The mass movements which forced the removal of Mubarak reveal both the strength and weaknesses of spontaneous uprisings. On the one hand, the social movements demonstrated their capacity to mobilize hundreds of thousands, if not millions, in a successful sustained struggle culminating in the overthrow of the dictator in a way that pre-existent opposition parties and personalities were unable or unwilling to do.
On the other hand, lacking any national political leadership, the movements were not able to take political power and realize their demands, allowing the Mubarak military high command to seize power and define the “post-Mubarak” process, ensuring the continuation of Egypt’s subordination to the US, the protection of the illicit wealth of the Mubarak clan ($70 billion), and the military elite’s numerous corporations and the protection of the upper class. The millions mobilized by the social movements to overthrow the dictatorship were effectively excluded by the new self-styled “revolutionary” military junta in defining the political institutions and policies, let alone the socio-economic reforms needed to address the basic needs of the population (40% live on less than $2 USD a day, youth unemployment runs over 30%). Egypt, as in the case of the student and popular social movements against the dictatorships of South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines and Indonesia, demonstrates that the lack of a national political organization allows neo-liberal and conservative “opposition” personalities and parties to replace the regime. They proceed to set up an electoral regime which continues to serve imperial interests and to depend on and defend the existing state apparatus. In some cases they replace old crony capitalists with new ones. It is no accident that the mass media praise the ‘spontaneous’ nature of the struggles (not the socio-economic demands) and put a favorable spin on the role of military (slighting its 30 years as a bulwark of the dictatorship). The masses are praised for their “heroism”, the youth for their “idealism”, but are never proposed as central political actors in the new regime. Once the dictatorship fell, the military and the opposition electoralists “celebrated” the success of the revolution and moved swiftly to demobilize and dismantle the spontaneous movement, in order to make way for negotiations between the liberal electoral politicians, Washington and the ruling military elite.
While the White House may tolerate or even promote social movements in ousting (“sacrificing”) dictatorships, they have every intention of preserving the state. In the case of Egypt the main strategic ally of US imperialism was not Mubarak, it is the military, with whom Washington was in constant collaboration before, during and after the ouster of Mubarak, ensuring that the “transition” to democracy (sic) guarantees the continued subordination of Egypt to US and Israeli Middle East policy and interests.
The Arab revolt demonstrates once again several strategic failures in the much vaunted secret police, special forces and intelligence agencies of the US and Israeli state apparatus none of which anticipated, let along intervened, to preclude successful mobilization and influence their government’s policy toward the client rulers under attack.
The images which most writers, academics and journalists project of the invincibility of the Israeli Mossad and of the omnipotent CIA have been severely tested by their admitted failure to recognize the scope, depth and intensity of the multi-million member movement to oust the Mubarak dictatorship. The Mossad, pride and joy of Hollywood producers, presented as a ‘model of efficiency’ by their organized Zionist colleagues, were not able to detect the growth of a mass movement in a country right next door. The Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was shocked (and dismayed) by the precarious situation of Mubarak and the collapse of his most prominent Arab client – because of Mossad’s faulty intelligence. Likewise, Washington was totally unprepared by the 27 US intelligence agencies and the Pentagon, with their hundreds of thousands of paid operatives and multi-billion dollar budgets, of the forthcoming massive popular uprisings and emerging movements.
Several theoretical observations are in order. The notion that highly repressive rulers receiving billions of dollars of US military aid and with close to a million police, military and paramilitary forces are the best guarantors of imperial hegemony has been demonstrated to be false. The assumption that large scale, long term links with such dictatorial rulers, safeguards US imperial interests has been disproven.
Israeli arrogance and presumption of Jewish organizational, strategic and political superiority over “the Arabs”, has been severely deflated. The Israeli state, its experts, undercover operatives and Ivy League academics were blind to the unfolding realities, ignorant of the depth of disaffection and impotent to prevent the mass opposition to their most valued client. Israel’s publicists in the US, who scarcely resist the opportunity to promote the “brilliance” of Israel’s security forces, whether it’s assassinating an Arab leader in Lebanon or Dubai, or bombing a military facility in Syria, were temporarily speechless.
The fall of Mubarak and the possible emergence of an independent and democratic government would mean that Israel could lose its major ‘cop on the beat’. A democratic public will not cooperate with Israel in maintaining the blockade of Gaza – starving Palestinians to break their will to resist. Israel will not be able to count on a democratic government, to back its violent land seizures in the West Bank and its stooge Palestinian regime. Nor can the US count on a democratic Egypt to back its intrigues in Lebanon, its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, its sanctions against Iran. Moreover, the Egyptian uprising has served as an example for popular movements against other US client dictatorships in Jordan, Yemen and Saudi Arabia. For all these reasons, Washington backed the military takeover in order to shape a political transition according to its liking and imperial interests.
The weakening of the principle pillar of US imperial and Israeli colonial power in North Africa and the Middle East reveals the essential role of imperial collaborator regimes. The dictatorial character of these regimes is a direct result of the role they play in upholding imperial interests. And the major military aid packages which corrupt and enrich the ruling elites are the rewards for being willing collaborators of imperial and colonial states. Given the strategic importance of the Egyptian dictatorship, how do we explain the failure of the US and Israeli intelligence agencies to anticipate the uprisings?
Both the CIA and the Mossad worked closely with the Egyptian intelligence agencies and relied on them for their information, confiding in their self-serving reports that “everything was under control”: the opposition parties were weak, decimated by repression and infiltration, their militants languishing in jail, or suffering fatal “heart attacks” because of harsh “interrogation techniques”. The elections were rigged to elect US and Israeli clients – no democratic surprises in the immediate or medium term horizon.
Egyptian intelligence agencies are trained and financed by Israeli and US operatives and are amenable to pursuing their master’s will. They were so compliant in turning in reports which pleased their mentors, that they ignored any accounts of growing popular unrest or of internet agitation. The CIA and Mossad were so embedded in Mubarak’s vast security apparatus that they were incapable of securing any other information from the grassroots, decentralized, burgeoning movements which were independent of the “controlled” traditional electoral opposition.
When the extra-parliamentary mass movements burst forward, the Mossad and the CIA counted on the Mubarak state apparatus to take control via the typical carrot and stick operation: transient token concessions and calling out the army, police and death squads. As the movement grew from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands, to millions, the Mossad and leading US Congressional backers of Israel urged Mubarak to “hold on”. The CIA was reduced to presenting the White House with political profiles of reliable military officials and pliable “transitional” political personages, willing to follow in Mubarak’s footsteps. Once again the CIA and Mossad demonstrated their dependence on the Mubarak apparatus for intelligence of who might be a “viable” (pro-US/Israel) alternative, ignoring the elementary demands of the masses. The attempt to co-opt the old guard electoralist Muslim Brotherhood via negotiations with Vice-President Suleiman failed, in part because the Brotherhood was not in control of the movement and because Israel and their US backers objected. Moreover, the youth wing of the Brotherhood pressured them to withdraw from the negotiations.
