People say Tahrir Square inspired the world. Revolutionnaries from everywhere will use this template for carrying revolts and ask for dignity, freedom and rights. So when a social unrest movement started in Israel in July 14th, many commentors wanted to see in it one of the many waves generated by the ‘Arab Spring’. The Israelis are gathering in Tel-Aviv in increasing numbers since three weeks (when a young activist settled a tent on Rotschild street) to protest against high rents in Israel. The number of participants have reached 300’000 people.
Even Israelis sometimes say themselves they were inspired by Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions. A famous picture shows a protestor carrying a sign saying “Walk like an Egyptian“, and sometimes signs are written in hebrew and in arabic.
But alas, Tel-Aviv is not Tahrir. It is not sufficient to claim making an arab-like revolution for it to be truly one. Our Arab revolutions were, before to be about costs of living (even if it’s true they were too about it), about justice and freedom, end of violence and torture. One of the famous Tunisian mottos even was “Bread and Salt, but not Ben Ali” (“bread and salt” is a Tunisian expression meaning eating very poorly); many Libyans droped out the oil income Gaddafi was giving them and the privileges Arabs had among Berbers in Libya, because they know the Libyan people freedom knows no price high enough to be sold; Bahraini were among the first to rise in February although they are certainly not the poorest in the Arab World, because they don’t want to live in a golden cage.
The problem with the Israeli protests is that they are claiming against Netanyehou government for the very wrong reasons. They complain about high rents but without firmly condemning the aspects of the housing policy that discriminates Palestinians, excludes them out of towns, encourages settlements and land expropriation. By silenting on these issues, they just say they will buy it, if only a little more discount is made. Paying too much taxes is an issue for the Israeli citizen, but nor apartheid, nor the crimes of Tsahal are. The fact that a war criminal like Tzipi Livni endorses the unrest demands proves that the rights of Palestinians are totally out of interest for the July 14th movement.
Many activists say they don’t mention the Palestinian issue in the protests demands because they want the movement to keep “apolitical”. Way of pushing aside the embarrassing questions: indeed, unjustice and human rights violations are beyond ‘politics’ in real democracies, while it is political only in phantom democracies. For the huge majority of the people in the streets in Tel-Aviv, if a little effort is made by the government to lower rents or find solutions to build a new campus for Israeli students, they will easily leave the streets, and carry on with their lives, satisfied with themselves as revolutionnaries with this revolution on the cheap.
Thus, the current Israeli unrest is the negation of Justice, it is the negation of the Tahrir spirit.
The communication with the Arab and/or Muslim World looks like being a conundrum for the Western World. The way George W. Bush adressed some issues related to the Arabs/Muslims is maybe the perfect example on what to not say to them. Obama speeches were always clean of the obvious mistakes of his predecessors and this 2011 speech on the Middle-East was even cleaner. The 2009 Cairo speech was actually so brillantly written that it really raised hopes in the Middle-East for a change. But alas, from 2009 to 2011, these high expectations were disappointed, not only because of Iraq and Afghanistan wars or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but also because of the attitude towards the Arab dictators facing street protests: the support to the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt came too late, only when it was clear to the US that they can dump their dear allies (Mubarak, Ben Ali, Gaddafi,…) because they were already almost toppled.
Thus, it is in this mindframe of scepticism that most of us, Arabs, listened to this Middle-East Speech. We kind of all had our “checklist”: some were waiting how Obama will mention Bahrain, some others how is he to address about Israel and Palestine, etc. None of us was really waiting for anything interesting and special to be said, most of us were just looking for a renewed confirmation of a new form of the good old hypocrisy: same old routine, only covered with more elegant words than his predecessors would have used.
What I was personnally interested in was in fact the difference between the Cairo speech of 2009 and this speech of 2011 on Middle-East, not in terms of the content itself, but in terms of the form, the strategy of communication. Although the latter was pronounced from the White House, it is quite obvious that it was prepared with the intention to address to the Arab World. The decision to not hold this speech in front of an Arab audiance in an Arab country proves there is a hesitation to face directly Arabs, as there is no certainty on the welcoming it would have had (after all Clinton was boycotted in Egypt by youth and hooted by Tunisians to the point she had to cancell her speach in Tunis). As the changes go in the North African and Middle Eastern region, the”West” adapts its communication.They are totally aware the Arab revolutions were the occasion of multiple failures in communication and decisions, and that this caused a great damage on the trust the Arab and Muslim World have on them. Not only they want to restore that trust (surprisingly they seem to think that regaining it needs only to adapt the way of speaking, instead of admitting it needs a complete change of policy, what will apparently never happen), but also they are in high need of understanding the new Arab references.
