Last November, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman visited Saudi Arabia, sat in a spacious armchair in the palace of Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman, aka MBS, and went on to write a piece in The New York Times under the bombastic headline: “The Saudi Arab Spring, at last.” In fact, it was nothing more than an embarrassing, obsequious op-ed. It glorified the Saudi prince who described the economic reforms he was introducing into the kingdom as an “Arab Spring.” In practice, the archaic Saudi kingdom has been and remains the Number One Enemy of the Arab Spring. There is no connection between MBS’s reforms and real democratic change in the kingdom.

Recently, Friedman was invited by the Israel Defense Forces to act as the mouthpiece of the Israeli propaganda machine, warning of a war between Israel and Iran on Syrian soil. A very senior military officer (perhaps the Chief of Staff) openly admitted to Friedman that Israel had targeted a military base in Syria, an assault in which the head of the Revolutionary Guards drone unit, with the rank of colonel, was killed.

In other words, from Israel’s most senior officer to America’s most senior correspondent, Israel – without explicitly saying so – declared war on Iran. The Iranians had no choice but to “take off their kid gloves” and state via the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson that “the Zionist entity will receive an appropriate response.” It appears that the bad years in Israeli-Iranian relations are over and the worse are about to begin. What appears to be the end of the Syrian civil war is becoming, before our eyes, the beginning of a new war for the future of Syria, with Iran and Israel as major competitors.

Since the outbreak of the popular uprising against Assad, Iran mobilized in his favor and has done in Syria as it does at home. Israel, on the other hand, played the game of “neutrality”; its official position calls for “no interference in the Syrian civil war.” The meaning of this “balanced” position can be understood as follows: The genocide carried out by the Syrian regime is not Israel’s business. The longer the war lasts and the greater the destruction, the better for Israel.

This cynical game reached its peak in 2013, when US Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, struck a deal on dismantling chemical weapons in Syria, following a large-scale chemical attack in the Ghouta suburbs. The assault, which claimed more than 1400 lives, crossed President Obama’s “red line,” and the US administration vowed to respond militarily. But Obama shilly-shallied. Putin jumped at the opportunity, and instead of an air strike against Assad’s regime, Obama agreed to a dubious accord to disarm Syria of its chemical weapons.

Assad took advantage of the non-attack and continued to massacre civilians by more conventional means. The Netanyahu government celebrated the removal of the chemical threat to the citizens of Israel, where the era of gas masks ended. The chemical deal was accompanied by the flight of millions of Syrians from their homes because of murderous, indiscriminate bombings, and the Syrian refugee crisis changed the political map in Europe. But Israel’s worldview was and remains very narrow: The deal is good for the Jews even though it is bad for both the Syrians and those countries to which millions of them have fled.

Israel was not the only land to celebrate the miserable deal which freed Obama from having to attack and saved Assad. Iran also celebrated. The accord to dismantle chemical weapons in Syria turned into a prototype for dismantling the Iranian nuclear program, an accord that Israel strongly opposed and was unable to block. Iran became an ally of the United States and a legitimate player in the war against ISIS. Iran also partnered with Assad and the Russians in the war against the Syrian opposition. For seven years, Iran sank huge sums into reviving the Syrian economy; Hezbollah turned into a major player in the civil war, losing 1700 fighters; and Iran bankrolled Shiite militias in Iraq to the tune of 20,000 fighters. Throughout that period, Israel took delight in seeing Hezbollah hemorrhage in Syria and become too bogged down to engage Israel. Its air force thwarted the transfer of “game-changing” weapons from Iran to Hezbollah – with the silent acquiescence of the Russians.

Not only did Iran gain a foothold in Syria but the Russians, invited in by Assad, became the real landlords there. They carried out horrific aerial attacks on Syrian cities, the foremost being Aleppo, and saved Assad’s regime from certain defeat. Here, too, Israel looked on from the sidelines and did not utter a word about atrocities occurring just kilometers from its northern border. Netanyahu decided that the best strategy was to maintain a secure hotline with Putin.

