تبدو العلاقة وثيقة بين الأحداث التي تشهدها منطقتنا العربية والمتنقلة بين العديد من بلدانها. وكأن ما يجري في السودان وثيق الصلة بما يجري في ليبيا، وما يجري في البلدين يتناغم بشكل أو بآخر مع ما يجري في غزة وفلسطين ككل. وهذا إذا صح، فإن ما يسمى بالشرق الأوسط الجديد تتم صناعته وصياغته من نفس المستعمر وبذات الأدوات الاستعمارية ويتم طبخه بنار زاد لهبها في السنوات الأخيرة لكي لا يتأخر ميلاد الشرق الأوسط الجديد عن موعده المرسوم له وفقاً للساعة والبوصلة الغربية من خلال وبواسطة نفس القوى التي خرجت منه قبل ما يقرب من مئة عام وفي منتصف القرن الماضي.
فلماذا بقيت منطقتنا ساحة للمستعمرين حتى بعد الاستقلال وبعد حركات التحرر، خلافاً لما شهدته الكثير من مناطق العالم بعد طرد الاستعمار منها، والتي رغم ما يسود بعضها من توترات أحياناً إلا أنها تقدمت كثيراً ودخلت المنافسة الاقتصادية، وتجاوزت شعوبها المرحلة التي تركها عندها الاستعمار بمراحل كثيرة؟ ما الذي يجعل منطقتنا والقارة الأفريقية لا تزالان عند النقطة التي تركها عندها المستعمرون وربما أقل بكثير من تلك النقطة لما دون الصفر، بينما تشهد مناطق أخرى من العالم في آسيا وأمريكا اللاتينية استقراراً سياسياً ونمواً اقتصادياً إلى حد كبير وبوتيرة ثابتة وصولاً إلى أهدافها؟
هل ما تشهده منطقتنا اليوم من توترات ونزاعات وحروب هو تنفيذ لمخططات رسمها المستعمر بعد أن رحل شكلياً، الذي لا تنقصه أساليب الحيل والدسائس وزرع الألغام بين الدول بعضها ضد بعض وبين فئات شعب الدولة الواحدة بدءاً من رسم الحدود السياسية التي أرادها المستعمر لهذه المنطقة وبطريقة لا تنسجم ولا تستقيم حتى مع الحدود الطبيعية والديموغرافية والتاريخية والجغرافية للمنطقة وأهلها الأصليين؟
إذا كان ما يجري للمنطقة من قلاقل واضطرابات منذ منتصف القرن الماضي، وهو تاريخ الرحيل المعلن للاستعمار، هو مخطط ومدروس للمنطقة منذ ذلك الزمن ليتم تفجير المنطقة بالتزامن مع نهاية المعاهدة التي تم بموجبها تقسيم المنطقة وشعوبها حسب المسطرة والقلم الفرنسي البريطاني الأوروبي، فكيف ولماذا يتحقق لهذا المستعمر ما يريد وفي المكان والتوقيت المحددين وكأن منطقتنا بلا سكان؟ لماذا لم يتم تغيير ما يمكن تغييره خلال فترة حكم الدولة الوطنية؟ ولماذا لم تتم إعادة صياغة وتشكيل المنطقة بعد رحيل الاستعمار من قبل أهل المنطقة الأصليين ووفقاً لمصالحهم؟ ولماذا لم تتطور علاقات دول منطقتنا البينية على غرار علاقات الدول في بعض مناطق العالم؟ وهل بوسع الدول بعد رحيل الاستعمار التغيير بعد تقرير المصير؟ لماذا أخفقت الدولة الوطنية في أن تتجاوز العرقيات والمذهبيات والطوائف والقوميات في سوريا وفي مختلف دول المنطقة إلى الدولة الوطنية العابرة لكل هذه المكونات دون أن تلغيها؟
وإذا كان المستعمر يخطط لمصالحه هو فقط دون اكتراث لحقوق ومصالح شعوب ودول منطقتنا الأصليين، وهو المتوقع من المستعمر، فما الذي جعل هذا التخطيط الاستعماري يتحقق في منطقتنا، رغم أن منطقتنا تملك مشروعاً حضارياً واقتصادياً إستراتيجياً أقوى وأمضى بكثير من المشروع الحالي، رغم التفوق العسكري للمشروع الغربي؟
هل استمرار الحرب على غزة والنزاعات في ليبيا والسودان وغيرهما مرتبط بتجهيز وتهيئة ما يسمى الشرق الأوسط الجديد لواحدة من محطاته المرتبطة بالمشروع الغربي؟ وهل توقف هذه الحروب والنزاعات مرتبط باكتمال وتدشين «الشرق الأوسط الجديد»؟ وهل سينتظر سكان منطقتنا الأصليين نسخة جديدة من الشرق الأوسط المصمم والمخطط أوروبياً وغربياً كل مئة سنة؟ أم أن شمس منطقتنا والعالم ستشرق قريباً من الصين، حيث تنعدم الثقافة الاستعمارية والصهيونية، وحيث يصبح اسم منطقتنا «الغرب الأوسط» الجديد وفقاً لبوصلة القوة العظمى القادمة من الشرق بدلاً من «الشرق الأوسط» المغيب عن هويته وحاضره ومستقبل أهله الأصليين وليس مستقبل سكانه الوهميين الذين جيء بهم من أوروبا الشرقية ومن إثيوبيا وغيرهما؟
تابع قناة عكاظ على الواتساب
The relationship seems close between the events taking place in our Arab region, which are shifting between many of its countries. It is as if what is happening in Sudan is closely related to what is happening in Libya, and what is occurring in both countries resonates in one way or another with what is happening in Gaza and Palestine as a whole. If this is true, then what is called the new Middle East is being manufactured and shaped by the same colonizer and with the same colonial tools, being cooked over a fire that has intensified in recent years so that the birth of the new Middle East does not lag behind its scheduled time according to the Western clock and compass, through and by the same powers that emerged from it nearly a hundred years ago and in the middle of the last century.