The intelligence failure complicated Washington and Tel Aviv’s efforts to sacrifice the dictatorial regime to save the state: the CIA and MOSSAD did not develop ties to any of the new emerging leaders. The Israeli’s could not find any ‘new face’ with a popular following willing to serve as a crass collaborator to colonial oppression. The CIA had been entirely engaged in using the Egyptian secret police for torturing terror suspects (“exceptional rendition”) and in policing neighboring Arab countries. As a result both Washington and Israel looked to and promoted the military takeover to preempt further radicalization.
Ultimately the failure of the CIA and MOSSAD to detect and prevent the rise of the popular democratic movement reveals the precarious bases of imperial and colonial power. Over the long-run it is not arms, billions of dollars, secret police and torture chambers that decide history. Democratic revolutions occur when the vast majority of a people arise and say “enough”, take the streets, paralyze the economy, dismantle the authoritarian state and demand freedom and democratic institutions without imperial tutelage and colonial subservience.
– James Petras’ most recent books are: What’s Left in Latin America?, coauthored with Henry Veltmeyer (Ashgate Press, 2009), and Global Depression and Regional Wars (Clarity Press, 2009).
February 16, 2011
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Solidarity and Activism, Timeless or most popular |
Leave a comment
In recent months, Israel’s tactics to discredit legitimate protestors have become increasingly Orwellian as it steps up its campaign against human rights activists within the country and abroad, especially in the United Kingdom.
Human rights groups in Israel will now face scrutiny following the formation of a government-approved parliamentary committee to investigate Israeli organizations which criticize Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Thus, instead of tackling legitimate human rights concerns, Israel seeks to delegitimize those leveling the charges, despite the masses of evidence to support their claims.
Israel is also promoting and consolidating the Zionist narrative in the UK, using intimidation and guilt against those challenging Israel’s occupation, human rights abuses and its expansionist aspirations.
Two leading Israeli organizations with close links to the government, the Reut Institute and the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs, both warned recently that London was becoming a center for anti-Israel activity culminating, they claim, in a rise of anti-Semitism because British Muslim-led organizations are being given free rein.
Reut boasts on its website that is seeks “to provide real-time, long-term strategic decision-support to Israeli leaders and decision-makers,” hardly making it an independent observer. It published a report on London in November titled “Building a Political Firewall against the Assault on Israel’s Legitimacy,” which claimed that London is the “Mecca of Delegitimization” and a key player in all major recent “delegitimization” campaigns concerning Israel (download the full report [PDF]).
“Delegitimization” is the term coined by the Reut Institute last year to describe a whole variety of activities by Palestinian and solidarity activists who call for Israel to end its occupation, abide by international law and respect the human rights of all Palestinians wherever they are.
Reut’s report on London was followed by another from the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs which spared virtually no organization in London connected to the anti-war movement from the accusation of being “delegitimizers.”
Common to both of these reports was the labeling of British Muslim organizations as “Islamist,” drawing on their ancestral and religious links to imply they had ties with Iran, Hizballah and Hamas, and thus present an existential threat to the democratic West. By drawing such spurious links, Israel and its apologists hope to demonize British citizens, shore up political support for Israel and score easy political gains by appealing to Islamophobia and fear.
This spin has been quickly picked up by Israel’s acolytes in the UK media. On 29 December 2010, The Times reported the ludicrous and baseless accusations by the Israeli defense ministry that the London-based Palestine Return Centre was involved in “terror-related activities” and served as a front for Hamas (James Hider, “City condemned as ‘hub of hubs’“).
Writing in The Sunday Telegraph a few days earlier,
Andrew Gilligan bemoaned that the Charity Commission, the UK’s charity watchdog, has lost its bite when it concluded that it “found no evidence of irregular or improper use of the Charity’s funds” in reference to separate accusations made in the Telegraph against another British Charity — Muslim Aid.
Thus, by failing to follow Israel’s lead and implicate innocent charities like Muslim Aid in supporting terrorist networks in Palestine, Gilligan, rather like Israel, chose to demonize those who fail to toe the line. We should take pride in the fact that the Charities Commission acts independently, rather than succumbing to political pressure to withdraw charitable status.
While the fear of “Islamism” is being pumped in the veins of one arm of the nation, the other arm is being injected with the false idea that anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism. That is a point contested by, among others, many British Jewish individuals and organizations who stand in solidarity with Palestinians in calling for an end to Israel’s occupation and other human rights abuses.
Resorting to accusing Israel’s critics of “anti-Semitism” is an old tactic that is being revived with new zeal in an attempt to intimidate into silence those calling for an end to Israel’s impunity and exceptionalism.
What Zionists fail to understand is that the Free Palestine movement has permeated across all sections of British society and religious affiliation is incidental. Israel’s divide-and-rule tactics have not succeeded in breaking the will of a brutalized Palestinian population, and they will not work against the solidarity movement in the UK either.
While continuing to build illegal colonies on Palestinian land; evicting Palestinians from Jerusalem; subjugating millions through routine, brutal violence and killing; and corraling Palestinians in elaborate systems of movement control, such as the illegal West Bank wall and the blockade of Gaza, Israel insists that it always be presented as peaceful, reasonable, humane, compassionate and magnanimous. These virtues are extolled and celebrated in Judaism, as in many other religions, but they are not ones that have ever been practiced by Israel toward Palestinians.
There is no doubt that at present Israel has the sympathy of the UK government. But the public is more and more aware of the realities and it is doubtful that the Zionist offensive can silence British people’s sense of justice and intimidate and blackmail us into thinking that by criticizing Israel’s practices and calling for justice for all, we are attacking Judaism.
The British sense of justice will overcome attempts by the Zionist lobby of equating anti-Semitism with illegal Zionist occupation and practices in West Bank and Gaza Strip. These tactics are intended to divide people from each other and to sow sectarianism and fear. We mustn’t allow them to succeed.
Ismail Patel is Chair of UK based NGO Friends of Al-Aqsa, and author of several books including Palestine: Beginner’s Guide and Medina to Jerusalem: Encounters with the Byzantine Empire.
February 15, 2011
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Solidarity and Activism, Timeless or most popular |
Leave a comment
In an important gain for the global movement for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel, Brazil’s largest Trade Union Confederation (CUT), voiced its support of the BDS call and called for the suspension of Israeli-Brazilian economic agreements and military ties on January 28.