The agreement with Putin is simple: Israel will not act to topple Assad and will not object to the Russian takeover of Syria. In exchange, it seeks freedom to act against attempts to transfer arms from Iran to Hezbollah. Putin, for his part, wants Israel to accept the Russian presence in Syria, but this presence also requires close cooperation with Iran. A Russian presence requires Iran’s consent because Russia does not have many boots on the ground; without Iran, Assad’s regime will again be in danger of collapse.

Israel has no interest in seeing Assad toppled. In this respect it is in lockstep not only with Russia, but with the Americans. After the unconvincing air strike in response to Assad’s recent chemical attack in Douma, the Americans declared that they had no intention of replacing Assad. In fact, Assad has gained immunity from all factions operating in Syria and continues to survive as Syria bleeds. So we have reached a situation in which no one wants to overthrow Assad; every player needs him to serve its own interests. Israel wants to go back to the status quo ante consisting of the long-term cease-fire it has enjoyed since the 1973 war. Iran has completely opposite plans: Seeking to become a regional power, it is creating an Iranian corridor through Iraq and Syria to the Lebanese coast. Israel must accept the fact that Assad’s Syria exists in theory alone and that the country is divided between Iran, Turkey, the United States and Russia.

Israel’s attempts to pry the Iranians from Syria are leading to a head-on collision with them and indirectly with the Russians. The Israeli message to the Russians is straightforward: If you want to keep Assad in power in order to gain legitimacy for your airbase in Khmeimim and a naval base in Tartous, get rid of the Iranians. The choice is either Assad or Iran, Israel will not allow any arrangement at the expense of its strategic interest.

However, despite warm relations between Netanyahu and Trump, and the latter’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, Trump’s announcement that he intends to withdraw from Syria “very soon” leaves Israel, on its 70th birthday, flying solo. It seems that Teheran is not interested in an open war with Israel, given stiff domestic opposition to its Syrian adventure. Putin also is afraid of opening a front against Israel, while Netanyahu is reluctant to involve the IDF and the home front in a war that could prove to be costly and destructive. It might be impossible to square the circle: each side is entrenched in its position, and all of them together are being pushed to the edge against their will.

The Syrian Spring broke out with the hope of regime change and the establishment of a modern democratic state. Assad gassed civilians; Iran enlisted Hezbollah; Putin built military bases to expand his empire; Obama refused to support the democratic Syrian opposition; Saudi Arabia and Qatar armed extreme Sunni militias; Israel watched and relished; all of them wiped out any hope for a democratic future in Syria. The only way to stop further bloodshed, and a war between Israel and Iran, is the withdrawal of all foreign forces. If there is any hope for a democratic future in Syria, Assad must go. Currently this option is not on the agenda. Trump, Erdogan, Putin, Khamenei, and Netanyahu do not believe in democracy. Syria has become a reflection of the world at the beginning of the 21st century.

* Translated from the Hebrew by Robert Goldman

The post Israel’s undeclared war on Iran first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

The Egyptian revolution of 2011 was a rare opportunity to drive the country towards the future by creating a democratic regime which would enable Egyptians to develop a political awareness. The Muslim Brotherhood is incapable of turning Egypt into a modern state, because its religious outlook directly opposes cultural and scientific freedom, while the oppression of women prevents Egypt from shaking off backwardness and social introversion. But this is no reason to support the generals and the military coup. The only way of contending with these issues is via democratic elections.

On July 7, the masses gathered in Cairo’s Tahrir Square in an attempt to show the world that this was no ordinary military coup, but a correction to the revolution of January 25, 2011 that would lead Egypt to democracy. To enforce this picture, air force planes circled the skies over Cairo leaving trails of smoke in the colors of the Egyptian flag. The revolutionaries were angry with Obama because he didn’t give his blessing to the ousting of Morsi, and they pleaded with CNN to change its version and cease calling the events a coup.