The main differences between the two speeches are:
The Storytelling: in Obama 2009 speech, there were very few of the “storytelling” US rethoric is normally full of (emphazing arguments with an example of a person’s life story), besides the very brief mention to his own story linking him to Africa, while in the 2011 Speech, many mentions were done: Rosa Parks, Muhammad Bouazizi, Wael Ghonim (indirectly, by mentionning his position at Google), some Israeli father whose son was killed by Hamas starting a peace NGO. The Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions certainly made realize to Obama, Clinton and their team how important will be now the ordinary people of the Arab World. Instead of talking about elites, refering to great places or figures of History, the ‘normal’ people (including women) that achieved great things with almost nothing were mentioned. The storytelling, that ensured Ronald Reagan with a great popularity in his country as a president and was so to say the standard of communication of George W. Bush (and Nicolas Sarkozy), is a very classical technique to reach the very general audiances: (over)simplifying in talking with images instead of building a consistant chain of arguments.
Erasing American references: only with the “told stories” one can see that they refer all but one (Rosa Parks) to Arabs. But the shift goes beyond this. In 2009 speech, there was a point about stressing on the fact that Islam was part of American History, about the fight for civic rights of African Americans, about the Cold War, etc, while in 2011 speech the direct references to American History are completely erased (except for the reference to the American Revolution where Patriots refused to pay taxes to a king). Even the cited locations were chosen to fit to the Arab perspective (Cairo, Benghazi, Sanaa). In two words, we are moving here from speeches where we talk about “American values to export” to speeches where we talk about “universal values”, that happen to be shared by America as well as by other parts of the world, worth fighting for, although America didn’t create these values. US want to give a more “modest” image of themselves, they don’t anymore commit the mistake to pretend they are bringing democracy/peace/hope as global leader (although Hillary Clinton in the few words preceding Obama speech expressed her views about the need of an American strong “leadership”). On the contrary they emphazise on the fact that these values are wanted and activelly won by the Arabs themselves. Americans want now to endorse the more “neutral” role (in surface only of course) of those who will just propose help (economical, G20, technological, etc) and let free the Arabs to decide if they want that help or not (of course it is just a very hypocrit way of presenting things).
Avoiding religious references: of course, 2009 was technically a speech to the Muslim World, while 2011 is a speech on the Middle-East, but no one will deny how much entangled are Middle-East and Islam. 2009 was not only refering to Al-Azhar, the Quran or Obama’s own Christianity, it was also speaking the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in terms of Jews and Shoah, Muslims and Christians. In the 2011 speech, he prefered to talk Israel-Palestine in terms of frontiers, security and official mutual recognition, Bahrain in terms of Iranian strategic political interest, and Arab revolutions in general in mentionning freedom, economy, technology, information. The only explicit references were made were the “region that was the birthplace of three world religions” and the Muslim/Copt violence in Egypt and the offered solution to take the Iraqi “multi-ethnic multi-sectarian democracy” as an example (what a strange idea by the way to take this as an example). In erasing the reference to religion and particularely to Islam, it is quite clear that the United States want to enter in a new phase of their relation with Arabs where they can close the Islamism/extremism/Al-Qaeda chapter. In a way, by saying that Al-Qaeda was against democracy, that it lost its revelancy in the region, that more has been done in six months of civil unrest than in decades by terrorists, but also by not referring to the recent choice of a new head for Al-Qaeda and denying the Ossama Ben Laden’s posthume message praising Arab revolutions, US call for having the right to “move to something else”: US wants to make known that they want to make politics, business (a lot of business in fact), partnerships; they don’t want anymore to be seen as the oppressor of Muslims around the World. As if there was any chance that Arabs could forget the military support of Israel anyway (clearly mentionned in the 2011 speech).