In a statement signed by National President of CUT as well as its General Secretary and International Relations Secretary, the union stated:
“The advancement of the Israeli offensive, symbolized by the construction of the wall of apartheid and the constant bombing of Gaza requires solidarity with the Palestinian People from us all to carry out policies that go beyond humanitarian assistance and can contribute in a relevant way to build peace in Palestine. Thus we urge trade unions, social and popular movements to support the campaign for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions to policies of occupation of Palestinian territory by Israel.”
According to research done by Stop the Wall, Israeli companies began in 2000 to become a critical part of the Brazilian police and military forces, with Elbit Systems taking the lead. This was primarily in high-tech areas, but also extended to conventional arms. Currently, a number of major Israeli arms companies have their sights set on Brazil as the key market in South America. In its statement, CUT singled out the growing military trade and economic links being built between Brazil and Israel:
“We regret that Brazil is the third largest consumer of arms from Israel through the Plan of National Defense Strategy of the Ministry of Defense of Brazil, and that arms agreements contribute indirectly to the occupation of Palestinian territory. It is therefore necessary that the Brazilian government suspend current agreements and bilateral economic / military negotiations between Brazil and Israel. It is unacceptable that the Free Trade Agreement between MERCOSUR and Israel becomes a reality.”
The BDS movement is spreading rapidly in Latin America, as more trade unions and social movements take up the call. In December a campaign against the Israeli water carrier Mekerot was launched in Argentina while workers movements and community radios in the same country backed boycott, divestment and sanctions.
– – –
Full text of the CUT resolution
February 15, 2011
Posted by aletho |
Solidarity and Activism |
Leave a comment
Bahraini youths protest in front of the police in Manama on February 14, 2011
Witnesses say police in Bahrain have violently clashed with pro-democracy protesters during the “Day of Rage” rallies across the country.
On Monday, police fired tear gas and rubber bullets at hundreds of demonstrators in Karkazan, a Shia village south of the capital, Manama, AFP reported.
Security forces stepped up their presence with helicopters circling over Manama.
At least 14 people were wounded in overnight and Monday clashes.
Activists, inspired by revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia, have dubbed Monday “the Day of Rage” to express disappointment at the political reforms of the past decade, which have failed to bring prosperity and real change.
The majority Shia population in Bahrain has been complaining about inequality and oppression. The government has been clamping down on the opposition since the country’s controversial general elections in August last year.
Since late Sunday, Bahrain’s security forces have been patrolling shopping centers and other locations to monitor people’s movements amid calls by opposition groups for pro-democracy protests.
February 14, 2011
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Economics, Solidarity and Activism |
Leave a comment
For those who, in the euphoria of celebration, forgot what this revolution was all about, below is the list of demands from the Revolution Coalition. The success of the Egyptian revolution must be measured by how many of these demands have been met, in addition to the verdicts issued against Mubarak, Suleiman, Shafiq, and all other ex-government officials and business tycoons, even if they were members of the Egyptian so-called brave Military. All other measures that demand anything less are treasonous to the blood of the martyrs since January 25.
The January 25 Revolutionary Youth Communique No. 1
We, the peoples of Egypt, the true rulers of its land, destiny, and fortunes, who have retrieved them in full since the outbreak of the January 25 populace, civil, democratic revolution, and the sacrifice of our righteous martyrs, and after the revolution’s success in the deposing of the corrupt regime and its leaders; we announce the continuation of this peaceful revolution until victory and the realization of all our demands in full:
1 – The abolishing of the Emergency [martial law] conditions immediately.
2 – The immediate release of all political prisoners.
3 – The abolishing of the current constitution including all its amendments.
4 – The abolishing of both arms of the parliament and local governments.
5 – The creation of an interim presidential rule including five members, one military and four civilian, known for their patriotism and accepted by the people, and on the condition that none of them run for the first presidential elections.
6 – The creation of an interim government including capable, independent, and patriotic individuals; and excluding individuals with ties to political parties, to assume command of the nation’s affairs and prepare for fair and free general elections at the end of the interim period which must not exceed nine months; and no member of this interim government can run for the first elections.
7 – The formation of an original constituent assembly to write a new democratic constitution that concurs with the greatest democratic constitutions and international charters for human rights, put for public referendum within three months of the formation of this assembly.
8 – The freedom to form any political party, on civil, democratic, and peaceful foundations, without any obstacle or condition, and [they become legal] by simply announcing [their creation].
9 – The freedom of press [media] and the circulation of information.
10 – The freedom for union organization and the creation of civil institutions.
11 – The abolishing of all military and poll courts, and abolishing all verdicts produced by these courts against civilians.
12 – And finally, we, the peoples of Egypt, call upon Egypt’s righteous, national army, who is the son of this nation, who safeguarded the people’s blood and secured the nation in this great revolution, to declare its full adoption to all of these decisions and people’s demands, and to completely align itself with the people.
The Peoples of the January 25 Revolution
February 14, 2011
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Solidarity and Activism, Timeless or most popular |
Leave a comment
VETERANS OF the Israel Defense Force (IDF) have opened a new front for psychological warfare operations (what Zionists call hasbara) in the U.S., speaking on college campuses in an effort to “humanize” the IDF and deflect attention from its institutional responsibility for war crimes against the Palestinian people.
Last fall, Sgt. Kenny Sachs spoke at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Approximately 50 activists mobilized by the Western Massachusetts Coalition for Palestine (WMCP) disrupted his presentation, using tactics modeled after protests staged earlier in the semester at the University of Michigan and Arizona State University.
The hasbara offensive in Western Massachusetts opened this spring with a thinly disguised recruitment pitch for the IDF delivered by Sgt. Benjamin Anthony, the self-described founder of Our Soldiers Speak, at Hampshire College on Thursday, February 3.
Sgt. Anthony’s talk was sponsored by the David Project, which has a history of circulating Islamophobic propaganda; the Hasbara Fellowships, which is linked to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the international arm of Aish HaTorah, an extremist settler group in Israel that has erected a one-ton model of the “Third Temple” close to the Western Wall in Jerusalem as a warning of “what’s to come” for Muslims living in the city; and Stand With Us, a group actively involved in “pink-washing” Israel and whose members recently pepper-sprayed members of Jewish Voice for Peace during a meeting.
Hampshire College Students for Justice in Palestine, supported by the WMCP and other local social justice organizations, mobilized to confront Sgt. Anthony and make clear that apologists for Israeli racism and oppression are not welcome on our campuses or in our communities.
A film representation of our protest inside the auditorium is not available, for reasons explained in the open letter that follows.
The protest at Hampshire underscores the urgency of developing tactical flexibility, studying the tactics and tendencies of hasbara organizations as they emulate the Pentagon in “perception management,” and creatively seeking ways to communicate our principled solidarity with the demand of the Palestinian people for self-determination.
