-defense” and carries out strikes in sovereign nations with complete impunity. And it is foreshadowed in the reckless military operations that have been carried out in the first few months of this administration. In the strike campaign against the Houthis in Yemen throughout March and April, the number of reported civilian casualties nearly doubled within a two-month period as compared with the previous 23-year span of US action in the country, with zero accountability from the Department of Defense.

In June, in an abrupt departure from the administration’s own intelligence reporting only months earlier and solely at the request of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump directed a multi-layered bombing campaign against nuclear facilities in Iran, risking all-out war and then threatening to turn Iran “into a parking lot.” The Trump administration has now swiftly moved on to bombing alleged drug traffickers in South America – without due process and under a legally-defunct pretense of counterterrorism – while threatening the national sovereignty of Venezuela and, implicitly, that of other Central and South American neighbors.

In his inaugural address in January, President Trump claimed, “Our power will stop all wars.” This was codified in a March 4 executive order that detailed the administration’s declared “Peace through Strength” doctrine. Naively, Trump truly seems to believe this. Yet, history reminds us that, more often than not, the application of military power alone only leads to regional and global destabilization and prolonged conflict. I spent much of my military career hunting and killing members of the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and ISIS with airstrikes when, in the end, America’s so-called “war on terror” dragged on for over two decades and only served to further destabilize the Middle East and Africa. And it continues to this day under a different name and with an ever-expanding global US military footprint.

If Trump hasn’t learned these vital lessons from the “war on terror,” some for which he is directly responsible – such as the 2020 deal with the Taliban, which ultimately led to the fall of Afghanistan into the hands of the very enemy we went to war against – he should take clues from the major conflicts he is now proving wholly unable to affect. Before being sworn in for his second administration, Trump boasted dozens of times that he would end Russia’s war against Ukraine on “day one.” He asserted that his influence and power would see an end to Israel’s war in Gaza before he even took office. We see how both aspirations have played out.

The US military is always prepared for combat. It is always ready to engage any adversary on any battlefield. It was well before Trump and Hegseth, and it will be well after. But to insert an analogy from the world of Ultimate Fighting, which the Trump White House seems enamored with: when we step into that Octagon, we should be prepared to go five rounds and then some. Throwing a couple of jabs and then betting that your opponent will throw in the towel is simply the strategy of a fool.

Wes J. Bryant is a former senior targeting adviser and policy analyst at the Pentagon, where he served as chief of civilian harm assessments. He is a retired master sergeant and special operations tactical air controller in the elite special warfare branch of the U.S. Air Force and co-author of the book, Hunting the Caliphate: America’s War on ISIS and the Dawn of the Strike Cell.

This excellent report by a very professional analyst, explains our present political and foreign affairs handling, it was copied from the site Zeteo, as it was forwarded to me by email, and I'm forwarding it to my good readers via our blog, it sure describes our present situation in America and the world.

As always my many thanks to all, stay safe and well.    

THE US PEACE ENVOY TO THE M-E ......

 

Tom Barrack and the Misreading of Peace: How Wise for America to Task a Self-Hating Arab as an Envoy Among Arabs

On September 22, 2025, in an interview with Hadley Gamble for The National, Tom Barrack declared that “peace is an illusion” in the Middle East and suggested that real peace has never existed and probably never will. He went further: peace, he said, has always been about submission — one side imposing its will, the other accepting defeat. And, he added, “Arabs don’t understand this.”

It was an astonishing display of arrogance, bigotry, and ignorance. Another amazing interview, and another reminder of the old adage: when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. In Barrack’s case, the advice should be simpler: stop speaking. Every time he opens his mouth on the Middle East, he deepens his own irrelevance and reveals the intellectual poverty of a man who mistakes a career in real estate for a license to lecture civilizations about history. While he likes to repeat that he “thinks outside the box,” he may be confusing cycles of history with building a hotel in Fresno, California. It is far too early — and far beyond his depth — for amateurs like him to issue verdicts of historical magnitude.