So why has our region remained a playground for colonizers even after independence and after liberation movements, unlike what many areas of the world experienced after the expulsion of colonialism from them, which, despite the tensions that sometimes prevail in some of them, have advanced significantly and entered economic competition, surpassing the stage left by colonialism by many stages? What makes our region and the African continent still at the point where the colonizers left it, and perhaps much lower than that point, below zero, while other regions of the world in Asia and Latin America witness political stability and significant economic growth at a steady pace towards their goals?
Is what our region is witnessing today in terms of tensions, conflicts, and wars the implementation of plans drawn up by the colonizer after he formally departed, who lacks neither cunning methods nor schemes to sow mines between countries against each other and among the factions of a single state, starting from drawing the political borders that the colonizer wanted for this region in a way that does not align or conform even with the natural, demographic, historical, and geographical borders of the region and its original inhabitants?
If what is happening in the region in terms of disturbances and unrest since the mid-20th century, which marks the announced departure of colonialism, is a planned and studied scheme for the region since that time to explode the area simultaneously with the end of the treaty under which the region and its peoples were divided according to the French, British, and European ruler, then how and why is this colonizer achieving what he wants at the specified place and time as if our region has no inhabitants? Why was there no change in what could be changed during the period of national state rule? And why was the region not restructured and reshaped after the departure of colonialism by its original inhabitants and according to their interests? Why have the inter-state relations in our region not developed like the relations between countries in some parts of the world? And can states change after the departure of colonialism following the right to self-determination? Why has the national state failed to transcend ethnicities, sects, and nationalities in Syria and in various countries of the region to become a national state that encompasses all these components without abolishing them?
If the colonizer is planning for his own interests only, without regard for the rights and interests of the original peoples and states of our region, which is expected from the colonizer, what has made this colonial planning materialize in our region, despite the fact that our region possesses a civilizational and economic project that is much stronger and more effective than the current project, despite the military superiority of the Western project?
Is the continuation of the war on Gaza and the conflicts in Libya, Sudan, and elsewhere related to preparing and setting up what is called the new Middle East for one of its stations linked to the Western project? And is the cessation of these wars and conflicts related to the completion and inauguration of the "new Middle East"? Will the original inhabitants of our region have to wait for a new version of the Middle East designed and planned by Europe and the West every hundred years? Or will the sun of our region and the world rise soon from China, where colonial and Zionist culture is absent, and where our region becomes the "new Middle West" according to the compass of the great power coming from the East instead of the "Middle East" that is obscured from its identity, present, and future of its original inhabitants and not the future of its imaginary inhabitants who were brought from Eastern Europe, Ethiopia, and elsewhere?
So why has our region remained a playground for colonizers even after independence and after liberation movements, unlike what many areas of the world experienced after the expulsion of colonialism from them, which, despite the tensions that sometimes prevail in some of them, have advanced significantly and entered economic competition, surpassing the stage left by colonialism by many stages? What makes our region and the African continent still at the point where the colonizers left it, and perhaps much lower than that point, below zero, while other regions of the world in Asia and Latin America witness political stability and significant economic growth at a steady pace towards their goals?
Is what our region is witnessing today in terms of tensions, conflicts, and wars the implementation of plans drawn up by the colonizer after he formally departed, who lacks neither cunning methods nor schemes to sow mines between countries against each other and among the factions of a single state, starting from drawing the political borders that the colonizer wanted for this region in a way that does not align or conform even with the natural, demographic, historical, and geographical borders of the region and its original inhabitants?
If what is happening in the region in terms of disturbances and unrest since the mid-20th century, which marks the announced departure of colonialism, is a planned and studied scheme for the region since that time to explode the area simultaneously with the end of the treaty under which the region and its peoples were divided according to the French, British, and European ruler, then how and why is this colonizer achieving what he wants at the specified place and time as if our region has no inhabitants? Why was there no change in what could be changed during the period of national state rule? And why was the region not restructured and reshaped after the departure of colonialism by its original inhabitants and according to their interests? Why have the inter-state relations in our region not developed like the relations between countries in some parts of the world? And can states change after the departure of colonialism following the right to self-determination? Why has the national state failed to transcend ethnicities, sects, and nationalities in Syria and in various countries of the region to become a national state that encompasses all these components without abolishing them?
If the colonizer is planning for his own interests only, without regard for the rights and interests of the original peoples and states of our region, which is expected from the colonizer, what has made this colonial planning materialize in our region, despite the fact that our region possesses a civilizational and economic project that is much stronger and more effective than the current project, despite the military superiority of the Western project?
Is the continuation of the war on Gaza and the conflicts in Libya, Sudan, and elsewhere related to preparing and setting up what is called the new Middle East for one of its stations linked to the Western project? And is the cessation of these wars and conflicts related to the completion and inauguration of the "new Middle East"? Will the original inhabitants of our region have to wait for a new version of the Middle East designed and planned by Europe and the West every hundred years? Or will the sun of our region and the world rise soon from China, where colonial and Zionist culture is absent, and where our region becomes the "new Middle West" according to the compass of the great power coming from the East instead of the "Middle East" that is obscured from its identity, present, and future of its original inhabitants and not the future of its imaginary inhabitants who were brought from Eastern Europe, Ethiopia, and elsewhere?