Mark Clinton, a professor of political science at Holyoke Community College, shares an open letter he sent to the interim president of Hampshire College about a recent protest of a speech given by a member of the Israel Defense Force.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
An open letter to Marlene Gerber Fried, interim president of Hampshire College
February 6, 2011
Dear Dr. Gerber Fried,
On Thursday, February 3, I attended the so-called lecture delivered by Sergeant Benjamin Anthony, an Israeli Defense Force (IDF) reservist, at Hampshire College.
I was so shocked–and I do not shock easily–by the role that members of Hampshire’s administration appeared to play in facilitating Sgt. Anthony’s hate-mongering recruitment pitch for the IDF that my conscience will not let me rest until I register my discontent with you.
If I had any doubts about the need to send you this open letter, they vanished after I read your letter of Friday, February 4, to the Hampshire College community, which a friend shared with me after I had written the first draft of my letter to you.
Your letter, which purports to represent an event you did not attend, is clearly based on “reports” from members of your own administrative team and, perhaps, supporters of Sergeant Anthony who were in attendance.
I hope you will forgive me if I tell you frankly that I was struck by its injudicious absence of the investigatory and critical spirit I would expect from a philosopher.
It is, I think, compelling evidence of the soul-deadening burden of overseeing an administrative apparatus.
At the outset, I must say that if the objective of Hampshire’s administration in its “facilitation” of Sergeant Anthony’s appearance was that of allowing Hampshire students and community members who attended a small taste of the oppression that Palestinians experience on a daily basis, I believe that you succeeded.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
THE EVENT began late, and one entrance to the auditorium was closed for no apparent reason. When those of us waiting there to enter inquired why we could not use what appeared to be a perfectly functional doorway, we were given no answer.
After waiting what seemed an interminable period in the lobby, people were finally allowed to enter the auditorium in single file while security guards counted us.
I kept nervously fingering my wallet, expecting at any moment to be asked for my identification papers, especially as I have a rather full beard and was wearing a keffiyeh as an expression of solidarity with the Palestinian people.
Given what transpired as the event began, I am somewhat surprised in retrospect that I was not refused admission to the auditorium because I was “disrespectfully” attired. Members of Hampshire’s administration began the event by enjoining the audience to listen respectfully and warning them sternly that anyone who disrupted or filmed the lecture would be removed from the auditorium.
At the same time we were informed rather peremptorily that Sergeant Anthony’s private security team would be filming the event.
I could not help but wonder why Hampshire College was so interested in protecting Sergeant Anthony’s privacy as he delivered a public lecture (I recognized him instantly, by the way, since his photograph is widely available on the Internet) while having no discernible interest whatsoever in protecting the privacy of anyone who had a strong enough stomach or a weak enough heart to sit “respectfully” while he spewed his hate-filled bilge over the audience.
To hear Sergeant Anthony tell it, the IDF is the victim of a mainstream media that can only be motivated by anti-Semitism, which apparently was intended to explain why they actually covered the IDF’s violently disproportional attacks on Lebanon in 2006, on Gaza in 2008-2009, and on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla last year.
While I wondered how Sergeant Anthony would attempt to explain that same media’s overwhelming silence regarding the quotidian violence and oppression of the Israeli occupation of Palestine and how I could manage to hold my peace, a young man whom I happened to be sitting behind rose and in a calm, loud voice observed that Israel’s occupation of Palestine de-legitimized Israel.
A member of your administration hurried over to inform the young man that if he did not stop disrupting the event, security would remove him from the auditorium.
As this warning was delivered, supporters of Sergeant Anthony and, presumably, Israeli aggression, shouted invectives at the young man.
I know it probably wasn’t respectful, but I could not resist asking the member of your administrative team if he was going to warn these members of the audience that they too would be removed.
I am certain that he heard me since he glared at me with what I could only interpret as contemptuous hostility and then turned on his heel without warning anyone else about their disruptive behavior.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
TO ME, the message was crystal clear: anyone who dared express dissent during Sergeant Anthony’s verbal barrage would be charged with disruption and cleared from the room, while it was open season for audience members who vocally supported Sergeant Anthony; they could say anything they pleased to the dissidents.
That Sergeant Anthony’s supporters reached roughly the same conclusion would appear to be indicated by the fact that one of them felt empowered to refer to a dissident in the audience as a “faggot” without reproach by any member of your administration.
It took another student rising and informing the homophobe that he too was a “faggot” and that the use of that word to characterize another human being was unacceptable to shame the homophobe sufficiently that he left the auditorium.
For those of us who did leave the auditorium of our own volition–and in the interests of full disclosure, I was one of the people who participated in an organized walkout during the “lecture,” walking in front of Sergeant Anthony and showing him the name of a Palestinian child killed during Operation Cast Lead (I guess that was why he needed a private security force–to protect him from exposure to the facts on the ground that disclose the unmistakable evidence of Israeli war crimes and discredit Israel’s attempt to maintain its master narrative of the fabled Israeli purity of arms)–Hampshire security announced that no right of return existed.
This rule, apparently created on the spur of the moment, was applied inflexibly, much to the surprise of people who had left for such a perfectly innocent reason as the need to use the restrooms.
The security guard enforcing this rule at the one functional entrance to the auditorium not only refused to give his name when one young man asked for it, he also conspicuously covered his name badge with one hand while engaging in this refusal, keeping it covered for several minutes.
Hampshire’s chief of security finally appeared and spoke to the group who had gathered in and around the stairwell adjoining the entrance, addressing us with what I can only describe as contemptuous hostility (I know that the phrase is redundant, but I cannot think of a better one.)
The security chief did finally inform us, “His name is Officer Erickson.”
He refused to answer any other questions, however.
In short, your administrative team and security officers did not so much provide neutral facilitation for Sergeant Anthony’s “lecture” as protection for a thug who had brought his own bullies with him, creating an atmosphere of intimidation.
I think it is a credit to Hampshire students expressing solidarity with the Palestinian people that they steadfastly displayed the courage of their convictions, and I am proud to be associated with them.
I have spent a great deal of time describing my observations of the fundamental procedural unfairness with which the event was conducted because there is actually nothing to say about the intellectual substance of the so-called lecture.
It was simply, as I observed in my opening paragraph, a hate-mongering recruitment pitch for the IDF, as I am sure you can assure yourself if you ask Sergeant Anthony to provide you with an unedited copy of the filmic record his security team made of the event.
In closing, I do have one question, however.
If Hampshire College does indeed intend to provide its students and members of the Pioneer Valley Community with all “sides” to contested issues of public discourse, when may I expect to receive an invitation to attend a recruitment speech by a member of Hamas that Hampshire’s administration will facilitate as subserviently as it did the appearance of Sergeant Anthony?