Adopting Arabic rethoric: the only concession done to arabic language in 2009 speech was the opening “Salam Aleikom“. In 2011, there is a will to “speak the way Arabs speak”. Some linguistic specifities of the Arabic language are adopted. For example, the repetition of terms, very classic in arabic, but avoided as much as possible in english is clear in a sentence like “Square by square, town by town, country by country” (unfortunately for Obama, his advisors do not seem to have noticed the similarity that each Arab will notice with Gaddafi murderous speech “Zenga zenga, bit bit, dar dar“, meaning “street by street, house by house, room by room“). Another flagrant example is the sentence (actually the answer to the non-asked question) where he says: “Bin Laden was no martyr“, the word martyr being extremely often used not only in Islamic lexical field, but also in general Arab’s (for example, the people killed on Tahrir Square, regardless of their religion, are referred as martyrs by Egyptians), while it is totally absent from previous American official speeches. Adapting arabic rethoric is a way of looking “more familiar”, or “more comprehensive”.
I see the 2011 speech on the Middle-East as being a “grammatical contortion”: US diplomacy makes moves that are unnatural to them, not because they are taking a new orientation with us, Arabs, but because they think that if they want to continue to pursue the goals they always pursued in the region (oil, Israel and capitalism), they just have to make it a bit more subtly. With this Obama speech we officially entered in the era where the United States understand Arabs are not just parameters to adjust and fine tune, but a whole part of the world with 400 million people with real personal expectations and real intention to be sovereign. Let’s be clear: that’s only plastic surgery. If there was any real consideration to Arab aspirations, a word would have been adressed to the aspirations of the people living in the most repressive country of the region governed by a medieval feodal system, Saudi Arabia, and more firm positions would have been taken to condemn what happens in Syria and Bahrain.
Mimmicking our way of building sentences and arguments and using our own references is not enough and will never be; in fact it is even almost a bad idea from an American perspective for it makes it even easier for us to detect where exactly there is hypocrisy,emptiness or offense. It is as if President Obama tried to cook for us a couscous or any other Arab dish and really thought we won’t be able to make the difference with our own cooking. The thing is, sadly for Americans and luckily for Arabs, very, very few of us were fooled by this new way of addressing us.
Nakba is the arabic word for “catastrophe”. For Palestinians, it refers to the events that took place in 1948 resulting in the creation of Israel, causing the destruction of 418 towns and villages, the ethnical cleansing in cities like Haifa and the deportation of more than 700’000 Palestinian refugees. Backed by western forces, the Nakba is a large-scale tragedy commited to escape the guiltiness of another large-scale tragedy.
Every May 15th, the Palestinians commemorate the Nakba. Since the context of the Arab revolutions, this year’s commemoration sounded different: unlike the 62 last times, today there was hope for a better future. The Facebook event called “Third Intifada” appointed to coincide with the Nakba commemoration gathered 500’000 people before to be censored. A march from Cairo to Rafah, a breakthrough the Golan and a massive protest in South Lebanon, a wave of Egyptians, Syrians, Jordan, Lebanese, all together with the Palestinians stood like one man and surrounded Israel. Israel was no more a country but a besieged city, behind walls, behind heavy weaponery, behind fear. Al Jazeera broadcasted live images of the crowds clashing with the Israeli Army. And there were the first shohada (martyrs) of the Nakba commemoration/third Intifada.
Clashes and Israeli borders, clashes in front of the Israeli Embassy in Cairo; the Arabs made clear they will not be silent anymore. Is it the beginning of the Second Nakba, not the Palestinian Nakba, but the Israeli one? Is it for real the beginning of the end for Israel? Israel still has a chance to save itself from the 63 years contained anger of hundreds of millions of Arabs: building peace, based upon fairness. Stop colonizing, stop occupying, stop the blocus, allow the return of the Palestinian refugees, recognize a Palestinian State, accept the borders of 67. Israeli still have the opportunity and capacity to avoid living their own Nakba. Too bad this opportunity was denied to Palestinians in 1948, when the Western World through the UN simply took the decision to erase from the map a country called Palestine and put another one at its place called Israel.
A couple of days ago I was wondering how would Israel, in its current way of doing things, survive in a democratic Middle-East. At that precise moment, it was one day before the occurence a key event, that surprised most of us: the Hamas and the Fatah reconciliated. Whatever reasons lies behind the sudden “ceasefire”, the perspective of the end of the internal fight opposing parties is likely to bring enough political stability to Palestinians to be able to face the one and real challenge: negociations with Israel. The news, of course, annoyed the Zionist State, that was beneficiating since April 2006 (when Hamas enters government) of a very convenient alibi to refuse the peacebuilding process: they’d not negotiate with Hamas, a “terrorist” organization that is not recognizing Israel.
