خلال الكثير من الصراعات التي تندلع على مستوى الدول كثيراً ما تساور الطرف الأقوى الرغبة في تدمير الطرف الآخر تدميراً كلياً من خلال تجريده من جميع أسلحته، وغالباً ما تؤثر شخصية الزعماء في سيرورة الأحداث وانفجار الصراعات أو تحجيمها، فبعض القادة يتصفون بالعدوانية ويديرون نزاعاتهم بالكثير من التهور والرغبة في التدمير، وخلال أي نزاع يكون الهدف الوحيد الماثل أمامهم هو القضاء على خصومهم كليةً بل ومحوهم من الوجود.
كثيرة هي الصراعات التي عمّت سطح الكرة الأرضية على مدار التاريخ البشري، وباستعراض الكثير منها نجد أن بعض القادة والزعماء تجردوا من كافة القيم الإنسانية، وتفننوا في استخدام كافة الوسائل -حتى تلك غير الأخلاقية منها- لهزيمة الطرف الآخر والإضرار والتنكيل به، ومن الملاحظ أن بعض السياسيين يتصفون بالسادية، ولا شك أن السادية مرض نفسي بالغ السوء يضر كافة الأطراف، فالسادي هو شخص يستمتع بإيذاء الآخرين ويتلذذ بمعاناتهم، وكلما زادت معاناة الضحية زادت الرغبة في تدميره تماماً.
لعل السمات الشخصية للزعماء هي من تحدد مدى قوة وطول الفترة التي يستغرقها الصراع، فكلما اتصف الزعماء بالهدوء والحكمة والصبر كلما انخفض معدل الصراعات التي تخوضها الدولة، وجنحت أكثر للسلم، والعكس صحيح أيضاً، فالزعماء الذين يتصفون بالتهور، يميلون لرفض التصالح وينبذون الحلول السلمية، لذا تدخل دولهم في صراعات شتى ولمدد زمنية طويلة، يتم خلالها تدمير الأخضر واليابس وتعيش شعوبهم مآسي تليها مآسٍ على العديد من الأصعدة.
وخلال الصراعات ولاسيما الطويل منها والمعقد، يجد دوما الطرف الأضعف نفسه بين خيارين؛ إما أن يستسلم أو أن يقاوم لآخر رمق، فالاستسلام يعني الهزيمة الحتمية، أما المقاومة فقد تجد لها سبيلاً للنجاح، والمقاومون في ظروف مأساوية يتسمون بالبأس والشجاعة، فالواقع السيئ الذي يعيشونه لا يطرح أمامهم الكثير من الخيارات، ولذا ينطبق عليهم قول المتنبي: أنا الغريق فما خوفي من البلل؟! ففي الكثير من الصراعات نجد أن الأطراف الأضعف الموشكة على الهزيمة تستميت في القتال، فهو ملاذها ووجهتها الأخيرة، وهو كل ما تملكه لتَبقى لبعض الوقت على قيد الحياة، فقد تمكّنهم المقاومة من الحصول على بعض حقوقهم بدلاً من الاستسلام وخسارة كل شيء.
ولو استعرضنا بعض الوقائع التاريخية فسنجد أن الحق ينتصر في نهاية المطاف وأن الطرف الأقوى ينهزم لا محالة بعد أن يتملكه الغرور، فقد كمنت نهاية هؤلاء المتعجرفين في هذا الغرور القاتل، وقد علّمنا التاريخ أنه عند اندلاع صراع ما بين طرفين يكون الحق لدى أحدهما، ويسعى الطرف الآخر لسلب هذا الطرف حقه والتطاول عليه، فإن صاحب الحق لا يملك وقتها سوى الرهان على ما تبقى له من أنفاس ليخوض حرباً ليس أمامه فيها سوى الاستبسال قبل أن يلفظ أنفاسه الأخيرة، فإن قاوم فقد يحظى بفرصة للنجاة.