This is not the first time Barrack has insulted his own. On August 26, 2025, during a press appearance at Baabda Palace in Beirut following his meeting with President Joseph Aoun, he told Lebanese journalists to “act civilised” and described their behavior as “animalistic.” The reaction was immediate. Lebanon’s media unions, journalists, and civil society condemned his words as racist and humiliating. Barrack was forced to apologize, admitting that “animalistic” was inappropriate. But the mask had slipped. When pressed, his instinct was not diplomacy but contempt, the reflex of a colonial landlord scolding natives who dared to shout questions.

Now, with his latest interview, Barrack has confirmed the pattern. He poses as a realist, but he is an amateur in both history and statecraft. He speaks as though Arabs have somehow “lost” history and must accept permanent defeat, as if centuries of resilience, rebellion, and survival count for nothing. By what measure has he decided that Arabs have lost? And by what measure does he claim the United States has won? Did America win in Afghanistan, after twenty years of occupation ending in chaotic retreat? Did it win in Iraq, where trillions were wasted and Iran now dominates the political scene? The record speaks for itself: trillions spent, countless lives shattered, alliances frayed — and no victory in sight. Yet Barrack presumes to lecture Arabs about loss.

The irony is glaring. Islam itself means submission — not to another state’s diktat or a foreign empire’s bayonet, but to God. For Muslims, submission is not humiliation but dignity, a spiritual alignment that frees believers from worldly subjugation. Barrack, blinded by dealmaker’s arrogance, confuses spiritual submission with political surrender. He mistakes dignity for defiance, resistance for ignorance. A man of Arab descent should know better. Instead, he repeats the clichés of colonial administrators in Cairo and Algiers: Arabs, he says, do not understand peace; they only understand force.

There is a word for this posture: self-hatred. Barrack performs the role of the assimilated colonial subject who rises in foreign circles by sneering at his own people. History is full of such figures — the compradors of the British Raj, the évolués of the French empire, the “model minorities” in American discourse — men who are praised in the metropole for their supposed pragmatism but who serve as mouthpieces for imperial arrogance. Barrack fits the pattern exactly. He is a Lebanese-American whose grandparents came from Zahle, yet he disowns that heritage by parroting the prejudices of those who once humiliated it.

And his record in diplomacy proves the emptiness of his arrogance. His efforts to mediate between Lebanon and Israel have produced nothing but headlines. No progress, no breakthrough, not even the outline of a serious proposal. His failure is the best proof of his amateurism. For all his talk of history and peace, he has achieved none of it. This latest interview reads less like wisdom than frustration: frustration at his irrelevance, at his inability to translate real estate tricks into statecraft, at his growing exposure as a man in over his head.

Donald Trump, who prides himself on loyalty and deal-making, should be asking whether Barrack is an asset or a liability. The answer is obvious. A man who insults Arab journalists as “animalistic,” who declares that Arabs do not understand peace, who mistakes humiliation for strategy — such a man cannot serve as a credible envoy. If anything, Trump should tell him to stay in his lane. And that lane is not diplomacy.

The cycles of history are clear: peoples humiliated eventually rise. Dignity denied becomes dignity demanded. Every time submission is imposed, resistance returns. Barrack’s lecture about submission is not a roadmap to peace but a confession of his own intellectual defeat. He cannot imagine a politics of coexistence, so he falls back on the stale colonial fantasy of pacification.

The tragedy is that he does this while carrying a heritage that should have taught him otherwise. To be of Zahle, to come from a people who have survived against odds, and to turn that heritage into a sneer about Arabs not understanding peace — His contempt against his own is overwhelming. It is betrayal.

Peace is not submission. It is balance, recognition, and dignity. Tom Barrack refuses to understand any of this. And in that refusal, he exposes himself not as a realist, but as a relic — a self-hating Arab echoing the prejudices of the very empires that once humiliated his ancestors. 

I'm not sure who's the writer of these words, nor its original publication, they were forwarded from a friend. This type of talk has been going on for a while, where the situation in Lebanon and its immediate neighbors including of course Israel are not improving or reaching some acceptable truce leading to some permanent peace and an end to the Israeli occupation and bombardment of Lebanon. Tom Barrack who originally gave everyone a very positive impression, is stalling big time, with him goes the US mediation, while he's coming up with different statements  leading to a general stagnation and disappointment. 

I'm trying to be neutral as to the statements produced by the article, but find it constructive and helpful in the shadow of what's happening on the ground.  As always, my many thanks to all.