But if today Hamas and Fatah walk, let’s say hand in hand, Israel would be forced to negociation, in spite of the fact that they are currently trying to discredit the Palestinian representatives by leading an international campaign against the reconciliation. So now, the possibilities are narrowing with Israel: a coalition Hamas/Fatah would certainly recognize Israel (Hamas is apparently making concessions, for example in announcing that Ismail Haniyeh is ready to resign from his Prime Minister function), sweeping Israel’s alibi, and force them to chose between recognizing Palestinian legitimacy or face growing international isolation for refusing negociation for no valuable reason.
Another good news for Palestinians is the announcement by Egypt of the permanent opening of Rafah border between Egypt and Gaza strip, within 7 to 10 days to alleviate the blocus on Gaza by Israel. Israel blocus, supposedly aiming in limiting the inflow of weapons for Hamas, blocks also necessary supplies such as food, medication or building materials (because yes, it is well known that coriander or vineager threatens Israel’s security).
For more than 60 years, Israel prospered protected by 1) Western alliances and influences in the Middle-Eastern region 2) Arab dictatorships and divisions 3) Very strong military and Intelligence capacities. When a State has as only mean to exist and as only legitimacy the oppression, supression, terrorization of neighbouring people, one is forced to conclude that that State has no solid ground, and no solid future. Unless Israel stops to misuse everybody and everything, if they started fair negociations with the Palestinians, they might well have a future in a democratic Middle-East. And if they still carry on refusing the principle of justice and fairness as the core of their relationship to Palestinians, the Palestinian Spring that just started with unification of Hamas with Fatah might well be the Israeli Winter…
When I try to go back to my childhood memories, it seems to me that although I am Egyptian-Tunisian, I knew about Yasser Arafat much long before than about, say, Habib Bourguiba or Jamal Abdel Nasser. It is not even very surprising when you think of it, there is not one single thing in the world that unites Arabs (people, not elites) like the idea of that free country that once was, called Palestine. The Palestinian cause is kind of transcending our frontiers (in Arab countries and inside the diaspora); most of us felt emotionnaly and intellectually implicated in the Intifadas even before thinking of our own national causes.
One of the very common frustration of the Arab citizen we are is to be forced to see our own countries ruled by dictators all more or less openly collaborating with Israel – the oppressor of the Palestinian people. The corrupted elites of the Middle-East and North Africa allowed Israel to benefit of an auspicious neighbourhood to prosper while they benefited in return of exclusive and lucrative business opportunities or technical support by the Mossad. Each of us pronounced at least once the simple sentence “El Hokam al-Arab ahanoona” (“The Arab rulers humiliated us”), and each of us knew the supreme humiliation was always to watch, helpless, the Israeli giant killing day by day men, women, children, freedom and hope (supported and sponsorised by “Mama Amerika“). The one and only time of my entire life – more than 29 years now – that I cursed myself for being Egyptian was when, during the Gaza attack on civilians of 2009 by the Israeli army, Egypt (well… Egyptian officials driven by an American agenda) blocked the tunnels linking Sinaï to Gaza strip used for food and weapon supplies; the tears of shame were bitter.
When the current wave of popular freedom began to shake the Arab world, and especially when Egypt was freed from the Mubarak oligarchy, one of my very first thoughts went to Palestine: now that we are not forced anymore to watch our elites making of the 85 million of us passive accomplices of the Israeli savage repression on Palestinians and the denial of their humanity, will Israel be weakened and will it change something for the Palestinians? Will Israel consider in making steps towards an acceptable treatment of Palestinian revendications?
A couple of days after the February 11th, I saw an amazing video on youtube of 3 million Egyptians gathered on Tahrir Square chanting “Al Quds (Jerusalem) we are coming!“. The video of a peaceful crowd claiming their solidarity for Palestine don’t even need any comment or explanation to be powerful:
The protests in Egypt in front of Israeli Embassy became frequent, and the growing feeling is that there is no space anymore for the impunity of Israel. That’s from the people’s side, but what from the new Egyptian authorities? Well, we have only a transitory government, but it seems that it took the full measure of the popular demand on the deals of Egypt with Israel. The first relevant fact was when the government announced that the gas supply to Israel with an underestimated price will be revised. Egypt supplies almost for free 40% of the gas Israel uses and the pipeline bringing the gas to Israel and Jordan is often targeted by vandalism. On the night of April 27th, the pipeline was damaged once again, and the gas supply had to be interrupted, causing Israel to begin to consider the need of self-sufficiency, if in the future they have to forget about the Egyptian gas. The news was very favorably welcomed by most of the Egyptians.
