Casting Doubt on the Arab Revolutions

by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem

Defeat has its own roots, and the most important of these roots takes shape in the negation of the self, and the belief that there are external forces, natural or supernatural, that intervene in human affairs and make decisions on humanity’s behalf. There are those convinced that they are powerless, too powerless even to decide their own fate or to take part in deciding it, and that their fate belongs to others who decide it on their behalf and against their will. Such a person believes he has no say in the matter, and cannot bring about change no matter how hard he tries, because those forces are vast and mighty, beyond the capacity of man to confront, and it is better for him to surrender to them. Surrender is the path of the wise, since it spares one the suffering of a confrontation that can only end in defeat. That is, he must fail before even trying, and the attempt itself is nothing but an expression of stupidity.

Whoever negates himself is simply saying that he lacks power, and that no matter what he tries, he will never reach the level of the powerful, so why bother with the exertion? He sees history as fixed at the point of his own powerlessness, and he moves only when others move him, believing that he does not make history but that others make history upon him. He lives in the past and leaves the future to others, seeing in his own weakness an effective means of pleading with the powerful. This is the story of those panting after a negotiated solution with Israel. They see in confronting Israel nothing but defeat, and prefer surrender without defeat to surrender with defeat. Their weakness is their fate, and every attempt an Arab makes to assert himself and prove his own worth leads only to catastrophic results.

The Logic of Those Who Doubt the Arab Revolutions

In every Arab country there is a line of people who cast doubt on the Arab revolutions that began in Tunisia, on the grounds that they are steered from abroad and do not express a free Arab will. They ask why these revolutions exploded all at once, or in such close succession, and they wonder at that great magic embodied in the cart of Mohamed Bouazizi, God rest his soul, and at this overwhelming popular momentum that suddenly poured forth, when the Arab peoples had shown no boldness in confronting their rulers even in the darkest circumstances and calamities. What they focus on most is the Kentucky Fried Chicken meals that Egyptians were rumored to have enjoyed in Tahrir Square, and America’s conciliatory statements toward the Arab peoples.

These lines of doubters, or this single line branching out across the length and breadth of the Arab regimes, say that it is American and Israeli hands toying with the Arab peoples, carrying out certain moves to give the peoples the illusion that popular wills have begun to stir and that the masses must pour into the streets to take their place in the making of history. The Arab masses are deluded by the media and its ability to steer public opinion, and so they take to the streets, while the one actually moving them is the very party that has been conspiring against the nation over the preceding years. Why would America and Israel conspire and push the masses into the streets to change regimes? The answer is simple: the Arab regimes have been used up, and their remaining in power threatens American and Israeli interests, so it is better to pre-empt events and work to change the regimes before the masses seize the initiative and bring in people who do not support Israel and America. In other words, the holders of this view do not deny that they are agents of Israel and America — they simply find it painful to be replaced.

Nor does this line of doubters forget to say that revolutionary Tunisia has not yet spoken out against Israel, and has not opened the files on the deposed president’s cooperation with Israeli intelligence. As for Egypt, they say the military council has declared that it holds to international treaties, which they take as proof of the council’s bias toward Israel. And of course they cling to the United States’ statements about the peoples’ right to peaceful demonstration and their right to choose their own rulers, as evidence of American involvement in the Arab demonstrations.

Who Are This Line of Doubters?

This line is made up of supporters of the Arab regimes who fear change and seek to prevent it, and it includes some officials and security men, particularly from the intelligence services, wealthy capitalists, and some intellectuals raised on hypocrisy under the wing of these regimes. That is, it is made up of the regime and its retainers who benefit from its continued existence, and their numbers barely reach about ten percent of the people. These are the ones who fear for their interests, which have grown fat at the expense of the people, out of the people’s pockets, sweat, and blood, and they are the powerbrokers who control the institutions of the state, monopolize decision-making, and control the necks of the people, depriving them of their freedoms and their national, human, social, and political rights.