But already by the following day the atmosphere had changed completely. The 51 victims, killed by the army as they demonstrated in front of the Republican Guard base where Morsi was being held, spoiled the party and brought the Egyptian nation and the world face to face with reality. The army and police explained that they had been attacked, but these explanations were insufficient. The world was not persuaded that the army had become the people’s army overnight. Straight after the massacre, the Salafist al-Nour Party and the Strong Egypt Party, which had split from the Muslim Brotherhood, announced they were leaving the coalition which supports the army. Al-Azhar, seat of Islamic learning, did the same. Egypt’s liberals, who gave their blessing to the overthrow, supported the army’s version and didn’t even bother to express sorrow at the deaths. While they halfheartedly called for a committee of inquiry, the army hurried to apportion blame and arrested 650 people associated with the Islamic faction suspected of terror acts.

The army: source of authority

The day after the killings, interim president Adly Mansour published a new constitutional order, basing his authority on the military order of July 3, 2013. He thus unequivocally revealed who really rules Egypt. The presidential order caused embarrassment among the political partners to the coup, especially the Tamarod movement and the National Salvation Front. They criticized the order, claiming it had been prepared by the army in secret and without consulting them. They were also concerned to discover that the order grants the interim president totalitarian authority.

While Saudi Arabia and the Emirates have already transferred 8 billion dollars in support of the new regime, in order to ensure the death of the Arab Spring which threatens the Saudi kingdom, the US administration is still dithering, unsure whether to define the events as a coup – which would mean the end of US aid. Israel’s call to continue the flow of support clearly demonstrates that for the Israelis and Americans, democracy in Egypt was never the issue – the most important thing was maintaining the Camp David peace agreement.

To make things easier for Obama, Mansour announced that new elections would be held within six months. But the absurdity is clear to all: how can free elections be held with the participation of the Muslim Brotherhood, as Obama demands, when the army is shutting down its offices and television channels and running a campaign of delegitimization, accusing them of terror? Thus the real intentions of the army, the National Salvation Front and Tamarod partners are exposed: to prevent the Muslim Brotherhood from participating in elections, just as Mubarak had done before. The oft-repeated slogan since the unseating of Morsi has been, “There’s no going back.” But how can Egypt not go back if in six months’ time free elections are held and the Muslim Brotherhood is victorious, as it has been repeatedly since 2011?

Returning to the Mubarak era

The behavior of the “revolutionaries” shows clearly that democracy is of little interest to them. The appointment of Hazem el-Beblawi as prime minister indicates the regime’s intentions. Beblawi is a neoliberal economist whose role is to persuade the International Monetary Fund to support the regime and to dismantle the Egyptian system of food subsidies, which would lead to even greater poverty and hunger. The new regime has nothing to offer the workers’ movement, which is demanding a range of changes including an increase in the minimum wage. The stance taken by the National Salvation Front leader Mohamed el-Baradei shows just how much their position has changed: Baradei, who once demanded that the army withdraw from politics and spoke of human rights, is now granting the army a free hand. This is the same army that controls some 25% of the economy and is responsible for the killing of 51 Egyptian citizens as well as the undermining of freedom of association and freedom of speech.

Indeed, Egypt has returned to the old formula that ruled before the revolution. The Egyptian people are once again caught between Mubarak’s old regime, represented by the army and the liberals, and the Muslim Brotherhood. The television channels rapidly adjusted to the new situation; all speaking with one voice; and Mubarak’s spirit once again hovers over the Maspero Building from which official television is broadcast, just as it did for 30 long years. The position adopted by the leftist party and the Wafd Party in Mubarak’s days – better the army than the Muslim Brotherhood – once again reigns. The Egyptian people are caught in the middle, wallowing in poverty under the dictatorial and corrupt regime which makes citizens mere shadows lacking all rights – the same regime against which it rose up just two and a half years ago.

The Muslim Brotherhood is a symptom of Egypt’s problems, not the cause. Its rise to prominence is the result of 60 years of dictatorship, of rapid population growth, of poverty and illiteracy, of the collapse of crucial infrastructure, and of disconnection from the modern world. This is the cradle of the Islamic movement.

The weakness of the Left

The Egyptian revolution was a rare opportunity to drive the country towards the future by creating a democratic regime which would enable Egyptians to develop a political awareness. The Muslim Brotherhood is incapable of turning Egypt into a modern state, because its religious outlook directly opposes cultural and scientific freedom, while the oppression of women prevents Egypt from shaking off backwardness and social introversion. But this is no reason to support the generals and the military coup. The only way of contending with these issues is via democratic elections.