Another significant fact we lately came aware of is that the significant entrave the Mubarak regime was opposing to arms supply to the Gaza strip will be now much reduced. On April 5th Israel has to hit with a missile a car in Sudan, killing two men implicated in Hamas military operations, one of them presumed to be successor of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, assasinated by Israel in Dubai last year. Apparently, Sudan gets weapons from Iran that are then carried through Egypt and then through Gaza tunnels, for Iran supports actively Hamas. Without a tightly collaborating Egyptian government there is very few chance Israel can controll the weapons flux incoming to Gaza strip, and ensuring collaboration of the democratically elected Egyptian government would require Israel to stop the abuses on the Palestinian population.
Besides Egypt, the Arab turmoil is causing trouble to Israel alliances with Arab elites in more than one way. The ousted Tunisian dictator Ben Ali and his clan were closely collaborating with Israel: the Mossad was well implanted in Tunisia where they provided a logistic and technical support to repression. The Tunisian crowd found many catridges stamped “Made in Israel” on the material used by Tunisian security forces. For example on this video, a Tunisian man in the city of Ariana finds a lot of bullets where we see hebrew writings:
The implication of Israel in repression in Tunisia was also clearly documented in the documentary “Soqot Dawlat al Fassad” (“The downfall of the corrupted regime”) broadcasted on Tunisian National TV Al Wataniya we can still watch on their website (especially starting from 15:00), including a new eclairage on the Djerba synagogue bomb attack, attributed to Islamists but apparently being the product of a cooperation of Tunisian authorities with Israeli Intelligence. Under Habib Bourguiba, Tunisia was a strong ally to the Palestinian Authority; Yasser Arafat long beneficiated from the support of Tunisia to the Palestinian cause and his wife, Soha Arafat, was holding until 2007 the Tunisian citizenship, before Ben Ali withdrawed it from her and urged her to quit Tunisian territory following an argument with Leïla Ben Ali. The ousting of Ben Ali might well be the end of the tolerance of Tunisia towards Israel. After the Revolution, Israel offered financial incentives for the return to Israel of the Jewish community in Tunisia, causing displeasure to the transitory Tunisian government, that argues that the Tunisian Jews were peacefully living in Tunisia since centuries.
Concerning the other Arabic States, although the outcome is not yet clearly known, some indications allow to conclude that Israel cooperations with tyrants might well be lost. For example, the trade that was ongoing between the Gaddafi family and Israel, providing Libyan oil in exchange of Israeli tanks and other weapons (among which forbidden weapons currently used to mass murder Libyan population) might well to be stopped forever, given the close evolution of the Libyan conflict.
Since the unrest began to shake Bashar Al Assad regime in Syria and a few signs of a possible propagation in Jordan, Israel’s most faithfull ally in the region, it seems that once for all, Israel entered in the phase of isolation in the Middle-East. If the people take power in the immediate and close neighbourhood of Israel, it might well that the Zionist State is no more given the choice: treat correctly the Palestinian, respect their right to have an Independant State, stop their crimes against humanity, or face the massive and strong opposition of Arab States, ruled by elected governments that are under the accountability of the people.The growing unpopularity inside the Arab region of the American foreign policy (to a point that Hillary Clinton visit in Egypt and Tunisia was troubled by massive protests) and the unpopularity of American-sided candidates like Mohammad Al Baradei or Amr Moussa makes it highly improbable that Israel will ever find again within the region allies like Ben Ali, Mubarak or Gaddafi.
There was a myth not so long ago: an imaginary tale consisting of depicting Israel as being the “only democracy in the Middle-East”. Besides the fact that brutality and apartheid automatically suppresses the credibility of a country self-proclamed democratic (voting is not the only right and due of a democraty), we might well have to tell the opposite tale in a couple of years: Israel, the only dictatorship left in the Middle-East, forced to justice or to disparition.