Since this line is itself the very target of the Arab revolutions, it is to be expected that it would engage in counter-propaganda, hoping to sap the resolve of the youth. Perhaps some friends did buy Kentucky meals, and perhaps they bought hamburgers or the like, but it is not reasonable to suppose that the American ambassador in Cairo was supplying the Egyptian people with Kentucky and hamburgers. Yet the unreasonable becomes reasonable to a cornered rat that no longer knows where to flee.

The message of this line of doubters is entirely clear: that change is meaningless if the alternative to America’s and Israel’s old agents is simply America’s new agents, that an agent you already know is better than an agent you are about to get to know, and that a corrupt man who has already stolen the people’s money is better than a corrupt man who will start stealing from the people all over again. This is why the Arab peoples are required to content themselves with their old agents and corrupt officials, rather than have agents and corrupt officials even more devoted to foreign agendas and even more corrupt come in their place.

I have noticed in the West Bank that the men of the Palestinian Authority and their friends circulate a great many rumors about the Arab revolutions, spreading many ideas about Israel and America moving their agents in the Arab countries to carry out these revolutions. To make their case convincing, they search for some sentence said by this Westerner or that, this Zionist or that, as evidence of the truth of what they claim. I heard one of them say that the American president had declared that Egypt’s revolution had rendered great services to Israel, and that Israel was comfortable with Mubarak’s absence, according to what the Israeli health minister had said. One of them went so far as to spin a strange tale about America planning the incident of Mohamed Bouazizi’s cart, God rest his soul. According to his remarkable account, the White House was extremely busy in continuous meetings about that cart, and about dragging the Tunisian people into agitation and rebellion against their ruler. Of course, it is clear that what the Palestinian Authority’s people say does not differ in substance and meaning from what the line of distortion says in the various Arab countries.

America Reinforces the Doubt

… [The Iranian people] persisted, and the monarchy collapsed, and America came out of it defeated and dejected. Standing firmly by the Shah’s side at the time did it no good, and it reaped nothing but greater hatred from the Iranian people. Its positions toward the Arab revolutions are different now, and its statements carry a degree of conciliation toward the demonstrators and solidarity with them. Several times, through the mouths of a number of its officials, it has declared that the Arab peoples have the right to express themselves, and the right to participate and to freedom.

Even though America tries to take positions in keeping with its own interests, its Arabs — or the line that casts doubt on the Arab revolutions — take its statements as evidence that it is steering these revolutions. It is not in the interest of the United States to further antagonize the Arab peoples, just as it was not in its interest in 1979 to antagonize the Iranian people, and it is better for it to follow a line of conciliation rather than a line of defying history. This is now clear in its positions on Libya, which appear more clear-cut than its positions toward Tunisia and Egypt, and oil is perhaps one of the main factors in its positions, which remain less than firm toward Qaddafi. But the matter in Libya is twofold, in that some Libyans who support the revolution themselves demand that the Western states stand with the revolutionaries against Qaddafi. This gives the doubters a strong pretext to raise the pitch of their doubts. I do not want to go into the details of the situation in Libya here, as it requires a separate article, but I will say briefly that the situation in which the revolution in Libya found itself is entirely different from the situation that prevailed in both Tunisia and Egypt.

As for Israel, it reinforced these doubts when it kept repeating the statement of Egypt’s Supreme Council of the Armed Forces that it respects the various international agreements. Some Arabs, foremost among them the men of the Palestinian Authority and their friends, took up the drum of casting aspersions on the Egyptian revolution, on the grounds that it would commit to the 1979 Camp David Accords and to the gas agreement with Israel. Recently, Israel reinforced this doubt further when it announced that one of its officials would visit Cairo.