Egypt took the path of military coup not because of Morsi and Islamization, but because of the weakness of the Left and of the liberals. They didn’t believe they could win in free elections, they fear and loathe the poor because they can be bought for “a bag of sugar and a can of oil,” and thus they preferred to take Egypt back to the old regime. Moreover, their economic outlook is no different from that of the Islamists: both seek the support of the US and the IMF.

A revolution is not a quick fix; it is a long process of struggle between different worldviews, over programs to take Egypt forward. But the youth of Tamarod, the Left, and the Muslim Brotherhood have no such program. Nor does the army have a solution to Egypt’s pressing problems.

The future is uncertain of course, but it is impossible to erase the revolution of 2011 and the deep change of consciousness it wrought. The enormous rallies in Tahrir Square supporting the coup, and the rallies in support of the Muslim Brotherhood, should make it clear that one cannot ignore half a nation, and that the fighting between the two sides plays into the hands of the army. The choice is stark: either the two camps cooperate and set up a democratic regime to save Egypt, or the country will continue to rot under the burden of dictatorship for many long years. If the political forces don’t come to their senses, the Egyptian people will get rid of them. The Egyptian nation sparked the revolution of 2011; the political parties have merely sullied it. The youth of the revolution should create a revolutionary “roadmap” of their own, to save democracy and to ensure their future and the future of their nation.

Translated by Yonatan Preminger

The post Egypt has lost its way first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

The movie is bad, the standard of living is worse

The Arab world hates America. Nobody denies this fact, but it’s not just the Arabs. The Iranians hate America, the Russians can’t stand America, and even Benjamin Netanyahu loathes America. Hatred for America is not unique to Arab genes – it is trans-cultural and trans-ethnic. However, the world also admires America to the same extent that it hates it, because America is an economic and military power. What is more, Hollywood has caused us to identify with America’s heroes – and as we well know, cinema has a hypnotic influence on the psychology of the masses.This influence was recently manifested in the violent events which led to the murder of the American ambassador to Libya and the siege of the American embassy in Cairo. Surprisingly, this influence did not stem directly from the movie slandering the Prophet, but was spread by rumors. After all, those who took to the streets to protest and burn are not great cinema-goers, and most are unable to afford a computer. It is enough that the infidel Americans insult the Prophet for them to rampage against anything associated with America or the West, even though the producer of the movie is in fact an Arab.

Islam in power

It’s interesting that these events broke out in Egypt after the Arab Spring had handed the regime to the Muslim Brotherhood on a silver platter. It’s also interesting that the Arab Spring endeared itself to the West, which admired the Egyptian and Tunisian youth who brought down the corrupt dictators. Of course, corruption and a regime of tycoons are not an exclusively Arab phenomenon, but in fact very western – and thus the East and West come together. However, this time those attacking and burning were not the educated Facebook youth, able to distinguish between a good movie and a cheap provocation whose only aim is to incite the masses. Those responding to the call to guard the Prophet’s honor came from remote villages, from neighborhoods of poverty, from the slums. These people were forgotten by the Arab Spring and abandoned on the margins of society: After the revolution, the main themes of the demonstrations and public discussions did not concern the problems of the poor, but rather issues like religion or secularity, democracy or Islam, the role of the Army and how to deal with the culprits of the Old regime. When the poor asked for something, they were accused of being selfish.

Commentators in the Arab media are united in their firm opposition to the violence. In Egypt some made the effort to find out who the protesters were, and noted soccer fans, the “Ultras,” residents of the poorest quarters, who are always present in clashes with the police. These youth were at the vanguard of the revolution, yet—judging from the daily Arabic press over the past year—the way the new regime treats them is no different from the way the old regime treated them: You’ve done your work, now get out.

Until recently, the slogan “Islam is the solution” had been used to incite millions of young people against the old regime, the infidel regime which had sold its soul to the American-Zionist Satan and squandered the state’s resources at the expense of the people. The trick worked; the Muslim Brotherhood won the hearts of the oppressed and now they are in power. Apparently, there is no need for demonstrations in front of the American embassy, because the new Islamic president can simply close it and declare war on America in the name of the Prophet, as bin Laden and the Taliban did in Afghanistan.