لعقود طويلة ومنذ تأسيس الكيان الإسرائيلي كانت المقاومة الفلسطينية -بكافة فصائلها- تدرك بوضوح أنها الطرف الأضعف في المعادلة العسكرية، غير أنها الطرف الذي يملك الحق، ولهذا السبب استمر الصراع عقودًا وقد يستمر لعقود أخرى قادمة لا يعلم أمدها سوى الله، وكل ما زادت المقاومة الفلسطينية كلما استخدمت إسرائيل كل ما لديها من وسائل عسكرية وسياسية لهزيمة الفلسطينيين، ولذلك فليس أمام المقاومة الفلسطينية سوى خيارين: إما المقاومة وإما الاستسلام، والاستسلام مرفوض جملة وتفصيلاً لأنه يعني ضياع الحق.
من الجلي أنه ليس أمام كافة فصائل المقاومة الفلسطينية سوى المقاومة، وإسرائيل من جانبها تستخدم لغة القوة وتفجر في خصومتها، وهو ما يرشح الصراع بينها وبين الفلسطينيين للاستمرار على نحو لا تبدو له نهاية في القريب العاجل، غير أن كل من التاريخ والواقع يخبرنا أن الإفراط في استخدام القوة لا يحقق أي نتائج إيجابية ولا يحسم أي صراع، فالقوة لا تدوم لأنها عنصر متغيّر بتغيّر الظروف، أما الحق فهو ثابت لا يتغيّر مهما تغيّرت الظروف أو الأشخاص.
محمد مفتي
الغريق لا يخشى البلل!
5 سبتمبر 2025 - 00:00
|
آخر تحديث 5 سبتمبر 2025 - 00:00
During many conflicts that erupt at the state level, the stronger party often harbors the desire to completely destroy the other party by stripping it of all its weapons. The personalities of leaders frequently influence the course of events and the explosion or containment of conflicts. Some leaders are characterized by aggression and manage their disputes with a great deal of recklessness and a desire for destruction. In any conflict, the only goal before them is to completely eliminate their opponents, even to the point of erasing them from existence.
There have been numerous conflicts that have swept across the surface of the Earth throughout human history. By reviewing many of them, we find that some leaders have stripped themselves of all human values and have excelled in using all means—even those that are unethical—to defeat the other party and harm and torment them. It is noticeable that some politicians exhibit sadism, and there is no doubt that sadism is a deeply harmful psychological illness that affects all parties. A sadist is someone who enjoys hurting others and takes pleasure in their suffering, and the greater the suffering of the victim, the stronger the desire to completely destroy them.
Perhaps the personal traits of leaders determine the strength and duration of the conflict. The more leaders are characterized by calmness, wisdom, and patience, the lower the rate of conflicts that their state engages in, leaning more towards peace. The opposite is also true; leaders who are characterized by recklessness tend to reject reconciliation and shun peaceful solutions. Thus, their countries enter into various conflicts for long periods, during which both the environment and the people suffer tragedies followed by more tragedies on many levels.
During conflicts, especially long and complex ones, the weaker party always finds itself faced with two options: either to surrender or to resist until the last breath. Surrender means inevitable defeat, while resistance may find a way to succeed. Resistors in tragic circumstances are characterized by resilience and courage, as the harsh reality they live in does not present them with many options. Hence, the saying of Al-Mutanabbi applies to them: "I am the drowned, so what do I fear from the wetness?!" In many conflicts, we find that the weaker parties on the brink of defeat fight desperately; it is their refuge and final destination, and it is all they have to stay alive for a while. Resistance may enable them to obtain some of their rights instead of surrendering and losing everything.
If we review some historical events, we will find that truth ultimately prevails and that the stronger party inevitably falls after being consumed by arrogance. The end of these arrogant individuals lies in this deadly arrogance. History has taught us that when a conflict erupts between two parties, with one holding the truth, the other party seeks to strip this party of its rights and overreach. At that moment, the rightful party has no choice but to bet on its remaining breaths to wage a war in which it has no option but to fight fiercely before it breathes its last. If it resists, it may have a chance for survival.