Sincerely,
Mark Clinton, Ph.D., professor of Political Science, Holyoke Community College
(for identification purposes only)
February 14, 2011
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Solidarity and Activism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes |
Leave a comment
The Egyptian military, with a US green light, got rid of Mubarak for precisely the same reason they sent the police and thugs that killed over 300 and injured thousands last week — to allow for the economy to run smoothly again. In other words, the disposing of Mubarak is just another solution, as undesirable as it may be, to re-open banks and have business run as usual. Factories, banks, real state, and other businesses are still owned by the same corrupt leaders, with the fate of the Mubarak family stock still unknown.
The High Council of Armed Forces, in all their four communiqués, stressed the “economic interests” of the country, which, in a heavily-privatized economy like Egypt’s, means the interests of the private owners, some of whom are military generals. The forced removal of Mubarak, in the end, served owners’ interests foremost. This economic concern was ranked as the most important objective in the High Council of Armed Forces’ latest communiqué:
- First: The High Council of the Armed Forces is committed to all contents in previous communiqués.
- Second: The High Council of the Armed Forces has great confidence in the ability of Egypt, its institutions, and its people in surpassing the current critical conditions. And based on this, all sectors, public and private, must commit to their glorious and patriotic mission to push the wheel of economy forward, and that the people are held responsible in this matter.
The third point in the communiqué was only natural to forcefully uphold “the glorious and patriotic mission,” which is to keep the current government under Suleiman in power until new elections are held. The Council did not set up a time frame for these elections, but it definitively did so for resuscitating the economy (i.e. retrieve flow of income and profits on their investments) as a priority that cannot wait for democracy; which is now! This communiqué went short of repeating Suleiman’s patronizing words yesterday when he said: “Go back to your homes and your jobs.”
There are a lot of people who simply cannot accept that the economy, at this stage, is of much concern to the Egyptian military regime (which is still in power) and the Obama administration and other US officials, let alone the general public and the revolution. But that is because these people are not trained sufficiently to have an economic eye on world affairs. The focus then shifts to the political aspects of the revolution: democracy, fair elections, and freedom of speech and religion. Make no mistake, these are absolutely important elements of any successful revolution, and achieving them deserves euphoric celebrations. But to ignore the economic demands, the very reason why this revolution even took place, is really an act of infanticide against this new-born Egyptian revolution. Bou Azizi (the true catalyst of the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions) did not set himself on fire because he couldn’t vote in free elections. He set himself on fire because his only source of income was humiliatingly taken away from him.
All indications seem to favor sustaining the Egyptian economic system and excluding it from the revolution. For example, the Finance minister, Samir Radwan, appointed by Mubarak during the January 25 Revolution, is still running the country’s economic affairs with almost no objection from anyone. He spoke to CNN’s Piers Morgan last night to share his feelings of jubilee, but in fact refrained from using any revolutionary words, and referred to the last eighteen days as “the crisis.” Luckily so far, according to Qatar News Agency (Feb 7, 2011), he refused IMF intervention:
“The minister quoted the CBK chief as stressing that the government’s procedures would be enough to confront the current crisis.”
But then yesterday, he was quoted saying that a stimulus package may be needed, without specifying the source of those funds, to boost up employment. These all sound like innocent events to the economically illiterate. But lessons must be learned from past revolutions, like the Polish Revolution in 1989, when all the fruits of revolution were finally reaped by private owners of the country’s most important resources and industries, after being drowned by IMF loans in return for speeding up the process of privatization and doing away with labor laws and trade barriers.
The January 25 Revolution does not address the private ownership of the country’s telecommunications industry, power grid, water, post, and other major financial infrastructures. Should the country’s resources also belong to the people in the same way that the parliament and presidency ought to? Would democracy be worth anything if the democratically-elected government had no say or authority over the country’s oil, gas, water, energy, agriculture, stock markets and banking regulations, because they are “privately” owned?
Recall that the world stood by watching as the Free Officers Movement, led by Mohammad Najib and Abdul Nasser, took over power in Egypt in 1952. It was only when Abdul Nasser began a campaign of nationalizing the economy (especially the Suez Canal), that the world super powers (Britain, France, and Israel) turned against Egypt and declared war in 1953. This must be a hint to all spectators, that as long as the new freely-elected Egyptian government (to be) secures business contracts and foreign investments, the world shall embrace Egyptian democracy. However, should they choose to nationalize the major sectors of the economy, the free world will turn against Egypt, and we’ll hear western media pundits talking about how Egyptians were never ready for democracy, and how democracy does not fit the Arab mentality or society, and how dictatorships are necessary for the security of the United States of America against possible terrorist cells growing in chaos-hot-bed Egypt.
The Egyptian military, however, being itself invested in the privately owned neo-liberal economy of Egypt, had made assurances in their communiqués to the effect that they are going to protect the economy (read securing investments, foreign and domestic) as a major priority. The Egyptian Revolution of January 25 has put Egypt on the road to democracy, but will it lead to Egyptian economic independence — where economic decisions are made in Egypt, by Egyptians, and serve the interests of Egyptians? Or will they forfeit economic independence and honor free trade agreements that supersede democracy and the people’s will?
One thing is for certain. The Egyptian military rule (and all other dictatorships) can only be forced to make concessions through peaceful and total economic paralysis, as had been witnessed in the past eighteen days of the greatest Arab victory since Saladdin. The lesson to be learned for future Arab revolutions, and all world revolutions, is to keep the economy in the background of all tactics, strategies, and objectives.
February 14, 2011
Posted by aletho |
Economics, Solidarity and Activism |
Leave a comment
The ongoing insurrection in Egypt is fantastic, but the barriers standing between the people and any substantive form of democracy are formidable and will need to be overcome in the near future. As one might expect there are plenty of ‘reformers’ waiting amongst the counter-revolutionaries to undermine any forthcoming revolution, ready and willing to proudly take on the mantle of power in the name of the democracy. Leading neoconservative ideologue, Paul Wolfowitz, suggests that Hossam Badrawi, the “recently appointed head of Egypt’s government party may be emerging as an interesting and reasonable transition figure.” Acknowledging that there are many such leaders who stand between the Egyptian people and a successful revolution, this article will focus on the elites in Badrawi’s higher circles in an attempt to draw attention to just a few of the many of the powerful groups and individuals ready and willing to smash/co-opt the peoples movement under the iron heel/velvet slipper of the Oligarchy.[1]
Until recently Hossam Badrawi served on the board of governors of Mubarak’s National Democratic Party (NDP), but with the en masse resignations of many of the members of the NDP’s top executive committee, Badrawi a founding member of Arab Parliamentarians Against Corruption, became their new Secretary General. To gain an idea of Badrawi’s reformist ambitions for Egypt one might turn to look at some of his colleagues at Egypt’s International Economic Forum, a group whose “ultimate objective” is “fully integrating the Egyptian economy into the world economy on favourable terms.”