America and Israel Prefer to Play Both Sides

It is unreasonable to suppose that America and Israel are turning their backs on events in the Arab world, as though the matter did not concern them, for America has deep and numerous vested interests, and Israel’s existence is tied to a great extent to the existence of these very Arab regimes now being toppled. Both states are on high alert, constantly thinking about what developments might arise, and about the various policies that might be pursued in the future in order not to lose the Arab regimes, or in order to minimize the expected losses from the continuation of instability in the Arab world. This is exactly what one would expect from two states that have enjoyed riding the Arabs and sucking their blood for decades.

This is why it is not surprising that the two states are trying, in one way or another, to intervene in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and other states, in order to divert the Arab revolutions from their popular, national course. Both states have a great many agents and spies in the Arab countries, and are capable of stirring up strife through multiple means, and of providing various kinds of support to the pockets of corruption and corrupting influence that still exist to this day in the countries witnessing revolutions. Nor is it surprising that the recent fighting between Muslims and Copts in Egypt was Israel’s doing.

America and Israel Do Not Seek Strength Through Peoples

It is not the policy of America and Israel to draw strength from peoples, but rather to subjugate peoples. Both states, in cooperation with other Western states, have worked over decades to manufacture Arab leaders to serve as loyal steeds who would bend their peoples to the service of American and Israeli interests. Traditionally, Britain installed many Arab leaders, and America inherited the profession once Britain’s star faded. The manufacturing of leaders relied on a number of elements, chief among them: enticement through power, the provision of money wherever necessary, indulgence in carnal pleasures, entrapment through money and sex, support for the various security apparatuses to dominate the people, and the deployment of armies for internal Arab conflicts.

The Western states and Israel have worked to kill the morale of the Arab human being and to humiliate him through Arab leaders, so that he would not grow strong enough for future action. These are the states that supported despotism, which used its security apparatuses, particularly its intelligence service, to instill terror in the hearts of Arab citizens. Arab intelligence services succeeded in frightening, terrorizing, and intimidating people to the point that the Arab citizen became his own intelligence agent, knowing exactly what to say, when, and how. The Arab was wounded in his very heart, turned into a coward who trembles from a distance, afraid to touch anything that might have some connection to this foolish despot who bends the nation to serve other nations. Is it conceivable, then, that America’s and Israel’s solution, in replacing agents with agents, would be to instill strength in people’s hearts so that they go out into the streets to defy the regimes? The interests of America and Israel lie in the cowardly, doubting, hesitant, hypocritical, lying Arab who cares only for his personal interests — not in a citizen who bares his chest in defiance of bullets.

When King Faisal of the House of Saud angered America, it killed him with ease; and when it tired of Habib Bourguiba, it easily replaced him with Ben Ali. As for Britain, it accused King Talal of madness and moved him to Turkey when he tried to maneuver, and it did the same in Oman when it decided that its ruler was more rigid than rigidity itself. It is not difficult for the Western states to change Arab rulers, and they have no need of popular revolutions to achieve this. Changing rulers quietly provides a firm guarantee that the new ruler will not be troublesome, since he does not step to the front of the ranks until the patron states have already stamped him with their seal.

Caution Is Required

Despite all this, Arab eyes, particularly in the countries of revolution, must remain fully open, so that elements bent on diverting the revolutions from their path do not slip in. Those who would toy with events are certainly lurking behind the doors, and they may well be among the ranks themselves, outbidding everyone else. Conditions in the countries of revolution have not yet stabilized, and stability will require a long time, and America and Israel will exploit conditions of instability in order to penetrate from within and meddle by various means. Certainty that the revolutions are popular and pure, aimed at moving the nation to a better future, is not enough; renewed vigilance and untiring alertness are needed to safeguard what has been achieved.

The champions of the revolution do not agree on a single view, at least from a historical standpoint, because revolutionaries look toward the future, not the past. The future branches out according to the aspirations and assessments of those who look upon it, but the past unites its own people, since it has already passed. This is why it is important not to view differences of opinion among revolutionaries as something negative, but rather as part of the movement of history, which looks upon the future through many eyes.

Source: Translated from the original Arabic, “التشكيك بالثورات العربية” by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem.