Part Twenty-Three
(This is a translation from the original Arabic, offered so that my grandchildren,
and others of their generation, may understand something of their history— a
history they were denied when they were uprooted without choice.)
Where To? Remove NATO from Arab Lands — II
I concluded the previous part with the following statement: Therefore, the
slogan of the coming struggle must be: Remove NATO from Arab lands. But
how can this objective be achieved?
I had intended to proceed directly to outlining a proposed course of action for
removing NATO from Arab territory. Yet the intensity of recent events revealed
to me a profound ignorance among the public regarding the origins, purpose,
and nature of NATO itself—an ignorance that renders any serious discussion of
its projects in our region exceedingly difficult. I therefore found it necessary to
pause and examine the alliance more closely before proceeding further.
I do not intend here to present a comprehensive history of Europe, a continent
that produced the greatest wars of the modern age and ultimately came to
shelter itself beneath the umbrella of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
However, it is essential to clarify a critical reality concerning Europe’s tribal
and social composition. At first glance, it may seem inaccurate to speak of
“tribal structures” in Europe, given the common belief that the continent
transcended such divisions centuries ago. While this may appear true
superficially, the reality is quite otherwise: tribal divisions in Europe are deeply
rooted and are clearly reflected in the continent’s wars over the past two
centuries, even without venturing further back into history.
Europe is populated predominantly by peoples descending from two major
ethnic groupings: the Germanic tribes and the Slavic tribes. This division has
shaped the contours of European conflict for centuries. This does not mean that
Germanic peoples did not fight among themselves, nor that Slavic peoples were
free of internal conflict. Yet Germanic hostility toward the Slavs is as old as
European history itself, and it has been the driving force behind Europe’s most
devastating wars. Three examples suffice to illustrate this truth:
- In 1812, Napoleon Bonaparte assembled an army of over half a million
soldiers—horses and artillery included—and marched them nearly three
thousand kilometres from Paris to occupy Moscow, on pretexts flimsier
than a spider’s web. The Russians crushed him; fewer than forty thousand
soldiers returned to France.
- In 1853, war erupted between Tsarist Russia and the Ottoman Empire
over the Crimean Peninsula. France and Britain joined the conflict,
dispatching nearly three hundred thousand troops to fight alongside the
Muslim Ottoman state against Christian Tsarist Russia. - When the Germanic Hitler advanced eastward, his ultimate ambition was
the destruction of Russia. He harboured no desire to wage war against his
Germanic brethren in Britain and the United States. The greatest war
waged against the Slavs ended in Russian victory—but only after
Russia’s devastation and the deaths of twenty-five million of its people.
These are but examples of a European reality as old as Europe itself: the refusal
of Germanic tribes to permit Slavic peoples to form independent, developed
states. When the Slavs resisted subjugation, the Germanic response was
invasion, destabilization, or the deliberate creation of persistent crises to exhaust
them and impede their progress. This explains the enduring hostility toward
Russia—the heartland of the Slavic world. As these examples demonstrate, the
hostility persists regardless of Russia’s political system: it existed against Tsarist
Russia, against Soviet Russia, and today against capitalist Russia.
It is within this historical context that the formation of NATO must be
understood. Contrary to its claims, NATO was not established as a defensive
alliance but as an instrument of aggression. Its primary objective was to contain
Russia, threaten it, and force it into a costly arms race that would drain its
resources and cripple its capacity for economic development. Germanic powers
claimed the alliance was formed to counter a “communist threat” and to defend
“democracy” in the West. This claim collapsed with the fall of communism in
Russia and Eastern Europe. What, then, did NATO do? Had it truly been a
defensive alliance confronting a vanished threat, it would have dissolved itself
alongside the Warsaw Pact. Instead, it expanded eastward, reaching the very
borders of the Slavic core in Russia—after first destroying Slavic Serbia.
The question NATO cannot answer is simple: When has it ever been defensive?
Which of its operations were genuinely defensive in nature? Was the invasion
and devastation of Serbia an act of defense? Was the occupation of Afghanistan
undertaken to protect NATO member states? Was the invasion and occupation
of Iraq—followed by its delivery into the hands of thieves—an act of defense?
Was the destruction and fragmentation of Libya conducted in defense of any
NATO country? Is the presence of NATO forces east of the Euphrates, stealing
Syria’s oil and wheat, an expression of NATO’s “defensive” character? Or is
NATO’s blind arming of Saudi Arabia and the Emirati mini-state to kill Yemeni
children meant to defend Europe from an invasion by Yemeni infants?
This brief survey leaves no room for doubt: the true purpose of NATO is the
domination of Europe—and as much of the world as possible—by Germanic
tribes and those sheltered under their power, along with control over global
energy resources. This alone should compel Arabs to expel NATO from their
lands.
No Arab should overlook what the Anglo-Saxons—the English-speaking
peoples of Britain, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand—
who now lead the Germanic world, have done to their Slavic cousins. What,
then, might they do to Arab peoples, whom they regard as occupying the lowest
rung of the human hierarchy—as their Germanic leader Hitler once did—should
Arabs refuse absolute submission to Anglo-Saxon hegemony, now controlled by
Zionist capitalism?
In this context, it is also necessary to address the widespread chatter in Arab
media about what is described as “double standards” in the Anglo-Saxon
world—its exaggerated coverage of events in Ukraine contrasted with its
complete silence on what has occurred, and continues to occur, in Palestine and
Yemen. The truth is that there are no double standards at all. Rather, this is the
European character itself: it applies one standard to itself and none whatsoever
to those it does not consider its own. Europe sees itself as the world and refers
to itself as the “international community”; all others are deemed irrelevant.
Thus, there is no double standard—there is only a single standard reserved
exclusively for Europe.
In the next part, I will attempt to outline the practical means I propose for
working toward the removal of the aggressive NATO alliance from Arab lands,
having demonstrated in this part and the previous one why such removal is
essential to the survival and future of the Arab nation.
To be continued…