Notable elites serving alongside Badrawi on Egypt’s International Economic Forum’s executive committee include Taher Helmy, who is the founder and chair of the Egyptian Center for Economic Studies, a think-tank has been supported for the past two decades by the imperialist National Endowment for Democracy. In fact, the International Economic Forum’s current chairman, M. Shafik Gabr, also serves as a board member of Helmy’s think tank, and as a member of a World Economic Forum project called the Community of West and Islam Dialogue (C-100). Next up, the treasurer of Egypt’s International Economic Forum, Shahira Magdy Zeid, just so happens to be a board member of the Mubarak Women’s International Peace Movement — which is headed (of course) by the dictators wife, Suzanne. (Likewise, Taher Helmy is a board member of Mubarak’s ‘peace’ movement.)
Egypt’s International Economic Forum boasts of a small but impressive advisory board of just five individuals, the three most significant being: the former U.S. Ambassador to Egypt, Robert Pelletreau; World Economic Forum president, Klaus Schwab (a devotee of Orwellian politics who counts himself as a ‘peace’ advocate because of his service on the board of governors at the Shimon Peres Center for Peace); and Frank G. Wisner, Jr. , an important imperial power broker who after serving as U.S. Ambassador to Egypt (1986-91), went on to become the U.S. Ambassador to the Philippines, where he supervised the aftermath of their recent transition from U.S.-backed dictatorship to ‘democracy.’ That the Philippines’ immensely powerful people-powered movement could be co-opted by the U.S. governments ‘democracy promotion’ apparatus provides a stark example of what the Oligarchy has in store for Egypt; that is, if they are not thwarted by what may turn out to be a truly revolutionary movement for change.[2]
Last but not least, especially considering their advisors’ special imperial pedigree, it makes sense to briefly examine some of the members of the Egypt’s International Economic Forum’s board of trustees. We might start here with the former information secretary of Mubarak’s National Democratic Party, Ali Eldin Helal (who resigned earlier this month). In addition to his central role in dispensing state propaganda, Eldin Helal was the first vice president of the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights (1985-7) — a group that received annual support from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) between 1994 and 2005. Furthermore it is important to point out that at the same time as he worked for this human rights group he served on the council of the British-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (1983-92).[3]
Other trustees of Egypt’s International Economic Forum include Ahmed Ezz and Rachid Mohamed Rachid, who are both board members of a business orientated nonprofit called Future Generation Foundation that is headed by Mubarak’s son, Gamal; and Mona Makram-Ebeid, who is a founding member of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs — an elite think tank that models itself on the imperial brains trust that is the Council on Foreign Relations.
Here it is interesting to point out that a particularly influential member of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs is Naguib Sawiris, the eldest son of Orascom-empire patriarch, Onsi Sawiris. Naguib Sawiris presently serves on the international advisory committee to the New York Stock Exchange board of directors, and is a recent board member of the ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’ nonprofit, Foundation for the Future. In fact, Sawiris was linked to this group in 2007, during the time at which the romantic partner of Paul Wolfowitz, Shaha Riza (a former NED-scholar herself) managed this highly profitable neoconservative enterprise (for a critique of this group, see “The Foundation for the Future: What FOIA Documents Reveal,” pdf).[4]
Finally, another significant member of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs is Mamdouh Salim, who is a member of the Arab Organization for Human Rights (see later), and is the vice president of the Forum of Dialogue and Partnership for Development’s board of trustees. This latter group provides a connection to another important group that has received funding from the NED, the Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies; this is because Ayat M. Abul-Futtouh acted as the program manager for the Forum of Dialogue and Partnership for Development from 2001 until 2003, before she moved on to become the managing director of the Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies. Abul-Futtouh also happens to be a founder and a steering committee member of the Network for Democrats in the Arab World, and in 2006 she was invited to give a talk at Paul Wolfowitz’s current nominal home, the American Enterprise Institute; this talk was later published in 2008 the Institutes’s book Dissent and Reform in the Arab World: Empowering Democrats.
The current chairman of the Ibn Khaldun Center’s board of trustees is Nobel Peace Prize nominee and Arab Organization for Human Rights founder, Saad Eddin Ibrahim. Although widely celebrated as a leading Egyptian pro-democracy activist, Ibrahim maintains intimate connections to U.S. neoconservatives and a wide variety of ‘democracy promoting’ organizations connected to the work of the NED (for a critical examination of his background, see “The Violence of Nonviolence”). Recently Ibrahim even joined the advisory board of a neoconservative group called Cyberdissidents.org, whose web site says they are “dedicated to supporting human liberty by promoting the voices of online dissidents.” Founded in 2008 this project is headed by their cofounder, David Keyes, who previously served as coordinator for democracy programs under the right-wing Zionist Natan Sharansky while based at the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies.
Retaining the theme on ‘democracy’ obsessed neoconservatives, it is significant that Sherif Mansour, the former program manager for the Ibn Khaldoun Center for Development Studies, is a current program officer for Middle East and North Africa at the neoconservative outfit, Freedom House. He is the coeditor with Maria Stephan of the book Civilian Resistance in the Middle East (Routledge, 2009).[5] Based at Freedom House, Mansour runs the New Generation program which advocates for political reform in Egypt and North Africa. Needless to say such ‘peace’ activists do not want the popular insurrection in Egypt to escalate to become a successful revolution that dismantles Egypt’s brutal state apparatus and creates a vibrant people-powered democracy. This helps explain why conservative commentators based in the United States are now asking: “Will Venezuela Be the Next Egypt?” The answer to that ridiculous question is a definitive no!
– Michael Barker is an independent researcher who currently resides in the UK. His other articles can be accessed here.
– Notes –
[1] This is a reference to the Jack London’s 1907 book The Iron Heel. In a forthcoming article titled “The Velvet Slipper and the Military-Peace Nonprofit Complex,”I elaborate on what I refer to as the velvet slipper approach to manipulating social movements — an approach currently in vogue among leading neoconservatives.
[2] For further details, see Kim Scipes, KMU: Building Genuine Trade Unionism in the Philippines, 1980-1994 (New Day Publishers, 1996); and William I. Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy: Globalization, US Intervention, and Hegemony (Cambridge University Press, 1996), Chapter 3.
[3] Incidentally, elite ‘peace’-broker Peter Ackerman joined the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London as a visiting scholar, undertaking research which led him to co-authoring a book with Christopher Kruegler (the president of the controversial NED-funded Albert Einstein Institution) called Strategic Nonviolent Conflict: The Dynamics of People Power in the Twentieth Century (Praeger, 1994). Ackerman is a current board member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the founding chair and primary funder of the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict, and former chair of the neoconservative Freedom House.