For decades, since the establishment of the Israeli entity, the Palestinian resistance—across all its factions—has clearly understood that it is the weaker party in the military equation, yet it is the party that holds the truth. For this reason, the conflict has persisted for decades and may continue for many more years to come, the duration of which only God knows. The more the Palestinian resistance increases, the more Israel employs all its military and political means to defeat the Palestinians. Therefore, the Palestinian resistance has no choice but to either resist or surrender, and surrender is completely rejected as it means the loss of rights.
It is evident that all factions of the Palestinian resistance have no option but to resist, while Israel, for its part, uses the language of power and escalates its hostility. This suggests that the conflict between it and the Palestinians is likely to continue in a manner that does not seem to have an end in the near future. However, both history and reality tell us that excessive use of force does not yield any positive results and does not resolve any conflict. Power does not last because it is a variable element that changes with circumstances, while truth is constant and does not change regardless of the circumstances or the people involved.
There have been numerous conflicts that have swept across the surface of the Earth throughout human history. By reviewing many of them, we find that some leaders have stripped themselves of all human values and have excelled in using all means—even those that are unethical—to defeat the other party and harm and torment them. It is noticeable that some politicians exhibit sadism, and there is no doubt that sadism is a deeply harmful psychological illness that affects all parties. A sadist is someone who enjoys hurting others and takes pleasure in their suffering, and the greater the suffering of the victim, the stronger the desire to completely destroy them.
Perhaps the personal traits of leaders determine the strength and duration of the conflict. The more leaders are characterized by calmness, wisdom, and patience, the lower the rate of conflicts that their state engages in, leaning more towards peace. The opposite is also true; leaders who are characterized by recklessness tend to reject reconciliation and shun peaceful solutions. Thus, their countries enter into various conflicts for long periods, during which both the environment and the people suffer tragedies followed by more tragedies on many levels.
During conflicts, especially long and complex ones, the weaker party always finds itself faced with two options: either to surrender or to resist until the last breath. Surrender means inevitable defeat, while resistance may find a way to succeed. Resistors in tragic circumstances are characterized by resilience and courage, as the harsh reality they live in does not present them with many options. Hence, the saying of Al-Mutanabbi applies to them: "I am the drowned, so what do I fear from the wetness?!" In many conflicts, we find that the weaker parties on the brink of defeat fight desperately; it is their refuge and final destination, and it is all they have to stay alive for a while. Resistance may enable them to obtain some of their rights instead of surrendering and losing everything.
If we review some historical events, we will find that truth ultimately prevails and that the stronger party inevitably falls after being consumed by arrogance. The end of these arrogant individuals lies in this deadly arrogance. History has taught us that when a conflict erupts between two parties, with one holding the truth, the other party seeks to strip this party of its rights and overreach. At that moment, the rightful party has no choice but to bet on its remaining breaths to wage a war in which it has no option but to fight fiercely before it breathes its last. If it resists, it may have a chance for survival.
For decades, since the establishment of the Israeli entity, the Palestinian resistance—across all its factions—has clearly understood that it is the weaker party in the military equation, yet it is the party that holds the truth. For this reason, the conflict has persisted for decades and may continue for many more years to come, the duration of which only God knows. The more the Palestinian resistance increases, the more Israel employs all its military and political means to defeat the Palestinians. Therefore, the Palestinian resistance has no choice but to either resist or surrender, and surrender is completely rejected as it means the loss of rights.
It is evident that all factions of the Palestinian resistance have no option but to resist, while Israel, for its part, uses the language of power and escalates its hostility. This suggests that the conflict between it and the Palestinians is likely to continue in a manner that does not seem to have an end in the near future. However, both history and reality tell us that excessive use of force does not yield any positive results and does not resolve any conflict. Power does not last because it is a variable element that changes with circumstances, while truth is constant and does not change regardless of the circumstances or the people involved.