But this won’t happen. Mohammed Morsi as president is not the same as Morsi in opposition, and religious demagoguery has made way for state pragmatism. When the riots broke out, the Muslim Brotherhood tried to ride the wave and even called for a demonstration of millions in Tahrir Square. But a single telephone call from Obama worked wonders, and the demonstration was cancelled. While still in opposition, Morsi preached in the name of religion against the International Monetary Fund, because its loans bear interest—a thing forbidden by Islam. Today, Morsi requests financial aid from the IMF while asking the US to cancel a billion dollars of Egyptian debt and invest millions in the Egyptian economy. Then this awful movie appears and mars the celebrations.

“Islam is the solution” but capitalism is the means. Morsi faces a broken economy, and his regime is shaky. To rebuild the ruins left by the preceding regime, Morsi has no choice but to count on capitalists at home and abroad. He may be Islamic, but Morsi is first and foremost a capitalist; thus the riots in front of the American embassy are a direct challenge to his regime and expose its real face.

For years Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood sowed seeds of storm, and now they are reaping the hurricane. Those who made cynical use of the pain of the masses to undermine Mubarak’s regime see their extremist Islamist competitors using the same method against them. The moment Morsi turned his back on those he brainwashed in the past, he created a vacuum which was quickly filled by Islamists more extreme than he, people who see him as an infidel. If proof is needed, they can note how he turns to the IMF, cozies up to the West, and has even made haste to send an ambassador to Tel Aviv.

Walking the wire

Morsi is walking a very thin line. On the one hand, in an attempt to maintain his popularity, he asks Interpol to bring the filmmakers, who hold Egyptian citizenship, to justice. On the other hand, he sends pacifying signals to the West. But America will not accept mixed messages. Morsi is no longer in opposition, and Egypt, a nation of great strategic significance, must take a clear stand before it drags the whole region into anarchy. The US has frozen aid to Egypt until after the American presidential elections, leaving Morsi high and dry, while ensuring he does not fall into the flames ignited by the film.

Far from the headlines and the public gaze, Morsi also faces another equally urgent issue. Millions of teachers, production workers, bus drivers, doctors, university staff, students and parent committees have brought Egypt to a grinding halt. These are not the incensed masses releasing their frustrations by torching an embassy. These are the productive masses who keep the wheels of the economy turning, and who now demand social justice. The Muslim Brotherhood was quick to associate the Ultras with the striking workers, accusing the latter of receiving foreign aid and acting for foreign interests. However, the workers are making the same demands they made to Mubarak – the demands which led to his ouster.

The Muslim Brotherhood pleads, “This isn’t the right time,” but the workers reply – “If not now, when?” The revolution demanded democracy and social justice. Democracy was achieved, but it has been used by the Muslim Brotherhood to take over the media and the main regime strongholds. Social justice for workers has been denied on the grounds that their demands could not be met, even though many Egyptians are unable to survive on their wages alone. Teachers offer additional private lessons, doctors run private clinics, factory workers do hours of overtime. Meanwhile the workers see how the Muslim Brotherhood sends police to arrest trade union leaders and disperse student demonstrations at the universities, just as the previous regime did.

Parliamentary elections are due early next year, after the new constitution is approved. Neither America nor the Prophet’s honor is high on the agenda. Egyptians’ immediate concerns are bread, education, housing, economic security, and social security, as well as freedom of association, freedom of speech, and the right to strike. During its rise to power, the Muslim Brotherhood lost many points; Morsi won on technicalities but failed to win the knockout. If he continues on the economic path followed by his predecessor— favoring the rich, disregarding the poor, privatizing the economy, passing favors to his party people, and accepting the dictates of the IMF—he will lose his parliamentary majority. The anger of the youth may break out against the Americans, but Morsi well knows that it is really directed against him. Demagoguery brought him to power, but now he needs to act – and this he seems unable to do.

The post Bad movie blues first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.