[4] One might add that Naguib’s brother, Nassef Onsi Sawiris, is a board member of the cement behemoth, Lafarge, where he alongside numerous high-rolling members of the ruling class.
[5] It is noteworthy that Maria Stephan worked on this book while based at Peter Ackerman’s ‘democracy promoting’ International Center on Nonviolent Conflict. (See footnote #3)
February 13, 2011
Posted by aletho |
Solidarity and Activism, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel |
Leave a comment
Thousands of anti-nuclear activists protest along the route of a nuclear waste train in Germany, demanding an end to the transportation of radioactive waste.
Various anti-nuclear protests took place across Germany on Sunday. In Greifswald, 1,500 citizens marched through the streets peacefully, in disagreement with the continued nuclear waste transports taking place where they live.
The protests come ahead of the transport of waste from a nuclear plant in Karlsruhe to Lubmin in the north of Germany, scheduled to arrive on Tuesday.
“Tons of waste containing highly radioactive substances is transferred to a temporary storage unit which is not safe,” Deputy Head of the Local Union Office Annett Beitz told Press TV.
Protesters say there are no contingency plans to stop likely accidents from happening during the transport.
The speaker for the Environment Protection Charity told Press TV that containers had a forty-year guaranty and that it was not yet known what would happen afterwards. Health hazards like contamination could happen if anything leaks out into underwater currents.
“It’s a big problem because many people actually are not aware of all these dangers because normally you cannot read about these in the newspapers, or anywhere… So this is very important for us to tell the people and tell them about all these dangers,” Nadia Tegtmeyer of the Anti-Nuclear Alliance told Press TV.
Despite the protests, the government has voted in favor of maintaining nuclear power plants for another 10 to 15 years. This move has been heavily criticized by the opposition.
Activists told Press TV that the movement was gaining momentum in the country and that they plan to hinder all types of atomic waste transports from running smoothly. Road and railway blocks are scheduled to take place during the next transport on Tuesday night.
February 13, 2011
Posted by aletho |
Nuclear Power, Solidarity and Activism |
Leave a comment
Since yesterday, and actually earlier, middle class activists have been urging Egyptians to suspend the protests and return to work, in the name of patriotism, singing some of the most ridiculous lullabies about “let’s build new Egypt,” “Let’s work harder than even before,” etc… In case you didn’t know, actually Egyptians are among the hardest working people in the globe already..
Those activists want us to trust Mubarak’s generals with the transition to democracy–the same junta that has provided the backbone of his dictatorship over the past 30 years. And while I believe the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, who receive $1.3 billion annually from the US, will eventually engineer the transition to a “civilian” government, I have no doubt it will be a government that will guarantee the continuation of a system that will never touch the army’s privileges, keep the armed forces as the institution that will have the final say in politics (like for example Turkey), guarantee Egypt will continue to follow the US foreign policy whether it’s the undesired peace with the Apartheid State of Israel, safe passage for the US navy in the Suez Canal, the continuation of the Gaza siege and exports of natural gas to Israel at subsidized rates. The “civilian” government is not about cabinet members who do not wear military uniforms. A civilian government means a government that fully represents the Egyptian people’s demands and desires without any intervention from the brass. And I see this as hard to be accomplished or allowed by the junta.
The military has been the ruling institution in this country since 1952. Its leaders are part of the establishment. And while the young officers and soldiers are our allies, we cannot for one second lend our trust and confidence to the generals. Moreover, those army leaders need to be investigated. I want to know more about their involvement in the business sector.
All classes in Egypt took part in the uprising. In Tahrir Square you found sons and daughters of the Egyptian elite, together with the workers, middle class citizens, and the urban poor. Mubarak has managed to alienate all social classes in society including wide section of the bourgeoisie. But remember that it’s only when the mass strikes started three days ago that the regime started crumbling and the army had to force Mubarak to resign because the system was about to collapse.
Some have been surprised that the workers started striking. I really don’t know what to say. This is completely idiotic. The workers have been staging the longest and most sustained strike wave in Egypt’s history since 1946, triggered by the Mahalla strike in December 2006. It’s not the workers’ fault that you were not paying attention to their news. Every single day over the past three years there was a strike in some factory whether it’s in Cairo or the provinces. These strikes were not just economic, they were also political in nature.
From day 1 of our uprising, the working class has been taking part in the protests. Who do you think were the protesters in Mahalla, Suez and Kafr el-Dawwar for example? However, the workers were taking part as “demonstrators” and not necessarily as “workers”– meaning, they were not moving independently. The govt had brought the economy to halt, not the protesters by its curfew, shutting down of banks and business. It was a capitalist strike, aiming at terrorizing the Egyptian people. Only when the govt tried to bring the country back to “normal” on Sunday that workers returned to their factories, discussed the current situation, and started to organize en masse, moving as a block.
The strikes waged by the workers this week were both economic and political fused together. In some of the locations the workers did not list the regime’s fall among their demands, but they used the same slogans as those protesting in Tahrir and in many cases, at least those I managed to learn about and I’m sure there are others, the workers put forward a list of political demands in solidarity with the revolution.
These workers are not going home anytime soon. They started strikes because they couldn’t feed their families anymore. They have been emboldened by Mubarak’s overthrow, and cannot go back to their children and tell them the army has promised to bring them food and their rights in I don’t know how many months. Many of the strikers have already started raising additional demands of establishing free trade unions away from the corrupt, state backed Egyptian Federation of Trade Unions.
Today, I’ve already started receiving news that thousands of Public Transport workers are staging protests in el-Gabal el-Ahmar. The temporary workers at Helwan Steel Mills are also protesting. The Railway technicians continue to bring trains to halt. Thousands at el-Hawamdiya Sugar Factory are protesting and oil workers will start a strike tomorrow over economic demands and also to impeach Minister Sameh Fahmy and halt gas exports to Israel. And more reports are coming from other industrial centers.
At this point, the Tahrir Square occupation is likely to be suspended. But we have to take Tahrir to the factories now. As the revolution proceeds, an inevitable class polarization is to happen. We have to be vigilant. We shouldn’t stop here… We hold the keys to the liberation of the entire region, not just Egypt… Onwards with a permanent revolution that will empower the people of this country with direct democracy from below…
February 12, 2011
Posted by aletho |
Economics, Solidarity and Activism, Timeless or most popular |
Leave a comment
Yesterday evening, after it was announced that Hosni Mubarak had met the first demand of the revolution and left office, I headed toward the Egyptian embassy in Amman. The joy on the streets was something I had never experienced before.
From all directions people came, pouring out of cars stuck in gridlocked traffic on Zahran Street and into the side street where the embassy sits. They were young and old and families with children. Egyptian laborers — the unacknowledged back bone of much of the Jordanian economy — sang, carried each other on their shoulders and played drums. Egyptian flags waved and signs were held high.
The chants were as varied and lively as the crowd which grew to thousands: “Long Live Egypt!,” “The people overthrew the regime!,” “Who’s next?,” “Tomorrow Abbas!” Some people showered the crowd with sweets, as fireworks burst overhead. Everyone took pictures, recording a moment of victory they felt was made by the Egyptian people on behalf of all of us.
After Tunisia, a second great pillar of oppression has been knocked down, at such great cost to hundreds who gave their lives, and many millions who saw their lives destroyed for so many years. It was a night for joy, and the celebrations continue today.
After the celebrations are over, the revolution too must go on, because it will not be complete until the Egyptian people rebuild their country as they wish it to be.
But standing in the streets of Amman there was no mistaking that the Egyptian revolution will have a profound impact on the whole region. Arab people everywhere now imagine themselves as Tunisians or Egyptians. And every Arab ruler imagines himself as Ben Ali or Mubarak.
The revolution has reawakened a sense of a common destiny for the Arab world many thought had been lost, that seemed naive when our mothers and fathers told us about it from their youth, and that Arab leaders had certainly tried to kill. The Arab dictators, who are as dead inside as Mubarak showed himself to be in his awful televised speeches, thought their peoples’ spirits were dead too. The revolutions have restored a sense of limitless possibility and a desire that change should spread from country to country.
Whatever happens next, the Egyptian revolution will also have a profound effect on the regional balance of power. Undoubtedly the United States, Israel and their allies are already weaker as a result. First they lost Tunisia, and then suffered a severe setback with the collapse of the US-backed Lebanese government of Rafiq Hariri, and now Mubarak and Omar Suleiman, the closest and most enthusiastic collaborators with Israel except perhaps for Mahmoud Abbas and his cronies in Ramallah.
On many minds — especially Israeli and American ones — has been the question of whether a new democratic Egyptian government will tear up the 1979 peace treaty with Israel. That of course, is up to the Egyptian people, although the transitional military government confirmed in its fourth statement Egypt’s adherence to “all international and regional treaties.”
But the treaty is not really the issue. Even if democratic Egypt maintains the treaty, the treaty never required Egypt to join Israeli and American conspiracies against other Arabs. It never required Egypt to become the keystone in an American-led alliance with Israel and Saudi Arabia against an allegedly expansionist Iran. It never required Egypt to adopt and disseminate the vile “Sunni vs. Shia” sectarian rhetoric that was deliberately used to try to shore up this narrative of confrontation. It never required Egypt to participate in Israel’s cruel siege of Gaza or collaborate closely with its intelligence services against Palestinians. It never required Egypt to become a world center of torture for the United States in its so-called “War on Terror.” The treaty did not require Egypt to shoot dead migrants crossing Sinai from other parts of Africa just to spare Israelis from seeing black people in Tel Aviv. No treaty required or requires Egypt to carry on with these and so many more shameful policies that earned Hosni Mubarak and his regime the hatred of millions of Arabs and others far beyond Egypt’s borders.
There is no doubt that the United States will not give up its hegemony in Egypt easily, and will do all it can to frustrate any Egyptian move toward an independent regional policy, using as leverage its deep ties and enormous aid to the Egyptian military that now rules the country. The regional ambitions of the United States remain the main external threat to the success of Egypt’s revolution.
Whatever break or continuity there is with Egypt’s past policies, the calculations have changed for remaining members of the so-called “alliance of moderates,” particularly Saudi Arabia — which allegedly offered to prop Mubarak up financially if the US withdrew its aid — Jordan and the Palestinian Authority.
For many years, these regimes, like Egypt, bet their security and survival on a virtually unconditional alliance with the United States: they abandoned all dignified, independent and principled positions and adopted America’s hegemonic aspirations as their own, in exchange for assistance, and what they hoped was a guarantee that the US would come to their rescue if they got in trouble.
What the revolutions demonstrate to all Arab regimes is that the United States cannot rescue you in the end. No amount of “security assistance” (training, tear gas, weapons), financial aid, or intelligence cooperation from the United States or France can withstand a population that has decided it has had enough. These regimes’ room for maneuver has shrunk even if the sorts of uprisings seen in Egypt and Tunisia are not imminent elsewhere.
After the revolutions, people’s expectations have been raised and their tolerance for the old ways diminished. Whether things go on as they have for a few weeks, a few months, or even a few more years in this or that country, the pressures and demands for change will be irresistible. The remaining Arab regimes must now ask not if change will happen but how.
Will regimes that relied for so long on repression, fear and the docility of their people wait for revolution, or will they give up unearned power and undertake real democratization willingly, speedily and honestly? This will require not just a dramatic change of internal policies which regimes may or may not be capable of making voluntarily, but also a deep reexamination of external alliances and commitments that have primarily served Israel, the United States and the regimes at the expense of their people.
Jordan is now a prime case where such a reexamination is urgently due. Regardless of whether or not (and I think almost certainly not) the newly-appointed cabinet will be able to meet public expectations for democratization, fighting corruption, and ending the worst neo-liberal policies that have put so many of the country’s resources and companies in unaccountable private hands, the country’s foreign policy must undergo a full review.
This includes the overly dependent relationship on the United States, relations with Israel, participation in the sham “peace process,” the training of the security forces used by Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank against other Palestinians, and the deeply unpopular involvement in the NATO war and occupation in Afghanistan. Up until now, these matters have all been decided without any regard to public opinion.
And in the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority (PA) of Mahmoud Abbas is in a more precarious situation than ever. Its loss of legitimacy is so thorough — especially after the revelations in the Palestine Papers — that it exists only thanks to the protection of the Israeli occupation, US and EU training of its repressive security forces, and massive EU funding to pay the salaries of its bloated bureaucracy.
The PA’s leaders are as dead to the just cause and aspirations for liberation of the Palestinian people for which so much has been sacrificed, as Mubarak was to the Egyptian people’s rights and hopes. No wonder the PA relies more and more on the thuggery and police state tactics so reminiscent of Mubarak and Ben Ali.
The revolutions in the Arab world have lifted our horizons. More people can now see that the liberation of Palestine from Zionist colonialism and US- and EU-funded oppression, to make it a safe, humane place for all who live in it to exist in equality, is not just a utopian slogan but is in our hands if we struggle for it and stick to our principles. Like the people power, against which the Egyptian and Tunisian police states were powerless in the end, Palestinians and their allies (particularly those supporting the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement) have the power to transform reality within the next few years.
In whatever form the revolution continues, the people are saying to their rulers: our countries, our futures, don’t belong to you any more. They belong to us.
Ali Abunimah is co-founder of The Electronic Intifada and author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse
February 12, 2011
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Solidarity and Activism, Timeless or most popular |
Leave a comment
Aletho News
Aletho News 